[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Better Gap Worth Effort
> > 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
>
Hi John,
Thanks for answering John. Yes, i have red about this but i'am not only
interested in the 'longest possible spark', but also in the best achievable
power efficiency and in the electrical effects in that 5-10usec area.
Besides that, i think it must be possible to quench at the first notch with
a single static gap (with some tricks). I have some ideas, but i can not
test them at the moment (mechanical cap problems and too much reading to
do).
Do you think or know if the gap losses with a multiple spark gap are more
than the first notch gain. Theoretical first notch quenching would be three
times more efficient as let's say quenching at the third notch (assumed no
extra gap losses and secondary in sparking condition), wouldn't it?
Greetings from Holland,
Ruud de Graaf