Some things, however, make me doubt if this observation has ever been made. At the London Exhibition of 1862 this governor attracted much attention from its novel appearance, rapid rotation and remarkable action. Many engineers spoke to me about it. In their conversation I observed two things: first, no one ever asked me a question, but every one explained its action to me; and second, while each had an explanation of his own to make, they all agreed in a fundamental respect. Their minds ran in the same groove. They considered the governor only in its theoretical action. No one ever took notice of the incident of friction, which was the controlling factor. An improved governor was in their view one contrived in some way to free the governor from the limitation to its action, which is imposed by the law of the conical pendulum, and every one explained to me how my governor was adapted to do this. The following illustrates this universal view among English engineers: In the Appendix to the 10th edition of Rankine’s “Manual of the Steam-engine and other Prime Movers,” published in 1882, one reads as follows: “ISOCHRONOUS GOVERNORS. The ordinary governor is not isochronous; for when, in order to adapt the opening of the regulating-valve to different loads, it rotates with its revolving pendulums at different angles to the vertical axis, the _altitude_ of the cone assumes different values, corresponding to different speeds. _The following are expedients for diminishing or removing this defect._ 1. _Loaded Governor_ (Porter’s).--From the balls of the common governor, whose collective weight is (say) _A_, let there be hung by a pair of links of lengths equal to the pendulum arms, a load, _B_, capable of sliding up and down the spindle, and having its center of gravity on the axis of rotation. Then the centrifugal force is that due to _A_ alone, and the effect of gravity that due to _A_ + 2_B_; consequently the altitude for a given speed is increased in the ratio _A_ + 2_B_ : _A_, as compared with that of a simple revolving pendulum; and a given absolute variation of altitude in moving the regulating-valve produces a smaller proportionate variation of speed than in the common governor.” That is the whole of it. Respecting this I have to say: 1st. The vertical motion of the counterpoise (variation of altitude), if the links had also a single joint at the bottom, could not be either more or less than twice that of the balls, which equal lengths of the arms and links give also in the common governor, so in this respect the governor is no improvement. 2d. No notice is taken of the small size of the balls or of the speed of rotation. 3d. Professor Rankine is not responsible for this absurd piece of reasoning. 4th. It only shows how far the English engineering mind has been from considering the subject of hindrance to the governor action from friction.