IMPROVEMENTS IN PROPELLING VESSELS BY THE REACTION OF WATER, AND IN THE MACHINERY FOR THE PURPOSE
Year: 1866

page_text: LETTERS PATENT to Richard Boyman Boyman, of 2, Park Crescent,
Stockwell, in the County of Surrey, Esquire, for the Invention of
"IMPROVEMENTS IN PROPELLING VESSELS BY THE REACTION OF WATER, AND
IN THE MACHINERY FOR THE PURPOSE."
Sealed the 26th November 1866, and dated the 29th May 1866..
PROVISIONAL SPECIFICATION left by the said Richard Boyman Boyman
at the Office of the Commissioners of Patents, with his Petition,
on the 29th May 1866.
I, RICHARD BOYMAN BOYMAN, of 2, Park Crescent, Stockwell, in the
County of Surrey, Esquire, do hereby declare the nature of the said Invention
for "IMPROVEMENTS IN PROPELLING VESSELS BY THE REACTION OF WATER, AND IN.
THE MACHINERY FOR THE PURPOSE," to be as follows:—
In propelling vessels by the reaction of water as a substitute for paddle
wheels and screws, pursuant to certain laws and principles I have discovered,
and by appropriate machinery I have invented, to apply such laws most
conformable to their nature, the object is to save more than one-third of
the fuel consumed in paddle wheel and screw propulsion, besides the pro-
portionate cost and weight of engines, boilers, water, and propellers.
I patented water propulsion in 1847 in the name of James Pedder, herein-
after referred to, and abandoned it in 1857, because I did not then think it was

page_text: an economical and convenient application of power; but an experiment I
made in 1842 with a jet of steam has now led me to return to water propulsion.
The saving it will effect depends on certain formula for paddle-wheel pro-
pulsion which I devised in 1857, and published in 1860 being erroneous. These
are true in principle, but wrong in the co-efficient. I cannot therefore make
the nature of my present Invention clearly understood, and the saving it will
effect, without first explaining what led me to devise these formulæ, because
they induced me to abandon hydro-propulsion in 1857.
The late James Pedder brought me a plan of water propulsion in 1847; he
proposed a vertical pump as the propeller, one of the worst forms of application
I know. As we were both unacquainted with the principles of water propul-
sion, I employed him to conduct some experiments to find them. These led to
our discovery of the force of water being equal to two altitudes, but which I
afterwards found was known before. Believing it to be new, I took out
a Patent in his name on 6th November 1847, No. 11,946, he being the
Inventor of the machinery, "For Certain Improvements in Steam Engines and
Propelling." The nature of the discovery will be seen in the "seventh
improvement" in the Specification of that Patent. I then called the principle
hydro-dynamical propulsion, and shall hence call it hydro-propulsion.
In 1848, I and the engineers then interested with me in hydro-
propulsion applied Mr. Pedder's application to a steamer of about 85 b. p.
nominal. Independent of the imperfect application, the important point is
this: We proportioned the area of reaction to overcome the resistance to the
vessel by the well-known formula, at that time Raw lbs. Were
this the true measure of resistance, hydro-propulsion (properly applied) would
have saved more than one-third of the fuel of paddle-wheel propulsion. After
several trials of the steamer the engineers thought the scheme a failure and
declined to go on with it. Mr. Pedder, who had invented the machinery, soon
after died of the cholera.
Having faith in the principles I kept on improving the hydro-propellers
and application Mr. Pedder had left in a very imperfect state, besides finding
the areas for propulsion and horse-power by a wrong formula, as will be seen
in the "seventh improvement" of his said Specification.
In 1857 I was on the point of incurring considerable expence in again
applying hydro-propulsion, but everything depended on the resistance. If the
formula in general use, before referred to, was true, R-(-) aw lbs. hydro-
propulsion would, by my improved application of it, save more than one-third
of the fuel of paddle wheel and screw propulsion.
2g

page_text: I thought, therefore, it would be better, before going to any more expense,
to examine the foundation by analysing the formula to see if it really was the
true measure of the resistance to vessels. I found to my surprise and dis-
appointment, after so much time and money spent on hydro-propulsion, that
such formula was not true. This I did in March 1857. The laws of force and
motion had been mistaken by every inquirer and experimenter. Yet this
formula for resistance, and those that follow from it, such as the useful effect,
power expended, and loss, had been unquestioned from the days of Watt to
Brunel. They will be found investigated in the Philosophical Transactions
for 1884, in the works of Tredgold, Woolhouse, Mornay, Labrousse, Bourne,
and in the Marine Steam Engine of the present Professor Main, of the Royal
Naval College, Portsmouth. They all make the resistance R-(-),
2g -aw lbs.
It was by this false formula for resistance, as I have said, that we applied
hydro-propulsion to a steamer in 1848. Finding it untrue in 1857 I devised
other formula, based on the true laws of force and notion, which will
be found in my Specification of 10th May 1860, No. 1155, hcrein-after
referred to.
It is on these new formula being erroneous that the value of the present
Invention depends. Yet, as I shall show, they are adopted by the ablest men
of the day. Now by the old ones, those we went by in 1848, in applying
hydro-propulsion to the steamer, the resistance to the Banshee, Her Majesty's
steam vessel, at 18.5 miles an hour, is only 4970 lbs.; but by my new
formula of 1857 it is 22868 lbs.; making the large difference of (22868-
4970) 17898 lbs. The dimensions, data, and working of both methods will
be found in my said Specification of 1860. I thus found that the resistance
was more than four times that given by the usual formula R= aw lbs.,
and consequently that the engines were usefully employed in overcoming
such larger resistance, and not wasted in some extraordinary manner which
none of us could account for. I therefore abandoned hydro-propulsion in
1857, not as regards the principle of reaction, but because my new formulæ
made the resistance so great as to show that it was not an economical and
convenient application of power.
But I still kept to the great principle of reaction as the only true law of
propulsion; I therefore continued my researches in it. These led me to take
out the Patent in 1860, No. 1155, in my own name, for "Improvements in
Applying Steam or other Expansive Prime Movers, by Action and Reaction,
for Rotary Motion and Propulsion." This was for the intermittent reaction
of one foot of steam instead of a continuous jet; for I had found by mathe-

page_text: matical analysis that the loss of the latter was as much as 94.6 per cent.,
which I have shown in my Specification of 1860.
But when I came to test my Patent by the reaction of 6 inches of steam
I found to my great surprise that I could get no reaction at all; no, not even
sufficient force from 294 lbs. to overcome a resistance of only 3 lbs. I began
to doubt everything, Newton's grand discovery of the equality of action and
reaction, the very laws of force and motion themselves. I had fortunately
proved in 1842 the equality of action and reaction, so I was sure of that. I
bad next to see if the laws of force and motion contained in my Specification
of 1860 were true. I searched everywhere, but could find no proof of the
force of motion in any of the mathematicians of England, France, or Gerinany.
Even he who had made the laws of motion bis own,
Newton himself,
has nowhere given a true measure of the force of motion, much more the
proof of it. On the contrary, his Paper "On the Force of Bodies in Motion,"
in the Philosophical Transactions for April and May 1722, No. 371, p. 57,
misled me for months, it is so wrong. I say this with all the reverence due
to so reverential a name; but it is true.
the
great
I could then go no further in my researches to apply the force of reaction
for propulsion until I knew what the force really was; for, strangely enough,
all my own experiments on intermittent reaction, and every gun that is
fired, disproves, apparently, my theory of the force of motion, and proves that
enunciated by Newton, and which Sir David Brewster, his biographer, in the
2nd vol. p. 304, says is "so simple and intelligible;" for, by the Newtonian
doctrine I ought to get no result whatever from the reaction of one foot of
steam, and I did not. Thus theory, and of no mean man, and experiment
were in accord. By my own measure I ought to have got a reactionary force
of 294 lbs., but got none at all, so apparently was it disproved.
I had then to find some proof of the force of motion. Now the greatest
mathematical controversy on record was on the force of motion, between
Newton and Leibnitz and their respective followers. The former made it
proportional to the weight and velocity =wvlbs. ; the latter to the weight
and square of the velocity = lbs. All the great mathematicians of England,
France, Holland, and Italy took part in it. It was the age of mathemati
cians, this was the battle of the mathematicians, and they were giants in
those days. I had not adopted the theory of any, and found my own refuted,
apparently by my own experiments and the recoil of guns.
therefore, move a step further in reaction propulsion without finding some
proof of what the force of bodies in motion really is; for such proof mus
exist somewhere. This I found in the laws of gravitation in 1861.
I could not
It is

page_text: neither Newton's nor Leibnitz', but that which I had made it in my Specifi
cation of 1860. The striking force is equal 2w lbs., and the working
force equal to w lbs.
We cannot mention the name of Newton without an involuntary awe at
one of the divinest spirits that ever dwelt in human flesh. Still, however,
presuming to question such an authority on the laws of motion, we must be
true to those laws. I, at any rate, am bound to give here the true measure
of the force of motion, not merely as the foundation of dynamical and hydro-
dynamical science, but because, by my proof, and by no other, do I determine
the proper area of reaction and engine-power for my present Invention. It
is here proper to point out that, of these laws and their proper application for
bydro-populsion, the late Mr. Pedder and myself were entirely ignorant at the
date of his Patent in 1847, as will be seen by the Specification.
Having so found the proof in 1861, I was sure that the reactionary force
of the steam used in my experiments really was 294 lbs. Still it would not
overcome a resistance of only 3 lbs., though I took care so to apply the steani
that its whole force should be fully imparted. There must then be some
unknown law, like the unknown body causing the perturbations of Jupiter,
which affected the force. I found this in the short time of its action.
I knew by the formula I had constructed for the velocity of steam, and
which I took so much pains to prove, that the force I was using could only
react for the 4th part of a second. It then occurred to me that, as there is
a time for all things there must be a time of repose for bodies, and that they
must be acted upon during that time before they would stir with the whole
force imparted. Dealing with the squares of minute fractions of a second
anything like accuracy cannot be expected. But I found the time of
repose of bodies was about the 23 of a second; and as my force reacted for
only the th of a second, the mystery which so long puzzled me was solved.
The force did not act on the resistance long enough to produce the slightest
effect, not even a force of 294 lbs. on only a resistance of 3 lbs. It was all lost.
I called this law of time "the time of repose of bodies," shewing the
difference in effect between a long and a short impulse with the same amount
of force.
own.
I can find no trace of this from the days of Newton and Liebritz to our
But were it not for such a law no gun could be fired a second time;
for, since action and reaction are equal and opposite, the gun would be
destroyed, as well as the ironside. Professer Twisden, however, of the Staff

page_text: College, and other mathematicians treat the recoil of guns on the Newtonian
doctrine of wv, which I found to be erroneous in 1861.
Such bearing has one science on another. For had I not made my experi-
ments in 1861 on intermittent reaction I should not have discovered the law
referred to, to account for getting no effect from so large a force applied to so
small a resistance, consequently I should not have found the proof of the force
of motion, and therefore could not be sure, as I am now, that the area of
reaction and other guides for the proper application of my present Invention
are correctly found.
I have now shown why I abandoned intermittent reaction propulsion in
1861. I did not, however, abandon the great principle of reaction propulsion;
'for, having thought of another department of science, I got a boiler and
things, and begun fresh experiments on reaction at the beginning of this year.
It was whilst making them that I read in "The Engineer" of the 13th of
April, the trials of 2 steamers on the river. One was the Nautilus, propelled
by water, applied by Mr. Ruthven's Patent of 10th August 1849, No. 12,789;
the other was one of the Citizen boats, the Volunteer, propelled by the
ordinary paddle wheel.
On submitting the vague data of these trials to a mathematical analysis I
found there was a loss of about fifty per cent. in water propulsion. This did
not surprise me, for having discovered its laws and principles of application I
saw by the data and application that hydro-propulsion was wrongly applied
from beginning to end. Engines, centrifugal pump, and pipes, entrance and
exit of water, all being contrary to the laws and principles of hydro-propulsion.
This loss does not include slip, because that is common to both systems.
It then occured to me that as the Volunteer paddle wheel was about the
same size, lines, draught, and power, and that as she went at about the same
speed as the Nautilus, the Volunteer must necessarily have about the same
This was
resistance, therefore suffer about the same loss, fifty per cent.
startling indeed, for it was contrary to my own formulas of 1857, which alone
induced me to abandon hydro-propulsion; and these I confirmed at the time by
Colonel Beaufoy's nautical experiments on resistance. The small loss given
by them is also confirmed by the subsequent formulæ of so able a man as
Professor Rankine. Further, I was sure of the proof of the laws of force and
-motion on which those formulæ are founded, otherwise I should have doubted
the laws themselves. I should have doubted also the method of finding the
resistance and loss of the Nautilus, because this method was founded on the
. same laws. I could not then understand the matter. The trials referred to
refuted my theory; yet my theory was true. Thus one thing contradicted the

page_text: other, nothing but contradiction turn which way I would. All my past labors
were contradicted apparently by facts. Still I knew that the principle of my
formulæ of 1857, contained in my Specification of 1860, was true, because I
had discovered the proof in 1861. I could not then understand these trials;
so there I left them, and went about my experiments.
The peculiar principle of the test machine I was using no doubt brought
to mind my experiment with a jet of steam in 1842; for all of a sudden it
flashed across me, "If so great a loss is here it must be there also, however
"incredible; for the principle of action is the same." And thus, by
induction from a particular fact, I arrived at a general principle, a necessary
loss of about of the power expended on paddle wheel and screw propulsion,
inherent in the principle itself.
The particular fact (my experiment in 1842) is not merely valuable to
establish the false principle, but also to show that no particle of such loss is
possible with the true principle of propulsion-reaction-which I had been
in search of 24 years; for if ever the finger of nature pointed out to man the
principle of propulsion be should adopt-reaction or impulse-it is in the
experiment I made in 1842; for there I brought the two principles together
face to face, one opposite the other, and saw the different results of the 2
principles.
What I discovered by induction I have confirmed by deduction, starting
with the two different principles of propulsion, water reaction and paddle-.
wheel impulse, and so arriving at the two facts that verify them. I did this
by what I call the area test; the difference between the areas of propulsion of
the two different principles. The difference in principle is this,- with reaction,
there is no wasteful escape of the fluid; with impulse, a fluid moving against
a plane, or a plane against a fluid, there is great wasteful escape; the non-
escape of the fluid makes reaction propulsion so economical; the escape
makes paddle wheel and screw propulsion so wasteful. Though I made this
discovery 24 years ago I never had the wit to apply it till now. This escape
is not what is called the slip, for this is the residuary velocity lost in both
systems. Things should be called by their right names. Slip is an improper
term, it should be called what it is, residuary velocity.
The experiment in 1842 referred to reconciles or rather enables me to
correct my formulæ of 1857, for these are true in principle, being based on
the laws of force and motion. I have to reduce their co-efficient considerably,
and add a primary as well as a residuary velocity and loss.
My object bere is simply to explain what bearing my researches and Patents
have upon my present Invention, to show the distinction between them, and

page_text: to make as clear as I can my reasons for abandoning in 1857 what I had so
labored on from 1847, and now return to again.
The experiment made in 1842 is shewn in the Patent of Mr. James
Pilbrow, in whose name I took one out on 23rd May 1842, No. 9354, for
"Certain Improvements in Steam Engines." It was made with a jet of
steam, to try certain things, without reference to propulsion, & with which
apparently it has no connection; but I observed in 1842 certain peculiarities
in the action of the jet which I never forgot. So great a loss in paddle wheel
and screw propulsion as is contrary to all credence, because at variance
with the investigations of the first mathematicians, and with the practice of
engineers of England, France, and the United States.
I will now give a general description of the machinery; this I can best do,
and best show the nature of my Invention, and how it differs from all other
systems of water propulsion by first explaining the principles on which it
must be applied for economy. For to know the laws of a science, ever the
best part of Invention and the most difficult, is to know how to apply them.
*Only so indeed can we find the best means to attain the end required; hence
the Invention is the laws, as the following principles of hydro-propulsion will
show.
The propelling water must enter the mouth of the propelling tube without
resistance at entrance to consume power, and without contraction in the pipe
to cause a loss of vis viva by impact. The propelling water will then be
received by the floats of the hydro-propellers as they move towards the stern.
No portion of the water once set in motion must be allowed to escape without
doing the work of reaction. For all motion is the equivalent of force, and if
not profitably employed is a waste of power. The propelling water must then
be endowed by the hydro-propellers with an accelerated velocity, and dis-
charged at the end of the pipe towards the stern of the vessel with as little
residuary velocity as convenient application will permit. These principles are
simple enough when known, but they have taken me years of thought and
labour and expense to discover.
The machinery to embody these principles is this:-For a horizontal
arrangement one propelling pipe goes through one side of the vessel, and another
pipe through the other side, as far beneath the water line as may be con-
-venient. The pipe is as free from curve as the hydro-propeller will permit,
and not much longer than its diameter. It is parallel to the vessel, with its
mouth open towards the bow, and the end having a contracted vein towards
the stern. The diameter of the pipe is much greater than that of the con-
tracted vein. At both ends it has a slightly divergent mouth-piece for the

page_text: easier entrance of the water, that at the contracted vein end for such entrance
when backing. In the middle of each pipe is fixed a single or horizontal
double-action rotary hydro-propeller, the floats of which protrude through the
side of the vessel for the incoming water in the pipe to act upon.
As it is desirable to back the vessel with the same force as to go ahead, I
have two vertically hung door valves in each pipe opening inwards, one at the
entrance, the other at the exit of the propelling water, and of the same
diameter as the pipe. Each valve has a hole in the middle of it, of the
diameter of the contracted vein which cach valve forms. When the hydro-
propellers move they will move the water behind them, and more will rush in
to supply its place. The pressure therefore will open and keep open one door
valve for the entrance of the propelling water, and keep closed the other
at the end for the water to issue through the contracted vein of such door
valve. The same action will take place when the engines and propellers are
reversed for backing. Thus one of the principles of my Invention will always
be applied when propelling, namely, one end of the pipe will be fully open for
the free entrance of the water, and the other end contracted for its exit and
reaction.
For the largest ironside, instead of making the contracted vein in the
middle of the ends of the pipe, which the door valves do, it may be better to
make the contracted vein in the pipes themselves, one at each end, and not
in the valves; also to make the contracted vein close to the side of the pipe
furthest from the vessel, though at some sacrifice of power.
The object is to enable nearly the whole diameter of the pipe to be inside
the vessel, leaving only the diameter of the contracted vein to protrude. But
my principle must still be adhered to even here, namely, one end of the pipe
In this
must be open to its full diameter, and the other end contracted.
large application therefore the propelling water must enter in two places; 1st,
through the permanent contracted vein outside the vessel; and 2nd, through
a pipe in the side of the vessel leading into the propelling pipe; and these two
entrances must be of at least the same area as that of the tube to prevent loss
of vis viva by impact. There must be the same arrangement at the other end
of the pipe.
The object is not merely to diminish the protrusion of the pipes through the
vessel, but to diminish the area of the door valves for large pipes. For in
this arrangement they will not form the contracted vein nor close it, but
merely open and close the other diameter of the propelling pipe designed
simply for the entrance and not for the reaction of the water. These valves
will be acted upon by the incoming water like the others. Or both sets can

page_text: be fixed to rods passing through stuffing boxes into the vessel, and by a
suitable lever be worked by hand.
The principles on which my hydro-propellers were invented are these:-
1. That the axle should bear no unequal pressure, only that due to the weight
of the drum and floats. 2. That the floats should be moved in and out of the
drum only when in equilibrium, with scarcely more consumption of power
than their weight and friction, so as to throw no strain on the canes or rollers.
3. That the floats should scarcely touch the sides of the circle in which they
move, because metal revolving on metal of different diameters in the same
time wears unevenly, the great defect of rotary pumps and steam engines;
non-contact will prevent this, though entail leakage. But the pressure of
bydro-propulsion properly applied is so small comparatively, 4 or 5 lbs. on the
square inch, that it is a less evil than friction and wear. I will now explain
the hydro-propellers.
Finding by mathematical analysis prior to 1857 that the water pressure on
the drum of the rotary pump invented by Mr. Pedder in our Patent of 1847
was very great and consumed power, I thought of the principle of a double-
action equilibrium propeller, and carried it out in this way. The axle goes
through the middle of the drum, when I use the drum arrangement, and on
one or both sides of the case is fixed a double-action cam, something like the
figure of eight, but not going much in towards the centre. This gives the
same circular water space above the cam as beneath it for the floats to act in.
Mr. Pedder's single-acting rotary pump in our Patent of 1847 has no cam,
not even a single one, and no water space above it. Mine too has 6 or 8
propelling floats to reduce the botton curve of the hydro-propeller. These
floats are not connected together, but are attached to friction rollers, which roll
in the cam, and by its curve the floats are moved in and out of slits in the
drum. The propelling water must not enter the more circular part of the
propeller in the same direct way as it does into the other or straighter part, or
it would act prejudicially against the floats. The water therefore must be led
by a circular pipe into the propeller behind the floats. By this double-action
propeller the four quarters of the drum are kept in equilibrium, the entering
water on one quarter balancing the entering water on the other, and the
pressure or reaction water on one quarter balancing its opposite pressure
water. To divide the top and bottom waters to prevent the pressure water
leaking into the entering water, I have 2 stops, one on each side, and of the
same width of the drum, and close to it. I cover the drum with two sides.
The cams are so set that the engine may move the floats in and out of the
drum only when they are not propelling.

page_text: To reduce the weight and leakage of the hydro-propellers I have an arrange-
ment to dispense with the drum and side covers. Instead of the floats moving
in and out of a drum, they move in and out of a separate water-tight case or
receiver fixed over each float to the revolving part of the hydro-propeller.
Through one or 2 stuffing boxes in each receiver a piston rod connects each
float with a friction roller, which rolls in the cam or cams, but not directly as
in the former arrangement, because the cam would here be too sharp in the
middle. Assume that the hydro-propeller is horizontal for description. To
get a larger cam I have a vertical pin fixed to each piston rod of the floats
long enough to stand above the outside case or receiver of the flats to clear
such case; to this pin I attach a horizontal connecting rod, which turns
back over the receiver towards the circumference of the propeller; to the end
of this connecting rod I attach the friction reller, which will then revolve in a
cam sufficiently large. The receivers of the floats must be roomy enough to
let the water be easily squeezed out by the entering float to prevent loss of
power. I prefer this form of propeller especially because the sides are always
open, so that any injury to the cam can be seen at once, and spare parts be
substituted.
For large steamers it may be better to have 4 propelling pipes, 2 on cach
side of the vessel, and 2 pair of engines. The horizontal hydro-propellers
can be worked by horizontal engines attached to a vertical crank shaft, from
each side of which connecting rods will proceed at an angle to the cranks of
the propellers. These must be connected by a connecting rod, and must not
be on a line with the vertical shaft, or there would be dead points. Or the
horizontal propellers can be worked by a pair of engines on a horizontal shaft,
and connected by wheel work; or be worked by a pair of engines direct to
cach hydro-propeller. The propellers can be fixed vertically at the bottom of
the vessel, one pipe on each side the keel, protruding through the bottom,
the floats working in them; these can be driven by a horizontal shaft.
Paddle-wheel steamers can be altered in this way without removing their
engines. The hydro-propeller having a double-action one, one will do for small
steam tenders and vessels of small breadth, for the diameter will reach from
side to side, and the floats protrude through each side into a propelling pipe.
To turn quickly, or to steer by, with the horizontal arrangement, I propose
having vertically suspended iron plates behind each propelling orifice close to
the sides of the vessel to be moved by rods through stuffing boxes. The same
rudder plates may be before the entering orifices for the like purpose when
backing. The propelling pipes should be turned inside for smoothness and to
prevent them getting foul.

page_text: It is important, especially for men-of-war, to be able to repair the pro-
pelling machinery, on which the safety of the crew and vessel depends; I
have therefore a shut-off valve at each end of the pipe to keep the water out.
When not used, these valves will lie flat to the side of the vessel, and offer no
obstruction to its motion. By a rod passing through a stuffing box into the
vessel these valves can be pressed against the openings of the pipes, and the
pressure of the external water will help to keep them closed. A few turns of
the propellers will then send some of the water in them and in the pipes into
the sea through a valve opening into it, and the rest can be drawn off. The
propellers can then be taken to pieces or repaired, though I am acquainted
with no machinery so little liable to be injured; for the floats are of small
area, are always immersed, and move in smooth water in the pipes free from
the shocks of the sea; these can be cleaned inside through manholes in
them.
In the Specification I took out in the name of James Pedler, 19 years ago,
I referred to one great advantage of hydro-propulsion, which is as true now.
This is the "security against the two great dangers of navigation, leaks and
"fire, to subdue which the whole power of the engines would be available by
means of the propellers," because for propelling they must necessarily be
large enough to absorb the whole engine power; neither the paddle wheel
or screw possesses these advantages, nor that of being easily repaired.
66
The value of hydro-propulsion depends entirely on a knowledge of its laws
and principles and their right application. I may then perhaps be permitted to
say, that I do not know a more profound, exact, intellectual, or refined science
of application; nor means so simple, economical, and enduring. It is the
spirit of philosophy embodied in form for useful purposes. It rises to one of
the highest reaches of human knowledge, the laws of force and motion, whose
proof is in the laws of gravitation; and it is so refined in application, that
a small difference in form makes a great difference in result. For I think
this system will save even 40 per cent. of fuel of the steam navigation of the
world. Now coal is not merely money to us, coal is England, national
existence almost. But to save fuel is to save also weight and space, and the
proportionate cost and weight of engines, boiler, water, propellers, and repairs.
Hence the immersion and resistance to the vessel are less, and the speed
more.
I have ventured to make these remarks to point out more clearly the dis-
tinction in principles, and therefore in application, between my system of
hydro-propulsion and Mr. Ruthven's, contained in his Patent of 1849, which
does none of these things. I compare mine with his, because it is considered

page_text: the best. Many scientific men were present at the recent trials of the
Nautilus propelled by his system, and contained in "The Engineer," "Engi-
Those trials are
66
neering," and "Mechanics' Magazine" of the 18th ulto.
reported as "very successful;" "the best results which have ever been obtained
"from the hydraulic propeller." I take then the best system I can find to
point out the marked distinction between mine and that.
Starting, therefore, from different principles of essential importance, we have
nothing in common from the beginning, in the middle, or at the end. To
particularize. I do nothing that he does. 1st, I do not take in the propelling
water through holes; 2, nor at the side or beneath the vessel; 3, I do not
give it the required velocity by the equal velocity of the floats; 4, I do not
have a centrifugal pump; 5, I do not have conduit pipes to the nozzles of
the same diameter; 6, nor do I have the pipes inside the vessel; 7, I do not
discharge the water through bent nozzles; 8, I do not back the vessel as
Mr. Ruthven does. These 8 wrong principles of hydro-propulsion entail
together a great loss. Our systems differ also in two other respects. I do not
have moveable nozzles, nor do I discharge the propelling water in a line with
or near the surface of the water; on the contrary, I discharge it on a line
with its reception, and as far beneath the surface as convenient application
will permit. To apply these principles, so different to his, I had to invent
appropriato machinery as different to Mr. Ruthven's as the principles.
Another distinguishing feature of my system is its applicability to vessels of
great speed. For its advantage of application increases as the square of the
speed of the vessel; whereas that of the paddle-wheel screw, Mr. Ruthven's,
and all centrifugal systems have no such advantage.
I have now pointed out, with all the clearness in my power, the nature,
object, and general application of my Invention of hydro-propulsion, and in
what essential points it differs from that which is considered the most successful
application.
All difference in principle cannot be too clearly defined, especially as appli-
cations follow principles. This is more needed when a slight alteration will
(as here) turn a bad principle into a good one, and consequently make a
great difference in results. I would therefore remark, in conclusion, that
the principle of my Invention is indicated by its title; it is not for propelling
vessels by water, but "by the reaction of water." All then we have to do to
turn the paddle-wheel principle into reaction is to prevent the greater part
of the water set in motion by the floats escaping past them, for some portion
of the water is sent astern. It is, therefore, the great escape and consequent
waste of power that constitutes my discovery; and simple as it is, it will

page_text: change the whole science and mathematics of steam navigation propulsion
since its introduction. For I find, on analysis, that the greater part of the
engine power is expended not in propelling the vessel, but in propelling
something else. This is the huge paddle wheel and screw, whose great
surface sets a great body of water in motion, which is not effective, and
therefore just so much waste of power.
It is easy enough to prevent this, now we know it. "Let us first find out
"a thing," as the philosophic D'Alembert remarked, "and there will be no
"lack of persons to put it into shape." If then the paddle wheel revolved
at its ordinary velocity, we must cut off a good bit of its breadth to reduce the
area of propulsion to the dimensions of my formula, put a drum round the
wheel to prevent the water escaping upwards, and let the circumference at
the rims or sides (to the extent of about half its diameter) revolve in a nearly
water-tight case; let the bottom of this case form a tube as short as possible,
with divergent mouth-pieces at each end; let the floats which protrude
through the drum move in this channel as close to the sides and bottom of it
as they can without touching. Here the tube must be of the same area at
exit as at entrance; for when the propeller moves faster than the vessel
there must be no contracted vein, and no valves, but a clear unobstructed
sweep through. Now this slight alteration, a mere drum and tube outside
the vessel, will at once change paddle-wheel propulsion into reaction pro-
pulsion, for the floats will endow the incoming water with an accelerated
velocity towards the stern, the reaction of which on the floats will propel the
vessel. Were the floats inclined at an angle towards the bow they could get
rid of the backwater better. For occan paddle-wheel steamers rods might
perhaps be made to work thro' the drum to feather the floats.
Though this is not a scientific application of hydro-propulsion, because its real
law is that of a slow motion, still this has some of the advantages of the principle,
for it would reduce the area of floats by reducing their breadth considerably,
and would also save fuel; both desirable objects, especially in ocean steam
navigation
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 28th November 1866.
TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, I, RICHARD S
BOYMAN BOYMAN, of 2, Park Crescent, Stockwell, in the County of Surrey,
Esquire, send greeting.

page_text: WHEREAS Her most Excellent Majesty Queen Victoria, by Her Letters
Patent, bearing date the Twenty-ninth day of May, Oue thousand eight
hundred and sixty-six, in the twenty-ninth 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, 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 Isle of Man, an Invention for "IMPROVE-
MENTS IN PROPELLING VESSELS BY THE REACTION OF WATER, AND IN THE
MACHINERY FOR THE PURPOSE," upon the condition, amongst others, that I,
the said Richard Boyman Boyman, by an instrument in writing under my
hand and seal, should particularly 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 immediately 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, that is to say :-
My Invention consists in the words of my Provisional Specification, "In
"propelling vessels by the reaction of water as a substitute for the paddle
"wheel and screw, pursuant to certain laws and principles I have discovered,
"and by appropriate machinery I have invented to apply such laws most
"conformable to their nature." It is therefore necessary first to explain what
these laws and principles are, and next to describe the machinery by which
they are applied.
Vessels cannot be properly propelled by water without first knowing how to
find the area of reaction to overcome the resistance of the vessel at the
required velocity; hence the proper area cannot, be ascertained without first
knowing the laws of force and motion. I had therefore first to discover what
these laws are, but of which I could find no proof. I have said, for instance,
in my Provisional Specification, that Newton made the force of bodies in
motion wv, and Leibnitz = w; and that the difference gave rise to the
greatest mathematical controversy on record. What is more remarkable is,
that both parties claimed the victory by reason of their own experiments.
This is not the place to enter into them or their arguments, especially as I

page_text: shall show that they were all wrong. The different reasonings of the high
contending parties are given in Hutton's Philosophical and Mathematical
Dictionary, article "Force."
Sir William Armstrong adopted the doctrine of Leibnitz in his letter in
the Times of the 10th of April 1862, " On Rifled Guns and Smooth Bores."
No one perhaps has experimented more on the force of motion than this dis-
tinguished man, who there gives to the world that "the force of a projectile
"is equal to its weight multiplied by the square of its velocity." Other
artillerists and men of science maintained the same doctrine, as will be seen
in page
11 of a letter published by Mr. Bashley Britten in 1862, "On the
Armstrong Gun," addressed to the Right Honorable William Monsell, M.P.,
Chairman of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Ordnance."
The same erroneous theory of weight and square of the velocity is also pro-
mulgated by Professor Tyndale, F.R.S., in his work on "Heat Considered as
a Mode of Motion," 1862, p. 487. It will also be found in the Engineer of
the 26th September 1862, and in the Mechanics' Magazine of the 5th of
December of the same year it is observed that such force of motion "appears
"to be determined to the satisfaction of artillerists." It is then needless to
add further evidence of the opinions of men of science on the force of motion
so recently as 1862.
The necessity therefore of ascertaining the real force of bodies in motion is
evident; for till then I could not determine the proper area for the force of
moving water to propel vessels. This will be made plainer by the different
areas of Newton and Leibnitz. Suppose the resistance of a vessel at 18.5
miles an hour (=18.5x1.467-27-13 feet a second v) is 11424 lbs., which
is the resistance herein-after taken as an example; and suppose the velocity
of the reacting water (V) is 33.93 feet a second, and a cubic foot of salt
water is 64 lbs., then the force of motion, by the Newtonian doctrine, would
be V-vw (33-93-27-13 × 64-) 435-2 lbs. per square foot. Thereforo
to overcome the resistance of 11424 lbs., the area required would be 435-2
=26-25 square feet.
11424
11424
By the doctrine of Leibnitz the reactionary force would be V'-v³ w=
(33.933-27 133 × 64=) 26573-312 lbs. per square foot. Here then the area
required would be only 26573-43 nearly of a square foot. There is then a
difference between the two greatest of mathematicians of (26573-435=)
26138 lbs. per square foot !
Another method is that of the two altitudes, discovered by my experiments
in 1847, and patented by me, as the foundation of hydro-propulsion, in the

page_text: name of James Pedder, dated the 6th of November 1847, referred to in my
Provisional Specification. By that method the area of reaction for the same
relative velocity V-83.93 and v=27.13 feet would be about 17x64=
1088 lbs. per square foot. Therefore the area required would be 11424
square feet.
9
1088 -10.5
The only other method I know of of finding the area of reaction is that
used by the admirable Weisbach for reaction wheels, and is as follows:-
R=Vw lbs. per square foot, where is the velocity of issur, vthat of
the wheel; g the acceleration of gravity=32.2 feet, and w the woight of a
cubic foot of water. By this formula the area is (33-93-27-13 ×33-93×64=)
458-56 lbs. per square foot for salt water. Hence the area required to over-
come the resistance of 11424 lbs. would, by this method, be =24.86
square feet.
39.2
11424
458-56
I thus found at starting four different methods of determining the force of
motion. These gave four different areas of reaction to overcome the same
resistance of vessel at the same relative velocities, namely, by Newton's
method 26-25 square feet; by that of Leibnitz only 43 of a square foot; by my
own method of the 2 altitudes of 1847, 10-5 square feet; and by Weisbach's
method 24.86 square feet; only one could be right, and without proof there
can be no certainty.
I searched, therefore, every mathematical work I could find, but meeting
with no proof I wrote to three professors of mathematics on the subject, but
got none. I then proceeded to discover the force of motion in this way.
As early as 1842 it occurred to me to try the force of a jet of steam,
pursuant to my hypothesis, that "its full expansive force not being given out
"laterally, as in a cylinder, it must go somewhere, and therefore the same
"work must be inherent in a jet of steam as in the same quantity expanded
"in a cylinder." These ideas will be found recorded in p. 3, line 5, of a Patent
which I took out in the name of James Pilbrow in 1842, referred to in my
Provisional Specification. It was for a method of applying the force of
a jet of steam invented by him, who was then engaged with me in those
experiments.
These were witnessed by the late Mr. Brunel, who took great interest in
them. For the idea that "all force must go somewhere" was, I believe,
among the first germs of the modern doctrine of the conservation of force,
which has culminated in the comprehensive work of the philosophic Grove,
"On the Correlation of Physical Forces," but which I did not hear of until
February 1860
•

page_text: My experiments in 1842 on the impulsive force of a jet of steam, and the
work it was capable of doing, fully verified my hypothesis that "force must
go somewhere." For those experiments showed that a jet of steam possessed
the same inherent power of work as the same quantity expanded in a steam
engine. They.also refuted the opinion of Mr. Watt and his erroneous expe-
riments, that "the rarity of steam is such that even if none is condensed by
" the cold of the vanes the impulse is exceedingly feeble."
The hypothesis of 1842, that "all force must go somewhere," was developed
in 1859 into the axiom, "Force can be changed in form, but cannot destroy
"itself, therefore a foot of steam issuing into the air must necessarily give
"ont the same force, and be capable of doing the same work as the same
"quantity and area expanded in a cylinder." Such are the words of my
Provisional Specification of 1860 for applying the intermittent impulsive force
of one foot of steam by action and reaction, referred to in my present
Provisional Specification.
For this
Before I could ascertain if this doctrine was true, namely, that the force of
motion of one foot of steam was equal to the same quantity expanded in a
cylinder against the atmosphere, I had to determine what this was.
purpose I framed the formula given in my said Specification of 1860, p. 5,
F-2-3026 (B+147) log. n, where F is the theoretical force of one foot of
steam of one square inch area expanded in a cylinder against the atmosphere;
B, the boiler pressure A, A, and n=
B+147
14-7
I then assumed that the force of motion must be equal to the well-known
'formula for the units of work =w, because a body in
motion could not do
such work without first striking with a force equal to it. This, then, was my
reason for not adopting the doctrines of either Newton or Leibnitz, because I'
found that neither of their theories of the force of motion could be made
equal to the formula 2-8026 (B+14.7) log. n. Consequently their doctrines
were both opposed to my axiom, that "force can be changed in form but
"cannot destroy itself." It was, therefore, necessary to construct such a
formula for the velocity of steam as would make w exactly equal to
2.3026 (B+14.7) log. n. Hence by equating the formula came out"
v=146 128 +14*7
log. n. The exactness of this formula will be seen in my
Specification of 1860, where w is shown to be equal to 2.8026 (B+14.7)
Ing. n. Such was the state of my knowledge of the laws of force and motion
at that date. I wanted, however, proof, but could neither get nor find any.
I have said in uy Specification of 1860 that my Invention of intermittent

page_text: "
reaction propulsion by one foot of steam was founded on the axiom that "force
can be changed in form but cannot destroy itself," also on the assumed
formula, for the force of motion = w lbs. I have said also in my present
Provisional Specification that when I tested my theory by experiments, they
apparently disproved it, and proved the Newtonian doctrine = wvlbs. They
also proved apparently the doctrine of Watt and others, that the rarity of
steam is such that its impulse is exceedingly feeble. This will be seen by
one of my experiments, which will indicate the rest at much higher pressure
and all with the same results.
I got a copper tube 6 inches long and one square inch of the same
thickness, except at one end for bursting. Over this I soldered a covering of
very thin copper, which I tested by hydraulic pressure until it burst at about
150 lbs. This copper reduced in strength by heat would burst at about
120 lbs. steam pressure. I then soldered on another covering from the same
sheet of copper. The velocity of steam at this pressure is by my formula
before given $174 feet a second; and the weight of one foot of steam of one
square inch at the same pressure is 001907 lbs. This was found by the
formula. I then used, which was w= C being the number of cubic feet of
steam found by Tate's admirable formula, which I have for convenience ex-
pressed in logarithms. Log. (C-12.5)=4.3132343-{log.(B+14.7) 9301}.
62.5
I have said that my hypothesis of the force of motion was w lbs. I
should, therefore, have got a reactionary force = 3174 ×·001907=298.89 lbs.
through foot. But when the tube was put over the oil flame and so
arranged as to overcome a resistance of only 3 lbs., and when the thin end
was burst by the steam pressure of 120 lbs., no force was apparently exerted
by the impulsive reaction of the steam. For the resistance of 3 lbs. was not
overcome. This was more in accordance with the Newtonian doctrine of the
force of motion than with mine, or any of the other three methods mentioned.
For by his formula for such force the reaction should be only equal to w'v lbs.
=001907X3174-6 lbs. instead of 298-39 lbs. by my hypothesis. Thus all
my labours and the Iuvention which embodied them in my Patent of 1860
were shown by these experiments to be of no practical benefit.
At that time I had abandoned all idea of hydro-propulsion, because I had
discovered in 1847 the true laws of paddle-wheel propulsion embodied in my
formula R= 75 Va w lbs., and published in my Specification of 1860,
though first published in 1858. And as remarked in my present Provisional
Specification, "I abandoned hydro-propulsion in 1857, not as regards the

page_text: "principle of reaction, but because my new formula (the one just given)
"made the resistance so great as to show that hydro-propulsion was not an
"economical and convenient application of power."
66
When, therefore, my experiments in 1861 on the reaction of six inches long
of steam showed apparently that the four different methods before given of
finding the force of motion were all wrong, there was no need to worry myself
any more about the matter. For after such long stress I was weary of the
thing, and tired with so much thought and labour. But the great doctrine of
the conservation of force which occurred to me in 1842, as before shewn, and
which is more fully embodied in the axiom in my Patent of 1860, "force can be
changed in form but cannot destroy itself," was at stake, as it was apparently
refuted by my experiments. For, as I have said, I should have got a dynamic
force by reaction measured by 2 w=298.39 lbs., equal to the pressure force
of 1 foot of steam measured by 2.3026 (B+14.7) log. n, equal 298-39 lbs.
But apparently I did not get even a force of only 3 lbs. It seemed, therefore,
incumbent on me to find out the reason of this marvellous discrepancy between
theory and practice; for if I did get a force of 298-39 lbs. where did it all go
to? I was puzzled beyond measure.
I knew that I had a force of at least
b3
2g
120 lbs., because the thin copper end could not be burst until the steam
within reached at least that pressure; for I had first tried its resisting power
by bydraulic pressure, and the copper end was so brazed on as to be burst
clean out a good square inch; still no result by the reaction of the steam.
Why?
The problem then resolved itself into one of four things, which had to be
determined in their order :-
I. Is Newton's discovery true, that action and reaction are equal and
.opposite ?
II. Is the force of motion equal
lbs. or what?
III. Is the correlation of force true? Or if these three things are true-
IV. There must be some law yet unknown which affected the force in my
experiments, and prevented it producing its proper effect.
I. The equality of action and reaction had been verified by my experiments
in 1842 and 1847, berein-after referred to, and which have now led to my present
This
theory of the loss of primary velocity in the paddle wheel and screw.
I bad next to find out if the force of
part of the problem was then settled.
motion was equal tow lbs. ; but how to do this by experiment I knew not. So
it occurred to me to find it out by the laws of gravitation, the divine standard of
all force and motion, whether of a grain of sand or a cannon ball, a foot of air or

page_text: of steam, a river or a cataract. The method of doing this will be seen by the
following extract from a paper of the 26th February, 1861, sent to an
excellent mathematician, the senior wrangler of his year, who, acquainted with
the last Cambridge methods, could not refer me to any proof of the force of
motion so recently as 1861.
My paper was to this effect. It has been established by frequent ex-
periments that the attractive force of the earth pulls down a body, free to fall,
with a gradually encreasing velocity until it has attained a final velocity of
32-2 feet at the end of the first second. The force of gravitation is necessarily
a constant force, or there would be no certainty in its operations. What,
therefore, it does the first second it will do the second, third, fourth, and every
succeeding second the earth force acts, impart the same final velocity of 32.2
feet to the body.
But velocity is the representative of force, for it is feet lbs., and force cannot
destroy itself. Therefore all the force stored up in the body, every second it is
falling, will still remain in it, and it will keep on like the snow ball gathering
as it goes, so long as the force of gravitation acts upon it. When, therefore, it
strikes the earth it will strike with a force equal to the whole of such
accumulations every second. The striking force, therefore, must be proportional
to the time the force acts, as well as the velocity and weight; therefore the
striking force of a falling body must be equal to the time, velocity, and weight
=tvw lbs.
The illustrious Newton, however, contended till his death that the force was
proportional to the simple velocity only, and not time and velocity; and his.
reasoning will be found in the paper by Dr. Pemberton in 1722, referred to
in my Provisional Specification. Now there is an analogy between the force
of steam and the force of gravitation, which will perhaps show more clearly
that Newton was here in error, reverently be it said, and that the force equal
only to the simple velocity of a falling body would not represent the accumu-
lations of force. Suppose, for instance, the boiler pressure is 120 lbs. above
the atmosphere, and it is expanded in a cylinder 9-1683 feet long; it will
then pass through every change of volume which it passed. through in
attaining the pressure of 120 lbs., and give out a force proportional to every
such change; and this force at the end of the stroke will be 298-39 lbs.
instead of 120 lbs. only. This result will be found either by my formula for.
pressure 2.3026 (B+14-7) log. n, or by that for impulse wlbs., v being
found by my previous formula for the velocity of steam.
Thus the simple velocity of a body no more represents the force accuu-

page_text: lated in it than the simple pressure of steam does. Both have a value, force,
and effect beyond their numerical value, and found in different ways. We
have seen, for instance, that such force gives a body a velocity of 32.2 feet lbs.
in one second. This we will call the accumlating force of gravity = 9; and
we will call the velocity acquired by a falling body v. Consequently to
accumulate in a falling body a force due to any number of feet, say 322 feet
a second, the force of gravity must act during the time t == 32=10
seconds. Therefore, t = -. Since then the striking force of a body in motion
is tv w, and t =, its striking force must be equal tovw=wlbs. In
this way we get the well-known formula for the vis viva of a body.
What a vis viva is or what it means does not seem to be yet known. For
one of the first scientific mathematicians and experimenters of our time, and
the highest authority in hydraulics, Professor Weisbach, honestly enough
says, "The product of the mass (m=) and the square of the velocity (v³)
"m v² is called, without attaching to it any definite idea, the living. body (vis
"viva) of the moved mass."-Principles of Mechanics, vol. 1, p. 48. We
now see that it is grounded on the realities of nature, and is the striking
force of a body in motion imparted to it by gravitation.
The moving body, however, cannot produce an effect that is to do work
equal to the striking force, because no effect can be greater than the cause.
Now the cause or force of gravitation has not accumulated in the body a
uniform force equal to 3, because it has not given it a uniform velocity equal
from the beginning, but only a final velocity and force of v. Suppose, for
instance, a train acquires from the time it starts a gradually encreasing
velocity until it amounts to 32-2 feet at the end of the first second, its mean
velocity will be only half its final velocity, equal =322-16.1 feet, and the
train will only have passed over 16-1 feet.
This is just what a falling body does. It acquires a final velocity or force
of 32.2 feet, but only at the end of the first second. Hence its mean or
uniform velocity cannot be more than half that, and thus its uniform. force is
only half its final force = 16.1. Hence its working force = Now we
have seen that its final or striking force is equal to the time; velocity, and
weight = tv w, and that t = -. Since then the mean velocity and force
=, the working force or effect a body in motion can produce must be
equal to xww lbs. And in this way we get the well-known formula
for the units of work.

page_text: The mathematics of the mind must precede the mathematics of figures.
Reasoning thus on the way in which the laws of gravitation act on a falling
body, and the working force accumulated in it, I constructed the following
table in 1861, taking the time of action at ten seconds.
Column v shews that the body begins every second with the velocity or
force in feet lbs. it had acquired from the action of the earth at the end of
the previous second; that it acquires an additional velocity or force of 32.2
feet lbs.; and begins the next second with such addition. Hence the miere
velocity of a body cannot show the force accumulated in it every second;
16.1 feet lbs. at the end of the first second; 64.4 feet lbs. at the end of the

page_text: second second; 144-9 lbs. at the end of the third second, and so on. This is
shewn in the fourth column. The third column proves by the sum of the whole
force accumulated that the fourth column is true.
The table proves the reasoning that made it, and the 2 formulæ deduced
from such reasoning, before the table was constructed. For the striking force
3220 feet lbs. And the working force
is shewn to be tv-10 x 322=
2:3
322
2g 2 x 32-2
ບ 322
g
32-2
is shown to be
=1610 feet lbs. Why the striking force must
necessarily be twice the working force is, because a body cannot strike-with a
force due to ouly its half, or mean velocity. It must, therefore, strike with
the force due to its final velocity; and as this is twice its mean velocity,
its striking force must be twice that; equal 2h=2x1610=3220 feet lbs.
This theoretical analysis of the laws of force and motion now proves what was
discovered by my experiments in 1847, called the 2 altitudes, and patented by
me in the name of James Pedder in that year, as will be seen on referring to
the seventh improvement in his Specification.
With the exception of the final velocity in column v, and the uniform
velocity or working force in column h, both columns are the same. If, then,
instead of adding velocity to velocity, we add up column v, and deduct from
the sum balf the final velocity every second = 10x16-1, equal half the
ultimate velocity ==161, column will come to the same as column
h = 1610.
322
As regards the altitude h, we never can know what it is, and don't want
to know; because we calculate the force by the velocity, and not by the
altitude. For neither a falling body nor a cannon ball, jet of steam, running
water, or other moving body, strikes by virtue of its height, but by virtue of
its velocity.
The whole thing is a mystery; the only instance I know of, except steam,
where a thing is not what it seems to be. A pound is a pound, and ten are
ten; but not in gravitation. For when v=8.025 feet a second, the moving
body has not a force equal 8:025, as Newton contended. It has the force of
one only; for =1. And when v=100,000, instead of having this
amount of force it has a force of more than a hundred and fifty millions of
pounds stored
8.0252
64-4
up
in it;
for
100,000*
64.4
=155,279,508 feet lbs. The only instance
when v is what it seems to be-like Wordsworth's primrose-v, "and nothing
more,"
," is when it is 64-4; for then 644-64'4.
So curious are the laws of gravitation, yet are they the only sure and
immutable standard given to man.. whereby to determine the force of overy

page_text: moving body, whether a few grains of steam or a ponderous cannon ball.
Hence, by this marvellous law, a few particles of soft steam or air =13-349
grains, or
13.349
7000
31742
=001907 lbs., moving with a velocity of 3174 feet a second,
will strike with a force equal to 32=596-78 lbs., or more than five hundred-
weight of solid iron falling from a height of one foot! This great striking force,
imparting a working force of 298-39 lbs. on every square inch = 42,968 lbs.
per square foot, is the real cause of the frightful effects of steam boiler
explosions, and which was first promulgated in my Specification of 1860,
p. 22. If, however, the boiler burst at 240 lbs. the force of motion is about
726 x 144 =46 tons per square foot.
2240
I have now shown in what a simple way the laws of terrestial force and
motion were discovered in 1861. It is then hard to understand how Newton
made the value of v equal to v only, and how his great cotemporary and co-
inventor of fluxions, Leibnitz, made it equal to ³. Strange too it is that its
true value should not have been discovered, and thereby the laws of force and
motion, during the memorable battle of the mathematicians, which ranged for
more than 20 years. The great authority of Newton, and the last paper he
ever wrote (which was in support of his doctrine, in the Philosophical Trans-
actions for April and May 1722, No. 371, p. 57), caused the contest to be
decided in his favour, and so it has remained, I believe, down to our own
day.
The force of motion being found in 1861 to be 2w lbs., in accordance with
my hypothesis referred to respecting the force of motion, led to three things.
1. The identity of the impulse and pressure of one foot of steam, not before
known; for w=2.3026 (B+147) log. n. II. Another proof of the
conservation of force. III. The discovery of a law, which I then called the
time of repose of bodies, or the difference in effect between a long and a
short impulse, with the same amount of force. There is no trace of any such
law, and I can get no mathematician to receive it. It is, however, not the
less true. For it was only this unknown law which prevented the force of
298-89 lbs., in my steam experiments in 1861, producing the effect of force.
The six inches long of steam acted for only the 348 part of a second, and
therefore it could not act long enough to overcome the repose of the body, as
stated in my Provisional Specification.
It is this law also which accounts, for the first time, for the anomalous
effects observed in firing with gun cotton. The damaging effect was more,
but the recoil or reaction less. A greater velocity was given to the ball than

page_text: with powder; and, consequently, the ball being sooner expelled, had less time
to react. This law, then, is a guide for the artillerist; for to get the most
enduring guns the greatest velocity must be given to the ball, which is
exactly the reverse of the American guns. Then will the ball do the most
damage where it is most wanted, and the least where it is least wanted. And,
lastly, without this law no gun could be fired a second time. For, as action
☐ and reaction are equal and opposite (as my own experiments have proved) the
gun receives, every time it is fired, as terrible a blow as the ironside destroyed.
But the force of reaction has not time to overcome the repose or cohesion of
the particles. By the discovery then of this law, in 1861, was solved the
four-headed problem before given.
=
Soon afterwards the following formulæ were constructed for the reaction of
water, which I now use for hydro-propulsion; and of which I can find no
trace in any prior Specification. But first we will show on what reasoning
V-vis founded.
An engine cannot expend more power than the force it can exert. If, for
instance, a paddle wheel be set in motion with a velocity when at anchor,
'the force exerted on the water (omitting the coefficient of
escape) will be, by
V
aw lbs.
Consequently the
V2
2g
Va w feet lbs.
the laws of force and motion before found,
power expended will be, according to the force exerted,
But when the vessel begins to move the paddles are carried along with it.
They cannot, therefore, strike the water with the same force as when the
vessel was at rest, because the paddles are running away from the water.
Consequently they can only strike it with a force due to the primary velocity
V, less the force due to the velocity with which the floats are running away
from the water. This is the velocity of the vessel, v.
12-2
2g
We thus get a measure of the first blow or impact a w lbs.; and this
blow reacts upon the floats, and so drives the vessel; but they exert another
'force, or push against the water, which every rower will understand.
For myself I know it by experience, having been stroke in the Beppo
Club, Consule Planes, when George the 4th was King. There is first
the force due to the long reach or velocity V, and then, just as the oar comes
home, this is changed into V-v. Hence there is the final force or push due
to such residuary velocity; for as there is a reactionary force on the oar due
to the primary velocity of V, there must be one also due to the residuary
velocity (V). This double force then is just what the paddle floats
communicate.to.the water and receive from it by reaction. In this way we
get, the complete formula for the force of impulse or reaction, whereby to

page_text: measure the resistance of vessels, K=
2g
coefficient for the escape of water past the floats..
a w lbs., omitting the
This formula, reduced to its simplest form for use; becomes R="Va w.lbs.
The foundation being thus found, we have only to add 'v for the useful
effect, and V for the power expended. We thus get all the formulæ for
the laws of force and motion, both for the paddle wheel and bydro-pro-
pulsion. For instance, the useful effect is -"Vva w feet lbs. The power
expended is y a w feet lbs. ; the loss is R (V-v)=(V-v)(V-") Vaw=
(VD) Va w feet Ibs. Now the useful effect and loss must equal the power
expended; therefore (V-D)+(V-0)³ yaw==V³ a w feet lbs., the proof
required; these divided by 550 give the horse-power exerted by the engine.
g
9
In this state I left the thing in 1861, for, as I have said, I had abandoned
in 1857 all idea of the economy of hydro-propulsion, and investigated the
laws of force and motion, simply to inform myself why no results were
obtained from my reaction experiments with 6 inches of steam in 1861.
After an interval of nine years I returned to hydro-propulsion in April last,
on seeing in the Engineer of the 13th of that month the trials between
the Nautilus, water propulsion, (pursuant to Mr. Ruthven's Patent of
1849,) and the Volunteer paddle wheel, as stated in my Provisional
Specification. Ou analysing the losses of his system step by step, I found
that of about 100 HP exerted by the Nautilus the losses were so large
as to leave only about 27 P effective for the resistance, useful effect, and
slip. This analysis is too long.and tedious to introduce here; for with
cognate matter it extends to 38 quarto sheets. It seems only right, however,
to the supporters of Ruthven's system and the public to enable them to form
their own opinion of these losses, and therefore I will give the other method
of investigation, which confirmed the analysis.
But, first, as regards the best. measure of the resistance of vessels. For
the value of my own Invention of hydro-propulsion depends now, as it did in
1857, entirely on the resistance. I have said, for instance, in my Provisional
'Specification that I abandoned in 1857 the thought, and labours, and expense of
years bestowed on this science, because my paddle wheel formula of that year,
R= 75Va w lbs., made the resistance so great: Now man can never
devise any measure of the resistance of vessels so unerring and exact as thé
force of reaction of an issue of water, because this alone is infallible, being
based on the divine laws of force and motion; these, fortunately, I had

page_text: .
discovered in 1861 in the manner shown, and can therefore now apply them
to Mr. Ruthven's system.
The competitive trials between the Nautilus and Volunteer are given
in "The Engineer," "Engineering," and "Mechanics' Magazine" of the 13th
of April last, and as nearly agree as can be expected from different writers.
The data are taken from the Engineer, and confirmed by Mr. Ruthven's
pamphlet published by Potter, 31, Poultry.
The resistance of a vessel cannot be greater than the power that overcomes
it; nor can this be greater than the reactionary force of the issuing water.
The diameter of the centrifugal pump or turbine wheel was 7 feet, and the
number of revolutions 75; therefore the velocity of the rim was 60
6 x 3 1416 x 75
60
7x3 1416 x 75
27 489, say 27.5 feet a second. Wishing to make the resistance in excess,
I deducted only 2 feet to obtain the mean velocity of the water in the pump.
But if we deduct only six inches from the top, and 6 from the bottom of the
turbine, to find the mean velocity of the water, the diameter would be 6 feet,
and the mean velocity only
=23 4 feet a second.
The breadth of the vessel being 15 feet, and the turbine 7 feet, the length
of pipe on each side leading to the nozzle was 4 feet, with two bends from
the pump to the pipe, and two nearly right-angle bends from the pipe to the
nozzles. The loss of vis viva must be considerable, because it encreases with
the decrease of the radius of curvature, and, by the law discovered by Weisbach
(our best authority on hydraulics) simultaneously as the square and square
root of the cube of the velocity. But the area of the watercouse of the pump
was no doubt greater than that of both orifices of reaction. Therefore the
velocity of the propelling water would be encreased by being driven through a
smaller area were it not for the serious losses in its passage. For want of
data I have assumed that the loss of vis viva, due to this cause, would reduce
the velocity at issue to at least the mean velocity in the pump, 27.5-2=
25.5 feet a second.
2 78
αω
The area of each nozzle was 78 square inches=1=1.083, say 1.1 square
feet; the velocity of the 2 vessels 8.316 knots an hour =8.316×1-6877=14
feet a second; and the weight of a cubic foot of salt water 64 lbs. The
resistance of the Nautilus at sea would, therefore, be R="Vaw lbs. It
has been shown that this formula is deduced from the laws of gravitation, the
foundation of which formula is
moving bodies. Hence the force of reaction, and consequent resistance of
the Nautilus was R-25-5-14
V's
2g
wlbs., the measure of the force of all
32-2 X25.5 x 11 x64-644-248 lbs. The useful

page_text: |R (V-)= 100 (1)100(1-1)=45 per cent.
As regards the power exerted by the engines, the following data are given
by the Engineer of the 13th of April last. The boiler pressure (p) was
30 lbs., the length of stroke (1) 2 feet, and the cut-off (c) 7. The mean
pressure (n) was therefore-
m=1+ hyp. log. ()}
30 x x 1 + hyp. log. 3 }
= 10 × 11.0986 }
inch. The
=20.986, say 21 lbs., mean pressure per square inch. We will allow 6 lbs.
per square inch for the difference between the boiler and cylinder pressure,
and for other steam losses, which seem ample. It will then be 21-6=15 lbs.
To this add the vacuum, 9 lbs. only, for it was not a good one.
Hence total
pressure of steam and vacuum =15+9=24 lbs. per square
diameter of each cylinder (d) was 17 inches, the stroke (1) 2 feet, and the
number of revolutions (n) 75, being the number before taken to find the
velocity of the turbine, s steam pressure, and v=vacuum = 24. Then by
my formula the horse-power exerted was,―
P=2xd 4761n(s+v) cutting off the last seven figures =2×17*X
476x2x75x24-101-126, say 100 P.
Since then the useful effect was only 16-4, the gross loss of Ruth-
ven's system of water propulsion, including engine, friction, and slip, was
100 16 4 x 100 =83-6 per cent.
100
As this was applied contrary to the laws and principles of hydro-propulsion
from beginning to end, I was not surprised at so large a loss. It is, however,
stated in the Engineer and confirmed in Mr. Ruthven's pamphlet of 1866,
p. 5 and 26, that the Volunteer and Citizen paddle-wheel river boats
were of about the same tonnage, form, power, and speed as the Nautilus;
and these boats are engined by high class makers, Messrs. Penn and Son. If
then 2 boats go at the same speed, with the same power, their resistance,
useful effect, and loss must be about the same, whatever their form or size;
therefore the loss of paddle-wheel propulsion in these particular boats was
about the same as that in the Nautilus, 83 per cent.
There is a reason for all things if we could only find it; and I was many
days before I found out the reason for this; because so great a loss was
opposed to my own formula of 1857 for the paddle wheel, which made the

page_text: loss only al ut 30 per cent., including engine, friction, and slip. These
formulæ induced me, as I have said before, to abandon hydro-propulsion in
1857, because they made the resistance so great, and the loss so small. Now
I was sure that these formulae were true, because, as I have shown, they are
in accordance with the laws of force and motion discovered in 1861, as will
be seen by referring to my Specification of 1860. And here it is proper to
remark that when I refer to such Specification it is to my own, not to the
printed copy of it, some of the formulæ in which are too erroneously printed
for reference.
At the time the Nuutilus was being tried I was making some experi-
ments with a test machine I had invented to determine the theory of
equivalents for propulsion, which had occurred to me as early as 1850. This
test machine is a large zinc plane finely pivoted, very much larger than the
steam jet. Pondering then on the contradictions between theory and practice,
the loss in the Volunteer and Citizen boats contradicting my formula of
1857, it was on the 29th of April last that the test machine brought to my
recollection some experiments in 1842 and 1847, which at once solved my
perplexity. A drawing of these experiments called action and reaction is here
given.
My first experiment with this machine was with a jet of steam, and is
entered in my book of experiments on Tuesday the 12th of July, 1842; it
represents the arm of a reaction machine, the hollow axle of which is supplied
with steam or water. Opposite the orifice of reaction is fixed a plane, without
it the arm would revolve by reaction in the direction of the arrow; and it will
do so when the plane is attached, so long as it is only twice, three, four, or
even five times as great as the area of the jet, decreasing in velocity as the
area of the plane is encreased. Thus the force of impulse against the plane
is overcome by the greater force of reaction, because the fluid is not entirely
deflected by i. impulse. But when the area of the plane is about six times
as great as that of the jet, the fluid is entirely deflected. The force of
impulse is then fully imparted, the law of action and reaction is satisfied, the
force is equal and opposite, and the arm stands still, as shown in the
Drawing.
The particles of the central sixth of the fluid must be entirely deflected, and
therefore the force due to it fully imparted. Consequently when a jet
impinges on a plane of the same area, there must be the further force
inparted due to the surrounding particles; so that the force of impulse unust
be more than a sixth. The moxin.um effect is found to be equal to one-half
of the force expended against a plane of the same area as the jet. The other

page_text: half remains in the continuing forward motion of the imperfectly deflected
fluid, and is therefore, like a deflected shot, just so much lost power.
It was thus, without knowing it, that I brought the two principles of pro-
pulsion, impulse and reaction, face to face 24 years ago. It was by induction
from these experiments recently brought to my recollection in the way I have
mentioned, that I first learnt the general principle of paddle wheel and screw
propulsion. Both are planes moving against a fluid of the same area, for
they never can be greater than the water they work in, and therefore must
suffer the same loss of primary velocity as when a fluid moves against a plane
of the same area, namely, about 50 per cent. to begin with.
It then occurred to me to test this by the principle of deduction. If, for
instance, the efficiency of a plane in steam navigation is equal only one-half
of its area, the area of the paddle wheel of the Volunteer must, to make up
for such deficient propelling power, be at least twice as great as the area of
reaction of the Nautilus; when that is encreased to what it must have been,
had the velocity of reaction been as low as the mean velocity of the Volunteer's
paddle wheels, and I found that it was so. The area test thus confirmed my
application of the law of fluid impulse to the paddle wheel. For it showed
that in vessels of 100 IP there was that difference in area between the two
principles of reaction and impulse which hand experiments discovered 24
years ago.
We thus account for the great loss of more than 80 per cent. of paddle
wheel propulsion, shown in the Volunteer, by a theory which seems con-
sistent when tried by the 2 principles of induction and deduction. For the
latter confirms by the calculation of areas what had been arrived at and
applied by induction, namely, the general principle of paddle wheel and screw
propulsion from the facts disclosed by experiments in 1842, and which then
predicated the difference of areas which those different principles must
necessitate in practice.
With accurate data we could determine the loss due to the slip in the
Volunteer. But as is this is engined by Messieurs Penn, we can scarcely sup-
pose they would so disproportion the wheels as to allow of a much greater
loss than 20 per cent. from slip. The loss of 83 per cent, is thus approximately
made up :-Engine friction and shaft 10 per cent., primary velocity 50 per
cent., and residuary velocity 20 per cent., = 80 per cent. There is, however,
Some loss due to shock, irregularity of action, and disturbance of the water
by the floats.
This analysis supports what is said in my Provisional Specification, that
"there is a necessary loss of about 3 of the power expended in paddle wheel

page_text: "and screw propulsion." Now the greater portion of this loss is a loss of fifty
per cent., "inherent in the principle itself," as stated in my said Specification,
now found to be due to the law of fluid impulse, from which reaction is free.
It is then out of this primary loss of 50 per cent. that the saving by my
system of hydro-propulsion must come, but no portion of which is saved in
Mr. Ruthven's erroneous application.
I have entered into these matters at such length to enable that gentleman
and others to form their own opinion on the point. Because also of the
importance of using the reaction of water as the only fixed and certain
measure of the resistance of vessels.
For by my theory of the law of fluid
impulse it is much less than what it is thought to be by the first engineers and
scientific mathematicians of the day. I know not then how the resistance of
vessels can be settled with any confidence, except by this infallible standard,
given by nature in the laws of gravitation, from which the formula for the
resistance of vessels - Va w lbs. is deduced.
For no pains and no expense have been spared to determine the resistance
of vessels by other means. The experiments of Colonel Beaufoy cost, I lately
read, over £36,000. The late Mr. Henry Beaufoy, of South Lambeth, gave
me the costly and noble work of his relative, "Nautical and IIydraulic
Experiments," printed in 1834 for private circulation; but I no longer go
by them. And so little reliable are they considered for practice, that the
British Association for the Advancement of Science appointed, 2 or 3 years
ago, a committee to make fresh experiments on the resistance of bodies.
It is, however, proper to state here, that (from the experiments of Colonel
Beaufoy, from some by Morin on the towing of swift canal boats, and some
by Weisbach on the friction of water in pipes,) one of the most eminent men
of science of our time, Professor Rankine, has deduced a formula for the least
possible resistance of the best formed vessels, entirely different to mine, and
deduced from different principles. It is this, R=fv S. The value of f
for a smooth painted surface is 0-01 very nearly, v is the speed in knots,
and S the friction surface in square feet. The resistance thus found is then
multiplied by Professor Rankine by 11 or 12 for the augmented surface
due to wave resistance.
I was not aware of this formula when I prepared my Provisional Speci-
fication, or I should have referred to it, because it makes the resistance of
vessels about half as much again as my coefficient of 375, now framed on
the theory of the law of fluid impulse. If, therefore, the learned professor's
formula is the true one, it detracts just so much from the value of my

page_text: Invention. I have thought it tight to give it, because of so great an
authority, for no one is better acquainted with all that relates to steam
navigation, and particularly with the resistance of vess: ls, to which Professor
Rankine has paid great attention. IIe is, morcover, one of the committee
appointed by the British Association to make experiments on the resistance of
bodies moving in water, and to report thercon, which report was lately
presented by the professor.
We have now on record as remarkable a contradiction in practical science
as that of Newton and Leibnitz and their followers in abstract science. For
the law of fluid impulse against a plane of the same area as the fluid shows
by conversion that there must be the same loss when the plane of the paddle
wheel moves against the fluid, equal to 50 per cent., due to its imperfect
deflection and consequent escape. This loss is found in the Volunteer, and the
encreased area of impulse is also found to make up for such loss, thus con-
firming the law. On the other hand, one of our first men of science, and an
authority on all such matters, has deduced a formula for the minimum
resistance of vessels, from the independent experiments of Beaufoy, Morin,
and Weisbach, which shows that there is no loss at all due to the law of fluid
impulse, much more the large loss of 50 per cent., according to my theory.
V-
My formula, R=373 Va w lbs. is based on a law of physics, and is
confirmed in practice by a steam vessel of 100 IP. Professor Rankine's
formula, R=fv S is not apparently based on any law, but is confirmed by
repeated experiments. Now in all contradictions of science we must prefer
the laws of nature to those of man. I cannot then think that there is any
contradiction in the laws of nature, that they change every time the material
changes, that a plane moving against a fluid will impart to it, and by reaction
receive from it 50 per cent. more force than a fluid will impart to a plane of
the same area. The mutual action of fluids and solids are, in my opinion,
correlative one and the same.
I venture therefore to think, with all deference and respect, that some error
must have crept into the experiments or Professor Rankine's formula, for
these reasons:-1. It contains no coefficient for the escape of any water past
the floats of the paddle wheel and blades of the screw, due to imperfect
deflection of the fluid. Now we know that some does escape. It is there-
fore opposed to the law of fluid impulse against a plane of the same area;
also to every formula for the undershot water wheel. 2. The professor's
formula thus makes the paddle wheel and screw practically perfect machines
for the transmission of power; because it makes no allowance for any loss
0

page_text: in transmitting the power of the engine to the vessel. For the loss due to
the residuary velocity is due also to reaction, and all water wheels, and is no
defet in the machine as one of transmission.
I may remark that I have spent so much time since hearing of Professor
Rankine's formula in trying to discover the real resistance of vessels as to
leave barely time to prepare this Specification; but it is too hard for me.
The resistance of vessels is still the great problem to be solved. I would
therefore simply observe, in addition to what has been said, that the Professor's
formula seems to me to be opposed to the principle of the action of force on a
fluid mass.
For as it makes no allowance for any motion imparted to the
water, it treats it as a solid, and not what it is, a yielding medium. Now
a plane cannot move through a yielding medium without setting it in
motion, or it could not pass through it; but water is so incompressible, that
the floats cannot project the water towards the stern (except the mere surface
water). Yet it is so mobile and slippery that it must obey the action of
force, and move somewhere; or, as I have said, the plane could not pass
through it. The water, therefore, yielding to the action of force must take the
path of least resistance. This will be into the little hollows or vacuums made
behind the floats, that is, towards the bow of the vessel, and be just so much
power and motion uselessly expended. The body of water thus set in motion
will react on the floats with the force due to its deflection. This is found by
the action of water or steam upon a plane of the same area to be only 50 per
cent. of the power expended.
Finally, if a force acts upon to masses of equal resistance, and equally
free to move, it will do the same amount of work upon each mass. Such
would be the case were gunpowder exploded between 2 equal balls in a tube
open at both ends. The paddle wheel is here the force. The small area of
its floats and their shape as a plane must equal the large area of the vessel
and its shape as a wedge, or the force and resistance could not be in equi-
librium. Therefore the force must act upon 2 masses of equal resistance and
in different directions, like the powder between the two balls, on one mass of
water towards the stern, on the other mass at the bow of the vessel, by means
of the force imparted to it. Now this force is not imparted direct like the
reaction of water, but only through a fluid medium, and this is as just as free to
yield to the force of the floats as the water is to the force of the vessel
Therefore the force expended on the yielding resistance at the bow must firs
expended on the same yielding resistance towards the stern.
V-DTZ

page_text: this is kept up at the velocity V, and does a work upon the vessel equal R".
Since then the power expended in getting Rv is RV, there must be a primary
as well as residuary velocity, and a loss due to the former as well as to the
latter. Thus since the loss of primary velocity (in setting in motion a yielding
body of water) is RV, the power expended must be 2 V, besides the engine
friction.
By such like abstract reasoning the primary loss of paddle wheel and screw
propulsion might perhaps have been arrived at independent of experiment,
which shows that the loss of fluid impulse against a plane of the same area is
just what reasoning on a fluid mass makes it. It will no doubt be said that
the resistance of hundreds of vessels has been found by Professor Rankine's
formula fS, the engines proportioned accordingly, and that the results in
every case have verified the formula. But my theory shows that the engine
does two kinds of work, one on the water, the other on the vessel, which
work has hitherto been considered to be all expended in overcoming a greater
resistance than the actual.
But by the true principle of propulsion, the reaction of water, the engine
cannot do any work upon the external water, because the issuing water does
not drive the vessel by first acting upou the water like the paddle wheel, but
by reacting direct upon the vessel itself. Hence the vessel would be pro-
pelled with the same force if the water issued into the air or a vacuum.
I have, however, now brought fairly before the public the most enduring
record of one of the most notable contradictions in science, of great practical
importance for the improvement of naval architecture and steam navigation,
in which England should take the lead of all nations. It forms, however, no
part of my Invention to determine the resistance of vessels, but only to give
the laws of force and motion, and the formula which embody them, to find
the proper areas of reaction for overcoming the resistance, whatever that may
be; but as we must have some guide we will take the law of fluid impulse,
which shows a primary loss of 50 per cent. of the power expended, exclusive
of the residuary loss.
Suppose we have not the dimensions of the paddle wheel, but only the
indicated power and the mean velocity of the floats. The maximum resistance
of the vessel will then be, R=5(-); where P is the indicated power,
10P
i
f the engine and shaft friction 100 and the mean velocity of the padile
floats. We will take, for example, the indicated power of the Banshee at
18.5 miles an hour (18.5×1.467=)27-13 fert a second. This was 1566;
The lass due
and the mean velocity of her floats was 3393 feet per second.
C
=

page_text: to friction was therefore
11423 lbs.
1566 - 10
100
=1566 P. Hence R=-5¹
1366-156 0x550
33-93
Our paddle-wheel formula, before given, ought to give approximately the
same results; R=-375-Vaw lbs. The dimensions of the paddle wheels of
the Banshee will be found in my Specification of 1860, p. 15. The area of
each is 8 ft. 10 in. by 3 ft. 9 in.-8.833 x 3.75. But I found in 1857 that,
owing to the escape of the water past the floats there was a difference between
the actual area and (what I call) the dynamic area of about 4. The dynamic
area is that area which, computed by the laws of force and motion embodied
in the formula Vaw lbs., is the means whereby we find the amount of engine
power expended in driving the paddles through the water at the velocity V. To
find, therefore, what this dynamic area is, we require the coefficient 75, which
will be found in my Specification of 1860, p. 20, line 23. But by my present
theory the efficiency of the plane of the paddle wheel is (pursuant to the law
of fluid impulse) equal only one half of the dynamic area. Hence our new
coefficient for the efficiency of the paddle wheel as a propelling machine or
transmittor of force through a yielding fulcrum, and as a measure of the
resistance of vessels, becomes 75x-5=-375.
Thus we have V=33.93, v=27-13, a=8.833 x 3.75, w=64.18, and
g=32-2. Therefore the resistance by our paddle wheel formula will be for

page_text: Now the useful effect and loss of primary and residuary velocity should
equal the power expended. And such is evidently the case; for,-
the proof required.
Rr+RV+R(V-). RV
=2
530
530
=75-
V-v
Sig
Vaw,
Vessels propelled by the reaction of water are moved by the same laws
of force and motion as paddle wheel ve-sels. Ilence all the formulæ are
fundamently the same. But as there is no escape of water in bydro-pro-
pulsion, there can be no coefficient for it. Therefore the formula for the
resistance is pure and simple, R=Vaw lbs. For the power expended
[==Vaw; and for the loss only "(K-D). This is the residuary
velocity, or work remaining in the water after reacting on the ves-el. For
here there is no loss due to primary velocity, because there is no escape of
primary velocity.
RV
550
We have now shown that the formula which measures the resistance of
vessels is founded on the laws of gravitation, and reduced to its most con-
venient form for use becomes R=Vaw lbs. I will now apply it to my
Invention of hydro-propulsion for the purpose of finding the area of reaction to
overcome the resistance of vessels.
y
We will take the same resistance as before, R-11424 lbs., and the same
relative velocities; V=33.93, and r=27-13 feet per second; for these were
the velocities of the Banshee at 18.5 miles an hour. One of the essential
principles of my system of hydro-propulsion is to have at least two hydro-
propellers, to reduce the length of pipe and consequent loss from friction of the
propelling water entailed by only one propeller. Hence for each area of
reaction, RV2aw lbs.=11424=
11424 x 32-2
2 x 38 93-27 13 x 33 93 x 64
32-2
xa.
a=2x33-93-27-13 x 33-93 x 6412-455 square feet of each contracted vein.
The area of the contracted vein is much less than the area of the contracting
and expanding valves (shewn in the Drawing), through which the propelling
water is ejected. For where water issues through a thin plate a considerable
contraction and consequent diminution in the discharge takes place. We
must, therefore, allow for this operation of nature by so increasing the
area of the thin plate as to get the contracted vein area of reaction required.
Different experimenters on this contraction, from Newton to Weis! ach,
have given different values for the contraction of the fluid vein. We will
take the most recent experiments, those of Weisbach, who makes the mean
value of efflux through a thin plate =a= 64. Therefore the area of orifice:

page_text: 12 455
64
=19.461 square
of the contracting and expanding valves will be about
feet. I prefer, however, what I call the permanent contracted vein orifice,
herein-after described, and which I have used for many years in my experi
iments, instead of the contracted vein of Newton.
2240
As regards the dimensions of the hydro-propellers. The quantity of propelling
water required to be discharged will be equal to the contracted vein and
velocity, Q=a V-12.455 x 33.93=422-598, say, 422-6 cubic feet per second
on each side of the vessel. This is equal to 2x 422-6 x 64.
=24 tons per second;
the best possible security against the two greatest dangers of the sea, leaks
and fire. For the water might rush in at a velocity of 33 feet a second
through the large area of 2×12-455-24-91 square feet, and not only not
sink the vessel, but she might be propelled by it to a port of safety at no
gicat diminution of speed; whilst 24 tons of water every second would
quench any fire. 1 1 ointed out these advantages peculiar to hydro-propulsion
in the Patent I took out in the name of James Pedder in 1817.
422-6
20
The quantity of water required to be discharged by each hydro-propeller
being 4226 cubic feet per second, we will take the mean velocity of the
float fat 20 feet a second. Therefore the area of float must be =" =21-13
square feet. Let its depth or projection be 2 feet; to this we must add one
half of the depth to get the mean diameter for the mean velocity. Since
then the hydro-propeller is double action the depth of the top and bottom
flea's will be +2=3 feet. Consequently the breadth of the hydro-propeller
38.22 feet.
will be
422-6
As regards the dimensions of the propelling tubes. The area being
20=21-13 square feet, and the projection of float in the tube being
3 feet, the projection of the tube outside the vessel will be 3 feet, and the
breadth 1137.01 feet.
3
Those unacquainted with the principles of hydro-propulsion will think that a
tube projecting 3 feet by 7.04 feet in width on each side of a swift vessel
must greatly retard it; but such a projection retards it very little, except
by the friction of the water against the tubes. For though the entering
water impinging upon the floats (f) will give the vessel (v) a pressure of
retardation, measured by v-f; yet, as this is delivered on the floats in
favour of the engine, the same pressure will give it the same amount of
acceleration, so that there will be neither loss nor gain from such impact.
But whatever may be the way in which the propelling water is set in motion
for reaction, whether by a turbine, hydro-propeller, or a jet of steam, and

page_text: whether the pipe is of the same diameter throughout, or has a contraction for
the issue, it is the fundamental principle and application of my Invention
that the propelling water should enter in front of a pipe as short and straight
as possible, always under water outside the vessel, and not enter at a right
angle at the side, or vertically underneath. Therefore did I point out in my
Provisional Specification, among other essential differences to Mr. Ruthven's
system, that "I do not take in the propelling water through holes, nor at the
"side or beneath the vessel." The number of revolutions of engines will
be regulated by the diameter of bydro-propeller. Let f=the centre of
propeller float in feet per second, d=the double radius from centre of motion
to centre of float, and w=3-1416; then n=; 60 per minute.
As regards the losses of hydro-propulsion. These are as follows:-Diameter
of hydro-propeller whose floats move with the velocity f. Let f=the centre
of propellor float per second; d=the double radius from centre of motion to
centre of float, and w=3.1416. Then n= 60 per minute.
These are as follows:-1. The
2. The loss from angular
3. From leakage past the
It was to prevent this that I
As regards the losses of hydro-propul-ion.
loss of velocity from friction in the pipes.
entrance and curvature in the hydro-propellers.
floats in the watercourses and into the drum.
designed the propeller with float boxes. 4. From axle friction and drum
pressure in the single-acting propeller. And 5. From imperfect relative areas
of pipes and orifices of reaction.
No. 1 may be found by Weisbach's formula; h=(01482+1796) ·
feet;
where h the height due to the friction; v, the velocity of the propelling
water in the pipe; l, its length; d, its diameter; and g=32.2. For No. 2
I allow about 6 per cent. when the mean velocity of float is 23 feet a second,
and the hydro-propeller has 8 floats. No. 3 is scarcely worth notice. No. 4
can be found by any engineer. For No. 5 I allow from 8 to 12 per cent. for
the contracted vein, as it may be round, oval, or rectangular. These different
losses together may be about 25 per cent. To this we must add 10 per cent.
for engine friction, making in all 35 per cent.
We can now find the gross horse-lower required for bydro-propulsion. The
resistance R being 11424 lbs., and the velocity of issue V-33-98 feet a second,
the power expended on the propelling water will be
RV 11424 x 33 93
530
550
nearly. The friction and losses to be added will am uut to
=705 P
705 x 35
100-35-379-6,
say, 380 . Hence gross power required, 705+380=1085 P. Now the
indicated power of the Banshee, 1 ropelled by feathering palle wheels at the

page_text: 1566-1085 x 100
1566
same speed, was 1566. Therefore the saving by my system of hydro-propulsion
would be about
=30-7 per cent.; thus corroborating the saving
assumed in my Provisional Specification. I would here observe that I prefer
the single-acting propeller shewn on Sheet II., Fig. 5, and the permanent
contracted vein attached.
The losses of 25 per cent. belong to hydro-propulsion and not to the screw
or paddle wheel. Consequently the saving shewn cannot be made if Professor
Rankine's formula for R=fv S is the true one, and my application of the
law of fluid impulse is unsound. It was this which enduced me to return to
hydro-propulsion in April last, after abandoning it so long. Moreover if such
near relative velocities of issue and vessel as 33.93 and 27-13 make the pipes
and propellers too cumbersome, the saving of 30 per cent. will be reduced,
unless indeed the losses of hydro-propulsion do not amount to so much as 25
per cent. For the loss from slip with these relative velocities is only 100 (1)
=100 (1-3) about 20 per cent. nearly. But if we take V=40, to
make the areas of reaction propellers and pipes much less, the loss from slip
would be about 100 (1-27-13=) 32.2 per cent.
Different SYSTEMS OF HYDRO-PROPULSION.
I do not know that I can make the nature of my claims clearly under-
stood without first explaining different systems of hydro-propulsion. And
this I fear cannot be done without a minute and tedious explanation. For,
as remarked in my Provisional Specification, the science of hydro-propulsion
is so refined in practice that a small difference in form makes a great difference
in results. I have therefore to shew that this is so, and thereby point out, first,
in what respect my present Invention differs from that patented by me in 1847
in the name of James Pedder, referred to in my Provisional Specification.
A clear explanation of the application of the laws and principles of hydro-
propulsion seems the more needed, because in the Engineer of the 13th of April
last it is said, that beginning with Togood's Patent in 1661 for propelling
by water down to 1857, no fewer than 57 individuals have either proposed
or patented the scheme in this country. Doubtless inventors in other
countries have done the same. I would therefore observe, that the first
attempt 1 can find to reduce water propulsion to something like a science
proceeded from my own experiments in 1847. This attempt will be found in
the seventh improvement in the Specification of the said James Pedder, taken
out by me on the 6th November 1847, before referred to. The other matters
therein formed no part of my Invention.

