Re: 3000 turn's and psu

[FutureT-at-aol-dot-com (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)]

In a message dated 8/26/00 9:43:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, tesla-at-pupman-dot-com 
writes:

> Original poster: "Metlicka Marc" <mystuffs-at-orwell-dot-net> 

>  with my old 10-1 h/d secondary 4" by 42" the system gave 50" to
>  60" streamers without the Pfc. caps. with them and the new cap the pt
>  drove great 70"+ streamers with 4 or five breaking out simultaneously
>  from all over the toroid. i unhooked the Pfc. caps to see if the new cap
>  was the main benefit but the length dropped back down to 60" with one
>  maybe two at a time, so the Pfc. was adding allot to the system. 

Marc,

If you are using a fixed ballast for the PT, then I think the Pfc caps
are just compensating for an incorrect amount of ballasting.  The
Pfc caps generally shouldn't increase the spark length, they should
just reduce the input current needed for a given spark length.  (there
may be some slight spark length benefit though, due to reduced losses
using the Pfc caps perhaps)

>  the 3000 turner is finished and i am starting to build the primary form
>  now, should have it done in a week or so? i was thinking that maybe it
>  would be a good idea to build a 1500 turn sec. to see what the
>  advantages to twice the turns would be? any suggestions on this? or
>  would it be better to go to a space wound coil of the same fres.even
>  though the h\d would change?

The 1500 vs, 3000 turn test comparison seems like a good one.  I'm
not sure what the best approach is for space winding, etc, there are
so many variables with any approach.  I would probably space wind
the 1500 turn coil to make it the same height as the 3000 turn coil,
since you don't have a thicker wire available for the 1500 turn coil.
Your frequency will change, so you wont' be controlling for that...
so many ways to approach this,  none of them ideal unfortunately.
It depends on what exact info you're looking to extract from the
comparison.

John Freau
 
>  marc
>