The delay in steampower generation

[RedRalphWiggum]

I'm reading a big coffee table book about engineers through history at the moment, and I must say, I hadn't realised how common the use of steam power to generate motion was even in ancient times. However, it only became used to generate industrial power in the 18th century. It seems really weird that no one grasped the possibility for hundreds and hundreds of years, is there some obvious reason it wasn't feasible until the 1700s, or is this just one of these things where everyone failed to see something that was staring them in the face?

PS, you know when you have a horrible feeling you are asking a really stupid question with a really obvious answer? Well, I have that now, so take it as given I'm aware I may be making a fool of myself.

 

[Tamerlan]

Steam power was used in a very specific industrial context : there were engines that were fed with coal that were used to help extracting coal (Newcomen engine). It took some time before "steam engines" were used in other contexts.

It's possible that if coal started to be "needed" (and available) much earlier than the 17th/18th century, such an invention could have been used.

There was also a good context, as during the 17th century, intellectuals got themselves to study physics and maths, and new scientific academies were founded in western Europe (RSc and the French academy).

Similarly, oil wasn't originally used for combustion engine. There was a demand for oil (in the 19th century), it started to be produced, and then some chaps thought that it could be used for a combustion engine.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

But people even thousands of years ago were aware of the concept that steam could be used to make objects move, it seems to me they should have foreseen this could have many applications, and important ones at that, but no one seems to have grasped this until the late 1700s

 

[Sarmatia1871]

But people even thousands of years ago were aware of the concept that steam could be used to make objects move, it seems to me they should have foreseen this could have many applications, and important ones at that, but no one seems to have grasped this until the late 1700s

There were more efficient ways of making things (like machines) move, in particular hand, water and wind power, and these are what early industrialization actually relied on.

You only really get safe, efficient compact steam-engines that are useable for anything other than big clunky tasks like pumping water in the early-19th century, and this depends more on associated technological developments than anything else.

 

[Amallric]

"Using steam to move objects" is more complicated than it sounds. Read up the descriptions of the early steam engines in Wikipedia. You need the concept of vacuum, not really understood until the 17th century, you need a way to avoid losing too much heat at every cycle, if you want a moveable engine you also need to design a "closed cycle" of sorts to be able to re-use the water.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

There were more efficient ways of making things (like machines) move, in particular hand, water and wind power, and these are what early industrialization actually relied on.

You only really get safe, efficient compact steam-engines that are useable for anything other than big clunky tasks like pumping water in the early-19th century, and this depends more on associated technological developments than anything else.

Like what?

 

[Anazagar]

Like what?

My gut tells me advances in metalurgy.

 

[Arilou]

My gut tells me advances in metalurgy.

Ding! We have a winner.

 

[Klausewitz]

But people even thousands of years ago were aware of the concept that steam could be used to make objects move, it seems to me they should have foreseen this could have many applications, and important ones at that, but no one seems to have grasped this until the late 1700s

I red one theory i found quite insightful:
Steampower provides work (in physical terms that is).
But as long as there is enough human labour to provide that work, why would anyone seek something else?
Steampower in the 18th century came into being because human labour was not as cheap and easily available anymore so that artificial work was viable.
In Greece and Roman in wasn't because they both employed massive armies of slave to do work.
In the middle ages serfs provided the work.
In China there were more people than work needed.
Only when shortage of labour meets a society that has a standard of science high enough to now of steam engines does steampower come into being.

 

[Xeorm]

Ding! We have a winner.

I'd think primarily advances in steel generation right? Iron seems like it wouldn't work nearly as well for the sort of pressures that a good steam generator would need.

 

[Polar Mongoose]

Presumably you also need suitable machine tools for the more advanced types of steam generation or imperfections in your engine will cause it to either lose the steam or destroy itself over time (or fairly rapidly).

 

[JodelDiplom]

I red one theory i found quite insightful:
Steampower provides work (in physical terms that is).
But as long as there is enough human labour to provide that work, why would anyone seek something else?
Steampower in the 18th century came into being because human labour was not as cheap and easily available anymore so that artificial work was viable.
In Greece and Roman in wasn't because they both employed massive armies of slave to do work.
In the middle ages serfs provided the work.
In China there were more people than work needed.
Only when shortage of labour meets a society that has a standard of science high enough to now of steam engines does steampower come into being.

The circumstances of the steam engine were even MORE "special": Not only was human labour more expensive (relative to steel, iron etc) than in antiquity; the coal mines in Britain were also unusually deep, and keeping them dry (by continuously pumping out the groundwater which seeps in) was just not possible any more using manually driven pumps.

In old times, the Romans (and others) would also use pumps to pump the water out, but their pumps were driven by animals. That kind of technology just didn't provide the necessary power that was needed for the British 18th century coal mines. This is what made it worthwhile to invest years of labour into the design and perfection of the first working steam engine.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

Still sort of surprising that they weren't even widely used on prestige projects IMO. The mere spectacle of work being done seemingly by magic... I remain surprised it was so widely ignored.

 

[gagenater]

Still sort of surprising that they weren't even widely used on prestige projects IMO. The mere spectacle of work being done seemingly by magic... I remain surprised it was so widely ignored.

It was more prestigious (even into the early 20th century) to have a swarm of people doing it to prove you were so rich that you could hire/own/control the labor of such a multitude merely as decorations or for menial tasks.

 

[Xeorm]

Still sort of surprising that they weren't even widely used on prestige projects IMO. The mere spectacle of work being done seemingly by magic... I remain surprised it was so widely ignored.

I doubt it would appear that magical. Not enough to offset the (probably) large cost of building the thing. Easier to grab some more servants or pretty clothes.

 

[kaoss]

My gut tells me advances in metalurgy.

That

Presumably you also need suitable machine tools for the more advanced types of steam generation or imperfections in your engine will cause it to either lose the steam or destroy itself over time (or fairly rapidly).

And that.

I'll go for those two reasons. you need materials resistant enough and precise manufacturing...

 

[Jos de trol]

2 millenia ago the world had far less infrastructure. It the progression of things history (particularly of societies without concepts of the scientific method) tends to follow the easier, more evident route. The basics of steam technology were known in antiquity, but it was a form of pioneer research with little practical application. Nobody could realistically know at that point that such a contraption could be much more efficient than the at that point readily available and proven technologies. It would have required a lot of further investment and research and in order to develop it relatively swiftly this would require focused intergenerational efforts, which was not going to happen in antiquity. I mean even in the present day it is a massive challenge (e.g. the whole cold fusion thing).

Essentially your question is the same as people 2.000 years from now wondering why we did not invest much more heavily in cold fusion/anti matter/... technology even though we knew the basics of this technology.

At the time in antiquity it would simply have made more sense for everyone to build another watermill or so, which was a technology that could immediately be put into practice with highly competitive results.

When there are little to no watermills, and you have the technology to build watermills, and you know that building a watermill would produce a high immediate return on investment, why would you not continue to build watermills? It's only once you already have a watermill, or you are faced with a problem watermills can't solve, that you would think about alternatives.

And once you do want an alternative, it would make a lot more sense to build a windmill for the same reasons ...

 

[Grosshaus]

The circumstances of the steam engine were even MORE "special": Not only was human labour more expensive (relative to steel, iron etc) than in antiquity; the coal mines in Britain were also unusually deep, and keeping them dry (by continuously pumping out the groundwater which seeps in) was just not possible any more using manually driven pumps.

Let's turn this around: what if those British mines weren't that deep and the urgency to innovate a steam engine there at that time doesn't materialise. Where and when would the next attempt be at - Germany, France, Sweden, Belgium?

 

[pithorr]

About motivation for the developement: I think at least ancient military might be tempted to use steam power for the propulsion of their navy. It seemed to be an important issue...

 

[Klausewitz]

Why would they?
There are galley slaves aplenty and those don't be pose a firehazard.