Talk:James Watt/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Where is he buried?

That's the question: The whole literature here in Germany talks about Westminster Abbey but now I read St. Mary's Church, Handsworth which I never heard before. Could you please help me, because the answer for this question is very important to me and my planed wiki reader "Kraftwerk und Energie". --Markus Schweiss 19:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Now, that could be a probably solution: James Watt's grave is actually in Mary's Church, but the monument in Westminster Abbey has to be seen like a cenotaph. To whom it concerns, here is the label of the monument in Westminster Abbey:
JAMES WATT
WHO DIRECTING THE FORCE OF AN ORIGINAL GENIUS
EARLY EXERCISED IN PHILOSOPHIC RESEARCH
TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF
THE STEAM-ENGINE
ENLARGED THE RESOURCES OF HIS COUNTRY
INCREASED THE POWER OF MAN
AND ROSE TO AN EMINENT PLACE
AMONG THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS FOLLOWERS OF SCIENCE
AND THE REAL BENEFACTORS OF THE WORLD
BORN AT GREENOCK MDCCXXXVI
DIED AT HEATHFIELD IN STAFFORDSHIRE MDCCCXIX
Markus Schweiss 20:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Watt v Gainsborough

On the Steam Engine page it is suggested that the condensing engine was in fact invented by Humphrey Gainsborough. The implication being Watt ‘stole’ the idea. Important if true. A quick Google confirms that there are a number of sites crediting Gainsborough with the invention. If the external condenser was not in fact Watt’s original idea then it throws a rather different light on his achievement (and character.) Though, to be fair, Gainsborough ought to have had more sense than to show his idea to anyone before patenting it. If there is a credible controversy as to the invention then it ought to be mentioned here. Does anyone have reliable info? PS. I have also added this comment to the Stream Engine discussion. (Added 21 Feb 2006)

No information on this particular controversy but it is well established that later in his career Watt patented the inventions of his employees (most prominently William Murdoch) as his own. Also 'Industrial espionage' was quite common at that time in that industry as news of new inventions/processes & experiments tended to slip out, especially as people wanted to show them off to their friends & fellow experimenters in the field. As a result there is rather a lot of court evidence on the various patent infringement lawsuits of the time (of which Watt made full use). I think though that we should get a proper source for the claim that Gainsborough showed Watt his invention (frankly a claim is likely to be all it it simply because there is unlikely to be much substantial documentary evidence) but if someone has made the claim &, given the known facts, it sounds reasonable or possible then we should include the claim (properly sourced & attributed of course). AllanHainey 15:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of James Watt

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Undead activity?

Under the controversy tag the dates seem to be wrong. If Watt died in 1819, why is he writing letters in the 1880's? I'm not entirely sure how to fix this so I think a seasoned editor might want to fix it. - 89.152.26.82 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Taken in the context, it's evidently a mistype. Good thing you pointed it out. For the time being I've changed two "hundred-year-out" dates in that section to 1782 and 1794, but they will need double-checking to be absolutely sure of the exact dates.--John of Paris 08:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Lunar Soc.

I would have thought that the link was more appropriate here than in the Watt engine article.--John of Paris 08:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Date of death

seems there are two different versions online 25 Aug 1819 and 19 Aug 1819. I checked Encyclopaedia Britannica, it says 25 Aug. Wang ty87916 06:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit: this isn't the OP, but i don't know how to make a new post some i'm doing this. I was just reading The Sceintists by John Gribbon, and he says Watt died 25 Aug 1819, but at Birmingham.--Stormfist 21:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just comes across this. True, there are a large number of online sites that say he died on 25 August 1819. But just as many say he died on 19 August. None of them, to my knowledge, acknowledge the other date even to the extent of explaining why their version is correct. Can anyone put this to rest so that we know for certain which date is correct. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry states "25th August". This biography is properly referenced (a good model for what WP should be!) and it is hard to believe that such an obvious fact could be incorrect in that tome.
However, other "equally-reliable" online sources ("James Watt" by Andrew Carnegie (1905), "James Watt" by Thomas Marshall (1925), and the BBC History webpage) all state 19 August.
As "19 August" has been present in this article since it was created, in November 2001, I don't feel that I can safely assume that the ODNB is any more right than any of the others.
It would be good to get to the bottom of this...
EdJogg (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. The fact that 19 August has been there since the start of this article does not mean anything. Obviously the original editor had that date in his/her source. A different creator might just as well have had a 25 August source. But I agree that we don't have enough evidence either way to be certain of the date. What I would like to do is add a note acknowledging that 25 August appears in many reputable sources, just so that we don't appear to be being categorical about 19 August. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
If I may say, a very sensible solution. Hopefully someone will now go along to the public records office and find his death certificate! EdJogg (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I've raised the issue at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#James Watt’s date of death, and hopefully some good soul will come up with the goods soon enough. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Obit from The Times. The full obit (The Times, Wednesday, Sep 15, 1819; pg. 3; Issue 10725; col E) - states 25 August - story ascribed to "an eminent writer". Initial report of death is (The Times, Saturday, Aug 28, 1819; pg. 3; Issue 10710; col F) again stating 25th August. Jooler (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Jooler. That satisfies me personally that he died on 25 August, but I'd rather leave it uncertain in the article at this stage given the large number of reputable sources that give the other date. I'd bet money that 19 came from either his birth date 19 January, or 1819 - but we don't know that for a fact as yet. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The undernoted has been copied from the Humanities Reference Desk. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, then, Jack, here below is the opening paragraph of an obituary headed The Late Mr Watt, and published by The Scotsman, the main Scottish daily, on page five of the edition for 4 September 1819:
Death is still busy in our high places:-And it is with great pain that we find ourselves called upon so soon after the death of Mr Playfair, to record the decease of another of our illustrious countrymen,-and one to whom mankind has been still more largely indebted. Mr James Watt, the great improver of the steam-engine, died on the 25 ult.[ultimo], at his seat of Heathfield, near Birmingham, in the 84th year of his age.
You can call the page up on The Scotsman's digital archive, though at a price, I'm sorry to say!
This date is repeated in Watt's entry in The Scottish Nation, a three volume biographical dictionary published in 1868, where it says on page 199;
Mr Watt died at his residence, on his estate at Heathfield, near Soho, August 25 1819, at the age of eighty-three years and seven months, and was interred in the chancel of the adjoining parish church of Handsworth...
James Watt: Craftsman and Engineer, a scholarly monograph by H. W. Dickinson, published in 1936, likewise gives the date of death as 25 August with burial following on 2 September at Handsworth. The earliest I have been able to trace the erroneous 19 August date-and it is erroneous- is to James Watt by William Jacks, a rather light-weight work, published in Glasgow in 1901.
I'll post all of this also on the James Watt talk page. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Aha!! Clio to the rescue, as always. So that's it, then. He died on 25th August and was buried on 2nd September, 8 days later - which was a long enough interval as it is. Had he died on 19th August, his burial would have been 2 weeks after his death, a highly unlikely circumstance. Thanks for clearing this little mystery up, Clio. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Watt's Garret room workshop

Should we mentioned this workshop: http://www.makingthemodernworld.org.uk/stories/the_age_of_the_engineer/03.ST.03/?scene=5&tv=true? I have a pic taken yesterday: http://www.flickr.com/photos/frankieroberto/2538445808/, it's pretty amazing... Frankie Roberto (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Unquestionably, yes!
It is covered (indirectly) under 'Later years', but should be described in much more detail, especially as it is still extant.
EdJogg (talk) 10:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Steam Mill Mad

This link: http://www.makingthemodernworld.org.uk/stories/the_age_of_the_engineer/03.ST.03/?scene=2 gives an interesting insight into the development of rotative engines and the reason why Watt is so-often credited as 'the inventor of the steam engine' (Encyc. Brit. - 3rd ed. - 1797). Worth following up. EdJogg (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Page move

I've moved this page back to James Watt as it appears the inventor is the most notable and well known person of this name, and I cannot see any discussion prior to its recent move to James Watt (inventor). Tim! (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Good call—appreciated. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree! DonSiano (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
A sensible decision, thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I second third fourth fifth that! - EdJogg (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I had started to fix some of the hundreds of bad links generated by the original move, and had invited the admin who made that move to help, but this is a much better fix. DuncanHill (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
What about the 160+ links that were created by all the movement? Anyone familiar with AWB?
EdJogg (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Links to James Watt (inventor) don't generally need to be fixed back. DuncanHill (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair comment. On the basis of server loading, etc, it is not appropriate to edit a page just to change a link like this. However, I have reverted the change on the three template pages. The majority of the indicated redirects are (were) as a result of the {{Age of Enlightenment}} template. EdJogg (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Great Britain

This is a sensitive subject, so this only a tentative suggestion: "Kingdom of Great Britain" is factually correct, but perhaps seems cumbersome in this context. I'm suggesting a pipe to give "Britain" only.--Old Moonraker (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Honours

It seems like the fragment "See also: Watt" would be happier living next to the explanation of the Watt unit, rather than his fellowships interposed between them. Also, I think the sentence "Note that "degree Celsius" conforms to this rule because the "d" is lowercase." should be omitted from this section-- it's not directly relevant in any way. 75.164.247.153 (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Max

Centrifugal Governor Date

The Centrifugal governor page says that Watt added the device to the steam engine in 1788. This page seem to imply that is happened between 1781-1782. Which is right? Lot 49atalk 03:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Well spotted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Well fixed! :) Lot 49atalk 05:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed statement

I removed the following statement from the article:

Watt had a brother by the name of John. He was shipwrecked when James was 17.

This statement is completely unsourced. I searched for something similar on Google and came up with a number of hits, but all of them appeared to be Wikipedia mirrors or copied from Wikipedia. If anyone can find a source for this, please add it back into the article and include the source. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 18:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have checked R. L. Hills, James Watt I (via its index). James Watt did have a brother John (known as Jockey) (1739-1762). He was in trade at Bristol. I cannot a reference to the shipwreck, but since it was not fatal, I regard it as a NN event and Jockey as NN person. I therefore decline to restore the text. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the research. I agree that James’ brother John, a.k.a. Jockey, it probably non-noteworthy, lacking any other information about him. I would have no objection to a one-sentence statement that James had a brother John. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Uncorrected Vandalism?

Could those editors familiar with this article (and/or its editing history) please examine this diff? It covers the period between now and 22nd September last year. There is a great chunk of information missing, and I haven't had the time to trawl through the 294 intervening edits to work out when it was removed and why. The edit summaries do not obviously indicate an editorial decision to remove this section, although I know that some 'proper' changes have been applied, some of which have removed content intentionally. I am also aware that some headings were applied to this section during the period, and these have also been lost.

This page is not normally on my watchlist due to the level of vandalism. Usually I would check it once a week to make sure all is well. Recently I've got rather behind with this (sorry!)

If I don't get a response to this request, I will 'assume vandalism' and revert the offending text in the next few days.

EdJogg (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The big chunk about his earlier years should certainly go back. Well spotted! DuncanHill (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and restored it, but other editors may wish to double-check, and also to look at the way I've sectioned it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Thank you. I had spent some considerable time working through Sept 22 to about Oct 15 and couldn't face it any more!
Some editors will (understandably) see and correct vandalism without checking the edit history; also some bots can 'fix' problems with vandal text, disguising the problem. These can both 'lose' vandalism within the page; the hardest to spot being loss of content. A longer-term view as I did here can spot such problems, and is of great use for a vandalism-prone page if checking every edit is non-viable. Thanks for the confirmation.
EdJogg (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
You know, I had been wondering why it leapt straight to his later years, never thought to do a long-term comparison, thanks for the tip. DuncanHill (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Another tip: when you're checking infrequently over extended periods like this, once you have a 'known good' version, make a small edit (useful, if possible) so that you have a sound base point to use as a reference the next time you check. EdJogg (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I haven't pinned it down exactly, but it seems to have gone in the latter half of October - there was multiple IP vandalism, which was being partially reverted, and corrupted paras just removed instead of restored to clean versions. DuncanHill (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Well done. I have removed the reference to brother John, whom I think we discussed about that time and decided to omit. There is now a three volume biography of Watt. We cannot allow the article to cover every minute detail. This is an encyclopaedia, not a genealogy site. Any chance of getting this article up to GA-status? Peterkingiron (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I was aware that this change had been made, but didn't have time to seek and re-apply it.
EdJogg (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Towards GA?

For GA, three things immediately spring to mind:

  1. It is currently only 'C' class (so GA is a jump of 3 steps)
  2. The article lede is much too short
  3. The vast majority of the text is unreferenced (or at least is not indicated by inline citations)

These need to be tackled before we try to go any further.

Incidentally, I managed to get the page semi-protected for 3 months, so we have a good breathing space in which to work!

EdJogg (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have expanded the lead and I'm starting to work on inline citations. This will be a fair chunk of work because the article is very fact rich. Everything I've seen so far has been easy to back up with citations, usually from the existing "further reading" sources. Thparkth (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep up the good work. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed! Active Banana (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"Controversy" section

I've been reading around the issue of Watt's collaboration with Murdock, and I'm not sure that "controversy" is quite the right word to use. There is no question that Watt patented the sun-and-planet gear even though it was actually invented by Murdock, but given that Murdock was in his employ (and apparently very-well remunerated), it's not obvious that this was seen as unusual or wrong at the time. In the case of the locomotive, it's obvious that Watt & Boulton didn't support Murdock's work, but this was apparently due to Watt's distrust of high-pressure steam on safety grounds. Given that Murdock was by all accounts, very loyal and a close friend of Watt's until his death, is there really a "controversy" here, or does it only appear so in the light of modern revisionism?

I'm quite tempted to change the title of this section to "criticism" rather than "controversy" and focus on the possible delay to the development of the locomotive. Any comments?

Thparkth (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


Why not British in the infobox?

Instead of "Kingdom of Great Britain"? which doesn't make sense anyway. On Charles Darwin it says British twice in his infobox? Why does the British label only seem to be on famous English people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.142.135 (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see the section "Citizenship" above. DuncanHill (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Not the actual inventor/ Totally disputed tag

According to a talk at Wikimania 2006, Watt receives too much credit for the steam engine on Wikipedia. He didn't actually invent it, the speaker argued, but instead used his patent on a relatively minor contribution to crush the competition and make his name as the inventor and thus delayed the industrial revolution. This from AaronSw (talk · contribs).

Watt's contribution more than doubled the efficiency compared to Newcomen's. Watt's patent did delay the introduction of the high pressure engine, because Watt thought them dangerous. Watt was partially correct in that the technology was not quite there during the early years of his patent; however, high pressure engines began appearing in 1800 (Trevinthick) and 1801 (Evans). It was the Cornish engines developed a few decades later that were technically much better and more efficient engines.Phmoreno (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The link provided does not contain any evidence that Watt did not invent an improved steam engine. There is no detail here which can be refuted. It is undisputed (even in the setence provided) that Watt got the patent). No historian has ever seriously doubted that Watt made an important contribution, and it takes more than a sentence lifted from some half-remembered presentation at a wikipedia conference to overrule oceans of actual serious historical studies. If this standard were to be applied to every article in the wikipedia, they would all carry this tag. The "totally disputed tag" is unwarranted and I am removing therefore removing it. DonSiano 07:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree - and this concerns the previous Gainsborough v Watt debate; I think there remains much to be said on both these points. Storms in teacups of this order undermine the self-confidence of those who feel that the subject is important and merely show fundamental ignorance of what invention is all about. It is about research and development - it's one thing to have a bright idea, - quite another thing do the systematic research groundwork to make sure it is valid - and again quite another thing to develop a device to the point of being able to produce it and make it operable on a large scale, reliable, fail-safe... In this Boulton is a key figure along with Watt at a key period. R & D costs time and money, but there is no direct payoff and at that time no govt. funding. Given the scale of what was involved they had no right to get it wrong, so it was surely just as well that most of this R & D was in the hands of this particular "monopoly" of competent people capable of making logical and sound advances and building on their successes. Taking out patents was not just a way of making money and stifling invention as often happens today; in that particular historical context it was a way of insuring acceptance of untried and distrusted technology which could have easily been discredited by charlatans. Take the case of sticking to low pressure for which Watt is often knocked: there were at the time no means of making high resistance boilers. Getting things wrong here would certainly have been a much bigger setback to the Industrial Revolution. Already Newcomen's atmospheric engine was a brilliant solution to this. I for one am convinced that he and his contemporaries were perfectly aware of the benefits of higher pressure steam, but there was at that time no way to safely produce it. The atmospheric principle enabled them to build safe engines with the materials and workmanship then available and all the same to be able to pump water up from greater depths in greater quantities than had ever before been possible. Fitting a separate condenser was a way to improve on this but there was much more to it than that as a number of related issues had still to be addressed. Watt had to find means of keeping the now-separate cylinder hot, which he did by means of closing off the top end and introducing low pressure steam there (so it was no longer an "atmospheric" engine) and into steam jackets around the cylinder, then through a transfer pipe to the underside of the cylinder where it was condensed by putting it in communication with the separate condenser. He also had to find a better way of sealing the piston (which he did by lubricating it with oil and tallow instead of water as Newcomen had done), a way of effectively evacuating the condenser between each power stroke and pumping the warm water to the hot well... The result of all this endeavour was an engine rather more complicated but giving 4 times the output of a Newcomen. From this they were able to go on to develop the double acting rotative engine which could drive all the machinery in a factory, whilst still using safe low pressure. It can therefore be argued that far from "delaying the Industrial Revolution", Boulton and Watt and their team ensured that it started off on a firm footing. In any case, most of their patents did not last beyond 1800, which whilst frustrating for some, made sure that by the time pressure engines began to appear on the scene, metallurgy had (only just) begun to catch up. Finally I don't think anyone with a minimal knowledge of steam technology would ever claim that Watt invented the steam engine. He did however make a very significant contribution to its development to a stage where it became the "engine" of the Industrial Revolution. - Glad I've got that off my chest! --John of Paris 14:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

why no mention?

of election to royal society of london in 1785 as per encyclopedia britannica? seems like a dreadful oversight. 4.249.96.173 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It is mentioned (though not the date), in the initials FRS appearing after his name. Watt is the subject of a recent three volume biography. An encyclopedia article cannot say everything conceivable about him . Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Chemistry

Watt also figured into the determination of the composition of water. Does anyone want to add the relevant information to the article? Astrochemist (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You could probably say that of several members of the Lunar Society. I think the article should not be overburdened with too much information of that kind. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe I read this in Munson and Robinson.Phmoreno (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Murdoch

Under the section "Murdoch's contributions" James Murdoch is probably William Murdoch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Murdoch --24.161.6.128 (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Watt and The Hammermen

I would wish to discuss the section which states "Because he had not served at least seven years as an apprentice, the Glasgow Guild of Hammermen (which had jurisdiction over any artisans using hammers) blocked his application,[11] despite there being no other mathematical instrument makers in Scotland.[12]". I would like to make the following Points:

  • The Hammermen are one of the Fourteen Incorporated Trades of Glasgow. While similar to a Guild it is an Incorporation.
  • The citation [11] is questionable in its veracity. The best Source that I have found on this is Lumsden & Aitken's 'History of The Hammermen of Glasgow' (1912). (a copy can be found on line here http://archive.org/details/historyofhammerm00lums ). It is not disputed that Watt was never a Hammerman, but it is unfair to say he was blocked. There is a lengthy Appendix in the 1912 Lumsden & Aitken history of the Craft which sets out that: (a) there is no evidence that James Watt ever applied to join the Hammermen far less that he was refused entry; (b) that being employed by the University he would not have been required to join as the University would have trumped any requirement the Craft might have sought to apply; and (c) the calumny that he was refused entry seems to have been a later fiction repeated and embellished by even later commentators none of whom researched the sources.

It would be my intention to edit this wiki to this effect, but thought to post a talk in the first instance to guauge any comment. --Pogus (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Singapore

Was Watt in Singapore in 1765? 165.21.154.116 fixed Time line, but other edits by him/her were reverted. --Yurik 09:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you answer the question yourself? Duh, James Watt was there. If you read the commentary done by the Delinquet Johnson and Tyler Corporation, on page 7653, it shows actual newsletter or articles about his arrival. (Anon edit by User:68.162.73.156)
That wasn't nice. How could you say such a thing like that to a person only as curious as the next person. By the way, I did look up the Delinquent Johnson and Tyler Corporation, and there's no such. (Anon edit by User:68.162.73.156)
I agree that people ought to answer their own questions through their own research of the sources, rather than baldly demanding to be spoonfed the answers by other people. In other words, use your own efforts to find out the answers rather than being a beggar.98.67.96.196 (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Middle name?

Please help! My son is doing a report on James Watt for his science class and part of his grade depends on finding James Watt's middle name. Can anyone tell me where I might be able to find it? (anon edit by User:24.253.36.206)

To my knowledge he did not have a middle name. We are related directly. He is somthing like my 6th or 7th great grandfather. In the findings of my research of my liniage, I have not come across anything about his middle name. Feel more than welcome to prove me wrong. The more information the better. (anon edit by User:24.99.102.145)
To User 24.99.102.124 - I'm trying to trace my connection back to James Watt, I believe that it may have been through a sibling connection. My current research goes back to an Alexander born in 1781. If you can help me please email me at wattfour@internode.on.net WombatW 10:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)WombatW
Answer: you can look on a different website like google.com then search for james watt. because im doing a report on him too! well i found everything i needed on different websites! or stay here <3 kelsey love
It has been quite common through history for people NOT to have a middle name. The use of a middle name (or names) is a rather modern invention, though noble families in Ancient Rome had "pronomens" that were not used in public: e.g. Gaius Julius Caesar. Here are some noteworthy people for whom I have NEVER seen a middle name stated:

George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Genghis Khan, Isaac Newton, Erik the Red, Leif Erikson, Christopher Columbus, Ferdinand Magellan, Blaise Pascal, Rene Descartes, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln, Martha Wasington, Abigail Adams, Betsy Ross, Simon Bolivar, Alexander Hamilton, Michael Faraday.
Andre Marie Ampere did have a middle name, obviously, as did Carl Friedrich Gauss, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzke, Andrei Andreyovich Markov (two of them, a father and a son with the same name, both Russian mathematicians), John Paul Jones, etc. Russians, Belorussians, etc., have long had a middle name in the form of a patronymic: e.g. Ivanovich means "son of Ivan" and "Ivanova" means "daughter of Ivan". People in the Spanish cultures have long had a third name by including their mother's surname, such as in Pedro Perez Lopez or Maria Martinez Hernandez, but this is different from having a middle name.
Sometimes in English-speaking countries, a middle name was used to distinguish a father and a son with the same first and last names, such as John Adams and John Quincy Adams. Also, sometimes the mother's maiden surname was used as a middle name for a baby boy to honor the parents on the mother's side of the family. Hence, in a modern example, there was John Fitzgerald Kennedy, whose maternal grandfather was Mr. Fitzerald.98.67.96.196 (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Numerous grammatical mistakes are in this article

Numerous grammatical mistakes are in this article. I will just give one example here and now:
"Watt was saved from this impasse by the arrival of astronomical instruments to the University of Glasgow that required expert attention."
People and things do not "arrive to". They definitely "arrive at" or "arrive in". This is simply a case of using the idiomatically correct presposition in a noun-preposition or verb-preposition combination. In this case "arrival at" is the proper combination.
I see this kind of mistake (the use of the idiomatically-incorrect preposition) so often nowadays that I believe that many writers put prepositions on small slits of paper, put those into a hat, and then draw out a slip at random whenever they need a preposition. After copying it, they redeposit the slip, shake up the hat, and then make ready to draw out another one whe they need one.00:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Controversy

The tone of this article continues the deification of Watt. Wikipedia follows in the footsteps of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, whose early articles on steam power were revised favorably by Watt himself. He achieved great things but more modern scholars now appreciate that in his later years he impeded the progress of steam. His use of patents to strangle innovation by his competitors, and his opposition to high pressure steam are both examples of this. He was certainly one of the most significant actors in the industrial revolution, but he was human and had many flaws. This article would be improved by acknowledging some of them. See Marsden, B., Watt's Perfect Engine, Icon Books, 2002 - although I have read similar criticisms to Marsden's in Victorian books. Stub Mandrel (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

God wot, eh? It will be great if you can provide article improvements on the basis of good quality reliable sources, per WP:V, though it may be best to put forward proposals (with sources) on this talk page first. You'll have noticed that there is already coverage in the article of both points. . dave souza, talk 19:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
The existence of patents has often hindered the enterprise of others. The existence of Boulton & Watt's patent certainly did hinder developments by others, including early attemtps at compund engines. I think this is partly a consequence of the state of patent law and practice at the time - no adequate means existed of allowing a subsequent inventor some kind of licence of right to exploit but add to a previous patent. Partly, it was that Watt considered aspects of certain later engines to be separate condensers that infringed his patent, when they were in fact something different. Conversely, the protection afforded by the long patent enabled Watt to develop other improvements, including rotary engines and double acting engines. I do not recognise Icon Books as an academic publisher. ON a subject where as much has been written in this case, WP should not normally be relying on non-academic works, where it is unclear whether the work has had adeauate peer-review. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Between the invention of the Newcomen engine in 1712 and Watts patent of the separate condenser for it in 1769, there elapsed 43 years in which the Newcomen engine changed hardly at all. Watt was not responsible for holding back developments in the steam engine during that long hiatus. His (subsequent) patents and opinions mattered not at all.
All of the standard works on Watt’s development of the improvements state that Boulton’s contribution of his capital to the enterprise was contingent on getting the first patent extended to 1800. This patent was crucial in getting the improved steam engine actually produced. It was entirely unsuccessful, on the other hand, in keeping several other inventors from producing pirated engines in violation of his patent. Ultimately, Watt did not stop their operation either. The patent disputes in the courts granted his demands for royalties, and also established his priority.
None of his patents were aimed at utilizing high pressure steam, and none of the patent trials involved an issue of the use of high pressure steam by his rivals. He cannot be said to have opposed the use of high pressure steam by others, except insofar as he did not use it himself. He (and others) before about 1800 recognized the limitations of contemporary boiler technology, which was exceedingly primitive at the time.
All of these points are adequately reflected in the article, and I see nothing (in agreement with Dave souza) in the above remarks specific enough to warrant any substantive changes to it.DonSiano (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Trevor Norton claims

