Talk:Water wheel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] A plea for an end to uninformed edits and ill-considered merging

This page appears to have been repeatedly edited by people with no direct knowledge of the subject. I can still see a few vestiges of information I put in (I live in a former mill and have direct personal experience handling three different waterwheels and several francis turbines) but grammatical and factual errors have been introduced into my text.

I will edit this page back into some form of useability ASAP. I'll need to split out noria (which are fundamentally different from all other wheels) all the turbines (which are *not* waterwheels although they are derived from Poncelet's wheel) and the undershot/backshot/etc information in order to create a source of information that does more than simply mislead and misinform; I apologize in advance for my inability to create a unified page with all that together but it's better than being FLAT OUT WRONG.

Please, I beg of you, do not edit this page (for anything other than grammar or link fixes) unless you've physically handled a water wheel! --Charlie

I've made some improvements (mostly taking out duplicated information caused by repeated merging, as well as eliminating turbines that already have their own pages) but there's still a lot to be done here. --Charlie The language of the lead paragraph needs a little cleaning-up. I can't edit it, who can? I refer to (specifically) these items: "Water wheels and hydropower was widely used". "Were" needs to be substituded for "was". "Hydropower" needs replaced by "hydro-power". Have a nice day :).

please remember to sign your contributions (instructions above). I have tidied up the opening sentences, and removed the prominence of hydropower. However as this is a link to another article, I am reluctant to impose the hyphen. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Largest water wheel

Casement's Laxey water wheel (Lady Isabella) is 72.5 feet tall by 6 feet wide.

Burden's 300hp Troy wheel was 62 feet tall by 22 feet wide and weighed 250 tonnes.

The largest Hama wheel (which is really a noria) has a diameter of 20 meters.

[edit] Contradictions in this page

This page contradicts itself; it claims each type of water wheel is more powerful than the other. I don't know which is correct.

Derrick Coetzee 02:10, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Derrick: An overshot steel wheel (wheels aren't really "typically wooden" as the text states; I crawled inside an overshot steel Fitz at the Casho Mill just last week) is more efficient than any other type given the same conditions of head, flow, volume, and operator expertise, because it gains power from both the forward impetus of the water and the weight of the water descending. However, the conditions under which an overshot wheel may be used are more restrictive than for any other type, and will usually (not "always" as in the text) require a dam and/or a long flume. A backshot overshot will spin until floodwater in the tail race rises past the wheel axle; without backshooting, an overshot wheel will stop when the water level passes the bottom bucket, which makes it nearly as flood-tolerant as a breastshot or boat-mounted undershot while producing significantly more power during non-flood conditions. I'll try to find some references to the studies of wheel efficiency that were done at the turn of the 20th century. --Charlie

[edit] Remove Essay on Waterwheel history

I think the essay on waterwheel history external link should be removed. Read it, the typing is horrible. It makes Wikipedia look uncredible.

[edit] Distinguish types

This article seems to lump together all the terms for various types of water wheels. In particular, I was under the impression a noria is a specific type of water wheel with buckets on its rim. The article should distinguish them better. Deco 28 June 2005 21:11 (UTC)

Correct. Waterwheels transfer kinetic energy, noria raise water. Different function + different form = should be different page. --Charlie

[edit] Added a link to this article's Swedish counterpart

I added "Svenska" to the "in other languages"-frame. --TheFinalFraek 20:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge suggestion

Although the person who made the suggestion has not made a case, I think that is reasonable to merge the articles (for the time being). I think it is possible that there may come a time when the articles for (note different titles) overshot water wheel and undershot water wheel may be split out, but that time is not yet. Noisy | Talk 10:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Noisy | Talk 10:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The article water mill also needs to be merged, or this one merged to that. Alternatively the explanation of the different kinds of whater wheel should be removed from water mill and replaced by a short cross-referred paragraph. Peterkingiron 22:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Undershot, Overshot, Backshot and Breastshot have all been merged as requested. Watermill has been de-tagged for merging as, though it contains a waterwheel, it is not in itself a waterwheel. SilkTork 18:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

I have deleted the follwing text, because it appears to be wrong:

Smeaton performed experiments in 1754 that conclusively demonstrated the superiority of the overshot system: Brindley was Smeaton's pupil, and one of his water wheels can be seen at the Brindley Mill in Leek, Staffordshire, England.

