Talk:Oliver Evans/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wrong emphasis

I feel that the coverage of the the Oruktor Amphibolos is really out of proportion in this article. If possible, much more about his flour mill should be written to restore balance. ike9898 02:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the Oruktor Amphibolos is given too much weight here - while it might seem very important in the age of automobiles - it really is more like a blip in his career. His major achievement was in the mechanization of mills, especially grist mills, which was a major direct influence on the American (and probably British as well) Industrial Revolution. He also did quite a bit of work on the steam engine - also a direct influence on the industrial revolution. Compared to those achievements the construction of something that could conceivably be called an automobile and may have run a couple of times, looks pretty insignificant. Smallbones (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There is NOT too much weight given to it, there is far too little weight given to all the other aspects of Evans's life! :o)

The reason the Oruktor is so well covered is that there were a number of claims made, here and on other pages, about its significance in terms of steam boat development. Myself, and other editors interested in the history of steam power, sought to determine the facts, backed up by references. This article could (and should) be ten times as long, to give Evans adequate coverage, and I wouldn't anticipate any more being written about the Oruktor. But what the article needs is someone interested in the other areas of his life, and I have neither knowledge, reference material nor inclination to do this...

Over to you! -- EdJogg (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Mill Locations

The first mill to incorporate the Evans system was the Greenbank Mill on the Red Clay Creek at Price's Corner just south of Wilmington, Delaware. That mill was repeatedly rebuilt and burnt down at least once, but currently exists as a publicly accessible site and on the web at http://www.greenbankmill.org.

The first mill entirely constructed to house the Evans system (Greenbank being a retro-fit into an existing mill) was the so-called "Pioneer Mill" on a tributary of the White Clay Creek called Pike Creek (Peck's Creek in early maps) near Polly Drummond Hill. The exact location is not known, unless there is paper documentation at Hagley, but the DeBeers map shows several mills on Pike Creek, at least one of which still exists as a private dwelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.180.229 (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Evans and Richard Trevithick

I have place a citation request after the suggestion that Trevithick copied Evans's ideas. Some sources (Robert Pripps The Big Book of Farm Tractors: The Complete History of the Tractor 1855 to Present ) suggest that the two men collaborated over the invention, while others (John Steele Gordon: An Empire of Wealth: The Epic History of American Economic Power and United States Business History, 1602-1988: A Chronology Richard Robinson) assert that they worked completely independently. It might be significant that Evans, very sensitive (with good cause) about his rights in his inventions never suggested that Trevithick had usurped his idea. (Age of Invention - Chronicles of America, Part 37 - Holland Thompson, page 56). A search on A9.com gives the balance in favor of "independently", but something more definitive would be useful. --Old Moonraker 13:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that Evans influenced Trevithick's design of steam carriage since these predated the practical work of Evans in this regard. Chenab 14:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I propose, then, to delete this sentence. In any case it seems to contravene WP:AWT. --Old Moonraker 14:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Old Moonraker 14:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

1792 Patent Petition

Searching the University of Virginia library for correspondence between Jefferson and Evans uncovered the following reference: The Papers of Thomas Jefferson Digital Edition, ed. Barbara B. Oberg and J. Jefferson Looney. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, Rotunda, 2008. Canonic URL: http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/TSJN-01-24-02-0667 [accessed 24 Jul 2012]. [ca. 1 Dec. 1792] This opens "To Thos Jefferson Henry Knox and Edmund Randolph Esres. The petition of Oliver Evans of NewCastle County delaware State Miller Respectfully Sheweth That your Petitioner did as early as the year 1774 begin diligently to search for an inanimate power that he might apply to the purpose of propelling land Cariages without Cattle and by a long course of study and practical experiments he in the year 1786 discovered and invented the means of applying the power of steam and the pressure of the atmosphere to the said purposes as well as to many other useful purposes ... " Tomligon (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Refrigeration

Having finally obtained my own print copy of Evan's book The Abortion of the Young Steam Engineer's Guide, I finally found the section, oft mentioned but which I've never seen cited, in which Evans clearly described a refrigeration apparatus based on boiling ether by application of a vacuum, utilizing a piston vacuum pump. Reading Evans' description, he clearly realized not only that one could dramatically cool ether this way, but also that by either adding a second cylinder to compress the ether, or by using the compression stroke of the piston vacuum pump, the ether vapor could be heated, sent to a condenser to cool, and recycled. Furthermore, Evans indicates that the condenser is thus a source of useful heat. In other words, this apparatus Evans described was not just a means of cooling, but a true heat pump not unlike modern fluid-based designs. I'm a bit of a klutz at inserting citations ... the reference exists in the main page as a book authored by Evans, but I may need some help setting up a correct reference. Evans' description should be sufficiently clear that he can be cited without an intervening document. Tomligon (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

@Tomligon: Hi Tomligon, this is good news. As you can see I have done some very extensive work on this article with a view to promoting it to GA and then FA status, based on a fair bit of reading I've done on Evans over the past few months I think I've managed to get most of the relevant sources in place. I have also read parts of the Young Steam Engineer's Guide online, but unlike you I have not had access to a printed version. I don't suppose you could give me the page numbers for the refrigeration section? I've clumsily cited it as 'Appendix' because the online version doesn't maintain the page structure of the original book, but perhaps you can help me here! Thanks, Unus Multorum (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

superpressure steam engine

OE invented the use of positive pressure in a steam engine, or not.

The evidence suggests that Evans was one of a number of inventors of high pressure steam engines. A number of inventors understood the advantages of high pressure steam, but few attempted it, largely due to difficulties in producing boilers to handle it. James Rumsey, John Stevens, and Nathan Read favored high pressure steam, and received patents from Thomas Jefferson for their ideas more than a decade before Evans received his own patent (although Evans applied for a patent slightly after the Jefferson patents were issued). Evans, however, appears to have been the first American inventor to figure out how to fabricate a practical machine running at substantial pressure.Tomligon (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Evans Plate 1, Abortion of the Young Steam Engineer's Guide, shows Evans's 1805 steam engine concept much better than the usual picture one usually sees that purport to show his engine. One version of these pictures appears in the main article. These pictures were produced decades after Evans first built his engines based on the 1805 designs, and do not show the most important details. Plate 1, from a decent reprint of his book, shows that the engine used a double-acting cylinder and four independent steam valves, each operated by its own cam. Each end of the cylinder has its own intake and its own exhaust valve, important because utilizing one valve for both intake and exhaust robs heat from the incoming steam. Independent valve control also allows tweaking the valve timing for better efficiency, specifically allowing early closing of the high pressure valves before the stroke is complete. These features are usually considered innovations of the later Corliss engine. Evans' description accompanying the plate gives scaling information as well as function. A good rendition of Plate 1 is available in a 1990 reprint of the 1805 book, by "The Oliver Evans Press". The only copyright restrictions on the 1990 printing is on the Forward by Eugene S. Ferguson, and I would propose that it should be permissible to use this image. The only on-line version of this image which I've been able to locate is insufficiently sharp to follow. Tomligon (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

burial location

Trinity Cemetery is located between Riverside Drive (west), Amsterdam Avenue (east), 155th Street (north), and 153rd Street (south). Broadway runs through the middle of it in a North/South direction. I originally added the burial site as simply "Trinity Cemetery in northern Manhattan" because the only online source I found listed the cemetery at 157th Street, which is incorrect. The gentleman from PA apparently used the same erroneous source and changed the location to "Broadway Avenue at 157th Street", which is wrong on both counts. Checking Google maps will verify this. I also live in the neighborhood and can attest to the location. For the sake of simplicity, I'm changing the location to "Broadway at 154th Street", which is very nearly the center of the cemetery as a whole. OE is actually buried in the western section, between Riverside Drive and Broadway, although I'm not sure if this is quite relevant. comment added by Wikidan3174 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oruktor Amphibolos revisited.

It appears that this section is written with extreme bias against Oliver, and that might be the disconnect others are seeing. The plans for this appear to have fell into the hands of "Vivian and Trevithick", and this company clearly stole the plans insted of helping to patent them in England. If the 1900 book is to be believed. Clearly Oliver, is the most inept business man according to this summary, but an excellent inventor. http://books.google.com/books?id=kl4oAAAAYAAJ&dq=the%20watt%20of%20america&pg=PA66#v=onepage&q=the%20watt%20of%20america&f=false His patents which failed to be patented, are also picked up by others, who tweeked them and profited. NormBograham (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If you find usable, reliable sources for this can you make sure that they are added to the Richard Trevithick page as well? The allegation has been marked {{cn}} there for a very long time, and this contributor has despaired of finding confirmation. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Moomraker: I mentioned the source. The conflict, is that one of the guys who might have "stole" from him was in the publishing business. So, you and I are trying to find some truth in history, but diffrent truths. I find the conflict to be head spinning with "Perkins", since he was in the publishing business in America (his brother ran it after he left for england), should he be running to the patent office after seeing others technical articles? I"m not sure if it was stealing, patent trolling, or just an enhancment to the idea. In one case, just taking the idea and putting a box around it...that's an auful trivial enhancment. Perhaps we keep looking for a conflict which was not there. lol. But, Perkins appears to give credit as in the case with Asa (invented spiralgraph, used in making money more difficult to counterfit, and now is a nice game for the kiddies). But, everyone who "writes" about him, keeps trying to call Perkins the inventor, even encypledia articles, which are clearly false. This is the "discussion" page, and I did not alter the article. I'm still looking over older documents, but we likely only have access to 1% of them. Fyi: The Royal Society had discussions about Jacob Perkins before inviting him out to England, so, you might be shocked to find something there about Oliver Evans. History "facts" always leave questions and our conclusins are sometimes wrong. Jacob Perkins is not the "inventor" that history keeps trying to credit him as, he's the guy who kept running to the patent offices for the "family business", and he bought some ideas.. While the "royal society" is well documented, there is even evidence that they were not well respected during their time (or perhaps it's just envy.). NormBograham (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Perkins patented his idea?

My how quickly an opinion might change. I see that Perkins was a publisher. He used a waterwheel in his invovations with nails, and thus was able to apply some of the same principals to publishing (with a wheel). There is also several "chance" interactions with Oliver. From what I'm suspecting, the patenting of ideas was rather new. You see Perkins give testimony to the Royal Society about Oliver, in 1822, and admits he's never been on a steamboat, but appearently this doesnt stop him from patenting "new" ideas, or giving testony and answering their questions. lol. Perhaps Perkins was more of the "Bill Gates" of the day (and I'm not sure that's a compliment), where he was smart enough to understand your ideas, and tweek them and patent them himself. (Note Perkins was also in Philli, as a publisher). Also, note: Perkins publishes his own findings about the waterwheel, and this might be a bit of self-stroking. Perhaps patent troll is a bit harsh, but hey, their might be a new term that could be applied, to both of these guys. They were racing to the patent office, and they bought some technology. You also see Jacob Perkins might have inflated his title in some publications, "esq", where he's still refered to "Mr", by the Royal Society. ("Mr" is a title below that of "esq".). I'm smelling some problems with publishers writing their own history, bio's.

Watch out! There are real problems with history, with those getting too close to "Charles Heath", "Jacob Perkins" and there appears to be some exagerations. (I dont know if this was intentional or unintentional). Unfortunatly, this was the period of time where the huge innovation was "printing technology", and you see Jacob Perkins going from metalergy to publishing (both use waterwheels, and both use metal). So, Perkins and Oliver have several interactions (water wheel, both in Philli at same time, Perkins mentions Oliver in his presentation to the Royal Society). (Perhaps they were drinking buddies, lol, but they clearly met). While one might argue that there is some "self stroking" going on, I'm suspecting we create the same problem today. We keep trying to give Bill Gates the credit for everything today, when some technology he actually bought (And Perkins bought some technology from Asa Spencer, but history keeps trying to erase Asa). So, there are some exagerations. This might be compounded with Oliver, since some of the articles might be more "self stroking". And no claims appear supported.

