Talk:Tesla turbine

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tesla turbine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Tesla turbine was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 10, 2004	Peer review	Reviewed
June 11, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

‹See TfM›

Physics: Fluid Dynamics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Archives

Archive 1

What can we do for the TT presentation

The TT was intended as a centripetal flow (not centrifugal) power converter and is fundamentally inefficient, because of its large surface area which viscously converts much of the input motion (power) into lost heat, although the exiting fluid has virtually no rotational energy. More importantly, Tesla had no real need for efficiency, just simplicity & reliability, because he intended to use a free/plentiful power source for an alternating current generator.
Both efficiency and maximum speed (for what it is worth) are entirely dependent on the structure & materials used: the rotor, housing, fluid, and injection system contribute to the in/effectiveness of the conversion of fluid pressure & flow (potential energy) into crank-horsepower (kinetic energy), and the speed at which the rotor stabilizes or disintegrates.
I have seen little discussion of how to make the TT more efficient/effective. It might be obvious, but much of the power of the inlet fluid (mass/time*speed) is lost into the static inside surface of the housing (consider dimpling or other boundary layer/turbulence management). More also is lost to inlet turbulence, fluid shear heating (calculating the optimum dimensions for the flow channels as a function of viscosity & optimum transit time). Bearing friction & spoke turbulence take another toll. It also seems probable that modern design tools and materials could contribute to the number of situations in which the TT might become practical or commercially viable.
Use of good grammar and a spell-check should ease the problem of intelligibility. Generous use of reference links to original materials would contribute convenience and credibility to the debate about the character, importance, and modern viability of Tesla's designs.
I hope that further development of the TT can add impetus to the distribution of power systems and reduce dependence on large susceptible infrastructure based power sources (sic, converters). Boldklub-PJs (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tesla turbine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090214220002/http://discflo.com:80/history.htm to http://www.discflo.com/history.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Efficiency section is hopeless

Until editors on this article undertand what thermodynamic efficiency is (energy in/energy out), and cite experimental evidence on this apples-to-apples metric, for the Tesla Turbine, this section is pointless and completely misleading. Wikibearwithme (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is a disaster. I am of the impression that what is described is not even a genuine thing any different from a "bladed" turbine. It's just a really bad one.

The introduction seems fair and relatively encyclopedic.

The entire "theory" section is devoid of meaningful content on any level, let alone for a sourced encyclopedia. It should be deleted.

The "design" section is worse. It shows he had to add "blades" (the washers) to make his smooth discs work. This is terrible work - no citations beyond two ancient patents, and again, no meaningful content.

Efficiency. Not a single citation? Not a real one relative to this article, anyway. Has anyone looked at the footnotes as they appear?

And, in the end: "Applications". None. This is not even a real thing, as far as I can tell it is a deluded dream of a failing inventor.

I am inclined to do the deleting now, but it would perhaps be more community-oriented to leave a note encouraging the next person who comes here with similar intent to feel free to do so. Huw Powell (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tesla turbine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]