Comparison of Multi-Gap and Static Gap

From:  terryf-at-verinet-dot-com [SMTP:terryf-at-verinet-dot-com]
Sent:  Thursday, June 04, 1998 8:37 PM
To:  Tesla List
Subject:  Re: Comparison of Multi-Gap and Static Gap

Hi John,

>From:  FutureT-at-aol-dot-com [SMTP:FutureT-at-aol-dot-com]
>Sent:  Wednesday, June 03, 1998 1:44 PM
>To:  tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>Subject:  Re: Comparison of Multi-Gap and Static Gap
>Terry, Malcolm, all,
>Terry, I read your very interesting paper.  I was amazed that the
>multi-gap was able to quench on the first energy transfer (first notch)
>at k = .1, and that the single gap was able to quench on the 2nd
>energy transfer, also at k = .1.  I didn't think either was possible using
>such gap systems without spark streamer breakout.  

I didn't have any problem at all.  The system was stable, repeatable, and
well behaved for me.

>In work I've done at very low power with a small 1" to 4" long spark 
>and no toroid, I had a lot of trouble in achieving quench at the
>first notch using a 12 point series quenching rotary gap at k = .1.

No toroid and rotary gap.  Hmmmm, I have very little testing with roatary
gaps.  They seemed very unstable but don't realy on that observation.  The
lack of a top terminal may have been what made quenching so hard in you test.

>I'm at a loss to explain why you are achieving this degree of quenching
>which is better than what I would expect from my experiences.  Either
>you've hit upon some synergistic coil style, or my quench expectations 
>are incorrect. 

This system is not special in any way.  It may be a little large but nothing
really special.

>Have you allowed the streamers to emit to see how it changes things?

I got all the instruments put in yesterday so we will see!

        Terry Fritz

>Comments welcome,
>John Freau