Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: The Roman Industrial Revolution that could have been (Vol 2)

thelydianstone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 37 posts

Re: Show HN: The Roman Industrial Revolution that could have been (Vol 2)

#21

Post by Animats »

miki_tyler wrote: post #8
cyberax wrote: post #4

This kind of fiction is pretty popular in Russia. So there are websites and forums that discuss the kind of hand-waving needed to make the stories interesting (I recommend https://www.popadancev.net/ ). And one thing that really stands out is that there are really not that many shortcuts. To build something like a steam engine, you need to invent advanced steelmaking, casting, advanced tooling (lathes, drills, etc.),…

I actually disagree a bit. The whole premise of the story is that there are shortcuts indeed, when someone has the entire tech tree available at the push of a button. The Romans were very capable engineers. If you give them a few key ideas and steer them away from dead ends, progress can compress a lot.

This is do-able, because it doesn't require much metalworking. This is technology from 1700-1750 or so, made from wood with a few metal bits. Roman technology was capable of that.

Re: Show HN: The Roman Industrial Revolution that could have been (Vol 2)

#23

Post by hunterpayne »

miki_tyler wrote: post #8
cyberax wrote: post #4

This kind of fiction is pretty popular in Russia. So there are websites and forums that discuss the kind of hand-waving needed to make the stories interesting (I recommend https://www.popadancev.net/ ). And one thing that really stands out is that there are really not that many shortcuts. To build something like a steam engine, you need to invent advanced steelmaking, casting, advanced tooling (lathes, drills, etc.),…

I actually disagree a bit. The whole premise of the story is that there are shortcuts indeed, when someone has the entire tech tree available at the push of a button. The Romans were very capable engineers. If you give them a few key ideas and steer them away from dead ends, progress can compress a lot.

Two things:

1) This idea has been debunked...a lot. The Romans were capable but they were nowhere near an industrial revolution

2) Necessity is the mother of invention. The Romans didn't really need an industrial revolution, or at least their power base didn't.

Re: Show HN: The Roman Industrial Revolution that could have been (Vol 2)

#24

Post by fc417fc802 »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #20
miki_tyler wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually disagree a bit. The whole premise of the story is that there are shortcuts indeed, when someone has the entire tech tree available at the push of a button. The Romans were very capable engineers. If you give them a few key ideas and steer them away from dead ends, progress can compress a lot.

But the economics don't work. A bronze steam engine would have been extremely expensive and it would have taken multiple attempts to work out the best alloy mix. Without refinement the result would have had a low power output and short working life. Even if you have a blueprint, a bronze engine is still a major research project.

The economics don't work only when compared to the modern alternative. The economics of a grindstone attached to a waterwheel don't work today but they did historically. A steam engine with low power output could still have been extremely useful in the right context despite not being up to the more strenuous tasks of historical variants.

Re: Show HN: The Roman Industrial Revolution that could have been (Vol 2)

#25

Post by pests »

miki_tyler wrote: post #10
wildzzz wrote: post #5

I like the premise but the yellow-stained AI artwork really makes this hard to like more.

You're only as good as the tools you use. They are improving fast though, you can already see a noticeable difference between the artwork in Volume 1 and Volume 2, and they were made about six months apart.

I don't know if this is true?

I'm pretty sure a pro is much better with amateur tools than a newb is with elite tools.

Give me the most expensive and fine art brushes and I doubt I could make anything worthy of hanging on a fridge. Bob Ross could outclass me with a napkin.

Re: Show HN: The Roman Industrial Revolution that could have been (Vol 2)

#26

Post by cyberax »

miki_tyler wrote: post #8
cyberax wrote: post #4

This kind of fiction is pretty popular in Russia. So there are websites and forums that discuss the kind of hand-waving needed to make the stories interesting (I recommend https://www.popadancev.net/ ). And one thing that really stands out is that there are really not that many shortcuts. To build something like a steam engine, you need to invent advanced steelmaking, casting, advanced tooling (lathes, drills, etc.),…

I actually disagree a bit. The whole premise of the story is that there are shortcuts indeed, when someone has the entire tech tree available at the push of a button. The Romans were very capable engineers. If you give them a few key ideas and steer them away from dead ends, progress can compress a lot.

You certainly can avoid a lot of dead ends, but we're still talking about the span of at the very least multiple decades.

And the next question is practicality. You can make a steam engine demonstrator from bronze. But bronze was expensive, and of varying quality. So your engine will necessarily be low-power, and too inefficient for practical use.

Re: Show HN: The Roman Industrial Revolution that could have been (Vol 2)

#27

Post by cyberax »

Animats wrote: post #21
miki_tyler wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually disagree a bit. The whole premise of the story is that there are shortcuts indeed, when someone has the entire tech tree available at the push of a button. The Romans were very capable engineers. If you give them a few key ideas and steer them away from dead ends, progress can compress a lot.

This is do-able, because it doesn't require much metalworking. This is technology from 1700-1750 or so, made from wood with a few metal bits. Roman technology was capable of that.

Dude, wtf are you talking about? 1750 is freaking high-tech. They had large scale iron casting, gunpowder production, precision engineering good enough to make a clock that can provide accurate time after going around the world, most of the modern math foundations, telescopes, and even steam power.

Re: Show HN: The Roman Industrial Revolution that could have been (Vol 2)

#28

Post by Animats »

cyberax wrote: post #27
Animats wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is do-able, because it doesn't require much metalworking. This is technology from 1700-1750 or so, made from wood with a few metal bits. Roman technology was capable of that.

Dude, wtf are you talking about? 1750 is freaking high-tech. They had large scale iron casting, gunpowder production, precision engineering good enough to make a clock that can provide accurate time after going around the world, most of the modern math foundations, telescopes, and even steam power.

Clockmaking goes way back, but for a long time was off in its own technological niche. People with tiny files working brass made clocks by hand. The first mass produced clocks appeared in the late 1700s.

Precision didn't come to iron and steel until Maudsley's lathe, around 1800. It can be seen at the Science Museum, London. It looks like a modern lathe, but is quite different from its predecessors. It's on display, but not emphasized, and few people know its importance.

Today we think of engineering as a continuum, where you pull the technology you need from mechanics, electronics, materials science, and chemical engineering to get something done. That's a modern concept. For most of history, those groups barely talked. For a long time, there was a huge distance between science and engineering. Science was sort of an aristocratic hobby, and engineering was done by people who worked in forges and shops. It wasn't until the era of the steam engine that both sides started talking much. They had to figure out thermodynamics to get steam engines to work efficiently.

Re: Show HN: The Roman Industrial Revolution that could have been (Vol 2)

#29

Post by cyberax »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #24
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the economics don't work. A bronze steam engine would have been extremely expensive and it would have taken multiple attempts to work out the best alloy mix. Without refinement the result would have had a low power output and short working life. Even if you have a blueprint, a bronze engine is still a major research project.

The economics don't work only when compared to the modern alternative. The economics of a grindstone attached to a waterwheel don't work today but they did historically. A steam engine with low power output could still have been extremely useful in the right context despite not being up to the more strenuous tasks of historical variants.

Your steam engine will likely be less efficient than a pair of oxen. It'll need a lot of wood, water, and will always leak.

If you want something truly revolutionary, try the modern horse saddle and horse collar (and bit).

Re: Show HN: The Roman Industrial Revolution that could have been (Vol 2)

#30

Post by Starman_Jones »

cyberax wrote: post #4

This kind of fiction is pretty popular in Russia. So there are websites and forums that discuss the kind of hand-waving needed to make the stories interesting (I recommend https://www.popadancev.net/ ). And one thing that really stands out is that there are really not that many shortcuts. To build something like a steam engine, you need to invent advanced steelmaking, casting, advanced tooling (lathes, drills, etc.),…

> And one thing that really stands out is that there are really not that many shortcuts.

Completely agree, but the one exception that really stands out to me is canning. Napoleon offered a large cash prize for a cheap and effective method of preserving food for use as army rations. The method used (canning) doesn't require any special equipment (glass jars or tin cans are nice, but not necessary). It would have theoretically been possible to discover this thousands of years earlier. What would have happened if Hannibal or Pyrrhus or Cyrus offered the reward instead?

Post reply on HN