Talk:Steam engine

Duty and efficiency
The article should either explain how these two are related or delete all reference to duty. (I'd delete duty - it's entirely obsolete in that formulation, and belongs only in a 'James Watt (etc.)' article. Efficiency is easy to understand).

86.181.114.173 (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, duty is mostly what was reported in the early years. This is primarily due to the engine's use in pumping.  As I explained in Engine efficiency, this measures the combined efficiency of the engine, pump and boiler.  Duty was published monthly for the larger Cornish mines starting 1811, with a competition of sorts to see who had the most efficient engine leading to the superior efficiency of those engines at the time.  Duty lingered on with steam pumping engines through the end of the 19th century.  Pounds of coal per horsepower hour and pounds of steam per horsepower hour were also used, especially for mill engines.  With the latter we also need to know the steam pressure and temperature or amount of superheat.Phmoreno (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I deleted the implication that burning fuel was the only source of heat and the "citation needed" from an explanation of process. Embarwhen (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The historical measure of a steam engine's energy efficiency was its "duty". The concept of duty was first introduced by Watt in order to illustrate how much more efficient his engines were over the earlier Newcomen designs
 * The historical measure of a steam engine's energy efficiency was its "duty". The concept of duty was first introduced by Watt in order to illustrate how much more efficient his engines were over the earlier Newcomen designs


 * Smeaton, not Watt 2A00:23C7:D280:D301:89A0:D360:5D9E:E847 (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Spurious citation requests
Have some pity on the poor reader, who wants to be draw in by the smooth flow of our Brilliant Prose ( Wiki TM) and doesn't want a bell run in her ear for every sentence. We don't footnote the whole world of knowledge in every article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

1765 Watt
You've got 1764 here, but 1765 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watt#Early_experiments_with_steam (Watt's critical insight, arrived at in May 1765) for Watt's (design) invention. MBG02 (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)