Re: Aluminum electrodes in TCBOR static gap

• To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
• Subject: Re: Aluminum electrodes in TCBOR static gap
• From: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)
• Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 19:31:41 -0600
• Approved: twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net
• Delivered-To: fixup-tesla-at-pupman-dot-com-at-fixme

In a message dated 99-10-17 10:24:11 EDT, you write:

<< I tried this, based on reading last year's archives from the list, where
> Reinhard had used 6-sided Al standoffs in his unit and reported good
> results. I didn't go the stand-off route, but wanted to see what would
> happen with an alternating combo of Cu-Al electrodes. 
 
>My thinking now is that aluminum is a very poor choice as an actual
> gap electrode. It could be different with a stand-off.
 
> Don
  >>

Don, Reinhard, all,

With the 6 sided standoff, the sparking is spread over a larger
area if you use the flat sides (than would occur with a round pipe),
and produces less "spot" heating.  Was the 6 sided standoff
compared with a copper 6 sided standoff or other flat type gap.  In
general, I think I've seen better performance with flat gaps than with
round gaps.  I've had good results with silver faced flat static gaps.

Cheers,
John Freau

• Prev: Re: Aluminum electrodes in TCBOR static gap
• Next: Re: Building a sync RSG. (Motor Source)
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread