Re: Triggered gaps vs Sync rotary

["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 Jim,

Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "Jim Lux by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
<jimlux-at-earthlink-dot-net>
>
> One wonders why the SRSG seems to have better performance?  What aspect of
> the triggered gap is the problem? On-resistance? Quenching?

I didn't measure the issue, it was just an observation over a number of
runs (I used a simple
circuit at first then went on to the zero-crossing detection). Others have
commented similarly.
I do believe I was running too much power for my triggered gap. Probably
with a better setup and
enough air flow, the triggered gap might hit SRSG performance. I think the
mechanical dynamics
are more the limiting factor than say an electrical cause, athough
quenching is affected (not so
much triggering due to the large gap capability). Electrically, the John
Tebbs circuit uses
zero-crossing detection and should be comparable to an SRSG. In my opinion,
I think all the
existing circuits need a little bit of refinement and there's lots of room
for new ones. It's
one of those designs I'd like to do, but something else always comes up.
The SRSG has proved
itself out time and time again as you know. It's so easy just to grab it
and throw it under the
coil and know what to expect. Power handling, transients, and trigger
stability are the areas of
work which I think are still needed. I haven't heard of anything new in
those areas lately, but
maybe I just haven't heard.

Take care,
Bart