Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 04:55:08 UTC No. 16237356

>>16237295
>steam engine
>aeolipile aka farting ball
ok retard and we are solar panels

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 05:05:06 UTC No. 16237366

>>16237295
>Are there any other examples of this happening?
The "hydraulic engine" (watermill) was far more important and wind power (toys). And probably blast furnaces-pig iron.
As many other inventions the late Republic and especially the Roman Empire killed a lot of inventions and capitalism. They destroyed independent (private) organizations, companies to improve control and avoid the turmoil of the 2nd - 1st centuries BC and slaves flooded the economy for a few hundred years. The only partial exception was Gallia during the late Empire -that ended evolving into the core of the middle ages society before its collapse during the 800s-.

Medieval Europe during the 1000-1400 was much more prolific in relation to new techs than any ancient civilization. Unlike ancient greeks they implemented and exploited new machines.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 05:17:38 UTC No. 16237379

>>16237295
the 'steam engine' you're talking about would literally tear itself apart before it could do any real work (which they already had water wheels and beasts of burden for)

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 05:32:23 UTC No. 16237388

>>16237356
>>16237379
The first airplane sucked too but within 35 years we had Spitfires and Mustangs.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 06:35:19 UTC No. 16237447

>>16237388
Using the definition of greeks inventing the steam engine, greeks also invented the airplane and it didn't improve for thousands of years.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 07:47:30 UTC No. 16237491

>>16237295
They didn't invent the steam engine. They used steam to make a ball rotate. It was bothing like the industrial revolution steam engines, which were quite not like the steam engines that you know, those were only invented in the early 19th century.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 07:49:11 UTC No. 16237494

>>16237295
They didn't invent the steam engine. They used steam to make a ball rotate. It was nothing like the industrial revolution steam engines, which were quite not like the steam engines that you know, those were only invented in the early 19th century.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 07:52:04 UTC No. 16237496

>>16237356
>aeolipile
it absolutely is a basic steam engine, it was just not recognized as being a potential source of work.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 07:54:02 UTC No. 16237498

>>16237494
>They used steam to make a ball rotate
if they used steam as an energy conversion mean to do work, it is an engine, by definition, they just never took the next leap to realize it could somehow be further developed and never went beyond a mere curiosity

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 08:05:13 UTC No. 16237518

>>16237498
And people of 5366 will wonder why we abandoned fusion power when we had fusors.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 08:26:23 UTC No. 16237531

>invent firearms
>do nothing with them
>few centuries later conquered by Europeans with epic firearms
>your women still lust after BWC to this day
>you entire culture is bulldozed in order to replace it with imitation European culture

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 08:34:21 UTC No. 16237536

>>16237531
Are Asians the definition of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?

>have the technology needed for ocean voyage to reach the Americas first but don't do it.
>have the intelligence needed to figure out the scientific method first but don't do it
>literally had the mongols almost take eastern Europe but didn't push hard enough

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 08:38:15 UTC No. 16237538

>>16237536
Isolationist culture plus a superiority complex.
About america unlike europe they lacked the reason to try.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 11:59:24 UTC No. 16237662

>>16237496
It wasn't. You couldn't do anything useful with it because it had virtually no torque. The first steam engines which actually found a use were used to pump water out of coal mines. That was extremely useful so they saw further development.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 12:01:01 UTC No. 16237664

>>16237538
>they lacked the reason to try.
They lacked ambition and a sense of adventure.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 12:06:29 UTC No. 16237670

>>16237379
One of the main problems that inventors have faces over the last couple of millennia, are the naysayers that demand the first prototype should work perfectly.
The first steam engine was a toy but points directly to the steam turbine, exploiting momentum transfer. What we got with the steam engines, were machines that worked on expansion of steam against a piston.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 12:25:40 UTC No. 16237685

>>16237536
>>have the intelligence needed to figure out the scientific method first but don't do it
That's debatable, actually.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 18:05:20 UTC No. 16238061

>>16237664
Ambition and a sense of adventure is code for desperate young man with nothing to lose. A typical byproduct of north european households (not in Poland). The typical outcome would be crime or migration

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 19:31:08 UTC No. 16238167

>>16238061
Soulless.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 05:20:26 UTC No. 16239015

>>16237295
China had most of the technology necessary for an industrial revolution (Blast Furnaces, Paper, printing press, glass) they just never got around to it because the ruling class feared that permitting such technology to thrive would allow the merchant classes to usurp the positions of power within society. So they suppressed large scale industrial production in favor of artisanal fabrication methods. For added context: merchants have always been the lowest rung of the Chinese social hierarchy, below even peasants and laborers.

And to be fair to those “short sighted” aristocrats, they were right. As we can see in much later Europe, the merchant class bourgeoise really did wind up usurping the traditional aristocratic nobility

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 07:08:16 UTC No. 16239102

>>16239015
>So they suppressed large scale industrial production in favor of artisanal fabrication methods.
Any records of any such technology getting banned?

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 07:09:16 UTC No. 16239105

>>16239015
>And to be fair to those “short sighted” aristocrats, they were right. As we can see in much later Europe, the merchant class bourgeoise really did wind up usurping the traditional aristocratic nobility
You can't hide your Jewish tongue.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 07:21:37 UTC No. 16239112

>>16237295
>Are there any other examples of this happening?
The Chinese and gunpowder.
Also glass-making and optics.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 07:24:17 UTC No. 16239113

>>16237662
>It wasn't. You couldn't do anything useful with it because it had virtually no torque
NOT THE POINT. A tiny, tiny little electric engine that is not usefu for much it still is an engine. It converts one type of non-kynetic energy into kinetic energy, no matter its size of usefulness.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 07:33:16 UTC No. 16239116

>>16239113
Explain why we don't use fusion power when we have fusors.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 07:51:56 UTC No. 16239137

>>16239116
People recognize the potential of fusion and will likely end up with it a lot faster than 1600 years from now. To someone in the year 3000 the difference between 1960 and 2100 will seem like the difference between 600 A.D and 740 A.D, and the delay between fusors and fusion power will seem fast compared to this

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 07:56:49 UTC No. 16239142

>>16237664
But Nobunga was full of ambition.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 08:12:14 UTC No. 16239152

>>16239116

The average timeframe between discovery of a scientific phenomena and commercially viable technology is about 100 years.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 08:19:30 UTC No. 16239158

>>16239137
>>16239152
My point is that there is no straightforward way from the aeolipile to the steam engine any more it is from a fusor to fusion power.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 08:26:04 UTC No. 16239162

People have been researching solar power from all the way back to 1839.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 08:43:22 UTC No. 16239169

this thread caused seethe

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 08:45:11 UTC No. 16239171

>>16239015

There was one ingredient missing: a cheap source of coal. While they had access to coal, it was far away from their population centers.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 08:47:16 UTC No. 16239173

>>16239015

Banking in China was not developed enough to facilitate a capitalist transition.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 08:58:48 UTC No. 16239182

>>16239015

China experienced a rapid population growth, which favoured labor-intensive methods over machinery. This reduced the incentive for industrialization.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 10:35:56 UTC No. 16239239

>>16239162
Well, if you count on the tale of Archimedes' mirrors in Syracuse, he used solar "power" way before that.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 10:37:01 UTC No. 16239240

>>16239116
I won't because it's not the point of the thread, come on.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 10:49:59 UTC No. 16239254

>>16239240
It wasn't the point of the question either.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 11:41:49 UTC No. 16239293

>>16237295
There's a reasonable amount of evidence the Egyptians had a little bit of electricity, though I'm not sure how. Since they didn't have a free market economy or the scientific method, it was treated as and used as magic, never to be developed beyond superstition. They would zap the legs of a recently deceased person of importance to help them walk through the afterlife, zap their jaw to help them plead their case to the gods or whatever, etc. The thought of a people using electricity for funerary rights 5000 years ago is kind of wild, but it's not like electrons didn't exist before the industrial revolution. There's a minor amount of evidence they used it for electroplating as well, so it was probably involved in the "fling everything into a pot and see what happens" type of alchemy you get when an empire reaches a reasonable amount of comfort for the ruling class.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 12:04:11 UTC No. 16239326

>>16237536
>didn't colonize Africa and get stuck paying welfare like slaves to the decedents of slaves
Look at your self, White man. L OO K WHERE ALL THIS PROGRESS HAS GOTTEN YOU!!!

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 12:16:40 UTC No. 16239345

The industrial revolution could have NEVER happened in the ancient world. The metallurgy necessary to resist the high temperature and pressure was simply not there.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 13:22:33 UTC No. 16239399

>>16237295
China mastered most of the same basic glass-making techniques as its Classical contemporaries, but did basically nothing with it until after basic optics were introduced to them by Europeans almost a thousand years later.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 14:11:45 UTC No. 16239449

>>16239345
>The metallurgy necessary to resist the high temperature and pressure was simply not there.
Bronze...

And pre-Trevithick steam engines worked at low temp and pressure.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 19:04:13 UTC No. 16239797

>>16239345
>>16239449
There is also the Stirling engine that uses low pressure and can also avoid much of the complexities with traditional steam engines.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 19:29:34 UTC No. 16239840

I thought the metal lathe was one of the important inventions paving the way for modern steam engine/the industrial revolution. The Greeks hadn't invented that

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 19:30:33 UTC No. 16239844

>>16237295
>invent the steam engine
>it ends up being the basis for nuclear energy
Pretty based if you ask me.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 19:30:37 UTC No. 16239845

>>16237295
>make a ball move
>not as much mechanical energy as I can get out of a slave so I don’t care

There’s a lot of reasons the Greeks and Romans didn’t have an Industrial Revolution. From an engineering perspective they didn’t have the chemistry knowledge required for more advanced metallurgy. They were still making their steel with bloomeries and we’re not even sure they were mass-producing charcoal like the kilns of medieval Europe were.

