Re: RE: 300 bbs

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

Original poster: "Dr. Resonance" <resonance-at-jvlnet-dot-com> 


No --- it was a non-synchro RSG being used with a new NST in a worst case
test.

Dr. Resonance

Resonance Research Corporation
E11870 Shadylane Rd.
Baraboo   WI   53913
 > >
 > >Curious.  What changed between the 500 and 120BPS testing?  I assume
 > >this was with a static gap?  Closing the gap would increase the BPS
 > >rate, but with the diminished bang size, I would expect this to be less
 > >stressful overall.  If the cap size changed, was one close to
 > >mains-resonant?
 > >
 > >Gary Lau
 > >MA, USA
 > >
 > > >Original poster: "Dr. Resonance" <resonance-at-jvlnet-dot-com>
 > > >
 > > >I'm not sure of the exact failure mechanism, but we had two fail within
 > >10
 > > >minutes even when protected with a Terry filter.  We were testing them
 > >at
 > > >500 pps in a worse case scenario..  The same circuit ran for 2.25 hrs
 > > >continuous at 120 pps without any problems on the same model xmfr ---
 > >all 3
 > > >used in the test were new units.
 > > >
 > > >Dr. Resonance
 > >
 > > >> Why would an NST care what the bang-rate is?  What would the failure
 > > >> mechanism be for a too-high bang-rate?  The only failure modes I'm
 > >aware
 > > >> of are excessive terminal voltages, caused by mains resonant rise
 > >from a
 > > >> too-wide static gap, and _possibly_ NST secondary overcurrent, though
 > > >> this would be difficult to prove.
 > > >>
 > > >> Gary Lau
 > > >> MA, USA
 >
 >
 >