Why don't we make [more] use of water wheels?

[coppice]

How is a turbine not a high performance water wheel?

In the same way that a horse is not a high performance dog.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_wheel

Er, look at the first image of the types of water wheel on that page. Its a turbine.

This thread started stupid and it has not improved one bit.

I think the difference is quite clear. It is quite clear for Wikipedia and I think it is quite clear for engineers. If you want to argue semantics you can argue all you want but I will not be participating.  You can argue a jet engine is an internal combustion engine.

The water wheel is an ancient invention across different cultures of the ancient world. They did not have water turbines which are a 19th century invention of the Industrial Revolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_turbine

It seems to me the world can tell them apart. If you can't I don't think I can help you.

It seems Wikipedia authors can't really tell the difference. That page starts by saying the turbine was a 19th century invention, and lower down describes Roman turbine systems from the 4th century. Paddle wheels and turbines have never existed in isolation. You can find numerous medieval hybrids between a simple paddle wheels, cupped paddle wheels, turbines, and turbines that head a little back towards the cupped paddle wheel, using more cup like blades on the turbine. What the 19th century brought to the table was the performance benefits of sculpted, airfoil like, blades, probably adapted from the rapid development of propellers as steam powered ships took off.

[pcprogrammer]

This thread started stupid and it has not improved one bit.

It was restarted by a talking horse, so what do you expect 

[soldar]

It was restarted by a talking horse, so what do you expect 

I remember Mr Ed from my childhood. I grew up with Petticoat Junction, Perry Mason, Bonanza, etc. Good times.

[Nominal Animal]

How is a turbine not a high performance water wheel?

It is common to distinguish them by the direction of the flow compared to the axis of the rotating part, so that for a wheel, the flow is tangential to the rotating part; for turbines, either parallel to the axis (standard) or radial to the axis (centrifugal).

I have no opinion whether this is correct or not, however.  I thought it was commonly accepted (especially in engineering involving such devices), but I can find no support for such definition in English dictionaries.  To me, it is a logical definition; and I see no useful reason to lump all into a single category where multiple labels can be used interchangeably, when such a simple and intuitive distinction is available.

[IanB]

The engineering definition of a turbine is a device that converts the kinetic energy of a fluid to rotational motion. This would mean that many kinds of waterwheel would qualify as a kind of turbine, especially the ones with paddles pushed round by a flowing stream.

However, some waterwheels utilize the potential energy of the water due to gravity, where water flows at the top into buckets, falls down using its weight to turn the wheel, and empties out at the bottom allowing the empty buckets to rise up the other side to repeat the cycle. This kind of water wheel is not exactly a turbine according to the strict definition of the term.

[Nominal Animal]

The engineering definition of a turbine is a device that converts the kinetic energy of a fluid to rotational motion.

In Finnish, the definition of "turbine" translates roughly to "a device that converts the motion of fluid flowing through the device to rotational motion"; the italicized part referring to "läpivirtaus", "flow through".

I suspect, but am not certain, that there are quite a few differences in the nuances of the definition between different languages.  Thus, claiming a specific interpretation being "the engineering definition" is a bit of an overreach, in my opinion.

[IanB]

In English there is frequently a difference between the scientific or technical definition of a word and the common everyday usage definition of a word. Therefore, when encountering a word, one does have to be careful whether it is being used in a strict technical sense, or with its looser everyday meaning. I dare say the same is true in other languages?

[Nominal Animal]

In English there is frequently a difference between the scientific or technical definition of a word and the common everyday usage definition of a word. Therefore, when encountering a word, one does have to be careful whether it is being used in a strict technical sense, or with its looser everyday meaning. I dare say the same is true in other languages?

Sure, I agree; but I'd go even further in that the definition in strict technical sense varies!

A perfect example of this is the order of operations in mathematics (PEMDAS, BEDMAS, BIDMAS et cetera).  Some insist it is fixed and universal, but it isn't; the conventions do vary.

My point above was to point out one of the definitions for a water wheel and a turbine, that explain the disagreement.  It does not need to be universally acceptable, as it just points out that some might use a different definition; and this definition/misunderstanding is the cause of the disagreement.
Thus, the disagreement is one of definitions, not of concepts or models.  It is not an useful disagreement, because it will not lead to new understanding for anyone.

For this exact reason, I highly appreciate it when someone describes their key definitions and abbreviations.  For example, I might write "water wheel (tangential flow) instead of a turbine (axial flow)" in some sentence, including the key detail of the definition in parentheses, to indicate what is important in the distinction.  If someone disagrees, that is fine; that was just the context and definition in that post.  Even if you disagree on the definition, the use is fine as long as the definition is sufficiently clear to convey the idea/concept/model/argument.  (I often change terms mid-way through, if a consensus on a different definition emerges in context.  The terms themselves or jargon is not important, they're just surface gloss.  What is important, is conveying the desired message/idea/concepts/arguments/models.)

[soldar]

In English there is frequently a difference between the scientific or technical definition of a word and the common everyday usage definition of a word. Therefore, when encountering a word, one does have to be careful whether it is being used in a strict technical sense, or with its looser everyday meaning. I dare say the same is true in other languages?

In English both in the common language and in engineering the distinction is made between water wheels and turbines.

The topic of this thread is water wheels in the conventional sense, water wheels as opposed to turbines. Why are water wheels not used more?

To assert that water wheels are used to generate gigawatts in Canada or anywhere is disingenuous because it is only playing with definitions contrary to common usage and contrary to what was the convention in this thread. In fact, contrary to the basic premise of the thread. It is useless nitpicking which serves no useful purpose and only interferes with good communication.

The OP is proposing conventional water wheels as opposed to turbines so saying "turbines are waterwheels" is nonsensical. It is not clarifying anything; it is only muddying the waters.

It is like an aviation discussion where internal combustion engines are being proposed as opposed to jet engines. Everybody is understanding what is being discussed and the resident nitpicker comes in to point out that jet engines are, in fact, "internal combustion" engines.

This thread started out stupid and has steadily deteriorated.

[soldar]

I have spent the last few weeks roaming about in France and in Provence I saw many waterwheels but none in use. Originally they elevated water or provided motive power for mills or factories. None are in practical use any more. They are kept only as tourist attractions.  Since the wheels and water canals are already there you could think they could be easily adapted to generating electrical power but it looks like it just isn't worth it.

https://www.google.com/search?&q=waterwheels+in+provence

[coppice]

I have spent the last few weeks roaming about in France and in Provence I saw many waterwheels but none in use. Originally they elevated water or provided motive power for mills or factories. None are in practical use any more. They are kept only as tourist attractions.  Since the wheels and water canals are already there you could think they could be easily adapted to generating electrical power but it looks like it just isn't worth it.

I think you'll find plenty of water wheels preserved as museum pieces all over Europe. There are certainly many in the UK. They can't really be both museum pieces and effective modern power generation platforms. As they stand, their high cost of maintenance is justified as a running cost of the museum. If they have to stand on their own merit, maintenance costs could only be justified if the place is far from the madding crowd, and does not have economic access to grid power.

[soldar]

Rebuilding a waterwheel:



This guy has several videos on how he built, installed and repaired a waterwheel

https://www.youtube.com/@KrisHarbour/videos