[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Laser Triggered Spark Gap
Hi Steve,
For the record the RQ style gap was invented by the TCBOR group. The
TCBOR videos make this abundantly clear. It should be called the TCBOR gap
to honor all of the members of that group that contributed to the evolution
of the design.
-----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: Thursday, November 05, 1998 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Laser Triggered Spark Gap
Original Poster: +ACI-Steve Young+ACI- +ADw-youngs+AEA-konnections-dot-com+AD4-
Barry and all,
Thanks for the valuable information. I can appreciate how high pressure
triggered spark gaps (TSG) will perform much better. But if the TSG is
firing hundreds of times a second, how do you get rid of the heat? One
would have to water cool the pressurized container, and have a continuous
flow of high pressure gas to exhaust the heat and vaporized metal, I would
think. I suppose an air compressor could be used. (And the pressurized
TSG exhaust might be useful for light welding??)
As far as a wider spaced gap being more lossy, I can appreciate that also.
But is the loss between a 0.8 inch vs 0.4 inch total gap length, for
example, really that significant?
Imagine a Richard Quick style gap. Suppose it works great with 6 gaps but
can't fire with 7 gaps, all equally spaced. If the 7th gap is a TSG, the
extra loss introduced by that one more gap shouldn't by very significant.
Am I missing something?
--Steve