Talk:Steam engine/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Essential or only important for industrial revolution?

The clause "The steam engine was an essential component of the Industrial Revolution" is written in past tense. Thus it describes the development form a pre-industrial way of life to a stage, when almost everything was produced by engines. That stage already was reached about eighty years ago. And from the first third of 19th centrury to the first third of 20th century, the steam engine was essential, indeed.--Ulamm (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree your first sentence, except that this wasn't the Industrial Revolution. The first industrial revolution broadly pre-dates the steam engine. It encompasses water-powered textile mills, ironmaking on a large industrial scale, particularly when it started using coke rather than charcoal, canal transport and also industrialisation of mining. Of these four, only mining is making any use of early steam power. By the time the steam engine starts to make any significant contribution (mid 18th century), even if we include early crude atmospheric engines as "steam" engines, then the industrial revolution has already been up and running for half a century, using water power. The claim that "the industrial revolution couldn't have happened without steam" (which is what "essential" means) is made demonstrably false as soon as you look at the first big silk mills in Derbyshire, or at Coalbrookdale. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

But water power was localized, whereas steam engines could be set up wherever you could burn coal. And even the silk from Derbyshire was hauled in and out by steam engines on trains and ships. Our very own encyclopdia says things like

The United States originally used horse-powered machinery to power its earliest factories, but eventually switched to water power, with the consequence that industrialisation was essentially limited to New England and the rest of the Northeastern United States, where fast-moving rivers were located. Horse-drawn production proved to be economically challenging and a more difficult alternative to the newer water-powered production lines. However, the raw materials (cotton) came from the Southern United States. It was not until after the Civil War in the 1860s that steam-powered manufacturing overtook water-powered manufacturing, allowing the industry to fully spread across the nation.

and

The development of the stationary steam engine was an essential early element of the Industrial Revolution; however, for most of the period of the Industrial Revolution, the majority of industries still relied on wind and water power as well as horse- and man-power for driving small machines.

How much output was due to water power? How much due to steam? I speculate teh tipover point was very early on. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You know WP isn't RS, don't you...

Considering the "Industrial Revolution" as ongoing, so that's 1700 to 2000, three hundred years, or maybe 150 years for the First Industrial Revolution up to the Great Exhibition, after which electricity, manufacturing production (as product rather than bulk materials) and Americans become the driving forces. Up until 1750, there's damn-all steam in use. Some mine pumps, that's it. Not even that many of them. In the 1740s we see the first use of these pumps as water-returning engines and then as blowing engines, where steam first starts to be used in iron production. So we've had half a century of industrial revolution without the use of steam beforehand. No steam canals, no steam ships, no steam pottery, no steam iron, no steam brassfounding, no steam farming, no steam textiles and barely any steam in mining.

"Essential" means "can't be done without". The industrial revolution did it without, and did half a century of it before it happened. Of course it would have gone differently afterwards without steam, but that's not the point – the point is that the revolution got up and started on water power, and water power pretty much alone (wind was trivial, horse gins and men supplied the rest). Andy Dingley (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

From what I've read, steam power was not very important until near the end of the 1760-1830 period that is considered the Industrial Revolution time frame. About 360 Newcomen engines were produced by 1781. Boulton and Watt counted 133 Newcomen engines, almost all in mines. Early steam engines were also used in public water supply and in flour milling. One of Watt's first engines was sold to John Wilkinson for powering Wilkinson's air pump for a blast furnace. Production of Boulton and Watt engines 1775-1800 was 289. In the first 10 years most were for pumping. Rotary motion came about 1785. Steam was directly applied to textiles around 1792. Steam engines were not very well suited for cotton spinning because of speed control problems, which is why steam was to pump water to power a water wheel. The Corliss was the first engine suitable for direct connection to spinning. However, the steam engine used in mine drainage may have been very important to the Industrial Revolution because the consumption of coal about tripled in the last two decades of the 18th century. Water was the main source of power in the U.S. before 1850-1860. Steam was adopted faster in Britain because there was less water power.Phmoreno (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

With Andy's extensive definition of industrial revolution, it is difficult to date its onset:

• 4th – 3rd century BC - waterwheels, primarily for lifting water
• 1st century BC – water powered grain mills (Vitruvius)
• 4th century AD (or earlier) – water powered sawmills, even for marble
• 1275 – charcoal-fired blast furnace with water powered bellows ([1])
• mid 16th century – water powered hammers in metallurgy
• mid 16th century – water powered hoists in mining
• 1709 – coke-fired blast furnace
• 1833 water powered man-engines in mining.--Ulamm (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)+Ulamm (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we stop arguing about a single word. The nuances of meaning make them almost synonyms. Far more important is to reference the existing text and back up all our statements with references. There are quotes here from Industrial Revolution, an article with a quality to which we should be aspiring-- but that has been delisted as GA. I can't locate a reference for the section of text quoted- googling the text just results in a plethora of sites that have been c&p'ed from us. Before we use it as an argument can someone please find the reference. Can we focus on Steam engines. Perhaps if you had grown up in Manchester you would know the Industrial Revolution started on 10th July 1761 when the Bridgewater Canal reached Castlefield. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I know that canals already were built before the industrial revolution:

• Two thirds of the Grand Canal of China were built around 600 AD, and since 984 it was modernized with locks.
• The first European canal crossing a drainage divide was built 1392 to 1398 (Stecknitz Canal near Lübeck)

Some sophisticated techniques have been developed long before industrial age, see the production of a constant air flow for organs. Music in the churches was important even in ages, when people arond the church didn't live quite different from stone age.

The crucial point of industrial age is the availability of a non-muscular motive power almost always and everywhere, and the first successful technique to provide this motive power was the steam engine.--Ulamm (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The steam engine was the most important technology developed in the 18th century, but that doesn't make it critical to the Industrial Revolution, as in that there would have been no Industrial Revolution without the steam engine. Other Industrial Revolution developments, such as coke in blast furnaces, the reverberatory furnace, the LeBlanc process for making soda ash, the lead chamber process for sulfuric acid, the threshing machine, the invention of machine tools and special purpose machinery, cotton spinning machinery and a list of other technologies did not require the steam engine. Anyone who can successfully argue, using good historical evidence and modern analysis, that there would have been no Industrial Revolution without the steam engine, would earn highest honors as a historian. The steam engine became important immediately after the Industrial Revolution, but you could argue that the more efficient diesel engine could have substituted, although not until oil was widely available, and the cost of power would have been higher. Gas powered Otto engines actually showed a lot of promise in the 1870s and 1880s. They were much more efficient and much less expensive than small steam engines, and were easier to operate, but the advent of electrification kept them from becoming widespread as stationary sources of power. Phmoreno (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The industrial revolution was based on more than one essential innovation.

The history of internal combustion engines in rail transport shows, that for some time steam traction for heavy trains was cheaper as well as more efficient.

At first the engineers had problems to use engines with a narrow range of turning frequencies to accelerate heavy masses which meant low starting speeds. When the Hungarian ministry of trade pushed the development of self propelled railcars with internal combustion engines in 1902 ff., at first the costs per kilometer were lower with steam railcars than with petrol railcars. And when the first useful cobustion engines and transmissions had been developped, for more than twenty years they were used almost only for switchers and for self propelled railcars, as steam traction still was cheaper for heavy trains.--Ulamm (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Most of this discussion has not been about when the industrial revolution was. Please keep non-UK issues out of this. The Industrial revolution happened in UK; other countries followed, some long after. Historians debate precsisely what period was covered: a start in 1760 or 1780 and finish in 1830 or 1850 aree usually accepted. A start in 1700 is certainbly too early, though some of the key innovations happened (or started) earlier. The key breakthrough with the steam engine was the application of the Watt engine to rotary motion, though it was the 1790s before that was applied on a large scale to textile spinning. The key breakthough in textiles were in spinning in about the 1770s, but these only began to become widespread with the end of Arkwright's patents in the early 1780s. The key breakthrough for iron was not Darby's coke-smelting in 1709 (though that was important), but new methods of making bar iron without charcoal, which began to become widespread in the mid-1780s. I therefore regard the start as in the 1780s. Others will point to transport improvements - turnpikes and canals - that started or became widespread a few decades earlier; for iron you might argue that the application of coke pig iron to making bar iron in the 1750s fitted with that period, but the increase in iron production then was only slight, compared to what happened after 1780. The historiography in fact does not support the word "essential": the industrial revolution could probably have happened without Watt's rotary engine, but it would have been significantly different, as the available waterpower in the main industrial centres seems to have been fully utilised. Steam power saved little money: its advantage was that an engine could be set up virtually anywhere convenient, not merely beside a river. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The industrial revolution isn't the moon landings or the election of Margaret Thatcher. There isn't one clearly defined moment, before which there was no industry, after which there suddenly was. Historians have always varied in their assessment of its period and notably Hobsbawn (who as a left winger took a more social view of it than an engineering or capital-based view) dated it earlier than other historians. He looked at the implications for the industrialisation of workers and their concentration into single, large capital-funded factories rather than previous craft weavers at home, etc. This certainly dates earlier than some of the steam-related technical milestones.

"The Industrial Revolution" (with the definite article, i.e. the British Industrial Revolution, as it happened in Britain) depended on steam power, because steam was available to it. As was James Watt, the Society of Friends and Staffordshire. Yet we'd never claim that the Lunar Society was an essential condition for "industrial revolution" in the broad sense, simply because it formed the core of Britain's particular revolution. Such a revolution in Germany or America would proceed perfectly well, albeit differently, without them. It's the same with steam, albeit rather more significant.

Industrial revolution was underway before steam, and with alternate water power. Not as much of it, not the same revolution, but certainly "a revolution of industrialisation". This would have continued without steam power. Maybe not even in England - maybe Sweden or Norway's mixture of mineral resources and hydropower would have favoured them instead. Certainly the North East of England wouldn't have been at all important, anywhere North of Redcar. All we can say is that as water power had already driven the first phase of the revolution, and that this was indeed "an industrial revolution" if not the industrial revolution, as it happened in the post-Watt British timeline, then steam power does not form an essential precondition of revolution in industry, as we might claim that capitalism, domestic military stability or the Western scientific method all were. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Thomas Savery made the steam-pumped when?

When did he make it?

• Steam engine#Pumping engines = 1698.
• 17th century#1690s = 1699.

Which is correct? Thanks, Marasama (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not clearly known "when he made it" or "when someone other than Savery first used one commercially". What is recorded, with accurate dates, are his patent in 1698 (which suggests that he'd already built one himself) and his demonstration to the Royal Society in 1699. Installations are a bit more vague. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Savery built a demonstration model at Hampton Court at an unknown date before the patent. He set up a factory to build the steam pumps in 1702. A couple of mentions of failed pumps, notably one in 1712. After that time Savery did not seem very interested in the pump, probably due to Newcomen's engine; however, Savery pumps were cheap, one mention of a 3200 gallon per hour pump costing 50 pounds. In the one or two horsepower sizes they were as efficient as Newcomen engines, the latter suffering from being coupled with a mechanically inefficient pump. Savery pumps continued to be produced until the late 18th century,Phmoreno (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Savery lost interest in his pumps around 1712, but it's not clear why. There are several possibilities:

• He was bored. Seems to have happened a fair bit with Savery
• He was skint. He had this fantastic invention, but they hadn't sold well and he hadn't become rich.
• His patent was expiring
• Newcomen's engine was available (this is actually quite dubious as a reason - there was only the first Dudley engine working by this time and it was seen as over-complex and expensive to run)
• He was ill and died shortly afterwards

Andy Dingley (talk) 10:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, that's good to know, thanks, Marasama (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Rotary Steam Alternative versus BRASH

At http://www.brashengines.com/FAQ.html it seems that the BRASH engine is a type of steam engine where, in the return cycle, the used steam is regenerated by means of an air compressor. Can an article be made on the BRASH engine, and can it perhaps be mentioned in this article ? 91.182.179.177 (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference:

• 2011 Oregon Steam-up Demo Quasiturbine Steam.
• 2006 Pneumatique Demo Quasiturbine Chainsaw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.132.20 (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Two axioms:

• This is the top-level article for "all things steam engine". Space is at a premium. Simplicity is a virtue.
• There are any number of extremely minor "new" engines created over the last two hundred years. Most are simply wrong.

If the BRASH engine is interesting (or if you're a stickler, notable) then write an article on it. Categorize this article under steam engines, maybe link it from Modern Steam too. As it seems of borderline interest for this new type (one website does not an invention make), it might be justified for an article but I'll be surprised if it merits mention at the top level. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Either quasiturbine steam engine works or it does not work. It IS AN INVENTION. Do you understand. IT WORKS. It is a future on the market steam engine. Steam engines are not just about old fashioned, inefficient locos.188.223.226.180 (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, hang on... It's just KVDP (talk · contribs) again, isn't it? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, hang on... It's just Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) again, isn't it? 188.223.226.180 (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

While BRASH is not an engine but a propulsion system, the Quasiturbine is an engine, a sort of hybrid between Conventional Turbine and Rotary Wankel. As a first contact with this new QT technology, one can have a look at the University of Connecticut « Brash Quasiturbine QT.6LSC Air / Steam Car » Video : All day long Run (0,3 min.) and Variable speed Run (9 min.) and more on Brash power system.

As said, short and simple is a vertu. To have a complete Steam Engine overview, readers need to know also about the Quasiturbine alternative (in one sentence, within the actual rotary section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.253.176 (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

BRASH and Quasiturbine have no place in this article, an encyclopedia's top level article on the steam engine. This article has 60-100k to fit in 300 years of steam engine history. That's a tight squeeze. It needs to be a well-structured article, well-written and well-edited. There is simply no room (let alone WP:UNDUE) for either of these recent and utterly unproven notions.

There are other articles, like rotary piston engines and uniflow engines, where their mention is appropriate. Even at steam turbine, quasiturbine ought to be listed in the see alsos, to show that despite the name it has no connection to turbines. At the top-level article though, there is no place for either of these. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The Quasiturbine has a place in this article as it is new steam engine. The article's title, surprisingly enough states "Steam Engines". Your POV does not matter. Amazing eh? 188.223.226.180 (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No complain, but a few words to think about: There is always a risk that innovation makes obsolete some of the conventional technologies that we dear so much. This is very frustrating. It is also frustrating when innovation forces the redefining of conventional approaches and restrictive historical terminology and interpretation, in order for the innovation to fit somewhere. In reaction to this frustration, encyclopedians must resist the temptation to spontaneously favors historical material, while excluding vision and perspective of present and future technologies and lifestyle. Readers have expectations: To be interesting and modern, an encyclopedia has to be a little more than a 300 years historical museum brochure. List of motive for exclusion can be endless, but each page gains to have some roots also in the present and the future. There is of course no Wiki rule supporting exclusion of present and future innovation from any page, and over time, the need of constant updates insures « Wiki Enrichment ». Waiting for updates rewards the readers... With or without more inclusion of current innovation, the page is definitively interesting and well done. Innovation needs friends and supporters, not enemies, nor morale lesson from either side. Friends of innovation need time to grow, even if time does not exist anymore in modern science... Wiki is impressive. Keep on your good work. Cordialement, Gilles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.253.176 (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You hit all the points Gilles. 188.223.226.180 (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

There are WP guidelines about verification & weight. Something new must first be well-enough established to deserve mention, & important enough to deserve substantial mention. AFAIK, this system fails on both counts, if only because it's too new. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's put it another way: The quasiturbine makes the Wankel engine look like a sound idea.

Your knowledge of engines is near nil to come out with such a comment. Yet this man puts himself across as some sort of authority. 188.223.226.180 (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It has a ridiculous number of parts, reciprocating (not rotating) bearings that are inaccessible and a nightmare to lubricate, as a steam engine it has the expansive behaviour of an engine from before 1840, as an internal combustion engine it would have the worst combustion chamber shape ever recorded, except that even quasiturbine recognise that it has never worked as such. The thing is a harebrain scheme with no credibility as a working device whatsoever. To claim that it might actually have benefits' is ludicrous.

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to record what is already known, not to advertise speculation. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You little idea about what you are on about188.223.226.180 (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph ...a few words to think about... contains no offense.

About the obsessional co-lateral encyclopedic recurrent publicity dilemma comment, is Kadhafi Wiki page a justified promotion and publicity of the guy? Notice that once an innovation or subject reaches 10 thousands search engine hits, no single website is a prime driving force any more, and excluding it turn out as excluding Wiki from frequent quality search engine results. Co-lateral benefit (or penalty) goes then both ways, with minor significance for either party. The objective of proper Wiki inclusion relates to idea, science and technology « Encyclopedia », not promotion and publicity.

About the « technical simplicity » argument, one must recall that in the 60's, the Suisse mechanical watches industry did not fear the electronic products because they were millions times too complex; nevertheless in a decennia, the quartz watches completely swept their industry (except for top of the line design?). Same append with Boeing laughing about the first « flight by wire Airbus », which came up to be a more efficient and less maintenance intensive plane. Boeing had to catch up, and did it. The nostalgic « ingenious simplicity » does not make good museum display anymore, as the time when « complexity was synonymous of failure » is well over. Modern engines are all extremely complex (with some impact on efficiency?), while still of impressive reliability.

One day, the Quasiturbine too will get into museum, and will eventually become obsolete. That is life. This is why one should not exclude vision and perspective of present and future technologies and lifestyle. Wiki is impressive, and I still like the page for what it is. Gilles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.253.176 (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The whole thing looks like a lot of fun- but Andy Dingley is right in everything he has said here. If you are keen on Wikipedia, get an account which will give you a talk page, where we can talk to you and where discussions like this can entered into- and you could attempt to write the missing article on BRASH. Time to move on. --ClemRutter (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy Dingly has no idea about engines, and consequently neither have you. Dingley wrote above that the engine has reciprocating parts. It does not. You two make Wiki look like an amateur fest. Dr Gilles Saint-Hilaire, who wrote above, is a a thermonuclear physicist. He knows far more than a couple of confused amateurs.188.223.226.180 (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to enter into an edit war or an argument about what should or should not appear in this article; but please Mr/Mrs 188.223.226.180, whoever you are, PLEASE stop insulting other editors. Andy Dingly and ClemRutter are both long standing and well respected members of this community and, contrary to what you seem to believe, both DO know a great deal about steam engines and related subjects. --Roly (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Quasi turbine steam engine

Firstly, the Quasiturbine is a steam engine. It WORKS. It goes. Will those editors who "vandalize", that is the correct word, on their own POV, when references are given, please desist and leave the article alone.188.223.226.180 (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Question on Steam machine redirect

Because of the announcement of Valve's "Steam Machine" concept last week (note the capitalization) there's a question on whether "Steam machine"/"steam machine" should remain a redirect to here or to the Steam Machine article. My question is how common is the term "steam machine" used to call out the steam engine? Or in other words would there be an issue resetting the redirection from the current "steam machine" to "Steam Machine", and then adding a hat on "Steam Machine" back to her for those looking for steam engines? --MASEM (t) 02:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard "steam machine" used in the same sense as "steam engine". Andy Dingley (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BOLDly done. — Reatlas (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The safest option would be to make it a disambiguation page. --Roly (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

A steam machine is something you use to clean carpets- no connection whatsoever with a steam engine. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that simplifies everything. (And in terms of the carpet "steam machine", that itself goes by other more common names which we can clarify on the computer hardware page. )--MASEM (t) 21:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

QIMs [quantum interchange machines]

Quantum Mechanical Engines

quantum "steam" probabilistic compression-expantion engines work with the "steam engine" compression/decompression principle

The MIT Casimir effect small electric generation is a starting point, but there are other bigger plans for quantum probabilistic copression/decompression alternation [quantum interchange machines] that involve partial entanglements formed and broken alternatively.

stirling engines work better quantumechanically parts of the engine are electromagnetic curves and photons, we do not build the machine only with atom made parts but here fields of strong magnets become some components of the QIMs [quantum interchange machines] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.206.14 (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Image

Perhaps this image can be included:

91.182.104.36 (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to give us a fighting chance to discuss it, the image description is this:

Schematic of a Thomas Piot steam engine, based on the stirling engine schematic by Zephyris (File:Alpha Stirling.gif ) This latter animation showed a working Alpha stirling engine. Red indicated hot, blue indicated cold. The Thomas Piot steam cycle was very similar to the stirling gas cycle

EdJogg (talk) 09:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Simply. No, we need a separate article first, then we can link that into this main article.

The article has one paragraph on the Stirling Engine.

Similar advantages are found in a different type of external combustion engine, the Stirling engine, which can offer efficient power (with advanced regenerators and large radiators) at the cost of a much lower power-to-size/weight ratio than even modern steam engines with compact boilers [citation needed]. These Stirling engines are not commercially produced, although the concepts are promising.

This paragraph has been hooked into the section Advantages and should be moved- it is in the wrong place. We have nothing on Thomas Piot, or his 1891 patent anywhere except in Pop pop boat. A definite omission- but the answer is to work up an article.--ClemRutter (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

La imagen fue modificada para ser usada en el siguiente trabajo: http://sites.google.com/site/motorpofpof/octavavariante y está incluida en: http://sites.google.com/site/motorpofpof/descripci%C3%B3ndelciclodepiotdedoscilindros —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.191.122.162 (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If it is not clear, it is a model used to explain the operation of a machine that I built in 2008. The prototype is only a toy with a displacement of about 1 cm3. The final form is the result of modifying a previous series prototypes and the result is not the best. What I regret is that in all these years no one has tried to build another. There are a number of modifications which are obvious and which could turn it into something more than a curiosity. Jorge H. Cordero — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.155.6.11 (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect statements

Second paragraph of lede:

"Ironically, neither steam nor heat is necessary to make a "steam" engine work."

If it doesn't use steam then it's not a steam engine. Thermodynamics classifies a steam engine as a heat engine, so saying that heat is not necessary is FALSE.

This and following statements are garbage and poorly worded. Don't confuse steam engines with other heat engines such as gas turbines, Stirling engines and internal combustion engines. Get this trash out of this article.Phmoreno (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You may have noticed that the word "steam" was put in quotes. For exactly the reason you point out. If you run a steam engine on compressed air, it is no longer operating as a steam engine.

Now if you follow the rocket analogy, your objections are like saying that a water rocket is not a rocket because no combustion is taking place. For action-reaction to occur, you do not need combustion. And for the piston in a steam engine to move, you do not need steam. People who understand the fundamental operating principle of such engines are well aware of this as fact. Getting into the thermodynamics is useful when trying to get an understanding of the power output. But it is totally beside the point on the most fundamental level of what is getting the piston to move.

Every statement I added is perfectly accurate, and in response to initial objection, I added a wealth of references.--Lexi sioz (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

In a recent edit, GliderMaven stated:

"...that's not actually true, even water rockets use the thermal heat of the gas to propel their water; that's why the gas cools off".

You can design a rocket that thrusts by ejecting wood blocks out the tail. I expect that people who are hardover bent on thermo effects would say that the thrust is being produced by the cooling off effect that the wooden blocks undergo. The statement in question says that rocket engines do not require heat. It does not say that no temperature change happens when a water rocket blasts off.

Perhaps the reason why there is such vehement objection to yesterday's edits is because there is a fundamental lack of understanding as to why steam engines work. If this is the case, then it is very good to have this discussion.--Lexi sioz (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

While it's correct to point out that steam engines operate by the force of expanding or condensing steam, including kinetic energy of moving steam, rocket or jet engines are not the most appropriate illustrations of the operating principle, especially when caused by compressed air acting on water. I've never heard of a rocket type commercial steam engine. Also, a lengthy operating principle discussion does not belong in the lede. As for "lack of understanding of as to why steam engines work", I would say that I know quite a bit about both the theory and practice. I studied chemical engineering thermodynamics, read several books on steam power and steam engines and was an engineer working with steam turbines. And your qualifications would be...?Phmoreno (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Try writing something based on F=PA and use a Newcomen atmospheric engine to illustrate atmospheric pressure acting on a piston.Phmoreno (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

_____________________________

Lede fails to communicate that steam engines essentially run on pressure differential

The lede of this article fails to explain the basic concept behind steam engine operation. Simply put:
If you have a cylinder with higher pressure on one side and lower pressure on the other, the cylinder will move.

I made an effort to fix this problem, but my edits were reverted. The first time, the reason given was that the info was unsourced. So I re-added with a source. And it got reverted again anyway. Here's the edit: essence of steam engines explained in simple terms. I inserted the paragraph that starts with:
"Ironically, neither steam nor heat is necessary to make a "steam" engine work."

I've also added a video to the external links to help make this point perfectly clear. That's a video of a compressed air engine. Runs just fine at room temp. No water. No steam. No fire. No temperature gradient needed.--Lexi sioz (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I was able to find much more solid references. The videos added down in the external link section could be improved if we are able to find ones with a more formal explanation, such as a classroom environment or a purposely made instructional video that teaches the principles of steam power. A GREAT video would be one that shows the similarities between compressed air engines and steam engines. Even better if it segued from there to the internal combustion engine.--Lexi sioz (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Water rocket launch ...clearly showing that combustion, heat, thermal expansion is not needed to launch a rocket and have nothing to do with the fundamental principle behind what produces thrust in a rocket engine.

Shame it's not true.

Steam engines run on the internal energy of the steam. Most of this is in the form of heat, not pressure. It's true to say that "a pressure differential will turn a steam engine over", but it's not a design principle for them (modern, efficient steam engines with sophisticated valvegear) from the late 19th century onwards. The principle was recognised by Watt and Trevithick. For an encyclopedia to state or imply that "pressure differential" is all that matters is to do readers a (sadly common) disservice. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between "all that is needed" vs "all that matters". The current edit neither says nor implies that pressure differential is all that matters. An ICE can be run off of compressed air, but that doesn't mean that thermal combustion expansion is not a huge factor. Yet for all three types of engines (a steam engine, a compressed air engine, and an ICE) the fundamental principle behind their operation is one and the same: pressure differential will cause a piston to move, which can be tapped to extract mechanical energy.

Consider the analogy of a rocket engine. If a Wikipedia article tries to explain how it functions by the thermal expansion of hot gases, it runs the risk of losing the reader on the basic point that the fundamental principle is action-reaction. Explaining how a rocket can be launched by pumping pressurized air into a water tank (see water rocket), with absolutely no heat or combustion necessary goes a LONG way toward communicating the fundamentals. This is not to say that hot gas expansion from the combustion of real rocket engines is irrelevant. It is simply just not the most fundamental principle that is involved.

"All that is needed" to make a rocket fly is action-reaction that can be accomplished with cold water. But that does not say nor imply that this is "all that matters"!

Say that bottle rockets were powered by a thing called a "gunpowder engine". It would be key to point out that gunpowder is not necessary to lift the rocket off the ground. You can do it with only pressurized cold air, or some other working fluid. In the same way, it is key to point out that steam is not necessary to crank an engine designed to operate on steam. You can do it with only pressurized cold air, or some other working fluid.--Lexi sioz (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Lexi soz: Some of your statements are off topic and others are false. I don't know what kind of sources you're reading, but I would recommend reading a Thermodynamics text for starters, followed books on steam engines and steam power.Phmoreno (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not aware of any inaccurate statement that I added. Not even the one you highlighted below. It is perfectly accurate, and was put there so that people will have access to an easy understanding of how steam engines work. Not some obfuscated explanation of thermo cycles with temperature gradients that have nothing to do with the fundamental reason as to why the piston is moving.

I am well versed in thermodynamics and was in a PhD program for Mechanical Engineering at a top tier university. One of my degrees is in physics, so we could explain this on a quantum level if anyone would like to do a deep dive. But the whole point of education is to grow from a state of lesser understanding toward one of greater understanding. The thermo aspects of steam engines are not needed when discussing the first-order explanation.

As for the sources, they've all been listed. If anyone has any objection to anything that those sources say, please identify it specifically so it can be directly addressed.--Lexi sioz (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a confusion of levels on your part. A steam engine[1] is a heat engine, but a steam engine[2] is driven by pressure differential. When most people talk about steam engines they're really talking about [1] which is a heat engine that has a boiler, a condenser and a motor unit. That's driven by the heat differential between the heat source and the cold sink and cannot be driven by pressure. However, [2] is just the motor unit. The motor unit is the piston engine/turbine, and that arguably can be driven by pressure, (although even then that is rather arguable since the temperature goes down inside the motor, even when driven by compressed air or similar). Note also that proper Pneumatic motors will have different valve timings than steam engines; if it was 'just pressure' then that wouldn't be necessary.

This article is mostly about [1], a heat engine, not [2], although we have a section on that.

Also in gas turbine steam engines, the gas flows over the blades and the blades develop lift which spins them around, in that case it's not really just 'pressure' that turns them, it's the flow that turns them, so what you're saying only directly applies to piston motors.GliderMaven (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Only half of gas turbines. It would be a bad and misleading statement to claim that unqualified, implying that it's true for all of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Impulse and reaction stages: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMG2Re1Wz0M See also: De Leval turbine.Phmoreno (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

History: Development of the steam engine

How the steam engine was developed should be one of the most important parts of the history section, but it is missing from the article.

“The discoveries that, when brought together by Thomas Newcomen in 1712, resulted in the steam engine were:

• The concept of a vacuum (i.e. a reduction in pressure below ambient)
• The concept of pressure
• Techniques for generating a vacuum
• Means for generating steam
• The piston and cylinder

In 1643 Evangelista Torricelli conducted experiments on suction lift water pumps to test their limits, which was about 32 feet (atmospheric pressure is 32.9 feet or 10.03 meters). He devised an experiment using a tube filled with mercury and inverted in a bowl of mercury (a barometer) and observed an empty space above the column of mercury, which he theorized contained nothing, that is, a vacuum.

Influenced by Torricelli, Otto von Guericke invented a vacuum pump by modifying an air gun pump. Guericke put on a demonstration in 1654 in Magdeburg, Germany, where he was mayor. Two copper hemispheres were fitted together and air was pumped out. Weights strapped to the hemispheres could not pull them apart until the air valve was opened. The experiment was repeated in 1656 using two teams of 8 horses each, which could not separate the hemispheres.

Gaspar Schott was the first to describe the hemisphere experiment in his Mechanica Hydraulico-Pneumatica (1657).

After reading Schott’s book, Robert Boyle built and improved vacuum pump and conducted related experiments.

Denis Papin became interested in using a vacuum to generate motive power while working with Christiaan Huygens and Gottfried Leibniz in Paris in 1663. Papin worked for Robert Boyle from 1676 to 1679, publishing an account of his work in Continuation of New Experiments (1680) and gave a presentation to Royal Society in 1689. From 1690 on Papin began experimenting with a piston to produce power with steam, building model steam engines. He experimented with atmospheric and pressure steam engines, publishing his results in 1707.

In 1663 Edward Somerset, 2nd Marquess of Worcester, published a book of 100 inventions which described a method for pressurizing water with steam produced by heating a cannon barrel with fitted with vlaves and piping which was capable of forcing a fountain of water 40 feet high.

Samuel Morland, a mathematician and inventor who worked on pumps, left notes at the Vauxhall Ordinance Office on a steam pump design that Thomas Savery read. In 1698 Savery built a steam pump called “The Miner’s Friend.” It employed both vacuum and pressure. These were used for low horsepower service for a number of years.

Thomas Newcomen was a merchant who dealt in cast iron goods. Newcomen’s engine was based on the piston and cylinder design proposed by Papin. In Newcomen's engine steam was condensed by water sprayed inside the cylinder, causing atmospheric pressure to move the piston. Newcomen’s first engine installed for pumping in a mine in 1712 at Dudley Castle in Staffordshire.

