This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've taken a picture and stuck it on here for now, hoping it will make it easier for readers to visualize the device; it's not a good picture, though. The model is fairly unlike Hero's original, and the photograph is poorly composed. If anyone has a better one, I hope we can replace this quickly! - FZ 23:58, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that perspective drawing wasn't around in the first century. Attributing the illustration to Hero is pretty sloppy. The link to http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/hero/section50.html is dead.
I have video of a running Hero's engine from my glass shop class this last year - it's a little out of focus, and the engine is glass, but it still definitely gets the point across of how they run. If I put it on Youtube, would it be useful to add a link to it in this article? (Or is there some better way to reference videos in Wikipedia articles?) Splowey ( talk) 01:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Can this thing do a useful amount of work?
Is escaping steam an efficient way of using the energy?
A steam engine builds up pressure inside its boilder to severals atmospheres, and the higher the pressure the more work it can do.
The boiler of the Aeolipile works at 1 atmosphere, so its poer potential is surely very small.
Tabletop 08:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I 've read a reference on Heron that called aeolipile Αιόλου πύλη or αιολοπύλη. Aeolus was the god who ruled the winds and πύλη is the greek word for gate, porte.
Although Pneumatika has survived in greek I could only find an online version translated in english (searching Heron's external links).
So Heron used this invention to open temple door with help of wind and perhaps this is how the term aeolipile occured. But we can only verify that 100% by checking a copy of Pneumatika in greek and see how he spelled aeolipile etc. MATIA 11:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
An aeolipile is a rocket-like device, but it was not the first rocket.
The first reaction engine, the aeolipile (a ball that rotated as a reaction to escaping steam), was constructed by the inventor Heron (or Hero) of Alexandria. Developments through the centuries have resulted in two general types of reaction machines, the true rocket and the airstream engine, commonly known as the jet engine. Unlike a jet engine, a rocket engine carries with it chemicals that enable it to burn its fuel without drawing air from an outside source. - The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press
-- Sean Brunnock 13:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source new! jet engine n. 1. An engine that develops thrust by ejecting a jet, especially a jet of gaseous combustion products. 2. An engine that obtains the oxygen needed from the atmosphere, used especially to propel aircraft and distinguished from rocket engines having self-contained fuel-oxidizer systems.
What's wrong with this? It's directly related to the subject matter...are we worried about copyvio?
What home is complete without a genuine, operating aeolipile? If you haven't gotten an aeolipile by now, send for one right away. After you've received and used it, you will say, 'How did I get along for such a long time without an aeolipile?' Aeolipiles can be used by the whole family. Show them that you too have an aeolipile. Imagine the surprise on the faces of your friends when, in the middle of nowhere, you whip out your brand-new aeolipile. Wow. The girls will really admire you when they hear that you have an aeolipile.
What right do we have to claim this is a spoof? The magazine was obviously selling them to the public. This article should be covering the reasons why they are no longer in use as domestic appliances / security devices / business toys, etc...
EdJogg 19:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The aeolipile's unusual look inspired Mad Magazine to include the device as a visual element in various articles over the years, starting with the cover of issue #21 which parodied the popular mail-order house Johnson Smith Company. [1]
The Mad magazine quote should be included in a section called 'In Popular Culture'. It is probably where many people first heard of the things! 2.25.46.49 ( talk) 11:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
References
This *is* a spoof. Other items in this same page include ads something like “Real alligator. Study its habits. Learn to keep out of its way. Put in your pool. Imagine the look on your friends faces as they are pulled under the surface. Wow!” This whole thing appeared on an early MAD cover as a clear parody of comic book novelty ads.
Anyway, the girls will really admire you when they hear you have an aeliopile, 2A00:23C7:E287:1900:9CD1:65F4:F739:E05C ( talk) 01:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
This article has just been labelled as a stub. Fine, it is a short article. But how much more could we seriously expect to write about it?
Hero(n)'s description amounts to a single paragraph (in the translation) + a diagram. It might be useful to quote that paragraph here, and provide an annotated diagram. But what else?
If we cannot reasonably expect to expand the article, is there any point in keeping the stub templates in place? At what point can we make this decision? Is there a template to say: "yes-we-know-this-is-a-stub-length-article-but-there-is-little-more-to-add"?
Suggestions?
EdJogg ( talk) 13:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I feel this article would be much improved, if the historic implementation(s) of this type of device were to be seperated out from the Mechanics of why they spin. The main problem areas as I see it are too do with the questions of "Were they put to work by Heron" and "How does it work/Can it be be used for useful work". The current article can be confusing, and is very susceptible to FUD(which doesn't help anyone!) because it doesn't take into acount that "engineers" largely consider the principles/physics of the device, while historians are more concerned about historic events/life. Both of these viewpoints are valid/verifiable, but it should be realised that are covering quite different areas:- hence my call for the subsections.
In the section on mechanics, a simple Free body diagram of the device seems warranted. It would help provide a clearer visualisation of the key components, and provides a good start for those who wished to detail/study it's motion in more detail. It should be said here that while it may be inefficent at doing so, it can certainly be used to drive a shaft/generator, and therefore Engineers would say it CAN generate useful work (using the defination of Work_(thermodynamics) as used by engineers). Also perhaps link to Catherine_wheel as their motion is produced in a very simlar manour to that of the aelipile's, because of the use of a Couple_(mechanics)
The "history" section should also make it easier for those more qualified in the device's history/background than I am, to verify why the device WAS NOT put to useful work in antiquity/ and hopefully give reasons for the confusion. Given the presence of a physics section, it would be nice to include possible reasons as to why wasn't used "back then", but perhaps this isn't verifiable as yet! IMHO it's probably all down to the relative costs (both of "fuel"/running costs and purchase) of the technology compared to using other forms of work such as animal/slaves for motive power. (To me that sounds like it's to do with [Energy_economics]] and forms a body of potential PHD material for an engineering historian??? ...and therefore probably not suitable for Wikipedia. YET!)
Any suggestions?
Any objections?
steve10345 ( talk) 03:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I have raised a question on the talk page for Hero of Alexandria (see Talk:Hero of Alexandria#Inventor or Describer??) to determine whether Hero should be documented here as the inventor of the aeolipile, or merely that he described it.
Please comment there if you can shed light on this matter. Thanks.
EdJogg ( talk) 09:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I've polished up the vitruvius info a little. I hope you don't mind. - Rob talk 22:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed this article is currently under wikiprojects Physics. While the device certainly utilises principles from Physics and is often used to demonstrate such principles, would it not be better placed under technology? To my mind the distinction is physics describes things which can happen, where as technology is a utilisation of physics to control what happens steve10345 ( talk) 16:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The article currently reads:
When the nozzles, pointing in different directions, produce forces along different lines of action perpendicular to the axis of the bearings, the thrusts combine to result in a rotational moment (mechanical couple), or torque, causing the vessel to spin about its axis.
This suggests that multiple nozzles are required to create a moment. This is incorrect - the force from 1 nozzle is enough to create a moment about the axis. Multiple, equally-spaced nozzles multiply that moment while eliminating most other forces and moments through superposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.138.148 ( talk) 15:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Just to say I'm going to be copy editing the article over the next few days, with a view to getting it to GA. All comments welcome! Amitchell125 ( talk) 22:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC).
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've taken a picture and stuck it on here for now, hoping it will make it easier for readers to visualize the device; it's not a good picture, though. The model is fairly unlike Hero's original, and the photograph is poorly composed. If anyone has a better one, I hope we can replace this quickly! - FZ 23:58, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that perspective drawing wasn't around in the first century. Attributing the illustration to Hero is pretty sloppy. The link to http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/hero/section50.html is dead.
I have video of a running Hero's engine from my glass shop class this last year - it's a little out of focus, and the engine is glass, but it still definitely gets the point across of how they run. If I put it on Youtube, would it be useful to add a link to it in this article? (Or is there some better way to reference videos in Wikipedia articles?) Splowey ( talk) 01:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Can this thing do a useful amount of work?
Is escaping steam an efficient way of using the energy?
A steam engine builds up pressure inside its boilder to severals atmospheres, and the higher the pressure the more work it can do.
The boiler of the Aeolipile works at 1 atmosphere, so its poer potential is surely very small.
Tabletop 08:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I 've read a reference on Heron that called aeolipile Αιόλου πύλη or αιολοπύλη. Aeolus was the god who ruled the winds and πύλη is the greek word for gate, porte.
Although Pneumatika has survived in greek I could only find an online version translated in english (searching Heron's external links).
So Heron used this invention to open temple door with help of wind and perhaps this is how the term aeolipile occured. But we can only verify that 100% by checking a copy of Pneumatika in greek and see how he spelled aeolipile etc. MATIA 11:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
An aeolipile is a rocket-like device, but it was not the first rocket.
The first reaction engine, the aeolipile (a ball that rotated as a reaction to escaping steam), was constructed by the inventor Heron (or Hero) of Alexandria. Developments through the centuries have resulted in two general types of reaction machines, the true rocket and the airstream engine, commonly known as the jet engine. Unlike a jet engine, a rocket engine carries with it chemicals that enable it to burn its fuel without drawing air from an outside source. - The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press
-- Sean Brunnock 13:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source new! jet engine n. 1. An engine that develops thrust by ejecting a jet, especially a jet of gaseous combustion products. 2. An engine that obtains the oxygen needed from the atmosphere, used especially to propel aircraft and distinguished from rocket engines having self-contained fuel-oxidizer systems.
What's wrong with this? It's directly related to the subject matter...are we worried about copyvio?
What home is complete without a genuine, operating aeolipile? If you haven't gotten an aeolipile by now, send for one right away. After you've received and used it, you will say, 'How did I get along for such a long time without an aeolipile?' Aeolipiles can be used by the whole family. Show them that you too have an aeolipile. Imagine the surprise on the faces of your friends when, in the middle of nowhere, you whip out your brand-new aeolipile. Wow. The girls will really admire you when they hear that you have an aeolipile.
What right do we have to claim this is a spoof? The magazine was obviously selling them to the public. This article should be covering the reasons why they are no longer in use as domestic appliances / security devices / business toys, etc...
EdJogg 19:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The aeolipile's unusual look inspired Mad Magazine to include the device as a visual element in various articles over the years, starting with the cover of issue #21 which parodied the popular mail-order house Johnson Smith Company. [1]
The Mad magazine quote should be included in a section called 'In Popular Culture'. It is probably where many people first heard of the things! 2.25.46.49 ( talk) 11:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
References
This *is* a spoof. Other items in this same page include ads something like “Real alligator. Study its habits. Learn to keep out of its way. Put in your pool. Imagine the look on your friends faces as they are pulled under the surface. Wow!” This whole thing appeared on an early MAD cover as a clear parody of comic book novelty ads.
Anyway, the girls will really admire you when they hear you have an aeliopile, 2A00:23C7:E287:1900:9CD1:65F4:F739:E05C ( talk) 01:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
This article has just been labelled as a stub. Fine, it is a short article. But how much more could we seriously expect to write about it?
Hero(n)'s description amounts to a single paragraph (in the translation) + a diagram. It might be useful to quote that paragraph here, and provide an annotated diagram. But what else?
If we cannot reasonably expect to expand the article, is there any point in keeping the stub templates in place? At what point can we make this decision? Is there a template to say: "yes-we-know-this-is-a-stub-length-article-but-there-is-little-more-to-add"?
Suggestions?
EdJogg ( talk) 13:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I feel this article would be much improved, if the historic implementation(s) of this type of device were to be seperated out from the Mechanics of why they spin. The main problem areas as I see it are too do with the questions of "Were they put to work by Heron" and "How does it work/Can it be be used for useful work". The current article can be confusing, and is very susceptible to FUD(which doesn't help anyone!) because it doesn't take into acount that "engineers" largely consider the principles/physics of the device, while historians are more concerned about historic events/life. Both of these viewpoints are valid/verifiable, but it should be realised that are covering quite different areas:- hence my call for the subsections.
In the section on mechanics, a simple Free body diagram of the device seems warranted. It would help provide a clearer visualisation of the key components, and provides a good start for those who wished to detail/study it's motion in more detail. It should be said here that while it may be inefficent at doing so, it can certainly be used to drive a shaft/generator, and therefore Engineers would say it CAN generate useful work (using the defination of Work_(thermodynamics) as used by engineers). Also perhaps link to Catherine_wheel as their motion is produced in a very simlar manour to that of the aelipile's, because of the use of a Couple_(mechanics)
The "history" section should also make it easier for those more qualified in the device's history/background than I am, to verify why the device WAS NOT put to useful work in antiquity/ and hopefully give reasons for the confusion. Given the presence of a physics section, it would be nice to include possible reasons as to why wasn't used "back then", but perhaps this isn't verifiable as yet! IMHO it's probably all down to the relative costs (both of "fuel"/running costs and purchase) of the technology compared to using other forms of work such as animal/slaves for motive power. (To me that sounds like it's to do with [Energy_economics]] and forms a body of potential PHD material for an engineering historian??? ...and therefore probably not suitable for Wikipedia. YET!)
Any suggestions?
Any objections?
steve10345 ( talk) 03:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I have raised a question on the talk page for Hero of Alexandria (see Talk:Hero of Alexandria#Inventor or Describer??) to determine whether Hero should be documented here as the inventor of the aeolipile, or merely that he described it.
Please comment there if you can shed light on this matter. Thanks.
EdJogg ( talk) 09:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I've polished up the vitruvius info a little. I hope you don't mind. - Rob talk 22:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed this article is currently under wikiprojects Physics. While the device certainly utilises principles from Physics and is often used to demonstrate such principles, would it not be better placed under technology? To my mind the distinction is physics describes things which can happen, where as technology is a utilisation of physics to control what happens steve10345 ( talk) 16:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The article currently reads:
When the nozzles, pointing in different directions, produce forces along different lines of action perpendicular to the axis of the bearings, the thrusts combine to result in a rotational moment (mechanical couple), or torque, causing the vessel to spin about its axis.
This suggests that multiple nozzles are required to create a moment. This is incorrect - the force from 1 nozzle is enough to create a moment about the axis. Multiple, equally-spaced nozzles multiply that moment while eliminating most other forces and moments through superposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.138.148 ( talk) 15:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Just to say I'm going to be copy editing the article over the next few days, with a view to getting it to GA. All comments welcome! Amitchell125 ( talk) 22:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC).