Converting Heat to Electricity
Hermes!!!
The Tesla Turbine was designed by Nikola Tesla to be
run on a "Condensibale Fluid" in closed loop.
The nozzles were of "DeLeval"
design to deliver a
supersonic shock wave to drive
the boundary layer on the runners (disk). The whole turbine was an "Implosion Vortex"
system to deliver such high efficiency.
Out of "all" that have presented
documentation and conference presentations, non have found the "True Tesla Turbine"!
The reason Tesla had for employing Alles Chalmers to build and test his
Turbine was their use of
DeLeval supersonic nozzles in
there Steam Turbines.
Having built several Tesla Turbines and did the test for
efficiency can I speak of them.
BTW!!!! I used
refrigerant R123 for
motive fluid since it fits perfectly the temperature profile needed in a condensable
vapor to drive Turbine.
Norm
Hi Simon,
Norm claims COP=20 with his heat pump. But
he never tried to loop it. Isn't it too expensive to mass produce? My friend Bert
Harju designed a heat pump that used
carbon dioxide as a heating medium with COP=5. But it was never mass produced. Because
it was too expensive to manufacture.
Best Wishes, Hermes
Hi Hermes,
Looks a bit expensive, yep....
I can't see anything there
that gets you beyond Carnot efficiency, so the CoP will depend on the temperature
difference you're trying to produce, and getting a CoP of 20 is quite achievable in
theory without exceeding Carnot efficiency with a temperature difference of about 15°C
around room temperature. Seems to be about what he's showing here, with 40°F and 70°F.
If you get the friction and other losses very low, and of course with Tesla turbines
in general they are pretty low, you'll be in the right ballpark here.
See
Australian patent
AU2024200773 (A1) for
something that's cheap to manufacture and gets you beyond CoP 20 by some sneaky
physics. That should be on sale this year or maybe next.
Best regards, Simon
Hi Simon,
Please read the conversation on the link:
The zero fuel engine - cold heat from canada
and tell me if you think it
is possible to build a
zero fuel engine
according to that idea?
Is it true that a convergent-divergent
nozzle straightens gas molecules?
as in the subsonic-supersonic nozzle?
Can a
temperature+pressure input to velocity output nozzle be used to extract energy
from the surrounding air alone? Without using refrigerant in a heat pump?
Free Energy from Atomic Hydrogen The MAHG Project
Tesla's "Self-Acting" Engine by Peter A. Lindemann
Nikola Tesla Turbine USP 1,061,206
Nikola Tesla Fluid Propulsion USP 1,061,142
Best Wishes, Hermes
Hi Hermes,
OK, that link works,
but looks exactly the same, so I presume you fixed the site instead.
OK,
the convergent/divergent nozzle might have some effect at some scales, but given
the mean-free-path at atmospheric pressure (about 70nm IIRC) you would need a
nozzle around that scale. First note that the difference between heat energy and
energy you can do work with is simply direction, and if you can rectify that
direction (which takes a momentum exchange but no energy) then you can definitely
convert heat directly to usable energy. However, any collision with the container
walls will give you a reflection at the same angle and there is no asymmetry
available. Thus using this sort of shape at any reasonable size will not actually
do what you want. No asymmetry, and you have to get asymmetry to do this sort of
thing.
Air molecules of course travel at around 500m/s, speed of sound is
330m/s, so you'd need to seriously exceed the speed of sound to comply with what
you've specified.
A way you can get that asymmetry is to use a field. You
could do that by ionisation and then use an electric field, but the energy you'd
need to put in to get ionisation is rather a lot compared to the heat energy the
air molecules have (around 14eV compared with around 25meV). Thus unless you
recover the ionisation energy very very efficiently you don't win. You might start
to get some odd effects when starting with plasma and very high temperatures, but
even then I'd doubt it because the plasma interacts with itself and is conductive
and so will move to zero out any electric fields you apply.
Net here is
that I doubt if anyone ever got something working and delivering more energy than
they had to put in. The energy you need to put in to compress the air basically
gets largely turned into directed kinetic energy on the output gas (some losses
in heat), but there's nothing actually rectifying the heat energy to give you an
extra bit of velocity and thus energy out.
As regards the discussion on
zero fuel engine, basically that's looking at previous claims to have made it work
but there isn't actually any proof, just claims. I've mentioned before how easy it
is to get the measurements wrong, and as Feynman said, the easiest person to fool
is yourself.
I keep mentioning needing to get that asymmetry into the
system. That's really the key thing to do, and here it clearly remains symmetrical.
By now you should really be looking for that in order to figure out yourself
whether it's got a chance or not.
If you can get a field with a net value
around a circuit, that can win. Normally that's not even a possibility, unless you
add a battery. There's a useful observation that an electric field in free space
and an electric field in a wire can't see each other, which thus allows them to
have a circuit where there's a net field around the circuit. Still not easy to
arrange that, but it's possible and does in fact happen in a solar cell. I've
mentioned before that solar cells are a bit more surprising than they look.
Still, you have to really dig deep into the theory to see the truth of that.
Of course, the other way to get an idea about whether some Free Energy
claim is real is to see if anyone actually used it and was documented to get work
out of it where it was impossible for some other power source (hidden cable to
battery or grid) to have done the work. The logic there: in order to know it
actually works, you have to have built at least one of them, and thus you'd want
to save your electricity bill or gas bill or whatever so you'd be using it and
not paying those bills. I can't see a reason anyone would not want to use
something that did actually work. If they've published stuff or got a patent
then they aren't wanting to keep it secret. Thus if there's all that yet no
device you can test, it didn't work.
That logic isn't failsafe, since
you might come across someone who isn't publishing it and wants to keep it
secret for some reason. That's pretty rare, though. I know of 3 examples of
that, two of which were published but not exactly how they worked, the third
was never public. Thus you do have to put the work in to definitely say whether
something worked or not, but if it never got mass-produced it most likely didn't
work.
Best regards, Simon
back to linkpage
suggestion
read and sign my guestbook