[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


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.
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

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.

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