Re: Double Throw Spark Gap (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:16:00 -0500
From: Crispy <crispy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Double Throw Spark Gap (fwd)

What I made is as you describe.  The stationary electrodes are no
symmetric.  There are 4 flying electrodes spaced evenly (90 degree
angles from each other).  The stationary electrodes are at a 45 degree
angle from each other.  The flying electrodes alternate contact from one
to the other.  The electrical idea of this is shown at
http://tangent.cluenet.org/~chules/hv/tesla/ardtsgschem1.png and an
actual picture of the gap I built is
http://tangent.cluenet.org/~chules/pictures/4/100_0628.JPG .

As you say, this does not achieve total circuit isolation (although a
different gap could potentially be designed that did).  However, as you
also say, it does prevent shorting the power supply, and any loss
associated with it.  In addition to the advantages in this, it also
makes it such that, when the tank circuit is resonating, its only
connection to the power supply can be through a charging inductor, which
would also act as a high frequency filter.

Chris B

On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 19:45 -0600, Tesla list wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:25:59 +0000
> From: David Rieben <drieben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: drieben@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Double Throw Spark Gap (fwd)
> 
> Hi Bart,
> 
> Yes, I am in the same boat as you are there - I can't under-
> stand how complete isolation of the charge and discharge
> circuit is going to mechanically be achieved with a single
> rotary gap either. The only way that I can visualize it is by
> setting the flying electrodes assymetrically (as opposed to
> symetrically) along the disc. Or you could keep the flying
> electrodes in their usual symetrical periphrial alignment
> and off set the two pairs of stationary electrodes. It seems 
> that you would have to have one pair of "charging" stationary 
> electrodes and one pair of "discharging" stationary electrodes 
> and the flying electrodes would have to be spaced to where one 
> did NOT align with the "charging" stationaries at the same time
> that another flying electrode was aligned with the "discharge" 
> stationaries. Immagine the stationary electrode pairs set at
> 3 and 9 o'clock position - 9 o'clock for charging circuit, 3 o'
> clock for discharging. Then while a flying electrode was aligned
> with the 9 o'clock "charging" position, you could not SIMULTA-
> NEOUSLY have a another flying electrode lined up in the 3 o'clock
> "discharge" posistion. Otherwise, you would be defeating the pur-
> pose of charge/discharge isolation. And there would still have to 
> be a "common" return between the charge and discharge circuit 
> so even here I don't perceive TOTAL circuit isolation, although I 
> do believe that the power supply could be removed from "shorting" 
> into the discharge cycle in this manner. Is this making any sense to 
> anyone else, as it's kind of hard to fully explain in words and I don't
> have access to any schematic writing or drafting program.
> 
> 
> David Rieben
> 
> -------------- Original message -------------- 
> From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx> 
> 
> > 
> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- 
> > Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:44:55 -0700 
> > From: Barton B. Anderson 
> > To: Tesla list 
> > Subject: Re: Double Throw Spark Gap (fwd) 
> > 
> > Hi Adam, 
> > 
> > It's going to charge in the low millisecond range and discharge in the 
> > low microsecond range (in a Bang!). No doubt about that. Electrically, 
> > he's attempting to separate the charge circuit from the discharge 
> > circuit. But I don't completely understand the mechanics of how this can 
> > be done. I'm just sitting back to see what comes of this experiment. 
> > 
> > Take care, 
> > Bart 
> > 
> 
>