Professor Norton has told Richard Bacon on his radio show whilst discussing his new book, which sets out to debunk myths about who invented what inventions, that Watt did NOT perfect the steam engine. I think Wikipedia needs to get some clarity on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.253.17 (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you please clarify exactly where the source is? Thanks!Vinethemonkey (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Vinethemonkey
Can you be a little more specific? Who said what, and does it matter? There is no claim that Watt "perfected" the steam engine. He made a number, maybe half a dozen, of crucial developments to it and countless minor ones. Development didn't stop after Watt though, nor even during his lifetime. In particular (which WP gets badly wrong) there is no such thing as a "Watt steam engine". Each of his developments was incremental to the others and so each machine with each new innovation has just as much claim to being "the new Watt engine". There's no single one that dominates, no single Watt engine that takes any sort of precedence. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Citizenship

The link points to Kingdom of Great Britain, but he was alive after 1801. Two links, or just United Kingdom?68.100.66.192 (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter? His main achievments were pre-1801; the link to GB is no dount because we do not (and should not) have an article on "British". Peterkingiron (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Scottish is not a citizenship. It should be changed to British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.72.37 (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

He currently has Citizenship = United Kingdom and Nationality = Scottish. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
That's a fairly ad hoc distinction, not really rigorous enough for an encyclopedia entry. Scotland does not pass either the Constitutive nor Declarative tests for sovereignty, and in that sense no more provides for nationality than do Texas, Holland, Ottawa, or Cork. It's not absolutely wrong for someone to say they are "Scottish" when asked informally about nationality, but for a document like a Wikipedia article, going by the most common use of the concept of nationality, Watt was British. And in personal interactions with other countries of the world -- e.g. when applying for visas, work permits, business licenses and so on -- the correct answer to "Nationality?" for a citizen of the UK is "British" (although a few places allow for "UK", and one which, bizarrely, offers only "English" for all UK citizens). Answering "Scottish" will typically flag an error. Finally, notice that the 'Citizenship" field has gone, leaving only the erroneous "Scottish" as Watt's nationality. Thomask0 (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't Scotland regard itself as a nation? But I guess Watt's dates must count for something. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2015

When he was 19,his mother passed away.

223.196.16.118 (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

: Not done: It's already in there, and sources are unclear as to whether he was 17 or 18, but I think it was before he was 19. I'll see if Dickinson can confirm the date. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on James Watt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on James Watt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Portrait

In answer to Martinevans123 question the colour portrait of Watt by Partridge seems to be here https://www.nationalgalleries.org/art-and-artists/4074/james-watt-1736-1819-engineer-inventor-steam-engine I'm not 100% clear on local copyright although as it's a 2D representation of public domain art Wikipedia would probably be okay taking it. If you sign up and download the image Wikipedia is mentioned in their allowed categories. However I'm not sure how to upload it legally as the Commons wizard needs seems to need a cc licence.AndrasSkot (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting information on first wife & number of children

The Encyclopedia Britannica article on Watt indicates he had six children via his first wife (Margaret Miller), and that she died nine years after they were married. This conflicts with the statement in this article of five children (two surviving) and places her death in 1773 instead of 1772. [1] Ssa3512 (talk)ssa3512 —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.britannica.com/biography/James-Watt

James Watt is a diest?

I saw a post on a blog saying James Watt was a diest. Is it true? — Preceding Signed comment added by Merrick919 (talk) N.A. (UTC)

Deist? Yes, one of the more notable non-theologian deists. I think it's already in the article Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2020

Please remove this WP:NPOV violation:

"Although it is often dismissed as a myth, like most good stories the story of James Watt and the kettle has a basis in fact." 81.103.37.86 (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The same section also contains a presumptuous "of course". 81.103.37.86 (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 Done I agree, that's not the best phrasing and seems to violate WP:NPOV. Have adjusted. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Micrometer

I see no mention in the article of the micrometer he invented? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K_NQlmOwqM Wizzy…☎ 08:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Watt/Archive_1&oldid=1155856383"