Re: Better Spark Gaps

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

Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <FutureT-at-aol-dot-com>

In a message dated 4/10/02 1:03:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
writes:


>
> Triggered spark gaps are a good innovation to get rid of
> dangerous RSGs, but the gap is even longer and air blasts are usually needed
> to quench them.  So they are even less efficient.

Steve,

Interestingly, I obtained the same spark length using an SRSG,
and a STSG.  The theoretical higher losses of the STSG did not
make a noticeable difference.  This would suggest that the gap
losses are not that high to begin with.  Another possibility is
that the STSG is able to fire at a slightly higher voltage due to
a better ability to fire on a downward sloping waveform compared
to the SRSG.  I didn't scope the firing voltage in that comparison,
unfortunately. 

If a gap could be forced to quench better, without raising losses,
this would permit us to tighten the coupling perhaps, and reduce
gap losses in that way.  A tighter coupling may be difficult
to use, even with perfect quenching, if higher order resonances 
cause uncontrollable racing sparks.

Cheers,
John