[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [TCML] Proper NST Protection
You wrote (regarding NST failures in Tesla coil systems):
"Those with Terry filters last longer than those without. Both are
significant, but he single best improvement is the safety gap."
Since Terry's original R-C filter design utilized dual safety gaps from each
HV supply line to ground, located between the coil's tank circuit and the
R-C portion of the filter, I don't understand how this statement could be
true. Intuitively, a protection circuit with safety gaps, resistive snubbers
and bypass caps to ground should more effective than just bare safety gaps
in isolating the NST secondary from high frequency tank-circuit transients.
Do you have any data that would demonstrate that a simple safety gap
provides better NST protection than a Terry filter?
Just curious, since I haven't seen any quantitive data on NST transients and
protection circuits since Terry's original testing was published way back in
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [TCML] Proper NST Protection
NST's with safety gaps, on average, last significantly longer than those
without. Those with Terry filters last longer than those without. Both are
significant, but he single best improvement is the safety gap.
In a message dated 10/19/2009 5:56:05 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
I've been running a half-dead NST on my coil it's entirenlife without
knowing it, and now's the time to deal with it... The pain of buying a
new one without the experience of blowing it up! Pitiful... Anyways,
to keep this new one on it's way in mint condition, I need some form
of protection. This calls for a safety gap and/or a Terry filter. I'm
nowhere close to being able to afford the parts for one of those. So,
will a safety gap across the HV terminals be adequate enough
protection for the new NST? Or do I need to fork out another $60 (i
dont have) on this thing?
Tesla mailing list
Tesla mailing list