[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Spark Gap (fwd)
-
To: "'Tesla List'" <tesla@pupman.com>
-
Subject: Spark Gap (fwd)
-
From: Tesla List <tesla@stic.net>
-
Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 22:09:11 -0500
-
Approved: tesla@stic.net
----------
From: Gary Lau 25-May-1998 1520 [SMTP:lau@hdecad.ENET.dec.com]
Sent: Monday, May 25, 1998 2:34 PM
To: tesla@pupman.com
Subject: RE: Spark Gap (fwd)
>> From: Gary Lau 23-May-1998 1549 <lau@hdecad.ENET.dec.com>
>> <snip>
>> And actually, I believe multiple shorter sparks in series is easier to
>> quench than one long one (assuming the total gap length is the same).
>> That's why the "RQ" multi-short-gap static gap is so popular. It may
>> also have lower resistance, but no one has actually proven this yet.
>From: Malcolm Watts <MALCOLM@directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
>I can't see a single reason why it should be lower. Besides, Rgap is
>a dynamic impedance which varies with Ip. Multiple gaps most
>certainly have a higher voltage drop when conducting as each has a
>minimum saturation voltage, again dependent on Ip.
>
>Malcolm
You're right. I think I was confusing the better performance due to
better quenching, with lower resistance. Totally unfounded. Thanks for
nipping this one in the bud.
Gary Lau
Waltham, MA USA