Re: [TCML] Re: Spark gap Resistance

["Barton B. Anderson" <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi John,

It's a theory. I see this similar to drawing an arc vs initiating an 
arc. The only problem in reproducing the phenomenon is the reduced 
energy in the time frame allowed. Thus, hard to prove. It's similar to a 
high energy thermal channel in the spark gap.

However, just because one coil may not be as well adapted to dissipating 
sparks at the 1st notch doesn't mean another coil can't. I think for the 
typical garage coil, 1st notch quenching is rarely obtainable due to 
both secondary and spark gap. But, I think it can be achieved with good 
results if one goes to lengths. Trying to force it or trap it in the 
secondary is a little silly to me. Well, as long nothing dies, there may 
be some benefit.

There is an undeniable truth: If the secondary can release the energy, 
there is nothing to continue the gap and it will quench. The question is 
what mechanisms prevent the secondary from dissipating all the energy in 
a single ring up? A lot of different things and not all we can control 
or change.

The gap I see as simply a loss. Higher energy should be lower gap 
losses, increased conductivity, and higher temperatures. If there is 
energy remaining in the secondary to travel back across, it will and 
more easily at higher energy. Getting rid of the energy in the first 
place seems to me to the hidden key to all of this.

Take care,
Bart

FutureT@xxxxxxx wrote:
>  
> In a message dated 11/20/2007 9:38:15 P.M. US Eastern Standard Time,  
> bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> If the  energy is quenched by the 1st primary notch, there is only a 
> single ring  up "time" for the spark channel itself. If we quench on the 
> 2nd primary  notch, the "time" of the secondary sparks are controlled by 
> the ring up  time between each spark and the energy bussed to the 
> developed spark  channels. It's not difficult to see that faster quench 
> times may not  always be preferred.
>
> In second notch quenching, the secondary has rung  up twice and produced 
> a spark in each ring up and likely in the same  channel as it is hot and 
> ionized by the first ring up event. I expect the  channel to be more 
> conductive and possibly allow a little longer  protrusion on the second 
> ring up event.
>
>
>
> Bart,
>  
> I remember when Bert H. speculated about this a number of years ago.  
> I don't think there's any  proof yet either way regarding whether  the
> second transfer extends the spark.  (Please update me if I missed  it.)
> My concern is that the second transfer might just brighten the spark
> but not lengthen it.  Of course brightness is good too.  If the  second
> transfer does lengthen the spark, then yes that would be still  another
> reason to not worry about 1st notch quenching.  
>  
> John
>
>
>
> **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest 
> products.
> (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
> _______________________________________________
> Tesla mailing list
> Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla
>
>
>
>   
_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla