Re: Rotary gap dwell

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Rotary gap dwell
From: Tesla List <mod1-at-pupman-dot-com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 09:20:02 -0600 (MDT)
Approved: mod1-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 09:11:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Rotary gap dwell

<< 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
  >>

Malcolm,

I guess the kickback could actually be observed on a scope to see
how it behaves with wide and close gap spacings.  I hadn't thought
about this until you brought it up.  I agree the rotary should be 
better loss-wise.  It would be interesting to see what happens using
a rotary that is actually capable of stretching the spark fast enough
during the notch to use brute force quench as Greg is planning. 
This would be esp. good in a magnifier unfortunately the phyical/
mechanical obstacles are daunting, perhaps kickback would be
magnified also, I don't know.

John Freau