3 ms·

Aeoliphile is an open cycle engine and so inefficient that it's practically useless for doing work. It took the Europeans a lot of time to develop the skills n

Aeoliphile is an open cycle engine and so inefficient that it's practically useless for doing work. It took the Europeans a lot of time to develop the skills necessary to build closed cycle steam engines efficient and powerful enough to do work.

frabert 8y ago
Doesn't change the fact that if the Romans thought that an engine would have been useful, they would probably have begun studying a way of making it more efficient.
kilpikaarna 8y ago
I'd also argue that ancient physics based around static objects would've been an insufficient basis for developing a theory of thermodynamics, which is what was required to turn the steam engine into more than a curiosity for pumping water out of mines. Without Newton and Galileo developing a physics of motion there wouldn't have been a Carnot.
- chopin 8y ago
  Carnot's work came almost 50 years after Watt's development of his steam engine. Of course valuable, but not strictly necessary. One could argue that thermodynamics developed out of necessity for more efficient engines but it's not a strict prerequisite. As another example the brothers Montgolfier weren't aware that heated air could lift their balloon because it had less density than cold air. They still managed to get it work.
chopin 8y ago
I think that steam engines went hand in hand with the availability of coal. Even the production of steel (or iron) was hampered by the fact that there wasn't enough stuff to burn. Afaik there was much less forestry in Europe until the advent of coal as the wood was burnt for heating, cooking and iron work.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Yes, this is a serious underappreciated problem. Before we had fossil fuels we were entirely dependent on inefficient biomass for comfort, survival and transport. And the production of coal from all but the shallowest mines requires pumps. One of the first uses of steam engines was ... pumping out coal mines.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- raverbashing 8y ago
  I remember whale oil being an important source of fuel for some uses as well
  - abakker 8y ago
    For lighting, definitely. I'm not aware of it having ever been used for heating at any scale?
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  Certainly the 1712 Newcomen engine exploded the amount of available coal, because water could now be pumped from mines.
- tynpeddler 8y ago
  I've also heard (but not confirmed) that the skills used for forging cannons and guns were necessary for developing the pistons used in lots of early steam engines
Nomentatus 8y ago
It's a wildly inefficient turbine; but better designs of turbines are very practical. Including a design Tesla originated that's remarkably similar, functionally, to the Aeoliphile. These too are not necessarily closed cycle. Getting the steam back saves a little energy 'cause the water you're boiling is hotter to start with, but that's a small saving compared to the energy cost to change the phase of water. The biggest problem with the Aeoliphile was just that it was a poor implementation, a lousy first prototype. Or to put that same case conversely, the real drawback was that there was no sufficiently cheap source of energy (even peat) back then. So there was no obvious reason to mount the learning curve.

frabert 8y ago

Doesn't change the fact that if the Romans thought that an engine would have been useful, they would probably have begun studying a way of making it more efficient.

kilpikaarna 8y ago

I'd also argue that ancient physics based around static objects would've been an insufficient basis for developing a theory of thermodynamics, which is what was required to turn the steam engine into more than a curiosity for pumping water out of mines. Without Newton and Galileo developing a physics of motion there wouldn't have been a Carnot.

chopin 8y ago
Carnot's work came almost 50 years after Watt's development of his steam engine. Of course valuable, but not strictly necessary. One could argue that thermodynamics developed out of necessity for more efficient engines but it's not a strict prerequisite. As another example the brothers Montgolfier weren't aware that heated air could lift their balloon because it had less density than cold air. They still managed to get it work.

chopin 8y ago

I think that steam engines went hand in hand with the availability of coal. Even the production of steel (or iron) was hampered by the fact that there wasn't enough stuff to burn. Afaik there was much less forestry in Europe until the advent of coal as the wood was burnt for heating, cooking and iron work.

pjc50 8y ago
Yes, this is a serious underappreciated problem. Before we had fossil fuels we were entirely dependent on inefficient biomass for comfort, survival and transport. And the production of coal from all but the shallowest mines requires pumps. One of the first uses of steam engines was ... pumping out coal mines.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
raverbashing 8y ago
I remember whale oil being an important source of fuel for some uses as well
- abakker 8y ago
  For lighting, definitely. I'm not aware of it having ever been used for heating at any scale?
Nomentatus 8y ago
Certainly the 1712 Newcomen engine exploded the amount of available coal, because water could now be pumped from mines.
tynpeddler 8y ago
I've also heard (but not confirmed) that the skills used for forging cannons and guns were necessary for developing the pistons used in lots of early steam engines

Nomentatus 8y ago

It's a wildly inefficient turbine; but better designs of turbines are very practical. Including a design Tesla originated that's remarkably similar, functionally, to the Aeoliphile. These too are not necessarily closed cycle. Getting the steam back saves a little energy 'cause the water you're boiling is hotter to start with, but that's a small saving compared to the energy cost to change the phase of water. The biggest problem with the Aeoliphile was just that it was a poor implementation, a lousy first prototype. Or to put that same case conversely, the real drawback was that there was no sufficiently cheap source of energy (even peat) back then. So there was no obvious reason to mount the learning curve.