v0.31 Talk:Water wheel

Perpetual Motion

Done a few quick tests. Waterwheels and screw pumps still have the same numbers for power. Built a perpetual motion machine using the #3 reactor design which works as before. Doctorzuber 19:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Also tested the Dwarven Water Reactor, as well as a mini variant. Both function fully and are repeatable. Thus, I added the two designs into the page. Jjdorf 09:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Dwarven Water Reactor is working splendidly for me, although I subsequently discovered a siege engineer standing on the intake grate, apparently just staring at it... until, to my utter astonishment, he rather self-satisfiedly wandered off with a turtle fished out of the running device! Apparently they're good for more than just power. --Onul Rigothzas 11:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a weird one; i built a 5 waterwheel reactor to power a waterfall, with hatches over the pump uptake spots. I closed the hatches to stop the reactor, but it is still running. the lower level is all 7 water, and the upper level is dry, but the system keeps pumping out 500 power. anyone else seen this? Dangerous Beans 10:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Perpetual motion if Goldberg were a dwarf...

I had a need to pump water out of my artificial underground lake.
I could have just built a windmill, but I figured that since I was pumping out the water anyway, I may as well have some fun with it.
Here is what I plan to build. I'll let you know how it goes...

Top Level	Middle Level	Bottom Level
+ + + + + + + + + * + + + + + + + ║ + + + + + + + ║ + + + + + + + ║ + + + + + + + * + + + + + + + ║ + + + + + + + ║ + + + + + + + * + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +	≈ ║ + + + + + + + + ≈ ╠ ═ ═ ╗ + + + + + + ≈ X X ≈ ║ + + + + + + ≈ ╠ ═ ═ ╝ + + + + + ≈ ║ + + + + + + + + + ╔ ╝ W + W + W + W + + ║ * W ═ W ═ W ═ W * ═ ╚ ╗ W + W + W + W + + ≈ ╠ ═ ═ ═ ═ ═ ═ ═ ═ ═ ≈ X X ≈ ≈ ≈ X ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ X X ≈ ╔ ═ ═ ═ ═ ═ ═ ≈ ╠ ═ ═ ╝ + + + + + +	≈ ╠ ═ ═ ═ ═ ═ ═ ═ ═ ╗ ≈ ║ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ║ ≈ ║ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ║ ≈ ╠ ╗ ≈ ║ ≈ ║ ≈ ║ ≈ ║ ≈ ║ X ║ X ║ X ║ X ╔ ╝ ≈ ║ ≈ ║ ≈ ║ ≈ ║ ≈ ║ + ≈ ║ ≈ ║ ≈ ║ ≈ ║ ≈ ║ + ≈ ║ ≈ ║ ≈ ║ ≈ ║ ≈ ║ + ≈ ║ X ║ X ║ X ║ X ║ + ≈ ║ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ║ + ≈ ║ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ║ + ≈ ╠ ═ ═ ═ ═ ═ ═ ═ ╝ +

X
X = Pumps from south
X = Floodgate
* or * = Gear assembly

Math as follows:
Water wheels generate: 90 power x 4 wheels = 360 power
Gears consume: 5 power x 5 gears = 25 power
Pumps consume: 10 power x 3 pumps = 30 power
Net power produced: 305 power
Assuming a windmill starter motor:
Dead weight = (2 pump x 10) + (5 gears x 5) + (4 wheels x 10) = 85 power
3 windmills at full output for 120 power or 5 at half output for 100 power.
If you can't generate 85 units of wind power, add another lever to the middle of the top three gears to drop the load to 30

If you think you're going to restart them often, consider a second independent water reactor running connected to the first, to enable them to jump start each other and avoid the dodgy windmills..



Some notes...

The water source on the left of the lower two layers is the top of a larger lake. The retaining wall is there to contain the top layer. You may not need this wall, if you have other measures in place to properly control the level of the main body of water.

The top layer of the construction, if you can arrange it, should probably be the first layer below ground. This has the advantage of letting you connect windmills, should you feel the need. I wouldn't recommend putting the gearing itself on the surface... I expect it to scream target at more destructive monsters.

The red gear assemblies and floodgates are all connected to levers. I will be linking them all to separate levers, but this may be over kill for your situation.
The upshot of this linking is that you can turn the output power on and off without closing down the pumps, drain or fill the various component sections for maintainance, or selectively disable waterwheels (maybe shutdown one to build an extension?)
As I say, it may be overkill.
Although the system is self contained, and thus shouldn't be too subject to overflows, you should still take the usual precautions with the levers... in case of mad dwarf disease ;)

Should this design prove functional to specs, I'll move it to the article.
Should this design prove utterly borked up, I'll report back with revised plans.

89.238.157.212 21:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision 1:
It has been pointed out to me that 1 pump is unlikely to handle the flow generated. Extra pumps and wheels added to ensure flow.
Additionally, think out how you intend to start this contraption if you want to build one. The plans leave the pumps inaccessible (for good reason on my map), so you can't manually start them or dump water in to get it going. I plan to use a windmill for a starter motor.
Oh, and I fixed the questionable math :p
89.238.157.212 22:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

must be hanging?

According to the tower reactor diagram, it looks like the wheels were build on solid ground. Am I mistaken? Do they work this way?Uzu Bash 16:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not built on solid ground. I just made a tower reactor the other day. All three tiles under the wheel are channeled out. The wheels are suppported by the gear assemblies to the side. The pump sucks from under the closest wheel tile. Power was horribly intermittent, I don't think the upper wheels were generating power at all. In fact, I don't see how they can. I was trying to use it as a self-powered waterfall, and it worked for that, sort of. But you couldn't power anything off of it, constant job cancellations occur. As it depowers, water starts flowing back down the stack, powering the upper wheels which aren't actually powered when it is pumping, because the pumps above are sucking water out as fast as it goes in, and the upper tunnels never fill with water. Maybe I just didn't have enough water in the contraption, but too much water means a flooding waterfall. I finally built a mini-reactor connected by a gear to a conventional pump stack, that makes a perfect waterfall. GhostDwemer 17:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right, the design currently there doesn't work. I'm gonna replace it with my own design, once I get it built and tested. Just offhand, though, I don't think it'll be any more useful than a separate "pump stack plus water reactor" arrangement. --DeMatt 18:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hrumph. Well, I'm glad I said "tested". Here's the design I thought up:

Z=0:        Z+1:        Z+2:        Z+3:
 ╔═╗         ╔═╗            ╔═╗         ╔═╗
 ║*╚═╗       ║o║          ╔═╝*║         ║o║
╔╝*=*╚═╗    ╔╩═╩═══╗    ╔═╝*=*╚╗    ╔═══╩═╩╗
║WWWxX≈║    ║≈≈≈Xx~║    ║≈XxWWW║    ║~xX≈≈≈║
╚══════╝    ╚══════╝    ╚══════╝    ╚══════╝

Where the northernmost gears and vertical shafts are all lined up above one another. It does, sort of, work... but the water doesn't spread fast enough to keep it running smoothly. So wheels kick on and off, sometimes it freezes up until the water sloshes back under enough water wheels, etc. etc. So I'm gonna just trash that section - it's much less headache-inducing just to build some separate DWR's to power a simple pump stack. --DeMatt 06:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, no reason for it to be listed if it doesn't work right, the problem is inherent in the design. To work, the water would need to flow through each water wheel in turn, which means the pumps could not be in a vertical stack, which means incredibly complicated gearing and axles to make the whole thing work, which means it won't be as efficient as any other DWR. Just put in a standard DWR and a pump stack. That being said, I believe the best way to connect a DWR to a pump stack is vertically, so you do not have to worry about water flowing from the DWR to the stack through the axle tunnel. I have that problem on my current fort, it means that I need to refill the DWR every now and then. GhostDwemer 19:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Waterwheel Reactors -DO- need southern walls

I tried these things, and followed design to the letter. Turns out, it flooded the entire room. I'm editing this page to reflect that, but I'm surprised that the original author claimed that there was no danger of this. Jwguy 00:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm neither an expert at this stuff nor the original author, but it sounds to me like your brook or river must have been pressurised to the upper level, so the water just came bursting up through the space directly south of the water pump. If that's the case, then what happened to you was not due to the reactor as such, but due to the ordinary behaviour of water under Template:L. In other words, the same thing would have happened if you hadn't built the pump or wheels. It's hard to know for sure without knowing exactly how your water source was connected. Bognor 13:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)