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

Re: Optimal Quenching Tests



Tesla List wrote:
> 
> > Subject: Optimal Quenching Tests
> 
> Subscriber: hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com Thu Jan  2 22:41:06 1997
> Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 11:25:27 -0800
> From: Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Optimal Quenching Tests
> 
> Tesla List wrote:
> >
> > Subscriber: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com Fri Dec 20 16:09:49 1996
> > Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 23:50:49 -0500
> > From: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com
> > To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> > Subject: Optimal Quenching Tests
> >
> > Hi all,
> >       As a recent subscriber, let me say "Great forum", thanks to chip and
> > the contributors.
> >       I'm presently exploring the benefits of quenching the spark-gap arc at
> > the first RF beat frequency "notch" (1st beat notch) in the tank energy.
> 
> snip
> 
>  Anyway, we need a better spark-gap design
> > (or a replacement for the spark-gap) to test the benefits of fast quenching
> > at high power levels  Has anyone done any work along these lines?  Comments
> > or suggestions anyone?
> > John Freau
> 
> John,
> 
> My work over Christmas shows severe attentuation of the RF envelope with
> proper quench. (you get a beautiful ring wave though)  It was only with a
> long primary/secondary interaction time (5-15us for 500 khz coil) that
> sparks grew to max length.  You'll see this in tape #55 which will be in
> the mail to you in the next day or two.  Obviously if we leave the spark
> on to long for a given coupling, we have a bad situation.  It is
> important to realize that max spark is what we, as Tesla coil buffs, are
> after and not necessarily good tune or quench which would satisfy theory
> or a bunch of radio engineers.
> 
> I'm still workin on this along with the electrostatic part of TC output.
> 
> Richard Hull, TCBOR

Richard,

Your experiments are telling you what the proper quenchtimes should be.
And they're also consistent with theory. One cycle is not a proper
quench when k is low - it works great when k = 0.6 though...

-- Bert --