Talk:Water wheel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mills (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mills, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mills on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

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

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)

Charlie: I am no expert, although I am an engineer and familiar with mechanical power . I added some info. on Smeaton and water turbines which I didn't see but thought worth mentioning. One other thing I noted was no mention of the suspended wheel. Perhaps you can add something. Thanks.Phmoreno (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Largest water wheel[edit]

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.

Contradictions in this page[edit]

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

The section "Importance to 17th- and 18th-century Europe (scientific influence)" refers to a person, the spelling of whose name differs from that in the corresponding reference 38 ie “Fithezerbert” in text vs note 38 “Anthony Fizherbert”. I see that there have been unapproved alterations to this article which have rightly annoyed the expert author and I apologise if my comment is stupid. It just looks odd to me. Dawright12 (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Remove Essay on Waterwheel history[edit]

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

In the section 3.1 it's says that Power = P is equal to 1000 * A * v3 * C. Neglecting C it means that P = 1000 * A * v3, but P = F * v, and F = Q * v and Q = A * v, where Q is expressed in cubic meters or 1000 * A * v, where Q is expressed in liters or kilograms, so Power in Watts should be equal to 1000 * A * v3 and not 100 * A * v3. Could somebody check this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The power equations are generally misleading, ambiguous and in at least some aspects flat out wrong. I am working on a replacement. Malcolm.boura (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Distinguish types[edit]

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

Vocabulary is a minefield with reputable sources contradicting one another. I am rewriting to clarify and avoid.

Water wheels convert both kinetic and potential energy to work. The proportion of each varies according to the type of wheel. Malcolm.boura (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Merge suggestion[edit]

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)


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)

Moerou toukon[edit]

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)

Request quote[edit]

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)

RE:Request quote[edit]

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.

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

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

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)

Vocabulary is a minefield with different reputable authorities using different definitions. The energy conversion in backshot is the same as for overshot so it should be considered a variant of overshot. However, by some dictionary definitions, eg Collins, a backshot weel is also an undershot wheel!

A diagram is on my TODO list for the page rewrite. Malcolm.boura (talk)


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 (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Most types of waterwheels not described[edit]

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)

Article change[edit]

This article describes the waterwheel solely as a "machine for converting the energy of flowing water to useful work" This is somehow incorrect, as the waterwheel can also be used for different jobs such as pumping, ... see (see the paddle wheel image which is type of waterwheel

I thus suggest to change the definition of waterwheel to: A water wheel is a bladed rotor for Hydro Energy Conversion Systems.

The preceding paragraphs in this section are not attributed to an author. It is incorrect and article is correct. The energy is always converted to work and that work then applied to different jobs. Malcolm.boura (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


Water wheels can be used in systems to convert the energy of flowing or falling water into mechanical power or electricity (if a electricity generator is added), or they can be used for moving the water (eg for pumping or marine propulsion). In the latter case, no flowing water needs to be present, and instead, another energy source (eg electricity, ...) is used to propel the wheel.


In the Middle Ages, waterwheels were used as tools to power factories throughout different counties. The alternatives were the windmill and human and animal power. The most common use of the water wheel was to mill flour in gristmills, but other uses included foundry work and machining, and pounding linen for use in the manufacture of paper.


A water wheel consists of a large wooden or metal wheel, with a number of blades or buckets arranged on the outside rim forming the driving surface. Most commonly, the wheel is mounted vertically on a horizontal axle, but the tub or Norse wheel is mounted horizontally on a vertical shaft. Vertical wheels can transmit power either through the axle or via a ring gear and typically drive belts or gears; horizontal wheels usually directly drive their load.

A mill pond is formed when a flowing stream is dammed to feed a waterwheel. A channel for the water flowing to or from a water wheel is called a mill race (also spelled millrace) or simply a "race", and is customarily divided into sections. The race bringing water from the mill pond to the water wheel is a headrace; the one carrying water after it has left the wheel is commonly referred to as a tailrace.[1]

Wrong rotation for backshot wheel[edit]

The rotation for the backshot wheel appears wrong - how can the weight of water on the right side of the wheel cause it to rotate counter-clockwise? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Updated the image, thanks for the heads up

Blades face wrong way on backshot wheel[edit]

I think the blades or buckets are facing the wrong way, because as shown they will scoop up water on the up side of the wheel and will not benefit from the tail race flow described in the text. (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Definition change[edit]

Hey, I noticed you reverted my intro at water wheel. The reason why I replaced the definition to being a bladed rotor for hydro energy conversion systems, also incorporated the notion that a waterwheel can also be used for pumping, ...

As part of a HECS, this is possible as then, the process is simply reversed; instead of generating energy from moving water, energy is put into the device and water is moved instead. KVDP (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"Muslim engineers employed water wheels as early as the 7th century"[edit]

Was this really the work of Muslim engineers? I understand the Muslims in Syria to have been a small ruling elite, whereas the country was in fact run by Greek-speaking bureaucrats, working for them. Is this not another case of Muslims claiming responsibility for more ancient technology - Greek or otherwise? Peterkingiron (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The complete water technology of the Muslim was adopted from the Greeks and the local Near Eastern populace. When the Muslims came out of the desert, they were little more advanced than the Germanic tribes were. The section seems to be written under the premise that as soon as Muslim engineers began to employ the same methods, it became Muslim technology - which sounds odd for such an early date in time. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

post-1820 America[edit]

Do you really mean "steel". Steel was a very expensive material until Henry Bessemer's innovation. I would have expected cast or wrought iron to be used. I do not know about America, but in UK, cast iron was much used in the structure of water wheels from the early 19th century. Wrought iron mihgt be used for the buckets, but not much elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Near East[edit]

I moved the philological discussions and hypotheses on the Akkadian cuneiform passages to footnotes in the Greek section, since it is obvious that even those who advance the idea find the evidence lacking in appeal. Oleson and Wikander I integrated into the continuous text of the Greek section, as they most clearly discuss Hellenistic developments which postdate ancient Near Eastern ones. The rest, like Reynolds, I found idiosyncratically cited and summarized, but perhaps I am overlooking something. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

European water wheel[edit]

The merger of the above had been suggested.

  • Support merger -- There little merit in having a separate article on Europe. Nevertheless, as both articles have detailed sources, undertaking the merger will be challenging. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"History" section[edit]

Though I don't have any specialist knowledge of waterwheels, the last sentence of this section seems to me to be simply wrong. I can't believe there is any _inherent_ reason why a horizontally-axled wheel would need gearing and a vertically-axled wheel wouldn't; it will surely depend on the required speed and orientation of whatever machinery is to be driven by the wheel. Perhaps whoever wrote this was thinking just of flour mills (for which the sentence may well be true). I have deleted the sentence. (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure all sorts of wheels were constructed and used both with and without gearing, in many places and times, so I support your edit. However, I personally do not know of any examples of a tub wheel that were geared. Norse mills have a straight shaft running from a wheel in the basement to a millstone on the first floor; the speed and weight of the stones that can be driven is determined by the available water. This is an extremely simple design that I could build by myself in the course of a single growing season. It may well have been invented before gears! It's possible that any miller willing to go to the trouble of building a gear train (even lantern gears are non-trivial engineering) would have built a more powerful and complex horizontal axle wheel system rather than an inefficient vertical axle tub wheel. Keep in mind that in a Norse mill, if a heavy stone is stopped independently of the wheel, or the wheel is suddenly stopped or accelerated, the axle will shatter (hopefully) or else the blades will snap off. In either case repairs are straightforward. In a geared mill, failure points must be engineered into the gear train - in the USA, this is often done by using a huge iron gear fitted with apple-wood teeth - because the gearing will necessarily be the point of failure when eleventy-some tons of stone are already in motion and a drifting log sneaks past the trash rake, stopping the wheel. This does happen - I have seen the result! - and without engineered failure points the entire system can be almost instantly reduced to a pile of mangled scrap, putting workers in considerable danger from flying shards of metal and wood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

CRITIQUE HIST406-11jlorber[edit]

Wikipedia Project The wiki page that I will be critiquing is the page for the water wheel. This page is very long so I will not be critiquing the whole thing I will only focus on the introduction and the section that describes the different types of water wheels, a word count of roughly 1500 words. It is an unwritten rule in the academic world that you cannot use Wikipedia as a valid source to cite in any professional writing piece. Having said that, there is still so much to learn from this wonderful search engine. When we were given our first discussion board assignment the first thing I searched for was information on the water wheel in Wikipedia so that I could easily find a smaller subtopic to search for within a real academic journal. Although I did not do this, I believe I could have easily used the Wikipedia page for the assignment. Not only did I find a description of every type of waterwheel there was, I found the origins of the wheel, its various uses, different countries and how they used it differently from one another, how it was made, and various pictures that gave great descriptions of what each part does. But when it comes down to it we still need to remember that it is Wikipedia and it is far from perfect.

I’ll start my critique with the positives and negatives I found from the introduction to the water wheel Wikipedia page. Every good introduction must tell the reader the five W’s, who, what, where, when, and why. So based on that definition of an introduction this introduction is not a very good one. It starts off well by explaining to the reader what a water is what it does, so you can cross the “what” off that checklist. It then starts to answer the “when” question, but does so in an incomplete fashion. It states when the typical water wheel was taken out of commercial use, which was around the 20th century. It could have completely answered the “when” question if it had explained when it was first invented, or when it was used most commonly. The introduction does a good job of explaining the “why” aspect. It explains why water mills are needed, and the answer is to generate some type of power.

The biggest issues with the introduction however, are that it does not answer the “where” or the “who”. The editors of this page could easily add a sentence or two for each, explaining that the first water wheel was invented by the ancient Greeks and Romans somewhere between the third and first century BC.

Overall I think this is a very effective introduction to the water wheel, it gives the reader enough background knowledge without overwhelming them with facts.

In my opinion, the section of the water wheel’s Wikipedia page that describes the different types of wheels is extremely helpful and full of information, but there are still a few flaws that can be found.

First, I'll start off by explaining what I like about this section. Not everyone can just read a sentence and completely comprehend what is being talked about, that is why I think the pictures involved in this page are extremely helpful. They not only show you what each type of wheel looks like but also give some type of description as to how it works and the science behind it.
Another thing I like about it is that it not only describes how each wheel works but it describes the pros and cons to each wheel and says how each wheel is different from one another just in case the reader is confused at all. For example, when describing the breastshot wheel it states that “breastshot wheels are less efficient than overshot wheels, more efficient than undershot wheels, and are not backshot wheels”.

This section of the Wiki page does have a few downfalls though. One thing I do not like about this section is that it assumes that everyone reading it is an expert in the field of water wheels. What I mean by this is that the language that is used is pretty complex there is a lot of terminology that I was not familiar with. For example, it uses a lot of physics phrases like “potential energy”, and handy-man phrases like “flume” and “penstock”. I am sure the average reader, who is searching Wikipedia for a reason, does not understand this lingo.

One of the strongest aspects of this Wiki page is the References section. You can tell that all the information in this page is legit just by looking at where all the information is coming from. Going up and down the list I see places like Cambridge University, John Hopkins University, and Harvard University just to name a few. This section alone brings so much ethos to this page, in other words you can trust all the information on this page because it is clearly coming from a reliable source.

In conclusion, the water wheel Wikipedia page is extremely useful for someone who needs a quick background check or reminder of what this piece of technology entails. Some of the strong attributes to this page are the very clearly outlined sections, in this case the different types of wheels which describe each type perfectly. The pictures and diagrams included are extremely helpful for the understanding of how each type of wheel works. Another positive aspect is the overall layout of the page, it is the most efficient and organized way the editors could have created it. But the most impressive and most powerful strength to this page is the Reference section, all the information is coming from some of the top schools in the world so you know it is trustworthy. One major downfall to the page is the diction they used though, which probably comes from the sources used. To an average person searching what a water wheel was, the page is too intelligent. If someone is using Wikipedia to search something, they most likely do not know too much on the subject and they should be able to clearly find all their answers on Wiki. However, this is not the case with this page so if I could make some changes to the page I would dumb it down a bit. Overall, the water wheel page in Wikipedia is one of the most developed, well organized pages I have ever used and if the only criticism I have for it is that it is too smart, than I think it is a staple in the Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-11jlorber (talkcontribs) 22:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Added a little wiki formatting to aid the reader.--ClemRutter (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Photos of water wheel in park in New Jersey[edit]

Photos for possible inclusion in article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Reestablishing a structure[edit]

What excellent material on water raisng wheels. Burying it in history may have been a good idea at the time but now the lead and and all other section were about power wheels- and the history about irrigation. I have done a surgical operation, (not a single comma was erased in the process) to reestablish a structure- and will attempt to clean it up further quite soon- particular to add the compartmented wheel to the types of wheel section. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Can I explain that Wikipedia has a policy WP:UNDUE that prevents an article being swamped with fascination but off focus facts. For instance it is there to prevent an article on a form of motive power becoming an erudite article on Hellenistic scholarship. All that needs to be replaced by a brief synopsis, and the detailed material be transfered to a new more specific article. We have reached that stage now. I suggest History of water wheels in the classical world or Water wheels in the classical world but many other titles may be more political acceptable or appropriate.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Life is easier if regular editors login and get a user-name, so we can talk about changes rather than just revert changes and make everyone unhappy-- Clem Rutter (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Breastshot waterwheel diagram[edit]

Hello, This site was helpful for me to analyze a 1925 photograph I have of an undershot waterwheel in Weston, Massachusetts. I happened to notice that the diagram for the breastshot waterwheel is mixed up. The water flow is pointing from the tail race towards the wheel, exactly the opposite of how the term tail race was defined. I hope someone can fix it. (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Better ways to cooperate[edit]

  • Terry S, Reynolds, Stronger than a Hundred Men; A History of the Vertical Water Wheel. Baltimore; Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983. Robert, Friedel, A Culture of Improvement. MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. London, England. (2007). p. 33., has been challenged as an notable reference.
  • Spelling inconsistency- The word labour has always posed problem for some readers- the best way forward is to find an alternative word and write it out of the sentence. Does anyone have sufficient programming skills to write a template that checks the readers location or settings- and automatically renders out the letter 'u' for readers living west of the Scilly Isles, and north of Havana and south of the 59th parallel? A bigger problem is the word Fibre. Just a thought -- Clem Rutter (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The ref is still there, isn't it? I wouldn't be at all surprised to find "labor" was as old and valid a spelling as "labour". I did find the emphasis on "European" achievements to be uncomfortable, even for Wikipedia - we have enough neglect through ignorance of the rest of the world, we don't have to blow the horn so loud here do we? --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Put is straight- this style of writing is not one I aspire to, but in the context of flowery prose it is consistent. The problem is that it does reflect the facts, and the cradle of the early industrial revolution was Shropshire and the European waterwheel did enable iron to be processed in a way that it wasn't in Asia or Africa. The technology was soon exported to the European settlers in New England. Yes, I agree it is chauvanist- and verging on racist and could profitably be rewritten- but it is too easy to just delete it without replacing it with something more subtle. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Largest ever?[edit]

Although the Laxey Wheel is the largest working water wheel in existence, is it thought to be the largest ever (either non-working or demolished)? PhilUK (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The angelfire web site (written by Theodore R. Hazen & Pond Lily Mill Restorations) states " The "Lady Isabella" is claimed to be the largest water wheel in Europe: and the largest metal water wheel in the world."

However, on the same site the page on Noria states "This type of water wheel includes the largest water wheel in the world, being 90 feet in diameter". I can find not other reference to it.

The World’s Largest Working Water Wheel The title implies that it is not the largest of all time. In the text it states "The wheel is quite huge; 22.2 meters in diameter with a width of 1.83 meters and enjoys being the only largest survivor of its kind in the world."

Solar Electricity: Engineering of Photovoltaic Systems Eduardo Lorenzo claims that the largest was the "Marly Machine" but other sources states that it was only about 10m diameter, but it could well have been the most powerful ever.

Malcolm.boura (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Page rewrite[edit]

I started drafting a rewrite of the mathematical part and came to the conclusion that it couldn't be done adequately in isolation. I am preparing a reorganisation and partial rewrite of the page offline and I have started transferring that work to Draft:Water wheel

First bash at the introduction and the page structure are in place so comments welcome. (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Father of Modern Hydroelectric Power : Lester Pelton (born 1908 Vermilion OH) patents are found in Smithonian[edit]

citations search: