Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [TeslaTurbine] Tesla Turbocharger?

Expand Messages
  • Drew Marinich
    Chris Just so you know I still have a long way to go on this project, but I ll try to answer your questions as best as possible. First I was planning on using
    Message 1 of 11 , Nov 4, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Chris
         Just so you know I still have a long way to go on this project, but I'll try to answer your questions as best as possible. First I was planning on using the TT as a blower, because I also want to use  water injection with it.  I built the little turbine to see how well it performed as a vaporizer. (It did very well) The turbine is only 2.5 inches with 6 runners, and it's made to run on compressed air so it's not really powerfull enough to attach any kind of load to. I posted pictures of it in the members section if you want to check them out.  I don't see any reason why the TT couldn't work as turbocharger like your suggesting. My only concern is plumbing it all together under the hood with limited space.  Well hope this answered your questions, if you can think of anything else let me know


      Chris Vintinner <keebler1785@...> wrote:
      So you plan on just using a belt to drive a TT blows into the intake? I was thinking of just using a TT for the Hotside of the Turbocharger and using a traditional bladed compressor.  Most of the testing that I have seen is from people using TT's as generators not as pumps.  Theoreticallty I guess it should be the same in reverse. In that case you could make a turbo with 2 TT's.  What kind of effiencies are you getting with the turbine you made?
       
      Drew Marinich <twosimple4u77@...> wrote:
      That was me, I think it was only about a year ago or so.  But anyway I was thinking about a supercharger.  So far I've only built the little turbine.  I'm working on a plexiglass one right now.  I'm trying to learn more about how the fluild actually flows through the turbine. I hoping observing the flow will give me more insight into design

      "McGalliard, Frederick B" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@...> wrote:


      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: keebler1785 [mailto:keebler1785@...]
      > Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 11:22 AM
      > To: TeslaTurbine@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [TeslaTurbine] Tesla Turbocharger?
      >
      > Has anyone played around with the idea of using a TT for the
      > hotside of a turbocharger?  From what I have heard TT's are
      > more efficient with higher velocity fluids and it seems that
      > a turbocharger would be an ideal application.

      I could swear I recall, a few years ago, hearing some fellow planning to
      try this. Never heard any result though.



      Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.


      Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.



       


      Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

    • Chris Vintinner
      Would it be effective to change the cross section of the discs in a TT so that they had a larger cross-sectional area at the center, something like a diamond
      Message 2 of 11 , Nov 15, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Would it be effective to change the cross section of the discs in a TT so that they had a larger cross-sectional area at the center, something like a diamond of eliptical cross section. That is to say that the area the fluid would be flowing through would be smaller and the velocity would therefor have to be faster maintaining a more ideal disc spacing for that fluid?  Has anyone else thought about this?     


        Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
      • Fred Sorenson
        I was thinking along exactly those lines in the context of two-phase flow. That was the thrust of my earlier musing about low-quality steam . I m still
        Message 3 of 11 , Nov 15, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          I was thinking along exactly those lines in the context of two-phase flow.

          That was the thrust of my earlier musing about "low-quality steam".

          I'm still struggling with the dynamics of exactly what happens when you extract energy (AKA "initiate condensation") from/in  a non-superheated  flow...

          Somehow I don't think the guy who says he is cascading a whole series of grazing-incidence stages has the whole picture.

          People tend to induce vortical flow for the express purpose of centrifugally SEPARATING gas and liquid/solid phases!  What happens when you DELIBERATELY set up a situation where the extraction of kinetic energy INDUCES condensation?

          I think the answer has something to do with drop size.

          When the internal energy of the fluid is reduced to the point that gas molecules start to stick together, it's a whole new ball game.  Still- local accretions, it seems to me, would be nudged towards a larger radius where they would encounter a relatively faster flow.  Would that not tend to differentially disassociate the larger clumps and thus smooth the density distribution?

          Getting back to your thought about radially varying the cross section of the flow in the TT...

          Yeah, I'm also wondering if you might want to manipulate the cross section so as to minimize the size distribution of the droplets.

          What would a truly ideal turbine do?

          In the case of a readily condensable working fluid, it seems to me that it would input gas of arbitrary superheat and exhaust a liquid at the temperature of the heat sink with just enough velocity to satisfy the mass flow at the input...

          That might not be optimum from an engineering standpoint, but it's hard to argue that that wouldn't describe the maximum-energy-extraction scenario...


          Chris Vintinner <keebler1785@...> wrote:
          Would it be effective to change the cross section of the discs in a TT so that they had a larger cross-sectional area at the center, something like a diamond of eliptical cross section. That is to say that the area the fluid would be flowing through would be smaller and the velocity would therefor have to be faster maintaining a more ideal disc spacing for that fluid?  Has anyone else thought about this?     

          Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.


          Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
        • Chris Vintinner
          What sort of applications are you looking at using low quality steam as apposed to some other superheated substance? Fred Sorenson wrote:
          Message 4 of 11 , Nov 17, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            What sort of applications are you looking at using low quality steam as apposed to some other superheated substance?

            Fred Sorenson <sea2fresh@...> wrote:
            I was thinking along exactly those lines in the context of two-phase flow.

            That was the thrust of my earlier musing about "low-quality steam".

            I'm still struggling with the dynamics of exactly what happens when you extract energy (AKA "initiate condensation") from/in  a non-superheated  flow...

            Somehow I don't think the guy who says he is cascading a whole series of grazing-incidence stages has the whole picture.

            People tend to induce vortical flow for the express purpose of centrifugally SEPARATING gas and liquid/solid phases!  What happens when you DELIBERATELY set up a situation where the extraction of kinetic energy INDUCES condensation?

            I think the answer has something to do with drop size.

            When the internal energy of the fluid is reduced to the point that gas molecules start to stick together, it's a whole new ball game.  Still- local accretions, it seems to me, would be nudged towards a larger radius where they would encounter a relatively faster flow.  Would that not tend to differentially disassociate the larger clumps and thus smooth the density distribution?

            Getting back to your thought about radially varying the cross section of the flow in the TT...

            Yeah, I'm also wondering if you might want to manipulate the cross section so as to minimize the size distribution of the droplets.

            What would a truly ideal turbine do?

            In the case of a readily condensable working fluid, it seems to me that it would input gas of arbitrary superheat and exhaust a liquid at the temperature of the heat sink with just enough velocity to satisfy the mass flow at the input...

            That might not be optimum from an engineering standpoint, but it's hard to argue that that wouldn't describe the maximum-energy-extraction scenario...


            Chris Vintinner <keebler1785@...> wrote:
            Would it be effective to change the cross section of the discs in a TT so that they had a larger cross-sectional area at the center, something like a diamond of eliptical cross section. That is to say that the area the fluid would be flowing through would be smaller and the velocity would therefor have to be faster maintaining a more ideal disc spacing for that fluid?  Has anyone else thought about this?     

            Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.


            Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.


            Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
          • McGalliard, Frederick B
            ________________________________ From: Chris Vintinner [mailto:keebler1785@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 1:15 PM To:
            Message 5 of 11 , Nov 17, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
               


              From: Chris Vintinner [mailto:keebler1785@...]
              Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 1:15 PM
              To: TeslaTurbine@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [TeslaTurbine] Disc Shape

              What sort of applications are you looking at using low quality steam as apposed to some other superheated substance?

               
              I thought it sounded like a solar application. Household sized. These usually do not run a lot of superheat.  
            • Fred Sorenson
              Picture two chambers separated by a pipe. In the left chamber heat and water are introduced and the water transitions to steam. In the right-hand chamber heat
              Message 6 of 11 , Nov 30, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Picture two chambers separated by a pipe.

                In the left chamber heat and water are introduced and the water transitions to steam.  In the right-hand chamber heat is rejected, the steam is condensed, and liquid water is extracted.  Because of the huge expansion/contraction involved in the phase changes, the two processes going on simultaneously should result in a high-velocity flow of saturated steam in the connecting pipe.

                If no energy is extracted from the connecting flow, the heat rejected at the sink is equal to the energy supplied to the left chamber minus the usual parasitic cluster of viscous losses, etc.

                If, however, you run the (saturated) flow through a turbine- the shaft work extracted can ONLY come from a phase change in the steam.

                If you are running a conventional turbine you are looking at blade corrosion/erosion from the condensate and, ultimately, turbine failure.

                It seems to me that the Tesla turbine, which is comfortable with two-phase flow, would be the ideal modality for extracting energy from such a flow.  The more energy is extracted from the flow, the more it condenses- and the more it condenses, the less heat is rejected (wasted) at the sink.

                Indeed- without condensation, there wouldn't BE a flow!  Why not combine the turbine and condenser in one box that inputs vapor and outputs saturated liquid?

                Why water?  Why not!

                Your feed water could be brackish/sea water and the outputs would be shaft work, distilled water, and brine.  If the process heat comes from the sun, all you've done is simultaneously solve two of the biggest problems (water and energy shortages) that face our species today .  Not bad for a day's work!

                Once you have all the water you need- and the sun is still shining- and you happen to have some corn squeezins around...  Hmmm...

                Chris Vintinner <keebler1785@...> wrote:
                What sort of applications are you looking at using low quality steam as apposed to some other superheated substance?

                Fred Sorenson <sea2fresh@...> wrote:
                I was thinking along exactly those lines in the context of two-phase flow.

                That was the thrust of my earlier musing about "low-quality steam".

                I'm still struggling with the dynamics of exactly what happens when you extract energy (AKA "initiate condensation") from/in  a non-superheated  flow...

                Somehow I don't think the guy who says he is cascading a whole series of grazing-incidence stages has the whole picture.

                People tend to induce vortical flow for the express purpose of centrifugally SEPARATING gas and liquid/solid phases!  What happens when you DELIBERATELY set up a situation where the extraction of kinetic energy INDUCES condensation?

                I think the answer has something to do with drop size.

                When the internal energy of the fluid is reduced to the point that gas molecules start to stick together, it's a whole new ball game.  Still- local accretions, it seems to me, would be nudged towards a larger radius where they would encounter a relatively faster flow.  Would that not tend to differentially disassociate the larger clumps and thus smooth the density distribution?

                Getting back to your thought about radially varying the cross section of the flow in the TT...

                Yeah, I'm also wondering if you might want to manipulate the cross section so as to minimize the size distribution of the droplets.

                What would a truly ideal turbine do?

                In the case of a readily condensable working fluid, it seems to me that it would input gas of arbitrary superheat and exhaust a liquid at the temperature of the heat sink with just enough velocity to satisfy the mass flow at the input...

                That might not be optimum from an engineering standpoint, but it's hard to argue that that wouldn't describe the maximum-energy-extraction scenario...


                Chris Vintinner <keebler1785@...> wrote:
                Would it be effective to change the cross section of the discs in a TT so that they had a larger cross-sectional area at the center, something like a diamond of eliptical cross section. That is to say that the area the fluid would be flowing through would be smaller and the velocity would therefor have to be faster maintaining a more ideal disc spacing for that fluid?  Has anyone else thought about this?     


                Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
              • McGalliard, Frederick B
                ________________________________ From: Fred Sorenson [mailto:sea2fresh@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 5:55 PM To: TeslaTurbine@yahoogroups.com
                Message 7 of 11 , Dec 1, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                   


                  From: Fred Sorenson [mailto:sea2fresh@...]
                  Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 5:55 PM
                  To: TeslaTurbine@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [TeslaTurbine] Disc Shape

                  Picture two chambers separated by a pipe.

                  In the left chamber heat and water are introduced and the water transitions to steam.  In the right-hand chamber heat is rejected, the steam is condensed, and liquid water is extracted.  Because of the huge expansion/contraction involved in the phase changes, the two processes going on simultaneously should result in a high-velocity flow of saturated steam in the connecting pipe.

                  If no energy is extracted from the connecting flow, the heat rejected at the sink is equal to the energy supplied to the left chamber minus the usual parasitic cluster of viscous losses, etc.

                  If, however, you run the (saturated) flow through a turbine- the shaft work extracted can ONLY come from a phase change in the steam.
                   
                  The condensation/boiling temperature is a function of the pressure. If you transition to steam then go through a turbine, the condensation pressure will be lower and the condensation temp has to be lower. This makes the heat exchangers larger as well I think.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.