• Cornish beam engines - understand continued use

    From Richard Smith@21:1/5 to All on Wed Dec 29 08:39:36 2021
    Hello all

    Can you help me understand something about Cornish beam engines?

    Studying about Cornish beam engines.
    I was working in Cornwall this year, so the interest gripped me.
    As you'll be knowing, there's abandoned engine-houses everywhere there
    was mining in Cornwall.

    I've done a lot of "steam nostalgia", but now as a welder and
    technologist, looking at it going forward on then the world leading
    edge of engine development.
    The mines were hundreds of metres (~ yards) deep chasing the lodes and
    there is no coal in Cornwall.
    Driving an intense competition for efficiency ("duty") - world leading
    edge from 1800 to 1850.

    The "Cornish engine" using steam at significantly above atmospheric
    pressure - 45psi (3 atmospheres) was daring searing thrilling
    technology of its day.
    By 1850 advancing technology and accumulated skill had moved the
    baseline and 45psi was generally achievable and exceeded. Seems
    Cornish beam engines "hit a wall" at about 45psi to 50psi possibly
    60psi - apparently literally the walls of the house-built engine can't
    take more force. Plus is explained the cast-iron beam of the day was vulnerable to the jerking force of higher-pressure / short cut-off for
    greater steam expansion. Etc.
    So they were stuck about about 45psi.

    Yet the use continued and there were even new Cornish beam engines for municipal waterworks up to 1900.
    The very last beam engines went out of service in the 1950's - so they
    couldn't have been that bad even by standards then.

    Why?

    Higher pressure is usually higher efficiency.

    If I estimate right, about 1/3rd of the power came from condensing the
    steam and the vacuum it created under the piston.
    Given you've got a big slowly-cycling stationary engine where a
    condenser can be part of the overall engine concept.
    So you are getting that 1/3 "for free" compared to an engine
    exhausting to atmosphere...

    My conjecture is...

    Apart from the efficiency of few parts as the engine directly gave the oscillating motion working the pumps with long pump-rods direct down
    the shafts - that the "extra 1/3rd for free" from condensing
    compensated for the loss of efficiency from not being able to go above
    50psi?

    I'm adding detail to this thought that, with this being direct
    condensing by water spraying into a chamber with the steam it must
    condense - much cheaper and simpler than "indirect condensers" used on
    eg. current nuclear power stations - that the mix of water, condensed
    steam and some lubricating oil (?) tipped back into the boiler to gain
    some fuel economy from heat in the "hotwell" - the oil and
    contamination is tolerable in a Cornish boiler at max. 50psi?

    Where it would be totally intolerable to the much more sophisticated
    "then modern" boilers developing which gave >>50psi and much higher steam-making ("evaporative") capacity...?

    Where Cornish boilers with their all-cylindrical shape - a
    cutting-edge technology and a huge leap forward in 1800 - had become
    very simple by 1850, with their single large furnace/flue tube and no "firetubes" of the later "locomotive" and "marine" boilers - no nooks
    and crannies for contaminants to come out doing nasty things?

    I'm also seeing that "not simple harmonic motion" of the beam engine -
    with a passive slow pumping stoke driven by the weight of the pump rod
    and a rapid steam-driven return-stroke - with pumping rate being
    controlled by how often you "triggered" the engine to cycle - gave
    some efficiency advantage over a rotative engine for pumping...

    Added all together...

    So I'm conjecturing a status-quo where all advantages of higher
    pressure where negated for mine-pumping by inherent advantages
    retained by the Cornish engine???

    Thanks for indulging me and my interest.
    Hoping some of you can offer knowledge, wisdom and guidance on this.

    Best wishes,
    Rich Smith

    PS - I'm hoping to estimate efficiency % for a "duty" of
    eg. 100million (the "magic" top figure) - work out what weight of coal
    and therefore the energy in Joules was in that "bushel" of coal which
    lifted those 100million foot-pounds of water...
    When I'm out of Christmas mode and have my technical head back on :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Wilkins@21:1/5 to All on Wed Dec 29 09:03:39 2021
    "Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lyy243kdo7.fsf@void.com...


    I'm adding detail to this thought that, with this being direct
    condensing by water spraying into a chamber with the steam it must
    condense - much cheaper and simpler than "indirect condensers" used on
    eg. current nuclear power stations - that the mix of water, condensed
    steam and some lubricating oil (?) tipped back into the boiler to gain
    some fuel economy from heat in the "hotwell" - the oil and
    contamination is tolerable in a Cornish boiler at max. 50psi?

    --------------------------

    Spraying water into the cylinder cooled it, so on the next stroke the steam
    had to first reheat the cylinder.
    Watt's external condenser eliminated that considerable loss.
    The tradeoff was cost of fuel versus the skill and wages of the operator,
    who if good enough could work for the railroads. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/62609/62609-h/62609-h.htm

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Wilkins@21:1/5 to All on Wed Dec 29 08:45:08 2021
    "Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lyy243kdo7.fsf@void.com...

    Hello all

    Can you help me understand something about Cornish beam engines?

    Studying about Cornish beam engines.
    I was working in Cornwall this year, so the interest gripped me.
    As you'll be knowing, there's abandoned engine-houses everywhere there
    was mining in Cornwall.

    I've done a lot of "steam nostalgia", but now as a welder and
    technologist, looking at it going forward on then the world leading
    edge of engine development.
    The mines were hundreds of metres (~ yards) deep chasing the lodes and
    there is no coal in Cornwall.
    Driving an intense competition for efficiency ("duty") - world leading
    edge from 1800 to 1850.

    The "Cornish engine" using steam at significantly above atmospheric
    pressure - 45psi (3 atmospheres) was daring searing thrilling
    technology of its day.
    By 1850 advancing technology and accumulated skill had moved the
    baseline and 45psi was generally achievable and exceeded. Seems
    Cornish beam engines "hit a wall" at about 45psi to 50psi possibly
    60psi - apparently literally the walls of the house-built engine can't
    take more force. Plus is explained the cast-iron beam of the day was vulnerable to the jerking force of higher-pressure / short cut-off for
    greater steam expansion. Etc.
    So they were stuck about about 45psi.

    Yet the use continued and there were even new Cornish beam engines for municipal waterworks up to 1900.
    The very last beam engines went out of service in the 1950's - so they
    couldn't have been that bad even by standards then.

    Why?

    Higher pressure is usually higher efficiency.

    If I estimate right, about 1/3rd of the power came from condensing the
    steam and the vacuum it created under the piston.
    Given you've got a big slowly-cycling stationary engine where a
    condenser can be part of the overall engine concept.
    So you are getting that 1/3 "for free" compared to an engine
    exhausting to atmosphere...

    My conjecture is...

    Apart from the efficiency of few parts as the engine directly gave the oscillating motion working the pumps with long pump-rods direct down
    the shafts - that the "extra 1/3rd for free" from condensing
    compensated for the loss of efficiency from not being able to go above
    50psi?

    I'm adding detail to this thought that, with this being direct
    condensing by water spraying into a chamber with the steam it must
    condense - much cheaper and simpler than "indirect condensers" used on
    eg. current nuclear power stations - that the mix of water, condensed
    steam and some lubricating oil (?) tipped back into the boiler to gain
    some fuel economy from heat in the "hotwell" - the oil and
    contamination is tolerable in a Cornish boiler at max. 50psi?

    Where it would be totally intolerable to the much more sophisticated
    "then modern" boilers developing which gave >>50psi and much higher steam-making ("evaporative") capacity...?

    Where Cornish boilers with their all-cylindrical shape - a
    cutting-edge technology and a huge leap forward in 1800 - had become
    very simple by 1850, with their single large furnace/flue tube and no "firetubes" of the later "locomotive" and "marine" boilers - no nooks
    and crannies for contaminants to come out doing nasty things?

    I'm also seeing that "not simple harmonic motion" of the beam engine -
    with a passive slow pumping stoke driven by the weight of the pump rod
    and a rapid steam-driven return-stroke - with pumping rate being
    controlled by how often you "triggered" the engine to cycle - gave
    some efficiency advantage over a rotative engine for pumping...

    Added all together...

    So I'm conjecturing a status-quo where all advantages of higher
    pressure where negated for mine-pumping by inherent advantages
    retained by the Cornish engine???

    Thanks for indulging me and my interest.
    Hoping some of you can offer knowledge, wisdom and guidance on this.

    Best wishes,
    Rich Smith

    PS - I'm hoping to estimate efficiency % for a "duty" of
    eg. 100million (the "magic" top figure) - work out what weight of coal
    and therefore the energy in Joules was in that "bushel" of coal which
    lifted those 100million foot-pounds of water...
    When I'm out of Christmas mode and have my technical head back on :-)

    ------------------------
    Steam engine efficiency could be below 5% for locomotives without
    condensers, which were too fragile to withstand the engine and track
    vibration.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer_blow

    Wrought iron's random weld weakness imposed severe limits on pressure
    vessels, both boilers and cannon. Look up Armstrong's rifled cannon for more info. Despite being a softer and weaker metal, bronze cannon cast in one
    piece were considered safer. Bessemer steel began replacing wrought iron in 1864, though use of wrought iron continued through the 1887 construction of
    the Eiffel Tower.

    A notable failure of wrought and cast iron: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_Bridge_disaster
    The investigation revealed how common foundry practice degraded the strength
    of the metal.

    Savery's 1698 steam engine used pressure to force water upward, but the workmanship of the time was inadequate to contain the stress. Newcomen's
    1712 engine and others for the next hundred years avoided pressure for
    safety reasons. Boiler operation was a very uncertain art until Bourdon introduced a practical pressure gage in 1849.

    Trevithick in England and especially Oliver Evans in America advocated the greater efficiency of high pressure steam in opposition to Watt who feared
    the bad publicity of boiler explosions. Being further away, Evans was less inhibited and created lighter and more efficient high pressure engines that enabled American river steamboats. Since the Cornish engine was stationary
    it could be built of a great mass of cheap material. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Evans
    Evans even experimented with supercharging the firebox but concluded that it would demand far too much of blacksmiths.

    This describes early marine steam engines which needed to be fairly light weight and fit into confined hull spaces, resulting in some clever but
    strange designs. https://www.naval-history.net/WW0Book-Sennett-MarineSteamEngine.htm
    -jsw

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Smith@21:1/5 to Jim Wilkins on Wed Dec 29 16:04:39 2021
    "Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

    ...

    Wrought iron's random weld weakness imposed severe limits on pressure vessels, both boilers and cannon.

    Not random - strong in direction of grain, but totally unreliable in
    any other direction?

    You could work around that with plates [in-plane design stresses
    resulting from boiler pressure] and riveted structures with lapped
    joints [clamped together and no forces trying to delaminate the metal]
    ?


    ... Look up Armstrong's rifled cannon
    for more info.

    There's Woolwich Arsenal (and other?) rifled muzzle loaders all over the
    place where I am working in Portland.
    "Effective" range in kilometres compared to a couple of hundred metres
    (?) with smooth-bore cast-iron canons.
    Their concentric shrink-fit (?) structure of machined cylinders is
    totally obvious to see. I'd seen them in books when I was a kid and
    now for the first time in this job I'm doing I am walking past them
    all the time.
    Wrought iron would perform well by reason of stresses in the
    direction of the grain of the metal given by forging.

    A notable failure of wrought and cast iron: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_Bridge_disaster
    The investigation revealed how common foundry practice degraded the
    strength of the metal.

    I think it was only the cast iron which failed - and the engineer knew
    and explained the limitations of the then achievable design.
    I understand there were two things which were the undoing of the Tay
    bridge
    * wind-loadings weren't correctly assessed then (but were after this experience) - not Bouch's fault really
    * the railway operators got blase/ and had a flexible relation to the
    severe speed limits specified



    Savery's 1698 steam engine used pressure to force water upward, but
    the workmanship of the time was inadequate to contain the
    stress.

    Yes, but it had other limitations - particularly it could not lift
    more than the about 10 metres of a "Toricelli" (sic.) vacuum with
    water. As I understand it. So it was a first for applying fossil
    fuel at a demonstrable level, but didn't have what it took to be a
    usable device.
    ?


    ... Newcomen's 1712 engine and others for the next hundred years
    avoided pressure for safety reasons.

    Yes - Newcomen's engines the boilers had no pressure at all -
    apparently you could seal leaks with clay.

    Boulton and Watt's engines operated at about 5psi - barely any pressure
    at all.

    The Newcomen engine was a "coal guzzler" and almost infeasible in
    Cornwall, which has no coal.
    It endured a long time at collieries, where it could consume waste
    fines of no saleable value.
    Apparently the "duty" of the generation of engines
    * Newcomen - about 4~1/2million, rising to about 12million with
    vastly improved mechanical detail (precision cylinder boring, etc.)
    * Boulton and Watt - maximum about 30million
    * "Cornish cycle" - maximum about 100million, but "blunted" back to
    about 70million to 80million to lower peak forces giving the unfailing reliability needed.
    All according to
    "The Cornish Beam Engine"
    D.B Barton

    ... Boiler operation was a very
    uncertain art until Bourdon introduced a practical pressure gage in
    1849.

    You only had to have a feedwater water head of a few feet above the
    boiler to keep it filled, and if it went over pressure it would push
    water back up into the header and blow off steam - impossible to over-pressurise. However - even that bare puff of pressure was
    enought to burst boilers as they corroded, with horrible consequences.

    Plug for a the book of a friend of a friend - both boilermakers by
    Trade: https://www.sledgehammerengineeringpress.co.uk/publications/historic-steam-boiler-explosions/
    Alan McEwen
    Historic Steam Boiler Explosions
    Sledgehammer Engineering Press Limited (his own publishing house)

    But come Cornish engine pressures of then "astronomical" 45psi
    pressure - yes you would do well to have a safety-valve and
    pressure-gauge...

    Trevithick in England and especially Oliver Evans in America advocated
    the greater efficiency of high pressure steam in opposition to Watt
    who feared the bad publicity of boiler explosions. Being further away,
    Evans was less inhibited and created lighter and more efficient high
    pressure engines that enabled American river steamboats. Since the
    Cornish engine was stationary it could be built of a great mass of
    cheap material.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Evans
    Evans even experimented with supercharging the firebox but concluded
    that it would demand far too much of blacksmiths.

    This describes early marine steam engines which needed to be fairly
    light weight and fit into confined hull spaces, resulting in some
    clever but strange designs. https://www.naval-history.net/WW0Book-Sennett-MarineSteamEngine.htm
    -jsw

    Trevithick yes.
    Apparently one of a number of talented Cornish engineers of the time.
    One interpretation is that the Cornish cycle engine was the
    combination of a Trevithick high-pressure engine "front-end" feeding a Boulton&Watt separate-condenser "back-end" all on / in one cylinder...

    The North American connection / steam-boats is a lead I must follow.


    Efficiency - I have found this in the interim time

    https://www.asme.org/wwwasmeorg/media/resourcefiles/aboutasme/who%20we%20are/engineering%20history/landmarks/194-kew-bridge-cornish-beam-engines.pdf

    "Kew Bridge Beam Engines"

    "...
    One important side effect of the Cornish engine’s intermittent action
    is that each up and down stroke is a separate power entity. So its
    high efficiency – an 80-inch engine in Cornwall attained 11% overall
    in 1835, a staggering figure for the time – is virtually unaffected by
    the pumping rate. Maintaining efficiency over a wide range of load
    factors is a problem with prime movers even today.
    ..."

    The maximum for a single-stage high-pressure steam engine exhausting
    to atmosphere peaked at about 12% maximum - if you got everything as
    optimum as could be ?! - so that 11% 150years before and that
    maintains over all loadings deserves serious respect.

    Best wishes,
    Rich Smith

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob La Londe@21:1/5 to Richard Smith on Wed Dec 29 12:24:58 2021
    On 12/29/2021 1:39 AM, Richard Smith wrote:
    Hello all

    Can you help me understand something about Cornish beam engines?

    Studying about Cornish beam engines.
    I was working in Cornwall this year, so the interest gripped me.
    As you'll be knowing, there's abandoned engine-houses everywhere there
    was mining in Cornwall.

    I've done a lot of "steam nostalgia", but now as a welder and
    technologist, looking at it going forward on then the world leading
    edge of engine development.
    The mines were hundreds of metres (~ yards) deep chasing the lodes and
    there is no coal in Cornwall.
    Driving an intense competition for efficiency ("duty") - world leading
    edge from 1800 to 1850.

    The "Cornish engine" using steam at significantly above atmospheric
    pressure - 45psi (3 atmospheres) was daring searing thrilling
    technology of its day.
    By 1850 advancing technology and accumulated skill had moved the
    baseline and 45psi was generally achievable and exceeded. Seems
    Cornish beam engines "hit a wall" at about 45psi to 50psi possibly
    60psi - apparently literally the walls of the house-built engine can't
    take more force. Plus is explained the cast-iron beam of the day was vulnerable to the jerking force of higher-pressure / short cut-off for greater steam expansion. Etc.
    So they were stuck about about 45psi.

    Yet the use continued and there were even new Cornish beam engines for municipal waterworks up to 1900.
    The very last beam engines went out of service in the 1950's - so they couldn't have been that bad even by standards then.

    Why?

    Higher pressure is usually higher efficiency.

    If I estimate right, about 1/3rd of the power came from condensing the
    steam and the vacuum it created under the piston.
    Given you've got a big slowly-cycling stationary engine where a
    condenser can be part of the overall engine concept.
    So you are getting that 1/3 "for free" compared to an engine
    exhausting to atmosphere...

    My conjecture is...

    Apart from the efficiency of few parts as the engine directly gave the oscillating motion working the pumps with long pump-rods direct down
    the shafts - that the "extra 1/3rd for free" from condensing
    compensated for the loss of efficiency from not being able to go above
    50psi?

    I'm adding detail to this thought that, with this being direct
    condensing by water spraying into a chamber with the steam it must
    condense - much cheaper and simpler than "indirect condensers" used on
    eg. current nuclear power stations - that the mix of water, condensed
    steam and some lubricating oil (?) tipped back into the boiler to gain
    some fuel economy from heat in the "hotwell" - the oil and
    contamination is tolerable in a Cornish boiler at max. 50psi?

    Where it would be totally intolerable to the much more sophisticated
    "then modern" boilers developing which gave >>50psi and much higher steam-making ("evaporative") capacity...?

    Where Cornish boilers with their all-cylindrical shape - a
    cutting-edge technology and a huge leap forward in 1800 - had become
    very simple by 1850, with their single large furnace/flue tube and no "firetubes" of the later "locomotive" and "marine" boilers - no nooks
    and crannies for contaminants to come out doing nasty things?

    I'm also seeing that "not simple harmonic motion" of the beam engine -
    with a passive slow pumping stoke driven by the weight of the pump rod
    and a rapid steam-driven return-stroke - with pumping rate being
    controlled by how often you "triggered" the engine to cycle - gave
    some efficiency advantage over a rotative engine for pumping...

    Added all together...

    So I'm conjecturing a status-quo where all advantages of higher
    pressure where negated for mine-pumping by inherent advantages
    retained by the Cornish engine???

    Thanks for indulging me and my interest.
    Hoping some of you can offer knowledge, wisdom and guidance on this.

    Best wishes,
    Rich Smith

    PS - I'm hoping to estimate efficiency % for a "duty" of
    eg. 100million (the "magic" top figure) - work out what weight of coal
    and therefore the energy in Joules was in that "bushel" of coal which
    lifted those 100million foot-pounds of water...
    When I'm out of Christmas mode and have my technical head back on :-)


    Perhaps it was just that they knew how to make them and they were tooled
    up for it. Perhaps when manufacturing time and costs were factored in
    it was cheaper and easier to go with what you know.

    As a parallel in my contracting business. When the price of fuel peaked
    during the Obamma administration here in the US I looked at replacing
    all my 3/4 ton service trucks (except 1) with compact pickups. When
    push came to shove the net savings on fuel didn't dent acquisition cost.
    It was far cheaper even if fuel stayed that price to keep my 3/4 ton
    trucks through their normal service life. Load that compact pickup
    with tools and materials and the net fuel savings was even less.

    Sometimes its about inertia, but usually its about money.

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Smith@21:1/5 to Bob La Londe on Wed Dec 29 21:59:51 2021
    Bob La Londe <none@none.com99> writes:

    On 12/29/2021 1:39 AM, Richard Smith wrote:
    ...


    Perhaps it was just that they knew how to make them and they were
    tooled up for it. Perhaps when manufacturing time and costs were
    factored in it was cheaper and easier to go with what you know.

    As a parallel in my contracting business. When the price of fuel
    peaked during the Obamma administration here in the US I looked at
    replacing all my 3/4 ton service trucks (except 1) with compact
    pickups. When push came to shove the net savings on fuel didn't dent acquisition cost. It was far cheaper even if fuel stayed that price to
    keep my 3/4 ton trucks through their normal service life. Load that
    compact pickup with tools and materials and the net fuel savings was
    even less.

    Sometimes its about inertia, but usually its about money.

    Your "expensive" and our "expensive" for fuel are two different
    things!
    Anyway...

    The amount of fuel used by mine pumping engines apparently made an
    enormous difference to what was practicable.

    Well, I am relying on reading from not many sources.

    I'm mainly challenging whether my "condenser" conjecture is correct -
    the a "free extra 1/3 of power" compensates for inherently lower
    efficiency through low pressure...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Wilkins@21:1/5 to All on Wed Dec 29 18:42:06 2021
    "Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lyczlf3wdk.fsf@void.com...

    Bob La Londe <none@none.com99> writes:
    ...

    Your "expensive" and our "expensive" for fuel are two different
    things!
    Anyway...

    The amount of fuel used by mine pumping engines apparently made an
    enormous difference to what was practicable.

    Well, I am relying on reading from not many sources.

    I'm mainly challenging whether my "condenser" conjecture is correct -
    the a "free extra 1/3 of power" compensates for inherently lower
    efficiency through low pressure...

    ----------------------
    Watt introduced condensers on atmospheric (no pressure) engines. Their use depended on availability of cooling water, not steam pressure.

    Search for a downloadable .pdf of "Technical Choice, Innovation and British Steam Engineering, 1800-1850", by Nuvolari_and_Verspagen.
    I didn't get it from a quotable link.

    "Second, since improvements in designs and operating procedures had been attained by extrapolation and
    guesswork, the actual performance of an engine remained surrounded by a good deal of uncertainty."

    "By the mid 1840s the Cornish engine had probably reached its practical
    limits. Carried to the
    extreme with pressures reaching 50 p.s.i., the expansion of steam produced
    an extremely powerful
    shock on the piston and the pitwork. Such an operating cycle increased the probability of breakages
    in the pitwork accelerating the wear and tear of the engine."

    The extremely well documented RMS Titanic provides a view of nearly the ultimate development of coal-fired marine reciprocating steam engines,
    before Diesels and turbines took over. Titanic was optimized for fuel efficiency rather than speed, and consumed only about 70% of the coal of the slightly faster and considerably smaller Lusitania and Mauretania. http://www.titanicology.com/Titanica/TitanicsPrimeMover.htm

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Smith@21:1/5 to All on Thu Dec 30 08:04:25 2021
    Jim - you various links
    "Titanic"
    "locomotives 1880's" (a contemporaneous writing)
    "essay 'Technical Choice, Innovation and British Steam Engineering, 1800-1850'" are amazing.

    The locomotives 1880 by Angus Sinclair is notable for being
    contemporaneous by someone involved in the then experience of running locomotives.

    Best wishes,

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Wilkins@21:1/5 to All on Thu Dec 30 07:06:55 2021
    "Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lysfuabjsm.fsf@void.com...

    Jim - you various links
    "Titanic"
    "locomotives 1880's" (a contemporaneous writing)
    "essay 'Technical Choice, Innovation and British Steam Engineering,
    1800-1850'"
    are amazing.

    The locomotives 1880 by Angus Sinclair is notable for being
    contemporaneous by someone involved in the then experience of running locomotives.

    Best wishes,


    ----------------------

    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/55428/55428-h/55428-h.htm

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Smith@21:1/5 to Jim Wilkins on Mon Jan 17 22:00:16 2022
    "Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

    "Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lyczlf3wdk.fsf@void.com...

    Bob La Londe <none@none.com99> writes:
    ...

    Your "expensive" and our "expensive" for fuel are two different
    things!
    Anyway...

    The amount of fuel used by mine pumping engines apparently made an
    enormous difference to what was practicable.

    Well, I am relying on reading from not many sources.

    I'm mainly challenging whether my "condenser" conjecture is correct -
    the a "free extra 1/3 of power" compensates for inherently lower
    efficiency through low pressure...

    ----------------------
    Watt introduced condensers on atmospheric (no pressure) engines. Their
    use depended on availability of cooling water, not steam pressure.

    Search for a downloadable .pdf of "Technical Choice, Innovation and
    British Steam Engineering, 1800-1850", by Nuvolari_and_Verspagen.
    I didn't get it from a quotable link.

    "Second, since improvements in designs and operating procedures had
    been attained by extrapolation and
    guesswork, the actual performance of an engine remained surrounded by
    a good deal of uncertainty."

    "By the mid 1840s the Cornish engine had probably reached its
    practical limits. Carried to the
    extreme with pressures reaching 50 p.s.i., the expansion of steam
    produced an extremely powerful
    shock on the piston and the pitwork. Such an operating cycle increased
    the probability of breakages
    in the pitwork accelerating the wear and tear of the engine."

    The extremely well documented RMS Titanic provides a view of nearly
    the ultimate development of coal-fired marine reciprocating steam
    engines, before Diesels and turbines took over. Titanic was optimized
    for fuel efficiency rather than speed, and consumed only about 70% of
    the coal of the slightly faster and considerably smaller Lusitania and Mauretania.
    http://www.titanicology.com/Titanica/TitanicsPrimeMover.htm

    I've calculated thermal efficiency for a Cornish beam engine.

    The best was a "duty" of about 100Million - foot-pounds of work
    to a bushel of coal.

    For a "duty" of 100million - ft-lb to a bushel of coal
    94lb of coal per bushel
    0.4536 kg per lb (pound)
    30e6 J/kg calorific value of coal
    9.81 Earth's gravity, N/kg
    12 inches per foot
    25.4 mm per inch
    1e-3 mm to m (convert to SI units)

    (/
    (* 94 0.4536 30e6) ;; 1279152000.0
    (* 100e6 0.4536 9.81 12 25.4 1e-3) ;; 135630391.68
    )
    9.431160554471974

    9.4% efficiency

    That is quite remarkable.

    More than 100 years later by 1950 steam railway locomotives couldn't realistically match that (?).

    That "work" in the "duty" is a measure of the amount and height of
    water lifted from the mine? (what else could they be measuring?!
    What else would be possible to measure!!)
    If so, that answer is very "final".

    Comment is made in well-regarded books that that efficiency does not
    change over all intended pumping rates.
    Which is the cause of envy, to this day.
    With the amount of water being adjusted by how many strokes per minute
    the engine performed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Smith@21:1/5 to Richard Smith on Tue Jan 18 06:22:56 2022
    Richard Smith <null@void.com> writes:

    "Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

    "Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lyczlf3wdk.fsf@void.com...

    Bob La Londe <none@none.com99> writes:
    ...

    Your "expensive" and our "expensive" for fuel are two different
    things!
    Anyway...

    The amount of fuel used by mine pumping engines apparently made an
    enormous difference to what was practicable.

    Well, I am relying on reading from not many sources.

    I'm mainly challenging whether my "condenser" conjecture is correct -
    the a "free extra 1/3 of power" compensates for inherently lower
    efficiency through low pressure...

    ----------------------
    Watt introduced condensers on atmospheric (no pressure) engines. Their
    use depended on availability of cooling water, not steam pressure.

    Search for a downloadable .pdf of "Technical Choice, Innovation and
    British Steam Engineering, 1800-1850", by Nuvolari_and_Verspagen.
    I didn't get it from a quotable link.

    "Second, since improvements in designs and operating procedures had
    been attained by extrapolation and
    guesswork, the actual performance of an engine remained surrounded by
    a good deal of uncertainty."

    "By the mid 1840s the Cornish engine had probably reached its
    practical limits. Carried to the
    extreme with pressures reaching 50 p.s.i., the expansion of steam
    produced an extremely powerful
    shock on the piston and the pitwork. Such an operating cycle increased
    the probability of breakages
    in the pitwork accelerating the wear and tear of the engine."

    The extremely well documented RMS Titanic provides a view of nearly
    the ultimate development of coal-fired marine reciprocating steam
    engines, before Diesels and turbines took over. Titanic was optimized
    for fuel efficiency rather than speed, and consumed only about 70% of
    the coal of the slightly faster and considerably smaller Lusitania and
    Mauretania.
    http://www.titanicology.com/Titanica/TitanicsPrimeMover.htm

    I've calculated thermal efficiency for a Cornish beam engine.

    The best was a "duty" of about 100Million - foot-pounds of work
    to a bushel of coal.

    For a "duty" of 100million - ft-lb to a bushel of coal
    94lb of coal per bushel
    0.4536 kg per lb (pound)
    30e6 J/kg calorific value of coal
    9.81 Earth's gravity, N/kg
    12 inches per foot
    25.4 mm per inch
    1e-3 mm to m (convert to SI units)

    (/
    (* 94 0.4536 30e6) ;; 1279152000.0
    (* 100e6 0.4536 9.81 12 25.4 1e-3) ;; 135630391.68
    )
    9.431160554471974

    9.4% efficiency

    That is quite remarkable.

    More than 100 years later by 1950 steam railway locomotives couldn't realistically match that (?).

    That "work" in the "duty" is a measure of the amount and height of
    water lifted from the mine? (what else could they be measuring?!
    What else would be possible to measure!!)
    If so, that answer is very "final".

    Comment is made in well-regarded books that that efficiency does not
    change over all intended pumping rates.
    Which is the cause of envy, to this day.
    With the amount of water being adjusted by how many strokes per minute
    the engine performed.

    Belay this - I got the maths the wrong way around.
    Sorry - I was wilting by then. Had quite a day at work welding in the
    void spaces in an aluminum boat...

    It's

    work-done
    -----------
    energy-used

    and answer is a fraction of 1

    I will leave it for now. The answer could be 10.6% efficient...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Wilkins@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jan 18 07:20:36 2022
    "Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lyv8yiggzz.fsf@void.com...
    ...
    More than 100 years later by 1950 steam railway locomotives couldn't realistically match that (?).
    ...
    ---------------------

    Locomotives couldn't realistically employ bulky and fragile condensers or
    tall smokestacks to improve draft, so they used the cylinder exhaust steam
    to increase air flow through the firebox.

    When condensing the steam was required they usually lost overall efficiency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condensing_steam_locomotive

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Smith@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 19 06:22:20 2022
    Hi there

    I think this is the correct calculation for the thermal efficiency of
    a Cornish beam engine.

    For a "duty" of 100million - ft-lb to a bushel of coal
    94lb of coal per bushel
    0.4536kg per lb (pound)
    30e6 J/kg calorific value of coal (used good Welsh coal)
    9.81 Earth's gravity, N/kg
    12 inches per foot
    25.4 mm per inch
    1e-3 mm to m (convert to SI units)

    Work done
    (* 100e6 0.4536 9.81 12 25.4 1e-3) ;; 135630391.68
    (message "%e" (* 100e6 0.4536 9.81 12 25.4 1e-3)) ;; "1.356304e+08" ;; J

    Energy used
    (* 94 0.4536 30e6) ;; 1279152000.0
    (message "%e" (* 94 0.4536 30e6)) ;; "1.279152e+09" ;; J


    (/
    (* 100e6 0.4536 9.81 12 25.4 1e-3)
    (* 94 0.4536 30e6)
    )
    0.10603148936170213

    Efficiency of 0.106 = 10.6%

    Comment as from previous message:

    That is quite remarkable.

    More than 100 years later by 1950 steam railway locomotives couldn't realistically match that (?).

    It's the condenser on this slow-cycling stationary engine which makes
    the difference, it seems.
    Boiler pressures approaching 20Bar (300psi) but exhausting to
    atmosphere could not overcome the advantage of condensing despite the
    Cornish engine hitting a practical limit at 50psi (just over 3Bar). Unimaginably high when first done in around 1800, but "left behind"
    after 1850.

    That "work" in the "duty" is a measure of the amount and height of
    water lifted from the mine? (what else could they be measuring?!
    What else would be possible to measure!!)
    If so, that answer is very "final".

    Comment is made in well-regarded books that that efficiency does not
    change over all intended pumping rates.
    Which is the cause of envy, to this day.
    With the amount of water being adjusted by how many strokes per minute
    the engine performed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Wilkins@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 19 07:14:02 2022
    "Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lyczkos0rn.fsf@void.com...
    ....
    ------------------
    The Cornish engine is an example of maximizing efficiency at the expense of size and weight, which were more important in other applications.
    Particularly in Britain the "loading gauge" or bridge and tunnel clearance restricted the dimensions of steam locomotives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_gauge
    "Great Britain has (in general) the most restrictive loading gauge (relative
    to track gauge) in the world."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Billington@21:1/5 to Jim Wilkins on Wed Jan 19 14:18:39 2022
    On 19/01/2022 12:14, Jim Wilkins wrote:
    "Richard Smith"  wrote in message news:lyczkos0rn.fsf@void.com...
    ....
    ------------------
    The Cornish engine is an example of maximizing efficiency at the
    expense of size and weight, which were more important in other
    applications. Particularly in Britain the "loading gauge" or bridge
    and tunnel clearance restricted the dimensions of steam locomotives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_gauge
    "Great Britain has (in general) the most restrictive loading gauge
    (relative to track gauge) in the world."

    I think much of that was down to penny pinching investors that didn't
    want to pay for the larger loading gauge costs. I live less than a mile
    from a GWR branch line that was originally broad gauge and the loading
    gauge is huge in comparison to many other locations, Brunel had some
    foresight, you could probably double the width and height of the current
    trains and they would still pass through. My neighbour does miniature 
    steam locos and many of his drawings I've seen have the loading gauge
    shown for various rail companies and yes as you mention the clearance is minimal in many cases.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Smith@21:1/5 to Jim Wilkins on Wed Jan 19 17:48:32 2022
    "Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

    "David Billington" wrote in message
    news:ss96k0$snd$1@dont-email.me...

    ...My neighbour does miniature steam locos and many of his drawings
    I've seen have the loading gauge shown for various rail companies and
    yes as you mention the clearance is minimal in many cases.

    Why did Britain change from inside to outside cylinders?

    Good question.
    Well informed answers looked forward to.
    I conjecture that inside cylinders gave smoother running - but the
    simplicity and easy maintainability of outside cylinders and motion
    became the rational choice as technology developed and labour became
    more expensive.
    Anyone???

