Talk:Steam engine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Technology WikiProject, a group related to the the study of Technology. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Neutrality: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
Additional information: This article is an assessed orphan; it has been assessed by Work via WikiProjects, but should be rated by subject experts in a WikiProject. See the FAQ for more info. This article is a vital article. The following comments have been left for this page: I have been trying edit this article over the past six months and quite frankly it is a tangled mess. I have come up against such intractable fundamental problems that all that I have been able to do so far is to add some factual input to the early historical material. Even the subject "steam engine" itself is ill-defined: for instance I am at present trying to clarify the initial statement, presumably intended as some sort of "disambiguation": "the term steam engine may also refer to an entire railroad steam locomotive". Well this does not just apply to locomotives: in many cases the term can signify a whole steam unit, including the steam generator and motor or as in this article, specifically to the steam "motor" (or "engine part"). The problem is that the many different types of boilers can be combined with many different types of "motor". The implication of this is that when we talk of "efficiency" we can be referring to any one of three things: the boiler, the engine part, or the two combined into a unit. Surely in each case we have to approach the problem differently: in the first case we are dealing with combustion, and heat transfer, in the second with fluid dynamics and expanders - in the third with work obtained from a given heat input (where, for example, if we wish we can compare it with Carnot's ideal engine). Confusion between the three distinct aspects leads to ludicrous statements like the following in the "efficiency" section. "One source of inefficiency is that the condenser causes losses by being somewhat hotter than the outside world. Thus any closed-cycle engine will always be somewhat less efficient than any open-cycle engine, because of condenser losses." This does not stand close scrutiny, as any steam engineer will stress the importance of maintaining feedwater temperature above a certain level . Warm condensate is most often recycled back to the boiler – and this in the interest of economy! - because it is perfectly obvious that less heat energy is needed to return warm water to working temperature than cold - so how do we square this circle? As I say the subject of the present article is limited to the steam engine viewed as an expander unit. It is not about the whole integrated system, so I would question whether in this context it is valid to discuss overall thermal efficiency at all. Anyway, where do we go from here?--John of Paris 08:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC) (edit)

[edit] Article Size

with recent expansions, the article size is now 34k, and wikipedia suggests a limit of 32k. As the article is likely only to get larger when I have researched expansions for the sections on efficiency and advantages and written a more concise history, I would suggest it is time to bite the bullet and start sectioning the article. There is already a page on Steam turbines that has allowed some material to be removed, and I have removed all the text on boilers as there are 3 relevant pages there (boiler, fire tube boiler, water tube boiler). Basically, I think the article should concentrate on the history of the engine, basic working principles, efficiency and advantages while linking nicely into to the specifics of different engines for further reading.

My suggestions for new pages are a Reciprocating engine (steam) page, as this is the most bulky part of the article. There is already a reciprocating engine article but this concentrates almost entirely on internal combustion, a disambiguation article there and renaming of the present article may be required in due course. I also suggest stub articles for rocket steam engine and jet steam engine that can be expanded in time by anyone interested in such a niche, as it is they are something of an aside to the main article. I suggest removal of the rotary type steam engine, as this is pure speculation. There are rotary type engines but they are of the rotating cylinder rather than rotating piston type.

I would appreciate any thoughts and contributions as I am loathe to make such a large change without the assistance or thoughts of other contributors being taken into account. Emoscopes ^Talk 07:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ingeniero Livio Porta

Livio Dante Porta was an argentinian engineer (he died recently) who worked on steam locomotives in argentina and managed to get 12% efficiency out of them with relatively small modifications. His biggest change was to go to a gas producing furnace. Turns out, about half of the fuel gets blown out the stack of a normal boiler, because the draft is so high. The other thing he worked on was the valve system to minimize wasted steam.Dullfig 07:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Was this engine efficiency or boiler efficiency? Its the sort of thing that is difficult to fit into any specific article, but I would suggest it is more appropriate to the locomotive or fire-tube boiler articles. Emoscopes ^Talk 07:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subject: conflict perceived by me (conflict may be actual) that needs clarification.

"A steam engine exhausting to atmosphere will have an efficiency (including the boiler) of 5% but with the addition of a condenser the efficiency is greatly improved to 25% or better. A power station with exhaust reheat, etc. will achieve 30% efficiency."

And later in the article

"One source of inefficiency is that the condenser causes losses by being somewhat hotter than the outside world. Thus any closed-cycle engine will always be somewhat less efficient than any open-cycle engine, because of condenser losses."

Leonard G. 22:39, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Need citation for

Steam provides over 90% of the power (mostly for electricity) in the U.S., mainly from steam turbines.

Gas turbines produce quite a bit of electricity.

Roadrunner 04:32, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A few points for improvement and expansion

I don't have time to integrate these changes into the main article right now so these are notes, either to myself or anyone else who comes along.

Compounding is dealt with extremely badly here. In fact, the word 'compound' is never even mentioned! The triple expansion marine engine is dealt with as if it were the only form of multiple expansion engine ever used. We probably need a Compound steam engine page to deal with the topic fully, but we should at least discuss here that double expansion and even quadruple expansion engines were used; that compounding was used on railroad locomotives as well, but fell out of favor (and possibly WHY); why a condenser really helps the compound engine.

The triple expansion engine is described as being single-acting, too, which in actual fact was rare according to my research. Most were double-acting.

The article seems to say in that section that the condenser saps power and was used simply to recycle the water. In actual fact the condenser increases power by increasing the pressure differential the engine works between. It only saps power if the power used to drive the condenser is greater than that provided by the increase in efficiency it gives. This is not the case in marine use, where there is a ready source of cooling available (seawater).

Condensers were used on locomotives, too; the South African class 25C used condensing tenders (with stack fans for draft) to enable them to cross the Karoo desert without watering, and several steam turbine designs did too. I recall the Germans used condensing Kriegsloks during WWII in arid regions, as well. The complexity was what discouraged their use on locomotives; a locomotive was a much more hostile place for machinery than a sealed, clean ship engine room, and simplicity and ruggedness were required. —Morven 19:42, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

The entire article needs a major make-over and expansion. Its on my list to do something about it when I can find the time Apwoolrich 21:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It still needs a major cleanup. The section on boilers talks of natural aspiration, which is nearly all of them, and forced-draft, or "pressure-fired" boilers. This technology, equivalent to supercharging for an internal combustion engine, was developed by the Germans and acquired by the US Navy to be used in some frigates built after the Second World War... but surely, by this (dare I say simplistic) division, all steam locomotives would be pressure fired, including those built long before the Second World War?

It is my understanding that the draft on the boiler of a steam locomotive is supplied by the blast pipe, and that all locomotives have followed this pattern since its' inception in Rocket. The intricacies of the blast pipe are a science unto themselves and responsible for the increased efficiency of locomotive boilers in the 1930s e.g. by the Kylchap arrangemen. Emoscopes 00:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

We can't talk about everything at once. The subject of this article is the steam engine, not locomotives, nor even steam generators. As far as I can see what counts here is the way the steam is used, i.e. downstream of the boiler -how it is delivered to the engine part , how it is made to expand and produce work. Steam production is surely only relevant to a boiler/steam generator article.--John of Paris 12:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO this article should be split into several. This article should be a high-level overview of the various steam engine designs and uses and their history, with links to detailed articles on topics such as efficiency, a link to an article on stationary (reciprocating) steam engines, steam locomotives, steam boilers, steam cars and busses, and a few others. Andrewa 07:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this, It would be best to split this article up into pages covering the intricacies and common characteristics of steam engines, boilers, locomotives, road vehicles etc. A boiler and an engine are two very different things that brought together in different arrangements produce various things such as locomotives, traction engines, steamships etc. The pages can reference each other and provide a more coherent overview. For instance a boiler page can discuss locomotive boilers, marine boilers, boiler tapering, steam circuit streamlining etc. and an engine page can discuss compounding, uniflow, multiple expansion Emoscopes 00:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've now added a section after the introduction that links to lots of existing articles on specific steam engine types. Some of the material that follows it now looks a bit silly, as the over-generalisations are highlighted, but I think that's preferable to the article being misleading. Lots more to do! Andrewa 18:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Compounding definitely needs better coverage. As I recall, it was crucial in the success of marine steam, by reducing coal consumption. Also, I've seen mentioned steam compounding was invented 2 July 1853 by Benjamin F. Tibbets of Frederickton, NB, intro a steam reservoir. Trekphiler 05:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This section makes little sense;
"There is also another division between boilers: natural aspiration, which is nearly all of them, and forced-draft, or "pressure-fired" boilers. This technology, equivalent to supercharging for an internal combustion engine, was developed by the Germans and acquired by the US Navy to be used in some frigates built after the Second World War. In it, a fan is used to increase the rate of burning; the boiler must be constructed to get that extra heat to the water. An engine using this kind of boiler has the greatest acceleration from a standing start of any marine powerplant."
It's poorly written for a start, but mainly, i don't think it could be justified as technically correct. Marine boiler rooms of the WW2 era were pressurised, sealed affiars with airlocks, and therefore the boilers are aspirated under pressure, with air supplied by boiler room fans. I think the "technology" being referred to by the original author may be that the Germans experimented with higher boiler pressures (with limited success), for instance in the F-boat / "Flottenbegleiter". Emoscopes 23:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Further to this I have removed what i consider to be the offending paragraph (above.) If anyone can reference it or feels it is worthy of rewriting and inclusion then of course, put it back. As it is it is rather nonsensical. I have also moved all but the basics of the boiler types to the relevant pages, as there are good pages in progress for boilers, fire tube boilers and water-tube boilers. IMHO these deserve their own pages as they are large topics that require a lot of expansion. Emoscopes 01:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject, anyone?

What strikes me on entering this debate today is that it has been going for two years now to little or no effect. I think the root of the problem is that steam technology is such a vast subject, with such a long history and so many interesting ramifications. But the Wikipedia treatment of the subject is a mess, isn’t it? For instance, you can find an article on boilers and steam generators which includes great swathes about domestic central heating, an article on compound locomotive|s]] which goes over more or less the same ground as the compound section here... I won't bore you with endless examples but it seems to me that there is much duplication of effort and redundant information. I am coming to think that the only way out would be the setting up of a "Steam Technology" Wiki project task force for reorganisation on a general Wikipedia level. That said I don't know how we would go about it, but others may be more experienced.--John of Paris 11:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that for the past few months I have been gathering ideas for launching a whole hierarchy of categories relating to Steamy Things. This has grown from the discovery that when I 'adopted' traction engine last year, it amounted to only a few hundred lines, most of which was a manufacturer list...

...so I would be interested in joining a 'Steam Technology' project, although I am not knowledgable enough (either in Wikipedia or steam matters) to actually set one up. Also, I am already a member of two WikiProjects, and my editing time is being strecthed a bit thin!

I am also intending to resolve the coverage of the 'History of Steam Road Transport', for want of a better title, since most steam vehicle articles have a few snippets relating to Cugnot and little else.

I think the 'lack of coverage' problem boils down to the fact that most steam enthusiasts/experts are not particularly computer-literate, or at least, not contributors to WP. (That is (a) they have much better things to do with their time (:o)) and (b) they are mostly of an older generation who are less addicted to spending hours editing a Wiki!!)

EdJogg 16:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think your last paragraph sums up my own situation pretty well. Some of us have a life, do we not?. At the same time I find WP a useful tool as far as it goes but from time to time stumble across some really awful misleading article that makes me seethe and say "I can't do any worse". Anyway, I think we will always find them, on the other hand this particular article is generally very good, but needs to be kept under a tight rein with plenty of links to more specialised ones and not allowed to just keep filling up with stuff according to the bee in the bonnet of particular contributers. Lean and mean! As for Wiki-savvy folk, I've noticed a few familiar names in this talk, so I think we should still just wait and see for the moment...--John of Paris 11:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Efficiency

I have clarified the discussion of efficiency. The old version said something about a cogeneration plant beating the efficiency of a Carnot cycle. This is confusing, since it isn't what the Carnot efficiency measures, and in any case you can capture the waste heat of a Carnot engine as well. --Mgolden 22:52, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts on horses

Anybody think the social/economic effects of steam bear mention? I'm thinking of the pop presumption steam wiped out need for horses; in fact, because it increased production & rail access, it actually raised demand & # horses... Trekphiler 19:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this would be a good addition to the topic. The introduction of the practical steam engine was one of two or three major breakthroughs that triggered the Industrial Revolution. That had arguably the most profound impact on society of any period in human history. Fascinating stuff. I'm not convinved about the horses though - I'm pretty sure that railways and steam ploughing engines in particular did indeed spell the end of the horse as an industrial and agricultural power source. I don't have any references to hand, though to back this up. I'm sure the question has been researched and we should find out what the real answer is and add it to this article. Gwernol 21:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Horses continued to be the major form of road haulage for some time; steam never did succeed the horse on the roads. Thus there very well could have been an increase in the number of horses used for commercial road transportation with the increasing trade enabled by the steam engine on rails and on the water.

I do not believe that horses were entirely superseded by steam on the farm, either. Much ploughing was still done by horse. Steam power was more often employed in a portable but stationary capacity, to operate threshing machines and the like. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 01:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Triple Expansion

"Another type uses multiple (typically three) single-acting cylinders of progressively increasing diameter and stroke (and hence volume)."

Surely this isn't right, i've never seen a diagram of an expansion engine in which the stroke of the pistons is different. The increasing volume is down to the increasing cylinder bore only as far as I know. Emoscopes 11:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It is true for the original Hornblower, the Woolf or the later NcNaughted patterns of compound beam engines. The cylinders were in line following the centre line of the beam. This means that the pistons had different stroke-lengths depending on how far out they were from the beam centre.

It is certianly not true for a rotary compound driving a crank shaft. Apwoolrich 19:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't each rod bearing on a crankshaft be at a different diameter from the center of the crank, as long as there were appropriate counterweights?--John.james (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

See below: if I have understood rightly what you are getting at, the situation you describe would automatically arise from having different stroke lengths. Also, whether the stroke differs or not, balancing between different sizes of piston does often raise some balancing issues with multiple expansion engines, but these are linear forces.--John of Paris (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about triple expansion, but 4-cylinder compound locomotives often had different stroke lengths for HP and LP, at least in France--John of Paris 14:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Friction

Please, how is friction overcome between the piston and the cylinder? I know in a 2 stroke internal combustion engine oil is mixed with the fuel and in a 4 stroke it is ported, but I've always wondered about steam engines. Thank you, Wes.

Originally, tallow! There's now a section on steam locomotives which covers this. Moonraker88 14:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

They have piston rings and a liner, not so different. Here is something [1]. Too bad it doesn't include the six tedious pages. Meggar 04:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animations

I think the animations are running a little bit too fast. Hard to see what is going on, if you don't already know what is going on. Dullfig 17:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advantages section, but no Disadvantages?

The article has an "Advantages" section but no "Disadvantages" section. An article in New Scientist magazine in 2005 asked the question "What if electric generators and motors had been on hand before the industrial revolution began?" Disadvantages of the steam engine include noise, pollution by soot, the need to transport and store coal or other fuels, large and costly to build, and the need for centralized factories as a consequence. -- (81.174.214.91 09:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Gravity?

Why does the discussion of the single-acting engine state that gravity is what's bringing the piston back to its start position. In virtually no engines does gravity play a role - the piston is reset by the momentum of the flywheel carrying the piston back. Gravity would be much too slow. -- (mgolden 06:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Aren't many Beam pump steam engines designed without a flywheel? --Rjstott 07:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No matter what the form of the linkage is, there still some part of the engine that serves to keep the engine rotating during the parts of the cycle that don't have high pressure acting on the piston. My point was that gravity isn't relevant in most cases. (When I was a child I had a little toy steam engine much like this one As you can see, the piston is horizontal, and it works just fine, even though it's single acting.)

(mgolden 06:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC))

Nothing "rotates" in these engines, they just slowly see-saw at about 6 or strokes per minute for the best ones and the pump just goes up and down in the opposite phase to the power piston, so where's the problem? Why can't gravity play a part?--John of Paris 12:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Gravity barely plays any part because in a well designed engine the beam is virtually balanced so will stay where it is left absent any external force. If the beam isn't balanced then the efficency is impaired as unnecessary work has to be done each time the heavier end of the beam is raised. Chenab 13:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

So how do you account for the chain linkages to the beam on the early engines? The piston pulls its side of the beam down. No problem. But how do you get it back up again? - you can't push a chain! The only way is for it to be pulled up by the pump side pulling down; that can be only by done gravity. What I do suspect is that very low steam pressure would have taken some load off the piston and made it easier and quicker to pull up and made it possible to keep imbalance to a minimum. Of course unnecessary work was done by these early engines. They also consumed too much coal. But they could lift more water from lower levels than had ever been possible before (don't forget we are talking about the early 18th Century); no small benefit that miners had long been in dire need of at any price. --John of Paris 15:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Gravity plays a small part but it is hopefully kept to a minimum - and I because I was being brief I didn't put that too well - sorry. Dealing purely with a chain linkage Newcomen engine. The power stroke raising the pump end is done by atmospheric pressure the issue is how is the return stroke done. It isn't gravity alone although it plays a small part. What happens is that the steam pressure rises enough to push the piston upwards, this slakens the chain linkage on that side and the small imbalance pulls the pump end down and takes up the slack in the chain. Gravity on its own doesn't power the return stroke but it does allow the piston to 'push' the beam back up via the chain linkage. In reality we never really notice the slackening of the chain linkage but that is how the system works. Chenab 13:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I've just implied in saying that I suspect that "very low steam pressure would have taken some load off the piston and made it easier and quicker to pull up and made it possible to keep imbalance to a minimum". That's surely what gives the illusion that the chain is "pushing" the beam. The problem is knowing what pressure was available at admission. I imagine that depends on which atmospheric engine we're talking about - the original, or Smeaton's optimised version of the 1760s. It says in the excellent Crofton pump site [2];[3] that when the engine is at rest, position is pump-side down. Here we have, not an atmospheric engine but a much later one working on the Cornish system with parallel motion on both sides using steam at 20 psi. What follows I have copied from their site and you can see there is no doubt whatsoever that gravity not only performs the return stroke but draws the steam into the lower half of the cylinder, however much that may shock the thermodynamicists amongst us : "When the engine is at rest, the pump side of the beam is down, and the steam piston is at the top of its stroke. The inlet and exhaust valves are open, and the equilibrium valve is closed. When the driver opens the throttle valve, steam is admitted above the piston and forces the piston down thus lifting the water pump plunger. At Crofton, at one half stroke, the inlet valve closes and the steam continues to expand. At the bottom of the stroke, the exhaust valve closes and the equilibrium valve opens, permitting the steam that is above the piston to pass into the cylinder below the piston. The piston then rises under the weight of the pump plunger on the other end of the beam, displacing the steam into the void under the piston. At the top of the stroke, the equilibrium valve closes, and the exhaust valve opens. At the same time the inlet valve opens to permit admission of another shot of steam. When the exhaust valve opens, a jet of cold water is injected into the condenser chamber which is connected to the exhaust system, causing the steam under the piston to condense, thus producing a vacuum. On the next power stroke there is thus the pressure of the steam above the piston pushing it down, and the vacuum under the piston pulling it down. In this way the steam injected into the cylinder is used twice, and is then recoverable as clean warm water to replenish the boiler." Couldn't be clearer, could it? --John of Paris 17:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A couple of references relating to Newcomen engines may be of use since this is where the discussion arises, these are from Power from Steam by Richard Hills. Richard Hills was involved with the construction of the large scale replica at Manchester Museum. "... weights were added to the beam immediately behind the arch head and on the piston until the beam was in perfect equipoise. Then a weight equivalent to 1 p.s.i. of piston area was removed from the piston to give the pump end the necessary advantage. If the pump end were too heavy, the engine wasted power raising it and it would descend too quickly, a problem we found with the Museum engine." He also talks about the steam valve needing to be open through all of the up stroke in order to "help push the piston back up the cylinder against atmospheric pressure."

So it might be better to say that the stroke is aided by gravity. Since the top of the cylinder is open you do not want the piston moving too fast upwards. Although you are unlikely to be so unlucky as to have the piston leave the cylinder there is the risk of losing much of the water forming the top seal above the piston.

I have always understood most of the engines to have worked in the range of 21 psi for the steam and 7 for the vacuum but cannot confirm the first of those figures off hand although Hill refers to a boiler exploding when the safety valves were set to 7 psi so this cannot be far wrong. As well as limits on boiler technology there was the upper limit to steam pressure to stop the piston moving upwards too fast and jerking both sets of chains. Chenab 14:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I assume when you talk of "21 psi for the steam and 7 for the vacuum" you mean the type of engine? Your last post is very interesting. I imagine that in installing any pump on site they would have had to go through whole a tuning process to get it to work smoothly. I think that what we lack here is a wholistic view of the engine including the return action of the pump, which you could imagine acting as a sort of giant hydraulic shock absorber. Much then may depend on pumping height. I think that nowadays there is a short-sighted and arrogant tendency (rather prevalent in Wikipedia) to uderestimate the intelligence of people of bygone eras. You really have to put yourself in their shoes to understand what was happening and imagine how you would have overcome the difficulties they faced. The "hands-on" research done at Manchester museum over the last few years strikes me as particularly valuable in this respect. — One more thing, re keeping the valve open throughout the up stroke, don't forget that the steam had first to reheat the cylinder, which means that at the beginning of the stroke the fresh steam was probably still condensing and would only completely destroy the vacuum towards the top. They tell me at Dudley that (probably for H & S reasons) the boiler is always open to atmosphere, so that the steam pressure is never much above atmospheric, so the piston can't do much pushing! I intend to visit this engine next month on a steam day. Don't know yet if it does any actual pumping or just rocks the beam to please the gallery. We shall see... --John of Paris 08:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The steam pressure range I was quoting relates to a typical Newcomen engine e.g. it operates in a range plus or minus 7 psi from Atmospheric pressure. While it was possible to create a stronger vacuum it proved more efficient to aim at around 7 below atmosphere and get more power strokes in the same time. Finding a figure for the upper limit is harder but if boiler safety valves were set to 7 psi above atmospheric then that gives us a guide. I would be amazed if there wasn't a tuning process for every site. I'm not aware of anything published on the Dudley engine but certainly the Manchester engine seems to have been a considerable learning curve to get it working. I haven't seen the Dudley engine so it will be interesting. The way Hill talks leaves little doubt that the steam will start to condense as soon as it hits cold metal when the piston moves up, hence the valve needs to stay open or else the beam stops moving and potentially starts a power stroke if there is enough condensation. Chenab 13:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I got my information on the Dudley engine from a brief exchange of mail with the museum director. There will be a steam day the weekend of the 21st/22nd April.--John of Paris 16:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uniflow engine

Would it make sense to break out the Uniflow engine section into its own article? Its fascinating stuff, but its also taking on a life of its own and taking up a disproportionally large part of this article. There certainly seems to be enough material to sustain a separate article. We'd keep a n introductory paragraph or two in the Steam engine article and a link to the main Uniflow engine article, much as is done with "Turbine engines. Thoughts? Gwernol 14:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Support: a tidy way to keep the original piece at a sensible size. Moonraker88 14:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. --John of Paris 11:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, Gwernol 12:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

New article title is: Uniflow steam engine. --- EdJogg 12:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Steam Engine Information

Recently I attempted to search for 'Steam Power' and it redirected me to 'Steam Engine'. I am the webmaster for the International Association for the Advancement of Steam Power, a non-profit organization collecting the leading and modern information of Steam Power, Steam Engines, Generators, among other subjects. After looking through the Wikipedia article on Steam Engines it is clear that not much information about current and modern technologies is available. One of IAASP's missions is gathering that information and educating the general community at large.

This is my first time posting on Wikipedia so excuse my hastiness and lack of protocol about posting our own link. I do, however, highly believe it should be added to the External Links. There is already information on our site that cannot be found elsewhere and in the coming year you will see even more additions of modern Steam Engine technologies released on our site before any other. We are in contact with some of the leading engineers and developers from across the globe and would be a valuable source of information for anyone seeking Encyclopedic information on Steam Power or Steam Engines.

On another note we would be interested in removing the Steam Power redirect and adding an article in its place - as Steam Power and Steam Engines are technically separate things.

IAASP 19:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, support the inclusion of a link to your site, as I believe it does contribute something that is not present in the article. That is why, after I'd checked-out the link, I modified it rather than deleted it.

You will find that there is some information on modern applications at steam car#Modern steam cars, but if sufficient verifiable information is available from other sources, then it would benefit from having its own page. Any contribution you can make will be most welcome, although you will have to beware of writing with a Neutral Point Of View. This could be extremely tricky for someone representing an organisation setup specifically to promote steam engine technology! There is the additional problem that you should not be adding information that is sourced from your own website. (Others will be able to quote the reasons why.) If other people find it, that is another matter. So I think the accepted WP procedure is for you to make people aware of it on the relevant talk page and let someone else add it, if they think it is important enough to include. (In the same way that we are discussing your link here.)

I would even go so far as to say that the IAASP could be specifically mentioned somewhere. It already has a number of links on the web, from other sites (which is important), however it is not for me to say whether it is notable enough for inclusion as its own page (I suspect not, yet). It is unfortunate that your group has the same initials as indoleacetylaspartate, as this clouds the number of google hits. Nevertheless, googling for 'IAASP steam' still generated some 115 hits. If you can provide independent references from 'reputable sources' about your organisation then you might get somewhere!

I agree that steam subjects in general are not well provided-for on WP, and I am gradually doing what I can to resolve this.

It would be interesting to have an article about Steam power – the only reason it currently links to steam engine is that no-one has written an article about it yet! (So please feel free to contribute one if you can do so within the WP guidelines.)

In the meantime, welcome to Wikipedia, and please have a look round some of the help pages to see how to do things. :O)

EdJogg 20:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] how do you replace the water in the boiler?

The boiler is at like 180 psi, and full of water. Most information about steam engines seem to ignore the issue of refilling the boiler. Do they simply wait till it's dry then turn the engine off and refill it? Or is there a high pressure pump operating somewhere to pump water in? How do these pumps work, and when did they become the norm? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.109.184.163 (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Most railway steam locomotives use an injector to put water in the boiler. Most road-engines such as traction engines and steam rollers have one injector and a water pump which is driven from the flywheel, and can top up the water when the engine is running in neutral gear (railway engines do not generally have a neutral gear but one fixed drive). Some smaller engines (e.g. tram locomotives) may also have a water pump which is driven from the crosshead and will therefore only operate when the engine is in motion. -=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 23:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compounding

Have made major edits to this section. I find the first two paragraphs pretty good and hardly touched them but the rest of the article was rather confused with quite a few factual errors that I have corrected. Also deleted one or two points already covered in the first two paragraphs of the section and most of those applying to railway locomotives have been adequately covered in the Compound locomotive article for which which I have added a link. I have eliminated "steeple engine" from the list because as stated, it is just another tandem compound. A steeple engine refers to general arrangement rather than cylinder layout. More deletions are probably needed.--John of Paris 14:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to re-include 'steeple engine'. That was the only reference in WP, so anyone coming here to find out more would have been disappointed. A redirect would be appropriate too. (This is a potentially helpful description, and of the differences between a steeple engine and a table engine.)

BTW we seem to have 'lost' a couple of exceptionally useful pictures. EdJogg 17:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

By re-including "steeple engine" in that list, you will just bring back the confusion I've been trying to get rid of. The problem is that we are not talking about the same thing. A steeple engine is nothing more than an verticle tandem compound, and tandem compound can also be a table engine, can it not? So "steeple engine" is not a valid category in that particular list. We are going round in circles. Why not try to place "steeple engine" and "table engine" somewhere else? What this particular article does admirably and should be allowed to go on doing is explain in a clear and simple way the principles involved. Any lists of engine layouts and types are irrelevant to this and cloud the issue of explaining what a steam engine is and by implication what an IC engine is not. At present there is tremendous confusion on this, especially amongst the younger generations, but not only. I am tempted to take all the "shopping lists" out altogether as they serve no useful purpose here. --John of Paris 11:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair point(s). The place for 'steeple engine' and 'table engine', etc, is probably as an offshoot of stationary steam engine, although the link I found described the use of a steeple engine to power a boat (aargh!)., so that might need a re-think - perhaps a 'configurations of steam engines' page? One of my books (I think "Stationary engines" in the Shire series) has a page of the names given to different layouts, with simple diagrams showing the relative positions of cylinders, crank, flywheel and beam (as appropriate). They would need redrawing, for copyright reasons, but could solve this problem.

This morning I was trying to quickly resolve the differences between beam engine, Cornish engine, Watt engine, and Newcomen engine – mainly because beam engine is written about a rotatative engine, but doesn't say as much, and you might expect it to be a top-level article for the others. (I ran out of time, but it gave me something to think about while I was having a filling done at the dentists!)

So I think you're right. This article must concentrate on the general description of an engine, with each of the major configurations/types described on separate pages.

EdJogg 15:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion

The more I look through this talk page, the article - and the net in general, the more I am dismayed by the general confusion that reigns wherever there is question of steam technology and its history. In this article, I have just tried to clarify the notion of linear and rotary motion where confusion is rife. The "atmospheric" engines all gave linear action through a see-saw beam in disequilibrium (pump-side heavier than the power side), so gravity played a part (and why not?). Moreover linear-acting engines are still used to drive water feed pumps and air pumps on locomotives - where they are double-acting and don't rely on gravity. Another example: "Cornish engines" i.e. engines built in Cornwall, are confused with the engines working on the Cornish system ("see-saw"), itself often called a "Cornish engine" (As far as I can gather, Trevithick had nothing to do with the development of these). One more: single acting engines can be of the vacuum type or work with steam pressure, or a combination of both - double acting engines can too: Watt's did. — and so on and so forth... The rubrics need serious sorting out according to themes they are treating.--John of Paris 12:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This user, for one, is glad to see someone trying to get to grips with this. Your good work isn't going unregarded. --Old Moonraker 14:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it's taking some getting to grips with! Within WP, there seem to be some "conflicts of interests." and "missing links" that mean that work is being duplicated in isolated groups of articles. For instance,in trolling around WP, I see that there are already quite good articles and good animations on the Newcomen engine and the Watt steam engine, When you look at the discussions you find on the Watt engine article you learn that they are part of a "WikiProject Physics", in the category of : Unassessed physics articles.--John of Paris 11:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong in saying that Trevithick had nothing to do with the development of the Cornish system. He developed it in 1812. It came from adapting a Watt engine to his then-new Cornish boiler. He increased its working pressure and that combined with the condenser greatly increased its efficiency. However the comment on the general confusion with "engines built in Cornwall" still seems valid.--John of Paris 16:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with picture

The picture of a steam engine working, in section, has a problem. It shows the governor operating the steam throttle in phase with the motion of the cylinder. This is, of course, incorrect and creates a misleading impression. The flow of steam is not pulsed in this way. Paul Beardsell 17:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I made it to illustrate the work of the governor in general, but if you think it's not right, I'll correct this. --Ptr ru 06:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a great picture but the throttle is NOT pulsed as demonstrated. Increasing speed closes the steam throttle and decreasing speed opens the throttle. It is not pulsed. Best just not to show the throttle push rod moving at all. Also, the picture is incorrect in that the governor's weights are not showing moving in and out at all so the push rod cannot be moving. Paul Beardsell 09:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul's remark indicates the need for another animation (they are SO useful in this article!) showing the behaviour of the governor – what it does and how it works.

Incidentally, the word 'throttle' is not used elsewhere in the article, so this highlights a lack of explanation or incorrect terminology somewhere. The inaccuracy is not obvious to anyone not familiar with steam engines, nor to those like myself who have some knowledge, but it should be corrected.

Incidentally (2), the only reference to 'governor' is in the other illustration, showing the engine components. There is no mention nor link within the text.

EdJogg 09:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ever helpful, I've boldly changed the caption to save the uninitiated from having to search for this chat on the talk page, and have added links as suggested. Great animations, a bit slower would be helpful: to me, illustrating the general movement of the governor linkage worked well, but good point about it not "pulsing" in practice. .. dave souza, talk 11:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Much better. Necessarily wordy, but still clear and to the point. Looking again, I also realised that the governor operation is a bit 'magic', in that there is no indication of how it is driven – but showing that as well might clutter the image too much. EdJogg 11:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed: New image with governor as if at fixed speed uploaded by User:Ptr ru—thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request to slow down animations

Ptr ru, You who seem to know how to do it - which I don't, could you slow down the animations showing the difference between vacuum and pressure engines, or better still, make them easily stop-and-startable?--John of Paris 07:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What does 'rotatative' mean?

I think I first saw the term 'rotatative' associated with beam engines when editing the article for Crossness Pumping Station. I assumed that this meant the beam engines were driving a crankshaft and flywheel (like at Crossness), rather than a direct action pump (like the engines at Kew Bridge), but now I'm not so sure. The WP article on beam engines implies that all of them drove a flywheel (which is, of course, not true), but doesn't mention the term 'rotatative' at all.

The term is used in a number of places, but the WP search is unhelpful since it appears to pick up 'rotating', etc. OED and Free Dictionary do not recognise the term. (Just to add to the confusion, the Kew Bridge article mentions that there are examples of 'rotative' engines...)

