Charles Babbage And His Analytical/Difference Engines

[AngusThermopyle]

In the Curta Mechanical Calculator thread I mentioned Babbage and his devices, here is the link to a short video on these machines. One must keep in mind the time period during which he formulated these devices and the state of technology at that time to truly understand the magnitude of what this man did. Although he did build the Difference Engine he did not live long enough to build the Analytical Engine, this was not done until much more recent times (the nineties).

When viewing the video of these machines at work it becomes apparent that this man had the ability to think on a plane far removed and above that of the average person. Not only is the operation of them very impressive but they are also fascinating to watch. The Analytical engine as mentioned previously, could perform complex mathematical operations, print a paper hardcopy and also produce a stereotype for either printing or long term storage. Of interest is also the fact that the printer would stop the machine when it required more consumables, paper etc.

One must keep in mind the fact that he designed these machines back in the late eighteen hundreds, a feat which places him at an exceptional level for mechanical innovation and understanding of applied practical mathematics. He himself however considered the code that he used to identify the parts in the drawings of these machines to be his greatest accomplishment .

Anyway, check it out, it truly is amazing.

[Wilber]

One very bright dude but real engines make noise and smell bad.

[AngusThermopyle]

but real engines make noise and smell bad.

Not always. Yes internal combustion engines would fit that definition however there are many other kinds of engines also. For instance, a heat engine does not fit the internal combustion model. A simple lever and fulcrum could also be considered an engine as it is a mechanical device used to perform work.

[Wilber]

Not always. Yes internal combustion engines would fit that definition however there are many other kinds of engines also. For instance, a heat engine does not fit the internal combustion model. A simple lever and fulcrum could also be considered an engine as it is a mechanical device used to perform work.

A lever is just a stick sitting on a rock, it doesn't do work, It transmits force from something that is doing work to something else like a transmisison, differential and tire does for a vehicle's engine.

[Wilber]

Double post

Edited January 26, 2009 by Wilber

[AngusThermopyle]

A lever is just a stick sitting on a rock, it doesn't do work, It transmits force from something that is doing work to something else like a transmisison, differential and tire does for a vehicle's engine.

You are incorrect a lever is most certainly considered to be an engine, albeit a very simple one. An engine is any mechanical device that converts applied energy to work. As such a lever converts energy applied to work. For instance, you apply a force (energy) to one end of a lever, this in turn becomes a force that performs work at the other end of the lever.

A capstan could also be considered to be an engine. In that case the motive power is not internal combustion but the force applied by people pushing the bars of the capstan. The force applied by the people is converted to work by the rotation of the capstan. As such a capstan is a very simple engine

As a former engineer I can assure you that the definition of an engine does not relly on the specific use of combustion but rather the conversion of energy to work by whatever means it is applied.

As such those who named Babbages machines were correct, they are indeed engines, just engines that do not rely on combustion for their motive force.

Your statement that a lever does not do work is 100% incorrect, you must have failed basic physics in school as that is one of the very first principles they teach you.

[M.Dancer]

You are incorrect a lever is most certainly considered to be an engine, albeit a very simple one.

I have known since grade 3 that the lever, incline and fulcrum were simple machines but I have never heard them refered to as engines....

[Smallc]

I would say that such things would be more converters than anything. They aren't actually creating the force, they are just changing it into something usable.

[M.Dancer]

I would say that such things would be more converters than anything. They aren't actually creating the force, they are just changing it into something usable.

Kind of hard to create energy....only convert it or channel it...

[Smallc]

Kind of hard to create energy....only convert it or channel it...

Well, you know what I meant. Perhaps force or output would be better words, as energy can't be created or destroyed. I did know that, I simply had a moment. According to the interweb, he is right about those things being engines though.

Edited January 26, 2009 by Smallc

[M.Dancer]

According to the interweb, he is right about those things being engines though.

The intraweb is never wrong. I have just never heard of them referred to as engines...but if a catapult can be an engine, so can a pulley.

[Wilber]

You are incorrect a lever is most certainly considered to be an engine, albeit a very simple one. An engine is any mechanical device that converts applied energy to work. As such a lever converts energy applied to work. For instance, you apply a force (energy) to one end of a lever, this in turn becomes a force that performs work at the other end of the lever.

A capstan could also be considered to be an engine. In that case the motive power is not internal combustion but the force applied by people pushing the bars of the capstan. The force applied by the people is converted to work by the rotation of the capstan. As such a capstan is a very simple engine

As a former engineer I can assure you that the definition of an engine does not relly on the specific use of combustion but rather the conversion of energy to work by whatever means it is applied.

As such those who named Babbages machines were correct, they are indeed engines, just engines that do not rely on combustion for their motive force.

Your statement that a lever does not do work is 100% incorrect, you must have failed basic physics in school as that is one of the very first principles they teach you.

As a former engineer you know that a lever does not convert energy into work, as a matter of fact it loses a small amount of energy through friction when it operates because there is no such thing as a 100% efficient machine. The lever does not supply the force and motion, it only transmits it. It can either increase the force or increase the movement depending on the location of the fulcrum but it cannot do both at the same time. One can only be done at the expense of the other. It does not generate work. The person or thing that supplies the force to push the lever or turn the capstan is the engine. This is usually done by such things as physical labour, internal combustion or steam engines and electric motors which convert chemical or electrical energy into physical motion which can then be transmitted through such things as shafts, chains, gears, belts, levers, capstans or whatever. By your definition a hammer is an engine when until it is put into motion by an engine (you) it is just a piece of steel.

My reference to real engines being loud and smelly was a joke, I realize this is not always the case. I don't have a problem with Babbage's machines being referred to as engines.

Definition:

Hammer: Originally applied as a weapon of war, the hammer is nowadays used as kind of a divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent to the object we are trying to hit.

PS

One more on levers:

Pry Bar: A tool used to crumple the metal surrounding that clip or

bracket you needed to remove in order to replace a 50 cent part.

Edited January 26, 2009 by Wilber

[Wilber]

The intraweb is never wrong. I have just never heard of them referred to as engines...but if a catapult can be an engine, so can a pulley.

I can see a catapult being referred to as an engine because it uses inert energy which has been stored within it by the positioning of weights or whatever and converts it into physical motion, a pulley doesn't, it just acts as a round lever that can be used with a rope.

[AngusThermopyle]

: a machine for converting any of various forms of energy into mechanical force and motion ;

As you can see from the above definition a lever can most certainly be considered to be an engine. If we follow your line of reasoning then the fuel used in an internal combustion engine is actually the engine as it provides the energy that is to be converted to work. This is obviously a false premise as the mechanical construct that converts the energy is actually the engine. As I said before this is all just physics 101 stuff.

[Wilber]

As you can see from the above definition a lever can most certainly be considered to be an engine. If we follow your line of reasoning then the fuel used in an internal combustion engine is actually the engine as it provides the energy that is to be converted to work. This is obviously a false premise as the mechanical construct that converts the energy is actually the engine. As I said before this is all just physics 101 stuff.

:a machine for converting an of various forms of energy into mechanical force and motion. How does a lever do that? It can only modify a force and motion that has already been produced.

The energy doesn't necessarily have to be stored in a fuel as for a combustion engine. Something like a crossbow would be a kind of engine. When the bow is drawn, energy is stored within the bow to be used at a later time to propel a bolt at a target. A lever cannot do anything like that. It could be a major part of something else that does however, like a catapult.

Edited January 26, 2009 by Wilber

[AngusThermopyle]

When the bow is drawn, energy is stored within the bow to be used at a later time to propel a bolt at a target. A lever cannot do anything like that. It could be a major part of something else that does however, like a catapult.

A Crossbow is actually just a lever, the fixed point of the bow acts as the fulcrum. I have a question for you, this is not meant to be contentious in any way, merely asked out of curiosity. Have you ever studied engineering and physics? I simply want to try to understand why you argue a contrary point when others have pointed out that I'm correct and cites have been shown to back this up.

[Wilber]

A Crossbow is actually just a lever, the fixed point of the bow acts as the fulcrum. I have a question for you, this is not meant to be contentious in any way, merely asked out of curiosity. Have you ever studied engineering and physics? I simply want to try to understand why you argue a contrary point when others have pointed out that I'm correct and cites have been shown to back this up.

The energy is stored within the bow. All it takes to propel the bolt at the target is to pull the trigger. The inert energy stored in the bow is then converted into mechanical energy to do the job. Yes it functions as a lever to do so but the apparatus is far more than just a simple lever. That is what makes it an engine. A simple lever cannot store energy or convert it into force or motion on its own, it can only modify a force or motion that has already been produced by something else. Certainly whether a particular machine may or may not be an engine is debatable but why do you maintain that a simple lever is an engine when it is obviously not so?

[Wilber]

On second thought, the bow does not function as a lever, it functions as a spring as both ends move in the same direction around the fulcrum, it cannot be a lever.