A History of the Growth of the Steam-Engine Robert Henry Thurston 1655 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of A History of the Growth of the
Steam-Engine
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: A History of the Growth of the Steam-Engine

Author: Robert Henry Thurston

Release date: April 19, 2011 [eBook #35916]

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35916

Credits: Produced by Chris Curnow, Harry Lamé and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A HISTORY OF
THE GROWTH OF THE STEAM-ENGINE ***

Transcriber's Notes:

Some minor typographical errors have been corrected.
Where necessary, illustrations have been edited to
include the reference letters used in the text or to
increase their visibility.
Full notes can be found here.

THE INTERNATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC SERIES.

VOLUME XXIV.

THE

INTERNATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC SERIES.

Each book complete in One
Volume, 12mo, and bound in
Cloth.

1. FORMS OF WATER: A
Familiar Exposition of the Origin
and Phenomena of Glaciers. By J.
Tyndall, LL. D., F. R. S. With 25
Illustrations. $1.50.
2. PHYSICS AND POLITICS; Or,
Thoughts on the Application of the
Principles of “Natural Selection”
and “Inheritance” to Political
Society. By Walter Bagehot.
$1.50.
3. FOODS. By Edward Smith, M.
D., LL. B., F. R. S. With numerous
Illustrations. $1.75.
4. MIND AND BODY: The
Theories of their Relation. By
Alexander Bain, LL. D. With 4
Illustrations. $1.50.
5. THE STUDY OF
SOCIOLOGY. By Herbert
Spencer. $1.50.

6. THE NEW CHEMISTRY. By
Professor J. P. Cooke, of Harvard
University. With 31 Illustrations.
$2.00.
7. ON THE CONSERVATION OF
ENERGY. By Balfour Stewart,
M. A., LL. D., F. R. S. With 14
Illustrations. $1.50.
8. ANIMAL LOCOMOTION; or,
Walking, Swimming, and Flying.
By J. B. Pettigrew, M. D., F. R.
S., etc. With 130 Illustrations.
$1.75.
9. RESPONSIBILITY IN
MENTAL DISEASE. By Henry
Maudsley, M. D. $1.50.
10. THE SCIENCE OF LAW. By
Professor Sheldon Amos. $1.75.
11. ANIMAL MECHANISM: A
Treatise on Terrestrial and Aërial
Locomotion. By Professor E. J.
Marey. With 117 Illustrations.
$1.75.
12. THE HISTORY OF THE
CONFLICT BETWEEN
RELIGION AND SCIENCE. By J.
W. Draper, M. D., LL. D. $1.75.
13. THE DOCTRINE OF
DESCENT AND DARWINISM.
By Professor Oscar Schmidt
(Strasburg University). With 26
Illustrations. $1.50.

14. THE CHEMICAL EFFECTS
OF LIGHT AND
PHOTOGRAPHY. By Dr.
Hermann Vogel (Polytechnic
Academy of Berlin). Translation
thoroughly revised. With 100
Illustrations. $2.00.
15. FUNGI: Their Nature,
Influences, Uses, etc. By M. C.
Cooke, M. A., LL. D. Edited by
the Rev. M. J. Berkeley, M. A., F.
L. S. With 109 Illustrations. $1.50.
16. THE LIFE AND GROWTH
OF LANGUAGE. By Professor
William Dwight Whitney, of Yale
College. $1.50.
17. MONEY AND THE
MECHANISM OF EXCHANGE.
By W. Stanley Jevons, M. A., F.
R. S. $1.75.
18. THE NATURE OF LIGHT,
with a General Account of
Physical Optics. By Dr. Eugene
Lommel. With 188 Illustrations
and a Table of Spectra in Chromo-
lithography. $2.00.
19. ANIMAL PARASITES AND
MESSMATES. By Monsieur Van
Beneden. With 83 Illustrations.
$1.50.
20. FERMENTATION. By
Professor Schützenberger. With
28 Illustrations. $1.50.

21. THE FIVE SENSES OF MAN.
By Professor Bernstein. With 91
Illustrations. $1.75.
22. THE THEORY OF SOUND
IN ITS RELATION TO MUSIC.
By Professor Pietro Blaserna.
With numerous Illustrations.
$1.50.
23. STUDIES IN SPECTRUM
ANALYSIS. By J. Norman
Lockyer, F. R. S. With 6
Photographic Illustrations of
Spectra, and numerous Engravings
on Wood. $2.50.
24. A HISTORY OF THE
GROWTH OF THE STEAM-
ENGINE. By Professor E. H.
Thurston. With 163 Illustrations.
$2.50.
25. EDUCATION AS A
SCIENCE. By Alexander Bain,
LL. D. $1.75.
26. STUDENTS’ TEXT-BOOK
OF COLOR; Or, Modern
Chromatics. With Applications to
Art and Industry. By Professor
Ogden N. Rood, Columbia
College. New edition. With 130
Illustrations. $2.00.
27. THE HUMAN SPECIES. By
Professor A. de Quatrefages,
Membre de l’Institut. $2.00.

28. THE CRAYFISH: An
Introduction to the Study of
Zoology. By T. H. Huxley, F. R. S.
With 82 Illustrations. $1.75.
29. THE ATOMIC THEORY. By
Professor A. Wurtz. Translated by
E. Cleminshaw, F. C. S. $1.50.
30. ANIMAL LIFE AS
AFFECTED BY THE NATURAL
CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE.
By Karl Semper. With 2 Maps and
106 Woodcuts. $2.00.
31. SIGHT: An Exposition of the
Principles of Monocular and
Binocular Vision. By Joseph Le
Conte, LL. D. With 132
Illustrations. $1.50.
32. GENERAL PHYSIOLOGY
OF MUSCLES AND NERVES.
By Professor J. Rosenthal. With
75 Illustrations. $1.50.
33. ILLUSIONS: A Psychological
Study. By James Sully. $1.50.
34. THE SUN. By C. A. Young,
Professor of Astronomy in the
College of New Jersey. With
numerous Illustrations. $2.00.
35. VOLCANOES: What they Are
and what they Teach. By John W.
Judd, F. R. S., Professor of
Geology in the Royal School of
Mines. With 96 Illustrations.
$2.00.

36. SUICIDE: An Essay in
Comparative Moral Statistics. By
Henry Morselli, M. D., Professor
of Psychological Medicine, Royal
University, Turin. $1.75.
37. THE FORMATION OF
VEGETABLE MOULD,
THROUGH THE ACTION OF
WORMS. With Observations on
their Habits. By Charles Darwin,
LL. D., F. R. S. With Illustrations.
$1.50.
38. THE CONCEPTS AND
THEORIES OF MODERN
PHYSICS. By J. B. Stallo. $1.75.
39. THE BRAIN AND ITS
FUNCTIONS. By J. Luys. $1.50.
40. MYTH AND SCIENCE. By
Tito Vignoli. $1.50.
41. DISEASES OF MEMORY: An
Essay in the Positive Psychology.
By Th. Ribot, author of
“Heredity.” $1.50.
42. ANTS, BEES, AND WASPS.
A Record of Observations of the
Habits of the Social Hymenoptera.
By Sir John Lubbock, Bart., F. R.
S., D. C. L., LL. D., etc. $2.00.
43. SCIENCE OF POLITICS. By
Sheldon Amos. $1.75.
44. ANIMAL INTELLIGENCE.
By George J. Romanes. $1.75.

45. MAN BEFORE METALS. By
N. Joly, Correspondent of the
Institute. With 148 Illustrations.
$1.75.
46. THE ORGANS OF SPEECH
AND THEIR APPLICATION IN
THE FORMATION OF
ARTICULATE SOUNDS. By G.
H. von Meyer, Professor in
Ordinary of Anatomy at the
University of Zürich. With 47
Woodcuts. $1.75.
47. FALLACIES: A View of Logic
from the Practical Side. By Alfred
Sidgwick, B. A., Oxon. $1.75.
48. ORIGIN OF CULTIVATED
PLANTS. By Alphonse de
Candolle. $2.00.
49. JELLY-FISH, STAR-FISH,
AND SEA-URCHINS. Being a
Research on Primitive Nervous
Systems. By George J. Romanes.
$1.75.
50. THE COMMON SENSE OF
THE EXACT SCIENCES. By the
late William Kingdon Clifford.
$1.50.
51. PHYSICAL EXPRESSION:
Its Modes and Principles. By
Francis Warner, M. D., Assistant
Physician, and Lecturer on Botany
to the London Hospital, etc. With
51 Illustrations. $1.75.

52. ANTHROPOID APES. By
Robert Hartmann, Professor in
the University of Berlin. With 63
Illustrations. $1.75.
53. THE MAMMALIA IN THEIR
RELATION TO PRIMEVAL
TIMES. By Oscar Schmidt. $1.50.

New York: D. APPLETON & CO.,
1, 3, & 5 Bond Street.

The Grecian Idea of the Steam-Engine.

THE INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC SERIES.

A HISTORY
OF THE

GROWTH OF THE STEAM-
ENGINE.
BY

ROBERT H. THURSTON, A. M., C. E.,
PROFESSOR OF ENGINEERING STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, PAST
PRESIDENT
AMERICAN SOCIETY MECHANICAL ENGINEERS, MEMBER OF SOCIETY OF CIVIL
ENGINEERS, SOCIÉTÉ DES INGÉNIEURS CIVILS, VEREIN DEUTSCHE
INGENIEURE, OESTERREICHISCHER INGENIEUR- UND
ARCHITEKTEN-VEREIN; ASSOCIATE BRITISH
INSTITUTION OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS,
ETC., ETC.

SECOND REVISED EDITION.
NEW YORK:
D . A P P L E T O N A N D C O M PA N Y ,
1, 3, AND 5 BOND STREET.
1886.

COPYRIGHT, 1878, 1884,

By ROBERT H. THURSTON.

PREFACE.

This little work embodies the more generally interesting portions of lectures
first written for delivery at the Stevens Institute of Technology, in the
winter of 1871-’72, to a mixed audience, composed, however, principally of
engineers by profession, and of mechanics; it comprises, also, some
material prepared for other occasions.
These lectures have been rewritten and considerably extended, and have
been given a form which is more appropriate to this method of presentation
of the subject. The account of the gradual development of the philosophy of
the steam-engine has been extended and considerably changed, both in
arrangement and in method. That part in which the direction of
improvement during the past history of the steam-engine, the course which
it is to-day taking, and the direction and limitation of that improvement in
the future, are traced, has been somewhat modified to accord with the
character of the revised work.
The author has consulted a large number of authors in the course of his
work, and is very greatly indebted to several earlier writers. Of these,
Stuart[1] is entitled to particular mention. His “History” is the earliest
deserving the name; and his “Anecdotes” are of exceedingly great interest
and of equally great historical value. The artistic and curious little sketches
at the end of each chapter are from John Stuart, as are, usually, the drawings
of the older forms of engines.
Greenwood’s excellent translation of Hero, as edited by Bennett Woodcroft
(London, 1851), can be consulted by those who are curious to learn more of
that interesting old Greek treatise.
Some valuable matter is from Farey,[2] who gives the most extended
account extant of Newcomen’s and Watt’s engines. The reader who desires
to know more of the life of Worcester, and more of the details of his work,
will find in the very complete biography of Dircks[3] all that he can wish to
learn of that great but unfortunate inventor. Smiles’s admirably written

biography of Watt[4] gives an equally interesting and complete account of
the great mechanic and of his partners; and Muirhead[5] furnishes us with a
still more detailed account of his inventions.
For an account of the life and work of John Elder, the great pioneer in the
introduction of the now standard double-cylinder, or “compound,” engine,
the student can consult a little biographical sketch by Prof. Rankine,
published soon after the death of Elder.
The only published sketch of the history of the science of thermo-dynamics,
which plays so large a part of the philosophy of the steam-engine, is that of
Prof. Tait—a most valuable monograph.
The section of this work which treats of the causes and the extent of losses
of heat in the steam-engine, and of the methods available, or possibly
available, to reduce the amount of this now immense waste of heat, is, in
some respects, quite new, and is equally novel in the method of its
presentation. The portraits with which the book is well furnished are
believed to be authentic, and, it is hoped, will lend interest, if not adding to
the real value of the work.
Among other works which have been of great assistance to the author, and
will be found, perhaps, equally valuable to some of the readers of this little
treatise, are several to which reference has not been made in the text.
Among them the following are deserving of special mention: Zeuner’s
“Wärmetheorie,” the treatises of Stewart and of Maxwell, and McCulloch’s
“Mechanical Theory of Heat,” a short but thoroughly logical and exact
mathematical treatise; Cotterill’s “Steam-Engine considered as a Heat-
Engine,” a more extended work on the same subject, which will be found an
excellent companion to, and commentary upon, Rankine’s “Steam-Engine
and Prime Movers,” which is the standard treatise on the theory of the
steam-engine. The works of Bourne, of Holley, of Clarke, and of Forney,
are standards on the practical every-day matters of steam-engine
construction and management.
The author is almost daily in receipt of inquiries which indicate that the
above remarks will be of service to very many young engineers, as well as
to many to whom the steam-engine is of interest from a more purely
scientific point of view.

[1] “History of the Steam-Engine,” London, [4] “Lives of Boulton and Watt,” London,
1824. “Anecdotes of the Steam-Engine,” 1865.
London, 1829.
[5] “Life of James Watt,” D. Appleton & Co.,
[2] “Treatise on the Steam-Engine,” London, New York, 1859. “Mechanical Inventions of
1827. James Watt,” London, 1854.
[3] “Life, Times, and Scientific Labors of the
Second Marquis of Worcester,” London,
1865.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.
The Steam-Engine as a Simple Machine.
PAGE
Section I.—The Period of Speculation—From
Hero to Worcester, b. c. 200 to a. d. 1650 1
Introduction—the Importance of the Steam-
Engine, 1; Hero and his Treatise on Pneumatics,
4; Hero’s Engines, b. c. 200, 8; William of
Malmesbury on Steam, a. d. 1150, 10;
Hieronymus Cardan on Steam and the Vacuum,
10; Malthesius on the Power of Steam, a. d.
1571, 10; Jacob Besson on the Generation of
Steam, a. d. 1578, 11; Ramelli’s Work on
Machines, a. d. 1588, 11; Leonardo da Vinci on
the Steam-Gun, 12; Blasco de Garay’s Steamer,
a. d. 1543, 12; Battista della Porta’s Steam-
Engine, a. d. 1601, 13; Florence Rivault on the
Force of Steam, a. d. 1608, 15; Solomon de
Caus’s Apparatus, a. d. 1615, 16; Giovanni
Branca’s Steam-Engine, a. d. 1629, 16; David
Ramseye’s Inventions, a. d. 1630, 17; Bishop
John Wilkins’s Schemes, a. d. 1648, 18;
Kircher’s Apparatus, 19.

Section II.—The Period of Application—
Worcester, Papin, and Savery 19
Edward Somerset, Marquis of Worcester, a. d.
1663, 19; Worcester’s Steam Pumping-Engines,
21; Jean Hautefeuille’s Alcohol and Gunpowder
Engines, a. d. 1678, 24; Huyghens’s
Gunpowder-Engine, a. d. 1680, 25; Invention in

Great Britain, 26; Sir Samuel Morland, a. d.
1683, 27; Thomas Savery and his Engine, a. d.
1698, 31; Desaguliers’s Savery Engines, a. d.
1718, 41; Denys Papin and his Work, a. d.
1675, 45; Papin’s Engines, a. d. 1685-1695, 50;
Papin’s Steam-Boilers, 51.

CHAPTER II.
The Steam-Engine as a Train of Mechanism.

The Modern Type as developed by Newcomen,
Beighton, and Smeaton 55
Defects of the Savery Engine, 55; Thomas
Newcomen, a. d. 1705, 57; the Newcomen
Steam Pumping-Engine, 59; Advantages of
Newcomen’s Engine, 60; Potter’s and
Beighton’s Improvements, a. d. 1713-’18, 61;
Smeaton’s Newcomen Engines, a. d. 1775, 64;
Operation of the Newcomen Engine, 65; Power
and Economy of the Engine, 69; Introduction of
the Newcomen Engine, 70.

CHAPTER III.
The Development of the Modern Steam-Engine.
James Watt and his Contemporaries.

Section I.—James Watt and his Inventions 79
James Watt, his Birth and Parentage, 79; his
Standing in School, 81; he learns his Trade in
London, 81; Return to Scotland and Settlement
in Glasgow, 82; the Newcomen Engine Model,
83; Discovery of Latent Heat, 84; Sources of
Loss in the Newcomen Engine, 85; Facts
experimentally determined by Watt, 86;
Invention of the Separate Condenser, 87; the
Steam-Jacket and other Improvements, 90;

Connection with Dr. Roebuck, 91; Watt meets
Boulton, 93; Matthew Boulton, 93; Boulton’s
Establishment at Soho, 95; the Partnership of
Boulton and Watt, 97; the Kinneil Engine, 97;
Watt’s Patent of 1769, 98; Work of Boulton and
Watt, 101; the Rotative Engine, 103; the Patent
of 1781, 104; the Expansion of Steam—its
Economy, 105; the Double-Acting Engine, 110;
the “Compound” Engine, 110; the Steam-
Hammer, 111; Parallel Motions, the Counter,
112; the Throttle-Valve and Governor, 114;
Steam, Vacuum, and Water Gauges, 116;
Boulton & Watt’s Mill-Engine, 118; the Albion
Mill and its Engine, 119; the Steam-Engine
Indicator, 123; Watt in Social Life, 125;
Discovery of the Composition of Water, 126;
Death of James Watt, 128; Memorials and
Souvenirs, 128.

Section II.—The Contemporaries of James
Watt 132
William Murdoch and his Work, 132; Invention
of Gas-Lighting, 134; Jonathan Hornblower and
the Compound Engine, 135; Causes of the
Failure of Hornblower, 137; William Bull and
Richard Trevithick, 138; Edward Cartwright
and his Engine, 140.

CHAPTER IV.
The Modern Steam-Engine.

The Second Period of Application—1800-1850
—Steam-Locomotion on Railroads 144
Introduction, 144; the Non-Condensing Engine
and the Locomotive, 147; Newton’s
Locomotive, 1680, 149; Nathan Read’s Steam-

Carriage, 150; Cugnot’s Steam-Carriage, 1769,
151; the Model Steam-Carriage of Watt and
Murdoch, 1784, 153; Oliver Evans and his
Plans, 1786, 153; Evans’s Oruktor Amphibolis,
1804, 157; Richard Trevithick’s Steam-
Carriage, 1802, 159; Steam-Carriages of
Griffiths and others, 160; Steam-Carriages of
Goldsworthy Gurney, 1827, 161; Steam-
Carriages of Walter Hancock, 1831, 165;
Reports to the House of Commons, 1831, 170;
the Introduction of the Railroad, 172; Richard
Trevithick’s Locomotives, 1804, 174; John
Stevens and the Railroad, 1812, 178; William
Hedley’s Locomotives, 1812, 181; George
Stephenson, 183; Stephenson’s Killingworth
Engine, 1813, 186; Stephenson’s Second
Locomotive, 1815, 187; Stephenson’s Safety-
Lamp, 1815, 187; Robert Stephenson & Co.,
1824, 190; the Stockton & Darlington Engine,
1825, 191; the Liverpool & Manchester
Railroad, 1826, 193; Trial of Competing
Engines at Rainhill, 1829, 195; the Rocket and
the Novelty, 198; Atmospheric Railways, 201;
Character of George Stephenson, 204; the
Locomotive of 1833, 204; Introduction of
Railroads in Europe, 206; Introduction of
Railroads in the United States, 207; John
Stevens’s Experimental Railroad, 1825, 207;
Horatio Allen and the “Stourbridge Lion,”
1829, 208; Peter Cooper’s Engine, 1829, 209;
E. L. Miller and the S. C. Railroad, 1830, 210;
the “American” Type of Engine of John B.
Jervis, 1832, 212; Robert L. Stevens and the T-
rail, 1830, 214; Matthias W. Baldwin and his
Engine, 1831, 215; Robert Stephenson on the
Growth of the Locomotive, 220.

CHAPTER V.
The Modern Steam-Engine.

The Second Period of Application—1800-1850
(continued)—The Steam-Engine applied to
Ship-Propulsion 221
Introduction, 221; Ancient Prophecies, 223; the
Earliest Paddle-Wheel, 223; Blasco de Garay’s
Steam-Vessel, 1543, 224; Experiments of
Dionysius Papin, 1707, 224; Jonathan Hulls’s
Steamer, 1736, 225; Bernouilli and Gauthier,
228; William Henry, 1782, 230; the Comte
d’Auxiron, 1772, 232; the Marquis de Jouffroy,
1776, 233; James Rumsey, 1774, 234; John
Fitch, 1785, 235; Fitch’s Experiments on the
Delaware, 1787, 237; Fitch’s Experiments at
New York, 1796, 240; the Prophecy of John
Fitch, 241; Patrick Miller, 1786-’87, 241;
Samuel Morey, 1793, 243; Nathan Read, 1788,
244; Dundas and Symmington, 1801, 246;
Henry Bell and the Comet, 1811, 248; Nicholas
Roosevelt, 1798, 250; Robert Fulton, 1802,
251; Fulton’s Torpedo-Vessels, 1801, 252;
Fulton’s First Steamboat, 1803, 253; the
Clermont, 1807, 257; Voyage of the Clermont
to Albany, 259; Fulton’s Later Steamboats, 260;
Fulton’s War-Steamer Fulton the First, 1815,
261; Oliver Evans, 1804, 263; John Stevens’s
Screw-Steamer, 1804, 264; Stevens’s Steam-
Boilers, 1804, 264; Stevens’s Iron-Clad, 1812,
268; Robert L. Stevens’s Improvements, 270;
the “Stevens Cut-off,” 1841, 276; the Stevens
Iron-Clad, 1837, 277; Robert L. Thurston and
John Babcock, 1821, 280; James P. Allaire and
the Messrs. Copeland, 281; Erastus W. Smith’s
Compound Engine, 283; Steam-Navigation on
Western Rivers, 1811, 283; Ocean Steam-

Navigation, 1808, 285; the Savannah, 1819,
286; the Sirius and the Great Western, 1838,
289; the Cunard Line, 1840, 290; the Collins
Line, 1851, 291; the Side-Lever Engine, 292;
Introduction of Screw-Steamers, 293; John
Ericsson’s Screw-Vessels, 1836, 294; Francis
Pettit Smith, 1837, 296; the Princeton, 1841,
297; Advantages of the Screw, 299; the Screw
on the Ocean, 300; Obstacles to Improvement,
301; Changes in Engine-Construction, 302;
Conclusion, 303.

CHAPTER VI.
The Steam-Engine of To-Day.

The Period of Refinement—1850 to Date 303
Condition of the Steam-Engine at this Time,
303; the Later Development of the Engine, 304;
Stationary Steam-Engines, 307; the Steam-
Engine for Small Powers, 307; the Horizontal
Engine with Meyer Valve-Gear, 311; the Allen
Engine, 314; its Performance, 316; the
Detachable Valve-Gear, 316; the Sickels Cut-
off, 317; Expansion adjusted by the Governor,
318; the Corliss Engine, 319; the Greene
Engine, 321; Perkins’s Experiments, 323; Dr.
Alban’s Work, 325; the Perkins Compound
Engine, 327; the Modern Pumping-Engine, 328;
the Cornish Engine, 328; the Steam-Pump, 331;
the Worthington Pumping-Engine, 333; the
Compound Beam and Crank Engine, 335; the
Leavitt Pumping-Engine, 336; the Stationary
Steam-Boiler, 338; “Sectional” Steam-Boilers,
343; “Performance” of Boilers, 344.

Section II.—Portable and Locomotive Engines. 347

The Semi-Portable Engine, 348; Performance
of Portable Engines, 350; their Efficiency, 352;
the Hoadley Engine, 354; the Mills Farm and
Road Engine, 356; Fisher’s Steam-Carriage,
356; Performance of Road-Engines, 357; Trial
of Road-Locomotives by the Author, 358;
Conclusions, 358; the Steam Fire-Engine, 360;
the Rotary Steam-Engine and Pump, 365; the
Modern Locomotive, 368; Dimensions and
Performance, 373; Compound Engines for
Locomotives, 376; Extent of Modern Railroads,
378;

Section III.—Marine Engines. 379
The Modern Marine Engine, 379; the American
Beam Engine, 379; the Oscillating Engine and
Feathering Wheel, 381; the two “Rhode
Islands,” 382; River-Boat Engines on the
Mississippi, 384; Steam Launches and Yachts,
386; Marine Screw-Engines, 389; the Marine
Compound Engine, 390; its Introduction by
John Elder and others, 393; Comparison with
the Single-Cylinder Engine, 395; its
Advantages, 396; the Surface Condenser, 397;
Weight of Machinery, 398; Marine Engine
Performance, 398; Relative Economy of Simple
and Compound Engines, 399; the Screw-
Propeller, 399; Chain-Propulsion, or Wire-Rope
Towage, 402; Marine Steam-Boilers, 403; the
Modern Steamship, 405; Examples of Merchant
Steamers, 406; Naval Steamers—Classification,
409; Examples of Iron-Clad Steamers, 412;
Power of the Marine Engine, 415; Conclusion,
417.

CHAPTER VII.

The Philosophy of the Steam-Engine.

The History of its Growth; Energetics and
Thermo-dynamics 419
General Outline, 419; Origin of its Power, 419;
Scientific Principles involved in its Operation,
420; the Beginnings of Modern Science, 421;
the Alexandrian Museum, 422; the Aristotelian
Philosophy, 424; the Middle Ages, 426;
Galileo’s Work, 428; Da Vinci and Stevinus,
429; Kepler, Hooke, and Huyghens, 429;
Newton and the New Mechanical Philosophy,
430; the Inception of the Science of Energetics,
433; the Persistence of Energy, 433; Rumford’s
Experiments, 434; Fourier, Carnot, Seguin, 437;
Mayer and the Mechanical Equivalent of Heat,
438; Joule’s Determination of its Value, 438;
Prof. Rankine’s Investigations, 442; Clausius-
Thompson’s Principles, 444; Experimental
Work of Boyle, Black, and Watt, 446;
Robison’s, Dalton’s, Ure’s, and Biot’s Study of
Pressures and Temperatures of Steam, 447;
Arago’s and Dulong’s Researches, 447;
Franklin Institute Investigation, 447; Cagniard
de la Tour—Faraday, 447; Dr. Andrews and the
Critical Point, 448; Donny’s and Dufour’s
Researches, 448; Regnault’s Determination of
Temperatures and Pressures of Steam, 449;
Hirn’s Experiments, 450; Résumé of the
Philosophy of the Steam-Engine, 451; Energy
—Definitions and Principles, 451; its Measure,
452; the Laws of Energetics, 453; Thermo-
dynamics, 453; its Beginnings, 454; its Laws,
454; Rankine’s General Equation, 455;
Rankine’s Treatise on the Theory of Heat-
Engines, 456; Merits of the Great Philosopher,
456.

CHAPTER VIII.
The Philosophy of the Steam-Engine.

Its Application; its Teachings Respecting the
Construction of the Engine and its
Improvement 457
Origin of all Energy, 457; the Progress of
Energy through Boiler and Engine, 458;
Conditions of Heat-Development in the Boiler,
458; the Steam in the Engine, 458; the
Expansion of Steam, 459; Conditions of Heat-
Utilization, 460; Loss of Power in the Engine,
462; Conditions affecting the Design of the
Steam-Engine, 466; the Problem stated, 466;
Economy as affected by Pressure and
Temperature, 467; Changes which have already
occurred, 468; Direction of Changes now in
Progress, 470; Summary of Facts, 471;
Characteristics of a Good Steam-Engine, 473;
Principles of Steam-Boiler Construction, 476.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

Frontispiece: The Grecian Idea of the
Steam-Engine.
FIG. PAGE
1.Opening Temple-Doors by
Steam, b. c. 200 6
2.Steam Fountain, b. c. 200 7
3.Hero’s Engine, b. c. 200 8
4.Porta’s Apparatus, a. d.
1601 14
5.De Caus’s Apparatus, a. d.
1605 15
6.Branca’s Steam-Engine, a.
d. 1629 17
7.Worcester’s Steam-
Fountain, a. d. 1650 21
8.Worcester’s Engine, a. d.
1665 22
9.Wall of Raglan Castle 22
10.Huyghens’s Engine, 1680 26
11. Savery’s Model, 1698 34
12.Savery’s Engine, 1698 35
13.Savery’s Engine, a. d. 1702 37
14.Papin’s Two-Way Cock 42
15.Engine Built by Desaguliers
in 1718 43
16.Papin’s Digester, 1680 48
17.Papin’s Engine 50
18.Papin’s Engine and Water-
Wheel, a. d. 1707 53

19.Newcomen’s Engine, a. d.
1705 59
20.Beighton’s Valve-Gear, a.
d. 1718 63
21.Smeaton’s Newcomen
Engine 65
22.Boiler of Newcomen
Engine, 1763 67
23.Smeaton’s Portable-Engine
Boiler, 1765 73
24.The Newcomen Model 84
25.Watt’s Experiment 89
26.Watt’s Engine, 1774 98
27.Watt’s Engine, 1781 104
28.Expansion of Steam 108
29.The Governor 115
30.Mercury Steam-Gauge and
Glass Water-Gauge 117
31.Boulton & Watt’s Double-
Acting Engine, 1784 119
32.Valve-Gear of the Albion
Mills Engine 121
33.Watt’s Half-Trunk Engine,
1784 122
34.The Watt Hammer, 1784 123
35.James Watt’s Workshop 129
36.Murdoch’s Oscillating
Engine, 1785 134
37.Hornblower’s Compound
Engine, 1781 136
38.Bull’s Pumping-Engine,
1798 139
39.Cartwright’s Engine, 1798 141
40.The First Railroad-Car,
1825 144

41.Leupold’s Engine, 1720 148
42.Newton’s Steam-Carriage,
1680 149
43.Read’s Steam-Carriage,
1790 150
44.Cugnot’s Steam-Carriage,
1770 151
45.Murdoch’s Model, 1784 153
46.Evans’s Non-Condensing
Engine, 1800 156
47.Evans’s “Oruktor
Amphibolis,” 1804 157
48.Gurney’s Steam-Carriage 163
49.Hancock’s “Autopsy”, 1833 168
50.Trevithick’s Locomotive,
1804 175
51.Stephenson’s Locomotive
of 1815. Section 187
52.Stephenson’s No. 1 Engine,
1825 191
53.Opening of the Stockton
and Darlington Railroad,
1815 192
54.The “Novelty,” 1829 197
55.The “Rocket,” 1829 198
56.The Atmospheric Railroad 202
57.Stephenson’s Locomotive,
1833 203
58.The Stephenson Valve-
Gear, 1833 206
59.The “Atlantic,” 1832 210
60.The “Best Friend,” 1830 211
61.The “West Point,” 1831 212
62.The “South Carolina,” 1831 213

63.The “Stevens” Rail and
Enlarged Section 215
64.“Old Ironsides,” 1832 216
65.The “E. L. Miller,” 1834 217
66.Hulls’s Steamboat, 1736 226
67.Fitch’s Model, 1785 236
68.Fitch & Voight’s Boiler,
1787 238
69.Fitch’s First Boat, 1787 238
70.John Fitch, 1788 239
71.John Fitch, 1796 240
72.Miller, Taylor &
Symmington, 1788 242
73.Read’s Boiler in Section,
1788 245
74.Read’s Multi-Tubular
Boiler, 1788 245
75.The “Charlotte Dundas,”
1801 247
76.The “Comet,” 1812 248
77.Fulton’s Experiments 253
78.Fulton’s Table of
Resistances 254
79.Barlow’s Water-Tube
Boiler, 1793 256
80.The “Clermont,” 1807 258
81.Engine of the “Clermont,”
1808 258
82.Launch of the “Fulton the
First,” 1804 262
83.Section of Steam-Boiler,
1804 264
84.Engine, Boiler, and Screw-
Propellers used by Stevens,
1804 265

85.Stevens’s Screw Steamer,
1804 265
86.John Stevens’s Twin-Screw
Steamer, 1805 269
87.The Feathering Paddle-
Wheel 272
88.The “North America” and
“Albany,” 1827-’30 274
89.Stevens’s Return Tubular
Boiler, 1832 275
90.Stevens’s Valve-Motion 276
91.The “Atlantic,” 1851 290
92.The Side-Lever Engine,
1849 291
93.Vertical Stationary Steam-
Engine 308
94.Vertical Stationary Steam-
Engine. Section 309
95.Horizontal Stationary
Steam-Engine 312
96.Horizontal Stationary
Steam-Engine 313
97.Corliss Engine 319
98.Corliss Engine Valve-
Motion 320
99.Greene Engine 321
100. Thurston’s Greene-Engine
Valve-Gear 322
101. Cornish Pumping-Engine,
1880 329
102. Steam-Pump 331
103. The Worthington Pumping-
Engine, 1876. Section 333
104. The Worthington Pumping-
Engine 334

105. Double-Cylinder Pumping-
Engine, 1878 335
106. The Lawrence Water-Works
Engine 336
107. The Leavitt Pumping-
Engine 337
108. Babcock & Wilcox’s
Vertical Boiler 341
109. Stationary “Locomotive”
Boiler 342
110. Galloway Tube 343
111. Harrison’s Sectional Boiler 345
112. Babcock and Wilcox’s
Sectional Boiler 346
113. Root Sectional Boiler 347
114. Semi-Portable Engine, 1878 348
115. Semi-Portable Engine, 1878 349
116. The Portable Steam-Engine,
1878 354
117. The Thrashers’ Road-
Engine, 1878 355
118. Fisher’s Steam-Carriage 356
119. Road and Farm Locomotive 357
120. The Latta Steam Fire-
Engine 361
121. The Amoskeag Engine.
Section 363
122. The Silsby Rotary Steam
Fire-Engine 364
123. Rotary Steam-Engine 365
124. Rotary Pump 366
125. Tank Engine, New York
Elevated Railroad 369
126. Forney’s Tank-Locomotive 370
127. British Express Engine 371

128. The Baldwin Locomotive.
Section 372
129. The American Type of
Express Engine, 1878 374
130. Beam Engine 380
131. Oscillating Steam-Engine
and Feathering Paddle-
Wheel 381
132. The Two “Rhode Islands,”
1836-1876 383
133. A Mississippi Steamboat 384
134. Steam-Launch, New York
Steam-Power Company 386
135. Launch-Engine 387
136. Horizontal, Direct-acting
Naval Screw Engine 389
137. Compound Marine Engine.
Side Elevation 390
138. Compound Marine Engine.
Front Elevation and Section 391
139. Screw-Propeller 400
140. Tug-Boat Screw 401
141. Hirsch Screw 401
142. Marine Fire-Tubular Boiler.
Section 403
143. Marine High-Pressure
Boiler. Section 404
144. The Modern Steamship 407
145. Modern Iron-Clads 410
146. The “Great Eastern” 415
147. The “Great Eastern” at Sea 416

PORTRAITS.

NO. PAGE
1. Edward Somerset, the
Second Marquis of
Worcester 20
2. Thomas Savery 31
3. Denys Papin 46
4. James Watt 80
5. Matthew Boulton 94
6. Oliver Evans 154
7. Richard Trevithick 174
8. Colonel John Stevens 178
9. George Stephenson 183
10. Robert Fulton 251
11. Robert L. Stevens 270
12. John Elder 393
13. Benjamin Thompson, Count
Rumford 434
14. James Prescott Joule 439
15. Prof. W. J. M. Rankine 443

[“A Machine, receiving at distant times and from many hands new combinations and
improvements, and becoming at last of signal benefit to mankind, may be compared
to a rivulet swelled in its course by tributary streams, until it rolls along a majestic
river, enriching, in its progress, provinces and kingdoms.
“In retracing the current, too, from where it mingles with the ocean, the pretensions of
even ample subsidiary streams are merged in our admiration of the master-flood,
glorying, as it were, in its expansion. But as we continue to ascend, those waters
which, nearer the sea, would have been disregarded as unimportant, begin to rival in
magnitude and share our attention with the parent stream; until, at length, on our
approaching the fountains of the river, it appears trickling from the rock, or oozing
from among the flowers of the valley.

“So, also, in developing the rise of a machine, a coarse instrument or a toy may be
recognized as the germ of that production of mechanical genius, whose power and
usefulness have stimulated our curiosity to mark its changes and to trace its origin.
The same feelings of reverential gratitude which attached holiness to the spot whence
mighty rivers sprang, also clothed with divinity, and raised altars in honor of,
inventors of the saw, the plough, the potter’s wheel, and the loom.”—Stuart.]

THE GROWTH OF THE STEAM-
ENGINE.

CHAPTER I.
THE STEAM-ENGINE AS A SIMPLE MACHINE.

Section I.—The Period of Speculation—from Hero to Worcester, b.
c. 200 to a. d. 1650.

One of the greatest of modern philosophers—the founder of that system of
scientific philosophy which traces the processes of evolution in every
department, whether physical or intellectual—has devoted a chapter of his
“First Principles” of the new system to the consideration of the
multiplication of the effects of the various forces, social and other, which
are continually modifying this wonderful and mysterious universe of which
we form a part. Herbert Spencer, himself an engineer, there traces the wide-
spreading, never-ceasing influences of new inventions, of the introduction
of new forms of mechanism, and of the growth of industrial organization,
with a clearness and a conciseness which are so eminently characteristic of
his style. His illustration of this idea by reference to the manifold effects of
the introduction of steam-power and its latest embodiment, the locomotive-
engine, is one of the strongest passages in his work. The power of the
steam-engine, and its inconceivable importance as an agent of civilization,
has always been a favorite theme with philosophers and historians as well
as poets. As Religion has always been, and still is, the great moral agent in
civilizing the world, and as Science is the great intellectual promoter of
civilization, so the Steam-Engine is, in modern times, the most important
physical agent in that great work.
It would be superfluous to attempt to enumerate the benefits which it has
conferred upon the human race, for such an enumeration would include an
addition to every comfort and the creation of almost every luxury that we
now enjoy. The wonderful progress of the present century is, in a very great
degree, due to the invention and improvement of the steam-engine, and to

the ingenious application of its power to kinds of work that formerly taxed
the physical energies of the human race. We cannot examine the methods
and processes of any branch of industry without discovering, somewhere,
the assistance and support of this wonderful machine. Relieving mankind
from manual toil, it has left to the intellect the privilege of directing the
power, formerly absorbed in physical labor, into other and more profitable
channels. The intelligence which has thus conquered the powers of Nature,
now finds itself free to do head-work; the force formerly utilized in the
carrying of water and the hewing of wood, is now expended in the God-like
work of thought. What, then, can be more interesting than to trace the
history of the growth of this wonderful machine?—the greatest among the
many great creations of one of God’s most beneficent gifts to man—the
power of invention.
While following the records and traditions which relate to the steam-engine,
I propose to call attention to the fact that its history illustrates the very
important truth: Great inventions are never, and great discoveries are
seldom, the work of any one mind. Every great invention is really either an
aggregation of minor inventions, or the final step of a progression. It is not
a creation, but a growth—as truly so as is that of the trees in the forest.
Hence, the same invention is frequently brought out in several countries,
and by several individuals, simultaneously. Frequently an important
invention is made before the world is ready to receive it, and the unhappy
inventor is taught, by his failure, that it is as unfortunate to be in advance of
his age as to be behind it. Inventions only become successful when they are
not only needed, but when mankind is so far advanced in intelligence as to
appreciate and to express the necessity for them, and to at once make use of
them.
More than half a century ago, an able New England writer, in a
communication to an English engineering periodical, described the new
machinery which was built at Newport, R. I., by John Babcock and Robert
L. Thurston, for one of the first steamboats that ever ran between that city
and New York. He prefaced his description with a frequently-quoted remark
to the effect that, as Minerva sprang, mature in mind, in full stature of body,
and completely armed, from the head of Jupiter, so the steam-engine came
forth, perfect at its birth, from the brain of James Watt. But we shall see, as
we examine the records of its history, that, although James Watt was an

inventor, and probably the greatest of the inventors of the steam-engine, he
was still but one of the many men who have aided in perfecting it, and who
have now made us so familiar with it, and its tremendous power and its
facile adaptations, that we have almost ceased to admire it, or to wonder at
the workings of the still more admirable intelligence that has so far
perfected it.
Twenty-one centuries ago, the political power of Greece was broken,
although Grecian civilization had risen to its zenith. Rome, ruder than her
polished neighbor, was growing continually stronger, and was rapidly
gaining territory by absorbing weaker states. Egypt, older in civilization
than either Greece or Rome, fell but two centuries later before the assault of
the younger states, and became a Roman province. Her principal city was at
this time Alexandria, founded by the great soldier whose name it bears,
when in the full tide of his prosperity. It had now become a great and
prosperous city, the centre of the commerce of the world, the home of
students and of learned men, and its population was the wealthiest and most
civilized of the then known world.
It is among the relics of that ancient Egyptian civilization that we find the
first records in the early history of the steam-engine. In Alexandria, the
home of Euclid, the great geometrician, and possibly contemporary with
that talented engineer and mathematician, Archimedes, a learned writer,
called Hero, produced a manuscript which he entitled “Spiritalia seu
Pneumatica.”
It is quite uncertain whether Hero was the inventor of any number of the
contrivances described in his work. It is most probable that the apparatus
described are principally devices which had either been long known, or
which were invented by Ctesibius, an inventor who was famous for the
number and ingenuity of the hydraulic and pneumatic machines that he
devised. Hero states, in his Introduction, his intention to describe existing
machines and earlier inventions, and to add his own. Nothing in the text,
however, indicates to whom the several machines are to be ascribed.[6]
The first part of Hero’s work is devoted to applications of the syphon. The
11th proposition is the first application of heat to produce motion of fluids.

An altar and its pedestal are hollow and air-tight. A liquid is poured into the
pedestal, and a pipe inserted, of which the lower end passes beneath the
surface of the liquid, and the upper extremity leads through a figure
standing at the altar, and terminates in a vessel inverted above this altar.
When a fire is made on the altar, the heat produced expands the confined
air, and the liquid is driven up the tube, issuing from the vessel in the hand
of the figure standing by the altar, which thus seems to be offering a
libation. This toy embodies the essential principle of all modern heat-
engines—the change of energy from the form known as heat-energy into
mechanical energy, or work. It is not at all improbable that this prototype of
the modern wonder-working machine may have been known centuries
before the time of Hero.
Many forms of hydraulic apparatus, including the hand fire-engine, which
is familiar to us, and is still used in many of our smaller cities, are
described, the greater number of which are probably attributable to
Ctesibius. They demand no description here.
A hot-air engine, however, which is the subject of his 37th proposition, is of
real interest.

Fig. 1.—Opening Temple-Doors by Steam, b. c. 200.

Hero sketches and describes a method of opening temple-doors by the
action of fire on an altar, which is an ingenious device, and contains all the
elements of the machine of the Marquis of Worcester, which is generally
considered the first real steam-engine, with the single and vital defect that
the expanding fluid is air instead of steam. The sketch, from Greenwood’s
translation, exhibits the device very plainly. Beneath the temple-doors, in
the space A B C D, is placed a spherical vessel, H, containing water. A pipe,
F G, connects the upper part of this sphere with the hollow and air-tight
shell of the altar above, D E. Another pipe, K L M, leads from the bottom of
the vessel, H, over, in syphon-shape, to the bottom of a suspended bucket, N
X. The suspending cord is carried over a pulley and led around two vertical
barrels, O P, turning on pivots at their feet, and carrying the doors above.
Ropes led over a pulley, R, sustain a counterbalance, W.
On building a fire on the altar, the heated air within expands, passes through
the pipe, F G, and drives the water contained in the vessel, H, through the
syphon, K L M, into the bucket, N X. The weight of the bucket, which then
descends, turns the barrels, O P, raises the counterbalance, and opens the
doors of the temple. On extinguishing the fire, the air is condensed, the
water returns through the syphon from the bucket to the sphere, the
counterbalance falls, and the doors are closed.
Another contrivance is next described, in which the bucket is replaced by an
air-tight bag, which, expanding as the heated air enters it, contracts
vertically and actuates the mechanism, which in other respects is similar to
that just described.
In these devices the spherical vessel is a perfect anticipation of the vessels
used many centuries later by several so-called inventors of the steam-
engine.
Proposition 45 describes the familiar experiment of a ball supported aloft by
a jet of fluid. In this example steam is generated in a close cauldron, and
issues from a pipe inserted in the top, the ball dancing on the issuing jet.

Fig. 2.—Steam Fountain, b. c. 200.

No. 47 is a device subsequently reproduced—perhaps reinvented by the
second Marquis of Worcester.
A strong, close vessel, A B C D, forms a pedestal, on which are mounted a
spherical vessel, E F, and a basin. A pipe, H K, is led from the bottom of the
larger vessel into the upper part of the sphere, and another pipe from the
lower part of the latter, in the form of a syphon, over to the basin, M. A
drain-pipe, N O, leads from the basin to the reservoir, A D. The whole
contrivance is called “A fountain which is made to flow by the action of the
sun’s rays.”
It is operated thus: The vessel, E F, being filled nearly to the top with water,
or other liquid, and exposed to the action of the sun’s rays, the air above the
water expands, and drives the liquid over, through the syphon, G, into the
basin, M, and it will fall into the pedestal, A B C D.
Hero goes on to state that, on the removal of the sun’s rays, the air in the
sphere will contract, and that the water will be returned to the sphere from
the pedestal. This can, evidently, only occur when the pipe G is closed

previous to the commencement of this cooling. No such cock is mentioned,
and it is not unlikely that the device only existed on paper.

Fig. 3.—Hero’s Engine, b. c. 200.

Several steam-boilers are described, usually simple pipes or cylindrical
vessels, and the steam generated in them by the heat of the fire on the altar
forms a steam-blast. This blast is either directed into the fire, or it “makes a
blackbird sing,” blows a horn for a triton, or does other equally useless
work. In one device, No. 70, the steam issues from a reaction-wheel
revolving in the horizontal plane, and causes dancing images to circle about
the altar. A more mechanical and more generally-known form of this device
is that which is frequently described as the “First Steam Engine.” The
sketch from Stuart is similar in general form, but more elaborate in detail,
than that copied by Greenwood, which is here also reproduced, as
representing more accurately the simple form which the mechanism of the
“Æolipile,” or Ball of Æolus, assumed in those early times.

The cauldron, A B, contains water, and is covered by the steam-tight cover,
C D. A globe is supported above the cauldron by a pair of tubes,
terminating, the one, C M, in a pivot, L, and the other, E F, opening directly
into the sphere at G. Short, bent pipes, H and K, issue from points
diametrically opposite each other, and are open at their extremities.
A fire being made beneath the cauldron, steam is formed and finds exit
through the pipe, E F G, into the globe, and thence rushes out of the pipes,
H K, turning the globe on its axis, G L, by the unbalanced pressure thus
produced.
The more elaborate sketch which forms the frontispiece represents a
machine of similar character. Its design and ornamentation illustrate well
the characteristics of ancient art, and the Greek idea of the steam-engine.
This “Æolipile” consisted of a globe, X, suspended between trunnions, O S,
through one of which steam enters from the boiler, P, below. The hollow,
bent arms, W and Z, cause the vapor to issue in such directions that the
reaction produces a rotary movement of the globe, just as the rotation of
reaction water-wheels is produced by the outflowing water.
It is quite uncertain whether this machine was ever more than a toy,
although it has been supposed by some authorities that it was actually used
by the Greek priests for the purpose of producing motion of apparatus in
their temples.
It seems sufficiently remarkable that, while the power of steam had been,
during all the many centuries that man has existed upon the globe, so
universally displayed in so many of the phenomena of natural change, that
mankind lived almost up to the Christian era without making it useful in
giving motion even to a toy; but it excites still greater surprise that, from the
time of Hero, we meet with no good evidence of its application to practical
purposes for many hundreds of years.
Here and there in the pages of history, and in special treatises, we find a hint
that the knowledge of the force of steam was not lost; but it is not at all to
the credit of biographers and of historians, that they have devoted so little
time to the task of seeking and recording information relating to the

progress of this and other important inventions and improvements in the
mechanic arts.
Malmesbury states[7] that, in the year a. d. 1125, there existed at Rheims, in
the church of that town, a clock designed or constructed by Gerbert, a
professor in the schools there, and an organ blown by air escaping from a
vessel in which it was compressed “by heated water.”
Hieronymus Cardan, a wonderful mathematical genius, a most eccentric
philosopher, and a distinguished physician, about the middle of the
sixteenth century called attention, in his writings, to the power of steam,
and to the facility with which a vacuum can be obtained by its
condensation. This Cardan was the author of “Cardan’s Formula,” or rule
for the solution of cubic equations, and was the inventor of the “smoke-
jack.” He has been called a “philosopher, juggler, and madman.” He was
certainly a learned mathematician, a skillful physician, and a good
mechanic.
Many traces are found, in the history of the sixteenth century, of the
existence of some knowledge of the properties of steam, and some
anticipation of the advantages to follow its application. Matthesius, a. d.
1571, in one of his sermons describes a contrivance which may be termed a
steam-engine, and enlarges on the “tremendous results which may follow
the volcanic action of a small quantity of confined vapor;”[8] and another
writer applied the steam æolipile of Hero to turn the spit, and thus rivaled
and excelled Cardan, who was introducing his “smoke-jack.”
As Stuart says, the inventor enumerated its excellent qualities with great
minuteness. He claimed that it would “eat nothing, and giving, withal, an
assurance to those partaking of the feast, whose suspicious natures nurse
queasy appetites, that the haunch has not been pawed by the turnspit in the
absence of the housewife’s eye, for the pleasure of licking his unclean
fingers.”[9]
Jacob Besson, a Professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy at
Orleans, and who was in his time distinguished as a mechanician, and for
his ingenuity in contriving illustrative models for use in his lecture-room,
left evidence, which Beroaldus collected and published in 1578,[10] that he
had found the spirit of his time sufficiently enlightened to encourage him to

pay great attention to applied mechanics and to mechanism. There was at
this time a marked awakening of the more intelligent men of the age to the
value of practical mechanics. A scientific tract, published at Orleans in
1569, and probably written by Besson, describes very intelligently the
generation of steam by the communication of heat to water, and its peculiar
properties.
The French were now becoming more interested in mechanics and the allied
sciences, and philosophers and literati, of native birth and imported by the
court from other countries, were learning more of the nature and importance
of such studies as have a bearing upon the work of the engineer and of the
mechanic.
Agostino Ramelli, an Italian of good family, a student and an artist when at
leisure, a soldier and an engineer in busier times, was born and educated at
Rome, but subsequently was induced to make his home in Paris. He
published a book in 1588,[11] in which he described many machines,
adapted to various purposes, with a skill that was only equaled by the
accuracy and general excellence of his delineations. This work was
produced while its author was residing at the French capital, supported by a
pension which had been awarded him by Henry III. as a reward for long and
faithful services.
The books of Besson and of Ramelli are the first treatises of importance on
general machinery, and were, for many years, at once the sources from
which later writers drew the principal portion of their information in
relation to machinery, and wholesome stimulants to the study of
mechanism. These works contain descriptions of many machines
subsequently reinvented and claimed as new by other mechanics.
Leonardo da Vinci, well known as a mathematician, engineer, poet, and
painter, of the sixteenth century, describes, it is said, a steam-gun, which he
calls the “Architonnerre,” and ascribes to Archimedes. It was a machine
composed of copper, and seems to have had considerable power. It threw a
ball weighing a talent. The steam was generated by permitting water in a
closed vessel to fall on surfaces heated by a charcoal fire, and by its sudden
expansion to eject the ball.

In the year 1825, the superintendent of the royal Spanish archives at
Simancas furnished an account which, it was said, had been there
discovered of an attempt, made in 1543 by Blasco de Garay, a Spanish
navy-officer under Charles V., to move a ship by paddle-wheels, driven, as
was inferred from the account, by a steam-engine.
It is impossible to say to how much credit the story is entitled, but, if true, it
was the first attempt, so far as is now known, to make steam useful in
developing power for practical purposes. Nothing is known of the form of
the engine employed, it only having been stated that a “vessel of boiling
water” formed a part of the apparatus.
The account is, however, in other respects so circumstantial, that it has been
credited by many; but it is regarded as apocryphal by the majority of writers
upon the subject. It was published in 1826 by M. de Navarrete, in Zach’s
“Astronomical Correspondence,” in the form of a letter from Thomas
Gonzales, Director of the Royal Archives at Simancas, Spain.
In 1601, Giovanni Battista della Porta, in a work called “Spiritali,”
described an apparatus by which the pressure of steam might be made to
raise a column of water. It included the application of the condensation of
steam to the production of a vacuum into which the water would flow.

Fig. 4.—Porta’s Apparatus, a. d. 1601.

Porta is described as a mathematician, chemist, and physicist, a gentleman
of fortune, and an enthusiastic student of science. His home in Naples was a
rendezvous for students, artists, and men of science distinguished in every
branch. He invented the magic lantern and the camera obscura, and
described it in his commentary on the “Pneumatica.” In his work,[12] he
described this machine for raising water, as shown in Fig. 4, which differs
from one shown by Hero in the use of steam pressure, instead of the
pressure of heated air, for expelling the liquid.
The retort, or boiler, is fitted to a tank from which the bent pipe leads into
the external air. A fire being kindled under the retort, the steam generated
rises to the upper part of the tank, and its pressure on the surface of the
water drives it out through the pipe, and it is then led to any desired height.
This was called by Porta an improved “Hero’s Fountain,” and was named
his “Steam Fountain.” He described with perfect accuracy the action of
condensation in producing a vacuum, and sketched an apparatus in which
the vacuum thus secured was filled by water forced in by the pressure of the
external atmosphere. His contrivances were not apparently ever applied to
any practically useful purpose. We have not yet passed out of the age of
speculation, and are just approaching the period of application. Porta is,
nevertheless, entitled to credit as having proposed an essential change in
this succession, which begins with Hero, and which did not end with Watt.
The use of steam in Hero’s fountain was as necessary a step as, although
less striking than, any of the subsequent modifications of the machine. In
Porta’s contrivance, too, we should note particularly the separation of the
boiler from the “forcing vessel”—a plan often claimed as original with later
inventors, and as constituting a fair ground for special distinction.
The rude engraving (Fig. 4) above is copied from the book of Porta, and
shows plainly the boiler mounted above a furnace, from the door of which
the flame is seen issuing, and above is the tank containing water. The
opening in the top is closed by the plug, as shown, and the steam issuing
from the boiler into the tank near the top, the water is driven out through the
pipe at the left, leading up from the bottom of the tank.

Florence Rivault, a Gentleman of the Bedchamber to Henry IV., and a
teacher of Louis XIII., is stated by M. Arago, the French philosopher, to
have discovered, as early as 1605, that water confined in a bomb-shell and
there heated would explode the shell, however thick its walls might be
made. The fact was published in Rivault’s treatise on artillery in 1608. He
says: “The water is converted into air, and its vaporization is followed by
violent explosion.”
In 1615, Salomon de Caus, who had been an engineer and architect under
Louis XIII. of France, and later in the employ of the English Prince of
Wales, published a work at Frankfort, entitled “Les Raisons des Forces
Mouvantes, avec diverses machines tant utile que plaisante,” in which he
illustrated his proposition, “Water will, by the aid of fire, mount higher than
its source,” by describing a machine designed to raise water by the
expanding power of steam.

Fig. 5.—De Caus’s Apparatus, a. d. 1605.

In the sketch here given (Fig. 5), and which is copied from the original in
“Les Raisons des Forces Mouvantes,” etc., A is the copper ball containing
water; B, the cock at the extremity of the pipe, taking water from the

bottom, C, of the vessel; D, the cock through which the vessel is filled. The
sketch was probably made by De Caus’s own hand.
The machine of De Caus, like that of Porta, thus consisted of a metal vessel
partly filled with water, and in which a pipe was fitted, leading nearly to the
bottom, and open at the top. Fire being applied, the steam formed by its
elastic force drove the water out through the vertical pipe, raising it to a
height limited only by either the desire of the builder or the strength of the
vessel.

Fig. 6.—Branca’s Steam-Engine, a. d. 1629.

In 1629, Giovanni Branca, of the Italian town of Loretto, described, in a
work[13] published at Rome, a number of ingenious mechanical
contrivances, among which was a steam-engine (Fig. 6), in which the
steam, issuing from a boiler, impinged upon the vanes of a horizontal
wheel. This it was proposed to apply to many useful purposes.
At this time experiments were in progress in England which soon resulted
in the useful application of steam-power to raising water.
A patent, dated January 21, 1630, was granted to David Ramseye[14] by
Charles I., which covered a number of distinct inventions. These were: “1.

To multiply and make saltpeter in any open field, in fower acres of ground,
sufficient to serve all our dominions. 2. To raise water from low pitts by
fire. 3. To make any sort of mills to goe on standing waters by continual
motion, without help of wind, water, or horse. 4. To make all sortes of
tapistrie without any weaving-loom, or waie ever yet in use in this
kingdome. 5. To make boats, shippes, and barges to goe against strong wind
and tide. 6. To make the earth more fertile than usual. 7. To raise water from
low places and mynes, and coal pitts, by a new waie never yet in use. 8. To
make hard iron soft, and likewise copper to be tuffe and soft, which is not in
use in this kingdome. 9. To make yellow waxe white verie speedilie.”
This seems to have been the first authentic reference to the use of steam in
the arts which has been found in English literature. The patentee held his
grant fourteen years, on condition of paying an annual fee of £3 6s. 8d. to
the Crown.
The second claim is distinct as an application of steam, the language being
that which was then, and for a century and a half subsequently, always
employed in speaking of its use. The steam-engine, in all its forms, was at
that time known as the “fire-engine.” It would seem not at all improbable
that the third, fifth, and seventh claims are also applications of steam-
power.
Thomas Grant, in 1632, and Edward Ford, in 1640, also patented schemes,
which have not been described in detail, for moving ships against wind and
tide by some new and great force.
Dr. John Wilkins, Bishop of Chester, an eccentric but learned and acute
scholar, described, in 1648, Cardan’s smoke-jack, the earlier æolipiles, and
the power of the confined steam, and suggested, in a humorous discourse,
what he thought to be perfectly feasible—the construction of a flying-
machine. He says: “Might not a ‘high pressure’ be applied with advantage
to move wings as large as those of the ‘ruck’s’ or the ‘chariot’? The
engineer might probably find a corner that would do for a coal-station near
some of the ‘castles’” (castles in the air). The reverend wit proposed the
application of the smoke-jack to the chiming of bells, the reeling of yarn,
and to rocking the cradle.

Bishop Wilkins writes, in 1648 (“Mathematical Magic”), of æolipiles as
familiar and useful pieces of apparatus, and describes them as consisting
“of some such material as may endure the fire, having a small hole at which
they are filled with water, and out of which (when the vessels are heated)
the air doth issue forth with a strong and lasting violence.” “They are,” the
bishop adds, “frequently used for the exciting and contracting of heat in the
melting of glasses or metals. They may also be contrived to be serviceable
for sundry other pleasant uses, as for the moving of sails in a chimney-
corner, the motion of which sails may be applied to the turning of a spit, or
the like.”
Kircher gives an engraving (“Mundus Subterraneus”) showing the last-
named application of the æolipile; and Erckern (“Aula Subterranea,” 1672)
gives a picture illustrating their application to the production of a blast in
smelting ores. They seem to have been frequently used, and in all parts of
Europe, during the seventeenth century, for blowing fires in houses, as well
as in the practical work of the various trades, and for improving the draft of
chimneys. The latter application is revived very frequently by the modern
inventor.

Section II.—The Period of Application—Worcester, Papin, and
Savery.

We next meet with the first instance in which the expansive force of steam
is supposed to have actually been applied to do important and useful work.
In 1663, Edward Somerset, second Marquis of Worcester, published a
curious collection of descriptions of his inventions, couched in obscure and
singular language, and called “A Century of the Names and Scantlings of
Inventions by me already Practised.”

Fig. 7.—Worcester’s Steam Fountain, a. d. 1650.

One of these inventions is an apparatus for raising water by steam. The
description was not accompanied by a drawing, but the sketch here given
(Fig. 7) is thought probably to resemble one of his earlier contrivances very
closely.
Steam is generated in the boiler a, and thence is led into the vessel e,
already nearly filled with water, and fitted up like the apparatus of De Caus.
It drives the water in a jet out through the pipe f. The vessel e is then shut
off from the boiler a, is again filled through the pipe h, and the operation is
repeated. Stuart thinks it possible that the marquis may have even made an
engine with a piston, and sketches it.[15] The instruments of Porta and of De
Caus were “steam fountains,” and were probably applied, if used at all,
merely to ornamental purposes. That of the Marquis of Worcester was

actually used for the purpose of elevating water for practical purposes at
Vauxhall, near London.

Edward Somerset, the Second Marquis of Worcester.

How early this invention was introduced at Raglan Castle by Worcester is
not known, but it was probably not much later than 1628. In 1647 Dircks
shows the marquis probably to have been engaged in getting out parts of the
later engine which was erected at Vauxhall, obtaining his materials from
William Lambert, a brass-founder. His patent was issued in June, 1663.

Fig. 8.—Worcester’s Engine, a. d. 1665.

We nowhere find an illustrated description of the machine, or such an
account as would enable a mechanic to reproduce it in all its details.
Fortunately, the cells and grooves (Fig. 9) remaining in the wall of the
citadel of Raglan Castle indicate the general dimensions and arrangement of
the engine; and Dircks, the biographer of the inventor, has suggested the
form of apparatus shown in the sketch (Fig. 8) as most perfectly in accord
with the evidence there found, and with the written specifications.

Fig. 9.—Wall of Raglan Castle.

The two vessels, A A′, are connected by a steam-pipe, B B′, with the boiler,
C, behind them. D is the furnace. A vertical water-pipe, E, is connected with
the cold-water vessels, A A′, by the pipes, F F′, reaching nearly to the
bottom. Water is supplied by the pipes, G G′, with valves, a a′, dipping into
the well or ditch, H. Steam from the boiler being admitted to each vessel, A
and A′, alternately, and there condensing, the vacuum formed permits the
pressure of the atmosphere to force the water from the well through the
pipes, G and G′. While one is filling, the steam is forcing the charge of
water from the other up the discharge-pipe, E. As soon as each is emptied,
the steam is shut off from it and turned into the other, and the condensation
of the steam remaining in the vessel permits it to fill again. As will be seen
presently, this is substantially, and almost precisely, the form of engine of
which the invention is usually attributed to Savery, a later inventor.
Worcester never succeeded in forming the great company which he hoped
would introduce his invention on a scale commensurate with its importance,
and his fate was that of nearly all inventors. He died poor and unsuccessful.

His widow, who lived until 1681, seemed to have become as confident as
was Worcester himself that the invention had value, and, long after his
death, was still endeavoring to secure its introduction, but with equal non-
success. The steam-engine had taken a form which made it inconceivably
valuable to the world, at a time when no more efficient means of raising
water was available at the most valuable mines than horse-power; but the
people, greatly as it was needed, were not yet sufficiently intelligent to avail
themselves of the great boon, the acceptance of which was urged upon them
with all the persistence and earnestness which characterizes every true
inventor.
Worcester is described by his biographer as having been a learned,
thoughtful, studious, and good man—a Romanist without prejudice or
bigotry, a loyal subject, free from partisan intolerance; as a public man,
upright, honorable, and humane; as a scholar, learned without being
pedantic; as a mechanic, patient, skillful, persevering, and of wonderful
ingenuity, and of clear, almost intuitive, apprehension.
Yet, with all these natural advantages, reinforced as they were by immense
wealth and influence in his earlier life, and by hardly lessened social and
political influence when a large fortune had been spent in experiment, and
after misfortune had subdued his spirits and left him without money or a
home, the inventor failed to secure the introduction of a device which was
needed more than any other. Worcester had attained practical success; but
the period of speculation was but just closing, and that of the application of
steam had not quite yet arrived.
The second Marquis of Worcester stands on the record as the first steam-
engine builder, and his death marks the termination of the first of those
periods into which we have divided the history of the growth of the steam-
engine.
The “water-commanding engine,” as its inventor called it, was the first
instance in the history of the steam-engine in which the inventor is known
to have “reduced his invention to practice.”
It is evident, however, that the invention of the separate boiler, important as
it was, had been anticipated by Porta, and does not entitle the marquis to the
honor, claimed for him by many English authorities, of being the inventor

of the steam-engine. Somerset was simply one of those whose works
collectively made the steam-engine.
After the time of Worcester, we enter upon a stage of history which may
properly be termed a period of application; and from this time forward
steam continued to play a more and more important part in social economy,
and its influence on the welfare of mankind augmented with a rapidly-
increasing growth.
The knowledge then existing of the immense expansive force of steam, and
the belief that it was destined to submit to the control of man and to lend its
immense power in every department of industry, were evidently not
confined to any one nation. From Italy to Northern Germany, and from
France to Great Britain, the distances, measured in time, were vastly greater
then than now, when this wonderful genius has helped us to reduce weeks
to hours; but there existed, notwithstanding, a very perfect system of
communication, and the learning of every centre was promptly radiated to
every other. It thus happened that, at this time, the speculative study of the
steam-engine was confined to no part of Europe; inventors and
experimenters were busy everywhere developing this promising scheme.
Jean Hautefeuille, the son of a French boulanger, born at Orleans, adopted
by the Duchess of Bouillon at the suggestion of De Sourdis, profiting by the
great opportunities offered him, entered the Church, and became one of the
most learned men and greatest mechanicians of his time. He studied the
many schemes then brought forward by inventors with the greatest interest,
and was himself prolific of new ideas.
In 1678, he proposed the use of alcohol in an engine, “in such a manner that
the liquid should evaporate and be condensed, tour à tour, without being
wasted”[16]—the first recorded plan, probably, for surface-condensation and
complete retention of the working-fluid. He proposed a gunpowder-engine,
of which[17] he described three varieties.
In one of these engines he displaced the atmosphere by the gases produced
by the explosion, and the vacuum thus obtained was utilized in raising
water by the pressure of the air. In the second machine, the pressure of the
gases evolved by the combustion of the powder acted directly upon the
water, forcing it upward; and in the third design, the pressure of the vapor

drove a piston, and this engine was described as fitted to supply power for
many purposes. There is no evidence that he constructed these machines,
however, and they are here referred to simply as indicating that all the
elements of the machine were becoming well known, and that an ingenious
mechanic, combining known devices, could at this time have produced the
steam-engine. Its early appearance should evidently have been anticipated.
Hautefeuille, if we may judge from evidence at hand, was the first to
propose the use of a piston in a heat-engine, and his gunpowder-engine
seems to have been the first machine which would be called a heat-engine
by the modern mechanic. The earlier “machines” or “engines,” including
that of Hero and those of the Marquis of Worcester, would rather be
denominated “apparatus,” as that term is used by the physicist or the
chemist, than a machine or an engine, as the terms are used by the engineer.
Huyghens, in 1680, in a memoir presented to the Academy of
Sciences, speaks of the expansive force of gunpowder as
capable of utilization as a convenient and portable
mechanical power, and indicates that he had designed a
machine in which it could be applied.
This machine of Huyghens is of great interest, not simply
because it was the first gas-engine and the prototype of the
very successful modern explosive gas-engine of Otto and
Langen, but principally as having been the first engine which
consisted of a cylinder and piston. The sketch shows its form.
It consisted of a cylinder, A, a piston, B, two relief-pipes, C
C, fitted with check-valves and a system of pulleys, F, by
which the weight is raised. The explosion of the powder at H
expels the air from the cylinder. When the products of
combustion have cooled, the pressure of the atmosphere is no
Fig. 10.— longer counterbalanced by that of air beneath, and the piston
Huyghens’s is forced down, raising the weight. The plan was never put in
Engine,
1680. practice, although the invention was capable of being made a
working and possibly useful machine.
At about this period the English attained some superiority over their
neighbors on the Continent in the practical application of science and the

development of the useful arts, and it has never since been lost. A sudden
and great development of applied science and of the useful arts took place
during the reign of Charles II., which is probably largely attributable to the
interest taken by that monarch in many branches of construction and of
science. He is said to have been very fond of mathematics, mechanics,
chemistry, and natural history, and to have had a laboratory erected, and to
have employed learned men to carry on experiments and lines of research
for his satisfaction. He was especially fond of the study and investigation of
the arts and sciences most closely related to naval architecture and
navigation, and devoted much attention to the determination of the best
forms of vessels, and to the discovery of the best kinds of ship-timber. His
brother, the Duke of York, was equally fond of this study, and was his
companion in some of his work.
Great as is the influence of the monarch, to-day, in forming the tastes and
habits and in determining the direction of the studies and labors of the
people, his influence was vastly more potent in those earlier days; and it
may well be believed that the rapid strides taken by Great Britain from that
time were, in great degree, a consequence of the well-known habits of
Charles II., and that the nation, which had an exceptional natural aptitude
for mechanical pursuits, should have been prompted by the example of its
king to enter upon such a course as resulted in the early attainment of an
advanced position in all branches of applied science.
The appointment, under Sir Robert Moray, the superintendent of the
laboratory of the king, of Master Mechanic, was conferred upon Sir Samuel
Morland, a nobleman who, in his practical knowledge of mechanics and in
his ingenuity and fruitfulness of invention, was apparently almost equal to
Worcester. He was the son of a Berkshire clergyman, was educated at
Cambridge, where he studied mathematics with great interest, and entered
public life soon after. He served the Parliament under Cromwell, and
afterward went to Geneva. He was of a decidedly literary turn of mind, and
wrote a history of the Piedmont churches, which gave him great repute with
the Protestant party. He was induced subsequently, on the accession of
Charles II., to take service under that monarch, whose gratitude he had
earned by revealing a plot for his assassination.

He received his appointment and a baronetcy in 1660, and immediately
commenced making experiments, partly at his own expense and partly at
the cost of the royal exchequer, which were usually not at all remunerative.
He built hand fire-engines of various kinds, taking patents on them, which
brought him as small profits as did his work for the king, and invented the
speaking-trumpet, calculating machines, and a capstan. His house at
Vauxhall was full of curious devices, the products of his own ingenuity.
He devoted much attention to apparatus for raising water. His devices seem
to have usually been modifications of the now familiar force-pump. They
attracted much attention, and exhibitions were made of them before the
king and queen and the court. He was sent to France on business relating to
water-works erected for King Charles, and while in Paris he constructed
pumps and pumping apparatus for the satisfaction of Louis XIV. In his
book,[18] published in Paris in 1683, and presented to the king, and an
earlier manuscript,[19] still preserved in the British Museum, Morland
shows a perfect familiarity with the power of steam. He says, in the latter:
“Water being evaporated by fire, the vapors require a greater space (about
two thousand times) than that occupied by the water; and, rather than
submit to imprisonment, it will burst a piece of ordnance. But, being
controlled according to the laws of statics, and, by science, reduced to the
measure of weight and balance, it bears its burden peaceably (like good
horses), and thus may be of great use to mankind, especially for the raising
of water, according to the following table, which indicates the number of
pounds which may be raised six inches, 1,800 times an hour, by cylinders
half-filled with water, and of the several diameters and depths of said
cylinders.”
He then gives the following table, a comparison of which with modern
tables proves Morland to have acquired a very considerable and tolerably
accurate knowledge of the volume and pressure of saturated steam:
Cylinders. Pounds.
Diameter in Feet. Depth in Feet. Weight to be Raised.
1 2 15
2 4 120
3 6 405
4 8 960
5 10 1,876

6 10 3,240
1 12 3,240
Num- 2 12 6,480
ber 3 12 9,720
of 4 12 12,960
cylin-
5 12 16,200
ders
having 6 12 19,440
a 7 12 22,680
dia- 8 12 25,920
meter 9 12 29,190
of 10 12 32,400
6 20 12 64,800
feet 30 12 97,200
and 40 12 129,600
a
50 12 162,000
depth
of 60 12 194,400
12 70 12 226,800
feet. 80 12 259,200
90 12 291,600

The rate of enlargement of volume in the conversion of water into steam, as
given in Morland’s book, appears remarkably accurate when compared with
statements made by other early experimenters. Desaguliers gave the ratio of
volumes at 14,000, and this was accepted as correct for many years, and
until Watt’s experiments, which were quoted by Dr. Robison as giving the
ratio at between 1,800 and 1,900. Morland also states the “duty” of his
engines in the same manner in which it is stated by engineers to-day.
Morland must undoubtedly have been acquainted with the work of his
distinguished contemporary, Lord Worcester, and his apparatus seems most
likely to have been a modification—perhaps improvement—of Worcester’s
engine. His house was at Vauxhall, and the establishment set up for the king
was in the neighborhood. It may be that Morland is to be credited with
greater success in the introduction of his predecessor’s apparatus than the
inventor himself.
Dr. Hutton considered this book to have been the earliest account of the
steam-engine, and accepts the date—1682—as that of the invention, and
adds, that “the project seems to have remained obscure in both countries till
1699, when Savery, who probably knew more of Morland’s invention than

he owned, obtained a patent,” etc. We have, however, scarcely more
complete or accurate knowledge of the extent of Morland’s work, and of its
real value, than of that of Worcester. Morland died in 1696, at
Hammersmith, not far from London, and his body lies in Fulham church.
From this time forward the minds of many mechanicians were earnestly at
work on this problem—the raising of water by aid of steam. Hitherto,
although many ingenious toys, embodying the principles of the steam-
engine separately, and sometimes to a certain extent collectively, had been
proposed, and even occasionally constructed, the world was only just ready
to profit by the labors of inventors in this direction.
But, at the end of the seventeenth century, English miners were beginning
to find the greatest difficulty in clearing their shafts of the vast quantities of
water which they were meeting at the considerable depths to which they
had penetrated, and it had become a matter of vital importance to them to
find a more powerful aid in that work than was then available. They were,
therefore, by their necessities stimulated to watch for, and to be prepared
promptly to take advantage of, such an invention when it should be offered
them.
The experiments of Papin, and the practical application of known principles
by Savery, placed the needed apparatus in their hands.

Thomas Savery.

Thomas Savery was a member of a well-known family of Devonshire,
England, and was born at Shilston, about 1650. He was well educated, and
became a military engineer. He exhibited great fondness for mechanics, and
for mathematics and natural philosophy, and gave much time to
experimenting, to the contriving of various kinds of apparatus, and to
invention. He constructed a clock, which still remains in the family, and is
considered an ingenious piece of mechanism, and is said to be of excellent
workmanship.
He invented and patented an arrangement of paddle-wheels, driven by a
capstan[20] for propelling vessels in calm weather, and spent some time
endeavoring to secure its adoption by the British Admiralty and the Navy
Board, but met with no success. The principal objector was the Surveyor of
the Navy, who dismissed Savery, with a remark which illustrates a spirit
which, although not yet extinct, is less frequently met with in the public

service now than then: “What have interloping people, that have no concern
with us, to do to pretend to contrive or invent things for us?”[21] Savery then
fitted his apparatus into a small vessel, and exhibited its operation on the
Thames. The invention was never introduced into the navy, however.
It was after this time that Savery became the inventor of a steam-engine. It
is not known whether he was familiar with the work of Worcester, and of
earlier inventors. Desaguliers[22] states that he had read the book of
Worcester, and that he subsequently endeavored to destroy all evidence of
the anticipation of his own invention by the marquis by buying up all copies
of the century that he could find, and burning them. The story is scarcely
credible. A comparison of the drawings given of the two engines exhibits,
nevertheless, a striking resemblance; and, assuming that of the marquis’s
engine to be correct, Savery is to be given credit for the finally successful
introduction of the “semi-omnipotent” “water-commanding” engine of
Worcester.
The most important advance in actual construction, therefore, was made by
Thomas Savery. The constant and embarrassing expense, and the
engineering difficulties presented by the necessity of keeping the British
mines, and particularly the deep pits of Cornwall, free from water, and the
failure of every attempt previously made to provide effective and
economical pumping-machinery, were noted by Savery, who, July 25, 1698,
patented the design of the first engine which was ever actually employed in
this work. A working-model was submitted to the Royal Society of London
in 1699, and successful experiments were made with it. Savery spent a
considerable time in planning his engine and in perfecting it, and states that
he expended large sums of money upon it.
Having finally succeeded in satisfying himself with its operation, he
exhibited a model “Fire-Engine,” as it was called in those days, before King
William III. and his court, at Hampton Court, in 1698, and obtained his
patent without delay. The title of the patent reads: “A grant to Thomas
Savery, Gentl., of the sole exercise of a new invention by him invented, for
raising of water, and occasioning motion to all sorts of mill-works, by the
impellant force of fire, which will be of great use for draining mines,
serving towns with water, and for the working of all sorts of mills, when

they have not the benefit of water nor
constant winds; to hold for 14 years; with
usual clauses.”
Savery now went about the work of
introducing his invention in a way which
is in marked contrast with that usually
adopted by the inventors of that time. He
commenced a systematic and successful
system of advertisement, and lost no
opportunity of making his plans not
merely known, but well understood, even
in matters of detail. The Royal Society
was then fully organized, and at one of its
meetings he obtained permission to appear
with his model “fire-engine” and to
Fig. 11.—Savery’s Model, 1698. explain its operation; and, as the minutes
read, “Mr. Savery entertained the Society
with showing his engine to raise water by the force of fire. He was thanked
for showing the experiment, which succeeded, according to expectation,
and was approved of.” He presented to the Society a drawing and
specifications of his machine, and “The Transactions”[23] contain a
copperplate engraving and the description of his model. It consisted of a
furnace, A, heating a boiler, B, which was connected by pipes, C C, with
two copper receivers, D D. There were led from the bottom of these
receivers branch pipes, F F, which turned upward, and were united to form
a rising main, or “forcing-pipe,” G. From the top of each receiver was led a
pipe, which was turned downward, and these pipes united to form a suction-
pipe, which was led down to the bottom of the well or reservoir from which
the water was to be drawn. The maximum lift allowable was stated at 24
feet.
The engine was worked as follows: Steam is raised in the boiler, B, and a
cock, C, being opened, a receiver, D, is filled with steam. Closing the cock,
C, the steam condensing in the receiver, a vacuum is created, and the
pressure of the atmosphere forces the water up, through the supply-pipe,
from the well into the receiver. Opening the cock, C, again, the check-valve
in the suction-pipe at E closes, the steam drives the water out through the

forcing-pipe, G, the clack-valve, E, on that pipe opening before it, and the
liquid is expelled from the top of the pipe. The valve, C, is again closed; the
steam again condenses, and the engine is worked as before. While one of
the two receivers is discharging, the other is filling, as in the machine of the
Marquis of Worcester, and thus the steam is drawn from the boiler with
tolerable regularity, and the expulsion of water takes place with similar
uniformity, the two systems of receivers and pipes being worked alternately
by the single boiler.

Fig. 12.—Savery’s Engine, 1698.

In another and still simpler little machine,[24] which he erected at
Kensington (Fig. 12), the same general plan was adopted, combining a
suction-pipe, A, 16 feet long and 3 inches in diameter; a single receiver, B,
capable of containing 13 gallons; a boiler, C, of about 40 gallons capacity; a
forcing-pipe, D, 42 feet high, with the connecting pipe and cocks, E F G;
and the method of operation was as already described, except that surface-
condensation was employed, the cock, F, being arranged to shower water
from the rising main over the receiver, as shown. Of the first engine Switzer
says: “I have heard him say myself, that the very first time he played, it was
in a potter’s house at Lambeth, where, though it was a small engine, yet it

(the water) forced its way through the roof, and struck off the tiles in a
manner that surprised all the spectators.”
The Kensington engine cost £50, and raised 3,000 gallons per hour, filling
the receiver four times a minute, and required a bushel of coal per day.
Switzer remarks: “It must be noted that this engine is but a small one in
comparison with many others that are made for coal-works; but this is
sufficient for any reasonable family, and other uses required of it in
watering all middling gardens.” He cautions the operator: “When you have
raised water enough, and you design to leave off working the engine, take
away all the fire from under the boiler, and open the cock (connected to the
funnel) to let out the steam, which would otherwise, were it to remain
confined, perhaps burst the engine.”
With the intention of making his invention more generally known, and
hoping to introduce it as a pumping-engine in the mining districts of
Cornwall, Savery wrote a prospectus for general circulation, which contains
the earliest account of the later and more effective form of engine. He
entitled his pamphlet “The Miner’s Friend; or, A Description of an Engine
to raise Water by Fire described, and the Manner of fixing it in Mines, with
an Account of the several Uses it is applicable to, and an Answer to the
Objections against it.” It was printed in London in 1702, for S. Crouch, and
was distributed among the proprietors and managers of mines, who were
then finding the flow of water at depths so great as, in some cases, to bar
further progress. In many cases, the cost of drainage left no satisfactory
margin of profit. In one mine, 500 horses were employed raising water, by
the then usual method of using horse-gins and buckets.
The approval of the King and of the Royal Society, and the countenance of
the mine-adventurers of England, were acknowledged by the author, who
addressed his pamphlet to them.
The engraving of the engine was reproduced, with the description, in
Harris’s “Lexicon Technicum,” 1704; in Switzer’s “Hydrostatics,” 1729;
and in Desaguliers’s “Experimental Philosophy,” 1744.
The sketch which here follows is a neater engraving of the same machine.
Savery’s engine is shown in Fig. 13, as described by Savery himself, in
1702, in “The Miner’s Friend.”

Fig. 13.—Savery’s Engine, a. d. 1702.

L is the boiler in which steam is raised, and through the pipes O O it is
alternately let into the vessels P P.
Suppose it to pass into the left-hand vessel first. The valve M being closed,
and R being opened, the water contained in P is driven out and up the pipe S
to the desired height, where it is discharged.
The valve R is then closed, and the valve in the pipe O; the valve M is next
opened, and condensing water is turned upon the exterior of P by the cock
Y, leading water from the cistern X. As the steam contained in P is
condensed, forming a vacuum there, a fresh charge of water is driven by
atmospheric pressure up the pipe T.

Meantime, steam from the boiler has been let into the right-hand vessel P,
the cock W having been first closed, and R opened.
The charge of water is driven out through the lower pipe and the cock R,
and up the pipe S as before, while the other vessel is refilling preparatory to
acting in its turn.
The two vessels are thus alternately charged and discharged, as long as is
necessary.
Savery’s method of supplying his boiler with water was at once simple and
ingenious.
The small boiler, D, is filled with water from any convenient source, as
from the stand-pipe, S. A fire is then built under it, and, when the pressure
of steam in D becomes greater than in the main boiler, L, a communication
is opened between their lower ends, and the water passes, under pressure,
from the smaller to the larger boiler, which is thus “fed” without
interrupting the work. G and N are gauge-cocks, by which the height of
water in the boilers is determined; they were first adopted by Savery.
Here we find, therefore, the first really practicable and commercially
valuable steam-engine. Thomas Savery is entitled to the credit of having
been the first to introduce a machine in which the power of heat, acting
through the medium of steam, was rendered generally useful.
It will be noticed that Savery, like the Marquis of Worcester, used a boiler
separate from the water-reservoir.
He added to the “water-commanding engine” of the marquis the system of
surface-condensation, by which he was enabled to charge his vessels when
it became necessary to refill them; and added, also, the secondary boiler,
which enabled him to supply the working-boiler with water without
interrupting its work.
The machine was thus made capable of working uninterruptedly for a
period of time only limited by its own decay.
Savery never fitted his boilers with safety-valves, although it was done
earlier by Papin; and in deep mines he was compelled to make use of higher

pressures than his rudely-constructed boilers could safely bear.
Savery’s engine was used at a number of mines, and also for supplying
water to towns; some large estates, country houses, and other private
establishments, employed them for the same purpose. They did not,
however, come into general use among the mines, because, according to
Desaguliers, they were apprehensive of danger from the explosion of the
boilers or receivers. As Desaguliers wrote subsequently: “Savery made a
great many experiments to bring this machine to perfection, and did erect
several which raised water very well for gentlemen’s seats, but could not
succeed for mines, or supplying towns, where the water was to be raised
very high and in great quantities; for then the steam required being boiled
up to such a strength as to be ready to tear all the vessels to pieces.” “I have
known Captain Savery, at York’s buildings, to make steam eight or ten
times stronger than common air; and then its heat was so great that it would
melt common soft solder, and its strength so great as to blow open several
joints of the machine; so that he was forced to be at the pains and charge to
have all his joints soldered with spelter or hard solder.”
Although there were other difficulties in the application of the Savery
engine to many kinds of work, this was the most serious one, and
explosions did occur with fatal results. The writer just quoted relates, in his
“Experimental Philosophy,” that a man who was ignorant of the nature of
the engine undertook to work a machine which Desaguliers had provided
with a safety-valve to avoid this very danger, “and, having hung the weight
at the further end of the steelyard, in order to collect more steam in order to
make his work the quicker, he hung also a very heavy plumber’s iron upon
the end of the steelyard; the consequence proved fatal; for, after some time,
the steam, not being able, with the safety-cock, to raise up the steelyard
loaded with all this unusual weight, burst the boiler with a great explosion,
and killed the poor man.” This is probably the earliest record of a steam-
boiler explosion.
Savery proposed to use his engine for driving mills; but there is no evidence
that he actually made such an application of the machine, although it was
afterward so applied by others. The engine was not well adapted to the
drainage of surface-land, as the elevation of large quantities of water
through small heights required great capacity of receivers, or compelled the

use of several engines for each case. The filling of the receivers, in such
cases, also compelled the heating of large areas of cold and wet metallic
surfaces by the steam at each operation, and thus made the work
comparatively wasteful of fuel. Where used in mines, they were necessarily
placed within 30 feet or less of the lowest level, and were therefore exposed
to danger of submergence whenever, by any accident, the water should rise
above that level. In many cases this would result in the loss of the engine,
and the mine would remain “drowned,” unless another engine should be
procured to pump it out. Where the mine was deep, the water was forced by
the pressure of steam from the level of the engine-station to the top of the
lift. This compelled the use of pressures of several atmospheres in many
cases; and a pressure of three atmospheres, or about 45 pounds per square
inch, was considered, in those days, as about the maximum pressure
allowable. This difficulty was met by setting a separate engine at every 60
or 80 feet, and pumping the water from one to the other. If any one engine
in the set became disabled, the pumping was interrupted until that one
machine could be repaired. The size of Savery’s largest boilers was not
great, their maximum diameter not exceeding two and a half feet. This
made it necessary to provide several of his engines, usually, for a single
mine, and at each level. The first cost and the expense of repairs were
exceedingly serious items. The expense and danger, either real or apparent,
were thus sufficient to deter many from their use, and the old method of
raising water by horse-power was adhered to.
The consumption of fuel with these engines was very great. The steam was
not generated economically, as the boilers used were of such simple forms
as only could then be produced, and presented too little heating surface to
secure a very complete transfer of heat from the gases of combustion to the
water within the boiler. This waste in the generation of steam in these
uneconomical boilers was followed by still more serious waste in its
application, without expansion, to the expulsion of water from a metallic
receiver, the cold and wet sides of which absorbed heat with the greatest
avidity. The great mass of the liquid was not, however, heated by the steam,
and was expelled at the temperature at which it was raised from below.
Savery quaintly relates the action of his machine in “The Miner’s Friend,”
and so exactly, that a better description could scarcely be asked: “The steam
acts upon the surface of the water in the receiver, which surface only being

heated by the steam, it does not condense, but the steam gravitates or
presses with an elastic quality like air, and still increasing its elasticity or
spring, until it counterpoises, or rather exceeds, the weight of the column of
water in the force-pipe, which then it will necessarily drive up that pipe; the
steam then takes some time to recover its power, but it will at last discharge
the water out at the top of the pipe. You may see on the outside of the
receiver how the water goes out, as well as if it were transparent; for, so far
as the steam is contained within the vessel, it is dry without, and so hot as
scarcely to endure the least touch of the hand; but so far as the water is
inside the vessel, it will be cold and wet on the outside, where any water has
fallen on it; which cold and moisture vanish as fast as the steam takes the
place of the water in its descent.”
After Savery’s death, in 1716, several of these engines were erected in
which some improvements were introduced. Dr. Desaguliers, in 1718, built
a Savery engine, in which he avoided some defects which he, with Dr.
Gravesande, had noted two years earlier. They had then proposed to adopt
the arrangement of a single receiver which had been used by Savery
himself, as already described, finding, by experiment on a model which
they had made for the purpose, that one could be discharged three times,
while the same boiler would empty two receivers but once each. In their
arrangement, the steam was shut back in the boiler while the receiver was
filling with water, and a high pressure thus accumulated, instead of being
turned into the second receiver, and the pressure thus kept comparatively
low.

Fig. 14.—Papin’s Two-Way Cock.

In the engine built in 1718, Desaguliers used a spherical boiler, which he
provided with the lever safety-valve already applied by Papin, and adopted
a comparatively small receiver—one-fifth the capacity of the boiler—of
slender cylindrical form, and attached a pipe leading the water for
condensation into the vessel, and effected its distribution by means of the
“rose,” or a “sprinkling-plate,” such as is still frequently used in modern
engines having jet-condensers. This substitution of jet for surface-
condensation was of very great advantage, securing great promptness in the
formation of a vacuum and a rapid filling of the receiver. A “two-way cock”
admitted steam to the receiver, or, being turned the other way, admitted the
cold condensing water. The dispersion of the water in minute streams or
drops was a very important detail, not only as securing great rapidity of
condensation, but enabling the designer to employ a comparatively small
receiver or condenser.

Fig. 15.—Engine built by Desaguliers in 1718.

The engine is shown in Fig. 15, which is copied from the “Experimental
Philosophy” of Desaguliers.
The receiver, A, is connected to the boiler, B, by a steam-pipe, C,
terminating at the two-way cock, D; the “forcing-pipe,” E, has at its foot a
check-valve, F, and the valve G is a similar check at the head of the
suction-pipe. H is a strainer, to prevent the ingress of chips or other bodies
carried to the pipe by the current; the cap above the valves is secured by a
bridle, or stirrup, and screw, I, and may be readily removed to clear the
valves or to renew them; K is the handle of the two-way cock; M is the
injection-cock, and is kept open during the working of the engine; L is the
chimney-flue; N and O are gauge-cocks fitted to pipes leading to the proper
depths within the boiler, the water-line being somewhere between the levels
of their lower ends; P is a lever safety-valve, as first used on the “Digester”
of Papin; R is the reservoir into which the water is pumped; T is the flue,
leading spirally about the boiler from the furnace, V, to the chimney; Y is a

cock fitted in a pipe through which the rising-main may be filled from the
reservoir, should injection-water be needed when that pipe is empty.
Seven of these engines were built, the first of which was made for the Czar
of Russia. Its boiler had a capacity of “five or six hogsheads,” and the
receiver, “holding one hogshead,” was filled and emptied four times a
minute. The water was raised “by suction” 29 feet, and forced by steam
pressure 11 feet higher.
Another engine built at about this time, to raise water 29 feet “by suction,”
and to force it 24 feet higher, made 6 “strokes” per minute, and, when
forcing water but 6 or 8 feet, made 8 or 9 strokes per minute. Twenty-five
years later a workman overloaded the safety-valve of this engine, by
placing the weight at the end and then adding “a very heavy plumber’s
iron.” The boiler exploded, killing the attendant.
Desaguliers says that one of these engines, capable of raising ten tons an
hour 38 feet, in 1728 or 1729, cost £80, exclusive of the piping.
Blakely, in 1766, patented an improved Savery engine, in which he
endeavored to avoid the serious loss due to condensation of the steam by
direct contact with the water, by interposing a cushion of oil, which floated
upon the water and prevented the contact of the steam with the surface of
the water beneath it. He also used air for the same purpose, sometimes in
double receivers, one supported on the other. These plans did not, however,
prove satisfactory.
Rigley, of Manchester, England, soon after erected Savery engines, and
applied them to the driving of mills, by pumping water into reservoirs, from
whence it returned to the wells or ponds from which it had been raised,
turning water-wheels as it descended.
Such an arrangement was in operation many years at the works of a Mr.
Kiers, St. Pancras, London. It is described in detail, and illustrated, in
Nicholson’s “Philosophical Journal,” vol. i., p. 419. It had a “wagon-boiler”
7 feet long, 5 wide, and 5 deep; the wheel was 18 feet in diameter, and
drove the lathes and other machinery of the works. In this engine Blakely’s
plan of injecting air was adopted. The injection-valve was a clack, which
closed automatically when the vacuum was formed.

The engine consumed 6 or 7 bushels of good coals, and made 10 strokes per
minute, raising 70 cubic feet of water 14 feet, and developing nearly 3
horse-power.
Many years after Savery’s death, in 1774, Smeaton made the first duty-trials
of engines of this kind. He found that an engine having a cylindrical
receiver 16 inches in diameter and 22 feet high, discharging the water raised
14 feet above the surface of the water in the well, making 12 strokes, and
raising 100 cubic feet per minute, developed 22∕3 horse-power, and
consumed 3 hundredweight of coals in four hours. Its duty was, therefore,
5,250,000 pounds raised one foot per bushel of 84 pounds of coals, or
62,500 “foot-pounds” of work per pound of fuel. An engine of slightly
greater size gave a duty about 5 per cent. greater.
When Louis XIV. revoked the edict of Nantes, by which Henry IV. had
guaranteed protection to the Protestants of France, the terrible persecutions
at once commenced drove from the kingdom some of its greatest men.
Among these was Denys Papin.
It was at about this time that the influence of the atmospheric pressure on
the boiling-point began to be observed, Dr. Hooke having found that the
boiling-point was a fixed temperature under the ordinary pressure of the
atmosphere, and the increase in temperature and pressure of steam when
confined having been shown by Papin with his “Digester.”

Denys Papin.

Denys Papin was of a family which had attached itself to the Protestant
Church; but he was given his education in the school of the Jesuits at Blois,
and there acquired his knowledge of mathematics. His medical education
was given him at Paris, although he probably received his degree at
Orleans. He settled in Paris in 1672, with the intention of practising his
profession, and devoted all his spare time, apparently, to the study of
physics.
Meantime, that distinguished philosopher, Huyghens, the inventor of the
clock and of the gunpowder-engine, had been induced by the linen-draper’s
apprentice, Colbert, now the most trusted adviser of the king, to take up his
residence in Paris, and had been made one of the earliest members of the
Academy of Science, which was founded at about that time. Papin became
an assistant to Huyghens, and aided him in his experiments in mechanics,
having been introduced by Madame Colbert, who was also a native of
Blois. Here he devised several modifications of the instruments of

Guericke, and printed a description of them.[25] This little book was
presented to the Academy, and very favorably noticed. Papin now became
well known among contemporary men of science at Paris, and was well
received everywhere. Soon after, in the year 1675, as stated by the Journal
des Savants, he left Paris and took up his residence in England, where he
very soon made the acquaintance of Robert Boyle, the founder, and of the
members of the Royal Society. Boyle speaks of Papin as having gone to
England in the hope of finding a place in which he could satisfactorily
pursue his favorite studies.
Boyle himself had already been long engaged in the study of pneumatics,
and had been especially interested in the investigations which had been
original with Guericke. He admitted young Papin into his laboratory, and
the two philosophers worked together at these attractive problems. It was
while working with Boyle that Papin invented the double air-pump and the
air-gun.
Papin and his work had now become so well known, and he had attained so
high a position in science, that he was nominated for membership in the
Royal Academy, and was elected December 16, 1680. He at once took his
place among the most talented and distinguished of the great men of his
time.

Fig. 16.—Papin’s Digester, 1680.

He probably invented his “Digester” while in England, and it was first
described in a brochure written in English, under the title, “The New
Digester.” It was subsequently published in Paris.[26] This was a vessel, B
(Fig. 16), capable of being tightly closed by a screw, D, and a lid, C, in
which food could be cooked in water raised by a furnace, A, to the
temperature due to any desired safe pressure of steam. The pressure was
determined and limited by a weight, W, on the safety-valve lever, G. It is
probable that this essential attachment to the steam-boiler had previously
been used for other purposes; but Papin is given the credit of having first
made use of it to control the pressure of steam.
From England, Papin went to Italy, where he accepted membership and held
official position in the Italian Academy of Science. Papin remained in
Venice two years, and then returned to England. Here, in 1687, he
announced one of his inventions, which is just becoming of great value in
the arts. He proposed to transmit power from one point to another, over

long distances, by the now well-known “pneumatic” method. At the point
where power was available, he exhausted a chamber by means of an air-
pump, and, leading a pipe to the distant point at which it was to be utilized,
there withdrew the air from behind a piston, and the pressure of the air upon
the latter caused it to recede into the cylinder, in which it was fitted, raising
a weight, of which the magnitude was proportionate to the size of the piston
and the degree of exhaustion. Papin was not satisfactorily successful in his
experiments; but he had created the germ of the modern system of
pneumatic transmission of power. His disappointment at the result of his
efforts to utilize the system was very great, and he became despondent, and
anxious to change his location again.
In 1687 he was offered the chair of Mathematics at Marburg by Charles, the
Landgrave of Upper Hesse, and, accepting the appointment, went to
Germany. He remained in Germany many years, and continued his
researches with renewed activity and interest. His papers were published in
the “Acta Eruditorum” at Leipsic, and in the “Philosophical Transactions”
at London. It was while at Marburg that his papers descriptive of his
method of pneumatic transmission of power were printed.[27]
In the “Acta Eruditorum” of 1688 he exhibited a practicable plan, in which
he exhausted the air from a set of engines or pumps by means of pumps
situated at a long distance from the point of application of the power, and at
the place where the prime mover—which was in this case a water-wheel—
was erected.
After his arrival at the University of Marburg, Papin exhibited to his
colleagues in the faculty a modification of Huyghens’s gunpowder-engine,
in which he had endeavored to obtain a more perfect vacuum than had
Huyghens in the first of these machines. Disappointed in this, he finally
adopted the expedient of employing steam to displace the air, and to
produce, by its condensation, the perfect vacuum which he sought; and he
thus produced the first steam-engine with a piston, and the first piston
steam-engine, in which condensation was produced to secure a vacuum. It
was described in the “Acta” of Leipsic,[28] in June, 1690, under the title,
“Nova Methodus ad vires motrices validissimas leri pretio comparandeo”
(“A New Method of securing cheaply Motive Power of considerable
Magnitude”). He describes first the gunpowder-engine, and continues by

stating that, “until now, all experiments have been unsuccessful; and after
the combustion of the exploded powder, there always remains in the
cylinder about one-fifth its volume of air.” He says that he has endeavored
to arrive by another route at the same end; and “as, by a natural property of
water, a small quantity of this liquid, vaporized by the action of heat,
acquires an elasticity like that of the air, and returns to the liquid state again
on cooling, without retaining the least trace of its elastic force,” he thought
that it would be easy to construct machines in which, “by means of a
moderate heat, and without much expense,” a more perfect vacuum could
be produced than could be secured by the use of gunpowder.
The first machine of Papin (Fig. 17) was very
similar to the gunpowder-engine already described
as the invention of Huyghens. In place of
gunpowder, a small quantity of water is placed at
the bottom of the cylinder, A; a fire is built
beneath it, “the bottom being made of very thin
metal,” and the steam formed soon raises the
piston, B, to the top, where a latch, E, engaging a
notch in the piston-rod, H, holds it up until it is
desired that it shall drop. The fire being removed,
the steam condenses, and a vacuum is formed
below the piston, and the latch, E, being
disengaged, the piston is driven down by the
superincumbent atmosphere and raises the weight
which has been, meantime, attached to a rope, L,
passing from the piston-rod over pulleys, T T. The
Fig. 17.—Papin’s Engine. machine had a cylinder two and a half inches in
diameter, and raised 60 pounds once a minute; and
Papin calculated that a machine of a little more than two feet diameter of
cylinder and of four feet stroke would raise 8,000 pounds four feet per
minute—i. e., that it would yield about one horse-power.
The inventor claimed that this new machine would be found useful in
relieving mines from water, in throwing bombs, in ship-propulsion,
attaching revolving paddles—i. e., paddle-wheels—to the sides of the
vessel, which wheels were to be driven by several of his engines, in order to

secure continuous motion, the piston-rods being fitted with racks which
were to engage ratchet-wheels on the paddle-shafts.
“The principal difficulty,” he says, answering anticipated objections, “is that
of making these large cylinders.”
In a reprint describing his invention, in 1695, Papin gives a description of a
“newly-invented furnace,” a kind of fire-box steam-boiler, in which the fire,
completely surrounded by water, makes steam so rapidly that his engine
could be driven at the rate of four strokes per minute by the steam supplied
by it.
Papin also proposed the use of a peculiar form of furnace with this engine,
which, embodying as it does some suggestions that very probably have
since been attributed to later inventors, deserves special notice. In this
furnace, Papin proposed to burn his fuel on a grate within a furnace
arranged with a down-draught, the air entering above the grate, passing
down through the fire, and from the ash-pit through a side flue to the
chimney. In starting the fire, the coal was laid on the grate, covered with
wood, and the latter was ignited, the flame, passing downward through the
coal, igniting that in turn, and, as claimed by Papin, the combustion was
complete, and the formation of smoke was entirely prevented. He states, in
“Acta Eruditorum,” that the heat was intense, the saving of fuel very great,
and that the only difficulty was to find a refractory material which would
withstand the high temperature attained.
This is the first fire-box and flue boiler of which we have record. The
experiment is supposed to have led Papin to suggest the use of a hot-blast,
as practised by Neilson more than a century later, for reducing metals from
their ores.
Papin made another boiler having a flue winding through the water-space,
and presenting a heating surface of nearly 80 square feet. The flue had a
length of 24 feet, and was about 10 inches square. It is not stated what were
the maximum pressures carried on these boilers; but it is known that Papin
had used very high pressures in his digesters—probably between 1,200 and
1,500 pounds per square inch.

In the year 1705, Leibnitz, then visiting England, had seen a Savery engine,
and, on his return, described it to Papin, sending him a sketch of the
machine. Papin read the letter and exhibited the sketch to the Landgrave of
Hesse, and Charles at once urged him to endeavor to perfect his own
machine, and to continue the researches which he had been intermittently
pursuing since the earlier machine had been exhibited in public.
In a small pamphlet printed at Cassel in 1707,[29] Papin describes a new
form of engine, in which he discards the original plan of a modified
Huyghens engine, with tight-fitting piston and cylinder, raising its load by
indirect action, and makes a modified Savery engine, which he calls the
“Elector’s Engine,” in honor of his patron. This is the engine shown in the
engraving, and as proposed to be used by him in turning a water-wheel.

Fig. 18.—Papin’s Engine and Water-Wheel, a. d. 1707.

The sketch is that given by the inventor in his memoir. It consists (Fig. 18)
of a steam-boiler, a, from which steam is led through the cock, c, to the
working cylinder, n n. The water beneath the floating-piston, h, which latter
serves simply as a cushion to protect the steam from sudden condensation
or contact with the water, is forced into the vessel r r, which is a large air-
chamber, and which serves to render the outflow of water comparatively

uniform, and the discharge occurs by means of the pipe q, from which the
water rises to the desired height. A fresh supply of water is introduced
through the funnel k, after condensation of the steam in n n, and the
operation of expulsion is repeated.
This machine is evidently a retrogression, and Papin, after having earned
the honor of having invented the first steam-engine of the typical form
which has since become so universally applied, forfeited that credit by his
evident ignorance of its superiority over existing devices, and by attempting
unsuccessfully to perfect the inferior device of another inventor.
Subsequently, Papin made an attempt to apply the steam-engine to the
propulsion of vessels, the account of which will be given in the chapter on
Steam-Navigation.
Again disappointed, Papin once more visited England, to renew his
acquaintance with the savans of the Royal Society; but Boyle had died
during the period which Papin had spent in Germany, and the unhappy and
disheartened inventor and philosopher died in 1810, without having seen
any one of his many devices and ingenious inventions a practical success.

[6] The British Museum contains four [18] “Elevation des Eaux par toute sorte de
manuscript copies of Hero’s “Pneumatics,” Machines réduite à la Mesure au Poids et à la
which were written in the fifteenth and Balance, présentée a Sa Majesté Très
sixteenth centuries. These manuscripts have Chrétienne, par le Chevalier Morland,
been examined with great care, and a Gentilhomme Ordinaire de la Chambre
translation from them prepared by Prof. J. G. Privée et Maistre de Mechaniques du Roy de
Greenwood, and published at the desire of la Grande Bretagne, 1683.”
Mr. Bennett Woodcroft, the author of a
valuable little treatise on “Steam [19] “Les Principes de la Nouvelle Force de
Navigation.” This is, so far as the author is Feu, inventée par le Chevalier Morland, l’an
aware, the only existing English translation 1682, et présentée a Sa Majesté Très
of any portion of Hero’s works. Chrétienne, 1683.”

[7] Stuart’s “Anecdotes.” [20] Harris, “Lexicon Technicum,” London,
1710.
[8] “Berg-Postilla, oder Sarepta von
Bergwerk und Metallen.” Nuremberg, 1571. [21] “Navigation Improved; or, The Art of
Rowing Ships of all rates in Calms, with a
[9] “History of the Steam-Engine,” 1825. more Easy, Swift, and Steady Motion, than
Oars can,” etc., etc. By Thomas Savery,
[10] “Theatrum Instrumentorum et Gent. London, 1698.
Machinarum, Jacobi Bessoni, cum Franc
Beroaldus, figuarum declaratione [22] “Experimental Philosophy,” vol. ii., p.
demonstrativa.” Lugduni, 1578. 465.

[11] “Le diverse et artificiose machine del [23] “Philosophical Transactions, No. 252.”
Capitano Agostino Ramelli, del Ponte della Weld’s “Royal Society,” vol. i., p. 357.
Prefia.” Paris, 1588. Lowthorp’s “Abridgment,” vol. i.
[12] “Pneumaticorum libri tres,” etc., 4to. [24] Bradley, “New Improvements of
Naples, 1601. “I Tre Libri de’ Spiritali.” Planting and Gardening.” Switzer,
Napoli, 1606. “Hydrostatics,” 1729.
[13] “Le Machine deverse del Signior [25] “Nouvelles Expériences du Vuide, avec
Giovanni Branca, cittadino Romano, la description des Machines qui servent à le
Ingegniero, Architetto della Sta. Casa di faire.” Paris, 1674.
Loretto.” Roma, MDCXXIX.
[26] “La manière d’amollir les os et de faire
[14] Rymer’s “Fœdera,” Sanderson. cuire toutes sortes de viandes,” etc.
Ewbank’s “Hydraulics,” p. 419.
[27] “Recueil des diverses Pieces touchant
[15] “Anecdotes of the Steam-Engine,” vol. quelques Nouvelles Machines et autres Sujets
i., p. 61. Philosophiques,” M. D. Papin. Cassel, 1695.
[16] Stuart’s “Anecdotes.” [28] “Acta Eruditorum,” Leipsic, 1690.
[17] “Pendule Perpetuelle, avec la manière [29] “Nouvelle manière d’élever l’Eau par la
d’élever d’eau par le moyen de la poudre à Force du Feu, mis en Lumière,” par D. Papin.
canon,” Paris, 1678. Cassel, 1707.

CHAPTER II.
THE STEAM-ENGINE AS A TRAIN OF MECHANISM.

“The introduction of new Inventions seemeth to be the very chief of all human
Actions. The Benefits of new Inventions may extend to all Mankind universally; but
the Good of political Achievements can respect but some particular Cantons of Men;
these latter do not endure above a few Ages, the former forever. Inventions make all
Men happy, without either Injury or Damage to any one single Person. Furthermore,
new Inventions are, as it were, new Erections and Imitations of God’s own Works.”—
Bacon.

The Modern Type, as Developed by Newcomen, Beighton, and
Smeaton.

At the beginning of the eighteenth century every element of the modern
type of steam-engine had been separately invented and practically applied.
The character of atmospheric pressure, and of the pressure of gases, had
become understood. The nature of a vacuum was known, and the method of
obtaining it by the displacement of the air by steam, and by the
condensation of the vapor, was understood. The importance of utilizing the
power of steam, and the application of condensation in the removal of
atmospheric pressure, was not only recognized, but had been actually and
successfully attempted by Morland, Papin, and Savery.
Mechanicians had succeeded in making steam-boilers capable of sustaining
any desired or any useful pressure, and Papin had shown how to make them
comparatively safe by the attachment of the safety-valve. They had made
steam-cylinders fitted with pistons, and had used such a combination in the
development of power.
It now only remained for the engineer to combine known forms of
mechanism in a practical machine which should be capable of economically
and conveniently utilizing the power of steam through the application of

now well-understood principles, and by the intelligent combination of
physical phenomena already familiar to scientific investigators.
Every essential fact and every vital principle had been learned, and every
one of the needed mechanical combinations had been successfully effected.
It was only requisite that an inventor should appear, capable of perceiving
that these known facts and combinations of mechanism, properly illustrated
in a working machine, would present to the world its greatest physical
blessing.
The defects of the simple engines constructed up to this time have been
noted as each has been described. None of them could be depended upon
for safe, economical, and continuous work. Savery’s was the most
successful of all. But the engine of Savery, even with the improvements of
Desaguliers, was unsafe where most needed, because of the high pressures
necessarily carried in its boilers when pumping from considerable depths; it
was uneconomical, in consequence of the great loss of heat in its forcing-
cylinders when the hot steam was surrounded at its entrance by colder
bodies; it was slow in operation, of great first cost, and expensive in first
cost and in repairs, as well as in its operation. It could not be relied upon to
do its work uninterruptedly, and was thus in many respects a very
unsatisfactory machine.
The man who finally effected a combination of the elements of the modern
steam-engine, and produced a machine which is unmistakably a true engine
—i. e., a train of mechanism consisting of several elementary pieces
combined in a train capable of transmitting a force applied at one end and
of communicating it to the resistance to be overcome at the other end—was
Thomas Newcomen, an “iron-monger” and blacksmith of Dartmouth,
England. The engine invented by him, and known as the “Atmospheric
Steam-Engine,” is the first of an entirely new type.
The old type of engine—the steam-engine as a simple machine—had been
given as great a degree of perfection, by the successive improvements of
Worcester, Savery, and Desaguliers, as it was probably capable of attaining
by any modification of its details. The next step was necessarily a complete
change of type; and to effect such a change, it was only necessary to
combine devices already known and successfully tried.

But little is known of the personal history of Newcomen. His position in life
was humble, and the inventor was not then looked upon as an individual of
even possible importance in the community. He was considered as one of an
eccentric class of schemers, and of an order which, concerning itself with
mechanical matters, held the lowest position in the class.
It is supposed that Savery’s engine was perfectly well known to Newcomen,
and that the latter may have visited Savery at his home in Modbury, which
was but fifteen miles from the residence of Newcomen. It is thought, by
some biographers of these inventors, that Newcomen was employed by
Savery in making the more intricate forgings of his engine. Harris, in his
“Lexicon Technicum,” states that drawings of the engine of Savery came
into the hands of Newcomen, who made a model of the machine, set it up in
his garden, and then attempted its improvement; but Switzer says that
Newcomen “was as early in his invention as Mr. Savery was in his.”
Newcomen was assisted in his experiments by John Calley, who, with him,
took out the patent. It has been stated that a visit to Cornwall, where they
witnessed the working of a Savery engine, first turned their attention to the
subject; but a friend of Savery has stated that Newcomen was as early with
his general plans as Savery.
After some discussion with Calley, Newcomen entered into correspondence
with Dr. Hooke, proposing a steam-engine to consist of a steam-cylinder
containing a piston similar to that of Papin’s, and to drive a separate pump,
similar to those generally in use where water was raised by horse or wind
power. Dr. Hooke advised and argued strongly against their plan, but,
fortunately, the obstinate belief of the unlearned mechanics was not
overpowered by the disquisitions of their distinguished correspondent, and
Newcomen and Calley attempted an engine on their peculiar plan. This
succeeded so well as to induce them to continue their labors, and, in 1705,
to patent,[30] in combination with Savery—who held the exclusive right to
practise surface-condensation, and who induced them to allow him an
interest with them—an engine combining a steam-cylinder and piston,
surface-condensation, a separate boiler, and separate pumps.

Fig. 19.—Newcomen’s Engine, a. d. 1705.

In the atmospheric-engine, as first designed, the slow process of
condensation by the application of the condensing water to the exterior of
the cylinder, to produce the vacuum, caused the strokes of the engine to take
place at very long intervals. An improvement was, however, soon effected,
which immensely increased the rapidity of condensation. A jet of water was
thrown directly into the cylinder, thus effecting for the Newcomen engine
just what Desaguliers had done for the Savery engine previously. As thus
improved, the Newcomen engine is shown in Fig. 19.
Here b is the boiler. Steam passes from it through the cock, d, and up into
the cylinder, a, equilibrating the pressure of the atmosphere, and allowing
the heavy pump-rod, k, to fall, and, by the greater weight acting through the
beam, i i, to raise the piston, s, to the position shown. The rod m carries a
counterbalance, if needed. The cock d being shut, f is then opened, and a jet

of water from the reservoir, g, enters the cylinder, producing a vacuum by
the condensation of the steam. The pressure of the air above the piston now
forces it down, again raising the pump-rods, and thus the engine works on
indefinitely.
The pipe h is used for the purpose of keeping the upper side of the piston
covered with water, to prevent air-leaks—a device of Newcomen. Two
gauge-cocks, c c, and a safety-valve, N, are represented in the figure, but it
will be noticed that the latter is quite different from the now usual form.
Here, the pressure used was hardly greater than that of the atmosphere, and
the weight of the valve itself was ordinarily sufficient to keep it down. The
condensing water, together with the water of condensation, flows off
through the open pipe p. Newcomen’s first engine made 6 or 8 strokes a
minute; the later and improved engines made 10 or 12.
The steam-engine has now assumed a form that somewhat resembles the
modern machine.
The Newcomen engine is seen at a glance to have been a combination of
earlier ideas. It was the engine of Huyghens, with its cylinder and piston as
improved by Papin, by the substitution of steam for the gases generated by
the explosion of gunpowder; still further improved by Newcomen and
Calley by the addition of the method of condensation used in the Savery
engine. It was further modified, with the object of applying it directly to the
working of the pumps of the mines by the introduction of the overhead
beam, from which the piston was suspended at one end and the pump-rod at
the other.
The advantages secured by this combination of inventions were many and
manifest. The piston not only gave economy by interposing itself between
the impelling and the resisting fluid, but, by affording opportunity to make
the area of piston as large as desired, it enabled Newcomen to use any
convenient pressure and any desired proportions for any proposed lift. The
removal of the water to be lifted from the steam-engine proper and handling
it with pumps, was an evident cause of very great economy of steam.
The disposal of the water to be raised in this way also permitted the
operations of condensation of steam, and the renewal of pressure on the
piston, to be made to succeed each other with rapidity, and enabled the

inventor to choose, unhampered, the device for securing promptly the
action of condensation.
Desaguliers, in his account of the introduction of the engine of Newcomen,
says that, with his coadjutor Calley, he “made several experiments in
private about the year 1710, and in the latter end of the year 1711 made
proposals to drain the water of a colliery at Griff, in Warwickshire, where
the proprietors employed 500 horses, at an expense of £900 a year; but,
their invention not meeting with the reception they expected, in March
following, through the acquaintance of Mr. Potter, of Bromsgrove, in
Worcestershire, they bargained to draw water for Mr. Back, of
Wolverhampton, where, after a great many laborious attempts, they did
make the engine work; but, not being either philosophers to understand the
reason, or mathematicians enough to calculate the powers and proportions
of the parts, they very luckily, by accident, found what they sought for.
“They were at a loss about the pumps, but, being so near Birmingham, and
having the assistance of so many admirable and ingenious workmen, they
came, about 1712, to the method of making the pump-valves, clacks, and
buckets, whereas they had but an imperfect notion of them before. One
thing is very remarkable: as they were at first working, they were surprised
to see the engine go several strokes, and very quick together, when, after a
search, they found a hole in the piston, which let the cold water in to
condense the steam in the inside of the cylinder, whereas, before, they had
always done it on the outside. They used before to work with a buoy to the
cylinder, inclosed in a pipe, which buoy rose when the steam was strong
and opened the injection, and made a stroke; thereby they were only
capable of giving 6, 8, or 10 strokes in a minute, till a boy, named
Humphrey Potter, in 1713, who attended the engine, added (what he called
a scoggan) a catch, that the beam always opened, and then it would go 15 or
16 strokes a minute. But, this being perplexed with catches and strings, Mr.
Henry Beighton, in an engine he had built at Newcastle-upon-Tyne in 1718,
took them all away but the beam itself, and supplied them in a much better
manner.”
In illustration of the application of the Newcomen engine to the drainage of
mines, Farey describes a small machine, of which the pump is 8 inches in
diameter, and the lift 162 feet. The column of water to be raised weighed

3,535 pounds. The steam-piston was made 2 feet in diameter, giving an area
of 452 square inches. The net working-pressure was assumed at 103∕4
pounds per square inch; the temperature of the water of condensation and of
uncondensed vapor after the entrance of the injection-water being usually
about 150° Fahr. This gave an excess of pressure on the steam-side of 1,324
pounds, the total pressure on the piston being 4,859 pounds. One-half of
this excess is counterweighted by the pump-rods, and by weight on that end
of the beam; and the weight, 662 pounds, acting on each side alternately as
a surplus, produced the requisite rapidity of movement of the machine. This
engine was said to make 15 strokes per minute, giving a speed of piston of
75 feet per minute, and the power exerted usefully was equivalent to
265,125 pounds raised one foot high per minute. As the horse-power is
equivalent to 33,000 “foot-pounds” per minute, the engine was of 265125∕
33000 = 8.034—almost exactly 8 horse-power.

Fig. 20.—Beighton’s Valve-Gear, a. d. 1718.

It is instructive to contrast this estimate with that made for a Savery engine
doing the same work. The latter would have raised the water about 26 feet
in its “suction-pipe,” and would then have forced it, by the direct pressure
of steam, the remaining distance of 136 feet; and the steam-pressure
required would have been nearly 60 pounds per square inch. With this high
temperature and pressure, the waste of steam by condensation in the
forcing-vessels would have been so great that it would have compelled the
adoption of two engines of considerable size, each lifting the water one-half
the height, and using steam of about 25 pounds pressure. Potter’s rude
valve-gear was soon improved by Henry Beighton, in an engine which that
talented engineer erected at Newcastle-upon-Tyne in 1718, and in which he
substituted substantial materials for the cords, as in Fig. 20.
In this sketch, r is a plug-tree, plug-rod, or plug-frame, as it is variously
called, suspended from the great beam, with which it rises and falls,
bringing the pins p and k, at the proper moment, in contact with the handles
k k and n n of the valves, moving them in the proper direction and to the
proper extent. A lever safety-valve is here used, at the suggestion, it is said,
of Desaguliers. The piston was packed with leather or with rope, and
lubricated with tallow.
After the death of Beighton, the atmospheric engine of Newcomen retained
its then standard form for many years, and came into extensive use in all the
mining districts, particularly in Cornwall, and was also applied occasionally
to the drainage of wet lands, to the supply of water to towns, and it was
even proposed by Hulls to be used for ship-propulsion.
The proportions of the engines had been determined in a hap-hazard way,
and they were in many cases very unsafe. John Smeaton, the most
distinguished engineer of his time, finally, in 1769, experimentally
determined proper proportions, and built several of these engines of very
considerable size. He built his engines with steam-cylinders of greater
length of stroke than had been customary, and gave them such dimensions
as, by giving a greater excess of pressure on the steam-side, enabled him to
obtain a greatly-increased speed of piston. The first of his new style of
engine was erected at Long Benton, near Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in 1774.

Fig. 21[31] illustrates its principal characteristic features. The boiler is not
shown.

Fig. 21.—Smeaton’s Newcomen Engine.
Large scale image.

The steam is led to the engine through the pipe, C, and is regulated by
turning the cock in the receiver, D, which connects with the steam-cylinder
by the pipe, E, which latter pipe rises a little way above the bottom of the
cylinder, F, in order that it may not drain off the injection-water into the
steam-pipe and receiver.
The steam-cylinder, about ten feet in length, is fitted with a carefully-made
piston, G, having a flanch rising four or five inches and extending
completely around its circumference, and nearly in contact with the interior
surface of the cylinder. Between this flanch and the cylinder is driven a
“packing” of oakum, which is held in place by weights; this prevents the

leakage of air, water, or steam, past the piston, as it rises and falls in the
cylinder at each stroke of the engine. The chain and piston-rod connect the
piston to the beam, I I. The arch-heads at each end of the beam keep the
chains of the piston-rod and the pump-rods perpendicular and in line.
A “jack-head” pump, N, is driven by a small beam deriving its motion from
the plug-rod at g, raises the water required for condensing the steam, and
keeps the cistern, O, supplied. This “jack-head cistern” is sufficiently
elevated to give the water entering the cylinder the velocity requisite to
secure prompt condensation. A waste-pipe carries away any surplus water.
The injection-water is led from the cistern by the pipe, P P, which is two or
three inches in diameter, and the flow of water is regulated by the injection-
cock, r. The cap at the end, d, is pierced with several holes, and the stream
thus divided rises in jets when admitted, and, striking the lower side of the
piston, the spray thus produced very rapidly condenses the steam, and
produces a vacuum beneath the piston. The valve, e, on the upper end of the
injection-pipe, is a check-valve, to prevent leakage into the engine when the
latter is not in operation. The little pipe, f, supplies water to the upper side
of the piston, and, keeping it flooded, prevents the entrance of air when the
packing is not perfectly tight.
The “working-plug,” or plug-rod, Q, is a piece of timber slit vertically, and
carrying pins which engage the handles of the valves, opening and closing
them at the proper times. The steam-cock, or regulator, has a handle, h, by
which it is moved. The iron rod, i i, or spanner, gives motion to the handle,
h.
The vibrating lever, k l, called the Y, or the “tumbling-bob,” moves on the
pins, m n, and is worked by the levers, o p, which in turn are moved by the
plug-tree. When o is depressed, the loaded end, k, is given the position seen
in the sketch, and the leg l of the Y strikes the spanner, i i, and, opening the
steam-valve, the piston at once rises as steam enters the cylinder, until
another pin on the plug-rod raises the piece, P, and closes the regulator
again. The lever, q r, connects with the injection-cock, and is moved, when,
as the piston rises, the end, q, is struck by a pin on the plug-rod, and the
cock is opened and a vacuum produced. The cock is closed on the descent
of the plug-tree with the piston. An eduction-pipe, R, fitted with a clock,
conveys away the water in the cylinder at the end of each down-stroke; the

water thus removed is collected in the hot-well, S, and is used as feed-water
for the boiler, to which it is conveyed by the pipe T. At each down-stroke,
while the water passes out through R, the air which may have collected in
the cylinder is driven out through the “snifting-valve,” s. The steam-
cylinder is supported on strong beams, t t; it has around its upper edge a
guard, v, of lead, which prevents the overflow of the water on the top of the
piston. The excess of this water flows away to the hot-well through the pipe
W.
Catch-pins, x, are provided, to prevent the beam descending too far should
the engine make too long a stroke; two wooden springs, y y, receive the
blow. The great beam is carried on sectors, z z, to diminish losses by
friction.
The boilers of Newcomen’s earlier engines
were made of copper where in contact with
the products of combustion, and their upper
parts were of lead. Subsequently, sheet-iron
was substituted. The steam-space in the
boiler was made of 8 or 10 times the
capacity of the cylinder of the engine. Even
in Smeaton’s time, a chimney-damper was
not used, and the supply of steam was
consequently very variable. In the earlier
engines, the cylinder was placed on the
boiler; afterward, they were placed
separately, and supported on a foundation of
masonry. The injection or “jack-head”
cistern was placed from 12 to 30 feet above
the engine, the velocity due the greater
altitude being found to give the most perfect Fig. 22.—Boiler of Newcomen’s
Engine, 1768.
distribution of the water and the promptest
condensation.
Smeaton covered the lower side of his steam-pistons with wooden plank
about 21∕4 inches thick, in order that it should absorb and waste less heat
than when the iron was directly exposed to the steam. Mr. Beighton was the
first to use the water of condensation for feeding the boiler, taking it

directly from the eduction-pipe, or the “hot-well.” Where only a sufficient
amount of pure water could be obtained for feeding the boiler, and the
injection-water was “hard,” Mr. Smeaton applied a heater, immersed in the
hot-well, through which the feed passed, absorbing heat from the water of
condensation en route to the boiler. Farey first proposed the use of the “coil-
heater”—a pipe, or “worm,” which, forming a part of the feed-pipe, was set
in the hot-well.
As early as 1743, the metal used for the cylinders was cast-iron. The earlier
engines had been fitted with brass cylinders. Desaguliers recommended the
iron cylinders, as being smoother, thinner, and as having less capacity for
heat than those of brass.
In a very few years after the invention of Newcomen’s engine it had been
introduced into nearly all large mines in Great Britain; and many new
mines, which could not have been worked at all previously, were opened,
when it was found that the new machine could be relied upon to raise the
large quantities of water to be handled. The first engine in Scotland was
erected in 1720 at Elphinstone, in Stirlingshire. One was put up in Hungary
in 1723.
The first mine-engine, erected in 1712 at Griff, was 22 inches in diameter,
and the second and third engines were of similar size. That erected at
Ansthorpe was 23 inches in diameter of cylinder, and it was a long time
before much larger engines were constructed. Smeaton and others finally
made them as large as 6 feet in diameter.
In calculating the lifting-power of his engines, Newcomen’s method was “to
square the diameter of the cylinder in inches, and, cutting off the last figure,
he called it ‘long hundredweights;’ then writing a cipher on the right hand,
he called the number on that side ‘odd pounds;’ this he reckoned tolerably
exact at a mean, or rather when the barometer was above 30 inches, and the
air heavy.” In allowing for frictional and other losses, he deducted from
one-fourth to one-third. Desaguliers found the rule quite exact. The usual
mean pressure resisting the motion of the piston averaged, in the best
engines, about 8 pounds per square inch of its area. The speed of the piston
was from 150 to 175 feet per minute. The temperature of the hot-well was
from 145° to 175° Fahr.

Smeaton made a number of test-trials of Newcomen engines to determine
their “duty”—i. e., to ascertain the expenditure of fuel required to raise a
definite quantity of water to a stated height. He found an engine 10 inches
in diameter of cylinder, and of 3 feet stroke, could do work equal to raising
2,919,017 pounds of water one foot high, with a bushel of coals weighing
84 pounds.
One of Smeaton’s larger engines, erected at Long Benton, was 52 inches in
diameter of cylinder and of 7 feet stroke of piston, and made 12 strokes per
minute. Its load was equal to 71∕2 pounds per square inch of piston-area, and
its effective capacity about 40 horse-power. Its duty was 91∕2 millions of
pounds raised one foot high per bushel of coals. Its boiler evaporated 7.88
pounds of water per pound of fuel consumed. It had 35 square feet of grate-
surface and 142 square feet of heating-surface beneath the boilers, and 317
square feet in the flues—a total of 459 square feet. The moving parts of this
engine weighed 81∕2 tons.
Smeaton erected one of these engines at the Chasewater mine, in Cornwall,
in 1775, which was of very considerable size. It was 6 feet in diameter of
steam-cylinder, and had a maximum stroke of piston of 91∕2 feet. It usually
worked 9 feet. The pumps were in three lifts of about 100 feet each, and
were 163∕4 inches in diameter. Nine strokes were made per minute. This
engine replaced two others, of 64 and of 62 inches diameter of cylinder
respectively, and both of 6 feet stroke. One engine at the lower lift supplied
the second, which was set above it. The lower one had pumps 181∕2 inches
in diameter, and raised the water 144 feet; the upper engine raised the water
156 feet, by pumps 171∕2 inches in diameter. The later engine replacing
them exerted 761∕2 horse-power. There were three boilers, each 15 feet in
diameter, and having each 23 square feet of grate-surface. The chimney was
22 feet high. The great beam, or “lever,” of this engine was built up of 20
beams of fir in two sets, placed side by side, and ten deep, strongly bolted
together. It was over 6 feet deep at the middle and 5 feet at the ends, and
was 2 feet thick. The “main centres,” or journals, on which it vibrated were
81∕2 inches in diameter and 81∕2 inches long. The cylinder weighed 61∕2 tons,
and was paid for at the rate of 28 shillings per hundredweight.
By the end of the eighteenth century, therefore, the engine of Newcomen,
perfected by the ingenuity of Potter and of Beighton, and by the systematic

study and experimental research of Smeaton, had become a well-established
form of steam-engine, and its application to raising water had become
general. The coal-mines of Coventry and of Newcastle had adopted this
method of drainage; and the tin and the copper mines of Cornwall had been
deepened, using, for drainage, engines of the largest size.
Some engines had been set up in and about London, the scene of
Worcester’s struggles and disappointments, where they were used to supply
water to large houses. Others were in use in other large cities of England,
where water-works had been erected.
Some engines had also been erected to drive mills indirectly by raising
water to turn water-wheels. This is said by Farey to have been first practised
in 1752, at a mill near Bristol, and became common during the next quarter
of a century. Many engines had been built in England and sent across the
channel, to be applied to the drainage of mines on the Continent. Belidor[32]
stated that the manufacture of these “fire-engines” was exclusively confined
to England; and this remained true many years after his time. When used for
the drainage of mines, the engine usually worked the ordinary lift or bucket
pump; when employed for water-supply to cities, the force or plunger pump
was often employed, the engine being placed below the level of the
reservoir. Dr. Rees states that this engine was in common use among the
collieries of England as early as 1725.
The Edmonstone colliery was licensed, in 1725, to erect an engine, not to
exceed 28 inches diameter of cylinder and 9 feet stroke of piston, paying a
royalty of £80 per annum for eight years. This engine was built in Scotland,
by workmen sent from England, and cost about £1,200. Its “great cost” is
attributed to an extensive use of brass. The workmen were paid their
expenses and 15s. per week as wages. The builders were John and Abraham
Potter, of Durham. An engine built in 1775, having a steam-cylinder 48
inches in diameter and of 7 feet stroke, cost about £2,000.
Smeaton found 57 engines at work near Newcastle in 1767, ranging in size
from 28 to 75 inches in diameter of cylinder, and of, collectively, about
1,200 horse-power. Fifteen of these engines gave an average of 98 square
inches of piston to the horse-power, and the average duty was 5,590,000
pounds raised 1 foot high by 1 bushel (84 pounds) of coal. The highest duty

noted was 7.44 millions; the lowest was 3.22 millions. The most efficient
engine had a steam-cylinder 42 inches in diameter; the load was equivalent
to 91∕4 pounds per square inch of piston-area, and the horse-power
developed was calculated to be 16.7.
Price, writing in 1778, says, in the Appendix to his “Mineralogia
Cornubiensis:” “Mr. Newcomen’s invention of the fire-engine enabled us to
sink our mines to twice the depth we could formerly do by any other
machinery. Since this invention was completed, most other attempts at its
improvement have been very unsuccessful; but the vast consumption of fuel
in these engines is an immense drawback on the profit of our mines, for
every fire-engine of magnitude consumes £3,000 worth of coals per annum.
This heavy tax amounts almost to a prohibition.”
Smeaton was given the description, in 1773, of a stone boiler, which was
used with one of these engines at a copper mine at Camborne, in Cornwall.
It contained three copper flues 22 inches in diameter. The gases were passed
through these flues successively, finally passing off to the chimney. This
boiler was cemented with hydraulic mortar. It was 20 feet long, 9 feet wide,
and 81∕2 feet deep. It was heated by the waste heat from the roasting-
furnaces. This was one of the earliest flue-boilers ever made.
In 1780, Smeaton had a list of 18 large engines working in Cornwall. The
larger number of them were built by Jonathan Hornblower and John
Nancarron. At this time, the largest and best-known pumping-engine for
water-works was at York Buildings, in Villiers Street, Strand, London. It
had been in operation since 1752, and was erected beside one of Savery’s
engines, built in 1710. It had a steam-cylinder 45 inches in diameter, and a
stroke of piston of 8 feet, making 71∕2 strokes per minute, and developing
351∕2 horse-power. Its boiler was dome-shaped, of copper, and contained a
large central fire-box and a spiral flue leading outward to the chimney.
Another somewhat larger machine was built and placed beside this engine,
some time previous to 1775. Its cylinder was 49 inches in diameter, and its
stroke 9 feet. It raised water 102 feet. This engine was altered and improved
by Smeaton in 1777, and continued in use until 1813.
Smeaton, as early as 1765, designed a portable engine,[33] in which he
supported the machinery on a wooden frame mounted on short legs and

strongly put together, so that the whole machine could be transported and
set at work wherever convenient.

Fig. 23.—Smeaton’s Portable-Engine
Boiler, 1765.

In place of the beam, a large pulley was used, over which a chain was
carried, connecting the piston with the pump-rod, and the motion was
similar to that given by the discarded beam. The wheel was supported on A-
frames, resembling somewhat the “gallows-frames” still used with the
beam-engines of American river-boats. The sills carrying the two A’s
supported the cylinder. The injection-cistern was supported above the great
pulley-wheel. The valve-gearing and the injection-pump were worked by a
smaller wheel, mounted on the same axis with the larger one. The boiler
was placed apart from the engine, with which it was connected by a steam-
pipe, in which was placed the “regulator,” or throttle-valve. The boiler (Fig.
23) “was shaped like a large tea-kettle,” and contained a fire-box, B, or
internal furnace, of which the sides were made of cast-iron. The fire-door,
C, was placed on one side and opposite the flue, D, through which the
products of combustion were led to the chimney, E; a short, large pipe, F,
leading downward from the furnace to the outside of the boiler, was the ash-

pit. The shell of the boiler, A, was made of iron plate one-quarter of an inch
thick. The steam-cylinder of the engine was 18 inches in diameter, the
stroke of piston 6 feet, the great wheel 61∕2 feet in diameter, and the A-
frames 9 feet high. The boiler was made 6 feet, the furnace 34 inches, and
the grate 18 inches in diameter. The piston was intended to make 10 strokes
per minute, and the engine to develop 41∕8 horse-power.
In 1773, Smeaton prepared plans for a pumping-engine to be set up at
Cronstadt, the port of St. Petersburg, to empty the great dry dock
constructed by Peter the Great and Catherine, his successor. This great dock
was begun in 1719. It was large enough to dock ten of the ships of that time,
and had previously been imperfectly drained by two great windmills 100
feet high. So imperfectly did they do their work, that a year was required to
empty the dock, and it could therefore only be used once in each summer.
The engine was built at the Carron Iron Works, in England. It had a cylinder
66 inches in diameter, and a stroke of piston of 81∕2 feet. The lift varied
from 33 feet when the dock was full to 53 feet when it was cleared of water.
The load on the engine averaged about 81∕3 pounds per square inch of
piston-area. There were three boilers, each 10 feet in diameter, and 16 feet 4
inches high to the apex of its hemispherical dome. They contained internal
fire-boxes with grates of 20 feet area, and were surrounded by flues
helically traversing the masonry setting. The engine was started in 1777,
and worked very successfully.
The lowlands of Holland were, before the time of Smeaton, drained by
means of windmills. The uncertainty and inefficiency of this method
precluded its application to anything like the extent to which steam-power
has since been utilized. In 1440, there were 150 inland lakes, or “meers,” in
that country, of which nearly 100, having an extent of over 200,000 acres,
have since been drained. The “Haarlemmer Meer” alone covers nearly
50,000 acres, and forms the basin of a drainage-area of between 200,000
and 300,000 acres, receiving a rainfall of 54,000,000 tons, which must be
raised 16 feet in discharging it. The beds of these lakes are from 10 to 20
feet lower than the water-level in the adjacent canals. In 1840, 12,000
windmills were still employed in this work. In the following year, William
II., at the suggestion of a commission, decreed that only steam-engines
should be employed to do this immense work. Up to this time the average

consumption of fuel for the pumping-engines in use is said to have been 20
pounds per hour per horse-power.
The first engine used was erected in 1777 and 1778, on the Newcomen
plan, to assist the 34 windmills employed to drain a lake near Rotterdam.
This lake covered 7,000 acres, and its bed was 12 feet below the surface of
the river Meuse, which passes it, and empties into the sea in the immediate
neighborhood. The iron parts of the engine were built in England, and the
machine was put together in Holland. The steam-cylinder was 52 inches in
diameter, and the stroke of piston 9 feet. The boiler was 18 feet in diameter,
and contained a double flue. The main beam was 27 feet long. The pumps
were 6 in number, 3 cylindrical and 3 having a square cross-section; 3 were
of 6 feet and 3 of 21∕2 feet stroke. Two pumps only were worked at high-
tide, and the others were added one at a time, as the tide fell, until, at low-
tide, all 6 were at work.
The size of this engine, and the magnitude of its work, seem insignificant
when compared with the machinery installed 60 years later to drain the
Haarlemmer Meer, and with the work done by the last. These engines are 12
feet in diameter of cylinder and 10 feet stroke of piston, and work—they are
3 in number—the one 11 pumps of 63 inches diameter and 10 feet stroke,
the others 8 pumps of 73 inches diameter and of the same length of stroke.
The modern engines do a “duty” of 75,000,000 to 87,000,000 with 94
pounds of coal, consuming 21∕4 pounds of coal per hour and per horse-
power.
The first steam-engine applied to working the blowing-machinery of a
blast-furnace was erected at the Carron Iron-Works, in Scotland, near
Falkirk, in 1765, and proved very unsatisfactory. Smeaton subsequently, in
1769 or 1770, introduced better machinery into these works and improved
the old engine, and this use of the steam-engine soon became usual. This
engine did its work indirectly, furnishing water, by pumping, to drive the
water-wheels which worked the blowing-cylinders. Its steam-cylinder was 6
feet in diameter, and the pump-cylinder 52 inches. The stroke was 9 feet.
A direct-acting engine, used as a blowing-engine, was not constructed until
about 1784, at which time a single-acting blowing-cylinder, or air-pump,
was placed at the “out-board” end of the beam, where the pump-rod had

been attached. The piston of the air-cylinder was loaded with the weights
needed to force it down, expelling the air, and the engine did its work in
raising the loaded piston, the air-cylinder filling as the piston rose. A large
“accumulator” was used to equalize the pressure of the expelled air. This
consisted of another air-cylinder, having a loaded piston which was left free
to rise and fall. At each expulsion of air by the blowing-engine this cylinder
was filled, the loaded piston rising to the top. While the piston of the former
was returning, and the air-cylinder was taking in its charge of air, the
accumulator would gradually discharge the stored air, the piston slowly
falling under its load. This piston was called the “floating piston,” or “fly-
piston,” and its action was, in effect, precisely that of the upper portion of
the common blacksmith’s bellows.
Dr. Robison, the author of “Mechanical Philosophy,” one of the very few
works even now existing deserving such a title, describes one of these
engines[34] as working in Scotland in 1790. It had a steam-cylinder 40 or 44
inches in diameter, a blowing-cylinder 60 inches in diameter, and the stroke
of piston was 6 feet. The air-pressure was 2.77 pounds per square inch as a
maximum in the blowing-cylinder; and the floating piston in the regulating-
cylinder was loaded with 2.63 pounds per square inch. Making 15 or 18
strokes per minute, this engine delivered about 1,600 cubic feet of air, or
1201∕2 pounds in weight, per minute, and developed 20 horse-power.
At about the same date a change was made in the blowing-cylinder. The air
entered at the bottom, as before, but was forced out at the top, the piston
being fitted with valves, as in the common lifting-pump, and the engine
thus being arranged to do the work of expulsion during the down-stroke of
the steam-piston.
Four years later, the regulating-cylinder, or accumulator, was given up, and
the now familiar “water-regulator” was substituted for it. This consists of a
tank, usually of sheet-iron, set open-end downward in a large vessel
containing water. The lower edge of the inner tank is supported on piers a
few inches above the bottom of the large one. The pipe carrying air from
the blowing-engine passes above this water-regulator, and a branch-pipe is
led down into the inner tank. As the air-pressure varies, the level of the
water within the inverted tank changes, rising as pressure falls at the
slowing of the motion of the piston, and falling as the pressure rises again

while the piston is moving with an accelerated velocity. The regulator, thus
receiving surplus air to be delivered when needed, greatly assists in
regulating the pressure. The larger the regulator, the more perfectly uniform
the pressure. The water-level outside the inner tank is usually five or six
feet higher than within it. This apparatus was found much more satisfactory
than the previously-used regulator, and, with its introduction, the
establishment of the steam-engine as a blowing-engine for iron-works and
at blast-furnaces may be considered as having been fully established.
Thus, by the end of the third quarter of the eighteenth century, the steam-
engine had become generally introduced, and had been applied to nearly all
of the purposes for which a single-acting engine could be used. The path
which had been opened by Worcester had been fairly laid out by Savery and
his contemporaries, and the builders of the Newcomen engine, with such
improvements as they had been able to effect, had followed it as far as they
were able. The real and practical introduction of the steam-engine is as
fairly attributable to Smeaton as to any one of the inventors whose names
are more generally known in connection with it. As a mechanic, he was
unrivaled; as an engineer, he was head and shoulders above any constructor
of his time engaged in general practice. There were very few important
public works built in Great Britain at that time in relation to which he was
not consulted; and he was often visited by foreign engineers, who desired
his advice with regard to works in progress on the Continent.

[30] It has been denied that a patent was [33] Smeaton’s “Reports,” vol. i., p. 223.
issued, but there is no doubt that Savery
claimed and received an interest in the new [34] “Encyclopædia Britannica,” 1st edition.
engine.
[31] A fac-simile of a sketch in Galloway’s
“On the Steam-Engine,” etc.
[32] “Architecture Hydraulique,” 1734.

CHAPTER III.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODERN STEAM-ENGINE.
JAMES WATT AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES.

The world is now entering upon the Mechanical Epoch. There is nothing in the future
more sure than the great triumphs which that epoch is to achieve. It has already
advanced to some glorious conquests. What miracles of invention now crowd upon
us! Look abroad, and contemplate the infinite achievements of the steam-power.
And yet we have only begun—we are but on the threshold of this epoch.... What is it
but the setting of the great distinctive seal upon the nineteenth century?—an
advertisement of the fact that society has risen to occupy a higher platform than ever
before?—a proclamation from the high places, announcing honor, honor immortal, to
the workmen who fill this world with beauty, comfort, and power—honor to be
forever embalmed in history, to be perpetuated in monuments, to be written in the
hearts of this and succeeding generations!—Kennedy.

Section I.—James Watt and his Inventions.

The success of the Newcomen engine naturally attracted the attention of
mechanics, and of scientific men as well, to the possibility of making other
applications of steam-power.
The best men of the time gave much attention to the subject, but, until
James Watt began the work that has made him famous, nothing more was
done than to improve the proportions and slightly alter the details of the
Newcomen and Calley engine, even by such skillful engineers as Brindley
and Smeaton. Of the personal history of the earlier inventors and improvers
of the steam-engine, very little is ascertained; but that of Watt has become
well known.

James Watt.

James Watt was of an humble lineage, and was born at Greenock, then a
little Scotch fishing village, but now a considerable and a busy town, which
annually launches upon the waters of the Clyde a fleet of steamships whose
engines are probably, in the aggregate, far more powerful than were all the
engines in the world at the date of Watt’s birth, January 19, 1736. His
grandfather, Thomas Watt, of Crawfordsdyke, near Greenock, was a well-
known mathematician about the year 1700, and was for many years a
schoolmaster at that place. His father was a prominent citizen of Greenock,
and was at various times chief magistrate and treasurer of the town. James
Watt was a bright boy, but exceedingly delicate in health, and quite unable
to attend school regularly, or to apply himself closely to either study or play.
His early education was given by his parents, who were respectable and
intelligent people, and the tools borrowed from his father’s carpenter-bench
served at once to amuse him and to give him a dexterity and familiarity

with their use that must undoubtedly have been of inestimable value to him
in after-life.
M. Arago, the eminent French philosopher, who wrote one of the earliest
and most interesting biographies of Watt, relates anecdotes of him which, if
correct, illustrate well his thoughtfulness and his intelligence, as well as the
mechanical bent of the boy’s mind. He is said, at the age of six years, to
have occupied himself during leisure hours with the solution of geometrical
problems; and Arago discovers, in a story in which he is described as
experimenting with the tea-kettle,[35] his earliest investigations of the nature
and properties of steam.
When finally sent to the village school, his ill health prevented his making
rapid progress; and it was only when thirteen or fourteen years of age that
he began to show that he was capable of taking the lead in his class, and to
exhibit his ability in the study, particularly, of mathematics. His spare time
was principally spent in sketching with his pencil, in carving, and in
working at the bench, both in wood and metal. He made many ingenious
pieces of mechanism, and some beautiful models. His favorite work seemed
to be the repairing of nautical instruments. Among other pieces of apparatus
made by the boy was a very fine barrel-organ. In boyhood, as in after-life,
he was a diligent reader, and seemed to find something to interest him in
every book that came into his hands.
At the age of eighteen, Watt was sent to Glasgow, there to reside with his
mother’s relatives, and to learn the trade of a mathematical-instrument
maker. The mechanic with whom he was placed was soon found too
indolent, or was otherwise incapable of giving much aid in the project, and
Dr. Dick, of the University of Glasgow, with whom Watt became
acquainted, advised him to go to London. Accordingly, he set out in June,
1755, for the metropolis, where, on his arrival, he arranged with Mr. John
Morgan, in Cornhill, to work a year at his chosen business, receiving as
compensation 20 guineas. At the end of the year he was compelled, by
serious ill-health, to return home.
Having become restored to health, he went again to Glasgow in 1756, with
the intention of pursuing his calling there. But, not being the son of a
burgess, and not having served his apprenticeship in the town, he was

forbidden by the guilds, or trades-unions, to open a shop in Glasgow. Dr.
Dick came to his aid, and employed him to repair some apparatus which
had been bequeathed to the college. He was finally allowed the use of three
rooms in the University building, its authorities not being under the
municipal rule. He remained here until 1760, when, the trades no longer
objecting, he took a shop in the city; and in 1761 moved again, into a shop
on the north side of the Trongate, where he earned a scanty living without
molestation, and still kept up his connection with the college. He did some
work as a civil engineer in the neighborhood of Glasgow, but soon gave up
all other employment, and devoted himself entirely to mechanics.
He spent much of his leisure time—of which he had, at first, more than was
desirable—in making philosophical experiments and in the manufacture of
musical instruments, in making himself familiar with the sciences, and in
devising improvements in the construction of organs. In order to pursue his
researches more satisfactorily, he studied German and Italian, and read
Smith’s “Harmonics,” that he might become familiar with the principles of
construction of musical instruments. His reading was still very desultory;
but the introduction of the Newcomen engine in the neighborhood of
Glasgow, and the presence of a model in the college collections, which was
placed in his hands, in 1763, for repair, led him to study the history of the
steam-engine, and to conduct for himself an experimental research into the
properties of steam, with a set of improvised apparatus.
Dr. Robison, then a student of the University, who found Watt’s shop a
pleasant place in which to spend his leisure, and whose tastes affiliated so
strongly with those of Watt that they became friends immediately upon
making acquaintance, called the attention of the instrument-maker to the
steam-engine as early as 1759, and suggested that it might be applied to the
propulsion of carriages. Watt was at once interested, and went to work on a
little model, having tin steam-cylinders and pistons connected to the
driving-wheels by an intermediate system of gearing. The scheme was
afterwards given up, and was not revived by Watt for a quarter of a century.
Watt studied chemistry, and was assisted by the advice and instruction of
Dr. Black, who was then making the researches which resulted in the
discovery of “latent heat.” His proposal to repair the model Newcomen
engine in the college collections led to his study of Desaguliers’s treatise,

and of the works of Switzer and others. He thus learned what had been done
by Savery and by Newcomen, and by those who had improved the engine
of the latter.
In his own experiments he used, at first, apothecaries’ phials and hollow
canes for steam reservoirs and pipes, and later a Papin’s digester and a
common syringe. The latter combination made a non-condensing engine, in
which he used steam at a pressure of 15 pounds per square inch. The valve
was worked by hand, and Watt saw that an automatic valve-gear only was
needed to make a working machine. This experiment, however, led to no
practical result. He finally took hold of the Newcomen model, which had
been obtained from London, where it had been sent for repairs, and, putting
it in good working order, commenced experiments with that.

