4 ms·

A better question: "why didn't the industrial revolution happen in ancient Greece"? The ancient Greeks were scientifically much more advanced than ancie

by mafribe 10y ago

A better question: "why didn't the industrial revolution happen in ancient Greece"? The ancient Greeks were scientifically much more advanced than ancient Rome, had steam engines, electricity, sophisticated automata, calculus etc. But for some reason, not understood, their civilisation collapsed before an industrial revolution could take place.

jernfrost 10y ago
It is important to realize however that simply powering something with steam doesn't make it a possible candidate for an industrial revolution. The crucial breakthroughs in the industrial revolution was making sufficiently powerful and efficient steam engines. This was no possible without precision machining, with stuff like lathes and drills. In this regard Greece was far away from any industrial revolution. That ability in ancient greek to make precise machine parts did not exist remotely. Secondly to create en impetus for industrialization you need sufficient level of specialization and large enough markets. Long before steam engines, canals were dug, and specialized production was done in large warehouses in Britain. Before that in the Netherlands. You had nothing like that happening n Greece. I think too often the economic aspects of technology is forgotten. Thomas Edison didn't make the first light bulb. Nor did Steve Jobs make the first smart phone. But they both made enough improvements on their respective products that they could gain mass appeal.
- LargoLasskhyfv 10y ago
  Then what do you think of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism regarding precision? Is this an "out of place artefact"? A unique piece of work, only made once, or did they made many more which simply haven´t been discovered by us yet? Seems to require some precision, though not in working with steel.
- mafribe 10y ago
  It is unclear how advanced ancient Greek technology was. It is estimated that we currently know about 10% of ancient Greek scientific writing. And there is no reason to believe we have seen the top 10% of their science. For example there is nothing in the currently known ancient Greek scientific writing that prepares us for an automaton as complex as the Antikythera Mechanism. The quality and complexity of the mechanism points to the existence of sophisticated manufacturing processes. Moreover, given that the Antikythera Mechanism was found on a fairly hum-drum boat, there is no reason to believe it represents the best of ancient automata making.
- Animats 10y ago
  The level of precision at the beginning of the steam engine was very low. One of Watt's original steam engines had a spec that the cylinder should fit the piston closely enough that a shilling coin could not be slipped between them. This is a very low standard of precision. Despite this, they sold, in small numbers. John "Iron-Mad" Wilkinson, who had a cannon factory, had figured out how to bore smooth holes accurately. He got a Watt engine for his cannon works and re-bored the cylinder to a reasonable tolerance. Efficiency went up by a factor of 3. Then he cut a deal with Boulton and Watt to make cylinders, and steam engines started to really work. That was all it took. The early railroad era used few machine tools. Boring and turning were about it. Parts were rough-cast or forged, with minimal finish machining. Lots of hot forging and hammering. Primitive lathes, more like wood lathes than a modern lathe with a slide rest and precision screws. Look at any pre-1900 steam locomotive and notice that all steel and iron surfaces are either round, flat, or cast. The ability to machine arbitrary surfaces only came in around 1930. It's amazing how much was accomplished with such basic tools.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    It helps greatly to understand that early steam engines were vacuum engines -- the power stroke came from condensation, not expansion of the steam. Watt himself was opposed to both high-pressure and mobile designs, and was able to enforce those reservations through a 25-year extension to his initial patent, at least within England. His machines typically delivered 5-10 hp, 3.7 - 7.5 kW. Watt's company had delivered just shy of 500 steam engines by 1800, with a total output of 11,200 hp, about 8.4 MW. One of the aspects of modern metallurgy that's been impressed on me was the improvement in batch control through sensing equipment -- optical temperature measurement and spectroscopic analysis to determine composition, both mostly post-WWII developments. This is why sensing (and derived from that: control) are so crucial -- with increased manufacturing tolerances, you can do things not previously possible, including several phase-change type thresholds.
    - Animats 10y ago
      Watt himself was opposed to both high-pressure and mobile designs... They were building steam engines and boilers out of cast iron, which is a terrible material for pressure vessels. Watt was worried about boiler explosions. Steel was 60 years in the future. One of the aspects of modern metallurgy that's been impressed on me.. We now know that the Titanic's hull steel was below its transition temperature at which it became brittle when it hit the iceberg. Its designers did not know that. Metals are a lot better than they used to be.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

by mafribe 10y ago

jernfrost 10y ago

It is important to realize however that simply powering something with steam doesn't make it a possible candidate for an industrial revolution. The crucial breakthroughs in the industrial revolution was making sufficiently powerful and efficient steam engines. This was no possible without precision machining, with stuff like lathes and drills. In this regard Greece was far away from any industrial revolution. That ability in ancient greek to make precise machine parts did not exist remotely. Secondly to create en impetus for industrialization you need sufficient level of specialization and large enough markets. Long before steam engines, canals were dug, and specialized production was done in large warehouses in Britain. Before that in the Netherlands. You had nothing like that happening n Greece. I think too often the economic aspects of technology is forgotten. Thomas Edison didn't make the first light bulb. Nor did Steve Jobs make the first smart phone. But they both made enough improvements on their respective products that they could gain mass appeal.

LargoLasskhyfv 10y ago
Then what do you think of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism regarding precision? Is this an "out of place artefact"? A unique piece of work, only made once, or did they made many more which simply haven´t been discovered by us yet? Seems to require some precision, though not in working with steel.
mafribe 10y ago
It is unclear how advanced ancient Greek technology was. It is estimated that we currently know about 10% of ancient Greek scientific writing. And there is no reason to believe we have seen the top 10% of their science. For example there is nothing in the currently known ancient Greek scientific writing that prepares us for an automaton as complex as the Antikythera Mechanism. The quality and complexity of the mechanism points to the existence of sophisticated manufacturing processes. Moreover, given that the Antikythera Mechanism was found on a fairly hum-drum boat, there is no reason to believe it represents the best of ancient automata making.
Animats 10y ago
The level of precision at the beginning of the steam engine was very low. One of Watt's original steam engines had a spec that the cylinder should fit the piston closely enough that a shilling coin could not be slipped between them. This is a very low standard of precision. Despite this, they sold, in small numbers. John "Iron-Mad" Wilkinson, who had a cannon factory, had figured out how to bore smooth holes accurately. He got a Watt engine for his cannon works and re-bored the cylinder to a reasonable tolerance. Efficiency went up by a factor of 3. Then he cut a deal with Boulton and Watt to make cylinders, and steam engines started to really work. That was all it took. The early railroad era used few machine tools. Boring and turning were about it. Parts were rough-cast or forged, with minimal finish machining. Lots of hot forging and hammering. Primitive lathes, more like wood lathes than a modern lathe with a slide rest and precision screws. Look at any pre-1900 steam locomotive and notice that all steel and iron surfaces are either round, flat, or cast. The ability to machine arbitrary surfaces only came in around 1930. It's amazing how much was accomplished with such basic tools.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  It helps greatly to understand that early steam engines were vacuum engines -- the power stroke came from condensation, not expansion of the steam. Watt himself was opposed to both high-pressure and mobile designs, and was able to enforce those reservations through a 25-year extension to his initial patent, at least within England. His machines typically delivered 5-10 hp, 3.7 - 7.5 kW. Watt's company had delivered just shy of 500 steam engines by 1800, with a total output of 11,200 hp, about 8.4 MW. One of the aspects of modern metallurgy that's been impressed on me was the improvement in batch control through sensing equipment -- optical temperature measurement and spectroscopic analysis to determine composition, both mostly post-WWII developments. This is why sensing (and derived from that: control) are so crucial -- with increased manufacturing tolerances, you can do things not previously possible, including several phase-change type thresholds.
  - Animats 10y ago
    Watt himself was opposed to both high-pressure and mobile designs... They were building steam engines and boilers out of cast iron, which is a terrible material for pressure vessels. Watt was worried about boiler explosions. Steel was 60 years in the future. One of the aspects of modern metallurgy that's been impressed on me.. We now know that the Titanic's hull steel was below its transition temperature at which it became brittle when it hit the iceberg. Its designers did not know that. Metals are a lot better than they used to be.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]