Re: sparkless rotary spark gap (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:22:21 -0400
From: Scott Bogard <teslas-intern@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: sparkless rotary spark gap (fwd)

Ameen,
     This Idea has already been thought of, check the archives under "full 
contact spark gap".  My idea was to have a rotary gap, but instead of have 
electrodes pass by each other, the G10 or whatever disk would have the 
tungsten flush with the surface, and the disk would be pinched between 2 
bronze rollers or bushings.  There are, as several have already said, 
problems with this scenario.  So, how do you prevent arcing before contact, 
which would allow most of the ring down to occur before contact, negating 
any benefits.  I suggested the use of an insulator (like really good oil) 
under which the disk could be submerged, this will allow the electrodes to 
get much closer (until the oil gets spoiled, so one will have to filter it 
constantly), but they will still arc to an extant.  Another preventive 
method would be to have about 8 or more disks in series, so that the arctime 
before contact would be practically 0 (as the physical distance would be 
greater, and approach 0 much faster).  Together these may lead to a working 
gap, but look how complicated it has become.  As scary as solid state stuff 
seems to a person like myself, with virtually no semiconductor experience or 
training, it is (for now at least) the way to go.  I have read in "popular 
science" that carbon nanotube technology will allow the construction of 
semiconductors that will be much much better than that currently available 
(1 tube can conduct 1000 times better than copper of the same size, which is 
very small granted), when this technology is perfected (I should say "if") 
very good things could happen in the coiling world.  But, with all that 
said, there is absolutely no reason you should not try to build a full 
contact spark gap.  Good luck.
Scott Bogard.

>From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
>To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: sparkless rotary spark gap (fwd)
>Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 06:48:53 -0600 (MDT)
>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 10:49:49 +0100
>From: Chris Swinson <list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: sparkless rotary spark gap (fwd)
>
>Ameen,
>
>How do you plan to hold off 10KV from your electrodes until they touch ?
>
>Chris
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 2:33 AM
>Subject: sparkless rotary spark gap (fwd)
>
>
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 00:58:02 +0000
> > From: ameen_ghavam@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: sparkless rotary spark gap
> >
> >            Alright, I'm no exptert, but I can't seem to see why it's
> > absolutely necessary to have a rotary gap spark as suppose to just
> > touching electrodes. If your electrodes touched, there would be no 
>worries
> > about quenching or overheating, but the capacitor still discharges. This
> > does mean, however, that the circuit resonates a lot longer and gives 
>the
> > capacitor less charging time. But it could be a fair tradeoff 
>considering
> > that more energy overall is transfered into the secondary. The 
>efficiency
> > may not improve, but no quenching or overheating worries, just physical
> > erosion to the electrode.
> >                       Does anyone see a reason why that wouldn't be a
> > good idea?
> >                                          Ameen Ghavam
> >
> >
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Learn.Laugh.Share. Reallivemoms is right place! 
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us