Re: Question: Rotary gap designs

To: tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Question: Rotary gap designs
From: Tesla List <tesla-at-stic-dot-net>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 00:08:21 -0500
Approved: tesla-at-stic-dot-net

Subject: 
        Re: Question: Rotary gap designs
  Date: 
        Sun, 13 Apr 1997 18:16:53 -0400
  From: 
        104521.363-at-compuserve-dot-com
    To: 
        "INTERNET:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>


>>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?
>>

-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
-for use in a common two coil system if made to the highest standards. 
I
-found this out on my Nemesis coil three years ago and Ed Wingate, who
now
uses
-a 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
-through lousey design and staying stuck in the ruts grandpa used to
build
-around. Today, many amateurs can usestatic gap systems, alone, up to
5,000
watts
-and quench fabulously.  This is partially due to well designed series
static
-gap 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

Thanks Richard,
I'm under the impression that in a primary circuit, the majority of the
resistive losses are in the gap arc itself.  However, it is apparently
not
worth the time/effort trying to spread this loss over several parallel
gaps?  

Kyle
(The usual disclaimer)