[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Rotary gap dwell
-
To: tesla@pupman.com
-
Subject: Re: Rotary gap dwell
-
From: Tesla List <mod1@pupman.com>
-
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 09:20:02 -0600 (MDT)
-
Approved: mod1@poodle.pupman.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 09:11:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: FutureT@aol.com
To: tesla@pupman.com
Subject: Re: Rotary gap dwell
<< I had thought that perhaps the gap sustaining voltage would be lower
> if the electrodes were much closer at the time the arc goes out.
> Perhaps not. Still figuring it out. I still think the rotary would be
> better loss-wise though.
> Thanks,
> Malcolm
>>
Malcolm,
I guess the kickback could actually be observed on a scope to see
how it behaves with wide and close gap spacings. I hadn't thought
about this until you brought it up. I agree the rotary should be
better loss-wise. It would be interesting to see what happens using
a rotary that is actually capable of stretching the spark fast enough
during the notch to use brute force quench as Greg is planning.
This would be esp. good in a magnifier unfortunately the phyical/
mechanical obstacles are daunting, perhaps kickback would be
magnified also, I don't know.
John Freau