Re: Triggered Spark Gaps - Why Not?

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Triggered Spark Gaps - Why Not?
From: Richard Hull <rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net> (by way of Terry Fritz <terryf-at-verinet-dot-com>)
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 22:19:52 -0700
Approved: terryf-at-verinet-dot-com

Tesla List wrote:

> Original Poster: Gavin Hubbard <ghub005-at-xtra.co.nz>
>
> Hello List.
>
> I'm sorry for not making myself a little more clear. I don't think the
> threads concerning triggered spark gaps should cease. Experimentation with
> TSG configurations could potentially yield insights and improvements for
> Tesla coils. However, I believe it is necassary for some of us to play the
> role of devil's advocate, especially when complex and inappropriate
> technological solutions are suggested.
>
> Any Tesla coil design is a compromise between theory and constructability.
> I strongly believe that any design improvements that are not "good,
> practical, or cheap" are not really improvements at all.
>
> Safe coiling,
>
> Gavin Hubbard

I gotta' go with Gavin here.  If you have a nice CW 100 watt copper vapor or
cadmium  laser lying about, give it a shot (no pun intended).  Report back
to us
on how the experiment went.

Most on this list are lucky to have a keychain diode laser so often sold at
hamfests.

The more elaborate the gap, the more time is spent on an area which probalby
won't prove all that much better than current solutions and definitely many
times more expensive.  High power pulsed lasers are hard pressed to shoot 200+
times per second and chopped powerful CW lasers are a horrendous expense.

Richard Hull, TCBOR