IMPROVEMENTS IN APPLYING JETS OF STEAM BY ACTION AND REACTION TO PROPEL VESSELS AND AERIAL CONVEYANCES, WITH OTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE LATTER AND IN THE MACHINERY FOR BOTH, PARTS OF WHICH ARE APPLICABLE FOR OTHER HEDO AND ARRO PURPOSES
Year: 1866

page_text: LETTERS PATENT to Richard Boyman Boyman, of Park Crescent,
Stockwell, in the County of Surrey; for the Invention of "IMPROVEMENTS
IN APPLYING JETS OF STEAM BY ACTION AND REACTION TO PROPEL VESSELS
AND AERIAL CONVEYANCES, WITH OTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE LATTER AND IN
THE MACHINERY FOR BOTH, PARTS OF WHICH ARE APPLICABLE FOR OTHER
HEDO AND ARRO PURPOSES."
Sealed the 11th June 1867, and dated the 12th December 1866.
PROVISIONAL SPECIFICATION left by the said Richard Boyman Boyman
at the Office of the Commissioners of Patents, with his Petition, on the
12th December 1866.
I, RICHARD BOYMAN. BOYMAN, of Park Crescent, Stockwell, in the County
of Surrey, do hereby declare the nature of the said Invention for "IMPROVE-
MENTS IN APPLYING JETS. OF STEAM BY ACTION AND REACTION TO PROPEL VESSELE
AND AERIAL CONVEYANCES, WITH. OTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE LATTER AND IN
THE MACHINERY FOR BOTH, PARTS OF WHICH ARE APPLICABLE FOR OTHER HYDRO
AND AERO PURPOSES," to be as follows:-
In applying jets of steam to act direct upon water in tubes that its
reaction may propel vessels, and in applying jets of steam to act direct upon air.

page_text: intubes that its reaction may propel aerial conveyances without steam engines
in either case; also in using gas instead of fuel to generate steam in the latter,
with other improvements herein-after mentioned; part of the machinery
for propelling vessels being applicable for other hydraulic purposes,and part of
the machinery for propelling aerial conveyances being applicable for setting
air in motion for ventilation and for supplying furnaces with air.
23
As the prime mover being a jet of steam, it becomes necessary first to
show what that is. Believing, in 1842, in opposition to the experiments and
doctrine of Watt, that the whole power of steam must exist in a jet as well
as in the same weight of steam used in a steam engine, I tried some experi-
ments in that year, and established the fact. Mr. James Pilbrow, who was
connected with me in these experiments, having invented the machinery for
applying the jet of steam, I took out a Patent in his name, for "Certain
Improvements in Steam Engines," dated the 23rd day of May 1842,
No. 9354. Such an application being found on trial of no value I abandoned
it. But on those experiments and on subsequent investigations some years
afterwards I framed formulæ for the velocity, work, and horse-power inherent
in a jet of steam, as follows:-P=550 vaw; where v is the velocity of the
steam jet, a the area in square feet, w the weight of a cubic foot of steam
due to the boiler pressure, and g the acceleration of gravity = 32.2 feet. The
value of vis found by my formula for the velocity of the steam jet at the
boiler pressure B, and is as follows:-v=146-1285+147 log. n, where
n; and w is found by the formula given in the Specification of my
Patent for Improvements in Propelling Vessels by the Reaction of Water,
and in the Machinery for the Purpose," dated the 29th of May 1866,
No. 1497. The formula before given is referred to, because by it I now
calculate the boiler power required for my present Invention, and because
the success of such Invention depends, in a great measure, on using my
discovery, if I may so call it, that latent heat is latent force, which is fully
explained in the Specification of my Patent for " Improvements in Applying
Steam or other Expansive Prime Movers by Action and Reaction for Rotary
Motion and Propulsion, dated the 10th May, 1860, No. 1155, in the Table
at p. 8, and at pp. 11, 12, 23, 24, 27, and 36.
B + 14'7
So far as regards the prime mover, a jet of steam. The principle of pro-
pulsion is that of reaction. If a body, solid or fluid, be set in motion, it
reacts in the opposite direction to its course. In 1847 I first tried some
experiments with water, to ascertain what was the force of reaction, and

page_text: what were the laws and principles of hydrodynamics, whereby water could
be economically applied for reaction propulsion. For this method has been
frequently tried for more than two centuries, and as frequently failed. Having
discovered, by my experiments in 1847, that the force of reaction of water
was equal to twice its hydrostatic pressure, I took out a Patent in the name
of James Pedder (the Inventor of the machinery for its application), "For
certain Improvements in Steam Engines and Propelling," dated the 6th of
November 1847, No. 11,946. Such application was tried in 1848, in a
vessel of 35 horse-power, and being found worthless I abandoned it.
I continued, however, my researches in reaction propulsion, andin inventing
the machinery for its proper application at intervals down to the present year,
when I had reduced hydro-propulsion, for so I called it in 1847, to something
like an exact science; I therefore obtained Letters Patent for "Improve-
ments in Propelling Vessels by the Reaction of Water, and in the Machinery
for the Purpose," dated the 29th of last May 1866, No. 1496.
I had found, by mathematical analysis in 1849, that the velocity of a jet of
steam was so great that to propel even the fastest locomotives by its direct
reaction would entail a loss of 94.6 per cent.; for while the most destructive
hurricane is only (100 x 1.467=) 146-7 feet a second, the velocity of steam
at no higher pressure than 120 lbs. is, by my formula before given, 3174 feet a
second; this therefore would make the residuary velocity far too great for
economical application. This analysis will be found in my Specification of
1860, before referred to, p. 13. It becomes necessary therefore to explain the
laws by which I now apply this terrible velocipede before explaining the
machinery for its application.
When I found so great a loss as 94.6 per cent. in 1849, it occurred to me
that "the true principle of propulsion is to make the element of resistance the
medium of overcoming it."-Extract from my Paper in August 1849 "On
the Philosophy of Mechanical Propulsion." The element of resistance of
vessels is water, and that of aerial conveyances is air; I had therefore to set
these fluids in motion, and make them, by their reaction, overcome such
resistance. This I proposed to do 16 years ago (in 1850) by jets of steam,
pursuant to my axiom-" Force can be changed in form, but cannot destroy
itself."
Consequently, by means of tubes, the great velocity of the steam would be
reduced by its action on the water or air in tubes, the whole work, less certain
losses herein-after referred to, would be imparted to it, and an equivalent force
at a less velocity would be obtained to overcome the resistance. This, I
believe, was the first application to a fluid of the fundamental principle of

page_text: mechanics, the discovery of Archimedes, so wonderful in his age:-" Give me
a prop strong enough and a lever long enough, and with my own weight I will
move the world." Since then in fluids, as well as solids, forces of different
intensities properly proportioned will produce an equivalent mechanical effect,
according to my doctrine. I called this for distinction, being applied to fluids
for the first time, "The law of equivalents for definite proportions."
As my present Invention is founded on this law, it is proper, I think, to
explain why its application was not put in practice in 1850. I sent a paper
on the subject to an accomplished mathematician, professor of mathematics,
who treated it on the Newtonian doctrine of mass and velocity, action and
reaction, and not on mine, that of a mechanical equivalent.
To prevent,
however, any mathematician mistaking my law, if I may so call it, as no one
seems to have thought of it for fluids, I will give its meaning in the words of
the Professor himself from his letter of the 8th of October 1850:- I understand
that what you call "the law of equivalents is simply this: That if a portion of
"matter fluid or solid, be moving with a certain velocity, and part of that
velocity be destroyed by its action on other bodies, the result will be such that
"the mechanical effect inherent in the given matter, and that upon which it
"has acted, will be in the aggregate precisely what it was originally."
The Professor was good enough soon after to send me a mathematical paper
on the subject, dated the 1st of January 1851. This was in direct opposition
to my theory, and knowing then but little of mathematics, I was thus led to
abandon both principle and application.
Believing, therefore, that this would not do, and finding, as I have said, that
the steam jet applied direct for propulsion would not do, I took out a Patent
in 1860 (the one before referred to) for propulsion by the intermittent re-
action of a jet of steam, and this I found in 1861 would not do, by reason of a
new law I then discovered, which I called the time of repose of bodies, & which
is explained in the Specification of my said Patent of the 29th of May last.
I have now shown how I was diverted (by an erroneous mathematical
paper) from applying my steam jet in 1842 by my law of equivalents of 1849.
To this I returned in 1865, and have since been engaged upon it at intervals.
Having fully explained what the law is in the words of the Professor before
referred to, the machinery for its proper application will now be clearly
understood.
I have a short submerged propelling pipe on each side, or underneath the
vessel, with its mouth towards the bow, the permanent contracted veiu nozzle
at each end divergent, with another entrance for the propelling water, and also
expanding and contracting valves, as shown in my said Specification of this

page_text: year (25th May 1000)
66
contracted vein on each side of the vessel must be found by the same formula
as is given in such Specification; R= Va w lbs.
The application of the steam jet is this:-Take a steam pipe, surround it
with sawdust or other non-conducting medium, and put it in another pipe to
prevent loss of heat; turn the end with an easy curve, and there form a hori-
zontal steam jet; let this jet enter into a short brass or iron tube, which we will
call No. 1; let this enter another tube, No. 2; this into a third No. 3; this into
a fourth, this into a fifth, and so on, until the last tube is about one-fourth or
one-half the diameter of the permanent contracted vein of the propelling tube,
into which contracted vein the last mouth-piece must enter. The principles
for forming these equivalent mouth-pieces or tubes are similar to those
enunciated for one tube in my Provisional and Complete Specification of this
year, before referred to. I will therefore repeat the words there used. "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 vivâ by impact." Hence, to prevent resistance
to the entering water, and to prevent its forming the contracted vein on
entering each tube, the beginning of each must be divergent. To prevent the
loss of vis vivâ from the impact of water in a tube of larger area, and
flowing at a less velocity, each tube must be of the same diameter throughout
(except having a wider mouth to prevent the entering water being endowed
with a sudden velocity), and the cylindrical part of each successive tube
should be from one-fourth to three-fourths larger diameter than the end
of the preceding tube. The mean proportion of each will be, I think, about
half a diameter larger than the preceding one, whilst the length of each
tube should be about one and a half or twice the diameter. The whole
science and art and mystery of the application of the steam jet, to embody
my law of equivalents, and which has puzzled me so many years, consists
in the observance of three principles:-I., in preventing the formation of
the contracted vein and sudden velocity in the entering water; II., in
preventing the loss of vis vivâ from the impact of the steam upon the water
in the first mouth-piece or tube, and from the impact of the water from
mouth-piece to mouth-piece, which can only be done by making the passage
into each sufficiently gradual; II., in diminishing the friction of the water in
the tubes by making them only long enough to be kept quite full of water.
The equivalent tubes (including the steam jet) will always be submerged,
when the action will be thus: -The steam will act direct on the water in the

page_text: first mouth-piece, and do its work on it there; the combined steam and
water will then rush into the second mouth-piece and do the like there,
drawing into each mouth-piece, and propelling through it some of the
external water. Now the steam and water will not lose their velocity, in
the light of a loss of power, if impact or shock, sudden velocity and eduies,
be prevented, but will change such velocity work into force work, gathering,
like the snowball, as it goes from tube to tube, and so on to the end, for the
purpose of reaction. Nor will there be loss of power in heating the water
as is generally believed; for the sensible heat being heat force will go in
force, and the latent heat not being developed into force will go in heating
the water. If, then, the whole heat were made sensible by pressure, and
become as intense as flame, it would not probably heat the water, but all go
in force. Thus, pursuant to my axiom, "Force can be changed in form,
but cannot destroy itself," hence all the work in the steam jet which goes
in at one end of the equivalent tubes or mouth-pieces must come out at
the other end, less certain losses, with a force of reaction as much greater
as its velocity is slower, and produce a mechanical effect equal to that
inherent in the smaller force & greater velocity of the jet of steam
expended, as enunciated by me in 1850, before referred to.
The losses will be the friction of the steam nozzle and the water passing
through the mouth-pieces or tubes. These cannot be prevented, but there may
be losses due to impact, sudden velocity, and producing unnecessary commotion
in the water; these, however, are preventible in a great measure, if not entirely.
For this purpose conical mouth-pieces may be used, instead of cylindrical, and
a little longer, the diameter of each, however, increasing in the same
proportion as the cylindrical, and each having a divergent entrance.
Eight separate sets of these equivalent tubes, each set with its steam jet,
must be made, and be thus applied. One set must lead into the permanent
contracted vein nozzle, and another set completely inside the second entrance
for the propelling water in the side of the vessel, which entrance is shown in
my Specification of the 28th ult°. Sheet II., Fig. 5, before referred to. Two
sets of equivalent tubes, each with its steam jet, must be applied at the
other end of the propelling pipe, in precisely the same way, for backing
the vessel. These make four sets. The other four must be applied in the
same way, at both ends of the propelling pipe, at the other side of the
vessel, or underneath, if the propelling pipes should be so placed.
.
The area of the jet will of course depend on the velocity of the steam, on
the pressure used, and on the requisite horse-power. The number of tubes
required to give an equivalent mechanical effect to the steam jet will depend

page_text: on the resistance of the vessel which the reaction of the water has to over-
come, and on the relative velocities of issue and vessel; matters which will be
treated of in my Complete Specification.
Each set of the steam jet and mouth-pieces must be rigidly connected
together for the purpose of being kept in their proper position, and of being
moved in and out of their boxes in the sides or underneath the vessel, to
prevent retardation from the set not in use, and to be repaired if injured. As
the tubes project into each other, the divergent part of the propelling pipe
at the side of the vessel should form part of the equivalent tubes, and the
separation and junction again of such pipe be made there, by guides adapted
for the purpose, so as to fit exactly the part when the equivalent tubes are
moved out of the box for propelling. The main steam pipe, supplying the
two steam jets at each end of the propelling pipe, and at each side of the
vessel or underneath it, will have a two-way cock, or other means, to let on
steam at either end, and shut it off at the other, at the same time.
The boxes at each end of the propelling pipe for the reception of the
equivalent tubes will have a sliding or fall-down lid or cover, to keep the
water out when the tubes require repair. The water' in the boxes can then
be let or pumped out, and the lid inside the vessel removed.
The steam jet and equivalent tubes, at each end of the propelling pipe, may
be moved in and out of their boxes by the engineer in this way. Two or more
brass rails will project from the side of the vessel, beneath and above the
tubes, to keep them steady, and these, being provided with V-shaped brass
wheels, can easily be moved in and out by a lever from inside the vessel, or
by some other mechanical equivalent. The brass rods of the equivalent tubes
will
pass through stuffing boxes in the side of the vessel, and as the lever moves
one set out it will move the outer set in. The lever will be made in two.
pieces, that it may be disconnected when required, to draw both sets of tubes
into their boxes at the same time, for repair or otherwise. The steam pipe
leading to the jet must be made to slide in and out of a larger one through
the side of the vessel, like the piston rod through a stuffing box, or in some
other way.
I need scarcely say, that the hydro-propeller (in the middle of the propelling.
pipe shown in my Specification of the 28th ultimo, Sheet II., Fig. 5), will not
be moved by any steam engine in my present Invention, for there is none.
It will be moved by the propelling water for reaction, set in motion by the
steam jets, and is only retained because I could think of nothing which
seemed to me to possess such few disadvantages. For the problem to be
solved was, how best to get a point d'appui or fulcrum for the reaction of.

page_text: to me.
the propelling water with the least retardation to the vessel in getting it
in, and with the least curvature of pipe. It seemed to me that this could only
be done by a moving body, and thus it was that my bydro-propeller occurred
Hence it is that my present Invention is essentially the same as my
last of this year, both in principle and in application, so far as regards hydro-
dynamical science for propulsion. There is no difference in the science, or its
application, with or without expending and contracting valves, but only in the
prime mover that sets the reaction water in motion. Another way of making
the propelling pipe is this:-Remove the hydro-propeller, and let the propelling
pipe (having always its mouth towards the bow) make a circle inside the
vessel, and out again towards the stern; or let the pipe make only half a
circle inside the vessel, and then come out again towards the stern; the cur-
vature in all cases to be that of least resistance, and the pipe as short as
possible. This can be made still shorter than is shown in Sheet II., Fig. 5,
before referred to.)
For I have made the following improvements in my hydro-propeller :-I
found on calculation, whilst preparing my said Specification of the 28th ulto.,
that it was desirable to reduce the diameter of the propeller, even at some loss
from leakage. I do not, therefore, move the floats in and out the water-
course by piston rods at the top of the float boxes, as shown in my said
Specification, Sheet I., Figs. I. and 3, c, c, d, d, but by a roller projecting
from each side of the float, and moving in a cam direct. The sides of the
float boxes are therefore open, or they can be partly dispensed with. A more
simple improvement, specially for small hydro-propellers or pumps, is one
cam on a plate placed inside the drum, in the middle, to work the floats, from
whose boxes pieces are cut for the rollers and cam.
The axle will pass
thro' the cam plate, which will be fixed from the outside. To neutralize
the pressure of the propelling water against the drum I move the water
divider as near to the water entrance as convenient, or to the other side,
depending on the pressure.
In concluding this part of my Invention a few remarks may perhaps prevent
its nature and extent from being misunderstood. In my recent Specification
of the 28th ulto. I have reduced hydro-propulsion to an exact science
approximately. Now we can add nothing to nor take anything from an exact
science; therefore I use, to make my present Invention available, the laws of
force and motion, formulæ, principle, and application discovered and invented
by me for hydro-propulsion contained in such pecification. The steam engine
not being my Invention forms no part of hydro-propulsion, which is a science
of itself, the science of reaction of an inelastic fluid, entirely different to that

page_text: of steam; it is therefore independent of any prime mover, the steam engine,
air engine, or steam jet. The only difference between my late and present
Invention is that in the former the steam engine is the prime mover, now I
use the steam jet of 1842, the formulæ for it, equivalent tubes to apply it,
and improvements in the hydro-propeller, or its equivalent a curved pipe,
before referred to.
I have now to explain the laws and principles of aerial navigation, which
I have also reduced, I believe, to an exact science, I mean approximately,
as every applied science must be.
Now the general principles of aerial navigation are five,-
I. As regards the motive power.-The velocity and force of the fiercest
hurricane that can blow is slow and feeble to the velocity and force of a jet of
steam to overcome it, as any mathematician can now find by my formula
before referred to, as I shall show in my Complete Specification.
II. As regards the principle of propulsion.-We have in the law of
reaction simplicity itself, the only true principle of propulsion in air or water,
because a law of nature. Since then we get a propelling power without
engines, a steam engine to flap wings would be simply ridiculous, and I hope
by my equivalent tubes to reduce considerably the expense of direct steam
jet reaction.
III. As regards rising and falling without discharging ballast or letting out
gas. Some such means are plainly indispensable, for the present method
soon brings the acronaut's limited resources to an end. Now, though there is
weight in birds in air, which they can only support by ceaseless effort, there is
no such thing as weight in balloons, and consequently no effort is required to
support them. In this and in other things lies the certainty of aerial
navigation, for the whole motive power, the steam jet, can be applied for
propulsion. A balloon then being in equilibrium by the gas that raises and
supports it, a little gas let out is found to lower, and a little ballast discharged
to raise it. For both these self-destroying methods I substitute constant
pressure by reaction. On each side of the aerial ship will be a steam jet and
a set of equivalent tubes, the last of which will be the reaction tube; this will
be gradually bent and be turned up to lower the ship, and down to raise it by
the reaction of the steam and air. These I call elevators and depressors.
IV. As regards the generation of the motive power. This was the last and
greatest difficulty. But to know what we want in science is the first step to
finding it. It would be fatal to aerial navigation to have to take up coal or
coke to generate steam, because so much more gas would be required to raise

page_text: both the water and fuel, which gas too would have to be let out and wasted
as the weight of both decreased. It is therefore essential to have some fuel
possessing two things, buoyancy and caloric, and these moreover must be
about equivalent to the weight of water required to be evaporated for pro-
pulsion from station to station. Gas answers these conditions. Hence, besides
the gas required for the load (which will not be let out, but only leakage
supplied from time to time), there will be an extra quantity of gas, which I
call equivalent fuel, for generating steam, and a receiver round and above
the aerial ship to hold it.
The water and fuel will thus be in equilibrium approximately, one balancing
the other. For the buoyancy of the gas fuel can only be diminished as it
diminishes the weight of water it evaporates for propulsion; thus leaving the
constant buoyant power to float the constant load.
We come now to the last general principle of aerial navigation.
V. The shape of the navigator of the skies.-It would be as reasonable to
attempt aerial navigation with the present form of balloon as it would ocean
navigation with the same form of ship. Man in the car of a balloon has
about the same power over it as a fly on a log of wood in a stream. The
shape of the aerial navigator must be a very long oval, made in gas-tight
compartments, the same at both ends, and very tapering. The dimensions
will be given in my Complete Specification. By such a shape the resistance
will be less dynamical than frictional; and though a much larger surface will
be exposed to friction than in ships, yet the resistance at the same speed is
about = 836 times less in air than in salt water.
07652
I have now given the five fundamental principles of aerial navigation; and
I have ventured to say that it is reduced approximately to an exact science,
because there is only one law for the force of motion, and only one set of
formulæ for applying it for propulsion. Therefore the same formulæ for
finding the resistance and areas of reaction, horse-power, useful effect and
loss, as are given in my Specification of the 28th ultimo for my Invention
of hydro-propulsion must be used also for aerial navigation.
The principles and application are generally the same as those there and
here enunciated for hydro-propulsion. But for air it would be better, perhaps,
to have the jets of steam and equivalent tubes vertical, or at any rate to dispense
with separate backing jets and tubes, and make one, two, or three sets on
each side or underneath (depending on the length of the aerial) serve both
for going ahead and backing. This can be done by bending the last tube,

page_text: making its reaction horizontal, and turning it by a lever. The diameter of
each tube may be considerably more than for water, and the length of each
should be longer.
The boiler may be of steel, tubular and flat, and expose a large surface to
the action of the gas jets beneath; and the same law of latent heat and force
that diminishes the weight of water according to the pressure developed will
also diminish the size of boiler, and thereby make it stronger. The hot air
passing away can, I think, be utilized either for heating the feed water or for
reaction propulsion. The aerial will have several self-acting safety valves,
one or two at each end,discharging into the atmosphere, the others discharging
into the receiver as its contents diminish.
The boilers of both will be supplied by the steam jet and equivalent tubes
instead of Giffard's injector; and the aerial ship will be steered from the side
by the moveable reaction pipes, or by a rudder at each end.
In describing Inventions some distinction should, I venture to think, be
made between mere mechanical and philosophic Inventions. The purpose of
the former is more or less seen at once, but not so with the latter, which
embody the laws of nature. No one, for example, can understand why the
steain jet should issue into a tube, and this into another, and this into a third,
and so on, nor why these should be of certain proportionate diameters and
lengths for reaction propulsion, without knowing five laws of physics. I. The
laws of force and motion. II. The law of action and reaction. III. The law
of equivalents. IV. of impact; and V. of friction. I cannot see therefore
how the nature of a philosophic Invention can be particularly described, and
in what manner it is to be performed, without first ascertaining and describing
the laws which show its nature and govern its action.
. For these reasons I have tried to make the laws and principles of my present
Invention clearly understood, even to tediousness perhaps; also those laws of
physics and natural philosophy which show that acri..l navigation is capable
of being reduced to one of the exact sciences approximately.
I know very well,however, that aerial locomotion cannot be made generally
available for passenger traffic, especially for long voyages, until the chemist
gives us an ascending gas very much lighter than the present impure one,
then we can diminish the bulk, resistance, and motive power. The other
purposes, for which my hydro-propeller, double or single, is applicable are a
pump, water wheel, and water pressure machine, and the steam jets and
equivalent tubes for raising and forcing water.

page_text: 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 11th June 1867.
TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, I, RICHARD
BOYMAN BOYMAN, of Park Crescent, Stockwell, in the County of Surrey, send
greeting.
WHEREAS Her most Excellent Majesty Queen Victoria, by Her Letters
Patent, bearing daie the 12th day of December, 1866, in the thirtieth 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, ny executors, administrators, and assigns, or such
others as 1, the said Richard Boyman Boyman, my executors, administrators,
and assigns, should at any time agree with, and no others, from time to time
and at all times thereafter during the term therein expressed, should and
lawfully might make, use, exercise, and vend, within the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland, the Channel Islands, and Isle of Man, an Invention
for "IMPROVEMENTS IN APPLYING JETS OF STEAM BY ACTION AND REACTION TO
PROPEL VESSELS AND AERIAL CONVEYANCES, WITH OTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN
LATTER AND IN THE MACHINERY FOR BOTH, PARTS OF WHICH ARE APPLICABLE FOR
OTHER HYDRO AND AERO PURPOSES," upon the condition (amongst others) that
I, the said Richard Boyınan 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 iminediately after the date of the said Letters Patent.
THE
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:-
In my Provisional Specification I showed that the prime mover of my
present Invention is a jet of steam, and therefore gave my formulæ of 1859
for finding the velocity and horse-power of a jet of steam at different
pressures. I explained also the principle of reaction propulsion, and my
discoveries in hydro-propulsion, and referred to two Patents for it taken out
by me, one in the name of James Pedder, dated the 6th of November 1847,
No. 11,946, and the other in my own name on the 29th of May last
I stated also that the difference between my
year (1866), No. 1497.
Invention contained in such Patent of last year and my present Invention is,

page_text: using a jet of steam as the prime mover in my present Invention, instead of
e steam engine in my former Invention of last year; also in making such
eam jet in my present Invention act upon water in tubes, which I call
uivalent tubes, to obtain reaction, pursuant to the law of fluid equivalents
scovered by me in October 1850, as stated in my Provisional Specification.
In such Specification I have also explained the principle and mode of
tion of such law, and why it remained unapplied for 17 years. I have now
refer to the Drawings which show the machinery, and to give the proper
rmula for finding the area of reaction for propulsion, the number of equi-
lent tubes, and the equivalent steam jet. But first the formula:-
Let
the velocity of the vessel, say 18-5 miles an hour 18.5 x 1.467
=27 feet a second.
V the velocity of issuing water for reaction=1.5,v= 1.5 × 27=
40-5 feet a second.
g= the acceleration of gravity=32.2 feet a second, explained in my
Specification of 1866, No. 1497, p. 21, line 6.
d the density of a cubic foot of salt water 64 lbs.
R = the resistance of the vessel at the velocity v-12696 lbs. For
this is the resistance of the Banshee at 18.5 miles an hour
pursuant to my discovery of the loss of primary velocity in paddle
wheel and screw propulsion herein-after explained.
Therefore the area required will be-
32.2
Vad 12696 lbs. 40-5-27 x 40.5 x 61a, the whole area. Con-
quently the area of reaction on each side the vessel will be
12696 x 32-2
2x (40-5-27) x 40-5x64
5.841 square feet
d=582.72708 feet.
7851
ON THE POWER EXPENDED ON HYDRO-PROPULSION.
Until the last two months I. followed the example of the ablest mathe-
atician I know, a professor of mathematics, and therefore I presume the
ample of other mathematicians, and made the power expended -RV feet lbs.
at on analysing it I found it to be an error of great practical importance,
cause it makes the power required more than is necessary to overcome the
sistance, and also makes the loss double the real loss. It is therefore
cessary to establish the law which governs the expenditure of power and
action. Suppose we raise a weight w to the height h, the power expended
wh; if for w we substitute a column of water, and keep it as full as it
ws out, the power expended is had v; h being the.height to which the
ight of water adv is raised, a the area, d the density of a cubic foot of

page_text: water, and the velocity of issue. Thus the power expended is the same in
every case on land or water = wh.
But the force of reaction is equal to two altitudes, 2 wh, as I discovered
experimentally in 1847, in connection with the late James Pedder, whom I
employed to conduct experiments in hydro-propulsion, which discovery will be
found explained in the seventh improvement at p. 7 of the Specification of
a Patent I took out in his name in 1847 for hydro-propulsion, before referred
to, No. 11,946. The higher and more certain proof of the law of two altitudes,
that deduced from the laws of gravitation,. I did not discover till 1862. This
proof will be found in the Specification of my Patent of last year, before
referred to, No. 1497, p. 21 to 23; whilst therefore the power expended is only
equal to one altitude, wh,the force of reaction exerted is equal to two altitudes
2 wh, and this force forms part of Ra Vd.
I need scarcely say that the work done or useful effect can never be equal to
2wh, because no effect can be greater than the cause which produces it, and
here the cause, power expended, is only equal to wh. Thus it is that the
force equal two altitudes, 2 wh, can only be obtained whilst the vessel or
column of water from which the water issues is stationary and doing no work
at all; for as soon as the vessel begins to move the force of reaction gets less
and less until v=V, when the force of reaction is only one altitude, and then
the maximum work would be done. But as we never can make = V in
practice, the force of reaction is always more than one altitude, and by a
quantity (a d which, multiplied by V, is also the loss), whilst the
power expended is never more than one altitude.
the
=
It follows therefore from the laws of force and motion here explained that
e power expended never can be so much as RV, because, as I have said, the
force of reaction equal to part of 2 altitudes is contained in R, whilst the
cost of getting it is only one altitude. Now the cost or power expended must
necessarily be the same when the vessel is in motion as at rest; because the
laws of gravitation which govern the force of motion, and the cost of raising a
weight in opposition to gravitation, never change. This cost, as we have seen,
is the weight of water, Vad, raised to the height h. But the actual height
when the vessel is in motion is that due to V-==-h. Conse-
quently the formula for the power expended is not RV, as assumed till
lately, but
28

page_text: .
Had I not discovered this fact the horse-power required in the example
here given would have been RV
= 935 nearly; whereas it
12696 x 40.5
550
is only 40-5-27 x 405 x 11-883 × 64 = 779 nearly; being a saving of 20) per cent.
550 x 844
both in cost and weight..
It follows also that, as the cost is not RV, the loss cannot be R (V-v),
as assumed by mathematicians, and by myself till lately. It is only
RV (V-Vad. For the loss is the weight of water, V a d, flowing away
with the residuary velocity V-v, the cost of which = (The useful
effect is as usual R v. This and the loss should equal the power expended;
Rv + (-
(Vad RV=Vad.
It will be seen by and bye that it was necessary to establish this law of
force and motion, because it is only by my paddle wheel formula for the
resistance of vessels, founded upon such law, that we can determine the
actual resistance of vessels. And only by finding this can I prove my
discovery of last year, that there is a loss of primary velocity in paddle
wheel and screw propulsion equal to the useful effect = R v, besides the
loss or residuary velocity = (V Vad.
Further, the practical importance of the law here established that the
power expended is not RV, but only Va d, will be more fully seen in
aërial navigation; because the rarity of the air is such that it is necessary to
make the velocity of reaction very great compared with v.
We thus get,
RV
550'
for aerial navigation, the reaction nearly equal to two altitudes. If then
the power expended were we should require nearly double the horse-
power necessary by the true law, and so nearly double the weight of boiler
and water to be raised, besides the cost.
LOSSES IN HYDRO-PROPULSION WITH A JET OF STEAM.
Though there is no steam engine here to set the water in motion for
reaction, as in my Patent of last year, No. 1497, there are many losses in
getting the effective force of 779 horse-power. We will allow as follows:-
For coefficient of velocity of the steam jet, 6 per cent; for condensation of
the steam, 4; for impact, friction, and loss of vis viva through the 10
equivalent tubes and reaction pipe, 70 per cent.; in all 80 per cent. We
must therefore add 779 × 80 3116 EP; making in all 779 + 3116 = 3895,
say 4000 HP.
100-80
I have said in my Provisional Specification that the success of steam jet

page_text: hydro-propulsion depends in a great measure on using my discovery of 1859,
that latent heat is latent force, the doctrine of which is explained in my
Specification of 1860, No. 1155, p. 8, 11, 12, 23, 24, 27, and 36. As the
steam jet has no engine for piston packing, and other parts to be injured by a
high temperature of steam, there can be no difficulty in using a pressure of
480 lbs. a. a. on the square inch. By my formula, given in the Provisional
Specification, the theoretical velocity of steam at this pressure is 4448 feet a
second. Therefore the weight of water which must be evaporated to give the
theoretical gross horse power required will be
4000 x 550
44482 = 7.16 lbs. a second.
614
I will now show the saving in fuel. The average pressure of marine
engines, during the stroke, is not 44.7 lbs. on the square inch. But assuming
so high a pressure, the theoretical velocity of steam at this pressure (30lbs. a. a.)
issuing into the atmosphere is, by my formula, 210-343, say 2103 feet a
second. The indicated horse-power of the Banshee, at 18.5 miles an hour,
with which we have compared steam jet hydro-propulsion, was 1566.
Therefore weight of water required to be evaporated 21032 = 12.5 lbs. a
1:66 x 550
611
second. Consequently the saving, by merely developing the latent force,
comes out nearly 125-7-16 x 100 = 74.5 per cent., even with so great a loss as
80 per cent.
7.16
I do not believe in any such loss, because I can nowhere trace it, with
equivalent tubes so gradually enlarging as 15 times the diameter of the
preceding tube. I allow for so great a loss as 80 per cent, for contrast, to
show how large is the margin of allowance by developing the latent heat
of steam, so wickedly wasted, to the extent of millions of tons of coal every
year, as pointed out in my Specification of 1860, No. 1155, p. 8, 11, 12,
23, &c. I believe that with steam at only 120 lbs. pressure (which will
frighten no one, since millions of people are carried every year by this
locomotive pressure), the saving of fuel will be considerable by my present
Invention. The saving, however, in not in coals only, but in the cost
and weight of engines, boiler, and water; and saving so much in weight
saves immersion and resistance, and the further consumption of fuel in
overcoming it.

page_text: even 2 5. The object of a very gradual enlargement of the equivalent tubes
is to get an equivalence in pressure for what is lost in velocity. It is therefore
necessary to prevent the loss of vis viva due to any sudden change of velocity,
and for this purpose to observe as nearly as possible the three principles
enunciated in my Provisional Specification, beginning with the words," the
whole science and art and mystery of the application of the steam jet in
order to embody my law of fluid equivalents and which has puzzled me so
many years, consists in the observance of three principles," &c.
ON THE RESISTANCE OF VESSELS AS MEASURED BY MY PADDLE WHEEL FORMULA,
AND ON WHICH MUCH OF THE VALUE OF HYDRO-PROPULSION DEPENDS.
It is of importance to the engineer and naval architect, for the improve-
ment of naval architecture, as well as to myself, that the resistance of vessels
should be known with all possible exactness. For this purpose more
experiments have been made in every maritime nation than in any other
department of science. The most extensive and reliable are those made by
Colonel Beaufoy and at his cost. The munificent son of a munificient father
says, in the preface of his great work, "Nautical and Hydraulic Experiments,"
that they did not cost so little as £50,000."
There are, however, well founded doubts whether those experiments, or any
others with models, afford correct data for determining the resistance of large
vessels of different forms. For myself I am not able to rely implicitly on
those experiments, because I know, from my own in hydraulics and hydro-
dynamics, that a small difference in form makes a great difference in results ;
I venture, therefore, to think that the labors of the committee appointed two
or three years ago, by the British Association for the Advancement of Science,
to experiment on the fluid resistance of different shaped models, will be no
more a correct guide for the naval architect than the experiments of Hutton,
Borda, Beaufoy, and others.
These remarks are made because the value of my system of hydro-
propulsion, patented last year (May 1866, No. 1497) depends, in a great
measure, on the resistance of the Banshee, as stated in that Specification,
p. 32, line 35, p. 40, line 6, and p. 68, line 21. Now by my formula, known
as "Boyman's paddle wheel formula," published in my Specification of 1860,
No. 1155, p. 17, her resistance at 18.5 miles an hour is there shown to be
22,868 lbs. Such, too, is her resistance, lately calculated from such formula
by one of the first scientific mathematicians of the day.
Professor Rankine, however, of European fame and authority in all such
matters, makes her resistance, by his frictional formula, fv² S, 15921 lbs.

page_text: I now make it, by my dynamic formula, only 2533044
12695-22, say
12696 lbs., by the method herein-after given; and this is the resistance
before taken as an example for my present Invention. I get this result
by my new coefficient of 8357 (instead of 75) for my paddle wheel
formula, referred to in my Specification of 1860, No. 1155, p. 17, and
in my Specification of last year, No. 1497, p. 36, and p. 51, line 35. I also
make the resistance 12,696 lbs. pursuant to my discovery of last year, that
there is a loss of primary velocity in paddle wheel and screw propulsion
equal to 50 per cent. of the power expended upon them, as I then thought;
for I then assumed that the power expended was RV,as mathematicians did,
as will be seen in my Specification 1860, No. 1155, p. 17, line 11, and
Specification 1866, No. 1497, p. 39, line 34. But as I now find that the
power expended is not so much as RV, as before explained, the loss of
primary velocity will follow the expenditure, and be only equal to the useful
effect = R v. And this loss is due to the law of fluid impulse against a plane
of the same area, discovered by me in 1812, but never applied until last year,
and which is fully explained in my Provisional and Complete Specification of
before referred to.
last year,
This question is of great importance, for the laws of nature, which are the
laws of God, are more to be depended upon than the experiments of man;
therefore it is that I venture to think that I can, by virtue of these laws, now
determine the resistance of the Banshee with far more accuracy than all those
model resistances and frictional experiments which have cost so many thousand
pounds and years of labour.
The first thing to be sure of is the power exerted by her engines at 18.5
miles an hour. The indicated power was kindly copied for me by the late
Mr. Hartree, in 1848, from the books of Messrs. Penn and Son, who made
the engines of the Banshee, and of which firm he was then a partner. Her
indicated power was 1566, and number of revolutions 30.5. For friction of
engines (and shaft, which alone by my calculation was nearly 2 per cent.) I
allowed ouly 10 per cent. 156 6 horse-power, so that the nett maximum
engine force exerted on the paddles was 1566-156.61409.4 in horse-
power, anl
22864 in lbs. expended on the floats.
1409-4 x 550
33-93
Mr. Oliver Lang, who built the Banshee, was good enough to send me, in
1848, the exact dimensions of her paddle wheels. The diameter was 25 feet,
the length of float 8333, and depth 3.75 feet. Hence for both floats,
2x8.8333x375-66-2497 square feet; and at 30-5 revolutions a minute,
the mean velocity of her floats was 33.93 feet a second..

page_text: From these data I found, in 1857, that the effective area was only three-
fourths of the whole area, and so made the coefficient of effective area 75,
which runs through all my paddle wheel formulæ of that period, as will be
seen in my said Specification of 1860, No. 1155, p. 17.
As the true dynamical principles were embodied in those formula for the
first time, and they now become of so much importance to ascertain the real
resistance of vessels by the law of fluid impulse, and thereby to determine the
value of my system of hydro-propulsion, I may perhaps better show the value
of these formulæ by the following extract from a letter of the 17th of April
1857, from one of the first mathematicians of the day, with whom I was then
corresponding on the science of hydro-propulsion:-" The obvious result of all
'this iswhat you conclude your last paper with, hydro-propulsion isworthless.
"But to me, as to you, it is utterly unintelligible how so many first-class men
"can so long have gone wrong."
""
By such paddle wheel formula I made the resistance of the Banshee
22864 lbs., instead of 4960lbs. given by the formulæ of Professor Woolhouse,
Barlow, Mornay, and others. I therefore deemed my Invention of hydro-
propulsion was, as the Professor states, "worthless," and thereupon abandoned
it from that time, 1857, until April of last year, when I returned to it again,
on account of my discovery of the loss of primary velocity in paddle wheel
and screw propulsion, explained in my Provisional and Complete Specifi-
cation of last year, No. 1497.
Now my paddle wheel formulæ of 1857 referred to were not merely in
opposition to those of the first scientific mathematicians of their day, but also
to experiments tried in 1837 with a model paddle wheel of 17.83 feet in
diameter, set in motion by weights in the factory of Messrs. Maudslay, Sons,
and Field and in opposition to 30 or 40 experiments tried with steam vessels
of various forms and power, tabular results of which are given in Wool-
house's edition of Tredgold, Appendix, p. 40. The remarkable difference
between my theoretical formulæ and those deduced from the experiments
referred to (a difference of 22868-4970-17898 lbs.) is investigated in
my said Specification of 1860, p. 15 to 17.
As these formulæ have now become the measure of the resistance of vessels,
and of the value of my system of hydro-propulsion patented last year and
now, it is right to say that they are admitted by Professor Rankine, the
first authority in such matters, and 1 believe by all other mathematicians;
it was these that caused me to return to hydro-propulsion patented last
year, as will be seen by referring to that Specification, No. 1497 (p. 3 & 6
(line 30), p. 7 (line 35), p. 30 (line 3). For had I not discovered the

page_text: true laws of paddle wheel propulsion I could not have had any guide to go
by then or now.
I have also another object in speaking of these theoretical formulæ in
refutation of the experimental ones before referred to. It is to remove the
vulgar error, if I can, that "an ounce of experiment is worth a ton of theory,"
adopted only by those who, may be, are incapable of any but the lowest grade
of science, mere experiments. For we see how much more reliable are
formulæ correctly deduced from the infallible laws of nature than those from
mere experiments of fallible man, so liable to be incorrectly conducted.
Besides this example I have another theoretical formula to establish of great
practical importance; my formula for the resistance of vessels, founded on
the law of fluid impulse, in opposition to a formula for the resistance (f v² S)
founded on no law, but on mere experiments only. For my own part, had I gone
by some of my own experiments (especially those recorded in my Specification
of 1866, No. 1497, p. 20), I should not have made the discoveries I have.
I cannot, therefore, from so long an experience as 27 years, place any reliance
on experiments when they are in opposition to the laws of nature, or true
logical induction and deduction from them. No one, I apprehend, will now
support the old paddle wheel formula, Ry ad, of Tredgold,
Woolhouse, Barlow, Mornay, and others, although deduced from numerous
experiments (given in the last edition of Tredgold) against mine of pure
theory, RV a d.
I have said that my coefficient of the dynamic efficiency of a plane in 1857
was 75. The professor of mathematics before referred to and myself then
thought that an efficient area equal only three-fourths of the whole was due
to the escape of one-fourth of the water past the floats. I have, however,
shown in my Specification of last year, No. 1497, p. 68, that this coefficient
cannot be due to such cause, because an equivalent power, due to the escape,
must be expended. But not only does the indicator fail to give any such
power, but it shows that the power expended is not equal even to the whole
of the area of the floats, dynamically computed by my paddle wheel formula
RV ad. When, however, I found that the power expended is not RV,
I found also that the coefficient 75 was wrong, because that makes the
force exerted by the paddles on the water much less than it must be by the law
of the two altitudes before explained. We have then to show what is the
true force exerted by the paddles; because by the law of fluid impulse they
can only transfer one-half of that force to the vessel. We have, therefore,
first to find the true

page_text: COEFFICIENT OF THE DYNAMIC EFFICIENCY OF A PLANE.
This must be in accordance with the force of reaction, more than one
altitude, and also in accordance with the power expended, not more than one,
It would only cumber my Specification, dealing more in laws and principles
than in details, to give the dry calculations which show that, pursuant to the
law of the two altitudes, the true coefficient for the force exerted by a plane
upon the water comes out 8357 instead of 75, as in 1857; hence for
feathering paddles, which the Banshee had, the true paddle wheel formula
for finding the engine power exerted on the water by the float is,-
F=8357 Vad lbs.
Taking then the data furnished by Mr. Oliver Lang, V=-33-93, v=27.13,
a-66-2497, and d=64 lbs., the force exerted by both floats is,-
F= 8357 33327-13 x 33.93 × 66-2497 x 64-25390-44 lbs. ;
instead of 22868 lbs. by the coefficient 75 in 1857, contained in my Speci-
fication of 1860, No. 1155.
If, however, the engines and shaft friction consumed more than 10 per cent,
which is probable, this force could not have been so much.
We have, at any
rate, the maximum force exerted on the water, whereby to determine the
maximum résistance of vessels, and which has been the aim of so many
experimenters of so many nations.
We can now find such resistance by the most exact and unerring method,
a law of nature, the law of fluid impulse against a plane of the same area;
the results of this law are established beyond question; for besides my own
experiments in 1842,explained in my Provisional and Complete Specification
of last year, No. 1497, it has been found by other experimenters that when a
fluid moves against a plane of the same area, only one-half of its force so
imparted to the plane, as the other half slips over it, and continues its onward
course like a cannon or musket ball striking an angle.
Were there no certainty in the laws of nature we could never depend upon
them, never make any reliable calculations; hence in the mutual action of
fluids and solids the same results must take place, whether the solid move
against the fluid, or the fluid against the solid. We cannot, for instance,
conceive how it could possibly be that if a stream impinge against a vessel
moored in it with a force of 1000 lbs., and the vessel moved with the same
velocity against still water, that the force or resistance would then be doubled;
for all the material conditions would be the same, the same vessel, the same
area, the same velocity, and the same density; therefore the same causes

page_text: must always produce the same effects from the very nature of things, because
mere matter has no power of itself to produce anything different.
I found, for instance, the sune results in 1842 and 1847, whether I made
the experiment with so light and expansive a fluid as steam, or with so dense
and inexpansive a fluid as water. It follows then that, by the law of fluid
impulse against a plane of the same area, a paddle wheel and screw cannot
receive from the fluid they act upon and transfer to the vessel more than one-
half of the power expended upon such plane; for it is manifest that neither
can be made of larger area than the fluid they move against.
Now I have shewn by the indicator of the Banshee that the force expended
on the floats could not have been more than 22846 lbs., and that by the law
of 2 altitudes the force exerted on the water was by my paddle wheel formula
F= 8357 Vad=25390:44 lbs. Since then a plane cannot receive
from a fluid of the same area more than half the power expended upon it,
the reactionary force imparted to the floats of the Banshee can be only
2530044 say 12696 lbs.; this, therefore, is her resistance at 18.5 miles an
hour, because the resistance can never be more than the force that over-
comes it.
It was by this inductive process in April of last, year, from my experiments
in 1842 and 1847, that I made the discovery of so great a loss of primary
velocity in paddle wheel and screw propulsion as set forth in my Specification
of last year. But though this reasoning cannot, I venture to think, be
refuted, it will be long before any thing so opposed to received notions will be
admitted. For this primary loss will make the minimum loss of the present
system of propulsion about 75 per cent., say 50 for primary velocity, 10 for
residuary velocity, 5 for irregularity of action and disturbance of the water;-
and 10 per cent. for engine and shaft friction.
To suppose that a plane whirled round in so mobile and slippery a fluid as
water will transfer to the vessel the whole force expended upon such plane (a
supposition those must adopt who deny our discovery) is to suppose an impos-
sibility, because no machine can do 100 per cent of work. The other half
of the power is expended in setting in motion a body of water of the weight
cvd with the velocity of V-v. This water, not being deflected by the
plane, cannot impart to it its force of motion; but, slipping past the floats
on all sides, carries its force with it, which is therefore lost. This is the
true slip due to the slippery and mobile nature of a fluid; whilst the loss
(Vad is the loss of residuary velocity.
Having discussed the law of fluid impulse so fully in my Specification of

page_text: last year, No. 1493, I should not refer to it again had I not since discovered
that the power expended is not RV, as I have before shown, but which was
assumed in such Specification. The result was that the law of the two
resistance of the Banshee, and in conse-
altitudes formed no part of the
quence it was made only 28611423 lbs., whereas her true resistance is
253904412696 lbs., as before shewn for the first time. To obtain, therefore,
the true measure of the resistance of vessels it was necessary to correct the
error in the usual method of mathematical investigation (RV), and this I
could not do without first showing on what laws the correction was founded,
a tedious but unavoidable process. It seems to me, however, of no little
importance, because, after innumerable and costly experiments on the
resistance of vessels by many nations, Beaufoy's costing more than £50,000,
and all more or less erroneous, the naval architect and engineer have now, I
venture to hope, the only correct means yet known of determining the
resistance of every type of vessel.
NEW PADDLE WHEEL FORMULE PURSUANT TO THE LAW OF FLUID IMPULSE.
For all practical purposes the density of a cubic foot of salt water equal
64 lbs, is near enough to twice the accelerating force of gravity, 2 g-644,
to enable us to simplify the paddle wheel formulæ, by eliminating these
troublesome components, and slightly diminishing the coefficient of .8357.
Y-
This coefficient is for determining the whole force exerted by the floats
upon the water. But as a plane can only transfer to the vessel one-half the
force expended upon them, the coefficient would become 857 = 41785, were
the formula for the resistance Vad. It is, however, only Vad,
and g 32.2 only; whereas d=64. We must therefore encrease 41785
to nearly double = 83051. Now this is the same coefficient that comes out
for the power expended and the loss. My new paddle wheel formulæ will
therefore be-
R83051 Va (V-v)
. lbs.
U Rv 83051 Vav (V-v) feet lbs.
L-Rv + 83051 (V-v)2 Va=R V do.
E-83051, V2_v2 Va
do.
Now the
Here R is the resistance; U, the useful effect; 'L, the loss; and F, the
power expended. By dividing by 550 we get the horse-power.
loss and useful effect must, of course, make up the power expended; such is
here the case. For L Rv 83051 (V-v)2 Va + to the useful effect

page_text: As regards the loss of primary velocity being equal to the useful effect R v,
I have explained in my Specification of last year, No. 1497, at p. 34, why
such must be the case. The general principal there stated is as follows:-
move,
"If a force acts upon 2 masses of equal resistance, and equally free to
it will do the same amount of work upon each mass; " and I there
show that the paddles must do the same amount of work upon the water as on
the vessel. Now I could not in that Specification make the formulæ agree
with the principle, because I then made the power expended equal R V, as
other mathematicians did, instead of 83051 V2-v2.Va. But we see that
the principle of equal loss and work enunciated in such Specification is a
sound one by the principle and formula being now in harmony,
DESCRIPTION OF MACHINERY AND CLAIMS FOR STEAM JET HYDRO-PROPULSION.
Sheet I.-Fig. 1 is a horizontal section of the steam jet and equivalent
tubes drawn into the box or recess in the vessel when not in action to prevent
retardation; Fig. 2 is a similar section of steam jet and equivalent tubes in
action, propelling the vessel by setting in motion the water in the equivalent
tubes in the direction of the small arrows, and propelling in direction of the
large arrow. The propeller is broken in the middle for want of space, but is
shown in Sheet II. Fig. 3 is a transverse vertical section through the steam
jet recess in front of the steam pipe; Fig. 4 is a plan of the steam jet and
equivalent tubes on each side of the vessel; Fig. 5 is a transverse section of
the vessel, and application of steam jet hydro-propulsion; Figs. 6 and 7.are
section and plan of the donkey engine for moving the steam jets and equivalent
tubes in and out of their recesses for backing and going ahead; and Fig. 8 is a
horizontal section of the curved reaction pipe, steam jet, and equivalent tubes.
Here there are no propelling engines, only a boiler, from which the steam is
supplied to the steam jets through the main pipe a. The equivalent tubes
are all bell-mouthed, each gradually diverging into the next, made of brass or
iron, and polished inside to prevent friction; all rigidly connected together
and with the steam jets, that all may be moved together by the donkey
engines. Three-way cocks d, d, from the main pipe turn the steam on and off
he steam jets, and are made self-acting, by being connected by links e to the
wrought-iron levers f, as they draw the steam jets and equivalent tubes in and
out, for going ahead and backing. The steain pipes / leading to the jets are
moved in and out with the equivalent tubes, and the steam is prevented from
being condensed as much as possible by surrounding the steam pipes with
felt, sawdust, or other non-conducting material, and enclosing the whole in
another pipe. The steam pipes have a telescopic action in the fixed branch
D

page_text: :
pipes to enable them to be moved in and out. The cross heads l firmly
connect the steam pipes at one end, and the equivalent tubes at the other,
by the iron rods k, to move them in and out, and these cross heads receive
their motion from the levers f by the links n, and are guided in their travel
by the guide rods n, which are bolted to the casing at one end, and fixed at
the other end by the carriage o.
The steam pipes h and rods k move through stuffing boxes in the side of
the vessel, and the pipes where they slide in the pipes i. The equivalent
tubes have rollers fixed to them, as shown at s, Fig. 3, which run on the iron
rail t to enable the donkey engines to move them more easily.
The boxes or recesses for the steam jets and equivalent tubes have sliding
doors n, which can be lowered when the propelling apparatus is drawn in by
means of the screw spindles v, working in nuts fixed to the back of the sliding
doors; these spindles have stuffing boxes when they pass through the casing,
and have hand fly wheels a keyed on them abové, as shown, to raise or lower
the doors. The object of this arrangement is to enable the propelling appa-
ratus to be repaired in action or at sea, or to substitute a new set of tubes.
By making the levers in two parts and bolting them together, and by taking
out the bolt the jet propellers and tubes can be drawn in at both ends when
the vessel is wanted only to sail.
This is done by the donkey engines, as shown, the piston rods c acting
direct upon the cross heads 1. Figs. 6 and 7 represent section and plan; D
are the cylinders; E, the pistons; F, slide valve; G, steam pipes connected
with the main pipe a by a small pipe H; I are the exhaust pipes; J, the
slide rods, which are jointed to the starting levers K by the studs L. The
starting levers K shift the slides to the necessary position for moving the
steam jet and equivalent tubes, and there remain until the reverse action is
required.
It will be seen by the Drawing, Sheet I., that the steam jet, equivalent
tubes, and curved reaction or propelling pipe are well under water, out of
harm's way, and horizontal, with their mouths towards the bow of the vessel;
thus the water in the tubes acted upon by the steamjet will not merely have the
statical pressure of the external water to aid the propelling water in over-
coming friction and the external resistance on the other side, but also the
dynamical force of the external water due to the velocity with which the vessel
pushes against the still water below the water line. This application is to
carry out one of the essential principles of my Invention of hydro-propulsion,
whether with the steam engine or steam jet as the prime mover, or whether
with the hydro-propeller to get reaction, or with the curved pipe. This
5.

page_text: principle is to preserve, as much as possible the statical equilibrium of the
external water before and behind the reaction tube, as enunciated in my
Specification of last year, No. 1497, p. 48, line 31, to page 50.
It will be seen by the Drawing, Sheet I., that the area of the propelling
tube is the same throughout, so that the permanent contracted vein is not
here needed, as in my Patent of last year, No. 1497, p 8, line 20, p. 9,
line 15 and line 25. Consequently there needs no separate entrance for
the propelling water, nor steam jets and equivalent tubes in such separate
entrance. These are required only when there is the contracted vein,
and then for the purpose of preventing the loss of vis viva from impact
of the entering water through such contracted vein, as explained in my
said Specification of last year, in the pages before referred to.
My improved hydro and aëro propeller is to diminish the diameter of the
one patented by me last year, No. 1497, and which for many purposes I
consider a valuable improvement. The method of doing this is shown in
Sheet II., Fig. 1 is a horizontal section through the side of the vessel, one
halt of the section being above the propeller, the other half through it, with the.
expanding and contracting valves for hydro-propulsion and aerial navigation,
connected by a rod and self-acting; Fig. 2 is a vertical cross section through
the propeller. The drum a is secured to the shaft b, and turned by the arms c,c,
which serve as guides to the floats d, d; these are moved in and out during
the revolution of the drum by the cam e, e, in which the rollers f, f, run;
these rollers are attached to each side of the float direct, and by this simple
means I diminish the large diameter of my hydro-propeller, patented last year.
For it will be seen in Sheet I., Fig. 3, of such Specification (1866, No. 1497),
that the floats are there moved in and out of their boxes by means of rods c, c,
at the top of the floats. It was therefore necessary to have the diameter
of the hydro-propeller large enough for these rods to work in, and which
large diameter I found inconvenient in some applications.
Hence the
present improvement of working the floats by rollers at each side.
This improvement may seem to be contained in my Specification of last
year, No. 1497, p. 66, line 20, beginning with, "I do not confine myself to
the outside cam, for by having leakage the float boxes, and rods may be dis-
pensed with, and the floats be connected direct with the rollers, and move
the floats by means of an inside cam." I was surprised to read this
jumble, and know not how it could have been so worded, because the rollers
cannot be attached to each side of the float direct, as in my present Invention,
and be worked by an inside cam. I was obliged to prepare that Specification
as it was being engrossed, and had no time for alteration.

page_text: The drum has longitudinal angle iron i, i, rivetted to the internal
periphery on each side of the floats as guides and as stays to the drum.
The casing g is provided with a stop j to divide the incoming and outgoing
water for reaction, and with a stuffing box K.
Sheet II., Fig. 3 is a view of the propeller; one-half having the case
removed and showing the drum in section; Fig. 4 is a cross section. The
same principle of hydro-propeller is here shewn applied as an ordinary pump,
water wheel, or water-pressure engine. For small powers the floats can be
worked by a single cam (referred to in my Provisional Specification), placed
in the inside of the drum, and which cam is made a fixture with the hollow
shaft
P attached to the casing. a is the drum; b, the shaft; c, c,
the arms
of the drum; d, d, the floats; e, the cam; f, f, the rollers; g, the casing;
h, the cam arms; i, i, angle iron guides; j, the water divider.
This propeller will entail more leakage than the one patented last year,
but its advantages counterbalance it. Indeed the loss from leakage over
the whole propeller is of no great moment. It would be too tedious to
calculate it here, as any one can do it; for instance, fix the interstice between
the floats, water divider, aud rim where the pressure is at, say, 3 of an
inch; reduce the number. of linear inches of leakage into square feet, and
then calculate the loss by the number of square feet of reaction.
CLAIMS FOR STEAM JRT HYDRO-PROPULSION..
It will be seen, I venture to think, that I have reduced steam jet hydro-
propulsion to an exact science approximately, by giving the formulæ for the
steam jet, and the principles and formulæ by which the area, horse-power,
and number of equivalent tubes can be found, and the different parts pro-
portioned to one another, without which this method of propulsion is
worthless. But not being allowed to claim principles and formulæ, the
most difficult to discover, I will define the application of them.
I. I claim to propel vessels by the action and reaction of jets of steam and
water, pursuant to my law of fluid equivalents of October 1850, referred to in
my Provisional Specification, and the application thereof therein indicated,
that is to say, I claim the combination of steam jets, equivalent tubes, and
curved reaction pipe placed horizontally beneath the water, with the mouth of
the tubes towards the bow to propel vessels; this I do by making the medium
of resistance the means of overcoming it by reaction, pursuant to my paper of
August 1849, "On the Philosophy of Mechanical Propulsiou," referred to in
my Provisional Specification. But the foundation of my present Inventiou
was laid so far back as 1842, when I first discovered the power of the steam

page_text: patented last year, 1866, No. 1497, by working the floats direct from each
side by a cam on each side, as described in my Provisional Specification and
in this:
2.. I also claim to work the floats by means of an internal cam, which last
two claims are most distinctly shewn in Sheet II.
3. I claim also the combination of my hydro-propeller with the steam jets
and equivalent tubes for the purpose of getting the required reaction for pro-
pulsion instead of an immoveable curved pipe, for the reasons mentioned in
my Provisional Specification.
I have now finished what I began 25 years ago, of which I have thus
spoken in my Specification of 1860, No. 1155, p. 55: "I began experi-
"menting with a jet of steam in 1842, under the conviction of discovering
"something, the verification of which will be found recorded in the Speci-
"fication taken out by me in the name of James Pilbrow of the 23rd of May
"1842, No. 9354, p 3, line 2 to 10, .. . . knowledge which I have been
"trying to turn to account at intervals of leisure ever since." To this I
must add an experiment recorded in my "Book of Experiments" on Tuesday,
the 12th of July 1842, showing the remarkable difference between the two
principles of propulsion, reaction and impulse, the meaning and importance of
which I did not then understand; and to these 2 principles I must also

page_text: science.
Yet in his Elements of Physics he thus speaks of aërostation only
two years ago:" Aëronauts while aloft have a limited power of making the
"balloon rise farther by throwing out part of the sand ballast, or of making
"it descend by opening a valve at the top, through which part of the
'hydrogen gas may escape; but they have no power of producing a lateral
"motion of any useful amount. The idea which still haunts the minds of
"some projectors, that by wings or other means a balloon may be moved
"about in the sky as a bird flies, or as a ship is moved on the sea, is an
extravagant delusion. To undeceive a person who can have harbored such a
"notion, by proving its fallacy, would require a longer lesson than there is
room for here."-Elements of Physics, 6th edition, 1864, p. 273.
66
It would take up too much space to record here the many extracts I have
made at different times on the moonomania, as such sceptical writers might
have called it, of aerial schemes; I may, however, remark that before I had
discovered any of the laws of aerial navigation, I was sure that it would be
some day accomplished, a conviction I recorded six years ago in my Specifi-
cation of 1860, No. 1155. But having given the dictum of one of the masters
of natural philosophy, to show the present state of aeronautical science, I will
also show the opinion. of practical men. The able President of the Institution
of Civil Engineers of Ireland will scarcely admit the possibility of aerial
navigation; for in his opening address of last year he thus ridicules it:
"Take an extreme case. Suppose it possible that aerial navigation were once
(as some fondly imagine) shown to be practicable with advantage, would
"not the fact instantly call forth a class with the specialty of aeronautic
"engineers? Amongst these aspirants, whose views would be towards the
"moon in perhaps more senses than one, the ancient diploma of the respect.
"able old gentleman whose knowledge and practice had been of the earth,
earthy, would be waste paper."
66
66
I have now to show that those who deem aerial locomotion possible, for I
believe these have not yet reached aerial navigation, propose to do it in an
impossible manner. I was present, for instance, at a lecture given on the
22nd of March last, at the Royal Institution, by Dr. James Bell Pettigrew,
"On the various modes of flight, in relation to aeronautics." Sir Henry
Holland, F.R.S., was in the chair, and the Duke of Argyll, President of the
Aeronautical Society of Great Britain, and other men of science were
present, evidence of the interest taken in the subject. The large screen was
covered with drawings of different kinds of birds; their mode of flight was
explained by the lecturer, and a toy screw made to ascend by pulling a
string, then wound up again, and made to go horizontally..

page_text: But the present state of aeronautical science, which it is my object to show,
will be better seen in other words than mine. I give therefore the following
brief report of the lecture from the Daily News of the 25th of March last,
copied from the Globe :-
.66
"6
"
"
Royal Institution.-A lecture on flying was delivered by Dr. Pettigrew
"at the Royal Institution on Friday evening. The principles of support and
progression in the air, as exemplified in the wings of birds and insects, were
"described by the aid of a series of diagrams and some stuffed spe imens.
The lecturer pointed out the importance of the screw movement, both as
an instrument of support and progress. A certain amount of weight in the
flying object was shown to be necessary to its hold on the air; this had not
"been sufficiently recognised in the attempts to contrive flying machines.
"The angle at which the blades of a machine played on the air was also of
'importance; the wings of birds and insects generally struck it at an angle
."of 45 degrees. Dr. Pettigrew has evidently great faith in the ultimate
success of the attempt to devise an apparatus which shall not only maintain
"itself in the air, but move in a required direction, and the grounds of his
"confidence are such as may well justify the belief that the feat is not
impossible. He has evidently studied the whole subject with great care,
"observed the phenomena of flight by natural means very closely, and
finding that the act of flying is performed by animal organism by means
purely mechanical, reasonably concludes that if an apparatus is to be
"made to fly it must be constructed to make the attempt by means which
"are purely mechanical."
"
6
"
66
'
"If Dr. Pettigrew is right," observes the reporter of his lecture," and
"reasoning from analogy it would certainly seem probably that he is, winged
61
66
65
balloons, and in fact all apparatus which depends on rarerified air or on a
body of light gas for their support, are constructed on false principles. It
"is only by working under the direction and following the example of nature
that it is possible to perform great feats or attain grand objects; this rule
"obtains in every field of enterprise which has yet been traversed, and it is
only reasonable to suppose that it obtains also in those upon which we have
scarcely been able to enter. The many failures which have marked the
progress of our attempts to devise a machine which will fly are certainly
discouraging; but we are by no means inclined to regard the enterprise as
impossible. And if we do succeed, it will be by the efforts of men who,
like Dr, Pettigrew, bring to bear upon the subject a well-balanced mind,
"active powers of observation, and who study, as he has evidently studied
very carefully, the facts of nature. The lecture was a masterly resumé of
"
"
6

page_text: "all the knowledge possessed on the subject, and it contained some good
"hints for further inquiry."
say
If, however, I may venture to say so, all the hints I heard were, like the
lecture, in the wrong direction. Yet Dr. Pettigrew's reasoning is in strict
accordance with the teaching of the prince of philosophers, and especially of
one celebrated passage from his works, which has been more quoted by Sir
John Herschel and other writers on natural philosophy than any other,-
"Homo naturæ minister et interpres," &c., too well known to repeat. This
Bacon enunciates as the foundation of all natural philosophy, all progress in
science. Yet must I venture to remark that it seems to me unsound, opposed
to man's higher powers, and contradicted by facts. For man, partaking of
the ivine intelligence, is more nobly gifted than to be the servant and
interpreter of nature; still the great father of modern philosophy goes on to
that neither man's knowledge nor power can go beyond ("nec amplius
scit aut potest"). But I cannot think so. Man's power is greater than
nature, because he is the creator of things which do not exist in nature.
It has not been by observing, much more by following nature, either in fact
or in fact, or in thought, as Bacon asserts ("quantum de naturæ ordine, re vel
"mente observaverit "), that man has conquered and subdued her. The forces
which he uses for this purpose exist only in the combinations of science,never
in the order of nature. Gunpowder, whereby man moves mountains from
their base, mines into the bowels of the earth, and by his exquisitely fashioned
guns destroys his enemies at the distance of miles; steam, the great prime
mover of the universe, whereby he conquers the winds, and tides and waves,
and goes where he listeth; the electric telegraph, that circles the ocean
with his thoughts; these, and a thousand other things are the forces of
science, and not of nature. The press, the steam engine, steam navigation,
the locomotive,all that has raised inan from barbarism to such large intelligence
and power over nature, are as much the separate creations of man as man and
nature are the creations of God. I cannot then believe that man, made in
His image, only a little lower than the angels, is the mere servant and
interpreter of nature;. but something greater far, destined by his own power
to have dominion over the sea, and over the air, and over all the earth, and
so verify, in time, the first great prophecy of all.
It is then by art that man has hitherto conquered nature. The birds of
the air, the beasts of the field, and the fish of the sea cannot understand or
use the forces of science. Man only can. He must not therefore imitate his
inferiors in reason and in power. Birds besides are the last, true science
would imitate, because they have to do two things to sustain themselves
E

page_text: against the constant pulling down power of gravity, shown when they are shot,
and to propel themselves as well. To sustain this exertion for hours, as they
do, they are made with the minimum of weight and resistance, and with the
maximum of power. Man has been made with the reverse, the maximum of
weight and resistance with the minimum of power to overcome them, terrible
drawbacks to flying. Hence it is that he must be supported on something,
and is by the earth. It is plain, therefore, that man was not made to fly; so
that it is not by following the order or arrangements of nature, according to
the Baconian philosophy, that he can ever navigate the air.
How completely this erroneous philosophy possesses men's minds, and turns
them in the wrong direction, will be further seen in the following extracts
from the "Transactions of the Aeronautical Society of Great Britain," for last
year, under the able presidency of the Duke of Argyll. It is said at p. 35:-
"The foregoing reasoning is based upon facts which tend to show that the
flight of the largest and heaviest of all birds is really performed with but a
small amount of force, and that man is endowed with sufficient muscular
power to enable him also to take individual and extended flights." On the
contrary, I beg to observe that a large bird exerts an enormous force in an
hour, as I would show, could it answer any useful purpose.
66
But science is for all, for the poor and infirm especially. Whatever then
is of limited application carries with it its own refutation. It may be used for
a time, like the paddle wheel and screw, but unless of universal application,
like reaction propulsion, it is an unerring indication that the true principle,
the ultimate law, has not yet been reached. Were it then possible for man to
fly, the mechanism would be only for a time, because of such limited application.
For how could infants and little children fly, the poor consumptive,the sick and
weak, the halt, the maimed, and the blind? Is the air only for the strong?
God forbid. His gifts are for all, and men of science are His ministers, to
discover and embody and so make those gifts universal, more for the poor and
weak than for the rich, to elevate and refine. What higher or nobler service,
or where can man earn so pure and enduring a remembrance upon earth?
"
The Duke of Argyll, however, seems to be the only one of the council who
differs on the principle and method of aerostation, for His Grace remarks at
one of the meetings," I think it is quite certain that if the air is ever to be
navigated, it will not be by individual men flying by means of machinery,
"but that it is quite possible vessels may be invented which will carry a
"number of men, and the motive force of which will not be muscular
"action."-Transactions for 1866, p. 40. Nevertheless the council observe
that "so far as they have been guided by experience since the foundation of

page_text: "this society, they are inclined to deprecate any material enlargement of the
"balloon for the purpose of carrying heavy machinery to afford a motive-
"power," an experience in direct opposition to my theory and its application.
THE IMPOSSIBLE AND THE POSSIBLE.
I have shown the present state of aeronautical science from the opinions
of Dr. Arnott, the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers of Ireland,
Dr. Pettigrew, and the Council of the Aeronautical Society of Great Britain.
I believe therefore that I stand alone, either in believing aerial navigation of
certain accomplishment, as published in my Specification of 1860, or in the
method of its accomplishment. Now the impossible never can be done, the
possible will. It may be years in the future, as it has been centuries in the
past. For nearly six thousand years had passed away before science had
much more than an existence. The steam engine, its commencement, is
scarcely a century old; but it was possible to create a greater power than
man or animals, to race along the earth for hours faster than the swiftest
horse, and to navigate the seas without sails and against wind and tide.
Therefore it has been done. So will it be with aerial navigation, but before
showing how, we will show how not; the first step in the right direction, by
diverting men's minds and labors from the impossible to the possible.
We do not want to crawl through the air, so we will begin with a speed of
30 miles an hour, double the average speed of steam vessels, for anything
less is scarcely worth trying for in these fast times. Hence an average
velocity of (30x1467=) 44 feet a second will be the basis of all our
calculations for aërial navigation.
Smeaton's estimate of the power which a man can continuously exert
is 3780 lbs. 1 foot high a minute
1.43 lbs. at 44 feet a second, the
3780
======
60 × 44
speed required. Morin, in his Aide Mémoire, estimates the work of a
laboring man turning a winch equal to 18 lbs. raised 2.4 feet a second
=
24 × 18
44
S
98 lbs. only at 44 feet a second, which agrees near enough with
We have then the two best
Smeaton's estimate for all practical purposes.
authorities I know of the capabilities of man.
But we can never get out of a machine as much work as we put into it
on account of friction, still less out of fluid machines, windmills, screws,
undershot and paddle wheels, and such like, because of the loss of primary
velocity, discovered by me last year, before referred to, and because of the
loss of residuary velocity as well as friction. For these we must allow at
least 60 per cent. of the power expended. Take now the weight of a man

page_text: at 160 lbs., and it is evident that since he can only raise a mean weight of
143 +98=1.205 lbs. at the required velocity of 44 feet a second, he could
not raise 160
1*205
13
132 times that weight. This indeed would be the number
of men required to raise one man at 44 feet a second, independent of friction
and other losses. But for these we must add a power equal to 60 per cent.
on the whole power exerted =132 x 60 = 198 men more. Therefore to raise
100-60
one man at a velocity of 30 miles an hour would require (132+ 198 =
=)
330 men.
Such is the impossibility now being attempted, as shown in the
extracts before given, the result of trying to imitate nature and fly, instead of
seeking the aid of the higher powers of art and propel.
The power of steam alone is equally impossible. The weight of a steam
engine, boiler, and screw is not less than 150 lbs. per horse-power = 550 lbs.
1 foot high per second; add 60 per cent. for loss =150 x 60 = 225; therefore
100-60
weight to be raised per horse-power (150 +225) = 375 lbs.; but as one
horse-power can only raise 550 = 12-5 lbs. at 44 feet a second, it is plain it
cannot raise 375 lbs. at that speed, not even its own weight, much more
passengers. Yet we find screw toys are exhibited at lectures as the future
ascending and propelling power for navigating the air. The applauding
audience see the toy go, but do not consider the force exerted on so light and
worthless a thing to make it go.
THE POSSIBLE AND FUTURE OF AERIAL NAVIGATION.
We must navigate the air by art, as we do the sea by art, by a vessel that
needs no power to support but only to propel. The earth to support man on
the earth, the sea to support him on the sea, and the air (rarefied or gas) to
support him in the air. The analogy is complete, for in all three instances he
needs no power to support him, as birds do, only to propel him. We must.
not therefore imitate nature. For man by reason is greater than nature, and
only by discovering those separate elements which combined exert a greater
power than nature, and by creating the proper organism for its action, can he
conquer and subdue her.
"Nec amplius scit aut potest." Art for man,
nature for beasts.
The lifting power of gas is the difference between the weight of the quantity
of air displaced by the balloon and the weight of the same quantity of gas;
in other words, the differential weight must equal the weight of the load
raised, that is, the weight of the gas in the envelope deducted from the weight
of the same quantity of air displaced must leave a weight equal to the load

page_text: raised. To save the trouble of this calculation we have to find the coefficient of
lifting power. If then a = the weight of one cubic foot of air, and g one of gas,
the coefficient of lifting power will be cag. Therefore the quantity of
gas required to raise a given load will be Q cubic feet; consequently
=
QaQg w lbs. = the load raised; a being the weight of one cubic foot
of air, and g of gas.
Dalton makes the density of a cubic foot of air at 60° = 07652 lbs.,
and Herschel at 32° = 08066 lbs. Hence at the mean temperature of
60+ 46°, the weight is 07652+03066
=
2
=07859, say, for convenience of
calculation, 0786 lbs. The density of a cubic foot of pure hydrogen gas is
very nearly as 1 to 14.4, but, allowing for impurities, we will take it at
ouly of the weight of air == 009825 lbs.; consequently the lifting
power will be c = a -y=0786-009825 = 068775 lbs.; therefore the
quantity required will be Q = *068775 cubic feet.
0786
The form of the navigator of the skies is an important as that of the ocean,
The aerial ship must be kept in equilibrium as much as possible, there must
be no more gas at one end than the other or that would go up and the
other down. After several calculations of lengths to diameters to get 'the
greatest capacity with least surface, I think a good form, all things con-
sidered, is the one mentioned in my Provisional Specification, "a very long
oval, the same at both ends, and very tapering." I will call it a double-coned
cylinder for better distinction.
This form is in tolerable accordance with the two discoveries recorded by
Colonel Beaufoy in his great work "Nautical and Hydraulic. Experiments."
One is, that "the encreasing the length of a solid of almost any form by the
"addition of a cylinder in the middle exceedingly diminishes the resistance
"with which it moves, provided the weight in water continue to be the same."
The other discovery is, that "the greatest breadth of the moving body should
"be placed at the distance of ths from the bow." The cylinder and double
cone are so proportioned that each shall hold about one-half of the quantity
gas required.
of
A formula was, therefore, needed whereby to find the diameter and length
of a double cone 5 times as long as the diameter, sufficient to contain one-
half of the whole quantity of gas. The formula is,―

page_text: d is the diameter of the gaseous envelope; 1, the length of the double cone
from apex to apex, if put together without the intermediate cylinder,a length
which is here a constant, always 5 d; and Q, the number of cubic feet of gas
required to raise the load. This formula only gives the dimensions of the
conical part of the gaseous envelope, and is founded on the properties of a
right cone, that its cubical contents
=
d-7851 I
150
The diameter of the intermediate cylinder is the same as that of the cone.
Hence its length will be found by the formula L
and this will
contain the other half of the gas.
da '7851)
The next formula required is perhaps the most important. It is to find the
resistance of a double-coned cylinder of the above proportions moving through
the air at any given velocity, for only thereby can we find the power required
for aerial navigation. It was frightfully tedious to get at, and is as follows:-
R 00001113 (1.5708 d √4 12 + d³ +
d) m²
where d is the diameter of the cone; 1, the length of one cone only
= n d Q
the number of cubic feet of gas required to raise the load, and in miles per
hour. I need scarcely say that this formula for R is only an approximation
to the actual resistance of the form described, shown in Sheet III., though I
have made it, I think, rather more than less.
We will now apply the foregoing formulæ, 1, for the lifting power; 2, for the
dimensions of the double-coned cylinder; and 3, for the resistance. Happily
we have no railroads in the air, no battle of the guages, broad or narrow, to
fight,no parliamentary committees, no ignorant browbeatings of men of science
to limit their power, no mountains to tunnel, no powers to conciliate, no rails
to lay down at 20 or £30,000 a mile; there is therefore free scope for science,
and in the air ample room and verge enough for its sublime aspirations.
Let us aim greatly, and greatly fail, if we fail at all. For thus untramelled
aerial navigation, born of pure science, is a giant at its birth far mightier than
the imagination of poets or the fabled roc of the Arabian Nights, our navi-
gator of the skies will carry off a load equal to four or five of the heaviest
trains on the Great Western Railway, ponderous engines, tenders, passengers,
and all. The Iron Duke, for instance, drew 120 tons, including engine and
tender. Let us then soar away with 600 tons; this weight will necessarily
include that of the steel gaseous envelope and other dead weight, even as the
locomotive must draw itself and tender with other dead weight sufficient for
its own small complement of passengers.
Therefore by our first formula the quantity of gas required will be
ם
600 x 2840
101000

page_text: d=91416 3/5 Q = 195.434 feet,
say, 195.5 feet. Hence the length of the double cone, from apex to apex, if
brought together without the intermediate cylinder, will bel-5d-5×195.5
=977-5 feet.
The gaseous cylinder is to hold the other half. Hence its length will be
50
d2-7854
*5x19511,982
195.52 x 7854
=
325-72 feet =
Thus the first aerial ship ever launched from the stocks of science will be
977 5+325-7=1303 feet long,
and
195.5 high.
"
The construction of these navigators of the air, vaster far than any of the
antidiluvian monsters, megatherium or mastedon, is more for the engineer
than the philosopher. Still I may suggest that it may not be necessary to
construct scaffolding to build up the steel ribs of these mammoths or to make
their mailed sides, but to add segment to segment on the ground, and turn the
monsters round by steam machinery.
We now come to the resistance. We have first to find the surface of a
double cone by our formula 1.5708 d 4+d². The diameter d=195.5.
Now in this formula 25 d 2.5x1955488-75; hence 12 = 48 75³
238876-5525, and this multiplied by 4-955506-25; next, d²-195.52 =
38220-25; consequently 4 12+ d2 = 955506-25 + 38220-25
d²
=
"5d
=
19541982
=
993726:5;
hence 412+ d2-93726-5-996-794864, say, for convenience, 996.795,
which Xd (1955)=194873-4225 x 1.5703-306,107 feet. This then is the
surface of a double cone, where d=195-5 and 27 for both cones =5 d.
The surface of the intermediate cylinder = 1955-199918 square
feet; consequently the whole surface = 306107+ 199918=506,025 square
feet. Let us take the velocity at twice the average speed of steam vessels to
begin with, 30 miles an hour-302-900; then the resistance of this huge
creature, as it wends its silent way sublime through all the realms of air will
be only R=00001113 × 506,025 x 900 = 5068 85 lbs.
A more simple formula for the surface of the double-coued cylinder is
d
3-1416 ++c)
c being the length of cylinder =; because the contents of the two cones
are equal to the contents of the cylinder.
We may therefore simplify the formula for the resistance thus-

page_text: There is only one law of force and motion, whether the body be air or
water, or cannon ball, or grain of sand, and only one law of reaction for
propulsion. This force is w, as discovered by me in 1861 by the method
shown in my Specification of last year, No. 1497; hence the laws, principles,
and formulæ enunciated in such Specification for hydro-propulsion where the
steam engine is the prime mover, and those herein-before given, where the
steam jet is the prime mover, are the same for aero-propulsion; therefor
the useful effect is found by the same formula, 550
=406 HP nearly.
It is then difficult to believe that so sublime a machine as a quarter of a mile
long and nearly 200 feet in diameter, the greatest yet of man's or nature's
creation, winging its cloudy way through the air at 30 miles an hour
darkening the sun, with a weight of 600 tons, and exposing so vast a surface
as 506025 square feet, should have a resistance of only 5070 lbs., and be
propelled with so small a force as 406 horses' power; but it is so.
=5070x41
550
It is, however, only in large diameters that aerial navigation comes out so
well; for by the properties of squares and surface the capacity encreases as
the square of the diameter, whilst the surface encreases only as the circum-
ference. It follows, therefore, that if we halve the diameter and retain the
same lifting power we double the surface weight, resistance, power to over-
come it, and the weight and cost thereof; we must, therefore, navigate the air
on a grand scale for economy.
Now although our huge aerial ship can be propelled by so small a power
as 406 horses, unfortunately the waste of power in getting it by the reaction of
air is very great, because the weight of one cubic foot of air is only 0786 lbs.
By small locomotive cylinders, and my improved propeller, herein-before
described, and shown in Sheet II., equally applicable for aero as for hydro
propulsion, the residuary velocity of the air for reaction can no doubt be
reduced to 500, and even to 250 feet a second; perhaps by the steam jet also,
expanded as it will be by the hot air in the 'funnel, as shown in Sheet III.
and IV.; thus gaining in pressure what it loses in velocity, pursuant to my law
of fluid equivalents before referred to. But it is desirable to have a surplus
power for head and side winds, and we must allow for losses; we will, therefore,
add, say, ten times the useful effect, about 90 per cent., especially as we can

page_text: make this up by my discovery of 1859, that latent heat is latent force, referred
406 × 90=3654,
to in my Provisional Specification; we must therefore add 100 x 900
making the gross power required 406 + 3654-4060 horse-power.
The Iron Duke, on the Great Western Railway, worked up to a gross
power of about 1315 horses, according to my method of calculating it, but
say 1200 only; by encreasing the pressure four times we get about double
the power with the same consumption of fuel, as I discovered in 1859, see
Specification of 1860, No. 1155, p. 8, our pressure will therefore be 4 X 120
480 lbs. Now it is well known that the strength of iron encreases with
temperature up to 570° degrees, which are 570-455-115 degrees below
the temperature of steam at a pressure of 480 lbs. on the inch above the
atmosphere. The bursting pressure of Howard's safety boilers is stated to
be 2000 lbs., and that they are tested to a pressure of 500 lbs. on the square
inch; so much, then, for safety.
AS REGARDS THE WEIGHT OF MACHINERY FOR AERIAL NAVIGATION.
This, I need scarcely say, is of great importance, for as we reduce weight we
reduce the size of the gaseous envelope, its weight, surface resistance, and
power to overcome it; the attention of the metallurgist is therefore par-
ticularly directed to this point. We must, however, go for the present by the
weight of the material we have. As far as I can learn the weight of the mere
boiler and fittings of the Iron Duke, without frame and wheels, but properly
stayed to work up to a pressure of 480 lbs., would be, with water in it, about 20
tons; such a boiler, therefore, would therefore develope twice its present power
=2x 1200-2400 horse-power; hence we should require 1000 =1.7 nearly,
say, 2 such boilers, and this would make our first weight 2×20=40 tons.
It has been before shown in steam jet hydro-propulsion that (by my formula
for the velocity of steam given in my Provisional Specification) the velocity of
steam at 480 lbs. pressure is 4448 feet a second; hence the theoretical weight
= 7.2674 lbs. a
of water required to be evaporated would be
second if used in a steam engine; but the weight of one lineal foot of steam
4060 x 550, 4060 x 550
7:2671
= 4418-
44482
01.4
4060
001634 lbs. instead of
for reaction with the steam jet will be
00179 lbs.; therefore weight of water per second = v w = 4448 001634-
7-268 lbs. nearly, as before.
Unable to learn the weight of the gaseous envelope, we must leave as much
as possible for it, and so limit our flight for the present from Dover to Calais,
Folkestone, and Boulogne, and such like; we will therefore only take an
hour's cousumption of water =72871 x 60 x 60 = 12 tons nearly.
2240

page_text: The Drawings in Sheets III. and IV. show four locomotive boilers for the
purpose of driving the aerial ship at about 50 miles an hour; for the time
will come when a more buoyant gas will be discovered, and when the gaseous
envelope can be made strong and light enough to take up such additional
weight and four or five hours' consumption of water. But we are now
reckoning upon only 2 boilers, which it is proposed to place in a line, so as to
have the aerial promenade about 200 feet long, 5 wide, and 10 high. If then
we take the weight of a cubic foot of steel at 490 lbs. and the plates th of an
inch thick, supported as they will be by steel hoops, the weight of the engine
house and promenade will be about 22 tons; to this add 10 tons of sand
ballast to discharge on emergencies, but chiefly to trim the ship in this way.
Let the ballast, run in a truck on light rails with an opening between for its
discharge. When the ship is required to rise the truck will be run towards
the stern, and when required to descend towards the bow, and the reaction
propellers being moved to the proper angle will do the rest.
Assume 200 passengers at an average of 11 stone each and 56 lbs. of
luggage, and these will weigh 200 x 11 x 11+ (200) x 58 -19, say 20 tons. Let the
furniture and fittings weigh 10 tons; each steel hoop to go round the gaseous
envelope will be 3.1416 x 195.5-615 feet in circumference. To this add
20 feet to go under the promenade and engine room, and the circumference of
cach will be 615+20=635, say 640 feet. The safe bearing strain of Russian
steel wire or aluminium 10 per cent. bronze wire is about 15 tons per square
inch, so that we will add, say 4 tons for the weight of these hoops. Hence,
total weight to be supported by them will be as follows:-Boilers, 40 tons;
water, 12; engine room and promenade, 22; ballast, 10; 200 passengers and
luggage, 20; furniture and fittings, 10; and weight of steel hoops, 4; in all
118 tons. This then will be the weight for the hoops to support. If
therefore this weight be uniformly distributed the weight of the steel
hoops to support 118 tons (which includes their own weight) will be about
4 tons.
000
We will assume, for I can get no facts to guide me, that the pressure of
the gas
inside the envelope will be equal to the load raised, 600 tons. If then
4 tons of steel wire will support 118 tons, mx4-20 tons will support 600
tons. Hence this weight of steel will be uniformly distributed over the
whole gaseous envelope to enable it to bear the inside
pressure of the gas.
The conical ends for 2 or 300 feet will not require such strong stays as the
parts of larger diameter.
The weight of load being 118 tons and stays 20, in all 138 tons, and the

page_text: total load raised being 600 tons, we have left a weight of 10-462
tons wherewith to make the gaseous envelope. Now the surface is 506205
square feet, and if the pressure of the gas above the atmosphere inside does
not exceed the load it raises, the pressure which the envelope will have to
bear will be very trifling, about
9240 x 600 2-7 lbs. nearly per square foot.
1
506205
Allowing 462 tons for the weight of the envelope, the weight of metal would
be 2210 x 462
=2-04 lbs. per square foot.
506205
But mére statical construction is not the department of the scientific
philosopher, whose province is to discover laws and to invent the proper
organism for their application to meet the ever increasing wants of mankind.
And now men do want to traverse the air as well as water, shown by the two
aeronautical societies recently instituted in the 2 most scientific nations
of the world, France and England. The construction of the machinery is for
those "aeronautical engineers who," the President of Civil Engineers in the
extract before given tells us, "will be instantly called forth as soon as aerial
navigation shall be shown to be practicable with advantage."
As to the impossibility of constructing a steel or other gaseous envelope
strong and light enough to bear the pressure of the gas, I will not listen to
it. Everything is impossible to him who thinks it, nothing to him who
believes all things are possible until proved to the contrary.
The silly
croakings of the impossibility man would have deterred every new and great
attempt. It was impossible to bore a cylinder so true that the steam should
not pass the piston to the vacuum. It was impossible that so complicated a
machine as the steam engine could work long without knocking itself to
pieces. It was impossible to go 30 miles an hour by rail. Equally impos-
sible to carry coals enough for ocean navigation. Impossible to make a
tubular bridge to bear any load, "break down with its own weight, sir."
Impossible to lay the Atlantic telegraph, and a thousand other things. But
the impossibilities of the past are the common-places of the present. So will
it be with aerial navigation, another impossibilty. Establish a principle and
the means follow by an inevitable law. For nothing that the mind of man
conceived ever yet failed for want of man's hands to carry it out. Nothing
then is impossible but what is opposed to the laws of science; aerial
navigation is not.
AREA OF STEAM JET AND REACTION FOR AERIAL NAVIGATION.

page_text: 62'5
(62.5 lbs.) at 480 lbs. pressure is, by the formula before given, 76.75.
Therefore the quantity from 7.2674 lbs. will be 76-65 x 7.2074 = 9 cubic feet
nearly. The velocity of issue being 4448 feet a second, the area of the steam
jet will be a=-448
= .002024 of a square foot-002024 × 144=291456
Hence area of steam jet for each boiler =291456-145728
of a square inch.
of a square inch.
9
We will assume that by the law of fluid equivalents, and by the intense
heat in the funnel, the velocity of the steam jet can be so reduced as to fill
the whole area of the funnel, as we see it does in the locomotive, and give a
pressure over the whole area equivalent to its reduced velocity. We will
then take the steam, gas, and air issuing from the last equivalent tube to be
500 feet a second, and the weight of one cubic foot of air at 0786 lbs. The
area of reaction will then be, by the same formula as for hydro-propulsion,
Vd500-11 x 500 x 0786=556.54 lbs. per square foot.
= 32:3
Therefore to
overcome the resistance a=
R
=
556-54
5070
558-54
=
9.1, say 9.25 square feet.
If now the power expended were as great as R V, as I believe is generally
considered, it would be RV
550
=
5070 x 5004609 HP; whereas the power ex-
550
pended is found by the same formula as for hydro-propulsion; and is only
EV-Vad-500 x 44 x 500 x 9.25 x 0786=2546 EP.
644
We have, however, at disposition 1060 HP. If then we allow 25 per cent.
for efflux and other theoretical losses on the surplus of (4060-2546=)
1514 EP, we shall have an available power of (1514-380-) 1134 HP for
a head or side wind. This then is sufficient to overcome a resistance of
1247 lbs. over and above the actual resistance of 5070 lbs.
(1134 x 550 =).
500
=========
It is, however, proper to direct the attention of men of science to those
points in aerial navigation where there is ample margin for saving. In this
part of the subject it is in the velocity of issue V; for in proportion as we
diminish it we get a surplus power. Suppose, for instance, we can make
Vonly 250 feet a second instead of 500, we shall then have the following
results:-The resistance being the same, the area of reaction will be Vd
250-14 × 250 × 0786-125-7 lbs. per square foot. Therefore area required is
== 40-330 square feet.
a=
$22
R
5070
125-7 125-7
Hence the square of the propelling pipe on each side would be 0335

page_text: 4.5 feet, and the surplus power would be considerable; for the power
expended would now be only
E=Vad=2502-112×250 x 40 335 x 0786=1355 HP.
22
Here then we have a surplus power of (4060-1355-) 2705 HP, from
which deduct 25 per cent. for losses = 676, and there remains for head and
side winds (2705-676=) 2029 P. This then is sufficient to encounter
an extra resistance of (2019 × 550 :) 4463 lbs. Now the resistance at 30 miles
an hour is 5070 lbs., so that at 50 miles an hour it would be 5070 × 502
14083.33 lbs. If then the gascous envelope can be made to weigh only
(462-40=) 422 tons, it will take up the other two boilers shown in
Sheet III. and IV., and propel the aerolite at about 50 miles an hour, as
originally designed.
MECHANICAL EQUIVALENTS FOR THE STEAM JET.
=
Last year I patented reaction propulsion for water by the mechanical
means of a propeller, as will be seen in my Specification of 1866, No. 1497,
and therefore I suppose could not re-patent it for air. I will, however, show
how the same application can be used for aero-propulsion as a mechanical
equivalent for steam jet aero-propulsion.
Put at each side of the aerial ship the same propelling pipe with the self-
acting expanding and contracting valves and connecting rod as is shown in
my Specification of last year, No. 1497, Sheet 2, Fig. 5, and in Sheet II.
Fig. I., of this Specification. Place in each pipe one of my improved
propellers shown in such Sheet II., Fig. I. Work these aero-propellers by
locomotive or other engines, as shown in my Specification of last year, Sheet 2,
Figs. 13 and 14, or in any other convenient way. Ships will then be propelled
and backed through the air by reaction in precisely the same way as through
water; for the element of resistance will be made in both cases the means of
overcoming it by reaction, which is the only true principle of propulsion,
as predicted by me in my paper of 1849, referred to in my Provisional
Specification and in my letter of the 5th March 1851, herein-after given.
As regards the proportions of the aero-propeller, if used instead of the
steam jet, let the mean velocity of the floats be 2.5 less than the velocity
of issue, 100 feet a second, and make two revolutions a second, which
is nothing with a light aero-propeller compared with a greater number of
revolutions with the ponderous driving wheels of locomotives. The mean
diameter of the aero-propeller will then be
16 feet nearly, to which
must be added sufficient depth for the floats to be drawn in; a better guide,
======
100
2 × 3-1416
====

page_text: however, is first to fix upon a convenient diameter of propeller, and then find
the number of revolutions by the following formula:-n =
being
the mean velocity of the floats taken at the centre, and d the mean diameter.
Now as the floats travel at 2.5 times less velocity than the issuing air, their
area must be in the same proportion more than the area of each contracted
vein. The area of both, as found for the steam jet at 250 feet per second, is
40-335 square feet, therefore area of float for each side the aërolite will be
10:335x2.550 41875, say 50.5 square feet for each side; the breadth
and depth will therefore be about 50.5 = 7.1, say 7.25 square feet, not
inconveniently large, I think, for so huge an aerial ship.
=
13
The float leakage of the aero-propeller will be no great matter. The
reactionary pressure of 556.54 lbs. on the square foot (if V = 500 feet a
second) will, I think, be only on the area of float on a line with the area of
reaction for pressure equal in all directions applies only to statical, not
dynamic pressure. The dynamic pressure, causing float leakage, will be that
due to its velocity=d=100 × 0786 = 13 lbs. per square foot =
= 1 lb. per square inch. If, then, huge pistons and cylinders can be fitted
so accurately as to prevent leakage, with a pressure of 40 or 50 lbs., as in
the Cornish engine, there can be no difficulty in preventing material leakage
of a pressure of only 1 lb. on the inch; even this, however, will be reduced
by the pressure of the entering air in proportion to the velocity of the aerial
ship.
Should my hydro-propeller, fan, or other mechanical equivalent for the
steam jet be used for aero-propulsion, the steam after being used in the
cylinders must be discharged into the blast pipe, as in the present loco-
motive, but arranged for reaction, as shown in Sheet III. This will then
combine both my Inventions; one for continuous reaction, patented by me
last year, No. 1497, and the other for intermittent reaction by a jet of steam,
patented by me in 1860, No. 1155. Suppose, for instance, the steam be first
used in the cylinders at 480 or 240 lbs. on the inch, and reduced by expansion
at 120 lbs. at the discharge pipe, its theoretical velocity will then be (by my
formula given in the Provisional Specification) 3174 feet a second; the blast
pipe must then be enlarged to about the same as in locomotives. The steam
will expand in the funnel, and the number of feet of air it will draw through
the fire at each puff will, I think, be enough to enable the whole to react
sufficiently long for propulsion, and so be beyond the law of the time of repose
of bodies, discovered by me in 1861, and explained in my Specification of last
year. The weight of air required for combustion per second, and its velocity

page_text: by expansion from the heat of the furnace, can be calculated from the formulæ
and tables given by Professor Rankine in his enclypoedic work, "The Steam
Engine and other Prime Movers," p. 286, 288, and which want of time
prevents me giving here. The force of reaction can then be found by the
formulæ before given.
EQUIVALENT FUEL OR GENERATING POWER.
By some experiments communicated to me about 1.5 cubic feet of gas
will evaporate one pound of water. For the 4060 horse-power here given
we require to evaporate about 7.2674 lbs. of water per second, as before
shown; hence for each voyage of an hour, equal to 2 hours of a steam vessel,
because twice as fast, we require (7.2674 x 1.5 x 60 x 60 =) 39243.96, say
39,250 cubic feet of gas; this, at 3s. per thousand feet, would cost under 61.
for the conveyance of 200 passengers and luggage between Dover and Calais,
and Folkestone and Boulogne.
Taking the lifting power at 068775 lbs. as before, we require 003775
14.54 cubic feet of gas to raise one pound; hence there is a surplus
lifting power as well as generating power of (14.54-15 =)13.04 cubic feet
of gas for every pound of water evaporated. Starting, then, with sufficient
lifting power to take up the load and water, whatever quantity of gas may be
consumed in evaporating the water for propulsion will not diminish the
lifting power for the constant load; on the contrary, to be in equilibrium
14.54 cubic feet of gas should be consumed for every pound of water evapo-
rated; but a considerable surplus of gas is required to make good the
deterioration of the rest. This surplus we get by making gas the gene-
rating power, for every second supplies (almost as if from a gasholder)
7-2674 x (14.54-1.5) 13.04 94-767 cubic feet of gas to the lifting power,
because, whilst (7-2674×14-54) 105.667 cubic feet are required to raise
7.2674 lbs. of water, only (7.2674×15 =)10-9 cubic feet of gas are
required to evaporate it per second, consequently the renewing power is
|(105 667-10.9) 94.767 cubic feet as before.
My object, as I have said, is to show the present state of aeronautical
science, the better to comply with what is required of patentees, that they
should specify what is new and what is old in their Invention. Now in the
paper read by Mr. F. Brearey, the Honorary Secretary of the Aeronautical
Society of Great Britain, at their meeting in April last, he observed that
"The society had as members the first scientific men and engineers in the
world." I have therefore shewn that 'those opinions, which are in direct
opposition to the laws and principles of aerial navigation here enunciated,

page_text: proceed from the most distinguished men of science. It will further be seen,
from the following opinion of the council, how little is expected from any
such principles or application as my Invention, for they remark, "A well-
"filled balloon carrying its full weight cannot remain in the atmosphere
beyond a very few hours. In all cases where long voyages have been made
"there has been a superabundance of gas and its equivalent in ballast, which
has to be continually thrown out during the passage to compensate for
"the diminishing buoyant power of the gas."-Transactions of the Aero-
nautical Society for 1866, p. 63.
I have therefore shown how this impediment to long aerial voyages, con-
sidered insuperable, is removed simply by making the ballast itself the
propelling power, and when thrown out, in the shape of steam, the means of
compensating for the decreasing buoyancy of the gas, by the surplus gas due
to the weight of water remaining over and above that consumed in evapo.
rating it. I thus combine three things in one, the generating power,
the
elevating power, and the renewing power; assurance of long aerial voyages,
when the chemist discovers a much lighter gas to reduce the size and weight
of the gaseous envelope, the surface resistance, and propelling power, and
when the metallurgist gives us a strong and light receptacle.
2210
The quantity of renewing power for long aerial voyages is indeed so great
as to deserve further notice. We have shown that the evaporation of
7.2674 lbs. of water per second is required for 4060 horse-power, this is
equal to 72674×60×60 = 11-7, say, 12 tons an hour, the weight before taken.
We have also shown that after evaporating 7.2674 lbs. per second, there
remains due to that weight of water the surplus of 94.767 cubic feet of gas
per second = 94-767×60×60 = 341161 cubic feet of gas per hour. So
long then as we have any water left for propelling, to be thrown over in the
form of steam, and although we are consuming our buoyant power at the
rate of (10 9 x 60 x 60=) 39240 cubic feet of gas an hour, the aerial ship will
not merely not descend, but will receive a renewing buoyant power of
341161 cubic feet of gas per hour for every 12 tons of water evaporated per
hour. Such is the power of art over nature, that we obtain this anomalous
result by those combinations which are no where found in nature.
Suppose, however, that this quantity of surplus gas can be found morethan is
required, and the ascending power cannot be kept down by the upward angle
of the reaction tubes and ballast regulator, in such case instead of letting
out and wasting such surplus gas, we must try to utilize it for propelling, by
carrying out still more my principle of 1849, that of making the element of

page_text: resistance the means of overcoming it, as mentioned in my Provisional Speci-
fication; this is by using still more hot-air propulsion, shown in Sheets III.
and IV. For instance, instead of using all the boilers to generate steam, use
one to generate hot air only. Make the steam jet or a fan force air into it,
or if an aëro-propeller be used, let a pipe from the reaction side lead into the
hot-air generator, and so supply it with air. Let this generator be heated by
the surplus buoyant gas referred to, and so serve to propel. For like to Him,
the Great Economist, who taught us to waste nothing, and like to the great
teacher nature who nothing wastes, science must gather up every fragment
of power, that nothing be lost.
GENERAL FORMULE FOR THE DIMENSIONS OF THE AERIAL ENVELOPE.
The formulæ before given for finding the dimensions required to raise
a given load are limited ones; framed only for a double cone, the length
of each of which is a constant, 25 times the diameter of the cone. But as a
longer cone may offer less resistance, though exposing more surface, and may
not be found of an inconveniert length, it occured to me that it would be
desirable to have general formulæ for the dimensions both of the cone and
intermediate cylinder; for which purpose the following have been devised.
For a double-coned cylinder, the cubic contents of which cylinder are equal
to the cubic contents of both cones, and the greatest diameter of cones equal
to that of the cylinder.
Let
d
=======
1
the quantity of gas required to raise the load
as before.
the dian.eter of each cone.
the length of each cone; not its slope.
C the length of intermediate cylinder.
=06877 cubic feet

page_text: Making the length of the 189.20+c, and the
diameter 195-434 feet; which dimensions are the same as those found by the
limited formulæ before given.
Should any of the printed formulæ in this Specification give wrong results,
the must not necessarily be attributed to me. Some of my formulæ in my
Specification of 1860. No. 1155, are erroneously printed. When, therefore, I
filed my Specification of last year, No. 1497, I wrote to the recognized and
responsible printers of Specifications, informing them of such errors, and that
my Specification of last year contained formulæ, which required care in
printing. I have only been able as yet to read the parts of such Specification
which are herein referred to; but finding one or two formulæ still incorrectly
printed, and Planco spelt Planes, I must needs, in the interests of science
and' of Latinity, and to save mathematicians going by wrong results and the
useless labor of getting them, refer to my own Specifications instead of to the
printed copies of them.
DESCRIPTION OF MACHINERY FOR AERIAL NAVIGATION.
Sheet III. Fig. 1 is a side view of the gaseous envelope of the aerial
ship, with the engine house and glazed saloon beneath, one half in elevation
and the other half in section; Figs. 2 and 3 are an end view and transverse
section of the same; Fig. 4 shows the aerial ship rising, and Figure 5
descending, with the re-action propellers turned to the proper angles for the
purpose; Fig. 6 is a transverse section of the engine-room, showing one
boiler in end elevation and the other in section through the tubes; and
Fig. 7 is a longitudinal section of the engine room through the centre of the
boilers.
Sheet IV. Fig. 8 shows a side elevation of the glazed engine room and
saloon; and Fig. 9 is a plan of the engine room, showing the 4 boilers and
equivalent reaction tubes for propelling the aerial sbip.
The whole of the gaseous envelope and aerial ship beneath is steel,
aluminium bronze, or other strong and light material. And if by lightning

page_text: conductors steel and iron vessels can be protected from lightning at sea they
can be protected by the same means in the air. The gaseous envelope
represents a cylinder a, a, between two equal cones b, b, divided into com-
partments, if necessary for safety against gas leakage, as shown at e, e, e, e.
The sloping parts f. f, to diminish the resistance of the saloon are also charged
with gas. Steel or other bands and stays are uniformly distributed round and
inside the envelope, to enable it to bear the internal pressure, and steel bands
fasten the engine room and saloon to the envelope air-tight, except for
ventilation; 2 of which bands are shown at d, d.
Each is surrounded
The steam power is contained in 4 tubular boilers.
with its own feed water, shewn at S, sufficient for one hour's consumption;
and to prevent condensation there is an annular space between the steam and
water, as shown in the Drawing, filled with air or other non-conducting
medium. These air and water spaces serve also to diminish the damage of
explosion, should any take place. To find diameter of boilers, including air
space and water space. Assume merely, as an example, that the working
diameter of boiler is 6.75 feet, to which add 6 inches all round for air space
=1 foot. Then diameter of boiler = 6.75 +1=7-75 feet, the area of
which is 7-752 × 7854 = 47 173 square feet. Let the whole consumption
of water be 50 tons an hour. Then for each boiler x=448 cubic feet of
water will be required. If now the length of boiler be 20 feet, the area of
water space round the water will be
of the whole feet, where A is the front area of the working boiler,
-7854
2210 50
22.4 square feet. Therefore diameter
including the air space, and a, the front area of the supply water.
A47173 and a = 224 square feet.
feet. Or by this formula, 4 =
-7854
Here
Therefore d=47 173 +224 -
9.5
7854
where w is the number of cubic feet
of feed water required for each boiler per hour; c, the cubic contents of the
boiler; and 7, its length. Here c=d2 x 7851 x 1; d being the diameter of
the boiler, including air space.
The water is evaporated by gas brought from the gaseous envelope by the
supply pipe g to the burners I, filling the furnace J with flame and heated
air, the air being supplied from beneath the aerial ship through the divergent
openings, shown in Sheet III., Fig. 7. The gas-regulating and stop-cock.h
into the furnace J can be regulated
is shown in Fig. 6, and the supply of air
by slides, if required.
The prime mover, is the jet of steam from each boiler issuing into the

page_text: funnel shown at K in Sheet III., Fig. 7, and Sheet IV., Fig. 9. The steam
from the safety valve also issues into the funnel to prevent inconvenience and
noise in the saloon. It may be found that so small a jet as the 14572 of a
square inch, at so high a pressure as 480 lbs., rushes through the funnel and
rout at the reaction tube without being sufficiently expanded by the hot air
'to fill the whole funnel, as it does in the locomotive. In this case the
diameter of issue must be enlarged to about the diameter of the blast pipe
in the present locomotive, and the jet of steam must be made intermittent,
say, 10 or 15 times a second, by means of a slide cut off, worked by donkey
engines and the cam crank, patented by me in 1860, No. 1155, described in
that Specification, p. 42, shown in Drawing No. 1, Fig. 6, and shewn
attached to Fig. 5 of such Specification. For the quantity of air drawn
through the furnace by every puff of steam will, I think, act sufficiently long
to overcome the repose of the body and propel the aerial ship, though it may
not be at the required velocity. I rely most, however, on the mechanical
equivalent of my propeller, and reaction tube and expanding and contracting
valves before mentioned, and shown in Sheet II., should there be insufficient
propelling power in the continuous small stream jet and air propulsion, as
shown in Sheets III. and IV.
It will be seen that the aerial ship is there propelled by the steam and
heated air rushing into the equivalent tube 1, and setting in motion a
larger body of air therein, and by the whole reacting at 1, as in steam jet
hydro-propulsion herein-before described. Only one equivalent air tube is
here shown, because the intensely heated air may cause the steam jet to
expand and fill the whole area of the funnel as in the present locomotive, and
thus give out in pressure what is lost in velocity, according to my law of fluid
equivalents referred to in iny Provisional Specification; but more equivalent
tubes can be used, as shown in hydro-propulsion. The reaction nozzles are
made to revolve, to propel or back, and to act as elevators and depressors, to
make the ship rise or fall without throwing out ballast or letting out gas, as
explained in my Provisional Specification. These nozzles are set at the
required angle by the wheels in Sheet III., Figs. 16 and 7, and in Sheet IV.,
Fig. 9.
These wheels are fastened on the same spindle as the spur wheel,
which works into a similar spur wheel on the lay shaft n, and the motion is
communicated through the bevel wheels o to the cross shafts p, on the end of
which are spur pinions q, which work into the ring wheel on the reaction
nozzles, as shown at r.
The side rudders t, t, are worked by wheels u, from which endless chains w
run, and communicate motion through the lay shaft to the worm's r,acting on

page_text: the quadrants, which are firmly secured to the spindle y of the rudders. These
act in pairs, one fore and one aft, as shown at t, when going ahead; and the
other pair when going astern, as shown at t¹, in harmony with the altered
position of the reaction' nozzles. Look-out boxes v, tapering off to reduce
resistance and glassed in, are placed outside the saloon about the
middle, near the steering wheel u, to give the steersman a clear view.
The other details, such as stations, are for aeronautical engineers to carry
out. I have thought of tower stations, with hydraulic or other lifts, for
passengers and luggage to embark and disembark; but these it is not
necessary to show; neither the gas safety valves, because their form and
position can be best determined by the experienced aeronaut.
I think,
however, that a good position will be at the top of the saloon outside, and
one on each side, with a lever coming inside to work the valve.
In my Provisional Specification I speak of a separate receiver round the
gascous envelope to hold the gas for evaporating the water; it is not shown
in the Drawings because the gas for raising the load and for evaporating is
here the same. Suppose, however, the chemist should discover a much more
buoyant gas than hydrogen, and it should be desirable to keep the lifting
and evaporating gas apart, the separate receiver will then be required.
EQUIVALENT STEAM JET PUMP.
We have to show how the boilers for aerial navigation and hydro-propulsion
are supplied with feed water. To propel vessels by the reaction of water it is
necessary to set it in motion in a pipe; it is therefore plain that whatever will
do this, whether a jet of steam or a hydro-propeller or pump, will feed boilers
and do for other hydraulic purposes; consequently my equivalent steam jet
pump is on precisely the same principle, and the same application of it, as
shown for hydro-propulsion; such a pump is shown in Sheet II., Fig. 5, where
a is the steam jet and regulating and shut-off cock; 'b, the water supply
pipe; and c, the equivalent 'tubes; and d, the discharge pipe, furnished
with a puppet or other valve when feeding a boiler.
It has only just occurred to me, and therefore I am not sure, that 'the
formulæ for the resistance of vessels, for feeding boilers, and for raising water
are all different; because in the first case the resistance is not contined to so
much per square inch, and therefore can be overcome by a small differential
velocity and large area of issue. For feeding boilers the steam pressure
resistance is confined to so much per square inch, and can therefore be 'only
overcome by a velocity of feed water equalto such pressure. In raising water
it has to be raised so many feet high every second; in this case, therefore, the

page_text: area of pipe and of discharge cannot be found by a less velocity of water in
the pipe than the height it has to be raised, or the required quantity per
second could not be raised to the required height. Nor should the area be
found by a greater velocity than that equal to the height (I do not mean due
to the height =√gh) unless of inconvenient dimensions, in order to
leave in the discharged water as little vis viva as possible; for in proportion
thereto is the loss of power, besides the other losses.
I have given the tormula for the resistance of vessels, and have now to give
the two others. For feeding boilers-Here the formula for finding the
velocity of feed water to overcome the boiler pressure will be =
where p is the boiler pressure, and g=32.2; this velocity will, however,
overcome a pressure =2p, by virtue of the law of the two altitudes before
discussed. It is, however, better to allow for loss of velocity and other
losses, and to have too much power instead of too little, for we want
certainty in all things.
As an example for my equivalent steam jet boiler pump, the pressure being
480 lbs. on the inch, the velocity of feed water must be sufficient to overcome
268 feet a second; but the quantity required is
it v=x
480
=√64.4 × 131
only 7-2074
=
= 3.6337 lbs. for each boiler per second
3 6337
62:5
= .05814
cubic feet nearly. Therefore area of feed pipe and entrance to boiler
=
05814 x 144
268
03124 of a square inch.
This continuously flowing
would supply the boiler with considerably more water per second than needed,
so that the steam jet must be turned off when the boiler guage shows that
the proper quantity has been supplied. We may as well, therefore, have a
more convenient area of supply. say, half a square inch, and turn the steam
jet on and off as required. We have then to find the ar a of steam jet and
number of equivalent tubes, as if for a continuous flow through half a square
inch= 1
=00348 nearly of a square foot.
2x 144
Therefore horse-power required
=
havd
550
43000348 x 258 x 62-5
= 117
434
550
We have before shown that at a boiler pressure of 480 lbs. the velocity of
steam is 4448 feet a second, so that the water required to be evaporated at
this velocity is by our formula
но
550
4448
=
====
=====
644
00179 lbs. per second, per
theoretical HP. Therefore 117 × 00179 20943 lbs. The volume of
steam at 480 lbs. pressure, from one cubic foot of water (62-5 lbs.), is, as
before shown, 76-65 cubic feet. Hence from ;20943 lbs..
76-65 x 20913
62-5
257

page_text: cubic feet nearly; consequently area of steam jet = 2141
nearly of a square inch.
257 x 111
=
4418
=
.00832
It is not necessary to encrease this area for the boiler pump because the
margin for different losses is ample. The area of discharge and of steam jet
being thus given, their different diameters (of the same denomination) can be
found, and the number of intermediate or equivalent tubes by the equivalent
formula before given for steam jet hydro-propulsion.
One more formula and this tedious work is done.
Suppose we want to.
raise a given weight of water to the height h. The horse-power required will
havd
not be, as before, and, where v = √2 gh, because such velocity was necessary
to overcome the pressure p. But in raising or draining water against no
pressure we want to discharge it with the least possible velocity; for it is
evident that motion unutilized is power lost. Consequently we must make
the velocity with which the water is raised equal to the height h to which it
is raised, for this is a jet pump,and continuous flow, not so many piston strokes
a minute. Therefore the area of pipe and issue instead of being will be
and the horse-power, d being the density of one cubic foot of
water. From this horse-power the area of steam jet inust be found in the
manuer before given, and doubled for losses, and then the number of equivalent.
tubes can be found by the equivalent formula.
CLAIMS FOR EQUIVALENT STEAM JET PUMP.
I do not claim a steam jet for raising or forcing water, but the combination
ofa steam jet and equivalent tubes for that purpose, as shown in Sheet II.,
Fig. 5. If I must fix some limit to my claim of equivalent tubes, in
combination with the stean jet, both for pumping and propelling with.
water, I claim that the diameter of each tube shall be from 1.125 to 6.times.
larger than the diameter of the steam jet and preceding tube, and each
from one-quarter to 8 times louger than its diameter.
CLAIMS FOR AERIAL NAVIGATION.
It bas only been by looking at things in a new light, and by applying to
them principles never before applied, that mankind. have risen from barbarism
to civilization, from superstition to religion, from tyranny to freedom, and
from the flint axe and bow and canoe of the savage, hollowed by fire, to the
steam engine of the philosopher, the thunder and lightning of thedeath-dealing
gun at the distance of miles, and to the vast iron ship which bears within. it a

page_text: busy population against wind and tide to the uttermost parts of the earth.
What a change, and by what means, making man almost of a different
species, so glorious in power over the elements and time and space, and
now with the intelligence of a God.
What has done all this? .Art, not
nature, mind not matter, and only by the same method can man advance
the present and future of his race.
It is so with aerial navigation. By looking at it in a new light, and by
applying it to principles never before applied, we hope it is not presumptuous
to say that we have made certain that which has defied all man's efforts for
centuries, until at last it was pronounced impossible. The man of science is
an artist, a creator, not a naturalist, according to the Baconian philosophy.
He takes ribs of steel and a coat of mail, and creates the framework of a new
creature, moulding it into a fitting form for the element it has to live in; but
it is a dead, inert mass. He therefore puts into it the breath of life, the
generating, moving, and renewing power, drawn from the sun millions of ages
past before man was; a moving power, like all the great forces of nature
invisible, steam, gravitation, attraction, repulsion, and that greater far, the
soul of man. He puts water beneath the huge monster for its consumption,
and invents the fitting organism through which alone the moving power can
act. He then sets fire to the invisible, from which the invisible power proceeds,
each after its kind; and lo! the huge frame begins to palpitate and rise
into the skies, and live and move and have its being. A new and almost
an intelligent creature is born of man, to do his bidding in an untrodden
element, a creature unknown before, not found in nature, in the heavens
above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth. Where is
the Baconian philosophy here? Homo naturæ minister et interpres, which
has trammelled men's minds so long. Man, by reason, is greater than
nature, because it is the power of God working through man, to the honor
and glory of his Creator, and for the advancement of the human race.
Such then is the creation of art, and such I claim. Now it will, I think, be
admitted that to discover laws, to establish principles, and to devise formulæ
to embody them for all time, is more difficult than to invent the machinery
for their application. For the former are unchangeable, perfect, never to be
improved; whilst the latter can be improved even by a blacksmith. Yet am
I told that Patentees cannot claim discoveries, though they have taken a
life-time to make, but can only claim their application; the less and not the
greater !
I must therefore particularize the machinery.
1. I claim for the gaseous envelope for aerial navigation a double-coned
cylinder or other shaped body within the following limits:-A cylinder

page_text: between two cones, the length of each cone being from one-half to ten times
its diameter.
2. I claim to propel aerial machines by the application of gas, for the
generating, elevating, and renewing power, as before explained.
3. I claim a separate gaseous receiver, when it is desirable to keep the
generating and elevating power apart.
4. I claim to propel aerial machines by making the element of resistance,
air, the means of overcoming it by reaction, pursuant to my paper of August
1849, "On the Philosophy of Mechanical Propulsion," referred to in my
Provisional Specification; and I claim to set such air in motion for reaction
by jets of steam and hot air acting in equivalent or other reaction tubes.
5. I claim to raise and depress aerial machines by reaction tubes, which I
call elevators and depressors; also by moveable ballast to keep the machine
at the required angle for such purpose.
I
6. I claim to steer acrial machines by side rudders or reaction tubes.
7. I claim the general combination and proportion of parts, as means to
ends, for aerial navigation; all which claims are made more clear and
specific by the description before given and by the machinery in Sheets III.
and IV. I do not confine myself to the exact details, because when laws
and principles, by which alone anything can be utilized, are once discovered.
and especially when formularized, it is easy enough to vary their application.
"Let us first find out a thing," says the philosophic D'Alembert, "and there
will be no lack of persons to put it into shape." This is true, because the
principle is everything, the last always to be discovered. Find that out and
everything else follows by an immutable law.
I hope it is not misplaced to corroborate this further by observing that
only those who have found out a thing know the years of thought and
labour in doing it, of making one step in advance of others, especially in these
our days of advanced science, and making that step secure by mathematical
demonstration. For the more there is discovered the less remains to discover,
and the harder. Doubtless, like the egg of Columbos, it is easy enough to
do a thing when we are shown how. The great thing is to be the first to
know how to do it, especially when pronounced impossible. Milton, in his
Paradise Lost, has well spoken on this matter in rebuke of those who pronounce
a thing impossible till done, and then think how easy it was to do it.
"The invention all admired, and each how he

page_text: ON THE FLIGHT OF BIRDS AND FUNDAMENTAL IRINCIPLES OF AERIAL
NAVIGATION.
Only yesterday I read for the first time, and have therefore only time to
notice briefly an interesting article on the flight of birds and principles of
aerostation in "The Reign of Law," published a few months ago by the Duke
of Argyll, President of the Aeronautical Society of Great Britain. The
following extracts from so philosophical a writer, and so opposite to my
Invention, will best show the present state of aeronautical science, and thus
make clearer what is new in it. His Grace observes, at p. 131, that the
"force of gravitation is part of the machinery by which a great purpose has
"been accomplished in nature, a purpose which man has never been able
"to accomplish in art, the navigation of the air. This force, it is said
"at p. 133, drawing down all bodies to the earth, is the very force which is
"the principal one concerned in flight, and without which flight would be
"impossible."
I must needs differ from the President on this point, because were it so
my Invention would be worthless, and aerial navigation, as I believe, impos-
sible; for I made calculations, some of which have been given here, and
found that the first thing to be done was to counteract the force of gravitation,
to have no weight to sustain by the motive power, but only the resistance of
the air to overcome. On this, as one fundamental principle-no weight, but
buoyancy my Invention is based. I hope, moreover, to show by-and-by that
the Creator, knowing that the force of gravitation was a hindrance to the
flight of birds, did by a special law enable it to counteract such force, even as
He has given to man the means of counteracting it by art, that no part of the
inferior creation shall have any superiority over him, and hold dominion where
he cannot reach.
It is further observed, at p. 133, "It is curious how completely this force
"of gravitation has been forgotten in almost all human attempts to navigate
"the air. Birds are not lighter than the air, but immensely heavier. If
they were lighter than the air they might float, but they could not fly.
"This is the difference between a bird and a balloon. A balloon rises
"because it is lighter thau the air and floats upon it; consequently it is
incapable of being directed, because it possesses no active force enabling it
"to resist the currents of the air in which it is immersed, and because if it
"had such a force it would have no fulcrum or resisting medium against
"which to exert it."
The great principle of propulsion, which I discovered in 1842 and 1847,

page_text: reaction, needs no such "resisting medium." The balloon, observes the
President, becomes, as "it were, part of the atmosphere, and must go with
"it where it goes." And he only expresses the universal belief in the
following remarks:-"The air is an element on which man cannot travel,
"an ocean which he cannot navigate. The birds of heaven are still his envy,
and on the paths they tried he cannot follow. As yet! for it is not certain
"that this exclusion is to be perpetual. His failure has resulted quite as
"much from his ignorance of natural laws, (rather surely from his ignorance
of the laws of scientific art,) "as from his inability to meet the conditions
they require. All attempts to guide bodies buoyant in the air must be
"fruitless." (It is here done I venture to think.) "Balloons are mere
"toys. No flying animal has ever been formed on the principle of buoyancy.
"Birds, and bats, and dragons have all been immersedly heavier than the
"air, and their weight is one of the forces most essential to their flight.
"Yet there is a real impediment in the way of man navigating the air, and
that is the excessive weight of the only great mechanical moving powers
"hitherto placed at his disposal. When science shall have discovered some
moving power greatly lighter than any we yet know, in all próbability the
"problem will be solved."
"
66
Here I must be permitted to observe, in the interests of science, that no
other force than steam is needed, see my discovery that in latent heat wé
have an inexhaustible store of force, and greater far than man can use,
Specification 1860, No. 1155, table p. 8, and p. 11, lines 10 and 25, and p. 12,
23, 24, 26, 27. The President thus concludes his interesting article:-" But
"of one thing we may be sure, that if man is ever destined to navigate the
air, it will be in machines formed in strict obedience to the mechanical
"laws which have been employed by the Creator for the same purpose in
flying animals. The men of science in France are ahead of the men of
"science of England upon this subject. There is a society established in
"Paris which announces, in its very title, the true fundamental principle of
flight, Société d'Encouragement pour la Locomotion Aérienne au moyen
d'Appareils plus Lourds que l'Air.' The false principle of buoyancy is
thus eliminated and banished from the question."-The Reign of Law,
1867, p. 180.
6
66
65
It will be seen that there is not one principle in common between the
system advocated by the two societies and mine, because we look at aerial
navigation from different points of view. The philosophic author "Of The
Reign of Law" considers that the great unsolved problem can only be
solved "by a strict obedience to the mechanical laws of the Creator shown

page_text: in flying animals." Every philosopher and man of science has thought
and still thinks so too, from Dr. Johnson in his "Dissertation on the Art-of
Flying" in Rasselas, to the members of the two Aeronautical Societies of
France and England. They have, moreover, Bacon with them in his first
axiom in the Novum Organon, Homo natura minister et interpres," and
again in "The Interpretation of Nature," "there is no proceeding in
invention but by similitude."
I think, however, that the Creator never intended man should imitate Him
in his works, and therefore never gave him the power to do so; but meant
that he should create for himself and surpass even his maker and in all his
creations, except in the crowning work of His own creation, man. For this
purpose did He make man in His own divine image, and endow him with
something of His own divine power; not merely to have dominion over all
things, but to surpass all things in their own element, though for that they
are specially adapted and man is not; the fowl of the air, the fish of the sea,
and every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And it is so, for man
does surpass the fish of the sea and the beasts of the field in their own
element, and shall the fowl of the air in theirs. But how? Simply by
looking at aerial navigation as an artist or creator, and not as a naturalist;
and by so doing I venture to think that those fundamental laws and principles
which will give man dominion over the only element which yet remains to be
conquered are now both discovered and applied, and will enable others to
reduce aerial navigation to an exact science, if it is not here done. For the
mathematician will see that this new science deals in calculations of such
sublime proportions as were never yet needed for man's use in mechanical
science; cube roots and square roots that no table of logarithms or other.
numbers yet framed will assist us in working out in some of the formula.
I contend for the superiority of art over nature, and as it is the foundation
of aerial navigation, and of my present Invention, as distinguished from all
others, and from the opinions of all men, it seems desirable to establish
the theory. It appears from the following extract from the Report of the.
Council of the Aeronautical Society of last year that the learned bodies of
France and England would be glad of some solution of the problem of
flight. Up to the present time," it is observed, "no practical demonstration
"has been given of the force expended by a large bird during flight, The
inquiry is invested with as much interest and dignity as any other branch
"of natural science." The force expended can only be determined, I
think, by the two laws discovered by me:- 1st, that of the time of repose
of bodies; 2nd, that of aerial resistance of wedged forms.

page_text: This we will speak of first, and take as an example the pelicans shot
on the Nile by Mr. Wenham, C.E., one of the Aeronautical Society,
described in his interesting paper printed in full in their Transactions
of last year.
"It weighed 21 lbs. and measured 10 feet across the wings
"from end to end." We will take the rate of flight at 30 miles an hour,"
the surface resistance at 25 square feet, and assume that the form of a pelican
is as favourable for cleaving the air as the form of art for aerial navigation,
but which I doubt. Then by my coefficient in the formula for the resistance
of a doubie-coned cylinder, before given, the resistance to flight encountered
by such a bird at 30 miles an hour would be
R000011 13 x 25 x 302-250425 lbs.
As regards the power expended in overcoming it, although the wings of
birds are slightly concave they are still solids in motion against a fluid at rest
of the same area, therefore can ouly progress by indirect and not direct
reaction art only can do that. Birds, consequently, are by nature governed
(the same as paddle wheels and screws) by the inferior law of propulsion-
impulse, and thereby waste about 40 per cent. of the power they exert, as
discovered by me in 1812, before explained. Hence it is that the minimum
power expended for useful effect and for loss of primary and residuary velocity
is equal to twice the useful effect=2 R v. Therefore a pelican flying at 30
iniles an hour (= 30 x 1-467=)44 feet a second, exerts in passing over that
distance a force measured by the power of (2 Ro60x60=2x-250425 × 44 ×
60 x 60 )79,334 feet. lbs. For so small a bird, for the frame is small, to
throw out of its body so great a power every hour of its far flight is a sublime
and elevating instance of the might and majesty and power of Him who
contrived such wondrous mechanism and endurance in such small compass.
But as laws are greater than machines, my own mind is more impressed by
the Creator ordaining a special law, as it seems to me, to save winged things
generally, but more particularly birds of long and fast flight, the necessity of
expending power to overcome the all an i far pervading force of gravity. And
what, indeed, is that mysterious power, that chain stronger than triple bands
of brass and iron, beyond all that metallurgists can force, and yet invisible,
which binds the distant and the near, "the sweet influences of Pleiades," and
prevents "the bands of Orion from being loosened," which keepeth the
waters of the antipodes from falling into space, causeth a stone to fall to the
ground, and the walking of man upon the earth, uniting all, the greatest and
the least, in one common bond and union with one God. Thus does science
find uniformity of design in multiformity of works, more in number than the
ultimate and minute atoms of the world, vast and ponderous as the luminaries

page_text: and their satellites, Acturus and his sons, sure evidence of one maker of
them all. "O Lord how wonderful are thy works, in wisdom hast thou
made them all."
For suppose the pelican had to overcome the force of gravity and so
to sustain its own weight of 21 lbs., we must allow the same fluid loss in
doing this as for propelling itself; it would therefore have to exert the
further power of 2 wv 60 x 60 = 2x 21 x 44 x×60×60 = 6,652,800 feet
lbs. every hour of its flight merely to overcome the force of gravity.
Before showing how this enormous power is saved, I beg to point out
another special contrivance of the All Designing Intelligence. When I dis-
covered in 1842 and 1847 the law of reaction as the only true principle of
propulsion, it seemed to me that it was expressly ordained for the use of
man, to overcome nature by art, because it is useless to anyone else, the fowl
of the air, the fish of the sea, or the beasts of the field. Therefore, knowing
that the Creator makes no law without its fitting use, did I so confidently
predict its application in my letter of the 5th of March 1851, published in my
Specification of 1860, No. 1155, p. 14, and herein-after given; and it is so.
Now only since reading the Duke of Argyll's Reign of Law, the day before
yesterday, have I considered the flight of birds. But it seems to me that the
law discovered by me in 1861, and which I called "The time of repose of
"bodies, or difference in effect between a long and a short impulse with the
same amount of-force," was made as expressly for the nature of birds as
the law of reaction for the art of man.
"
I can find no trace of this law from the Principia of Newton to the last
scientific work of Rankine; no mathematician in treating of impulse has
taken into account the time of its action; see, in particular, the investiga-
tions and consequent errors of Professor Twisden, of the Staff College, on the
small work caused by the recoil of guns.-Practical Mechanics, 1860, p.243.
This unknown law, however, neutralized for 6 years the thought and
labours of 20, and rendered useless my Invention of intermittent reaction
propulsion, patented in 1860, No. 1155. Such law is fnlly explained in my
Specification of last year, 1866, No. 1497, p. 20 to 25, for the purpose of
showing why my previous l'atent of 1860 was useless. I must, however,
explain it here for its application to birds, to counteract the force of gravi-
tation upon them when flying sufficiently fast, not always the case.
A body at rest can no more be moved in no time than a body in motion
can be stopped in no time; there must. therefore, be a given time during
which a force equal to the resistance must act upon it to move it. A force
infinitely greater than the resistance will make up to some extent for the short

page_text: time of its impulse and move the body; we see this in the reaction of guns,
which could not be fired a second time but for this law, because the ball in
coming out reacts upon the gun, and therefore strikes it with the same force,
as that with which it crushes through an ironside.
To show, for instance, how a short time of action saves a gun, I found in
.
1861 that a force of about 596 lbs. acting for about the 68 part of a second
only would not overcome a resistance of only 3 lbs. Such is the law of the
time of repose of bodies, but what that time is, that is to say, how long a force
equal the resistance (by which alone the true time of repose can be ascertained)
must act upon it to overcome it, I know not. Wearied by thought and labour,
and disappointed when I discovered in 1861 the law which rendered them
and my Patient of 1860 useless, I had no object in pursuing the matter
further. I could not at that time see the use of such a law, nor have I seen
it until a day or two ago. Having I hope made it intelligible, instead of
mystifying it in the convenient obscurity of mathematics-in which so much
is hidden that is not understood and cannot be explained-I will show the
application of this law to counteract the force of gravitation upon fast flying
birds.
When a force acts upon a body more quickly than it can be moved, or
when a weight rests upon a body for so short a time as to make no impression
upon it, the body so acted upon is for all practical purposes a solid, though it
be a fluid, air or water. Take the mean length of a pelican from head to tail
at 3 feet, then, at a speed of 30 miles an hour = 44 feet a second, he passes
over a space equal his own length in the of a second. In this short
period, and with outstretched wings to help, his weight has not time to move
the large area of air beneath, it is therefore as a solid unto him, as the earth
is to man, and, like man, he has only to exert sufficient force for motion, not
for weight. I am not referring to larks, humming or other birds, made for
short flights and other purposes, and therefore endowed with sufficient power
in relation to weight to overcome the force of gravity.
Taught by nature a heavy bird does not attempt to rise straigh; into the
air, man, though heavier far, can alone do this by art; but a great bird cannot
rise except up an inclined plane; he runs along the ground with outstretched
wings inclined, to glide up the air, exerting at first his whole power to over
come the force of gravity, which keeps pulling him back, until his encreased
speed gradually becomes greater and greater than the large area of air covered
by his wings can recede from them, soon it has no time to do so before he
has passed over it; then, relieved from the force of gravity, he feels no more

page_text: going in mis strengn and freedom; unus
wheeling and ascending by inclined planes, the air is the stair of the skies up
which birds wing their way to heaven. There man shall follow them and
beat them in their own element, soaring where the eagle cannot follow:-
"In regions mild of calm and serene air
Above the smoke and stir of this dim spot,
Which men call earth."
I may remark that for equal powers of propulsion birds must exert a
power inversely as the square surface of their wings, as man must do in art
both in hydro and in aero propulsion. I have shown, for instance, in the
latter that with four times the area of propulsion about one-half the power
is
required; this is by virtue of the laws of gravitation, whereby the power
expended is as the square of the velocity, as explained in my Specification of
last year, No. 1497, p. 25; when, therefore, we reduce the velocity one-half,
and want the same propelling power, we must about quadruple the weight of
fluid set in motion, and consequently require 4 times the area; and to do
this costs only one-half the power. Have these strange and complicated laws,
formularized to exactness, no designer? Are they and all their mathematical
relations the results of chance?
Who can think this who ponders on the table showing the remarkable
action of the laws of gravitation, which give to man his only standard of force
and motion, for a cannon ball, a breath of wind; a grain of sand, for ocean
and aerial navigation. Such a table is given, I believe, for the first time
in my Specification of last year, p. 23, and the discovery of the law in 1861
is explained at p. 21.
Birds, however, are not taught of nature to propel themselves on the strict
dynamic principles of continuous propulsion,a foot force for every foot passed
over, as man does by art, as here shown; they cannot do it, for at a velocity
of only 30 miles an hour = 44 feet a second, and some birds fly at 60 miles
au hour, they would have to move their wings at a velocity of at least 50
feet a second, and even at that high velocity they could exert only a net
utilized force of (5Vd=)37 lbs., about 6 oz. per square foot; where
V is the velocity of wing and that of flight; they propel themselves
pursuant to the law of equivalents before explained, only the reverse of my
steam jet propulsion. For whilst I want to turn velocity into power, and so
get an equivalent work, birds turn power into velocity and get it. Our
pelican friend, for instance, exerts a force = 2 R v = 2 x 250425 x 44
= 22 feet lbs. a second; in that time he passes over 44
makes 2 or 3 beats of his wings to do so... Now man cannot run 44
feet, yet only

page_text: Teet i ne moves mis regs only
3
themselves by impulse, making up in power of wing what they want in
velocity of wing, one of these divine contrivances which we see everywhere in
nature, and no less in art; thus a pelican, making two beats a second,
will exert the great force of 11 lbs. each beat, and send himself
forward 22 feet each time. We may, however, observe that the clumsy
expedient by which heavy birds rise from off the ground by running may
do very well for birds, but it will not do for man. Art will give him a
more excellent way.
==
I have here shown-imperfectly, no doubt, because Specifications, like
time and tide, wait for no man-by what law the time of repose of bodies")
the law of gravitation is divinely neutralized for birds of long and fast flight;
by what method they propel themselves, and the force they exert in doing so.
Let me hope that I have done something towards solving those problems on.,
the flight of birds put forth by the Aeronautical Societies of France and
England, showing thereby the impossibility of natural flight by man, and that
I have also explained what the wise of old-whom the Queen of Sheba came
to see-knew not "the way of an eagle in the air."
b
The interest and importance attached to the subject by philosophers and
learned societies, from the days of Solomon till now, and by the first scientific.
aeronaut, as the foundation of man's dominion over the air, and his repeated:
failures, will I hope be my excuse, if any be needed, for such length of.
Specification. For Mr. Glaisher observes, in the Transactions of the Aero:
nautical Society, p. 7, "The causes of these failures have been the utter
"absence of a correct theory of the action of surfaces at different velocities
upon elastic and yielding media, and the requirements needed to obtain a
froin a lever upon an unstable fulcrum."
66
65
power
Here I may remark, that the formula for the resistance of a wedged-formed
surface passing through such media at different velocities, and the law of
reaction for propulsion (by making the element of resistance the medium of
overcoming it, needing no other fulcrum than the receding tube it reacts against
it), solve these problems. Our distinguished aeronaut, the hero of the skies,
for we may well call him so who in so many battles there has risked his life,
and displayed a cool and undaunted courage never surpassed, further observes:
"It is remarkable that no correct demonstration has ever been given of
"the combined principles upon which flight is performed, nor of the absolute
"force required to maintain that flight." This also has now been given.
This force, as found by the coefficient of 00001113, is so much greater

page_text: than the expectation and belief of men, that I am bound I think to say a
few words to give some confidence in it, especially as it is the foundation of
all niy calculations for aerial navigation. As it would take too many printed
pages to show the analytical steps by which it was obtained, I will merely
state the fundamental principles of it. 1. The laws of force and motion given
in my Specification of last year, No. 1497. 2. My paddle wheel formulæ and
new coefficient based on such laws herein-before set forth, and particularly
on the law of the 2 altitudes before explained. 3. The law of fluid impulse
against a plane of the same area. 4. The resistance of the Banshee at 18.5
miles an hour, found by such paddle wheel formulæ and law of impulse.
5. Her form and dimensions given me by her builder, and the indicated
power by her engineers, confirmed from other sources. And, 6. The
difference in density between one cubic foot of salt water and, one of air.
I
may observe that I do not believe that any other methods exist for
determining with the same accuracy the force exerted by birds, or the
resistance of aerial navigation, and the power required to overcome it. Truly
may I say that though the finding of the coefficient of 00001113 was but
the work of a day or two, it took me 25 years of scientific study and pre-
paration to discover the principles. We see the finished statue of the sculptor
in all its beauty and simplicity, the chippings of his chisel and the debris of
his studio are all swept away with his abortive efforts and frequent failures,
and we know nothing of his labours. So is it with the man of science. We
see a few figures, a single coefficient, but we do not know the thought and
labor it has cost. And there is no beauty in it to attract. His is the labor
without the grace, the honor, or the reward, the hardest labour of all.
NATURE AND ART IN AERIAL NAVIGATION.
I have here brought together from many sources, and in an imperishable
form, the present state of aeronautical science in France and England, with
its thousand and one impossibilities. Not merely to show what is new in my
Invention, but because of the interest with which those who come after us
will read it, and the encouragement it will be for them to persevere in other
impossibilities, when the air is, as it will be, as full of moving forms as the
earth of locomotives, and the ocean of steam vessels, themselves the im-
possibilities of the past, but of man's creations vaster far. Let me then add
one more to the catalogue of unphilosophic predictions. In a recent article in
the Times on what man cannot do, we find the following:-"We seem on
"the very verge of great discoveries, but coy nature eludes our grasp, and
leaves us still shivering on the threshold of truth. We cannot steer a
"

page_text: "
"balloon. "Coy nature eludes our grasp !' The old Baconian error again.
But indeed we can now steer a balloon. For I have shown that by the same
dynamic principles and their application by reaction as are enunciated in
my Specification of last year and in this for hydro-propulsion, man can now
propel, back, and steer ships in the air with the same certainty and facility
as in water.
.
But when 2 principles are propounded the exact opposite of each other,
one the natural theory by all the learned bodies of France and England, the
other the artistic theory by one of no reputation, how are we to determine
which is right? By that unerring standard, as philosophic as divine, "Ye
shall know them by their fruits," a standard of universal application, the
highest test of truth, which all man's wisdom from the beginning has never
reached, and never can. We have no other test for men, governments,
nations, and science, and never shall. We are told that, "Our aerial
"machines must be in strict obedience to the mechanical laws designed by
"the Creator for the same purpose in flying animals, that we must have
weight, not buoyancy, the false principle of which has been eliminated and
"banished by the Aeronautical Society of France as unworthy of further
"consideration. But what are its fruits? Impossibility! Therefore the
principle is the wrong one.
We have, 1st, the impossibility of getting
sufficient power to raise and propel the weight at the required speed;
2nd, the loss of about 40 or 50 per cent. in applying the power by a false
principle of propulsion; and, 3rd, so large an area of propelling surface as
to be inconvenient, if not of impossible application..
66
The calculations before given have I think established the first point. The
loss of about 40 or 50 per cent. due to the law of fluid impulse against a
plane of the same area (first applied in tny Specification of last year) will, I
think, establish the 2nd and the 3rd test of a wrong 'principle for art, the
surface of bird's wing to weight will be presently shown from the proportions
given by the Aeronautical Society, one square foot of surface to one pound
to be raised.
"Cervantes laughed Spain's chivalry away," and sometimes the reductio ad
absurdum is the highest wisdom, going home at once to some strange faculty
in man that no argument can reach. We might therefore take the proportion
of wing surface found in birds for a flying Alderman or Elder man, but for-
bear, as no mere wings would be sufficient to enable him to fly, especially
against the power of gravitation, whose huge but invisible hand is ever
stretched out, and would follow him even to the stars, to pull him back; the
divine hand of Him who hath said, "Thou shalt not make to thyself any

page_text: 6
graven image, nor the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or in
"the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth." And it is so. For
not by the similitude of fish or horse has man beaten them in their own
element, nor will it be by the similitude of a bird that he will beat the
fowl of the air in theirs. It seems to me that the very foundation of the
Baconian philosophy, "invention by similitude," is as much opposed to the
express command of Deity as it is to all practical science, for man has
done nothing since the world began in that direction, nor ever will.
Nothing is impossible to man but what is proved to be, as this method of
aerial navigation is. For besides the force required to overcome gravity,
further force is required to propel. Now there is a certain speed at which
men, horses, and machines can do the most work. A horse running his
hardest and a man walking 5 miles an hour can do no work at all. To fly
no faster than we can walk is beneath science to attempt, even if it could be
done. If then a man of sixteen stone could lift twice his own weight in a
basket, or wheel himself in his own barrow with his ponderous spar and canvass
wings of 224 square feet as well, he could not exert more power in the air
with this huge load on his back than on land without it. Consequently, if
he could lift such a load on high, it would be at a worthless speed. But
besides showing that he cannot do it, I have shown that a bird weighing only
21 lbs. exerts a force nearly as great as the effective useful force of a man
weighing 10 times as much. For a pelican exerts with ease a gross force of
2 Rv 2x 250425 x 44-22 feet lbs., and man only an effective force of
44x1205=26.5 feet lbs per second, and this at a speed impossible to maintain.
Therefore to fly as fast as the pelican, and to make good the loss, he must
exert *×16×14= 17 times the force which his Creator has given him merely
to overcome gravitation, requiring the further power to propel himself.
26-5
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Such is the fruit of the Baconian
philosophy of imitating nature; but art is greater than nature, as the artistic
system of aerial navigation has bere shown, I think. To call in question the
divinity of men's idols, and to be the Iconoclast to hurl them from theirpedestals
of worship, is perilous at all times. We must deal tenderly with great repu-
tations and venerated names; but science has no respect of persons; the work
it has done and has to do for humanity is too solemn for that. "There is no
proceeding in invention but by similitude," is, I venture to think, one of the
greatest scientific errors ever promulgated, and by dogmatic teaching enforced
for nearly 3 centuries. Bacon truly had a majestic intellect, but not of the first
order as men say; for he discovered nothing,invented nothing, and did nothing

page_text: for mankind except warn them by a bad example. That part of his philosophy
which is his own, "Invention by similitude" is unsound and pernicious, and
that which is not his own, the inductive method, he could not follow. His own
precepts never brought forth fruit, and never will. On the contrary, it is even
in the present day of advanced science diverting men's minds from the true
paths of discovery and invention. It is easy to write about things, but hard
to practise them, either in science or in morals. His writings therefore
have had no influence on the world; they have no more taught men to
discover and invent, than Ovid's Art of Love to make it, or Pope's Essay on
Poetic Criticism to write verse. Criticism in art and science will detect the
true from the false, but nothing more. It will not give the divine faculty,
the creative power.
As the oak is evolved from the acorn by its own laws,
so is discovery and invention from the divine germ within inan's mind. All.
he borrows from others is but as the earth, the air, and the rain for the tree,
the mere materials of growth, not the vital principle.
So, different indeed, is doing a thing to talking about it that Bacon himself,
so fine an intellect, was unable to apply the very methods of discovery, induc-
tion and deduction, which he advocated so well. He notonly discovered nothing
and invented nothing as I have said, but showed his incapacity in this, the
highest department of human wisdom and power, by his puerile experiments.
And further, he so little believed in these divine methods of discovery, by
which alone the greatest discoveries of mankind have been made, and which
he did not invent, that he disbelieved to his death the grand discovery of
Copernicus. Bacon saw the sun rise and the sun set, and preferred to believe
the evidence of his own senses,-the gross material organs of the body,
to the truer insight of the soul, "the vision and the faculty divine."
So implicitly relied on is the Baconian philosophy of invention by all the
schools, and so mixed up with it is aerial navigation by similitude of nature,
the worthless fruit of a worthless tree, that I found it impossible to separate
them. The one could not be refuted without refuting the false philosophy on
which it was founded. I will now show the superiority of art over nature.
As one false principle begets a progeny of errors, so a true principle begets a
progeny of truth. Each after its kind. The false principle of weight and not
buoyancy entails as we have seen the false principle of propulsion, impulse,
with its attendant loss of 40 or 50 per cent., and an impossible area of pro-
pulsion. The true principle of buoyancy and not weight gives us all we
want. It enables us to use the only true principle of propulsion, reaction,
and thus save at starting 40 per cent. of power. This is one test of its truth,
the other is its area. For I have shown by mathematical analysis that
.

page_text: 2210 x 20
10
=
an area of 1, say 10 square feet, will propel 200 persons and a half a
.hundredweight of luggage each. Now this is say of the area required
merely to raise one person without luggage by the similitude of nature. The
weight of 200 persons and luggage is 20 tons, and the further weight pro-
pelled by this small area (exclusive of 462 tons for the gaseous envelope)is 118
tons; but taking passengers and luggage merely, art requires only one square
foot of propelling surface for every
-4480 lbs. If, however, we take
the actual weight propelled as an instance of the superiority of art over nature,
an area of only 10 square feet will propel (600 x 2240) =1344000 lbs., or
one foot for every 10
1344000
134400 lbs., whilst nature needs one foot for every
pound. Thus by art this small area counteracts gravity, and also propels, but
merely to raise the same number of persons and luggage would, by the
mechanism of nature, require a propelling surface of (2240 x 20 =) 41800
square feet instead of 10 by art. Such is nature and such is art. Yet we
are told by Bacon, and his teaching is blindly inculcated by all the schools,
"there is no proceeding in invention but by similitude."
-
I should not take so much pains to show this fallacy but for so worldwide
a name and for such fatal influence. For we have 2 learned bodies of the
two most learned nations of the world, composed of some of the leading men
of science, engineering, and philosophy, wasting their time and talent on a
false principle that can lead to nothing but disappointment and morti-
fication. For we are expressly told by the philosophic President of our own
Aeronautical Society that "weight is the true principle of aerial navigation,
"and that the false principle of buoyancy is eliminated and banished from
"the question by the French Aëronautical Society."
Now in the words of the same author, in "The Reign of Law," to accept
"as truth that which is not a truth, or to fail in distinguishing the sense in
"which a proposition may be true from other senses in which it is not
"true (the case in point, for what is true in nature is not true in art), is au
evil having consequences which are incalculable. There are subjects ou
which one mistake of this kind will poison all the wells of truth, and affect
with fatal error the whole circle of our thoughts. I venture therefore to
hope that whatever may be the merits or demerits of my own system I have
done some service to science by showing once and for ever the impossibility
of aerial navigation as proposed by the two societies, "weight and not
buoyancy," and also the false philosophy of Bacon in his "Interpretation of
Nature," that there is no proceeding in invention but by similitude.
I have shown that the two fundamental principles of my own system of

page_text: aerial navigation are, 1st, buoyancy to raise, to generate, and to renew;
that is, that no power may be expended in overcoming the force of gravity,
but only to propel; and, 2nd, propulsion by reaction; this is not merely to save
the loss of 40 per cent. from primary velocity in the impulse of a plane, but
also to get thereby a practicle area of propulsion. I must. however, be
allowed to point out that the same principle, buoyancy, which lifts the load
and generates the motive-power, combines also to take from us all we do not
want, smoke, dust, ashes, and sparks. Consequently there is no danger from
the last, which removes one of the great objections of the Council of the
Acronautical Society to fire, whilst the gas being turned on and off needs no
time to get up the fires, no heated and panting stokers to keep them up, and
no waste and expense in letting them die out when done with.
I would also observe that whilst nothing in nature can be more unlike iny.
Invention, nothing in nature is more subject to the reign of law, on which
the
Duke of Argyll has written so well. There is no bird, beast, or fish generated,
sustained, or renewed by gas, and none moved by reaction; yet my Invention
is designed, governed, proportioned, and propelled by strict rules of law. This
ndeed is evident by the formulæ, the most important of which, the dynamic
formulæ and their coefficients with that for the resistance, are deduced from
the highest of all laws, our only standard of force and motion, the laws of
gravitation, the proofs of which I discovered in 1861. These are proofs I
think that my Invention is a true one. For, as the author of the Reign of
Law rightly observes, "When the operations of any material force can be
"reduced to rules so definite as those which have been discovered in respect
"to the force of gravitation, and when these rules are capable of mathematical
proof, they are, as far as they go, in the nature of pure truth. The discovery
"of laws in this sense is the great quest of science, and the finding of them
"is one of her great rewards."
in
Yes, but who can tell the labour of it. Surely I may be allowed, without
being considered ostentatious, to record the simple facts, to show by how
many and great labours 1 was led to begin, and I believe to complete, the
two sciences of hydro-propulsion and aerial navigation. I rather think,
indeed, that it is required of Patentees to state clearly what is old and
what new in their Inventions, the laws, principles, and formulae of which
are the most important part.
DISCOVERIES THAT LED TO HYDRO-PROPULSION AND AERIAL NAVIGATION.
1842. First, as regards the steam jet. It was the opinion of Watt, and I
believe of all other steam engineers who tried a jet of steam, that "the rarity

page_text: "of steam is such that even if none is condensed by the cold of the vanes,
"the impulse is exceedingly feeble." I ventured to differ from the great
authority on this point, on the ground that the whole force of the steam
must go somewhere, and as its expansive force could not, when used as a
jet, be given out laterally it must be lineally, and consequently yield its
whole work as well in a jet of steam as in the steam engine. On this
theory I undertook some experiments in 1842, in conjunction with Mr.
James Pilbrow, and verified it, and took out a Patent in his name, as the
Inventor of the machinery for the application of the steam jet, May 1842,
'No. 9354, see p. 2, line 22, and p. 23, line 5.
This was the first light that entered into my mind of the great doctrine
of the conservation of force. This idea that the force must go somewhere
a few years afterwards I put into the following axiom and published in my
Specification of 1860, "Force can be changed in form but cannot destroy
itself." And I verily think that had it not been for this axiom, and another
conviction, that reaction was the only true principle of propulsion, I should
have been again and again discouraged in my pursuits, my disappointments
were so many and for such long years.
1842. Second, as regards the two principles of propulsion, paddle wheel
impulse and water reaction. In this year I made experiments with a jet
of steam and sinall plate opposite, ou Newton's great discovery of the
equality of action and reaction, but the meaning and importance of what I
then discovered I did not then understand, not indeed until 24 years
afterwards, in April of last year. What that was is recorded in my
Provisional Specification of 1866, No. 1497, p. 7, a Drawing of which
experiment is given in Sheet I. of that Specification.
1847. Third, as regards hydro-propulsion. In this year I employed the
late James Pedder to make experiments to ascertain the laws of water
propulsion, and discovered the law of the two altitudes. As he invented
the machinery for its application I took out a Patent in his name in 1847,
No. 11,946. The discovery is there explained at p. 7, line 27. I have
shown; in my Specification of last year, why neither his machinery nor our
application on the principle of the 2 altitudes auswered ou trial, and why I
abandoned hydro-propulsion until last year. Specification of 1866, p. 2
and 3; p. 5, line 10; p. 6 and 7.
1857. Fourth, as regards my paddle wheel formula. In this year 1
discovered the true dynamic laws of the paddle wheel as a measure of the
resistance of vessels, differing from the formulæ of Tredgold, Professor
Woolhouse, Barlow, Mornay, and others. The formula are given in my

page_text: Specification of 1860, No. 1155, p. 17, and the remarkable difference between
the resistance of the Banshee found my formula 22868 lbs. and that
found by theirs 4960 lbs. is there worked out, p. 14 to 17. There is nothing
in science that I know of so unaccountable. For the formulæ of Woolhouse
and others were reduced from frequent experiments, both with steam vessels
and large models, in Messrs. Maudslay, Sons, and Field's factory, as explained
in Woolhouse's edition of Tredgold in the appendix. My own formulæ were
pure theoretical analysis deduced from the laws of force and motion, and the
indicated horse-power of the Banshee in 1857. How 1 suffered in time,
money, and labour from the errors of the old formula will be found in my
Specification of 1860, No. 1155, page 16.
1859. Fifth, before I could use a jet of steam in my calculations, it was
necessary to be quite sure of its velocity. For this purpose the following
formula was devised in this year, = 146 128 87 log. n, first pub-
lished in my Specification of 1860, No. 1155, p. 10. I found therefore that
to use a jet of steam for reaction propulsion would entail a loss of 94.6 per
cent., as will be found investigated in such Specification, p.
13.
1860. Sixth, to prevent so great a loss I invented intermittent reaction
propulsion, for which I obtained a Patent in this year. This, however, and
the thought and labour of years were neutralized in the following manner:-
1861. Seventh, I found that the reaction of one foot of steam did not
produce the usual effect of force, and so discovered why in the time of
repose of bodies, till then an unknown law, for it cannot be traced from the
days of Newton to our own. The explanation is given in my Specification of
last year, No. 1497, p. 5 & 20, and 25, line 25. It was this law, discovered
in 1861, which rendered practically useless all the thought, labours, and
expense of (:861-1842) 19 years.
1861. Eighth, before I abandoned science it was necessary to be sure it
was right to do so, and this I could not be without having positive proof of
what really was the force of bodies in motion. For without this I had no
certainty if my formula for the velocity of steam was right or not, or of the
calculations founded upon it. But of all my difficulties this was one of the
greatest, for I found that this question had given rise to the greatest inathe-
matical controversy on record; Newton maintaining that the force of bodies in
motion wv, and Leibnitz and his followers =w2. I thereupon wrote to
three first-class mathematicians, two professors and one a senior wrangler,
who all gave it after the Newtonian doctrine. But the proof? No, that I could
not get, even from the Principia itself, or from the last paper which its illus-
.K

page_text: trious author wrote; this is "On the Force of Bodies in Motion," printed
in the Philosophical Transactions for April and May 1722, No. 371, p. 57,
and which Sir David Brewster, his biographer, says in the 2nd vol., p. 304,
"is so simple and intelligible."
Now I have simply to state the fact, that it was in this year 1861 I dis-
covered the true laws of force and motion deduced from the laws of gravitation,
whereby I found that both Newton and Leibnitz and their followers were in
error. The mathematics of the mind must precede the mathematics of figures,
as I have said elsewhere. It was then reasoning on the manner and conduct
of the law of gravitation that I arrived at the true measure of the force of
bodies in motion. How this was done, and the table embodying the results,
will be found in my Specification of last year, No. 1497, p. 21 to p. 25
inclusive. Until I had discovered this proof I could be certain of nothing,
for all the areas of propulsion must be found in some way, and if not found
in the right way would be worthless; especially as there were four different
methods of finding the force of motion, as shown in my Specification of last
year, p. 16, and one only could be right. So ended in 1861, as I thought,
the labours of 19 years, for I did nothing more in science for 5
. April of last year.
years, until
1866. Ninth, I have explained in my Specification of last year, No. 1497,
p. 2 and 3, why I abandoned hydro-propulsion in 1848, and finally in 1857.
I have also explained in the same Specification of 1866, at p. 6 and 7, what
discovery it was in that year, deduced from my experiments in 1842, which
led me to return once more to hydro-propulsion, thus connecting this science
by some invisible chain as it were, or by some natural process, with its first
link experiments 24 years before, with which apparently it had no connection.
1866, December 12th. Tenth, my present Patent for steam jet hydro-
propulsion and aerial navigation, the Provisional Specification of which
was lodged 14 days after the Specification of my first Patent of last year
was filed, which was on the 28th of November 1866.
Seeing then how my l'atents, experiments, and investigations are connected
together from 1842 to this time, I know not how the difference between
them, and what is old and what new in my several Inventions, could be
understood without the summary here given. I cannot take one from the
rest; like a bundle of sticks they are all bound up together, each taught
me something I knew not before, and so led to my Invention of last year
and to the present one.
Still, from this mass of matter of (1867-1842) 25 years' accumulation,
no oue, I think, can pick out the completed work as regards the fundamental

page_text: principles now perfected. Thinking then that clearness and completeness
are the first things to be sought, even at the expense of diffuseness, I will
state what I could not include in the previous claims of application.
submit therefore the following
I
1. The philosophy of mechanical propulsion in 1849, and law of fluid
equivalent in 1850, both now applied.
2. The laws of the dynamics of elastic fluids by experiments in 1842, and
by formula in 1859.
3. The laws of the dynamics of inelastic fluids for hydro-dynamical
propulsion by experiments in 1847, by formulæ in November 1860, and
their proof in 1861.
4. The laws of paddle wheel propulsion embodied in formulæ of 1857, and
in the new coefficient of this year, based on the law of the two altitudes dis.
covered by me in 1847, and explained at the beginning of this Specification.
5. The application of these formulæ pursuant to the law of fluid impulse
before explained, discovered by me by induction last year from experiments
in 1842, applied this year to determine the resistance of vessels more
accurately than by any known means.
6. The time of repose of bodies in 1861.
7. The laws of force and motion in the same year as opposed to the
doctrine of Newton and Leibnitz.
8. The inequality of action and reaction in 1842 in hydro-dynamical science
in opposition to Newton's third law of motion, "action and reaction are
equal and opposite," practically applied for the first time last year to hydro-
propulsion, as explained in my Specification of 1866, No. 1497, p. 9.
I know that this law is theoretically correct, but a theory that cannot be
put in practice, and that loses 40 per cent. in consequence, is worthless. I
am therefore the first to discover this great loss in the application of Newton's
law, in opposition to Herschel and other men of science, who contend for
the universal application of the third law of motion to every case.
I am not the first to propel vessels by the issue of water, for 40 or 50
Patents have been taken out for this method, the first 150 years before steam
navigation was practised. But I can find no mention even of the word
reaction as a law for propulsion, until I used it in Pedder's Patent in 1847,
much more any inathematical investigation of it, or method of finding the
area of propulsion and horse-power. I am therefore, as I believe, not merely
the first discoverer of the principle of reaction and its laws as the only true

page_text: principle of propulsion, both for air and water, but the first also to put it in
practice by showing how to apply the principle by the proper machinery,
proportionate areas to overcome the resistance, the horse-power required,
and by giving the proper formulæ for the purpose.
Seeing then that the discovery of new laws is of all things the most
difficult, and that the commonest mechanic can suggest improvements in the
machinery, 1 venture to.think that the application carries the principle, the
result of years of thought and outlay, that every man may get the benefit
of his own labours.
As regards aerial navigation, I believe that I am the first who ever thought
of propelling aerial machines by reaction. I have indeed shown by extracts
before given that this law is so little understood even now that aerial pro-
pulsion is considered impossible, because the air is so subtle and yielding it is
said that it affords no fulcrum for the action of any force. In the principle of
reaction, however this error is nowmade manifest. I have moreover discovered
that in reaction the Creator has given to man a principle of propulsion 40 per
cent. cheaper in cost than he has given to the fowl of the air or the fish of the
sea, and forty per cent.in convenient applicationof area than byimitating them.
The object I believe is that man may by art beat nature in both their
elements. Therefore have I reason to think that the navies of England and
the world will in time be propelled by my discoveries and their application
both on the ocean and in the air, after 25 years' research, unknown and
uncheered, without honour, without profit, and without reward. I may then
be permitted to show what it was that encouraged me to persevere through so
many disappointments of so many laborious years. It was conviction of the
truth of the law I was in quest of, if not the conviction of success. This will
be seen predicted 16 years ago in the following extract from a letter to a
Reverend Professor of Mathematics, dated the 5th of March 1851, first pub-
lished in my Specification of 1860, No. 1155, p. 14:-"I am convinced for
many reasons too numerous to trouble you with, that the principle of
"reaction will be the only method of propulsion on water and in the air,
"and will never be superseded."
15
This assertion may seem presumptuous, but it is philosophical and true;
because when we have reached a law of the Creator we have arrived at the
ultimate boundaries of science, beyond which man cannot go. This boundary
for propulsion has now been reached, for there is no other means possible to
mau but the present one, that of impulse. The prime mover and propeller
may indeed be improved or superseded, but the principle of reaction, its
application by the primary organism or tube in claim II., p. 65, in my

page_text: Specification of last year,and the principles and formulæ there and here enun-
ciated, both for air and ocean navigation, will never be superseded as long as
the world lasts. This will be admitted by men of science, because there is
no other law in the universe for propulsion in air or water, except action or
reaction. Man, therefore, must take his choice, seeing that he can only.be
propelled by one or the other. The imperfections of the former-impulse-
both in cost and area of propulsion, I have already shown by mathematical
I regret the length of this Specification, but I can never take up the thing
again, so wearied by the labours on my Invention of last year and on this.
Allthen connected with the subject must be said whilst the matter was in hand,
once and for all. Besides we must not give men problems to solve,or intricacies
to unravel, but save them what labour we can. Now two.new, sciences, their
formulæ, calculations, and machinery, equivalent jet pump and calculations,
the present state of aeronautical science, the opinions of philosophers and
learned societies, the refutation of prevailing errors, the solution of the problem
of the power exerted by birds in their flight, and 25 years of Patents and in-
vestigations; all thèse cannot be satisfactorily treated in a few pages. Doubt-
less the Specification might have been shortened and improved, had there been
time for arrangement and compression, but circumstances prevented me.
beginning until the 3rd of April, and compelled me to have it engrossed as it
was being written. Thus my calculations, unchecked by any one, may not be,
correct, nor the machinery the best arrangements. For we can always do
a thing better a second time than the first. How much we should all alter
or omit could we see ourselves in print before publication.
Unwilling to claim discoveries I never made, I must be allowed to say
that, should the accomplished mathematician, acquainted with all that has
been done in mathematics, find here anything known before it will not alter
the fact of my discovery, as I have, by me the different processes which led to
it, which I have nowhere met with, and could not get from any of the
mathematicians to. whom I applied. There are, no doubt, the usual errors of
one imperfectly acquainted with mathematical literature and engineering,
since I have not been in the schools of either, having been led by chance
introduction, nearly 30 years ago, to turn my attention to science, without.
knowing its elementary principles or even the rudiments of mathematics or
machinery; but labour wins, not talent, for victory is to the most persevering.
I only regret that I have been obliged to refer, so often to my labours, but

page_text: there is no help for it; it was necessary to define clearly what I had done, and
as no one knows, no one could draw the Specification but myself.
a
1
AERONAUTICAL SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES.
Having shown the present state of this science in France and England,
some authentic account of it in the new world was alone wanting to preserve in
public office for after ages the state of aeronautical science throughout the
world at this time. Happily, just at the last moment to introduce here, the
following interesting communication appeared in the Engineer and other
scientific journals of last week:-" Aëronautical Society of Great Britain."
"At a meeting of the Council held at Stafford House, William Fairbairn, Esq
in the chair, the Honorary Secretary, Mr. F. W. Brearey, read the following
letter, addressed to the Duke of Sutherland, from Brigadier-General Serrell,
late Colonel of Engineers, New York:-
"
"My Lord, I have had the pleasure of receiving a note from your distin-
"guished countryman, William Fairbairn, on the subject of navigating the
"air, in which he recommends me to address your Grace should I desire to
"know more of the attitude of your society towards this subject.. Having
spent very considerable time and money in investigating the condition
' necessary to success in the solution of the problem in question, I have
"arrived at the conclusion that the thing is attainable by mechanical means,
"irrespective of any balloons or their equivalent. It has been demonstrated
"in three trials that the proper direction can be given and maintained, that
the elevating force can be sustained when there is sufficient motive-power
"within the assigned limits of weight, and I am now endeavouring to produce
"the necessary development of power within the required conditions, and
"this is all I believe now wanting to accomplish the result; that is, I find
screw-propeller fans, of which I have made 5, the largest of which are
"20 feet 6 inches in diameter, will lift, with a given shape and pitch of fan
"at given velocities, certain weights. Dr. Andrews has shown that my
* arrangement for steering, which he in part used, will guide his air ship, and
has tried experimentally the force required and the quantity lifted, and 1
"am now seeking, with a good prospect of success, for the boiler that will
'generate the necessary steam within the given limit of bulk and weight;
"and my friend Horatio Allen thinks he is about attaining it by means of
66
"
"
a peculiar superheating boiler. Now I have no desire in this matter but
"that the thing shall be done; if by me, good; if by another, good also,
"and if what we have done here will help anything, you shall know it. If
"what you are doing will throw any light on the question of great power

page_text: "
"within small limits of weights, I shall be very glad to know of it if it is
proper I should. I have a machine built of very light copper, seventy feet
"long, with elevators capable of lifting six tons, and if it will help to elucidate
the questiou, will send you a description and photographs, if your society
will reciprocate, by sending me any information you have on the subject
"I desire, namely, power that is developed by light engines of any kind.
"Your obedient servant, Edward W. Serrell, Brigadier-General, late Colonel
Engineers. His Grace the Duke of Sutherland."
"
"
This elicited a response of which the following is an extract:-"Maidenstone
"Hill, Blackheath, S.E., May 25th, 1867, "My dear Sir, Aeronautical
"Society, I have had the pleasure to read to the Council, held at the Duke of
"Sutherland's residence on the 15th instant, your letter to his Grace and to
" me, which elicited cordial expressions of goodwill and a desire to afford you
"all the information in our power. In the matter of aerial navigation there
"should not be, and I believe there are not, any national jealousies. The
"triumph of any one, whatever be his nationality, would be too great a boon
"to civilisation not to be accepted as a general matter of rejoicing to the
"whole world, in which the highest and the lowest, the black and the white,
"would equally participate. Whilst, therefore, it would be great honor and
"credit and lasting fame to any individual, or body of individuals, who should
"solve this long meditated problem, the Aeronautical Society of Great Britain
"will never withhold from earnest workers in the cause any information
"desired in the spirit of your communication which may tend to advance so
"cosmopolitan an object of desire as locomotion upon an international high-
way whose termini embrace every dwelling upon the earth." I remain, my
dear sir, yours faithfully, J. W. Brearey, Hon. Sec."
46
<
The above letter concludes with all the information within the knowledge
of the society.
Here we have from the great republic something practical to deal with,
experiments and facts which assert that the unsolved problem since the world
began is at last solved, and in direct opposition to all the laws, principles, and
formulæ here enunciated. Independent, therefore, of my desire to record
beyond the reach of accident the existing state of aeronautical science through-
out the world, I should be bound in fairness to notice what is so opposed to my
own Invention. Now the advantage of a knowledge of laws is the certainty
of their operation everywhere, the calm confidence they give in a settled
conviction arrived at pursuant to them; so that whatever facts or experiments
may meet us at variance with such laws disquiet not, as they can at once
detect and refute whatever is opposed to them. Let me, then, show by a few

page_text: figures the errors of experiments in aeronautical science as I have before
experiments in paddle wheel propulsion, and that men of science in the
new world, as well as in France and England, are only wasting their time
and talent and money on a false principle of aerial navigation, weight and
impulse, instead of buoyancy and reaction.
.
It has been shown that this latter principle, which is the true one, sub-
stitutes surface resistance for weight, so that it becomes a matter of simple
calculation which system requires the least power to be expended, surface or
weight; for economy is the first aim of science, to reduce the cost, weight,
and consumption of fuel to a minimum. Now the difference in cost of power
between the two systems is remarkable. In the natural system, weight and
impulse, the surface resistance of the aerial ship must be overcome as well as
the weight of the whole; but the surface resistance would require so sinall
an expenditure of power compared with the weight that we will not com-
We
plicate so simple a calculation by considering the surface resistance.
will take for comparison the same weight for both systems as I have before
taken for mine; boilers, 40 tons; water for one hour's consumption, 12;
promenade and engine room, 22; furniture and fittings, 10; 200 passengers
and luggage, 20; in all 104 tons. This weight, which represents the force of
gravitation, is in my system neutralized by gas in a vast envelope, yet whose
surface resistance amounts to only 5070 lbs., as before shown. It has also
been shown that an area of less than 10 square feet is sufficient to propel this
weight at 30 miles an hour; that the horse-power required for the useful
effect is 406, and that 90 per cent. was allowed for surplus power, for side and
head wind, and losses, which made the gross power required 4060 horses.
The horse-power required for the useful effect to propel the same weight
without buoyancy by the other system would be 101x2210x118636.
To this we must add the same surplus power for the same purposes as is
allowed for in my system; this would come to 18636 x 90 167724 HP; there-
100-90
-
=
550
fore the gross horse-power required by the Baconian philosophy,the similitude
of nature, would be 18636+167724=186260, instead of 4060 horse-power
required by art; but where is the power to raise and propel the weight of
boilers, engines, screw propellers, coal, water, engine room, and ship to hold
more than one hundred and fifty thousand horse-power? For this power is
required merely to raise 104 tons. Now this enormous resistance (=104 ×
2240) 232960 lbs. is by my system reduced to a surface resistance of only
5070 lbs. !
It would be easy enough by the formula: before given to find the area o

page_text: screw surface required for this vast power of 186360 horses, but it is wasting
time to calculate impossibilities. Brigadier-General Serrell says, that the
diameter of one of his screw propeller fans for only 6 tons is 205 feet; so
that more than 20.52 x 7854 = 330 square feet are required merely to raise
6 tons, whilst by my system only 10 square feet are required for 104 tons. I
have, however, giveu, in' the flight of birds, an interesting instance of the
necessity of substituting surface resistance for weight. For whilst a pelican
exerts a power of only 79,334 feet lbs. every hour, though this is indeed
wonderful, to overcome resistance it would have to exert a power of 6,652,800
feet Ibs. every hour to overcome its own weight. Indeed it seems to me as
unscientific to attempt to navigate the air without buoyancy as it would be to
attempt to navigate the ocean without buoyancy. The great art in science is
to reduce weight as much as possible in everything, but more especially in
propelling, where lightness for economy of power is wanted most. Thus in
carriages and railways, as a substitute for buoyancy, we reduce the friction of
weight to a minimum by axles and grease.
I have shown that it was my discoveries in reaction and in hydro-propulsion
for steam navigation that led me by a natural connection to the true principles
of aerial navigation, which is but propulsion in a rarer medium. It will then
be admitted, I think, that without the discoveries and investigations herein
specified, extending over a period of (1867-1842=) 25 years, I could not
have arrived at results so different to those of the foremost men of science and
engineering in England, France, and the United States. It seemed to me
therefore that I ought to make those discoveries known, to enable others to
examine; which will, I am sure, excuse me in all generous minds from any
appearance of ostentatious presumption. For it will be seen that the sub-
stitution of the surface of buoyancy to neutralize the force of gravitation,
instead of having weight, which is subject to it, is one of the fundamental
principles of my system of aerial navigation, without which it is no more
possible than ocean navigation without the surface of buoyancy with sails or
steam. Yet this is the very principle eliminated from all further consideration,
as well in the United States as in France and England.
Happily, however, for the safety of mankind, it is impossible to navigate
the air without buoyancy. For if anything happened to the raising machinery
the passengers would all be pulled down to certain death, a marvellous
instance of that dread power which acts unseen and unheard. For a weight
left to itself has no more tendency to fall than to rise, to turn to the right
hand or to the left. But this force being counteracted by art, buoyancy, the

page_text: passengers would be as safe as in an ordinary balloon or in a steamer whose
machinery had given way.
Thus it is that to start with a true principle is everything. Indeed we
never know how harmoniously and fitly a true principle can be developed
until we have discovered and tested it. If anything could compensate for the
labor and sadness of discovery through long and disappointing years, it would
be the gratification of completeness, not only in the thing itself, but in the
formula which embody its laws; those numerical relations which show its
practicable application in every case. The principle is the acorn which
contains the oak, the seed of the flower and the fruit.
It is always of great interest to mankind to know the opinions of those who
have gone before at different periods of the world's progress, especially the
opinions of a great era. We have preserved, in Hamlet, the philosophic
opinion of the age of Bacon and Shakespear, an illustrious age indeed,
respecting the motion of the heavenly bodies. "Doubt that the sun doth
move," writes the philosophic Dane to the poor Ophelia, as one of the things
impossible to doubt. Equally impossible, an outrage on the world's belief, is
it to doubt, in our own and more enlightened age, that weight and not
buoyancy is the true principle of aërial navigation, now preserved for after-
times, so universal and misleading is the Baconian philosophy, "There is no
proceeding in invention except by similitude." And before aerial navigation
can be established as great a revolution must take place in men's minds
respecting the true principle as in the belief of Shakespeare and Bacon's age,
that the sun moved round the earth. For how strangely this idea of weight
possesses the world will be further seen in the following extract from a paper
by Mr. Brearey, Honorary Secretary, read before the Aeronautical Society of
Great Britain, published in their Transactions for last year. He speaks of-
The universal desire, common in all ages of the world and among-t all
"races of men, to obtain more command over the comparatively unoccupied
space, which has continually eluded all attempts, although man observes
"that bodies possessed of weight command it almost without an effort."
"
<<
There is, indeed, something strange in the idea of navigating the air like the
far polar seas, regions of eternal calm and stillness. The generations of ages,
from the mere canoe of the savage to the man-of-war of civilisation, had
navigated the ocean before steam navigation was, and countless peoples have
run to and fro upon the earth before railroads; but few have been in the air;
yet how superior to all other travelling, and how much safer must it be ;
there is no noise there, waves, or creaking timbers; no shocks of screw or

page_text: paddle wheels, no sea sickness, no running down, no sunken rocks, no
shipwrecks, no drowning, no shore, no sea. Nor shall we find in the heaven
busy towns.and populous cities to pass through, no ceaseless rattling and
oscillation of trains, no getting off the line, and no collision; therefore the
earth and ocean, the locomotive and steamboat, for merchandize and goods,
the air for man and his luggage.
65
It is done at last, the scorn alike of the wise and foolish, the mau of science,
the mathematician, and the engineer: still the hope of him who, Herschel
tells us, hopes all things not impossible, and believes all things not un-
reasonable," the hope of the philosopher and the dream of the poet, from the
fabled Daedalus cfOvid to the botanical garden of Darwin, who thus prophesied
in 1791-
"Soon shall thy arm, unconquered steam afar,
"Drag the slow barge and drive the rapid car,
"Or, on wide waving wings expanded, bear
"The flying chariot through the realms of air;
"Fair crews triumphant, leaning from above
"Shall wave their fluttering kerchiefs as they move;
"Or warrior bands alarm the trembling crowd,
"And armies shrink beneath the threatening cloud."
Here we see again the all pervading philosophy of Bacon in his inter-
pretation of nature, "invention by similitude," but poets are not men of
science, for I have shown that man will never navigate the air in flying
chariots nor on wide waving wings. To what, however, will aerial navigation
lead when we have a lighter gas and strong and light envelope, to universal
peace, or give greater facilities for war? For these huge monsters of the air,
even in this our day, can take up two or three 68-pounders with ammunition;
these fired down from a height, and their velocity constantly increased by the
force of gravity, and striking with a working force of w lbs., would sweep
away the finest monuments of art, the cloud-capped towers, and gorgeous
palaces of prince and peer, and leave but their wrecks behind. Who shall
withstand their power, these new war ships of the skies, independent of
wind, and steered as easily as those in water.
We cannot doubt the progress of aeronautical science when we compare
steam navigation as it now is with what it was in its beginning. See there
by the lake at Dalswinton two men trying their little model, the first feeble
steam boat, the infant that can scarcely move; those men are the ill requited
Symington and his patron Miller; that was in 1788. And did I not hold in
my hand in 1839 one of the first toy boats of the screw, and put it in its

page_text: element, and saw it (worked by clockwork) propel the little thing along,
among the first to predict its success in print in March 1840; yet a few years
afterwards I knew that it would not last, that it was a mere machine of man,
and not the ultimate law of God of which I was in quest. Who could now
see in the giants of our day the infants of the past; who shall declare their
majesty and power? Behold it in the Great Eastern,bearing within thousands
of miles of the Atlantic telegraph to connect the Ultima Thule Orbe Britannos
of the Romans with the new world of Columbus; and see resistless power in
the thunder and lightning of the dark ironsides screw propelled. Compare
the past of steam navigation with the present, and there behold the future of
aerial navigation. Man has heaten the beasts of the field and the fish of the
sea in their own element, and shall the birds in theirs. Free as the air and
boundless as its realms, he shall outsoar the condor in his reach,and run down
the eagle in his flight.
In witness whereof, I, the said Richard Boyman Boyman, have hereunto
set my hand and seal, this Eleventh day of June, One thousand
eight hundred and sixty-seven.
R. BOYMAN BOYMAN. (L.S.)