RQ gap question

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: RQ gap question
From: Ted Rosenberg <TRosen1-at-Tandy-dot-com> (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 16:53:57 -0700
Approved: twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net
Delivered-To: fixup-tesla-at-pupman-dot-com-at-fixme

Got a question re RQ style static gaps:


Previously, a list member suggested the following as a good reason to use
larger diameter copper tube/pipe in the static series gap.

====================
The "sense" of large diameter copper multi-gap cylindrical RQ style spark
gap:
features large active and inactive surface area with large ROC surface to
spread heat well, resulting in cooler gap for quench, expediting more
efficient forced air cooling,
     (low bulk large area loses heat easily expedited by circulated air)

RQ gaps work well because they represent a good tradeoff between walls being
thick enough, with a large open mass to heat slowly when conducting, but
thin enough with a extended surface area to cool quickly when not conducting
in the presence of forced air.
====================
All that makes sense to me. So I got some 2" diameter copper tube/pipe. NOW
my question is what is the benefit of, say 8 tubes with .03 spacing versus 7
tubes or 6 tubes with a different spacing. In other words, isn't 6x3 the
same as 3x6.

For example, could use 7 gaps with .03 to start with or 6 gaps with .03 to
start with. One gives me .21 and the other .18. What's the difference?

Thanks to all.

Gappless in Ft Worth.

Ted