[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Spark gap construction
- To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: Spark gap construction
- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:00:37 -0700
- Delivered-to: teslarchive@pupman.com
- Delivered-to: tesla@pupman.com
- Old-return-path: <teslalist@twfpowerelectronics.com>
- Resent-date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:06:16 -0700 (MST)
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <V4-JzD.A.NVC.tl7qBB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Original poster: "Malcolm Watts" <m.j.watts@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Gary,
On 29 Nov 2004, at 7:40, Tesla list wrote:
> Original poster: "Lau, Gary" <gary.lau@xxxxxx>
>
> PVC may or may not be suitable, depending upon your power level, how
> much thermal mass of copper you have, and how much airflow you have
> cooling the pipes. I've always seen the sparks pretty evenly
> distributed along the length, provided the pipes are parallel with
> uniform airflow across the length. I'm personally baffled why there
> isn't preferential arcing at the ends where the ROC is less, but I'm
> happy for that!
I've wondered that too. It may be that the electric field lines are
no longer the shortest since they would tend to belly out from the
ends rather than going straight-line between the two surfaces and the
spark is taking the shortest path according to the e-field.
?
Malcolm
<snip>