Micro Pelton Turbine
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.พ. 2025
- Check out KiwiCo.com/Tom50 for 50% off your first month of ANY crate!
Enjoy my videos? These are made possible due to help from my Patrons. Please consider supporting my efforts: / tomstanton
The resin printer is the Elegoo Mars 2 Pro and I was using the standard Elegoo clear resin. I was tempted to build a custom UV curing station, but ended up ordering the Elegoo Mercury Plus 2 in 1, which I definitely recommend as it makes the post processing far easier. As mentioned in the video, none of this was sponsored/provided by Elegoo, I just saw it all on Amazon Prime and thought I'd give it a go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Other Equipment:
Main camera - amzn.to/2vlvlC6
Main lens - amzn.to/2gMrhru
Main tripod - amzn.to/2tqRjBt
Secondary Tripod - amzn.to/2t1NkMh
Microphone - amzn.to/2uuv9n0
Audio recorder - amzn.to/2v3mjcG
Banggood affiliate: www.banggood.c...
Twitter: / tomstantonyt
3D Printer filament sponsored by 3D Printz UK: 3dprintz.co.uk/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love your channel and I’m here for air powered quad.
Collab?
Air powered 🚗 🚘
Destin!
@@bob_the_builder2815 I could get behind that!
Hey Laminar Flow 👋👋
I grew up with "Airhogs", my kid will grow up with "Tom Stanton Toys"
Haha
That’s actually a good idea for a toy company, I could see some of his ideas becoming actual products.
The only flying things I had were Fly Wheels and radio control helicopters.
Been getting in to high performance RC motor gliders, it makes me want to source an airhog powerplant and build one with that.
I crashed my air hogs helicopter into a wall and it is now...... inactive
Hello good Sir! Do you have a moment to talk about our lord and saviour NikolaTesla and his miraculous turbine?
Caralho
0:43 *bonk*
I read this comment in italic.
I volunteer to be your designated tomato killer
I love the way they taste but in your honor i shall vanquish them
Oh, hi there tomato man! I wish you a good luck with that. :-)
dude you are so good at explaining things
kinda strange finding you in this comment section.
Agreed
7:25 For why the turbine-propeller contraption is more efficient than just spitting out the air, it is the same stuff as why turbofan engines with large fans in front is more efficient than turbojet with afterburner. The amount of force (thrust) produced is affected by 2 major factors, speed , and mass of air moved. By spitting out the air out of the nozzle, we get air on very high speed, but only a small amount of air is being ejected. However, as long as the turbine contraption converts energy good enough that it could push way more air down with slower speed that higher force can be achieved and thus more efficient.
Are these lyrics for a new song?
@@tausiftaha12 if you want to
Yay! long story short surface area.
I've been told size doesn't matter..
Yup it'll be more efficient until the speed and aerodynamics of the propeller (turbulence etc) get in the way of achieving really high speeds for our theoretical aircraft. Is why we don't have supersonic prop planes, and also why we don't often use small jet engines to go slower (jet = less efficiency = more fuel needed = need a bigger, heavier plane to carry that fuel = it's now fast enough but definitely need to fly at a higher altitude to reduce wind resistance a bit, prop planes lose torque and are generally slow enough to be better off at lower altitudes)
I want someone to look at me like Tom looks at a bottle full of .... air.
You need to have the same size and shape as the bottle... then maybe Tom will look at you that way
Get a girlfriend maybe she will get you spinning with a little blow?
Get your sex changed to "bottle"
full of energy and re fillable
and simple and expendable
"You have so much potential"
The reason the turbine is more efficient is the power proportional to S*V³ while force to S*V². With the same power it's more force efficient to use a higher surface with smaller velocity. The greater surface (S) of the prop allows to reach a point where the propulsive air velocity (V) is just a bit higher than the "plane" velocity (here 0). To produce static thrust it's in theory possible to get an infinite force to watt ratio (force isn't energy) with an infinite propeller diameter. But the force to weight ratio would be awfull and impossible to run a plane because the max propulsive velocity would be near 0.
Soo interesting (as always), thanks a lot! 100% pure engineering satisfaction! Keep going :D
Favorite channel for 2 engineers
What you said: technical stuff
What I understood: hehe plane go vrom vroom.
i like ru fuuny words macic man
Vous ici !
I like your funny words science man
I think you are right. That's why a helicopter rotor is much bigger than a propeller.
The Integza Joke is so much more hilarious with his comment
No it's not
There is something about the slow motion footage of the water turbine at 1:56 that just screams STAGE 2. All that exhausted energy looks like it could be harnessed on another lower turbine rotating in the opposite direction. I always enjoy your videos. They make me think.
Adding a stator in combination with opposite direction rotor should greatly improve the final outcome. Ten years at G.E. making fuel controls tells me you're closer to a breakthrough than you realize.
@@scottdemoor49 Naturally at some point in this process, the fuel, be it water or air, will loose its ability to produce power, but that immediate discharge from the cup is very focused and a lot of energy just waiting to be harnessed. I'm not a turbine guy, but I think its worth exploring if it doesn't add too much weight and defeat the application parameters.
The whole point was to make it shoot out of the cup at zero velocity so a second rotor would not do anything if it's set up properly
@@ThaJay Anything that can still shoot out of anything else still has velocity, or it would just fall to the earth. I think the point is to utilize the flow to its best potential, not waste 45% of it.
@@Shop-Tech Aren't you forgetting the rotational speed of the rotor itself? Standing next to the rotor the water seems to fall down although it shoots out pretty fast from the rotors perspective.
Bet that turbine would be great at mincing tomatoes! Bet Integza could ship you off a few of those....though it may be hard for him to part with them.
Hello plasma channel
I agree
So what's the next move 🤔 a plasma thruster or something..?
Integza: Tesla Turbine!
Tom: B O N K
Any engineering youtuber exists:
Kiwi Co:
Helo
Hello*
well at least it's very educational
The thing with air is that it has to have some kinetic energy left, because it has to push other air out of the way to exit the turbine (Betz limit). Water would do the same if there wasn't a downstream drain under a dam.
You're right, I guess a water Pelton turbine would not work so well if it were itself under water. (still better than an underwater air turbine, the bubbles from the nozzle won't even reach it)
Nice info, thanks!
@@corentinoger Even if we placed the nozzle for the air under the turbine?
Perhaps a mild vacuum would improve efficiency?
The Betz limit is also the reason why the ducted fan/turbine works better, as the less turbulent airflow at the blade allows more energy to be transferred to the mechanism and not be wasted into heat.
you know the content is incredible when all the big names of youtube are getting in line to drop a complement.
Fun fact: the turbine wheel you've created is called an "impulse turbine" and the devices that direct the flow into a gas turbine IRL are called "nozzles" even if they don't look quite as literal as what you've got going on here. If you want to increase efficiency and/or decrease mass, make the turbine inlets only as wide as or a little wider than the outlet of your nozzle.
Casually whacking a "Telsa turbine interrupting integza"
Who was that?
@@Therapistinthewhitehouse integza
@@Therapistinthewhitehouse integza, a great TH-camr that hates tomatoes
@@thijslubberts8307 an incredible description
Thanks, I didn’t recognise him so looked him up only to find I’m already a subscriber 🤷🏽♂️
I’m watching his 3D printed (Lily Impeller) vid now.
Bonking Integza for discovering Mr. Stanton's secret French origins.
Another great enjoyable project
HON HON HON BAGUETTE LMAO
XD
7:20 By driving the propeller instead of using the nozzle directly, you're moving a larger mass of air at a lower velocity to get your impulse. Since kinetic energy goes with velocity squared, while momentum goes linearly with velocity, this gives you a greater total momentum in your reaction mass for the same kinetic energy, and thus you get more thrust.
And not to mention that he can get twice the force with the turbine than by just pushing due to the 180 degree change in flow direction in the turbine compared to just 90 degree effective change when the nozzle is used directly.
Yeah! with a propeller It’s a higher bypass engine.
You would have to explain that to me. Your impuls or momentum also goes squared with velocity.
I=(V^2)*roh*A=V*Q
Q being the massflow= V*roh*A
A being the active surface area
V being velocity
I being impuls or momentum
roh being the density of the working fluid (air)
I think that the magic trick is the ratio between the coefficient of drag and the coeficient of lift of the propeller.
Everything else should not contribute to higher efficiency and higher thrust. The total impuls of the compressed air is basically getting transformed from a high power low force, to a high force low power configuration.
The max rpm of the prop should thereby limit the max velocity of the vehicle.
Why is unclear to me, as turbinejet and rocket aircraft are only limited by there thrust wich is impulse, wich in tern should also applie here, but would make no sense anymore if it could.
Never mind, took me about 2 minutes to find out, that the propeller pitch limits the rpm. To high of a pitch angle and your needed torque to turn the prop is to high, to low of a pitch angle and your propeller will overspeed or simple induce to much drag at higher speeds.
You could also explain it with force vectors. As the pitch increases, so does the angle of the lift force vector compared to the normal vector parallel to the prop shaft. This in turn decreases the part of the velocity vector parallel to the normal vector, thereby reducing total thrust.
came to read the comments for this one :D
most people see an empty bottle
optimists see a bottle of air
tom stanton sees an engine powerful enough to power a plane
It is amazing what a powerful mind can do with everyday items. 👍
I think Mr. Stanton knows that the process of compressing air is only 10% efficient and as such a poor choice for fuel.
0:42 Integza! ~ cool bottle thwapping sound effect btw lol
those animations are game changing, congrats
I also think that the animation are fantastic.
Does anybody know how this was made? Software?
I also think that the animation are fantastic.
Does anybody know how this was made? Software?
@@rymannphilippe basic Blender can do this kind of things, without any addons.
I used Blender fluid simulations
@@TomStantonEngineering um this is weird to ask but are you irish???
Love the Integza cameo at the beginning 😂 hella funny with the sound of the empty bottle smacking him away. 😂
Next video: Air powered air compresser
That's just an APU of a jet engine
Perpetual air compresser 😂
Check out the Useless Duck Company video from 6 or 8 years ago (been a while)
If you took lower pressure air and compress it to higher pressure with less total energy, it might have some use.
Yes
The reason for the higher efficient is, that the air from the nozzle "takes" the air around it, with it. I can't find the name of this effect but this is basically how it works
I've always admired the insane efficiency of this turbine, what a beautiful piece of engineering.
Integza: Tesla Turbine!
Tom: *bop*
bop
This was hilarious..🤣
On an unrelated note, people should check out Bop. A producer/artist with interesting music. Hope it to be a welcome distraction.
I think I laughed at this a bit harder than I should.
Bonk
Air powered helicopter: beating air into submission with air.
Or better yet, air powered air compressor.
*"I used the air to beat the air"*
The change from pelton to your own air turbine was just brilliant! What a difference.
The idea is not new, it is called axial turbine.
Pressure regulation to allow a constant amount of thrust. That could be controlled to have a thrust control for a helicopter/plane. You see these used all the time in BBQs and gas appliances, it's just called a pressure regulator.
I'm blown away. I never in a million years thought any more thrust could be made than just the air nozzle itself. Seems efficiency would go down. This is some game changing content.
Angular momentum helps as well, but by proposal is the air having the same buoyancy when not compressed as surrounding air means force has to be used to displace air it's traveling through. The turbine does not experience this as much because it's not traveling as far and you could add a cone around nozzle such that the air that's deflected goes around it creating vacuum at novel.
I would suggest a gas that is less buoyant than air and camering turbine where air goes downward then extending blade such that the air escapes when turbine moves up hill.
Also the diffusion of air outwards from nozel exerts energy outward that's wasted from not going downward
This channel is underrated. Awesome content Tom.
Underrated, but I really appreciate that it's growing and how it's growing
I didn’t know that there was a term for the spoon in the sink when I turn the faucet on and water is redirected all over my kitchen.
Shoot the spoon in your sink with a high-speed camera and post it in a video on TH-cam.
teacher: why are you laughing
my brain: pelton spoon
I'd say the reason for the nozzles low efficiency was the fact that the equation for kinetic energy states that kinetic energy is proportional to velocity squared. So using a large prop to accelerate much air a little gives higher thrust then accelerating a little air a lot
Which is basically the same conclusion that the Wrights came to when selecting the design for the Flyer's props. The went with two, slower spinning props instead of one fast one for that exact reason.
also why rockets have bell nozzles
@LueLou great explanation!
