Re: Spark Gaps

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

Original poster: "Steve & Jackie Young by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <youngs-at-konnections-dot-com>

No, don't bother to try it!  The sound energy from a gap is only a few
watts - you won't see any difference in secondary arc length.  Also, the
sound comes from thermal expansion of the heated air.  I think a vacuum gap,
if it works at all, will still waste as much energy through thermal
radiation and conduction even though you can't hear it.  If you really want
a better spark gap, consider running it in pure hydrogen.

By the way, please add your name in future posts so we all know who you are.

--Steve

----- 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!
>
>
>
>