4 ms·

> Throughout history, when the cost of energy has come down a lot (for example, with the steam engine) I'm going to have to review my physics textbook, but I

> Throughout history, when the cost of energy has come down a lot (for example, with the steam engine) I'm going to have to review my physics textbook, but I could swear that steam engine consumes energy. edit: Can't believe I'm getting downvoted. I thought this place was full of pedantic engineers, like me? The steam engine turns energy into work. If anything, it probably increased the price of energy (at least temporarily, until the steam engine was put to work in the fossil fuels mining business).

marvy 13y ago
I think you know what he meant. But just in case: the steam engine allowed people to harness energy that would have been impractical or even impossible to harness without it.
- mullingitover 13y ago
  I totally know what he meant, but he's wrong--the steam engine likely increased the price of energy, at least in the short term, but creating increased demand for it.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    "The price of energy" is kind of a confusing term when you're comparing fuel that may be burned to produce steam with fodder that may be fed to draft animals. Per unit of work produced, coal beats hay hands-down. It may be that the price of coal increased once it was used for more than heating and smelting, but that's the price of coal, not "the price of [mechanical] energy".
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
AnimalMuppet 13y ago
Well, it consumes fuel. It turns (some fraction of) the fuel into useful work. Before the steam engine, there was the horse. The horse turned a much smaller fraction of the energy input into useful work. This means that the steam engine lowered the cost of useful work. We (over)simplify this, and say that the steam engine lowered the cost of energy. But I have a nagging feeling that I may be explaining the blindingly obvious to the deliberately obtuse...
mikeyouse 13y ago
> I'm going to have to review my physics textbook, but I could swear that steam engine consumes energy. If you're going to be pedantic, at least be correct. If you were to consult your physics textbook, somewhere near the beginning under the heading "Conservation of Energy", you'd see that the steam engine neither creates nor destroys energy, merely transforms it into a different form.
- mullingitover 13y ago
  I didn't say that the steam engine created or destroyed energy, but that it consumes it (e.g. it burns coal and uses the energy to perform work). Conservation of energy is a given.
  - mikeyouse 13y ago
    > I didn't say that the steam engine created or destroyed energy, but that it consumes it (e.g. it burns coal and uses the energy to perform work). Conservation of energy is a given. Technically you said that the steam engine consumes energy. Which is silly since it merely consumes coal (which contains energy). But point taken, your meaning was implied and obvious but not explicit. Sorry for wasting your time with a needlessly pedantic correction that added nothing to the conversation. In light of this new information, are you still confused about the downvotes for your initial comment?

marvy 13y ago

I think you know what he meant. But just in case: the steam engine allowed people to harness energy that would have been impractical or even impossible to harness without it.

mullingitover 13y ago
I totally know what he meant, but he's wrong--the steam engine likely increased the price of energy, at least in the short term, but creating increased demand for it.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  "The price of energy" is kind of a confusing term when you're comparing fuel that may be burned to produce steam with fodder that may be fed to draft animals. Per unit of work produced, coal beats hay hands-down. It may be that the price of coal increased once it was used for more than heating and smelting, but that's the price of coal, not "the price of [mechanical] energy".
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

AnimalMuppet 13y ago

Well, it consumes fuel. It turns (some fraction of) the fuel into useful work. Before the steam engine, there was the horse. The horse turned a much smaller fraction of the energy input into useful work. This means that the steam engine lowered the cost of useful work. We (over)simplify this, and say that the steam engine lowered the cost of energy. But I have a nagging feeling that I may be explaining the blindingly obvious to the deliberately obtuse...

mikeyouse 13y ago

> I'm going to have to review my physics textbook, but I could swear that steam engine consumes energy. If you're going to be pedantic, at least be correct. If you were to consult your physics textbook, somewhere near the beginning under the heading "Conservation of Energy", you'd see that the steam engine neither creates nor destroys energy, merely transforms it into a different form.

mullingitover 13y ago
I didn't say that the steam engine created or destroyed energy, but that it consumes it (e.g. it burns coal and uses the energy to perform work). Conservation of energy is a given.
- mikeyouse 13y ago
  > I didn't say that the steam engine created or destroyed energy, but that it consumes it (e.g. it burns coal and uses the energy to perform work). Conservation of energy is a given. Technically you said that the steam engine consumes energy. Which is silly since it merely consumes coal (which contains energy). But point taken, your meaning was implied and obvious but not explicit. Sorry for wasting your time with a needlessly pedantic correction that added nothing to the conversation. In light of this new information, are you still confused about the downvotes for your initial comment?