How exactly it proves it? Tesla turbine is perfectly up to the time, there is nothing exceptional and miraclous in it. Turbines as a class of devices are not a modern thing at all, you will find them since ancient times.
Tesla turbine looks (and sounds, meanwhile, I have one, made from HDD plates :) ) cool, but it is overall ineffective compared to conventional turbine design with blades. Unfortunately, it have to be many times bigger than conventional turbine to show similar efficiency, since you have to force a laminar flow of gas/liquid in them to be effective, but making giant high precision polished plates is in no way cheaper and easier than making turbine blades today.
Funny, that Tesla was working on a pump for gas and liquid using centrifugal forces, and no, he was not inventor of that pump type, it was invented by Sargent in 1850 IIRC, but suddenly he noticed that it could work backwards - when gas is delivered into the pump under pressure. Pumps of such design even in mass production for a long time, at least in USSR/Russa ("ЦДН" pump models). They mostly used to pump liquids that could not sustain turbulence. Also, vacuum pumps on that principle is used in labs.
Also interesting, that Tesla had prototype of conventional steam turbine, with blades and all that stuff. Pretty effective, meanwhile, because its design allowed gas to expand also on the blades, adding some thrust.
But again, there is nothing exceptional in Tesla turbine at all.
Effectiviness have nothing to do with seals. It has everything to do with principles of working. Blade turbines work by transferring the energy of moving gas/liquid particles to blades via collisions of particles with blades. Tesla turbine have completely different principle - it works because moving particles of gas/liquid transfer its energy via friction with disk in surface layer. And the problem of Tesla turbine is that energy transfer is maximal when gas/liquid flow slowly, without turbulence. As turbulence appear, transfer of kinetic energy become chaotic, particles do not drag disks in one direction, so gas/liquid unable to effectively transfer its kinetic energy to the disks. You have to keep gas/liquid flow slow enough to prevent turbulence. So, if you need something powerful, you need a lot of large disks blowed by slow flows from multiple laminar jets. With blade turbine you just blow on the blades with all power you have and that's fine as soon as blades could sustain pressure and rotation speed. With Tesla turbine, if gas flow come turbulent, efficiency drops significantly, and you can't increase turbine output power just adding more gas/liquid flow, you have to add more disks to turbine.
Also, disks have to be polished as mirror and be very straight, to avoid turbulence creation on the roughness. This make manufacturing Tesla turbine disks a complex task.
So, you have to build a much larger Tesla turbine to have the same efficiency as a bladed one. It is obviously ineffective.
How exactly it proves it? Tesla turbine is perfectly up to the time, there is nothing exceptional and miraclous in it. Turbines as a class of devices are not a modern thing at all, you will find them since ancient times.
Tesla turbine looks (and sounds, meanwhile, I have one, made from HDD plates :) ) cool, but it is overall ineffective compared to conventional turbine design with blades. Unfortunately, it have to be many times bigger than conventional turbine to show similar efficiency, since you have to force a laminar flow of gas/liquid in them to be effective, but making giant high precision polished plates is in no way cheaper and easier than making turbine blades today.
Funny, that Tesla was working on a pump for gas and liquid using centrifugal forces, and no, he was not inventor of that pump type, it was invented by Sargent in 1850 IIRC, but suddenly he noticed that it could work backwards - when gas is delivered into the pump under pressure. Pumps of such design even in mass production for a long time, at least in USSR/Russa ("ЦДН" pump models). They mostly used to pump liquids that could not sustain turbulence. Also, vacuum pumps on that principle is used in labs.
Also interesting, that Tesla had prototype of conventional steam turbine, with blades and all that stuff. Pretty effective, meanwhile, because its design allowed gas to expand also on the blades, adding some thrust.
But again, there is nothing exceptional in Tesla turbine at all.
Did you put seals on the ends?
Effectiviness have nothing to do with seals. It has everything to do with principles of working. Blade turbines work by transferring the energy of moving gas/liquid particles to blades via collisions of particles with blades. Tesla turbine have completely different principle - it works because moving particles of gas/liquid transfer its energy via friction with disk in surface layer. And the problem of Tesla turbine is that energy transfer is maximal when gas/liquid flow slowly, without turbulence. As turbulence appear, transfer of kinetic energy become chaotic, particles do not drag disks in one direction, so gas/liquid unable to effectively transfer its kinetic energy to the disks. You have to keep gas/liquid flow slow enough to prevent turbulence. So, if you need something powerful, you need a lot of large disks blowed by slow flows from multiple laminar jets. With blade turbine you just blow on the blades with all power you have and that's fine as soon as blades could sustain pressure and rotation speed. With Tesla turbine, if gas flow come turbulent, efficiency drops significantly, and you can't increase turbine output power just adding more gas/liquid flow, you have to add more disks to turbine.
Also, disks have to be polished as mirror and be very straight, to avoid turbulence creation on the roughness. This make manufacturing Tesla turbine disks a complex task.
So, you have to build a much larger Tesla turbine to have the same efficiency as a bladed one. It is obviously ineffective.
Yes. Suddenly.