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

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

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

Bart,

Yes.  Your photo detailing 3rd notch quenching looks
just like the trace I show for the TCBOR.  I noticed
the peculiarity in the Terry gap trace only showing
half the modulation envelope.  That's why I stated in
my original post (in this thread) that it was either
1st or 2nd notch quenching and I needed you guys to
help figure that one out.  I probably need to try to
get a complete trace during a Fritz gap firing in my
system.

The purpose of this was to show Luke what would happen
in my particular system if I tried each gap at a
similar spacing.

-Brett


--- Tesla list <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com> wrote:
 > Original poster: Bart Anderson
 > <classi6-at-classictesla-dot-com>
 >
 > Hi Brett,
 >
 > For the particular setup, the Terry Gap was
 > performing better. What you
 > show as 1st notch quenching looks to me to be 2nd
 > notch quenching. Here's
 > an image detailing 3rd notch quenching. Just analyze
 > this image, compare to
 > your image, and you should have no problem
 > discerning the difference.
 >
 > http://www.classictesla-dot-com/java/script/notch2.jpg
 >
 > Here is what I see in "your" image:
 > 1) the gap fires (furthest left edge of waveform,
 > but oddly, the scope only
 > picks up half of the transfer).
 > 2) energy transfer from primary to secondary = 1st
 > primary notch = highest
 > envelope amplitude
 > 3) energy transfer from secondary back to primary =
 > 1st secondary notch =
 > lowest envolope amplitude
 > 4) energy transfer from primary to secondary = 2nd
 > primary notch = 2nd
 > highest envelope amplitude
 > 5) the secondary rings down from the 2nd primary
 > notch because the gap
 > stopped conducting, thus, it didn't transfer back
 > across the gap to the
 > primary. All it could do at that point is ring down.
 >
 > Take care,
 > Bart
 >
 > Tesla list wrote:
 >
 > >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
 > >
 > >
 > >--- Tesla list <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com> wrote:
 > > > Original poster: "Malcolm Watts"
 > > > <m.j.watts-at-massey.ac.nz>
 > > >
 > > > Hi Bart,
 > > >
 > > > On 3 Mar 2004, at 21:39, Tesla list wrote:
 > > >
 > > >  > Original poster: Bart Anderson
 > > > <classi6-at-classictesla-dot-com>
 > > >  >
 > > >  > Hi Brett, John,
 > > >  >
 > > >  > Tesla list 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:
 > > >  > >
 > > >  > >
 > > >  > >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.
 > > >  > ><snip>
 > > >  >
 > > >  > 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
 > > >
 > >