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Smith@21:1/5 to Jim Wilkins on Wed Jan 19 17:44:15 2022
    "Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

    "Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lyczkos0rn.fsf@void.com...
    ....
    ------------------
    The Cornish engine is an example of maximizing efficiency at the
    expense of size and weight, which were more important in other
    applications. Particularly in Britain the "loading gauge" or bridge
    and tunnel clearance restricted the dimensions of steam locomotives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_gauge
    "Great Britain has (in general) the most restrictive loading gauge
    (relative to track gauge) in the world."

    Yes, small crowded island. Lots of convoluted routes.

    The power-to-weight of some good British locos - eg. the Stanier 8F's,
    the Great Western Railway "Castles", etc - all with tapered boilers
    and other features which are hard work to make and not normally worth
    it but allow it to "pack a punch" when size is limited.

    In most countries you would not make an engine more powerful that
    would break traction on the rails if unskillfully driven.

    In Britain with the good locos - skilled driving needed to know how
    much punch to apply.

    Videos of 8F's in Turkey - they snort along with a fiesty blast
    despite being half the size of "Continental loading gauge" main-route
    engines. It's quite a sight to see. Apparently the Turks called the
    8F's "Churchills" and it part influenced them to stay strictly neutral
    in the WW2 - sense of be careful juding how much strength-in-depth
    Britain might have...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Wilkins@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 19 12:15:39 2022
    "David Billington" wrote in message news:ss96k0$snd$1@dont-email.me...

    ...My neighbour does miniature
    steam locos and many of his drawings I've seen have the loading gauge
    shown for various rail companies and yes as you mention the clearance is minimal in many cases.

    Why did Britain change from inside to outside cylinders?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Wilkins@21:1/5 to Jim Wilkins on Thu Jan 20 07:21:42 2022
    "Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lylezbsjkf.fsf@void.com...

    "Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

    "David Billington" wrote in message
    news:ss96k0$snd$1@dont-email.me...

    ...My neighbour does miniature steam locos and many of his drawings
    I've seen have the loading gauge shown for various rail companies and
    yes as you mention the clearance is minimal in many cases.

    Why did Britain change from inside to outside cylinders?

    Good question.
    Well informed answers looked forward to.
    I conjecture that inside cylinders gave smoother running - but the
    simplicity and easy maintainability of outside cylinders and motion
    became the rational choice as technology developed and labour became
    more expensive.
    Anyone???

    --------------------
    One explanation that I read for retaining inside cylinders amounted to NOT being like the USA, where locos rudely exposed their private parts.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Wilkins@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jan 20 08:16:36 2022
    "Jim Wilkins" wrote in message news:ssbk5q$u0b$1@dont-email.me...
    ...
    One explanation that I read for retaining inside cylinders amounted to NOT being like the USA, where locos rudely exposed their private parts.

    ------------------------

    British resentment of US advances appeared strongly during WW2, largely in
    the differing capabilities in air power. The RAF firmly advised us that daylight bombing was impossible, then fumed and sputtered when we forged
    ahead and succeeded with heavily armed bombers and long range escort
    fighters. Though an excellent dogfighter, the Spitfire had an endurance of barely two hours, even less for the otherwise superb XIV model, while the Mustang could stay up for eight and protect the bombers to Berlin, Prague
    or Vienna. German fighters also had relatively little endurance.

    British designers tended to maximize performance in one area at the expense
    of others while US ones sought a wider balance with no exploitable
    weaknesses. An example is the 17-pounder gun fitted to British Sherman "Firefly" tanks. It was a superior antitank gun but inferior against
    infantry, so we kept our 75mm gun for most of our tanks. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2019/01/01/michael-wittmann-how-the-legendary-panzer-ace-died-in-world-war-ii/

    We aren't bothered at all that the computer chip in our cell phones is a British ARM instead of a US product.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Leon Fisk@21:1/5 to Richard Smith on Thu Jan 20 11:14:02 2022
    On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 17:44:15 +0000
    Richard Smith <null@void.com> wrote:

    <snip>
    The power-to-weight of some good British locos - eg. the Stanier 8F's,
    the Great Western Railway "Castles", etc - all with tapered boilers
    and other features which are hard work to make and not normally worth
    it but allow it to "pack a punch" when size is limited.

    In most countries you would not make an engine more powerful that
    would break traction on the rails if unskillfully driven.

    In Britain with the good locos - skilled driving needed to know how
    much punch to apply...

    If you haven't found them yet... you should check out the Shay
    Locomotives ;-)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shay_locomotive



    --
    Leon Fisk
    Grand Rapids MI

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Smith@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jan 20 21:12:29 2022
    Shays - "Iron Dinosaurs" Colin Garratt - journey of the imagination as kid

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Smith@21:1/5 to Jim Wilkins on Thu Jan 20 21:20:19 2022
    "Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

    ... while the Mustang could stay
    up for eight and protect the bombers to Berlin, Prague or
    Vienna. German fighters also had relatively little endurance.

    Total digression, but...

    Are you able to explain?
    A Mustang over eg. Berlin has to have enough fuel to get home -
    several hours flying. Yes it's emptied its drop-tanks, but its wing
    tanks are full to the brim (?)
    I meets the then Luftwaffe planes which are on a splash-and-dash.
    How come the Mustangs prevailed?
    Is it that they only had to "tie-down" (fully occupy) the German
    fighters? Leaving the bombers to do their work?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Leon Fisk@21:1/5 to Richard Smith on Thu Jan 20 17:34:15 2022
    On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 21:12:29 +0000
    Richard Smith <null@void.com> wrote:

    Shays - "Iron Dinosaurs" Colin Garratt - journey of the imagination as kid

    Somewhat recent article that ran in our local paper:

    https://www.mlive.com/news/2021/10/historic-logging-locomotive-to-be-restored-for-display-in-michigan-inventors-hometown.html

    Shay was an interesting guy...

    --
    Leon Fisk
    Grand Rapids MI

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Smith@21:1/5 to Jim Wilkins on Thu Jan 20 21:15:04 2022
    "Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:
    ...
    We aren't bothered at all that the computer chip in our cell phones is
    a British ARM instead of a US product.

    ARM - Cambridge - "silicon fen" - one of the few upbeat research-and-manufacturing places in the UK.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Wilkins@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jan 20 17:51:28 2022
    "Leon Fisk" wrote in message news:ssbu7q$41i$1@dont-email.me...

    If you haven't found them yet... you should check out the Shay
    Locomotives ;-)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shay_locomotive

    -------------------------

    We have one locally:
    https://www.shaylocomotives.com/data/factsheet/sn-3066.htm
    Maximum Safe Speed: 17.2

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Wilkins@21:1/5 to Jim Wilkins on Thu Jan 20 17:44:05 2022
    "Richard Smith" wrote in message news:ly1r12p0j0.fsf@void.com...

    "Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

    ... while the Mustang could stay
    up for eight and protect the bombers to Berlin, Prague or
    Vienna. German fighters also had relatively little endurance.

    Total digression, but...

    Are you able to explain?
    A Mustang over eg. Berlin has to have enough fuel to get home -
    several hours flying. Yes it's emptied its drop-tanks, but its wing
    tanks are full to the brim (?)
    I meets the then Luftwaffe planes which are on a splash-and-dash.
    How come the Mustangs prevailed?
    Is it that they only had to "tie-down" (fully occupy) the German
    fighters? Leaving the bombers to do their work?

    ---------------------

    During the Luftwaffe debates on rec.aviation.military I concentrated on technology and left tactics and organization to British expert Keith
    Willshaw. He's still active in the group and may know something about
    welding.
    keithwillshaw@gmail.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Smith@21:1/5 to All on Sun Feb 6 10:23:16 2022
    for what it's worth - the "duty" as keenly measured in Cornwall (UK)
    from 1800-ish to 1910-ish
    ft-lb of work done per bushel of coal (either 94lb or 100lb of coal -
    not "got to the bottom of that").

    How is the work done measured or estimated for a pumping engine
    keeping a mine clear of water?
    I found the answer in
    On the Steam Engine In Cornwall
    Thomas Lean
    1839
    (reprint from the late 1960's)

    I've previously calculated
    for a "duty" of 100million
    10.6% thermal efficiency if 94lb of coal per bushel
    10.0% thermal efficiency if 100lb of coal per bushel

    The work done is a close estimate.
    They know the diameter and stroke of the water pumps.
    (there's a "lift" over several stages from a mine 100's of metres deep
    - but water being an incompressible fluid it follows (and is the case
    that (?)) each pump in the rising sequence has the same diameter, and
    the stroke certainly is the same, given all pumps are driven by the
    same pump-rod)
    So the volume per stroke can be calculated.
    There is the critism that there may (will be to some extent) leakage
    past the piston, valves, etc.
    However, there is good reason for that to be kept minimal.
    The mine owner doesn't want to pay for coal whose water pumped leaks
    back to the bottom of the mine.
    The owners probably also want to know "duty" as accurately as possible
    to make good business decisions - about the mine at that moment and
    future equipment acquisitions.
    So for a combination of reasons, it is "a good bet" to use the swept
    volume of the pump(s).
    There was then no good way to measure the rate of water (cu-ft per
    hour, or whatever) going into the adit from the pump shaft,
    anticipating that thought / query.
    So yes, there we have it.

    But that 10.6% / 10.0% efficiency - that's the efficiency all the way
    from coal going into the boiler at the start of the "pumping process"
    to water spilling into the adit at the end of the "pumping process".
    It's "the big number overall number which counts". Impressive.

    Regards,
    Rich Smith

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Wilkins@21:1/5 to All on Sun Feb 6 11:39:49 2022
    "Richard Smith" wrote in message news:ly5yps5m5n.fsf@void.com...

    There was then no good way to measure the rate of water (cu-ft per
    hour, or whatever) going into the adit from the pump shaft,
    anticipating that thought / query.
    So yes, there we have it.

    -----------------------
    For those who don't know, an Adit is the opposite of an Exit.

    If you care enough the flow rate can be measured by timing the filling of a measured volume, perhaps the cistern that stores water for the steam engine boiler. The answer can be as accurate as your timepiece, which can be calibrated within a few seconds per day by determining the local noon
    (maximum sun height) with a sextant and pan of water.

    If you care. Also, how wet is that bushel of coal? As a chemist I would
    weigh it, bake it dry and weigh it again, then subtract the weight of the
    ash and clinker afterwards. Those measurements could be done on samples of
    new coal deliveries, without measuring the water flow.

    Thanks to clock and instrument makers length could be measured quite
    accurately by 1800, we still use the original 1793 French definition of the metre as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the north
    pole, as registered by marks on a bar, or currently by wavelengths of light. The result was and still is wrong by 0.2mm or two standard hair's widths.

    France qualified to set the world standard because they previously had the worst measurement system in Europe, nearly every town was different. https://www.mysciencework.com/omniscience/measuring-the-meter-an-error-that-changed-the-world

    Accurate measurement has always been a limitation on the advance of science. Experimental uncertainty permitted incorrect alternate explanations like the Sun revolving around the Earth, earth, air, fire and water being the four elements, and the Caloric theory of heat as a physical substance. Without accurate measurement the correct answer was just one of many possibilities. Einstein's Relativity was only a conjecture until measurements of star
    position displacements during an eclipse confirmed it. https://earthsky.org/human-world/may-29-1919-solar-eclipse-einstein-relativity/

    https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/11/14/18072368/kilogram-kibble-redefine-weight-science
    jsw

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Smith@21:1/5 to Jim Wilkins on Mon Feb 7 05:28:57 2022
    "Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

    "Richard Smith" wrote in message news:ly5yps5m5n.fsf@void.com...

    ...

    -----------------------
    ...

    If you care enough the flow rate can be measured by timing the filling
    of a measured volume, perhaps the cistern that stores water for the
    steam engine boiler. ...

    ...

    The water from the mines was is too full of minerals to be much use.
    It apparently welled-up at quite high temperatures in the 30's or 40's
    Celsius in the deeper mines. One observation revived now is that the
    mine water could have a lot of lithium in it - and effort is being
    made to "mine" lithium with boreholes.
    That added to the reason it discharged down the adit, rather than
    being brought to surface. I'm finding many mine depths being "below
    adit" rather than "below surface".

    For the mining, leats were constructed to bring water.
    Devon and Cornwall are very green - for good reason - it rains
    frequently.
    For the boilers and condensers yes, but also for the mineral dressing. Apparently where there was a shortage of water and they had to bring
    mine water to the surface and use that, boilers only lasted a couple
    of years, or something like that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Wilkins@21:1/5 to Jim Wilkins on Mon Feb 7 09:16:09 2022
    "Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lya6f35jom.fsf@void.com...

    "Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

    "Richard Smith" wrote in message news:ly5yps5m5n.fsf@void.com...

    ...

    -----------------------
    ...

    If you care enough the flow rate can be measured by timing the filling
    of a measured volume, perhaps the cistern that stores water for the
    steam engine boiler. ...

    ...

    The water from the mines was is too full of minerals to be much use...

    ---------------------

    It was technically possible for them to measure flow rate though probably
    not worth the effort if the results wouldn't lead to cost-effective improvements.
    https://proteusind.com/history-of-flow-meters/
    "Due to the limitations of technology and economy up to and during the
    1950s, only Orifice plate flow meters were being used in all industries, including the rotate flow and pilot tube."

    Ancient Roman water meters weren't much different. They installed bronze
    flow restriction tubes and billed according to their size.

    I found some of these second-hand to measure and improve the draft of my
    wood stove chimney and the air pressure drop (heat transfer rate) through a transistor heatsink. https://www.terrauniversal.com/differential-pressure-gauge-magnehelic-uninstalled-2625-09.html

    The result of my measurements and improvements is burning less than half as much firewood as others with similar houses. They were built with electric
    heat and though well insulated are difficult and expensive to retrofit with anything beyond a single wood or gas stove in the cellar, so I have a fuel problem similar to Cornwall's. At least I have a 240V 200A electric service able to support any welding or plasma cutting I could want, and a neighbor
    with undeveloped (hilly) land who let me cut dead trees.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Smith@21:1/5 to Jim Wilkins on Mon Feb 7 21:24:46 2022
    "Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

    "Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lya6f35jom.fsf@void.com...

    "Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

    "Richard Smith" wrote in message news:ly5yps5m5n.fsf@void.com...

    ...

    -----------------------
    ...

    If you care enough the flow rate can be measured by timing the filling
    of a measured volume, perhaps the cistern that stores water for the
    steam engine boiler. ...

    ...

    The water from the mines was is too full of minerals to be much use...

    ---------------------

    It was technically possible for them to measure flow rate though
    probably not worth the effort if the results wouldn't lead to
    cost-effective improvements.
    https://proteusind.com/history-of-flow-meters/
    ...

    "Not worth the effort" is surely the answer.
    The pump's swept-volume (piston-area x stroke) will give a very
    accurate estimate of water volume pumped.
    Measuring water flow directly - at each mine you'd have to get down to
    the adit carrying your equipment down a small twisting shaft then have
    some space to deploy it - big "ask".
    The readings would have to be the same for the same water-flow at
    each mine - so whatever direct measurement you use would have to be
    very consistent.
    Rich Smith

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Wilkins@21:1/5 to All on Mon Feb 7 18:44:14 2022
    "Richard Smith" wrote in message news:ly4k5ae5ep.fsf@void.com...

    "Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

    "Not worth the effort" is surely the answer.
    The pump's swept-volume (piston-area x stroke) will give a very
    accurate estimate of water volume pumped.
    Measuring water flow directly - at each mine you'd have to get down to
    the adit carrying your equipment down a small twisting shaft then have
    some space to deploy it - big "ask".
    The readings would have to be the same for the same water-flow at
    each mine - so whatever direct measurement you use would have to be
    very consistent.
    Rich Smith

    -----------------

    Accurate measurement wasn't a priority until recently. Consider that the
    steam engine had been in use for 150 years before someone bothered to invent the boiler pressure gauge. Previously stokers shoveled in coal until the weighted safety valve opened.

    When I was a kid learning to use a lathe the size measurement tool was still friction calipers, set by eye to a wooden ruler.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John B.@21:1/5 to muratlanne@gmail.com on Tue Feb 8 07:16:52 2022
    On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 18:44:14 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
    <muratlanne@gmail.com> wrote:

    "Richard Smith" wrote in message news:ly4k5ae5ep.fsf@void.com...

    "Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

    "Not worth the effort" is surely the answer.
    The pump's swept-volume (piston-area x stroke) will give a very
    accurate estimate of water volume pumped.
    Measuring water flow directly - at each mine you'd have to get down to
    the adit carrying your equipment down a small twisting shaft then have
    some space to deploy it - big "ask".
    The readings would have to be the same for the same water-flow at
    each mine - so whatever direct measurement you use would have to be
    very consistent.
    Rich Smith

    -----------------

    Accurate measurement wasn't a priority until recently. Consider that the >steam engine had been in use for 150 years before someone bothered to invent >the boiler pressure gauge. Previously stokers shoveled in coal until the >weighted safety valve opened.

    When I was a kid learning to use a lathe the size measurement tool was still >friction calipers, set by eye to a wooden ruler.

    Gee, you must be a really old geezer as, I read, the first hand held
    micrometer dates back to about 1848 https://www.alliancecalibration.com/blog/history-of-the-micrometer
    (:-)
    --
    Cheers,

    John B.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Smith@21:1/5 to Jim Wilkins on Tue Feb 8 06:25:29 2022
    "Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

    "Richard Smith" wrote in message news:ly4k5ae5ep.fsf@void.com...

    "Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

    ...

    Accurate measurement wasn't a priority until recently. Consider that
    the steam engine had been in use for 150 years before someone bothered
    to invent the boiler pressure gauge. Previously stokers shoveled in
    coal until the weighted safety valve opened.

    Reading

    Historic Steam Boiler Explosions
    by Alan McEwen (Author)
    Sledgehammer Engineering Press Limited
    (Mr McEwen is the friend of a friend)

    (title sounds gruesome and in many ways it is, but the insights are
    notable)

    in Boulton&Watt's day, with boiler pressures around 5psi (1/3Bar), the
    pressure was retained and limited by a water-column of a few feet
    (very few metres) tall.
    Over-pressure, and you'd "blow" water and steam into the header tank.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Smith@21:1/5 to Jim Wilkins on Tue Feb 8 06:26:21 2022
    "Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

    ...

    When I was a kid learning to use a lathe the size measurement tool was
    still friction calipers, set by eye to a wooden ruler.

    Sounds quite a pragmatic start!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Wilkins@21:1/5 to muratlanne@gmail.com on Tue Feb 8 07:01:15 2022
    "John B." wrote in message
    news:4dd30h5o2rnrt3jc9vhvj4d4p8t0nk8fg6@4ax.com...

    On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 18:44:14 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
    <muratlanne@gmail.com> wrote:

    "Richard Smith" wrote in message news:ly4k5ae5ep.fsf@void.com...

    "Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

    "Not worth the effort" is surely the answer.
    The pump's swept-volume (piston-area x stroke) will give a very
    accurate estimate of water volume pumped.
    Measuring water flow directly - at each mine you'd have to get down to
    the adit carrying your equipment down a small twisting shaft then have
    some space to deploy it - big "ask".
    The readings would have to be the same for the same water-flow at
    each mine - so whatever direct measurement you use would have to be
    very consistent.
    Rich Smith

    -----------------

    Accurate measurement wasn't a priority until recently. Consider that the >steam engine had been in use for 150 years before someone bothered to
    invent
    the boiler pressure gauge. Previously stokers shoveled in coal until the >weighted safety valve opened.

    When I was a kid learning to use a lathe the size measurement tool was
    still
    friction calipers, set by eye to a wooden ruler.

    Gee, you must be a really old geezer as, I read, the first hand held
    micrometer dates back to about 1848 https://www.alliancecalibration.com/blog/history-of-the-micrometer
    (:-)
    --
    Cheers,

    John B.
    ----------------------------

    Verniers date from 1631.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Vernier

    Over 100 years later Watt used the thickness of an old shilling to quantify
    a measurement.

    Wood lathe work still uses ancient measuring tools: https://www.woodturnerscatalog.com/t/86/Calipers

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Wilkins@21:1/5 to Jim Wilkins on Tue Feb 8 07:42:33 2022
    "Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lytud9yiuq.fsf@void.com...

    "Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

    ...

    When I was a kid learning to use a lathe the size measurement tool was
    still friction calipers, set by eye to a wooden ruler.

    Sounds quite a pragmatic start!

    -------------------------

    Our Jr High (age 13-14) shop teacher was a retired Swedish cabinet maker who first taught us the old skills like sharpening saws with files and squaring cuts with a plane and try square before introducing us to newer methods. My friends and I were ambitious and competitive enough to try to outdo each
    other so we learned quite well.

    I still use what I learned to make press-fit joints in timber framed
    woodsheds at the back end of my property, beyond the reach of electricity,
    and have even used them for hand fitting parts in electronic equipment, including a prototype of the Segway balance sensor.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)