Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nikola Tesla’s Turbine Secrets - Global Open Source Project

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Thickskull
    replied
    Disk openings to diameter.jpg

    Leave a comment:


  • Thickskull
    replied
    From US Patent 1,061,206: "The runner is mounted in a casing comprising two end castings 19, which contain the bearings for the shaft 16, indicated but not shown in detail; stuffing boxes 21 and outlets 20."

    Where are the bearings indicated? I don't know what a stuffing box would have been for manufacturing at that time. I think any builds people are presently working with have the bearings there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thickskull
    replied
    Bearings.png Bearings 2.png

    I think this is a good way to make bearings.

    I wanted to learn about "non-contact" bearings because of Paul mentioning them to me. I searched and read through this: https://my.mech.utah.edu/~me7960/lec...ctBearings.pdf .

    when I saw the picture "Making Aerostatic Bearings", I thought that picture lined up nicely with the one in the patent.
    Attached Files
    Last edited by Thickskull; 07-09-2020, 09:23 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thickskull
    replied
    Tesla provides a bunch of 'if, then' scenarios that require a lot of thought to sort out. I'm working on doing that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thickskull
    replied
    Yes, the casing in that photo of the one turbine is the casing kind I'd like to have design; drawn up for fabrication. In the easiest, cheapest kind of material: 3d printed plastic. Rotor of the type in US 1,061,206. Heavier, tapered endplates. One solid. Same exit porting on the casing shown in that photo. Maybe 5 or 6 inches diameter, 11 plates is fine.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thickskull
    replied
    Turbine.jpg This is the kind of casing I'd like designed for a turbine.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thickskull
    replied
    Some Perspective on Design as Offered to the Open-Source Design Community on 6/25/2020
    by Kevin Allen

    So we’re working on designing devices that are the embodiments of Tesla’s invention. The devices are to be optimized for various uses, form following function; meaning design.


    In British patent 24,001 we see drawings of two devices. These two devices are the first divide in form from a concept of a completely un-optimized, “primal” form of the the invention that can be used to both send energy to and receive energy from fluids. This primal form of the invention exists to me as a concept abstracted from Tesla's patents and other writings. The device in figures 1 and 2 is adapted to purpose as a propeller of fluids. The device shown in figures 3 and 4 is adapted to purpose as being propelled by fluids.

    Following this first specialization of the primal form-and-function of the invention we can proceed to further the refinement in form of the devices we design by considering refinement in function.

    This means figuring out what to build and building it. Some aspects of research and development, especially those related to choices around what to do first, involve practical considerations that are informed by the technology in question, but somewhat apart from it. Simplicity, ease of construction, economy, etc. are examples of these considerations. Tesla gives us quite a few options in the patents. Other aspects of research and development take as primary consideration careful consideration of the system itself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thickskull
    replied
    Would anything built from Tesla's patents be considered prior art and obvious? If I made a suggestion, could I later state that it was obvious? I hope so. Like I'd like to state the obvious for the purpose of helping people make designs that are available to everyone for free.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thickskull
    replied
    Mr. Soundiceuk, how do you envision adoption of machines that are built from this? Like scale of production and use?

    Leave a comment:


  • Thickskull
    replied
    Tesla Patent GB 24001 Page 5, lines 1 & 2, Tesla writes: " A very desirable feature, characteristic of machines constructed and operated in accordance with this invention is their capability of reversal of rotation."

    Not even discussing the specific capability he mentions there, the machines constructed and operated in accordance with the invention are already covered in the patent.

    So is it true that all machines built on the principles in the Tesla patents are already a result of prior art and can't themselves be patented?

    Is it true that it's only a matter of how freely the instructions for construction of the machines will be shared?

    Leave a comment:


  • Thickskull
    replied
    Hello Paul and Jeremiah,

    This technology is amazing and very important. Thank you for making your information available. I am trying to learn what I need to know in order to follow along. Are you up for some conversation with me about this?

    There is a lot going on with the technology. A few pages back on this thread you used colored marker to make distinctions between a pump, compressor, rotary engine, and turbine.

    Paul, here is a quote from your post 02-04-2019, 04:50 PM:
    There is much confusion over the Tesla Turbine.

    I am going to clear up the confusion with my analysis of the US Patent 1,061,206 and US Patent 1,061,142

    It is important to understand that there are actually two machines within the US Patent 1,061,206

    One is a turbine and has a diverging nozzle.

    One is a rotary engine and has a straight port.

    This is why the machine that was burning wood had so much torque.

    It had a straight port!

    Now that you know this, you can identify that there is a lack of Tesla turbines across the world. What people have built is a Tesla rotary engine.

    If you want torque on the primary axle, build a rotary engine. If you want a high speed turbine to propel a second stage machine to take the torque from 2nd stage axle, build a turbine.

    If the goal is warm water in ---> rotational energy and cold water out, what is the best path to getting there? Here I mean in terms of designing and combining the four above mentioned embodiments of this technology. I'm hesitant to even use the words "turbine" and "pump" in my questions, because I get confused between those and "rotary engine" and "compressor". At any rate, in a two-design, do you suggest the stages be stacked or along the same rotor. A rotor is the same as a shaft (and an axle?), right?

    If there are two rotors, which is the rotational energy drawn from to do mechanical work?

    I think the shortest path to something people can replicate and use is a cryophorus with a two-stage *turbine-pump*? combo in between the hot and the cold sides (tanks). When I'm trying to put all of this together in my mind, I get confused about the cold side Is this right: You would start by pulling a partial vacuum on a tank, then opening a valve which would start the process at the "end" and allow the impetus for a tank of warm water to become motive at the "beginning" or energy input end? If so, then what does the water entering into the cold tank look like after it's been run through the two stages? How do you proportion the two stages to allow for the water entering the cold tank to be at the right conditions, whatever that means? I think "right" conditions means at a temperature and pressure that work the best with the conditions in your cold tank. So what are the best conditions for a cold tank in terms of the tank itself, ambient, and providing or removing additional heat? If the supply of heat to the warm side is there, when does the whole thing stop? Can a cold tank get full? (that's the part that I really don't understand.) I think the second stage trades work away from the rotational energy output, your possible mechanical work. So that's something to optimize for, taking your cold tank conditions into account.

    I'm thinking of inputs, outputs, variables, trade offs, flow, and points of control and asking questions about the system in theory and then trying to establish some good starting points for some of the variables.

    Leave a comment:


  • soundiceuk
    replied
    I had the combustion chamber modified to the drawings above. I did two tests, the first one with "gravity" fed water and the chamber flooded instantly. The second test was with a water injection nozzle and pump. This worked and made steam without putting out the detonations.

    However I wasn't satisfied with the results and went back to the drawing board.

    This is the design I came up with with carburettor style jets.



    An inlet water jet and an outlet water jet and the combustion chamber sealed apart from the water jet inlet and outlet.

    I started off with a 0.5mm inlet jet and 0.5mm outlet jet.

    To my astonishment it worked first time with the chambers temperature rising rapidly whilst gravity fed water turned into super heated steam.

    Luckily I had a camera and filmed the event for everyone to see what happened.



    Next I will try a 1mm inlet and outlet to compare the difference.


    The current exhaust is jet an off the shelf brass 1/4" BSP 10mm straight port, with the exhaust throat 7mm.

    The chamber is one half of a De Laval nozzle and now I'm working on the rocket exhaust to turn the heat into velocity and partial vacuum.

    The rocket exhaust has the capability to turn the hot gases into supersonic / hypersonic flow which is to impart its energy to the Tesla turbine via viscosity and impulse as it hits the star washers as the gas exhausts.

    It is not widely know that the Tesla turbine is actually a 3 trick pony.

    1. Friction (Boundary Layer) Turbine
    2. Action (Impulse) Turbine
    3. Reaction (Expansion) Turbine

    The beauty of this is, it appears it is possible to achieve all three at the same time. Perhaps now my acrylic casing turbine will make more sense as it has a diverging nozzle (Impulse) and a straight port (Expansion). The friction just happens anyway.

    The reason people say the Tesla turbine has no torque is mainly down to Warren Rice's university experiments. You can bet you boots, like most YouTubers replicating the Tesla turbine. He never used the spoked washers.

    If you don't use the spoked washers you can only harness the friction (boundary layer) element.

    This was one of the first things I notice back in 2018 when I began a study of YouTube replications of the Tesla turbine.

    It is something I want to highlight again now my research is more refined than ever because it plays an important role when you want to try and harness super heated steam, cold steam and atmospheric pressure.

    From 1909-1921 Nikola Tesla concentrated his efforts on using super heated steam and high partial vacuum for his turbines.

    By 1931 he had switched his focus onto cold steam aka cold water vapour because the viscosity is incredibly higher than super heated steam and of course much, much safer to use.

    My conclusion after successfully replicating Tesla's super heated steam boiler pulse detonation engine is this:

    1. It may be possible to add a rocket exhaust to cause enough vacuum and siphon a water tank to produce cold steam or maybe just much more super heated steam.

    2. If cold steam cannot be achieved with this engine then I will surely need a metal casing to harness super heated steam.

    3. If I can achieve cold steam which is the best nozzle or port to allow it to impart its expansive, supersonic / hypersonic speed to the rotor?


    I know that in 1935 Tesla published an article and some technical diagrams. It was one of his last.

    Within that article were two designs for "cold steam nozzles".

    Now you may be familiar with these drawing and may also be familiar they can be used to accelerate particles. However when you have gone as deep as me down the Tesla rabbit hole you will understand that he was desperate to leave us information to create the simplest energy machine possible but without raising alarms bells with the establishment and getting supressed.

    Tesla was a master genius at stitching a master jigsaw of scattered puzzle pieces together hoping that in the future his ultimate starter motor for the Tesla turbine would be realised.





    The first one require desiccated air to accelerate the water into atomised water particles.

    The second one requires desiccated air and high partial vacuum to accelerate the water into highly atomised particles.

    Here is a modern "Fogger Nozzle" used for growing plants. It uses 60psi to create <30 micron water particles.



    I would imagine both of Tesla's nozzles do something similar, can harness higher pressures and accelerate the particles at the turbine with supersonic / hypersonic velocities.

    I believe this to be his final design for a starter motor.

    Of course these nozzles have many uses but I truly think this was one of the intended uses, he just couldn't say it in so many words as it would give his game plan away.

    Leave a comment:


  • soundiceuk
    replied


    It just struck me today that by adding the Tesla turbine converts the Pulse Detonation Engine into a Rotating Detonation Engine !!!

    Also as the Tesla turbine has an equal and opposite reaction to the flow going through the rotor, it also pumps air into the exhaust with pushes back on the Tesla valves.




    I've literally just been sent this by my machinist.

    Testing will begin soon!

    Tesla state in US Patent 1,329,559 Valvular Conduit

    https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tes...lvular-conduit


    "Upon the subsidence of the explosion the pressure in the chamber sinks below the atmosphere owing to the pumping action of the rotor or ventilator and new air and gas is permitted to enter, cleaning the cavity and channels and making up a fresh mixture which is detonated as before, and so on, the successive impulses of the working fluid producing an almost continuous rotary effort."

    Leave a comment:


  • soundiceuk
    replied
    I've got more exciting news I just ran out of time earlier when I was posting.

    This is going to be difficult for many to get their heads around and I know you will all want proof. I want proof too, this is just me interpreting Tesla's work and presenting it as I understand it.

    First let me show you Jeremiah's latest PDE video. He can't stop calling it a pulse jet engine because its easier to say and I can't stop myself correcting him.


    His version looks a little crude but don't let that put you off!




    After 250 pulses per second the engine is a pulse detonation engine not a pulse jet engine.

    When the pulses go over a certain speed a musical note is heard.

    Jeremiah aka YouTuber iEnergySupply measured my pulse rate to be 290hz

    Tesla states:



    Here is the link to the full article that Tesla released in 1920 after he finally got the patent granted. The patent office made him change the original patent application from 1916. Tesla was having a real battle with the US patent office.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/9xi7try1s9...rbine.pdf?dl=0

    I was chatting with Jeremiah last night and he told me he has achieved around 9000hz.

    Yes that is 9000 detonations per second! Does't even sound real.... but this is Tesla's design with a few Jeremiah tweaks....

    This 30 year old man from Idaho is making waves with me on this technology.

    We are about to blow the whole 2nd law of thermodynamics wide open!

    If a single cylinder four stroke engine was doing 9000hz it would be running at 1,080,000 RPM !!!!!!!!!

    This isn't the limit either..... the higher the vacuum the higher the pulse rate!

    Tesla states:


    "It will be readily observed that the resistance offered to the passage of the medium will be considerable even if it be under constant pressure, but the impediments will be of full effect only when it is supplied in pulses and, more especially, when the same are extremely sudden and of high frequency"

    and

    "The frequency will be the greater the stronger the suction, and may, under certain conditions, reach hundreds and even thousands per second."


    There is even more good news and revelations!

    Almost unbelievable!!!!! Stand by!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • soundiceuk
    replied
    Well spotted Bi ... I meant "Specific Volume (steam)" not "Density".

    https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/s...ies-d_457.html

    Thank you!

    I have the combustion chamber currently being modified so won't be long before testing!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X