Re: What's truly better?

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

Original poster: "boris petkovic by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <petkovic7-at-yahoo-dot-com>


 >
 > The "parallel system" with the cap across the xfmr,
 > Tesla said was great for
 > spark length, but hard on components.
  The "series
 > system" with gap across
 > the xfmr, was not as good, but safer for components
 > and good for transmitter
 > use.
---
Tesla experimented with very high BPS rates
(especially in CS) and his remarks about "not as good
spark lenght in series system if compared with
parallel system" were caused simply by fact that when
higher BPS r. were employed,his power xfmr started to
spend more and more time in short-circuited condition.
That lounched some problems  ,inadequate charging of
cap bank being one.It saves xfmr  from HV HF ringing
ill effects though,but with some trade offs.
IMO, gap could be more stressed too.

Filtering is *highly* recommended for NST supply
parallel system -Even for parallel system with power
xfmr (nobody wise wants to send HF back in network).

I didn't see spark lenght problem decrease in well
designed series systems of today.Actually,I prefer
series system arrangment.
------

I did most of
 > my ball lightning work
 > on parallel systems, and it may be the rougher
 > nature, that is most useful
 > for BL production.
---
Can you be more specific here,why do you think
parallel system is better for potential BL production?
---


   Once my Faraday cage is done, I
 > plan to test the
 > series/parallel systems on identical coils for BL
 > production and spark
 > length. (if I get the time!)

---
Tested 900W/320 BPS coil way back for spark lenght
change.There was no noticable one.

regards,
boris

_