From my lecture notes. A valuable source is: Phmoreno (talk) 02:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The history paragraph does refer to the main article "History of the steam engine", so this amount of detail is not really necessary for this article. It might be more appropriate to add this detail into the "History of the steam engine" article. --Roly (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Steam engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/turbines/turbines_howitworks.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927104349/http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/ewr/pubs/IEP_Power_Plant_Water_R%26D_Final_1.pdf to http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/ewr/pubs/IEP_Power_Plant_Water_R%26D_Final_1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Steam engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110415125004/http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/rhagor/article/trevithic_loco to http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/rhagor/article/trevithic_loco/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310071206/http://www.archivingindustry.com/Indicator/chapterzero.pdf to http://www.archivingindustry.com/Indicator/chapterzero.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Riverboats and condensors?

Did Mark-Twain-era steam riverboats have condensers or were they "once through" designs, rejecting spent steam to the air? River water would have been available as a supply...but was it more trouble to filter the water than to carry around a condenser? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Generally condensing. Steam locomotives are the exception for much of steam engine design history, owing to their need to be compact above all, even efficiency. Condensers are as old as steam engines, if not older, and were widely used for stationary and marine engines (they did become less common for smaller stationary engines later on). There are two reasons why they were used for early steam engines, both related to their low boiler pressures.

An efficient steam plant is one where the boiler transfers heat energy to the steam and the engine part then extracts as much of that as possible. This energy goes to three main changes: raising the temperature of the feedwater (see specific heat capacity), evaporating the water to steam (see latent heat of vaporisation) and then simultaneously raising the temperature and pressure of the steam (see Water_(data_page)#Water/steam_equilibrium_properties). Efficiency in a steam engine is theoretically possible for any working pressure. For a low pressure engine, the amount of energy needed to boil the water is a greater proportion of the total than when the pressure is higher and so more of it goes to rasing the pressure of the boiled steam. Adding a condenser allows some of that energy from latent heat to be recovered.

Secondly, it's difficult and expensive (especially then) to raise the safe working pressure of these early marine boilers. A cheaper and safer way to raise the working pressure of the engine (as a pressure difference) is to lower the exhaust pressure, rather than comparably raising the inlet pressure.

See also evaporator for some background on feedwater. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

A Google Books search on "paddlewheel steamer condensers" was illuminating. Watt's condenser was a jet. Salt buildup was the problem at sea, but freshwater boats could operate for lengthy times just as long as they kept the mud and catfish out. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

There were two big problems with feedwater: avoiding salt, and avoiding lubricating oil. Although some early boilers used seawater as feedwater, this had problems and there was an obvious pressure to avoid it. It was (perhaps surprisingly) quite workable at first though, as the low temperatures of these early boilers didn't give as much trouble with brine and with salt precipitating out as might have been expected. Secondly the oil from the engine wasn't a good thing to recirculate into the boiler, as it produced a layer of foamy scum that caused priming. The simplest way to avoid it was to not recycle the water - easily done on a freshwater river. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The earliest steamboats of the Fulton era used low pressure, condensing engines. Their disadvantage was the large, heavy cylinder. Within a few years high pressure non-condensing with direct atmospheric exhaust became standard. Pressures were 40 to 60 psi in the early high pressure engines engines, rising to 100 psi by 1840. This comes from pages 123-7 of Hunter's Steamboats on Western Rivers. Hunter also covers steamboat engines in Steam Power.Phmoreno (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

US riverboats aren't my field, but AFAIK, 100 psi claims at that time are more about recognising what some exceptional high pressure engines had reached, than this being a typical working pressure for them. That said, the sternwheelers do seem to have favoured a rather distinctive engine pattern, with small, high pressure boilers and cylinders of a particularly small diameter and long stroke, all factors encouraging this high pressure. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The references I found do mention the problems of recirculating crud, but this is not an article for discussion of the details of riverboat design. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

History: Development of the steam engine 2

Irish physicist and chemist Robert Boyle in 1656, in coordination with English scientist Robert Hooke, built an air pump. Using this pump, Boyle and Hooke noticed the pressure-volume correlation: P.V=constant. In that time, air was assumed to be a system of motionless particles, and not interpreted as a system of moving molecules. The concept of thermal motion came two centuries later. Therefore, Boyle's publication in 1660 speaks about a mechanical concept: the air spring.[3] Later, after the invention of the thermometer, the property temperature could be quantified. This tool gave Gay-Lussac the opportunity to derive his law, which led shortly later to the ideal gas law. But, already before the establishment of the ideal gas law, an associate of Boyle's named Denis Papin built in 1679 a bone digester, which is a closed vessel with a tightly fitting lid that confines steam until a high pressure is generated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.105.84.146 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)