Re: WinTesla Equations Version 5.5

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

Original poster: "Malcolm Watts by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <m.j.watts-at-massey.ac.nz>

Hi Bart,

On 25 Oct 2002, at 11:27, Tesla list wrote:

 > Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson by way of Terry Fritz 
<twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <tesla123-at-pacbell-dot-net>
 >
 > Hi Scott,
 >
 > I'd agree (to a degree).
 >
 > There are several equations that could get very close, "BUT" only
 > assuming our inputs represent whatever equation is used. If we try to
 > use a ball-ball gap equation with a "non-conforming" electrode shape or
 > environment, then calculations are just good for the mind and nothing more.
 >
 > If 8400v/in has been good in the past as a nice round value for the
 > various designs coilers build, then it should work in the future. There
 > isn't any "one" equation in the gap arena which fits all. There are
 > several that could model gaps very well if built conforming.
 >
 > I don't know where the 8400v/in came from originally. It must be
 > empirical and I can see it good for gaps nearly identical to the test
 > gap. However, the hypothetical test gap may be well centered around our
 > common range of gaps considering most of our coils are very similar
 > (voltages, capacity's, inductance's, etc.). In other words, for a
 > one-fits-most equation, it may be as good as you can get.

I first saw a figure of 8.7kV/inch in some of the Corum's literature.
It was given as the voltage/length of a TC output discharge. I never
gave it any credence since it totally ignored breakrate and its
influence on streamer length.

Regards,
Malcolm
<snip>