Re: RQ gap hookup idea

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

Original poster: "Luc by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <ludev-at-videotron.ca>

Hi Robert,

In theory it could work but if the cap keep a sufficient residual
charge ( and that often happen ) you'll end up with an
insufficient potential difference preventing the recharge arc.

Any way the best solution is to test it.

Cheers,

Luc Benard

 

Tesla list wrote:
> 
> Original poster: "J. B. Weazle McCreath by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <weazle-at-hurontel.on.ca>
> 
> Hello Coilers,
> 
> I know that the subject of spiral coils seems to be the hot topic
> at the moment, but I've had an idea today that I'd like to run by
> those on the list that use the RQ/TCBOR style gaps.  I would try
> it myself, but my shop is sub-zero at the moment!
> 
> 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!!
> 
> 73, Weazle, VE3EAR/VE3WZL
> G-1#1214
> 
> Listening: 147.030+ and 442.075+
> E-mail:    weazle-at-hurontel.on.ca
>            or ve3ear-at-rac.ca
> Web site:  http://www.hurontel.on.ca/~weazle