Re: Gap losses

> Original Poster: Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>
> At 02:49 PM 6/16/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >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
> >
> My multi-gap gaps do have better quenching but the series resistance is
> also high.  Rotaries have rather poor quenching but the series resistance
> is rather low.  Which is best??  Well, it just seems to depend on the
> specific system they are on...  Sync rotaries have the ability to fire at
> just the right time which, for me, seems to out weight the other two
> factors by far.
>     Terry

Better still, the gap length and resistance goes down during dwell as 
the electrodes are moving closer together.