Talk:Smethwick Engine

UK Waterways Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Waterways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of UK Waterways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UK WaterwaysWikipedia:WikiProject UK WaterwaysTemplate:WikiProject UK WaterwaysUK Waterways articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

West Midlands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject West Midlands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of West Midlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.West MidlandsWikipedia:WikiProject West MidlandsTemplate:WikiProject West MidlandsWest Midlands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Engineering High‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Superlatives[edit]

The source [1] only makes the claim of the oldest working steam engine, and not engine. We should follow that, and it also allows us to sidestep defining "engine". (Engine is defined quite broadly (a machine converting energy to mechanical energy), so there's examples in that article of previous engines, some of which may still be working.) Widefox; talk 00:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That article also says :"In modern usage, the term engine typically describes devices, like steam engines and internal combustion engines, that burn or otherwise consume fuel to perform mechanical work by exerting a torque or linear force (usually in the form of thrust).". There is nothing in the world older than the Smethwick Engine, which works, and which meets that definition. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about just leaving it as "steam engine"? That's clear, unambiguous and explains what's needed. At the time of this device being built, before the widespread availability of fuel-driven prime movers, the term "engine" was applied to all manner of work doing mechanical contrivances. Horse gins in particular, "gin" being a contraction of engine. Let alone various water-driven devices, the larger of which were known as engines. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're writing an encylopedia using the language of the 12st century, not the 18th. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "steam engine" avoids the definition of "engine" (which also depends on the definition of machine). I'd have thought the modern usage would just track the most prevalent contemporary engine technology of the era, so nowadays a plethora of oil fuel based technologies predominantly internal combustion. 21st century usage is even for software. If we really want to make the claim of the oldest working "engine" then a footnote would be advised to specify our definition of engine. Do we really want to go down that path of claiming that the "steam engine" was the first "engine"? I'd say avoid. Widefox; talk 14:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When we write an encyclopedia on topics of the 18th century, some contemporary vocabulary is unavoidable. "Steam engine" though is correct and unambiguous under both. What's wrong with it? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A quick source search gives the primary ones consistently using "steam engine", [2] is WP:CIRCULAR (removed) and the two others used here do use "engine" but [3] uses "engine" in a sentence after using "steam engine" so is arguably contextual. Even in the 21st century word-constained world of tweets [4] uses "steam engine" [5]. Widefox; talk 23:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Partial vacuum[edit]

Watt steam engine has better wording for the action "steam engine to use the force of steam and a partial vacuum at the same time". I didn't improve that wording as we have a consistency problem:

Old Bess (beam engine) and Smethwick Engine are Watt engines
Old Bess is older than Smethwick Engine
Both are Watt engines (both use a partial vacuum, as defined by a "Watt engine")

So the claim "was the first" isn't consistent. The correct claim appears to be "the oldest working Watt engine" (same wording as in Watt steam engine). This is underlined by there being several engines in between the two. Fixed. Widefox; talk 12:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old Bess is no longer working. Nor has it been since 1848. The correct claim is that the Smethwick Engine is the oldest working engine in the world. 13:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits

Sure, not that, this is fixing the second claim I added "It was the first steam engine to use the force of steam and a partial vacuum at the same time." [6].

Trying to dig out chronology and differences for the upcoming list/and or template...Old Bess was the second engine made at Soho. Both (OB and SE) are Watt steam engines, they both have a separate condenser, use the partial vacuum as well as steam pressure, and early cutoff (steam engine) (Smethwick Engine not yet confirmed). Widefox; talk 14:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Date?[edit]

Why does this drawing say 1776? The articcle says 1779. Which is it? Riveted Fox (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thinktank_Birmingham_-_object_1959S01063(7).jpg[reply]