Re: WinTesla Equations Version 5.5

["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 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.

Best regards,
Bart

Tesla list wrote:

>Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
<Rscopper-at-aol-dot-com>
>
>Looks to me like no one really knows what the correct equation should be.  If
>we all decide on one I'll put it in WinTesla Version 5.5.  There's quite a bit
>of work to do on the rotary spark gap section anyway.  8400V/in was good
at the
>time I wrote Version 3.2 over 2.5 years ago.
>
>R. Scott Coppersmith 
>  
>