Re: The smoothness of our toroids

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: The smoothness of our toroids
From: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 11:47:20 -0700
Approved: twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net
Delivered-To: fixup-tesla-at-pupman-dot-com-at-fixme

In a message dated 99-12-23 03:41:31 EST, you write:

<< That seems to tell me that the corrugated 5" toroid is only 4/(2.5) = 1.6
> times as good as the smooth 1/4" pizza pan in holding off the spark until
> the voltage can build up, as compared to what one might hope from the
> ratio of the nominal cross-sectional diameters, which is 5/(.25) = 20.  
 
> Am I wrong? >>

Ken, all,

I agree that smooth toroids work better, based on tests I did and
reports by others.  I was able to obtain the same spark length from
a 4" by 13" smooth toroid, as from a 4.3" by 17", or a 5.3" by 20"
corregated toroid.  The corregated toroids tended to want to produce
extra streamers that leaked away the energy.  The only way I was
able to get long streamers using the corregated toroid was by
using a breakout bump on the side of the toroid.  The differences
between the toroids seem to be greater at low break-rates.  At low
break-rates, it seems to be more important to have a smooth toroid,
to prevent lots of small leakage streamers from forming.

Jeff Parisse reported that in a large system, the sparks were unable
to break out of a particular large smooth toroid at all, but they broke
out easily from a corregated toroid of the same size.

Holiday Cheers,
John Freau