[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CFM and RQ Gaps

Hi all!
  I have a few questions about the cfm...is there a certain point
where you're moving too much air?  I've seen air compressors run on
blast gaps before, and I'm using a squirrelcage blower at some
obscene cfm, and have found an even more powerful blower from an AC
air handler (for such a small motor, fan, and enclosure it moves a
*LOT* of air...and I mean a *LOT*..came out of a 3 bedroom house's
air handler...it's free, so I'm out no money on it, but I do wonder
if there get to be a point of "too much air"...

Just wonderin', and I'll of course hook it up for myself to check
and see ;)  I s'pose the best way to find out is to hook it up and
find out :))
-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Date: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 11:48 AM
Subject: RE: CFM and RQ Gaps

>Original Poster: "Malcolm Watts" <malcolm.watts-at-wnp.ac.nz>
>Hi Gary,
>               I may have been one of those who reported using no
>airflow in the gap.  I have a little enigma to mention in
>with this - I reported this last year.
>On 5 Jun 00, at 17:13, Tesla List wrote:
>> Original Poster: "Lau, Gary" <Gary.Lau-at-compaq-dot-com>
>> When I was using an RQ/TCBOR cylinder gap, I tried both a 4.5"
>> computer-grade fan and a vacuum cleaner motor, both drawing air
through the
>> gaps between the cylinders.  Photos of the gap may be seen on my
web site
>> at: http://people.ne.mediaone-dot-net/lau/tesla/RQGap.htm
>> I noted no performance difference between the fan and the vacuum
>> motor, but performance plummets if the airflow is turned off
>> The 4.5" fans are typically rated in the 60-100 CFM range,
although the
>> actual number is highly dependent upon the back pressure.  The
>> of the fan is also probably dependent upon whether the air
passes through


>more than a mere waft and the gap is erratic or won't fire at all;
>little, and power arcs abound. The coil performs beautifully with
>optimum airflow recording the occasional 5' strike. For the first
>I was worried about it hitting the lamps in the ceiling or the
>sensors.  Note that the only real difference as far as the primary
>went was a change in Xp and perhaps a little more coupling.
>        From all this I gathered that higher Xp's (read higher Qp)
>trickier to handle gapwise but lower gap losses considerably.