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>


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 --