Talk:Water power engine

Redirect to hydroelectricity?

I note that user:Rehman has recently redirected this page to hydroelectricity. This action was undiscussed. As such actions are tantamount to deletion of a page, it requires discussion or at least notification beforehand.

I would also note that "water power" is broader that hydroelectricity, in at least two way: hydroelectricity is the use of naturally occurring water supplies for the purposes of generating electricity alone. Water power in general also includes systems where another energy source is used to provide the water pressure, and where the end result is some mechanical movement, not electricity generation. The first encompasses a large range of Victorian technology (particularly in dockyards) where water was used for power transmission, before electricity. The second includes these, and the many forms of watermill. This isn't a good redirect. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support good redirect. Verbal chat 10:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support: It is obvious that this is directly referring to hydroelectricity. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 10:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is there any value to this as a redirect to hydroelectricity? Would any searches for one be directed through the other? No. Is there any coverage in hydroelectricity that covers water power engines? Hardly.

Water power engine is a minor article that's litte more than a disambig to other pages, hydro amongst them, but these other uses (watermills, hydraulic accumulator, Grimsby Dock Tower, the Armstrong hydraulic crane and battleship turret amongst them) are outside hydroelectricity's scope, yet still deserving of coverage and linkage. Replacing this disambig with a redirect to just one of these aspects is no improvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest redirecting it to hydropower. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Why redirect it at all? Why do you think Wikipedia has too many articles, and that you need to reduce their number like this?

Water power engine is also quite clearly about the engines that transform pressure or momentum into mechanical work, not about dam building or penstocks. That's fine - it's a useful topic in itself (If it isn't, we delete it). There's no reason to redirect a specific and narrow scope to a broader article - what do we gain from this, other than a less relevant target page?

Hydropower is generally defined as water power from natural sources, the broader use of, "hydroelectricity but without necessarily being for electricity generation". The article as it stands also includes the steam-powered water pressure distribution systems, uncited, and I've certainly never seen these systems described as "hydropower" in that way. I'd even describe the use of canal inclines as dubious here. Again, I can't think of an instance where one of these was winched under water power, and the commonplace water balance lift or incline isn't usually included as such either (it uses gravitational potential energy of natural water, but not its pressure or momentum). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Questions?_ My question is will this absolutly help our society with renewable energy, and allow us to grow more efficiently. Will it change our ways, and change the world. Any opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crud0214 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Toyota

There should be a section about Toyota having actually successfully invented their own version of this and their plans to convert all new Toyota's to Water Engines in the near future. Colliric (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Source? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)