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 4/13/02 7:19:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
writes:


>
> 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.



Boris,

That is interesting, I didn't know that a series static
gap could give better single power transfer than a
single spark gap at high powers.  Are you saying
that things work one way at low powers, and the
opposite way at high powers?  IOW, a series static
gap is worse than a single gap at low powers, but
better at higher powers?  What causes this change
in efficiency from low to high powers?

    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.



It may be of great benefit to use a different quenching
gas such as hydrogen, which offers fast deionization,
and may help to achieve the elusive 1st transfer quench
at tighter couplings.  This gas-quencher system could be
either an external gap in series with the rotary gap, or a
series rotary gap could be used, in an enclosure containing
a quenching gas.  These kinds of tests would most likely 
throw a great light of understanding upon the issue.

>
> 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.



I haven't seen any benefit from using lower resonant
frequencies in my simple tests, but I agree that it should
give a benefit.  This, along with a hydrogen quench atmosphere,
or perhaps some other gas, may be very beneficial.  An
enclosure for the gas, along with some sort of forced air or water
radiator cooling system would probably be needed, to extract 
the heat, especially at high powers.


>
> 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.



If 1st transfer quenching can be achieved without
a special gas, but simply with a powerful air blast,
that would be excellent, since simplicity is desireable.
Powerful air blasts may disrupt the firing, or cause
looping arcs in some cases maybe.

I agree that such tests are needed.  If things behave
differently at higher powers, then much of my lower power
work may be misleading in the sense of general trends.

Cheers,
John


>
> Regards,
> Boris