But, secondly, though there were so great a disproportion, yet,
notwithstanding, the force of these outward streams might well
enough serve for the turning of the screw, if it were so that
both its sides would equiponderate the water being in them (as
Ubaldus had affirmed). But now, upon farther examination, we
shall find this assertion of his to be utterly against both
reason and experience. And herein does consist the chief mistake
of this contrivance; for the ascending side of the screw is made,
by the water contained in it, so much heavier than the descending
side, that these outward streams, thus applied, will not be of
force enough to make them equiponderate, much less to move the
whole, as may be more easily discerned by this figure:
Where A B represents a screw covered over, C D E one helix or
revolution of it, C D the ascending side, E D the descending
side, the point D the middle; the horizontal line C F showing how
much of the helix is filled with water, viz., of the ascending
side, from C the beginning of the helix, to D the middle of it;
and on the descending side, from D the middle, to the point G,
where the horizontal does cut the helix. Now, it is evident that
this latter part, D G, is nothing near so much, and consequently
not so heavy as the other, D C; and thus is it in all the other
revolutions, which, as they are either more or larger, so will
the difficulty of this motion be increased. Whence it will appear
that the outward streams which descend must be of so much force
as to countervail all that weight whereby the ascending side in
every one of these revolutions does exceed the other. And though
this may be effected by making the water-wheels larger, yet then
the motion will be so slow that the screw will not be able to
supply the outward streams.
[Illustration]
There is another contrivance to this purpose, mentioned by
Kircher de Magnete, 1, 2, p. 4, depending upon the heat of the
sun and the force of winds; but it is liable to such abundance of
exceptions that it is scarce worth the mentioning, and does by no
means deserve the confidence of any ingenious artist.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account