However, I think the biggest reason is they didn’t have the social structure necessary for an Industrial Revolution. There’s no reason to innovate on technology if all your mechanical needs are done by slaves. The foundations of the Industrial Revolution were social, a fundamental shift in labour relations, and equality before the law.

If you just look at industry from a technological, dare I say STEM-focused perspective, yeah, it kind of looks weird that so many countries came up with these technologies and didn’t take advantage of them. You need a social-sciences perspective to realize they didn’t have a societal structure capable of doing the things that made the Industrial Revolution possible.

This frightens STEM majors because they can’t just invent a new social order, and it’s why most engineers are at best technocrats with disdain for humanities, and at worst they’re authoritarian retards that want to burn all social science books. A STEM perspective of “why didn’t these retards just use their steam engine?” misses the point entirely.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 19:36:39 UTC No. 16239853

>>16239345
The first practical steam turbines were made from brass, bronze, and copper. They even had worse efficiencies, but the higher power density made them more practical. Decent machining processes were needed to make them work though.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 19:37:29 UTC No. 16239855

>>16239845
To add onto this, the first *useful* steam engines were used to pump water out of flooded mines. If Britain did not have a socioeconomic structure where finding a new mechanical solution was cheaper than getting workers to bilge the water out manually, they wouldn’t have started the Industrial Revolution. In Greece, if a mine flooded, you would just send slaves to bilge the water.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 19:42:10 UTC No. 16239862

>>16239853
Yeah, but those machines are hard to produce at scale, plus it’s not just the machines themselves, but the infrastructure. Carbon steel is basically a prerequisite for railroads, bronze, and wrought iron are too soft and cast iron cracks too easily.

Carbon steel was always going to be a prerequisite to the revolution.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 19:49:45 UTC No. 16239872

>>16239862
Steam turbines were best for boats.
>at scale
They were profitable enough initially to fund further development. I doubt steam locomotives were really made 'at scale'
>infrastructure
Boats go in docks

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 19:50:14 UTC No. 16239874

>>16239116
Fusors are extremely inefficient and trying to generate power from them ends up with a net loss of ~99.9%. Fusors are useful as learning tools, fun projects, and home neutron sources; power is much more complicated.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 20:06:08 UTC No. 16239905

>>16239874
For the second time it was a rhetorical question that wasn't meant to be answered, but it was meant to highlight that there is a long way from some kind of toy device to actual practical use.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 20:23:33 UTC No. 16239932

>>16239905
I apologize for misunderstanding, I just get excited to talk about fusors sometimes.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 20:25:27 UTC No. 16239934

>>16239845
The question may be whether you have an oversupply of labour in resource acquiry or manufacturing.
Last paragraph is bullshit.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 20:25:48 UTC No. 16239935

>>16239239
The ancient Greeks and Romans are well documented as having glass lenses that could burn things.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 20:34:06 UTC No. 16239938

>>16239853
>Decent machining processes were needed to make them work though.
No, not even. The "atmospheric" steam engines often had leather seals for the cylinders.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 20:35:02 UTC No. 16239939

>>16239862
Railroads weren't a prerequisite for the industrial revolution. It started with low pressure steam engines pumping water out of coal mines, putting that water into canals, and bringing the coal into cities using canal boats.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 21:49:59 UTC No. 16240015

>>16237295
A Roman invented plastic and showed it to the emperor Tiberius who ordered the inventor beheaded in fear that it would destroy the economy

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 23:28:59 UTC No. 16240163

>>16238061
Poles are known to migrate and commit crimes. Their immigrants are notorious for this. You're not seeing some Scandinavian doing that shit meanwhile. No idea what the fuck you're on about.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 00:47:18 UTC No. 16240255

>>16237295
seriously to call that a steam engine is a reach. it was made out of bronze and could barely hold any pressure at all compared to a steel steam engine


it was just too ahead of the times, the metallurgy wasn't ready

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 01:00:26 UTC No. 16240278

>>16239326
All because USA fell for the holohoax and started letting jews everywhere

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 04:17:50 UTC No. 16240538

>>16240015
Source: a roman gay novel.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 06:48:59 UTC No. 16240658

>>16239938
Decent machining processes were necessary to make steam turbines work. The bearings were the hard part
>>16240255
The first practical steam engines worked at low pressure. Like 1.3 bar. Bronze would have worked

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 07:41:21 UTC No. 16240686

>>16237518
>muh hecking fuserinos
No one is abandoning fusion power retard

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:48:46 UTC No. 16241479

>>16240658
Steam turbines came MUCH later in the industrial revolution.