| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Archaeology Forum » The Roman Age of Steam
Page 1 of 13 Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Coreleus Corneleus |
 Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 10:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
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?
Was it used for the practical purpose for pumping water or powering
mills in ancient Rome, with the art being abandoned later on with the
middle ages?
Could it have been gradually adapted, along with windmills and water
turbines, to have spurred innovation in the middle ages in these
areas, due to its already having been put to a practical use, to the
point of having steam and combustion turbines and engines being
developed at the same time as greek fire?
If turbines had been developed even in the 1700s, would we ultimately
be using piston engines or turbine engines, for propelling smaller
moving machines (like automobiles, not jet aircraft)?
Are turbines with high-temperature ceramics still supposed to be in
the automobiles of the future (or even high-temperature modified
Wenkels)? What basic advantages do piston engines have over rotary or
turbine engines, besides the fact that the pistons themselves can be
bored in ways like the boring of cannon or smaller firearms?
Admittably, if Leonardo da Vinci would have had something like a small
primitave jet turbine engine or an internal combustion engine, he
would probably have been a Wright brother (possibly).
I will following put forth a few links and posts found in my web
search on the subject.
I found a new interesting way of waffeling: if you get a point in
history wrong, claim you are posting from an ATL.
Links/References/Earlier posts:
Magor earlier thread:
The Roman Age of Steam
Post to:
sci.archaeology
alt.history.what-if
soc.history.what-if
sci.physics
Links:
http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/rocketry/02.html
http://demoroom.physics.ncsu.edu/html/demos/303.html
http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyApparatus/Thermodynamics/Heros_Engine/Heros_Engine.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heron_of_Alexandria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_engine
Old earlier posts:
From: Robert J. Kolker
(bobkolker@usa.net)
Subject: Re: Technology What Ifs.
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Date: 2000/06/24
Keith Morrison wrote:
Quote:
The ancient Greek steam engine is the canonical example.
Only if the technology for making gears and
cranks were sufficient to put the steam power
to some use. By the way, Hero's engine was
a turbine and not a piston engine. As it was the
need for power could be supplied by animals
and human slaves. In OTL, the steam engine
came along just about the time when human
slavery was being phased out. That is one of
the reasons why it was developed.
If Hero's engine could have been combined with
the kind of turbine machinery found in mills
powered by water wheels history might have
been different.
I often speculate what would have happened in
Archimedes took an interest in steam engines.
Maybe the Romans would have been drive from
Syrakus by steam driven tanks.
As it was, Archimedes had "star wars" weapons.
He was burning Roman ships by using parabolic
mirrors.
A few more geniuses like Archimedes and societies
willing to let them play, and we would be flying
about the galaxy in star ships, along about now.
From: Seth Deitch (doktorf@stpiaacm.net)
Subject: Re: The Butterfly Effect
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Date: 1998/03/02
On Mon, 2 Mar 1998 05:57:11 GMT, iadmontg@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
(Ian) wrote:
Quote: More significantly, the applications of these theories
would be likely to be different than ours, also. As Hero's steam
engine
demonstrates, it's possible applications could be left in the dark
for
thousands of years, contrary to your assertions of "development
without
tremendous delay"!
Nope. "Hero's steam engine" had few applications because it was a
primitive, nearly-useless steam engine from a technology base which
was
nowhere near being able to manufacture more useful kinds. An analysis
of
history says that steam engines took off when a host of other
supporting
technologies was available, and indicates that Roman steam engines
would
require a vast improvement of Roman technology in many areas.
Most prototypes are not actual practical aplications. Some but not
all and its not a requirement that they be. A prototype must merely
demonstrate a principal which can be applied. A lot had to do with
Hero's vocation. While he was a very brilliant engineer, he seems to
have made his money constructing toys for the rich. He wrote several
books on mechanics which mostly gathered dust and only gained notice
for his "wonders" themselves rather than the principals behind them.
Had he been a merchant rather than a scholar, things might well have
been different.
In the industrial revolution, slave labor was either out or on the
way out depending on where you were and all sorts of automated textile
technology was on the way in. Watt's engine, which was an improvement
on earlier engines, notably that of Newcomen, was what started to make
that technology really usefull in terms of industrialization. Needless
to say, first century Rome, had no emerging automation allready in
place for the textile industry, or any other industry for that matter.
Hero's engine was not held back because of its mechanical failings,
but because of its surrounding technological and social environment.
Had things been slightly (fairly speaking, more than slightly)
different, things could have been otherwise.
Allow me to draw a parallel with the search for controlled fusion.
We are by no means sure that this technology can be made to work, but
we know the economic benefits would be tremendous if we can make it
work. Hero had no such idea of the economic benefit. Indeed, economic
benefit might have been absent even from a really good steam engine in
his era.
True enough technology drives society and economy, but the reverse
is just as true.
-Seth Deitch
From: Donald Tucker (bs925@FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Subject: Re: WI: Industrial revolution in the Roman Empire
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Date: 1998/02/04
You might find it useful to read the Posting Tips FAQ
sections 3.12 Ancient technolology and 3. Plausibility,
probability, the unexpected, luck and chance -- which
notes that It is not plausible to propose that the Roman
Empire survives almost unchanged to the present day,
For ease of reference here is the part on Ancient technology.
I suggest you visit the website to read the parts on enduring
empires and plausibility.
--------------------------------------------------------------
3.12 Ancient technolology. An early, and vivid fictional
AH proposed that as an alternative to the collapse of
the Roman Empire and the onset of the "Dark Ages" a
time-traveller arrived in Rome and introduced
twentieth century technology. This was L. Sprague de
Camp's 1939 novel, Lest Darkness Fall. The hero
introduces one invention after another, transforms
Rome and prevents the Fall. But you can make your what-if
operate within the realm of plausibility. Consider the classic
AH of the Roman steam engine:
The Romans were good at technological development, by taking
existing basic concepts and improving them where it was
sufficiently desired and cost-effective.
However they were not technical innovators.
Would the Romans be interested in developing a steam engine.
It is of primary value as a labor saving machine. But the
Romans had a glut of slaves and Plebs. Consider
cost-effectivness. Supply and demand meant that there was
nothing to be gained by developing machinery for anything
except toys and spectacles (temple doors etc). The Romans
were practical to the extreme and limited R&D to where they
needed it--cement, good plumbing (great baths are practical
from the point of view of the user).
Until the mid-19th century, with the advances in Chemistry,
technology has developed independently of science. Practical
measurements and iterative tests--often extremely
unsafe--were used instead of mathematical modelling to
develop things such as early cannon and steam engines. Check
out how, for example, James Watt perfected the steam
engine (1775).
The geometry that the Romans used in their construction was
sufficient for this project.
They knew about Euclid's "Elements" of geometry and there was no
shortage of Greek teachers to explain the finer points.
However, it would have been beyond Roman ability to make a working
steam engine until they developed a boring mill to manufacture
cylinders. This technology was developed in Europe to make better
cannon.
So Roman development of a working steam engine--as opposed to a
Hero's ball that spins by venting steam--would have depended on
improving their seige machinery by developing something that
fired through tubes. Gunpowder is not essential. The key is
precision matching of the tube and projectile diameters. Seems
like there is a possibility here for a good AH!
The creative AH designer might find another reason for the
Romans to develop a boring mill than to make cannon.
Alternatively, the AH designer might have the Romans stick to
rotation, and develop a steam turbine. However, this would have
its own requirements: including balancing and reliable,
effective bearings.
Either way, they'd have to perfect fairly high-quality steel.
Given several centuries the Romans could solve these problems.
But the AH designer must motivate the Romans to do so by making
labor much more expensive relative to machinery.
From: Pyotr Filipivich
(pyotr@coho.halcyon.com)
Subject: Re: Roman Scientific Revolution
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Date: 1996/05/12
neume001@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Craig J Neumeier) writes:
}This is an outgrowth of another post of mine.
}We've recently discussed Hero's steam engine as a chance for Rome to
have
}an Industrial Revolution, concluding [well, I did, anyway] that the
odds
}were remote.