Fig. 24.—The Newcomen Model.

The Newcomen model, as it happened, had a boiler which, although made
to a scale from engines in actual use, was quite incapable of furnishing
steam enough to work the engine. It was about nine inches in diameter; the
steam-cylinder was two inches in diameter, and of six inches stroke of
piston, arranged as in Fig. 24, which is a picture of the model as it now

appears. It is retained among the most carefully-preserved treasures of the
University of Glasgow.
Watt made a new boiler for the experimental investigation on which he was
about to enter, and arranged it in such a manner that he could measure the
quantity of water evaporated and of steam used at every stroke of the
engine.
He soon discovered that it required but a very small quantity of steam to
heat a very large quantity of water, and immediately attempted to determine
with precision the relative weights of steam and water in the steam-cylinder
when condensation took place at the down-stroke of the engine, and thus
independently proved the existence of that “latent heat,” the discovery of
which constitutes, also, one of the greatest of Dr. Black’s claims to
distinction. Watt at once went to Dr. Black and related the remarkable fact
which he had thus detected, and was, in turn, taught by Black the character
of the phenomenon as it had been explained to his classes by the latter some
little time previously. Watt found that, at the boiling-point, his steam,
condensing, was capable of heating six times its weight of water such as
was used for producing condensation.
Perceiving that steam, weight for weight even, was a vastly greater
absorbent and reservoir of heat than water, Watt saw plainly the importance
of taking greater care to economize it than had previously been customary.
He first attempted to economize in the boiler, and made boilers with
wooden “shells,” in order to prevent losses by conduction and radiation, and
used a larger number of flues to secure more complete absorption of the
heat from the furnace-gases. He also covered his steam-pipes with non-
conducting materials, and took every precaution that his ingenuity could
devise to secure complete utilization of the heat of combustion. He soon
found, however, that he was not working at the most important point, and
that the great source of loss was to be found in defects which he noted in
the action of the steam in the cylinder. He soon concluded that the sources
of loss of heat in the Newcomen engine—which would be greatly
exaggerated in a small model—were:
First, the dissipation of heat by the cylinder itself, which was of brass, and
was both a good conductor and a good radiator.

Secondly, the loss of heat consequent upon the necessity of cooling down
the cylinder at every stroke, in producing the vacuum.
Thirdly, the loss of power due to the pressure of vapor beneath the piston,
which was a consequence of the imperfect method of condensation.
He first made a cylinder of non-conducting material—wood soaked in oil
and then baked—and obtained a decided advantage in economy of steam.
He then conducted a series of very accurate experiments upon the
temperature and pressure of steam at such points on the scale as he could
readily reach, and, constructing a curve with his results, the abscesses
representing temperatures and the pressures being represented by the
ordinates, he ran the curve backward until he had obtained closely-
approximate measures of temperatures less than 212°, and pressures less
than atmospheric. He thus found that, with the amount of injection-water
used in the Newcomen engine, bringing the temperature of the interior, as
he found, down to from 140° to 175° Fahr., a very considerable back-
pressure would be met with.
Continuing his examination still further, he measured the amount of steam
used at each stroke, and, comparing it with the quantity that would just fill
the cylinder, he found that at least three-fourths was wasted. The quantity of
cold water necessary to produce the condensation of a given weight of
steam was next determined; and he found that one pound of steam
contained enough heat to raise about six pounds of cold water, as used for
condensation, from the temperature of 52° to the boiling-point; and, going
still further, he found that he was compelled to use, at each stroke of the
Newcomen engine, four times as much injection-water as should suffice to
condense a cylinder full of steam. This confirmed his previous conclusion
that three-fourths of the heat supplied to the engine was wasted.
Watt had now, therefore, determined by his own researches, as he himself
enumerates them,[36] the following facts:
“1. The capacities for heat of iron, copper, and of some sorts of wood, as
compared with water.
“2. The bulk of steam compared with that of water.
“3. The quantity of water evaporated in a certain boiler by a pound of coal.

“4. The elasticities of steam at various temperatures greater than that of
boiling water, and an approximation to the law which it follows at other
temperatures.
“5. How much water in the form of steam was required every stroke by a
small Newcomen engine, with a wooden cylinder 6 inches in diameter and
12 inches stroke.
“6. The quantity of cold water required in every stroke to condense the
steam in that cylinder, so as to give it a working-power of about 7 pounds
on the square inch.”
After these well-devised and truly scientific investigations, Watt was
enabled to enter upon his work of improving the steam-engine with an
intelligent understanding of its existing defects, and with a knowledge of
their cause. Watt soon saw that, in order to reduce the losses in the working
of the steam in the steam-cylinder, it would be necessary to find some
means, as he said, to keep the cylinder “always as hot as the steam that
entered it,” notwithstanding the great fluctuations of temperature and
pressure of the steam during the up and the down strokes. He has told us
how, finally, the happy thought occurred to him which relieved him of all
difficulty, and led to the series of modifications which at last gave to the
world the modern type of steam-engine.
He says:[37] “I had gone to take a walk on a fine Sabbath afternoon. I had
entered the Green by the gate at the foot of Charlotte street, and had passed
the old washing-house. I was thinking upon the engine at the time, and had
gone as far as the herd’s house, when the idea came into my mind that, as
steam was an elastic body, it would rush into a vacuum, and, if a
communication were made between the cylinder and an exhausted vessel, it
would rush into it, and might be there condensed without cooling the
cylinder. I then saw that I must get rid of the condensed steam and
injection-water if I used a jet, as in Newcomen’s engine. Two ways of doing
this occurred to me: First, the water might be run off by a descending pipe,
if an offlet could be got at the depth of 35 or 36 feet, and any air might be
extracted by a small pump. The second was, to make the pump large
enough to extract both water and air.” “I had not walked farther than the
Golf-house, when the whole thing was arranged in my mind.”

Referring to this invention, Watt said to Prof. Jardine:[38] “When analyzed,
the invention would not appear so great as it seemed to be. In the state in
which I found the steam-engine, it was no great effort of mind to observe
that the quantity of fuel necessary to make it work would forever prevent its
extensive utility. The next step in my progress was equally easy—to inquire
what was the cause of the great consumption of fuel. This, too, was readily
suggested, viz., the waste of fuel which was necessary to bring the whole
cylinder, piston, and adjacent parts from the coldness of water to the heat of
steam, no fewer than from 15 to 20 times in a minute.” It was by pursuing
this train of thought that he was led to devise the separate condenser.

Fig. 25.—Watt’s Experiment.

On Monday morning Watt proceeded to make an experimental test of his
new invention, using for his steam-cylinder and piston a large brass
surgeon’s-syringe, 13∕4-inch diameter and 10 inches long. At each end was a
pipe leading steam from the boiler, and fitted with a cock to act as a steam-
valve. A pipe led also from the top of the cylinder to the condenser, the
syringe being inverted and the piston-rod hanging downward for
convenience. The condenser was made of two pipes of thin tin plate, 10 or
12 inches long, and about one-sixth of an inch in diameter, standing
vertically, and having a connection at the top with a horizontal pipe of
larger size, and fitted with a “snifting-valve.” Another vertical pipe, about
an inch in diameter, was connected to the condenser, and was fitted with a
piston, with a view to using it as an “air-pump.” The whole was set in a
cistern of cold water. The piston-rod of the little steam-cylinder was drilled
from end to end to permit the water to be removed from the cylinder. This
little model (Fig. 25) worked very satisfactorily, and the perfection of the
vacuum was such that the machine lifted a weight of 18 pounds hung upon
the piston-rod, as in the sketch. A larger model was immediately afterward

constructed, and the result of its test confirmed fully the anticipations which
had been awakened by the first experiment.
Having taken this first step and made such a radical improvement, the
success of this invention was no sooner determined than others followed in
rapid succession, as consequences of the exigencies arising from the first
change in the old Newcomen engine. But in the working out of the forms
and proportions of the details of the new engine, even Watt’s powerful
mind, stored as it was with happily-combined scientific and practical
information, was occupied for years. In attaching the separate condenser, he
first attempted surface-condensation; but this not succeeding well, he
substituted the jet. Some provision became at once necessary for preventing
the filling of the condenser with water.
Watt at first intended adopting the expedient which had worked
satisfactorily with the less effective condensation of Newcomen’s engine—
i. e., leading a pipe from the condenser to a depth greater than the height of
a column of water which could be counterbalanced by the pressure of the
atmosphere; but he subsequently employed the air-pump, which relieves the
condenser not only of the water, but of the air which also usually collects in
considerable volume in the condenser, and vitiates the vacuum. He next
substituted oil and tallow for water in the lubrication of the piston and
keeping it steam-tight, in order to avoid the cooling of the cylinder incident
to the use of the latter. Another cause of refrigeration of the cylinder, and
consequent waste of power in its operation, was seen to be the entrance of
the atmosphere, which followed the piston down the cylinder at each stroke,
cooling its interior by its contact. This the inventor concluded to prevent by
covering the top of the cylinder, allowing the piston-rod to play through a
“stuffing-box”—which device had long been known to mechanics.
He accordingly not only covered the top, but surrounded the whole cylinder
with an external casing, or “steam-jacket,” and allowed the steam from the
boiler to pass around the steam-cylinder and to press upon the upper surface
of the piston, where its pressure was variable at pleasure, and therefore
more manageable than that of the atmosphere. It also, besides keeping the
cylinder hot, could do comparatively little harm should it leak by the piston,
as it could be condensed, and thus readily disposed of.

When he had concluded to build the larger experimental engine, Watt
determined to give his whole time and attention to the work, and hired a
room in an old deserted pottery near the Broomielaw. Here he worked with
a mechanic—John Gardiner, whom he had taken into his employ—
uninterruptedly for many weeks. Meantime, through his friend Dr. Black,
probably, he had made the acquaintance of Dr. Roebuck, a wealthy
physician, who had, with other Scotch capitalists, just founded the
celebrated Carron Iron-Works, and had opened a correspondence with him,
in which he kept that gentleman informed of the progress of his work on the
new engine.
This engine had a steam-cylinder, Watt tells us, of “five or six” inches
diameter, and of two feet stroke. It was of copper, smooth-hammered, but
not bored out, and “not very true.” This was encased in another cylinder of
wood. In August, 1765, he tried the small engine, and wrote Dr. Roebuck
that he had had “good success,” although the machine was very imperfect.
“On turning the exhausting-cock, the piston, when not loaded, ascended as
quick as the blow of a hammer, and as quick when loaded with 18 pounds
(being 7 pounds on the inch) as it would have done if it had had an injection
as usual.” He then tells his correspondent that he was about to make the
larger model. In October, 1765, he finished the latter. The engine, when
ready for trial, was still very imperfect. It nevertheless did good work for so
rude a machine.
Watt was now reduced to poverty, and, after borrowing considerable sums
from friends, he was finally compelled to give up his scheme for the time,
and to seek employment in order to provide for his family. During an
interval of about two years he supported himself by surveying, and by the
work of exploring coal-fields in the neighborhood of Glasgow for the
magistrates of the city. He did not, however, entirely give up his invention.
In 1767, Dr. Roebuck assumed Watt’s liabilities to the amount of £1,000,
and agreed to provide capital for the prosecution of his experiments and to
introduce his invention; and, on the other hand, Watt agreed to surrender to
Dr. Roebuck two-thirds of the patent. Another engine was next built, having
a steam-cylinder seven or eight inches in diameter, which was finished in
1768. This worked sufficiently well to induce the partners to ask for a

patent, and the specifications and drawings were completed and presented
in 1769.
Watt also built and set up several Newcomen engines, partly, perhaps, to
make himself thus thoroughly familiar with the practical details of engine-
building. Meantime, also, he prepared the plans for, and finally had built, a
moderately large engine of his own new type. Its steam-cylinder was 18
inches in diameter, and the stroke of piston was 5 feet. This engine was
built at Kinneil, and was finished in September, 1769. It was not all
satisfactory in either its construction or its operation. The condenser was a
surface-condenser composed of pipes somewhat like that used in his first
little model, and did not prove to be satisfactorily tight. The steam-piston
leaked seriously, and repeated trials only served to make more evident its
imperfections. He was assisted in this time of need by both Dr. Black and
Dr. Roebuck; but he felt strongly the risks which he ran of involving his
friends in serious losses, and became very despondent. Writing to Dr. Black,
he says: “Of all things in life, there is nothing more foolish than inventing;”
and probably the majority of inventors have been led to the same opinion by
their own experiences.
“Misfortunes never come singly;” and Watt was borne down by the greatest
of all misfortunes—the loss of a faithful and affectionate wife—while still
unable to see a successful issue of his schemes. Only less disheartening than
this was the loss of fortune of his steadfast friend, Dr. Roebuck, and the
consequent loss of his aid. It was at about this time, in the year 1769, that
negotiations were commenced which resulted in the transfer of the
capitalized interest in Watt’s engine to the wealthy manufacturer whose
name, coupled with that of Watt, afterward became known throughout the
civilized world, as the steam-engine in its new form was pushed into use by
his energy and business tact.
Watt met Mr. Boulton, who next became his partner, in 1768, on his journey
to London to procure his patent, and the latter had then examined Watt’s
designs, and, at once perceiving their value, proposed to purchase an
interest. Watt was then unable to reply definitely to Boulton’s proposition,
pending his business arrangements with Dr. Roebuck; but, with Roebuck’s
consent, afterwards proposed that Boulton should take a one-third interest
with himself and partner, paying Roebuck therefor one-half of all expenses

previously incurred, and whatever he should choose to add to compensate
“for the risk he had run.” Subsequently, Dr. Roebuck proposed to transfer to
Boulton and to Dr. Small, who was desirous of taking interest with Boulton,
one-half of his proprietorship in Watt’s inventions, on receiving “a sum not
less than one thousand pounds,” which should, after the experiments on the
engine were completed, be deemed “just and reasonable.” Twelve months
were allowed for the adjustment of the account. This proposal was accepted
in November, 1769.

Matthew Boulton.

Matthew Boulton, who now became a partner with James Watt, was the
son of a Birmingham silver stamper and piecer, and succeeded to his
father’s business, building up a great establishment, which, as well as its
proprietor, was well known in Watt’s time. Watt, writing to Dr. Roebuck
before the final arrangement had been made, urged him to close with
Boulton for “the following considerations:

“1st. From Mr. Boulton’s own character as an ingenious, honest, and rich
man. 2dly. From the difficulty and expense there would be of procuring
accurate and honest workmen and providing them with proper utensils, and
getting a proper overseer or overseers. If, to avoid this inconvenience, you
were to contract for the work to be done by a master-workman, you must
give up a great share of the profit. 3dly. The success of the engine is far
from being verified. If Mr. Boulton takes his chance of success from the
account I shall write Dr. Small, and pays you any adequate share of the
money laid out, it lessens your risk, and in a greater proportion than I think
it will lessen your profits. 4thly. The assistance of Mr. Boulton’s and Dr.
Small’s ingenuity (if the latter engage in it) in improving and perfecting the
machine may be very considerable, and may enable us to get the better of
the difficulties that might otherwise damn it. Lastly, consider my uncertain
health, my irresolute and inactive disposition, my inability to bargain and
struggle for my own with mankind: all which disqualify me for any great
undertaking. On our side, consider the first outlay and interest, the patent,
the present engine, about £200 (though there would not be much loss in
making it into a common engine), two years of my time, and the expense of
models.”
Watt’s estimate of the value of Boulton’s ingenuity and talent was well-
founded. Boulton had shown himself a good scholar, and had acquired
considerable knowledge of the languages and of the sciences, particularly of
mathematics, after leaving the school from which he graduated into the
shop when still a boy. In the shop he soon introduced a number of valuable
improvements, and he was always on the lookout for improvements made
by others, with a view to their introduction in his business. He was a man of
the modern style, and never permitted competitors to excel him in any
respect, without the strongest efforts to retain his leading position. He
always aimed to earn a reputation for good work, as well as to make money.
His father’s workshop was at Birmingham; but Boulton, after a time, found
that his rapidly-increasing business would compel him to find room for the
erection of a more extensive establishment, and he secured land at Soho,
two miles distant from Birmingham, and there erected his new manufactory,
about 1762.
The business was, at first, the manufacture of ornamental metal-ware, such
as metal buttons, buckles, watch-chains, and light filigree and inlaid work.

The manufacture of gold and silver plated-ware was soon added, and this
branch of business gradually developed into a very extensive manufacture
of works of art. Boulton copied fine work wherever he could find it, and
often borrowed vases, statuettes, and bronzes of all kinds from the nobility
of England, and even from the queen, from which to make copies. The
manufacture of inexpensive clocks, such as are now well known throughout
the world as an article of American trade, was begun by Boulton. He made
some fine astronomical and valuable ornamental clocks, which were better
appreciated on the Continent than in England. The business of the Soho
manufactory in a few years became so extensive, that its goods were known
to every civilized nation, and its growth, under the management of the
enterprising, conscientious, and ingenious Boulton, more than kept pace
with the accumulation of capital; and the proprietor found himself, by his
very prosperity, often driven to the most careful manipulation of his assets,
and to making free use of his credit.
Boulton had a remarkable talent for making valuable acquaintances, and for
making the most of advantages accruing thereby. In 1758 he made the
acquaintance of Benjamin Franklin, who then visited Soho; and in 1766
these distinguished men, who were then unaware of the existence of James
Watt, were corresponding, and, in their letters, discussing the applicability
of steam-power to various useful purposes. Between the two a new steam-
engine was designed, and a model was constructed by Boulton, which was
sent to Franklin and exhibited by him in London.
Dr. Darwin seems to have had something to do with this scheme, and the
enthusiasm awakened by the promise of success given by this model may
have been the origin of the now celebrated prophetic rhymes so often
quoted from the works of that eccentric physician and poet. Franklin
contributed, as his share in the plan, an idea of so arranging the grate as to
prevent the production of smoke. He says: “All that is necessary is to make
the smoke of fresh coals pass descending through those that are already
ignited.” His idea has been, by more recent schemers, repeatedly brought
forward as new. Nothing resulted from these experiments of Boulton,
Franklin, and Darwin, and the plan of Watt soon superseded all less well-
developed plans.

In 1767, Watt visited Soho and carefully inspected Boulton’s establishment.
He was very favorably impressed by the admirable arrangement of the
workshops and the completeness of their outfit, as well as by the perfection
of the organization and administration of the business. In the following year
he again visited Soho, and this time met Boulton, who had been absent at
the previous visit. The two great mechanics were mutually gratified by the
meeting, and each at once acquired for the other the greatest respect and
esteem. They discussed Watt’s plans, and Boulton then definitely decided
not to continue his own experiments, although he had actually commenced
the construction of a pumping-engine. With Dr. Small, who was also at
Soho, Watt discussed the possibility of applying his engine to the
propulsion of carriages, and to other purposes. On his return home, Watt
continued his desultory labors on his engines, as already described; and the
final completion of the arrangement with Boulton, which immediately
followed the failure of Dr. Roebuck, took place some time later.
Before Watt could leave Scotland to join his partner at Soho, it was
necessary that he should finish the work which he had in hand, including
the surveys of the Caledonian canal, and other smaller works, which he had
had in progress some months. He reached Birmingham in the spring of
1774, and was at once domiciled at Soho, where he set at work upon the
partly-made engines which had been sent from Scotland some time
previously. They had laid, unused and exposed to the weather, at Kinneil
three years, and were not in as good order as might have been desired. The
block-tin steam-cylinder was probably in good condition, but the iron parts
were, as Watt said, “perishing,” while he had been engaged in his civil
engineering work. At leisure moments, during this period, Watt had not
entirely neglected his plans for the utilization of steam. He had given much
thought, and had expended some time, in experiments upon the plan of
using it in a rotary or “wheel” engine. He did not succeed in contriving any
plan which seemed to promise success.
It was in November, 1774, that Watt finally announced to his old partner,
Dr. Roebuck, the successful trial of the Kinneil engine. He did not write
with the usual enthusiasm and extravagance of the inventor, for his frequent
disappointments and prolonged suspense had very thoroughly extinguished
his vivacity. He simply wrote: “The fire-engine I have invented is now

going, and answers much better than any other that has yet been made; and
I expect that the invention will be very beneficial to me.”

Fig. 26.—Watt’s Engine, 1774.

The change of the “atmospheric engine” of Newcomen into the modern
steam-engine was now completed in its essential details. The first engine
which was erected at Kinneil, near Boroughstoness, had a steam-cylinder
18 inches in diameter. It is seen in the accompanying sketch.
In Fig. 26, the steam passes from the boiler through the pipe d and the valve
c to the cylinder-casing or steam-jacket, Y Y, and above the piston, b, which

it follows in its descent in the cylinder, a, the valve f being at this time
open, to allow the exhaust into the condenser, h.
The piston now being at the lower end of the cylinder, and the pump-rods at
the opposite end of the beam, y, being thus raised and the pumps filled with
water, the valves c and f close, while e opens, allowing the steam which
remains above the piston to flow beneath it, until, the pressures becoming
equal above and below, the weight of the pump-rods overbalancing that of
the piston, the latter is rapidly drawn to the top of the cylinder, while the
steam is displaced above, passing to the under-side of the piston.
The valve e is next closed, and c and f are again opened; the down-stroke is
repeated. The water and air entering the condenser are removed at each
stroke by the air-pump, i, which communicates with the condenser by the
passage s. The pump q supplies condensing-water, and the pump A takes
away a part of the water of condensation, which is thrown by the air-pump
into the “hot-well,” k, and from it the feed-pump supplies the boiler. The
valves are moved by valve-gear very similar to Beighton’s and Smeaton’s,
by the pins, m m, in the “plug-frame” or “tappet-rod,” n n.
The engine is mounted upon a substantial foundation, B B. F is an opening
out of which, before starting the engine, the air is driven from the cylinder
and condenser.
The inventions covered by the patent of 1769 were described as follows:
“My method of lessening the consumption of steam, and consequently fuel,
in fire-engines, consists in the following principles:
“1st. That the vessel in which the powers of steam are to be employed to
work the engine—which is called ‘the cylinder’ in common fire-engines,
and which I call ‘the steam-vessel’—must, during the whole time that the
engine is at work, be kept as hot as the steam which enters it; first, by
inclosing it in a case of wood, or any other materials that transmit heat
slowly; secondly, by surrounding it with steam or other heated bodies; and
thirdly, by suffering neither water nor other substances colder than the
steam to enter or touch it during that time.
“2dly. In engines that are to be worked, wholly or partially, by condensation
of steam, the steam is to be condensed in vessels distinct from the steam-

vessel or cylinder, though occasionally communicating with them. These
vessels I call condensers; and while the engines are working, these
condensers ought at least to be kept as cold as the air in the neighborhood
of the engines, by application of water or other cold bodies.
“3dly. Whatever air or other elastic vapor is not condensed by the cold of
the condenser, and may impede the working of the engine, is to be drawn
out of the steam-vessels or condensers by means of pumps, wrought by the
engines themselves, or otherwise.
“4thly. I intend in many cases to employ the expansive force of steam to
press on the pistons, or whatever may be used instead of them, in the same
manner as the pressure of the atmosphere is now employed in common fire-
engines. In cases where cold water cannot be had in plenty, the engines may
be wrought by this force of steam only, by discharging the steam into the
open air after it has done its office.
“5thly. Where motions round an axis are required, I make the steam-vessels
in form of hollow rings or circular channels, with proper inlets and outlets
for the steam, mounted on horizontal axles like the wheels of a water-mill.
Within them are placed a number of valves that suffer any body to go round
the channel in one direction only. In these steam-vessels are placed weights,
so fitted to them as to fill up a part or portion of their channels, yet rendered
capable of moving freely in them by the means hereinafter mentioned or
specified. When the steam is admitted in these engines between these
weights and the valves, it acts equally on both, so as to raise the weight on
one side of the wheel, and, by the reaction of the valves successively, to
give a circular motion to the wheel, the valves opening in the direction in
which the weights are pressed, but not in the contrary. As the vessel moves
round, it is supplied with steam from the boiler, and that which has
performed its office may either be discharged by means of condensers, or
into the open air.
“6thly. I intend in some cases to apply a degree of cold not capable of
reducing the steam to water, but of contracting it considerably, so that the
engines shall be worked by the alternate expansion and contraction of the
steam.

“Lastly, instead of using water to render the piston or other parts of the
engine air or steam-tight, I employ oils, wax, resinous bodies, fat of
animals, quicksilver, and other metals, in their fluid state.”
In the construction and erection of his engines, Watt still had great difficulty
in finding skillful workmen to make the parts with accuracy, to fit them
with care, and to erect them properly when once finished. And the fact that
both Newcomen and Watt met with such serious trouble, indicates that,
even had the engine been designed earlier, it is quite unlikely that the world
would have seen the steam-engine a success until this time, when
mechanics were just acquiring the skill requisite for its construction. But, on
the other hand, it is not at all improbable that, had the mechanics of an
earlier period been as skillful and as well-educated in the manual niceties of
their business, the steam-engine might have been much earlier brought into
use.
In the time of the Marquis of Worcester it would have probably been found
impossible to obtain workmen to construct the steam-engine of Watt, had it
been then invented. Indeed, Watt, upon one occasion, congratulated himself
that one of his steam-cylinders only lacked three-eighths of an inch of being
truly cylindrical.
The history of the steam-engine is from this time a history of the work of
the firm of Boulton & Watt. Newcomen engines continued to be built for
years after Watt went to Soho, and by many builders. A host of inventors
still worked on the most attractive of all mechanical combinations, seeking
to effect further improvements. Some inventions were made by
contemporaries of Watt, as will be seen hereafter, which were important as
being the germs of later growths; but these were nearly all too far in
advance of the time, and nearly every successful and important invention
which marked the history of steam-power for many years originated in the
fertile brain of James Watt.
The defects of the Newcomen engine were so serious, that it was no sooner
known that Boulton of Soho had become interested in a new machine for
raising water by steam-power, than inquiries came to him from all sides,
from mine-owners who were on the point of being drowned out, and from
proprietors whose profits were absorbed by the expense of pumping, and

who were glad to pay the £5 per horse-power per year finally settled upon
as royalty. The London municipal water-works authorities were also ready
to negotiate for pumping-engines for raising water to supply the metropolis.
The firm was therefore at once driven to make preparations for a large
business.
The first and most important matter, however, was to secure an extension of
the patent, which was soon to expire. If not renewed, the 15 years of study
and toil, of poverty and anxiety, through which Watt had toiled, would
prove profitless to the inventor, and the fruits of his genius would have
become the unearned property of others. Watt saw, at one time, little hope
of securing the necessary act of Parliament, and was greatly tempted to
accept a position tendered him by the Russian Government, upon the
solicitation of his old friend, Dr. Robison, then a Professor of Mathematics
at the Naval School at Cronstadt. The salary was £1,000—a princely
income for a man in Watt’s circumstances, and a peculiar temptation to the
needy mechanic.
Watt, however, went to London, and, with the help of his own and of
Boulton’s influential friends, succeeded in getting his bill through. His
patent was extended 24 years, and Boulton & Watt set about the work of
introducing their engines with the industry and enterprise which
characterized their every act.
In the new firm, Boulton took charge of the general business, and Watt
superintended the design, construction, and erection of their engines.
Boulton’s business capacity, with Watt’s wonderful mechanical ability—
Boulton’s physical health, and his vigor and courage, offsetting Watt’s
feeble health and depression of spirits—and, more than all, Boulton’s
pecuniary resources, both in his own purse and in those of his friends,
enabled the firm to conquer all difficulties, whether in finance, in litigation,
or in engineering.
It was only after the successful erection and operation of several engines
that Boulton and Watt became legally partners. The understood terms were
explicitly stated by Watt to include an assignment to Boulton of two-thirds
the patent-right; Boulton paying all expenses, advancing stock in trade at an

appraised valuation, on which it was to draw interest; Watt making all
drawings and designs, and drawing one-third net profits.
As soon as Watt was relieved of the uncertainties regarding his business
connections, he married a second wife, who, as Arago says, by “her various
talent, soundness of judgment, and strength of character,” made a worthy
companion to the large-hearted and large-brained engineer. Thenceforward
his cares were only such as every business-man expects to be compelled to
sustain, and the next ten years were the most prolific in inventions of any
period in Watt’s life.
From 1775 to 1785 the partners acquired five patents, covering a large
number of valuable improvements upon the steam-engine, and several
independent inventions. The first of these patents covered the now familiar
and universally-used copying-press for letters, and a machine for drying
cloth by passing it between copper rollers filled with steam of sufficiently
high temperature to rapidly evaporate the moisture. This patent was issued
February 14, 1780.

Fig. 27.—Watt’s Engine, 1781.

In the following year, October 25, 1781, Watt patented five devices by
which he obtained the rotary motion of the engine-shaft without the use of a
crank. One of these was the arrangement shown in Fig. 27, and known as
the “sun-and-planet” wheels. The crank-shaft carries a gear-wheel, which is
engaged by another securely fixed upon the end of the connecting-rod. As
the latter is compelled to revolve about the axis of the shaft by a tie which
confines the connecting-rod end at a fixed distance from the shaft, the shaft-
gear is compelled to revolve, and the shaft with it. Any desired velocity-
ratio was secured by giving the two gears the necessary relative diameters.
A fly-wheel was used to regulate the motion of the shaft.[39] Boulton & Watt
used the sun-and-planet device on many engines, but finally adopted the
crank, when the expiration of the patent held by Matthew Wasborough, and

which had earlier date than Watt’s patent of 1781, permitted them. Watt had
proposed the use of a crank, it is said, as early as 1771, but Wasborough
anticipated him in securing the patent. Watt had made a model of an engine
with a crank and fly-wheel, and he has stated that one of his workmen, who
had seen the model, described it to Wasborough, thus enabling the latter to
deprive Watt of his own property. The proceeding excited great indignation
on the part of Watt; but no legal action was taken by Boulton & Watt, as the
overthrow of the patent was thought likely to do them injury by permitting
its use by more active competitors and more ingenious men.
The next patent issued to Watt was an exceedingly important one, and of
especial interest in a history of the development of the economical
application of steam. This patent included:
1. The expansion of steam, and six methods of applying the principle and of
equalizing the expansive power.
2. The double-acting steam-engine, in which the steam acts on each side of
the piston alternately, the opposite side being in communication with the
condenser.
3. The double or coupled steam-engine—two engines capable of working
together, or independently, as may be desired.
4. The use of a rack on the piston-rod, working into a sector on the end of
the beam, thus securing a perfect rectilinear motion of the rod.
5. A rotary engine, or “steam-wheel.”
The efficiency to be secured by the expansion of steam had long been
known to Watt, and he had conceived the idea of economizing some of that
power, the waste of which was so plainly indicated by the violent rushing of
the exhaust-steam into the condenser, as early as 1769. This was described
in a letter to Dr. Small, of Birmingham, in May of that year. When
experimenting at Kinneil, he had tried to determine the real value of the
principle by trial on his small engine.
Boulton had also recognized the importance of this improved method of
working steam, and their earlier Soho engines were, as Watt said, made with
cylinders “double the size wanted, and cut off the steam at half-stroke.”

But, though “this was a great saving of steam, so long as the valves
remained as at first,” the builders were so constantly annoyed by alterations
of the valves by proprietors and their engineers, that they finally gave up
that method of working, hoping ultimately to be able to resume it when
workmen of greater intelligence and reliability could be found. The patent
was issued July 17, 1782.
Watt specified a cut-off at one-quarter stroke as usually best.
Watt’s explanation of the method of economizing by expansive working, as
given to Dr. Small,[40] is worthy of reproduction. He says: “I mentioned to
you a method of still doubling the effect of steam, and that tolerably easy,
by using the power of steam rushing into a vacuum, at present lost. This
would do a little more than double the effect, but it would too much enlarge
the vessels to use it all. It is peculiarly applicable to wheel-engines, and
may supply the want of a condenser where force of steam is only used; for,
open one of the steam-valves and admit steam, until one-fourth of the
distance between it and the next valve is filled with steam, shut the valve,
and the steam will continue to expand and to pass round the wheel with a
diminishing power, ending in one-fourth its first exertion. The sum of this
series you will find greater than one-half, though only one-fourth steam was
used. The power will indeed be unequal, but this can be remedied by a fly,
or in several other ways.”
It will be noticed that Watt suggests, above, the now well-known non-
condensing engine. He had already, as has been seen, described it in his
patent of 1769, as also the rotary engine.

Fig. 28.—Expansion of Steam.

Watt illustrates and explains his idea very neatly, by a sketch similar to that
here given (Fig. 28).
Steam, entering the cylinder at a, is admitted until one-fourth the stroke has
been made, when the steam-valve is closed, and the remainder of the stroke
is performed without further addition of steam. The variation of steam-
pressure is approximately inversely proportional to the variation of its
volume. Thus, at half-stroke, the pressure becomes one-half that at which
the steam was supplied to the cylinder. At the end of the stroke it has fallen
to one-fourth the initial pressure. The pressure is always nearly equal to the
product of the initial pressure and volume divided by the volume at the
given instant. In symbols,
PV
P′ =
V′

It is true that the condensation of steam doing work changes this law in a
marked manner; but the condensation and reëvaporation of steam, due to
the transfer of heat to and from the metal of the cylinder, tends to
compensate the first variation by a reverse change of pressure with change
of volume.
The sketch shows this progressive variation of pressure as expansion
proceeds. It is seen that the work done per unit of volume of steam as taken
from the boiler is much greater than when working without expansion. The
product of the mean pressure by the volume of the cylinder is less, but the
quotient obtained by dividing this quantity by the volume or weight of
steam taken from the boiler, is much greater with than without expansion.
For the case assumed and illustrated, the work done during expansion is one
and two-fifths times that done previous to cutting off the steam, and the
work done per pound of steam is 2.4 times that done without expansion.
Were there no losses to be met with and to be exaggerated by the use of
steam expansively, the gain would become very great with moderate
expansion, amounting to twice the work done when “following” full stroke,
when the steam is cut off at one-seventh. The estimated gain is, however,
never realized. Losses by friction, by conduction and radiation of heat, and
by condensation and reëvaporation in the cylinder—of which losses the
latter are most serious—after passing a point which is variable, and which is
determined by the special conditions in each case, augment with greater
rapidity than the gain by expansion.
In actual practice, it is rarely found, except where special precautions are
taken to reduce these losses, that economy follows expansion to a greater
number of volumes than about one-half the square root of the steam-
pressure; i. e., about twice for 15 or 20 pounds pressure, three times for
about 30 pounds, and four and five times for 60 or 65 and for 100 to 125
pounds respectively. Watt very soon learned this general principle; but
neither he, nor even many modern engineers, seem to have learned that too
great expansion often gives greatly-reduced economy.
The inequality of pressure due to expansion, to which he refers, was a
source of much perplexity to Watt, as he was for a long time convinced that
he must find some method of “equalizing” the consequent irregular effort of

the steam upon the piston. The several methods of “equalizing the
expansive power” which are referred to in the patent were attempts to
secure this result. By one method, he shifted the centre as the beam
vibrated, thus changing the lengths of the arms of that great lever, to
compensate the change of moment consequent upon the change of pressure.
He finally concluded that a fly-wheel, as first proposed by Fitzgerald, who
advised its use on Papin’s engine, would be the best device on engines
driving a crank, and trusted to the inertia of a balance-weight in his
pumping-engines, or to the weight of the pump-rods, and permitted the
piston to take its own speed so far as it was not thus controlled.
The double-acting engine was a modification of the single-acting engine,
and was very soon determined upon after the successful working of the
latter had become assured.
Watt had covered in the top of his single-acting engine, to prevent cooling
the interior of the cylinder by contact with the comparatively cold
atmosphere. When this had been done, there was but a single step required
to convert the machine into the double-acting engine. This alteration, by
which the steam was permitted to act upon the upper and the lower sides of
the piston alternately, had been proposed by Watt as early as 1767, and a
drawing of the engine was laid before a committee of the House of
Commons in 1774-’75. By this simple change Watt doubled the power of
his engine. Although invented much earlier, the plan was not patented until
he was, as he states, driven to take out the patent by the “plagiarists and
pirates” who were always ready to profit by his ingenuity. This form of
engine is now almost universally used. The single-acting pumping-engine
remains in use in Cornwall, and in a few other localities, and now and then
an engine is built for other purposes, in which steam acts only on one side
of the piston; but these are rare exceptions to the general rule.
The subject of his next invention was not less interesting. The double-
cylinder or “compound” engine has now, after the lapse of nearly a century,
become an important and usual type of engine. It is impossible to determine
precisely to whom to award the credit of its first conception. Dr. Falk, in
1779, had proposed a double-acting engine, in which there were two single-
acting cylinders, acting in opposite directions and alternately on opposite
sides of a wheel, with which a rack on the piston-rod of each geared.

Watt claimed that Hornblower, the patentee of the “compound engine,” was
an infringer upon his patents; and, holding the patent on the separate
condenser, he was able to prevent the engine of his competitor taking such
form as to be successfully introduced. The Hornblower engine was soon
given up.
Watt stated that this form of engine had been invented by him as early as
1767, and that he had explained its peculiarities to Smeaton and others
several years before Hornblower attempted to use it. He wrote to Boulton:
“It is no less than our double-cylinder engine, worked upon our principle of
expansion.” He never made use of the plan, however; and the principal
object sought, apparently, in patenting this, as well as many other devices,
was to secure himself against competition.
The rack and sector patented at this time was soon superseded by the
parallel-motion; and the last claim, the “steam-wheel” or rotary engine,
although one was built of considerable size, was not introduced.
After the patent of 1782 had been secured, Watt turned his attention, when
not too hard-pressed by business, to other schemes, and to experimenting
with still other modifications and applications of his engine. He had, as
early as 1777, proposed to make a steam-hammer for Wilkinson’s forge; but
he was too closely engaged with more important matters to take hold of the
project with much earnestness until late in the year 1782, when, after some
preliminary trials, he reported, December 13th: “We have tried our little
tilting-forge hammer at Soho with success. The following are some of the
particulars: Cylinder, 15 inches in diameter; 4 feet stroke; strokes per
minute, 20. The hammer-head, 120 pounds weight, rises 8 inches, and
strikes 240 blows per minute. The machine goes quite regularly, and can be
managed as easily as a water-mill. It requires a very small quantity of steam
—not above half the contents of the cylinder per stroke. The power
employed is not more than one-fourth of what would be required to raise
the quantity of water which would enable a water-wheel to work the same
hammer with the same velocity.”
He immediately set about making a much heavier hammer, and on April 26,
1783, he wrote that he had done “a thing never done before”—making his
hammer strike 300 blows a minute. This hammer weighed 71∕2

hundredweight, and had a drop of 2 feet. The steam-cylinder had a diameter
of 42 inches and 6 feet stroke of piston, and was calculated to have
sufficient power to drive four hammers weighing 7 hundredweight each.
The engine made 20 strokes per minute, the hammer giving 90 blows in the
same time.
This new application of steam-power proving successful, Watt next began
to develop a series of minor inventions, which were finally secured by his
patent of April 27, 1784, together with the steam tilt-hammer, and a steam-
carriage, or “locomotive engine.”
The contrivance previously used for guiding the head of the piston-rod—the
sectors and chains, or rack—had never given satisfaction. The rudeness of
design of the contrivance was only equalled by its insecurity. Watt therefore
contrived a number of methods of accomplishing the purpose, the most
beautiful and widely-known of which is the “parallel-motion,” although it
has now been generally superseded by one of the other devices patented at
the same time—the cross-head and guides. As originally proposed, a rod
was attached to the head of the piston-rod, standing vertically when the
latter was at quarter-stroke. The upper end of this rod was pivoted to the
end of the beam, and the lower end to the extremity of a horizontal rod
having a length equal to one-half the length of the beam. The other end of
the horizontal rod was coupled to the frame of the engine. As the piston rose
and fell, the upper and lower ends of the vertical rod were swayed in
opposite directions, and to an equal extent, by the beam and the lower
horizontal rod, the middle point at which the piston-rod was attached
preserving its position in the vertical line. This form was objectionable, as
the whole effort of the engine was transmitted through the parallel-motion
rods. Another form is shown in the sketch given of the double-acting engine
in Fig. 31, which was free from this defect. The head of the piston-rod, g,
was guided by rods connecting it with the frame at c, and forming a
“parallelogram,” g d e b, with the beam. Many varieties of “parallel-
motion” have been devised since Watt’s invention was attached to his
engines at Soho. They usually are more or less imperfect, guiding the
piston-rod in a line only approximately straight.
The cross-head and guides are now generally used, very much as described
by Watt in this patent as his “second principle.” This device will be seen in

the engravings given hereafter of more modern engines. The head of the
piston-rod is fitted into a transverse bar, or cross-head, which carries
properly-shaped pieces at its extremities, to which are bolted “gibs,” so
made as to fit upon guides secured to the engine-frame. These guides are
adjusted to precise parallelism with the centre line of the cylinder. The
cross-head, sliding in or on these guides, moves in a perfectly straight line,
and, compelling the piston-rod to move with it, the latter is even more
perfectly guided than by a parallel-motion. This arrangement, where
properly proportioned, is not necessarily subject to great friction, and is
much more easily adjusted and kept in line than the parallel-motion when
wear occurs or maladjustment takes place.
By the same patent, Watt secured the now common “puppet-valve” with
beveled seat, and the application of the steam-engine to driving rolling-
mills and hammers for forges, and to “wheel-carriages for removing
persons or goods, or other matters, from place to place.” For the latter
purpose he proposes to use boilers “of wood, or of thin metal, strongly
secured by hoops or otherwise,” and containing “internal fire-boxes.” He
proposed to use a condenser cooled by currents of air.
It would require too much space to follow Watt in all his schemes for the
improvement and for the application of the steam-engine. A few of the more
important and more ingenious only can be described. Many of the contracts
of Boulton & Watt gave them, as compensation for their engines, a fraction
—usually one-third—of the value of the fuel saved by the use of the Watt
engine in place of the engine of Newcomen, the amount due being paid
annually or semiannually, with an option of redemption on the part of the
purchaser at ten years’ purchase. This form of agreement compelled a
careful determination, often, of the work done and fuel consumed by both
the engine taken out and that put in its place. It was impossible to rely upon
any determination by personal observation of the number of strokes made
by the engine. Watt therefore made a “counter,” like that now familiar to
every one as used on gas-meters. It consists of a train of wheels moving
pointers on several dials, the first dial showing tens, the second hundreds,
the third thousands, etc., strokes or revolutions. Motion was communicated
to the train by means of a pendulum, the whole being mounted on the beam
of the engine, where every vibration produced a swing of the pendulum.
Eight dials were sometimes used, the counter being set and locked, and only

opened once a year, when the time arrived for determining the work done
during the preceding twelve-month.
The application of his engine to purposes for which careful adjustment of
speed was requisite, or where the load was subject to considerable variation,
led to the use of a controlling-valve in the steam-pipe, called the “throttle-
valve,” which was adjustable by hand, and permitted the supply of steam to
the engine to be adjusted at any instant and altered to any desired extent. It
is now given many forms, but it still is most usually made just as originally
designed by Watt. It consists of a circular disk, which just closes up the
steam-pipe when set directly across it, or of an elliptical disk, which closes
the pipe when standing at an angle of somewhat less than 90° with the line
of the pipe. This disk is carried on a spindle extending through the pipe at
one side, and carrying on its outer end an arm by means of which it may be
turned into any position. When placed with its face in line with the pipe, it
offers very little resistance to the flow of steam to the engine. When set in
the other position, it shuts off steam entirely and stops the engine. It is
placed in such position at any time, that the speed of the engine is just that
required at the time. In the engraving of the double-acting engine with fly-
wheel (Fig. 31), it is shown at T, as controlled by the governor.

Fig. 29.—The Governor.

The governor, or “fly-ball governor,” as it is often distinctively called, was
another of Watt’s minor but very essential inventions. Two heavy iron or
brass balls, B B′, were suspended from pins, C C′, in a little cross-piece
carried on the head of a vertical spindle, A A′, driven by the engine. The
speed of the engine varying, that of the spindle changed correspondingly,
and the faster the balls were swung the farther they separated. When the
engine’s speed decreased, the period of revolution of the balls was
increased, and they fell back toward the spindle. Whenever the velocity of
the engine was uniform, the balls preserved their distance from the spindle
and remained at the same height, their altitude being determined by the
relation existing between the force of gravity and centrifugal force in the
temporary position of equilibrium. The distance from the point of
suspension down to the level of the balls is always equal to 9.78 inches
divided by the square of the number of revolutions per second—i. e.,
1 1
h = 9.78 = 0.248 meters.
N2 N2
The arms carrying the balls, or the balls themselves, are pinned to rods, M
M′, which are connected to a piece, N N′, sliding loosely on the spindle. A
score, T, cut in this piece engages a lever, V, and, as the balls rise and fall, a
rod, W, is moved, closing and opening the throttle-valve, and thus adjusting
the supply of steam in such a way as to preserve a nearly fixed speed of
engine. The connection with the throttle-valve and with the cut-off valve-
gear is seen not only in the engraving of the double-acting Watt engine, but
also in those of the Greene and the Corliss engines. This contrivance had
previously been used in regulating water-wheels and windmills. Watt’s
invention consisted in its application to the regulation of the steam-engine.

Fig. 30.
Mercury Steam Gauge. Glass Water Gauge.

Still another useful invention of Watt’s was his “mercury steam-gauge”—a
barometer in which the height of the mercury was determined by the
pressure of the steam instead of that of the atmosphere. This simple
instrument consisted merely of a bent tube containing a portion of mercury.
One leg, B D, of this U-tube was connected with the steam-pipe, or with the
boiler by a small steam-pipe; the other end, C, was open to the atmosphere.
The pressure of the steam on the mercury in B D caused it to rise in the
other “leg” to a height exactly proportioned to the pressure, and causing
very nearly two inches difference of level to the pound, or one inch to the
pound actual rise in the outer leg. The rude sketch from Farey, here given
(Fig. 30), indicates sufficiently well the form of this gauge. It is still
considered by engineers the most reliable of all forms of steam-gauge.
Unfortunately, it is not conveniently applicable at high pressure. The scale,
A, is marked with numbers indicating the pressure, which numbers are
indicated by the head of a rod floating up with the mercury.
A similar gauge was used to determine the degree of perfection of vacuum
attained in the condenser, the mercury falling in the outer leg as the vacuum
became more complete. A perfect vacuum would cause a depression of
level in that leg to 30 inches below the level of the mercury in the leg

connected with the condenser. In a more usual form, it consisted of a simple
glass tube having its lower end immersed in a cistern of mercury, as in the
ordinary barometer, the top of the tube being connected with a pipe leading
to the condenser. With a perfect vacuum in the condenser, the mercury
would rise in the tube very nearly 30 inches. Ordinarily, the vacuum is not
nearly perfect, and, a back pressure remaining in the condenser of one or
two pounds per square inch, the atmospheric pressure remaining
unbalanced is only sufficient to raise the mercury 26 or 28 inches above the
level of the liquid metal in the cistern.
To determine the height of water in his boiler, Watt added to the gauge-
cocks already long in use the “glass water-gauge,” which is still seen in
nearly every well-arranged boiler. This was a glass tube, a a′ (Fig. 30),
mounted on a standard attached to the front of the boiler, and at such a
height that its middle point was very little below the proposed water-level.
It was connected by a small pipe, r, at the top to the steam-space, and
another little pipe, r′, led into the boiler from its lower end below the water-
line. As the water rose and fell within the boiler, its level changed
correspondingly in the glass. This little instrument is especially liked,
because the position of the water is at all times shown to the eye of the
attendant. If carefully protected against sudden changes of temperature, it
answers perfectly well with even very high pressures.

Fig. 31.—Boulton & Watt’s Double-Acting Engine, 1784.

The engines built by Boulton & Watt were finally fitted with the crank and
fly-wheel for application to the driving of mills and machinery. The
accompanying engraving (Fig. 31) shows the engine as thus made,
combining all of the essential improvements designed by its inventor.
In the engraving, C is the steam-cylinder, P the piston, connected to the
beam by the link, g, and guided by the parallel-motion, g d c. At the
opposite end of the beam a connecting-rod, O, connects with the crank and
fly-wheel shaft. R is the rod of the air-pump, by means of which the
condenser is kept from being flooded by the water used for condensation,
which water-supply is regulated by an “injection-handle,” E. A pump-rod,
N, leads down from the beam to the cold-water pump, by which water is
raised from the well or other source to supply the needed injection-water.
The air-pump rod also serves as a “plug-rod,” to work the valves, the pins at
m and R striking the lever, m, at either end of the stroke. When the piston
reaches the top of the cylinder, the lever, m, is raised, opening the steam-

valve, B, at the top, and the exhaust-valve, E, at the bottom, and at the same
time closing the exhaust at the top and the steam at the bottom. When the
entrance of steam at the top and the removal of steam-pressure below the
piston has driven the piston to the bottom, the pin, R, strikes the lever, m,
opening the steam and closing the exhaust valve at the bottom, and
similarly reversing the position of the valves at the top. The position of the
valves is changed in this manner with every reversal of the motion of the
piston as the crank “turns over the centre.”
The earliest engines of the double-acting kind, and of any considerable size,
which were built to turn a shaft, were those which were set up in the Albion
Mills, near Blackfriars’ Bridge, London, in 1786, and destroyed when the
mills burned down in 1791. There were a pair of these engines (shown in
Fig. 27), of 50 horse-power each, and geared to drive 20 pairs of stones,
making fine flour and meal. Previous to the erection of this mill the power
in all such establishments had been derived from windmills and water-
wheels. This mill was erected by Boulton & Watt, and capitalists working
with them, not only to secure the profit anticipated from locating a flour-
mill in the city of London, but also with a view to exhibiting the capacity of
the new double-acting “rotating” engine. The plan was proposed in 1783,
and work was commenced in 1784; but the mill was not set in operation
until the spring of 1786. The capacity of the mill was, in ordinary work,
16,000 bushels of wheat ground into fine flour per week. On one occasion,
the mill turned out 3,000 bushels in 24 hours. In the construction of the
machinery of the mill, many improvements upon the then standard practice
were introduced, including cast-iron gearing with carefully-formed teeth
and iron framing. It was here that John Rennie commenced his work, after
passing through his apprenticeship in Scotland, sending his chief assistant,
Ewart, to superintend the erection of the milling machinery. The mill was a
success as a piece of engineering, but a serious loss was incurred by the
capitalists engaged in the enterprise, as it was set on fire a few years
afterward and entirely destroyed. Boulton and Watt were the principal
losers, the former losing £6,000, and the latter £3,000.

Fig. 32.—Valve-Gear of the Albion Mills Engine.

The valve-gear of this engine, a view of which is given in Fig. 27, was quite
similar to that used on the Watt pumping-engine. The accompanying
illustration (Fig. 32) represents this valve-motion as attached to the Albion
Mills engine.
The steam-pipe, a b d d e, leads the steam from the boiler to the chambers,
b and e. The exhaust-pipe, g g, leads from h and i to the condenser. In the
sketch, the upper steam and the lower exhaust valves, b and f, are opened,
and the steam-valve, e, and exhaust-valve, c, are closed, the piston being
near the upper end of the cylinder and descending. l represents the plug-
frame, which carries tappets, 2 and 3, which engage the lever, s, at either
end of its throw, and turn the shaft, u, thus opening and closing c and e

simultaneously by means of the connecting-links, 13 and 14. A similar pair
of tappets on the opposite side of the plug-rod move the valves, b and f, by
means of the rods, 10 and 11, the arm, r, when struck by those tappets,
turning the shaft, t, and thus moving the arms to which those rods are
attached. Counterbalance-weights, carried on the ends of the arms, 4 and
15, retain the valves on their seats when closed by the action of the tappets.
When the piston nearly reaches the lower end of the cylinder, the tappet, 1,
engages the arm, r, closing the steam-valve, b, and the next instant shutting
the exhaust-valve, f. At the same time, the tappet, 3, by moving the arm, s,
downward, opens the steam-valve, e, and the exhaust-valve, c. Steam now
no longer issues from the steam-pipe into the space, c, and thence into the
engine-cylinder (not shown in the sketch); but it now enters the engine
through the valve, e, forcing the piston upwards. The exhaust is
simultaneously made to occur at the upper end, the rejected steam passing
from the engine into the space, c, and thence through c and the pipe, g, into
the condenser.
This kind of valve-gear was subsequently greatly improved by Murdoch,
Watt’s ingenious and efficient foreman, but it is now entirely superseded on
engines of this class by the eccentric, and the various forms of valve-gear
driven by it.

Fig. 33.—Watt’s Half-Trunk Engine, 1784.

The “trunk-engine” was still another of the almost innumerable inventions
of Watt. A half-trunk engine is described in his patent of 1784, as shown in
the accompanying sketch (Fig. 33), in which A is the cylinder, B the piston,
and C its rod, encased in the half-trunk, D. The plug-rod, G, moves the
single pair of valves by striking the catches, E and F, as was usual with
Watt’s earlier engines.
Watt’s steam-hammer was patented at the same time. It is seen in Fig. 34, in
which A is the steam-cylinder and B its rod, the engine being evidently of
the form just described. It works a beam, C C, which in turn, by the rod, M,

works the hammer-helve, L J, and the hammer, L. The beam, F G, is a
spring, and the block, N, the anvil.
Watt found it impossible to determine the duty of his engines at all times by
measurement of the work itself, and endeavored to find a way of
ascertaining the power produced, by ascertaining the pressure of steam
within the cylinder. This pressure was so variable, and subject to such rapid
as well as extreme fluctuations, that he found it impossible to make use of
the steam-gauge constructed for use on the boiler. He was thus driven to
invent a special instrument for this work, which he called the “steam-engine
indicator.” This consisted of a little steam-cylinder containing a nicely-
fitting piston, which moved without noticeable friction through a range
which was limited by the compression of a helical spring, by means of
which the piston was secured to the top of its cylinder. The distance through
which the piston rose was proportional to the pressure exerted upon it, and a
pointer attached to its rod traversed a scale upon which the pressure per
square inch could be read. The lower end of the instrument being connected
with the steam-cylinder of the engine by a small pipe fitted with a cock, the
opening of the latter permitted steam from the engine-cylinder to fill the
indicator-cylinder, and the pressure of steam was always the same in both
cylinders. The indicator-pointer therefore traversed the pressure-scale,
always exhibiting the pressure existing at the instant in the cylinder of the
engine. When the engine was at rest and steam off, the indicator-piston
stood at the same level as when detached from the engine, and the pointer
stood at 0 on the scale. When steam entered, the piston rose and fell with
the fluctuations of pressure; and when the exhaust-valve opened,
discharging the steam and producing a vacuum in the steam-cylinder, the
pointer of the indicator dropped below 0, showing the degree of exhaustion.
Mr. Southern, one of Watt’s assistants, fitted the instrument with a sliding
board, moved horizontally backward and forward by a cord or link-work
connecting directly or indirectly with the engine-beam, and thus giving it a
motion coincident with that of the piston. This board carried a piece of
paper, upon which a pencil attached to the indicator piston-rod drew a
curve. The vertical height of any point on this curve above the base-line
measured the pressure in the cylinder at the moment when it was made, and
the horizontal distance of the point from either end of the diagram
determined the position, at the same moment, of the engine-piston. The

curve thus inscribed, called the “indicator card,” or indicator diagram,
exhibiting every minute change in the pressure of steam in the engine, not
only enabled the mean pressure and the power of the engine to be
determined by its measurement, but, to the eye of the expert engineer, it was
a perfectly legible statement of the position of the valves of the engine, and
revealed almost every defect in the action of the engine which could not
readily be detected by external examination. It has justly been called the
“engineers’ stethoscope,” opening the otherwise inaccessible parts of the
steam-engine to the inspection of the engineer even more satisfactorily than
the stethoscope of the physician gives him a knowledge of the condition
and working of organs contained within the human body. This indispensable
and now familiar engineers’ instrument has since been modified and greatly
improved in detail.

Fig. 34.—The Watt Hammer, 1784.

The Watt engine had, by the construction of the improvements described in
the patents of 1782-’85, been given its distinctive form, and the great
inventor subsequently did little more than improve it by altering the forms
and proportions of its details. As thus practically completed, it embodied
nearly all the essential features of the modern engine; and, as we have seen,
the marked features of our latest practice—the use of the double cylinder
for expansion, the cut-off valve-gear, and surface-condensation—had all
been proposed, and to a limited extent introduced. The growth of the steam-
engine has here ceased to be rapid, and the changes which followed the

completion of the work of James Watt have been minor improvements, and
rarely, if ever, real developments.
Watt’s mind lost none of its activity, however, for many years. He devised
and patented a “smoke-consuming furnace,” in which he led the gases
produced on the introduction of fresh fuel over the already incandescent
coal, and thus burned them completely. He used two fires, which were
coaled alternately. Even when busiest, also, he found time to pursue more
purely scientific studies. With Boulton, he induced a number of well-known
scientific men living near Birmingham to join in the formation of a “Lunar
Society,” to meet monthly at the houses of its members, “at the full of the
moon.” The time was thus fixed in order that those members who came
from a distance should be able to drive home, after the meetings, by
moonlight. Many such societies were then in existence in England; but that
at Birmingham was one of the largest and most distinguished of them all.
Boulton, Watt, Drs. Small, Darwin, and Priestley, were the leaders, and
among their occasional visitors were Herschel, Smeaton, and Banks. Watt
called these meetings “Philosophers’ meetings.” It was during the period of
most active discussion at the “philosophers’ meetings” that Cavendish and
Priestley were experimenting with mixtures of oxygen and hydrogen, to
determine the nature of their combustion. Watt took much interest in the
subject, and, when informed by Priestley that he and Cavendish had both
noticed a deposit of moisture invariably succeeding the explosion of the
mixed gases, when contained in a cold vessel, and that the weight of this
water was approximately equal to the weight of the mixed gases, he at once
came to the conclusion that the union of hydrogen with oxygen produced
water, the latter being a chemical compound, of which the former were
constituents. He communicated this reasoning, and the conclusions to which
it had led him, to Boulton, in a letter written in December, 1782, and
addressed a letter some time afterward to Priestley, which was to have been
read before the Royal Society in April, 1783. The letter was not read,
however, until a year later, and, three months after, a paper by Cavendish,
making the same announcement, had been laid before the Society. Watt
stated that both Cavendish and Lavoisier, to whom also the discovery is
ascribed, received the idea from him.
The action of chlorine in bleaching organic coloring-matters, by (as since
shown) decomposing them and combining with their hydrogen, was made

known to Watt by M. Berthollet, the distinguished French chemist, and the
former immediately introduced its use into Great Britain, by inducing his
father-in-law, Mr. Macgregor, to make a trial of it.
The copartnership of Boulton & Watt terminated by limitation, and with the
expiration of the patents under which they had been working, in the first
year of the present century; and both partners, now old and feeble,
withdrew from active business, leaving their sons to renew the agreement
and to carry on the business under the same firm-style.
Boulton, however, still interested himself in some branches of manufacture,
especially in his mint, where he had coined many years and for several
nations.
Watt retired, a little later, to Heathfield, where he passed the remainder of
his life in peaceful enjoyment of the society of his friends, in studies of all
current matters of interest in science, as well as in engineering. One by one
his old friends died—Black in 1799, Priestley, an exile to America, in 1803,
and Robison a little later. Boulton died, at the age of eighty-one, August 17,
1809, and even the loss of this nearest and dearest of his friends outside the
family was a less severe blow than that of his son Gregory, who died in
1804.
Yet the great engineer and inventor was not depressed by the loneliness
which was gradually coming upon him. He wrote: “I know that all men
must die, and I submit to the decrees of Nature, I hope, with due reverence
to the Disposer of events;” and neglected no opportunity to secure
amusement or instruction, and kept body and mind constantly occupied. He
still attended the weekly meetings of the club, meeting Rennie and Telford,
and other distinguished men of his own and the succeeding generation. He
lost nothing of his fondness for invention, and spent many months in
devising a machine for copying statuary, which he had not perfected to his
own satisfaction at the time of his death, ten years later. This machine was a
kind of pentagraph, which could be worked in any plane, and in which the
marking-pencil gave place to a cutting-tool. The tracing-point followed the
surface of the pattern, while the cutting-point, following its motion
precisely, formed a fac-simile in the material operated upon.

In the year 1800 he invented the water-main which was laid down by the
Glasgow Water-Works Company across the Clyde. The joints were
spherical and articulated, like those of the lobster’s tail.
His workshop, of which a sketch is hereafter given, as drawn by the artist
Skelton, was in the garret of his house, and was well supplied with tools
and all kinds of laboratory material. His lathe and his copying-machine
were placed before the window, and his writing-desk in the corner. Here he
spent the greater part of his leisure time, often even taking his meals in the
little shop, rather than go to the table for them. Even when very old, he
occasionally made a journey to London or Glasgow, calling on his old
friends and studying the latest engineering devices and inspecting public
works, and was everywhere welcomed by young and old as the greatest
living engineer, or as the kind and wise friend of earlier days.
He died August 19, 1819, in the eighty-third year of his age, and was buried
in Handsworth Church. The sculptor Chantrey was employed to place a
fitting monument above his grave, and the nation erected a statue of the
great man in Westminster Abbey.
This sketch of the greatest of all the inventors of the steam-engine has been
given no greater length than its subject justifies. Whether we consider Watt
as the inventor of the standard steam-engine of the nineteenth century, as
the scientific investigator of the physical principles upon which the
invention is based, or as the builder and introducer of the most powerful
known instrument by which the “great sources of power in Nature are
converted, adapted, and applied for the use and convenience of man,” he is
fully entitled to preëminence. His character as a man was no less admirable
than as an engineer.

Fig. 35.—James Watt’s Workshop.
(From Smiles’s “Lives of Boulton and Watt.”)

Smiles, Watt’s most conscientious and indefatigable biographer, writes:[41]
“Some months since, we visited the little garret at Heathfield in which Watt
pursued the investigations of his later years. The room had been carefully
locked up since his death, and had only once been swept out. Everything lay
very much as he left it. The piece of iron which he was last employed in
turning, lay on the lathe. The ashes of the last fire were in the grate; the last
bit of coal was in the scuttle. The Dutch oven was in its place over the
stove, and the frying-pan in which he cooked his meals was hanging on its
accustomed nail. Many objects lay about or in the drawers, indicating the
pursuits which had been interrupted by death—busts, medallions, and
figures, waiting to be copied by the copying-machine—many medallion-
moulds, a store of plaster-of-Paris, and a box of plaster casts from London,
the contents of which do not seem to have been disturbed. Here are Watt’s
ladles for melting lead, his foot-rule, his glue-pot, his hammer. Reflecting
mirrors, an extemporized camera with the lenses mounted on pasteboard,
and many camera-glasses laid about, indicate interrupted experiments in
optics. There are quadrant-glasses, compasses, scales, weights, and sundry
boxes of mathematical instruments, once doubtless highly prized. In one
place a model of the governor, in another of the parallel-motion, and in a
little box, fitted with wooden cylinders mounted with paper and covered
with figures, is what we suppose to be a model of his calculating-machine.

On the shelves are minerals and chemicals in pots and jars, on which the
dust of nearly half a century has settled. The moist substances have long
since dried up; the putty has been turned to stone, and the paste to dust. On
one shelf we come upon a dish in which lies a withered bunch of grapes. On
the floor, in a corner, near to where Watt sat and worked, is a hair-trunk—a
touching memorial of a long-past love and a long-dead sorrow. It contains
all poor Gregory’s school-books, his first attempts at writing, his boy’s
drawings of battles, his first school-exercises down to his college-themes,
his delectuses, his grammars, his dictionaries, and his class-books—brought
into this retired room, where the father’s eye could rest upon them. Near at
hand is the sculpture-machine, on which he continued working to the last.
Its wooden frame is worm-eaten, and dropping into dust, like the hands that
made it. But though the great workman is gone to rest, with all his griefs
and cares, and his handiwork is fast crumbling to decay, the spirit of his
work, the thought which he put into his inventions, still survives, and will
probably continue to influence the destinies of his race for all time to
come.”
The visitor to Westminster Abbey will find neither monarch, nor warrior,
nor statesman, nor poet, honored with a nobler epitaph than that which is
inscribed on the pedestal of Chantrey’s monument to Watt:

Not to perpetuate a Name,
WHICH MUST ENDURE WHILE THE PEACEFUL ARTS FLOURISH,

BUT TO SHOW

THAT MANKIND HAVE LEARNT TO HONOR THOSE WHO BEST DESERVE THEIR

GRATITUDE,

T H E K I N G,
HIS MINISTERS, AND MANY OF THE NOBLES AND COMMONERS OF THE REALM,

RAISED THIS MONUMENT TO

J A M E S WAT T,
WHO, DIRECTING THE FORCE OF AN ORIGINAL GENIUS,

EARLY EXERCISED IN PHILOSOPHIC RESEARCH,

TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF

T H E S T E A M - E N G I N E,
ENLARGED THE RESOURCES OF HIS COUNTRY, INCREASED THE POWER OF MAN,

AND ROSE TO AN EMINENT PLACE

AMONG THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS FOLLOWERS OF SCIENCE AND THE REAL

BENEFACTORS OF THE WORLD.

Born at Greenock, MDCCXXXVI.
Died at Heathfield, in Staffordshire, MDCCCXIX.

Tomb of James Watt.

Section II.—The Contemporaries of James Watt.

In the chronology of the steam-engine, the contemporaries of Watt have
been so completely overshadowed by the greater and more successful
inventor, as to have been almost forgotten by the biographer and by the
student of history. Yet, among the engineers and engine-builders, as well as
among the inventors of his day, Watt found many enterprising rivals and
keen competitors. Some of these men, had they not been so completely
fettered by Watt’s patents, would have probably done work which would
have entitled them to far higher honor than has been accorded them.
William Murdoch was one of the men to whom Watt, no less than the
world, was greatly indebted. For many years he was the assistant, friend,
and coadjutor of Watt; and it is to his ingenuity that we are to give credit for
not only many independent inventions, but also for the suggestions and
improvements which were often indispensable to the formation and
perfection of some of Watt’s own inventions.
Murdoch was employed by Boulton & Watt in 1776, and was made
superintendent of construction in the engine department, and given general
charge of the erection of engines. He was sent into Cornwall, and spent in
that district much of the time during which he served the firm, erecting
pumping-engines, the construction of which for so many years constituted a
large part of the business of the Soho establishment. He was looked upon by
both Boulton and Watt as a sincere friend, as well as a loyal adherent, and
from 1810 to 1830 was given a partner’s share of the income of the firm,
and a salary of £1,000. He retired from business at the last of the two dates
named, and, dying in 1839, was buried near the two partners in Handsworth
Church.

Fig. 36.—Murdoch’s Oscillating Engine, 1785.

Murdoch made a model, in 1784, of the locomotive patented by Watt in that
year. He devised the arrangement of “sun-and-planet wheels,” adopted for a
time in all of Watt’s “rotative” engines, and invented the oscillating steam-
engine (Fig. 36) in 1785, using the “D-slide valves,” G, moved by the gear,
E, which was driven by an eccentric on the shaft, without regard to the
oscillation of the cylinder, A. He was the inventor of a rotary engine and of
many minor machines for special purposes, and of many machine-tools
used at Soho in building engines and machines. He seems, like Watt, to
have had special fondness for the worm-gear, and introduced it wherever it
could properly take the place of ordinary gearing. Some of the machines
designed by Watt and Murdoch, who always worked well together, were
found still in use and in good working condition by the author when visiting
the works at Soho in 1873. The old mint in which, from 1797 to 1805,
Boulton had coined 4,000 tons of copper, had then been pulled down, and a
new mint had been erected in 1860. Many old machines still remained
about the establishment as souvenirs of the three great mechanics.
Outside of Soho, Murdoch also found ample employment for his inventive
talent. In 1792, while at Redruth, his residence before finally returning to

Soho, he was led to speculate upon the possibility of utilizing the
illuminating qualities of coal-gas, and, convinced of its practicability, he
laid the subject before the Royal Society in 1808, and was awarded the
Rumford gold medal. He had, ten years earlier, lighted a part of the Soho
works with coal-gas, and in 1803 Watt authorized him to extend his pipes
throughout all the buildings. Several manufacturers promptly introduced the
new light, and its use extended very rapidly.
Still another of Murdoch’s favorite schemes was the transmission of power
by the use of compressed air. He drove the pattern-shop engine at Soho by
means of air from the blowing-engine in the foundery, and erected a
pneumatic lift to elevate castings from the foundery-floor to the canal-bank.
He made a steam-gun, introduced the heating of buildings by the circulation
of hot water, and invented the method of transmitting packages through
tubes by the impulse of compressed air, as now practised by the “pneumatic
dispatch” companies. He died at the age of eighty-five years.

Fig. 37.—Hornblower’s Compound Engine, 1781.

Among the most active and formidable of Watt’s business rivals was
Jonathan Hornblower, the patentee of the “compound” or double-cylinder
engine. A sketch of this engine, as patented by Hornblower in 1781, is here
given (Fig. 37). It was first described by the inventor in the “Encyclopædia
Britannica.” It consists, as is seen by reference to the engraving, of two
steam-cylinders, A and B—A being the low and B the high pressure cylinder
—the steam leaving the latter being exhausted into the former, and, after
doing its work there, passing into the condenser, as already described. The
piston-rods, C and D, are both connected to the same part of the beam by
chains, as in the other early engines. These rods pass through stuffing-boxes
in the cylinder-heads, which are fitted up like those seen on the Watt engine.
Steam is led to the engine through the pipe, G Y, and cocks, a, b, c, and d,
are adjustable, as required, to lead steam into and from the cylinders, and

are moved by the plug-rod, W, which actuates handles not shown. K is the
exhaust-pipe leading to the condenser. V is the engine feed-pump rod, and X
the great rod carrying the pump-buckets at the bottom of the shaft.
The cocks c and a being open and b and d shut, the steam passes from the
boiler into the upper part of the steam-cylinder, B; and the communication
between the lower part of B and the top of A is also open. Before starting,
steam being shut off from the engine, the great weight of the pump-rod, X,
causes that end of the beam to preponderate, the pistons standing, as shown,
at the top of their respective steam-cylinders.
The engine being freed from all air by opening all the valves and permitting
the steam to drive it through the engine and out of the condenser through
the “snifting-valve,” O, the valves b and d are closed, and the cock in the
exhaust-pipe opened.
The steam beneath the piston of the large cylinder is immediately
condensed, and the pressure on the upper side of that piston causes it to
descend, carrying that end of the beam with it, and raising the opposite end
with the pump-rods and their attachments. At the same time, the steam from
the lower end of the small high-pressure cylinder being let into the upper
end of the larger cylinder, the completion of the stroke finds a cylinder full
of steam transferred from the one to the other with corresponding increase
of volume and decrease of pressure. While expanding and diminishing in
pressure as it passes from the smaller into the larger cylinder, this charge of
steam gradually resists less and less the pressure of the steam from the
boiler on the upper side of the piston of the small cylinder, B, and the net
result is the movement of the engine by pressures exerted on the upper sides
of both pistons and against pressures of less intensity on the under sides of
both. The pressures in the lower part of the small cylinder, in the upper part
of the large cylinder, and in the communicating passage, are evidently all
equal at any given time.
When the pistons have reached the bottoms of their respective cylinders, the
valves at the top of the small cylinder, B, and at the bottom of the large
cylinder, A, are closed, and the valves c and d are opened. Steam from the
boiler now enters beneath the piston of the small cylinder; the steam in the
larger cylinder is exhausted into the condenser, and the steam already in the

small cylinder passes over into the large cylinder, following up the piston as
it rises.
Thus, at each stroke a small cylinder full of steam is taken from the boiler,
and the same weight, occupying the volume of the larger cylinder, is
exhausted into the condenser from the latter cylinder.
Referring to the method of operation of this engine, Prof. Robison
demonstrated that the effect produced was the same as in Watt’s single-
cylinder engine—a fact which is comprehended in the law enunciated many
years later by Rankine, that, “so far as the theoretical action of the steam on
the piston is concerned, it is immaterial whether the expansion takes place
in one cylinder, or in two or more cylinders.” It was found, in practice, that
the Hornblower engine was no more economical than the Watt engine; and
that erected at the Tin Croft Mine, Cornwall, in 1792, did even less work
with the same fuel than the Watt engines.
Hornblower was prosecuted by Boulton & Watt for infringement. The suit
was decided against him, and he was imprisoned in default of payment of
the royalty, and fine demanded. He died a disappointed and impoverished
man. The plan thus unsuccessfully introduced by Hornblower was
subsequently modified and adopted by others among the contemporaries of
Watt; and, with higher steam and the use of the Watt condenser, the
“compound” gradually became a standard type of steam-engine.
Arthur Woolf, in 1804, re-introduced the Hornblower or Falck engine, with
its two steam-cylinders, using steam of higher tension. His first engine was
built for a brewery in London, and a considerable number were
subsequently made. Woolf expanded his steam from six to nine times, and
the pumping-engines built from his plans were said to have raised about
40,000,000 pounds one foot high per bushel of coals, when the Watt engine
was raising but little more than 30,000,000. In one case, a duty of
57,000,000 was claimed.

Fig. 38.—Bull’s Pumping-Engine, 1798.
Large scale image (434 kB).

The most successful of those competitors of Watt who endeavored to devise
a peculiar form of pumping-engine, which should have the efficiency of that
of Boulton & Watt, and the necessary advantage in first cost, were William
Bull and Richard Trevithick.[42] The accompanying illustration shows the
design, which was then known as the “Bull Cornish Engine.”
The steam-cylinder, a, is carried on wooden beams, b, extending across the
engine-house directly over the pump-well. The piston-rod, c, is secured to
the pump-rods, d d, the cylinder being inverted, and the pumps, e, in the
shaft, f, are thus operated without the intervention of the beam invariably
seen in Watt’s engines. A connecting-rod, g, attached to the pump-rod and to

the end of a balance-beam, h, operates the latter, and is counterbalanced by
a weight, i. The rod, j, serves both as a plug-rod and as an air-pump
connecting-rod. A snifting-valve, k, opens when the engine is blown
through, and relieves the condenser and air-pump, l, of all air. The rod, m,
operates a solid air-pump piston, the valves of the pump being placed on
either side at the base, instead of in the pump-bucket, as in Watt’s engines.
The condensing-water cistern was a wooden tank, n. A jet “pipe-condenser,”
o, was used instead of a jet condenser of the form adopted by other makers,
and was supplied with water through the cock, p. The plug-rod, q, as it rises
and falls with the pump-rods and balance-beam, operates the “gear-
handles,” r r, and opens and closes the valves, s s, at the required points in
the stroke. The attendant works these valves by hand, in starting, from the
floor, t. The operation of the engine is similar to that of a Watt engine. It is
still in use, with a few modifications and improvements, and is a very
economical and durable machine. It has not been as generally adopted,
however, as it would probably have been had not the legal proscription of
Watt’s patents so seriously interfered with its introduction. Its simplicity
and lightness are decided advantages, and its designers are entitled to great
credit for their boldness and ingenuity, as displayed in their application of
the minor devices which distinguish the engine. The design is probably to
be credited to Bull originally; but Trevithick built some of these engines,
and is supposed to have greatly improved them while working with Edward
Bull, the son of the inventor, William Bull. One of these engines was
erected by them at the Herland Mine, Cornwall, in 1798, which had a
steam-cylinder 60 inches in diameter, and was built on the plan just
described.
Another of the contemporaries of James Watt was a clergyman, Edward
Cartwright, the distinguished inventor of the power-loom, and of the first
machine ever used in combing wool, who revived Watt’s plan of surface-
condensation in a somewhat modified form. Watt had made a “pipe-
condenser,” similar in plan to those now often used, but had simply
immersed it in a tank of water, instead of in a constantly-flowing stream.
Cartwright proposed to use two concentric cylinders or spheres, between
which the steam entered when exhausted from the cylinder of the engine,
and was condensed by contact with the metal surfaces. Cold water within

the smaller and surrounding the exterior vessel kept the metal cold, and
absorbed the heat discharged by the condensing vapor.

Fig. 39.—Cartwright’s Engine, 1798.

Cartwright’s engine is best described in the Philosophical Magazine of
June, 1798, from which the accompanying sketch is copied.
The object of the inventor is stated to have been to remedy the defects of
the Watt engine—imperfect vacuum, friction, and complication.
In the figure, the steam-cylinder takes steam through the pipe, B. The
piston, R, has a rod extending downward to the smaller pump-piston, G, and
upward to the cross-head, which, in turn, drives the cranks above, by means
of connecting-rods. The shafts thus turned are connected by a pair of gears,
M L, of which one drives a pinion on the shaft of the fly-wheel. D is the
exhaust-pipe leading to the condenser, F; and the pump, G, removes the air

and water of condensation, forcing it into the hot-well, H, whence it is
returned to the boiler through the pipe, I. A float in H adjusts an air-valve,
so as to keep a supply of air in the chamber, to serve as a cushion and to
make an air-chamber of the reservoir, and permits the excess to escape. The
large tank contains the water supplied for condensing the steam.
The piston, R, is made of metal, and is packed with two sets of cut metal
rings, forced out against the sides of the cylinder by steel springs, the rings
being cut at three points in the circumference, and kept in place by the
springs. The arrangement of the two cranks, with their shafts and gears, is
intended to supersede Watt’s plan for securing a perfectly rectilinear
movement of the head of the piston-rod, without friction.
In the accounts given of this engine, great stress is laid upon the supposed
important advantage here offered, by the introduction of the surface-
condenser, of permitting the employment of a working-fluid other than
steam—as, for example, alcohol, which is too valuable to be lost. It was
proposed to use the engine in connection with a still, and thus to effect great
economy by making the fuel do double duty. The only part of the plan
which proved both novel and valuable was the metallic packing and piston,
which has not yet been superseded. The engine itself never came into use.
At this point, the history of the steam-engine becomes the story of its
applications in several different directions, the most important of which are
the raising of water—which had hitherto been its only application—the
locomotive-engine, the driving of mill-machinery, and steam-navigation.
Here we take leave of James Watt and of his contemporaries, of the former
of whom a French author[43] says: “The part which he played in the
mechanical applications of the power of steam can only be compared to that
of Newton in astronomy and of Shakespeare in poetry.” Since the time of
Watt, improvements have been made principally in matters of mere detail,
and in the extension of the range of application of the steam-engine.

[35] The same story is told of Savery and of [40] “Lives of Boulton and Watt,” Smiles.
Worcester.
[41] “Life of Watt,” p. 512.
[36] Robison’s “Mechanical Philosophy,”
edited by Brewster. [42] For an exceedingly interesting and very
faithful account of their work, see “Life of

[37] “Reminiscences of James Watt,” Robert Richard Trevithick,” by F. Trevithick,
Hart; “Transactions of the Glasgow London, 1872.
Archæological Society,” 1859.
[43] Bataille. “Traité des Machines à
[38] “Lives of Boulton and Watt,” Smiles. Vapeur,” Paris, 1847.
[39] For the privilege of using the fly-wheel
to regulate the motion of the engine, Boulton
& Watt paid a royalty to Matthew
Wasborough, who had patented it, and who
held also the patent for its combination with
a crank, as invented by Pickard and Steed.

CHAPTER IV.
THE MODERN STEAM-ENGINE.

“Those projects which abridge distance have done most for the civilization and
happiness of our species.”—Macaulay.

The Second Period of Application—1800-’40. Steam-Locomotion on
Railroads.

Fig. 40.—The First Railroad-Car, 1825.

Introductory.—The commencement of the nineteenth century found the
modern steam-engine fully developed in all its principal features, and fairly
at work in many departments of industry. The genius of Worcester, and
Morland, and Savery, and Desaguliers, had, in the first period of the
application of the power of steam to useful work, effected a beginning
which, looked upon from a point of view which exhibits its importance as
the first step toward the wonderful results to-day familiar to every one,
appears in its true light, and entitles those great men to even greater honor
than has been accorded them. The results actually accomplished, however,

were absolutely insignificant in comparison with those which marked the
period of development just described. Yet even the work of Watt and of his
contemporaries was but a mere prelude to the marvellous advances made in
the succeeding period, to which we are now come, and, in extent and
importance, was insignificant in comparison with that accomplished by
their successors in the development of all mechanical industries by the
application of the steam-engine to the movement of every kind of machine.
The first of the two periods of application saw the steam-engine adapted
simply to the elevation of water and the drainage of mines; during the
second period it was adapted to every variety of useful work, and
introduced wherever the muscular strength of men and animals, or the
power of wind and of falling water, which had previously been the only
motors, had found application. A history of the development of industries
by the introduction of steam-power during this period, would be no less
extended and hardly less interesting than that of the steam-engine itself.
The way had been fairly opened by Boulton and Watt; and the year 1800
saw a crowd of engineers and manufacturers entering upon it, eager to reap
the harvest of distinction and of pecuniary returns which seemed so
promising to all. The last year of the eighteenth century was also the last of
the twenty-five years of partnership of Boulton & Watt, and, with it, the
patents under which that firm had held the great monopoly of steam-engine
building expired. The right to manufacture the modern steam-engine was
common to all. Watt had, at the commencement of the new century, retired
from active business-life. Boulton remained in business; but he was not the
inventor of the new engine, and could not retain, by the exercise of all his
remaining power, the privileges previously held by legal authorization.
The young Boulton and the young Watt were not the Boulton & Watt of
earlier years; and, had they possessed all of the business talent and all of the
inventive genius of their fathers, they could not have retained control of a
business which was now growing far more rapidly than the facilities for
manufacturing could be extended in any single establishment. All over the
country, and even on the Continent of Europe, and in America, thousands of
mechanics, and many men of mechanical tastes in other professions, were
familiar with the principles of the new machine, and were speculating upon
its value for all the purposes to which it has since been applied; and a

multitude of enthusiastic mechanics, and a larger multitude of visionary and
ignorant schemers, were experimenting with every imaginable device, in
the vain hope of attaining perpetual motion, and other hardly less absurd
results, by its modification and improvement. Steam-engine building
establishments sprang up wherever a mechanic had succeeded in erecting a
workshop and in acquiring a local reputation as a worker in metal, and
many of Watt’s workmen went out from Soho to take charge of the work
done in these shops. Nearly all of the great establishments which are to-day
most noted for their extent and for the importance and magnitude of the
work done in them, not only in Great Britain, but in Europe and the United
States, came into existence during this second period of the application of
the steam-engine as a prime mover.
The new establishments usually grew out of older shops of a less
pretentious character, and were managed by men who had been trained by
Watt, or who had had a still more awakening experience with those who
vainly strove to make up, by their ingenuity and by great excellence of
workmanship, the advantages possessed at Soho in a legal monopoly and
greater experience in the business.
It was exceedingly difficult to find expert and conscientious workmen, and
machine-tools had not become as thoroughly perfected as had the steam-
engine itself. These difficulties were gradually overcome, however, and
thenceforward the growth of the business was increasingly rapid.
Every important form of engine had now been invented. Watt had perfected,
with the aid of Murdoch, both the pumping-engine and the rotative steam-
engine for application to mills. He had invented the trunk engine, and
Murdoch had devised the oscillating engine and the ordinary slide-valve,
and had made a model locomotive-engine, while Hornblower had
introduced the compound engine. The application of steam to navigation
had been often proposed, and had sometimes been attempted, with
sufficient success to indicate to the intelligent observer an ultimate triumph.
It only remained to extend the use of steam as a motor into all known
departments of industry, and to effect such improvements in details as
experience should prove desirable.

Fig. 41.—Leupold’s Engine, 1720.

The engines of Hero, of Porta, and of Branca were, it will be remembered,
non-condensing; but the first plan of a non-condensing engine that could be
made of any really practical use is given in the “Theatrum Machinarum” of
Leupold, published in 1720. This sketch is copied in Fig. 41. It is stated by
Leupold that this plan was suggested by Papin. It consists of two single-
acting cylinders, r s, receiving steam alternately from the same steam-pipe
through a “four-way cock,” x, and exhausting into the atmosphere. Steam is
furnished by the boiler, a, and the pistons, c d, are alternately raised and
depressed, depressing and raising the pump-rods, k l, to which they are
attached by the beams, h g, vibrating on the centres, i i. The water from the
pumps, o p, is forced up the stand-pipe, q, and discharged at its top. The
alternate action of the steam-pistons is secured by turning the “four-way
cock,” x, first into the position shown, and then, at the completion of the
stroke, into the reverse position, by which change the steam from the boiler
is then led into the cylinder, s, and the steam in r is discharged into the
atmosphere.[44]

Leupold states that he is indebted to Papin for the suggestion of the peculiar
valve here used. He also proposed to use a Savery engine without
condensation in raising water. We have no evidence that this engine was
ever built.

Fig. 42.—Newton’s Steam-Carriage, 1680.

The first rude scheme for applying steam to locomotion on land was
probably that of Isaac Newton, who, in 1680, proposed the machine shown
in the accompanying figure (42), which will be recognized as representing
the scientific toy which is found in nearly every collection of illustrative
philosophical apparatus. As described in the “Explanation of the Newtonian
Philosophy,” it consists of a spherical boiler, B, mounted on a carriage.
Steam issuing from the pipe, C, seen pointing directly backward, by its
reaction upon the carriage, drives the latter ahead. The driver, sitting at A,
controls the steam by the handle, E, and cock, F. The fire is seen at D.
When, at the end of the eighteenth century, the steam-engine had been so
far perfected that the possibility of its successful application to locomotion
had become fully and very generally recognized, the problem of adapting it
to locomotion on land was attacked by many inventors.
Dr. Robison had, as far back as in 1759, proposed it to James Watt during
one of their conferences, at a time when the latter was even more ignorant
than the former of the principles which were involved in the construction of
the steam-engine, and this suggestion may have had some influence in
determining Watt to pursue his research; thus setting in operation that train
of thoughtful investigation and experiment which finally earned for him his
splendid fame.

In 1765, that singular genius, Dr. Erasmus Darwin, whose celebrity was
acquired by speculations in poetry and philosophy as well as in medicine,
urged Matthew Boulton—subsequently Watt’s partner, and just then
corresponding with our own Franklin in relation to the use of steam-power
—to construct a steam-carriage, or “fiery chariot,” as he poetically styled it,
and of which he sketched a set of plans. A young man named Edgeworth
became interested in the scheme, and, in 1768, published a paper which had
secured for him a gold medal from the Society of Arts. In this paper he
proposed railroads on which the carriages were to be drawn by horses, or by
ropes from steam-winding engines.

Fig. 43.—Read’s Steam-Carriage, 1790.

Nathan Read, of whom an account will be given hereafter, when describing
his attempt to introduce steam-navigation, planned, and in 1790 obtained a
patent for, a steam-carriage, of which the sketch seen in Fig. 43 is copied

from the rough drawing accompanying his application. In the figure, A A A
A are the wheels; B B, pinions on the hubs of the rear wheels, which are
driven by a ratchet arrangement on the racks, G G, connected with the
piston-rods; C o is the boiler; D D, the steam-pipes carrying steam to the
steam-cylinder, E E; F F are the engine-frames; H is the “tongue” or “pole”
of the carriage, and is turned by a horizontal steering-wheel, with which it is
connected by the ropes or chains, I K, I K; W W are the cocks, which serve
to shut off steam from the engine when necessary, and to determine the
amount of steam to be admitted. The pipes a a are exhaust-pipes, which the
inventor proposed to turn so that they should point backward, in order to
secure the advantage of the effort of reaction of the expelled steam. (!)
Read made a model steam-carriage, which he exhibited when endeavoring
to secure assistance in furtherance of his schemes, but seems to have given
more attention to steam-navigation, and nothing was ever accomplished by
him in this direction.

Fig. 44.—Cugnot’s Steam-Carriage, 1770.

These were merely promising schemes, however. The first actual
experiment was made, as is supposed, by a French army-officer, Nicholas
Joseph Cugnot, who in 1769 built a steam-carriage, which was set at work
in presence of the French Minister of War, the Duke de Choiseul. The funds
required by him were furnished by the Compte de Saxe. Encouraged by the
partial success of the first locomotive, he, in 1770, constructed a second
(Fig. 44), which is still preserved in the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers,
Paris.

This machine, when recently examined by the author, was still in an
excellent state of preservation. The carriage and its machinery are
substantially built and well-finished, and exceedingly creditable pieces of
work in every respect. It surprises the engineer to find such evidence of the
high character of the work of the mechanic Brezin a century ago. The
steam-cylinders were 13 inches in diameter, and the engine was evidently of
considerable power. This locomotive was intended for the transportation of
artillery. It consists of two beams of heavy timber extending from end to
end, supported by two strong wheels behind, and one still heavier but
smaller wheel in front. The latter carries on its rim blocks which cut into the
soil as the wheel turns, and thus give greater holding power. The single
wheel is turned by two single-acting engines, one on each side, supplied
with steam by a boiler (seen in the sketch) suspended in front of the
machine. The connection between the engines and the wheels was effected
by means of pawls, as first proposed by Papin, which could be reversed
when it was desired to drive the machine backward. A seat is mounted on
the carriage-body for the driver, who steers the machine by a train of
gearing, which turns the whole frame, carrying the machinery 15 or 20
degrees either way. This locomotive was found to have been built on a
tolerably satisfactory general plan; but the boiler was too small, and the
steering apparatus was incapable of handling the carriage with promptness.
The death of one of Cugnot’s patrons, and the exile of the other, put an end
to Cugnot’s experiments.
Cugnot was a mechanic by choice, and exhibited great talent. He was a
native of Vaud, in Lorraine, where he was born in 1725. He served both in
the French and the German armies. While under the Maréchal de Saxe, he
constructed his first steam locomotive-engine, which only disappointed
him, as he stated, in consequence of the inefficiency of the feed-pumps. The
second was that built under the authority of the Minister Choiseul, and cost
20,000 livres. Cugnot received from the French Government a pension of
600 livres. He died in 1804, at the age of seventy-nine years.

Fig. 45.—Murdoch’s Model, 1784.

Watt, at a very early period, proposed to apply his own engine to
locomotion, and contemplated using either a non-condensing engine or an
air-surface condenser. He actually included the locomotive-engine in his
patent of 1784; and his assistant, Murdoch, in the same year, made a
working-model locomotive (Fig. 45), which was capable of running at a
rapid rate. This model, now deposited in the Patent Museum at South
Kensington, London, had a flue-boiler, and its steam-cylinder was three-
fourths of an inch in diameter, and the stroke of piston 2 inches. The
driving-wheels were 91∕2 inches diameter.
Nothing was, however, done on a larger scale by either Watt or Murdoch,
who both found more than enough to claim their attention in the
construction and introduction of other engines. Murdoch’s model is said to
have run from 6 to 8 miles an hour, its little driving-wheels making from
200 to 275 revolutions per minute. As is seen in the sketch, this model was
fitted with the same form of engine, known as the “grasshopper-engine,”
which was used in the United States by Oliver Evans.

“To Oliver Evans,” says Dr. Ernest Alban, the distinguished German
engineer, “was it reserved to show the true value of a long-known principle,
and to establish thereon a new and more simple method of applying the
power of steam—a method that will remain an eternal memorial to its
introducer.” Dr. Alban here refers to the earliest permanently successful
introduction of the non-condensing high-pressure steam-engine.

Oliver Evans.

Oliver Evans, one of the most ingenious mechanics that America has ever
produced, was born at Newport, Del., in 1755 or 1756, the son of people in
very humble circumstances.
He was, in his youth, apprenticed to a wheelwright, and soon exhibited
great mechanical talent and a strong desire to acquire knowledge. His
attention was, at an early period, drawn to the possible application of the
power of steam to useful purposes by the boyish pranks of one of his

comrades, who, placing a small quantity of water in a gun-barrel, and
ramming down a tight wad, put the barrel in the fire of a blacksmith’s forge.
The loud report which accompanied the expulsion of the wad was an
evidence to young Evans of great and (as he supposed) previously
undiscovered power.
Subsequently meeting with a description of a Newcomen engine, he at once
noticed that the elastic force of confined steam was not there utilized. He
then designed the non-condensing engine, in which the power was derived
exclusively from the tension of high-pressure steam, and proposed its
application to the propulsion of carriages.
About the year 1780, Evans joined his brothers, who were millers by
occupation, and at once employed his inventive talent in improving the
details of mill-work, and with such success as to reduce the cost of
attendance one-half, and also to increase the fineness of the flour made. He
proved himself a very expert millwright.
In 1786 he applied to the Pennsylvania Legislature for a patent for the
application of the steam-engine to driving mills, and to the steam-carriage,
but was refused it. In 1800 or 1801, Evans, after consultation with Professor
Robert Patterson, of the University of Pennsylvania, and getting his
approval of the plans, commenced the construction of a steam-carriage to
be driven by a non-condensing engine. He soon concluded, however, that it
would be a better scheme, pecuniarily, to adapt his engine, which was novel
in form and of small first cost, to driving mills; and he accordingly changed
his plans, and built an engine of 6 inches diameter of cylinder and 18 inches
stroke of piston, which he applied with perfect success to driving a plaster-
mill.

Fig. 46.—Evans’s Non-condensing Engine, 1800.

This engine, which he called the “Columbian Engine,” was of a peculiar
form, as seen in Fig. 46. The beam is supported at one end by a rocking
column; at the other, it is attached directly to the piston-rod, while the crank
lies beneath the beam, the connecting-rod, 1, being attached to the latter at
the extreme end. The head of the piston-rod is compelled to rise and fall in a
vertical line by the “Evans’s parallelogram”—a kind of parallel-motion very
similar to one of those designed by Watt. In the sketch (Fig. 46), 2 is the
crank, 3 the valve-motion, 4 the steam-pipe from the boiler, E, 5 6 7 the
feed-pipe leading from the pump, F. A is the boiler. The flame from the fire
on the grate, H, passes under the boiler between brick walls, and back
through a central flue to the chimney, I.
Subsequently, Evans continued to extend the applications of his engine and
to perfect its details; and, others following in his track, the non-condensing
engine is to-day fulfilling the predictions which he made 70 years ago,
when he said:
“I have no doubt that my engines will propel boats against the current of the
Mississippi, and wagons on turnpike roads, with great profit....”

“The time will come when people will travel in stages moved by steam-
engines from one city to another, almost as fast as birds can fly, 15 or 20
miles an hour.... A carriage will start from Washington in the morning, the
passengers will breakfast at Baltimore, dine at Philadelphia, and sup in New
York the same day....
“Engines will drive boats 10 or 12 miles an hour, and there will be hundreds
of steamers running on the Mississippi, as predicted years ago.”[45]

Fig. 47.—Evans’s “Oruktor Amphibolis,” 1804.

