sci.energy

Dan Bloomquist wrote:

> your dog wrote:
>
> > This seems to be a function of fluid used, disk spacing, rpm, and
> > diameter. My napkin says that the Tesla Turbine ends up being
> > substantially more efficient and cheaper than "conventional" impulse
> > and pressure turbines for a number of smaller (that is, other than the
> > "major" turbine applications like steam/water power generation and gas
> > turbine engines) applications that turbines are used for now.
> >
> > So what am I missing?
>
> A fundamental contradiction. The working volume decreases as you move
> toward the center of the disks but energy comes from the expansion of a gas.

But the heat energy and the resulting expansion of the gas is converted
to kinetic energy in the nozzle already, not in the turbine itself; the
rotor only takes that kinetic energy and turns it into rotating motion.

Even if entirely drenched and surrounded by water, these things can be
powered from the water pressure from your kitchen tap (or from a dam,
just like any ordinary water turbine). Expansion doesn't enter into the
equation.

Don't forget that the tesla turbines actually *do* work, only not quite
as efficiently as modern turbines. I'd say they are nice hobby projects,
since they can be so easily built and yet provide so much fun while
experimenting with them.

S.