- MENTS IN APPLYING STEAM OR OTHER EXPANSIVE PRIME MOVERS BY ACTION AND REACTION FOR ROTARY MOTION AND PROPULSION, AND IN THE MACHINERY FOR THE PURPOSE
Year: 1860

page_text: LETTERS PATENT to Richard Boyman Boyman, of Park Crescent,Stock-
'well, in the County of Surrey, Esquire, for the Invention of "IMPROVE -
MENTS IN APPLYING STEAM OR OTHER EXPANSIVE PRIME MOVERS BY ACTION
AND REACTION FOR ROTARY MOTION AND PROPULSION, AND IN THE MACHINERY
FOR THE PURPOSE."
Sealed the 17th October 1860, and dated the 10th May 1860.
PROVISIONAL SPECIFICATION left by the said Richard Boyman Boyman
at the Office of the Commissioners of Patents, with his Petition, on
the 10th May 1860.
1, RICHARD BOYMAN BOYMAN, of Park Crescent, Stockwell, in the County
of Surrey, Esquire, do hereby declare the nature of the said Invention for
"IMPROVEMENTS IN APPLYING STEAM OR OTHER EXPANSIVE PRIME MOVERS BY
ACTION AND REACTION FOR ROTARY MOTION AND PROPULSION, AND IN THE MACHINERY
FOR THE PURPOSE," to be as follows:-
In applying the intermittent (instead of continuous) force of steam or
other expansive prime movers by action and reaction for the above purposes
without the usual engines. Attempts have been made by Hero,of Alexandria,
(180 years B.C.), Watt, Brunel, Ruthven, Pilbrow, myself, and others, to apply
steam by action and reaction by an uninterrupted current of steam, but with
no economical results, from causes which will be explained in my Complete.
Specification; hence, the novelty of my Invention consists,---

page_text: 1st, in the intermittent force of expansive prime movers by action or
impulse into the buckets of a wheel, to obtain continuous rotary motion.
2nd, as action and reaction are equal in intensity and opposite in direction,
in applying the same Invention by reaction for the propulsion of vessels,
locomotives, and aërial machines.
3rd, by such novel combination of proportionate areas, number of issues,
puff chambers, piston puff valves, parts, and machinery, as will make an
expansive prime mover economically available by action and reaction,
especially for reaction propulsion, without the usual engines and propellers,
which no one yet has succeeded in doing.
My own Invention of the intermittent force of expansive prime movers, if
there is any other, is founded on an hypothesis of mine in February 1859,
"That force can change its form, but cannot destroy itself; therefore a foot of
"steam issuing into the air must necessarily give out the same force, and be
"capable of doing the same work as the same quantity and area expanded
"in a cylinder, more, indeed, because the friction of the issue would be less.
"Since, then, action and reaction are equal, and contrary, this force and
"work can be obtained for propulsion without any engines or propellers
"whatever." Such was the reasoning that led me to the Invention of inter-
mittent force, which I consider more valuable for reaction propulsion than
for impulse. But we must not depend alone on hypotheses, however sound,
or on facts however accurate; we must discover the principle that will satis-
factorily account for them, for so only can we be always sure of getting the
same results claimed for new applications or discoveries.
It was not, however, until February last that a discovery of mine (while
experimenting in 1547) on the force of action and reaction of water, enabled
me to prove, dynamically and mathematically, the truth of the above hypo-
thesis, also to determine the driving force and units of work in one foot of
steam issuing into the air. Without knowing both, I could not reduce my
Invention to an exact and positive science, nor apply it properly. The force
of action and reaction of one foot of steam of one square inch area=2HAW
when the body to be driven is at rest,and when in motion=HAW,which is
also the units of work; therefore F=U=HAW==AW.F is the
driving force; U the units of work; H the height due to the velocity (1)
of the steam; g the accelerating force of gravity=32-2 feet; A one square
inch area; and W the weight of one foot of steam of one square inch
area =12, where D is the density of one cubic foot of steam at
D

page_text: the pressure used AA (above the atmosphere). The value of V will be
found by my formula, which (involving mathematics, and agreeing approxi-
mately with long and expensive experiments, I made in-1842; 1843, and
1847,) will be more appropriate for the Complete Specification: .I further
discovered in 1859 that the driving force of one foot of steam is equal to the
driving force (not work) of many thousand feet of the same area. Such is
the foundation of my Invention of intermittent force (having tried and
abandoned, like many others, continuous force), the result of years .of
experiments and research after some such principle to supersede the present
complicated, ponderous, and expensive engines; for by my experiments in
1842 and 1843 on the action and reaction of steam I was the first to discover
that a jet of steam issuing into the cold air was capable of doing much more
work than the same quantity slowly expanded in a hot condensing engine,
Mr. Watt's greatest Inventions. I was, therefore, the first to show that
these ponderous and uneconomical contrivances were capable of being super-
seded, especially for steam navigation and railways, by some simpler and more
economical application, knowledge which I have for eighteen years been trying
at intervals to turn to account.
In applying the intermittent force of expansive prime movers according to
my Invention, two principles must be observed, 1st, they must be prevented
expanding as much as possible until they issue, for which purpose I have one
or more puff or intermittent force chambers to hold the required quantity of
steam for each issue; 2d, every issue or puff valve must open all at once, for
which purpose I have designed what I call piston puff valves. The puff
chambers will be placed in the funnel horizontally near the exit of the heated
air, arranged for the steam to act as a blast. A fan may sometimes be useful.
The steam can be superheated in its passage to the puff chambers. Means
for backing and reversing will be required. A donkey engine or two will
work the chamber valves, and feed the boiler. The valves may be worked
many ways; by a wheel and pinion having wipers on its axle, or what I call
wiper wheels (wheels partially furnished with teeth) acting on catches or racks
on the steam slide valves under the puff chambers; or by a cranked axle
having cams or eccentrics to work the valves. As many chambers as may be
required can be worked by the same pinion axle by a separate wiper wheel
and rack for each chamber, and the same number of chambers can be worked
below by the same wheels acting in racks upon such underneath chambers.
Each chamber valve can thus be opened three or four times for every revo-
lution of such wheel. When wiper wheels are used, the valves may be sent
back to their places by steam cylinder or other springs as soon as the wiper

page_text: wheels have ceased to act on the racks. Other mechanical equivalents may
be used to give the required rapid motion to the valves. They can even be
worked by the wheel of the locomotive, and by the steam wheel without any
donkey engine at all, and each piston puff valve should be opened alternately,
however worked.
The reaction of intermittent force is applicable to the present locomotives
where the heated air and steam, after serving the cylinders, are now wasted.
The latent heat of steam is latent force, which can be more developed by my
Invention and application of steam without the usual engines than is possible
with them. This, with proper formulæ for computing the areas, capacity of
puff chambers, number of puffs or impulses, the steam expended, utilized,
and lost, (also for continuous force to show the difference), how the valves
are to be worked, also the proof of my discovery that the force of one foot of
steam is equal to the force of many thousand feet of the same area before
referred.to. These, requiring algebra and Drawings, will be set forth in the
Complete Specification, particularly describing and ascertaining the nature of
my said Invention, and in what manner the same is to be performed.
SPECIFICATION in pursuance of the conditions of the Letters Patent, filed
by the said Richard Boyman Boyman in the Great Seal Patent Office
on the 8th November 1860.
TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, I, RICHARD
BOYMAN BOYMAN, of Park Crescent, Stockwell, in the County of Surrey,
Esquire, send greeting.
WHEREAS Her most Excellent Majesty Queen Victoria, by Her Letters
Patent, bearing date the Tenth day of May, One thousand eight hundred
and sixty, in the twenty-third year of Her reign, did, for Herself, Her heirs
and successors, give and grant unto me, the said Richard Boyman Boyman,
Her special license that I, the said Richard Boyman Boyman, my executors,
administrators, and assigns, or such others as I, the said Richard Boyman
Boyman, my executors, administrators, and assigns, should at any time agree
with, and no others, from time to time and at all times thereafter during
the term therein expressed, should and lawfully might make, use, exercise,
and vend, within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the
Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man, an Invention for "IMPROVEMENTS IN
APPLYING STEAM OR OTHER EXPANSIVE PRIME MOVERS BY ACTION AND REACTION
FOR ROTARY MOTION AND PROPULSION, AND IN THE MACHINERY FOR THE PURPOSE,"

page_text: upon the condition, amongst others, that I, the said Richard Boyman
Boyman, by an instrument in writing under my hand and seal, should par-
ticularly describe and ascertain the nature of the said Invention, and in
what manner the same was to be performed, and cause the same to be filed
in the Great Seal Patent Office within six calendar months next and imme-
diately after the date of the said Letters Patent.
NOW KNOW YE, that I, the said Richard Boyman Boyman, do hereby
declare the nature of my said Invention, and in what manner the same is
to be performed, to be particularly described and ascertained in and by the
following statement :-
I have already said in my Provisional Specification, that the novelty of my
Invention consists in the intermittent, instead of continuous force of steam, or
other expansive prime movers, by impulse or action for rotary motion, and
for reaction for propulsion, without the usual engines and propellers. The
principle of intermittent force is to prevent the great waste of an uninterrupted
issue of this class of fluids, by expending only as many lineal feet of steam
as the number of feet passed over by the driven body, or as near thereto as
circumstances will permit. Intermittent reaction propulsion is so much the
more valuable than action or impulse, that I shall take it first, and more par-
ticularly describe it. It is founded on the hypothesis that force can change its
form but cannot destroy itself, as stated in my Provisional Specification. I
there shew my deduction from such hypothesis, that "a foot of steam issuing
"into the air must necessarily give out the same force, and be capable of doing
"the same work, as the same quantity and area expanded in a cylinder." Now,
as a foot of steam, acting by reaction, would contend against atmospheric
pressure it was necessary, for comparison, to determine the theoretical
accumulated force and work of one foot of steam expanded in a non-
condensing cylinder. Unable to find the result in any scientific work,
I framed the following formula, deduced from Dr. Robison's investigations
of the theory of Watt's condensing engines, given by Scott Russell in his
Treatise on the Steam Engine, page 124, Let B: = the boiler. pressure PSIAA
B+ 147
(per square inch above the atmosphere) n =
147 being the number of feet
which 1 foot of steam of the pressure B can be theoretically expanded in non-
condensing engines; that is, neglecting friction of piston, cylinder cooling, and
other deductions. Then the force Fand units of works U in 1 foot of steam
of 1 square inch area will be by my formulæ F-U-2-3026 (B + 14.7)
log. n. I checked this formula by a different method, by Simpson's rule for
finding the area of curvilinear figures, which gives the same result within
an unimportant decimal. For an example of our formula, we will take the

page_text: "
present locomotive pressure at 120 lbs. AA, then the theoretical accumulated
force and units of work (=lbs. moved through feet) at the end of the stroke
which 1 foot of steam of 1 square inch area, at that pressure, is capable of
yielding in non-condensing engines, is 298-3 lbs. If now we apply the usual
formulæ for momentum, MV, to the same quantity of steam at the same
pressure we shall get a very different result. I use Tate's formulæ for the
density, and my formule for the velocity of efflux.of steam, both given in the
- subsequent table. At a pressure of 120 lbs. AA, the weight of one cubic
foot of steam.2746 lbs; therefore, 1 foot of 1 square inch area weighs
(7718×12-2710-) 001907 1 footlbs. ; and the velocity of efflux being by my
2746
144
formulæ -3174 feet a second, MV-(V
-001907
32-2 x 3174)187975 lbs.
This is the force of a vis viva of a fluid issue, and the effective or mechanical
force being half the vis viva, we get 187975-0989875 1 foot lbs. only, instead
of 298.3 1 foot lbs., as shewn by my previous formulæ. It was probably
this formulæ of MV giving so feeble a force in 1 foot of steam that
confirmed the general belief entertained from the days of Watt to our
own, that steam was too light to be used dynamically. It certainly
kept me for many years from finding what I have been so long in search
of, the way to apply steam economically by reaction. It was then my
hypothesis of last year that force can change its form, but cannot destroy
itself, that alone led me to disprove the formula MV applied to 1 foot
of steam; a formule applicable enough to a continuous issue for 1 second,
as I will shew by and by. I have, however, first to prove my hypo-
thesis-now that we have found the standard of comparison-that 1 foot.
of steam will give the same force by reaction when issuing into the air as
when theoretically expanded in a non-condensing engine. As regards, then,
the force of a single impulse, and not of a continuous issue. The accumulated
force of a moving body, and the work it can porform, is founded in the law
and light of Nature, the force of the earth's attraction on a falling body, called
gravity. This force and work is measured by the height H, from which a
body of weight W falls, and is equal therefore to HW. Science invents an
equivalent force to gravity in steam, gunpowder, heated air, and such like
prime movers, when used dynamically. Now the laws of motion, being fixed
and immutable, do not change for weight, or material, for horizontal or
vertical motion, but apply to the lightestas well as heaviest masses; as well,
therefore, to the velocity of a few grains of water in the form of steam as to
the death-dealing velocity of a leaden bullet. Hence the force and work of all
moving bodies is measured in the same way by HW, and not by their mass

page_text: and velocity, nor by their weight and velocity, as stated in some scientific
works of authority. When, therefore, we only know the velocity of the
moving body, we can only find the force it can exert, and the work it can do,
by finding from what height it must fall to acquire its velocity. Now the
height is equal to being the velocity of the body, and g = 32.2 feet the
final velocity which gravity gives to a falling body at the end of the first
second. Hence the formulæ for the work in a moving body is HW=W.
The mechanical measurement, or standard of work in this country is reduced
to pounds 1 foot high, is called units of work, and is represented by Ui
therefore in applying my Invention of intermittent reaction, I take 1 foot of
steam of 1 square inch area to find the force F (which I make equal to the
units of work U) per square inch in such quantity of steam. These (Fand U)
depend on the weight and velocity of steam, and these on the presure at which
it is used.
-
HW
The present steam boat pressure being too trifling for my Invention, we will
take the locomotive pressure, which is 120 lbs. PSIAA, though this is much
below what steam will be by and by, to derive the full benefit of my Invention.
We have already shown that the weight of one foot of steam of 1 square
inch area, at a pressure of 120 lbs. AA is, by Tate's formula = .001907 lbs.,
and that its velocity is, by my formula- 3174 feet per second; therefore, the
accumulated force F, and units of work U, of this quantity, density, and
velocity of steam when used as I use it by action and reaction
W-(3×001907) 298-3 1 foot lbs. per square inch. I call F-U
for a single impulse, because the work which the force of a single impulse is
capable of exerting when fully imparted (the blow of a hammer, a pile driver,
cannon ball and such like) can be neither more nor less than the force
accumulated in it at the instant of contact, and this can only be ascer-
tained by the mechanical effect it can produce, and this only by the formulae
HWW. We may as well then put at once F-U, for we have shown
that the force and work of one foot of steam by reaction is theoretically the
same as when used in a non-condensing cylinder. Such, then, is the proof of
ry hypothesis in 1859, that force can change its form, but cannot destroy.
itself; hence it is evident that the force of a moving body must be exactly
equal to the force or pressure expended in producing it. Since then we find
that, at the end of the stroke, the accumulated force or sum of the decreasing
pressures and units of work in a non-condensing engine is 298.3 lbs., the,
expenditure of this 1 foot lbs. force and work in giving motion to its own
minute weight in the form of steam must give it an impulsive and reactionary

page_text: force of 298-3 lbs. also, and a capability of doing this work, the work so
expended on the motion. Cylinder pressure is the artificial; reactionary
impulse is the natural way of using steam for propulsion, because we merely
want a straight motion, and the law of reaction, which gives it us at once
was not given for nothing. But because we have not observed this law, we
are obliged to invent a straight motion to get a rotary motion, to get a straight
motion at last. This departure from Nature's laws entails a deal of com-
plexity, weight, and expence, cylinders, pistons, expansive gear, crank axles,
and a great waste of fuel. But let steam act as it likes, and it beneficiently
expands itself down to the atmosphere, without any expansive gear or com-
plexity, and so gives its whole propulsive force at once. I show, therefore,the
equality of force, the pressure and dynamic force of steam, and that the laws
of motion, applied to a few grains of steam give it a force sufficient for all
the great purposes of propulsion at sea, on land, and in the air, a fact which
is opposed to all received notions on the subject. I believe it is also a no ve
doctrine, that latent heat is latent force; to show this, or make it better
known if not new,and also to show more clearly my Invention of intermittent
reaction, I have compiled the following Table:-
TABLE shewing the THEORY of INTERMITTENT ACTION and REACTION; also,that
LATENT HEAT is LATENT FORCE, which can be utilized, without cost,
in proportion to the latent heat being made sonsible, and the economy

page_text: Сонс расови
t= the temperature due to pressure B, by scott Russell's formule,
adapted to our notation as follows:-
E
Log. (t+121)—(*1557634 log. (+147)+2-5224442..
W the weight of 1 cubic foot of steam at pressure B = = 625 lbs., C' being
the number of cubic feet of steam by Tate's formulæ, which, for convenience,
I have expressed in logarithms thus:-
Log. (C-12.5) 4.3132343 - {log. (B+14·7) ·9301}
.C=the number of cubic feet of steam from 1 cubic foot of water, evaporated
under pressure B, found by the same formulæ.
n the theoretical number of feet which 1 foot of steam, of prés-
sure B, would expand itself in a sufficiently long non-condensing engine,
were it not for friction and cooling, which greatly diminish the value of n;
but when issuing freely into the air steam will be, by virtue of the forcible
repulsion of. its particles, almost instantaneously expand itself down to the
atmosphere without any expansive gear or cooling. It will, therefore, in
passing from its highest to its lowest tension, give out all at once (compared
with its cylinder expansion) its whole accumulated expansive force by action
and reaction. Hence the number of times which steam, at pressure B,
will so expand itself for my application=3+147
Fthe force of action and reaction, PSIAA, of 1 foot of steam of 1
square inch area, at pressure B, when issuing into the air. Also the units
of work U (lbs. 1 foot high) which the same quantity of steam is capable
of yielding. Hence F=U=23026 (B+14-7) log. nn given above. Or
|F=U=HW=W₁. Here g=32-2 feet, and W₁-the weight of 1 foot
of steam 1 square inch area at pressure B-1×12- The value of
V given hereafter.
.
1728
Kthe resistance to a train, engine, and tender of about 85 or 90 tons, at
60 miles an hour, from Gooch's experiments on the Great Western Railway.
the velocity in feet per second, which may be thus conveniently
found, 22. Hence, at 60 miles an hour, v=0x22 88 feet per second.
N-the number of reactions of the area A per second.
.
FN
Ro
A the area in square inches to overcome R-Nf being the number
of lineal feet of steam. used each reaction. The Table shows N=v, and f-1.
If N be less than the area must be increased in proportion to make up in
intensity of force what is lost in number of reactions. If, for instance, the
B

page_text: R
Ru
number of reactions are 44 a second, and only one lineal foot of steam is
used each reaction, then the area will be=Fx4x1 The best application is
when A =, and when as many lineal feet of steam are used each reaction as
can be used without loss of residuary velocity, and without causing jerks by
too long intervals. For then the force of reaction will not be so great as to
be injurious, nor the number of reactions too many to be inconvenient.
Q=the quantity or number of cubic feet of steam expended per second
AN
141
AP-the theoretical horse-power which Q is capable of exerting if fully
utilized. It will be prudent to increase the area at least 20 per cent. to allow
for the loss of friction of steam passing through the valves, and at efflux, and
also for useless expansion, if any. This increase is not added in the Table.
FANI Rn
The theoretical expenditure will be, ZP-Q=250×QW=AN=R
The theoretical value of will be found, approximately, by any of the
y's
following formulæ :-
3. Weisbach's V- 1642
(1+00204 t) hyp. log. (B1+1/
14-7
PB+147, and B = the boiler pressure per square inch AA; p
147; W the weight of a cubic foot of steam at the pressure B, and
t=temperature. At 120 lbs. AA, 1. gives V=3021; 2 gives V-3174;
and 3 gives V-3198 feet a second.
The first formula was furnished me in 1843 by one of our ablest mathc-
maticians in applied mathematics, deduced from my experiments witnessed
by him in that year. I make my own formulæ for Vagree with my formulæ
FU 2.3026 (B+14.7) log. n, for non-condensing engines, because it
ought to agree. For, by my hypothesis, that force can change its form, but
cannot destroy itself, the same pressure and weight of steam must contain the
samo force, whether used in a non-condensing engine, or dynamically in
the air. Hence that formulæ for V must be truest which (deduced from
experiments as mine is) gives the truest approximation to cylinder results.
Finding then by my experiments in 1842, 1843, and 1847, on the velocity of
steam and water, that other formulæ did not give the true results, I have
combined theory and practice in my formula for the value of V.

page_text: The formula of the laborious Weisbach will be found in volume 1,
page 475, of his admirable and valuable work, Mechanios and Machinery.
I use my own formula for the value of V, because the nearest to my own
experiments and the nearest to theory, and because it gives a result between
that of two of the ablest mathematicians of our time. I have, however,.
given for choice the only three formulæ I know of. The Table I have com-
piled to shew the doctrine of latent force is instructive. It is well known
that the same weight of fuel is required to evaporate the same weight of water
at every pressure, and that whatever the volume of the same weight of steam
the sum of the sensible and latent heat is the same. It is also well known
that in changing water into steam at atmospheric pressure, about 1000°
degrees of heat become latent; but heat is force. Now by my doctrine force
can change its form (as it does here from sensible to latent heat) but it cannot
destroy itself; therefore this latent but accumulated heat force can be utilized
like other accumulated force, and this can be done by making the latent heat
sensible again as shewn by the Table, for all heat is useless unless sensible.
We see there that the same HP is expended to overcome the same resistance
at the same speed at every temperature and pressure; but the saving is
remarkable. At 250° C-890-36, and Q-73-13. Hence we expend
890-36 =*0821 of the whole, taken as unity. At. 519° C-46·64, and
Q=37; so that here we expend 484-0079 of the whole, taken as unity;
73-13
46
(0821-0079)x100
0821
-
5-1337
heuce the saving comes out
90.3 per cent. The water
evaporated should give the same result. QW= 73.13 x 0702-5-1337 lbs.,
and at 519 QW= 37x1.34=4958 lbs.; hence the saving in water'
evaporated, and consequently in fuel
(5-1337-4958)x100 =90-3 per cent. as
before. Now as equal weights of high and low pressure steam require the
same fuel to obtain, we get for nothing this large saving, and merely by
developing the latent heat only (519°-250° =) 269°. Wesee, therefore, that
latent heat is latent force; hence the more we bring back to its former fiery
state of sensible heat the 1212° which have passed from the fire into the steam,
the more fuel we shall save. We have then accumulated in latent heat, now
thrown away, an almost inexhaustible store of force for science to work upon
and utilize. Nature loses nothing, neither should man, the master of nature.
He who foresaw millions of years ago that the time would come when man
would require vast storehouses of fuel for his use, and ordered the long processes
of nature through centuries for the production and consolidation of coal fields,
neveriutended that His providential care should be so wastefully abused. Nor

page_text: was it intended that thousands of human beings should pass their dark, sad
lives under ground, merely to bring to the surface millions of tons of coals to
be wasted in latent heat. It seems then to me ingratitude to God, a crime to
man, and a disgrace to science, to waste 90 per cent. of so valuable an article
as fuel, and all from prejudice against high-pressure steam. For we play with
gunpowder at a pressure of 44,000 lbs. on the inch, and yet fear a trifling
steam pressure of a 1000 lbs. or so. The result is we take to sea twice the
necessary weight of boilers, water, engines, and coals; these occupy twice the
space, sink the vessel deeper, and increase the resistance. Adeeperimmersion
requires more power and further waste of fuel to overcome; and so we build
ponderous machinery and enormous vessels to carry it, besides hundreds of tons
of coals to throw overboard in latent heat. Truly, though our machinery is
perfect, the science of steam is yet in its infancy. And here I would record,
for the public good, that though it is necessary to use distilled water for
very high-pressure steam, this alone saves from 15 to 20 per cent. of fuel.
This remarkable fact I discovered more than 20 years ago, by a long series of
experiments with Thames water, on board the William Symington steam tug,
where I weighed the coals with my own hands for days, to be sure of so
valuable a result. Now science admits of no impossibilities but what are
opposed to Nature's laws. It will not then be difficult, by a separate boiler or
otherwise, to distil the water for high-pressure steam, especially as there is a
saving of 15 per cent., and much less water is required. For I have shown by
the Table, that besides saving the cost and weight of fuel, the saving in the
mere weight of water evaporated is as much as 90.3 per cent.
That latent heat is latent force can scarcely be known; for no one used
steam more extravagently than the great Watt, who did most in his day to
economise it. He never used steam much above the atmosphere, and so
threw away about 900° of heat, opposing high-pressure steam to the last-
But as the higher the pressure the smaller the boiler and area to bear it, there
can be no difficulty in obtaining sufficient strength for so great an advance in
steam navigation and locomotion as this great economyin fuel,--the mainspring
of science and source of civilization. It is far too valuable to be thus wasted
for ever. The better to distinguish the novelty of my present Invention of
intermittent force, I will refer to three Patents I took ont for action and
reaction; two were in the name of James Pilbrow, one on the 23d May 1842,
and the other on the 7th March 1845; the third was in the name of James
Pedder, on the 6th November 1847, for the "7th improvement," described in
the Specification of his Patent, with which alone I had any concern.
Mr. Pilbrow (and Mr. Pedder, who died soon afterwards) were my able

page_text: coadjutors in those experiments (made at my expense under the conviction of
discovery referred to) & the ingenious Inventors of the machinery to carry out
the results, and to whose suggestions I was so much indebted at the time. It
will be seen by the Specification of the Patents taken out in Mr. Pilbrow's name
that they were for the application of "an uninterrupted jet of steam," which
is just that which we and all have found economically impracticable. Those
Patents too, were for impulse, not for reaction propulsion, for no one that I am
aware of has yet thought of propelling locomotives by the direct reaction of
steam, much more by intermittent reaction. Now I tried, at considerable
expence, Mr. Pilbrow's impulse or injet wheel, and abandoned it, because it
required an impracticable velocity. Since Watt, Brunel, Ruthven, and others
have also tried to make an uninterrupted jet of steam practically useful, I
may save subsequent Inventors a deal of misapplied labor and expense, and
nolittle anxiety of mind, by showing what has not yet been done, why all such
attempts have failed and must fail.
Let Rthe resistance to a train at 60 miles an hour=2500 lbs.
velocity of efflux of steam at 120 lbs. AA=3174 feet a second.
=
60×22
15
=88 feet a second.
V the
v=the
W=the
velocity of train in feet per second:
weight of a cubic foot of steam at 120 lbs. AA=2746 lbs.; and g=gravity
=32.2 feet. Hence the momentum or accumulated force F=M (V-0)
(V-v), A being the area of issue. Since R=M (V−v)=(V−v)
AVW
g
Rg
2500×32-2
..A=VIV(V-v)=3174× +2748× − (3174 – 88)
the driving force F-VW (V−v)="
F=
ᎪᏤᎳ
g
=029929 square feet. Consequently
029929×3174×2746 × (3174-88)=2500lbs.,
32-2
the force required=R. The formula for impulse is AVW. But for
reactionAVW. Now AVW029929 x 3174x-2746=26.0855 lbs.
Hence the power required=44x26-0855-4077493 feet lbs. The
work done and lost (or rather, undeveloped by the train for want of time
to develop in work the accumulated force it has received) must neces-
sarily equal the power expended. The work lost is the residuary velocity-the
height due to the differential velocity=(-) AVW=(3174-88) 26-0855
=3857493 feet lbs. The work done-Ru=2500x88=220000 foot. lbs.
Hence 220000+3857493=4077493 foot lbs. the power expended. We see,
therefore, that the application of "an uninterrupted jet of steam " by reaction
(4077493-220000)x100
entails a loss of
4077493
94-6 per cent. My discovery, if I may so
call it, of the actual force of 1 foot of steam, and its proper application

page_text: by intermittent reaction, will save about 60 percent. of this loss. I have shown
how the formula MV (indiscriminately applied in every mathematical work
I have consulted to determine the moving force of all bodies in motion) kept
me for many years from my present Invention of intermittent force, by giving
so feeble a moving force to 1 foot of steam. This will be seen, and also my
conviction, that the law of reaction is the law of propulsion, by the extract of
a letter I wrote on the 5th of March 1851-"I am convinced, for many
reasons, too numerous to trouble you with, that the principle of reaction will
"be the only method of propulsion on land, water, and in the air; and will
"never be superseded. I have been turning my attention to carbonic acid
"and other self-generating denser gases in lieu of steam." Thus did I share
the prevailing error regarding the feebleness of steam for reaction, except as a
continuous jet. Now it is not a little thing to be kept from an Invention 8 or
9 years by an inapplicable formula; and hard it is to emancipate the mind
from the trammels of authority and long received opinion. But the victim of
one formula (MV), I have been a still greater victim of another; for I have
been put to a sad waste of time and thought and expence by the formula for
finding the resistance to steam vessels, by the usual paddle wheel formulæ.
These show so great a loss of power, that I spent years in discovering the
laws of hydro-propulsion (propelling by the reaction of a continuous issue
of water) to save the paddle wheel loss so shewn. I took out à Patent for
such discovery in the name of James Pedder, already referred to, as the
seventh improvement in his Specification. If, then, my present Invention is
applied to steam vessels to overcome à resistance calculated by the usual
paddle wheel formulæ it will not do so, for the area so calculated will be much
too small. It becomes necessary, then, to give the proper formula which I
have discovered; but I will first show how erroneous is the one generally
received. It will be found in the investigations of paddle wheel resistance in
the philosophical transactions for 1834, and in the works and investigations of
Tredgold, Mornay, Woolhouse, Bourne, Labrousse, Main, and Brown. The
last edition of Tredgold, by the eminent mathematician Professsr Woolhouse,
contains the last and most elaborate investigations (by the editor and
Mr. Mornay) of these formulæ. I will therefore give them from that work.
Professor Woolhouse's formulæ are these:

page_text: win the verinuity-acting whock.
(expended by the engine;)
Horses' power
effective on the vessel.
{ V(A'V²-2B'Vv+Bv³)
1000\v(Av³−2B Vv+B'V³)
For convenience of calculation the values of the co-efficients A,B,A',B,
which depend on the immersion of the centre of pressure, are exhibited in
Tables affixed to the above work. In the expressions for power expended by
engines, denotes the velocity in feet per second of twice the radius of the
paddle wheel to the centre of pressure. In those for the horse-power effective,
V is the velocity in feet per second of twice the radius of paddle wheel to
the centre of propelling effect. The velocity of vessel is in all cases represented
by v, and the surface of all the paddles on each wheel by S.
As it is a matter of intricate, and at the same time only approximate
calculation, to find the centre of pressure, or such a point at which the outer
and inner portions of the paddle float just balance one another, so that the
mean resistance is not affected, we shall not be far wrong in assuming (as
does Professor Woolhouse in an example he illustrates) that in a vertically-
acting wheel it is in the middle of the float; and in order to enable us to
determine the proper co-efficients from the Professor's Tables, let-
ab= extreme radius of wheel,
Horses' power
jexpended by the engine;)
leffective on the vessel.
S
1000 x
{V(A'V2-2B'Vv+Bv³)
\(Av³-2BVv+B'V²)
For convenience of calculation the values of the co-efficients A,B,A',B',
which depend on the immersion of the centre of pressure, are exhibited in
Tables affixed to the above work. In the expressions for power expended by
engines, denotes the velocity in feet per second of twice the radius of the
paddle wheel to the centre of pressure. In those for the horse-power effective,
V is the velocity in feet per second of twice the radius of paddle wheel to
the centre of propelling effect. The velocity of vessel is in all cases represented
by v, and the surface of all the paddles on each wheel by S.
As it is a matter of intricate, and at the same time only approximate
calculation, to find the centre of pressure, or such a point at which the outer
and inner portions of the paddle float just balance one another, so that the
mean resistance is not affected, we shall not be far wrong in assuming (as
does Professor Woolhouse in an example he illustrates) that in a vertically-
acting wheel it is in the middle of the float; and in order to enable us to
determine the proper co-efficients from the Professor's Tables, let-
ab= extreme radius of wheel,
docatieme immersion of float,
ab-db-ad
Then ad
ab-cb
distance from water to axle,
eb depth of float,
ac
dc
==
radius to centre of pressure, assuming this point is at c,
the middle of the float.
(The Diagram is here omitted.)
or 1 - which expresses the greatest immersion of the
centre of pressure in parts of the radius drawn to that centre, the value of
which is the first column in the aforesaid tables; the co-efficients 4,B,A',B',
being in the same line with such fractional parts.
Let us illustrate the formula by applying them to the "Banshee," a fast
paddle steamer fitted with the vertical wheel. Her measurements are,-
=2ab 25 feet.
Extreme diameter of wheel
Do. immersion of float
-
-
Depth of float
Length of float
No. of paddles on each wheel
Surface of all the paddles on each wheel=mleb:
===
db = 5.3333 feet.
eb = 3.75
l = 8.8333
=m=14.
"
33
S =468-748 sq. ft.

page_text: No. of revolutions a minute
Speed of vessel in feet per second being)
18.5 miles an hour:-
18-5x22
15
-
Circumferential velocity of centre of pres-)
sure in feet per second, assuming that point
is at c=2ac 05236 n
8
1000
11
=30˚5.
v = 27-1333 feet.
V 33-9358 feet.
According to Professor Woolhouse therefore, the HP expended by the
engine is × V(A' V-2B' Vy+B); which worked out by logarithms
=288-1 HP. The effective power, or PE-Xv(Av²-2BVv+B'V²)
=245 2 H. The resistance, by the same formula-the resistance multiplied
by the velocity per second divided by 550. Therefore by his formula:-
For common wheel-
| 1000 (4 'n³ -- 2B′ Vv+B¼²)=0.
Sv
Se
Re
For vertical wheel 1000 (A-2BV+ B'V³)=550°
Whence we obtain,―
For common wheel R=55S (A'v-2B'Vv+BV³)
For vertical wheel R-555 (Av-2BV0+B'V³)
=4970 lbs.
I depended on the principle of this formula, which is stated to be founded
on experiments with models and with steam vessels, (see Tredgold, last
edition, Appendix,) and which had been investigated by so many first-class
men. When, therefore, I applied hydro-propulsion to the Albion of 50 ZI"
I calculated her resistance by such formulae, and proportioned the area of
reaction accordingly. The formulæ being erroneous I could not get the
calculated result; and had I not been sure of my theory I should have con-
sidered reaction propulsion a grevious mistake. But as I could find no error
in the theory, I continued improving the machinery till 1857, when I was on
the point of bringing hydro-propulsion forward again. As all depended on
the resistance, it then occurred to me to examine the laws of paddle-wheel
resistance; which, having been received from the days of Watt to Brunel,
had no more been questioned than the Principia of Newton. I found, how-
ever, (in April 1857), that the laws themselves had been mistaken, and
consequently that the formulæ founded on them were erroneous. All had
considered that the resistance was only that due to the differential velocity,
RAW, whereas the law is that of impact. I therefore framed new
formulæ for paddle-wheel resistance, useful effect, and power expended; and
will now show by them, in a matter of much practical importance, how very
wrong the old formulæ are ;-

page_text: SR()
550
We can now show the different results between the new and old formula.
The area of both floats A-(3.75x2x8.8333=) 66-2497 square feet.
g 32-191 (which I then used instead of 32-2 feet, which I have since
adopted). W the weight of a cubic foot of salt water=64-18 lbs. and the
co-efficient C=75, which assumes that about + of the water escapes the full
action of the floats of the vertical wheel.. By the formula for the resistance
R=22868, instead of 1960 lbs. by Professor Woolhouse's formula, shewing
no less a difference than (22868-4960=) 17898 lbs. By the formulæ for
the power expended on the paddles, P=1411, instead of only 288-1. And
by the formulæ for the useful effect, HPE=1128.2 instead of 245-2.
When I arrived at these results, I was no longer puzzled to discover why my
application of reaction propulsion failed, and was generally considered a
failure in 1848. For the area calculated by the only known laws and formula.
for paddle wheel resistance was only about of what it ought to be. To
follow out our new theory of paddle wheel resistance; if we assume that
10 per cent. of the gross HP of the engines is consumed in friction of the
engines and shaft, and in shock (which will be 11+ per cent. on 1411)
the total indicated HP of the Banshee, at 18-5 miles an.hour, will be about
(1411+156-8=) 1567.8. The differences shewn are not little; they are

page_text: 6.0526
32-2
144
great and serious; and having so fatally misled me, and put me to such
expence and loss of time, they have, no doubt, misled others, who have been so
many years trying to save the assumed loss between the actual indicated HD
and the effective HP found by the usual formula; a difference which I have now
shewn does not exist to be saved. Probably, therefore, in the whole range of
practical science there is no such error as this. For my formulæ shew
that, instead of their being (1567-8-245-2=) 1822-6 P to save, there is
only (1567-8-1128-2=) 439-6 HP. To return to the moving force of 1 foot
of steam: It does not seem to be known, or to have been practically con-
sidered, that the force of one foot of steam is equal to the force of many
thousand feet of the same area and velocity. But this I have to show
according to my Provisional Specification. Let the area be 1 square inch, the
pressure 120 lbs. AA, and therefore, the velocity 3174 feet a second, and the
weight of 1 cubic foot of steam=2746 lbs. Then AVX 8174 × 2746
=6.0526 lbs., the weight of steam issuing in one second. Hence the vis viva
and quantity of moving force which such continuous issue can keep up
=MV=V= x 3174-596-6 lbs., or twice the mechanical effect of
each foot of steam. This is precisely what I discovered by my experiments
on reaction in 1847, and was the foundation of hydro-propulsion, as will
be seen in the 7th improvement in the Specification of the Patent I took out
in the name of James Pedder on the 6th of November 1847, already referred
10. And now I have discovered (if, indeed, that can be called a discovery
which is so obvious when pointed out) that the moving force of one foot of
steam will overcome the same resistance (not do the same work) as many
thousand feet of the same arca and velocity. For though one foot of steam
weighs only a few grains=001907 lbs., as shown before, yet the moving force
and mechanical effect is=HW=; W
= x001907=298-3 1 foot lbs.
64-4
which is half the vis viva force of the continuous issue, 596-6 lbs. just
shewn. This is better known, perhaps, by the name of the two altitudes
=2HW=2W. Now I found, many years after I had discovered this law
of motion experimentally, that the illustrious Newton-who seemed to
separate himself from the world, that he might seek and intermeddle with
all wisdom, for the benefit of mankind-had surmised the same thing. See
Principia, Prop. 36, Cor. 2. What was merely an hypothesis I proved experi-
mentally, and will now attempt to prove theoretically, so far as I understand
the theory myself. Forexample, a vis viva=MV,denotes the quantity of force
it coutains, that is, the number of 1 foot lbs.,or impulses it can keep up=1.

page_text: Now there can be no mechanical effect in a moving body without the vis
viva that produces it; hence, in, a fluid issue the vis viva and accumulated
moving force of the whole must contain the vis viva and moving force of all.
its parts, that is, of as many 1 foot lbs. as are equal V. Therefore M being
the mass of the whole fluid issuing in one second, MV-the vis viva of each
1 foot lbs.
For as the number of 1 foot lbs.=V, M₁V2V=MV.
So that M, multiplied by the cube of V, that is M₁V=MV. For analysis:
Let A=1 square foot, that we may eliminate it throughout, and W=the
weight of 1 cubic foot of fluid, then MV=MV of each foot of fluid. For
MV=V=V=M₁V; where M="
g
M₁V².
=-
W
VI
g
.
and M₁= (The weight of the
whole issue for one second=QW=AVW); also MV=M,V²=2HW=2%W
of each foot of fluid. For W=W=v=V=MV. And
2HWV=2WV=MVs. For a single impulse, a cannon ball, 1 foot of
fluid, and such like, MV=2W. Because W=W-V²=MV².
Here too MV³=2HW. The mechanical effect is half the vis viva
|F=U=MV²=V=W=HW, as stated in my Provisional Speci-
fication. This dynamical analysis of a continuous issue proves, I think,
Newton's hypothesis of the 2 altitudes; and of a single impulse, mine,-that
a foot of so light abody as steam is as powerful dynamically, as by pressure, for
all the purposes of land, water, and air communication. I dwell on the force
of motion, because it is the foundation of my Invention of intermittent force;
because I have nowhere met with this analysis, and because the principle is
of important practical application.. For, as far as I can learn, there is no
formula for determining beforehand what resistance a blow or impulse will
overcome; if so, neither the artillery officer nor naval gunner knows what
force he can exert, with balls of different weights and velocities, to breach a
fortress or crush an iron-plated vessel. The only formulæ I know of for
measuring the effect of a blow or impulse is, F= == lbs.; t being the
minute fraction of a second during which the blow is doing its work. No
one, however, can measure this to the thousandth part of a second, and
therefore such a formulæ seems to me useless for practical purposes.
I think also that the principle of t is erroneous; because, if the whole
momentum is imparted, the time in which the work is done can neither
increase nor decrease the useful effect. If it could, then the work done by
the same force would vary with the nature of the resistance, and the time in
which it is overcome. Yet, the formulae is made to depend on this; that is,

page_text: on the time in which the work is done! If, however, we take t―the time
in which the velocity' is acquired, or equal to the time in which the blow or
impulse is imparted; then == the striking velocity of the body. This
will give us a useful formula. For proof of its correctness: If 3174 feet of
steam per second issues from an orifice, I foot (which weighs 001907 lbs.)
will issue and impart its full reactionary force in the 11th part of a
second. It must therefore have acquired its velocity in that time. Hence,
by my method of finding the value of t, the vis viva, or striking force
MV WF WP 001907x3174 001907x3174x3174
VV= =
=596-6 lbs. Now this is
=
gt
T
32-2
X3174
32-2
the vis viva of one foot of steam, as we have before shewn=2HW=2W.
And this is what it should be; because, as we have said, no impulse or blow
can be given without the vis viva that produces it,
If, however, we find the value of t in the usual way, which is by the
resistance overcome, or work done by the blow, (which no one can get at in
action), we shall see the error of the present principle.
My own experiments with steam give us the best and true value of t.
For the effective impulse or resistance overcome by 1. foot of steam I found
to be MV the vis viva 596.6
==
=298-31 foot lbs.
gt
Hence F= =r,...t=w=001007x3174-17th of a second, instead of the
true time, the 4th of a second, as found by my experiments.
Let us, then, apply our principle fort to find the striking force of a cannon
ball, not yet known, I believe; for thousands of pounds may be saved in
experiments, if the actual striking force can be first known; forthen we know
at once, without wasting money in experiments, that the whole resources of
metallurgy must be turned to account to forge steel plates of sufficient tough-
ness and thickness to resist the striking force of cannon balls.
We have,
however, first to find the initial, or mouth velocity of the ball. There seems
to be some little difficulty in this; for it is said, in the Civil Engineer of
June last, that the exact theoretical determination of the velocity of the
"ball is beyond the power of analysis, even supposing we knew the rate at
"which the powder burns, and the quantity and temperature of the gases
'given off." I have, however, devised the following approximate formulac
for V, deduced from what I call the law of equivalents:-
"
16.

page_text: "
the area a of the ball; 7-the internal length of the gun; the space-in"
feet taken up by the charge; and w-the weight of the ball. From Captain'
Boxer's experiments, and theoretical considerations of my own, we may con-
sider that 12 lbs. of the best gunpowder fired in so small a space as a tube
10 feet long and 5 or 6 inches diameter will maintain a mean pressure of at
least 44,100 lbs. on the inch through the whole length of the gun. Omit-
ting s on this ground, then by this formula the mouth velocity of Whit
worth's 80 lbs. ball recently fired-about 2500 feet a second. Assumé:
this to be the striking velocity, for the object struck was only about 200,
yards off the gun; then by our value for t, the vis viva of the ball will be.
VVW80x2500x2500
15527953 vis viva lbs.=the 'striking force.
9.7
32-2
against a suface at rest.
Such is the amazing power of modern artillery, and with a weight of only.
80 lbs.
"
16527953
By virtue of this (its vis viva) it will produce a mechanical effect, that
is, crush through a resistane of half its vis viva-(} 3-) 7763976 lbs.
for the distance of 1 foot, and over an area of about 20 square inches.
I have given this investigation in illustration of my discovery of the im-
pulsive and reactionary force of 1 foot of steam, because the laws of motion
and force apply to all bodies in motion, expansive or inexpansive fluids,
steam, air, gunpowder, gas, water, or solid iron; because, too, the usual'
formulæ of MV, applied to the above 80-pounder, will only give a vis viva
force of (×2500-)6200 lbs., instead of 15527953 vis viva lbs. by:
my theory.
.
If then this principle for the striking force of a single impulse (not con-
tinuous fluid issue) be adopted, it will be for 1 foot of steam, cannon ball, or,
any other moving body, as follows:-.
WV WP WFF
VV=
gt
1
9
97
V=MV; by virtue of which it is capable of ex-
erting the mechanical force and effect F=U=MV²=\"W_W_HW
lbs. 1 foot high as before.
:
Hence by finding the true value of t we get the same results as by our
dynamical analysis of a vis viva, and 2 altitudes before given by a different.
method.
The usual formula for measuring the force of a blow, or rather method of
i interpreting it, must surely be useless, when we see that we have first to
'

page_text: determine by experiment what effect it has produced (when we want to
know beforehand what it will do) to get the value of t, which, when got, is
erroneous.
=
Bearing on the above, it is proper to remark, that I do not think with some
mathematicians that there is such a thing as a moving force of mere pounds.
MV of a continuous issue I consider the vis viva of 1 foot lbs. ; lbs. 1 foot
high; which is infinitely greater than MVlbs. only. Further, I do not con-
sider, as some mathematicians do, that HW-IV for a single impulse is
of the order of feet lbs. I consider that a continuous fluid issue is feet lbs.;
so many 1 foot lbs. 1. Also that Rv is feet pounds; for these are 1 foot lbs.
R moved through v feet. I consider that HW, for a single impulse, is all
lbs. (that is, all 1 foot lbs.) a striking or impulsive force-HW given to W,
by its velocity V equivalent to falling from the height =
Thus it is,
that I have ventured, for the first time in mathematics, to make the force
and units of work U of a single impulse of one foot of steam = 7W lbs. 1 foot
high, one and the same thing. .
I believe it is a new doctrine in the science of steam that there is a sufficient
dynamic force in so light a body as one foot of steam (kept up by reaction) to
propel locomotives and vessels, without engines and propellers, against the
heaviest storms. But everything new is impossible till verified, and then it is!
either self-evident, or known before, or no discovery at all. What has been
said before will be said again; but had Watt, Brunel, Pilbrow, Ruthven,
and the eminent mathematicians and engineers to whom I showed my experi-
ments with a jet of steam in 1842 and 1843 known the actual moving force
of a foot of steam, and that more power could be obtained dynamically without?
engines than with them (because of greater expansion by reaction and less
friction), they would scarcely have abandoned as "too feeble and expen-
sive" so simple and economical a means of propulsion. I abandoned it as they
did from this belief, and have been many years correcting my error, as I have
shown by the erroneous formulæ MV applied to one foot of steam. That the
real moving force of one foot of steam is unknown at this moment may be
further instanced by the fact, that the long controversy on the cause of the
terrible effects of boiler explosions is still going on. The boiler is burst by
simple pressure overcoming the resistance; but then the dynamic force of this
light body comes into play, and hurls men and masses of iron through the air
like projectiles. If for example, a high-pressure boiler burst at no greater
pressure than 240 lbs. on the inch, the moving force is, by my formulæ,

page_text: 2:240
726-47 1 foot lbs., per square inch, as shewn in the table. If then only
1 square foot of iron be projected, and by only 1 foot of steam, it will be sent
flying through the air with an impulsive force of (726 x 144-)101544 1 foot
lbs., or about (1044) 46 tons. And as there is always more than 1 foot of
steam in the boiler at the time, and 2 or 3 feet will act on the mass (before
its inertia can be fully overcome) 2 or 3 times longer than only 1 foot, it
will be hurled proportionally further. I show, therefore, that there is in so
light a body as steam a dynamic force not generally known, if known at
all. It is wrong then to say that the great Watt exhausted steam. He
seems to have known little or nothing of the latent force and work accu-
mulated in latent heat, and which he wasted. Nor had he any know-
ledge of the velocity or dynamic force of steam, which he found so feeble
from unphilosophical experiments, that he abandoned his application of it.
He was a great engineer and able mathematician; but one man, however
great, cannot do every thing. He worked according to the light vouchsafed
to him, and the requirements of his age; and it was a great light, for the
requirements of his age were great. But though he did enough for his country
and mankind to become one of the world's greatest benefactors, he onlynursed
the infancy of steam, and set it on its legs; the gigantic strength of its man-
hood has yet to be developed. But when, by ceaseless reiterations, men take
for granted that a science is exhausted, they no longer search in the right direc-
tion, but seek the new, when the old is the better path. Thus we have been
told by one of our ablest popular writers on science, that "philosophy already
*"directs her finger at sources of inexhaustible power in the phenomena of
"electricity and magnetism, and that appearances justify the expectation
"that we are on the eve of discoveries that will cause the steam engine, with
"its gigantic powers, to dwindle into insignificance." It is proper' then to
show that in latent heat we possess "sources of inexhaustible power," of which
the world apparently has no conception. For the two Brunels, and other fine
intellects, have sought in carbonic acid gas, and the fulminating powders more
powerful prime movers than they believed steam was. We will then show
the force of steam at a temperature of only 5700°, because the law of the
strength of iron boiler plate encreases the strength up to that temperature;
and as no law is without its indication and its use, we have in this remarkable
law an indication of the use of high-pressure steain. The pressure of steam
at any temperature above 212° will be found by Scott Russell's formulæ,
deduced from the best experiments. Altering it slightly in harmony with
our notation, we have, log. +17-6-42 (log. t-2.5224442) where t-t
147

page_text: 147
550
B+14-7
power
Fah+121°. If then t-570°, B-1580 lbs. PSI. This gives the force of
reaction by our formulæ -F-2-3026 (B+14-7) log. n. Now n- 147
1580+147-108.48. Therefore F-U-7473-71 1 foot lbs. Hence in only
12 inches of steam of 1 square inch area we have the amazing force of
7473-711 foot lbs., or the power of (7473-71 =) 13.6 horses, at a cost of at most
one penny an hour for the whole. But more, we still throw away the great
latent force accumulated in (1212-570-)642° of latent heat, a cruel waste.
We want therefore no other prime mover than steam, whose sources of 1
are so cheap and inexhaustible as water and coal. But as no more powerful
agent could be used, without proportionate strength of material, it would be
wiser to use that strength for steam, to develop its surprising latent force.
Steel boiler plates will do this, and so give science all she wants to save
millions sterling now wasted in latent heat. An instance or two will make
more palpable the present unphilosophic application of steam, and deplorable
waste of fuel. The Great Eastern steamer burns about 270 tons of coala day,
and taking these at 270%. put on board, she throws overboard at least 150%.
sterling a day in latent heat. The Peninsular and Oriental Company paid last.
year 773,750%. for coals. Hence they throw into the sea 386,875%. a year, or
more than 1000%. sterling a day in latent heat; without computing the further
loss of loading their vessels so deeply with coals merely to throw overboard,
instead of taking remunerating freight or lessening their draught and resist-
ance. Yet we are told by some of our ablest writers that steam is exhausted,
and that "the nature of steam and the laws of its formation and action are
now so well understood, that the intelligent engineer no more hopes for great
improvement in steam engines than he does for improvement in the mode of
using a waterfall to turn a mill."
So far from this being the fact, that it is not too much to say, that it is
within the resources of science to double the duration of the coal fields of the
world by utilizing the latent heat now wasted in stationary, locomotive, and
marine engines, and by more economical methods of smelting and using fuel
generally. The importance of the fact that latent heat is latent force, especially
for steam navigation, the vast sums of money wasted every year from not
knowing or applying it, and the valuable results that must arise from making
these things as public as possible, and directing inventive genius in the right
direction, have led me to depart from the dry details of a Specification. I will
now show the loss of the present locomotives. Some experiments were made,
in 1853, by Messrs. Wood and Marshall, by order of the General Locomotive
Committee of the London and North-western Railway, to determine the per-

page_text: formances of the locomotives on that line. I will take one of the best,
Mr.Connel's Patent Express Engine, "Heron,"drew114tons(including engine
and tender) at an average speed of 35-81 miles an hour, and the water evapo-
rated was 110 cubic feet an hour. Hence, weight of water evaporated per
second, (=
1-909lbs. The work(lbs.1 foot high), which thisweight,
-
550
110 x 62.5
60 x 60
2g
³=) 1.9
of water evaporated into steam, under a pressure of 120 lbs. AA,is capable of
yielding HW=W=174×1.909=298630-31 lbs. 1 foot high. The
value of due to a pressure of 120 lbs. AA is found by my formulæ. The
FIP 208630-81
-542-6. The work done will be thus found. The formulæ
given for the resistance to trains on the Great Western Railway is
R=+8 lbs. per ton, V being miles per hour. It will not be quite so
much for the narrow guage, because the carriages have not so large a
frontage for. resistance to the air. But using the only reliable formulæ,
R=+8=3 + 8-155 lbs. per ton, and for 114 tons=1767 lbs., the
35-81
171
x 22
total resistance. The velocity v-per second = (36-81 ×
the work done in AP=(
542.6
-
Ru 1767 x 52-5,
550
68-960-8
2
550
-
=52-5 feet. Therefore
=)168.6; consequently the loss is
(542-6-168-6) x 100, =68.9 per cent. Another experiment with the same engine,
at a higher speed (41·11 miles an hour), with a gross load of 92 tons, and
evaporating 94 cubic feet of water an hour,shows a loss of only 60·8 per cent.
The mean loss therefore is
=64-85 per cent. I will test the accuracy
of these experiments with those made by Messrs. Brunel and Gooch on the
Great Western Railway. The Iron Duke drew 120 tons (including engine
and tender) at an average speed of 56 miles an hour,aud evaporated 268 cubic
feet of water an hour-60 x 60=4'625lbs. of water per second. The work
inherent in the steam at 120lbs. pressure=HW= W= × 4.625
268 x 62-5
ין
2g
3174
64-4
=723501 9 lbs. 1 foot high. The EP= -1315.45. The resistance was
56
728501-9
880
R=+8+8=26-339lbs. per ton. And for 120 tons=3160-68 lbs.
The velocity per second was v=56 x 22=82-133 feet. Hence the work done was
IP:
Rv 3160-68 x 82-133
530
550
) per cent.
x
16
=472. Consequently the loss is
(1315-45-472)x100
1315-45.
=64-11
Another of these powerful engines, the Great Britain, drew
103 tons (including engine and tender), at an average speed of 54-5 miles an
hour, and evaporated 244 cubic feet of water. The loss here was 69.67 per
cent. The mean, therefore, is 9411+ 09-6766-89 per cent., which is

page_text: (66-89-64-85) 2.04 per cent. more than the loss per cent. on the London
and North Western Railway. Such close results on different guages, on two
of the best lines, and with the best locomotives in the world, show the
accuracy of the experimenters, and the reliability of the results. Hence, so
defective is the principle of the presentlocomotive, with all the latest improve-
ments, that the highest average speed, and only for a short time, is but
56 miles an hour on the broad guage; and the inevitable loss, at even the low
speed of 41-11 and 35-81 miles an hour on the narrow guage,is at least 64 per
cent. I will now show the saving of fuel by my Invention of intermittent
reaction, comparing it with the least loss on the Great Western,that of the
Iron Duke. Taking the same pressure, 120 lbs. AA, the reactionary force
F=298-31 foot lbs. per square inch, as found by my two formulæ given in
the table. The speed was (82-183 x 15) 56 miles an hour. If, then, only
22
one lineal foot of steam be used each reaction, and the number of reactions
N=v=82-183 a second, we may eliminate v and N, and find the area A by
R 3100-68
298-3
A== =10-6 squareinchesnearly. Add 25 per cent.fortheoreticalsteam
losses,and for working the reaction valves and machinery, and the total area of
reaction will be 13-25, but for safe practice, say, 14 square inches. This will
give a convenient diameter, about 4.25 inches, even for the greatest loads at
the greatest present speed on the greatest railway. The quantity of steam
ANJ 14 x 82-1333 x 1
expended
-S cubic feet nearly per second. The Hex-
pended will be EP=
1315-45
144
HIIV
מן
550 2g 550
82-1983x1
W PAN-298-3x14x
650
550
= 623-8.
This is the power expended to do the same work as required, andexpenditure
in the Iron Duke of 1315.45 IP. Hence the saving shewn by intermittent
(1315-45-623-8)x100.
reaction is
=47.42 per cent. Though this is worth saving.
anything indeed is worth saving, especially without the first cost and sub-
sequent expensive repairs of engines, yet it is not all the saving that can be
made, and with perfect safety. For when guns can be made to bear the
sudden explosion of powder at a force of 44,100 lbs. on the inch,no able man
will venture to say, that locomotive boilers cannot be made to bear a gradually
increasing pressure up to 1,000 lbs. on the inch, especially as the boiler will
be so much smaller. Perkins' steam gun boiler has, indeed, already settled
this part of the question. I will then take the pressure at only 960 lbs., and
temperature of 519°. The reactionary force found by my formulæ will
be F4088-19 1 foot lbs. per square inch AA, as shewn in the Table.
Hence the area will be A-108818-773 of a square inch. To this add
25 per cent for assumed theoretical steam losses, and the total area of reaction
R

page_text: AN 9664 x82-1333
144
4-625
will be 9664 of an inch. In our previous comparison of profit and loss
between the present locomotives and intermittent reaction, we could shew the
per-centage by the HP of both, because the pressure was the same for both.
But here the pressure being different, the method must be also; and we can
only find the saving by what it costs each system to get the power required.
This can be best done by the weight of water evaporated. The speed of the
Iron Duke was 82-133 feet per second, and the number of reactions being
the same, the quantity of steam consumed at a pressure of 960 lbs AA, will
be Q
55 of a cubic foot per second. The density of a
cubic foot of steam at that pressure is 1.34 lbs., as shewn in the Table. Hence
the weight of water evaporated will be1-34x+55=-737 lbs. per second. The
weight of water evaporated in the iron Duke was 4.625 lbs. a second.
Therefore the actual loss is (4-625-737) × 100-84 per cent. That is, out of
every hundred pounds worth of fuel used on all the railways of the world,
only 20%. worth are utilized. Hence the time will come when steam vessels
and locomotives will consume ouly₁ths, and so save eight-tenths of their pre-
sent consumption. For wherever there is waste, that is to be saved, and will
be saved. Since then the philosophy of progress is this, that Providence
never permits new discoveries till the old are exhausted, it is the wiser
course for men of science to direct their energies in fully developing the
old, instead of useless pursuits after the new, never to be got till required by
the wants of advanced civilization. Now we do not require, at any rate not
for centuries, a greater moving power than steam. So long then as such
superhuman powers exist undeveloped in latent heat, no other prime mover
will be discovered. Besides, no two materials of force yet known are foundiu
such abundance as coal and water, none can be obtained so cheaply, and no
chemical combinations having these indispensible requisites are likely to giveso
much power, at so small a cost, so easily controlled, and so simply applied. It is
indeed surprising to think that Providence has enabled man to get from carth
and water the laboring force of 13 horses, that never need rest, at the small
cost for the whole, of one shilling for twelve hour's work. As regards the
theoretical assumed losses of intermittent reaction, for which 25 per cent. has
been allowed, Ido not think there will be much,ifany, loss from useless expan-
sion, because loss of force follows the nature of the action of force. Here the
action of the steam is by its vis viva or velocity, and not by its pressure; theloss
therefore will be that of velocity from the friction of the steam passing through
the reaction valves and reaction chamber. We will take the rotary valve as
the best. The length is 12 inches, and the steam issues through the whole

page_text: length of the valves. Hence the mean length of friction in the reaction chamber
is 6 inches. I have made some experiments on the loss of vis viva from
friction, but I depend more on those of the wonderful Weisback than on my
own. He found that the friction of water in a pipe 6 times as long as it is
wide, consumes 11.4 per cent. of the available head. Assuming the same
laws apply to expansive fluids we may neglect this loss, because the diameter
being 4 inches, and the mean length only 6 inches, this loss is included in that
of efflux, for which we will allow 8 per cent., or about 2 per cent. more than
the co-efficient of efflux=97 found by Weisbach, vol. 1, page 397; but it is
doubtful if there is any loss of force in the steam passing through the reaction
valves into the reaction chamber. For a favorable law here comes into
operation for my principle of using steam, the generation of heat in proportion
to friction. When bodies expand without energetic friction they cool,, so
that when steam expands in a cylinder it cools so much that part is liquified,
and work lost, but when it expands through narrow orifices, the force so
expended generates heat, superheats the steam, and raises it to a higher
temperature than that due to its diminished pressure. This fact is confirmed
by the experiments of Joule and Professor William Thomson, so that the force
lost by friction will be restored partly if not wholly by the heat generated by
that force. Here is an unexpected confirmation of my hypothesis of last year,
"Force can change its form but cannot destroy itself;" it must therefore give
an equivalent in some shape or another. I have found, by experiment, that
the edges of valves and orifices should be smoothly rounded to diminish fluid
resistance, especially at entrance, to prevent all shock or suddenness, which
nature abhors in all her operations. The reaction valves and fixed openings
should also be made as thin as is consistent with strength and rigidity. It is
proper to point out the following valuable principle in reaction propulsion;
that the loss is independent of the velocity of the train. It comes in aid of
the important law of friction first discovered by Morin, that the friction of
motion is independent of the velocity of motion. There is then nothing now to
prevent high speeds, except boiler capability and atmospheric resistance. The
latter is comparatively trifling. Take the weight of 1 cubic foot of air
60°-535-68 grains as found by Dalton. This=07652 lbs; then by my
formulæ R= lbs. per square foot the atmospheric resistance. If, then,
the speed be 60 miles, an hour; V0x22-88 feet a second; then R=;
=9-23 lbs. There is then nothing now to prevent the averago speed of trains
being 40 miles, and express trains 60 miles an hour. For there is no recipro-
cation of several tons, no pushing and pulling crank axles reverse ways four or
88
830

page_text: ive times a second at 60 miles an hour, and no back resisting pressure of the
steam to limit the velocity of motion by reaction propulsion. Thi,alone is found
by experiment to be as much as the square of the speed. The losses of the
present locomotive take place during the action of the steam; the loss in
intermittent reaction propulsion before it begins to act; therefore it can never
interfere with rapid motion like the other; but giving a straight steady push,
there çan be no limit to velocity, so far as the principle of propulsion is con-
cerned. As regards the application, I have endeavored to embody so simple
and efficient a law as that of reaction in as simple and efficient an organism, to
do nothing more than give steam the means of acting freely, according to the
law of its nature, and in the most direct manner.
DESCRIPTION OF THE MACHINERY.
The principal features and novelty in the machinery are-1st. The recipro-
cating steam spring equilibrium valves and reaction chamber.-2nd. The cam
crank to work them.-3rd. The rotary equilibrium valve and reaction chamber.
Drawing I. shews my donkey engine arrangement; Fig. 5 is an enlargeḍ
vertical section of the steam spring equilibrium valves through the centre of
the reaction chamber and are thus kept in equilibrium. The upper valve has
fixed on each side of it a longitudinal piston, whose united area is about
1 inch more than the united area of the fixed openings of the top or bottom
valvo (not of both) through which the steam presses on the moveable valves.
These pistons must be made to fit steam-tight into corresponding longitudinal
recesses standing up on each side of the bottom moveable valve. Thus
both valves are firmly connected and are moved together by the cam crank
and open and close the top and bottom fixed openings at the same time: Figs.l
and 5 0,0. Under and in the recesses 2 small holes are made (Figs. 4
and 5 Z, Z, and y in Fig. 5,) one on each side of the bottom reaction valve
and which holes are in communication with the lower steam chest g, Figs. 1
and 5 by the steam passage y in Fig. 5, over which the holes 2, %, are
situated. The steam entering the longitudinal recesses through y and z,
will force itself between the two longitudinal pistons on each side of the valve
and recesses y, 7, of the bottom valve (Fig. 4) and so force the top valve up
and the bottom one down, and keep each steam-tight against its fixed
bearing. At the same time the steam for reaction is pressing through the top
and bottom fixed openings upon the corresponding area of the moveable valves.
If then the area of the longitudinal pistons were the same as the united
area of the top or bottom valve (not of both) the reaction steam would be
pressing the valves together with the same force as the equilibrium steam was

page_text: keeping them apart. There would then be no unbalanced pressure, the valves
would be in equilibrium and so require no more force to work them than
that due to their weight. But as the weight of the top valve has to be
supported, the united areaof the longitudinal pistons must be slightly increased.
Let the top valve weigh, say, 40 lbs. and the boiler pressure be 120 lbs. A A,
then the united area of the two longitudinal pistons may be about one square
inch more than the united area of the openings of the top or bottom valve.
As the equilibrium steam comes from the same supply as the working steam,
however, this may vary, the equilibrium steam must vary also,and so ensure
a constant and reliable equilibrium and at the same time keep the reaction
valves steam-tight as they wear. But for my principle of propulsion it is not
so necessary for the valves to be steam-tight as for the working parts of steam
engines, because the steam that escapes through my valves can only escape into
the reaction chamber where it will be utilized for propulsion; whereas in the
present engines the steam that escapes past the pistons is wasted. The power re-
quired to work these valves is very small. Let 120lbs.be the excess of equilbrium
pressure; therefore for both valves =240 lbs. Let the co-efficient of friction
be as high as 2. The space passed over at each opening of the valve will be
the length of the throw of the cam crank=5 of an inch. Therefore for both
valves 1inch. Let the velocity of the train be 60 miles an hour=(60x22) 88
feet a second, and only 1 lineal foot of steam be used each reaction. The
valves will then be opened SS times a second. Therefore the actual H"
required will be (240)
64 lbs. 1 foot high, which is not of a horse-
240x2x1x88
12x 550
Ru 2500+88
660
15
power, for an effective force of (550= =) 400 P. The further advan
tage of this principal of propulsion is this:-If twolineal feet of steam be used
each reaction, and the speed of train be increased to 120 miles an hour, & the
effective force to 800 HP, the cost of working the valves would not be more,
because they would not be opened oftener. Or if 2 lineal feet of steam instead
of 1 be used each reaction, for a speed of 60 miles an hour, and an effective
force of 400 HD, the cost would be only half of 64 P because the reaction
valves would be opened only 44 times instead of 88 times a second. If we
take the friction of the cam and shaft at the same as the valves, and the same
also for the friction of the donkey engines, the HP required for working the
valves and whole machinery of my Invention will be about (-64×3=) 1-92,
say 2 HP for an effective force of 400 HP,and only half this if 2 lineal feet of
steam are used each reaction. It is probable that no organism will be invented
for the action of so great a force with less friction, which is here taken at the
maximum. The spring on each side of,and in the recess at the bottom of the

page_text: reaction chamber, Fig. 5, presses against the longitudinal pistons merely to
prevent the top valve falling down by its weight when not in action. The
capacity of the reaction chamber will be found by C=124 in cubic inches, A
being the area of reaction. To make the area of the openings of the reaction
valves as great as the area of reaction, the diameter of the orifice of reaction
should not exceed 1.75 or 2 inches. The next novel feature in the machinery is
a cam crank to work the reaction valves; camsare objectionable for locomotives,
but this one can be advantageously used to open the reaction valves with
the required velocity, because as these are in equilibrium the force to open them
each time is so small, that the pressure between the cam and friction rollers
will not be injurious to rapid motion; and because the principle of this cam
makes its motion as gradual and easy almost as the crank itself.. Fig. 6,
Drawing I., is a full size illustration of the cam crank. It shows how to form
the outline of one of the rises of the cam, and demonstrates that the reaction
valves attached to the friction rollers p, p, Figs. 1, 5 and 6 will be moved
backwards and forwards in the same way as if worked by a crank of the same
throw as the cam. Hence the motion of the valves will be accelerated and
retarded in the same degree as a piston worked by a crank, or a common
slide valve by an eccentric. To make this clearer, the total throw of the cam
for each rise is an inch from A to B, the same as from C to D (the throw
of a crank of of an inch radius) as shown in the crank figure attached to
Fig 6. Also the angular motion of the cam in imparting.its throw is from 1
to 6, the same as the angular motion of the crank from 1' to 6'; hence it
will be found by measurement that when the cam wheel has rotated just so
much as that the radial line No. 2 may arrive at the position shown by No. 1
(that is, when it has passed over of the angular space necessary to give the
total throw) the amount of lineal motion imparted to the friction roller will be
the horizontal distance between the centre of circle 1, and the centre of
circle 2. It will also be found that the horizontal motion imparted by the
crank during th of its angular motion (namely from 1' to 2'), is of the same
amount; and so on through equal portions of the total angular movement of
the cam and crank. I will now show the application of the reaction chamber
equilibrium valves, and cam crank as delineated in Drawing I.; Fig. 1 is a side
elevation of a locomotive propelled by intermittent reaction showing the smoke
box in section. Fig. 2 is a side elevation of that portion of Fig. 1 which is
shewn in section; Fig. 3 is a plan of the same, with the reaction chamber and
valves removed; Fig. 4 is a sectional plan of the reaction chamber showing
the reaction valve openings, entrance passages Z, Z, for the equilibrium steam,
and recesses YY, under the longitudinal pistons. A in Fig. 1 is the steam pipe

page_text: 10000000 ;
into which steam is admitted from the boiler by the usual regulator valve, the
handle of which is lettered w. The steam pipe Alets the steam into the com-
partments C, C, (made steam-tight) where it is superheated by the hot air and
gases. These pass from the smoke box e, e, through the brass tubes b, b, b, b,
superheat the steam still more in the supply pipe f, and pass out with the re-
action steam horizontally, near the top of the funnel, which is of course closed at
the top. Thesupply pipe leads from the super-heating chamber e, e, through
the gland h, h, (by means of which it can be turned round for backing) into
the bottom reaction chamberg. From there it passes through the passage i,
which is at the further side of g, and out at i¹, to supply the upper reaction
chamber g¹; and by this means both reaction valves are fed with steam. The
small pair of oscillating donkey engines for working the cam crank and reaction
valves are sliewn at j. Their diameter is about 3-5 inches and stroke 6inches.
Their actual HP will depend on the pressure and number of revolutions, and may
be found by my formula for the HP of engines, as follows:-HP_ d³176ln (S+r)²
that is, multiply and cut off the last 7 figures; d is the diameter of 1 piston
in inches; is the length of stroke in feet; n is the number of revolutions
a minute; s is the mean steam pressure; vis the mean vacuum; and 2
is for both engines. The donkey engines are fixed to the upper part of
the funnel at k, k, and supplied from the moveable pipe f, at 1, from branches
there. These minute engines oscillate and give motion to the cam shaft m,
on which is fixed the cam wheel n; as this revolves it presses and pushes
alternately against the backward and forward friction rollers 2, p, and so
gives a reciprocating motion to the reaction valves o, o, by the rod connecting
them with the rollers. In this way the reaction valves are opened and
shut with great rapidity (in about the ruth of a second each time) and
yet without jar, jerk, or shock, as smoothly indeed as the present locomotive
valves; wis a light cast iron or brass bracket rivetted to the funnel to support
the cam shaft m; x is a flanched bracket rivetted to the funnel to bear
the end of the straddle friction roller, link, or frame. The donkeys exhaust
through the passage q, and the used steam is utilized again for the blast
and reaction. The steam from the reaction chamber and the hot gases
issue in the direction of the short arrow near the top of the closed funnel,
and by their reaction propel the locomotive in the opposite direction, as
shown by the long arrow. It will be seen that none of the heat of the
furnace and none of the steam can escape except horizontally at A. Now
by the fixed and reliable law of action and reaction all that issues or acts at
A must react at B. Since then the whole force of the steam and hot air can

page_text: only issue at A, the whole force of both must react at B. Now the steam
force of every issue is 1 foot lbs. of the area of reaction, and this is also
the mechanical effect. This is fully imparted to the locomotive, because
it is propelled as many feet as the feet of steam expended, whether one foot
of steam is used each reaction or two. Hence there is no residuary velocity,'
and therefore no loss, for when two feet of steam are used two feet will.acţ
twice the time of one foot and so produce twice the effect. Since then the
whole mechanical effect inherent in the steam and heated air is utilized, we
will put the result thus:-Except the theoretical assumed losses of 25 per cent.
and what escapes at the safety valve, the whole weight of water in the
form of steam, and except the ashes, the whole weight of fuel in the form
of heat, are utilized by my Invention and application of intermittent reaction.
I mean that the heated-air is utilized to as great an extent as the present
form of locomotive will permit. But the intensely heated are in expanding
from the superheating tubes to its exit loses a great deal of its force.
This may be saved by diminishing the height of the funnel and by having
a canopy over the locomotive to protect the driver from the steam and
hot air. The far greater loss in not making the latent heat sensible I
have already spoken of. As to backing I have devised two ways of doing
this, one with and the other without door valves. The latter is shown in the
donkey engine arrangement. These engines, part of the funnel, the supply
pipe, and the reaction chamber and valves are all turned round together
by the handle wheel v, as shewn in Drawing I.; r, r, is a solid iron circular
plate rivetted to the strong base of the funnel; s, s, is a circular iron plate
in two halves to turn thereon, fastened together by the lugs t, t, and rivetted
to the upper portion of the funnel. At the periphery of this upper plate is a
screw wheel, which is geered into by the worm u, u.
These upper and
under turntables or circular plates are truly turned and bored and work
as a slide lathe rest does on its bed, except that here the motion is circular
The worm u may have any number of threads desirable and is put in motion
by the handle wheel when the driver wants to back. The whole is so light
and the coefficient of friction for the turning plates reduces it so much
that little force is needed. Hence by turning the whole in the opposite direction
the steam and hot air will issue and react in the opposite direction and so back
the locomotive. By comparing this reaction chamber with the one in Drawing
2 and 3, it will be seen that here is no measuring chamber into which the
steam first enters and is cut off before the reaction valves open. I dispense here
with such measuring chamberand the useless expansion it may entail on theas-
sumption that the steam will be so surprised bythe rapidity with which it is cut off

page_text: (about the roth of a second), that before it can recover itself the reaction valves
will be partly closed and so prevent a full flow. For instance, by my formula
for Vat 120 lbs. AA, 3174 feet of steam, or (3174 × 1728=) 5484672 cubic
inches will issue through an area of 144 square inches in one second. We will
take the area of opening of the reaction valves at that of the orifice of
5484672
10-5
reaction 10-5 square inches; hence -522849-7 cubic inches will flow
through an area of 10-5 square inches in 1 second. The cam crank has 9
rises and 9 falls, and will open the reaction vales 9 times one way and 9
times the other =18 times every revolution. If then only 1 lineal foot of
steam be used each reaction, and the velocity of train be 60 miles an
60 x 22
=
8174 x 1728
37-69
hour 88 feet a second, the cam (and donkey engines) must make
(=)4.88, say 5 revolutions per second. The diameter of cam wheel being
1 foot, the circumference is (12 × 8-1416-) 37.69 inches; hence 1 revolution
or 37-69 inches are passed over in the 4th of a second. But the throw of
the reaction valves takes place in about 1.33 inches, or (378) th of this
circumference, as will be found by measurement; therefore this space must be
passed over, and consequently the friction rollers acted upon, and the reaction
valves opened and shut in the (x =) roth of a secoud. Now, if a jet of
steam, at the velocity of 3174 feet a second, issued uninterruptedly through
an area of 10-5 square inches = 140 x 105 =3731 cubic inches would flow
through such area in the rioth of a second. But the quantity required each
reaction is only 10-5×12=126 cubic inches. The steam, however, is cut off
88 times a second, and in the yirth of a second each time. It is therefore
probable that not more than the required quantity, if somuch, will issue through
the reaction valves in that time; for the steam has not only to begin to flow
but to get up its full velocity 88 times a second, and in the rath of a second
each time. It is certain, therefore, that nothing like the same quantity can issue
under these circumstances, as in an uninterrupted jet of the same area. For it
is not possible for anything to begin in no time, much more attain its full
velocity in no time. Thus all great velocities are not instantaneous, in no time,
that is, but a gradual acceleration, howeverminute the timein which such gradual
acceleration takes place. It is on these theoretical considerations that I think
the measuring chamber may be dispensed with when donkey engines are used
to work the reaction valves, because as these are independent of the speed of
the train (and therefore different to my next arrangement), the reaction valves
can be always opened and shut at the same velocity; but should more steam
than is required issue through the reaction valves, this is provided for in the

page_text: other arrangement, Drawings 2 and 3, and a measuring chamber and cut-on
valve must be added to this reaction chamber. If insufficient steam should
issue through the reaction valves, the openings can be enlarged; or thero
must be 2 or more reaction chambers, and the cams must have fewer rises
and falls,and the donkey engines make fewer revolutions; the steam will then
have more area, or time to issue. The reaction chamber must be securely
fixed to the funnel all round, to bear the great reactionary force at starting
and at backing. The force of reaction to start the train will greatly exceed
the inertia of friction. Let the weight of train, engine, and tender for
60 miles an hour = 85 tons, and the inertia of friction 10 lbs. per ton. Then
the force required to overcome the inertia of friction, and move the train,will
be 85 x 10=850 lbs. But the force of reaction is the vis viva of the body
in motion, or twice the mechanical force and effect=2HW=2W, as I
discovered by my experiments in 1847, before referred to. Here W is the
weight of 1 lineal foot of steam of the area of reaction. Or, the reactionary
starting force may be found thus: SF-2AF₁,where F₁=the reactionaryforce
per square inch = 298.3 1 foot lbs. when the boiler pressure is 120 lbs. AA.
Taking, then, the area of reaction to overcome a resistance of 2500 lbs. at
60 miles an hour at 10-5 square inches SF=2AF₁ = 2 x 10.5 × 298-3
=62643 vis viva 1 foot lbs. From this deduct th for assumed theo-
retical steam losses, and there will be available to start the train
(6264-3-1252-86=5011-44 say) 5000 vis viva 1 foot lbs. Now, the inertia
or quiescence of friction is taken at 850 lbs., so that there is an excess of
force (5000-850 =) 4150 vis viva 1 foot lbs., after the train is started.
This excess of vis viva force will be gradually absorbed in doing work,
that is, in overcoming the other resistances, such as flanche friction, jerks,
shocks,and atmospheric resistance at increasing speeds, until the calculated
speed of 60 miles an hour is attained against the constant resistance of
2500 lbs. The work of the force in the steain, and work of resistance, will
then be in equilibrium. 1 call the force of a vis viva, vis viva lbs., for the
first time in science, because it is not the mechanical effect, and because, as
I have remarked, I do not think there is such a thing as mere lbs. in a vis
viva. For mere lbs. are a dead weight, a resistance overcome, friction, and
such like inanimate matter. The very name of a vis viva shows that it is a
living force, and therefore can never be considered as a dead weight of pounds.
only, than which it is as infinitely greater as a living man is than a dead
one. The safety valve and feed pump, being no part of my Invention, are
not shewn in the Drawing; but the boiler may be fed by a pump worked by
==

page_text: a crank pin on one of the bosses of the wheel. As regards steam navigation,
it is evident that if the same principle of intermittent reaction and machinery
be applied to steam vessels, and if the resistance be properly calculated, and
if the area to overcome it be calculated by my formula for intermittent reaction,
and the steam be of the proper pressure, then 'steam vessels would be pro-
pelled without their ponderous and expensive engines and propellers. These
are otherwise prejudicial, because they encrease the resistance by increasing
the immersion, and so require more fuel to overcome it. But though at least
half the fuel would be saved by intermittent reaction, besides the engines and
propellers, the unreasonable prejudice against the same pressure for steam
navigation as for railways (though the latter take millions of persons for
thousands of the former) may long prevent this great improvement in steam
navigation from being carried out. Should the noise of the issuing steam
be objectionable, the reaction chamber can be placed under the vessel, if
properly protected against condensation. The force of reaction will not be
diminished much,if at all, (except by the counter force of the water according
to the depth of immersion,) because the water is not colder than 32°, the
temperature of the air during some of my experiments,and because the force
of reaction would be imparted before the issuing steam would have time to
be condensed. Every part, except the area of reaction (which may require
a flap valve in front) must be kept from the water, and a coil of pipes
of heated air from the furnace surrounding the reaction chamber would
help to maintain its temperature. For men-of-war and gun-boats my In-
vention would be serviceable; but no great stride will be made in steam
navigation whilst the present childish and extravagant system of low-
pressure steam is continued, with all the cost and other evils it entails.
The locomotive boiler is the type of boiler for steam navigation, with a
separate lower pressure boiler, which I call the supply boiler, to supply it with
pure water. And when very high-pressure steam is used the small high-
pressure boiler can be surrounded by a strong iron case; so that should it
burst it can only burst into the fire-grate, and do comparatively little harm.
High-pressure steam will be adopted in time, for Providence never intended
that a third of the space should be occupied with the moving power, when it
can be obtained at such small cost, and contained in so small a compass, by
an iron grasp which it could not burst asunder. The weight of the two
boilers I propose, with their water, would not equal the present weight of
one; while two-thirds of the cost of fuel would be saved, besides its weight,
and much of the present ponderous engines and propellers. The supply boiler
can be used in this way: let steam enter pipes in a tank, supplied with the

page_text: external water, so proportioned, that after condensing the steam sufficiently
for the high-pressure boiler it will be of a very high temperature to feed the
supply boiler. This is to save the latent heat of the condensed steam made
sensible by the condensing water, which must therefore be the feed water of
the supply boiler. Or, the high-pressure feed pump can be connected with
the steam chest of the supply boiler, and be worked by the donkey engines
to supply the high-pressure boiler with water in the shape of lower pressure
steam. A simple calculation will determine if this latter plan would cost too
much to work the feed pumps. No one, I think, has suggested gunpowder
for propulsion; or, at any rate, shown the true force it possesses for this
purpose. But it is one of those expansive prime movers which, like steam or
heated air, can be so applied by my Invention of intermittent reaction, and its
machinery. This can be done so simply as to need no drawing to shew it.
Imagine an iron funnel full of powder, with the point tapering as finely as
the middle of a minute or hour glass, so that only a few grains of powder can
drop through at a time. Let a slide or revolving valve (of wood) moved by
a donkey engine, cut off, very rapidly, the communication between the end of
the funnel and the very strong iron or steel chamber into which the few grains
of powder will drop. This will prevent the powder in the funnel or hopper
from exploding. Let the few grains fall on to a small sufficiently hot iron plate
at the bottom of such strong iron or steel chamber. Or, let them be ignited
by a galvanic battery at the required intervals. We shall then have a
constant supply of a very powerful prime mover in a gas chest, similar to
steam in a steam chest. The pressure can be ascertained, and regulated by
a pressure guage and safety valve, as now with steam. The area of reactiou
to overcome the resistance will be found in the same way as for steam; by
A= F being the expansive force, and units of work per square inch,
in 1 foot of gunpowder gas of 1 square inch area, found by the same formula
as for F, for steam. Let a pipe connect my reciprocating or rotary reaction
chamber, cut off valve, and measuring chamber with the gas chest, and the
same action will take place when gunpowder gas is the prime mover, as
when steam is. The reaction chamber had better be under water to deaden
the noise. I will now show how wastefully gunpowder is used for destructive
purposes,and how much more economically it can be used for peaceful purposes.
For I have found out its expansive (not initial) force, and units of work, to
determine the former of which so many experiments have been made, but
with no approximation, that I can find, to the true results. Take the
initial force of gunpowder at 44100 lbs. per square inch, as found by

page_text: B+147
14.7.
Captain Boxer's experiments. My formula for the accumulated force and
units of work of expansive fluids, when acting against the atmosphere, is
FU-2-3026 (B+147) log. n; where B= the initial pressure in boiler
(here the gas chest), and n=- Hence 1 foot of gunpowder gas, at an
initial pressure of 44100 lbs., and 1 square inch area, will exert an expansive
force F, and be capable of doing units of work, U=353215-5 lbs. 1 foot
high, per square inch. As it is necessary to get all the initial force of the
gas in guns throughout the whole length to endow the ball with the
greatest possible velocity, to give it the greatest possible destructive force,
there is probably wasted, on an 80-pound shot, a force and units of work
of (353215-44100=) 309115 lbs. on the inch. If, then, we take the area of
ball at 20 square inches, the whole waste of force and work, at each discharge,
is (309115×200=) 618230 lbs. 1 foot high. This, however, does not repre-
sent the whole loss, but only the less in each lineal foot of gunpowder gas, at
the initial pressure of 44100 lbs., undeveloped by full expansion down to the
atmosphere. The work or mechanical effect of gunpowder, as a prime mover,
seems indeed to be unknown. Take the pressure, as before, at 44100 lbs. on the
inch, and the velocity due thereto will be V-21309 feet per second, as found by
the first formula for V here given; V=12.18√ 55838 log. (5)+65(P—p).
Hence the units of work in 10 lbs. of gunpowder (which is about the charge
of an 80-pounder)=HW=W= 21309x10=70508300 lbs. 1 foot high.
64.4
I think, however, that twice the weight of the best coal would generate a
quantity of steam under a pressure that would do the same amount of work,
in which case it would be a more economical prime mover for intermittent
reaction propulsion. These ideas, however, are suggested for the philosophical
and mechanical ingenuity of the nation to develop, instead of being content to
go on for ever with the wasteful pressure of 20 or 30 lbs. for steam navigation,
and entail such a grevious national loss and inconvenience. For the loss of
latent heat and latent force in marine, locomotive, and stationary engines, is as
much a national loss as if a million or'two of sovereigns were coined every
year at the Mint, taken down to the sea in ships, and thrown overboard. Now
this great treasure can be, and therefore in time will be saved, simply by using
very high-pressure steam on sea and land. In the donkey engine arrange-
ment for intermittent reaction propulsion no cut off valve and measuring
chamber is shewn; therefore, both for steam navigation and locomotive pro-
pulsion the engineer at starting, or when going slow, mustregulate the steam
accordingly, by letting it on at less tension, to prevent it running down; for,

page_text: as the velocity of efflux at a given pressure is a constant, whatever the speed
of the vessel or train, the velocity of cut off, by the reaction valves, should be
a constant also, when there is no other cut-off valve. The number of revolu-
tions of the donkey engines will be found thus:-Let the velocity of train
in feet per second, say-88; let O-the number of openings the cam can
give to the reaction valves each revolution=18. Then the number of revolu-
tions of the donkey engines and cam will be, n = -4.88, say 5 revolutions
a second. But as we can make inanimate matter work more soberly and
accurately than men, I have, in two other arrangements, provided againstany
inattention in this way, by making the supply of steam self-regulating, as
shewn in Drawings 2 and 8. This I will now explain.
$8
Drawing 2, Fig. I., is a longitudinal side elevation, with part of the funnel
end shown in section; Fig. 2 is a front elevation of funnel and part of
smoke box, showing the mouths of the reaction chambers and funnel; Fig. 3
is a plan on the top of the above, shewing the general arrangement of valves,
reaction chambers, and machinery for giving motion to the valves; Fig. 4 is a
plan on the top of funnel, with the cap removed, showing steam chambers and
valves. a, a, is a rod connecting the eccentric shaft b, b, with the regulating
locomotive wheel c, c, by the crank pins d, d; e, e, are two eccentrics keyed
upon the shaft b, b. Each moves one pair of reaction valves f,f, and one cut-
off valve i, i, by a lever g¹, g', attached to each eccentric, and thus the valves
are made to reciprocate with the rocking shaft h, h. The connection of the
reaction valves f, f, with the eccentrics, is so adjusted, that they are opened
and shut when the eccentrics are at their greatest velocity, which is at the
middle of the stroke. The object of this is to open the reaction valves all at
once, that the steam may rush into the reaction chamber all at once, and so
react over the whole area of the reaction orifice, instead of being what is
called wiredrawn. The eccentrics are set at different angles, so as to open
and shut each pair of reaction valves alternately. The space between the
reaction ports j, i, j, aud the lead of the cut-off valve is such that the steam
port and reaction ports can never be opened at the same time. The cut-off
valve i, i, i, i, Figs. 1, 4, and 5, of each reaction chamber is first opened,
steam then rushes in and fills the top and bottom measuring chambers; the
valve is then sbut, and not till then do reaction valves begin to open.
Hence no more steam can be used for each reaction than the previously
calculated quantity. The formulæ for the quantity for each reaction is, Q=12
A cubic inches of steam also the capacity of the reaction chamber. When
only 1 lineal foot of steam is used for each reaction, the united capacity of the

page_text: top and bottom measuring chamber must be of the same capacity as the
reaction chamber; therefore each measuring chamber will be half the capacity
of the reaction chamber. When 2 lineal feet. of steam are used for each
reaction, the top and bottom measuring chambers must together be of twice
the capacity of the reaction chamber, and so on.
Drawing No. 2 shows the measuring chambers for two lineal feet of steam
for each reaction. The steam enters the steam chest K, then into the top
measuring chamber, through the cut-off valve i, and then to the bottom.
measuring chamber by the steam passage 1, 2, shown in the Drawing,
Figs. 1 and 5. The upper and under reaction valves f, f, move together, and
are kept in equilibrium by my steam spring arrangement, already described
and shewn in Drawing J. The steam chests h, k, k, k, for supplying the
measuring chambers C, C, are fed by the usual regulator valve, through the
vertical pipe m, m; n, n, n, are superheating tubes, through which the hot
air and gases pass to escape from the funnel, and so superheat the steam in
the steam chest o, o. This is supplied with steam from the boiler through
the pipe p, in which the steam regulator is placed. The method of backing
is here different to that described in the donkey engine arrangement. The
2 reaction chambers do not rotate, but are open and shut with the funnel
openings back and front, by the reversing handle z, z, which moves the
sliding door valves as shown in the Drawing. 2, 2, 1, 7, are such sliding
door valves, and open and close the mouths s, s, of the reaction chambers,
and t, t, of the funnel, by means of the links u, u,u, u, connected with the
levers v, v, securely keyed upon the shaft w. On the end of this shaft is a
bent lever a, shewn in dotted lines in Fig. I, & x, x, in Fig. 3. This
lever is connected by the bridle rod 3, with the reversing handle
2, z. As
this is moved quickly or slowly, so will' the reaction and funnel door valves
quickly or slowly close (near A and B), and as quickly or slowly open on
the other side at the same time. The advantage of this method of reversing
is, that the full force of reaction can be obtained to retard, stop, and back the
train, without reversing the reaction valves, or regulator wheel c. Sothatwbile
this is working the reaction valves at their highest velocity, and during the
full momentum of the train, the full force of reaction can be reversed without
jar, jerk, or shock. For just as much steam and hot air as are shut off by the
driver at one side of reaction will issue at the other, and at the same instant
of time until the two door valves are closed on one side, and opened on the
other, when the full reverse reaction will take place. It is evident that the force
of reaction, or unbalanced pressure, will always be exerted againstthe closed
door valves of the reaction chamber; and therefore that the driver has the

page_text: direction of the reaction, and consequently of the train, under perfect control
by the reversing handle s. The presont locomotive has no such means of as
sudden reversal of the whole force of the steam, without injury at critical
moments, to bring the train up, which can now be done in a shorter distance.
In Drawing No. 2, Fig. 1, the reaction chamber and funnel is shown open
in the direction of the short arrow. The reaction chamber may indeed seem
shut, but it is only the other side of the chamber shewn which makes it
seem so. Hence the reaction or unbalanced pressure is at B, and the loco-
motive is of course pushed or propelled in that direction as shown by the
long arrow. In my donkey engine arrangement, the train is started by the
donkeys working the reaction valves. Here the driver starts the train by
working one pair of reaction valves by the starting handle n. 8, 8, is a bell-
crank lever moveable on the fixed pin y. It is connected at one end by the
suspension link & to the end of the eccentric rod 0, and at the other end
by the rod u, to the connecting and disconnecting handle λ. When this is
pulled so far back, that the record notch, is brought into gear with the rest
to hold it back, the eccentric rod will be disconnected with the end of the
lever g'. The driver (having first let on the steam by the usual regulator w),
will then work the starting handle, backwards and forwards. It is always
connected by the bridle rod to one half of the rocking shaft h. This is made
in two parts to enable one eccentric to be disconnected. Hence the starting
handle being always connected with one half of the rocking shaft h, and this
with one pair of reaction valves, the driver can always start the engine, or
rather locomotive; for in this arrangement there is no such thing as a steam
engine. The instant the locomotive feels the reactionary impulse it will
move, and the regulator wheel c will begin to work the other eccentric, and
through that the other pair of reaction valves. The driver will then push back
the connecting handle à to its former notch as shewn in the Drawing; the
disconnected eccentric will be again connected to the pin on the half of the
rocking shaft h; and the regulator wheele will then work the two eccentrics,
and through them the two pair of reaction valves. The regulator wheel works
both eccentrics by one connecting rod, for as the wheel will act as a fly, there
is no use in multiplying machinery. The principle by which the steam is
here measured out, so that for every foot passed over by the train only
one lineal foot of steam can be expended, in this: We will take the
present diameter of the locomotive bearing wheel. This in 3-5 feet;
the circumference =(3.5×3-1416=) 10.99, say 11 feet. Take the extreme
speed of train at 60 mile an hour=60x22 88 feet a second. Such a
16

page_text: Rv
Ru
Ro Rx88
FN Fx32x2
wheel will then make -8 revolutions a second. Each revolution of the
wheel and eccentric makes 2 throws or strokes; one forward, the other
backward. Hence a pair of reaction valves is opened and shut twice, so that
there will be two reactions for each revolution of the regulator wheel and
eccentric, and for the two eccentrics four reactions; therefore for 8 revolu-
tions 8×4 32 reactions a second. If, then, only 1 lineal foot of steam be
used for each reaction we must make up in intensity of force what is wanted
in number of reactions. The area of each reaction chamber will then be
A== FNFX32×1
in square inches, to which must be added 20 or 30 per
cent. for assumed theoretical steam losses. But when 2 lineal feet of steam
are used for each reaction in each reaction chamber, they will act twice the
time of 1 foot, and will contain twice the force and work. Hence, in 32 re-
actions, 64 lineal feet of steam will be used, so that this quantity of force will
be equivalent to 64 reactions. The area of each reaction chamber will there-
fore be A-
=in square inches, to which must be added 20 or
30 per cent. for theassumed theoretical losses. Let us now substitute for the
two eccentrics one cam crank and onereaction chamber,as shewn in Drawing I.,
and let the reaction chamber there shown have a measuring chamber, and cut
off valve, as shewn in Drawing 2, Fig. 5. But let the top and bottom
measuring chamber be reduced to hold only 1 lineal foot of steam of the
quantity Q, required for each reaction. Required the number of rises and
falls the cam must have, and the number of times the one pair of reaction
valves must be opened and shut per second. Let v=88 feet a second. The
number of revolutions the regulator wheel c must make at that velocity
==S. The cam, therefore, must open and shut the reaction valves 5
= 11times each revolution, in which case the nnmberofreactions would bell x 8
=S8=v. But 11 openings each revolution comes awkward, because the cam
cannot have 5-5 rises and falls. Let these be 5, and it will open the reaction
valves 5 times one way and 5 times the other=10 times each revolution. Since
then the number of reactions will be only 10×8=80 a second, the area must
be increased in proportion. Hence A==2983×80x1
=9.22 square inches,
to which add as usual for assumed losses. I have given these two illustrations
to show how the different plans for reaction, and the area and number of
reactions may be varied. Also how, by making the locomotive wheel regulate
the expenditure of steam, according to its speed it measures out foot by foot
of steam for every foot passed over, and so puts it out of the power of the
driver to waste even an inch. Hence the whole mechanical effect, inherent in
11
Ru 2500x88
89

page_text: the steam expended, is appropriated by reaction to the locomotive, except the
assumed theoretical steam. losses before the steam reacts, and except the
trifling power consumed in working the cam or eccentrics and reaction valves.
The same principle of measuring the steam, according to the distance passed
over by the locomotive, can be applied to steam navigation. For a rotary
pump will answer the purpose of the regulator locomotive wheel. The kind
of pump will be seen in the Specification of the Patent of James Pedder,
deceased, of the 6th November 1847, patented by me, as before referred to.
Let the mouth of the pump be placed in the direction of the motion of the
vessel, and let the floats of the pump be free to move with as little friction as
possible. The resistance of the incoming water against the floats will cause
them to rotate, and the water will pass out at the other end. Connect the
axle of the pump by an eccentric to the admission steam valve of the donkey
engines which work the cut-off and reaction valves. Every revolution of the
rotary pump will then admit steam twice into the donkey engines, which will,
therefore, make two single strokes, or one complete revolution of the rotary
valve or cam, whichever plan is used to work the cut-off and reaction valves.
The following is a general formulæ to find the number of openings the rotary
valve must have, and the number of times the cam must open the recipro-
cating cut-off and reaction valves a-second. Letv=the velocity of locomotive
or vessel in feet per second, c=the circumference of the regulator locomotive
wheel or rotary pump. Then the number of revolutions the donkey
engines and rotary valve or cam must make per second; and ; -o-the
number of openings the rotary valve must have, also the number of times it
must open and shut each revolution, also the number of times the cam
must open and shut the reciprocating cut-off and reaction valves each
revolution. Hence for the 1otary valve, o-c.
Description of Drawing 3.-Fig. I. is part of a longitudinal elevation of a
locomotive propelled by intermittent reaction, by means of my rotary equi-
librium valve worked by one donkey engine. The smoke box end is shewn
in section. Fig. 2 is a plan on the top of the above, shewing the funnel in
section at the line C, D. Fig. 3 is a front elevation of the upper part of a
funnel, shewing the mouth of the circular reaction chamber and outlet of
funnel; the former for the reaction of the steam, the latter for the reaction of
the hot air. Fig. 4 is a longitudinal section, at the centre of the circular
reaction valve and chamber, on an enlarged scale. Fig. 5 is a transverse
section of the above, taken at the centre. ff, is the rotary valve, made
slightly conical; to compensate for wear; a. ά, Figs. 1, 3, 4, and 5, is the

page_text: reaction chamber; b, b, is the measuring chamber; c, c, is the steam chest,
supplied with steam by the pipe d; e, e, is a truly turned circular shaft,
securely connected to the rotary valvef, f. This shaft is worked by the small
donkey engine g, Figs. 1 and 2, and regulated by the cock i, i; j is the
funnel, securely fitted on the basek, k, but free to rotate like the other donkey
engine arrangement, shewn in Drawing No. 1, and already described. As
this rotary valve and donkey engine are moved round for backing, in the same
way as the reciprocating reaction valve already described, it is unnecessary to
go over the same ground. Steam will be let on in the usual way; it will enter
the superheating chamber u, u, and pipe d, and so into the donkey engine,
which may be balanced in one or two well-known ways, so as never to stop on
a dead point, or be worked with a fly. The steam will also enter the steam
chest of the reaction rotary valve. This will first cut off and measure the
required quantity of steam for each reaction, by means of the 14 revolving
cut-off valves t, t, t, &c., and then revolving a little more will discharge the
steam into the circular reaction chamber a, a, by the fourteen openings
x, x, x, &c. The quantity for each reaction, when only 1 lineal foot of steam
is used 12 A in cubic inches. It will be seen, by following the motion of
one of the openings, that this rotary valve gives 14 reactions through 14
openings or ports for every revolution. The number of revolutions of
being the speed of locomotive
the donkey engine, therefore, will be 1,
in feet per second. This number may be regulated by the regulating
cock i, i, independent of the usual regulator valve, which will regulate
the tension of the steam to the reaction valves. The connections show that
the circular reaction chamber a, nor the perforated circular seat rotate, but
that the other two circles do. The shafte, e,takes the steam from the recipro-
cations of the connecting rod of the donkey engine; and the bearings of the
shaft are so arranged that, on being cottered up, they will still preserve the
shafte,e,concentricwith the rotaryvalve f,f,and thus prevent anyunduestrain
being thrown upon it, or its seating. The objectmay be obtained by one or two
other ways too well known to competent engineers to need describing. The
pressure of the steam being equal in all directions, the circular valve will be
kept in equilibrium of itself, without any machinery, and will therefore revolve
with no other pressure or friction than is sufficient to keepthe touchingsurface
steam-tight, for which purpose they must be carefully turned and fitted.
They can scarcely wear as much as the axles of locomotives, for these
revolve under the pressure of several tons; and oftener a second. The dia-
meter of reaction will be-✓7 inches, and the diameter of the reaction
7854

page_text: *7854
chamber will be D=N Zinches. is the quantity in cubic inches of
steam required for each reaction (= 12), and is the length ofthe reaction
chamber. I have given this formula, because it may be desirable, in some
applications, to have the length less than 12 inches, and therefore the diameter
of the reaction chamber (not of the area of reaction) must be proportionately
increased. The capacity of the measuring chamber must equal the capacity of
the reaction chamber, when only 1 lineal foot of steam is used each reaction,
and be of twice the capacity, if two feet of steam are used, and so on. Were the
thicknessof the cylindersalways the same a constantmight beformed to multiply
by, to find the diameter of the whole valve, including the measuring chamber.
It can, however, be found thus: Let each of the two small slightly conical
cylinders be of an inch thick, an inch for the top, and an inch for the
bottom. The diameter of the reaction chamber will then be 1 inch more.
Multiply the area of such encreased diameter by /to find the false quantity Q₁; to
this add the true quantity, and thus get the whole quantity Q₂. Substitute Q₂
for in the formulæ for D, and so find the internal diameter of the whole
rotating valve. The capacity of the measuring chamber will then equal the
capacity of the reaction chamber. When 2 lineal feet of steam are used each
reaction the measuring chamber must be twice as large as the reaction
chamber, in which case D of the whole will be found by adding twice to
the false quantity Q'. As regards the area of steam port, for the admission of
steam into the measuring chamber of the reciprocating and rotary reaction
chamber: Let Q the number of cubic inches of steam at the velocity V
(given by my formula) that will flow through an area of 1
square inch per
second; and let t-the fractional part of a second, in which the steam portor cut-
off valve is opened and shut. Then the number of cubic inches that will
flow through 1 square inch area in t time. This quantity, at 120 lbs. pressure,
would be very considerably more than is required for each reaction (were the
measuring chamber large enough); but as 1 square inch area isso conveniently
small it is not worth while to reduce it. In the reciprocating cut off valve it will
be better to let the width be only one eighth or of an inch or so, and get the
area in length. In the rotary valve we may as well have as many steam entering
portsinto the measuring chamberas discharge ports into the reaction chamber,
and thereby make more sure of steam of the same tension as in the steam
chest. I prefer this valve to the reciprocating, because it combines most the
two principles laid down in my Provisional Specification, for the application of
intermittent reaction. 1st,itprevents thesteam expanding much before it issues
for reaction, by which I mean useless expansion; and, 2nd, it opens all atonce
=

page_text: a larger area than any other valve I know of suitable for reaction propulsion.
and for impulse for rotary motion. For example: There are 14 ports opened
at one and the same instant of time, each about 9 inches long, and of an
inch wide, equal therefore to (14×9.25 x 25) 32-875 square inches, whilst the
area of efflux or reaction is only 10.5 square inches. Since then the area of
valve opening into the reacting chamber is so much greater than that of efflux,
the steam cannot be wiredrawn as it rushes into the chamber, but must
entirely fill it before it can escape, and soreact over the wholearea of reaction.
This rotary valve also gives a circular issue, the best form of all, because the
coefficient of efflux is greatest. It is self-cutting off, self-measuring, and self-
equilibriating; and lastly, it gives the required number of openings, and
therefore of reactions, every revolution. Thisenables it to be applied directly,
and so dispenses with cams, eccentrics, cogs,straps, and such like intermediates.
To obtain these requisites in the simplest and cheapest way is the great
principle in applying intermittent reaction, and such a valve answers, I think,
the required conditions. Its simplicity of make is also another recommendation,
and there is no spring or such like makeshift to get out of order. It can be
made in two castings, one circular casting to form thesteam chest and reaction
chamber; the other a double cylinder, hollow between the circles, to form the
circular measuring chamber. This rotates in one piece, as shown at f,ff.£
Fig. 4. This will fit over the reaction chamber, and must be truly bored, and
ground slightly conical, like a conical tap. The two small openings z,<, at the
mouth of the valve, are to allow of the escape of any steam leakage into the
fixed spaces.
Drawing No. 3, Fig. 9, is a side elevation of an application of my rotary
equilibrium reaction valve, worked on each side by a regulator locomotive
wheel. This valve; and the starting reaction valve, and upper part of the
funnel, are shewn in section at the centre. Fig. 10 is a plan on the top,
showing the driving reaction valve in section, and method of working it.
Fig. 11 shows the way of connecting the two ends of the starting reaction
valve outside (by the link p', and shewn in dotted lines in Fig. 9,) to enable it
to be worked by one handle p. Though circular, it does not rotate like the
driving reaction valve, but is worked backwards and forwards for starting by
the starting handle p,p. Both these valves are made in two parts, so that the
steam entering the barrels or chambers will meetmidway,change its motion,
and issue and react at right angles to the reaction valve. As all change of
motion entails a loss, this will also. Both these reaction valves have the
revolving and cut-off measuring chamber, to prevent more feet of steam being
expended than are required to drive the train. For this purpose the number

page_text: of openings of the valve and reactions, each revolution, mustequal the circum-
ference in feet of each of the regulator wheels, as described in the regulator
locomotive wheel eccentric arrangement, and shown in Drawing No. 2. The
way in which the present application is worked is this: Figs. 9 and 10.-
a,a,are solid eccentrics, keyed upon the axles of the two regulator wheelsh,h;
b, b, are the eccentric rods, driving the cranks c, c; d, d, are light rods, one
on each side of the funnel, connecting the cranks c, c, with the upper or
driving reaction valve cranks e, e, which latter are solid with the shafts f¹,ƒ³,
and disce plates f,f. These are connected to the rotary valves g,g, in the
same way as shewn in Fig. 6. i, i, is a double-ended lever, to open and shut
the reaction orifices, by the same means and in the same manner as described
in Drawing No. 2. j.j, are links, connecting the lever i, i, with the sliding
door valves k, k; 1, 1, in a lever on the outside of the funnel keyed upon the
shaft m;
n is a light bridle rod, connected with the lever 1, 2, and continued
to the other end of the locomotive, terminating in a handle for the driver to
open and shut the door valves, to reverse the motion of the locomotive; o, o,
are steam pipes, supplying the steam chests o¹, o¹, of the starting and driving
reaction valves. To start: Let on steam by the usual regulator valve; then
work the lower or starting reaction valve, Figs. 9 and 11, backwards and
forwards sufficient to open the ports by the handle of the lever p,p; the
starting steam will then issue at q or q¹according to the opening of the mouth
of the reaction orifice. The locomotive will soon feel the impulse, when the
regulator wheels will work the driving reaction valve, the steam from which
will issue at r or r, as the mouth of either side is open. It will be seen that
the reacting steam from the starting valve, after meeting in the centre of the
barrel or chamber(as in the driving reaction valve) is turned upwards through
the passage s, Fig. 9, of the same diameter as the barrel or chamber. The
direction of the steam is shewn by the small curved arrow, and it will issue in
the opposite direction when required. This is the only arrangement that has
a separate starting reaction valve,and it is used for this purpose only. Hence
the driver has nothing to connect or disconnect, as in Drawing No. 2. Though
there is some loss from the change of motion of the steam in the driving valve
before it reacts. The simplicity of this arrangement, and its preventing any
more feet of steam being expended than are passed over by the train induce
me to prefer it. There is not one stuffing box, and the continuously working
parts, including the valves, are not so many as those of a single-link motion of
Stephenson. The rotary wheel in Drawing No. 3 shows the application of
my Invention of intermittent force to obtain rotary motion by action or
impulse into the buckets of a-wheel. Fig. 6 is a plan on the top, the valve

page_text: been shown in section at the centre; Fig. 7 is a cross vertical section of the
· valve, measuring chamber, and steam chest, taken at the line E, F; Fig. 8 is
a side elevation of part of the steam wheel, shewing the passage i¹ from the
valve, the wheel case h, and the passage i for the escape of the steam, when it
has done its work. a, a, is a wrought-iron shaft, on which the steam wheel is
keyed; c, c, is a crank on each side, to work the two ends or parts of the
rotary valve, like the two regulator locomotive wheels in last arrange-
ment. The cranks d, d, on the rotary valve have the bearings d¹, d¹, cottered
up in the same way as the bearings for the same purpose in Fig. I., already
described. But these bearings a
sare connected to the valves as follows:-There
are 4 square holes made in each of the solid disc or circular plates 7, 9, at the
ends of the cranks d', d'; through these holes studs or bolts are placed, not
to fit tight, but to be slack therein. They are then screwed tight into the
ends of the valves e, e, until they rest upon shoulders made on each screw.
These shoulders are at such distance from their heads f, f, as to just touch the
disc plates g, g, on their faces, but not pinch them too tightly. This is to allow
of the plates g, g, to slightly slide in any direction on the faces of the ends of
the valves e, e. The object is to prevent the valves e, e, being strained, even
should the bearings of the cranks d¹, d¹, not be strictly concentrical with the
valves. j,j, is the steam pipe, to supply the steam chest k, k. An oval or
longitudinal orifice of impulse will here be better than a circular one, to
enable the whole issue to impinge sooner into the buckets,which must be only
deep enough to arrest and reverse the motion of the entering steam. The
wheel must be made wide in proportion to the length of the orifice, of which
there may be several for powerful steam wheels. To start the wheel, let steam
on by the usual regulator valve, then move the shaft by a lever or otherwise,
as the fly wheel shaft of some stationary engines is moved to start. The cranks
(and connecting rods not here shown) will soon open the intermittent valve,
for its motion is only about half or three-quarters of an inch to give an
impulse, when the wheel will soon attain its required speed. Should this way
of starting be found inconvenient a separate starting valve can be added, as
described in the last locomotive arrangement. The novelty in this method of
obtaining rotary motion is not in the steam wheel, for that is included in the
Patent I took out in the name of James Pilbrow, of the 23d of May 1842,
and will be found in his Specification before referred.to. The novelty is in
the principle of intermittent action or impulse into the buckets of a wheel,
and in its application by my rotary equilibrium valve, worked by the axle of
the wheel itself, the object of which is to prevent more steam being used
than is required by the engine. A governor connected with a throttle

page_text: valve in the steam pipe would also lessen the tension of the steam to the
intermittent action valve, and so regulate the force applied through it.
The largest circular saws, or other machines requiring high velocity, rotary
pumps, or screws can be driven direct from the axle, or by connecting
rods and separate driving shaft, without cogs, straps, and such like incon-
venient and unpleasant intermediates, which gave so much trouble at
times. As action and reaction are equal and contrary, the impulsive force
is the same as the reactionary force; therefore the area for the resistance and
number of impulses horse-power expended and utilized will be found by the
same formule as for reaction. With a continuous issue, which my Invention
is pot, the maximum effect of impulse is when =, where v is the velocity of
wheel and that of the fluid. But this principle does not apply to the
intermittent force of impulse, which will give a very high velocity with only
half the number of feet or less per second, because the velocity of efflux with
which every foot of steam is endowed is so very great; for it has acquired its
final velocity in the time of its issue. The velocity due to a presure of
120 lbs. AA is 3174 feet a second, as found by my formulæ ; since then 1 foot
of steam will issue in the sath of a second, it has attained a final velocity of
3174 feet in the ath of a second; hence there is no velocity required in
the arts or manufactures, however high, which my Invention will not give,
without multiples, and yet without the necessity of expending the same number
of lineal feet of steam as the velocity of the wheel. But as the power expended
must be at least equal to the useful effect-Re, when a less number of lineal
feet of steam is expended per second than the velocity of the buckets per
second, what is lost in number of impulses must be made up in intensity of
force, as in intermittent reaction. As some guide for finding, the area of
impulse, suppose a hundred horse-power steam wheel is required for saw mills,
and the teeth of the circular saws to revolve at 300 feeta second=v; required
the area of impulse. Then 100×550-. U in feet lbs. ; and -lbs.=Ŕ=the
action & reaction of the steam in the buckets the resistance or load at the
velocity v. Then A= -N as for intermittent reaction, adding 30 per cent. to A
for change of motion of the steam in the impulse valve, and for assumed
theoretical losses. The more we make f, the fewer the impulses, and the less
the area. If then the ideas I shall subsequently offer respecting the reception
of force and residuary velocity are sound, we may make ƒ 2, 3, 4, or more
lineal feet of steam each impulse, in which case the measuring chamber must
be proportionally encreased. As regards jerks; there will be little or no
irregularity from intermittent force when the impulses succeed each other so
FNJ
..
G

page_text: rapidly as 40, 30, or even 20 feet a second, for this is equal to a continuous
issue in some reaction wheels. Besides, resistance to change of motion is in
proportion to the momentum, and there is no such vast momentum in man's
dominion as trains and vessels, while the steam wheel will itself act as a
as a fly;
hence all irregularities will be absorbed by the vast momentum of the train
and rotary wheel, and the motion will be as regular and easy almost as that
from a continual push.
I will now offer a few remarks on the principles of intermittent action and
reaction, because it is a new application of force, and because it is opposed, I
am told, by an able professor of mathematics (who has given great attention to
this question and to applied mathematics) to all that is taught in the schools
on force and motion. Since then no one in the world but myself believes in
the theory of my Invention or its application, it is necessary to show by what
laws it works, and these I hope to establish on the fixed and immutable laws of
force and motion. Force is the power of doing work-W-W. Motion
is the effect of force and becomes in turn a force; hence we have the force of
motion; expansive pressure docs its work while the pressure acts. Impulse
transfers almost immediately its whole accumulative force, the work of which is
done by the impelled body after the force has ceased to act upon it. This is
my principle of intermittent force; for the locomotive does the work of the
reactionary impulse or vis viva of the steam after it has ceased to act on the
locomotive. To determine all questions on the action of force and motion we
must go to the highest and best authority. Now the best work on dynamics
has been written by God in the great book of Heaven. There we see the
effects of impulse on the grandest scale, in the motion of the sun and planets
Still retaining the force of the Divine impulse they received millions of ages
ago, they continue doing the work of the Eternal hand that impelled them.
There is no friction or atmospheric resistance in the still and solemn paths of
Heaven, nothing to destroy the momentum of those vast masses, therefore
they will continue doing for ever the work of the original impulse they
received, and still contain in them undiminished, unless stopped by force of
equal amount. It is from this sublime example of unbalanced pressure or
accumulated force continuing in bodies until transferred to others that
I believe in my Invention of intermittent impulse; for I conclude that if the
force transferred to another body is greater than the force of resistance at
that instant, the surplus is force accumulated in the moving body which such
force will urge on until it has done its work on the body.
The motion of the heavenly bodies is in fact only another illustration of my
hypothesis last year, and the foundation of my Invention, that force cannot

page_text: destroy itself. I use the term accumulated force instead of accumulated work,
which is generally used, because force is the power to do work, and work is
the thing done, and therefore cannot be accumulated. If then the whole force
is imparted to a body, the time in which it is imparted can neither encrease
nor decrease the useful effect, nor can the time in which the work is done,
but the body which has received the impulse must have time to develop, in
the shape of work, the accumulated force of impulse it has received. So far,
however, from the work done depending on the time of the duration of impulse
of the same quantity of force used by pressure, the contrary is the case; for
the force of impulse is as the square of the velocity and inversety as the time.
Hence, a double velocity will give 4 times the force in half the time. To
apply these principles; if the inertia of 1 foot of steam, used singly, is over*
come as soon as when used in a jet, then at a pressure of 120 lbs. 4, 4, it
will impart its whole reactionary impulse to the locomotive in the rath of
a second. The force is now in the locomotive, and the time in which it will
overcome the resistance opposed to it will be in the time of the resistance; for
force cannot overcome a resistance in greater or less time than that in which
the resistance can be moved. If, for instance, the resistance is 2500 lbs. at a
velocity of S8 feet a second, the force of 1 foot of steam of the proper area
will move the locomotivel foot in the 4th of a second, although the force has
been transferred to it in the very short time of the 37th of a second. I am
assured, indeed, by an admirable mathematician, that this and my other notions
on force and motion are grevious and fatal errors. But as many first-class mathe
maticians have mistaken the laws of force and motion in reference to paddle-
wheel resistance, as they, to this day, make the force of motion in proportion
to the mass and velocity, and others to the weight and velocity, instead of the
weight and height due to the velocity (which is my theory and the foundation
of my Invention), they may probably be mistaken about the laws of residuary
velocity. It is said, for instance, that there will be the same loss of residuary
velocity, the same proportionate work remaining in the velocity of 1 foot of
steam as in a continuous issue, unless the driven body (by reaction) moves at
the same velocity as the effluent steam, because what is true of the whole
must be true of a part. This is so, but here misapplied Ithink; for I maintain'
that if no more lineal feet of steam are expended than passed over by the
driven body there can be no loss of residuary velocity, however much greater
the velocity of efflux is than the driven body. I need scarcely say that the
first condition is, that the full expansive force of every foot of fluid éxpended
must be transferred. to the.driven body. This must be the case in reaction,
because steam.at a pressure, say, of 120 lbs. 4 A must when unbalanced.

page_text: react, not merely with a force of 120 lbs. (for this is only the initial or statical
pressure when the fluid is at rest), but with the additional force of motion it
has acquired. This is its vis viva produced by the violent and almost instan-
taneous repulsion of its particles in passing from its highest to its lowest
tension. It contains therefore much more force than its initial pressure; for
the guage can only show the maximum force of repulsion of confined steam;
but when steam begins to rise it begins at nothing; the force of heat,
however, keeps decomposing more water, and squeezing 1212° more heatinto
more particles of steam in the same confined space, and so on up to the
required pressure. It follows, therefore, that all these gatherings or accumula-
tions of force, all these compressions of pressure, beginning from nothing and
encreasing up to 120 lbs., must all be given back again; first 120 lbs., and
then gradually (though almost instantaneously) decreasing from 120 lbs. to
nothing again, from which the steam begun. This is done by reaction, justasit
would be in a cylinder, could it be expanded there as low, only infinitely
quicker, by a series of infuitely small impulses. Hence, as no force can be
lost, the whole mechanical effect exerted by the force of the whole quantity of
heat expended and so accumulated and stored up in the steam is given out
again by reaction. The whole of this passes into the locomotive, and is accu-
mulated there with the same power of doing work as, first the heat, and then
the steam had. The foot, or so, of steam has given its impulse and has passed
away and gone, melted into the air almost before the locomotive begins to do
the work of the force it has received. This work it must do by the inexorable
law of necessity, because, as we have repented so often, force cannot destroy
itself, and no work can be lost.
This investigation of the action and transfer of accumulated force and
power of doing work, equal to half the vis viva of the force, shows, I think,
that there can be no loss of residuary velocity from the reaction or unbalanced
pressure of intermittent force. There can be none from the unbalanced
pressure of a solid, whatever its velocity of impact, if fully imparted, as we
have shown in the motion of the heavenly bodies. Nor can I see any difference
in the laws of force applied to an unbalanced fluid. But, further, the velocity
of efflux of a continuous issue, and the striking velocity of each foot, are
different things. The former gives the number of feet, and therefore the
quantity of force issuing in a second; the latter the force of motion of each
foot. In the former we have as many 1 foot lbs. as are equal to V, and there-
fore the driven body (by reaction, not by impulse) must go at the velocity V
of the issue to utilize all that force. What is true of the whole is true of
part, that is, that the driven body must be moved as many feet of the number

page_text: of feet of fluid expended. Now this is the principle I follow. The object of
intermittent force is to prevent the necessity of the driven body going over as
many feet as issue in a continuous jet, on account of the great velocity of
efflux. Still it is to observe the principle that this must be done to utilize
the whole force expended. This I do by letting out only as many feet of
steam as are passed over by the driven body. My new principle, however, is
opposed, I believe, to all that is taught on the science of fluid machines, and
it is this: When intermittent force is used, the work done is independentof
the speed of the machine. For proof, a body carried by another has the same
motion as the carrier. Therefore a fluid moving a machine by reaction, being
carried along with it, has one and the same motion as the machine. The
machine, therefore, cannot run away from the force as it issues, as a wheel
can from impulse. Consequently the force of reaction must be a constant;
the same whether the machine is in motion or at rest. Since, then, the force
of a vis viva = 2HW-25W (discovered by me in 1847,) this is the force
of reaction at all speeds of the machine, by virtue of which it is capable of
exerting the mechanical effect of half that. But we can, perhaps, establish
our principle more solidly in this way. The work done depends on the force
imparted, the force on the velocity of issue, and the velocity on the pressure
which generates it. Neglecting centrifugal action in a straight application
like ours, the mere speed of a machine can neither encrease nor decrease
the pressure which generates the velocity of issue that moves the machine.
Hence the time in which a given quantity of fluid issues must be the same
at all speeds of the machine; consequently the time of its action must be the
same. Therefore the pressure, velocity, force, and time of action being the
same at all speeds of machine, the work done must be independent of
the speed. Such is the proof of our proposition. It is then an important
principle in the theory of machines, that the whole mechanical effect of a
fluid can be utilized, whatever may be the speed of the machine, and how-
ever greater the velocity of efflnx, under these two conditions, so easy to be
observed. 1st, that no more lineal feet of fluid be let out than the driven
body passes over. 2nd, that it have time to develop, in the shape of work, the
whole accumulated force it has received.
Now, from this and the considerations we have given on the transfer and
retention of force and capability of doing work in proportion to such force, we
may fairly question, despite of great authorities, if there is such a thing as
residuary velocity, as understood and taught by the ablest mathematicians of
England, France, and Germany. For example, I cannot see how there can be

page_text: any available work left in a reactionary fluid issue. For, divide 'l foot of fluid
into an infinite number of parts, each part as it issues will give its full
reactionary impulse or unbalanced pressure in the direction of the motion of
the machine. Its motion will then be reversed, and it will issue in an oposite
direction. Now, it must surely take the same force to reverse or stop motion,
as it took to generate that motion. Hence the momentum being reversed, it has
all been transferred by unbalanced pressure or reaction to the machine; and,
consequently, the issuing fluid has no work remaining in it in the direction
in which it acted on the machine. In the light, therefore, in which the
question presents itself to me, I think that there is no residuary or lost
velocity, whether in a cannon ball or elastic body, fluid or solid, unless it
retains motion in its original direction. In this case the loss is in proportion
toits continuing parallel to the path of its first direction. I conclude, therefore,
that the loss of residuary velocity in reaction wheels is, because they have not
time to develop the force accumulated in them. But as this force cannot be
lost, it may be spent in trying to overcome a useless resistance, and in more
friction. Or, considering the indestructibility of force, and its retention
unimpaired and unchanged (as we still see it is, as it has been for countless
ages in the heavenly bodies) the force so accumulated may be stored up in the
machine ready to be restored when the moving force ceases. Or, as a basin or
sponge full of water can hold no more, there may be the saturation of force,
a limit to its reception, as there is a limit to the speed of falling bodies, which
soon acquire a terminal velocity beyond which they cannot get; a terminal
velocity which is very small compared with the velocity which science
can obtain.
I have now given the reasons which lead me to think, that 2, 3 or more
lineal feet of steam can be used each reaction, without loss of residuary
velocity, by giving the locomotive time to develop such accumulated force.
For every body must have time to develop force, in proportion to the number
of feet pounds force it has received. But from deference to so many
thoughtful mathematicians, I have arranged the machinery as to use only
1 foot of steam at a time; though even this does not meet their theory.
It is proper to show also, that an expansive impulsive force is superior, in
practice, to an expansive pressure because it is more compact. It gives so
small an area as 10-5 square inches, for a force of 400IP; instead of an area
of (153x-7854x2 =) 353-43 square inches, the present area of locomotive
cylinders for that power. The reason is, that the same weight of steam, used
by impulse, will overcomea very much greater resistance than when expanded in
a cylinder. One foot of steam at 120 lbs. AA, and 1 square inch area cut off

page_text: 298-3
in a cylinder, and theoretically expanded down to the atmosphere, will
overcome a mean resistance of only 1683-32-553 lbs. through 9-1688 feet.
By impulse it will overcome a mean resistance of 298-3 lbs. through 1 foot.
The reason is,that by the almost instantaneous repulsion of its particles, the
successive decreasing efforts or pressures in a cylinder, are accumulated and
imparted in one effort by impulse. I have shown, that according to my
notions of force, there is no force of motion in the universe, that is correctly
measured by the usual formulæ of MV; and that this, even for a continuous
issue, denotes 1 foot lbs. Hence it is that the force developed and imparted,
so lightning-like by impulse, is so great. If, for instance, we divide 1 foot of
steam at 120lbs. pressure, into an infinite number of parts, say, one million
for calculation, each part as it issues, will react with a force of 298-3 lbs. =
1000000x298-3-298300000 lbs., 1 millionth part of a foot high. Hence
though the whole foot issues in the 3174th of a second, it has imparted this
infinite number of impulses, or succession of blows with infinite rapidity in
-infinitelyshortintervals of time. All this force is accumulated in the locomotive.
For we have seen that when a body has once received an impulse,ithas no power
of itself to get rid ofit; but must keep moving on and on until it has transferred
that force to some other body; or is stopped by a force of equal amount.
This caunot be done all at once in mechanical motion, therefore there must be
a succession of resistances equal to the sum of the accumulated impulses, but
not in the same time as they were received.
I have now given the principles and practice of intermittent force, as far as
I can, and which I have endeavored to reduce to something like an
exact and positive science. For, independent of the present application.
intermittent reaction propulsion is the foundation of the science of aerial
locomotion against the strongest hurricanes, a result that will surely be
attained perhaps in the present century: But perfection is not the work
of a day; it was only the successive contributions of some of the ablest
men of science that has brought the locomotive to its present state of
perfection, the most marvellous machine in the world; the perfection,
however, of complicated machinery necessary for an unsound principle of
propulsion. As regards what is old and what is new in my application of
force, I have shown that, in 1842 and 1843, I began experimenting
under the conviction of discovering something. This conviction and its
verification will be found recorded in the Specification of the Patent of James
Pilbrow, of the 23d of May 1842, before referred to (see printed copy, p. 2
to 10 in marginal reference, at p. 3.) This conviction was so far verified,
that I was the first to discover by those experiments (and their investigation

page_text: by a distinguished mathematician, in 1843) the velocity of efflux, force of
motion,and mechanical effect ofan uninterrupted current of steam, knowledge
which I have been trying to turn to account at intervals of leisure ever since.
The different applications of that discovery by Mr. James Pilbrow will be
found in his two Patents so taken out by me; the application, therefore, of
the dynamic force of steam is not new. The novelty is,-I., in discovering
the equality of force and pressure, namely, that 1 foot of steam of a given
weight and area, issuing into the cold air, would give the same force, and do
the same amount of work, by action or reaction,as when fully expanded in a
hot non-condensing cylinder.-II., in finding out what is the force of motion
of 1 foot of steam.-III., that such force will overcome the same resistance as
the force of many thousand feet. of the same velocity and area.-IV., in
applying such force intermittingly by the proper forumla,area, and machinery.
All this I believe to be new; at any rate I know it is my own discovery or
Invention. Therefore I claim the application of the intermittent force of
steam or other expansive prime movers by action or impulse for rotary motion,
and by reaction for propulsion, by the machinery described for the purpose.
As regards the machinery, I may remark, that it seemed at first an insuperable
difficulty to cut off fast enough 1 lineal foot of steam, having so great a
velocity of issue as 3174 feet a second; next to cut it off in such a manner
that it would react over the whole area of reaction, without being wiredrawn
or attenuated,and as often as was necessary a second, without shock. But I
put implicit faith in this consideration, if a theory is sound, the means of
applying it is sure to come; for I have found that it is in the application of a
theory that its unsoundness is often detected when nothing else can.
Having therefore accomplished the requirements of intermittent impulse.
and reaction, the principal features of the machinery I claim, are,-
1st. The steam spring equilibrium reciprocating valves and reaction
chamber with and without the cut-off valve and measuring chambers.
2nd. The cam crank. The principle of this new cam motion is not mine;
it was discovered by Mr. Samuel Sharrock, and placed at my disposal, because
suggested by a circular cam I had invented for the same purpose,aud which
would have done what I wanted, though not so well perhaps.
3rd. The steam equilibrium rotary valve and reaction chamber, with and
without the circular cut-off valves and measuring chamber.
4th. The modification of it for the locomotive wheel application, and for
driving the rotary steam wheel shewn in Drawing No. 3.
5th. The two donkey engine applications of intermittent reaction, with the
method of reversing the force of reaction, and backing the train or vessel.

page_text: 6th.. The two regulator locomotive wheel applications, with the method of
reversing the force of reaction, and the two different methods of starting. I
do not, however,claim the Invention of connecting and disconnecting the end
of an eccentric rod by the gab motion and rocking shaft pin, only its new
application for and combination with intermittent reaction propulsion.
7th. The method of working the impulse valve of a rotary wheel from its
axle to regulate the quantity of force. The steam wheel itself I do not
claim.
In conclusion, İdonot confine myself to the exact details described, because
they may be varied by mechanical equivalents (as I have shown by different
modifications) without departing from the general principles enunciated for
the application of my Invention of intermittent action for rotary motion and
reaction for propulsion.
In witness whereof, I, the said Richard Boyman Boyman, have hereunto
set my hand and seal, this Eighth day of November, One thousand
eight hundred and sixty.
RICHARD BOYMAN BOYMAN. (L.S.)
RICHARD BOYMAN BOYMAN. (L.S.)