Talk:Thomas Newcomen/Archives/2014

Cleanup
I have added details of the source of the figures of numbers of Newcomen engines built after his death.

However I agree this and the entry on the Newcomen engine need a complete re-write. I'm too busy to do this at the moment but will do so when I have time. --user:Twomoors

Currently this article contains far too much material which is duplicated on the page about the engine. Suggest most of this is removed and this page focuses more on biographical details of Newcomen. --Phoxhat 21:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have tried to edit the article as requested. As you say, the material on the engine page was essentially the same.  Peterkingiron 08:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(Regarding Newcomen and Savery using work by Denis Papin)
The material from the internet placed here by Dr. Gabriel Gojon can now be found via the link /Material from Wikipedia user Dr. Gabriel Gojon. David Kernow 23:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Birthdate?
When was he born? Month,Day,Year?

I take it that the use of 'baptised' where his date of birth should be means that the exact date is unknown. Simple. Ben davison 19:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Expiry of patent
I stated that Thomas Savery's patent did not expire until 1733. This is correct, becasue Savery obtained a statute extending the life of the patent (as James Watt later did with his.  If you have reason to dispute my statement, please explain why HERE.  Peterkingiron 00:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Transition to Watt engines
I have only made minor changes to the recent edits, but I am concerned about the statements about the use of Newcomen engines in textile mills and "many more Newcomen engines than Watt ones were built even during the period of Watt's patent (up to 1800)". My understanding is that Newcomen engines had too slow a stroke to be satisfactory prime movers for textile mills. Examples are known of textile mills around 1790 using Newcomen engines to pump water back over the dam so that it could be used again to drive a water wheel, but I thought that the cases of Newcomen engines being used to drive machinery directly were extremely few. I have not altered the passage in quotes, though I think its tone is wrong: it is not surprosing that Newcomen engines should continue to be used for pumping in some places, because not every one was willing to pay the premium (royalty) demanded by the patentees. What might be more useful would be a comment about whether Newcomen engines were built AFTER the expiry of Watt's patent. I would like to see others' comments before going further. The article also needs more citations on the period after Newcomen: Rolt & Allen say something of this period, but works more directly concerned with this period should also be cited, please. Peterkingiron 21:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a myth that Newcomen engines could not be used for textile mills - hundreds were so employed from the mid-1780s.

I will do a more comprehensive rewrite when time allows.

See the Kanefsky and Robey article and the Musson and Robinson book for chapter and verse on this.

Anonymous contribution
The following text (re-indented/headed by me to fix the gross formatting problems) was added by an anon editor today. Not sure what it is doing here. It might be a hand-copied text (judging by the many typos -- look out for "lager piston"!!) from a reference book (the quality of the writing far exceeds the quality of the typing!), and therefore is a potential copyvio. If not a copyvio, then it makes for interesting reading, despite the spelling. Quick Googling suggests the text is not available online.

If the original poster makes further comment, we can proceed further with this text 'as is'. However, if a definite copyvio is identified, then it should be removed immediately. For now I suggest we give the benefit of the doubt and retain it here as 'food for thought', to allow expansion of this or the related engine article. EdJogg (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(Anonymous section starts here)


 * The problem
 * Many of Newcomen's most important customers owned mines. They described to him the problem they encountered when forced to dig deeper mines to meet the growing demand for natural resources such as coal tin and iron ore. Owing to the depth, they were increasingly hindered by out of the mines but with only horse or manpower available to do the job, it was an expensive and slow task.


 * Thomas Newcomen provide the power source for the Industrial Revolution


 * FAILED ATTEMPTS
 * The idea of using atmospheric pressure as a new kind of power source to be employed in carrying out repetitive, mechanical work like pumping had been known to engineers before Newcomen. It had been proved that when a vacuum was created, air, when given the opportunity, would rush into it with considerable force.


 * But nobody had ever harnessed this discovery successfully into a practical power supply. In 1698, an English engineer called Thomas Savery(1650~1715)had made an attempt at it through his design and patent of the 'Miner's Friend', a hight-pressure steam pump engine. Due to technological and practical limitations, it was never successfully employed for pumping.


 * THE SOLUTION
 * It was against this context that Newcomen decided to begin work in 1705 on building a steam engine to take advantage of atmospheric pressure. by 1712, he had solved the problem and his engine was successfully constructed and used for pumping in South Staffordshire Colliery. The design involved heating water underneath a lager piston which was encased in a cylinder. Steam that was released as a result of the heating forced the piston upwards. A jet of water was then released from a tank above the piston. The sudden cooling of the steam made it condense, creating a partial vacuum which atmospheric pressure then pushed down on, forcing the piston downwards again. The piston was attached to a two-headed lever, the other side of which was attached to a pump in the  mineshaft. As it moved up and down the lever moved likewise and a pumping motion was created in the shaft which could be used to eject flood water. The first engine could remove about 120 gallons per minute, completing about twelves strokes in that time, and had the equivaler of about 5.5 horsepower.


 * Even thought the emginewas still not patricu-larly powerful, was hugely inefficient to run, and burnt large amounts of coal, it would work reliably twenty-four hours a day and was far better than the previous alternatives. Consequently, even though each one cost an expensive 1000 to build, they were highly successful commercially and as a result more than a hundred were installed, chiefly in Britain's mines and factories. before Newcomen's death in 1829. Sales continues to increase across Britain and Europe for the next one hundred years. Even though more efficient engines were to follow, such as that invented by James Watt(1735~1819), its relative simplicity, reliability-and lower price tag than the competition-ensured that working engines continued to be used well into the twentieth century. By then, the Industrial Revolution had changed the world, and Newcomen's harnessing of steam and atmospheric pressure had been at its helm.


 * A Forgotten Genius


 * The steam engine, although originally developed by Newcomen for use in mines, went on to become one of the cornerstones of the Industrial Revolution. It was quickly developed by engineers like James Watt and Richard Trevithick into the steam locomotive, eventually going on to power the ocean-going ironclads which cut sailing times to and from Britain so drastically. Today, the credit for the steam engine is usually given to James Watt while the name Thomas Newcomen remains shrouded in obscurity. And although he undoubtedly changed the world, there is no single known portrait of Newcomen in existence.


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.31.35.189 (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(end of anonymous addition)
 * My main complaint about this is the inclusion of the date 1705. Rolt and Allen is a well-researched book.  J. S. Allen obtianed a doctorate on hte subject.  1705 may be the date when the Savery pump was found not to answer, but (as far as I know) there is no evidence as to where any engine before that for Bache near Wolverhampton and the Dudley Castle engine, both about 1712.  I suspect that the Anon user has obtaine his information from an unreliable tertiary source (or worse).  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent addition
"He lived for a time in Southeastern Pa. USA. on a small farm. His house still exists, but the farm was sold off for tract housing. The road he lived on is now called Newcomen Rd." I have reverted the article to eliminate the above text. In view of his burial in London the sentence seems improbable, but not wholly incredible. I suspect the answer is that Newcomen Road is named for a namesake. Certainly it should nnot be restored without the citation of a reliable source. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The physics sucks
"The vacuum thus created was used to suck water from the sump at the bottom of the mine." Vacuums do not suck, and neither did Savery's engine. What it did was to lower the air pressure above part of the water in the mine, which caused atmospheric pressure acting on the surface of the rest of the water to force some of it up a pipe. Could someone re-write this? Peter Bell (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are trying to be too clever. The reduced internal pressure did indeed suck in water.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be the least bit clever. A vacuum doesn't exert a force. If you genuinely believe that low pressure sucks, then you'll never understand how Savery's pump really worked, or why a drinking straw works for that matter, or how an aeroplane flies. I don't care.  Peter Bell (talk) 09:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Some clarifications ?
Newcomens engines, although a heat engine, didn't use the pressure of steam to move a piston. The steam was used to create a vacuum and it was the air pressure above the piston and the vacuum below that moved the piston. A more accurate description would therefore be "atmospheric engine".

The later engines of James Watt did use steam pressure and a vacuum so technically these engines are steam engines in the usually accepted meaning of the description.

James Watts engines were more efficient than Newcomens but Watt sewed up his engines and the potential fuel saving in such tight patents that there was a considerable business objection to paying such royalties. Watt spent more time in the court room that he ever did working on engine design.

I am uncertain how many engines James Watt did sell for factories but they were very large, heavy, low pressure machines. It was only after the invention of the lightweight, high pressure, steam engine by Richard Trevithick that steam engines became small enough to be used in much smaller businesses.

The comment about Newcomen engines being used to move water to a storage pond that in turn then flowed over water wheels that drove looms, makes sense rather than the Newcomen engines being directly connected to the looms. The water wheels would be a much steadier motion.

Perhaps the simple answer would be a system similar to that used in Wales to generate electricity. By night when the factories are shut down, the night shift use the Newcomen engine to lift water to the storage pond. During the day the water is released to the steadier motion waterwheels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Those engines appear between Newcomen and Watt and were termed "water-returning engines". They're on my backlog, when I have a minute. Usually they derived from blast furnaces that used a waterwheel to power their blowing engine, but needed a backup supply in times of drought. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Medal
I cannot now recall the original reference but isn't there a particular engineering society or group that occasionally awards the prestigous Newcomen Gold Medal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This Google books result suggests it is the Franklin Institute.
 * Good luck with your research... EdJogg (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Date
The article for a long time gave the date as "about 1710", and I have put it back to that after an anon editor had been fiddling. The first direct evidence for an engine is at Wolverhampton in 1712. That engine was probably moved to Tipton. However, it is likely that there was a still earlier one, possibly Wheal Vor in Cornwall. The alternative might be to put "in or shortly before 1712". I undertook a revert, because I was unhappy about an undiscussed change by an anon editor, but am open to suggestions. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I nearly reverted the edit, but then compared it to Newcomen steam engine which (sort-of) has the date 1712. Since both are effectively unreferenced we are treading on rather unstable ground! -- EdJogg (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the date is not known. I hoped some one could come up with a satisfactory solution.  What I did was essentially RV after unexplained change.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Date of birth
There has been edit-warring over the year of the subject's birth. The date of his christening is given by Riolt and Allen as 1663/4. The modern convention mis to correct dates to the year starting on 1 January, rather than the official pre-1751 date of 25 March. Accordingly the correct year is "1664". This may differ from some older sources, which may give the year as 1663 - according to contemproary usage. This is the standard convention of modern historians and of WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)