Re: Why does running an NST on an async gap kill it?

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Bart Anderson by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <classi6-at-classictesla-dot-com>

Hi All,

I just want to 2nd Gary's comments regarding SG placement. Across the main 
gap is the simple and smart placement. I would hope all are running their 
safety gaps in this configuration for the reasons Gary has already stated.

Take care,
Bart

Tesla list wrote:

>Original poster: "Lau, Gary by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" 
><gary.lau-at-hp-dot-com>
>
>Safety gaps should be applied only in parallel with the main gap and/or 
>NST secondary.  Prior to firing, the main gap sees exactly the same 
>voltage as the cap does.  The capacitor does not ever see a voltage that 
>exceeds what is across the main gap.  So a safety gap across either the 
>cap or the gap will be equally effective at clamping an overvoltage condition.
>
>But, the vital difference is that when the safety is across the gap, 
>should it fire, the energy from the cap will be transferred to the primary 
>and secondary circuits, just like a main gap discharge, which is just 
>fine.  If the gap were across the capacitor, there is nothing to limit the 
>discharge current except the very low impedance of the arc, and the cap 
>will see VERY unhealthy discharge currents.
>
>Gary Lau
>MA, USA
>
>  > Original poster: "Mudford, Chris by way of Terry Fritz
><teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <chris.mudford-at-agresearch.co.nz>
>  >
>  > Hi Gerry
>  >
>  > In what configuration would one set a safety gap across an MMC
>  > capacitor?
>  >
>  > Cheers, Chris (NZ)
>
>
>
>