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.

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
oups.com...


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.

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

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

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

There is a web site, something like www.itsnoteasybinggreen.org.uk
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.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Doctor Drivel wrote:

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

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.

On Nov 21, 12:36 pm, David Hansen
wrote:


Pity I'll never get a chance to find out.There is a web site, something likewww.itsnoteasybinggreen.org.uk
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.

http://www.itsnoteasybeinggreen.org/inebg_faq.htm

Close, 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.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 20 Nov 2006 14:02:18 -0800 someone who may be "Weatherlawyer"
wrote this:-

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

There is a web site, something like www.itsnoteasybinggreen.org.uk
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.


Somewhat off topic but AFAIAA they would be liable to a charge from the
water company for the use of the water. So it would not be the free
electricity they claim it would be.
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
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 21 Nov 2006 04:56:57 -0800, Weatherlawyer wrote:

There were a number of things he did I felt went the wrong
way because the aim was to get a result on camera.

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?

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

The series is a repeat. It did work, apparently, powered an inverter
and lit some bulbs. I'm dubious that it would last long.

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.

Few have a mill stream in their back yards.

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, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

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

Seemed a complete waste of time to me

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.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

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

Seemed a complete waste of time to me

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.

Agreed I could happily sit by a water wheel with a G & T on a warm
evening, as I do by my small garden pond

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
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"TMC" wrote in message
...

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 20 Nov 2006 14:02:18 -0800 someone who may be "Weatherlawyer"
wrote this:-

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

There is a web site, something like www.itsnoteasybinggreen.org.uk
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.


Somewhat off topic but AFAIAA they would be liable to a charge from the
water company for the use of the water. So it would not be the free
electricity they claim it would be.
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


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

It is a repeat so what we really want to know is how is it doing now one year later. Have they given up on the water wheel and the broken glass heatsink - oops! have i spoilt the surprise?

The guy is well known to Scrapheap Challenge fans and is a "bodger" by 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 a hardship.

In message . com,
Weatherlawyer writes

Doctor Drivel wrote:

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

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.

This got fairly well discussed to death the first time the series was
aired - last year


--
geoff

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

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

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

http://www.itsnoteasybeinggreen.org/inebg_faq.htm#bbc

"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!"



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Aidan wrote:
On Nov 21, 12:36 pm, David Hansen
wrote:


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

There is a web site, something likewww.itsnoteasybinggreen.org.uk
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.

http://www.itsnoteasybeinggreen.org/inebg_faq.htm

Close, 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.

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.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:06:29 +0000 someone who may be freddyuk
wrote this:-

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

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

http://www.itsnoteasybeinggreen.org/inebg_faq.htm#bbc

"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!"



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:06:29 +0000 someone who may be freddyuk
wrote this:-

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

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

http://www.itsnoteasybeinggreen.org/inebg_faq.htm#bbc

"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!"

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

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:53:20 +0000 David Hansen wrote :
"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!"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/edit...makeover.shtml

has the BBC guidelines on this
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

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

"David Hansen" wrote in message
.. .

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.

Agreed I could happily sit by a water wheel with a G & T on a warm
evening, as I do by my small garden pond

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

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


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54