The problem with that turbine is that every turbine of that kind built until now has torn itself apart because we don't have materials with high enough tensile strength to withstand the forces inside that turbine. It's just that insanely fast.
@@MattGoss3060where this design really shines is in high speed efficiency. it doesnt make much torque, but what torque it does make it will make at an unbelievably fast rpm. like, several hundred thousand rpms kind of fast, and the faster it spins, the more efficient it gets. the problem is, at any useful size, the centrifigul forces make the disks explode if they are maxe from any currently known material. we will probably need another breakthrough like the carbon nanotubes to really make this system shine
@@silentbobfan32 *centrifugal... Not centrifigul. Man, native English speakers are sad. Seriously, what word ends in "-gul" ??? Don't they teach you suffixes in school ? Centre -> centrifuge -> centrifugal. Rotate -> rotation -> rotational. Last suffix is -al. It has a meaning. If you wonder "why the spelling does not match the pronunciation ?" It hints that you're also pronouncing it horribly wrong, butchering all the vowels into a wishy-washy indiscernible mess.
@@HuxTheSergal nobody said "in theory, theory and practice are the same." its two different thing, with different method and different purpose. if you know theory, you would also know practice isnt the same automatically. it defeats the main point.
Yeah the reason it’s in theory is that we can’t build a turbine that can withstand that kind of efficiency without self destructing due to the force put on it :)
Hi I did my Master's thesis on this turbine and we have known since at least the early 50's that Tesla's claims of extremely high efficiencies were based on nothing. This is a neat expansion turbine concept for residential scale powers, but on the smaller scale it is surpassed by reciprocating systems and on the larger scale more traditional turbines are actually more efficient. One thing it does have going for it is that it is remarkably quiet, which lends itself well to niche applications like powering rotary dental tools. It is also conveniently easy to make a functioning bladeless turbine, although (as I learned) optimizing the efficiency is more challenging
Hey man, I am an aerospace engineering student in Flight Performance and Propulsion. I'd love to read more about your thesis, is there a way you can send it to me or can I find it somewhere online?
That's not true. Warren Rice did this with fluid air first and it was found to be lower but with steam it was theorized much higher. Rice found that at low flow rates it should be above 95%. The main issue was the flow rate. As it needed lower flow rates meaning it needed more disc's instead of less disc's with a higher flow rate. I would love to read your thesis though if it is published.
@kdog2646 Exactly I hate when people knock on Tesla the Man is Legend and if only Our Governments were not so greedy we could have had a Death Weapon for potential space invaders or even wireless electricity in its final form however peoples greed murdered any chance of things being right in the Universe!
I see some of the problems pointed out about the turbine. If I may add, it's not very powerful either, because it relies entirely on boundary layer effects to produce torque.
I'm not a mechanical engineer. But are them holes in the middle not similar to blades? I.E catching the "fluid"? Sucking the fluid in and creating Creating a strong vortex.
@@stevenlake5278 Not really. The blades on a real turbine are used for staged compression. In the Tesla turbine the holes just allow the flow to move through into the low pressure zone.
In theory it is more efficient. In practice we're yet to find a material that can be this thin and stand that much g-force to make it actually good. EDIT: Love the amount of attention here, many creative minds here suggesting cool new materials but I don't think you people imagine quite the amount of forces at play here. EDIT EDIT EDIT: Because I'm a moron, I added the diameter of my 1m disc calculation below as a radius. So for 1m disc it's 50% down. The calculations below are actually for a 2m disc. For 1m disc the force at 10000rpm would be something around 13.5 metric tons of force acting on its rim. And that's why you publish your calculations along with your results. So that good people can tell you where have you gone dumb. And now that I've owned my mistakes I can get absolutely wasted for the weekend. Cheers! EDIT EDIT: It was pointed out to me that I have made a miscalculation in the example below. Took you people a damn while before somebody actually checked the numbers. I have made a mistake due to some language barrier and I've read 8.559N as 8,559N. It's a subtle difference in text but a big one in mathematics. Three decimal spaces worth of a mistake that is. The 8.559N value is the force acting upon each cubic millimeter of the edge. The actual force working on the last 10mm of the edge of a 1m wide 1mm thick disc is "only" about 27390 kgf or 268604 N (about 27 tons or a large truck worth of goods), that is much less than I calculated previously. I shall keep the original example down below so that you can see what that mistake looks like. Still, 27 tons acting upon the material of the disc and central shaft is still a lot of force. Just to make sure you can work with my current calculation I've used this calculator: www.omnicalculator.com/physics/centrifugal-force and plugged in 0.0000078 as a mass of a cubic milimeter of steel, 1m radius, and angular velocity of 10000rpm. The calculator will spit out the rest. After that I took the 8.559N result and went 1000 (diameter of the disc in mm) x 3.14 = 3140 (length of the edge of the disc in mm) x 8.559 = 26875.26 (N) x 10 (because the force difference between last 10mm is small enough to be negligible for this purpose.) Then I took the number and ran it through google to find the kilogram force value which is way more friendly to imagine. Don't forget this is only the 10mm outer rim of the disc not the whole disc. In case you find some errors there, make sure you let me know. Preferably, calculate the whole thing yourself so I don't have to. I don't like doing math despite the fact that I respect it and use it. (THIS ENTIRE CALCULATION IS WRONG! LOOK UP THE NUMBERS ABOVE! So I went and just for fun made a calculation for a very very basic Tesla turbine. It's single 1mm thick disc (because spherical cow in a vacuum) at 1 meter diameter, at 10000 RPM, made of generic steel. And because I'm lazy we care only about the outer 10mm of the disc, so effectively a spinning circle. The resulting centrifugal force on that disc, is in total over 27500kN of force. About 8770N for every cubic millimeter on the edge of that disc. That's around 28000 metric tons of mass pulling outwards in all directions. That my friends is roughly a USS Texas (BB-35) worth of mass, just casually pulling that disc apart. Titanium weighs at about half of steel. That would be about 14000 metric tons of force. That's why Tesla turbine is not viable. The forces scale at barely imaginable level. Remember that's just one disc, you'll need at least 50 to make that thing worth while.)
YES... it CAN run with air. You'll see almost EVERY RUclips channel make a variation of the statement "even with air!" However this was not it's original design, and no serious research setup uses air. It was initially designed to run with low viscosity oil - kept inside a pressurized, closed system. This is how our lab is running ours. The oil creates a 'cushion' of uncompressable, low friction media for the discs. The chamber should have as little space as possible to either side of the disc wheel, and again as little space as possible around the circumference. This keeps the material of the discs from being able to expand, or vibrate, and as such keeping them together through the stresses applied by fluid turbulence or centrifugal force.
I knew something about this video didn't make sense! How the hell is anything 'flowing to the center' if something spinning pushes things to the edge?! That was just one problem!
Cucked material sciences crying for not being on a level of a dude who lived over 100 years ago. Stop complaining and come up with shit that can take it.
@@kapindrasinghrajpoot8779 that’s the only problem the only material that could theoretically withstand that amount of force is diamond. Iron, steel, and other materials failed the test and bent making it unusable
@@Wrutschgeluck well yes it would work but it all depends on how much water is going into it so you would have to make it so only a certain amount of water can go in at once which would be a long process in itself
For someone who says "tomatoes are disgusting", you always have plenty around. Or is that Tomato Lords minions that keep coming after you. Don't know. Enjoyed the short snd the full video.
The reason this design isnt used today is because its most efficient at extremely high rpm. The problem is that there are very few materials which can withstand the tip velocity at those speeds.
@@michaellee8853 But you need to be able to rev up to get all those hp, and gears (which btw add moving mass...) or not, if the torque is low, that's gonna be a problem... in most turbine applications, you can't wait minutes waiting for the system to overcome inertia
@@Beuwen_The_Dragon All that needs be done is raise a man from the dead. All that needs be done is put a man on the moon. All that needs be done is to be understanding. All that needs be done is to love and live. God bless, and pleasantries, Friend ☺️❤️
@@Beuwen_The_DragonWhen "all that needs to be done" comes across as more difficult than finally figuring out how to get useful power generation out of fusion reactors lol
@@SnakebitSTI Oh, please... forget about fusion energy! There are still governments in the world that penalize gay marriage with the death sentence! How could our societies cooperate to achieve something so enlightened? Specially when most people's first reaction when asked about fusion energy is to share their fears about the H-bomb. On a large scale, people are driven by fear and lust, and our leaders are amongst the worst specimens of our kind. The truth is that we turn good things into shit: we took the limitless potential of nuclear fission and first used it to power war-machines; we created neural networks and we use them to create fake porn and military software; cars went from commodities for the rich to pseudo-mandatory, noisy possessions for the poor. I don't expect to see fusion reactors in my lifetime because, all things considered, it's more profitable for those above to keep us hoping that we'll get something better than sticks and stones than to satisfy us, us nobodies.
@@Beuwen_The_Dragon ever heard of graphene? The material exists. The cost of making said material just makes this design completely counter productive though
My question is, if it has the most torque at lower speed would this work better for Micro Hydro for like homesteading, or providing off-grid power to like a cabin off of a small Creek.
Depends on the water source depth snd if the water would deteriorate the metal erosion is definitely as issue for long term use age of spinning metal disc in water, rocks and moving things would’ve like sand paper, that’s why rocks in water tend to be smooth ( depends on a lot of things, I think this would work better in a mass Hydro system for a sequence of dams ) what is best for homes is typically not used in dams from what I know it’s basically the same idea of the typical home spinning Hydro system but it’s on its side and guides water around it and then out into the main water system, the best usage of this is because you can route water from the main system down through this have it become at a level path build up and then rush down back into the waterway but if your on a homestead you’d want a couple of systems depending the conditions you live in mid west and more north with harsh winters you’d want to hydro , solar, and wind because you get wind in winter snd sun but they are basically one or the other from my experience living in Montana, my whole life, and then, during the summer when you’re not using us this much electricity, you can build up a lot of power, every summer and spring from the melting snow and ice, as well as the sunny days and the wind all building up power for the winter, and the other two sources just make it so you can mediate your way through winter while you’re using a lot more energy, but you always want to have a generator just in case, if you want one that doesn’t require you to go buy fuel you can make a moonshine one. I just don’t know how efficient it is compared to a gas or diesel because diesel is the best generator. But if you’re over in a place that has a consistent flow of water something that is a mixture of two different Hydro systems would work, but flooding and things like that is always an issue. Personally, I would never feel secure with only one system of getting power besides like the Appalachian mountains because it’s so consistent with the weather there and it’s not too hot or too cold but cold enough where you need stuff during winter
@@Hellothis12157knbhb lol im in the app mountains and have a small creek that runs for the most part constant but there is no real drop across my property to get head pressure from.
@@questionblechoices ahh it would take a good bit of effort to do that I’m in an area where it’s so goddamn Steep it’s pretty easy. ( water runs down the hill so bad on rainy days you can see the erosion that happens after a really rainy week ) I’m in the cabinet mountains so close to the Rockies and there’s a banana belt in my area so I’m in the “warm” part there’s a lot a little random creeks and stuff like that and a lot of humidity and rain. Unlike over east more.
@@Hellothis12157knbhb dont get me wrong my property is still for the most part steep just all runs down to creek. Where its for the most part very little incline from one side to other across bottom part of property then there is a field on the other side. Once a tobacco field.
Don't get your hopes too high fellas. The turbine is only able to reach high or even reasonably better efficiencies than its turbined counterparts when it achieves super high RPMs. It needs to be rotating so fast that there aren't any light enough or strong enough materials to achieve that speed in the first place without deforming or exploding. And no it's not some forgotten tech, it's already used in some factories to move/pump viscous liquids.
It annoys me when people dig up failed tech like this and present it as some amazing hidden gem of engineering. Tesla turbines are neat. They're fun to talk about. They have some very niche real world uses. But they are not good turbines.
@@SnakebitSTI You summarized it very well. Ive heard that they are used in rotary dental tools because they are much quieter then electric engines or other systems.
@@andretokayuk8100 They exist as spacers, not as extra surface friction. As spacers, I can absolutely guarantee they definitely are the best option I have seen in this particular application. They definitely increase torque, by ensuring that flow rates are spread equally across the multiple surfaces.
is also related to Coanda effect and Victor Schaubergers flow studies , pretty much a similar reaction different application , matter is sticky to matter
"3-6-9, damn you fine Hoping she can sock it to me one more time Get low, get low (get low), get low (get low), get low (get low) To the window (to the window), to the wall (to the wall)" Lil Jon truly was a wise man
The reason this design couldn’t be used was due to the fact that it is SO efficient that it would spin insanely fast. To this day we lack a material that would be suitable for this
In theory yes, in practise the efficiency drops once you attach the turbine to the generator as the generator starts generate additional friction in itself. I think the efficiency drops to the rest of the turbines (65 % I think), but the rest of the drawbacks remain that other turbines don't have - like being extremly fragile - they are cheap, but you have to change them more freguently. Edit: I recalled the main problem, the turbine struggles to generate torque, once attached the the efficiency drops, becouse once the counterforce of additional friction outside the turbine is added, the water friciton isn't enough and water partialy starts to "slip" withouth generating much of a force. Other turbines relly more on being pushed by a mass of water itself.
It is important to note that this turbine has not been put to practical large scale use because it is actually too efficient for its own good. It would perform so well that the forces imparted on the disks would break the turbine
I don't get why people call it "too efficient" instead of saying it cannot be made usefully efficient. Because it cannot be made usefully efficient compared to traditional turbine designs.
It is literally not. The entirety of this comment is wrong. Rather, the turbine will break BEFORE it starts to perform well. It's a garbage design, the fanboying is ultra cringe.
Missed the best part: a reason we don't/can't use them is because we don't have materials that could scale and still be stable enough to not shatter at that speed
@@TheChzoronzonMan, 3 months ago you must have been DEDICATED to spread the same message across so many different comments, all said different but with the same info. So happy to put down "tesla fanboys" while clueless to how your own actions are just as irrational as the biggest fanboys here. Makes me want to watch star trek now, ngl.
@@unsuspiciousdweller8967 Yep, I was DEDICATED to that at least for a whole 3 minutes So "irrational, trying to spread good info... and your butthurt isn't showing up, like at all :D
Missed the actual best part: conventional turbines reach as high as 90% efficiency already and any load on the tesla turbine is going to make it garbage.
Thats not a very good way to say that. We don't use this design because the design cannot work at any large scale. Or rather, work efficiently. A design that cannot be useful without some super material that hasn't been developed yet is a useless design.
@@WhereNothingOnceWas by necessity of reducing surface tension in close gaps ! ... So it moves inwards reducing the radial distance from the center ! ... then spins the rotor and theoretical 100 %percent efficiency... Theoretically !
@@bhuvanachandrabr4890100% efficiency means all the air going into it is used to spin the rotor and there's no excess air escaping it. That's not gonna happen.
@@Noconstitutionfordemocrats1 it's not volume of air , it's energy beared by the fluid ! ... That's what u got wrong ! 😎 , Ultimately if the energy is transmitted by some means , as according to Rishi kanāda or later by your Newton ... It would mean 100 % efficiency... By the way it's Nicola Tesla that were talking about 😉 ... Still wanna play Nicola Tesla?
Nope, its so efficient than its literally dangerous to use current Material and technology to build as well as run the turbine. as it can achieve an astonishing levels of RPMs that any human has ever seen, Such RPMs that even it can destroy the material itself which the turbine is been built. Its Crazy powerful and efficient
@@SainInaban Wrong, it becomes more efficient as the speed of the FLUID increases, not the turbine itself, the torque is proportional to the difference in the fluid speed and the disk speed, when the disks is spinning the slowest the fluid speed is moving fastest relative to the disks. This makes the turbine extremely efficient. The key to is make the fluid high speed while keeping the disk speed low.
@@SainInabanThe turbines that we currently use have stopping mechanisms to prevent them from spinning too fast in extreme winds. What’s stopping us from having such a mechanism with these turbines? Surely if they were more efficient per dollar spent on them we could use a similar stopping mechanism and install these ones instead. Must be another reason they’re not used.
It's so freaking amazing how long ago where knowledge was still being written and understanded that they were able to figure all of this out in their life time!!!!
Hey thanks for the comment. ❤️🔥🙏 to be clear though all combustion engine can operate on hydrogen. Some need a few minor changes but designing an engine to run on hydrogen is very simple and straight forward. Additionally turbines don’t need any change to operate on it. They just change out the fuel nozzles in the combustion can to properly accommodate hydrogen mixing with the air. The issue with hydrogen isn’t making an engine that can run on it, it’s making the hydrogen in an efficient and sustainable manner as electrolysis is terribly inefficient, as well as storage and transportation of hydrogen is terrible. It either has to have huge tanks or be compressed to very very high pressures requiring a lot of energy.
@@CharlieSolis Hey thanks for sharing your knowledge. perhaps I know these things and much more since I'm a mechanical engineer and working on Hydrogen fuel engine. So like you said engine is not a problem but getting hydrogen and storing it in safer way is harder.. so I'm working on it to improvise these flaws. So i want someone who can make people know about these things.. also I need a 3d printer which I cannot afford since I'm a student 😐.. So all I need is some help.. Love from India 🇮🇳
@@CharlieSolis Yeah.. It's a long and complex process.. But in short I can say as solidifying the fuel.. which in turn arises some other problems too.. so working on it.. and i hope this isn't a right platform to discuss it..
@@TejaSaysthe wankel or Rotary engine would be perfect as a hydrogen engine as the intake side stays cold preventing pre Detonation/ knocking. They also come with less parts and smaller weight. So they would be suitable for propeller aircraft
@@Tinhead426 my problem was just the bearings, couldn't afford the high Rpm style. My TT was a half scale of Teslas design the shaft was 5/8 stainless hex bar for the stainless discs. Turned down for 3/8 bearings.
What if you rotate the axle sideways and let it rest on magnetic repulsion? (Like if you had a north facing magnet on the bottom of the axle and a north facing one in the pit under it, sort of like those "floating" desk toys? ) 🤔
@@FractalNinjait would have to be some very strong magnets. See NileRed’s recent short on antigravity magnetism and it’s only a super tiny piece of bismuth that he can float with his rig. I’m not sure it would be feasible in a full size situation.
i wish there was a way to only sub for full videos - getting notifications for shorts that have content that was already in the long video kinda makes me want to not get notifications
Along with the fact it tears itself apart, it also doesn't actually have that much turning power. If you were to hook it up to a generator or something that would allow it to produce energy, it would slow to a crawl, or even stop completely, which is why it never ended up being used.
The fluid flows into the plates forming friction. Using that friction and the fact that it goes to the center of the plates the plates spin and that is how it works
“...’cumpressed’ air.” Hey! We don’t need to hear about your kinky sex life and what you do with rapidly flowing air, thank you. Or is this just a Scotsman’s description of his girlfriend’s coif after sex? 😂
I have talked to mechanics about the Telsa pump and they laughed the fluid has to be pure with no contamination or the pump will get jammed that why you don't see it more often
its very efficient in theory but 1. breaks at high speed 2. loses efficiency when a load is applied and is roughly efficient as a normal turbine 3. generally hard to swap out all our turbines for a less useful turbine
It can in theory be the most efficient turbine possible, problem is in order to reach said efficiency levels (potentially higher than 97%) it needs to spin at insanely high RPMs which will literally rip the turbine apart every single time due to centrifugal forces plus heat due to friction. This turbine just cannot work irl
hey thanks for commenting. 🙏❤️🔥 I really appreciate the love and support. So just to be clear I do have a degree in physics and many years of working with industrial machines. And now I don’t want to discourage you but I need to be abundantly clear though that sadly, these are not toys. They are VERY dangerous if not designed or handled properly. I do not advise anyone who doesn’t already have a background in mech engineering/physics etc. to attempt to make one of them on their own. If you wouldn’t feel comfortable taking apart a jet engine and putting it back together and know that it would work properly again then I would think twice about taking on this endeavor. That being said. If you would like to start I would suggest by consuming as many mechanical engineering class videos as you can on RUclips. Learn all the thermodynamics behind steam and gas turbines. Specifically for Tesla turbines it requires a great deal more chemistry due to the Tesla turbine operating on molecular viscous adhesive forces between the fluid and discs and not in mechanical collisions with the blades like traditional blades turbine. So making sure to have the right surface treatments for the proper motive fluid is very important too. “Don’t French fry when you’re supposed to pizza or you’re gonna have a bad time.”
I want to be explicitly clear with people just how dangerous this is. It’s easy to see the turbine not doing much other than spinning and think it’s not that difficult. But to put some perspective on it…. The ~25cm (10in) diameter 75disc aluminum turbine is 4.36kg (~9.5lbs) So whenever anyone see this turbine spinning they need to imagine a literal 10in diameter 10lb dumbbell weight spinning at 7,000-13,000rpm 🤯🥵😅 At 13,000rpm the turbine rotor has 30,000joules of rotational kinetic energy. For perspective, that’s about equivalent to: 5-10% of the kinetic energy of a whole car at highway speeds. If that stored kinetic energy were to be used to launch itself straight up into the air… KE = gravPE = mgH H = KE / m / g = (30,000joules) / (4.26kg) / (9.81m/s^2) = 708 meters straight up into the air… 🤯 ~3/4 of a kilometer or ~0.45miles.
Historically, the main thing holding it back was material integrity. They would spin so fast they'd literally tear themselves apart regardless of material.
@@sirnikkel6746hey thanks for the comment. But this isn’t accurate. The Tesla turbine outputs plenty of torque and power even at low RPM IF designed correctly. We’ve more than proved this with our 10in diameter Tesla turbine and now further proved this with our 4.5in diameter Tesla turbine we built for integza. The preliminary tests are just to see how much electrical power can be produced with room temp compressed air driving the Tesla turbine. 6.22ft-Ibs of torque at only 4150rpm and +4.25kW between 6000-12,000 rpm to the shaft too. The TesTur nozzles never went over 20psi at the nozzle for the 2650watt electrical load test and not over 40psi at the nozzle for the 4250watt dyno test. This is so I can get a baseline for what to expect as I increase the temps to combustion levels. When using elastic gasses the counterintuitive thing most overlook is that the viscosity of gasses goes up with temp. So not only do we see an increase in thermodynamic efficiency from increased temps but the TesTur isentropic efficiency also goes up due to the reduced slip from the increased viscosity.
A lot of people think about these concpts. Until you reach a dead end. It seems that people think that it it is easy to make these concepts real. But these concepts often exclude major problems or disadvantages. Some problems only show up during development and are not easy to solve, especially if there are no materials that can withstand the conditions in which they are used. (for example: stress, heat, corrosion)
make it with textured carbide disks and fluid supported ceramic bearings so the fluids exert more friction increasing torque vs rpm while the disks float freely under pressure similar to how a turbo works
I read about this turbine years ago. It uses some kind of principle based on friction. I think he determined that 3 mm was the magic gap distance between the disc. It actually worked to good.
The problem is durability. At this moment we dosent have a material that can withstand that force with big energy outputs. Tesla turbine made from titanium broke down and small fractions became projectiles and destroy the turbine and the surroundings.
The high efficiency achieve when the turbine spin extremely fast. On the other hand, the turbing will turn out to fail on such spin because of the tensile strength of the turbine material
I can see it work if its used in a gear based system where you use multiple turbines hooked around a central gear and it spins all the turbines while the gear in the center offers the mild resistance by syncing the motion to all turbines... So if one turbine needs to go faster, all others also needs this same momentum.
I remember making a rudimentary version using cds and they're case.. and washers .... should try running this with is single piston engine and his valves the records of its HP were something rediculously effective for its time!
Another problem with the Tesla turbine was the very low reaction force it’s able to impart. Because it takes a lot of air to get it spinning, it’s hard to use in any high-power or high-torque applications
Cool anyways here’s a brownie recipe Ingredients: • 1/2 cup (115g) unsalted butter • 1 cup (200g) granulated sugar • 1/2 cup (90g) packed brown sugar • 2 large eggs • 1 teaspoon vanilla extract • 1/3 cup (40g) unsweetened cocoa powder • 1/2 cup (65g) all-purpose flour • 1/4 teaspoon salt • 1/4 teaspoon baking powder • 1/2 cup (90g) chocolate chips or chunks (optional for extra gooeyness) Instructions: 1. Preheat your oven to 350°F (175°C). Grease an 8x8-inch (20x20cm) baking pan and line it with parchment paper, leaving an overhang for easy removal. 2. Melt the butter in a saucepan over medium heat, then remove from heat and let cool slightly. 3. Add the granulated sugar, brown sugar, eggs, and vanilla extract to the melted butter. Whisk until smooth. 4. Sift in the cocoa powder, flour, salt, and baking powder. Stir until just combined (don’t overmix). 5. Fold in the chocolate chips or chunks if using. 6. Pour the batter into the prepared pan and smooth the top. 7. Bake for 20-25 minutes, or until a toothpick inserted in the center comes out with a few moist crumbs (avoid overbaking for fudgy brownies). 8. Let cool in the pan, then lift out using the parchment paper overhang and slice into squares. Tips: • For an extra fudge factor, refrigerate the brownies for an hour before serving. • Feel free to add nuts or a sprinkle of sea salt on top before baking!
In theory, it’s great. In practice, spinning a turbine of the diameter needed for practical applications at the speeds needed for it to have an efficiency advantage over conventional turbines results in rapid unscheduled disassembly.
The other problem with Tesla’s turbine is that too much slip between fluid and disc surface ruins the boundary layer performance and efficiency fall off very quickly. This stall does happen with bladed turbines but it’s far more difficult and usually means there are other problems.
works with air and with corrosive or dense materials but worn fast as heck and loss a lot of speed when you apply a force over it and theres the tendency to self destruction the most efficient design is the nuclear powerplants turbines
It is not just theory. It is indeed more efficient and easier to build then other regular turbines. The problem the centripitle force. We have no material to withstand these stresses at such scales. Means we can't spin the blades fast enough to even start to become a competitor to regular turbines.
Since the force interaction is driven by the 'stickiness' as put in the video, where the air 'pulls' the discs along as it travels along its surface, the air imparts less torque, so to provide the same power (and efficiency) Tesla turbines have to spin insanely fast. The consequence is the centrifugal forces will tear the discs apart. The equation for centrifugal acceleration is A = V^2/R, so the quadratic relationship between velocity and acceleration, and thus force, means a doubling of velocity equals a quadrupling of tensile stress. So to reach the same power and efficiency as conventional turbines, the discs have to be subjected to incredibly high tensile stress. So far, with current materials this has not been found to be viable, but with future materials that have a greater tensile yield to density ratio, it could become commonplace.
Read about how material strength deterring its further development n dwployment. I been thinking (and once saw, kid u not in a dream) where "they" employed somekind of fractal structure which kind of circumnavigate these structural limit. They (again, "they") employed repetitive structure over the prior or base structure thus kind of creating multi level operating speed n efficiency which somehow overcome the structural integrity requirement. Read on if u r interested... Think of it kind of blades on blade where there's an (or set of) identical blade spining on top of already spining base blade. There's no need for those blade to spins so fast way over its structural limit since the combines output of these blades on blades seems to provide similar if not more power output since the top blade output r the multiplication of base blade x top blades, and so on if another level of blades being added - say, 100rpm x 100rpm thus 10,000rpm, may be slightly less due to energy lost in frictions n others, but u get the idea; These were basically the Einstein's relativity encompases. For example, a car moving at 10kmh on say an aircraft carrier (already) moving at 10kmh would produced as the car is moving at 100kmh from 3rd party bystander at still. I may be wrong in my calculations (let alone the Relativity Theory of the great Mr Einsteing or minds like Mr Tesla) since I m not a math prodigy or any sort of scientific fields hobbyist or amateur alike but may be, just may be what I saw in that dream n me presented them here like lunatic (which originates from those who once thought to be crazy n delusional for men to reached the moon - i was told) kicked some real engineers or scientist into these idea and say it may work, and made them work.
Bladed turbines: spins to push air backwards Impulse tuebines: idk Tesla turbine: airflow then moves the discs and makes them spin Bladed x tesla turbine: tesla turbine but with some notches sticking out so air can push against those and it works faster
The turbine itself is highly efficient, however, more often than not, the outside items that would use the turbine tend to downplay the efficiency, in addition to our lack of strong enough materials to stop it from breaking.
I think I just found my display for the science display of the year at my hometown with some work I think I can make a slightly better version (this thing has huge potential if done right)
The problem with that turbine is that every turbine of that kind built until now has torn itself apart because we don't have materials with high enough tensile strength to withstand the forces inside that turbine. It's just that insanely fast.
why can’t the speed be restricted?
@@MattGoss3060because then it defeats the point
@@MattGoss3060where this design really shines is in high speed efficiency. it doesnt make much torque, but what torque it does make it will make at an unbelievably fast rpm. like, several hundred thousand rpms kind of fast, and the faster it spins, the more efficient it gets.
the problem is, at any useful size, the centrifigul forces make the disks explode if they are maxe from any currently known material. we will probably need another breakthrough like the carbon nanotubes to really make this system shine
Am sure Tesla would have found one by now
@@silentbobfan32 *centrifugal... Not centrifigul.
Man, native English speakers are sad.
Seriously, what word ends in "-gul" ???
Don't they teach you suffixes in school ?
Centre -> centrifuge -> centrifugal.
Rotate -> rotation -> rotational.
Last suffix is -al. It has a meaning.
If you wonder "why the spelling does not match the pronunciation ?"
It hints that you're also pronouncing it horribly wrong, butchering all the vowels into a wishy-washy indiscernible mess.
Tesla truly was a genius
THIS COMMENT IS NOW MEANINGLESS 👍🏻
@@Java_RAMand tesla is a serbian last name
@@Java_RAMTesla was a scientist. Later, someone named a car company after him to honor his work.
that too
@@FlorianWendelborn
@@FlorianWendelbornNah bro, obviously someone named their kid after the car. They wanted him to be as smart as elon.
"In theory" is such a lovely phrase
So is, "The stickiness of fluids" 😂
“In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.”
@@HuxTheSergal nobody said "in theory, theory and practice are the same."
its two different thing, with different method and different purpose. if you know theory, you would also know practice isnt the same automatically. it defeats the main point.
Its almost like if you read the next few words of his post, he says they aren't the same. Funny how that works @kom2876
Yeah the reason it’s in theory is that we can’t build a turbine that can withstand that kind of efficiency without self destructing due to the force put on it :)
Hi I did my Master's thesis on this turbine and we have known since at least the early 50's that Tesla's claims of extremely high efficiencies were based on nothing. This is a neat expansion turbine concept for residential scale powers, but on the smaller scale it is surpassed by reciprocating systems and on the larger scale more traditional turbines are actually more efficient. One thing it does have going for it is that it is remarkably quiet, which lends itself well to niche applications like powering rotary dental tools. It is also conveniently easy to make a functioning bladeless turbine, although (as I learned) optimizing the efficiency is more challenging
Thank you for your comment!
I love you man thank you for your input the previous commenters went on a 354 useless comment rant!!!
Hey man, I am an aerospace engineering student in Flight Performance and Propulsion. I'd love to read more about your thesis, is there a way you can send it to me or can I find it somewhere online?
That's not true. Warren Rice did this with fluid air first and it was found to be lower but with steam it was theorized much higher. Rice found that at low flow rates it should be above 95%. The main issue was the flow rate. As it needed lower flow rates meaning it needed more disc's instead of less disc's with a higher flow rate. I would love to read your thesis though if it is published.
@kdog2646 Exactly I hate when people knock on Tesla the Man is Legend and if only Our Governments were not so greedy we could have had a Death Weapon for potential space invaders or even wireless electricity in its final form however peoples greed murdered any chance of things being right in the Universe!
I see some of the problems pointed out about the turbine. If I may add, it's not very powerful either, because it relies entirely on boundary layer effects to produce torque.
You mean low torque or what do you mean by not powerful?
@@ntl9974 yeah I mean low troque
I'm not a mechanical engineer. But are them holes in the middle not similar to blades? I.E catching the "fluid"? Sucking the fluid in and creating Creating a strong vortex.
@@stevenlake5278 Not really. The blades on a real turbine are used for staged compression. In the Tesla turbine the holes just allow the flow to move through into the low pressure zone.
Torque? With the speed these gain yer be swimming in cash in no time me lass. No time 👍🏻
it's super efficient at high speeds! it EXPLODES at high speeds.
Well thats to be expected
Since wind turbine do explode in storm too
@@The_Divergent only if the manual, automatic, and kinetic brakes all fail
@@sam-is-a-humanor if you just use c4 in a storm. wouldn't technically be incorrect in our conversation here
@@Anonymuskid damn you got me there... time to throw out wind power! /j
I'm getting mixed messages
In theory it is more efficient. In practice we're yet to find a material that can be this thin and stand that much g-force to make it actually good.
EDIT: Love the amount of attention here, many creative minds here suggesting cool new materials but I don't think you people imagine quite the amount of forces at play here.
EDIT EDIT EDIT:
Because I'm a moron, I added the diameter of my 1m disc calculation below as a radius. So for 1m disc it's 50% down. The calculations below are actually for a 2m disc. For 1m disc the force at 10000rpm would be something around 13.5 metric tons of force acting on its rim. And that's why you publish your calculations along with your results. So that good people can tell you where have you gone dumb. And now that I've owned my mistakes I can get absolutely wasted for the weekend. Cheers!
EDIT EDIT:
It was pointed out to me that I have made a miscalculation in the example below. Took you people a damn while before somebody actually checked the numbers. I have made a mistake due to some language barrier and I've read 8.559N as 8,559N. It's a subtle difference in text but a big one in mathematics. Three decimal spaces worth of a mistake that is. The 8.559N value is the force acting upon each cubic millimeter of the edge. The actual force working on the last 10mm of the edge of a 1m wide 1mm thick disc is "only" about 27390 kgf or 268604 N (about 27 tons or a large truck worth of goods), that is much less than I calculated previously. I shall keep the original example down below so that you can see what that mistake looks like. Still, 27 tons acting upon the material of the disc and central shaft is still a lot of force.
Just to make sure you can work with my current calculation I've used this calculator: www.omnicalculator.com/physics/centrifugal-force and plugged in 0.0000078 as a mass of a cubic milimeter of steel, 1m radius, and angular velocity of 10000rpm. The calculator will spit out the rest. After that I took the 8.559N result and went 1000 (diameter of the disc in mm) x 3.14 = 3140 (length of the edge of the disc in mm) x 8.559 = 26875.26 (N) x 10 (because the force difference between last 10mm is small enough to be negligible for this purpose.) Then I took the number and ran it through google to find the kilogram force value which is way more friendly to imagine. Don't forget this is only the 10mm outer rim of the disc not the whole disc. In case you find some errors there, make sure you let me know. Preferably, calculate the whole thing yourself so I don't have to. I don't like doing math despite the fact that I respect it and use it.
(THIS ENTIRE CALCULATION IS WRONG! LOOK UP THE NUMBERS ABOVE!
So I went and just for fun made a calculation for a very very basic Tesla turbine. It's single 1mm thick disc (because spherical cow in a vacuum) at 1 meter diameter, at 10000 RPM, made of generic steel. And because I'm lazy we care only about the outer 10mm of the disc, so effectively a spinning circle. The resulting centrifugal force on that disc, is in total over 27500kN of force. About 8770N for every cubic millimeter on the edge of that disc. That's around 28000 metric tons of mass pulling outwards in all directions. That my friends is roughly a USS Texas (BB-35) worth of mass, just casually pulling that disc apart. Titanium weighs at about half of steel. That would be about 14000 metric tons of force. That's why Tesla turbine is not viable. The forces scale at barely imaginable level. Remember that's just one disc, you'll need at least 50 to make that thing worth while.)
yeah don't prototypes keep exploding
Thanks, this is the explanation I was looking for that the video unhelpfully skipped.
Axial flow turbines are above 90% efficiency in power plants. The Tesla turbine has a ways to catch up.
Exactly^
Graphene?
YES... it CAN run with air. You'll see almost EVERY RUclips channel make a variation of the statement "even with air!" However this was not it's original design, and no serious research setup uses air. It was initially designed to run with low viscosity oil - kept inside a pressurized, closed system. This is how our lab is running ours.
The oil creates a 'cushion' of uncompressable, low friction media for the discs. The chamber should have as little space as possible to either side of the disc wheel, and again as little space as possible around the circumference. This keeps the material of the discs from being able to expand, or vibrate, and as such keeping them together through the stresses applied by fluid turbulence or centrifugal force.
very cool- what does your lab do? what's the function of a tesla turbine with oil?
They are meant to be run on steam.
I knew something about this video didn't make sense! How the hell is anything 'flowing to the center' if something spinning pushes things to the edge?! That was just one problem!
Centrifugal force or centripetal force?
@@itsjustthatsimple628perhaps as some sort of pump.
Tesla was so incredible.
It could reach insane efficiency but when you try to use it at full power it does work for a few seconds but then breaks bc of the force on the plates
That's our efficiency problem but if we could make more stronger materials then it could work more efficiently and effectively
You only need a bit more efficiency as other Turbines can generate and you'll fine.
Cucked material sciences crying for not being on a level of a dude who lived over 100 years ago.
Stop complaining and come up with shit that can take it.
@@kapindrasinghrajpoot8779 that’s the only problem the only material that could theoretically withstand that amount of force is diamond. Iron, steel, and other materials failed the test and bent making it unusable
@@Wrutschgeluck well yes it would work but it all depends on how much water is going into it so you would have to make it so only a certain amount of water can go in at once which would be a long process in itself
For someone who says "tomatoes are disgusting", you always have plenty around. Or is that Tomato Lords minions that keep coming after you. Don't know.
Enjoyed the short snd the full video.
Keep your friends close.
Keep your enemies closer.
Some smart guy
They are after him. Everythime a new Tomato Lord rises, he find and destroys them. It's a long drawn feud
Who says tomatoes are disgusting?
What are you talking about?
Why do some people hate tomatoes? It's pretty much staple food in my country and I don't hate it.
The reason this design isnt used today is because its most efficient at extremely high rpm. The problem is that there are very few materials which can withstand the tip velocity at those speeds.
Few as in "none made of matter", u mean?
And the problem of the abysmal torque is also a letdown... :D
False
@@Uberwald93true
@@TheChzoronzontorque is no problem if the horsepower is high. You can always convert it with a gear ratio
@@michaellee8853 But you need to be able to rev up to get all those hp, and gears (which btw add moving mass...) or not, if the torque is low, that's gonna be a problem... in most turbine applications, you can't wait minutes waiting for the system to overcome inertia
All that needs be done is find or create the material that makes this work.
‘All that needs to be done…” Such an unassuming phrase to precede ‘Find or create a material that as far as we know, does not exist.”
@@Beuwen_The_Dragon
All that needs be done is raise a man from the dead.
All that needs be done is put a man on the moon.
All that needs be done is to be understanding.
All that needs be done is to love and live.
God bless, and pleasantries, Friend ☺️❤️
@@Beuwen_The_DragonWhen "all that needs to be done" comes across as more difficult than finally figuring out how to get useful power generation out of fusion reactors lol
@@SnakebitSTI Oh, please... forget about fusion energy!
There are still governments in the world that penalize gay marriage with the death sentence! How could our societies cooperate to achieve something so enlightened? Specially when most people's first reaction when asked about fusion energy is to share their fears about the H-bomb.
On a large scale, people are driven by fear and lust, and our leaders are amongst the worst specimens of our kind. The truth is that we turn good things into shit: we took the limitless potential of nuclear fission and first used it to power war-machines; we created neural networks and we use them to create fake porn and military software; cars went from commodities for the rich to pseudo-mandatory, noisy possessions for the poor.
I don't expect to see fusion reactors in my lifetime because, all things considered, it's more profitable for those above to keep us hoping that we'll get something better than sticks and stones than to satisfy us, us nobodies.
@@Beuwen_The_Dragon ever heard of graphene? The material exists. The cost of making said material just makes this design completely counter productive though
we can save river structures and it's environment along with high electricity production.
Tesla is a God
My question is, if it has the most torque at lower speed would this work better for Micro Hydro for like homesteading, or providing off-grid power to like a cabin off of a small Creek.
I think most torque “low rpm” and highest efficiency at ridiculous speeds if I remember correctly
Depends on the water source depth snd if the water would deteriorate the metal erosion is definitely as issue for long term use age of spinning metal disc in water, rocks and moving things would’ve like sand paper, that’s why rocks in water tend to be smooth ( depends on a lot of things, I think this would work better in a mass Hydro system for a sequence of dams ) what is best for homes is typically not used in dams from what I know it’s basically the same idea of the typical home spinning Hydro system but it’s on its side and guides water around it and then out into the main water system, the best usage of this is because you can route water from the main system down through this have it become at a level path build up and then rush down back into the waterway but if your on a homestead you’d want a couple of systems depending the conditions you live in mid west and more north with harsh winters you’d want to hydro , solar, and wind because you get wind in winter snd sun but they are basically one or the other from my experience living in Montana, my whole life, and then, during the summer when you’re not using us this much electricity, you can build up a lot of power, every summer and spring from the melting snow and ice, as well as the sunny days and the wind all building up power for the winter, and the other two sources just make it so you can mediate your way through winter while you’re using a lot more energy, but you always want to have a generator just in case, if you want one that doesn’t require you to go buy fuel you can make a moonshine one. I just don’t know how efficient it is compared to a gas or diesel because diesel is the best generator. But if you’re over in a place that has a consistent flow of water something that is a mixture of two different Hydro systems would work, but flooding and things like that is always an issue. Personally, I would never feel secure with only one system of getting power besides like the Appalachian mountains because it’s so consistent with the weather there and it’s not too hot or too cold but cold enough where you need stuff during winter
@@Hellothis12157knbhb lol im in the app mountains and have a small creek that runs for the most part constant but there is no real drop across my property to get head pressure from.
@@questionblechoices ahh it would take a good bit of effort to do that I’m in an area where it’s so goddamn Steep it’s pretty easy. ( water runs down the hill so bad on rainy days you can see the erosion that happens after a really rainy week ) I’m in the cabinet mountains so close to the Rockies and there’s a banana belt in my area so I’m in the “warm” part there’s a lot a little random creeks and stuff like that and a lot of humidity and rain. Unlike over east more.
@@Hellothis12157knbhb dont get me wrong my property is still for the most part steep just all runs down to creek. Where its for the most part very little incline from one side to other across bottom part of property then there is a field on the other side. Once a tobacco field.
Don't get your hopes too high fellas.
The turbine is only able to reach high or even reasonably better efficiencies than its turbined counterparts when it achieves super high RPMs. It needs to be rotating so fast that there aren't any light enough or strong enough materials to achieve that speed in the first place without deforming or exploding.
And no it's not some forgotten tech, it's already used in some factories to move/pump viscous liquids.
It annoys me when people dig up failed tech like this and present it as some amazing hidden gem of engineering.
Tesla turbines are neat. They're fun to talk about. They have some very niche real world uses. But they are not good turbines.
@@SnakebitSTI You summarized it very well.
Ive heard that they are used in rotary dental tools because they are much quieter then electric engines or other systems.
I think the strategy of stamping dimples into aluminum was such a big brain move.
likely improves torque but reduces overall efficiency..)/*
@@andretokayuk8100 They exist as spacers, not as extra surface friction. As spacers, I can absolutely guarantee they definitely are the best option I have seen in this particular application. They definitely increase torque, by ensuring that flow rates are spread equally across the multiple surfaces.
@@izzyplusplusplus1004 best part is no part..)/* Thanks for the clarification..)
is also related to Coanda effect and Victor Schaubergers flow studies , pretty much a similar reaction different application , matter is sticky to matter
it uses friction energy loose in form of heat
It’s crazy how every-one of his concepts and ideas are so out of the box
The beauty of the 3, the 6, and the 9
Ahhh yes, the forgotten concept of Nikola Tesla!
"3-6-9, damn you fine
Hoping she can sock it to me one more time
Get low, get low (get low), get low (get low), get low (get low)
To the window (to the window), to the wall (to the wall)"
Lil Jon truly was a wise man
The reason this design couldn’t be used was due to the fact that it is SO efficient that it would spin insanely fast. To this day we lack a material that would be suitable for this
Is adding a mechanism to intentionally slow it down before it gets too fast not an option? At the very least, until we can get stronger materials
@@ibraheemshuaib8954I think at that point, just use a regular turbine 🤷♀️
@@teiyeyia not exactly
The efficiency increases with speed. If you hafe to slow it down its worse than regular turbines
We don't have them cause they don't exists...at least made of conventional matter...
Maybe with unobtanium, adamantium or Star-Trek force fields... :D
I love ur content, keep it up👍👌
This dude is like the Fred Armisen of my science learning!!!! Love it!
It made me double take, they look so similar
This was proven to not work under a load. That's why it's not used. ANYBODY can spin a disk on its own weight.
In theory yes, in practise the efficiency drops once you attach the turbine to the generator as the generator starts generate additional friction in itself. I think the efficiency drops to the rest of the turbines (65 % I think), but the rest of the drawbacks remain that other turbines don't have - like being extremly fragile - they are cheap, but you have to change them more freguently.
Edit: I recalled the main problem, the turbine struggles to generate torque, once attached the the efficiency drops, becouse once the counterforce of additional friction outside the turbine is added, the water friciton isn't enough and water partialy starts to "slip" withouth generating much of a force. Other turbines relly more on being pushed by a mass of water itself.
It is important to note that this turbine has not been put to practical large scale use because it is actually too efficient for its own good. It would perform so well that the forces imparted on the disks would break the turbine
I don't get why people call it "too efficient" instead of saying it cannot be made usefully efficient. Because it cannot be made usefully efficient compared to traditional turbine designs.
It is literally not. The entirety of this comment is wrong.
Rather, the turbine will break BEFORE it starts to perform well. It's a garbage design, the fanboying is ultra cringe.
I love fluid dynamics, it's basically modern day magic once you understand it!
If you think you understand fluid dynamics, it means you don't know enough about it to know what you don't know.
Thanks, Edison
The Coanda effect is so interesting
Missed the best part: a reason we don't/can't use them is because we don't have materials that could scale and still be stable enough to not shatter at that speed
We don't have them cause they don't exists...at least made of conventional matter...maybe with Klingon force fields...
@@TheChzoronzonMan, 3 months ago you must have been DEDICATED to spread the same message across so many different comments, all said different but with the same info. So happy to put down "tesla fanboys" while clueless to how your own actions are just as irrational as the biggest fanboys here.
Makes me want to watch star trek now, ngl.
@@unsuspiciousdweller8967 Yep, I was DEDICATED to that at least for a whole 3 minutes
So "irrational, trying to spread good info... and your butthurt isn't showing up, like at all
:D
Missed the actual best part: conventional turbines reach as high as 90% efficiency already and any load on the tesla turbine is going to make it garbage.
Thats not a very good way to say that.
We don't use this design because the design cannot work at any large scale. Or rather, work efficiently.
A design that cannot be useful without some super material that hasn't been developed yet is a useless design.
Seems like it's using capillary effect but area wise mostly by effect of surface tension... Crazy turbine man !
Capillary effect??? How?
@@WhereNothingOnceWas by necessity of reducing surface tension in close gaps ! ... So it moves inwards reducing the radial distance from the center ! ... then spins the rotor and theoretical 100 %percent efficiency... Theoretically !
@@bhuvanachandrabr4890100% efficiency means all the air going into it is used to spin the rotor and there's no excess air escaping it. That's not gonna happen.
@@Noconstitutionfordemocrats1 it's not volume of air , it's energy beared by the fluid ! ... That's what u got wrong ! 😎 , Ultimately if the energy is transmitted by some means , as according to Rishi kanāda or later by your Newton ... It would mean 100 % efficiency... By the way it's Nicola Tesla that were talking about 😉 ... Still wanna play Nicola Tesla?
@bhuvanachandrabr4890 Doesn't matter, energy beated by the fluid according to your niquiragua can't be 100.
If this turbine is so efficient I hope someone builds a big one to showcase its efficiency.
Nope, its so efficient than its literally dangerous to use current Material and technology to build as well as run the turbine. as it can achieve an astonishing levels of RPMs that any human has ever seen, Such RPMs that even it can destroy the material itself which the turbine is been built. Its Crazy powerful and efficient
@@SainInabanI was wondering why no one ever uses this design.
@@SainInaban Wrong, it becomes more efficient as the speed of the FLUID increases, not the turbine itself, the torque is proportional to the difference in the fluid speed and the disk speed, when the disks is spinning the slowest the fluid speed is moving fastest relative to the disks. This makes the turbine extremely efficient.
The key to is make the fluid high speed while keeping the disk speed low.
@@grimgrahamch.4157It's not used because it's inefficient and heavy.
There. Someone had to say it.
@@SainInabanThe turbines that we currently use have stopping mechanisms to prevent them from spinning too fast in extreme winds. What’s stopping us from having such a mechanism with these turbines? Surely if they were more efficient per dollar spent on them we could use a similar stopping mechanism and install these ones instead. Must be another reason they’re not used.
Insanely high levels of efficiency until the discs deform and fly apart.
It's so freaking amazing how long ago where knowledge was still being written and understanded that they were able to figure all of this out in their life time!!!!
I want to see you work on Hydrogen fuel engine
Hey thanks for the comment. ❤️🔥🙏 to be clear though all combustion engine can operate on hydrogen. Some need a few minor changes but designing an engine to run on hydrogen is very simple and straight forward.
Additionally turbines don’t need any change to operate on it. They just change out the fuel nozzles in the combustion can to properly accommodate hydrogen mixing with the air.
The issue with hydrogen isn’t making an engine that can run on it, it’s making the hydrogen in an efficient and sustainable manner as electrolysis is terribly inefficient, as well as storage and transportation of hydrogen is terrible. It either has to have huge tanks or be compressed to very very high pressures requiring a lot of energy.
@@CharlieSolis Hey thanks for sharing your knowledge. perhaps I know these things and much more since I'm a mechanical engineer and working on Hydrogen fuel engine. So like you said engine is not a problem but getting hydrogen and storing it in safer way is harder.. so I'm working on it to improvise these flaws. So i want someone who can make people know about these things.. also I need a 3d printer which I cannot afford since I'm a student 😐.. So all I need is some help.. Love from India 🇮🇳
@@TejaSays oh that’s super cool! We need more people like you!
What sort of solutions are you looking into for this?
@@CharlieSolis Yeah.. It's a long and complex process.. But in short I can say as solidifying the fuel.. which in turn arises some other problems too.. so working on it.. and i hope this isn't a right platform to discuss it..
@@TejaSaysthe wankel or Rotary engine would be perfect as a hydrogen engine as the intake side stays cold preventing pre Detonation/ knocking. They also come with less parts and smaller weight. So they would be suitable for propeller aircraft
Have gotten my aluminum and stainless steel TT up to 43k only due to the failure of the bearings.
Is is actually one of the issues with the tesla turbine. the turbine unds up spinning so fast that the material its made up can't handle it.
@@Tinhead426 my problem was just the bearings, couldn't afford the high Rpm style. My TT was a half scale of Teslas design the shaft was 5/8 stainless hex bar for the stainless discs. Turned down for 3/8 bearings.
What if you rotate the axle sideways and let it rest on magnetic repulsion? (Like if you had a north facing magnet on the bottom of the axle and a north facing one in the pit under it, sort of like those "floating" desk toys? ) 🤔
@@FractalNinja I thought that at the time just never developed a way to do it.
@@FractalNinjait would have to be some very strong magnets. See NileRed’s recent short on antigravity magnetism and it’s only a super tiny piece of bismuth that he can float with his rig. I’m not sure it would be feasible in a full size situation.
i wish there was a way to only sub for full videos - getting notifications for shorts that have content that was already in the long video kinda makes me want to not get notifications
👍 Wonderful bledless model turbine work you have shared! Thank you very much for sharing.
It's so efficient we don't currently have a material that can handle the speeds it spins at
"Insanely high levels of efficency"
What is considered that? Large steam turbines can reach up to 90% efficinency so is it less or more?
IThinkItRefersToTheFactThatItBecomesVeryOverunity.
territories where you count the nr of 9's after the comma
Along with the fact it tears itself apart, it also doesn't actually have that much turning power. If you were to hook it up to a generator or something that would allow it to produce energy, it would slow to a crawl, or even stop completely, which is why it never ended up being used.
Tesla fixed that problem with more plates it just comes around to the lacking of materials
I watched this when it came out.
RUclips just gave me a notification letting me know that you released this short.
I hate RUclips.
It's like a week old...
Yes. I watched it a week ago and RUclips advertised this as a new video in my notifications yesterday.
RUclips is being stupid, that is all.
@@ryla22 ok that is all thank you I am a robot
The fluid flows into the plates forming friction. Using that friction and the fact that it goes to the center of the plates the plates spin and that is how it works
Disks need to be made of nearly weightless material to minimize centrifugal force problems.
As a tomato, I cn confirm I levitate due to cumpressed air
“...’cumpressed’ air.” Hey! We don’t need to hear about your kinky sex life and what you do with rapidly flowing air, thank you. Or is this just a Scotsman’s description of his girlfriend’s coif after sex? 😂
I have talked to mechanics about the Telsa pump and they laughed the fluid has to be pure with no contamination or the pump will get jammed that why you don't see it more often
its very efficient in theory but
1. breaks at high speed
2. loses efficiency when a load is applied and is roughly efficient as a normal turbine
3. generally hard to swap out all our turbines for a less useful turbine
You just prove how amazing was Tesla as an inventor
It can in theory be the most efficient turbine possible, problem is in order to reach said efficiency levels (potentially higher than 97%) it needs to spin at insanely high RPMs which will literally rip the turbine apart every single time due to centrifugal forces plus heat due to friction. This turbine just cannot work irl
I'll have to build one sometime to experiment with!
hey thanks for commenting. 🙏❤️🔥 I really appreciate the love and support. So just to be clear I do have a degree in physics and many years of working with industrial machines. And now I don’t want to discourage you but I need to be abundantly clear though that sadly, these are not toys. They are VERY dangerous if not designed or handled properly. I do not advise anyone who doesn’t already have a background in mech engineering/physics etc. to attempt to make one of them on their own. If you wouldn’t feel comfortable taking apart a jet engine and putting it back together and know that it would work properly again then I would think twice about taking on this endeavor. That being said. If you would like to start I would suggest by consuming as many mechanical engineering class videos as you can on RUclips. Learn all the thermodynamics behind steam and gas turbines. Specifically for Tesla turbines it requires a great deal more chemistry due to the Tesla turbine operating on molecular viscous adhesive forces between the fluid and discs and not in mechanical collisions with the blades like traditional blades turbine. So making sure to have the right surface treatments for the proper motive fluid is very important too. “Don’t French fry when you’re supposed to pizza or you’re gonna have a bad time.”
I want to be explicitly clear with people just how dangerous this is. It’s easy to see the turbine not doing much other than spinning and think it’s not that difficult.
But to put some perspective on it….
The ~25cm (10in) diameter 75disc aluminum turbine is 4.36kg (~9.5lbs)
So whenever anyone see this turbine spinning they need to imagine a literal 10in diameter 10lb dumbbell weight spinning at 7,000-13,000rpm 🤯🥵😅
At 13,000rpm the turbine rotor has 30,000joules of rotational kinetic energy.
For perspective, that’s about equivalent to: 5-10% of the kinetic energy of a whole car at highway speeds.
If that stored kinetic energy were to be used to launch itself straight up into the air…
KE = gravPE = mgH
H = KE / m / g
= (30,000joules) / (4.26kg) / (9.81m/s^2)
= 708 meters straight up into the air… 🤯
~3/4 of a kilometer or ~0.45miles.
Thank you for the information, I will be cautious and learn more about the turbine before I make it.
but is it actually better?
Torque is crap tho
It can be quite good, to my knowledge. The torque is really low, though.
If it was, we would use it
Historically, the main thing holding it back was material integrity. They would spin so fast they'd literally tear themselves apart regardless of material.
@@sirnikkel6746hey thanks for the comment. But this isn’t accurate.
The Tesla turbine outputs plenty of torque and power even at low RPM IF designed correctly.
We’ve more than proved this with our 10in diameter Tesla turbine and now further proved this with our 4.5in diameter Tesla turbine we built for integza.
The preliminary tests are just to see how much electrical power can be produced with room temp compressed air driving the Tesla turbine.
6.22ft-Ibs of torque at only 4150rpm and +4.25kW between 6000-12,000 rpm to the shaft too.
The TesTur nozzles never went over 20psi at the nozzle for the 2650watt electrical load test and not over 40psi at the nozzle for the 4250watt dyno test.
This is so I can get a baseline for what to expect as I increase the temps to combustion levels.
When using elastic gasses the counterintuitive thing most overlook is that the viscosity of gasses goes up with temp.
So not only do we see an increase in thermodynamic efficiency from increased temps but the TesTur isentropic efficiency also goes up due to the reduced slip from the increased viscosity.
Only problem is that they produce zero torque :(
In the full video, it shows it can produce torque.
Depends on their mass and inertia no?
😯!🤦🏾♂️..Most ingenious concepts are oftenly so simple.And nobody never think about theses.Until someone does,lol!.😅👍🏾Well done!Remarkable!
A lot of people think about these concpts. Until you reach a dead end. It seems that people think that it it is easy to make these concepts real. But these concepts often exclude major problems or disadvantages. Some problems only show up during development and are not easy to solve, especially if there are no materials that can withstand the conditions in which they are used. (for example: stress, heat, corrosion)
We could probably have an entire documentary series about the inventions Tesla created and how they’ve impacted society.
Wait...being nice to tomatoes??? What happened? The tomato union call???😂
Ah yes, TO-MA-TO-ES!
So many things Tesla came up with is so advanced that we can actually apply into our daily lives when we're ready.
make it with textured carbide disks and fluid supported ceramic bearings so the fluids exert more friction increasing torque vs rpm while the disks float freely under pressure similar to how a turbo works
I read about this turbine years ago. It uses some kind of principle based on friction. I think he determined that 3 mm was the magic gap distance between the disc. It actually worked to good.
It didn't, mostly because the plates deform before it becomes efficient destroying the whole thing.
The problem is durability. At this moment we dosent have a material that can withstand that force with big energy outputs. Tesla turbine made from titanium broke down and small fractions became projectiles and destroy the turbine and the surroundings.
The high efficiency achieve when the turbine spin extremely fast. On the other hand, the turbing will turn out to fail on such spin because of the tensile strength of the turbine material
I can see it work if its used in a gear based system where you use multiple turbines hooked around a central gear and it spins all the turbines while the gear in the center offers the mild resistance by syncing the motion to all turbines... So if one turbine needs to go faster, all others also needs this same momentum.
I watch 2 of your videos and boom I'm subbed good content
I had a 87 Grand National so I recommend a Garrett turbo . They've been around for many years.
I remember making a rudimentary version using cds and they're case.. and washers .... should try running this with is single piston engine and his valves the records of its HP were something rediculously effective for its time!
Another problem with the Tesla turbine was the very low reaction force it’s able to impart. Because it takes a lot of air to get it spinning, it’s hard to use in any high-power or high-torque applications
Cool anyways here’s a brownie recipe
Ingredients:
• 1/2 cup (115g) unsalted butter
• 1 cup (200g) granulated sugar
• 1/2 cup (90g) packed brown sugar
• 2 large eggs
• 1 teaspoon vanilla extract
• 1/3 cup (40g) unsweetened cocoa powder
• 1/2 cup (65g) all-purpose flour
• 1/4 teaspoon salt
• 1/4 teaspoon baking powder
• 1/2 cup (90g) chocolate chips or chunks (optional for extra gooeyness)
Instructions:
1. Preheat your oven to 350°F (175°C). Grease an 8x8-inch (20x20cm) baking pan and line it with parchment paper, leaving an overhang for easy removal.
2. Melt the butter in a saucepan over medium heat, then remove from heat and let cool slightly.
3. Add the granulated sugar, brown sugar, eggs, and vanilla extract to the melted butter. Whisk until smooth.
4. Sift in the cocoa powder, flour, salt, and baking powder. Stir until just combined (don’t overmix).
5. Fold in the chocolate chips or chunks if using.
6. Pour the batter into the prepared pan and smooth the top.
7. Bake for 20-25 minutes, or until a toothpick inserted in the center comes out with a few moist crumbs (avoid overbaking for fudgy brownies).
8. Let cool in the pan, then lift out using the parchment paper overhang and slice into squares.
Tips:
• For an extra fudge factor, refrigerate the brownies for an hour before serving.
• Feel free to add nuts or a sprinkle of sea salt on top before baking!
Tesla is just genius
As a man and a doctor I respect engineering
In theory, it’s great. In practice, spinning a turbine of the diameter needed for practical applications at the speeds needed for it to have an efficiency advantage over conventional turbines results in rapid unscheduled disassembly.
So what you’re telling me is that once again, we’ve proven that Tesla was a genius. And we’re only appreciating him now?!
Tesla is easily the most brilliant mechanical inventor of all time!
Not really, it's easy to make miracle machines that work in theory and hard to make practical machines that work. Tesla did the former.
@@jackorton821 😂😂😂
@@danacoleman4007 there's a reason he died nearly broke, with his fame in tatters, with a pigeon for a wife.
Perhaps an approach of not using metal and a denser fluid acting as the disks themselves powered by a fluid that will not mix with it.
The other problem with Tesla’s turbine is that too much slip between fluid and disc surface ruins the boundary layer performance and efficiency fall off very quickly. This stall does happen with bladed turbines but it’s far more difficult and usually means there are other problems.
Basically a viscous coupled limited slip differential
works with air and with corrosive or dense materials but worn fast as heck and loss a lot of speed when you apply a force over it
and theres the tendency to self destruction
the most efficient design is the nuclear powerplants turbines
Titanium alloyed with magnesium would probably be the most suitable material for experimental applications
When we have a material that can withstand this amount of force I’m excited to see how turbines change
Sir rooftop wind and bladeless wind both basic working principle inside show please
It is not just theory. It is indeed more efficient and easier to build then other regular turbines. The problem the centripitle force. We have no material to withstand these stresses at such scales. Means we can't spin the blades fast enough to even start to become a competitor to regular turbines.
My college staffs showing your video to explain about how turbines work .
Commenting this as he’s showing this vid 😅
@@johanan_offl 😂
Nikola Tesla was so damn underrated for his time man, I like to think that he was born ahead of his time
Tesla was truly ahead of his time.
Still! Very interesting design that opens up unlimited creativity in design tweaking for practical model.
Stack five of these on top of each otherbso the fluid from one feeds down into the one underneath
Liquid piston. Check it out
It doesn't transfer speed. It transfers energy, which can be observed using quantifiers like speed.
Since the force interaction is driven by the 'stickiness' as put in the video, where the air 'pulls' the discs along as it travels along its surface, the air imparts less torque, so to provide the same power (and efficiency) Tesla turbines have to spin insanely fast. The consequence is the centrifugal forces will tear the discs apart. The equation for centrifugal acceleration is A = V^2/R, so the quadratic relationship between velocity and acceleration, and thus force, means a doubling of velocity equals a quadrupling of tensile stress. So to reach the same power and efficiency as conventional turbines, the discs have to be subjected to incredibly high tensile stress. So far, with current materials this has not been found to be viable, but with future materials that have a greater tensile yield to density ratio, it could become commonplace.
Tesla was so genius that even physics tried to stop him from succeeding 💀
It is efficient, when it has no resistance applied to it but once you add a resister, for say generating power, it's efficiency drops hard.
Read about how material strength deterring its further development n dwployment. I been thinking (and once saw, kid u not in a dream) where "they" employed somekind of fractal structure which kind of circumnavigate these structural limit. They (again, "they") employed repetitive structure over the prior or base structure thus kind of creating multi level operating speed n efficiency which somehow overcome the structural integrity requirement.
Read on if u r interested...
Think of it kind of blades on blade where there's an (or set of) identical blade spining on top of already spining base blade.
There's no need for those blade to spins so fast way over its structural limit since the combines output of these blades on blades seems to provide similar if not more power output since the top blade output r the multiplication of base blade x top blades, and so on if another level of blades being added - say, 100rpm x 100rpm thus 10,000rpm, may be slightly less due to energy lost in frictions n others, but u get the idea;
These were basically the Einstein's relativity encompases. For example, a car moving at 10kmh on say an aircraft carrier (already) moving at 10kmh would produced as the car is moving at 100kmh from 3rd party bystander at still.
I may be wrong in my calculations (let alone the Relativity Theory of the great Mr Einsteing or minds like Mr Tesla) since I m not a math prodigy or any sort of scientific fields hobbyist or amateur alike but may be, just may be what I saw in that dream n me presented them here like lunatic (which originates from those who once thought to be crazy n delusional for men to reached the moon - i was told) kicked some real engineers or scientist into these idea and say it may work, and made them work.
I would love to see this combined with a Sterling engine
Bladed turbines: spins to push air backwards
Impulse tuebines: idk
Tesla turbine: airflow then moves the discs and makes them spin
Bladed x tesla turbine: tesla turbine but with some notches sticking out so air can push against those and it works faster
It's an impeller. The turbine is the whole assembly.
So, radial wound spider silk or flash graphene-reinforced CF composite isn't good enough?
Nicole Tesla was truly ahead of his time
The true genius
The turbine itself is highly efficient, however, more often than not, the outside items that would use the turbine tend to downplay the efficiency, in addition to our lack of strong enough materials to stop it from breaking.
He was truly ahead of his time
I think I just found my display for the science display of the year at my hometown with some work I think I can make a slightly better version (this thing has huge potential if done right)