[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: srsg setup probs

Original poster: "rheidlebaugh by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <rheidlebaugh-at-zialink-dot-com>

Colin: It is true that stainless steel changes resistance as the surface
crystalizes. This is in micro-ohms range and is well outside the range that
we care about in the TC world. If it maters to you use hi-nickel stainless.
   Robert  H

> From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 20:43:48 -0600
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: srsg setup probs
> Resent-From: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Resent-Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 20:51:57 -0600
> Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson by way of Terry Fritz
> <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <tesla123-at-pacbell-dot-net>
> Colin,
> You touched on something rarely talked about. Just like the main spark
> gap, when a safety gap fires, there
> are ions floating around between electrodes which naturally lowers the
> arc voltage of the safety gap to
> some degree. This might be problematic if the safety gap is set slightly
> above the spark gap voltage, and
> may naturally cause us to widen the safety gap wider than we should.
> FWIW, I position my safety gap in
> line with my srsg so the natural air currents help clear out ions at the
> safety gap. Might as well take
> advantage of circulating air currents when you can to maintain some
> consistency.
> Take care,
> Bart
> Tesla list wrote:
>> Original poster: "colin.heath4 by way of Terry Fritz
> <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <colin.heath4-at-ntlworld-dot-com>
>> hi bart
>> thanks for your comments i think i have a prob using stainless
>> for the safety gap it seems once stainless has fired a few times it forms a
>> path through it with less resistance
>> cheers
>> colin
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Tesla list <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
>> To: <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
>> Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 9:56 PM
>> Subject: Re: srsg setup probs
>>> Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson by way of Terry Fritz
>> <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <tesla123-at-pacbell-dot-net>
>>> Hi Colin,
>>> I would check the srsg phasing. You may now be 180 out. I assume you run a
>>> narrow gap for the srsg? I run
>>> as narrow as possible (about 2.5mm between stationary and rotating) to
>>> allow the timing to be in control
>>> as much as possible (have to make sure there's no wobble in the disc). I
>>> also only use 2 stationary
>>> electrodes to keep the total gap spacing down to about 5mm for the same
>>> reason. However, I suspect phasing
>>> is out and cap voltage peaks between alignment. I use 1" solid brass
>>> spheres for the safety gap (to get
>>> the highest arc voltage for the least gap width) and I put the safety gap
>>> across the rotary.
>>> Take care,
>>> Bart
>>> Tesla list wrote:
>>>> Original poster: "colin.heath4 by way of Terry Fritz
>>> <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <colin.heath4-at-ntlworld-dot-com>
>>>> hi all
>>>> i am currently running my srsg at 400bps (im from uk)
>>>> and i wanted to run at 200bps as the cap needs this to charge nearly
>> fully
>>>> i removed every other electrode and tried to setup but the safety gap
>> kept
>>>> firing i got it so if i flicked on and off a few times the power supply
>>> that is
>>>> it would run then with a massise improvement in performance i think up
>> to 6'
>>>> my question is could this 200bps be causing inductive kick or some other
>>> effect
>>>> creating the need to very slightly open my safety gaps?
>>>> also my safety gaps are rounded electrodes made from stainless steel
>>>> any help would be much appreciated
>>>> many thanks
>>>> colin heath
>> <http://www.geocities-dot-com/colinheath2002/>www.geocities-dot-com/colinheath2002/