# The steam machine: its true origins



## FILIPVS

According historians and books, the first steam machine was patented by Thomas Savery in 1689. But in 1600, one hundred years before, Jerónimo de Ayanz had patented in Spain, one steam machine similar to that patented by Savery. These machines were used to pump out water in flooded mines, and is the first use of steam with industrial porpouses; this device it is considered to be the precedents for James Wat's steam engines

At least for me, this is a shocking new, because I always thought that use of steam machines was a british innovation. Now this it seems be false. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerónimo_de_Ayanz_y_Beaumont


----------



## chadburn

It just one of those thing's, Dr Diesel did not invent the engine named after him but he was the first to patent it.


----------



## FILIPVS

chadburn said:


> It just one of those thing's, Dr Diesel did not invent the engine named after him but he was the first to patent it.


But Jeronimo Ayanz patented his machine in 1606. This clearly means that this was the first patented commercial use of steam machines. 
But in Wikipedia and many other sources it is commonly stated that Savery was the first inventor employing steam in an industry activity.

I think there is some kind of historical bias that prejudices to Mr Jeronimo Ayanz.


----------



## Ian6

I'm sure you're correct Filipvs, it's a liitle known fact that the Industrial Revolution never did occur in Britain, it was happening in Tenerife all the time. Unfortunately it was all done with borrowed money so it had to be dismantled and Britain took the blame for spoiling green fields with factories.

Ian


----------



## FILIPVS

Ian6 said:


> I'm sure you're correct Filipvs, it's a liitle known fact that the Industrial Revolution never did occur in Britain, it was happening in Tenerife all the time. Unfortunately it was all done with borrowed money so it had to be dismantled and Britain took the blame for spoiling green fields with factories.
> 
> Ian



Industrial Revolution that occurred in Britain was not mainly a technological matter, but social and economical one.
I mean that the Industrial Re(p)ollution has not too much relation with this thread. Here we are talking about technology (history of steam technology).


----------



## FILIPVS

Here we can see two pictures: first picture is Jerónimo Ayanz steam machine in 1606. The second one is Savery machine in 1689. The similitudes are quite evident. in fact is the same machine but with some improvements.


----------



## McCloggie

I always thought it was Fred Dibnah who invented the steam engine.

McC


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

There is a school of thought that says it was Hero and his 100% reaction steam turbine circa 50AD


----------



## dundalkie

I havejust read a very interesting book about the developmebt of the steam engine from the earliest times up to the Rainhill Trials. For those who are interested "The Most Powerful Idea in the World" by William Rosen and published by Jonathan Cape. It places the Industrial Revolution in its Socio/Economic context and it tries to answer why the Industrial revolution took place in Britain and not in China etc., Its a very light read. Highly recommended.


----------



## Mad Landsman

If one takes the (maybe non etymological) view that an 'Engine' or even a 'Machine' contains, or involves the use of, moving parts then neither the Thomas Savery nor the Jerónimo de Ayanz y Beaumont versions are machines, rather they are perhaps more accurately 'apparatus'. 

At the time when patents were granted to both men in their respective countries similar apparatus had been in use on small scale and apparently written about for some time. They each based their larger commercial apparatus upon previous experiments and usage by others. 

The first man to patent an actual machine or engine containing moving parts to do the same job was, of course, Thomas Newcomen from Devon. It was he who patented the Atmospheric engine and in doing so acknowledged that it was an improvement upon the Savery apparatus because it used a piston in the cylinder, mechanically operated valve-gear and a separate pump to lift the water.


----------



## FILIPVS

Mad Landsman said:


> If one takes the (maybe non etymological) view that an 'Engine' or even a 'Machine' contains, or involves the use of, moving parts then neither the Thomas Savery nor the Jerónimo de Ayanz y Beaumont versions are machines, rather they are perhaps more accurately 'apparatus'.
> 
> At the time when patents were granted to both men in their respective countries similar apparatus had been in use on small scale and apparently written about for some time. They each based their larger commercial apparatus upon previous experiments and usage by others.
> 
> The first man to patent an actual machine or engine containing moving parts to do the same job was, of course, Thomas Newcomen from Devon. It was he who patented the Atmospheric engine and in doing so acknowledged that it was an improvement upon the Savery apparatus because it used a piston in the cylinder, mechanically operated valve-gear and a separate pump to lift the water.


I agree in your coloquial definition of "machine". But the fact is that these devices were the first application of steam technology for industrial porpouses. For this reason many historians speak about Savery's pump as the first step towards steam engine. But using the same line of thought, we must recognize that Ayanz was the pioneer in this field.


----------



## FILIPVS

English Wikipedia has only a few information about Ayanz. So, for those intereted to know more, I attach here the content of spanish WIKIPEDIA (via google translator to english):

=====================================

Jerome Ayanz and Beaumont (* Guenduláin (Navarra) 1553 - † Madrid March 23, 1613) was a Spanish military. Man multifaceted, as noted military painter and musician cosmographer, but above all, as an inventor. It was the forerunner of the use and design of steam engines, improved scientific instrumentation, windmills and developed new types of furnaces for metallurgical operations, industrial, military and even domestic. He invented a diving bell and even got to design a submarine. But his most important work was to have invented the steam engine, as reported in 1606 the first patent for a modern steam engine.

Ayanz Son of Charles and Catherine de Beaumont, but was adopted, was the second of the brothers, the eldest being Ayanz Don French, born a year earlier. Raising his brothers Jerome and was in charge of his mother, Mrs. Catherine de Beaumont and Navarre, who instilled in their children's early education of his rank. Spent her childhood in the Lordship of Guenduláin until in 1567 was to serve King Philip II as a page.

Don Carlos of Ayanz intervened in the campaigns of France, participating in the Battle of San Quentin in 1557. He fought also in Tunisia, Flanders, Portugal, the Azores, La Coruña. Also, dismantled a French plot to assassinate Philip II in Lisbon.

Ayanz Jerome became famous in his time for his strength and the feats performed in Flanders. Lope de Vega reflects Ayanz adventurous life in comedy entitled "What happens in an afternoon." On May 7, 1582 had been tasked with Ballesteros and years later, on January 30, 1595 would receive the charge of Abanilla.

