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>

In a message dated 04/24/2002 4:42:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
tesla-at-pupman-dot-com writes:


>
> Subj:Re: More on spark delay 
> Date:04/24/2002 4:42:33 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 4/24/02 2:17:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> writes:
>
>
> >
> > Thus, when I do manage to change my IC-counter circuit so as to allow
> > shut-off
> > after chosen quantities of excitation cycles, I'll also want to change the
> > timing circuits to allow rep. rates in excess of 120 Hz.  To do that, I'll
> > need
> > to try again to get an R-C circuit to work. I face more exasperation, I
> fear,
> > and at my age I don't need that.  
>
>
>
> Ken,
>
> Well, 120 bps may be sufficient, since that's where I get my
> best results in spark gap TC's.  My results at 60 bps were almost
> as good actually.  But 120 bps tends to be easier to deal with
> from a spark coalesce standpoint.  I personally would go with
> 120 bps, to avoid the difficulties of achieving higher pulse rates
> with the SSTC.
>
> It may be useful to calculate the amount of energy which
> goes into the SSTC spark in the first hundred milliseconds or so.
> This could be compared to the bang size of a SGTC perhaps
> to some degree, for comparative purposes.  
>
> Cheers,
> John
>



Thanks for those observations, John.  I'll try that before going further since
the spark-duration change will be a lot less irksome than the power-supply
change.  My guess is, though, that I'm going to be seeing relatively wimpy
sparks.

As to such calculation...probably too many variables to make such an effort all
that meaningful.

Ken