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

Re: A "Revolutionary" Idea

Subject: 
            Re: A "Revolutionary" Idea
       Date: 
            Sat, 22 Mar 1997 11:24:33 -0800
       From: 
            Bert Hickman <bert.hickman-at-aquila-dot-com>
Organization: 
            Stoneridge Engineering
         To: 
            Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
 References: 
            1


Tesla List 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.

Joe,

Thats a great idea, Joe, but unfortunately its not a new one. Its not
the first time that we've "reinvented" something - good ideas stay good
ideas! The approach you've described is certainly feasable and has been
tried at least some on this list. It was also explored back in the
1940's when high power rotary sparkgap were being investigated for use
in early radar systems ("Pulse Generators", by Glasoe and Lebacqz). It
was probably tried even earlier in the days of spark radio. 

In general, if you have equally spaced electrodes with M fixed and N
moving, you'll get MxN breaks/revolution. However, the one of the
biggest challenges in rotary sparkgap design is not so much getting more
breaks/revolution, but in getting the dwell time (i.e., the length of
time the gap actually fires) matched to the other parameters of the
system so that maximum energy gets transferred to the secondary without
"smoking" something in the primary. 

Keep thinkin' about rotaries though... your next idea may be truly new.

Safe coilin' to you!


-- Bert --