Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Don Lancaster · Guest

User wrote:
[quote]
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:15:32 -0700, Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com
wrote:

User wrote:

So what is it that transfers momentum between the fluid and the rotor
in a bladeless pump or turbine if it isn>t pressure?

Lossy shear forces in a viscous fluid.
Which are fundamentally and inherently thermodynamically irreversible.

I know that. You know that. Heck, even Rice knows that -- he
integrates tau*r*dr*dtheta over the face of his disks to get the
torque. But somehow Hannon can>t understand it. All he sees is ultra
high efficiencies calculated from some bad assumptions, and he>s
extrapolated those theoretical results to amazing experiments
happening everywhere but at labs operated by people who have a clue.
He even came right out and said that a proper Tesla turbine has never
been tested at an "accredited facility", because they always show poor
efficiency, and the only proper ones have been tested by hobbyists,
because they show high efficiency. Bizarre logic.
[/quote]
Again, competent engineering is an email away at diskflo.com

They clearly pass the Aisle 13 WalMart test.
But have to add blades for efficiency.

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: don@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462

Please visit my GURU>s LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

Michael Hannon · Guest

"fkasner" <fkasner@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:ySQsb.222$4X4.94292@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
[quote]

Michael Hannon wrote:
"fkasner" <fkasner@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:g4Bsb.21169$8x2.8156934@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...

Michael Hannon wrote:

"fkasner" <fkasner@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:Kobsb.19370$8x2.7814020@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...

Michael Hannon wrote:

If you wonder why you get short shrift in this NG it is because of
your
track record. You have repeatedly posted unprovable stuff that merely
referred to marvelous new discoveries that no one save you believes
and
which you never seem able to demonstrate (real world not mere claims)
as
being workable by any one. Even your claims for the work of Stanley
Meyer and the inability of anyone to reproduce them keep harping on
your
claims that others just are not doing the experiments correctly.
Follow
that up with some of the most amazing pseudoscience claims on your
part
and you have zeroed out your credibility. Do you really want us to
post
once again some of your most risible claims? You look remarkably
foolish
when these are posted. Why should anyone believe any further claims on
your part. Our concerns for your mental health have risen again.
FK

Why, Fred....
Nice to see you again.

How are the satanic rituals going?

Quite well when you send us an effigy of yourself. Satan really
appreciates it. Says that Mikey, the Grand Dummy, is one of his best
products.
FK

Am I reading the dialogue from an old Abbot and Costello movie, or what?
Fair exchange - I send you one of me, and you send me one of you - we
get
our own pins to put in them.

If I>m so dumb, Fred, how come you never could figure out what "OH (M
D)"
means?

It is good to here from you anyway, Fred.
Hope you>re in good health.

M

Actually not in such good health. Sept. 10, 2002 I suffered a heart
attack followed two days later by my left ventricle collapsing. They
send for my daughter to see me on last time. But I made it and am in
fairly good shape according to my cardiologist. So I will be around for
a while to hector you about your awful tendency to foolishly support all
sorts of stuff that won>t work but you really try to support anyway.

I hope your mental health has improved, but your latest screeds make me
worry once again that you are not taking your meds as you should. You
are our local national treasure. We don>t mind your coming here on
occasion to push discredited scams because you don>t attempt to
capitalize on them. That is in your favor. But it is when you become too
ardent that we bridle. Try to avoid such furies. Your MDs would like to
deliver you to the world of the rational.
FK
[/quote]
Thanks for the compassion, Fred. I knew I could count on it.

I hope the VA didn>t perform that surgery on you.

My MDs? In the VA system you get one maintenance visit every 6 months. I
don>t know if one would call that medical treatment, or witholding of
medical treatment.

I>ve gone private, and the only med he is prescribing at present is one
Ambien at bedtime. Haven>t felt better in a long time. The difference in
treatment quality is too extraordinary to comment on here.

Check out a movie called "Blue Sky" with Tommy Lee Jones - it>ll give you
some entertaining truth.

No one taunts as well as you do, so who>d replace you?
Stay well, you devil you.

M

Michael Hannon · Guest

"Dan Bloomquist" <lakeweb@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:3FB3E761.1060809@citlink.net...
[quote]

Michael Hannon wrote:

Actually, laminar flow is one of the major attributes of the design. The
actual in/out spiral path of fluid in a Tesla pump can be many times the
radius of the disks, with virtually no turbulence. I>ve done smoke
testing
on one I built from clear acrylic disks, and the air path is very
smooth,
low turbulence.

Once the velocity of the fluid is established, it is trivial to check
back with a Moody chart to see if the flow is laminar. No guessing
necessary.
[/quote]
Indeed, but according to detractors, the shear forces should be creating
something entirely different than what actually occurs when the disk spacing
is up to snuff. Were shear forces there doing what detractors are claiming,
there would be all kinds of non-laminar flows between those disks.
[quote]
The more time the fluid is in the rotor, the less flow. You need to
crunch some numbers. The kinetic energy of the gas entering the rotor
_is_ the maximum energy you can impart to the rotor. You can>t have your
cake and eat it too.
[/quote]
No argument there. Where did you get the idea that the kinetic energy of the
gas >wouldn>t< be the maximum energy that can be imparted to the runner?
[quote]
And now I>m in a quandary. I worked on the numbers a little this morning
and I>m having a very hard time getting the dynamics to work. Like I
can>t have my cake and eat it too.
[/quote]
What cake? The proof is in the pudding, and all crunching collected, the
real world is the ultimate pudding. Maybe you>re just not a chef, but a
recipe contemplater. Everyone has their place, I guess.
[quote]
I may shelve this thing until I can get my hands on Rice>s papers or a
bulb comes on. Then again, it may be that Mr. Lancaster is right. But
that makes Professor Rice>s work an enigma.
[/quote]
Mr. Lancaster couldn>t even compete with the TEBA
guys when it came to the theoreticals, and he>s never seen a real one at
all, whereas those TEBA guys have spent years doing just that, along with
accumulating every possible document.
Would you call that a fair equation?
[quote]
I>ll believe it when I see it.
[/quote]
Then, by all means, make that happen in 3d, realtime.

[quote]
Best, Dan.

--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
dbAtLakewebDotCom
[/quote]

Michael Hannon · Guest

"User" <user@email.address.here> wrote in message
news:3fb371fc.86860604@netnews.att.net...
[quote]On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:15:32 -0700, Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com
wrote:

User wrote:

So what is it that transfers momentum between the fluid and the rotor
in a bladeless pump or turbine if it isn>t pressure?

Lossy shear forces in a viscous fluid.
Which are fundamentally and inherently thermodynamically irreversible.

I know that. You know that. Heck, even Rice knows that -- he
integrates tau*r*dr*dtheta over the face of his disks to get the
torque. But somehow Hannon can>t understand it. All he sees is ultra
high efficiencies calculated from some bad assumptions, and he>s
extrapolated those theoretical results to amazing experiments
happening everywhere but at labs operated by people who have a clue.
He even came right out and said that a proper Tesla turbine has never
been tested at an "accredited facility", because they always show poor
efficiency, and the only proper ones have been tested by hobbyists,
because they show high efficiency. Bizarre logic.

Funny, but this reads much like the PTO examiners' responses to the Tesla[/quote]
patent applications, until, of course, they realized that they didn>t quite
get what Tesla was describing.
The fact is that basically ANY surface has imperfections in it into which
smaller molecules can rest and cohere with the surface and each other. This
isn>t friction per se, but surface cohesion between the fluid molecules, and
adhesion between them and the surface. In a glass tube, a column of water
will have upturned edges because of the adhesion between the water and the
tube wall, while the water molecules themselves cohere to each other,
creating a surface tension as well. This area of contact between the water
and the surface, when confined in a properly applied space between flat
surfaces creates a
cohesive layer at the surface of each disk that adheres to them to a degrre
that is not quite the same as water adhering to a single surface because the
intermolecular bonds are stronger - a cohesive surface tension force exists
in the water on its surface that is next to the disk surface that is
especially strong, just as it is in the surface of a drop of water.
Tesla spent a lot of time trying to explain the difference between what the
examiners viewed as friction as had been cited in prior art used to debunk
his applications, and after an extended battle with examiners, they finally
began to understand that this wasn>t a friction operation, but a cohesion
and adhesion phenomenon he was exploiting. Clean, laminar flow cannot take
place in a space where shear forces, and losses, are sufficient
to break those cohesion and adhesion forces, but if the spacing is
sufficiently small, the cohesive force in the layer of fluid is especially
strong, and shear forces cannot break molecules free from that enclosed
layer so easily as they could if the action were merely frictional. It is
not frictional, and if it were, viewing clear plastic disks enclosing a
fluid would blatantly show all kinds of obvious shear force driven
turbulence between those disks that simply does not happen when that spacing
is correct.

Were this not so, there is no way that a 1" 3-stage Tesla pump could
possibly pump liquid hydrogen to a pressure of 10,000 psi at 15
gallons/minute because the slippage of hydrogen molecules between the disks
would be enormous. Hydrogen molecules are so small that they can literally
leak through the molecular spaces in most metals
over time. But were those molecules forced into a space where their own
surface tension would cohere them strongly while adhering them to the disk
surfaces, that slippage simply wouldn>t take place, and it doesn>t in that
pump.

OH (M D)

User · Guest

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:40:35 -0800, "Michael Hannon"
<oh19437@comcast.net> wrote:

[quote]"User" <user@email.address.here> wrote in message
news:3fb2d7b2.47356521@netnews.att.net...
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:52:15 -0700, Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com
wrote:

Calculations at the fluid end are meaningless.

I disagree. The "fluid end" is the "business end".

You have to take the average mechanical work input and compare it
against the average useful work done to determine efficiency.

If you neglect bearing friction, entrance and exit effects, etc., a
purely fluid-based calculation, done correctly, can yield pretty
decent results.

But a purely fluid-based calculation is subject to large errors
depending on your assumptions. Fully-developed laminar flow in these
machines is an extremely poor assumption. The entrance length for
flow between parallel plates can be upwards of 50 times the gap width.

Actually, laminar flow is one of the major attributes of the design.
[/quote]
The *assumption* of laminar flow is one of the reasons the calculated
efficiency is so high.

(Dan B., keep in mind the Moody chart is for fully-developed flow.
You can>t rely on the Moody chart for anything if the flow isn>t fully
developed.)

[quote]The
actual in/out spiral path of fluid in a Tesla pump can be many times the
radius of the disks, with virtually no turbulence.
[/quote]
Then why does Rice, in his 1974 paper, states "the assumptions of
small relative velocity of the fluid referred to the disks"?

Implicit in his model is purely radial flow (in the rotating frame of
reference), except for a small tangential component due to Coriolis
acceleration (that effect being buried in the Navier-Stokes
equations). By the way, the large relative velocity in the entrance
region violates his small relative velocity assumption right from the
start.

So while the fluid may appear to spiral around many times in the
stationary frame of reference, it actually is spinning very slowly
relative to the rotor (except for the entrance region).

Ever note that all of Rice>s efficiency figures increase as the flow
parameter decreases? That>s because at the limit (no flow at all),
the fluid within the rotor is in solid-body rotation, with no radial
or tangential component of velocity. Thus no torque. Voila, high
efficiency.

And hey, ever notice that Rice says "The calculations provide
realistically for the thermodynamically irreversible flow effects in
the space between the disks."???

What>s that? Thermodynamically irreversible? Naaaah, it can>t be.

[quote]I>ve done smoke testing
on one I built from clear acrylic disks, and the air path is very smooth,
low turbulence.
[/quote]
It is impossible to make such a judgement of laminar vs turbulent in
this situation using smoke. Velocities are too high, and passage
cross sections too small.

[quote]If you think you>re going to see a lot of internal turbulence between the
disks, guess again - it simply isn>t there, unless the spacing is much too
large. There are Tesla bladeless artificial heart pumps that have been built
for this reason.
[/quote]
Do you have a reference for this heart pump? How about a reference
for your "Aerojet Tesla Hydrogen Pump" as well?

[quote]TEBA substantiates this, and if you want all the formulae you can stand on
them, they have them, from various sources.
[/quote]
And I mean non-TEBA references. TEBA "substantiates" a lot of things
that don>t jibe with reality. Their writings are no more credible
than those found on KeelyNET, and they>re probably significantly LESS
credible because Frank Germano has a profit motive in keeping the
Tesla myths alive.

Bill Ward · Guest

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:00:06 -0800, "Michael Hannon"
<oh19437@comcast.net> wrote:

[quote]"User" <user@email.address.here> wrote in message
news:3fb2d44e.46488592@netnews.att.net...
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:34:56 -0800, "Michael Hannon"
oh19437@comcast.net> wrote:

Shear forces? You still don>t get it, do you? Keep thinking about it - it
may come to you yet.

Mr. Hannon, could you please describe the physical mechanism via which
the fluid applies a torque to the rotor in a Tesla turbine? It can>t
be pressure forces generating that torque, because on rotating disks
there are no surfaces oriented in such a way that pressures on them
would generate torque. So what is it?

Surface cohesion and viscosity. The disk spacing is such that just enough
space is allowed for the working fluid to
fill the space while not enough is there for shear forces acting on it to
cause "slippage." Ideally, the spacing creates a coupling action between the
working fluid and disks that forces the fluid to follow the disks in a
smooth, laminar flow free from turbulence cause by shear forces.
Seeing it do this via clear plastic disks shows the principle in action
quite well.
It>s literally what you see whan you put a drop of water on a glass plate
and then tilt the plate. When you tilt the plate the drop clings to the
plate by surface cohesion and viscosity up to a certain point, at which it
will slide downwards, but if you place a drop between two closely placed
plates of glass, it will just sit there, even if the the plates are
vertical, and even if you move them up and down together as well, up to a
certain point. It>s all in the spacing. Get it right, and the coupling
between the plates and water becomes high.

In the bladeless pump, it can>t be pressure forces that are pumping
the fluid either, because again, there are no properly oriented
surfaces.

The viscous and cohesive coupling applies the rotational force to the water,
and an internal pressure in the fluid between the disks is achieved which
causes greater surface cohesion and consequently greater pressure in the
fluid towards the disks.
Watching it happen is much more convincing than any description, and it does
indeed happen. the disks literally grab the fluid and propel it along a
spiral path, with centripetal force causing the fluid to migrate outwards in
the spiral withing the disk spacing.
It>s also been described as a controlled vortex as well, as the fluid seeks
a natural laminar path between the disks depending on the rotational speed,
disk spacing, and fluid viscosity. The coupling between the fluid and disks
can be so good that, as described on the action of that 1/12 hp pump Tesla
displayed, the stop-and-go pumping can be almost instantaneous. (when Tesla
stopped the pump, the water stopped virtually immediately, and when he
switched the pump back on, it began to flow again at full output just as
quickly.)
As I said, seeing it happen resolves a lot of theoretical questions very
quickly - it works in spades when everything is set as it should be. This is
why Tesla used to have fits trying to deal with people who wouldn>t
construct things as he specifically stated and then went about testing
devices he knew would fail to meet expected results.
Imagine trying to tell someone to build the thing a very specific way while
he then wouldn>t do it, and then blamed the design for the poor figures his
work got.
Think that>s improbable? Look at the test report from SDSU on the Tesla
turbine there. That turbine couldn>t get out of its own way if it tried
because it wasn>t designed properly in the first place. I wrote to the
department at the school and told them the flaws I saw, and Hal Clark
responded:

Michael,
I agree with all the points you make. The researcher in that project used
an existing turbine that had been built for some other purpose than the
application it was tested in so it was not surprising to us or the
researcher that the measured efficiency was low. What was of more interest
was whether or not that type of turbine could be used to generate power from
biomass combustion and whether or not deposition, erosion and corrosion
would occur. Findings in this area were positive but only a small quantity
of biomass was tested so the findings are not conclusive. I recommend you
send your recommendations to the researcher but I believe he acknowledged
most of your points in his final report.
Hal Clark
EISG Program Administrator
Phone: (619) 594-1158
Fax: (619) 594-0996
Email: hclark@projects.sdsu.edu

So we have here yet another test showing poor efficiency on a Tesla turbine,
yet anyone who didn>t know those design flaws would naturally assume that
the test was exemplary, when, in fact, it was nowhere near so, yet not a
single remark, not a word, in that report states this, and never will.

Now look at the results at the Frank Germano site:
http://www.frank.germano.com/images/itpeff1.jpg
http://www.frank.germano.com/images/itpeff2.jpg

At 13,000 rpm, about 2/3 the rpm required for maximum efficiency (runner
speed = velocity of inlet gases), the efficiency is 42.2%. So, is this
definitive? Far from it. The
actual optimum efficiency rpm was never tested, and from viewing the turbine
itself, no spacers are notable.
I have yet to see a complete independent report on a properly constructed
Tesla turbine, although I have seen statements of efficiency from
experienced builder/testers.
No one will build and test one of these things peoperly and submit
formalized documentation. The only such documentation I have seen is in
Tesla>s patent wrappers, when he took his turbines to an independent test
facility, at which the chief engineer commented in his report that the
efficiency of the test turbines was by far the best he had ever witnessed.
If anyone is doing this stuff properly and rigorously, they>re not
publishing their independently derived results
All anyone ever gets to see is results of the order I>ve noted - half-baked
or non-independent tests on improperly constructed Tesla turbines.
But of the results testified to in the Germano site are real,
as they state, the lower end projected efficiency at optimum speed is 66% on
a turbine that isn>t quite correctly built, and that would be consistent
with the Tesla patent wrapper tests as well on ones that were.

With these indications and absolutely NO full-bore rigorous testing on
properly constructed TTs available anywhere, except perhaps in Prof. Rice>s
latest circa 1990 research documents, which for some reason are difficult to
acquire, it would behoove anyone interested in following up on the SDSU
testing published with another test of a properly constructed device, at
minimum. When the school>s representative himself admits that the turbine
used was not properly built for such testing, it becomes obvious that the
State of California, in search of salient results for usage in consumption
of biomass for fuel in such a turbine, has fallen short of finding, or even
seeking, proper results because the tested turbine was not properly built in
the first place, yet, as far as I know, no further testing is scheduled with
a proper version of the turbine, as there very well should be, by any
standard approaching proper procedure for the benefit of the common wealth
of the State.

OH (M D)
[/quote]

Welcome back, Michael. It>s good to have a genuine 1000
milliHannon calibration thread going. Keeps people awake
and entertained just like old times.

But watch your meds - I notice your sentences are getting
pretty long every now and then. Remember to breathe.

Best Regards,

Bill Ward

<snip remainder>

Dan Bloomquist · Guest

'Full Name' wrote:
[quote]

The *assumption* of laminar flow is one of the reasons the calculated
efficiency is so high.

(Dan B., keep in mind the Moody chart is for fully-developed flow.
You can>t rely on the Moody chart for anything if the flow isn>t fully
developed.)

[/quote]
If this thing works, I>ve thought that diffusers should be an integral
part of the rotors by proper beveling of the inlet and outlet edges. The
inlet looks to be the most problematic.

But inside the rotor with .01cm spacing and a low relative velocity, I
don>t see how turbulence is possible.

[quote]Then why does Rice, in his 1974 paper, states "the assumptions of
small relative velocity of the fluid referred to the disks"?

[/quote]
That>s the way it would have to work. Because I can>t search, (and
bearably read) the paper I>m not sure of the context.

[quote]Implicit in his model is purely radial flow (in the rotating frame of
reference), except for a small tangential component due to Coriolis
acceleration (that effect being buried in the Navier-Stokes
equations). By the way, the large relative velocity in the entrance
region violates his small relative velocity assumption right from the
start.
[/quote]
There would have to be a very abrupt change in velocity at the inlet and
why this is the most critical diffuser.

[quote]So while the fluid may appear to spiral around many times in the
stationary frame of reference, it actually is spinning very slowly
relative to the rotor (except for the entrance region).

[/quote]
Yes.

[quote]Ever note that all of Rice>s efficiency figures increase as the flow
parameter decreases? That>s because at the limit (no flow at all),
the fluid within the rotor is in solid-body rotation, with no radial
or tangential component of velocity. Thus no torque. Voila, high
efficiency.

[/quote]
Someday I>ll get clean copies of the papers, here is a list of some papers:

"An Analytical and Experimental Investigation of Multiple Disk Pumps and
Compressors", Rice, Warren, Journal of Engineering for Power, July, 1963.

"An Analytical and Experimental Investigation of Multiple-Disk
Turbines", Rice, Warren, Journal of Engineering for Power, January, 1965.

"Potential Flow Between Two Parallel Circular Disks with Partial
Admission", Matsch, Lee and Warren Rice, Journal of Applied Mechanics,
March, 1967.

"Experimental Investigation of the Flow Between Corotating Disks",
Adams, R. and W. Rice, Journal of Applied Mechanics, September, 1970.

"Flow Regime Definition for Flow Between Corotating Disks", Pater, L.L.,
E. Crowther and W. Rice, Journal of Fluids Engineering, March, 1974.

[quote]And hey, ever notice that Rice says "The calculations provide
realistically for the thermodynamically irreversible flow effects in
the space between the disks."???

What>s that? Thermodynamically irreversible? Naaaah, it can>t be.

[/quote]
You know as well as I do that _all_ pumps have thermodynamically
irreversible qualities. The question is, what>s the ratio? And maybe
this thing can never work as a power turbine because I don>t see how
anything but kinetic energy could power it. That>s why those fancy
rocket engine like combustors.

[quote]
Do you have a reference for this heart pump? How about a reference
for your "Aerojet Tesla Hydrogen Pump" as well?

[/quote]
I saw it, it is real. Understandable as the pump must pulse and it looks
like the disk pump is well suited.

[quote]
TEBA substantiates this, and if you want all the formulae you can stand on
them, they have them, from various sources.

And I mean non-TEBA references. TEBA "substantiates" a lot of things
that don>t jibe with reality. Their writings are no more credible
than those found on KeelyNET, and they>re probably significantly LESS
credible because Frank Germano has a profit motive in keeping the
Tesla myths alive.

[/quote]
TEBA looks like a shame. No technical info but a lot of rant. And:
http://ados.com/~guy1656/Vytis-Bladeless/main_text.html

Best, Dan.

--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
dbAtLakewebDotCom

Dan Bloomquist · Guest

Michael Hannon wrote:
[quote]And now I>m in a quandary. I worked on the numbers a little this morning
and I>m having a very hard time getting the dynamics to work. Like I
can>t have my cake and eat it too.

What cake? The proof is in the pudding, and all crunching collected, the
real world is the ultimate pudding. Maybe you>re just not a chef, but a
recipe contemplater. Everyone has their place, I guess.

[/quote]
Sprinkling a little ad hominem salt? I>m beginning to think you are
schizophrenic. At least John Nash had a clue...

Best, Dan.

--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
dbAtLakewebDotCom

Dan Bloomquist · Guest

Michael Hannon wrote:
[quote]
Funny, but this reads much like the PTO examiners' responses to the Tesla
patent applications, until, of course, they realized that they didn>t quite
get what Tesla was describing.
The fact is that basically ANY surface has imperfections in it into which
smaller molecules can rest and cohere with the surface and each other. This
isn>t friction per se, but surface cohesion between the fluid molecules, and
adhesion between them and the surface. In a glass tube, a column of water
will have upturned edges because of the adhesion between the water and the
tube wall, while the water molecules themselves cohere to each other,
creating a surface tension as well. This area of contact between the water
and the surface, when confined in a properly applied space between flat
surfaces creates a
cohesive layer at the surface of each disk that adheres to them to a degrre
that is not quite the same as water adhering to a single surface because the
intermolecular bonds are stronger - a cohesive surface tension force exists
in the water on its surface that is next to the disk surface that is
especially strong, just as it is in the surface of a drop of water.
Tesla spent a lot of time trying to explain the difference between what the
examiners viewed as friction as had been cited in prior art used to debunk
his applications, and after an extended battle with examiners, they finally
began to understand that this wasn>t a friction operation, but a cohesion
and adhesion phenomenon he was exploiting. Clean, laminar flow cannot take
place in a space where shear forces, and losses, are sufficient
to break those cohesion and adhesion forces, but if the spacing is
sufficiently small, the cohesive force in the layer of fluid is especially
strong, and shear forces cannot break molecules free from that enclosed
layer so easily as they could if the action were merely frictional. It is
not frictional, and if it were, viewing clear plastic disks enclosing a
fluid would blatantly show all kinds of obvious shear force driven
turbulence between those disks that simply does not happen when that spacing
is correct.

Were this not so, there is no way that a 1" 3-stage Tesla pump could
possibly pump liquid hydrogen to a pressure of 10,000 psi at 15
gallons/minute because the slippage of hydrogen molecules between the disks
would be enormous. Hydrogen molecules are so small that they can literally
leak through the molecular spaces in most metals
over time. But were those molecules forced into a space where their own
surface tension would cohere them strongly while adhering them to the disk
surfaces, that slippage simply wouldn>t take place, and it doesn>t in that
pump.

