246 Lite7^ary and Philosophical Society. 



character. He has laid out a property of 50,000/. on 

 building and machinery alone. His partner (the youn^ 

 gentleman I speak of) is named Ewart, the younger 

 brother of Mr. Ewart, the late Envoy at Berlin. It is men 

 such as these that are reduced to such extremities.' 



The paper of Mr. Ewart on moving force attracted a 

 good deal of attention, and Dr. James Bottomley has been 

 good enough to give a full account of it, and it may be 

 succeeded by the discussion of the same subject, written at 

 a previous period, by Eaton Hodgkinson, F.R.S. ; and first 

 the compendium and remarks by Dr. Bottomley. 



On the Measure of Moving Force, By Peter Ewart. 

 Vol. IL {2nd series)^ p. 105. Account by Dr. James 

 Bottomley. 



In this paper Ewart notices the views of both the 

 schools of Natural Philosophers — namely, those who took 

 as the measure of moving force the mass x velocity, and 

 those who took as the measure the mass x square of 

 velocity. He compares the statements of Hooke, Huygens, 

 Newton, John Bernouilli, Leibnitz, and he also adds the 

 opinions and experiments of Dr. Wollaston and Smeaton 

 the engineer, for whom such questions had a practical impor- 

 tance. Smeaton's experiments showed great want of 

 agreement between the prevalent theory and practical 

 results, nevertheless the mechanical principles of force 

 continue to be treated nearly as before. Attwood also 

 agrees with Smeaton, that the momentum is not as the 

 quantity of matter into the velocity. Attention is called 

 to the non-applicability of this measure of force in the case 



