Re: THOR Bang energy vs. streamer length measured

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

Original poster: "jimmy hynes" <chunkyboy86-at-yahoo-dot-com> 

Hey,

I am interested in the tests you are doing! I didn't post about it before 
because I didn't really
have anything to say. Keep up the good work!

--- Tesla list <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com> wrote:
 > Original poster: Marco.Denicolai-at-tellabs-dot-com
 >
 > Hello all,
 >
 > I mailed already once this on July 5th. I had almost no feedback. Was it
 > because the most of you was on vacation or because this material is
 > simply not for you (don't care, too difficult, useless, just crap,
 > etc.)?
 > To get an answer to this question I'm posting it again here below.
 >
 > *************************************
 >
 > I have completed the first set of measurements on Thor and I was
 > thinking to share with you my findings.
 >
 > I have changed the bang energy (primary capacitor voltage), the RSG
 > rotating rate and the grounded target distance. For each position I have
 > measured "how well" the target was reached. In particular I was able to:
 >
 > - document how the streamer grows length from bang to bang
 > - model the hit probability with a Weibull distribution
 > - show that a change in the RSG rotating rate DOESN'T influence the
 > streamer length
 >
 > Read the whole story (includes diagrams and data) at:
 >
 > http://www.iki.fi/dncmrc/meas/performance.htm
 >
 > My "performance" measurement method offers a very good repeatibility and
 > can be easily used with any SSTC. It is very easy to test a supposed
 > performance improvements by using it.
 > I hope to receive some feedback also on it, considering also the recent
 > debate about the "energy and power" stuff.
 >
 > Suggestions, questions, comments and corrections are all welcome.
 >
 > Best Regards
 >
 > P.S: Coming next -> New measurements with RSG gap amount reduced from 4
 > to 2. Any improvements? We'll see...
 >
 > **************************************
 >
 > Regards
 >
 >
 >
 >


=====
Jimmy