[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Optimal Quenching Tests

At 09:25 PM 2/3/97 -0700, you wrote:
><< >Subject: Re: Optimal Quenching Tests
>
>Subscriber: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com Mon Feb  3 21:16:18 1997
>Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 20:34:11 -0500 (EST)
>From: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com
>To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>Cc: bert.hickman-at-aquila-dot-com
>Subject: Re: Optimal Quenching Tests
>
>In a message dated 97-01-13 01:00:26 EST, you write:
>
><< >Subject: Re: Optimal Quenching Tests
> >
> >"2)  Did the old spark transmitter engineers really say that 1st notch
>quench
> >eliminated splitting, or did they say it eliminated beating?  Maybe they
>just
> >looked at their secondary waveform and said, " look, a  nice clean
> >ringdown....no beats....just what we want!"    Also, in Richard Hull's
> >comments on the subject, was he refering to splitting, or to beating?   Are
> >we differing on our definitions of terms?
> >" >>
> >  John Freau
> >
>
>Bert H, 
>
>I just spoke to Lou Balint who has completed some tests for 1st notch
>quenching, using a spectrum analyzer.  Bert, let me say that the news fully
>supports your viewpoint.  I was surprised, but glad, since it means that the
>threat of racing sparks should be minimized--which is something we can all
>rejoice about.  Now we just need the gap that can do the job.
>
>In Lou's first test, he used a loose coupling of k = .102, he obtained what
>appeared to be a monochromatic output when "quenching" (actually he used a
>transistor to simulate a spark gap) at anywhere from 12 uS to 70 uS.  Center
>freq. was 114 kHz.
>
>The next two tests at a higher k value are intriguing.  First a k value of
> .573 was used, and he obtained a double humped spectrum when using long
>quench times such as 10 uS, 25 uS, 50 uS, 100 uS , etc.  As the quench time
>was gradually reduced, the side frequencies weakened, and the center
>frequency strengthened.  By the way, the optimal quench time for this set up
>was 5 uS.  At 5 uS quench ONLY the center frequency was seen.  It was not
>until around 8 uS that the side frequencies began to appear.  As the quench
>time was increased, the side frequencies got stronger, and the center
>frequency weakened.  The center frequency in this set up was 92 kHz, when I
>speak to Lou again, I'll ask him for the measured side frequency values.
>
>Lou did a third test at k = .843, the center frequency was 64 kHz, and the
>optimal quench time 1.2 uS.  Again, the side frequencies appeared as the
>quench times got longer in a similar manner to the above test.
>
>The side frequencies seemed to gradually become stronger as the quench time
>lengthened, this supports all of our observations that racing sparks
>gradually increase as quenching gradually fails.
>
>It is good to hear of actual real-world test results in this matter.  Thanks
>Lou for your speedy efforts in the matter.   And thanks Bert for all your
>info and for being persistent in the matter, and your PSPICE data seems
>vindicated.  And thanks to the other list members who commented on this
>matter.
>
>I was getting set up to do some spectrum analyzer tests, but I am being
>delayed by an analyzer that is either insensitive, or faulty.  I will however
>continue to attempt to reproduce these happy results.
>
>A good day in Tesla Land,
>
>John Freau  
>  
>
>
John,

Gee whiz, I talked to Lou two days ago and he didn't mention this!  This is
real neat!  With the high coupling, the quench had to come well before the
first beat at 1.5us!!! (92khz=~5us/half cycle)  Not even I would have
guessed at this one.  I thought at least one half cycle of the wave would be
needed.  This is amazing news, but might open a can of worms with the mag
field theorists.  The mechanics (nuts and bolts of having this happen) will
be a machinists and mechanical engineering nightmare!  Points up the fact
that I have always held that Tesla CSL gap system was incredibly terrible!

Richard Hull, TCBOR