I don't believe for a moment that the principles behind any process have to be understood. Did an understanding of photosynthesis precede growing crops? I've no doubt that to advance/improve the state of the art, understanding helps enormously, but even then it's not required (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edisonian_approach). We need to be careful here. The first TV was displayed in 1907 (static images) and was fully feasible by 1925 and in the next 10 years, the technology grew exponentially. Why? Well, that's a subject for historians, but "critical mass" is part of it. It's not enough that a technology is known to be possible, nor even has been built, what is required is that there is a need for it AND that the benefits out weigh the costs. For the TV, it was the increasing availability of electronic vacuum tubes. In the case of a bronze age steam engine, the costs of a "one off" would be enormous. And if the technology was changed so that, say bronze machines were ubiquitous, then it wouldn't be Ancient Greece anymore. Anyway, to answer your question: Yes, given sufficient money (or power), someone who knew how could have had one built. You might be able to say the same thing about a TV. I'd guess with nearly unlimited resources, you could have the many needed technological advances achieved in 50 years or so. But this is a chicken and egg problem. If someone knew enough, then there would have been more advanced technologies: knowledge doesn't happen in a vacuum. I doubt if today, one person exists who would be able to construct a TV using artisans with only bronze age technical understanding. A steam engine would, I think, be easier; requiring only mechanical engineering, industrial engineering and metallurgical (and chemical) knowledge.