Re: Who needs a quenching gap ?

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson" <tesla123-at-pacbell-dot-net> 

Hi Finn, John, All,

Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com
>
> In a message dated 12/8/00 2:18:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> writes:
>
> > Unfortunately this design, (which was suggested by Terry, when he made
> >  his last rotary) cannot be altered in this coil, to make comparisons
> >  btwn. 1 and 2 gaps, but the design here really was simplifyed a lot by
> >  using this one gap solution, so I used it anyway.
> >
> >  I will work on this thing some more on separate gaps, where it will be
> >  possible to reverse btwn both configurations, and see, if the loss added
> >  in another gap is lower than the loss in the friction contact.
>
> Finn,
>
> You could add an external single static gap in series with the rotary,
> to give a total of 2 gaps.
>
> John Freau

Just a note about doing this. A static gap will arc when the breakover
voltage is
reached. A rotary arc when the electrodes near alignment. So in series, who
wins?
The static gap of course. Also, when a static gap reaches it's breakover
voltage
and the rotary electrodes are not aligned, the cap will continue to charge
until
the gap fires. Therefore, if the breaks are too fast, the static gap will
set the
break rate. Static gapping is therefore very important and cap voltages, bps,
etc.. should all be thought about first.

I've modeled this in Microsim and it's very clear what accurs. I encourage all
with Microsim capability to do this. These models are fun to do. I'm not saying
not to do it, but to be aware of the situation. Keeping the static gap voltage
lower should remedy the problem, but that's just a thought (been a while since
I've sat down and  looked at that).

Bart