Re: Results of new single static gap

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Results of new single static gap
From: Richard Hull <rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net> (by way of terryf-at-verinet-dot-com)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 23:36:30 -0600
Approved: terryf-at-verinet-dot-com


Tesla List wrote:

> ----------
> 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?

..........................They are normally arrived at through serendipity and
guesstimate, tempered by the effort needed to create large numbers of well
aligned static gaps and the realization that the distance between gaps will
become vanishingly small in high numbered systems with attendant fouling and
maintenance nightmares.  The proper distances are arrived at totally through
good ole trial and error (rank beginner) or educated and calibrated eyeball
(old
hand).  R. Hull
..........................

>
>
> 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
>             *   |
>            *    |
> ----------*--------------------
>          *   <----->
>         *

Nope, not just the rising quarter of the sine,...... but the falling
quarter as
well!  Don't forget the negative half cycle, too!  The gap settings (number
and
spacing) determine how many pops one gets per cycle of the AC sine.  A really
well done gap might have two firing on each quarter cycle or 8 firings per
cycle
that means 480 firings per second..

Richard Hull, TCBOR

.............................

>
>
> 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
> >
> >