Re: Safety FAQ-discharge classification

Tesla List wrote:
> >> Subject: Re: Safety FAQ is here -- draft, asking for comments.
> >From rwstephens-at-ptbo.igs-dot-netFri Aug  9 21:49:05 1996
> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 14:34:10 -0500
> From: "Robert W. Stephens" <rwstephens-at-ptbo.igs-dot-net>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Safety FAQ-discharge classification
> >Date:          Thu, 8 Aug 1996 19:31:58 -0600
> >From:          Tesla List <tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com>
> >To:            Tesla-list-subscribers-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com
> >Subject:       Re: Safety FAQ is here -- draft, asking for comments.
> >Reply-to:      tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Big snip...

Robert Stephans writes:

> Therefore, Malcolm, I approve of your classification idea and support
> it as do-able.  The question remains, is it needed?  If needed, then
> can it be refined and extended?
> If I may suggest, unless there is a scientific model which is being copied from
> another discipline at work here, I would propose calling the single streamer
> (like real lightning channel) mode Type 1, as I believe this mode to
> be the  superior  performance oriented goal.  The mode where there are many,
> thin, simultaneous streamers could be Type 2 discharge.  We might extend
> this classification scheme to the brush discharge (like seen from a
> CW Tesla coil powered by filtered DC supply driven vacuum tube or
> solid state oscillator) as being Type 3 which hisses and looks like a
> gas powered torch flame (or in the case of the four footer generated
> by Mark Barton and described as 'a welding torch from Hell!'), and finally a glow
> discharge, with no streamers whatsoever as a Type 4 discharge. Note
> that the output ionization phenomenon can occur in two or more of the
> above states simultaneously.  For example, a lightning like hot
> single streamer coming near, but not touching a grounded target
> sometimes developes a very prominent glow discharge extending in a
> beautiful cone from the end of the arc channel.  These glow discharge
> cones can be of significant size.
> If you people out there don't like my suggestions then you could give me
> an  honorary discharge:).
> For Watt its worth, rwstephens


I reread my posts and yes, I can see where they could be misunderstood.  
Sorry for not clarifying it out to a finer degree.  But, all seems 
understood now as I originally meant it to be.

I like your classification numbering and definitions very much.  I 
suppose we all could do with a little classification standards on 
discharges.  Since there are only 4 with a couple of sub-variants, I 
would say they are quite acceptable.  malcolm's original concept was 
quiet good, but I like your numbering system where the #1 and best 
discharge for us coilers is first.

By the way, We have seen numerous instances where the #1 discharges reach 
to almost touch a grounded object and the ionization halo is around the 
grounded object and not the end of the arc!  Have you ever noticed this? 
 It is quite common with some tube and solid state systems too. 
Especially, if the grounded object has a sharp point to bleed into the 
air.  I am sure that the ion and corona streams connect even if the arc 
cannot.  With a delicately adjusted 25 watt disruptive system, I can 
approach the no arcing system's toroid with a dental pick and sparks 
actually issue from the pick well before breakout occurs from the coil's 
top load.  It is most interesiting and beautiful to observe this 
phenomenon.  Turn the room lights off for more thrills.  I could study it 
for hours if it weren't for the darned ozone.

Low power systems are fun too, eh?

Richard Hull,TCBOR