[/quote]
Instead of parroting tesla sites and possibly making up that dispute
with the PTO examiner, why don>t you learn about shear stress as it is
the only observably relevant phenomena.

Best, Dan.

--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
dbAtLakewebDotCom

User · Guest

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:00:06 -0800, "Michael Hannon"
<oh19437@comcast.net> wrote:

[quote]"User" <user@email.address.here> wrote in message
news:3fb2d44e.46488592@netnews.att.net...

Mr. Hannon, could you please describe the physical mechanism via which
the fluid applies a torque to the rotor in a Tesla turbine? It can>t
be pressure forces generating that torque, because on rotating disks
there are no surfaces oriented in such a way that pressures on them
would generate torque. So what is it?

Surface cohesion and viscosity. The disk spacing is such that just enough
space is allowed for the working fluid to
fill the space while not enough is there for shear forces acting on it to
cause "slippage." Ideally, the spacing creates a coupling action between the
working fluid and disks that forces the fluid to follow the disks in a
smooth, laminar flow free from turbulence cause by shear forces.
[/quote]
Are you saying that there are no shear forces present in the Tesla
machine?

[quote]Seeing it do this via clear plastic disks shows the principle in action
quite well.
It>s literally what you see whan you put a drop of water on a glass plate
and then tilt the plate. When you tilt the plate the drop clings to the
plate by surface cohesion and viscosity up to a certain point, at which it
will slide downwards, but if you place a drop between two closely placed
plates of glass, it will just sit there, even if the the plates are
vertical, and even if you move them up and down together as well, up to a
certain point. It>s all in the spacing. Get it right, and the coupling
between the plates and water becomes high.
[/quote]
Are you saying that in the narrow gaps in a Tesla machine, the fluid
immediately in contact with the disk surface sticks to that surface
and does not move relative to that surface? (Don, Dan, bw, I have
Schlichting.)

Are you also saying that on an uncovered surface, that the fluid
immediately in contact with that surface *does* move relative to that
surface, and that only by being trapped in a narrow gap does it *not*
move relative to that surface? (Again, Don, Dan, bw, I have
Schlichting. Please Let Hannon answer.)

And are you saying that in the Tesla machine, surface tension plays a
greater role than viscosity?

[quote]In the bladeless pump, it can>t be pressure forces that are pumping
the fluid either, because again, there are no properly oriented
surfaces.

The viscous and cohesive coupling applies the rotational force to the water,
and an internal pressure in the fluid between the disks is achieved which
causes greater surface cohesion and consequently greater pressure in the
fluid towards the disks.
[/quote]
Are you saying that the static pressure of the fluid increases as it
passes between the disks, and this pressure forces the fluid against
the disks?

[quote]Watching it happen is much more convincing than any description, and it does
indeed happen. the disks literally grab the fluid and propel it along a
spiral path, with centripetal force causing the fluid to migrate outwards in
the spiral withing the disk spacing.
It>s also been described as a controlled vortex as well, as the fluid seeks
a natural laminar path between the disks depending on the rotational speed,
disk spacing, and fluid viscosity. The coupling between the fluid and disks
can be so good that, as described on the action of that 1/12 hp pump Tesla
displayed, the stop-and-go pumping can be almost instantaneous. (when Tesla
stopped the pump, the water stopped virtually immediately, and when he
switched the pump back on, it began to flow again at full output just as
quickly.)
As I said, seeing it happen resolves a lot of theoretical questions very
quickly - it works in spades when everything is set as it should be. This is
why Tesla used to have fits trying to deal with people who wouldn>t
construct things as he specifically stated and then went about testing
devices he knew would fail to meet expected results.
Imagine trying to tell someone to build the thing a very specific way while
he then wouldn>t do it, and then blamed the design for the poor figures his
work got.
Think that>s improbable? Look at the test report from SDSU on the Tesla
turbine there.
[/quote]
Where can I look at that report?

[quote]That turbine couldn>t get out of its own way if it tried
because it wasn>t designed properly in the first place. I wrote to the
department at the school and told them the flaws I saw, and Hal Clark
responded:

Michael,
I agree with all the points you make.
[/quote]
Please post the letter you sent him.

[quote]The researcher in that project used
an existing turbine that had been built for some other purpose than the
application it was tested in so it was not surprising to us or the
researcher that the measured efficiency was low. What was of more interest
was whether or not that type of turbine could be used to generate power from
biomass combustion and whether or not deposition, erosion and corrosion
would occur. Findings in this area were positive but only a small quantity
of biomass was tested so the findings are not conclusive. I recommend you
send your recommendations to the researcher but I believe he acknowledged
most of your points in his final report.
Hal Clark
EISG Program Administrator
Phone: (619) 594-1158
Fax: (619) 594-0996
Email: hclark@projects.sdsu.edu

So we have here yet another test showing poor efficiency on a Tesla turbine,
yet anyone who didn>t know those design flaws would naturally assume that
the test was exemplary, when, in fact, it was nowhere near so, yet not a
single remark, not a word, in that report states this, and never will.

Now look at the results at the Frank Germano site:
http://www.frank.germano.com/images/itpeff1.jpg
http://www.frank.germano.com/images/itpeff2.jpg

At 13,000 rpm, about 2/3 the rpm required for maximum efficiency (runner
speed = velocity of inlet gases), the efficiency is 42.2%. So, is this
definitive? Far from it. The
actual optimum efficiency rpm was never tested, and from viewing the turbine
itself, no spacers are notable.
I have yet to see a complete independent report on a properly constructed
Tesla turbine, although I have seen statements of efficiency from
experienced builder/testers.
No one will build and test one of these things peoperly and submit
formalized documentation.
[/quote]
Why not? If these machines are so good, why doesn>t anybody but a few
hobbyists build them?

[quote]The only such documentation I have seen is in
Tesla>s patent wrappers, when he took his turbines to an independent test
facility, at which the chief engineer commented in his report that the
efficiency of the test turbines was by far the best he had ever witnessed.
If anyone is doing this stuff properly and rigorously, they>re not
publishing their independently derived results
[/quote]
Why not?

[quote]All anyone ever gets to see is results of the order I>ve noted - half-baked
or non-independent tests on improperly constructed Tesla turbines.
[/quote]
You>re assuming they>re improperly constructed.

It would appear that all believable experimental results that exist
indicate poor efficiency. You then seem to indicate that every single
one of these was improperly built, so you can discount the poor
results. And then you say that a properly built machine has never
been tested.

Other than Tesla>s patents and a few crackpot websites, what has you
so convinced these things are so great?

[quote]But of the results testified to in the Germano site are real,
as they state, the lower end projected efficiency at optimum speed is 66% on
a turbine that isn>t quite correctly built, and that would be consistent
with the Tesla patent wrapper tests as well on ones that were.
[/quote]
Had it ever occurred to you that Frank Germano might have a financial
interest in keeping the Tesla myth alive?

[quote]With these indications and absolutely NO full-bore rigorous testing on
properly constructed TTs available anywhere, except perhaps in Prof. Rice>s
latest circa 1990 research documents, which for some reason are difficult to
acquire, it would behoove anyone interested in following up on the SDSU
testing published with another test of a properly constructed device, at
minimum.
[/quote]
Perhaps nobody is able to provide solid enough evidence of the
performance to shake loose sufficient funding to execute a proper
test?

Hell, if I approached NASA or the Air Force with a turbine design with
a 98% efficiency, requiring no blades at all (which can cost upwards
of $1000 each, for modern cooled high-pressure gas turbine blades),
and I could point to hobbyists building these things in their
basements on a shoestring budget, I could easily walk away with a
$100k-$200k contract and a year to produce preliminary results.

[quote]When the school>s representative himself admits that the turbine
used was not properly built for such testing, it becomes obvious that the
State of California, in search of salient results for usage in consumption
of biomass for fuel in such a turbine, has fallen short of finding, or even
seeking, proper results because the tested turbine was not properly built in
the first place, yet, as far as I know, no further testing is scheduled with
a proper version of the turbine, as there very well should be, by any
standard approaching proper procedure for the benefit of the common wealth
of the State.
[/quote]
What is your motivation in hyping these Tesla machines so fervently?

Don Lancaster · Guest

User wrote:
[quote]
Are you saying that in the narrow gaps in a Tesla machine, the fluid
immediately in contact with the disk surface sticks to that surface
and does not move relative to that surface?

[/quote]
um, this is a given.

It is called a BOUNDARY CONDITION.
And applies to ALL fluid flow everywhere.

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: don@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462

Please visit my GURU>s LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

Michael Hannon · Guest

"Dan Bloomquist" <lakeweb@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:3FB4496D.9040302@citlink.net...
[quote]

Michael Hannon wrote:
And now I>m in a quandary. I worked on the numbers a little this morning
and I>m having a very hard time getting the dynamics to work. Like I
can>t have my cake and eat it too.

What cake? The proof is in the pudding, and all crunching collected, the
real world is the ultimate pudding. Maybe you>re just not a chef, but a
recipe contemplater. Everyone has their place, I guess.

Sprinkling a little ad hominem salt? I>m beginning to think you are
schizophrenic. At least John Nash had a clue...
[/quote]

Don>t be so touchy - no such intent was there, Dan.

Now I>m schizophrenic? But lease, continue, if you will, Dan. I can use
every bit I can gather on these types of stigmatizations, particularly since
I>ve never been schizophrenic, but have suffered with that stigmatization
for years because the federal agencies refused to admit that PTSD existed
while thousands of veterans suffered along with misdiagnoses and treatments
for conditions they never had in the first place.
So, please continue with this stigmatization, if you will.

But in the meantime, note that no ad hominem at all was intended, and that
is the truth.

Thanks for mentioning John Nash as well, though. I consider such Nobel Prize
winning company a compliment. Do you know what he actually discovered
mathematically?

Best,
OH (M D)

[quote]Best, Dan.

--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
dbAtLakewebDotCom
[/quote]

Michael Hannon · Guest

"User" <user@email.address.here> wrote in message
news:3fb43239.136080787@netnews.att.net...
[quote]On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:40:35 -0800, "Michael Hannon"
oh19437@comcast.net> wrote:

"User" <user@email.address.here> wrote in message
news:3fb2d7b2.47356521@netnews.att.net...
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:52:15 -0700, Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com
wrote:

Calculations at the fluid end are meaningless.

I disagree. The "fluid end" is the "business end".

You have to take the average mechanical work input and compare it
against the average useful work done to determine efficiency.

If you neglect bearing friction, entrance and exit effects, etc., a
purely fluid-based calculation, done correctly, can yield pretty
decent results.

But a purely fluid-based calculation is subject to large errors
depending on your assumptions. Fully-developed laminar flow in these
machines is an extremely poor assumption. The entrance length for
flow between parallel plates can be upwards of 50 times the gap width.

Actually, laminar flow is one of the major attributes of the design.

The *assumption* of laminar flow is one of the reasons the calculated
efficiency is so high.
[/quote]
It>s no assumption, and anyone who has seen the flow with his own eyes could
tell you that.
[quote]
(Dan B., keep in mind the Moody chart is for fully-developed flow.
You can>t rely on the Moody chart for anything if the flow isn>t fully
developed.)

The
actual in/out spiral path of fluid in a Tesla pump can be many times the
radius of the disks, with virtually no turbulence.

Then why does Rice, in his 1974 paper, states "the assumptions of
small relative velocity of the fluid referred to the disks"?

Implicit in his model is purely radial flow (in the rotating frame of
reference), except for a small tangential component due to Coriolis
acceleration (that effect being buried in the Navier-Stokes
equations). By the way, the large relative velocity in the entrance
region violates his small relative velocity assumption right from the
start.

So while the fluid may appear to spiral around many times in the
stationary frame of reference, it actually is spinning very slowly
relative to the rotor (except for the entrance region).

Ever note that all of Rice>s efficiency figures increase as the flow
parameter decreases? That>s because at the limit (no flow at all),
the fluid within the rotor is in solid-body rotation, with no radial
or tangential component of velocity. Thus no torque. Voila, high
efficiency.

And hey, ever notice that Rice says "The calculations provide
realistically for the thermodynamically irreversible flow effects in
the space between the disks."???

What>s that? Thermodynamically irreversible? Naaaah, it can>t be.

I>ve done smoke testing
on one I built from clear acrylic disks, and the air path is very smooth,
low turbulence.

It is impossible to make such a judgement of laminar vs turbulent in
this situation using smoke. Velocities are too high, and passage
cross sections too small.

If you think you>re going to see a lot of internal turbulence between the
disks, guess again - it simply isn>t there, unless the spacing is much
too
large. There are Tesla bladeless artificial heart pumps that have been
built
for this reason.

Do you have a reference for this heart pump? How about a reference
for your "Aerojet Tesla Hydrogen Pump" as well?

TEBA substantiates this, and if you want all the formulae you can stand
on
them, they have them, from various sources.

And I mean non-TEBA references. TEBA "substantiates" a lot of things
that don>t jibe with reality. Their writings are no more credible
than those found on KeelyNET, and they>re probably significantly LESS
credible because Frank Germano has a profit motive in keeping the
Tesla myths alive.

Yet more discussion of non-experience.[/quote]
It might serve you well to witness the processes first hand.
I mean, it>s not as though you couldn>t. But I>ve found this deeply rooted
in discussions in this NG - folks debating
the formulae of phenomena that they could easily observe were they of the
ilk to do so.

Tell me - do you need barometric, temperature, and relative humidity theory
discussions as well to know if it>s raining outside, or do you ever just
LOOK?

OH (M D)

Michael Hannon · Guest

"Dan Bloomquist" <lakeweb@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:3FB44959.8050401@citlink.net...
[quote]

'Full Name' wrote:

The *assumption* of laminar flow is one of the reasons the calculated
efficiency is so high.

(Dan B., keep in mind the Moody chart is for fully-developed flow.
You can>t rely on the Moody chart for anything if the flow isn>t fully
developed.)

If this thing works, I>ve thought that diffusers should be an integral
part of the rotors by proper beveling of the inlet and outlet edges. The
inlet looks to be the most problematic.
[/quote]
Well done. Those who have actually seen these things working concluded the
same thing within seconds of watching them.
[quote]
But inside the rotor with .01cm spacing and a low relative velocity, I
don>t see how turbulence is possible.
[/quote]
Also well construed.
[quote]
Then why does Rice, in his 1974 paper, states "the assumptions of
small relative velocity of the fluid referred to the disks"?

That>s the way it would have to work. Because I can>t search, (and
bearably read) the paper I>m not sure of the context.

Implicit in his model is purely radial flow (in the rotating frame of
reference), except for a small tangential component due to Coriolis
acceleration (that effect being buried in the Navier-Stokes
equations). By the way, the large relative velocity in the entrance
region violates his small relative velocity assumption right from the
start.

There would have to be a very abrupt change in velocity at the inlet and
why this is the most critical diffuser.
[/quote]
Again, well done.
[quote]
So while the fluid may appear to spiral around many times in the
stationary frame of reference, it actually is spinning very slowly
relative to the rotor (except for the entrance region).

Yes.
[/quote]
Precisely.
[quote]
Ever note that all of Rice>s efficiency figures increase as the flow
parameter decreases? That>s because at the limit (no flow at all),
the fluid within the rotor is in solid-body rotation, with no radial
or tangential component of velocity. Thus no torque. Voila, high
efficiency.

Someday I>ll get clean copies of the papers, here is a list of some
papers:

"An Analytical and Experimental Investigation of Multiple Disk Pumps and
Compressors", Rice, Warren, Journal of Engineering for Power, July, 1963.

"An Analytical and Experimental Investigation of Multiple-Disk
Turbines", Rice, Warren, Journal of Engineering for Power, January, 1965.

"Potential Flow Between Two Parallel Circular Disks with Partial
Admission", Matsch, Lee and Warren Rice, Journal of Applied Mechanics,
March, 1967.

"Experimental Investigation of the Flow Between Corotating Disks",
Adams, R. and W. Rice, Journal of Applied Mechanics, September, 1970.

"Flow Regime Definition for Flow Between Corotating Disks", Pater, L.L.,
E. Crowther and W. Rice, Journal of Fluids Engineering, March, 1974.

There>s also later text.

And hey, ever notice that Rice says "The calculations provide
realistically for the thermodynamically irreversible flow effects in
the space between the disks."???

What>s that? Thermodynamically irreversible? Naaaah, it can>t be.

You know as well as I do that _all_ pumps have thermodynamically
irreversible qualities. The question is, what>s the ratio? And maybe
this thing can never work as a power turbine because I don>t see how
anything but kinetic energy could power it. That>s why those fancy
rocket engine like combustors.
[/quote]
Or pulse jet. Univ. of Houston also has a functioning ram jet design that
will run standing still.

[quote]
Do you have a reference for this heart pump? How about a reference
for your "Aerojet Tesla Hydrogen Pump" as well?

I saw it, it is real. Understandable as the pump must pulse and it looks
like the disk pump is well suited.

TEBA substantiates this, and if you want all the formulae you can stand
on
them, they have them, from various sources.

And I mean non-TEBA references. TEBA "substantiates" a lot of things
that don>t jibe with reality. Their writings are no more credible
than those found on KeelyNET, and they>re probably significantly LESS
credible because Frank Germano has a profit motive in keeping the
Tesla myths alive.

TEBA looks like a shame. No technical info but a lot of rant. And:
http://ados.com/~guy1656/Vytis-Bladeless/main_text.html
[/quote]
Don>t hold your breath believing that one. They have more info from Prof.
Rice than you do.

When the theoreticals have reached a dead end, then all that>s left is
mental masturbation, and nothing of value
regarding a physical reality that has already been produced and observed is
achieved. At that point,
the question is always why the masturbation continues, unless, of course, it
is all that some people ever wanted to do in the first place.

OH (M D)
[quote]
Best, Dan.

--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
dbAtLakewebDotCom
[/quote]

Michael Hannon · Guest

"Bill Ward" <bward@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3fb443c1.29167907@news.west.earthlink.net...
[quote]On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:00:06 -0800, "Michael Hannon"
oh19437@comcast.net> wrote:

"User" <user@email.address.here> wrote in message
news:3fb2d44e.46488592@netnews.att.net...
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:34:56 -0800, "Michael Hannon"
oh19437@comcast.net> wrote:

Shear forces? You still don>t get it, do you? Keep thinking about it -
it
may come to you yet.

Mr. Hannon, could you please describe the physical mechanism via which
the fluid applies a torque to the rotor in a Tesla turbine? It can>t
be pressure forces generating that torque, because on rotating disks
there are no surfaces oriented in such a way that pressures on them
would generate torque. So what is it?

