`==Untitled== Can we get a new picture of the wheel that doesn't cut off half of it? -  :Added 2, with different view points. If thats overkill I'm happy if anyone removes one.    == Great article ==  I came across this at semi-random, and just wanted to compliment you folks on a well-done article. It's a cool topic that is clearly explained.    :Well, it's the best we can dae!   I concur. I think the pictures included in this article are especially well-photographed... that wheel is one of the neatest contemporary engineering constructions I've seen in a long time.  S.R.G. (Some Random Guy)  Good pictures, is the first pic fotoshopped? Very (in a sense) futuristic... (~*~~*~)  nope - that'd really what it looks like     == More info on boat lift ==  The matter included in here is ideal.But could someone please explain me what boatlift actually is?We don't have any in India.My email: supernova_robin@yahoo.com demeanor.kid@gmail.com Thanks    :See boat lift. —    Hi folks!  Great article, but I think it's missing something - which way does the wheel rotate?  Looking at it straight on - does it rotate clockwise or counter-clockwise?  Anyone have an answer?     Christopher  == Kilowatts or Kilowatt-hours? ==  Power consumption should be stated in Kilowatt-hours.  The article says that in 4 minutes it consumes ``just 22.5 kilowatts``.  Perhaps it is mistated and it should read 22.5 kilowatt-hours.  But it also might mean that the motors draw 22.5 Kilowats of power to operate.  If the motors require this much power that would equal a consumption of 1.5 kilowat-hours of electricity.  Whatever the case, this should be made clear.  The first case would just require changing Kilowatts to Kilowatt-hours.  The second case (which is what I suspect) should read something like ``The 22.5 kilowatt motors consume only 1.5 kilowatt-hours of electricity in 4 minutes.`` I see this type of confusion all the time in the media.  Most reporters do not understand physics and don't get it right.  It might be hard to determine what the actual numbers are for this reason.     :If 22.5 kilowatts is two boiling kettles, that's 11.25 kilowatts per boiling kettle, which is not plausible.  A typical North American electric kettle plugs into a circuit limited to 120V 15A, for a maximum possible power consumption of 1.8 kilowatts (ignore power factor and other complexities of AC electricity - the kettle is close enough to a plain resistor).  Even if it were kilowatt-hours, it would take 6.25 hours to get to 11.25 kilowatt-hours at 1.8 kilowatts, which is clearly much longer than it takes for a kettle to boil.  And I'm not sure that kettles typically max out their circuits anyway.  I think the comparison given in the article has to be off by a factor of at least ten.  Note, however, that 22.5 kilowatts for four minutes (which you calculate to be 1.5 kilowatt-hours) is probably about as many kilowatt-hours as two kettles consume in the time it takes them to reach a boil.  Maybe that's where the comparison comes from; if you, you're quite right that it's misleadingly stated.   ::The falkirk wheel site says ``Despite the scale of this power, each turn of The Wheel uses virtually no water and the same energy as just 8 boiling kettles (22.5kW)`` I assume they mean 22.5kWh. This means 1 kettle is about 3 kWh, which seems more reasonable allowing for the site wanting to exagerate the wheel's efficiencey.    :::The ``Engineering`` page on the Falkirk wheel site claims a power of 1.5kW, notwithstanding that that contradicts the 22.5kW figure given on the main page of the same site.   ::::I think the statement should be taken out until we can clear this up. I gonna do it now. If people disagree, it can always be reverted.   N