Talk:Toynbee's law of challenge and response
Steam engines and sourcing[edit]
I've fact-tagged steam engine as dubious. Particularly so as it is illustrated by a blowing engine.
I know nothing of Toynbee's law. I know something of steam engine history. The steam engine developed for use as a pumping engine in mining. It spent 75 years being little more than a pumping engine in mining. The article here claims that it arose in Britain to power mills and weaving sheds, in response to a challenge of cheap cloth from India. I see this as inaccurate: firstly the Industrial Revolution is sometimes characterised as the First and Second Industrial Revolutions. The first was water-driven, based on textiles, and did not use steam power. This could indeed be seen as a response, per Toynbee, to an external challenge of cheap cloth. Secondly, the steam engine's development was in search of improved processes and improved profit for mining and iron making, but not as any response to external events, merely a general wish to operate a larger and more profitable business. A "challenge", if any, would have to be in terms of increasing demand for the product (iron or coal) outstripping the supply of readily available material for an old process (charcoal fuel, or shallow pits for coal), rather than the external challenge described by Toynbee.
I don't believe that the steam engine fits this Toynbee model, or that it should be listed here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Period using of water wheel was short (near 10 -20 years)in the textile industry then water wheel was replaced by the James Watt steam engine.
“Water power was used by Arkwright and partners at a factory in Cromford, Derbyshire in 1771, giving the invention its name”.
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Industrial_Revolution
My laconic style requires not to mention small details, for example, not to mention a short period using a water wheel in the textile industry