}What about a Scientific Revolution, though? Oh, I know that the
Romans
}weren't really very science-minded, so let's be more specific:
} What if the Romans had started grinding lenses during the early
Empire,
}say at the time of Augustus? Note than Roman glassware was the most
}advanced in the world, and that Seneca (the Younger, I think, but it
might
}have been the Elder -- anyway, some time between 50 BC and 50 AD)
observed
}that a glass globe full of water made a page of letters enlarged and
more
}distinct.
} They *could* have experimented with lenses. Anyone else agree
that the
}telescope (Galileo) was important to the Scientific Revolution? What
}about the microscope, and the corresponding boost to the germ theory
of
}disease?
Personal opinion (that is, I can't quote, cite or appeal to specific
authorities) is that the Romans were good at rule of thumb
engineering,
but were hampered by a lack of unified theortical presupositions and a
ducedly unwieldly arithmatic system (Binary Coded Roman Numerals
anyone?)
If you think of XL not as "forty" but as "ten less than fifty", and
"XIX" as "one less than twenty", and III minus III as undefined,
you'll
see part of the problem.
As for the unifiying presuppositions - where there is a deity for each
and every activity, the secret of better beer is better propitiations
of
the proper piety, not some odd ball theory about the action of
"invisible animucles". Say what you will, until the concept of the
universe as the Watchmaker's masterpiece (in the modern sense of the
word), pervaded academic circles, 'learning' consisted of reading what
had been written by the Authority on the subject. Galen, Plato, Salon,
et al. But once the paradigm shift began, the entire universe was
opened
to study, as it was all understandable, having been created by one
logical and rational entity, and not a committee of emanations &
personifications of mankind's appetites.
As for a steam engine in the 3rd century - consider the technological
advances that were needed to exploit steam in the 1600s. Metalurgy,
precision measurments, record keeping (again with the numbers).
Granted, I can probably build a steam engine without knowing alot of
that technical stuff, but what manner efficency will I get? Why did
this one explode, and not that one? Why'd did it burst - and cause
such
a steam explosion in the first place?
more food for thought.
tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr@halcyon.com Pyotr Filipivich, amongst others.
From: Craig J Neumeier
(neume001@maroon.tc.umn.edu)
Subject: Re: Overrated and underrated turning points
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Date: 1998/05/15
gavin allen weaire <weaire@students.uiuc.edu> writes:
Quote: On 13 May 1998, Donald Tucker wrote:
The question is too broad to make any sense.
But if we narrow it down to specific eras we can get some
useful insights.
I'll have a go at the Romans, then.
Most overrated: probably the aftermath of Cannae. People can't
seem to get rid of the romantic notion that Hannibal made a Fatal
Error
and didn't march on a Rome that was supposedly at his mercy.
Another candidate: Hero's Engine. It's not the best-known feature
of classical history, but the concept that they came _that_ close
to an industrial revolution is fairly common. (I used it myself,
and I know better.)
From: Donald Tucker
(bs925@FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Subject: Re: Technological Development
Accelerated/Delayed
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Date: 1996/06/24
Quote: If Hero had continued working on his steam "engine", would
we have colonies around Alpha Centauri today?
Probably, but for sociological reasons the Greeks and Romans
were *not* going to develop the steam engine. We had an extended
discussion of this in the "Steam Engine in Roman Times????" thread
that
began on April 11, 1996. But it makes a good story. See L.
Sprague de Camp's "Lest Darkness Fall" (aone of the all time
great alternate histories) or Harry Turtledove's "Agent of
Byzantium".
From: cray74@hotmail.com
(cray74@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: The Roman Age of Steam
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Date: 2000/07/14
In article <396F0BA0.1C30B8AF@usa.net>,
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@usa.net> wrote:
Quote:
cray74@hotmail.com wrote:
Old age. He died at the age of 97 after egging on the
Roman scientific revolution.
He was killed by a Roman thug at the age of 75.
Read Plutarch's Lives.
To belabor the obvious...
Is the Roman scientific revolution in Plutarch's Lives?
No?
Then I must be talking from the POV of an ATL where
he did live to 97 and died of old age.
From: Robert J. Kolker
(bobkolker@usa.net)
Subject: Re: The Roman Age of Steam
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Date: 2000/07/13
Jorg Pietschmann wrote:
Quote: I'm afraid there is no chance for ancient railroads...
Except for the * original * railroads which were Roman.
The Romans used wooden rails to roll carts on to
drag stuff out of mines. The width of the wheels of
these carts happened to be 4 feet 8.5 inches which
is North American and English standard gauge.
Bob Kolker |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Uncle Al |
| Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 11:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Coreleus Corneleus wrote:
Quote:
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. That much better folk much later on settled
for the Newcomen engine demonstrates the abysmal level of
technological expertise enjoyed by the human race overall... despite
direct divine communication with omnipotent, omnisicient, and
omnibenevolent deities through a plethora of priests and religions.
This "test of faith" is underscored by God offhand forgetting to
provide a system of numbers that could be used for calculation.
Nobody is going anywhere crippled by using extended fractions instead
of decimal notation (or whatever base you like).
log(XVII) is a ludicrous thought.
If you want stink, famine, pestilence, death, threats, excuses, and
afterlife promises you support your priests. If you want a flush
toilet, you need an engineer.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ken Down |
| Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 1:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <97d1d750.0402040743.6fcb8455@posting.google.com>,
coreleus3@yahoo.com (Coreleus Corneleus) wrote:
Quote: Could it have been used for the practical purpose for pumping water or
powering mills in ancient Rome?
Ancient sources indicate that the "engine" consisted of a two opposed
outlets from which steam issued, thus providing the thrust to cause the ball
in which the outlets were mounted to rotate. Although impressive speeds
could be obtained by this method, it was fairly inefficient and the torque
produced by this method would have been relatively small.
Quote: Only if the technology for making gears and
cranks were sufficient to put the steam power
to some use.
The Antikythera astrolobe shows that the Greeks and Romans were not only
acquainted with gears, but were also pretty skilled at making them. As the
"engine" produced rotary motion, there would have been no need for cranks.
Quote: By the way, Hero's engine was
a turbine and not a piston engine.
It produced rotary motion, but that is about the only resemblance to a
turbine - which involves steam, water or air being passed through angled
blades.
Quote: Would the Romans be interested in developing a steam engine.
It is of primary value as a labor saving machine. But the
Romans had a glut of slaves and Plebs. Consider
cost-effectivness.
Engines always have an advantage because when they are not needed you turn
them off; slaves and animals need to be fed at all times. The main obstacle
to the development of steam power was the lack of a suitable fuel; I think I
am correct in stating that the Romans only had oil, wood or charcoal (from
wood) for fuel. Coal and oil were not known.
Ken Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| from the Middle East with David Down
================================= and "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.diggingsonline.com
e-mail: diggings@argonet.co.uk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| James Nicoll |
| Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <na.ae945d4c7b.a60290diggings@argonet.co.uk>,
Ken Down <diggings@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
Quote: In article <97d1d750.0402040743.6fcb8455@posting.google.com>,
coreleus3@yahoo.com (Coreleus Corneleus) wrote:
Could it have been used for the practical purpose for pumping water or
powering mills in ancient Rome?
Ancient sources indicate that the "engine" consisted of a two opposed
outlets from which steam issued, thus providing the thrust to cause the ball
in which the outlets were mounted to rotate. Although impressive speeds
could be obtained by this method, it was fairly inefficient and the torque
produced by this method would have been relatively small.
OK, really stupid idea: A Roman Robert Goddard. The technology
available probably prevents him from having any success.
--
"Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture
and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure,
and demoralizing. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the
future of the world depends." -Oscar Wilde, "The Soul of Man Under Socialism" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Robert J. Kolker |
| Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 3:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Quote: If you want stink, famine, pestilence, death, threats, excuses, and
afterlife promises you support your priests. If you want a flush
toilet, you need an engineer.
The Romans had all of the above. They were smart enough to filch the
idea of a running water crapper.
Bob Kolker |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Robert J. Kolker |
| Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 3:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
James Nicoll wrote:
Quote: OK, really stupid idea: A Roman Robert Goddard. The technology
available probably prevents him from having any success.
Robertus Godardus launches the first Roman Candle.
Bob Kolker |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eric Stevens |
| Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 3:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:57:30 -0800, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote:
Quote: 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
Quote: That much better folk much later on settled
for the Newcomen engine demonstrates the abysmal level of
technological expertise enjoyed by the human race overall...
The philosophical leap - the appreciation of the true nature of a
vacuum - which led to the Newcomen engine was centuries in the making.
The same amount of advance would be made to today in 5 to 20 years.
Roman engineering was at the foot of a very long and increasingly
steep learning curve. I don't think the folk at the time of Newcomen
were necessarily better. They just knew more.
Quote: despite
direct divine communication with omnipotent, omnisicient, and
omnibenevolent deities through a plethora of priests and religions.
This "test of faith" is underscored by God offhand forgetting to
provide a system of numbers that could be used for calculation.
Nobody is going anywhere crippled by using extended fractions instead
of decimal notation (or whatever base you like).
log(XVII) is a ludicrous thought.
Nevertheless you should consider that Newton first derived the
mathematical basis of the elliptical orbits of the planets from his
theory of gravity, using his newly invented 'Method of Fluxions'
(calculus). This last was so ill regarded that he spent the next 20
years doing it all over again using the methods of conventional
geometry and it was this later proof that he first published. Its not
impossible. Its merely very difficult.
Quote:
If you want stink, famine, pestilence, death, threats, excuses, and
afterlife promises you support your priests. If you want a flush
toilet, you need an engineer.
In the beginning, we actually needed lots of them, before Thomas
Crapper came up with his particular version. You fill find the name
Doulton comes in there also.
Eric Stevens |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jack Linthicum |
| Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote in message news:<bvrh8h$41g$1@panix3.panix.com>...
Quote: In article <na.ae945d4c7b.a60290diggings@argonet.co.uk>,
Ken Down <diggings@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
In article <97d1d750.0402040743.6fcb8455@posting.google.com>,
coreleus3@yahoo.com (Coreleus Corneleus) wrote:
Could it have been used for the practical purpose for pumping water or
powering mills in ancient Rome?
Ancient sources indicate that the "engine" consisted of a two opposed
outlets from which steam issued, thus providing the thrust to cause the ball
in which the outlets were mounted to rotate. Although impressive speeds
could be obtained by this method, it was fairly inefficient and the torque
produced by this method would have been relatively small.
OK, really stupid idea: A Roman Robert Goddard. The technology
available probably prevents him from having any success.
There was a History Channel Internbational "Ancient Inventions" in the
Christmas time period. I recorded it but have just started to look at
it as my daughter was interested in any shipwreck underwater
archaeology that might be in it. Little bit with the antikythera
machine, which seems to some sort of fortune-telling device. The Hiero
section had his self-opening doors, his 17 inch television sized
auto-play and lot of his temple toys. The heiro-pile was shown in a
rather larger version than I remember but the idea of Greek gears,
pulleyies and transfer step ups etc sort of suggested you could get
work (in the Physics 101 sense) out of a hieropile. It's like Mahlon
Loomis and his radio (?) from the 1860s, nobody with any horsepower or
depth has ever (publicly) put a device out that would vindicate
Hiero/Hieron as an inventor of a potentially practical device. I would
like to seem an effort like the Babbage device wherein someone with a
budget created a device to run off a supply of water and heat and
create a hieropile that made work.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ian Stirling |
| Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In sci.physics Ken Down <diggings@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
Quote: Engines always have an advantage because when they are not needed you turn
them off; slaves and animals need to be fed at all times. The main obstacle
to the development of steam power was the lack of a suitable fuel; I think I
am correct in stating that the Romans only had oil, wood or charcoal (from
wood) for fuel. Coal and oil were not known.
Only if the total ownership cost of the slave/animal exceeds that of the
engine.
Donkey + field = usefull work.
Trying to come up with a working replacement for a donkey hauling stuff
ain't gonna happen with roman technology. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Cliff Wright |
| Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 7:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ken Down wrote:
Quote: In article <97d1d750.0402040743.6fcb8455@posting.google.com>,
coreleus3@yahoo.com (Coreleus Corneleus) wrote:
Could it have been used for the practical purpose for pumping water or
powering mills in ancient Rome?
