[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Spark Gap: Flat vs. Cylinder
I think it would work great. The only difference between it and a classic
RQ type gap is that the arrangement requires a long skinny fan (or the
equivalent), which might cost more than the single muffin fan or vacuum
cleaner blower of the RQ gap. Wasn't it Terry who built the long string of
tubes gap (like yours) and was shorting out sections of it to experiment
with gap distances? Presumably, you've got a supply of fans, so I think
your design is quite workable... Not as compact perhaps, but easier to
maintain and adjust.
Silly me.. I read on further down my received mail, and there was a post
from Terry describing his gap..
----------
> From: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Spark Gap: Flat vs. Cylinder
> Date: Saturday, April 10, 1999 5:28 PM
>
> Original Poster: ARSONIST01-at-aol-dot-com
>
> Hello All,
> I'm planning on building a Flat spark gap using the following design:
>
> _______________
> |OOOOOOOOOO |
> |_______________|
>
> Using this design, i'd have my actual copper tubes enclosed on the
> top, bottom, and sides. On the back side, i plan to put in a series of
fans
> to blow into the apparatus to cool it off. The side plates ensure that
> airflow will go in one direction and flow throughout this apparatus.
> Does anyone know if this design will work on the same or better level
> as the Cylindrical gaps? this design, though a little more costly, will
be
> easier to build, and will be way easier to clean out.. airflow through it
> will also work out pretty well because like the cyclindrical design, the
air
> has one way in and one way out.
> thanks.
> alan
>