In 1587 he was appointed General Manager of Mines of the Kingdom, ie manager of the 550 mines that were then in Spain and which exploded in America. He was able to solve some of the serious problems of mining then. It should be noted that managed to make this set of inventions from 1598 until early 1602.

The mines of the day were two serious problems: air pollution inside and ac***ulation of water in the galleries. Initially, Ayanz invented a drainage system through a siphon exchanger, causing the contaminated water from the upper ore washing, provide enough energy to raise the water ac***ulated in the galleries. This invention is the first practical application of the principle of atmospheric pressure principle would not be determined scientifically until half a century later. And if this finding is really prodigious Ayanz bringing to the rank of universal talent is the use of steam power.

The force of the water vapor was known for a very long time. The first use was Heron of Alexandria in the first century Much later, in the twelfth century, it appears that in the cathedral of Reims had a body that ran on steam. Work continued on the subject both in Spain and in France and England. What occurred to Ayanz was used steam power to propel a fluid (water ac***ulated in mines) in a pipe, taking it outside streaming. In scientific terms: apply the first law of thermodynamics-defined two centuries later, to an open system.

Moreover, the same effect applied to cool air and direct exchange with snow inside the mines, cooling the atmosphere. Ayanz had invented air conditioning. And it was not just theory: these inventions implemented in the silver mine of Guadalcanal in Seville, flood evicted precisely when he took over its operation.

Ayanz invented many things: a pump to drain boats, a precedent of the submarine, which set a compass magnetic declination, a furnace to distill seawater aboard the ships, scales "weighing the leg of a fly," shaped stones conical grinding mills, metal rollers (their widespread use in the nineteenth century), pumps for irrigation, the arch structure for dams of reservoirs, a transformation of the movement mechanism to measure the so-called "torque" ie , technical efficiency, something only century or later would be addressed again. Up to 48 inventions in 1606 he recognized the "privilege of invention" (as it was then to patents) signed by Philip III. One of the most striking inventions was a wetsuit. The first dive of a diver do***ented occurred in the river Pisuerga, in Valladolid, and Philip III himself attended the event from his galley, along with members of the court.

Since 1608 he had been engaged in the private exploitation of a gold deposit near El Escorial and the recovery of the mines of Guadalcanal, the same which had applied for the first time ever a steam engine. But ill. The March 23, 1613 died in Madrid. His remains were moved to Murcia, who had ruled the city, first to San Antonio de Padua convent, then to the Cathedral.


----------



## Mad Landsman

He appears to have been quite an intelligent fellow.

Maybe it would have shaken the world at the time had he taken out patents for his inventions in London - Unfortunate for him that England and Spain were not enjoying good relations in the late 16th early 17th centuries, quite the opposite in fact. 

Keep up the campaign - Someone might take notice oneday.


----------



## stein

In my book James Watt invented the modern steam engine, the one making the industrial revolution possible. 

Who was the first to fly: The brothers Montgolfier, Otto Lilienthal, or the brothers Wright? My guess is that it depends on your nationality. Perhaps there are Spanish and British candidates? There are no Norwegian ones, but a Norwegian invented the paper clip... (Jester)


----------



## Duncan112

stein said:


> In my book James Watt invented the modern steam engine, the one making the industrial revolution possible.
> 
> Who was the first to fly: The brothers Montgolfier, Otto Lilienthal, or the brothers Wright? My guess is that it depends on your nationality. Perhaps there are Spanish and British candidates? There are no Norwegian ones, but a Norwegian invented the paper clip... (Jester)


One school of thought suggests that it was a New Zealander Richard Pearse that was the first to have controlled powered flight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pearse There is a good exhebition devoted to him in MOTAT Auckland and Gordon Oglvie's book is very readable - particularly his descriptions of his battles with the establishment to get Pearse's contribution recognised.

All hopelessly off topic - as most pub conversations go!!


----------



## stein

I recently saw a television do***entary with a relica of the Wright plane repeating the Kitty Hawk flight. Maybe the New Zealanders ought to try the same with Pearse's plane.


----------



## Duncan112

stein said:


> I recently saw a television do***entary with a relica of the Wright plane repeating the Kitty Hawk flight. Maybe the New Zealanders ought to try the same with Pearse's plane.


They have used an unpowered one unsuccessfully as a glider but https://www.facebook.com/pages/WILL-It-FLY-/250000028348245 should be very interesting. For those of you that don't like Facebook http://www.willitflymovie.com/home.html is a summary but few updates. Like most aviation projects it's running well behind schedule but don't underestimate Kiwi ingenuity - they have given the world back a flying Mosquito first flight at an air show - there's confidence for you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZzJewwobCY


----------



## stein

Very interesting indeed. I can well understand the passion behind the attempt.


----------



## FILIPVS

Mad Landsman said:


> He appears to have been quite an intelligent fellow.
> 
> Maybe it would have shaken the world at the time had he taken out patents for his inventions in London - Unfortunate for him that England and Spain were not enjoying good relations in the late 16th early 17th centuries, quite the opposite in fact.
> 
> Keep up the campaign - Someone might take notice oneday.


If you read carefully the above information on Ayanz, you can understand that he was very well received by the King of Spain; his merits were well recognized, as the King signed his patents of his own hand, and confided to him the management of all mines in the Spanish Empire (which was a large part of the known world).

I do not know of any similar case in London in that times. It is well-known that Queen Elizabeth had good relations with sailors and privateers, but the only patents signed by her hand were "letters of marque". And with her succesor, did not improve the situation.

Please let me know if I am wrong.


----------



## stein

The Norwegians discovered America long before Columbus (remains of settlements have been found in Newfoundland), but nobody but the Norwegians care, because they left no lasting settlements and so had no influence on history. A fate similar to that of Ayanz? (Jester)


----------



## Mad Landsman

FILIPVS said:


> If you read carefully the above information on Ayanz, you can understand that he was very well received by the King of Spain; his merits were well recognized, as the King signed his patents of his own hand, and confided to him the management of all mines in the Spanish Empire (which was a large part of the known world).
> 
> I do not know of any similar case in London in that times. It is well-known that Queen Elizabeth had good relations with sailors and privateers, but the only patents signed by her hand were "letters of marque". And with her succesor, did not improve the situation.
> 
> Please let me know if I am wrong.


The granting of patents is first recorded under Elizabeth I. Between 1561 and 1590 She granted about 50 patents whereby the recipients were enabled to exercise monopolies in the manufacture and sale of commodities such as soap, saltpetre, alum, leather, salt, glass, knives, sailcloth, sulphur, starch, iron and paper. 

It was not until 1610, under James I, that the process became more organised for "projects of new invention so they be not contrary to the law, nor mischievous to the State". 
The process became fully regularised, in a form recognisable today, in 1624. 

I do not think that the Habsburg Kings had such a system in place. 

However, my remark about seeking a patent in London for inventions used in the Spanish Empire was not meant to taken too literally.


----------



## FILIPVS

stein said:


> In my book James Watt invented the modern steam engine, the one making the industrial revolution possible.


Nowdays Wikipedia defines to James Watt as "_*Known for:  Improving the steam engine*_". So it is generally accepted that he was not the inventor of steam engine .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watt


----------



## A.D.FROST

The person who invented "Smoko" must have been the first as these are only variations on the 'Kettle' inlc.the Steam Turbine(Jester)


----------



## FILIPVS

Mad Landsman said:


> The granting of patents is first recorded under Elizabeth I. Between 1561 and 1590 She granted about 50 patents whereby the recipients were enabled to exercise monopolies in the manufacture and sale of commodities such as soap, saltpetre, alum, leather, salt, glass, knives, sailcloth, sulphur, starch, iron and paper.


Thanks for the information Mad. But all these patents quoted above by you did not imply any technological nor scientific innovation. Do you know any english patent contemporary and similar to those obtained by Ayanz in Spain?


----------



## Derek Roger

stein said:


> The Norwegians discovered America long before Columbus (remains of settlements have been found in Newfoundland), but nobody but the Norwegians care, because they left no lasting settlements and so had no influence on history. A fate similar to that of Ayanz? (Jester)


Canadians are well aware of the Vikings being the first and they did have settlements in Newfoundland . But as you say ; not lasting settlements .


----------



## Derek Roger

I am sorry to have to disapoint you all but the first steam engine is attributed to Hero of Alexandria 10 AD . It was the aeolipile . Other real machines as opposed to an apparatus are such as the pulley ; windlass and the Achimedes screw to name but a few .


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Always a good way to annoy Geordies that Derek. I do believe that Parsons did experiment with 100% reaction but it was impractical for scaling up


----------



## FILIPVS

Derek Roger said:


> I am sorry to have to disapoint you all but the first steam engine is attributed to Hero of Alexandria 10 AD . It was the aeolipile . Other real machines as opposed to an apparatus are such as the pulley ; windlass and the Achimedes screw to name but a few .


We're talking about the steam aplication in industry. Is not my intention to trivialize the aeolipile, but this was an experiment. This device had no practical application in industry.
However, Ayanz pump (later improved by Savery), was used until 1820 (maybe even later), ie it was used in the mining industry for over two hundred years. When James Watt died, these pumps from the seventeenth century were still in operation in many mines around the world (including Britain).


----------



## FILIPVS

Mad Landsman said:


> The granting of patents is first recorded under Elizabeth I. Between 1561 and 1590 She granted about 50 patents whereby the recipients were enabled to exercise monopolies in the manufacture and sale of commodities such as soap, saltpetre, alum, leather, salt, glass, knives, sailcloth, sulphur, starch, iron and paper.
> 
> It was not until 1610, under James I, that the process became more organised for "projects of new invention so they be not contrary to the law, nor mischievous to the State".
> The process became fully regularised, in a form recognisable today, in 1624.


Edward Somerset, Sixth Earl of Worcester secured a royal appointment as an inventor and builder on 3rd June 1663. Worcester was granted a 99 year patent for his 'Water Commanding Steam Engine'. This engine can be seen in the attached photograph. It is quite evident that Somerset was "inspired" in Ayanz's machine patented in 1609 in Spain, more than 50 years before.


----------



## Fred Field

chadburn said:


> It just one of those thing's, Dr Diesel did not invent the engine named after him but he was the first to patent it.


Herbert Akroyd Stuart patented his in 1890 and was selling engines before the noted Doctor took out his patent in 1892.


----------



## Fred Field

FILIPVS said:


> But Jeronimo Ayanz patented his machine in 1606. This clearly means that this was the first patented commercial use of steam machines.
> But in Wikipedia and many other sources it is commonly stated that Savery was the first inventor employing steam in an industry activity.
> 
> I think there is some kind of historical bias that prejudices to Mr Jeronimo Ayanz.


Where is the evidence that he actually built one that worked?


----------



## Fred Field

FILIPVS said:


> According historians and books, the first steam machine was patented by Thomas Savery in 1689. But in 1600, one hundred years before, Jerónimo de Ayanz had patented in Spain, one steam machine similar to that patented by Savery. These machines were used to pump out water in flooded mines, and is the first use of steam with industrial porpouses; this device it is considered to be the precedents for James Wat's steam engines
> 
> At least for me, this is a shocking new, because I always thought that use of steam machines was a british innovation. Now this it seems be false.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerónimo_de_Ayanz_y_Beaumont


How deep were these mines that were pumped out using this device?


----------



## ZuluKingOfTheDwarfPeople

Sorry for the necromancy but this esoteric subject interests me. Is there any evidence that Ayanz influenced Somerset, who in turn may have influenced Savery? If not, then practically speaking, Ayanz's work would have little relevance, as do little known Chinese and Indian works that predate Western contributions but had little effect on the trajectory of technological progress. Still, if Ayanz truly did independently invent a steam engine, it could at least help dispel racial and ethnic prejudices of Hispanic peoples, embodied in the term "Black Legend." Is there evidence that Ayanz actually built a functioning steam engine?


----------



## Fred Field

ZuluKingOfTheDwarfPeople said:


> Sorry for the necromancy but this esoteric subject interests me. Is there any evidence that Ayanz influenced Somerset, who in turn may have influenced Savery? If not, then practically speaking, Ayanz's work would have little relevance, as do little known Chinese and Indian works that predate Western contributions but had little effect on the trajectory of technological progress. Still, if Ayanz truly did independently invent a steam engine, it could at least help dispel racial and ethnic prejudices of Hispanic peoples, embodied in the term "Black Legend." Is there evidence that Ayanz actually built a functioning steam engine?


Should you read the whole thread you will see that FILIPVS has failed to respond to two questions. Just think what this means.
Savery's design was tested but the materials technology of the time was insufficient for the pressures encountered and this was nearly 100 years after Ayaz.
I hope any high school physics student can tell you that a static head of water exerts a pressure slightly in excess of 0.4 lbf/in/in for each foot of 'head' (this board will not take superscript so in squared becomes /in/in). Now to move a column of water vertically takes a pressure of approximately 0.5 lbf/in/in for each foot of head so to raise water 30ft is going to take a steam pressure of 15lbf/in/in, way beyond the technology of the times. Hence my question regarding the depth of the mines pumped out.
Further being one of an engineering bent, one has to ask how was Ayaz going to get the water into the trays above his cylinder, men with buckets bailing it up? Should Ayaz's cylinder have been below the water level at the bottom of the mine any incoming steam would have been condensed. As shown Ayaz's pump in my opinion would not have worked even had the materials technology of the time been able to accommodate the pressures required. In my opinion Savery's would have worked but he was stymied by the materials technology of the times.


----------



## ZuluKingOfTheDwarfPeople

Fred Field said:


> Should you read the whole thread you will see that FILIPVS has failed to respond to two questions. Just think what this means.
> Savery's design was tested but the materials technology of the time was insufficient for the pressures encountered and this was nearly 100 years after Ayaz.
> I hope any high school physics student can tell you that a static head of water exerts a pressure slightly in excess of 0.4 lbf/in/in for each foot of 'head' (this board will not take superscript so in squared becomes /in/in). Now to move a column of water vertically takes a pressure of approximately 0.5 lbf/in/in for each foot of head so to raise water 30ft is going to take a steam pressure of 15lbf/in/in, way beyond the technology of the times. Hence my question regarding the depth of the mines pumped out.
> Further being one of an engineering bent, one has to ask how was Ayaz going to get the water into the trays above his cylinder, men with buckets bailing it up? Should Ayaz's cylinder have been below the water level at the bottom of the mine any incoming steam would have been condensed. As shown Ayaz's pump in my opinion would not have worked even had the materials technology of the time been able to accommodate the pressures required. In my opinion Savery's would have worked but he was stymied by the materials technology of the times.


Interesting, because various academic sources claim that the Ayanz design was built and used (several actually throughout the country). I guess only time and research will tell. Either way, it does not seem likely that Ayanz had any influence on what we today call the steam engine, making any contribution by Ayanz sadly only a curiosity.


----------



## FILIPVS

ZuluKingOfTheDwarfPeople said:


> Sorry for the necromancy but this esoteric subject interests me.


Pagans do not know the difference between SCIENCE and superstition. What you call esoterism here, is called HISTORY in the Christian world.


----------



## Fred Field

FILIPVS said:


> Pagans do not know the difference between SCIENCE and superstition. What you call esoterism here, is called HISTORY in the Christian world.


Come on FILIPVS tell us how deep were the mines that Ayanz device pumped out. Please!


----------



## Fred Field

ZuluKingOfTheDwarfPeople said:


> Interesting, because various academic sources claim that the Ayanz design was built and used (several actually throughout the country). I guess only time and research will tell. Either way, it does not seem likely that Ayanz had any influence on what we today call the steam engine, making any contribution by Ayanz sadly only a curiosity.


With modern materials Savery's machine would, in my opinion work. As sketched Ayanz's machine has no chance without major design changes as I have indicated.


----------



## Mad Landsman

FILIPVS said:


> Pagans do not know the difference between SCIENCE and superstition. What you call esoterism here, is called HISTORY in the Christian world.


If you are going to quibble over the use of the word 'esoteric' then I have to say that I take the use of that word in this context to mean a matter which is discussed as a theoretical rather than fully practical project. 
It may or may not lead to a practical solution, indeed it may have done so in this case but we have no physical evidence of that. We have drawings showing how it should work if it were possible to built it - That is esoteric. 
It does not mean that simple folk see something and decide that it is magic - that is not esoteric, that as you say, is superstition. 

Is there any archaeological evidence that the apparatus worked or what materials were used in its construction, or what the limitations might have been? 
Without an answer to the last it remains a theoretical work.


----------



## FILIPVS

Ayanz's pumps (which was refined by Savery only regarding materials used) were used in minery until 1820 (even later!!). So I think there are plenty evidences that Ayanz's pump works.


----------



## Dickyboy

stein said:


> The Norwegians discovered America long before Columbus (remains of settlements have been found in Newfoundland), but nobody but the Norwegians care, because they left no lasting settlements and so had no influence on history. A fate similar to that of Ayanz? (Jester)


Surely the Hunter Gatherers who came over the land bridge from Asia, and later became the Inuit and the American Indian tribes were the first to discover the Americas ? [=P]


----------



## Fred Field

FILIPVS said:


> Ayanz's pumps (which was refined by Savery only regarding materials used) were used in minery until 1820 (even later!!). So I think there are plenty evidences that Ayanz's pump works.


Well please answer the questions how deep were the mines that were pumped out by Ayan's pumps and how was the water moved from the bottom of the mine shaft to to the trays (shown in the diagram) above the cylinder so that it could be pumped out?

Savery's pump was tested but failed because the materials he had available could not endure the pressures developed. That is recorded.


----------



## ZuluKingOfTheDwarfPeople

Fred Field: so did Savery use more sophisticated materials than Ayanz to make his pump more viable (albeit ultimately unsuccessful)?



FILIPVS said:


> Ayanz's pumps (which was refined by Savery only regarding materials used) were used in minery until 1820 (even later!!). So I think there are plenty evidences that Ayanz's pump works.


Could you tell me what sources you are using? The only source I have on Ayanz is an academic article, but it is not very specific. (a lo mejor nos hace mas facil comunicar en castellano por mensaje privado- esto es un asunto que sinceramente me interesa)


----------



## Fred Field

ZuluKingOfTheDwarfPeople said:


> Fred Field: so did Savery use more sophisticated materials than Ayanz to make his pump more viable (albeit ultimately unsuccessful)?


I have no idea. Theonly account I have read of Savery's testing, I cannot recollect where, stated that he tried twice to get a 'prototype' to work but that on both occasions joints failed because the 'solder' failed.


----------



## FILIPVS

*The first commercial steam-powered device was a water pump, developed in 1698 by Thomas Savery. It used a vacuum to raise water from below, then used steam pressure to raise it higher. Small engines were effective though larger models were problematic. They proved only to have a limited lift height and were prone to boiler explosions. It received some use in mines, pumping stations and for supplying water wheels used to power textile machinery.[14] An attractive feature of the Savery engine was its low cost. It continued to be manufactured until the late 18th century.[15] One engine was still known to be operating in 1820.[16]*

This is what wikipedia and oficial history says. The question is not if the engine works or not. It worked for sure. The question to clarify now is WHO??, Who was the real designer of that engine. Do***ents say to us that Ayanz, and not Savery, was the first to use that engine in minery and the first in patent it. This is proved with do***ents. If we admit this as true, the History of the Steam engine must be corrected, and this introduce to us to new questions:
Were the XVI and XVII century dark times for the science or not?
When and where the "Age of Enlightenment" started and What it actually involved?
Etc etc


----------



## stein

Dickyboy said:


> Surely the Hunter Gatherers who came over the land bridge from Asia, and later became the Inuit and the American Indian tribes were the first to discover the Americas ? [=P]


Yes, my knowledge about the early movement of our species is slight, but isn't there some consensus that we all arrived from Africa somewhere? So inasmuch as the Indians had already arrived when they arrived, neither Christopher Columbus nor Leif Erikson can claim more than being the first modern Europeans there, and I didn’t do it for them either. 

But the point was that even if there is strong evidence that the Vikings were there before Columbus, their influence on later history were as slight as the Filipvs steam machine, and so just as there is not much likelihood of Erikson downgrading Columbus, there is not much chance of Filipvs downgrading Newcomen, Watt, Trevithick etc, with whatever his inventor’s name was. Steam, as something influential on history, is British with such a margin that any challenge becomes ridiculous.


----------



## FILIPVS

stein said:


> But the point was that even if there is strong evidence that the Vikings were there before Columbus, their influence on later history were as slight as the Filipvs steam machine, and so just as there is not much likelihood of Erikson downgrading Columbus, there is not much chance of Filipvs downgrading Newcomen, Watt, Trevithick etc, with whatever his inventor’s name was. Steam, as something influential on history, is British with such a margin that any challenge becomes ridiculous.


What is really ridiculous is the nationalist interpretation you make of this topic (and some others). Nobody wants to downgrade the British contributions to history (which are many and well known). We are just reviewing new information. That's all.

And perhaps the main difference between Columbus and the vikings comes from the fact that Viking culture has dissapeared long time ago and for ever. That is consequence that they were pagans and illiterate, people without History.


----------



## Mad Landsman

FILIPVS said:


> Viking culture has dissapeared long time ago and for ever.


Has it? and there was me thinking that Stein was a Viking.(==D)


----------



## Fred Field

FILIPVS said:


> *The first commercial steam-powered device was a water pump, developed in 1698 by Thomas Savery. It used a vacuum to raise water from below, then used steam pressure to raise it higher. Small engines were effective though larger models were problematic. They proved only to have a limited lift height and were prone to boiler explosions. It received some use in mines, pumping stations and for supplying water wheels used to power textile machinery.[14] An attractive feature of the Savery engine was its low cost. It continued to be manufactured until the late 18th century.[15] One engine was still known to be operating in 1820.[16]*
> 
> This is what wikipedia and oficial history says. The question is not if the engine works or not. It worked for sure. The question to clarify now is WHO??, Who was the real designer of that engine. Do***ents say to us that Ayanz, and not Savery, was the first to use that engine in minery and the first in patent it. This is proved with do***ents. If we admit this as true, the History of the Steam engine must be corrected, and this introduce to us to new questions:
> Were the XVI and XVII century dark times for the science or not?
> When and where the "Age of Enlightenment" started and What it actually involved?
> Etc etc


FILPVS - Please just tell us how water got into the troughs above the cylinders so that it could be pumped out.A very simple question. 
Ayanz's engine could only pump it could not, as sketched 'suck', Savery's could. A very major design difference.


----------



## Mad Landsman

I think that it would be necessary to bore a second, deeper, shaft in which to install the steam boiler. 
The water would then run from the flooded shaft into the deeper, but apparently dry, shaft next to it so that it could be forced by steam pressure alone back up past the flooded shaft to the surface (ready to permeate back down). 

Obviously one would have to ensure that the deeper shaft stayed dry and in order to do that one might have to install another apparatus in a third even deeper shaft, which would have to be bored in drier ground to ensure that the fire did not get extinguished by the water flooding in from the two shallower, but flooded shafts - and so on ad infinitum.


----------



## Fred Field

Mad Landsman said:


> I think that it would be necessary to bore a second, deeper, shaft in which to install the steam boiler.
> The water would then run from the flooded shaft into the deeper, but apparently dry, shaft next to it so that it could be forced by steam pressure alone back up past the flooded shaft to the surface (ready to permeate back down).
> 
> Obviously one would have to ensure that the deeper shaft stayed dry and in order to do that one might have to install another apparatus in a third even deeper shaft, which would have to be bored in drier ground to ensure that the fire did not get extinguished by the water flooding in from the two shallower, but flooded shafts - and so on ad infinitum.


Very perceptive 9 out of ten. The boiler could be located at a higher (dryer) location and the steam piped down, assuming of course, that the piping could be manufactured to withstand the pressures.The pressure needed would of course be due solely due to the 'head' of water (plus of course a 'little bit more' required to actually move the water). Savery appears to have overcome this problem by having a 'suction' section which of course would not 'lift' the water more than about 20ft.


----------



## FILIPVS

Fred Field said:


> FILPVS - Please just tell us how water got into the troughs above the cylinders so that it could be pumped out.A very simple question.
> Ayanz's engine could only pump it could not, as sketched 'suck', Savery's could. A very major design difference.


Ayanz's pump works as follows:
Step 1: 
Steam condensation inside the boiler produces a negative pressure (va***). 
This negative pressure is used to SUCK the water of the mine inside the boiler (until 10 meters deep maximum). 
Second step: 
As soon as boiler tank is full of water, steam pressure is increased and used to pull the water out of the mine. These operations are done in altern way, opening and closing valves, depending if you need SUCK or DISCHARGE water.

