Quench, Coherence etc.
From: John H. Couture [SMTP:couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net]
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 1998 10:08 AM
To: Tesla List
Subject: Re: Quench, Coherence etc.
These Quench and Coherence tests are very interesting and I believe
important to understanding how the TC operates. However, there appears to
be confusion and conflict as to what the test results mean. I believe this
is due to the fact that the tests are not being made under controlled
In order to obtain useful results from tests of electrical devices it is
necessary to operate the device with controlled conditions such as with a
constant output. This means that with Tesla coils the output spark must be
a controlled spark giving a constant load to the Tesla coil. The test
results will then be more uniform and more subject to correct analysis.
For example, when a spark occurs on the second transfer instead of the
first and both have the same amplitude there can only be one answer. The
transfers and sparks are not being properly paired in the tests. The idea
that the first transfer ionizes the air and the second transfer creates an
extra long spark is not possible. I suggested this in past posts but
several coilers said this was not possible. I now believe they were correct
because if the first transfer ionizes the air there would always be enough
energy left to create a spark.
The quench and coherence tests with continuous operating TC's should be
made only with constant outputs and that means with controlled sparks.
Single break tests are of less value.
At 08:29 PM 8/12/98 -0500, you wrote:
>From: Richard Hull [SMTP:rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 11:56 PM
>To: Tesla List
>Subject: Re: Quench, Coherence etc.
>Tesla List wrote:
>> From: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com [SMTP:FutureT-at-aol-dot-com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 8:09 AM
>> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>> Subject: Re: Quench, Coherence etc.
>> But if long beat spark feedings are helpful, then this would suggest
>> that even poorer quenching would be even better? Yet this doesn't
>> seem to be the case (?)
>> Regards, John Freau
> I think it is a matter of degree. Old hands have a sense of arc
>system synergism. I think that small coils can all be quenched easily by
>hearted efforts. As power goes up and big terminal capacitances come into
>play, the quench become much more critical and has literally no set point by
>simple theory. I would say that a 10kw 3 or 4 notch quench system might be
>running away a bit and need better quench efforts. First notch quench is a
>good idea whose time might have passed for larger systems with heavy loads.
>I think I posted some info on this over 2 years ago when first working
>H2 thyratrons and comparing against three different spark gap systems.
>same coil. First notch quench looked good until the coupling got tight.
>arcing magnifier systems here work mostly on the second notch or even an
>occassional third notch.
>Richard Hull, TCBOR