or RESISTING Force, in Philosophy, denotes, in general, any power which acts in an opposite direction to another, so as to destroy or diminish its effect. See MECHANICS, HYDRODYNAMICS, and PNEUMATICS.

Of all the resistances of bodies to each, there is undoubtedly none of greater importance than the resistance of the fluidity or reaction of fluids. It is here that we must look for a theory of naval architecture, for the impulse of the air is our moving power, and this must be modified so as to produce every motion we want by the form and disposition of our sails; and it is the resistance of the water which must be overcome, that the ship may proceed in her course; and this must also be modified to our purpose, that the ship may not drive like a log to leeward, but on the contrary may ply to windward, that she may answer her helm briskly, and that she may be easy in all her motions on the surface of the troubled ocean. The impulse of wind and water makes them ready and indefatigable servants in a thousand shapes for driving our machines; and we should lose much of their service did we remain ignorant of the laws of their action: they would sometimes become terrible masters, if we did not fall upon methods of eluding or softening their attacks.

We cannot refuse the ancients a considerable knowledge of this subject. It was equally interesting to them as to us; and we cannot read the accounts of the naval exertions of Phoenicia, Carthage, and of Rome, exertions which have not been surpassed by any thing of modern date, without believing that they possessed much practical and experimental knowledge of this subject. It was not, perhaps, possessed by them in a strict and systematic form, as it is now taught by our mathematicians; but the master-builders, in their dockyards, did undoubtedly exercise their genius in comparing the forms of their finest ships, and in marking those circumstances of form and dimension which were in fact accompanied with the desirable properties of a ship, and thus framing to themselves maxims of naval architecture in the same manner as we do now. For we believe that our naval architects are not disposed to grant grant that they have profited much by all the labours of the mathematicians. But the ancients had not made any great progress in the physical mathematical sciences, which consist chiefly in the application of calculus to the phenomena of nature. In this branch they could make none, because they had not the means of investigation. A knowledge of the motions and actions of fluids is accessible only to those who are familiarly acquainted with the fluxionary mathematics; and without this key there is no admittance. Even when perplexed by this guide, our progress has been very slow, hesitating, and devious; and we have not yet been able to establish any set of doctrines which are susceptible of an easy and confident application to the arts of life. If we have advanced farther than the ancients, it is because we have come after them, and have profited by their labours, and even by their mistakes.

Sir Isaac Newton was the first (as far as we can recollect) who attempted to make the motions and actions of fluids the subject of mathematical discussion. He had invented the method of fluxions long before he engaged in his physical researches; and he proceeded in these fluid mathematical faceta praefere. Yet even with this guide he was often obliged to grope his way, and to try various bye-paths, in the hopes of obtaining a legitimate theory. Having exerted all his powers in establishing a theory of the lunar motions, he was obliged to rest contented with an approximation instead of a perfect solution of the problem which contains the motions of three bodies mutually acting on each other. This convinced him that it was in vain to expect an accurate investigation of the motions and actions of fluids, where millions of unseen particles combine their influence. He therefore cast about to find some particular case of the problem which would admit of an accurate determination, and at the same time furnish circumstances of analogy or resemblance sufficiently numerous for giving limiting cases, which should include between them those other cases that did not admit of this accurate investigation. And thus, by knowing the limit to which the case proposed did approximate, and the circumstance which regulated the approximation, many useful propositions might be deduced for directing us in the application of these doctrines to the arts of life.

He therefore figured to himself a hypothetical collection of matter which possessed the characteristic property of fluidity, viz. the quidquaverum propagation of pressure, and the most perfect intermixture (pardon the uncouth term) of parts, and which formed a physical whole or aggregate, whose parts were connected by mechanical forces, determined both in degree and in direction, and such as rendered the determination of certain important circumstances of their motion susceptible of precise investigation. And he concluded, that the laws which he should discover in these motions must have a great analogy with the laws of the motions of real fluids: And from this hypothesis he deduced a series of propositions, which form the basis of almost all the theories of the impulse and resistance of fluids which have been offered to the public since his time.

It must be acknowledged, that the results of this theory agree but ill with experiment, and that, in the way in which it has been zealously prosecuted by subsequent mathematicians, it proceeds on principles or assumptions which are not only gratuitous, but even false. But it affords such a beautiful application of geometry and calculus, that mathematicians have been as it were fascinated by it, and have published systems so elegant and so extensively applicable, that one cannot help lamenting that the foundation is so flimsy. John Bernoulli's theory, in his dissertation on the communication of motion, and Bouguer's in his Traité du Navire, and in his Théorie du Manœuvre et de la Mâture des Vaïf-jeaux, must ever be considered as among the finest specimens of physical mathematical science which the world has seen. And, with all its imperfections, this theory still furnishes (as was expected by its illustrious author) it is still many propositions of immense practical use, they being very confining the limits to which the real phenomena of the impulse and resistance of fluids really approximate. So that when the law by which the phenomena deviate from the theory is once determined by a well chosen series of experiments, this hypothetical theory becomes almost as valuable as a true one. And we may add, that although Mr d'Alembert, by treading warily in the steps of Sir Isaac Newton in another route, has discovered a genuine and unexceptionable theory, the process of investigation is so intricate, requiring every fineness of the most arbitrary analysis, and the final equations are so complicated, that even their most expert author has not been able to deduce more than one simple proposition (which too was discovered by Daniel Bernoulli by a more simple process) which can be applied to any use. The hypothetical theory of Newton, therefore, continues to be the groundwork of all our practical knowledge of the subject.

We shall therefore lay before our readers a very short view of the theory, and the manner of applying it. We shall then show its defects (all of which were pointed out by its great author), and give a historical account of the many attempts which have been made to amend it or to substitute another: in all which we think it our duty to show, that Sir Isaac Newton took the lead, and pointed out every path which others have taken, if we except Daniel Bernoulli and d'Alembert; and we shall give an account of the chief sets of experiments which have been made on this important subject, in the hopes of establishing an empirical theory, which may be employed with confidence in the arts of life.

We know by experience that force must be applied to a body in order that it may move through a fluid, resistance, such as air or water; and that a body projected with any velocity is gradually retarded in its motion, and generally brought to rest. The analogy of nature makes us imagine that there is a force acting in the opposite direction, or opposing the motion, and that this force resides in, or is exerted by, the fluid. And the phenomena resemble those which accompany the known resistance of active beings, such as animals. Therefore we give to this supposed force the metaphorical name of Resistance. We also know that a fluid in motion will hurry a solid body along with the stream, and that it requires force to maintain it in its place. A similar analogy makes us suppose that the fluid exerts force, in the same manner as when an active being impels the body before him; therefore we call this the Impulsion of a Fluid. And as our knowledge of nature... Resistence informs us that the mutual actions of bodies are in every case equal and opposite, and that the observed change of motion is the only indication, characteristic, and measure, of the changing force, the forces are the same (whether we call them impulsions or resistances) when the relative motions are the same, and therefore depend entirely on these relative motions. The force, therefore, which is necessary for keeping a body immoveable in a stream of water, flowing with a certain velocity, is the same with what is required for moving this body with this velocity through stagnant water. To any one who admits the motion of the earth round the sun, it is evident that we can neither observe nor reason from a case of a body moving through still water, nor of a stream of water pressing upon or impelling a quiescent body.

A body in motion appears to be resisted by a stagnant fluid, because it is a law of mechanical nature that force must be employed in order to put any body in motion. Now the body cannot move forward without putting the contiguous fluid in motion, and force must be employed for producing this motion. In like manner, a quiescent body is impelled by a stream of fluid, because the motion of the contiguous fluid is diminished by this solid obstacle; the resistance, therefore, or impulse, no way differs from the ordinary communications of motion among solid bodies.

Sir Isaac Newton, therefore, begins his theory of the resistance and impulse of fluids, by selecting a case where, although he cannot pretend to ascertain the motions themselves which are produced in the particles of a contiguous fluid, he can tell precisely their mutual ratios.

He supposes two systems of bodies such, that each body of the first is similar to a corresponding body of the second, and that each is to each in a constant ratio. He also supposes them to be similarly situated, that is, at the angles of similar figures, and that the homologous lines of these figures are in the same ratio with the diameters of the bodies. He farther supposes, that they attract or repel each other in similar directions, and that the accelerating connecting forces are also proportional; that is, the forces in the one system are to the corresponding forces in the other system in a constant ratio, and that, in each system taken apart, the forces are as the squares of the velocities directly, and as the diameters of the corresponding bodies, or their distances, inversely.

This being the case, it legitimately follows, that if similar parts of the two systems are put into similar motions, in any given instant, they will continue to move similarly, each correspondent body describing similar curves, with proportional velocities: For the bodies being similarly situated, the forces which act on a body in one system, arising from the combination of any number of adjoining particles, will have the same direction with the force acting on the corresponding body in the other system, arising from the combined action of the similar and similarly directed forces of the adjoining correspondent bodies of the other system; and these compound forces will have the same ratio with the simple forces which constitute them, and will be as the squares of the velocities directly, and as the distances, or any homologous lines inversely; and therefore the chords of curvature, having the direction of the centripetal or resistance, centrifugal forces, and similarly inclined to the tangents of the curves described by the corresponding bodies, will have the same ratio with the distances of the particles. The curves described by the corresponding bodies will therefore be similar, the velocities will be proportional, and the bodies will be similarly situated at the end of the first moment, and exposed to the action of similar and similarly situated centripetal or centrifugal forces; and this will again produce similar motions during the next moment, and so on forever. All this is evident to any person acquainted with the elementary doctrines of curvilinear motions, as delivered in the theory of physical astronomy.

From this fundamental proposition, it clearly follows, consequently, that if two similar bodies, having their homologous lines in proportion to those of the two systems, be similarly situated projected among the bodies of those two systems with any from it velocities, they will produce similar motions in the two systems, and will themselves continue to move similarly; and therefore will, in every subsequent moment, suffer similar diminutions or retardations. If the initial velocities of projection be the same, but the densities of the two systems, that is, the quantities of matter contained in an equal bulk or extent, be different, it is evident that the quantities of motion produced in the two systems in the same time will be proportional to the densities; and if the densities are the same, and uniform in each system, the quantities of motion produced will be as the squares of the velocities, because the motion communicated to each corresponding body will be proportional to the velocity communicated, that is, to the velocity of the impelling body; and the number of similarly situated particles which will be agitated will also be proportional to this velocity. Therefore, the whole quantities of motion produced in the same moment of time will be proportional to the squares of the velocities. And lastly, if the densities of the two systems are uniform, or the same through the whole extent of the systems, the number of particles impelled by similar bodies will be as the surfaces of these bodies.

Now the diminutions of the motions of the projected bodies are (by Newton's third law of motion) equal to the motions produced in the systems; and these diminutions are the measures of what are called the resistances opposed to the motions of the projected bodies. Therefore, combining all these circumstances, the resistances are proportional to the similar surfaces of the moving bodies, to the densities of the systems through which the motions are performed, and to the squares of the velocities, jointly.

We cannot form to ourselves any distinct notion of a fluid fluid, otherwise than as a system of small bodies, or a considered collection of particles, similarly or symmetrically arranged, the centres of each being situated in the angles of small regular solids. We must form this notion of it, whether fairly arranged, with the vulgar, that the particles are little ranged, globules in mutual contact, or, with the partisans of corpuscular attractions and repulsions, we suppose the particles kept at a distance from each other by means of these attractions and repulsions mutually balancing each other. In this last case, no other arrangement is consistent with a quiescent equilibrium; and in this case, it is evident, from the theory of curvilinear motions, that the agitations... First law of Prop. I. The resistances, and (by the third law of motion), the impulsions of fluids on similar bodies, are proportional to the surfaces of the solid bodies, to the densities of the fluids, and to the squares of the velocities, jointly.

We must now observe, that when we suppose the particles of the fluid to be in mutual contact, we may either suppose them elastic or inelastic. The motion communicated to the collection of elastic particles must be double of what the same body, moving in the same manner, would communicate to the particles of an elastic fluid. The impulse and resistance of elastic fluids must therefore be double of those of inelastic fluids.—But we must caution our readers not to judge of the elasticity of fluids by their sensible compressibility. A diamond is incomparably more elastic than the finest foot ball, though not compressible in any sensible degree.—It remains to be decided, by well chosen experiments, whether water be not as elastic as air. If we suppose, with Bozovich, the particles of perfect fluids to be at a distance from each other, we shall find it difficult to conceive a fluid void of elasticity. We hope that the theory of their inelastic and resistance will suggest experiments which will decide this question, by pointing out what ought to be the absolute impulse or resistance in either case. And thus the fundamental proposition of the impulse and resistance of fluids, taken in its proper meaning, is susceptible of a rigid demonstration, relative to the only distinct notion that we can form of the internal constitution of a fluid. We say, taken in its proper meaning; namely, that the impulse or resistance of fluids is a pressure, opposed and measured by another pressure, such as a pound weight, the force of a spring, the pressure of the atmosphere, and the like. And we apprehend that it would be very difficult to find any legitimate demonstration of this leading proposition different from this, which we have now borrowed from Sir Isaac Newton, Prop. 23. B. II. Princip.

We acknowledge that it is prolix and even circuitous: but in all the attempts made by his commentators and their copyists to simplify it, we see great defects of logical argument, or assumption of principles, which are not only gratuitous, but inadmissible. We shall have occasion, as we proceed, to point out some of these defects; and doubt not but the illustrious author of this demonstration had exercised his uncommon patience and sagacity in similar attempts, and was dissatisfied with them all.

Before we proceed farther, it will be proper to make a general remark, which will save a great deal of discussion. Since it is a matter of universal experience, that every action of a body on others is accompanied by an equal and contrary reaction; and since all that we can demonstrate concerning the resistance of bodies during their motions through fluids proceeds on this supposition, (the resistance of the body being assumed as equal and opposite to the sum of motions communicated to the particles of the fluid, estimated in the direction of the bodies' motion), we are intitled to proceed in the contrary order, and to consider the impulsions which each of the particles of fluid exerts on the body at rest, as equal and opposite to the motion which the body would communicate to that particle if the fluid were at rest, and the body were moving equally swift in the opposite direction. And therefore the whole impulsion of the fluid must be conceived as the measure of the whole motion which the body would thus communicate to the fluid. It must therefore be also considered as the measure of the resistance which the body, moving with the same velocity, would sustain from the fluid. When, therefore, we shall demonstrate anything concerning the impulsion of a fluid, estimated in the direction of its motion, we must consider it as demonstrated concerning the resistance of a quiescent fluid to the motion of that body, having the same velocity in the opposite direction. The determination of these impulsions being much easier than the determination of the motions communicated by the body to the particles of the fluid, this method will be followed in most of the subsequent discussions.

The general proposition already delivered is by means sufficient for explaining the various important phenomena observed in the mutual actions of solids and fluids. In particular, it gives us no affiance in ascertaining the modifications of this resistance or impulse, which depend on the shape of the body and the inclination of its impelled or resisted surface to the direction of the motion. Sir Isaac Newton found another hypothesis necessary; namely, that the fluid should be so extremely rare that the dilatance of the particles may be incomparably greater than their diameters. This additional condition is necessary for considering their actions as so many separate collisions or impulsions on a solid body. Each particle must be supposed to have abundant room to rebound, or otherwise escape, after having made its stroke, without sensibly affecting the situations and motions of the particles which have not yet made their stroke: and the motion must be so swift as not to give time for the sensible exertion of their mutual forces of attractions and repulsions.

Keeping these conditions in mind, we may proceed to determine the impulsions made by a fluid on surfaces of every kind: And the most convenient method to pursue in this determination, is to compare them all either with the impulse which the same surface would receive from the fluid impinging on it perpendicularly, or with the impulse which the same stream of fluid would make when coming perpendicularly on a surface of such extent as to occupy the whole stream.

It will greatly abbreviate language, if we make use of a few terms in an appropriated sense.

By a stream, we shall mean a quantity of fluid moving in one direction, that is, each particle moving in parallel lines; and the breadth of the stream is a line perpendicular to all these parallels.

A filament means a portion of this stream of very small breadth, and it consists of an indefinite number of particles following one another in the same direction, and successively impinging on, or gliding along, the surface of the solid body.

The base of any surface exposed to a stream of fluid, is that portion of a plane perpendicular to the stream, which is covered or protected from the action of the stream. Resistance stream by the surface exposed to its impulse. Thus the base of a sphere exposed to a stream of fluid is its great circle, whose plane is perpendicular to the stream. If BC (fig. 1.) be a plane surface exposed to the action of a stream of fluid, moving in the direction DC, then BR, or SE, perpendicular to DC, is its base.

Direct impulse shall express the energy or action of the particle or filament, or stream of fluid, when meeting the surface perpendicularly, or when the surface is perpendicular to the direction of the stream.

Absolute impulse means the actual pressure on the impelled surface, arising from the action of the fluid, whether striking the surface perpendicularly or obliquely; or it is the force impressed on the surface, or tendency to motion which it acquires, and which must be opposed by an equal force in the opposite direction, in order that the surface may be maintained in its place. It is of importance to keep in mind, that this pressure is always perpendicular to the surface. It is a proposition founded on universal and uncontradicted experience, that the mutual actions of bodies on each other are always exerted in a direction perpendicular to the touching surfaces. Thus, it is observed, that when a billiard ball A is struck by another B, moving in any direction whatever, the ball A always moves off in the direction perpendicular to the plane which touches the two balls in the point of mutual contact, or point of impulse. This inductive proposition is supported by every argument which can be drawn from what we know concerning the forces which connect the particles of matter together, and are the immediate causes of the communication of motion. It would employ much time and room to state them here; and we apprehend that it is unnecessary: for no reason can be assigned why the pressure should be in any particular oblique direction. If any one should say that the impulse will be in the direction of the stream, we have only to desire him to take notice of the effect of the rudder of a ship. This shows that the impulse is not in the direction of the stream, and is therefore in some direction transverse to the stream.—He will also find, that when a plane surface is impelled obliquely by a fluid, there is no direction in which it can be supported but the direction perpendicular to itself. It is quite safe, in the mean time, to take it as an experimental truth. We may, perhaps, in some other part of this work, give what will be received as a rigorous demonstration.

Relative or effective impulse means the pressure on the surface estimated in some particular direction. Thus BC (fig. 1.) may represent the sail of a ship, impelled by the wind blowing in the direction DC. GO may be the direction of the ship's keel, or the line of her course. The wind strikes the sail in the direction GH parallel to DC; the sail is urged or pressed in the direction GI, perpendicular to BC. But we are interested to know what tendency this will give the ship to move in the direction GO. This is the effective or relative impulse. Or BC may be the transverse section of the sail of a common wind-mill. This, by the construction of the machine, can move only in the direction GP, perpendicular to the direction of the wind; and it is only in this direction that the impulse produces the desired effect. Or BC may be half of the prow of a punt or lighter, riding at anchor by means of the cable DC, attached to the prow C. In this case, GQ, parallel to DC, is that part of the absolute impulse which is employed in straining the cable.

The angle of incidence is the angle FGC contained between the direction of the stream FG and the plane BC.

The angle of obliquity is the angle OGC contained between the plane and the direction GO, in which we wish to estimate the impulse.

Prop. II. The direct impulse of a fluid on a plane surface, is to its absolute oblique impulse on the same surface, as the square of the radius to the square of the sine of the angle of incidence.

Let a stream of fluid, moving in the direction DC, (fig. 1.), act on the plane BC. With the radius CB, describe the quadrant ABB; draw CA perpendicular to CE, and draw MNBS parallel to CE. Let the particle F, moving in the direction FG, meet the plane in G, and in FG produced take GH to represent the magnitude of the direct impulse, or the impulse which the particle would exert on the plane AC, by meeting it in V. Draw GI and HK perpendicular to BC, and HI perpendicular to GI. Also draw BR perpendicular to DC.

The force GH is equivalent to the two forces GI and GK; and GK being in the direction of the plane has no share in the impulse. The absolute impulse, therefore, is represented by GI; the angle GHI is equal to FGC, the angle of incidence; and therefore GH is to GI as radius to the sine of the angle of incidence: Therefore the direct impulse of each particle or filament is to its absolute oblique impulse as radius to the sine of the angle of incidence. But further, the number of particles or filaments which strike the surface AC, is to the number of those which strike the surface BC as AC to NC: for all the filaments between LA and MB go past the oblique surface BC without striking it. But BC : NC = rad. : sin. NBC, = rad. : sin. FGC, = rad. : sin. incidence. Now the whole impulse is as the impulse of each filament, and as the number of filaments exerting equal impulses jointly; therefore the whole direct impulse on AC is to the whole absolute impulse on BC, as the square of radius to the square of the sine of the angle of incidence.

Let S express the extent of the surface, i the angle of incidence, o the angle of obliquity, v the velocity of the fluid, and d its density. Let F represent the direct impulse, f the absolute oblique impulse, and φ the relative or effective impulse: And let the tabular lines and columns be considered as decimal fractions of the radius unity.

This proposition gives us \( F : f = R^2 : \sin^2 i = 1 : \sin^2 i \), and therefore \( f = F \times \sin^2 i \). Also, because impulses are in the proportion of the extent of surface similarly impelled, we have, in general, \( f = FS \times \sin^2 i \).

The first who published this theorem was Pardies, in his Oeuvres de Mathematique, in 1673. We know that Newton had investigated the chief propositions of the Principia before 1670.

Prop. III. The direct impulse on any surface is to the effective oblique impulse on the same surface, as the cube of radius to the solid, which has for its base the square of the sine of incidence, and the sine of obliquity for its height.

For, For, when GH represents the direct impulse of a particle, GI is the absolute oblique impulse, and GO is the effective impulse in the direction GO: Now GI is to GO as radius to the sine of GIO, and GIO is the complement of GIO, and is therefore equal to CGO, the angle of obliquity.

Therefore \( f : \phi = R : \sin O \).

But \( F : f = R^2 : \sin^2 i \).

Therefore \( F : \phi = R^2 : \sin^2 i \times \sin O \), and \( \phi = F \times \sin^2 i \times \sin O \).

Cor.—The direct impulse on any surface is to the effective oblique impulse in the direction of the stream, as the cube of radius to the cube of the sine of incidence.

For draw IQ and GP perpendicular to GH; and IP perpendicular to GP; then the absolute impulse GI is equivalent to the impulse GQ in the direction of the stream, and GP, which may be called the transverse impulse. The angle GIO is evidently equal to the angle GHI, or FGC, the angle of incidence.

Therefore \( f : \phi = GI : GQ = R : \sin i \).

But \( F : f = R^2 : \sin^2 i \).

Therefore \( F : \phi = R^2 : \sin^2 i \).

And \( \phi = F \times \sin^2 i \).

Before we proceed further, we shall consider the impulse on a surface which is also in motion. This is evidently a frequent and an important case. It is perhaps the most frequent and important: It is the case of a ship under sail, and of a wind or water-mill at work.

Therefore, let a stream of fluid, moving with the direction and velocity DE, meet a plane BC (fig. 2) which is moving parallel to itself in the direction and with the velocity DF: It is required to determine the impulse?

Nothing is more easy: The mutual actions of bodies depend on their relative motions only. The motion, DE of the fluid relative to BC, which is also in motion, is compounded of the real motion of the fluid and the opposite to the real motion of the body. Therefore produce DF till Df = DF, and complete the parallelogram Df'eE, and draw the diagonal De. The impulse on the plane is the same as if the plane were at rest, and every particle of the fluid impelled it in the direction and with the velocity De; and may therefore be determined by the foregoing proposition. This proposition applies to every possible case; and we shall not before more time on it, but reserve the important modification of the general proposition for the cases which shall occur in the practical applications of the whole doctrine of the impulse and resistance of fluids.

Prop. IV. The direct impulse of a stream of fluid, whose breadth is given, is to its oblique effective impulse in the direction of the stream, as the square of radius to the square of the sine of the angle of incidence.

For the number of filaments which occupy the oblique plane BC, would occupy the portion NC of a perpendicular plane, and therefore we have only to compare the perpendicular impulse on any point V with the effective impulse made by the same filament FV on the oblique plane at G. Now GH represents the impulse which this filament would make at V; and GQ is the effective impulse of the same filament at G, estimated in the direction GH of the stream; and GH is Resistance to GQ as GH² to GI², that is, as rad² to sin² i.

Cor. I. The effective impulse in the direction of the stream on any plane surface BC, is to the direct impulse on its base BR or SE, as the square of the sine of the angle of incidence to the square of the radius.

2. If an isosceles wedge ACB (fig. 3.) be exposed to Fig. 3., a stream of fluid moving in the direction of its height CD, the impulse on the sides is to the direct impulse on the base as the square of half the base AD to the square of the side AC, or as the square of the sine of half the angle of the wedge to the square of the radius. For it is evident, that in this case the two transverse impulses, such as GP in fig. 1, balance each other, and the only impulse which can be observed is the sum of the two impulses, such as GQ of fig. 1, which are to be compared with the impulses on the two halves AD, DB of the base. Now AC : AB = rad. : sin. ACD, and ACD is equal to the angle of incidence.

Therefore, if the angle ACB is a right angle, and ACD is half a right angle, the square of AC is twice the square of AD, and the impulse on the sides of a rectangular wedge is half the impulse on its base.

Also, if a cube ACBE (fig. 4.) be exposed to a Fig. 4., stream moving in a direction perpendicular to one of its sides, and then to a stream moving in a direction perpendicular to one of its diagonal planes, the impulse in the first case will be to the impulse in the second as \( \sqrt{2} \) to 1. Call the perpendicular impulse on a side \( F_1 \), and the perpendicular impulse on its diagonal plane \( f_1 \), and the effective oblique impulse on its sides \( \phi \);—we have

\[ F : f = AC : AB = 1 : \sqrt{2}, \text{ and} \]

\[ f : \phi = AC : AD = 2 : 1. \]

Therefore

\[ F : \phi = 2 : \sqrt{2}, = \sqrt{2} : 1, \text{ or very nearly as } 10 \text{ to } 7. \]

The same reasoning will apply to a pyramid whose base is a regular polygon, and whose axis is perpendicular to the base. If such a pyramid is exposed to a stream of fluid moving in the direction of the axis, the direct impulse on the base is to the effective impulse on the pyramid, as the square of the radius to the square of the sine of the angle which the axis makes with the sides of the pyramid.

And, in like manner, the direct impulse on the base of a right cone is to the effective impulse on the conical surface, as the square of the radius to the square of the sine of half the angle at the vertex of the cone. This is demonstrated, by supposing the cone to be a pyramid of an infinite number of sides.

We may in this manner compare the impulse on any polygonal surface with the impulse on its base, by comparing apart the impulses on each plane with those in their corresponding bases, and taking their sum.

And we may compare the impulse on a curved surface with that on its base, by resolving the curved surface into elementary planes, each of which is impelled by an elementary filament of the stream.

The following beautiful proposition, given by Le Seur and Jaquier, in their Commentary on the second book of Newton's Principia, with a few examples of its application, will suffice for any further account of this theory. Proposition V. Let ADB (fig. 5.) be the section of a surface of simple curvature, such as is the surface of a cylinder. Let this be exposed to the action of a fluid moving in the direction AC. Let BC be the section of the plane (which we have called its base), perpendicular to the direction of the stream. In AC produced, take any length CG; and on CG describe the semicircle CHG, and complete the rectangle BCGO. Through any point D of the curve draw ED parallel to AC, and meeting BC and OG in Q and P. Let DF touch the curve in D, and draw the chord GH parallel to DF, and HKM perpendicular to CG, meeting ED in M. Suppose this to be done for every point of the curve ADB, and let LMN be the curve which passes through all the points of intersection of the parallels EDP and the corresponding perpendiculars HKM.

The effective impulse on the curve surface ADB in the direction of the stream, is to its direct impulse on the base BC as the area BCNL is to the rectangle BCGO.

Draw edqmp parallel to EP and extremely near it. The arch Dd of the curve may be conceived as the section of an elementary plane, having the position of the tangent DF. The angle EDF is the angle of incidence of the filament EDe. This is equal to CGH, because ED, DF, are parallel to CG, GH; and (because CHG is a semicircle) CH is perpendicular to GH. Also CG : CH = CK, and CG : CK = CG^2 : CH^2 = rad^2 : fin^2, CGH = rad^2 : fin^2 incid. Therefore if CG, or its equal DP, represent the direct impulse on the point Q of the base, CK, or its equal QM, will represent the effective impulse on the point D of the curve. And thus, QgP will represent the direct impulse of the filament on the element Qg of the base, and QgmM will represent the effective impulse of the same filament on the element Dd of the curve. And, as this is true of the whole curve ADB, the effective impulse on the whole curve will be represented by the area BCNML; and the direct impulse on the base will be represented by the rectangle BCGO; and therefore the impulse on the curved surface is to the impulse on the base as the area BLMNC is to the rectangle BOGC.

It is plain, from the construction, that if the tangent to the curve at A is perpendicular to AC, the point N will coincide with G. Also, if the tangent to the curve at B is parallel to AC, the point L will coincide with B.

Whenever, therefore, the curve ADB is such that an equation can be had to exhibit the general relation between the abscissa AR and the ordinate DR, we shall deduce an equation which exhibits the relation between the abscissa CK and the ordinate KM of the curve LMN; and this will give us the ratio of BLNC to BOGC.

Thus, if the surface is that of a cylinder, so that the curve BDAb (fig. 6.), which receives the impulse of the fluid, is a semicircle, make CG equal to AC, and construct the figure as before. The curve BMG is a parabola, whose axis is CG, whose vertex is G, and whose parameter is equal to CG. For it is plain, that CG = DC, and GH = CQ = MK. And CG × GK = GH^2 = KM^2. That is, the curve is such, that the square of the ordinate KM is equal to the rectangle of Refractance, the abscissa GK and a constant line GC; and it is therefore a parabola whose vertex is G. Now, it is well known, that the parabolic area BMGC is two thirds of the parallelogram BCGO. Therefore the impulse on the quadrant ADB is two thirds of the impulse on the base BC. The same may be said of the quadrant Adb and its base cb. Therefore, The impulse on a cylinder or half cylinder is two thirds of the direct impulse pulse on a transverse plane through the axis; or it is two cylinders, thirds of the direct impulse on one side of a parallelopiped of the same breadth and height.

Proposition VI. If the body be a solid generated by the revolution of the figure BDAC (fig. 5.) round the axis AC; and if it be exposed to the action of a stream of fluid moving in the direction of the axis AC; then the effective impulse in the direction of the stream is to the direct impulse on its base, as the solid generated by the revolution of the figure BLMNC round the axis CN to the cylinder generated by the revolution of the rectangle BOGC.

This scarcely needs a demonstration. The figure ADBLMNA is a section of these solids by a plane passing through the axis; and what has been demonstrated of this section is true of every other, because they are all equal and similar. It is therefore true of the whole solids, and (their base) the circle generated by the revolution of BC round the axis AC.

Hence we easily deduce, that The impulse on a sphere on a sphere, is one half of the direct impulse on its great circle, or on and the base of a cylinder of equal diameter.

For in this case the curve BMN (fig. 6.) which generates the solid expressing the impulse on the sphere is a parabola, and the solid is a parabolic conoid. Now this conoid is to the cylinder generated by the revolution of the rectangle BOGC round the axis CG, as the sum of all the circles generated by the revolution of ordinates to the parabola such as KM, to the sum of as many circles generated by the ordinates to the rectangle such as KT; or as the sum of all the squares described on the ordinates KM to the sum of as many squares described on the ordinates KT. Draw BG cutting MK in S. The square on MK is to the square on BC or TK as the abscissa GK to the abscissa GC (by the nature of the parabola), or as SK to BC; because SK and BC are respectively equal to GK and GC. Therefore the sum of all the squares on ordinates, such as MK, is to the sum of as many squares on ordinates, such as TK, as the sum of all the lines SK to the sum of as many lines TK; that is, as one to two: and therefore the impulse on the sphere is one half of the direct impulse on its great circle.

From the same construction we may very easily deduce a very curious and seemingly useful truth, that of all conical bodies having the circle whose diameter is a cone, AB (fig. 3.) for its base, and FD for its height, the one which sustains the smallest impulse or meets with the smallest resistance is the frustum AGHB of a cone ACB so constructed, that EF being taken equal to ED, EA is equal to EC. This frustum, though more capacious than the cone AFB of the same height, will be least resisted.

Also, if the solid generated by the revolution of BDAC (fig. 5.) have its anterior part covered with a fruitum Resistance frustum of a cone generated by the lines Da, aA, forming the angle at a of 135 degrees; this fold, though more capacious than the included solid, will be less resisted.

And, from the same principles, Sir Isaac Newton determined the form of the curve ADB, which would generate the solid which, of all others of the same length and base, should have the least resistance.

There are curious and important deductions, but are not introduced here, for reasons which will soon appear.

The reader cannot fail to observe, that all that we have hitherto delivered on this subject, relates to the comparison of different impulses or resistances. We have always compared the oblique impulses with the direct, and by their intervention we compare the oblique impulses with each other. But it remains to give absolute measures of some individual impulse; to which, as to an unit, we may refer every other. And as it is by their pressure that they become useful or hurtful, and they must be opposed by other pressures, it becomes extremely convenient to compare them all with that pressure with which we are most familiarly acquainted, the pressure of gravity.

The manner in which the comparison is made, is this. When a body advances in a fluid with a known velocity, it puts a known quantity of the fluid into motion (as is supposed) with this velocity; and this is done in a known time. We have only to examine what weight will put this quantity of fluid into the same motion, by acting on it during the same time. This weight is conceived as equal to the resistance. Thus, let us suppose that a stream of water, moving at the rate of eight feet per second, is perpendicularly obstructed by a square foot of solid surface held fast in its place. Conceiving water to act in the manner of the hypothetical fluid now described, and to be without elasticity, the whole effect is the gradual annihilation of the motion of eight cubic feet of water moving eight feet in a second. And this is done in a second of time. It is equivalent to the gradually putting eight cubic feet of water into motion with this velocity; and doing this by acting uniformly during a second. What weight is able to produce this effect?

The weight of eight feet of water, acting during a second on it, will, as is well known, give it the velocity of thirty-two feet per second; that is, four times greater. Therefore, the weight of the fourth part of eight cubic feet, that is, the weight of two cubic feet, acting during a second, will do the same thing, or the weight of a column of water whose base is a square foot, and whose height is two feet. This will not only produce this effect in the same time with the impulsion of the solid body, but it will also do it by the same degrees, as any one will clearly perceive, by attending to the gradual acceleration of the mass of water urged by one-fourth of its weight, and comparing this with the gradual production or extinction of motion in the fluid by the progress of the resisting surface.

Now it is well known that eight cubic feet of water, by falling one foot, which it will do in one-fourth of a second, will acquire the velocity of eight feet per second by its weight; therefore the force which produces the same effect in a whole second is one-fourth of this. This force is therefore equal to the weight of a column of water, whose base is a square foot, and whose height is two feet; that is, twice the height necessary for acquiring the velocity of the motion by gravity.

The conclusion is the same whatever be the surface that is resisted, whatever be the fluid that resists, and whatever be the velocity of the motion. In this inductive and familiar manner we learn, that the direct impulse or resistance of an unelastic fluid on any plane surface, is equal to the weight of a column of the fluid having the surface for its base, and twice the full necessary for acquiring the velocity of the motion for its height: and if the fluid is considered as elastic, the impulse or resistance is twice as great. See Newt. Princip. B. II. prop. 35. and 38.

It now remains to compare this theory with experiment. Many have been made, both by Sir Isaac Newton and by subsequent writers. It is much to be lamented, that in a matter of such importance, both to the philosopher and to the artist, there is such a disagreement in the results with each other. We shall mention the experiments which seem to have been made with the greatest judgement and care. Those of Sir Isaac Newton were chiefly made by the oscillations of pendulums in water, and by the descent of balls both in water and in air. Many have been made by Mariotte (Traité de Mouvement des Eaux). Gravefande has published, in his System of Natural Philosophy, experiments made on the resistance or impulsions on solids in the midst of a pipe or canal. They are extremely well contrived, but are on so small a scale that they are of very little use. Daniel Bernoulli, and his pupil Proctor Kraft, have published, in the Comment. Acad. Petropol, experiments on the impulse of a stream or vein of water from an orifice or tube: These are of great value. The Abbé Boifut has published others of the same kind in his Hydrodynamique. Mr Robins has published, in his New Principles of Gunnery, many valuable experiments on the impulse and resistance of air. The Chev. de Borda, in the Mem. Acad. Paris, 1763 and 1767, has given experiments on the resistance of air and also of water, which are very interesting. The most complete collection of experiments on the resistance of water are those made at the public expense by a committee of the academy of sciences, consisting of the marquis de Condorcet, Mr d'Alembert, Abbé Boifut, and others. The Chev. de Buat, in his Hydraulique, has published some most curious and valuable experiments, where many important circumstances are taken notice of, which had never been attended to before, and which give a view of the subject totally different from what is usually taken of it. Don George d'Ulloa, in his Examine Maritimo, has also given some important experiments, similar to those adduced by Bouguer in his Manœuvre des Vaissaux, but leading to very different conclusions. All these should be consulted by such as would acquire a practical knowledge of this subject. We must content ourselves with giving their most general and steady results. Such as,

1. It is very consonant to experiment that the resistances are proportional to the squares of the velocities. When the velocities of water do not exceed a few feet per second, no sensible deviation is observed. In very small velocities the resistances are sensibly greater than in this proportion, and this excess is plainly owing to the viscosity or imperfect fluidity of water. Sir Isaac Newton has shown that the resistance arising from this cause... Resistance, cause is constant, or the same in every velocity; and when he has taken off a certain part of the total resistance, he found the remainder was very exactly proportional to the square of the velocity. His experiments to this purpose were made with balls a very little heavier than water, so as to descend very slowly; and they were made with his usual care and accuracy, and may be depended on.

In the experiments made with bodies floating on the surface of water, there is an addition to the resistance arising from the inertia of the water. The water heaps up a little on the anterior surface of the floating body, and is depressed behind it. Hence arises a hydrostatical prelude, acting in concert with the true resistance. A similar thing is observed in the resistance of air, which is condensed before the body and rarefied behind it, and thus an additional resistance is produced by the unbalanced elasticity of the air; and also because the air, which is actually displaced, is denser than common air. These circumstances cause the resistances to increase faster than the squares of the velocities: but, even independent of this, there is an additional resistance arising from the tendency to rarefaction behind a very swift body; because the pressure of the surrounding fluid can only make the fluid fill the space left with a determined velocity.

We have had occasion to speak of this circumstance more particularly under Gunnery and Pneumatics, when considering very rapid motions. Mr Robins had remarked that the velocity at which the observed resistance of the air began to increase to prodigiously, was that of about 1100 or 1200 feet per second, and that this was the velocity with which air would rush into a void. He concluded, that when the velocity was greater than this, the ball was exposed to the additional resistance arising from the unbalanced statical pressure of the air, and that this constant quantity behaved to be added to the resistance arising from the air's inertia in all greater velocities. This is very reasonable: But he imagined that in smaller velocities there was no such unbalanced pressure. But this cannot be the case: for although in smaller velocities the air will still fill up the space behind the body, it will not fill it up with air of the same density. This would be to suppose the motion of the air into the deflected place to be instantaneous. There must therefore be a rarefaction behind the body, and a pressure backward; arising from unbalanced elasticity, independent of the condensation on the anterior part. The condensation and rarefaction are caused by the same thing, viz. the limited elasticity of the air. Were this infinitely great, the smallest condensation before the body would be instantly diffused over the whole air, and so would the rarefaction, so that no pressure of unbalanced elasticity would be observed; but the elasticity is such as to propagate the condensation with the velocity of sound only, i.e., the velocity of 142 feet per second. Therefore this additional resistance does not commence precisely at this velocity, but is sensible in all smaller velocities, as is very justly observed by Euler. But we are not yet able to ascertain the law of its increase, although it is a problem which seems susceptible of a tolerably accurate solution.

Precisely similar to this is the resistance to the motion of floating bodies, arising from the accumulation or gorging up of the water on their anterior surface, and its depression behind them. Were the gravity of the water infinite, while its inertia remains the same, the wave raised up at the prow of a ship would be instantly diffused over the whole ocean, and it would therefore be infinitely small, as also the depression behind the poop. But this wave requires time for its diffusion; and while it is not diffused, it acts by hydrostatical prelude. We are equally unable to ascertain the law of variation of this part of the resistance, the mechanism of waves being but very imperfectly understood. The height of the wave in the experiments of the French academy could not be measured with sufficient precision (being only observed en passant) for ascertaining its relation to the velocity. The chev. Buat attempted it in his experiments, but without success. This must evidently make a part of the resistance in all velocities: and it still remains an undecided question, "What relation it bears to the velocities?" When the solid body is wholly buried in the fluid, this accumulation does not take place, or at least not in the same way: It may, however, be observed. Every person may recollect, that in a very swift running stream a large stone at the bottom will produce a small swell above it; unless it lies very deep, a nice eye may still observe it. The water, on arriving at the obstacle, glides past it in every direction, and is deflected on all hands; and therefore what passes over it is also deflected upwards, and causes the water over it to rise above its level. The nearer that the body is to the surface, the greater will be the perpendicular rise of the water, but it will be less diffused; and it is uncertain whether the whole elevation will be greater or less. By the whole elevation we mean the area of a perpendicular section of the elevation by a plane perpendicular to the direction of the stream. We are rather disposed to think that this area will be greatest when the body is near the surface. D'Ullon has attempted to consider this subject scientifically; and is of a very different opinion, which he confirms by the single experiment to be mentioned by and by. Mean time, it is evident, that if the water which glides past the body cannot fall in behind it with sufficient velocity, for filling up the space behind, there must be a void there; and thus a hydrostatical pressure must be superadded to the resistance arising from the inertia of the water. All must have observed, that if the end of a stick held in the hand be drawn slowly through the water, the water will fill the place left by the stick, and there will be no curled wave: but if the motion be very rapid, a hollow trough or gutter is left behind, and is not filled up till at some distance from the stick, and the wave which forms its sides is very much broken and curled. The writer of this article has often looked into the water from the poop of a second rate man of war when she was sailing 11 miles per hour, which is a velocity of 16 feet per second nearly; and he not only observed that the back of the rudder was naked for about two feet below the load water-line, but also that the trough or wake made by the ship was filled up with water which was broken and foaming to a considerable depth, and to a considerable distance from the vessel: There must therefore have been a void. He never saw the wake perfectly transparent (and therefore completely filled with water) when the velocity exceeded 9 or 10 feet per second. While this broken Resistance. Broken water is observed, there can be no doubt that there is a void and an additional resistance. But even when the space left by the body, or the space behind a still body exposed to a stream, is completely filled, it may not be filled sufficiently fast, and there may be (and certainly is, as we shall see afterwards) a quantity of water behind the body, which is moving more slowly away than the rest, and therefore hangs in some shape by the body, and is dragged by it, increasing the resistance. The quantity of this must depend partly on the velocity of the body or stream, and partly on the rapidity with which the surrounding water comes in behind. This last must depend on the pressure of the surrounding water. It would appear, that when this adjoining pressure is very great, as must happen when the depth is great, the augmentation of resistance now spoken of would be less. Accordingly this appears in Newton's experiments, where the balls were less retarded as they were deeper under water.

These experiments are so simple in their nature, and were made with such care, and by a person so able to detect and appreciate every circumstance, that they deserve great credit, and the conclusions legitimately drawn from them deserve to be considered as physical laws. We think that the present deduction is unexceptionable: for in the motion of balls, which hardly descend, their preponderancy being hardly sensible, the effect of depth must have borne a very great proportion to the whole resistance, and must have greatly influenced their motions; yet they were observed to fall as if the resistance had no way depended on the depth.

The same thing appears in Borda's experiments, where a sphere which was deeply immersed in the water was less resisted than one that moved with the same velocity near the surface; and this was very constant and regular in a course of experiments. D'Ulloa, however, affirms the contrary: He says that the resistance of a board, which was a foot broad, immersed one foot in a stream moving two feet per second, was 15 lbs. and the resistance to the same board, when immersed 2 feet in a stream moving 1½ feet per second (in which case the surface was 2 feet), was 26½ pounds (A).

We are very sorry that we cannot give a proper account of this theory of resistance by Don George Juan D'Ulloa, an author of great mathematical reputation, and the instructor of the marine academies in Spain. We have not been able to procure either the original or the French translation, and judge of it only by an extract by Mr Prony in his Architecture Hydrodynamique, § 868, &c. The theory is enveloped (according to Mr Prony's custom) in the most complicated expressions, so that the physical principles are kept almost out of sight. When accommodated to the simplest possible case, it is nearly as follows.

Let \( o \) be an elementary orifice or portion of the surface of the side of a vessel filled with a heavy fluid, and let \( h \) be its depth under the horizontal surface of the fluid. Let \( \delta \) be the density of the fluid, and \( \phi \) the accelerative power of gravity, = 32 feet velocity acquired in a second.

It is known, says he, that the water would flow out at this hole with the velocity \( u = \sqrt{2gh} \), and \( u^2 = 2gh \) and \( h = \frac{u^2}{2g} \). It is also known that the pressure \( p \) on the orifice \( o \) is \( \phi \delta h = \phi \delta \frac{u^2}{2g} = \frac{1}{2} \delta ou^2 \).

Now, let this little surface \( o \) be supposed to move with the velocity \( v \). The fluid would meet it with the velocity \( u + v \), or \( u - v \), according as it moved in the opposite or in the same direction with the efflux. In the equation \( p = \frac{1}{2} \delta ou^2 \), substitute \( u = v \) for \( u \), and we have the pressure on \( o = p = \frac{1}{2} (\delta ou^2) = \frac{1}{2} \delta o \left( \frac{\sqrt{2gh}}{\sqrt{2g}} \right)^2 \).

This pressure is a weight, that is, a mass of matter \( m \) actuated by gravity \( g \), or \( p = \phi m \), and \( m = \delta o \left( \frac{\sqrt{h}}{\sqrt{2g}} \right)^2 \).

This elementary surface being immersed in a stagnant fluid, and moved with the velocity \( v \), will sustain on one side a pressure \( \delta o \left( \frac{\sqrt{h}}{\sqrt{2g}} \right)^2 \), and on the other side a pressure \( \delta o \left( \frac{\sqrt{h}}{\sqrt{2g}} \right)^2 \); and the sensible resistance will be the difference of these two pressures, which is \( \delta o \frac{4}{\sqrt{h}} \frac{v}{\sqrt{2g}} \) or \( \delta o \frac{4}{\sqrt{h}} \frac{v}{8} \), that is, \( \frac{\delta o \sqrt{hv}}{2} \), because \( \sqrt{2g} = 8 \); a quantity which is in the subduplicate ratio of the depth under the surface of the fluid, and the simple ratio of the velocity of the resisting surface jointly.

There is nothing in experimental philosophy more certain than that the resistances are very nearly in the duplicate ratio of the velocities; and we cannot conceive by what experiments the ingenious author has supported this conclusion.

But there is, besides, what appears to us to be an essential defect in this investigation. The equation excludes resistance in the case of a fluid without weight, gation. Now a theory of the resistance of fluids should exhibit the retardation arising from inertia alone, and should distinguish it from that arising from any other cause: and moreover, while it affirms an ultimate sensible resistance proportional (ceteris paribus) to the simple velocity, it affirms as a first principle that the pressure \( p \) is as \( u = \phi \). It also gives a false measure of the frictional pressures: for these (in the case of bodies immersed in our waters at least) are made up of the pressure of the incumbent water, which is measured by \( h \), and the pressure of the atmosphere, a constant quantity.

Whatever reason can be given for setting out with the principle that the pressure on the little surface \( o \), moving with the velocity \( u \), is equal to \( \frac{1}{2} \delta o \left( \frac{\sqrt{h}}{\sqrt{2g}} \right)^2 \), makes it indispensably necessary to take for the velocity \( u \), not that with which water would issue from a hole whose depth under the surface is \( h \), but the velocity

(A) There is something very unaccountable in these experiments. The resistances are much greater than any other author has observed. Resistance, with which it will issue from a hole whose depth is \( h + 33 \) feet. Because the pressure of the atmosphere is equal to that of a column of water 33 feet high: for this is the acknowledged velocity with which it would rush in to the void left by the body. If therefore this velocity (which does not exist) has any share in the effort, we must have for the fluxion of

\[ \frac{4\sqrt{h}v}{2\varphi}, \quad \text{but} \quad \frac{4\sqrt{h+33}v}{2\varphi}. \]

This would not only give pressure or resistances many times exceeding those that have been observed in our experiments, but would also totally change the proportions which this theory determines. It was at any rate improper to embarras an investigation, already very intricate, with the pressure of gravity, and with two motions of efflux, which do not exist, and are necessary for making the pressures in the ratio of \( u + v^2 \) and \( u - v^2 \).

Mr Prony has been at no pains to inform his readers of his reasons for adopting this theory of resistance, so contrary to all received opinions, and to the most distinct experiments. Those of the French academy, made under greater pressures, gave a much smaller resistance; and the very experiments adduced in support of this theory are extremely deficient, wanting fully one-third of what the theory requires. The resistances by experiment were 15\(\frac{1}{2}\) and 26\(\frac{1}{2}\), and the theory required 20\(\frac{1}{2}\) and 39. The equation, however, deduced from the theory is greatly deficient in the expression of the pressures caused by the accumulation and depression, stating the heights of them as \( \frac{v^2}{2g} \). They can never be so high, because the heaped-up water flows off at the sides, and it also comes in behind by the sides; so that the pressure is much less than half the weight of a column whose height is \( \frac{v^2}{2g} \); both because the accumulation and depression are less at the sides than in the middle, and because, when the body is wholly immersed, the accumulation is greatly diminished. Indeed in this case, the final equation does not include their effects, though as real in this case as when part of the body is above water.

Upon the whole, we are somewhat surprised that an author of D'Ulloa's eminence should have adopted a theory so unnecessarily and so improperly embarrassed with foreign circumstances; and that Mr Prony should have inferred it with the explanation by which he was to abide, in a work destined for practical use.

This point, or the effect of deep immersion, is still much contested; and it is a received opinion, by many not accustomed to mathematical researches, that the resistance is greater in greater depths. This is affirmed as an important principle by Mr Gordon, author of a Theory of Naval Architecture; but on very vague and slight grounds; and the author seems unacquainted with the manner of reasoning on such subjects. It shall be considered afterwards.

With these corrections it may be asserted that theory and experiment agree very well in this respect, and that the resistance may be asserted to be in the duplicate ratio of the velocity.

We have been more minute on this subject, because it is the leading proposition in the theory of the action of fluids. Newton's demonstration of it takes no notice of the manner in which the various particles of the fluid are put in motion, or the motion which each in particular acquires. He only shows, that if there be nothing concerned in the communication but pure inertia, the sum total of the motions of the particles, estimated in the direction of the bodies motion, or that of the stream, will be in the duplicate ratio of the velocity. It was therefore of importance to show that this part of the theory was just. To do this, we had to consider the effect of every circumstance which could be combined with the inertia of the fluid. All these had been foreseen by that great man, and are most briefly, though perspicuously, mentioned in the last scholium to prop. 36. B. II.

2. It appears from a comparison of all the experiments, that the impulses and resistances are very nearly in the proportion of the surfaces. They appear, however, to increase somewhat faster than the surfaces. The chevalier Borda found that the resistance, with the same velocity, to a surface of

| inches | was | instead of | |--------|-----|------------| | 9 | 17,535 | 9 | | 16 | 42,750 | 16 | | 36 | 104,737 | 36 |

The deviation in these experiments from the theory increases with the surface, and is probably much greater in the extensive surfaces of the sails of ships and windmills, and the hulls of ships.

3. The resistances do by no means vary in the duplicate ratio of the sines of the angles of incidence.

As this is the most interesting circumstance, having a chief influence on all the particular modifications of the resistance of fluids, and as on this depends the whole theory of the construction and working of ships, and the action of water on our most important machines, and seems most immediately connected with the mechanism of fluids, it merits a very particular consideration. We cannot do a greater service than by rendering more generally known the excellent experiments of the French academy.

Fifteen boxes or vessels were constructed, which were two feet wide, two feet deep, and four feet long. One of them was a parallelopiped of these dimensions; the French others had prows of a wedge-form, the angle ACB academy, (fig. 8.) varying by 12° degrees from 12° to 180°; so Fig. 8. that the angle of incidence increased by 6° from one to another. These boxes were dragged across a very large basin of smooth water (in which they were immersed two feet) by means of a line passing over a wheel connected with a cylinder, from which the actuating weight was suspended. The motion became perfectly uniform after a very little way; and the time of passing over 96 French feet with this uniform motion was very carefully noted. The resistance was measured by the weight employed, after deducting a certain quantity (properly estimated) for friction, and for the accumulation of the water against the anterior surface. The results of the many experiments are given in the following table; where column 1st contains the angle of the prow, column 2nd contains the resistance as given by the preceding theory, column 3rd contains the resistance exhibited in the experiments, and column 4th contains the deviation of the experiment from the theory. The resistance to 1 square foot, French measure, moving with the velocity of 2,56 feet per second, was very nearly 7,625 pounds French.

Reducing these to English measures, we have the surface = 1,363 feet, the velocity of the motion equal to 2,726 feet per second, and the resistance equal to 8,234 pounds avoirdupois. The weight of a column of fresh water of this base, and having for its height the fall necessary for communicating this velocity, is 8,264 pounds avoirdupois. The resistances to other velocities were accurately proportional to the squares of the velocities.

There is great diversity in the value which different authors have deduced for the absolute resistance of water from their experiments. In the value now given nothing is taken into account but the inertia of the water. The accumulation against the forepart of the box was carefully noted, and the flat side pressure backwards, arising from this cause, was subtracted from the whole resistance to the drag. There had not been a sufficient variety of experiments for discovering the share which tenacity and friction produced; so that the number of pounds set down here may be considered as somewhat superior to the mere effects of the inertia of the water. We think, upon the whole, that it is the most accurate determination yet given of the resistance to a body in motion: but we shall afterwards see reason for believing, that the impulse of a running stream having the same velocity is somewhat greater; and this is the form in which most of the experiments have been made.

Also observe, that the resistance here given is that to a vessel two feet broad and deep and four feet long. The resistance to a plane of two feet broad and deep would probably have exceeded this in the proportion of 15:22 to 14:54, for reasons we shall see afterwards.

From the experiments of Chevalier Borda, it appears that a body of one foot square, French measure, and two feet long, having its centre 15 inches under water, moving three French feet per second, sustained a pressure of 14.54 French pounds, or 15.63 English. This reduced in the proportion of $3^2$ to $2.5^2$ gives 11.43 pounds, considerably exceeding the 8.24.

Mr Bouguer, in his *Manœuvre des Vaiffeaux*, says, that he found the resistance of sea-water to a velocity of one foot to be 23 ounces poids des Marc.

The chevalier Borda found the resistance of sea-water to the face of a cubic foot, moving against the water one foot per second, to be 21 ounces nearly. But this experiment is complicated: the wave was not deducted; Resistance, and it was not a plane, but a cube.

Don George d'Ulloa found the impulse of a stream of sea-water, running two feet per second on a foot square, to be 15.5 pounds English measure. This greatly exceeds all the values given by others.

From these experiments we learn, in the first place, consequently that the direct resistance to a motion of a plane surface ces from through water, is very nearly equal to the weight of a thin column of water having that surface for its base, and for its height the fall producing the velocity of the motion. This is but one half of the resistance determined by the preceding theory. It agrees, however, very well with the best experiments made by other philosophers on bodies totally immersed or surrounded by the fluid; and sufficiently shows, that there must be some fallacy in the principles or reasoning by which this result of the theory is supposed to be deduced. We shall have occasion to return to this again.

But we see that the effects of the obliquity of incidence deviate enormously from the theory, and that this deviation increases rapidly as the acuteness of the prow increases. In the prow of 60° the deviation is nearly equal to the whole resistance pointed out by the theory, and in the prow of 12° it is nearly 40 times greater than the theoretical resistance.

The resistance of the prow of 90° should be one half the resistance of the base. We have not such a prow; but the medium between the resistance of the prow of 96° and 84° is 5790, instead of 500.

These experiments are very conform to those of other authors on plane surfaces. Mr Robins found the resistance of the air to a pyramid of 45°, with its apex foremost, was to that of its base 1000 to 1411, instead of one to two. Chevalier Borda found the resistance of a cube, moving in water in the direction of the side, was to the oblique resistance, when it was moved in the direction of the diagonal, in the proportion of $\frac{5}{7}$ to $\frac{7}{5}$; whereas it should have been that of $\sqrt{2}$ to 1, or of 10 to 7 nearly. He also found, that a wedge whose angle was 90°, moving in air, gave for the proportion of the resistances of the edge and base 7281 : 10000, instead of 5000 : 10000. Also, when the angle of the wedge was 60°, the resistances of the edge and base were 52 and 100, instead of 25 and 100.

In short, in all the cases of oblique plane surfaces, the resistances were greater than those which are assigned by the theory. The theoretical law agrees tolerably with observation in large angles of incidence, that is, in incidences not differing very far from the perpendicular; but in more acute prongs the resistances are more nearly proportional to the sines of incidence than to their squares.

The academicians deduced from these experiments an expression of the general value of the resistance, which corresponds tolerably well with observation. Thus let $x$ be the complement of the half angle of the prow, and let $P$ be the direct pressure or resistance, with an incidence of 90°, and $p$ the effective oblique pressure:

$$p = P \times \cos^2 x + 3.153 \left( \frac{x}{6} \right)^{3/2}.$$

This gives for a prow of 12° an error in defect about 1%, and in larger angles it is much nearer the truth; and this is exact enough for any practice.

This is an abundantly simple formula; but if we intro- Resistance, with which it will issue from a hole whose depth is \( h + 33 \) feet. Because the pressure of the atmosphere is equal to that of a column of water 33 feet high; for this is the acknowledged velocity with which it would rush into the void left by the body. If therefore this velocity (which does not exist) has any share in the effort, we must have for the fluxion of pressure not \( \frac{4\sqrt{h}}{\sqrt{2\phi}} \), but \( \frac{4\sqrt{h+33}}{\sqrt{2\phi}} \). This would not only give pressure or resistances many times exceeding those that have been observed in our experiments, but would also totally change the proportions which this theory determines. It was at any rate improper to embarrass an investigation, already very intricate, with the pressure of gravity, and with two motions of efflux, which do not exist, and are necessary for making the pressures in the ratio of \( u + v^2 \) and \( u - v^2 \).

Mr Prony has been at no pains to inform his readers of his reasons for adopting this theory of resistance, contrary to all received opinions, and to the most distinct experiments. Those of the French academy, made under greater pressures, gave a much smaller resistance; and the very experiments adduced in support of this theory are extremely deficient, wanting fully one-third of what the theory requires. The resistances by experiment were 15 and 26, and the theory required 29 and 39. The equation, however, deduced from the theory is greatly deficient in the expression of the pressures caused by the accumulation and depression, stating the heights of them as \( \frac{v^2}{2\phi} \). They can never be so high, because the heap-up water flows off at the sides, and it also comes in behind by the sides; so that the pressure is much less than half the weight of a column whose height is \( \frac{v^2}{2\phi} \); both because the accumulation and depression are less at the sides than in the middle, and because, when the body is wholly immersed, the accumulation is greatly diminished. Indeed in this case, the final equation does not include their effects, though as real in this case as when part of the body is above water.

Upon the whole, we are somewhat surprised that an author of D'Ulloa's eminence should have adopted a theory so unnecessarily and so improperly embarrassed with foreign circumstances; and that Mr Prony should have inferred it with the explanation by which he was to abide, in a work destined for practical use.

This point, or the effect of deep immersion, is still much contested; and it is a received opinion, by many not accustomed to mathematical researches, that the resistance is greater in greater depths. This is affirmed as an important principle by Mr Gordon, author of a Theory of Naval Architecture; but on very vague and flight grounds; and the author seems unacquainted with the manner of reasoning on such subjects. It shall be considered afterwards.

With these corrections it may be asserted that theory and experiment agree very well in this respect, and that the resistance may be inferred to be in the duplicate ratio of the velocity.

We have been more minute on this subject, because it is the leading proposition in the theory of the action of fluids. Newton's demonstration of it takes no notice of the manner in which the various particles of the fluid are put in motion, or the motion which each in particular acquires. He only shows, that if there be nothing concerned in the communication but pure inertia, the sum total of the motions of the particles, estimated in the direction of the bodies motion, or that of the stream, will be in the duplicate ratio of the velocity. It was therefore of importance to show that this part of the theory was just. To do this, we had to consider the effect of every circumstance which could be combined with the inertia of the fluid. All these had been foreseen by that great man, and are most briefly, though perspicuously, mentioned in the last scholium to prop. 36. B. II.

2. It appears from a comparison of all the experiments, that the impulses and resistances are very nearly in the proportion of the surfaces. They appear, however, to increase somewhat faster than the surfaces. The chevalier Borda found that the resistance, with the same velocity, to a surface of

| inches | was | instead of | |-------|-----|-----------| | 9 | 17,535 | 9 | | 16 | 42,750 | 16 | | 36 | 104,737 | 36 |

The deviation in these experiments from the theory increases with the surface, and is probably much greater in the extensive surfaces of the sails of ships and windmills, and the hulls of ships.

3. The resistances do by no means vary in the duplicate ratio of the sines of the angles of incidence.

As this is the most interesting circumstance, having a chief influence on all the particular modifications of the resistance of fluids, and as on this depends the whole theory of the construction and working of ships, and the action of water on our most important machines, and seems most immediately connected with the mechanism of fluids, it merits a very particular consideration. We cannot do a greater service than by rendering more generally known the excellent experiments of the French academy.

Fifteen boxes or vessels were constructed, which were exactly two feet wide, two feet deep, and four feet long. One of them was a parallelopiped of these dimensions; the French others had praws of a wedge form, the angle ACB being (fig. 8.) varying by 12 degrees from 120 to 180; so that the angle of incidence increased by 6° from one to another. These boxes were dragged across a very large basin of smooth water (in which they were immersed two feet) by means of a line passing over a wheel connected with a cylinder, from which the actuating weight was suspended. The motion became perfectly uniform after a very little way; and the time of passing over 96 French feet with this uniform motion was very carefully noted. The resistance was measured by the weight employed, after deducting a certain quantity (properly estimated) for friction, and for the accumulation of the water against the anterior surface. The results of the many experiments are given in the following table; where column 1st contains the angle of the prow, column 2nd contains the resistance as given by the preceding theory, column 3rd contains the resistance exhibited in the experiments, and column 4th contains the deviation of the experiment from the theory. The resistance to 1 square foot, French measure, moving with the velocity of 2,56 feet per second, was very nearly 7,625 pounds French.

Reducing these to English measures, we have the surface = 1,363 feet, the velocity of the motion equal to 2,726 feet per second, and the resistance equal to 8,234 pounds avoirdupois. The weight of a column of fresh water of this base, and having for its height the full necessary for communicating this velocity, is 8,264 pounds avoirdupois. The resistances to other velocities were accurately proportional to the squares of the velocities.

There is great diversity in the value which different authors have deduced for the absolute resistance of water from their experiments. In the value now given nothing is taken into account but the inertia of the water. The accumulation against the forepart of the box was carefully noted, and the flatish pressure backwards, arising from this cause, was subtracted from the whole resistance to the drag. There had not been a sufficient variety of experiments for discovering the share which tenacity and friction produced; so that the number of pounds set down here may be considered as somewhat superior to the mere effects of the inertia of the water. We think, upon the whole, that it is the most accurate determination yet given of the resistance to a body in motion: but we shall afterwards see reason for believing, that the impulse of a running stream having the same velocity is somewhat greater; and this is the form in which most of the experiments have been made.

Also observe, that the resistance here given is that to a vessel two feet broad and deep and four feet long. The resistance to a plane of two feet broad and deep would probably have exceeded this in the proportion of 15:22 to 14:54, for reasons we shall see afterwards.

From the experiments of Chevalier Borda, it appears that a body of one foot square, French measure, and two feet long, having its centre 15 inches under water, moving three French feet per second, sustained a pressure of 14.54 French pounds, or 15.63 English. This reduced in the proportion of 3:1 to 2.56 gives 11.43 pounds, considerably exceeding the 8.24.

Mr Bouguer, in his Manœuvre des Vaiffeaux, says, that he found the resistance of sea-water to a velocity of one foot to be 23 ounces poids des Marc.

The chevalier Borda found the resistance of sea-water to the face of a cubic foot, moving against the water one foot per second, to be 21 ounces nearly. But this experiment is complicated: the wave was not deducted; Resistance, and it was not a plane, but a cube.

Don George d'Ulloa found the impulse of a stream of sea-water, running two feet per second on a foot square, to be 15.5 pounds English measure. This greatly exceeds all the values given by others.

From these experiments we learn, in the first place, consequently that the direct resistance to a motion of a plane surface ces from through water, is very nearly equal to the weight of a thin column of water having that surface for its base, and for its height the fall producing the velocity of the motion. This is but one half of the resistance determined by the preceding theory. It agrees, however, very well with the best experiments made by other philosophers on bodies totally immersed or surrounded by the fluid; and sufficiently shows, that there must be some fallacy in the principles or reasoning by which this result of the theory is supposed to be deduced. We shall have occasion to return to this again.

But we see that the effects of the obliquity of incidence deviate enormously from the theory, and that this deviation increases rapidly as the acuteness of the prow increases. In the prow of 60° the deviation is nearly equal to the whole resistance pointed out by the theory, and in the prow of 12° it is nearly 40 times greater than the theoretical resistance.

The resistance of the prow of 90° should be one half the resistance of the base. We have not such a prow; but the medium between the resistance of the prow of 96° and 84° is 5790, instead of 500.

These experiments are very conform to those of other authors on plane surfaces. Mr Robins found the resistance of the air to a pyramid of 45°, with its apex foremost, was to that of its base as 1000 to 1411, instead of one to two. Chevalier Borda found the resistance of a cube, moving in water in the direction of the side, was to the oblique resistance, when it was moved in the direction of the diagonal, in the proportion of 5:7 to 7:5, whereas it should have been that of √2 to 1, or 10 to 7 nearly. He also found, that a wedge whose angle was 90°, moving in air, gave for the proportion of the resistances of the edge and base 7281 : 10000, instead of 5000 : 10000. Also, when the angle of the wedge was 60°, the resistances of the edge and base were 52 and 100, instead of 25 and 100.

In short, in all the cases of oblique plane surfaces, the resistances were greater than those which are assigned by the theory. The theoretical law agrees tolerably with observation in large angles of incidence, that is, in incidences not differing very far from the perpendicular; but in more acute prisms the resistances are more nearly proportional to the sines of incidence than to their squares.

The academicians deduced from these experiments an expression of the general value of the resistance, which corresponds tolerably well with observation. Thus let x be the complement of the half angle of the prow, and let P be the direct pressure or resistance, with an incidence of 90°, and p the effective oblique pressure: then \( p = P \times \cos^2 x + 3.75 \left( \frac{x}{6} \right)^{3/2} \). This gives for a prow of 12° an error in defect about \( \frac{1}{100} \), and in larger angles it is much nearer the truth; and this is exact enough for any practice.

This is an abundantly simple formula; but if we intro- introduce it in our calculations of the resistances of curvi- lineal prongs, it renders them so complicated as to be al- most useless; and what is worse, when the calculation is completed for a curvilinear prong, the resistance which results is found to differ widely from experiment. This shows that the motion of the fluid is so modified by the action of the most prominent part of the prong, that its impulse on what succeeds is greatly affected, so that we are not allowed to consider the prong as composed of a number of parts, each of which is affected as if it were detached from all the rest.

As the very nature of naval architecture seems to re- quire curvilinear forms, in order to give the necessary strength, it seemed of importance to examine more par- ticularly the deviations of the resistances of such prongs from the resistances assigned by the theory. The aca- demicians therefore made vessels with prongs of a cylin- drical shape; one of these was a half cylinder, and the other was one-third of a cylinder, both having the same breadth, viz. two feet, the same depth, also two feet, and the same length, four feet. The resistance of the half cylinder was to the resistance of the perpendicular prong in the proportion of 13 to 25, instead of being as 13 to 19.5. The chevalier Borda found nearly the same ratio of the resistances of the half cylinder, and its diametrical plane when moved in air. He also com- pared the resistances of two prisms or wedges, of the same breadth and height. The first had its sides plane, in- clined to the base in angles of 60°; the second had its sides portions of cylinders, of which the planes were the chords, that is, their sections were arches of circles of 60°. Their resistances were as 133 to 100, instead of being as 133 to 220, as required by the theory; and as the resistance of the first was greater in proportion to that of the base than the theory allows, the resistance of the last was less.

Mr Robins found the resistance of a sphere moving in air to be to the resistance of its great circle as 1 to 2.27; whereas theory requires them to be as 1 to 2. He found, at the same time, that the absolute resistance was greater than the weight of a cylinder of air of the same diameter, and having the height necessary for ac- quiring the velocity. It was greater in the proportion of 49 to 40 nearly.

Borda found the resistance of the sphere moving in water to be to that of its great circle as 1000 to 2508, and it was one-ninth greater than the weight of the col- umn of water whose height was that necessary for pro- ducing the velocity. He also found the resistance of air to the sphere was to its resistance to its great circle as 1 to 2.45.

It appears, on the whole, that the theory gives the resistance of oblique plane surfaces too small, and that of curved surfaces too great; and that it is quite unfit for ascertaining the modifications of resistance arising from the figure of the body. The most prominent part of the prong changes the action of the fluid on the suc- ceeding parts, rendering it totally different from what it would be were that part detached from the rest, and ex- posed to the stream with the same obliquity. It is no consequence, therefore, to deduce any formula from the valuable experiments of the French academy. The ex- periments themselves are of great importance, because they give us the impulses on plane surfaces with every obliquity. They therefore put it in our power to select the most proper obliquity in a thousand important cases.

By appealing to them, we can tell what is the proper angle of the sail for producing the greatest impulse in the direction of the ship's course; or the best inclination of the sail of a wind-mill, or the best inclination of the float of a water-wheel, &c., &c. These deductions will be made in their proper places in the course of this work. We see also, that the deviation from the simple theory is not very considerable till the obliquity is great; and that, in the inclinations which other circum- stances would induce us to give to the floats of water- wheels, the sails of wind-mills, and the like, the results of the theory are sufficiently agreeable to experiment, for rendering this theory of very great use in the con- struction of machines. Its great defect is in the impul- sions on curved surfaces, which puts a stop to our im- provement of the science of naval architecture, and the working of ships.

But it is not enough to detect the faults of the theo- ry: we should try to amend it, or to substitute anoth- er. It is a pity that so much ingenuity should have been thrown away in the application of a theory so de- fective. Mathematicians were seduced, as has been al- ready observed, by the opportunity which it gave for exercising their calculus, which was a new thing at the time of publishing this theory. Newton saw clearly the defects of it, and makes no use of any part of it in his subsequent discussions, and plainly has used it merely as an introduction, in order to give some gene- ral notions in a subject quite new, and to give a demon- stration of one leading truth, viz. the proportionality of the impulsions to the squares of the velocities. While we profess the highest respect for the talents and labours of the great mathematicians who have followed New- ton in this most difficult research, we cannot help being sorry that some of the greatest of them continued to attach themselves to a theory which he neglected, mere- ly because it afforded an opportunity of displaying their profound knowledge of the new calculus, of which they were willing to ascribe the discovery to Leibnitz. It has been in a great measure owing to this that we have been so late in discovering our ignorance of the sub- ject. Newton had himself pointed out all the defects of this theory; and he set himself to work to discover another which should be more conformable to the na- ture of things, retaining only such deductions from the one as his great sagacity assured him would stand the test of experiment. Even in this he seems to have been mistaken by his followers. He retained the propor- tionality of the resistance to the square of the velocity. This they have endeavoured to demonstrate in a man- ner conformable to Newton's determination of the oblique impulsions of fluids; and under the cover of the agreement of this proposition with experiment, they in- troduced into mechanics a mode of expression, and even of conception, which is inconsistent with all accurate notions of these subjects. Newton's proposition was, that the motions communicated to the fluid, and there- fore the motions lost by the body, in equal times, were as the squares of the velocities; and he conceived these as proper measures of the resistances. It is a matter of experience, that the forces or pressures by which a body must be supported in opposition to the impulsions of fluids, are in this very proportion. In determining the proportion of the direct and oblique resistances of plane surfaces, Resistance surfaces, he considers the resistances to arise from mutual collisions of the surface and fluid, repeated at intervals of time too small to be perceived. But in making this comparison, he has no occasion whatever to consider this repetition; and when he assigns the proportion between the resistance of a cone and of its base, he, in fact, assigns the proportion between two simultaneous and instantaneous impulses. But the mathematicians who followed him have considered this repetition as equivalent to an augmentation of the initial or first impulse; and in this way have attempted to demonstrate that the resistances are as the squares of the velocities.

