Re: Rotary Modifications Update

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Rotary Modifications Update
From: Tesla List <mod1-at-pupman-dot-com>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 22:02:55 -0600 (MDT)
Approved: mod1-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 18:06:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Rotary Modifications Update

In a message dated 97-10-12 14:12:07 EDT, you write:

<< snip
> I had been running with brass stationary electrodes that were effectively
> about 3/8" across at the tapered end that conducted.  In order to search
> for better system performance by addressing the quench issue, I installed
> 1/8" diameter tungsten rods, heat sunk by the original 1" diameter brass
> rod that is 1 1/4" long.  System performance improved and initially things
> looked good, >>snip

Chuck,

Well, the question is, why did the performance improve?  Was the
quench-time actually decreased, or was refiring of the gap prevented,
does tungsten quench better than brass, etc.  I remember on one
coil, I used 1/4" electrodes and I got thumping in the pole tranny and
the system drew 16 amps.  When I went to an "offset" method that
effectively reduced my dwell time to zero, the thumping went away,
and the current dropped down to 13 amps, but spark length remained
the same.  Break-rate was about 600 presentations per second.  Yet
many coilers used even wider gaps (1/2") with good results, but 
perhaps at lower break-rates.  What break-rate and rpm do you use
and what is the effective rotor diameter?

John Freau