WaterWheels

[Weatherlawyer]

I watched that "It's not easy because I am making the programme for the BBC being Green" programme this evening. Work was started on the waterwheel.

A few of things struck me about the design. If I had the money to waste I'd have made the source come from a sump of some sort -however small. And have the delivery on a deeper section; perhaps a vee chute with the sides at an angle of 60 degrees. This would allow for a faster flow and the maximum economy of trough material.

On the wheel, the cups could have been designed to hold as much of the water as possible at the rim. And incorporate a Teflon coating on -once again, vee sections; more of them and centring the water on the wheel to diminish flexing. Thus the wheel could be made narrower and slightly lighter. In fact I think the wheel could have been made without rims. There is very little weight on the amount of water they had at their disposal after all.

Perhaps incorporating a vee section holding the spokes apart/together instead of a rim, making them the cup sides? I chose 60 degree vee shapes because they are the simplest section and the angle 60 degrees because it is the best ratio of sides to volume envelope.

Pity I'll never get a chance to find out.

[Doctor Drivel]

Where is the water comming from to turn this wheel? What will the wheel power?

[David Hansen]

On 20 Nov 2006 14:02:18 -0800 someone who may be "Weatherlawyer" wrote this:-

There is a web site, something like

for the farm which has some web based forums. One of these is about water power and an number of people have challenged the water wheel design.

[Weatherlawyer]

The presenter has a small holding in Devon or Cornwall and is renovating the house whilst installing all sorts of gimmicks.

It's on BB2 each Monday at 8 pm. All will become clear as the series progresses. There were a number of things he did I felt went the wrong way because the aim was to get a result on camera.

For instance he had a gang of kids hacking at a weed infested garden rather than greenly getting a couple of goats and some chickens to have at it.

In last Monday's episode they were shelling out a small fortune on the roof rather than take it all off and put in the ducting that is going to be a PITA a few programmes later on.

Personally I would have redesigned it as a garden roof by hacking steps in the gables and using purlins to support a ziggurat type cover. I appreciate he had to meet planning restrictions. So why not get an house in a region he could have gone the whole hog? Seeing him putting slates on a roof hardly qualifies as going green.

No offense to the man or his producer. He has a lot more go in him than I have but it is just another case of the BBC quietly shelving as much science as it possibly can.

There was far more scientific discussion on the posts here when the series was first shown than there was in the series.

[Aidan]

likewww.itsnoteasybinggreen.org.uk

one letter astray there. I see he's offering courses. Hmmmmmmm.

The series is a repeat. It did work, apparently, powered an inverter and lit some bulbs. I'm dubious that it would last long. It'd be nice to set up some instruments, measure output and develop the design into something cheaper, more reliable and more efficient. Few have a mill stream in their back yards.

The series seems a bit like B&Q's windmill, aimed at those with enthusiam unresricted by technical ability or experience. I was arguing with the telly when he put his ventilation system in.

[TMC]

Also as they were suggesting that the output would only be 60 watts per hour I wonder how long it would take just to recoup the cost of the materials and storage cells

Seemed a complete waste of time to me

Tony>

[Steve Firth]

The supply to the water wheel, and the wheel itself beign a case in point. Yes, you can make a water chute and wheel in the cheapest 9mm ply you can find. And no, it's not going to last for very long is it?

[David Hansen]

On 21 Nov 2006 05:00:30 -0800 someone who may be "Aidan" wrote this:-

That depends on the amount of maintenance it gets. I would guess that the coupling between ISTR the axle and the gearbox (a few programmes on for those who have not seen it before) is likely to fail first. However, it can easily be replaced and the wheel will run happily on no load without destroying itself.

True. However, there are still many old water power sites that could usefully be brought back into use.

In my view the series is excellent, not the least because it slays the antis' dragon that all green things are boring. Making mistakes is all part of the series, they also show how to rectify mistakes.

It isn't a dry university style look at the subject, but that is undoubtedly good as it may appeal to people who are not too deeply involved.

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 13:06:25 -0000 someone who may be "TMC" wrote this:-

The repeats in Scotland are on Tuesdays, so I haven't refreshed my memory on the programme concerned yet. However, from memory part of the reason for constructing the water wheel was for the fun of doing it, part of it was to provide a visual focal point and only part of the reason was to provide electricity for the lights. There is nothing wrong with the first two reasons.

[TMC]

Visited a client at a converted mill not long ago where the workings were screened in the house by glass panels and you could stand in the kitchen and watch the cog wheels turning

Tony

[HLAH]

Well if you consider it as just an exercise in television entertainment then I expect his expenditure on the wheel was recovered from his fee in a tiny fraction of the time he spent in front of the camera.

H

[Huge]

The whole series is crap. Nothing is properly costed, tested or built to last. No mention is made of planning issues. He gets his labour for nothing and his wife is madder than a box of frogs.

It's quite sad, really, because the concept is a good one.

[freddyuk]

It is a repeat so what we really want to know is how is it doing now on

year later. Have they given up on the water wheel and the broken glas heatsink - oops! have i spoilt the surprise?

The guy is well known to Scrapheap Challenge fans and is a "bodger" b trade now (ex Army).

The only interest for me is did it all work long term???????????

I assume he was paid to do all this so failure was not really hardship

-- freddyuk

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:06:29 +0000 someone who may be freddyuk wrote this:-

As I pointed out recently, in this or some other thread:

"Did the BBC pay for it?

"I should be so lucky! I was paid as a presenter but they did not contribute towards any of our work. That said, they were a great bunch and we made them join in when they were not carrying the camera!"

[Weatherlawyer]

Having read the pertinent part of the link provided, not a great deal of info IMO, the reaoning was fair enough

He had overheads that were increasing exponentially and a limited budget. From the link:

"I know the waterwheel looks like it's going the wrong way but we deliberately make the wheel as big as possible for the drop we had.

That means when the stream is in flood sometimes the bottom can be in water and rather than have the water having to come back on itself from under the wheel (to flow away) we went for the wheel turning anti-clockwise.

The aqueduct is just about level so we don't get much kinetic energy in the water its all about using all the potential energy when the water drops through the 'trap door' onto the top of the wheel between 11 and

12 o'clock."

In spate a stream can supply quite a force of water even though the drop is not very far. This is because there is no friction on the water at the top of the run so all of it is accelerating right up to when it hits the paddles.

(Which is why I'd suggested the shape of the troughing.)

However in spate the full effect of the wheel is lost, as the pool under the wheel makes it an undershot wheel.

The wheel might have been more efficient when conditions were best for it and when the electricity supplied might have had the most use made of it -as for example through most of winter, had the wheel been smaller.

*******

All told they would have been better having a new build, as a modern building could have made the most of modern techniques rather than patching an old garment with new cloth.

[Mark Spice]

[Mark Spice]

I must admit, though, that my natural level of cynicism makes me think "Hmmmm, but he would say that wouldn't he?"

I wonder what his fee for presenting the show was. I suspect it was probably high enough to insulate him from a lot of the risk.

Cheers

Mark

[Tony Bryer]

the BBC guidelines on this

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:07:02 -0000 someone who may be "TMC" wrote this:-

For the record, I wrote the first paragraph but not the second.

That doesn't mean I disagree with the second paragraph though.