Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson" <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Hi Dmitry, Tesla list wrote:
Many others tried the triggered sync gap back then also. I guess no one else did the voltage or power comparison either.
I was one of those that tried the triggered spark gap. John Tebbs version and one other. It is a worthy idea that could likely be improved, but I have to admit, I didn't check voltage or power either. I was more interested at the time if it could compare to an RSG based on spark output. In my situation, it did not. If I were to go that route again, I would certainly do some things differently. But, I have not plans, too many other things in the works.
Gap opening speed would certainly increase with the number of gaps. If all gaps are geometrically the same, some linearity will occur. But I have never heard of a successful mechanical opening that could actually quench the arc (I've heard some claims, but have never realized measurements). We can understand that if gap opening speed can be adjusted above and below actual transfer time, there is a possibility that it "may" aid quenching. I, however, am skeptical.> rotary, and then added 2 more gaps to make it a 4 gap series rotary. > The spark length was the same in either case. when you increase the number of gaps N times, wouldn`t they break at a shorter _individual_ distance, such that lenght of a total gap wouldn`t increase N times too, but instead say only N/2 times (or even smaller)? if so, then you can do this _within reasonable limits_ with no harm, trying to increase "gap opening speed" for example?
Take care, Bart