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

Re: Fritz vs TCBOR -- initial results in...



Original poster: Brett Miller <brmtesla2-at-yahoo-dot-com> 



Remember guys, (of course I'm not really sure if
people are reading the entire posts anyway) I said
going into it that this was going to highly anecdotal
and that I lack the cash to purchase vacuum current
probes for my scope, or the parts to build fiber
probes.  When I get that kind of test equipment you
bet I'll know how to use it and be using it whenever
possible.  The main objective was really to see which
gap would perform better in my system and I now have a
pretty good idea where that is heading...or at least I
will when I run them again at optimum performance.

I wasn't going for a nobel here, it was very casual
thing...I was aware of the problems and multiple
variables not being addressed.  Although one thing I
*was* interested in seeing is the efield display on
the scope which I still believe appears to show
superior quenching in the Fritz gap.

-Brett


--- Tesla list <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com> wrote:
 > Original poster: "Malcolm Watts"
 > <m.j.watts-at-massey.ac.nz>
 >
 > Hi Bart,
 >
 > On 3 Mar 2004, at 21:39, Tesla list wrote:
 >
 >  > Original poster: Bart Anderson
 > <classi6-at-classictesla-dot-com>
 >  >
 >  > Hi Brett, John,
 >  >
 >  > Tesla list wrote:
 >  >
 >  > >Original poster: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com
 >  > >In a message dated 3/2/04 11:16:16 PM Eastern
 > Standard Time,
 >  > >tesla-at-pupman-dot-com writes:
 >  > >
 >  > >
 >  > >Brett,
 >  > >
 >  > >If I can be so bold as to give my opinion here,
 > I think
 >  > >the best way to compare the TCBOR gap vs. Fritz
 >  > >gap would be to use the gap spacings that give
 > the best
 >  > >results for each type of gap.  This.. rather
 > than using equal
 >  > >total gap spacings.  For example if the longest
 > sparks
 >  > >that the TCBOR gap can give with optimal pipe
 > spacings are 36",
 >  > >and if the Fritz gap gives 38" with the optimal
 > number of
 >  > >pipes in use, then I would see the Fritz gap as
 > more efficient.
 >  > >Other factors to compare would be the quality
 > and steadiness
 >  > >of the gap systems, and possible overheating,
 > etc.
 >  > ><snip>
 >  >
 >  > I'm not sure that's a good method of comparison
 > either. There are too
 >  > many differences. The fact that the electrode
 > diameters are different
 >  > size (1.5"? and .5"?) is the biggest problem for
 > the comparison. It's
 >  > simply a comparison of pipes layed flat or
 > curved. Because the
 >  > electrode size is so different throws a pretty
 > good size wrench into
 >  > the comparison (of gap styles). To do this would
 > require the same gap
 >  > spacing and material/diameter electrodes. Then
 > one could compare the
 >  > two to some reasonable degree.
 >
 > I think once one goes down that path, it is then
 > simply a question of
 > how many gaps/pipe sections work best for a
 > particular coil. My
 > preference for a comparison is to ensure firing
 > voltage is the same
 > for whatever gap types are being compared. That
 > means _monitoring_
 > the firing voltage, not relying on some variac
 > setting which is
 > obviously subject to resonant charging. This enables
 > the meaningful
 > inclusion of any type of gap in such tests.
 >
 > Malcolm
 >
 >