5 ms·

Ancient Greeks had a steam engine. They called it a Hero's engine. They used it as a toy. They couldn't use it as anything else than a toy. The reason they cou

Ancient Greeks had a steam engine. They called it a Hero's engine. They used it as a toy. They couldn't use it as anything else than a toy. The reason they couldn't because they didn't have the metallurgy and the machining to create pistons, valves, etc. There's an important lesson that can be applied to every technology, I think: technological progress is always iterated, never revolutionized. If your novelty - a programming language, a framework, a methodology, whatever - doesn't stand on the shoulders of the giants, then you have simply nothing to apply this novelty to.

userbinator 2mo ago
That was a reaction engine, something like a steam rocket confined to rotate in a circle, and not a positive-displacement engine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile They couldn't use it as anything else than a toy. The reason they couldn't because they didn't have the metallurgy and the machining to create pistons, valves, etc. IMHO they definitely had the processes to basically add a PTO to one, but it was probably dismissed as impractical.
peterfirefly 2mo ago
[dead]
mr_toad 2mo ago
> The reason they couldn't because they didn't have the metallurgy and the machining to create pistons, valves, etc. It was a turbine. You don’t use pistons in a turbine. They lacked knowledge of turbine blades, the metallurgy to make pressure vessels, and the tools to make parts with the tolerances needed to spin at high RPM and withstand high temperatures.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  Probably could've connected it to some tiny device, and then someone surely would've thought, what if we made a really big one a d connected it to our Archimedes screws?
  - foxglacier 2mo ago
    The Romans didn't have a need to pump water from coal mines because they hadn't yet cut down all their fuel forests or exhausted all their surface deposits of coal. Newcomen's engine was so inefficient, it needed to be at a coal mine to power it and this jet screw engine would have been even worse. If they wanted to turn an Archimedes screw, it would have taken less labor to just have a person turn it by hand.
    - inigyou 2mo ago
      I'm sure they could afford to build one or two as an experiment.

userbinator 2mo ago

That was a reaction engine, something like a steam rocket confined to rotate in a circle, and not a positive-displacement engine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile They couldn't use it as anything else than a toy. The reason they couldn't because they didn't have the metallurgy and the machining to create pistons, valves, etc. IMHO they definitely had the processes to basically add a PTO to one, but it was probably dismissed as impractical.

peterfirefly 2mo ago

[dead]

mr_toad 2mo ago

> The reason they couldn't because they didn't have the metallurgy and the machining to create pistons, valves, etc. It was a turbine. You don’t use pistons in a turbine. They lacked knowledge of turbine blades, the metallurgy to make pressure vessels, and the tools to make parts with the tolerances needed to spin at high RPM and withstand high temperatures.

inigyou 2mo ago
Probably could've connected it to some tiny device, and then someone surely would've thought, what if we made a really big one a d connected it to our Archimedes screws?
- foxglacier 2mo ago
  The Romans didn't have a need to pump water from coal mines because they hadn't yet cut down all their fuel forests or exhausted all their surface deposits of coal. Newcomen's engine was so inefficient, it needed to be at a coal mine to power it and this jet screw engine would have been even worse. If they wanted to turn an Archimedes screw, it would have taken less labor to just have a person turn it by hand.
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    I'm sure they could afford to build one or two as an experiment.