Re: Fritz vs TCBOR -- initial results in...

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

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

In a message dated 3/2/04 11:16:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
tesla-at-pupman-dot-com writes:

>I know from experience of using that same TCBOR in
>this system that it performs wonderfully when opened
>up to a much wider spacing using between 4 and 6 gaps.
>At 3 gaps and at the .158" test spacing it performed
>poorly streamer length (and apparently quenching)
>wise.


Brett,

If I can be so bold as to give my opinion here, I think
the best way to compare the TCBOR gap vs. Fritz
gap would be to use the gap spacings that give the best
results for each type of gap.  This.. rather than using equal
total gap spacings.  For example if the longest sparks
that the TCBOR gap can give with optimal pipe spacings are 36",
and if the Fritz gap gives 38" with the optimal number of
pipes in use, then I would see the Fritz gap as more efficient.
Other factors to compare would be the quality and steadiness
of the gap systems, and possible overheating, etc.

I can't see the purpose of comparing the optimized Fritz
gap with the non-optimized TCBOR gap.  The TCBOR gap
needs to have more than 3 pipes in use for best results.
You mentioned that the TCBOR gap worked better with more
gaps in use and with a different total gap width
than the Fritz gap.  I would use that setup for comparison.

The TCBOR gap may also give a different actual breakdown
voltage when it is adjusted for a total gap spacing that is equal
to the Fritz total gap spacing.  This probably causes a misleading
result when equal total gap spacings are used. This is the reason
for optimizing each type of gap before comparing the results.

Cheers,
John