Talk:Spark gap

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spark gap article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electronics Low‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Ignition system#Switchable systems|Model T Spark Coil]] The anchor (#Switchable systems) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Cyan isn't blue?

I don't consider it vandalism [1] to use the most familiar term; in a general sense, cyan is a shade of blue to most people, just as magenta or fuchsia might be considered pink (indeed, as the cyan article notes, cyan often goes undistinguished from light blue). To state in the article that cyan is not blue [2] implies that the reader's perceptions are wrong. I've rephrased to what I hope is an acceptable compromise, "cyan or blue." -- Wapcaplet 15:54, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Clarify the difference

Between sparks, arcs, and corona discharges. Also the pieces of hot metal formed by something like shorting a charged capacitor or a 9 V battery. - Omegatron 01:22, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, for sparks and arcs, I'd say "no difference". A corona discharge is clearly different, being a diffuse (dispersed) discharge rather than a single (or few) heavily ionized conduction channels.

Atlant 13:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Here is a good description of the differences between corona, spark, and brush discharge: [3]. There's a few related articles, and a bunch of redirects/disambigs. Probably some should be merged/re-redirected. "Spark" can refer to pretty much all of them. - Omegatron 14:52, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Maxwell Forces

Matl culled from page

I dont think this is correct;

However, the heated air is not what causes the arc to rise. The arc rises because of what is known from Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations state that a current through a normal magnetic field will cause a force on the current in the direction given by the right-hand rule. This force is what causes the arc to rise.

--Light current 04:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 3/29 129.81.191.133 added the following:

"However, the heated air is not what causes the arc to rise. The arc rises because of what is known from Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations state that a current through a normal magnetic field will cause a force on the current in the direction given by the right-hand rule. This force is what causes the arc to rise."

I disagree. If the above were true, then, if the diverging pair of wires was inverted so that the narrowest portion was at the top, then the arc should travel downwards from the top. This is not observed (at least for low current high voltage arcs). Lorentz Forces acting upon the arc are directly proportional to arc current. In the case of the travelling arc, the typical arc current is usually less than an ampere. Although J x B forces do become significant for high current (kA or MA) arcs seen in railguns, HV circuit breakers, and high current spark gaps, for low current traveling arcs the upward movement is almost entirely due to rising hot air. Bert 04:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I'm sure you could tell that this is my first time getting into a disagreement on Wiki, and I was frustrated because I didn't know how to contact the person disagreeing with me. -David Drinnan

Just put your comments on the talk page. Editors will probably see them there!--Light current 08:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Maxwell force is not negligable, which can be shown by having a horizontal Jacob's ladder, such as http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyohm/3584678636/ Mossig (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also new to this. Long ago I saw some TV news footage of the Oakland/Berkeley hillside fires. I wish I could find it again. Rising flames touched off discharge between phases of some high tension power lines. Improper protection settings allowed arcs to sustain. Arcs "motored" along the line in one direction until they were out of sight. Then the sequence repeated, quite spectacularly. Arcs whirled around conductors from an updraft and a cross wind. The line-protection circuit breaker was set incorrectly; the "reach" of directional-distance-relays was/were set too short. The zone of protection ended short of where arcs were occurring. Arcs motored into the zone of protection and tripped the line off. An automatic recloser re-energized the line periodically, for my viewing pleasure. Written somewhere: power-line arcs motor toward the source. I'm guessing this is driven by the Lorentz and/or Maxwell force(s) mentioned above. Direction of flow might be ambiguous in a power-grid setting. In this case the arc probably motored toward the lowest impedance source. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreagan (talk • contribs) 22:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles

Redirects

Spark = disambig links to spark gap and voltaic arc
Arc = disambig links to voltaic arc and electric arc
Voltaic arc --> redirects to electric arc
Electrical discharge --> redirects to Electrostatic discharge
Discharge = disambig links to electrostatic discharge and corona discharge
Dielectric_breakdown --> redirects to Electrical breakdown
Glow discharge --> redirects to Electric glow discharge

This site says there are 4 types of electrical breakdown of air, Glow Discharges, Corona, Sparks, and Arcs. - Omegatron 14:21, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for those links!

Atlant 14:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very good links with equations and theory: Excerpts from Dielectric Phenomena in High Voltage Engineering, F.W. Peek, McGraw-Hill, 1929 - Omegatron 17:44, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Sparks and arcs

Peek says: "By spark-over is generally meant the disruption of a gaseous dielectric from one conductor to another conductor. Strictly speaking it is the name applied to the initial discharge and not the arc that follows." - [4]

Gas Discharge Tube

Gas Tubes are ceramic arresters utilizing a spark gap, but often called a spark gap. Why?

