Re: Better Gap Worth Effort


> Original Poster: "Malcolm Watts" <malcolm.watts-at-wnp.ac.nz> 
> 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
> then
>> 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.
> Regards,
> malcolm

But one thing the air gap has a very high Q and gives extremely low quench