Measuring waterwheel efficiency

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

John Smeaton measured the efficiency of overshot waterwheels at approximately 65%, a significant historical benchmark in mechanical measurement. To replicate this, a dynamometer can be employed to calculate the difference in forces, which is then multiplied by the distance traveled (2πrn, where n is the number of revolutions in t seconds, and r is the axle radius) and divided by time to derive power. This calculated power should be compared against theoretical power outputs based on gravitational and kinetic energy inputs. Accurate measurement of the power entering the wheel, particularly in natural settings, poses a challenge.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of dynamometer principles
  • Knowledge of mechanical power calculations
  • Familiarity with gravitational and kinetic energy concepts
  • Basic engineering principles related to waterwheel mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the use of dynamometers in measuring mechanical efficiency
  • Study the principles of gravitational and kinetic energy calculations
  • Explore advanced techniques for measuring waterwheel power input
  • Investigate historical methodologies used by John Smeaton in his experiments
USEFUL FOR

Engineers, researchers in renewable energy, students studying mechanical engineering, and anyone interested in the historical context of efficiency measurements in waterwheel technology.

rattis
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
How did British engineer John Smeaton measure the efficiency of an overshot waterwheel?

I am doing an experiment with overshot waterwheels to find their efficiency, and found that John Smeaton measured their efficiency at about 65%. However I have no idea how he got this number, and I cannot think of an accurate way of calculating its efficiency.

My latest idea is to use a dynamometer to find the difference in forces, then multiply by the distance traveled (2prn (where n is number of revolutions in t seconds, and r is the radius of the axle)) Then divide it all by t; to get Power. This would be compared with a theoretical power output calculated from gravitational and kinetic energy going in.

Is this the correct way to go about this? Or not?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
That's a good question. I couldn't find anything in my research into it. However, I did find a link to a professor at Univ. of Minnesota. She has specifically called out Smeaton and his waterwheel work and she is researching exactly what you are asking about. A link to her page is here:

http://www.me.umn.edu/research/faculty/alexander.shtml

THE MEANINGS OF EFFICIENCY is the title of my current book manuscript, analyzing the process by which people transformed the concept of efficiency from a technical measurement in science and engineering into a popular social and cultural value...The first comes from the early industrial revolution, and considers the famous English engineer John Smeaton and his studies of waterwheel performance in the 1750s, for which he received national and international recognition. Although Smeaton did not use the word efficiency, his analysis of waterwheels and power greatly influenced the developing science of mechanical measurement.

Perhaps you could contact her and ask her directly. She has an e-mail link on her page.

From an engineering standpoint, it seems that you are following the basic premise of power out/power into get your efficiency. I think the hard part would be determining the actual power entering the wheel accurately, especially if you are using a natural source like a river.

Hope this helps a bit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks a lot.

Initially i am using a model and the water is flowing down a 'slide' coming from the tap. As the model is not very good the water sprays all over the place, so energy entering and leaving the system is hard to find
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
9K