Smeaton was actually younger than Brindley. (This from Peterkingiron (talk · contribs)).

I've re-inserted this - see John Smeaton for corroboration. Noisy | Talk 20:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I have checked C. Richardson, James Brindley: Canal Pioneer (of which I have a copy). This says nothing of Brindley being a pupil of Smeaton, as it certainly would (if true). This is a full length and well-researched biography, by an author who knows her subject. Her work is based on good quality secondary sources and sometimes primary ones. I have also removed the statement form the article on John Smeaton. Peterkingiron 22:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moerou toukon

Moerou toukon (block log) has been permanently blocked as a sockpuppet of the Indian nationalist editor Freedom skies (block log · checkuser confirmed), who has a history of

The Arbitration Committee has found that Freedom skies has "repeatedly engaged in edit-warring" and placed him on revert parole. When examining Freedom skies' editing, be mindful of the following:

JFD 05:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request quote

In this diff, Moerou toukon added the following text:

Joseph Needham dated the early uses of water wheel can be dated to 4th century BC India. Joseph Needham noted in 1965 that certain ancient Indian texts from around 350 BC mentioned a cakkavattaka (turning wheel) and a further elaboration of a revolving machine.

No source is given for the attribution to Needham. JFD 14:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Request quote

Joseph Needham noted in 1965 that certain ancient Indian texts dating from around 350 BC mentioned a chakkacattaka (machine with wheel posts attached). On this basis he suggested that the machine in question was a noria and that it was the first water powered prime mover.

The No source is given for the attribution to Needham statement is incorrect; the footnote was given at the end of the paragraph. I will reinstate sourced material and point that any further personal attacks on the lines of the Indian nationalist editor will be met with request for administrative action; ditto for blanking sourced material.

Regards,
Freedom skies| talk  16:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backshot = sub-type of over-shot?

Not knowing much about water wheels I don't want to change this, but the ordering of the 'Types' looks wrong to me. 'Backshot' starts by saying "An overshot wheel is backshot...", but Overshot wheels are not described until the following section. At the very least, surely the order of these two sections should be reversed?

Also, it would be very helpful to have a diagram showing the water flow of a backshot wheel. EdJogg 10:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A pitchback/backshot waterwheel is actually a variation of undershot/low breast/breastshot/high breast waterwheel. An overshot waterwheel will revolve in the opposite direction to the others. Mjroots (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nuernbergk

Some one has just added two citation os works in German by Nuernbergk. Is this really a useful addition, when there is plenty of English literature already cited. I note that no alteration has eben made to the text in consquence of these works being published. Are they important works, or is this mere advertising? Peterkingiron (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, there is no engineering / technical literature on water wheels in English. Reynold's book e.g. is excellent, but focuses on history. Books by Fairbairn, Bjoerling etc. only give some hints at the design / the performance. I find Nuernbergks' book somehwat overly long. The Wiki-article on water wheels is incomplete and in parts erroneous (most water wheels in the 19th Century were not built of wood but of steel or steel and wooden planks since steel (or rather wrought iron) was mucy stronger, allowed for larger wheels, enabled designers to choose hydraulically more effcieint geometries, and did not deteriorate).

For an overview of water wheel technology see “Performance characteristics of water wheels”, Müller G. & Kauppert K., 2004, IAHR Journ. Hydr. Res., Vol. 42, No. 5. There, the main types of water wheels are presented with efficiency figures from measurements (76% for breast shot wheels, 85% for overshot wheels, and an overview over the literature is give. Gerald, 26.02.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.178.181 (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Most types of waterwheels not described

Types of waterwheels to be described:

  • Zuppinger-wheel
  • Poncelet wheel
  • Sagebien-wheel (78% efficient)

Also add their efficiency (lower wheels 70-80), upper wheels (80-90% efficient) in article, or mark on seperate page (comparisation).

Types to turbines to describe:

  • Girard-turbine
  • Francis-turbine
  • Kaplan-turbine (especially this one needs good description, most efficient turbine)

References for all this:

Please do not include turbines (save as a cross-reference), as they are not waterwheels. Otherwise if you have relaible information with citable sources, please add it. However, please do not alter the basic terminology, as the usual Englihs terms are used. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)