Not just in terms of presentation, but also quality.
Amazing!
And 100% inspired by Bartosz's articles - he is the first line in the credits section.
Building things up from first principles, and ideally also tactile / visceral examples, is my absolute favourite genre of explanations. Alas, a rarefied genre, because it is so much harder to do well (without doing disservice to the learner's intellect and ability) than expert talking to (presumed) expert. So thanks for contributing to it.
People like George Polya [0], Richard Feynman [1], Grace Hopper [2] are exemplars of this tradition.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0gbw-Ur_do
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKWGGDXe5MA
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR0ujwlvbkQ
(And I too try in my own meagre way through my blog and source code, albeit it's all plain text because visual explainers, animated ones that too are ridiculously difficult. So I have some idea of how much of a labour of love your piece is. <Claps hands, Whistles, Doffs hat>.)
And each of those could be expanded to much more than the page you already made.
Things are almost always a lot more complicated than they seem. It seems so simple -- "water + heat makes steam, steam pushes piston, back and forth motion makes rotary motion" -- but it is really anything but.
This is impressive work!
For other animations I put together a style guide and worked together with Fable to build them.
No, don't do that. Because the pressure of the atmosphere isn't constant. It varies with weather and how high you are.
Instead use Pascal (Pa) or Hectopascal (hPA). I really pays back to use SI units for physical things. Suddenly you have formulas without weird constants, like 1 Pa = 1 N/m^2
It's a sad thing that new articles still propose units that are (since many, many years) outdated: the metric system is from 1793, the SI is from 1960.
BACK then people didn't knew better and used the varying atmosphere as base. But today ?!?!?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_governor
edit: I once said this phrase at a work meeting and someone objected to my use of a crude term which I then explained much to everyone's surprise. They thought it had something to do with testicles.
How did they make vacuum and be sure it was indeed a vacuum ?
How did they melted that metal alloy into the right shape ?
How did they built those precise mirrors ?
How many times did they fail before succeeding ?
How did they lubricate and seal properly all components ?
I know I could explain 80% of those inventions easily by studying them for a few days each. I know I would never be able to build 1% of those machines myself, I'd constantly run into technical issues and it'd take me years for each
They couldn't use it as anything else than a toy. The reason they couldn't because they didn't have the metallurgy and the machining to create pistons, valves, etc.
There's an important lesson that can be applied to every technology, I think: technological progress is always iterated, never revolutionized. If your novelty - a programming language, a framework, a methodology, whatever - doesn't stand on the shoulders of the giants, then you have simply nothing to apply this novelty to.
Glad you enjoyed the units :).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl_UA36ouzM&list=PL2vJ5Cg-wl...
Highly recommend this primer titled "The Model Engineering Learning Curve" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps_BQJEMnGA
She's been building a model locomotive for years now, there are over 100 videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLY67-4BrEae-xhrvZX33gPk4...
One more: a little engine I'd never encountered before called a wobbler is, apparently, the hello world of machining model engines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrHDrIms7-0
(Sorry I am pasting my old comment.)
Some Model Engineering related resources:
Engineering drawings of small model engines used in model aircraft making. These designs are intended for manufacturing and practical operation, rather than merely for display, and can be used to build fully functional engines.
https://www.modelengineeringwebsite.com/Beam_Engine_drawings...
https://modelengineeringwebsite.com/Classic_ME_beam_engine.h...
https://outerzone.co.uk/plans.asp?cat=Engines&Xcardsperpage=...
https://modelenginenews.org/midge/index.html
https://modelengineeringwebsite.com/Midget_gas_engine_1.html
https://www.adriansmodelaeroengines.com/catalog/product.php?...
One of my favorites. Good read.
Glad to not be the only person to expect Erlang instead of steam.
This is sending me :)
> One cup of water becomes roughly 400 litres of steam, enough to fill two bathtubs
Three units of measurement in one sentence, my favorite unit is bathtubs.
RE: units - Good catch - there is almost certainly a better way to phrase this one. I always tried to give physical examples to make things more concrete. But who knows, maybe the bathtub will take off as a unit :).
One nit: All three animations that show the governor and the flywheel have the governor turning the wrong way, causing the gears that join them to do physically impossible things.
Fix shall be deployed shortly!
For the figures, I had prototyped some by hand, and it was slow going. Fable was the first LLM I found that was actually able to understand and model mechanical linkages correctly enough to be useful. I built a style guide, and iterated many times on each figure and animation until we arrived at something useful. There are also quite a few backing tests to ensure physical correctness of the animations (as far as reasonably possible :).
[deleted]
https://forum.irishwhiskeysociety.com/viewtopic.php-p=12194....
How do you make those animations?
