The sad story of the world's first steamship and its inventor

"...I am in a sad situation. When I do the best I can, I only arouse hostility."
Denis Papin (from a letter to Leibniz, 1712)

A Brief History of the First Engines

It is not known exactly when the first mechanism designed for mass production of items needed by people was invented. But thanks to the records left by the wise Archimedes, descriptions of amazing mechanisms that were constructed several thousand years ago and worked reliably for the benefit of ancient people have come down to us from the depths of centuries. These prehistoric machines were driven by human muscle power, and the largest ones by animal power. Thus, the first engines were man himself and his four-legged assistants (with the exception of the cat - it was never possible to involve it in socially useful work).

Human thought does not stand still, and already in those distant years people began to think that it would be nice to replace the power of animals with some kind of constant source of energy that does not need to be fed and watered. Then someone noticed a river flowing senselessly nearby and not bringing any significant benefit to production. This someone decided to use the power of water movement and make the river work for the benefit of lazy humanity. Thus, the first in stories engine - water.

At first it was used to lift (pump) water from the river and pump it into irrigation canals (water pump), and then to grind flour (water mill). Later, people began to use the force taken from the water to drive the shafts of various machines designed to make various products. The ancient water engine was quite primitive: water drove a large wheel, and from it the rotation was transferred to the drive shaft of some machine by means of gears and shafts.

Here a small design hitch arose: the current rotates the water wheel at a constant speed, and machine tools require rotation at variable speeds, and most often at higher speeds than the wheel. Ancient mechanics were smart enough and learned to change the speed of rotation of drive shafts by means of gears of different diameters: when transferring from a small gear to a large one, the rotation slowed down, but the transmitted force increased, and when transferring from a large one to a small one, on the contrary, the speed increased, and the force decreased. By connecting gears of different diameters (with different numbers of teeth), it was possible to obtain a large number of gear ratios, which is vital for a machine tool when performing complex work. This is how multi-stage gearboxes were invented - prehistoric reducers.

A little later, people began to use wind energy and began to build wind engines - windmills. But the wind was too capricious a source of energy: sometimes it blows, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes it blows too weakly or in the wrong direction, and sometimes it suddenly blows so hard that the mill falls over. But the water in the river always flows in one direction, rotating the wheel at a practically constant speed. As a result of the invention of the water engine, an important stage in the life of mankind began - the transition from manual labor to machine labor.

The solution to the problem of power take-off from the river gave a strong impetus to the development of design thought and brought to light a new profession: a mechanic technician. The most interesting old technical design was a sawmill from the 17th century.

Thanks to a complex set of sequentially connected cylindrical gears, rotation was diverted from the water wheel and divided into two power flows. The first, through the crank and rods, provided reciprocating motion of the saw blade, and the second was diverted to a complex mechanism that pulled a log or board onto the blade. By changing the diameters of the wheels, it was possible to regulate both the speed of the saw and the speed of the log.

Gradually, large and small manufactories began to grow along the river banks: spinning, cotton ginning, sawmills. As a result, more and more people moved away from agriculture and were drawn into production work, a new class began to emerge - the proletariat.

But the water engine turned out to be not ideal either. Firstly, the factories were “tied” to rivers, and not all areas had rivers. Secondly, in some kingdoms and states it was very cold in winter, and water engines froze. And mechanics all over the world began to rack their brains over how to invent such an engine so that its operation would not depend on the whims of Mother Nature and would not be tied to the river.

History of the invention of the steam engine

The elbow is close, try to bite it. Well, the ancient mechanics could not find a principle for constructing an engine so that it would work without the help of capricious natural forces. Some kind of driving force was needed, but where to get it?

And then, as always, His Majesty Chance came to the aid of humanity.

Once upon a time, a scientist with the funny name Papin decided to boil some potatoes. He put a saucepan on the fire, and after a while the water boiled, and the escaping steam began to rattle the lid unpleasantly. This common phenomenon, thoughtlessly observed millions of times by many people all over the world, suddenly interested the inquisitive Papin. He put a stone on the lid and began to observe: what would happen next?

The lid remained motionless for a while, but then began to rattle again. Papin put a larger stone, and after a while the steam began to shake the lid again. The scientist, as if enchanted, watched for a long time without looking away as the steam stubbornly pushed the lid up, then the steam pressure decreased, and the lid, under the weight of the stone, fell down, then rose up again. And so it went on until the water had completely boiled away.

Papin poured in some water, and then an interesting idea came to him. He took another lid of a smaller diameter, which fit tightly inside the pan, barely touching its walls. And when the water boiled, he lowered the lid inside and was surprised to find that the steam pressed evenly from below, and the lid quickly rose under its pressure to the level of the edges of the pan. Papin poured out some water so that the lid could lie almost on the very bottom, and repeated the experiment. The steam again pressed on the lid and squeezed it out of the pan, but now the lid traveled a greater distance than before. Then Papin realized that boiling water can develop a decent force, and began to think about how to take this force from it and make it rotate the drive wheel of the machine.

It was under such funny circumstances that the principle of the first piston engine was discovered, in which the lid was the piston and the saucepan was the cylinder. Papin outlined his idea of ​​using steam power to perform useful work in his work "The New Art" (1707).

After this discovery, mechanics only had to figure out how to transform the reciprocating motion of the piston into the rotary motion of the wheel. This was done by means of a rod (connecting rod) attached to the piston and a heavy metal circle - a flywheel, which, having spun up from the push of the connecting rod and having gained inertia after the piston made its working stroke, returned it to its original position - pushed the lid into the pan, which was facilitated by a sharp decrease in pressure in the pan due to the release of steam. And the flywheel was connected to the connecting rod by a short rod, called a bloodworm. The mobility of the parts was ensured by three hinges. That's all the wisdom.

Thus, at the beginning of the 18th century, by chance, a creative impulse arose that eventually led to the creation of the first piston engine, which was later called a steam engine.

The above suggests that all the most important inventions are extremely simple, and the clues that lead to them are right next to us, but not every person is given the opportunity to see them.

