Re: Optimal Quenching Tests

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Optimal Quenching Tests
From: Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 11:25:27 -0800
Subscriber: hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com Thu Jan 2 22:41:06 1997

Tesla List wrote:
> 
> Subscriber: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com Fri Dec 20 16:09:49 1996
> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 23:50:49 -0500
> From: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Optimal Quenching Tests
> 
> Hi all,
>       As a recent subscriber, let me say "Great forum", thanks to chip and
> the contributors.
>       I'm presently exploring the benefits of quenching the spark-gap arc at
> the first RF beat frequency "notch" (1st beat notch) in the tank energy.

snip

 Anyway, we need a better spark-gap design
> (or a replacement for the spark-gap) to test the benefits of fast quenching
> at high power levels  Has anyone done any work along these lines?  Comments
> or suggestions anyone?
> John Freau

John,

My work over Christmas shows severe attentuation of the RF envelope with 
proper quench. (you get a beautiful ring wave though)  It was only with a 
long primary/secondary interaction time (5-15us for 500 khz coil) that 
sparks grew to max length.  You'll see this in tape #55 which will be in 
the mail to you in the next day or two.  Obviously if we leave the spark 
on to long for a given coupling, we have a bad situation.  It is 
important to realize that max spark is what we, as Tesla coil buffs, are 
after and not necessarily good tune or quench which would satisfy theory 
or a bunch of radio engineers.

I'm still workin on this along with the electrostatic part of TC output.

Richard Hull, TCBOR