General > General Technical Chat
Why don't we make [more] use of water wheels?
Nominal Animal:
--- Quote from: IanB on April 09, 2024, 04:28:54 am ---The engineering definition of a turbine is a device that converts the kinetic energy of a fluid to rotational motion.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: IanB on April 09, 2024, 05:05:08 am ---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?
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: IanB on April 09, 2024, 05:05:08 am ---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?
--- End quote ---
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
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version