Anyway. If the Greeks invented a steam machine but did not implemented it, can we see here a failure of... of... free run of civilization... or something? What did they miss for making the technological jump? Was it just a wrong social system? Or did they need isolation from dominant cultures?
"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
Did Hero himself find it useless? What applications did he imagine? Nothing helpful for himself personally?
But I wonder, if Romans were not near around at that time, wouldn't Alexandrian inventors be able to build around a more mechanised polis?
It's possible that the thing was just a toy, a demonstration tool for the physics of steam, like the things you can buy in a science museum.
The æolipile that Melanchton illustrates is a (not particularly powerful) device for converting heat into rotational motion. In the technological context of the 1st century, I can imagine using that for a potter's turntable, but a steam machine would have been too expensive for a potter. And then there's the problem that the æolipile as depicted doesn't operate in a cycle as the steam escapes. So, you not only need a supply of fuel, but a constant stream of water. "It's the statue, man, The Statue."
Speaking of particians or other wealthy "investors": It is not necessarily optimal that technology development decisions depend on their needs, inclinations and understanding. In particular, they tend to be more greedy than the society norm - which is not a fortunate aspect regarding concerns of this diary.
Two questions. When you say "optimal", what are you optimising? And what would be an "optimal" mechanism for allocation of surplus wealth? "It's the statue, man, The Statue."
Immediate holders of surplus wealth would of course prefer to keep it to themselves. Whatever social agreements or deals are proposed, there will be some better off without the agreements (in the sense of game theory models). They may even use their power to prevent new agreements, or weaken exsisting ones. (As it happens now, with the global initiative from Washington DC.) They may use measure like propaganda to keep control. On the other hand, the rest of society players may decide that it is unfair to them to have no distribution. In extreme cases, they may have enough power to impose or persuade any distribution whatsoever. Of course, harmonious agreements are preferable. The "optimal" situation is perhaps when the power balance is in favour of the majority seeking a redistribution, and they persuade surplus wealth holders to apply multidimensional individual optimization, along the lines: is it the sum of your ambitions to grasp as much wealth as possible for this moment? Don't you want to be sure that this wonderful society will keep functioning happily in this marvelous environment for indefinitely long time?
Then you just need a slave to polish the mirror.
However, there was no indication to wheter he used this for any practical purpose. Think he was more of an inventor then an entrepreneur. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
I think the friction between organized labor (seeking greater wages and other benefits) and the capitalists / management (seeking lower wages, higher productivity, and lower overall costs) was a big driver of 20th century technological innovation, as that friction helped drive the demand for the products of such innovation. Slaves, having no power, meant that friction did not exist in ancient Greece and Egypt, and thus there was no need for productivity enhancing technology (this is admittedly oversimplified because other stresses can create that kind of demand - growing population vs limited land for agriculture, for example, requiring greater agricultural productivity).
I assume this has been studied by scholars but I've never looked into it.
you are the media you consume.
Now if I recall correctly the history of steam-engines it went something like this:
The brittish steamengines were for the first hundred years or so solely used in the brittish mining industry. First to pump water to prevent mines from flooding and later on to haul stuff out of the mines. To haul stuff you need rails, so you need a certain knowledge of railmaking too.
These early steamengines were rather big, (with later standards) inefficient, stationary things. Since it was costly to have them running a lot of try and error was applied to make them better. One famous succesfull improver was named Watt.
After a lot of development steamengines could be used for other things like running trains. They were not that good though. In the famous competition were Stephensons Rocket defeated Ericssons Novelty, one competing design was disqualified after it turned out they had hid a horse in the train. (Bet it would have won.)
Eventually laws of thermodynamics were formulated which gave an idea of what the machines actually did and some ways to calculate improvements and not just doing the old try and error. This is btw, were games like civilization often gets it wrong, steamengines => thermodynamics, not the other way around. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
A very important point. "It's the statue, man, The Statue."
Whereas England in the 18th century didn't have that much labour; most of the peasantry was tied to the land, and labour wasn't as cheap. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
