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

Parallel or Series




From: 	Peter Electric[SMTP:elekessy-at-macquarie.matra-dot-com.au]
Reply To: 	elekessy-at-macquarie.matra-dot-com.au
Sent: 	Wednesday, September 24, 1997 5:37 AM
To: 	Tesla List
Subject: 	Re: Parallel or Series

Tesla List wrote:

> From:   Alfred A. Skrocki[SMTP:alfred.skrocki-at-cybernetworking-dot-com]
> Sent:   Sunday, September 14, 1997 1:28 PM
> To:     Tesla List
> Subject:        Re: Parallel or Series
>
> On Sunday, September 14, 1997 4:59 AM David Hutchison
> [SMTP:DavidH8083-at-aol-dot-com] wrote;
>
> > In a message dated 9/14/97 3:58:52 AM, Dr. Resonance wrote:
> >
> > <<Always run the sparkgap in parallel with your xmfr.  After the gap
> the cap
> > goes in series with the top (tapped) end of the primary of the
> resonance

snip

> > gap in series.  Has there been a recent change of philosophy about
> this?  The
> > arc in parallel seems much more sensible, though I sort of hate to
> fly in the
> > face of Tesla's own design.
>
> The general reasoning behind putting the spark gap across the
> transformer is that there it also acts as a safety gap to protect the
> transformer from over voltage spikes. I personaly never use that
> arrangement, I put my caps across the transformer and I also put a
> safety gap across the transformer. Others have claimed to have had
> transformers damaged in the arangement I use but I have never
> experienced this.
>


  I am one of the few that agree with Alfred on this one. Running your
sparkgap in parallel with a safety gap and a transformer means you have
two safety gaps in parallel with the tranny but nothing protecting your
cap. I managed to lose two caps this way and even if you roll your own,
the caps are generally a larger investment than the trannies these days!

It makes much more sense to me to have the main gap across the cap, thus
protecting it from resonant rise and you still have the safety across
the tranny, protecting that. I haven't lost a transformer yet using this
method.

Cheers,

Peter E.