Re: Who needs a quenching gap ?

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

Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <FutureT-at-aol-dot-com>

In a message dated 12/9/00 1:53:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, tesla-at-pupman-dot-com 
writes:

Bart, Finn, all,

Yes, my suggestion is just to compare the gap losses which Finn
wants to do.  Certainly other things will be changed, and it is not
exactly equivalent to a rotary with 2 gaps.

John Freau
--

> > Finn,
>  >
>  > You could add an external single static gap in series with the rotary,
>  > to give a total of 2 gaps.
>  >
>  > John Freau
>  
>  Just a note about doing this. A static gap will arc when the breakover
>  voltage is
>  reached. A rotary arc when the electrodes near alignment. So in series, who
>  wins?
>  The static gap of course. Also, when a static gap reaches it's breakover
>  voltage
>  and the rotary electrodes are not aligned, the cap will continue to charge
>  until
>  the gap fires. Therefore, if the breaks are too fast, the static gap will
>  set the
>  break rate. Static gapping is therefore very important and cap voltages, 
bps,
> 
>  etc.. should all be thought about first.
>  
>  I've modeled this in Microsim and it's very clear what accurs. I encourage 
> all
>  with Microsim capability to do this. These models are fun to do. I'm not 
> saying
>  not to do it, but to be aware of the situation. Keeping the static gap 
> voltage
>  lower should remedy the problem, but that's just a thought (been a while 
> since
>  I've sat down and  looked at that).
>  
>  Bart
>