Re: safety gaps
Tesla List wrote:
> >From MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nzTue Jun 25 22:03:45 1996
> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 15:24:34 +1200
> From: Malcolm Watts <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: safety gaps
> Hi everyone,
> I'm seeking a reaction of some sort here. It is my
> intention to run a rotary with a neon supply both AC and at some
> stage DC (I can feel the bricks flying from here). However, I am
> going also to use a static gap planted firmly across the rotary to
> catch "misses" that may occur, the gap setting to be some value that
> I would normally use if using a static gap alone. I want to explore
> higher rep. rates than the static gap will allow. Also, I am
> interested in reducing quench times over what the static gap will
> allow. (Ultimately I am intending to use uWave transformers rectified
> with a charging choke to get reasonable firing voltages as pig firing
> is beyond my means costwise and supplywise).
> Question : Does this scheme at all modify the wisdom of not using
> a rotary with neons? If not, where does the weakness in using
> rotaries with neons lie?
> Thanks to all comers,
Per our previous discussions I have not blown a neon since I started
using synchronous gaps giving one firing per 1/2 cycle of the AC at
near the peak of the AC wave. After further discussions with other folks
it appears that I am probably achieving the maximum power conversion
which is possible. I realize that your intention is to eventually go to
DC operation at high break rates and my comment is probably superfluous.
Right now I am trying to get higher Qs and higher transfer efficiences in
the primary/secondary circuit to maximize the discharge size. I think we
all look forward to your results.