Fwd: RE: 300 bbs

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

Original poster: Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-twfpowerelectronics-dot-com>


>X-Envelope-From: gary.lau-at-hp-dot-com  Sun Feb 29 20:29:08 2004
>Subject: RE: 300 bbs
>Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:28:13 -0500
>X-MS-Has-Attach:
>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>Thread-Topic: 300 bbs
>Thread-Index: AcP/NfSBFrGeSGl+QR+aZNc2oqu4nAABlDEw
>From: "Lau, Gary" <gary.lau-at-hp-dot-com>
>To: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Mar 2004 03:28:13.0999 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[3ABBF3F0:01C3FF3D]
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by poodle.pupman-dot-com 
>id UAA26467
>
>Curious.  What changed between the 500 and 120BPS testing?  I assume
>this was with a static gap?  Closing the gap would increase the BPS
>rate, but with the diminished bang size, I would expect this to be less
>stressful overall.  If the cap size changed, was one close to
>mains-resonant?
>
>Gary Lau
>MA, USA
>
> >Original poster: "Dr. Resonance" <resonance-at-jvlnet-dot-com>
> >
> >I'm not sure of the exact failure mechanism, but we had two fail within
>10
> >minutes even when protected with a Terry filter.  We were testing them
>at
> >500 pps in a worse case scenario..  The same circuit ran for 2.25 hrs
> >continuous at 120 pps without any problems on the same model xmfr ---
>all 3
> >used in the test were new units.
> >
> >Dr. Resonance
>
> >> Why would an NST care what the bang-rate is?  What would the failure
> >> mechanism be for a too-high bang-rate?  The only failure modes I'm
>aware
> >> of are excessive terminal voltages, caused by mains resonant rise
>from a
> >> too-wide static gap, and _possibly_ NST secondary overcurrent, though
> >> this would be difficult to prove.
> >>
> >> Gary Lau
> >> MA, USA