Talk:Salter's duck

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

‹See TfM›

Physics: Fluid Dynamics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

A fact from Salter's duck appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 May 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Salter's duck is a wave-powered generator that uses gyroscopes to convert up to 90% of wave power into electricity?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/May.

Wikipedia

Gyroscopes?

Did the Salter duck, as described here, use gyroscopes?

I'm happy to accept that the first designs may have involved gyroscopes on paper at least. This much is supported by two references, although they're hardly detailed or sophisticated references. Both are also descriptions of a conceptual design, not constructed hardware.

With the deployed ducks though, my recollection is that these were a much simpler device, with no need for gyroscopes. After all, gyroscopes add both complexity and the need for a power source. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this 2006 book, they did. I don't know if the book is discussing the conceptual or the constructed, but without a source that says otherwise, I can only go with the constructed, as the source is discussing the duck long after the fact and, one would think, is discussing its design as it was in use. Silver seren^C 23:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a video here where it's mentioned that the gyroscope power take off was replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourisplenty (talk • contribs) 13:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing

A drawing (e.g. side view) would help to get an idea of the pear like shape. Without a picture it's hard to understand, even to someone with technical background.--Ulrich67 (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes! -- Treekids (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upon its return to the venue in the early 2000s, Salter's duck has since gone into production and use.

I removed:

Upon its return to the venue in the early 2000s, Salter's duck has since gone into production and use.

from the lede, because it doesn't seem to be true. But, if you have a citation that says otherwise... William M. Connolley (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I worded that badly. What it should have said was that, with the UK returning to wave power in the 2000s, Salter's duck was used as the research basis for a number of new types of wave power generators. It's easy to find a source for that, such as this. Should probably add the info in there about the nuclear energy groups lobbying against wave power, which likely was the reason why the Salter's duck was shut down (in addition to them not getting paid their grant money, though maybe the nuclear energy groups had a hand in that too). Silver seren^C 18:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Economist ref looks decent. There's even a quote in it about the evil nuke folk killing it off William M. Connolley (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]