Body
Norm,
If you could provide a link to the refrigerant list this would be
helpful as the header info was jumbled in the email.
Sounds like you designed the Tesla Turbine to run from the phase change
of a refrigerant at high head pressure rather than water-steam, what are
the design parameters of the TT for differing viscosity or pressure
drivers such as a steam system vs good old R12, Ammonia or even Co2?
Very interested in the differences in the disc spacing and nozzles
depending on pressures and types of "fuel"
What is the best surface to have on the disks for the energy transfer
polished or nano embossed?
How did you re-compress the vapor, what is best in efficiency here for
your low lift MVR a scroll compressor, screw etc.?
I could not find your info on the TT designing at the Tesla Tech website
so much there hard to search, I guess maybe I should call or email the
owner when I get back North.
On 12/20/2018 7:50 AM, Norman Wootan [email protected] [EVGRAY] wrote:
>
>
> Mick, Please understand that, in my lab I had all of the components
> for a stand alone home energy system employing all of the technology's
> that we discussed but I had a commitment to do the prototype machining
> and Proof of Concept presentation for the investor group from GAZPROM.
> The Implosion Vortex Hydrogen Generator took top priority. See
> http://www.patentbuddy.com/Patent/7097676 US Patent, Process and
> device for producing hydrogen US 7097676 B2
>
> You mentioned the Peltier chips by Marlow Industries , I was salvaging
> out and selling about 100/Mo. of the large chips. I had boxes of them
> for research. Power generation from the chips was dead nuts simple
> with just a temperature differential. With just 100 degree F
> differential you could get one watt per sq. inch of collector
> surface. Far more power/ sq. meter than any solar photovoltaic panel.
>
> For low lift MVR, select your refrigerant so as to operate at highest
> pressures at lowest temperature differential. there is a wide choice
> here. You are condensing your driving vapor so almost all latent heat
> is recovered plus the sensible heat. Your heat scavenging refrigerant
> is collecting heat from all sources including the ambient environment
> (latent heat from RH of air) gray water source, ground water source,
> solar collectors (flat panel water heating panels), you name it.
> Cascade concept of MVR lift insures a great COP.
>
>
> *efrigerant
> No.*
>
>
>
> *Name*
>
>
>
> *Molecular Mass*
>
>
>
> *Boiling point
> at atmospheric pressure /14.7 psia, 1 bar abs/
> /(^o F)/*
>
>
>
> Freezing Point
> at atmospheric pressure
> /14.7 psia, 1 bar abs
> (^o F)/
>
> *Critical Point*
>
> *Temperature
> /(^o F)/*
>
>
>
>
> Pressure
> /(psia)/
>
> *Specific Volume
> /(Cu.Ft./lb.)/*
>
>
>
>
>
> R-10
>
>
>
> Carbontetrachloride
>
>
>
> 153.8
>
>
>
> 170.2
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-11
>
>
>
> Trichlorofluoromethane^1)
>
>
>
> 137.37
>
>
>
> 74.9
>
>
>
> -168
>
>
>
> 388
>
>
>
> 640
>
>
>
> 0.0289
>
> R-12
> <https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/dichlorodifluoromethane-R-12-d_972.html>
>
>
>
> Dichlorodifluoromethane
> <https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/dichlorodifluoromethane-R-12-d_972.html>2)
>
>
>
> 120.91
>
>
>
> -21.8
>
>
>
> -252
>
>
>
> 234
>
>
>
> 597
>
>
>
> 0.0287
>
> R-13
>
>
>
> Monochlorotrifluoromethane
>
>
>
> 104.46
>
>
>
> -114.6
>
>
>
> -294
>
>
>
> 84
>
>
>
> 561
>
>
>
> 0.0277
>
> R-13B1
>
>
>
> Bromotrifluoromethane
>
>
>
> 148.91
>
>
>
> -72
>
>
>
> -270
>
>
>
> 153
>
>
>
> 575
>
>
>
> 0.0215
>
> R-14
>
>
>
> Tetrafluoromethane (Carbon tetrafluoride)
>
>
>
> 88.00
>
>
>
> -198.2
>
>
>
> -299
>
>
>
> -50
>
>
>
> 543
>
>
>
> 0.0256
>
> R-14
>
>
>
> Chloroform
>
>
>
> 119.4
>
>
>
> 142
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-21
>
>
>
> Dichloro-fluoromethane
>
>
>
> 102.92
>
>
>
> 48.1
>
>
>
> -211
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-22
>
>
>
> Difluoromonochloromethane^3)
>
>
>
> 86.468
>
>
>
> -41.3
>
>
>
> -256
>
>
>
> 205
>
>
>
> 722
>
>
>
> 0.0305
>
> R-23
>
>
>
> Trifluormethane
>
>
>
> 70
>
>
>
> -119.9
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-30
>
>
>
> Methylene Chloride
>
>
>
> 84.9
>
>
>
> 105.2
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-31
>
>
>
> Monochloromonofluoromethane
>
>
>
> 68.5
>
>
>
> 48.0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-32
>
>
>
> Methylene Fluoride
>
>
>
> 52.0
>
>
>
> -61.4
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-40
>
>
>
> Chloromethane (Methyl Chloride)
>
>
>
> 50.488
>
>
>
> -10.7
>
>
>
> -144
>
>
>
> 290
>
>
>
> 969
>
>
>
> 0.0454
>
> R-41
>
>
>
> Methyl Fluoride
>
>
>
> 34.0
>
>
>
> -109
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-50
>
>
>
> Methane
>
>
>
> 16.044
>
>
>
> -259
>
>
>
> -296.6
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-110
>
>
>
> Hexachloroethane
>
>
>
> 236.8
>
>
>
> 365
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-111
>
>
>
> Pentachloromonofluoroethane
>
>
>
> 220.3
>
>
>
> 279
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-112
>
>
>
> Tetrachlorodifluoroethane
>
>
>
> 203.8
>
>
>
> 199.0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-113
>
>
>
> Trichlorotrifluoroethane^4)
>
>
>
> 187.39
>
>
>
> 118
>
>
>
> -31
>
>
>
> 417
>
>
>
> 499
>
>
>
> 0.0278
>
> R-114
>
>
>
> 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane
>
>
>
> 170.92
>
>
>
> 38.4
>
>
>
> -137
>
>
>
> 294
>
>
>
> 473
>
>
>
> 0.0275
>
> R-115
>
>
>
> Chloropentafluoroethane
>
>
>
> 154.47
>
>
>
> -38.0
>
>
>
> -149
>
>
>
> 176
>
>
>
> 458
>
>
>
> 0.0261
>
> R-116
>
>
>
> Hexafluoroethane
>
>
>
> 138.0
>
>
>
> -108.8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-120
>
>
>
> Pentachloroethane
>
>
>
> 202.3
>
>
>
> 324
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-123
>
>
>
> Dichlorotrifluoroethane^5)
>
>
>
> 152.93
>
>
>
> 82
>
>
>
> -161
>
>
>
> 363
>
>
>
> 533
>
>
>
>
>
> R-124
>
>
>
> Monochlorotetrafluoroethane
>
>
>
> 136.5
>
>
>
> 10.4
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-125
>
>
>
> Pentafluoroethane
>
>
>
> 120
>
>
>
> -55
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-133a
>
>
>
> Monochlorotrifluoroethane
>
>
>
> 118.5
>
>
>
> 43.0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-134a
>
>
>
> Tetrafluoroethane^6)
>
>
>
> 102.03
>
>
>
> -15
>
>
>
> -142
>
>
>
> 214
>
>
>
> 590
>
>
>
> 0.0290
>
> R-140a
>
>
>
> Trichloroethane
>
>
>
> 133.4
>
>
>
> 165
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-142b
>
>
>
> 1-chloro-1,1-difluoroethane
>
>
>
> 100.50
>
>
>
> 14
>
>
>
> -204
>
>
>
> 279
>
>
>
> 598
>
>
>
> 0.0368
>
> R-143a
>
>
>
> Trifluoroethane
>
>
>
> 84
>
>
>
> -53.5
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-150a
>
>
>
> Dichloroethane
>
>
>
> 98.9
>
>
>
> 140
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-152a
>
>
>
> Difluoroethane
>
>
>
> 66.05
>
>
>
> -13
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-160
>
>
>
> Ethyl Chloride
>
>
>
> 64.515
>
>
>
> 12.2
>
>
>
> -218
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-170
>
>
>
> Ethane
>
>
>
> 30.070
>
>
>
> -127
>
>
>
> -278
>
>
>
> 90
>
>
>
> 710
>
>
>
> 0.0830
>
> R-218
>
>
>
> Octafluoropropane
>
>
>
> 188
>
>
>
> -36.4
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-290
>
>
>
> Propane
>
>
>
> 44.097
>
>
>
> -44
>
>
>
> -309.8
>
>
>
> 206
>
>
>
> 617
>
>
>
> 0.0728
>
> RC-318
>
>
>
> Octafluorocyclobutane
>
>
>
> 200.04
>
>
>
> 22
>
>
>
> -43
>
>
>
> 240
>
>
>
> 404
>
>
>
> 0.0258
>
> R-410A
>
>
>
> R-32 Difluoromethane (50% weight), R-125 Pentafluoroethane (50% weight)
>
>
>
> 72.6
>
>
>
> -55.4
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 162
>
>
>
> 690
>
>
>
>
>
> R-500
>
>
>
> Dichlorodifluoromethane/
> Difluoroethane^7)
>
>
>
> 99.31
>
>
>
> -28
>
>
>
> -254
>
>
>
> 222
>
>
>
> 642
>
>
>
> 0.0323
>
> R-502
>
>
>
> Chlorodifluoromethane/
> Chloropentafluoroethane
>
>
>
> 111.63
>
>
>
> -50
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 180
>
>
>
> 591
>
>
>
> 0.0286
>
> R-503
>
>
>
> Chlorotrifluoromethane/
> Trifluoromethane
>
>
>
> 87.50
>
>
>
> -128
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 67
>
>
>
> 607
>
>
>
> 0.0326
>
> R-600
>
>
>
> n-Butane
>
>
>
> 58.12
>
>
>
> 31.2
>
>
>
> -217
>
>
>
> 306
>
>
>
> 551
>
>
>
> 0.0702
>
> R-600a
>
>
>
> Isobutane (2-Methyl propane)
>
>
>
> 58.12
>
>
>
> 10.8
>
>
>
> -229
>
>
>
> 275
>
>
>
> 529
>
>
>
> 0.0725
>
> R-611
>
>
>
> Methyl formate
>
>
>
> 60.05
>
>
>
> 89
>
>
>
> -146
>
>
>
> 417
>
>
>
> 870
>
>
>
> 0.0459
>
> R-702
>
>
>
> Hydrogen
>
>
>
> 2.016
>
>
>
> -423
>
>
>
> -434.6
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-704
>
>
>
> Helium
>
>
>
> 4.0026
>
>
>
> -452
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-717 <https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ammonia-d_971.html>
>
>
>
> Ammonia <https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ammonia-d_971.html>
>
>
>
> 17.02
>
>
>
> -28
>
>
>
> -107.9
>
>
>
> 271
>
>
>
> 1657
>
>
>
> 0.0680
>
> R-720
>
>
>
> Neon
>
>
>
> 20.179
>
>
>
> -410.9
>
>
>
> -415.6
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-728
>
>
>
> Nitrogen
>
>
>
> 28.0134
>
>
>
> -320.4
>
>
>
> -346
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-729
>
>
>
> Air
>
>
>
> 28.966
>
>
>
> -320
>
>
>
> -357.2
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-732
>
>
>
> Oxygen
>
>
>
> 31.9988
>
>
>
> -297.3
>
>
>
> -361.3
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-740
>
>
>
> Argon
>
>
>
> 39.948
>
>
>
> -303
>
>
>
> -308.5
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-744
>
>
>
> Carbon Dioxide
>
>
>
> 44.01
>
>
>
> -109.4
>
>
>
> -70
>
>
>
> 88
>
>
>
> 1070
>
>
>
> 0.0342
>
> R-744A
>
>
>
> Nitrous Oxide
>
>
>
> 44.012
>
>
>
> -127.3
>
>
>
> -131.5
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R-764
>
>
>
> Sulfur Dioxide
>
>
>
> 64.06
>
>
>
> 14.0
>
>
>
> -104
>
>
>
> 316
>
>
>
> 1143
>
>
>
> 0.0306
>
> R-1150
>
>
>
> Ethylene
>
>
>
> 28.05
>
>
>
> -155
>
>
>
> -272
>
>
>
> 49
>
>
>
> 742
>
>
>
> 0.0700
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 12/19/2018 6:53 PM, Mick [email protected] [EVGRAY] wrote:
>>
>>
>> Norm,
>>
>> In your closed cycle MVR system based on the size of the unit you
>> built how much differential in temperature did you require to achieve
>> the 20:1 COP?
>>
>> This research sounds so fantastic, the ultimate Stirling turbine,
>> why did you stop working on the Tesla Turbine MVR system, had you
>> built the complete proof of concept prototype with the three
>> different refrigerants? So much potential here mixing it with your
>> thermocouple Peltier harvesting concept!!!
>>
>> What would the cost of such a system to build these days, would most
>> of the system be available in off the shelf parts aside from the
>> Tesla Turbine?
>>
>> Your understanding of Don Smith was he looking for a natural high or
>> a low mag field to perturb or an area with both and a steep
>> differential nearby that could be modulated similar to flux switching
>> a reluctance motor?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/19/2018 9:33 AM, Norman Wootan [email protected] [EVGRAY] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/19/2018 7:08 AM, Mick [email protected] [EVGRAY] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Norm,
>>>>
>>>> It is interesting the superlight and Russell concept is being
>>>> proven now with the super high magnetic fields from galactic
>>>> centers. Don Smith had an interesting concept that we were
>>>> sitting on so much flux we were like birds on a line and could not
>>>> measure it objectively being in the middle of a maelstrom. Seems
>>>> to me the mag particles and the plasma are inseparable as a
>>>> universal driver, kind of like lift and drag, or Lenz. Ways to
>>>> work around the interplay with ionization or timing but the yin and
>>>> yang of it appear a standing requirement.
>>>>
>>>> Not being a biblical scholar or anything close but always thought
>>>> first was the word or logos let there be light hence could be
>>>> allegory for some scientific fact RF preceding the superlight.
>>>> Hahaha calls for conjecture bigtime.
>>>>
>>> I for one am not a big Biblical Scholar for sure but when hit over
>>> the head with solid evidence that there are forces and energy for
>>> which we, so far have no explanation, you just have to be the
>>> curious cat. Research. I spent some time with Don Smith and yes,
>>> his end game was to harness energy from the earth natural magnetic
>>> flux fields. His library of magnetic maps showing all the anomalies
>>> over the globe was enough evidence for me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I like how your research is very factual and empirical, thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Also great illustrations from your experiments and I had wondered
>>>> about a hollow shaft, glad you tried it as it seems to correct some
>>>> potential flow issues with the eddys from the output ports and the
>>>> shaft "ground effects" "Burnelli" sorry don't know the proper term
>>>> for hydraulics flow along a surface. Then finally with that hollow
>>>> shaft one can have the center of the vortex also. Quite excellent!
>>>>
>>> Mick, I studied everything about the Tesla Turbine and could not
>>> believe how misinformed everyone was regarding its operation. After
>>> studying Victor Schauberger implosion technology and the Repulsine
>>> Turbine, I employed the principles into the hollow shaft version to
>>> allow operation of turbine exhaust in a partial vacuum by running my
>>> condenser at 40 degree F. using the MVR technology with a heat
>>> scavenging refrigerant. The heat of evaporation (980 BTU/# water) is
>>> totally recovered in the condenser via refrigerant loop. This makes
>>> the Tesla Turbine truly an Implosion Turbine. The Internet sites
>>> like Germano etc. never got a grasp on Tesla's ingenuity>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> How come you did not become a Shriner, fees too high?
