The article, inspired no doubt by Sir William, then goes on to give elaborate reasons for the success of the device, but all these are met by the damning fact that the machine never worked. Some time afterwards Sir William, at considerable expense, published a pamphlet in which he explained and defended his views. If he had only had a working model made and the thing had continued in motion for a few hours, he would have silenced all objectors far more quickly and forcibly than he ever could have done by any amount of argument. And in his case there could have been no excuse for his not making a small machine after the plans that he published and even patented. He was wealthy and could have commanded the services of the best mechanics in London, but no working model was ever made. Many inventors of perpetual-motion machines offer their poverty as an excuse for not making a model or working machine. Thus Dircks, in his "Perpetuum Mobile" gives an account of "a mechanic, a model maker, who had a neat brass model of a time-piece, in which were two steel balls A and B;--B to fall into a semicircular gallery C, and be carried to the end D of a straight trough DE; while A in its turn rolls to E, and so on continuously; only the gallery C not being screwed in its place, we are desired to take the will for the deed, until twenty shillings be raised to complete this part of the work!" And Mr. Dircks also quotes from the "Builder" of June, 1847: "This vain delusion, if not still in force, is at least as standing a fallacy as ever. Joseph Hutt, a frame-work knitter, in the neighborhood of the enlightened town of Hinckley, professes to have discovered it [perpetual motion] and only wants twenty pounds, as usual, to set it agoing." The following rather curious arrangement was described in "The Mechanic's Magazine" for 1825. "I beg leave to offer the prefixed device. The point at which, like all the rest, it fails, I confess I did not (as I do now) plainly perceive at once, although it is certainly very obvious. The original idea was this--to enable a body which would float in a heavy medium and sink in a lighter one, to pass successively through the one to the other, the continuation of which would be the end in view. To say that valves cannot be made to act as proposed will not be to show the _rationale_ (if I may so say) upon which the idea is fallacious." The figure is supposed to be tubular, and made of glass, for the purpose of seeing the action of the balls inside, which float or fall as they travel from air through water and from water through air. The foot is supposed to be placed in water, but it would answer the same purpose if the bottom were closed.