RE: hydrogen gaps

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

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

It appears that the lower losses I measured in the vortex gap were not due
to a shorter gap-length, but simply due to a lower gap resistance due to the
higher pressure.  I don't know how the resistance of hydrogen plasma
compares to air plasma, but that is not the reason that hydrogen is
sometimes used.  Rather, it is because a hydrogen gap quenches much better
than an air gap.  This may or may not be important in our coils, as some
recent posts have suggested that first notch quenching may not be all that
important.

Of far greater importance IMHO, is that potential explosive or flammable
elements not be used where there are sparks!  While it is true that any fuel
needs an oxidizer in order to explode, tell that to the Hindenburg
survivors!

Regards, Gary Lau
Waltham, MA USA


Original poster: "Mike Novak by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>"
<acmnovak-at-email.msn-dot-com>

Hi All,

Has anyone on the list had any experience with Hydrogen gaps? I was reading
Gary's paper (again) about the vortex gap, and his conclusion was that, if
breakdown voltage for a given distance was increased, the gap losses went
down. I was thinking a hydrogen gap would be greatly efficient compared to
typical systems, keeping in mind the 17.5% decrease in gap losses simply by
raising atmosoheric pressure at the point of breakout in a static gap. And,
the best part is, with hydrogen, there is no energy needed to lower losses,
like the vacuum fan in gary's system.

With a sealed enclosure around a SRSG containing pure hydrogen (rarified,
then backfilled like a neon tube at atmosoheric pressure) could one assume
there would be no chemical byproduct? In air, the O2 in the air combines
with the O in H2O to make ozone (O3) and the N2 combines with O2 and the O
in H2O to make nitrous oxide (NO3), but in a pure hydrogen (or any pure
substance for that matter) the ionization would be only observable in the
form of heat. So, if we can lower the amount of energy lost to heat, we can
dramatically increase overall performance, right?

That combined with a 240 BPS resonant charging SRSG would make a very
efficient spark gap. However, we must tackle some really bothersome
engineering tasks as well. For instance, the container in which the gap is
housed... It must be able to handle not only heat, but pressure (vacuum),
acoustic vibrations, outgassing, rigidity, and other unforseen factors. If
anyone would attempt such a project, they would be at it for some time.

Any other thoughts on the subject?


-Mike