James Watt

Record year1788

summaryWatt designed the rotary, double-acting engine; in 1788 the Lap engine used parallel motion and sun-and-planet gearing and had a governor, actually driving 43 polishing/grinding machines at Soho.

M rationaleRotation, double action, transmission, governing, and manufacturing operation formed a reusable power platform, and the operation of 43 machines supports its actual use. The valuation deducts the separately counted value of the separate-condenser method and does not encompass subsequent industrial output.

attribution rationaleAttribution budget: Watt receives 0.45 for system-design responsibility; Boulton receives 0.15 for demand definition, capital, and partner organization; engineering, manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and operation teams together receive 0.25; prior work in separate condensation, the Newcomen route, and rotary transmission together receives 0.10; unknown 0.05. This attribution budget separates individual design, collaborators' organizational capacity, and collective delivery, avoiding attribution of all company implementation to Watt.

overlap boundaryThe mature rotary and double-acting workshop-power service, represented by the 1788 Lap engine and formed before 1800: double-acting work, parallel motion, sun-and-planet transmission, governing, and their engineering integration and delivery. It includes the evidenced instance of driving 43 Soho polishing and grinding machines; it does not duplicate the efficiency value of separate condensation or include all downstream output of 451 engines, later industries, fossil-fuel history, total labor displacement, or the whole Industrial Revolution.

Evidence gapsExisting materials cannot empirically separate the precise shares of design, capital, manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and operation; this entry does not account for costs, failures, fuel externalities, labor injuries, or net effects for different uses.

Record year1765

summaryPlaced condensation in a separate cold vessel, kept the cylinder hot, and used a pump to remove air from the cylinder and condenser; both the 1765 second model and the 1769 patent specification are documented.

M rationaleValued as a reusable thermal-process design method and its early materialization, including its foundational role supporting subsequent engineering. Later power systems separately count their added transmission, control, and actual delivery, avoiding duplication.

attribution rationaleAttribution budget: Watt receives 0.68, reflecting core authorial responsibility for the separate-condenser idea, model, and specification; the Newcomen route retains 0.15 as necessary prior work; the University of Glasgow's model repair and experimental environment retain 0.07; early model-making, materials, and specification-realization contributions not identifiable from existing materials, and general unknowns, each retain 0.05. Boulton and later manufacturing delivery are not allocated to this entry, avoiding overlap with the mature power system.

overlap boundaryThe reusable separate-condenser method evidenced by the 1765 model and 1769 specification: condensation occurs in a separate cold vessel, the working cylinder remains hot, and a pump removes air from the cylinder and condenser. This explicitly expands the old account's 'direct model efficiency' to 'the method and its early materialization,' but excludes subsequent rotation, double action, parallel motion, sun-and-planet gearing, governing, Boulton & Watt manufacturing service, and the whole Industrial Revolution.

Evidence gapsExisting materials cannot quantify the independent shares of the collaborators on the early models.; This entry does not count continuous commercial deployment, total fuel savings, costs, harms, or later diffusion across all industries.

Record year1785

summaryUsing an arrangement of two fires: smoke gases produced by newly added fuel pass over a layer of coal that is already incandescent and no longer smoking as they travel to the flue/chimney, so that the gases burn away; there is a 1785 patent and a description of installation with the Albion Mills engine.

M rationaleM3.2 is used for a specialized industrial method with a clear mechanism and one contemporaneous installation anchor. The absence of operating comparisons, fuel efficiency, smoke quantity, duration, and replication scale prevents elevation to a broad-infrastructure or platform tier; the lack of evidence for national effects also does not automatically reduce a materialized method to M1.

attribution rationaleAttribution budget: Watt receives 0.60 as author of the patented method; existing combustion and furnace traditions retain 0.15; the Boulton & Watt engineering installation team and Albion owners/operators each receive 0.10; unknown 0.05. Installation and operation shares prevent full attribution of actual materialization to the method's author.

overlap boundaryThe 1785 smoke-consuming furnace method and the Albion Mills installation: an arrangement of two furnaces causes newly generated smoke gases to continue burning as they pass over incandescent smokeless coal near the flue or chimney. It excludes the Albion engine, flour-milling output, rotary-power value, all subsequent air-quality improvements, and all emissions control.

Evidence gapsThe patent text, operating-period data, and contemporaneous smoke and fuel comparisons are absent.; Internal shares among the installation team, owners, and operators are unidentified.

Record year1780

summaryIn 1780, Watt patented a method for copying letters using rollers and damp copybooks; a surviving rolling press is recorded by the Science Museum Group as made according to that method.

M rationaleM3.0 corresponds to a specialized reusable tool with a clear method and surviving physical object. It exceeds a mere idea or patent text, but the lack of evidence for independent scale of use, duration, substitution effects, and net benefit prevents valuation as widespread office infrastructure.

attribution rationaleAttribution budget: the collection attributes the method and press to Watt, so he receives 0.75; existing copying and printing methods retain 0.15 as prior work in knowledge; unidentified production contributions and general unknowns each retain 0.05. No materials support naming makers, sellers, or users as collaborators.

overlap boundaryThe roller-and-damp-copybook method for copying letters corresponding to the 1780 patent, and its materialization in a surviving press; the patent right itself is not scored. It excludes general commercial document systems, later photocopying and printing, digital copying, sales revenue, and unverified scale of users.

Evidence gapsEvidence is lacking for independent volume of use, user scope, duration of use, substitutability, and net benefit.; Participants in production and commercial realization remain unidentified.

Record year1804

summaryWatt built a pair of sculpture-copying machines, one full-size and one for reduction, at the Heathfield workshop; his 1810 drawing records a feed mechanism that automatically reversed at a preset travel endpoint, and an 1810 alabaster copied bust made by him survives.

M rationaleM2.8 reflects a specialized mechanical outcome supported by a design drawing, machine description, and one copied finished object. It is more than a paper proposal, but existing materials do not substantiate production scale, sustained use, independent technical comparison, or broad circulation, so it remains below stable specialized service and a general platform.

attribution rationaleAttribution budget: the collection attributes the machines and drawing to Watt, so he receives 0.65; prior work in sculpture, lathes, and geometrical copying retains 0.15; Heathfield workshop support 0.10 and model/material input 0.05 remain unallocated because participants are unidentified; general unknowns 0.05. This neither invents assistants nor absorbs the workshop's material labor entirely into the individual's share.

overlap boundaryThe full-size and reduction sculpture-copying machines at the Heathfield workshop in 1804–1810, the automatic reversal at a travel endpoint shown in the 1810 drawing, and the surviving 1810 alabaster copied bust. It excludes the entire history of sculpture copying, Cheverton's later machines, all artistic production, CAD/CAM, and general precision manufacturing.

Evidence gapsThe two key pieces of evidence come from the same collection, and independent technical comparison and production-use records are absent.; Workshop assistants, original models, and material contributors are unidentified.

Record year1877

M rationaleThe deliverable organized diagrammatic explanations of several uses into one limited but referable synthesis, hence M=0.1. Cross-use itself does not prove a larger scope of benefit, and fixed material does not support deeper sustained effects.

attribution rationaleWatt's predecessor share in this successor reference-knowledge outcome is 8%. Maxwell supplied the unified explanation of multi-purpose diagrammatic methods; Rankine's diagrammatic method, Gibbs's thermodynamic representation, indicator diagrams, and Clapeyron's restricted input are each credited, with 8% retained for unresolved responsibility; authors' earlier discoveries are not counted again as original work.

overlap boundaryCount only the reference organization of this diagrammatic explanation; do not presume readers, long-term use, or subsequent scientific discoveries.