James Watt First engines What was James Watt's first engine? The first, for example, had a cylinder with a diameter of some 50 inches and an overall height of about 24 feet, When did he make his first engine? In 1776, the first engines were installed and working in commercial enterprises.
Did any other models follow that one?
Besides the 1776 engine, did any other models follow?
In 1776, the first engines were installed and working in commercial enterprises. These first engines were used to power pumps and produced only reciprocating motion to move the pump rods at the bottom of the shaft. The design was commercially successful, and for the next five years Watt was very busy installing more engines, mostly in Cornwall for pumping water out of mines.  These early engines were not manufactured by Boulton and Watt, but were made by others according to drawings made by Watt, who served in the role of consulting engineer. The erection of the engine and its shakedown was supervised by Watt, at first, and then by men in the firm's employ. These were large machines. The first, for example, had a cylinder with a diameter of some 50 inches and an overall height of about 24 feet, and required the construction of a dedicated building to house it. Boulton and Watt charged an annual payment, equal to one third of the value of the coal saved in comparison to a Newcomen engine performing the same work.  The field of application for the invention was greatly widened when Boulton urged Watt to convert the reciprocating motion of the piston to produce rotational power for grinding, weaving and milling. Although a crank seemed the obvious solution to the conversion Watt and Boulton were stymied by a patent for this, whose holder, James Pickard, and associates proposed to cross-license the external condenser. Watt adamantly opposed this and they circumvented the patent by their sun and planet gear in 1781.  Over the next six years, he made a number of other improvements and modifications to the steam engine. A double acting engine, in which the steam acted alternately on the two sides of the piston was one. He described methods for working the steam "expansively" (i.e., using steam at pressures well above atmospheric). A compound engine, which connected two or more engines was described. Two more patents were granted for these in 1781 and 1782. Numerous other improvements that made for easier manufacture and installation were continually implemented. One of these included the use of the steam indicator which produced an informative plot of the pressure in the cylinder against its volume, which he kept as a trade secret. Another important invention, one which Watt was most proud of, was the parallel motion which was essential in double-acting engines as it produced the straight line motion required for the cylinder rod and pump, from the connected rocking beam, whose end moves in a circular arc. This was patented in 1784. A throttle valve to control the power of the engine, and a centrifugal governor, patented in 1788, to keep it from "running away" were very important. These improvements taken together produced an engine which was up to five times as efficient in its use of fuel as the Newcomen engine.  Because of the danger of exploding boilers, which were in a very primitive stage of development, and the ongoing issues with leaks, Watt restricted his use of high pressure steam - all of his engines used steam at near atmospheric pressure. CANNOTANSWER
Over the next six years, he made a number of other improvements and modifications to the steam engine.
James Watt  (; 30 January 1736 (19 January 1736 OS) – 25 August 1819) was a Scottish inventor, mechanical engineer, and chemist who improved on Thomas Newcomen's 1712 Newcomen steam engine with his Watt steam engine in 1776, which was fundamental to the changes brought by the Industrial Revolution in both his native Great Britain and the rest of the world.

While working as an instrument maker at the University of Glasgow, Watt became interested in the technology of steam engines. He realised that contemporary engine designs wasted a great deal of energy by repeatedly cooling and reheating the cylinder. Watt introduced a design enhancement, the separate condenser, which avoided this waste of energy and radically improved the power, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of steam engines. Eventually he adapted his engine to produce rotary motion, greatly broadening its use beyond pumping water.

Watt attempted to commercialise his invention, but experienced great financial difficulties until he entered a partnership with Matthew Boulton in 1775. The new firm of Boulton and Watt was eventually highly successful and Watt became a wealthy man. In his retirement, Watt continued to develop new inventions though none was as significant as his steam engine work.

As Watt developed the concept of horsepower, the SI unit of power, the watt, was named after him.

Biography

Early life and education 
James Watt was born on 19 January 1736 in Greenock, Renfrewshire, the eldest of the five surviving children of Agnes Muirhead (1703–1755) and James Watt (1698–1782). His mother came from a distinguished family, was well educated and said to be of forceful character, while his father was a shipwright, ship owner and contractor, and served as the Greenock's chief baillie in 1751. The Watt family's wealth came in part from Watt's father's trading in slaves and slave-produced goods. 
Watt's parents were Presbyterians and strong Covenanters, but despite his religious upbringing he later became a deist. Watt's grandfather, Thomas Watt (1642–1734), was a teacher of mathematics, surveying and navigation and baillie to the Baron of Cartsburn.

Initially, Watt was educated at home by his mother, later going on to attend Greenock Grammar School. There he exhibited an aptitude for mathematics, while Latin and Greek failed to interest him.

Watt is said to have suffered prolonged bouts of ill-health as a child and from frequent headaches all his life.

After leaving school, Watt worked in the workshops of his father's businesses, demonstrating considerable dexterity and skill in creating engineering models. After his father suffered some unsuccessful business ventures, Watt left Greenock to seek employment in Glasgow as a mathematical instrument maker.

When he was 18, Watt's mother died and his father's health began to fail. Watt travelled to London and was able to obtain a period of training as an instrument maker for a year (1755–56), then returned to Scotland, settling in the major commercial city of Glasgow, intent on setting up his own instrument-making business. He was still very young and, having not had a full apprenticeship, did not have the usual connections via a former master to establish himself as a journeyman instrument maker.

Watt was saved from this impasse by the arrival from Jamaica of astronomical instruments bequeathed by Alexander MacFarlane to the University of Glasgow - instruments that required expert attention. Watt restored them to working order and was remunerated. These instruments were eventually installed in the Macfarlane Observatory. Subsequently, three professors offered him the opportunity to set up a small workshop within the university. It was initiated in 1757 and two of the professors, the physicist and chemist Joseph Black as well as the famed economist Adam Smith, became Watt's friends.

At first, he worked on maintaining and repairing scientific instruments used in the university, helping with demonstrations, and expanding the production of quadrants. He made and repaired brass reflecting quadrants, parallel rulers, scales, parts for telescopes, and barometers, among other things.

It is sometimes falsely stated that he struggled to establish himself in Glasgow due to opposition from the Trades House, but this myth has been thoroughly debunked by the historian Harry Lumsden. The records from this period are lost, but it is known that he was able to work and trade completely normally as a skilled metal worker so the Incorporation of Hammermen must have been satisfied that he met their requirements for membership. It is also known that other people in the metal trades were pursued for working without being members of the Incorporation well into the 19th century, so the rules were definitely being enforced when Watt was trading freely throughout the city.

In 1759, he formed a partnership with John Craig, an architect and businessman, to manufacture and sell a line of products including musical instruments and toys. This partnership lasted for the next six years, and employed up to 16 workers. Craig died in 1765. One employee, Alex Gardner, eventually took over the business, which lasted into the 20th century.

In 1764, Watt married his cousin Margaret (Peggy) Miller, with whom he had 5 children, 2 of whom lived to adulthood: James Jr. (1769–1848) and Margaret (1767–1796). His wife died in childbirth in 1773. In 1777, he married again, to Ann MacGregor, daughter of a Glasgow dye-maker, with whom he had 2 children: Gregory (1777–1804), who became a geologist and mineralogist, and Janet (1779–1794). Ann died in 1832. Between 1777 and 1790 he lived in Regent Place, Birmingham.

Watt and the kettle

There is a popular story that Watt was inspired to invent the steam engine by seeing a kettle boiling, the steam forcing the lid to rise and thus showing Watt the power of steam. This story is told in many forms; in some Watt is a young lad, in others he is older, sometimes it's his mother's kettle, sometimes his aunt's. Watt did not actually invent the steam engine, as the story implies, but dramatically improved the efficiency of the existing Newcomen engine by adding a separate condenser. This is difficult to explain to someone not familiar with concepts of heat and thermal efficiency. It appears that the story was created, possibly by Watt's son James Watt Jr., and persists because it is easy for children to understand and remember. In this light, it can be seen as akin to the story of Isaac Newton and the falling apple and his discovery of gravity.

Although it is often dismissed as a myth, the story of Watt and the kettle has a basis in fact. In trying to understand the thermodynamics of heat and steam, James Watt carried out many laboratory experiments and his diaries record that in conducting these, he used a kettle as a boiler to generate steam.

Early experiments with steam

In 1759, Watt's friend, John Robison, called his attention to the use of steam as a source of motive power. The design of the Newcomen engine, in use for almost 50 years for pumping water from mines, had hardly changed from its first implementation.  Watt began to experiment with steam, though he had never seen an operating steam engine.  He tried constructing a model; it failed to work satisfactorily, but he continued his experiments and began to read everything he could about the subject. He came to realise the importance of latent heat—the thermal energy released or absorbed during a constant-temperature process—in understanding the engine, which, unknown to Watt, his friend Joseph Black had previously discovered some years before. Understanding of the steam engine was in a very primitive state, for the science of thermodynamics would not be formalised for nearly another 100 years.

In 1763, Watt was asked to repair a model Newcomen engine belonging to the university. Even after repair, the engine barely worked. After much experimentation, Watt demonstrated that about 3/4 of the thermal energy of the steam was being consumed in heating the engine cylinder on every cycle. This energy was wasted because, later in the cycle, cold water was injected into the cylinder to condense the steam to reduce its pressure. Thus, by repeatedly heating and cooling the cylinder, the engine wasted most of its thermal energy rather than converting it into mechanical energy.

Watt's critical insight, arrived at in May 1765 as he crossed Glasgow Green park, was to cause the steam to condense in a separate chamber apart from the piston, and to maintain the temperature of the cylinder at the same temperature as the injected steam by surrounding it with a "steam jacket". Thus, very little energy was absorbed by the cylinder on each cycle, making more available to perform useful work. Watt had a working model later that same year.

Despite a potentially workable design, there were still substantial difficulties in constructing a full-scale engine. This required more capital, some of which came from Black. More substantial backing came from John Roebuck, the founder of the celebrated Carron Iron Works near Falkirk, with whom he now formed a partnership. Roebuck lived at Kinneil House in Bo'ness, during which time Watt worked at perfecting his steam engine in a cottage adjacent to the house. The shell of the cottage, and a very large part of one of his projects, still exist to the rear.

The principal difficulty was in machining the piston and cylinder. Iron workers of the day were more like blacksmiths than modern machinists, and were unable to produce the components with sufficient precision. Much capital was spent in pursuing a patent on Watt's invention. Strapped for resources, Watt was forced to take up employment—first as a surveyor, then as a civil engineer—for 8 years.

Roebuck went bankrupt, and Matthew Boulton, who owned the Soho Manufactory works near Birmingham, acquired his patent rights. An extension of the patent to 1800 was successfully obtained in 1775.

Through Boulton, Watt finally had access to some of the best iron workers in the world. The difficulty of the manufacture of a large cylinder with a tightly fitting piston was solved by John Wilkinson, who had developed precision boring techniques for cannon making at Bersham, near Wrexham, North Wales. Watt and Boulton formed a hugely successful partnership, Boulton and Watt, which lasted for the next 25 years.

First engines

In 1776, the first engines were installed and working in commercial enterprises. These first engines were used to power pumps and produced only reciprocating motion to move the pump rods at the bottom of the shaft. The design was commercially successful, and for the next 5 years, Watt was very busy installing more engines, mostly in Cornwall, for pumping water out of mines.

These early engines were not manufactured by Boulton and Watt, but were made by others according to drawings made by Watt, who served in the role of consulting engineer. The erection of the engine and its shakedown was supervised by Watt, at first, and then by men in the firm's employ. These were large machines. The first, for example, had a cylinder with a diameter of some 50 inches and an overall height of about 24 feet, and required the construction of a dedicated building to house it. Boulton and Watt charged an annual payment, equal to 1/3 of the value of the coal saved in comparison to a Newcomen engine performing the same work.

The field of application for the invention was greatly widened when Boulton urged Watt to convert the reciprocating motion of the piston to produce rotational power for grinding, weaving and milling. Although a crank seemed the obvious solution to the conversion, Watt and Boulton were stymied by a patent for this, whose holder, James Pickard and his associates proposed to cross-license the external condenser. Watt adamantly opposed this and they circumvented the patent by their sun and planet gear in 1781.

Over the next 6 years, he made a number of other improvements and modifications to the steam engine. A double-acting engine, in which the steam acted alternately on both sides of the piston, was one. He described methods for working the steam "expansively" (i.e., using steam at pressures well above atmospheric). A compound engine, which connected 2 or more engines, was described. Two more patents were granted for these in 1781 and 1782. Numerous other improvements that made for easier manufacture and installation were continually implemented. One of these included the use of the steam indicator which produced an informative plot of the pressure in the cylinder against its volume, which he kept as a trade secret. Another important invention, one which Watt was most proud of, was the parallel motion linkage, which was essential in double-acting engines as it produced the straight line motion required for the cylinder rod and pump, from the connected rocking beam, whose end moves in a circular arc. This was patented in 1784. A throttle valve to control the power of the engine, and a centrifugal governor, patented in 1788, to keep it from "running away" were very important. These improvements taken together produced an engine which was up to 5 times as fuel efficient as the Newcomen engine.

Because of the danger of exploding boilers, which were in a very primitive stage of development, and the ongoing issues with leaks, Watt restricted his use of high pressure steam – all of his engines used steam at near atmospheric pressure.

Patent trials

Edward Bull started constructing engines for Boulton and Watt in Cornwall in 1781. By 1792, he had started making engines of his own design, but which contained a separate condenser, and so infringed Watt's patents. Two brothers, Jabez Carter Hornblower and Jonathan Hornblower Jnr also started to build engines about the same time. Others began to modify Newcomen engines by adding a condenser, and the mine owners in Cornwall became convinced that Watt's patent could not be enforced. They started to withhold payments to Boulton and Watt, which by 1795 had fallen on hard times. Of the total £21,000 (equivalent to £ as of ) owed, only £2,500 had been received. Watt was forced to go to court to enforce his claims.

He first sued Bull in 1793. The jury found for Watt, but the question of whether or not the original specification of the patent was valid was left to another trial. In the meantime, injunctions were issued against the infringers, forcing their payments of the royalties to be placed in escrow. The trial on determining the validity of the specifications which was held in the following year was inconclusive, but the injunctions remained in force and the infringers, except for Jonathan Hornblower, all began to settle their cases. Hornblower was soon brought to trial in 1799, and the verdict of the four was decisively in favour of Watt. Their friend John Wilkinson, who had solved the problem of boring an accurate cylinder, was a particularly grievous case. He had erected about 20 engines without Boulton's and Watts' knowledge. They finally agreed to settle the infringement in 1796. Boulton and Watt never collected all that was owed them, but the disputes were all settled directly between the parties or through arbitration. These trials were extremely costly in both money and time, but ultimately were successful for the firm.

Copying machine

Before 1780, there was no good method for making copies of letters or drawings. The only method sometimes used was a mechanical one using multiple linked pens. Watt at first experimented with improving this method, but soon gave up on this approach because it was so cumbersome. He instead decided to try to physically transfer some ink from the front of the original to the back of another sheet, moistened with a solvent, and pressed to the original. The second sheet had to be thin, so that the ink could be seen through it when the copy was held up to the light, thus reproducing the original exactly.

Watt started to develop the process in 1779, and made many experiments to formulate the ink, select the thin paper, to devise a method for wetting the special thin paper, and to make a press suitable for applying the correct pressure to effect the transfer. All of these required much experimentation, but he soon had enough success to patent the process a year later. Watt formed another partnership with Boulton (who provided financing) and James Keir (to manage the business) in a firm called James Watt and Co. The perfection of the invention required much more development work before it could be routinely used by others, but this was carried out over the next few years. Boulton and Watt gave up their shares to their sons in 1794. It became a commercial success and was widely used in offices even into the 20th century.

Chemical experiments
From an early age, Watt was very interested in chemistry. In late 1786, while in Paris, he witnessed an experiment by Claude Louis Berthollet in which he reacted hydrochloric acid with manganese dioxide to produce chlorine. He had already found that an aqueous solution of chlorine could bleach textiles, and had published his findings, which aroused great interest among many potential rivals. When Watt returned to Britain, he began experiments along these lines with hopes of finding a commercially viable process.  He discovered that a mixture of salt, manganese dioxide and sulphuric acid could produce chlorine, which Watt believed might be a cheaper method. He passed the chlorine into a weak solution of alkali, and obtained a turbid solution that appeared to have good bleaching properties. He soon communicated these results to James McGrigor, his father-in-law, who was a bleacher in Glasgow. Otherwise, he tried to keep his method a secret.

With McGrigor and his wife Annie, he started to scale up the process, and in March 1788, McGrigor was able to bleach   of cloth to his satisfaction. About this time, Berthollet discovered the salt and sulphuric acid process, and published it, so it became public knowledge. Many others began to experiment with improving the process, which still had many shortcomings, not the least of which was the problem of transporting the liquid product. Watt's rivals soon overtook him in developing the process, and he dropped out of the race. It was not until 1799, when Charles Tennant patented a process for producing solid bleaching powder (calcium hypochlorite) that it became a commercial success.

By 1794, Watt had been chosen by Thomas Beddoes to manufacture apparatuses to produce, clean and store gases for use in the new Pneumatic Institution at Hotwells in Bristol. Watt continued to experiment with various gases for several years, but by 1797, the medical uses for the "factitious airs" (artificial gases) had come to a dead end.

Personality
Watt combined theoretical knowledge of science with the ability to apply it practically. Chemist Humphry Davy said of him, "Those who consider James Watt only as a great practical mechanic form a very erroneous idea of his character; he was equally distinguished as a natural philosopher and a chemist, and his inventions demonstrate his profound knowledge of those sciences, and that peculiar characteristic of genius, the union of them for practical application".

He was greatly respected by other prominent men of the Industrial Revolution. He was an important member of the Lunar Society of Birmingham, and was a much sought-after conversationalist and companion, always interested in expanding his horizons. His personal relationships with his friends and business partners were always congenial and long-lasting.

Watt was a prolific correspondent. During his years in Cornwall, he wrote long letters to Boulton several times per week. He was averse to publishing his results in, for example, the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society however, and instead preferred to communicate his ideas in patents. He was an excellent draughtsman.

He was a rather poor businessman, and especially hated bargaining and negotiating terms with those who sought to use the steam engine. In a letter to William Small in 1772, Watt confessed that "he would rather face a loaded cannon than settle an account or make a bargain." Until he retired, he was always very concerned about his financial affairs, and was something of a worrier. His health was often poor and he suffered frequent nervous headaches and depression.

Soho Foundry
At first, the partnership made the drawings and specifications for the engines, and supervised the work to erect them on the customers' property. They produced almost none of the parts themselves. Watt did most of his work at his home in Harper's Hill in Birmingham, while Boulton worked at the Soho Manufactory. Gradually, the partners began to actually manufacture more and more of the parts, and by 1795, they purchased a property about a mile away from the Soho Manufactory, on the banks of the Birmingham Canal, to establish a new foundry for the manufacture of the engines. The Soho Foundry formally opened in 1796 at a time when Watt's sons, Gregory and James Jr. were heavily involved in the management of the enterprise. In 1800, the year of Watt's retirement, the firm made a total of 41 engines.

Later years

Watt retired in 1800, the same year that his fundamental patent and partnership with Boulton expired. The famous partnership was transferred to the men's sons, Matthew Robinson Boulton and James Watt Jr.. Longtime firm engineer William Murdoch was soon made a partner and the firm prospered.

Watt continued to invent other things before and during his semi-retirement. Within his home in Handsworth, Staffordshire, Watt made use of a garret room as a workshop, and it was here that he worked on many of his inventions. Among other things, he invented and constructed several machines for copying sculptures and medallions which worked very well, but which he never patented. One of the first sculptures he produced with the machine was a small head of his old professor friend Adam Smith. He maintained his interest in civil engineering and was a consultant on several significant projects. He proposed, for example, a method for constructing a flexible pipe to be used for pumping water under the River Clyde at Glasgow.

He and his second wife travelled to France and Germany, and he purchased an estate in mid-Wales at Doldowlod House, one mile south of Llanwrthwl, which he much improved.

In 1816, he took a trip on the paddle-steamer Comet, a product of his inventions, to revisit his home town of Greenock.

He died on 25 August 1819 at his home "Heathfield Hall" near Handsworth in Staffordshire (now part of Birmingham) at the age of 83. He was buried on 2 September in the graveyard of St Mary's Church, Handsworth. The church has since been extended and his grave is now inside the church.

Family

On 16 July 1764, Watt married his cousin Margaret Miller (d. 1773). They had two children, Margaret (1767–1796) and James (1769–1848). In 1791, their daughter married James Miller. In September 1773, while Watt was working in the Scottish Highlands, he learned that his wife, who was pregnant with their third child, was seriously ill. He immediately returned home but found that she had died and their child was stillborn.

In 1775, he married Ann MacGregor (d.1832).

Freemasonry
He was Initiated into Scottish Freemasonry in The Glasgow Royal Arch Lodge, No. 77, in 1763. The Lodge ceased to exist in 1810. A Masonic Lodge was named after him in his home town of Glasgow – Lodge James Watt, No. 1215.

Murdoch's contributions
William Murdoch joined Boulton and Watt in 1777. At first, he worked in the pattern shop in Soho, but soon he was erecting engines in Cornwall.  He became an important part of the firm and made many contributions to its success.  A very able man, he made several important inventions on his own.

John Griffiths, who wrote a biography of him in 1992, has argued that Watt's discouragement of Murdoch's work with high-pressure steam on his steam road locomotive experiments delayed its development: Watt rightly believed that boilers of the time would be unsafe at higher pressures.

Watt patented the application of the sun and planet gear to steam in 1781 and a steam locomotive in 1784, both of which have strong claims to have been invented by Murdoch. The patent was never contested by Murdoch, however, and Boulton and Watt's firm continued to use the sun and planet gear in their rotative engines, even long after the patent for the crank expired in 1794.  Murdoch was made a partner of the firm in 1810, where he remained until his retirement 20 years later at the age of 76.

Legacy

As one author states, James Watt's improvements to the steam engine "converted it from a prime mover of marginal efficiency into the mechanical workhorse of the Industrial Revolution".

Honours
Watt was much honoured in his own time. In 1784, he was made a fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and was elected as a member of the Batavian Society for Experimental Philosophy, of Rotterdam, the Netherlands, in 1787. In 1789, he was elected to the elite group, the Smeatonian Society of Civil Engineers. In 1806, he was conferred the honorary Doctor of Laws by the University of Glasgow.  The French Academy elected him a Corresponding Member and he was made a Foreign Associate in 1814.

The watt is named after James Watt for his contributions to the development of the steam engine, and was adopted by the Second Congress of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1889 and by the 11th General Conference on Weights and Measures in 1960 as the unit of power incorporated in the International System of Units (or "SI").

On 29 May 2009, the Bank of England announced that Boulton and Watt would appear on a new £50 note. The design is the first to feature a dual portrait on a Bank of England note, and presents the two industrialists side by side with images of Watt's steam engine and Boulton's Soho Manufactory. Quotes attributed to each of the men are inscribed on the note: "I sell here, sir, what all the world desires to have—POWER" (Boulton) and "I can think of nothing else but this machine" (Watt). The inclusion of Watt is the second time that a Scot has featured on a Bank of England note (the first was Adam Smith on the 2007 issue £20 note). In September 2011, it was announced that the notes would enter circulation on 2 November.

In 2011, he was one of seven inaugural inductees to the Scottish Engineering Hall of Fame.

Memorials

Watt was buried in the grounds of St. Mary's Church, Handsworth, in Birmingham. Later expansion of the church, over his grave, means that his tomb is now buried inside the church.

The garret room workshop that Watt used in his retirement was left, locked and untouched, until 1853, when it was first viewed by his biographer J. P. Muirhead. Thereafter, it was occasionally visited, but left untouched, as a kind of shrine. A proposal to have it transferred to the Patent Office came to nothing. When the house was due to be demolished in 1924, the room and all its contents were presented to the Science Museum, where it was recreated in its entirety. It remained on display for visitors for many years, but was walled-off when the gallery it was housed in closed. The workshop remained intact, and preserved, and in March 2011 was put on public display as part of a new permanent Science Museum exhibition, "James Watt and our world".

The approximate location of James Watt's birth in Greenock is commemorated by a statue. Several locations and street names in Greenock recall him, most notably the Watt Memorial Library, which was begun in 1816 with Watt's donation of scientific books, and developed as part of the Watt Institution by his son (which ultimately became the James Watt College). Taken over by the local authority in 1974, the library now also houses the local history collection and archives of Inverclyde, and is dominated by a large seated statue in the vestibule. Watt is additionally commemorated by statuary in George Square, Glasgow and Princes Street, Edinburgh, as well as several others in Birmingham, where he is also remembered by the Moonstones and a school is named in his honour.

The James Watt College has expanded from its original location to include campuses in Kilwinning (North Ayrshire), Finnart Street and The Waterfront in Greenock, and the Sports campus in Largs. Heriot-Watt University near Edinburgh was at one time the School of Arts of Edinburgh, founded in 1821 as the world's first Mechanics Institute, but to commemorate George Heriot, the 16th-century financier to King James VI and I, and James Watt, after Royal Charter the name was changed to Heriot-Watt University. Dozens of university and college buildings (chiefly of science and technology) are named after him. Matthew Boulton's home, Soho House, is now a museum, commemorating the work of both men. The University of Glasgow's Faculty of Engineering has its headquarters in the James Watt Building, which also houses the department of Mechanical Engineering and the department of Aerospace Engineering. The huge painting James Watt contemplating the steam engine by James Eckford Lauder is now owned by the National Gallery of Scotland.

There is a statue of James Watt in Piccadilly Gardens, Manchester and City Square, Leeds.

A colossal statue of Watt by Francis Legatt Chantrey was placed in Westminster Abbey, and later was moved to St. Paul's Cathedral.  On the cenotaph, the inscription reads, in part, "JAMES WATT ... ENLARGED THE RESOURCES OF HIS COUNTRY, INCREASED THE POWER OF MAN, AND ROSE TO AN EMINENT PLACE AMONG THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS FOLLOWERS OF SCIENCE AND THE REAL BENEFACTORS OF THE WORLD".

A bust of Watt is in the Hall of Heroes of the National Wallace Monument in Stirling, Scotland.

Patents
Watt was the sole inventor listed on his 6 patents:
 Patent 913:  A method of lessening the consumption of steam in steam engines – the separate condenser. The specification was accepted on 5 January 1769; enrolled on 29 April 1769, and extended to June 1800 by an Act of Parliament in 1775.
 Patent 1,244:  A new method of copying letters.  The specification was accepted on 14 February 1780 and enrolled on 31 May 1780.
 Patent 1,306:  New methods to produce a continued rotation motion – sun and planet.  The specification was accepted on 25 October 1781 and enrolled on 23 February 1782.
 Patent 1,321:  New improvements upon steam engines – expansive and double acting.  The specification was accepted on 14 March 1782 and enrolled on 4 July 1782.
 Patent 1,432:  New improvements upon steam engines – three bar motion and steam carriage.  The specification was accepted on 28 April 1782 and enrolled on 25 August 1782.
 Patent 1,485: Newly improved methods of constructing furnaces. The specification was accepted on 14 June 1785 and enrolled on 9 July 1785.

References

Sources
 "Some Unpublished Letters of James Watt" in Journal of Institution of Mechanical Engineers (London, 1915).
 Carnegie, Andrew, James Watt University Press of the Pacific (2001) (Reprinted from the 1913 ed.), .
 
 Dickinson, H. W. and Hugh Pembroke Vowles  James Watt and the Industrial Revolution (published in 1943, new edition 1948 and reprinted in 1949. Also published in Spanish and Portuguese (1944) by the British Council)
 Hills, Rev. Dr. Richard L., James Watt, Vol 1, His time in Scotland, 1736–1774 (2002); Vol 2, The years of toil, 1775–1785; Vol 3 Triumph through adversity 1785–1819.  Landmark Publishing Ltd, .
 
 
 Marsden, Ben. Watt's Perfect Engine Columbia University Press (New York, 2002) .
 Marshall, Thomas H. (1925), James Watt, Chapter 3: Mathematical Instrument Maker, from Steam Engine Library of University of Rochester Department of History.
 Marshall, Thomas H. (1925) James Watt, University of Rochester Department of History.
 
 
 Roll, Erich (1930). An Early Experiment in Industrial Organisation : being a History of the Firm of Boulton & Watt. 1775–1805. Longmans, Green and Co.
 Smiles, Samuel, Lives of the Engineers, (London, 1861–62, new edition, five volumes, 1905).

Related topics

External links

 James Watt by Andrew Carnegie (1905)
 Librivox audiobook: James Watt by Andrew Carnegie (1905)
 James Watt by Thomas H. Marshall (1925)
 Archives of Soho at Birmingham Central Library.
 BBC History: James Watt
 Scottish Engineering Hall of Fame – James Watt
 Revolutionary Players website
 Cornwall Record Office Boulton and Watt letters
 Significant Scots – James Watt
 

 
Scottish inventors
1736 births
1819 deaths
Alumni of the University of Glasgow
Fellows of the Royal Society
Fellows of the Royal Society of Edinburgh
Industrial Revolution in England
Industrial Revolution in Scotland
Members of the Lunar Society of Birmingham
People associated with Heriot-Watt University
People from Greenock
People of the Scottish Enlightenment
People associated with energy
Scottish business theorists
Scottish businesspeople
Scottish chemists
Scottish deists
Scottish Presbyterians
Scottish surveyors
18th-century British engineers
18th-century British scientists
18th-century Scottish people
Scottish Engineering Hall of Fame inductees
Follow Through was the largest and most expensive experimental project in education funded by the U.S. federal government that has ever been conducted. The most extensive evaluation of Follow Through data covers the years 1968–1977; however, the program continued to receive funding from the government until 1995. Follow Through was originally intended to be an extension of the federal Head Start program, which delivered educational, health, and social services to typically disadvantaged preschool children and their families. The function of Follow Through, therefore, was to provide a continuation of these services to students in their early elementary years.

In President Lyndon B. Johnson's 1967 state of the union address, he proposed $120 million for the program, to serve approximately 200,000 children from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, when funding for the project was approved by the United States Congress, a fraction of that amount—merely $15 million—was authorized.  This necessitated a change in strategy by the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), the government agency charged with oversight of the program Instead, program administrators made the "brilliant decision... (to) convert Follow Through from a service program to a research and development program".

Follow Through planners felt that they were responding to an important challenge in the education of disadvantaged students. It was generally hypothesized that the mere provision of specific supports in the form of federal compensatory programs—such as Head Start and Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act—would result in increased academic achievement for disadvantaged children, if implemented faithfully by committed teachers. However, studies had shown that despite its successes, in general any gains that children made from Head Start (in measures of academic achievement) "faded out" during the first few years of elementary school. It was unclear to policy makers and others if the elementary school experience itself caused this phenomenon, or if specific approaches to instruction within schools were the problem. Follow Through intended to solve the problem by identifying what whole-school approaches to curriculum and instruction worked, and what did not. Subsequently, effective models were to be promulgated by the government as exemplars of innovative and proven methods of raising the academic achievement of historically disadvantaged students.

Sociopolitical context 
Conceived and implemented in the midst of President Johnson's War on Poverty campaign of the 1960s, Follow Through "came out of larger plan which attempted to lay out the causes and cures of poverty in American society on a systemic basis". In addition to the landmark Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, other initiatives included economic policies designed to maintain levels of high employment and federally subsidized job training specifically targeted at people from disadvantaged backgrounds. These programs were implemented amidst the turbulent era of the 1960s and 1970s; marked by the struggles and eventual enfranchisement of a number of formerly excluded constituencies "including African Americans, feminists, Hispanics, Native Americans, and parents of handicapped children".

Planned variation 
In typical scientific experiments, treatment and control groups are selected through random assignment. Because Follow Through was an experiment designed to evaluate the efficacy of a number of interventions in local districts, districts chose the interventions they wanted implemented in their schools. This method of selecting a desired intervention among several candidates is called planned variation.   One publication refers to it as "random innovation".  Planned variation was thought to be advantageous over random assignment because it gave local communities (e.g. community members, parents, administrators, and teachers) an element of local control over the implementation of their program. In fact, Hill believed that programs like Follow Through "can be... permanent sources of advocacy pressure on behalf of the goals and beneficiaries of federal programs".

Goals 
Follow Through, like Head Start, was enormous in scope, and designed to remedy the fact that "poor children tend to do poorly in school". Despite the cut in funding, it nevertheless served a substantial number of students. At its height, the program would grow to encompass 20 different sponsored interventions and approximately 352,000 Follow Through and comparison children in 178 projects nationwide.

In addition to identifying the most effective instructional practices and disseminating them to schools and districts, it was also hoped that Follow Through would help reduce the number of potentially conflicting federal intervention programs in schools, which was thought by some to be counterproductive and expensive. Moreover, if models could be identified that were effective with needy children, these interventions could be staged in regular education classrooms as well.

Program administration 
Because Follow Through came into existence because of executive and not legislative action, overall control for the program rested in Johnson's Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), which spearheaded Johnson's War on Poverty policy. A major component of the policy was community involvement. The Community Action Program (CAP) was charged with fulfilling this function through the establishment of local agencies and programs that carried out various federally sponsored initiatives for disadvantaged populations. However, CAP (and, to some extent, OEO) fell into disrepute among legislators and others, because "it resulted in the political mobilization of the poor and the undermining of local government agencies". Follow Through was intended to be an extension of the Head Start community action program.  Since Head Start was politically popular, a program associated with Head Start would put the OEO "back in the good graces of Congress". Although Follow Through, like Head Start, was initially intended as a social action program, the decision to transform Follow Through from a social action program to a social experiment was not correspondingly changed in the congressional legislation.

Head Start personnel remained involved in the design and implementation of Follow Through, although it appeared they were working at separate ends from the planning group of the OEO, who viewed Follow Through as an empirical investigation. Much of what occurred during the planning stage—which Egbert describes "as a time of haste and confusion"—was an attempt to satisfy constituencies of both perspectives.

Debates about purpose 
Due largely to the sociocultural context in which Follow Through was born, planners deliberately structured the program to minimize the involvement of federal officials in the implementation effort. The more Follow Through could be perceived as a locally controlled effort, the better. OEO hoped "idealistically" that Follow Through could satisfy both empirical and social action purposes.

It seems doubtful that any form of experiment could realistically and faithfully serve both aims.  According to Hill, true program evaluators should be "technical rather than political or programmatic, and their attitudes skeptical and dispassionate". The planning group of OEO wanted a true empirical investigation that would determine the most effective models. Conversely, CAP and Head Start personnel advising the Follow Through planners viewed it as a social program.  Thus, "neither set of constituent groups was fully satisfied with this solution".

Sponsors and models 
In addition to the planners of Follow Through having conflicting views on the real purpose of the program, the selection of sponsors was equally imprecise. Follow Through sponsors were an eclectic mix of individuals or groups conducting research on instructional methods. Some came from universities, including schools of education. Others were involved in private or grant-based research efforts. The selection method was unclear. According to Watkins, "invitations were apparently extended to any group conducting research on instructional methods".

Some of the sponsors had fairly well developed interventions based on theories of instruction.  Others merely had ideas for what might constitute effective interventions. The sponsors also differed widely on the outcomes they expected as a result of their programs. Some sponsors had very specific goals which they believed would lead to very specific outcomes, such as improved literacy skills on measures of reading achievement. Others had more general goals, such as increased self-esteem, or heightened parental involvement in schooling. Most of the programs were in a very early stage of development and had not been extensively (or even moderately) field-tested or piloted. Some programs were so ambiguous that Elmore wrote that "most program developers were simply not clear what their programs would actually look like in a fully operational form". Many sponsors could not explain precisely which aspects of their models would lead to the stated outcome goals of the model.

Despite ambiguities among many of the models (and the minute shades of distinction between some models) the Follow Through literature classified models according to the degree of structure they offered, and where they place emphasis on learning.

The "degree of structure" (e.g. "low", "medium", or "high") offered by a particular model is evidenced by how closely teachers were instructed to adhere to specific procedures, including: ways of arranging the classroom and delivering instruction, the degree of interaction between adults and children, the level of parental involvement, and so forth. Below are brief examples of two models that represent extremes of the spectrum.

Direct Instruction model. Developed by Siegfried Engelmann and Wesley Becker of the University of Oregon, direct instruction is scripted and specifies precisely what the teacher says and what the students' responses should be. Moreover, the program designers carefully sequenced the instruction so that students do not progress to higher-order skills unless they have mastered prerequisite basic skills.  There is a high degree of interaction between teachers and students so the teacher may receive continuous feedback about how well the students are doing, and adjusts instruction accordingly. The program makes a specific distinction between on-task and off-task behavior:  instruction is arranged so that students are fully engaged in learning (via frequent checking for understanding and praises by the teacher) the majority of the time. According to the program sponsors, anything presumed to be learned by students must first be taught by the teacher.

Bank Street model. The Bank Street model was developed by Elizabeth Gilkerson and Herbert Zimiles of the Bank Street College of Education in New York. In this model, the students themselves direct learning: they select what tasks they wish to engage in, alone or with peers.  The teacher arranges the classroom in ways that the sponsors believe will create the conditions for successful learning: various objects and media are available for children to interact with, and the teacher acts as a facilitator, guiding students through activities. According to the program sponsors, students use previously learned knowledge to construct new knowledge. According to the sponsors, given a safe and stable environment, learning is a process that occurs naturally.

In his evaluation of the operational facets of Follow Through, Elmore expressed concern that the shades of distinction among models in terms of structure made comparisons and final analysis among models problematic. Descriptions of the interventions derived from the sponsors themselves.  There was no other reliable source from which the program administrators could obtain information about them.  Had they been able to see examples of the different models being implemented, they might have been able to ask clarifying questions in order to better distinguish between them—which might have been important for purposes of assessment.

Program models were also classified by where they place emphasis on learning, according to three educational orientations: basic skills, cognitive conceptual skills, and affective/cognitive behavior  (also see Appendix A).

Basic Skills Models- Concerned primarily with the teaching of basic skills (e.g., the "elementary skills of vocabulary, arithmetic computation, spelling, and language"
Cognitive Conceptual Skills Models- Emphasized so-called "higher-order thinking skills" and problem-solving skills
Affective/Cognitive Skills Models- Focused on students' affect (i.e., self-esteem), on the premise that feelings of positive self-worth lead to success in cognitive skills

Despite the differences, there were points of agreement among all sponsors. Sponsors agreed that their interventions should be developmentally appropriate—that is, models take account of where students are in their development as learners. Second, everyone agreed that teaching and learning should be responsive to the needs of individual learners. Third, they agreed that all students—even those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds—could learn to the level of their more fortunate peers. Fourth, classroom management procedures that create an appropriate learning environment should be emphasized. Fifth, school should be a place where students experience both high self-esteem and academic success. Ironically, the last point of agreement—as far as Maccoby and Zellner were concerned—was that all interventions should have very clear objectives about the content and skills that students should know and be able to do. This last detail is worth noting for two reasons. First, the program outcome goals that were provided by sponsors appeared relatively broad. For example, the sponsors of the Tucson Early Education Model explain that "there is relatively less emphasis on which items are taught and on the transmission of specific content, and more emphasis on 'learning to learn'".  Likewise, teachers of the Cognitive Curriculum design their own approaches to instruction (including the specification of learning goals), with assistance from sponsors and fellow staff members. While the outcome goals might commonly be described as high levels of academic achievement or mastery of basic and higher-order thinking skills, exactly how students demonstrate these skills is missing in the Follow Through literature. During sponsor meetings, there were several heated arguments between some sponsors about the degree of specificity to which they should link facets of their models to student outcomes or behaviors. Follow Through administrators could not investigate models more thoroughly because of limited time; indeed, only eight months separated the selection of the sponsored model approach and the start of the experiment. Because Congress had already reduced the program budget, there was legitimate concern among planners that a delay in implementation could be disastrous to the program.  Another reality was simply the lack of alternate interventions.  Because such a large-scale experiment in education had never been done before, the Office of Education had no arsenal of interventions to try out.

Selection of communities 
Selection of Follow Through implementation sites proceeded in concert with the selection of models.  With the assistance of various state and federal education agencies, 100 communities were invited to apply to the program, based on criteria established by the OEO. According to Egbert, 90 districts applied, of which 30 were chosen for participation in Follow Through. However, due to pressure from influential politicians, additional sites were later added. Not coincidentally, the inclusion of several additional districts appears to have been an attempt to satisfy a number of local political figures by including their communities in the program.

While Elmore laments that sites could have been chosen with a greater degree of scientific rigor (e.g. stratified random sampling), this was impossible, for at least two reasons. First, Follow Through administrators had the obligation to select a minimum number of sites with Head Start programs, because the ostensible purpose of Follow Through was to complement Head Start. Second—aside from political pressures—communities had to be willing participants in the process (ostensibly) to preserving the fidelity of the implementations. On this point, Elmore tends to agree.

Measurement instruments 
Because of the range of models, a broad range of instruments and analytical methods was selected in order to measure the targeted outcomes of basic skills, affective behavior, and cognitive behavior. Adams and Engelmann wrote, "while critics have complained about test selection and have usually suggested more testing, the assessment effort in this study went well beyond any other educational study conducted before, or since". In all, 14 instruments were selected and administered at various times throughout a student's participation in Follow Through. Three groups of students, known as Cohorts (i.e., Cohorts I, II, and III) were followed longitudinally from the time they entered Follow Through (e.g., Kindergarten or Grade 1) until they exited the program (Grade 3). While the authors of the Follow Through report rated the instruments as having high reliability, some sponsors questioned the validity of the instruments in measuring the varied orientations of the models. Other critics, such as House et al. in a Ford Foundation-funded and widely disseminated analysis, also criticized the instruments. However, the evaluators believed that the instrument battery represented the "best compromise" given the range of models. Despite the relatively large number of students who participated in Follow Through, the evaluators imposed rigorous restrictions on the sample that was actually in the statistical analysis. The comparison group—students from the community identified as not participating in Follow Through—was not subject to precisely the same restrictions as the control group, as long as they entered and exited school in the same districts and at the same time as Follow Through students.

Analytical methods 
Due to the number of intervention sites and range of instruments the analysis was complex and extensive. According to Watkins, there were over 2,000 comparisons between Follow Through and non-Follow Through groups alone. In 1968, Stanford Research Institute (SRI) was awarded the contract for the Follow Through evaluation. However, due to a variety of factors—including, perhaps, SRIs underestimation of the complexity involved in such a comprehensive analysis—Abt Associates, Inc. later inherited the evaluative duties in the summer of 1972. The summary of results, entitled Education as Experimentation: A Planned Variation Model was published in 1977.

The empirical goal of the Follow Through evaluation was to determine which models were effective in raising student achievement in the three domains as evidenced by positive effects using the selected instruments. Within models, the evaluators compared performance on the various instruments between Follow Through (FT) and non-Follow Through (NFT) comparison groups at each site. Within groups, the evaluators averaged students' scores on each measure (or outcome variable) in order to yield a "group" score. Thus, the group scores of FT students were compared to the group scores of NFT students. An important—and later controversial—statistical adjustment technique was employed by the evaluators in order to "improve the integrity of the results".  Because there were differences between treatment and comparison groups (e.g. the average score on an outcome measure for a NFT group might have been higher than the corresponding average score for a FT group), the evaluators employed a statistical method known as analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) in order to adjust for these and other differences. The difference between the FT and NFT students was then used to measure the effects of a given model. Sites where models met the criterion for "educational effectiveness" were assigned a value of 1; negative effects were assigned -1; and null effects—"insignificant educationally, statistically, or both"—were assigned a zero. According to Elmore, adjusted results using the ANCOVA technique should be interpreted cautiously for two reasons. First, ANCOVA "is not a substitute for random assignment, but it has become a conventionally accepted technique for handling initial group differences in quasi-experimental data". Second, the larger the initial differences between treatment and control groups, the weaker the strength of the results.

Results 
The results of Follow Through did not show how models that showed little or no effects could be improved. But they did show which models—as suggested by the less than ideal conditions of the experiment—had some indications of success. Of these models, Siegfried Engelmann's Direct Instruction method demonstrated the highest gains in the comparative study. The most notable critique of Follow Through (described in detail below) takes issue with the fact that the models which showed positive effects were largely basic skills models. Abt Associates identified five major findings related to the question of differential model effectiveness; the principal empirical findings of the experiment were reported as follows:
"The effectiveness of each Follow Through model varied substantially from site group to site group" 
"Models that emphasize basic skills succeed better than other models in helping children gain these skills" (p. xxv)
"Where models have put their primary emphasis elsewhere than on the basic skills, the children they served have tended to score lower on tests of these skills than they would have done without Follow Through" (p. xxvi)
"No type of model was notably more successful than the others in raising scores on cognitive conceptual skills" (p. xxvi)
"Models that emphasize basic skills produced better results on tests of self-concept than did other models" (p. xxvi)
To the extent that Follow Through children have 'caught up' with their peers in arithmetic skills, they have tended to do it during the first two years of their involvement in the program" (p. xxvii)
"Follow Through has been relatively effective with the most disadvantaged children it has served" (p. xxviii)

A separate analysis examined the impact of Siegfried Engelmann's Direct Instruction method on students over several decades. This analysis suggested a long-term benefit.

Critiques 
Wisler et al, in their review of the Follow Through experience, wrote that it was likely that no other educational data has been examined more extensively, excepting the Equality of Educational Opportunity Survey. At least three major reevaluations of the Follow Through data exist in the literature:  House, et al. (1978); Bereiter and Kurland (1981); and Kennedy (1981). All largely confirm the original statistical analysis conducted by Abt Associates.  Generally, the consensus among most researchers is that structured models tended to perform better than unstructured ones, and that the Direct Instruction and Behavior Analysis models performed better on the instruments employed than did the other models.) Most critiques of the Follow Through experiment have tended to focus on the operational and design problems that plagued the experiment. In particular, these critiques note that there was more variation within a particular model than there was from model to model. This problem has largely been attributed to the problem of how to measure the effectiveness of a particular implementation; the measures used were largely qualitative and anecdotal. In some instances, sites were included in the analysis that had ceased to implement specific models, or the model sponsors had serious reservations about the way particular models were implemented.

The most vocal critique was the House, et al. (1978) reanalysis. The article—along with several rebuttals from the original evaluation team and other researchers—was published by the Harvard Educational Review in 1978. The authors were extremely dissatisfied with the pronouncement of the evaluators that the basic skills models outperformed the other models. The authors approach the critique on the assumption that basic skills are decidedly just that—basic. The authors imply that basic skills are only taught through "rote methods"—a decidedly negative connotation (p. 137).
 
Regarding the finding that "models that emphasize basic skills produced better results on tests of self-concept than did other models", the authors question the efficacy of the self-esteem measures; implying, among other things, that young students cannot possibly have a concrete understanding of  self-concept (pp. 138–139). While the article intended to review the operational design of the Follow Through evaluation, instead it appears to (1) refute the finding that cognitive-conceptual and affective-cognitive models were largely failures, and (2) unilaterally condemn the models that emphasize basic skills. The implication is that the goal of education should not be increased student achievement in solely basic skills, and that Follow Through would have been better employed to discover how measures of all three orientations could be made successful. Absent from the critique is the finding that, for third graders, only the Direct Instruction model demonstrated positive effects in all three domains, and that one of the remaining two models (Behavior Analysis; the other was the Parent Education model) that had positive effects in at least two domains was also a self-described "basic skills model".

Dissemination 
In 1972, the OE created the Joint Dissemination Review Panel (JDRP) and the National Diffusion Network (NDN) to disseminate information about effective models to schools and districts nationwide. JDRP reviewed programs for effectiveness according to a mixture of empirical and holistic criteria. NDN was responsible for disseminating the results based on the recommendations of JDRP.  Watkins (1997) criticizes the dissemination criteria for two reasons. First, the organizations identified programs for dissemination that had not been part of the Follow Through experiment and for which there was no empirical validation. Second, JDRP and NDN endorsed programs that showed improvement in areas "such as self-concept, attitude, and mental or physical health (of students) ... (or) if it has a positive impact on individuals other than students, for example if it results in improved instructional behavior of teachers" (p. 47), but did not raise students' academic achievement.  Thus, programs "that had been incapable of demonstrating improved academic performance in the Follow Through evaluation" were recommended for adoption by schools and districts.  Watkins cites the former Commissioner of Education, Ernest Boyer, who wrote with dismay that "Since only one of the sponsors (Direct Instruction) was found to produce positive results more consistently than any of the others, it would be inappropriate and irresponsible to disseminate information on all of the models".

Of course, it would have been ideal to have the kind of conclusiveness associated with laboratory experiments when we conduct social experiments in communities and schools. Andy B. Anderson (1975)  wrote that "the idea of a controlled experiment has long been recognized as a goal worth pursuing in the social and behavioral sciences for the same obvious reason that made this mode of inquiry the predominant research strategy of the natural and physical sciences:  the controlled experiment permits the most unequivocal assessment of a variable's influence on another variable". Particularly when experimentation is used as a tool for informing policy decisions (e.g., in recommending the efficacy of some instructional approaches with disadvantaged students over other, less effective interventions), the design should be of the highest degree of rigor possible. For a variety of reasons, Follow Through did not have the classic characteristics of a true experiment.

Criticism 
Lack of systematic selection of interventions and lack of specificity of treatment effects. Due to a variety of circumstances detailed earlier, the Follow Through programs were not systematically developed or selected according to any type of uniform criteria. Given more time, sponsors may have been able to better identify the types of treatment effects that an observer might expect to occur under controlled conditions. More importantly, program sponsors might also have been required to show those specific facets of their interventions (e.g., particular pedagogical techniques) which would produce the intended effects. Despite these flaws, the sponsors agreed on being subject to the same evaluation instruments. Unfortunately, the instruments shed little light on what about the ineffective programs made them so unsuccessful. The converse is also true. Since structured programs tended to show better effects than the unstructured ones, it would appear logical that efforts might have been made to identify commonalities among the effective structured programs. These shared characteristics might have informed the development of additional effective programs or made the ineffective approaches better.  Starting in 1982, funding was in fact reduced for those programs that were identified as successful in Follow Through, perhaps on the presumption that funding would be better diverted to assisting failed programs. Ultimately, programs that had lesser empirical validation were nonetheless recommended for dissemination along with the successful models.

Lack of random assignment. Random assignment of subjects into treatment and control groups is the ideal method of attributing change in a sample to an intervention and not to some other effect (including the pre-existing capabilities of students, teachers, or school systems). However, for a variety of practical reasons, this procedure was not done in Follow Through.  Instead, sites were selected "opportunistically", based on their readiness to participate in the evaluation, and on their unique circumstances of need. As Stebbins et al. point out, the treatment groups were often the neediest children. To randomly select some of the most disadvantaged children (many of whom participated in Head Start prior to Follow Through) out of the evaluation would certainly have been negatively perceived by community members. Stebbins et al. point out that there were "considerable variations in the range of children served"; yet despite the presence of "many of the problems inherent in field social research...evaluations of these planned variations provides us with an opportunity to examine the educational strategies under real life conditions  as opposed to contrived and tightly controlled laboratory conditions".

Narrowness of instruments. Adams and Engelmann note that many critics have suggested that more instruments should have been used in the Follow Through evaluation. Egbert agrees with Adams and Engelmann that the data collection efforts were extensive. Despite the agreement among model sponsors on a uniform set of instruments to evaluate the effectiveness of their models—that model sponsors believed their programs achieved gains on more intrinsic, less measurable indicators of performance, such as increased self-worth or greater parental involvement. To the extent that these desired outcomes occurred, and benefited the lives of students in ways that might never be measurably through quantitative means, those aspects of many models were successful. Both the House et al. critique and others (cited in Wisler) express concerns about the inadequacy of the instruments used to measure self-esteem the Follow Through evaluation (i.e., the Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Scale (IARS) and the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory). But it was better, according to many researchers, to measure outcomes imperfectly rather than not to measure them at all. Thus, while "perfect" measures of desired outcomes might never exist, one should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good—in other words, one could call into question the efficacy of conducting any experiment at all on the basis that some bias or imperfection exists.

Was Follow Through a social or scientific program? After an initial period, new regulations mandated that 80 percent of Follow Through funding was to be allocated to the provision of service while 20 percent was to be used for knowledge production. The regulations themselves suggest that Follow Through was principally "a federally funded education program which contained a built-in research component". An inevitable conflict exists when one attempts to operationalize a federal program in education that possesses both service delivery and research and development objectives.  Rivlin et al. point out that "the byzantine complexity of the public policymaking process makes the conduct of social experiments extremely difficult". Given the reduction in funding, the decision to engage in an effort to evaluate the effectiveness of various interventions in an empirical experiment appears appropriate and straightforward. However, if the change is not reflected in Congressional legislation or communicated clearly at the local level, issues of implementation and conflict with deeply held values inevitably result. There is much evidence that indicates confusion about the intent of the Follow Through evaluation at the administrative level. 

Issues of local control. The planned variation aspect of Follow Through was thought to be beneficial—perhaps superior—to other forms of experimentation (e.g., selection of sites based on randomized assignment) because it would give local communities and schools an element of ownership integral to the successful implementation of the models. Despite the planned variation design, local communities in many sites were nevertheless deeply critical of the program. In some ways, criticism of Follow Through had preceded directly from Head Start. Ostensibly, the social service purpose and goals of the Head Start program were clearer than those of the Follow Through evaluation. Nevertheless, community leaders had felt that Head Start did not give enough decision-making responsibility to parents and community members. Local interests wanted to make curricular decisions, including the changing of facets of some program models Evans cautioned that "educational communities and contexts vary", which can have a direct effect on the implementation of a model.  More problematic, however, is Elmore's and Hill's assertions that the Follow Through models interfered with local teaching methods and practices.  As Elmore writes, "for Follow Through, the problem was how to implement program variations in a system where most day-to-day decisions about program content are made at the school or classroom level".  Rhine et al. suggest that it is difficult to get teachers to modify their behavior. And if the objective of changing behavior is achieved, teachers feel little ownership on the model—a decidedly dubious investment.  What inevitably seems to happen is that teachers reject programs outright, while others "surrender to the program".

The "fact-value dichotomy". Ernest R. House, co-author of the 1978 critique of the Follow Through evaluation, penned an article about what he calls the "fact-value dichotomy" in social experimentation and educational research:  "the belief that facts refer to one thing and values refer to something totally different". House elucidates the writings of Donald Campbell, a researcher in the field of evaluation. House noted that, according to Campbell, facts cannot exist outside the framework of one's values because inevitably, an investigation that uncovers a certain fact is either consistent with the researcher's internal values or against them. What results is a difficult choice:  the researcher must either reject the fact, or modify his or her value to accommodate the fact.  Campbell also believed, according to House, that values—as opposed to facts—could be chosen rationally.  House agrees with Campbell's assertion in part, but departs from Campbell in that he believes that facts and values cannot exist in isolation; rather, they "blend together in the conclusions of evaluation studies, and, indeed, blend together throughout evaluation studies".  House suggests that the reader envision facts and values as existing on a continuum from "bute facts to bare values". Accordingly, rarely do "fact claims" or "value claims" fall entirely at one end of the spectrum or the other. House provides examples: "Diamonds are harder than steel" might fall at the left of the spectrum, while "Cabernet is better than Chardonnay" falls to the right. In conclusion, House proposes an entirely a new method of empirical investigation called "deliberative democratic evaluation". In it, evaluators arrive at "unbiased claims" through "inclusion of all relevant stakeholder perspectives, values, and interests in the study; extensive dialogue between the evaluator and stakeholders...and extensive deliberation to reach valid conclusions in the study". House decries the use of entirely rational methods when applied to evaluations; indeed, he recommends a degree of subjectiveness, because evaluations like Follow Through cannot exist outside deeply held values.

Hill writes: "There is seldom anyone at the local level whose commitment to an externally-imposed curricular innovation, planning process, or financial management scheme springs spontaneously from deeply held personal values." House argues that all decision-making that stems from evaluations in education is the result of a compromise. Watkins argues that Follow Through resulted in a clash over values based on different beliefs about how children learn, which can be boiled down to "natural growth" or "unfolding" theories versus. theories of "changing behavior". Watkins asserts that most education experts today do not judge programs by their relative effectiveness with different student populations, but rather by their "congruence with prevailing philosophies of education".

References

Great Society programs
P
Race and education in the United States The fundamental theorems of asset pricing (also: of arbitrage, of finance), in both financial economics and mathematical finance, provide necessary and sufficient conditions for a market to be arbitrage free, and for a market to be complete. An arbitrage opportunity is a way of making money with no initial investment without any possibility of loss. Though arbitrage opportunities do exist briefly in real life, it has been said that any sensible market model must avoid this type of profit. The first theorem is important in that it ensures a fundamental property of market models. Completeness is a common property of market models (for instance the Black–Scholes model). A complete market is one in which every contingent claim can be replicated. Though this property is common in models, it is not always considered desirable or realistic.

Discrete markets
In a discrete (i.e. finite state) market, the following hold:
The First Fundamental Theorem of Asset Pricing: A discrete market, on a discrete probability space (Ω, , ), is arbitrage-free if, and only if, there exists at least one risk neutral probability measure that is equivalent to the original probability measure, P.
The Second Fundamental Theorem of Asset Pricing: An arbitrage-free market (S,B) consisting of a collection of stocks S and a risk-free bond B is complete if and only if there exists a unique risk-neutral measure that is equivalent to P and has numeraire B.

In more general markets

When stock price returns follow a single Brownian motion, there is a unique risk neutral measure.   When the stock price process is assumed to follow a more general sigma-martingale or semimartingale, then the concept of arbitrage is too narrow, and a stronger concept such as no free lunch with vanishing risk must be used to describe these opportunities in an infinite dimensional setting.

See also
Arbitrage pricing theory
Asset pricing

Rational pricing

References
Sources

Further reading

External links
 http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/~wschach/pubs/preprnts/prpr0118a.pdf

Financial economics
Mathematical finance