Steam Tamer James Watt

15 438 42
Steam Tamer James Watt


Watt was born in Scotland in 1736. Often ill as a child, he attended school only intermittently. His education was a home-schooled affair—some of it taught by his parents, others by himself, thanks to his innate intelligence. At 18, the young man came to London, where he spent a year learning the craft of making and repairing measuring instruments. In addition to his inquisitive mind, James had a gifted hand, and the combination of these two qualities ultimately made him a man of international renown.



Watt began his career as a mechanic at the University of Glasgow, where he served as a maker of mathematical instruments and managed a small workshop. This now-forgotten craft required not only a thorough understanding of the workings of any mechanism but also a certain amount of scientific knowledge. Admittedly, not everyone can make a theodolite, construct a large church organ, or repair a monumental tower clock. To Watt, such work seemed like a simple, straightforward undertaking; it seemed there was no broken mechanism in the world that his skilled hands couldn't restore to life.

Constantly surrounded by scientific circles and naturally inquisitive, Watt soon became a well-rounded individual, familiarizing himself with the fundamentals of the natural sciences of the time and even casually learning several foreign languages. In his spare time, he dabbled in philosophy and music. Over the years, the young master developed into a true scientist and engineer, and his small workshop soon became a kind of club where young scientists would gather in the evenings to discuss ideas and then immediately test their validity through experimentation.

The young master greatly enjoyed his work at the university, but his finances were in a dire state, as the gift of making money had not been bestowed upon this talented man by the Almighty. Yet, ultimately, the Lord took pity on Watt: his friend Craig proposed a joint venture, shouldering the costs of setting up a new independent workshop and handling administrative duties, leaving his partner free to devote his leisure time entirely to his favorite pastime—designing and repairing mechanisms. The new venture was successful; Craig proved a skilled administrator, and the workshop soon became immensely popular in the city, literally inundated with orders.

One day, one of the professors approached Watt with a request to figure out why the model of Newcomen's primitive steam-atmospheric engine, which had recently been handed over to the university, stubbornly refused to work.


The engineer took on the task with his usual thoroughness and, unexpectedly captivated by the engine's design, not only identified its mechanical flaws but also made significant improvements. In Newcomen's engine, steam condensed in the cylinder as a result of water injected inside, and the piston made its power stroke from top to bottom thanks to the vacuum created within the cylinder (hence the name "atmospheric").

Watt introduced an additional device into the design – a steam condenser, which significantly increased the engine’s efficiency.

Gradually, the steam engine completely consumed the master's thoughts, and Watt began conducting various experiments to better understand the properties of steam and the processes that occur after it enters the cylinder. The success of his work was significantly aided by the assistance of the physicist Black, who became his mentor and "scientific consultant." This work increasingly captivated the mechanic, and soon he abandoned all other work and devoted himself exclusively to his "fire engines."

Thus, after two years of research, Watt invented his own steam engine, which he modestly called an "improved Newcomen engine." The engine surpassed its primitive prototype in design and efficiency, although it still operated on the intermittent principle (the piston only made its power stroke when moving from TDC to BDC, driven by the force generated by the vacuum in the cylinder).

But Watt's luck ran out for a long time; he couldn't build a properly functioning prototype to clearly demonstrate the advantages of his invention to industrialists. He ultimately spent all his savings on constructing experimental designs, went into debt, and then his wife died, leaving the inventor with two young children to raise. At that time, Watt was driven to utter despair and, in his demented state, almost fled to Russia, where he was offered the chance to found and manage a steam engine factory. But friends dissuaded him from traveling to what he considered a completely barbaric country, where (in their opinion) he would surely be devoured by hungry wolves. Thus, unfortunate circumstances prevented Russia from becoming the birthplace of the first mass-produced steam engines.

In short, at first the steam engine brought nothing but trouble to the inventor.

But then Watt finally got lucky: his longtime acquaintance, industrial engineer Matthew Bolton, persuaded the inventor to start a joint venture and offered financial support. And if it weren't for Bolton, the undeservedly forgotten history, Watt, overwhelmed by life's hardships, would never have realized his brilliant ideas. The first so-called "single-action engine" (intermittent action) was designed by the inventor in 1765, but more or less regular production of steam engines of this design was not established until 10 years later. The engines produced by Watt and Bolton were quite primitive and were used only as driving mechanisms for pumps to drain water from coal mines.

Another important achievement of the prudent Bolton was his encouragement to Watt to extend the expiring term of his condenser patent. And in 1775, under the influence of the eloquent industrialist, the English Parliament, having considered all the circumstances, extended the term for 25 years. This, according to many historians, completely tied the hands of other steam engine inventors and significantly delayed the development of this important undertaking.

Further improvement of the machine required the use of a mechanism to convert the piston's reciprocating motion into the rotary motion of the wheel. Although such a mechanism existed in ancient times and was used on lathes, a certain Piccard managed to patent it as his own invention. Unwilling to bow to an adventurer and acquire a patent, the brilliant Watt, to demonstrate the difference between an inventor and a swindler, developed and patented five different mechanisms to solve this technical problem. But years later, he finally returned to the time-tested crank mechanism. However, even here, he showed his ingenuity and introduced an additional improvement to the drive, later known as the "Watt parallelogram," and also invented the centrifugal governor, which is still used in machines of this type today.

In 1782, Watt made the most important invention of his life, where his brilliant ideas found their final embodiment in metal - he designed the so-called "double-acting steam engine", which at that time was still equipped with a planetary-solar transmission mechanism (it was used in a steam mill).


Unlike earlier designs, where the piston only produced useful work on one stroke and wasted the second, in the new machine, work was performed to rotate the drive wheel on every piston stroke. And in this Watt machine, the piston's power stroke was achieved thanks to steam pressure, not vacuum. Simply put, in Newcomen's machine, the piston was pulled by negative pressure, while in Watt's machine, it was pushed by positive pressure.

The role of this machine turned out to be colossal; its design not only became the basis for steam engines produced later, but also served as the initial model for Lenoir’s development of the first mass-produced internal combustion engine.

A further development of the inventor's creativity was a machine with a crank transmission:


By 1880, Watt's primary patents had expired, and the creative initiatives of other inventors, previously stifled by them, were given the opportunity to develop further. Over the years, the machine's design was improved, specifically, the finicky valves were replaced with a single component—a sliding valve—and the lever mechanism transmitting force from the piston to the drive shaft was redesigned. Ultimately, the machine acquired the following design.


Disc piston 6 divided the cylinder into two chambers. First, steam, pumped from a separate steam boiler, was fed under high pressure through pipe 1 to distributor (spool valve) 3, from which it entered the cylinder chamber (left in the figure) through the inlet port, exerting pressure on piston 6 and moving it to the far right. During its stroke, the piston, via drive mechanism 7-11, spun flywheel 12.

After the piston reached its far right position, valve 4, which functions as the valve timing mechanism, shifted to the left, closing the left intake port and simultaneously opening the exhaust steam vent from left chamber 5 through pipe 2. This vent also cleared the intake port of the right chamber, allowing a fresh batch of steam to enter the cylinder and pressurize the piston. The piston performed a second stroke and, returning to its original position, again drove the flywheel through the drive mechanism, which completed one revolution in two piston strokes. This was the dual action of the machine.

Further evidence that James Watt was not only a mechanic but also a scientist is provided by his invention of a universal measure of steam engine performance: horsepower, defined by the inventor as the force required to lift a 76,04 kg load 1 meter in 1 second. This unit, developed by Watt through numerous experiments with the strongest London horses, allowed buyers to easily determine which machine from the available selection would be needed to complete the planned task.

The above shows that Watt was an extraordinary person, and his contribution to the development of world technology is truly priceless.

Despite the rapid development of internal combustion engines in the following centuries, they never completely replaced steam engines. These ancient creations of human hands have undergone a number of improvements and have survived to this day. For example, their descendants, steam turbines, are used worldwide in combined heat and power plants (CHP), where the steam energy is first used to generate electricity and, after being discharged from the engine, is used to produce hot water, which is then used for various purposes, such as heating buildings.

The inventor's name was later immortalized many decades after his death in the unit of power measurement, the watt, introduced in 1882.
42 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -9
    29 July 2026 04: 53
    The Englishman struggled and struggled, his brains only capable of slightly improving on something already invented, and he wasn't exactly lucky in life, but "In 1763, a two-cylinder vacuum steam engine with a capacity of 1,8 hp was tested in Barnaul. Watt was a member of the committee evaluating Polzunov's invention." And then, as they say, he hit his stride. From this man, who was certainly no fool, a genius was born.
    1. +9
      29 July 2026 06: 37
      Testing of the steam engine in Barnaul took place in 1766, although the dates of its manufacture are plucked from thin air due to a lack of documentation, and due to constant breakdowns, it only operated for three months and was dismantled. Watt was able to refine the steam engine design until it was suitable for mass production. Where did the story about Watt's participation in the committee that evaluated Polzunov's engine come from?
      1. +7
        29 July 2026 08: 43
        Quote: gromila78
        Where did you get the information about Watt's participation in the commission to evaluate Polzunov's car?

        I'm guessing from the internet. And the internet doesn't lie...
  2. +3
    29 July 2026 07: 58
    It appears that the global situation is developing in such a way that it will soon again be profitable to produce steam engines for agriculture and remote regions where the delivery of liquid fuel is difficult, but solid fuel (coal, firewood, peat, etc.) is sufficient on site.
    1. +5
      29 July 2026 08: 42
      Quote: Gomunkul
      It seems that the situation in the world is developing in such a way that it will soon again be profitable to produce steam engines for agriculture and remote regions.

      Today, generating EE is much easier than fiddling with inefficient steam engines.
      1. +1
        29 July 2026 08: 50
        Today, generating EE is much easier than fiddling with inefficient steam engines.
        Time will tell; perhaps what seems ineffective now will be quite in demand in the future.
        I used to watch videos on YouTube about Burlak all-terrain vehicles. Their first models had Japanese engines. A few years later, they started installing Gazelle engines in their snow and swamp vehicles. The reason is that in the areas where their vehicles are used, it's easier to get spare parts from Gazelles than from Toyotas. hi
        1. +1
          29 July 2026 10: 30
          Quote: Gomunkul
          Time will tell

          It's long been established that steam as a working fluid is only useful in the power industry. Steam engines require a lot of time to prepare for startup.
          Quote: Gomunkul
          It's easier to get spare parts from Gazelles than from Toyotas.

          Cheaper. Toyota parts aren't hard to find, it's just a matter of price. And the ability to do the repairs yourself afterwards.
          1. +3
            29 July 2026 10: 45
            Steam as a working fluid only in energy.
            Don't tell me, steam turbines are used on ships.
            Steam turbines are widely used in:
            Large warships.
            High-speed container ships.
            Nuclear icebreakers (steam is generated by a nuclear reactor).
            Nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers.
            Large-capacity LNG tankers, where they can utilize boil-off gas.
            1. 0
              29 July 2026 12: 55
              Modern developments suggest the possibility of 100% conversion of liquid into vapor through a mechanical process. This, at a minimum, offers the possibility of effective desalination without heating the water. But it is clearly primarily a method for structuring water into a new, qualitative state for pharmaceutical applications. It also offers the potential for using water as a fuel.
              1. +1
                29 July 2026 13: 27
                BUT this is also the possibility of using water as fuel.
                This is of course good, but I wrote that it might be possible to consider returning steam engines to places where there is a weak repair base and remoteness from civilization.
                1. 0
                  29 July 2026 13: 31
                  Obviously this is also implied.
              2. +1
                29 July 2026 20: 56
                The process of desalination without heat has long been known, called reverse osmosis, and is used in desalination plants on ships and vessels around the world.
                1. 0
                  30 July 2026 07: 25
                  I already wrote that it's mechanical. The Griggs effect has been improved and optimized.
    2. 0
      29 July 2026 09: 13
      Steam engines have an efficiency of 10 percent. When oil runs out, it will be cheaper to produce liquid fuel from readily available raw materials and use it in internal combustion engines than to use steam engines, even if their efficiency is raised to 20 percent.
      1. +1
        29 July 2026 09: 20
        I don't know how it is now, but in the USSR, almost all decommissioned steam locomotives were stored in warehouses in case of war. More recently, raids on oil refineries nearly paralyzed transportation in the country, so steam locomotives are in demand for such situations. Liquid fuel is not available in all regions, while solid fuel is available almost throughout the country.
        1. +1
          29 July 2026 10: 33
          Quote: Gomunkul
          The locomotives were kept in storage depots in case of war.

          Because there were thousands of them and they worked perfectly, that's why they were mothballed. Today, they're just there for show because they're inoperable. Or rather, reviving them would require a huge amount of effort; simply adding water and oil, lighting the firebox, and off you go won't work. All the gaskets and seals have rotted and crumbled long ago, and the metal has rotted too.
          1. +1
            29 July 2026 10: 58
            All the gaskets/seals there have rotted and fallen apart long ago, and the metal has rotted too.
            At the storage depots where these locomotives were kept, they were supposed to receive regular maintenance, according to regulations. How this is happening now, I can't say.
            Tourist routes with retro trains are now gaining popularity in the country's regions.
          2. +5
            29 July 2026 15: 32
            A fully functional steam locomotive requires constant replenishment of water and fuel. A locomotive's water supply of 20-25 cubic meters is sufficient for 1.5-2 hours of operation. The tender's coal supply is sufficient for 3-4 hours of operation. This means intermediate fuel and water depots need to be built, usually every 150-200 km on the railway. Currently, there aren't any. Therefore, even a properly functioning steam locomotive won't travel very far.
      2. -2
        29 July 2026 13: 33
        WATER AND AIR ARE EVERYWHERE! Therefore, the technology of converting the kinetic energy of continuous media into their potential energy opens up very promising possibilities.
    3. -1
      29 July 2026 23: 41
      China's ultra-high voltage technology allows electricity to be generated directly on-site in energy-rich western regions (coal, natural gas, oil, wind, solar, etc.), and then transmitted with minimal losses to eastern regions where many factories are concentrated.
  3. +2
    29 July 2026 09: 33
    Quote: Gomunkul

    Time will tell; perhaps what seems ineffective now will be quite in demand in the future.
    I used to watch videos on YouTube about Burlak all-terrain vehicles. Their first models had Japanese engines. A few years later, they started installing Gazelle engines in their snow and swamp vehicles. The reason is that in the areas where their vehicles are used, it's easier to get spare parts from Gazelles than from Toyotas. hi


    Where they are used, it is impossible to get spare parts for Gazelle trucks; they have to be transported by reindeer or helicopters.

    Yes, the first modifications of the Burlak were equipped with a diesel engine from Toyota 1KZ-TE, similar to those found in Hiace minibuses, Surf SUVs, and Prados from the 70s.
    Now they are installing Cummins 2.8 internal combustion engines.
    Yes, the gearbox is reinforced from a Gazelle, the transfer case has GAZ-66 elements.
    Initially, we collaborated with GAZ in the development of the transmission, suspension components, and the use of final drives.
  4. +2
    29 July 2026 10: 25
    By 1880, Watt's main patents had expired. - error in date.
    1. +2
      30 July 2026 10: 32
      Thanks for the helpful correction, I made a typo, the correct date is 1800
      1. +1
        30 July 2026 11: 58
        It's understandable that editing can make your eyes blurry. Typos always just happen, somehow unnoticed.
        1. 0
          31 July 2026 10: 40
          This problem is especially acute in technical literature.
          It seems that the author checks the text, and then the editor checks it, but still, at the end of Soviet publications there was usually a sheet NOTICED TYPOS.
          The larger the material, the more typos.
  5. +1
    29 July 2026 10: 37
    Lev, pardon me, but the article is a bit weak. Compared to the automotive theme, it's worse. Young Technician Magazine.
    It's impossible to write about technology in an engaging way without figures. Yet, everything about Watt has been described in countless books—efficiency, pressure, power, comparisons with competitors, production volumes, and applications. Actual data would broaden our understanding of this topic. The precision of machining, labor intensity, weight, and dimensions of the equipment...
    Well, so what? their descendants are steam turbines"—a very bold statement. Of course, the mechanisms obey the laws of thermodynamics, but the genesis occurred in parallel, not sequentially.
  6. +2
    29 July 2026 11: 27
    "Metallurgy and Time" in 4 volumes. Volume 3, Chapter 2, "The Business Angels of James Watt."
  7. +6
    29 July 2026 11: 33
    Quote: belost79
    Steam engines have an efficiency of 10 percent. When oil runs out, it will be cheaper to produce liquid fuel from readily available raw materials and use it in internal combustion engines than to use steam engines, even if their efficiency is raised to 20 percent.

    The efficiency of a steam turbine (like a gas turbine) is approximately 40%. The efficiency of modern boilers ranges from 85 (KVG-3 or 4) to 98 (KVG 80-80) percent. The efficiency of waste heat boilers used in heat recovery systems on ships (internal combustion engines) or modern thermal power plants (gas turbines) is approximately 75%.
    If you're interested in more details, I recommend: S.V. Gavrilov, "Marine Power Plants. Development History." Incidentally, it also covers Watt's engines.
    1. 0
      29 July 2026 13: 26
      Quote: Grossvater
      Gavrilov S.V.

      V.S. Gavrilov thought he was mistaken. Boiler efficiency always needs to be multiplied by the efficiency of the steam consumer. And what do they say about internal combustion engine efficiency?
  8. +2
    29 July 2026 16: 13
    Quote: Motorist
    Quote: Grossvater
    Gavrilov S.V.

    V.S. Gavrilov thought he was mistaken. Boiler efficiency always needs to be multiplied by the efficiency of the steam consumer. And what do they say about internal combustion engine efficiency?

    Naturally. If we take the overall efficiency of the most efficient thermal power plant currently available—a low-speed, two-stroke, crosshead marine diesel engine with a straight-through, valve-assisted turbocharger, equipped with a high-efficiency heat recovery system and a propulsion steam turbine—then in northern latitudes, according to the latest data, the overall efficiency can reach 55%. It will be lower in the tropics, and even lower on land.
    The book is available for download from the Kamchatka Regional Library website. I highly recommend it; you'll have a sleepless night (you won't be able to put it down), guaranteed.
    1. 0
      29 July 2026 21: 13
      Steam power plants were phased out in the navy due to their inability to compete with diesel-electric power plants in terms of efficiency, and gas turbines in terms of specific power. Superheated steam boilers are very complex in design and require a high degree of water treatment. Utilization boilers were rarely used in the navy.
      In northern latitudes, the overall efficiency can reach 55%, according to the latest data. It will be less in the tropics, and even less on land.

      Efficiency can't be higher than the design value because when the outside air temperature drops below the design parameters (I think it's 15 degrees according to GOST), the engine speed must be reduced to maintain maximum power. At temperatures above the design parameters, maximum power cannot be achieved due to the lower air density. I think you already know this, but sometimes you just want to show off.
      1. 0
        29 July 2026 21: 36
        Quote: gromila78
        In general, waste boilers were rarely used in the navy.

        You wouldn't say that. My management company is always on the move. True, the steam doesn't go to the turbine (there isn't one). request), and for other needs.
        1. +1
          29 July 2026 21: 42
          Okay, I'll correct myself: waste boilers are rare on ships, and they were practically never used. It's easier to use a secondary boiler and not bother with it.
          1. +1
            29 July 2026 21: 58
            On ships, I mean, in the Navy? I wouldn't install a CC there at all. A couple of extra launchers in the false funnel would be better. They have completely different purposes. hi
            1. +1
              29 July 2026 22: 03
              Yes, I'm talking about the Navy.
              I wouldn't put a Criminal Code there at all.

              That's why they don't put them drinks
    2. 0
      29 July 2026 21: 15
      Nonsense! Sorry, quote. laughing The longest-stroke (the ratio of piston stroke to cylinder diameter) G-type has a specific fuel consumption, according to my calculations, of at least 175 g/kWh with a specific heat of combustion of 41 MJ/kg. That's 50% or less. Heat recovery doesn't rotate the propeller shaft and isn't part of the internal combustion engine.
      1. +1
        30 July 2026 07: 51
        No one writes about "part of the internal combustion engine"; the waste-heat circuit is part of the power plant. As for whether it turns or not, Gavrilov mentions propulsion turbines. You're absolutely right about efficiency. The internal combustion engine is 45-48%, plus waste-heat shaves off about 10 percent. And consumption should be calculated not just for the main engine, but for the entire vessel. Don't repeat the mistake of the MTK of the late 19th century. Even if the waste-heat turbine doesn't turn the shaft, it still turns the generator, and that also requires fuel.
        1. 0
          30 July 2026 12: 36
          Quote: Grossvater
          As for whether it spins or not, Gavrilov himself mentioned propulsion turbines.

          I won't argue with that; I haven't encountered it myself, only seen it in a textbook. Comrade kig (Igor) is here; I think he's worked with something like this. He has an article about electric motors turning the shaft, assisting the main engine. The electricity comes from the power plant, including the turbogenerator (steam comes from the compressor). I think these are rare cases.

          https://topwar.ru/190965-borba-morskih-gigantov-kontejnerovozy-pervyj-v-svoem-klasse.html

          Quote: Grossvater
          Well, the consumption should be calculated not only for the main engine, but for the entire vessel.

          You know, this can go far. It already has. Since the IMO can only lick its balls (which doesn't justify its existence), they keep coming up with all sorts of nonsense. I'm happy to introduce the CII (carbon intensity indicator) – grams of CO2 per ton-mile. I can suggest developing factors: a ton of cargo, whether expensive or not, the carbon footprint of the cargo, crew salaries, democratic freedom in the crew's home countries, etc. laughing

          In general, IMHO: engine efficiency and its rational use are two very different things. hi
  9. +3
    29 July 2026 16: 43
    Quote: gridasov
    WATER AND AIR ARE EVERYWHERE! Therefore, the technology of converting the kinetic energy of continuous media into their potential energy opens up very promising possibilities.
    Not everywhere.
    Therefore, in the USSR, diesel locomotives were already used in the Central Asian republics in the 30s, since their operation does not depend on the availability of water.
  10. +3
    29 July 2026 16: 52
    Quote: balabol
    Lev, pardon me, but the article is a bit weak. Compared to the automotive theme, it's worse. Young Technician Magazine.
    It's impossible to write about technology in an engaging way without figures. Yet, everything about Watt has been described in countless books—efficiency, pressure, power, comparisons with competitors, production volumes, and applications. Factual material would expand our understanding of this topic.
    Dear Sir, the article, even without the "factual material," turned out to be very long, and I believe, quite rich in technical terms.
    Even in this form, it doesn’t fit into the format of a resource where brevity is valued.
    And you propose to make it even longer and more complicated.
    Well, I confess that this article is a chapter from a historical work I wrote about 10 years ago on the history of internal combustion engines. So, it was originally intended to be as short as possible.
    Individual chapters of this work, describing the activities of D. Papin, Lenoir, Otto and Diesel, were previously published by me on this resource.
    Now it's Watt's turn, although in my work this chapter comes after Papin's.

    In conclusion, I plan to post a long article about Ludwig Nobilis and his contribution to Russian engine building. In my opinion, this is the most interesting and little-known
    1. +3
      29 July 2026 19: 27
      OK. You have your own well-reasoned opinion. I've expressed what I felt was missing in the material. Basically, it's possible to complicate things by adding unknown facts, not necessarily increasing their length. Thank you for your response.
  11. +1
    29 July 2026 19: 52
    Quote: belost79
    Steam engines have an efficiency of 10 percent. When oil runs out, it will be cheaper to produce liquid fuel from readily available raw materials and use it in internal combustion engines than to use steam engines, even if their efficiency is raised to 20 percent.

    Does the respected gentleman know that a steam turbine is also a steam engine? Is he familiar with their efficiency?