Gap losses

• To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
• Subject: Gap losses
• From: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)
• Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 17:31:11 -0600
• Approved: twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net
• Delivered-To: fixup-tesla-at-pupman-dot-com-at-fixme

Malcolm, all,

1.  If the L of pri and sec is increased four times, this should halve
the freq. (ignoring toroid effects).

2.  Surge impedance will double.

3.  But since freq will be half*, energy transfer will take twice as long,
so the gap losses will be the same.

(*freq might be a little more than half due to the effect of the toroid, so
the gap losses might be a little lower).

Is my thinking above correct or flawed?

4.  Because of the above, the *only* way to reduce gap losses is by
using a higher input voltage with smaller cap and larger L to keep
freq the same, as Malcolm recently mentioned.  (Here I'm ignoring
methods such as using metals that will throw more ions into the 
gap arc, etc.)  

Regarding our gaps, maybe we should worry less
about how well they quench, and more about how low their firing
resistance is.  Does the resistance vary much with the use of 
different gap electrode metals?  Maybe electrodes that burn up
quicker will throw in more metal, and give a lower resistance?
I think this was discussed some time ago, I can't remember the
outcome.

Other comments, speculations?

Thanks,
John Freau

• Prev: Re: Thorated vs Pure Tungsten
• Next: cap firing voltage scope measurements question
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread