Re: Sync vs. non-sync, (opt qnch tests)

To: tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Sync vs. non-sync, (opt qnch tests)
From: Tesla List <tesla-at-stic-dot-net>
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 00:05:46 -0500
Approved: tesla-at-stic-dot-net
Subject:      Re: Sync vs. non-sync, (opt qnch tests)
       Date:  Mon, 12 May 1997 09:07:28 +1200
       From:  "Malcolm Watts" <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
Organization: Wellington Polytechnic, NZ
         To:  tesla-at-pupman-dot-com


Hi John,
           Thanks again for doing these experiments and posting the 
results. I have a couple of comments:

>   From:   FutureT-at-aol-dot-com
>     To:   tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>     CC: 
>         TimRaney-at-aol-dot-com
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> I completed the installation of a 1.5 kVA potential transformer,
> and ballast which replaces the neon transformer previously used, in
> my TC.  After adjusting the ballast, I obtained the same spark
> length as I did using the neon trans, at about the same power level
> -- 720 watts as measured using a wattmeter.  First notch quenching
> was still obtained.
> 
> Next, the 120 BPS sync-gap was replaced with a variable speed 12
> point, super series quenching, non-sync gap.  Tests were run using
> break-rates from 200 to 540 BPS (of course this is really the
> presentation rate, the actual break-rate is actually lower since
> the gaps fail to fire when an electrode presentation occurs at a low
> voltage point along the ac cycle).  In fact I'll call the
> presentation rate "PPS"(presentations per second) from hereon, NOT
> to be confused with pulses per second!  At 420 PPS, the TC drew
> 1400 watts and gave about a 44" spark.  In other words, the input
> power doubled and the spark only increased by about 3", compared
> with the sync-gap (but the sparks did appear brighter I think).  I
> tried using larger toroid sizes, but this didn't help much, although
> it may have added a few inches of spark length. Ballasting was
> adjusted for best results in these tests.

At some point, more BPS (PPS?) is not going to help. Firstly, more 
BPS <> more voltage so one runs into a limitation there and sparks 
do need voltage as well as power to grow. Secondly, the higher the 
average power throughput (BPS), the more like a plasma the discharge 
becomes so there is a balance between voltage production and 
ionization at work in my opinion.

> I increased the break-rate to 540 PPS, TC drew 2kW, and sparks
> seemed about the same.  Re-tuning didn't really help.
> 
> I did notice that using this non-sync system, the sparks continued
> to emit from one point on the toroid, even though the sparks were
> longer.  It does appear that with a higher break-rate, that the
> spark length is increased more through "growing" action.  To me, the
> sparks seemed less bolt-like than when using the sync gap, they
> seemed tame (subjectively speaking).
> 
> The quench (seemingly) occured on the 1st notch using a small
> toroid and loose coupling (same as with sync-gap), but moved to the
> 3rd notch using tighter k and/or a large toroid.  The higher
> break-rate did not seem to degrade the quench, and neither did the
> fact that this rotary fires 12 times per revolution compared with
> only twice per rev in the sync gap.  Of course the electrodes are
> different in this rotary, being composed of 1/4 - 20 brass
> screw-stock, vs. steel 10 - 32 screw-stock in the sync gap.  This
> rotary spun at 2100 to 2700 RPM vs. 3600 RPM for the sync-gap.  But
> the non-sync gap has a larger rotor, 10 1/2" vs. 7" for the sync
> gap. 

>From your results I'd suggest that a coil is optimally coupled when 
1st notch quenching is obtained (depends on heaps including gap 
arangement, sec discharge etc.) So here is a guideline: if the coil 
is not quenching at the first notch, lossen the coupling until it is.
I'll be very surprised if this is not an optimum setting.

 > Despite limited time of usage, I see pitting on the electrode
> surfaces, and I was forced to re-adjust the electrode spacing, maybe
> it's tungsten-time. (Miller time comes afterwards,  : )
> 
> All in all, I was very disappointed with the limited performance
> gain using the higher break-rates.   I realize that many people have
> gotten excellent results using higher break-rates, in fact I believe
> I have gotten better results in the past using different TCs that
> used higher break-rates. Perhaps this coil is just not
> "synergistically happy".  Is your coil synergistically happy today,
> or is it depressed?  Perhaps this is what a TC psychologist would
> ask?  <G>

I think increased BPS is useful - to a point. In going to higher 
breaks, you are trading off voltage for average throughput I think.

Malcolm