[deleted]
The key thing to understand about early steam engine technology is that they didn't have steel. Good steel in quantity wasn't available until the Bessemer converter around 1880. The converter itself is simple. It took about 10,000 melts to get the metallurgy right, and analytical chemistry to get consistent ingredient mixes.
Without steel, the early engines were cast or wrought iron. So everything was very low pressure, or blew up. That's why "atmospheric" engines such as Newcomen's were built. That doesn't use steam pressure at all. It just uses condensing steam to create a partial vacuum so atmospheric pressure can push the piston. The technology got stuck there for 75 years.
Higher pressure engines made of iron were tried. They blew up frequently at first. This led to a useful institution, The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company, founded in 1866.[1] They still exist, owned by Munich Re. Hartford Steam Boiler had a tough approach to insurance. They'd insure risky things such as steamboats, but only after their inspectors had inspected them. Their insurance policies gave them the right to inspect at any time, which they used. The usual arrangement was that they inspected something, produced a list of things which had to be fixed, and came back for a second inspection after the fixes. Only then did they provide coverage. Steamboats mostly stopped blowing up.
(Today, Hartford Steam Boiler also sells business interruption insurance against cyberattacks, and even AI liability insurance. They probably still inspect first. That may be the good path to AI safety - liability lawyers suing for damages on one side, and an insurance company into tough inspections on the other.)
Great point on steel not being an option, I should have mentioned that.
RE: Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection - cool, thanks for the details!
RE: safety valve, pressure gauge, etc. - yes, there is definitely another article to be built here :). Another fun aspect is safely starting the machine, warming it up appropriately, flushing water from the system, and the bigger engines even had a small engine to get the wheel turning.
1 atm = 101,325 PA
It is not an SI unit but it is widely used and very useful in situations, such as this, where pressure relative to atmospheric pressure is relevant.
Something similar to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillating_cylinder_steam_eng...
And you can still get them reasonably inexpensively: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005007964198565.html
I bought one for a friend's 5 year old a while back and became BEST UNCLE EVER!
The run well on compressed air (like an electric car tyre inflator or small air compressor), or for a bit more high temperature danger they run great attached to the steam wand of an espresso machine. When I was a kid dad built me a steam boiler out of a steal aerosol can and some copper tubing with a folded brass sheetmetal alcohol burner. That's not a 5 year old friendly thing though, from memory I'd have been maybe 10 or 12 when he started letting my light alcohol on fire in that garage or backyard. (Modern parenting may disapprove...)
Also considering the origins of precision - the intertwined evolution of machining tools and measuring systems that allowed these machines to be built.
RE: 3 year old - yes, mechanical systems are wonderful for children (and adults). There is something incredibly satisfying about watching them in motion doing work.
For a fun rabbit hole to dive down, check out Doble steam car technology or the Besler airplane engine.
The first attested use is from 1945, on the nose of a P-47 Thunderbolt flown by Captain Milton Thompson of the 509th Fighter Squadron. And his art was exactly what you'd expect: a charging bull with the words "balls out".
This is from the article, but governors also played a role in kicking off modern control theory! """ In 1868, James Clerk Maxwell studied when these oscillations grow or die away in his paper “On Governors”[https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gold/pdfs/teaching/old_lite...]. This became one of the beginnings of modern control theory. """
Going balls to the wall means pushing the throttle and mixture all the way in to the firewall/instrument panel for maximum power.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/the-phrase-balls-to-the-wall-c...
The choice of wording makes me suspect that they intended both entendres. ;)
The one I like is why do we use birds to refer to female anatomy? I also heard something the other day and had an epiphany, but the sort you can't really tell anyone. "Oh... it means pouch that makes so much more sense, it's not a cat."
[deleted]
[dead]
[dead]
A way that's easy to execute, but doesn't produce a perfect vacuum, is to fill a chamber with steam (actual high temperature steam, not the clouds coming off a kitchen pot), seal it and cool it. This is only a near-vacuum because it's filled with low pressure water vapor, but it's very easy to do.
They couldn't use it as anything else than a toy. The reason they couldn't because they didn't have the metallurgy and the machining to create pistons, valves, etc.
IMHO they definitely had the processes to basically add a PTO to one, but it was probably dismissed as impractical.
It was a turbine. You don’t use pistons in a turbine. They lacked knowledge of turbine blades, the metallurgy to make pressure vessels, and the tools to make parts with the tolerances needed to spin at high RPM and withstand high temperatures.
[dead]
It's a great hobby. Manual machining is totally different from writing code, but you get into a similar state of flow.
This should be the comment that people read on this post. Watch these videos.
[deleted]
And https://modelengineeringwebsite.com/Classic_ME_beam_engine.h... is almost exactly the CAD model behind this beam engine. Designing that on paper would have been quite a challenge.
It wasn't a vacuum engine, as per post the water just cooled the cylinder. And it wasn't half of the coal, it was a third.