RE: Better Spark Gaps

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

Original poster: "boris petkovic by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <petkovic7-at-yahoo-dot-com>


> ,
> 
> Some work that has been done seems to suggest that
> series
> gaps give higher losses, and don't improve
> efficiency in an
> overall manner, although the quenching tends to be
> better.
> Other work shows little difference in losses with
> series gaps.
> I think more work needs to be done.  Once you have a
> reasonably good gap, getting longer sparks by
> improving
> the gap has proved almost impossible so far.
> 
> It can be stated as a general truth, that many gap
> systems
> have been tried over the years, yet none has
> demonstrated
> any real advantage over the old; SRSG, the RSG, nor
> the
> single static gap with air blast.
snip;)

Hi John,

Good points.Here are my comments.
As concerns series static gap efficiency (reffering
here just to single power transfer pr-sec,not
quench),that can be even higher than that of single
spark gap electrode if power levels are
considerable.Massive and high quality material
electrodes + number of gaps optimized+ combination of
air presure flows etc.,can offer on some  systems
better efficiency than traditional rotary gap
employment employed instead.
The best would be ,of course, combination of air flow
blast series static gap and sync. rotary gap.
Here we come to the system construction issues:overall
power used,coupling pri-sec,and what is also
important:resonant frequency of TC.
Why TC resonant freq?This is a parametar which decides
togather with coupling factor, time of first notch.
Geometry of static spark gap ventileted with powerful
air flow (approaching 330 m/s) may offer quenching
after first transfer of energy to secondary,which is
nearly impossible to accomplish by best rotary alone
if high coupling (~0.2) set.
Progress here is still possible but ,as always,on a
burden of coilers' expense.

Regards,
Boris