>>>>
>>>> On 12/19/2018 7:25 AM, Norman Wootan [email protected] [EVGRAY] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mick, Yes, I bought the entire Walter Russell course, Universal
>>>>> One, and studied his fundamental beliefs which followed the
>>>>> Biblical Story of creation in Genius One. Walter had a firm belief
>>>>> of the Creator of everything and it all came out of LIGHT. GOD
>>>>> said, let there be light, that light was not the light that we
>>>>> are so familiar to. In my opinion it was the SUPER LIGHT which
>>>>> BTW is the fundamental particle flux of magnetism. It is
>>>>> Magneto-Electric and carries a powerful magnetic flux field along
>>>>> with the attendant electric fields. see
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/17/2018 5:16 PM, Mick [email protected] [EVGRAY] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Norm,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know this question calls for speculation but I am interested in
>>>>>> your response, you having been a student of Walter Russell
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you think the magnetic and electric sides of the universe were
>>>>>> introduced at the same time or one before the other?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/17/2018 8:38 AM, Norman Wootan [email protected] [EVGRAY] wrote:l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Neutral Spike, Magnetic flux annihilation-reconnect
>>>>>>> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 06:04:41 -0600
>>>>>>> From: Norman Wootan <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> To: [email protected], Bert Pool <[email protected]>,
>>>>>>> Bob Paddock <[email protected]>, Mbking42
>>>>>>> <[email protected]>, Lane Wootan <[email protected]>, Toby
>>>>>>> Grotz <[email protected]>, Steven Elswick
>>>>>>> <[email protected]>, Walt <[email protected]>, Angel
>>>>>>> Alvarez <[email protected]>, Fredric Fletcher
>>>>>>> <[email protected]>, Jeane Manning <[email protected]>, joel
>>>>>>> mcclain <[email protected]>, Jon Gentry
>>>>>>> <[email protected]>, Phil Rembold <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181213131242.htm
>>>>>>> Thank You Bert Pool for this very informative article from SLAC.
>>>>>>> I need all the info I can find to prepare for my presentation at
>>>>>>> the Tesla Tech Conference. The subject of Magnetic Annihilation,
>>>>>>> Re-connect is certainly a current topic in the Scientific
>>>>>>> Community. The big question that has come to light is the
>>>>>>> emission of PARTICLES from annihilation of magnetic flux
>>>>>>> fields??? What are these super powerful particles? Interesting
>>>>>>> idea that magnetic flux lines (tubes of force) are actually a
>>>>>>> particle flux flow. I saw this phenomenon with my experiments
>>>>>>> with the Neutral Spike and describe it as a Magneto-Electric
>>>>>>> event as John Mileweski theorized in the SUPER LIGHT doc. Read
>>>>>>> the SLAC article very carefully and you will see that the
>>>>>>> emission of a particle flux out of black holes fall exactly
>>>>>>> aligned with the SUPER LIGHT theory of super-luminal velocities
>>>>>>> and super penetration energy like neutrinos and cosmic rays.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/7/2018 5:47 AM, Norman Wootan wrote:
>>>>>>>> Bert Pool sent this to me:
>>>>>>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181203101417.htm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/6/2018 6:09 AM, Norman Wootan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is about as up-to-date as I can get on the subject of
>>>>>>>>> re-connect theories. The 3rd doc. is dated 5 Dec. 2018
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.osti.gov/pages/biblio/1470943-biermann-battery-mediated-magnetic-reconnection-colliding-plasmas
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.pppl.gov/news/2018/10/surprise-finding-discovering-previously-unknown-role-source-magnetic-fields
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://phys.org/news/2018-12-universe-theory-percent-cosmos.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/5/2018 4:16 PM, Norman Wootan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> See: attached doc. Best I have found to explain the
>>>>>>>>>> phenomenon of EMP, flux annihilation-reconnect. Moray you
>>>>>>>>>> will be interested in page 34 (last page) on the production
>>>>>>>>>> of "plasmoids"!
>