tesla-at-pupman-dot-com on 06.01.99 11:16:06

To:   tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
cc:    (bcc: Marco Denicolai/MARTIS)
Subject:  Re. QUENCH TIMES

Original Poster: Gary Lau  05-Jan-1999 2005 <lau-at-hdecad.ENET.dec-dot-com>

>One thing often done to reduce an RSG's effective dwell time is arranging
>stationary and rotating electrodes in pairs that are wired in series and
>only come into alignment 2X or 4X or 8X (actually, any integer if you're
>not concerned with sync operation) per revolution, effectively dividing
>the actual dwell time by the number of electrode-pairs.

Thanks for this good idea.

>>I was thinking to use a high resistance voltage divider to have 15 kV on
>>the RSG and 45 kV on the static gap. The static gap would be a series of
>>sections, to easily set its trigger voltage. The voltage divider should
>>also remove a part of the randomness involved in air gap trigger voltage.

>I doubt that putting a resistive divider across the gaps would alter the
>quench time.  When the gaps are conducting, the resistors are effectively
>shorted out.  But then, quenching really involves whether the gap will
>_start_ to conduct following a zero-current-crossing, so I can't say for

The voltage divider was intended to reduce the RSG voltage BEFORE it
sparks. That means
that it will delay the TRIGGERING time instant thus reducing the overall
quench time. And
I mean "delay" in respect to the time instant the rotating and stationary
electrodes come
into proximity.