Re: Equi-drive vs. standard drive, was SGTC

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "Teslacoil Workshop" <workshop@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

The prototype for our SG10-TC (ten years ago) was an Equi-Drive tank later
changed over to a standard configuration. I believe Hull's hypothesis was
that blocking the 60Hz on the primary, via a capacitor on each side, would
make for a more pure ringdown. Without bleeder resistors on each cap, there
is a chance that the capacitors will be in a charged or partially charged
state when the power is removed.

We found no measurable difference in arc length or RF output
characteristics. We did find that a cap would occasionally be left charged
and for that, we abandoned the Equi-Drive topology.

I have nothing to offer except a ten year old set of observations; take it
as worthless anecdotal evidence. Although no DRSSTC, the prototype was one
of the most efficient spark gap designs I've ever built; Equi-Drive or not.
The last I heard, the coil was in a science museum in Dortmund Germany.

Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: Equi-drive vs. standard drive, was SGTC


> Original poster: FutureT@xxxxxxx
>
> In a message dated 4/28/07 1:35:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> >I understand that, and  I agree with the point WRT "Case 2" being better
than
> >"Case 1". But why does  "Case 3" behave any differently from "Case  2"?
> >FWIW, Richard Hulls notes  indicate that "Case 3", the "Equi-Drive", is
> >definitely preferable. This was a  setup that Tesla advocated.
> >However, Hull wrote
> >that the "Equi-Drive" system was  more prone to leave a charge on the
primary
> >cap without bleed down. Again, I  don't see why.
> >
> >
> >-Phil LaBudde
>
>
> Phil,
>
> I did various comparisons of case 2 and case 3.  There was no
> measureable difference in performance.  I also don't see why
> there should be any difference.  Case 3 definitely tended to leave
> dangerous charges on the primary caps.  I think it's because of
> the inductive primary being situated (floating) between the two caps.
>
> John
>
>
> **************************************
> See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
>
>
>
>