Re: D.C. Cox TCBA Article

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: D.C. Cox TCBA Article
From: Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 16:48:11 -0700

Tesla List wrote:
> 
> >From paynet-at-interaccess-dot-comThu Jun 20 22:18:36 1996
> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 20:06:53 -0500
> From: Tedd Payne <paynet-at-interaccess-dot-com>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: D.C. Cox TCBA Article
> 
> Richard Hull,
> 
> Thanks very much for your reply.  I have a question on one of your comments:
> 
> I had asked:
> 
> >> 3.  Do you agree that additional "safety gaps" (and "capacitors to
> >> ground") are not needed in the "recommended" circuit?
> 
> And you commented:
> 
> >3.  I have long ago cast the safety gaps aside.  They often do as much
> >harm as good and besides, in the shunted gap mode, the main gap is also
> >the safety gaps.  I still shunt each xfrmer lead to ground with 500pf!
> 
> Would you elaborate on "do as much harm as good"?
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Tedd Payne

Tedd,

With safety gaps, you now have added a second gap group to your system 
and if it fires for whatever reason, you add another chance to create 
harmonics, secondary ringup circuit paths, new hash and trash 
frequencies, and all sorts of god-only-knows what harmonic interactions, 
etc.  If you adjust your safety gaps so they never fire, they don't exist 
anyway.  I have lunched more Neons with working safety gaps than without. 
 The good old Teslarian shunted main gaps will double for a safety gap as 
I stated last message.

Richard Hull, TCBOR