When the velocity is double, each impulse is double, and the number in a given time is double; therefore, say they, the resistance, and the force which will withstand it, is quadruple; and observation confirms their deduction: yet nothing is more gratuitous and illogical. It is very true that the resistance, conceived as Newton conceives it, the laws of motion sustained by a body moving in the fluid, is quadruple; but the instantaneous impulse, and the force which can withstand it, is, by all the laws of mechanics, only double. What is the force which can withstand a double impulse? Nothing but a double impulse. Nothing but impulse can be opposed to impulse; and it is a gross misconception to think of stating any kind of comparison between impulse and prelure. It is this which has given rise to much jargon and false reasoning about the force of percussion. This is stated as infinitely greater than any prelure, and as equivalent to a prelure infinitely repeated. It forced the abettors of these doctrines at least to deny the existence of all prelure whatever, and to assert that all motion, and tendency to motion, was the result of impulse. The celebrated Euler, perhaps the first mathematician, and the lowest philosopher, of this century, says, "since motion and impulse are seen to exist, and since we see that by means of motion prelure may be produced, as when a body in motion strikes another, or as when a body moved in a curved channel presses upon it, merely in consequence of its curvilinear motion, and the exertion of a centrifugal force; and since Nature is most wisely economical in all her operations; it is absurd to suppose that prelure, or tendency to motion, has any other origin; and it is the business of a philosopher to discover by what motion any observed prelure is produced." Whenever any prelure is observed, such as the prelure of gravity, of magnetism, of electricity, condensed air, nay, of a spring, and of elasticity and cohesion themselves, however disparate, nay, opposite, the philosopher must immediately cast about, and contrive a set of motions (creating pro re nata the movers) which will produce a prelure like the one observed. Having pleased his fancy with this, he cries out ingenia "this will produce the prelure?" et frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora, "therefore in this way the prelure is produced." Thus the vortices of Descartes are brought back in triumph, and have produced vortices without number, which fill the universe with motion and prelure.

Such bold attempts to overturn long-received doctrines in mechanics, could not be received without much criticism and opposition; and many able dissertations appeared from time to time in defence of the common doctrines. In consequence of the many objections to the comparison of pure prelure with pure percussion or impulse, John Bernoulli and others were at last obliged to assert that there were no perfectly hard bodies in nature, nor could be, but that all bodies were elastic; and that in the communication of motion by percussion, the velocities of both bodies were gradually changed by their mutual elasticity acting during the finite but imperceptible time of the collision. This was, in fact, giving up the whole argument, and banishing percussion, while their aim was to get rid of prelure. For what is elasticity but a prelure? and how shall it be produced? To act in this instance, must it arise from a still smaller impulse? But this will require another elasticity, and so on without end.

These are all legitimate consequences of this attempt to state a comparison between percussion and prelure. Numberless experiments have been made to confirm the statement; and there is hardly an itinerant lecturing showman who does not exhibit among his apparatus Gravelande's machine (Vol. I. plate xxxv. fig. 4.). But nothing affords so specious an argument as the experimented proportionality of the impulse of fluids to the square of the velocity. Here is every appearance of the accumulation of an infinity of minute impulses, in the known ratio of the velocity, each to each, producing prelures which are in the ratio of the squares of the velocities.

The prelures are observed; but the impulses or percussions, whose accumulation produces these prelures, are only supposed. The rare fluid, introduced by Newton for the purpose already mentioned, either does not exist in nature, or does not act in the manner we have said, the particles making their impulse, and then escaping through among the rest without affecting their motion. We cannot indeed lay what may be the proportion between the diameter and the distance of the particles: the first may be incomparably smaller than the second, even in mercury, the densest fluid which we are familiarly acquainted with: but although they do not touch each other, they act nearly as if they did, in consequence of their mutual attractions and repulsions. We have seen air a thousand times rarer in some experiments than in others, and therefore the distance of the particles at least ten times greater than their diameters; and yet, in this rare state, it propagates all prelures or impulses made on any part of it to a great distance, almost in an instant. It cannot be, therefore, that fluids act on bodies by impulse. It is very possible to conceive a fluid advancing with a flat surface against the flat surface of a solid. The very first and superficial particles may make an impulse; and if they were annihilated, the next might do the same: and if the velocity were double, these impulses would be double, and would be withstanded by a double force, and not a quadruple, as is observed; and this very circumstance, that a quadruple force is necessary, should have made us conclude that it was not to impulse that this force was opposed. The first particles having made their stroke, and not being annihilated, must escape laterally. In their escaping they effectually prevent every farther impulse, because they come in the way of those filaments which would have struck the body. The whole process seems to be somewhat as follows:

When the flat surface of the fluid has come into contact with the plane surface AD (fig. 7.), perpendicular to the direction DC of their motion, they must deflect to Resistance to both sides equally, and in equal portions, because no reason can be assigned why more should go to either side. By this means the filament EF, which would have struck the surface in G, is deflected before it arrives at the surface, and describes a curved path EFIHK, continuing its rectilineal motion to I, where it is intercepted by a filament immediately adjoining to EF, on the side of the middle filament DC. The different particles of DC may be supposed to impinge in succession at C, and to be deflected at right angles; and gliding along CB, to escape at B. Each filament in succession, outwards from DC, is deflected in its turn; and being hindered from even touching the surface CB, it glides off in a direction parallel to it; and thus EF is deflected in I, moves parallel to CB from I to H, and is again deflected at right angles, and describes HK parallel to DC. The same thing may be supposed to happen on the other side of DC.

And thus it would appear, that except two filaments immediately adjoining to the line DC, which bifurcates the surface at right angles, no part of the fluid makes any impulse on the surface AB. All the other filaments are merely pressed against it by the lateral filaments without them, which they turn aside, and prevent from striking the surface.

In like manner, when the fluid strikes the edge of a prism or wedge ACB (fig. 8.), it cannot be said that any real impulse is made. Nothing hinders us from supposing C a mathematical angle or indivisible point, not susceptible of any impulse, and serving merely to divide the stream. Each filament EF is effectually prevented from impinging at G in the line of its direction, and with the obliquity of incidence EGC, by the filaments between EF and DC, which glide along the surface CA; and it may be supposed to be deflected when it comes to the line CF which bifurcates the angle DCA, and again deflected and rendered parallel to DC at I. The same thing happens on the other side of DC; and we cannot in that case assert that there is any impulse.

We now see plainly how the ordinary theory must be totally unfit for furnishing principles of naval architecture, even although a formula could be deduced from such a series of experiments as those of the French Academy. Although we should know precisely the impulse, or, to speak now more cautiously, the action, of the fluid on a surface GL (fig. 9.) of any obliquity, when it is alone, detached from all others, we cannot in the smallest degree tell what will be the action of part of a stream or fluid advancing towards it, with the same obliquity, when it is preceded by an adjoining surface CG, having a different inclination; for the fluid will not glide along GL in the same manner as if it made part of a more extensive surface having the same inclination. The previous deflections are extremely different in these two cases; and the previous deflections are the only changes which we can observe in the motions of the fluid, and the only causes of that pressure which we observe the body to sustain, and which we call the impulse on it. This theory must, therefore, be quite unfit for ascertaining the action on a curved surface, which may be considered as made up of an indefinite number of succesive planes.

We now see with equal evidence how it happens that the action of fluids on solid bodies may and must be opposed by pressures, and may be compared with and measured by the pressure of gravity. We are not comparing forces of different kinds, perfections with prelusions, but prelusions with each other. Let us see whether this view of the subject will afford us any method of comparison or absolute measurement.

When a filament of fluid, that is, a row of corpuscles, are turned out of their course EF (fig. 7.), and forced Fig. 7. to take another course IH, force is required to produce this change of direction. The filament is prevented from proceeding by other filaments which lie between it and the body, and which deflect it in the same manner as if it were contained in a bended tube, and it will press on the concave filament next to it as it would press on the concave side of the tube. Suppose such a bended tube ABE (fig. 10.), and that a ball A is projected Fig. 10. along it with any velocity, and moves in it without friction: it is demonstrated, in elementary mechanics, that the ball will move with undiminished velocity, and will press on every point, such as B, of the concave side of the tube, in a direction BF perpendicular to the plane CBD, which touches the tube in the point B. This pressure on the adjoining filament, on the concave side of its path, must be withstood by that filament which deflects it; and it must be propagated across that filament to the next, and thus augment the pressure upon that next filament already pressed by the deflection of the intermediate filament; and thus there is a pressure towards the middle filament, and towards the body, arising from the deflection of all the outer filaments; and their accumulated sum must be conceived as immediately exerted on the middle filaments and on the body, because a perfect fluid transmits every pressure undiminished.

The pressure BF is equivalent to the two BH, BG, one of which is perpendicular, and the other parallel, to the direction of the original motion. By the first (taken in any point of the curvilinear motion of any filament), the two halves of the stream are pressed together; and in the case of fig. 7. and 8. exactly balance each other. But the prelusions, such as BG, must be ultimately withstood by the surface ACB; and it is by these accumulated prelusions that the solid body is urged down the stream; and it is these accumulated prelusions which we observe and measure in our experiments. We shall anticipate a little, and say that it is most easily demonstrated, that when a ball A (fig. 10.) moves with undiminished velocity in a tube so incurvated that its axis at E is at right angles to its axis at A, the accumulated action of the prelusions, such as BG, taken for every point of the path, is precisely equal to the force which would produce or extinguish the original motion.

This being the case, it follows most obviously, that if the two motions of the filaments are such as we have described and represented by fig. 7., the whole pressure in the direction of the stream, that is, the whole pressure which can be observed on the surface, is equal to the weight of a column of fluid having the surface for its base, and twice the fall productive of the velocity for its height, precisely as Newton deduced it from other considerations; and it seems to make no odds whether the fluid be elastic or unelastic, if the deflections and velocities are the same. Now it is a fact, that no difference in this respect can be observed in the actions of air and water; and this had always appeared a great defect in Newton's theory: but it was only a defect of Resistance, the theory attributed to him. But it is also true, that the observed action is but one-half of what is just now deduced from this improved view of the subject. Whence arises this difference? The reason is this: We have given a very erroneous account of the motions of the filaments. A filament EF does not move as represented in fig. 7, with two rectangular inflections at I and at H, and a path IH between them parallel to CB. The process of nature is more like what is represented in fig. 11. It is observed, that at the anterior part of the body AB, there remains a quantity of fluid ADB, almost, if not altogether flagrant, of a singular shape, having two curved concave sides AaD, BbD, along which the middle filaments glide. This fluid is very slowly changed.

The late Sir Charles Knowles, an officer of the British navy, equally eminent for his scientific professional knowledge and for his military talents, made many beautiful experiments for ascertaining the paths of the filaments of water. At a distance up the stream, he allowed small jets of a coloured fluid, which did not mix with water, to make part of the stream; and the experiments were made in troughs with sides and bottom of plate-glass. A small taper was placed at a considerable height above, by which the shadows of the coloured filaments were most distinctly projected on a white plane held below the trough, so that they were accurately drawn with a pencil. A few important particulars may be here mentioned.

The full water ADC, fig. 11, lasted for a long while before it was renewed; and it seemed to be gradually wasted by abrasion, by the adhesion of the surrounding water, which gradually licked away the outer parts from D to A and B; and it seemed to renew itself in the direction CD, opposite to the motion of the stream. There was, however, a considerable intricacy and eddy in this motion. Some (seemingly superficial) water was continually, but slowly, flowing outward from the line DC, while other water was seen within and below it, coming inwards and going backwards.

The coloured lateral filaments were most constant in their form, while the body was the same, although the velocity was in some cases quadrupled. Any change which this produced seemed confined to the superficial filaments.

As the filaments were deflected, they were also constricted, that is, the curved parts of the filaments were nearer each other than the parallel straight filaments up the stream; and this constriction was more considerable as the prow was more obtuse and the deflection greater.

The inner filaments were ultimately more deflected than those without them; that is, if a line be drawn touching the curve EFIH in the point H of contrary flexure, where the concavity begins to be on the side next the body, the angle HKC, contained between the axis and the tangent line, is so much the greater as the filament is nearer the axis.

When the body exposed to the stream was a box of upright sides, flat bottom, and angular prow, like a wedge, having its edge also upright, the filaments were not all deflected laterally, as theory would make us expect; but the filaments near the bottom were also deflected downwards as well as laterally, and glided along at some distance under the bottom, forming lines of double curvature.

The breadth of the stream that was deflected was much greater than that of the body; and the sensible deflection began at a considerable distance up the stream, especially in the outer filaments.

Lastly, the form of the curves was greatly influenced by the proportion between the width of the trough and that of the body. The curvature was always less when the trough was very wide in proportion to the body.

Great varieties were also observed in the motion or velocity of the filaments. In general, the filaments increased in velocity outwards from the body to a certain small distance, which was nearly the same in all cases, and then diminished all the way outward. This was observed by inequalities in the colour of the filaments, by which one could be observed to outstrip another. The retardation of those next the body seemed to proceed from friction; and it was imagined that without this the velocity there would always have been greatest.

These observations give us considerable information with respect to the mechanism of these motions, and the accelerations from the motion of fluids upon solids. The pressure in the duplicate ratio of the velocities comes here again into view. We found, that although the velocities were very different, the curves were precisely the same. Now the observed pressures arise from the transverse forces by which each particle of a filament is retained in its curvilinear path; and we know that the force by which a body is retained in any curve is directly as the square of the velocity, and inversely as the radius of curvature. The curvature, therefore, remaining the same, the transverse forces, and consequently the pressure on the body, must be as the square of the velocity: and, on the other hand, we can see pretty clearly (indeed it is rigorously demonstrated by D'Alembert), that whatever be the velocities, the curves will be the same. For it is known in hydraulics, that it requires a fourfold or ninefold pressure to produce a double or triple velocity. And as all pressures are propagated through a perfect fluid without diminution, this fourfold pressure, while it produces a double velocity, produces also fourfold transverse pressures, which will retain the particles, moving twice as fast, in the same curvilinear paths. And thus we see that the impulses, as they are called, and resistances of fluids, have a certain relation to the weight of a column of fluid, whose height is the height necessary for producing the velocity. How it happens that a plane surface, immersed in an extended fluid, sustains just half the pressure which it would have sustained had the motions been such as are sketched in figure 7th, is a matter of more curious and difficult investigation. But we see evidently that the pressure must be less than what is there assigned; for the flagrant water ahead of the body greatly diminishes the ultimate deflections of the filaments: And it may be demonstrated, that when the part BE of the canal, fig. 10, is inclined to the part AB in an angle less than 90°, the pressures BG along the whole canal are as the versed sine of the ultimate angle of deflection, or the versed sine of the angle which the part BE makes with the part AB. Therefore, since the deflections resemble more the sketch given in fig. 11, the accumulated sum of all these forces BG of fig. 10 must be less than the similar sum corresponding to fig. 7, that is, less than the weight of the column of fluid, having twice the productive height for its height. How it is just one half, shall be our next inquiry. And here we must return to the labours of Sir Isaac Newton. After many beautiful observations on the nature and mechanism of continued fluids, he says, that the resistance which they occasion is but one half of that occasioned by the rare fluid which had been the subject of his former proposition; "which truth," (says he, with his usual caution and modesty), "I shall endeavour to show."

He then enters into another, as novel and as difficult an investigation, viz. the laws of hydraulics, and endeavours to ascertain the motion of fluids through orifices when urged by pressures of any kind. He endeavours to ascertain the velocity with which a fluid escapes through a horizontal orifice in the bottom of a vessel, by the action of its weight, and the pressure which this vein of fluid will exert on a little circle which occupies part of the orifice. To obtain this, he employs a kind of approximation and trial, of which it would be extremely difficult to give an extract; and then, by increasing the diameter of the vessel and of the hole to infinity, he accommodates his reasoning to the case of a plane surface exposed to an indefinitely extended stream of fluid; and, lastly, giving to the little circular surface the motion which he had before ascribed to the fluid, he says, that the resistance to a plane surface moving through an elastic continuous fluid, is equal to the weight of a column of the fluid whose height is one-half of that necessary for acquiring the velocity; and he says, that the resistance of a globe is, in this case, the same with that of a cylinder of the same diameter. The resistance, therefore, of the cylinder or circle is four times less, and that of the globe is twice less than their resistances on a rare elastic medium.

But this determination, though founded on principles or assumptions, which are much nearer to the real state of things, is liable to great objections. It depends on his method for ascertaining the velocity of the issuing fluid; a method extremely ingenious, but defective. The cataract, which he supposes, cannot exist as he supposes, depending by the full action of gravity, and surrounded by a funnel of stagnant fluid. For, in such circumstances, there is nothing to balance the hydrostatical pressure of this surrounding fluid; because the whole pressure of the central cataract is employed in producing its own descent. In the next place, the pressure which he determines is beyond all doubt only half of what is observed on a plane surface in all our experiments. And, in the third place, it is repugnant to all our experience, that the resistance of a globe or of a pointed body is as great as that of its circular base. His reasons are by no means convincing. He supposes them placed in a tube or canal; and since they are supposed of the same diameter, and therefore leave equal spaces at their sides, he concludes, that because the water escapes by their sides with the same velocity, they will have the same resistance. But this is by no means a necessary consequence. Even if the water should be allowed to exert equal pressures on them, the pressures being perpendicular to their surfaces, and these surfaces being inclined to the axis, while in the case of the base of a cylinder, it is in the direction of the axis, there must be a difference in the accumulated or compound pressure in the direction of the axis. He indeed says, that in the case of the cylinder or the circle obstructing the canal, a quantity of water remains stagnant on its upper surface; viz. all the water whose motion would not contribute to the most ready passage of the fluid between the cylinder and the sides of the canal or tube; and that this water may be considered as frozen. If this be the case, it is indifferent what is the form of the body that is covered with this mass of frozen or stagnant water. It may be a hemisphere or a cone; the resistance will be the same.—But Newton by no means affirms, either with precision or with distinct evidence, the form and magnitude of this stagnant water, so as to give confidence in the results. He contents himself with saying, that it is that water whose motion is not necessary or cannot contribute to the most easy passage of the water.

There remains, therefore, many imperfections in this theory. But notwithstanding these defects, we cannot but admire the efforts and sagacity of this great philosopher, who, after having discovered so many sublime truths of mechanical nature, ventured to trace out a path for the solution of a problem which no person had yet attempted to bring within the range of mathematical investigation. And his solution, though inaccurate, shines throughout with that inventive genius and that fertility of resource, which no man ever possessed in so eminent a degree.

Those who have attacked the solution of Sir Isaac Newton have not been more successful. Most of them, instead of principles, have given a great deal of calculus; and the chief merit which any of them can claim, is that of having deduced some single proposition which happens to quadrature with some single case of experiment, while their general theories are either inapplicable, from difficulty and obscurity, or are discordant with more general observation.

We must, however, except from this number Daniel Bernoulli, who was not only a great geometer, but one of the first philosophers of the age. He possessed all the talents, and was free from the faults of that celebrated family; and while he was the mathematician of Europe who penetrated farthest in the investigation of this great problem, he was the only person who felt, or at least who acknowledged, its great difficulty.

In the 2d volume of the Comment. Petropol. 1727, he Bernoulli's proposes a formula for the resistance of fluids, deduced general from considerations quite different from those on which Newton founded his solution. But he delivers it with modest diffidence; because he found that it gave a resistance four times greater than experiment. In the same dissertation he determines the resistance of a sphere to be one half of that of its great circle. But in his subsequent theory of Hydrodynamics (a work which must ever rank among the first productions of the age, and is equally eminent for refined and elegant mathematics, and ingenious and original thoughts in dynamics), he calls this determination in question. It is indeed founded on the same hypothetical principles which have been unskilfully detached from the rest of Newton's physics, and made the groundwork of all the subsequent theories on this subject.

In 1741 Mr Daniel Bernoulli published another dissertation (in the 8th volume of the Com. Petropol.) in a particular case; namely, to the impulse of a vein of fluid with great precision. Resistance fluid falling perpendicularly on an infinitely extended plane surface. This he demonstrates to be equal to the weight of a column of the fluid whose base is the area of the vein, and whose height is twice the fall producing the velocity. This demonstration is drawn from the true principles of mechanics and the acknowledged laws of hydraulics, and may be received as a strict physical demonstration. As it is the only proposition in the whole theory that has as yet received a demonstration acceptable to readers not versed in all the refinements of modern analysis; and as the principles on which it proceeds will undoubtedly lead to a solution of every problem which can be proposed, once that our mathematical knowledge shall enable us to apply them—we think it our duty to give it in this place, although we must acknowledge that this problem is so very limited, that it will hardly bear an application to any case that differs but a little from the express conditions of the problem. There do occur cases however in practice, where it may be applied to very great advantage.

Daniel Bernoulli gives two demonstrations; one of which may be called a popular one, and the other is more scientific and introductory to further investigation. We shall give both.

Bernoulli first determines the whole action exerted in the efflux of the vein of fluid. Suppose the velocity of efflux \( v \) is that which would be acquired by falling through the height \( h \). It is well known that a body moving during the time of this fall with the velocity \( v \) would describe a space \( 2 \times h \). The effect, therefore, of the hydraulic action is, that in the time \( t \) of the fall \( h \), there issues a cylinder or prism of water whose base is the cross section \( s \) or area of the vein, and whose length is \( 2 \times h \). And this quantity of matter is now moving with the velocity \( v \). The quantity of motion, therefore, which is thus produced is \( 2 \times h \times v \); and this quantity of motion is produced in the time \( t \). And this is the accumulated effect of all the expelling forces, eliminated in the direction of the efflux. Now, to compare this with the exertion of some pressing power with which we are familiarly acquainted, let us suppose this pillar \( 2 \times h \) to be frozen, and, being held in the hand, to be dropped. It is well known, that in the time \( t \) it will fall through the height \( h \), and will acquire the velocity \( v \), and now possesses the quantity of motion \( 2 \times h \times v \)—and all this is the effect of its weight. The weight, therefore, of the pillar \( 2 \times h \) produces the same effect, and in the same time, and (as may easily be seen) in the same gradual manner, with the expelling forces of the fluid in the vessel, which expelling forces arise from the pressure of all the fluid in the vessel. Therefore the accumulated hydraulic pressure, by which a vein of a heavy fluid is forced out through an orifice in the bottom or side of a vessel, is equal (when estimated in the direction of the efflux) to the weight of a column of the fluid, having for its base the section of the vein, and twice the fall productive of the velocity of efflux for its height.

Now let \( A B D C \) (fig. 12.) be a quadrangular vessel with upright plane sides, in one of which is an orifice \( E F \). From every point of the circumference of this orifice, supposing horizontal lines \( E e, F f, &c. \), which will mark a similar surface on the opposite side of the vessel. Suppose the orifice \( E F \) to be shut. There can be no doubt but that the surfaces \( E F \) and \( e f \) will be equally pressed in opposite directions. Now open the orifice \( E F \); the water will rush out, and the pressure on \( E F \) is now removed. There will therefore be a tendency in the vessel to move back in the direction \( E e \). And this tendency must be precisely equal and opposite to the whole effort of the expelling forces. This is a conclusion as evident as any proposition in mechanics. It is thus that a gun recoils and a rocket rises in the air; and on this is founded the operation of Mr Parent's or Dr Barker's mills, described in all treatises of mechanics, and most learnedly treated by Euler in the Berlin Memoirs.

Now, let this stream of water be received on a circular plane \( M N \), perpendicular to its axis, and let this circular plane be of such extent, that the vein escapes from its sides in an infinitely thin sheet, the water flowing off in a direction parallel to the plane. The vein, by this means will expand into a trumpet-like shape, having curved sides, \( F K G, F L H \) fig. 13. We abstract at present Fig. 13, the action of gravity which would cause the vein to bend downwards, and occasion a greater velocity at \( H \) than at \( G \); and we suppose the velocity equal in every point of the circumference. It is plain, that if the action of gravity be neglected after the water has issued through the orifice \( E F \), the velocity in every point of the circumference of the plane \( M N \) will be that of the efflux through \( E F \).

Now, because \( L K G \) is the natural shape assumed by the vein, it is plain, that if the whole vein were covered by a tube or mouth-piece, fitted to its shape, and perfectly polished, so that the water shall glide along it, without any friction (a thing which we may always suppose), the water will exert no pressure whatever on this trumpet mouth-piece. Lastly, let us suppose that the plane \( M N \) is attached to the mouth-piece by some bits of wire, so as to allow the water to escape all round by the narrow chink between the mouth-piece and the plane: We have now a vessel consisting of the upright part \( A B D C \), the trumpet \( G K E F L H \), and the plane \( M N \); and the water is escaping from every point of the circumference of the chink \( G H N M \) with the velocity \( v \). If any part of this chink were shut up, there would be a pressure on that part equivalent to the force of efflux from the opposite part. Therefore, when all is open, these efforts of efflux balance each other all round. There is not therefore any tendency in this compound vessel to move to any side. But take away the plane \( M N \), and there would immediately arise a pressure in the direction \( E e \) equal to the weight of the column \( 2 \times h \). This is therefore balanced by the pressure on the circular plane \( M N \), which is therefore equal to this weight, and the proposition is demonstrated.

A number of experiments were made by Professor Kraft at St Petersburg, by receiving the vein on a plane \( M N \) (fig. 12.) which was fastened to the arm of a balance \( O P Q \), having a scale \( R \) hanging on the opposite arm. The resistance or pressure on the plane was measured by weights put into the scale \( R \); and the velocity of the jet was measured by means of the distance \( K H \), to which it spouted on a horizontal plane.

The results of these experiments were as conformable to the theory as could be wished. The resistance was between this theory always a little less than what the theory required, but greatly exceeded its half; the result of the generally received theories. This defect should be expected; for counted Resistance, the demonstration supposes the plane MN to be infinitely extended, so that the film of water which issues through the chink may be accurately parallel to the plane. This never can be completely effected. Also it was supposed, that the velocity was justly measured by the amplitude of the parabola EGK. But it is well known that the very putting the plane MN in the way of the jet, though at the distance of an inch from the orifice, will diminish the velocity of the efflux through this orifice. This is easily verified by experiment. Observe the time in which the vessel will be emptied when there is no plane in the way. Repeat the experiment with the plane in its place; and more time will be necessary. The following is a note of a course of experiments, taken as they stand, without any selection.

| No | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----| | Ref. by theory | 1701 | 1720 | 1657 | 1583 | 1529 | 1472 | | Ref. by experiment | 1483 | 1403 | 1436 | 1401 | 1423 | 1321 | | Difference | 218 | 217 | 165 | 182 | 106 | 51 |

In order to demonstrate this proposition in such a manner as to furnish the means of investigating the whole mechanism and action of moving fluids, it is necessary to premise an elementary theorem of curvilinear motions.

If a particle of matter describes a curve line ABCE (fig. 14.) by the continual action of deflecting forces, which vary in any manner, both with respect to intensity and direction, and if the action of these forces, in every point of the curve, be resolved into two directions, perpendicular and parallel to the initial direction AK; then,

1. The accumulated effect of the deflecting forces, estimated in a direction AD perpendicular to AK, is to the final quantity of motion as the fine of the final change of direction is to radius.

Let us first suppose that the accelerating forces act by starts, at equal intervals of time, when the body is in the points A, B, C, E. And let AN be the deflecting force, which, acting at A, changes the original direction AK to AB. Produce AB till BH = AB, and complete the parallelogram BFCH. Then FB is the force which, by acting at B, changed the motion BH (the continuation of AB) to BC. In like manner make CH (in BC produced) equal to BC, and complete the parallelogram CFEH. CF is the deflecting force at C, &c. Draw BO parallel to AN, and GBK perpendicular to AK. Also draw lines through C and E perpendicular to AK, and draw through B and C lines parallel to AK. Draw also HI, HI perpendicular, and FG, HI, HI parallel to AK.

It is plain that BK is BO or AN estimated in the direction perpendicular to AK, and that BG is BF estimated in the same way. And since BH = AB, HI or IM is equal to BK. Also CI is equal to BG. Therefore CM is equal to AP + BG. By similar reasoning it appears that EM = EI + HI = CG + CM, = CG + BG, + AP.

Therefore if CE be taken for the measure of the final velocity or quantity of motion, EM will be the accumulated effect of the deflecting forces estimated in the direction AD perpendicular to AK. But EM is to CE as the fine of mCE is to radius; and the angle mCE is the angle contained between the initial and final directions, because CM is parallel to AK. Now let the intervals of time diminish continually and the frequency of the impulses increase. The deflection becomes ultimately continuous, and the motion curvilinear, and the proposition is demonstrated.

We see that the initial velocity and its subsequent changes do not affect the conclusion, which depends entirely on the final quantity of motion.

2. The accumulated effect of the accelerating forces, when estimated in the direction AK of the original motion, or in the opposite direction, is equal to the difference between the initial quantity of motion and the product of the final quantity of motion by the cosine of the change of direction.

For CM = C / m, I = BM - f q, BM = BL - ML = AK - FG, AK = AO - OK = AO - PN.

Therefore PN + FG + fQ (the accumulated impulse in the direction OA) = AO - CM = AO - CE X cosine of ECM.

Cor. 1. The same action, in the direction opposite to that of the original motion, is necessary for causing a body to move at right angles to its former direction as for stopping its motion. For in this case, the cosine of the change of direction is = o, and AO - CE X cosine ECM = AO - o = AO, = the original motion.

Cor. 2. If the initial and final velocities are the same, the accumulated action of the accelerating forces, estimated in the direction OA, is equal to the product of the original quantity of motion by the verified sine of the change of direction.

The application of these theorems, particularly the second, to our present purpose is very obvious. All the filaments of the jet were originally moving in the direction of its axis, and they are finally moving along the retarding plane, or perpendicular to their former motion. Therefore their transverse forces in the direction of the axis are (in cumulo) equal to the force which would stop the motion. For the aggregate of the simultaneous forces of every particle in the whole filament is the same with that of the successive forces of one particle, as it arrives at different points of its curvilinear path. All the transverse forces, estimated in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the vein, precisely balance and sustain each other; and the only forces which can produce a sensible effect are those in a direction parallel to the axis. By these all the inner filaments are prefed towards the plane MN, and must be withstood by it. It is highly probable, nay certain, that there is a quantity of stagnant water in the middle of the vein which sustains the preffres of the moving filaments without it, and transmits it to the solid plane. But this does not alter the case. And, fortunately, it is of no consequence what changes happen in the velocities of the particles while each is describing its own curve. And it is from this circumstance, peculiar to this particular case of perpendicular impulse, that we are able to draw the conclusion. It is by no means difficult to demonstrate that the velocity of the external surface of this jet is constant, and indeed of every jet which is not acted on by external forces after it has quitted the orifice: but this diffusion is quite unnecessary here. It is however extremely difficult to ascertain, even in this most simple case, what is the velocity of the internal filaments in the different points of their progress. Such is the demonstration which Mr Berroulli has given of this proposition. Limited as it is, it is highly valuable, because derived from the true principles of hydraulics.

He hoped to render it more extensive and applicable to oblique impulses, when the axis AC of the vein (fig. 15) is inclined to the plane in an angle ACN. But here all the simplicity of the case is gone, and we are now obliged to ascertain the motion of each filament. It might not perhaps be impossible to determine what must happen in the plane of the figure, that is, in a plane passing through the axis of the vein, and perpendicular to the plane MN. But even in this case it would be extremely difficult to determine how much of the fluid will go in the direction EKG, and what will go in the path FLH, and to ascertain the form of each filament, and the velocity in its different points. But in the real state of the case, the water will dissipate from the centre C on every side; and we cannot tell in what proportions. Let us however consider a little what happens in the plane of the figure, and suppose that all the water goes either in the course EKG or in the course FLH. Let the quantities of water which take these two courses have the proportions of \( p \) and \( n \). Let \( \sqrt{2a} \) be the velocity at A, \( \sqrt{2b} \) be the velocity at G, and \( \sqrt{2\beta} \) be the velocity at H. ACG and ACH are the two changes of direction, of which let \( c \) and \( -c \) be the cosines. Then, adopting the former reasoning, we have the pressure of the watery plate GKEACM on the plane in the direction AC:

\[ \frac{p}{p + n} \times 2a - 2cb, \]

and the pressure of the plate HLFACN:

\[ \frac{n}{p + n} \times 2a + 2c\beta, \]

and their sum

\[ \frac{p \times 2a - 2cb + n \times 2a + 2c\beta}{p + n}; \]

which being multiplied by the sine of ACM or \( \sqrt{1 - c^2} \), gives the pressure perpendicular to the plane MN:

\[ \frac{p \times 2a - 2cb + n \times 2a}{p + n} \times 2ac \sqrt{1 - c^2}. \]

But there remains a pressure in the direction perpendicular to the axis of the vein, which is not balanced, as in the former case, by the equality on opposite sides of the axis. The pressure arising from the water which escapes at G has an effect opposite to that produced by the water which escapes at H. When this is taken into account, we shall find that their joint efforts perpendicular to AC are

\[ \frac{p - n}{p + n} \times 2a \sqrt{1 - c^2}, \]

which, being multiplied by the cosine of ACM, gives the action perpendicular to MN:

\[ \frac{p - n}{p + n} \times 2ac \sqrt{1 - c^2}. \]

The sum or joint effort of all these pressures is

\[ \frac{p \times 2a - 2cb + n \times 2a + 2c\beta}{p + n} \sqrt{1 - c^2} + \frac{p - n}{p + n} \times 2ac \sqrt{1 - c^2}. \]

Thus, from this case, which is much simpler than can happen in nature, seeing that there will always be a lateral efflux, the determination of the impulse is as uncertain and vague as it was sure and precise in the former case.

It is therefore without proper authority that the absolute impulse of a vein of fluid on a plane which receives it wholly, is affected to be proportional to the fine of incidence. If indeed we suppose the velocity in G and H are equal to that at A, then \( b = \beta = a \), and the whole impulse is \( 2a \sqrt{1 - c^2} \), as is commonly supposed. But this cannot be. Both the velocity and quantity at H are less than those at G. Nay, frequently there is no efflux on the side H when the obliquity is very great. We may conclude in general, that the oblique impulse will always bear to the direct impulse a greater proportion than that of the fine of incidence to radius. If the whole water escapes at G, and none goes off laterally, the pressure will be \( 2a + 2ac - 2bc \times \sqrt{1 - c^2} \). The experiments of the Abbé Boët show in the plainest manner that the pressure of a vein, striking obliquely on a plane which receives it wholly, diminishes faster than in the ratio of the square of the fine of incidence; whereas, when the oblique plane is wholly immersed in the stream, the impulse is much greater than in this proportion, and in great obliques it is nearly as the fine.

Nor will this proposition determine the impulse of a fluid on a plane wholly immersed in it, even when the impulse is perpendicular to the plane. The circumstance is now wanting on which we can establish a calculation, namely, the angle of final deflection. Could this be ascertained for each filament, and the velocity of the filament, the principles are completely adequate to an accurate solution of the problem. In the experiments which we mentioned to have been made under the inspection of Sir Charles Knowles, a cylinder of six inches diameter was exposed to the action of a stream moving precisely one foot per second; and when certain deductions were made for the water which was held adhering to the posterior base (as will be noticed afterwards), the impulse was found equal to \( \frac{3}{4} \) ounces avoirdupois. There were 36 coloured filaments distributed on the stream, in such situations as to give the most useful indications of their curvature. It was found necessary to have some which passed under the body and some above it; for the form of these filaments, at the same distance from the axis of the cylinder, was considerably different: and those filaments which were situated in planes neither horizontal nor vertical took a double curvature. In short, the curves were all traced with great care, and the deflecting forces were computed for each, and reduced to the direction of the axis; and they were summed up in such a manner as to give the impulse of the whole stream. The deflections were marked as far ahead of the cylinder as they could be assuredly observed. By this method the impulse was computed to be \( \frac{3}{4} \) ounces, differing from observation \( \frac{1}{4} \) of an ounce, or about \( \frac{1}{7} \) of the whole; a difference which may most reasonably be ascribed to the adhesion of the water, which must be most sensible in such small velocities. These experiments may therefore be considered as giving all the confirmation that can be desired of the justness of the principles. This indeed hardly admits of a doubt: but, alas! it gives us but final affluence; for all this is empirical, in as far as it leaves us in every case the task of observing the form of the curves, and Resistance, and the velocities in their different points. To derive service from this most judicious method of Daniel Bernoulli, we must discover some method of determining, *a priori*, what will be the motion of the fluid whose course is obstructed by a body of any form. And here we cannot omit taking notice of the casual observations of Sir Isaac Newton when attempting to determine the resistance of the plane surface or cylinder, or sphere exposed to a stream moving in a canal. He says, that the form of the resisting surface is of less consequence, because there is always a quantity of water stagnant upon it, and which may therefore be considered as frozen; and he therefore considers that water only whose motion is necessary for the most expeditious discharge of the water in the vessel. He endeavours to discriminate that water from the rest; and although it must be acknowledged that the principle which he assumes for this purpose is very gratuitous, because it only shows, that if certain portions of the water, which he determines very ingeniously, were really frozen, the rest will flow, as he says, and will exert the pressure which he assigns; still we must admire his fertility of resource, and his sagacity in thus foreseeing what subsequent observation has completely confirmed.

We are even disposed to think, that in this casual observation Sir Isaac Newton has pointed out the only method of arriving at a solution of the problem; and that, if we could discover what motions are not necessary for the most expeditious passage of the water, and could thus determine the form and magnitude of the stagnant water which adheres to the body, we should much more easily ascertain the real motions which occasion the observed resistance. We are here disposed to have recourse to the economy of nature, the improper use of which we have sometimes taken the liberty of reprehending. Mr Maupertuis published as a great discovery his principle of smallest action, where he showed that in all the mutual actions of bodies the quantity of action was a minimum; and he applied this to the solution of many difficult problems with great success, imagining that he was really reasoning from a contingent law of nature, selected by its infinitely wise Author, viz., that in all occasions there is the smallest possible exertion of natural powers. Mr D'Alembert has, however, shown (vid. Encyclopédie Française, Action) that this was but a whim, and that the minimum observed by Maupertuis is merely a minimum of calculus, peculiar to a formula which happens to express a combination of mathematical quantities which frequently occurs in our way of considering the phenomena of nature, but which is no natural measure of action.

But the chevalier D'Arcy has shown, that in the trains of natural operations which terminate in the production of motion in a particular direction, the intermediate communications of motion are such that the smallest possible quantity of motion is produced. We seem obliged to conclude, that this law will be observed in the present instance; and it seems a problem not above our reach to determine the motions which result from it. We would recommend the problem to the eminent mathematicians in some simple case, such as the proposition already demonstrated by Daniel Bernoulli, or the perpendicular impulse on a cylinder included in a tubular canal; and if they succeed in this, great things may be expected. We think that experience gives great encouragement. We see that the resistance to a plane surface is a very small matter greater than the weight of a column of the fluid having the full productive of the velocity for its height, and the small excess is most probably owing to adhesion, and the measure of the real resistance is probably precisely this weight. The velocity of a flowing fluid was found, in fact, to be that acquired by falling from the surface of the fluid; and it was by looking at this, as at a pole star, that Newton, Bernoulli, and others, have with great sagacity and ingenuity discovered much of the laws of hydraulics, by searching for principles which would give this result. We may hope for similar success.

In the mean time, we may receive this as a physical truth, that the perpendicular impulse or resistance of a plane surface, wholly immersed in the fluid, is equal to the weight of the column having the surface for its base, and the fall producing the velocity for its height.

This is the medium result of all experiments made in these precise circumstances. And it is confirmed by a set of experiments of a kind wholly different, and which seem to point it out more certainly as an immediate consequence of hydraulic principles.

If Mr Pitot's tube be exposed to a stream of fluid issuing from a reservoir or vessel, as represented in fig. 16, with the open mouth I pointed directly against Pitot's tube, this stream, the fluid is observed to stand at K in the up Fig. 16. right tube, precisely on a level with the fluid AB in the reservoir. Here is a most unexceptionable experiment, in which the impulse of the stream is actually opposed to the hydrostatical prelude of the fluid on the tube. Pressure is in this case opposed to pressure, because the issuing fluid is deflected by what flows in the mouth of the tube, in the same way in which it would be deflected by a firm surface. We shall have occasion by and by to mention some most valuable and instructive experiments made with this tube.

It was this which suggested to the great mathematician Euler another theory of the impulse and resistance of fluids, which must not be omitted, as it is applied in his elaborate performance On the Theory of the Construction and Working of Ships, in two volumes 4to, which was afterwards abridged and used as a textbook in some marine academies. He supposes a stream of fluid ABCD (fig. 17.), moving with any velocity, to strike the plane BD perpendicularly, and that part of it goes through a hole EF, forming a jet EGHF. Mr Euler says, that the velocity of this jet will be the same with the velocity of the stream. Now compare this with an equal stream issuing from a hole in the side of a vessel with the same velocity. The one stream is urged out by the pressure occasioned by the impulse of the fluid; the other is urged out by the pressure of gravity. The effects are equal, and the modifying circumstances are the same. The causes are therefore equal, and the pressure occasioned by the impulse of a stream of fluid, moving with any velocity, is equal to the weight of a column of fluid whose height is productive of this velocity, &c. He then determines the oblique impulse by the resolution of motion, and deduces the common rules of resistance, &c.

But all this is without just grounds. This gentleman was always satisfied with the slightest analogies which would give him an opportunity of exhibiting his great great dexterity in algebraic analysis, and was not afterwards startled by any discordancy with observation. Analysis magis fidendum is a frequent assertion with him. Though he wrote a large volume containing a theory of light and colours totally opposite to Newton's, he has published many dissertations on optical phenomena on the Newtonian principles, expressly because his own principles non idem facile anfam praebet analysi instruendae.

Not a shadow of argument is given for the leading principle in this theory, viz. that the velocity of the jet is the same with the velocity of the stream. None can be given, but saying, that the pressure is equivalent to its production; and this is assuming the very thing he labours to prove. The matter of fact is, that the velocity of the jet is greater than that of the stream, and may be greater almost in any proportion. Which curious circumstance was discovered and ingeniously explained long ago by Daniel Bernoulli in his Hydrodynamica. It is evident that the velocity must be greater. Were a stream of fluid to come against the plane, what goes through would indeed preserve its velocity unchanged; but when a real fluid strikes the plane, all that does not pass through is deflected on all sides; and by these deflections forces are excited, by which the filaments which surround the cylinder immediately fronting the hole are made to press the cylinder on all sides, and as it were squeeze it between them; and thus the particles at the hole must of necessity be accelerated, and the velocity of the jet must be greater than that of the stream. We are disposed to think that, in a fluid perfectly incompreffible, the velocity will be double, or at least increased in the proportion of $1/\sqrt{2}$. If the fluid is in the smallest degree compressible, even in the very small degree that water is, the velocity at the first impulse may be much greater. D. Bernoulli found that a column of water moving 5 feet per second, in a tube some hundred feet long, produced a velocity of 136 feet per second in the first moment.

There being this radical defect in the theory of Mr Euler, it is needless to take notice of its total insufficiency for explaining oblique impulses and the resistance of curvilinear flows.

We are extremely sorry that our readers are deriving so little advantage from all that we have said; and that having taken them by the hand, we are thus obliged to grope about, with only a few scattered rays of light to direct our steps. Let us see what assistance we can get from Mr d'Alembert, who has attempted a solution of that problem in a method entirely new and extremely ingenious. He saw clearly, that all the followers of Newton had forsaken the path which he had marked out for them in the second part of his investigation, and had merely amused themselves with the mathematical discussion with which his introductory hypothesis gave them an opportunity of occupying themselves. He paid the deserved tribute of applause to Daniel Bernoulli for having introduced the notion of pure prelure as the chief agent in this business; and he saw that he was in the right road, and that it was from hydrostatical principles alone that we had any chance of explaining the phenomena of hydraulics. Bernoulli had only considered the prelures which were excited in consequence of the curvilinear motions of the particles. Mr d'Alembert even thought that these prelures were not the consequences, but the causes, of these curvilinear motions. No internal motion can happen in a fluid but in consequence of an unbalanced prelude; and every such motion will produce an inequality of pressure, which will determine the succeeding motions. He therefore endeavoured to reduce all to the discovery of those disturbing prelures, and thus to the laws of hydrostatics. He had long before this hit on a very refined and ingenious view of the action of bodies on each other, which had enabled him to solve many of the most difficult problems concerning the motions of bodies, such as the centre of oscillation, of spontaneous conversion, the precession of the equinoxes, &c., &c., with great facility and elegance. He saw that the same principle would apply to the action of fluid bodies. The principle is this:

"In whatever manner any number of bodies are supposed to act on each other, and by these actions come to change their present motions, if we conceive that the motion which each body would have in the following instant (if it became free), is resolved into two other motions; one of which is the motion which it really takes in the following instant; the other will be such, that if each body had no other motion but this second, the whole bodies would have remained in equilibrium."

We here observe, that "the motion which each body would have in the following instant, if it became free," is a continuation of the motion which it has in the first instant. It may therefore perhaps be better expressed thus:

"If the motions of bodies, anyhow acting on each other, be considered in two consecutive instants, and if we conceive the motion which it has in the first instant as compounded of two others, one of which is the motion which it actually takes in the second instant, the other is such, that if each body had only those second motions, the whole system would have remained in equilibrium."

The proposition itself is evident. For if these second motions be not such as that an equilibrium of the whole system would result from them, the other component motions would not be those which the bodies really have after the change; for they would necessarily be altered by these unbalanced motions. See D'Alembert Élémens de Dynamique.

Afflicted by this incontestable principle, M. d'Alembert demonstrates, in a manner equally new and simple, those propositions which Newton had so cautiously deduced from his hypothetical fluid, showing that they were not limited to this hypothesis, viz. that the motions produced by similar bodies, similarly projected in them, would be similar; that whatever were the prelures, the curves described by the particles would be the same; and that the resistances would be proportional to the squares of the velocities. He then comes to consider the fluid as having its motions constrained by the form of the canal or by solid obstacles interposed.

We shall here give a summary account of his fundamental proposition.

It is evident, that if the body ADCE (fig. 18.) did not form an obstruction to the motion of the water, the account of particles would describe parallel lines TF, OK, PS, &c., his fundamental proposition. But while yet at a distance from the body in F, K, S position, they gradually change their directions, and describe the curves FM, K m, S n, so much more incurvated as they are nearer to the body. At a certain distance ZY this curvature... Resistance-curvature will be insensible, and the fluid included in the space ZYHQ will move uniformly as if the solid body were not there. The motions on the other side of the axis AC will be the same; and we need only attend to one half, and we shall consider these as in a state of permanency.

No body changes either its direction or velocity otherwise than by insensible degrees: therefore the particle which is moving in the axis will not reach the vertex A of the body, where it behoved to deflect instantaneously at right angles. It will therefore begin to be deflected at some point F a-head of the body, and will describe a curve FM, touching the axis in F, and the body in M; and then, gliding along the body, will quit it at some point L, describing a tangent curve, which will join the axis again (touching it) in R; and thus there will be a quantity of stagnant water FAM before or a-head of the body, and another LCR behind or after of it.

Let \(a\) be the velocity of a particle of the fluid in any instant, and \(a'\) its velocity in the next instant. The velocity \(a\) may be considered as compounded of \(a'\) and \(a''\). If the particles tended to move with the velocities \(a''\) only, the whole fluid would be in equilibrium (general principle), and the pressure of the fluid would be the same as if all were stagnant, and each particle were urged by a force \(\frac{a''}{t}\), \(t\) expressing an indefinitely small moment of time. (N.B. \(a''\) is the proper expression of the accelerating force, which, by acting during the moment \(t\), would generate the velocity \(a''\); and \(a''\) is supposed an indeterminate quantity, different perhaps for each particle.) Now let \(a\) be supposed constant, or \(a = a'\). In this case \(a'' = 0\). That is to say, no pressure whatever will be exerted on the solid body unless there happen changes in the velocities or directions of the particles.

Let \(a\) and \(a'\) then be the motions of the particles in two consecutive instants. They would be in equilibrium if urged only by the forces \(\frac{a''}{t}\). Therefore if \(F\) be the point where the particles which describe the curve FM begin to change their velocity, the pressure in \(F\) would be equal to the pressure which the fluid contained in the canal \(FMD\) would exert, if each particle were solicited by its force \(\frac{a''}{t}\). The question is therefore reduced to the finding the curvature in the canal \(FMD\), and the accelerating forces \(\frac{a''}{t}\) in its different parts.

It appears, in the first place, that no pressure is exerted by any of the particles along the curve FM: for suppose that the particle \(a\) (fig. 19.) describes the indefinitely small straight line \(ab\) in the first instant, and \(bc\) in the second instant; produce \(ab\) till \(bd = ab\), and joining \(dc\), the motion \(ab\) or \(bd\) may be considered as composed of \(bc\), which the particle really takes in the next instant, and a motion \(dc\) which should be destroyed. Draw \(bi\) parallel to \(dc\), and \(ie\) perpendicular to \(bc\). It is plain that the particle \(b\), solicited by the forces \(be, ei\) (equivalent to \(dc\)) should be in equilibrium. This being established, \(be\) must be \(= 0\), that is, there will be no accelerating or retarding force at \(b\); for if there

Fig. 19.

be, draw \(bm\) (fig. 20.) perpendicular to \(bF\), and the resistance parallel \(ng\) infinitely near it. The part \(bn\) of the fluid contained in the canal \(bngm\) would sustain some pressure from \(b\) towards \(n\), or from \(n\) towards \(b\). Therefore since the fluid in this stagnant canal should be in equilibrium, there must also be some action, at least in one of the parts \(bm, mg, gn\), to counterbalance the action on the part \(bn\). But the fluid is stagnant in the space \(FAM\) (in consequence of the law of continuity). Therefore there is no force which can act on \(bm, mg, gn\); and the pressure in the canal in the direction \(bn\) or \(nb\) is nothing; or the force \(be = 0\), and the force \(ie\) is perpendicular to the canal; and there is therefore no pressure in the canal \(FMD\), except what proceeds from the part \(F\), or from the force \(ei\); which last being perpendicular to the canal, there can be no force exerted on the point \(M\), but what is propagated from the part \(F\).

The velocity therefore in the canal \(FMD\) is constant if finite, or infinitely small if variable: for, in the first case, the force \(be\) would be absolutely nothing; and in the second case, it would be an infinitesimal of the second order, and may be considered as nothing in comparison with the velocity, which is of the first order. We shall see by and by that the last is the real state of the case. Therefore the fluid, before it begins to change its direction in \(F\), begins to change its velocity in some point \(F\) a-head of \(F\), and by the time that it reaches \(F\) its velocity is as it were annihilated.

Cor. 1. Therefore the pressure in any point \(D\) arises both from the retardations in the part \(F\), and from the particles which are in the canal \(MD\): as these last move along the surface of the body, the force \(\frac{a''}{t}\), destroyed in every particle, is compounded of two others, one in the direction of the surface, and the other perpendicular to it; call these \(p\) and \(p'\). The point \(D\) is pressed perpendicularly to the surface \(MD\); 1st, by all the forces \(p\) in the curve \(MD\); 2d, by the force \(p'\) acting on the single point \(D\). This may be neglected in comparison of the indefinite number of the others: therefore taking in the arch \(MD\), an infinitely small portion \(Nm = s\), the pressure on \(D\), perpendicular to the surface of the body, will be \(= ps\); and this fluent must be so taken as to be \(= s\) in the point \(M\).

Cor. 2. Therefore, to find the pressure on \(D\), we must find the force \(p\) on any point \(N\). Let \(u\) be the velocity of the particle \(N\), in the direction \(Nm\) in any instant, and \(u + u'\) its velocity in the following instant; we must have \(p = \frac{u'}{t}\). Therefore the whole question is reduced to finding the velocity \(u\) in every point \(N\), in the direction \(Nm\).

And this is the aim of a series of propositions which his final follow, in which the author displays the most accurate equation and precise conception of the subject, and great address truly follows and elegance in his mathematical analysis. He at length brings out an equation which expresses the pressure on the body in the most general and unexceptionable manner. We cannot give an abstract, because the train of reasoning is already concise in the extreme: nor can we even exhibit the final equation; for it is conceived in the And we should multiply experiments on the resistance of bodies. Those of the French academy are undoubtedly of inestimable value, and will always be appealed to. But there are circumstances in those experiments which render them more complicated than is proper for a general theory, and which therefore limit the conclusions which we wish to draw from them. The bodies were floating on the surface. This greatly modifies the deflections of the filaments of water, causing some to deflect laterally, which would otherwise have remained in one vertical plane; and this circumstance also necessarily produced what the academicians called the remou, or accumulation on the anterior part of the body, and depression behind it. This produced an additional resistance, which was measured with great difficulty and uncertainty. The effect of adhesion must also have been very considerable, and very different in the different cases; and it is of difficult calculation. It cannot perhaps be totally removed in any experiment, and it is necessary to consider it as making part of the resistance in the most important practical cases, viz. the motion of ships. Here we see that its effect is very great. Every seaman knows that the speed, even of a copper-sheathed ship, is greatly increased by greasing her bottom. The difference is too remarkable to admit of a doubt: nor should we be surprised at this, when we attend to the diminution of the motion of water in long pipes. A smooth pipe four and a half inches diameter, and 500 yards long, yields but one-fifth of the quantity which it ought to do independent of friction. But adhesion does a great deal which cannot be compared with friction. We see that water flowing through a hole in a thin plate will be increased in quantity fully one-third, by adding a little tube whose length is about twice the diameter of the hole. The adhesion therefore will greatly modify the action of the filaments both on the solid body and on each other, and will change both the forms of the curves and the velocities in different points; and this is a sort of objection to the only hypothesis introduced by d'Alembert. Yet it is only a sort of objection; for the effect of this adhesion, too, must undoubtedly depend on the situation of the particle.

