Re: Question - RQ spark gap plans (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 10:01:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: richard hull <rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net>
To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Re: Question - RQ spark gap plans (fwd)

At 08:28 PM 5/3/98 -0600, you 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)
>        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?  
>        Terry

The RQ gap is actually the "TCBOR gap" and Richard Quick, who saw it in
operation at our Teslathon one year in the early 90s and on our video tapes
which he purchased, picked up on the neat idea when he first started out in
coiling and put it on the old BBS services first and then, more recently on
the internet.  Enough history, though.......

The cylinders won't arc at the end provided you cut the tubing slowly with a
formal pipe cutter to assure a "rolled in" end at each cut.  With carefull,
slow advance of the cutter wheel and a pre-annealing of the tubing, the
rolled in sections will be pronounced.

You much also at least undercut the base under the sparking end edges or
mica insulate to avoid heating and burning and thus, later, arc tracking the
base and top of the gap holders.  Another option, if you are not plenum
vacuuming or blowing the gaps, is to mount them with a single screw in the
middle and support them in mid air.

Back in 1989 we were pushing this kind of gap idea on our video report tapes
and gave a number of detailed discussions on this form of gap and numerous
variations of it. In one 1990 published TCBA NEWS article on arc quenching,
I noted that I had used this type gap successfully up to 5KW.

*Note* if the gaps are run too "tight", they foul readily and a constant
sanding or redressing is required.  As with anything, there is a balance to
using them successfully.

Richard Hull, TCBOR