Help! (please? :o) ) -- EdJogg 12:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"rotatative" looks like a misstype, I too have stumbled across "rotative" along with "rotatory" in Apple's Webster's dictionary widget. Either would be useful to avoid confusion with "rotary" steam engine as defined in this article.--John of Paris 15:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vacuum engine

Yes, I know the power stroke comes from a partial vacuum, but I am a bit worried to note that "vacuum engine" does not appear to be accepted usage when describing Newcomen's engines. He called them "fire engines" (as did Watt initially) and the term "atmospheric" seems to have been applied a little later (when?). If you Google for "vacuum engine", you get quite different devices, some working on the Stirling principle. I find the animation rather abstract; that in the Newcomen steam engine article is far easier to understand. I also wonder if "pressure engine" as demonstrated says very much. From what I can see, the application of steam pressure seems to have come rather gradually. From the start, Watt closed the top of the cylinder and introduced steam, said to be at "atmospheric pressure", although I can't see how: steam pressure, although very low would surely have been slightly above atmospheric otherwise the steam would not have been created at all. Anyway the steam at whatever pressure or non-pressure filled the steam jackets and filled the space above the piston giving the requisite pressure differential with the partial vacuum to press down the piston once the vacuum had been created underneath. The famous 1812 Watt pumping engine at Crofton was said to have used 5 psi, so pressure may or may not have been raised incrementally over the years. Trevithick's Cornish system was basically the same except that steam pressure was somewhat increased, eventually to about 40 psi and condensing improved. Going back to "pressure engine", what is shown is a vague sort of a single acting engine, whereas Watt in his first Rotative engines went straight to double action so is this animation really necessary? Please do bear with all this "thinking aloud" but I am still trying to see my way through all this. What is surprising considering how much has been written about people like Newcomen & Watt is just how little concrete information on their technology you can actually find. --John of Paris 18:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help you with the terminology. Have had another look at the Watt/Newcomen engine articles and was glad to see that they are (relatively) sound. I completely agree that the Newcomen Engine animation is MUCH clearer – any reason why it shouldn't be used in this article too? Further, what is the difference between a Cornish engine and a Newcomen steam engine. The former seems to suggest that it was just an engine designed in Cornwall – how does that relate to the Savery/Newcomen/Watt engines? (Or should the Cornish engine article be redirected somewhere else?)

EdJogg 21:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The Cornish engine article is a perfect example of the confusion I was referring to above and I have not yet decided what can be done about it. For this article am preparing a series of new replacement rubrics that I will submit as soon as they start to look like something. I hope these will answer your and other people's queries. Rubrics will cover: the Newcomen "atmospheric" engine; the Watt development of this with separate condenser; its higher-pressure derivative, the Cornish engine: i.e. engine working on the Cornish system. In the meantime you can always visit the excellent Crofton Beam engine [4];[5] sites (the first gives very comprehensive descriptions and second has a very nice video of a steam pump working). As for the animation in the Newcomen engine article, I have no idea if we can use it, but my feeling is that articles should complement each other and it will probably be enough to make sure the link to the other article is in the text; as for this article I will propose some nice old illustrations that should not give copyright problems.--John of Paris 01:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External combustion

I must say I have problems with this term and have started a debate on the External combustion engine talk page. I suspect the term may have been coined at a more recent date as a semantic opposition to "internal combustion". In my experience the term "external combustion" is confusing for people unfamiliar with steam technology (and don't forget that most people nowadays are only familiar with IC). I am not against leaving the reference to External combustion where it is (even though I don't agree with it), but surely it is not quite correct to say that heat "exists in steam"; heat is transferred to water creating steam as a working fluid the energy of which can be converted into mechanical work. Unlike the IC engine where heat energy acts directly over a piston head or on a turbine blade etc. to do mechanical work, the steam process is a "long" multi-stage one; this is a point that needs to be stressed as therein lie both its strengths and its weaknesses that the term "external combustion" makes it difficult to bring out the matter being viewed in IC terms. I don't know if you follow my line of thought, but would be interested in other views here before making any changes to the paragraph, which I would like to do.--John of Paris 08:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compression

Lumos3, the new section you have just added on compression was much needed. I wonder though if the advantages do not go further than just cushion effect. One that I would suggest is that with compression comes temperature rise in the clearance spaces (or "dead" spaces), at the cylinder ends and inside the ports preparing them to receive the next charge of admission steam.--John of Paris 16:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New versions

I am at present working on proposals for new versions of both the Boiler and Steam Engine articles. I propose slight change in the titles: "Boiler/steam generator (Component of prime mover)" in order to isolate the paragraphs on steam heating; there is a short historical section into which I will put new images of Cornish and Lancashire boilers, at present incorrect. The proposed title for the second article is Steam engine (Component of prime mover) this takes into account the fact that the two components may be combined at random whilst "disambiguating" the fact that "steam engine" stands either for a complete unit (not just a "railroad locomotive") or else the machinery alone. I have also merged the two historical descriptions into one with a general review at the beginning. All are welcome with bucket and spade into the sandboxes on my user page; if and when consensus is reached we can move the articles without delay.--John of Paris 12:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose a change in the title of this article. The "other uses" line at the top is sufficient to redirect those looking for railway locomotives to that article. However, this article is becoming somewhat long, and it would do no harm to fork some sections of the present article into new or other articles. Peterkingiron 14:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite agree that it is too long and rambling - in fact a complete jumble. I have been trying for months to bring some semblance of order and correct an incredible number of factual errors. "Other uses" will not solve the problem of clear presentation of the essential elements of this huge subject. Would you also oppose a complete reorganisation where at least the historical elements are brought together in more or less chronological order? This instead of their occupying two overlapping sections, as they do now with lots of repetitions and redundant statements. Also the question of integration with the boiler surely needs looking at as this is essential to the understanding of basic steam technology. The problem is that its not just an "engine" we are talking about, but an integrated power unit incorporating at least two distinct elements - generator and engine. Anyone who has not grasped this simple fact (amazing how many have not) has understood nothing. Rather than opposing change, you might wish to cooperate in looking for solutions.--John of Paris 20:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

To get an idea what I mean, you are invited to visit "User:John of Paris/sandbox 5 Steam Power (overview)" that I have just put together today. Please don't bother to look at my other sandboxes for the moment as they are being rebuilts.--John of Paris 14:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delphine

this diff (here) and this diff (at Steamboat) seem a bit promotionaly to me. Greyrover (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email)'s only two contributions are to link to this ship here and there. I would not go so far as to say linkspam but it does seem off. I have removed it from here. ++Lar: t/c 01:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Your removal is thoroughly appropriate. This article concerns a large subject, and has some subsidiary articles. Other aspects may need to be forked off into separate articles. It is important that general articles (such as this one) do not become cluttered with minor details. Peterkingiron 14:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

it was reinserted, (by an IP claiming that it had been deleted in error) and removed by me again, and reinserted by Mechanical Misfit (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email) who then commented on my talk page, (no other contribs by MM so far...) and removed again by me just now. At least the last reinsertion had SOME dialog. I have left a note at MM's talk encouraging them to make the case here that this very specific (and link rich) paragraph about a very specific boat is appropriate to a general topic. I would encourage these various accounts (grayrover, the IP, MM) to actually write a high quality article about the Delphine instead of repeating these insertions... (Note, this post is from an alternate account, but it's me, crosslinked messages on the user pages will confirm that) ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 19:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steam advantages at high altitudes

Studying the statement that asserted that steam engines are advantageous at high altitude is a partial truth. While it does satisfy Carnot's cycle by having high pressure steam coming into the engine, and exhausting the steam at very low pressure. (thermodynamically efficient) it does not take into account the combustion of the fuel used to heat the water to make the steam. Any engine that derives its power from chemical energy (diesel, jet, gasoline) requires a certain amount or ratio of fuel to air to operate properly. Recall that the supercharger was used in war to maintain sea level pressure so that aircraft would maintain power at all altitudes (turbochargers). The locomotive style boiler has no means of forced induction and as a result the air is "rare" and thus the sociometric ratio is compromised. I think this issue should be addressed. Spencer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.91.22 (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Careful here, the stochiometric ratio is independent of air pressure. A locomotive at high altitude would operate at the same steam gauge pressure, and hence produce the same power as at low altitude. I agree that the fire will produce less heat at higher altitude. However, only if the fire was unable to produce enough energy would the power of the steam engine be significantly reduced, but I expect that most fires in steam engines have ample reserve capacity to produce sufficient heat.WolfKeeper 17:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

hmm. On second thoughts, Im not so sure. The problem is that the heat exchanger presumably works less well at altitude since the gases from the fire would be less dense, but this should be a sublinear reduction I think.WolfKeeper 19:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

By way of contrast, a 20% reduction in air pressure presumably would give about a 20% reduction in power in an internal combustion engine, unless super or turbocharged.WolfKeeper 17:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

This article has an image problem. First, the section about vacuum engines has three pictures of basically the same thing. The multiple expansion engine section is worse; the section has 3 paragraphs, but 4 pictures. Other sections could reasonably use an image, the steam turbine section for example. We don't need to have images for the sake of having images; they should contribute something to the article. The 3 images in the vacuum engine section are redundant; two need to be trimmed. The same goes for the multiple expansion section; I'd recommend keeping the animated diagram, and potentially one of the photographs. Parsecboy 00:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree - unfortunately that's only one of the article's problems...--John of Paris 11:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for revert to Lightmouse version

I am not in the habit of making such drastic edits. The point is that this article is dispersed and disorganised enough already; it certainly is not an article on the Stirling engine and a link exists to that page where readers can go and decide for themselves on the merits or otherwise of the prime movers in question. One thing, perhaps Verity can give us a few examples of Stirling engines that need "enormous radiators" Also irrelevant points are being raised; the importance of the exhaust system (petticoats etc.) applies mainly to steam railway locomotives, it does not apply in the same way to steam cars, ships nor to most stationary equipment, so surely should not be in a section on general considerations.--John of Paris 11:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misuse of "citation needed"

Why should a citation be required for this statement? How could anyone provide one? Perhaps this is overzealous use of that tag. "Commercial development of the steam engine, however, required an economic climate in which the developers of engines could profit by their creations.[citation needed]" Landroo 06:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Not me Sir. Let's take it out. On the other hand one reference might be useful for the whole section. I put it in most of the statements on Worcester and will give my sources as soon as I find time.--John of Paris 09:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure

A recent amendment criticised references to Thomas Savery before any statement as to who he was. I hope I have dealt with this by adding a new second paragraph, conforming to the principle that the article should start with a brief summary of its content. However I am not certain that the structure is quite right, and hope others can improve it. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Having looked in detail at this article, I find there is a lot of repetition between different sections. Furthermore, there are more detailed articles on different kinds of steam engine. I would suggest that the article needs to be substantially pruned, with the detail being transferred to more detailed articles on specific types of steam engine, etc., linked to this one by "main" templates. However I am not sure that I have the time (or for some aspects, the detailed knowledge) to do this. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You will find that John of Paris (talk · contribs) is in the process of rewriting this article 'off-line', as it were. It has grown over the past two years, and needs some restructuring. My in-line comments were to highlight structural problems with the text (i.e. referring ahead to Savery, without adequate 'introduction'), which may have resulted from piecemeal additions during this time. It is a big topic, and will require time to do it justice. EdJogg (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought that was the object of your comment. I wish John of Paris (talk · contribs) well with his rewrite. However, this is a large subject, and we need a "tree" of articles, so that the detail appears in the sub-articles, not in this one, which ought to provide a brief general overview of the whole subject. It will then be necessary to defend the shortened text against those who want to add excessive detail to it. In the case of the iron industry, I used an Ironworks page essentially for disambiguation. It could be that is what ought to be done here. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouraging remarks. I was intending in any case to leave a word on your talk page in the near future. The "tree approach" is exactly what I am attempting in my sandboxes. I am working on four articles simultaneously:

i) A general overview in which I try to give as straightforward a picture as possible of what a steam engine actually is, bearing in mind that many younger readers especially have the strangest notions and often see it in terms of IC, which sends them off on all sorts of wild goose chases. At the same time I am quite out of my depth with thermodynamics so that would be better dealt with by others, perhaps in yet another article. But in an overview we certainly should not throw heat engines or "engineering definitions" at the reader in the opening sentence as that is is what comes up in a Google search;

ii) Boilers and steam generators, clearly independent from heating and steam cleaning;

iii) The engine part, steam motor, turbines etc., that receive the already-generated steam;

iv) A substantial historical article - how this would be integrated remains to be seen.

In the main, I have tried not to meddle too much with the existing sections. One of the biggest problems with the present steam engine article is the redundancy of certain sections where history is confused with general working principles. The worst is that I may have been in some ways responsible for that confusion due to my early reaction to misleading statements and animations presenting the "vacuum engine" as a general working principle, whereas of course it represents an initial phase in the historical development of the steam engine. Anyway you or anyone else reading this, are more than welcome to visit my user page, but please remember it is work in progress!--John of Paris (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Just had a thought about the structure. Since we are dealing with a largely historical subject, the technical and historical details will overlap to a considerable extent.

May I suggest that we need (at least) TWO articles about engines here? One should be a historical timeline, showing how engines evolved, the other should be coverage from a technical point-of-view.

EdJogg (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't quite see what you are getting at, Pete. I am suggesting at least FOUR articles one of which would cover the purely historical side. On the other hand we could look at how the present timeline could be developed in this direction. Finally to say that it is a "largely historical subject" rather puts the lid on things. Of course steam has a very long history behind it but I think the future should be left as an open door. Also to understand the history of a technical subject, which this is after all, you are forced to discuss technique.--John of Paris (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think its a reflection on the scale of the problem. I was trying to point out that the articles will inevitably mix 'technology' and 'history', and that what we end up with needs to be a series of articles that concentrate on particular viewpoints so that we avoid having all the detail repeated on each page. Having re-read your earlier comment, and having read discussions about other top-level pages (such as automobile) it is clear that the 'overview' page needs to be just that, avoiding technical detail, and acting as a signpost for all the other articles that cover the topic. Also, your 'pages (iii) and (iv)' would seem to fulfil my comment of having a 'technical' (iii) and a 'historical' (iv) article.

I must admit that, knowing you are working on the problem, I have not put much thought into how to restructure it effectively.

EdJogg (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the article should try to cover the whole subject to some reasonable degree, and only if it doesn't all fit should it be split up. I think any general principles or information/history on steam engines needs to as far as possible, go in this article, with subarticles containing more specific information.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes but to what "reasonable degree"? Edjogg alludes to the scale of the problem and that is no exaggeration. Sure the article can be pared down to some extent by removing repetitions and redundancies, but it will remain bloated whilst at the same time not fully addressing the steam engine in its two main manifestations: the self-contained unit, including boiler/steam generator or else the component of a system restricted to a mechanism for power delivery (the so-called "disambiguation":"The term steam engine may also refer to an entire railroad steam locomotive." is not only woefully inadequate in this sense but misleading, simply because the word "engine" in English loosely applies to any application or configuration - in French l'élément moteur or le moteur clearly refers to cylinders, motion and transmission and nothing else, which makes life a lot simpler in this respect) however it is not just a question of initial disambiguation, the ambiguity permeates through the whole subject and reflects the unique flexibility of steam plant. Where this article mainly falls down is in not dealing with the boiler/steam generator. Worse, if you click on the the boiler blue link, you find yourself in a truly inaccurate and confusing article that not only covers central heating boilers etc., but someone with a minimal knowledge of the subject will be confronted with frankly wrong information (eg. the diagram of the Cornish boiler is just plain wrong). In that sense the subject is already split up. My only aim in what I am doing at present is to bring some clarity into what strikes me as hopeless confusion, getting worse with each edit. And of course all my work so far has been done in sandboxes, so I am not trying to impose anything; at the same time I think you should all be kept informed - or if anyone has better solutions let him bring them forward, that's no skin off my nose.--John of Paris (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not proposing to interfere at present, but it remains my view that the better WP articles are ones of a modest length, referring to more detailed articles on particular aspects. The locomotive disambiguation link is standard WP practice. If the article that it leads to is a poor one, then it should be a target for improvement. The same applies to boilers, and I expect that needs to be broekn down with sub-articles on haystack boilers, cornish boilers, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC) (Peter, not pete)

In using the name Pete a few posts back I was directly answering EdJogg (aka Pete J, the name he gives on his user page). I would never have taken such a liberty with you. That said, I agree with the thrust of your last comments and have nothing against disambiguation in itself. The point is that in this particular general steam engine context, to single out the "railroad locomotive" is inadequate; on the other hand, as I intimated, English usage of the word "engine" has always been in itself a bit ambiguous (compared with French machine à vapeur as distinct from machinerie or moteur) and this IMO is what requires disambiguation or clarification at the beginning of this article. That's all I was trying to say — and by all means do "interfere" when you wish; I am not claiming this as my personal patch and, as I very much appreciate your work on the Industrial Revolution would greatly welcome your collaboration in putting together material that will be of use to WP readers and not just the airing of some editors' knowledge, which it tends to be at present.--John of Paris (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Heat engine' Navi template

Would it be appropriate to add this template to the article?

It doesn't specifically include this article (which I would have thought it should?) so the template would need adjusting.

Thoughts?

PS - having seen this, I think it may be time for a Steam Engines template...?

EdJogg (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, FWIW. Can't hurt right? --Mikiemike (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Added. Still think it ought to include links to steam engine, petrol engine, diesel engine, etc

EdJogg (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I have just copied text from my sandbox and eliminated redundancies. Please check that nothing is missing--John of Paris (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the recent article development might force your hand. Sensible move. It will take a while to do the job properly, but I'll make sure I review it over the weekend.

Before I start, could you have a look at the headings, please? 'Low Pressure Engines' has bad format, and the rest of the headings are consequently skewed. I haven't looked at the article code to attempt a fix as I don't want to second guess your new hierarchy.

EdJogg (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think an edit war is about to break out with the external combustion people. They've been trying to force their POV in various underhand ways (sly blue links etc.) for over year now. As always this is of course one POV against another which dates back to Newcomen's day and depends on the your angle you come from. Well let's leave it to other editors to decide which which of the definitions is the easier-to-understand and which we would wish browsers to be able to google. John of Paris

John of Paris, please sign your comments.
Mikiemike (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia doesn't have wars about POVs- it simply includes all significant POVs in an unbiased way. If you or I have an issue about a particular terminology- that's just tough; but if there is notable discussion about it elsewhere, then we need to put it in the article. If you know of such a discussion, please give us a reference to it.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, WolfKeeper, that's spot on! (IMO) All controversies I've run into on Wikipedia are resolved (and/or die out) by summarizing and including all POV's, and by including verifiable references. What's interesting is that this also makes for the best possible article!!! A really good editor would have the discipline to write this way all the time. I'm not there yet, but anytime I sense a true controversy, I definitely go into that mode: articulating all POV's, adding references, and quite literally summarizing the editor's discussion and putting this explanation in the article to preface the POV's.

[edit] Issue of "external combustion"

Somehow the article needs to explain that heat is applied to the outside of the engine, not the inside. This is critical info that you're deleting from the introduction, and you haven't offered a better alternative. "External combustion" is the conventional categorization. But with the advent of non-combustion heat sources, some editors objected. So if you've been following our discussion, I suggested "external heat engine". Which I feel is relatively good language and a decent compromise. It's not "sly". It was discussed. It solves this difficult terminology problem. Instead of just deleting it can you discuss it and offer some suggestions as to what you think might be better? This isn't about POV. This is about the way the engine actually is. The heat is on the outside. Why is that so difficult to get across?

The reason why I think this terminology is valid is that the fundamental engine configuration is the same whether the heat comes from combustion, or some other heat source. So the heat source itself is just semantics. Why get so bogged down by semantics?
--Mikiemike (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I just noticed what a certain 'well meaning' editor did to the introduction. According to the current introduction, a stochiometric rocket engine burning oxygen and hydrogen is a 'steam engine', since the working fluid is steam. As in: no.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

But you do have to watch that what is written actually makes sense to the majority of readers. For example, the term 'external combustion' is not widely known, even if it might be technically correct. Similarly, you don't apply heat to the outside of a steam engine, you apply steam under pressure into it.

As has been proved by the varying edits to this page this year, defining what a steam engine is is actually very difficult, especially in a way that encompasses every possible configuration.

The lead paragraphs need to provide a concise overview of the entire article, leading the inquisitive reader into reading on further down the page. That requires the definition of a steam engine to be fairly simple, and we may have to revert to "A steam engine is defined as an engine that is worked by steam", or similar, to achieve that. The current lead is about the right length, and covers the majority of topics within the article as an overview. It needs a little bit more about current applications, but little else.

If there are real problems about the definition, then this must be explored in a separate section -- properly referenced to sources that discuss the problems of defining it -- and not in the lead.

EdJogg (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point User:Wolfkeeper, there's a big difference between internal and external combustion.

User:EdJogg, I think it needs to both 'make sense to the majority of readers', and be 'technically correct'. Okay, you apply heat to the boiler, and since the steam engine is a heat engine and is defined by the Rankine cycle, then the boiler is part of the engine. There may be many different configurations, but topology proves that the heat is always on the outside and passes through a wall which separates the working fluid. This is very important, because it is largely the reason that this heat engine generates most of the world's electric power. I appreciate the simple definition, but on the other hand, the definition does need to be complete and accurate. The article can't really fix the definition later in the article; the intro is the place to get it right. The lead was made long by a lengthy history summary. I put this in a ==Brief history== section, which I feel is much more organized. This allows for further editing to remain organized, and it allows readers to know the subcategory that they are reading about, and allows them to skip to it or over it if they so choose.

User:Gwernol, please discuss the issues before simply reverting. You are close to the limit of 3 reverts in 24 hours. Thanks, --Mikiemike (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually on second thoughts, the stochiometric hydrogen/oxygen rocket engine probably is a steam engine; that implies that some steam engines are potentially internal combustion engines- I guess it doesn't matter *that* much where you get the steam from to drive your steam engine ;-) It's a bit odd, but I can't see anything wrong with the idea that a steam engine is just any heat engine with steam as the working fluid. Many steam engines are going to be external combustion engines, but nuclear and geothermal are technically not (either), so external combustion is not a necessary feature.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 05:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction makes little if any sense/is wrong

"A steam engine is defined by its working fluid, steam that converts heat energy to mechanical work."

I don't know what that really means. The steam doesn't convert heat energy to work, the engine might do, the steam carries the energy around the engine, but that's not what that sentence says.

"There are two fundamental forms of steam engine: reciprocating (piston engine) and rotary (the steam turbine). "

Uh... no. A simple steam rocket is still a steam engine, and is not reciprocating, and is not rotary.

"In normal usage, 'steam engine' refers specifically to the reciprocating type; technically, however, both are heat-engines that use the Rankine cycle common to all engines that use steam as their working fluid."

It says on the Rankine page that the Rankine cycle is closed loop, whereas steam trains are usually open as is a steam rocket. I think we need to be 100% accurate. We must stick to statements that are true, not just that sound good or are 90% accurate.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, excellent points, and I totally agree. You're a sharp editor! I wouldn't go so far as to call it 'wrong', as your title says, but I agree it's only 90% accurate, and your adjustments are an improvement in my opinion. --Mikiemike (talk) 03:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You want an engineering definition from a reliable source. Perhaps this may do, coming as it does from no less a person than André Chapelon (my translation) - yes it does apply to locomotives, but not only.

The origin of locomotive power''

"The locomotive is the simple and imposing form of the steam engine. As with any steam engine, it finds its power in the heat given off by burning a combustible (fuel), part of which heat is transformed into work. We are sometimes witness to the inverse transformation : the driver sees without pleasure an axlebox overheating, but this heat cannot be transformed into work. We can heat an axlebox as much as we like, but we will never make the axles turn. The heat has to be communicated to an intermediary, which in a locomotive is water vapour. Certain motors use air or divers gasses as the intermediary. According to a fundamental law of physics, the transformation heat into work or of work into heat takes place in constant proportions, 1 calory (heat unit) is the equivalent of 427 kilogrammetres (work units) (" E Sauvage & A. Chapelon: "La Locomotive vapeur 10th ed. published by la Librairie Polytechnique, 1947 republished by Editions Layet 1979; pp.1-2.)

As for External combustion, I just think that steam has become a dirty word of late which means that the term has been put forward by development engineers as an alternative to internal combustion. No problem with that, but I don't know the "accuracy percentage" of it. However EdJogg's right, the boiler has to be taken into consideration with combustion and heat transfer taking place inside the furnace; a steam motor (turbine or reciprocating) then converts pressure differential into work and in doing so does its best to get rid of the heat. So how about this (based on Mickiemike's summary)?

The term "'Steam engine' refers specifically to a heat engine that uses the Rankine cycle common to all engines that use steam as their working fluid." I have no problem with that, it's neat and concise.--John of Paris (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

When I saw how many edits there had been overnight, and having read the talk page edits first, I was worried what might have been done to the article. As it is, the revised lead is "ok". For now. The definition does make sense without being too heavy, although it would be even better if it could be simplified further. But I think we need input from non-steamy editors here, to see what is and isn't clear to the casual reader...

"The lead is ok for now" -- because it has raised fresh problems with the article, for example, the Functional Overview section is hopelessly inadequate now (and, as you will all argue, inaccurate). Nevertheless, the lead is starting to show the way that the article might be developed further.

Looking at it from a Featured Article reviewers point-of-view, the sub-heading 'Brief history' is not required, since the lead is supposed to summarise the entire article. It does not do this at present, but there's no point worrying about developing it much further until we push for Good Article status, by which time the article structure will be fully defined. (I haven't had time to review John's recent edits yet, so I don't know how close we have got to it being 'settled' already.) It is most frustrating to me when I expand an article lead section according to Wikipedia:Lead section, only for some other editor to come along, and immediatly break the guidelines by inserting '==Overview==' after the first sentence. (This is not the first time.) But as I said, this can wait for now. -- EdJogg (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I still have a problem with the second sentence: "This engine is distinct from internal combustion engines in that heat is applied to, and removed from, the outside of the engine. This feature allows the use of any fuel type or heat source by separating the combustion processes from the working fluid.E.C.E.[›]" This is really hermetic and obscure. The heat, and pressure are surely inside the engine until exhaust. No account seems to be taken here of heat transfer to the water. It only goes one way, except that the steam tends to promptly lose it.--John of Paris (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LEAD issues

The lead currently states that a steam engine as:

"A steam engine is an external combustion engine that uses steam obtained from boiling water as its working fluid."

Um... source?

Whereas I wrote:

"A steam engine is a heat engine that converts heat energy to mechanical work using steam as the working fluid."

and to be honest I'm sticking with that as the correct definition. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines it as: "machine using steam power to perform mechanical work through the agency of heat." which I consider to be exactly the same thing.

Although I've never seen an exact definition, an external combustion engine presumably requires combustion, but nuclear powered steam engines are still very definitely considered to be steam engines, and AFAIK aren't external combustion engines, so this disproves the current definition.

So I propose to revert the definition in the lead back to my version as it matches the EB definition, without risking copyright infringement- unless anyone can find a different, more authoritative and evidently correct definition we can agree on.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the previous lead? It was very poorly written. It contradicted itself several times, was written in a completely inappropriate tone, had no references and a large chunk appeared to have been badly copied from another Wikipedia article. By all means improve the new opening, especially if you can properly source it, but please don't simply revert back to its previous state. By the way, the Britannica article defines a steam engine as follows: "steam engines are external-combustion engines that burn fuel in a separate boiler to produce steam at high pressure and temperature. The steam then expands in a reciprocating engine or a turbine. The low-pressure steam is normally condensed to water before being pumped back into the boiler. In a steam locomotive, however, the expanded steam is blown off." Gwernol 00:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the EB Online steam engine (mechanical) article at [6] says:

"machine using steam power to perform mechanical work through the agency of heat.

A brief treatment of steam engines follows. For full treatment of steam power and production and of steam engines and turbines, see Energy Conversion: Steam engines.

In a steam engine, hot steam, usually supplied by a boiler, expands under pressure, and part of the heat energy is converted into work. The remainder of the heat may be allowed to escape, or, for maximum engine efficiency, the steam may be condensed in a separate apparatus, a condenser, at comparatively low temperature and pressure." and goes on from there; which seems very reasonable.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's one source; it does not say that a steam engine is a heat engine, though of course it is. Notice that the EB also includes the quote I gave above, and that the external combustion engine line of the lead is now sourced from the American Heritage Dictionary. There is a properly referenced definition of external combustion engine in our own article on the subject, which leads to Merriam Webster: "a heat engine (as a steam engine) that derives its heat from fuel consumed outside the cylinder", which is another reference for the lead. Its better to use external combustion engine rather than heat engine, since an ECE is a more specific type of HE. Gwernol 01:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I think that "machine using steam power to perform mechanical work through the agency of heat" is describing a heat engine. I also find that for technical subjects, that dictionaries often don't give an accurate answer- I faced this issue with rocket engine for example- the dictionary definition wasn't entirely accurate- didn't cover the full range of things that are considered a rocket engine, but that needed to be covered in the article. I think that this is because a dictionary tries to give a general sense, rather than a strictly precise definition. I personally think that a definition as correct as possible is the most appropriate in an encyclopedic context, provided it doesn't get unreadable.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we're about there with the article. Let's leave it as it is.--John of Paris (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead fails WP:LEAD as well as being innaccurate.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 07:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, what is inaccurate about it? You have made the claim that you believe it is wrong, but you haven't actually said what you think is wrong, beyond a vague supposition that a nuclear power plant can't be an external combustion engine. You claim that dictionary definitions can't be used because they aren't correct, but haven't come forward with a better definition from a source that is more reliable. At ECE is a type of HE, so by saying a steam engine is an ECE, we are saying it is a HE. We're just being more specific and therefore more accurate. What is incorrect about that?

Can you also specify which bit of WP:LEAD the current lead fails? It is a great deal closer than the previous version. It needs more work, but it certainly should not be reverted to its previous parlous state. Gwernol 10:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the entire first sentence to start with. The trouble with dictionaries is that they reflect common usage of a particular term. But common usage is normally a loose one, whereas what we do in encyclopedias is cover a topic NOT a term. It's subtly different, and that's why the definition we've used is essentially wrong- a steam engine is a heat engine that works on steam; and yes many are external combustion engines, but not nuclear power plants for example. What we need is a text book definition on steam engines that we can reference, not a dictionary definition.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(deindenting)You claimed the lead failed WP:LEAD as well as being inaccurate; so apart from your claim that the first sentence is inaccurate, what is wrong with it?Gwernol 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There's loads of things; I figured I'd start with the first sentence first though. The main problem is that the current lead doesn't cover the whole article, it only covers one type of steam engine, but the article covers lots of different types. I think the lead has to cover all the different types as well. This article needs to cover absolutely all steam engines.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It will help us all if you can specify the problems, then we can pitch in and fix them. Again, I understand that you are claiming that not all steam engines are external combustion engines, and again, I have to disagree. A nuclear power plant heats its water from an external source.Gwernol 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, but if it's an external combustion engine. Where's the combustion? Combustion is oxidation of fuel. There's no oxidation, and there's no fuel. But we're agreed that a nuclear powered steam turbine or at the very least nuclear powered piston engine is a steam engine, right?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And it matters, quite a lot. If something in the article isn't a steam engine, then it probably shouldn't be in the article(!)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

An internal combustion engine converts fuel into heat within the cylinder, an external combustion engine performs that combustion outside the cylinder. Here are some more references:

• The Internal-combustion Engine, by Charles Fayette Taylor and Edward Story Taylor (published in 1961 by the University of Michigan states: "Examples of external-combustion engines are the steam engine, the steam turbine, the hot-air engine, and the closed-cycle gas turbine"
• The American Year Book, by Simon Newton Dexter North, Francis Graham Wickware, Albert Bushnell Hart (published in 1913 by T. Nelson & Sons) states: "A heat engine may be defined as a machine for continuously changing latent heat energy into mechanical energy or work. If the latent heat of the fuel is rendered potential outside of the engine the latter is spoken of as an external combustion engine but if the heat is generated inside of the engine the latter is known as an internal combustion engine. Steam engines are external combustion engines"Gwernol 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh I like that one... except the last sentence. The thing is, 1913 predates nuclear power, and geothermal probably wasn't used back then.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• The Comprehensive Science & Technology- Chemistry IX (published by Laxmi publications), Appendix I "External Combustion Engines" leads with a section on the Steam Engine, describing its principles of operation and brief history. It contrasts these with Internal Combustion Engines.
• Engineering Science, by Harry Bertram Brown, Arthur John Bryant (published in 1938 by Macmillan) states: "The steam engine illustrates the external combustion engine..." (page 4)
• On the role of external combustion engines for on-site power generation by Holtz, R.E. and Uherka, K.L. (National conference and exhibition on technology for energy conservation; 22 Jan 1979; Tucson, AZ, USA): "External combustion engines include steam turbines, Stirling cycle engines, and externally-fired Brayton gas turbines. Among the various applications for external combustion engines are: total energy plants, ICES, industrial cogeneration, small municipal generating plants, and pumping stations"

include steam turbines is probably true in a venn diagram sense, provided it doesn't include all steam turbines...- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Stirling engine design and feasibility for automotive use edited by M. J. Collie (published by Elsevier Science Ltd. in 1980): "At least theoretically an external combustion engine can be powered by anything from a nuclear reactor to burning wood"Gwernol 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't actually say that a engine being powered by a nuclear reactor is an external combustion engine, only that it could potentially be powered by it; which isn't quite the same thing. It's like if I take a petrol engine and run it on propane is it still really a petrol engine? I think you could say at that moment that it isn't.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So, there seems to be plenty of supporting references for steam engines -including nuclear power stations - being ECEs. These sources are not "just" dictionaries but from a wide variety of sources including academic books, conference papers and journal papers. Gwernol 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

We need to use a definition that matches what we want from the article, not just a definition that people have used for 'steam engine'. The lead is where the intentionality about what we are going to cover is outlined for the reader, as well as for the other editors. If the lead doesn't imply it is covered, then it should be removed.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the wrong way around. We should write the article from the sources, not pick the sources to support our own points of view. I'm unconvinced with your arguments against a slew of references. So far they seem to amount to "I want steam engine to be defined like this, and won't accept a source that says otherwise" (cf your comment "Oh I like that one... except the last sentence"). That's not how Wikipedia works. I'm not arguing that steam engines aren't heat engines, or that nuclear power plants aren't steam engines - whether turbine or reciprocal. There seems to be a number of good sources that define steam engines as a type of external combustion engine since the heat source is placed outside the cylinder or turbine. Therefore that's what the article should say, regardless of what you (or I) want it to say. Gwernol 20:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The relevant wikipedia policies (rather than guidelines) are, very old and very stable:

Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary:

"Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Dictionary definitions. Although articles should begin with a definition and description of a subject, they should provide other types of information about that subject as well. Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic, such as old school, Macedonia (terminology), or truthiness. Articles about the cultural or mathematical significance of individual numbers are also acceptable. For a wiki that is a dictionary, visit our sister project Wiktionary. Dictionary definitions should be transwikied there."

And: Good definitions

"A definition aims to describe or delimit the meaning of some term (a word or a phrase) by giving a statement of essential properties or distinguishing characteristics of the concept, entity, or kind of entity, denoted by that term." (Definition)

A good definition is not circular, a one-word synonym or a near synonym, over broad or over narrow, ambiguous, figurative, or obscure. See also Fallacies of definition.

So, the question is, how do we apply the policies to this article. I think that this is the article that covers steam engines in general and that other articles may cover subtypes. So the article should cover aeolipiles and steam rockets, and railway steam engines and the whole gamut at least briefly, and thus the definition needs to be very broad. But what do you think?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but WP:V and WP:NPOV are two of the five core policies of Wikipedia. They are two of the three core content creation policies. They are not guidelines. WP:DICDEF means an article should not be just a dictionary definition, it must be more than that. Where have I suggested that this article should be a dictionary definition? That's a straw man argument. Please address the issue - all articles here are written from reliable sources, never from an editor's own opinions. That would be original research which is the third of our core content policies. We report what has been concluded in published sources. We never impose our own interpretations or definitions.

I'm sorry, but the policy says what it says, and not what you say it says. We need a definition, and it has to cover the article, not just any old definition. What is the scope of the article?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The policy says (you quoted it above): "Although articles should begin with a definition and description of a subject, they should provide other types of information about that subject as well". The policy says articles should not just be a dictionary definition, which is exactly what I said.

There needs to be a match between the definition and the contents of the article, otherwise anything over and above the definition is off-topic and can be removed at any time, or the definition of the topic needs to change. It works both ways around.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we need to have a definition. But the definition must be sourced from reliable sources, just as everything else in the article must be. I only ask that you use a definition from a proper source, not your own. I have given you half a dozen reliable sources. The lead sentence has a definition, which is properly sourced. It doesn't preclude anything in the rest of the article. What exactly is your problem with that? Gwernol 22:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitions are two a penny. If there's an exact definition that works for us, great, otherwise it's probably a question of 'picking the bones out' between all of them, without reaching OR, and referencing to them all.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am very happy for the article to cover a wide range of steam engines. Where have I ever said otherwise? The only issue you have raised is that you believe that "steam engine" is defined as a heat engine, whereas I have provided multiple reliable sources to show that it is defined to be external combustion engine (which is a specific sub-type of heat engine). You have the one EB source, that by your own definition is not reliable (though its fine by Wikipedia's own definition). Gwernol 21:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, fine, so we can remove all nuclear power stations and most geothermal power stations then. They're not steam engines according to the particular definition you've apparently decided on and written into the article.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that's the opposite of what I said above. The definition of external combustion engines includes nuclear power stations and geothermal stations. They have external heat sources. Please stop putting words into my mouth. I said very clearly above that these are included, and even gave a source to back that up. Gwernol 22:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

But that's where we end up if we pick an inadequate definition.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, do you have a reference to the claim that an external combustion engine doesn't have to involve combustion? I'm pretty sure that that's not true.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Stirling engine design and feasibility for automotive use edited by M. J. Collie (published by Elsevier Science Ltd. in 1980): "At least theoretically an external combustion engine can be powered by anything from a nuclear reactor to burning wood" - since nuclear reactors do not combust their fuel, then external combustion engines does not have to involve combustion. Gwernol 22:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really buy that and it doesn't say that they are the same. An external combustion engine is something constructed with an intention to be powered by heat of combustion.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really want to get involved with this argument, but I must partly side with Wolfkeeper here. If something is classified as an external combustion engine, then surely the combustion is a defining feature? However, if there is no combustion, it is still a heat engine. Fundamentally, a steam engine requires steam to power it, to convert heat energy into motion, so why does it matter so much how the steam was created??

I am impressed with the references that Gwernol has found, they also show that the term 'ECE' has been in use for much longer than previous discussions on this page would suggest. However, we do need to nail this down, and I would suggest that there may need to be room for several definitions to account for the limitations in each. (That'll make the lead really messy.) We also have the problem that the general perception of what a 'steam engine' is is almost certainly a reciprocating type, and that most readers will not equate nuclear power stations, steam turbines or rockets (I still don't really see how they fit here!) with an article about steam engines.

EdJogg (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The way we did it in articles like Jet engine is to give the most general description immediately (which gives us the scope of the article), and give some examples, but then go 'but in common usage...' and then you can give your external combustion engine or whatever definition that covers the common cases that people think about. It's not completely ideal, nothing ever is, but it keeps both balls in the air. There's similar shenanigans over at internal combustion engine as well (everyone and their mother thinks that it's a piston engine, but most gas turbine engines are also for example).- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the first sentence or two. I removed the material that was only in the lead and created a section on boilers within the body of the article, and gave a sentence summarising it in the lead.

But I'm still incredibly unhappy with the current lead. WP:LEAD says that the introduction should reflect the article, but the current lead does that extremely poorly; there's entire sections that are not mentioned, and the lead seems to think that it's supposed to describe the working principle of one particular type of steam engine, but really it should leave that to the body of the article proper.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not possible to write a lead that complies with the guidelines until the article is largely complete. Since we still haven't settled on the final structure for the article, trying to tie-down the lead too tightly will just result in frustration. (Sorry, haven't had time to review your changes yet.)

For now, as long as the lead starts with a concise definition (to be consistent with other WP pages) and then gives a general overview of the most important topics covered, that should be enough to entice the interested reader to proceed further.

Once we start aiming for GA-status, the precise form and content of the lead will become more significant; until then, we can afford to be a little more relaxed about it!

EdJogg (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely, it is not necessary to refer specifically to nuclear and geothermal heat sources twice within the first three (OK four Bill F (talk)) sentences. Bill F (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of the article

I think we need to agree the scope of this article. I say that this article has to be the definitive article about steam engines in the wikipedia (and probably the whole internet). It needs to cover absolutely all steam engines of every notable type; irrespective of where the heat comes from, or whether it turns a shaft or simply pumps or pushes something along by steam-rocket effect.

Does everyone agree or not?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The article should mostly be about what most people understand its title to mean. Bill F (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. But scope is what the article covers, rather than what it mostly covers.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I largely agree with your scoping (see previous submissions on this page for more views about restructuring). We could do with some sources that attempt to cover the topic in its broadest scope, as we are trying to do here. These will help us tie down the definitions to cover all forms. 'fraid I have nothing like that... EdJogg (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(Moved the following from previous section):- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely the first issue is to decide what the scope of the article is.

• In my view, it should not include steam tubines. I would suggest the inclusion of a reference to cylinders and pistons in the primary definition. On the other hand there should be a short section (near the beginning) distingishing steam engines from the other kinds of engine, with good links to articles on those.
• Some of the definitions quoted above refer to the expansion of steam. This would exclude the Newcomen engine and Watt engines, where the power came from the vacuum produced by condensing water. I accept that the case can be made that these were atmospheric engines, rather than steam engine, but they are commonly described as steam engines. It would be a strange article on the steam engine that did not discuss these. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

So you would seem to be arguing that the aeolipile isn't a steam engine either? If so, I'm not sure I can go along with that; I think that that would be trivial to reference. And if that's a steam engine, then steam turbines- it's hard to think of a definition that would permit one, but not the other.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

In making the comment, I had not thought particularly carefully about precursors. It would be legitimate to include reference to it as a precursor; nevertheless, it might be better in a "related devices" section near the beginning. In a sense this discussion is one of semantics, which usually means that it will not be particularly productive. Nevertheless, I would prefer to see to main focus of the article concerned the stationery engines and locomotives of 1700-1970 and how they worked etc, leaving the main discussion of other steam powered devices, such as steam turnines, to be dealt with elsewhere. The present article is a long one for WP, which is another reason for limiting its scope. It is supposed to be an encyclopaedia artice, not a small book! Peterkingiron (talk) 09:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think if we need to shorten the article we should split it off into subarticles, rather than limit its scope. There's only one 'steam engine' article in the wikipedia, and there's only one wikipedia on the internet, so I think we're forced to be very broad. I don't have a problem with the article mostly being about stationary engines and locomotives, but we need a paragraph or two on every type. Encyclopedias are supposed to cover all knowledge on a particular topic and there's enough variety in what things are termed 'steam engine'. I doubt you would be able to satisfactorily reference the position that an aeolipile is not a steam engine and is a 'related device' for example.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toy?

We can in no way speak of 2000 years of steam development. This is wishful thinking. Heron's apparatus was not a "toy" but more of a philosophical demonstration.--John of Paris (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree generally. However, I think the term "curiosity" might be better than toy. Until Newcomen, no one produced a practical engine that did any useful work, or of which more than the odd demonstration model was made. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"A TREATISE ON PNEUMATICS. THE investigation of the properties of Atmospheric Air having been deemed worthy of close attention by the ancient philosophers and mechanists, the former deduciug them theoretically, the latter from the action of sensible bodies, we also have thought proper to arrange in order what has been handed down by former writers, and to add thereto our own discoveries : a task from which much advantage will result to those who shall hereafter devote themselves to the study of mathematics. We are further led to write this work from the consideration that it is fitting that the treatment of this subject should correspond with the method given by us in our treatise, in four books, on water-clocks. For, by the union of air, earth, fire and water, and the concurrence of three, or four, elementary principles, various combinations are effected, some of which supply the most pressing wants of human life, while others produce amazement and alarm. (...)" These things having been clearly explained, let us treat of the theorems resulting from the combination of these principles; for, by means of them, many curious and astonishing kinds of motion may be discovered. After these preliminary considerations we will begin by treating of the bent siphon, which is most useful in many ways in Pneumatics.

Are we really talking about "curiosities" here?

By the way, how do you find the general tone of the article now?--John of Paris (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion , the aeolipile simply does not qualify as an "engine" of any kind--John of Paris (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look at engine you'll see that it does qualify, at least in the original sense of the word. EdJogg (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restructure (cont.)

Recent edits have meant that the new structure is starting to take shape. I have just been through and wikilinked the top sections, as far as the 'History' title. The 'Application' section is now rationalised at the top. (What was the first 'history' section was actually about applications, and has been renamed.) The History section had acquired the title 'Precursors', so I have restored the title 'History' and demoted 'Precursors' by a level.

I am not entirely happy about the 'Stationary applications' section. It could perhaps be expanded into two (engines that need to stop/reverse, and those that don't) and then include a list of links in a similar manner to the transport section.

I think the next stage is now to remove the 'History' section to its own article, and provide a 2-3 paragraph summary here. Then we can look at the 'Motor Units' section, to move most of the detail to the relative sub-pages, providing similar summaries here.

Incidentally, this talk page is now huge. However, until we have resolved the restructuring we should not archive anything, as even the first comment on the page (from 2006) has not yet been fully addressed! - - - I've now moved the purely-historical comments for archive elsewhere. See below. (21:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

EdJogg (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restructuring - further thoughts

OK, so History has been moved out, and 'Boiler safety' has move to its rightful home. What next? Well, rather like sorting out my garage, restructuring this article is a task which has to be tackled in stages: you can see what to do up to a certain point, and then you must get on and do it before you can work out what to do next.

Developing 'off-line' (in a sandbox) is a new section called 'Types and terminology', which provides a useful set of definitions and links to the many discrete steam engine articles within WP. This will appear in due course. Next I need to restore the introductory bit on 'how it works', including that nice animation that's been lost. Both of these, and most of my other editing, relates to reciprocating engines, I know, but I think that turbines are better covered by the steam turbine article and it is probably less confusing if they are kept segregated as much as possible.

What next? The lead has lost all its pictures. It would be nice to add a descending set show the evolution: "early 18th-century atomspheric engine", "late 18th-century rotative engine", "19th-century horizontal engine", "20th-century triple expansion engine", "21st-century steam turbine". Something like that, at any rate. Need some really good pictures to catch the reader's interest.

What next? The section on compounding is now a bit out-of-kilter with the rest of the article. Perhaps someone can explain why compound locomotive exists rather than compound steam engine (Which, I've just discovered, is merely a redirect to the former!!), since the latter would provide a home for triple expansion engines, and a parent for compound locomotive. It would also act as a destination for an explanation of compounding techniques from other articles such as this one and traction engine. (Looking slightly out-of-place, towards the end of compound locomotive is a short section on traction engines!)

What next? Once Trevithick comes on the scene, the history coverage loses its way rather. I can tackle the road vehicles bit, as I have plenty of reference material for that, but I have precious little for stationary and marine engines. I have some general (superficial?) books on steam engines (eg Shire book on stationary steam engines!), and one comprehensive one on non-rotative beam engines, but nothing 'general'. So I need others to supply references, as the referenced text seems to be migrating to other articles!

Thoughts? Help? etc... -- EdJogg (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're overdoing it. The quality if anything seems to be going down. I don't have a problem with brevity if the quality and coverage goes up or stays the same. The history section is probably too small now, and you've completely removed all mention of safety. The number of pictures has gone down. You should only remove things completely from an article if they have no relevance to the whole subject, but potential safety aspects are very general issues with virtually all steam engines. The only reason we don't normally have to think about it, is because of the all the rules and regs that are followed- and this needs to be there. There's no point in hitting some arbitrary size cut off if the article loses quality.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, and to some extent agree. Some of the 'best bits' are in the history section, along with a number of images, and the article is likely to go through a transient 'poor quality' phase as the rearrangements take shape. I am not simply aiming at an arbitrary size cut-off, although one of the targets is to make the finished article shorter than it has been of late. It's not a very good analogy, but think of it as a pruning exercise -- we have to cut out some of the old wood (note I did not say 'dead') in order for new, more vigorous wood to grow. The history section has been transplanted -- the quallity that was there has not been lost; but the transplant has shown that it was being stunted -- the history grinds to a halt soon after Trevithick comes on the scene. That wasn't obvious when the section was still here.

If you think that the history section in this article is now too small, fine, feel free to expand it, and add a piccy or two. But again I would suggest that it is history after Watt that is lacking.

Another good point about safety. The article includes an 'Advantages' section, but no 'Disadvantages' section (I was just thinking about it this morning). This would be a very sensible place to mention safety: not just boiler safety (although there are some specific concerns) but the issues concerning steam 'anywhere', open moving parts, high temperatures, ash/soot disposal, etc. Incidentally, the move of 'boiler safety' was also prompted by the lack of coverage in the Boiler (steam generator) article, and the tenuous link to 'steam engines' of that section (check the text if you don't believe me, I haven't changed it).

If you think that the article is being dumbed-down a bit, then you'll need to revise my wording. I openly admit that I am approaching this from the POV of an (engineer-minded) enthusiast, rather than an operator or engineer, but I would hope this can be seen constructively, remembering that most readers are likely to have even less understanding of the subject than I.

What I am trying to do is bite the bullet and address the concerns that have been raised over the past two years (see all the preceding comments on this page). The article is still missing information on certain aspects (such as safety, 'how it works', the preservation movement, models/toys, future developments, etc) and I think the huge size of the article has prevented us from seeing what else is missing (and still is, maybe). When we think we have all of the sections describing every significant aspect relating to steam engines, then we can decide whether some of the summaries are too brief and fill them out. As mentioned by contributors above, this probably needs to be a relatively high-level, not-too-technical overview article that leads the reader to investigate further by clicking on to more detailed articles (I bumped into cutoff yesterday, for example, which contains much useful information but is 'just' a link within the text). If my major changes allow other editors with greater knowledge a clearer platform on which to work, then I'll have done my job. Otherwise... ?

(Now I need to get on with some work!) -- EdJogg (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of the steam engine - new sub-article

I had this growing feeling that if History of the steam engine was ever going to appear as a standalone article, I'd have to do it myself! ...so I've taken the plunge.

1. The History section from this article has been surgically removed and copied (unchanged) to the new article. Please try to add new history information to that article rather than steam engine.
2. I have created a summary for the History section here. Please change it as needed, but remember that we must try to avoid making it any longer or more detailed than necessary. (If changes are applied, please consider whether the History sub-article might need a change to its lead, on which this summary was based.)
3. It is glaringly obvious that the 'History' article stops just after Trevithick. This is patently ridiculous, as steam engine development did not come to a dead halt. It may be that some of the text in the lower sections of 'steam engine' would be better moved to the History article instead.
4. This talk page is 148kB long. As a form of archiving, I will move the topics directly relating to history to the History article talk page, and then they may be archived there. This seems the appropriate course of action, since archiving them on this page, whilst chronologicaly correct, is not ideal in the sense of information retrieval.Y Done
5. The steam engine article is now rather more streamlined, and I hope that the absence of the History section will allow us to concentrate on organising the remainder.

Phew! I think that's all for now! EdJogg (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scope 2

Um... if this article is supposed to say everything there is to say about steam engines (at least briefly), how come entire sections keep disappearing? Shouldn't there at least be a mention of the missing sections still in the article? Did we or did we not agree on scope? So far at least 3 sections have simply vanished from two different editors.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 10:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with you. If sections are removed it should either be because they are not relevant (not the case here) or else that they provide more detail than is strictly needed for the article. In the latter case it is important that a summary and 'main' link is provided instead (which is what I did with my changes) so that the removed detail may be readily accessed.

I have commented further on the most recent change at Talk:Compound engine, as my suggestion was not quite carried out in the way I was expecting.

Incidentally, the new section on 'cold sinks' was obviously an important omission. Well-spotted. Are there any other sections we are still missing? (Might be worth adding stub sections as we find them, to allow a better consideration of whether the article is fully scoped yet.)

EdJogg (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pace

I don't know quite how to put this, without risking offending or discouraging people, so all I can say is that is not my intention. I just want to suggest a little caution. While this article certainly has needed a good deal of sorting out, I think it has recently been subject to excessively precipitate change, and that much more time should be allowed for establishing consensus among many interested but otherwise busy people before making radical alterations. By all means be bold, but perhaps show a little more circumspection before obliterating other people's hard work? Bill F (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I can only answer for my own edits. Although information/'hard work' may have been 'lost' from this article, it has not actually been 'lost', as I have been at pains to move the information to better locations rather than simply delete it. In terms of the pace of change, I have been watching this article for the best part of two years, and it was time for something radical to be done. Over the past two years, the article has gradually grown and grown as people have added bits of detail. Which is fine, except that the talk page comments suggest that people have been unhappy with the article since 2006. In order to get things moving, big changes were needed. And things HAVE started moving. If you read through the above comments you will see that any restructuring efforts seem to get side-tracked by detail discussions. Hopefully we are now beyond that.

As for my part, there has been plenty of circumspection, but also the realisation that if anything was going to happen, I'd need to do it myself. I think we're going in the right direction now.

(PS - make that 'since 2004', I hadn't spotted how many comments have been added out of chronological order, or answered several years after posting.)

EdJogg (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SS Christopher Columbus Pic

A minor point in passing...

After the application of the 'convert' template yesterday to the caption of the triple-expansion engine from SS Christopher Columbus, I simplified it to remove the cylinder sizes, as this information is available by clicking on the image and viewing its description page.

Now, on closer inspection, it seems to me that this drawing has omitted the pistons/rods and the crankshaft, although the eccentrics and rods for driving the valve gear are visible. Have I got this right, or am I missing something about the design of this engine? If these components are missing, should we be looking for a better photo? (there isn't another one obviously available at Commons yet).

EdJogg (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diagram found at Commons

Found this image at Commons, and wondered if someone would like to incorporate it here (or elsewhere). (It needs explanatory text, and I don't have time to add any just now.)

EdJogg (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead image

Just a suggestion, following the call in the history for a stationary engine picture for the lead: Image:Stott Park Bobbin Mill Steam Engine.jpg. More where that came from. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a pretty cool engine. I chose the current one because it was operating which I felt added something, but I'm certainly open to alternative ideas.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a lovely picture, but the lead picture ought to be of a stationary engine. By all means use this one furhter down. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it 'ought to be' at all. Why? It should primarily contain a steam engine. If you can find a better image of a stationary engine or any other type of steam engine, then, sure let's use it.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that when many people hear the term "steam engine", they think of a railway locomotive. The lead image of of a road loco, but (except early failures) road locos were quite late and replaced by internal compustion engines. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I like the drama, I think it unsuitable as the lead image because it is a model. I would prefer something that better represents the sheer scale typical of a full sized engine. There are lots of articles on railway locomotives, so I think something else, probably stationary, would be better here. Perhaps the lead should include a sound file? Pity we can't do smells, too! Bill F (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I don't see that that should disqualify it either. If the best picture happens to be a clear picture of a model, then we should go with it- but I'm certainly not saying we've got the best picture right now(!) Why don't you add alternatives here, and we can discuss them.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me, a good picture would be one that's esthetically pleasing, is well shot, ideally the steam engine should be running. The current picture is far from ideal, but I looked at a few dozen others in commons picking it, and they seemed to be worse but YMMV.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steam land speed record

Just bumped into the article about Fred Marriott, which wasn't previously in any steamy category. He was the driver of the Stanley Rocket, holder of the Land Speed Record for (non-railed) steam-powered vehicles at 127mph in 1906. There's a nice picture on that page too. Thought it would be a good idea to incorporate a mention here (but couldn't see where it fits at present) and at steam car, where it is not obviously mentioned either. I would guess that most people would not expect to find steam-powered vehicles among the record holders. (There's also mention of a British 2004 project to raise the record to 200mph.) -- EdJogg (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)