Finally a video that ACTUALLY shows the water being pumped out of the mine, rather than just ignoring the pump part altogether. Most videos only show the steam side of the beam. Thank you for this. I've been looking for a video like this for so long.
In Britain from 1800 to 1900. 20,000 Water-wheels decreased in number. Windmills decreased in number. The Englishman Thomas Newcomen's 1,500 Atmospheric Pumps disappeared. The Scotsman James Watt's 500 Steam Engines and their descendants increased in number to 10,000,000 !!! For every SINGLE Water-wheel in 1800 there were now 500 Steam Engines in 1900 An increase in Power generation of between 400 and 500 times for the whole country, and consequently in production of goods or whatever. This WAS the Industrial Revolution. And it was all due to James Watt's invention of the world's first PRACTICAL Steam Powered Engine.
Thank you so much for this video. I recently started volunteering as an engine driver for a steam operated beam engine, now when asked questions I shall refer to your explanation. The Watts Parallel motion linkage on our steam engine is fascinating to watch in motion, almost hypnotic.
Hi David, Others have asked how the pistons sealed in the cylinders. The piston rings used in internal combustion engines and more modern stream engines were developed much later. Another viewer asked how the pistons were sealed in the day of Newcomen (and Watt). Do you know the answer? Did they use leather or felt like early water pumps? Having said that I just found the following "Early engines had the piston sealed by a leather cup seal. Later a rope seal was used, kept in place by metal weights. ... The expiry of the patents led to a rush to install Watt engines in the 1790s," in gracesguide.co.uk.
The “vacuum “ or rather lower than atmospheric pressure does not suck the piston down, there is no sucking force or negative pressure. The force Newcombs engine’s could exert was limited to less than atmospheric pressure x the area of the piston, which given the boiler, cylinder and sealing standards of the day was why the Watts’s positive pressure steam engine took so long to replace the Newcombe engine, boiler explosions were a relatively common occurrence in the early days of steam engines. The other point to note is that the pump being driven in the set up shown is in effect a mirror image the Newcombe cylinder, again only atmospheric pressure is available to lift the water so the maximum head that set up could achieve was roughly 9 meters before cavitation would stop the pump. To get around this the pump was placed at the bottom of the mine shaft and connected to the beam via a long rod. As the pump now had to generate a force in excess of the weight of long column of water either the pump piston area had to be reduced or the steam cylinder had to be increased, reducing the pump area reduced the volume displaced at each cycle but increased the head that could be pumped, increasing the steam cylinder piston of course increased not only the force supplied to the beam but also to the walls of the cylinder increasing the need to provide stronger materials to resist implosion of the walls, sealing the piston also became much more difficult
Hi Kevin, I agree completely with your analysis. The animation is, in that sense, a simplification. The pumping mechanism was placed underground. For example the "Big Pump" at the gold mines in Thames, New Zealand was driven by a much more modern steam engine, but it was able to lift huge quantities of water from depths of 600 feet by placing underground pumps at 200, 400, and 600 feet.
Hi Kevin, Your analysis is exactly correct. Showing the pump in this way is a simplification to make it easier to understand. I know of a similar, but more modern pump in the New Zealand Gold Mines (Bella Street Pump House, Thames, NZ about 1880's) that had multiple pump stages going down 600 feet (180m) but driven by a steam engine located above ground. It still managed to pump huge quantities of water until the miners hit a fault line that connected with the sea and the mines flooded. To convert the horizontal motion of the large steam engine to vertical motion they used two quadrants that weighed 22 tons each. Atmospheric pressure is about 14.7 pounds per square inch (psi) and the pressure produced by the weight of water (head) is one psi for 2 feet depth. So 14.7 x 2 is approximately equivalent to 30 feet of water. The theoretical maximum depth using a pump at the surface is about 30 feet (9 meters).
Hi Evan, Watt's machine could work with, ( Steam Pressure one side of the piston, Vacuum on the other ) or without ( Steam Pressure one side of the piston Atmospheric Pressure on the other ) a condenser. That means with or without a Vacuum. He said himself, if there's not enough cold water to keep a condenser cold, just release the exhaust Steam to the Atmosphere. To do that it would have to be above Atmospheric Pressure. Newcomen used condensation in order to make use of Atmospheric Pressure, Watt used condensation to eliminate Atmospheric Pressure ( it opposes a Steam Engine ). There's a good utube video, ' Germany's Munchen Steam museum that shows a Watt engine with a Steam Pressure of 22 psi. 1.5 bar , 1.5 times Atmospheric Pressure. It's the only place I've seen the actual Steam Pressure, I wouldn't call that mild Steam Pressure! If it didn't have a condenser, it would waste 2/3 of it's Steam Power fighting Atmospheric Pressure, ( it's nothing to do with efficiency, or hot and cold cylinders). It would still work though, albeit at 7psi. Some Steamships worked at that Pressure, due to passenger preference for low pressure. If Newcomen's Pump had an output of 14.7psi. it would be 100% efficient, so it would be more like 10psi.
Could call Newcomen's Atmospheric Pump a gravity Pump . Weight of the air above the piston pushes the piston down ( the cylinder being open at the top ).
Atmospheric pressure is a friend to a Newcomen Atmospheric Pump, it's an enemy to Watt's High Pressure Steam Engine, in fact, it was a big problem for the first steam engines. Atmospheric pressure opposes a steam engine. The optional separate condenser on a Watt engine recirculates hot water and also eliminates Atmospheric Pressure.Makes Watt's High Pressure Steam Engine more efficient.
If the engine or pump provides Steam Power, then it's a Steam Engine or Steam Pump, ( James Watt's machines ). If the engine or pump provides Atmospheric Power, then it's an Atmospheric Engine or Pump, ( Thomas Newcomen's machines ).
Thanks for the complement! I did it with layers in PhotoShop. Now I am learning Blender at TheInventorCenter in Kingsport, TN. That is a steep learning curve! I see you are a big Blender fan.
Walter posted again (with several different names) with his view that Watt invented the steam engine, not Newcomen. We have discussed this many times now and cannot agree. Let the viewers decide for themselves. One thing that becomes obvious from these animations is that Watt's engine looks almost identical to the Newcomen steam engine. Apart from using a separate condenser, higher pressure steam, and the parallel linkage, the design is the same. So the biggest part of the invention came from Newcomen. Newcomen could not produce a "vacuum" without using the energy of steam. You cannot use the atmosphere to do work without supplying energy. That energy came from steam. Have you ever seen a vacuum pump without a motor to provide energy? There is no doubt that the source of energy for Newcomen's engine is steam. It cannot work without steam. This steam energy is used to generate mechanical energy to drive a water pump. The conversion of heat energy to mechanical energy is the definition of an engine. Clearly Newcomen's steam powered engine meets the definition of a steam engine. Watt's improvements were simply improvements of Newcomen's design. Watt did use the design to produce rotating motion from the oscillating movement of the beam engine, but that was a relatively simple addition which was also applied to the Newcomen steam engine. He used a novel design because someone had patented the crank, even though it had been known for centuries. The Cornish engine provided further improvement in efficiency over Watt's engine, simply by modifying the valve timing. Watt just sold himself to the public as the "inventor" of the steam engine. But he didn't really invent the steam engine. He just improved it. Watt's improvement came about 70 years after Newcomen's invention had become a big commercial success with thousands of machines produced , During those 60-70 years others had developed the technology to produce high pressure steam with some degree of safety, and the quality of engineering to produce pistons and cylinders that fit well improved. Some of that came from the development of cannon boring machines (Wilkinson) which had nothing to do with Watt. I just found this online: "Early engines had the piston sealed by a leather cup seal. Later a rope seal was used, kept in place by metal weights. ... The expiry of the patents led to a rush to install Watt engines in the 1790s," in Graces Guide: (www.gracesguide.co.uk/Newcomen_Engine). This is worth reading and confirms my insistence that Newcomen invented the first commercially successful steam engine. The following quote comes from Wikipedia: By 1800 (CE), hundreds of non-Watt rotary engines had been built, especially in collieries and ironworks where irregular motion was not a problem but also in textile mills.[5] Despite Watt's improvements, Common Engines (as they were then known) remained in use for a considerable time, and many more Newcomen engines than Watt ones were built even during the period of Watt's patent (up to 1800), as they were cheaper and less complicated. Of over 2,200 engines built in the 18th century, only about 450 were Watt engines. Elements of Watt's design, especially the Separate Condenser, were incorporated in many "pirate" engines. Even after 1800 Newcomen type engines continued to be built and condensers were added routinely to these. They were also commonly retro-fitted to existing Newcomen engines (the so-called "pickle-pot" condenser). (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Newcomen ). This makes it clear that there was not a sudden and complete transition to Watt's version of the steam engine. He had patents until 1800 which allowed him to collect a percentage of the savings on fuel by his more efficient engine. However, this was an added expense and Newcomen engines were not encumbered by patent issues. So it was not as though Watt's engine suddenly drove the industrial revolution. It was a gradual transition. The perpetual argument about Watt and Newcomen causes us to overlook the fact that Newcomen did not invent his steam engine alone (in a vacuum so-to-speak). In fact he worked closely with Savery who had previously used a steam generated vacuum to draw water out of a mine. We somewhat artificially define the inventor as the first person to produce a commercially successful steam engine. But I believe it was a Frenchman working with the famous Boyle (Boyles Law) in London who developed the idea of using a piston and cylinder to produce an engine - Denis Papin. It was HIS design that was the basis of the Newcomen engine and if we put the issue of commercial success to one side it is probably Papin who should be considered the inventor. He presented his ideas to the Royal Society in London but he could not afford full-scale development and patent which required an act of parliament in those days.. Newcomen took up the idea. In fact there were several people involved in the invention of the steam engine, and we should say that the steam engine was developed as a result of the work of several people including, but not limited to, Papin (perhaps Boyle), Savery, Newcomen, Watt and others. Of course Hero published the first known account of a steam engine about 2000 years ago (see my site www.HeroSteamEngine.com).
The motive force for a WATERwheel ( rotary engine ) is flowing WATER. The motive force for a WINDmill ( rotary engine ) is WIND. The motive force for a Newcomen ATMOSPHERIC Pump is natural ATMOSPHERIC weight, a max of 10psi. and no rotary motion. The motive force for a Watt STEAM Pump and rotary STEAM Engine is STEAM pressure with plenty room for future improvement. Smeaton the great English civil engineer spent half his life improving Newcomen's Atmospheric Pump, and he succeeded, but couldn't turn it into a Steam Engine. So, since it couldn't be improved, Watt invented the first PRACTICAL Steam Powered Engine.Watt solved the boiler problem by using a condenser to halve the Steam pressure needed, for the same amount of work without a condenser. Between 1800 and 1900 Newcomen's 1,500 Atmospheric Pumps virtually disappeared, Watt's Steam Engines and their descendants increased in number to 10,000,000 !!! No contest! The Steam Engine was the culmination of many people's work? You could say that about every Invention, but people don't, they normally like to boast about their nation's Inventors, it's only said about James Watt. Why is that? He's got more right to his Invention than most inventors, he was the only person in the whole of Britain working on it.The PRACTICAL Steam Powered Engine didn't exist before him, and the REAL Industrial Revolution, a 500 times increase in Power Output for the whole country, proves it. You know the vacuum doesn't pull the piston down, so why say it does? You know Atmospheric Pressure pushes it down.The Motive Force for Newcomen's machine is Atmospheric Weight. The Motive Force for Watt's machine is Steam Pressure. That's the difference between them. I rest my case!
It is interesting that you say "Watt solved the boiler problem by using a condenser to halve the steam pressure needed, for the same amount of work without a condenser. " Newcomen's engine used condensation as well. The condenser is a legacy of Newcomen's engine. Watt improved efficiency by moving the condensation process from the cylinder (cooling it with a water spray to create a 'vacuum'). Watt simply moved this process to a separate condensation chamber. He used the vacuum to increase the pressure difference across the piston: Vacuum on one side of the piston and mild steam pressure on the other. Atmospheric pressure exists everywhere but cannot be used to do any work unless you create a vacuum (Newcomen and Watt used steam to create the vacuum). By the way atmospheric pressure is about 14.7 pounds per square inch (psi), not 10 as you suggested. Watt used steam pressure of about 15 psi, on one side of the piston and up to 14.7 psi of negative pressure on the other side, making a total of about 30 psi difference. That explains his comment about getting the same amount of work for half the steam pressure. So he is attributing half the power of his engine to the Newcomen method. Admittedly, that changed with time and with higher steam pressure they found that they could run without using a condenser to create a vacuum.
Bloomfield Colliery Near Dudley 1776: ' Birmingham, March 11th. On Friday last a Steam Engine constructed upon Mr Watt's new principles, was set to work at Bloomfield Colliery, Dudley. From the first moment of it's setting to work it made about 14 or 15 strokes per minute, and emptied the engine pit (which is about 90 feet deep, and stood 57 feet high in water) in less than an hour. This engine is applied to the working of a pump 14 inches and a half diameter, which is capable of doing to the depth 300 feet, or even 360 if wanted, with one fourth of the fuel that a common engine would require to produce the fame quantity of power. The cylinder is 50 inches diameter, and the lenth of the stroke is seven feet. These engines are not worked by the pressure of the atmosphere. Their principles are very different from all others.
Thanks Walter. Note this report was in 1776 and the Newcomen engine was invented in 1712 leaving 64 years for the Newcomen Atmospheric Engine to be widely used with over 1500 engines in mines around Britain before the use of high pressure steam boilers could be developed.
Newcomen and Savery dumped High Pressure Steam Power for Atmospheric Power. Newcomen's Atmospheric Pump supplied Atmospheric Power, so, Atmospheric Pump. James Watt dumped Newcomen's Atmospheric Power and Arkwright's Water-Power for High Pressure Steam Power. He had to invent a new engine to achieve this, the world's first PRACTICAL High Pressure Steam Engine. This was the one and only invention that kicked of the Industrial Revolution. Watt's engine supplied High Pressure Steam Power, so, Steam Engine. Like a Water-Wheel supplies Water Power and a Windmill supplies Wind Power. If you want Rotary Motion or Steam power you definitely don't want a Newcomen Atmospheric Pump! You Need a Watt High Pressure Steam engine! Even a 100% efficient Newcomen pump will only give 14.7psi of Atmospheric power, and we know that's impossible! In practice it would be 10psi. Max .and no rotary power. It couldn't be improved, even by James Watt.
Hi. Brilliant video. Quick question, the cool water injection used to condense/create the vacuum, what was the process of injection? Was it gravity; having the cool water higher than the cylinder thus it was merely a case of knocking the cool water tap on/off in the stages of the engine cycle? Ta.
Yes. Since this part of the cycle relies on generating a "vacuum", it should not require much water pressure to inject water into the cylinder, and if necessary the water tank could be raised higher to give more pressure. Glad you liked it!
Hi. You were asking for a simple book about the history of steam engines. Sorry I am not aware of any such book but they may be available. Obviously I like the advantages of online animation. I should use animation software to do this but I did these using layers in PhotoShop.
How does the engine piston go all the way back up to the top of the stroke if it is just equalising pressure in the chamber? Shouldn't it stop half way?
I think the answer is that the water pump on the left side is carrying a heavy load of water which pulls the left end of the beam down, and making the right-hand end rise up, pulling the piston back to the top. Note that, although the pump is shown at the same level as the steam piston, it would have been placed under ground, probably hundreds of feet down the mine and that includes a heavy shaft in addition to the weight of the water column on the left side.
The difference between Newcomen's Atmospheric Pump and Watt's High Pressure Steam engine is nothing to do with efficiency. It was all to with James Watt's dumping of Thomas Newcomen's Atmospheric Power and Arkwright's Water-Power for High Pressure Steam Power. Pretty Simple really, but I guess it must be a secret, nobody wants to mention it! To achieve that he had to INVENT a new engine, the world's first PRACTICAL High Pressure Steam Engine. It was the one and only invention that kicked of the Industrial Revolution. It was a power revolution. For the first time in human history we could replace the 2000 years or more old Water-wheel with something better.
Watt's Engine was three times more efficient than Smeaton's, but for a while, Smeaton believed that where coal was cheap, his engine might still be competitive. In 1777, Smeaton visited Boulton and Watt's fourth engine at Stratford-le-Bow. Boulton wrote to Watt that he had local intelligence that he had said it was: " a pretty engine, but it appeared to him, to be too complex; but that might in some degree, be owing to his not clearly understanding all ye parts ". " he gave the engineer money to drink, & the consequences of that was that ye next day the engine was almost broke to pieces ". Despite Smeaton's somewhat grudging praise, and his indirectly fuelling the thirst of the operator with terrible consequences, the race to offer the world efficient power was over.Smeaton's time consuming experiments, carried out in the prime of his life,- which would've been transformational at any other time in the previous 50 years- came to nothing. The final insult was the installation of a single Boulton and Watt engine at Chacewater Mine in 1778, using one of Smeaton's two years old cylinders as a steam jacket (surrounds and heats a cylinder). How did Smeaton react? Smeaton was initially defensive of his own improvements. In November 1776, John Wilkinson wrote to Boulton and Watt. " The great Smeaton ( I hear by several ) arraignes your Invention, says he has a better engine to produce on the old plan." An article in the ' Newcastle Courant ' in May 1779 said, " The superiority of the new engine , erected by Messrs Boulton and Watt, must therefore greatly promote the mining interest of this kingdom, since the proprietors of mines may save by the new improvements a sum equal to two thirds of that usually expended in fuel." This moved Smeaton to send an anonymous letter claiming that when the Boulton and Watt royalty was added, it would make it more expensive. His anonymous letter did'nt fool Boulton and Watt. Smeaton admitted to it later in a letter to James Watt justifying why he had felt compelled to write it. " To give engines at the same price that would save the proprietors two thirds of the value of all the fuel used were advantages that portended a general monopoly, & to put us all in your pockets at once."
You can't always tell a book by its cover, inside Watt's machine Steam's at work, inside Newcomen's machine Atmospheric weight's at work! Also the lowest pressure I've seen for Watt's machine is 22 psi. 1.5 bar, 1.5 times Atmospheric Pressure. I wouldn't call that ' very low pressure '. ( Munich Museum ).
The Newcomen Atmospheric Pump is not a heat Engine.The Watt Steam Pump is a heat engine. That's what my Smartphone says, and I agree. In Newcomen's Atmospheric Pump, heat energy from coal changes water to Steam. Steam doesn't pass any heat energy to the Pump's motion. All it's energy comes from gravitational weight, the weight of Air sitting on top of the piston.
Newcomen's machine was designed and built to supply Atmospheric Power. Watt's machine was designed and built to supply Steam Power. They are two different machines, so they shouldn't have the same name. What's wrong with Atmospheric engine and Steam engine, seems pretty logical to me. Or is it something to do with the Steam Engine being the Industrial Revolution, logic goes out the window? There's an Industrial Revolution's worth of difference between Newcomen's Atmospheric engine and Watt's Steam engine.
I don't know precisely. Piston rings were not invented until 1825. Prior to that pumps used leather. In the early days of steam engine development they had problems making cylinders round. Eventually engineers developed a boring machine for making cannons and it was also used for boring cylinders. These engines used large cylinders and the ratio of circumference divided by steam volume is reduced. This reduces the effect of air or steam loss past the piston.
The Newcomen Engine in the drawing wouldn't work, the cylinder should be open to the Atmosphere at the top. It's misleading. Also, the vacuum in Watt's Engine isn't, ' really Atmospheric Pressure '.
In Newcomen's Atmospheric Pump, Atmospheric Pressure does the work. In Watt's Steam Engine, Steam Pressure does work, just like a Locomotive! Take away James Watt's Steam Power and you've got no Industrial Revolution! No millions more Steam Powered Factories, Steamships, Locomotives etc.etc.etc. Just Newcomen Atmospheric Pumps and Arkwright's 2000 or more years old Water-Power.
The later engines are shown with a hot steam source and a separate cold condensing chamber with the working piston between. So two chambers are shown, although your definition of 'it' is not clear.
Watt's engine doesn't use atmospheric pressure, it uses steam pressure and supplies steam power. He said in his patent, if there's no water to cool a condenser, release used steam directly to the atmosphere. It works without a condenser. An atmospheric engine can't, it basically is a condenser. Watt's engine can use one to recirculate hot water and at the same time eliminate atmospheric pressure, which opposes a steam engine. Some manufacturers thought Watt's tolerances impossible to achieve, they had to improve their engineering. Some thought it too complicated to work. It's easy to create and condense steam, not so easy to keep it hanging around, outside the boiler long enough to move it around an engine and drive massive slow moving machinery without it condensing. Using high pressure steam, a new engine, and his own ideas on how to make it work, Watt invented the first practical steam engine. They'd built cylinders for atmospheric engines for 70 years but still didn't come up with a steam engine in all that time! Watt didn't have a factory or money and had to make a living at the same time. I don't see the difference between high and low pressure steam engines, they're all steam engines. Naturally the first ones will have lower pressures. It took another 70 years to get pressure high enough for a locomotive, Watt being long gone by then! Also don't know how they got a patent for a crank, they've been around since biblical times. But it shows the opposition he had in his work.
I respectfully beg to differ. To my mind a steam engine can use high-pressure steam, low-pressure steam, or steam induced vacuum. All three types are "steam engines". therefore Newcomen's was the first commercially successful steam engine.
The truth. For a change. All the bluster about heating and cooling cylinders, steam at atmospheric pressure, substitution of suction power for steam power,Watt not inventing the steam engine, doesn't change the fact that the Thomas Newcomen atmospheric pump was not a steam engine and Watt's was. James Watt didn't improve Newcomen's pump. It couldn't be improved, it was a 70 year long deadend. Even Arkwright had to make do with a remote water wheel. Watt invented a new engine,a steam powered engine (one that actually worked). A new beginning. It was the one and only invention that created the industrial revolution. Before him,no steam engines, after him, steam engines everywhere, thousands more factories, utilities and more, steamboats, locomotives, etc.etc.etc. The industrial revolution.
Hi Walter, Thank you for your input. Your interpretation fits with the view of many people who feel that Watt is responsible for the invention of the steam engine. That is certainly a valid point of view, and I would not strongly argue against it, and you brought up some good points about the importance of the developments. But I feel that it depends on your definition of a "steam engine". There were so many people involved in the process, developing various aspects of the technology, that I don't see any one person as THE inventor of the steam engine. In fact nearly all the components that Watt put together to build his steam had been invented by others - starting with Papin's development of the piston and cylinder. Watt came along at a time when the engineering technology was reaching the point where it was making it all possible. This includes the development of the boring machine for boring cannon, which could be used to bore cylinders.
You could say that about any Invention, especially with Spinning and Weaving. There's about 16 different people involved in improving Spinning and Weaving, yet they're all classed as inventors. What's so different about Watt, that he can't be classed as an inventor. He worked on his own in secret. The PRACTICAL Steam Powered Engine didn't exist before Watt. Newcomen's machine wasn't Steam Powered, it was Atmosphericaly Powered, like a Water-Wheel's water Powered.
Finally a video that ACTUALLY shows the water being pumped out of the mine, rather than just ignoring the pump part altogether. Most videos only show the steam side of the beam. Thank you for this. I've been looking for a video like this for so long.
I'm glad you found it useful.
In Britain from 1800 to 1900.
20,000 Water-wheels decreased in number.
Windmills decreased in number.
The Englishman Thomas Newcomen's 1,500 Atmospheric Pumps disappeared.
The Scotsman James Watt's 500 Steam Engines and their descendants
increased in number to 10,000,000 !!!
For every SINGLE Water-wheel in 1800
there were now 500 Steam Engines in 1900
An increase in Power generation of between 400 and 500 times for the whole country, and consequently in production of goods or whatever.
This WAS the Industrial Revolution.
And it was all due to James Watt's invention of the world's first PRACTICAL Steam Powered Engine.
Thank you so much for this video. I recently started volunteering as an engine driver for a steam operated beam engine, now when asked questions I shall refer to your explanation. The Watts Parallel motion linkage on our steam engine is fascinating to watch in motion, almost hypnotic.
That is great to hear! Where is the beam engine ypu are demonstrating? Kew?
Hi David, Others have asked how the pistons sealed in the cylinders. The piston rings used in internal combustion engines and more modern stream engines were developed much later. Another viewer asked how the pistons were sealed in the day of Newcomen (and Watt). Do you know the answer? Did they use leather or felt like early water pumps? Having said that I just found the following "Early engines had the piston sealed by a leather cup seal. Later a rope seal was used, kept in place by metal weights. ... The expiry of the patents led to a rush to install Watt engines in the 1790s," in gracesguide.co.uk.
thanks for this excellent introduction to these early steam engines
The “vacuum “ or rather lower than atmospheric pressure does not suck the piston down, there is no sucking force or negative pressure. The force Newcombs engine’s could exert was limited to less than atmospheric pressure x the area of the piston, which given the boiler, cylinder and sealing standards of the day was why the Watts’s positive pressure steam engine took so long to replace the Newcombe engine, boiler explosions were a relatively common occurrence in the early days of steam engines. The other point to note is that the pump being driven in the set up shown is in effect a mirror image the Newcombe cylinder, again only atmospheric pressure is available to lift the water so the maximum head that set up could achieve was roughly 9 meters before cavitation would stop the pump. To get around this the pump was placed at the bottom of the mine shaft and connected to the beam via a long rod. As the pump now had to generate a force in excess of the weight of long column of water either the pump piston area had to be reduced or the steam cylinder had to be increased, reducing the pump area reduced the volume displaced at each cycle but increased the head that could be pumped, increasing the steam cylinder piston of course increased not only the force supplied to the beam but also to the walls of the cylinder increasing the need to provide stronger materials to resist implosion of the walls, sealing the piston also became much more difficult
Hi Kevin, I agree completely with your analysis. The animation is, in that sense, a simplification. The pumping mechanism was placed underground. For example the "Big Pump" at the gold mines in Thames, New Zealand was driven by a much more modern steam engine, but it was able to lift huge quantities of water from depths of 600 feet by placing underground pumps at 200, 400, and 600 feet.
Hi Kevin, Your analysis is exactly correct. Showing the pump in this way is a simplification to make it easier to understand. I know of a similar, but more modern pump in the New Zealand Gold Mines (Bella Street Pump House, Thames, NZ about 1880's) that had multiple pump stages going down 600 feet (180m) but driven by a steam engine located above ground. It still managed to pump huge quantities of water until the miners hit a fault line that connected with the sea and the mines flooded. To convert the horizontal motion of the large steam engine to vertical motion they used two quadrants that weighed 22 tons each. Atmospheric pressure is about 14.7 pounds per square inch (psi) and the pressure produced by the weight of water (head) is one psi for 2 feet depth. So 14.7 x 2 is approximately equivalent to 30 feet of water. The theoretical maximum depth using a pump at the surface is about 30 feet (9 meters).
An excellent presentation! Thanks for the upload.
Thanks for the feedback!
Hi Evan, Watt's machine could work with, ( Steam Pressure one side of the piston, Vacuum on the other ) or without ( Steam Pressure one side of the piston Atmospheric Pressure on the other ) a condenser. That means with or without a Vacuum. He said himself, if there's not enough cold water to keep a condenser cold, just release the exhaust Steam to the Atmosphere. To do that it would have to be above Atmospheric Pressure. Newcomen used condensation in order to make use of Atmospheric Pressure, Watt used condensation to eliminate Atmospheric Pressure ( it opposes a Steam Engine ). There's a good utube video, ' Germany's Munchen Steam museum that shows a Watt engine with a Steam Pressure of 22 psi. 1.5 bar , 1.5 times Atmospheric Pressure. It's the only place I've seen the actual Steam Pressure, I wouldn't call that mild Steam Pressure! If it didn't have a condenser, it would waste 2/3 of it's Steam Power fighting Atmospheric Pressure, ( it's nothing to do with efficiency, or hot and cold cylinders). It would still work though, albeit at 7psi. Some Steamships worked at that Pressure, due to passenger preference for low pressure. If Newcomen's Pump had an output of 14.7psi. it would be 100% efficient, so it would be more like 10psi.
Could call Newcomen's Atmospheric Pump a gravity Pump .
Weight of the air above the piston pushes the piston down ( the cylinder being open at the top ).
Atmospheric pressure is a friend to a Newcomen Atmospheric Pump, it's an enemy to Watt's High Pressure Steam Engine, in fact, it was a big problem for the first steam engines. Atmospheric pressure opposes a steam engine.
The optional separate condenser on a Watt engine recirculates hot water and also eliminates Atmospheric Pressure.Makes Watt's High Pressure Steam Engine more efficient.
If the engine or pump provides Steam Power, then it's a Steam Engine or Steam Pump, ( James Watt's machines ).
If the engine or pump provides Atmospheric Power, then it's an Atmospheric Engine or Pump, ( Thomas Newcomen's machines ).
Well explained thanks often wondered how they worked
Glad you liked it. Thanks for the feedback.
Good video, thanks.
Thanks for the complement! I did it with layers in PhotoShop. Now I am learning Blender at TheInventorCenter in Kingsport, TN. That is a steep learning curve! I see you are a big Blender fan.
Great video. Thank you!
Walter posted again (with several different names) with his view that Watt invented the steam engine, not Newcomen. We have discussed this many times now and cannot agree. Let the viewers decide for themselves.
One thing that becomes obvious from these animations is that Watt's engine looks almost identical to the Newcomen steam engine. Apart from using a separate condenser, higher pressure steam, and the parallel linkage, the design is the same. So the biggest part of the invention came from Newcomen.
Newcomen could not produce a "vacuum" without using the energy of steam. You cannot use the atmosphere to do work without supplying energy. That energy came from steam. Have you ever seen a vacuum pump without a motor to provide energy? There is no doubt that the source of energy for Newcomen's engine is steam. It cannot work without steam. This steam energy is used to generate mechanical energy to drive a water pump. The conversion of heat energy to mechanical energy is the definition of an engine. Clearly Newcomen's steam powered engine meets the definition of a steam engine. Watt's improvements were simply improvements of Newcomen's design.
Watt did use the design to produce rotating motion from the oscillating movement of the beam engine, but that was a relatively simple addition which was also applied to the Newcomen steam engine. He used a novel design because someone had patented the crank, even though it had been known for centuries.
The Cornish engine provided further improvement in efficiency over Watt's engine, simply by modifying the valve timing. Watt just sold himself to the public as the "inventor" of the steam engine. But he didn't really invent the steam engine. He just improved it. Watt's improvement came about 70 years after Newcomen's invention had become a big commercial success with thousands of machines produced , During those 60-70 years others had developed the technology to produce high pressure steam with some degree of safety, and the quality of engineering to produce pistons and cylinders that fit well improved. Some of that came from the development of cannon boring machines (Wilkinson) which had nothing to do with Watt.
I just found this online: "Early engines had the piston sealed by a leather cup seal. Later a rope seal was used, kept in place by metal weights. ... The expiry of the patents led to a rush to install Watt engines in the 1790s,"
in Graces Guide: (www.gracesguide.co.uk/Newcomen_Engine). This is worth reading and confirms my insistence that Newcomen invented the first commercially successful steam engine.
The following quote comes from Wikipedia: By 1800 (CE), hundreds of non-Watt rotary engines had been built, especially in collieries and ironworks where irregular motion was not a problem but also in textile mills.[5]
Despite Watt's improvements, Common Engines (as they were then known) remained in use for a considerable time, and many more Newcomen engines than Watt ones were built even during the period of Watt's patent (up to 1800), as they were cheaper and less complicated. Of over 2,200 engines built in the 18th century, only about 450 were Watt engines. Elements of Watt's design, especially the Separate Condenser, were incorporated in many "pirate" engines. Even after 1800 Newcomen type engines continued to be built and condensers were added routinely to these. They were also commonly retro-fitted to existing Newcomen engines (the so-called "pickle-pot" condenser). (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Newcomen ).
This makes it clear that there was not a sudden and complete transition to Watt's version of the steam engine. He had patents until 1800 which allowed him to collect a percentage of the savings on fuel by his more efficient engine. However, this was an added expense and Newcomen engines were not encumbered by patent issues. So it was not as though Watt's engine suddenly drove the industrial revolution. It was a gradual transition.
The perpetual argument about Watt and Newcomen causes us to overlook the fact that Newcomen did not invent his steam engine alone (in a vacuum so-to-speak). In fact he worked closely with Savery who had previously used a steam generated vacuum to draw water out of a mine. We somewhat artificially define the inventor as the first person to produce a commercially successful steam engine. But I believe it was a Frenchman working with the famous Boyle (Boyles Law) in London who developed the idea of using a piston and cylinder to produce an engine - Denis Papin. It was HIS design that was the basis of the Newcomen engine and if we put the issue of commercial success to one side it is probably Papin who should be considered the inventor. He presented his ideas to the Royal Society in London but he could not afford full-scale development and patent which required an act of parliament in those days.. Newcomen took up the idea.
In fact there were several people involved in the invention of the steam engine, and we should say that the steam engine was developed as a result of the work of several people including, but not limited to, Papin (perhaps Boyle), Savery, Newcomen, Watt and others.
Of course Hero published the first known account of a steam engine about 2000 years ago (see my site www.HeroSteamEngine.com).
The motive force for a WATERwheel ( rotary engine ) is flowing WATER. The motive force for a WINDmill ( rotary engine ) is WIND. The motive force for a Newcomen ATMOSPHERIC Pump is natural ATMOSPHERIC weight, a max of 10psi. and no rotary motion. The motive force for a Watt STEAM Pump and rotary STEAM Engine is STEAM pressure with plenty room for future improvement. Smeaton the great English civil engineer spent half his life improving Newcomen's Atmospheric Pump, and he succeeded, but couldn't turn it into a Steam Engine. So, since it couldn't be improved, Watt invented the first PRACTICAL Steam Powered Engine.Watt solved the boiler problem by using a condenser to halve the Steam pressure needed, for the same amount of work without a condenser. Between 1800 and 1900 Newcomen's 1,500 Atmospheric Pumps virtually disappeared, Watt's Steam Engines and their descendants increased in number to 10,000,000 !!! No contest! The Steam Engine was the culmination of many people's work? You could say that about every Invention, but people don't, they normally like to boast about their nation's Inventors, it's only said about James Watt. Why is that? He's got more right to his Invention than most inventors, he was the only person in the whole of Britain working on it.The PRACTICAL Steam Powered Engine didn't exist before him, and the REAL Industrial Revolution, a 500 times increase in Power Output for the whole country, proves it. You know the vacuum doesn't pull the piston down, so why say it does? You know Atmospheric Pressure pushes it down.The Motive Force for Newcomen's machine is Atmospheric Weight. The Motive Force for Watt's machine is Steam Pressure. That's the difference between them. I rest my case!
It is interesting that you say "Watt solved the boiler problem by using a condenser to halve the steam pressure needed, for the same amount of work without a condenser. " Newcomen's engine used condensation as well. The condenser is a legacy of Newcomen's engine. Watt improved efficiency by moving the condensation process from the cylinder (cooling it with a water spray to create a 'vacuum'). Watt simply moved this process to a separate condensation chamber. He used the vacuum to increase the pressure difference across the piston: Vacuum on one side of the piston and mild steam pressure on the other. Atmospheric pressure exists everywhere but cannot be used to do any work unless you create a vacuum (Newcomen and Watt used steam to create the vacuum). By the way atmospheric pressure is about 14.7 pounds per square inch (psi), not 10 as you suggested. Watt used steam pressure of about 15 psi, on one side of the piston and up to 14.7 psi of negative pressure on the other side, making a total of about 30 psi difference. That explains his comment about getting the same amount of work for half the steam pressure. So he is attributing half the power of his engine to the Newcomen method. Admittedly, that changed with time and with higher steam pressure they found that they could run without using a condenser to create a vacuum.
Bloomfield Colliery
Near Dudley
1776: ' Birmingham, March 11th. On Friday last a Steam Engine constructed upon Mr Watt's new principles, was set to work at Bloomfield Colliery, Dudley. From the first moment of it's setting to work it made about 14 or 15 strokes per minute, and emptied the engine pit (which is about 90 feet deep, and stood 57 feet high in water) in less than an hour. This engine is applied to the working of a pump 14 inches and a half diameter, which is capable of doing to the depth 300 feet, or even 360 if wanted, with one fourth of the fuel that a common engine would require to produce the fame quantity of power. The cylinder is 50 inches diameter, and the lenth of the stroke is seven feet. These engines are not worked by the pressure of the atmosphere. Their principles are very different from all others.
Thanks Walter. Note this report was in 1776 and the Newcomen engine was invented in 1712 leaving 64 years for the Newcomen Atmospheric Engine to be widely used with over 1500 engines in mines around Britain before the use of high pressure steam boilers could be developed.
So Watt's Invention was a high pressure Steam Engine.
Newcomen and Savery dumped High Pressure Steam Power for Atmospheric Power.
Newcomen's Atmospheric Pump supplied Atmospheric Power, so, Atmospheric Pump.
James Watt dumped Newcomen's Atmospheric Power and Arkwright's Water-Power for High Pressure Steam Power.
He had to invent a new engine to achieve this, the world's first PRACTICAL High Pressure Steam Engine.
This was the one and only invention that kicked of the Industrial Revolution.
Watt's engine supplied High Pressure Steam Power, so, Steam Engine.
Like a Water-Wheel supplies Water Power and a Windmill supplies Wind Power.
If you want Rotary Motion or Steam power you definitely don't want a Newcomen Atmospheric Pump!
You Need a Watt High Pressure Steam engine!
Even a 100% efficient Newcomen pump will only give 14.7psi of Atmospheric power, and we know that's impossible! In practice it would be 10psi. Max .and no rotary power. It couldn't be improved, even by James Watt.
Hi. Brilliant video. Quick question, the cool water injection used to condense/create the vacuum, what was the process of injection? Was it gravity; having the cool water higher than the cylinder thus it was merely a case of knocking the cool water tap on/off in the stages of the engine cycle? Ta.
Yes. Since this part of the cycle relies on generating a "vacuum", it should not require much water pressure to inject water into the cylinder, and if necessary the water tank could be raised higher to give more pressure. Glad you liked it!
Hi. You were asking for a simple book about the history of steam engines. Sorry I am not aware of any such book but they may be available. Obviously I like the advantages of online animation. I should use animation software to do this but I did these using layers in PhotoShop.
@@Evan-e-cent Apologies. I thought perhaps I might be giving you extra work by asking for more information, thus I deleted said question.
@@Evan-e-cent lm
How does the engine piston go all the way back up to the top of the stroke if it is just equalising pressure in the chamber? Shouldn't it stop half way?
I think the answer is that the water pump on the left side is carrying a heavy load of water which pulls the left end of the beam down, and making the right-hand end rise up, pulling the piston back to the top. Note that, although the pump is shown at the same level as the steam piston, it would have been placed under ground, probably hundreds of feet down the mine and that includes a heavy shaft in addition to the weight of the water column on the left side.
The difference between Newcomen's Atmospheric Pump and Watt's High Pressure Steam engine is nothing to do with efficiency. It was all to with James Watt's dumping of Thomas Newcomen's Atmospheric Power and Arkwright's Water-Power for High Pressure Steam Power.
Pretty Simple really, but I guess it must be a secret, nobody wants to mention it!
To achieve that he had to INVENT a new engine, the world's first PRACTICAL High Pressure Steam Engine.
It was the one and only invention that kicked of the Industrial Revolution.
It was a power revolution.
For the first time in human history we could replace the 2000 years or more old Water-wheel with something better.
Watt's Engine was three times more efficient than Smeaton's, but for a while, Smeaton believed that where coal was cheap, his engine might still be competitive. In 1777, Smeaton visited Boulton and Watt's fourth engine at Stratford-le-Bow. Boulton wrote to Watt that he had local intelligence that he had said it was: " a pretty engine, but it appeared to him, to be too complex; but that might in some degree, be owing to his not clearly understanding all ye parts ". " he gave the engineer money to drink, & the consequences of that was that ye next day the engine was almost broke to pieces ". Despite Smeaton's somewhat grudging praise, and his indirectly fuelling the thirst of the operator with terrible consequences, the race to offer the world efficient power was over.Smeaton's time consuming experiments, carried out in the prime of his life,- which would've been transformational at any other time in the previous 50 years- came to nothing. The final insult was the installation of a single Boulton and Watt engine at Chacewater Mine in 1778, using one of Smeaton's two years old cylinders as a steam jacket (surrounds and heats a cylinder). How did Smeaton react? Smeaton was initially defensive of his own improvements. In November 1776, John Wilkinson wrote to Boulton and Watt. " The great Smeaton ( I hear by several ) arraignes your Invention, says he has a better engine to produce on the old plan." An article in the ' Newcastle Courant ' in May 1779 said, " The superiority of the new engine , erected by Messrs Boulton and Watt, must therefore greatly promote the mining interest of this kingdom, since the proprietors of mines may save by the new improvements a sum equal to two thirds of that usually expended in fuel." This moved Smeaton to send an anonymous letter claiming that when the Boulton and Watt royalty was added, it would make it more expensive. His anonymous letter did'nt fool Boulton and Watt. Smeaton admitted to it later in a letter to James Watt justifying why he had felt compelled to write it. " To give engines at the same price that would save the proprietors two thirds of the value of all the fuel used were advantages that portended a general monopoly, & to put us all in your pockets at once."
You can't always tell a book by its cover, inside Watt's machine Steam's at work, inside Newcomen's machine Atmospheric weight's at work!
Also the lowest pressure I've seen for Watt's machine is 22 psi. 1.5 bar, 1.5 times Atmospheric Pressure. I wouldn't call that ' very low pressure '. ( Munich Museum ).
The Newcomen Atmospheric Pump is not a heat Engine.The Watt Steam Pump is a heat engine. That's what my Smartphone says, and I agree. In Newcomen's Atmospheric Pump, heat energy from coal changes water to Steam. Steam doesn't pass any heat energy to the Pump's motion. All it's energy comes from gravitational weight, the weight of Air sitting on top of the piston.
3000 views exactly one year after it was produced.
Newcomen's machine was designed and built to supply Atmospheric Power.
Watt's machine was designed and built to supply Steam Power.
They are two different machines, so they shouldn't have the same name. What's wrong with Atmospheric engine and Steam engine, seems pretty logical to me. Or is it something to do with the Steam Engine being the Industrial Revolution, logic goes out the window?
There's an Industrial Revolution's worth of difference between Newcomen's Atmospheric engine and Watt's Steam engine.
What did they use to seal the pistons in the 1700s?
I don't know precisely. Piston rings were not invented until 1825. Prior to that pumps used leather. In the early days of steam engine development they had problems making cylinders round. Eventually engineers developed a boring machine for making cannons and it was also used for boring cylinders. These engines used large cylinders and the ratio of circumference divided by steam volume is reduced. This reduces the effect of air or steam loss past the piston.
The Newcomen Engine in the drawing wouldn't work, the cylinder should be open to the Atmosphere at the top.
It's misleading.
Also, the vacuum in Watt's Engine isn't, ' really Atmospheric Pressure '.
In Newcomen's Atmospheric Pump, Atmospheric Pressure does the work.
In Watt's Steam Engine, Steam Pressure does work, just like a Locomotive!
Take away James Watt's Steam Power and you've got no Industrial Revolution!
No millions more Steam Powered Factories, Steamships, Locomotives etc.etc.etc.
Just Newcomen Atmospheric Pumps and Arkwright's 2000 or more years old Water-Power.
always confusing should have been called vacuum engine as vacuum comes before atmosphere.
Type in " James Watt's Atmospheric Engines " and you'll get plenty of results, which is odd, considering he didn't build any Atmospheric Engines.
no it doesn't work as you say your diagram is misleading chambers were separated
The later engines are shown with a hot steam source and a separate cold condensing chamber with the working piston between. So two chambers are shown, although your definition of 'it' is not clear.
I think I understand it now it is a clever engine when one considers the poor materials then available.
Watt's engine doesn't use atmospheric pressure, it uses steam pressure and supplies steam power. He said in his patent, if there's no water to cool a condenser, release used steam directly to the atmosphere. It works without a condenser. An atmospheric engine can't, it basically is a condenser. Watt's engine can use one to recirculate hot water and at the same time eliminate atmospheric pressure, which opposes a steam engine. Some manufacturers thought Watt's tolerances impossible to achieve, they had to improve their engineering. Some thought it too complicated to work.
It's easy to create and condense steam, not so easy to keep it hanging around, outside the boiler long enough to move it around an engine and drive massive slow moving machinery without it condensing. Using high pressure steam, a new engine, and his own ideas on how to make it work, Watt invented the first practical steam engine. They'd built cylinders for atmospheric engines for 70 years but still didn't come up with a steam engine in all that time! Watt didn't have a factory or money and had to make a living at the same time.
I don't see the difference between high and low pressure steam engines, they're all steam engines. Naturally the first ones will have lower pressures. It took another 70 years to get pressure high enough for a locomotive, Watt being long gone by then! Also don't know how they got a patent for a crank, they've been around since biblical times. But it shows the opposition he had in his work.
I respectfully beg to differ. To my mind a steam engine can use high-pressure steam, low-pressure steam, or steam induced vacuum. All three types are "steam engines". therefore Newcomen's was the first commercially successful steam engine.
The truth. For a change. All the bluster about heating and cooling cylinders, steam at atmospheric pressure, substitution of suction power for steam power,Watt not inventing the steam engine, doesn't change the fact that the Thomas Newcomen atmospheric pump was not a steam engine and Watt's was. James Watt didn't improve Newcomen's pump. It couldn't be improved, it was a 70 year long deadend. Even Arkwright had to make do with a remote water wheel.
Watt invented a new engine,a steam powered engine (one that actually worked). A new beginning. It was the one and only invention that created the industrial revolution. Before him,no steam engines, after him, steam engines everywhere, thousands more factories, utilities and more, steamboats, locomotives, etc.etc.etc. The industrial revolution.
Hi Walter, Thank you for your input. Your interpretation fits with the view of many people who feel that Watt is responsible for the invention of the steam engine. That is certainly a valid point of view, and I would not strongly argue against it, and you brought up some good points about the importance of the developments. But I feel that it depends on your definition of a "steam engine". There were so many people involved in the process, developing various aspects of the technology, that I don't see any one person as THE inventor of the steam engine. In fact nearly all the components that Watt put together to build his steam had been invented by others - starting with Papin's development of the piston and cylinder. Watt came along at a time when the engineering technology was reaching the point where it was making it all possible. This includes the development of the boring machine for boring cannon, which could be used to bore cylinders.
You could say that about any Invention, especially with Spinning and Weaving.
There's about 16 different people involved in improving Spinning and Weaving, yet they're all classed as inventors.
What's so different about Watt, that he can't be classed as an inventor.
He worked on his own in secret.
The PRACTICAL Steam Powered Engine didn't exist before Watt.
Newcomen's machine wasn't Steam Powered, it was Atmosphericaly Powered, like a Water-Wheel's water Powered.