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

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

Original poster: "Malcolm Watts" <m.j.watts-at-massey.ac.nz> 

Hi Bart,

On 6 Mar 2004, at 14:25, Tesla list wrote:

 > Original poster: Bart Anderson <classi6-at-classictesla-dot-com>
 >
 > Hi Malcolm,
 >
 > Tesla list wrote:
 >
 > >Original poster: "Malcolm Watts" <m.j.watts-at-massey.ac.nz>
 > >Hi Bart,
 > >
 > >On 3 Mar 2004, at 21:39, Tesla list wrote:
 > >
 > > > I'm not sure that's a good method of comparison either. There are
 > > > too many differences. The fact that the electrode diameters are
 > > > different size (1.5"? and .5"?) is the biggest problem for the
 > > > comparison. It's simply a comparison of pipes layed flat or
 > > > curved. Because the electrode size is so different throws a pretty
 > > > good size wrench into the comparison (of gap styles). To do this
 > > > would require the same gap spacing and material/diameter
 > > > electrodes. Then one could compare the two to some reasonable
 > > > degree.
 > >
 > >I think once one goes down that path, it is then simply a question of
 > >how many gaps/pipe sections work best for a particular coil. My
 > >preference for a comparison is to ensure firing voltage is the same
 > >for whatever gap types are being compared. That means _monitoring_
 > >the firing voltage, not relying on some variac setting which is
 > >obviously subject to resonant charging. This enables the meaningful
 > >inclusion of any type of gap in such tests.
 > >
 > >Malcolm
 >
 >
 > I agree that monitored and equal voltage is necessary for a
 > comparison. As far as I'm concerned, neither of the two mentioned gap
 > types are really different. The only difference I see significant is
 > how one might perform in the cooling arena vs. the other. The number
 > of sections is directly related to this, but is also related to
 > quenching. As per the negative resistance discussion recently, and
 > with this thread, I was contemplating the how the arc channel should
 > react to an increase in electrodes, such as a pipe gap. With the total
 > gap the same, the arc width may or may not be the same width (that's a
 > fun one to think about).
 >
 > For a 2 gap arrangement, we have 3 electrodes, air between 2 gaps, and
 > the air around. Here, the influence of the arc across the first of the
 > two gaps is not influenced by the arc between the second gap, at least
 > there is a nice cool electrode between the two arcs. The center
 > electrode acts as a barrier which divides the arc into seperate
 > thermal events. The greater number of pipe sections should aid in this
 > division. Smaller pipe diameters (within reason) with a greater number
 > of pipe sections for the offset may be better equiped for cooling and
 > quenching (all other factors such as forced air, etc., being the same)
 > than larger diameters with a smaller number of sections.
 >
 > Take care,
 > Bart

I'm wondering whether the voltage drop per gap section * number of
sections vs the drop over a single arc covering the same total
distance at the same currents should now be quantified. It might be
quite interesting to know what the difference is (I'm sure there will
be one unless coincidences are prolific).

Malcolm