Why wasn't the steam engine invented earlier? Part II • Hacker News Board

Re: Why wasn't the steam engine invented earlier? Part II

#281

Post by jackcosgrove » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 12:26 AM UTC

legitster wrote: post #174

legitster wrote: post #145

Environmental collapse and the price of steel! I think people forget just how expensive metal was. Carpenters would lock up their saws because the blades were so precious. People knew how to make cheaper steel from coal for a long time, but it was regarded as an inferior product and avoided. However, charcoal is labor intensive stuff to collect. By the 1700s, some cities in Europe had so depleted their available fore…

Imagine if you were living in this period - England was constantly at war, the trees had all run out, and quality metal was nowhere to be found. You would think you were in the late stages of humanity, not at the cusp of the greatest moment of human progress. Also, if we wanted to go back even further, the true roots are probably the Enlightenment. Before Wilkinson and Watt and Darby could think to develop technology…

The travails of the early inventors in Britain are tragicomic in terms of the opposition they faced.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kay_(flying_shuttle)

Weavers rioted against his invention. He hardly collected any royalties from his invention in England, and departed for France persona non grata. The French manufacturers also did not pay royalties on the monopoly to the flying shuttle granted him. He died in poverty.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Arkwright

He lost a major patent case, which allowed competitors to use his inventions. He did make money because he owned mills himself rather than being a tinkerer like Kay.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hargreaves

He was run out of town because his spinning jenny put too many spinners out of work. He moved to the town that bought thread because they welcomed the lower prices. His patent survived but did not stop others from copying.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Crompton

Crompton could not afford to patent the spinning mule, so he open sourced it following promises from manufacturers to pay him a fee. The promises were broken. Crompton never made any money from his invention.

Then, as now, a patent is only worth one's ability to fund litigation.

Re: Why wasn't the steam engine invented earlier? Part II

#282

Post by int_19h » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 12:49 AM UTC

Crespyl wrote: post #254

pratik661 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We tend to underestimate how complex even pre Bronze Age kingdoms were. To rule them, our ancestors came up with an intricate way to let different combinations of symbols represent abstract thoughts.

> an intricate way to let different combinations of symbols represent abstract thoughts I seem to find that this is still the best way to communicate.

So long as we keep updating the symbols from time to time, such that that they don't deviate too much from other means of communications.

Re: Why wasn't the steam engine invented earlier? Part II

#283

Post by simonblack » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 1:05 AM UTC

Machinery depends on metal-working to a fine-enough precision.

Steam can escape through very fine gaps and greatly reduce the effectiveness of the engine. Apart from that being a dangerous place to be in for humans.

Even 60 years ago, your new car needed to be 'run-in' for a couple of thousand miles because tolerances in the cylinders weren't able to be made fine enough yet.

When was the the last time you had to 'run-in' a new car?

Re: Why wasn't the steam engine invented earlier? Part II

#284

Post by emmelaich » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 1:41 AM UTC

legitster wrote: post #145

Environmental collapse and the price of steel! I think people forget just how expensive metal was. Carpenters would lock up their saws because the blades were so precious. People knew how to make cheaper steel from coal for a long time, but it was regarded as an inferior product and avoided. However, charcoal is labor intensive stuff to collect. By the 1700s, some cities in Europe had so depleted their available fore…

And also price and availability of pit coal. In 1700 over 80% of the worlds coal was mined in Britain. (from wikipedia)

Re: Why wasn't the steam engine invented earlier? Part II

#285

Post by samatman » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 2:16 AM UTC

fellellor wrote: post #144

qsort wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that kind of the other way around? Ignoring the obvious moral question, in a primarily agrarian economy slave labor is useful because it's relatively easy to control and there is no need for specialization. OTOH in an industrialized society you wouldn't want slaves even if you could have them.

What is slavery if not systematically, grossly under compensating someone for their work? Modern industrialised economies have plenty of tools to simulate the effects of slavery. Although without the fun stuff like whipping and other forms of gratuitous cruelty. In its essence slavery is an exchange of labor deal where the buying party has it way better than the selling party.

Want to tell if you're being exploited or enslaved? Leave.

If a gang of armed men kidnap, brand, and return you, you're enslaved.

Re: Why wasn't the steam engine invented earlier? Part II

#286

Post by Crespyl » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 2:18 AM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #282

Crespyl wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an intricate way to let different combinations of symbols represent abstract thoughts I seem to find that this is still the best way to communicate.

So long as we keep updating the symbols from time to time, such that that they don't deviate too much from other means of communications.

Symbols are always lossy, they cannot be relied on even in the best case. I think what matters are the games we play with them.

Re: Why wasn't the steam engine invented earlier? Part II

#287

Post by acdha » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 2:35 AM UTC

notahacker wrote: post #140

qikInNdOutReply wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why did it not win? The answer. Slaves. Slaves in the mines, slaves in the home, slave driving the rowboats and all services. Labour was cheap and plenty, also intelligent - with entrenched "automation" like this, no inventions are actually needed. Which goes to show, that technology stratifyng society strangles itself, by producing a servant class outcompeting all technology. Give it a hundred years and the "natu…

Slaves might explain lack of interest in labour saving technology in general, but the steam engine in particular mostly excels at stuff which slaves couldn't do (high speed transport) or enabled production processes particularly well suited to slave labour (textile mills vs craft-textile production). The UK's Industrial Revolution began with slave-picked cotton being spun on machines attended by abundant unskilled la…

> the steam engine in particular mostly excels at stuff which slaves couldn't do (high speed transport) or enabled production processes particularly well suited to slave labour (textile mills vs craft-textile production).

I think there’s a bit more to it: “high speed” is something which took a long time to be true. A lot of these things were simpler applications which seem to have big situational components: if you have literal tons of coal and ore to haul, plus relatively amenable terrain, but not competition from boats, iron to make rails and boilers, and a good source of fuel (coal or wood) steam engines are a great investment. Similarly, if you have fixed industrial demand and abundant fuel but not water power, stationary engines make sense.

If you have different answers for enough of those points, it’s hard to justify the development - it took the Europeans a couple of centuries in starting in the 1600s, after their population already exceeded Rome’s, and as you mentioned they already had or started a lot of related technologies, too. An agrarian society, a hilly one, land without lots of easily available fuel, etc. might not have had it ever make sense or only after someone else has made multiple generations of technology development.

Re: Why wasn't the steam engine invented earlier? Part II

#288

Post by mullingitover » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 2:50 AM UTC

nine_k wrote: post #235

pratik661 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rights to privately acquire land, create corporations, and sell across markets were extant across different civilizations throughout history. The Chola merchant guilds had formalized corporate structures that dissipated the risk of long voyages 2000 years ago. Seeing that the Romans traded with the Cholas, the Romans probably had corporate structures too. Humans have been living in complex societies since the Bronze…

The problem is that (early) Medieval Europe has lost much of that. Romans built blocks of dwelling houses 5-6 stories high, houses with central heating, and running water delivered to their cities (and wealthier homes) by systems of aqueducts and pipes, etc. These are things that we associate with 19th or even 20th century in large parts of Europe. Sadly, their social institutions, even as famous as the republic, wer…

> Sadly, their social institutions, even as famous as the republic, were also not practiced and even forgotten for long centuries.

I mean, the main social institutions that underpinned all the others in Rome were massive human trafficking and looting operations. The enlightened Greeks weren't any better.

My personal guess is that we would've had the industrial revolution thousands of years earlier if these groups we like to glorify in our history books would've laid off the enslaving, murder, and robbery.

Re: Why wasn't the steam engine invented earlier? Part II

#289

Post by MomoXenosaga » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 3:00 AM UTC

legitster wrote: post #174

legitster wrote: post #145

Environmental collapse and the price of steel! I think people forget just how expensive metal was. Carpenters would lock up their saws because the blades were so precious. People knew how to make cheaper steel from coal for a long time, but it was regarded as an inferior product and avoided. However, charcoal is labor intensive stuff to collect. By the 1700s, some cities in Europe had so depleted their available fore…

Imagine if you were living in this period - England was constantly at war, the trees had all run out, and quality metal was nowhere to be found. You would think you were in the late stages of humanity, not at the cusp of the greatest moment of human progress. Also, if we wanted to go back even further, the true roots are probably the Enlightenment. Before Wilkinson and Watt and Darby could think to develop technology…

England may have run out of trees but Canada hadn't.

Hell my own country didn't have any forests left by the 17th century and built ships from Baltic timber. For 300 years the entire world fed European industry with its natural resources. It is why God created Africa.

Re: Why wasn't the steam engine invented earlier? Part II

#290

Post by dr_dshiv » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 5:31 AM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #277

dr_dshiv wrote: post #269

Arguably, the steam engine is a form of artificial intelligence. At least with Watt’s engine, the “governor” plays an essential information processing role in modulating the pressure. Sensing and reacting to keep a measured value in an optimal range is pretty much the definition of AI (see Norvig’s definition of intelligence). Autopilot is another example of non-computational AI (autopilot was invented in 1914).

No, a control cycle is not AI. Otherwise a dam with an overflow relief is AI too and it has been around much longer than a couple of hundred years.

Then, I would propose that we refer to computational AI and noncomputational AI. Because a control cycle is absolutely what AI is—and yes, it is much older than we think. See Chapter 1 of “Artificial Intelligence: a Modern Approach”