RE: Spark Gaps

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Lau, Gary by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <Gary.Lau-at-compaq-dot-com>

I think what you're suggesting is that losses from a vacuum-contained spark
gap will be lower because they can't loose energy due to emitted sound.  The
losses from a spark gap occur in the forms of heat, light, and sound.  I
would speculate that of these three, that the acoustic losses are the least
of them.  The sound is just a by-product of the others.

More importantly, the resistive losses (which generate the heat and light)
are a function of the conductivity of the plasma.  I have no personal
experience with plasmas in a vacuum but I have made measurements of gap
losses in air at higher and lower than ambient pressures, and have found
that losses are significantly lower in a pressurized gap.

Gary Lau
Waltham, MA USA


>Original poster: <ANTarchimedes-at-aol-dot-com>
>      'Twas not too long ago that I brought up vacuum-contained spark gaps 
>as means of reducing both heat/ozone generation and noise output.  My case 
>was quickly let off because of the fact that there's going to be
signifigant 
>noise output from the secondary anyways, and we already have means of 
>controlling excessive heat and ozone.  Well, it turns out that there is a 
>major benefit still!  The noise generated from the spark gap... where does 
>that energy come from?   From the primary circuit, of course.  Then that 
>energy must be converted; wasted, if you will.  Then we're not getting our 
>maximum electrical potential out of our secondary circuit, and thus,
shorter 
>arc length. Sure, the sound will reappear off the secondary, but it will 
.lengthen the arc! Try it!