[Amps] Risks from continuous discharge of high voltage ??

[Roger (sub1)]

On 7/3/2011 8:58 AM, Ron Youvan wrote:
> Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
Bout like working with any HV transformer. Maybe even safer than the 
ones we use in power supplies as I'd think people would give it more 
respect.

When working as an instrument tech I worked on quite a number of similar 
objects. As he mentioned, it'd need to be in oil to get the max 
voltage.  Were it stateside and not already sold I'd have bid on it.

The old tubes with the gettering material covering the top made good 
generators. (Kids, don't ry this at home)   You put a thin sheet of 
aluminum over the top and connected the anode lead to it. You could get 
a nice green glow out of them. Course in those days we didn't associate 
much danger with X-rays.  There was a DIY article on how to make your 
own X-ray machine in Scientific American.  They also had articles on 
rocket building which was not regulated back in those days.  You didn't 
purchase ready made motors, you build your own and made them as large as 
you wanted.

73

Roger (K8RI)
>> There's an ebay auction for a 100 kV transformer from an x-ray set.
>> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/190544288962
>> I mentioned to the seller he should warn people of possible production of
>> x-rays. He does not think this possible and I must admit I'm not sure if its
>> possible without a vacuum. But I've also suggested that it could produce UV and
>> ozone.
>     The production of X-rays requires something that does not exist in a transformer or the
> transformers would be lined with lead sheeting.  Which is: "a high velocity stream of electrons that
> changes speed abruptly."
>
>> It's clearly being sold as a fun experiment:
>> "Dangerous but great fun and ideal for lots of interesting experiments."
>> But at 100 kV, I'm wondering what dangers there are apart from the obvious one
>> of electrocution.
>     Like setting the house on fire.
>
>> Somehow I would not want to be playing around too much with 100 kV and drawing
>> big arcs, but perhaps I'm over reacting.
>     I think a Van de Graaff generator would be at least 10,000 times safer.
>
>> I've suggested he ads a note that there may be other dangers other than
>> electrocution.