Re: Natural RF suppression?

• To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
• Subject: Re: Natural RF suppression?
• From: "Barton B. Anderson" <mopar-at-uswest-dot-net> (by way of Terry Fritz <terryf-at-verinet-dot-com>)
• Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 19:26:18 -0700
• Approved: terryf-at-verinet-dot-com

Gary,

Tesla List wrote:

> Original Poster: Gary Lau  28-Oct-1998 0735 <lau-at-hdecad.ENET.dec-dot-com>
>
> >Original Poster: "Barton B. Anderson" <mopar-at-uswest-dot-net>=20
> >
> >Could you elaborate more how you constructed the aluminum standoffs in
> >between each copper pipe? I was discussing with someone today an idea
> >of using aluminum components in a sparkgap. Not to conduct energy, but to
> >utilize aluminum's RF suppression characteristic to enhance quenching.
>
> What RF suppression characteristic?  Are you saying different metals
> favor conduction at different frequencies?  I don't think so.
>
> Gary Lau
> Waltham, MA USA

I'm saying the conductance changes at RF frequencies for aluminum. I have
heard this on this list. I don't know how dramatic the change is. At first
thought, I was relating this to the resistive oxidation which aluminum
develops, but posts indicated it is at the RF frequencies which aluminum's
conductive ability drops, and this tells me that it is not the resistive
oxidation, but the actual characteristic of aluminum at high frequencies. I
don't know why, and it may or may not be true, but if it is true, then could
this variable be used somehow.
Bart

• Prev: Re: Fine Tuning a Spark Gap
• Next: Re: Positive VS negative streamer
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread