jamius.com

The above video is a rather ridiculous way to get hydropower.

He has a non-stop flowing creek, and he diverts a small bit of it through a hose, to get high pressure, and then only yields 25W? Meanwhile all that potential and kinetic energy from the water is spraying about. He is literally reinventing the wheel, and ending up with a poorer version of it.

Even if you want to keep that design, you want to do something better to prevent all the splashing, as that's energy that could be used. Ideally, all the water dumps out at the bottom with very low speed (having shoved all its energy into the wheel). Expecting to turn a motor at its operating speed is silly, as at those speeds, it's better at throwing water from centrifugal force than catching it (as you can see in the video).

A better design, and one that would yield (guestimating) 50-100x as much power, with smaller negative impact (no diversion), would be to place a much larger (several feet in diameter) paddlewheel (with sides) into the stream itself right below the reservoir (where the water is already falling). Have 100% of the creek flow fall into the top of the wheel and then get dumped out the bottom and continue on its way. He would have to do some rough calculations for flow rate of the creek (a barrel and a stopwatch). Then he could build a suitably sized wheel, and using the flow rate of the water and diameter of the wheel, pick a suitably-sized motor. Perhaps a truck alternator would be a good choice.

The paddlewheel of course would spin slowly, but that is okay. Using pulleys (easy to make out of wood, they'll be big) and belts, or a chain & sprocket, or gears, gear the paddlewheel up to the appropriate speed for the motor. If properly designed, it won't (can't) stall out from lack of torque because even if the flow rate drops, no matter what the generator can still be turned over by the weight of the water (so maybe each section of the wheel fills up slowly before it has enough mass to turn the generator over a bit).

Also, this presumes zero water speed, you're designing purely on a known mass of water dropping the height of the water wheel per second (or half the height I guess, until the water starts to spill out). So if you get any water speed coming into it, that too will be extra beyond the minimum you've designed it to be able to turn over at.

You could design it differently too, you could have a stream-dipping waterwheel (wheel above the stream, using only stream speed and no water weight), lots of options, depending on the situation.

Farmers have been using these systems to generator electricity (or mechanical power, for a self-powered irrigation system) for decades, and watermills have been around for centuries doing the same thing, it's just a matter of getting electricity out of the shaft.

It's far easier to ship electricity (wires) than it is water (pipes) too. And wires don't freeze or need to be filtered or get clogged.

Also, aesthetically, most people would probably find the sight and sound of a gently rotating wheel by a cottage more fitting, than something that sounds like a cross between a motorboat and a wet fart, and looks like a headbanging punkrocker. But that's entirely subjective.

I'm confused........do you like the spoon idea or not?!?!?!?!

Captn... Why does he build one this way?

Cause it's easier. And most people take the easy way out rather than thinking about what they're doing then choosing the best way to do it.

I totally agree with you though. When I think hydroelectric power,I think big wheels turning by decently slow moving (albiet decent volume) streams.

I like the simple design because he got the power he needed. Remember that as long as he effectively uses the generator, it doesn't matter what energy is wasted. If your generator can't generate more than what it currently does, making something more elaborate to try and capture more energy is pointless. That is why a battery seems appropriate. That way you fully untilize your generator and don't just throw away the power. Also remember that the simpler you make something, the less likely it is to break, so I like this simple solution. For more power beyond adding a battery, you would have to get a different generator and come up with a way to supply the power it needed.

Put simply, if it were niagra falls he was drawing the water from, it wouldn't matter. It only needs to capture the energy that can be converted to electricity. The rest of the water flowing isn't a waste if you don't have a way to use it.

sjvsworldtour wrote:Remember that as long as he effectively uses the generator, it doesn't matter what energy is wasted. If your generator can't generate more than what it currently does, making something more elaborate to try and capture more energy is pointless.

I suppose, if 25w is all the power he wants.

In terms of simplicity, you can tell by the video that he went through at least two design iterations, and had to settle for a motor that was 1/4 as powerful as planned. I think it was less an issue of him going with the simplest setup, and more him being limited by knowledge and not coming up with that great of a solution. Basically, I think he was worried about how much water he removed from the stream. So he was limited in the hose size. So then he tried to get as much power out of it as possible, and he couldn't get enough torque to get it to work so he had to rework it until he got *something*.

If he only wants 25W, a tiny waterwheel after the reservoir still makes more sense and would've been simpler.

Well, he may be limited in knowledge (hard to really say not talking to him or knowing all the details and design challenges/limitation that may have been imposed on him), but he's doing a hell of a lot more than most people would even try.

Let's try and have some positiveness OK?

He also has running water to his cabin now too.

greenspree wrote:Let's try and have some positiveness OK?

My opinion is that the world would become a far better place if people did not become offended by critical thinking, and if people did not base their eggshell egos on the illusion that everything is perfect, an illusion enforced and protected by other people's insistence on political correctness. I think the less egotistical people become, the more accepting they are of what they don't know, the more hardy they are towards open discussion, the less embarrassed they will be by being wrong, the less prone to stubbornly deny failure in fear of having to admit they're not a perfect, and the more able and encouraged they will be to ever seek improvement and education.

The purpose in me explaining weaknesses in his design is not to denigrate him as a person, but rather to invest in him, and others. If you choose to label any form of criticism as "negativity" and that is the kind of behavior that makes the world more like how you'd like it to be, that's okay too. It's just not my way.

Much like if a friend is about to make a stupid decision, I don't think it's "supportive" to blindly concurr with and encourage them. Supportive to me means speaking up and challenging your friend in all the times that they've reached the limits of helping themselves. In all the times they're failing to make the right choice on their own... 'cause those are really the only times they actually need you, all the other times it's just gladhanding. It's how I treat my friends, and how I encourage my friends treat me... but I've also conditioned myself to not treat failure or being wrong as a negative thing.

The topic is a water generator, for Jamie's and other's use. An example was posted, I gave my feedback on why the design was poor, what I thought could be improved, and what might be better instead. If that's negativity, *shrugs*.

It's the context and choice of words not the content of them that makes one negative.

greenspree wrote:It's the context and choice of words not the content of them that makes one negative.

I agree

Wow, Well said CaptnAwesome.


I hope Jamie learns from this thread and can later show us some efficient hydroelectric!


Keep the ideas coming guys!