Surface cohesion and viscosity. The disk spacing is such that just enough
space is allowed for the working fluid to
fill the space while not enough is there for shear forces acting on it to
cause "slippage." Ideally, the spacing creates a coupling action between
the
working fluid and disks that forces the fluid to follow the disks in a
smooth, laminar flow free from turbulence cause by shear forces.
Seeing it do this via clear plastic disks shows the principle in action
quite well.
It>s literally what you see whan you put a drop of water on a glass plate
and then tilt the plate. When you tilt the plate the drop clings to the
plate by surface cohesion and viscosity up to a certain point, at which
it
will slide downwards, but if you place a drop between two closely placed
plates of glass, it will just sit there, even if the the plates are
vertical, and even if you move them up and down together as well, up to a
certain point. It>s all in the spacing. Get it right, and the coupling
between the plates and water becomes high.

In the bladeless pump, it can>t be pressure forces that are pumping
the fluid either, because again, there are no properly oriented
surfaces.

The viscous and cohesive coupling applies the rotational force to the
water,
and an internal pressure in the fluid between the disks is achieved which
causes greater surface cohesion and consequently greater pressure in the
fluid towards the disks.
Watching it happen is much more convincing than any description, and it
does
indeed happen. the disks literally grab the fluid and propel it along a
spiral path, with centripetal force causing the fluid to migrate outwards
in
the spiral withing the disk spacing.
It>s also been described as a controlled vortex as well, as the fluid
seeks
a natural laminar path between the disks depending on the rotational
speed,
disk spacing, and fluid viscosity. The coupling between the fluid and
disks
can be so good that, as described on the action of that 1/12 hp pump
Tesla
displayed, the stop-and-go pumping can be almost instantaneous. (when
Tesla
stopped the pump, the water stopped virtually immediately, and when he
switched the pump back on, it began to flow again at full output just as
quickly.)
As I said, seeing it happen resolves a lot of theoretical questions very
quickly - it works in spades when everything is set as it should be. This
is
why Tesla used to have fits trying to deal with people who wouldn>t
construct things as he specifically stated and then went about testing
devices he knew would fail to meet expected results.
Imagine trying to tell someone to build the thing a very specific way
while
he then wouldn>t do it, and then blamed the design for the poor figures
his
work got.
Think that>s improbable? Look at the test report from SDSU on the Tesla
turbine there. That turbine couldn>t get out of its own way if it tried
because it wasn>t designed properly in the first place. I wrote to the
department at the school and told them the flaws I saw, and Hal Clark
responded:

Michael,
I agree with all the points you make. The researcher in that project
used
an existing turbine that had been built for some other purpose than the
application it was tested in so it was not surprising to us or the
researcher that the measured efficiency was low. What was of more
interest
was whether or not that type of turbine could be used to generate power
from
biomass combustion and whether or not deposition, erosion and corrosion
would occur. Findings in this area were positive but only a small
quantity
of biomass was tested so the findings are not conclusive. I recommend
you
send your recommendations to the researcher but I believe he acknowledged
most of your points in his final report.
Hal Clark
EISG Program Administrator
Phone: (619) 594-1158
Fax: (619) 594-0996
Email: hclark@projects.sdsu.edu

So we have here yet another test showing poor efficiency on a Tesla
turbine,
yet anyone who didn>t know those design flaws would naturally assume that
the test was exemplary, when, in fact, it was nowhere near so, yet not a
single remark, not a word, in that report states this, and never will.

Now look at the results at the Frank Germano site:
http://www.frank.germano.com/images/itpeff1.jpg
http://www.frank.germano.com/images/itpeff2.jpg

At 13,000 rpm, about 2/3 the rpm required for maximum efficiency (runner
speed = velocity of inlet gases), the efficiency is 42.2%. So, is this
definitive? Far from it. The
actual optimum efficiency rpm was never tested, and from viewing the
turbine
itself, no spacers are notable.
I have yet to see a complete independent report on a properly constructed
Tesla turbine, although I have seen statements of efficiency from
experienced builder/testers.
No one will build and test one of these things peoperly and submit
formalized documentation. The only such documentation I have seen is in
Tesla>s patent wrappers, when he took his turbines to an independent test
facility, at which the chief engineer commented in his report that the
efficiency of the test turbines was by far the best he had ever
witnessed.
If anyone is doing this stuff properly and rigorously, they>re not
publishing their independently derived results
All anyone ever gets to see is results of the order I>ve noted -
half-baked
or non-independent tests on improperly constructed Tesla turbines.
But of the results testified to in the Germano site are real,
as they state, the lower end projected efficiency at optimum speed is 66%
on
a turbine that isn>t quite correctly built, and that would be consistent
with the Tesla patent wrapper tests as well on ones that were.

With these indications and absolutely NO full-bore rigorous testing on
properly constructed TTs available anywhere, except perhaps in Prof.
Rice>s
latest circa 1990 research documents, which for some reason are difficult
to
acquire, it would behoove anyone interested in following up on the SDSU
testing published with another test of a properly constructed device, at
minimum. When the school>s representative himself admits that the turbine
used was not properly built for such testing, it becomes obvious that
the
State of California, in search of salient results for usage in
consumption
of biomass for fuel in such a turbine, has fallen short of finding, or
even
seeking, proper results because the tested turbine was not properly built
in
the first place, yet, as far as I know, no further testing is scheduled
with
a proper version of the turbine, as there very well should be, by any
standard approaching proper procedure for the benefit of the common
wealth
of the State.

OH (M D)

Welcome back, Michael. It>s good to have a genuine 1000
milliHannon calibration thread going. Keeps people awake
and entertained just like old times.

But watch your meds - I notice your sentences are getting
pretty long every now and then. Remember to breathe.
Hi back atcha, Bill. That>s called idiosynchratic. Funny that no one faulted[/quote]
E.E. Cummings for his fractured poetry.

But thanks for the stignatization. Every bit of it is usable.
Do you know how many veterans have been misdiagnosed and treated by the VA
for problems they didn>t have because the Federal Government refused to
admit the existence of their actual problems for years?
It>s going on right now with Iraqi returnees who were breathing depleted
uranium dust - several have already died from what the Gov>t calls
"pneumonia symptoms."

But I digress. Right now, I think anyone out there who wanted info on Tesla
turbine technology now has suffient source material to go for it.

Nice talking to you, Bill. Keep up the personal attacks that have become the
trademark of the droll "scientists" here. It sure beats having to earn a
reputation for truth, doesn>t it?

So long.

OH (M D)

[quote]
Best Regards,

Bill Ward

snip remainder[/quote]


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Energy - Hydrogen Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12 Next
Page 10 of 12