Jon,
I think the phenomenon you are discussing is know as "multipaction". I am
not familiar with the details of the physics, but suffice it to say that your
friend
is correct that ionization is more prevalent at low barometric pressures. I have
seen this demonstrated on a airborne HF antenna mast in an altitude chamber.
I am not certain, but I believe the trend reverses itself under conditions of
high vacuum.
In this case, I suspect that the absence of a free ion supply vis-a-vis the
absence
of low pressure gas forces the conducting surfaces of the electrodes to supply
the ions needed for conduction, which is probably akin to making a vacuum tube
conduct without heating the cathode.
I think this explains why one of the engineers I work with at JPL was so happy
when
W.L. Gore finally built a vented SMA connector for him. Seems that small amounts
of trapped gas in a space-borne connector can cause multipaction at very low
power
levels. If the connector is vented properly, space high vacuum will establish
itself
soon after launch and such problems are avoided.
Anyway, that's all I know - enough to be dangerous.
Mike, W4EF......................
Original Message-----
From: Jon Ogden [SMTP:jono@enteract.com]
Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 7:35 AM
To: amps@contesting.com
Subject: [AMPS] Arcing in air vs. arcing in a vacuum
Hi all,
I got a question. I had a discussion with a ham friend of mine on our
way to Dayton this weekend. We were talking about the *gas* theories in
tubes and tube arcing. His comment was that from his experience, he has
determined that the voltage breakdown potential of a vacuum is LESS than
that of the voltage breakdown potential in air. He said that while doing
some EMC testing of a product he has designed for his company, he found
this to be the case. He had to simulate lightning strikes at high
altitude and thinner air. The breakdown potential was much less at
higher altitude (thinner air) than at the thicker air of sea level. The
arcs happened at less voltage at high altitude. So he has made the
conclusion that if the breakdown potential of thin air is less than
regular air, the breakdown potential of a vacuum is less still. I don't
know if this jump can be made.
Can someone help explain this? All my instincts tell me that a vacuum
has the highest breakdown withstanding potential. I seem to remember
hearing once though that thin air ionizes easier than "thick" air so
perhaps that explains it.
Thanks a lot.
73,
Jon
KE9NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Second Amendment is NOT about duck hunting!
Jon Ogden
jono@enteract.com
www.qsl.net/ke9na
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|