Re: The MTSG Metlicka Triggered Gap... (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: List moderator <mod1@xxxxxxxxxx>



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 10:01:38 EDT
From: FutureT@xxxxxxx
To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: The MTSG Metlicka Triggered Gap... (fwd)

 
In a message dated 5/13/2007 6:13:29 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:

All,

In any case, it always seemed like the triggered  gap
should have been more popular with disruptive coilers.
I figured it  would make the SRSG obsolete, yet it
apparently did not.  Perhaps I  was gone when some
crutial impracticality was found it the Triggered  gap?
Anyone have any insight?

-Brett



Brett,
 
You bring up an interesting observation.  I think there may be a  few
reasons why the SRSG did not disappear.  First of all the  triggered
gap system was a little touchy.  Sometimes it was difficult to  get
sufficient phase range using the original design.  Some other  designs
for the trigger circuit were tried and each had some difficulties at
times.  Surely if more time and effort was spent, more  stable
triggering designs would have been developed.  Another issue is
that for the gap to function, the gap had to be set very wide.   For
example I had to set the main gap at about 3/4" for my TT-42 coil
when I tried the system on that coil.  With the gap set so wide,
the noise of the gap was fearsome, and the light given off by the
gap was astounding.  It was speculated that the losses must have
been quite high in the gap.  Despite this, the spark length was  the
same as when using the SRSG.  I think the triggered gap is  actually
able to fire closer to the peak transformer voltage.  This  higher
firing voltage may have made up for the greater losses in the
triggered gap.  Another possibility is that gap losses in  general
are lower than commonly thought.  In any case the standard SRSG
design runs much quieter and doesn't give off excessive light.
Still another factor is that many coilers prefer to build a more
 traditionally designed coil by keeping the mechanical gap design 
of the SRSG.  I'm not sure how large of a coil has been tested  with
a triggered gap.  My TT-42 is powered by a 12/30 NST.  In  any
larger coil, the drawbacks I mentioned above would be  magnified. 
Also around the same time that folks were experimenting with the
triggered gap, I introduced the electrical phase controller circuit
for SRSGs.  This made it faster and easier to set the phase of  SRSGs,
by allowing for electrical remote real-time phase adjustments.  
This eliminated one of the primary difficulties of using SRSGs (the
need to provide some sort of phase adjustment capability  mechanically
within the SRSG itself).  
 
John



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.