Re:Why wasn't the steam engine invented earlier? Part II
by cfmcdonald on Friday July 15, 2022 @08:42AM
(#32107504)
Actually a Savery engine (the type of engine the OP's post starts off with) doesn't have a piston at all. And the Newcomen atmospheric engine didn't require a very precise fit to function either. It wasn't until Watt started the drive for more efficient engines that accurately boring the cylinder became important.
Re:Why wasn't the steam engine invented earlier? Part II
by antonhowes on Friday July 15, 2022 @12:37PM
(#32109962)
Exactly! Part III or IV will end up talking about boring techniques of the 1650s (long before the famous John Wilkinson methods), but that is precisely the thing with Savery engines - and indeed with Newcomen engines, which worked with pistons long before Wilkinson too!
Re:Why wasn't the steam engine invented earlier? Part II
by RcouF1uZ4gsC on Friday July 15, 2022 @08:57AM
(#32107639)
> An engine requires piston that move within a bore. To create the pressure that process has to be precise. This process was perfected in making cannons.
There is speculation that the techniques for casting these cannons, was actually perfected in making church bells. Basically, if you turn a church bell on its side you have a primitive cannon. This may be one of the reasons that Europe was able to harness gunpowder more effectively and climb to dominance.
An engine requires piston that move within a bore. To create the pressure that process has to be precise. This process was perfected in making cannons.
Why I like this story is that it embodies the unintended consequences that underlies so much of progress, like Alexander Graham Bell inventing the telephone while trying to create something for the deaf.
You see this with research now that's plagued with being goal-oriented. "What will you discover/prove/invent in the next 5-10 years?" Who can say?
Also, the steam engine and the internal combustion engine are directly the products of technology created for war to kill people.