Re: spark gap question

• To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
• Subject: Re: spark gap question
• From: "B**2" <bensonbd-at-erols-dot-com> (by way of Terry Fritz <terryf-at-verinet-dot-com>)
• Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 21:26:48 -0700
• Approved: terryf-at-verinet-dot-com

Hi Thomas,
    I too have pondered this.  I concluded that the losses would be
horrendous.  The primary would have to be 1 turn of Litz copper tubing
because the voltage is so low.  This would limit the coupling.  With this
much cw power the secondary would go up like a pine tree in a bon fire if a
fault occured.  I think that the Bylund methodology would be more manageable.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla List +ADw-tesla+AEA-pupman-dot-com+AD4-
To: tesla+AEA-pupman-dot-com +ADw-tesla+AEA-pupman-dot-com+AD4-
Date: Friday, October 30, 1998 9:24 PM
Subject: spark gap question


Original Poster: +ACI-Thomas Helwig+ACI-
+ADw-erwinrommel+AEA-email.msn-dot-com+AD4- 

Hello all
I would like to pose this question for consideration.  It seems to me, from
many posts, that spark gaps consume a lot of energy and seem to be
problematic in general.  What if you could get approximately 208 volts up
to300 amps or 115 volts up to 500amps supply at any frequency you desire?
Would this eliminate the necessity for the spark gap?

• Prev: Home Brew Pig
• Next: Re: PSpice modeling of spark gaps
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread