RE: New 4" Coil: MMC blows MMC Away??

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

Original poster: "Dave Hartwick by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <ddhartwick-at-earthlink-dot-net>

John,
Then the superiority of Equidrive must be a pre-2000 myth. You can tell that
I'm still stuck in the old days, gradually shaking off the cobwebs.

I am aware of the TCBOR  origin of that gap. I say RQ so that everyone knows
what it is. How did RQ get credit for it anyway?
Dave




Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
<FutureT-at-aol-dot-com>

In a message dated 9/2/02 6:55:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
writes:


>
> One other data point. At the time I received the CP 0.05 ufd caps, I was
> running a 6" system with a bank of HDPE salt water caps: 8 in parallel for
> 0.025 ufd--massive. This system only performed slightly better with the CP
> caps. They were in the series Equidrive config, for 0.025 ufd total.




Dave,

Equidrive won't give any performance benefit.  The reason the
caps should be matched is so that equal voltage will appear
across each cap.  But if the caps can survive the excess voltage
then they can be somewhat mismatched and it won't matter
performance-wise I don't think.

The RQ gap was developed by the TCBOR, so I would call
it a TCBOR gap.  It could be called a RQ/TCBOR gap for
the benefits of folks who are unaware of its history.  (now
I'll go back to not splitting hairs, ho ho    :)

John