Re: 15/60 performance

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

Original poster: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com 

In a message dated 1/19/04 8:23:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
tesla-at-pupman-dot-com writes:

>So for the rotary I could expect 48" for the 900 watts
>And for the static I could expect 36"
>
>But something in me still wants to try the SRSG but if I caneasily
>expect 40"+ arcs with a static maybe ill go that way and save the SRSG
>for later (as someone wrote to me "there's always tomorrow").


Luke,

With the TT-42 coil (actually a different coil but similar to the
TT-42), I got 42" sparks using the SRSG, and I think I got 38" or 39"
sparks using the static gap.  THere wasn't a great deal of difference
in spark length.  Where the difference was was in the *quality* of
the sparks.  The static gap sparks were wimpy, erratic, unsteady.
The SRSG sparks were bright, strong, steady, intense, with
long wavering floating fantastic arc streamers.  A thing of beauty and
wonder !

Nevertheless, my recommendation is that you build
the coil with a static gap first, then install the SRSG later.  It
should be noted that often folks installed an SRSG but got
weaker performance than with their static gap.  THis was due
to the design of their coil.  I used to spend a lot of time explaining
to folks that one cannot just plop an SRSG into any coil and
expect to get better results.  The design of a coil for 120 bps
SRSG operation is more critical than static gap systems in many
cases.  This is because a static gap system will more or less
determine its own natural break-rate based on teh capacitor value
and the power available.  Some of this issue has been overcome and
negated with the advent of LTR use, but it was a big deal "back when".

John