3 ms·
The concept is relatively simple (once someone thought of it...), it's the execution that's difficult. (For a simpler example, let's look at breech-loading fire
by zeteo 16y ago
The concept is relatively simple (once someone thought of it...), it's the execution that's difficult. (For a simpler example, let's look at breech-loading firearms: the idea appeared almost as soon as gunpowder, but it took until the 2nd half of the 19th century to achieve cheap, practical designs.) In the Parsons turbine, the shape of the components is much more complex than the piston plus cylinder of the Watt engine (see http://www.leander-project.homecall.co.uk/turbines.html http://www.leander-project.homecall.co.uk/turbines.html for a diagram). All the little blades and such also need to hold up to high pressures and temperatures.
I'm not entirely sure about the condenser bit, but I do remember Smil addressing the issue with references and all. His books are quite amazing, it's quite a pity they're not better known.
- kiba 16y agoWho is Smil?
- zeteo 16y agoVaclav Smil - a professor who writes wonderfully detailed books about the history of technology, among other subjects.
- kragen 16y agoYou are of course correct that the Parsons turbine is quite complex and demanding; I didn't realize how fully he had developed the concept. (I still take issue with "as demanding as a [modern] race car", though.) However, simple rotary pneumatic motors are used quite effectively in many hand tools, and they're essentially low-speed turbines. They don't have the immense efficiency of the Parsons turbine, but they are quite simple and can be quite reliable. (The high-speed ones used in dentists' drills had to wait for the development of the air bearing, though.)