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

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

#291

Post by eesmith » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 6:11 AM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #242

eesmith wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Diesel trains are not as powerful as steam trains of yore were, but diesel locomotives are so much cheaper to build and maintain that you can run 3-4 of them at a time and still save money. Am I missing something? It looks like hundreds of diesel-electric locomotives are more powerful than the most powerful steam engines ever made. I went to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_locomotives then sorted by t…

I assume they meant that the diesel trains were not as powerful when first implemented, but they were cheaper. It fits with their other examples much better.

Except the Kaufman Act link points out that diesels were introduced in NYC because the didn't pollute like steam locomotives.

That doesn't fit OP's thesis at all.

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

#292

Post by eesmith » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 6:33 AM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #238

eesmith wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Diesel trains are not as powerful as steam trains of yore were, but diesel locomotives are so much cheaper to build and maintain that you can run 3-4 of them at a time and still save money. Am I missing something? It looks like hundreds of diesel-electric locomotives are more powerful than the most powerful steam engines ever made. I went to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_locomotives then sorted by t…

Definitely not current diesel trains, but maybe gp is referring to when they were first introduced.

The sentence uses "Diesel trains are" and "steam trains of yore were" - past vs. present.

Take the 2-8-0, which https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-8-0 comments:

> From its introduction in 1866 and well into the early 20th century, the 2-8-0 design was considered to be the ultimate heavy-freight locomotive. The 2-8-0's forte was starting and moving "impressive loads at unimpressive speeds" and its versatility gave the type its longevity. The practical limit of the design was reached in 1915, when it was realised that no further development was possible with a locomotive of this wheel arrangement. ...

> During World War II, 14 of these locomotives were equipped with superheaters, which raised their tractive effort from 28,777 lbf (128.0 kN) to 33,557 lbf (149.3 kN)

Then compare to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMC_E3 , a diesel from 1938 with "Tractive effort Starting: 56,500 lbf".

That's from time when people became convinced that diesel was better than steam. Why? Quoting https://www.american-rails.com/diesel.html

> This changed after General Motors successfully demonstrated the diesel's viability during testing of its FT freight design in 1939.

> The demonstrator set toured the country, convincing skeptic after skeptic that diesels were not only efficient and reliable but could also outperform the iron horse.

Not simply because it was dirt cheap.

Stats at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_FT . The top speed of 95 mph is 15 mph higher than the Union Pacific Big Boy.

Note also "Steam locomotives could be built with fewer precious materials, and with less conflict with military needs.", which is yet another factor that OP's thesis didn't consider.

Did you catch things like "no further development was possible with a locomotive of this wheel arrangement" and from earlier "the six cylinders could easily consume more steam than the boiler could produce". These designs were pushing the limit of what steam could do, and diesel looked like it could pass those limits. And did.

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

#293

Post by eesmith » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 7:35 AM UTC

legitster wrote: post #272

eesmith wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm having a really hard time understanding your observation, or how to apply it. What was unique about legal entitlements 1600s England that wasn't in, say, 1600s Netherlands? Like, why doesn't the Dutch East India Company count? Or quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Mine#Free_miners : > The organizational structure of Falun Mine created under the 1347 charter was advanced for its time. Free miners owned sh…

I'm largely thinking about why the Industrial Revolution couldn't be cooked up during, like, the Roman period despite there being many places with a similar set of ingredients. My point isn't that England was first or best at these things, but the chronology of these things coming first was essential for the puzzle pieces coming together.

You're walking very close to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

English is an unusual European language using "did" to express some negatives, like "I didn't want it" instead of "I want it not", and with a relatively insignificant gender system in the grammar.

Maybe that was part of the puzzle.

Or perhaps Anglicanism was part of the puzzle.

Or the wealth from colonial exploitation and slavery that was used to fund these projects.

For that matter, when Watt developed his steam engine, Scottish "colliers and salters [were] in a state of slavery and bondage" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain#Slavery_and... , so there's another puzzle piece. That surely seems like part of the legal entitlements you refer to, albeit in Scotland instead of England.

Or, as English people 150 years ago argued, the natural superiority of the Anglo-Saxon and Scottish races -- a puzzle piece that biology has conclusively shown does not exist.

How do you know which puzzle piece is relevant enough to the puzzle, vs. a happenstance?

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

#294

Post by jaclaz » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 7:59 AM UTC

qubex wrote: post #216

jaclaz wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>which is attributed to Alexander Graham Bell in most of the world and to Antonio Meucci in my native Italy. The US congress did vote a resolution that cleared the matter (in 2002, a bit late I would say): https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-148/iss... But in this case Bell and Meucci weren't much disparate sources.

I’m honestly stunned because I had no idea this issue had been raised, much less addressed.

Yep, the US somehow cleared the matter, but Canada swiftly affirmed the opposite in a one liner:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_the_telephone

https://web.archive.org/web/20141222093046/http://www2.parl....

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

#295

Post by goto11 » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 8:11 AM UTC

Koshkin wrote: post #251

goto11 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because sustained heavier-than-air flight requires an engine. So same reason the car was not invented earlier - a coal-powered steam engine is too heavy.

I does not have to be "sustained" for more than a few minutes to be called a flight. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deltaplane

Sure, but beside the point. There are many historical examples of heavier-than-air flight (kites, gliders etc.), but without means of self-propulsion it is not very practically useful.

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

#296

Post by leobg » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 9:25 AM UTC

qikInNdOutReply wrote: post #76

terhechte wrote: post #40

The Greek philosoper Hero of Alexandria actually invented something close to a steam engine in the 1st century BE [1]. Whenever I think about "obvious" inventions which happened quite late in our civilization, I remember "The road not taken", a fantastic short story that plays with this idea. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_Not_Taken_(short_stor...

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…

Thank you for this book recommendation. Am reading it now and loving it! What other alternate history books are your favorites? (I'm holding my notepad ready.)

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

#297

Post by antonhowes » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 9:27 AM UTC

legitster wrote: post #273

antonhowes wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 government encouragement and special incentives - witness the many, many failed patents that had to be reissued from Sturtevant in 1612 all the way through to the 1660s and beyond. Cities like London made the switch early on to using coal…

I'm specifically thinking of the period in the early 18th century with the Darby family.

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.

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

#298

Post by antonhowes » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 12:52 PM UTC

dr_dshiv wrote: post #230

antonhowes wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eventually became totally obsessed with the inverted flask experiment - and recent historiography suggests he wasn’t seen as a crank, but actually highly respected at the time.

Nice! Thanks to the Ritman library in Amsterdam, I have access to a lot of Fludd’s published books (with fun marginalia etc…) but a fair amount of his work doesn’t seem to have been translated. (Maybe you’ve found otherwise?) Descartes and Mersenne present a early conflicted aversion to the occult/esoteric/natural magic (eg, topics like resonance). I presume that certain ideas became somewhat taboo. This is one reaso…

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 literature on his use of the inverted flask experiment and (spoilers) weatherglasses, which also sometimes translate some significant sections.

Very interesting on resonance - I’ll check that out. I seem to recall there was a PhD thesis I skim-read that was all about the relationship between music and weatherglasses in Fludd’s thought.

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

#299

Post by antonhowes » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 1:02 PM UTC

kragen wrote: post #240

To me the most surprising thing about this series is that de Caus had a working CSP (concentrated solar power) setup by 01615 ( https://antonhowes.substack.com/i/57230676/solar-powered-ste... , original source https://archive.org/details/raisonsdesforce00Caus ). I had thought CSP only dated to Shuman's installation in Egypt in 01913, but I see that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power#Histo... also…

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, other than the fact he thought it would cost £20,000 and would involve heating some kind of very heat-conductive material on top of a hill nearby. Historians assume it would have then involved heating water to be run in pipes to London’s houses.

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

#300

Post by antonhowes » Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 1:06 PM UTC

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).

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/furnace. Using mercury rather than water to trap air in a tube, much like the inverted flask I described, rising temperatures would raise a float sitting on the mercury that would then close the aperture for the air feeding the oven’s flame.