SECOND PATENT
The number and activity of rivals attracted to the steam engine and its
possible improvement, some of whom had begun infringements upon the Watt
patents, alarmed Messrs. Watt and Boulton so much that they decided Watt
should apply for another patent, covering his important improvements
since the first. Accordingly, October 25, 1781, the patent (already
referred to on p. 91) was secured, "for certain new methods of producing
a continued rotative motion around an axis or centre, and thereby to
give motion to the wheels of mills or other machines."
This patent was necessary in consequence of the difficulties experienced
in working the steam wheels or rotatory engines described in the first
patent of 1769, and by Watt's having been so unfairly anticipated, by
Wasborough in the crank motion.
No less than five different methods for rotatory motion are described in
the patent, the fifth commonly known as the "sun and planet wheels," of
which Watt writes to Boulton, January 3, 1782,
I have tried a model of one of my old plans of rotative engines,
revived and executed by Mr. Murdoch, which merits being
included in the specification as a fifth method; for which
purpose I shall send a drawing and description next post. It has
the singular property of going twice round for each stroke of
the engine, and may be made to go oftener round, if required,
without additional machinery.
Then followed an explanation of the sketch which he sent, and two days
later he wrote, "I send you the drawings of the fifth method, and
thought to have sent you the description complete, but it was late last
night before I finished so far, and to-day have a headache, therefore
only send you a rough draft of part."
In all of these Watt recommended that a fly-wheel be used to regulate
the motion, but in the specification for the patent of the following
year, 1782, his double-acting engine produced a more regular motion and
rendered a fly-wheel unnecessary, "so that," he says, "in most of our
great manufactories these engines now supply the place of water, wind
and horse mills, and instead of carrying the work to the power, the
prime agent is placed wherever it is most convenient to the
manufacturer."
This marks one of the most important stages in the development of the
steam engine. It was at last the portable machine it remains to-day, and
was placed wherever convenient, complete in itself and with the rotative
motion adaptable for all manner of work. The ingenious substitutes Watt
had to invent to avoid the obviously perfect crank motion have of course
all been discarded, and nothing of these remains except as proofs,
where none are needed, that genius has powers in reserve for
emergencies; balked in one direction, it hews out another path for
itself.
While preparing the specification for this patent of 1781, Watt was busy
upon another specification quite as important, which appeared in the
following year, 1782. It embraced the following new improvements, the
winnowing of numberless ideas and experiments that he had conceived and
tested for some years previous:
1. The use of steam on the expansive principle; together with
various methods or contrivances (six in number, some of them
comprising various modifications), for equalising the expansive
power.
2. The double-acting engine; in which steam is admitted to press
the piston upward as well as downward; the piston being also
aided in its ascent as well as in its descent by a vacuum
produced by condensation on the other side.
3. The double-engine; consisting of two engines, primary and
secondary, of which the steam-vessels and condensers communicate
by pipes and valves, so that they can be worked either
independently or in concert; and make their strokes either
alternately or both together, as may be required.
4. The employment of a toothed rack and sector, instead of
chains, for guiding the piston-rod.
5. A rotative engine, or steam-wheel.
Here we have three of the vital elements required toward the completion
of the work: first, steam used expansively; second, the double-acting
engine. It will be remembered that Watt's first engines only took in
steam at the bottom of the cylinder, as Newcomen's did, but with this
difference: Watt used the steam to perform work which Newcomen could not
do, the latter only using steam to force the piston itself upward. Now
came Watt's great step forward. Having a cylinder closed at the top,
while the Newcomen cylinder remained open, it was as easy to admit steam
at the top to press the piston down as to admit it at the bottom to
press the piston up; also as easy to apply his condenser to the steam
above as below, at the moment a vacuum was needed. All this was
ingeniously provided for by numerous devices and covered by the patent.
Third, he went one step farther to the compound engine, consisting of
two engines, primary and secondary, working steam expansively
independently or in concert, with strokes alternate or simultaneous. The
compound engine was first thought of by Watt about 1767. He laid a large
drawing of it on parchment before parliament when soliciting an
extension of his first patent. The reason he did not proceed to
construct it was "the difficulty he had encountered in teaching others
the construction and use of the single engine, and in overcoming
prejudices"; the patent of 1782 was only taken out because he found
himself "beset with a host of plagiaries and pirates."
One of the earliest of these double-acting engines was erected at the
Albion Mills, London, in 1786. Watt writes:
The mention of Albion Mills induces me to say a few words
respecting an establishment so unjustly calumniated in its day,
and the premature destruction of which, by fire, in 1791, was,
not improbably, imputed to design. So far from being, as
misrepresented, a monopoly injurious to the public, it was the
means of considerably reducing the price of flour while it
continued at work.
The "double-acting" engine was followed by the "compound" engine, of
which Watt says:
A new compound engine, or method of connecting together the
cylinders and condensers of two or more distinct engines, so as
to make the steam which has been employed to press on the piston
of the first, act expansively upon the piston of the second,
etc., and thus derive an additional power to act either
alternately or co-jointly with that of the first cylinder.
We have here, in all substantial respects, the modern engine of to-day.
Two fine improvements have been made since Watt's time: first, the
piston-rings of Cartwright, which effectively removed one of Watt's most
serious difficulties, the escape of steam, even though the best packing
he could devise were used--the chief reason he could not use
high-pressure steam. In our day, the use of this is rapidly extending,
as is that of superheated steam. Packing the piston was an elaborate
operation even after Watt's day.
It was not because Watt did not know as well as any of our present
experts the advantages of high pressures, that he did not use them, but
simply because of the mechanical difficulties then attending their
adoption. He was always in advance of mechanical practicalities rather
than behind, and as we have seen, had to retrace his steps, in the case
of expansion.
