Talk:Steam engine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

BLEVEs

The recent edit corresponds to the WP article on BLEVEs, but I believe it is mistaken, as the term only applies to flammable liquid explosions. This is under discussion on the BLEVE talk page.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Focus

Sextion tx from article- needs to be placed differently

Still engine

In the Still engine (named after W.J.Still) the boiler was heated by exhaust gas from a diesel engine. The engine was double-acting (diesel above the piston and steam below the piston). This allowed some of the energy in the diesel exhaust to be recovered, leading to higher efficiency. However, these engines did not become popular because of their complexity.

--ClemRutter (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning

I have done a little cleaning- attempting to keep the illustrations and article on focus. I have now hit a brickwall when I find the Compound Engine section is entirely filled with detail about locomotives- the obvious place for this information was an article on Compound locomotives- but there must have been a concensus in May 2008 for the move and redirection to be set up. I can't see a way forward until this move is reverted- but I won't do that until I have some support. The Compound locomotive article needs to describe the application of compounds (ie Locomotives) while the compound engine needs to an article on the theory of compounding (Hills 1989) that can be referred to in several articles. Comments please. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether there was consensus! User:John of Paris had grasped the nettle and started to tackle issues such as the lack of a comprehensive compound engine article. I'm not sure how far he got, and the rename of 'Compound locomotive' to 'Compound engine' was pretty much the last thing he contributed at WP. It's possible that the follow-up work he intended never materialised.

I don't need to re-state my position, as it is fairly clear in Talk:Compound engine. We need an article on compound steam engines in general, and a separate one on locomotives. Steam engine can then link to these. From my point of view, you can do whatever you think appropriate to give the best structure. Incidentally, I reckon there is enough material for a separate article on compound railway locomotives; other applications of compounding -- marine, stationary, road -- can be covered in the 'compound engine' article and later split-off if appropriate.

EdJogg (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree we need a comprehensive Compound engine. The present article is largely about locos. One answer might be to rename that article back to something like Compound steam locomotive and convert Compund engine into a general article covering Cornish engine, Compound steam locomotive, Marine steam engine, (and any others). This would have a history, followed by the applications, where size and weight constraints will have affected the way in which engines developed. See my comments on Talk:Compound engine. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be tempted (as a general principle) to leave the top-level article alone for the moment, focus on the more specific articles, then revisit the overall article once the specifics are in place. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the bull by the horns- we have two articles- but still a lot of work to do. Enjoy. --ClemRutter (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

References

lead plug

it is probably some of all of the factors mentioned. any sources? Wdl1961 (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Fusible plug is pretty well referenced, and linked from here. It is debatable whether we need to go into this much detail here -- indeed, whether the safety section should be present at all, as it doesn't really cover steam engines. (Somewhere this article should include a section on boilers, with a {{main}} link to boiler. In a summary of 'boilers' in the steam engine article, it is quite likely that details such as fusible plugs would not get a look-in, although an overview of safety might be mentioned.)

EdJogg (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hewison, Locomotive Boiler Explosions, is a good start. "Although fusible plugs are intended as alarms", in reference to the 1948 Lamington accident, when the crew of Princess Alexandra had two faulty gauge glasses without realising it, then didn't notice when the plugs blew out. Nor did a shed foreman and two fitters at Carstairs recognise the source of a steam leak as having been the plugs melted out.

On the whole, the whole section wants to move elsewhere. It's WP:UNDUE for a top level article, and it's too much about boilers for something specific on engines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Dingley (talk • contribs) 00:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

it is definitely a safety issue. now it has too much detail for my taste but Wdl1961 (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

At a pinch you could remove all the text after "Except...", as this is covered at fusible plug. The earlier text, which explains the purpose and operation, could also be simplified, I'm sure -- you'll have noticed that writing simply is not my strong point! But as the whole paragraph is too much detail for this article, I'd leave it until the section is re-vamped/deleted. EdJogg (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

'Summary' added ... and removed

Summary

The steam engine had a huge factor in The Industrial Revolution due to advantages in trade, speed and the cost of operation. First, some may ask what a steam engine is. The steam engine can be used in trains as well as in textile mills and other machine operated factors. The idea of this incredible invention wasn’t just created by one mind. Many generations of scientists and engineers worked on improving the locomotive to what it has become today. Dating back to 1765, the steam engine has been improving over the years, and was the key factor for trading in The Industrial Revolution.

This section was added today, but removed by me as I don't think it really adds anything to the article (quite apart from the style of English). BUT, I copied it here as I am wondering whether it is significant that someone thought it necessary to add it. Does the beginning of this article provide an adequate summary? For those users who have some knowledge of steam engines and for those with none? Just a thought.

EdJogg (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Leave it out. The lead is good now, apps covers the IR fx, & they're better written... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 00:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree - it adds little, and the date 1765 is wrong anyway. It is actually rather facile. It might possibly be used to flesh out the lead, but better not. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"Prime Mover"

The article uses the term "prime mover" as though the term only applies to steam engines mounted on vehicles. This is not true.

For instance : A stationary steam engine in a coal mine was the prime mover for the pump draining the mine; a stationary steam engine in a cotton mill was the prime mover for the mules and looms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Gettin' steamed

Before I go add this link, & a host of ship-related ones, let me ask: should a mention of steam-driven ships be listed under "military"? I'd say yes, since it's true, & since it revolutionized naval warfare. I'm not suggesting links to every type of ship, necessarily (tho it might, in fact, be necessary), just a mention of naval use. Thoughts? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There are already these links Steamboat, steamship, steam yacht. That should be enough to get anyone started in the right direction. I think adding more detail to the listed transport applications would need very careful thought if it were to improve the article. Globbet (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not thinking "transport", I'm thinking strictly military. Destroyer, SSN, & battleship, for instance. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

All of the existing transport links are for specifically steam-powered vehicles. Furthermore, each application tended to use a different form of steam engine/boiler configuration, whereas the naval vessels will tend to use variations of the types used in commercial marine applications (see marine steam engine). Certainly Destroyer, SSN, & battleship are inappropriate links, not being steam-specific topics, although most are already mentioned at steam turbine. -- EdJogg (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important that this article on "engines" should not be cluttered up with material on forms of transport that used a steam engine to power a mode of trasnport. At some periods a battleship was powered by a steam engine; earlier it was powered by sails, and (if built today) it might have a steam turbine. A battleship was NOT a steam engine, but a ship that at some periods was powered by one. For the same reason, we do not have detail on steam railway locomotives. Globbet has pointed to three appropriate links, and these should be enough. This is already a complicated article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to leave as is; just asking... ;D TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though, and his contribs need to be doublechecked. I searched the page history, and found 15 edits by Jagged 85 in June/July/August 2007 and 2 more edits in June 2008. Tobby72 (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Time for a glossary?

Just been editing compound engine (and Woolstenhulmes & Rye) and started thinking it was about time we had a Glossary of steam engine terminology to match the excellent Glossary of boiler terminology being populated by Andy Dingley.

For example, Woolstenhulmes & Rye includes the sentence "The air pump was driven by a bell crank from the LP tail rod." which really needs links for both 'air pump' and 'tail rod' for explanation in a steam engine context.

EdJogg (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC) -- (I'm working my way through a three-week watchlist backlog following a PC failure, so can't create it myself just yet.)

No, I don't have time for a Glossary of steam engine terminology 8-)

It's a great idea. But make a few of them: steam engine, steam locomotive, maybe even locomotive (diesels too) for general stuff. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't actually assuming that you would create it Andy ('yet'... :o) )

As for steam locomotives, that is a bigger problem. Although Steam locomotive components already exists and Steam locomotive itself is packed-out with information that would be readily moved to a glossary, unpacking it all is a big job!

Since we've already got the boiler glossary format correct (yes?), actual creation of the article is relatively trivial, but populating it will take longer.

EdJogg (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Uniflow engine

I was thinking that it would be useful to add Файл:Cylindrical sliding gear.gif to the uniflow engine section. At present, the uniflow schematic isn't quite immediatelly understandable by people without much steam engine-knowledge, and the steam engine in action movie features a piston/cylinder that is too small to see what's going on (it also moves too fast) 91.182.208.196 (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Steam hammers and missing information...

Someone recently added a link from Creusot steam hammer to Pneumatic cylinder (in place of the DAB page [[cylinder]]). As the usual link is to [[cylinder (engine)]], this warranted closer inspection and, sure enough, would appear a much more appropriate link (even though that destination does not yet mention steam).

Having copied the same link for steam hammer I looked at piston (also linked from Pneumatic cylinder) and found that it is much less appropriate, only really covering reciprocating usage.

So, as I don't have time (or references) to resolve these issues, I thought I should mention the information holes I have discovered, in case any of the other steam editors has a chance to attend to them:

• Pneumatic cylinder -- assumes air propulsion, even though the mechanism would appear the same for (eg) steam hammers. Would seem important to mention it at least, seeing as how people are adding links from steam articles
• piston -- does not really cover non-reciprocating uses, and is not a terribly accurate link from steam hammer nor Pneumatic cylinder
• are there other instances of 'steam engine' where Pneumatic cylinder would give a better description of their operation?
• I'm sure there were some other points, but they've slipped my mind just now...

EdJogg (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Info

Perhaps the questions posed at User talk:Andy Dingley can be solved and info integrated to this article ? 91.182.130.229 (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Blasco de Garay

Hi EdJogg: somewhere you asked about the Spanish steam engine that "moved a ship" in 1543. Its "inventor" was Blasco de Garay. The best judgement on this story is H.P.Spratt, "The Birth of the Steamboat",(London, 1958). —Preceding unsigned comment added by OMINOREG (talk • contribs) 11:51, 6 October 2010

I don't remember where I asked about this, although It's likely I noted that the evidence for him being credited with the original invention of the steamboat is far from conclusive.

I guess it's possible that Spratt gives the 'best judgement', although the article on Blasco de Garay already covers the controversy in some detail. It would be interesting to know what additional information Spratt has found out, and why the "French and Spanish scholars" have not made a bigger thing about it. This is also discussed further at Talk:Blasco de Garay. In the article, I have moved the new reference into a general 'Further Reading' section, since the existing references are very specific about the information they are sourcing, and the Spratt reference does not even mention a page number.

EdJogg (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is a general one. It is important that it should reflect the subject generally and not get bogged down in inconsequential detail. Whatever Blasco de Garay did achieve, it appears to have come to a dead end, and can thus be no more than a footnote to history. I note that the article cites nothing earlier than 1826, which may mean that 19th century authors were merely speculating on what he did. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has done a lot of work on this, finding a ref that officially discredited the invention. I have updated Steam Engine and History of... to match the de Garay page.

Incidentally, I discovered this page about Spratt's book. It includes some cover blurb commenting favourably on his research, and notes that Spratt was "the retired Deputy Keeper of the Department of Transport at the Science Museum, London" so he ought to know what he's writing about!

--EdJogg (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Article is too short

The guidelines at wp:article size suggest that article prose should be no more than 50k, but according to the size tool the current article is only 34k.

I think that the article should be expanded up to 50k prose. It's a popular article, and it needs more diagrams and a bit more depth all round.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 04:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no rule that an article should be of the maximum length. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

True, but the article seems to be about a relatively big, fairly complicated subject (there's lots of different types of steam engines). That means it almost certainly will end up around the maximum length.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 00:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation to history section

Hi I’m new to Wikipedia and have just begun to make my first edits. I was interested in this article and noticed that it had been flagged as requiring more citations for greater verification and in the spirit of WP:Bold I added a citation to the history section. However, another editor correctly pointed out that the citation I provided did not comply with WP:RS and after reviewing Wikipedia’s policies concerning reliable sources and verifiability I would like to propose an alternative source for the content in the history section asserting that the “first commercially successful engine” was developed in 1712 by Thomas Newcomen. The citation that I now propose, and consider to be within the guidelines of Wikipedia’s policies, is the book, “Society and economy in modern Britain 1700-1850,” by Richard Brown, the relevant sections of which can be found here on page 60. I look forward to your feedback and thanks for your time. JamesClyde (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Having looked into WP:RS more closely, I have gone ahead and added the citation discussed above to the corresponding content in the History section. I hope this revision was helpful and in accord with Wikipedia’s standards and policies. Thanks! JamesClyde (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Boldly removed external links

Aside from the 3 dead links, the entire section seemed overly spammy. I wasn't able to identify like one or two stand outs that could be kept even, but if people have good cases for why they don't violate WP:EL please explain so here and we can put them back in. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to say that http://www.animatedengines.com/index.shtml is worth keeping, although it might be that the different engine types should be linked from the individual pages, as we cannot link to a general page just about steam engines.

The How Stuff Works link is not needed, but a similar explanation (to a similarly 'dumbed-down' level) is. It might be worth keeping this one until an adequate 'How it Works' section of the article is in place.

The first link is mis-directed to Chapter 5 (marine applications), it should be kept and link to the start of the book, ie: A History of the Growth of the Steam-Engine

Otherwise, I think you're right. Several relate specifically to marine applications, so would belong on other pages anyway.

EdJogg (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'd be fine with those. Thanks for taking a look! Syrthiss (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Fire outside the engine?

I've been reverted twice now on this; the fire in a steam engine is not outside the engine.

The idea that we should be telling people that a steam engine has the flames on the outside is just wrong on so many levels; the system boundary for a steam engine (as opposed to the Rankine cycle) includes the furnace/firebox and in no way excludes it.

The users argument seems to be that if steam engines are external combustion engines then the flames must be external to the engine; but that's not correct. The phrase 'external combustion engine' has a specific meaning, where the combustion is external to the piston chamber, and not in direct contact with the working fluid, not external to the whole engine!!!

I've reverted it again, at the very least it's a horrible way to describe it to the users.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 14:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed it's a horrible way to describe it (this whole article is pretty unreadable and lacks any real editorial structure), but saying that external combustion engines have fireboxes inside the engine is just plain wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should also mention that any practical engine is only approximately analyzed by ideal thermodynamic cycles; a locomotive that throws away the used steam isn't using a "cycle", if the flow is once-through. Do we need to repeat so much of the Rankine cycle article here, especially the "practical Carnot cycle" claim? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Reverted you again, I am afraid. The lead starts (probably wrongly, in my view) by describing the theoretical cycle not a practical embodyment, and 'firebox' is not appropriate because how the fuel is burnt is not relevant. The sentence is bad, but you are not making it better. Let's try to agree an improvement, then change it. Globbet (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The solution might be to rework the whole paragraph, and probably also to leave any mention of cycles until further down the page. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't the place to address this issue be external combustion? Which could use more info, & better cites... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all. For external combustion engine it's a trivial matter of definition and of course the working fluid there is separate from the energy source. The question here is not about definitions of anything, it's about the editorial problem of explaining steam engines (that clearly do have fireboxes) in the context of abstract combustion engines that don't. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Aeolipile

I was wondering whether the energy efficiency of a Aeolipile would be smaller or rather alike to that of a piston-based steam engine. As it's simpler to make, it could be of some value.

