Re: RQ gap hookup idea

["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 2/18/02 3:56:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
writes:

Weazel,

The gaps would behave as a voltage divider, so you'd get
much less voltage and energy in the tank.  The spark output would
be much weaker, in proportion to the number of gaps used in the
tank vs the total number.

cheers,
John


>
> What would happen if you where to wire the gap so as to connect the
> power source (NST, OBIT, etc.) across the entire gap, but the tank
> circuit across a fewer number of the segments?  In my own gap, I've
> seven copper pipes meaning 6 gaps in total, and the idea would have
> six of the gaps for the "charging" circuit but only four gaps used
> in the "tank" circuit.
>
> My thinking is that by using fewer gaps in the "tank" circuit, you
> reduce your gap losses, yet by having the "charging" circuit make 
> use of all six gaps, the tendacy to power arc should be minimised,
> if I'm seeing this correctly.  Maybe the idea won't work at all, 
> but I'd like to know if it's feasable..-dot-come on spring and warmer
> weather for coiling!!