[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Gap Dwell Times (formerly: Beating Solved)
Tesla List wrote:
>
> >From MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nzThu Sep 26 22:18:09 1996
> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 08:13:59 +1200
> From: Malcolm Watts <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Gap Dwell Times (formerly: Beating Solved)
>
> In reply...
>
> > I did some research this weekend, pouring through a Corum brothers
> > monograph and some old posts to this newsgroup and found out that the
> > optimal dwell is 1/(k*Fr), *not* 1/(2*k*Fr). In other words, the spark
> > gap should conduct for only 1/2 of the superimposed beat-frequency
> > envelope. Primary current peaks at that point, and maximum energy is
> > transferred into the secondary.
>
> I started from k approx dF/F, and ringup time = 1/2dF so you can see
> how I derived that. The problem when cutting the gap off (if you
> could) when Ip is maximum is that with k<1, most of the primary
> energy is coupled to the primary. I tried doing exactly this with the
> MOSFET gap and the spikes hit the roof. Virtually none of that energy
> was coupled to the secondary. The spikes in a real gap would have re-
> ignited it anyway. I wonder if they have actually tried doing this?
I often wondered myself!! They are normally knwn to have thoroughly
wrung most of their ideas out with hardware, but I have seen no big
disruptive systems by them. That's why I hope to get the straight dope
with the H2 Thyratrons test I hope to get under way soon. R. Hull
> I found the ideal dwell to be when the secondary was fully rung-up
> and the primary had virtually nothing left. Even then, quenching at a
> primary zero-crossing is a no-no because of spike generation. I sent
> some photos I took of this process to several people.
>
> Malcolm