For those wanting to see the relationship:
F = ma = mv/t
P = Fv = mv^2/t
v = sqrt(Pt/m)
Showing that velocity has an inverse relationship to flow rate. Aka as mass per time increases, velocity decreases.
@@GigsTaggart Actually no. Bell nozzles are there to collimate the plasma. In the converging section, the particles are moving rapidly in random directions. (High pressure & High heat.) The expanding section the plasma is forced to expand backward, exchanging pressure/heat for velocity. In a perfectly calibrated bell, the exhaust leaves at the same pressure as the atmosphere. If it's under-expanded, it will expand outward in all directions and that energy is lost.
I think the reason why the turbine has more thrust than just the nozzle is due to the fact that the turbine powers a propeller. The propeller moves more overall air than just the nozzle. Basically it's the same reason why turbofans, especially the high bypass turbofans, are more efficient than turbojets.
circumference ... and gear ratio ... both play with the output ..
Fun fact: If my parents watched a Tom Stanton video, they would doubtless wish they had used protection 48 years ago!
Best wishes and much admiration from a fellow ginger-maker, but thankfully in my field of 'engineering', looking at the pictures is more important than reading the words! 🏆⚒️🇬🇧
it's hard to overstate just how underrated of a channel you are.
True. I am sure if he does his research and keeps putting out great videos like this one of them will break out.
You're finally back! Glad to have you back buddy. Have been waiting patiently for a while now.
Your nozzle only is not designed to extract all the potential energy stored in the pressure. In order to improve its thrust you might have to design a convergent-divergent nozzle made to accelerate the flow as much as possible for the ambiant pressure (an adapted nozzle)
At 4 bars of pressure you are effectively in the range of pressure ratio where you can have supersonic flow exiting a carefully designed Con-Di nozzle.
In order to design your nozzle you might have to explore different throat areas as a trade-off between max thrust and how long it lasts. then you can go on calculating the adapted exit area using some isentropic compressible flow relations.
If you wanna go all out you'll also need to find the optimal nozzle shape which is a whole other story but described in some compressible flow books.
That's a good idea, and i definitely think tom should try it out! However, you still wouldn't get as much thrust out of the jet nozzle as you get out of the propeller. A jet is most efficient when the exhaust velocity is relatively close to the speed of the surrounding air. That's why fighter jets use afterburning low-bypass engines with high exhaust velocity to go fast, airliners use high-bypass engines with high mass flow at relatively lower speed, and even slower planes use turboprops.
Tom, the turbine you ended up with is a simplified version of the "impulse" steam turbines from the early 20th century. For example, one such turbine was used for engine 3 on the Titanic. They are known for having a high power to weight ratio, though they are less efficient than turbines that use expansion.
Love you channel!
Tom your channel is so awesome, I love how you explain things for more simple minded folks like myself. You'd be an amazing teacher. Keep it up mate love it!!
I love the relationship between Tom and Integza 😂
They have very similar channels but quite different personalities.
Tom needs to come up with a more efficient and elegant version of the AirHogs, call it the AirGazelle
That would be great! 💯
You're personal motivation / drive is incredible to me.
很好的視頻。
5:55 YOU JUST INVENTED THE STANTON TURBINE 👏
Okay, Well done! Now here's an Idea, When working with turbines you have to understand air drag this is the air that is being pushed around by the unused turbine blades as the turbine spins. to make this work for and not against you I would suggest you encapsulate the blades. these are the ones not being directly driven until the the single blade passes over the nozzle. Blocking the blades will also create a vacuum which may increase your turbine velocity kind of like a vacuum cleaner with your and over the nozzle. When you do this you will hear the motor rev up because the air mass is dropping because of the loss of pressure in the atmosphere. try it I would love to see the result! Thanks great Video!
Our Engine Legend is Back 😎
*casually _bonks_ integza away
XD
Great vid as always Tom. It is very interesting on how you could make so much thrust from such a simple mechanism👍
I'm in highschool but this channel just makes me love engineering more ❤️
Mr. Stanton: I would suggest you use a 4500 psi Carbon fibre paintball tank (smallest size 13 ci) and a first stage Hero reg followed by a second stage Polarstar Micro regulator.
