Spark Gap (fwd)

• To: "'Tesla List'" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
• Subject: Spark Gap (fwd)
• From: Tesla List <tesla-at-stic-dot-net>
• Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 22:09:11 -0500
• Approved: tesla-at-stic-dot-net

----------
From:  Gary Lau  25-May-1998 1520 [SMTP:lau-at-hdecad.ENET.dec-dot-com]
Sent:  Monday, May 25, 1998 2:34 PM
To:  tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject:  RE: Spark Gap (fwd)

>> From: Gary Lau  23-May-1998 1549 <lau-at-hdecad.ENET.dec-dot-com>
>> <snip>
>> And actually, I believe multiple shorter sparks in series is easier to
>> quench than one long one (assuming the total gap length is the same).
>> That's why the "RQ" multi-short-gap static gap is so popular.  It may
>> also have lower resistance, but no one has actually proven this yet.

>From: Malcolm Watts <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
>I can't see a single reason why it should be lower. Besides, Rgap is 
>a dynamic impedance which varies with Ip. Multiple gaps most 
>certainly have a higher voltage drop when conducting as each has a 
>minimum saturation voltage, again dependent on Ip.
>
>Malcolm

You're right.  I think I was confusing the better performance due to
better quenching, with lower resistance.  Totally unfounded.  Thanks for 
nipping this one in the bud.

Gary Lau
Waltham, MA USA

• Prev: Spark Gap (fwd)
• Next: HV caps (fwd)
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread