Tesla turbines/pumps
basi...@hotmail.com
On the way to building his 9.75" turbine, Tesla toyed around with a 6" and
12" versions. The turbine with the 12" runner sped away at 10,000 rpm to
develop 100 hp. But what disc thickness and spacing were used and how
many discs were incorporated to achieve this output? BTW, what nozzle
pressure did Tesla use to operate his first model on compressed air? What
inlet pressures were typical for single-stage designs?
While on the subject of turbine size, I know that the direction you're
taking is toward 18" disc turbines to reduce shaft speed. But of those
who took the opposite route, what were the smallest, most compact working
bladeless turbines on record? To what applications were these put?
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
te...@execpc.com
In article <8532653...@dejanews.com>,
basi...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> On the way to building his 9.75" turbine, Tesla toyed around with a 6" and
> 12" versions. The turbine with the 12" runner sped away at 10,000 rpm to
> develop 100 hp. But what disc thickness and spacing were used and how
> many discs were incorporated to achieve this output? BTW, what nozzle
> pressure did Tesla use to operate his first model on compressed air? What
> inlet pressures were typical for single-stage designs?
100 and 180lbs. In small units the disc spacing was typically
at .03" with .03" thick discs.
> While on the subject of turbine size, I know that the direction you're
> taking is toward 18" disc turbines to reduce shaft speed. But of those
> who took the opposite route, what were the smallest, most compact working
> bladeless turbines on record? To what applications were these put?
three stage pump built by Aerojet. It delivered liquid hydrogen
to a head rise of 24,000 Feet @ 15 Gallons Per Minute. They did
not build the pump strictly to Tesla's spec, however. The central
pumping geometries were not included, no doubt reducing the potential
efficiency significantly.
http://www.execpc.com/~teba
te...@execpc.com
basi...@hotmail.com
In article <8535580...@dejanews.com>,
te...@execpc.com wrote:
>
>
> >
> > On the way to building his 9.75" turbine, Tesla toyed around with a 6" and
> > 12" versions. The turbine with the 12" runner sped away at 10,000 rpm to
> > develop 100 hp. But what disc thickness and spacing were used and how
> > many discs were incorporated to achieve this output? BTW, what nozzle
> > pressure did Tesla use to operate his first model on compressed air? What
> > inlet pressures were typical for single-stage designs?
>
> Tesla used pressures, indicated at the nozzle gage, between
> 100 and 180lbs. In small units the disc spacing was typically
Just how small is small? Would the 12" turbine be considered a 'small unit'?
I wanted an overview of the varieties of bladeless engines Tesla himself
investigated. Which is why I also asked about the number of discs he stacked
for this particular model to output the 100 HP that was recorded.
> > While on the subject of turbine size, I know that the direction you're
> > taking is toward 18" disc turbines to reduce shaft speed. But of those
> > who took the opposite route, what were the smallest, most compact working
> > bladeless turbines on record? To what applications were these put?
>
> The smallest unit we have documentation for is a 1" runner diameter,
> three stage pump built by Aerojet. It delivered liquid hydrogen
> to a head rise of 24,000 Feet @ 15 Gallons Per Minute. They did
Yes, I heard about this wonder from Mr. Hannon in an early posting. But this
would be the record for pumps. Were similar-sized turbines ever built?
> not build the pump strictly to Tesla's spec, however. The central
> pumping geometries were not included, no doubt reducing the potential
> efficiency significantly.
Meaning the central spokes/exhaust holes as illustrated in Tesla's "Fluid
Propulsion" patent # 1,061,142 were not followed.
te...@execpc.com
> The smallest unit we have documentation for is a 1" runner diameter,
> three stage pump built by Aerojet. It delivered liquid hydrogen
> to a head rise of 24,000 Feet @ 15 Gallons Per Minute. They did
> not build the pump strictly to Tesla's spec, however. The central
> pumping geometries were not included, no doubt reducing the potential
> efficiency significantly.
Forgot to mention that this pump was operating at 140,000 rpm.
te...@execpc.com
In article <8536155...@dejanews.com>,
>> 100 and 180lbs. In small units the disc spacing was typically
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>> at .03" with .03" thick discs.
>
>Just how small is small? Would the 12" turbine be considered a 'small unit'?
>I wanted an overview of the varieties of bladeless engines Tesla himself
>investigated. Which is why I also asked about the number of discs he stacked
>for this particular model to output the 100 HP that was recorded.
We are not aware of any additional information about these early
units besides that recorded by O'Neil.
We do have documentation on his 9 3/4" which had .03" disc thickness
and spacing. The Eighteen inch version used .06" disc thickness
and .06 disc spacing.
TEBA member Advanced Dynamics built an 11" version using .03 discs
and spacing that performed well. Beyond this, wider spacing is
advisable as the back pressures become much more significant. Those
that built the 11" versions disregarded Tesla's example and
used .03" in an 18" version. This resulted in a warped rotor.
Tesla knew of what he spoke.
To answer an earlier question in this thread, about using Tesla's device
as a gas turbine. Yes it can and has been done, contrary to the rattlings
of an uninformed critic. He is indeed correct, however, that billions of
dollars have been spent to make bladed turbines work efficiently.
In contrast almost nothing has been invested in developing the Tesla turbine.
The potential for further development is therefore immense.
Recently Tesla received headline coverage in the
Seattle Post - Intelligencer. Oct. 16 1996. Page 1 headline:
"From an obscure genius comes a tiny pump for computer age"
The University of Washington has "rediscovered" a component of
the Tesla gas turbine, namely the "Valvular Conduit" which
we have been promoting since 1990. (They do not refer to
it properly throughout the article, calling it a Tesla pump.)
Tesla used the valvular conduit to allow his turbine to operate
without a conventional compressor stage.
In a conventional gas turbine approximately 2/3rds of the power
produced by the turbine is consumed by the compressor. Only 1/3
of the total power is therefore remaining for shaft output.
Page 38 of "Tesla's Engine - A New Dimension For Power" contains
a cross sectional view of a "compressorless" gas turbine employing
valvular conduits.
A TEBA member built and commercially tested the valvular conduit
long before the University of Washington got wind of it. The
experts that tested the device were dumfounded, as it contains
absolutely no moving parts and can not be breached like all the
other devices with which they were familiar.
Fred Forster, professor of mechanical engineering, is quoted in the
headline story, regards Tesla:
"It's easy for an engineering or science student to
think that the last 10 years are all that matters."
Indeed!
This article will be reproduced in the next issue of TEBA NEWS.
Look back, 85 years, almost to the day of the recent headline:
New York Herald Tribune; Page 1, Oct. 15 1911:
"WILL TESLA'S NEW MONARCH OF MACHINES REVOLUTIONIZE THE WORLD?"
"Noted Balkan Scientist claims to have perfected an engine that
will develop ten horsepower to every pound of weight, and promises
soon to give to the world a flying machine without wings, propeller,
or gas bag. Characterizes aeroplanes of today as mere dangerous
toys compared with the safe and stable appliance which will be
used in a short time to dash through the air at a speed now
unimagined....
"That has been the aim of Dr. Tesla's life for nearly a quarter
of a century. He believes that with the discovery of his new motor
he has solved the problem and that incidentally he has laid the
foundations for the most startling new achievements in other
mechanical lines.
"There was a time when men of science were skeptical - a time
when they ridiculed the announcement of revolutionary discoveries.
Those were the days when Nikola Tesla, the young scientist from
the Balkans, was laughed at when he urged his theories on the
engineering world. Times have changed since then, and the
'practical' engineer is not so incredulous about 'scientific'
discoveries....
"Today the engineering world listens respectfully when Dr. Tesla
speaks. The first announcement of the discovery of his new
mechanical principle was made in a technical periodical in
mid-September, 1911. Immediately it became the principal
topic of discussions wherever engineers met...."
>>The smallest unit we have documentation for is a 1" runner diameter,
>>three stage pump built by Aerojet. It delivered liquid hydrogen
>>to a head rise of 24,000 Feet @ 15 Gallons Per Minute.
>Yes, I heard about this wonder from Mr. Hannon in an early posting. But this
>would be the record for pumps. Were similar-sized turbines ever built?
No, only small toys. Advanced Dynamics did build a small 5"
version with attached generator. It runs up to about 40,000 rpm
unloaded with 80psi compressed air. It brightly illuminates an
incandescent bulb at about 35k rpm. This is a fun project that
almost anyone could build. It is featured in our Spring 95 newsletter.
Chris Pollard
te...@execpc.com wrote:
: To answer an earlier question in this thread, about using Tesla's device
: as a gas turbine. Yes it can and has been done, contrary to the rattlings
: of an uninformed critic. He is indeed correct, however, that billions of
: dollars have been spent to make bladed turbines work efficiently.
: In contrast almost nothing has been invested in developing the Tesla turbine.
: The potential for further development is therefore immense.
before I can become an informed critic - or does it just mean I have to
agree with you?
Michael Hannon
Chris Pollard wrote:
>
> te...@execpc.com wrote:
> : To answer an earlier question in this thread, about using Tesla's device
> : as a gas turbine. Yes it can and has been done, contrary to the rattlings
> : of an uninformed critic. He is indeed correct, however, that billions of
> : dollars have been spent to make bladed turbines work efficiently.
> : In contrast almost nothing has been invested in developing the Tesla turbine.
> : The potential for further development is therefore immense.
> before I can become an informed critic - or does it just mean I have to
> agree with you?
How much of an informed critic? Try building one to Tesla's spec's, say
the 10" model. The materials (bottom end) costs will be a few hundred
bucks, and you'll end up with a 55-lb, 110 hp engine turning about 15,000
rpm. I've got a smaller one (sloppily built, with poor balance) turning
well over 50,000 rpm. The first time I ran it, it scared the hell out of
me, because it wouldn't quit accelerating, and I shut it down finally out
of fear that it would just keep gaining rpm until it self-destructed.
Take my word for it - the Tesla turbine works so well, and if the world
knew, piston engines and pumps would have been obsolete a long, long time
ago. In fact, it is so simple to build, and so effective, that each new
effort I make with it is repeatedly boggling my mind.
Michael
Phillip Zadarnowski
te...@execpc.com wrote:
> To answer an earlier question in this thread, about using Tesla's device
> as a gas turbine. Yes it can and has been done, contrary to the rattlings
> of an uninformed critic. He is indeed correct, however, that billions of
> dollars have been spent to make bladed turbines work efficiently.
> In contrast almost nothing has been invested in developing the Tesla turbine.
> The potential for further development is therefore immense.
Surely, if you build a low-cost high-efficiency device, you will
revolutionize industry and transport, and make a ton of money.
I would not assume, however, that because there is an element of
obscurity and an 'apparent' lack of R&D, the device has modern
and demanding application.
The solutions are many but the applications are few due to the
even *more* demanding market drive for cost-effectiveness in
production and other high-tech considerations such as weight.
NASA (or contractor) is reengineering shuttle engines to achieve
a 1.5% increase in thrust at tremendous cost, pursuing that fine
edge of ultimate conversion of fuel to thrust. So yes, there is
a market even for such small increases for NASA and much larger
increases sought for aircraft and tanks.
The market awaits whatever FIRSTLY cost-effective device
advancements for mass production and SECONDLY efficiency-effective
advancements for niche products.
So you have two avenues here to pursue. Good engineers and
scientists can predict very closely the kinds of results
expected in *mechanical* devices, so it won't be too hard
to whip up an expectation of value in both the cost-effective
market and the efficiency-effective one.
Do a small group of you have some insight into a truly "forgotten"
technology? Perhaps. Tesla certainly pioneered a great many
things and I respect his contributions as I do Edison, Bell and
others. The world *has* taken up as much as the technology can
deliver to the market and shelved what it can't (with exception
of the odd home-enthusiast).
The closest to a recently re-used old and "forgotten" technology
was the bonding of a ceramic and a metal with a material that
can take the expansion and contraction of both, for satellite
use. It turned out that the old formula had been published
but was out of use, and the only source for that formula was
found in a priest's private library of books picked up when
the Russians dicarded all the contents of their libraries
a decade back. (the formula applied to very specific materials)
Tesla's radiated energy idea is an example of a possible method
of power distribution that is impracticable and will never be used.
Even the emininently possible microwave solution has problems
and orders of magnitude that make it impracticable.
We'll see. If the turbine has merits to suit market needs,
someone will adapt it, and soon. With coming rush for low
-emission vehicles and higher-powered mass transport, someone
will make a lot of money *IF* it's so good.
S.
Michael Hannon
Phillip Zadarnowski wrote:
>
> te...@execpc.com wrote:
>
> > To answer an earlier question in this thread, about using Tesla's device
> > as a gas turbine. Yes it can and has been done, contrary to the rattlings
> > of an uninformed critic. He is indeed correct, however, that billions of
> > dollars have been spent to make bladed turbines work efficiently.
> > In contrast almost nothing has been invested in developing the Tesla turbine.
> > The potential for further development is therefore immense.
>
I'm really fascinated by the naivete' of some people who even seem to be
operating in the "upper circles" of technology. Tesla invented radio, but
if it weren't for a severe battle in court, Marconi would still be
considered the inventor, despite the fact that he literally stole the
technology from Tesla. I would suppose that this person also believes
that Preston Tucker really was a "shyster," and that the "Tin Goose" was
not "up to snuff" to make it in the "progressive automobile market" we
have in this country, despite its pop-out windshield, padded dash, seat
belts, and numerous other items which no other car on the market had, or
would have for years. I personally knew of an inventor in Sebastopol, CA,
(I was dating his secretary, who couldn't stop talking about her
boss's new technology) who had a working vehicle and a market, only to
discover that his suppliers suddenly disappeared, and then two
consecutive "accidental" fires in his shop and offices, which drove him
out of business.
Ask yourself this - why is it that one of, if not the, the most
prolific inventors in the history of mankind, the father of alternating
current, builder and designer of the original hydroelectric facility at
Niagra Falls, inventor of the AC motor, of robotics, radio, radio
control, present day state-of-the-art radar-powered aircraft (no
practicable use for his transmitted power, huh), scalar wave technology
(HAARP), and a myriad of other devices successful in today's world, died
alone, emaciated, and poor in a hotel room in NYC? Was it because his
inventions couldn't "cut the mustard in the real world?" Or was it that
the same type of people who ruined Tucker did it to Mr. Tesla even before
him? You can bet that every attempt outside of the ruthless international
corporations will be met one way or another by them. That is what they
do, and no amount of "naive" banter about "only the good stuff succeeds
on its own merits" will ever mask that truth. I suggest anyone who doubts
this read "When Corporations Rule the World" by David Korten, former
Harvard professor, and world-renowned student of the impact of those
corporations on the future of us all.
I ask a simple question - why, in 1910, would a 55-lb, 110 hp engine
the size of a small paint bucket, with ONE moving part, built far easier
and much less costly than a much more complex, less reliable, much
noiser, far less efficient piston engine of the era with 30 hp weighing
many times that simple engine?
Michael
Michael Hannon
> > as a gas turbine. Yes it can and has been done, contrary to the rattlings
> > of an uninformed critic. He is indeed correct, however, that billions of
> > dollars have been spent to make bladed turbines work efficiently.
> > In contrast almost nothing has been invested in developing the Tesla turbine.
> > The potential for further development is therefore immense.
>
Richard Everett
Michael Hannon wrote:
> Tesla turbines will run on any moving or expanding fluid or gas. One
> built to run on petrol or diesel can be fueled at any petrol station
> delivering at least double the mileage of your average piston engine,
> much more reliably, quietly, without the need for smog devices. I really
> wish that someone would provide thoughtful, logical questions about this.
> It's really getting boring here trying to think for people and answer
> their dumb arguments. I mean, I like the sound of a big V8 as much as the
> next guy, but there's no way it can compete with an elegant mechanical
> design which was never given an opportunity to flourish for the same
> reason then as are apparent now - an obstinate, uninformed public most of
> which cannot even conceive of how this thing works, nevermind argue
> against it validly. I'm working with one of Bill Lear's best men - you
> know Lear, Lear Jet, Motorola, the Lear closed system steam engine? The
> man tells me this turbine can change the world, and from my own personal
> experience with the turbine, I have to agree with him 200%, and you
> people are laughing at it, and him. This guy entered college at the age
> of 13, and was doing top secret projects for the US on his own inventions
> when he was 18. Go ahead, yuk it up, folks - like I said before -
> that's just more for us - please, keep on making jokes and ridiculing
> this.
> Michael
Skip the Tesla turbine, the future is in monopoles! My magnetic monopole, jointly
developed with one of Bill Gates' best men - you know Gates, Microsoft? This thing
can repulse 50 tons and it only weighs 45 lbs. Power is supplied by gas, electric,
or even Minute Rice! For more info, send $29.95 to S.C.A.M. (Secret Canadian Association
for Monopoles), PO Box 1945, Nest Egg, CA.
Please do not request specifics as to power output, input, or anything else, as I do
not have time to respond to doubters.
Richard
Richard Everett
Fitch R. Williams wrote:
>
> A small Nuclear reactor was placed in earth orbit and
> operated there for a few months back in the sixties - it was
> before 1969 for certain. It was called a SNAP reactor. The
> reactor itself was not very big. The reactor worked fine, a
> problem in the voltage regulation system in the host rocket
> body caused it to shut down after about 90 days of
> operation. The way it was designed, it could experience one
> emergency shut down, but it couldn't be restarted.
>
> Don't ask me if it is still up there, I don't know for sure.
>
> Fitch
There are *lots* of nuclear reactors in space, or at least spent reactors. Of course, it may
be a stretch to relate them to the type of reactor most people think of. Instead of using the
heat generated by the reaction to heat some liquid medium, which drives a turbine, which turns
a generator, the heat is turned directly into electricity using thermopyles. These are like the
ones in your hot water heater, but there are many of them, and the government can afford certain
exotic metals to get the greatest efficiency. Anyhoo, I am not sure if they actually have a
fission reaction in these small space reactors, or if it is just heat generated by element decay
(half life and all that). I think several of these reactors were placed on the moon to power
certain research studies, the Voyager series had em, and possibly the Viking series too. And wasn't
there a big stink by the enviro's about the Galileo because it had one?
Richard
Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen FOU.TD/DELAB
Phillip Zadarnowski wrote:
>
> te...@execpc.com wrote:
>
> > To answer an earlier question in this thread, about using Tesla's device
> > as a gas turbine. Yes it can and has been done, contrary to the rattlings
> > of an uninformed critic. He is indeed correct, however, that billions of
> > dollars have been spent to make bladed turbines work efficiently.
> > In contrast almost nothing has been invested in developing the Tesla turbine.
> > The potential for further development is therefore immense.
>
> Surely, if you build a low-cost high-efficiency device, you will
> revolutionize industry and transport, and make a ton of money.
>
> I would not assume, however, that because there is an element of
> obscurity and an 'apparent' lack of R&D, the device has modern
> and demanding application.
>
<stuff deeleted>
I ask a simple question - why, in 1910, would a 55-lb, 110 hp engine
the size of a small paint bucket, with ONE moving part, built far easier
and much less costly than a much more complex, less reliable, much
noiser, far less efficient piston engine of the era with 30 hp weighing
many times that simple engine?
Michael
Maybe it just used too much steam?
Phillip Zadarnowski
Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I'm really fascinated by the naivete' of some people who even seem to be
>operating in the "upper circles" of technology. Tesla invented radio, but
>if it weren't for a severe battle in court, Marconi would still be
>considered the inventor, despite the fact that he literally stole the
>technology from Tesla.
No argument from me.
>I would suppose that this person also believes
>that Preston Tucker really was a "shyster," and that the "Tin Goose" was
>not "up to snuff" to make it in the "progressive automobile market" we
>have in this country, despite its pop-out windshield, padded dash, seat
>belts, and numerous other items which no other car on the market had, or
>would have for years.
These things cost too much to implement for the cost-effective market,
which is why people like their Volvos and BMWs and which is also why I
drive a General Motors bomb.
Tell me why a 300 passenger jet doesn't carry parachutes?
>I personally knew of an inventor in Sebastopol, CA,
>(I was dating his secretary, who couldn't stop talking about her
>boss's new technology) who had a working vehicle and a market, only to
>discover that his suppliers suddenly disappeared, and then two
>consecutive "accidental" fires in his shop and offices, which drove him
>out of business.
While I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories, I do believe there
are a few greedy and powerful people out their who want to protect
their own interests. They're called criminals. But in the Tesla
case at hand - the disc turbine - there isn't just one popular
design, there are hundreds of various pumping and power conversion
devices, and it is a very specific market.
> Ask yourself this - why is it that one of, if not the, the most
>prolific inventors in the history of mankind, the father of alternating
>current, builder and designer of the original hydroelectric facility at
>Niagra Falls, inventor of the AC motor, of robotics, radio, radio
>control, present day state-of-the-art radar-powered aircraft (no
>practicable use for his transmitted power, huh),
Do tell about the radar powere aircraft. This sounds a little
urban-mythy to me, especially when you say *radar* powered as
if *radar* were some new kind of energy frequency!
>scalar wave technology
>(HAARP), and a myriad of other devices successful in today's world, died
>alone, emaciated, and poor in a hotel room in NYC?
Not from a conspiracy. You seem very willing to accept that there is
some kind of overwhelming push for expensive mediocrity instead of
well-priced excellence. If this were so, we'd all be putting around
in propellor planes, the largest taking 50 passengers, and cars
that just gulped fuel "because its in the interest of the oil
companies." Why, have you seen a carburetor that can be modified
to double the mileage, or an engine design that can achieve
100% energy conversion?
Maybe, just maybe, you are missing out on the kind of factual
information on physics and limits of application to allow
yourself to dream a little too much.
>Was it because his
>inventions couldn't "cut the mustard in the real world?" Or was it that
>the same type of people who ruined Tucker did it to Mr. Tesla even before
>him?
I'm sure he got shafted - hell, I've been shafted a number of times,
which is why I'm still poor as hell. And if you don't get on with
the business of developing this *great* device, you will get shafted
too - if indeed it is such an effective unit.
>You can bet that every attempt outside of the ruthless international
>corporations will be met one way or another by them. That is what they
>do, and no amount of "naive" banter about "only the good stuff succeeds
>on its own merits" will ever mask that truth. I suggest anyone who doubts
>this read "When Corporations Rule the World" by David Korten, former
>Harvard professor, and world-renowned student of the impact of those
>corporations on the future of us all.
Don't assume that one and ONLY one person can dream up a design
or application, especially over several decades. Technology
provides a hotbed of development that bring into it tens of
thousands of engineers and scientists all looking for similar
solutions and advantages for their employers.
Secrecy? I still marvel how the US built the Atomic bomb.
They built a uranium manufacturing centre that used 200,000
cascade tanks, each tank as large as your living room.
Do you know how much material and space that required?
> I ask a simple question - why, in 1910, would a 55-lb, 110 hp engine
>the size of a small paint bucket, with ONE moving part, built far easier
>and much less costly than a much more complex, less reliable, much
>noiser, far less efficient piston engine of the era with 30 hp weighing
>many times that simple engine?
This is just talk. Pure talk. You have no figures to even start
making this claim look real. I *know* that this device could be built
to 1990's standards with ceramics, ultrahard bearings, a rash of
lubricants and seals to satisfy temperatures in the thousands of
degrees C range, metals and alloys with wonderous qualities.
OK, you and a dozen others have been entertaining yourselves
with this Tesla obsession. So build it or "science project" it.
Let's see some figures on model, like RPM, Torque, fuel types, fuel
consumption, wear data, lube systems, cooling systems, running temps
etc.
Try discussing, for example, a fuel injection system for this
beast. Try thinking where the hot spots will be and how it
will be cooled.
You haven't even got up to date MODERN drawings!
55lb and 110 horsepower means nothing because it is isolated
from the kind of science and engineering reality that is
expressed in a larger range of data and graphs.
I was particularly amused at another poster who told of
his model that hit 50,000rpm and wasn't very well balanced!
I wouldn't want to be in the same room with that!
I recently expressed my doubts that a Nuclear-Powered
aircraft was attempted in the 1960's because of weight
vs output. I was assured that it had been done, but
was only flown once and canned. *A* reason given was
that it was unsafe for a number of reasons, but that
never really stopped the Gov't.
The bottom line is, do something and do it soon, or I'll
be reading in 30 years time that a new generation has
discovered some amazing and suppressed technology. Hell,
this is a simple turbine device, for gods sakes! It and
"rocket science" aren't even closely related!
S.
Michael Edelman
>
> I ask a simple question - why, in 1910, would a 55-lb, 110 hp engine
> the size of a small paint bucket, with ONE moving part, built far easier
> and much less costly than a much more complex, less reliable, much
> noiser, far less efficient piston engine of the era with 30 hp weighing
> many times that simple engine?
Because the turbine is only half the engine. The generation and
regeneration of the steam takes up many times more room. Take a look as
the relative size of the boiler and the pistons on a steam locomotive!
And take a look at history. The Stanley Steamer was a very successful
car that had the early technological lead, but they couldn't lick the
boiler problems with the technology at hand.
Tesla was indeed a genius, but not everything he did turned to gold. He
was very much a visual thinking, not a theoretician. This led him to
invent the AC motor, but at the same time led him to some misconceptions
about the nature of electricity.
He was also completely ignorant of the realities of economics, which led
him to spend fortunes of other people's money on projects that never
produced any practical outcomes, and to sign away his one really
profitible patent for peanuts.
--mike
Don Stauffer
> >
> > S.
>
> I'm really fascinated by the naivete' of some people who even seem to be
> many times that simple engine?
>
> Michael
Have you ever considered that maybe they really aren't that naive? Maybe they have access
to equipment that you don't, that they have tried to measure the efficiency of some things
that are highly touted in old literature, and find that the they really are not all they
are cracked up to be?
How much effort have you made to really measure the efficiency of turbines. And in any
steam system, the "motor" is only part of the efficiency equation.
I cannot believe there is any conspiracy against the Tesla turbines. I know a lot of very
sharp MEs. These guys are not dumb. They claim the efficiency of the Tesla turbine is not
what some works claim.
--
Don Stauffer in Minneapolis
Steven O. Smith
Michael Hannon wrote:
>
> Phillip Zadarnowski wrote:
> > technology? Perhaps. Tesla certainly pioneered a great many
> > things and I respect his contributions as I do Edison, Bell and
> > others. The world *has* taken up as much as the technology can
> > deliver to the market and shelved what it can't (with exception
> > of the odd home-enthusiast).
> >
> > We'll see. If the turbine has merits to suit market needs,
> > someone will adapt it, and soon. With coming rush for low
> > -emission vehicles and higher-powered mass transport, someone
> > will make a lot of money *IF* it's so good.
> >
> > S.
> I'm really fascinated by the naivete' of some people who even seem to be
> operating in the "upper circles" of technology. Tesla invented radio, but
> if it weren't for a severe battle in court, Marconi would still be
> considered the inventor, despite the fact that he literally stole the
> technology from Tesla.
...
> Or was it that
> the same type of people who ruined Tucker did it to Mr. Tesla even before
> him? You can bet that every attempt outside of the ruthless international
> corporations will be met one way or another by them. That is what they
> do, and no amount of "naive" banter about "only the good stuff succeeds
> on its own merits" will ever mask that truth.
>
> Michael
Ahhh, I knew that the conspiracy theory of history had to show up here
sometime soon.
Michael, you are certainly correct in that people don't always get
credit for their ideas, Tesla is unfortunately a prime example. BUT, you
missed what I think of as a major point in Phillip's letter. If this
turbine is so much better than what we have today, why isn't it being
used?? Why hasn't someone stolen the idea and made a ton of money with
it? There must be a reason for this, and conspiracy theories don't wash
here. Truly effective IDEAS are really tough to suppress when they are
as fundamental and publicly available as turbine or motor technology.
INDIVIDUALS are much easier to suppress, granting that your portrayal of
Tucker is correct.
--
Steven O. Smith
st...@cc.com
##If you want to email me, take the * out of my address##
Michael Hannon
Michael Edelman wrote:
>
> >
> > I ask a simple question - why, in 1910, would a 55-lb, 110 hp engine
> > the size of a small paint bucket, with ONE moving part, built far easier
> > and much less costly than a much more complex, less reliable, much
> > noiser, far less efficient piston engine of the era with 30 hp weighing
>
> regeneration of the steam takes up many times more room. Take a look as
> the relative size of the boiler and the pistons on a steam locomotive!
>
> And take a look at history. The Stanley Steamer was a very successful
> car that had the early technological lead, but they couldn't lick the
> boiler problems with the technology at hand.
>
> Tesla was indeed a genius, but not everything he did turned to gold. He
> was very much a visual thinking, not a theoretician. This led him to
> invent the AC motor, but at the same time led him to some misconceptions
> about the nature of electricity.
>
> He was also completely ignorant of the realities of economics, which led
> him to spend fortunes of other people's money on projects that never
> produced any practical outcomes, and to sign away his one really
> profitible patent for peanuts.
>
> --mike
You've got to be kidding - Tesla had all of the math and design to back
up each of his inventions, and did, in fact build a gasoline version of
his turbine (actually, it was a multi-fuel engine), so the steam theory
of th turbine is out as well (it actually used much less steam as a steam
engine than any other type of steam engine of the time, and there are
engineers' documents to back that up).
If anyone was a theoretician, it was Edison, who would get an idea,
and then spend a fortune trying to figure out how to implement it (eg,
the electric light bulb - he tested a mountain of different ideas before
one even came close to working). Tesla complained of Edison's
trial-and-error methods.
Tesla's ideas were fully developed realities, including engineering,
before he would attempt their building. Tesla pumps are the "Mercedes
Benz" of the industry, and his turbine, if allowed by the powers-that-be
(which is highly doubtful), will replace the piston engine, just for
starters.
Michael
Michael Hannon
> These things cost too much to implement for the cost-effective market,
> which is why people like their Volvos and BMWs and which is also why I
> drive a General Motors bomb.
Does it have a padded dash, seat belts, and front disc brakes?
> Tell me why a 300 passenger jet doesn't carry parachutes?
> Because airlines aren't required to have them.
>
> While I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories, I do believe there
> are a few greedy and powerful people out their who want to protect
> their own interests. They're called criminals. But in the Tesla
> case at hand - the disc turbine - there isn't just one popular
> design, there are hundreds of various pumping and power conversion
> devices, and it is a very specific market.
A few? There are presently 358 billionaires in the world, and one trillionaire, all of whom conspire with each
other and against each other and us to control markets. Beneath them are MILLIONS of millionaire- wanna-be
billionaires, many more ruthless than their superiors, most of whom are involved in the same activities with
and against each other, and you and me. Ever seen the "pecking order" at a country club? Ever heard of
corporate "raiders" and "downsizing?" Ever seen the movie "Wall Street?" Ever heard of Ivan Boesky or Michael
Milkin, or Mr. Miller of AT&T, who just fired 40,000 people? Or the corporate raider who is charging Sunbeam
tens of millions of dollars to fire a slew of their people? Ever heard of the Exxon Valdez environmental
disaster and cover-up?
> Do tell about the radar powere aircraft. This sounds a little
> urban-mythy to me, especially when you say *radar* powered as
> if *radar* were some new kind of energy frequency!
> Radar powered aircraft, as depicted on the cover of popular mechanics, and shown on national television. High
frequency electromagnetic radiation (radar) is directed at the craft, its built-in antennas receive the EMR,
which is provided to it's electric motors, propelling it - this is old news.
> >scalar wave technology (HAARP), and a myriad of other devices successful in today's world, died alone, emaciated, and poor in a hotel room in NYC?
>
> Not from a conspiracy. You seem very willing to accept that there is
> some kind of overwhelming push for expensive mediocrity instead of
> well-priced excellence. If this were so, we'd all be putting around
> in propellor planes, the largest taking 50 passengers, and cars
> that just gulped fuel "because its in the interest of the oil
> companies." Why, have you seen a carburetor that can be modified
> to double the mileage, or an engine design that can achieve
> 100% energy conversion?
> Were these people not quite willing to mess with each other as well as us, this might be true, but competition
and wars reveal too much for the public to stand for such "mediocrity" as you would suggest. Anyone who
considers the "oil companies" to be on our side just needs to go to any gas station in the world, except in the
middle east. High-mileage carb? Try http://www.inett.com/himac/
Free energy? Try http://www.livelinks.com/sumeria/free/lee.html
> Maybe, just maybe, you are missing out on the kind of factual
> information on physics and limits of application to allow
> yourself to dream a little too much.
I think not.
>
> >Was it because his
> >inventions couldn't "cut the mustard in the real world?" Or was it that
> >the same type of people who ruined Tucker did it to Mr. Tesla even before
> >him?
>
> I'm sure he got shafted - hell, I've been shafted a number of times,
> which is why I'm still poor as hell. And if you don't get on with
> the business of developing this *great* device, you will get shafted
> too - if indeed it is such an effective unit.
Oh, I'm getting on quite well with it, thank you.
> >You can bet that every attempt outside of the ruthless international
> >corporations will be met one way or another by them. That is what they
> >do, and no amount of "naive" banter about "only the good stuff succeeds
> >on its own merits" will ever mask that truth. I suggest anyone who doubts
> >this read "When Corporations Rule the World" by David Korten, former
> >Harvard professor, and world-renowned student of the impact of those
> >corporations on the future of us all.
>
> Don't assume that one and ONLY one person can dream up a design
> or application, especially over several decades. Technology
> provides a hotbed of development that bring into it tens of
> thousands of engineers and scientists all looking for similar
> solutions and advantages for their employers.
> I never have, and never will, but Tesla's work is, and has been, considered
of the most important in history, and much of it has yet to be realized.
> Secrecy? I still marvel how the US built the Atomic bomb.
> They built a uranium manufacturing centre that used 200,000
> cascade tanks, each tank as large as your living room.
> Do you know how much material and space that required?
> I've got a pretty good idea, as well as knowledge of the "subterrene," also
available on the web. What I do wonder is how they can still say that Vandenberg AFB
is a launching site for satellites only, when, several years ago, I personally saw a
shuttle-like craft being hauled from a "hillside" where nothing was supposed to be,
let alone a facility for work on such a craft, to the base from a main highway.
> > I ask a simple question - why, in 1910, would a 55-lb, 110 hp engine
> >the size of a small paint bucket, with ONE moving part, built far easier
> >and much less costly than a much more complex, less reliable, much
> >noiser, far less efficient piston engine of the era with 30 hp weighing
> >many times that simple engine?
>
> This is just talk. Pure talk. You have no figures to even start
> making this claim look real. I *know* that this device could be built
> to 1990's standards with ceramics, ultrahard bearings, a rash of
> lubricants and seals to satisfy temperatures in the thousands of
> degrees C range, metals and alloys with wonderous qualities.
> No, all it would require is conventional materials - actually the materials
of Tesla's era. Conventional materials of today would build one like the prototype
Advanced Dynamics has built: 11" runner (13" diameter x 3" thick), which produces well over
300 hp from about 60 lbs of engine. Try http://www.execpc.com/~teba
OK, you and a dozen others have been entertaining yourselves
> with this Tesla obsession. So build it or "science project" it.
> Let's see some figures on model, like RPM, Torque, fuel types, fuel
> consumption, wear data, lube systems, cooling systems, running temps
> etc.
>
> Try discussing, for example, a fuel injection system for this
> beast. Try thinking where the hot spots will be and how it
> will be cooled.
> Try http://www.execpc.com/~teba I personally cannot discuss fuel injection,
as it is part of my present work. Hot spots? My friend you have no idea what you
are talking about. Perhaps you could expalin first of all, why there would be such
a problem in this type of turbine, when tha exhaust exits somewhere between 350-550 deg
lower than the intake in a gasoline version.
> You haven't even got up to date MODERN drawings!
Try http://www.execpc.com/~teba
>
> 55lb and 110 horsepower means nothing because it is isolated
> from the kind of science and engineering reality that is
> expressed in a larger range of data and graphs.
>
> I was particularly amused at another poster who told of
> his model that hit 50,000rpm and wasn't very well balanced!
> I wouldn't want to be in the same room with that!
> That was me, and the turbine is sitting here in my living room,
and it's not 50,000 rpm anymore - it's 70,000. And it scares the
bejesus out of me to run it at that rpm, but one day, I'm going
to detroy it at whatever rpm's it can run to. A 1" Tesla turbine
pump (in this real world) is capable of creating 10,000 psi
at 140,000 rpm.
> I recently expressed my doubts that a Nuclear-Powered
> aircraft was attempted in the 1960's because of weight
> vs output. I was assured that it had been done, but
> was only flown once and canned. *A* reason given was
> that it was unsafe for a number of reasons, but that
> never really stopped the Gov't.
>
> The bottom line is, do something and do it soon, or I'll
> be reading in 30 years time that a new generation has
> discovered some amazing and suppressed technology. Hell,
> this is a simple turbine device, for gods sakes! It and
> "rocket science" aren't even closely related!
>
> S.
What I would suggest to you is that you find another hobby besides
blowing hot air at the truth. Try building one of these "impossible"
devices properly, and see how long you continue to "armchair critic"
your way around real people doing real work with their own money,
time, and energy.
Michael
Michael Hannon
Don Stauffer wrote:> > >snip
> > >
> > > S.
> >
> > I'm really fascinated by the naivete' of some people who even seem to be
> > many times that simple engine?
> >
> > Michael
>
> to equipment that you don't, that they have tried to measure the efficiency of some things
> that are highly touted in old literature, and find that the they really are not all they
> are cracked up to be?
>
> How much effort have you made to really measure the efficiency of turbines. And in any
> steam system, the "motor" is only part of the efficiency equation.
>
> I cannot believe there is any conspiracy against the Tesla turbines. I know a lot of very
> sharp MEs. These guys are not dumb. They claim the efficiency of the Tesla turbine is not
> what some works claim.
>
> --
> Don Stauffer in Minneapolis
Dear Don,
All I can say is "we'll see." Very smart guys can still have limited
views. My uncle Bob has a Mensa-rated IQ of 162, but I spent 3 hours one
time trying to show him that an eight-cylinder engine fires more than
once (he said only one spark plug fired each rev) per revolution. He
never accepted it, yet he wrote a valid, well-substantiated paper
mathematically proving that Einstein's theory of Special Relativity was
unsound, and he graduated from Tufts Univ. at the age of 19 in
engineering. We'll see.
Michael
Michael Hannon
Roger Loving wrote:
>
> In <32E3F6...@worldnet.att.net> Michael Hannon
> <oha...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >
> > I ask a simple question - why, in 1910, would a 55-lb, 110 hp<
> engine the size of a small paint bucket, with ONE moving part, built<
> far easier and much less costly than a much more complex, less<
> reliable, much noiser, far less efficient piston engine of the era<
> > with 30 hp weighing many times that simple engine?<<
> >
> >Michael
>
> need to be considered. One is energy efficiency. This engine might have
> just been just to inefficient in converting energy to horsepower..The
> other is that possibly the motor lacked low rpm torque. Most useful
> motors make fairly good compressors when run at low speed by an
> external source, and this is a pretty good test for efficiency and
> torque. For electric motors, use their generating properties to test
> for the same features.
> Roger
Tesla turbines have reached efficiencies well over 60%, or double that
of the most efficient piston engines of today, most of which, because of
that high efficiency at a specific rpm, have very poor bottom end power.
But a 10" Tesla turbine capable of 15,000 rpm or more, must by nature of
that high engine speed, be geared down, probably 3:1, for a 5,000 rpm top
end at the output, and at the same time requires a minimal amount of
transmission gears, if any. Tesla engines have power characteristics
similar to DC electric motors, such as the starter motor in your car.
A Tesla turbine, geared down right off the bat by a 3:1 reduction gear,
with an adjustable intake nozzle, is capable of producing a tremendous
amount of torque and horsepower. Tesla speculated that his 110 hp
turbine, by using an adjustable intake nozzle, could possibly be capable
of approx. 1,000 hp in a short burst (and this from a small, very simple,
easily and inexpensively manufactured, very lightweight engine with ONE
moving part).
Michael
Roger Loving
engine the size of a small paint bucket, with ONE moving part, built<
far easier and much less costly than a much more complex, less<
reliable, much noiser, far less efficient piston engine of the era<
> with 30 hp weighing many times that simple engine?<<
>
>Michael
I assume that your question is serious. Two possible answers
te...@execpc.com
In article <32E517...@pass.wayne.edu>,
Michael Edelman <m...@pass.wayne.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > I ask a simple question - why, in 1910, would a 55-lb, 110 hp engine
> > the size of a small paint bucket, with ONE moving part, built far easier
> > and much less costly than a much more complex, less reliable, much
> > noiser, far less efficient piston engine of the era with 30 hp weighing
> > many times that simple engine?
>
> regeneration of the steam takes up many times more room. Take a look as
> the relative size of the boiler and the pistons on a steam locomotive!
>
> And take a look at history. The Stanley Steamer was a very successful
> car that had the early technological lead, but they couldn't lick the
> boiler problems with the technology at hand.
>
> Tesla was indeed a genius, but not everything he did turned to gold. He
> was very much a visual thinking, not a theoretician. This led him to
> invent the AC motor, but at the same time led him to some misconceptions
> about the nature of electricity.
>
> He was also completely ignorant of the realities of economics, which led
> him to spend fortunes of other people's money on projects that never
> produced any practical outcomes, and to sign away his one really
> profitible patent for peanuts.
Tesla's Response, 1916:
"Not a few technical men, very able in their special departments,
but dominated by a pedantic spirit and nearsighted, have asserted
that excepting the induction motor I have given to the world
little of practical use. This is a grievous mistake. A new
idea must not be judged by its immediate results. My
alternating system of power transmission came at a psychological
moment, as a long-sought answer to pressing industrial questions,
and altho considerable resistance had to be overcome and opposing
interests reconciled, as usual, the commercial introduction could
not be long delayed. Now compare this situation with that
confronting my turbine, for example. One should think that
so simple and beautiful an invention, possessing many features
of an ideal motor, should be adopted at once and, undoubtedly,
it would under similar conditions. But the prospective effect
of the rotating field was not to render worthless existing
machinery; on the contray, it was to give it additional value.
The system lent itself to new enterprise as well as to improvement
of the old. My turbine is an advance of a character entirely
different. It is a radical departure in the sense that its
success would mean the abandoment of the antiquated types of
prime movers on which billions of dollars have been spent.
Under such circumstances the progress must needs be slow
and perhaps the greatest impediment is encountered in the
prejudicial opinions created in the minds of experts by
organized opposition. Only the other day I had a dishearting
experience when I met my friend and former assistant, Charles
F. Scott, now professor of Electrical Engineering at Yale.
I had not seen him for a long time and was glad to have an
opportunity for a little chat at my office. Our conversation
naturally enough drifted on my turbine and I became heated
to a high degree. 'Scott,' I exclaimed, carried away by
the vision of a glorius future, 'my turbine will scrap
all the heat-engines in the world.' Scott stroked his
chin and looked away thougtfully, as though making a
mental calculation. 'That will make quite a pile of scrap,'
he said, and left without another word!"
Up until 1995, not so much as one disc turbine had been
reproduced in accordance to the Tesla specification.
Phillip Zadarnowski
Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Don Stauffer wrote:
>> Michael Hannon wrote:
>> > Phillip Zadarnowski wrote:
>> > > te...@execpc.com wrote:
>> > >snip
>> > > S.
>> > I'm really fascinated by the naivete' of some people who even seem to be
>> > operating in the "upper circles" of technology. snip
>> > many times that simple engine?
>> > Michael
>> Have you ever considered that maybe they really aren't that naive? Maybe they have access
>> to equipment that you don't, that they have tried to measure the efficiency of some things
>> that are highly touted in old literature, and find that the they really are not all they
>> are cracked up to be?
>> How much effort have you made to really measure the efficiency of turbines. And in any
>> steam system, the "motor" is only part of the efficiency equation.
>> I cannot believe there is any conspiracy against the Tesla turbines. I know a lot of very
>> sharp MEs. These guys are not dumb. They claim the efficiency of the Tesla turbine is not
>> what some works claim.
>> Don Stauffer in Minneapolis
>
>
>Dear Don,
>
> All I can say is "we'll see." Very smart guys can still have limited
>views. My uncle Bob has a Mensa-rated IQ of 162, but I spent 3 hours one
>time trying to show him that an eight-cylinder engine fires more than
>once (he said only one spark plug fired each rev) per revolution. He
>never accepted it, yet he wrote a valid, well-substantiated paper
>mathematically proving that Einstein's theory of Special Relativity was
>unsound, and he graduated from Tufts Univ. at the age of 19 in
>engineering. We'll see.
Aw gee. 162 and descending...
I really like the bit about the 3 hours trying to show him, and the
fact that he never accepted it proves that both of you lacked a lot
of fundamental knowledge and *especially* an almost complete loss
of analytical and problem solving ability! Jeez, what's it take
to pop the cover off the dizzy, pull the plugs and rotate it by
hand? And the fact that a *FOUR* stroke engine with an *EIGHT*
cylinder configuration is likely to fire twice in a rev? Were it
not to do so, the power of a V8 would be lost on wasted piston
pumps...
Now, what about 5,6 and 12 cylinders? Only joking... I wouldn't
want to stress you too much.
S.
Phillip Zadarnowski
Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> These things cost too much to implement for the cost-effective market,
>> which is why people like their Volvos and BMWs and which is also why I
>> drive a General Motors bomb.
>
>Does it have a padded dash, seat belts, and front disc brakes?
Get real. Air bags extra, ABS brakes extra, crash cage expensive,
fuel injection expensive. What do want to compare to what?
>
>A few? There are presently 358 billionaires in the world,
What, and they are all criminal ruthless energy dictators? How many
state-owned power grids are there, state-owned water corporations,
and the like? Come on, very few individuals have that much control.
>and one trillionaire, all of whom conspire with each
>other and against each other and us to control markets.
Well, if they *all* conspire with each other to control
markets, how come there's so many?
> Radar powered aircraft, as depicted on the cover of popular mechanics,
>and shown on national television. High frequency electromagnetic radiation
> (radar) is directed at the craft, its built-in antennas receive the EMR,
> which is provided to it's electric motors, propelling it - this is old news.
Popular Mechanics! A real science mag that is. I have some copies
going back to 1934, and back then they were showing some mighty
wierd CONCEPT stuff.
You know, (and you evidently don't), RADAR is merely and APPLICATION
of radio frequency transmission. You might fly a light model on
radiated power, but focus and collection really means you need
microwave frequencies. I'm sure the Scientists have poured
megabucks into such ideas to the testing stage.
Tell me, do you really think this is useful?
>> Not from a conspiracy. You seem very willing to accept that there is
>> some kind of overwhelming push for expensive mediocrity instead of
>> well-priced excellence. If this were so, we'd all be putting around
>> in propellor planes, the largest taking 50 passengers, and cars
>> that just gulped fuel "because its in the interest of the oil
>> companies." Why, have you seen a carburetor that can be modified
>> to double the mileage, or an engine design that can achieve
>> 100% energy conversion?
>Were these people not quite willing to mess with each other as well as
>us, this might be true, but competition and wars reveal too much for the
>public to stand for such "mediocrity" as you would suggest. Anyone
>who considers the "oil companies" to be on our side just needs to go
>to any gas station in the world, except in the middle east.
> High-mileage carb? Try http://www.inett.com/himac/
Old OLD story, the HM carb. Especially considering that an engine's
fuel demand and combustion pattern doesn't change, that's a fallacy.
However, a HIGH PRECISION carburetor with computer control may well
pull in some savings. Actually, they call it FUEL INJECTION.
Sounds like another indicator that you are too confining in your
acquisition facts vs fiction.
>Free energy? Try http://www.livelinks.com/sumeria/free/lee.html
Yeah! What a screamer that was! I was having a good giggle over
that. It goes to show how inept some people are at business.
Phase change? Sure, a phase change can yield a LOT of energy -
but only because it has been stored. I have some phase change
devices right here in my hot little hand. Hot because if I
force a change from liquid to solid with just a nudge, it
gives up all its stored heat. Unfortunately, the reversal
takes heaps of energy.
Hell, If you believe as much of this tripe as it appears you
do, why don't you go straight to the FE/AG/SC source, Searl's
patented energy device? With one of those, you can not only
power your car, but it will also fly and keep you cool.
>> Maybe, just maybe, you are missing out on the kind of factual
>> information on physics and limits of application to allow
>> yourself to dream a little too much.
>
>I think not.
Not from what you've been typing, no?
>> I'm sure he got shafted - hell, I've been shafted a number of times,
>> which is why I'm still poor as hell. And if you don't get on with
>> the business of developing this *great* device, you will get shafted
>> too - if indeed it is such an effective unit.
>
>Oh, I'm getting on quite well with it, thank you.
Well, good luck, I say.
> I never have, and never will, but Tesla's work is, and has been, considered
> of the most important in history, and much of it has yet to be realized.
Maybe only for exoctic applications where cost is no object.
> I've got a pretty good idea, as well as knowledge of the "subterrene," also
>available on the web. What I do wonder is how they can still say that Vandenberg AFB
>is a launching site for satellites only, when, several years ago, I personally saw a
>shuttle-like craft being hauled from a "hillside" where nothing was supposed to be,
>let alone a facility for work on such a craft, to the base from a main highway.
Yeah. The Gov't like their hidey games.
> No, all it would require is conventional materials -
Sure, but how much MORE efficient and lighter would it be with
newer materials!
>Advanced Dynamics has built: 11" runner (13" diameter x 3" thick), which produces well over
>300 hp from about 60 lbs of engine. Try http://www.execpc.com/~teba
I looked. Saw nothing. It says BUY THE BOOK. How about a picture
from the book? Or maybe they too are just bad copies of the original?
>> Try http://www.execpc.com/~teba
>I personally cannot discuss fuel injection, as it is part
> of my present work.
Secrecy! Love it! Ah well.
> Hot spots? My friend you have no idea what you
> are talking about. Perhaps you could explain first of all,
> why there would be such a problem in this type of turbine,
> when tha exhaust exits somewhere between 350-550 deg
> lower than the intake in a gasoline version.
Really? So, what's the intake temp then? Why should I eplain to
you the answer to my questions? YOU tell me why it exits at such
low temperatures!
>> You haven't even got up to date MODERN drawings!
>
>Try http://www.execpc.com/~teba
Yeah, Yeah, "Buy the Book"...
>> I was particularly amused at another poster who told of
>> his model that hit 50,000rpm and wasn't very well balanced!
>> I wouldn't want to be in the same room with that!
> That was me, and the turbine is sitting here in my living room,
> and it's not 50,000 rpm anymore - it's 70,000. And it scares the
> bejesus out of me to run it at that rpm, but one day, I'm going
> to detroy it at whatever rpm's it can run to. A 1" Tesla turbine
> pump (in this real world) is capable of creating 10,000 psi
> at 140,000 rpm.
So, again, how do you measure the RPM? And excuse me, but who
has the facts and figures on the 10,000 psi, and was it liquid
or gas, and how thick was the tubing and where'd you get the
gauge? Or perhaps you *read* it someplace?
Sounds to me like you are risking life and limb...
> What I would suggest to you is that you find another hobby besides
>blowing hot air at the truth.
Sorry, but a load of Bollocks is easily recogniseable at a great
distance.
> Try building one of these "impossible"
> devices properly, and see how long you continue to
> "armchair critic" your way around real people doing real
> work with their own money, time, and energy.
I don't think so. I also can do "real work" like shovelling
sand from hole A to hole B and back. It's a question of
whether you die of exhaustion before you realise you are
getting noplace.
If I accepted what little information you expect us to believe,
I'd preferably build a Searl supermagnet - its larger, shinier,
and it's claims transcend reality.
S.
lha...@unm.edu
OK folks to the "debunkers" dont forget what "they" said
about Stanley Ovshinski (Ithink that's right) back about 15 yrs.
ago. For the non science followers, He claimed to have made
a solar cell with amorphous semiconductor ie. non crystline.
The "scientific community" ho-hoed him. But now it is an established
technique. Not teribly efficient, but working.
I get the feeling a lot of the problem is the famous or infamous
NIH (not invented here) syndrome.
Lets see what the experimenters and "devotees" come up with.
ie. reserve judgement. :-)
...lew...
Steven O. Smith
Michael Hannon wrote:
>
> If anyone was a theoretician, it was Edison, who would get an idea,
> and then spend a fortune trying to figure out how to implement it (eg,
> the electric light bulb - he tested a mountain of different ideas before
> one even came close to working).
This is generally referred to as 'experimenting'.
> Tesla complained of Edison's
> trial-and-error methods.
> Tesla's ideas were fully developed realities, including engineering,
> before he would attempt their building.
This is 'theory' before 'practice'.
>Tesla pumps are the "Mercedes
> Benz" of the industry, and his turbine, if allowed by the powers-that-be
> (which is highly doubtful), will replace the piston engine, just for
> starters.
> Michael
The wonder of the age still not on the market, hmmm.
Steven O. Smith
There were certainly people arguing against Ovshinsky, but he also
pretty quickly showed some results.
Tesla's turbine, on the other hand, has been around lots longer and we
still don't see any results that show it is useful (economic, practical,
...) All we hear is rhetoric about how wonderful it is, with just enough
data to be tantalizing. A long time for it to stay at the tantalizing
stage.
Michael Hannon
Steven O. Smith wrote:
>
> Michael Hannon wrote:
> >
> > If anyone was a theoretician, it was Edison, who would get an idea,
> > and then spend a fortune trying to figure out how to implement it (eg,
> > the electric light bulb - he tested a mountain of different ideas before
> > one even came close to working).
>
> This is generally referred to as 'experimenting'.
what will work, because of lack of knowledge and training. Edison was never trained as
an engineer - he was just an inventor, and had to fool with what he "thought"
might work until he ran into something that would in order to get his ideas
to function.
>
> > Tesla complained of Edison's
> > trial-and-error methods.
> > Tesla's ideas were fully developed realities, including engineering,
> > before he would attempt their building.
>
> This is 'theory' before 'practice'.
>
No, it is called engineering - something Edison knew very little about.
Tesla was primarily a mechanical engineer by education. He designed the
first hydroelectric plant at Niagara Falls. He built 10,000 hp turbines
of his own design which worked - there are photos in existence of these
turbines, and texts of engineers noting them. He was a threat to anyone
who was making money from piston, bucket turbine, and bladed turbine
technology, and they were as against him for his bladeless turbine as
Edison (the king of direct current power for industry and the household)
was against him (and fought him) for his alternating current technology.
technology.
>
> >Tesla pumps are the "Mercedes
> > Benz" of the industry, and his turbine, if allowed by the powers-that-be
> > (which is highly doubtful), will replace the piston engine, just for
> > starters.
> > Michael
>
> The wonder of the age still not on the market, hmmm.
> Where do you get your info? Tesla style bladeless pumps have been on the market
for quite a while, and some Tesla pumps have been running for decades, basically
non-stop. Texaco uses Tesla pumps, and praises them.
tadedek
Excuse me for interrupting the discussion. I was wandering if you
could point me in the right direction to obtaining more information
on the subject of Tesla turbines and pumps. Any tips and sources
should be posted so that other people may research it and draw
their own conclusions as well. Also, as a thought. Is there any
chance that the "modern-day" turbines and ramjets are directly
related to Tesla's work and/or findings?
Sheldon
Michael Hannon
Phillip Zadarnowski wrote:
You, sir obviously have no interest in this but to argue. I have proveded
you with real answers to your questions, and you refuse to look seriously
at those answers. I, therefore, have better things to do with my time
than to try to reason with someone who doesn't know the meaning of the
word. You can respond to whatever you choose concerning Mr. Tesla, but
anyone who knows what he has created, and his depth of understanding,
wouldn't waste any further energy attempting to fathom of reach your
mentality. So, I won't. I've got a turbine to work on, which in and of
it's own real world performance makes much more sense than you do.
Michael
Michael Hannon
Phillip Zadarnowski wrote:
>
> Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Don Stauffer wrote:
> >> Michael Hannon wrote:
> >> > > S.
> >> > I'm really fascinated by the naivete' of some people who even seem to be
> >> > many times that simple engine?
>
> >> > Michael
>
Uh, let me see - you're saying that an 8 cyl 4-stroke engine
fires TWICE each rev? Do you know my uncle?
Michael
Chris Pollard
C.5...@worldnet.att.net>
Distribution:
Michael Hannon (oha...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Tesla turbines have reached efficiencies well over 60%, or double that
: of the most efficient piston engines of today, most of which, because of
: that high efficiency at a specific rpm, have very poor bottom end power.
: But a 10" Tesla turbine capable of 15,000 rpm or more, must by nature of
: that high engine speed, be geared down, probably 3:1, for a 5,000 rpm top
: end at the output, and at the same time requires a minimal amount of
: transmission gears, if any. Tesla engines have power characteristics
: similar to DC electric motors, such as the starter motor in your car.
: A Tesla turbine, geared down right off the bat by a 3:1 reduction gear,
: with an adjustable intake nozzle, is capable of producing a tremendous
: amount of torque and horsepower. Tesla speculated that his 110 hp
: turbine, by using an adjustable intake nozzle, could possibly be capable
: of approx. 1,000 hp in a short burst (and this from a small, very simple,
: easily and inexpensively manufactured, very lightweight engine with ONE
: moving part).
The 60% efficiency is probably mechanical efficiency - NOT thermal
efficiency which is what you are comparing it to. It is not possible for
the efficiency of the Tesla turbine to be as high as 60% - please explain
what the source and sink temperatures are to operate at this efficiency
and how you circumvent Carnot cycle laws!
Mike Henry
No doubt we are all under the influence of evil beams from alien UFOs.
They are probably in cahoots with the billionaires (maybe they get a 10 %
cut of the action). Sheesh - this stuff seems more appropriate for
alt.conspiracy.wacko than rcm.
Steven O. Smith <st*eve_...@cc.com> wrote in article
<32E643...@cc.com>...
george p swanton
In article <32E4E8...@worldnet.att.net>,
Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> > I ask a simple question - why, in 1910, would a 55-lb, 110 hp engine
>> >the size of a small paint bucket, with ONE moving part, built far easier
>> >and much less costly than a much more complex, less reliable, much
>> >noiser, far less efficient piston engine of the era with 30 hp weighing
>> >many times that simple engine?
>>
>> This is just talk. Pure talk. You have no figures to even start
>> making this claim look real. I *know* that this device could be built
>> to 1990's standards with ceramics, ultrahard bearings, a rash of
>> lubricants and seals to satisfy temperatures in the thousands of
>> degrees C range, metals and alloys with wonderous qualities.
> No, all it would require is conventional materials - actually the materials
>of Tesla's era. Conventional materials of today would build one like the prototype
>Advanced Dynamics has built: 11" runner (13" diameter x 3" thick), which produces well over
>300 hp from about 60 lbs of engine. Try http://www.execpc.com/~teba
Ok, so it's COMPACT, SPINS FAST and it's (ostensibly) SIMPLE.
That doesn't make it EFFICIENT. Everyone want's to measure
POUNDS, RPM, HORSEPOWER, where are the EFFICIENCY NUMBERS?
I have to agree, incomplete data sets are no more
than sales hype.
>>OK, you and a dozen others have been entertaining yourselves
>> with this Tesla obsession. So build it or "science project" it.
>> Let's see some figures on model, like RPM, Torque, fuel types, fuel
>> consumption, wear data, lube systems, cooling systems, running temps
>> etc.
Indeed.
>Try http://www.execpc.com/~teba
A search for 'efficien' turns up repeated unquantified references
to 'improved efficiency', 'maximum efficiency', 'highly efficient',
etc. The only vaugly quantified reference is the following -
Tesla is well documented as stating that tests conducted utilizing
gasoline and water injection with the 110 HP version of the engine
achieved an efficiency of 60% at the engines output shaft!
which basically says 'Tesla said so'.
>> 55lb and 110 horsepower means nothing because it is isolated
>> from the kind of science and engineering reality that is
>> expressed in a larger range of data and graphs.
>>
>> I was particularly amused at another poster who told of
>> his model that hit 50,000rpm and wasn't very well balanced!
>> I wouldn't want to be in the same room with that!
That was me, and the turbine is sitting here in my living room,
>and it's not 50,000 rpm anymore - it's 70,000. And it scares the
>bejesus out of me to run it at that rpm, but one day, I'm going
>to detroy it at whatever rpm's it can run to.
So produce a well documented complete data set and silence
the critics.
>A 1" Tesla turbine
>pump (in this real world) is capable of creating 10,000 psi
>at 140,000 rpm.
With what input power? SMALL, SPINS FAST, COMPACT. Efficiency??
> What I would suggest to you is that you find another hobby besides
>blowing hot air at the truth. Try building one of these "impossible"
>devices properly, and see how long you continue to "armchair critic"
>your way around real people doing real work with their own money,
>time, and energy.
Unsubstantiated 'truth' is only so much 'hot air'. If you want to
call what you're doing 'real work' then do the work to really test
the thing. Otherwise call it a hobby and dont go around
grandstanding so.
gsp
Dan Doner
The tesla turbine is a heat engine. It has thermodynamic limits on
efficiency, just like any other heat engine. The major limiting factor
on efficiency for a heat engine is called Carnot efficiency.
Basically, you are extracting energy from some hot gas. How its
excracted and what the final form is is irrelevant. In this hot gas
there will always be a few particles that collide, thus canceling some
of the energy that could have otherwise been extracted. This is the
conspiracy we all must live with.
Now, electrochemistry is cool. Instead of extracting energy from some
hot gas, we can extract electrons directly from an electrochemical
reaction. ALL the electrons are usable, and the waste heat of the
reaction can be used as well. This is why anyone who understands a bit
of science is very interested in fuel cells, not Tesla turbines or any
other heat engine. The Tesla turbine might be easy to build and might
have alot of merits, but the reason its not widely used is very simple:
a combination of physics and economics.
Dan
Michael Hannon wrote:
>
> Phillip Zadarnowski wrote:
> >
> > te...@execpc.com wrote:
> >
> > > To answer an earlier question in this thread, about using Tesla's device
> > > as a gas turbine. Yes it can and has been done, contrary to the rattlings
> > > of an uninformed critic. He is indeed correct, however, that billions of
> > > dollars have been spent to make bladed turbines work efficiently.
> > > In contrast almost nothing has been invested in developing the Tesla turbine.
> > > The potential for further development is therefore immense.
> >
> > Surely, if you build a low-cost high-efficiency device, you will
> > revolutionize industry and transport, and make a ton of money.
> >
> > I would not assume, however, that because there is an element of
> > obscurity and an 'apparent' lack of R&D, the device has modern
> > and demanding application.
> >
> > The solutions are many but the applications are few due to the
> > even *more* demanding market drive for cost-effectiveness in
> > production and other high-tech considerations such as weight.
> >
> > NASA (or contractor) is reengineering shuttle engines to achieve
> > a 1.5% increase in thrust at tremendous cost, pursuing that fine
> > edge of ultimate conversion of fuel to thrust. So yes, there is
> > a market even for such small increases for NASA and much larger
> > increases sought for aircraft and tanks.
> >
> > The market awaits whatever FIRSTLY cost-effective device
> > advancements for mass production and SECONDLY efficiency-effective
> > advancements for niche products.
> >
> > So you have two avenues here to pursue. Good engineers and
> > scientists can predict very closely the kinds of results
> > expected in *mechanical* devices, so it won't be too hard
> > to whip up an expectation of value in both the cost-effective
> > market and the efficiency-effective one.
> >
> > Do a small group of you have some insight into a truly "forgotten"
> > technology? Perhaps. Tesla certainly pioneered a great many
> > things and I respect his contributions as I do Edison, Bell and
> > others. The world *has* taken up as much as the technology can
> > deliver to the market and shelved what it can't (with exception
> > of the odd home-enthusiast).
> >
> > The closest to a recently re-used old and "forgotten" technology
> > was the bonding of a ceramic and a metal with a material that
> > can take the expansion and contraction of both, for satellite
> > use. It turned out that the old formula had been published
> > but was out of use, and the only source for that formula was
> > found in a priest's private library of books picked up when
> > the Russians dicarded all the contents of their libraries
> > a decade back. (the formula applied to very specific materials)
> >
> > Tesla's radiated energy idea is an example of a possible method
> > of power distribution that is impracticable and will never be used.
> > Even the emininently possible microwave solution has problems
> > and orders of magnitude that make it impracticable.
> >
> > We'll see. If the turbine has merits to suit market needs,
> > someone will adapt it, and soon. With coming rush for low
> > -emission vehicles and higher-powered mass transport, someone
> > will make a lot of money *IF* it's so good.
> >
> > S.
>
> I'm really fascinated by the naivete' of some people who even seem to be
> operating in the "upper circles" of technology. Tesla invented radio, but
> if it weren't for a severe battle in court, Marconi would still be
> considered the inventor, despite the fact that he literally stole the
> technology from Tesla. I would suppose that this person also believes
> that Preston Tucker really was a "shyster," and that the "Tin Goose" was
> not "up to snuff" to make it in the "progressive automobile market" we
> have in this country, despite its pop-out windshield, padded dash, seat
> belts, and numerous other items which no other car on the market had, or
> would have for years. I personally knew of an inventor in Sebastopol, CA,
> (I was dating his secretary, who couldn't stop talking about her
> boss's new technology) who had a working vehicle and a market, only to
> discover that his suppliers suddenly disappeared, and then two
> consecutive "accidental" fires in his shop and offices, which drove him
> out of business.
> Ask yourself this - why is it that one of, if not the, the most
> prolific inventors in the history of mankind, the father of alternating
> current, builder and designer of the original hydroelectric facility at
> Niagra Falls, inventor of the AC motor, of robotics, radio, radio
> control, present day state-of-the-art radar-powered aircraft (no
> practicable use for his transmitted power, huh), scalar wave technology
> (HAARP), and a myriad of other devices successful in today's world, died
> alone, emaciated, and poor in a hotel room in NYC? Was it because his
> inventions couldn't "cut the mustard in the real world?" Or was it that
> the same type of people who ruined Tucker did it to Mr. Tesla even before
> him? You can bet that every attempt outside of the ruthless international
> corporations will be met one way or another by them. That is what they
> do, and no amount of "naive" banter about "only the good stuff succeeds
> on its own merits" will ever mask that truth. I suggest anyone who doubts
> this read "When Corporations Rule the World" by David Korten, former
> Harvard professor, and world-renowned student of the impact of those
> corporations on the future of us all.
> I ask a simple question - why, in 1910, would a 55-lb, 110 hp engine
> the size of a small paint bucket, with ONE moving part, built far easier
> and much less costly than a much more complex, less reliable, much
> noiser, far less efficient piston engine of the era with 30 hp weighing
> many times that simple engine?
>
> Michael
george p swanton
In article <32E5DB...@worldnet.att.net>,
Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Phillip Zadarnowski wrote:
>You, sir obviously have no interest in this but to argue.
I didn't find him particularly antagonistic. Skeptical yes,
but not completely beligerant.
>I have proveded
>you with real answers to your questions, and you refuse to look seriously
>at those answers.
Unless I've missed part of the discussion, the numbers given did
not constitute proof of overall superiority of the turbine.
>I, therefore, have better things to do with my time
>than to try to reason with someone who doesn't know the meaning of the
>word. You can respond to whatever you choose concerning Mr. Tesla, but
>anyone who knows what he has created, and his depth of understanding,
>wouldn't waste any further energy attempting to fathom of reach your
>mentality.
If anyone knew fully concerning Mr Tesla's turbine and presented
complete data concerning it's performance to substantiate their
claims, we might not 'waste our time trying to fathom it'. Since
that has not occurred, we remain unconvinced.
>So, I won't. I've got a turbine to work on, which in and of
>it's own real world performance makes much more sense than you do.
Consider performing some efficiency measurements.
Don't mistake skepticism for personal anymosity, we're really
not 'out to get you' here. But people will not just
sit quietly in awe of Mr Tesla's genius without quantitative
evidence.
gps
Mark Winlund
It seems that a great deal of effort is being expended by the Tesla
people to get us to "buy the book" and "join (pay) the organization"
Hmmmm.... smells a little fishy to me.
Mark
george p swanton
In article <32E21C...@worldnet.att.net>,
Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Chris Pollard wrote:
>> te...@execpc.com wrote:
>> : To answer an earlier question in this thread, about using Tesla's device
>> : as a gas turbine. Yes it can and has been done, contrary to the rattlings
>> : of an uninformed critic. He is indeed correct, however, that billions of
>> : dollars have been spent to make bladed turbines work efficiently.
>> : In contrast almost nothing has been invested in developing the Tesla turbine.
>> : The potential for further development is therefore immense.
>> Hmm - how much do I have to know about fluid dynamics and gas turbines
>> before I can become an informed critic - or does it just mean I have to
>> agree with you?
>How much of an informed critic? Try building one to Tesla's spec's, say
>the 10" model. The materials (bottom end) costs will be a few hundred
>bucks, and you'll end up with a 55-lb, 110 hp engine turning about 15,000
>rpm. I've got a smaller one (sloppily built, with poor balance) turning
>well over 50,000 rpm. The first time I ran it, it scared the hell out of
>me, because it wouldn't quit accelerating, and I shut it down finally out
>of fear that it would just keep gaining rpm until it self-destructed.
>Take my word for it -
Sorry, not sufficient.
>the Tesla turbine works so well, and if the world
>knew,
Err, the world _does_ know, has for _years_.
>piston engines and pumps would have been obsolete a long, long time
>ago. In fact, it is so simple to build, and so effective, that each new
>effort I make with it is repeatedly boggling my mind.
A thing can be simple to build, even elegant, 'effective' in certain
environments and yet not widely applicable.
Every time this subject comes up there is all manner of references
to RPM, LBs, and HP with various vaugaries to the effect of 'highly
efficient' but never any quantitative results. Ok, it spins fast,
that doesn't make it efficient. How about some complete numbers
to go with the rhetoric.
gps
Michael Hannon
The TEBA or International Tesla society are the best sources I know of,
and have a lot of information available. Yes there are various turbines,
jet engines and pumps which employ the Tesla technology, many of them
patented. Some can be found through the TEBA. TEBA has posted numerous
times on this sight, once recently. A good start is to do a search on
"Tesla turbine" on the <search.com> or <metacrawler.com> sites.
Michael
Michael Hannon
george p swanton wrote:
>
> In article <32E5DB...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Phillip Zadarnowski wrote:
> >You, sir obviously have no interest in this but to argue.
>
> but not completely beligerant.
>
> >you with real answers to your questions, and you refuse to look seriously
> >at those answers.
>
> not constitute proof of overall superiority of the turbine.
>
> >than to try to reason with someone who doesn't know the meaning of the
> >word. You can respond to whatever you choose concerning Mr. Tesla, but
> >anyone who knows what he has created, and his depth of understanding,
> >wouldn't waste any further energy attempting to fathom of reach your
> >mentality.
>
> complete data concerning it's performance to substantiate their
> claims, we might not 'waste our time trying to fathom it'. Since
> that has not occurred, we remain unconvinced.
>
> >it's own real world performance makes much more sense than you do.
>
>
> Don't mistake skepticism for personal anymosity, we're really
> not 'out to get you' here. But people will not just
> sit quietly in awe of Mr Tesla's genius without quantitative
> evidence.
>
> gps
Perhaps one of you geniuses will actually do the research people such as
the TEBA, International Tesla Society, and others like me have. I doubt
it. You're too busy "armchair critiquing" to bother. That's fine with me,
and probably everyone else who is working on this thing. More for us.
Now, back to your remotes, gentlemen.
Michael
Michael Hannon
Yup, I confess - you've caught us - no pulling the wool over eyes, Mark.
Everyone who has researched this and joined the "organization" (the Tesla
Mafia, la Tesla Nostra) actually has a fetish whereby they go about
seeking unsuspecting victims to join the ranks of the "fish" (that's a
code word for "insiders" - you must be psychic - otherwise , how could
you have come up with that "fishy" analogy). Obviously, you're "one of
us," but don't know it yet. The only way to find out for sure is to meet
with all of the other "dissenters" and take secret photos. "We'll" let
you know when to pass them on to "us." In the meantime, keep an eye
peeled. Go to every library in your area, and burn the Tesla books - that
way "we" can sell more of them. When you collect 13 library card jackets
from burned books, let "us" know, and we'll show you the secret handshake
for the "first level."
Michael
Richard Everett
Jerry Chase wrote:
>
> Huh? Thermopyles in my hot water heater? Where? I see resistance
> heating elements and bimetallic thermostats that flip on or off based
> on temperature and different rates of expansion of dissimilar metals,
> but no thermopyles.
>
> What kind of water heater do you have? Perhaps you are saying that
> the rust holes in a hot water heater are thermally generated piles?
> Or perhaps you have a miniature misspelled Greek battle scene in your
> hot water tank?
>
> J
It is actually a thermocouple in your *gas* hot water heater. It is two different metals
joined together that produce a voltage when heated (and the other end stays cooler). I am
pretty sure all *gas* water heaters have them....they produce about 50 milivolts or so.
Now, when you link a bunch of these together, I *think* the configuration is called a
thermopyle, but maybe that is the wrong term.
In your *gas* hot water heater, the thermocouple is heated by the pilot light, and is used
to determine if the pilot light is lit, so you don't fill up your house with nat. gas.
Thermocouples can also make nifty high temperature probes - if you can calibrate them.
R
Steven O. Smith
Michael Hannon wrote:
>
> >
> > >Tesla pumps are the "Mercedes
> > > Benz" of the industry, and his turbine, if allowed by the powers-that-be
> > > (which is highly doubtful), will replace the piston engine, just for
> > > starters.
> > > Michael
> >
> for quite a while, and some Tesla pumps have been running for decades, basically
> non-stop. Texaco uses Tesla pumps, and praises them.
I've been going by what you say, since you seem to be the expert. This
is the first concrete example you've given us of the miracle turbine
actually being applied.
Seamus
Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> said that:
> I ask a simple question - why, in 1910, would a 55-lb, 110 hp engine
>the size of a small paint bucket, with ONE moving part, built far easier
>and much less costly than a much more complex, less reliable, much
>noiser, far less efficient piston engine of the era with 30 hp weighing
>many times that simple engine?
>
Hi Michael,
I would like to answer that but I can`t even read it.
Would you like to try again and divide up the question into separate
conditional parameters and a really simple question. Then we airtops,
intellectual lightweights and windbrains may attempt an answer for
you.
You may further choose to configure your news reader to 76 characters
per line just like the rest of us and you will find that this
convention will aid our communication. - ...and yes, I know it looks
fine to you when you send it... but...
Jim.
James Wilkins
> Tesla pumps are the "Mercedes
> Benz" of the industry, and his turbine, if allowed by the powers-that-be
> (which is highly doubtful), will replace the piston engine, just for
> starters.
Whose permission do we need to build one?
--
James Wilkins
The Mitre Corp.
Bedford, MA
Phillip Zadarnowski
Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Phillip Zadarnowski wrote:
>You, sir obviously have no interest in this but to argue. I have proveded
>you with real answers to your questions, and you refuse to look seriously
>at those answers.
Nix, pal. I haven't had one real answer from you, and the only one
I gave was wrong, so neither of us
>I, therefore, have better things to do with my time
>than to try to reason with someone who doesn't know the meaning of the
>word.
Fine. Make your turbine and make a billion. I won't sweat it.
>You can respond to whatever you choose concerning Mr. Tesla, but
>anyone who knows what he has created, and his depth of understanding,
>wouldn't waste any further energy attempting to fathom of reach your
>mentality.
I've nothing bad at all to say about Tesla. Nothing. He lived,
however, at a time where competitiveness and efficiency weren't
really a critical element in design and application. That's not
his fault. So he made this turbine and patented it.
The problem I have, or rather, the brief itch I suffer, is to
see yet another device surface from the dimdark past and
be proclaimed so trascendingly efficient - not 5%, not 15%
not 25% - a massive 8:1 power to weight ratio against a
conventional self-contained combustion engine.
I agree compustion engines aren't efficient - but they are
cheap and their parts are easily maintained and replaced.
> So, I won't. I've got a turbine to work on, which in and of
> it's own real world performance makes much more sense than you do.
There is no real-world performance. I read nothing on the TEBA
page that represented real-world testing. All I saw was a lot
of talk - very similar to this net chit-chat. Luckily for you,
you have the opportunity to show the entire world how good this
device is. You won't do it, however, with factless ravings
about it.
I might well piss you off, but I'm only one of many that will
cause you to feel that way.
Good luck, I say. Do it if you can and tell us something REAL
so we can get excited too.
S.
Phillip Zadarnowski
jimf...@iol.ie (Seamus) wrote:
[...]
> Then we airtops, intellectual lightweights and windbrains may
> attempt an answer for you.
ROFL!
S.
Phillip Zadarnowski
Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Yup, I confess - you've caught us - no pulling the wool over eyes, Mark.
>Everyone who has researched this and joined the "organization" (the Tesla
>Mafia, la Tesla Nostra) actually has a fetish whereby they go about
>seeking unsuspecting victims to join the ranks of the "fish"
[...]
Just scan a couple of pics and show us some tables, please? You know,
you can publish a moderate amount of copyright information if it is
within the realms of education and discussion.
You don't have to *hide* everything, you know.
S.
Phillip Zadarnowski
Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Perhaps one of you geniuses will actually do the research people such as
>the TEBA, International Tesla Society, and others like me have. I doubt
>it. You're too busy "armchair critiquing" to bother. That's fine with me,
>and probably everyone else who is working on this thing. More for us.
>Now, back to your remotes, gentlemen.
Why? If you can do it and claim to have done it, where is the backup
data to make it the amazing product it purports to be?
S.
Robert Galloway
> Tesla's ideas were fully developed realities, including engineering,
>(which is highly doubtful), will replace the piston engine, just for
>starters.
I realize that the "powers that be" have been infiltrated by claverns of
piston worshipers (worse even than scientologists) and that the efforts
by GM to produce a turbine powered auto were mere window dressing,
intended to make us THINK they wanted it to succeed but; If the Tesla
turbine is as simple and elegant as some here have maintained, I fully
expect to hear the anouncement of the Tesla Powered Auto Owners of
America Annual Road Rally where every Tesla fan whips together his own
power plant, grafts it into the family Buick and enters it in the
competition. Home shop machinists have converted Evinrudes and VWs to
run on steam and a hardy few have constructed the Screamin Demon and I
believe a few Schreckling (sp?) turbines. Surely we should see this high
efficiency beast implemented by an amateur not wedded to the piston
technology. C'mon, guys, what are we waiting for?
rhg
basi...@hotmail.com
In article <32E21C...@worldnet.att.net>,
Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> How much of an informed critic? Try building one to Tesla's spec's, say
> the 10" model. The materials (bottom end) costs will be a few hundred
> bucks, and you'll end up with a 55-lb, 110 hp engine turning about 15,000
> rpm. I've got a smaller one (sloppily built, with poor balance) turning
> well over 50,000 rpm. The first time I ran it, it scared the hell out of
> me, because it wouldn't quit accelerating, and I shut it down finally out
> of fear that it would just keep gaining rpm until it self-destructed.
You indicated you have "a smaller one", smaller than a 10" unit. Were you
trying to clone Tesla's 6" turbine? From past posts, you had it up initially to
1500 rpm. Then you were able to coax it to 50000 rpm and lately to 70000. What
corrective steps did you take that enabled you to advance to this speed? An
enumeration of the problems you encountered on the way would be useful to the
novice who's likely to come across the same. What assumptions did you make
about your design that did not pan out in practice?
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
basi...@hotmail.com
In article <8536475...@dejanews.com>,
te...@execpc.com wrote:
>
>
> We do have documentation on his 9 3/4" which had .03" disc thickness
> and spacing. The Eighteen inch version used .06" disc thickness
> and .06 disc spacing.
>
> TEBA member Advanced Dynamics built an 11" version using .03 discs
> and spacing that performed well. Beyond this, wider spacing is
> advisable as the back pressures become much more significant. Those
> that built the 11" versions disregarded Tesla's example and
> used .03" in an 18" version. This resulted in a warped rotor.
> Tesla knew of what he spoke.
Noted. And no doubt the same damage would be produced by a smaller clearance
than .03" for a 9 3/4" or 6" rotor.
> Recently Tesla received headline coverage in the
> Seattle Post - Intelligencer. Oct. 16 1996. Page 1 headline:
>
> "From an obscure genius comes a tiny pump for computer age"
>
> The University of Washington has "rediscovered" a component of
> the Tesla gas turbine, namely the "Valvular Conduit" which
> we have been promoting since 1990. (They do not refer to
> it properly throughout the article, calling it a Tesla pump.)
>
> Tesla used the valvular conduit to allow his turbine to operate
> without a conventional compressor stage.
> In a conventional gas turbine approximately 2/3rds of the power
> produced by the turbine is consumed by the compressor. Only 1/3
> of the total power is therefore remaining for shaft output.
The valvular conduit is something of a mystery to me. I've seen a captioned
illustration in some publication some time ago, but not much else.
> Advanced Dynamics did build a small 5" version with attached generator. It
> runs up to about 40,000 rpm unloaded with 80psi compressed air. It brightly
> illuminates an incandescent bulb at about 35k rpm. This is a fun project
> that almost anyone could build. It is featured in our Spring 95 newsletter.
Interesting. O'Neill mentioned a 5" diameter model with 12 discs running
at 20,000 rpm on compressed air built by Tesla in 1906. I had almost forgotten
about this. Perhaps Advanced Dynamics patterned its engine after this? A
turbine is a bit much though just to power a solitary light bulb. Surely that
can't be the unit in peak form.
George P Swanton
Dan Doner wrote:
>
> The tesla turbine is a heat engine. It has thermodynamic limits on
> efficiency, just like any other heat engine. The major limiting factor
> on efficiency for a heat engine is called Carnot efficiency.
>
> Basically, you are extracting energy from some hot gas. How its
> excracted and what the final form is is irrelevant. In this hot gas
> there will always be a few particles that collide, thus canceling some
> of the energy that could have otherwise been extracted. This is the
> conspiracy we all must live with.
>
> Now, electrochemistry is cool. Instead of extracting energy from some
> hot gas, we can extract electrons directly from an electrochemical
> reaction. ALL the electrons are usable, and the waste heat of the
> reaction can be used as well. This is why anyone who understands a bit
> of science is very interested in fuel cells, not Tesla turbines or any
> other heat engine. The Tesla turbine might be easy to build and might
> have alot of merits, but the reason its not widely used is very simple:
> a combination of physics and economics.
>
> Dan
Sssshhhhh! You'll ruin the discussion by bringing _facts_ and _laws_
into it! sheesh.
Actually, thank you. And yes, fuel cells are cool. I wish fuel cell
research were more of a priority. Cant make one in the garage on
grandpa's old lathe though.
Cheers
gps
George P Swanton
Michael Hannon wrote:
> Perhaps one of you geniuses will actually do the research people such as
> the TEBA, International Tesla Society, and others like me have. I doubt
> it. You're too busy "armchair critiquing" to bother. That's fine with me,
> and probably everyone else who is working on this thing. More for us.
> Now, back to your remotes, gentlemen.
Now, now, it was the Tesla Turbine propagandists that crossposted
to multiple groups lengthy articles touting its universal superiority.
You've simply been called on the carpet for making grandiose claims
without substantiating evidence.
Not everyone shares your fascination with the device or its inventor.
We're certainly not going to spend hundreds of hours trying to
substantiate
or debunk your claims. No one claimed they were smarter, better, etc.
than
you, or made any comments directed at you personally, just that we
wouldn't
accept your claims without documentation. If you can show its as great
as
you say, wonderful!
Dont take it so personally,
gps
Michael Hannon
> >You, sir obviously have no interest in this but to argue. I have proveded
> >you with real answers to your questions, and you refuse to look seriously
> >at those answers.
>
> I gave was wrong, so neither of us
>
> >than to try to reason with someone who doesn't know the meaning of the
> >word.
>
>
> >anyone who knows what he has created, and his depth of understanding,
> >wouldn't waste any further energy attempting to fathom of reach your
> >mentality.
>
> however, at a time where competitiveness and efficiency weren't
> really a critical element in design and application. That's not
> his fault. So he made this turbine and patented it.
>
> The problem I have, or rather, the brief itch I suffer, is to
> see yet another device surface from the dimdark past and
> be proclaimed so trascendingly efficient - not 5%, not 15%
> not 25% - a massive 8:1 power to weight ratio against a
> conventional self-contained combustion engine.
>
> I agree compustion engines aren't efficient - but they are
> cheap and their parts are easily maintained and replaced.
>
> > it's own real world performance makes much more sense than you do.
>
> page that represented real-world testing. All I saw was a lot
> of talk - very similar to this net chit-chat. Luckily for you,
> you have the opportunity to show the entire world how good this
> device is. You won't do it, however, with factless ravings
> about it.
>
> I might well piss you off, but I'm only one of many that will
> cause you to feel that way.
>
> Good luck, I say. Do it if you can and tell us something REAL
> so we can get excited too.
>
> S.
Not ONE real answer? All are real. Try
http://nucleus.ibg.uu.se/elektromagnum/web/physics/KeelyNet/energy/pea1.asc
Just because you answer a post with further disclaimers doesn't mean
that you're willing to read facts and admit to them if they are they
are there, which you are not. All you are doing is discounting actual sites
I have provided you containing real information, which is what most people
would call "nonsense." How can you prove to us that you even exist? By
stating it is so? By posting a photo and address? A phone number?
I can just as easily sit here and say that a dog is sending messages from
your email address, as you can disclaim valid sites I have given. It makes
no difference to me other than a temporary form of entertainment to even pay
any attention to your responses, because that is the only value your logic
in your posts can have - you're not being objective, or even fair.
Pogue invented a 200 mpg carburetor, attested to by Ford Motor Company, and
others. Say it doesn't exist all you want - there are probably still some around.
It ran on "white gas" (no additives). The oil companies put additives in
gasoline that rendered it ineffective. Golly, why would they want to do that?
Go ahead - say it's "just talk." What else would I expect to hear from the
barking neighborhood dog?
Michael
Mark Winlund
La Tesla Nostra! I love it! Haven't had this much fun since Altavoz!
Mark
Fitch R. Williams
Dan Doner <do...@lamar.colostate.edu> wrote:
>The tesla turbine is a heat engine. It has thermodynamic limits on
>efficiency, just like any other heat engine. The major limiting factor
>on efficiency for a heat engine is called Carnot efficiency.
>
>Basically, you are extracting energy from some hot gas. How its
>excracted and what the final form is is irrelevant. In this hot gas
>there will always be a few particles that collide, thus canceling some
>of the energy that could have otherwise been extracted. This is the
>conspiracy we all must live with.
>
>Now, electrochemistry is cool. Instead of extracting energy from some
>hot gas, we can extract electrons directly from an electrochemical
>reaction. ALL the electrons are usable, and the waste heat of the
>reaction can be used as well. This is why anyone who understands a bit
>of science is very interested in fuel cells, not Tesla turbines or any
>other heat engine. The Tesla turbine might be easy to build and might
>have alot of merits, but the reason its not widely used is very simple:
>a combination of physics and economics.
Actually, fuel cells are good for some things, turbines are
good for other things, Diesel engines for yet other things,
photocells for still other things. What works best depends
on your application. There isn't so far, a universally
optimum powersource.
Fuel cells aren't particularely good for accelerating things
into low earth orbit, neither are Diesel engines for that
matter, but rocket engines which are basically combustion
chambers with an open end fed by the most incredible turbine
powered fuel pumps you ever saw, are good for that.
Once you are up there, though, photocells work really well
for harvesting light and converting it to other useful
energy forms, so can some forms of closed turbine systems
using concentrator reflectors. The shuttle uses fuel cells
for onboard power, they are silent, vibration free,
efficient, and expensive, as well as a turbine auxiliary
power unit which is not silent, not vibration free, also
expensive, and can deliver higher peak power for its weight
than the fuel cells.
The Space Station will use huge solar collectors - not
chosen casually, but selected based an a long and complex
tradeoff analysis considering cost, risk, experience with
the technology, availability, maintenance cost, etc. there
are solar turbine cycles that were also in the running, and
which may yet make it on to the station. The solar turbines
have higher power density, and are better for delivering
more power on orbit, but were not viewed as the best "only"
source of power on orbit when the station budget could only
afford one technology.
I'm not particularely familiar with the Tesla Turbines, but
their apparently high rpm may have held them back - most
common applications require some serious gears to couple up
to 50,000 + rpm prime movers. The Francis vertical turbines
used in hydroelectric applications turned slowly with high
torque, were easy to control, and had a *very* slow wear
rate. They may have other negative attributes that havn't
been publicized as widely as their positive ones.
Diesel engines however, because of better fuel efficiency
than gas engines (19:1 compression will always be more
efficient than 8:1 compression, other things being equal),
excellent torque low speed torque characteristics, and
simple support systems, make great tractor and heavy truck
engines, better than turbines for example. Turbine powered
trucks were tried and did not succeed. Big Diesels run at
relatively low rpm which helps to give them long life. They
are also heavy for their power output, and so not likely to
be used to power an airplane.
The process of selecting a technology for a particular
application is usually incredibly complicated and
constrained by a lot of factors not immediately obvious. It
is often, but not always, the case that proponents of a
"squashed by the evil corporations" technology are not
seeing, or don't want to see, the whole picture involving
the application of their favorite technology, or why their
favorite technology isn't the market leader for everything
using rotary motion.
Fitch
Fitch R. Williams
fan...@iinet.com.au (Phillip Zadarnowski) wrote:
> And the fact that a *FOUR* stroke engine with an *EIGHT*
>cylinder configuration is likely to fire twice in a rev?
Weeeeeeellllll ..... Noooooo, not ..... exactly. Would
you belive 4 times per revolution for an 8 cylinder four
stroke engine? <G>
If I have the *math* right (help me on this Cecil) its:
Two strokes/rev/cylinder times 8 cylinders/engine = 16
strokes/engine-revolution divided by 1 explosion/4
cylinder-strokes = 4 cylinder explosions/engine revolution.
QED
<B satisfied G of accomplishment>
God I love piston engines. Especially big 'ol Thumping
Diesels that burn warmed up bunker C with just the dinasouir
bones strained out and cylinders big enough to set up light
housekeeping in.
Even more amazing, though it might be disputed by the
turbine apostles, the math works for V8, flat eight,
strieght eight, radial eight, and double flat four eight,
cylinder engines, or two four cylinder engines direct
coupled together to make one big 8 cylinder engine -
regardless of the number of sparkplugs per cylinder or
valves per cylinder. (Though, that might get lost in the
more valves is better engines advertisements currently in
vogue.) Its known as the commutative property of cylinders
by professors of pistoncalculas.
Let me also add that based on the "data" presented so far,
the incredibly "efficient" 10" 70,000 rpm Tesla turbine
sounds amazingly like the wonderesly exact mechanical analog
of the *amazingly* efficient million volt potential ... <G>
Fitch
Who wonders if these Tesla Turbine True Believers ever
heard of the definition of efficiency := useful work energy
out divided by energy in? How about Y net ft-lbs of output
torque at 50,000 rpm produced by X BTU of input to the gas
producing source? That shouldn't be to hard to measure,
should it? Oh well .....
Michael Hannon
Hey, I'm spinning my lathe in the garage as fast as I can! I KNOW there
are other guys (like Advanced Dynamics) who are working their butts off
as well. I've seen photos of the AD turbine - it's a work of art,
cranking out about 300 conservative hp from a 14"x3", 60-lb package.
Me, I started aout wanting just to build one for my Lumina - now, I can't
even begin to tell what I've got in mind. Grab your lathes, gentlemen.
The sky is the limit. Even if we screw up occasionally, it'll be an
adventure I'll never forget, or regret. I've got in my home the first
Tesla turbine of its type in the world, and it even sounds just like a
turbine when I crank it up. Ask yourself this. The runner in Tesla's
10", 110 hp, 55 lb turbine weighed about 20 lbs, most of it concentrated
towards the perimeter of its discs. How much momentum would you say that
it had turning at 15,000 rpm? Would you want to be the one popping the
clutch on that kind of power from a standstill, even if it was turned
off and just spinning, never mind if it was being pushed at maximum
efficiency by 25 spirals of expanding ignited fuel maybe 30-40 feet long
coiled up in the discs, grabbing onto them, like the closed plates of a
multiplate clutch in a motorcycle, at the same time? The AD turbine and
its runner discsare made of the best stainless steel they could get their
hands on. Tesla's 110 hp turbine had solid silver discs, and was never
pushed to its limit at 15,000 rpm. What do you think the AD turbine, with
high-tensile stainless discs can turn at? 20, 30,000 rpm's? More? What
kind of hp and momentum do you think would be generated by, say, 25 .030
thickness, 11" diam. stainless steel discs at that rpm? Would you want to
try to stop them? I wouldn't. How about a 5" runner turning at 60,000
rpm, in a turbine measuring 6" X 3" and weighing 35 lbs?
Michael
Michael Hannon
James Wilkins wrote:
>
> > Tesla pumps are the "Mercedes
> > Benz" of the industry, and his turbine, if allowed by the powers-that-be
> > (which is highly doubtful), will replace the piston engine, just for
> > starters.
>
>
> --
> James Wilkins
> The Mitre Corp.
> Bedford, MA
No one's. All of Tesla's patents have expired, and although two of the
pump companies seem to constantly suing each other for infringement of
"their" patents, Tesla's patents superceded them, and theirs are thus
virtually worthless. I have seen a film by the Tesla Memorial Foundation
of the Tesla Museum in Eastern Europe, in which there is an exact replica
of the designs they have put patents on shown, made by Tesla in the USA
when he was an American citizen (most of his adult life). This film
negates their patent rights (based on a turbine with bearings only on one
side of the "runner."
Michael
Michael Hannon
> >> engine the size of a small paint bucket, with ONE moving part, built<
> >> far easier and much less costly than a much more complex, less<
> >> reliable, much noiser, far less efficient piston engine of the era<
> >> > with 30 hp weighing many times that simple engine?<<
> >> >
> >
> >A Tesla turbine, geared down right off the bat by a 3:1 reduction gear,
> >with an **** adjustable intake nozzle ****, very lightweight
> >engine with ONE moving part).
>
> >Michael
> Maybe I'm confused here but a spinning rotor and an **adjustable**
> nozzle makes two moving parts. Or does the **adjustable** nozzle work
> by magnetic constriction or some other quantum process? Please
> enlighten me.
>
> -Reckless
A T turbine doesn't need an adjustable nozzle unless it's going to be
pushed" to high short-burst output. Tesla's 110 hp version didn't have
ne. It's not part of the main body of the turbine, just the intake, and
for most purposes, probably would find little, if any, use in normal
driving in a vehicle. But it's the adjustable nozzle that can make a 110
hp turbine suddenly produce much more hp, or get very high gas mileage,
depending on it's setting. Mine doesn't have one - yet.
A "moving part" is usually not encompassing whatever form of air/fuel
device feeds an engine - but, if you want to include it, make it "2"
moving parts, but then there are the 2 bearings, which, if are roller, or
ball, could make it a 60-part engine. Whatever you like, it'll still
produce more hp/lb for its size, with no reciprocating masses, and no
need for a flywheel, than just about anything else around, and for less
money, and could be mass-produced right now.
Michael
Michael Hannon
I built a VC, and did some minor testing on it, and it worked. Enough
said. A much smaller TT will power that light bulb - don't assume that's
all the AD turbine would do - it's a scrap of a much bigger picture on
that 5" job, I'm sure.
Michael
Michael
Chuck Knight
- > I agree compustion engines aren't efficient - but they are
> cheap and their parts are easily maintained and replaced.
- I can't stay out of this discussion any longer. This statement is precisely true,
- and is one of the first comments from the "skeptics" to hold water.
- Yes, today's internal-combustion engine is not terribly efficient. But, because
- they have been produced by the billions over most of this century, we understand
- how they work, and how to "improve" them. Also, their parts are cheap and
- available...not because they are a better design, but because they are
- mass-produced.
- The Tesla turbine is a radically different engine. It doesn't have to convert
- reciprocating motion (pistons) into rotary motion (output shaft), but it
- produces rotary motion directly...and at a very competitive efficiency.
- (I'm not claiming 60% or more...an inefficient Tesla turbine would be
- competitive with today's piston engines)
- In terms of mechanical simplicity, compare the hundreds of moving parts
- in a piston engine, with the single moving part involved in a Tesla turbine.
- Consider wear points alone...the single moving part is the disc rotor/
- output shaft, which rotates on bearings, within the housing. A single
- moving part, with an easily replaceable bearing surface at each end.
- Simplicity...it can work.
- Also, it implements fuel flexibility. Since this turbine runs on expanding
- gases (steam, combustion byproducts, compressed air), it would easily
- allow "alternative fuels" to be used. And, since it has no problem with
- particulates, it even has the possibility of using sawdust or coal dust as
- a fuel.
- It's built with simple materials...not titanium alloys for the blades, or
- complex ceramics, but simple alloys like brass. If it becomes physically
- damaged, it is possible, without investment in special machinery.
- Compare that to the problems of repairing damage in the modern
- alloys, or especially ceramics. Brass is only slightly harder to work with,
- than wood.
- The torque characteristics of the Tesla turbine closely mimic those of
- an electric motor. Maximum torque is reached at 0 rpm...exactly where
- it is needed. Consequently, it would provide "get up and go" without
- requiring 100+ horsepower, like a piston engine. My parents currently
- drive a Dodge Stratus...has a 132hp engine, and requires around 12hp
- while cruising at 55mph. The excess is to overcome the torque
- characteristics of the piston engine.
- Anyway, enough of this message. I'll let others take over from here.
- -- Chuck Knight
Michael Hannon
> >fires TWICE each rev? Do you know my uncle?
>
> I'll pay that one. You got me. That one pays me back for
> hacking I've been giving you the last few days, and it'll
> teach me to GET SOME FACTS before I shoot my mouth off.
>
> Suggest you do same! :-)
>
> S.
I came in with facts, and I'll leave with the same ones.
Michael
Richard Everett
Michael Hannon wrote:
>
> Steve Burkart wrote:
> >
> > Sheesh, all this hot air is certainly in the right newsgroup!
> >
> > Enough with the (hurumph) facts and figures. I'll offer $20.00 US
> > to ANYONE for a 30 minute videotape that shows a "Tesla turbine"
> > in operation from 0 (zero) RPM to whatever, and looking INTO the
> > well-lit turbine, so that I can estimate the revs myself.
> >
> > Note that while I am a skeptic, I'm willing to pay to see what
> > you've got (the $20.00 represents a small profit.)
> > --
> > -test-
>
> Sure - I'm going to send a video of a prototype of the
> "first ever of its type" to someone I don't even know, exposing
> every detail of its design. Yah, that makes as much sense as
> anything, doesn't it? Sorry. By the way - do you have any sense?
> You're asking people to give away trade secrets to satisfy your
> curiosity - are you aware of that? That's the whole point. Are
> any of you people out there demanding figures AWARE OF THIS?
> If you want to spend $20, buy the Tesla Engine book from TEBA,
> in which you will find photos of Tesla's turbines, or get the
> patent wrapper on the turbine, where there are reports of
> performance on Tesla's turbines, circa 1910, but don't ask
> anyone to reveal things which would allow design thievery -
> it's unfair and not too bright. Do you people understand this?
> MH
> The Real World
Hey Mike, I just built one of these Tesla turbine things myself, and
it really works! I hooked it up to compressed air, and let her rip,
and it accelerated to over 130,000 rpm!
Unfortunately, my cat decided to play with it with his paw...needless
to say, the turbine and the cat are now in pieces all over my workshop.
I'll send anybody a picture of my dead cat for $20.
Richard
Reckless
Roger Loving
In <32E7A0...@worldnet.att.net> Michael Hannon
<oha...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
Michael, see my post and my offer under "La Tesla Nostra".
If you are interested in having an independent evaluation of your
device, I doubt that you can do better. You sure can't beat the price!
Roger
Phillip Zadarnowski
Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Not ONE real answer? All are real. Try
>
>http://nucleus.ibg.uu.se/elektromagnum/web/physics/KeelyNet/energy/pea1.asc
Keelynet! The foundation stone of the far-out!
Yeah, I just looked. 9% percent efficiency for the common
carburetor indeed! And pogues at 72%!
A properly flow-patterned and ratio'd air/gas mix will
deliver a particular explosion form and expansion rate
within a given cylinder/head combination. Reducing
the amount of fuel reduces the power that cylinder can
deliver. More air/gas mix in the same proportions
(as with turbo and superchargers) will increase the
power, while increasing only the fuel causes waste and unburnt
fuel (lacking the required oxygen) to pass out the exhaust.
I have read, about 8 months ago, that the only apparent
method of substantially increase in efficiency (for run of
the mill mass production cars) comes from direct cylinder injection.
Some vehicles already have this, but it is expensive.
>Just because you answer a post with further disclaimers doesn't mean
>that you're willing to read facts and admit to them if they are they
>are there, which you are not.
What?
You referred me twice to places where nothing was said. If *you*
know what that information is, why not clip it and post it to the
newsgroup?
>All you are doing is discounting actual sites
>I have provided you containing real information, which is what most people
>would call "nonsense."
A dictionary is *real* information, but the story it contains is just
senseless as what I read.
>How can you prove to us that you even exist? By
>stating it is so? By posting a photo and address? A phone number?
Now, don't get silly. I've asked, aside from prodding for data,
specific questions about how you measured your RPMs and how
you'd quantify your claims regarding 10,000psi and 140,000 for
that 1 inch beastie. 10,000psi doesn't rise up from a
bicycle pump attached to scratching dog, you know.
>Pogue invented a 200 mpg carburetor, attested to by Ford Motor Company, and
>others. Say it doesn't exist all you want
Sure, Pogue invented things. Surely, an optimised fuel delivery
system can work wonders. But like electric cars which have a
distance problem, something operated by an expensive pogue device
is likely to crawl at a mighty slow pace. Hell, I've seen the
little bikes with their 50cc motors do mpg in the thousands, but
who'd pay so much to suffer such slowness?
>It ran on "white gas" (no additives). The oil companies put additives in
>gasoline that rendered it ineffective.
Oh no. Not another conspiracy. You don't think there's more than
100 chemists that aren't all in the employ of the oil companies
or something? Maybe you think every tim-pot country is happily
in league with the USA and Russia to suppress it?
>Go ahead - say it's "just talk." What else would I expect to hear from the
>barking neighborhood dog?
Well, stop talking, publish data.
I hate to say it, but there are a great number of turbine/jet devices
out there and a great many types of fuel vehicles can run on,
including alcohols, diesel, gases, petrol.
I'm sure Rolls-Royce and Pratt and Whitney and a few other
jet-turbine manufacturers have spent years on the game, and
wartime and post-war developments in jet engines and the like
have seen the whole gamut of development programs make
improvements.
I'd dearly love to see you build a 10 inch diameter tesla blade set
and without even building the engine, crank it to 100,000
rpm just to see what happens to it. Your claim of 70,000 rpm for
your home built machine just makes me wonder *HOW* you
measured it to be so and *HOW* you escaped injury.
You want to hint me about what material you used and who machined
and assembled it for you?
S.
Phillip Zadarnowski
Steven O. Smith
>
> The Tesla Forge Blower.
>
> Fitch
The Flying Tesla Forge Blower!
--
Steven O. Smith
st...@cc.com
##If you want to email me, take the * out of my address##
Jim Barr
In article <32E52E...@worldnet.att.net>, Michael Hannon
<oha...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>Roger Loving wrote:
>>
>> In <32E3F6...@worldnet.att.net> Michael Hannon
>> <oha...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> >
>> > I ask a simple question - why, in 1910, would a 55-lb, 110 hp<
>> engine the size of a small paint bucket, with ONE moving part, built<
>> far easier and much less costly than a much more complex, less<
>> reliable, much noiser, far less efficient piston engine of the era<
>> > with 30 hp weighing many times that simple engine?<<
>> >
>> >Michael
>>
>> need to be considered. One is energy efficiency. This engine might have
>> just been just to inefficient in converting energy to horsepower..The
>> other is that possibly the motor lacked low rpm torque. Most useful
>> motors make fairly good compressors when run at low speed by an
>> external source, and this is a pretty good test for efficiency and
>> torque. For electric motors, use their generating properties to test
>> for the same features.
>> Roger
>
> Tesla turbines have reached efficiencies well over 60%, or double that
>of the most efficient piston engines of today, most of which, because of
>that high efficiency at a specific rpm, have very poor bottom end power.
>But a 10" Tesla turbine capable of 15,000 rpm or more, must by nature of
>that high engine speed, be geared down, probably 3:1, for a 5,000 rpm top
>end at the output, and at the same time requires a minimal amount of
>transmission gears, if any. Tesla engines have power characteristics
>similar to DC electric motors, such as the starter motor in your car.
>A Tesla turbine, geared down right off the bat by a 3:1 reduction gear,
>amount of torque and horsepower. Tesla speculated that his 110 hp
>turbine, by using an adjustable intake nozzle, could possibly be capable
>of approx. 1,000 hp in a short burst (and this from a small, very simple,
>easily and inexpensively manufactured, very lightweight engine with ONE
>moving part).
>
>Michael
>
>
Is there a polite method, by means of which, this sort of thing may be
channeled to a more appropriate destination? Like the bin, or
something?
Jim Barr Machine Conversation
http://www.wandana.demon.co.uk/
Best is the enemy of good enough
Leaves rustle, blades turn, water moves
Mike Henry
I'm way out of my field here, but wouldn't particulates cause some form of
abrasion at the rotational speeds that are being discussed for these
turbines? At 70,000 rpm for a 10" disc you are looking at 1,500 foot per
second tip speeds. Seems to me that the gases (and any particulates they
contain) will be traveling at somewhat higher speeds and that any
particulates are going to quickly erode the housing for the turbine,
especially if it's made of something as soft as brass.
Chuck Knight <ckn...@flash.net> wrote in article
<32E808...@flash.net>...
Jim Barr
In article <32e639b0...@news.m.iinet.net.au>, Phillip Zadarnowski
<fan...@iinet.com.au> writes
>Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Don Stauffer wrote:
>>> Michael Hannon wrote:
>>> > Phillip Zadarnowski wrote:
>>> > > te...@execpc.com wrote:
>>> > >snip
>>> > > S.
>>> > I'm really fascinated by the naivete' of some people who even seem to be
>>> > operating in the "upper circles" of technology. snip
>>> > many times that simple engine?
>
>>> > Michael
>
>they have access
>>> to equipment that you don't, that they have tried to measure the efficiency
>of some things
>>> that are highly touted in old literature, and find that the they really are
>not all they
>>> are cracked up to be?
>
>>> How much effort have you made to really measure the efficiency of turbines.
>And in any
>>> steam system, the "motor" is only part of the efficiency equation.
>
>>> I cannot believe there is any conspiracy against the Tesla turbines. I know
>a lot of very
>>> sharp MEs. These guys are not dumb. They claim the efficiency of the Tesla
>turbine is not
>>> what some works claim.
>
>>> Don Stauffer in Minneapolis
>>
>>
>>Dear Don,
>>
>> All I can say is "we'll see." Very smart guys can still have limited
>>views. My uncle Bob has a Mensa-rated IQ of 162, but I spent 3 hours one
>>time trying to show him that an eight-cylinder engine fires more than
>>once (he said only one spark plug fired each rev) per revolution. He
>>never accepted it, yet he wrote a valid, well-substantiated paper
>>mathematically proving that Einstein's theory of Special Relativity was
>>unsound, and he graduated from Tufts Univ. at the age of 19 in
>>engineering. We'll see.
>
>Aw gee. 162 and descending...
>
>I really like the bit about the 3 hours trying to show him, and the
>fact that he never accepted it proves that both of you lacked a lot
>of fundamental knowledge and *especially* an almost complete loss
>of analytical and problem solving ability! Jeez, what's it take
>to pop the cover off the dizzy, pull the plugs and rotate it by
>hand? And the fact that a *FOUR* stroke engine with an *EIGHT*
>cylinder configuration is likely to fire twice in a rev? Were it
>not to do so, the power of a V8 would be lost on wasted piston
>pumps...
>
>Now, what about 5,6 and 12 cylinders? Only joking... I wouldn't
>want to stress you too much.
>
>S.
>
LOVE IT, stop it ROFL :)
Jimmy
> I Home shop machinists have converted Evinrudes and VWs to
> run on steam and a hardy few have constructed the Screamin Demon and I
> believe a few Schreckling (sp?) turbines. Surely we should see this high
> efficiency beast implemented by an amateur not wedded to the piston
> technology. C'mon, guys, what are we waiting for?
>
> rhg
I've got the Machine Shop! Now somebody send me a set of prints on this
Telsa thing and I'll build it. If it works we'll all be happy. If it
doesn't then we will just throw it in the corner with the rest of my
Inventions that didn't quite cut the mustard.
At least then we can quit talking about it and move on to another
productive project!
All I've heard is talk, if it has any possibilities at all let's quit
talking and do something.
Jim <I'll try anything once, Twice if I like it!> Toth
Fitch R. Williams
din...@codesmth.demon.co.uk (Andy Dingley) wrote:
>The moving finger of fan...@iinet.com.au (Phillip Zadarnowski) having
>written:
>
>>I recently expressed my doubts that a Nuclear-Powered
>>aircraft was attempted in the 1960's
>
>It wasn't. There were three experimental devices that were steps
>towards it, but there has never been an aircraft that flew with any
>form of nuclear power generation on board. Probably the closest was
>one of the Oak Ridge experimental reactors (sorry, forgotten the name)
>which never flew, but did leave the ground - it was operated by remote
>control, hung 300' in the air from a few towers and cables. A B36 flew
>with an operational reactor of the same type on board, but no real
>power generation was attempted. A number of air-cooled reactors that
>actually generated jet thrust were built and static tested, then left
>lying in the plains of the American Mid-West for years (somewhere in
>Idaho). They were far too heavy to ever be considered as workable
>engines.
A small Nuclear reactor was placed in earth orbit and
operated there for a few months back in the sixties - it was
before 1969 for certain. It was called a SNAP reactor. The
reactor itself was not very big. The reactor worked fine, a
problem in the voltage regulation system in the host rocket
body caused it to shut down after about 90 days of
operation. The way it was designed, it could experience one
emergency shut down, but it couldn't be restarted.
Don't ask me if it is still up there, I don't know for sure.
Fitch
Fitch R. Williams
Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I've seen photos of the AD turbine - it's a work of art,
>cranking out about 300 conservative hp from a 14"x3", 60-lb package.
<snip>
Well, I must say, its not particularely impressive in power
for its size as leading edge turbines go.
I've seen several (at least 12) turbine engines with 75 lb
rotors that can develop 75,000 HP. They are the drive
turbines that power the second stage fuel pump (liquid
hydrogen) for the Space Shuttle Main engine. The whole pump
including drive turbine is smaller and lighter than the
automatic transmission in my chevy Astro Van. They run off
liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. The pumps they drive can
empty the average swimming pool in about 20 seconds or so
and deliver the water at greater than 2,500 psi. (While I'm
in statistics mode - consider that the space Shuttle Main
Engine has fuel pumps - yup, just getting the stuff into the
chamber - that develop well over 100,000 horse power and run
with casings cherry red with liquid hydrogen and Oxygen
flowing into them - the temperature gradient problem from
hell - the analysis tools used to understand it and predict
it with precision are awsome - the metalurgy is more like
black magic.) The pump bearings are hydrostatic - I believe
the fluid (lubricant) is liquid hydrogen. Just getting one
of these started with out blowing it to bits is *not* easy.
Those turbines have been around for a while now - they were
on the first shuttle flights of course. NASA has spent way
over a billion dollars with another company trying to build
a better one. The improved version (heavier) hasn't flown
on the shuttle yet.
I suppose I should get all excited and propose putting them
everyplace - one the size of a watch should drive a car for
example. Trust me on this - you do *not* want one of these
in your car.
Fitch
Who keeps waiting for Art Afrons to show up with one at a
drag strip ..... they *will* put things in low earth orbit,
trust me on this ....
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of the
company I work for - and this was sent from home - I *never*
participate in this NG from work.
Michael Hannon
Jim Barr wrote:
>
> In article <32E517...@pass.wayne.edu>, Michael Edelman
> <m...@pass.wayne.edu> writes
> >>
> >> I ask a simple question - why, in 1910, would a 55-lb, 110 hp engine
> >> the size of a small paint bucket, with ONE moving part, built far easier
> >> and much less costly than a much more complex, less reliable, much
> >> noiser, far less efficient piston engine of the era with 30 hp weighing
> >
> >regeneration of the steam takes up many times more room. Take a look as
> >the relative size of the boiler and the pistons on a steam locomotive!
> >
> >And take a look at history. The Stanley Steamer was a very successful
> >car that had the early technological lead, but they couldn't lick the
> >boiler problems with the technology at hand.
> >
> >Tesla was indeed a genius, but not everything he did turned to gold. He
> >was very much a visual thinking, not a theoretician. This led him to
> >invent the AC motor, but at the same time led him to some misconceptions
> >about the nature of electricity.
> >
> >He was also completely ignorant of the realities of economics, which led
> >him to spend fortunes of other people's money on projects that never
> >produced any practical outcomes, and to sign away his one really
> >profitible patent for peanuts.
> >
> >--mike
>
> I have lurked too long on this thread, the hall marks of fanatiscism are
> emerging in every second post
>
> Mike, you have raised the one point and have *allmost* answered the very
> question I was going to ask.
>
> I can understand how this Tesla turbine works in basic terms and have
> know trouble with that allthough having a spindle whip round at ten
> times a useable RPM seems a bit OTT; HOWEVER, What I cannot see any
> mention of is where this air pressure at 80-120 psi comes from.
>
> Is there another petrol engine thumping away in the background driving a
> compressor or is it a straightforward steam boiler with an overall
> efficiency of 50%, or what!
>
> It seems a bit half baked to have a high efficiency machine if the
> fuel/energy source is adding all the innefficiency back to it!
>
> Where, in the 90's, would a mobile Tesla turbine get its supply of
> compressed gas, what rate, in lbs/sec or cuft/sec and what pressure, for
> a given power rate out?
>
> Can anyone answer this last one? I suspect I will be dissapointed with
> the answer!
>
> Cheers, Jim
>
> Jim Barr Machine Conversation
> http://www.wandana.demon.co.uk/
> Best is the enemy of good enough
>
> Leaves rustle, blades turn, water moves
Tesla turbines will run on any moving or expanding fluid or gas. One
built to run on petrol or diesel can be fueled at any petrol station
delivering at least double the mileage of your average piston engine,
much more reliably, quietly, without the need for smog devices. I really
wish that someone would provide thoughtful, logical questions about this.
It's really getting boring here trying to think for people and answer
their dumb arguments. I mean, I like the sound of a big V8 as much as the
next guy, but there's no way it can compete with an elegant mechanical
design which was never given an opportunity to flourish for the same
reason then as are apparent now - an obstinate, uninformed public most of
which cannot even conceive of how this thing works, nevermind argue
against it validly. I'm working with one of Bill Lear's best men - you
know Lear, Lear Jet, Motorola, the Lear closed system steam engine? The
man tells me this turbine can change the world, and from my own personal
experience with the turbine, I have to agree with him 200%, and you
people are laughing at it, and him. This guy entered college at the age
of 13, and was doing top secret projects for the US on his own inventions
when he was 18. Go ahead, yuk it up, folks - like I said before -
that's just more for us - please, keep on making jokes and ridiculing
this.
Michael
Michael Hannon
You, sir are no longer worth a moment more of my time. Post whatever you
want. As far as I am concerned, you have nothing valid to say or offer me
or anyone else. You truly are nothing but a barking dog who still hasn't
found something to do, which is why you continue to bark. Good by.
Michael
Michael Hannon
Well, golle, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm totally impressed.
How much did you say NASA spent on that engine? Probably about as much as
it would cost to built 1000 replicas of the AD engine. And that 14x3
dimension I gave you is the size of the entire engine, not its runner. I
tell you what. Why don't you build a replica of that NASA engine. Let me
know when you're done.
Michael
Andy Dingley
>I recently expressed my doubts that a Nuclear-Powered
>aircraft was attempted in the 1960's
It wasn't. There were three experimental devices that were steps
towards it, but there has never been an aircraft that flew with any
form of nuclear power generation on board. Probably the closest was
one of the Oak Ridge experimental reactors (sorry, forgotten the name)
which never flew, but did leave the ground - it was operated by remote
control, hung 300' in the air from a few towers and cables. A B36 flew
with an operational reactor of the same type on board, but no real
power generation was attempted. A number of air-cooled reactors that
actually generated jet thrust were built and static tested, then left
lying in the plains of the American Mid-West for years (somewhere in
Idaho). They were far too heavy to ever be considered as workable
engines.
--
Smert' Spamionem
John Stevenson
On Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:12:54 -0800, Mark Winlund <pac...@proaxis.com>
wrote:
>La Tesla Nostra! I love it! Haven't had this much fun since Altavoz!
>
>Mark
Hi guys
Nicola Tesla when altered as an anagram becomes SETLINLOACA
When this is translated from Balkanese it means April Fool
[The Balkans are 2 months 1 week ahead of Eastern Standard Time]
John Stevenson at L Stevenson [Engineers]
"Nostalgia isn't what it used to be!"
w.j.ward
Phillip Zadarnowski <fan...@iinet.com.au> wrote in article
<32e3a116...@news.m.iinet.net.au>...
...
> Do a small group of you have some insight into a truly "forgotten"
> technology? Perhaps. Tesla certainly pioneered a great many
> things and I respect his contributions as I do Edison, Bell and
> others. The world *has* taken up as much as the technology can
> deliver to the market and shelved what it can't (with exception
> of the odd home-enthusiast).
>
> The closest to a recently re-used old and "forgotten" technology
...
> S.
>
Author James Burke demonstrates this sort of "re-invention" in his
television series "Connections" and "The Day the Universe Changed". If you
haven't seen these, I urge you to do so. Over and over again, throughout
history, some innovation poorly suited to solve one problem turned out to
be exactly the answer another puzzle was looking for. So, I say, pursuing
some of the arcane, forgotten, or inadequately investigated "technologies"
is important. If you don't look, you will not find.
--
Inalienable rights: God ==> Man ==> State
W.J.Ward, PE (Electrical) Redford Twp., Michigan
w.j.ward
Robert Galloway <rgal...@nyx.cs.du.edu> wrote in article
<5c859g$6...@nyx.cs.du.edu>...
> > Tesla's ideas were fully developed realities, including engineering,
> >before he would attempt their building. Tesla pumps are the "Mercedes
> >Benz" of the industry, and his turbine, if allowed by the powers-that-be
> >(which is highly doubtful), will replace the piston engine, just for
> >starters.
> >Michael
>
> I realize that the "powers that be" have been infiltrated by claverns of
> piston worshipers (worse even than scientologists) and that the efforts
> by GM to produce a turbine powered auto were mere window dressing,
> intended to make us THINK they wanted it to succeed but; If the Tesla
> turbine is as simple and elegant as some here have maintained, I fully
> expect to hear the anouncement of the Tesla Powered Auto Owners of
> America Annual Road Rally where every Tesla fan whips together his own
> power plant, grafts it into the family Buick and enters it in the
> competition. Home shop machinists have converted Evinrudes and VWs to
> run on steam and a hardy few have constructed the Screamin Demon and I
> believe a few Schreckling (sp?) turbines. Surely we should see this high
> efficiency beast implemented by an amateur not wedded to the piston
> technology. C'mon, guys, what are we waiting for?
>
> rhg
>
>
>
Prints.
Jim Barr
In article <32E6F6...@proaxis.com>, Mark Winlund
<pac...@proaxis.com> writes
>It seems that a great deal of effort is being expended by the Tesla
>people to get us to "buy the book" and "join (pay) the organization"
>Hmmmm.... smells a little fishy to me.
>
>Mark
If it was not so entertaining, I would have killed this thread ages ago,
but it is better than a TV sitcom.
Mind you the tesla guys are starting to repeat themselves a bit, is this
a re-run. I must buy the book and see who wins in the end.
Andy Dingley
>And the fact that a *FOUR* stroke engine with an *EIGHT*
>cylinder configuration is likely to fire twice in a rev?
Petard, hoist by. See "pot calling kettle black"
A V8 4 stroke will fire _four_ times a revolution, not twice.
--
Smert' Spamionem
Andy Dingley
The moving finger of Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> having
written:
> Tesla turbines have reached efficiencies well over 60%, or double that
>of the most efficient piston engines of today,
Irrelevant argument. Turbines are already efficient, but that doesn't
mean that an overall power unit is going to be efficient. If a Tesla
turbine could be built into a complete gas turbine vehicle powerplant
that didn't need a regenerator, didn't have exhaust temperatures that
would roast following vehicles, and didn't have the fuel consumption
of an M1 Abrams, then they might be a little more magical.
This is going to take more than an efficient turbine core though.
--
Smert' Spamionem
Glenn S. Lyford
>In article <8536475...@dejanews.com>,
> te...@execpc.com wrote:
>> Advanced Dynamics did build a small 5" version with attached
generator. It
>> runs up to about 40,000 rpm unloaded with 80psi compressed air. It
brightly
>> illuminates an incandescent bulb at about 35k rpm. This is a fun
project
>> that almost anyone could build. It is featured in our Spring 95
newsletter.
What wattage bulb? Or at what voltage and current rating? Running the
motor on what CFM of air at this pressure? With what efficiency of
generator and geartrain? That would go much further to telling us what
we are asking to know than all this posturing and paranoia we've been
hearing from some of your members lately.
--Glenn, the initially intrigued but
becoming a skeptic...
Glenn S. Lyford
In article <32eb9b7d...@news.ptw.com>, frwi...@ptw.com says...
>God I love piston engines. Especially big 'ol Thumping
>Diesels that burn warmed up bunker C with just the dinasouir
>bones strained out and cylinders big enough to set up light
>housekeeping in.
There is (or was 20 years ago) a big railroad engine repair shop
in Wyoming. There were 100's of deisels all waiting to be repaired
there, all idling (because the pain of restarting one of 'em was more
than the cost of idling it). Resonance being what it is (two or more
oscilators, lightly coupled, will tend to oscilate in phase after a
time) the sound and vibration in the ground from a hilltop about
a 1/4 mile away were VERY awe inspiring...
--Glenn
Phillip Zadarnowski
Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Suggest you do same! :-)
>>
>> S.
>
>I came in with facts, and I'll leave with the same ones.
>
>Michael
Bollocks. You can't even answer fundamental questions, let
alone offer net.accessible proof.
S.
Phillip Zadarnowski
Jim Barr <Jim...@wandana.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Is there a polite method, by means of which, this sort of thing may be
>channeled to a more appropriate destination? Like the bin, or
>something?
Unfortunately, no. But I'll take the hint. TeslaTurbine-boy has
declared me worthless, and I think it's about time I gave up too.
I've already posted a few messages, so I'll call it a day and let
the dreamer stun the world in the year 2000. :-)
S.
Phillip Zadarnowski
Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>You, sir are no longer worth a moment more of my time. Post whatever you
>want. As far as I am concerned, you have nothing valid to say or offer me
>or anyone else. You truly are nothing but a barking dog who still hasn't
>found something to do, which is why you continue to bark. Good by.
So this is as far as it gets with you? By golly!
Fine. Just answer ONE question: what equipment you used to measure
your 70,000 rpm.
S.
Chris Pollard
Michael Hannon (oha...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Tesla turbines will run on any moving or expanding fluid or gas. One
: delivering at least double the mileage of your average piston engine,
: much more reliably, quietly, without the need for smog devices. I really
: wish that someone would provide thoughtful, logical questions about this.
: It's really getting boring here trying to think for people and answer
: their dumb arguments. I mean, I like the sound of a big V8 as much as the
: next guy, but there's no way it can compete with an elegant mechanical
: design which was never given an opportunity to flourish for the same
: reason then as are apparent now - an obstinate, uninformed public most of
: which cannot even conceive of how this thing works, nevermind argue
: against it validly. I'm working with one of Bill Lear's best men - you
: know Lear, Lear Jet, Motorola, the Lear closed system steam engine? The
: man tells me this turbine can change the world, and from my own personal
: experience with the turbine, I have to agree with him 200%, and you
: people are laughing at it, and him. This guy entered college at the age
: of 13, and was doing top secret projects for the US on his own inventions
: when he was 18. Go ahead, yuk it up, folks - like I said before -
: that's just more for us - please, keep on making jokes and ridiculing
: this.
: Michael
cycle. Also I think you are using "will run" when you actually mean
"might run". What sort of combustion chambers are you using what is the
combustion temperature, what is the temeperature of the exhaust. What
compression ratio are you running at. If you can tell me this then I
MIGHT believe you.
george p swanton
In article <32E943...@worldnet.att.net>,
Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Jim Barr wrote:
>>
>> In article <32E517...@pass.wayne.edu>, Michael Edelman
>> <m...@pass.wayne.edu> writes
>> Where, in the 90's, would a mobile Tesla turbine get its supply of
>> compressed gas, what rate, in lbs/sec or cuft/sec and what pressure, for
>> a given power rate out?
>>
>> Can anyone answer this last one? I suspect I will be dissapointed with
>> the answer!
>>
>> Cheers, Jim
>
>Tesla turbines will run on any moving or expanding fluid or gas. One
>built to run on petrol or diesel can be fueled at any petrol station
>delivering at least double the mileage of your average piston engine,
>much more reliably, quietly, without the need for smog devices.
He asked for numbers, specific quantities, pressure, rate, power,
not vague generalizations and hand waving.
>I really
>wish that someone would provide thoughtful, logical questions about this.
>It's really getting boring here trying to think for people and answer
>their dumb arguments.
I really wish you wouldn't be so smug. Particularly ironic is the
assertion that you 'really wish that someone would provide, thoughtful,
logical questions' while you completely ignore every request to
quantify the efficiency of the Tesla wonder device.
Enough with the generalities. Quantify!
>[...]
>I'm working with one of Bill Lear's best men - you
>know Lear, Lear Jet, Motorola, the Lear closed system steam engine? The
>man tells me this turbine can change the world, and from my own personal
>experience with the turbine, I have to agree with him 200%, and you
>people are laughing at it, and him. This guy entered college at the age
>of 13, and was doing top secret projects for the US on his own inventions
>when he was 18.
Those aren't the numbers he asked for.
>Go ahead, yuk it up, folks - like I said before -
>that's just more for us - please, keep on making jokes and ridiculing
>this.
People will probably just killfile it before too much longer.
Could we just please have the requested performance numbers?
gps
george p swanton
In article <32E855...@worldnet.att.net>,
Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Phillip Zadarnowski wrote:
>> Michael Hannon <oha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >Uh, let me see - you're saying that an 8 cyl 4-stroke engine
>> >fires TWICE each rev? Do you know my uncle?
>> I'll pay that one. You got me. That one pays me back for
>> hacking I've been giving you the last few days, and it'll
>> teach me to GET SOME FACTS before I shoot my mouth off.
>>
>> Suggest you do same! :-)
>I came in with facts, and I'll leave with the same ones.
Do try to come back with a complete set next time, ok?
BTW: you wouldn't be conducting a sociology or AI experiment
with this thread, would you?
Just curious
gps
george p swanton
>In article <32eb9b7d...@news.ptw.com>, frwi...@ptw.com says...
>
>>God I love piston engines. Especially big 'ol Thumping
>>Diesels that burn warmed up bunker C with just the dinasouir
>>bones strained out and cylinders big enough to set up light
>>housekeeping in.
LOL! I knew this thread had to have some redeeming value!
Thanks for the laugh
gps
Bill Ward
Maybe we should get a Stirling engine for this thread. Shame to let
all the hot air go to waste. <g>
Bill Ward (skeptical by nature)
Mark Winlund
Hey, just when I thought it would die... more fuel!
Mark
Michael Hannon wrote:
>
> I really
> wish that someone would provide thoughtful, logical questions about this.
> ......It's really getting boring here trying to think for people and answer their dumb arguments. .....never given an opportunity to flourish for the same reason then as are apparent now - an obstinate, uninformed public most of which cannot even conceive of how this thing works, nevermind argue against it validly. I'm working with one of Bill Lear's best men - you know Lear, Lear Jet, Motorola, the Lear closed system steam engine? The man tells me this turbine can change the world, and from my own personal experience with the turbine, I have to agree with him 200%, and you people are laughing at it, and him. This guy entered college at the age of 13, and was doing top secret projects for the US on his own inventions when he was 18. Go ahead, yuk it up, folks - like I said before - that's just more for us - please, keep on making jokes and ridiculing this.
> Michael
Mark Winlund
The fellow has been avoiding this sort of thing all along... I don't
think math (or logic) is his "bag" (to use an old phrase)
Mark
Fitch R. Williams wrote:
> Fitch
> Who wonders if these Tesla Turbine True Believers ever
> heard of the definition of efficiency := useful work energy
> out divided by energy in? How about Y net ft-lbs of output
> torque at 50,000 rpm produced by X BTU of input to the gas
> producing source? That shouldn't be to hard to measure,
> should it? Oh well .....
Mark Winlund
Fitch R. Williams wrote: (very nicely reasoned piece)
Fitch... that was very well done. Too bad they aren't listening.
Mark