Re: Condenser Products capaci

To: tesla-at-grendel.objinc-dot-com
Subject: Re: Condenser Products capaci
From: Scott Myers <scotty-at-wesnet-dot-com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 10:44:19 -0500
>Received: from billboard.wesnet-dot-com (billboard.wesnet-dot-com [206.21.6.2]) by uucp-1.csn-dot-net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA04710 for <tesla-at-grendel.objinc-dot-com>; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 08:39:25 -0700

Hi Jim,

> Can you quantify the changes from unbalanced primary to balanced primary
> that you talked about in a previous message?

As mentioned before, the spark length only increases perhaps 5% to 10%.  There are some other 
advantages like more aggressive sparks and sharper tuning, but these are things that are very 
tough to quantify, I can only qualify them.

> I can understand the advantages
> of the shunt gap from an RF protection standpoint, but miss seeing the
> advantages when the "neon" dumps its energy into the spark gap instead of
> the TC primary. Unless it is an inductive kick from the "neon" secondary
> when the spark gap quenches?

Well, the neon doesn't "dump" its energy across the gap.  The transformer charges the capacitor 
which "dumps" its energy across the gap when the breakdown voltage is reached (in a static gap 
system).  Both types of arrangements work, either the cap or the gaps across the tranformer.  The 
realization the it is best to put the gaps across the transformer came from many people's 
experimetations.  There was a good deal of weighing data to come to this conclusion.  It is not a 
conclusion that was reached based on calculation.

As far as any inductive kick from the transformer. I don't believe that is a problem.  The 
transformer's circuit is never really broken, as it is always trying to charge the capacitor (or 
short the gap) in both circuits.  Therefore, there is no collapsing flux to cause such a kick.

Scott Myers