Coreleus Corneleus wrote:
If you are using google or some other ancient post archiver, this post
might insert into the old thread.

Anyway, I have been wondering.

What is the concensus on Hero's engine?

Could it have been used for the practical purpose for pumping water or
powering mills in ancient Rome?

Absolutely not. It was a turbine not an piston engine.
Getting useful work out of a turbine was more than a century
after the piston steam engine OTL.

And we have no idea what it looked like despite the common drawings
that look old. My best guess it was like the weight on a pressure
cooker and spun horizontally. Otherwise we have to ask what he used
for seal on his bearings.

In sci.physics, Matt Giwer
jull43@tampabay.rr.com
wrote
on Thu, 05 Feb 2004 11:01:17 GMT
1opUb.23704$rj7.236701@twister.tampabay.rr.com>:
Coreleus Corneleus wrote:
If you are using google or some other ancient post archiver, this post
might insert into the old thread.

Anyway, I have been wondering.

What is the concensus on Hero's engine?

Could it have been used for the practical purpose for pumping water or
powering mills in ancient Rome?

Absolutely not. It was a turbine not an piston engine.
Getting useful work out of a turbine was more than a century
after the piston steam engine OTL.

Actually, as I recall diagrams of the device, it was a
small brass bomb with two outlets, vaguely reminiscent of
a dual whistling teakettle, with its spin axis horizontal.
There are many practical problems with such a device,
the simplest one being: how does one keep the hot water
inside? The hot water will fall out of the bottom nozzle
as it spins -- straight into the fire or perhaps splashed
onto any curious onlookers. Ow!

I do not know how adept the Romans were with brass.
I'm assuming they'd not figured out iron yet.

AIUI, a true turbine requires fan blades of some sort,

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:57:30 -0800, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net
wrote:

Coreleus Corneleus wrote:

If you are using google or some other ancient post archiver, this post
might insert into the old thread.

Anyway, I have been wondering.

What is the concensus on Hero's engine?

Could it have been used for the practical purpose for pumping water or
powering mills in ancient Rome?
[snip]

Ancient Rome charged water usage assuming flow scaled linearly with
pipe diameter. Rome was wholy incapable of doing engineering that
could not be jury-rigged by trial and error or stolen from their
technological betters.

I think that last is an overstatement. For example, from whom did the
Romans steal the chain pump described in
http://www.christopp.co.uk/pract_romanw.htm

Then there is the 170km Serino aqueduct and associated branches and
distribution systems, built at the time of Augustus, virtually all
underground and with a very precisely controlled slope to match the
hydraulic grade line.
http://www.cib.na.cnr.it/Napoli/itinerary2/acquedot.html
http://www.pompeisepolta.com/english/castellum.htm

In the "so called" "Dark Ages" everything leapt forward in technology
despite the reduction in literacy. That too was to a degree an artifact of
the Xtians most of whose clergy much prefered an ignorant flock who didn't
argue.

One of the more remarkably silly statements to appear on Usenet so far this
year. The only technology that survived the arrival of the barbarians was
preserved by the church. Monasteries ran the only schools and encouraged the
spread of literacy among barbarians who had never seen paper before.

In sci.physics, Matt Giwer
jull43@tampabay.rr.com
wrote
on Thu, 05 Feb 2004 11:01:17 GMT
1opUb.23704$rj7.236701@twister.tampabay.rr.com>:
Coreleus Corneleus wrote:
If you are using google or some other ancient post archiver, this post
might insert into the old thread.

Anyway, I have been wondering.

What is the concensus on Hero's engine?

Could it have been used for the practical purpose for pumping water or
powering mills in ancient Rome?

Absolutely not. It was a turbine not an piston engine.
Getting useful work out of a turbine was more than a century
after the piston steam engine OTL.

Actually, as I recall diagrams of the device, it was a
small brass bomb with two outlets, vaguely reminiscent of
a dual whistling teakettle, with its spin axis horizontal.
There are many practical problems with such a device,
the simplest one being: how does one keep the hot water
inside? The hot water will fall out of the bottom nozzle
as it spins -- straight into the fire or perhaps splashed
onto any curious onlookers. Ow!

An alternative might be to jet the steam out of the sides,
with the pipe both serving as thruster and bearing. The
device would look a bit like a ball with an oddly bent pipe
sticking through it; the unit would be mounted into two
fittings over a fire after water-charging. Such a device
would not take a full charge, as the water level could
never be more than half full, but at least it wouldn't
all fall out.

If one constructs the bomb such that the steam comes out
near the top and directs the steam into two jets imparting
a torque, and somehow mounts the entire device over a fire
using a simple framework, with the actual spin axis being
vertical, one might have an interesting spinning curiosity
until it exhausts its supply of water. It still wouldn't
be horribly useful, though it might run longer.

A weird possibility involves attachment of propeller blades
to the bomb, probably parallel to the steam nozzles, and
then denting the bomb (or perhaps converting it into a
fat water-holding torus) so that it can sit on a vertical
cast-iron rod on a device placed in the coals, perhaps
even containing the coals. Charge the device with water,
heat, and let spin. After awhile the spin might be fast
enough (or the device light enough) to lift the entire
bomb into the air; latent heat would keep it in there
for a short time until it decides to drop down on some
poor unsuspecting passer-by. I could see this done as a
publicity stunt, but that's about it, and the authorities
would probably frown upon such tomfoolery unless done in,
say, the middle of a field, with onlookers kept at a very
safe distance.

I do not know how adept the Romans were with brass.
I'm assuming they'd not figured out iron yet.

AIUI, a true turbine requires fan blades of some sort,....

convert the movement of steam in a steam jet into rotational
momentum. That was probably the most useful innovation,
after perhaps feeding the boiler output into a piston
a la James Watt.


And we have no idea what it looked like despite the common drawings
that look old. My best guess it was like the weight on a pressure
cooker and spun horizontally. Otherwise we have to ask what he used
for seal on his bearings.


That, and how he kept the water in prior to boiling. Of course
for such a curiosity sleeve bearings would probably work, if the
fire's hot enough.

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message news:<60k2209tban5jibvel1f6fm4n1kgkj2d9o@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:57:30 -0800, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net
wrote:

Coreleus Corneleus wrote:

If you are using google or some other ancient post archiver, this post
might insert into the old thread.

Anyway, I have been wondering.

What is the concensus on Hero's engine?

Could it have been used for the practical purpose for pumping water or
powering mills in ancient Rome?
[snip]

Ancient Rome charged water usage assuming flow scaled linearly with
pipe diameter. Rome was wholy incapable of doing engineering that
could not be jury-rigged by trial and error or stolen from their
technological betters.

I think that last is an overstatement. For example, from whom did the
Romans steal the chain pump described in
http://www.christopp.co.uk/pract_romanw.htm

Then there is the 170km Serino aqueduct and associated branches and
distribution systems, built at the time of Augustus, virtually all
underground and with a very precisely controlled slope to match the
hydraulic grade line.
http://www.cib.na.cnr.it/Napoli/itinerary2/acquedot.html
http://www.pompeisepolta.com/english/castellum.htm



i think the arguement re:water delivery is that the romans didnt
understand putting pressure at one end of the system and using pipe
diameter to control the flow rate. aqueducts are of course a brillant
way of getting around that lack of information and theory. Also,
tangentially, didn't the romans deal with the excessive force/water
pressure at the 'spout' end(s) of an aqueduct by making the system
empty into a fountain which could have water forcefuly expelled from
it and collected in its basin (thus making drawing water for personal
use from an aqueduct viabel)?

Would anyone here like to try expressing Pi in Roman numerals?

Would anyone here like to try expressing Pi in Roman numerals?

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:lub520t7jt1vs7odvgl0tn6bcrjpaa5dop@4ax.com...

Would anyone here like to try expressing Pi in Roman numerals? :-)

III.

In article <40218fcc@news.auckland.ac.nz>, Cliff Wright
c.wright@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 07:09:59 GMT, Ken Down <diggings@argonet.co.uk
wrote:

---- snip -----

In the "so called" "Dark Ages" everything leapt forward in technology
despite the reduction in literacy. That too was to a degree an artifact of
the Xtians most of whose clergy much prefered an ignorant flock who didn't
argue.

One of the more remarkably silly statements to appear on Usenet so far this
year. The only technology that survived the arrival of the barbarians was
preserved by the church. Monasteries ran the only schools and encouraged the
spread of literacy among barbarians who had never seen paper before.

While I agree with your general thrust, there is a fair amount of
truth in what Cliff Wright has said as well.

The church taught people to read and right but encouraged the reading
and writing of only approved religious works. The bible was not
generally available to the populace at large for example. Works were
written and rewritten to reflect the official view. The church kept
the knowledge of reading and writing alive but suppressed much else.

Mike Baillie in from 'Exodus to Arthur' has some interesting comments
exactly in line with Cliff's remarks, about the apparent official
suppression of reports of celestial phenomena in a ten year period
circa 540 AD.



Eric Stevens

Would anyone here like to try expressing Pi in Roman numerals? :-)

III.

Why do you even post this?

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message news:<7975201ld7ch4jsui6sh83dd95g5opgum7@4ax.com>...
In article <40218fcc@news.auckland.ac.nz>, Cliff Wright
c.wright@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 07:09:59 GMT, Ken Down <diggings@argonet.co.uk
wrote:

---- snip -----

In the "so called" "Dark Ages" everything leapt forward in technology
despite the reduction in literacy. That too was to a degree an artifact of
the Xtians most of whose clergy much prefered an ignorant flock who didn't
argue.

One of the more remarkably silly statements to appear on Usenet so far this
year. The only technology that survived the arrival of the barbarians was
preserved by the church. Monasteries ran the only schools and encouraged the
spread of literacy among barbarians who had never seen paper before.

While I agree with your general thrust, there is a fair amount of
truth in what Cliff Wright has said as well.

The church taught people to read and right but encouraged the reading
and writing of only approved religious works. The bible was not
generally available to the populace at large for example. Works were
written and rewritten to reflect the official view. The church kept
the knowledge of reading and writing alive but suppressed much else.

Mike Baillie in from 'Exodus to Arthur' has some interesting comments
exactly in line with Cliff's remarks, about the apparent official
suppression of reports of celestial phenomena in a ten year period
circa 540 AD.

In article <40218fcc@news.auckland.ac.nz>, Cliff Wright
c.wright@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 07:09:59 GMT, Ken Down <diggings@argonet.co.uk
wrote:

---- snip -----

In the "so called" "Dark Ages" everything leapt forward in technology
despite the reduction in literacy. That too was to a degree an artifact of
the Xtians most of whose clergy much prefered an ignorant flock who didn't
argue.

One of the more remarkably silly statements to appear on Usenet so far this
year. The only technology that survived the arrival of the barbarians was
preserved by the church. Monasteries ran the only schools and encouraged the
spread of literacy among barbarians who had never seen paper before.

While I agree with your general thrust, there is a fair amount of
truth in what Cliff Wright has said as well.

The church taught people to read and right but encouraged the reading
and writing of only approved religious works.

The bible was not
generally available to the populace at large for example.

Works were
written and rewritten to reflect the official view. The church kept
the knowledge of reading and writing alive but suppressed much else.

Mike Baillie in from 'Exodus to Arthur' has some interesting comments
exactly in line with Cliff's remarks, about the apparent official
suppression of reports of celestial phenomena in a ten year period
circa 540 AD.

In sci.physics, Matt Giwer
jull43@tampabay.rr.com
wrote
on Thu, 05 Feb 2004 11:01:17 GMT
1opUb.23704$rj7.236701@twister.tampabay.rr.com>:

Coreleus Corneleus wrote:

If you are using google or some other ancient post archiver, this post
might insert into the old thread.

Anyway, I have been wondering.

What is the concensus on Hero's engine?

Could it have been used for the practical purpose for pumping water or
powering mills in ancient Rome?

Absolutely not. It was a turbine not an piston engine.
Getting useful work out of a turbine was more than a century
after the piston steam engine OTL.

Actually, as I recall diagrams of the device, it was a
small brass bomb with two outlets, vaguely reminiscent of
a dual whistling teakettle, with its spin axis horizontal.
There are many practical problems with such a device,
the simplest one being: how does one keep the hot water
inside? The hot water will fall out of the bottom nozzle
as it spins -- straight into the fire or perhaps splashed
onto any curious onlookers. Ow!

An alternative might be to jet the steam out of the sides,
with the pipe both serving as thruster and bearing. The
device would look a bit like a ball with an oddly bent pipe
sticking through it; the unit would be mounted into two
fittings over a fire after water-charging. Such a device
would not take a full charge, as the water level could
never be more than half full, but at least it wouldn't
all fall out.

If one constructs the bomb such that the steam comes out
near the top and directs the steam into two jets imparting
a torque, and somehow mounts the entire device over a fire
using a simple framework, with the actual spin axis being
vertical, one might have an interesting spinning curiosity
until it exhausts its supply of water. It still wouldn't
be horribly useful, though it might run longer.