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

Results of new single static gap




----------
From:  Thornton, Russ #CSR2000 [SMTP:ThorntoR-at-rc.pafb.af.mil]
Sent:  Monday, August 24, 1998 6:06 AM
To:  'Tesla discussion Group'
Subject:  RE: Results of new single static gap

All,
This brings up a question that has been rattling around in my head for a
while now. Actually two questions.

1)  How are the static gap distances arrived at and why do you(generic)
divide them up the way you do?

2)  Does increasing and decreasing the distance of the gap have the ultimate
effect of moving the shorting point along the rising portion of the charging
cycle?  Diagram is best viewed in Courier font.

                  *
                *
               *|
              * |
             *  |<- shorting time
            *   |
           *    |
----------*--------------------
         *   <----->   
        *

Thanks
Russ Thornton
CSR 2040, 
Building 989, Rm.  A1-N20
Phone: (407) 494-6430 
Email: thorntor-at-rc.pafb.af.mil


> ----------
> From: 	Tesla List[SMTP:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
> Sent: 	Thursday, August 20, 1998 12:21 AM
> To: 	'Tesla List'
> Subject: 	Results of new single static gap
> 
> 
> 
> ----------
> From:  Gary Lau  19-Aug-1998 0939 [SMTP:lau-at-hdecad.ENET.dec-dot-com]
> Sent:  Wednesday, August 19, 1998 8:59 AM
> To:  tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject:  Re: Results of new single static gap
> 
> From:  FutureT-at-aol-dot-com [SMTP:FutureT-at-aol-dot-com]
> >> With this gap I have achieved a new personal best - 51".  Previously I
> >> had been using a 10 x .03" fan cooled RQ-style gap, achieving 42".
> Power
> >> supply is 15kV/60 mA NST, 4.25" x 23" #22AWG secondary, two stacked
> >> toroids- 4.5" x 15.5" plus 6" x 24". >snip
>   
> >> Gary Lau >>
> 
> >Gary,
> >
> >Nice results.  Did you happen to observe the quenching and break
> >rate compared with the old set-up?
> >
> >John Freau
> 
> 
> Not yet, soon though.  BTW, I erred in my description of my multi-gap.
> It should have read 12 x .03" (not 10 x).
> 
> I readjusted my single gap to match the total gap of my multi-gap, 0.36".
> This eliminated the startup problem, made me feel much safer, plus,
> resulted in the identical 51" performance.
> 
> I want to go back to my 12x.03" gap and just make sure it still gives the
> same 42" performance, then I'll take comparative quench measurements.
> 
> Then I want to build a new single gap that concentrates the airflow over
> a smaller firing zone, just to see if single-gap quenching can be
> improved with overwhelming airflow.
> 
> Gary Lau
> Waltham, MA USA
> 
>