Re: More on spark delay

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

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

John (& all)-

See end...

In a message dated 04/23/2002 1:03:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
tesla-at-pupman-dot-com writes:


>
> Subj:Re: More on spark delay 
> Date:04/23/2002 1:03:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> From:<mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> To:<mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Sent from the Internet 
>
>
>
> Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
> <FutureT-at-aol-dot-com>
>
> In a message dated 4/23/02 10:29:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> writes:
>
>
> >
> > >So my supposition remains:  It is the capability of spark-gap systems to
> > >deliver higher power during the (at least first part of) 100 us or so that
> > >allows for the longer sparks.  And it is the physical/thermal inertia of
> the
> > >air in the path of the spark that causes the 100-us phenomenon to exist.
> > >
> > >But perhaps this is old-hat to spark experts.  Comments?...
> > >
> > >Ken Herrick
>
>
>
> Ken,
>
> I would think that a first step would be to compare the spark length
> for a spark gap TC running at 16 bps, to match the 16 bps of your
> system.  Maybe such operation would show equal spark lengths
> for each system? (assuming equal peak toroid voltages, with 
> equal toroid sizes.)  I still think that most of the power in your system
> is being "wasted" in the sense of feeding power for a too-long
> duration (7mS), at a too slow pulse-rate.  This seems to make
> the spark bright and thick,
> rather than long.  In a spark gap TC, the spark pulse duration is short,
> so it has no time to grow bright and thick.  There's no time for the spark
> impedance to drop very much.  Instead, the streamer
> path cools some, then reignites and extends on the next "bang".
> These bangs come close enough together to give proper spark
> length growth.  For best growth, it seems the break-rate must
> be neither too fast nor too slow.  I have no idea if my ideas are
> correct here.  It's possible that what I mention is only a part of the
> answer.  
>
> In any case, it's definitely a most interesting subject, and your
> analyses are most appreciated.  It would be good to prove the
> issue one way or another.
>
> Cheers,
> John


Just a quick response (before dinner...):  I suppose such a comparison would be
difficult to do, given all the other variables.  But you & others have
suggested to me before that I might cut down on my time duration & I've been
meaning to experiment with that but haven't yet.  I  think I will adapt my
cycle-counter so that I can effect a shut-off at 64 cycles, 128, 256, etc. 
That will just take some wire-wrap re-wiring (once I figure out what to
re-wire, that is) & adding a switch.  I'll try to get to it in the next few
days--or weeks.

I do like the loud bang I get from fat sparks (& I'm sure that's what has, in
part, made me pretty deaf...).

Ken Herrick