Ancient sources indicate that the "engine" consisted of a two opposed
outlets from which steam issued, thus providing the thrust to cause the ball
in which the outlets were mounted to rotate. Although impressive speeds
could be obtained by this method, it was fairly inefficient and the torque
produced by this method would have been relatively small.
Only if the technology for making gears and
cranks were sufficient to put the steam power
to some use.
The Antikythera astrolobe shows that the Greeks and Romans were not only
acquainted with gears, but were also pretty skilled at making them. As the
"engine" produced rotary motion, there would have been no need for cranks.
By the way, Hero's engine was
a turbine and not a piston engine.
It produced rotary motion, but that is about the only resemblance to a
turbine - which involves steam, water or air being passed through angled
blades.
Would the Romans be interested in developing a steam engine.
It is of primary value as a labor saving machine. But the
Romans had a glut of slaves and Plebs. Consider
cost-effectivness.
Engines always have an advantage because when they are not needed you turn
them off; slaves and animals need to be fed at all times. The main obstacle
to the development of steam power was the lack of a suitable fuel; I think I
am correct in stating that the Romans only had oil, wood or charcoal (from
wood) for fuel. Coal and oil were not known.
Ken Down
Hi Ken.
Certainly the AntiKythera machine (probably a sort of Orrery) was made by a much more advanced
technical culture than that of Rome. From memory I think it was dated to c300BC which means
that it was Greek or from Asia minor.
You will note that the most advanced technology in late Roman times was entirely in the Eastern
empire. The westerners didn't have "Greek Fire" or even improved armour like the Byzantines.
We seem to have an obsession with Rome! IMO the Roman empire was a disaster for the west.
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. A perfect example of this is the Danish empire where the
effective literacy level probably droppped from ~40/50% to way under 10% when Runes were
replaced by Roman letters.
Regards Cliff Wright. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Robert J. Kolker |
| Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 11:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Cliff Wright wrote:
Quote: didn't argue. A perfect example of this is the Danish empire where the
effective literacy level probably droppped from ~40/50% to way under 10%
when Runes were replaced by Roman letters.
Are you saying that Latin letters were the rune-ation of Danish?
Bob Kolker |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Greysky |
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2004 12:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:1FcUb.91595$U%5.471138@attbi_s03...
Quote:
Uncle Al wrote:
If you want stink, famine, pestilence, death, threats, excuses, and
afterlife promises you support your priests. If you want a flush
toilet, you need an engineer.
The Romans had all of the above. They were smart enough to filch the
idea of a running water crapper.
They never did anything with the idea because no one could answer the
question of who was going to drink the water once it had been crapped in... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ken Down |
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <40218fcc@news.auckland.ac.nz>, Cliff Wright
<c.wright@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
Quote: Certainly the AntiKythera machine (probably a sort of Orrery) was made by
a much more advanced technical culture than that of Rome. From memory I
think it was dated to c300BC which means that it was Greek or from Asia
minor.
The Romans were smart enough to take over anything useful that they found in
other cultures. If the Greeks could do it, so could the Romans.
Quote: You will note that the most advanced technology in late Roman times was
entirely in the Eastern empire. The westerners didn't have "Greek Fire" or
even improved armour like the Byzantines.
Greek Fire was invented *after* the Western Empire had collapsed under the
onslaught of the barbarians. Naturally the Byzantines were not about to
share the discovery with actual or potential enemies.
Quote: We seem to have an obsession with Rome! IMO the Roman empire was a
disaster for the west.
You are welcome to your opinion. It is wrong, but this is a free country.
Quote: 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.
Ken Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| from the Middle East with David Down
================================= and "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.diggingsonline.com
e-mail: diggings@argonet.co.uk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Matt Giwer |
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2004 6:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Coreleus Corneleus wrote:
Quote: 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.
--
Black studies, women's studies, and holocaust studies
are modeled after the freudian con game to give
academic credential to future snake oil salemen.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2997 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Coreleus Corneleus |
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2004 7:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 13 Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:53 pm
|
|