[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Question - RQ spark gap plans (fwd)





---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 20:45:21 -0700
From: Jim Lux <jimlux-at-earthlink-dot-net>
To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Re: Question - RQ spark gap plans (fwd)



----------
> From: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Question - RQ spark gap plans (fwd)
> Date: Sunday, May 03, 1998 7:28 PM
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 20:11:18 -0600
> From: terryf-at-verinet-dot-com
> To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> Subject: Question - RQ spark gap plans (fwd)
> 
> All,
> 
>         Many people have found that the RQ spark gap is better in their
> systems.  Preliminary testing I have done suggests the opposite. 
However, I
> now have a theory as to why these gaps may give much better secondary
sparks
> (this may lead to even better designs).  I would like to build and RQ
style
> gap to test my theory out.  I have built similar gaps but they would not
> show the proper effects I seek.
>         I do have one concern.  As I understand the gap, there are many
> copper pipe sections side by side.  I would think that the higher
electric
> field intensity at the ends of the pipes would cause the arcs to occur
only
> at the ends of the pipe sections instead if near the centers where we
would
> like.  Is this true and if not why not?  

I built a small version of the RQ gap using just three sections of pipe. If
you don't have the fan on, the sparks do occur at the ends. However, if you
turn on the fan, the sparks seem to occur fairly uniformly along the gap,
to the eye. Perhaps a time exposure or a video camera might give a more
quantitative evaluation.