[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Quench, Coherence etc.
----------
From: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com [SMTP:FutureT-at-aol-dot-com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 8:09 AM
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Quench, Coherence etc.
In a message dated 98-08-11 00:41:06 EDT, you write:
<<> > > - 8 gaps : quench always 1st notch. Spark 10.5" for 20% of
> > > shots - yep, it decreased.
> >
> > That last part is _very_ interesting... did anything else change?
> > When you changed #gaps, do you think that the effective firing voltage
> > might have decreased?
>No. The gap was set accurately to fire at the same voltage for each
>test. The adjustability is proving to be extremely useful. Of course
> the beating disappeared with the attachment. Those beat patterns were
> for corona.
> > Even with 8 rotating gaps in series, Electrum usually quenches
> > on the 2nd notch, and 1st for gnd strikes. Could the arc dynamics
> > possibly prefer a beating secondary?
> I think so and there appears to be a good reason. I posted another
>note on this. This note was hacked off at the end by the server here
>BTW. An addendum has been posted. Primary Q plays an important part
>in this.
>Cheers,
>Malcolm
>>
Hi Malcolm,
Was the test above that gave shorter sparks at first notch quench the
same one that showed identical ring up amplitudes for the first and
second notch quenchings (from your other post)? This would suggest
that the greater
number of gaps is not noticeably increasing the gap losses, and also
suggests that the long drawn out beat pattern type spark energy feeding,
*is indeed* increasing the spark output lengths.
But if long beat spark feedings are helpful, then this would suggest
that even poorer quenching would be even better? Yet this doesn't
seem to be the case (?)
Regards, John Freau