This allows the use of a LOT of compressed air in a regulated fashion. As you know this means your nozzle(s) will continously blow at the same speed rather than drop off quickly. It also means you have a lot more air to work with.
When powering multiple props (which is what you aim to do with an air powered drone) you will easily create the lift needed to raise the tank and reg setup and the rest off the ground.
Hanging the tank vertically below the prop level will help balance the drone while it travels upwards.
Hope to see this happen in one of your follow up video’s.
You really want to prove sustained flight is possible. I believe this to be the way!
Kind regards,
Marten
Integza: tesla turbine
Tom: and I took that personally
Jordan: that's when it became personal
It was at that moment that integza new, he f*cked up
hmmm... is it less efficient because the air has a 'venturi' effect where it wastes energy by accelerating air that's on either side of the nozzle? If that's the case, a dutch on the input to the turbine could be helpful.
No it's the same reason that commercial airplane engines get better. Idk but something about more mass means more efficient
Maybe its to do with impedance matching?
Honestly I thought it had something to do with the air pushing directly against something. I am not educated on this, I'm just an IT field tech, so this is purely guessing. But my thought is that the jet of air alone is only acting on the nozzle. The energy is lost rather quickly into the surrounding area and only transfers energy to the nozzle as it exits. If you put something in the way of the escaping air now it has to transfer its energy to the object in front of the nozzle too. I bet a simple flat bladed wheel will still produce greater thrust than the nozzle could do on its own.
I think almost all of the thrust is lost on the nozzle due to the shape of the nozzle. Not made for harnessing the thrust created, just an inefficient choke.
Well I think that a de laval nozzle would beat everything
Oddly enough this reminds me of a video a while back from a youtuber called Stratzenblitz, in a game called KSP he built a flying aircraft carrier, and it only had 12 jet engines for thrust which was magnitudes lower than required to lift its runway sized bulk off the ground, but since he directed the jet engine exhausts at these absolutely massive turbine rotors made from dozens of wing surfaces, the jet exhaust made the giant rotors spin, and it could lift its couple hundred tons and oniboard aircrafts off the ground. So I believe the propeller is more efficient than the direct nozzle since the nozzle functions up to a high velocity whereas the propeller has a very low maximum airspeed. It can be thought of as gear ratios in a car as well, a car can move more weight in a lower gear at the cost of a low top speed.
KSP can be tricked into breaking conservation of momentum. The thing you're describing sounds like it's possible (using engines to spin a big rotor producing more thrust than using the same engines as jets) but just because it's possible in KSP doesn't mean it's possible in real life. There's also a glitch where you move fuel from one end of a spinning space station to the other and it creates momentum out of nowhere because the fluid dynamic model isn't detailed enough.
@@PKMartin I get what you're staying, and it makes sense since in KSP the force exerted on a part due to the engine exhaust is very static in nature only varying with throttle output (there is no kinetic energy loss from gas billowing out the clearly open sides), but the theory behind it is somewhat sound. Its not conservation of momentum being broken in this case since the jet engines at full throttle which can fly reliably over Mach 2 (686m/s) are exerting force on the turbines which can propel the huge helicarrier at maybe 40m/s through the air if I'm being generous and gravity is disabled, so the thrust is all in the direction of motion. Its trading off airspeed for more static thrust, similar to how jet engines that are very high bypass (huge fan diameter) are used in subsonic heavy aircraft whereas low bypass are used in supersonic aircraft.
Its all about the airspeed in the end. High lift coefficient and low airspeed, or low lift coefficient and high airspeed? That's the tradeoff between jets and large jet-powered rotor blades.
On another note, its always really fun to break KSP's physics engines for fun and profit lol, the beautiful wonderful Kraken Drive XD
@@Avetho
definitely my favorite BS propulsion device in KSP was the Wing lift exploit - a ball of blades that flails around to reach nigh infinite Velocity without any actual propulsion of its own.
👌😂🤣
@@taiiat0 Oh gosh that thing was amazing, its like string theory made manifest on a macro scale, if I recall it stretches out on the launchpad and when it's sufficiently slinkied downwards it wobbles like some ungodly eldritch abomination and explodes itself so hard the root part goes flying at Mach 500 or something insane XD
You can improve your turbine by change the turbine configuration. Check for centrifugal turbine and blade design (they are in function of air flow angle and speed). You might also want a stator stage before rotors.
I had a pelton turbine obsession for a few weeks last year and im so glad this was recommended
That whack of Integza was so smooth
I am not sure what he was trying to say by it but it was funny. 😄
7:13 Regarding the nozzle only having .34 newtons of thrust on it's own, I'm curious to what degree an engine bell could increase that.
By exactly 0% as long as the inner diameter is too large to reach supersonic velocities. Even then, a conical nozzle can reach up to 95% efficiency. Bell nozzles are only really needed in rockets, as they can be built shorter than other geometries for the same expansion ratio
@@fg8557 so what if he got supersonic how much can that benefit?
Since the pressure ratio is at least initially high enough for flow to be choked, exhaust velocity then can be taken to be equal to the speed of sound, or ~340 m/s. Assuming the 6.9 bar is gauge pressure, and expansion is to 1 bar of pressure, with a starting temperature of 293 K an ideal nozzle would be able to get ~520 m/s of exhaust velocity, or about a 50% improvement. However, the nozzle would drop off efficiency fast, especially as a constant expansion ratio nozzle would either have to seriously underexpand the flow at the beginning, or end up severely overexpanding it at the end as pressure drops, and both are bad for efficiency.
@@fg8557 aero spike would probably work better than just a nozzle and bell.
I wonder how the second design (enclosed blades) would perform with a water stream 🤔
That would be an interesting test to add to the next video.
I build small engines as a hobby and I use compressed air to operate them. I have found using a caged small brass spur gear is quite effective with a tiny outlet and high-pressure air running a worm gear against a helically-cut down-gear.
You just invented an axial gas turbine starting from a water turbine! Man you're a genius. Seriously, nice explanation of impuls, speeds, momentum, power etc. Maybe a visualisation using vectors can show how simple it actually is to design turbines.
I love the part when you smack Integza
Oooh, look at you with the fluid dynamics 😂
When you're washing dishes and rinse off a spoon. 1:38
Another interesting test you could run is the pitch efficiency of the blades themselves. While stationary, a prop will develop a certain thrust, in some cases, not much, however, move that prop through air at a certain speed, and it will generate quite a lot more thrust because the blades are no longer stalling...
7:25
Because the air doesn‘t stop. I just flows out with little resistance. As you already said, the turbine is most efficient, when the water come to a complete stop. The stagnant and build-up air gets pushed into the turbine by the following air, while the nozzle is pushed in the other direction. With the nozzle alone, it would be more efficient, if the air would stop as soon as it leaves the nozzle, forcing the nozzle up to make more room for the following air, but due to not having any obstacle, the air just goes away with a very little impulse. It‘s like stepping into the void (idk if you say it like this, english isn‘t my native language).
Misread this as "Peloton" turbine and was confused why no stationary bicycle was present.
Just imagine what could achieved with a 300bar carbon paintball tank
With a shit ton of dry ice in it.
@@honkhonk8009 beter off then with liquid co2
That would be really heavy. I think 2 L bottles are about ideal for power to weight ratio. a carbon tank would definitely hold enough air to last a lot longer, though.
@@Timestamp_Guy hence "carbon tank"
0,25L carbon tankt weights 280grams and contains 75 liter of air
2 liter pet weights 60 grams and only contains 8 liters of air at 4 bar.
Weight is increased by a factor of 5 however the amount of energy stored is increased by a factor of 10.
A Collab with integza would be brilliant, no idea what you guys would make tho
That is a very, _VERY_ scary thought!
On the turbine vs just a nozzle, the more you keep the flow laminar, the less energy will be converted into turbulence, and if it were possible for the flow to leave the apparatus stationary, you will have captured all the energy.
Really good demonstration.
I love how you dive deep into one topic (like air-powered vehicles) and keep going on that topic until you have created what you think is the best possible mechanism.
