[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: FEA of new rotary spark gap



Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson" <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Ed,

Early on, I did just this. I had a 9" aluminum flywheel. I tapped 1/4-20 holes around the outer edge and screwed in 1/4" x 1.5" copper electrodes. This gizmo was belt driven. It sucked! I could probably write a book on how "not" to build a gap. I've built some real losers before I broke down and decided to take the advice of the list.

In retrospect, I suspect the problem was reignition due to the metallic outer flywheel. I'm not sure of the reason as I had about 1" from mount to electrode end. Maybe it was the use of copper.

The very next gap was my G10/tungsten assembly. It made a world of difference (I would guesstimate 40% sparklength increase just on the gap itself). Maybe others have had better luck than I did. But, I never went backwards. That was just my personal experience.

Take care,
Bart

Tesla list wrote:

Original poster: Ed Phillips <evp@xxxxxxxxxxx>

I can't see any reason why a good RSG couldn't be made using a metal disk to hold the electrodes; it would be fitted with an insulating hub which wouldn't have very much stress in it (particularly if the disk were made of steel) and there should be some significant heat sinking to the disk. There were certainly gaps made that day in "the good old days of wireless" and they would certainly get around the problems of expensive materials. Any thoughts?

Ed