Re: Double Throw Spark Gap (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 21:03:01 -0700
From: Barton B. Anderson <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Double Throw Spark Gap (fwd)

Yea David, I don't quite understand how it is going to work, but as I 
mentioned to Chris in another post, I haven't fully studied the idea. If 
it can be done, it will be very interesting to see how the non-shorted 
tranny compares to the shorted tranny. What are the losses in that 
situation? Until Chris mentioned this, I had never really gave it much 
thought. It will be interesting to see how this gap plays out. There 
will be problems to overcome, but will there be a problem that cannot be 
overcome? I'm kind of curious how this will play out to the end. In a 
few days here I'll be better studied on the situation.

Take care,
Bart

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 
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>
>
>