Retrotech: An Automated Flour Mill in 1785

(A guest post by Grok, with editorial guidance from David Foster)

 

In the late 18th century, America was still a land where much of life’s daily rhythm was dictated by manual labor, especially in the essential task of milling flour. Oliver Evans, born in 1755, a visionary from Delaware, would set the stage for an industrial transformation with his invention of the automated flour mill. This innovation not only changed the way flour was produced but also marked a significant leap into the era of automation in America.
Before Evans, milling was a labor-intensive process. Grain, once ground into meal, needed cooling and drying, a job performed by “hopper boys” who would spread the meal across the mill floor, often walking over it to ensure even distribution. This method was not only physically demanding but also introduced potential contaminants into the flour.

Evans’ revolutionary design, detailed in his 1787 publication “The Young Mill-Wright and Miller’s Guide,” introduced a system where human effort was significantly reduced through mechanical ingenuity. Here’s how:
  • Automatic Elevators and Conveyor Screws: Grain was lifted and moved using bucket elevators for vertical transport and the Archimedes screw, adapted into a conveyor screw, for horizontal movement. This was a significant departure from the muscle-powered methods of the past.
  • Self-Regulating Millstones: The grain was ground by millstones that adjusted themselves for consistency, eliminating the need for constant human oversight.
  • Mechanical Cooling: The role of the hopper boy was taken over by a machine of the same name, which used a rotating rake to spread the meal for cooling, ensuring hygiene and efficiency.
  • Automated Sifting and Packaging: The flour was then sifted and bagged without human intervention, making the process cleaner and faster.

The adoption of Evans’ system was slow at first due to resistance from traditional millers but soon spread like wildfire. By the early 19th century, it’s estimated that hundreds of mills across the United States were built or converted to operate on the Evans principle. Notably, within a few decades of his invention, from the 1790s through the 1820s, there were reports of over 200 mills adopting his methods, with some sources suggesting the number could be closer to 500 by the mid-19th century. This number reflects not just the mills directly constructed by Evans or his immediate associates but also those that adopted his designs independently or through licensure.
However, despite the widespread adoption of his technology, Oliver Evans did not reap the financial rewards one might expect from such a transformative invention. His patents, among the earliest granted in the United States, were often ignored or infringed upon. Evans spent much of his later life in legal battles to protect his intellectual property rights. While he did earn some income from selling rights to his mill designs and through his involvement in manufacturing, the financial success was not commensurate with his innovation’s impact. He also ventured into other fields, like steam engine design, but again, legal and financial challenges dogged him.
Evans’ automated flour mill was more than just an engineering marvel; it was a beacon for the future of industrial America. His work laid the groundwork for automation, reducing labor, increasing efficiency, and improving the quality of life by making food production more accessible and cleaner. His legacy, though not financially lucrative for him, has been a boon for generations, illustrating how one man’s vision could change the course of industry and daily life. His story is a reminder that innovation often comes with its battles, but its impact can endure far beyond the lifetime of its creator.
***

(The automated flour mill had been on my list of retrotech posts for a while, thought I’d try the lazy man’s way and let Grok do it. I did have to give it multiple prompts to improve the result, and also found and added the image manually. Also, paragraph breaks were lost, which is common when copying anything into WordPress; I fixed some but not all of them by editing the HTML)

Imagine No Internet

There has been a lot of commentary about the downsides of the Internet generally and of social media in particular…lowered attention spans, on-line bullying, growing narcissism, rapid spread of untrue information, etc–even, perhaps, inhibiting the assimilation of immigrants…and many of these concerns are indeed valid.  However:

Imagine that there is no Internet.

In this alternate history, the traditional media still rule  They may choose to provide online access to some of their content, but user-generated content will be enabled only in the form of ‘letters to the editor’, which, like their print prototypes, are published online very selectively and at the total discretion of the major media organizations. In the sphere of commerce, large corporations may offer some form of online ordering, but there is no such thing as just putting up a website and seeing what you can sell.

Would this no-Internet world really be an improvement?

I’ve previously quoted something said to me once by a wise executive:

When you’re running a large organization, you aren’t seeing reality.  It’s like you’re watching a movie where you get to see maybe one out of a thousand frames, and from that you have to figure out what is going on.

If this is true about running large organizations,  it is even more true for the citizen and voter in a large and complex country.  The individual can directly observe only a small amount of the relevant information, for the rest–from the events on the border to international and military affairs–he is generally dependent on others.  And that gives those others–those who choose the frames and the sequence in which they are presented in the movie analogy–a tremendous amount of power. This is especially dangerous when those controllers of the information all have similar backgrounds and worldviews.

Some may argue that we managed without the Internet, not so many years ago, and that that absence didn’t lead to disasters. And some have argued that without a feeling of threat from increasingly-dominant Internet competition, the legacy media would be more balanced and responsible, would not have become so one-sided and tendentious.  As a guide what an Internet-less world would be like today, though, I think these arguments don’t apply. Thirty or forty years ago, local and regional networks and broadcasters were more common and more significant than they are today, and journalists were more diverse (in a professional and background sense) than they are today. (And even back then, there was plenty of group-think and lack of coverage of important issues and topics.)  My own view is that a non-Internet world would be conformist, intellectually stifling, and very dangerous in terms of the evolution of national policies.)

Not to mention the malign effect on economic dynamism.

Yet I get the impression that a lot of people would prefer, or think they would prefer, such a world.

And European countries do seem determined to use censorship and threats to try to simulate a pre-Internet world as nearly as they can. We will see how that works out for them.

Your thoughts?

Related posts:  Betrayal, also Starvation and Centralization.

People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump

On May 30, 2024, Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsified business records that allegedly abetted crime(s) unstated in the March 30, 2023 indictment. The jury was instructed to choose between three candidates for the other crime; their choices were not disclosed in the conviction. During the course of the trial, legal experts have struggled to deduce the nature of the underlying crime. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg played his cards close to the vest; as CNN analyst and Bragg’s former colleague Elie Honig stated:

Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments. So much for the constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial. (This, folks, is what indictments are for.)

Pieces to this puzzle are scattered about the Internet address in bits and pieces. This is my attempt to pull those sources together to adequately outline the main issues of the case.

Read more

Enslaved by Devices, 1920s Version

One frequently observes people who appear to be the captives of their phones and other screen-based devices, and many concerns have been raised about the effects of this behavior. Reading Merritt Ierley’s book “Wondrous Contrivances: Technology at the Threshold”, I was amused to see the following passage in a chapter about a letter written in the mid-1920s concerning the then-new technology of radio. The letter was sent to NYC radio station WEAF by a man whose family had just acquired a receiver:

It is 5:25 PM–you have just finished broadcasting; you have practically finished breaking up a happy home.  Our set was installed last evening.  Today, my wife has not left her chair, listening all day.  Our apartment has not been cleaned, the beds are not made, the baby not bathed–and no dinner ready for me.

A little quick on the trigger, I’d say…good grief, they’d just gotten the radio the previous evening.  I wonder what happened over the next few days, and how common this experience/reaction was.

Some reactions, though, were much more positive about the influence of radio.  Writer Stanley Frost thought radio had the ability to reach out to “illiterate or broken people,” making them “for the first time in touch for the world around them,” and reprinted a letter received by WJZ in Newark:

My husban and I thanks yous all fore the gratiss programas we received every night and day from WJZ…The Broklin teachers was grand the lecturs was so intresing…the annonnser must be One grand man the way he tell the stories to the children.

And in an article titled ‘Radio Dreams That Can Come True’, Collier’s Magazine asserted hopefully that radio could lead to a “spreading of mutual understanding to all sections of the country, unifying our thoughts, ideals, and purposes, and making us a strong and well-knit people.”

Thoughts?

Random Thoughts (6): Cam Skattebo Edition

One

Several months I wrote about the changing sociology of college football. I decided that with the conference realignments, NIL money, and transfer portal nonsense it was time to dedicate my Saturdays to something more useful like taking naps or digging holes in the backyard.

Then just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.

My hometown ASU had its greatest season in 30 years. Picked to finish last in the Big-12, it not only won the conference championship but gained a spot in the college playoffs where it took Texas to the brink.

This great story was personalized by the most compelling college football player in years, Cam Skattebo. Cam didn’t receive a single FBS scholarship offer coming out of high school and instead started his college career at FCS Sacramento State as linebacker. He transferred to ASU, switched to running back and became a human wrecking ball. Take a look at the highlights from the Big-12 championship game against Iowa State and last week’s playoff game against Texas.

With ASU out, I’m done with college football for good. For reals this time.

Read more