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

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

Original poster: Bart Anderson <classi6-at-classictesla-dot-com> 

Hi Brett,

For the particular setup, the Terry Gap was performing better. What you 
show as 1st notch quenching looks to me to be 2nd notch quenching. Here's 
an image detailing 3rd notch quenching. Just analyze this image, compare to 
your image, and you should have no problem discerning the difference.

http://www.classictesla-dot-com/java/script/notch2.jpg

Here is what I see in "your" image:
1) the gap fires (furthest left edge of waveform, but oddly, the scope only 
picks up half of the transfer).
2) energy transfer from primary to secondary = 1st primary notch = highest 
envelope amplitude
3) energy transfer from secondary back to primary = 1st secondary notch = 
lowest envolope amplitude
4) energy transfer from primary to secondary = 2nd primary notch = 2nd 
highest envelope amplitude
5) the secondary rings down from the 2nd primary notch because the gap 
stopped conducting, thus, it didn't transfer back across the gap to the 
primary. All it could do at that point is ring down.

Take care,
Bart

Tesla list wrote:

>Original poster: Brett Miller <brmtesla2-at-yahoo-dot-com>
>
>
>Remember guys, (of course I'm not really sure if
>people are reading the entire posts anyway) I said
>going into it that this was going to highly anecdotal
>and that I lack the cash to purchase vacuum current
>probes for my scope, or the parts to build fiber
>probes.  When I get that kind of test equipment you
>bet I'll know how to use it and be using it whenever
>possible.  The main objective was really to see which
>gap would perform better in my system and I now have a
>pretty good idea where that is heading...or at least I
>will when I run them again at optimum performance.
>
>I wasn't going for a nobel here, it was very casual
>thing...I was aware of the problems and multiple
>variables not being addressed.  Although one thing I
>*was* interested in seeing is the efield display on
>the scope which I still believe appears to show
>superior quenching in the Fritz gap.
>
>-Brett
>
>
>--- Tesla list <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com> wrote:
> > Original poster: "Malcolm Watts"
> > <m.j.watts-at-massey.ac.nz>
> >
> > Hi Bart,
> >
> > On 3 Mar 2004, at 21:39, Tesla list wrote:
> >
> >  > Original poster: Bart Anderson
> > <classi6-at-classictesla-dot-com>
> >  >
> >  > Hi Brett, John,
> >  >
> >  > Tesla list wrote:
> >  >
> >  > >Original poster: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com
> >  > >In a message dated 3/2/04 11:16:16 PM Eastern
> > Standard Time,
> >  > >tesla-at-pupman-dot-com writes:
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >Brett,
> >  > >
> >  > >If I can be so bold as to give my opinion here,
> > I think
> >  > >the best way to compare the TCBOR gap vs. Fritz
> >  > >gap would be to use the gap spacings that give
> > the best
> >  > >results for each type of gap.  This.. rather
> > than using equal
> >  > >total gap spacings.  For example if the longest
> > sparks
> >  > >that the TCBOR gap can give with optimal pipe
> > spacings are 36",
> >  > >and if the Fritz gap gives 38" with the optimal
> > number of
> >  > >pipes in use, then I would see the Fritz gap as
> > more efficient.
> >  > >Other factors to compare would be the quality
> > and steadiness
> >  > >of the gap systems, and possible overheating,
> > etc.
> >  > ><snip>
> >  >
> >  > I'm not sure that's a good method of comparison
> > either. There are too
> >  > many differences. The fact that the electrode
> > diameters are different
> >  > size (1.5"? and .5"?) is the biggest problem for
> > the comparison. It's
> >  > simply a comparison of pipes layed flat or
> > curved. Because the
> >  > electrode size is so different throws a pretty
> > good size wrench into
> >  > the comparison (of gap styles). To do this would
> > require the same gap
> >  > spacing and material/diameter electrodes. Then
> > one could compare the
> >  > two to some reasonable degree.
> >
> > I think once one goes down that path, it is then
> > simply a question of
> > how many gaps/pipe sections work best for a
> > particular coil. My
> > preference for a comparison is to ensure firing
> > voltage is the same
> > for whatever gap types are being compared. That
> > means _monitoring_
> > the firing voltage, not relying on some variac
> > setting which is
> > obviously subject to resonant charging. This enables
> > the meaningful
> > inclusion of any type of gap in such tests.
> >
> > Malcolm
> >
> >
>
>
>