Does anyone know of any good links?
Id like to see units that are running on propane or diesel, and are
completely self sustaining.....

Haaken Hveem wrote:

Does anyone know of any good links?
Id like to see units that are running on propane or diesel, and are
completely self sustaining.....

The only Tesla turbines I've seen
ran on steam.

Look up Frank Germano. Looks like his site is gone though.
http://my.execpc.com/~teba/ they've be around for a while.

Karl

"Haaken Hveem" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know of any good links?
Id like to see units that are running on propane or diesel, and are
completely self sustaining.....

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 02:52:27 -0000, Haaken Hveem wrote:
Does anyone know of any good links?
Id like to see units that are running on propane or diesel, and are
completely self sustaining.....

Can't be done. Anyone selling you plans to do it, is just selling you
false hope.

On 3 Mar 2005 16:03:46 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 02:52:27 -0000, Haaken Hveem wrote:
Does anyone know of any good links?
Id like to see units that are running on propane or diesel, and are
completely self sustaining.....

Can't be done. Anyone selling you plans to do it, is just selling you
false hope.

Why not, please?

--They're remarkably inefficient. Been there, done that, don't
bother. The Tesla turbine's one saving grace is its lack of things to be
bumped into, hence it's niche market is in the pumping of live fish. It's
a much better drive-ee than drive-er, so to speak.

--
"Steamboat Ed" Haas : Blah blah blah blah
Hacking the Trailing Edge! : blah blah blah...
http://www.nmpproducts.com/intro.htm
---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:42:42 -0600, Don Foreman wrote:
On 3 Mar 2005 16:03:46 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 02:52:27 -0000, Haaken Hveem wrote:
Does anyone know of any good links?
Id like to see units that are running on propane or diesel, and are
completely self sustaining.....

Can't be done. Anyone selling you plans to do it, is just selling you
false hope.

Why not, please?

The laws of conservation of energy. "completely self sustaining" would
require that there be no losses to heat, friction, or anything else.
That doesn't even get into the problem of extracting energy from this
mythical device, which would require it to produce more energy than it
creates. Tesla had some great ideas, but he had some stinkers too.
Greater-than-unity devices fall into the latter category, and for some
reason, Tesla's name seems to attract people who ignore the laws of physics.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
The laws of conservation of energy. "completely self sustaining" would
require that there be no losses to heat, friction, or anything else.

Well presumably, he actually means something which will keep spinning, like
how you can make a jet engine out of an automotive turbo. It doesn't
produce much if any thrust, but it does sustain itself (given fuel of
course).

Tim

--
"California is the breakfast state: fruits, nuts and flakes."
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 15:51:42 -0600, Tim Williams wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
The laws of conservation of energy. "completely self sustaining" would
require that there be no losses to heat, friction, or anything else.

Well presumably, he actually means something which will keep spinning, like
how you can make a jet engine out of an automotive turbo. It doesn't
produce much if any thrust, but it does sustain itself (given fuel of
course).

Many of the people hawking "tesla-like devices" pretend that the
"given fuel, of course" clause doesn't apply. That's my point, is all.

Dave

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
Many of the people hawking "tesla-like devices" pretend that the
"given fuel, of course" clause doesn't apply. That's my point, is all.

Yeah. Real shame the guy was such a nut and attracted these people
posthumously

Tim

--
"California is the breakfast state: fruits, nuts and flakes."
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

On 3 Mar 2005 18:52:09 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:42:42 -0600, Don Foreman wrote:
On 3 Mar 2005 16:03:46 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 02:52:27 -0000, Haaken Hveem wrote:
Does anyone know of any good links?
Id like to see units that are running on propane or diesel, and are
completely self sustaining.....

Can't be done. Anyone selling you plans to do it, is just selling you
false hope.

Why not, please?

The laws of conservation of energy. "completely self sustaining" would
require that there be no losses to heat, friction, or anything else.
That doesn't even get into the problem of extracting energy from this
mythical device, which would require it to produce more energy than it
creates. Tesla had some great ideas, but he had some stinkers too.
Greater-than-unity devices fall into the latter category, and for some
reason, Tesla's name seems to attract people who ignore the laws of physics.

Haaken's mention of "running on propane or diesel" indicates to me
that he recognizes the need for a source of energy. I'll leave it
to Haaken to clarify what he meant by 'self sustaining".

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 22:23:09 -0600, "Tim Williams"
wrote:

Yeah. Real shame the guy was such a nut and attracted these people
posthumously

This man you refer to as a nut invented the AC induction motor, and
the first practical system for generating and transmitting alternating
current for electric power. The commonly-used SI unit of magnetic
flux density is named after him.

Do you, 100 years later, understand how an induction motor works well
enough to call its inventor a nut? Perhaps you do. Good! We
need someone who has that level of expertise. I don't pretend to have
that level of understanding and I'm pretty sure neither Jerry Martes
nor Bob Swinney would either.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 22:23:09 -0600, "Tim Williams"
wrote:

Yeah. Real shame the guy was such a nut and attracted these people
posthumously

This man you refer to as a nut invented the AC induction motor, and
the first practical system for generating and transmitting alternating
current for electric power. The commonly-used SI unit of magnetic
flux density is named after him.

Do you, 100 years later, understand how an induction motor works well
enough to call its inventor a nut? Perhaps you do. Good! We
need someone who has that level of expertise. I don't pretend to have
that level of understanding and I'm pretty sure neither Jerry Martes
nor Bob Swinney would either.

Tesla is misunderstood by the general public, those few who know who he was
at all, for a variety of reasons, mostly because they don't see the
connection between his brilliant and insightful discoveries and inventions
of his early years, and his grandiose, war-related ideas of the years before
his death. Like many geniuses he abandoned many of his ideas in mid-stream:
not necessarily because they didn't work, but because his attention had
moved on to something else.

One of the most interesting stories about his life and work was aired on PBS
last year: http://www.pbs.org/tesla/. It may be a bit effusive and
uncritical; it reads that way, but I can't judge where the right balance is.

In 1974 I researched and wrote a brief biography of Tesla for _Electrical
World_ magazine's "Giants of the Electrical Century" promotion. I got all
the books I could to do the research but I didn't have much time (I had to
several biographies), and I didn't come across anything as easy to follow as
the PBS documentary.

--
Ed Huntress

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
Do you, 100 years later, understand how an induction motor works well
enough to call its inventor a nut? Perhaps you do.

Well, I know a little about it, but let me say I don't have a hankerin' to
make one. I know the guy was a nut though - the good kind, a smart,
inventive nut. He wasn't much of a businessman though, hence why we all
know who Edison was, even though he didn't even actually invent the
lightbulb. And as mentioned, Tesla's later ideas where kinda cracky...

Tim

--
"California is the breakfast state: fruits, nuts and flakes."
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

Well, a turbine has ( usually ) a compressor , a burner , and a turbine.

By the patents, it looks like tesla planned to use a pulsating burner to
prowide enough flow of air to spin the turbine.

By self sustaining , i meant that the turbine delivers enough power to ,
well , power a blower. That is needed to induce enough air flow in the
cumbustor....



"Don Foreman" skrev i melding
...
On 3 Mar 2005 18:52:09 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:42:42 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:
On 3 Mar 2005 16:03:46 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 02:52:27 -0000, Haaken Hveem
wrote:
Does anyone know of any good links?
Id like to see units that are running on propane or diesel, and are
completely self sustaining.....

Can't be done. Anyone selling you plans to do it, is just selling you
false hope.

Why not, please?

The laws of conservation of energy. "completely self sustaining" would
require that there be no losses to heat, friction, or anything else.
That doesn't even get into the problem of extracting energy from this
mythical device, which would require it to produce more energy than it
creates. Tesla had some great ideas, but he had some stinkers too.
Greater-than-unity devices fall into the latter category, and for some
reason, Tesla's name seems to attract people who ignore the laws of
physics.

Haaken's mention of "running on propane or diesel" indicates to me
that he recognizes the need for a source of energy. I'll leave it
to Haaken to clarify what he meant by 'self sustaining".

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 22:23:09 -0600, Tim Williams wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
Many of the people hawking "tesla-like devices" pretend that the
"given fuel, of course" clause doesn't apply. That's my point, is all.

Yeah. Real shame the guy was such a nut and attracted these people
posthumously

Well, don't get me wrong, Tesla _was_ brilliant, for the most part.
I went to the Tesla Foundation in Colorado Springs a decade or so ago,
and the place is (was?) literally overrun by free-energy seeking,
and free-energy selling, crackpots. Really sad considering that
he's the guy that invented A/C electricity, and his legacy has been
polluted to that level.

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 15:29:30 -0000, "Haaken Hveem"
wrote:

Well, a turbine has ( usually ) a compressor , a burner , and a turbine.

By the patents, it looks like tesla planned to use a pulsating burner to
prowide enough flow of air to spin the turbine.

By self sustaining , i meant that the turbine delivers enough power to ,
well , power a blower. That is needed to induce enough air flow in the
cumbustor....

That seems feasible. You would just need to have enough temperature
rise and expansion to drive a turbine enough larger than the
compressor to overcome the various inefficiencies. It would probably
produce far more heat than motion, but it might be an interesting
project and demo!

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 03:07:03 -0600, "Tim Williams"
wrote:

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
Do you, 100 years later, understand how an induction motor works well
enough to call its inventor a nut? Perhaps you do.

Well, I know a little about it, but let me say I don't have a hankerin' to
make one. I know the guy was a nut though - the good kind, a smart,
inventive nut. He wasn't much of a businessman though, hence why we all
know who Edison was, even though he didn't even actually invent the
lightbulb. And as mentioned, Tesla's later ideas where kinda cracky...

Building one merely requires the ablity to copy. Genius is in being
able to imagine something useful that has never been done before, and
make it work. Labelling another's ideas that you don't understand as
"crackpot" only requires conformity, just another form of copying.

Don Foreman wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 22:23:09 -0600, "Tim Williams"
wrote:


Yeah. Real shame the guy was such a nut and attracted these people
posthumously


This man you refer to as a nut invented the AC induction motor, and
the first practical system for generating and transmitting alternating
current for electric power. The commonly-used SI unit of magnetic
flux density is named after him.

Do you, 100 years later, understand how an induction motor works well
enough to call its inventor a nut? Perhaps you do. Good! We
need someone who has that level of expertise. I don't pretend to have
that level of understanding and I'm pretty sure neither Jerry Martes
nor Bob Swinney would either.

Telsa also claimed to have invented a death ray and a whole bunch of
similar stuff. Like Howard Hughes, by the end of his life the term 'nut'
was warranted.

--RC

Have you ever read any of his papers? The guy was a freakin' genius.
Even with 100 years of technology and theory I still find what he
figured out amazing. There is a book that is a compilation of many of
his research papers. It's a little dry, but very interesting. If you
think you're a smart guy, read this. It will make you realize you are
a "little" person as far as intellect and contribution to society are
concerned.

As for his later inventions and "crackiness", most of that was driven
by investors heavily over invested looking for more genius. The "death
ray" was a result of someone's brilliant suggestion of "wireless
electricity". The result was the infamous Tesla coil.

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
k.net...
Don Foreman wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 22:23:09 -0600, "Tim Williams"
wrote:


Yeah. Real shame the guy was such a nut and attracted these people
posthumously


This man you refer to as a nut invented the AC induction motor, and
the first practical system for generating and transmitting alternating
current for electric power. The commonly-used SI unit of magnetic
flux density is named after him.

Do you, 100 years later, understand how an induction motor works well
enough to call its inventor a nut? Perhaps you do. Good! We
need someone who has that level of expertise. I don't pretend to have
that level of understanding and I'm pretty sure neither Jerry Martes
nor Bob Swinney would either.

Telsa also claimed to have invented a death ray and a whole bunch of
similar stuff. Like Howard Hughes, by the end of his life the term 'nut'
was warranted.

The "death ray" was one version of the charged-particle-beam weapons he
cooked up in the late '20s and the '30s. The US Air Force worked on the big
version of it, which was supposed to shoot down airplanes and missiles, in
the early '50s. Then they dropped it. The official reason was that it was
too expensive and would consume too many resources.

However, the Soviets picked it up and were working hard on it during the
'70s. Ronald Reagan was responding to CIA reports of how hard the Soviets
were working on it when he came up with his response: SDI, or "Star Wars."

--
Ed Huntress

Tim Williams wrote:

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...

Do you, 100 years later, understand how an induction motor works well
enough to call its inventor a nut? Perhaps you do.


Well, I know a little about it, but let me say I don't have a hankerin' to
make one. I know the guy was a nut though - the good kind, a smart,
inventive nut. He wasn't much of a businessman though, hence why we all
know who Edison was, even though he didn't even actually invent the
lightbulb. And as mentioned, Tesla's later ideas where kinda cracky...

Or more to the point, being a brilliant inventer
and a nut are not mutually exclusive.

jw wrote:
Have you ever read any of his papers? The guy was a freakin' genius.
Even with 100 years of technology and theory I still find what he
figured out amazing. There is a book that is a compilation of many of
his research papers. It's a little dry, but very interesting. If you
think you're a smart guy, read this. It will make you realize you are
a "little" person as far as intellect and contribution to society are
concerned.

As for his later inventions and "crackiness", most of that was driven
by investors heavily over invested looking for more genius. The "death
ray" was a result of someone's brilliant suggestion of "wireless
electricity". The result was the infamous Tesla coil.

At one time I was very interested in Tesla, so yes, I've read some of
his papers. I think I may have even read them in the book you referenced.

The question isn't whether he was smart or whether he did good work in
the first part of his life. Again, think Howard Hughes.

--RC

"Jim Stewart" wrote in message
news
Or more to the point, being a brilliant inventer
and a nut are not mutually exclusive.

Ah, those are the words I was looking for

Tim

--
"California is the breakfast state: fruits, nuts and flakes."
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

In article , Don Foreman says...

This man you refer to as a nut invented the AC induction motor, and
the first practical system for generating and transmitting alternating
current for electric power. The commonly-used SI unit of magnetic
flux density is named after him.

Su Gauss Tesla!

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 4 Mar 2005 13:47:26 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Don Foreman says...

This man you refer to as a nut invented the AC induction motor, and
the first practical system for generating and transmitting alternating
current for electric power. The commonly-used SI unit of magnetic
flux density is named after him.

Su Gauss Tesla!

Jim, 10,000 Gauss = 1 Tesla. MRI magnets, for instance, are commonly at
a field strength of 1.5 Tesla.

Dave Hinz

On 4 Mar 2005 11:21:15 -0800, "jw" wrote:

Have you ever read any of his papers? The guy was a freakin' genius.
Even with 100 years of technology and theory I still find what he
figured out amazing. There is a book that is a compilation of many of
his research papers. It's a little dry, but very interesting. If you
think you're a smart guy, read this. It will make you realize you are
a "little" person as far as intellect and contribution to society are
concerned.

As for his later inventions and "crackiness", most of that was driven
by investors heavily over invested looking for more genius. The "death
ray" was a result of someone's brilliant suggestion of "wireless
electricity". The result was the infamous Tesla coil.

Papers? What's the name of the book? Dry and in his own writing ?

I've read around 4 books on Tesla. I have one with all his patents.
Just the other night the wife dragged me to the library cause she is
afraid to go there at night , too many bums hang out there. Computers
are all taken as usual so I just go do it the hard way and right off
run into a VHS PBS and a book that I haven't read about him. Watched
the video and it is about time someone put the info. straight.

It's said that he came up with the idea from running a single disk in
a stream and I think , thinking about bank tubes across the Atlantic.
What I don't get is that steam must be really chaotic and thus not
laminar.

I don't think he was even close to whacked. He was an alien plant.
Or might as well have been , the way he was treated. What was it ,
prime numbers with him. Probably a game to keep him from thinking
about wasting money to get laid.

"Sunworshipper" wrote in message
...
It's said that he came up with the idea from running a single disk in
a stream and I think , thinking about bank tubes across the Atlantic.
What I don't get is that steam must be really chaotic and thus not
laminar.

Steam is like any gas or fluid in general, if slow enough it will happily
flow smooth and laminar. A Tesla turbine doesn't really need laminar flow
anyway, as long as it sticks to the surface, it's good. Just transfer of
the momentum.

You can do the same thing yourself: next time you're rinsing a soup can lid
in the sink, center it between your fingers and put it under the stream off
center. It'll pull it along.

Tim

--
"California is the breakfast state: fruits, nuts and flakes."
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms