Re: Magnifier Primary Capacitors - EQUIDRIVE vs. STANDARD

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

Original poster: "Jim Lux" <jimlux-at-earthlink-dot-net> 

I suspect that the internal caps in a series string from Maxwell or PCI are
much more closely matched than random parts taken from the bin in a MMC.
The standard tolerance on caps is something like 20%, but I'll bet the PP
caps used in MMCs are more closely matched than that.

Terry, you've analyzed those CD caps to death.  How closely matched are the
C, R, and L?


 > Original poster: Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-twfpowerelectronics-dot-com>
 >
 > Hi D.C.,
 >
 > It will be interesting to here what they say!  Unlike MMCs, these caps
will
 > be damaged if residual or unbalanced charges happen to cause a breakdown
in
 > a cell.  My guess is, the oil is so very slightly conductive.
 >
 >
 >          Terry
 >
 >
 > At 02:19 PM 1/13/2004, you wrote:
 >
 > >Terry has encountered this phenomonea with MMC caps which is quite
unusual
 > >because Maxwell and PCI caps both use a series of small caps connected in
 > >series inside the box --- I know Beau Meskin, when I visited the PCI
factory
 > >in Chicago, showed me the interior of a 0.1 uF 30 kV cap and it has 22
 > >separate small caps all series connected.  This construction would
simulate
 > >the series connected MMC technique that we are all presently using, so
why
 > >would there be any difference?  Unless, as Dave Sharpe noted, there are
some
 > >different effects going on with the equi-drive system.
 > >
 > >I plan on calling my friends Bob Cooper and Randy Hartsock who are the
 > >senior design engineers at Maxwell and pose this question to them.
Perhaps
 > >we can get to the bottom of this mystery.