Talk:James Watt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review This Natsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

This article uses British English dialect and spelling.
According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Contents

[edit] Singapore

Was Watt in Singapore in 1765? 165.21.154.116 fixed Time line, but other edits by him/her were reverted. --Yurik 09:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you answer the question yourself? Duh, James Watt was there. If you read the commentary done by the Delinquet Johnson and Tyler Corporation, on page 7653, it shows actual newsletter or articles about his arrival. (Anon edit by User:68.162.73.156)
That wasn't nice. How could you say such a thing like that to a person only as curious as the next person. By the way, I did look up the Delinquent Johnson and Tyler Corporation, and there's no such. (Anon edit by User:68.162.73.156)

[edit] Middle name?

Please help! My son is doing a report on James Watt for his science class and part of his grade depends on finding James Watt's middle name. Can anyone tell me where I might be able to find it? (anon edit by User:24.253.36.206)

To my knowledge he did not have a middle name. We are related directly. He is somthing like my 6th or 7th great grandfather. In the findings of my research of my liniage, I have not come across anything about his middle name. Feel more than welcome to prove me wrong. The more information the better. (anon edit by User:24.99.102.145)

To User 24.99.102.124 - I'm trying to trace my connection back to James Watt, I believe it may have bee through a sibling connection. My current research goes back to an Alexander born in 1781. If you can help me please email me at wattfour@internode.on.net WombatW 10:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)WombatW

Answer: you can look on a different website like google.com then search for james watt. because im doing a report on him too! well i found everything i nneded on different websites!or stay here <3 kelsey love

[edit] Where is he buried?

That's the question: The whole literature here in Germany talks about Westminster Abbey but now I read St. Mary's Church, Handsworth which I never heard before. Could you please help me, because the answer for this question is very important to me and my planed wiki reader "Kraftwerk und Energie". --Markus Schweiss 19:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Now, that could be a probably solution: James Watt's grave is actually in Mary's Church, but the monument in Westminster Abbey has to be seen like a cenotaph. To whom it concerns, here is the label of the monument in Westminster Abbey:
JAMES WATT
WHO DIRECTING THE FORCE OF AN ORIGINAL GENIUS
EARLY EXERCISED IN PHILOSOPHIC RESEARCH
TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF
THE STEAM-ENGINE
ENLARGED THE RESOURCES OF HIS COUNTRY
INCREASED THE POWER OF MAN
AND ROSE TO AN EMINENT PLACE
AMONG THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS FOLLOWERS OP SCIENCE
AND THE REAL BENEFACTORS OF THE WORLD
BORN AT GREENOCK MDCCXXXVI
DIED AT HEATHFIELD IN STAFFORDSHIRE MDCCCXIX
--Markus Schweiss 20:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you look up the Cenotaph notation and figure out the two nasty spelling errors on the main page ?

perpetuate and gratitude
ugh !!

(( feel free to strip this out )) Dave Rave 20:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Watt v Gainsborough

On the Steam Engine page it is suggested that the condensing engine was in fact invented by Humphrey Gainsborough. The implication being Watt ‘stole’ the idea. Important if true. A quick Google confirms that there are a number of sites crediting Gainsborough with the invention. If the external condenser was not in fact Watt’s original idea then it throws a rather different light on his achievement (and character.) Though, to be fair, Gainsborough ought to have had more sense than to show his idea to anyone before patenting it. If there is a credible controversy as to the invention then it ought to be mentioned here. Does anyone have reliable info? PS. I have also added this comment to the Stream Engine discussion. (Added 21 Feb 2006)

No information on this particular controversy but it is well established that later in his career Watt patented the inventions of his employees (most prominently William Murdoch) as his own. Also 'Industrial espionage' was quite common at that time in that industry as news of new inventions/processes & experiments tended to slip out, especially as people wanted to show them off to their friends & fellow experimenters in the field. As a result there is rather a lot of court evidence on the various patent infringement lawsuits of the time (of which Watt made full use). I think though that we should get a proper source for the claim that Gainsborough showed Watt his invention (frankly a claim is likely to be all it it simply because there is unlikely to be much substantial documentary evidence) but if someone has made the claim &, given the known facts, it sounds reasonable or possible then we should include the claim (properly sourced & attributed of course). AllanHainey 15:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not the actual inventor/ Totally disputed tag

According to a talk at Wikimania 2006, Watt receives too much credit for the steam engine on Wikipedia. He didn't actually invent it, the speaker argued, but instead used his patent on a relatively minor contribution to crush the competition and make his name as the inventor and thus delayed the industrial revolution. This from AaronSw (talk · contribs).

The link provided does not contain any evidence that Watt did not invent an improved steam engine. There is no detail here which can be refuted. It is undisputed (even in the setence provided) that Watt got the patent). No historian has ever seriously doubted that Watt made an important contribution, and it takes more than a sentence lifted from some half-remembered presentation at a wikipedia conference to overrule oceans of actual serious historical studies. If this standard were to be applied to every article in the wikipedia, they would all carry this tag. The "totally disputed tag" is unwarranted and I am removing therefore removing it. DonSiano 07:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree - and this concerns the previous Gainsborough v Watt debate; I think there remains much to be said on both these points. Storms in teacups of this order undermine the self-confidence of those who feel that the subject is important and merely show fundamental ignorance of what invention is all about. It is about research and development - it's one thing to have a bright idea, - quite another thing do the systematic research groundwork to make sure it is valid - and again quite another thing to develop a device to the point of being able to produce it and make it operable on a large scale, reliable, fail-safe... In this Boulton is a key figure along with Watt at a key period. R & D costs time and money, but there is no direct payoff and at that time no govt. funding. Given the scale of what was involved they had no right to get it wrong, so it was surely just as well that most of this R & D was in the hands of this particular "monopoly" of competent people capable of making logical and sound advances and building on their successes. Taking out patents was not just a way of making money and stifling invention as often happens today; in that particular historical context it was a way of insuring acceptance of untried and distrusted technology which could have easily been discredited by charlatans. Take the case of sticking to low pressure for which Watt is often knocked: there were at the time no means of making high resistance boilers. Getting things wrong here would certainly have been a much bigger setback to the Industrial Revolution. Already Newcomen's atmospheric engine was a brilliant solution to this. I for one am convinced that he and his contemporaries were perfectly aware of the benefits of higher pressure steam, but there was at that time no way to safely produce it. The atmospheric principle enabled them to build safe engines with the materials and workmanship then available and all the same to be able to pump water up from greater depths in greater quantities than had ever before been possible. Fitting a separate condenser was a way to improve on this but there was much more to it than that as a number of related issues had still to be addressed. Watt had to find means of keeping the now-separate cylinder hot, which he did by means of closing off the top end and introducing low pressure steam there (so it was no longer an "atmospheric" engine) and into steam jackets around the cylinder, then through a transfer pipe to the underside of the cylinder where it was condensed by putting it in communication with the separate condenser. He also had to find a better way of sealing the piston (which he did by lubricating it with oil and tallow instead of water as Newcomen had done), a way of effectively evacuating the condenser between each power stroke and pumping the warm water to the hot well... The result of all this endeavour was an engine rather more complicated but giving 4 times the output of a Newcomen. From this they were able to go on to develop the double acting rotative engine which could drive all the machinery in a factory, whilst still using safe low pressure. It can therefore be argued that far from "delaying the Industrial Revolution", Boulton and Watt and their team ensured that it started off on a firm footing. In any case, most of their patents did not last beyond 1800, which whilst frustrating for some, made sure that by the time pressure engines began to appear on the scene, metallurgy had (only just) begun to catch up. Finally I don't think anyone with a minimal knowledge of steam technology would ever claim that Watt invented the steam engine. He did however make a very significant contribution to its development to a stage where it became the "engine" of the Industrial Revolution. - Glad I've got that off my chest! --John of Paris 14:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date of death

