We are debating in a social network, if the length of a serpentine requires a much lower voltage than theorized due to the channel of ionized gas that it is generating and that reduces the energy expenditure of said discharge.I argue that that theory has overlooked some issues.Is true, beyond a few tens of centimeters, the development of an electric arc cannot be simplified to a directly proportional relationship (an ascending straight line on an x-y diagram) because it becomes very complex and many variables are involved. It is also true that each discharge pulse leaves an open channel of ionized gas that makes the next discharge not need as much energy to reach the point where the previous discharge was extinguished, and that reserve of "unspent" energy allows it to reach a little further than the previous one, and so on. So you might think that in the end, a streamer can reach a distance x (for example 3.3m) driven by a voltage much smaller than the theoretical one based on that directly proportional relationship. But streamers are not a one-line channel of constant thickness and directionality (like a tube or cable). Streamers behave like lightning in a storm. In a storm, the discharge, with an average length of 10 km, falls with a stepped structure, approx. every 45 meters, it branches and / or changes direction, dissipating a large amount of energy. Similarly, the discharge that originates in the toroid, branches and / or changes direction. and it is in those events where it loses the energy that "supposedly was going to be saved" and even more, what in the end would give rise to a discharge of length x (example 3.3 m) that actually needed to be driven by a voltage even greater than that theorized by calculations, due to all the energy that was dissipated in the route, and that was not used to generate and maintain that channel of ionized gas.
David Varas
_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla