• Welcome to engineeringclicks.com
• Holy Grail of Mechanical Design?

Discussion in 'The Leisure Lounge' started by Paul T, Oct 21, 2012.

Joined:
Oct 2012
Posts:
392
0
2.
3. Paul TWell-Known Member

Joined:
Oct 2012
Posts:
392
0
Nikola Tesla - The Problem of Increasing Human Energy - 1900

“Here, then, was an idea which, if realizable, afforded a happy solution of the problem of getting energy from the medium. But was it realizable? I convinced myself that it was so in a number of ways, of which one is the following. As regards heat, we are at a high level, which may be represented by the surface of a mountain lake considerably above the sea, the level of which may mark the absolute zero of temperature existing in the interstellar space. Heat, like water, flows from high to low level, and, consequently, just as we can let the water of the lake run down to the sea, so we are able to let heat from the earth's surface travel up into the cold region above. Heat, like water, can perform work in flowing down, and if we had any doubt as to whether we could derive energy from the medium by means of a thermopile, as before described, it would be dispelled by this analogue. But can we produce cold in a given portion of the space and cause the heat to flow in continually? To create such a "sink," or "cold hole," as we might say, in the medium, would be equivalent to producing in the lake a space either empty or filled with something much lighter than water. This we could do by placing in the lake a tank, and pumping all the water out of the latter. We know, then, that the water, if allowed to flow back into the tank, would, theoretically, be able to perform exactly the same amount of work which was used in pumping it out, but not a bit more. Consequently nothing could be gained in this double operation of first raising the water and then letting it fall down. This would mean that it is impossible to create such a sink in the medium. But let us reflect a moment. Heat, though following certain general laws of mechanics, like a fluid, is not such; it is energy which may be converted into other forms of energy as it passes from a high to a low level. To make our mechanical analogy complete and true, we must, therefore, assume that the water, in its passage into the tank, is converted into something else, which may be taken out of it without using any, or by using very little, power. For example, if heat be represented in this analogue by the water of the lake, the oxygen and hydrogen composing the water may illustrate other forms of energy into which the heat is transformed in passing from hot to cold. If the process of heat transformation were absolutely perfect, no heat at all would arrive at the low level, since all of it would be converted into other forms of energy. Corresponding to this ideal case, all the water flowing into the tank would be decomposed into oxygen and hydrogen before reaching the bottom, and the result would be that water would continually flow in, and yet the tank would remain entirely empty, the gases formed escaping. We would thus produce, by expending initially a certain amount of work to create a sink for the heat or, respectively, the water to flow in, a condition enabling us to get any amount of energy without further effort. This would be an ideal way of obtaining motive power. We do not know of any such absolutely perfect process of heat-conversion, and consequently some heat will generally reach the low level, which means to say, in our mechanical analogue, that some water will arrive at the bottom of the tank, and a gradual and slow filling of the latter will take place, necessitating continuous pumping out. But evidently there will be less to pump out than flows in, or, in other words, less energy will be needed to maintain the initial condition than is developed by the fall, and this is to say that some energy will be gained from the medium. What is not converted in flowing down can just be raised up with its own energy, and what is converted is clear gain. Thus the virtue of the principle I have discovered resides wholly in the conversion of the energy on the downward flow.”

4. Paul TWell-Known Member

Joined:
Oct 2012
Posts:
392
0
The atmospheric air bearing was patented by Westinghouse in 1904. Tesla took this to the next level and patented his turbine in Britain in 1910 and in US in 1911 and altogether 21 different countries. One of the secrets was the hidden air bearings which allowed a colossal frictionless RPM to be achieved. I rediscovered Tesla's air bearing design in December 2018. My research partner in Idaho youtuber "I Energy Supply" built a number of these prototypes recently. In this video is prototype 2. We will be releasing more information regarding air bearings and displaying further prototypes.

The faster the air speed the more locked the rotor becomes. Last night a 10lb weight was put on the rotor and it still centralised.

A tapered disc in a tapered casing isn't going anywhere and is very stable.

Tesla patented a rotor without an axle in 1921 in British patent 186,082.

The discs are keyed to a spindle.

The design works without bearings using an axle and also without bearings or an axle

I'd like to seize the moment here and add that if you have a diverging nozzle with an air tap and a port.

You can use the port to start the rotor to get up to idle speed and open the air tap slowly and you can then remove the compressed air and it will run on its own from the heat in air as the rotor creates a large heat sink and a vacuum in the casing.

This is the real way of using the machine as a "Thermodynamic Prime Mover" intended by Nikola Tesla!

Using RPM you have unlimited power!

Welcome to the Holy Grail of Mechanical Engineering guys! ;-)

5. Mark_ArmstrongActive Member

Joined:
Jan 2019
Posts:
44
0
Any chance that you are misunderstanding what you are observing?

6. Paul TWell-Known Member

Joined:
Oct 2012
Posts:
392
0
Here is a preview of what almost frictionless bearings can look like. Next comes completely frictionless!

7. s.weinbergWell-Known MemberEngineeringClicks Expert

Joined:
Nov 2012
Posts:
341
0
Suggested experiment:
Mount the same bearings, the same distance apart, with the same support, and the same shaft. Mount a disk of approximately the same weight of the same width and diameter to the center. Do not enclose the system.
Spin it up to 1500 RPM and do a comparison of how fast the RPM drops.

EDIT: Sorry, 2000 RPM, it seems on another quick look at your video

8. Paul TWell-Known Member

Joined:
Oct 2012
Posts:
392
0
I did an experiment with the inlet casing off like this:

I just compared the two from the point of 730rpm

The rotor takes 7 minutes to stop in the video without the inlet casing.

The video previous posted is 10 minutes 45 seconds.

Now you could say that this difference is caused by me preloading the bearings. However I did the same test with inlet casing off and it was 7 minutes 40 seconds.

So over three minutes difference.

I would be happy to film this if you want to see for yourself.

When you hit a certain rpm the water vapour condenses into cloud causing an implosion. This adds energy to the rotor. It also mean a De Laval (diverging) nozzle can be used to create a draft through the machine.

We have seen the effect in some of our turbine featured in the 2nd experiment of the next video:

9. s.weinbergWell-Known MemberEngineeringClicks Expert

Joined:
Nov 2012
Posts:
341
0
I don't have time to watch the videos right now, but if there is a reduction in your system, I'd chalk it up to securing the bearings properly. With the top off, there's nothing to hold the bearings in place from the topside. I'd wager any significant difference in energy losses takes place there.

EDIT: And/Or, it's possible you get pressure-related losses every time the air enters or exits your half-container, similar to expansion/contraction points in a piping system

Last edited: Apr 11, 2019
10. Mark_ArmstrongActive Member

Joined:
Jan 2019
Posts:
44
0
The next venture...

Attached Files:

• Wind Farm.jpg
File size:
57.2 KB
Views:
157

Joined:
Nov 2012
Posts:
341