In the most improved forms to which the atmospheric engine had then attained, the quantity of steam wasted at each stroke of the piston was equal to the contents of the cylinder. Such engines, therefore, consumed twice the fuel which would be requisite, if all sources of waste could have been removed. In Watt's engines, the steam consumed at each stroke of the piston amounted only to 1-1/4 times the contents of the cylinder. The waste steam, therefore, per stroke, was only a quarter of what was usefully employed. The absolute waste, therefore, of the best atmospheric engines was four times that of the improved engine, and consequently the saving of fuel in the improved engines amounted to about three eighths of all the fuel consumed in atmospheric engines of the same power. [Pg151] (82.) But independently of this saving of steam, which would otherwise be wasted, the power of Watt's engine, as compared with the atmospheric engine, was so much augmented that the former would work against a resistance of ten pounds on the square inch under the same circumstances in which the latter would not move against more than seven pounds. The cause of this augmentation of power is easily explained. In the atmospheric engine the temperature of the condensed steam could not be reduced below 152° without incurring a greater loss than would be compensated by the advantage to be obtained from any higher degree of condensation. Now steam raised from water at 152° has a pressure of nearly four pounds per square inch. This pressure, therefore, acted below the piston resisting the atmospheric pressure above. In Watt's engine, however, the condenser was kept at a temperature of about 100°, at which temperature steam has a pressure of less than one pound per square inch. A resisting force upon the piston of three pounds per square inch was therefore saved in Watt's engine as compared with the atmospheric engine.