RE: [TCML] High Power Static Gaps

["Lau, Gary" <Gary.Lau@xxxxxx>]

I would agree that the losses in a pressurized single gap may be lower than a multiple TCBOR gap, but I'm not sure that quenching would be better.  In fact I suspect that quenching in multiple gap designs is inherently better than single gap designs.  The take home message however is that quenching is NOT always a predictor of performance.  It's always a trade-off between gap losses, and poor quenching (which itself incurs additional gap losses via longer gap activity).

Regards, Gary Lau
MA, USA

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tesla-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tesla-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Quarkster
> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 10:40 PM
> To: Tesla Coil Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [TCML] High Power Static Gaps
>
> Bart -
>
> I'm not sure that I agree that the performance "will be the same".
>
> Certainly, you can increase the width of the non-pressurized gap so the breakdown
> voltage is the same as a pressurized gap. However, one of the largest benefits of of
> a correctly-designed "pressurized" gap is the extremely high air velocity through the
> gap. Quenching should be measurably better than a simple ventilated TCBOR gap,
> or even a vacuum gap where the maximum pressure differential across the gap can
> never exceed 14.7 PSI. However, I don't have comparative data at this point .....
>
> Regards,
> Herr Zapp

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