In 1804, Evans applied one of his engines in the transportation of a large
flat-bottomed craft, built on an order of the Board of Health of Philadelphia,
for use in clearing some of the docks along the water-front of the city.
Mounting it on wheels, he placed in it one of his 5-horse power engines,
and named the odd machine (Fig. 47) “Oruktor Amphibolis.” This steam
dredging-machine, weighing about 40,000 pounds, was then propelled very
slowly from the works, up Market Street, around to the Water-Works, and
then launched into the Schuylkill. The engine was then applied to the
paddle-wheel at the stern, and drove the craft down the river to its
confluence with the Delaware.
In September of the same year, Evans laid before the Lancaster Turnpike
Company a statement of the estimated expenses and profits of steam-
transportation on the common road, assuming the size of the carriage used

to be sufficient for transporting 100 barrels of flour 50 miles in 24 hours,
and placed in competition with 10 wagons drawn by 5 horses each.
In the sketch above given of the “Oruktor Amphibolis,” the engine is seen
to resemble that previously described. The wheel, A, is driven by a rod
depending from the end of a beam, B′ B, the other end of which is supported
at E by the frame, E F G. The body of the machine is carried on wheels, K
K, driven by belts, M M, from the pulley on the shaft carrying A. The
paddle-wheel is seen at W. Evans had some time previously sent Joseph
Sampson to England with copies of his plans, and by him they were shown
to Trevithick, Vivian, and other British engineers.
Among other devices, the now familiar Cornish boiler, having a single
internal flue, and the Lancashire boiler, having a pair of internal flues, were
planned and used by Evans.
At about the time that he was engaged on his steam dredging-machine,
Evans communicated with Messrs. McKeever & Valcourt, who contracted
with him to build an engine for a steam-vessel to ply between New Orleans
and Natchez on the Mississippi, the hull of the vessel to be built on the
river, and the machinery to be sent to the first-named city to be set up in the
boat. Financial difficulties and low water combined to prevent the
completion of the steamer, and the engine was set at work driving a saw-
mill, where, until the mill was destroyed by fire, it sawed lumber at the rate
of 250 feet of boards per hour.
Evans never succeeded in accomplishing in America as great a success as
had rewarded Watt in Great Britain; but he continued to build steam-engines
to the end of his life, April 19, 1819, and was succeeded by his sons-in-law,
James Rush and David Muhlenberg.
He exhibited equal intelligence and ingenuity in perfecting the processes of
milling, and in effecting improvements in his own business, that of the
millwright. When but twenty-four years old, he invented a machine for
making the wire teeth used in cotton and woolen cards, turning them out at
the rate of 3,000 per minute. A little later he invented a card-setting
machine, which cut the wire from the reel, bent the teeth, and inserted them.
In milling, he invented a whole series of machines and attachments,
including the elevator, the “conveyor,” the “hopper-box,” the “drill,” and

the “descender,” and enabled the miller to make finer flour, gaining over 20
pounds to the barrel, and to do this at half the former cost of attendance.
The introduction of his improvements into Ellicott’s mills, near Baltimore,
where 325 barrels of flour were made per day, was calculated to have saved
nearly $5,000 per year in cost of labor, and over $30,000 by increasing the
production. He wrote “The Young Steam-Engineer’s Guide,” and a work
which remained standard many years after his death, “The Young
Millwright’s Guide.” Less fortunate than his transatlantic rival, he was
nevertheless equally deserving of fame. He has sometimes been called “The
Watt of America.”
The application of steam to locomotion on the common road was much
more successful in Great Britain than in the United States. As early as 1786,
William Symmington, subsequently more successful in his efforts to
introduce steam for marine propulsion, assisted by his father, made a
working model of a steam-carriage, which did not, however, lead to
important results.
In 1802, Richard Trevithick, a pupil of Murdoch’s, who afterward became
well known in connection with the introduction of railroads, made a model
steam-carriage, which was patented in the same year. The model may still
be seen in the Patent Museum at South Kensington.[46]
In this engine, high-pressure steam was employed, and the condenser was
dispensed with. The boiler was of the form devised by Evans, and was
subsequently generally used in Cornwall, where it was called the
“Trevithick Boiler.” The engine had but one cylinder, and the piston-rod
drove a “cross-tail,” working in guides, which was connected with a “cross-
head” on the opposite side of the shaft by two “side-rods.” The connecting-
rod was attached to the cross-head and the crank, “returning” toward the
cylinder as the shaft lay between the latter and the cross-head. This was
probably the first example of the now common “return connecting-rod
engine.” The connection between the crank-shaft and the wheels of the
carriage was effected by gearing. The valve-gear and the feed-pumps were
worked from the engine-shaft. The inventor proposed to secure his wheels
against slipping by projecting bolts, when necessary, through the rim of the
wheel into the ground. The first carriage of full size was built by Trevithick
and Vivian at Camborne, in 1803, and, after trial, was taken to London,

where it was exhibited to the public. En route, it was driven by its own
engines to Plymouth, 90 miles from Camborne, and then shipped by water.
It is not known whether the inventor lost faith in his invention; but he very
soon dismantled the machine, sold the engine and carriage separately, and
returned to Cornwall, where he soon began work on a railroad-locomotive.
In 1821, Julius Griffiths, of Brompton, Middlesex, England, patented a
steam-carriage for the transportation of passengers on the highway. His first
road-locomotive was built in the same year by Joseph Bramah, one of the
ablest mechanics of his time. The frame of the carriage carried a large
double coach-body between the two axles, and the machinery was mounted
over and behind the rear axle. One man was stationed on a rear platform, to
manage the engine and to attend to the fire, and another, stationed in front
of the body of the coach, handled the steering-wheel. The boiler was
composed of horizontal water-tubes and steam-tubes, the latter being so
situated as to receive heat from the furnace-gases en route to the chimney,
and thus to act as a superheater. The wheels were driven, by means of
intermediate gearing, by two steam-engines, which, with their attachments,
were suspended on helical springs, to prevent injury by jars and shocks. An
air-surface condenser was used, consisting of flattened thin metal tubes,
cooled by the contact of the external air, and discharging the water of
condensation, as it accumulated within them, into a feed-pump, which, in
turn, forced it into the lowest row of tubes in the boiler.
The boiler did not prove large enough for continuous work; but the carriage
was used experimentally, now and then, for a number of years.
During the succeeding ten years the adaptation of the steam-engine to land-
transportation continued to attract more and more attention, and
experimental road-engines were built with steadily-increasing frequency.
The defects of these engines revealing themselves on trial, they were one by
one remedied, and the road-locomotive gradually assumed a shape which
was mechanically satisfactory. Their final introduction into general use
seemed at one time only a matter of time; their non-success was due to
causes over which the legislator and the general public, and not the
engineer, had control, as well as to the development of steam-transportation
on a rival plan.

In 1822, David Gordon patented a road-engine, but it is not known whether
it was ever built. At about the same time, Mr. Goldsworthy Gurney, who
subsequently took an active part in their introduction, stated, in his lectures,
that “elementary power is capable of being applied to propel carriages along
common roads with great political advantage, and the floating knowledge of
the day places the object within reach.” He made an ammonia-engine—
probably the first ever made—and worked it so successfully, that he made
use of it in driving a little locomotive.
Two years later, Gordon patented a curious arrangement, which, however,
had been proposed twelve years earlier by Brunton, and was again proposed
afterward by Gurney, and others. This consisted in fitting to the engine a set
of jointed legs, imitating, as nearly as the inventor could make them, the
action of a horse’s legs and feet. Such an arrangement was actually
experimented with until it was found that they could not be made to work
satisfactorily, when it was also found that they were not needed.
During the same season, Burstall & Hill made a steam-carriage, and made
many unsuccessful attempts to introduce their plan. The engine used was
like that of Evans, except that the steam-cylinder was placed at the end of
the beam, and the crank-shaft under the middle. The front and rear wheels
were connected by a longitudinal shaft and bevel gearing. The boiler was
found to have the usual defect, and would only supply steam for a speed of
three or four miles an hour. The result was a costly failure. W. H. James, of
London, in 1824-’25, proposed several devices for placing the working
parts, as well as the body of the carriage, on springs, without interfering
with their operation, and the Messrs. Seaward patented similar devices.
Samuel Brown, in 1826, introduced a gas-engine, in which the piston was
driven by the pressure produced by the combustion of gas, and a vacuum
was secured by the condensation of the resulting vapor. Brown built a
locomotive which he propelled by this engine. He ascended Shooter’s Hill,
near London, and the principal cause of his ultimate failure seems to have
been the cost of operating the engine.
From this date forward, during several years, a number of inventors and
mechanics seem to have devoted their whole time to this promising scheme.
Among them, Burstall & Hill, Gurney, Ogle & Summers, Sir Charles
Dance, and Walter Hancock, were most successful.

Gurney, in the year 1827, built a steam-carriage, which he kept at work
nearly two years in and about London, and sometimes making long
journeys. On one occasion he made the journey from Meksham to Cranford
Bridge, a distance of 85 miles, in 10 hours, including all stops. He used the
mechanical legs previously adopted by Brunton and by Gordon, but omitted
this rude device in those engines subsequently built.
Gurney’s engine of 1828 is of interest to the engineer as exhibiting a very
excellent arrangement of machinery, and as having one of the earliest of
“sectional boilers.” The latter was of peculiar form, and differed greatly in
design from the sectional boiler invented a quarter of a century earlier by
John Stevens, in the United States.

Fig. 48.—Gurney’s Steam-Carriage.
Large scale image (241 kB).

In the sketch (Fig. 48) this boiler is seen at the right. It was composed of
◁
bent -shaped tubes, a a, connected to two cylinders, b b, the upper one of
which was a steam-chamber. Vertical tubes connected these two chambers,
and permitted a complete and regular circulation of the water. A separate
reservoir, called a separator, d, was connected with these chambers by
pipes, as shown. From the top of this separator a steam-pipe, e e e,
conveyed steam to the engine-cylinders at f. The cranks, g, on the rear axle
were turned by the engines, and the eccentric, h, on the axle drove the
valve-gearing and the valve, i. The link, k l, being moved by a line, l l, led
from the driver’s seat, the carriage was started, stopped, or reversed, by
throwing the upper end of the link into gear with the valve-stem, by setting
the link midway between its upper and lower positions, or by raising it until
the lower end, coming into action on the valve-stem, produced a reverse
motion of the valve. The pin on which this link vibrated is seen at the centre
of its elliptical strap. The throttle-valve, o, by which the supply of steam to
the engine was adjusted, was worked by the lever, n. The exhaust-pipe, p,
led to the tank, q, and the uncondensed vapor passed to the chimney, s s, by
the pipe, r r. The force-pump, u, taking feed-water from the tank, t, supplied
it to the boiler by the pipe, x x x, which, en route, was coiled up to form a
“heater” directly above the boiler. The supply was regulated by the cock, y.
The attendant had a seat at z. A blast-apparatus, 1, was driven by an

independent engine, 2 3, and produced a forced blast, which was led to the
boiler-furnace through the air-duct, 5 5; 4 4 represents the steam-pipe to the
little blowing-engine. The steering-wheel, 6, was directed by a lever, 7, and
the change of direction of the perch, 8, which turned about a king-bolt at 9,
gave the desired direction to the forward wheels and to the carriage.
This seems to have been one of the best designs brought out at that time.
The boiler, built to carry 70 pounds, was safe and strong, and was tested up
to 800 pounds pressure. A forced draught was provided. The engines were
well placed, and of good design. The valve was arranged to work the steam
with expansion from half-stroke. The feed-water was heated, and the steam
slightly superheated. The boiler here used has been since reproduced under
new names by later inventors, and is still used with satisfactory results.
Modifications of the “pipe-boiler” were made by several other makers of
steam-carriages also. Anderson & James made their boilers of lap-welded
iron tubes of one inch internal diameter and one-fifth inch thick, and
claimed for them perfect safety. Such tubes should have sufficient strength
to sustain a pressure of 20,000 pounds per square inch. If made of such
good iron as the makers claimed to have put into them, “which worked like
lead,” they would, as was also claimed, when ruptured, open by tearing, and
discharge their contents without producing the usual disastrous
consequences of boiler explosions.
The primary principle of the sectional boiler was then well understood. The
boilers of Ogle & Summers were made up of pairs of upright tubes, set one
within the other, the intervening space being filled with water and steam,
and the flame passing through the inner and around the outer tube of each
pair.
One of the engines of Sir James Anderson and W. H. James was built in
1829. It had two 31∕2-inch steam-cylinders, driving the rear wheels
independently. In James’s earlier plan of 1824-’25, a pair of cylinders was
attached to each of the two halves into which the rear axle was divided, and
were arranged to drive cranks set at right-angles with each other. The later
machine weighed 3 tons, and carried 15 passengers, on a rough graveled
road across the Epping Forest, at the rate of from 12 to 15 miles per hour.
Steam was carried at 300 pounds. Several tubes gave way in the welds, but
the carriage returned, carrying 24 passengers at the rate of 7 miles per hour.

On a later trial, with new boilers, the carriage again made 15 miles per hour.
It was, however, subject to frequent accidents, and was finally withdrawn.
Walter Hancock was the most successful and persevering of all those who
attempted the introduction of steam on the common road. He had, in 1827,
patented a boiler of such peculiar form, that it deserves description. It
consisted of a collection of flat chambers, of which the walls were of boiler-
plate. These chambers were arranged side by side, and connected laterally
by tubes and stays, and all were connected by short vertical tubes to a
horizontal large pipe placed across the top of the boiler-casing, and serving
as a steam-drum or separator. This earliest of “sheet flue-boilers” did
excellent service on Hancock’s steam-carriages, where experience showed
that there was little or no danger of disruptive explosions.
Hancock’s first steam-carriage was mounted on three wheels, the leading-
wheel arranged to swivel on a king-bolt, and driven by a pair of oscillating
cylinders connected with its axle, which was “cranked” for the purpose. The
engines turned with the steering-wheel. This carriage was by no means
satisfactory, but it was used for a long time, and traveled many hundreds of
miles without once failing to do the work assigned it.
By this time there were a half-dozen steam-carriages under construction for
Hancock, for Ogle & Summers, and for Sir Charles Dance.
In 1831, Hancock placed a new carriage on a route between London and
Stratford, where it ran regularly for hire. Dance, in the same season, started
another on the line between Cheltenham and Gloucester, where it ran from
February 21st to June 22d, traveling 3,500 miles and carrying 3,000
passengers, running the 9 miles in 55 minutes usually, and sometimes in
three-quarters of an hour, and never meeting with an accident, except the
breakage of an axle in running over heaps of stones which had been
purposely placed on the road by enemies of the new system of
transportation. Ogle & Summers’s carriage attained a speed, as testified by
Ogle before a committee of the House of Commons, of from 32 to 35 miles
an hour, and on a rising grade, near Southampton, at 241∕2 miles per hour.
They carried 250 pounds of steam, ran 800 miles, and met with no accident.
Colonel Macerone, in 1833, ran a steam-carriage of his own design from
London to Windsor and back, with 11 passengers, a distance of 231∕2 miles,

in 2 hours. Sir Charles Dance, in the same year, ran his carriage 16 miles an
hour, and made long excursions at the rate of 9 miles an hour. Still another
experimenter, Heaton, ascended Lickey Hill, between Worcester and
Birmingham, on gradients of one in eight and one in nine, in places; this
was considered one of the worst pieces of road in England. The carriage
towed a coach containing 20 passengers.
Of all these, and many others, Hancock, however, had most marked
success. His coach, called the “Infant,” which was set at work in February,
1831, was, a year later, plying between London “City” and Paddington.
Another, called the “Era,” was built for the London and Greenwich Steam-
Carriage Company, which was mechanically a success. The company,
however, was financially unsuccessful. In October, 1832, the “Infant” ran to
Brighton from London, carrying a party of 11, at the rate of 9 miles per
hour, ascending Redhill at a speed of 5 miles. They steamed 38 miles the
first day, stopping at night at Hazledean, and reached Brighton next day,
running 11 miles per hour. Returning with 15 passengers, the coach ran 1
mile in less than 4 minutes, and made 10 miles in 55 minutes. A run from
Stratford to Brighton was made in less than 10 hours, at an average speed of
12 miles an hour running time, the actual running time being less than 6
hours. The next year another carriage, the “Enterprise,” was put on the road
to Paddington by Hancock for another company, and ran regularly over two
weeks; but this company was also unsuccessful. In the summer of 1833 he
brought out still another steam-coach, the “Autopsy” (Fig. 49), which he
ran to Brighton, and then, returning to London, manœuvred the carriage in
the crowded streets without difficulty or accident. He went about the streets
of London at all times, and without hesitation. The coach next ran between
Finsbury Square and Pentonville regularly for four weeks, without accident
or delay. In the sketch, a part of the side is broken away to show the
machinery. The boiler, A B, supplies steam through the steam-pipe, H K, to
the steam-engine, C D, which is coupled to the crank-shaft, F. E is the feed-
pump. The rear axle is turned by the endless chain seen connecting it with
the engine-shaft, and the rear wheels, S, are thus driven. A blower, T, gives
a forced draught. The driver sits at M, steering by the wheel, N, which is
coupled to the larger wheel, P, and thus turns the forward axle into any
desired position. In 1834, Hancock built a steam “drag” on an Austrian
order, which, carrying 10 persons and towing a coach containing 6

passengers, was driven through the city beyond Islington, making 14 miles
an hour on a level, and 8 miles or more on rising ground. In the same year
he built the “Era,” and, in August, put the “Autopsy” on with it, to make a
steam-line to Paddington. These coaches ran until the end of November,
carrying 4,000 passengers, at a usual rate of speed of 12 miles per hour. He
then sent the “Era” to Dublin, where, on one occasion, it ran 18 miles per
hour.

Fig. 49.—Hancock’s “Autopsy,” 1833.

In 1835 a large carriage, the “Erin,” was completed, which was intended to
carry 20 passengers. It towed three omnibuses and a stage-coach, with 50
passengers, on a level road, at the speed of 10 miles an hour. It drew an
omnibus with 18 passengers through Whitehall, Charing Cross, and Regent
Street, and out to Brentford, running 14 miles an hour. It ran also to
Reading, making 38 miles, with the same load, in 3 hours and 8 minutes
running time. The stops en route occupied a half-hour. The same carriage
made 75 miles to Marlborough in 71∕2 hours running time, stopping 41∕2
hours on the road, in consequence of having left the tender and supplies
behind.
In May, 1836, Hancock put all his carriages on the Paddington road, and ran
regularly for over five months, running 4,200 miles in 525 trips to Islington,
143 to Paddington, and 44 to Stratford, passing through the city over 200
times. The carriages averaged 5 hours and 17 or 18 minutes daily running
time. A light steam-phaeton, built in 1838, for his own use, made 20 miles
an hour, and was driven about the city, and among horses and carriages,
without causing annoyance or danger. Its usual speed was about 10 miles an

hour. Altogether, Hancock built nine steam-carriages, capable of carrying
116 passengers in addition to the regular attendants.[47]
In December, 1833, about 20 steam-carriages and traction road-engines
were running, or were in course of construction, in and near London. In our
own country, the roughness of roads discouraged inventors; and in Great
Britain even, the successful introduction of road-locomotives, which
seemed at one time almost an accomplished fact, finally met with so many
obstacles, that even Hancock, the most ingenious, persistent, and successful
constructor, gave up in despair. Hostile legislation procured by opposing
interests, and the rapid progress of steam-locomotion on railroads, caused
this result.
In consequence of this interruption of experiment, almost nothing was done
during the succeeding quarter of a century, and it is only within a few years
that anything like a business success has been founded upon the
construction of road-locomotives, although the scheme seems to have been
at no time entirely given up.
The opposition of coach-proprietors, and of all classes having an interest in
the old lines of coaches, was most determined, and the feeling evinced by
them was intensely bitter; but the advocates of the new system of
transportation were equally determined and persevering, and, having right
on their side, and the pecuniary advantage of the public as their object, they
would probably have succeeded ultimately, except for the introduction of
the still better method of transportation by rail.
In the summer of 1831, when the war between the two parties was at its
height, a committee of the British House of Commons made a very
complete investigation of the subject. This committee reported that they had
become convinced that “the substitution of inanimate for animal power, in
draught on common roads, is one of the most important improvements in
the means of internal communication ever introduced.” They considered its
practicability to have been “fully established,” and predicted that its
introduction would “take place more or less rapidly, in proportion as the
attention of scientific men shall be drawn, by public encouragement, to
further improvement.” The success of the system had, as they stated, been
retarded by prejudice, adverse interests, and prohibitory tolls; and the

committee remark: “When we consider that these trials have been made
under the most unfavorable circumstances, at great expense, in total
uncertainty, without any of those guides which experience has given to
other branches of engineering; that those engaged in making them are
persons looking solely to their own interests, and not theorists attempting
the perfection of ingenious models; when we find them convinced, after
long experience, that they are introducing such a mode of conveyance as
shall tempt the public, by its superior advantages, from the use of the
admirable lines of coaches which have been generally established, it surely
cannot be contended that the introduction of steam-carriages on common
roads is, as yet, an uncertain experiment, unworthy of legislative attention.”
Farey, one of the most distinguished mechanical engineers of the time,
testified that he considered the practicability of such a system as fully
established, and that the result would be its general adoption. Gurney had
run his carriage between 20 and 30 miles an hour; Hancock could sustain a
speed of 10 miles; Ogle had run his coach 32 to 35 miles an hour, and
ascended a hill rising 1 in 6 at the speed of 241∕2 miles. Summers had
traveled up a hill having a gradient of 1 in 12, with 19 passengers, at the
rate of speed of 15 miles per hour; he had run 41∕2 hours at 30 miles an hour.
Farey thought that steam-coaches would be found to cost one-third as much
as the stage-coaches in use. The steam-carriages were reported to be safer
than those drawn by horses, and far more manageable; and the construction
of boilers adopted—the “sectional” boiler, as it is now called—completely
insured against injury by explosion, and the dangers and inconveniences
arising from the frightening of horses had proved to be largely imaginary.
The wear and tear of roads were found to be less than with horses, while
with broad wheel-tires the carriages acted beneficially as road-rollers. The
committee finally concluded:
“1. That carriages can be propelled by steam on common roads at an
average rate of 10 miles per hour.
“2. That at this rate they have conveyed upward of 14 passengers.
“3. That their weight, including engine, fuel, water, and attendants, may be
under three tons.

“4. That they can ascend and descend hills of considerable inclination with
facility and safety.
“5. That they are perfectly safe for passengers.
“6. That they are not (or need not be, if properly constructed) nuisances to
the public.
“7. That they will become a speedier and cheaper mode of conveyance than
carriages drawn by horses.
“8. That, as they admit of greater breadth of tire than other carriages, and as
the roads are not acted on so injuriously as by the feet of horses in common
draught, such carriages will cause less wear of roads than coaches drawn by
horses.
“9. That rates of toll have been imposed on steam-carriages, which would
prohibit their being used on several lines of road, were such charges
permitted to remain unaltered.”
The Railroad, which now, by the adaptation of steam to the propulsion of
its carriages, became the successful rival of the system of transportation of
which an account has just been given, was not a new device. It, like all
other important changes of method and great inventions, had been growing
into form for ages. The ancients were accustomed to lay down blocks of
stone as a way upon which their heavily-loaded wagons could be drawn
with less resistance than on the common road. This practice was gradually
so modified as to result in the adoption of the now universally-practised
methods of paving and road-making. The old tracks, bearing the marks of
heavy traffic, are still seen in the streets of the unearthed city of Pompeii.
In the early days of mining in Great Britain, the coal or the ore was carried
from the mine to the vessel in which it was to be embarked in sacks on the
backs of horses. Later, the miners laid out wagon-roads, and used carts and
wagons drawn by horses, and the roads were paved with stone along the
lines traversed by the wheels of the vehicles. Still later (about 1630), heavy
planks or squared timber took the place of the stone, and were introduced
into the north of England by a gentleman of the name of Beaumont, who
had transferred his property there from the south. A half century later, the
system had become generally introduced. By the end of the eighteenth

century the construction of these “tram-ways” had become well-understood,
and the economy which justified the expenditure of considerable amounts
of money in making cuts and in filling, to bring the road to a uniform grade,
had become well-recognized. Arthur Young, writing at this time, says the
coal wagon-roads were “great works, carried over all sorts of inequalities of
ground, so far as the distance of nine or ten miles,” and that, on these tram-
ways of timber, “one horse is able to draw, and that with ease, fifty or sixty
bushels of coals.” The wagon-wheels were of cast-iron, and made with
grooved rims, which fitted the rounded tops of the wooden rails. But these
wooden rails were found subject to rapid decay, and at Whitehaven, in
1738, they were protected from wear by cast-iron plates laid upon them,
and this improvement rapidly became known and adopted. A tram-road, laid
down at Sheffield for the Duke of Norfolk, in 1776, was made by laying
angle-bars of cast-iron on longitudinal sleepers of timber; another, built by
William Jessup in Leicestershire, in 1789, had an edge-rail, and the wheels
were made with flanges, like those used to-day. The coned “tread” of the
wheel, which prevents wear of flanges and reduces resistance, was the
invention of James Wright, of Columbia, Pa., 40 years later. The modern
railroad was simply the result of this gradual improvement of the permanent
way, and the adaptation of the steam-engine to the propulsion of its wagons.
At the beginning of the nineteenth century, therefore, the steam-engine had
been given a form which permitted its use, and the railroad had been so far
perfected that there were no difficulties to be anticipated in the construction
of the permanent way, and inventors were gradually preparing, as has been
seen, to combine these two principal elements into one system. Railroads
had been introduced in all parts of Great Britain, some of them of
considerable length, and involving the interests of so many private
individuals that they were necessarily constructed under the authorization of
legal enactments. In the year 1805 the Merstham Railway was opened to
traffic, and it is stated that on that occasion one horse drew a train of 12
wagons, carrying 38 tons of stone, on a “down gradient” of 1 in 120, at the
rate of 6 miles per hour.

Richard Trevithick.

Richard Trevithick was the first engineer to apply steam-power to the
haulage of loads on the railroad. Trevithick was a Cornishman by birth, a
native of Redruth. He was naturally a skillful mechanic, and was placed by
his father with Watt’s assistant, Murdoch, who was superintending the
erection of pumping-engines in Cornwall; and from that ingenious and
accomplished engineer young Trevithick probably acquired both the skill
and the knowledge which, with his native talent, enterprise, and industry,
enabled him to accomplish the work which has made him famous. He was
soon intrusted with the erection and management of large pumping-engines,
and subsequently went into the business of constructing steam-engines with
another engineer, Edward Bull, who took an active part, with the
Hornblowers and others, in opposing the Boulton & Watt patents. The
termination of the suits which established the validity of Watt’s patent put
an end to their business, and Trevithick looked about for other work, and,
not long after, entered into partnership with a relative, Andrew Vivian, who

was also a skillful mechanic; they together designed and patented the
steam-carriage already referred to. Its success was sufficiently satisfactory
to awaken strong confidence of a perfect success on the now common tram-
roads; and Trevithick, in February, 1804, had completed a “locomotive”
engine to work on the Welsh Pen-y-darran road. This engine (Fig. 50) had a
cylindrical flue-boiler, A, like that designed by Oliver Evans, and a single
steam-cylinder, B, set vertically into the steam-space of the boiler, and
driving the outside cranks, L, on the rear axle of the engine by very long
connecting-rods, D, attached to its cross-head at E. The guide-bars, I, were
stayed by braces leading to the opposite end of the boiler. No attempt was
made to condense the exhaust-steam, which was discharged into the smoke-
pipe. The pressure of steam adopted was 40 pounds per square inch; but
Trevithick had already made a number of non-condensing engines on which
he carried from 50 to 145 pounds pressure.

Fig. 50.—Trevithick’s Locomotive, 1804.

In the year 1808, Trevithick built a railroad in London, on what was known
later as Torrington Square, or Euston Square, and set at work a steam-
carriage, which he called “Catch-me-who-can.” This was a very plain and
simple machine. The steam-cylinder was set vertically in the after-end of
the boiler, and the cross-head was connected to two rods, one on either side,
driving the hind pair of wheels. The exhaust-steam entered the chimney,
aiding the draught. This engine, weighing about 10 tons, made from 12 to
15 miles an hour on the circular railway in London, and was said by its
builder to be capable of making 20 miles an hour. The engine was finally
thrown from the track, after some weeks of work, by the breaking of a rail,
and, Trevithick’s funds having been expended, it was never replaced. This
engine had a steam-cylinder 141∕2 inches in diameter, and a stroke of piston
of 4 feet. Trevithick used no device to aid the friction of the wheels on the
rails in giving pulling-power, and seems to have understood that none was
needed. This plan of working a locomotive-engine without such
complications as had been proposed by other engineers was, however,
subsequently patented, in 1813, by Blackett & Hedley. The latter was at one
time Trevithick’s agent, and was director of Wylam Colliery, of which Mr.
Blackett was proprietor.
Trevithick applied his high-pressure non-conducting engine not only to
locomotives, but to every purpose that opportunity offered him. He put one
into the Tredegar Iron-Works, to drive the puddle-train, in 1801. This
engine had a steam-cylinder 28 inches in diameter, and 6 feet stroke of
piston; a boiler of cast-iron, 63∕4 feet in diameter and 20 feet long, with a
wrought-iron internal tube, 3 feet in diameter at the furnace-end and 24
inches beyond the furnace. The steam-pressure ranged from 50 to 100
pounds per square inch. The valve was a four-way cock. The exhaust-steam
was carried into the chimney, passing through a feed-water heater en route.
This engine was taken down in 1856.[48]
In 1803, Trevithick applied his engine to driving rock-drills, and three years
later made a large contract with the Trinity Board for dredging in the
Thames, and constructed steam dredging-machines for the work, of the
form which is still most generally used in Great Britain, although rarely
seen in the United States—the “chain-and-bucket dredger.”

A little later, Trevithick was engaged upon the first and unsuccessful
attempt to carry a tunnel under the Thames, at London; but no sooner had
that costly scheme been given up, than he returned to his favorite pursuits,
and continued his work on interrupted schemes for ship-propulsion.
Trevithick at last left England, spent some years in South America, and
finally returned home and died in extreme poverty, April, 1833, at the age
of sixty-two, without having succeeded in accomplishing the general
introduction of any of his inventions.
Trevithick was characteristically an inventor of the typical sort. He invented
many valuable devices, but brought but few into even experimental use, and
reaped little advantage from any of them. He was ingenious, a thorough
mechanic, bold, active, and indefatigable; but his lack of persistence made
his whole life, as Smiles has said, “but a series of beginnings.”
It is at about this period that we find evidence of the intelligent labors of
another of our own countrymen—one who, in consequence of the
unobtrusive manner in which his work was done, has never received the full
credit to which he is entitled.

Colonel John Stevens.

Colonel John Stevens, of Hoboken, as he is generally called, was born in
the city of New York, in 1749; but throughout his business-life he was a
resident of New Jersey.
His attention is said to have been first called to the application of steam-
power by seeing the experiments of John Fitch with his steamer on the
Delaware, and he at once devoted himself to the introduction of steam-
navigation with characteristic energy, and with a success that will be
indicated when we come to the consideration of that subject.
But this far-sighted engineer and statesman saw plainly the importance of
applying the steam-engine to land-transportation as well as to navigation;
and not only that, but he saw with equal distinctness the importance of a
well-devised and carefully-prosecuted scheme of internal communication
by a complete system of railroads. In 1812 he published a pamphlet
containing “Documents tending to prove the superior advantages of
Railways and Steam-Carriages over Canal-Navigation.”[49] At this time, the
only locomotive in the world was that of Trevithick and Vivian, at Merthyr
Tydvil, and the railroad itself had not grown beyond the old wooden tram-
roads of the collieries. Yet Colonel Stevens says, in this paper: “I can see
nothing to hinder a steam-carriage moving on its ways with a velocity of
100 miles an hour;” adding, in a foot-note: “This astonishing velocity is
considered here merely possible. It is probable that it may not, in practise,
be convenient to exceed 20 or 30 miles per hour. Actual experiment can
only determine this matter, and I should not be surprised at seeing steam-
carriages propelled at the rate of 40 or 50 miles an hour.”
At a yet earlier date he had addressed a memoir to the proper authorities,
urging his plans for railroads. He proposed rails of timber, protected, when
necessary, by iron plates, or to be made wholly of iron; the car-wheels were
to be of cast-iron, with inside flanges to keep them on the track. The steam-
engine was to be driven by steam of 50 pounds pressure and upward, and to
be non-condensing.
Answering the objections of Robert R. Livingston and of the State
Commissioners of New York, he goes further into details. He gives 500 to
1,000 pounds as the maximum weight to be placed on each wheel; shows

that the trains, or “suits of carriages,” as he calls them, will make their
journeys with as much certainty and celerity in the darkest night as in the
light of day; shows that the grades of proposed roads would offer but little
resistance; and places the whole subject before the public with such
accuracy of statement and such evident appreciation of its true value, that
every one who reads this remarkable document will agree fully with
President Charles King, who said[50] that “whosoever shall attentively read
this pamphlet, will perceive that the political, financial, commercial, and
military aspects of this great question were all present to Colonel Stevens’s
mind, and that he felt that he was fulfilling a patriotic duty when he placed
at the disposal of his native country these fruits of his genius. The offering
was not then accepted. The ‘Thinker’ was ahead of his age; but it is grateful
to know that he lived to see his projects carried out, though not by the
Government, and that, before he finally, in 1838, closed his eyes in death, at
the great age of eighty-nine, he could justly feel assured that the name of
Stevens, in his own person and in that of his sons, was imperishably
enrolled among those which a grateful country will cherish.”
Without having made any one superlatively great improvement in the
mechanism of the steam-engine, like that which gave Watt his fame—
without having the honor even of being the first to propose the propulsion
of vessels by the modern steam-engine, or steam-transportation on land—he
exhibited a far better knowledge of the science and the art of engineering
than any man of his time; and he entertained and urged more advanced
opinions and more statesmanlike views in relation to the economical
importance of the improvement and the application of the steam-engine,
both on land and water, than seem to be attributable to any other leading
engineer of that time.
Says Dr. King: “Who can estimate if, at that day, acting upon the well-
considered suggestion of President Madison, ‘of the signal advantages to be
derived to the United States from a general system of internal
communication and conveyance,’ Congress had entertained Colonel
Stevens’s proposal, and, after verifying by actual experiment upon a small
scale the accuracy of his plan, had organized such a ‘general system of
internal communication and conveyance;’ who can begin to estimate the
inappreciable benefits that would have resulted therefrom to the comfort,
the wealth, the power, and, above all, to the absolutely impregnable union

of our great Republic and all its component parts? All this Colonel Stevens
embraced in his views, for he was a statesman as well as an experimental
philosopher; and whoever shall attentively read his pamphlet, will perceive
that the political, financial, commercial, and military aspects of this great
question were all present to his mind, and he felt that he was fulfilling a
patriotic duty when he placed at the disposal of his native country these
fruits of his genius.”
William Hedley, who has already been referred to, seems to have been the
first to show, by carefully-conducted experiment, how far the adhesion of
the wheels of the locomotive-engine could be relied upon for hauling-power
in the transportation of loads.
His employer, Blackett, had applied to Trevithick for a locomotive-engine
to haul coal-trains at the Wylam collieries; but Trevithick was unable, or
was disinclined, to build him one, and in October, 1812, Hedley was
authorized to attempt the construction of an engine. It was at about this time
that Blenkinsop (1811) was trying the toothed rail or rack, the Messrs.
Chapman (December, 1812) were experimenting with a towing-chain, and
(May, 1813) Brunton with movable legs.
Hedley, who had known of the success met with in the experiments of
Trevithick with smooth wheels hauling loads of considerable weight, in
Cornwall, was confident that equal success might be expected in the north-
country, and built a carriage to be moved by men stationed at four handles,
by which its wheels were turned.
This carriage was loaded with heavy masses of iron, and attached to trains
of coal-wagons on the railway. By repeated experiment, varying the weight
of the traction-carriage and the load hauled, Hedley ascertained the
proportion of the weight required for adhesion to that of the loads drawn. It
was thus conclusively proven that the weight of his proposed locomotive-
engine would be sufficient to give the pulling-power necessary for the
propulsion of the coal-trains which it was to haul.
When the wheels slipped in consequence of the presence of grease, frost, or
moisture on the rail, Hedley proposed to sprinkle ashes on the track, as sand
is now distributed from the sand-box of the modern engine. This was in
October, 1812.

Hedley now went to work building an engine with smooth wheels, and
patented his design March 13, 1813, a month after he had put his engine at
work. The locomotive had a cast-iron boiler, and a single steam-cylinder 6
inches in diameter, with a small fly-wheel. This engine had too small a
boiler, and he soon after built a larger engine, with a return-flue boiler made
of wrought-iron. This hauled 8 loaded coal-wagons 5 miles an hour at first,
and a little later 10, doing the work of 10 horses. The steam-pressure was
carried at about 50 pounds, and the exhaust, led into the chimney, where the
pipe was turned upward, thus secured a blast of considerable intensity in its
small chimney. Hedley also contracted the opening of the exhaust-pipe to
intensify the blast, and was subjected to some annoyance by proprietors of
lands along his railway, who were irritated by the burning of their grass and
hedges, which were set on fire by the sparks thrown out of the chimney of
the locomotive. The cost of Hedley’s experiment was defrayed by Mr.
Blackett.
Subsequently, Hedley mounted his engine on eight wheels, the four-
wheeled engines having been frequently stopped by breaking the light rails
then in use. Hedley’s engines continued in use at the Wylam collieries many
years. The second engine was removed in 1862, and is now preserved at the
South Kensington Museum, London.

George Stephenson.

George Stephenson, to whom is generally accorded the honor of having
first made the locomotive-engine a success, built his first engine at
Killingworth, England, in 1814.
At this time Stephenson was by no means alone in the field, for the idea of
applying the steam-engine to driving carriages on common roads and on
railroads was beginning, as has been seen, to attract considerable attention.
Stephenson, however, combined, in a very fortunate degree, the advantages
of great natural inventive talent and an excellent mechanical training,
reminding one strongly of James Watt. Indeed, Stephenson’s portrait bears
some resemblance to that of the earlier great inventor.
George Stephenson was born June 9, 1781, at Wylam, near Newcastle-
upon-Tyne, and was the son of a “north-country miner.” When still a child,
he exhibited great mechanical talent and unusual love of study. When set at
work about the mines, his attention to duty and his intelligence obtained for

him rapid promotion, until, when but seventeen years of age, he was made
engineer, and took charge of the pumping-engine at which his father was
fireman.
When a mere child, and employed as a herd-boy, he amused himself
making model engines in clay, and, as he grew older, never lost an
opportunity to learn the construction and management of machinery. After
having been employed at Newburn and Callerton, where he first became
“engine-man,” he began to study with greater interest than ever the various
steam-engines which were then in use; and both the Newcomen engine and
the Watt pumping-engine were soon thoroughly understood by him. After
having become a brakeman, he removed to Willington Quay, where he
married, and commenced his wedded life on 18 or 20 shillings per week. It
was here that he became an intimate friend of the distinguished William
Fairbairn, who was then working as an apprentice at the Percy Main
Colliery, near by. The “father of the railroad” and the future President of the
British Association were accustomed, at times, to “change works,” and were
frequently seen in consultation over their numerous projects. It was at
Willington Quay that his son Robert, who afterward became a distinguished
civil engineer, was born, October 16, 1803.
In the following year Stephenson removed to Killingworth, and became
brakeman at that colliery; but his wife soon died, and he gladly accepted an
invitation to become engine-driver at a spinning-mill near Montrose,
Scotland. At the end of a year he returned, on foot, to Killingworth with his
savings (about £28), expended over one-half of the amount in paying his
father’s debts and in making his parents comfortable, and then returned to
his old station as brakeman at the pit.
Here he made some useful improvements in the arrangement of the
machinery, and spent his spare hours in studying his engine and planning
new machines. He a little later distinguished himself by altering and
repairing an old Newcomen engine at the High Pit, which had failed to give
satisfaction, making it thoroughly successful after three days’ work. The
engine cleared the pit, at which it had been vainly laboring a long time, in
two days after Stephenson started it up.

In the year 1812, Stephenson was made engine-wright of the Killingworth
High Pit, receiving £100 a year, and it was made his duty to supervise the
machinery of all the collieries under lease by the so-called “Grand Allies.”
It was here, and at this period, that he commenced a systematic course of
self-improvement and the education of his son, and here he first began to be
recognized as an inventor. He was full of life and something of a wag, and
often made most amusing applications of his inventive powers: as when he
placed the watch, which a comrade had brought him as out of repairs, in the
oven “to cook,” his quick eye having noted the fact that the difficulty arose
simply from the clogging of the wheels by the oil, which had been
congealed by cold.
Smiles,[51] his biographer, describes his cottage as a perfect curiosity-shop,
filled with models of engines, machines of various kinds, and novel
apparatus. He connected the cradles of his neighbors’ wives with the
smoke-jacks in their chimneys, and thus relieved them from constant
attendance upon their infants; he fished at night with a submarine lamp,
which attracted the fish from all sides, and gave him wonderful luck; he
also found time to give colloquial instruction to his fellow-workmen.
He built a self-acting inclined plane for his pit, on which the wagons,
descending loaded, drew up the empty trains; and made so many
improvements at the Killingworth pit, that the number of horses employed
underground was reduced from 100 to 16.
Stephenson now had more liberty than when employed at the brakes, and,
hearing of the experiments of Blackett and Hedley at Wylam, went over to
their colliery to study their engine. He also went to Leeds to see the
Blenkinsop engine draw, at a trial, 70 tons at the rate of 3 miles an hour, and
expressed his opinion in the characteristic remark, “I think I could make a
better engine than that to go upon legs.” He very soon made the attempt.
Having laid the subject before the proprietors of the lease under which the
collieries were worked, and convinced Lord Ravensworth, the principal
owner, of the advantages to be secured by the use of a “traveling engine,”
that nobleman advanced the money required. Stephenson at once
commenced his first locomotive-engine, building it in the workshops at

West Moor, assisted mainly by John Thirlwall, the colliery blacksmith,
during the years 1813 and 1814, completing it in July of the latter year.
This engine had a wrought-iron boiler 8 feet long and 2 feet 10 inches in
diameter, with a single flue 20 inches in diameter. The cylinders were
vertical, 8 inches in diameter and of 2 feet stroke of piston, set in the boiler,
and driving a set of wheels which geared with each other and with other
cogged wheels on the two driving-axles. A feed-water heater surrounded the
base of the chimney. This engine drew 30 tons on a rising gradient of 10 or
12 feet to the mile at the rate of 4 miles an hour. This engine proved in
many respects defective, and the cost of its operation was found to be about
as great as that of employing horse-power.
Stephenson determined to build another engine on a somewhat different
plan, and patented its design in February, 1815. It proved a much more
efficient machine than the “Blücher,” the first engine.

Fig. 51.—Stephenson’s Locomotive of 1815. Section.

This second engine (Fig. 51) was also fitted with two vertical cylinders, C
c, but the connecting-rods were attached directly to the four driving-wheels,

W W′. To permit the necessary freedom of motion, “ball-and-socket” joints
were adopted, to unite the rods with the cross-heads, R r, and with the
cranks, R′ Y′; and the two driving-axles were connected by an endless chain,
T t′. The cranked axle and the outside connection of the wheels, as specified
in the patent, were not used until afterward, it having been found impossible
to get the cranked axles made. In this engine the forced draught obtained by
the impulse of the exhaust-steam was adopted, doubling the power of the
machine and permitting the use of coke as a fuel, and making it possible to
adopt the multi-tubular boiler. Small steam-cylinders, S S S, took the weight
of the engine and served as springs.
It was at about this time that George Stephenson and Sir Humphry Davy,
independently and almost simultaneously, invented the “safety-lamp,”
without which few mines of bituminous coal could to-day be worked. The
former used small tubes, the latter fine wire gauze, to intercept the flame.
Stephenson proved the efficiency of his lamp by going with it directly into
the inflammable atmosphere of a dangerous mine, and repeatedly
permitting the light to be extinguished when the lamp became surcharged
with the explosive mixture which had so frequently proved fatal to the
miners. This was in October and November, 1815, and Stephenson’s work
antedates that of the great philosopher.[52] The controversy which arose
between the supporters of the rival claims of the two inventors was very
earnest, and sometimes bitter. The friends of the young engineer raised a
subscription, amounting to above £1,000, and presented it to him as a token
of their appreciation of the value of his simple yet important contrivance.
Of the two forms of lamp, that of Stephenson is claimed to be safest, the
Davy lamp being liable to produce explosions by igniting the explosive gas
when, by its combustion within the gauze cylinder, the latter is made red-
hot. Under similar conditions, the Stephenson lamp is simply extinguished,
as was seen at Barnsley, in 1857, at the Oaks Colliery, where both kinds of
lamp were in use, and elsewhere.
Stephenson continued to study and experiment, with a view to the
improvement of his locomotive and the railroad. He introduced better
methods of track-laying and of jointing the rails, adopting a half-lap, or
peculiar scarf-joint, in place of the then usual square-butt joint. He patented,
with these modifications of the permanent way, several of his improvements
of the engine. He had substituted forged for the rude cast wheels previously

used,[53] and had made many minor changes of detail. The engines built at
this time (1816) continued in use many years. Two years later, with a
dynamometer which he designed for the purpose, he made experimental
determinations of the resistance of trains, and showed that it was made up
of several kinds, as the sliding friction of the axle-journals in their bearings,
the rolling friction of the wheels on the rails, the resistance due to gravity
on gradients, and that due to the resistance of the air.
These experiments seemed to him conclusive against the possibility of the
competition of engines on the common highway with locomotives hauling
trains on the rail. Finding that the resistance, with his rolling-stock, and at
all the speeds at which he made his experiments, was approximately
invariable, and equivalent to about 10 pounds per ton, and estimating that a
gradient rising but 1 foot in 100 would decrease the hauling power of the
engine 50 per cent., he saw at once the necessity of making all railroads as
nearly absolutely level as possible, and, consequently, the radically
distinctive character of this branch of civil engineering work. He
persistently condemned the “folly” of attempting the general introduction of
steam on the common road, where great changes of level and an impressible
road-bed were certain to prove fatal to success, and was most strenuous in
his advocacy of the policy of securing level tracks, even at very great
expense.
Taking part in the contest, which now became a serious one, between the
advocates of steam on the common road and those urging the introduction
of locomotives and their trains on an iron track, he calculated that a road-
engine capable of carrying 20 or 30 passengers at 10 miles per hour, could,
on the rail, carry ten times as many people at three or four times that speed.
The railway-engine finally superseded its predecessor—the engine of the
common road—almost completely.
In 1817, Stephenson built an engine for the Duke of Portland, to haul coal
from Kilmarnock to Troon, which cost £750, and, with some interruptions,
this engine worked on that line until 1848, when it was broken up. On
November 18, 1822, the Hetton Railway, near Sunderland, was opened.
George Stephenson was the engineer of the line—a short track, 8 miles
long, built from the Hetton Colliery to the docks on the bank of the river
Wear. On this line he put in five of the “self-acting inclines”—two inclines

worked by stationary engines, the gradients being too heavy for
locomotives—and used five locomotive-engines of his own design, which
were called by the people of the neighborhood, possibly for the first time,
“the iron horses.” These engines were quite similar to the Killingworth
engine. They drew a train of 17 coal-cars—a total load of 64 tons—about 4
miles an hour. Meantime, also, in 1823, Stephenson had been made
engineer of the Stockton & Darlington Railroad, which had been projected
for the purpose of securing transportation to tide-water for the valuable
coal-lands of Durham. This road was built without an expectation on the
part of any of its promoters, Stephenson excepted, that steam would be used
as a motor to the exclusion of horses.
Mr. Edward Pearse, however, one of the largest holders of stock in the road,
and one of its most earnest advocates, became so convinced, by an
examination of the Killingworth engines and their work, of the immense
advantage to be derived by their use, that he not only supported
Stephenson’s arguments, but, with Thomas Richardson, advanced £1,000
for the purpose of assisting Stephenson to commence the business of
locomotive-engine construction at Newcastle. This workshop, which
subsequently became a great and famous establishment, was commenced in
1824.

Fig. 52.—Stephenson’s No. 1 Engine, 1825.

For this road Stephenson recommended wrought-iron rails, which were then
costing £12 per ton—double the price of cast rails. The directors, however,
stipulated that he should only buy one-half the rails required from the
dealers in “malleable” iron. These rails weighed 20 pounds to the yard.
After long hesitation, in the face of a serious opposition, the directors
finally concluded to order three locomotives of Stephenson. The first, or
“No. 1,” engine (Fig. 52) was delivered in time for the opening of the road,
September 27, 1825. It weighed 8 tons. Its boiler contained a single straight
flue, one end of which was the furnace. The cylinders were vertical, like
those of the earlier engines, and coupled directly to the driving-wheels. The
crank-pins were set in the wheels at right angles, in order that, while one
engine was “turning the centre,” the other might exert its maximum power.
The two pairs of drivers were coupled by horizontal rods, as seen in the
figure, which represents this engine as subsequently mounted on a pedestal
at the Darlington station. A steam-blast in the chimney gave the requisite
strength of draught. These engines were built for slow and heavy work, but
were capable of making what was then thought the satisfactorily high speed
of 16 miles per hour. The inclines on the road were worked by fixed
engines.
On the opening day, which was celebrated as a holiday by the people far
and near, the No. 1 engine drew 90 tons at the rate of 12, and at times 15,
miles an hour.

Fig. 53.—Opening of the Stockton and Darlington Railroad, 1815.
(After an old engraving.)

Stephenson’s engines were kept at work hauling coal-trains, but the
passenger-coaches were all drawn for some time by horses, and the latter
system was a rude forerunner, in most respects, of modern street-railway
transportation. Mixed passenger and freight trains were next introduced,
and, soon after, separate passenger-trains drawn by faster engines were
placed on the line, and the present system of railroad transportation was
now fairly inaugurated.
A railroad between Manchester and Liverpool had been projected at about
the time that the Stockton & Darlington road was commenced. The
preliminary surveys had been made in the face of strong opposition, which
did not always stop at legal action and verbal attack, but in some instances
led to the display of force. The surveyors were sometimes driven from their
work by a mob armed with sticks and stones, urged on by land-proprietors
and those interested in the lines of coaches on the highway. Before the
opening of the Stockton & Darlington Railroad, the Liverpool &
Manchester bill had been carried through Parliament, after a very
determined effort on the part of coach-proprietors and landholders to defeat
it, and Stephenson urged the adoption of the locomotive to the exclusion of
horses. It was his assertion, made at this time, that he could build a
locomotive to run 20 miles an hour, that provoked the celebrated rejoinder
of a writer in the Quarterly Review, who was, however, in favor of the
construction of the road and of the use of the locomotive upon it: “What can
be more palpably absurd and ridiculous, than the prospect held out of
locomotives traveling twice as fast as stage-coaches? We would as soon
expect the people of Woolwich to suffer themselves to be fired off upon one
of Congreve’s ricochet-rockets, as trust themselves to the mercy of such a
machine going at such a rate.”
It was during his examination before a committee of the House of
Commons, during this contest, that Stephenson, when asked, “Suppose,
now, one of your engines to be going at the rate of 9 or 10 miles an hour,
and that a cow were to stray upon the line and get in the way of the engine,
would not that be a very awkward circumstance?” replied, “Yes, very
awkward—for the coo!” And when asked if men and animals would not be

frightened by the red-hot smoke-pipe, answered, “But how would they
know that it was not painted?” The line was finally built, with George
Rennie as consulting, and Stephenson as principal constructing engineer.
His work on this road became one of the important elements of the success,
and one of the great causes of the distinction, which marked the life of these
rising engineers. The successful construction of that part of the line which
lay across “Chat Moss,” an unfathomable swampy deposit of peat,
extending over an area of 12 square miles, and the building of which had
been repeatedly declared an impossibility, was in itself sufficient to prove
that the engineer who had accomplished it was no common man.
Stephenson adopted the very simple yet bold expedient of using, as a
filling, compacted turf and peat, and building a road-bed of materials lighter
than water, or the substance composing the bog, and thus forming a floating
embankment, on which he laid his rails. To the surprise of every one but
Stephenson himself, the plan proved perfectly successful, and even
surprisingly economical, costing but little more than one-tenth the estimate
of at least one engineer. Among the other great works on this remarkable
pioneer-line were the tunnel, a mile and a half long, from the station at
Liverpool to Edgehill; the Olive Mount deep-cut, two miles long, and in
some places 100 feet deep, through red sandstone, of which nearly 500,000
yards were removed; the Sankey Viaduct, a brick structure of nine arches,
of 50 feet span each, costing £45,000; and a number of other pieces of work
which are noteworthy in even these days of great works.
Stephenson planned all details of the line, and even designed the bridges,
machinery, engines, turn-tables, switches, and crossings, and was
responsible for every part of the work of their construction.
Finally, the work of building the line approached completion, and it became
necessary promptly to settle the long-deferred question of a method of
applying motive-power. Some of the directors and their advisers still
advocated the use of horses; many thought stationary hauling-engines
preferable; and the remainder were, almost to a man, undecided. The
locomotive had no outspoken advocate, and few had the slightest faith in it.
George Stephenson was almost alone, and the opponents of steam had
secured a provision in the Newcastle & Carlisle Railroad concession,
stipulating expressly that horses should there be exclusively employed. The

directors did, however, in 1828, permit Stephenson to put on the line a
locomotive, to be used, during its construction, in hauling gravel-trains. A
committee was sent, at Stephenson’s request, to see the Stockton &
Darlington engines, but no decided expression of opinion seems to have
been made by them. Two well-known professional engineers reported in
favor of fixed engines, and advised the division of the line into 19 stages of
about a mile and a half each, and the use of 21 fixed engines, although they
admitted the excessive first-cost of that system. The board was naturally
strongly inclined to adopt their plan. Stephenson, however, earnestly and
persistently opposed such action, and, after long debate, it was finally
determined “to give the traveling engine a chance.” The board decided to
offer a reward of £500 for the best locomotive-engine, and prescribed the
following conditions:
1. The engine must consume its own smoke.
2. The engine, if of 6 tons weight, must be able to draw after it, day by day, 20 tons
weight (including the tender and water-tank) at 10 miles an hour, with a pressure of
steam on the boiler not exceeding 50 pounds to the square inch.
3. The boiler must have two safety-valves, neither of which must be fastened down,
and one of them completely out of the control of the engine-man.
4. The engine and boiler must be supported on springs, and rest on 6 wheels, the
height of the whole not exceeding 15 feet to the top of the chimney.
5. The engine, with water, must not weigh more than 6 tons; but an engine of less
weight would be preferred, on its drawing a proportionate load behind it; if of only
41∕2 tons, then it might be put only on 4 wheels. The company to be at liberty to test
the boiler, etc., by a pressure of 150 pounds to the square inch.
6. A mercurial gauge must be affixed to the machine, showing the steam-pressure
above 45 pounds to the square inch.
7. The engine must be delivered, complete and ready for trial, at the Liverpool end of
the railway, not later than the 1st of October, 1829.
8. The price of the engine must not exceed £550.

This circular was printed and published throughout the kingdom, and a
considerable number of engines were constructed to compete at the trial,
which was proposed to take place October 1, 1829, but which was deferred
to the 6th of that month. Only four engines, however, were finally entered
on the day of the trial. These were the “Novelty,” constructed by Messrs.
Braithwaite & Ericsson, the latter being the distinguished engineer who
subsequently came to the United States to introduce screw-propulsion, and,

later, the monitor system of iron-clads; the “Rocket,” built from
Stephenson’s plans; and the “Sanspareil” and the “Perseverance,” built by
Hackworth and Burstall, respectively.
The “Sanspareil,” which was built under the direction of Timothy
Hackworth, one of Stephenson’s earlier foremen, resembled the engine built
by the latter for the Stockton & Darlington road, but was heavier than had
been stipulated, was not ready for work when called, and, when finally set
at work, proved to be very extravagant in its use of fuel, partly in
consequence of the extreme intensity of its blast, which caused the
expulsion of unconsumed coals from the furnace.
The “Perseverance” could not attain the specified speed, and was
withdrawn.

Fig. 54.—The “Novelty,” 1829.

The “Novelty” was apparently a well-designed and for that time a
remarkably well-proportioned machine. A, in Fig. 54, is the boiler, D the
steam-cylinders, E a heater. Its weight but slightly exceeded three tons, and
it was a “tank engine,” carrying its own fuel and water at B. A forced
draught was obtained by means of the bellows, C. This engine was run over
the line at the rate of about 28 miles an hour at times, but its blowing
apparatus failed, and the “Rocket” held the track alone. A later trial still left
the “Rocket” alone in the field.

Fig. 55.—The “Rocket,” 1829.

The “Rocket” (Fig. 55) was built at the works of Robert Stephenson & Co.,
at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The boiler was given considerable heating-surface
by the introduction of 25 3-inch copper tubes, at the suggestion of Henry
Booth, secretary of the railroad company. The blast was altered by
gradually closing in the opening at the extremity of the exhaust-pipe, and
thus “sharpening” it until it was found to have the requisite intensity. The
effect of this modification of the shape of the pipe was observed carefully
by means of syphon water-gauges attached to the chimney. The draft was
finally given such an intensity as to raise the water 3 inches in the tube of
the draught-gauge. The total length of the boiler was 6 feet, its diameter 40
inches. The fire-box was attached to the rear of the boiler, and was 3 feet
high and 2 feet wide, with water-legs to protect its side-sheets from injury
by overheating. The cylinders, as seen in the sketch, were inclined, and
coupled to a single pair of driving-wheels. A tender, attached to the engine,
carried the fuel and water. The engine weighed less than 41∕2 tons.
The little engine does not seem to have been very prepossessing in
appearance, and the “Novelty” is said to have been the general favorite, the
Stephenson engine having few, if any, backers among the spectators. On its
first trial, it ran 12 miles in less than an hour.

After the accident which disabled the “Novelty,” the “Rocket” came
forward again, and ran at the rate of from 25 to 30 miles an hour, drawing a
single carriage carrying 30 passengers. Two days later, on the 8th of
October, steam was raised in a little less than an hour from cold water, and
it then, with 13 tons of freight in the train, ran 35 miles in 1 hour and 48
minutes, including stops, and attained a speed of 29 miles an hour. The
average of all runs for the trial was 15 miles an hour.
This success, far exceeding the expectation of the most sanguine of the
advocates of the system, and greatly exceeding what had been asserted by
opponents to be the bounds of possibility, settled completely the whole
question, and the Manchester & Liverpool road was at once equipped with
locomotive engines.
The “Rocket” remained on the line until 1837, when it was sold, and set at
work by the purchasers on the Midgeholme Railway, near Carlisle. On one
occasion, on this road, it was driven 4 miles in 41∕2 minutes. It is now in the
Patent Museum at South Kensington, London.
In January, 1830, a single line of rails had been carried across Chat Moss,
and, six months later, the first train, drawn by the “Arrow,” ran through,
June 14th, from Liverpool to Manchester, making the trip in an hour and a
half, and attaining a maximum speed of over 27 miles an hour. The line was
formally opened to traffic September 15, 1830.
This was one of the most notable occasions in the history of the railroad,
and the successful termination of the great work was celebrated, as so
important an event should be, by impressive ceremonies. Among the
distinguished spectators were Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington.
Mr. Huskisson, a Member of Parliament for Liverpool, was also present.
There had been built for the line, by Robert Stephenson & Co., 7
locomotives besides the “Rocket,” and a large number of carriages. These
were all brought out in procession, and 600 passengers entered the train,
which started for Manchester, and ran at times, on smooth portions of the
road, at the rate of 20 and 25 miles an hour. Crowds of people along the line
cheered at this strange and to them incomprehensible spectacle, and the
story of the wonderful performances of that day on the new railroad was
repeated in every corner of the land. A sad accident, the precursor of

thousands to follow the introduction of the new method of transportation,
while it repressed the rising enthusiasm of the people and dampened the
ardor of the most earnest of the advocates of the railroad, occurring during
this trip, assisted in making known the power of the new motor and the
danger attending its use as well. The trains stopped for water at Parkside,
and occasion was taken to send the “Northumbrian,” an engine driven by
George Stephenson himself, on a side track, with the carriage containing the
Duke of Wellington, and the other engines and trains were all directed to be
sent along the main track in view of the Duke and his party. While this
movement was in process of execution, Mr. Huskisson, who had carelessly
stood on the main line until the “Rocket,” which led the column, had nearly
reached him, attempted to enter the carriage of the Duke. He was too late,
and was struck by the “Rocket,” thrown down across the rail, and the
advancing engine crushed a leg so seriously that he died the same evening.
Immediately after the accident, he was placed on the “Northumbrian,” and
Stephenson made the 15 miles to the destination of the wounded man in 25
minutes—a speed of 36 miles an hour. The news of this accident, and the
statement of the velocity of the engine, were published throughout the
kingdom and Europe; and the misfortune of this first victim of a railroad
accident was one of the causes of the immediate adoption and rapid spread
of the modern railway system.
This road, which was built in the hope of securing 400 passengers per day,
almost immediately averaged 1,200, and in five years reported 500,000
passengers for the year.[54] The success of this road insured the general
introduction of railroads, and from this time forward there was never a
doubt of their ultimate adoption to the exclusion of every other system of
general internal communication and transportation.
For some years after this his first great triumph, George Stephenson gave
his whole time to the building of railroads and the improvement of the
engine. He was assisted by his son Robert, to whom he gradually
surrendered his business, and retired to Tapton House, on the Midland
Railway, and led a busy but pleasant life during the remaining years of his
existence.
Even as early as 1840, he seems to have projected many improvements
which were only generally adopted many years later. He proposed self-

acting and continuous systems of brake, and considered a good system of
brake of so great importance, that he advocated their compulsory
introduction by State legislation. He advised moderate speeds, from
considerations both of safety and of expense.

Fig. 56.—The Atmospheric Railroad.

A few years after the opening of the Liverpool & Manchester road, great
numbers of schemes were proposed by ignorant or designing men, which
had for their object the filling of the pockets of their proposers rather than
the benefit of the stockholders and the public; and the Stephensons were
often called upon to combat these crude and ill-digested plans. Among these
was the pneumatic system of propulsion, already referred to as first
proposed by Papin, in combination with his double-acting air-pump, in
1687. It had been again proposed in the early part of the present century by
Medhurst, who proposed a method of pneumatic transmission of small
parcels and of letters, which is now in use, and, 15 years later, a railroad to
take the place of that of Stephenson and his coadjutors. The most successful
of several attempts to introduce this method was that of Clegg & Samuda,

at West London, and on the London & Croydon road, and again in Ireland,
between Kingstown and Dalkey. A line of pipe, B B, seen in Fig. 56, two
feet in diameter, was laid between the rails, A A, of the road. This pipe was
fitted with a nicely-packed piston, carrying a strong arm, which rose
through a slit made along the top of the pipe, and covered by a flexible strip
of leather, E E. This arm was attached to the carriage, C C, to be propelled.
The pressure of the atmosphere being removed, by the action of a powerful
pump, from the side toward which the train was to advance, the pressure of
the atmosphere on the opposite side drove the piston forward, carrying the
train with it. Stephenson was convinced, after examining the plans of the
projectors, that the scheme would fail, and so expressed himself. Those who
favored it, however, had sufficient influence with capitalists to secure
repeated trials, although each was followed by failure, and it was several
years before the last was heard of this system.
A considerable portion of several of the later years of Stephenson’s life was
spent in traveling in Europe, partly on business and partly for pleasure.
During a visit to Belgium in 1845, he was received everywhere, and by all
classes, from the king down to the humblest of his subjects, with such
distinction as is rarely accorded even to the greatest men. He soon after
visited Spain with Sir Joshua Walmsley, to report on a proposed railway
from the capital to the Bay of Biscay. On this journey he was taken ill, and
his health was permanently impaired. Thenceforward he devoted himself
principally to the direction of his own property, which had become very
considerable, and spent much of his time at the collieries and other works in
which he had invested it. His son had now entirely relieved him of all
business connected with railroads, and he had leisure to devote to self-
improvement and social amusement. Among his friends he claimed Sir
Robert Peel, his old acquaintance, now Sir William, Fairbairn, Dr.
Buckland, and many others of the distinguished men of that time.
In August, 1848, Stephenson was attacked with intermittent fever,
succeeded by hæmorrhage from the lungs, and died on the 12th of that
month, at the age of sixty-six years, honored of all men, and secure of an
undying fame. Soon after his death, statues were erected at Liverpool,
London, and Newcastle, the cost of the second of which was defrayed by
private subscriptions, including a contribution of about $1,500 by 3,150

workingmen—one of the finest tributes ever offered to the memory of a
great man.
But the noblest monument is that which he himself erected by the
establishment of a system of education and protection of his working-
people at Clay Cross. He made it a condition of employment that every
employé should contribute from five to twelve pence each fortnight to a
fund, to which the works also made liberal contributions. From that fund it
was directed that the expenses of free education of the children of the work-
people, night-schools for those employed in the works, a reading-room and
library, medical treatment, and a benevolent fund were to be defrayed.
Music and cricket-clubs, and prize funds for the best garden, were also
founded. The school, public hall, and the church of Clay Cross, and this
noble system of support, are together a nobler monument than any statue or
similar structure could be.
The character of George Stephenson was in every way admirable. Simple,
earnest, and honorable; courageous, indomitable, and industrious;
humorous, kind, and philanthropic, his memory will long be cherished, and
will long prove an incentive to earnest effort and to the pursuit of an
honorable fame with hundreds of the youth who, reading his simple yet
absorbing story, as told by his biographer, shall in later years learn to know
him.
After the death of his father, Robert Stephenson continued, as he had
already done for several years, to conduct the business of building
locomotives, as well as of constructing railroads. The work of locomotive
engine-building was done at Newcastle, and for many years those works
were the principal engine-building establishment of the world.

Fig. 57.—Stephenson’s Locomotive, 1833.

After their introduction on the Liverpool & Manchester road, the engines of
the firm of Robert Stephenson & Co. were rapidly modified, until they
assumed the form shown in Fig. 57, which remained standard until their
gradual increase in weight compelled the builders to place a larger number
of wheels beneath them, and make those other changes which finally
resulted in the creation of distinct types for special kinds of work. In the
engine of 1833, as shown above, the cylinders, A, are carried at the extreme
forward end of the boiler, and the driving-wheels, B, are coupled directly to
the connecting-rod of the engine and to each other. A buffer, C, extends in
front, and the rear end of the boiler is formed into a rectangular fire-box, D,
continuous with the shell, E, and the flame and gases pass to the connection
and smoke-pipe, F, G, through a large number of small tubes, a. Steam is
led to the cylinders by a steam-pipe, H H, to which it is admitted by the
throttle-valve, b. A steam-dome, I, from which the steam is taken, assists by
giving more steam-space far above the water-line, and thus furnishing dry
steam. The exhaust steam issues with great velocity into the chimney from
the pipe, J, giving great intensity of draught. The engine-driver stands on
the platform, K, from which all the valves and handles are accessible. Feed-

pumps, L, supply the boiler with water, which is drawn from the tender
through the pipes, e, f.

Fig. 58.—The Stephenson Valve-Gear, 1833.

The valve-gear was then substantially what it is to-day, the “Stephenson
link” (Fig. 58). On the driving-axle were keyed two eccentrics, E, so set that
the motion of the one was adapted to driving the valve when the engine was
moving forward, and the other was arranged to move the valve when
running backward. The former was connected, through its strap and the rod,
B, to the upper end of a “strap-link,” A, while the second was similarly
connected with the lower end. By means of a handle, L, and the link, n, and
its connections, including the counterweighted bell-crank, M, this link could
be raised or depressed, thus bringing the pin on the link-block, to which the
valve-stem was connected, into action with either eccentric. Or, the link
being set in mid-gear, the valve would cover both steam-ports of the
cylinder, and the engine could move neither way. As shown, the engine is in
position to run backward. A series of notches, Z, into either of which a catch
on L could be dropped, enabled the driver to place the link where he chose.
In intermediate positions, between mid-gear and full-gear, the motion of the
valve is such as to produce expansion of the steam, and some gain in
economy of working, although reducing the power of the engine.
The success of the railroad and the locomotive in Great Britain led to its
rapid introduction in other countries. In France, as early as 1823, M.

Beaunier was authorized to construct a line of rails from the coal-mines of
St. Étienne to the Loire, using horses for the traction of his trains; and in
1826, MM. Seguin began a road from St. Étienne to Lyons. In 1832,
engines built at Lyons were substituted for horses on these roads, but
internal agitations interrupted the progress of the new system in France,
and, for 10 years after the opening of the Manchester & Liverpool road,
France remained without steam-transportation on land.
In Belgium the introduction of the locomotive was more promptly
accomplished. Under the direction of Pierre Simon, an enterprising and
well-informed young engineer, who had become known principally as an
advocate of the even then familiar project of a canal across the Isthmus of
Darien, very complete plans of railroad communication for the kingdom
were prepared, in compliance with a decree dated July 31, 1834, and were
promptly authorized. The road between Brussels and Mechlin was opened
May 6, 1837, and other roads were soon built; and the railway system of
Belgium was the first on the Continent of Europe.
The first German railroad worked with locomotive steam-engines was that
between Nuremberg and Fürth, built under the direction of M. Denis. The
other European countries soon followed in this rapid march of
improvement.
In the United States, public attention had been directed to this subject, as
has already been stated, very early in the present century, by Evans and
Stevens. At that time the people of the United States, as was natural, closely
watched every important series of events in the mother-country; and so
remarkable and striking a change as that which was taking place in the time
of Stephenson, in methods of communication and transportation, could not
fail to attract general attention and awaken universal interest.
Notwithstanding the success of the early experiments of Evans and others,
and in spite of the statesmanlike arguments of Stevens and Dearborn, and
the earnest advocacy of the plan by all who were familiar with the
revelations which were daily made of the power and capabilities of the
steam-engine, it was not until after the opening of the Manchester &
Liverpool road that any action was taken looking to the introduction of the
locomotive. Colonel John Stevens, in 1825, had built a small locomotive,

which he had placed on a circular railway before his house—now Hudson
Terrace—at Hoboken, to prove that his statements had a basis of fact. This
engine had two “lantern” tubular boilers, each composed of small iron
tubes, arranged vertically in circles about the furnaces.[55] This exhibition
had no other effect, however, than to create some interest in the subject,
which aided in securing a rapid adoption of the railroad when once
introduced.
The first line of rails in the New England States is said to have been laid
down at Quincy, Mass., from the granite quarry to the Neponset River, three
miles away, in 1826 and 1827. That between the coal-mines of Mauch
Chunk, Pa., and the river Lehigh, nine miles distant, was built in 1827. In
the following year the Delaware & Hudson Canal Company built a railroad
from their mines to the termination of the canal at Honesdale. These roads
were worked either by gravity or by horses and mules.
The competition at Rainhill, on the Liverpool and Manchester Railroad, had
been so widely advertised, and promised to afford such conclusive evidence
relative to the value of the locomotive steam-engine and the railroad, that
engineers and others interested in the subject came from all parts of the
world to witness the trial. Among the strangers present were Mr. Horatio
Allen, then chief-engineer of the Delaware & Hudson Canal Company, and
Mr. E. L. Miller, a resident of Charleston, S. C., who went from the United
States for the express purpose of seeing the new machines tested.
Mr. Allen had been authorized to purchase, for the company with which he
was connected, three locomotives and the iron for the road, and had already
shipped one engine to the United States, and had set it at work on the road.
This engine was received in New York in May, 1829, and its trial took place
in August at Honesdale, Mr. Allen himself driving the engine. But the track
proved too light for the locomotive, and it was laid up and never set at
regular work. This engine was called the “Stourbridge Lion”; it was built by
Foster, Rastrick & Co., of Stourbridge, England. During the summer of the
next year, a small experimental engine, which was built in 1829 by Peter
Cooper, of New York, was successfully tried on the Baltimore & Ohio
Railroad, at Baltimore, making 13 miles in less than an hour, and moving,
at some points on the road, at the rate of 18 miles an hour. One carriage

carrying 36 passengers was attached. This was considered a working-model
only, and was rated at one horse-power.
Ross Winans, writing of this trial of Cooper’s engine, makes a comparison
with the work done by Stephenson’s “Rocket,” and claims a decided
superiority for the former. He concluded that the trial established fully the
practicability of using locomotives on the Baltimore & Ohio road at high
speeds, and on all its curves and heavy gradients, without inconvenience or
danger.
This engine had a vertical tubular boiler, and the draught was urged, like
that of the “Novelty” at Liverpool, by mechanical means—a revolving fan.
The single steam-cylinder was 31∕4 inches in diameter, and the stroke of
piston 141∕2 inches. The wheels were 30 inches in diameter, and connected
to the crank-shaft by gearing. The engine, on the trial, worked up to 1.43
horse-power, and drew a gross weight of 41∕2 tons. Mr. Cooper, unable to
find such tubes as he needed for his boiler, used gun-barrels. The whole
machine weighed less than a ton.
Messrs. Davis & Gartner, a little later, built the “York” for this road—a
locomotive having also a vertical boiler, of very similar form to the modern
steam fire-engine boiler, 51 inches in diameter, and containing 282 fire-
tubes, 16 inches long, and tapering from 11∕2 inches diameter at the bottom
to 11∕4 at the top, where the gases were discharged through a combustion-
chamber into a steam-chimney. This engine weighed 31∕2 tons.

Fig. 59.—The “Atlantic,” 1882.

They subsequently built several “grasshopper” engines (Fig. 59), some of
which ran many years, doing good work, and one or two of which are still
in existence. The first—the “Atlantic”—was set at work in September,
1832, and hauled 50 tons from Baltimore 40 miles, over gradients having a
maximum rise of 37 feet to the mile, and on curves having a minimum
radius of 400 feet, at the rate of 12 to 15 miles an hour. This engine weighed
61∕2 tons, carried 50 pounds of steam—a pressure then common on both
continents —and burned a ton of anthracite coal on the round trip. The blast
was secured by a fan, and the valve-gear was worked by cams instead of
eccentrics. This engine made the round trip at a cost of $16, doing the work
of 42 horses, which had cost $33 per trip. The engine cost $4,500, and was
designed by Phineas Davis, assisted by Ross Winans.
Mr. Miller, on his return from the Liverpool & Manchester trial, ordered a
locomotive for the Charleston & Hamburg Railroad from the West Point
Foundery. This engine was guaranteed by Mr. Miller to draw three times its
weight at the rate of 10 miles an hour. It was built during the summer of
1830, from the plans of Mr. Miller, and reached Charleston in October. The
trials were made in November and December.

Fig. 60.—The “Best Friend,” 1830.

This engine (Fig. 60) had a vertical tubular boiler, in which the gases rose
through a very high fire-box, into which large numbers of rods projected
from the sides and top, and passed out through tubes leading them laterally
outward into an outside jacket, through which they rose to the chimney. The
steam-cylinders were two in number, 8 inches in diameter and of 16 inches
stroke, inclined so as to connect with the driving-axle. The four wheels
were all of the same size, 41∕2 feet in diameter, and connected by coupling-
rods. The engine weighed 41∕2 tons. The “Best Friend,” as it was called, did
excellent work until June, 1831, when the explosion of the boiler, in
consequence of the recklessness of the fireman, unexpectedly closed its
career.

Fig. 61.—The “West Point,” 1831.

A second engine (Fig. 61) was built for this road, at the West Point
Foundery, from plans furnished by Horatio Allen, and was received and set
at work early in the spring of 1831. The engine, called the “West Point,”
had a horizontal tubular boiler, but was in other respects very similar to the
“Best Friend.” It is said to have done very good work.
The Mohawk & Hudson Railroad ordered an engine at about this time, also,
of the West Point Foundery, and the trials, made in July and August, 1831,
proved thoroughly successful.
This engine, the “De Witt Clinton,” was contracted for by John B. Jervis,
and fitted up by David Matthew. It had two steam-cylinders, each 51∕2
inches in diameter and 16 inches stroke of piston. The connecting-rods were
directly attached to a cranked axle, and turned four coupled wheels 41∕2 feet
in diameter. These wheels had cast-iron hubs and wrought-iron spokes and
tires. The tubes were of copper, 21∕2 inches in diameter and 6 feet long. The
engine weighed 31∕2 tons, and hauled 5 cars at the rate of 30 miles an hour.

Fig. 62.—The “South Carolina,” 1831.

Another engine, the “South Carolina” (Fig. 62), was designed by Horatio
Allen for the South Carolina Railroad, and completed late in the year 1831.
This was the first eight-wheeled engine, and the prototype, also, of a
peculiar and lately-revived form of engine.
In the summer of 1832, an engine built by Messrs. Davis & Gartner, of
York, Pa., was put on the Baltimore & Ohio road, which at times attained a
speed, unloaded, of 30 miles an hour. The engine weighed 31∕2 tons, and
drew, usually, 4 cars, weighing altogether 14 tons, from Baltimore to
Ellicott’s Mills, a distance of 13 miles, in the schedule-time, one hour.
Horatio Allen’s engine on the South Carolina Railroad is said to have been
the first eight-wheeled engine ever built.
It was at about the time of which we are now writing that the first
locomotive was built of what is now distinctively known as the American
type—an engine with a “truck” or “bogie” under the forward end of the
boiler. This was the “American” No. 1, built at the West Point Foundery,
from plans furnished by John B. Jervis, Chief Engineer, for the Mohawk &
Hudson Railroad. Ross Winans had already (1831) introduced the
passenger-car with swiveling trucks.[56] It was completed in August, 1832,
and is said by Mr. Matthew to have been an extremely fast and smooth-
running engine. A mile a minute was repeatedly attained, and it is stated by

the same authority,[57] that a speed of 80 miles an hour was sometimes
made over a single mile. This engine had cylinders 91∕2 inches diameter, 16
inches stroke of piston, two pairs of driving-wheels, coupled, 5 feet in
diameter each; and the truck had four 33-inch wheels. The boiler contained
tubes 3 inches in diameter, and its fire-box was 5 feet long and 2 feet 10
inches wide. Robert Stephenson & Co. subsequently built a similar engine,
from the plans of Mr. Jervis, and for the same road. It was set at work in
1833. In both engines the driving-wheels were behind the fire-box. This
engine is another illustration of the fact—shown by the description already
given of other and earlier engines—that the independence of the American
mechanic, and the boldness and self-confidence which have to the present
time distinguished him, were among the earliest of the fruits of our political
independence and freedom.
These American engines were all designed to burn anthracite coal. The
English locomotives all burned bituminous coal.

Fig. 63.—The “Stevens” Rail. Enlarged Section.

Robert L. Stevens, the President and Engineer of the Camden & Amboy
Railroad, and a distinguished son of Colonel John Stevens, of Hoboken,
was engaged, at the time of the opening of the Liverpool & Manchester
Railroad, in the construction of the Camden & Amboy Railroad. It was here
that the first of the now standard form of T-rail was laid down. It was of
malleable iron, and of the form shown in the accompanying figure. It was
designed by Mr. Stevens, and is known in the United States as the
“Stevens” rail. In Europe, where it was introduced some years afterward, it
is sometimes called the “Vignolles” rail. He purchased an engine of the
Stephensons soon after the trial at Rainhill, and this engine, the “John Bull,”

was set up on the then uncompleted road at Bordentown, in the year 1831.
Its first public trial was made in November of that year. The road was
opened for traffic, from end to end, two years later. This engine had steam-
cylinders 9 inches in diameter, 2 feet stroke of piston, one pair of drivers
41∕2 feet in diameter, and weighed 10 tons. This engine, and that built by
Phineas Davis for the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, were exhibited at the
Centennial Exhibition at Philadelphia, in the year 1876.

Fig. 64.—“Old Ironsides,” 1832.

Engines supplied to the Camden & Amboy Railroad subsequent to 1831
were built from the designs of Robert L. Stevens, in the shop of the Messrs.
Stevens, at Hoboken. The other principal roads of the country, at first, very
generally purchased their engines of the Baldwin Locomotive Works, then a
small shop owned by Matthias W. Baldwin. Baldwin’s first engine was a
little model built for Peale’s Museum, to illustrate to the visitors of that then
well-known place of entertainment the character of the new motor, the
success of which, at Rainhill, had just then excited the attention of the
world. This was in 1831, and the successful working of this little model led
to his receiving an order for an engine from the Philadelphia &
Germantown Railroad. Mr. Baldwin, after studying the new engine of the
Camden & Amboy road, made his plans, and built an engine (Fig. 64),
completing it in the autumn of 1832, and setting it in operation November

23d of that year. It was kept at work on that line of road for a period of 20
years or more. This engine was of Stephenson’s “Planet” class, mounted on
two driving-wheels 41∕2 feet in diameter each, and two separate wheels of
the same size, uncoupled. The steam-cylinders were 91∕2 inches in diameter,
18 inches stroke of piston, and were placed horizontally on each side of the
smoke-box. The boiler, 21∕2 feet in diameter, contained 72 copper tubes 11∕2
inches in diameter and 7 feet long. The engine cost the railroad company
$3,500. On the trial, steam was raised in 20 minutes, and the maximum
speed noted was 28 miles an hour. The engine subsequently attained a speed
of over 30 miles. In 1834, Mr. Baldwin completed for Mr. E. L. Miller, of
Charleston, a six-wheeled engine, the “E. L. Miller” (Fig. 65), with
cylinders 10 inches in diameter and 16 inches stroke of piston. He made the
boiler of this engine of a form which remained standard many years, with a
high dome over the fire-box. At about the same time, he built the
“Lancaster,” an engine resembling the “Miller,” for the State road to
Columbia, and several others were soon contracted for and built. By the end
of 1834, 5 engines had been built by him, and the construction of
locomotive-engines had become one of the leading and most promising
industries of the United States. Mr. William Norris established a shop in
Philadelphia in 1832, which he gradually enlarged until it, like the Baldwin
Works, became a large establishment. He usually built a six-wheeled
engine, with a leading-truck or bogie, and placed his driving-wheels in front
of the fire-box.

Fig. 65.—The “E. L. Miller,” 1834.

At this time the English locomotives were built to carry 60 pounds of
steam. The American builders adopted pressures of 120 to 130 pounds per
square inch, the now generally standard pressures throughout the world. In
the years 1836 and 1837, Baldwin built 80 engines. They were of three
classes: 1st, with cylinders 121∕2 inches in diameter and of 16 inches stroke,
weighing 12 tons; 2d, with cylinders 12 by 16, and a weight of 101∕2 tons;
and 3d, engines weighing 9 tons, and having steam-cylinders of 101∕2 inches
diameter and of the same stroke. The driving-wheels were usually 41∕2 feet
in diameter, and the cylinder “inside-connected” to cranked axles. A few
“outside-connected” engines were made, this plan becoming generally
adopted at a later period.
The railroads of the United States were very soon supplied with
locomotive-engines built in America. In the year 1836, William Norris, who
had two years before purchased the interest of Colonel Stephen H. Long, an
army-officer who patented and built locomotives of his own design, built
the “George Washington,” and set it at work. This engine, weighing 14,400
pounds, drew 19,200 pounds up an incline 2,800 feet long, rising 369 feet to
the mile, at the speed of 151∕2 miles an hour. This showed an adhesion not
far from one-third the weight on the driving-wheels. This was considered a
very wonderful performance, and it produced such an impression at the
time, that several copies of the “George Washington” were made, on orders
from British railroads, and the result was the establishment of the reputation
of the locomotive-engine builders of the United States upon a foundation
which has never since failed them. The engine had Jervis’s forward-truck,
now always seen under standard engines, which had already been placed
under railroad-cars by Ross Winans.
In New England, the Locks & Canals Company, of Lowell, began building
engines as early as 1834, copying the Stephenson engine. Hinckley &
Drury, of Boston, commenced building an outside-connected engine in
1840, and their successors, the Boston Locomotive Works, became the
largest manufacturing establishment of the kind in New England. Two years
later, Ross Winans, the Baltimore builder, introduced some of his engines

upon Eastern railroads, fitting them with upright boilers, and burning
anthracite coal.
The changes which have been outlined produced the now typical American
locomotive. It was necessarily given such form that it would work safely
and efficiently on rough, ill-ballasted, and often sharply-winding tracks; and
thus it soon became evident that the two pairs of coupled driving-wheels,
carrying two-thirds the weight of the whole engine, the forward-truck, and
the system of “equalizing” suspension-bars, by which the weight is
distributed fairly among all the wheels, whatever the position of the engine,
or whatever the irregularity of the track, made it the very best of all known
types of locomotive for the railroads of a new country. Experience has
shown it equally excellent on the smoothest and best of roads. The “cow-
catcher,” placed in front to remove obstacles from the track, the bell, and
the heavy whistle, are characteristics of the American engine also. The
severity of winter-storms compelled the adoption of the “cab,” or house,
and the use of wood for fuel led to the invention of the “spark-arrester” for
that class of engines. The heavy grades on many roads led to the use of the
“sand-box,” from which sand was sprinkled on the track, to prevent the
slipping of the wheels.
In the year 1836, the now standard chilled wheel was introduced for cars
and trucks; the single eccentric, which had been, until then, used on
Baldwin engines, was displaced by the double eccentric, with hooks in
place of the link; and, a year later, the iron frame took the place of the
previously-used wooden frame on all engines.
The year 1837 introduced a period of great depression in all branches of
industry, which continued until the year 1840, or later, and seriously
checked all kinds of manufacturing, including the building of locomotives.
On the revival of business, numbers of new locomotive-works were started,
and in these establishments originated many new types of engine, each of
the more successful of which was adapted to some peculiar set of
conditions. This variety of type is still seen on nearly all of the principal
roads.
The direction of change in the construction of locomotive-engines at the
period at which this division of the subject terminates is very well indicated

in a letter from Robert Stephenson to Robert L. Stevens, dated 1833, which
is now preserved at the Stevens Institute of Technology. He writes: “I am
sorry that the feeling in the United States in favor of light railways is so
general. In England we are making every succeeding railway stronger and
more substantial.” He adds: “Small engines are losing ground, and large
ones are daily demonstrating that powerful engines are the most
economical.” He gives a sketch of his latest engine, weighing nine tons, and
capable, as he states, of “taking 100 tons, gross load, at the rate of 16 or 17
miles an hour on a level.” To-day there are engines built weighing 70 tons,
and our locomotive-builders have standard sizes guaranteed to draw over
2,000 tons on a good and level track.

[44] Vide “Theatrum Machinarum,” vol. iii., [52] Vide “A Description of the Safety-Lamp
Tab. 30. invented by George Stephenson,” etc.,
London, 1817.
[45] Evans’s prediction is less remarkable
than that of Darwin, elsewhere quoted. [53] The American chilled wheel of cast-iron,
a better wheel than that above described, has
[46] See “Life of Trevithick.” never been generally and successfully
[47] For a detailed account of the progress of introduced in Europe.
steam on the highway, see “Steam on [54] Smiles.
Common Roads,” etc., by Young, Holley, &
Fisher, London, 1861. [55] One of these sectional boilers is still
preserved in the lecture-room of the author,
[48] “Life of Trevithick.” at the Stevens Institute of Technology.
[49] Printed by T. & J. Swords, 160 Pearl [56] “History of the First Locomotives in
Street, New York, 1812. America,” Brown.
[50] “Progress of the City of New York.” [57] “Ross Winans vs. The Eastern Railroad
[51] “Lives of George and Robert Company—Evidence.” Boston, 1854.
Stephenson,” by Samuel Smiles. New York
and London, 1868.

CHAPTER V.
THE MODERN STEAM-ENGINE.

“Voilà la plus merveilleuse de toutes les Machines; le Mécanisme ressemble à celui
des animaux. La chaleur est le principe de son mouvement; il se fait dans ses différens
tuyaux une circulation, comme celle du sang dans les veines, ayant des valvules qui
s’ouvrent et se ferment à propos; elles se nourrit, s’évacue d’elle même dans les temps
réglés, et tire de son travail tout ce qu’il lui faut pour subsister. Cette Machine a pris
sa naissance en Angleterre, et toutes les Machines à feu qu’on a construites ailleurs
que dans la Grande Brétagne ont été exécutées par des Anglais.”—Belidor.

The Second Period of Application—1800-1850 (continued). The
Steam-Engine Applied to Ship-Propulsion.

Among the most obviously important and most inconceivably fruitful of all
the applications of steam which marked the period we are now studying, is
that of the steam-engine to the propulsion of vessels. This direction of
application has been that which has, from the earliest period in the history
of the steam-engine, attracted the attention of the political economist and
the historian, as well as the mechanician, whenever a new improvement, or
the revival of an old device, has awakened a faint conception of the
possibilities attendant upon the introduction of a machine capable of
making so great a force available. The realization of the hopes, the
prophecies, and the aspirations of earlier times, in the modern marine
steam-engine, may be justly regarded as the greatest of all the triumphs of
mechanical engineering. Although, as has already been stated, attempts
were made at a very early period to effect this application of steam-power,
they were not successful, and the steamship is a product of the present
century. No such attempts were commercially successful until after the time
of Newcomen and Watt, and at the commencement of the nineteenth
century. It is, indeed, but a few years since the passage across the Atlantic
was frequently made in sailing-vessels, and the dangers, the discomforts,
and the irregularities of their trips were most serious. Now, hardly a day

passes that does not see several large and powerful steamers leaving the
ports of New York and Liverpool to make the same voyages, and their
passages are made with such regularity and safety, that travelers can
anticipate with confidence the time of their arrival at the termination of
their voyage to a day, and can cross with safety and with comparative
comfort even amid the storms of winter. Yet all that we to-day see of the
extent and the efficiency of steam-navigation has been the work of the
present century, and it may well excite our wonder and our admiration.
The history of this development of the use of steam-power illustrates most
perfectly that process of growth of this invention which has been already
referred to; and we can here trace it, step by step, from the earliest and
rudest devices up to those most recent and most perfect designs which
represent the most successful existing types of the heat-engine—whether
considered with reference to its design and construction, or as the highest
application of known scientific principles—that have yet been seen in even
the present advanced state of the mechanic arts.
The paddle-wheel was used as a substitute for oars at a very early date, and
a description of paddle-wheels applied to vessels, curiously illustrated by a
large wood-cut, may be found in the work of Fammelli, “De l’artificioses
machines,” published in old French in 1588. Clark[58] quotes from Ogilby’s
edition of the “Odyssey” a stanza which reads like a prophecy, and almost
awakens a belief that the great poet had a knowledge of steam-vessels in
those early times—a thousand years before the Christian era. The prince
thus addresses Ulysses:

“We use nor Helm nor Helms-man. Our tall ships
Have Souls, and plow with Reason up the deeps;
All cities, Countries know, and where they list,
Through billows glide, veiled in obscuring Mist;
Nor fear they Rocks, nor Dangers on the way.”

Pope’s translation[59] furnishes the following rendering of Homer’s
prophecy:

“So shalt thou instant reach the realm assigned,
In wondrous ships, self-moved, instinct with mind;

...
Though clouds and darkness veil the encumbered sky,
Fearless, through darkness and through clouds they fly.
Though tempests rage, though rolls the swelling main,
The seas may roll, the tempests swell in vain;
E’en the stern god that o’er the waves presides,
Safe as they pass and safe repass the tide,
With fury burns; while, careless, they convey
Promiscuous every guest to every bay.”
It is stated that the Roman army under Claudius Caudex was taken across to
Sicily in boats propelled by paddle-wheels turned by oxen. Vulturius gives
pictures of such vessels.
This application of the force of steam was very possibly anticipated 600
years ago by Roger Bacon, the learned Franciscan monk, who, in an age of
ignorance and intellectual torpor, wrote:
“I will now mention some wonderful works of art and nature, in which
there is nothing of magic, and which magic could not perform. Instruments
may be made by which the largest ships, with only one man guiding them,
will be carried with greater velocity than if they were full of sailors,” etc.,
etc.
Darwin’s poetical prophecy was published long years before Watt’s engine
rendered its partial fulfillment a possibility; and thus, for many years before
even the first promising effort had been made, the minds of the more
intelligent had been prepared to appreciate the invention when it should
finally be brought forward.
The earliest attempt to propel a vessel by steam is claimed by Spanish
authorities, as has been stated, to have been made by Blasco de Garay, in
the harbor of Barcelona, Spain, in 1543. The record, claimed as having been
extracted from the Spanish archives at Simancas, states the vessel to have
been of 200 tons burden, and to have been moved by paddle-wheels; and it
is added that the spectators saw, although not allowed closely to inspect the
apparatus, that one part of it was a “vessel of boiling water”; and it is also
stated that objection was made to the use of this part of the machine,
because of the danger of explosion.

The account seems somewhat apocryphal, and it certainly led to no useful
results.
In an anonymous English pamphlet, published in 1651, which is supposed
by Stuart to have been written by the Marquis of Worcester, an indefinite
reference to what may probably have been the steam-engine is made, and it
is there stated to be capable of successful application to propelling boats.
In 1690, Papin proposed to use his piston-engine to drive paddle-wheels to
propel vessels; and in 1707 he applied the steam-engine, which he had
proposed as a pumping-engine, to driving a model boat on the Fulda at
Cassel. In this trial he used the arrangement of which a sketch has been
shown, his pumping-engine forcing up water to turn a water-wheel, which,
in turn, was made to drive the paddles. An account of his experiments is to
be found in manuscript in the correspondence between Leibnitz and Papin,
preserved in the Royal Library at Hanover. Professor Joy found there the
following letter:[60]
“Dionysius Papin, Councillor and Physician to his Royal Highness the Elector of
Cassel, also Professor of Mathematics at Marburg, is about to dispatch a vessel of
singular construction down the river Weser to Bremen. As he learns that all ships
coming from Cassel, or any point on the Fulda, are not permitted to enter the Weser,
but are required to unload at Münden, and as he anticipates some difficulty, although
those vessels have a different object, his own not being intended for freight, he begs
most humbly that a gracious order be granted that his ship may be allowed to pass
unmolested through the Electoral domain; which petition I most humbly support.
G. W. Leibnitz.
“Hanover, July 13, 1707.”

This letter was returned to Leibnitz, with the following indorsement:
“The Electoral Councillors have found serious obstacles in the way of granting the
above petition, and, without giving their reasons, have directed me to inform you of
their decision, and that, in consequence, the request is not granted by his Electoral
Highness.
H. Reiche.
“Hanover, July 25, 1707.”

This failure of Papin’s petition was the death-blow to his effort to establish
steam-navigation. A mob of boatmen, who thought they saw in the embryo

steamship the ruin of their business, attacked the vessel at night, and utterly
destroyed it. Papin narrowly escaped with his life, and fled to England.
In the year 1736, Jonathan Hulls took out an English patent for the use of a
steam-engine for ship-propulsion, proposing to employ his steamboat in
towing. In 1737 he published a well-written pamphlet, describing this
apparatus, which is shown in Fig. 66, a reduced fac-simile of the plate
accompanying his paper.
He proposed using the Newcomen engine, fitted with a counterpoise-weight
and a system of ropes and grooved wheels, which, by a peculiar ratchet-like
action, gave a continuous rotary motion. His vessel was to have been used
as a tow-boat. He says, in his description: “In some convenient part of the
Tow-boat there is placed a Vessel about two-3rds full of water, with the Top
closed; and this Vessel being kept Boiling, rarifies the Water into a Steam,
this Steam being convey’d thro’ a large pipe into a cylindrical Vessel, and
there condensed, makes a Vacuum, which causes the weight of the
atmosphere to press down on this Vessel, and so presses down a Piston that
is fitted into this Cylindrical Vessel, in the same manner as in Mr.
Newcomen’s Engine, with which he raises Water by Fire.

Fig. 66.—Hulls’s Steamboat, 1736.

“P, the Pipe coming from the Furnace to the Cylinder. Q, the Cylinder
wherein the steam is condensed. R, the Valve that stops the Steam from

coming into the Cylinder, whilst the Steam within the same is condensed. S,
the Pipe to convey the condensing Water into the Cylinder. T, a cock to let
in the condensing Water when the Cylinder is full of Steam and the Valve,
P, is shut. U, a Rope fixed to the Piston that slides up and down in the
Cylinder.
“Note. This Rope, U, is the same Rope that goes round the wheel, D, in the
machine.”
In the large division of his plate, A is the chimney; B is the tow-boat; CC is
the frame carrying the engine; Da, D, and Db are three wheels carrying the
ropes M, Fb, and Fa, M being the rope U of his smaller figure, 30. Ha and
Hb are two wheels on the paddle-shafts, II, arranged with pawls so that the
paddle-wheel, II, always turns the same way, though the wheels Ha and Hb
are given a reciprocating motion; Fb is a rope connecting the wheels in the
vessel, Db, with the wheels at the stern. Hulls says:
“When the Weight, G, is so raised, while the wheels Da, D, and Db are
moving backward, the Rope Fa gives way, and the Power of the Weight, G,
brings the Wheel Ha forward, and the Fans with it, so that the Fans always
keep going forward, notwithstanding the Wheels Da, D, and Db move
backward and forward as the Piston moves up and down in the Cylinder. LL
are Teeth for a Catch to drop in from the Axis, and are so contrived that
they catch in an alternate manner, to cause the Fan to move always forward,
for the Wheel Ha, by the power of the weight, G, is performing his Office
while the other wheel, Hb, goes back in order to fetch another stroke.
“Note. The weight, G, must contain but half the weight of the Pillar of Air
pressing on the Piston, because the weight, G, is raised at the same time as
the Wheel Hb performs its Office, so that it is in effect two Machines acting
alternately, by the weight of one Pillar of Air, of such a Diameter as the
Diameter of the Cylinder is.”
The inventor suggests the use of timber guards to protect the wheels from
injury, and, in shallow water, the attachment to the paddle-shafts of cranks
“to strike a Shaft to the Bottom of the River, which will drive the Vessel
forward with the greater Force.” He concludes: “Thus I have endeavoured
to give a clear and satisfactory Account of my New-invented Machine, for
carrying Vessels out of and into any Port, Harbour, or River, against Wind

and Tide, or in a Calm; and I doubt not but whoever shall give himself the
Trouble to peruse this Essay, will be so candid as to excuse or overlook any
Imperfections in the diction or manner of writing, considering the Hand it
comes from, if what I have imagined may only appear as plain to others as
it has done to me, viz., That the Scheme I now offer is Practicable, and if
encouraged will be Useful.”
There is no positive evidence that Hulls ever put his scheme to the test of
experiment, although tradition does say that he made a model, which he
tried with such ill success as to prevent his prosecution of the experiment
further; and doggerel rhymes are still extant which were sung by his
neighbors in derision of his folly, as they considered it.
A prize was awarded by the French Academy of Sciences, in 1752, for the
best essay on the manner of impelling vessels without wind. It was given to
Bernouilli, who, in his paper, proposed a set of vanes like those of a
windmill—a screw, in fact—one to be placed on each side of the vessel, and
two more behind. For a vessel of 100 tons, he proposed a shaft 14 feet long
and 2 inches in diameter, carrying “eight wheels, for acting on the water, to
each of which it” (the shaft) “is perpendicular, and forms an axis for them
all; the wheels should be at equal distances from each other. Each wheel
consists of 8 arms of iron, each 3 feet long, so that the whole diameter of
the wheel is 6 feet. Each of these arms, at the distance of 20 inches from the
centre, carries a sheet-iron plane (or paddle) 16 inches square, which is
inclined so as to form an angle of 60 degrees, both with the arbor and keel
of the vessel, to which the arbor is placed parallel. To sustain this arbor and
the wheels, two strong bars of iron, between 2 and 3 inches thick, proceed
from the side of the vessel at right angles to it, about 21∕2 feet below the
surface of the water.” He proposed similar screw-propellers at the stern, and
suggested that they could be driven by animal or by steam-power.
But a more remarkable essay is quoted by Figuier[61]—the paper of l’Abbé
Gauthier, published in the “Mémoires de la Société Royale des Sciences et
Lettres de Nancy.” Bernouilli had expressed the belief that the best steam-
engine then known—that of Newcomen—was not superior to some other
motors. Gauthier proposed to use that engine in the propulsion of paddle-
wheels placed at the side of the vessel. His plan was not brought into use,
but his paper embodied a glowing description of the advantages to be

secured by its adoption. He states that a galley urged by 26 oars on a side
made but 4,320 toises (8,420 meters), or about 5 miles, an hour, and
required a crew of 260 men. A steam-engine, doing the same work, would
be ready for action at all times, could be applied, when not driving the
vessel, to raising the anchor, working the pumps, and to ventilating the ship,
while the fire would also serve to cook with. The engine would occupy less
space and weight than the men, would require less aliment, and that of a
less expensive kind, etc. He would make the boiler safe against explosions
by bands of iron; would make the fire-box of iron, with a water-filled ash-
pit and base-plate. His injection-water was to come from the sea, and return
by a delivery-pipe placed above the water-line. The chains, usually leading
from the end of the beam to the pump-rods, were to be carried around
wheels on the paddle-shaft, which were to be provided with pawls entering
a ratchet, and thus the paddles, having been given several revolutions by the
descent of the piston and the unwinding of the chain, were to revolve freely
while the return-stroke was made, the chain being hauled down and
rewound by the wheel on the shaft, the latter being moved by a weight. The
engine was proposed to be of 6 feet stroke, and to make 15 strokes per
minute, with a force of 11,000 pounds.
A little later (1760), a Swiss clergyman, J. A. Genevois, published in
London a paper relating to the improvement of navigation,[62] in which his
plan was proposed of compressing springs by steam or other power, and
applying their effort while recovering their form to ship-propulsion.
It was at this time that the first attempts were made in the United States to
solve this problem, which had begun to be recognized as one of the greatest
which had presented itself to the mechanic and the engineer.
William Henry was a prominent citizen of the then little village of
Lancaster, Pa., and was noted as an ingenious and successful mechanic.[63]
He was still living at the beginning of the present century. Mr. Henry was
the first to make the “rag” carpet, and was the inventor of the screw-auger.
He was of a Scotch and North-of-Ireland family, his father, John Henry, and
his two older brothers, Robert and James, having come to the United States
about 1720. Robert settled, finally, in Virginia, and it is said that Patrick
Henry, the patriot and orator, was of his family. The others remained in
Chester County, Pa., where William was born, in 1729. He learned the trade

of a gunsmith, and, driven from his home during the Indian war (1755 to
1760), settled in Lancaster.
In the year 1760 he went to England on business, where his attention was
attracted to the invention—then new, and the subject of discussion in every
circle—of James Watt. He saw the possibility of its application to
navigation and to driving carriages, and, on his return home, commenced
the construction of a steam-engine, and finished it in 1763.
Placing it in a boat fitted with paddle-wheels, he made a trial of the new
machine on the Conestoga River, near Lancaster, where the craft, by some
accident, sank,[64] and was lost. He was not discouraged by this failure, but
made a second model, adding some improvements. Among the records of
the Pennsylvania Philosophical Society is, or was, a design, presented by
Henry in 1782, of one of his steamboats. The German traveler Schöpff
visited the United States in 1783, and at Mr. Henry’s house, at Lancaster,
was shown “a machine by Mr. Henry, intended for the propelling of boats,
etc.; ‘but,’ said Mr. Henry, ‘I am doubtful whether such a machine would
find favor with the public, as every one considers it impracticable against
wind and tide;’ but that such a Boat will come into use and navigate on the
waters of the Ohio and Mississippi, he had not the least doubt of, but the
time had not yet arrived of its being appreciated and applied.”
John Fitch, whose experiments will presently be referred to, was an
acquaintance and frequent visitor to the house of Mr. Henry, and may
probably have there received the earliest suggestions of the importance of
this application of steam. About 1777, when Henry was engaged in making
mathematical and philosophical instruments, and the screw-auger, which at
that time could only be obtained of him, Robert Fulton, then twelve years
old, visited him, to study the paintings of Benjamin West, who had long
been a friend and protégé of Henry. He, too, not improbably received there
the first suggestion which afterward led him to desert the art to which he at
first devoted himself, and which made of the young portrait-painter a
successful inventor and engineer. West’s acquaintance with Henry had no
such result. The young painter was led by his patron and friend to attempt
historical pictures,[65] and probably owes his fame greatly to the kindly and
discerning mechanic. Says Galt, in his “Memoirs of Sir Benjamin West”
(London, 1816): “Towards his old friend, William Henry, of Lancaster City,

he always cherished the most grateful affection; he was the first who urged
him to attempt historical composition.”
When, after the invention of Watt, the steam-engine had taken such shape
that it could really work the propelling apparatus of a paddle or screw
vessel, a new impetus was given to the work of its adaptation. In France, the
Marquis de Jouffroy was one of the earliest to perceive that the
improvements of Watt, rendering the engine more compact, more powerful,
and, at the same time, more regular and positive in its action, had made it, at
last, readily applicable to the propulsion of vessels. The brothers Périer had
imported a Watt engine from Soho, and this was attentively studied by the
marquis,[66] and its application to the paddle-wheels of a steam-vessel
seemed to him a simple problem. Comte d’Auxiron and Chevalier Charles
Mounin, of Follenai, friends and companions of Jouffroy, were similarly
interested, and the three are said to have often discussed the scheme
together, and to have united in devising methods of applying the new motor.
In the year 1770, D’Auxiron determined to attempt the realization of the
plans which he had conceived. He resigned his position in the army,
prepared his plans and drawings, and presented them to M. Bertin, the
Prime Minister, in the year 1771 or 1772. The Minister was favorably
impressed, and the King (May 22, 1772) granted D’Auxiron a monopoly of
the use of steam in river-navigation for 15 years, provided he should prove
his plans practicable, and they should be so adjudged by the Academy.
A company had been formed, the day previous, consisting of D’Auxiron,
Jouffroy, Comte de Dijon, the Marquis d’Yonne, and Follenai, which
advanced the requisite funds. The first vessel was commenced in December,
1772. When nearly completed, in September, 1774, the boat sprung a leak,
and, one night, foundered at the wharf. After some angry discussion, during
which d’Auxiron was rudely, and probably unjustly, accused of bad faith,
the company declined to advance the money needed to recover and
complete the vessel. They were, however, compelled by the court to furnish
it; but, meantime, d’Auxiron died of apoplexy, the matter dropped, and the
company dissolved. The cost of the experiment had been something more
than 15,000 francs.

