Re: Tank cap problem

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

Original poster: "Malcolm Watts by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <m.j.watts-at-massey.ac.nz>

Hi Terry,

On 3 Sep 2001, at 12:51, Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "Terry Fritz" <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>
> 
> Hi Frank,
> 
> Triggered gaps would basically act as a direct replacement for rotary sync
> gaps.  
> 
> 1.  They can be far more easily controlled and the dwell angle is a
simple knob
> adjustement.  
> 
> 2.  They appear to have lower loss and thus allow more energy to go into the
> streamers.

Does that really stand to reason? How can a gap with a longer 
discharge path really have a lower loss than one with a shorter 
discharge path? Dr Rzesotarski's figures clearly show the triggered 
gap as having the higher loss of the two he measured.
     The one saving grace might be the early quench thereby reducing 
losses by preventing more than a single energy transfer but that 
doesn't = a lower conduction loss. 

Regards,
Malcolm

> 3.  They are very hot and have a lower and longer lasting on cycle.  This
> lowers the gap loss and also lowers the zero crossing spikes which may help
> reduce radio interference.  
> 
> 4.  They are light, simple, cheap, and easy to make.
> 
> 5.  They can be made virtually maintenance free and they "should" use less
> power than a motor and have no moving parts.
> 
> The only real disadvantage is they are very new and all the answers about how
> to best build them are not yet known.  However, everyone seems very pleased
> with their performance no matter how they are built.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
>         Terry
> 
> 
> 
> At 11:10 AM 9/3/2001 -0400, you wrote: 
> 
> >
> > Terry 
> >             What would the value be for a triggered gap cause thats
what im 
> > going to be using? 
> >
> >
> >
     
> >
> >  -Frank
> 
> 
> 
> 
>