I think the Archimedes screw is just such an old design that nobody’s even considered trying to improve it. Because <b>of course</b> someone already tried &lt;x&gt; centuries ago, surely?,(reply>), @J. M turning the screw kicks up more dust, and the scoops are more efficient at gathering material than letting gravity pull material into the screw,(reply>), @Jordan thats what im struggling with, i dont see how this is new or an improvement on the Archimedes screw,(reply>), @Chris L if your frame of reference is the tube, the screw turns. If your frame of reference is the screw, the tube turns.<br>From a physics perspective, I don't see how this is "different", or "better".<br>It seems that if you held the tube static, and turned the screw, the exact same function would occur.,(reply>), @MAXNAZ 47 I suspect that up until recently, the tolerances weren't sufficient to make this design any better than the previous one. Now, with the tolerances that you can achieve with modern equipment and materials, it's better, but back when most of the equipment was being designed, the differences likely wouldn't have been big enough to justify buying into a patented mechanism with few factories producing them.<br><br>If you pay attention to the justification that the video gives for it being better, these are things which wouldn't be true without the tight tolerances you can achieve now.,(reply>), @I before A except after K most likely is that before the industrial revolution there was no precived need to find an efficient way to move bulk goods like grain and sand upward.