38 Rejoinder to Mr, Quinby on Crank Motron. 
Having already taken up more room than the subject 
demands, I will conclude with merely noticing Mr. Quinby’s 
last paragraph. ‘This, setting aside what is personal and in 
the form of a challenge, appears a curious attempt to pass 
off a light proposition, by covering it with two of full weight 
and current value» He says ‘‘ can the writer of the article 
in the North American Review invent a right angled [why 
‘right angled ?] plane’ ier igh whose three angles shall not be 
equal to two rightangles? Can he invent a steam-engine that 
shall be able to impart to the appending machinery more 
power than is applied ? ? It is now established that all double 
stroke engines do impart to the appending machinery all the 
power that is applied, and consequently a saving of power can 
= -be effected by the invention “of'a machine that. shall 
more power than is applied to it; and this, in the 
indecent of the writer of this rely, is not possible.” I 
Mr, ‘Quinby withes to establish <i it, namely that because 
in every triangle the sum of the three angles is equal to two 
right angles; and because no machine can impart more 
power than.is applied ; and sachs “the crank occasions no 
-~ 
cannot hie any one should suppose himself so well acquainted 
not bot ony mt with: mint the whole host ot pro; pers oo“ supposed, but with 
they have not su , as to make. so an assertion. So 
z: sf information is to be obtained f from the speckhbadiens of the patents 
— of this kind, it is very clear that a desire to get rid of the 
rtie of the working beam, and- the constant variation of the 
aaieaaieed advantage, which a foree acti ng through a crank necessa- 
= has; and likewise to make a more cimaple engine, have had great 
influence with the projectors. of rotary engines. But it is enough to 
the inacuracy of Mr. i he 
desiesiomten of the crank to the 
