RE: Better Gap Worth Effort

• To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
• Subject: RE: Better Gap Worth Effort
• From: "Lau, Gary" <Gary.Lau-at-compaq-dot-com> (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)
• Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 12:29:05 -0600
• Approved: twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net
• Delivered-To: fixup-tesla-at-pupman-dot-com-at-fixme

Hey "kid" -

So-called RQ (AKA TCBOR cylinder) gaps and air blast gaps ARE static gaps.
But I also agree that forced air flow over any kind of static gap will
result in far better performance than without.

Gary Lau
Waltham, MA USA 

P.S. - Get a spell checker!

>Original Poster: "unicorn" <unicorn-at-telerama-dot-com> 
>
>HELLO,
>
>  I think static gaps are crape.  Tah take to long to cleen and it do not
>quench to good. A rsq or a air blast gap works much better then a static
>gap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>  kid-kv
>
> P.S I made a air gap with a fan and brass serws and it works much better
then
>the static gap i had. The static gap took to long to cleen. My coil has
>bottle caps and a air gap. With the fan i get 12" eze with out the fan i
get
>4" to 7" sparks. does that give the id.?

• Prev: Re: RF chokes
• Next: Re: Welders vs. Variac ballasts, was Rotaty popping, (Was Re: comm
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread