[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Stationary Spark Gaps
-
To: tesla@grendel.objinc.com, KLINEDA@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu, QUANTUM@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu, WMEYER@scientia.up.ac.za, bhaley@shore.net, frerichs@zfe.siemens.de, froula@cig.mot.com, haba@snakemail.hut.fi, jetter@ix.netcom.com, scott@csustan.csustan.edu
-
Subject: Re: Stationary Spark Gaps
-
From: Esondrmn@aol.com
-
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 12:18:03 -0500
-
>Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mail.aol.com [198.81.10.12]) by uucp-1.csn.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA25705 for <tesla@grendel.objinc.com>; Tue, 21 Nov 1995 10:24:44 -0700
In a message dated 95-11-21 04:18:06 EST, tesla@grendel.objinc.com writes:
>
>Greetings,
> I am experimenting with a couple different spark gap designs right
>now and would like some opinions from other coilers. I am working with a
>system that operates at 15 kV between 0.4 and 0.9 kVA power levels. I am
>currently using multiple stationary gaps (eight total 3/4 inch copper tubes
>3 inches long, spaced 0.02 inches apart, total gap distance = 0.14 inches).
>
>Is there a "preferred" total gap distance which avoids neon transformer
>damage and still delivers significant power to the primary? Am I too close,
>too far?
>
>Will additional gaps at closer spacing work better (keeping total gap
>distance the same), assuming I provide adequate air flow to quench the
>sparks?
>
>Regards,
>Mark Rzeszotarski
Mark,
When I first got started, I built two of the cylindrical gaps as shown in the
funet files. I used 6 copper sections in each gap with a spacing of about
.030". Each gap had a total of about .150". When using neon transformers
for power in the range of .7 to 1.4 kva, I found that the system worked best
with one gap. I tried two in parallel and the two in series. When I got too
much gap, the system was not very reliable. It took almost full power to get
the gaps to fire and they would not reliabley stay fired - and as you say,
running at this point is hard on transformers and capacitors.
Ed Sonderman