NormBograham (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"History is written by the winners"....lol....Or in this case by the publishers. Printing was the "dot-com" of the 1800's, clearly taking off about 1820. But this causes a conflict between so called "innovators" and "written history". This might be compounded with the new "patent offices" of the 1800's. (Run to the patent office, I just read an idea!). Unfortunatly, the more conflicts you "prove", the more you wonder what's going on with flawed written history. If Oliver had a facebook account, he would be a first degree friend with Jacob Perkins. (Water Wheel, Phili ventures, and steam engines, Jacob's brother, presention to the Royal Society, Drinking Buddies?-ok I made that one up: but it looks like a real possiblity.). Therefore: Oliver does get some credit, but he also appears to be stroking his own acomplishments. Warning, Warning: Too many facts surrounding Charles Heath, Jacob Perkins can be proven to be wrong, but they are published and quoted! There is a danger in the inventors being publishers and writing their own biographies or those of their friends.(lol).
Here is the conflict, which is under doubt: The plans fell into the hands of "Vivian and Trevithick".
Where is the proof of this statement? http://books.google.com/books?id=kl4oAAAAYAAJ&dq=the%20watt%20of%20america&pg=PA66#v=onepage&q=the%20watt%20of%20america&f=false NormBograham (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If you find usable, reliable sources for this can you make sure that they are added to the Richard Trevithick page as well? The allegation has been marked {{cn}} there for a very long time, and this contributor has despaired of finding confirmation. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Moon: With your question, and my questions, I think the problems are jumping off the page. History is flawed, as was reported (or perhaps it always will be). This is really clear with Perkins purchasing technology from Asa, as everyone keeps trying to give Perkins credit for inventing it. There are also conflicts between Perkins and Oliver. When I went back and reread, I think I agree, your reading "Olivers" statements, and this might be one sided. While there were "historians", they were edited! 74.46.14.142 (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

To All: Please remember that this is a talk page for discussion about the article, it is not a general forum about Oliver Evans. The effort spent discussing loosely related matters here would be far better spent improving the article.

EdJogg (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a "Visionary".

Early Engineering Reminiscenses (1815-1840) of George Escol Sellers U.S. National Museum Bulletin 238, includes an article by Sellers on Evans. Sellers recalled a first hand experience, a carriage ride about 1818, in which Sellers related Evans' accounts. He very specifically mentions that Evans denounced Benjamin Latrobe for a 1803 report on prospects for steam-powered transportation, and said Latrobe "alluded to him (Evans) as a visonary, siezed with steam mania, in conceiving and believing that boats and wagons could be propelled by steam to advantage." Looking in to it, in Evans time the term "visionary" was essentially equivalent to "delusional". I have accordingly substituted one word in the article, which I hope Evans would appreciate more. Evans believed the Latrobe article proved to be a great hinderence in the adoption of steam power.

The Latrobe article is available on-line as a .pdf of the original imprint, found in Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 1809, vol. 6, pp 89-98. The article will reveal an association with Nicholas Roosevelt, who built engines for Fulton and Livingston that disproved the Latrobe thesis prior to the 1809 publication. Tomligon (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Source of the Railroad Quote, ca 1814

Writing under the pseudonym of Patrick N. I. Elisha, esq,, Oliver Evans published Patent Right Oppression Exposed, or Knavery Detected, publication listed as "Philadelphia booksellers," 1814. The book is a satire, occasionally compared to Mark Twain. From this comes his famous quotation predicting railroads, often dated as 1812 or 1813. I am in the process of trying to find an affordable copy to verify the source of the extracted on-line versions of this famous quotation. The full version apparently runs four paragraphs, should be nicely past copyright and in public domain, and is so wonderfully visio .... ooops, prophetic that it should be available in the main article so that a solid referenced source is finally readily available. Tomligon (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Refrigeration again

@Unus Multorum: I'm curious as to why you deleted the Refrigeration section. I have no axe to grind either way but the info had a reference and seems germane to the topic. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 16:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Philg88: Hi Philg88, actually I did not remove the section on refrigeration as it is very interesting, but I moved to be a subsection under the 1801-1806 period when he first developed the ideas, and added a few more sources to verify the information. Thanks for your interest, I'm going to work on this to get it to GA and perhaps even FA status, so I hope you like the way its going so far! Unus Multorum (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Unus Multorum:: Ah ... I see. I've left a comment on your talk page. Cheers, ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 04:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)