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

Re: spark gap



Original poster: "Gerry  Reynolds" <gerryreynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Bart,

Brass certainly looks cool. I've done a varient of what you did. I built a copper tube spark gap sorta like the "Terry Gap" (many segments but not as many as Terry used). They were all assembled in a horizontal plane and epoxyed onto a plastic sheet. For connections, I used two solid (and heavy) brass rods that just laid between the segments. This was easily adjustable by moving where the brass rods were positioned. This way, only the brass needed to be drilled and tapped for the connection. Two 100CFM muffin fans were used with acrylic baffles to force air down thru the gaps and (cause of the baffles) backpressure forced air thru the copper tubes. Copper pipes never heated to a perceptable level at 15KV 60ma.

Gerry R

Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson" <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Jim,

Yes, I suppose I agree that the object will reach equilibrium, but air time is a factor that should be considered. The slow rise to temp for a large mass in comparison to a small one (tube) is greatly hampered by external cooling. The gap stays cool longer and can remain cool enough indefinitely if enough air is supplied (the same goes for a tube). I've let it run about 30 minutes non-stopped without any noticeable diminishing of spark length or behavior with a 12/60 NST.

I may expand upon this brass gap idea. The brass rod stock I captured off of eBay is 5/8" diameter. It might be fun to try and drill a series of holes in the brass just to increase surface area or maybe experiment with adding fins 90 deg out on each side away from the electrode arc face. I'm more or less simply curious if a relatively high current static gap can be easily built off of the idea.

The coiler who started this post was talking about a static gap for a 120mA NST. 120mA is high enough where a RSG would be a smarter choice (IMHO) to maximize gap stability.

Take care,
Bart

Tesla list wrote:

Original poster: Jim Lux <jimlux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

At 05:22 AM 1/21/2006, you wrote:

Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson" <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Jim,

Surface area is certainly important for cooling, but mass is also a major factor. A tube has little mass and as a result, transfers heat very quickly (heats up quickly, cools quickly). It also has the added surface area inside the tube for heat dissipation. A solid round stock will heat much slower and only has the outer surface to dissipate heat, but, the mass of the object has more "mass" to transfer within itself. This lowers the overall heat the object will need to dissipate and will require less cooling on the outer surface.



Until the solid bar reaches equilibrium. Then, you've got half the radiating/conduction surface to get heat out of (assuming air can move through the inside of the tube).

Of course, something else to think about is that in either case, you're nowhere near melting the copper. If, at steady state, the temperature (relative to the air) is double, you'll reject twice as much heat to the air. Since we're talking about a few hundred degrees here, that's pretty likely.

I have to say, I just favor the tubes because they are cheaper and use less material.

There probably is a minimum wall thickness that will work well. At some point, the wall gets too thin to carry the heat away from the point where the spark is to somewhere else.

Optimizing it is another one of those "solving Poisson's equation" problems. Another finite element analysis problem using diffusion of heat instead of charge. There's probably an analytical solution from M. Fourier of transform fame. The problem's not much different from heat dissipation in cannon barrels.