Boundary Layer Turbine Open Discussion Thread

[evolvingape]

Hi Everyone,

I have been knocking back a few brewskis tonight and decided to get into a subject I have been avoiding. So please feel free to point out any errors or differences in opinion. If they are valid then the chances are when I have sobered up I will agree with you

The reason I have been avoiding this subject is differences in perception. What is good for one is not necessarily good for another.

So, lets talk about torque and horsepower...

Here are some background links:

http://craig.backfire.ca/pages/autos/horsepower

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080617174840AA8WBUV

http://www.largiader.com/articles/torque.html

http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html

http://www.allpar.com/eek/hp-vs-torque.html

http://flatironsrally.typepad.com/faq/2008/04/what-is-the-dif.html

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2215/whats-the-difference-between-horsepower-and-torque

This is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg when it comes to this subject, which is another reason why I have avoided it up until now...

What we are interested in here is how it relates to the performance of a turbine, anyone notice that all these links are primarily based around ICE engines ?

This is because the ICE is the only thing you have been allowed to have up until now. An ICE is very good at rate of change of power, which is mainly due to the gearbox. Without the gearbox it would not matter how much fuel you dumped into the chamber, your rate of change of acceleration would not be impressive, as anyone who has tried to pull away from the lights in 4th gear knows.

Turbines are different. They are designed to operate at very high constant RPM with very high torque with no rate of change. What this means is that they will put a very high power constant into a load at a stable RPM.

This is important to us because it means we can supply the process with a constant rate of fuel for a given power output over a set time.

A turbine is most efficient in this regard and this is why we use it to power a permanent magnet alternator, which is also a device that likes a constant power input.

So we are converting that power into electricity which we then use in a DC motor to create a rotary moment.

DC motors do not like a gearbox because they create rapid increases in load which creates resistance which creates heat which burns the motors out, as the guys behind the Tesla electric car found out, to their expense.

So, what we want is a turbine that operates at high torque and high constant RPM, with a stable load, and produces electricity via the PMA. This will allow us to use a DC motor without a gearbox.

The great thing about a DC motor is that they do not need a gearbox and perform well over the entire RPM range with bags of torque and high rate of change ability.

Basically, what I am saying is, you need a HHO powered turbine, running a PMA, which is buffered by the battery bank, and which provides energy on demand to the DC motor.

Imagine a DC motor in the engine bay that has the same weight as an ICE. Trillions of $ have been spent on the ICE development over the last 100 years, a tiny fraction of that on the electric option. Will the performance be that different ?

Now imagine you can process your own fuel on demand...

http://www.ev-propulsion.com/motors.html

RM