Lest the reader should doubt the comparative power of the Watt low-pressure vacuum and Trevithick's high-pressure steam-engines, a short but sufficiently close calculation shows that taking Stuart's[28] estimate of the effective power of the Watt engine at 8½ lbs. on each square inch of the piston, and Trevithick's engine at anything approaching to 150 lbs. on each square inch, it becomes evident that the latter would be ten or twenty times more powerful than the former. A few figures will put the question in more practical form.
The Wheal Prosper 16-inch pole high-pressure expansive steam vacuum engine commenced its up-stroke with steam of 100 lbs. on the inch, acting on the 122 square inches of the pole, which steam at the finish of the stroke was reduced by expansion to 10 lbs., giving, say, an average steam pressure of 55 lbs. The down-stroke was caused by a vacuum under the pole of 14 lbs. on the inch, reduced by, say, one-third loss in working the air-pump to 9 lbs., giving from the compound stroke a force of 64 lbs. on each square inch, which, multiplied by the area of the pole, gives a net force of 7808 lbs.
The Herland 33-inch pole high-pressure expansive steam puffer-engine commenced its up-stroke with steam of 150 lbs. on the inch, acting on the 855 square inches of the pole, which steam at the finish of the stroke—we will suppose—was reduced by expansion to 75 lbs., giving an average steam pressure of, say, 112. As this puffer-engine used no vacuum, the down-stroke gave no increase of power; its compound stroke was therefore a force of 112 lbs. on each square inch, which, multiplied by the area of the pole, gives a net force of 95,760 lbs.
To compare the Trevithick high-pressure steam pumping engine, with the Watt low-pressure steam pumping engine, take one of the largest of the latter, made about that time, say, with an 80-inch cylinder, which commenced its down-stroke with steam of, say, 3 lbs. on the inch, acting on the 5000 square inches of the piston, which steam at the finish of the stroke—the writer is describing the usage at that time, for Watt himself advocated a less steam pressure—was reduced by expansion to, say, 1 lb., giving an average steam pressure of, say, 2 lbs. on the top of the piston, whose under side was in vacuum equal to 14 lbs. on the inch, reduced by, say, one-third loss in working the air-pump to 9 lbs., which power, from vacuum added to the 2 lbs. from steam, gives a net force of 11 lbs. on each square inch of the piston. As the Watt pumping engine moved in equilibrium during its up-stroke, it thereby gained no increase of power; its compound stroke was therefore a force of 11 lbs. on each square inch, which, multiplied by the area of the piston, gives a net force of 55,000 lbs.
The practical comparison therefore stands,—Trevithick's 16-inch pole high-pressure steam, and vacuum, on each inch 64 lbs., net force 7808 lbs.; Trevithick's 33-inch pole high-pressure steam, without vacuum, on each inch 112 lbs., net force 95,760 lbs.; Watt's 80-inch piston, low-pressure steam, and vacuum, on each inch 11 lbs., net force 55,000 lbs. As the first cost was mainly dependent on the size, the Trevithick engine was commercially much more valuable than the Watt engine.
"I saw Captain Trevithick's puffer working at the Herland Mine. The steam used to blow off like blue fire—it was so strong. The lever on the safety-valve was about 3 feet long, with a great weight on it, more than a hundredweight. The engine did not answer very well, for the packing in the pole stuffing box used to burn out, and a cloud of steam escaped. The greatest difficulty was in the leaking of the boilers. You could hardly go near them. Before that time we always put rope-yarn between the lap of the boiler-plates to make the seams tight. Captain Dick's high-pressure steam burnt it all out. He said, 'Now you shall never make another boiler for me with rope-yarn.' Everybody said it was impossible to make a tight boiler without it. We put barrowfuls of horse-dung and bran in Captain Dick's boilers to stop the leaks."[29]
This difficulty of making a tight and safe boiler, that puzzled Watt, was moonshine to Trevithick. When the strained boiler and flinching rivets allowed the boiler-house to become full of dense steam, Trevithick told them to cover it up with ashes, they would not see it quite so much then, and it would keep the heat in the boiler. Bran or horse-dung inside was a good thing as a stop-gap, though it added not to the strength of the boiler. Trevithick was himself in a cloud of steam in the engine-house; yet, with such surroundings, he turned on and off his gunpowder steam, from his cannon of a pole-case, of 40 tons force, sending his bolt-shot pole, 33 inches in diameter, its destined course of ten feet, and back again, as though it were a shuttlecock, several times in a minute.
Having by one or two years of experience proved the value of his new pole-engine, he applied for a patent on the 13th June, 1815,[30] of which the following is the portion referring particularly to the pole-engine:—
"Instead of a piston working in the main cylinder of the steam-engine, I do use a plunger-pole similar to those employed in pumps for lifting water, and I do make the said plunger-pole nearly of the same diameter as the working cylinder, having only space enough between the pole and the cylinder to prevent friction, or, in case the steam is admitted near the stuffing box, I leave sufficient room for the steam to pass to the bottom of the cylinder, and I do make at the upper end of the cylinder for the plunger-pole to pass through a stuffing box of much greater depth than usual, into which stuffing box I do introduce enough of the usual packing to fill it one-third high. Upon this packing I place a ring of metal, occupying about another third part of the depth of the stuffing box, this ring having a circular groove at the inside, and a hole or holes through it communicating with the outside, and with a hole through the side of the stuffing box; or, instead of one ring containing a groove, I sometimes place two thinner rings, kept asunder by a number of pillars to about the distance of one-third of the depth of the stuffing box, and I pack the remaining space above the ring or rings, and secure the whole down in the usual manner. The intention of this arrangement is to produce the effect of two stuffing boxes, allowing a space between the two stuffings for water to pass freely in from the boiler or forcing pump through a pipe and through the hole in the side of the stuffing box, so as to surround the plunger-pole and form the ring of water for the purpose of preventing the escape of steam by keeping up an equilibrium between the water above the lower stuffing and the steam in the cylinder. By this part of my said invention I obviate the necessity of that tight packing which is requisite when steam of a high pressure is used, and consequently I avoid a greater proportion of the usual friction, because a very moderate degree of tightness in the packing is quite sufficient to prevent the passage of any injurious quantity of so dense a fluid as water. And I do further declare that I use the plunger-pole, working in a cylinder and through a double stuffing, either with or without a condenser, according to the nature of the work which the steam-engine is to perform."
Though Trevithick has been spoken of as a visionary, intractable schemer, observation shows that he adhered with tenacity to original ideas, proved to be good. The plunger-pole pump, the water-pressure engine, the Camborne locomotive, the pole steam-engine, were all built on the same groundwork originally started with, of greatest simplicity of form, and absence of many pieces; and it may be observed that he never applied for a patent until the value of the idea had been proved by experiment.