https://piefed.social/post/2215171/comment/12141440#comment_12141626

Many late-coming technologies are issues of concept. Slow-sand filters are incredibly simple, for example, but require an understanding that did not arise until the 19th century (some possible examples in Mesoamerica excepted). Gliders are not actually particularly difficult to acquire the materials or tools to make, especially in cultures that use kites, but require, again, an understanding of the principles involved to provide controlled flight (with gliders requiring precise balance of lift and drag, whereas kites primarily need only light weight and wind stability). Fire pistons are conceptually advanced and were not discovered in Europe until long after they were in Southeast Asia, despite some Southeast Asian cultures which produced and used fire pistons being literal stone-age cultures, in terms of available material tools.

Hot-air balloons, I would imagine, follow the same principle. If you lack the concepts behind the invention, the only way to discover it is by accident, which is generally unlikely. It’s why so much material development is concentrated in the modern and early modern period - we started to piece together how the world, on a fundamental level, works, beyond pure trial-and-error.

Also, hot-air balloons before plastics were often made of silk (and rubber), since most other materials are either too heavy (at least for practical purposes) or too thermally sensitive, and that’s an expensive experiment to be undertaking if you haven’t the first clue how it works.

  • PugJesusEnglish
    134·
    7 days ago

    Is there a tendency to assume ‘everything should have been possible in antiquity’? What is that supposed to mean?

    A user posited the question of why hot air balloons were not invented sooner despite the materials and tools being available.

    There are plenty of examples of inventors through history with concepts and ideas that were not really practical in their time.

    How is that in any way contradicting what was said?

    Atomism is an another ancient concept across cultures east and west, which was conceptually used in the development of modern atomic theory.

    … that’s literally a question of theory. On both ends of the equation.

    I think the Turks invented the steam engine based on Hellenic Greek concepts, but it was the English put it to state-level use and implementation.

    The Turks invented what is called the steam jack, which is distinctly different from the atmospheric engine used in English mines some ~150 years later. The steam jack is much closer to the aeolipile; the atmospheric engine which was instrumental in the industrial revolution was based on fundamentally different theory.

    So there’s just a long history of technologies being adapted and improved for different purposes. Ballooning is a good example of something that has existed for many centuries in Asia. Lifting a person into the sky, instead of a message, is a newer concept that branched off an existing technology.

    Except it didn’t branch off from an existing technology. The early European attempts at ballooning, which led to the hot-air balloon being discussed, did not originate from the East Asian practice of kiting or sky lanterns.

    A great deal of technological advancements have been out of military necessity/value, such as with the balloons,

    … ballooning did not start out of military necessity and was not even taken seriously by most militaries of the day. The French Aeronautic Corps lasted maybe a decade; ballooning in the US Civil War was taken seriously until internal politiking wrecked it. Very little investment in ballooning was done by or for military purposes.

    but the prerequisite for innovative adaptations of technology have simply had to do with how well they were recorded and disseminated throughout populations.

    That’s not a question of invention, which is what was being discussed.

    Militaries have been pretty good about learning a thing and getting a group to do that thing, and then recording itnfoebthe next time.

    You’re fucking kidding, right?

    Militaries as standing institutions do not even date back before the 17th century in most parts of Europe, unless you want to go all the way back to Rome, and effectively many were not really created until the 18th century.

    Militaries, historically, have been horrible at learning, recording, or getting people to do something specific. The modern institutionalized military that is competent at that is an extremely recent development.

    • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      61·
      7 days ago

      A user posited the question of why hot air balloons were not invented sooner despite the materials and tools being available.

      Ah. It seemed like a vague question so without context it was confusing to respond to. The context helps, and so much of what I wrote was based on trying to understand the framework to begin with.

      How is that in any way contradicting what was said?

      It wasn’t really. There’s usually a common thread and history to technology where their concepts are translated and travelled. Like you have signal balloons being used in China, which the Mongols adapted, which the Poles witnessed and recorded, which was how it came to be known in in Europe.

      Comments aren’t always contradictory or a refutation, so taking them as such is going to cause some unnecessary grief.