In other words: The va*** is used to suck in the same way a piston does


----------



## Fred Field

FILIPVS said:


> Ayanz's pump works as follows:
> Step 1:
> Steam condensation inside the boiler produces a negative pressure (va***).
> This negative pressure is used to SUCK the water of the mine inside the boiler (until 10 meters deep maximum).
> Second step:
> As soon as boiler tank is full of water, steam pressure is increased and used to pull the water out of the mine. These operations are done in altern way, opening and closing valves, depending if you need SUCK or DISCHARGE water.
> 
> In other words: The va*** is used to suck in the same way a piston does


That is how Savery's pump would have worked.

Your hero's pump, as sketched, has no suction pipe! The only way your hero's pump can get water out of the mine is if there is some method of transferring water from the bottom of the mine-shaft to the troughs above the 'cylinder', buckets perhaps?

Oh and by the way a natural vacuum will not suck water 'up' 30 metres.


----------



## FILIPVS

_*<<[the mine] Pozo Rico or Rich Mine, has a long and important history. A royal decree from 1557 allowed Mosen A. Boteller to start the mining explorations. By 1564 the silver mine was fully equipped (including houses, hospital,...) with up to 1300 miners, mostly slaves imported from the Spanish colonies. Pozo Rico was as such the first and most important mine in Guadalcanal (province of Sevilla). It was even said that the silver to be found in Pozo Rico would match that of the famous mines in the Spanish Americas (especially Peru). It was also technologically very advanced, and served as a technical laboratory for the other Spanish mines, especially overseas. So they already had a steam engine in use by 1606 ! (Patented by D. Jeronimo Ayanz y Beaumont). Throughout the centuries, many different companies have mined in Pozo Rico, all with ups and downs.>>*_

read it here:
http://www.booneshares.com/DE/Auktionskatalog/AuctionskatalogNr51/Ergebnisliste.aspx?id=30535


----------



## stein

The “so” that initiates the text which you've put in red, indicates that it is a conclusion made as a comment upon the foregoing text, but I cannot find anything in that which necessitates this conclusion.


----------



## Fred Field

stein said:


> The “so” that initiates the text which you've put in red, indicates that it is a conclusion made as a comment upon the foregoing text, but I cannot find anything in that which necessitates this conclusion.


Beat me to it. Drawing conclusion(s) not consistent with the evidence presented.

The piece you reference was written after 2007 and has no reference to the claim made that a steam engine was fitted or that it was patented by your hero. Sorry.


----------



## Mad Landsman

I am reminded of the famous Erich von Däniken methodology - IF certain hypothetical factors are taken as fact then a conclusion is possible which is also fact - because he said so.


----------



## FILIPVS

stein said:


> The “so” that initiates the text which you've put in red, indicates that it is a conclusion made as a comment upon the foregoing text, but I cannot find anything in that which necessitates this conclusion.


Perhaps one day somebody will speak about these pumps on the Discovery Channel and then, only then you would believe it(Jester) Some people only believe what they see on TV.


----------



## Mad Landsman

At the top of the page there are two drawings of theoretical steam powered pumping apparatus. 
The first is stated to be the design of Jerónimo de Ayanz y Beaumont. 
The second is stated to be the design of Thomas Savery.

In comparing the two drawings the most obvious differnces are:
The Ayanz design has a gravity feed and there is no provision for cooling the steam chamber to cause condensation and consequent lowering of pressure. Without condensation then there would be no lowering of internal pressure and no 'suction' effect to replenish the chamber. It would only work in one direction. 
The Savery design has a feed from below the boiler using differential valve works and has a cold water feed over the steam chamber to cool it and cause condensation to take place. With condensation there would be a lowering of pressure and, with the valves set to the correct phase, water would be drawn upwards through the feed pipe. It therefore works in two directions. 

Having said that it should be pointed out that the drawing is more likely to be the design of Edward Somerset, 2nd Marquess of Worcester. 
The main and crucial difference between the early Somerset design and the slightly later Savery design is the location of the cold feed. Savery improved on the design and made it more efficient by introducing an internal cold water injector, an idea copied by Thomas Newcomen when he added a piston. 


An idea which was formulated many years ago concerning 'inventors' is that there are very few people who actually invent anything. What they do is to put together previous ideas, suggestions and practices and produce something which is a development or combination of those things but appears to the casual observer to be completely new. 
As a fairly extreme example of this concept is that the distant ancestor of the gas turbine (jet) engine was a primitive man stood on a river bank trailing a stick in the water and noticing that it was pushed away with the current. Through various things, such as water wheels and steam turbines we arrive at Mr Whittle in his back yard. 

Consider the fact that a previous experimenter to Ayanz was an Italian: Giambattista della Porta. He was into many things and wrote a few books. Just a couple of disciplines with which he occupied himself were experiments with steam power and production of alcohol – Now thereby is a point to note: Consider the similarity with the steam boiler in the early apparatus and a distilling apparatus! Consider the power released if something goes wrong with a still. 
So I would suggest that maybe the idea of using that steam power in the way described originated in Italy whilst trying to make a better Grappa. 
This concept places Ayanz as a person through whom an idea passes in history rather than an innovator as such. 


Regarding actual use of a pump in mining operations the best that I can deduce by scanning though various sources on the internet is that later writers felt that as Ayanz had been granted a patent for his apparatus then he probably built it and used it. Nothing I have found so far has stated with conviction that he definitely did either thing. Indeed, if the silver mine which required the pump was as good as he claimed then why did he abandon it?

His descendants inherited rights to his patents but did nothing further with them. Could it be that they realised that the world had moved on and the ideas had long been superseded by improved designs and materials?


----------



## FILIPVS

Mad Landsman said:


> In comparing the two drawings the most obvious differnces are:
> The Ayanz design has a gravity feed and there is no provision for cooling the steam chamber to cause condensation and consequent lowering of pressure. Without condensation then there would be no lowering of internal pressure and no 'suction' effect to replenish the chamber. It would only work in one direction.
> The Savery design has a feed from below the boiler using differential valve works and has a cold water feed over the steam chamber to cool it and cause condensation to take place. With condensation there would be a lowering of pressure and, with the valves set to the correct phase, water would be drawn upwards through the feed pipe. It therefore works in two directions.


Ok let's admit that. Ayanz and Savery pumps are ejectors. 
And?
The topic is:
What was the first aplication of steam in minery?


----------



## FILIPVS

Mad Landsman said:


> Regarding actual use of a pump in mining operations the best that I can deduce by scanning though various sources on the internet is that later writers felt that as Ayanz had been granted a patent for his apparatus then he probably built it and used it. Nothing I have found so far has stated with conviction that he definitely did either thing. Indeed, if the silver mine which required the pump was as good as he claimed then why did he abandon it?


The registered patent implies that the pump worked. To obtain a patent you need to make demostration that the device works. It was a compulsory requirement.
We know that Ayanz was apointed by the King to recover the mine of Guadalcanal, which was flooded. Probably he was apointed because he was an operative man. We know that that mine was the most important in Spain and it was fitted with the most modern devices of the times. We know that Ayanz used many devices in those mines, not only the ejector but also a ventilation system to renew the air using steam. Etc etc. There are do***ents describing such devices in detail. Finally Ayanz died only three or four years later and perhaps for this reason the ejector remained on the "prototype" stage. 

Regarding the mine, I think it never was dried. There were many attempts using better and bigger pumps in XIX century but the mine remained flooded. So it is a no practicable mine.


----------



## Mad Landsman

FILIPVS said:


> The topic is:
> What was the first aplication of steam in minery?


You had better change the title then - It reads 'the steam machine: its true origins'. 

And so far you have failed to provide conclusive proof that Ayanz did no more than see another man's idea, devise a use for it and maybe, just maybe, have a model constructed to show his king how it might work. 
In historical terms he is only slightly more important than the man on the riverbank with a stick.


----------



## Mad Landsman

FILIPVS said:


> Regarding the mine, I think it never was dried. There were many attempts using better and bigger pumps in XIX century but the mine remained flooded. So it is a no practicable mine.


So the pump didn't work then - That's all we needed to know.


----------



## Fred Field

FILIPVS said:


> Perhaps one day somebody will speak about these pumps on the Discovery Channel and then, only then you would believe it(Jester) Some people only believe what they see on TV.


Male Bovine Excrement of the first order. You may believe everything you see on television I sure as the opposite place to heaven do not. Too many politicians for a start. Which has nothing to do with this thread.


----------



## Fred Field

FILIPVS said:


> Ok let's admit that. Ayanz and Savery pumps are ejectors.
> And?
> The topic is:
> What was the first aplication of steam in minery?


Again more male bovine excrement of the most refined type. 
Ejectors work on Bernoulli's theorem or Bernoulli's principle, sometimes also called the venturi principle. Neither your hero or Savery utilised that in their designs.
Go back to your star gazing, and I hope for the well being of those unfortunate enough to have to sail with you, that you are better at that than you are at very basic physics.
The subject of the thread is:
'The steam machine: its true origins' therefore anything utilizing 'steam' as a working medium is included not just mine pumping apparatus.


----------



## Fred Field

Mad Landsman said:


> At the top of the page there are two drawings of theoretical steam powered pumping apparatus.
> The first is stated to be the design of Jerónimo de Ayanz y Beaumont.
> The second is stated to be the design of Thomas Savery.
> 
> In comparing the two drawings the most obvious differnces are:
> The Ayanz design has a gravity feed and there is no provision for cooling the steam chamber to cause condensation and consequent lowering of pressure. Without condensation then there would be no lowering of internal pressure and no 'suction' effect to replenish the chamber. It would only work in one direction.
> The Savery design has a feed from below the boiler using differential valve works and has a cold water feed over the steam chamber to cool it and cause condensation to take place. With condensation there would be a lowering of pressure and, with the valves set to the correct phase, water would be drawn upwards through the feed pipe. It therefore works in two directions.
> 
> Having said that it should be pointed out that the drawing is more likely to be the design of Edward Somerset, 2nd Marquess of Worcester.
> The main and crucial difference between the early Somerset design and the slightly later Savery design is the location of the cold feed. Savery improved on the design and made it more efficient by introducing an internal cold water injector, an idea copied by Thomas Newcomen when he added a piston.
> 
> 
> An idea which was formulated many years ago concerning 'inventors' is that there are very few people who actually invent anything. What they do is to put together previous ideas, suggestions and practices and produce something which is a development or combination of those things but appears to the casual observer to be completely new.
> As a fairly extreme example of this concept is that the distant ancestor of the gas turbine (jet) engine was a primitive man stood on a river bank trailing a stick in the water and noticing that it was pushed away with the current. Through various things, such as water wheels and steam turbines we arrive at Mr Whittle in his back yard.
> 
> Consider the fact that a previous experimenter to Ayanz was an Italian: Giambattista della Porta. He was into many things and wrote a few books. Just a couple of disciplines with which he occupied himself were experiments with steam power and production of alcohol – Now thereby is a point to note: Consider the similarity with the steam boiler in the early apparatus and a distilling apparatus! Consider the power released if something goes wrong with a still.
> So I would suggest that maybe the idea of using that steam power in the way described originated in Italy whilst trying to make a better Grappa.
> This concept places Ayanz as a person through whom an idea passes in history rather than an innovator as such.
> 
> 
> Regarding actual use of a pump in mining operations the best that I can deduce by scanning though various sources on the internet is that later writers felt that as Ayanz had been granted a patent for his apparatus then he probably built it and used it. Nothing I have found so far has stated with conviction that he definitely did either thing. Indeed, if the silver mine which required the pump was as good as he claimed then why did he abandon it?
> 
> His descendants inherited rights to his patents but did nothing further with them. Could it be that they realised that the world had moved on and the ideas had long been superseded by improved designs and materials?


With all due respect in the first diagram there is no need to cool the cylinder, suction is not required the water freely flows in under atmospheric pressure and the displaced water vapour inside the cylinder is cooled by the incoming water creating a slight vacuum effect but as there is no suction pipe shown in the sketch this is a much use as the upper female appendages on a bride of christ.

Other than that I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis.


----------



## Fred Field

Mad Landsman said:


> So the pump didn't work then - That's all we needed to know.


I do not see how it could unless there was a system of moving the water from the bottom of the mineshaft to the trough above the cylinder. As I said, buckets? It would work but would only be marginally more efficient than the bucket in the well system!


----------



## FILIPVS

Fred Field said:


> Again more ...


we are unfortunate because we have to support your rudeness.
You must go elsewhere to say inanities and blasphemies. It is also clear that you have no sympathy nor serenity to discuss here.


----------



## FILIPVS

Mad Landsman said:


> So the pump didn't work then - That's all we needed to know.


It worked, but of course with modest results. We are talking about the beggining of XVII century!! 
And also Ayanz died soon (only 3 or 4 years later, so he had not time to do more). 

Later came plagues, wars (Thirty Years War) etc that made die practically 25% of population in Europe... so more difficulties...


----------



## Fred Field

FILIPVS said:


> we are unfortunate because we have to support your rudeness.
> You must go elsewhere to say inanities and blasphemies. It is also clear that you have no sympathy nor serenity to discuss here.


I will discuss things sensibly.
You have, as usual, failed to answer an awkward question. Answer that and I might just have some little respect for you.
The question is, of course, how was the water moved from the bottom of the mineshaft to the troughs above the cylinder. Given the technology of the era the only thing I can think of is buckets but I am willing to be enlightened.
Please do not forget that 'as sketched' there is no valve on the discharge pipe this will mean that when the outlet valve from the trough to the cylinder is opened the water in the discharge pipe will flow back into the cylinder, this will cause some condensation of the steam in the cylinder but could, depending on the dimensions of the components, cause steam to be ejected through the valve from the trough to the cylinder. A possible safety hazard!


----------



## Fred Field

FILIPVS said:


> It worked, but of course with modest results. We are talking about the beggining of XVII century!!
> And also Ayanz died soon (only 3 or 4 years later, so he had not time to do more).
> 
> Later came plagues, wars (Thirty Years War) etc that made die practically 25% of population in Europe... so more difficulties...


How do you know it worked?


----------



## Mad Landsman

Fred Field said:


> ....displaced water vapour inside the cylinder is cooled by the incoming water creating a slight vacuum effect


Yes, I will put my hand up to that, but in mitigation I would say that I was concentrating on primary or preparatory condensation (shown in the Somerset and Savery design) rather then secondary or consequential condensation (as in the Ayanz design). 
As you say, any condensation, and lowering of pressure, merely served to assist the water running down the pipe without having to displace air in doing so. Not quite the same thing as 'sucking'.



With regard to the reference to 'ejectors' - I regard that as a purple kipper being dragged across the path and chose not to follow it.


----------



## Lurch

Seems the mine was pretty wet and stayed that way.......


http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...BQ#v=onepage&q=pozo rico mine history&f=false


----------



## Fred Field

Mad Landsman said:


> Yes, I will put my hand up to that, but in mitigation I would say that I was concentrating on primary or preparatory condensation (shown in the Somerset and Savery design) rather then secondary or consequential condensation (as in the Ayanz design).
> As you say, any condensation, and lowering of pressure, merely served to assist the water running down the pipe without having to displace air in doing so. Not quite the same thing as 'sucking'.
> 
> 
> 
> With regard to the reference to 'ejectors' - I regard that as a purple kipper being dragged across the path and chose not to follow it.


Agreed on both items.
However, in the second instance, I did not feel inclined to let him get away with that particular deflection attempt.

Did you notice how he also tried to 'alter' the initial subject of the thread?


----------



## FILIPVS

Lurch said:


> Seems the mine was pretty wet and stayed that way.......


The Titanic did not arrive to New York, but she sailed quite well.


----------



## Mad Landsman

FILIPVS said:


> The Titanic did not arrive to New York, but she sailed quite well.


I believe that you may have hit the nail on the head with that comparison.

We do have much do***entary and archaeological evidence that the Titanic existed, and the remains still exist on the seabed. 

For the Ayanz pump we have some drawings which may or may not have been made by him. We also have the work of some later writers expressing an opinion that he might have built a full size working pump because they, like you, preferred to believe such a thing.

IF you were able to produce any evidence of the existence that such a pump was built during his lifetime then there would be a basis for an argument. 
By evidence I mean real evidence, not hearsay or cir***stantial. The account of an actual contemporary writer who had seen the apparatus in form and shape would support the idea. Even better would be the properly formulated account of a scientific person who had found and analysed archaeological artefacts - presuming that such might exist.


----------



## Fred Field

FILIPVS said:


> The Titanic did not arrive to New York, but she sailed quite well.


What is a very good indicator of a troll????

Deflect, deflect, deflect!

The bottom line is that, as sketched, the so called pump, supposedly patented by your Hero just would not have worked.!!!


----------



## FILIPVS

Mad Landsman said:


> The account of an actual contemporary writer who had seen the apparatus in form and shape would support the idea.


I suppose you know what a patent is...

A patent is a do***ent, written and signed by a witness after an inspection of the device with a practical exhibition of how it works. You can not patent a device if this device is not tested with satisfactory results... right?

All this topic is based on the clear and not questionable FACT that these patents were found by historians in *General Archive of Simancas*.


----------



## Fred Field

FILIPVS said:


> I suppose you know what a patent is...
> 
> A patent is a do***ent, contemporary and wrote and signed by a witness after an inspection of the device with a practical exhibition of how it works. You can not patent a device if this device is not tested with satisfactory results... right?
> 
> All this topic is based on the clear and not questionable FACT that these patents were found by historians in *General Archive of Simancas*.


I was always under the impression that a patent could be an unproven design but I know it depends upon the jurisdiction.


----------



## Mad Landsman

Fred Field said:


> I was always under the impression that a patent could be an unproven design but I know it depends upon the jurisdiction.


I have read that there may have been a requirement under Spanish Law at that time to produce a model to show what the theoretical design would look like if it were built. 
So, a model, which may or may not have worked as proposed, should have been produced. Whether or not this was done might be stated in the patent, but we have only seen a drawing so far. 
We certainly do not have, yet, any evidence that an actual working pump was built.


----------



## ZuluKingOfTheDwarfPeople

Yes, in contemporary Spanish law I believe you had to produce a model to receive a patent (approved by the King). Theoretically, then, there would have been models produced, but unfortunately none have been found. There are also those who claim that Ayanz built other designs of described in his many patents. The most interesting is an "scuba diving" suit, demonstrated in front of the Court and King. But without proof it's all smoke and mirrors!


----------

