antonhowes

5 ms·

1.
by antonhowes 3y ago
Hmm, I don't think Savery's engine would have required that - it's just a copper vessel, and the pipes were often even made of wood. I've often seen the cannon theory applied to piston-using engines, but that was the nex
2.
by antonhowes 3y ago
Mine too! When Matt first showed us a draft I was amazed - never thought it would look so smooth.
3.
by antonhowes 3y ago
Though note, from the post, that there were some applications of stationary aeolipiles with their spouts directed at vanes to do some light mechanical work - things like turning roasting spits and grinding pigments. All known throughout the
4.
by antonhowes 3y ago
It's no wonder he supervised them so closely then!
5.
by antonhowes 3y ago
OP here: I'd recommend Daniel Defoe's travels through Britain as a good place to start, written in the 1720s. You might also like Celia Fiennes's travels in the 1690s. The travel diaries of the brothers Rochefoucauld, whom I
6.
by antonhowes 3y ago
It has not been, as far as I'm aware. But King has prepared a proper reply for publication, which I expect will end up being published - if not in H&T then in some other journal.
7.
by antonhowes 3y ago
Yes, it's the difference in pressure/heat that is exploited, as Sadi Carnot noted (by analogising the steam engine to a water-wheel exploiting a fall of water, treating it as a "fall of heat")
8.
by antonhowes 3y ago
It is in the post!
9.
by antonhowes 4y ago
One thing I’ll be mentioning in Part III, as I ran out of space in this one: Drebbel in the 1610s applied his insights into perpetual motion to invent a self-regulating oven/furnace. Using mercury rather than water to trap air in a tu
10.
by antonhowes 4y ago
Fun tidbit, which I didn’t mention in the piece: Drebbel proposed creating some kind of solar-powered central heating system for London in the 1610s. We don’t have many details, other than the fact he thought it would cost £20,000 and would
11.
by antonhowes 4y ago
Ah nice. Yes, I’m not aware of full translations, though I often have to translate things myself (with a bit of help). In this particular case for Fludd I mainly used secondary literature on his use of the inverted flask experiment and (spo
12.
by antonhowes 4y ago
Yup, I figured. Plausibly fits for Wilkinson and Watt (though I have my doubts). Doesn’t fit for Savery and Newcomen, the subject of my piece.
13.
by antonhowes 4y ago
Fantastic question, which is some way down on my to-do list after the steam engine. The discussion this prompted is a real goldmine, so thank you.
14.
by antonhowes 4y ago
Please read both parts I and II. I specifically addressed various widely-held myths about Hero’s engines, and about aeolipiles.
15.
by antonhowes 4y ago
I don’t think this fits the evidence. At least for the 17thC. People in England did not know how to make good iron with coal, let alone steel, despite many decades of extraordinary government encouragement and special incentives - witness t
16.
by antonhowes 4y ago
Indeed. I’ll get to that in Part III (or IV if it’s too long). And it’s why I’ve tried to point out evidence of actual use rather than just the diagrams themselves (though those are at least a start when it comes to subsequent improvement).
17.
by antonhowes 4y ago
If you write that up, please send me the link (I’m the OP)
18.
by antonhowes 4y ago
Neither the Savery nor Newcomen engines used rubber, so that doesn’t work as a limiting factor. That’s why I didn’t mention it.
19.
by antonhowes 4y ago
I have written very extensively on the evolution of the early patent system - I actually have a not-yet-completed, so far 9-part series on the context of the Statute of Monopolies - but you’ll be in for something of a surprise in Part III.
20.
by antonhowes 4y ago
Well-noticed! I used one of Fludd’s illustrations, but I ran out of space writing about Drebbel, which took us up to c.1607. Fludd will feature VERY heavily in Part III. Fludd eventually became totally obsessed with the inverted flask exper
21.
by antonhowes 4y ago
Exactly! Part III or IV will end up talking about boring techniques of the 1650s (long before the famous John Wilkinson methods), but that is precisely the thing with Savery engines - and indeed with Newcomen engines, which worked with pist
22.
by antonhowes 4y ago
Maybe for the Watt engine, but this does not apply to the Savery or Newcomen engines. (Though Part III, or perhaps IV, will have a few notes on some almost totally forgotten machine makers of the 1650s.
23.
by antonhowes 4y ago
Thank you! It’s extremely gratifying to know that HN readers like yourself do actually go and read the posts. :D
24.
by antonhowes 4y ago
Hello, author here. I mention this in Part I to link to a prior piece specifically on Ayanz, as this is hugely misunderstood. Ayanz’s machine only used the expansive force of steam, while Savery’s used both atmospheric pressure and the ex