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

Sync vs. non-sync, (opt qnch tests)

Subject:  Sync vs. non-sync, (opt qnch tests)
  Date:   Fri, 9 May 1997 02:49:27 -0400 (EDT)
  From:   FutureT-at-aol-dot-com
    To:   tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
    CC: 
        TimRaney-at-aol-dot-com


All,

I completed the installation of a 1.5 kVA potential transformer, and
ballast
which replaces the neon transformer previously used, in my TC.  After
adjusting the ballast, I obtained the same spark length as I did using
the
neon trans, at about the same power level -- 720 watts as measured using
a
wattmeter.  First notch quenching was still obtained.

Next, the 120 BPS sync-gap was replaced with a variable speed 12 point,
super
series quenching, non-sync gap.  Tests were run using break-rates from
200 to
540 BPS (of course this is really the presentation rate, the actual
break-rate is actually lower since the gaps fail to fire when an
electrode
presentation occurs at a low voltage point along the ac cycle).  In fact
I'll
call the presentation rate "PPS"(presentations per second) from hereon,
NOT
to be confused with pulses per second!  At 420 PPS, the TC drew 1400
watts
and gave about a 44" spark.  In other words, the input power doubled and
the
spark only increased by about 3", compared with the sync-gap (but the
sparks
did appear brighter I think).  I tried using larger toroid sizes, but
this
didn't help much, although it may have added a few inches of spark
length.
 Ballasting was adjusted for best results in these tests.

I increased the break-rate to 540 PPS, TC drew 2kW, and sparks seemed
about
the same.  Re-tuning didn't really help.

I did notice that using this non-sync system, the sparks continued to
emit
from one point on the toroid, even though the sparks were longer.  It
does
appear that with a higher break-rate, that the spark length is increased
more
through "growing" action.  To me, the sparks seemed less bolt-like than
when
using the sync gap, they seemed tame (subjectively speaking).

The quench (seemingly) occured on the 1st notch using a small toroid and
loose coupling (same as with sync-gap), but moved to the 3rd notch using
tighter k and/or a large toroid.  The higher break-rate did not seem to
degrade the quench, and neither did the fact that this rotary fires 12
times
per revolution compared with only twice per rev in the sync gap.  Of
course
the electrodes are different in this rotary, being composed of 1/4 - 20
brass
screw-stock, vs. steel 10 - 32 screw-stock in the sync gap.  This rotary
spun
at 2100 to 2700 RPM vs. 3600 RPM for the sync-gap.  But the non-sync gap
has
a larger rotor, 10 1/2" vs. 7" for the sync gap.  

Despite limited time of usage, I see pitting on the electrode surfaces,
and I
was forced to re-adjust the electrode spacing, maybe it's tungsten-time.
 (Miller time comes afterwards,  : )

All in all, I was very disappointed with the limited performance gain
using
the higher break-rates.   I realize that many people have gotten
excellent
results using higher break-rates, in fact I believe I have gotten better
results in the past using different TCs that used higher break-rates.
  Perhaps this coil is just not "synergistically happy".  Is your coil
synergistically happy today, or is it depressed?  Perhaps this is what a
TC
psychologist would ask?  <G> 

No synergism without synchronism today.

Comments welcomed,

John Freau