[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: MMC Protection SGap current limit
Good afternoon everybody! And Happy Mother's Day!!!
Possibly a "duh" question, but I'll ask it anyway...
There seems to be a lot of concern about the cap saftey gap
firing and the high-amp pulse toasting the caps....I am looking at
my nst, my caps, my main gap (static gap of 8 2" dia copper pipe),
and my primary. My system tunes around 5.5-6 turns out on the
primary, and that isn't much resistance or inductance. What is so
different from the main gap discharging than the saftey gap?
There's no resistors in line with the main gap...and my DMM says
that the resistance of 1 side of the spark gap, across the primary,
to the other side is moot (says .9 ohm), it's pretty much a dead
short. Yes, it rings down, but the energy per bang is decreasing.
So I give...what makes the firing of the saftey gap so much more
dangerous than the firing of the primary gap? And if that's the
case, I like the idea of putting the saftey gap in parallel with
the main gap, and set to fire a few KV higher...I'm assuming most
of this deals with rotarys instead of static gaps, where missing a
firing is more likely. If firing the main gap, through the primary
is safe, why not just coil a helix of tubing, say, 35-40 ft, in a
box, seal it, and run that in series with your saftey gap instead
of a resistor? Definately cheaper, and should look identical to
the caps as the primary you're already pushing (for the most part
at least)....Just a my $.02.....
Shad
-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Date: Sunday, May 14, 2000 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: MMC Protection SGap current limit
>Original Poster: "Luc" <ludev-at-videotron.ca>
>
>Hi Terry,
>
>Tesla List wrote:
>
>> Original Poster: Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>
>>
>> Hi Ted,
>>
>> I put the safety gap basically across the main gap ...
>
>I don't understand how you do that, the safety and main gap are
parallel
[ snippers! ]