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

Rotary gap dwell




From: 	Malcolm Watts[SMTP:MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz]
Sent: 	Wednesday, September 24, 1997 3:41 PM
To: 	tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: 	Re: Rotary gap dwell

Hi John,
         Thanks for persisting with this thread. Your ideas and 
experience are proving very useful to me....
 
> From:   FutureT-at-aol-dot-com[SMTP:FutureT-at-aol-dot-com]
> Sent:   Wednesday, September 24, 1997 3:28 AM
> To:     tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject:    Re: Primary Qs
> 
> In a message dated 97-09-23 20:13:58 EDT, you write:
> 
> <<snip>    The other problem with the wide gap though is that it
> > tends to go out earlier in the piece. As I found, that is kickback
> > generation  material. I'm in the process of learning to convert
> > induction motors  for sync gaps which, based on much evidence 
> > from Skip and John would seem to be the ideal choice of gap as 
> > long as the dwell time is not excessively short.
> 
> Malcolm,
> 
> I don't think you have to worry about the mechanical dwell time
> being excessively short.  I've used an offset electrode method in
> the past which gave zero dwell time, and it did not shorten the
> actual quench times at all.  I think the mechanical dwell makes 
> no difference whatsoever as long as the dwell time is not so 
> extremely long that it permits the cap to recharge and refire during 
> the same gap firing, but I don't think we have to worry about that
> happening using neon trannies at 120 bps where the caps take
> "forever" to charge.   I also don't see how a static gap can
> give a shorter quench time than a rotary (in general).  Certainly,
> in certain cases it can, I realize.
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> John Freau

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