Re: GAS-L: Engine Experience

[Harmon Seaver <hseaver@cybershamanix.com>]

   I'm not sure where Viscotherm is getting their figures, the other site I
posted was much more conservative, as are most. The primary advantage of Tesla
turbines, I think, is that they are both cheaper to build and longer lasting --
conventional bladed gas turbines have a fairly high burnout rate -- and most all
recent work with them shows better efficiency as well.


On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 09:00:08AM -0300, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> Dear Harmon
> 
> I am one of the elder fellas that believes Carnot, and
> who also believes, thermodynamically speaking,  that:
> 1: You can't get something for nothing
> and 
> 2: As a matter of fact, you can't even break even.
> 
> When one sees a machine that runs at 85% efficiency,
> there is not much potential for improvement..... thats
> where the "conventional" gas or steam  turbine stands.
> When Tesla Advocates claim 101% to 105% turbine
> efficiency, warning bells go off.
> 
> Then when Viscotherm claim an "engine efficiency" of
> 89% to 114%, in comparison to about 35% for a
> conventional gas turbine that respects Carnots
> Constraints, I sort of lose interest. It does not
> appear to me that there is much of a future in
> perpetual motion. 
> 
> I would suggest that biomass gasification is being done
> a great disservice by attaching it to the Tesla Turbine
> with its claims of greater than 100% efficiency.
> 
> 
> 
> Harmon Seaver wrote:
> > 
> ...del...
> time. There
> > is a company which sounds as if it might begin production sometime soon --
> > www.bladeless.com. There are quite a few other people building prototypes,
> > however.
> >     Here's one that says they'll be in production with a 200kw unit "end of
> > 2002"   http://www.geocities.com/viscotherm/tesla.htm
> > 
> ViscoTherm is claiming to have a turbine system whuich
> has an efficiency of greater than 100%. Perpetual
> Motion does not work.
> 
> ...del...
> > > > gasified, then the gas burned. Even in the small homesized wood burning boilers
> > > > you see pretty horrific pollution except with the gasifiers.
> > >
> > > Small sized boiler and stove systems are exactly where
> > > you expect the greatest pollution problems. Any decent
> > > sized commercial boiler on biomass can be run with
> > > virtually perfect combustion efficiency, and virtually
> > > zero pollutant (unburned combustibles) escape.
> > 
> >      Interesting. is it simply a matter of a bigger fire, more heat so nothing
> > escapes? I guess that makes sense, most of the smaller boilers are usually kept
> > smoldering away rather than hot enough for gasification.
> > 
> As Sherlock Holmes would often say "Elementary, my dear
> Watson." Any competent Combustion Engineer can easily
> set up a boiler to give high efficiencies and low
> pollutant outputs. 
> 
> Kevin Chisholm

-- 
Harmon Seaver	
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation,  Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
List-Post: <mailto:gasification@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Gasification Events and Information:
http://www.bioenergy2002.org
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon