Thanks for the help! (and MORE)
From: FutureT [SMTP:FutureT-at-aol-dot-com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 1998 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: Thanks for the help! (and MORE)
In a message dated 98-01-27 10:16:35 EST, you write:
<< The following changes were made:
> Safety gap widened from 0.095/side to 0.125 [from .190 to .250 total]
> Spark Gap widened from 0.13 to .213
> A channel built to funnel the air across the gaps with more velocity
> Toroid raised about 3", so that the bottom is about 1" above the top turns
> All of these changes combined managed to eke out 4 more inches. Mind you,
>this was to a well grounded wire, but still makes me pretty happy :)
> [oh, and is straight line measurement from bump to strike point]
> Thanks again!
> Michael Baumann >>
I'm glad to hear of your new results. BTW, I think I was using between
3/8" to 1/2" safety gaps on each side in my coil. this alone would
do a lot to explain the performance I acheived. I'm not recommending
that you use this wider setting, since it stresses the transformers, esp.
using a static or non-sync gap system. I'm just mentioning it for
general information. It also seems to me that a static gap requires
a somewhat narrow main gap setting not only to protect the tranny, but
to make the coil run smoothly, as I'm sure you have found. It seems
that a neon cannot be pushed successfully to the max using a static
gap, but can...using a sync-gap. But no guarantees.
I have both acheived good outputs from neon systems using sync gaps,
without any tranny failures, but only time will tell how effectively the sync
gaps "protect" the trannies. Perhaps if more folks start using sync gaps
on their neon systems, a long term consensus (on tranny longevity)
will emerge. An
interesting experiment would be to install a toroid that is 4 or 5" thick,
but maybe 25" in overall dia, and see what happens.