Thanks for another great video,
- Eli Tennant
Hey Tom! It's always enlighting to watch your videos. Loved this one specially.
I believe the efficiency of your air turbine can be still increased. What of the turbine and the feeding nozzle is placed within an casing, to avoid the loss of air pressure when the air hits the propeller. And with an opening behind the air can exit from the turbine assembly.
"You need to take into consideration the pressure as it flows around the turbine"
AgentJayZ has entered the chat
Have you considered a centrifugal turbine design like in a turbocharger?
I was also thinking about that during this video.
If you enclose your Micro Pelton Turbine you can then use the air after it has hit the turbine blades to then run a piston or diaphragm motor. Mount a second prop under the first one on the underside. Micro Pelton Turbine spins top propeller. Piston or diaphragm motor spins the bottom or downward facing propeller.
Resin printers are indeed awesome. Cool that you designed your own turbine that performed so much better :D
Why we have 3 blades in turbines and two blades in Quadcopter and 30+ blades in laptop cpu cooling fan,which gives the best lift please test coz I dont have a 3d printer.
I love your teaching 😍
If you are a fan of fans you'll like Major Hardware's Fan blade showdown, he tests user submission fan blades. Some pretty interesting designs.
More blades = trading lower efficiency for higher thrust, if I'm not mistaken.
4:55 - When you say close to stationary, do you mean zero velocity relative to the rotation of the turbine or stationary as shown in the "Much less wasted energy" example? I would think that completely stationary would still mean that it has a small amount of velocity remaining that is equivalent to the speed of the turbine wheel. Stationary relative to the turbine wheel would mean that all of the energy has been captured. I could be wrong though.
Could you power the helicopter with 12g CO2 capsules or would they be too heavy? To eliminate the weight of the assembly that holds the capsules you could get the ones with treads on the end (or make treads on a lane) and connect them to your system with a higher pressure hose.
That was also my idea. But the CO2 will liquify when expanded through the nozzle
@@fg8557 depends on the nozzle type and outside air temperature. But considering these co2 are used to pump tires or as propulsion for pellet guns its most likely fine. Such a small stream would heat up quickly and will probably not be a problem. It's not like you will release all 60bar in 0.1 of a second.
But there could be a problem with the nozzle freezing...
I do think it's an interesting idea to test.
Tom, I'd like to make a suggestion for a future project: build a drone or airplane or hovercraft which uses a cyclorotor or two for thrust and/or lift. If you use two cyclorotors, and they counter-rotate, you can avoid both unwanted gyroscopic effects, and the need for a tail thruster for stabilization.
For a truly unique aircraft, use an Aerobie for lift, and use one upwards pointing cyclorotor and one downwards pointing cyclorotor for thrust.
Yawing is done by spinning one rotor at a higher rpm than the other; pitching is done by having one cyclorotor produce more thrust than the other by adjusting the collective; rolling is done by having the cylcolrotors produce non-parallel thrust.
Forwards, rearwards, and horizontal thrust come naturally to vertical axis cyclorotors, which is why an aerobie or other wing is needed for lift.
Just a thought. The pelton wheel is driven at one or a few points and the rest of it's travel the buckets aren't producing. They are actually wasting energy churning the air. This is acceptable at the speeds it operates due to the difference in density between the driving water and the resisting air, and the buckets being small and not catching much air. When you switch to air, the turbine spins much faster. Now those buckets that weren't doing much for 90% of the rotation are catching air and working as a fan. I think to really improve it from here you will need to design a turbine that is supplied pressure on all the blades at the same time. With such a small supply, this will be tricky. I am thinking a tiny diameter to reduce the circumference, and tiny blades as all must be supplied. At this scale though you will be getting into laminar flow which behaves differently.
You could also try four nozzles on a smaller turbine, but it may be difficult to make the nozzles small enough. That should reduce losses.
I think you may find this book helpful.
ISBN 978-0-12-415954-9
Fluid Mechanics and Thermodynamics of Turbomachinery.
Tom Stanton in 2030: "Making a cookie powered airplane!"
7:20 what about if you add a nozzle ? like a bell-shaped nozzle ? like rockets ?
