Re: mmc calcs, K calcs and RSG electrodes

• To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
• Subject: Re: mmc calcs, K calcs and RSG electrodes
• From: "Jim Lux" <jimlux-at-jpl.nasa.gov> (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)
• Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 22:24:15 -0600
• Approved: twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net
• Delivered-To: fixup-tesla-at-pupman-dot-com-at-fixme

> Secondly, to anyone. I have stalled on my RSG construction as I have
> been reading the posts on electrode type/shape. I have 12 6.3mm
> thoriated tungsten rods that I am about to fit, however instead of
> rounding the ends, (hemisphere), and aligning the ends of the rotating
> rods and stationary rods is it possible to align the rotating and
> stationary rods so that the lengths of the rods conduct instead of the
> ends, ( attempt at diagram :-),
> 
> 
>  What would the effect be by varying the length of conducting surface,
> whereas on an end to end gap using my rods the maximum presented gap
> area would be the cross-sectional area of my rods. on the setup
> described above I could vary the 'gap area' by varying the length
> presented by the stationary electrodes but the 'presentation time' would
> be the same.

Actually, your design is one that is favored by many references. It is much
less critical of alignment, and, as you have noticed, it spreads the arcing
area out.

There are also all sorts of games you can play by angling the stationary
electrodes relative to the moving ones (i.e. nothing says they have to be
parallel to the rotational axis of the rotor.). This has the effect of
lengthening the time the gap is close.

• Prev: Re: Tube watts & volts
• Next: Re: details!!
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread