3 ms·

The tech necessary for steam engines was available by the late Roman empire Archimedes even demonstrated the principle of heated water caising a sphere to rota

The tech necessary for steam engines was available by the late Roman empire Archimedes even demonstrated the principle of heated water caising a sphere to rotate But there was little use for it, without substantial investment in other areas. Horses for land transportand human rowers for ships were just cheaper and more practical It would take another 1500 years before Watt found its use for a pump

TeMPOraL 2y ago
FWIW, there was plenty of use for pumps earlier on - in mining. But muscle power, then water power, was sufficient. Part of the steam engine's success was how it contributed to itself - it helped mine coal that would fuel it, and that would fuel furnaces in which steel was made, some of that steel going into... making more engines - and all of that moved around by means of steam power. *Factorio vibes intensify* You had to have enough pieces together: demand for coal and steel and moving them distances, sustained long enough to exhaust simple options, and become a problem the steam engine could solve. It was then that the steam engine turned this into self-reinforcing loop, and kickstarted the modern world.
- ckozlowski 2y ago
  Your discussion with DrF jogged my memory a bit. There was a discussion on this topic some time ago (I'm fuzzy on when) that went into detail about how there needed to be a specific use case and demand for this. I'm trying to remember the blog, but a search on HN yielded this: https://www.ageofinvention.xyz/p/age-of-invention-why-wasnt-the-steam-76c https://www.ageofinvention.xyz/p/age-of-invention-why-wasnt-... I think this is the blog in question, and the most relevant part. If something else comes to me, I'll share it here.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  That exponential character is what we are seeing with computers too. Better computers increase both the supply and the demand for even more.
- ashoeafoot 2y ago
  The steam engine came about due to the spread of shipworms. Ships need copper shielding against that, thus mining deep, thus industrial revolution. First comes the demand. Which came about by the merchant fleet of the British empire.
bluGill 2y ago
> The tech necessary for steam engines was available by the late Roman empire So long as you don't also add the "useful" qualification. If you want useful steam engines you things that didn't exist then. The iron alloys available to the Romans didn't allow for useful steam engines. Even the first steam engines were only useful in deep coal mines (where fuel was practically free) which the Romans didn't have.
lukan 2y ago
"The tech necessary for steam engines was available by the late Roman empire" I read here on HN that this might be not really true. Because the romans did not heavily invest into high pressure chambers, aka cannons, like it was done in medival times. You don't just need a metal pot to build a steam engine. They must be able to hold much pressure and if they don't, they explode. So the romans likely would have been able to make it work, but it would have required a significant investment - as they did not had experience in building pressure chambers.
KineticLensman 2y ago
> The tech necessary for steam engines They had basic concepts but could not have produced a steam engine that did useful work. The Archimedes device you mention (the aeolipile) was basically a kettle mounted on an axle that did indeed spin. But it had no way of building up pressure to the degree necessary to move something other than itself. The Romans probably didn't have good enough materials tech to build vessels that could hold sufficient pressure to do useful work. Early steam engines could explode catastrophically and they were built by cultures that had centuries of cannon-making experience behind them. The Romans also lacked a compelling application that would have driven tech development and didn't have the iron/steel/coal industry required to build railways, etc. It's telling that the first commercially viable steam engines were basically water pumps for getting water out of mines, and it didn't matter if they were massive and underpowered. It took another 60/70 years for the tech to improve enough to power vehicles.
- mr_toad 2y ago
  I also doubt the Romans had tools that could have machined a piston with sufficient precision either.
triceratops 2y ago
Relevant: https://acoup.blog/2022/08/26/collections-why-no-roman-industrial-revolution/ https://acoup.blog/2022/08/26/collections-why-no-roman-indus...
desas 2y ago
There were 100s of Newcomen engines throughout Europe which were mostly used to pump water. They were being deployed ~50 years before Watt improved the design.
Qem 2y ago
> The tech necessary for steam engines was available by the late Roman empire IIRC I read somewhere it depended on the previous development of firearms, as it allowed metalworking to advance enough to produce metal tubes with very smooth and regular bores, that avoid leaks, jamming and uncontrolled explosions, to be fitted with pistons. The Roman empire had no firearms.

TeMPOraL 2y ago

FWIW, there was plenty of use for pumps earlier on - in mining. But muscle power, then water power, was sufficient. Part of the steam engine's success was how it contributed to itself - it helped mine coal that would fuel it, and that would fuel furnaces in which steel was made, some of that steel going into... making more engines - and all of that moved around by means of steam power. *Factorio vibes intensify* You had to have enough pieces together: demand for coal and steel and moving them distances, sustained long enough to exhaust simple options, and become a problem the steam engine could solve. It was then that the steam engine turned this into self-reinforcing loop, and kickstarted the modern world.

ckozlowski 2y ago
Your discussion with DrF jogged my memory a bit. There was a discussion on this topic some time ago (I'm fuzzy on when) that went into detail about how there needed to be a specific use case and demand for this. I'm trying to remember the blog, but a search on HN yielded this: https://www.ageofinvention.xyz/p/age-of-invention-why-wasnt-the-steam-76c https://www.ageofinvention.xyz/p/age-of-invention-why-wasnt-... I think this is the blog in question, and the most relevant part. If something else comes to me, I'll share it here.
HPsquared 2y ago
That exponential character is what we are seeing with computers too. Better computers increase both the supply and the demand for even more.
ashoeafoot 2y ago
The steam engine came about due to the spread of shipworms. Ships need copper shielding against that, thus mining deep, thus industrial revolution. First comes the demand. Which came about by the merchant fleet of the British empire.

bluGill 2y ago

> The tech necessary for steam engines was available by the late Roman empire So long as you don't also add the "useful" qualification. If you want useful steam engines you things that didn't exist then. The iron alloys available to the Romans didn't allow for useful steam engines. Even the first steam engines were only useful in deep coal mines (where fuel was practically free) which the Romans didn't have.

lukan 2y ago

"The tech necessary for steam engines was available by the late Roman empire" I read here on HN that this might be not really true. Because the romans did not heavily invest into high pressure chambers, aka cannons, like it was done in medival times. You don't just need a metal pot to build a steam engine. They must be able to hold much pressure and if they don't, they explode. So the romans likely would have been able to make it work, but it would have required a significant investment - as they did not had experience in building pressure chambers.

KineticLensman 2y ago

> The tech necessary for steam engines They had basic concepts but could not have produced a steam engine that did useful work. The Archimedes device you mention (the aeolipile) was basically a kettle mounted on an axle that did indeed spin. But it had no way of building up pressure to the degree necessary to move something other than itself. The Romans probably didn't have good enough materials tech to build vessels that could hold sufficient pressure to do useful work. Early steam engines could explode catastrophically and they were built by cultures that had centuries of cannon-making experience behind them. The Romans also lacked a compelling application that would have driven tech development and didn't have the iron/steel/coal industry required to build railways, etc. It's telling that the first commercially viable steam engines were basically water pumps for getting water out of mines, and it didn't matter if they were massive and underpowered. It took another 60/70 years for the tech to improve enough to power vehicles.

mr_toad 2y ago
I also doubt the Romans had tools that could have machined a piston with sufficient precision either.

triceratops 2y ago

Relevant: https://acoup.blog/2022/08/26/collections-why-no-roman-industrial-revolution/ https://acoup.blog/2022/08/26/collections-why-no-roman-indus...

desas 2y ago

There were 100s of Newcomen engines throughout Europe which were mostly used to pump water. They were being deployed ~50 years before Watt improved the design.

Qem 2y ago

> The tech necessary for steam engines was available by the late Roman empire IIRC I read somewhere it depended on the previous development of firearms, as it allowed metalworking to advance enough to produce metal tubes with very smooth and regular bores, that avoid leaks, jamming and uncontrolled explosions, to be fitted with pistons. The Roman empire had no firearms.