4 ms·

Arguably the patent system in Britain also had consequences that slowed down industrialization. From this article (http://mises.org/daily/3280 http://mises.org/

by zeteo 16y ago

Arguably the patent system in Britain also had consequences that slowed down industrialization. From this article (http://mises.org/daily/3280 http://mises.org/daily/3280): "During the period of Watt's patents [1775-1800] the United Kingdom added about 750 horsepower of steam engines per year. In the thirty years following Watt's patents, additional horsepower was added at a rate of more than 4,000 per year. Moreover, the fuel efficiency of steam engines changed little during the period of Watt's patent; while between 1810 and 1835 it is estimated to have increased by a factor of five."

SoftwareMaven 16y ago
But 0 to the first 750 horsepower is a very important step.
- zeteo 16y ago
  Watt didn't build the first steam engine, not even the first commercially successful steam engine. Newcomen's engine (in widespread use before Watt was even born) developed about 8HP and was widely adopted by British mine owners: http://inventors.about.com/od/nstartinventors/a/Newcomen_2.htm http://inventors.about.com/od/nstartinventors/a/Newcomen_2.h...
kragen 16y ago
Wouldn't you expect both efficiency and total capacity to increase exponentially in the first half of a sigmoid adoption curve without taking into account any exogenous factors? Today most electric power plants are still run by steam engines, so it's likely that that exponential increase is still continuing.
- zeteo 16y ago
  Electric power plants are run by steam _turbines_ today (invented by sir Charles Parsons in 1884). I don't think there are any steam _engines_ in industrial operation. Regarding the logistic curve, yes, your point is valid in general; however, the article cited makes it clear that Watt's patent dramatically slowed down the adoption rate by delaying essential improvements for 25 years. In particular, the adoption of high-pressure steam (an idea Watt simply disliked) proved essential for locomotives and for improving the fuel efficiency to a level where steam engines were practical in more than a small corner of the British economy.
  - kragen 16y ago
    The steam turbine (invented by Hero of Alexandria in the 1st century BC, and improved dramatically since then by Parsons, among others) is a kind of steam engine. With regard to reciprocating steam engines, I don't know of any in current use either, but I would be surprised if there weren't at least a few niche uses. You are certainly correct about high-pressure steam being essential. Did Watt's patent make it illegal to develop high-pressure steam engines, or just uneconomic?
    - zeteo 16y ago
      The (practical) steam turbine is one of the fundamental, yet unacknowledged, bases of our material civilization. Parsons based his intricate design on the equations of thermodynamics; he succeeded in a very complicated task where many others had tried, and failed. His work is about as many orders of magnitude more complex and demanding than Hero's aoelipile as a modern race car is compared to a spring-powered toy cart. That said, I agree that the terminology is flexible and the steam turbine can be considered a kind of steam engine; it is, however, very different in its principle of operation from the Watt-type steam engine (which it displaced in the XXth century). Regarding high-pressure steam, as far as I know Watt's patent precluded anyone from using a condenser in their steam engine, which is an essential component. Thus only engineers affiliated with Watt himself were able to produce commercial steam engines during the 25 years he held the patent, and he refused to let them work with high-pressure steam (despite a good deal of interest). For a more thorough, and much better documented, discussion of these issues, I recommend chapter 3 (Internal Combustion Engines) of Vaclav Smil's book "Creating the Twentieth Century".
      - kragen 16y ago
        It certainly is a very important invention, but I'm not sure what you mean by "complex and demanding"; you can build a perfectly good steam turbine with one moving part plus a high-temperature thrust bearing. A condenser is not an essential component for a high-pressure steam engine. It can be useful (modern power-plant steam turbines use condensers because they're quite sensitive to lime deposits, so the water has to be expensively purified before use) but e.g. steam locomotives did not normally use them. It is not the case that there were no non-Watt commercial steam engines built in England during Watt's patent; a good number of Newcomen-type engines continued to be built. But thank you for explaining that Watt refused to license his patent. Thank you very much for the book recommendation! It sounds like a book I've been wanting to write. Maybe Smil has saved me the trouble. It's interesting that reciprocating engines are quite common in the modern economy outside of the steam department. There are even commercial electric power plants driven by reciprocating engines. But they're internal-combustion.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

by zeteo 16y ago

SoftwareMaven 16y ago

But 0 to the first 750 horsepower is a very important step.

zeteo 16y ago
Watt didn't build the first steam engine, not even the first commercially successful steam engine. Newcomen's engine (in widespread use before Watt was even born) developed about 8HP and was widely adopted by British mine owners: http://inventors.about.com/od/nstartinventors/a/Newcomen_2.htm http://inventors.about.com/od/nstartinventors/a/Newcomen_2.h...

kragen 16y ago

Wouldn't you expect both efficiency and total capacity to increase exponentially in the first half of a sigmoid adoption curve without taking into account any exogenous factors? Today most electric power plants are still run by steam engines, so it's likely that that exponential increase is still continuing.

zeteo 16y ago
Electric power plants are run by steam _turbines_ today (invented by sir Charles Parsons in 1884). I don't think there are any steam _engines_ in industrial operation. Regarding the logistic curve, yes, your point is valid in general; however, the article cited makes it clear that Watt's patent dramatically slowed down the adoption rate by delaying essential improvements for 25 years. In particular, the adoption of high-pressure steam (an idea Watt simply disliked) proved essential for locomotives and for improving the fuel efficiency to a level where steam engines were practical in more than a small corner of the British economy.
- kragen 16y ago
  The steam turbine (invented by Hero of Alexandria in the 1st century BC, and improved dramatically since then by Parsons, among others) is a kind of steam engine. With regard to reciprocating steam engines, I don't know of any in current use either, but I would be surprised if there weren't at least a few niche uses. You are certainly correct about high-pressure steam being essential. Did Watt's patent make it illegal to develop high-pressure steam engines, or just uneconomic?
  - zeteo 16y ago
    The (practical) steam turbine is one of the fundamental, yet unacknowledged, bases of our material civilization. Parsons based his intricate design on the equations of thermodynamics; he succeeded in a very complicated task where many others had tried, and failed. His work is about as many orders of magnitude more complex and demanding than Hero's aoelipile as a modern race car is compared to a spring-powered toy cart. That said, I agree that the terminology is flexible and the steam turbine can be considered a kind of steam engine; it is, however, very different in its principle of operation from the Watt-type steam engine (which it displaced in the XXth century). Regarding high-pressure steam, as far as I know Watt's patent precluded anyone from using a condenser in their steam engine, which is an essential component. Thus only engineers affiliated with Watt himself were able to produce commercial steam engines during the 25 years he held the patent, and he refused to let them work with high-pressure steam (despite a good deal of interest). For a more thorough, and much better documented, discussion of these issues, I recommend chapter 3 (Internal Combustion Engines) of Vaclav Smil's book "Creating the Twentieth Century".
    - kragen 16y ago
      It certainly is a very important invention, but I'm not sure what you mean by "complex and demanding"; you can build a perfectly good steam turbine with one moving part plus a high-temperature thrust bearing. A condenser is not an essential component for a high-pressure steam engine. It can be useful (modern power-plant steam turbines use condensers because they're quite sensitive to lime deposits, so the water has to be expensively purified before use) but e.g. steam locomotives did not normally use them. It is not the case that there were no non-Watt commercial steam engines built in England during Watt's patent; a good number of Newcomen-type engines continued to be built. But thank you for explaining that Watt refused to license his patent. Thank you very much for the book recommendation! It sounds like a book I've been wanting to write. Maybe Smil has saved me the trouble. It's interesting that reciprocating engines are quite common in the modern economy outside of the steam department. There are even commercial electric power plants driven by reciprocating engines. But they're internal-combustion.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]