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>

On 4 Sep 2001, at 13:49, Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "Jason by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
<jasonp-at-btinternet-dot-com>
> 
> Hi Malcom, Terry, All
> 
> Triggered gaps are very good bu can be inefficient if not properly made. I
> would go for an RQ style multi stage gap with the trigger between the first
> and second segments of the pipe personally.
> 
> Regards,
> Jason

My preference is for single section gaps. There are inherent 
inefficiencies in wide gap spacings.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> To: <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:08 AM
> Subject: Re: Tank cap problem
> 
> 
> > Original poster: "Terry Fritz" <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>
> >
> > Hi Malcolm,
> >
> > The triggered gap's much hotter arc channel seems to give better
> > performance.  Although the loss charts:
> >
> > http://hot-streamer-dot-com/temp/TgapCompare.gif
> >
> > do not show a giant difference.  "I think" the very clean switching action
> > is doing something good.  I don't have much to back that up, but it is my
> > "feeling" that the triggered gaps seem to really "like" to produce
> > streamers.  More work is needed...  Perhaps the zero crossings are not
> > wasting power but confusing the coil's smooth operation to some extent...

Again, the difference in ringdown waveforms between the two types was 
pretty stark, at least on the graphs I saw. This was supported by 
figures given in the accompanying table. Perhaps the gaps like to 
produce streamers as gap spacing no longer controls the cap voltage.

Regards,
malcolm


> > Triggered gap work very well.  However, they are not working the way "i"
> > think they should.  There are some new subtle things going on.  I keep
> > thinking it is miss firing or noise affecting the dimmers but there is
> more
> > going on...
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Terry
> >
> >
> > At 08:59 AM 9/4/2001 +1200, you wrote:
> > >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
> > >
> msnip...
> 
> 
>