The heirs of d’Auxiron turned the papers of the deceased inventor over to
Jouffroy, and the King transferred to him the monopoly held by the former.
Follenai retained all his interest in the project, and the two friends soon
enlisted a powerful adherent and patron, the Marquis Ducrest, a well-known
soldier, courtier, and member of the Academy, who took an active part in
the prosecution of the scheme. M. Jacques Périer, the then distinguished
mechanic, was consulted, and prepared plans, which were adopted in place
of those of Jouffroy. The boat was built by Périer, and a trial took place in
1774, on the Seine. The result was unsatisfactory. The little craft could
hardly stem the sluggish current of the river, and the failure caused the
immediate abandonment of the scheme by Périer.
Still undiscouraged, Jouffroy retired to his country home, at Baume-les-
Dames, on the river Doubs. There he carried on his experiments, getting his
work done as best he could, with the rude tools and insufficient apparatus of
a village blacksmith. A Watt engine and a chain carrying “duck-foot”
paddles were his propelling apparatus. The boat, which was about 14 feet
long and 6 wide, was started in June, 1776. The duck’s-foot system of
paddles proved unsatisfactory, and Jouffroy gave it up, and renewed his
experiments with a new arrangement. He placed on the paddle-wheel shaft
a ratchet-wheel, and on the piston-rod of his engine, which was placed
horizontally in the boat, a double rack, into the upper and the lower parts of
which the ratchet-wheel geared. Thus the wheels turned in the same
direction, whichever way the piston was moving. The new engine was built
at Lyons in 1780, by Messrs. Frères-Jean. The new boat was about 140 feet
long and 14 feet wide; the wheels were 14 feet in diameter, their floats 6
feet long, and the “dip,” or depth to which they reached, was about 2 feet.
The boat drew 3 feet of water, and had a total weight of about 150 tons.
At a public trial of the vessel at Lyons, July 15, 1783, the little steamer was
so successful as to justify the publication of the fact by a report and a
proclamation. The fact that the experiment was not made at Paris was made
an excuse on the part of the Academy for withholding its indorsement, and
on the part of the Government for declining to confirm to Jouffroy the
guaranteed monopoly. Impoverished and discouraged, Jouffroy gave up all
hope of prosecuting his plans successfully, and reëntered the army. Thus
France lost an honor which was already within her grasp, as she had already
lost that of the introduction of the steam-engine, in the time of Papin.

About 1785, John Fitch and James Rumsey were engaged in experiments
having in view the application of steam to navigation.
Rumsey’s experiments began in 1774, and in 1786 he succeeded in driving
a boat at the rate of four miles an hour against the current of the Potomac at
Shepherdstown, W. Va., in presence of General Washington. His method of
propulsion has often been reinvented since, and its adoption urged with that
enthusiasm and persistence which is a peculiar characteristic of inventors.
Rumsey employed his engine to drive a great pump which forced a stream
of water aft, thus propelling the boat forward, as proposed earlier by
Bernouilli. This same method has been recently tried again by the British
Admiralty, in a gunboat of moderate size, using a centrifugal pump to set in
motion the propelling stream, and with some other modifications which are
decided improvements upon Rumsey’s rude arrangements, but which have
not done much more than his toward the introduction of “Hydraulic or Jet
Propulsion,” as it is now called.
In 1787 he obtained a patent from the State of Virginia for steam-
navigation. He wrote a treatise “On the Application of Steam,” which was
printed at Philadelphia, where a Rumsey society was organized for the
encouragement of attempts at steam-navigation.
Rumsey died of apoplexy, while explaining some of his schemes before a
London society a short time later, December 23, 1793, at the age of fifty
years. A boat, then in process of construction from his plans, was afterward
tried on the Thames, in 1793, and steamed at the rate of four miles an hour.
The State of Kentucky, in 1839, presented his son with a gold medal,
commemorative of his father’s services “in giving to the world the benefit
of the steamboat.”
John Fitch was an unfortunate and eccentric, but very ingenious,
Connecticut mechanic. After roaming about until forty years of age, he
finally settled on the banks of the Delaware, where he built his first
steamboat.
In April, 1785, as Fitch himself states, at Neshamony, Bucks County, Pa., he
suddenly conceived the idea that a carriage might be driven by steam. After
considering the subject a few days, his attention was led to the plan of using

steam to propel vessels, and from that time to the day of his death he was a
persistent advocate of the introduction of the steamboat. At this time, Fitch
says, “I did not know that there was a steam-engine on the earth;” and he
was somewhat disappointed when his friend, the Rev. Mr. Irwin, of
Neshamony, showed him a sketch of one in “Martin’s Philosophy.”
Fitch’s first model was at once built, and was soon after tried on a small
stream near Davisville. The machinery was made of brass, and the boat was
impelled by paddle-wheels. A rough model of his steamboat was shown to
Dr. John Ewing, Provost of the University of Pennsylvania, who, August
20, 1785, addressed a commendatory letter to an ex-Member of Congress,
William C. Houston, asking him to assist Fitch in securing the aid of the
General Government. The latter referred the inventor, by a letter of
recommendation, to a delegate from New Jersey, Mr. Lambert Cadwalader.
With this, and other letters, Fitch proceeded to New York, where Congress
then met, and made his application in proper form. He was unsuccessful,
and equally so in attempting to secure aid from the Spanish minister, who
desired that the profits should be secured, by a monopoly of the invention,
to the King of Spain. Fitch declined further negotiation, determined that, if
successful at all, the benefit should accrue to his own countrymen.
In September, 1785, Fitch presented to the American Philosophical Society,
at Philadelphia, a model in which he had substituted an endless chain and
floats for the paddle-wheels, with drawings and a descriptive account of his
scheme. This model is shown in the accompanying figure.

Fig. 67.—Fitch’s Model, 1785.

In March, 1786, Fitch was granted a patent by the State of New Jersey, for
the exclusive right to the navigation of the waters of the State by steam, for
14 years. A month later, he was in Philadelphia, seeking a similar patent
from the State of Pennsylvania. He did not at once succeed, but in a few
days he had formed a company, raised $300, and set about finding a place in
which to construct his engine. Henry Voight, a Dutch watchmaker, a good
mechanic, and a very ingenious man, took an interest in the company, and
with him Fitch set about his work with great enthusiasm. After making a
little model, having a steam-cylinder but one inch in diameter, they built a
model boat and engine, the latter having a diameter of cylinder of three
inches. They tried the endless chain, and other methods of propulsion,
without success, and finally succeeded with a set of oars worked by the
engine. In August, 1786, it was determined by the company to authorize the
construction of a larger vessel; but the money was not readily obtained.
Meantime, Fitch continued his efforts to secure a patent from the State, and
was finally, March 28, 1787, successful. He also obtained a similar grant
from the State of Delaware, in February of the same year, and from New
York, March 19.
Money was now subscribed more freely, and the work on the boat continued
uninterruptedly until May, 1787, when a trial was made, which revealed
many defects in the machinery. The cylinder-heads were of wood, and
leaked badly; the piston leaked; the condenser was imperfect; the valves
were not tight. All these defects were remedied, and a condenser invented by
Voight—the “pipe-condenser”—was substituted for that defective detail as
previously made.
The steamboat was finally placed in working order, and was found capable,
on trial, of making three or four miles an hour. But now the boiler proved to
be too small to furnish steam steadily in sufficient quantity to sustain the

higher speed. After some delay, and much distress on the part of the
sanguine inventor, who feared that he might be at last defeated when on the
very verge of success, the necessary changes were finally made, and a trial
took place at Philadelphia, in presence of the members of the Convention—
then in session at Philadelphia framing the Federal Constitution—August 22,
1787. Many of the distinguished spectators gave letters to Fitch certifying
his success. Fitch now went to Virginia, where he succeeded in obtaining a
patent, November 7, 1787, and then returned to ask a patent of the General
Government.
A controversy with Rumsey now followed, in which Fitch asserted his
claims to the invention of the steamboat, and denied that Rumsey had done
more than to revive the scheme which Bernouilli, Franklin, Henry, Paine,
and others, had previously proposed, and that Rumsey’s steamboat was not
made until 1786.

Fig. 68.—Fitch and Voight’s Boiler, 1787.

The boiler adopted in Fitch’s boat of 1787 was a “pipe-boiler,” which he had
described in a communication to the Philosophical Society, in September,
1785. It consisted (Fig. 68) of a small water-pipe, winding backward and
forward in the furnace, and terminating at one end at the point at which the

feed-water was introduced, and at the other uniting with the steam-pipe
leading to the engine. Voight’s condenser was similarly constructed. Rumsey
claimed that this boiler was copied from his designs. Fitch brought evidence
to prove that Rumsey had not built such a boiler until after his own.

Fig. 69.—Fitch’s First Boat, 1787.

Fitch’s first boat-engine had a steam-cylinder 12 inches in diameter. A
second engine was now built (1788) with a cylinder 18 inches in diameter,
and a new boat. The first vessel was 45 feet long and 12 feet wide; the new
boat was 60 feet long and of but 8 feet breadth of beam. The first boat (Fig.
69) had paddles worked at the sides, with the motion given the Indian paddle
in propelling a canoe; in the second boat (Fig. 70) they were similarly
worked, but were placed at the stern. There were three of these paddles. The
boat was finally finished in July, 1788, and made a trip to Burlington, 20
miles from Philadelphia. When just reaching their destination, their boiler
gave out, and they made their return-trip to Philadelphia floating with the
tide. Subsequently, the boat made a number of excursions on the Delaware
River, making three or four miles an hour.

Fig. 70.—John Fitch, 1788.

Another of Fitch’s boats, in April, 1790, made seven miles an hour. Fitch,
writing of this boat, says that “on the 16th of April we got our work
completed, and tried our boat again; and, although the wind blew very fresh
at the east, we reigned lord high admirals of the Delaware, and no boat on
the river could hold way with us.” In June of that year it was placed as a
passenger-boat on a line from Philadelphia to Burlington, Bristol,
Bordentown, and Trenton, occasionally leaving that route to take excursions
to Wilmington and Chester. During this period, the boat probably ran
between 2,000 and 3,000 miles,[67] and with no serious accident. During the
winter of 1790-’91, Fitch commenced another steamboat, the
“Perseverance,” and gave considerable time to the prosecution of his claim
for a patent from the United States. The boat was never completed, although
he received his patent, after a long and spirited contest with other claimants,
on the 26th of August, 1791, and Fitch lost all hope of success. He went to
France in 1793, hoping to obtain the privilege of building steam-vessels
there, but was again disappointed, and worked his passage home in the
following year.

Fig. 71.—John Fitch, 1796.

In the year 1796, Fitch was again in New York City, experimenting with a
little screw steamboat on the “Collect” Pond, which then covered that part of
the city now occupied by the “Tombs,” the city prison. This little boat was a
ship’s yawl fitted with a screw, like that adopted later by Woodcroft, and
driven by a rudely-made engine.
Fitch, while in the city of Philadelphia at about this time, met Oliver Evans,
and discussed with him the probable future of steam-navigation, and
proposed to form a company in the West, to promote the introduction of
steam on the great rivers of that part of the country. He settled at last in
Kentucky, on his land-grant, and there amused himself with a model
steamboat, which he placed in a small stream near Bardstown. His death
occurred there in July, 1798, and his body still lies in the village cemetery,
with only a rough stone to mark the spot.
Both Rumsey and Fitch endeavored to introduce their methods in Great
Britain; and Fitch, while urging the importance and the advantages of his
plan, confidently stated his belief that the ocean would soon be crossed by
steam-vessels, and that the navigation of the Mississippi would also become
exclusively a steam-navigation. His reiterated assertion, “The day will come
when some more powerful man will get fame and riches from my invention;

but no one will believe that poor John Fitch can do anything worthy of
attention,” now almost sounds like a prophecy.
During this period, an interest which had never diminished in Great Britain
had led to the introduction of experimental steamboats in that country.
Patrick Miller, of Dalswinton, had commenced experimenting, in
1786-’87, with boats having double or triple hulls, and propelled by paddle-
wheels placed between the parts of the compound vessel. James Taylor, a
young man who had been engaged as tutor for Mr. Miller’s sons, suggested,
in 1787, the substitution of steam for the manual power which had been, up
to that time, relied upon in their propulsion. Mr. Miller, in 1787, printed a
description of his plan of propelling apparatus, and in it stated that he had
“reason to believe that the power of the Steam-Engine may be applied to
work the wheels.”

Fig. 72.—Miller, Taylor, and Symmington, 1788.

In the winter of 1787-’88, William Symmington, who had planned a new
form of steam-engine, and made a successful working-model, was employed
by Mr. Miller to construct an engine for a new boat. This was built; the little
engine, having two cylinders of but four inches in diameter, was placed on
board, and a trial was made October 14, 1788. The vessel (Fig. 72) was 25
feet long, of 7 feet beam, and made 5 miles an hour.

In the year 1789, a large vessel was built, with an engine having a steam-
cylinder 18 inches in diameter, and this vessel was ready for trial in
November of that year. On the first trial, the paddle-wheels proved too
slight, and broke down; they were replaced by stronger wheels, and, in
December, the boat, on trial, made seven miles an hour.
Miller, like many other inventors, seems to have lost his interest in the
matter as soon as success seemed assured, and dropped it to take up other
incomplete plans. More than a quarter of a century later, the British
Government gave Taylor a pension of £50 per annum, and, in 1837, his four
daughters were each given a similar annuity. Mr. Miller received no reward,
although he is said to have expended over £30,000. The engine of
Symmington was condemned by Miller as “the most improper of all steam-
engines for giving motion to a vessel.” Nothing more was done in Great
Britain until early in the succeeding century.
In the United States, several mechanics were now at work besides Fitch.
Samuel Morey and Nathan Read were among these. Nicholas Roosevelt was
another. It had just been found that American mechanics were able to do the
required shop-work. The first experimental steam-engine built in America is
stated to have been made in 1773 by Christopher Colles, a lecturer before the
American Philosophical Society at Philadelphia. The first steam-cylinder of
any considerable size is said[68] to have been made by Sharpe & Curtenius,
of New York City.
Samuel Morey was the son of one of the first settlers of Orford, N. H. He
was naturally fond of science and mechanics, and became something of an
inventor. He began experimenting with the steamboat in 1790 or earlier,
building a small vessel, and fitting it with paddle-wheels driven by a steam-
engine of his own design, and constructed by himself.[69] He made a trial-
trip one Sunday morning in the summer of 1790, a friend to accompany him,
from Oxford, up the Connecticut River, to Fairlee, Vt., a distance of several
miles, and returned safely. He then went to New York, and spent the summer
of each year until 1793 in experimenting with his boat and modifications of
his engine. In 1793 he made a trip to Hartford, returning to New York the
next summer. His boat was a “stern-wheeler,” and is stated to have been
capable of steaming five miles an hour. He next went to Bordentown, N. J.,
where he built a larger boat, which is said to have been a side-wheel boat,
and to have worked satisfactorily. His funds finally gave out, and he gave up

his project after having, in 1797, made a trip to Philadelphia. Fulton,
Livingston, and Stevens met Morey at New York, inspected his boat, and
made an excursion to Greenwich with him.[70] Livingston is said[71] to have
offered to assist Morey if he should succeed in attaining a speed of eight
miles an hour.
Morey’s experiments seem to have been conducted very quietly, however,
and almost nothing is known of them. The author has not been able to learn
any particulars of the engines used by him, and nothing definite is known of
the dimensions of either boat or machinery. Morey never, like Fitch and
Rumsey, sought publicity for his plans or notoriety for himself.
Nathan Read, who has already been mentioned, a native of Warren, Mass.,
where he was born in the year 1759, and a graduate of Harvard College, was
a student of medicine, and subsequently a manufacturer of chain-cables and
other iron-work for ships. He invented, and in 1798 patented, a nail-making
machine. He was at one time (1800-1803) a Member of Congress, and, later,
a Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, and Chief Justice in Hancock
County, Me., after his removal to that State in 1807. He died in Belfast, Me.,
in 1849, at the age of ninety years.
In the year 1788 he
became interested in the
problem of steam-
navigation, and learned
something of the work of
Fitch. He first attempted
to design a boiler that
should be strong, light,
and compact, as well as
safe. His first plan was
that of the “Portable
Furnace-Boiler,” as he
called it; it was patented
August 26, 1791. As
designed, it consisted, as
seen in Figs. 73 and 74,
which are reduced from
his patent drawings, of a

Fig. 73.—Read’s Boiler inshell of cylindrical form, Fig. 74.—Read’s Multi-Tubular
Section, 1788. Boiler, 1788.
like the now common
vertical tubular boiler. A is the furnace-door, B a heater and feed-water
reservoir, D a pipe leading the feed-water into the boiler,[72] E the smoke-
pipe, and F the steam-pipe leading to the engine. G is the “shell” of the
boiler, and H the fire-box. The crown-sheet, I I, has depending from it, in the
furnace, a set of water-tubes, b b, closed at their lower ends, and another set,
a a, which connect the water-space above the furnace with the water-bottom,
K K. L is the furnace, and M the draught-space between the boiler and the
ash-pit, in which the grates are set.
This boiler was intended to be used in both steamboats and steam-carriages.
The first drawings were made in 1788 or 1789, as were those of a peculiar
form of steam-engine which also resembled very closely that afterward
constructed in Great Britain by Trevithick.[73] He built a boat in 1789, which
he fitted with paddle-wheels and a crank, which was turned by hand, and, by
trial, satisfied himself that the system would work satisfactorily.
He then applied for his patent, and spent the greater part of the winter of
1789-’90 in New York, where Congress then met, endeavoring to secure it.
In January, 1791, Read withdrew his petitions for patents, proposing to
incorporate accounts of new devices, and renewed them a few months later.
His patents were finally issued, dated August 26, 1791. John Fitch, James
Rumsey, and John Stevens, also, all received patents at the same date, for
various methods of applying steam to the propulsion of vessels.
Read appears to have never succeeded in even experimentally making his
plans successful. He deserves credit for his early and intelligent perception
of the importance of the subject, and for the ingenuity of his devices. As the
inventor of the vertical multi-tubular fire-box boiler, he has also entitled
himself to great distinction. This boiler is now in very general use, and is a
standard form.
In 1792, Elijah Ormsbee, a Rhode Island mechanic, assisted pecuniarily by
David Wilkinson, built a small steamboat at Winsor’s Cove, Narragansett
Bay, and made a successful trial-trip on the Seekonk River. Ormsbee used an
“atmospheric engine” and “duck’s-foot” paddles. His boat attained a speed
of from three to four miles an hour.

In Great Britain, Lord Dundas and William Symmington, the former as the
purveyor of funds and the latter as engineer, followed by Henry Bell, were
the first to make the introduction of the steam-engine for the propulsion of
ships so completely successful that no interruption subsequently took place
in the growth of the new system of water-transportation.
Thomas, Lord Dundas, of Kerse, had taken great interest in the experiments
of Miller, and had hoped to be able to apply the new motor on the Forth and
Clyde Canal, in which he held a large interest. After the failure of the earlier
experiments, he did not forget the matter; but subsequently, meeting with
Symmington, who had been Miller’s constructing engineer, he engaged him
to continue the experiments, and furnished all required capital, about £7,000.
This was ten years after Miller had abandoned his scheme.
Symmington commenced work in 1801. The first boat built for Lord
Dundas, which has been claimed to have been the “first practical
steamboat,” was finished ready for trial early in 1802. The vessel was called
the “Charlotte Dundas,” in honor of a daughter of Lord Dundas, who became
Lady Milton.
The vessel (Fig. 75) was driven by a Watt double-acting engine, turning a
crank on the paddle-wheel shaft. The sectional sketch below exhibits the
arrangement of the machinery. A is the steam-cylinder, driving, by means of
the connecting-rod, B C, a stern-wheel, E E. F is the boiler, and G the tall
smoke-pipe. An air-pump and condenser, H, is seen under the steam-
cylinder.

Fig. 75.—The “Charlotte Dundas,” 1801.

In March, 1802, the boat was brought to Lock No. 20 on the Forth and Clyde
Canal, and two vessels of 70 tons burden each taken in tow. Lord Dundas,
William Symmington, and a party of invited guests, were taken on board,
and the boat steamed down to Port Glasgow, a distance of about 20 miles,
against a strong head-wind, in six hours.
The proprietors of the canal were now urged to adopt the new plan of
towing; but, fearing injury to the banks of the canal, they declined to do so.
Lord Dundas then laid the matter before the Duke of Bridgewater, who gave
Symmington an order for eight boats like the Charlotte Dundas, to be used
on his canal. The death of the Duke, however, prevented the contract from
being carried into effect, and Symmington again gave up the project in
despair. A quarter of a century later, Symmington received from the British
Government £100, and, a little later, £50 additional, as an acknowledgment
of his services. The Charlotte Dundas was laid up, and we hear nothing more
of that vessel.

Fig. 76.—The “Comet,” 1812.

Among those who saw the Charlotte Dundas, and who appreciated the
importance of the success achieved by Symmington, was Henry Bell, who,
10 years afterward, constructed the Comet (Fig. 76), the first passenger-
vessel built in Europe. This vessel was built in 1811, and completed January
18, 1812. The craft was of 30 tons burden, 40 feet in length, and 101∕2 feet

breadth of beam. There were two paddle-wheels on each side, driven by
engines rated at three horse-power.
Bell had, it is said, been an enthusiastic believer in the advantages to be
secured by this application of steam, from about 1786. In 1800, and again in
1803, he applied to the British Admiralty for aid in securing those
advantages by experimentally determining the proper form and proportions
of machinery and vessel; but was not able to convince the Admiralty of “the
practicability and great utility of applying steam to the propelling of vessels
against winds and tides, and every obstruction on rivers and seas where there
was depth of water.” He also wrote to the United States Government, urging
his views in a similar strain.
Bell’s boat was, when finished, advertised as a passenger-boat, to leave
Greenock, where the vessel was built, on Mondays, Wednesdays, and
Fridays, for Glasgow, 24 miles distant, returning Tuesdays, Thursdays, and
Saturdays. The fare was made “four shillings for the best cabin, and three
shillings for the second.” It was some months before the vessel became
considered a trustworthy means of conveyance. Bell, on the whole, was at
first a heavy loser by his venture, although his boat proved itself a safe,
stanch vessel.
Bell constructed several other boats in 1815, and with his success steam-
navigation in Great Britain was fairly inaugurated. In 1814 there were five
steamers, all Scotch, regularly working in British waters; in 1820 there were
34, one-half of which were in England, 14 in Scotland, and the remainder in
Ireland. Twenty years later, at the close of the period to which this chapter is
especially devoted, there were about 1,325 steam-vessels in that kingdom, of
which 1,000 were English and 250 Scotch.
But we must return to America, to witness the first and most complete
success, commercially, in the introduction of the steamboat.
The Messrs. Stevens, Livingston, Fulton, and Roosevelt were there the most
successful pioneers. The latter is said to have built the “Polacca,” a small
steamboat launched on the Passaic River in 1798. The vessel was 60 feet
long, and had an engine of 20 inches diameter of cylinder and 2 feet stroke,
which drove the boat 8 miles an hour, carrying a party of invited guests,
which included the Spanish Minister. Livingston and John Stevens had

induced Roosevelt to try their plans still earlier,[74] paying the expense of the
experiments. The former adopted the plan of Bernouilli and Rumsey, using a
centrifugal pump to force a jet of water from the stern; the latter used the
screw. Livingston going to France as United States Minister, Barlow carried
over the plans of the “Polacca,” and Roosevelt’s friends state that a boat built
by them, in conjunction with Fulton, was a “sister-ship” to that vessel. In
1798, Roosevelt patented a double engine, having cranks set at right angles.
As late as 1814 he received a patent for a steam-vessel, fitted with paddle-
wheels having adjustable floats. His boat of 1798 is stated by some writers to
have been made by him on joint account of himself, Livingston, and
Stevens. Roosevelt, some years later, was again at work, associating himself
with Fulton in the introduction of steam-navigation of the rivers of the West.
[75]

In 1798, the Legislature of New York passed a law giving Chancellor
Livingston the exclusive right to steam-navigation in the waters of the State
for a period of 20 years, provided that he should succeed, within a twelve-
month, in producing a boat that should steam four miles an hour.
Livingston did not succeed in complying with the terms of the act, but, in
1803, he procured the reënactment of the law in favor of himself and Robert
Fulton, who was then experimenting in France, after having, in England,
watched the progress of steam-navigation there, and then taken a patent in
this country.

Robert Fulton.

Robert Fulton was a native of Little Britain, Lancaster County, Pa., born
1765. He commenced experimenting with paddle-wheels when a mere boy,
in 1779, visiting an aunt living on the bank of the Conestoga.[76] During his
youth he spent much of his time in the workshops of his neighborhood, and
learned the trade of a watchmaker; but he adopted, finally, the profession of
an artist, and exhibited great skill in portrait-painting. While his tastes were
at this time taking a decided bent, he is said to have visited frequently the
house of William Henry, already mentioned, to see the paintings of
Benjamin West, who in his youth had been a kind of protégé of Mr. Henry;
and he may probably have seen there the model steamboats which Mr. Henry
exhibited, in 1783 or 1784, to the German traveler Schöpff. In later years,
Thomas Paine, the author of “Common Sense,” at one time lived with Mr.
Henry, and afterward, in 1788, proposed that Congress take up the subject
for the benefit of the country.

Fulton went to England when he came of age, and studied painting with
Benjamin West. He afterward spent two years in Devonshire, where he met
the Duke of Bridgewater, who afterward so promptly took advantage of the
success of the “Charlotte Dundas.”
While in England and in France—where he went in 1797, and resided some
time—he may have seen something of the attempts which were beginning to
be made to introduce steam-navigation in both of those countries.
At about this time—perhaps in 1793—Fulton gave up painting as a
profession, and became a civil engineer. In 1797 he went to Paris, and
commenced experimenting with submarine torpedoes and torpedo-boats. In
1801 he had succeeded so well with them as to create much anxiety in the
minds of the English, then at war with France.
He had, as early as 1793, proposed plans for steam-vessels, both to the
United States and the British Governments, and seems never entirely to have
lost sight of the subject.[77] While in France he lived with Joel Barlow, who
subsequently became known as a poet, and as Embassador to France from
the United States, but who was then engaged in business in Paris.
When about leaving the country, Fulton met Robert Livingston (Chancellor
Livingston, as he is often called), who was then (1801) Embassador of the
United States at the court of France. Together they discussed the project of
applying steam to navigation, and determined to attempt the construction of
a steamboat on the Seine; and in the early spring of the year 1802, Fulton
having attended Mrs. Barlow to Plombières, where she had been sent by her
physician, he there made drawings and models, which were sent or described
to Livingston. In the following winter Fulton completed a model side-wheel
boat.

Fig. 77.—Fulton’s Experiments.

January 24, 1803, he delivered this model to MM. Molar, Bordel, and
Montgolfier, with a descriptive memoir, in which he stated that he had, by
experiment, proven that side-wheels were better than the “chaplet” (paddle-
floats set on an endless chain).[78] These gentlemen were then building for
Fulton and Livingston their first boat, on L’Isle des Cygnes, in the Seine. In
planning this boat, Fulton had devised many different methods of applying
steam to its propulsion, and had made some experiments to determine the
resistance of fluids. He therefore had been able to calculate, more accurately
than had any earlier inventor, the relative size and proportions of boat and
machinery.

Fig. 78.—Fulton’s Table of Resistances.

The author has examined a large collection of Fulton’s drawings, among
which are sketches, very neatly executed, of many of these plans, including
the chaplet, side-wheel, and stern-wheel boats, driven by various forms of
steam-engine, some working direct, and some geared to the paddle-wheel
shaft. Figs. 77 and 78 are engraved from two of these sheets. The first
represents the method adopted by Fulton to determine the resistance of
masses of wood of various forms and proportions, when towed through
water. The other is “A Table of the resistance of bodies moved through
water, taken from experiments made in England by a society for improving
Naval architecture, between the years 1793 and 1798” (Fig. 78). This latter
is from a certified copy of “The Original Drawing on file in the Office of the
Clerk of the New York District, making a part of the Demonstration of the
patent granted to Robert Fulton, Esqr., on the 11th day of February, 1809.
Dated this 3rd March, 1814,” and is signed by Theron Rudd, Clerk of the
New York District. Resistances are given in pounds per square foot.
Guided by these experiments and calculations, therefore, Fulton directed the
construction of his vessel. It was completed in the spring of 1803. But,
unfortunately, the hull of the little vessel was too weak for its heavy
machinery, and it broke in two and sank to the bottom of the Seine.
Undiscouraged, Fulton at once set about repairing damages. He was

compelled to direct the rebuilding of the hull. The machinery was little
injured. In June, 1803, the reconstruction was completed, and the vessel was
set afloat in July. The hull was 66 feet long, of 8 feet beam, and of light
draught.
August 9, 1803, this boat was cast loose, and steamed up the Seine, in
presence of an immense concourse of spectators. A committee of the
National Academy, consisting of Bougainville, Bossuet, Carnot, and Périer,
were present to witness the experiment. The boat moved but slowly, making
only between 3 and 4 miles an hour against the current, the speed through
the water being about 41∕2 miles; but this was, all things considered, a great
success.

Fig. 79.—Barlow’s Water-Tube Boiler, 1793.

The experiment was successful, but it attracted little attention,
notwithstanding the fact that its success had been witnessed by the
committee of the Academy and by many well-known savants and mechanics,
and by officers on Napoleon’s staff. The boat remained a long time on the
Seine, near the palace. The water-tube boiler of this vessel (Fig. 79) is still
preserved at the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers at Paris, where it is known
as Barlow’s boiler. Barlow patented it in France as early as 1793, as a
steamboat-boiler, and states that the object of his construction was to obtain
the greatest possible extent of heating-surface.
Fulton endeavored to secure the pecuniary aid and the countenance of the
First Consul, but in vain.

Livingston wrote home, describing the trial of this steamboat and its results,
and procured the passage of an act by the Legislature of the State of New
York, extending a monopoly granted him in 1798 for the term of 20 years
from April 5, 1803, the date of the new law, and extending the time allowed
for proving the practicability of driving a boat four miles an hour by steam to
two years from the same date. A later act further extended the time to April,
1807.
In May, 1804, Fulton went to England, giving up all hope of success in
France with either his steamboats or his torpedoes. Fulton had already
written to Boulton & Watt, ordering an engine to be built from plans which
he furnished them; but he had not informed them of the purpose to which it
was to be applied. This engine was to have a steam-cylinder 2 feet in
diameter and of 4 feet stroke. The engine of the Charlotte Dundas was of
very nearly the same size; and this fact, and the visit of Fulton to
Symmington in 1801, as described by the latter, have been made the basis of
a claim that Fulton was a copyist of the plans of others. The general
accordance of the dimensions of his boat on the Seine with those of the
“Polacca” of Roosevelt is also made the basis of similar claims by the
friends of the latter. It would appear, however, that Symmington’s statement
is incorrect, as Fulton was in France, experimenting with torpedoes, at the
time (July, 1801[79]) when he is accused of having obtained from the English
engineer the dimensions and a statement of the performance of his vessel.
Yet a fireman employed by Symmington has made an affidavit to the same
statement. It is evident, however, from what has preceded, that those
inventors and builders who were at that time working with the object of
introducing the steamboat were usually well acquainted with what had been
done by others, and with what was being done by their contemporaries; and
it is undoubtedly the fact that each profited, so far as he was able, by the
experience of others.
While in England, however, Fulton was certainly not so entirely absorbed in
the torpedo experiments with which he was occupied in the years 1804-’6 as
to forget his plans for a steamboat; and he saw the engine ordered by him in
1804 completed in the latter year, and preceded it to New York, sailing from
Falmouth in October, 1806, and reaching the United States December 13,
1806.

The engine was soon received, and Fulton immediately contracted for a hull
in which to set it up. Meantime, Livingston had also returned to the United
States, and the two enthusiasts worked together on a larger steamer than any
which had yet been constructed.

Fig. 80.—The Clermont, 1807.

In the spring of 1807, the “Clermont” (Fig. 80), as the new boat was
christened, was launched from the ship-yard of Charles Brown, on the East
River, New York. In August the machinery was on board and in successful
operation. The hull of this boat was 133 feet long, 18 wide, and 9 deep. The
boat soon made a trip to Albany, running the distance of 150 miles in 32
hours running time, and returning in 30 hours. The sails were not used on
either occasion.
This was the first voyage of considerable length ever made by a steam-
vessel; and Fulton, though not to be classed with James Watt as an inventor,
is entitled to the great honor of having been the first to make steam-
navigation an every-day commercial success, and of having thus made the
first application of the steam-engine to ship-propulsion, which was not
followed by the retirement of the experimenter from the field of his labors
before success was permanently insured.

Fig. 81.—Engine of the Clermont, 1808.

The engine of the Clermont (Fig. 81) was of rather peculiar form, the piston,
E, being coupled to the crank-shaft, O, by a bell-crank, I H P, and a
connecting-rod, P Q, the paddle-wheel shaft, M N, being separate from the
crank-shaft, and connected with the latter by gearing, O O. The cylinders
were 24 inches in diameter by 4 feet stroke. The paddle-wheels had buckets
4 feet long, with a dip of 2 feet. Old drawings, made by Fulton’s own hand,
and showing the engine as it was in 1808, and the engine of a later steamer,
the Chancellor Livingston, are in the lecture-room of the author at the
Stevens Institute of Technology.
The voyage of the Clermont to Albany was attended by some ludicrous
incidents, which found their counterparts wherever, subsequently, steamers
were for the first time introduced. Mr. Colden, the biographer of Fulton, says
that she was described, by persons who had seen her passing by night, “as a
monster moving on the waters, defying wind and tide, and breathing flames
and smoke.”
This first steamboat used dry pine wood for fuel, and the flames rose to a
considerable distance above the smoke-pipe. When the fires were disturbed,
mingled smoke and sparks would rise high in the air. “This uncommon
light,” says Colden, “first attracted the attention of the crews of other
vessels. Notwithstanding the wind and tide were averse to its approach, they
saw with astonishment that it was rapidly coming toward them; and when it

came so near that the noise of the machinery and paddles was heard, the
crews (if what was said in the newspapers of the time be true), in some
instances, shrank beneath their decks from the terrific sight, and left their
vessels to go on shore; while others prostrated themselves, and besought
Providence to protect them from the approach of the horrible monster which
was marching on the tides, and lighting its path by the fires which it
vomited.”
In the Clermont, Fulton used several of the now characteristic features of the
American river steamboat, and subsequently introduced others. His most
important and creditable work, aside from that of the introduction of the
steamboat into every-day use, was the experimental determination of the
magnitude and the laws of ship-resistance, and the systematic proportioning
of vessel and machinery to the work to be done by them.
The success of the Clermont on the trial-trip was such that Fulton soon after
advertised the vessel as a regular passenger-boat between New York and
Albany.[80]
During the next winter the Clermont was repaired and enlarged, and in the
summer of 1808 was again on the route to Albany; and, meantime, two new
steamboats—the Raritan and the Car of Neptune—had been built by Fulton.
In the year 1811 he built the Paragon. Both of the two vessels last named
were of nearly double the size of the Clermont. A steam ferry-boat was built
to ply between New York and Jersey City in 1812, and the next year two
others, to connect the metropolis with Brooklyn. These were “twin-boats,”
the two parallel hulls being connected by a “bridge” or deck common to
both. The Jersey ferry was crossed in fifteen minutes, the distance being a
mile and a half. To-day, the time occupied at the same ferry is about ten
minutes. Fulton’s ferry-boat carried, at one load, 8 carriages, and about 30
horses, and still had room for 300 or 400 foot-passengers. Fulton also
designed steam-vessels for use on the Western rivers, and, in 1815, some of
his boats were started as “packets” on the line between New York and
Providence, R. I.
Meantime, the War of 1812 was in progress, and Fulton designed a steam
vessel-of-war, which was then considered a wonderfully formidable craft.
His plans were submitted to a commission of experienced naval officers,
among whom were Commodores Decatur and Perry, Captain John Paul

Jones, Captain Evans, and others whose names are still familiar, and were
favorably commended. Fulton proposed to build a steam-vessel capable of
carrying a heavy battery, and of steaming four miles an hour. The ship was to
be fitted with furnaces for red-hot shot. Some of her guns were to be
discharged below the water-line. The estimated cost was $320,000.

Fig. 82.—Launch of the “Fulton the First,” 1804.

The construction of the vessel was authorized by Congress in March, 1814;
the keel was laid June 20, 1814, and the vessel was launched October 29th of
the same year.
The “Fulton the First,” as she was called, was considered an enormous
vessel at that time. The hull was double, 156 feet long, 56 feet wide, and 20
feet deep, measuring 2,475 tons. In the following May the ship was ready for
her engine, and in July was so far completed as to steam, on a trial-trip, to
the ocean at Sandy Hook and back—53 miles—in 8 hours and 20 minutes.
In September of the same year, with armament and stores on board, the same
route was traversed again, the vessel making 51∕2 miles an hour. The vessel,
as thus completed, had a double hull, each about 20 feet longer than the
Clermont, and separated by a space 15 feet across. Her engine, having a
steam-cylinder 48 inches in diameter and of 5 feet stroke of piston, was
furnished with steam by a copper boiler 22 feet long, 12 feet wide, and 8 feet
high, and turned a wheel between the two hulls which was 16 feet in

diameter, and carried “floats” or “buckets” 14 feet long, and with a dip of 4
feet. The engine was in one of the two hulls, and the boiler in the other. The
sides, at the gun-deck, were 4 feet 10 inches thick, and her spar-deck was
surrounded by heavy musket-proof bulwarks. The armament consisted of 30
32-pounders, which were intended to discharge red-hot shot. There was one
heavy mast for each hull, fitted with large latteen sails. Each end of each hull
was fitted with a rudder. Large pumps were carried, which were intended to
throw heavy streams of water upon the decks of the enemy, with a view to
disabling the foe by wetting his ordnance and ammunition. A submarine gun
was to have been carried at each bow, to discharge shot weighing 100
pounds, at a depth of 10 feet below the water-line.
This was the first application of the steam-engine to naval purposes, and, for
the time, it was an exceedingly creditable one. Fulton, however, did not live
to see the ship completed. He was engaged in a contest with Livingston, who
was then endeavoring to obtain permission from the State of New Jersey to
operate a line of steamboats in the waters of the Hudson River and New
York Bay, and, while returning from attending a session of the Legislature at
Trenton, in January, 1815, was exposed to the weather on the bay at a time
when he was ill prepared to withstand it. He was taken ill, and died February
24th of that year. His death was mourned as a national calamity.
From the above brief sketch of this distinguished man and his work, it is
seen that, although Robert Fulton is not entitled to distinction as an inventor,
he was one of the ablest, most persistent, and most successful of those who
have done so much for the world by the introduction of the inventions of
others. He was an intelligent engineer and an enterprising business-man,
whose skill, acuteness, and energy have given the world the fruits of the
inventive genius of all who preceded him, and have thus justly earned for
him a fame that can never be lost.
Fulton had some active and enterprising rivals.
Oliver Evans had, in 1801 or 1802, sent one of his engines, of about 150
horse-power, to New Orleans, for the purpose of using it to propel a vessel
owned by Messrs. McKeever and Valcourt, which was there awaiting it. The
engine was actually set up in the boat, but at a low stage of the river, and no
trial could be made until the river should again rise, some months later.
Having no funds to carry them through so long a period, Evans’s agents were

induced to remove the engine again, and to set it up in a saw-mill, where it
created great astonishment by its extraordinary performance in sawing
lumber.
Livingston and Roosevelt were also engaged in experiments quite as early as
Fulton, and perhaps earlier.
The prize gained by Fulton was, however, most closely contested by Colonel
John Stevens, of Hoboken, who has been already mentioned in connection
with the early history of railroads, and who had been since 1791 engaged in
similar experiments. In 1789 he had petitioned the Legislature of the State of
New York for a grant similar to that accorded to Livingston, and he then
stated that his plans were complete, and on paper.

Fig. 83.—Section of Steam-Boiler, 1804.

In 1804, while Fulton was in Europe, Stevens had completed a steamboat, 68
feet long and of 14 feet beam, which combined novelties and merits of
design in a manner that exhibited the best possible evidence of remarkable
inventive talent, as well as of the most perfect appreciation of the nature of
the problem which he had proposed to himself to solve. Its boiler (Fig. 83)
was of what is now known as the water-tubular variety. It was quite similar
to some now known as sectional boilers, and contained 100 tubes 2 inches in
diameter and 18 inches long, each fastened at one end to a central water-leg
and steam-drum, and plugged at the other end. The flames from the furnace
passed around and among the tubes, the water being inside them. The engine
(Fig. 84) was a direct-acting high-pressure condensing engine, having a 10-

inch cylinder, 2 feet stroke of piston, and drove a screw having four blades,
and of a form which, even to-day, appears quite good. The whole is a most
remarkable piece of early engineering.

Fig. 84.—Engine, Boiler, and Screw-Propellers used by Stevens, 1804.

A model of this little steamer, built in 1804, is preserved in the lecture-room
of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the Stevens Institute of
Technology; and the machinery itself, consisting of the high-pressure
“sectional” or “safety” tubular boiler, as it would be called to-day, the high-
pressure condensing engine, with rotating valves, and twin screw-propellers,
as just described, is given a place of honor in the model-room, or museum,
where it contrasts singularly with the mechanism contributed to the
collection by manufacturers and inventors of our own time. The hub and
blade of a single screw, also used with the same machinery, is likewise to be
seen there.

Fig. 85.—Stevens’s Screw Steamer, 1804.

Stevens seems to have been the first to fully recognize the importance of the
principle involved in the construction of the sectional steam-boiler. His
eldest son, John Cox Stevens, was in Great Britain in the year 1805, and,
while there, patented another modification of this type of boiler. In his
specification, he details both the method of construction and the principles
which determine its form. He says that he describes this invention as it was
made known to him by his father, and adds:
“From a series of experiments made in France, in 1790, by M. Belamour,
under the auspices of the Royal Academy of Sciences, it has been found that,
within a certain range the elasticity of steam is nearly doubled by every
addition of temperature equal to 30° of Fahrenheit’s thermometer. These
experiments were carried no higher than 280°, at which temperature the
elasticity of steam was found equal to about four times the pressure of the
atmosphere. By experiments which have lately been made by myself, the
elasticity of steam at the temperature of boiling oil, which has been
estimated at about 600°, was found to equal 40 times the pressure of the
atmosphere.

“To the discovery of this principle or law, which obtains when water
assumes a state of vapor, I certainly can lay no claim; but to the application
of it, upon certain principles, to the improvement of the steam-engine, I do
claim exclusive right.
“It is obvious that, to derive advantage from an application of this principle,
it is absolutely necessary that the vessel or vessels for generating steam
should have strength sufficient to withstand the great pressure from an
increase of elasticity in the steam; but this pressure is increased or
diminished in proportion to the capacity of the containing vessel. The
principle, then, of this invention consists in forming a boiler by means of a
system, or combination of a number of small vessels, instead of using, as in
the usual mode, one large one; the relative strength of the materials of which
these vessels are composed increasing in proportion to the diminution of
capacity. It will readily occur that there are an infinite variety of possible
modes of effecting such combinations; but, from the nature of the case, there
are certain limits beyond which it becomes impracticable to carry on
improvement. In the boiler I am about to describe, I apprehend that the
improvement is carried to the utmost extent of which the principle is
capable. Suppose a plate of brass of one foot square, in which a number of
holes are perforated; into each of which holes is fixed one end of a copper
tube, of about an inch in diameter and two feet long; and the other ends of
these tubes inserted in like manner into a similar piece of brass; the tubes, to
insure their tightness, to be cast in the plates; these plates are to be inclosed
at each end of the pipes by a strong cap of cast-iron or brass, so as to leave a
space of an inch or two between the plates or ends of the pipes and the cast-
iron cap at each end; the caps at each end are to be fastened by screw-bolts
passing through them into the plates; the necessary supply of water is to be
injected by means of a forcing-pump into the cap at one end, and through a
tube inserted into the cap at the other end the steam is to be conveyed to the
cylinder of the steam-engine; the whole is then to be encircled in brickwork
or masonry in the usual manner, placed either horizontally or
perpendicularly, at option.
“I conceive that the boiler above described embraces the most eligible mode
of applying the principle before mentioned, and that it is unnecessary to give
descriptions of the variations in form and construction that may be adopted,
especially as these forms may be diversified in many different modes.”