Forget heat. Modern society heavily depends on energy to perform mechanical work. I suspect that the use of energy besides domestic livestock to do work is relatively recent. For example I’ve just learned the Dutch windmill was taken from a Turkish prototype but I can’t seem to find how far back the Turk windmill existed, and whether that machine might be the first known example of the use of non biological energy to perform work. Assume oil and coal are non biological.
Could be a windmill but I’m betting water wheels came first. While the water wheel wide usage dates from the Middle Ages the concept goes back a lot farther.
Ah, here’s a site that places the first description of a water wheel during the Roman era sometime between 31 BC to 14 AD.
Though, by the OPs definition I’d also bet that sails would count and those go back a long way.
Would splitting stone using a wooden wedge that is then soaked with water count as non-biological energy? Also I can’t find how old the first wind powered ships were.
Water clocks are from 1500 BC or before, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_clock .
Are you assuming that fire is non biological? Is so then that would be the first use of non-biological energy to do work.
Something as simple as using a fire to heat the sinew holding on a spearhead so that it shrinks tightens is using non-biological energy to do work. Early stonemasons also used fire to heat metal or stone wedges driven into rocks or timber causing them to expand and split the block. Once again, the fire’s energy is being used to do work that would be impossible using just biological means.
After fire water power would the next example that we know was used. Countless ancient cultures used rivers to float material downstream in preference to lugging it overland.
After fire and water, wind power would be the next. Sailing boats date back many thousands of years and are a very clear example of wind being harnessed to do work.
Windmills were very late arrivals in terms of non-biological energy use.
I found a few things.
But this page has it a bit later:
Of course, while you probably weren’t thinking of it this way it technically fits.
So sails on boats was likely the first use of wind power (which is probably the first use of non-biological power to do mechanical work). Above we have 2900 B.C. as the earliest known but it is possible sails existed before that even.
Gravity? I think even apes will drop things from great heights to crack them.
So will some birds. I’ve seen seabirds drop oysters and mussels to crack the shells.
This one is a little hard to decide on.
If the ape (or whatever) carried the coconut (or whatever) to a great height (like climb a tree) then technically the energy is bilogical. The ape climbing the tree carrying the coconut essentially input the power in the form of potential energy into the nut. Dropping it just released that potential energy. Guess it depends how the nut arrived at its great height.
What is the use of fire to tighten sinew or the use of fire to split stones if not the use of non-biological power to do mechanical work? Is the splitting of the stone block was chemical and not physical? Is the the pull exerted on a spearhead is some sort of chemical attraction? How about floating objects downstream on a barge? How is that not mechanical work?
I am wiling to bet any of those things predate sailboats by tens of thousands of years at least.
Yes fire did beat boats by a longshot. I took the OP to mean man building contraptions to harness some source of power. Technically it could be said you have to build a fire but I think that is stretching it. That said the fire did provide mechanical work as you described.
The barge floating down river is really just harnessing gravity. See my previous post on that.
I thinkl the point that you are missingis tha tthe wedge and the binding were both specifically built in order to take advanatage of the fact that fire can provide mechanical energy.
I can’t see how it’s a stretch to say that building a wedge that is designed to expands in the heat and split stone is ‘just building a fire’ while bulding a steam driven jackammer is somehow the use of the enegry in fire to split the stone.
What do you see as being the differentce? Do you believe that multiple complex machines are required?
I can’t see how your previous example relates at all. If I harvest grain or quarry stone in the upper reaches of the Nile and float it down to Cairo via barge how was any biological energy put into that process? Nobody carried the lumber or stone upstrem just so it could float down. I just can’t seen any comparison with the example in your previous post
Fires release potential energy in the fuel, and the fuel was created by biological processes. Is this significantly different than the ape dropping nuts from the top of a tree?
I guess that’s up to the OP to decide. But if we go down that route then we are obliged to argue that a steam engine fired by wood (as many were) is using biological energy. That’s quite a stretch and I’m not sure what that could actually tell us about human advancement.
And of course if we start down this path then windmills are also biologiclaly powered. The wood, flax etc. used in construction are all simply positioned by humans to take advantage of potential energy by virtue of thier positioning. Is that significantly different than the ape dropping nuts from the top of a tree. To me to is even closer than the use of fire which at least doesn’t rely entirely on moving our materials to a favourable geographic location.
First thing to do is define mechanical work. In Physics, it refers to using force to move an object over a distance. Force x Distance = Work
The goal is to create a permanent chemical change in the sinew. That change does not move anything, therefore no mechanical work. If you define work as completing a goal (of having a tight spearhead) then you can claim using solar power to dry stuff is work too. That’s a fairly uninteresting answer, though.
This one I like. Your non-biological energy source acts on a tool (the wedge) causing force to be applied to the stone, moving the sides apart. Force causes something to move, that’s work.
The river is a tool, but the river doesn’t do work, it just provides a very nearly level flowing surface for the item to move down.
That is exactly what I had in mind.
The ape or the bird provides the energy by raising the object to a higher potential energy.
Tightening sinew is debatable however and whether actual mechanical work is performed is not very obvious. Stone splitting is certainly more obvious, however in both cases there might be considerable force yet there is very little distance. I’m considering the definition of work as ForcexDistance. In any event, these practices don’t really excite me though worthy of note.
Now floating objects downstream does qualify in my mind. Just like water wheels, the kinetic energy in the stream is transporting the load. This seems so obvious that I wouldn’t be surprised if the use of a stream predates the use of fire. Perhaps I could look for the earliest known use of rafts.
Sailboats excite me the most as some technology is required to harness the energy and the application can be utilized for more extensively. So we have evidence that the Egyptions used sail as far back as 2900 B.C.
I’m not sure I buy that the stream is “transporting” the goods. Once you’re past the initial entry, the stream isn’t pushing you so much as gravity is pulling you downstream just like it’s pulling the water downstream.
But then you wouldn’t qualify hydro electric power either since the water running through the turbine is being pulled down by gravity.
In the hydro plant (or water wheel) the water is exerting force against the turbine making it spin. When you’re floating in a stream, is the stream exerting force on you to make you move? I submit that the stream is not, and that the force of gravity acting on you is what propels you downstream, just like it’s what propels the water downstream with you.
Okay then, forget the stream. As you are treading water going downstream, try getting to the bank which is on the same datum as the stream surface. Is gravity pulling you horizontally now?
First off no need to build a raft (necessarily). Or build anything for that matter. As long as whatever it is you want to move floats just toss it in. Loggers did this all the time.
As for the stream providing mechanical work remember it is still gravity really doing the work. Gravity is moving something with a higher potential energy to a lower potential. Would you consider rolling a rock down a hill to meet the OP’s requirements? A rock rolling down a hill is no different in principle than floating something down a stream.
As for trying to get to a bank while floating downstream you need to input energy to overcome nature’s desire to pull you down…just like you need to input energy to go up a hill.