Transcribers' Note

Cover created by Transcriber, using an illustration from the original book, and placed in the Public Domain.

Greek words are shown in Greek and then in Transcribers' English transliterations that are enclosed in {curly braces}. Also see later [note] about alchemy symbols.

Perpetual Motion

Comprising a History of the Efforts to Attain Self-Motive Mechanism with a Classified, ILLUSTRATED Collection and Explanation of the Devices Whereby it Has Been Sought and Why They Failed, and Comprising Also a Revision and Re-Arrangement of the Information Afforded by "Search for Self-Motive Power During The 17th, 18th and 19th Centuries," London, 1861, and "A History of the Search for Self-Motive Power from the 13th to The 19th Century," London, 1870, by Henry Dircks, C. E., LL. D., Etc.

BY
PERCY VERANCE

Copyright 1916
By
20th Century Enlightenment Specialty Co.

[CONTENTS]

For Summarized Table of Contents, see page [358] et seq.

[PREFACE.]

The author has no apology to offer for the production of this book. He has spent his life in environments that have brought him into constant contact with mechanics, artisans and laborers as well as professional men, engineers, chemists and technical experts of various types. He knows a great many men—young men, for the most part—are constantly working on the old, old problem of Perpetual Motion; that much money, and much time are being spent in search of a solution for that problem which all scientific and technical men tell us is impossible of solution.

It is believed by the author that a classification and presentation of selected groups of the devices produced in the past by which it was by the inventor believed, self-motive power had been attained, will save much work in fields already thoroughly exploited.

So far as the author knows no book on the subject has appeared since 1870. The various encyclopedias published contain articles on the subject, but they are necessarily brief, and not satisfying to young men who have become interested in the subject.

In 1861, Henry Dircks, a civil engineer, of London, published a work entitled "Perpetuum Mobile; or, Search for Self-Motive Power, During the Seventeenth, Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries." The book contains 599 pages, and was followed in 1870, by a second series by the same author entitled "Perpetuum Mobile, or a History of the Search for Self-Motive Power from the Thirteenth, to the Nineteenth Century." In these two books there is amassed a wonderful amount of material showing on the part of the author diligence, great patience and wide and thorough search.

The author of these works was not enamoured of his subject, and his books clearly show that he was not writing them because of any interest he had in the subject of Perpetual Motion. On the contrary, they appear to have been written because of a deep detestation entertained by the author for the subject of Perpetual Motion, and a contemptuous pity for any one seriously interested in the subject. Mr. Dircks's works may be said to be the works of a scold. His sentiments were deep, and his impulses strong, which accounts for the vast amount of labor he did in the preparation of his books. Those books are now out of print, and it is believed by the author of this book that they may well remain so. They contain much material that no one would be justified in wading through. The most complicated mechanisms devised by enthusiastic dreamers are shown in the same detail with which the inventors described them in presenting them to the public, or to the patent offices. Little is to be gained by this.

So complicated are many of the devices that only technically trained engineers could read them understandingly, and few technically trained engineers are now greatly interested in self-motive power devices. We believe that every useful or interesting purpose is served if enough devices are collected, classified and presented to show the various principles relied upon by the inventors; with an explanation of why they failed—i. e., wherein the principles relied upon are wrong, and while possibly not out of harmony with any mechanical principles then known, are entirely out of harmony with principles since discovered and now well known.

In the preparation of this volume a vast amount of the information furnished by the two works of Mr. Dircks has been rearranged, reclassified, and used.

Everyone who has to any extent, by environment, associated with the mass of people who are not technically educated, knows that the persons who are still interested in the subject of Perpetual Motion, and who still seek its attainment, are not technically trained engineers or mathematicians, but for the greater part untrained people of naturally strong mechanical sense, and of natural mechanical and mathematical adaptation.

This book is written for the perusal of that large class of people. It is not designed as an argument either for or against the possibility of the attainment of Perpetual Motion.

The author is content to classify and present—clearly, it is hoped—the leading endeavors that have been known in that field of effort, and to explain their failure.

It is believed by the author that the perusal of the present volume by anyone whose mind has been attracted by the subject of Perpetual Motion will result in an enlightenment, and, it is also believed, will have a tendency to direct his mind from a struggle with theories long ago exploded, and may result in directing his efforts to things practical, and not without hope of attainment.

This work is offered only to minds mechanically or mathematically inclined. It is not even hoped that it will interest people who prefer fiction to fact, nor people who read simply for idle entertainment.

[INTRODUCTORY ESSAY]

Perpetual Motion as used in this book is to be taken in its conventional, and not in its strict literal sense. The strict literal analysis of the two words implies unceasing motion. Of this we have many illustrations—the tides, the waves of the ocean, the course of the earth around the sun, and in the movements of all heavenly and astronomical bodies. In fact, it is difficult to conceive in a strictly scientific sense of any substance having an entire absence of motion.

Perpetual Motion as used in this book means what it is usually understood to mean—Self-Motive Power—a machine that furnishes the power to keep its parts going as a machine. In this sense Perpetual Motion has always engaged the minds of many, many people—and what is more natural? As soon as a boy begins to take an interest in moving parts of machinery, vehicles, locomotives, and what not, he perceives that the application of power results in the motion of bodies, and again that bodies in motion are productive of power. A wheel moved by muscular, or other mechanical power, is made by machinery to elevate water, and elevated water can be made in descending to run machinery. The windlass, or other wheel, turned by applied force, lifts buckets from wells—raises stone, and elevates heavy bodies, if desired. Heavy bodies descending can be, and are used through means of machinery to make machinery run.

A great many similar illustrations could be given. What, then, is more natural than that a boy with an active mind who is at all mechanically turned, as most boys are, begins to wonder why, if wheels lift stones, and if stones descending make wheels run, cannot a machine be made that will lift stones, or other weights, and in turn be run by the descent of the lifted stones, or other weights? Why, if the turning of wheels lift water, and if descending water makes wheels go, should not an adaptation be made by which the same machine will elevate water, and be run by the descent of the elevated water?

That it cannot be done is now the consensus of opinion of all technically trained mechanics, but, that it can not be done, and why it can not be done, is sure not to occur to the boy, nor to the man who has only a strong natural mechanical sense to guide him, and has not the advantage of technical training.

Again, it is well known that many, many men have spent considerable sums of money and given hours and hours, and days, and months, and years of close and careful thought, and experiment to the production of a machine that will accomplish Perpetual Motion, and that many have announced to the world that they had succeeded in its accomplishment, but that all their devices so far have turned out failures.

It is to no purpose to tell the Perpetual Motion worker that he is seeking to attain the impossible; that the attainment of self-motive power has been demonstrated to be an impossibility. He will answer, or, at least, he will reason to himself that many things once pronounced impossibilities and claimed to be so demonstrated, have since been attained. The Perpetual Motion worker is usually a person of active intelligence, and being enamoured of mechanical projects is likely to read extensively along mechanical lines, and knows as every well-informed person knows, that there are many instances in the history of the discovery and development of the most important mechanical inventions and scientific discoveries where the persistent efforts of so-called enthusiastic dreamers and cranks finally triumphed over the settled and conventional "impossibilities" of dignified scientists.

When, less than a century ago, it was proposed to propel a ship across the Atlantic ocean by steampower, Ignatius Lardner, a scientific teacher, lecturer and interpreter of real note and merit wrote a book "demonstrating" the physical impossibility of a vessel carrying enough fuel to propel itself through that distance of water. The book was actually printed, but was scarcely off the press until the first steamship had successfully crossed the Atlantic with steampower, and steamed triumphantly into port.

After communication by electric telegraph was well established and had been in successful commercial use for decades, it was proposed to converse by long distance over a wire. The idea was hooted and declared impossible, and it did seem so, and yet today, there is scarcely a farm house in the nation but what has an instrument by which the occupants can talk over wires not only to their near-by neighbors, but to remote cities.

Prof. Samuel P. Langley, less than two decades ago undertook in a thoroughly scientific manner to accomplish what is called "heavier than air flight." His scientific ideas on the subject were entirely correct, but he did not have the advantage of engine refinement as it is known today, by which high energy development can be attained with an engine or motor of small weight. Nevertheless, Prof. Langley succeeded in flying a considerable distance, and in fact, made a number of successful demonstrations of the physical possibility of heavier than air flight. Prof. Simon Newcomb, who is to be ranked as the greatest astronomer, mathematician and scientist the United States has ever produced, and with the possible exception of Benjamin Franklin, the most original thinker along scientific lines, wrote an article which was published generally in scientific journals, in which he warned Prof. Langley of the folly of his attempts, not claiming, however, the scientific impossibility of heavier than air flight, but claiming that it could never be of any real practical value; that the instability of the air, etc., limited flight by man to a daredevil show performance. A child then born would now be scarcely grown, and yet, aeroplanes are in use in every civilized country in the world for observation and military purposes, and even for carrying mail to places not otherwise easily accessible.

Thousands of flights are undertaken every day with the confident expectation of a successful trip and return. How many, many boys and mechanics, prior to the achievement of human flight, have been attracted by the problem, only to have their ambitions and dreams discouraged and suppressed by being told that the scientific world knows that human flight is impossible—"God made man to walk on the ground, and the birds to fly, and if Nature had intended that we should fly we would have been equipped with wings," and probably to be dubbed "Darius Green," as a reminder of the inglorious fate of the pseudo hero of that name in Trowbridge's clever and immortal poem about Darius Green and his Flying Machine.

The announcement of the discovery of rays by means of which views may be made and photographs taken through substances supposedly opaque to all light rays was scouted as a ridiculously visionary dream; but the discoverers were not dismayed by scout and ridicule, but persisted in their dreams and enthusiasm. There is not a village of any considerable size in the civilized world but has its X-Ray Machine by which foreign substances in the flesh may be viewed and photographed and located with exactitude, fractures examined and all surgical operations aided to the benefit and health and recovery of the sick and wounded. Mankind is the recipient of the benefits resulting from the fact that enthusiastic cranks were not deterred by ridicule and supposed demonstrations of their folly.

The above are only a few of the many like instances recorded in scientific progress. While not accurately true, and while less true during the last two decades than formerly, it is, nevertheless, a general truth that scientific progress has been made in spite of, and in the face of discouragement and ridicule from the multitudes who were destined to be benefited by the discoveries made by the persistent so-called cranks.

These facts are all well known to the Perpetual Motion enthusiast. It is, therefore, of no avail to tell him that the scientific world has pronounced his aspirations and attempts but dreams, and that Perpetual Motion workers are by the scientific world denominated cranks.

If it be admitted that Perpetual Motion is, as scientific men tell us, a chimerical dream, it is still to be very greatly doubted if the world at large is to be benefited by dissuading minds from working on the problem. There is no doubt that many persons who have become more intensely interested in mechanics by thinking and working on the problem of Perpetual Motion, have thereby been lead to study more and more generally into mechanical subjects, and became not merely tyros, but useful men in various mechanical pursuits. Many doubtless have followed mechanical subjects to which they were introduced by labors toward Perpetual Motion, to the making of useful and valuable inventions and discoveries.

Notwithstanding the fact that a countless number of devices for the attainment of Perpetual Motion have been proclaimed and exhibited, it is to be supposed that those actually proclaimed and brought to light constitute but an infinitesimally small proportion of those actually made. It is to be supposed that the Perpetual Motion worker has some sense, and that the great majority of them before proclaiming his apparatus would want to know himself that it was not a failure, and would not, when ushered before the public, bring upon him humiliation and jeers. It is to be believed that in nearly every instance the produced device was tested before being proclaimed and ushered into the light of day. It goes without saying that all that were so tested were failures, and were never heard of except by the inventor and a very few intimate friends or co-laborers. Those that have been heralded to the world represent only that small proportion where over-confidence in the operation, or a disregard for the truth, or some other unexplainable something caused the inventor and his friends to make the announcement and disclosure of the device before the test.

It is almost impossible to conceive of a person of any intelligence exposing himself to the ridicule resulting from the failure of a pompously heralded device, when a simple test would have saved the exposure, and yet the civilized world has been filled with Perpetual Motion devices proclaimed and heralded with trumpet blast, which, when tested, "didn't work."

It is not, however, the purview, or purpose of this book, to incite people to work on the problem of Perpetual Motion, neither is it its purview or purpose to dissuade them from it.

In the works of Mr. Dircks, mentioned in the preface of this work, the devices for Perpetual Motion are classified somewhat with reference to the time each was produced. In some instances with reference to whether or not patents were applied for and obtained, or as to the source of information concerning them.

A careful examination of the devices presented in Mr. Dirck's two works, and of those, information concerning which has been obtained elsewhere, leads the author to believe that nothing is to be gained by an attempted classification along those lines.

In countless instances Perpetual Motion seekers of different races and living in separate countries, and, indeed, on different continents, centuries apart, have sought the attainment of Perpetual Motion by practically the same devices, and inventor after inventor has brought forth alleged inventions depending upon precisely the same underlying mechanical principle.

The author has attempted to classify the various devices presented in this book according to the underlying mechanical principles upon which the inventor chiefly relied for the success of his invention. Even this classification is extremely difficult and not well distinguished. Many of them, indeed most of them, depend for their success upon more than one mechanical principle, and the classifications thereby inevitably intermingle and overlap what otherwise would be their distinguishing boundaries. Still it is believed by the author that it is the best that could be adopted, and that no better or clearer classification is possible than the one here presented.

The various devices are classified by the author under the following heads:

Devices by Means of Wheels and Weights.

Devices by Means of Rolling Weights and Inclined Planes.

Hydraulic and Hydro-Mechanical Devices.

Pneumatic Siphon and Hydro-Pneumatic Devices.

Magnetic Devices.

Devices Utilizing Capillary Attraction and Physical Affinity.

Liquid Air as a Means of Perpetual Motion.

Radium and Radio-Active Substances Considered as a Conceived Source of Perpetual Motion.

Perpetual Motion Devices Attempting Its Attainment by a Misconception of the Relation of Momentum and Energy.

to which is added—

"A Discussion of the Alleged Inventions of the very eminent Edward Sommerset, Sixth Earl and Second Marquis of Worcester, and Jean Ernest Eli-Bessler Orffyreus.

Also—

"A Discussion by the Author of the 'Doctrine of Conservation of Energy, and Its Relation to the Possibility of Perpetual Motion.'"

And—

"A Discussion by the Author of 'Will Perpetual Motion Ever Be Accomplished?'"

[CHAPTER I]
DEVICES BY MEANS OF WHEELS AND WEIGHTS

Wilars de Honecort

While attempts at Perpetual Motion are as old as the human race, not many of the more ancient devices have been preserved, either by engraving or by explanation.

Among the very earliest of these attempts of which we have detailed information is the device of Wilars de Honecort. He was an architect, and lived in the thirteenth century. The information is preserved in "A Sketch Book" by him which was deposited and remains in the Ecole des Chartes at Paris. About the middle of the nineteenth century comments were published in France on this ancient device. Some of these were translated into English. The following account is an extract from a translation made by Professor Willis, of Cambridge.

"Many a time have skilful workmen tried to contrive a wheel that shall turn of itself: here is a way to make such a one, by means of an uneven number of mallets, or by quicksilver."

Wilars de Honecort presents to us a device for a perpetual motion; it is not clear whether he intends to claim the contrivance of it, or whether he had met with it in the course of his travels. It differs very little from a well-known contrivance for this purpose which has been so often published, and its fallacy so fully explained in popular books, that it is unnecessary to dwell at length upon the mechanical principles which it involves. It is extremely curious in this place, because it shows the great antiquity of the problem, the solution of which has wasted the time, the brains, and the means of many an unhappy artisan or philosopher.

In the drawing we have now before us, the two upright posts, which are framed together and skilfully braced so as to ensure their steadiness, support between them a long horizontal axle, to the center of which is fixed a wheel with four spokes. The absence of perspective in this drawing makes the wheel appear as if it were parallel to the frame, instead of being, as it is, at right angles to it.

Seven mallets, or arms, each loaded with a heavy weight at the end, are jointed at equal distances to the circumference of the wheel, so that those which happen to have their joints below the diameter of the wheel will hang freely down, but if the wheel be turned round by hand or otherwise, the weights of those which are on the ascending side will, in succession, rest on its circumference, and will, in that position, be carried over the highest part of the wheel and downwards on the descending side, until the arms that bear them are brought into a vertical position and a little beyond it, and then the weight will fall suddenly over and rest on the opposite position on the circumference of the wheel, until its further descent enables it to dangle freely as before. The effect of this mechanism upon the position of the weights is not truly represented, for the upper mallet has fallen over too soon. In the modern form of this contrivance a pin, or stop, is introduced, by which the mallet, when it falls over, is compelled to rest so that its arm shall point to the center of the wheel, and thus the descending weight be held at a greater distance from the center than when ascending. It is extremely probable that this difference is a mere error of the artist, for the drawing has the appearance of having been made from a model of the wheel at rest; a condition in which, of course, it would always be found, unless moved by some external force. The inventor seems to have thought that the action above described would always place four weights on the descending side, and leave but three on the ascending side, each weight as it rises to the top being intended to leap suddenly over to the descending side, in the manner just explained; or perhaps, as M. Lassus suggests, the contriver imagined that the blows given to the wheel in succession by the falling mallets would help it forward. It is surprising that although the slightest model would show the failure of devices of this class to persons incapable of mathematical reasoning, yet such machines have been seriously proposed in books, and are continually recontrived by ingenious workmen. The allusion to quicksilver in the manuscript shows that Wilars was acquainted with the well-known contrivance described in the books already referred to, in which portions of that metal inclosed in channels are used instead of the falling weights.

A Repetition of Wilars de Honecort's Plan

This device was brought forth in 1831 in England, and illustrates what we say in the Introductory Essay to the effect of inventors working on the same plan in different parts of the earth and centuries apart.

We are unable to give the inventor's name. He was a correspondent to Mechanics' Magazine, and the description furnished by the inventor as published in Mechanics' Magazine, is as follows:

Description.—A A A is a ring of thin wood; B B B, several spokes, movable round the fixed points C C C, and only allowed to move one way by the construction of the openings D D D; E E E, heavy weights fixed to the ends of the spokes.

From the position in which the wheel is at present, it is evident that the weights on the right-hand side (1 and 2) acting at a greater distance from the center than those (4 and 5) on the other side, will cause that side to descend until the spoke 1 reaches the position 3, when it will exert no moving influence, but by which time the weight 8 will have fallen into the position 1, when a similar effect will take place, and so on with the rest.

Leonardo da Vinci

It is with a mingled feeling of sorrow and exaltation that we note the Perpetual Motion labors of the great Leonardo da Vinci. Of all of the men who ever gave the subject more than a passing notice he is the most famous.

Leonardo da Vinci was an Italian, born in 1452, and died in 1519. He was the illegitimate son of Florentine, lawyer. His mother has been variously described as a peasant, and as of gentle birth. Little about her is known. The father belonged to a family of lawyers, and never repudiated the son, but took him, educated him, and cared for him. It is well for the world that he did, for Leonardo da Vinci has perhaps contributed more to art and learning in the world than any other single individual that ever lived. He was a painter, a sculptor, an architect, a musician, a mechanician, engineer and natural philosopher. Each subject in art or science that he touched he not only mastered, but improved and embellished. He painted the original of the well-known picture of the Christ and His twelve Apostles, known as the "Last Supper," or the "Last Supper of Our Lord." This, and Mona Lisa, are perhaps the paintings by which he is known to the greatest number of people, and are considered by many connoisseurs the highest perfection in art ever attained by mortal man.

But, as painter and sculptor, he is to be regarded as among the greatest, if not the very greatest that ever lived. In art he ranks beside, if not ahead of Michelangelo and Raffael, and yet they are known only as artists, while he was preeminent in both art and science. The work he did in natural science was entirely original and emanated from an inherent initiative and originality, and as a scientist, he is entitled to rank below only Newton, Gallileo and Copernicus, and very few others. In all the history of the world he is the only man of whom it can be said that he attained the apex of eminence in both art and science.

The information concerning Leonardo da Vinci's devices for obtaining Perpetual Motion is extremely meager. There does not seem to be extant any detailed explanation of just how he expected his different designs to work.

All that is known concerning his efforts is sufficiently illustrated by the following cuts and language from Dircks:

Fig. 1 may be taken as a scheme belonging to the fifteenth century. It seems to be placed at the head as a simple or elementary design for future improvement. It is a chambered drum wheel, containing balls or weights, which, being always farthest from the center on one side, as compared to the other, are expected to keep the wheel constantly rotating.

Fig. 2. Failing in this scheme, the inventor next offers one with weighted levers, which are to fall outwards on one side, but to fall inwards on the opposite side, the weight at the same time sliding up the lever when vertical at the bottom, so as to be nearer the center throughout on the ascending side. But how the weight is to be made to ascend at the bottom remains to be shown.

Fig. 3. The difficulty of elevating the weight would appear to have suggested its immersion in a trough of water, as here shown. The weights seem to be attached to some contrivance to float them upwards; but we are perplexed, and so no doubt was da Vinci, how to sink them, or being sunk, how to render them again buoyant by any self-motive process.

Fig. 4. It would appear as though the difficulties observable in Fig. 3 were attempted to be met here, in a plan which evidently combines several views of the case, yet without removing the main difficulty; for although the weight at the end of the long arm may be quite capable of sinking in the liquid, we still inquire, How is it ever to be raised again?

Fig. 5 seems to be an incomplete sketch, and a mere variation on the preceding designs, with the addition either of machinery below to be worked by it, or to give it motion. Possibly it was proposed to have a magnet at the bottom of the vessel.

Fig. 6 appears to be two designs in one sketch. On one side we have long single levers, with a single weight at their ends, and a weight between each at the periphery; on the other end, double or forked levers and double weights. Its mixed character renders it probable that it was merely some preliminary sketch.

The great value of the present exhibition of these early contrivances of misdirected mechanical ingenuity consists in the convincing evidence which they afford, that all young inventors who occupy themselves in the search for self-motive machines, do little more than reproduce the blunders of a past age. After a lapse of five centuries modern inventors often become patentees of contrivances which are only more complicated than the assumed-to-be overweight wheel of Wilars de Honecort, or the six similar ones of Leonardo da Vinci. But such has hitherto been the ignorance of mechanics on this subject, that Fig. 1 of the annexed diagrams has frequently been adduced by writers on the subject, as the veritable wheel invented by the Marquis of Worcester, in the seventeenth century!

A. Capra's Device

In 1678, A Capra, of Italy, revived the ancient, but still favorite scheme that dates back to the 13th century. (See page 22 ante.) He illustrates his idea with the following figure and the following comment:

On the wheel A (of the facsimile engraving opposite), which must be hung well equipoised between two uprights, are appended counter-weights, eighteen in number, all precisely at the same distance from each other, and all exactly of the same weight. The counter-weights are provided with a small ring by which they are hung.

Whilst the counter-weights B are farther from the center C of the wheel, they weigh more than the counter-weights I, because these are low and nearer to the center C of the wheel, so that the counter-weights B descend and the weight I drops; and whilst the weight B is alternately descending and the weight I ascending, the wheel will revolve continually. But it must be understood that it is necessary to make the wheel perfectly true in equilibrium, so that it do not weigh more on one side than on the other on account of the counter-weights.

The Device of Dixon Vallance. England, 1825

This inventor was certain he had overtaken and captured the ever-illusive Perpetual Motion. He gives a description of his happiness and his machine in the following effusively joyous language:

The annexed drawing shows how I have at length taken this enticing jilt (perpetual motion), though after a long and weary chase—

Through pleasant and delightful fields,
Through barren tracts and lonely wilds;
'Mongst quagmires, mosses, muirs and marshes,
Where deil or spunkie never scarce is!
By chance I happened on her den,
And took her when she didna ken.

W W W W represents a wheel with twelve hollow spokes, in each of which there is a rolling weight or ball. C C C C is a chain passing over two pulleys P P. There is an opening round the wheel from the nave to the circumference, so as to allow the chain to pass freely and to meet the weights. The weights are met by the chain as the wheel revolves, and are raised from the circumference till they are at last brought close to the nave, where they remain till, by the revolution of the wheel, they are allowed to roll out to the circumference. By this arrangement the weights are, on one side of the wheel, always at the circumference, so that that side is more powerful than the other, which causes the wheel continually to revolve. F F F F is the frame of the machine; M M M M the mortices for joining the two sides of the frame by cross rails. The arrows point out the direction in which the wheel turns.—I am, yours, &c., Dixon Vallance. Liberton, Lanarkshire, Nov. 10, 1825.

Furman's Device

Strange as it may seem, the patent office of the U. S. government as late as 1884 and 1886, received and filed, seriously considered and granted Letters Patent on Perpetual Motion Devices as appears from the description of Furman's Device following, and from Schirrmeister's "Mechanical Movement," and Enbom & Anderson's "Improvement in Pumps," appearing on pages 38 and 76 respectively, supra.

These were not denominated Perpetual Motion Devices by the inventors, but the specifications show them to be simply that and nothing more.

July 15, 1884, George H. Furman, of Rochester, Ohio, U. S. A., was granted U. S. Patent No. 301979, on

"A New and Improved Motor."

The essentials are sufficiently shown by the following excerpt from the specifications and the following figure. We have omitted Figure 2, mentioned in the specifications:

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE.

George H. Furman, of Rochester, Ohio.

MOTOR.

Specification forming part of Letters Patent
No. 301979, dated July 15, 1884.
Application filed March 6, 1884. (No model.)

The action of the motor is as follows: A suitable quantity of the small weights d being placed in the outer drum, F, through the door f, the machine being at rest, they will accumulate at the lower part of the drum F in the pockets c´ c´. Now, to run the machine a person will apply his hands to the rim H and revolve the outer drum, F, in the direction of the arrow shown in Fig. 1. This movement of the outer drum will cause the weights d to be carried in the pockets c´ c´ to the upper side of the drum, at which point they will roll from the pockets c´ c´ into the pockets b b of the inner drum, G, where their weight will cause the drum G and shaft E to revolve. As the pockets b of the inner drum pass below the shaft E they empty the weights into the troughs c´ of the outer wheel, F, to be again carried above the shaft and dropped into the pockets b, so that the inner wheel, G, and shaft E will be revolved continuously.

Schirrmeister's Mechanical Movement

July 6, 1886, Charles Schirrmeister, of Brooklyn, Kings County, State of New York, U. S. A., obtained Letters Patent No. 345077, on a new and useful

"Mechanical Movement."

The essentials of the patented device appear from the following excerpts from the specifications, and the following figures accompanying the specifications. (Figs. 2, 3 and 4 we do not show.)

The object of my invention is to furnish a cheap and simple means for imparting mechanical power; and I accomplish this by means of a series of radial arms placed at right angles to and projecting from the axis of motion where power is first applied, and so arranged that each arm is in a different vertical plane, said arms being weighted at each end with a ball of metal. Some of these arms are also made hollow and inclose sliding or rolling weights, which move back and forth as the axis revolves, and the motion is still further re-enforced by a series of springs which are attached to the axis by a lever and eccentric.

Taking the simplest form of my device, I illustrate the same by the accompanying drawings, in which—

Figure 1 is a side elevation of the entire apparatus. Fig. 2 is a sectional view showing the hollow arm with a rolling weight. Fig. 3 is an end view showing the operation of a re-enforcing spiral spring. Fig. 4 is a detailed view showing still further the method of re-enforcing motion by springs. Fig. 5 is a view of the driving-pulley with its hollow arms.

Similar letters refer to similar parts in the several views.

A is the axis to which the power first imparting motion is applied.

N are the bearings supporting the same.

B is the driving-pulley attached to said axis, and from which motion is imparted by means of the driving belt b to any point desired.

C are the hollow arms of the driving-pulley B.

D are the solid arms radiating from the axis A.

E are the hollow arms radiating from the axis A.

F are the solid balls or weights secured to the ends of the arms D and E.

a are the sliding or rolling weights, which are inclosed within the hollow arms C and E.

c are the slots cut into the hollow arms E, to relieve the air-pressure formed by the backward and forward motion of the weights a.

G are springs so arranged as to expend their force upon the axis A by means of the connecting rods H, both attached to the springs and one attached to the axis A by means of the eccentric I and the other to the wheel J at one end of the axis.

K is a balanced lever, upon which the springs G may rest, said lever being supported at each end upon the springs L.

M is a crank attached to one end of the axis A, and serves to show the place and manner in which the power may be applied.

The manner of constructing and operating my invention is as follows: The entire apparatus is made of steel or iron, and the shaft, bearings, arms, springs and connecting-rods are of ordinary form. The main or driving pulley is cast with four hollow arms, in which round weights are inclosed, which move back and forth within the arms when the wheel is set in motion. The solid arms, as well as the hollow arms, which are used in addition to those forming a part of the driving-pulley, are arranged by means of set-screws a suitable distance apart upon the axis and in different perpendicular planes, so as to give steadiness in motion. A thread is cut upon each end of these arms, and the fixed weights are then screwed on. When the shaft or axis revolves, the weights which move toward the ends of the arms above the center accelerate the motion, and the momentum of the machine aids in overcoming the resistance caused by the weights, which are below the center. At the same time the revolution of the eccentric and crank-pin upon the axis depresses the connecting-rods, which in turn depress the springs, which, being released as soon as the eccentric and crank-pin have reached their lowest point, contribute a lifting power to overcome the resistance above mentioned. As shown in the drawings, these springs joined to the connecting-rods may be supported and assisted by other springs.

The power is applied by hand, operating upon a crank at the end of the axis, or may be imparted by steam, hot air, electricity, or in any other known method, and is conducted to any desired point by means of the belt b.

Having fully described my invention, what I claim as new, and desire to secure by Letters Patent, is:

1. The combination, in apparatus for increasing mechanical power, of an axis, as A, supported upon bearings N, with a driving-pulley, as B, having hollow arms, as C, with movable weights, as a, and radial arms, both solid and hollow, the latter having movable weights, together with fixed weights attached to the end of each arm, all substantially as and for the purpose described.

Ferguson's Device

James Ferguson was an eminent Scotch mechanician and astronomer. He was born in 1710, and died in 1776. He was reared in very humble circumstances, and is known as the Peasant Boy Philosopher. A most interesting story of his life was written by Henry Mayhew, and published in England in 1857, entitled "The Story of the Peasant Boy Philosopher."

He prepared astronomical tables of great value and lectured on astronomical and mechanical subjects. His lectures were edited by a no less eminent man than Sir David Brewster.

While Perpetual Motion seemed to have received considerable time and attention from him, and while his writings show that he examined a great many mechanical devices, he seems all the time to have entertained serious doubt of the possibility of a machine having self-motive power. However, in 1770, he devised a machine for the purpose of producing Perpetual Motion. It does not appear that he ever offered the machine to the public, or sought publicity for it. A description of it is to be found in his Common Place Book in the University Library, Edinburg. The description there furnished is as follows:

The axle at A is placed horizontally, and the spokes B, C, D, etc., turn in a vertical position. They are jointed at s, t, u, etc., as a common sector is, and to each of them is fixed a frame as R, S, T, etc., in which the weights 7, 8, 9, 1, 2, etc., have liberty to move. When any spoke as D is in a horizontal position, the weight I in it falls down and pulls the part b of the then vertical spoke B straight out, by means of a cord going over the pulleys K and k to the weight I. The spoke C c was pulled straight out before, when it was vertical, by means of the weight 2, belonging to the spoke E e which is in the horizontal position D d; and so of all the others on the right hand. But when these spokes come about to the left hand, their weights 4, 5, 6 fall back, and cease pulling the parts f, g, h, i; so that the spokes then bend at their joints X, y, z, and the balls at their ends come nearer the center A, all on the left side. Now, as the balls or weights at the right hand side are farther from the center A than they are on the left, it might be supposed that this machine would turn round perpetually. I have shown it to many who have declared it would; and yet for all that, whoever makes it, will find it to be only a mere balance. I leave them to find out the reason.

B. Belidor's Device

This device was incubated in the brain of an American. His name is unknown. We have denominated it "B. Belidor's Device," not because B. Belidor was the inventor, but because the account of the invention was furnished by him. This device seems to the author to have possessed originality, though, of course, it failed to work for reasons clearly apparent.

An account of it was given in the Journal of Franklin's Institute, Philadelphia, in 1828. The article contributed by B. Belidor is as follows:

Even the pursuit after perpetual motion, hopeless as it is, may not be considered entirely vain, in occasionally leading to useful modifications of machinery. As an instance of this, I here submit to you a plan suggested by an ingenious friend of mine, several years ago, as in the diagrams annexed, Fig. 1, a perpendicular, and Fig. 2 a horizontal view.

A A, two vertical wheels, placed diagonally, and revolving on the axes X X. The levers B B and C C are hinged at the peripheries of the wheels. By rotation the arms B B are projected from the center of motion, while the arms C C are drawn in.

It is plain that a series of arms as shown in Fig. 2, will produce an eccentric motion, causing the weights at their ends apparently to preponderate on the side B.—Belidor.

Desagulier's Proposition on the Balance

This so-called problem is of doubtful classification. The author of the problem did not claim that the discovery of the problem discloses any means for attaining Perpetual Motion, and, yet, it is apparent that if the author of the problem was correct in his solution of it, Perpetual Motion was thereby already within his grasp. The difficulty about it all is that while the problem is quite interesting, the author's solution shows that he was not familiar with even fundamental mechanics. The name of the author was J. T. Desagulier, LL.D., F. R. S. He was a minister of the gospel, but evidently gave considerable attention to mechanical questions. He is mentioned in chapter X of this work.

Rev. Desagulier presented two problems of the balance. One he calls "A Proposition on the Balance, not taken notice of by Mechanical Writers, explained and confirmed by an Experiment." The article under this heading is as follows:

In the last papers I published in "Philosophical Transaction" against this perpetual motion, described in No. 177, I intreated the author to permit me to say nothing as to what alterations he might make in his engine, resolving to leave it to others to show him that upon that principle all he can do signifies nothing. But I find since, in the "Nouvelles de la Republique" for December last, that he still persists to urge some new contrivances, which being added, he conceives his engine must succeed. To this I answer, that I undertook only to shew that his first device would faile, which yet I should scarce have done if I had thought a dispute of this nature could have lasted so long. To come, therefore, to the point where he saith that this engine may well succeed without alteration, because he hath tryed with liquors put into bellows immersed in water; I again say that I grant him the truth of the experiments, but deny the consequences he would draw from them. I have already given the reasons of my dissent, which this gentleman is not pleased to understand. But to end all controversies, he may please to consult Mr. Perrault, De la Hire, or any other at Paris well known to be skilled in hydraulicks, and I doubt not but he will find them of the same opinion with Mr. Boyle, Mr. Hook, and other knowing persons here, who all agree that our author is in this matter under a mistake.

A Proposition on the Balance, not taken notice of by Mechanical Writers, explained and confirmed by an Experiment.

A B is a balance, on which is supposed to hang at one end, B, the scale E, with a man in it, who is counterpoised by the weight W hanging at A, the other end of the balance. I say, that if such a man, with a cane or any rigid straight body, pushes upwards against the beam anywhere between the points C and B (provided he does not push directly against B), he will thereby make himself heavier, or overpoise the weight W, though the stop G G hinders the scale E from being thrust outwards from C towards G G. I say likewise, that if the scale and man should hang from D, the man, by pushing upwards against B, or anywhere between B and D (provided he does not push directly against D), will make himself lighter, or be overpoised by the weight W, which before did only counterpoise the weight of his body and the scale.

If the common center of gravity of the scale E, and the man supposed to stand in it, be at k, and the man, by thrusting against any part of the beam, cause the scale to move outwards so as to carry the said common center of gravity to k x, then, instead of B E, L l will become the line of direction of the compound weight, whose action will be increased in the ratio of L C to B C. This is what has been explained by several writers of mechanics; but no one, that I know of, has considered the case when the scale is kept from flying out, as here by the post G G, which keeps it in its place, as if the strings of the scale were become inflexible. Now, to explain this case, let us suppose the length B D of half of the brachium B C to be equal to 3 feet, the line B E to 4 feet, the line E D of 5 feet to be the direction in which the man pushes, D F and F E to be respectively equal and parallel to B E and B D, and the whole or absolute force with which the man pushes equal to (or able to rise) 10 stone. Let the oblique force E D (= 10 stone) be resolved into the two E F and E B (or its equal F D) whose directions are at right angles to each other, and whose respective quantities (or intensities) are as 6 and 8, because E F and B E are in that proportion to each other and to E D. Now, since E F is parallel to B D C A, the beam, it does no way affect the beam to move it upwards; and therefore there is only the force represented by F D, or 8 stone, to push the beam upwards at D. For the same reason, and because action and reaction are equal, the scale will be pushed down at E with the force of 8 stone also. Now, since the force at E pulls the beam perpendicularly downwards from the point B, distant from C the whole length of the brachium B C, its action downwards will not be diminished, but may be expressed by 8 × B C; whereas the action upwards against D will be half lost, by reason of the diminished distance from the center, and is only to be expressed by 8 × B C/2; and when the action upwards to raise the beam is subtracted from the action downwards to depress it, there will still remain 4 stone to push down the scale; because 8 × B C - 8 × B C/2 = 4 B C. Consequently, a weight of 4 stone must be added at the end A to restore the æquilibrium. Therefore a man, &c., pushing upwards under the beam between B and D, becomes heavier. Q. E. D.

On the contrary, if the scale should hang at F, from the point D, only 3 feet from the center of motion C, and a post G G hinders the scale from being pushed inwards towards C, then, if a man in this scale F pushes obliquely against B with the oblique force above mentioned, the whole force, for the reasons before given (in resolving the oblique force into two others acting in lines perpendicular to each other) will be reduced to 8 stone, which pushes the beam directly upwards at B, while the same force of 8 stone draws it directly down at D towards F. But as C D is only equal to half of C B, the force at D, compared with that at B, loses half its action, and therefore can only take off the force of 4 stone from the push upwards at B; and consequently the weight W at A will preponderate, unless an additional weight of 4 stone be hanged at B. Therefore, a man, &c., pushing upwards under the beam between B and D, becomes lighter.

The other problem presented by Rev. Desagulier is denominated by him "An Experiment explaining a Mechanical Paradox, that two bodies of equal weight suspended on a certain sort of balance do not lose their equilibrium by being removed, one farther from, the other nearer to, the center."

The article concerning this problem is as follows:

If the two weights P W hangs at the ends of the balance A B, whose center of motion is C, those weights will act against each other (because their directions are contrary) with forces made up of the quantity of matter in each multiplied by its velocity; that is, by the velocity which the motion of the balance turning about C will give to the body suspended. Now, the velocity of a heavy body is its perpendicular ascent or descent, as will appear by moving the balance into the position a b, which shews the velocity of P to be the perpendicular line e a, and the velocity of B will be the perpendicular line b g; for if the weights P and W are equal, and also the lines e a and b g, their momenta, made up of e a multiplied into W, and b g multiplied into P, will be equal, as will appear by their destroying one another in making an equilibrium. But if the body W was removed to M, and suspended at the point D, then, its velocity being only f d, it would be overbalanced by the body P, because f d multiplied into M would produce a less momentum than P multiplied into b g.

As the arcs A a, B b, and D d, described by the ends of the balance or points of suspension, are proportionable to their sines e a, g b, and d f, as also the radii or distances C A, C B, and C D; in the case of this common sort of balance, the arcs described by the weights, or their points of suspension, or the distances from the center, may be taken for velocities of the weights hanging at A, B, or D, and, therefore, the acting force of the weights will be reciprocally as their distances from the center.

Scholium.—The distances from the center are taken here for the velocities of the bodies, only because they are proportionable to the lines e a, b g, and f d, which are the true velocities; for there are a great many cases wherein the velocities are neither proportionable to the distances from the center of motion of a machine, nor to the arcs described by the weights or their points of suspension. Therefore, it is not a general rule that weights act in proportion to their distances from the center of motion; but a corollary of the general rule that weights act in proportion to their velocities, which is only true in some cases. Therefore, we must not take this case as a principle, which most workmen do, and all those people who make attempts to find the perpetual motion, as I have more amply shewn in the Phil. Trans., No. 369.

But to make this evident even in the balance, we need only take notice of the following experiment:—A C B E K D is a balance in the form of a parallelogram passing through a slit in the upright piece N O standing on the pedestal M, so as to be moveable upon the center pins C and K. To the upright pieces A D and B E of this balance are fixed at right angles the horizontal pieces F G and H I. That the equal weights P W must keep each other in æquilibrio, is evident; but it does not at first appear so plainly, that if W be removed to V, being suspended at 6, yet it shall still keep P in æquilibrio, though the experiment shews it. Nay, if W be successively moved to any of the points 1, 2, 3, E, 4, 5, or 6, the æquilibrium will be continued; or if, W hanging at any of those points, P be successively moved to D, or any of the points of suspension on the cross-piece F G, P will at any of those places make an æquilibrium with W. Now, when the weights are at P and V, if the least weight that is capable to overcome the friction at the points of suspension C and K be added to V, as u, the weight V will overpower, and that as much at V as if it was at W.

From what we have said above, the reason of this experiment will be very plain.

As the lines A C and K D, C B and K E, always continue of the same length in any position of the machine, the pieces A D and B E will always continue parallel to one another, and perpendicular to the horizon. However, the whole machine turns upon the points C and K, as appears by bringing the balance to any other position, as a b e d; and therefore, as the weights applied to any part of the pieces F G and H I can only bring down the pieces A D and B E perpendicularly, in the same manner as if they were applied to the hooks D and E, or to X and Y, the centers of gravity of A D and B E, the force of the weights (if their quantity of matter is equal) will be equal, because their velocities will be their perpendicular ascent or descent, which will always be as the equal lines 4 l and 4 L, whatever part of the pieces F G and H I the weights are applied to. But if to the weight at V be added the little weight u, those two weights will overpower, because in this case the momentum is made up of the sum of V and u multiplied by the common velocity 4 L.

Hence follows, that it is not the distance C 6 multiplied into the weight V which makes its momentum, but its perpendicular velocity L 4 multiplied into its mass. Q. E. D.

This is still further evident by taking out the pin at K; for then the weight P will overbalance the other weight at V, because then their perpendicular ascent and descent will not be equal.

The Rev. Dr. Desagulier was evidently a man of scientific turn and capacity. It is unusual to find ministers deeply interested in scientific matters, and yet, he seems to have been. The net result of his experiments can be succinctly stated as follows:

In the first problem there is no change in the distance of the center of gravity from the support, and, therefore, there could be no disturbance of the equilibrium.

In the second problem there is a change in the distance in the center of gravity from the support, and there must have been a disturbance of the equilibrium.

John Haywood's Device

In 1790, John Haywood, of Long Acre, Middlesex, draftsman and mechanic, obtained British patent on:

"A machine for working mills and engines without the aid of fire, water, or wind, or in aid of all or any of those or any other powers."

The specification describes the device as follows:

"The machine acts on a rotative principle, or, in other words, has a revolving circular or circulating motion round an axis, center, or centers. It may be made or constructed of any materials or matter whatsoever, so it be of sufficient strength to sustain the power of action when applied to any mill, engine, or machine to which action or motion can or may be communicated by a wheel. The size or dimensions of this machine are by no means confined, but may be varied or altered as circumstances may require.

"References to the drawings of the machine hereunto annexed:—Fig. 1 is the section of the machine. A, A, B, a cranked or double center, fixed to the stand or frame D by the bolts E. C, C, the wheel which turns or revolves round that part of the cranked center mark A. F, levers which turn or revolve round the cranked center B. G, G, rollers or weights which revolve in the circular guides or grooves by means of the leavers F. H, H, circular grooves or guides which are affixed to the inner sides of the wheel. N. B.—the distance from A to B is the radius in all cases to determine the space between the center of the guide or groove H and the center of the roller or weight G. The distance of the two concentric circles which form the guides or grooves H must be equal to the diameter of the roller or weight G. I, I, springs which stop the rollers or weights G from returning when at the horizontal diameter of the wheel. K, weights, which may be increased or diminished at pleasure. L, ledges which connect the sides of the wheel together. N. B.—By fixing cogs or teeth on the rim of the wheel, so as to connect it with any mill, machine, or engine to which motion can be given by a wheel, the power of this machine may be communicated."

Explanation of the Failure of the Preceding Wheels and Weights Devices

It must not be presumed that the preceding devices shown in this chapter constitute any considerable part of the Wheels and Weights Devices that have been constructed through the hope of attaining Perpetual Motion. Of all the means whereby Perpetual Motion has been sought wheels and weights have been by far the most prolific. There is scarcely a village or a rural community in the civilized world that cannot point out its Perpetual Motion worker, and he generally starts with wheels and weights, though often, after long labor and final failure with wheels and weights, he still exploits other attractive fields of hopeless endeavor. Of the devices of that kind, accounts of which have appeared in scientific journals, or application for patents upon which have been made, and, indeed, patents often granted, it would be possible to write a book of thousands of pages, but to do so would be to no purpose.

It is believed by the author that the preceding devices are sufficient to illustrate, and show the controlling features of all the various mechanical contrivances for the utilization of wheels and weights as a means of Self-Motive Power. Countless others could be shown of more or less complicated mechanism, but an examination would disclose the fact that each gets back to some combination of parts well illustrated in the preceding. Also, in endeavoring to express why all wheels and weights devices have failed to work, each essential point of weakness is disclosed in the preceding. Now, why have they failed to work, and wherein are they inherently wrong and unscientific?

A cursory examination of the preceding devices shows that each depends ultimately on the supposition:

1. That a descending weight elevates an equal weight through a distance equal to the descent, and at the same time overcomes the frictional resistance of mechanism, both ascent and descent being measured on perpendicular lines, or

2. That weights affixed to an axis and caused to have a longer leverage on the descending side than on the ascending side, and consequently the downward pull on the long lever side is supposed to be greater than the downward pull or resistance on the short lever side of the axis.

If the fallacy of these supposed principles is explained and fully understood, it disposes, and disposes effectually, of the possibility of obtaining Perpetual Motion by means of wheels, weights and the force of gravity.

It should be remembered that a wheel is a lever, or rather it is a continuous series of levers—nothing more—nothing less.

We first refer to the figure shown in A. Capra's device, page 33 ante. The left side of this wheel is, of course, supposed to be the descending side on which the weights are farthest from the center of the wheel. It is apparent that only five weights are having any leverage advantage whatever, while a much greater number are being made to ascend. The advantage which a few of the weights have by virtue of the leverage pulling downward is always exactly counterbalanced by an increased number of weights being drawn upward. It should be borne in mind that the direction of the force of gravity is toward the center of the earth, and not in the direction of the motion of the wheel, except at the extreme left side of the wheel.

Again, consider the figure appearing on page 63. It is manifest that the weights on the right hand are further out, and have a leverage advantage of the weights on the left hand side, but it is also manifest that there is, and always must be, a greater number of weights on the left hand side. The greater leverage of the weights on one side is exactly balanced by the greater number of weights on the other side.

For a further illustration, take the figure shown on sheet 65, ante. The weight "1" has a distinct advantage over weight "5." Weight "2" has a distinct advantage over weight "6." But here we have only three weights: 1, 2 and 8, tending to pull the wheel from left to right, whereas there are five weights, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, tending to prevent its going to the right.

In other words, if weights 1, 2 and 8 were removed, it is clear that the wheel would turn back to the left by reason of the action of the weights 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Here again the leverage advantage which weights have descending is counterbalanced by the increased number of weights on the opposite side acted on by the force of gravity, tending to prevent the descent of those having the greater leverage.

All the simpler devices failed, of course, to work. The more complicated devices are simply efforts to overcome the elementary principles that prevented the simpler devices from working. Among these that of Dixon Vallance (see page 34, ante), is best adapted to illustrate the folly and the fallacy of these various devices to overcome elementary principles.

We here refer to the figure appearing on page 35, ante, shown in connection with Dixon Vallance's Device. The obvious purpose was to keep all the weights close to the hub, except those depended upon to produce continuous motion by their greater leverage.

To the untrained and untechnical person it would perhaps not be manifest at first just why the Vallance machine failed to work. Here is its failure: Weight "c" must be raised toward the hub of the wheel. To raise that weight requires the application of force. That force must be supplied. The belt "cc" would work more freely if it were not elevating a weight, and the force required from "w" to turn the wheel so as to elevate the weight at "c" is counterbalanced by the resistance the weight "c" offers to being raised, and consequently to the motion of the belt and in turn to the progress of the wheel.

It should always be remembered that, omitting friction, the energy exerted by a descending body is the perpendicular distance of its descent multiplied by its weight. For, notwithstanding what its course may be from an elevated point to a lower point the energy accumulated in the descent is still the product of the perpendicular distance and the mass, or weight.

In all of these devices it is apparent that every weight is brought back by some force from the lowest point it reaches to the same elevation from which it started to descend. It is axiomatic, therefore, that the perpendicular ascent is equal to the perpendicular descent. The ascending weight and the descending weight are, of course, the same. Therefore, the product of the weight and the perpendicular distance of ascent is exactly equal to the product of the weight and the perpendicular distance of descent. Hence, there is an exact balancing of energies, and no motion results. Any motion imparted by wind, water or steam will, if the moving force be withdrawn, soon be overcome by unavoidable friction, and a state of rest follows. There can be no doubt that any attempt to attain Self-Motive Power by means of wheels, weights, levers, and the force of gravity must result in failure. The thing itself is physically impossible.

In addition to what is above stated, read carefully Chapter XI, on Conservation of Energy; also read Chapter XIV, entitled "The Seeming Probability of Effecting a Continual Motion by Solid Weights in a Hollow Wheel or Sphere" at page 290 of this book.

[CHAPTER II]
DEVICES BY MEANS OF ROLLING WEIGHTS AND INCLINED PLANES

Device by Mercury in Inclined Glass Tube and Heavy Ball on Inclined Plane

Neither the inventor's name nor his nativity can we give. An account of the invention was furnished by a correspondent to Mechanics' Magazine in 1829. The account is as follows:

To the curious who delight in mechanical intricacies, to whom ingenuity of contrivance is the goal for which they run, nothing seems to afford and require such endless resources as that most puzzling thing—perpetual motion. The unfortunate name "perpetual motion," if changed for "mechanical experiment," would eventually, perhaps, remove the real cause of censuring it, by the different idea of the object aimed at.

I now beg leave to offer some account of a combination of movements, which, from its originality, and seeming to possess every requisite for retaining it in action, may possibly be acceptable.

This diagram shows a side view. On the stand A are raised two supports B, each having a center hole at a, to receive the axle of the balanced apparatus, consisting of C, a glass tube containing a portion of mercury G; and D, a grooved scaleboard, in which a ball, E, can roll backwards and forwards. F F are two jointed levers, which are to serve, when struck by the ball, to reverse the position of the compound balance: the whole centred at a, the tube at b, and the grooved board at c. In its present position, the mercury (it is supposed), having flowed to the end C, will depress D, and cause the ball E to roll to D, and depress the end G F D; and so on continually.

Series of Inclined Planes

This scheme is of English origin, and was promulgated in 1864. The name of the inventor is unknown, but he described his invention in a communication to a scientific publication in the following language:

The accompanying diagram represents a series of inclined semi-tubes connected together in the form of a rectangle.

The ball A, is placed at the top of an incline in such a position that it shall descend to B, at which point it will have sufficient velocity or gravity to carry it up the ascent to C; and so supposing the inclines and ascents to be endless, the repetition of the movement must be also endless. I think it is not unreasonable to suppose that a perpetual movement of the ball will take place, from the fact that the velocity imparted to it by its first descent is sufficient to carry it from A to C, those two points being at the same level. I think the only thing to guard against is the ball rushing over the point C, and thus accelerating the velocity at each descent. The incline on road upon which the ball runs can be made either circular, square, octagonal, or, in fact, almost of any form.

Device by Oscillating Trough and Cannon Balls

(Name of inventor unknown)

An adaptation from a "Perpetual Pump" substituting cannon-balls for water.

An account of this invention was published in London in 1825, in the language of the inventor, who says:

The description of the perpetual pump has suggested to me whether the long-sought "perpetual motion" may not be found by a simple mechanical alteration of that machine, and substituting a cannon-ball as a primum mobile, in lieu of the water, not always obtainable. I would recommend that in the bottom of the trough be inserted at each end two dropping-boards, of a triangular form, moving on an axis at one corner, one of which falling below the level of the trough at the elevated end, the other shall be raised by the stop affixed to the standard-post, which, throwing the ball again back to the former end, shall depress that, until the same process is repeated in perpetual activity.

Description.—Fig. 1. A, the trough, swinging on an axis at B. C, the cannon-ball, raised by one of the dropping-boards, D, whilst the other falls through the opening at E, into the trough. F, the support or stop, raising the dropping-board D. The center of the trough ought to be pierced, leaving the sides as a support to the ball, which ought not to be wider than the ball may travel freely through.

Fig. 2. D D, the dropping-boards, which pass through the center so as to leave a sufficiency of the trough as a resting place for the ball to give a momentum, and depress the trough, previously to its being again raised by the dropping-board.

We meekly venture to call the attention of this inventor, if he is still living, and to any others who may be working along the same line, that to our certain knowledge water is more generally obtainable than cannon-balls. We, therefore, suggest the use of water instead of cannon-balls.

Unpublished Incline Plane and Weights Devices Noted by the Author

Except the preceding three devices the author does not remember ever to have seen reported in any book, patent, application for patent, or report, the account of a device for obtaining self-motive power by means of weights and inclined planes, and yet, it is believed by the author from the use that has been made of inclined planes and rolling weights in demonstrating mechanical principles by many natural philosophers, and also from devices that have from time to time been brought to the attention of the author during thirty years last past, that the inclined plane with rolling weights has been a fertile field of folly among Perpetual Motion seekers.

On a number of occasions the author has been asked to view and inspect mechanical devices of that kind, which it was claimed by the confident inventor and his friends "would surely work when just one little thing could be overcome." The phraseology was sometimes varied a little from the preceding quotation, but the substance was always there.

In one instance the device attracted the enthusiastic attention and elicited breathless interest from a doctor and surgeon of much more than ordinary skill and intelligence in his profession, and was hopefully regarded by a number of other persons who had had schooling advantages and were supposed to be versed in the rudiments of mechanics, and, it would seem to the author, ought at first sight to have perceived the fallacy and hopelessness of the inventor's dreams.

All of these claimed inventions relying on the inclined plane with rolling weights were so nearly alike in the principle involved that all may be illustrated by the following explanation:

The above figure shows a vertical section of a device that illustrates the controlling principle in all of these devices. It is manifest that the balls between A and C are hanging equally between A D and C D, the points of suspension A and C being in a horizontal line. It is also manifest that there will be a greater number of balls on the sloping incline A B than on the sloping incline B C. The Perpetual Motion seeker has always argued to himself that the four balls between A and B should pull stronger to the left at B than the two balls between B and C can pull. Sometimes this device has been varied whereby the balls would roll freely down the incline from B to A and then roll back toward C down another incline where they would be supposed to strike a lever and impel a ball from C to B, which ball would then roll down the incline B A, and so on indefinitely.

The error of all this lies in the fact that the four balls between B and A will not elevate the two balls between B and C for the reason that they are on a less inclined slope. As we would ordinarily state it, B C is a "steeper" incline. One ball between B and C by force of gravity pulls stronger toward C than one ball on B A will pull toward A. It is manifest, therefore, that an equilibrium requires a greater number of balls on B A than B C.

B A is longer and accommodates a greater number of balls than can be accommodated on B C. The number of balls that can be accommodated on the respective sides is always found to be such that the small number of balls between B C pull in the aggregate toward C the same as the greater number of balls between B and A pull toward A, and thus equilibrium is established.

It is manifest, therefore, that with the pull from B toward C equal to the pull from B toward A, the mechanism finds its balance and motion ceases. This is true of all similar devices.

[CHAPTER III]
HYDRAULIC AND HYDRO-MECHANICAL DEVICES

Enbom & Anderson's Pump

"June 13, 1882 U. S. Patent, No. 259514 was granted to Andro Enbom and John A. Anderson, of Augusta, Kansas, U. S. A., on

"Improvements in Pumps."

It seems probable that the inventors did not suspect, and that the patent office examiners did not discover that the device had in the claimed "Improvement" the essentials of self-motive power. An examination of the specifications clearly shows, however, that the claim of the inventors that "the water lifted by the pump is caused in its passage over the wheel A² to give power to the same and thus lessen the labor required," presupposes the principle of self-motive power. The following figure taken from the specifications and the following excerpt from the specifications illustrate the intended operation:

The operation is substantially as follows: By the application of power to the crank a revolution is given to the main shaft A, and by means of this the pump-handle is properly actuated through the intermediate mechanism described. The water lifted by the pump is discharged through the spout e´ to the buckets of the wheel a², and by these is delivered to the trough F. By means of the construction described the water lifted by the pump is caused, in its passage over the wheel a², to give power to the same, and thus lessen the labor required to produce a given result.

We suggest to the inventors that if instead of elevating the water to the place of discharge E´ they discharge it at the level of the trough "F" they will lessen the distance of elevation and will save many times the energy that can be realized by the descent of the water from the level of E´ to the level of "F."

Device of "Ed. Vocis Rationis"

In 1831 Mechanics' Magazine printed an article contributed by a correspondent who signed himself "Ed. Vocis Rationis." He claimed to have invented a very powerful Perpetual Motion Machine.

His enthusiasm is as interesting as his device is absurd. We give the article as published in full:

I propose to endeavor to show how my plan of perpetual motion could be applied to practical and useful purposes. With a view to this, I give the prefixed sketch, with the following description of its construction and use: Let A represent the side-wall or gable-end of a house, from 40 to 50 feet in elevation; B, a cistern, filled with water, having an orifice near its bottom, and another open at the top, for the ready escape of waste water, as before; C, a reservoir, so far filled with water as not to come in contact with the bottom of the water-wheel D, which, being an undershot wheel, may, of course, be of such radius as is suitable for the power required to raise the water. Let E be another cistern, filled with water, equal to and provided with orifices as in cistern B, both orifices together discharging water faster than it escapes from the lower orifice of the cistern B; F, two (or more, as the case may require) pumps, or expressing-fountains, supported against the walls by ties d d, and having their cylinders inserted in the reservoir C, and their lower suckers fixed at a little less than 32 feet above the surface of the fluid in the reservoir C. These expressing-fountains discharging their water into the cistern E a trifle faster than it escapes from its lower orifice, at an elevation of at least 33 or 34 feet above the surface of the water in the reservoir C, will afford space for water-wheels, supported against the wall by the upright K, say three water-wheels, G H I, of at least eight feet in diameter each, or two only of greater diameter. The upper wheel G being an undershot one, if not of greater radius than four feet, which it might be, may have its axle fixed at an altitude of at least 30 feet, and allowing the space of a foot between each water-wheel for the troughs a and b, which collect and convey the water from wheel to wheel, will give a space of 22 feet, occupied by the three water-wheels, leaving 10 feet for the descent of the water by the trough c to the cistern B (which may be four or five feet in depth), and thence to the reservoir C, which may be three or four feet in depth; also the cistern E may be four or five feet in depth, and all of other corresponding dimensions ad libitum. To produce the motion, remove the plugs or stoppers from the lower orifices of the cisterns E and B; the water rushing from the latter turns the great water-wheel D, which works the expressing-fountains into the upper cistern E; from the orifices of which, the water escaping turns the undershot wheel G (which may be of larger diameter, if required); whence being collected by the spout a, it shoots over and turns the wheel H; being collected by the spout b, it turns the overshot wheel I; whence being collected by the spout c, it is conveyed into the cistern B, from thence to the water wheel D, and, finally, into the reservoir C, from which it is raised again by the fountains into the upper cistern E; and so on as long as you please, or as long as the whole keeps in repair and in good order. The apparatus may, with facility, be stopped for convenience at any time without fear of derangement, because the fountains carrying water faster than it escapes from the lower orifices, the cisterns will be always full; and it may be again set in motion with equal facility. With the above proviso, it cannot stop till the prevailing natural causes which gave it motion—viz., the pressure of the atmosphere and the descent of water, which in their nature and tendency are of themselves perpetual—shall be diverted. Thus you may have the power, free and disposable, of three water-wheels in perpetual motion, to be applied to such useful purposes of machinery within the building as its inmates may require. A supply of water-mills might be thus provided in any situation—in the center of the metropolis or other large towns—in places subject to a deficiency of rivulets suitable for mills on the common system. Neither would there be any necessity for resorting to rivers, or raising immense buildings upon their banks; wherever there was a convenient house, it might be readily appropriated with little further expense than machinery.

Yours, etc.,
Ed. "Vocis Rationis."

Jan. 10, 1831.

Böckler's Plates

In 1662 George Andrew Böckler published a work on mechanics. The work is replete with fine drawings. Not a great deal of space is devoted to Perpetual Motion devices, but the following three plates which are numbered 150, 151 and 152 in his work are shown as Perpetual Motion devices.

These devices do not appear to have been the inventions of Böckler himself, but are devices noticed by him. They are not explained with any considerable detail.

Figure 150 is "A Water Screw," and it is stated that the inventor intends it for a Perpetual Motion device, and it is further stated that he has scarcely worked out his purpose. The author states that the excellence consists in the proportion and distribution of the wheel, balls and weights, and says further that he does not describe it in detail, and that it is his intention to publish at a future time a separate treatise on Perpetual Motion in which this and other similar machines will be considered.

He gives the first as Fig. 150, "A Water Screw," the purpose of which is not quite so obvious as to be understood at the first view of the figure; for the inventor intimates that he intends it for a perpetuum mobile. He has, however, scarcely worked out his purpose, as we may, nevertheless, say without any prejudice to the inventor. Nor will we here describe how the excellence of this work consists in the proportion and distribution of the wheel, and the balls or weights, because it is our intention to publish, at a future time, a separate treatise on the perpetuum mobile, in which we shall consider this and several similar machines.

Figure 151 is "A Water Screw," having a grindstone for cutlery. The author remarks concerning this machine as follows:

This machine also is intended for a perpetuum mobile. The inventor discharges water from the reservoir A, by the canal B, on the water-wheel C, which turns the open screw-cylinder D, by means of the toothed wheel E, the cog-wheel F, the spoked wheel G, together with the cylinder H, and the spoked wheel I, whilst this spoked wheel I, catching the small cog-wheel L, together with the cylinder M, and the handle R, turns the small spoked wheel of the screw-cylinder H, and the screw-cylinder itself, and thus draws up again the water discharged from the reservoir A through the spiral screw Q. In order to render this machine useful, a couple of grindstones are placed on the cylinder D. Concerning this machine, it is particularly to be considered, whether a sufficient amount of water can be raised again, as has been frequently remarked before about similar works.

Figure 152 is said to represent "A Double Water Screw, with Double Pump," and the author observes:

This machine is, on the whole, similar to the preceding ones. The water is discharged from the round or square reservoir A, by B, on the water-wheel C. A continual supply of water for the water-wheel is provided as follows: The crown wheel H is fixed on the upright cylinder M, and is turned by the revolutions of the cylinder, whilst it turns at the same time the upper wheel L, which, acting on the spokes of the double screw K, K, draws up sufficient water by I, I, and then, as stated, discharges it by B, on the wheel C.

The machine may be rendered useful by furnishing the cylinder D with the double crank E, to drive the two pistons of the tubes F, F, which lift the water through the pipes G, G, into the reservoir N, whence it may be carried off for service.

John Linley's Hydraulic Device. 1831

An account of this was published in 1831 in Mechanics' Magazine, and is as follows:

32. Perpetual Water-wheels and Pumps (vol. 14, 1831).—A correspondent gives a description of a plan which he says he believes to be entirely original, and not without considerable claims to plausibility, thus:

Let a b c d represent a wooden cistern, or trough, half filled with water; E F G, three overshot water-wheels, supported by the upright piece; K is another cistern, or trough, filled with water up to the dotted lines; P is a syphon to convey water from the lower to the upper cistern K; R is a beam supported from the cistern; S T U are moveable cranks attached to the horizontal shafts through the center of the water-wheels—each crank has a connecting-rod to the beam R; V W are two curved spouts to convey water from one wheel to another. It may be well here to premise that each water-wheel has a pump and beam, as only one is seen in the section.

Now, in order to put the machine in motion, it is only necessary to draw a portion of water from the syphon over the wheel E, which immediately revolves, consequently the pump L M draws water from the lower to the upper cistern K. Now, the water passing over the wheel E is collected by means of the curved spout V, and is conveyed upon the middle wheel F, which also gives motion to another pump, and draws in like manner. Again, the water passing over the middle wheel, is collected as before by another curved spout W; consequently, the lower wheel is put in action, accompanied with another pump. Hence it is obvious that three water-wheels and three pumps are worked by one stream of water from the syphon. What more is required to perpetuate its motion?

John Linley.

Wicker Sheffield, May 28, 1830.

Device of Author of the "Voice of Reason"

In 1831 a contributor who signed himself Author of the "Voice of Reason," furnished to the scientific journals of England an account of what he claimed was a Perpetual Motion Device invented by him. It should be said to his credit that he claimed no surplus power for his device—only that it would run itself. He, in fact, stated that his machine could not perform more than the simple operation of pumping its own water.

The principle upon which he relied is sufficiently shown by the following figure, and the following excerpt from the contributed article:

Observing that persons no less distinguished than Bishop Wilkins, the Marquis of Worcester, etc., have amused themselves with such things as perpetual motion, it may be some apology for a humble individual residing as I do in a very retired part of the country—scarcely within reach of much society—to confess that by way of a little rational amusement and relief to the mind, I have at times, amid a variety of other investigations and inventions, amused myself amongst the rest, with this of perpetual motion. The result I will, with your permission, lay before your readers. That I trespass upon your pages, you are indebted to your correspondent, Mr. Linley, whose invention I thought might partially lead to an anticipation of one of my own, a model of which I constructed a short time ago. The system which first came to my mind, as likely to lead to the accomplishment of perpetual motion, was that of the syphon; experimenting with which, opened discoveries that might prove useful in hydrostatics. Amongst these was a mode of equalizing the horizontal surface of the water in two separate vessels of different altitudes. The following sketch will afford an idea of my invention.

Let A be a vessel, having two orifices, one at the bottom of it, a, and the other open at the top for waste water b, filled to the brim. B, a reservoir, so far filled with water as not to come in contact with the bottom of the great wheel C, whose axle turns in the wood c, attached to the side of the reservoir; d, a crank fixed to the axle of the great water-wheel, which turning moves up and down the rod e, attached to the beam E, which works the pump D, having its cylinder inserted in the reservoir B; f, an upright attached to the upper vessel A, to form a support for the beam E; the whole, together with the cylinder of the pump, being supported and tied together by the woodwork g g g.

To produce the motion, draw the plug from the orifice a, from which the water gushing out with considerable force will immediately turn the water-wheel, which communicating motion, by the crank d and rod e, to the beam E, will cause the pump D to be worked, the water from the spout passing into the upper vessel A. Now, the cylinder of the pump, if one only be used, must be of suitable dimensions, or the velocity of its movement so increased by means of a multiplying-wheel as to enable it to discharge water into the upper vessel A faster than the same escapes through the lower orifice a; consequently, the vessel A will soon overflow from the capacious opening at b, to which a trough is attached, which collecting the waste water, causes it to descend also upon the circumference of the water-wheel; thus contributing to its movement, and at the same time tending to preserve an uniform supply of water in the reservoir for the continued action of the pump. Hence you have a perpetual motion, so long as the whole keeps in repair and in good order, which is all that can be expected of any perpetual motion, constructed as it must be of perishable materials.

But of what use are all the perpetual motion machines, if they can perform no other work than that of keeping themselves in motion? For it is evident, in the case of my machine, that if I wish to increase the power of the wheel, fixed as it is in size, radius, etc., I must increase the jet of water, and consequently the pumps must be made of corresponding dimensions, or exert a corresponding increase of force or velocity to replace the water; so that it is evident, neither Mr. Linley's machine nor mine, in their present fixed state, can perform more than the simple operation of pumping their own water.

And this is the case with all the perpetual motion machines I have ever observed—they can exert no useful or disposable power beyond that of keeping up an equilibrium, or getting beyond the point of equilibrium.

Yours, etc.,
Author of the "Voice of Reason."

An Italian Device

In 1825 there was published in London in Mechanics' Magazine the account of a very ancient invention by an Italian. He had written an account of his invention in Latin. It had been translated and furnished to Mechanics' Magazine by a correspondent of that Magazine. The communication so furnished as published is as follows:

The underwritten is translated from an ancient Latin book * * * (entitled "De Simia Naturæ," Autore Roberto Fludd), which treats of every science known at the time it was published, and largely of the science of mechanics. What followed I have extracted merely to show that the discovery of the perpetual motion was as nearly attained then, perhaps, as it is now.—I am, &c., P.

Of another useful invention for raising water easily, by the which a certain Italian ventured to boast that he had discovered the Perpetual Motion.

Description of the Instrument.—A is an exhauster, or pump.

B, a little wheel placed at the bottom of the exhauster, about which pestils, or circular flaps of prepared leather, revolve lightly, so that they rise easily: they are connected by crooked iron.

C C C, pestils, or circular leathers, by means of which the water is raised in the pump.

D, a wheel, by which the said circular leathers are raised up.

E, a pinion, moving the wheels D and B.

F is a wheel, continued from the wheel G, whose teeth the pinion E propels circularly.

H, a pinion moving the wheel G.

Use of the Instrument.—This instrument is classed with those of the first sort, on which account it is absolutely necessary for a multitude of purposes, because it bears upward a large quantity of water with the least labor; for the number of wheels is not variable; but the length of the receiver A is about the proportion of 35 feet, and its breadth one foot and one-third. The concavities of it should be made exactly round, that they may not lose any water by contracting in their ascension; the concavity of the pump, therefore, should be perfectly round. The great water-wheel should be 24 feet diameter, and the wheel G 20 feet.

The Italian, deceived by his own thoughts, conceived that as much water would be raised by this pump as would keep the wheel perpetually in motion; because he said that more force was required at the extremity of this machine than at the centre; but because he calculated the proportions of power wrong, he was deceived in practice.

Of another useful invention for raising water easily, by the which a certain Italian ventured to boast that he had discovered the Perpetual Motion.

P. Valentine Stansel's Device. Prior to 1657

(Exact date not known):

A, B, C is a large cistern of water, above which is another cistern D, E, which is supplied from the lower cistern by the pump X, operated by the water-wheel M, N, the crank L of which is attached by a rod K to the horizontal beam H, I, K, which swings at H, from the side of the upper cistern, as shown at F, G, H. The force-pump X, on the depression of the plunger O, causes the water to rise up the vertical pipe P, Q, R, S, and thence discharge itself into the cistern D, from which a small portion is allowed to escape through the short pipe T, V, whence it falls on the water-wheel, and so on continuously.

Vogel's Device

In 1847, A. F. Vogel, of Leipzig, invented what he called

"Hydrostatic General Mobile."

It was described at the time in a pamphlet, and its operation is sufficiently illustrated by the following annexed figure and explanation:

A water-wheel, A, B, C, D, raising the water by means of which it is to be operated. This is effected, he supposes, by the wheel acting at A, by the pressure of one of six pins D, on a vertical rod, attached to a horizontal beam, working on a centre, and its opposite end being secured to the pump-rod of the barrel M, N. The projector has an idea that by means of flaps, which close the cells of the wheel as they pass under rollers at B, while at C there is a similar contrivance to open the flaps and let out the water, and therefore by its retention on the descending side it will become more effective in turning the wheel.

A Water Wheel-Driven Pump

This device is claimed by the writer to be an adaptation of Rangely's Patent Roller Pump. A description by the writer, whose name is not given, was published in Mechanics' Magazine, 1823, in the following language:

I think it possible to produce a self-moving power by such a machine as that, a drawing of which is now prefixed. From its very simple construction, a very brief description is necessary. A represents a pump immersed in a reservoir B; the pump is worked by the rotary motion of the water-wheel C, which is four feet in diameter. On the shaft of the water-wheel is the drum-wheel D, working by a small cord the wheel E, on the axis of the pump discharging the water by the pipe F into a reservoir G over the water-wheel. In this reservoir is a cock to regulate the quantity of water to be discharged on the wheel. The wheel on the shaft of the water-wheel being nine inches diameter, and the wheel on the axis of the pump three in diameter, the latter will consequently make three revolutions for one of the water-wheel. As the pump is not required to turn with great velocity, the speed might be regulated by the quantity of water thrown on the water-wheel, the latter being four feet in diameter, and the wheel on its shaft nine inches; consequently the radius or arm of the wheel has near 4½ powers to counteract the friction of the axis of the pump and water-wheel, and of a fine cord passed over the wheels D and E. If necessary, the friction of the machine might be still farther reduced by the axes of the pump and water-wheel being made to run in gudgeons with friction rollers.

The pipe H is intended to convey the surplus water from the reservoir over the wheel to the reservoir below.

The pump might easily be turned by a cog-wheel; but this is unnecessary, as the cord passing over the drum-wheels will do equally well, and is, besides, a more simple method.

"A Journeyman Mechanic's" Device

The gentleman, whose real name is unknown, but who styled himself "A Journeyman Mechanic," made an invention, an account of which appeared in "Mechanics' Magazine," in 1831. It was an attempted adaptation of the wellknown principles of Barker's Mill.

The inventor undoubtedly thought he had successfully solved the long sought problem of Self-Motive Power, and he benevolently and graciously offered to contribute his valuable invention to the world, having "no wish to profit by monopoly."

We cannot but contrast the plenary benevolence of his heart with the mechanical paucity of his head. He describes his invention with the following language and figure:

The inventor offers the accompanying sketch, with description of an Hydraulic Mover, for communicating power to machinery, and recently invented by him:—

A is a hollow cylinder or pipe, forming the upright shaft of a mill on Barker's well-known and effective centrifugal principle.

B B, the lateral pipes from ditto; a a, the jets of water, whose centrifugal force gives the motion.

C, beam to support the machinery, built at each end into the wall D D.

E E, two cog-wheels to communicate the motion to

P, the rod of a pump (on Shalder's principle), which derives its supply from the well into which the water from the pipes is conducted, which it raises to

H, a cistern into which one end of a syphon, I I, is introduced, the other end of which is soldered with an air-tight joint into the top of pipe A, to which it thus supplies the water which is continually running from the pipes B B, producing a constant motion which may be given by carrying the horizontal rod F through the wall D, to machinery for any purpose. And, if the statement in the pamphlet on Hydrostatics, by the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, as to the effect of Barker's Centrifugal Mill, be correct, the power gained must be very great.

The advantages of the invention are obvious. The whole of the machinery for a large factory may be contained underground, which, indeed, will be the most desirable situation for it, and valuable room will thus be saved; the expense of erection will not be great; and the saving in coals, &c., necessary for a steam-engine of the like powers, will be immense. I might, perhaps, have secured much benefit to myself by taking out a patent for the discovery, but I have no wish to profit by monopoly. All I desire is, that it may be recollected that the machine was invented by one who is

A Journeyman Mechanic.

James Black's Device

In 1858, James Black, Machine Maker, of Edinburgh, Scotland, applied for a British patent on

"An improved mode or means of obtaining, applying, and transmitting motive power."

The expected operation is sufficiently illustrated by the following figure and excerpt from the specifications:

A face plate or disc is fixed on an axis, and has formed in it a number of wipers, eccentrics, or curved paths, which receive (in the space taken out) a pulley or roller, free to revolve on its own axis, and attached to an adjustable lever in equal balance with the desired lift or pressure. On rotary motion being communicated to the plate (by a band or otherwise), the pulley or roller moves round the eccentrics or paths, imparting a rocking motion to the lever (similar to the action of a beam), wherefrom motion may be transmitted or applied, as desired, or converted by suitable appliances into any description of motion.

In connection herewith, a pump may be set in a tank of water, and a tank added above; on the same shaft with the face plate is a water-wheel driven by the water from above; when it passes the centre, the water falls into the lower tank and is pumped up again; whatever weight of water is in each stroke is equalized by a balance weight on the lever; the number of eccentrics and size of water-wheel may be increased to correspond with the quantity of water required to secure a desired power.

One means of imparting rotary motion from my arrangement is by attaching at the end of the lever a crank and connecting rod of same radius as the lift of the lever, carried over the centre by a fly wheel.

The invention is applicable to the actuating of pumps, mincing machines, and other machinery, instruments, and apparatus, and to parts thereof; to propelling on land and water, and to various motive purposes.

Fig. 1 is an elevation, showing an arrangement for obtaining power according to my invention. X is the general framework of the apparatus; A, a disc or plate, mounted on a shaft E, and formed with curved paths B; the same shaft E also carries a water-wheel W, provided with vanes or blades w w, as is usual; C is a roller, working in the paths B, and connected to a lever D, attached to rods d d of pumps G G. G¹ is a balance weight at the further end of the lever, which is supported in the bearing f; H H are tanks fixed below the water-wheel, and I is a tank set above it; i i are supply pipes, for conveying the water from tanks H H to the tank I; j j, escape water pipes. The water falling from the tank I on the wheel W, drives that wheel in the usual manner; and when it passes the centre, the water falls into the lower tanks H, from which it is pumped up again into the upper tank I by the pumps G, actuated by the levers E, driven by the rollers C, in the pathways B of the face plate A, as the latter is caused to revolve by the revolution of the water-wheel W on the same shaft with it, thus producing a continuous motive power.

Archimedean Screw and Liquid

This device was made public by a communication from a correspondent to "Mechanics' Magazine" in England, in 1823. The device is described as follows:

A is the screw turning on its two pivots G G; B is a cistern to be filled above the level of the lower aperture of the screw with mercury (which I conceive to be preferable to water on many accounts, and principally because it does not adhere or evaporate like water); C is a reservoir, which, when the screw is turned round, receives the mercury which falls from the top; D is a pipe, which by the force of gravity conveys the mercury from the reservoir C on to (what, for want of a better term, may be called) the float-board E, fixed at right angles to the centre of the screw, and furnished at its circumference with ridges or floats to intercept the mercury, the moment and weight of which will cause the float-board and screw to revolve, until, by the proper inclination of the floats, the mercury falls into the receiver F, from whence it again falls by its spout into the cistern G, where the constant revolution of the screw takes it up again as before.

To overcome this (the power of the fluid in the screw to turn it backwards), I thought of placing a metallic ball, or some mercury, on the ledge above the floats (as at H in the drawing), of just so much weight, and no more, as would exactly neutralize this backward endeavor; whether or no this would increase the difficulty of raising the mercury in the screw I cannot say, having never tried the experiment.

John Sims's Problem. 1830

John Sims, a Welshman, furnished the following suggested device to "Mechanics' Magazine" in 1830:

Let us suppose an apparatus to be constructed of the description represented in the annexed engraving: a is a water cistern, whence water is to be raised by the pump b, to supply the cistern; c d is a small pipe with a stop-cock at e, which lets the water from cistern c into a strong water-tight bellows f. The bellows have no valve, but a cock g to let out the water into cistern a; h is a weight, and i a rack on the top of the bellows which works in the cogs on the axle of the large cog-wheel j; j turns the little cog-wheel k, that gives motion to the arm l, and works the pump-handle m; n is an upright rod on the end of the lever o, which rod has a turn at p and q for the top of the bellows to press against in ascending and descending. The water being let into the bellows from the pipe d, will cause the top of the bellows, with the weight and rack, to ascend till the former reaches and presses p, which will move the lever o and the arm or rod r; by which means the stop-cock e of the pipe will be shut, and the cock g opened, and the water let in from the bellows into the cistern a. The top of the bellows will now descend till it comes down and presses the turn q, which will again shut the cock g and open e, on which the water will again flow from the pipe into the bellows, and cause the top with the rack to ascend.

Now it is generally known that the power of an hydrostatic bellows is thus calculated:—

As the area of the orifice or section of the pipe,

To the area of the bellows:

The weight of water in the pipe is,

To the weight the bellows will sustain on the top-board.

We will suppose, therefore, the pipe d to be 10 feet high, with a bore equal to 1 square inch, which would give 120 cubic inches, and about 4¼ lbs. of water. Let us suppose, also, the boards of the bellows to be 20 inches square, which gives 400 square inches. When the water is let from the pipe into the bellows, there will be a pressure of 4¼ lbs. on every square inch, which on the whole will amount to 1,700 lbs. Now take half of this force and place it on the top of the bellows; there will then be a working power of 850 lbs. up and down, and allowing the bellows to raise one foot, it will contain about 20 gallons of water. Now the question is, will not the machinery, with a moving power of 2 feet and 850 lbs., raise 20 gallons of water 10 feet, which would, of course, cause the motion to be perpetual?—John Sims.

Pwllheli, North Wales, Dec. 11, 1829.

The foregoing device brought from another correspondent the following:

Had Mr. Sims gained the power exerted by the descending weight on his bellows, he would have been fortunate indeed; but it unfortunately happens that its returning power (or an equivalent) was expended in raising it.

With respect to his question, whether a circulation of water would be kept up by the arrangement, I answer, no; as the velocities will be in the inverse ratios to the forces, and the descending column of 120 inches must expend itself forty times to raise the ascending one to the height of twelve inches, as proposed:—

10 ft. or 120 in. × 40 = 4,800, lifting force or power.

400 in. × 12 = 4,800, opposing force, resistance, or weight.

Here is an equilibrium, and nothing gained to overcome friction or the weight of the atmosphere on the piston of the pump. Were it possible to annihilate both friction and atmospheric weight, even then, unless the power exceed the weight, the power would not be a moving one.

A Perpetual Pump, by an Unknown Inventor

In Volume I of "Mechanics' Magazine," 1823, appears an account by a correspondent of a Perpetual Motion device which is illustrated by the figure, and the quotations following:

a b c d is the section of the reservoir, &c., showing the wheel, the pump, &c. A B is an overshot water-wheel; C D the working beam; E the pump; F a pipe from the top of the pump, through which the water was to fall upon the wheel; C G an arm, communicating, by means of a crank attached to an horizontal shaft through the centre of the wheel, motion to the lever or working beam, and so raising water from the reservoir by means of the pump; H I the water. It was supposed that the water which had fallen upon the wheel into the reservoir would be raised by means of the pump, fall through the horizontal pipe, and so produce a continued rotary motion.

The persistence of Perpetual Motion workers is amusingly illustrated by the inventions of William Willcocks Sleigh and Burrowes Willcocks Arthur Sleigh. Their devices were so extremely complicated and not susceptible of being understood, and hence are mentioned rather than shown in this work.

In 1845, William Willcocks Sleigh, a doctor of medicine and surgery, of Chiswick, Middlesex, England, applied for and obtained British Patent on what he called

"A Hydro-mechanic apparatus for producing motive power."

He took out other patents on hydro-mechanical devices in 1853, 1856, and 1860. Then in 1864, his son, Burrowes Willcocks Arthur Sleigh took out two patents on similar devices, and then in 1866, still another patent.

The specifications for each of the above mentioned patents are lengthy and detailed. The inventors evidently had the greatest confidence in their efforts, though surely they never put them to actual test. They seemed to have been mechanically stupid, and incapable of correct mechanical thinking, but their efforts were so tireless and so earnest that we submit that the Sleigh family had done its full, fair share in the efforts to accomplish Self-Motive power.

Equally amusing are the efforts of James Smith of Seaforth, Liverpool, and Sidney Arthur Chease, Liverpool, gentlemen: These two co-laborers applied for British patents on four different Hydro-mechanical devices—one in 1858, two in 1863, and one in 1865. On three they obtained patents, and on the other one provincial protection. One of them seems to have been a capitalist, and the other one a machinist. Their models were complicated beyond understanding, and apparently they were laboring in the dark without intelligent plan. They seemed to have thought that when a complicated mess of machinery parts and fluid were assembled Perpetual Motion must somehow result.

Nothing could be gained by setting forth their inventions fully, but their labors were so great, and their efforts so intense that we feel like preserving their names from oblivion, and hence we give them mention here.

Why Hydraulic and Hydro-Mechanical Devices for Obtaining Perpetual Motion Failed to Work

Next to wheels and weights, the use of liquids in a hydraulic, hydrostatic, or hydro-mechanical manner have been sought to be utilized by Perpetual Motion seekers as a means of obtaining energy from the machine not supplied to the machine. The foregoing are only a few of the many devices of that kind, but they are the most simple of those that have been brought to light, and consequently better illustrate the manner in which it has been sought to utilize the interesting properties of liquid pressure and mobility in the solution of the problem.

An examination of the preceding devices discloses that in each case the inventor sought by the energy of the descent of a liquid to elevate through the same distance of ascent the same or a greater quantity of the same liquid, or in some cases to obtain from the pressure of a liquid a greater force than is required to expand a bag, bellows or vessel, submerged the same distance below the level.

The impossibility of all of these schemes is apparent from the same reasoning that is applied to illustrate and show the impossibility of obtaining Perpetual Motion by the use of wheels, weights, levers and the force of gravity.

In each case the basic idea and error was in supposing that by some possibility the descent of a liquid through a given distance could be made to deliver more energy than would be required to elevate the same quantity of liquid the same distance. As a matter of fact, the descent of a liquid, the same as any other weight, through a given distance represents exactly the amount of energy necessary to elevate the same weight of liquid through the same distance measured vertically. Some loss by friction of the liquid in the containing tubes is inevitable as well as from friction in the working parts of the mechanism. Therefore, as this loss continues, some outside energy must be supplied. If all friction could be eliminated (which is an impossibility) and if the liquid were started in motion, the motion would be constant, but no energy could be taken from it for running other machinery without reducing the motion.

There have been many arguments on this subject. We select one which was elicited by the publication in "Mechanics' Magazine" of an account of the device of the author of the "Voice of Reason." This argument was published in "Mechanics' Magazine" in 1831, and is as follows:

I am induced to make an attempt to demonstrate the utter impossibility, under any circumstances, of making a water-wheel that will supply itself instead of having any surplus power.

The accompanying drawing represents part of an overshot wheel in section, the buckets only part filled, by which the whole of the water expended continues to act through a greater portion of the circumference than it otherwise would do. The area of the vertical section of the complement of water to each bucket is made 40 inches; and taking the breadth of the wheel at, say 28 2/3 inches, gives 40 lbs. as the weight of water in each bucket; therefore, as there are 12 buckets containing 40 lbs. each, No. 13 30 lbs., and No. 14 only 20 lbs., altogether making a total of 530 lbs. acting on the wheel at the same time;—to show clearly all the effect that can be expected from this, I have divided the horizontal radius into a scale of 40 equals parts (there being 40 lbs. in each bucket); and from the gravitating centre of the fluid contained in each is drawn a perpendicular to the scale, where the effective force, or weight in each bucket, may be read off as on the arm of a common steelyard. The weights will be found as follows, viz:—

No.	Lbs.
1	21½
2	26¼
3	30½
4	33¾
5	36¾
6	38¾
7	39¾
8	40
9	39½
10	38
11	35¾
12	32½
13	21
14	12

It is therefore quite evident that, although we have 530 lbs. acting on one side of the wheel, a column of water weighing 446 lbs. reacting at the same distance from the centre, on the opposite side, will exactly balance the whole 530 lbs. contained in the buckets; so that about a sixth of the expenditure rests on the axis without producing any useful effect, and the wheel so loaded must remain in a state of rest. Now, in spite of friction and the vis inertia of matter, if we suppose the wheel at work, it can raise only 446 lbs. at the expense of 530 lbs.; but even if it could raise the whole 530 lbs., we should then be but little nearer the mark, for we must remember that the gravitating centre of our power falls through a space of only 8 ft. 11 in., while the water must be raised at least 11 ft. before it could be laid on and delivered clear of the wheel.

As a further means of coming at the end I had in view at the commencement of this letter, I will conclude with a simple rule for calculating the quantity of water a wheel of this kind will raise:—Multiply the number of pounds expended in a minute by the height or diameter of the wheel in feet, divide the product by the height (also in feet) of the reservoir to be filled, and two-thirds of the quotient will be the answer required. Example, for the wheel above described, making six revolutions per minute:—

42 buckets on wheel.
6 revolutions per minute.
---
252 buckets filled per minute.
40 the weight of water in each bucket.
-----
10080 lbs. expended per minute.
10 feet height of wheel.
------
11) 100800 momentum, dividing by 11 feet as
the height of reservoir.
------
3) 9163.636 divided by 3.
--------
3054.545 multiplying by 2.
2
--------
6109.09 answer in lbs.

So that for every 1008 gallons expended on the wheel, we only gain sufficient power to supply 611 nearly.

See also Chap. XV, Bishop Wilkin's Work, appearing at page 297 et seq. supra.

[CHAPTER IV]
PNEUMATIC, SIPHON AND HYDRO-PNEUMATIC DEVICES

The Hydrostatical Paradox

Next to the wheel with levers and weights, we believe this simple Hydrostatical Paradox has more frequently occurred to mechanical and scientific tyros as a means whereby it was hoped to attain Perpetual Motion. There is no record that we know of of the name of anyone who has ever attempted it, and, yet, the instances are doubtless myriads.

The author believes he has heard dozens of young persons mention it as a means of obtaining a continuous flow of water.

In 1828, Niel Arnott, M. D., published the third edition of his "Elements of Physics, or Natural Philosophy." At page 141 under the subject of "Mechanics" he comments generally on the subject of Perpetual Motion, and says:

What an infinity of vain schemes—some of them displaying great ingenuity—for perpetual motions, and new mechanical engines of power, etc., would have been checked at once, had the great truth been generally understood, that no form or combination of machinery ever did or ever can increase, in the slightest degree, the quantity of power applied. Ignorance of this is the hinge on which most of the dreams of mechanical projectors have turned. No year passes, even now, in which many patents are not taken out for such supposed discoveries; and the deluded individuals, after selling perhaps even their household goods to obtain the means of securing the supposed advantages, often sink in despair, when their attempts, instead of bringing riches and happiness to their families, end in disappointment and utter ruin. The frequency and eagerness and obstinacy with which even talented individuals, owing to their imperfect knowledge of this part of natural philosophy, have engaged in such undertakings, is a remarkable phenomenon in human nature.

At page 270 in treating on "Hydrostatics," he says:

A projector thought that the vessel of his contrivance, represented here, was to solve the renowned problem of the perpetual motion. It was goblet-shaped, lessening gradually towards the bottom until it became a tube, bent upwards at c, and pointing with an open extremity into the goblet again. He reasoned thus: A pint of water in the goblet a must more than counterbalance an ounce which the tube b will contain, and must therefore be constantly pushing the ounce forward into the vessel again at a, and keeping up a stream or circulation, which will cease only when the water dries up. He was confounded when a trial showed him the same level in a and in b.

Pickering's Device

In 1858, Peter Pickering, Landed Proprietor of Danzig, Prussia, applied for a British patent on

"An Atmospheric Engine."