page_text: It will be seen, on referring to it, that the foundation of that system of
hydro-propulsion was a discovery and its application. This is called the two
altitudes; that is, that the reactionary force of issuing water is equal to twice
its hydrostatic pressure. The theoretical proof of this I discovere.l 14 years
afterwards, namely, in February 1861, as herein-before shewn. This force
I thought in 1847 could only be obtained by means of the contracted vein, of
which the illustrious Newton was either the discoverer or first exp rin enter
upon, but which was independently discovered by my experiments in 1847,
not knowing it was known before. The contractel vein and nozzle in the
form of the contracted vein were, therefore, claimed in such Specification of
1847, for the purpose of getting the force of the 2 altitudes, and calculating
But since then I have di-covered that the same
thereby the area of reaction.
force may be obtained by a form of mouth-piece which I call the Jermanent
contracted vein, before referred to, and which is much easier to make.
I give this explanation because I use the permanent contracted vein; but
not for the purpose of calculating the area of reaction thereby, that is by the
2 altitudes as we then did. For I have shewn in this Specification for the
first time that such method of calculation (given in Pedder's Specification of
1847) is a wrong one. The purpose for which I now use the permanent
contracted vein is to obtain the required velocity of reaction with a velocity of
propelling float less than that of reaction, instead of getting such velocity of
issue with an equal velocity of float in the propelling pump.
The erroneous method of finding the resistance by the 2 altitudes, and the
false principles of application shewn in Drawings 18, 19, and 20 of the Speci-
fication of 1847, so misled us in trying hydro-propulsion in 1848 or 9 in a
steam vessel of about 35 IP, that we abandoned it as a more wasteful and
inconvenient application of power than the paddle wheel, though both the
vessel and engines were new and excellent.
I will, therefore, show what these false princi, les of application are,
which then made hydro-propulsion worthless, the more clearly to show in
what respects my present Invention differs. It will be seen by the Drawings
18, 19, and 20 in the Specification of 1847, that there is only one propelling
pipe, and that this runs the whole length of the vessel inside from stem to
stern. Suppose this applied inside the Warrior, which is about 380 feet
long, there would be the loss due to the friction of water in a pipe of this
length, which by my own experiments would be very great. But the best
authority I know on hydraulics is Professor Weisbach of Freiberg. In his
remarkable work, "Principles of the Mechanics of Machinery and Engi-
neering," vol. 1, p. 430, he says that he discovered a formula from his own

page_text: experiments based on the hypothesis that the resistance of friction in pipes
encreases simultaneously as the square and square root of the cube of
the velocity. For the head of water lust by such friction he gives the formula
before given.
g
I would show how great this loss would be in a pipe running the whole
length of the vessel if I knew the re-istance. But this problem is yet unsolved
by the most distinguished experimenters and mathen.aticians of Europe and
America. By my theory of fluid impulse against a plane of the same area the
resistance is that given by my formula R=·5 (P=.375 Vaw lbs.
Now the loss and disadvantage of only one propeller, as in our Invention of
1817, and also in Ruthven's system, is comparatively small in small vessels,
because the pipe is of no great length, and therefore the loss from friction is
comparatively small. It is in large vessels that the loss becomes so great.
But by having 2 propellers, and the pipes outside the vessel, as in my present
Invention, instead of inside, as in ours of 1847 and in Ruthven's, the length
of pipe, and therefore the loss from friction is reduced to a minimum. This
makes the application as advantageous for the largest as for the smallest
vessels.
The next serious loss in our Invention of 1847 is that due to the convergent
entrance for the propelling water, shewn in Drawings 18, 19, and 20 of such
Specification; instead of having a cylindrical or divergent entrance for the
water as in my present Invention. By having a convergent entrance, the
water must be wiredrawn as it were, that is, drawn in by the engine at a higher
velocity than that moving in the pipe of a larger diameter. The entering
water will, therefore, impinge upon the slower moving mass, and cause a loss
of vis viva. This loss I think is equal to the height of the differential velocity.
If then the entering water, and the slower moving water in the pipe, the
loss of horse-power would be This would be considerable. The
value of corresponds to the differential altitude, and will be found by the
formula V=2. As this is my own, and time does not
permit me to consider lung, I give it with diffidence.
2y 3.30
Such loss, however, would be still more serious if the water formed a con-
tracted vein on entering the converging orifice, as I believe it woul 1, and also
in a cylindrical entrance if the entrance were not divergent, as shewn in my
Drawing. If so the contracted vein would make the contracted area of
entrance still less than that shewn in the Drawing of 1847. The water woul·l,
therefore, have to be drawn in by the engine at a still higher velocity than
through the actual convergent entrance there shewa, and thus entail a still

page_text: greater loss of vis viva by in paet upon the slower moving mass inside the
pipe. Different experimenters make the coefficient of contraction different,
as I have sail. If, however, we assume it to be 64, and the area of conver-
gance in the Warrior 9 square feet, the area would be reduced by the
formation of the contracted vein to about 64x9=576 square fe t. And
if the area of the propelling pipe were 20 square feet, the loss of vis viva from
impact would be very great.
In thus pointing out another of the false principles of our Invention of
1847, I have at the same time explained one of the principles and applica-
tions of my resent Invention enunciated in my Provisional Specification.
This is that "the propelling water must enter the mouth of the propelling
"tule without resistance at entrance to consumic power, and wit.out con-
traction in the pipe to cause a loss of vis viva by impact." It is to prevent
both these losses that I make each end of the propelling pipe in my present
Invention slightly divergent. Thus considerable saving is made merely by a
cylindrical entrance, or by turning the mouth of the pie a little out instead
of a little in.
This verifies what I said in my Provisional Specification, that "a small
"difference in form makes a great difference in result." This loss would here
be shown, but in the present state of our knowledge of the resistance of vessels
we have no certainty of the resistance of the Warrior at 14-354 knots an hour.
Ilence, without knowing it, the losses of friction of the long pipe and of vis
viva from impact of the entering water cannot be shown; besides, any one can
apply principles when discovered; and these principles of 2 great losses in
hydro-propulsion have never I think been discovered before, or the application
would have been different.
Another great loss in our Invention of 1847 was in Paduer's rotary pump,
described in the seventh improvement of the Specification. It has no cam to
move the floats in and out of the drum. The result was that they were thrown
violently out by centrifugal force, and each iron float came down like a sledge
hammer upon the case thump, thump, thump, thump every revolution; this
injured both floats and case and consumed considerable power, as all shocks
aud noise do. Besides this, his rotary pump has only four floats; for we did
not then know that to save power it was necessary to diminish the angular
entrance and curvature as much as possible, for which purpose I now have 8 or
10 floats. Further, the area of reaction was calculated, as I have said, by
the false method of the 2 altitudes, as stated in the 7th improven ent in our
Specification of 1847. Moreover, we gave no guide for fuling the size of
propellers and revolutions of engines, nor had any expanding and contracting

page_text: valves, nor safety repairing valves. Neither did I then know that the maximum
efficiency of the paddle wheel and scrow is only 50 per cent., assuming that
the law of fluid impulse does apply to them.
I have now shown the difference, both in principles and application, between
It is also desirable, I think, to show
my present Invention and that of 1817.
the importance of my expanding and contracting valves for hydro-propulsion,
because they apply one of the e-sential principles of my Invention, that the
propeller float should move (in most cases) at a less velocity than that of the
issuing water.
Suppose there are no such valves, but only the contraction for reaction at
the stern end of the pipe for going ahead, and that the mouth of the pipe
where the water enters is cylindrical, that is, of the same area as the pipe
itself and not divergent. If the water on entering formed the contracted vein
there would be the loss of vis viva arising from impact, as before explained.
This would be one loss. But suppose the engines reversed for backing, the
contracted vein at the stern would then be the entrance for the propelling
water; and if this would be still more contracted by the formation of the fluid
vein, the tax upon the engines to draw in the water fast enough through a still
narrower orifice would be still greater, and the loss of vis viva in proportion.
Assume, however, as some mathematicians say, that there is no forma-
tion of the contracted vein at entrance when a cylindrical pipe moves agaiust
the water, but that a full diameter is scooped out. There is, nevertheless, the
actual contracted vein, as shewn in the Specification of 1847, Figures 18, 19,
and 20, therefore the water entering through this contracted area for backing
must entail a loss of horse power due to the loss of vis viva from impact
against the slower moving water, as before explained.
So far then at the stern end of the pipe between the contracted vein and
the pump; but the result at the other end would be still worse, for having
no contracting valve to contract the pipe at the how for backing, the pipe at
the bow would be fully open, consequently the water could not be expelled much
fa-ter than that due to the velocity of the float; the engines therefore could
not get up their power, and the vessel would scarcely be backed at all.
Thus the expanding and contracting valves enable me to carry out one of
the essential principles of my Invention stated in my Provisional Specification,
namely, "one end of the pipe must be always fully open for the free entrance
"of the water, and the other eud contracted for its exit and reaction;" 1
mean when the float moves at a less velocity than that of the issuing water,
not otherwise.
It is desirable in all cases to reduce a science to the fewest and simplest

page_text: elements.
I may, therefore, remark, that before my Invention of contracting
and expanding valves (to get a velocity of float less than that of the issue for
the purpose of reducing the friction) there was I believe only one method of
reaction propulsion, that adopted by Ruthven, a velocity of float equal to the
velocity of issue, which requires no such valves. Now there are 2 methods of
hydro-propulsion and only 2. I. with contracting and expanding valves; II.
without them. Hence every plan must be upon one principle or the other;
the practical result is, and this is what I want to point out, that (for the
reasons given in the preceding paragraph) no vessel can be properly propelled
and backed by the reaction of water whose floats move at a less velocity than
that of the issue without either adopting my valves or an equivalent for them.
This equivalent will be the application by some means or other of one of my
principles, which is, in the words of my Provisional Specification, "one end of
"the pipe fully open for the free entrance of the water, and the other end
contracted for its exit and reaction."
1 will explain two equivalents, because they occurred to me in 1850, and
have long since been abandoned. Suppose the mouth of the propelling pipe
is fully open and the end contracted for reaction, over this I proposed to have a
moveable hood or cup, which I called the backing cup; for I had found by
my experiments in 1842, that if a jet of steam impinges into a cup and the fluid
reissues in the line of entrance a doublo force is imparted. Hence one force,
that due to the action or impulse of the jet into the cup, would balance the
force of reaction in the propelling pipe; and the other force, due to the reaction
of the jet from the cup, would back the vessel. The other equivalent was to
make the reaction end moveable and to turn it round for backing.
I may observe that by my valves I combine, for the first time, two opposito
things deemed "impossible," though science is the history of impossibilities.
I obtain a high velocity of vessel with a low velocity of float by means of a
larger area than that of reaction. Neither the paddle wheel, screw, Ruthven's
Invention, nor any system of propulsion I know of does this or can do it. It
is, however, of great importance for despatch boats and vessels of high velocity,
because there is a limit to their speed by the present means, except by paddle
wheels or screws of inconvenient size or velocity. There is also a limit to
the speed of vessels by Ruthven's and all other centrifugal systems, because of
the great loss of power entailed by a high velocity of float, a long pipe, and one
with bends. But there is no limit by mny Invention, because the velocity
of issue and vessel can be doubled without encreasing that of the float or
friction.
The other metlol of hydre-propul ion is without contracting and expanding

page_text: valves.
This has been shewn to be practically useless, by the failures
of two hundred years. The causes are two chiefly,-1. Great velocity of
flat, which entails loss from friction. There is a further loss from drawing
in the propelling water faster than its natural flow; or when taken in at the
sire or beneath the vessel, a loss from diminished pressure to overcome the
external pressure. II. Length of pipe inside the vessel, entailing loss from
friction of the water and from bends; nor can a pipe without my valves be
economically adopted, except by my equivalent of a short parallel propelling
pipe outside the vessel, as pointed out in the latter part of my Provisional
Specification, for the friction will then be reduced to a minimum, so far as it
can be in a pipe without such valves. With such a pipe a velocity of float or
propelling water greater than the natural velocity of entering water will entail
little or no loss of power, because its mouth being divergently open towards
the bow will (to use a well understood term) suck the vessel on with a force
due to the differential velocity.
I have now explained, with all clearness I hope, the laws and principles of
the only 2 methods of hydro-propulsion, their advantages and disadvantages.
I think I should also point out the advantage of being able to steer and
manoeuvre by the side ru lders, the value of which for war vessels I seem to
have anticipated; for there is nothing like experience to show the value of
things, as the following extract from the Times of August last (3 months after
my Provisional Specification) will show, describing the late naval engagement
between the Austrians and Italians off Lissa; the writer says, "The Palestro
"and San Martino strove to come to the rescue of the Re d'Italia flag ship
"of Admiral Persano, but the latter having had her rudder shattered by the
very first shot was unable to shu the onsets of the four Austrian ironclads,
"which surrounded and sunk her with nearly all on board."
"E
Unless England is the first naval power she is nothing. India and ber
colonies, her freedom and her commerce, all depend upon it. It would not
then be pleasant to read in sonie naval war that the Queen or King of Eng
land's flag ship of some future Admiral Nelson was sunk with nearly all on
board for want of some substitute for a rudder. It is then essential that a
nation should possess in its navy the greatest possible security for crew and
vessel against leaks, fire, steering, repairing the propelling machinery at sea,
and against the modern system of naval warfare, ramming. Now my Inven-
tion of hydro-propulsion combines all these advantages, whilst neither the
paddle wheel nor screw possesses one.
I have said in my Provisional Specification that my Invention differed from
Mr. Ruthven's in 10 thing. To these I will add four more; 1, in the

page_text: formula for finding the area of reaction to propel the vessel; 2, for finding the
size of the propellers and number of revolutions; 3, for finding the horse-
power required for hydro-propulsion, the useful effect, and the loss; and, 4, in
safety repairing valves; our systems differ therefore in fourteen things.
We differ also in the very principle of bydro-propulsion, and on a material
point, that of slip. Mr. Ruthven says in his Specification of 1849, that hydro-
propulsion "may be so arranged as to lose no power in theory and but little
"in practice from slip." And in his pamphlet of this year, published by Potter,
of the Poultry, is the following at p. 6: "The advantages claimed for this
"propeller (the principle of which will be found explained in the annexed
"report of the bearing for prelongution of the Patent before the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council) are as follows:-No loss of power from
"slip, as in the paddle wheel or screw, hence greater power is obtained from
"the same quantity of fuel."
I infer that this erroneous doctrine is supported by others; for in such
pamphlet we find opinions in favor of the Invention by Mr. Murray, Chief
Engineer at the Royal Dockyard, Portsmouth, Captain Risk, of the Royal
Navy, Captain Claxton, R.N., Managing Director of the Great Western Steam
Company, more than 20 years nautical assistant to the late Mr. Brun. 1, who,
witness said, gave him leave to report on Mr. Ruthven's system to the Al-
miralty. It was on their evidence, and that of others, that the Judicial
C. m'ttee of the Privy Council granted an enlargement of the Letters Patent
of Mr. Ruthven for so unusual a term as 10 years. See Ruthven's
pamphlet of 1866, p. 24.
Moreover, in March or April 1865 the House of Commons voted a sum of
money for the then Lords of the Admiralty to try son.e system of water pro-
pulsion. They selected Ruthven's, which has since been applied to Her
Majesty's ironside gun vessel the Water Witch of 778 tons, and failed econo-
mically for the reasons before given. These were, moreover, pointed out by
me in two apers sent iu to the Lords of the Admiralty, one dated the 23rd of
March, the other the 17th of May 1865, eighteen months before the Water Witch
was tried. So sure was I of her failure that I even ventured to say that "any
"trials of hydro-propulsion on any such system was a certain waste of public
time and money." I said also that I had discovered the laws and principles
of hydro-propulsion, to which therefore nothing could be added, and solicited
reference to a scientific committee. But my papers only received the usual
official notice, the results of which are now seen in the failure of the Water
Witch, and the loss of 18 months, more valuable than money. We can
predict results with certainty when we know the laws that govern them.
66

page_text: "
86
My only object in these statements, and a natural one on behalf of my
Invention, is to put on record the state of hydro-dynamical science even in the
highest quarters and among Government engineers, as well as the public
generally, prior to my present Patent; for the trials of the Nautilus were
considere by the scientific journals that reported them in April last to be
very successful, the best results which have ever been obtained from the
hydraulic propeller." Since, therefore, I have not time to wade through all
the Patents on water propulsion for two hundred years, beginning with
Togood's in 1661, I think I am justified upon such scientific evidence, the
extension of Ruthven's Patent for 10 years, and its selection by the late
Admiralty, in considering it as the best representative of all that was known
respecting the science and application of hydro-propulsion at the date of my
Patent.
To show this more specifically, I may repeat that the great advantage claimed
for hydro-propulsion is that there is "no loss of power from slip as in the
"paddle wheel or screw." Yet I have shown by analysing the trials of the
Nautilus that the application by the Inventor himself of his own Invention
entailed a loss of about 45 per cent. by slip alone. Also that the men of
science mentioned in the scientific journals referred to, who witnessed such
trials, considered them "very successful," though the gross loss of engine
power was 82 per cent. That is, out of every hundred tons of coals consumed,
82 tons of this national commodity would be wasted, with all the labour
entailed in getting them to the surface, and in bringing them to their
destination. What stores of sun heat in bygone ages to be wasted thus, and
yet to be called "very successful!"
But to show still further how little is yet known of this science, one of the
scientific journals of the 13:h of April last thus writes:-"There can be
"little doubt that the success which has attended his, Mr. Ruthven's, exertions
"is mainly, if not wholly, due to the adoption of the centrifugal pump, with
"an equable and enormous delivery, instead of the ordinary piston pump
"commonly adopted by other inventors."
Economical hydro-propulsion, however, with a centrifugal pump is scarcely
possible for vessels of much width and high speed, because of the length of
pipe, high velocity of float, and bends of pipe. There is, however, another
believe has not
important principle connected with this application which
yet been discovered. It is the loss entailed by taking the water into the
Nautilus and Water Witch from underneath the vessel.
the fundamental principle of hydro-dynamical science for propulsion embolied
in my direct propelling pipe, it is proper to explain it.
Now as this violates

page_text: 1- I'
By taking the propelling water into the pump vertically at the bottom of
the vessel static equilibrium is disturbed, that is, the impulse of the incoming
water due to the velocity of the vessel and external pressure in favour of the
pump or propelling water is lost.
Suppose the floats are driven at a gr. ater
velocity than that due to the external pressure of the water, as was the case
in the Nautilus, is now in the Water Witch, and ever will be in all vessels of
high velocity without my expanding and contracting valves or their equivalent.
The propelling water must then be drawn into the pump by the power of the
engine. This entails a loss of power, measured I think by 33029 a 10, where
V is the mean velocity of the floats; 2, the velocity due to the heigth of the
superincumbent water above the entrance of the pump=2y h; V is the
velocity due to the differential altitude=✓--; a is the area of reaction,
and w the weight of one cubic foot of fresh or salt water, as the case may be.
There are, however, so many difficulties connected with the laws of force and
motion applied in hydro-propulsion, and so little time to consider them, that
I merely give this formula for the purpose of accounting for so ne portion of
the great loss of power, about 80 per cent., found by analysis both in the
Nautilus and Water Witch.
Suppose, however, the vessel draws sufficient water for its velocity of
entrance to equal the velocity of the float, there will then be no loss in
getting the water into the propeller. But the loss is only changed to the
other side of the float, for it has to overcome the resistance of the external
water against which the issue acts. The float, therefore, or propelling water
as it issues ought to have in its favour as great a push of the external water
on one side as it has to overcome on the other. If, however, the float or
propelling water moves from the entering water as fast as that enters the
pipe, the float or issuing water cannot receive such push, it has therefore to
overcome the pressure of the external water without that aid, which a due
knowledge and application of the laws of nature would give. Now I preserve
the statical equilibrium of the external water by my direct-acting propelling
pipe outside the vessel, with its mouth towards the bow, I gain no power in
doing so, for we can get nothing without first producing it. The whole art
and mystery of science is to economise power and material; and if there is
only half a per cent. to be saved anywhere, the engineer should not be satis-
fied till he has saved it. Now I save much,-I., by preserving the static
equilibrium of the water as much as can be done when the vessel is in motion
as when it is at rest; II., by letting the propelling water enter the pipe with
D

page_text: the velocity due to the vessel, so as not to tax the engine to draw it in; and,
III., by reducing the friction to a minimum by my hydro-propeller and a
pipe as short and straight as possible.
Another cause may be assigned for the great loss of taking the water on to
the pump from beneath, or at right angles from the side of the vessel. The
vessel passes over the still water at the velocity v, and catches up a weight of
water equal a V, V being the velocity of issue. This weight of water the
engine endows with the velocity every second. Now we cannot set a body
D2
of water in motion from a state of rest without expending a power= IP
-550 29
Vaw. This then is the loss in doing so. A locomotive would no
doubt expend such power, and so would the vessel if it drew no water. But
by the external pressure the water will enter the turbine as it would a leak, the
rush of which many a poor foundered crew have in terror heard. I do not
then think this is the true cause of the loss of the Nautilus and Water Witch.
The mind is not satisfied with bare facts, it seeks the reason of the thing, the
principle that underlies it, and in all nature the law that governs its
operation. I have thus endeavoured to account for the failures of two
centuries.
Further, a long propelling pipe departs from the first principle of mechanics,
for the moving power becomes feeble in proportion to its distance from the
object it acts upon. This is particularly the case with water power, the loss
being as the square of its velocity and distance, as shown by the formula
before given. The water, for instance, has received the full power of the
engine and has to propel it by reacting on the orifice outside the vessel. It
follows, therefore, that it should do the work it has to do in the most <lirect
and simple manner possible, through a pipe free from bends and only long
enough to get the propelling water in and out again. But the centrifugal
pump system is the reverse of all this, and there is only one pump to depend
upon, which is objectionable, especially for war purposes. It has, therefore,
the double disadvantage of being a bad principle badly applied.
I have now stated in what respects my Invention differs from that system
which is considered the best by the Lords of the Admiralty, Government
engineers, and men of science. I have also endeavoured to explain the
fundamental principles of hydro-propulsion, which I have discovered, so
clearly that any one can understand them, though unacquainted with the
subject.
It is required of Patentees that they should specify what they have done
themselves, to make known what is new and what is old in their Inventions.

page_text: The Engineer of the 2nd and 9th instant contains 2 papers on the losses
of Ruthven's system in Her Majesty's ironside Water Witch. These papers
may be used by-and-by to show a different knowledge of the science than is
here stated. As I might not be able to explain them then, I will do so now.
The first is by Professor Rankine, making the loss in the Water Witch about
80 per cent., which is about the same as my own analysis. This agrees nearly
enough with the loss found in the Nautilus in April last propelled on the same
principle. My analysis is contained in the voluminous paper of 38 quarto
sheets before referred to, and submitted to the learned professor in July last;
that paper also contains ny formulæ for hydro-propulsion, how to find the
area of reaction, useful effect, loss, and power expended. These are easy
enough for such a mathematician as Professor Rankine to construct, taught
by the best masters in the best schools. He, too, can apply them far more
elegantly than I can, a mere city man from my youth, and still taught
in no school, and by no master, and who, not many years ago, asked a school-
boy the meaning of algebra. Nothing, however, is denied to well-directed
labour, to him who will work hard enough and long enough; for all things
are possible to perseverance, except what is opposed to the laws of nature.
Work and wait, and leave to the Supreme Intelligence to determine how much
of your labour it is best for you to enjoy.
No man of science of our day writes more, or more valuable papers, than
Professor Rankine ; but as I can find no reference in them or in his standard
works to hydro-dynamical propulsion, I conclude that he had not, before my
paper in July last, directed his attention to the subject; I may, moreover,
observe, that the professor, in his Paper of the 13th of August last, is
pleased to say that I having, in 1858, published my paddle-wheel formula,
R='75 Vaw lbs., am, “to the best of his knowlege and belief, entitled
to be the first discoverer of it." I thought so in my Specification of 1860,
and now avail myself of so high an authority to confirm it. The professor

page_text: also says
that I am the first to apply to the paddle-wheel and screw the law
of fluid impulse against a plane, discovered by my experiments of 1842 and
1817, though he differs from me entirely on the point; I have, however, faith
in principles which have never yet misled me. Even now they direct me to a
new proof of the law of fluid impulse only just in time to introduce here.
The efficiency of a water machine, undershot, paddle wheel, or screw
cannot be equal to the whole power expended if one-fourth of the water
For I have
escapes past the floats; such is the case with the paddle wheel.
said that I found, in 1857, that the indicator of the Banshee shewed that the
power expended was not equal to the whole area of the floats dynamically
V-
ويلاند
computed, but only to equal P=75 Vaw. The whole area, however,
cannot pass through the water without setting in motion a mass of fluid
equal the whole area. If, then, one-fourth escapes from imperfect deflection,
as the indicator shows, it cannot react on the floats, but must carry with
it one-fourth of the power expended, for we can give motion to nothing
without expending an equivalent amount of power. It follows that the force
of reaction on the floats cannot be equal to the whole area of the power
expended=75Vaw lbs., but only equal to (25×2=).5 of such area.
Since, then, the resistance of vessels cannot be greater than the force that
overcomes it, we get, as the measure of resistance, the paddle-wheel
formula R='5" Va w lbs.
Having no guide in 1857 in the law of fluid impulse, I made the power
expended the measure of the force imparted, as Colonel Beaufoy and every
other experimenter has done down to our own day, thereby making the
results unreliable, and the thousands of pounds expended mostly wasted. A
few inches of tin pipe with a hole in it at right angles, in 1842, shewn in
Sheet I. of the Drawing, have developed the true principle.
I may remark that the most notable discoveries have been made by pure
reasoning, the process of induction and deduction. It was by the same method,
guided by my experiments and by the remarkable difference in area between
the two principles, reaction and impulse, discovered in 1842, that six months
ago I found out the primary loss of the paddle wheel and screw as planes
moving in a fluid of the same area. We now see how this reasoning is
verified by the indicator of the Banshee, which makes the efficiency of a plane
the same as hand experiments equal only one-half its area; there is then no
difference whether the plane move against a fluid or the fluid against the
plane. This verification is therefore another instance of the unchangeableness
of the laws of nature, and of the confidence with which we may depend upon

page_text: them, and confirms my remark, that "the mutual artion of fluids and solids
"is correlative one and the same."
When, however, a plane moves against a fluid the loss of power expended
may not be so great as when a fluid moves against a plane, because in the
former case the fluid is so mobile and slippery that it escapus past the plane
before it can get sullicient hold to project a suli 1 body of water equal to the
whole area.
Henco it is that the indicator shows that the power expended is
not as the whole area, but only as three-fourths; with a jet of fluid, however,
the power expended must necessarily be equal to the whole area of the jet.
This investigation is of some practical importance, I think, for naval
architecture and the improvement of steam navigation, for it gives a micasure
of the maximum resistance of vessels, an 1 shows the superiority of the prin-
ciple of reaction over impulse for propulsion, because it shows a saving of
50 per cent. in the area of propul ion and at least 25 per cent. in power;
now this was not known before. Tho eliciency of the paddle plane may,
however, be only 50 per cent. of the dynamic or efficient area, and not merely
of the whole area; in such case the saving also will be 50 per cent. Taking,
however, the maximum resistance of vessels, the formula by the paddle wheel
will be R='5 Vaw lbs., and by the indicated power, approxi nately,
R=68750 The value of the symbols are before given. The power
expended will be the same as in 1857, 7=75
1"-"
g
"
-1
ولادة
-puw
I have referred to the state of hydro-dynamical science for propulsion at the
date of my Patent; I must therefore mention another paper on the subject
in "The Engineer" of the 9th instant, by the Reveren 1 Professor Airey, M.A.,
of Mereliant Tailors' School. He is pleased to distinguish my paddle-wheel
formula (R=75 Vaw) as Boyman's formula for ascertaining the
"resistance in any given case to the vessel's motion through the water," the
coefficient of which I have since altered, as here shewn. I may remark, that
this accomplished mathematician bad not heard of hydro-propulsion before
1849, when I submitted my discoveries to him, on which he gave me, in 1850,
one of the ablest analytical papers on the subject that I ever had the gratifi-
cation of reading. In his paper on hydro-propulsion in the Engineer, Professor
Airey observes, "At intervals for two centuries hydro-propulsion has exercised
"the ingenuity of reflecting minds to devise suitable means for its practical
"application; often it has been tried, but as often it has failed." I have
explained the reasons for thinking that I am the first and only discoverer of
the causes of these failures from 1661 down to those of the Nautilus and IIer
Majesty's ironside War Witch.

page_text: "
are
A subsequent paper on this subject, by Professor Rankine," appeared in the
Engineer of the 16th instant, in which the learned writer observes, "It is not
"to be imagined that our own leader, or Mr. Airey's able paper, or, indeed,
any mathematical investigation, with the existence of which we
"acquainted, exhausts the subject. On the contrary, the more carefully we
"consider the matter the deeper must become the conviction that, whether
"regarded simply from a mechanical point of view, or in the light of theory
"applied to practice, much still remains to be said about hydro-propulsion,
"and many problems of considerable importance still await solution. Nor is
" this strange.
Although the system was first tested by Togood 200 years ago,
"and although scores of Patents have been taken our for Inventions connected
"with the principle since, still we lack information on the subject.
Experience is the foundation of all knowledge,' says Bacon, but of
Messrs. Ruthven,
experience in hydro-propulsion we have little or none.
"father and son, have been almost, without exception, the only individuals who
"have brought the idea to the test of practice, or anything like a fair scale.
"These experiments have however been comparatively limited in their scope,
"and when we reflect that the researches of many years and practical
experience with thousands of ships have failed to establish a perfectly satis-
"factory theory of the action of the screw propeller, or to afford a satisfactory
"explanation of some of the phenomena attending its use, the statement,
"that we have much yet to learn regarding hydro-propulsion, and the asser-
"tion that it offers an admirable and as yet nearly uncultivated field for
* scientific research, will appear to follow as a natural consequence or
" corollary."
"
I venture, however, to observe, that when we have discovered the laws and
principles of a science, and the organism through which they act most
I submit that I have done this; we cannot
efficiently, we can do no more.
then go beyond nature. Now to know the cause of failure is the first step
to remove it. The means in this case are so simple that it will scarcely be
believed that it took two hundred years to discover it; for, as I have pointed
out, it is nothing more than a direct acting propelling pipe with its mouth
towards the bow as short and as straight as possible, open at one end and
contracted at the other. Now as I could not get such a pipe as short and
straight and free from bends inside the vessel as outside, I put it out; but I
must be permitted to say, that the labour of acquiring the theoretical know-
ledge that led to this simple application to discover the laws of force and
motion to embody them in appropriate formulæ for finding the proper area
for reaction and horse-power for this method of propulsion, and to reduce the

page_text: whole to something like an exact science has been very great; nothing can
repay it, much less anything so useless as fame.
As I consider, for the reasons before given, that the direct-acting propelling
pipe with or without valves is the foundation of hydro-dynamical science for
propulsion, and it looks so little like an Invention of much thought, labour,
and experiments, I think it right, in the interests of science, to make a few
remarks on this subject. It is not the philosophic but the vulgar or
uneducated mind that is most impressed by magnitude and complexity, yet the
highest art is the perfect adaptation of means to end, and this is generally the
simplest. We must not, therefore, measure the thought and labour of
invention by the simplicity of the means, but by the importance of the laws
and results which they embody, because the discovery of laws and principles
is ever the hardest, the best, and most enduring part of invention; this
is shewn by the bistory of all science. The steam engine, the electric tele-
graph, two centuries of failure of hydro-propulsion in England, France, and
America, all the philosophic arts attest the truth, and teach us that man
begins in complexity and ends in simplicity.
The separate condenser of the illustrious Watt is a remarkable instance,
and shows that the simplest means embody the most profound thought, the
most important results. For this changed, as if by inspiration, a barren
and unpromising science into one of the most fruitful and important to
mankind. Now the separate condenser was, and is, nothing more than an
iron box joined to the cylinder by a bit of pipe. Yet it was this that first
gave to man the great prime mover of the universe, the conquest of matter,
and the dominion of the elements. A man's skull again is nothing of itself,
but only as the organism of the thought and immortality of the great
Inventor who designed it. Now the direct-acting propelling pipe is nothing
more than a short level pipe, outside the vessel, with its mouth towards the
bow. Yet it will do for hydro-propulsion, with or without valves, what the
separate condenser did for the steam engine. It will make that do which
never did before.
I may be mistaken in this matter, but as I may perhaps be considered
to know something more about it than others, I would observe that we could
have done without the separate condenser from the first, even as we do now
in the locomotive, and in a thousand other high-pressure engines throughout
the world; but we cannot propel vessels by the reaction of water economically,
except by avoiding the losses here pointed out as the cause of failure for
two hundred years, and these losses cannot be saved in any other way that
I know of. Herce mere man's invention may pass away, those of the present

page_text: for ever.
UNICE
day as those of the past. 15ut the laws of nature never pass away.
discovered, and the organism through which they act, and they are discovered
The paddle wheel, the screw, my own bydro-propellers, even the
steam engine itself may pass away. But that simple propelling tube 1
have discovered, after so many years of thought, labour, and expense, will
still remain as the organism or fundamental principle of hydro-propulsion
by whatever means the propelling water may be set in motion. The area
of reaction also, and the power required for hydro-propulsion, can never be
found by any other method than the laws of force and motion here specified.
Considered, by a mathematician of such research as Professor Rankine, "a
"nearly uncultivated field for scientific research," I have thought it right to
point out what seem to me scientific truths.
DESCRIPTION OF MACHINERY FOR HYDRO-PROPULSION.
Sheet I. Fig. 1 is a sectional plan of my double-action hydro-propeller,
with the expanding and contracting valves therein. The former is open for
the free entrance of the water, the latter is making the contraction for its
issue and reaction. These valves are the thin plate orifices through which
the contracted rein is formed. An exact copy of the one I used in 1847,
and of the same size, which I have still, is shewn in Sheet I. By this was
discovered the force of the two altitudes in that year, the foundation of
hydro-dynamical propulsion, though I no longer use the thin plate orifice, or
go by its results.
Fig. 2 is an end view of the propeller; Fig. 3 is a vertical section through
its centre, shewing the two cams, one on each side, in which the rollers
move to work the floats, which are shewn nearly drawn back; Fig. 4 is a
longitudinal section through the centre of the inlet and outlet watercourses.
A is the propeller revolving in the direction of the arrow. It is keyed fust
upon the vertical shaft B, is free to revolve in the footstep C and upper
bearing C I. The shaft B is connected with the main shaft of the engines
by the level wheel D, working into a corresponding wheel upon that shaft.
The propeller is composed of a circular drum open at both ends, so that
when it is in action all the working parts are seen, except of course the
Hoats, which are covered in. The engineer can, therefore, keep the rollers
oiled, and see at once any injury, and repair it by means of the safety re-
pairing valves outside, herein-after described.
To the inner circumference of the drum 8 float boxes b, b, are riveted,
which revolve with the drum, by means of the arms which connect it with
the loss or centre. The flats a, a, are free to move in and out of these

page_text: boxes, and protrude through the drum into the watercourses, to act upon
the water to propel the vessel by reaction at the contracted veins on cach
side. Each float is moved in and out of the watercourses and boxes by two
rods c, c, working through stuffing boxes or openings on the float boxes. A
cross bar connects the two flat roils, and to each end of the cross bar is a
connecting rod d, which turns back over and clear of the flat boxes, and
terminates in a roller c. Each roller works in a ca:n E and E I, and so
guides the floats in and out of the watercourses and boxes, and enables them
to pass the two water dividers one on each side of the drum. These water
dividers are fixed to the propelling pipe, and are made to fit the drum
closely, say the 3 of an inch, to divide the 2 waters, the entering and
pressure waters.
The links or connecting rods, from the cross bar of each float piston,
must either be made part of the sane forging, or else tigilly connected, to
prevent the rollers in the cams from deviating in the slightest degree from
their course. The stationary cams E and E I may be fixed to the outer
case F of the propeller. This is fixed to the side of the vessel, through
which it protrudes and forms the direct-acting propelling pipe, with its
mouth towards the bow of the vessel, slightly divergent at both ends. This
divergence is about 1-2 of the diameter of the propelling pipe, and is for
the purpose of preventing the formation of the contracted vein as the water
enters, and the consequent loss of vis viva from impact, referred to in my
Provisional Specification, and before explained.
The expanding and contracting valves G and G1 are fixed to shafts II
and II I, which pass through stuffing boxes into the interior of the vessel,
and are connected by means of the bell crank I an connecting rod J. At
the end of the shaft II is a pulley K, having over it an endless chain, which
is prevented from slipping by a screw or other suitable fastening. The
chain is then passed over guide rollers or pulleys below the deck to a con-
venient part of the engine room, where it is attached to a hand'e with a
spring catch and circular rack for keeping it in position. The valves in
each propelling pipe, on each side of the vessel, can thus be worked simul-
taneously, and fixed in any position, and reversed for backing when the
engineer reverses bis engines.
Nothing floats in mid-water but fish, which may sometimes find their way
and death in the pipes, for nothing could enter them and live. To keep the
large fish out, four knife-edged bars may be fixed at both ends of the pipe,
dividing the mouth into four quarters. Smaller fish, if not swept through
such huge diameters would scon Le mashed up by the power of a thousand

page_text: horses, and sea-going vessels have seldom less. For scarcely anything that
could enter the pipes could harm such iron floats as my hydro-propellers.
Moving in the still water in the pipes, and subject to no shocks of the sea, I
know not how they can be injured, so that the gallant crew and good ship
have now a greater security in the propelling machinery, on which both
depend for safety, than they have had before.
Though the pipes will be made as strong as the rest of the ship, they can
be protected by iron rods or basketwork strong enough to keep anything off.
If knife-edge bars be objected to, and I do not think they are needed, the
rod working the expanding and contracting valves can be made in two pieces,
and so connected that by knocking out a bolt, or undoing a catch, each valve
can be worked separately. Suppose now some stupid fish jams himself head
and shoulders in the pipe, and there sticks. The cams being always open the
engineer will see at once which propeller has ceased working, and immediately
open the contracting valve, and reverse his engines. He will then suddenly
come down on Mr. Fish with the force of a thousand horses or so, and shoot
him out stern foremost, like a rocket through the air. For if the winds and
the waves may no longer withstand the terrible power of science, much less
may a fish.
At one or both ends of the direct-acting propelling pipe is a side rudder for
steering and manevring war vessels, which serves also as the safety repairing
valve P. For by moving it on its centre along the slot Q in the side of the
vessel it will close the end of the propelling pipe, and so prevent the entrance
of more water. Should any accident happen to the propeller (very difficult to
injure, because it moves in the still water in the pipe, free from the shocks of
the sea,) the water in the propeller can be let or pumped out, and the
necessary repairs be made. There must be a man-hole on each side of the
propeller for the purpose. To prevent the water from passing through, the
slot
is a close-fitting metal plate on each side R and R 1, which being fitted
to the square boss S will slide with it, and keep the slot closed in whatever
position the valve may be placed.
On the other side of the propelling pipe is another method of side steering.
The rudder L is fixed to the horizontal post M, upon the other end of which
is a worm wheel N worked by the worm O, moved by an ordinary steering
wheel and chain in a safe and convenient part of the ship. I do not
recommend either of these methods when the propellers are horizontal,
because of the great strain they would be subject to from the rolling of the
ship. I prefer that the horizontal propellers should be pure and simple, as
shewn in Sheet II., Fig. 5, cach propeller being worked by a pair of engines

page_text: for reversing, one without the other, for steering and manoeuvring, as shewn in
Fig. 14.
In this application each end of the propelling pipe can be fitted with the
sliding safety repairing valve mentioned in my Provisional Specification,
though not by this name. It is a mero metal plate, and is shewn on the left
of Sheet II., Fig. 7, for which the grooves T and T1 in Sheet I. on the left
of Fig. I. are shewn. It is suspended from the side of the vessel by a chain
and bracket, and has hinges, so that the valve when not used may be turned
flat against the vessel's side.
The watercourse of the double-acting propeller is divided into 3 channels,
having their inlets at one end and outlets at the other. The mid-channel U
passes only through the front part of the casing F, and the water is propelled
direct by the floats a, a. The other channel V passes above U, and is made
in a spiral form, so as to pass to the back of the propeller, where it drops to
the same level as U, and forms the watercourse for the floats. These are
again moved out by the cams E and EI to propel the water forward and
round to the outlet at the lower level V. The floats thus make a double
action at each revolution, and the two entering waters being opposite each
other and the two pressure waters opposite each other, the pressure of the
water on the drum at each opposite quarter is the same, which prevents any
pressure against the axle except that due to the weight of the propeller. The
course of the channel V is shewn by the red arrows and dotted lines.
Figures 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, in Sheet II., represent different parts
of the moving gear and machinery so clearly as to be readily understood by
the intelligent engineer without tedious descriptions.
I said in my Provisional Specification that "the horizontal propellers can
"be worked by horizontal engines attached to a vertical crank shaft, from
"each side of which connecting rods will proceed at an angle to the cranks
"of the propellers." I forgot at the moment that when the propellers work
horizontally their floats move in different directions, and not in the same
direction as when placed vertically, like paddle wheels. Such an application
would, therefore, be complicated and objectionable. I have consequently given
Drawings of the two other methods of working horizontal propellers mentioned
in my Provisional Specification. One is by a pair of trunk engines on a
horizontal shaft, and connected by wheelwork, represented in Fig. 13, with
the machinery for working the contracting and expanding valves in the pro-
pelling pipes, the side rudders, and safety repairing valves. The other method
is by a pair of trunk engines direct to each propeller, and is shewn in Fig. 14.
By the former method, Fig. 13, the vessel cannot be steered and manoeuvred

page_text: from the side without the side rudders, but it can by the latter method,
Fig. 14, because one propeller can be reversed without the other. Fig. 15 is
a midship section of Fig. 13.
H
Fig. 5, Sheet II., represents my single-acting hydro-propeller with the
permanent contracted vein nozzles, so called by me because they give
approximately the same excellent results as the contracted vein through
thin plate. They are here fixed, and to prevent the loss of vis viva by a
formation of the contracted vein of the entering water the nozzles are made
divergent. To prevent also the loss of vis viva by an entrance whose area is
less than the area of the propelling pipe, a conduit pipe leads from the side
of the vessel at both ends of the propelling pipe into the watercourse. The
mouth of this pipe is divergent at the side of the vessel, to take advantage of
the velocity of the vessel, and the unitel area of the conduit pipe and the
nozzle must be at least equal to the area of the propelling pipe, as mentioned
in my Provisional Specification, to prevent the loss of vis viva from water impact
in the pipe. An expanding and contracting valve (without holes of course) is
at each end of and in the conduit pipe to open the end where the water is
entering, and to close the other end. The permanent contracted vein nozzle
here shown is the form I have used so many years in my experiments on reaction
in preference to the troublesome thin plate of Newton, shewn in Sheet I.
The single-acting propeller needs no description, because it is on precisely
the same principle as the double one, the connecting rods of the cross bar float
pistons turning back over and clear of the float boxes, to get the larger cam
referred to in my Provisional Specification. The form of the cam is the only
difference, to prevent the floats moving out at the top. This propeller savos
the water friction in the long curvature of the double-acting propeller, also
the two inlets for the water, but it entails the loss due to the pressure of the
propelling water on the drum of the propeller. This pressure is counteracted
to a certain extent by that of the external water. This at 8 or 10 feet down
might neutralize entirely the propelling pressure against the drum, unless
indeed the residuary velocity were extravagantly great. Altogether I prefer
this arrangement to the other.
I prefer also the permanent contracted vein mouth-piece to the thin plate
orifice, because I prefer certainty to uncertainty. With the thin plate orifice
for hydro-propulsion the alterations might be as many as with the screw, for
the thin plate contracted vein varies both with the velocity and diameter of
issue. This might have entailed endless trouble and experiments due to the
double uncertainty for the thousand different propelling diameters and velocities
of issue required for vessels of different resistance and velocity. We could

page_text: continuity is as observable as in nature. If, then, nothing could be used that
was known before, no more inventions could be made than houses could
be built without bricks. For no one is great enough to do all himself. It is
only by standing on the shoulders of our predecessors that we can see further
than they.
Thus it was that many minds were needed to be the precursors of the
Copernicus, the Columbus, the Bacons, the Galileos, the Keplers, the Newtons,
Watts, Stephensons, and others. I submit, therefore, that, pursuant to the
divine law of continuity, an inventor is entitled to take all he can find, which
does not belong to or is useless to others, to enable him to invent for the
general benefit of mankind. For it is not the separate parts, new or old,
which constitute an invention. It is the general combination of the whole
reduced by much thought and labor to an actual working and useful reality.
Watt, for example, did not discover one law, or make one discovery essential
to the steam engine, for his separate condenser is not essential. Railways
would be impossible with it. I think, indeed, that the condenser is the curse
of steam navigation, retarding still, as it has for a century, the introduction of
small engines and high-pressure steam, and thus wasting millions of money in
the shape of coal. Watt, however, was a great combiner. He took the cylinder
from one, the piston from another, the beam from a third, the crank from a
fourth, the governor from a fifth, and condensation by injection from a sixth.
These parts separately were of no use to mankind, but combined by a philo-
sophic artist in proper proportions they became the most marvellous machine
the world ever saw, the great prime mover of the universe, the material
redeemer of mankind from the dominion of matter and tyranny of the
elements the winds, the ocean, and the tides. But only by availing himself
of men's labours, the contributions of centuries, the disjecta membra of others,
did this great benefactor of mankind first make a machine an economical
application of the power of steam, and so become the inventor of the steam
engine.
Now, just as the steam engine had been attempted again and again before
his time and abandoned, so has hydro-propulsion from Toogood's Patent of
1661 to the Nautilus and Her Majesty's steamer the Water Witch in our own
day. But neither in Ruthven's Specification, nor in any other I have seen,
nor in any of the mathematical or scientific works or journals I have consulted,
can I find one law or principle laid down for the proper application of hydro-
propulsion. I submit, therefore, that this is a new science, begun by my
experiments in 1847, whereby were discovered the contracted vein and 2
altitudes, aud continued at intervals down to this time, when I first applied

page_text: The law of Huia impuise to the paddle and screw, and thus discovered the loss
of primary velocity in these machines.
Moreover, this science is founded on the laws of force and motion, and
though I do not presume to say that I am the first discoverer of them, still
I did discover them; because, unable to find the proof of these laws, I was
obliged to discover it for the purposes of my Invention, to find the proper area
of reaction; for without such proof I could have no certainty that such area
was the true one when found by the formulæ of Newton, Leibnitz, Tredgold,
Woolhouse, and others. One only could be right, I thought, but I found
they were all wrong. The methods by which such laws were discovered are
here given that it may be seen how far they are original or not. And here I
may observe, that the old mathematical controversey between Newton and
Leibnitz has been revived again within the last week or two in the Engineer,
evidence that there exists no demonstration of the force of motion as distin-
guished from work, or mathematicians would not still differ in our time as
they did before. The old idol of the schools, mass and velocity, is still
served. I must be allowed to call it so, for we must go to nature as our only
standard, and there is no reality there to warrant the mathematical expression
pre-
The consequence is, that the analysis which shews that the force of motion
is=mv=v=2hw for fluids in motion breaks down for solids in motion, a
cannon ball, for instance. Newton, however, saw the distinction. He hypo-
thesised that the force of a fluid might be equal to 2 hw (Principia, 3rd edition,
prop. 36, cor. 2), though he made the force of motion, an impulse for example,
e qual only wv. But the professor of mathematics in
College, and
well known for his mathematical works, was good enough to send me, in
January 1861, what he considered were Newton's own words and mathe-
matical expression for the force of motion, thus:-"The impulsive force of a
"descending body which strikes, but does not penetrate, is mass X velocity."
(Davis' edition of the Translation by Andrew Motte, 1819.) Is then Newton
clearly understood?
Mathematicians seem to me to follow Newton in his error, if I may venture
to speak after this manner of so august an intelligence, for they too use an
element in the flow of fluids v (which is an expression for the work which
can be done in a second, but) which has no existence in the laws of force and
motion for an impulse. They can only make mv 2 hw in fluids by using
the extra v in w, which in fluids = vw. But when they come to apply mu
to find the striking force of a cannon ball they can get no further, which
proves the fallacy of the process, for there can only be one method. Now by

page_text: no such analysis can they make the force 2 hw lbs. This, however, is its
true force, which I have shown was discovered first by pure reasoning on the
laws of gravitation, and then verified by the table framed pursuant to it. I
must, however, now leave this interesting subject and specify my claims.
These I shall make more clear, perhaps, by first showing what I do not
claim.
I do not claim a propelling pipe that runs the whole length of the vessel if
it has the same contraction at both ends. The false principle of such a pipe
(loss of vis viva by impact, has been already shown, and it will be seen in
Pedder's Patent of 1847, so taken out by me, Figs. 18, 19, and 20.
Nor do I claim a propelling pipe of the same diameter at both ends running
the whole length of the vessel. This is a favorite method of propelling and
of failure, the last of which is described in "Engineering" of the 9th instant,
under the title of "More Jets," and is further evidence of those frequent
attempts in bydro-propulsion which have continued at intervals from 1661 to
.our own day. I have shown, by my own experiments and those of the first
theoretical hydraulician of the world, Professor Weisbach, that this appli-
cation fails because so much power is consumed in overcoming the friction of
the water at high velocity in the pipes.
Nor do I claim a propelling pipe of the same diameter at both ends,
through which the water is drawn at right angles from the side of the vessel,
or drawn up vertically from beneath. This is another favorite method of
failure, as shown in Ruthven's Patent of 1849 in the Nautilus in April
last, and since, on a much larger scale, in Her Majesty's ironside Water
Witch. The principles which cause the failure of this application, entailing
a loss of about 50 per cent. by my analysis, have been already explained;
they consist chiefly in turning the mouth of the pipe down or at right angles
to the side instead of horizontal with its mouth towards the bow, and also in
too much friction. There are objectionable details in application, but not of
so much importance as the general principles of hydro-propulsion here violated.
There is the right thing in all things, and that is the only one propelling pipe
here left for me to claim, for every other form seems to have been tried. My
claims, therefore, are these,-
1. A propelling pipe for reaction propulsion, with its mouth towards the
bow, fitted with expanding and contracting valves. The principles of hydro-
dynamical science for propulsion which such an organism embodies have
been fully explained, but for greater clearness may be thus summed up :-
I. Such a pipe is to maintain, as nearly as may be, when the vessel is in
motion the same static equilibrium of external water as when the vessel is

page_text: at rest, that the incoming water on one side may help the propelling water
to overcome the external pressure on the other side, where the reacting water
issues; 2, to get the water into the propelling pipe by means of the velocity
of the vessel without taxing the motive power to draw it in. Besides these
principles embodied in such a pipe by no other means I know of can be saved
the loss due to retardation of side-propelling pipes, which is, approximately,
vau, c being the coefficient of deflection of the water from the
pipes, v the velocity of the vessel, and a the exposed surface of the 2 pipes.
The expanding and contracting valves are for 2 purposes; I., in the words
of my Provisional Specification, "always to apply one of the principles of my
"Invention when propelling, namely, to keep one end of the pipe fully open
"for the free entrance of the water, and the other end contracted for its exit
"and reaction;" 2, to save friction of the propelling water by such means,
by getting two opposite things, deemed impossible, a low velocity of float or
propelling water in the pipe with a high velocity of issue and of vessel at the
contracted vein.
II. I claim also the same submerged propelling pipe without valves
(pursuant to the last part of my Provisional Specification) when it is so much
less than the length of the vessel that the friction of the propelling water, and
consequent loss of power, will be so reduced as to make such a pipe an
equivalent, or approximately so, for the pipe with expanding and contracting
valves; for it has taken me 20 years, at intervals, to discover the causes
of two centuries of failures, and to reduce them to two simple elementary
principles, which are these:-1, to turning the mouth of the pipe the wrong
way; 2, to too much friction; hence such a pipe embodies nearly the whole
of my labors of hydro-dynamical science, the two fundamental principles of
hydro-propulsion. For however important the details of application, and
doubtless the smallest as well as greatest things should be attended to, they
are subordinate to the fundamental principles.
III. I claim also for hydro-propulsion a divergence of pipe at each end for
the easier entrance of the water, and to prevent the formation of the contracted
vein at entrance; this is a peculiar science, for what we don't want in one
place we do in another. If then we had the contracted vein at the beginning
instead of at the end of the pipe the whole thing would be worthless. I claim
therefore-
IV. The contracted vein for reaction in combination with an open entrance
for the water I do not claim it by itsalf thanch as I have soil it

page_text: my experiments in 1847 that I and the late Mr. Pedder were the first to
apply the contracted vein for propulsion.
V. I claim also for hydro-propulsion the permanent contracted vein nozzle,
Sheet II., Fig. 5, either fixed or moveable like the valves shewn in Sheet I.,
Fig. 1, in combination with another entrance for the water, and expanding
and contracting valves. I prefer these veins fixed, because for war vessels of
the largest size they would be too large and ponderous for easy handling, and
require too spacious boxes in the vessel for their reception. I have therefore
shown that arrangement in my Provisional Specification, where it is said "the
propelling water must enter in two places; 1, through the permanent
contracted vein outside the vessel; and, 2nd, through a pipe in the side of
" the vessel leading into the propelling pipe; and these two entrances must
"be of at least the same area as that of the tube to prevent the loss of vis
"viva by impact."
"
66
0
VI. I also claim the method of working the expanding and contracting
valves shown in the Drawing.
VII. I also claim the method of getting the outside or large cam for
hydro-propellers, single or double acting, shewn in Sheet I., Figs. 1 and 3,
and in Sheet II., Fig. 5; also the float boxes and connections to reduce
leakage. I do not confine myself to the outside cam; for by having leakage
the float Loxes and rods may be dispensed with, & the floats may be connected
direct with the rollers, and move the floats by means of an inside cam.
I claim, therefore, such inside cam, not by itself, but in combination with six or
more floats, propelling pipe, and contracting and expanding valves, as one of
the parts of my Invention, which I have combined, as Watt did the different
parts of his steam engine, before useless to mankind, to make hydro-pro-
pulsion available.
VIII. I claim also six, eight, or more floats in the propeller, by which
arrangement I get a small angular entrance and curvature to reduce the
friction of the propelling water.
IX. I also claim the application of a horizontal or vertical propeller, partly
protruding through the sides or beneath the vessel to work in propelling tubes
outside.
✗. I also claim the side rudders and safety repairing valves shewn in the
Drawings, though these form no part of the science of bydro-propulsion. The
side rudders should be close to the sides of the vessel, as mentioned in my
Provisional Specification; for this purpose they can be made moveable vertically,
as shewn in Fig. 7, Sheet II., or like a moveable crane. The vertical post

page_text: can be fixed to the moveable slot and be worked inside the vessel by a circular
brass rod having teeth on that part of it which would not pass through the
stuffing box inside of the vessel, which teeth can be worked by a toothed
wheel.
XI. I claim, lastly, the general combination of the different parts and
proportions of my Invention, not of course confining myself to the exact
details, for these may be varied by mechanical equivalents, and the steam
engine itself may be superseded, yet the organism for propulsion may still
embody those fundamental principles of hydro-dynamical science which I have
discovered as necessary to make it an economical application of power to
propel vessels by the reartion of water.
Let
I hope to be excused so long a Specification, which almost depresses me ;
but I had no alternative, except either to abandon the thing or to have this
engrossed as I was writing it, which prevents alteration or curtailment.
me trust, however, that the many important subjects discussed, which led to
my present Invention, will plead for me. 1. The proof in 1861 of the force
of bodies in motion in opposition to the doctrine of Newton and Leibnitz.
2. The proof in the same year of the formula for the velocity, force, and work
in a jet of steam. 3. Proof in the same year of the formula for the paddle
wheel of 1857, and also of hydro-propulsion, resistance, horse-power, useful effect,
and loss in 1861. 4. The new law of 1861, the time of repose of bodies, or
difference in effect between a long and a short impulse with the same amount
of force. 5. Proof in same year of the identity of the impulse and pressure
of one foot of steam; another confirmation of the conservation of force.
6. The cause of failure of 2 centuries in bydro-propulsion. 7. Its laws and
principles. 8. The proper machinery for their application. 9. The proof deduced
from my experiments in 1842 and 1847 that Newton's third law of motion is
not true in hydro-dynamical science; see Drawing of reaction and impulse in
Sheet I. His law is, "Action must always be equal and contrary to reaction,
or the actions of two bodies upon each other must be equal and directed to
"contrary sides;" and, lastly, (by this proof) the discovery in April last of
the loss of primary velocity in the paddle wheel and screw.
"
We are not then treating of a mere mechanical improvement, which may
itself be improved upon or superseded, but of the laws of an exact science
which can never be superseded; for we cannot go beyond nature. It is the
only exact science for propulsion, the only one perhaps patented since the
existence of the Patent Laws. It is the science of the future for propulsion
in air and water. This indeed was pointed out 15 years ago in my letter of

page_text: I
say,
the 5th of March 1851 to my esteemed friend the Reveren'l Professor J. A. L.
Airey, an extract from which is contained in my Specification of 1860, where
"I am convinced, for many reason too numerous to trouble you with,
that the principle of reaction will be the only method of propulsion on land,
water, aud in the air, and will never be superseded;" I should have omitted
"land," because the principle of reaction to make the medium of. resistance
the means of overcoming it does not, I think, apply to land propulsion.
65
In excuse too for such length I would observe that the laws of force and
notion are held to be among the highest branches of human knowledge, and
hydro-dynamics one of the most difficult of the exact sciences. Since Newton
we have had few, if any, greater mathematicians of science than Hutton and
Herschel, and both speak of "the almost insuperable difficulties connected
with the motions of fluids." Such authorities therefore will pardon many
errors here of the resistance of vessels; for instance, we know little even in
our own day for the certainties of application, notwithstanding the large
expenditure of mind and money in experiments. A committee of some of the
most distinguished men of science of our time are still experimenting on the
subject; but I must be permitted to say, that they will give no true results in
all cases so long as they rely on Newton's law of action and reaction in hydro-
dynamics, and make the power expended on a plane the measure of the force
imparted to it by the reaction of the water. Now because the residuary
velocity in hydro-propulsion must always be more than that of the best appli-
cation of the screw and paddle wheel on account of an inconvenient size of
propellers and pipes, and because of its own peculiar losses, I do not believe
it will supersede these methods of propulsion for all purposes, so long as the
present cumbersome steam engine is the prime mover, nor unless indeed I can
establish the loss of primary velocity. I hope therefore to be indulged in
a few further remarks on Newton's third law of motion in connection with
THE LAW OF FLUID IMPULSE.
The indicator does not show an escape of water past the floats equal one-
fourth of their area; for it would then show an equivalent power expended.
What I mean that it shows is, that the water is so mobile that the engines
cannot exert a dynamical force upon the water equal to the whole area, but
only to three-fourths of it; hence it is necessary to have a larger area than
by reaction to get the required propelling power, as predicated by my experi-
ments of 1842 and 1847. For instance, by the law of equal pressure of
fluids every square foot of the float must exert the same force on the water.

page_text: Taking the same relative velocities as before, this force ought to be, by the
V-Vw=33-93-27-13
X33 93x64-458 lbs. per square foot
laws of motion,
g
32-2
in salt water. But it can only exert a force of 75x458=343 lbs. We
have then, approximately, a coefficient for the efficiency of a plane, assuming
the engine friction of the Banshee was about 10 per cent.
Now, by Newton's third law of motion, the same force exerted on the water
ought, by reaction, to be imparted to the float, and all mathematicians and
men of science have contended that it does; for Ilerschel and all maintain the
universal application of the equality of action and reaction. I have, however,
shown that it is not true in hydro-dynamical science, for by no means possible
to man can we make the action or impulse of a fluid on a plane of the same
area equal its reaction from an orifice. IIow it is that a fluid can impinge
upon a plane, even two or three times greater than itself, and strike with its
full force-for every particle of fluid does strike-and yet not impart its full
force, is one of those anomalous facts which I cannot explain except, as before,
by the extreme mobility of the fluid.
Those then who contend for Newton's law, in every application of it, are
met by my experiments; and those who contend for it in the paddle wheel
must admit, that if the floats of my propellers had an open space all round
them in the watercourse they would still force the water out without any
escape past them or any loss from leakage. We should therefore have an
open float pump, free from friction, wear, and loss, theoretically and practically
perfect-an impossibility. Yet just such a perfect machine docs Newton's
third law of motion make the paddle wheel and screw; for by that law the
reaction of an impulse upon water is equal to the reaction from an orifice,
without the escape of a drop.
I hope it will not be thought that I have made too free with the name of
Newton. His fame is sufficient for him for a dozen philosophers, and only
those who have concerned themselves with the laws of motion, even in the
outskirts, can have a faint idea of the frightful problems he had to solve.
But scarcely can they comprehend the grandeur and sublimity of such a mind,
in all its length and breadth, and height and depth. Still he was but mortal,
and it is not given to mortality to know everything and to be infallible.
Because then Newton has not given us a true measure of the force of motion,
or of his remarkable discovery of action and reaction in fluids, I must be per-
mitted to differ from Sir John Herschel in his remark that he was "tho
"founder of hydro-dynamical science."

page_text: All these things have I wished to explain so clearly as not to be misunder-
stood, for I am sick of obscurity, so great a sufferer from it. The ignorant
impatience of length has wasted more time in trying to understand the
obscurities of brevity than in reading the longest explanation. If meta-
physicians, religionists, mathematicans, and others only clearly knew what they
meant, and clearly expressed themselves so as not to be misunderstood, half
the time of mankind wasted in controversy would have been saved, certainly
that of our judges would be in deciding on the meaning and claims of rival
Inventors.
I have spoken in my Provisional Specification of a saving of from 30 to
40 per cent. by hydro-propulsion, assuming my application of the law of fluid
impulse of which I have no doubt, to the extent of a loss of 25 if not 50 per
cent. I find, however, on calculating the machinery, that the propellers and
pipes would be far too large for any such saving. I have there said also, that
"the greater part of the engine power is expended not in propelling the
"vessel, but something else." It should be a great, not "greater part."
In conclusion I observed in my Provisional Specification that this science
was "as profound in theory as refined and subtle in practice." I have there-
fore shown that the areas of reaction can only be calculated by the laws of
gravitation, and that by turning the mouth of the pipe one way instead of
another, and by making it too long or a few inches convergent instead of diver-
gent, the whole science of hydro-dynamics has been useless to mankind for two
centuries, and by such an application is still (as shown in Her Majesty's gun-
boat the Water Witch) and ever would be useless.
In witness whereof, I, the said Richard Boyman Boyman, bave hereunto
set my hand and seal, this 28th day of November, One thousand eight
hundred and sixty-six.
R. BOYMAN BOYMAN. (L.B.)
R. BOYMAN BOYMAN. (L.B.)

page_text: In the latter of Letters Patent granted to RICHARD BOYMAN BOYMAN,
of 2, Park Crescent, Stock well, in the County of Surrey, Esquire,
for the Invention of "IшPROVEMENTS IN PROPELLING VESSELS BY THE
REACTION OF WATER, AND IN THE MACHINERY FOR THE PURPOSE,"
dated 29th May 1866, No. 1497.
"
DISCLAIMER AND MEMORANDUM OF ALTERATION proposed to
be entered by the said Richard Boyman Boyman pursuant to the
Statutes in that case made and provided.
WHEREAS I bave said in the Specification of my said Letters Patent, at
page 51, lines 1 to 3 of the printed copy thereof, "that I ventured to think
"that I am practically, if not theoretically, the founder of hydro-dynamical
"science for propulsion after two hundred years of unsuccessful efforts," for
the reasons therein specified. And I have also said, at page 62, line 37, to
page 63, line 2, of the said printed copy, "that this is a new science begun
"by my experiments in 1847 (the date of my first Patent) whereby were
"discovered the contracted view and 2 altitudes, and continued at intervals
"down to this time, when I first applied the law of fluid impulse to the
paddle wheel and screw, and thus discovered the loss of primary velocity in
"these machines."
And whereas I have explained in my Provisional and Complete Specifications
that the whole value of my Invention of hydro-propulsion depended on the

page_text: alone
true measure of the resistance of vessels, and that after years of labor
and expense I abandoned my Invention in 1857 solely on this ground,
and returned to it again in April 1866 on the same ground, that is to
say, I then discovered the small efficiency of the paddle wheel and screw
as planes, and thereby that the resistance of vessels was only about one-
half of what was my own and general belief, which discovery, induced me
to file my Provisional Specification of the 29th May 1866. These facts
will be seen on reference to the printed copy of my said Provisional and
Complete Specifications at the following pages and lines, namely, at page 2,
line 24 page 3, lines 34; page 14, lines 2 to 6; page 27, lines 28 to 33;
page 32, line 8. to page 33, line 7, and page 34, and elsewhere in the said
printed copy.
I to
And whereas it was not until August 1866, nearly three months after
filing my said Provisional Specification of the 29th of May 1866, that I learned
for the first time from Professor Rankine, of Glasgow, that he had devised a
formula for the resistance of vessels =fv S, as stated at page 32 of the
said Specification, line 29.
And whereas this formula, if accurate, would have induced me again to
abandon hydro-propulsion as waste of time and money, for the same reason
that I abandoned it in 1857, as stated in my Provisional Specification, page 3,
lines 18 to 32, namely, such formula would make the resistance of vessels
so great as to render my Invention of insufficient value for the cost and
labor of introduction, as I have also stated in my said Specification at page 32,
lines 24 to line 7, page 33 of the said printed copy.
And whereas Professor Rankine being, in my opinion, the first European
authority on such matters, I spent so much time corresponding with him on
this subject, and in otherwise trying to discover the real resistance of vessels
(to determine if it was worth while proceeding with my said Invention) as to
leave barely time to prepare my said Specification, as I have stated in the
printed copy at page 34, lines 4 to 7.
And whereas I did therefore take the opinion of Mr. Theodore Aston,
barrister-at-law, in October 1866, whether or no it would be advisable to
abandon my Provisional Protection of the 29th of May 1866, and apply for
a fresh protection before the expiration of my former protection to give
me time to make some experiments on the resistance of vessels on which,
as I have said, the value of my Invention entirely depended.
And whereas bad I applied for the new protection I would have relied for its
validity and for that of the subsequent Letters Patent upon the case of
Oxley v. Holde.1.

page_text: And whereas in consequence of the doubts expressed by counsel, in
his opinion of the 16th of October 1866, on the said case I decided not to
abandon my
former protection, but to file the said Specification due on the
29th November 1866 as well as I could, for at the date of counsel's
opinion I had not quite 7 weeks to explain my discovery of the small
efficiency of the paddle wheel and screw as planes of the same area as
the fluid, which alone induced me again to patent hydro-propulsion, as stated
in my Provisional Specification, pages 8 and 7. That returning to hydro-
propulsion so suddenly after having abandoned it for nine years, from
1857 to 1866, it was almost a new science to me, yet had I in such limited
time to establish the fundamental principles of a science then unknown to the
world as I believe, to explain different theories and experiments, and to
prepare the formulæ, calculations, claims, and drawings.
And whereas it will be seen at pages 3 and 7, at page 15, line 30, at page
16, line 21 to line 23, at page 17, at pages 34 and 35, and at page 67, from
line 15 to line 27, at page 68 of the said printed copy, that some of the most
difficult sciences are those of force and motion, hydro-dynamics and bydraulics,
which are the foundation and components of my system of hydro-propulsion,
without knowing which it cannot be economically and conveniently applied,
as shewn by the frequent failures of 200 years.
And whereas, having these things before me and being so pressed for time,
certain errors per incuriam aud otherwise have crept into my said Specification,
which I am therefore desirous of amending. I am induced to make this
application to amend by the frequent and careful trials of the Viper, Vixen,
and Waterwitch, ordered by the present Lords of the Admiralty, published in
the Times of the 15th of August last; for these have verified my prediction
of the failure of the Waterwitch made to the late Lords of the Admiralty in
1865, as stated in my said Specification at page 47, line 30, and have also
proved the truth of my theories therein enunciated, and herein-befo.e
referred to.
And whereas the errors which I am desirous to amend are the
following:-At page 38, line 12, of the said printed copy where I say at
"
"
no great diminution of speed;" for this I am desirous to substitute what
it should be "though at great diminution of speed;" at page 38, line 27, I say
"breadth 21-13-7.04 feet;" for this I am desirous to substitute what it
should be, and which line 23, only 5 lines above it, shows it is, namely,
"breadth =3.522 feet." In the same page 38, line 29, after the
words "3 feet by 7.04 feet," I have omitted the words " (including the water
21.13

page_text: 46
channels); I am therefore desirous to insert these words after the words
"7.04 feet." At page 39 is a repetition Leginning with the words "as
" regards" at line 12 to the word "minute" at line 15. I am therefore
desirous to omit this repetition, viz., tho following words:-"As regards the
"losses of hydro-propulsion these are as follows:-Diameter of hydro-propeller
" whose floats move with the velocity f. Let f= the centre of propeller float
per second, d the double radius from centre of motion to centre of float, and
"3.1416; then n = 60 per minute." At page 39, line 28, I
"No. I may be found by Weisbach's formula h=
say
6. -
ኮ
"
d 2g
-017963
=(.01482+
3-)
The middle term of this formula (+) is for circular pipes,
whereas mine are rectangular propelling pipes, as will be seen in all the
Drawings annexed to my said Specification; instead, therefore, of the middle
term, this should be 1 (d+b), 1 being the length of the pipe, dits vertical
depth when horizontal, and 6 its breadth or projection of float when horizontal.
I am therefore desirous to amend such formula, and make it as follows:-
1 (d+b) feet;" at page 42, lines 28, 29, and 30,
“h=(.01482+
I
017963
').
2
2
"
say that "the value of V corresponds to the differential altitude, and will be
found by the formula V=√√/2g==√√√₁_v." And a similar error is at
page 49, lines 11 and 12, where I say that "V is the velocity due to the
"differential altitude=√." Assuming the principle, the formula should
be in harmony with it in both cases, and therefore I have to observe that Vis
the velocity of the entering water in both formulae. I am therefore desirous to
substitute the words "being the velocity of the entering water" for the
following expression at page 42, lines 28, 29, and 30:-"The valve of V
corresponds to the differential altitude, and will be found by the formula
V=
√ And I am desirous to substitute the words
"V being the velocity of the entering water" at page 49, lines 11 and 12,
for the following expression:-" V is the velocity due to the differential
altitude=" At page 56, line 21, I say "I no longer use the thin
66
ן
=
"
plate orifice," which should be "I no longer prefer the thin plate orifice;"
this is obvious, as will be seen on reference to my Specification, page 37,
line 27 to line 4, page 38; at page 56, line 17, only four lines before the
words "no longer use," at pago 60, lines 18 to 20; also by the further fact
that at page 65, line 36, I claim the contracted view in combination, and also

page_text: shew such thin plate orifice in Sheet I., Figure 1, G and G₁, of the Drawings
annexed to the said Specification. I am therefore desirous to substitute the
word "prefer" for the word "use" at page 56, line 21 of the said printed
copy. At page 60, lines 28 to 31, the following words being due to an error
in principle or hasty calculation I am desirous to omit them :-"This pressure
"is counteracted to a certain extent by that of the external water; this
"at 8 or 10 feet down might neutralize entirely the propelling pressure
"against the drum, unless indeed the residuary velocity were extravagantly
" great."
And whereas I have in my said Specification described two applications of
the laws and principles of hydro-propulsion discovered by me, one being a
propelling pipe with expanding and contracting valves, the other without them,
and which in some places I call an equivalent for the propelling pipe with
such valves. The propelling pipe with the expanding and contracting valves
is described in my said Provisional and Complete Specifications at page 8,
line 35, and page 9, lines 5 to 18; at page 38, line 36, to line 5, page 39; at
page 45, lines 26 to 38; at page 49, line 29, to page 50, line 3; at page 54,
lines 26 to 35; at page 55, lines 27 to 31; at page 56, lines 4 to 7; and at
page 64, lines 28 and 29 of the said printed copy. The equivalent propelling
pipe without the expanding and contracting valves is described in my said
Provisional aud Complete Specifications at page 13, line 30, to page 14,
line 24; at page 38, line 36, to page 39, line 5; at page 44, lines 36 to 38;
at page 46, lines 2 to 15; at page 49, line 7, and again in line 30; at
page 50, lines 2 and 3, and lines 25 to 27; at page 55, lines 3 to 5, and
lines 27 to 31; at page 56, lines 3 to 7; at page 65, lines 17 to 29 of the
said printed copy.
And whereas I have been advised that although I have so particularly
described the said two propelling pipes, and although I have pointed ont (at
page 64, lines 5 to 32 of the said printed copy) what propelling pipes I d.> not
claim, still it may perhaps be said that I have not in claims I. and II. sufficiently
limited myself to the two propelling pipes I have described and wished to
claim. I am therefore desirous to insert at page 64, line 34, after the word
propulsion," and at page 65, line 17, after the word "pipe," the words
"herein described."
66
And whereas claim II., page 65, line 25, contains a grammatical error.
For the words "bence such a pipe" (line 25) might perhaps be construed to
apply to the very pipe which I had discovered embodied the causes of so
failures explained just before such words. For the purpose therefore of
identifying "such a pipe" I am desirous to amend the expression, thu:
many

page_text: instead of the words "hence such a pipe," in page 65, line 25, to say "hence
"the pipe bere claimed."
prop lur
And whereas I have been advised that it is doubtful if there was at the
date of my said Letters Patent sufficient novelty to enable me to support a
claim to the method per se of getting the outside or large cain single o
double acting, as claimed at lines 17 and 19, page 66, in my seventh claim; 1
am therefore desirous of limiting my claim to the combination of this method
of getting the outside or large cam single or double acting with the floa
boxes and connections to reduce leakage; for which purpose I desire to substitute
for the word also "at page 66, line 19, the words "in combination with."
have been
^
And whereas I ham advised that the next following part of claim VII.,
page 66, lines 20 to 23, beginning "I do not confine myself" may not be
considered sufficiently limited to the hydro-propeller referred to in my
Provisional Specification at page 10, lines 15 to 39, and in my Specification
at age 39, lines 18 to 20. For the purpose therefore of limiting my claim
to an inside cam in combination with the other parts of my Invention,
mentioned at page 66, lines 20 to 25, I am desirous of filing the Drawing
annexed hereto marked Figure 5"; this Drawing shows the inside cam of the
bydro-propeller with the 8 floats of 1850 contained in Professor Airey's
report of that year, and is the one referred to in my said Provisional-Specifien-
tion, page-10, lines 15 to 39, and ulse in my Complete Specification, page 66,
lines 20 to 24, as an equivalent. And I am further desirous of adding
after the words "inside cam in page 66, line 22, the words "as shewn
in this l'igure the el gus through the middle of the drumu, end on one or both sides of the casa is fixed a double-action
in Figure 5. By comparing this with the Drawing in
Sheet I., Figure 1, annexed to my Complete Specification,
it will be seen that the principle and action are the same,
the only difference being that described at page 66, lines 20
to 22, wherein I say that "by having leakage the float
"boxes and rods" (shown in Figure 5) "may be dispensed
with, and the floats may be connected direct with the
"rollers and move the floats by means of an inside cam,"
all which Figure 5ª shews.
66
"
cam something like the
"lure of eight, bat not going
"much in towards the centre:
"this give the came circular
"water space above the cam
"as benesth it for the floats
to in, which are hers
"eight to reduce the bottom
curve of the hydro-pro-
"peller; the floats are not
connected teather, but aro
attached to friction rollers
which roll in the can, and
"by its curve the float are
"moved in and out of its in
"the drum. To divide the
tip nul bottom water, to
"prevent the pr sun water
"leaking into the entering
water, I have two stops, one
on web side, and of the a
width of the druma and elow
"to it; I cuver the drun with
"two sides. The cams are w
And whereas I have discovered that at the date of that the none may
my said Letters Patent there was not sufficient novelty
"move the flats in and out
of the drum only when they
"are nut prut lling."
in the employment of 6, 8, or more floats in the hydro-propeller to enable
me to make a valid claim thereto per se, as I have done at page 66,
lines 28 to 30 of the said printed copy, I am therefore desirous of dis-
claiming this claim; but for the purpose of supporting what I have said

page_text: blind
at page 51, lines 1 to 3 of the said printed copy, that "I am the
founder (as I believe) of hydro-dynamical science for propulsion after two
"hundred years of unsuccessful efforts," and again in analogous words at
page 54, lines 26 to 35, I crave leave to remark that I have not seen in any
book or Patent any reason or object assigned for using 8 or more floats for
hydro-propulsion, and therefore assume them to be a random and unreasoning
application; they are however a refined adaptation of means to ends for the
purpose of saving power, in the manner explained in page 66, line 29, of my
said Specification. For I used only 4 flonts in my experiments in 1849,
referred to in my said Specification at page 43, lines 33 and 34, whereas 8 or
more floats do save power, and were thought of 17 years ago; for such purpose
the calculations of such saving being contained in the report on my system of
bydro-propulsion by the Revd. J. A. L. Airey, Professor of Mathematics at
Merchant Taylors' School, dated the 30th August 1850, nor to the best of my
knowledge and belief has any one but myself, either before or since 1850, used
or patented 6, 8, or more floats and a cam for any such purpose as mine.
Although therefore I believe that I am the first and only Patentee of any
system of hydro-propulsion worth anything (being the first and only one to
reduce it approximately to an exact science, as shewn in my said Specifica-
tion), yet being advised to disclaim them per se, I am desirous of disclaiming
claim VIII. at page 66, lines 28 to 30.
the same for
^
And whereas I have been advised that claim IX., page 66, lines 31 to 33,
may be considered too general per se, and I am therefore desirous to
disclain it.
And whereas in order that my said Specification may read correctly when
claims VIII. and IX. are disclaimed, and I am desirous of substituting the
word or letters "VIII." for the word or letter "X," in page 66, line 34, and
the word or letters "IX." for the word or letters "XI." in page 67, line 5,
of the said printed copy.
NOW KNOW YE, that I, the said Richard Boyman Boyman, for the reasons
aforesaid, do hereby alter my said Specification by inserting the word "though"
before the word "at" in page 38, line 12; by disclaiming the word "no" after
the said word "at"; by substituting the equation 2×3
for the equation
421-13"
3
"21 13"
in page 38, line 27; by substituting the figures "3-522" for the
figures "704;" also in page 38, line 27, by inserting "(including the water
channels)" after "7.04 feet;" in page 38, line 29, by disclaiming the words,
figures, and symbols contained between the words "as regards" in page 39,

page_text: 66
line 12, and the word "minute" in the same page, line 15 inclusive, that is t
say, the following words, figures, and symbols "as regards the losses of hydro
propulsion. These are as follows:-"Diameter of hydro-propeller whose float
"move with the velocity f. Let f= the centre of propeller float in fet pe
second, d the double radius from centre of motion to centre of float, and
"(d+b)"
at page 59, line
66
"
by substituting for
""
d
2d" i
=3-1416; then n=
figures, letters, and symbols, "The value of V corresponds to the differential
60 per minute;" by substituting for the words,
V
"altitude, and will be found by the formula V=√√29 =√√√√
J470
^
contained at 42, lines 28, 29, and 30 of the said printed copy; the words
"V being the velocity of the entering water;" by substituting for the words
"V is the velocity due to the differential altitude=, √," contained at
page 49, lines 11 and 12, the words "V being the velocity of the entering
"water;" by substituting the word "prefer" for the word "use" at page 56,
line 21 by disclaiming the following words at page 60, lines 29, 30,
"
66
"This pressure is counteracted to a certain extent by that of the external water.
28,
^
propelling"
and 31
"This at 8 or 10 feet down might neutralize entirely the propelling
pressure against the drum, unless indeed the residuary velocity were
extravagantly great;" by adding the words "herein described "after the word
propulsion," at page 64, line 34; by adding the words "herein described "
after the word "pipe" at page 65, line 17; by substituting the words "the
for
the words "such a" at page 65, line 25; and by adding the words "here
"claimed "after the word "pipe" in the same line; by substituting the words
*. in combination with " for the word "also" at page 66, line 19; by adding
[the words "-ao-shewn in Figure--5] after the word "
the words "as shown in Figure ; in this Figure the axle goes through the middle of the
line 22, by disclaiming the 8th and 9th claims of the said
Specification, that is to say, the following words contained ing in much towards the
"
at page 66, lines 28 to 33:-" VIII. I claim also six, eight,
or more floats in the propeller, by which arrangement
" I get a small angular entrance and curvature to reduce
"the friction of the propelling water; IX. I also claim
"the application of a horizontal or vertical propeller partly
"protruding through the sides or beneath the vessel to
"work in propelling tubes outside;" and by substituting
the word or letters "VIII." for the word or letter "X" at
page 66, line 34, and the word or letters "IX." for the
word or letters "XI." at page 67, line 5, all in the
said copy of my said Specification.
part
33
cam at page 66,
drum, and ou one or both sides
of the case is tiaed a double-
"action cam something hike
"the lure of eight, but not
"centre; this gives the ape
"circular water or above
"the cam as beneath it for
"the floats to act in, which
are here cght, to reduce the
"bttom curve of the hydro-
propeller; these boats are
"are attached to IricLiuti
not connected together, but
ilers which roll in the
"cam, and by its curve the
"tals are moved in and out
of slits in the drum. To
"divide the top and bottom
water, to prevent the pr
sure water leaking into the
"entering water, I have two
stops, one on each side, and
"drum,and close to it. I cover
"ut the same width of the
"the drum with two sides;
"the cams are so set that the
me my move the is
ndatut the drais
anth
""

page_text: And I do hereby add to my said Specification the Drawing marked Figure 5°
erennto annexed.
In witness whereof, I, the said Richard Boyman Boyman, have hereunto
set my hand and seal, this Thirty-first day of October, One thousand
eight hundred and sixty-seven.
I hereby grant my fiat, giving leave to the above-named Richard Boyman
Boyman Boyman to file in the Great Seal Patent Office, with the Specifi-
cation, the above Amended Disclaimer and Memorandum of Alteration.
TA D