Re: Better Gap Worth Effort

This post caught my attention:

> Original Poster: "unicorn" <unicorn-at-telerama-dot-com> 
>   I think static gaps are crape.  Tah take to long to cleen and it do not
> quench to good. A rsq or a air blast gap works much better then a static
> gap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>   kid-kv
>  P.S I made a air gap with a fan and brass serws and it works much better
> the static gap i had. The static gap took to long to cleen. My coil has
> bottle caps and a air gap. With the fan i get 12" eze with out the fan i get
> 4" to 7" sparks. does that give the id.?

The type of gap is not the single determinant of performance. 
Perhaps the coil is a bit wanting in a few areas as well. The primary 
cap is also most worthy of attention. I have posted this many times 
but I have a coil which delivers 5' peak attached sparks and uses a 
single 1/2" tungsten carbide tipped static gap with a *very gentle* air 
flow past the electrodes. I know for a fact that many factors 
contribute to the success of this coil. For example, adding a larger 
topload and another turn to the primary to maintain tune added 
nearly a foot to the output and made sparks hotter into the bargain - 
all with the same gap setting and power input. I had to add a tiny 
amount of airflow to prevent the gap power arcing since k increased 
with the change in primary and reduced gap "quiet time". I think 
Richard Hull's concept of "synergism" was most apt.