True Myths: James Watt's Kettle,His Condenser,and His Chemistry

“Review of James Patrick Muirhead, The life of James Watt”, The Times, 27 April 1859, 11.

Waller John , Fabulous science: Fact and fiction in the history of scientific discovery (Oxford, 2002), and Miller David Philip , “The 'Sobel Effect”, Metascience, xi (2002), 185–200. In relation to science education, see Allchin Douglas . “Scientific myth-conceptions”, Science education, lxxxvii (2003), 329–51.

Miller David Philip , Discovering water: James Watt, Henry Cavendish and the nineteenth-century “Water Controversy” (Aldershot, 2004).

For some important recent studies see: Fara Patricia , Newton: The making of genius (London, 2002); Friedman Alan J. Donley Carol C. , Einstein as myth and muse (Cambridge, 1985); Jordanova Ludmilla , Defining features: Scientific and medical portraits, 1660–2000 (London, 2000); Beretta Marco , Imaging a career in science: The iconography of Antoine Lavoisier (Canton, MA, 2001); de Chadarevian Soraya , “Portrait of a discovery: Watson, Crick and the double helix”, Isis, xciv (2003), 90–105; and the essays collected in the special issue of Science in context, xvi (2003) on “The scientific persona”.

Robinson Eric , “James Watt and the tea kettle: A myth justified”, History today, vi (1956), 261–5.

The illustration of the yellow kettle on Gourock Pier is taken from http://website.lineone.net/∼10th.scouts.gourock/kettle.htm. For a while the Inverclyde Amateur Radio Group broadcast from the kettle.

I originally located this print at http://www.yokogawa.com/museum/mu_wat_e.htm (accessed 26 May 2003), the website of the “Museum of Measurement” of the Yokogawa Electric Company in Japan, from which it has now been removed.

Suzuki Keiko , “Yokohama-e and Kaika-e prints: Japanese interpretations of self and other from 1860 through the 1880s”, in Hardacre Helen Kern Adam L. (eds), New directions in the study of Meiji Japan (Leiden, 1997), 676–87, p. 683. The Watt print is reproduced as Figure 44. It is also reproduced in Marsden Ben , Watt's perfect engine: Steam and the age of invention (Cambridge, 2002), 188.

This is taken from a sermon preached on 15 April 2001, Easter Sunday, by the Rev. Grisham Lowell E. , St Paul's Episcopal Church, Fayetteville, Arkansas, reproduced at http://www.stpaulsfay.org/sermon041501.htm (accessed 26 May 2003).

See http://www.agencyfaqs.com/advertising/newcamps/766.html. A quick survey of display advertising in The Times newspaper, using the invaluable Times Digital Archive, reveals that the varied advertising uses of the kettle story in the twentieth century have included selling Scotch whisky (by Dewars), “Atomic Power for Peace” (by G.E.C.), and, perhaps more predictably, steam boilers (by John Brown Land Boilers Ltd). See The Times, 11 October 1929, 6; 22 September 1955, 7; and 15 September 1964, 15.

Farson Richard , Management of the absurd: Paradoxes in leadership (New York, 1996). See also Thomsett Rob , Radical project management (Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002).

“James Watt”, at http://www.webschooling.com/scientist8.html.

http://www.webschooling.com/jokes70.html. It has been suggested to me that this joke is sexist. That reading of it had not occurred to me. It seems to me that sexism is involved only if Ann is a dumb student who knows nothing of the Watt kettle story. If she is a bright student and is being smart by giving a “jokey” answer rather than what she knows to be the appropriate response then perhaps the sexism is no longer there. There are versions of the joke extant in which “Ann” is replaced by “Bright Student”. These should not be taken as an insult to the intelligence of bright students!.

http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode38.htm#11. The Presenter is introducing a documentary on medical breakthroughs. He utters some of the truest words ever spoken in jest about the nature of discovery: “Penguins, yes, penguins. What relevance do penguins have to the furtherance of medical science? Well, strangely enough quite a lot, a major breakthrough, maybe. It was from such an unlikely beginning as an unwanted fungus accidentally growing on a sterile plate that Sir Alexander Fleming gave the world penicillin. James Watt watched an ordinary household kettle boiling and conceived the potentiality of steam power. Would Albert Einstein ever have hit upon the theory of relativity if he hadn't been clever? All these tremendous leaps forward have been taken in the dark. Would Rutherford ever have split the atom if he hadn't tried? Could Marconi have invented the radio if he hadn't by pure chance spent years working at the problem? Are these amazing breakthroughs ever achieved except by years and years of unremitting study? Of course not. What I said earlier about accidental discoveries must have been wrong. Nevertheless scientists believe that these penguins, these comic flightless web-footed little bastards may finally unwittingly help man to fathom the uncharted depths of the human mind.”.

Champion Neil , James Watt (Groundbreakers Series; Oxford, 2001), 9.

J. P. Muirhead to James Watt Jr, 14 May 1845, Muirhead Papers, Special Collections, University of Glasgow Library, MSGEN 1354/822.

Arago François , Historical eloge of James Watt … Translated from the French … by James Patrick Muirhead (London, 1839), 6–7. Note that in what follows, Eloge refers to the English translation by Muirhead and Éloge to the work as published in French.

James Scott made this engraving in 1849. The art experts whom I have consulted at the National Portrait Gallery and the Courtauld Institute are unaware of the whereabouts of the original painting. This is rather strange given that Robert W. Buss (1804–75) is reasonably well known, if primarily for his abortive role as a stand-in illustrator of Dickens's Pickwick papers. On that saga see Dexter Walter Ley J. W. T. , The origin of Pickwick (London, 1936).

J. P. Muirhead to James Watt Jr, 14 May 1845, Muirhead Papers, Special Collections, University of Glasgow Library, MSGEN 1354/822.

Muirhead J. P. , Life of James Watt (London, 1858), 20–21.

On Stone, see Baldry Alfred Lys , Marcus Stone, R.A.: His life and work (London, 1896). There are in fact two very similar engravings of Stone's painting. One is by James Scott and is shown in Figure 5; it was declared in 1869, and published by Henry Graves & Co. The second engraving, incorporating specific differences of detail and in a less delicate style, was produced by Herbert Bourne; it is reproduced in Engen Rodney K. , Victorian engravings, ed. by Best Hilary (London, 1975), 38.

Casteras Susan P. , “Excluding women: The cult of the male genius in Victorian painting”, in Shires Linda M. (ed.), Rewriting the Victorians: Theory, history, and the politics of gender (London, 1992), 116–46, pp. 129–32. I am grateful to Patricia Fara for bringing this essay to my attention.

Carrington Norman T. , The King of the Golden River AND Letting off steam: Two plays for juniors (London, 1936). At one point in the dialogue of Letting off steam, James says: “That's funny. When the steam can't get out of the spout, it pushes up the lid!” Despite its apparent reliance on the Stone painting for inspiration, the play thus has Watt perceiving the power of steam rather than its properties. The play also reflects the tendency of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century stories about Watt to couple invocations of his genius with accounts of his hard work. Thus in Scene Two, in an exchange between Watt as an old man and a friend, we read: “Friend: You've had a wonderful career! Wonderful luck! James: Do you know how you spell the word ‘luck’? Friend: L-u-c-k. James: W-O-R-K.”.

This collaboration is examined in detail in Miller , Discovering water (ref. 3), chap. 5.

James Gibson to James Watt Jr, 8 October 1834, Doldowlod Papers, Birmingham Central Library, JWP 4/83 (new reference MS 3219/6/106), quoted in Robinson , “James Watt and the tea kettle” (ref. 5), 264. The letter is annotated by Watt Jr, “Reports anecdotes of my father's boyhood from Miss Jane Campbell. Copy sent to Mr. Arago 26 Oct'”. It is reproduced in Robinson Eric Musson A. E. , James Watt and the steam revolution (New York, 1969), 22–23.

James Watt Jr to J. B. Pentland, 19 January 1835, Doldowlod Papers, Birmingham Central Library, JWP W/10 (new reference MS 3219/6/106).

James Watt Jr to François Arago, 22 January 1835, Doldowlod Papers, Birmingham Central Library, JWP W/10 (new reference MS 3219/6/106).

The documents in question had been retained by the late Lord Gibson-Watt when the bulk of the papers kept at Doldowlod House were purchased from him in June 1994 and subsequently housed in the Archives Division of Birmingham Central Library. Only on Lord Gibson-Watt's death did the “kettle documents”, together with books, instruments, furniture and assorted memorabilia, come up for sale. Sotheby's , The James Watt sale: Art & science. The property of the late Lord Gibson-Watt and members of the Gibson-Watt family (London, 2003), 22–23. Consult the web site at: http://search.sothebys.com/jsps/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?sale_number=L03500&liveJot_id=5.

I am aware of two versions of the memoranda containing the kettle anecdote. The first is that long held at Doldowlod and recently sold at Sotheby's. It is a document sent by Miss Jane Campbell to Watt Jr in December 1834. Watt Jr annotated it with the title “Memoranda of the early Years of M^r.Watt, by his cousin, M^rs Marion Campbell (born Muirhead, and daughter of his Mother's sister who was his companion in Youth and intimate friend through life); communicated by her to her daughter Miss Jane Campbell, in 1798, who then wrote them down. Transmitted by her to J Watt in Dec^r. 1834”. This document is in Miss Campbell's hand. My claim is that Watt Jr made the change of “power” to “properties” evident in it. The second manuscript version of the document (Muirhead Papers, Birmingham Central Library, MI/8/20, new reference MS3219/6/219) is in a third hand, probably that of someone acting as a copyist for Watt Jr at that time, with annotations by Watt Jr at the end. Watt Jr has also inscribed the date “22 January 1835” at the top of the document. This strongly suggests that it is Watt Jr's retained copy of what he sent to Arago with his letter of that date. This copy differs from the Sotheby's document in several respects: (I) the title is slightly different, ending “who was his companion in youth & friend through life; dictated to and written down by her daughter Miss Jane Campbell in 1798”; (2) a sentence concerning Watt's carpenter's tools given to him by his father is inserted; (3) the beginning of the quotation concerning the kettle incident has Watt's aunt referring to “James Watt”, rather than “Jamie Watt”; (4) the document refers to “properties of steam” although from a difference in the quality of the writing it appears as if this copy may have initially read “power of steam” and had the words “power of” erased. These changes act as markers in determining which of the documents was used in subsequent publications. It appears that the second document, as edited by Watt Jr, became the source used by Arago, Watt Jr and Muirhead in their publications.

Other correspondence with Jane Campbell, also part of Lot 5 of the Sotheby's sale, shows Watt Jr correcting related aspects of her account, notably her claim that Watt attended Black's lectures at Glasgow. See Sotheby's , The James Watt sale (ref. 28), 22. Watt Jr pointed out that his father had explicitly denied this. We know that Watt Jr was a ruthless modifier of history in the service of his father's reputation. See Torrens Hugh , “Jonathan Hornblower (1753–1815) and the steam engine: A historiographic analysis”, in Smith D. (ed.), Perceptions of great engineers: Fact and fantasy (London, 1994), 23–34, and Miller David Philip , “‘Puffing Jamie’: The commercial and ideological importance of being a ‘philosopher’ in the case of the reputation of James Watt (1736–1819)”, History of science, xxxviii (2000), 1–21.

On Watt's resentment concerning the discovery of the composition of water, and the filial project made of his claims by Watt Jr, see Miller Discovering water (ref. 3), 3–33, 92–104.

Watt Jr is engaged, of course, in the retrospective recasting of discovery accounts. Although I don't theorize ‘discovery’ here, my approach is underwritten by the ‘attributional’ model. See: Brannigan Augustine , The social basis of scientific discoveries (Cambridge, 1981); Schaffer Simon , “Scientific discoveries and the end of natural philosophy”, Social studies of science, xvi (1986), 387–420; and idem, “Making up discovery”, in Boden Margaret (ed.), Dimensions of creativity (Cambridge, MA, 1994), 13–51. Miller , Discovering water (ref. 3) is an extended application of the attributional model to the case of the contest over the discovery of the compound nature of water.

See Hall A. R. , “What did the Industrial Revolution in Britain owe to science?”, in McKendrick Neil (ed.), Historical perspectives: Studies in English thought and society (London, 1974), 129–51, pp. 140–1, and Musson A. E. Robinson Eric , Science and technology in the Industrial Revolution (Manchester, 1969). Eric Robinson's early treatment of the kettle myth as having a genuine historical basis (ref. 5) can plausibly be seen as aiding a general endorsement of Watt's scientific status and therefore a move in these historical debates.

See Gieryn Thomas F. , Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line (Chicago, 1999).

Smiles Samuel , Lives of Boulton and Watt (London, 1865), 89.

For example, the new edition of Chambers's encyclopaedia in the 1890s systematically removed material from the article on Watt that had appeared in earlier editions and had created the impression of Watt as a “scientist”. Thus early editions contained a detailed account of Watt's steam experiments, but the 1895 edition removed these and simply stated that Watt “hit upon the expedient of the separate condenser”. Compare “Watt, James”, Chambers's encyclopaedia, x (1868), 105–6, and x (1895), 578–9.

Dickinson H. W. , James Watt, craftsman and engineer (Cambridge, 1936), 40 as quoted in Robinson , “James Watt and the tea kettle” (ref. 5), 262. James Eckford Lauder's painting, “James Watt and the steam engine: The dawn of the nineteenth century”, in the National Gallery of Scotland (NG 2435), has more of the flavour about it that Dickinson seeks.

Perhaps Watt Jr also read the Buss painting as a depiction of his father contemplating the properties of steam. Such a reading is certainly possible even though to us it might seem more “natural” to read it the other way.

The Notebook is published entire, with commentary, in Robinson Eric McKie Douglas (eds), Partners in science: Letters of James Watt and Joseph Black (Cambridge, MA, 1970), 431–90. The original is in the Doldowlod Papers, Birmingham Central Library, JWP W/14 (new reference MS 3219/4/170).

Ibid., 439.

Ibid., 459, Plate I provides a printed version of Figure 8.

This is the Table devised by Watt in 1814 as rendered in Robinson McKie (eds), Partners in science (ref. 39), 473. Watt had made some corrections to the results as originally recorded in the Notebook but these do not materially affect our concerns here.

There is a cute little tutorial for kids on Watt's steam engine at http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/trails/watt/. It can also be enjoyed by adults. Note the kettle in the opening scene of Watt's workshop!!.

From Watt's “Plain story”, Muirhead , Life of Watt (ref. 20), 83–91, p. 87, as quoted in Donovan Arthur , Philosophical chemistry in the Scottish Enlightenment (Edinburgh, 1975), 261–2.

Watt to Roebuck, 9 September 1765, as quoted in Muirhead , Life of Watt (ref. 20), 166.

Fleming Donald , “Latent heat and the invention of the Watt engine”, Isis, xliii (1952), 3–5. See also Donald Cardwell's rejection of the “Black-Watt legend” on the grounds that it “violates the elementary principles of physics”: Cardwell , From Watt to Clausius: The rise of thermodynamics in the early industrial age (Ithaca, 1971), 51. Cardwell's treatment is subtler than this remark alone would suggest.

My treatment of these issues relies heavily on: Donovan , Philosophical chemistry (ref. 44), 250–65; Hills Richard L. , “How James Watt invented the separate condenser”, Bulletin of the Scientific Instrument Society, lvii (1998), 26–29 and lviii (1998), 6–10; and Hills Richard L. , “The origins of James Watt's perfect engine”, Transactions of the Newcomen Society, lxviii (1996–97), 85–107. See also Hills Richard L. , James Watt. Volume 1: His time in Scotland, 1736–1774 (Ashbourne, 2002), 363–80. Watt did pursue for a time the idea that producing steam at lower pressures might be a way to save fuel, but this proved to be a dead end.

Watt James , “Thoughts on the constituent parts of water”, Philosophical transactions, lxxiv (1784), 329–53, and Cavendish Henry , “Experiments on air”, Philosophical transactions, lxxiv (1784), 119–53. See Miller Discovering water (ref. 3), chap. 3, and Jungnickel Christa McCormmach Russell , Cavendish: The experimental life, (Lewisburg, PA, 1999), 362–5, 377–80 for broader background.

James Watt to Joseph Black, 13 December 1782, in Robinson McKie (eds), Partners in science (ref. 39), 117–18 (my italics). Priestley had reported an experiment in which he had passed steam through a heated earthenware retort and produced air but he was quickly to retract it. Watt argued, however, that his ideas were not undermined by this retraction. The occasion for Watt's claim to originality here was a request from J. A. DeLuc for information about Black's and Watt's work on heat. Watt therefore was here identifying what he claimed to have done independently of Black. The ideas on water expressed are thus not the same as those that became, in 1784, the basis for Watt's claim to priority in discovery of the composition of water, though they are related.

