Hi Everyone,
I have started this thread to create an opportunity for us all to brainstorm ideas on boundary layer turbines. For a long time it has been assumed that Tesla's original design was pretty close to optimum for this type of turbine.
The recent developments of Ken Riely's Winglet design, and my own suggestions on adding an electrolytic function have shown that further development is possible. This is all new territory, and I thought it might be advantageous if we had a place to kick ideas around amongst ourselves.
I have been doing some thinking about the efficiency potential of multiple stage boundary layer turbine systems. I have previously commented on how it is not possible to harness the exhaust fluid of BLT's to use in an additional compression stage, because the very act of restricting the exhaust flow to compress it for a second stage, creates a back pressure that reduces the efficiency of the first stage turbine itself.
So I put my thinking cap on and came up with a new concept...
I have already punted the I0toMax design, which uses Disc Coil Generators within the stack of the turbine itself to generate a secondary HHO output. If we keep the steam temperature at around 250 C or less then when combined with the heat generated by the turbine in operation it may well remain below 350 C, which would mean that we can use a simple neodymium magnet I0toMax design to generate the electricity we need for a HHO output from fluid pressure.
For new readers this thread is here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10609.0
The multiple stages of the system are powered by rotary moment output from the driven turbines. Currently the exhaust gases are wasted.
So, I wondered what would happen if we applied a vacuum to the first stage driven turbine exhaust. It would be very simple to do, as we already have the concept of powering a BLT Pump from rotary moment.
So I guess the question is would an applied vacuum to the exhaust fluid affect the efficiency of the driven turbine positively or negatively ?
It would be more efficient to create a pump pressure head in this way harnessing the exhaust gases than spinning up a static fluid to the same pressure.
Also, as we could expand the multiple stages of the turbines in this way until rotary moment was expended then most of the energy supplied by the pressurised initial prime mover fluid would be consumed. There will be lots of stages all producing HHO as a secondary output.
So any thoughts on an applied vacuum ?
RM :)
Hi Everyone,
Following on from my comments previously about the possibility of an applied vacuum to the exhaust fluid being able to effectively conserve this energy I have put up a new graphic for you.
The basic premise of this is that a driver turbine and a driven pump are combined into one housing.
I have marked the fluid inlet and outlet points on the graphic, in practice they will be part of the housing structure, and not part of the disc stack as it appears. I just wanted to show you where they are located.
The fluid will be injected into the driver turbine as with standard boundary layer designs and the Winglets will then deflect the fluid flow imparting torque to the disc stack and therefore the shaft.
The fluid will then be directed over the disc coil generators which will be spun to generate an electrical potential and polarise the discs in the stack.
The fluid will be exhausted from the driver turbine parallel to the shaft and enter the driven pump section parallel to the shaft. It will then turn the pump section DCG's also generating an electrical potential, before being thrown out under centrifugal force to the exhaust outlet.
Because the pump is driven from the rotary moment of the driver turbine as per I0toMax specification we are able to combine both the turbine and pump into one housing.
This makes it very simple to manufacture identical turbine / pump devices and connect the fluid flow in series. This will allow multiple units to fully maximise energy extraction and conversion from the pressurised fluid.
The fluid inlets to the driver turbine can hold a HELIS insert for fluid injection, and the fluid exhaust pressure in the pump section can be controlled by inserts that control the bore diameter and therefore the flow rate and pressure.
It will be very simple to bolt multiple units to a bench and simply connect them with pipes via fittings. This should allow a multiple turbine / pump stage to be easily built with the purpose being to extract all the energy from the fluid by the time it enters the reservoir.
This should allow maximum exploitation of energy extraction from the fluid and through careful selection of ratios and energy conversion will allow maximum opportunity to generate HHO from fluid pressure alone.
This HHO can then be combusted as a prime mover fuel to drive a rotary turbine in a new closed system.
So what do you all think ? Will it work ?
RM :)
Hi Everyone,
The graphic of the combined turbine and pump I put up before is incorrect, it will not perform the function of applying a vacuum to the driver turbine section. The back pressure from the exhaust outlet will bleed around the gaps between disc edges and inner housing and impair efficiency of the rotor.
The new graphic is correct and has a static central dividing plate that is part of the housing and effectively will allow both devices to be housed together. The gap near the shaft functioning as turbine exhaust and pump inlet will perform the same function as a connecting hose would between separate turbine and pump devices.
You can control the amount of vacuum applied to the turbine exhaust by either adding more discs to the pump section than the turbine section, or by using larger inter disc gaps in the pump than the turbine. I would go with slightly larger gaps in the pump section, as adding more discs might create balance issues.
At least we now have an example of what will not work as well as what should work.
RM :)
Hi Everyone,
This technology has come to my attention:
http://www.safehho.com/index.html
http://www.safehho.com/thetruth.html
This is important for what we are talking about here for a number of reasons...
As I have mentioned before Titanium is what is used in traditional hot gas axial turbines. This is because its strength to weight properties are tremendous and also because it can withstand incredibly high temperatures without critical failure.
It now also appears that a process has been discovered to coat the plates in such a way that they are very desirable as a HHO producing system.
So...
My advice would be:
Verify that this technology does what it says on the tin.
Prototype HELTS technology using cheap and easily available 316L.
What we are looking for here is the most efficient design for maximum HHO production from HELT technology, so we need to discover the optimum:
Disc Spacing
Disc Stack Number
Disc Diameter
Turbine RPM
Input Pressure
Pulse Width Modulation
Environment Pressure
Environment Temperature
Electrolyte Solution
When we know all these variables, they will become constants, at this point it will be advantageous to use the Titanium plating for the Discs as a final pre-production prototype.
Titanium is going to offer huge advantages in Hydro Electro Lytic Turbine Systems. This is just the beginning, the potential for RotoMax CSC is also very exciting for those of us that fantasise about a pulsed detonation plasma impulse engine...
So, I have produced a new design to maximise the potential of this new material in standard HELTS technology. We can see from the graphic that a central driver turbine produces torque on the output shaft as with traditional turbine systems.
The shaft drives a hydro electro lytic pump(s) with titanium plates and utilises I0toMax technology to produce a secondary HHO output. This should maintain a nice rotor balance.
The rotary moment is available to be tapped as in traditional systems, the secondary output in the form of HHO prime mover fuel can also be tapped... twice in this example... if you were to consume the entire rotary moment output with I0toMax pumps, how many HHO trees could you create as a prime mover in a HHO driven RotoMax system ?
Those of you attempting to calculate the theoretical efficiency of these systems must be having a mathematical nightmare without hard data...
RM :)
RM :)
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 :)