Opinions respecting the (fäth Proposition.

435

Chap. 6.]

among the earliest and most favorite, as it was the last and most important;and it was impossible for him and Kaltoff to have spent so many years asthey üid on this and other subjects, without improving old devices andintroducing new ones. Then he was most likely acquainted with the ma-chines of Bacon , and with those of Ramseye, and with Ramseye himself,and Bushell too ; and also with the engine of motion noticed in the lastchapter, of which he was possibly both the inventor and describer. Sofar therefore from Worcester ’s machine being imperfect, as some writershave supposed, we are justified in believing it was Superior in its generalplan, and in the arrangement and execution of its several parts, to anything then extant, or previously proposed.

It would be easy to devise a machine corresponding with these remarksand coinciding with the Marquis’s account; but the intelligent reader isaware that it would be substantially the same as Savery’s. It is surprisingthat some authors have supposed Worcester could not have filled his ves-sels by atmospheric pressure, because, say they, the production of a vacuumby the condensation of steam was not then known, “ nor even thoughtofBut such writers were not aware of the experiments of Porta, andthey forgot the employment of eolipiles. It has. also been said that a ma-chine as perfect as Savery’s, and one in which steam acted on a piston,was beyond the state of the arts in Worcester ’s days. The Century ofInventions is a proof to the contrary, and so is the Collection of Serviere.Every problem in the one, and every device in the other, indicates greatexcellenee of design and ability of execution ; and both are replete withproofs of mechanical skill as well as fertility of invention.

To realize Worcester ’s machine, it is contended that we must dependupon what he has said, and on nothing more. But those who prescribethis rule do not themselves adhere to it; and by following it, posteritycould hardly comprehend a modern device from its modern description.As Worcester has not mentioned pipes or valves, neither of these essentialelements of his apparatus could, by such a rule, be admitted : and if hiswords are to be construed literally, he employed two score of receivers ;and these were also elevated as well as the water within them : “ onevessel of water rarefied by fire driveth up forty [vessels] of cold water.”By the same rule it was the boiler, not the steam within it, (he never men-tions steam) that drove them up. Then there is the condensation of thesteam in a receiver, after expelling the liquid, which is also not mentioned;and of course the vessel could not again be filled until this had taken place.On the same ground, a cock, tunnel and pipe or pump to feed the boiler,and a furnace door and grate bars, might be considered gratuitous addi-tions, since none of them are mentioned.

Perhaps the most obscure part of the 68th problem, is that which relatesto strengthening the vessels “ by tbe force within them.” Some personssuppose this refers to the figure of the vessels—others, to interior braces.The latter is the most reasonable, but seems hardly reconcilable with thethe text, since the same term [force) is used as that by which the activepower which rent the gun is designated.

Notwithstanding the ambiguous manner in which Worcester drew uphis Century of Inventions, there are strong indications of his having im-parted motion to a piston by steam, and that upon this he depended forbeing known to posterity. This was the crown of his glory as an inventor—the primary element in the “ semi-omnipotent engine,” which snpportedhim under the contumely and neglect that he met with. Unfortunatelyfor his fame, the state of the arts was not sufficiently advanced to convincehis contemporaries of the importance of “ the great machine,” and it was

53