Re: WinTesla Equations Version 5.5

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

Original poster: "D.C. Cox by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <resonance-at-jvlnet-dot-com>


The 8.7 kV value came from some article I read several years ago written by
a Russian physicist.  I have no idea of the author's name.  It was around 12
years ago as I recall.

Dr. Resonance




----- Original Message -----
From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
To: <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: WinTesla Equations Version 5.5


> 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>