Jump to content

Talk:Beam engine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk

[edit]

A few comments, if I may:

  • a beam engine is not necessarily stationary;
  • the piston rod does connect to a connecting rod (by definition!) but this rod is not the one which directly drives the crank (also see next point);
  • beam engines did not necessarily have a crank or flywheel;
  • the Newcomen engine was a beam engine.
  • James Watt was indeed responsible for significant development of the steam engine - I have not seen this position questioned (I'm not saying it has not been).

Sbz5809 14:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the beam engine was first put into wide, heavy use in Cornwall, where the technology was pioneered by the likes of Richard Trevithick, and Harvey's of Hayle. Cornwall was so influencial of the beam engine that the house it was installed in, simply "Cornish engine house", became part of a logo (usually a sticker) applied to items with the distinction of being made in Cornwall. A complete list of the uses of a beam engine should include; winding on a mineshaft (raising ore and raising and lowering miners), pumping using a wooden pumping beam down a dedicated pumping shaft, pumping using flat rods, lowering and raising miners on a "man engine", raising and lowering skips on an inclined railway, turning ore crushing stamps, and pumping while operating an inclined railway (using an old winding engine to run a flat rod beam pump, a use which was adopted during the conversion of many metal mines to china clay mines). To clarify, James Watt was an early pioneer, Richard Trevithick was a later Pioneer, whom James Watt frowned upon for using the "dangerous" high pressure steam. --Badharlick 02:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, a beam engine is not necessarily driven by steam – the present illustration shows a water-powered engine! Gosh this article does need some work... -- EdJogg 00:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd even question (although I don't have proof) about steam-powered being the most common ones. In the application I've come across them (mine pumping) water power was generally preferable wherever possible because there was no cost in fuel, although my knowledge is fairly limited to NW England. Riedquat 18:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An attempt to improve this article

[edit]

Superficially the article has content but no direction- and improvements are gointg to be difficult until we have established structure. So, failing to find anyone else to act like a naive idiot- I volunteer. What is a beam engine? I need to see a reference!

The BBC site- fails to answer that question too. There seems to be a school of thought that thinks it is a landscape feature in Cornwall. Hills 1989 doesn't use the term in his index. Barney's engraving (Hills 1989 p21) of a 1712 Newcomen engine shows a beam- but a hand pump also features a pivoting lever. We need references not opinions.

Are we documenting levers or transition from the hydraulic theory to the a heat engine? Are we talking about heat engines or a method of transmission? Was the beam engine actually a concept? So in totally ignorance I have trawled the net and found these references

I came across this article because I was writing Buckley & Taylor which refers to McNaughting beam engines in a mill, and the HP was the same side of the fulcrum as the load- blowing the first order of levers argument. Also the, it was the LP and HP (thus compounds) that gave the motive push in this rotatove engine- not gravity as in the earlier atmospheric engines - (oops it sounds if I know what I am talking about- sorry). I did try to look for equivalent articles in WP:Energy that were already GA- another false start. Diesel engine is C class, but may give a few clues -- but it is very distant.

Random thoughts

  • Non-rotative engines- used mainly/totally pumping- but could haul up men and buckets
  • Rotative-
  • Hydraulically powered beams (water powered)
  • Tin Mines
  • Coal mines
  • Canal pumping engines
  • Water supply
  • Rotative- Mill engines
  • Rotative- Locomotives
  • Rotative- Steam ships
  • Cornish engines describes the motion not location

Todo list-

  • reference what we have got.

This can be used as a starting point- and I invite comment--ClemRutter (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the definition and origins, there are two forms of beam engine:
  • The original form, where an atmospheric cylinder acts downwards, because that's the natural way for an engine to act when an atmospheric cylinder is built atop a boiler, atop a furnace. As these were needed to drive a pumping load upwards, the lever is the natural way to achieve this. Particularly so, as the overhead beam mechanism can operate entirely in tension, which works well for a technology that can forge a strong chain but not bore an accurate crankpin bearing.
  • Everything else. Later forms, which copied the original form because that was "obviously" the "natural" way to build a steam engine. Remember that new beam engines were built into the 20th century (efficient Cornish engines, Bull engines and finally Dorothea quarry). It wasn't really until the high-speed steam engine that the beam was finally dead. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great:- do you have a reference we can use for that.--ClemRutter (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Water-powered engines

[edit]

Seems appropriate to have a separate section on these...

Bucket-powered...

The Wanlockhead Beam Engine would certainly fit any definition for "beam engine" that we can come up with, unless we restrict the article to those powered by steam.

The same site states that a waterwheel-powered pump was known as a bab gin.

Waterwheel-powered

Other investigations google searches have revealed another extant (?) engine, this time in Manchester.

This uses a waterwheel as the power source, driving the beam via a crank, the other end of the beam being connected to a pump (or two). Although described as a 'beam pump', the only difference between this and steam-powered pumps, in principle, is the power source.

Incidentally, beam pump redirects to Pumpjack; and that article describes the motion as a walking beam which is redirected back here (so we'd better describe what a walking beam is!)

EdJogg (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

beam Vs Crosshead

[edit]

The topic of what is a beam engine is an interesting one. Perhaps it would help to decide what is not a beam engine. It seems to me that the other basic style is a crosshead engine, where a crosshead runs between (or on) a cross-slide. Think of railway locomotives and paddle steamer engines.

The purpose of the cross-slide is to contain the sideways forces otherwise transmitted by the connecting rod and to confine the action of the piston rod into a single axis. Indeed, an axial one.

So what does a beam engine do about these lateral thrusts? The conventional Newcombe engine had quadrants at the end of the beam, and used flexible (e.g. chain) tension members running around the circumference of these quadrants to pull the beam down, or the load up. The motion was, after all, single-acting.

Now what about the A-frame beam engine at Pinchbeck, and all the other similar engines. Particulary rotative ones. These had connecting rods between piston and beam, valve and beam, and crank and beam. The transverse forces are reduced by the length of the piston rod and finally contained by the rigidity of the beam and the stuffing gland on the piston. That would seem to me to explain the retention of the beam for double-acting or rotative engines. The higher the beam the less severe the effect of lateral force on things like the stuffing gland.

I seem to have argued that a beam engine is anything with a reciprocating beam rather than a cross-head slide.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The antithesis of the beam engine is the direct-acting rotative engine, where the connecting rod acts between the end of the piston and the crankpin. This includes railway locomotives, horizontal mill engines, single-acting high-speed steam engines, and many marine engines (even the oscillating engines). Use of a sliding crosshead isn't the crucial factor, as many beam engines also had crossheads - especially in later years, when they were rotative engines at rather higher speeds.
There are two factors influencing this change. Firstly Watt's linkage works well at low speeds, but not fast. The links are long and start to whip around at speed, which causes side-to-side slogger on the piston rod and encourages leakage at the gland. They links can't be stiffened adequately, as they'd then become heavier. So the linkage is adequate for older, slower engines, but starts to become a problem as piston speeds and working pressures (thus smaller pistons) increase. Secondly, the crosshead (which has been known for a very long time) was initially unpopular compared to the linkage because of the high cost of manually flattening its slideways (Tom Rolt's "Tools for the Job" is still the best explanation of these issues). With the development of planing machines, the cost of flat surfaces dropped dramatically.
A Watt's linkage needs a beam engine, not a direct-acting engine. Although a few table engines were built with linkages too, these were unworkably tall. The crosshead was its own justification over a linkage, so we do see later beam engines with crossheads. However once the crosshead is in use, there's no longer a need to use a beam and they fell from use, particularly in favour of the horizontal mill engine (many of which early examples relied as much on a masonry frame as the beam engines ever did). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"steam engine"

[edit]
Chris Allen's pic of the Radcliffe beam pump

"A beam engine is a type of steam engine" - is this strictly true? Are all beam engines steam-powered? I ask because I recently managed to get a twin-beam pump, in-situ, listed. Its listing describes it as a water-powered beam pump (ie powered by a water wheel, not steam). Pics here if anyone's interested. Parrot of Doom 18:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I just saw the discussion above, yes, that's me :) Parrot of Doom 18:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the purpose of writing intelligible prose, then yes "beam engines are steam engines".
To be nit-picking (and to produce an unreadable article), then yes — there are some that aren't steam powered. Many today are electric, there's a hydraulic (maybe pneumatic) one in the Newcomen Memorial Engine at Dartmouth, but these are modern reproductions and museum exhibits. In original terms, for a power source other than steam, then there were a rare few that were water powered. Thanks for posting your photos, because that's now two of them that I'm aware of surviving (File:Warnockhead Beam Engine.JPG, which is already in the article). They were never common, even relative to steam beam engines. You could also argue that Newcomen's was "powered by" air pressure, rather than steam, but that's unhelpful too.
I'm still happy with wording that states "beam engines are steam engines". We could have a paragraph late on describing the water engines (even a separate article), but that's all it warrants. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. By the way, the photos are all compatible with Wikipedia if you'd like to nab any. There are also pics of the engine from an earlier time, but they're not mine. You can find them here. Parrot of Doom 22:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Allen and Geograph have come up trumps again! Not only is there a good pic of the Radcliffe beam pump (see above), but searching for 'beam pump' at Commons revealed a third example, Coultershaw Beam Pump: File:Coultershaw beam pump - geograph.org.uk - 290050.jpg and File:Beam Pump at Coultershaw - geograph.org.uk - 4395.jpg, which is a listed ancient monument dating from 1782 (well into the steam era) and in working order (see http://www.coultershaw.co.uk/).
Maybe the answer is to keep these in a separate article. All three known examples are water-powered beam engines for pumping water, hence 'beam pump' is appropriate, although the Coultershaw example is rather different (see model).
EdJogg (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flywheel

[edit]

The description seems to assume that beam engines had a flywheel. Early beam engines didn't have any flywheel.Eregli bob (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-rotative beam engines didn't have flywheels (although a few rare examples did). These range from the earliest beam engine to the last of them built at Hodbarrow and Dorothea.
Apart from a handful of grasshopper locomotives and the marine engines, rotative beam engines all had flywheels.
The article seems fairly clear on this, at least in the early sections and the lead. Where do you think it's confusing? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wanlockhead pumping engine

[edit]

Is the Wanlockhead pumping engine the best picture to have at the top of the article? Although it could be argued that it is, technically, a beam engine, it's not what most people think of as one. --Roly (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense

[edit]

< This was not, strictly speaking, steam powered, as the steam introduced below the piston was condensed to create a partial vacuum thus allowing atmospheric pressure to push down the piston. >

You see this, or wtte, everywhere, but it isn't true. The atmosphere does no net work on the piston. 86.130.154.3 (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's consider the original Newcomen for a moment. How does it work? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You tell me. (How much work does the atmosphere do?) 86.130.154.3 (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all of it. The difference in pressure between atmospheric (top side) and the reduced pressure owing to the condensation and resultant partial vacuum beneath gives an overall downward force, and that's what does the work. This is the same for Newcomen, and for Watt's early (purely atmospheric) engines. Which bit do you disagree with? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The piston does exactly as much work on the atmosphere on the upward, cylinder-filling, stroke as the atmosphere does on the piston when it moves downwards after condensation. The atmosphere is, in effect, no more than a gaseous flywheel. The engine would work as well with no atmosphere and a weight on top of the piston. We surely wouldn't call that a gravity engine. 86.130.154.3 (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so we're talking about nett work, across the whole cycle. In which case, yes the atmosphere acts as a 'gaseous flywheel'.
However we still have work being done: four times, for each side of the piston, in each direction. There is also the weight of the pump rod and its force. There's also the weight of the water being lifted. So when you do the sums, some of these cancel out. The atmospheric pressure (as you note) has no overall effect on the cycle, nor does the pump rod weight. The steam pressure does, but this is a small effect in comparison to the others (it's barely more than atmospheric). So the two unbalanced forces left, and the important ones, are the pressure difference (which you can approximate across the cycle as the difference between steam pressure and the condensed vacuum) and the lifted water weight. That's how the work gets done. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The atmosphere is not involved. The engine is steam powered. 86.130.154.3 (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly I'd agree although, and this is a subtle point, but the power stroke is powered by the atmospheric pressure, and the difference to the condensed vacuum.
Also, if you increase the steam pressure in a Newcomen it doesn't do any more work.
Maybe it would be better to work the steam pressure directly against the condenser vacuum, and avoid the atmosphere altogether (and there you have the Cornish engine). But Newcomen didn't work out a way to achieve this, with his simple first layout. Nor did Watt. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beam_engine&oldid=1199703457"