Re: alternative static spark gaps

At 11:07 PM 11/04/1999 -0700, you wrote:
>Original Poster: bob golding <yubba-at-clara-dot-net> 
>At 06:09 04/11/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>Original Poster: Bryan St <warp27-at-juno-dot-com> 
>>Now that I have eliminated commercial flash tubes from my TC timemiser
>>list, what about making your own pressurized spark gap.  I will bet that
>>there are better gases than air for spark gaps, perhaps something with a
>>low ionization potential.  And what about using lower pressure or higher
>>pressure. Or even a auto spark gap adjust by changing the pressure, and
>>therefore breakdown voltage so you don't have to fiddle with the gaps.
> Hi bryan,
>	There is plenty of stuff about this subject in the list archives from
>about March/April this year I think. <www.pupman-dot-com> I think the consensus
>is copper pipe gaps work,are  simple to build,cheap,easy to clean and
>replace,but don't let that stop you experimenting.
>bob golding

I don't want to be a wet blanket, but I must agree with Bob on this point.
The spark-excited oscillator has been with us for over a century, and every
imaginable static gap scheme has already been tried by somebody, somewhere.
 Time is the test of such things, and those that work best endure, while
impractical ideas vanish into obscurity (until revived decades later, by
some Tesla coil nut!).  Don't let this put you off of experimenting.  It
sure hasn't stopped me.