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

Why wasn’t the steam engine invented earlier? Part III

antonhowes.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 155 posts

Re: Why wasn’t the steam engine invented earlier? Part III

#61

Post by andrewla »

jmyeet wrote: post #36

Early steam engines were developed well before the locomotive steam engine, which is generally what we associate with the term "steam engine". I don't think you can overstate the importance of the technological development in the 19th century on these developments. The US presented a new need that I don't think really existed before: crossing vast distances over land, eventually all the way from the Atlantic coast to…

This article is very specifically not talking about locomotive steam engines, but the early, even pre-Newcomen, pre-Watt, low-pressure steam engines developed by Thomas Savery in the 1690s.

Re: Why wasn’t the steam engine invented earlier? Part III

#62

Post by bklaasen »

telesilla wrote: post #28
cptaj wrote: post #18

An important factor seems to be precision engineering. I saw the point made in The Perfectionists: How Precision Engineers Created the Modern World by Simon Winchester, where they argue that while all the science and experimentation was there, it wasn't until precision parts were widely available that steam engines really solved all their problems and became viable https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35068671-the-per…

This is also cited as the reason the difference engine was not completed.

Alan Bromley and Doron Swade's rebuild of the Difference Engine, done using metals and techniques that were available in Babbage's time, seem to have put paid to that idea.

These days it's Babbage's poor project management that's cited as the cause. He had a stormy relationship with his engineer, and couldn't settle on a design long enough for it to be implemented.

Re: Why wasn’t the steam engine invented earlier? Part III

#63

Post by soco »

bumby wrote: post #37
perilunar wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Wright Brothers didn't come up with the idea of the airplane at all — people had been working on it for over 100 years.

There’s an argument that heavier than air flight was mainly due to Curtis who was able to help the Wrights get an engine with a much better power:weight ratio. The Wrights made many contributions, notably a very efficient propeller, I believe. But some of their biggest claims, like wing-warping, succumbed to others ideas like Curtis’ ailerons.

Let's not forget Leonardo da Vinci's studies around 1500 or whatever flight the Babylonians or Indian vimanas were supposed to do...

Re: Why wasn’t the steam engine invented earlier? Part III

#64

Post by shagie »

cdot2 wrote: post #52
shagie wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While science fiction, the Safehold series by David Weber gets into this. As the series opens, everything is made by its own guild/foundry to the point of cannon balls for one ship wouldn't work on another because of the lack of standardization. Guns (muskets) where such that if a part broke you needed a gunsmith to craft a new part for it... which might have slightly different dimensions so it was best if it didn't…

The earliest example I know of with interchangeable parts were the 1819 Hall rifles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpW054cVfHc

And for a comparison of timeframes, Stephenson's Rocket was 1829.

Early steam engines for work (not train) The Newcomen Engine in the 1700s (though fairly inefficient - and you can see that it could be made without precision parts). By 1800 (when Watt's patent expired) there was an estimated 450 Watt engines (totaling 7,500 hp) and over 1500 Newcomen engines in the UK.

The first high pressure steam engine was built by Oliver Evans in 1801 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Evans#Developing_the_hi...

By the 1830s, you had this - https://youtu.be/zoBWAE0win0

Re: Why wasn’t the steam engine invented earlier? Part III

#65

Post by shagie »

michaelt wrote: post #56
shagie wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While science fiction, the Safehold series by David Weber gets into this. As the series opens, everything is made by its own guild/foundry to the point of cannon balls for one ship wouldn't work on another because of the lack of standardization. Guns (muskets) where such that if a part broke you needed a gunsmith to craft a new part for it... which might have slightly different dimensions so it was best if it didn't…

> At a point later in the series, one of the characters on the other side of the war demonstrates this by taking three rifles and disassembles them, and then reassembles a working rifle with parts randomly selected from the different three disassembled rifles Based on the real history of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interchangeable_parts :- By around 1778, Honoré Blanc began producing some of the first firearms with…

Heh, that's probably where that scene was from.

The development of interchangeable parts, precision parts, higher performing weapons (which often is a driver of innovation) and the steam engine have more than casual linkages between them.

Re: Why wasn’t the steam engine invented earlier? Part III

#67

Post by epicide »

anjc wrote: post #59
steveBK123 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern people overestimate how long we have been able to engineer things precisely. I used to use a lot of vintage German cameras. Really right up through the 1950s the tolerances were wide enough that no two cameras were exactly alike. The parts were all replaceable, and there were often adjustments & shims inside to keep things in spec. For example, one camera might have part A that's a little long so it's matching…

> Modern people overestimate how long we have been able to engineer things precisely I think you're underestimating it also. For example, micrometres capable of measuring imperceptible differences have existed for many centuries, same for manufacturing machines (lathes, mills) that can shape objects to imperceptible requirements. Cameras probably just don't require such precision.

> Cameras probably just don't require such precision.

Depends on the camera.

I think if we combine both of your comments, we get a more clear picture of reality: we've had the ability to manufacture one instance of something with precision for a while, but not the ability to do so consistently, reliably, or quickly.

i.e. tolerances have shrunk dramatically over the past century or so, along with time needed to produce things with such low tolerances.

However, while that is generally true across the board, tolerances haven't all gotten to the same place! Materials involved, costs, time to build, and need for low tolerances still largely affect all of it, of course.

And for some things, individual variations are even considered desirable.

Re: Why wasn’t the steam engine invented earlier? Part III

#68

Post by Damogran6 »

steveBK123 wrote: post #35
cptaj wrote: post #18

An important factor seems to be precision engineering. I saw the point made in The Perfectionists: How Precision Engineers Created the Modern World by Simon Winchester, where they argue that while all the science and experimentation was there, it wasn't until precision parts were widely available that steam engines really solved all their problems and became viable https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35068671-the-per…

Modern people overestimate how long we have been able to engineer things precisely. I used to use a lot of vintage German cameras. Really right up through the 1950s the tolerances were wide enough that no two cameras were exactly alike. The parts were all replaceable, and there were often adjustments & shims inside to keep things in spec. For example, one camera might have part A that's a little long so it's matching…

I had a 89 Corvette...designed in the late 70's early 80's before computers were generally used to do so. It was a mass of shims and slotted holes to get things to line up.

I had a 1998 Corvette...designed in the early 90's with CADCAM. No shims. Things like a door latch and door made by entirely different companies, the three holes to attach the latch weren't shimmed or slotted, and the replacement fit exactly with no adjustment.

Re: Why wasn’t the steam engine invented earlier? Part III

#69

Post by flavius29663 »

jiggawatts wrote: post #14
lordnacho wrote: post #6

I think the reason is best described by Factorio. Yes, with a lot of spaghetti belts and manual crafting, you can make late-stage products. But to do it well, in a way that transcends merely being able to make a handful of items, you need a huge underlying economy. You end up having to re-arrange your whole factory, or you need to clear new land, which means you need to spend some time on diversions like improved mil…

A nice explanation for the "rate of progress" is the percentage of the population that is not involved in the production of food. Since the dawn of humanity up until "very recently" in the grand scheme of things, something like 95 to 98 percent of the population were directly involved in food production. There were the odd shamans, priests, tribal leaders, or what have you, but everyone else made themselves busy hunt…

and also: today the farming and food making activities are evolving the society beyond the basic need of feeding people. For example the food industry is developing its own materials, processes, refrigeration techniques, delivery industry (doordash, uber eats etc.) are advancing our computer systems

Re: Why wasn’t the steam engine invented earlier? Part III

#70

Post by andrewla »

photochemsyn wrote: post #32

Author has an interesting point of view, I always assumed that the issue was the quality of the steel available at the time was too low to prevent explosive failure under pressure or collapse under vacuum: > "Now, one might suggest that Petty and Kalthoff simply lacked the tools or materials to make sufficiently strong and precisely fitting vessels and pipes. But I highly, highly doubt this." This issue has been hist…

In this particular article, we're looking at the window between ~1640 and ~1690. A fifty year interval is a pretty long time in human terms. But it is fairly narrow in technological terms. Steel production did not change significantly during that time.

I still, without evidence, cling to the notion that external technologies (like advances in precision engineering) held things up, but the article makes a very compelling argument that this is not the case, and that it really was a question of having an individual inventive and ambitious and persistent enough to really attempt to reduce to practice the concepts that were floating around at the time.

Post reply on HN