seems there are two different versions online 25 Aug 1819 and 19 Aug 1819. I checked Encyclopaedia Britannica, it says 25 Aug. Wang ty87916 06:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit: this isn't the OP, but i don't know how to make a new post some i'm doing this. I was just reading The Sceintists by John Gribbon, and he says Watt died 25 Aug 1819, but at Birmingham.--Stormfist 21:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just comes across this. True, there are a large number of online sites that say he died on 25 August 1819. But just as many say he died on 19 August. None of them, to my knowledge, acknowledge the other date even to the extent of explaining why their version is correct. Can anyone put this to rest so that we know for certain which date is correct. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry states "25th August". This biography is properly referenced (a good model for what WP should be!) and it is hard to believe that such an obvious fact could be incorrect in that tome.
However, other "equally-reliable" online sources ("James Watt" by Andrew Carnegie (1905), "James Watt" by Thomas Marshall (1925), and the BBC History webpage) all state 19 August.
As "19 August" has been present in this article since it was created, in November 2001, I don't feel that I can safely assume that the ODNB is any more right than any of the others.
It would be good to get to the bottom of this...
EdJogg (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. The fact that 19 August has been there since the start of this article does not mean anything. Obviously the original editor had that date in his/her source. A different creator might just as well have had a 25 August source. But I agree that we don't have enough evidence either way to be certain of the date. What I would like to do is add a note acknowledging that 25 August appears in many reputable sources, just so that we don't appear to be being categorical about 19 August. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
If I may say, a very sensible solution. Hopefully someone will now go along to the public records office and find his death certificate! EdJogg (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I've raised the issue at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#James Watt’s date of death, and hopefully some good soul will come up with the goods soon enough. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Obit from The Times. The full obit (The Times, Wednesday, Sep 15, 1819; pg. 3; Issue 10725; col E) - states 25 August - story ascribed to "an eminent writer". Initial report of death is (The Times, Saturday, Aug 28, 1819; pg. 3; Issue 10710; col F) again stating 25th August. Jooler (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Jooler. That satisfies me personally that he died on 25 August, but I'd rather leave it uncertain in the article at this stage given the large number of reputable sources that give the other date. I'd bet money that 19 came from either his birth date 19 January, or 1819 - but we don't know that for a fact as yet. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The undernoted has been copied from the Humanities Reference Desk. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, then, Jack, here below is the opening paragraph of an obituary headed The Late Mr Watt, and published by The Scotsman, the main Scottish daily, on page five of the edition for 4 September 1819:
Death is still busy in our high places:-And it is with great pain that we find ourselves called upon so soon after the death of Mr Playfair, to record the decease of another of our illustrious countrymen,-and one to whom mankind has been still more largely indebted. Mr James Watt, the great improver of the steam-engine, died on the 25 ult.[ultimo], at his seat of Heathfield, near Birmingham, in the 84th year of his age.
You can call the page up on The Scotsman's digital archive, though at a price, I'm sorry to say!
This date is repeated in Watt's entry in The Scottish Nation, a three volume biographical dictionary published in 1868, where it says on page 199;
Mr Watt died at his residence, on his estate at Heathfield, near Soho, August 25 1819, at the age of eighty-three years and seven months, and was interred in the chancel of the adjoining parish church of Handsworth...
James Watt: Craftsman and Engineer, a scholarly monograph by H. W. Dickinson, published in 1936, likewise gives the date of death as 25 August with burial following on 2 September at Handsworth. The earliest I have been able to trace the erroneous 19 August date-and it is erroneous- is to James Watt by William Jacks, a rather light-weight work, published in Glasgow in 1901.
I'll post all of this also on the James Watt talk page. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Aha!! Clio to the rescue, as always. So that's it, then. He died on 25th August and was buried on 2nd September, 8 days later - which was a long enough interval as it is. Had he died on 19th August, his burial would have been 2 weeks after his death, a highly unlikely circumstance. Thanks for clearing this little mystery up, Clio. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural depictions of James Watt

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starlight Express

Maybe a quick mention in here? The finale song (Light at the end of the tunnel) mentions him a fair bit, due to him helping invent steam power (and in the story, the steam train has just beaten the electric train, diesel train etc.). - JaffaCakeLover 14:34, 08 November 2006 (GMT)

[edit] Undead activity?

Under the controversy tag the dates seem to be wrong. If Watt died in 1819, why is he writing letters in the 1880's? I'm not entirely sure how to fix this so I think a seasoned editor might want to fix it. - 89.152.26.82 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Taken in the context, it's evidently a mistype. Good thing you pointed it out. For the time being I've changed two "hundred-year-out" dates in that section to 1782 and 1794, but they will need double-checking to be absolutely sure of the exact dates.--John of Paris 08:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lunar Soc.

I would have thought that the link was more appropriate here than in the Watt engine article.--John of Paris 08:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Watt's Garret room workshop

Should we mentioned this workshop: http://www.makingthemodernworld.org.uk/stories/the_age_of_the_engineer/03.ST.03/?scene=5&tv=true? I have a pic taken yesterday: http://www.flickr.com/photos/frankieroberto/2538445808/, it's pretty amazing... Frankie Roberto (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Unquestionably, yes!
It is covered (indirectly) under 'Later years', but should be described in much more detail, especially as it is still extant.
EdJogg (talk) 10:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steam Mill Mad

This link: http://www.makingthemodernworld.org.uk/stories/the_age_of_the_engineer/03.ST.03/?scene=2 gives an interesting insight into the development of rotative engines and the reason why Watt is so-often credited as 'the inventor of the steam engine' (Encyc. Brit. - 3rd ed. - 1797). Worth following up. EdJogg (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)