Re: Dwell time, etc

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: FutureT@xxxxxxx 

In a message dated 3/29/06 12:33:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:


> In evaluating claims that adjusting dwell time may produce longer
> sparks, one should remember that terms "dwell" and "quench" are
> frequently misunderstood and misused.  I can't imagine how one might
> adjust the dwell time of an RSG short of replacing it completely with a
> different RSG.  Perhaps such claims were actually referring to the phase
> of a sync RSG?  I apologize if I've underestimated the validity of said
> claims, but in a forum where what shape constitutes a sphere is in
> dispute, it's vital to be clear on terminology if we're to make any
> headway.
>
> Gary Lau


Gary,

The experimenter could reduce the mechanical dwell time
by replacing the electrodes with thinner ones.  Also the
experimenter can offset some electrodes, so that one
electrode is leaving the overlap area while the other is
approaching.  I've experimented with this, but it didn't
help my spark length.  See my other posts on this topic
today also.  Although I said in my other posts that
it usually makes no difference (the mechanical dwell)....
it would make a difference if the mechanical dwell is
so short that it truly helps to give first notch or first
energy-transfer quenching (if first notch quenching
itself is really a benefit).  The problem with such a
fast dwell (such as when using offset), is that it may
actually inhibit the gap from firing I believe, and
give similar effects to using a too-wide rotary gap spacing.
So the negative factor may be cancelling any positive
effect of the fast mechanical dwell.

John