[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Optimal Quenching Tests
In a message dated 97-01-03 05:17:28 EST, you write:
<< 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,
I agree that some interaction between pri and sec is good. In my system, k
was .09 in one test (550 kHz), and best quench occured at around 4 uS. I did
not see any wave packets in the sec RF, the energy just built up--then rang
down in a smooth decrementing manner. If I quenched later, at around 10 uS
for instance, then I saw definite wave packets in the sec, before clean
ring-down began. I call the 4 uS condition "best quench time" for spark
production. It is possible that limitations within my equipment is not
allowing me to see every RF detail. But my results regarding optimal
"real-world" quench times do agree very closely with your findings.
I don't know if this sort of quenching will eliminate the racing spark
problem at high powers.
John Freau