434
History of the Steam-Engine , in attributing the invention of the four-waycock to Papin. In bis zeal to confer honor on the philosopber of Blois ,he inadvertently overlooked the old engineer of Normandy .
This plan of supplying Worcester ’s receivers is certainly far moreprobable than that of burying them in the water they were to raise. In-deed, we cannot perceive how the latter could answer at all, as the steamwould be Condensed by the surrounding medium almost as fast as it en-tered the receivers ; so that instead of “ one vessel of water rarefied byfire ” driving up forty of cold water, it would hardly be able to drive upany. It appears to us impossible for ingenuity to suggest a worse plan,and yet several writers have adopted it. a As a proof that Worcesterhadan engine at work somewhat similar to the one referred to in his 68thproposition, the following extract from the Journal of Cosmo de Medicis,who visited England in the 17th Century, has been adduced : “ His high-ness, that he might not lose the day uselessly, went again, after dinner, tothe other side of the city, extending his excursion as far as Vauxhall, be-yond the palace of the Archbishop of Canterbury, to see an hydraulicmachine invented by my Lord Somerset, Marquis'of Worcester . Itraiseswater more than forty geometrical feet, by the power of one man only;and in a .very short space of time will draw up four vessels of waterthrough a tube or channel not more than a span in width; on which ac-count it is considered to be of greater Service to the public than the othermachine near Somerset-House.” Now if this engine for raising waterfrom the Thames, and which was managed by one man, was moved bysteam—and it probably was—we may rest assured that Worcester knewbetter how to Charge his receivers than by immersing them in the river,or in any tank supplied from it. Had he done so, the machine wouldnever have been “considered of greater Service to the public ” than theengine at Somerset-House, which was worked by horses, and distributedwater over “ a great part of the city.” (This last engine most lik^ly con-sisted of pumps, such as were erected by Bulmer in 1594. See page 296.)As four vessels are here mentioned, there were probably that number ofreceivers employed.
It would be stränge if Worcester ’s reeeiving vessels were not chargedby atmospheric pressure, considering the examples he had before him.To say nothing of this well known mode of charging eolipiles, and othervessels represented in the Spiritalia, (see 173 and 177 of our illustrations)both Porta and Eludd exhibited experiments expressly to show how wateris raised into a vacuum formed by the condensation of vapor, (page 407)and Decaus gives such striking applications of it (page 380) that Worcester never could, with a knowledge of these, have plunged his receivers underwater. But was he acquainted with the writings of these men 1 Unques-tionably he was. There is evidence in the Century that he examinedevery source of Information, both at home and abroad, and with an eager-ness that has perhaps seldom been equalled; and then no person had greaterfacilities for ascertaining what had been accomplished. He was not a manto set about devising new modes of raising water while ignorant of oldones, or without perusing those writings which treated directly or indi-rectly upon the subject. Of all his researches, this of raising water was
a See Millmgton’s Epitome of Philosophy, and Stuart’s Deseriptive History of theSteam-Engine. The last named writer speaks however very differently in his valuabte“ Anecdotes of the Steam-Engine.” Further reflection convinced him that Worcester was something more than a charlatan. and the machine in question very unlike the onerepresented in his previous work.