52 



A//r ilinl l^rtti I's (>/ I- iiiiiris (•'(il/ioi 



H\\e pitSNtiig nil-oss r nllows tlip ivliitivc pilcliiliK ami t4msiiig of the two voxkcIs. Tills axlo is 

 ciJiiiuvt«ti !)>• H Hooke's joint which iiIIowk exactly tho siimc iiiovciiiciit.s of rolliii;; (inclusive of 

 h«aviiij{) luu) yaNs inj; t4i T that tho fii-st-incnliontHl joint did to W. And lastly the two Hooke's 

 joints are conn«vt«<d l)y a sliding ari-HMgi'inent, which |>erniit8 the vessels to approach or separate 

 from one another within the range of the slide." 



"In the case I am al«mt to consider, 1 will suppose the thi-w motions consisting of (1) the 

 relative pitching of the two vessels, (2) the rolling of V and (3) the yawing of V to lie trans- 

 ferred to a 'wave engine' on T, and the other thrt-e motions consisting of (1) the rt^lative 

 aeparation (or approach) of the two vessels, (2) the rolling of 11' and (3) the yawing of W to lie 

 transferred to the 'wave engine' on II'." 



The bulk of Galton's paper is then concerned with the mechanical 

 arrangements by which every phase of the relative motion of the parts of 

 the " link " can be applied to proflucing rotatory motion on V and W. 

 Such mechanical arrangements constitute the "wave engine." To describe 

 them woidd take us beyond our proper limits, but they exhibit all Galton's 

 ingenuity from the mechanical side. I do not know whether any one had 

 considered previously the possibility of using the relative tossing and pitch- 

 ing of two hulks as a source of power. 



^ 



Part of the drawings for Galton'.s "wave machine." 



Galton consulted three friends about his "wave machine" — Mr C. W. 

 Merrifield, the Rev. H. W. Watson the mathematician, and Mr George 

 Darwin. Merrifield considered the matter at considerable length with regard 

 to the horse-power available, the actual mass in motion and the friction. 

 He sums up as follows: 



"My theoretical conclusion is therefore against the machine being of practical utility, hy 

 reMon of its prol)able erticiency not being adequate to its cost and its inconvenience. I consider, 

 however, that lx>th the idea and the machinery are ingenious in a very high degree; and I 

 should l>e sorry if you allowed one adverse opinion (coming from myself) to discourage you 

 frr>m trial." 



