[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: RQ gap question
My own view is that at low powers it doesn't matter much, but at higher
powers, the more gaps the better (within reason), as it gives more surface
area for cooling purposes.
----- Original Message -----
From: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
To: <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Sent: Monday, December 20, 1999 11:53 PM
Subject: RQ gap question
> Original Poster: Ted Rosenberg <TRosen1-at-Tandy-dot-com>
>
> 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
>
>
>