Its a spark gap with ioinsed gas surrounding the elctrodes to make it fire more predicatably/at a lower voltage. The ceramic is just the casing.--Light current 17:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New moving image

THe new image is really great. But is it possible to make it a bit bigger so we can really see whats happening>--Light current 17:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops- looks like a copyvio!--Light current 17:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any light emission hazards with Jacob's Ladder?

In welding we have always been told not to look at the arc at the point of contact because it is producing a broad spectrum of wavelengths, including damaging UV radiation, which can permanently damage the retina.

Does this same safety rule apply to the arc produced by the Jacob's ladder? Is it unsafe to view the arcing for long periods of time?

(I am already aware of the ionization hazards which produce oxygen and nitrogen ions that reform into reactive compounds.)

DMahalko (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Low current (typically 10's or 100's of milliamperes) Jacob's Ladders do not generate appreciable amounts of UV light. However, higher current atmospheric pressure arcs (which generate plasma that's a bright blue-white color) can be a problem. Bert (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Circuit symbol

I hoped to find here the circuit symbol for a spark gap. Is there a standard one?

RAClarke (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorescing?

Isn't it incandescence? --::- Victor van Poppelen (talk • contribs) 02:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Length of HV arc

It says here that arcs are 30kv/cm yet many sources say 10kv/cm

Source: somewhere on this website http://wiki.4hv.org/index.php/Main_Page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.165.253 (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial spark breakdown of air at sea level is about 30 kv/cm. However, once you've formed an arc by either breaking down the air or by briefly touching the electrodes together, the voltage across the burning arc is considerably less than this. For example, a welding arc may only have 30-40 volts across it. A high current, high voltage arc (such as a power line fault) may have a potential of 1,000 - 2,000 volts/meter.

I've just been doing some experiments with my Neon sign transformer (15kv, 30mA) and the arcs form at the 1.2-1.5cm range, drawing out to 4-5cm

219.90.208.228 (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobs Ladder

Why was Jacobs Ladder performed? Whats the specific purpose of the study? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.123.12 (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

unusual devices?

Given the historical devices mentioned is it fair to dismiss inclusion of UJTs as "unusual"? Agree UJTs are today, but so to are the historical devices here. "special apps" suggest inclusion of unusual devices. Could verification of production figures be of any use in settling this? 109.145.71.94 (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Device type numbers and power ratings would be interesting. The only unijunctions I've ever used have been small-signal types. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for UJT's being used as protection devices before I removed the content and did not find any references. In the 60s and 70s, UJTs were used to trigger SCRs, so they may have been used in combination for crowbar protection, but the primary protection would be supplied by the SCR and not a bare UJT. Glrx (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break up article?

Suggest since this article covers a wide variety of devices and applications that it be summarized with links to new wiki pages for important applications, e.g. TSG (Power-switching devices).D A Patriarche (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Power-switching devices

Suggest these (TSG) deserve a separate article due to their very specific usage and interest re nuclear devices.D A Patriarche (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English variety

This article should be American English. The article was started by American Reddi, but he did not use any American spelling. Bert Hickman set the variety by spelling "arrester" in this 14 February 2005 edit. Glrx (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning arrestor was first introduced by Chetvorno in March 2010. The article continued happily with that spelling for some years, until an IP edit in March last year to change it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob's Ladder

Wikipedia does in fact include safety information. See the hazcodes in every chemical article. More relevantly it does care if you die screaming if there is a reliable source for it. See Tert-Butyllithium#Safety.©Geni (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo won't even send flowers to your grieving spouse. It's not the place of Wikipedia to advise the impulsive of the dangers of applying the hard-won knowledge they've just read. I'm pretty sure the article on heart transplant doesn't even warn you to wash your hands first. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that people have been killed by building Jacob's Ladder's is not a how to manual any more than Adrenochrome#Chemistry is a how-to. The reality is that among groups that do less practical stuff with electricity Jacob's Ladder is known for being the pretty effect that involves voltages that can get you killed . The fact is has killed someone (and I have a reliable source to that effect) is both significant enough and notable enough to be mentioned in the article. Same way that the Chlorine trifluoride article mentions it can burn sand because among chemists that's what its best known for even if its very much secondary to its main applications.©Geni (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If one's only knowledge of electrical matters was to be gleaned from Wikipedia articles, then one is in so much trouble already that the extra warnings are not going to help. Please, sir, what Wikitaskforce is carefully adding safety warnings in every article from Aviation to Zymurgy? --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the authors of Boeing_737_MAX#Accidents_and_incidents and Great Molasses Flood respectively.©Geni (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]