Having, in his view, perfected many of his ideas and designs for steam engines, Evans turned his attention once more to the commercial propagation of his inventions. His first steam engines had been constructed on an ad-hoc basis, often with improvised tools and workers, and he had relied heavily on blacksmiths and other metal-working shops in Philadelphia with little experience in the more precise metal-work required to build steam engines. In particular, Evans soon realized that unlike his milling machines of wood and leather he would need specialist skills, precision tools and a large
foundry in order to build steam machines on a commercial basis. Thus, Evans constructed the Mars Works on a large site a few blocks north of his store in Philadelphia. The choice of name, after the
Roman god of war, is thought to have been aspirational and a challenge to the
Soho Foundry near
Birmingham in the United Kingdom, famous for building the Watt and
Boulton engines. Indeed, the completed Mars Works was one of the largest and best equipped outfits of its kind in the United States—by contemporary accounts it featured a substantial foundry,
moldmaker's shop, blacksmith's shops, millstone maker, a steam engine works and a large steam engine of its own to grind materials and work
wrought iron. With over thirty-five staff, the Mars Works produced a wide range of manufactures ranging from working steam engines to
cast iron fittings, as well as milling and farming machines for Evans's now well-established agricultural clientele. Steam engine orders alone proved insufficient to support the extensive business costs; hence the works became highly experienced in producing all kinds of heavy machinery, contributing to Philadelphia's emergence as a leading center for such work in the 19th century. Indeed, the works even received military orders, casting naval cannons during the
War of 1812. Evans also proved highly innovative in designing steam power solutions for his clients. In one example where the Mars Works was commissioned to build engines for wool processing factories in
Middletown, Connecticut, Evans designed a network of accompanying pipes with
radiators to heat the factory with engine exhaust. Although there are no records as to the designs of the early steam engines produced by the Mars Works, Evans's most famous engine design appeared around 1812. Called the
Columbian Engine as a patriotic gesture, it would prove to be the most advanced and successful steam engine design created by Evans—he brought to bear his now extensive experience in designing and building high-pressure steam engines. This horizontally oriented engine allowed the
crankshaft and
piston rod to work closely together at one end of the machine, thus reducing the need for a heavy working beam like those required for conventional engines. The piston rod itself was kept working to a straight line while by a new type of
linkage wherein two sets of pivoted bars guided the movements of the working bar. This linkage is still known as the Evans straight-line linkage, though it was superseded within a few years by more precise
straight line mechanisms. The
Columbian was also the culmination of the
grasshopper-style of steam engine. Perfected designs like the
Columbian saw a popularization of the grasshopper-style and its wide use in a range of applications. In 1813 he made the decision to introduce a condenser to the
Columbian design. This significantly cut the running cost to the engine, and at this point his engines were as efficient and powerful as low-pressure Watt-Boulton designs, yet far cheaper to build and smaller in size. Within a year 27
Columbian engines were operating or under construction in applications ranging from
sawmilling and grain milling to the manufacturing of paper, wire and wool.
Pittsburgh Steam Engine Company (1814), the first commercially viable steam boat on the
Mississippi, employed a high-pressure steam engine adapted from an Oliver Evans design. As the reputation of the Mars Works grew, so too did the demand for its products. After a few years the Mars Works began exporting its engines inland. Oliver Evans's son George was the first such order, having moved to Pittsburgh in 1809 to operate the Pittsburgh Steam Flour Mill. George and the mill were highly successful, and generated a great deal of interest in Evans's engines across the interior. However exporting engines to western Pennsylvania, Kentucky or Ohio was challenging and expensive from a logistical perspective. In 1811 Evans and George, as well as another successful steam miller and engineer Luther Stephens, founded the
Pittsburgh Steam Engine Company, which in addition to engines would, like the Mars Works, produce heavy machinery and castings in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. With high demand for industrial products and relatively little industrial capacity, the Pittsburgh works added to its repertoire the capacity for
brasswork, as well as producing finer products for domestic purposes like hinges and fittings. , which sank after a rare but well publicized explosion of its high-pressure boiler The location of the Pittsburgh factory in the
Mississippi River watershed was important in the development of high-pressure steam engines for the use in steamboats, and the new company began to promote its engines for river transport. Evans had long been a believer in the application of steam engines for maritime purposes. In his book of 1805, Evans had stated: "The navigation of the river Mississippi, by steam engines, on the principles here laid down, has for many years been a favorite subject of the author, and among the fondest wishes of his heart" Evans had long been an acquaintance of
John Fitch, the first to build a steamboat in the United States, and the two had worked together on steam projects. The
Oruktor Amphibolos was Evans's lone attempt at building his own steamboat powered by a high-pressure engine and Evans himself was often vague in appraising its capabilities. Yet
Robert Fulton had found success with the
North River Steamboat on the
Hudson River in 1807, and thereafter steamboats became a reality. Although he used low-pressure engines, Fulton had in 1812 contacted Evans about the possibility of using Evans's engines, though that correspondence did not lead to the implementation of any of Evans's designs for Fulton's steamships. The
Mississippi and tributaries experienced far stronger
currents than eastern counterparts, and low-pressure steamboats lacked the power to counteract these. The
Enterprise was the first viable steamboat to run on these rivers, and its designer
Daniel French employed an adapted Evans' engine for the purpose. High-pressure engines became the standard on the Mississippi, though relatively few of those were actually built by the Pittsburgh works as Evans' patent on high-pressure engines was not widely enforced, and many other engine shops opened on the Mississippi that freely adapted Evans' designs for their own purposes. Notable examples of river steamboats that were constructed by the Pittsburgh and Mars Works include the
Franklin, the
Aetna and the
Pennsylvania. Another, christened the
Oliver Evans but renamed the
Constitution by its eventual owners, was lost along with the eleven crew members when its boiler exploded near
Point Coupee, Louisiana. Evans was deeply distressed by the news, although he defended the safety of high-pressure engines and cited any explosions as an extremely rare occurrences.
Patent battles 's letter to Isaac McPherson in 1813, weighing into the debate over the validity of Evans' patents and principles of patent law Evans found himself in battles to protect his intellectual property many times throughout his career, but he pursued the cause most doggedly during his latter years. His first and most successful patents concerning flour-milling proved the most problematic to defend, and Evans' battles proved influential in setting precedent for the newly established area of federal patent law. His original patent for his automated flour-mill expired in January 1805, but Evans believed that the fourteen year patent term was too brief and petitioned the
Congress to extend it. In January 1808
An Act for the Relief of Oliver Evans was passed and signed by President Jefferson, a long-time admirer of Evans's work. The act took the extraordinary step of reviving to Evans his expired patent and giving it another fourteen year term— Evans was delighted, but the move was to prove highly problematic, particularly regarding those who had implemented Evans's designs in the intervening three year period between the patent terms, as many millers had waited for Evans's patent to expire before upgrading their mills. Evans and his agents set about aggressively collecting
royalties from those using his designs. Furthermore, Evans significantly raised the license fees for his use of his patented technology, raising claims of extortion from those being asked to pay, and a great many cases ended up in court. The 1808 act had indemnified those who had adopted Evans's technologies from 1805 to 1808, but did not specify whether this indemnity was perpetual (as defendants argued) or whether it was only for the three years in question (as Evans argued). Evans by this stage of his life had also established a poor reputation for himself amongst the milling community, and his abrasive and often petty pursuit of patent rights stiffened resistance. Several major legal cases questioned whether laws to extend private patents in this manner were even constitutional, but Evans ultimately prevailed in each case. The most bitter legal battle began in 1809. Evans sued Samuel Robinson—a miller near Baltimore who was using Evans's improvements without a license to produce a very modest amount of flour—for damages of $2,500. That sum was deemed unjustifiably high and harsh by many, and Evans's actions rallied the Baltimore community against him, and when the case was finally heard in 1812 many appeared in support of the defendant. Evans's detractors presented evidence and witnesses at the trial to press the argument that Evans did not truly invent much of what his patents protected. Although the hopper-boy was undoubtedly original, the use of bucket chains and Archimedean screws had been used since ancient times and Evans had only modified some of their features and adapted them for use in a milling context. A now retired Thomas Jefferson weighed into the debate in letters to both Evans and his detractors, questioning the philosophy of patent law and what truly defined 'invention' and 'machine' (and to some extent the validity of his claims) but ultimately defended the purpose of patent law, which was to incentivize innovation by rewarding inventors for their development and sharing of new technology. And Jefferson noted that though Evans's designs consisted of devices that had long existed beforehand, everyone had access to these and yet only Evans had thought to modify and use them in conjunction to build an automatic mill. Ultimately the jury found in favor of Evans, but it was a pyrrhic victory as Evans had put most of the milling community offside in the process, and ultimately reduced his claim against Robinson to $1,000. In response, prominent Evans critic Isaac McPherson, made submission to Congress in the wake of the trial entitled ''Memorial to the Congress of Sundry Citizens of the United States, Praying Relief from the Oppressive Operations of Oliver Evans' Patent'', seeking to limit the compensation Evans could seek for his patent's use or for Congress to void it altogether. Although the Senate drafted a bill that would roll-back some of Evans's patent rights, it did not pass, and he continued to vigorously pursue his patent fees. It would not be until the
Patent Act of 1836 that many of these issues, including what constituted originality in the context of a patent, would be addressed. ==Later life and death, 1812–19==