[TCML] Spark gap

[penny831@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

I'd like to build one of these hyperbaric spark gaps. Does anyone have any good construction information on them?
Tony
ae6do

-----Original Message-----
>From: resonance@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>Sent: Feb 22, 2008 8:33 PM
>To: Tesla Coil Mailing List <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: RE: [TCML] Spark gap
>
>
>
>
>This certainly makes sense when one considers the immense energy lost in
>heating each separate multiple gap, and also the UV and light energy
>losses.  Heat is the worst though, and by using less gaps with a nice
>500-700 CFM of airflow quenching is usually efficient with low loss of
>thermal energy in a well designed two electrode gap vs. say a 5-6
>electrode gap.
>
>Dr. Resonance
>
>
>
>> It was after reading a paper published by Terry Fritz that I first came to
>> the opinion that multi-segment gaps have higher losses despite offering
>> better quenching.  See
>> http://www.hot-streamer.com/TeslaCoils/MyPapers/sgap/sgap.html.  Perhaps
>> I'm reading it wrong, but it looks to me like the peak secondary voltage
>> is significantly higher in the single-gap cases when the coupling is in
>> the region where we typically use it.  And independent to that, I'm pretty
>> sure that I've read that spark gaps are similar to zener diodes, in that
>> they exhibit a near-fixed on-voltage independent of gap width.  (This is
>> where Bert Hickman usually chimes in...)
>>
>> There is no doubt that multi-gaps exhibit superior quenching over
>> single-gaps, but contrary to what is often repeated on this list,
>> quenching is not the primary determinant of gap performance.
>>
>> Regards, Gary Lau
>> MA, USA
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: tesla-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tesla-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On
>>> Behalf Of bartb
>>> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 9:31 PM
>>> To: Tesla Coil Mailing List
>>> Subject: Re: [TCML] Spark gap
>>>
>>> Hi Gary,
>>>
>>> I'm undecided on the single segment versus multi-segment gap losses. The
>>> only possibility of lower losses is "if" the arc resistance is lower in
>>> a single segment gap. The voltage drop should be the same for both
>>> assuming identical pipes diameters, surface, and total gap spacing.
>>>
>>> Take care,
>>> Bart
>>>
>>>
>>> Lau, Gary wrote:
>>> > I'm similarly skeptical about a propeller gap's quenching.  The only
>>> thing that I
>>> can see superior quenching-wise is that the air flow over the gap may be
>>> better
>>> than in a cylinder gap.  But if that was all you need for superior
>>> quenching, then an
>>> air-blast gap should be the best solution of all.
>>> >
>>> > I would think that a mult-segment cylinder gap is the best at actual
>>> quenching,
>>> due to the fact that being divided into multiple small arcs, they would
>>> be easier to
>>> cool and extinguish.  But I also believe that multi-segment gaps exhibit
>>> higher
>>> losses (each gap represents a fixed voltage drop, and the more gaps in
>>> series, the
>>> greater the total gap voltage drop, and loss).
>>> >
>>> > The benefit of a propeller gap comes about in that it's a rotary gap.
>>> If it's a sync
>>> gap, it's superior because the bangs can be engineered to be consistent
>>> in size and
>>> timing, rather than the chaotic mode inherent in static gaps.  If it's
>>> an async gap, it
>>> may be better than a static gap if the power supply is larger than what
>>> can be
>>> effectively handled with a static gap.
>>> >
>>> > Regards, Gary Lau
>>> > MA, USA
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tesla mailing list
>> Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla
>>
>
>
>Dr. Resonance
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tesla mailing list
>Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla

_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla