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

Re: A "Revolutionary" Idea

Subject: 
        Re: A "Revolutionary" Idea
  Date: 
        Sat, 22 Mar 1997 22:27:57 -0500 (EST)
  From: 
        richard hull <rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net>
    To: 
        Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>


At 12:21 AM 3/22/97 -0600, you wrote:
>Subject: 
>        A "Revolutionary" Idea
>  Date: 
>        Fri, 21 Mar 1997 13:27:05 GMT
>  From: 
>        Joe Cummings <joecmn-at-globalnet.co.uk>
>    To: 
>        tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>
>
>At present I'm not able to do any practical work, so all I do is carry
>out
>Gedankenforschungen - thought experiments.
>
>I have an idea about rotary spark gaps that, knowing the amount of
>expertise
>to be found on this list, I'm sure has been dealt with before. Anyway,
>I'll
>float it.
>
>I assume a rotary S.G. has an electrode on the rotor, which, as it
>rotates
>comes opposite one or more electrodes on the stator, so to get more
>frequent
>sparks, the rotor has to be accelerated.
>
>Now, has anyone tried staggering a number of electrodes on the rotor, so
>that there
>
> is more than one spark per rev, or x sparks per rev, depending on the
>number of electrodes on the stator?
>
>Let's build a rotary with six static electrodes, and five on the rotor.
>Let
>us space the electrodes on the rotor using a compass, set, not at the
>radius, but at the length of the radius plus one fifth the length of the
>radius. Let's call the stator elctrodes S1,S2,etc., and the rotary
>electrodes R1,R2,etc.
>
>Now starting with R1 and S1 sparking opposite each other, after a fifth
>times a sixth of a revolution, R2 and S2 are sparking, and after another
>thirtieth of a rev., R3 and S3 are sparking and so on. This will mean
>that
>there are thirty sparks per revolution.
>
>Is this a feasible proposition? If so, then it could be worked out for
>any
>number of
>electrodes.
>
>

Sorry,

It's been done exactly as you say by Tesla in 1898 and 1899.  He
proposes it
specifically in the CSN of 1899.  I have worked with the idea and it has
been tried by Fred Glesner of Kenniwick, Wa.  I have it on video.  It is
terrible and is suitable only for very tiny system capacitances (short
charge times.)  The problem with this system which you and Tesla
proposed is
you get huge break rates while the dwell is still in the Eon
presentation
catagory.  To get the dwell short (high radial velocity) and keep a
usable
break rate, the rotary wheel needs to be meters in diameter!

The best solution is a rotary series quench gap similar to the one we
use
here in our magnifier systems.  This allows for moderate to high break
rates
with 6-12 series gaps per firing and 6 -12 firings of all the series
gaps
per revolution with 6 to 12 times the effective radial velocity of
separation for any given speed!  We worked this design up in 1991-92 and
have used it extensively since then on all our magnifiers.  Ed Wingate
adopted and modified our design for use on his own magnifier system.
Watchout though, it is too quick a quencher for use on any two coil
system
and demands couplings of at least K=.3 or better to work well. Ed tried
it
on his regular systems and it wouldn't work well.  So it's for maggey's
only. (finally a gap that is almost too good)

Richard Hull, TCBOR