FOOTNOTES:
[2] Ante, vol. i. Introd. p. xxxi. Arrian, Exped. Alex. 11, 21.
[3] Galley from Koyunjik, ante, vol. i. p. 276.
[4] See the bas-reliefs from Nineveh, British Museum.
[5] Owen’s “Lectures on Comparative Anatomy,” 2nd. ed. p. 605. Carpenter’s “Physiology,” 645. “Woodcroft on Marine Propulsion,” note, p. 1, and drawing of Nautilus in frontispiece to Woodcroft’s “Steam Navigation.” See also an interesting paper, read at the Society of Arts on the 14th of April, 1858, by John MacGregor, Esq., M.A., Barrister at Law.
[6] There is little difference between the action of an oar in sculling and that of the modern screw-propeller, which is fast superseding the paddle-wheel in all ocean-going steamers: the one has an alternate lateral motion, like the tail of a fish; the other is rotatory, but with the same effect. It may be added that fishes often have the power of “feathering” their tails, by puckering their lobes in their forward motion, and expanding them on their return, so as to displace as little water as possible, while they, at the same time, rely for their advancement on the reaction of the water in the direction of their body. These points have been carefully considered in the construction and arrangement of the blades of the screw, as well as the important fact that the tail of the fish or the sweep of an oar in their motions displace a quantity of water, great in proportion to the length of the instruments employed; and further, that it is by the resistance the water makes to this displacement by the oar or tail, in their continued oscillation, coming as these do from their extreme sweep to the axis of the boat or fish, that either is urged forward.
[7] An edition of Hero’s “Pneumatics” has been published by Mr. Woodcroft. Lond., 4th ed. 1851. His second experiment is referred to in Muirhead’s “Life of James Watt,” 2nd ed. p. 107.
[8] The principle of Hero’s steam-machine depends on the physical law that, when any fluid issues from a vessel in which it has been confined, the vessel is acted on by a force equal to that with which the fluid escapes, but in the opposite direction. Thus, if water issues from an orifice, a pressure is produced behind the orifice corresponding to the force with which the water escapes: hence, the recoil of a gun when fired. If the muzzle were turned at right angles to the length of the gun, the explosive gases would escape sideways, and the shooter, instead of being forced back, would spin round. The orifices in each case are exposed to the atmosphere, which tends to rush in with a force of a little less than 15 lbs. on the square inch: the force, therefore, with which the steam escapes represents the excess of its elasticity over that of the atmosphere, which furnishes, as it were, the fulcrum, and thus gives motion to the machine. Mr. Bourne states that the principle of the Æolipile is the same as that embodied in Avery and Ruthven’s engines for the production of rotatory power. “These engines,” he says, “are more expensive in steam than ordinary engines and travel at an inconvenient speed; but in other respects they are quite as effectual, and their construction is extremely simple and inexpensive.”
[9] In another experiment (No. 37), Hero shows “how temple doors may be opened by fire on an altar.” He says, “Let the proposed temple stand on a pedestal, on which is also a small altar. Through the altar insert a tube, of which one mouth is within the altar, and the other nearly at the centre of a globe. The tube must be soldered to the globe in which a bent syphon is placed. Let the hinges of the doors be extended downwards, turning freely on pivots, and from the hinges let two chains running into one be attached by means of a pulley to a leaden weight, on the descent of which the doors will be shut, let the outer leg of the syphon bend into a suspended vessel and fill the globe half full of water. When the fire becomes hot, the heated air in the altar expands and, passing through the tube into the globe, will drive the liquid through the syphon into the suspended vessel which, descending by its weight, will tighten the chains and open the doors.”
[10] Although there may be a doubt how far the inventions recorded by Hero were used for superstitious practices, there is no question that, somewhat later, the agency of steam was employed for purposes anything but legitimate. Thus Gibbon (c. xl.) gives an amusing account of how Anthemius, the architect of Sta. Sophia at Constantinople, avenged, himself on Zeno, the orator. “In a lower room,” says he, “Anthemius arranged several vessels or cauldrons of water, each of them covered by the wide bottom of a leathern tube, which rose to a narrow top, and was artificially conveyed among the joints and rafters of the adjacent building. A fire was kindled beneath the cauldron; the steam of the boiling water ascended through the tubes; the house was shaken by the effects of imprisoned air, and its trembling inhabitants might wonder that the city was unconscious of the earthquake they had felt.” Still later, Arago, in his “Éloge de James Watt,” notices an ancient Teutonic god, called Bustarich, on the banks of the Weser, who was made by the priests to show his displeasure through the agency of steam. The head of the metal God was hollow and had within it a pot of water. Its mouth and another hole having been plugged, a charcoal fire was cleverly lighted under it, in such a way as not to be perceived by the expectant worshippers. After a while, the imprisoned steam forced out the plugs, with a loud report, followed by two jets of steam, which formed a dense cloud round the god and concealed him from his astonished worshippers.
[11] Paper read at the Society of Arts 14th of April, 1858, by John MacGregor, Esq., Barrister at Law.
[12] This work in Latin, printed at Verona, 1472, is the first book with woodcuts printed in Italy.
[13] This letter is written from Simancas, and bears the date 27th August, 1825. It was published 1826, in Lack’s “Astronomical Correspondence.”
[14] The interview with the Pope took place at Bupeto, 22nd of June, 1543, and the campaign against the duke of Cleves, the ally and general of Francis, followed.
[15] “On the 23rd of September last (1857),” remarks Mr. MacGregor, “I visited the town of Simancas, near Valladolid in Spain, with Captain John Ussher, to inspect some letters of Blasco de Garay, which are there preserved among the national archives.
“Having obtained the requisite Royal permission, I was allowed, after much difficulty, to read (but not to copy) two letters signed by Blasco de Garay, written clearly in Spanish and well preserved. One of these was addressed from Malaga, the other from Barcelona; and both were dated, A.D. 1543. They describe two separate experiments with different vessels, both of them moved by paddle-wheels turned by men.
“One vessel was stated to be of two hundred Spanish tons burthen, propelled by a paddle-wheel on each side, worked by twenty-five men. The other vessel was moved in a similar manner by forty men (in all). The speed attained is mentioned in the text, and is stated in a side note (written in a different hand) to have been one league, about three and a half English miles per hour. Various calculations, as to the tonnage, the motive power, the cost, and other matters are contained in the letters, and it is said that the vessel thus moved was found to steer well, but could be propelled more easily for a long time by oars. Also that, like other inventions, this would probably be improved by the experience of further trials. We read the letters carefully through, and neither of them contained any mention whatever of the use of steam, or any expression to indicate that this was contemplated.
“The officer left in charge of the documents, Don Manuel Garcia, said that he did not know of any other letters of Blasco de Garay, or of any other authentic papers relating to his experiment; that he believed most certainly Blasco de Garay did not invent or suggest the use of steam for propulsion; and that the assertion he had made was ‘un mensonge historique.’”
Disproved by Mr. MacGregor’s investigations.
On October 15th, 1857, and following days, Mr. MacGregor made diligent inquiries at Barcelona respecting Blasco de Garay, and after writing a letter inviting information on the subject to the Diario de Barcelona, 19th October, 1857, Señor Michel Mayor undertook to satisfy his inquiries. In the Archives of Aragon, the Director said that no trace of any document relating to Blasco de Garay was to be found, and, that the MSS. in that library were only by order of reigns, and not by dates. With the assistance of Don Gregorio and Fidil Clares, Mr. MacGregor states that he inspected the catalogue of the Bibliotheca Publica and of the Bibliotheca Publica Episcopal without any better result, the keepers of these libraries declaring they knew nothing of any other letter of Blasco de Garay; one of these officers said he believed that men only had been used to move the vessel, and the Government Inspector of Mines assured him that he was of the same opinion. But a Spanish engineer mentioned that some of the actual steam-engine machinery used in the vessels was still to be seen at the School of Artillery; after, however, diligent inquiry there, Mr. MacGregor could find no trace of any of these relics.
But after these investigations, it was reported to Mr. MacGregor through Colonel Stopford, of Madrid, that there was another letter of Blasco de Garay, in which he alludes to the steam-boat, and that this document was kept secret at Madrid, which, as Mr. MacGregor adds, “would not probably be the case if by its means the claim of a Spaniard to the invention of the steam-boat could be substantiated;” and he remarks in conclusion that, if Blasco de Garay used a steam-engine to propel a vessel, the evidence of this fact is not supported by his two letters at Simancas, and, further, that it has not been produced, if it is known there or at Barcelona, by the public officers and others interested in supporting such a claim.
[16] “Steam and Steam Navigation;” and article, “Steam Navigation,” Encyclopædia Britannica, 8th ed., vol. xx. p. 636.
[17] Since Mr. MacGregor’s visit, M. Bergenroth, who has done so much towards the elucidation of the manuscript treasures at Simancas, has been able at his leisure to copy the documents relating to De Garay, preserved there, they are;—1. A holograph from him to the Emperor, dated Malaga, September 10th, 1540, containing his report on the trial of one of his paddle-wheel ships. 2. The report of Captain Antonio Destigasura on the same trial trip. 3. The report of the Proveedores of Malaga concerning the same trip, dated July 24th, 1540. 4. The report of Blasco de Garay to the Emperor, dated July 6th, 1543, concerning the trial trip of another of his paddle-wheel ships, made at Barcelona in June, 1543. 5. A letter of Blasco de Garay to Carrs, dated June 20th, 1543. In none of these is any reference to steam-power to be found—thus completely confirming Mr. MacGregor’s previous statements.
[18] “Inventions and Devises,” by William Bourne, p. 15; London, 1578.
[19] Woodcroft’s “Manuscript Collection” and “Marine Propulsion,” vol. i. p. 7.
[20] “Marine Propulsion” from Patent Office, Woodcroft, vol. i. p. 8.
[21] Works of Roger Bacon, Hamburg, ed. 1598, pp. 74-75.
[22] “Woodcroft on Steam Navigation,” pp. 3 and 4.
[23] Ibid., p. 5.
[24] Although there is no evidence that the Marquess of Worcester did employ steam to propel any boat, it must be allowed (in spite of the perhaps natural desire of Mr. Muirhead to exalt the genius of his relative, James Watt) that he was the first to make an actual steam-engine. Certain important points are clear from his description, viz., that the vessel in which the water was evaporated was distinct from that containing the water to be raised; that there were two vessels of similar description, the contents of which were alternately raised by the pressure of the “water rarefied by fire;” and that the water was lifted in a continuous stream by the aid of two cocks communicating with these vessels, and with the boiler. Now this is exactly the agency of steam at the present time, in that it is generated in one vessel, and used for mechanical purposes in another: indeed, it is just this distinction which shows the invention to have been a true one—for had the action of the steam been confined to the vessel in which it was produced, it would have been of no more practical use than were the experiments of Hero, De Caus, or Rivault. Complaint has been often made of the indistinctness and incompleteness of the descriptions furnished by the Marquess in his famous “Scantlings of one hundred Inventions,” but it may be doubted whether the author’s intention was really to convey knowledge of the mechanism he used, or even to indicate the physical principles on which they depend. His statement, however, is sufficient to enable any one possessing a knowledge of the mechanical qualities of steam, to understand the general nature of the machine produced. It ought also to be remembered that many of the ideas of inventions thrown out by the Marquess, as stenography, speaking statues, combination locks, &c., &c., have been since his time carried into effect.
[25] “Buchanan on Steam Propelling,” Glasgow, 1816, p. 161.
[26] “Bourne on the Screw-Propeller,” pp. 5 and 9.
[27] Morisotus, “Orbis Maritima,” Generalis Historia divisio, fol., 1643.
[28] The ferry boats at Quebec plying between the opposite sides of the river St. Lawrence were, at a very recent period, if they are not so still, propelled by horses and oxen walking along circular platforms so as to produce a power applied to the paddle-wheels of the boat. And a boat of a somewhat similar kind was, in the course of the present century, employed for some time between Yarmouth and Norwich in this country.
[29] 1. The middle beam. 2. The end with iron bars wherein the strength of the ship lyeth both ends alike. 3. Rudder of the ship. 4. The keel. 5. Iron bolts with screws. 6. Depth of the inner beam. 7. The wheel that goeth round it hath its motion. 8. The scuttles or hatchways. 9. The gallery where they walk.
[30] “Specifications relating to Marine Propulsion,” Woodcroft, Part I. p. 29.
[31] Woodcroft, Part I. p. 51; and see Drawings, “Repository of Arts,” vol. i. (second series), p. 11.
[32] “He was a foolish man,” says Dr. Arnott, “who thought he had found the means of commanding always a fair wind for his pleasure boat by erecting an immense bellows in the stern. The bellows and the sails acted against each other, and there was no motion: indeed, in a perfect calm, there would be a little backward motion, because the sail would not catch all the wind from the bellows.”—Arnott, “Elements of Physics,” p. 120.
[33] “Specifications of Marine Propulsion,” Woodcroft, vol. i. pp. 16 and 17.
[34] Papin was driven from France by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and was associated with Robert Boyle in many of his experiments on the air-pump—he was elected F.R.S. in 1681, and was for a time, the secretary of the society. He was invited to Germany by the Landgrave of Hesse, was some years Professor of Mathematics at Marburg and died there, 1710; he seems the first to have clearly discerned the necessity of the vacuum under the cylinder, and that the pressure of the atmosphere alone is enormous. (A cylinder 1 foot in diameter, has a surface of 113 square inches, hence, the atmospheric pressure in it is 113 ⨉ 15 = 1695 lbs.). Papin first proposed to exhaust the air by pumps, and in 1687 laid this plan before the Royal Society; but such a plan would only have been a transference of power, the effect being the same in character as that of lifting the water to the water-wheel. His most important invention was that of a method of producing a vacuum by the condensation of steam—the reversal, in fact, of the process of the previous machines of De Caus and Lord Worcester. He drew the inference that, if water in its conversion into steam swelled many hundred times, it must follow that steam reconverted into water would shrink into its primitive dimensions. He was also the first to suggest the safety-valve, but he did not, strange to say, apply it to the machine subsequently invented. It has been asserted, though not proved, by some writers that Papin derived many of his ideas from Otto von Guericke, who had invented an air-pump as early as 1654.
[35] The “Miners’ Friend,” &c. A paper published by Savery in 1702.
[36] Thomas Savery was born about 1650, and, in early life, served as a military engineer; he then gave himself to the study of mechanics, and constructed a clock still in existence. He also made a boat with paddle-wheels, turned by a capstan, his object being, as he says, to enable ships to be moved independently of the wind. He next invented what he called his “Fire-machine,” and exhibited it to William III. and the Royal Society in 1699. He applied his engine largely to the pumping out of mines, and, though it was found ultimately to have too little power, and was superseded by that of Newcomen, Savery may fairly claim the credit of having constructed the first really practicable steam-engine. He invented also a very ingenious plan for determining the height of the water in the boiler of the steam-engine, which is still sometimes used.
[37] Letters to Leibnitz, “Dictionnaire des Inventions,” Migne’s N. Encycl., Paris, 1852, vol. xxxvi., art. “Vélocipèdes,” p. 317. Thomas Newcomen was a working blacksmith in the town of Dartmouth (Devon). He was assisted in his inventions by John Calley, a glazier of the same place, with whom he subsequently entered into partnership, and erected more than one engine which successfully pumped water from mines.
[38] “Acta Eruditorum,” 1737, p. 80.
[39] Ibid., 1709, p. 282.
[40] Gill’s “Technical Repository,” 1829, p. 251.
[41] “Specifications of Marine Propulsion,” Woodcroft, vol. i. p. 21.
[42] The reader will find this plan described at length in Woodcroft’s “Specifications of Marine Propulsion,” pp. 23 and 34 (note). Hulls “placed a paddle-wheel on beams projecting over the stern, and it was turned by an atmospheric steam-engine acting in conjunction with a counterpoise weight upon a system of ropes and grooved wheels” (MacGregor).
[43] Jonathan Hulls was born at Campden, in Gloucestershire, in 1699, and made his first experiments on the Avon at Evesham. In 1737 he published a pamphlet entitled “A Description and Draughts of a New Invented Machine;” in this he proposed to put a Newcomen engine on board a tow-boat to work a paddle-wheel placed in the stern.
Mr. Smiles (“Lives of Boulton and Watt,” p. 63) observes, “It has been stated that Newcomen took out a patent for his invention in 1705;” but this is a mistake, as no patent was ever taken out by Newcomen. It is supposed that Savery, having heard of his invention, gave him notice that he would regard his method of producing a vacuum as an infringement of his patent, yet the principle on which Newcomen’s engine worked was entirely different from that of Savery.
[44] He died shortly after his arrival at Venice, and his plans were never put into practical operation.
[45] The now well-known principle of a steam-engine is this: there is a cylinder with its rod fixed to one end of a lever, which is worked by the combined pressure of the atmosphere and the steam upon a piston, a temporary vacuum being made below it by suddenly condensing the steam, which had been let into the cylinder where this piston works, by a jet of cold water thrown into it. A partial vacuum being thus made, the weight of the atmosphere presses down the piston and raises the other end of the straight lever, thereby drawing up water from a mine, or, by the numberless improvements made of late years, communicating a mechanical power which may set in motion every description of machinery.
[46] “Woodcroft on Steam Navigation,” p. 14; “Cabinet Cyclopædia,” Mechanics, p. 258.
[47] Letter to Dr. Small, with a drawing; Muirhead’s “James Watt,” London, 1854, vol. ii. pp. 4, 8, 11.
[48] There seems little doubt (see Lardner, p. 186, and Muirhead’s “Life of Watt,” p. 273), that Watt was the real inventor of the crank for which Mr. Wasborough obtained the credit. Mr. Watt says distinctly, that, having noticed, in 1778 or 1779, certain defects in the “ratchet wheels” invented by Wasborough, he proceeded to remedy them, but having neglected to take out a patent for these improvements, a workman employed to make Mr. Watt’s model told “some of the people about Mr. Wasborough,” on which he took a patent for the application of the crank to steam-engines.
[49] In the Patent Museum, London, may be seen now (1875), the same “Sun and Planet” engine (a great curiosity), which Watt constructed in 1788 at Soho, near Birmingham.
[50] See “Specifications relating to Marine Propulsion” (Part II.), p. 109, in which the existing documents are recapitulated and described.
[51] There is more in Bramah’s inventions than at first appears, and the scientific reader would do well to study that part of them referring to the “boiler.” The following remarks have reference to the screw:—
“Instead of the (paddle-wheel) A, may be introduced a wheel with inclined fans or wings, similar to the fly of a smoke-jack, or the vertical sails of a windmill: this wheel or fly may be fixed on the spindle C alone, and may be wholly under water, where it would, by being turned round either way, cause the ship to be forced backwards or forwards, as the inclination of the fans or wings will act as oars with equal force both ways, and their power will be in proportion to the size and velocity of the wheel; allowing the fans to have a proper inclination, the steam-engine will also serve to clear the ship of water with singular expedition, which is a circumstance of much importance. This “apparatus for working the ship” is fixed in or beyond the stern, in or about the place where the rudder is usually placed, and its movement is occasioned by means of an horizontal spindle or axletree conveyed to the engine through the stern end of the ship.”
[52] See letter to Dr. Small (who replies he had tried it); Muirhead’s “James Watt,” London, 1854, vol. ii. pp. 4, 8, 11.
[53] “Woodcroft on Steam Navigation,” p. 20, et seq.
[54] “Specifications relating to Marine Propulsion,” Part I. p. 36.
[55] It is clear that Mr. Symington is entitled to the credit of the application of steam-power to propel the paddles. Mr. Miller stuck to the capstan and manual labour, but, on one occasion, having been to see Symington’s locomotive, he told him of his own invention, and of the difficulty he had with his paddles for lack of power. “Why don’t you use the steam-engine?” was Symington’s immediate remark. Miller at once assented, but first constructed a double vessel, with the paddle-wheels worked by five men at the capstan amidships, and, in June 1787, the first experiment with her was deemed successful. A short time subsequently steam was directly applied, but, whether in consequence of Symington’s remark, is not certain. Mr. Taylor, who is said to have suggested it, was an intimate friend and fellow-pupil with Symington at Edinburgh 1786-7. (Smiles’ “Lives of Boulton and Watt,” p. 438.)
[56] Dumfries paper; Edinburgh Advertiser, and the Scot’s Magazine, vol. 1. p. 566, November, 1788.
[57] Caledonian Mercury, Evening Courant, and Advertiser.
[58] In the Patent Office Museum, London, there may still be seen, “the parent engine of steam navigation, made for Patrick Miller, Esq., and used by him on the lake at Dalswinton, 1788.” It consists of two small paddles, working one behind the other, to be fitted on the same side apparently of a small boat.
[59] From the narrative given by Mr. Smiles in his “Lives of Boulton and Watt,” it is certain that they discouraged what they considered “speculative” adventures. Both were written to, with requests that they would make engines for Mr. Miller, those constructed by Symington not having answered as well as was expected, and both declined to have anything to do with the scheme. (Smiles, p. 445.)
[60] “Woodcroft on Steam Navigation,” p. 54.
[61] “Encyclopædia Britannica” (eighth edition), vol. xx. p. 637.
[62] Mr. Smiles, in his interesting “Lives of the Engineers” (i.) states that, in 1790, Lord Stanhope had proposed a mode of propelling vessels by steam, and had been in communication with Mr. Rennie on this subject, who, on the 26th April of that year, sent his Lordship such information as he could obtain about Boulton and Watt’s improved steam-engine. Lord Stanhope objected to the space occupied by the condensing apparatus, to which Mr. Rennie replied that high pressure could be applied, on which his Lordship constructed a vessel on that plan which obtained a speed of 3 miles an hour (vol. ii. p. 237).
[63] Mr. Woodcroft observes that “this vessel might, from the simplicity of its machinery, have been at work to this day with such ordinary repairs as are now occasionally required for all steamboats,” p. 53; and, again, “thus had Symington the undoubted merit of having combined for the first time those improvements which constitute the present system of steam navigation.”
[64] Patented 23rd August, 1780. An invention in which the reciprocating motion of a beam acting on a connecting rod turns a wheel. Woodcroft, “Marine Propulsion,” Part I. p. 32.
[65] It seems important to record that the success of Mr. Symington’s engine consisted mainly in this: that, after placing in a boat a double acting reciprocating engine, he attached his crank to the axis of the paddle-wheel, a combination on which, as Mr. Woodcroft justly observes, “there has been no improvement even to the present time, either in this or in any other country.” The power thus applied secured rotary motion without the interposition of a lever or beam. Mr. Symington might fairly claim, as he does in his patent of October 14th, 1801, that “the principle of this invention comprehends any species of machinery thus put in rotatory motion by a steam engine which may be made use of to navigate boats, vessels, or rafts.”
[66] “Encyclopédie Moderne,” Paris, 1855, art. “Vapeur,” p. 171.
[67] See “Des Bateaux à Vapeur,” par Jouffroy (the son of the Marquis), pp. 13 and 17; and “L’Universel Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de la France,” Paris, 1845, vol. ix. p. 737.
[68] Ibid., p. 737.
[69] Stuart’s “Anecdotes of Steam Engines,” vol. ii. pp. 450 and 483.
[70] “Elements of Experimental Physics,” Florence, 1796, quoted by J. Scott Russell on “Steam and Steam Navigation,” p. 238; also referred to nine years previously in “Lettere di Fisica Sperimentale,” di Seraffino Serrati; Firenze, 1787, 12mo., and quoted in “Biographie Universelle,” Paris, 1856, art. “Fulton.”
[71] “Steam Navigation,” pp. 48-51.
[72] 6th Report, p. 179.
[73] See Brewster’s “Encyclopædia,” extracted from the Columbian Magazine, Philadelphia, vol. i., December 1786.
[74] John Fitch, who was a remarkable genius, was born in Connecticut, U.S., on the 21st January, 1743. His father, a small farmer, who could not afford to give him more than a limited education, bound him apprentice to a watch and clock maker. Afterwards he became a silversmith at Trenton, New Jersey, and, during the early part of the Revolutionary War, he was appointed by the “Committee of Safety” armourer to that State. Dislodged by the approach of the British, he fled to Bucks County, Pennsylvania; subsequently, he became a sutler, and supplied the American camp at Valley Forge with goods and provisions: he was also a land surveyor, and, in that capacity, the idea first suggested itself to him (as, curiously enough, it had done to Symington, in Scotland, about the same time) of propelling carriages by steam, but he soon abandoned it on account of the roughness of the roads in America, and turned his attention to propelling vessels by that power on the rivers.
In a sketch of his life, which appeared in the “Philadelphia Dispatch” of the 9th February, 1873, the writer, in describing the difficulties Fitch had to encounter in raising money to finish his second steam-boat, remarks: “In a letter to David Rettenhouse, when asking an advance of fifty pounds to finish the boat, he says, ‘This, sir, whether I bring it to perfection or not, will be the mode of crossing the Atlantic in time for packets and armed vessels.’ But everything failed, and the poor projector loitered about the city for some months, a despised, unfortunate, heart-broken man. ‘Often have I seen him,’ said Thomas P. Cope, many years afterward, ‘stalking about like a troubled spectre, with downcast eyes and lowering countenance, his coarse soiled linen peeping through the elbows of a tattered garment.’ Speaking of a visit he once paid to John Wilson, his boat builder, and Peter Brown, his blacksmith, in which, as usual, he held forth upon his hobby, Mr. Cope says: ‘After indulging himself for some time in this never-failing topic of deep excitement, he concluded with these memorable words, “Well, gentlemen, although I shall not live to see the time, you will, when steam-boats will be preferred to all other means of conveyance, and especially for passengers; and they will be particularly useful in the navigation of the river Mississippi.” He then retired, on which Brown, turning to Wilson, exclaimed, in a tone of deep sympathy, ‘Poor fellow! What a pity he is crazy!’”
The same writer states that Fitch, in 1796, after his return from France, built, under the patronage of Chancellor Livingston, at New York, “a yawl, which he moved by steam with a screw-propeller, on the Collect Pond.” Poor Fitch died by his own hands in 1798. See also “Life of John Fitch,” by Thompson Westcott, published by J. B. Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1857.
[75] “New York Magazine” for 1790, p. 493.
[76] “History of Philadelphia,” by Thompson Westcott.
[77] Fitch himself thus describes the engines of his first boat in a letter which appeared in the Philadelphia newspaper of the period:
“Philadelphia, Dec. 8, 1786.
“Sir,—The reason of my so long deferring to give you a description of the steam-boat, has been in some measure owing to the complication of the works, and an apprehension that a number of drafts would be necessary in order to show the powers of the machine as clearly as you could wish. But as I have not been able to hand you herewith such drafts, I can only give you the general principles. It is in several parts similar to the late improved steam-engines in Europe, though there are some alterations. Our cylinder is to be horizontal, and the steam to work with equal force at each end. The mode by which we obtain (what I take the liberty of terming) a vacuum is, we believe, entirely new; as is also the method of letting the water into it, and throwing it off against the atmosphere without any friction. It is expected that the engine, which is a 12-inch cylinder, will move with a clear force of 11 or 12 cwt., after the frictions are deducted; this force is to act against a wheel of eighteen-inch diameter. The piston is to move about 3 feet, and each vibration of the piston gives the axis about forty evolutions. Each evolution of the axis moves twelve oars or paddles 5½ feet (which work perpendicularly, and are represented by the stroke of the paddle of a canoe). As six of the paddles are raised from the water six more are entered, and the two sets of paddles make their stroke of about 11 feet in each evolution. The cranks of the axis act upon the paddles about one-third of their length from the lower end, on which part of the oar the whole force of the axis is applied. Our engine is placed in the boat about one-third from the stern, and with the action and reaction turn the wheel in the same way.
“With the most perfect respect, sir, I beg leave to subscribe myself
“Your very humble servant,
“John Fitch.”
[78] In a letter I received (May 2nd, 1875) from Commodore G. H. Preble, Commandant U.S. Navy Yard, Philadelphia, to whom I am indebted for much valuable information, he says, “John Stevens invented the twin screw-steamer in 1804, which is still preserved in the Stevens’ Institute, Hoboken, N.Y.”
[79] The patent bears date 21st May, 1805, and was granted to “John Cox Stevens, of New York, but now residing in New Bond Street, Middlesex.”
[80] Gill’s “Technical Repository,” 1829, vol. iv. p. 251 (for 1823), where a paper by Evans is given, but no further authority.
[81] Fulton invented the drop and the double-ended steam ferry-boats now in use in all the principal cities of the U.S.
[82] Stuart’s “Anecdotes of Steam-engines,” vol. ii. p. 478.
[83] Letter from R. Fulton in a memoir by E. Cartwright, London, 1843, p. 142.
[84] Robert Fulton is said to have been born in Little Britain, Pennsylvania, in 1765. He was trained as an engineer, but having acquired some knowledge of portrait and landscape painting he came to England and studied under his distinguished countryman, West, with whom he continued to reside for several years; and, after quitting him, he made painting his chief employment for some time. He afterwards formed an acquaintance with Rumsey, and followed the profession of an engineer. He died 1815.—“Biographical Treasury,” Longmans, 1873.
The following notice appears in the obituary of an American newspaper of the period:
“At New York, aged about 34 (50 years?) Robert Fulton, Esq., a great mechanical genius. He had been ill ten days, arising principally from exposure to the weather, in the pursuit of objects calculated, as our authority says, to increase the national greatness. These objects were steam-vessels of war, and a safe and certain method of submarine explosion. The first is so far completed, that it may be finished by other hands. Mr. Fulton was the inventor of steam-boats as they are now in use.”
See note, [Appendix No. 1. p. 587.]
[85] Woodcroft, pp. 64-65, Bourne, on “Steam Navigation,” p. 14; and “Encyclopædia Britannica” (eighth edition), vol. xx. p. 638.
[86] Woodcroft, on “Steam Navigation,” pp. 65-67.
[87] Woodcroft, on “Steam Navigation,” with drawing of the vessel in question, p. 60.
[88] The term horse-power is employed to express the magnitude or capacity and power of an engine. It originated with James Watt from the actual measure of the work which a horse could perform, in raising 33,000 lbs. one foot high per minute; but as any such measure must, in the nature of things, be vague and fluctuating, it was replaced by what is now known as “nominal horse-power,” a mode of measurement based mainly upon the area of the cylinder, the number of strokes per minute and the pressure. But this method is far from showing the actual horse-power, as some modern engines will give an effective power three, four, and even six times greater than the nominal; it serves, however, as a commercial unit of capacity or power of performance and regulates the price to be paid for an engine. But it is much to be regretted that nominal power is not yet estimated by an uniform standard, as different rules are still applied to condensing and non-condensing engines, and these vary in different places.
[89] “Mr. Fulton’s ingenious steamboat, invented with a view to the navigation of the Mississippi, from New Orleans and upwards, sails to-day from the North Run, near States Prison and Albany, the velocity of the steam-boat is calculated at 4 miles an hour. It is said that it will make a progress of two against the current of the Mississippi and, if so, it will certainly be a very valuable acquisition to the commerce of the Western States.”—American Citizen, 17th August, 1807.
[90] “To the Editor of the American Citizen.
“New York, 21st August, 1807.
“Sir,—I arrived this afternoon at 4 o’clock in the steam-boat from Albany. As the success of my experiment gives me great hope that such boats may be rendered of much importance to my country, to prevent erroneous opinions, and give satisfaction to the friends of these useful improvements, you will have the goodness to publish the following facts:
“I left New York on Monday, at 1 o’clock, and arrived in Clermont, the seat of Chancellor Livingston, at 1 o’clock on Tuesday; time, 24 hours; distance, 110 miles; on Wednesday I departed from the Chancellor’s at 8 o’clock in the morning, and arrived at Albany at 5 in the afternoon; distance, 40 miles; time, 8 hours! The sum of this is 150 miles in 32 hours, equal near 5 miles an hour.
“On Thursday, at 9 o’clock in the morning, I left Albany, and arrived at the Chancellor’s at 6 in the evening. I started from thence at 7, and arrived at New York on Friday, at 4 in the afternoon; time, 30 hours; space run through, 150 miles, equal to 5 miles an hour. Throughout the whole way, going and returning, the wind was ahead; no advantage could be drawn from my sails. The whole has therefore been performed by the power of the steam-engine.
“I am, sir, your most obedient,
“Robert Fulton.”
[91] Stuart’s Anecdotes of “Steam-engines,” vol. ii. p. 488.
[92] Fulton’s second large boat on the Hudson was the Car of Neptune. Besides these two vessels he constructed steam ferry-boats to run between New York and New Jersey, also a boat for the navigation of Long Island Sound, as well as others for the Hudson, and for the Ohio and Mississippi.
[93] Mr. Woodcroft, in concluding his remarks about Fulton, disparagingly says that, “If these inventions separately (those borrowed from Watt, Pickard, and Symington) or, as a combination, were removed out of Fulton’s boat, nothing would be left but the hull; and, if the hull be then divested of that peculiarity of form admitted to have been derived from Colonel Beaufoy’s experiments, all that would remain would be the hull of a boat of ordinary construction.... Fulton’s patents and specifications must, therefore, be considered either as mere importations, borrowed (in patent phraseology) from ‘foreigners residing abroad’ ‘or as barefaced plagiarisms.’”
[94] In this judgment Mr. Woodcroft is supported by Mr. Rennie, who considered “Fulton a quack who traded upon the inventions of others.”—Smiles’ “Lives,” vol. ii. p. 237.
[95] “On Saturday morning, at eight o’clock arrived here, from Montreal, being her first trip, the steam-boat Accommodation, with ten passengers. This is the first vessel of the kind that ever appeared in this harbour. She is continually crowded with visitants. She left Montreal on Wednesday, at two o’clock, so that her passage was sixty-six hours, thirty of which she was at anchor. She arrived at Three Rivers in twenty-four hours. She has at present berths for twenty passengers, which next year will be considerably augmented. No wind or tide can stop her. She has 75 feet keel, and 85 feet on deck. The price for a passage up is nine dollars, and eight down—the vessel supplying provisions. The great advantage attending a vessel so constructed is, that a passage may be calculated on to a degree of certainty, in point of time, which cannot be the case with any vessel propelled by sails only. The steam-boat receives her impulse from an open, double-spoked, perpendicular wheel, on each side, without any circular band or rim. To the end of each double spoke is fixed a square board, which enters the water, and, by the rotary motion of the wheel, acts like a paddle. The wheels are put and kept in motion by steam, operating within the vessel. A mast is to be fixed in her, for the purpose of using a sail when the wind is favourable, which will occasionally accelerate her headway.”