RE: Why people don't use MOTs in a TC

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

Original poster: "Loudner, Godfrey by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <gloudner-at-SINTE.EDU>

Hi Ed

I took a good look at some of the many mots in my possession. The primary
coil is insulated for high voltage from the core by some sort of  varnished
paper and, where the insulation is not substantial, there is good clearances
between the wire and the core. With few exceptions, the bottom of secondary
is grounded to the core. The secondary is insulated with varnished paper
much the same as the primary. But it is hard to believe that such insulation
could hold off potentials higher than its original intentions. Many mot
coilers talk about intervention with extra insulation, especially submersion
under transformer oil. Mot coilers also seem to be selective in choosing
mots with the best insulation. I don't see that oil can penetrate the
impregnate of the secondary coil, but I believe that coil can completely
penetrate the primary, adding substantial insulation. Oil should also do
wonders in preventing external arcing, especially very clean and moisture
free oil. 

Also I think that insulation materials can be underestimated. One time I
brought together two leads of magnet wire connected to a 10kV NST. I was
surprised that no arc formed between the leads and I feared that the NST had
gone dead. Then I realized that the enamel on the magnet wire was hold off
the 10kV! 

At http://www.altair-dot-org/tesla.htm, there is some material about "Extending
Mot Stacks".

Godfrey Loudner          

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Tesla list [SMTP:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
> Sent:	Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:03 PM
> To:	tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject:	Re: Why people don't use MOTs in a TC
> 
> Original poster: "Ed Phillips by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
> <evp-at-pacbell-dot-net>
> 
> 
> 	Every time I read about MOT's in series I keep wondering about
> primary
> to secondary breakdown.  Don't see how this can be avoided, considering
> the construction.  Any other thoughts?
> 
> Ed
> 
>