Re: Better Gap Worth Effort

• To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
• Subject: Re: Better Gap Worth Effort
• From: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)
• Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 12:18:23 -0600
• Approved: twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net
• Delivered-To: fixup-tesla-at-pupman-dot-com-at-fixme

In a message dated 4/29/00 12:12:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
tesla-at-pupman-dot-com writes:

> Do you think or know if the gap losses with a multiple spark gap are more
>  than the first notch gain. Theoretical first notch quenching would be three
>  times more efficient as let's say quenching at the third notch (assumed no
>  extra gap losses and secondary in sparking condition), wouldn't it?
>  
>  Greetings from Holland,
>  
>  Ruud de Graaf

Ruud,

Assuming no extra gap losses, I don't see why it would matter
much if it was 1st notch or 3rd notch (of course there *would* be
extra gap losses using 3rd notch quenching because the gap would
be firing for a longer time).  But since you specified, "assuming no
extra gap losses", how do you figure that the 1st notch quench
would be 3 times more efficient?  You're not following the Corum's
viewpoints are you?  The Corums would agree with you that 1st
notch quenching is of the utmost importantance, because they believe
that the energy that is in the secondary at the time of quench
determines the spark length, but experiments by myself and others 
have disproven this. 

Did I misunderstand what you are saying perhaps?

Cheers,
John Freau

• Prev: Re: Toroid Capacitance calculated without earth-distance?
• Next: Re: spark length, bps, power, new formulas
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread