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

Re: cockcroft-walton question



Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <dhmccauley-at-spacecatlighting-dot-com>


No.  Each stage sees approximately the same voltage so all the stage
components should be rated identically.
For example, if you plan to use a 12kV/30mA NST for your input power supply
and use one output only from the NST (6kVAC = 8.5kV peakV), your components
should be rated
for at least the input voltage on all stages.

You can read more about this on this page:

http://www.spacecatlighting-dot-com/hvsupply01.htm

The Captain


 > Is the following a component-efficient way to implement a Cockcroft-Walton
 > voltage multiplier... (all like components have equal ratings, more in
 > series as you go up through the stages) ...?
 >
 >
 >   AC in ---||--+----------+--||--||--||--+------------------+
 >                |          |              |                  |
 >                |          |              |                  |
 >                |          |              |                  v
 >                |          |              _                  -
 >                |          v              ^                  |
 >                |          -              |                  v
 >                _          |              _                  -
 >                ^          v              ^                  |
 >                |          -              |                  v
 >                |          |              _                  -
 >                |          |              ^                  |
 >                |          |              |                  v
 >                |          |              |                  -
 >                |          |              |                  |
 >                |          |              |                  |
 >                +--||--||--+--------------+--||--||--||--||--+-----  HV out
 >                |
 >                |
 >               GND
 >
 >
 > thanks,
 > Pete Lawrence.
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >