Original poster: Bert Hickman <bert.hickman@xxxxxxxxxx> Tesla list wrote:
Original poster: FIFTYGUY@xxxxxxx In a message dated 4/27/07 11:26:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes: >> >>3) The SG in parallel with the HV transformer and caps in series >> >>with EACH side of the TC primary >> >The transformer sees the same waveforms of case 2. Protection against >> >low-frequency shocks is better. >> >> Why is this? >> >> -Phil LaBudde > >the spark gap is essentially a short circuit when its conducting. Slurp- 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", isdefinitely preferable. This was a setup that Tesla advocated. However, Hull wrotethat 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
Hi Phil and all,Regarding residual charge on the caps in the Equidrive circuit, the assumption is that the current flowing through both caps is always identical so there should be no differential charging between caps. However, suppose there are pulsed corona discharges, or corona rectification occurring between the secondary and the "floating" primary. The additional current injected into the primary will cause the floating potential of the primary to shift upwards or downwards, thereby leading to offset voltages being developed (and stored) across the caps once power is removed.
Bert -- *************************************************** We specialize in UNIQUE items! Coins shrunk by huge magnetic fields, Lichtenberg Figures (our "Captured Lightning") and out of print technical Books. Visit Stoneridge Engineering at http://www.teslamania.com ***************************************************