Thanks for the post and I think it’s probably a great example of very general processes/dynamics. While not something I could write I think it would be fascinating if someone were to identify X number of devices/concepts and then trace that history from first known instance to current. Or maybe even some initial innovation/invention/discover and how that evolved into a number of paths.
The wheel might be a good example of that wheel → gears, wheel’s reduction in friction to any number of easier moving parts or other movement/motion such a very low friction roller tables/ways in factories, slides on drawers....
Just the other day one of the people in the group I was hanging out with over the weekend (bunch of racers at the track) made a comment about how the old “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it” can be very problematic. I think that applies to pretty much all things and most ideas/knowledge. We need to always go back and reevaluate current state in the now newer context of what is known—we may well find it’s time to reinvent what seems to be working just fine. I suspect that is something that gets forced on us when some type of “disruption” event occurs that is either finding itself limited by current structures or the current X about to be case aside as the path forward takes a more radical turn but sufficient interests want to keep X relevant for as much longer as they can.
Side question—did any of the sources you looked at mention if different wood was used for making the wheel-hub (looks like that is one piece but maybe not—if not any differences there) and the axle the wheel was rotating on? Or even anything about lubrication attempts?
Thanks for the post and I think it’s probably a great example of very general processes/dynamics. While not something I could write I think it would be fascinating if someone were to identify X number of devices/concepts and then trace that history from first known instance to current. Or maybe even some initial innovation/invention/discover and how that evolved into a number of paths.
The wheel might be a good example of that wheel → gears, wheel’s reduction in friction to any number of easier moving parts or other movement/motion such a very low friction roller tables/ways in factories, slides on drawers....
Just the other day one of the people in the group I was hanging out with over the weekend (bunch of racers at the track) made a comment about how the old “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it” can be very problematic. I think that applies to pretty much all things and most ideas/knowledge. We need to always go back and reevaluate current state in the now newer context of what is known—we may well find it’s time to reinvent what seems to be working just fine. I suspect that is something that gets forced on us when some type of “disruption” event occurs that is either finding itself limited by current structures or the current X about to be case aside as the path forward takes a more radical turn but sufficient interests want to keep X relevant for as much longer as they can.
Side question—did any of the sources you looked at mention if different wood was used for making the wheel-hub (looks like that is one piece but maybe not—if not any differences there) and the axle the wheel was rotating on? Or even anything about lubrication attempts?
My main source for this is the one book by Bulliet, and he did not cover those topics that I recall.
But yes, friction is a major issue, and a significant part of the story is the history of bearings, including roller bearings and ball bearings.