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

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

Original poster: "Gerry Reynolds" <gerryreynolds-at-earthlink-dot-net> 

Hi Brett,

I for one have enjoyed this tread and appreciate your experiments.  Any
experiments however less than ideal can be useful, even if only to improve
ones insight to planning the next set of experiments.

I have a Fritz (sorta) style gap employing 12 pipes and 11 gaps and I'm
pretty happy with it.  I seem to get 1st notch quenching with streamer
loading but no power arcing.  I have no way of knowing if it is optimized
but between your experiments and comments on another thread about losses in
static gaps, I'm beginning to think that there are two factors affected by
the number of gaps used to build a spark gap.

1.  The power loss in a spark gap seems to be a function of the number of
gaps.  ie, the more gaps, the greater the loss (for a given current).  This
would be due to the voltage drop across the extra electode/air interfaces.
The more gaps, the more interfaces.  The voltage drop across the arc itself
(air only) would be a function of the length of the arc.

2.  The ability of the spark gap to quench seems to also be a function of
the number of gaps.  ie, the more gaps, the easier it is to quench.  The
power loss is distributed over more electodes and thus easier to cool.  Ion
generation is distributed and maybe easier to evacuate.

If the above is correct, then #1 jwould say to reduce the number of gaps
while #2 would say to increase the number of gaps.  Maybe the optimum design
is to increase the number of gaps only until desired quenching is obtained.

Comments welcomed.

Gerry R




 > Original poster: Brett Miller <brmtesla2-at-yahoo-dot-com>
 >
 >
 >
 > Remember guys, (of course I'm not really sure if
 > people are reading the entire posts anyway) I said
 > going into it that this was going to highly anecdotal
 > and that I lack the cash to purchase vacuum current
 > probes for my scope, or the parts to build fiber
 > probes.  When I get that kind of test equipment you
 > bet I'll know how to use it and be using it whenever
 > possible.  The main objective was really to see which
 > gap would perform better in my system and I now have a
 > pretty good idea where that is heading...or at least I
 > will when I run them again at optimum performance.
 >
 > I wasn't going for a nobel here, it was very casual
 > thing...I was aware of the problems and multiple
 > variables not being addressed.  Although one thing I
 > *was* interested in seeing is the efield display on
 > the scope which I still believe appears to show
 > superior quenching in the Fritz gap.
 >
 > -Brett
 >