The steam engine example is a very interesting one and its not speculation whether the ancients developed this technology.
They did. It is thoroughly documented that the aeolipile was invented in ancient Alexandria and crazy enough, it was an entertainment device and not used practically. So the gap there was like 1700 years!
And I’ve read a similar gap in the application of gunpowder to practical use as explosive and propellant, rather than entertainment in fireworks.
I’d wager the connectivity of people and information is the key factor here. And after the printing press, knowledge accumulated much faster. And now with the internet, lightening speed.
I would expect the safety pin to be fairly labor intensive before factory technology. their primary use (temporary clothing adjustment) would have been less useful when a significant portion of the population had seamstress skills. For a secondary use, such as holding cloth in place to make adjustments, they are less efficient to use than bobby pins, if someone knows what they are doing
This seems a specific example of the trend of things which could have been invented much earlier, not being invented because they weren't useful or economically feasible
I'd like to challenge the invention of reinforced concrete on at least two grounds. First is the loss of the recipe for concrete, being particular to the type of volcanic ash in ancient formulation. Second is the development of a source of steel. Cast iron would possibly work to some level for reinforced concrete, but it's pretty brittle, and casting long rods of iron has some technical difficulties. Also, the thermal expansion coefficient is 7 vs 6 ppm/F and isn't quite as nice for surviving the diurnal thermal cycle.
All in all, a better basis in chemistry and metallurgy should push the feasible time up into the late Renaissance. Also, actual steel required some serious technology and scale, so Bessmer.
Understood, and I have no argument over that. But that doesn't consider the loss of knowledge due to the limited understanding of both chemistry and metallurgy. So called Damascus Steel was also lost, and while we now suspect that the ore used contained vanadium, which changed the iron/carbon crystal formation under repeated heating and forging, we still don't know if there were other techniques used.
My point is that inventions can be lost. Accidental discovery makes a great what-if, but the basis of a true invention is widespread repeatability, one of the reasons patents require a full disclosure of the preferred method/embodiment.
Fascinating!
The steam engine example is a very interesting one and its not speculation whether the ancients developed this technology.
They did. It is thoroughly documented that the aeolipile was invented in ancient Alexandria and crazy enough, it was an entertainment device and not used practically. So the gap there was like 1700 years!
And I’ve read a similar gap in the application of gunpowder to practical use as explosive and propellant, rather than entertainment in fireworks.
I’d wager the connectivity of people and information is the key factor here. And after the printing press, knowledge accumulated much faster. And now with the internet, lightening speed.
I would expect the safety pin to be fairly labor intensive before factory technology. their primary use (temporary clothing adjustment) would have been less useful when a significant portion of the population had seamstress skills. For a secondary use, such as holding cloth in place to make adjustments, they are less efficient to use than bobby pins, if someone knows what they are doing
This seems a specific example of the trend of things which could have been invented much earlier, not being invented because they weren't useful or economically feasible
I'd like to challenge the invention of reinforced concrete on at least two grounds. First is the loss of the recipe for concrete, being particular to the type of volcanic ash in ancient formulation. Second is the development of a source of steel. Cast iron would possibly work to some level for reinforced concrete, but it's pretty brittle, and casting long rods of iron has some technical difficulties. Also, the thermal expansion coefficient is 7 vs 6 ppm/F and isn't quite as nice for surviving the diurnal thermal cycle.
All in all, a better basis in chemistry and metallurgy should push the feasible time up into the late Renaissance. Also, actual steel required some serious technology and scale, so Bessmer.
The Romans used iron rods and bars to reinforce their concrete structures, there's no reason in principle they couldn't have simply embedded the iron into the actual concrete. https://www.unisalento.it/documents/20152/1309975/CMA%2B2015%2BIRON%2BCHICAGO.pdf
Understood, and I have no argument over that. But that doesn't consider the loss of knowledge due to the limited understanding of both chemistry and metallurgy. So called Damascus Steel was also lost, and while we now suspect that the ore used contained vanadium, which changed the iron/carbon crystal formation under repeated heating and forging, we still don't know if there were other techniques used.
My point is that inventions can be lost. Accidental discovery makes a great what-if, but the basis of a true invention is widespread repeatability, one of the reasons patents require a full disclosure of the preferred method/embodiment.
A fascinating use of AI. I can see many similar AI applications that help us understand the process of invention and diffusion.
Great stuff!