Re: Spark Gaps

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

Original poster: "Bill Parn by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <parn-at-starpower-dot-net>

I would think a good portion of the accoustic noise in a spark gap is the
displacement of air, however some of it is from smashing and blasting of
atoms, which consumes energy and makes noise as well.  Therefore I would
believe that a vacumm gap would be somewhat more efficient with the lowered
noise.

However I have some questions, does  a vacumm gap require the electrodes to
be closer?
This would preserve energy as well if the answer is yes.

Has anybody tried to measure the energy loss in a vacumm gap as opposed
to a standard air gap?  So as to get some conclusive evidence on the
theories.

I am a little worried about X-Ray radiation here though.  Maybe someone
should try putting a photographic plate under or over the vacumm gap and
test for this.  In a good vacumm those electrons are going to be traveling
quite
fast and hit the receiving electrode with a potentially high enough force to
produce some potentially lethal radiation.  Just a thought.  Might be time
to build a lead container for this vacumm gap.

William L. Parn


----- Original Message -----
From: Tesla list <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
To: <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: Spark Gaps


> Original poster: "Trent Mullins by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <neontrent-at-earthlink-dot-net>
>
> I have to disagree here.  Just because you can't hear the sound, doesn't
> mean it's not there.
> Reminds me of the question:
> If a tree falls in the forest does it make any sound.  Well...yes.
>
> Trent Mullins
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> To: <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 8:44 PM
> Subject: Spark Gaps
>
>
> | Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>"
> <ANTarchimedes-at-aol-dot-com>
> |
> |
> |
> |       'Twas not too long ago that I brought up vacuum-contained spark
gaps
> | as means of reducing both heat/ozone generation and noise output.  My
case
> | was quickly let off because of the fact that there's going to be
> signifigant
> | noise output from the secondary anyways, and we already have means of
> | controlling excessive heat and ozone.  Well, it turns out that there is
a
> | major benefit still!  The noise generated from the spark gap... where
does
> | that energy come from?   From the primary circuit, of course.  Then that
> | energy must be converted; wasted, if you will.  Then we're not getting
our
> | maximum electrical potential out of our secondary circuit, and thus,
> shorter
> | arc length. Sure, the sound will reappear off the secondary, but it will
> | lengthen the arc! Try it!
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
>
>
>
>