Get our free book (in Spanish or English) on rainwater now - To Catch the Rain.
Shouldn't this page more correctly called Hydro or Hydropower. The content of the page mentions all forms of hydropower. LeissKG 01:43, 26 August 2007 (PDT)
- Hi LeissaKG,
- Thank you for your awesome edits. I feel like this page only mentions all forms of Hydropower to frame microhydro power. But I also think that this page needs lots of work, and probably should have the calculations expanded and put on a different page such as Microhydro calculations. Please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed, maybe separating out hydropower information from microhydro information and making separate pages. If that happens I will definitely add some more info to the newly separated pages.
- Thanks again, --Lonny 10:31, 26 August 2007 (PDT)
- I do not think that it is necessary to make separate pages at this time. In the context of this site we will probably only talk about pico and micro hydro. A slight reorganization should be sufficient. Starting with a definition of terms and than more special content. I have to ask where you got your definitions for pico and micro hydro. Wikipedia has up to 5kW for pico hydro and up to 100kW for micro hydro. LeissKG 08:20, 27 August 2007 (PDT)
- Hi LeissKG,
- I have been looking for exactly where I got those figures. I think that the figures came from my limited experience building/working on microhydro systems and from conversations with Don Harris. In addition, it is a little difficult to imagine calling the many systems under 5 kW - pico. Keeping in mind that that runs 24 hr/day (and ignoring the fact that it is probably just a peek rating) - we are talking 120 kWh/day, which is enough for a small developing community or maybe 10 U.S. houses. I will keep looking for a credible reference. Feel free to change the values to something citable. Thank you for your totally awesome work here. --Lonny 18:38, 21 September 2007 (PDT)
Would this page be better suited to Wikipedia?
- Hi Roger,
- Much of it probably should be. The how to/formula stuff is more appropriate for Appropedia, whereas the more encyclopedic content (e.g. categorization) could be ported to wikipedia. Often some general encyclopedic information is on an Appropedia page, just to bring context... whereas the history of Microhydro would definitely be more just wikipedia. Thanks, --Lonny 22:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)