Re: Double Throw Spark Gap (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:42:16 -0500
From: Crispy <crispy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Double Throw Spark Gap (fwd)

Note that what I'm building is a DC Tesla coil, not a typical AC one.
Classic DC Tesla coils with a charging inductor already partially solve
the problem of a shorted supply with a large charging inductor, but in
some ways it's an incomplete solution.

The application of this type of gap to an AC coil would be interesting,
and I will probably try that too after I finish the rest of this coil.
I imagine the general principle would work best with a synchronous gap
(which is possible using the same basic design).  However, I'm a college
student, and as such, am fairly short on money.  The other problem is
that ARSGs on AC at high break rates would certainly tend to work best
with relatively high power inputs, otherwise the tank cap wouldn't
really ever fully charge.  My power input is limited to 400 watts due to
University-housing-imposed-limits.  (I just feel lucky that they have no
voltage limit.)  The technical limit is 600 watts, but the motor takes
up a significant part of that.  My 12/30 NST is already above the limit
actually, and I really don't want to push it because, if I trip the
breaker or anything, someone will investigate and I'm sure someone
wouldn't be too happy about this project.  I'm getting around this power
limit by trying to pulse power (see the descriptions of this other idea
in previous posts), but it would really only work with a DC coil.

Chris B
"Crispy"  (I should start signing my name as this because there seem to
be several other Chris' contributing to this thread and the list in
general)

On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 22:02 -0600, Tesla list wrote:
> ---------- 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 
> >>
> >>     
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   
> 
> 
>