Re: Better Gap Worth Effort

• To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
• Subject: Re: Better Gap Worth Effort
• From: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)
• Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 17:12:50 -0600
• Approved: twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net
• Delivered-To: fixup-tesla-at-pupman-dot-com-at-fixme

In a message dated 4/27/00 2:42:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, tesla-at-pupman-dot-com 
writes:

> That brings me to the
>  following question: does anybody on this list knows the shortest quench 
time
>  achieved with static gaps?
>  
>  Ruud.

Ruud,

Terry, and others (myself included) have achieved first notch quench
using multiple static gaps, but it doesn't help the spark output.  
Instead it's better to use fewer gaps, and let the quench-time be
as it may.  This is because low gap losses are more important than
a fast quenching in general.  Of course the quench must be good enough
so you don't get power arcs.

Cheers,
John Freau

• Prev: RE: SRSG,RSG, shtuff...
• Next: Re: bigger tranny?
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread