Re: [RE]Quenching Theory Question (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: List moderator <mod1@xxxxxxxxxx>



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 10:42:20 -0700
From: Barton B. Anderson <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RE]Quenching Theory Question (fwd)

Hi Matt,

That's doable. It all happens pretty fast. It might be difficult to 
electrically control a switching mechanism, but probably wouldn't need 
it. If one can imagine say a cylinder tcbor style static gap, the 
initial tap could be simply switched to the next electrode after some 
predetermined time.

Take care,
Bart

Tesla list wrote:

>Original poster: List moderator <mod1@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 23:57:29 -0400 (EDT)
>From: M G <gt4awd@xxxxxxxxx>
>To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [RE]Quenching Theory Question (fwd)
>
>p {margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;}
>Hi Bart, thank you for the very informative post. I also save the posts I
>consider to be of great importance. This will definitely be one of them.
>By the way, about your greater gap separation theory. Would it be more
>effective to add a "controllable" gap that can be opened more after
>initial operation of the gap? This seems like a good idea to me. Maybe it
>could be voltage/amperage controlled such as old ammeters are?
>Again thanks,
>Matt G.
>
>  
>