Build a 15,000 rpm Tesla Turbine using hard drive platters
9 Steps

## Step 9: Complete turbine and movie

Please post (or email me) any questions or comments and I'll do my best to answer them.

Steven
Remove these ads by Signing Up
maikel2 says: May 4, 2013. 3:46 AM
a conventional rotary compressor runs more than 100k rpm to develop vacuum to sucks outside air continuously thus compressed it.if this device run at that speed can it become a compressor???
FFX says: Sep 17, 2012. 6:07 PM
Make a good gearbox and put it to a generator which will charge the compressor ;)
4lifenerdfighter says: Nov 2, 2012. 11:05 AM
Law of conservation of energy prevents this. Gear backlash, for example? Air speed being lost to exhaust?
bart.p says: Jun 3, 2012. 11:21 PM
great project! have you ever done any test on how much vacuum this thing can generate? im currently designing a turbine that would pump air and have the shaft spun with an electric motor, one of my constrains is the intake size so i need to suck in as much air as possible and preferably compressed it as well
bart.p says: Jun 3, 2012. 11:22 PM
den316a says: May 8, 2012. 8:38 AM
my Question is how much torck does this have can u run a generator off of it?
chairchild says: Oct 24, 2010. 4:25 PM
if you added some exhaust port, in-line with the cutouts on the disc, efficiency would increase massively. The way it's working in this setup, is pretty much choking the output down to pitiful levels - easily one of the nicest-looking ones I've seen in a while though

and the perpetual motion comments? LMAO!!
KimberlyP says: Jan 10, 2012. 1:32 AM
Remember that Lord Kelvin was LMAO about the idea of powered flight!

If perpetual in the sense of forever, well highly improbable.

As to coupled occilator's with irreversible flows it happens in biology.

Thermodynamics
While the 1st law seems on the sturdiest ground experimentally.
The 2nd law as applied to thermodynamics is about energy density. Objects at a particular temperature if unrestricted by activation energies move spontaneously from high to low, and from dense to less dense.

3rd law that you can never break even except at 0 Kelvin is the add on law that may be cracked and or found exceptions too. Zeroth Law is just common sense as the commutative law of addition. It sets T.

3rd law is valid when considering reversible flows, but if one looks at coupled occilator s using irreversible flows out of phase one can see immediately that this is not necessarily so.

As to Boltzman you can argue that with irreversible flows that the state is not exactly returned to the same probabilistic state as before, but the averages can be! Think about that! That fits right in with Poincare thinking which informed Boltzmans work. So there is times arrow locally and as we extend the domain we get back to symmetry. Something exhibited in the real world, in chaos theory, and many other physical phenomena. Geometrically we can think of fractals.

So while it is true that in a simple expression of reversible processes the 3rd law is true, that we can only break even at 0 K and also can never reach 0 K because of Zeroth. We can always couple irreversible flows, which from a probabilistic standpoint cannot return to original state, but from a physical energy standpoint can return to the same average energy.
Jar Sqwuid says: Nov 16, 2011. 3:53 PM
Perpetual energy? That's all fine and dandy if you can find metal that will never rust or corrode, or other materials that are otherwise impervious to the various elements. As well as trying to complete Tesla's failed project to transmit energy wirelessly, because otherwise you're going to need a load of veeeeerrrrrryyyy long extension cables.

Awesome project, really :) I wanna try it!
T_T_ says: Nov 21, 2011. 10:39 AM
tesla's wireless energy plan didn't fail, it was canceled.
raybent says: Apr 11, 2011. 11:17 AM
Actually, perpetual "motion" is entirely possible - you just have to choose the correct speed. Once adjusted to the correct speed, the friction reduces to zero. Hence it will run at that speed forever. The correct speed? Zero. Remember - zero is a valid number.
beehard44 says: Nov 16, 2011. 4:31 AM
I agree. Perpetual motion IS possible. It's just that it'll need regular maintenance and i doubt if it'll be able to produce excess energy.
Still, nothing is impossible.
c.doyle says: Sep 5, 2011. 10:03 AM
Even if you reduce standard friction to 0, which is virtually impossible as it is, there is still 'quantum friction' that occurs even in a vacuum: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927994.100-vacuum-has-friction-after-all.html.

And perpetual motion means that the machine generates more energy than it uses, which at 0 for 0 it wouldn't.
luig says: Nov 7, 2011. 9:03 PM
you are right but it would be a Flywheel energy storage device instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage
theanthropicalthane says: Aug 6, 2011. 11:22 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the number 'zero' is that zero is not a number, but a representation of the absence of a value. So it's not a number, but the absence of a number.
KimberlyP says: Apr 26, 2011. 6:44 AM
Superfluidity, Superconductivity.... Are other ways to reducing to 0.

Get them working at Standard Temps and you will have yourself a Nobel Prize.

jpetrill reese says: Apr 11, 2011. 3:51 PM
Well Yes, I guess if a disk spinning at "zero" speed counts as being in perpetual motion then it is possible. Sadly it would be able to do exactly zero work.
ilpug says: May 17, 2011. 7:44 PM
it would be able to do that amount of work forever though!
Jun 5, 2011. 12:19 AM
we need to go to the perpetual energy subculture with this. it's elegant and true! the kind of argument i expect to see on xkcd.com
kanhai says: Jul 8, 2011. 6:32 AM
can i know how much pressure we will need for this working at 10000 rpm
seansarvela says: Apr 7, 2011. 3:56 PM
your design looks good. Im making one that is similar, although mine looks terrible.
CodfishCatfish says: Jun 24, 2010. 3:44 PM
In my opinion it is unwise to say never. As far as perpetual motion is concerned I don't think it is far off in being sussed. We have the science of hear and now so are limited by discovery. They say the day we invent the superconductor that runs at room temperatiure we can build a generator in a matchbox. As yet we have not discovered other planets minerals or structures to say that one element combined with another may not unlock this potential. I think the experiment touches on what NASA should be working towards generating electricity in space from sources other than chemical or solar or even nuclear and where the experiment would significantly reduce any friction in outerspace where gravity does not act on the structure. You spin a satellite in space and it would spin forever (we would like to think) and in future we may find a metal that does exactly what a superconductor does and defies gravity. Perpetual motion is not impossible just not with todays knowledge. Think if you could defy gravity to raise a weight and then reapply gravity to let it fall and gather the energy and repeat the process. Use a superconductor as the weight and then you have perpetual motion. Awesome insight and a very well thought out project 10/10....
tanmanknex says: Mar 31, 2011. 6:28 PM
The problem with perpetual motion is as soon as you apply any load like to make a generator for example, it increases the energy needed to keep it perpetual, thus removing the perpetuality. It needs to be better than perpetual motion, it needs to generate more energy as it goes, thus speeding up. Think of it like this system below:
E-5+5=E
E is energy
-5 is the amount of energy required to keep it going
+5 is the amount of energy produced
Now imagine there's a load of 1 on it
E-6+5=E-1
It will slow.
switch62 says: Jun 25, 2010. 3:36 PM
True perpetual motion is probably not possible but you can get close even with todays technology. We already have some very large perpetual motion happening. That is anything in orbit in space. Like the moon orbiting earth, or the planets orbiting the sun. It is still not "true" perpetual motion but since it will take untold billions of years to all stop, it may as well be perpetual. In space there is almost nothing except the thin gasses and solar winds to cause friction, and gravity keeps it all going. We also have magnetic bearings that in a vacuum can allow things to spin forever, almost. Even the interaction of magnetic fields causes minute amounts of friction. Even if you had a perpetual motion machine, all it can do is keep the same amount of energy that started it moving in the first place. As soon as you try to take some energy out, like generate electricity or get mechanical work, it will slow down or stop. I won't say never to perpetual motion but our current laws of physics don't seem to allow for it to exist, or be useful.
KimberlyP says: Apr 25, 2011. 4:58 AM
Yes and then you have the Clarendon labs Clock running off a Zamboni pile ringing that bell for about 100 years.

The reason the battery has not worn down yet is its a very good regenerator.

Also you could have thermal power as in a coupled chemical occilator which would pass its thermal energy back and forth for a very long time and its resulting fluid power from the phase change would be greater than the losses of the thermal energy.

It's not perpetual, in that in time you will lose mass and you will lose energy, but if most of the energy is internal and insulated it can continue for a long time as long as it gets the small kick.

legless says: Mar 6, 2011. 12:32 AM
Everywhere here you say perpetual motion does happen but also keep saying "almost" or not "true" PM. Which is it - perpetual motion or almost? The motion of satellites in orbit is not perpetual. It decays. The distance of the moon from Earth is increasing every year. The speed of rotation of the Earth is slowing every year. All due to other forces and losses which cause the system to decay. Gravity powers the universe but there are still "losses".
KimberlyP says: Apr 26, 2011. 6:49 AM
In the end resistance is futile! That or resistance makes the effort futile, I forget which... :P

The best that can be done is highly regenerative systems which are coupled occilators.

In the end you only delay the inevitable.

such a cruel world.
switch62 says: Mar 6, 2011. 3:01 AM
BTW your example of the moon moving away from earth and the earth's spin slowing down is very interesting.  It's actually a transfer of energy between the earth and moon.  Gravity, the spin of the earth, and the tidal effect is actually speeding up the moon (thereby increasing orbit distance) and slowing the spin of the earth.

In 16 billion years it will stabilise, the moon's orbit will be 1.6 times that of today and an earth day will be 55 current days long.  You might then see the moon's orbit start to decay.  But in 7 billon years the sun will be a red giant and destroy the earth and moon, so it's all academic.
switch62 says: Mar 6, 2011. 2:29 AM
Depends on your definition of perpetual :)

strict definition: continuing or enduring forever.
practical definition: continuing an extremely long time.

Satellites are still in contact with a very thin atmosphere and so the orbit will decay.  They aren't really in space.

Since the orbit of planets and moons will last billions of years, for all practical purposes it may as well be perpetual.  It is of course not "true" perpetual motion as it will not last forever.

Yes, there will always be losses in any system (current physics) but it is the scale of the losses compared to the energy in the system that will determine how long the system will be in motion.

For me billions of years is practically perpetual motion.
runical1991 says: Dec 23, 2010. 11:15 AM
I think it could be useful. think about is. If it is possible and the machine is not too big, it could serve as a new kind of battery, since you can get back all of the energy you put in. So there we would have our perfect energy storage ;-)

correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it would be very useful, if it were possible...
switch62 says: Dec 23, 2010. 3:13 PM
Yes. I know in the 80's engineers were looking at energy storage using flywheels on magnetic bearings. The flywheels were designed to act as a motor to convert electical energy into rotational energy, and then act as a generator to get electrical energy out again.

It would need to spin at very high rpm or be very heavy. The problem is the bigger the flywheel the stronger the magnetic bearings need to be, I think there were/are limits to this and you could not make a large enough device to be practical. Also a large flywheel would need to be stationary as any large movments might cause the magnetic bearings to make physical contact. With the energies involved that could literally rip the device apart (explode).

The size of a flywheel to hold the same amount as a car battery would probably be much bigger and heavier than a car battery. Even if you could make it small enough you would never get 100% efficiency due to electrical resistance, magnetic "friction", etc.  A room tempreture super conductor would solve some of these problems, and make it very efficient.

It seems chemical storage at the moment is a more practical solution.  Chemical batteries are fairly simple devices and easy to make.  Batteries are becoming smaller with greater capacities every year.  New technologies will make them even more so.
KimberlyP says: Apr 26, 2011. 6:54 AM
http://techportal.eere.energy.gov/technology.do/techID=25

They have a higher energy density storage than conventional batteries.

Also Ultracaps can't store the energy density but the can charge and discharge large amounts of power quickly with low ESR. Low ESR = essentially resistance to discharging their power. Conventional batteries if you try to discharge to quick will heat up and resist discharging.
hyratel says: Feb 10, 2011. 6:46 PM
Porsche has built a race-class car with a flywheel dynamic storage. another automaker has done similar, but iirc it's not on mass-production yet.
notanemo says: Sep 14, 2010. 2:31 AM
as the speed of something increases, newtons law of motion becomes more wrong. try out something that 'could' be perpetual motion, then speed it up, and you could take energy out of it.
KimberlyP says: Apr 26, 2011. 6:15 AM
I'm assuming you are referencing MV^2?

Yes but losses tend to go up too. However if you had room temperature superconductors and you spun in an absolute vacuum. (Absolute vacuum being impossible) You could accelerate to the speed of light, except what would you make the material from? But if you could and couple the two of them together, but then the problem would be switching which would be limited to the speed of light.

Information problem.

argh Nature gets you again. Now if you can find away around the speed limit of the Universe.... ? Happy hunting.
zaney says: Jun 3, 2010. 1:52 PM
as a thought, would it be possible to connect 2 of these together in such a way that with a motor attached to one you could pump enough air to run the second, the second being set up as a small generator to run the motor?
Dinuc says: Feb 13, 2011. 10:15 AM
Unfortunately not.

Motors and generators are not 100% efficient. The best motors are about 95% efficient and the best generators about 80%. The rest of the energy is lost to heat and noise.

The Tesla turbine is also not 100% efficient, let's assume it is 90 %.

So if you put 100 units of energy into the motor, you get 95 units out to turn the turbine. The turbine then outputs 85.5 units of energy (95 x 90%) into the other turbine, which outputs 76.95 units of energy (85.5 x x90%).
This turns the generator which outputs 61.56 units of energy (76.95 x 80%) which is fed back into the motor ad the cycle begins again.

So your system runs down very quickly.
MichelMoermans says: Jun 5, 2010. 9:20 AM
I think your trying to make a perpetuum mobile out of it (or however you say that in English) a device that needs no extra power once it is running. Unfortunatly that is impossible due to friction. Everything that connects in there is using friction and that uses up some power. I can't give you the high tech science explenation but I do know that if you should try it it would work fine in the beginning after which it would slow down and stop.
TarScrap says: Jun 8, 2010. 12:57 PM
"Perpetual motion machine" is the phrase you're looking for. Friction and waste heat both mean that the total amount of energy in the closed system would bleed out over time. One would have to attain > 100% efficiency in order to keep it running, much less do any actual work with it.
KimberlyP says: Apr 25, 2011. 5:16 AM
Query me this? If hypothetically you had a box where you could lose no heat or mass. (Even Silicon Aerogels lose heat) How would you lose energy?

Also if this system was a coupled occilator where the natural reaction is pressure out of phase with temperature such that they could never reach equilibrium unless they lost mas or heat, what would you have?

I should say this is academic as there is no perfect insulator or seal.

But there are chemical systems which act in this manner and they require only small energy inputs from the outside to make up for losses. Their energy flows are much higher, how does one explain this. Resonance.

And internal energy is conserved and these small energy inputs feed one another. Take a look at the science of chaos or google chemical occilator.

So you can get more energy out of a device than you put in but you cant get more energy out that the entire energy flow of the system!

Think of it as a flow issue. Some of the flow can be converted to work but you cant convert 100% to work and you most certainly cant generate more than the flow. Thing is in dynamic systems you can have a dual flow system.

Say heat and a fluid flow. A chemical occilator passes heat an fluid back and forth but they do this slightly out of phase with one another. In facts its required or they would be at equilibrium. The heat is conserved as is the mass. The fluid flow can drive a turbine and not lose energy. The reason they don't reach equilibrium is that when one evolves a fluid its endothermic and the other is exothermic. In the real world this is temperature sensitive and they always leak mass in enough time.
MichelMoermans says: Jun 8, 2010. 1:23 PM
Yep that's what I was looking for :) Thanks.

Although no-one will ever succeed in making it it would be the perfect solution for all the problems we are facing today. Imagine a world where your car powers itself while driving :D One gallon of gass and the thing could run forever :D

That would be pretty sweet :D
tdawg309 says: Nov 24, 2010. 7:27 PM
I know this wont remove all friction, but on something like this a magnetic bearing system would be of great help.
pocketspy says: Jun 24, 2010. 10:05 AM
Well, with today's electric motors and generators/alternators you could build a car that uses these to run the the car and produce it's own electricity and never need to be plugged into an outlet.
iEdd says: Jun 24, 2010. 3:45 PM
No you couldn't. It's impossible due to primary school physics.
notanemo says: Sep 14, 2010. 2:32 AM
newtons law? if so, that becomes more wrong the faster something gets. figuratively, this alows for perpetual motion
iEdd says: Sep 14, 2010. 4:11 AM
I was actually referring to conservation of energy. Newton's laws don't become "more wrong the faster something gets", they remain correct in all inertial reference frames. Relativity and non-inertial reference is a different story. In any case, while perpetual motion may be theoretically possible (but always practically impossible) if there were a lack of losses in a system, there is NO SUCH THING as overunity. That is, no system can produce more energy than it consumes. Anyone who suggests otherwise needs to have a physics book thrown at them.
KimberlyP says: Apr 26, 2011. 6:22 AM
True! You can have local phenomena which conserves the energy and passes it back and forth minimizing losses.

IN such a case it may look like you are getting more energy than you put in.

However, you are only inputing energy from the outside for losses.

If you map the internal energy flow you are always getting less energy than the internal flow.

The Famous Carnot engine as it nears optimum has a poor work ratio to the energy flow, even if you had a perfect regenerator.

Ericsson Engine has the greatest work output for a Carnot equivalent.
pocketspy says: Sep 14, 2010. 7:47 AM
Here's what I was thinking. A car has four tires. I've seen electric cars with very powerful electric motors used on all four wheels. I think the tesla car does that. Couldn't you design a car that uses these and a couple of Alternators or generators to produce electricity and store it. For example you have the 4 generators and four electric motors. While you drive in the city you could be using only two of the motors while all four generators are producing electricity. Any extra power could be sent to the batteries. A computer could monitor use and automatically engage motors or generators as needed or use the batteries as needed. Throw some solar panels on topand you could be charing the batteries all day long.
I was also thinking that if you used a hydraulic accumulator, you could store energy in that system for acceleration and braking, then you wouldn't have to use as much electricity to get the car up to speed. (I saw a video of a vehicle that used one, several years ago.)And you'd have less wear and tear on the motors.
I figure some one out there could figure it out. Hell, if we can make 4g phones that can run your life, we should be able to produce a fully self-powered electric car.
What do you think?
robcull says: Oct 6, 2010. 12:30 PM
Look, energy in always equals energy out. Period. If the gas you put in supplies X amount of energy, then the energy out (be it kinetic, electrical, heat, whatever) must also equal X. Adding the alternators, as you mentioned, or adding peltier/seebeck chips to the engine (converts heat to electricity), would increase the efficiency (some of the energy that would have been wasted is now being put back into making the car do what you want it to do- move). This is not perpetual motion. Adding the solar panels is another story... they're just another source of energy (just like you put gas in the tank, you'd be putting sunlight in the panel). This is also not perpetual motion.
.
A perpetual motion device could be an electric motor attached to an alternator (assuming both are 100% efficient). Once you give it a turn and start the motion initially, that kinetic energy is turned into electricity by the alternator, which powers the motor, which turns the alternator again. It is a 100% efficient setup. If, however, you had the alternator ALSO power even a small LED, then the device would not move perpetually, because some of the energy is "leaking" out through the LED (each time the electricity gets back to the motor, there would be slightly less). If, however, the alternator was SOMEHOW able to convert & output more electrical energy than the kinetic energy put in, then you would have higher than 100% efficiency and would be able to generate power perpetually. That's impossible, though.
legless says: Mar 6, 2011. 12:24 AM
You're right. Energy in does equal energy out. However energy out will include many things like the kind of output you want but will have components of loss. This doesn't mean that the energy is "lost" but that it is in a form you don't want. Incandescent bulbs for instance produce light (the thing you want) but they also produce a lot of heat (probably not the thing you want). Even if you use that heat for something else there are still further losses so the system will require more energy in that you can ever get back in any form.

Theory is fine for theorists. Obviously one could build perfect machines if they could be made 100% efficient but they can't. Even if one adds devices to retrieve the unwanted output and convert it back to the wanted output there will still be losses. Certain physical laws just must be obeyed.
KimberlyP says: Apr 26, 2011. 6:32 AM
Heat and mass are fundamental. Deign a device which alternates those in opposite phase.

The electric generator does not consume heat, it consumes the mechanical force generated by the heat acting on the mass flow.

If you had a perfect insulator that would allow no heat to escape and had two chemical occilators occilating between endothermic and exothermic reactions driving the mass flow at a set temperature for evolving a gas...

Ah but no such thing as a perfect insulator, and its only instructive as a thought experiment.

My point is you can with aerogels get a very good insulator, and you can design with regeneration in mind, and therefore have very compact energy efficient machines. Where the only energy input is to make up for the losses.

Another problem with the above example is not only would you need the perfect insulator but permeability would also have to be 0.

Gases like Hydrogen and Helium diffuse through anything, its just a matter of time. H3 III a neet example.
iEdd says: Sep 14, 2010. 12:55 PM
You're trolling, right?

A generator will create a force in the direction that opposes its rotation. The higher the current draw from the generator, the more pronounced the effect.

If you put a generator on any part of the car, there is a braking force. With an alternator, it's not too big, but with anything that generates a large amount of power, it's huge. Think of electromagnetic braking - it converts the car's kinetic energy into electrical energy. That's where it comes from. You can't make energy from nothing.

A 4G phone obeys the laws of physics. Overunity does not.
zoltzerino says: Jun 9, 2010. 4:57 AM
Cars already power themselves...it's called the internal combustion engine...UGH, honestly! *Joke sarcasm* I know exactly what you're on about ;-D
navein333stein says: Jan 7, 2011. 8:16 AM
what is the inlet pressure used for this tesla turbine. and what is the power produced by it
moritata says: Feb 23, 2010. 10:55 PM
steve
very nice
djr6789 says: Mar 12, 2009. 9:30 AM
what are the uses for this?
wildanddangerous says: Aug 1, 2009. 11:37 AM
A 15,000 rpm fan lol!
khanguy says: Mar 21, 2009. 3:36 PM
Tesla dreamed of this as a cheap, efficient, and easy to create engine. He didn't like that the piston engine was so complicated. This can be used as an engine that can be made at home, or a pump( gas stations use it). Tesla wished that for this to be the engine of cars and possibly "aeroplanes." (he says this in an interview).
pocketspy says: Jun 24, 2010. 10:11 AM
It you use a hydraulic accumulator, you could run the generator with the fluid in a vehicle. When brake pressure is applied it could be designed to recharge the accumulator. Accumulators are used to start aircraft turbine engines all the time. Also if the tesla is connected to a electrical generator you could be producing electricity to run lights, charge batteries, etc..
REA says: Apr 10, 2009. 7:44 PM
so it can be used as a way to convert energy?
khanguy says: Apr 12, 2009. 3:04 PM
It converts kenetic energy of a newtonian fluid( it also includes air) into rotation. So, yes it is a way to convert energy. But remember, if you attach a motor to the axle it can become a pump as well.
ElectricUmbrella says: Jun 23, 2009. 6:00 AM
Or a generator.
djr6789 says: Mar 22, 2009. 10:09 AM
ok. thanks this helped alot ill have to try and build one soon
rednecknathan09 says: May 14, 2009. 4:16 PM
how do u connect a electric motor to it cause i got an idea and i wouldnt mind ur opinion but i would need ur help
ElectricUmbrella says: Jun 23, 2009. 5:59 AM
Place the body of the motor on a stationary frame, and attach the shaft of the motor to the shaft of the turbine.
tater_3001 says: Jul 16, 2008. 11:36 AM
if you were to add a connecting piece to connect the platters like a water wheel except in a spiral fashion down the spindle, would the platters move faster and create more energy?
countable says: Feb 25, 2009. 10:39 AM
Thats basically the same design as a car turbocharger, so yes it would move faster but i'm not too sure about the energy created. Also, adding fins inside it would make it cease to be a tesla turbine because it works by creating adhesion between gas and platter.
Steam Head says: Oct 27, 2008. 9:10 PM
How would steam be as a motive power? That would give the turbine some extra "grunt" I would think. Fantastic Instructable.
mrfixitrick says: Nov 7, 2007. 11:46 PM
Great instructable!
I, too, have an Instructable on how to build a Basic Tesla Turbine...except from CD discs, and CD Spindle...Wish I knew about your instructable when I recently did mine!
For a really different take on the Tesla Turbine check out my new Steampunk Tesla CD Turbine with Pumpkincutter Attachment in action...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoRh8T_VX-Y
classicrocker12 says: Jul 11, 2006. 11:18 PM
excellent instrustions! a trip to tap plastics (for the acrylic), my neighbor's junk box, and my garage later i made this thing with no trouble! i used this to prove a point to a friend who had negative thoughts on using steam to genterate electricity; low-pressure steam made in an old pipe cement can drove the turbine which drove a small electric motor, generating enough power to power a small light and a fan. i redrew mine 3d in autocad, ill try to post my plans here later... maybe
prank says: May 26, 2006. 4:38 AM
Cool project, and a beautiful machining job. I wonder if you could make one that turns at high torque with a low-speed flow (wind turbine...)
sbtroy (author) says: May 27, 2006. 8:25 PM
Thanks Prank. One big perk to my job is that I have access to a fully equiped instrument shop. I think decreasing the space between the platters would increase the torque. The boundary layer is very thin and any air flow between the platters but outside of this region isn't contributing to the torque. Also, air is compressible while water and oil are not. Using a more viscous fluid at a lower velocity might increase the torque as well.