Novelty of the Newcomen steam engine
newcomen-steam-engine
Novelty of Newcomen's engine
It is frequently asserted that Newcomen's creation was merely the assembly of preexisting components. For instance in 1938 H.W. Dickinson states:
Guericke, Papin, and others had used cylinders and pistons; the pump bucket and handle were also well known; the boiler and setting were essentially just large copper brewer's kettles; and the layer of water on the piston to act as packing was a novelty but not a strikingly original idea. [1]
But the above mentioned source admits that the jet of water to condense the steam inside the cylinder was a new and important invention [2].
However, most inventions are created by combining existing technical elements. If a new combination or arrangement of known devices and technical components produces a novel technical effect—either achieving something previously unknown or significantly enhancing the effectiveness of an existing function—it qualifies as a new invention.
The question that arises next, after novelty has been confirmed, is if the invention invention is non trivial and therefore should be rewarded with a patent. Subsequently, a patent examiner evaluates the invention, often in consultation with the inventor or their representative, to determine if the invention is non-trivial in light of existing knowledge (prior art). If the invention demonstrates what is described in patent law terms as an inventive step (under European patent law) or is non-obvious (under U.S. patent law), the inventor may be granted a patent.
From todays patent law of view, novelty is absolute, i.e. it does not depend if the inventor knew the prior art or independently had his idea. However, it seems to be unlikely that an ironmonger in a provincial town knew of what was going on in the scientific world of London [3].
Sources like these always overlooked the importance of the beam that was mounted by trunnions to transfer the up- and down motion to a revers down-and up-motion. Another crucial role played the counterweight.
An interesting aspect was that Papin stated that he could not purchase a cylinder and piston that would be manufactured sufficiently accurate to implement his invention. Newcomen obviously had a similar problem.
To get a cylinder of any greater diameter than about 7 inch, the size that was then ordinarily made for pumps, was a difficulty, and to get it bored truly cylindrical was beyond the capacity of the pump-makers and gun founders of the day, who alone could undertake such work. It seems that Newcomen had to be content with a cast brass cylinder labouriously rubbed smooth on the inside with sand and elbow grease. The piston consequently could only be a rough fit in the cylinder, and to meet the difficulty of making it tight, packing had to be devised, a problem that roved a perennial one for engineers.[4]
Such a remark would get a patent attorney excited it shows there was a technical problem that was solved by the inventor, which is an indication that there might be something novel and inventive to claim in a patent application. And indeed the source continuous:
Newcomen solved the problem for his own engine by adopting a leather flap around the edge of the piston, with water on the top [of the piston] to seal the leather. [5]
If Newcomen would have been allowed to file patents that improved existing patents there would have been plenty subject matter to get him a patent granted.
The novelty of Newcomen's construction consists in condensing the steam below an air-tight piston in a cylindrical vessel having an open top. The steam is admitted into the part of the vessel below the piston. Initially, the steam was condensed by spraying cold water on the cylinder's exterior, but it quickly became clear that injecting cold water into the inside of the cylinder would be more efficient and result in faster speeds. [6]
These comments demonstrate that individuals who are untrained in patent law use the term novelty; when they sometimes mean originality. Modern patent law has a clear definition of novelty, whereas "originality" or "inventiveness" of an invention, called “inventive step” in European Patent Law, is considered separate.
The novelty of an invention is evaluated first because, for novelty, we essentially compare the invention's technical features with only one piece of prior art. Due to the fact that the examination of inventive step becomes obsolete in the absence of novelty, this easier assessment (=novelty) is performed first.
Novelty: Article 54 European Patent Convention
- An invention shall be considered to be new if it does not form part of the state of the art.
- The state of the art shall be held to comprise everything made available to the public by means of a written or oral description, by use, or in any other way, before the date of filing of the European patent application.
- ...
- ...
- ...
source: Article 54 EPC
Accordingly an invention is only new if its technical features have not been made public prior to the filing date of the European patent application by means of a written or oral description, by use, or in any other manner." Novelty is absolute, ie. there are no limitations of any kind regarding the geographic area, language, age, or manner in which the relevant material was made available to the public. A written description, or document, is deemed to have been made available to the public if, as of the relevant date, it was feasible for members of the public to learn what was included within it and there was no bar of confidentiality preventing the use or distribution of such information. (Guidelines for the Examination of European Patents). As always, there may be other special circumstances that affect novelty. If you are in doubt it would be wise to consult a patent attorney.
Double check - Is it all about the condenser?
The use of an exterior condenser to prevent heat losses is claimed to be the principal reason for the improved performance of the Watt steam engine. It is possible to determine if this observation is pertinent. The maximum piston's pressure while raising a column of water is reported for both Watt and Newcomen engines. A maximum of 14.75 psi, or the atmospheric pressure, may be pulled by an atmospheric engine's pistons. Atmospheric engines can counteract with their pistons a maximum pressure of 14.75 psi, which is the pressure of the atmosphere. Due to the steam engine's mechanical losses and the imperfect vacuum, this maximum value is actually lower in real-world applications. According to historical reports, the working cylinder within the Newcomen engine is typically cooled down to a temperature between 140 and 160 degrees Fahrenheit (60°C-71°C). The steam pressure of the steam still present in the cylinder at 152 degrees Fahrenheit (67°C) will be close to 4 psi. [30] The ratio of 4 psi to 14.75 psi, or around 27% of atmospheric pressure, is adopted in exchange for a shorter cycle time and avoiding further heat losses if the inside of the working cylinder would be cooled down to a lower temperature. In the same example, 52% of the maximum pressure (7.8 psi) [31] is ultimately used to raise water, with the remaining 18% going toward mechanical losses (friction, acceleration losses, etc.).
Watt steam engines use typically 68% of the maximum pressure for raising water. So we can see indeed an improvement of 15% of the Watt steam engine over the Newcomen steam engine to counter mechanical losses. A part of this improvement is likely due to the improved sealing of the piston. However, we also see that from a mechanical point of view the Newcomen steam engine was already at 52%, so that indeed the most radical improvement could be achieved only by an improvement of heat losses in the steam engine and the boiler.
Historical back ground
Contrary to Watt, who's correspondence with his business partner and friends has been preserved, Newcomen doesn't appear to have any surviving historical documents of this nature. Newcomen tried to keep their knowledge of the steam engine secret and were not even allowing foreigners just to have a look at their machine. Lucky for us, a Swedish engineer, Mårten Triewald , was engaged to assist Samuel C., a son of the co-inventor with the operation of the Newman engine at a client's site. The client thought that Samuel was too young for the job and therefore Mårten Triewald was hired. Triewald stayed 10 years in England and after his return to Sweden wrote a brief book about his experiences and the first steam engine of the Newcomen type he erected in Sweden.
Recent studies [15] looking at historical documents from Newcomen's social environment reveal that he was connected to the Cornwall mining industry through family, friends, and neighbors, as well as through his occupation as an ironmonger.
-----------------------
[1] H.W. Dickinson, page 29/30
[2] Ibid, page 33, referring to Transaction Newcomen Society, XVII, page 6.
[3] H.W. Dickinson, page 33.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Thomas Tredgold, The Steam Engine, Vol. I, London, 1838 page 9.
[30] John Farey, page 132
[31] John Farey, page 131
[15] James Greener, Thomas Newcomen and his Great Work, October 2015, available on ResearchGate