วีดีโอ

Sim eu aceito muito obrigado

embarrassingly, I'm a qualified machinist, I am humbled by the genius of people not formally trained, this operation is very much similar to a vertical gear hob cutting machine, a pleasure thank you.

Ha! I watched this to find out how to unfasten/fasten the links and make the belt the right size. You just showed you couldn't do it and switched to the belt already installed! How silly!

Sou do brasil nao intendo ingles que tristeza aquela aula de calculo de engrenagem queria saber porque tenho um torno da marca MINTZ alemã eu queria saber fazer cálculo para eu fazer ele fazer roscas mas tenho também um sanches blanes

Thank you for teaching

Nice

The Newcomen Atmospheric Pump is not a heat Engine.The Watt Steam Pump is a heat engine. That's what my Smartphone says, and I agree. In Newcomen's Atmospheric Pump, heat energy from coal changes water to Steam. Steam doesn't pass any heat energy to the Pump's motion. All it's energy comes from gravitational weight, the weight of Air sitting on top of the piston.

Hi Evan, Watt's machine could work with, ( Steam Pressure one side of the piston, Vacuum on the other ) or without ( Steam Pressure one side of the piston Atmospheric Pressure on the other ) a condenser. That means with or without a Vacuum. He said himself, if there's not enough cold water to keep a condenser cold, just release the exhaust Steam to the Atmosphere. To do that it would have to be above Atmospheric Pressure. Newcomen used condensation in order to make use of Atmospheric Pressure, Watt used condensation to eliminate Atmospheric Pressure ( it opposes a Steam Engine ). There's a good utube video, ' Germany's Munchen Steam museum that shows a Watt engine with a Steam Pressure of 22 psi. 1.5 bar , 1.5 times Atmospheric Pressure. It's the only place I've seen the actual Steam Pressure, I wouldn't call that mild Steam Pressure! If it didn't have a condenser, it would waste 2/3 of it's Steam Power fighting Atmospheric Pressure, ( it's nothing to do with efficiency, or hot and cold cylinders). It would still work though, albeit at 7psi. Some Steamships worked at that Pressure, due to passenger preference for low pressure. If Newcomen's Pump had an output of 14.7psi. it would be 100% efficient, so it would be more like 10psi.

How does the engine piston go all the way back up to the top of the stroke if it is just equalising pressure in the chamber? Shouldn't it stop half way?

The motive force for a WATERwheel ( rotary engine ) is flowing WATER. The motive force for a WINDmill ( rotary engine ) is WIND. The motive force for a Newcomen ATMOSPHERIC Pump is natural ATMOSPHERIC weight, a max of 10psi. and no rotary motion. The motive force for a Watt STEAM Pump and rotary STEAM Engine is STEAM pressure with plenty room for future improvement. Smeaton the great English civil engineer spent half his life improving Newcomen's Atmospheric Pump, and he succeeded, but couldn't turn it into a Steam Engine. So, since it couldn't be improved, Watt invented the first PRACTICAL Steam Powered Engine.Watt solved the boiler problem by using a condenser to halve the Steam pressure needed, for the same amount of work without a condenser. Between 1800 and 1900 Newcomen's 1,500 Atmospheric Pumps virtually disappeared, Watt's Steam Engines and their descendants increased in number to 10,000,000 !!! No contest! The Steam Engine was the culmination of many people's work? You could say that about every Invention, but people don't, they normally like to boast about their nation's Inventors, it's only said about James Watt. Why is that? He's got more right to his Invention than most inventors, he was the only person in the whole of Britain working on it.The PRACTICAL Steam Powered Engine didn't exist before him, and the REAL Industrial Revolution, a 500 times increase in Power Output for the whole country, proves it. You know the vacuum doesn't pull the piston down, so why say it does? You know Atmospheric Pressure pushes it down.The Motive Force for Newcomen's machine is Atmospheric Weight. The Motive Force for Watt's machine is Steam Pressure. That's the difference between them. I rest my case!

@NOideaMachining

Hello Evan, I`ve been trying to access the program but it will not open, is it still up and running. thanks in advance.

The video that you helped ‘How to Make Everything’ on constructing their own Aeolipile was recently uploaded (today about 12 hours ago). Anyway, I find your construction to be far and away a better formulation. No offense to ‘How to Make Everything’ as they are certainly knowledgeable, however their method of construction and tools they used were shockingly archaic for known technologies at the time of Hero/Heron. I’m wondering if you’ve tinkered with this any more to try and improve its RPMs, and by extension it’s Watts, using Hellenistic Era/ Early Roman Empire era technology?

Watt's Engine was three times more efficient than Smeaton's, but for a while, Smeaton believed that where coal was cheap, his engine might still be competitive. In 1777, Smeaton visited Boulton and Watt's fourth engine at Stratford-le-Bow. Boulton wrote to Watt that he had local intelligence that he had said it was: " a pretty engine, but it appeared to him, to be too complex; but that might in some degree, be owing to his not clearly understanding all ye parts ". " he gave the engineer money to drink, & the consequences of that was that ye next day the engine was almost broke to pieces ". Despite Smeaton's somewhat grudging praise, and his indirectly fuelling the thirst of the operator with terrible consequences, the race to offer the world efficient power was over.Smeaton's time consuming experiments, carried out in the prime of his life,- which would've been transformational at any other time in the previous 50 years- came to nothing. The final insult was the installation of a single Boulton and Watt engine at Chacewater Mine in 1778, using one of Smeaton's two years old cylinders as a steam jacket (surrounds and heats a cylinder). How did Smeaton react? Smeaton was initially defensive of his own improvements. In November 1776, John Wilkinson wrote to Boulton and Watt. " The great Smeaton ( I hear by several ) arraignes your Invention, says he has a better engine to produce on the old plan." An article in the ' Newcastle Courant ' in May 1779 said, " The superiority of the new engine , erected by Messrs Boulton and Watt, must therefore greatly promote the mining interest of this kingdom, since the proprietors of mines may save by the new improvements a sum equal to two thirds of that usually expended in fuel." This moved Smeaton to send an anonymous letter claiming that when the Boulton and Watt royalty was added, it would make it more expensive. His anonymous letter did'nt fool Boulton and Watt. Smeaton admitted to it later in a letter to James Watt justifying why he had felt compelled to write it. " To give engines at the same price that would save the proprietors two thirds of the value of all the fuel used were advantages that portended a general monopoly, & to put us all in your pockets at once."

Type in " James Watt's Atmospheric Engines " and you'll get plenty of results, which is odd, considering he didn't build any Atmospheric Engines.

You can't always tell a book by its cover, inside Watt's machine Steam's at work, inside Newcomen's machine Atmospheric weight's at work! Also the lowest pressure I've seen for Watt's machine is 22 psi. 1.5 bar, 1.5 times Atmospheric Pressure. I wouldn't call that ' very low pressure '. ( Munich Museum ).

Newcomen's machine was designed and built to supply Atmospheric Power. Watt's machine was designed and built to supply Steam Power. They are two different machines, so they shouldn't have the same name. What's wrong with Atmospheric engine and Steam engine, seems pretty logical to me. Or is it something to do with the Steam Engine being the Industrial Revolution, logic goes out the window? There's an Industrial Revolution's worth of difference between Newcomen's Atmospheric engine and Watt's Steam engine.

Walter posted again (with several different names) with his view that Watt invented the steam engine, not Newcomen. We have discussed this many times now and cannot agree. Let the viewers decide for themselves. One thing that becomes obvious from these animations is that Watt's engine looks almost identical to the Newcomen steam engine. Apart from using a separate condenser, higher pressure steam, and the parallel linkage, the design is the same. So the biggest part of the invention came from Newcomen. Newcomen could not produce a "vacuum" without using the energy of steam. You cannot use the atmosphere to do work without supplying energy. That energy came from steam. Have you ever seen a vacuum pump without a motor to provide energy? There is no doubt that the source of energy for Newcomen's engine is steam. It cannot work without steam. This steam energy is used to generate mechanical energy to drive a water pump. The conversion of heat energy to mechanical energy is the definition of an engine. Clearly Newcomen's steam powered engine meets the definition of a steam engine. Watt's improvements were simply improvements of Newcomen's design. Watt did use the design to produce rotating motion from the oscillating movement of the beam engine, but that was a relatively simple addition which was also applied to the Newcomen steam engine. He used a novel design because someone had patented the crank, even though it had been known for centuries. The Cornish engine provided further improvement in efficiency over Watt's engine, simply by modifying the valve timing. Watt just sold himself to the public as the "inventor" of the steam engine. But he didn't really invent the steam engine. He just improved it. Watt's improvement came about 70 years after Newcomen's invention had become a big commercial success with thousands of machines produced , During those 60-70 years others had developed the technology to produce high pressure steam with some degree of safety, and the quality of engineering to produce pistons and cylinders that fit well improved. Some of that came from the development of cannon boring machines (Wilkinson) which had nothing to do with Watt. I just found this online: "Early engines had the piston sealed by a leather cup seal. Later a rope seal was used, kept in place by metal weights. ... The expiry of the patents led to a rush to install Watt engines in the 1790s," in Graces Guide: (www.gracesguide.co.uk/Newcomen_Engine). This is worth reading and confirms my insistence that Newcomen invented the first commercially successful steam engine. The following quote comes from Wikipedia: By 1800 (CE), hundreds of non-Watt rotary engines had been built, especially in collieries and ironworks where irregular motion was not a problem but also in textile mills.[5] Despite Watt's improvements, Common Engines (as they were then known) remained in use for a considerable time, and many more Newcomen engines than Watt ones were built even during the period of Watt's patent (up to 1800), as they were cheaper and less complicated. Of over 2,200 engines built in the 18th century, only about 450 were Watt engines. Elements of Watt's design, especially the Separate Condenser, were incorporated in many "pirate" engines. Even after 1800 Newcomen type engines continued to be built and condensers were added routinely to these. They were also commonly retro-fitted to existing Newcomen engines (the so-called "pickle-pot" condenser). (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Newcomen ). This makes it clear that there was not a sudden and complete transition to Watt's version of the steam engine. He had patents until 1800 which allowed him to collect a percentage of the savings on fuel by his more efficient engine. However, this was an added expense and Newcomen engines were not encumbered by patent issues. So it was not as though Watt's engine suddenly drove the industrial revolution. It was a gradual transition. The perpetual argument about Watt and Newcomen causes us to overlook the fact that Newcomen did not invent his steam engine alone (in a vacuum so-to-speak). In fact he worked closely with Savery who had previously used a steam generated vacuum to draw water out of a mine. We somewhat artificially define the inventor as the first person to produce a commercially successful steam engine. But I believe it was a Frenchman working with the famous Boyle (Boyles Law) in London who developed the idea of using a piston and cylinder to produce an engine - Denis Papin. It was HIS design that was the basis of the Newcomen engine and if we put the issue of commercial success to one side it is probably Papin who should be considered the inventor. He presented his ideas to the Royal Society in London but he could not afford full-scale development and patent which required an act of parliament in those days.. Newcomen took up the idea. In fact there were several people involved in the invention of the steam engine, and we should say that the steam engine was developed as a result of the work of several people including, but not limited to, Papin (perhaps Boyle), Savery, Newcomen, Watt and others. Of course Hero published the first known account of a steam engine about 2000 years ago (see my site www.HeroSteamEngine.com).

The Newcomen Engine in the drawing wouldn't work, the cylinder should be open to the Atmosphere at the top. It's misleading. Also, the vacuum in Watt's Engine isn't, ' really Atmospheric Pressure '.

Bloomfield Colliery Near Dudley 1776: ' Birmingham, March 11th. On Friday last a Steam Engine constructed upon Mr Watt's new principles, was set to work at Bloomfield Colliery, Dudley. From the first moment of it's setting to work it made about 14 or 15 strokes per minute, and emptied the engine pit (which is about 90 feet deep, and stood 57 feet high in water) in less than an hour. This engine is applied to the working of a pump 14 inches and a half diameter, which is capable of doing to the depth 300 feet, or even 360 if wanted, with one fourth of the fuel that a common engine would require to produce the fame quantity of power. The cylinder is 50 inches diameter, and the lenth of the stroke is seven feet. These engines are not worked by the pressure of the atmosphere. Their principles are very different from all others.

Hmmm... I wonder whether using De Lavall nozzles on the jets would help to extract more kinetic energy from the exhaust.

thanks for this excellent introduction to these early steam engines

STOLEN: If you see this balance let me know! A geology display had been very nicely prepared by volunteers geologists at The Gold Mine Experience in Thames, New Zealand. Thieves broke in and stole all the mineral specimens and the balance shown in this video. I had also taken home numerous brass and bronze parts from our boiler, polished and restored them, and coated them with lacquer. These were all stolen too. During 5 raids in a short time 105 items were stolen. All of these parts date back to about 1860 and cannot be replaced. They will have been melted down as scrap metal for a few dollars a pound. What a tragedy! Police have not been very helpful. Burglar alarm systems are now being installed at great expense.

About to restore the Father-in Law's Modal B. Are there any tricks to removing the tumble gear assembly. You showed it in the middle of the video but not how it was removed/installed. Great video though.

Could call Newcomen's Atmospheric Pump a gravity Pump . Weight of the air above the piston pushes the piston down ( the cylinder being open at the top ).

The “vacuum “ or rather lower than atmospheric pressure does not suck the piston down, there is no sucking force or negative pressure. The force Newcombs engine’s could exert was limited to less than atmospheric pressure x the area of the piston, which given the boiler, cylinder and sealing standards of the day was why the Watts’s positive pressure steam engine took so long to replace the Newcombe engine, boiler explosions were a relatively common occurrence in the early days of steam engines. The other point to note is that the pump being driven in the set up shown is in effect a mirror image the Newcombe cylinder, again only atmospheric pressure is available to lift the water so the maximum head that set up could achieve was roughly 9 meters before cavitation would stop the pump. To get around this the pump was placed at the bottom of the mine shaft and connected to the beam via a long rod. As the pump now had to generate a force in excess of the weight of long column of water either the pump piston area had to be reduced or the steam cylinder had to be increased, reducing the pump area reduced the volume displaced at each cycle but increased the head that could be pumped, increasing the steam cylinder piston of course increased not only the force supplied to the beam but also to the walls of the cylinder increasing the need to provide stronger materials to resist implosion of the walls, sealing the piston also became much more difficult

Beautiful presentation of steam technology. Too bad the sound is so bad.

If you don't want to drill into the chuck, I've seen some "spiders" that have 3 legs that other people have made that essentially fit between the jaws and allow you to space stuff off from the chuck face. They usually have magnets at the ends of the "legs" to hold the spider to the chuck when the jaws are open. And if you don't need it anymore, you just pull it off the chuck and it's right back to normal.

OK, I'm only 3 years late. Found you looking for ideas on replacing a lead screw nut. That's a great solution to the problem, Evan. The top hat is brilliant. Wish I had seen this when I was trying to make the dials on my Jet-16 mill-drill adjustable. For future reference, places in the US like McMaster-Carr and Grainger as well as eBay carry Acme threaded rod in right hand, left hand and multiple alloys so it's possible to graft a new Acme threaded rod onto an existing lead screw. For future reference, you might want to use brass rod instead of brazing rod for those little plugs. Brazing rod is usually phosphor bronze and is almost as hard as steel. Try cutting it with a hacksaw and you can tell immediately that it's not brass. Cheers!

Considering that the 100 tooth gear isn't meshing with anything what is the purpose of 127 divided by 100. The 56 tooth lead screw gear is meshing with the 127 tooth gear not the 100 tooth gear.

Is there someone out there that couldn't figure this out in about 30 seconds?

You should be fine with removing some from the tang, I believe the drive/retaining area is where the slot is, the same slot that you can drive the removal tool through. A good solution to an annoying issue, especially when you need every mm you can get.

Genius!

Just press a socket into the bar and save all that pissing around

Wonderful video! Thanks very much. It is clear and for the first time I now understand how the gear train works on my Boxford lathe.

Wow! What a fantastic and helpful program. Thank you very much Evan

In Newcomen's Atmospheric Pump, Atmospheric Pressure does the work. In Watt's Steam Engine, Steam Pressure does work, just like a Locomotive! Take away James Watt's Steam Power and you've got no Industrial Revolution! No millions more Steam Powered Factories, Steamships, Locomotives etc.etc.etc. Just Newcomen Atmospheric Pumps and Arkwright's 2000 or more years old Water-Power.

In Britain from 1800 to 1900. 20,000 Water-wheels decreased in number. Windmills decreased in number. The Englishman Thomas Newcomen's 1,500 Atmospheric Pumps disappeared. The Scotsman James Watt's 500 Steam Engines and their descendants increased in number to 10,000,000 !!! For every SINGLE Water-wheel in 1800 there were now 500 Steam Engines in 1900 An increase in Power generation of between 400 and 500 times for the whole country, and consequently in production of goods or whatever. This WAS the Industrial Revolution. And it was all due to James Watt's invention of the world's first PRACTICAL Steam Powered Engine.

The top hex nut should have serrations on the bottom to keep the center hub from backing out and creeping around to the adjustment screw.

Thank you for this wonderful resource. I am getting this error when trying to access your site NET::ERR_CERT_AUTHORITY_INVALID

Hello, I’m trying to clean up a tailstock like yours. After removing the wheel there is a piece shaped like a nut which is held to the casting with two grub screws. Once the two grub screws are removed how for you take that off?

What did they use to seal the pistons in the 1700s?

I will try with your calculator. I want to get a first pass with 10mm or 2"-1/2tpi,and then i will advance the tool 5mm with the top slide to get the second start.

Hello. Is it possible to generate a 10mm or a 2-1/2tpi on a boxford A with 8tpi leadscrew? I want to rescue a friend's bench vice with a worn out nut. This nut has trapezoidal double start thread,Φ26*5mm,or,1"-5tpi. Thank you in advance,very nice videos.

bloody brilliant mate

your a verry smart man, im subscribed and starting to binge watch, thank you for your content, love your work

Man they where very close to an industrial revolution.

I have a 80 year old New Visbly lathe with a 4 TPI Leadscrew and includes a 127 tooth gear used on the leadscrew. The Lathe has a copper plate with metric threads, do you know if I can then use the indicator on the leadscrew and be able to disengage the half not while cutting threads?

Your videos are by far the best about Lathes I have seen on TH-cam and your gear train calculator is incredible, thank you.

Promo'SM