Before explaining the means by which the carry of the tens was effected in the Felt machine without interfering with multiple-order prime actuation, it will perhaps help the reader to recapitulate on what the Art already offered. Going back to the Art, prior to Felt’s invention, there are a few facts worth reconsidering that point to the broadly new contributions presented in the Felt invention, and combining these facts with a little theory may perhaps give a clearer understanding of what was put into practice. In most lines of mechanical engineering in the past, the term “theory” connected with mechanical construction was a bugaboo. But the solution of the modern calculating machine was wholly dependent upon it. Let us summarize on the Art, prior to Felt’s invention. A calculating machine that would calculate, if we eliminate the key-driven feature, was old. The key-driven feature applied to adding mechanism was old as adapted to a single-order machine with a capacity for adding only a single column of digits. [Sidenote: _Why Hill failed to produce an operative machine_] Hill attempted to make a multiple order key-driven machine, but failed because he did not theorize on the necessities involved in the physical laws of mechanics. Hill saw only the columnar arrangement of the ordinal division of the keyboard, and his thought did not pass beyond such relation of the keys for conveyance. There is no desire to belittle this feature, but it did not solve the problem that was set forth in the specification and claims of his patent; neither did it solve it for anyone else who wished to undertake the making of such a machine. [Sidenote: _Idiosyncrasies of force and motion increased by use of keys_] The introduction of keys as a driving feature in the calculating machine Art demanded design and construction suitable to control the new idiosyncrasies of force and motion injected into the Art by their use, of which the elements of inertia and momentum were the most troublesome. [Sidenote: _Light construction a feature_] Hill, in the design and construction of his machine, ignored these two elementary features of mechanics and paid the penalty by defeat. The tremendous speed transmitted to the parts of a key-driven machine, which has already been illustrated, required that lightness in construction which is absolutely necessary to reduce inertia to a minimum, should be observed. The Hill machine design is absolutely lacking in such thought. The diameter of the numeral wheel and its heavy construction alone show this. Lightness of construction also enters into the control of momentum when the mechanism must suddenly be brought to a dead stop in its lightning-speed action. A heavily-constructed numeral wheel like that shown in the Hill patent would be as hard to check as it would to start, even if Hill had provided means for checking it.