Re: Question: Rotary gap designs

        Re: Question: Rotary gap designs
        Fri, 11 Apr 1997 00:12:50 -0400 (EDT)
        richard hull <rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net>
        Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>

At 10:14 PM 4/9/97 -0500, you wrote:
>        Question: Rotary gap designs
>  Date: 
>        Wed, 9 Apr 1997 12:23:46 -0400
>  From: 
>        104521.363-at-compuserve-dot-com
>    To: 
>        "INTERNET:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
>Hi all,
>Are rotary gaps which "snake" the current through several of the disks
>gap's in series or through several in parallel preferred? 
>I'm wondering if their is a break even point between series and parallel
>gaps vs power levels and break rates.  
>Anybody have a strong preference/experience?
>Kyle Hunter 
>(Usual disclaimer for using company email account)


Series gaps are always to be preferred over parallel gaps whether in a
static system or a rotary.

Dave Sharpe and I, but especially Dave, have designed a number of series
rotary designs.  I prefer our original jointly designed and built series
rotary quench design for magnifier work and he prefers his own custom
designed bi-phase series rotary quencher.  This actually quench to well
use in a common two coil system if made to the highest standards.  I
this out on my Nemesis coil three years ago and Ed Wingate, who now uses
series quench rotary on his magnifier also discovered that it is too
fast a
quencher for his twin system.

Most amateurs 10 years ago had terrible times with quenching, mainly
lousey design and staying stuck in the ruts grandpa used to build
Today, many amateurs can usestatic gap systems, alone, up to 5,000 watts
quench fabulously.  This is partially due to well designed series static
systems, but is more the result of a more modern "fresh wind" in coil
building topology.

Series those gaps and use lots of 'em.

Richard Hull, TCBOR