Hydroelectric project (small drop and low flow)

[Remundo]

And 80% yield? I am surprised. Is it a dream or the result of experiments?

No, no, 80% yield for a bucket wheel is an internationally recognized value!
Is not it Remundo, will you flood us with irrefutable sources to prove it to us?

Well for a hydraulic engineer, your arrogance equals your incompetence on the hydraulic wheels of low falls ...

Very large wheels with 80% efficiency have existed; for example the Sagebien wheels low drops at high flow

It is therefore suitable for light falls “between 0.60 and 3 meters. With a very slow walk, its yield can reach 0.80 and even 0.85 (…). ”(Claudel, 1917, 380-381). (fig. 2 and 3)
[]
Work expended per second 2104 x 2.3 = .............................. 4839 kgm
Actual work produced per second. .................................... 4069 kgm
Efficiency (on the second drive shaft) ........................ 0.84

the wheels above have the reputation of being equal or better because they paddle less in the water, however there is a small loss in the height of fall because it is necessary to spare the reach / bucket and bucket / evacuation spaces. The high yields are obtained on large diameter wheels which turn slowly. This poses problems as I said for the "modernity" of electric generators.

[sicetaitsimple]

Very large wheels with 80% efficiency have existed; for example the Sagebien wheels low drops at high flow

It is therefore suitable for light falls “between 0.60 and 3 meters. With a very slow walk, its yield can reach 0.80 and even 0.85 (…). ”(Claudel, 1917, 380-381). (fig. 2 and 3)

What relationship, hydraulically speaking, between the Sagebien wheels as presented in the article, otherwise very interesting, thank you, and the diagram that you presented above?
PS: apart from the fact that it's a spinning wheel.

[Remundo]

you are a hydraulic engineer and you don't see the connection?

[sicetaitsimple]

you are a hydraulic engineer and you don't see the connection?

Okay, I surrender, it tires me.

For Makadam, we will therefore conclude that Remundo's solution is the best. I call her back: "technically the flow rate is very low and the drop height modest, I think the best choice is to make a "wheel above", a system of gravity buckets which takes the water at the top and deposits it 4 m lower. You can make a single wheel with a diameter of 4 m, or two wheels with a diameter of 2m.
"
Good luck!

[Remundo]

Yes otherwise, as I am fair play,, Makadam you also have the solution of the gardening hose connected to a plastoc turbine without any indication of pressure / flow Made in China , proposed by very educated people who come to make the beautiful here by paying the head of the moderator whose kindness will lose him ...

Indeed, perhaps an alternative to the gravity wheel (for Mr. Engineer, I point out that the Sagebien and the wheels above are gravity water wheels) would be a small Kaplan "ready-made" in a vertical pipe, this remains to be studied ... the advantage is that this Kaplan naturally turns faster and can mate with a generator.

anyway there is 30 € / year to win, it's nothing at all.

[sicetaitsimple]

Ah, censorship has been there! My last post has been deleted, thank you moderator Remundo!

The least of the ethics would still like a moderator to refrain from deleting messages that do not go in the direction of what he says on a subject when he is himself engaged in the debate .....

And that the existence of the post remains, its content being deleted, with the reason why it was deleted with regard to the conditions of use, the charter, ... especially since the moderator is involved in the debate.


Well, there it is, you are warned.

Your previous message did nothing technical, just an additional jib.

Remundo for moderation

[sicetaitsimple]

Confirmation, I just received this by MP:

Disclaimer
Date upload: 23/06/19, 16:34 PM
By: Remundo
Recipient: sicetaitsimple

This is a warning against you by an administrator or moderator of this forum.

[Remundo]

and so, is that what you wanted?

[sicetaitsimple]

and so, is that what you wanted?

That is to say that if another moderator than you had censored me for comments deemed to be outside the charter provided by Econology, it would seem to me at least understandable, even if I still have the impression of being in general "in the nails", there can be from time to time a misunderstood touch of humor. Regarding a debate between the two of us, it seems much more limited.

Now, that I point out, that was the subject of the deleted post, that in your 11:46 am post, you said "Actually maybe an alternative to the gravity wheel ....." and that it 'was from my point of view a way for you to try to free yourself from this superb proposal to build a "gravity wheel" of 4m in diameter to recover at best 10W, that seemed to me just a little common sense ... ..

Now you do what you want, you may have the power to banish me forever, just talk to Christophe before, he may have a different opinion.

But no problem, I will survive outside of the Joseph Remundo Staline world .....

[Ahmed]

Wouldn't it be urgent to recover a minimum of serenity by a common effort of respect for the interlocutor: nothing obliges to be discourteous towards the one who manifests a divergent opinion of his. This is all the more imperative when it concerns, as here, a subject without real scope ...