Re: [TCML] High Power Static Gaps

[futuret@xxxxxxx]

And this brings up the issue of whether a slightly slow quench hurts
spark length.  It's possible that the spark length is determined mostly
by the amount of  energy transfered during the *first* transfer of a 
bang.
Subsequent energy transfers may add practically nothing to the
spark length.  Thus the total gap losses may be a rather insignificant
factor regarding output spark length.  In other words it may be
the gap losses during the first transfer which is the important
thing.  If so, then a single (which should have lower gap
losses during the first transfer) should give better results.
This would be true even if the *overall* gap losses (for
example if the quenching suffered due to a single gap, etc) were
higher.  Evidence that it's the first transfer which is important is
given by the fact that tighter coupling usually give longer sparks,
even though the quench may occur at a later notch.  Tight
coupling causes the first transfer to finish sooner.  The use of
multiple gaps seems to greatly reduce the energy of the first
transfer.  However the gap width of a single spark gap might
not make much difference to the output spark length.  I'm
basing this on my comparisons of a 120 bps sync rotary and a
120 bps triggered single gap.  Both gave the same spark length
output.  Yet the single spark gap was very wide at 5/8" or so.
However the rotary actually had two gaps.  Since two gaps
have more losses than a single gap, this might have caused
the results to balance out.  It could be also that my coil
designs (high inductance primaries) tend to minimize
the effects of gap losses anyway.  So the bottom line is
that more experiments would be useful.

Cheers,
John
-------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Lau, Gary <Gary.Lau@xxxxxx>
To: Tesla Coil Mailing List <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 8:54 am
Subject: RE: [TCML] High Power Static Gaps



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

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