RE: RQ gap spacing theory question

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

Original poster: "Ted Rosenberg by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <Ted.Rosenberg-at-radioshack-dot-com>

Bart: yes, you are quite correct. My static gap on a 15/60 coil consisted of
9 tubes, each 1-3/4 diam by 2 inch long. Side by side, vertically
positioned. The total gap was about .25 with each individual gap about .031.
The entire 'module' was almost 20 inches wide by 5' tall.

It worked well and always remained very cool. No fan was ever needed.
However, after 2-3 hours of a short duty cycle at the haunted house, I saw
the arcs shrink and shrink almost to zero. I'd stop the show and 'floss' the
gaps with crocus cloth. Then it would be good for another 2-3 hours.

Thanks to Marc M and the triggered gap, that is now ancient history.
The static gap is cheap and easy. But IMHO, it has this one major drawback.

Regards

Ted

-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 8:58 AM
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: RQ gap spacing theory question


Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <tesla123-at-pacbell-dot-net>

Hi Ted - 

I assume you were using copper tubing as electrodes? Yes, good point. Copper
tubing can build up black areas of carbon. This is probably not a good idea
for
multigaps using copper tubing as electrodes. I once built a rotating pipe
gap.
It worked, but perormance was poor and about a 1/2" area on each pipe would
develop that thick black carbon. After that gap and a flat multi-pipe gap, I
stopped using piping for electrodes altogether. I just never had good
performance with it. 

-- 
Barton B. Anderson 
<http://www.classictesla-dot-com>http://www.classictesla-dot-com 

Tesla list wrote: 
>
> Original poster: "Ted Rosenberg by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
> <Ted.Rosenberg-at-radioshack-dot-com> 
>
> I can tell you for certain that my 1st coil, which used 9 tubes, had 
> variations from gap to gap. Yes, they were close, but not what you'd call 
> micrometer level. And it worked just fine...until after two-three hours,
the 
> oxide built up and reduced the 24" spark to 2 inches. 
>
> Safety First. 
>
> Ted 
>
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Tesla list [<mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 9:01 AM 
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com 
> Subject: Re: RQ gap spacing theory question 
>
> Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" 
> <Parpp807-at-aol-dot-com> 
>
> In a message dated 12/4/01 9:30:58 PM Central Standard Time, 
> tesla-at-pupman-dot-com 
> writes: 
>
> > Hey Bart,All, 
> >  > Does this mean the space's between the gaps don't have to be equally 
> > spaced? 
> >  > If not , then would it be okay to permanently fix all but the end
piece 
>
> of 
> > 
> >  > copper, and make the last one adjustable? 
> >  > Billy 
>
> Doesn't the larger gap run hotter? I suppose the total heat must be the
same 
>
> but setting one gap much wider than the others will corode that gap faster

> than the others. No? 
>
> Cheers, 
> Ralph Zekelman