| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Michael Hannon
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2003 1:02 am Post subject: Re: Renault is doing it |
 |
|
"User" <user@email.address.here> wrote in message
news:3fb44b5c.142516993@netnews.att.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...
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.
Are you saying that there are no shear forces present in the Tesla
machine?
[/quote]
Where in the world did you get that idea, particularly since I>ve already
mentione their existence?
[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.
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.)
[/quote]
No. Where did you get that from as well? What fantasy world are you living
in, where I satate something, and a few days later you ask me if I stated
something entirely different?
[quote]
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]
No. Where did you get that from as well?
[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.
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]
No, where did you get THAT from?
[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.
Where can I look at that report?
[/quote]
It>s right here in this thread. What planet are you on?
[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.
Please post the letter you sent him.
[/quote]
hclark@projects.sdsu.edu
"Re: the report on Testing of a BIOMASS BOUNDARY LAYER TURBINE POWER SYSTEM
I have been studying Tesla bladeless turbines for a number of years now, and
would like to comment on the design of the turbine used in this test.
The outer edges of the test turbine are staggered, allowing the working
fluid (combustion gases) to migrate from the path of most resistence (the
outer disks) to the path of least resistence(center disks whose spacing is
much larger). This can seriously affect any efficiency readings in testing
because the working gases can thus freely vent out the center exhaust port
due to the exceptionally large gap between them, which is inordinately large
for the disk size used, and thus is self-defeating in terms of maximizing
efficiency in the turbine. The disk outer edges are of necessity in this
design to round and as close in proximity to the housing wall as possible.
If you study Prof. Rice>s research using a 0.01" spacing between disks for
pumping a liquid, it is obvious that a spacing of 0.06" for gases is much
too large for maximization of cohesion of the gases with the disk surfaces
and minimization of losses to to the bypassing of the working disk surfaces
by free gases.
It has also been established through private testing that the mated grooves
in the outer disk and housing as a seal against gas leakage is fundamentally
unnecessary if the gap between the >round-edged< disks and inlet is precise,
and the TEBA has stated this in its publications after serious work on
bladeless turbines.
The turbine tested is thus not well designed for the purpose it was tested
for. It is not even moderately suitable for efficiency testing of bladeless
turbine design in which disk spacing for runner disks of the size used must
be a mere fraction of that used in the tested turbine, and in the order of
0.015", not 4 times that amount. The results thus achieved in the test are
totally consistent with a turbine of such poor design, but cannot be
construed in any way as reflecting the degree of efficiency of a properly
designed and constructed bladeless turbine in the genre of those built and
patented by Tesla, and replicated by those familiar with proper design
parameters found mandatory after extensive testing. The number and location
of the spacing washers is also grossly incorrect as well.
An adequate drawing of those spacers can be found at:
http://my.execpc.com/~teba/images/tesla12.jpg
Please also note that in a properly designed and built turbine, and outlet
for collected ash, water, or other matter can be installed at the bottom of
the housing by which these collected substances can be exited while the
turbine is operating without significantly affecting its performance.
It thus would behoove the University and the State to review the test>s
validity in seeking the effectiveness of the design when the test turbine
design quality is seriously in question, particularly when the State of
California stands to benefit from a more rigorous standard by which the
design, whose efficiency Prof. Rice, one of those cited in the footnotes,
states can reach into the 90th percentiles, is tested and this can certainly
only be done by following correct design of the turbine for optimized
testing to take place.
I can only hope that you comprehend the serious flaws in the turbine tested
in terms of the disk spacing and strange edges which allow most of the
energy to exit out of the turbine before it can be exploited within it,
giving poor efficiency readings on highly compromised design.
For more highly informed information, I also suggest direct contact with the
Tesla Engine Builders' Association (TEBA),
whose main site is http://www.execpc.com/~teba .
SDSU and the State of California may be doing themselves a great disservice
by not getting to the truth about this technology before placing it aside
due to the results of the tesing so far conducted. This turbine is extremely
cost effective construction-wise, has extremely high durability and
longevity, and low maintenance requirements, while, when properly built, can
provide extraordinary power/weight ratios and and trouble-free operation.
Best Regards,
Michael Hannon"
[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.
Why not? If these machines are so good, why doesn>t anybody but a few
hobbyists build them?
[/quote]
More urban legend material?
Does this look like the work of a hobbyist?:
http://my.execpc.com/~teba/images/tesla8.jpg
[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
Why not?
[/quote]
Damfino.
[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.
You>re assuming they>re improperly constructed.
[/quote]
I don>t need to assume anything about tests like the SDSU - it>s even
admitted by the University.
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
If you want to continue to believe that a test like the SDSU one
[quote]Other than Tesla>s patents and a few crackpot websites, what has you
so convinced these things are so great?
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.
Had it ever occurred to you that Frank Germano might have a financial
interest in keeping the Tesla myth alive?
[/quote]
Prove that it is a myth to Begemann Pompen and others who have built real,
functioning, efficient Tesla turbine designs.
As far as Frank Germano goes, I seriuosly doubt that he would spend as much
time and money as he has in order to perpetuate whay he belived was a myth.
[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.
Perhaps nobody is able to provide solid enough evidence of the
performance to shake loose sufficient funding to execute a proper
test?
[/quote]
Perhaps. Perhaps a lot of things.
Perhaps it>s your job to waste people>s time over anything your agenda wants
blocked.
Perhaps you assume that a majority of people will walk away from this
discussion befuddled, but there is a percentage who will now pursue the
technology further because they can see the disingenuousness in your
content. It>s to those people that I have spoken.
[quote]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]
Blah, blah, blah.
[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.
What is your motivation in hyping these Tesla machines so fervently?
[/quote]
What hype?
http://my.execpc.com/~teba/images/tesla8.jpg
You have served your purpose.
Now I have better things to do than waste more time with you.
OH (M D)
> |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
fkasner
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2003 3:14 am Post subject: Re: Renault is doing it |
|
|
Michael Hannon wrote:
.... snip ...
[quote]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
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
[/quote]
Glad to see that you are out of the VA web. I never started. Luckily my
job provided health insurance as well as my retirement source.
Interesting that I just recently came back from Texas after seeing my
brother-in-law for the last time (he died three hours after my arrival
at his bedside.) He was a 32 year vet of the Air Force and they took
good care of him over the several years of heart problems, strokes,
paralysis, and had him slated for a nursing home that by most standards
is super version run by the VA. Apparently we live in the wrong places
for good VA care. In any event the Air Force and then the VA took very
good care of him even if they never could find out why he was paralyzed
from the waist down.
Glad I never will have to deal with the VA. They certainly don>t do well
based on your experiences.
Note, Mikey, that we bear you no ill will save for the positions you
take. We find them scientifically untenable. But then again I know you
don>t care about such things since you are prepared to support ideas
that have never been accepted by the scientific community. Remember a
small coterie of technically trained people supporting something the
rest cannot support leaves that position in disrepute. If any validity
really were in the positions you supported then a lot of people would
have become super rich exploiting such positions. Even Stan Meyer didn>t
get super rich and he had a modest number of believers.
As for (M D) I couldn>t care less what you think it stands for. However
watch out that you don>t trip over laws about misrepresentation if you
continue to employ that nonsense.
FK |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Duke McMullan N5GAX
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2003 7:59 am Post subject: Re: Renault is doing it |
|
|
"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote, re. Tesla Turbines, in message
news:3FB299F1.C3233B45@tinaja.com...
[quote]Sources of disk inefficiency also include turbulence, cavitation,
angular mismatch, velocity gradients, and input/output mismatch.
The right angle turn in particular at the pump axis is highly
problematic.
These may dominate over what is actually happening at the disk/fluid
interface itself.
The fact that the experts had to add blades does not bode well.
[/quote]
There may be a conspiracy here . . . in which case, it>s a bode plot.
d
--
Barnes>s Theorem: For every foolproof device
there is a fool greater than the proof.
Duke McMullan n5gax nss13429rl(fe) (505)255-4642 mtmduke@qwest.net |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Michael Hannon
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2003 8:41 am Post subject: Re: Renault is doing it |
|
|
"fkasner" <fkasner@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:UAbtb.546$4X4.353028@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
[quote]
Michael Hannon wrote:
... snip ...
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
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
Glad to see that you are out of the VA web. I never started. Luckily my
job provided health insurance as well as my retirement source.
Interesting that I just recently came back from Texas after seeing my
brother-in-law for the last time (he died three hours after my arrival
at his bedside.) He was a 32 year vet of the Air Force and they took
good care of him over the several years of heart problems, strokes,
paralysis, and had him slated for a nursing home that by most standards
is super version run by the VA. Apparently we live in the wrong places
for good VA care. In any event the Air Force and then the VA took very
good care of him even if they never could find out why he was paralyzed
from the waist down.
[/quote]
I>m not the least bit surprised by this, Fred. He was a career military man.
Career military retirees get preferential treatment from VA medical
facilities. I>ve spoken to a number of retirees being treated at the same VA
hospital as I who sat in wonder as I described to them refusal of treatment
I have experienced due to claimed lack of facilities by VAMC personnel which
those same retirees have openly told me that I was being lied to because
they were getting treatment I was not allowed. Their explanation was that VA
facilities are now full of retirees they employ and that the retirees take
care of "their own", at the expense of non-retirees, like me. Put simply, I
was told that I just wasn>t one of them.
[quote]
Glad I never will have to deal with the VA. They certainly don>t do well
based on your experiences.
Note, Mikey, that we bear you no ill will save for the positions you
take. We find them scientifically untenable. But then again I know you
don>t care about such things since you are prepared to support ideas
that have never been accepted by the scientific community. Remember a
small coterie of technically trained people supporting something the
rest cannot support leaves that position in disrepute. If any validity
really were in the positions you supported then a lot of people would
have become super rich exploiting such positions. Even Stan Meyer didn>t
get super rich and he had a modest number of believers.
[/quote]
Actually, Stan Meyer died at a funding celebration dinner.
I>m not going to go into the discussions I>ve had about actual use of his
discovery - it>s not my place to do so.
[quote]As for (M D) I couldn>t care less what you think it stands for. However
watch out that you don>t trip over laws about misrepresentation if you
continue to employ that nonsense.
[/quote]
Were it (MD) I would agree, but it>s not. And the only place I use it is
here. I do, however, know one man who uses a DSc he bought mail order, and
has used for years
to promote his phoney expertise and make money from it. I have also
discussed this issue with a peer journal editor I know who told me that it>s
not that uncommon, right in the engineering community, and that he knew
people who were using them, much to my dismayed surprise. You may also find
it interesting to know that he didn>t find much of what I have discussed in
this NG as dubious as the crew here does, including you, and because of the
quality of my descriptions, as he put it, he actually suggested that I
finish my degree, from which I am now one elective class away, and submit
papers for peer publication. Am I lying? I>m afraid not. He also has
connected me with some very interesting people who also don>t share the
sentiments I>ve been "gifted" with receiving here.
So apparently the community you feel so representative of isn>t quite as
cohesive as you believe, and this I stated years ago here, before becoming
witness to it on a much wider personal level of late.
He also told me that this is a common situation in science - that groups of
individuals have a tendency to support each other>s brand of science, that
each feels that they represent the general scientific community, when in
fact, none of them do, because there isn>t the consistency of belief and
standardization that each niche think they monopolize. Fascinating insights
into this stuff, Fred.
But then reading much of the email content I get daily now shows precisely
that among groups who although they may disagree with each other, are always
(I repeat always) civil to each other, no matter how nutty they may feel
another>s ideas may be. Why? Somewhere along the cutting edge way that many
of them have led, they have come to realize that although in their specific
field, they may have a firm grasp of certain expertise, that it is in that
area and not everything, and they are often brought to realize their own
limitations by someone they>ve never met before who has taken an interesting
journey into a specific area they haven>t. And guess what, Fred - they pay
attention to that person. They may not agree, but there is none of the
butchery that goes on here - none of it. What a pleasure it is to witness
this sort of exchange.
Since I see this basically daily now, I just come back here on occasion more
as a diversion than anything else. It is an interesting exercise for me,
but hardly anywhere I would want to nest myself, as the discussions I see
now are much more astute, civilized, and quite frankly, productive, than
anything I>ve ever seen here.
I wish you well, Fred. Stay healthy.
Now, where was I in that email about the Israel Condition..................
OH (M D)
[quote]
FK
[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Scott A Crosby
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2003 10:06 am Post subject: Re: Renault is doing it |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 03:02:20 GMT, bward@ix.netcom.com (Bill Ward) writes:
[quote]snip remainder
[/quote]
Ya know, if you>re going to put a 10 lines of irrelevant contempt in a
post, you could AT LEAST snip out some of the 120 lines you are
replying to.
Scott |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
User
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2003 3:20 pm Post subject: Re: Renault is doing it |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 03:18:03 GMT, Dan Bloomquist <lakeweb@citlink.net>
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.)
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]
Beveling the outlet edges wouldn>t diffuse enough, unless your disks
are reeeeeeally thick. Also, Rice states that these machines work in
the "low specific speed" part of the pump spectrum, and that roughly
half of the energy imparted to the fluid is in the form of kinetic
energy. You need a low-loss diffuser to convert that kinetic energy
to pressure, and that>s difficult with these tiny high-velocity strips
of fluid exiting the periphery.
And please note, a thermodynamically reversible (i.e. lossless)
diffuser is another assumption in Rice>s calculations. That>s another
item that tends to inflate his efficiency figures. Rice was aware of
these shortcomings in his model, because he explicitly stated that the
actual efficiency would be lower than his calculations.
[quote]But inside the rotor with .01cm spacing and a low relative velocity, I
don>t see how turbulence is possible.
[/quote]
It would probably tend toward laminar as it approached the exit of the
disks -- but it definitely wouldn>t start out laminar. You have quite
high relative velocity in the entrance region. The enormous velocity
gradients in this region produce lots of turbulence. The narrow gaps
will tend to relaminarize the flow, but in the entrance region this
turbulence generating mechanism will win out.
[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]
But no matter how you shape the inlet, you>re still going to have this
huge change in velocity. It>s still going to have a significant
entrance length because of the boundary layer skewing even if it does
enter the rotor with a fully developed radial velocity profile.
That>s another shortcoming in Rice>s model. To develop the skewed,
then fully developed velocity profile, he assumes laminar flow, so he
underestimates both the entrance length AND the wall shear stress in
this entrance length. Thus he underestimates the torque, inflating
his efficiency.
[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.
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.
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.
[/quote]
I>m just tweaking Hannon. He ranted and raved that the pump was fully
thermodynamically reversible.
[quote]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.
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.
[/quote]
References? Sorry, no offense, but with a statement like that you>re
no more credible than Hannon.
[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.
TEBA looks like a shame. No technical info but a lot of rant. And:
http://ados.com/~guy1656/Vytis-Bladeless/main_text.html
[/quote]
At that page, all I get is "International Turbine and Power, LLC
.... is ceasing operations. Our Regrets". |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
User
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2003 3:35 pm Post subject: Re: Renault is doing it |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 06:46:06 -0700, Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com>
wrote:
[quote]User wrote:
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?
um, this is a given.
It is called a BOUNDARY CONDITION.
And applies to ALL fluid flow everywhere.
[/quote]
I know that. You know that. Schlichting, Prandtl, White, Panton, Fox
& McDonald know that.
But Tesla didn>t know that, and as a result to this day it apparently
doesn>t apply in the Tesla machine:
******************************
Me:
[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.)
[/quote]
Hannon:
[quote]No.
******************************[/quote]
I was hoping to discuss with Hannon the basic physics at work in a
Tesla machine, and get him to clarify some of his claims. But all
he>s able to do is mindlessly regurgitate stuff from some crackpot
websites and vociferously disagree with anyone who calls his claims
into question. The guy>s got a serious problem. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Don Lancaster
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2003 8:46 pm Post subject: Re: Renault is doing it |
|
|
User wrote:
[quote]
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 03:18:03 GMT, Dan Bloomquist <lakeweb@citlink.net
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.
Beveling the outlet edges wouldn>t diffuse enough, unless your disks
are reeeeeeally thick. Also, Rice states that these machines work in
the "low specific speed" part of the pump spectrum, and that roughly
half of the energy imparted to the fluid is in the form of kinetic
energy. You need a low-loss diffuser to convert that kinetic energy
to pressure, and that>s difficult with these tiny high-velocity strips
of fluid exiting the periphery.
And please note, a thermodynamically reversible (i.e. lossless)
diffuser is another assumption in Rice>s calculations. That>s another
item that tends to inflate his efficiency figures. Rice was aware of
these shortcomings in his model, because he explicitly stated that the
actual efficiency would be lower than his calculations.
But inside the rotor with .01cm spacing and a low relative velocity, I
don>t see how turbulence is possible.
It would probably tend toward laminar as it approached the exit of the
disks -- but it definitely wouldn>t start out laminar. You have quite
high relative velocity in the entrance region. The enormous velocity
gradients in this region produce lots of turbulence. The narrow gaps
will tend to relaminarize the flow, but in the entrance region this
turbulence generating mechanism will win out.
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.
But no matter how you shape the inlet, you>re still going to have this
huge change in velocity. It>s still going to have a significant
entrance length because of the boundary layer skewing even if it does
enter the rotor with a fully developed radial velocity profile.
That>s another shortcoming in Rice>s model. To develop the skewed,
then fully developed velocity profile, he assumes laminar flow, so he
underestimates both the entrance length AND the wall shear stress in
this entrance length. Thus he underestimates the torque, inflating
his efficiency.
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.
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.
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.
I>m just tweaking Hannon. He ranted and raved that the pump was fully
thermodynamically reversible.
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.
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.
References? Sorry, no offense, but with a statement like that you>re
no more credible than Hannon.
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
At that page, all I get is "International Turbine and Power, LLC
... is ceasing operations. Our Regrets".
[/quote]
That sudden right angle turn on exit totally trashes anything laminar.
So does the fact that much of the fluid is not continuously tangental to
the spinning surfaces.
Again, competent engineering is available at http://www.diskflo.com
The competent engineers have to add fins when efficiency is needed.
Given the irreversible lossy shear force coupling mechanism, I woud also
think that the efficiency for a vapor would be ridiculously lower than
for a liquid.
Centipoises and Reynolds Numbers and stuff like that.
--
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 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Don Lancaster
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2003 8:49 pm Post subject: Re: Renault is doing it |
|
|
User wrote:
[quote]
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 06:46:06 -0700, Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com
wrote:
User wrote:
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?
um, this is a given.
It is called a BOUNDARY CONDITION.
And applies to ALL fluid flow everywhere.
I know that. You know that. Schlichting, Prandtl, White, Panton, Fox
& McDonald know that.
But Tesla didn>t know that, and as a result to this day it apparently
doesn>t apply in the Tesla machine:
******************************
Me:
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.)
Hannon:
No.
******************************
I was hoping to discuss with Hannon the basic physics at work in a
Tesla machine, and get him to clarify some of his claims. But all
he>s able to do is mindlessly regurgitate stuff from some crackpot
websites and vociferously disagree with anyone who calls his claims
into question. The guy>s got a serious problem.
[/quote]
Which is why the all the other clueless SEH posters are calibrated and
rated in milliHannons.
But rarely get out of the femtoHannon class.
--
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 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Dan Bloomquist
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2003 9:43 pm Post subject: Re: Renault is doing it |
|
|
User wrote:
[quote]
I saw it, it is real. Understandable as the pump must pulse and it looks
like the disk pump is well suited.
References? Sorry, no offense, but with a statement like that you>re
no more credible than Hannon.
[/quote]
Well, if my postings lead you to believe I>d lie, your objectivity is in
question. google: "disk pump" heart blood
And this popped right to the top:
http://www.egr.vcu.edu/biomed/bme_artificial_heart_lab.html
[quote]
TEBA looks like a shame. No technical info but a lot of rant. And:
http://ados.com/~guy1656/Vytis-Bladeless/main_text.html
At that page, all I get is "International Turbine and Power, LLC
.... is ceasing operations. Our Regrets".
[/quote]
That was the point....
Best, Dan.
--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
dbAtLakewebDotCom |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
User
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2003 12:01 am Post subject: Re: Renault is doing it |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 15:43:00 GMT, Dan Bloomquist <lakeweb@citlink.net>
wrote:
[quote]
User wrote:
I saw it, it is real. Understandable as the pump must pulse and it looks
like the disk pump is well suited.
References? Sorry, no offense, but with a statement like that you>re
no more credible than Hannon.
Well, if my postings lead you to believe I>d lie, your objectivity is in
question. google: "disk pump" heart blood
And this popped right to the top:
http://www.egr.vcu.edu/biomed/bme_artificial_heart_lab.html
[/quote]
Thanks. I didn>t mean to call into question your credibility. I just
wanted you to avoid appearing like Hannon.
I see they mention that one of the current studies of the pump is an
analysis of the pump efficiency. It>ll be interesting to see what
they come up with.
[quote]TEBA looks like a shame. No technical info but a lot of rant. And:
http://ados.com/~guy1656/Vytis-Bladeless/main_text.html
At that page, all I get is "International Turbine and Power, LLC
.... is ceasing operations. Our Regrets".
That was the point....
[/quote]
Wheeeeew! (The sound of your point going right over my head. I get
it now. Thanks.) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Don Lancaster
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2003 9:19 pm Post subject: Re: Renault is doing it |
|
|
User wrote:
[quote]
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 00:51:49 -0800, "Michael Hannon"
oh19437@comcast.net> wrote:
But the best pumps are built in Europe by Begemann Pompen, they are pure
Tesla flat disk design, and are considered the Mercedes Benz of pumps,
virtually indestructible.
Could you please post a link showing some discussion of these Begemann
disk pumps and their flow capacities, pressure rises, and
efficiencies? Thanks.
[/quote]
http://www.diskflo.com
Note that blades have to be added if efficiency is required.
--
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 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
User
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2003 9:19 pm Post subject: Re: Renault is doing it |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 00:51:49 -0800, "Michael Hannon"
<oh19437@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]But the best pumps are built in Europe by Begemann Pompen, they are pure
Tesla flat disk design, and are considered the Mercedes Benz of pumps,
virtually indestructible.
[/quote]
Could you please post a link showing some discussion of these Begemann
disk pumps and their flow capacities, pressure rises, and
efficiencies? Thanks. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
K. Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 7:51 am Post subject: Mikeys "previous proof"....was Re: Renault is doing it |
|
|
Hey, "loose cannon ohannon" is back in fine form!
How you doing Mikey??
Ummm, Mikey, only once did you ever post any maths to this
newsgroup (very simply adding/dividing) and you mucked it up.
Your maths is at a grade 7 level at best, you are incapable of
showing your "calculations".
You>ve never posted anything substantial about tesla turbines
to this newsgroups.
Yea, check the archives, I did approach "TEBA" about your
wild claims, many years ago.
They distanced themselves as far away from you as they could,
(kinda got the idea they>d wish you>d shut up and go away, cause
you were giving them a worse name than they already had)
and admitted they (tesla turbines) couldn>t achieve the wild things you
claimed
they could.
We went through this in 96-97........ *sigh*
They do make a decent shit pump though.
K. Jones
"Michael Hannon" <oh19437@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:KbGdnaWQXuJUkzKiRVn-vA@comcast.com...
[quote]"Dan Bloomquist" <lakeweb@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:3FADA1B2.2040707@citlink.net...
Michael Hannon wrote:
"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
About the tesla turbine...
On one hand we have Professor Rice>s work that puts the efficiency at
90% or better. Then we have Dr. Lancaster>s intuitional claim. He has
never done the math or the experiments. Nature can be very
unintuitional. The velocity of the fluid is minimal relative to the
turbine rotor, as I understand it,
At maximum efficiency, the runner velocity does, indeed, match the
velocity
of the working fluid. This in itself intrinsically dictates precise disk
spacing so that surface cohesion of the fluid on the disk surface is
maximized while sufficient boundary layer clearance allows migration of
the
fluid towards the center outlet. Most turbines to date have been poorly
designed for this maximization, and thus have failed to achieve the
correct
dimensions for the kind of efficiencies that Tesla and others recently
have
achieved.
That given, when the fluid/disk velocities are together, the efficiency is
high, and Tesla>s patent descriptions, which literally took USPTO
officials
15 years to finally comprehend before they allowed the patents, the
applications of which included independent test results vindicating
Tesla>s
claims, hold to be right as rain.
The test results can be found at the TEBA, or in previous posts I>ve made
here over the years. Why I>m required to find them again is beyond me - I
already posted them.
Lancaster, on the other hand, has posted no valid test results, ever,
regarding properly built Tesla turbines, about which he knows virtually
nothing.
Call it hand waving if you like - I already did the work earlier here, and
the TEBA has a wealth of test and design information on properly built
TTs.
I>d be willing to bet that a few simple emails to them will answer
questions
people have, including email exchanges from people here who have gone to
them to debunk them, walking away highly disappointed with their "missions
from God."
so Don>s claim may be meaningless.
But we>ll see...
I should have my boiler operating this winter so I can retreat to the
shop and make the observation. I need a cheap, easy to build liquid pump
to move heat through my home. Considering Dr. Rice>s work, I think it
will be worth the experiment. I only have to build one tiny little pump
to find out.
But up till now, both Hannon and Lancaster are just waving their arms
around if they don>t do the math and don>t cite experimental results.
Best, Dan.
--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
dbAtLakewebDotCom
[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Don Lancaster
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 8:22 am Post subject: Re: Mikeys "previous proof"....was Re: Renault is doing it |
|
|
"K. Jones" wrote:
[quote]
... never posted anything substantial about tesla turbines
to this newsgroups.
[/quote]
But as far as we know, he is the only poster to S.E.H. to enter his
garage in the X prize competition.
--
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 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
