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

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: List moderator <mod1@xxxxxxxxxx>



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 18:25:14 -0700
From: Barton B. Anderson <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: The MTSG Metlicka Triggered Gap... (fwd)

Hi Brett,

>In other words at high power levels, proper quenching
>is just as difficult (or nearly so) to achieve as any
>static gap.  So the larger gap spacing and fan wasn't
>sufficient (in your tests) to provide equal quenching
>as the SRSG?
>
No, actually, quenching is the plus side of a TSG. The wide gap width 
triggered by a hv pulse which is twice the voltage as that across the 
gap (to start gap conduction) is nice from a quench standpoint. It's 
simply the thermal issues that need to be dealt with for high power. 
There are other concerns as well.

John pointed out "lot's of light" from the gap. I had the same 
experience. However, I can't say that's a bad thing (or a good thing). 
As energy is passed from coil to coil until the cap no longer conducts 
it's remaining energy (quench), the product of a large gap spacing may 
be that the voltage remaining across the gap is still at a moderately 
high level than with a "normal" static gap and may result as photon 
intensity. When gaps run bad (gaps we have been building for years), the 
light intensity is a usual indication of working well or not. But with 
the TSG, we have a much high voltage setting for the gap even though we 
are "triggering" it at what we "think" is a lower voltage (that has yet 
to be measured and can be very different for cap sizes and supply 
power). So, I think the TSG has not yet really been put to the test.

Take care,
Bart