Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson" <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Hi John,I imagine it was something like the schematic below. I now see the charge left on the caps. With the coil switch off after a run, one of the caps will have a DC charge across it, blocked by the opposing cap. The charge left on one of the caps should then charge the opposing cap, so they should both end up with a charge across them (eventually). Makes good sense to use bleeders across each cap (about 5 Meg and capable of the voltage). Depending on the situation, the charge could be large or small.
EQUIDRIVE CIRCUIT SCHEMATIC O--T--O
c1 (
(-------------|-------||------| (
nst( | | (
( | | (
o-------)||( | | (
)||( O | (
ac )||(--gnd sg o--gnd | ( ls
)||( O | (
o-------)||( | | (
| ( | |---) (
gnd------| ( | c2 lp ) (
(-------------|-------||----------) |--gnd
Take care,
Bart
Tesla list wrote:
Original poster: <mailto:FutureT@xxxxxxx>FutureT@xxxxxxxIn a message dated 4/28/07 10:08:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, <mailto:tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:Bart, It was the equi-drive circuit that Richard Hull was using. I can't remember exactly offhand. I'd have to look it up in my old notes. JohnHi John,I remember when you did these experiments. Do you remember the circuit hook up?Take care, Bart >Phil, > >I did various comparisons of case 2 and case 3. There was no >measureable difference in performance. I also don't see why >there should be any difference. Case 3 definitely tended to leave >dangerous charges on the primary caps. I think it's because of >the inductive primary being situated (floating) between the two caps. > >John************************************** See what's free at <http://www.aol.com>http://www.aol.com.