You can get most od the wat there, as we did.
Sorry, I can't follow you there.
You can get most od the wat there, as we did.
Sorry, I can't follow you there.
You can get most of the way there, as we did.
May I ask who "we" are?
A millennias-old technology, the water whel, was used in a new way. Rather than dispersed labor over a wide area (like the putting out system, which itself was quite an advancement over previous arrangements), harnessing power in a central location and placing all the workers there was the keystone of the early stages of the industrial revolution.
Now you might be right in saying that the gradual improvement of machines were only secondary to the process, but I would dispute that its core was a new organization of labor. It's core was scientific progress and its consequences.
I'd agree with these. I would add (& they may be merely subsets of the above):The requirements for industrial revolution are:
- Burnable resources (either wood, peat or coal).
- Experience with mechanization (english fulling mills in OTL, started late medieval age).
- Capital, as the research and construction of machines and steam engines is expensive.
- Intellectual background, (royal societies in OTL) who could reasonably be expected to invent such machines.
- Judicary institution for protection of inventions (patents&cetera).
- A willingness to experiment/ necessity to experiment
IMO, you're right, there are cultural/social effects, but I'm less sure Protestantism was key. It was a central factor for Britain OTL, in developing the atmosphere allowing/encouraging innovation. AFAIK, it had nothing to do with capital formation: that was driven more by primogeniture (which is one major reason China never went the same way: the Chinese subdivided bequests, the Brits didn't, & so the first-born Brit could accumulate capital, & pass it on.)This, as usual in such discussions, ignores the cultural/religious factor.
Neither 3 nor 5, or even 4 and 6, were possible without protestantism IOTL.
Given you're following a Chinese model (as it sounds like), two possibilities occur to me: vertical-axis turbines (eggbeater style), which are very much more efficient (& known to be around the 1109s in Europe), & high-altitude wind access by kites.specialization with windmill towns
I can't see why not. Oil lamps have been around a very, very long time, so oil as fuel isn't a new idea. (Petroleum is...so you might be starting with, frex, olive oil or whale oil.) AFAIK, steam engines, even the atmospheric (Newcomen) type, didn't care what the fuel was; coal had uses in manufacturing processes (for iron), but so did charcoal (for things before that), & taking a separate path for smelting or iron processing, & for powering engines, doesn't seem outrageous.would it be plausible for someone to create an oil powered steam engine?
I'm not seeing shipbuilding as a means; military shipping needs are so different from civil, there's not a lot of crossover.industrialization could have occurred in ship building or weapons manufacturing. But production was inconsistent and could be "drafted" by monarchs. There's no need to industrialize cannon manufacturing in this case.
It's not that simple. It's about rule of law: knowing contracts are enforceable, knowing your factory can't be seized by the government at will, knowing bribery isn't a given. Compare modern Russia to 18th or 19th Century BritainOTL equivalent seems to have allowed authors to copyright books and allowed corporations to copyright symbols pertaining to their company. Seems there is no record of patents for inventions through.
Am I seeing an evolution toward disembodied intelligence, here? That's pure nonsense. Once people have effective control over their environment (& we already do), biological evolution stops: it's not needed anymore. It's replaced by cultural evolution (technology, social norms, & such).Humanity progressively becomes more Eldritch