Hi Daniel,
I strongly suggest you add the Parallel Motion linkage (per James Watt's beam engines - Look them up on the web).
Personally, I feel a Model should be:
# a relatively true representation of the "original idea" - as the earliest models were small copies of effigies of Gods, etc. - probably seen in ancient Egypt, or earlier.
In the case of the Beam engine you are creating, the (omitted) "parallel motion" is a key engineering feature, where the linear motion of the piston translates to the curved motion of the end of the beam, so the beam's motion can translate into circular rotating motion at the crank.
# A "Toy" however, is a very simple representation of something (even an imaginary or impossible something!) for entertainment of "young" minds. Sometimes, but not necessarily, a Toy has educational and inspirational purposes, to stimulate interest in a subject or to teach some principles.
The Watt Beam engine is all about changing the direction of motion, from linear to rotational, and thus using the stored energy in the rotating flywheel to move the engine from a power stroke through a non-power phase into the next power stroke. - In this respect, the single acting valve arrangement, as you have it, is acceptable, though not replicating the original engines which I think were all double acting by the time James Watt used this arrangement of engine. Yet it still uses the Watt principle of steam pressure for the power stroke.
Earlier engines, using different principles (Atmospheric "Power", developed by steam condensing to vacuum) - as per Newcomen - were single acting, but not continuously running and did not have rotating flywheels. So, in many ways your toy confuses many historic engineering principles.
Only you can decide if you are a "toy" maker, or "Model" maker. - If it is relevant to your business strategy. Your Kacio engines and boiler demonstrate reversing valve gear and have the complexity of double acting engines, and many other engineering features, so perhaps this beam engine as single-acting is too simple for your portfolio? Seeing the "ENJOMOR Watt Steam Engine Reactor Model Steam Pump with Boiler Generator" - which is a poor replica of many ideas that James Watt produced and incorporated in his engines - then I feel his name and engineering is being ignored or abused here. Some toys can corrupt, rather than teach true history.
This is only my opinion, so please do not be offended by anything I have written. We all make decisions about what we want to do from different perspectives, therefore have different opinions and make different decisions.
K2
I strongly suggest you add the Parallel Motion linkage (per James Watt's beam engines - Look them up on the web).
Personally, I feel a Model should be:
# a relatively true representation of the "original idea" - as the earliest models were small copies of effigies of Gods, etc. - probably seen in ancient Egypt, or earlier.
In the case of the Beam engine you are creating, the (omitted) "parallel motion" is a key engineering feature, where the linear motion of the piston translates to the curved motion of the end of the beam, so the beam's motion can translate into circular rotating motion at the crank.
# A "Toy" however, is a very simple representation of something (even an imaginary or impossible something!) for entertainment of "young" minds. Sometimes, but not necessarily, a Toy has educational and inspirational purposes, to stimulate interest in a subject or to teach some principles.
The Watt Beam engine is all about changing the direction of motion, from linear to rotational, and thus using the stored energy in the rotating flywheel to move the engine from a power stroke through a non-power phase into the next power stroke. - In this respect, the single acting valve arrangement, as you have it, is acceptable, though not replicating the original engines which I think were all double acting by the time James Watt used this arrangement of engine. Yet it still uses the Watt principle of steam pressure for the power stroke.
Earlier engines, using different principles (Atmospheric "Power", developed by steam condensing to vacuum) - as per Newcomen - were single acting, but not continuously running and did not have rotating flywheels. So, in many ways your toy confuses many historic engineering principles.
Only you can decide if you are a "toy" maker, or "Model" maker. - If it is relevant to your business strategy. Your Kacio engines and boiler demonstrate reversing valve gear and have the complexity of double acting engines, and many other engineering features, so perhaps this beam engine as single-acting is too simple for your portfolio? Seeing the "ENJOMOR Watt Steam Engine Reactor Model Steam Pump with Boiler Generator" - which is a poor replica of many ideas that James Watt produced and incorporated in his engines - then I feel his name and engineering is being ignored or abused here. Some toys can corrupt, rather than teach true history.
This is only my opinion, so please do not be offended by anything I have written. We all make decisions about what we want to do from different perspectives, therefore have different opinions and make different decisions.
K2
Last edited:
