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

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

Original poster: Brett Miller <brmtesla2-at-yahoo-dot-com> 


John,

--- Tesla list <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com> wrote:
 > 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
 >
 >

Yeah, I know for a fact that the TCBOR is a great
performer (judging by spark length) in that system
with both an LTR and resonant cap in the tank,
resulting in arc lengths approaching 4 feet (actual
record point to point power arc to a grounded target
being 45 inches).

The test of the other night was performed with as
close to the same spacing for both gaps as I could
get, due to the suggestion of someone on this list.
I think it is possible for us to learn some things
from that test, or at least provide food for thought
to design better more precise and useful tests in the
future.  One thing I learned is that I was definately
right about Lexan being a far superior base than
unfinished Maple for a static gap -- at least in my
climate.

I will be glad to provide a test judging the
performance (spark length) of both gaps running at
optimized levels.  It won't be hard since I already
know where the TCBOR should be set.  I may have to
switch to LTR for these tests to be kinder to the
transformer...plus I may slap together a Terry Filter.

Thanks for your discussion....opinions and armchair
stuff welcome.  This was an armchair "study" anyway.

-Brett