Re: Gap Power Levels

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

Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <tesla123-at-pacbell-dot-net>

Hi David,

Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
<Tesla729-at-cs-dot-com>
>
> In a message dated 8/12/02 7:06:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> writes:
> < I tried a triggered air-cooled RQ gap up to 4kVA and although it worked
> < fine, it  just didn't perform as well as my RSG. I also ran the same gap
> without the
> < trigger and it didn't change much.
>
> So you were able to run the triggered gap at 4 kVA but it didn't perform
> as well as it did with the RSG. It would appear that the triggered gap
> obviously was not quenching or dissipating heat as effectively as the
> RSG. I would assume if you increased the power level further beyond
> 4 kVA that the decreased performance of the triggered gap as opposed
> to the RSG would only become more prominent. I think this emphasizes
> my point, that an RSG (whether sync or asynch) is basically essential
> for pole pig level coiling. As I said before, just MHO. If someone can
> prove me wrong, then please do as I would really be intersted in seeing
> a stationary RQ style SG operating at > 5 kVA power levels that actually
> worked as well ( had equal length output streamers ) as its RSG
> counterpart :-)
>
> Sparkin' in Memphis,
> David Rieben

I think the trigger gap has lots of potential (especially with low voltage
MOTs).
But they will probably never outperform a well built RSG. Still, I guess it is
possible to run in a static gap mode at higher powers if given adequate
cooling and
choosing the right design and materials. I think in the end it would just
be easier
and probably cheaper to build an RSG.

Take care,
Bart