Re: new idea for a spark gap

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

Original poster: "Jim Lux" <jimlux-at-earthlink-dot-net> 

Your conclusions are basically correct.. Typically, the chamber is filled
with alcohol vapor, which dissociates, leaving hydrogen after the oxygen is
consumed in oxidizing the copper.  Hydrogen is very good at quenching.

Mostly, though, it's the hassle of high pressures, and getting the heat out
of the gap electrodes.  In free air, a few tens of watts can be dissipated
just in ordinary air currents without noticing it. Put it inside a box,
though, and the heat has a hard time getting out, and hot electrodes don't
work too well.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
To: <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 1:51 PM
Subject: new idea for a spark gap


 > Original poster: sean <sean-at-nc.rr-dot-com>
 >
 > I have built the terry gap which is about 12 small gaps.  It works ok,
 > but it seems like a lot of energy is wasted here.
 >
 > Would it be instead more efficiant to have 1 small gap in an enclosed
 > chamber under high pressure?  My thinking is that the higher pressure
 > would cause the breakdown voltage to be higher allowing the gap to be
 > smaller and have less loss.  Since it is enclosed, the oxygen would be
 > quickly consumed leaving mostly nitrogen which has a better breakdown
 > voltage as well.
 >
 > Is it even worth building?
 > any comments greatly appreciated
 > --
 > sean <sean-at-nc.rr-dot-com>
 >
 >