Magazine  of  the  School  of  Agriculture. 
51 
in  an  absolutely  straight  line,  its  motion  approxi- 
mates to  one  so  closely  that  it  has  never  needed 
to  be  improved.  Indeed,  it  is  worthy  of  note, 
that  a mathematically  exact  solution  of  the 
problem  of  drawing  a straight  line  by  mechanical 
means  was  not  obtaiued  till  so  lately  as  I860, 
and  then  it  required  seven  links,  whereas  Watt’s 
has  only  four.  Again,  the  eccentric  and  slide 
valve  are  used  to-day  as  Watt  used  them,  and 
the  condensing  process  with  its  appliances  is 
also  in  use  in  the  form  he  gave  them.  In  short, 
the  Steam  Engine,  as  Watt  invented  it,  went  at 
once  into  universal  use,  and  will  ever  remain  as 
one  of  the  grandest  and  most  successful  efforts 
of  human  genius  under  the  inspiration  of  science. 
The  steam  engine  is  especially  an  example  of 
resource  and  technical  knowledge,  that  is  of 
the  application  to  useful  purpose  of  scientific 
principles  ; and  therefore  affords  one  of  the  most 
instructive  illustrations  of  invention  the  tech- 
nical learner  who  is  desirous  to  learn  the  secret 
of  success  can  study. 
Before  passing  on  to  further  illustrations,  it 
will  be  useful  to  point  out  a common  character- 
istic of  the  two  inventions  that  have  been  briefly 
sketched.  Few  are  the  inventions  which  are 
brought  forth  at  their  birth,  as  were  these  two, 
in  a state  of  maturity.  By  fur  the  greater  num- 
ber pass  through  many  successive  stages,  and 
owe  their  maturity  to  many  authors.  Of  the 
few  that  were  matured  at  the  outset,  or,  as  the 
surgeons  would  say,  by  the  first  intention  nearly 
ail  are  simple,  as  the  vacuum  pan  for  sugar  boil- 
ing, or  the  hot  blast  for  smelting.  Instances 
like  those  of  Newton  and  Watt,  which  involve 
vast  research,  and  require  boundless  technical 
resource,  are  rare  indeed  and  should  be  distin- 
guished as  the  greatest  triumphs  of  technics. 
The  next  illustration  is  rather  of  an  introduc- 
tory nature,  and,  in  fact,  not  so  much  to  an 
invention  as  to  the  thoroughness  of  the  prelimin- 
ary measures  that  were  taken  for  one  in  prospect. 
The  gentleman  who  was  induced  to  investigate 
the  subject  of  small  arms,  with  a view  to  ascer- 
tain the  true  principle  of  constructing  them,  com- 
menced his  work  by  indenting  on  the  patent 
office  for  specifications  of  all  the  patent  that  had 
been  taken  out  in  connexion  with  gunnery  for 
150  years!  He  was  determined  to  know  all  that 
his  predecessors  had  done  or  tried  to  do.  This 
vast  pile  wras  consigned  to  his  assistant,  to  be 
analysed  and  condensed  into  a formal  prdcis. 
This  work,  which  occupied  a quire  or  two  of 
doable  elephant  drawing  paper,  to  make  room 
for  the  numerous  columns  representing  separate 
parts  of  a gun,  was  a formidable  undertaking. 
In  due  time,  the  work  disclosed  many  points  of 
interest  in  the  history  of  gunmaking,  and  it  will 
bo  worth  our  while  to  consider  two  of  these 
points,  for  their  bearing  on  our  subject. 
James  Puckle,  it  appears,  obtained  a patent 
in  1718  for  an  excellent  design  for  a revolver. 
The  principle  was  intended  to  apply  to  small 
arms  as  well  as  to  pistols.  Now,  seeing  that  in 
1854,  when  that  prdcis  was  made,  the  modern 
revolver  was  of  quite  recent  date,  the  question 
arises  as  to  the  cause  of  more  than  a century’s 
delay  in  the  production  of  the  invention.  The 
answer  is  simple.  Mr.  Puckle  was  before  his 
time.  His  invention  could  not  be  carried  out 
with  accuracy  with  the  appliances  then  in  use. 
He  lacked  the  technical  knowledge  of  existing 
means  of  construction.  Here  is  a lesson  to  tech- 
nical students,  showing  that  a vital  element  of 
the  success  of  an  inventor  is  an  intimate  and 
practical  knowledge  of  the  constructive  capa- 
bilities of  the  tools  and  appliances  practically 
and  thoroughly.  For  want  of  this  knowledge 
Puckle  failed. 
The  other  point  suggested  by  the  precis  is  very 
curious.  It  refers  to  at  least  three  or  probably 
more  patents  that  were  obtained,  at  considerable 
intervals  of  time,  for  the  same  idea,  which  had 
evidently  captivated  in  turn  several  minds  in- 
dependently one  of  another.  The  idea  was  to  let 
air  into  the  breach  simultaneously  with  the  igni- 
tion of  the  charge.  Presumably,  the  idea  was 
to  strengthen  the  combustion.  It  does  not  appear 
to  have"  occurred  to  the  inventors  that  in  letting 
air  in  they  would  let  the  explosion  out.  _ Even, 
however,  if  any  one  of  them  had  contrived  to 
introduce  air,  without  opening  the  breach,  the 
failure  would  have  been  equal.  I cite  this 
remarkable  example  to  warn  students  against 
applying  or  attempting  to  apply  scientific  prin- 
ciples,  without  a thorough  knowledge  of  them 
and  therefore  without  perceiving  their  appli- 
cability or  otherwise  to  a given  purpose.  The  men 
who  patented  this  strange  invention  must  have 
been  very  much  in  earnest,  for  the  cost  of  the 
great  seal  alone  was  £120,  in  those  days,  beside 
other  fees.  They  were  right  in  their  idea  that 
oxygen  stimulates  combustion,  but  they  were 
utterly  wanting  in  the  technical  knowledge  of 
the  conditions  to  which  they  proposed  to  apply 
that  idea.  Hence  their  utter  failure. 
Turning  now  to  the  particular  invention  for 
which  that  precis  was  wanted,  the  construction 
of  small  arms,  the  subject  was  then  engaging 
much  attention.  The  Minie  rifle  had  caused  much 
sensation.  Notwithstanding  the  high  standard 
that  had  been  attained  in  the  construction  of 
guns,  however,  there  were  no  means  of  ensuring 
their  all  shooting  alike.  I11  those  of  the  best 
makers  there  were  unaccountable  irregularities. 
A number  of  the  btst  gunmakers  were  examined 
by  a committee  of  inquiry,  but  without  arriving 
at  any  satisfactory  result.  Lord  Hardinge  there- 
fore induced  Mr.  Whitworth  to  undertake  au 
investigation,  by  means  of  his  known  applicances 
for  accuracy  of  work.  The  prdcis,  just  mentioned, 
was  his  first  preliminary,  and  while  it  was  in  pro- 
gress he  visited  the  Enfield  gun  factory,  to  learn 
all  that  it  could  teach  The  Enfield  gun  was  an 
excellent  weapon,  and  it  w7as  made  in  great  per- 
fection. and  with  the  utmost  secrecy,  at  that 
Government  factory.  Mr.  Whitworth  was,  of 
course,  to  be  informed  on  every  point  he  might 
inquire  into.  He  and  his  assistant  first  visited 
the  forge,  where  the  barrels  were  made  in  the 
rough.  Holding  one  of  these  rough  pipes  in  his 
hand,  Mr.  Whitworth  remarked  aside  to  his  assis- 
tant, that  its  imperfections  could  never  be 
entirely  eradicated,  but  would  cling  to  it,  in  some 
degree,  to  the  end,  and  he  said  : “ To  end  right, 
one  should  begin  right.”  A.  ‘'Then  you  would 
begin  with  a solid  bar.”  W.  “Yer.”  A.  “And 
how  would  you  insure  truth  in  boring?”  W. 
“ What  should  hinder  ? ” A.  “ Any  irregulurity  in 
the  texture  of  the  metal.”  W.  “ True,  but,  I would 
employ  homogeneous  metal  and  anneal  it  per- 
I fectly.”  The  walk  through  the  factory  suggested 
