Re: Question - RQ spark gap plans (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 15:11:03 -0500
From: David Huffman <huffman-at-fnal.gov>
To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Re: Question - RQ spark gap plans (fwd)

Like most high frequency stuff, it doesn't do what you would expect. You
might expect the arc to always favor the hot spot of the previous arc or the
edge but it doesn't. At least my arcs move up and down the whole gap. Air
flow tends to make it move around more.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Date: Sunday, May 03, 1998 9:38 PM
Subject: Question - RQ spark gap plans (fwd)

>---------- 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,
>now have a theory as to why these gaps may give much better secondary
>(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
>        or