Re: SAFETY GAP CONNECTIONS

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson" <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Ed,

I showed my preference hookup in the related post. I prefer a 2 
terminal system to be at rf ground, one output tied to rf ground, and 
the case of the transformer at rf ground as well. Same would go with 
a 3 terminal safety gap system. The rf ground side is noisy and I 
don't think anyone would argue against that, but the noise is not 
reflected back on mains ground when mains ground ends at the control 
power cabinet and rf ground is at the transformer case. I agree, the 
case center tap and center terminal of the safety gap should "not" be 
separated.

However, I don't see a perfect system out there. There are reasons on 
both sides of the old argument "where does mains ground end and rf 
ground begin". For myself, I want them separated. So, I chose to keep 
all hv situations on rf ground and the low voltage side at mains 
ground. For this to occur, mains ground must end at the control panel.

Take care,
Bart

Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: Ed Phillips <evp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>    From some of these discussions I get the impression that there 
> is a recommendation that with a "two-gap" system protecting an NST 
> the center terminal of the gap should go to "an RF ground" SEPARATE 
> from the center tap (usually case) of the NST.  That sounds wrong 
> to me as I can't see how such a connection would necessarily 
> protect the transformer from inadvertent over voltage 
> conditions.  Connection to the center tap AND a good RF grounds 
> makes more sense.
>
> Ed