James Watt to Matthew Boulton, 10 December 1782, in Muirhead J. P. , The origin and progress of the mechanical inventions of James Watt (3 vols, London, 1854), ii, 167–8.

See Partington J. R. , A history of chemistry (London, 1964), iii, 345–62, and Dyck David R. , “The nature of heat and its relationship to chemistry in the eighteenth century”, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1967, 208–15. This was to be why some nineteenth-century commentators on the discovery of the composition of water (men such as William Whewell and George Peacock) roundly rejected Watt's claims to the discovery. From a nineteenth-century perspective Watt's inclusion of elementary heat in the chemical reaction was a fundamental error that ran quite counter to the road to progress in chemistry at the time. See, for example, Whewell William , The philosophy of the inductive sciences (2 vols, London, 1840), i, 399–400. On the contrary, Watt's supporters were keen to assimilate Watt's ideas of the 1780s with those of Cavendish.

Beddoes Thomas Watt James , Considerations on the medicinal use and on the production of factitious airs (Bristol, 1796), 212–15. On Watt's work with Beddoes see Stansfield Dorothy A. Stansfield Ronald G. , “Dr Thomas Beddoes and James Watt: Preparatory work 1794–96 for the Bristol Pneumatic Institute”, Medical history, xxx (1986), 276–302. Partington J. R. , The composition of water (London, 1928), 32–33, made the point about Watt's ongoing conception of ‘airs’. For important insights into the chemical networks of which Watt was a part, see Stewart Larry , “Putting on airs: Science, medicine and polity in the late eighteenth century”, in Levere T. Turner G. L'E. (eds), Discussing chemistry and steam: The minutes of a Coffee House Philosophical Society, 1780–1787 (Oxford, 2002), 207–55.

Watt's edited versions of the two articles appeared in Robison John , A system of mechanical philosophy (4 vols, Edinburgh, 1822), ii, 1–184. On pp. iii–x is a letter from Watt to Brewster, dated May 1814, in which Watt sets out concisely his disagreement with Robison, and Black, on the latent heat issue, and also describes his route to the separate condenser. See also Smeaton W. A. , “Some comments on James Watt's published account of his work on steam and steam engines”, Notes and records of the Royal Society of London, xxvi (1971), 35–42.

Robison , A system of mechanical philosophy (ref. 53), ii, 5–10, note. At the point where Robison's text refers to Watt's idea that the sum of the latent and sensible heats is a constant, Watt inserted a note that read in part: “Mr. Southern is inclined to conclude, from the experiments on the latent heat of steam at high temperatures … that the latent heat is a constant quantity, instead of the sum of the latent and sensible heats being so” (note, p. 10). John Southern, and Watt Jr, had assisted Watt in revising the Robison articles.

In his notes on Henry Brougham's historical account of the discovery of the composition of water, Watt Jr did refer to these earlier beliefs of his father as if in direct support of his father's claims to the discovery. (See Arago , Historical eloge (ref. 17), 163–4, note.) The delighted critical response of the pro-Cavendish people in seizing upon this made it clear that to do this was a tactical mistake. In later publications, members of the Watt camp were more circumspect. See, for example, J. P. Muirhead's account in his introduction to Muirhead J. P. (ed.), Correspondence of the late James Watt on his discovery of the theory of the composition of water (London, 1846), pp. xlv–xlvi.

Barthes Roland , Mythologies, selected and translated from the French by Annette Lavers (London, 1972), 109–37.

By “perspirationist” viewpoint I mean that which gives pride of place to hard work in processes of discovery and invention in line with Edison's famous saying to that effect.

To give a simple example, Casteras writes of the attitude of the child's “mother or sister” to the young Watt. That Watt had no elder sister should have constrained this remark.

Subsequent to this investigation, I became aware of another study similarly emphasizing the historical value of taking myth seriously. This is Poole Robert , Time's alteration: Calendar reform in early modern England (London, 1998), especially pp. 13–17 and 159–78, dealing with the construction and deployment of the myth of the Calendar riots of 1752.