91.182.238.132 (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

No. It's a jet engine. Jet engines, from simple first principles that affect all of them, have really poor efficiency when they're moving more slowly than their jet velocity. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Daily Telegraph creative writing

It would be cynical of me to point out the lack of creativity in the Telegraph's creative writing blog, just because part of it seems to be copied from three articles here. It's not as cynical as they are, however: evidently a contributor there has written to a Wikipedia mirror site to complain about our copying from them! --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Condensate

I am questioning whether condensate from piston steam engines can be sent back to the boiler. Hunter and Bryant (1991) said an advantage of the turbine was that the condensate could be sent back to the boiler, but piston engine condensate was too contaminated.Phmoreno (talk) 15:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It depends. There certainly are issues with recycling water through steam engines - the lubricants tended to create scum in the boiler, which it turn led to priming (water carry-over), which is a bad thing. There were several solutions to this - the simplest, for stationary engines with plenty of water available, was to dump it. For ships they had careful scum trapping valves in the boilers. The eventual solution was to find lubricants that reduced this scum contamination problem. By the time superheaters were developed, and their associated piston valves, these mineral-based lubricants were becoming essential anyway, just to deal with the higher steam temperatures. One of the final developments was the vapour recompression engine - rather than condensing the exhaust, this engine used mechanical power to recompress it back to boiler pressure and added it directly back to the boiler. This avoided wasting the heat of the exhaust steam, although it was a technically difficult machine.Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

James Watt vs Joseph Black

I'm having trouble with this IP edit to [[History of the steam engine]]. It seemed a bit POVish in places, so I went to [[James Watt]] to check facts and compare the chronology. Unfortunately, both articles omit the key date of when Watt was examining the model Newcomen engine. However, Watt's article states:
"[The workshop] was established in 1758 and one of the professors, the physicist and chemist Joseph Black, became Watt's friend."
in which case it seems unlikely that:
"there is little evidence that Watt even knew of Black's work, much less applied it to his own work."

The lede for [[Joseph Black]] seems to contradict the new addition entirely: "James Watt, who was appointed as philosophical instrument maker at the same university (1756), became involved in Black's works and conducted experiments on steam with Black."

Any thoughts? -- EdJogg (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Watt certainly knew Black and they conduscted a correspondence: E. Robinson and D. McKie, Partners in Science, James Watt and Joseph Black (Constable, London 1970). I understand this to be an edition of their correspondence, perhpas extracted from the Boulton & Watt MSS. Watt was at this period an instrument maker (and repairer) - essentially an artisan and shopkeeper - and thus of a lower social class than Black. Hills' biography of James Watt I, 78 has a quotation from Watt,

Although Dr Black's theory of latent heat did not suggest my improvements on the stream engine, yet the knowledge upon various subjects which he was pleased to communicate to me, and the correct mode of reasoning, and of making experiments of which he set me the example, certainly conduced very much to the progress of my inventions

Hills wrote a three volume biography of Watt. In a short biographic article in WP, we cannot hope to be comprehensive. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, when I saw the edit in question, several days ago, I reverted it. Globbet (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, both. (Forgot I asked the question here!) -- EdJogg (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Watt, regardless of any class differences, was on very friendly terms with Black and other professors. Watt was self educated, along with other prominent figures including Faraday and Wheatstone. Watt was very well read in math (his father was a math teacher) and science, which was not unusual for instrument makers (Smeaton was also an instrument maker). Watt also collaborated with Dr. Black on a project to manufacture synthetic soda ash. See: Science and Technology in the Industrial Revolution Musson & Robinson (1969).Phmoreno (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just had a look in Dickinson & Jenkins and there's surprisingly little about Black, and all of it quite early on. It seems clear that Watt considered him a great influence, and that Black lent him money for long periods in the early years and didn't seek to have it repaid. However once Watt really starts to be successful, such that a share of a patent would be worth having, then there's no mention of Black. There seems to be a gap between 1780 (Watt finally has spare money to repay an old loan of £40) and Black's death in 1799. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Diesel replacing steam

My edit about diesels replacing steam was reverted before I had a chance to finalize it by cleaning up dates and adding references. I have a couple of diffusion curves on diesel conversion in the U.S. The one I am looking at says that penetration was 10% in 1945 and 90% by 1957. I am not going to replace anything that gets reverted.Phmoreno (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Your edit deleted the section on steam turbine locomotives. It claimed that Europe went from steam to electrics (it didn't). It claimed that US dieselisation took place in the 1950s, when the US was the one country that had a significant number of diesel locomotives (and locomotives, not just railcars) pre-war. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

My mistake on Europe. The curves I have are on the US and Russia, which converted a decade later. The Rise and Fall of Infrastructures, page=128. A better graph is here, but the site is down right now. New York City outlawed steam locomotives around 1922 so diesels were introduced. However, there were a significant number of steam locomotives that were purchased new during WW I when the government nationalized the railroads, and these may have delayed the conversion.. One of Smil's books has a similar curve. I probably have the Smil ref in my notesPhmoreno (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

New York City outlawed steam locomotives around 1922 so diesels were introduced.

No, it was much earlier than this (1908? pre-WWI anyway), and the replacements were electric, not diesel. The NYC S-1 class was the famous result. I think Baltimore had something similar too. Diesel locomotives were impractical until the 1930s, and the development of the high-speed diesel engine. Only a handful of diesel locos existed before this date and they were far from successful. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I heard the story of turbine locomotives and thought they were experimental. I rank them behind compound locomotives in importance. Compounds performed fairly but were mechanically complicated and difficult to work on. Many were converted back to simple.Phmoreno (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Experimental, but in at least one case, highly successful. There is also the question as to why the steam turbine was adopted for marine use and generating plants, but never made inroads into locomotives or mill engines.

As to compounds, then subjective opinions aren't how we work: references, not opinions. If you must use opinions, then at least be right. In what ways were they "difficult to work on" or how many were "converted back to simples"? Neither of these (of the real problems with compounds) were significant issues.

Besides which, this is the steam engine article, not steam locomotive. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I have been working on Wikipedia for four years and have all my notes with references, lately down to the page number, so I wouldn't be posting my opinion but some author's. That particular one I do not recall off hand. I agree that this article is not about locomotives, and it shouldn't be talking about steam turbines much either, so to me a turbine locomotive is way off topic.Phmoreno (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I just don't recognise the problems you describe with compounds though. Many didn't work as well as planned, but this isn't the same thing as "mechanically complicated" and certainly not "difficult in service". The additional cost of their manufacture was always questioned relative to their efficiency, but once constructed pretty much every compound worked well without giving rise to further problems. Also steam wagons and traction engines were commonly compounds without raising any question over their complexity, and with cruder maintenance than main-line locos received.

A turbine locomotive is mostly interesting for its absence. Why so few of them? Although some worked and some didn't, the failures were mostly due to factors about their boilers, not their turbines. Locos like the Turbomotive that applied turbines to existing best practice with conventional boilers could succeed where innovative high-pressure boilers failed. Why were locos different to ships? That's certainly on-topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Only a guess, but it may have been related to the gearbox. Turbines turn at very high rpm and I can imagine that on a loaded train there was a lot of shock and stress.Phmoreno (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I am familiar with turbines as drives for paper machines, for which a few are still in use today. They are nearly ideal for speed control because speed can be varied to run different weights of paper or to respond to minor changes in operating conditions. The other benefit is that the exhaust from the turbine goes into the steam drier drums for CHP. The only time they were a problem was when they failed, because they were special order for the conditions. The fact that it didn't happen often was offset by the catastrophic production losses. Many mills carried loss of service insurance. The turbine side had a line shaft running down it (a few hundred feet) and there were belts to the individual groups of driers so that they could be run at slightly slower speeds as the paper dried and shrank. Overall speed control was with the turbine throttle. The individual section speed control mechanism was a type of differential gearbox that allowed minor speed changes. The turbines started being replaced with sectional electric drives in the 1980s after inexpensive silicon rectifiers and inverters became available. They gave more precise control and were more energy efficient. Phmoreno (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That's the trouble, I hear terms like "turbine throttle" and I'm immediately suspicious as to the accuracy, or at least the precision of what I'm reading. Steam engines aren't (or at least shouldn't be) controlled by a throttle. Particularly for turbines, this affects their efficiency. Instead they're controlled by nozzle boxes and sequential valves, so that part of the turbine circumference might have steam admitted at a time (depending on the load applied and the power needed), but so that each nozzle is always supplied at full pressure and the flowrate for which it's designed. "Throttling" is deliberately avoided, at least when running on-line for long periods. Ships have manoeuvering valves that are throttles, but when under way these are left wide open, no matter what engine revolutions are called for. "Throttle" is a problematic term around steam engines and we should be very wary of using it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, that is what I always heard it called, and never anything else.Phmoreno (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

References

Valves

Just a thought: but do we need to include more on the significance of valves to efficiency. I have two new reference books (as yet not completely read) which imply that it was valve design that held back applications such as electricity generation. Iĺl write more when I have got my head round it all. Any thoughts?--ClemRutter (talk) 07:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm generally against such things. The encyclopedia needs to cover this, but that doesn't force us to cover it in this article. There's also the problem that broad scope articles like steam engine and steam locomotive don't work well on WP (these aren't good articles and I see no imminent hope of saving them). I think the best approach is to work "bottom up" rather than top-down. Produce good, robust articles on anrrow topics (this is always much easier), then build upon those. Link valvegears (and gab valvegears) would be some obvious starts, with Stephenson, Allan, Baker and that one no-one can spell if you like. Fill in a few lesser-known but important gaps with trip valvegears, Corliss valvegear (distinct from Corliss valves) and Caprotti or other cambox gears. Then the real work goes into a big article on the historical development of steam engine valvegears, and steam locomotive valvegears (which are fascinatingly separate). Then stuff a hatnote into steam engine and steam locomotive and shut the lid. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I have some this information and it's an essential part of the story. We don't need say a whole lot about the main valves and valve gears and some of that information is already included.Phmoreno (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I'm planning some changes:

• The technical discussion discussion on engine development is weak. Lacking are discussions of cut off, expansive use of steam, fixed versus variable cut off, in cylinder condensation and re-evaporation, economy of more advanced engines, timeline of steam pressures and various other items. In addition to more discussion, the major technical developments need to be summarized or put in a timeline.

• Too much discussion of Rankine cycle. It's linked to a main.

• Too much discussion of steam turbine. It's linked to a main.

• Also needs to show that engine development was not very dependent on thermodynamic theory, or more correctly, the development of thermodynamics was more influenced by the steam engine than vice versa.

• Some irrelevant items like, oscillating cylinders, take up more room than their importance justifies.Phmoreno (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Globbet (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Some of the most important sections, such as simple, compound, multiple expansions and uniflow, are well done and there is a fairly good deal of technical discussion of expansive use of steam, fixed versus variable cut off, etc., though lacking a few points that would make it more understandable or rational. I am thinking this could be told partly as a technical overview and partly as an evolutionary story, pointing out the advancements over time and explaining their pros and cons. To do this I think that the topics that already have main articles (compound, multiple expansions and uniflow) should be abbreviated to just an overview and comparison.

As of yet I haven't given much thought as to how much of the efficiency discussion belongs here versus the main article on engine efficiency. Any thoughts?

I'm not going to tackle any of the above until I get some feedback. In the meantime I'm going to work on the steam turbine section.Phmoreno (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not finding that the Rankine stuff is overrepresented, it's only got 3 paragraphs and it's already summarised down fairly well; just because it has a main doesn't mean it shouldn't be here. The biggest overrepresentation by far in the article seems to be the uniflow material; that's about four times bigger than it should be, it's about as big as the multiple expansion material, but I don't believe that uniflow is a type that's been used a lot, because of the disadvantages it seems to have been deployed only a handful of times. By way of contrast the steam turbine and multiple expansion stuff is really important and really, really widely used worldwide. As is the Rankine cycle, virtually all of the steam engines, ever use it, so it's super-duper important, and in my opinion deserves the space it already has.Teapeat (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In's not necessarily whether it's important or not, but does it have to be in this article and a separate one? It's the problem of seeing the forest through the trees. Rankine published his paper in 1859 and the experts ignored it, considering it unhelpful to designing engines. The improvements were much more mechanical in nature. That expansion saved steam was understood, but why not as much as it should have? Much more helpful were the SS Michigan experiment ca. 1862 and the 1868 and later experiments. The 1868 and later experiments took better measurements using engine indicators and thermometers, and showed how much loss was due to condensation, re-evaporation and internal friction. Also a slide valve consumed 10% of an engine's power to overcome the force of steam holding the valve against the seat. Then there is Corliss'es estimate (or educated guess) of the individual contributions of his improvements. I think telling these relatively unknown facts will lead to a much better understanding of how steam engines actually worked than some of the duplicated information that's in here. Turbines are not what most people call steam engines for some of the reasons I've stated, so I think it's more important to point the differences than the similarities. Again, I am not going to put a whole lot of work in this unless I get a consensus.Phmoreno (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You're mostly talking about efficiency, which is quite different to how the basic steam engine works (which is what the Rankine cycle describes). Efficiency goes in the efficiency section. And it's not a stupid idea at all to break out an article on steam engine efficiency.Teapeat (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that most people don't think of steam turbines when you talk about steam engines, nevertheless, they are steam engines, as the Turbinia expemplifies, and it turns out that they're a very, very important and highly efficient type. As such we need them to be kept in the article.Teapeat (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

As an engineer I had responsibility for three 20 MW turbines, two were 1250 psi back-pressure and the third was a condensing turbine with 300 and 160 psi extraction. This is modern technology and there are a lot of people besides myself who have first hand knowledge. But I am here to talk about reciprocating steam engines.Phmoreno (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm done here for now. I have 20 pages of notes and some nice charts and graphs that could explain a lot of this stuff in a logical fashion, but I'm not getting int an edit war.Phmoreno (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It's usually, but not always, a bad idea to take out or heavily minimise pre-existing material from articles, but writing a new article on steam engine efficiency sounds like it could be really, really informative, and we could 'main' it from here and Engine efficiency#Steam engine. Otherwise it may be overdetailed for inclusion here.Teapeat (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will put as much of the efficiency information as possible in Engine efficiency#steam entine, but there may be some significant points not mentioned in Steam engine.Phmoreno (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I've started a more detailed list of issues; however, I won't post it until I come up with a few proposed solutions. I'm concentrating on making this interesting enough to readers who follow the history of technology and economic history.Phmoreno (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm making progress on a comprehensive plan that's separate from the more detailed list I mentioned above. I'm focusing on a rational structure. Perhaps I will be able to share it in a few days.Phmoreno (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

(outdent)

I finished writing up my improvement notes, which are rather too much for here. The more important points are as follows:

• A major opportunity for improvement lies in the history section. Too much attention is given to Newcomen and Watt. The aeolipile is associated with the steam turbine and has little to do with the evolution of the steam engine. The Pelton wheel is a better example; at least that way the boiler doesn't rotate. Consideration should be given to giving having a capsule summary of key engine types (Newcomen, Watt, High pressure, Cornish and compound and high speed, compounding, etc.) in a list with links instead of repeating whole discussions. The main History of the steam engine is also missing some interesting points, including the economic and social impact, which I am planning to add.

• Shortening a few sections (previously discussed) with main articles elsewhere would make room for a better technical section. The technical section also needs to discuss the operating principles, including a practical discussion of the thermodynamics involved, in a simple, easy to understand form. I will work up a draft.

• The article should include speed control and engine manufacturing. I will work up a draft.Phmoreno (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Motor unit question

What is the difference between an engine with no cut off and a motor unit?Phmoreno (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what a "motor unit" (as mentioned here) is. I would question why it's even here.

One additional point to remember though is that steam is not only pressurised, it's also hot. Compressed air is generally close to ambient temperature. If you're trying to use early cutoff and expansion, this works much better with steam because the inlet steam can also lose heat during the expansion phase but air can't (because it's not hot, not because it's air). There's a lot more energy per mass in hot, high pressure steam than in ambient high pressure air. This was a significant problem with the development of early portable pneumatic power (rock drills in the late 1800s) as the pneumatic hoses could easily be made longer than steam hoses, yet the working cylinders needed to be expanded compared to steam. In particular, whole new ways of doing valvegear were needed because volume flow became critical, yet precise timing for efficient expansion was less useful. This is why makers like Ingersoll developed such different forms of valvegear that were evidently crude (bash valves and tappets), but had much bigger ports in proportion. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

A 1937 issue of Popular Science has an illustration of the system in use on a loco, with four V4 motors on four driven axles. (Scroll up from here.) The emphasis there is on "popular", rather than "science" (there's a paragraph on the new liveries as well) so it's a bit sketchy, I'm afraid, but there is nothing showing that is recognisable as a cut-off. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Then that's a steam motor, as per that article. Not a "motor unit" as being described in this article. That seems to be a different thing, more akin to pneumatic motors (which also makes sense in the context of discussing cutoff). Thanks for the ref though, I wasn't aware of these US examples. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hunter (1985) mentions engines with no cut off as having been used. But I do not remember him calling them "motor units". Leaving steam on the entire stroke increases power and gives more constant torque at the expense of efficiency.Phmoreno (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment at all Andy, steam motor is defined there as: "A steam motor is a form of steam engine used for light locomotives.[1] They represented one of the final developments of the steam locomotive, in the final decades of the widespread use of steam power."; which is a total non sequitor.Teapeat (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"Steam powered overhead cranes enabled the Industrial Revolution"

Demag lineshaft-driven crane of 1875

This keeps coming back, albeit the most recent version has toned down the claim slightly. It's not cited, it's in the WP:LEAD, which would be wrong even if it were true, and it's not explained. I replaced the {{dubious}} tag, but my inclination is to delete it. Views?--Old Moonraker (talk) 09:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Take it out. Not only uncited, it's improbable at best. As an enabler, I'd put it about 102d on the Top 100 reasons for the IR. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've zapped it already- for reasons User:Trekphiler proposed. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Besides, it kind-of implies that the crane has a steam engine attached, whereas I think the one shown in that photo would have taken its drive from the existing line shafting. Yes, you could call it a steam-powered crane, but only so much as you'd say a lathe or loom was steam-powered (ie powered by steam via line-shafting). -- EdJogg (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Line shafting: I was wondering how it worked. There were some that carried a boiler in a cage below the platform; I found an image while I was researching this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a simpler logic: indooor ones were lineshaft-driven, outdoor ones self-powered. They first appeared in machine shops, where the lineshafting was already in use, and even the Victorians weren't so fond of smoke that they'd put a chimney indoors if they could avoid it. By "lineshafting" it appears to have meant rope drives - AFAIK, no-one really had a good sliding coupler for lineshafting and belts were hard to align, so they used multiple ropes or, more interestingly, a single rope drive with multiple turns on its drum (these seem to have been unique to cranes). This was powered in turn by the building's existing lineshaft and stationary engine.

Where they were used outside, which usually means shipyards and with constructed gantries to support them rather than existing walls, there was no lineshafting in place and so they brought their own boilers and engines. I haven't seen an example with flexible steam piping, so that it could use steam from a fixed boiler to a moving engine. There are a few early examples of outdoor cranes on specially-built walls with no roof, brickwork presumably being locally cheaper than steelwork. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at File:RvancoppSteamCrane1262010.jpg, it's a wire rope drive down the left-hand side. This goes round the three pulleys beneath and drives a vertical shaft on the centre one. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That could go in the caption on the page where it's used. There's a sort-of ref, as the machine in the picture was based an an older version known to use the same system, albeit with a cotton rope. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Line shaft is an unreferenced article- with a incorrectly captioned photo and an example that is not true, Andy could you go and have a look at it--ClemRutter (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Joy. I'll take a look in My Copious Free Time. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've given you a head start by changing to a clearer photo and adding a diagram, which was one of your scans!

-- EdJogg (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this an appropriate photo?

I don't want the editor concerned to think we are picking on him, but I'm not sure that the overhead crane picture -- nice as it is -- should be in the article. It's a good picture of the crane, but doesn't show the method of propulsion -- and this is an article about engines not cranes!

Perhaps a better photo for the sequence of four in the lede would be something much more modern -- a good picture of a multiple-expansion engine maybe?

EdJogg (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I'd see it as more useful somewhere else. Crane (machine) is over-stuffed already, but overhead crane and even steam crane could certainly use it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The contributor has had some knock-backs in the last few days but no, it shouldn't be here; it's not a steam crane per se. It's in the gallery of Overhead crane already. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Trouble with putting it in steam crane is that that article is already 'full' picture-wise (precious little text) and we don't actually know how the drive system worked -- without that, how do we prove it's a steam crane? -- EdJogg (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel completely demoralized picked on and bashed and now feel completely utterly worthless. Writing and Wikipedia is clearly subjective. My only attempted was to help and add information on the industrial revolution. Overhead cranes played a big part, but it appears my knowledge of this is worthless and I am not welcomed to offer my opinion. It is clear that Wikipedia is not for the average person and only the elite. I will make sure as a worthless simpleton to reframe from ever contributing again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvancopp (talk • contribs) 13:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see why you feel like that: many of your contributions have been removed or adjusted and, indeed, two editors have acknowledged the possibility in earlier posts here. One of the problems seems to be that that you are adding your knowledge of overhead cranes to the Industrial Revolution article, but what's needed is an independent, reliable source that discusses the topic, covers the material you are adding and is linked in the "References" section. However knowledgeable you are, just putting in what you know is original research, and not allowed. Verifiability is in the five pillars of the project, and can't really be compromised to allow a new contributor a bit of latitude—sorry. What we should have done, perhaps, is make more use of your talk page to explain all this, for which, in respect of my edits, I apologise. I see that only one editor has used the word "welcome" there, and that was in the context of pointing out an incorrect edit. There is a policy of not biting newcomers. I don't think we did this, but neither did we issue enough strokes in respect of your hard work.

There's quite a steep learning curve and I still look back on some of my early attempts (actually, some of my recent edits too, but that's another story) and cringe. I can only suggest: stick with it! --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Make that two editors! At the same time as OM's response I was writing on your talk page, and I also apologise for not spotting you earlier as a new contributor. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for the Guidance in the matter. I am trying to learn and would like to be able to contribute in a positive and acceptable way. I received information from EdJogg that was very helpful thank you. I have some reading to do at my end. I think in the end Overhead cranes and Steam power need to be noted together somehow, but I am afraid that the work required to achieve the needed information might be harder that I can handle at this time. Rvancopp (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC) 16:00, 13 December 2010

Deleting "Mules" and "Looms" to make way for "Overhead crane"

This is beginning to look like one editor's obsession. To ignore the devices that prompted steam development in manufacture, albeit initially to supplement water power in dry months, in favour of an ancillary piece of machinery is not acceptable. The ref supplied ("existed as early as 1860...not widely used...") doesn't support the contention. Reverted. Removing also the image of the cable-driven device from 1870 for lack of relevance.--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hunter (1985) discusses steam powered cranes, but I do not recall which types. It is unlikely that a traveling crane (bridge, gantry) could use one for lack of means of connecting the steam line from the boiler, but a stationary crane could be steam powered. Hydraulic power (high pressure water) was more widely used. Most of the English ports had hydraulic cranes.Phmoreno (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Richard Trevithick' s first patent

It does not seem reasonable that Trevithick got a patent at age 11. I believe the date is from Hunter, which I will consult ASAP to make sure what is said here matches the source; however, Hunter and Bryant is the only place I have seen this early date for a high pressure steam engine. Even if Hunter and Bryant actually did say this, it is very likely an error. Hunter died before and left his notes, which Bryant turned into the book, and while the book is excellent, it may contain a few errors.Phmoreno (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This is most likely an error. As far as I know, Trevithick's HP steam engine patent was in 1802. http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Life_of_Richard_Trevithick_by_F._Trevithick:_Volume_1:_Chapter_8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Trevithick Roly (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Print source from Cambridge University Press, giving 1802, added. I dare say the record of the patent itself could be found if necessary.--Old Moonraker (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I verified the original statement of the 1782 date:

"The Cornish pumping engine took its departure primarily from the work of two native engineers, Richard Trevithick and Arthur Wolfe. Watt experimented briefly with the expansive working of steam, claiming it in his patent of 1872, but quickly abandoning the practice. In 1782 Trevithick patented his high pressure engine, which he worked expansively as early as 1804. About 1806 he was considering the use of high pressure steam expansively in the Boulton and Watt single-acting pumping engine."...Steam Power, Hunter and Bryant p=608

Hunter and Bryant cite Richard Trevithick: The Engineer and the Man by Dickinson and Titley as the standard reference.Phmoreno (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So, we're both using the same "standard reference", albeit I directly, you via Hunter & Bryant—odd. I'm very relaxed about sticking with with Dickinson and Titley, as they aren't suggesting that Trevithick was granted his patent at the age of eleven! --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Crosshead engines

Perhaps the crosshead linkage can be mentioned in the text, and images can be provided ? It seems like this type was later taken over for most internal combustion engines. See http://maritimetexas.net/wordpress/?p=430 and http://www.carbibles.com/fuel_engine_bible.html 91.182.208.93 (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello again KVDP (talk · contribs) 8-(

Crossheads are already mentioned in many places - but they're not a linkage, and not the linkage you describe. They are hugely common in steam engines and steam locomotives, even though your comments here indicated that you are, yet again, hopelessly confused and are keen to impose this confusion upon others. The "crosshead engine" which you speak of is an obscure early marine engine and doesn't belong in this, the very top-level article. It's already discussed in marine steam engine and return connecting rod engine.

Crossheads have been used in internal combustion engines, but not commonly. Some of the first engines were developed so closely from steam engines that they used almost identical layouts. These are "the first" IC engines though, not even "early" IC engines. The crosshead piston is still used in some large slow-speed diesels, but this is somewhat different. The crosshead linkage, as you suggest adding, has never been used in IC engines (AFAIK). Nor do either of the "references" you cite even mention this, let alone support your claim. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Jacob Leupold and Isaac Potter

According to a quotation form Theatri Machinarum Hydraulicarum in de:Jacob Leupold, he had not built the steam engine described there hinself. He only described an improved version of Newcomen's engine, that had been installed in Selmecbánya (Hungary, nowadays Banská Štiavnica in Slovakia.--Ulamm (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Engine cycle versus configuration for simple versus compound engines

This heading was changed from cycle to configuration.

NO each cylinder just follows the PV graph of the steam cycle. (Note per user Teapete).

You can plot the different stages (to use a chemical engineering term) of the cycle on the PV graph as a series of stages, the pressure out of one stage being the pressure into the next. However, steam engines have more complex cycles owing to condensation and evaporation in the cylinder or even the inlet header.

It is the practice when discussing PV or enthalpy-entropy diagrams of various engines to describe them as cycles: Diesel cycle, Otto cycle, Brayton cycle, Rankine cycle, etc.

To an engineer "configuration" means mean something like horizontal, vertical, v shaped, side by side, opposing or some other layout or arrangement.

Perhaps someone familiar with some historical text can give an actual term used.Phmoreno (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that 'configuration' is wrong, whereas 'cycle' definitely is. Another word you could use is 'arrangements'.Teapeat (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

How about changing the header to "Simple and compound engines"? That way there is no confusion.Phmoreno (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"Compounding", perhaps, or "expansion", as that is what is simple, compound or multiple, but "cycle", no. "Configuration", I would say, comprises expansion and spatial arrangement. Splitting the (notionally adiabatic) expansion phase into several steps does not make any difference to the cycle. (Unless interstage re-heat is used, that is. But that was very rare, except, thinking aloud, in the case of the traction engine, where in UK practice at least, the cylinders and passages are jacketed with hotter boiler pressure steam, and therefore also, the low pressure in particular, nowhere near adiabatic - I don't think that had occurred to me before - how interesting). Globbet (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC) and 17:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the article with an open mind

I looked here again- with a mind depleted by overindulgence and leaves on the line. The article just doesn't work- it is stuffed with details lovingly collected but it fails to hold together.A patchwork quilt. What's the first thing we need to know? It is a heat engine that works because when water becomes steam it massively increases in volume. Clever bits of metal capture this expansion and turn this into rotational motion. Where is that?

How does the the lede, lead us into the article. Which bits can be floated into separate articles? So can I suggest that an experienced editor should be given a little freedom to look at the article in its entirity- to give it form, to cut, float and copyedit and then rewrite the lede.--ClemRutter (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I think the main problem is that the lead is inadequate. The lead could usefully (though briefly) distinguish between condensing and high pressure engines and provide the definitions you suggest. The reference to the Rankin cycle in the lead is inappropriate, though it is appropriate in the technical section that follows. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Be careful. The lead, as it stands, is not inadequate for the current article. Remember that the lede should summarise the article... But I do not dispute the need for a wholesale re-write. It really must take on the form of a parent article with many 'main' links to child articles -- this will make it much easier to modify in future.

Normally the lede should be written 'later', so that all content may be covered by its summary, but in this case there may be scope for prototyping a short lede and from that working out what should go in the rest of the article?

I think the article has been waiting for the 'experienced editor' to take the plunge for some time, it's just he hasn't got here yet!

Another caution -- unlike many of the other articles we indulge our steamy interests in, this is an important article which is viewed several hundred times a day; major changes should probably be attempted in a sandbox rather than the live article.

EdJogg (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't a tough one. Pointing out the problem really is the limit of my ability in this field. No kamikaze attacks. I feel though that energies needs to be spent on fixing the structure rather than adding to the patchwork and trying to hit a particular word count. Quo vadis? --ClemRutter (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What we could do with is a general reference work about steam engine technology, and use that as the basis for our structure. So far I've only ever encountered books which are general but highly technical, or low-level and sub-topic specific.

We also need our 'experienced editor' to come along (not me either!!) -- or else we need to start a sandbox and start throwing structure ideas about. As I hinted above, this article is too important to be hacked-about as much as needed while still 'live'.

Andy Dingley has hit the nail on the head (elsewhere) -- it is far easier to write about individual sub-topics than the high-level parent articles, and it is likely easier to write the parent articles having got the sub-topics in place. Unfortunately, encyclopaedia really need the high-level articles in place first, and open-out to more detail as time passes...

EdJogg (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm even wary of the term "sandbox", because that implies "draft". For an article as broad in scope as this, the first design of it needs to be at a structural level, not with sections of actual prose in it. I'd support a sandbox of this under talk, but think it ought to limit itself to headers and descriptive paras (descriptive of the para needed, not descriptive of engines!). This skeleton itself would be a fair piece of work to get right, even before starting to fill out the sections. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox or not isn't really the issue. The issue is what the article should contain.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 15:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should move the 'motor unit' section to its own article, and subarticle it from here, and summarise it right down. It's just too big.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 15:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In one important sense a 'steam engine' means the engine part of a 'steam plant'. I so hate 'motor unit' here. But I digress. Globbet (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, English is ambiguous, but we should try to write for the thing, rather than the English as she is spoke, because English is horribly inconsistent.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 01:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that steam engines run the Rankine cycle, and it's a full cycle (admittedly sometimes the cycle involves spilling steam to the environment and collecting it when it has been rained out again.)- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 01:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Digressing... The term 'motor unit' was (I think) invented for this page, as a desperate attempt to distinguish a steam engine (with an attached boiler) from a steam engine (without). Since (I think) the former usage is largely confined to colloquial descriptions of railway locomotives it may be that a better terminology can be adopted; however, I don't think that 'motor unit' could be split off without changing the new article name to 'steam engine', which could cause a few problems...! -- EdJogg (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

We could use something like steam engine (motor) or something for steam hammers and the pistons on their own. There's always ways to cover it. I don't think we should let article names get in the way of doing the right thing.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 01:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't start putting back the worms until we have designed the wormery.--ClemRutter (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)

As a starting point, you may be interested in seeing the category tree for all things steamy (click here). There are an awful lot of files now (and some rejigging may be in order) -- enough to be worth considering a WikiProject Steam (Engines) again maybe...? -- EdJogg (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's never stopped the wikipedia so far, it's full of worms, crawling everywhere, or perhaps ants or termites are a better analogy.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 01:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not merely a matter of an experienced editor, but a knowledgeable one. I have been avoiding tackling industrial revolution (1) because a few of my ideas are WP:OR (2) it is too difficult. There have been a couple of recent books that have put the subject in a new light. I might be capable of undertaking the edit here, but I am not really knowledgeable enough. I suspect that both Ed and Clem have the experience. Perhaps we can jointly redraft the lead in a sandbox. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW there was a recent two-part radio program on the industrial revolution on the BBC.

Anyway. There's pretty much nothing that continuous improvement can't fix. Sandboxes seem to rarely work; very often the original article changes and improves more quickly than the sandbox can.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 18:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

But we're considering a fundamental restructuring of the article (and its hierarchy, to some extent) -- or more correctly, applying a structure to it, since the current article has grown organically with no consideration for a logical structure. With such a major re-design, it is best if the live article is left largely unedited while the new article is created in the background, although another approach is to determine the new structure, and apply it in stages to the existing article. The danger with the latter is that you have a period when the article is 'broken' until the changes have been applied. Whichever approach is taken, the first stage is to establish the structure.

@Peter -- I think you've hit the nail on the head. I think Clem and I, and yourself, can all be considered 'experienced editors' -- applying the changes isn't really the problem -- but what we need are knowledgeable editors (regarding the subject) who can work out how the facts fit together. I get the feeling that no-one who has contributed to this talk page thus far (over the last few years) has felt sufficiently knowledgeable to take on the task, so it hasn't happened!

(There is also the small matter of available editing time, too.) -- EdJogg (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked here again-- as I did when I started this thread two years ago-- I don't think any thing has changed.--ClemRutter (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

As I posted previously, and there seems to be some agreement, some of the unimportant material needs to be taken out. In particular, the history section should be condensed because most of it has fairly good separate articles. If we could just agree on some cuts here we could make room for some more useful information and could also rearrange the article for flow and readability.Phmoreno (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

And I think some of the important stuff should be floated to separate articles too. I keep on reading the text and get more and more frustrated- as a 'general reader' I cannot get a handle on the subject- it is a wormery. If I could see what the focus of the article was I could tie it together. @Phmoreno your suggestions above are all good- but while we are implementing them other area keep getting more bloated. So I am going to try another approach- I am going to tag all the unreferenced sections and then leave it a few days to see editors jump in and justify those sentences- those left unreferenced then will be removed. In the mean time I will cut out any material repeated in linked articles, and use the lede in those articles to provide alternative text for that which has been removed. I suspect we will shake out a lot of POVs. I just think of the general reader- the kid needing backup material for his degree thesis- or the BBC news reader who is patching together a programme link or intro. So {{fact}} tag here I come.--ClemRutter (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

How about a simple and brutal split between Steam engine, History of the steam engine (a chronological history, broadly an annotated timeline) and Development of the steam engine (an engineering history, broadly a list of innovations). "Steam engine" then becomes a description of "current" steam engines and is deliberately very sparse on any history at all. "Current" means marine triple expansions of 1900+, as these include all the major innovations, with some slight mention of high-speed, uniflow / Unaflow. We include steam locomotives and stationary generating plant into this by pointing their broad similarities (superheating, piston valves, developed valvegears) and also their differences (compounding, condensing, governing, layout) where locomotives avoided several of these innovations.

Obviously there would have to be extensive linkage between the two. For the two histories, this would almost be at the paragraph level. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to stay neutral at the moment but my edit history gives some massive clue as to where I come from. I see the Steam engine article as being short and a synopsis of other more specialised articles. The history section is a massive duplication and the early stuff about Vitruvious really belongs with the fairies. Similarly, slanting this towards a post-doctoral thesis just doesn't help the ten year with a history project. I favour Tescos style articles- with the Basic range accessible to the impoverished- the standard- and the Best. The first paragraphs that appear on the iphone should be in English that a 16 year can understand with links and internal links to a satisfying complete treatment of the topic- which will link to the engineering detail that I personally crave.

I have started by introducing a forest of {{fact}} tag and it is easy to see stuff that can just go- gratuitous sentences to provide links for orphan articles -whole sections that are fantastic bits of OR and linking sentences that have become POVs. Some of the linked articles are very good- and others are unreferenced nightmares. We have wiggle room in the existing poor article Stationary steam engine which can absorb a lot of history, and industrial revolution type engines, and I suppose that Marine steam engine could provide another handle. A Steam engine#how it works section in Steam Engine could give a simple descriuption of the physics, linking to the more technical stuff beneath. Anyway just about any structuring will be an improvement... --ClemRutter (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm wary of {{fact}} tags, because those have recently become an excuse for a troublesome handful of editors to blank almost entire articles, on the grounds of strict policy. It's difficult, and a lot of work, to reverse this afterwards.

I'd also prefer to see "history" covered under History, rather than a superb article hidden away under stationary steam engine, or elsewhere, where the majority of readers simply don't find it. One big hatnote for "History is covered at History of the steam engine" is, I think, workable for attracting traffic, whilst coverage, even well-done and relevant, that's under "stationary", "Trevithick" or even "Watt" is going to be missed. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

{{fact}}- yep dangerous- but I'll clean up after me!

