[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson" <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
As long as the gap is parallel to the transformer, I can't see a
charge remaining. But, what if the gap was hooked in series on one or
even both legs (between caps and primary)? Then as the last cap
conducted at turn off, the opposite cap would remain with a charge.
In that situation, it is likely there would always be one of the caps
charged (and you would never really know which one). That type of
circuit would require an external bleeder for safety.
This must have been the circuit where statements of remaining charge
are referred to. Obviously it's not a good idea if that was the case
as it creates an unnecessary lethal condition in the circuit.
Parallel the gap and both caps will be discharged through the transformer.
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.