In Tesla's time, the efficiency of conventional turbines was low because turbines used a
direct-drive system that severely limited the potential usable output speed of a turbine. At the time of introduction, ship turbines were massive, and included dozens, or even hundreds, of stages of turbines, yet produced extremely low efficiency due to their low speed. For example, the turbine on both the
Olympic and
Titanic weighed over 400 tons, ran at only 165
rpm, and used steam at a pressure of only 6
psi. This limited it to harvesting waste steam from the main power plants, a pair of reciprocating steam engines. The Tesla turbine could run on higher-temperature gases than bladed turbines of the time, which contributed to its greater efficiency. Eventually, axial turbines were given gearing to allow them to operate at higher speeds, but the efficiency of axial turbines remained very low in comparison to the Tesla turbine. Continued improvements resulted in dramatically more efficient and powerful axial turbines, and a second stage of reduction gears was introduced in most cutting-edge U.S. naval ships of the 1930s. The improvement in steam technology gave the
U.S. Navy aircraft carriers a clear advantage in speed over both Allied and enemy aircraft carriers, and so the proven axial steam turbines became the preferred form of propulsion until the
1973 oil crisis, which drove the majority of new civilian vessels to turn to diesel engines.
Axial steam turbines still had not exceeded 50% efficiency by that time, and so civilian ships chose to use diesel engines due to their superior efficiency. By this time, the comparably-efficient Tesla turbine was over 60 years old. Tesla's design attempted to sidestep the key drawbacks of the bladed axial turbines, and even the lowest estimates for efficiency still dramatically outperformed the efficiency of axial steam turbines of the day. However, in testing against more modern engines, the Tesla turbine had expansion efficiencies far below contemporary steam turbines and far below contemporary reciprocating steam engines. It also suffers from other problems, such as shear losses and flow restrictions, but this is partially offset by the relatively massive reduction in weight and volume. Some of the Tesla turbine's advantages lie in relatively-low-flow-rate applications or when small sizes are needed. The disks need to be as thin as possible at the edges in order to not introduce turbulence as the fluid leaves the disks. This translates to needing to increase the number of disks as the flow rate increases. Maximum efficiency comes in this system when the inter-disk spacing approximates the thickness of the
boundary layer, and since
boundary layer thickness is dependent on viscosity and pressure, the claim that a single design can be used efficiently for a variety of fuels and fluids is incorrect. A Tesla turbine differs from a conventional turbine only in the mechanism used for transferring energy to the shaft. Various analyses demonstrate that the flow rate between the disks must be kept relatively low to maintain efficiency. Reportedly, the efficiency of the Tesla turbine decreases with increased load. Under light load, the spiral taken by the fluid moving from the intake to the exhaust is tight, undergoing many rotations. Under load, the number of rotations drops, and the spiral becomes progressively shorter. This will increase the shear losses and also reduce the efficiency because the gas is in contact with the discs for less distance. The turbine efficiency (defined as the ratio of the ideal change in
enthalpy to the real enthalpy for the same change in
pressure) of the gas Tesla turbine is estimated to be above 60%. The turbine efficiency is different from the cycle efficiency of the engine using the turbine. Axial turbines that operate today in steam plants or
jet engines have efficiencies of over 90%. This is different from the cycle efficiencies of the plant or engine, which are between approximately 25% and 42%, and are limited by any irreversibility to be below the
Carnot cycle efficiency. Tesla claimed that a steam version of his device would achieve around 95% efficiency. The
thermodynamic efficiency is a measure of how well it performs compared to an
isentropic case. It is the ratio of the ideal to the actual work input/output. In the 1950s, Warren Rice attempted to recreate Tesla's experiments, but he did not perform these early tests on a pump built strictly in line with Tesla's patented design (it, among other things, was not a Tesla multiple staged turbine nor did it possess Tesla's nozzle). Rice's experimental single-stage system's working fluid was air. Rice's test turbines, as published in early reports, produced an overall measured efficiency of 36–41% for a
single stage. Higher efficiency would be expected if designed as originally proposed by Tesla. In his final work with the Tesla turbine published just before his retirement, Rice conducted a bulk-parameter analysis of model laminar flow in multiple disk turbines. A very high claim for rotor efficiency (as opposed to overall device efficiency) for this design was published in 1991 titled "Tesla Turbomachinery". This paper states: Modern multiple-stage bladed turbines typically reach 60–70% efficiency, while large steam turbines often show turbine efficiency of over 90% in practice.
Volute rotor-matched Tesla-type machines of reasonable size with common fluids (steam, gas, and water) would also be expected to show efficiencies in the vicinity of 60–70% and possibly higher. ==Applications==