The other improvement is the cross-head of Haswell, an American, a
decided advance, giving the piston rod a smooth and straight bed to rest
upon and freeing it from all disturbance. The drop valve is now
displacing the slide valve as a better form of excluding or admitting
steam.
Watt of course knew nothing of the thermo-dynamic value of high
temperature without high pressure, altho fully conversant with the value
of pressures. This had not been even imagined by either philosopher or
engineer until discovered by Carnot as late as 1824. Even if he had
known about it the mechanical arts in his day were in no condition to
permit its use. Even high pressures were impracticable to any great
extent. It is only during the past few years that turbines and
superheating, having long been practically discarded, show encouraging
signs of revival. They give great promise of advancement, the hitherto
insuperable difficulties of lubrication and packing having been overcome
within the last five years. Superheating especially promises to yield
substantial results as compared with the practice with ordinary engines,
but the margin of saving in steam over the best quadruple expansion
engine cannot be great. Lord Kelvin however expects it to be the final
contribution of science to the highest possible economy in the steam
engine.
In the January (1905) number of "Stevens Institute Indicator,"
Professor Denton has an instructive resume of recent steam engine
economics. He tells us that Steam Turbines are now being applied to
Piston Engines to operate with the latter's exhaust, to effect the same
saving as the sulphur dioxide cylinder; and adds
that the Turbine is a formidable competitor to the Piston Engine
is mainly due to the fact that it more completely realizes the
expansive principle enunciated in the infancy of steam history
as the fundamental factor of economy by its sagacious founder,
the immortal Watt.
Watt's favorite employment in Soho works late in 1783 and early in 1784
was to teach his engine, now become as docile as it was powerful, to
work a tilt hammer. In 1777 he had written Boulton that
Wilkinson wants an engine to raise a stamp of 15 cwt. thirty or
forty times in a minute. I have set Webb to work to try it with
the little engine and a stamp-hammer of 60 lbs. weight. Many of
these _battering rams_ will be wanted if they answer.
The trial was successful. A new machine to work a 700 lbs. hammer for
Wilkinson was made, and April 27, 1783, Watt writes that
it makes from 15 to 50, and even 60, strokes per minute, and
works a hammer, raised two feet high, which has struck 300 blows
per minute.
The engine was to work two hammers, but was capable of working four of 7
cwt. each. He says, with excusable pride,
I believe it is a thing never done before, to make a hammer of
that weight make 300 blows per minute; and, in fact, it is more
a matter to brag of than for any other use, as the rate wanted
is from 90 to 100 blows, being as quick as the workmen can
manage the iron under it.
This most ingenious application of steam power was included in Watt's
next patent of April 28, 1784. It embraced many improvements, mostly,
however, now of little consequence, the most celebrated being "parallel
motion," of which Watt was prouder than any other of his triumphs. He
writes to his son, November, 1808, twenty-four years after it was
invented (1784):
Though I am not over anxious after fame, yet I am more proud of
the parallel motion than of any other mechanical invention I
have ever made.
He wrote Boulton, in June, 1784:
I have started a new hare. I have got a glimpse of a method of
causing a piston-rod to move up and down perpendicularly, by
only fixing it to a piece of iron upon the beam ... I think it
one of the most ingenious simple pieces of mechanism I have
contrived.
October, 1784, he writes:
The new central perpendicular motion answers beyond expectation,
and does not make the shadow of a noise.
He says:
When I saw it in movement, it afforded me all the pleasure of a
novelty, as if I had been examining the invention of another.
When beam-engines were universally used for pumping, this parallel
motion was of great advantage. It has been superseded in our day, by
improved piston guides and cross-heads, the construction of which in
Watt's day was impossible, but no invention has commanded in greater
degree the admiration of all who comprehend the principles upon which it
acts, or who have witnessed the smoothness, orderly power and "sweet
simplicity" of its movements. Watt's pride in it as his favorite
invention in these respects is fully justified.
A detailed specification for a road steam-carriage concludes the claims
of this patent, but the idea of railroads, instead of common roads,
coming later left the construction of the locomotive to Stephenson.[1]
Watt's last patent bears date June 14, 1785, and was
for certain newly improved methods of constructing furnaces or
fire-places for heating, boiling, or evaporating of water and
other liquids which are applicable to steam engines and other
purposes, and also for heating, melting, and smelting of metals
and their ores, whereby greater effects are produced from the
fuel, and the smoke is in a great measure prevented or consumed.
The principle, "an old one of my own," as Watt says, is in great part
acted upon to-day.
So numerous were the improvements made by Watt at various periods, which
greatly increased the utility of his engine, it would be in vain to
attempt a detailed recital of his endless contrivances, but we may
mention as highly important, the throttle-valve, the governor, the
steam-gauge and the indicator. Muirhead says:
The throttle-valve is worked directly by the engineer to start
or stop the engine, and also to regulate the supply of steam.
Watt describes it as a circular plate of metal, having a spindle
fixed across its diameter, the plate being accurately fitted to
an aperture in a metal ring of some thickness, through the
edgeway of which the spindle is fitted steam-tight, and the ring
fixed between the two flanches of the joint of the steam-pipe
which is next to the cylinder. One end of the spindle, which has
a square upon it, comes through the ring, and has a spanner
fixed upon it, by which it can be turned in either direction.
When the valve is parallel to the outsides of the ring, it shuts
the opening nearly perfectly; but when its plane lies at an
angle to the ring, it admits more or less steam according to the
degree it has opened; consequently the piston is acted upon with
more or less force.
Papin preferred gunpowder as a safer source of power than steam, but
that was before it had been automatically regulated by the "Governor."
The governor has always been the writer's favorite invention, probably
because it was the first he fully understood. It is an application of
the centrifugal principle adapted and mechanically improved. Two heavy
revolving balls swing round an upright rod. The faster the rod revolves
the farther from it the balls swing out. The slower it turns the closer
the balls fall toward it. By proper attachments the valve openings
admitting steam are widened or narrowed accordingly. Thus the higher
speed of the engine, the less steam admitted, the slower the speed the
more steam admitted. Hence any uniform speed desired can be maintained:
should the engine be called upon to perform greater service at one
moment than another, as in the case of steel rolling mills, speed being
checked when the piece of steel enters the rolls, immediately the valves
widen, more steam rushes into the engine, and _vice versa_. Until the
governor came regular motion was impossible--steam was an unruly steed.
Arago describes the steam-gauge thus:
It is a short glass tube with its lower end immersed in a
cistern of mercury, which is placed within an iron box screwed
to the boiler steam-pipe, or to some other part communicating
freely with the steam, which, pressing on the surface of the
mercury in the cistern, raises the mercury in the tube (which is
open to the air at the upper end), and its altitude serves to
show the elastic power of the steam over that of the atmosphere.
The indicator he thus describes:
The barometer being adapted only to ascertain the degree of
exhaustion in the condenser where its variations were small, the
vibrations of the mercury rendered it very difficult, if not
impracticable, to ascertain the state of the exhaustion of the
cylinder at the different periods of the stroke of the engine;
it became therefore necessary to contrive an instrument for that
purpose that should be less subject to vibration, and should
show nearly the degree of exhaustion in the cylinder at all
periods. The following instrument, called the Indicator, is
found to answer the end sufficiently. A cylinder about an inch
diameter, and six inches long, exceedingly truly bored, has a
solid piston accurately fitted to it, so as to slide easy by the
help of some oil; the stem of the piston is guided in the
direction of the axis of the cylinder, so that it may not be
subject to jam, or cause friction in any part of its motion. The
bottom of this cylinder has a cock and small pipe joined to it
which, having a conical end, may be inserted in a hole drilled
in the cylinder of the engine near one of the ends, so that, by
opening the small cock, a communication may be effected between
the inside of the cylinder and the indicator.
The cylinder of the indicator is fastened upon a wooden or
metal frame, more than twice its own length; one end of a spiral
steel spring, like that of a spring steel-yard, is attached to
the upper part of the frame, and the other end of the spring is
attached to the upper end of the piston-rod of the indicator.
The spring is made of such a strength, that when the cylinder of
the indicator is perfectly exhausted, the pressure of the
atmosphere may force its piston down within an inch of its
bottom. An index being fixed to the top of its piston-rod, the
point where it stands, when quite exhausted, is marked from an
observation of a barometer communicating with the same exhausted
vessel, and the scale divided accordingly.
Improvements come in many ways, sometimes after much thought and after
many experimental failures. Sometimes they flash upon clever inventors,
but let us remember this is only after they have spent long years
studying the problem. In the case of the steam engine, however, a quite
important improvement came very curiously. Humphrey Potter was a lad
employed to turn off and on the stop cocks of a Newcomen engine, a
monotonous task, for, at every stroke one had to be turned to let steam
into the boiler and another for injecting the cold water to condense it,
and this had to be done at the right instant or the engine could not
move. How to relieve himself from the drudgery became the question. He
wished time to play with the other boys whose merriment was often heard
at no great distance, and this set him thinking. Humphrey saw that the
beam in its movements might serve to open and shut these stop cocks and
he promptly began to attach cords to the cocks and then tied them at the
proper points to the beam, so that ascending it pulled one cord and
descending the other. Thus came to us perhaps not the first automatic
device, but no doubt the first of its kind that was ever seen there. The
steam engine henceforth was self-attending, providing itself for its own
supply of steam and for its condensation with perfect regularity. It had
become in this feature automatic.
The cords of Potter gave place to vertical rods with small pegs which
pressed upward or downward as desired. These have long since been
replaced by other devices, but all are only simple modifications of a
contrivance devised by the mere lad whose duty it was to turn the stop
cocks.
It would be interesting to know the kind of man this precocious boy
inventor became, or whether he received suitable reward for his
important improvement. We search in vain; no mention of him is to be
found. Let us, however, do our best to repair the neglect and record
that, in the history of the steam engine, Humphrey Potter must ever be
honorably associated with famous men as the only famous boy inventor.
In the development of the steam engine, we have one purely accidental
discovery. In the early Newcomen engines, the head of the piston was
covered by a sheet of water to fill the spaces between the circular
contour of the movable piston and the internal surface of the cylinder,
for there were no cylinder-boring tools in those days, and surfaces of
cylinders were most irregular. To the surprise of the engineer, the
engine began one day working at greatly increased speed, when it was
found that the piston-head had been pierced by accident and that the
cold water had passed in small drops into the cylinder and had condensed
the steam, thus rapidly making a more perfect vacuum. From this
accidental discovery came the improved plan of injecting a shower of
cold water through the cylinder, the strokes of the engine being thus
greatly increased.
The year 1783 was one of Watt's most fruitful years of the dozen which
may be said to have teemed with his inventions. His celebrated discovery
of the composition of water was published in this year. The attempts
made to deprive him of the honor of making this discovery ended in
complete failure. Sir Humphrey Davy, Henry, Arago, Liebig, and many
others of the highest authority acknowledged and established Watt's
claims.
The true greatness of the modest Watt was never more finely revealed
than in his correspondence and papers published during the controversy.
Watt wrote Dr. Black, April 21st, that he had handed his paper to Dr.
Priestley to be read at the Royal Society. It contained the new idea of
water, hitherto considered an element and now discovered to be a
compound. Thus was announced one of the most wonderful discoveries found
in the history of science. It was justly termed the beginning of a new
era, the dawn of a new day in physical chemistry, indeed the real
foundation for the new system of chemistry, and, according to Dr.
Young, "a discovery perhaps of greater importance than any single fact
which human ingenuity has ascertained either before or since." What
Newton had done for light Watt was held to have done for water.
Muirfield well says:
It is interesting in a high degree to remark that for him who
had so fully subdued to the use of man the gigantic power of
steam it was also reserved to unfold its compound natural and
elemental principles, as if on this subject there were to be
nothing which his researches did not touch, nothing which they
touched that they did not adorn.
Arago says:
In his memoir of the month of April, Priestley added an
important circumstance to those resulting from the experiments
of his predecessors: he proved that the weight of the water
which is deposited upon the sides of the vessel, at the instant
of the detonation of the oxygen and hydrogen, is precisely the
same as the weights of the two gases.
Watt, to whom Priestley communicated this important result, immediately
perceived that proof was here afforded that water was not a simple body.
Writing to his illustrious friend, he asks:
What are the products of your experiment? They are _water_,
_light_ and _heat_. Are we not, thence, authorised to conclude
that water is a compound of the two gases, oxygen and hydrogen,
deprived of a portion of their latent or elementary heat; that
oxygen is water deprived of its hydrogen, but still united to
its latent heat and light? If light be only a modification of
heat, or a simple circumstance of its manifestation, or a
component part of hydrogen, oxygen gas will be water deprived of
its hydrogen, but combined with latent heat.
This passage, so clear, so precise, and logical, is taken from a letter
of Watt's, dated April 26, 1783. The letter was communicated by
Priestley to several of the scientific men in London, and was
transmitted immediately afterward to Sir Joseph Banks, the President of
the Royal Society, to be read at one of the meetings of that learned
body.
Watt had for many years entertained the opinion that air was a
modification of water. He writes Boulton, December 10, 1782:
You may remember that I have often said, that if water could be
heated red-hot or something more, it would probably be converted
into some kind of air, because steam would in that case have
lost all its latent heat, and that it would have been turned
solely into sensible heat, and probably a total change of the
nature of the fluid would ensue.
A month after he hears of Priestley's experiments, he writes Dr. Black
(April 21, 1783) that he "believes he has found out the cause of the
conversion of water into air." A few days later, he writes to Dr.
Priestley:
In the deflagration of the inflammable and dephlogisticated
airs, the airs unite with violence--become red-hot--and, on
cooling, totally disappear. The only fixed matter which remains
is _water_; and _water_, _light_, and _heat_, are all the
products. Are we not then authorised to conclude that water is
composed of dephlogisticated and inflammable air, or phlogiston,
deprived of part of their latent heat; and that
dephlogisticated, or pure air, is composed of water deprived of
its phlogiston, and united to heat and light; and if light be
only a modification of heat, or a component part of phlogiston,
then pure air consists of water deprived of its phlogiston and
of latent heat?
It appears from the letter to Dr. Black of April 21st, that Mr. Watt
had, on that day, written his letter to Dr. Priestley, to be read by him
to the Royal Society, but on the 26th he informs Mr. DeLuc, that having
observed some inaccuracies of style in that letter, he had removed them,
and would send the Doctor a corrected copy in a day or two, which he
accordingly did on the 28th; the corrected letter (the same that was
afterward embodied verbatim in the letter to Mr. DeLuc, printed in the
Philosophical Transactions), being dated April 26th. In enclosing it,
Mr. Watt adds, "As to myself, the more I consider what I have said, I am
the more satisfied with it, as I find none of the facts repugnant."
Thus was announced for the first time one of the most wonderful
discoveries recorded in the history of science, startling in its novelty
and yet so simple.
Watt had divined the import of Priestley's experiment, for he had
mastered all knowledge bearing upon the question, but even when this was
communicated to Priestley, he could not accept it, and, after making new
experiments, he writes Watt, April 29, 1783, "Behold with surprise and
indignation the figure of an apparatus that has utterly ruined your
beautiful hypothesis," giving a rough sketch with his pen of the
apparatus employed. Mark the promptitude of the master who had
deciphered the message which the experimenter himself could not
translate. He immediately writes in reply May 2, 1783:
I deny that your experiment ruins my hypothesis. It is not
founded on so brittle a basis as an earthen retort, nor on _its_
converting water into air. I founded it on the other facts, and
was obliged to stretch it a good deal before it would fit this
experiment.... I maintain my hypothesis until it shall be shown
that the water formed after the explosion of the pure and
inflammable airs, has some other origin.
He also writes to Mr. DeLuc on May 18th:
I do not see Dr. Priestley's experiment in the same light that
he does. It does not disprove my theory.... My assertion was
simply, that air (_i.e._, dephlogisticated air, or oxygen,
which was also commonly called vital air, pure air, or simple
_air_) was water deprived of its phlogiston, and united to heat,
which I grounded on the decomposition of air by inflammation
with inflammable air, the residuum, or product of which, is only
water and heat.
Having, by experiments of his own, fully satisfied himself of the
correctness of his theory, in November he prepared a full statement for
the Royal Society, having asked the society to withhold his first paper
until he could prove it for himself by experiment. He never doubted its
correctness, but some members of the society advised that it had better
be supported by facts.
When the discovery was so daring that Priestley, who made the
experiments, could not believe it and had to be convinced by Watt of its
correctness, there seems little room left for other claimants, nor for
doubt as to whom is due the credit of the revelation.
Watt encountered the difficulties of different weights and measures in
his studies of foreign writers upon chemistry, a serious inconvenience
which still remains with us.
He wrote Mr. Kirwan, November, 1783:
I had a great deal of trouble in reducing the weights and
measures to speak the same language; and many of the German
experiments become still more difficult from their using
different weights and different divisions of them in different
parts of that empire. It is therefore a very desirable thing to
have these difficulties removed, and to get all philosophers to
use pounds divided in the same manner, and I flatter myself that
may be accomplished if you, Dr. Priestley, and a few of the
French experimenters will agree to it; for the utility is so
evident, that every thinking person must immediately be
convinced of it.
Here follows his plan: Let the
Philosophical pound consist of 10 ounces, or 10,000 grains.
the ounce " " 10 drachms or 1,000 "
the drachm " " 100 grains.
Let all elastic fluids be measured by the ounce measure of
water, by which the valuation of different cubic inches will be
avoided, and the common decimal tables of specific gravities
will immediately give the weights of those elastic fluids.
If all philosophers cannot agree on one pound or one grain, let
every one take his own pound or his own grain; it will affect
nothing but doses of medicines, which must be corrected as is
now done; but as it would be much better that the identical
pound was used by all. I would propose that the Amsterdam or
Paris pound be assumed as the standard, being now the most
universal in Europe: it is to our avoirdupois pound as 109 is to
100. Our avoirdupois pound contains 7,000 of our grains, and the
Paris pound 7,630 of our grains, but it contains 9,376 Paris
grains, so that the division into 10,000 would very little
affect the Paris grain. I prefer dividing the pound afresh to
beginning with the Paris grain, because I believe the pound is
very general, but the grain local.
Dr. Priestley has agreed to this proposal, and has referred it
to you to fix upon the pound if you otherwise approve of it. I
shall be happy to have your opinion of it as soon as convenient,
and to concert with you the means of making it universal.... I
have some hopes that the foot may be fixed by the pendulum and a
measure of water, and a pound derived from that; but in the
interim let us at least assume a proper division, which from the
nature of it must be intelligible as long as decimal arithmetic
is used.
He afterward wrote, in a letter to Magellan:
As to the precise foot or pound, I do not look upon it to be
very material, in chemistry at least. Either the common English
foot may be adopted according to your proposal, which has the
advantage that a cubic foot is exactly 1,000 ounces,
consequently the present foot and ounce would be retained; or a
pendulum which vibrates 100 times a minute may be adopted for
the standard, which would make the foot 14.2 of our present
inches, and the cubic foot would be very exactly a bushel, and
would weigh 101 of the present pounds, so that the present pound
would not be much altered. But I think that by this scheme the
foot would be too large, and that the inconvenience of changing
all the foot measures and things depending on them, would be
much greater than changing all the pounds, bushels, gallons,
etc. I therefore give the preference to those plans which retain
the foot and ounce.
The war of the standards still rages--metric, or decimal, or no change.
What each nation has is good enough for it in the opinion of many of its
people. Some day an international commission will doubtless assemble to
bring order out of chaos. As far as the English-speaking race is
concerned, it seems that a decided improvement could readily be
affected with very trifling, indeed scarcely perceptible, changes.
Especially is this so with money values. Britain could merge her system
with those of Canada and America, by simply making her "pound" the exact
value of the American five dollars, it being now only ten pence less;
her silver coinage one and two shillings equal to quarter- and
half-dollars, the present coin to be recoined upon presentation, but
meanwhile to pass current. Weights and measures are more difficult to
assimilate. Science being world-wide, and knowing no divisions, should
use uniform terms. Alas! at the distance of nearly a century and a half
we seem no nearer the prospect of a system of universal weights and
measures than in Watt's day, but Watt's idea is not to be lost sight of
for all that. He was a seer who often saw what was to come.
We have referred to the absence of holidays in Watt's strenuous life,
but Birmingham was remarkable for a number of choice spirits who formed
the celebrated Lunar Society, whose members were all devoted to the
pursuit of knowledge and mutually agreeable to one another. Besides Watt
and Boulton, there were Dr. Priestley, discoverer of oxygen gas, Dr.
Darwin, Dr. Withering, Mr. Keir, Mr. Galton, Mr. Wedgwood of Wedgwood
ware fame, who had monthly dinners at their respective houses--hence the
"Lunar" Society. Dr. Priestley, discoverer of oxygen, who arrived in
Birmingham in 1780, has repeatedly mentioned the great pleasure he had
in having Watt for a neighbor. He says:
I consider my settlement at Birmingham as the happiest event in
my life; being highly favourable to every object I had in view,
philosophical or theological. In the former respect I had the
convenience of good workmen of every kind, and the society of
persons eminent for their knowledge of chemistry; particularly
Mr. Watt, Mr. Keir, and Dr. Withering. These, with Mr. Boulton
and Dr. Darwin, who soon left us by removing from Lichfield to
Derby, Mr. Galton, and afterwards Mr. Johnson of Kenilworth and
myself, dined together every month, calling ourselves _the Lunar
Society_, because the time of our meeting was near the
full-moon--in order,
as he elsewhere says,
to have the benefit of its light in returning home.
Richard Lovell Edgeworth says of this distinguished coterie:
By means of Mr. Keir, I became acquainted with Dr. Small of
Birmingham, a man esteemed by all who knew him, and by all who
were admitted to his friendship beloved with no common
enthusiasm. Dr. Small formed a link which combined Mr. Boulton,
Mr. Watt, Dr. Darwin, Mr. Wedgwood, Mr. Day, and myself
together--men of very different characters, but all devoted to
literature and science. This mutual intimacy has never been
broken but by death, nor have any of the number failed to
distinguish themselves in science or literature. Some may think
that I ought with due modesty to except myself. Mr. Keir, with
his knowledge of the world and good sense; Dr. Small, with his
benevolence and profound sagacity; Wedgwood, with his increasing
industry, experimental variety, and calm investigation; Boulton,
with his mobility, quick perception, and bold adventure; Watt,
with his strong inventive faculty, undeviating steadiness, and
bold resources; Darwin, with his imagination, science, and
poetical excellence; and Day with his unwearied research after
truth, his integrity and eloquence proved altogether such a
society as few men have had the good fortune to live with; such
an assemblage of friends, as fewer still have had the happiness
to possess, and keep through life.
The society continued to exist until the beginning of the century, 1800.
Watt was the last surviving member. The last reference is Dr.
Priestley's dedication to it, in 1793, of one of his works "Experiments
on the Generation of Air from Water," in which he says:
There are few things that I more regret, in consequence of my
removal from Birmingham, than the loss of your society. It both
encouraged and enlightened me; so that what I did there of a
philosophical kind ought in justice to be attributed almost as
much to you as to myself. From our cheerful meetings I never
absented myself voluntarily, and from my pleasing recollection
they will never be absent. Should the cause of our separation
make it necessary for to me remove to a still greater distance
from you, I shall only think the more, and with the more regret,
of our past interviews.... Philosophy engrossed us wholly.
Politicians may think there are no objects of any consequence
besides those which immediately interest _them_. But objects far
superior to any of which they have an idea engaged our
attention, and the discussion of them was accompanied with a
satisfaction to which they are strangers. Happy would it be for
the world if their pursuits were as tranquil, and their projects
as innocent, and as friendly to the best interests of mankind,
as ours.
That the partners, Boulton and Watt, had such pleasure amid their lives
of daily cares, all will be glad to know. It was not all humdrum
money-making nor intense inventing. There was the society of gifted
minds, the serene atmosphere of friendship in the high realms of mutual
regard, best recreation of all.
In 1786, quite a break in their daily routine took place. In that year
Messrs. Boulton and Watt visited Paris to meet proposals for their
erecting steam engines in France under an exclusive privilege. They were
also to suggest improvements on the great hydraulic machine of Marly.
Before starting, the sagacious and patriotic Watt wrote to Boulton:
I think if either of us go to France, we should first wait upon
Mr. Pitt (prime minister), and let him know our errand thither,
that the tongue of slander may be silenced, all undue suspicion
removed, and ourselves rendered more valuable in his eyes,
because others desire to have us!
They had a flattering reception in Paris from the ministry, who seemed
desirous that they should establish engine-works in France. This they
absolutely refused to do, as being contrary to the interests of their
country. It may be feared we are not quite so scrupulous in our day. On
the other hand, refusal now would be fruitless, it has become so easy to
obtain plans, and even experts, to build machines for any kind of
product in any country. Automatic machinery has almost dispelled the
need for so-called skilled labor. East Indians, Mexicans, Japanese,
Chinese, all become more or less efficient workers with a few month's
experience. Manufacturing is therefore to spread rapidly throughout the
world. All nations may be trusted to develop, and if necessary for a
time protect, their natural resources as a patriotic duty. Only when
prolonged trials have been made can it be determined which nation can
best and most cheaply provide the articles for which raw material
abounds.
The visit to Paris enabled Watt and Boulton to make the acquaintance of
the most eminent men of science, with whom they exchanged ideas
afterward in frequent and friendly correspondence. Watt described
himself as being, upon one occasion, "drunk from morning to night with
Burgundy and undeserved praise." The latter was always a disconcerting
draught for our subject; anything but reference to his achievements for
the modest self-effacing genius.
While in Paris, Berthollet told Watt of his new method of bleaching by
chlorine, and gave him permission to communicate it to his
father-in-law, who adopted it in his business, together with several
improvements of Watt's invention, the results of a long series of
experiments. Watt, writing to Mr. Macgregor, April 27, 1787, says:
In relation to the inventor, he is a man of science, a member of
the Academy of Sciences at Paris, and a physician, not very
rich, a very modest and worthy man, and an excellent chemist. My
sole motives in meddling with it were to procure such reward as
I could to a man of merit who had made an extensively useful
discovery in the arts, and secondly, I had an immediate view to
your interest; as to myself, I had no lucrative views
whatsoever, it being a thing out of my way, which both my
business and my health prevented me from pursuing further than
it might serve for amusement when unfit for more serious
business. Lately, by a letter from the inventor, he informs me
that he gives up all intentions of pursuing it with lucrative
views, as he says he will not compromise his quiet and happiness
by engaging in business; in which, perhaps, he is right; but
if the discovery has real merit, as I apprehend, he is certainly
entitled to a generous reward, which I would wish for the honour
of Britain, to procure for him; but I much fear, in the way you
state it, that nothing could be got worth his acceptance.
France has been distinguished for men of science who have thus refrained
from profiting by their inventions. Pasteur, in our day, perhaps the
most famous of all, the liver, not only of the simple but of the ideal
life, laboring for the good of humanity--service to man--and taking for
himself the simple life, free from luxury, palace, estate, and all the
inevitable cares accompanying ostentatious living. Berthollet preceded
him. Like Agassiz, these gifted souls were "too busy to make money."
In 1792, when Boulton had passed the allotted three score years and ten,
and Watt was over three score, they made a momentous decision which
brought upon them several years of deep anxiety. Fortunately the sons of
the veterans who had recently been admitted to the business proved of
great service in managing the affair, and relieved their parents of much
labor and many journeys. Fortunate indeed were Watt and Boulton in their
partnership, for they became friends first and partners afterward. They
were not less fortunate in each having a talented son, who also became
friends and partners like their fathers before them. The decision was
that the infringers of their patents were to be proceeded against.
They had to appeal to the law to protect their rights.
Watt met the apparently inevitable fate of inventors. Rivals arose in
various quarters to dispute his right to rank as the originator of many
improvements. No reflection need be made upon most rival claimants to
inventions. Some wonderful result is conceived to be within the range of
possibility, which, being obtained, will revolutionise existing modes. A
score of inventive minds are studying the problem throughout the
civilised world. Every day or two some new idea flashes upon one of them
and vanishes, or is discarded after trial. One day the announcement
comes of triumphant success with the very same idea slightly modified,
the modification or addition, slight though this may be, making all the
difference between failure and success. The man has arrived with the key
that opens the door of the treasure-house. He sets the egg on end
perhaps by as obvious a plan as chipping the end. There arises a chorus
of strenuous claimants, each of whom had thought of that very device
long ago. No doubt they did. They are honest in their protests and quite
persuaded in their own minds that they, and not the Watt of the
occasion, are entitled to the honor of original discovery. This very
morning we read in the press a letter from the son of Morse, vindicating
his father's right to rank as the father of the telegraph, a son of
Vail, one of his collaborators, having claimed that his father, and
not Morse, was the real inventor. The most august of all bodies of men,
since its decisions overrule both Congress and President, the Supreme
Court of the United States, has shown rare wisdom from its inception,
and in no department more clearly than in that regarding the rights of
inventors. No court has had such experience with patent claims, for no
nation has a tithe of the number to deal with. Throughout its history,
the court has attached more and more importance to two points: First, is
the invention valuable? Second, who proved this in actual practice?
These points largely govern its decisions.
The law expenses of their suits seemed to Boulton and Watt exorbitant,
even in that age of low prices compared to our own. One solicitors bill
was for no less than $30,000, which caused Watt years afterward, when
speaking of an enormous charge to say that "it would not have disgraced
a London solicitor." When we find however, that this was for four years'
services, the London solicitor appears in a different light. "In the
whole affair," writes Watt to his friend Dr. Black, January 15, 1797,
"nothing was so grateful to me as the zeal of our friends and the
activity of our young men, which were unremitting."
The first trial ended June 22, 1793, with a verdict for Watt and Boulton
by the jury, subject to the opinion of the court as to the validity of
the patent. On May 16, 1795, the case came on for judgment, when
unfortunately the court was found divided, two for the patent and two
against. Another case was tried December 16, 1796, with a special jury,
before Lord Chief Justice Eyre; the verdict was again for the
plaintiffs. Proceedings on a writ of error had the effect of affirming
the result by the unanimous opinion of the four judges, before whom it
was ably and fully argued on two occasions.
The testimony of Professor Robison, Watt's intimate friend of youth in
Glasgow, was understood to have been deeply impressive, and to have had
a decisive effect upon judges and jury.
All the claims of Watt were thus triumphantly sustained. The decision
has always been considered of commanding importance to the law of
patents in Britain, and was of vast consequence to the firm of Watt and
Boulton pecuniarily. Heavy damages and costs were due from the actual
defendants, and the large number of other infringers were also liable
for damages. As was to have been expected, however, the firm remembered
that to be merciful in the hour of victory and not to punish too hard a
fallen foe, was a cardinal virtue. The settlements they made were
considered most liberal and satisfactory to all. Watt used frequently
long afterward to refer to his specifications as his old and well-tried
friends. So indeed they proved, and many references to their wonderful
efficiency were made.
With the beginning of the new century, 1800, the original partnership of
the famous firm of Boulton and Watt expired, after a term of twenty-five
years, as did the patents of 1769 and 1775. The term of partnership had
been fixed with reference to the duration of the patents. Young men in
their prime, Watt at forty and Boulton about fifty when they joined
hands, after a quarter-century of unceasing and anxious labor, were
disposed to resign the cares and troubles of business to their sons. The
partnership therefore was not renewed by them, but their respective
shares in the firm were agreed upon as the basis of a new partnership
between their sons, James Watt, Jr., Matthew Robinson Boulton and
Gregory Watt, all distinguished for abilities of no mean order, and in a
great degree already conversant with the business, which their wise
fathers had seen fit for some years to entrust more and more to them.
In nothing done by either of these two wise fathers is more wisdom shown
than in their sagacious, farseeing policy in regard to their sons. As
they themselves had been taught to concentrate their energies upon
useful occupation, for which society would pay as for value received,
they had doubtless often conferred, and concluded that was the happiest
and best life for their sons, instead of allowing them to fritter away
the precious years of youth in aimless frivolity, to be followed in
later years by a disappointing and humiliating old age.
So the partnership of Boulton and Watt was renewed in the union of the
sons. Gregory Watt's premature death four years later was such a blow to
his father that some think he never was quite himself again. Gregory had
displayed brilliant talents in the higher pursuits of science and
literature, in which he took delight, and great things had been
predicted from him. With the other two sons the business connection
continued without change for forty years, until, when old men, they also
retired like their fathers. They proved to be great managers, for
notwithstanding the cessation of the patents which opened
engine-building free to all, the business of the firm increased and
became much more profitable than it had ever been before; indeed toward
the close of the original partnership, and upon the triumph gained in
the patent suits, the enterprise became so profitable as fully to
satisfy the moderate desire of Watt, and to provide a sure source of
income for his sons. This met all his wishes and removed the fears of
becoming dependent that had so long haunted him.
The continued and increasing success of the Soho works was obviously
owing to the new partners. They had some excellent assistants, but in
the foremost place among all of them stands Murdoch, Watt's able,
faithful and esteemed assistant for many years, who, both
intellectually and in manly independence, was considered to exhibit no
small resemblance to his revered master and friend. Never formally a
partner in Soho (for he declined partnership as we have seen), he was
placed on the footing of a partner by the sons in 1810, without risk,
and received $5,000 per annum. From 1830 he lived in peaceful retirement
and passed away in 1839. His remains were deposited in Handsworth Church
near those of his friends and employers, Watt and Boulton (the one spot
on earth he could have most desired). "A bust by Chantrey serves to
perpetuate the remembrance of his manly and intelligent features, and of
the mind of which these were a pleasing index." We may imagine the
shades of Watt and Boulton, those friends so appropriately laid
together, greeting their friend and employee: "Well done, thou good and
faithful servant!" If ever there was one, Murdoch was the man, and
Captain Jones his fellow.
We have referred to Watt's suggestion of the screw-propeller, and of the
sketch of it sent to Dr. Small, September 30, 1770. The only record of
any earlier suggestion of steam is that of Jonathan Hulls, in 1736, and
which he set forth in a pamphlet entitled "A Description and Draught of
a Newly Invented Machine for carrying vessels or ships out of or into
any Harbour, Port or River, against Wind or Tide or in a Calm"; London,
1737. He described a large barge equipped with a Newcomen engine to be
employed as a tug, fitted with fan (or paddle) wheels, towing a ship
of war, but nothing further appears to have been done. Writing on this
subject, Mr. Williamson says:
During his last visit to Greenock in 1816, Mr. Watt, in company
with his friend, Mr. Walkinshaw--whom the author some years
afterward heard relate the circumstance--made a voyage in a
steamboat as far as Rothsay and back to Greenock--an excursion,
which, in those days, occupied a greater portion of a whole day.
Mr. Watt entered into conversation with the engineer of the
boat, pointing out to him the method of "backing" the engine.
With a footrule he demonstrated to him what was meant. Not
succeeding, however, he at last, under the impulse of the ruling
passion, threw off his overcoat, and, putting his hand to the
engine himself, showed the practical application of his lecture.
Previously to this, the "back-stroke" of the steamboat engine
was either unknown, or not generally known. The practice was to
stop the engine entirely a considerable time before the vessel
reached the point of mooring, in order to allow for the gradual
and natural diminution of her speed.
The naval review at Spithead, upon the close of the Crimean war in 1856,
was the greatest up to that time. Ten vessels out of two hundred and
fifty still had not steam power, but almost all the others were
propelled by the screw--the spiral oar of Watt's letter of 1770--a
red-letter day for the inventor.
Watt's early interest in locomotive steam-carriages, dating from
Robison's having thrown out the idea to him, was never lost. On August
12, 1768, Dr. Small writes Watt, referring to the "peculiar improvements
in them" the latter had made previous to that date. Seven months later
he apprises Watt that "a patent for moving wheel-carriages by steam has
been taken out by one Moore," adding "this comes of thy delays; do come
to England with all possible speed." Watt replied "If linen-draper Moore
does not use my engine to drive his chaises he can't drive them by
steam." Here Watt hit the nail on the head; as with the steamship, so
with the locomotive, his steam-engine was the indispensable power. In
1786 he states that he has a carriage model of some size in hand "and am
resolved to try if God will work a miracle in favor of these carriages."
Watt's doubt was based on the fact that they would take twenty pounds of
coal and two cubic feet of water per horse-power on the common roads.
Another of Watt's recreations in his days of semi-retirement was the
improvement of lamps. He wrote the famous inventor of the Argand burner
fully upon the subject in August, 1787, and constructed some lamps which
proved great successes.
The following year he invented an instrument for determining the
specific gravities of liquids, which was generally adopted.
One of Watt's inventions was a new method of readily measuring distances
by telescope, which he used in making his various surveys for canals.
Such instruments are in general use to-day. Brough's treatise on
"Mining" (10th ed., p. 228) gives a very complete account of them, and
states that "the original instrument of this class is that invented by
James Watt in 1771."
In his leisure hours, Watt invented an ingenious machine for drawing in
perspective, using the double parallel ruler, then very little known and
not at all used as far as Watt knew. Watt reports having made from fifty
to eighty of these machines, which went to various parts of the world.
In 1810 Watt informs Berthollet that for several years he had felt
unable, owing to the state of his health, to make chemical experiments.
But idle he could not be; he must be at work upon something. As he often
said, "without a hobby-horse, what is life?" So the saying is reported,
but we may conclude that the "horse" is here an interpolation, for the
difference between "a horse" and "a hobby" is radical--a man can get off
a horse.
Watt's next "hobby" fortunately became an engrossing occupation and kept
him alert. This was a machine for copying sculpture. A machine he had
seen in Paris for tracing and multiplying the dies of medals, suggested
the other. After much labor and many experiments he did get some measure
of success, and made a large head of Locke in yellow wood, and a small
head of his friend Adam Smith.
Long did Watt toil at the new hobby in the garret where it had been
created, but the garret proved too hot in summer and too cold in
winter. March 14, 1810, he writes Berthollet and Leveque:
I still do a little in mechanics: a part of which, if I live to
complete it, I shall have the honor of communicating to my
friends in France.
He went steadily forward and succeeded in making some fine copies in
1814. For one of Sappho he gives dates and the hours required for
various parts, making a total of thirty-nine. Some censorious
Sabbatarians discovered that the day he was employed one hour "doing her
breast with 1/8th drill" was Sabbath, which in one who belonged to a
strict Scottish Covenanter family, betokened a sad fall from grace. When
we consider that his health was then precarious, that he was debarred
from chemical experiments, and depended solely upon mechanical subjects;
that in all probability it was a stormy day (Sunday, February 3, 1811),
knowing also that "Satan finds mischief still for idle hands to do," we
hope our readers will pardon him for yielding to the irresistible
temptation, even if on the holy Sabbath day for once he could not "get
off" his captivating hobby.
The historical last workshop of the great worker with all its contents
remains open to the public to-day just as it was when he passed away.
Pilgrims from many lands visit it, as Shakespeare's birthplace, Burns'
cottage, and Scott's Abbottsford attract their many thousands yearly. We
recommend our readers to add to these this garret of Watt in their
pilgrimages.
[1] Sinclair's "Development of the Locomotive" tends to deprive
Stephenson of some part of his fame as inventor. Much importance is
attached to Hedley's "Puffing Billy," 1813, which is pronounced to have
been a commercial success. Sinclair, however, credits Stephenson with
doing most of all men to introduce the Locomotive. As the final verdict
may admit Hedley and cannot expel Stephenson from the temple of fame, we
pass the sentence as written, leaving to future disputants to adjust
rival claims.