Viewing profile — antonhowes

Hmm, I don't think Savery's engine would have required that - it's just a copper vessel, and the pipes were often even made of wood. I've often seen the cannon theory applied to pi…

Mine too! When Matt first showed us a draft I was amazed - never thought it would look so smooth.

Though note, from the post, that there were some applications of stationary aeolipiles with their spouts directed at vanes to do some light mechanical work - things like turning ro…

It's no wonder he supervised them so closely then!

OP here: I'd recommend Daniel Defoe's travels through Britain as a good place to start, written in the 1720s. You might also like Celia Fiennes's travels in the 1690s. The travel d…

It has not been, as far as I'm aware. But King has prepared a proper reply for publication, which I expect will end up being published - if not in H&T then in some other journal.

Yes, it's the difference in pressure/heat that is exploited, as Sadi Carnot noted (by analogising the steam engine to a water-wheel exploiting a fall of water, treating it as a "fa…

It is in the post!

One thing I’ll be mentioning in Part III, as I ran out of space in this one: Drebbel in the 1610s applied his insights into perpetual motion to invent a self-regulating oven/furnac…

Fun tidbit, which I didn’t mention in the piece: Drebbel proposed creating some kind of solar-powered central heating system for London in the 1610s. We don’t have many details, ot…

Ah nice. Yes, I’m not aware of full translations, though I often have to translate things myself (with a bit of help). In this particular case for Fludd I mainly used secondary lit…

Yup, I figured. Plausibly fits for Wilkinson and Watt (though I have my doubts). Doesn’t fit for Savery and Newcomen, the subject of my piece.

Fantastic question, which is some way down on my to-do list after the steam engine. The discussion this prompted is a real goldmine, so thank you.

Please read both parts I and II. I specifically addressed various widely-held myths about Hero’s engines, and about aeolipiles.

I don’t think this fits the evidence. At least for the 17thC. People in England did not know how to make good iron with coal, let alone steel, despite many decades of extraordinary…

Indeed. I’ll get to that in Part III (or IV if it’s too long). And it’s why I’ve tried to point out evidence of actual use rather than just the diagrams themselves (though those ar…

If you write that up, please send me the link (I’m the OP)

Neither the Savery nor Newcomen engines used rubber, so that doesn’t work as a limiting factor. That’s why I didn’t mention it.

I have written very extensively on the evolution of the early patent system - I actually have a not-yet-completed, so far 9-part series on the context of the Statute of Monopolies …

Well-noticed! I used one of Fludd’s illustrations, but I ran out of space writing about Drebbel, which took us up to c.1607. Fludd will feature VERY heavily in Part III. Fludd even…

Exactly! Part III or IV will end up talking about boring techniques of the 1650s (long before the famous John Wilkinson methods), but that is precisely the thing with Savery engine…

Maybe for the Watt engine, but this does not apply to the Savery or Newcomen engines. (Though Part III, or perhaps IV, will have a few notes on some almost totally forgotten machin…

Thank you! It’s extremely gratifying to know that HN readers like yourself do actually go and read the posts. :D

Hello, author here. I mention this in Part I to link to a prior piece specifically on Ayanz, as this is hugely misunderstood. Ayanz’s machine only used the expansive force of steam…