The Second Industrial Revolution?

[Rhyolith]

There has been a bit of talk about the first industrial revolution in britain, but a while ago I heard of a so called second industrial revolution in germany just before the first world war. I think its to do with mass production techniques.

Anyone heard of this before?

 

[finneyb]

Never heard of it BUT Wiki has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_In ... Revolution

Brian

 

[AES]

Very interesting, thanks for posting the link/s.

I'd never heard of that before, but from the links, it makes sense, particularly the idea of manufacturing tolerances becoming close enough that parts (from 2 or more examples of the same machine !!) were truly interchangeable.

AES

 

[Rhyolith]

I always imagined the period from the start of the industrail revolution until now as a peroid of continous inventions and technological improvment, so interesting to learn there was that 70 year period (1800 -1870) with little change!

Its also interesting to see how britians massive empire might actaully have held it back reltive to germany and the USA, who were able to spend more on research as a result.

 

[Quickben]

I always imagined the period from the start of the industrail revolution until now as a peroid of continous inventions and technological improvment, so interesting to learn there was that 70 year period (1800 -1870) with little change!

Its also interesting to see how britians massive empire might actaully have held it back reltive to germany and the USA, who were able to spend more on research as a result.

Tradition. That will have been the greatest culprit in holding us back. We've always done it that way so it must be the best way. Thankfully the Victorians came along and innovation became de rigueur again.

 

[finneyb]

Been looking for how Britain's Empire has held it back - I'm not seeing it.

What I did see in the Wiki reference above is
' Britain retained its belief in free trade throughout this period ' which does fit in with Brexit mission . Another example of tradition going to hold us back?

I prefer the more direct comment of devoid of original thought which to me is more accurate.

 

[Rhyolith]

"Germany invested more heavily than the British in research, especially in chemistry, motors and electricity. The German concern system (known as Konzerne), being significantly concentrated, was able to make more efficient use of capital. Germany was not weighted down with an expensive worldwide empire that needed defense. Following Germany's annexation of Alsace-Lorraine in 1871, it absorbed parts of what had been France's industrial base.[102]"

Thats under the "Germany" sub heading near the bottom.

I always take Wiki with a pinch of salt, but this does make sense as a factor that contributed to Britain's lagging behind as an industrial nation. I mean the navy was what, 2-3 times larger than any other navy at the time? That must of cost a bomb in the nations resources!

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I'm not sure that we should regard the empire as something that held back research and industrial advance in the UK .

Thinking at the time may quite reasonably have been that the UK got a much larger, more predictable "bang for the buck" through colonialism than speculative science and research.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I always imagined the period from the start of the industrail revolution until now as a peroid of continous inventions and technological improvment, so interesting to learn there was that 70 year period (1800 -1870) with little change!

Its also interesting to see how britians massive empire might actaully have held it back reltive to germany and the USA, who were able to spend more on research as a result.

That's a load of utter cobblers. No technological improvements between 1800 and 1870? Erm - most of the development of machine tools took place between 1800 and 1840, moving manufacture from (basically) blacksmithing and carpentry to something nearer what we think of as 'machine building' today. One of the most significant developments of the industrial revolution was the railways, which were just colliery tramways in 1800. By 1870, goods could be moved in large quantities far quicker than water-bourne transport pretty well anywhere in Britain, thus replacing local building materials and homewares with mass-manufactured alternatives. Shipping moved from wood and sail, to steel and steam.

As for Britain's empire holding it back - quite the reverse! It gave Britain a huge captive market. It's true that Britain was a little ahead of it's competitors until 1860 - but only just. Places like the US and Germany were hardly medieval backwaters! One factor that did influence matters was that Britain had a large, relatively concentrated population, so skilled labour was pretty easy to find - and wages were not exactly high. America had rather the reverse problem, which was a great incentive to find mechanised solutions to problems. Germany had a significant scientific and technical university tradition, and learned how to convert the discoveries of the laboratory into industrial production - one reason they led the world in heavy chemical manufacture for quite a while.

 

[AES]

Personally, I wouldn't go so far as to describe ANY of the above points as "cobblers"! It seems to me that this whole subject (which I find very interesting BTW) is more complex that I for one have previously imagined.

But it's quite true that although by, say, the mid 19th century, railways (more or less as we know them today) already existed, I don't think it's really true to say to say that invention, and more particularly development, had stagnated.

Just staying with the railways example for a moment, as I understand it, it was during the period mid 19th century up until, say, the early 20th century (let's guess at 1910 - by which time all the major UK railways already had their own loco designers, factories, etc), the "fine tuning" (i.e. development) of steam locomotives was in full swing - e.g. the invention of improved valve gear (the key to efficiency, i.e. power output v coal burnt), super heating of boilers, improved draughting and fireboxes, etc, etc, was going "full steam ahead" (sorry about that!).

Such things led to the railways being able to move ever greater loads (people and goods) over greater distances at higher speeds with lower overall costs - and that technology, the leading edge technology of the day - was exported all over the world.

E.Gs; who built the first ever steam railway in Germany in the mid 19th century? Answer, UK.

Where was loco super heating and compounding invented/first applied to locos? France (I think).

And let's also not forget please that the creation of a single nation Germany (again, just for example) was only finally accomplished just before the end of the 19th century. Ditto Italy, as just another example.

I suspect that in reality, although it may have been at a slower pace than the internet and modern comms allow us today, both invention and development/improvement (of existing inventions) was taking place all over the world, with "competition" spurring everyone on.

In fact I'm not at all sure that I buy into the idea of a stagnation period in the latter part of the 19th century in any of the developed countries at all!

Interesting discussion though - and harking back to an earlier thread somewhere here about ship building in Belfast, something that should, IMO, be incorporated into both education and political thinking today.

AES

 

[Rhyolith]

Its probably an overly simplified statement to consider any period of history as having no invention, so in hindsight that was a silly statement! The Wiki grain of salt was not applied as it should have been

As for Britain's empire holding it back - quite the reverse! It gave Britain a huge captive market. It's true that Britain was a little ahead of it's competitors until 1860 - but only just. Places like the US and Germany were hardly medieval backwaters! One factor that did influence matters was that Britain had a large, relatively concentrated population, so skilled labour was pretty easy to find - and wages were not exactly high. America had rather the reverse problem, which was a great incentive to find mechanised solutions to problems. Germany had a significant scientific and technical university tradition, and learned how to convert the discoveries of the laboratory into industrial production - one reason they led the world in heavy chemical manufacture for quite a while.

According to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFTSCjn ... y&index=18 india suffered economical setbacks due to losing the german market in WW1, this shows that the markets were not entirely captive.

The concentrated population is an interesting mechanic, I had always thought of it as only being a result of industrialisation. It makes sense that it helped with the focused labour requirements of factories and the like and this gave Britain an early advantage in getting industrial processes going.

Though I am sure that the empire would not be the only factor contributing to Britain's industrial status, looking at the information here I still think it did more hinder than help.