by Robert
O.
Woods |
It frequently
happens that the individual getting the credit for an invention is not
the real innovator, but rather the person who was most successful in reducing
an idea to practice. Thus, we never hear about the designers of sailing
ships who had made an extensive study of aerodynamics before the Wright
brothers, or the number of engineers who had speculated on jet propulsion
before Whittle.
This is true of steam power. The conventional wisdom is that James Watt
invented the steam engine. The contribution of Thomas Newcomen, who died
a few years before Watt was born, is usually overlooked.
The extent to which Watt's reputation has eclipsed Newcomen's can be judged
by comparing their entries in the Britannica. The encyclopedia gives Watt
nearly two pages, while Newcomen rates only a brief paragraph. Nonetheless,
it was Newcomen who first made the steam engine a reality.
Man's fascination with the fact that water can be converted to a vapor
by the application of heat probably dates to prehistoric times. The first
documented effort to exploit this phenomenon to create mechanical motion
is generally credited to Hero of Alexandria, who invented his aeolipile
in the first century. His contrivance is always cited as the first example
of jet propulsion. Hero's pinwheel was no doubt great fun to watch if
you had never seen anything but chariot wheels, but it went nowhere.
Galileo and Other Great
Names
The first practical steam engine did not materialize until the 1700s,
and it did not appear as a finished product. Its evolution can be traced
in a line that started in the 1640s and involved a number of great names,
beginning with Galileo.
The key to steam power was forged when it became understood that air exerts
pressure. This came as a revelation to post-Renaissance scientists. Earlier
generations had been enslaved by a blind adherence to the teachings of
Aristotle, who saddled nearly 2,000 years' worth of philosophers with
the information that "nature abhors a vacuum," and that was
really all they needed to know about it.
Evangelista Torricelli showed that the "abhorrence" of a vacuum
was entirely understandable and not due to the whim of a mysterious entity
called Nature. Torricelli had undertaken his investigations at the suggestion
of his mentor, Galileo, who was puzzled because water could not be siphoned
beyond 32 feet. Galileo concluded that Nature abhorred a vacuum, but it
probably didn't abhor it all that much.
 |
| The Newcomen steam engine provided
power to lift water that seeped into ever-deepening mines in the Old
World. Atmospheric pressure drove a piston into the partial vacuum
left by condensing steam inside the cylinder. |
Torricelli, with one of the flashes of intuition that advance science
at a single leap, concluded in 1643 that air must have weight. Torricelli's
hypothesis was investigated by Blaise Pascal in 1647, who conducted mountain
climbing experiments to study the ramifications of the discovery. Pascal
reasoned that if air has weight, pressure must decrease with altitude,
and performed experiments with mercury barometers to prove it.
At the same time, Otto von Guericke was independently conducting his famous
demonstrations known as the "Magdeburg spheres." He explored
the capabilities of small vacuum pumps, hardly bigger than present-day
syringes, to evacuate vessels and make it virtually impossible to remove
the lids. In one famous episode in 1654, he fabricated a vessel of two
hollow hemispheres, evacuated it, and demonstrated that 50 men in unison
were unable to pull it open.
Now that atmospheric pressure was a phenomenon subject to analysis, the
scene was set for its numerical formulation. Robert Boyle did so and the
product is the law that bears his name. Boyle worked with Robert Hooke,
who is equally well known, and it was their protégé, Michael
Papin, who first attempted to put atmospheric pressure to work.
In the 1690s, Papin tried to perform useful work by evacuating cylinders
and allowing atmospheric pressure to drive a piston. His experiments did
not result in any practical application, perhaps because he was using,
among other things, gunpowder explosions to drive some of the air and
combustion products from a cylinder and then trying to work with the partial
vacuum created when the gases cooled.
A few years after Papin's work, in 1698, Thomas Savery did, in fact, put
atmospheric pressure to work. He received a patent for the first commercially
feasible application.
His invention did not involve moving parts. It was an exercise in creative
plumbing. His work was motivated by the fact that some means of pumping
the water from mines had become a life-or-death matter to the mining industry
in Britain.
'The Miner's Friend'
Shallow mines were being exhausted and shafts had to be sunk to increasing
depths where seepage became a proportionally greater problem, and water
had to be pumped a greater distance. Savery's patent, called "The
Miner's Friend," was for a water pump that functioned by admitting
steam to a chamber, condensing it by cooling the outside of the
chamber, allowing the partial vacuum to siphon water into the vessel,
and then lifting the water with steam pressure.
This involved a lot of manipulating of valves. Savery used pressures of
no more than 140 psi, which was the limit of technology at the time. Saturated
steam above that pressure melted his soldered pipe joints.
Primitive as it was, the Savery pump was used for several decades and
competed for a time with the Newcomen engine.
Thomas Newcomen (1663-1729) must be credited, by anyone who looks beyond
Watt, for beginning the Industrial Revolution. He worked with an assistant
named John Calley, who did most of the hardware work. Calley's
name is another that has been overlooked by historyalong with
that of Newcomen's wife, Hannah, who appears to have run his business
while he was experimenting with steam.
Newcomen's engine, like Savery's, was created to pump water
from mines. Savery's patent covered any "vessells"
for raising water or powering millworks "by the impellent force
of fire." Remote as his invention was from Newcomen's, his
patent proved impossible to circumvent. Newcomen and his partner Calley
were forced to form a company involving Savery. Savery's triumph, however,
was short-lived. He died within a year and his rights were acquired by
his successors.
More Efficient Than Horses
The Newcomen engine was staggeringly inefficient by today's standards,
but it was a commercial success for a time because it was the only practical
alternative to pumps powered by horses.
Most important, it introduced the concept of mechanical engines. It was
later pointed out that that was not an entirely unmixed blessing. Because
of their inefficiency, Newcomen's engines burned vast quantities
of coal, producing the pall that was characteristic of the Industrial
Revolution in England and giving rise to what the poet William Blake would
later call "dark satanic mills."
Relatively little is known about Newcomen's education. He described
himself as an "ironmonger," which can probably be interpreted
to mean hardware manufacturer. He is known to have provided metal items
to the tin mines, which were going to progressively greater depths, and
he certainly became aware of the need for pumping there.
Newcomen's first engine went into operation around 1710. It was
more than 50 years later that James Watt introduced the steam engines
of his contrivance. Watt's engine was not a fundamentally new concept,
but it had the advantage over Newcomen's of greatly improved efficiency.
Watt made the steam engine economically attractive and allowed its use
in applications that the Newcomen engine was too wasteful to serve. Hence,
Watt gets the credit.
Despite its appetite for coal, however, examples of the Newcomen engine
were still in operation as late as the 1900s.
Both Watt's and Newcomen's engines in their first stages
used a "walking beam" linkage, in which the linear motion
of a piston was translated to another linear motion in a reciprocating
pump. Both inventors understood that this arrangement limited applications
almost exclusively to pumping.
Both explored the use of ratchet wheels to produce a more useful rotary
motion. Watt would later create the now-familiar connecting rod and crankshaft,
which were ultimately applied to both engines. Interestingly, when a smooth
rotary motion was needed, a sort of crude fluid drive was invented by
having the reciprocating pumps deliver water to a reservoir, which then
served a water wheel.
The aspect of a typical Newcomen engine that is most eccentric from a
modern point of view is that it didn't work using steam pressure
at all. In the Newcomen cycle, steam was admitted to a cylinder and then
condensed by injecting a water spray.
Newcomen's Innovation: Water
Injection
This water injection was Newcomen's great innovation. It allowed faster
cycle time and avoided the waste of the heat that would be lost in heating
and then cooling the thermal mass of the chamber itself. Actual work was
performed by atmospheric pressure, forcing the piston into the partial
vacuum left by condensing steam. Later measurements found that the cycle
produced a mean effective pressure of 9 1/2 psi at best.
The cylinder, which might be as much as several feet in diameter, was
usually located directly above the boiler for no particular reason except
to reduce the length of piping between them. In later cases, more than
one boiler was placed beside the cylinder, allowing uninterrupted operation
while a boiler was being repaired.
A choice of boiler material permitted considerable latitude because the
boilers operated at nearly zero gauge pressure. Thus, a whimsical assortment
of copper and lead sheet with soldered joints was used in early models.
Cylinders were initially made of brass. This was later replaced with cast
iron.
The art of cylinder boring was in its infancy; thus, the fit of a piston
and cylinder of large size was absurdly poor by our standards. The only
existing boring machines were used to produce cannon. They machined a
diameter of a few inches at most.
Larger cylinders had to be hand ground and lapped. This was obviously
a very inaccurate operation. One inspector expressed great satisfaction
when a piston fitted the cylinder with an error less than the width of
his little finger. Poor fit was compensated for by using a wide annular
leather packing, which was kept lubricated and supple by providing a constant
trickle of water to the top of the piston. That's a feature some
writers seem to regard as a significant innovation.
Newcomen's boiler design was very naïve from a heat transfer
standpoint. That heat transfer area should be made as large as possible
had not occurred to anyone. Hence, boiler shape was generally very inefficient.
Efficiency was not helped by Newcomen's belief that the volume of steam
being produced was proportional to the volume of water in the boiler,
rather than to the heat input.
Smeaton Pitches In
The first attempt at anything resembling a scientific investigation of
the engine did not take place until the 1770s, when it was undertaken
by an engineer who was the Vannevar Bush of his time: John Smeaton. Ninety-nine
engines had been built by that time. Fifty-seven were in operation. The
largest had a bore of 75 inches. Smeaton, more than anyone else, was responsible
for promoting the use of the Newcomen engine.
By shrewdly choosing to make the right measurements, Smeaton found, for
example, that an engine with a 52-inch-diameter piston and 7-foot stroke,
running at 12 cycles ("vibrations") per minute and 7 1/2 psi,
developed 40 horsepower. Seven psi was later to become the nominal pressure
used by designers.
After Smeaton introduced a few numbers into the discussion, a study was
performed for the benefit of skeptics. The engines had been in operation
for some time by then, and it was possible to demonstrate their financial
advantage over horse-driven pumps. An engine with a cylinder diameter
of 1 foot and a 5-foot stroke was seen to pump 250,560 gallons of water
a day at a cost of 20 shillings. Two horses, working two-hour shifts,
were able to pump 67,200 gallons in the same time at a slightly higher
cost. Pump performance even allowed for six hours a day spent in routine
maintenance.
One of Newcomen's greatest contributions was to develop mechanisms to
perform his cycle automatically. Early versions of his engine involved
manually manipulated valves. This was a slow operation and provided an
opportunity for disastrous errors; it clearly indicated a need for mechanical
actuators.
The earliest actuators were brute force machines, involving rods with
adjustable pins, linked to the beam and impacting valve handles as they
moved up and down. Later versions had fairly sophisticated linkages resembling
clock escapements.
That a powerful machine could regulate itself was a startling innovation
in the 1700s, when the only autonomous machines were clocks. A lot of
folklore, almost certainly apocryphal, has arisen about the valve actuators.
The most popular fable arose when a writer was told that the valves were
regulated by a buoywhich was the term for a float actuator. In some
versions of the story, this was interpreted to mean that a "boy"
was manipulating the valves and this misinformation has been immortalized.
Tales are still told raising this (probably) nonexistent boy to the same
status as Jack in the story about the beanstalk. He has even been given
a name, Humphry Potter, and we are informed that he invented valve actuators
by tying strings to the valves because he was too lazy to cycle them manually.
ASME declared the Newcomen engine an International Historic Mechanical
Engineering Landmark in 1981.
| Taking the
Longer View
The author recommends
the following books to readers interested in pursuing the story
in more detail.
The Steam Engine of Thomas Newcomen, by L.T.C. Rolt
and J.S. Allen (Landmark Publishing, Britain, 1997).
A
Short History of the Steam Engine, by H.W. Dickinson (MacMillan,
New York, 1939).
A
History of the Growth of the Steam Engine, by R.H. Thurston
(Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y., 1939).
Science
as History, by H. Gartmann (Hodder & Stoughton, London,
1960).
|
Robert O. Woods, an ASME Fellow and a frequent contributor
to Mechanical Engineering magazine, visited the Newcomen engine exhibit
at the Science Museum in London. He said, "It is such a primitive
and brutal-looking apparatus that it arouses a sort of morbid curiosity."
home |
features |
news update |
marketplace |
departments |
about ME |
back issues |
ASME |
site search
© 2003 by The American Society
of Mechanical Engineers
|