Since water was boiled using a fire outside the cylinder, steam engines, according to the classification adopted in the 19th century, were dubbed external combustion engines, but in those distant years of the 18th century they were called less fancifully - “fire machines”.

It is clear that the above-mentioned Papin saucepan could not in this form serve as a working steam engine suitable for performing various production tasks, and in the generally accepted history of engine building, the honor of discovering the first steam engine is usually not attributed to him.

Only one thing is known for sure: Denis Papin was an extremely talented man and went down in history as the inventor of the first safety valve in high-pressure steam boilers, which saved many human lives and is still used today.

History of the invention of the first steamboat

However, judging by the surviving correspondence of Denis Papin with the famous German scientist Leibniz, the inventor in 1707 still managed to fulfill the dream of his life and build a working steam engine. And not just build it, but even test it and find a practical application, adapting it as a ship engine for a small schooner. In fact, the brilliant Papin built the world's first steamship, which was 100 years ahead of the era of steamship construction. According to the inventor, the machine worked smoothly and reliably, and the schooner easily went against the current.

But the narrow-minded rulers of Germany not only showed no interest in the invention, but also did not give Papin permission (a pass) to sail from the mouth of the Fulda River to the Weser and further to Bremen, in order to eventually reach London, where he hoped to arouse a keen interest in his discovery. Driven into a dead end in life, the inventor, severely constrained in funds, decided to take a desperate step - to sail without permission, without an established pass, boarded his steamboat in Kassel with his family and meager belongings and set off on the morning of September 24, 1707. The wooden vessel with two huge paddle wheels reached the village of Locha near Münden, where it moored to the shore to replenish its coal supply.

This strange vessel, noisily breathing steam and shrouded in clouds of thick smoke, seemed to the technically backward local ship owners to be a terrible fiend from hell, which, in addition, intended to brazenly slip through the water area monopolized by them without a pass. The owners of sailboats were furious, dragged the "prehistoric steamship" to the shore and smashed it to pieces, at the same time bruising its owner. In memory of this event, stupid technically illiterate people began to be called suckers.

Engraving by an unknown artist illustrating the destruction of Papin's steamship (the desperate inventor is depicted in the lower right corner)

The above description of the ship's demise is a joke by the author, but as we know, every joke has only a grain of truth. Most likely, the ship owners intuitively felt that this self-propelled schooner was the forerunner of a new type of vessel, independent of the current and capricious wind and capable of becoming serious competitors to their antediluvian sailing ships. Therefore, they decided to destroy the potentially dangerous enemy in the bud.

Shocked by the tragedy that had occurred, Papin left this wild country, stuck in the dark Middle Ages, and moved to England. However, broken by the failure that had befallen him, he stopped his inventive activity and quietly passed away, spending the last years of his life in poverty and complete oblivion - even the date of his death remained unknown.

This is how ungrateful humanity treated a talented inventor who spent his entire life working for technical progress.

The drawings of Papin's ship engine have not survived, and the very fact of its construction remained unknown in that century, and in the next was declared historically dubious. The reason for the latter is obvious: the proud Germans, who considered themselves a nation of techies, were embarrassed to admit that they could not understand the value of Papin's invention. And the inventor himself was French, which, apparently, also contributed to his fatal failure to promote the invention in Germany and was the reason for the Germans' denial of the fact of the construction of the first steamboat.

Subsequently, many inventors, unfamiliar with the design of Papin's machine, tried for a long time to find such a design scheme so that the steam engine would work with the maximum possible effect and be sufficiently reliable. In different years of the 18th century, many models of steam engines appeared, but this matter never got off the ground.
Only the Scotsman James Watt managed to fully resolve such a difficult task, which will be discussed below.

Sources:
Baudry de Saunier. Detailed course of automobile structure. Printing house of Nik. Orlovsky, Petrograd, 1916.
Gumilevsky L. Creators of the first engines. Main editorial board of popular science and youth literature. Moscow, 1936
Kuznetsov B.V. Development of heat engines. State Power Engineering Publishing House, M, 1953.
Shpanov N. Birth of the Motor. State Power Engineering Publishing House, M, 1934.

Comments

[Dutchman Michel]

The article is a solid five! It's just a shame that there are very, very few articles like this on VO

[Nikolaevich I]

A solid "five" for suckers? I wish I could write more about “idlers”!

[Lewww]

A solid "five" for suckers? request I wish you would write about "slackers" too!

The publication is intended for readers with a sense of humor

[Dutchman Michel]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

A solid "five" for suckers?

This is for the brightness of the narrative. It's good that it's not aschloch

[Blacksmith 55]

Well, what about the potatoes? Did you eat them or were you so carried away by your invention that you overcooked them?
I've never heard of Papen. At school we were taught that the Cherepanovs built the first car, and then there's some Papen.
An informative article, but somehow unfinished. Will there be a continuation?

[d ^ Amir]

The Cherepanov brothers built the first steam locomotive in Russia in 1834!!! And the Petersburg-Tsarskoye Selo railway was built in 1837!!! That is, by 1837, the railway was no longer a super novelty and was reliable enough that it could be used to transport the top officials of the state. BUT!!! The first railway in Russia was built at the Olonetsky Mining Plant in 1788, obviously using horse-drawn traction!!!!! What is definitely a Russian invention is the invention of the modern form of rails.

[balabol]

It all started in England
For example, the iron rails used in Whitehaven in 1738 were made of cast iron. Cast iron rails had several advantages over wooden ones, including greater strength and durability.
However, it is worth noting that wrought iron rails came into use later, in the early 19th century. Wrought iron was more flexible and resistant to deformation, making it the preferred material for railroads at the time.
In 1738, in Whitehaven, England, rails were used in mines to transport coal. The Whitehaven Railway was one of the first to use metal rails, which greatly improved the efficiency of transportation compared to wooden rails.
These early iron rails represented an important step in the development of rail transport, which later led to the creation of more complex and long-distance railways.

[balabol]

Wooden cart roads, also known as "mine roads" or "timber rails," were used in factories and mines from ancient times until the Industrial Revolution. They played an important role in transporting materials and goods. Here are some key points about wooden cart roads:
1. Construction: Wooden roads usually consisted of two parallel beams laid on the ground, on which the carts moved. These beams could be made of strong wood such as oak or pine, which provided sufficient strength for moving the loads.
2. Use in Mines: In mines, wooden roads were used to transport coal and ore. Carts filled with minerals rolled along the rails, making the process of extracting and moving materials much easier.
3. Factories and Plants: In factories, wooden roads were used to move raw materials and finished products. This allowed for the optimization of production processes and increased work efficiency.
4. Transition to Iron Rails: With the advancement of technology and the introduction of iron rails in the 18th century, wooden roads were gradually replaced by stronger and more durable iron rails. This improved the load capacity and speed of transportation.
Wooden roads became the basis for the further development of rail transport, and their use in mines and factories was an important step in industrialization. 
Reinforcing wooden rails with iron is a common practice that has significantly increased the strength and durability of wooden structures, especially under heavy use.
1. Metal Linings: Wooden rails could have metal linings or strips attached with nails or screws. This increased the rigidity of the rails and protected them from wear.
2. Angles and Steel Beams: The use of steel angles or beams to strengthen the structure of the rails was also common. These elements provided additional support and distributed the load over a larger area, reducing the risk of damage to the wood.
3. Metal connections: In some cases, wooden rails were connected to metal elements, creating combined structures. This allowed the advantages of both wood and metal to be effectively used, ensuring strength and durability.
4. Fastening with bolts and staples: Metal staples and bolts were used to fasten the wooden rails to the metal members, which ensured a secure connection and prevented loosening.
1. In the mid-18th century, wrought iron rails began to appear. These rails were stronger and more durable than wooden ones. They were often shaped like a "U" or "L", which allowed for better load distribution. An example of such rails are the rails developed in England for mines, where they were used to transport coal.
2. Rails with ribs:
In the late 18th century, rails with raised ribs began to be used, which improved stability and reduced wear. These rails provided better support for the wheel pairs and contributed to a smoother ride.
3. Original profiled rails:
During this period, the first profiled rails were also developed, which had a more complex shape and provided better load distribution. This allowed the use of heavier locomotives and wagons.

[futurohunter]

In fact, Papin was not the only one working on steam engines at the time. Just as the 19th century was pregnant with aviation, which took off in the early 20th century, so the 18th century was pregnant with steam and electricity, which took off in the 19th century.

[Valery Mamai]

At school we were taught that the Cherpanovs built the first steam locomotive using a previously known steam engine.

[Lewww]

The article gets a solid five!

Thank you for the positive feedback - a rarity on this site.
The reader of VO is specific and very stingy with praise. But he does not spare either time or effort to write a lengthy critical opus

[Sensor]

An extremely superficial article.
Not Papin, but Denis Papin.
It is unclear why an illustration of a sawmill is given, which will not work because of the large gear ratio and friction between the gears. Nothing is said about the work on the gunpowder machine and there is an unclear statement about the safety valve, which was in the design of the first autoclave. This autoclave, Papen's boiler, with almost minor changes, has survived to this day and is called a pressure cooker.
A children's book of much higher quality -- Nikolay Shpanov "Stories about the successes of great losers" https://royallib.com/book/shpanov_nikolay/povesti_ob_udachah_velikih_neudachnikov.html

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Sensor

Not Papin, but Denis Papin.

Or maybe initially it was Papin? And it was like this.... "Whose are you, boy? Papin! A-a-a, I can see from your face that you're Papin, not the neighbor's! So "Papin" stuck to him! And only then did it change according to the "broken telephone" principle to Papen!

[Azim77]

It is likely that someone in Mamin-Sibiryak's family received the surname this way, but a Frenchman in Germany could not have been formed according to the rules of the Russian language.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Azim77

The French in Germany could not possibly be composed according to the rules of the Russian language.

Can't you even joke about it!??

[Azim77]

Well, I also, having included the "Mom's Siberian" part, wanted to answer a little jokingly.)

[Dedok]

нabout french in germany could not be composed in any way according to the rules of the Russian language.

and what does Germany have to do with this, now?

[Lewww]

An extremely superficial article.
Not Papin, but Denis Papin.

I thought that one of the readers would show off his erudition and make such a nitpick.
Dear Sir, in two sources I used (including the oldest one) it says Papin, and only in one - Papen.
Therefore, I can assume that it is acceptable to use both spellings.

Nothing is said about work on the gunpowder machine.

And the scientist's date of birth has not yet been indicated.
Did you read the title of the article carefully?
I did not set myself the task of making a biography of the inventor, those who find this curious can learn from the sources cited in the article

[Olgovich]

Quote: Lewww

I thought that one of the readers would show off his erudition and make such a nitpick.
Dear Sir, in two sources I used (including the oldest one) it says Papin, and only in one - Papen.

Don't pay attention - the article is interesting because it's not about Fulton.

Especially since you have both versions of the surname in the article. Did you foresee it?

[Lewww]

Especially since you have both versions of the surname in the article. Did you foresee it?

Of course I foresaw it, but in the final version of the article I wrote it like this:

One thing is certain: Denny Papin (Papen) was an extremely talented person,

but the editor of VO for some reason removed what was written in brackets, Papen wrote, and perhaps made some other changes of his own - I didn’t check

[Dedok]

I thought that one of the readers will show off his erudition

this is not erudition...

[Yaroslav Tekkel]

Quote: Lewww

Dear Sir, in the two sources I used (incl. the oldest one)

It is precisely in the oldest ones that the most wild stuff is found in terms of the transmission of foreign names and titles. Everyone at school learned "their own Platos and quick-witted Newtons", and at the bottom of the textbook page there was a footnote that "Newton" is Newton. And that's nothing, guessing that "Diderot" is Diderot would be more difficult. Unfortunately, some incorrectness has long since entered the language so firmly that it has become the norm - like Marshal Ney, who was actually Ne. But this did not happen with Papin, so there is no reason to write incorrectly.

[Dutchman Michel]

Quote: Sensor

Not Papin, but Denis Papin

In French transcription he is Papin, and when he moved to England he probably became Pepin.

[Lewww]

In Russian-language literature I have come across two variants: Papin and Papen.
In our country, the translation of foreign surnames is somehow spontaneously formed, for example, Watt and Watt - both variants are used, although with different meanings

[Kvakosavrus]

And then Pippin came to the Shire.

[Lewww]

It is unclear why an illustration of a sawmill is given, which will not work due to the high gear ratio and friction between the gears.

The figure is given as an example of what complex mechanisms were created in ancient times using the power of a water engine.
And there is no need to nitpick - this is a drawing depicting a device and a circuit diagram, not a blueprint.
Naturally, the water wheel on such a setup was significantly larger, but if it is depicted as large, the gear will not be visible.

[balabol]

Water machines used in Europe began to develop after the fall of the Roman Empire, and their technology varied greatly throughout history. Key points in the history of water machines in Europe and how they compare to Roman technology:
1. Roman Empire:
◦ Water-powered machines such as watermills were common in the Roman Empire. They used water power to grind grain and other processes. The Romans used a variety of mechanisms including water wheels and power transmission systems.
2. Middle Ages:
◦ After the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century, many technologies were lost or forgotten. However, by the 9th and 10th centuries, watermills began to develop again in Europe. During this time, technology gradually improved, but it still did not reach the level of its Roman counterparts.
3. Renaissance and late Middle Ages:
◦ By the 12th and 13th centuries, water power technology in Europe began to match that of Rome. During this time, more advanced water mill designs emerged, such as horizontal and vertical water wheels, as well as more complex mechanisms that improved efficiency.
4. Industrial Revolution:
◦ In the 18th century, with the onset of the Industrial Revolution, water power technology improved significantly. Water mills became more complex and efficient, and their use expanded to new manufacturing processes. This time can be considered the period when water power in Europe reached a level comparable to that of the Romans.
In the Roman Empire, water engines played an important role in industry, providing mechanization for processes that were previously performed manually.
Water mills for flour production:
◦ Water mills were used to automate the process of grinding grain into flour. This allowed for a significant increase in production volume and a reduction in labor costs. The most famous examples of such mills were found in Pompeii and other Roman cities.
2. Wood processing:
◦ Water-powered machines were used to saw timber into logs and boards, which was important for the construction industry. This allowed the timber processing process to be accelerated and manual labor costs to be reduced.
3. Metallurgy:
◦ In some regions of the Roman Empire, water engines were used to drive hammers and other machinery needed to process metals. For example, they could power forges where tools and weapons were made.
4. Textile production:
◦ Water engines were used for textile manufacturing processes such as carding wool and dyeing fabrics. This allowed for faster production and improved textile quality.
5. Paper production:
◦ In some cases, water-powered machines were used to produce paper, which became important for the dissemination of knowledge and information.
6. Production of building materials:
◦ Water engines could be used to produce lime and other building materials needed for the construction of buildings and structures.
7. Industrial production:
◦ Water engines were also used in various workshops and factories to drive various mechanisms, which contributed to the development of production processes.
8. Irrigation systems:
◦ Water machines were also used for irrigation of agricultural land, which allowed for efficient use of water resources and increased crop yields.
9.Construction and infrastructure:
◦ Water engines could be used to lift water from rivers and reservoirs, which was important for building and maintaining infrastructure such as aqueducts and baths.
10.Transport:
◦ In some cases, water engines were used to lift and move loads, making it easier to transport goods.

[parusnik]

In the 1st century, Heron of Alexandria described in his treatise "Pneumatics" under the name of aeolipile, a prototype of a steam engine. Aeolipile or Heron's ball consisted of a heated boiler and a turbine in the form of a sphere on an axis. The ball had two pipes (nozzles) directed in opposite directions around the circle. From the boiler, steam is fed to the ball through a hollow axis and flies out of it through the nozzles. The internal energy of the water vapor is converted into mechanical energy of the rotation of the ball. For many centuries, Heron's ball remained a technical toy or a toy.

[Nikolaevich I]

A steam "pot" is, of course, great! But even earlier (much earlier!) there was Heron's steam ball! Unfortunately, the ancient Greeks did not bother with the practical application of it! And only at the end of the last century a cartoon appeared, where proactive comrades showed how Heron's sphere could be turned into an engine of technical progress!

[Dutchman Michel]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

Unfortunately, the ancient Greeks did not bother with the practical application of it.

I can hardly imagine where such machines could have been used in ancient times.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Dutchman Michel

I can hardly imagine where such machines could have been used in ancient times.

But the authors of the cartoon I mentioned presented it!

[parusnik]

And there were so many slaves, like dirt, why need cars?

[Lewww]

A steam "pot" is, of course, great! good But even earlier (much earlier!) there was Heron's steam ball!

Heron's Aeolipile was not an engine, but a toy

[Fat]

Greetings. Heron of Alexandria intended to use the aeolipile as a drive for a winch for lifting firewood to the lighthouse. The same one on the island of Pharos...

[Lewww]

Perhaps, but all this was so long ago that the information was preserved in the form of epics and legends of the native land - essentially in the form of fairy tales.
Or at best some pencil sketches

[Fat]

It is known that the entire treatise of Heron "Pneumatics", where the aeolipile is described, has been preserved in the Arabic translation of the 9th century Syrian scholar Costa ibn Luka al-Ba'albaki under the title "On the lifting of weights".

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Lewww

Heron's Aeolipile was not an engine, but a toy

Your words are not convincing! Everything is "comparatively relative"! And "serious things" become toys, and toys become practical products!

[Lewww]

Your words are not convincing!

I have only cited the opinion of one of the authors of the source used - Kuznetsov.
I personally don’t know Heron and I’m not aware of the practical application of his invention.

[belost79]

"In memory of this event, stupid, technically illiterate people began to be called suckers."
As they say, "what a twist"

[Senior seaman]

The potatoes did spread later, though. If I remember correctly, Frederick the Great contributed by posting a sentry to guard the potato field. The peasants, who had previously refused to hear about the "devil's apple," decided that they were guarding something useful and began to steal...

[Richard]

Friedrich, sometimes by cunning, sometimes by direct coercion, taught the Germans to grow a strange vegetable – potatoes. Thanks to them, many Germans were saved from starvation; the nation did not lose many people during the terrible years of famine. In gratitude for this, visitors always put potato tubers on the grave of Old Fitz.
a photo On the tombstone of Frederick II in the courtyard of Sanssouci, potatoes lie all year round.

[Knell wardenheart]

Thank you Author! I read it with interest!

[cpls22]

Most likely, ship owners intuitively felt that this self-propelled schooner was the forerunner of a new type of vessel.

Unfortunately, techies are often helpless in the jungle of human relationships.
If he had made his vessel sailing at the same time, he might have been able to sail to London, and then demonstrate the capabilities of the machine to interested parties. Or find such interested parties closer to him.

[Lewww]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

But maybe initially it was Papin?

I won't take it upon myself to guess what it was like during his lifetime, but I believe that in our homeland they originally wrote Papin

[ln_ln]

This is how multi-stage gearboxes were invented - prehistoric gearboxes.

It is a masterpiece!
The author needs to decide on the meaning of the words "reducer" and "prehistoric".

[Lewww]

Perhaps you could expand on your thought and explain what exactly the author is not being precise about?
Or do you enjoy arguing with hints?

[ln_ln]

Or do you enjoy arguing with hints?

Is it really that difficult to find out the meaning of words?
I can do it for you.
A gearbox is a reduction gear. In contrast, an increase gear is called a multiplier.
Prehistoric - existing before surviving written sources.

[Lewww]

Prehistoric - existing before surviving written sources.

the word "prehistoric" was used by me as a metaphor. But so that people like you don't find fault, next time I'll put all metaphors in quotation marks

Gearbox - reduction gear

This is in a narrow sense; in a broad sense, P refers to a mechanism that changes the speed of rotation when transmitting motion from one shaft to another.
I took a photo especially for you - Brief Polytechnical Dictionary. State Publishing House of Technical Literature, 1955.
And I know what a multiplier and a demultiplier are.

[ln_ln]

speed-variable mech

Reduction - REDUCTION.
Change is variation.
The dictionary is wrong. This is a consequence of the neglect of Latin by school reformers.
I have encountered such errors in explanatory technical dictionaries before. The level of terminological culture is low.
Unfortunately, I am not very strong in Latin either, and, unlike you, I do not fully understand the meaning of the word "demultiplier". I can only assume that the prefix "de-" here does not mean negation, but doubling. Please do not suggest dictionary entries for the reason stated.

[Lewww]

The dictionary is wrong.

The dictionary is never wrong.
Variation is not just a change, it is variability
The gearbox changes its ratio with a certain frequency converter, and variable speed drive - with variable (not constant)

Unfortunately, I am not very strong in Latin either, and, unlike you, I do not fully understand the meaning of the word "demultiplier"

This is not Latin, but a technical term, an additional gear in the transfer case, designed to increase the torque of the gearbox and double the number of its gears.
In technical terms, D is a gearbox (two gears).
Well, and also in books on automobiles, a gearbox is sometimes called a GP with a differential, although it is more correct to call only the GP that way

And we are not discussing the interpretation of Latin, but the knowledge and correct application of technical terms.

[ln_ln]

And we are not discussing the interpretation of Latin, but the knowledge and correct application of technical terms.

Technical terms were introduced by people who knew Latin.
And then they were used incorrectly by people who didn’t know Latin.
I liked the line about Boris Johnson, that he is Donald Trump who knows Latin. They still teach it at Eton.

this is a gearbox (two gears)

A gear transmission consists of a pinion and a wheel.

[Lewww]

A gear transmission consists of a pinion and a wheel.

Where do you get all this from?

In the simplest gear transmission there are TWO wheels.
In automotive engineering, both are called gears - driving and driven.

One toothed wheel in a worm gear
Let's end it here - off top

[ln_ln]

Where do you get all this from?

From a textbook on machine parts.

In the automotive industry, both are called gears.

But where is this from?

[Lewww]

From a textbook on machine parts.

It's good that you have a textbook, now all that's left is to learn to understand what you read.
In a gear transmission there are 2 wheels, the small one in "classical science" is usually called a pinion, the large one - a wheel.
But as separate parts (for example in a gearbox) they are both called gears.

Don't think that I'm bragging, on my bookshelf there are 6 textbooks on Machine Parts and all the volumes of the first edition of the Soviet technical encyclopedia.
Well, and a couple of polytechnic dictionaries. So if I don't know something or have forgotten it, there is always the opportunity to find out and restore it.
Well, I don’t see any point in arguing about terminology, because it a) changes over the years; b) has its own specifics in different branches of technology

But where is this from?

You can see these terms in any Soviet manual on car repair and operation.
Well, or, for example, in Vakhlamov's textbook https://cdn1.ozone.ru/s3/multimedia-i/6043270650.jpg
Or in the old Soviet "classic" https://djvu.online/file/atjlchUkJwrZ8? if you are a fan of antiquity

[ln_ln]

Well, I don’t see any point in arguing about terminology, because it a) changes over the years; b) has its own specifics in different branches of technology

Terminology "changes" due to illiterate usage.
In a publication of a certain polytechnic institute, in an article by a candidate of technical sciences, I come across the word "oscillation" several times, written with 3 errors. Well, shall we stake out "a change in terminology"?

[Lewww]

Terminology "changes" due to illiterate usage.

Not always.
For example, at one time in the Soviet automobile industry, the CV joint was called by different names cardan, then they started calling hinge or cardan joint.
In pre-revolutionary publications, gears were sometimes called cogwheels.
Any term is a kind of convention - people at some point agreed to call something something. Then, years later, other people decide to call it something differently.

[ln_ln]

For example, at one time in the Soviet automobile industry, the CV joint was called a cardan at different times, then they began to call it a hinge or cardan joint.

Did you get this from conversations with your garage neighbors? The industry has never used anything like this.
And the correct one would be a cardan joint.

[Lewww]

The industry has never used something like this.

How do you know?
Dear Sir, I have collected a large historical and technical library, so I do not use garage slang.
By the way, in garages and service stations, a cardan shaft is not called a CV joint, but a cardan shaft.

Link from source #2 (post Yesterday, 22:20)

[ln_ln]

A cardan joint, also known as a Hooke joint, is not a CV joint.
You gave an example of illiterate writing.

[Lewww]

My dear, you don’t even understand what you are writing and don’t know the subject of discussion.
In Soviet technical literature, the Hooke joint was never called a CV joint and the phrase "cardan joint" was never used.
You are not familiar with the generally accepted terminology and operate with some of your own personal concepts of how and what to call correctly, not hesitating to accuse the compilers of polytechnic dictionaries, books for engineers of the Soviet automobile industry and even textbooks for Russian universities of illiteracy.

Let's end it here.

[ln_ln]

My dear, you don’t even understand what you are writing and don’t know the subject of discussion.

My dear, unlike you, I am a mechanical engineer, and I have a red diploma.

and did not use the phrase "universal joint".

Russian language!
You are a humanities scholar!
"KARDANNY" is a word-formation error, and it doesn't matter how many times it is repeated.
Cardano didn't deserve this treatment.
In Soviet textbooks for universities, I encountered not only terminological errors, but also gross technical ones (not typos).

[Lewww]

My dear, unlike you, I am a mechanical engineer,

perhaps, but you don't know the terminology accepted in the domestic auto industry,

In Soviet textbooks for universities I encountered not only terminological errors

Write to the Ministry of Science of the Russian Federation to remove all incorrect publications and issue new ones with the amendments you indicated - I have no objections
and all the Soviet ones were removed from libraries and burned

By the way, in which publication did you see the statement that the Hooke joint is a CV joint?
I became curious

[ln_ln]

By the way, in which publication did you see the statement that the Hooke joint is a CV joint?
I became curious

It was you who wrote that the CV joint is called a "cardan".
By the way, there are dozens of varieties of CV joints.
"Cardano hinge" and "Hooke hinge" are synonyms, and it does not matter who first proposed such a design.
And this joint is not a CV joint, that’s just the way it’s kinematically designed.

[Lewww]

It was you who wrote that the CV joint is called a "cardan".

not quite so, I wrote that the cardan joint was called a CV joint in Soviet technical literature.
But I didn't write that in literature the Hook joint is called a CV joint

And this joint is not a CV joint.

And who claimed that it is?
Let me ask again:

By the way, in which publication did you see the statement that the Hooke joint is a CV joint?
I became curious

[ln_ln]

Let me ask again

So, you can't read.
And get rid of tautologies.

[Lewww]

I can read, but I don’t understand your logic.
It is well known that the Hooke joint structurally repeats the Cardano joint, but why did you decide that the term "cardan" can only be used to refer to Hooke joints, and not to all joints used in cardan transmission?
And again I will note: never in Soviet technical literature was the Hooke joint called a CV joint - don't try to stretch an owl onto a globe

[ln_ln]

what is the term "cardan"

Yes, this is not a term, but colloquialism.
The articulated transmission is not necessarily a cardan. But if the root "cardan" appears, then this is an unambiguous reference to the hinge authored by Cardano.
Don't shield the confused.

[Lewww]

Well then, according to your logic, only a transmission with Hooke joints can be called a cardan.
Therefore, it is incorrect to call the cardan shaft of a modern Niva that way and it should be called a "joint shaft"
Good - don't stretch an owl onto a globe

[ln_ln]

Well then, according to your logic, only a transmission with Hooke joints can be called a cardan.

Did it just dawn on you now?
Just not a cardan shaft.

[Lewww]

Dear Sir, okay, I got your message: all Soviet and anti-Soviet textbooks on auto-making should be immediately removed from libraries and burned.
And their authors (who are still alive) should be stripped of all academic degrees and titles so that others don’t get the chance to do the same.
I propose to close our dispute on this optimistic note.

[ln_ln]

I realized

Sorry, it's not my fault that it was UNDERSTOOD that way.

[ln_ln]

It's a rare case, but the articles about Papen in Wiki are an order of magnitude more informative than this article.
I like English better.

[Lewww]

Well, here's another critic.
Dear Sir, did you read the title of the publication carefully?
Read again: A sad story the world's first steamship and its inventor

I did not set myself the task of describing the ENTIRE life of the inventor and ALL of his inventions.
The story was only about that short period when he invented the steam engine and (according to him) built the world's first steamship.
And if you really wanted to criticize so much, then you should have found fault with the part about water and wind engines, which at first glance has nothing to do with the story about Denis.

[ln_ln]

Read again: The sad story of the world's first steamship and its inventor

He did not build a steamship. That boat was powered by a muscle. And he did not build a steam engine. After him, Newcomen and Polzunov built steam-atmospheric engines, and the steam engine was Watt's.
He was well educated and a serious scientist. Huygens and Leibniz would not have collaborated with just anyone.
That is, the article is based on tales.

[Lewww]

He didn't build a steamboat. That boat was powered by a muscle.

you should also add TRUST ME - I KNOW
The publication is based on two sources that cite the contents of Papin's letters to Leibniz, where he claims that he built a ship powered by a steam engine and asks him for assistance in obtaining a pass for this ship to pass to Bremen.
I did not check whether such letters actually existed, and to what extent their text corresponded to reality.

[ln_ln]

I did not check whether such letters actually existed, and to what extent their text corresponded to reality.

From the English Wiki:

In 1705, Papin built a ship propelled by hand oars. An apocryphal story, originating in 1851 by Louis Figuire, claimed that this ship was steam-powered rather than hand-powered, and that it was the first steam-powered vehicle of any kind. The myth was refuted as early as 1880 by Ernst Gerland [de], although it still finds credulous expression in some modern scholarly works.[10]

Papen's ship is said to have been destroyed in 1707 by boatmen from Munden who feared it would jeopardize their livelihood.[11] The scene of a boatman destroying Papen's ship is depicted in several eighteenth-century works of art and serves as an example of the resistance and fear inspired by the creative destruction that accompanies new technologies.[12][13]

Sorry for the Google translation. There is no point in editing it, it is easier to refer to the original.
It looks like those authors checked.

[Lewww]

Seem to be?
What is it like?
Once again: in the sources I used it is written that the fact of the construction of the steamship was recorded in Papin’s letters to Leibniz, where he does not simply boast, but asks for specifics - help with the passage of his steamship.
If we assume that such letters really did exist, then there is a high probability that the steamboat was built after all.
But since it was destroyed and the drawings were not preserved, it is impossible to either confirm or deny this.
I expressed my thoughts on this issue:

The drawings of Papin's ship engine have not survived, and the very fact of its construction remained unknown in that century, and in the next was declared historically dubious. The reason for the latter is obvious: the proud Germans, who considered themselves a nation of techies, were embarrassed to admit that they could not understand the value of Papin's invention. And the inventor himself was French, which, apparently, also contributed to his fatal failure to promote the invention in Germany and was the reason for the Germans' denial of the fact of the construction of the first steamboat.

That is, in this case, you can write, as they do now in the credits at the beginning of feature films, “based on real events.”

[ln_ln]

That is, in this case we can write

I had to look at the article about Gerland in the German Wiki using a link from the English one:

Gerland On the history of the invention of the steamboat, Z. Society of German Engineers, 20, 1876, 461–470, The so-called Papen steamboat, Hessian Historical Society, NF, 8, 1880, 221–227, Papen and the invention of the steamboat, Yearbook of the Shipbuilding Technical Society, 9, 1908, 475–486.

[Lewww]

I had to look at the article about Gerland

This is the personal opinion of an individual - with equal probability it can be historically correct, incorrect or correct in some part.
In this matter, one can only be guided by information left by some authoritative eyewitness of the event.
For example, if Leibniz had left a memory like: I came to Papin and was convinced that he really built (did not build) a ship with a steam engine.
But there is no such evidence.

[ln_ln]

This is a private opinion of an individual

Do you seriously want to put yourself on the same level as Gerland?
With your own sources in the form of popular books?

[Lewww]

It's a pity that you still didn't understand anything - good luck!

[ln_ln]

It's a pity that you still didn't understand anything - good luck!

Likewise, humanities student!

[Lewww]

That may be so, but you certainly haven't done any historical research.
As I understand it, Gerland, whom you elevate to the status of an indisputable authority, merely published Papin’s correspondence with Leibniz in 1881.
That is, he is not only did not know Papin personally and was not an eyewitness to his activities, but was even born 100 years after the alleged event.
In his opinion, it's not worth a penny on a market day.

In my practice, there have been cases when, for example, a division headquarters submits an operational summary to the army headquarters at the end of the day, where it provides information about how the battle was fought and where its regiment is currently located.
Then I find an operational summary of the same day, compiled by the headquarters of this regiment.
And I am surprised to discover that there is not a single similarity between the information in these two documents.
And then I come across the military documentation of the German division that fought with this regiment, and it already describes the third version of the events that took place.
And this is when a short period of time has passed from the moment of the event to the moment of its recording in documents.

And in your case, a person takes it upon himself to make a weighty judgment about what happened almost 100 years before his birth.

[ln_ln]

In his opinion, it's not worth a penny on a market day.

Why do you defend the fabrications of Louis Figuire?

[Lewww]

I would answer your question if I knew who Louis Figuire is and what exactly, in your understanding, I am defending.

I have some counter questions for you.
On what does Gerland base his assertion that Papin did not build the steamship?
His argument is "it couldn't have happened because it could never have happened, believe me - I know"?

[ln_ln]

if I knew who Louis Figuire is

I have given you the translation of the text. He is the author of the invention about the construction of the steamship.

[Lewww]

You are impenetrable
Let me ask you again: why did you decide that the fact that Papin built a steamship is a fabrication?
Because some guy in the 19th century called a story by some other guy who wrote it in the 19th century a fabrication?
Or because it says so in Wikipedia, which never lies?

Have you read my posts carefully?
Once again for those who are in the dark:

Once again, the sources I used say that the fact of the construction of the steamship is recorded in Papin's letters to Leibniz, where he doesn't just brag, but asks for specifics - help with the passage of his steamer.
If we assume that such letters really did exist, then there is a high probability that the steamboat was built after all.
But since it was destroyed and the drawings were not preserved, then This cannot be confirmed or denied.

In this matter, one can only be guided by information left by some authoritative eyewitness of the event.
For example, if Leibniz had left a memory like: I came to Papin and was convinced that he really built (did not build) a ship with a steam engine.
But there is no such evidence.

Try reading the above 10 times in a row.

And one more thing: even if Karl Marx himself had personally written that Papin’s construction of the steamship was a fabrication, such a statement would in no way have affected the degree of probability of the reality of this event.

[ln_ln]

that some guy in the 19th century

You and I are "some men", and Gerland is a famous historian of science and technology. And, unlike him, we will not earn personal articles in the national Wiki. By the way, Figuire is not either.

Once again: the sources I used say

I have already written how I evaluate your "sources". And you know it yourself.

[Lewww]

and Gerland is a renowned historian of science and technology.

Apparently you didn't read my previous post 10 times, as I advised you to.
Sorry
Even if your Gerland were a world champion in the history of science and technology, this would not change the fact that his opinion about the activities of Denny Papin is the private opinion of an ordinary person, since he could not conduct a real scientific study on the episode we are discussing - more than 100 years have passed.
By the way, on what does he base his assertion that Papin didn’t make the steamship?
Or have you not read his brochure and are basing your opinion on Wikipedia?

[ln_ln]

Or have you not read his brochure and are basing your opinion on Wikipedia?

You'd better ask yourself what Figuire based his claim that a steamship was built on.
Your "sources" only repeat this French legend.
Yes, even Gerland's articles are unavailable, not to mention his sources.
And I have nothing bad against the French. The French are also a nation of engineers. Strength of materials is a French science.
I have already written that Papen is a serious scientist, and he does not need unnecessary credit attributed to him.
As a humanities scholar, you probably have a poor idea of ​​what it meant to build a steamship, especially at that time. You had to be, at the very least, a rich merchant, and Papen didn't have the money for permission to sail the rivers.
And another twist to this legend: from Bremen to London across the North Sea! Without previous navigation skills and with a family!
That is, the family was saved only because the boat was smashed.

[Lewww]

You'd better ask yourself what Figuire based his claim that a steamship was built on.

I have no idea what it is on - I haven't read it.
And what did the authors of my sources build on? He wrote:

The sources I used say that the fact of the construction of the steamship is recorded in Papin's letters to Leibniz, where he does not simply boast, but asks for specifics - help with the passage of his steamship.
If we assume that such letters really did exist, then there is a high probability that the steamboat was built after all.

Do you have amnesia?

And I will repeat my question, which you avoided answering:

By the way, on what does he (Gerland) base his assertion that Papin did not build the steamship?
Or have you not read his brochure and are basing your opinion on Wikipedia?

Please have the courage to honestly answer that you haven't read the original source and that your opinion is based on Wikipedia.

[ln_ln]

Please have the courage to honestly answer that you haven't read the original source.

Yes, I think I have already read it. Or haven't you read it?

[Lewww]

I didn't see a direct answer in your verbosity.

and Papen did not have money for permission to pass through the rivers.

Did he tell you this himself during a seance? Or was it good old Wikipedia, which never lies?

And one more thing to add to this legend: from Bremen to London across the North Sea!

Don't exaggerate - some people swam across the English Channel. And it is not known whether Papin intended to sail on his schooner, or only wanted to sail it to the seaport to load the steam engine onto a sea vessel.
In short, as I wrote above

If we assume that such letters really did exist, then there is a high probability that the steamboat was built after all.
But since it was destroyed and the drawings were not preserved, then This cannot be confirmed or denied.

[ln_ln]

was Papen going to sail on the schooner,

A schooner is a serious sailing vessel.
Where does Papen get the money for this?
What kind of steam engine should it have to power such a vessel?
I am ready to agree that he was carrying a model of a steam-atmospheric machine, which he had already proposed in 1690.

[Lewww]

Where does Papen get the money for this?

Are you suggesting that we tell fortunes together?
Next time

[ln_ln]

Are you suggesting that we tell fortunes together?

There is no need to guess, since he died in poverty and was buried in an unmarked grave.

[Lewww]

Since he died in poverty and was buried in an unmarked grave, it means he was unable to build a steamship.
Iron logic - you can't argue with that!

Pechkin asks:
— May I ask, who is Anton Pavlovich Chekhov?
"I don't know!" the cat replies. "That was the name of the ship my grandmother sailed on."
"He must have been a good man," says Sharik, "since they named a steamship after him. And he wouldn't have cut down the trees."
- What would he do?
— I would go to the store and buy an artificial Christmas tree.
There was a knock at the door. A man wearing a mask and carrying an artificial tree entered.
- Guess who I am? - he asks.
“Anton Pavlovich Chekhov,” says Pechkin.

[ln_ln]

The reason for the latter is obvious: the proud Germans, who considered themselves a nation of techies

This is as of the mid-20th century.
Even at the beginning of the 20th century, such a self-perception had not yet been established, and the inventor of the torque converter, Föttinger, had to prove in his speech at the VDI event that German engineers were no worse than English and American ones.

[ln_ln]

Well, here's another critic.

And if you really feel the urge to criticize,

Intolerance of criticism does not suit you.
Criticism should be used for improvement.

[Lewww]

Intolerance of criticism does not suit you.

I have a positive attitude towards constructive criticism and always try to benefit from it.
But I don’t welcome it when people criticize not what is written, but what they imagined after reading what was written (or without reading the text at all)

And if the publication is called Sad history of the world's first steamship and its inventor, then there is no reason to criticize the author for not having laid out in it the whole of Papin's life from the manger to the grave

[Grossvater]

In addition to the bibliography:
Gavrilov S. V. "Ship Power Plants. History of Development" and "Metallurgy and Time", in 4 volumes, published by MISiS. Everything is on the Internet in absolutely free access. You can read about horse-human drives of all kinds of hydrogen machines in Chernikov's "Encyclopedia of the River Fleet".

[Grossvater]

Quote: Grossvater

hydrogen

Waterborne, of course!

[Corvair]

Regarding early steam engines, it is necessary to clarify that they were all single-acting or steam-atmospheric - the piston's return stroke was carried out due to atmospheric pressure and the occurrence of vacuum under the piston as a result of steam condensation. Such are the machines of Papin, Severi, Newcomen, Polzunov. Polzunov was the first to achieve continuous operation due to the use of two cylinders and a ratchet mechanism. And they were not yet universal engines - the first steam engines provided only reciprocating motion and could only drive pumps and bellows.
The drive of several machines and mechanisms from one engine is called a group mechanical (single-engine) drive and is sometimes still used - drilling rigs, cable excavators and lifting cranes. In old workshops you can see transmission shafts under the ceiling and long flat belts to the machines, this is it. An excavator or crane with a chain drive of tracks is also a single-engine drive.
In relation to steam-atmospheric machines, it is too early to talk about the crank mechanism and flywheel - they have not yet been used to obtain rotary motion.