He's experimented with nozzles before (th-cam.com/video/XpA6qpNlNOE/w-d-xo.html, Gas Thruster Controlled Drone). Short answer is, converging-diverging is for hot, supersonic flows; cold flows work best with a small hole like you see here.
@@bob2859 it all about relative density of thrust flow to ambient.
@@weatheranddarkness No
@@bob2859 nice ! thanks bob, perfect answer.
then why does the propeller perform better then ?
is it because you still have a lot of wasted energy in the small hole, compared with the pelton turbine coupled with a propeller ?
that would surprise me, because I can see a lot of ways energy can be lost in his apparatus.
is it a question of turbulent vs laminar flow ?
the small hole works better than a larger one because the flow stays laminar longer ?
YESSSS NEW VIDEOO Hi Tom greetings from Turkey🤗😊
Reis ya
vay gardasim
bu videolarda senin gibileri gormek ne guzel
@@Bekir_ts agaaaaa
@@sikeletonreiz8084 olm türk lan çok mutlu oldum
@@mehmeteminkarakose7259 kaliteli insan ve kanal görünce dayanmiyorum aga :)
the setup you did to show the newtons of just the air blowing down can be increased by placing it inside of a cylinder to create an air drag through larger tube
A surprising lack of discourse in the comments regarding optimisation, and wanted to share the only idea I had which may be useful. The highspeed at @4:17 best shows how quickly the funnel of air begins to break apart and dissipate energy to the surrounding air. It may already be a consideration in future designs but a small plastic, or metal insert could allow for finer adjustments on nozzle location, minimising distance from air release to recapture.
Also, fantastic production quality on the included visualisations in this video (liquid and simulated gas) great work.
FINALLY I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR YEARS!!
oH My GoSH arE YoU mr beAsT Plz GivVE shoUToutT
Bro its been too long, Hope you doing well
Broke: pelton turbine
Woke: spinny spoony
Tom does the best ad placement. It was actually relevant to the content.
Your videos really are amazing. I love the way you combinde Engineering and Physics while still kepping things simple :)
As always fantastic video!!
what program did you use to simulate water???
Yeah, that caught my attention as well.
That was a really good animation.
TOM PLEASE MAKE US A CONVERGING DIVERGING NOZZLE!!!! GIVE US COMPRESSED AIR ROCKETS NOWW
I was going to mention that... The nozzle needs a bell to expand the gas and extract energy...
*when the notification shows up but youtube doesn't understand that the video got uploaded*
Thankyou Tom for pointing out a very important design aspect with all water and air turbines.
As you explained, once the water (or air) has interacted with the turbine , the water (or air) should drop VERTICALLY ( when maximum power is drawn). This means the turbine must be designed around this factor to work a maximin efficiency. Hence the SPEED of the water (or air) hitting the turbine will always dictate the speed the turbine needs to be rotating at under load, to extract maximum power .
I am very sure very few turbine designers (including industrial designers ) DO NOT understand the importance of this, otherwise you would NOT see water rocketing out of of generator hydro dam exits ( as I have observed ). You SHOULD SEE water falling vertically out of the hydro dam exit in great volumes !!.
This is anti clickbait, the title and thumbnail are kinda boring but the video is soo fascinating and well made. Great job
Keep stroking the algorithms folks - by commenting. Wonderful content, from an old fellow Brit :)
aren't these normally used for more massive and viscous fluids?
Is it possible that you lose some efficiency to backflow of the air as well, 'robbing' momentum from the incoming air stream?
Did you watch the whole video?
when he smashed integza with that bottle with sound... lol
So the final version is very close to a standard impulse turbine that is commonly used in steam applications. Here's a tip. Make two more of those exact same wheels and stack them up with the first in alternating directions. Connect the first and third wheel to your shaft and hold the second (opposite direction wheel) rigid to your frame. Make sure the blades of the first and third wheel are aligned and there you go.
Given the shape of the air-optimized turbine, it makes sense to see if some kind of analogue to a jet engine might be built where you'd have an annular intake combined with internal air nozzles fed from the compressed air tank. The complexity of the idea might induce thrust-weight problems unless the pieces can be printed out of a material light enough but also stiff enough.