Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 10:05:21 -0400
From: Finn Lassen <finn.lassen@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Another great flying day = another day of
 troubleshooting
In-reply-to: <list-712664@logan.com>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Message-id: <431DA221.8050104@verizon.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <list-712664@logan.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4)
 Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax; PROMO)

Ahh! Together with Bill Jepson's data this makes sense!

Finn

Ernest Christley wrote:

> Finn Lassen wrote:
>
>> Hmm... and here I thought that vacumn was a better insulator than air 
>> ...
>> Why is the air pumped out of lightbulbs?
>>
> This had me confused for a long time to, Finn.  The way it was 
> explained to me is that a VACUUM would be a better insulator. But you 
> don't have a vacuum, you have a thin atmosphere.  To basically short 
> out, enough air molecules have to get ionized to form an alternate 
> path to ground.  In thick sea-level air, there are so many molecules 
> competing for the limited ionizing energy and so many non-ionized 
> molecules getting in the way that the charge is released in the 
> cylinder before an alternate path can be formed.  In the rarified air 
> at altitudes, the fewer molecules take charge quicker and  are much 
> nimbler so that the alternate path beats the spark plug.
>
> If anyone has a better story, I'm willing to listen.
>