Re: TT-42 update

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: TT-42 update
From: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 11:27:46 -0700
Approved: twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net
Delivered-To: fixup-tesla-at-pupman-dot-com-at-fixme

In a message dated 00-03-01 01:35:39 EST, you write:

<< > Not only was I not impressed, but the whole system was much less
> > efficient.  I got 20% less (or whatever, I'd have to check my notes for 
the
> > exact figure) spark length for the same power input at 240 bps.  During
> > these break-rate tests, I tried a variety of different top load sizes, and
> > it didn't really make any difference to the results.
 
> I thought the spark lengths were the same? The output spark type (thin, 
thick,
> many, one, coallense at higher breakrates, etc..) was the result of the arcs
> themselves, but the system for you ran smoother at 120 (I think?). I don't
> remember if you measured more watts on the input or not - probably. 

Hi Bart,

You may be thinking of my 120bps vs. 60bps comparison which gave
equal spark lengths, and the 120bps ran smoother? 

In the 120bps vs. 240bps comparison, the 120
bps gave about 20% longer sparks for the same input power of 570
watts.  To get the same spark length at 240bps, I had to increase
the power to about 900 watts or so.  At higher break rates, even more
power was needed to get the same spark lengths.  I also used "cap
watts" to make the comparison, and the results were similar, showing
that it is the actual ionization and spark growth characteristics of the
streamers themselves which prefer 120bps, at least at the power levels
I'm using.

> In the same
> respects, the last bit of running I did on my coil I found 240 bps with my 
SRSG
> to be my sweet zone - meaning smooth and quiet running (relatively 
speaking). I
> had also reduced my cap size by 2/3's (from 0.06uF to 0.02uF) so change
> time was
> reduced as well allowing me close the gap consistently at higher bps - I
> guess I
> changed quite a few things then. Well, only one thing to do - get that coil
> back
> together and perform a similar test.

The 240bps certainly has a much different sound than the 120 bps, but
if your coil did not run smoothly at 120bps, it may have needed further
adjustment of the ballast, etc?

Regards,
John Freau
 
 Take care,
 
 Bart >>