The water wheel is a clasp-arm type, which had apparently replaced compass arm wheels by 1820. The shrouds are 230mm deep with 32 floats of 250mm long (numbers derived from JC’s notes) and chose an arbitrary angle for the buckets. Measured with AutoCad I get a potential stationary load of 100 litres and I suppose maybe 80 litres when spinning. See Dr. John Cliffords notes for more information regarding power to the machine.
For the pit-wheel, I have taken a diameter of 1.2metres, based on a picture from James Walton’s book showing a small-looking man standing next to an assembled pit wheel and lantern (p75). It has 53 teeth to put it out of sync with the 8 lantern rungs to ensure even wear.
The millstones have a diameter of 900mm and start out 200mm thick. The depth of the lantern will allow them to wear down to about 75mm before replacement, (this was apparently usual). Millstones may have been smaller or thicker.
I have assumed sizes and positions for the damsel, feed shoe and hopper, only making sure that they would work together as a unit. There must be a lot of possible variations here.
An important feature is the alarm bell, which drops against the knocker when the weight of grain in the hopper no longer presses against the hinged metal plate inside the hopper. This would alert the miller to either shut down the machine, yell at his apprentice to feed more grain, (or go upstairs himself to do it). Apparently, letting the grain feed run out could result in rapid damage to the stones, or at worst, cause sparks leading to an explosion.
The dressing machine consists of an agitated, inclined sieve of varying grades, fed from the outlet of the stones vat and emptying into the meal kist, from where it is bagged to varying grades. The agitating rod was driven off the mill machine somehow (cog or cam) and could presumably be disengaged.
There doesn’t seem to be much more to seen from the visible ruins, but I am sure that a properly supervised excavation could yield some interesting information which may verify or inform my (and/or Ute Seeman’s and John Cliffords’) assumptions and conclusions and at least make an interesting story. I like the idea of using the site as a supervised student ‘dig’. An interesting challenge would be excavating the tail race as the river seems to have silted up quite a bit since last century (and even since Ute Seeman photographed it in 1998).