Re: Gap Question

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

Original poster: Bart Anderson <classi6-at-classictesla-dot-com> 

Hi Luke,

Yes, I'd agree fully with Gary. But, opinions are either how someone has 
reasoned the logic or their experience, so opinions will vary, but they are 
needed. The second part of that is how you interpret the info and what you 
choose to do with it.

With that said, my opinion: the only way I see gap losses changing between 
gap types for a given breakdown V is heat dissipation and stabilization of 
breakdown V over consecutive bangs. It should be obvious that electrode 
temperature affects breakdown V. If parallel pipes have good heat 
dissipation characteristics, then that would aid stabilization of the 
breakdown V. In that respect, they would tend to have lower losses in 
comparison to some other type of gap which cannot dissipate the heat as 
well. However, the term "losses" as described here isn't as though you can 
just add more power to the assembly to make up for the lower breakdown V. 
You would have to cool the electrodes to bring the breakdown V back to 
equivalency.

The gap has a negative resistance characteristic, in that when the 
breakdown occurs, there is a current across the gap and an associated 
voltage drop across the gap. The voltage across the gap will increase if 
the current decreases. Note this is just the opposite of what you might 
think in terms of voltage and current. Now, with that in mind, if a gap has 
a lower resistance, and this resistance is negative, the current will 
follow the resistance and decrease: higher breakdown V. So, does that throw 
a wrench into the works? I'm not the right person to really discuss this 
situation (others know far more than I). That's about as much as I've 
picked up on the situation.

Take care,
Bart

Tesla list wrote:

>Original poster: "Lau, Gary" <gary.lau-at-hp-dot-com>
>Don't believe everything you read on the web, or this List.  Opinions on
>everything vary, and it's up to the reader to choose who they believe.
>I would agree with your logic; I don't think you're missing anything.
>
>Gary Lau
>MA, USA
>
>
>Original poster: "Luke" <Bluu-at-cox-dot-net>
>
>It has been said that a gap using parallel pipes will be like having
>smaller gaps in parallel and will lower the gaps resistance / loses.
>
>This does not make sense to me.  Maybe someone can enlighten me.
>
>If what is meant is, lower resistance before the gap breaks down then it
>
>would be similar to decreasing the spacing.  This would be like reducing
>
>the spacing of the gap.  That would reduce breakdown voltage and be
>undesirable.
>
>If what is meant is, lower resistance while the gap is arcing that
>doesn't
>make sense.  The gap only arcs at one place at any one time.  So how
>would
>that gap have less resistance if the arc area or distance has not
>changed.
>
>Can any one show me what I am missing?
>
>Luke Galyan
><mailto:Bluu-at-cox-dot-net>Bluu-at-cox-dot-net
>http://members.cox-dot-net/bluu
>
>
>
>