RE: Spark Gaps

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

Original poster: "sundog by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <sundog-at-timeship-dot-net>

Hi all, Gary,

  Would you mind elaborating a bit about your pressurized spark gap?  What
sort of container was it in, pressure, voltage, etc.  I may never try it,
but it's interesting!
													Shad

-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 9:29 AM
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: RE: Spark Gaps


Original poster: "Lau, Gary by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>"
<Gary.Lau-at-compaq-dot-com>

I think what you're suggesting is that losses from a vacuum-contained spark
gap will be lower because they can't loose energy due to emitted sound.  The
losses from a spark gap occur in the forms of heat, light, and sound.  I
would speculate that of these three, that the acoustic losses are the least
of them.  The sound is just a by-product of the others.

More importantly, the resistive losses (which generate the heat and light)
are a function of the conductivity of the plasma.  I have no personal
experience with plasmas in a vacuum but I have made measurements of gap
losses in air at higher and lower than ambient pressures, and have found
that losses are significantly lower in a pressurized gap.

Gary Lau
Waltham, MA USA
[Snip!]