[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Question - RQ spark gap plans (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 4 May 98 13:06:37 EDT
From: Gary Lau 04-May-1998 1251 <lau-at-hdecad.ENET.dec-dot-com>
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Question - RQ spark gap plans (fwd)
Perhaps the reason that the sparks don't dwell at the ends is that air flow
is greater there, quickly removing any hot ions, while things are more shielded
and stagnant in the interior regions.
Gary Lau
Waltham, MA USA
> 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
>
> terryf-at-verinet-dot-com