[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Results of new single static gap

At 11:13 AM 8/29/98 -0400, you wrote:
>From: Richard Hull <rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net>
>Tesla List wrote:
>
>> From: "Thornton, Russ #CSR2000" <ThorntoR-at-rc.pafb.af.mil>
>>
>> > Tesla List wrote:
>> >
SNIP.....
>> Here is another slant on my question.  Has anyone come up with any kind
of a
>> quantitative or qualitative relationship between the difference between(for
>> example) ten 0.01 gaps and five 0.02 gaps?
>>
>> Russ Thornton
>> CSR 2040,
>> Building 989, Rm.  A1-N20
>> Phone: (407) 494-6430
>> Email: thorntor-at-rc.pafb.af.mil
>
>  Russ,
>
>The distance adjustment differential is totally non-linear and frighteningly
>near geometric in that the more gaps bust the arc up so bad that micro
>distancing is demanded even with 15KV inputs over 12 gaps.  Thus, only
elemental
>tungsten can play the game up in these high gap numbers.  (due to near zero
>fouling).
>
>Again, your firing point demands on the sine will critically affect spacing,
>too.  There is not rule other than chaos.
>
>Richard Hull, TCBOR
>
>



Hi Richard and Russ,

	I just did a test tonight that measured firing voltage vs. gap distance
for my new argon gap.  The results were as follows:

Gap Width	Voltage
4 (mil)	530
8		700
12		800
16		980
20		1130
24		1210
28		1360

If you plot this out, the graph is very linear given the tolerances
involved.  Far from chaos, close to linear :-))

The details of this test are outlined in another post today.

	Terry Fritz