Re: Strike rails/safety gaps IMPORTANT

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Mr Gregory Peters by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <s371034-at-student.uq.edu.au>



> Greg,
> 
> I now strongly see the point in having these protecion devices, 
> the only 
> reason i didnt see the harm in not having them was that my coils 
> are 
> considered "small" and only put out 2-3 foot arcs and run from 
> lower powers, 
> and dont use such high powers as the story you posted.  I'll 
> definitely have 
> to say that im wrong in thinking that these safety devices are not 
> necessary.
> 
> Steve Ward.
> 

Steve, all,

This mesage wasn't a personal attack at you. I'm sorry if you thought 
it was. It was just two days ago that I spoke to a pig powered coiler 
who is not using a safety gap. I had this mostly in mind when I wrote 
that email. Not using safety devices is a bit like drawing an arc off 
the top of the coil: You will get away with it 999 times out of 1000, 
but on the thousandth attempt you will get bitten. Clearly, if it is 
impossible that your coil will strike the primary, you don't need a 
strike rail. This was the case will my first coil - way back in `94. 
However, I think a safety gap should always be used. Besides, a safety 
gap can simply be some fencing wire bent from the NST output to the 
case. It doesn't have to be a beautifully machined peice of art. I 
think the extra bother is worth the safety offered to the components 
and maybe even us. 

Cheers,

Greg Peters.