Re: Optimal Quenching Tests

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Optimal Quenching Tests
From: Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 09:03:29 -0800
Subscriber: hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com Mon Jan 6 22:03:00 1997

Tesla List wrote:
> 
> Subscriber: ed-at-alumni.caltech.edu Fri Jan  3 22:13:56 1997
> Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 18:13:17 -0800 (PST)
> From: "Edward V. Phillips" <ed-at-alumni.caltech.edu>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Optimal Quenching Tests
> 
> Richard:
>         I think these old accepted and recognised "benefits"
> (of a quenched gap) apply perfectly to TC work, IF you can get
> proper quenching.  Of course, I have no evidence to support
> (or refute) this view.  My own quenched "spark days" gap is
> presently too short (the separators have shrunk with time)
> for decent experiments at 12 k
> 12 kV.  Someday I'll rebuild it and report results.
> Ed

Ed, 

 Based on my recent experiments (over Xmas).  The best looking RF wave 
envelop output from the Tesla coil resulted in the weakest sparks of 
all!  It was only with a trashed RF output signal that the sparks grew at 
the same energy input level.  The primary has to have plenty of time to 
interact with the secondary if sparks are the thing we want.

Richard Hull, TCBOR