[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