Comparison of Multi-Gap and Static Gap

To: "'Tesla List'" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Comparison of Multi-Gap and Static Gap
From: Tesla List <tesla-at-stic-dot-net>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 22:41:34 -0500
Approved: tesla-at-stic-dot-net


----------
From:  richard hull [SMTP:rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net]
Sent:  Thursday, June 04, 1998 7:35 PM
To:  Tesla List
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.  
>
>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.
>
>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.  
>
>Have you allowed the streamers to emit to see how it changes things?
>
>Comments welcome,
>
>John Freau


John has a salient point here.  With the big sparks flyin' where do things
stand?  It is tough to take reliable measurements at 10KW. Gaps buckle real
quick under real power.

Richard Hull, TCBOR