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

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

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

Gerry,

Hi...I believe that the results of this test seem to
agree strongly with your number 2 below...at least
with my particular parameters and specs for my 6"
system.  I will comment further later (hopefully), but
it's 3:34am right now.  Thanks again.

-Brett


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