[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Question - RQ spark gap plans (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 06:56:04 -0500
From: Bert Hickman <bert.hickman-at-aquila-dot-com>
To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Re: Question - RQ spark gap plans (fwd)
Tesla List wrote:
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 20:11:18 -0600
> From: terryf-at-verinet-dot-com
> To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> Subject: Question - RQ spark gap plans (fwd)
>
> All,
>
> Many people have found that the RQ spark gap is better in their
> systems. Preliminary testing I have done suggests the opposite. However, I
> now have a theory as to why these gaps may give much better secondary sparks
> (this may lead to even better designs). I would like to build and RQ style
> gap to test my theory out. I have built similar gaps but they would not
> show the proper effects I seek.
> I do have one concern. As I understand the gap, there are many
> copper pipe sections side by side. I would think that the higher electric
> field intensity at the ends of the pipes would cause the arcs to occur only
> at the ends of the pipe sections instead if near the centers where we would
> like. Is this true and if not why not?
>
> Thanks
>
> Terry
> <SNIP>
Terry,
I haven't run into this problem... however, when I cut the lengths of
tubing, I used a standard tubing cutter which tends to reduce the
diameter of the pipe at the ends. I also suspect that spark erosion of
the copper material with use tends to increase the gap spacing wherever
you might have preferred arcing sites.
-- Bert --