Talk:Ivan Polzunov

Image of Polzunov's Steam Engine

A photo of the model of Polzunov's engine may be found here: http://irbis.asu.ru/docs/altai/literature/images/mash11.jpg

It is unclear from this website where the model is located, or even whether it still exists...

EdJogg (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to the picture. In order to understand the probable ingenuity of the machine a drawing is needed. The text is of no help either: In 'normal' steam engines the cylinder is not pulled back by water: The first steam engines were called atmospheric engines. Later engines used cylinders that were double acting, also 'pull-back force' required. --DrJunge (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The picture used to be in the article, but was deleted as the source could not be identified. I rescued the link before we lost track of it!

Atmospheric engines do use water to move the piston: steam enters the cylinder at low pressure, and a squirt of water condenses the steam, pulling the piston down. ('in a nutshell'!) But I agree that the description here is of little help -- it rather suggests that the engines were used in places where water was not available...so how could they possibly be steam engines??

This article is sooo frustrating! Any Russian-speakers out there to give us a hand?

EdJogg (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As you said: ...a squirt of water condenses the steam..., so it is condensing of the steam that moves the piston down. How and were the condensing is done, does not matter. I share your frustration with the Russian language... -- DrJunge (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This looks like an interesting link (albeit in Russian!): http://www.vokrugsveta.ru/telegraph/technics/669/ . I found it on the Russian Wikipedia article (interwiki'd from here). It includes an early diagram.

Looking at the English link on this article, it suggests Polzunov's engine was for supplying air for smelting gold and silver at a mine (hence in the linked image, there are two air nozzles / belllows bottom right, maybe?)

EdJogg (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This page [1] has a usable description of Polzunov works on steam in the section 'Inventions of the steam engines'. The cylinders were acting directly on the bellows. Even though the direct action is different from the usual design of the balance beam, no real new innovations here. -- DrJunge (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a Google translation of that page, including its mention of nyukomenovskih machines! Two good diagrams and a close-up photo of the surviving model. Takes a bit of thinking about though! EdJogg (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your enthusiasm of the site. With regard to this project, one of the drawings would be a nice addition, but because of the lack of innovation with respect to the steam engine there is no need to include the information in the steam engine lemma. It is just the first steam engine in Russia, something for the Russian Wikipedia ans nowhere else. -- DrJunge (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Steam engine

A discussion about Ivan Polzunov's steam engine designs may be found at: Talk:Steam engine#Ivan Polzunov.

EdJogg (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Very confusing.

The prose of this article makes it very difficult to understand several passages. I assume this is due to translation from another language. Some of these are obvious and I can fix, but several others are not clear:

"The design used two cylinders on the same shaft"

Ok, so far so good...

"that allowed its operations completely independently from water power even on dry places or on mountains."

What does having two cylinders have to do with running on mountains? These statements appear to be utterly unrelated. It may be a disconnect that is referring to the following passages...

"This design was a great step forward from contemporary stem machines that used hydropower to return the pistons back and so could not be used if the hydropower was not available."

I assume this statement is talking about Newcomen's use of water to chill the stream, create a vacuum, and return the piston to its starting point. But the Newcomen design generated all of its power from this action, so if Polzunov's design did not use it, what did it do instead? Did it use pressurized steam? There's nothing in any of the references, and I find it difficult to believe given the state of technology at the time.

"as she recommended to use hydropower to return the pistons as done in Britain."

Perhaps this is it... maybe it just didn't work well and she was giving him a suggested improvement?

"were in very dry area and in summer often did not have any hydropower at all."

Again, this makes no sense. "Hydropower" generally implies extracting power from water, like a water wheel. No steam engine that I am aware of does this. On the other hand, any steam engine requires water, because that's what turns into the steam.

" museum of Barnaul and still works."

Hmmm, there appear to be several museums in Barnaul, and none of them have operating web pages except for this one, which might be the right one.

I cannot help but get the feeling that the author of this page is not really familiar with the operation of a steam engine, and has confused several topics during translation. I offer myself for help in fixing this up.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Your offer of help is most welcome. As may well be mentioned above, I have long recognised that the description was very poor, but in the absence of anything more concrete (and without suitable reference material) I didn't feel I could correct any of it.

EdJogg (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a link to a diagram, but it's dead. Does anyone have a copy of the diagram? I can likely divine the operating principle from that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the very first link on this page, then (a) yes it does appear to be dead, but (b) there is a small chance that I took a copy at home and (c) failing that you copuld try looking on the Internet Archive -- the picture has been online long enough that the URL should be visible there. EdJogg (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I really should use WayBack more... sadly the image is not terribly useful. It appears to show the two cylinders arranged over a low-pressure boiler, but what that bellows-like attachments on the left are for eludes me. I'll demure as well, pending real refs. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)