Re: Terry Gap vs. TCBOR...

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

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

Hi Brett,

Now that you got the Fritz gap epoxied (I know, great timing), it would be
great to compare the Fritz and TCBOR gaps two ways.

1.  With the total gap spacing the same for each type .

2.  With the gap setting on one set so the breakdown voltage is the same as
for the other.   I think this would be the best comparison of performance.

I guess I'm thinking that since the geometry is not the same (different
diameters),  the breakdown voltage for a given gap setting may not be the
same.

Gerry R




 > Original poster: Brett Miller <brmtesla2-at-yahoo-dot-com>
 >
 > Luke (and Terry might be interested too),
 >
 > I have started the restoration of the Fritz linear
 > static gap.  I mixed up some T-88 aircraft grade epoxy
 > (good stuff I might add) and set up the cu pipes on a
 > nice 1/2" thick Lexan base I pilferred from my
 > plastics crate.  Tomorrow it should be pretty well
 > cured and I can start firing up and performing tests.
 >
 >
 > I'll soon be providing pictures of both the gaps as
 > well as scope waveforms of quenching for the
 > respective units.
 >
 > Just remember, the diameter of the pipes is much
 > greater in the TCBOR gap, so heat sinking/cooling will
 > be naturally better in the TCBOR.  This is definately
 > something to consider when analysing the results.
 > This test will definately not be controlled, nor will
 > it be double blind.  Nevertheless, I think some
 > tentative conclusions may not be life threatening.
 >
 > I must also not forget to take measurements of each
 > gap and provide total gap spacing for each gap unit
 > tested.  I used two index cards stacked to space the
 > pipes in the Fritz gap.  Those will be easy to measure
 > with a caliper.  I can use a feeler gauge for the
 > TCBOR.....something I should have done a long time
 > ago.
 >
 > I hope a few people will take an interest in this
 > little project.  I know Luke is interested (plus me),
 > so that makes it worth doing right there.  What we're
 > really wanting to know here is whether or not
 > distributing a spark over many gaps for greater
 > quenching is desirable over using few gaps to minimize
 > loss?  Where is the balance?  Is this a sensitive
 > parameter that must be matched to specific systems?
 > If we're lucky we might learn more about whether or
 > not 1st notch quenching is the "holy grail" of spark
 > gap design (see Richee Burnett's page).
 >
 > -Brett
 >
 > _
 >
 >