Re: Gap Dwell Times (formerly: Beating Solved)

• To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
• Subject: Re: Gap Dwell Times (formerly: Beating Solved)
• From: Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>
• Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 10:35:08 -0700

Tesla List wrote:
> 
> >From ed-at-alumni.caltech.eduSat Oct 12 13:12:26 1996
> Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 18:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "Edward V. Phillips" <ed-at-alumni.caltech.edu>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Gap Dwell Times (formerly: Beating Solved)
> 
> Re: Oil immersed coils.
>         Has anyone in this group experimented with same, and if
> so, what were the results.  There certainly is precedent, going
> back to Mr. T himself.  Would be very much interested in any reports.
> How about the Richard's???
> Ed Phillips


Ed,

I have made a small oil immersed system a few years back.  A normal two 
coiler.  It was a pretty good system, but I quickly found it was 
un-neccesary for such a system.

Dave Sharpe , in our group, built a magnifier driver under oil.  It 
worked only half-assesd.  It seems he had brought the HV terminal out to 
air ultimately, and the hot secondary spark leaped the 12" air gap to the 
primary taps. (also brought out of the tank.)  He had to underpower it to 
get it to function!!!  All these were shown in brief segments on our 
report tapes.  I, personally, was underwhelmed by the 
effort/benefit/hassle curve of these systems. 


Richard Hull, TCBOR

• Prev: Re: The "T" word
• Next: Re: Arc length vs pwrRe: Arc length vs pwrRE: Arc length vs pwrRe: Arc length vs pwr
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread