RE: Fritz vs TCBOR -- initial results in...

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Luke" <Bluu-at-cox-dot-net> 

Brett:
I have been very busy the last couple days.
Have glanced over the postings on the test.
I will be reading more looking at the txt on it possibly Friday.
Still too much going on but needed to clear the mail box before the task
of doing so got too large.

Thank you for taking the time to do this and I WILL be checking it all
out in the next day or two when things settle down.

:)

Luke Galyan
Bluu-at-cox-dot-net
http://members.cox-dot-net/bluu

-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 8:40 PM
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Fritz vs TCBOR -- initial results in...

Original poster: "Dr. Resonance" <resonance-at-jvlnet-dot-com>



Perhaps better heat dissipation due to more surface area which leads to
faster quenching.  Perhaps a non-contact infra-red type thermometer
might
give some clues.

Dr. Resonance

  >  >  >
  >  >  > Hi Brett,
  >  >  >             Why is it that the TCBOR waveforms show
  >  >  > a clear first
  >  >  > ringup and the "Fritz gap" waveforms do not?
  >  >
  >  > I would like to know the answer to that as much as
  >  > you would.
  >  >
  >  >  > I almost think I am
  >  >  > looking at the primary waveform in the case of the
  >  >  > latter.
  >  >
  >  > No, the trace here is definately derived from the
  >  > secondary efield caputured here via a 12" antenna
  >  > attached to a BNC => gator clip lead, placed 8 feet
  >  > from the running coil.
  >
  > In that case, it is most likely that an e.s. transient from the
  > primary when the gap fires is triggering the scope (unless you are
  > using a delayed trigger). It would appear that the many-pipe gap is
  > not sending out such a good signal. Y-N?
  >
  >  >  > No mention
  >  >  > is made of the spark condition for either test
  >  >  > although it is easy to
  >  >  > infer that the TCBOR waveforms were captured with
  >  >  > air-streamers.
  >  >
  >  > Actually I did mention it if you read the name of this
  >  > .jpg, which documents photographically the coil
  >  > behavior for the quench waveforms gathered using the
  >  > Tek 922R.
  >  >
  >  > http://hot-streamer-dot-com/brett/misc/amount_of_breakout_for_test.jpg
  >
  > I am unable to revisit the website as you know - I will as soon as
  > hot-streamer is back up. I take it though that both output spark
  > conditions were identical? I remember seeing one picture where wispy
  > spark-ends were just reaching for the ground rod.
  >
  >  > The coil was kept at a point just beyond where
  >  > breakout first begins to occur.  Around 60V on my 140V
  >  > 20A variac.  That why I included this photo and named
  >  > it appropriately:
  >  >
  >  > I tried to intimate that spark conditions were those
  >  > found at minimal breakout by the way I named the above
  >  > photo.  I may or may not write a more organized paper
  >  > out of this "study" as I said earlier.
  >  >
  >  >  > The
  >  >  > fact that the latter gap got hotter in operation
  >  >  > suggests that my
  >  >  > hypothesis about quench efficiency corresponding to
  >  >  > gap loss is not
  >  >  > entirely invalid.
  >  >
  >  > Possibly.  But it could be that the loss the TCBOR is
  >  > experiencing is due to a mechanism that isn't quite as
  >  > obvious as electrode heating.
  >
  > It's difficult to imagine that radiation could account for it.
  >
  >  > I know from experience of using that same TCBOR in
  >  > this system that it performs wonderfully when opened
  >  > up to a much wider spacing using between 4 and 6 gaps.
  >  >   At 3 gaps and at the .158" test spacing it performed
  >  > poorly streamer length (and apparently quenching)
  >  > wise.
  >
  > That suggests that the difficulty of (re)firing multiple gaps might
  > be the key to this. I wonder how the actual firing voltages
  > compared?? The 60% setting on the variac is not truly indicative
  > since some resonant charging is going on.
  >
  >  >  > However, the waveforms really make
  >  >  > the test look a
  >  >  > bit like they are in the apples vs oranges category.
  >  >
  >  > Maybe they are.  That was part of Luke's question and
  >  > the main reason I did the test.  Lot of small gaps, or
  >  > fewer large gaps?
  >  >
  >  > Idetical conditions except for 1.)electrode diameter
  >  > and 2.) number of gaps
  >  >
  >  > Review the .txt file for exact spacing.
  >  >
  >  >  > Can you comment
  >  >  > on any of these points please?
  >  >
  >  > Hope I made that clear.  I guess I should have got a
  >  > real paper together before I released all this stuff.
  >  > This started out with something I was discussing with
  >  > Luke off list, and seems to be getting bigger.  Pretty
  >  > fun stuff though.  I wouldn't even be messing with
  >  > this if it wasn't for Terry and Richie Burnett...and
  >  > others.  I'd like to thank those guys for being an
  >  > inspiration to try to do things like this.
  >
  > I have tried multiple gaps in the past and not found the construction
  > effort to be worth it. Howver, comparing copper pipes with a much
  > higher temperature material like tungsten carbide is also in apples
  > and oranges territory. I haven't gone to quite the extreme of 20-odd
  > gaps I must admit. I will revisit that in the future.
  >
  > Thanks for doing the tests.
  >
  > Malcolm
  >
  >
  >