Re: Answer to your question

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Answer to your question
From: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com (by way of Terry Fritz <twf-at-verinet-dot-com>)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 17:12:38 -0600
Approved: twf-at-verinet-dot-com

In a message dated 99-04-12 05:52:24 EDT, you write:

<< 
> 	The rotary spark gap achieves better quenching that a static gap in 
the
> following manner.  As the metal "probes", be they bolts, nails, tungsten
> rods, or whatever, come close to each other, an arc between them becomes
> more and more imminent.  Finally, they rotate close together enough for
> an arc to occur.  However, as the gap continues to rotate, the probes
> move directly past each other, and then the distance between them begins
> to increase. (I'm talking about this like it happens slowly, really it
> happens hundreds of times per second).  As the distance increases, the
> arc becomes more and more difficult to sustain.  Finally, the distance
> between the probes is large enough that the arc goes out.  Thus we have
> quenching.


Brent,

It seems that rotaries don't usually quench this way.  The energy from a
"bang" is generally long gone by the time the electrodes move apart.
 
John Freau

>  						Brent
 		>>