> Third, it was the first application where a circular motion was
> transfered into a lateral motion, thru the use of a rocker arm with a
> slot for a pin on the wheel to travel thru as the wheel spun.
Exactly. The fundamental principles involved here -- the piston, the
valve, and the crank -- were just being discovered, or rather
rediscovered, in the 12th C.
> The ONLY reason this cannot be considered a reciprocating engin is the
> drove pistons rather than the other way around
That is a necessary and sufficient reason :-)
> had anyone put
> and two together, reversed the process, the technology was there to have
> effective reciprocating piston steam engine. They just never reversed
> thinking from the water wheel being the driver to being the driven.
That was the biggest fundamental concept they didn't have, that they could
turn the system around. Other things are technical, in that dealing with
steam is a whole lot different than dealing with water.
> So, in the interest of academic debate, what other "fundemental concepts"
> are you thinking is required?
Some others are dealing with the explosive and corrosive natures of gases
at high temperatures and pressures, the ability to machine metals capable
of withstanding those forces to close enough tolerances to be effective,
at a cost that was not prohibitive. It was a long and discouraging list.
"Non nobis solum"