This always stalls on history. It is possible to use a temporary solution building up the material in one article and then moving to the optimum title. History seems to mean: ancient stuff-->then Pumping Engines-->then Stationary steam engine-->then Marine steam engine-->then Power generation and steam locomotives. I am no expert, but with that simplication, sections from the individual articles could provide the detail and History the overview. ( just a option) Looking at the Diesel engine there is structure- possibly the timeline could become colapsible. We can keep on thinking about it-- I have a copy of Hills

*{{Citation|last=Hills|first=Richard Leslie|title=Power from Steam: A History of the Stationary Steam Engine |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]], |year=1993|edition=paperback||pages=244|isbn= 052145834X, 9780521458344|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=t6TLOQBhd0YC|accessdate=January 2009|ref=harv}}

which will provide many missing references.--ClemRutter (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Above anything else, the article has to be coherent in and of itself, and so you generally need to have a gradient, starts off simple and gradually gets more detailed.Teapeat (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In opinion, most articles lacking a history section don't work very well at all because they have difficulty building a gradient. A well written history section in an article like this, contains only the history to land the reader softly in the main article. So... you need to cover Watt, because his separate condenser is a really critical invention, if anything we should cover condensers more. You need to cover aeolipile, because that was the first and, ultimately, a forerunner of the turbine (modern turbines are very, very roughly speaking, multistage aeolipiles.) and you need to cover important historical usages because that answers the "why we have them at all?". I think the history section currently has it about right. It could even be bigger in places. I don't think cutting large chunks like history out entirely is right at all, you're always supposed to summarise.Teapeat (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I did a few changes before finding the last post- I have introduced a few headings as suggested above. I think this illustrates the problem- a lot of unreferenced dross in a few specific points then nothing on major area. So slash and burn some text (it can be posted in the sub articles) and expand other bits - dragging in bits from sub-articles. Major work to bring the Stationary steam engine to up to a B. Then we need to pull in Andrewa to make the text elegant. Can you work with in that framework- do you find it helpful? Eventually as we head for FA the heading themselves will probably be redundant and may disappear. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Simple engine

While I have no intention of reverting (I personally work to a one revert rule wherever possible) I ask for discussion of this edit.

The result [1] is quite simply inaccurate. The term does have another meaning and that seems agreed, and it is hardly obscure, as it's one of the most important differences between the Boulton and Watt steam engine and the Newcomen steam engine.

For an example of this usage, see http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/victoria-and-albert-museum/catalogue-of-the-mechanical-engineering-span-classsearchtermspan-classse-hci/page-3-catalogue-of-the-mechanical-engineering-span-classsearchtermspan-classse-hci.shtml and search within the page for "simple", it's the second hit. {"Simple engine" does not work as the search term as there's a line break between "simple" and "engine".)

Is there another way of phrasing it, to avoid it sounding like a dictionary but still keep it accurate? Andrewa (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not just how it sounds. And I completely disagree with you when you state that this section is inaccurate. This section of the article, in context, is accurate, and has nothing to do with the point you are trying to make, and this is the wrong place in the article to make that particular point, if that point even needs to be made at all.

I suppose you could add a footnote if you really wanted to, but it's highly peripheral, even for that.

In general Wikipedia is not here to simply define a bunch of terms. It's here to provide a fairly complete summary on each topic. Your edit replaced a brief description of a type of steam engine with two completely different definitions, of a particular name. It's the difference between writing something in English, and writing something about English. Please take that sort of thing to Wiktionary instead, or create a terminology section and add it to that. Teapeat (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply.

But it doesn't make sense to me. You say that the section is not inaccurate, yet you seem to agree that the term simple engine does, in the context of steam engines, have another accepted and important meaning. The existing section seems to assume otherwise, and will be understood to imply otherwise by many, probably most, readers. That's my point.

I'm afraid I think the talk of Wiktionary is a red herring. True, we're not a dictionary, and we don't want articles that are purely dictionary definitions. But within articles we do need to explain and even define terms on occasions, and almost every lead does this (perhaps even every one, I can't think of a counter example, and note Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section second paragraph It should define the topic...), as do sections of many other articles.

This is a case in point. It's important to clarify that the other usage exists. It's more a point of navigation than definition; people will end up here wanting to know why a Newcomen steam engine is called simple, and the section as it stands will lead them to believe that it's because it doesn't use multiple expansion, which is quite simply false. It doesn't use multiple expansion, true, but that's not why it is most commonly called simple. There's another reason.

If this were an article, we'd cover the other use with a hatnote. As it's a section, we need to find another way. Perhaps a {{main|simple engine}} template would be acceptable? Andrewa (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The usage you want to include is uncommon, and therefore may well not deserve space in what has to be a readable article. The usual term is non-condensing. Globbet (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the article being readable is important (and how I wish more editors would consider this, beautiful prose) seems a lost cause at times). But it also needs to inform, not misinform, and if as in this case the English usage is a bit complicated and even inconsistent, we do nobody a service by trying to simplify it.

Does the proposed template affect the readability? Andrewa (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a usage guide of English.Teapeat (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

True, and thank you for the discussion I requested. I think we are making progress.

I guess you're particularly referring to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary, from the link you give. An even better link might be Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Wikipedia is not a usage guide, which is linked to from that section.

That whole section deserves a read, but it says in part Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field; such articles must be informative, not guiding in nature,.... Clearly then, such information is encyclopedic.

What I have attempted and proposed is to include the information that the particular term simple engine which is (quite rightly) used as a section heading in the steam engine article also has another meaning in the context of steam engines. This sort of information is commonly included in encyclopedia articles, including in Wikipedia articles, and this is entirely consistent with those two policies. It's informative, not guiding in nature. It says how the term is used, not how it should be used.

And this seems to have been the problem all along. The summary at the edit that started all this reads not a dictionary, we're trying to describe a type of steam engine, not cover (obscure) meanings of term 'simple engine'.

That summary, and much of the discussion since, has no support in Wikipedia policy or practice. Andrewa (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That's simply a rationalisation, you're taking one sentence out of the policy out of context; that's not how encyclopedias work. As it says in the nutshell at the top of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary the general point of encyclopedias is to organise things by, not by what they're called, but by what they are. Those two types of steam engine are both called 'simple engines' but they're not the same thing at all, and shouldn't be in the same section. The whole point of the section, and the section that that section is in, is to talk about degrees of compounding. Teapeat (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Disagree it's simply a rationalisation, but let's discuss the content not the contributor. And we do seem to have consensus that this information does belong in Wikipedia, not just in Wiktionary. Unless I misunderstood your earlier comments, that is progress.

And I'm not saying that the two things should be in the same section. All I'm saying is that there should be a pointer from this section to wherever the other sort of simple engine is described, for navigation purposes. I was (obviously) happy to have it look like a dictionary definition in this context, and think you're taking statements such as Wikipedia is not a dictionary out of context in justifying your objection to this. But that's not the issue. I'm happy to have it as a main link, or something like that so that it's explicitly a navigation device. But it should be there. That's the issue. Andrewa (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be in a minority of one on this. Personally I would completely support the creation of a glossary, either in the article or in a different article that included both usages though, there certainly does seem to be some quite confusing terms I've come across in this area. This doesn't seem to be the right place at all in the article to discuss differences in terminology.Teapeat (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree that I have no support here as yet, let alone much hope of consensus. And without consensus, nothing controversial should happen. (I'm still a bit surprised that it's controversial.) But at worst, this discussion will remain here and, hopefully, will someday be picked up by others, who will examine the arguments both ways. That's often how Wikipedia works. And I'm not giving up on consensus here yet.

A glossary of steam engine terms does seem to be a good idea. It might even be possible to use some existing glossary, such as glossary of rail transport terms, or is there a better one? That one doesn't fit because AFAIK the meaning in question is never applied to steam locomotives. Another possibility I admit is to link to Wiktionary:simple engine, which I suppose is what you suggested in the first place. There's no such Wiktionary page as yet either, and I've never created a Wiktionary article before, but I'll give it a go.

Done. Probably needs more work. As it turns out I have created an article there previously... in 2003. But it's been a while... Andrewa (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

But either way I still think we should have a link from this section to wherever we have a more complete treatment of the term simple engine. Would you object to that?

I can't see why either of those is preferable to my earlier suggestion of a main link (and which was a lot less work of course), but any of the three seems acceptable to me. Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)