The form of these experiments of the academy is ill-suited to the examination of the resistance of bodies immersed wholly immersed in the fluid. The form of experiment adopted by Robins for the resistance of air, and Borda afterwards by the Chevalier Borda for water, is free from these inconveniences, and is susceptible of equal able accuracy. The great advantage of both is the exact knowledge which they give us of the velocity of the motion; a circumstance essentially necessary, and but imperfectly known in the experiments of Mariotte and others, who examined quiescent bodies exposed to the action of a stream. It is extremely difficult to measure the velocity of a stream. It is very different in its different parts. It is fivefold of all in the middle superficial filament, and diminishes as we recede from this towards the sides or bottom, and the rate of diminution is not precisely known. Could this be ascertained with the necessary precision, we should recommend the following form of experiment as the most simple, easy, economical, and accurate.

Let \(a, b, c, d\) (fig. 21.) be four hooks placed in a horizontal plane at the corners of a rectangular parallelogram, Resistance telegram, the sides \(a, b, c, d\) being parallel to the direction of the stream \(ABCD\), and the sides \(a, b, c, d\) being perpendicular to it. Let the body \(G\) be fastened to an axis \(e\) of stiff-tempered steel wire, so that the surface on which the fluid is to act may be inclined to the stream in the precise angle we desire. Let this axis have hooks at its extremities, which are hitched into the loops of four equal threads, suspended from the hooks \(a, b, c, d\); and let \(H e\) be a fifth thread, suspended from the middle of the line joining the points of suspension \(a, b\). Let \(H K\) be a graduated arch, whose centre is \(H\), and whose plane is in the direction of the stream. It is evident that the impulse on the body \(G\) will be measured (by a process well known to every mathematician) by the deviation of the thread \(H e\) from the vertical line \(H f\); and this will be done without any intricacy of calculation, or any attention to the centres of gravity, of oscillation, or of percussion. These must be accurately ascertained with respect to that form in which the pendulum has always been employed for measuring the impulse or velocity of a stream. These advantages arise from the circumstance, that the axis \(e f\) remains always parallel to the horizon. We may be allowed to observe, by the bye, that this would have been a great improvement of the beautiful experiments of Mr Robins and Dr Hutton on the velocities of cannon-shot, and would have saved much intricate calculation, and been attended with many important advantages.

The great difficulty is, as we have observed, to measure the velocity of the stream. Even this may be done in this way with some precision. Let two floating bodies be dragged along the surface, as in the experiments of the academy, at some distance from each other laterally, so that the water between them may not be sensibly disturbed. Let a horizontal bar be attached to them, transverse to the direction of their motion, at a proper height above the surface, and let a spherical pendulum be suspended from this, or let it be suspended from four points, as here described. Now let the deviation of this pendulum be noted in a variety of velocities. This will give us the law of relation between the velocity and the deviation of the pendulum. Now, in making experiments on the resistance of bodies, let the velocity of the stream, in the very filament in which the resistance is measured, be determined by the deviation of this pendulum.

It were greatly to be wished that some more palpable argument could be found for the existence of a quantity of stagnant fluid at the anterior and posterior parts of the body. The one already given, derived from the consideration that no motion changes either its velocity or direction by finite quantities in an instant, is unexceptionable. But it gives us little information. The smallest conceivable extent of the curve \(FM\) in fig. 18, will answer this condition, provided only that it touches the axis in some point \(F\), and the body in some point \(M\), so as not to make a finite angle with either. But surely there are circumstances which rigorously determine the extent of this stagnant fluid. And it appears without doubt, that if there were no cohesion or friction, this space will have a determined ratio to the size of the body (the figures of the bodies being supposed similar). Suppose a plane surface \(AB\), as in fig. 11, there can be no doubt but that the figure \(A a D b B\) will in every case be similar. But if we suppose an \(R\) degree adhesion or tenacity which is constant, this may make a change both in its extent and its form; for its constancy of form depends on the disturbing forces being always as the squares of the velocity; and this ratio of the disturbing forces is preserved, while the inertia of the fluid is the only agent and patient in the process. But when we add to this the constant (that is, invariable) disturbing force of tenacity, a change of form and dimensions must happen. In like manner, the friction, or something analogous to friction, which produces an effect proportional to the velocity, must alter this necessary ratio of the whole disturbing forces. We may conclude, that the effect of both these circumstances will be to diminish the quantity of this stagnant fluid, by licking it away externally; and to this we must ascribe the fact, that the part \(FAM\) is never perfectly stagnant, but is generally disturbed with a whirling motion. We may also conclude, that this stagnant fluid will be more incurvated between \(F\) and \(M\) than it would have been, independent of tenacity and friction; and that the arch \(LR\) will, on the contrary, be less incurvated.—And, lastly, we may conclude, that there will be something opposite to prejudice, or something which we may call abfraction, exerted on the posterior part of the body which moves in a tenacious fluid, or is exposed to the stream of such a fluid; for the stagnant fluid \(LCR\) adheres to the surface \(LC\); and the passing fluid tends to draw it away both by its tenacity and by its friction. This must augment the apparent impulse of the stream on such a body; and it must greatly augment the resistance, that is, the motion lost by this body in its progress through the tenacious fluid; for the body must drag along with it this stagnant fluid, and drag it in opposition to the tenacity and friction of the surrounding fluid. The effect of this is most remarkably seen in the resistances to the motion of pendulums; and the chevalier Buat, in his examination of Newton's experiments, clearly shows that this constitutes the greatest part of the resistance.

This most ingenious writer has paid great attention to this part of the process of nature, and has laid the foundation of a theory of resistance entirely different from all the preceding. We cannot abridge it; and it is too imperfect in its present condition to be offered as a body of doctrine: but we hope that the ingenious author will prosecute the subject.

We cannot conclude this dissertation (which we acknowledge to be very unsatisfactory and imperfect) the chevalier Buat's account of the experiments of the chevalier Buat, which seem of immense consequence, and tend to give us very new views of the subject. Mr Buat observed the motion of water issuing from a glass cylinder through a narrow ring formed by a bottom of smaller diameter; that is, the cylinder was open at both ends, and there was placed at its lower end a circle of smaller diameter, by way of bottom, which left a ring all around. He threw some powdered sealing wax into the water, and observed with great attention the motion of its small particles. He saw those which happened to be in the very axis of the cylinder descend along the axis with a motion pretty uniform, Resistance uniform, till they came very near the bottom; from this they continued to descend very slowly, till they were almost in contact with the bottom; then they deviated from the centre, and approached the orifice in straight lines and with an accelerated motion, and at last darted into the orifice with great rapidity. He had observed a thing similar to this in a horizontal canal, in which he had set up a small board like a dam or bar, over which the water flowed. He had thrown a gooseberry into the water, in order to measure the velocity at the bottom, the gooseberry being a smaller matter heavier than water. It approached the dam uniformly till about three inches from it. Here it almost stood still, but it continued to advance till almost in contact. It then rose from the bottom along the inside of the dam with an accelerated motion, and quickly escaped over the top.

Hence he concluded, that the water which covers the anterior part of the body exposed to the stream is not perfectly stagnant, and that the filaments recede from the axis in curves, which converge to the surface of the body as different hyperbolas converge to the same asymptote, and that they move with a velocity continually increasing till they escape round the sides of the body.

He had established (by a pretty reasonable theory, confirmed by experiment) a proposition concerning the pressure which water in motion exerts on the surface along which it glides, viz., that the pressure is equal to that which it would exert if at rest minus the weight of the column whose height would produce the velocity of the peeling stream. Consequently the pressure which the stream exerts on the surface perpendicularly exposed to it will depend on the velocity with which it glides along it, and will diminish from the centre to the circumference. This, says he, may be the reason why the impulse on a plane wholly immersed is but one half of that on a plane which deflects the whole stream.

He contrived a very ingenious instrument for examining this theory. A square brass plate ABGF (fig. 22.) was pierced with a great number of holes, and fixed in the front of a shallow box represented edgewise in fig. 23. The back of this box was pierced with a hole c, in which was inserted the tube of glass CDE, bent square at D. This instrument was exposed to a stream of water, which beat on the brass plate. The water having filled the box through the holes, stood at an equal height in the glass tube when the surrounding water was stagnant; but when it was in motion, it always flooded in the tube above the level of the smooth water without, and thus indicated the pressure occasioned by the action of the stream.

When the instrument was not wholly immersed, there was always a considerable accumulation against the front of the box, and a depression behind it. The water before it was by no means stagnant: indeed it should not be, as Mr. Busat observes; for it consists of the water which was escaping on all sides, and therefore upwards from the axis of the stream, which meets the plate perpendicularly in e considerably under the surface. It escapes upwards; and if the body were sufficiently immersed, it would escape in this direction almost as easily as laterally. But in the present circumstances, it heaps up, till the elevation occasions it to fall off sidewise as fast as it is renewed. When the instrument was immersed more than its semidiameter under the surface, the water still rose above the level, and there was a great depression immediately behind this elevation. In consequence of this difficulty of escaping upwards, the water flows off laterally; and if the horizontal dimensions of the surface is great, this lateral efflux becomes more difficult, and requires a greater accumulation. From this it happens, that the resistance of broad surfaces equally immersed is greater than in the proportion of the breadth. A plane of two feet wide and one foot deep, when it is not completely immersed, will be more resisted than a plane two feet deep and one foot wide; for there will be an accumulation against both; and even if these were equal in height, the additional surface will be greatest in the widest body; and the elevation will be greater, because the lateral escape is more difficult.

The circumstances chiefly to be attended to are these. Circumstances towards the border, and, in general, the height of the water in the tube DE was more than \( \frac{1}{4} \) of the height needed to cellularly produce the velocity when only the central hole was open. When various holes were opened at different distances from the centre, the height of the water in DH continually diminished as the hole was nearer the border. At a certain distance from the border the water at E was level with the surrounding water, so that no pressure was exerted on that hole. But the most unexpected and remarkable circumstance was, that, in great velocities, the holes at the very border, and even to a small distance from it, not only sustained no pressure, but even gave out water; for the water in the tube was lower than the surrounding water. Mr. Busat calls this a non-pressure. In a case in which the velocity of the stream was three feet, and the pressure on the central hole caused the water in the vertical tube to stand 33 lines or \( \frac{1}{4} \) of an inch above the level of the surrounding smooth water, the action on a hole at the lower corner of the square caused it to stand 12 lines lower than the surrounding water. Now the velocity of the stream in this experiment was 36 inches per second. This requires 21\(\frac{1}{4}\) lines for its productive fall; whereas the pressure on the central hole was 33. This approaches to the pressure on a surface which deflects it wholly. The intermediate holes gave every variation of pressure, and the diminution was more rapid as the holes were nearer the edge; but the law of diminution could not be observed.

This is quite a new and most unexpected circumstance in the action of fluids on solid bodies, and renders the subject more intricate than ever; yet it is by no means inconsistent with the genuine principles of hydrostatics or hydraulics. In as far as M. Busat's proposition concerning the pressure of moving fluidics is true, it is very reasonable to say, that when the lateral velocity with which the fluid tends to escape exceeds the velocity of percussion, the height necessary for producing this velocity must exceed that which would produce the other, and a non-pressure must be observed. And if we consider the forms of the lateral filaments near the edge of the body, we see that the concavity of the curve is turned towards the body, and that the centrifugal forces tend to diminish their pressure on the body. If the middle alone were struck with a considerable velocity, the water might even Resistance even rebound, as is frequently observed. This actual rebounding is here prevented by the surrounding water, which is moving with the same velocity; but the pressure may be almost annihilated by the tendency to rebound of the inner filaments.

Part (and perhaps a considerable part) of this apparent non-rebound is undoubtedly produced by the tenacity of the water, which sticks off with it the water lying in the hole. But, at any rate, this is an important fact, and gives great value to these experiments. It gives a key to many curious phenomena in the resistance of fluids; and the theory of Mr Buat deserves a very serious consideration. It is all contained in the two following propositions.

1. "If, by any cause whatever, a column of fluid, whether making part of an indefinite fluid, or contained in solid canals, come to move with a given velocity, the pressure which it exerted laterally before its motion, either on the adjoining fluid or on the sides of the canal, is diminished by the weight of a column having the height necessary for communicating the velocity of the motion."

2. "The pressure on the centre of a plane surface perpendicular to the stream, and wholly immersed in it, is \( \frac{3}{4} \) of the weight of a column having the height necessary for communicating the velocity. For \( 33 = \frac{3}{4} \times 21 \)."

He attempted to ascertain the medium pressure on the whole surface, by opening 625 holes dispersed all over it. With the same velocity of current, he found the height in the tube to be 29 lines, or \( \frac{7}{8} \) more than the height necessary for producing the velocity. He justly concluded this to be too great a measure, because the holes were \( \frac{1}{4} \) of an inch from the edge: had there been holes at the very edge, they would have sustained a non-rebound, which would have diminished the height in the tube very considerably. He exposed to the same stream a conical funnel, which raised the water to 34 lines. But this could not be considered as a measure of the pressure on a plane solid surface; for the central water was undoubtedly scooped out, as it were, and the filaments much more deflected than they would have been by a plane surface. Perhaps something of this happened even in every small hole in the former experiments. And this suggests some doubt as to the accuracy of the measurement of the pressure and of the velocity of a current by Mr Pitot's tube. It surely renders some corrections absolutely necessary. It is a fact, that when exposed to a vein of fluid coming through a short passage, the water in the tube stands on a level with that in the reservoir. Now we know that the velocity of this stream does not exceed what would be produced by a fall equal to \( \frac{3}{4} \times \frac{2}{3} \) of the head of water in the reservoir. Mr Buat made many valuable observations and improvements on this most useful instrument, which will be taken notice of in the articles RIVERS and WATER-WORKS.

Mr Buat, by a scrupulous attention to all the circumstances, concludes, that the medium of pressure on the whole surface is equal to \( \frac{25}{21} \times \frac{5}{5} \) of the weight of a column, having the surface for its base, and the productive fall for its height. But we think that there is an uncertainty in this conclusion; because the height of the water in the vertical tube was undoubtedly augmented by an hydrostatical pressure arising from the accumulation of water above the body which was exposed to the stream.

Since the pressures are as the squares of the velocities, or as the heights \( h \) which produce the velocities, we may express this pressure by the symbol \( \frac{25}{21} \times \frac{5}{5} \times h \), or \( \frac{1}{186} \times m \times h \), the value of \( m \) being 186. This exceeds considerably the result of the experiments of the French academy. In these it does not appear that \( m \) sensibly exceeds unity. Note, that in these experiments the body was moved through still water; here it is exposed to a stream. These are generally supposed to be equivalent, on the authority of the third law of motion, which makes every action depend on the relative motions. We shall by and by see some causes of difference.

The writers on this subject seem to think their task completed when they have considered the action of the fluid on the anterior part of the body, or that part of the body which is before the broadest section, and have paid little or no attention to the hinder part. Yet those who import most interested in the subject, the naval architects, seem convinced that it is of no less importance to attend to the form of the hinder part of a ship. And the universal practice of all nations has been to make the hinder part more acute than the fore-part. This has undoubtedly been deduced from experience; for it is in direct opposition to any notions which a person would naturally form on this subject. Mr Buat therefore thought it very necessary to examine the action of the water on the hinder part of a body by the same method. And, previous to this examination, in order to acquire some scientific notions of the subject, he made the following very curious and instructive experiment.

Two little conical pipes \( A \) and \( B \) (fig. 24.) were inserted into the upright side of a prismatic vessel. They were an inch long, and their diameters at the inner and outer ends were five and four lines. \( A \) was 57 lines under the surface, and \( B \) was 73. A glass syphon was made of the shape represented in the figure, and its internal diameter was 1½ lines. It was placed with its mouth in the axis, and even with the base of the conical pipe. The pipes being shut, the vessel was filled with water, and it was made to stand on a level in the two legs of the syphon, the upper part being full of air. When this syphon was applied to the pipe \( A \), and the water running freely, it rose 32 lines in the short leg, and sunk as much in the other. When it was applied to the pipe \( B \), the water rose 41 lines in the one leg of the syphon, and sunk as much in the other.

He reasons in this manner from the experiment. The ring comprehended between the end of the syphon and the sides of the conical tube being the narrowest part of the orifice, the water issued with the velocity corresponding to the height of the water in the vessel above the orifice, diminished for the contraction. If therefore the cylinder of water immediately before the mouth of the syphon issued with the same velocity the tube would be emptied through a height equal to this head of water (charge). If, on the contrary, this cylinder of water, immediately before the mouth of the syphon, were stagnant, the water in it would exert its full pressure on the mouth of the syphon, and the water in the syphon would be level with the water in the vessel. Between Between these extremes we must find the real state of the case, and we must measure the force of non-pressure by the rise of water in the syphon.

We see that in both experiments it bears an accurate proportion to the depth under the surface. For \( \frac{57}{73} = \frac{32}{41} \) very nearly. He therefore estimates the non-pressure to be \( \frac{56}{100} \) of the height of the water above the orifice.

We are disposed to think that the ingenious author has not reasoned accurately from the experiment. In the first place, the force indicated by the experiment, whatever be its origin, is certainly double of what he supposes; for it must be measured by the sum of the rise of the water in one leg, and its depression in the other, the weight of the air in the bend of the syphon being neglected. It is precisely analogous to the force acting on the water oscillating in a syphon, which is acknowledged to be the sum of the elevation and depression. The force indicated by the experiment therefore is \( \frac{11}{100} \) of the height of the water above the orifice. The force exhibited in this experiment bears a still greater proportion to the productive height; for it is certain that the water did not issue with the velocity acquired by the fall from the surface, and probably did not exceed \( \frac{1}{3} \) of it. The effect of contraction must have been considerable and uncertain. The velocity should have been measured both by the amplitude of the jet and by the quantity of water discharged. In the next place, we apprehend that much of the effect is produced by the tenacity of the water, which drags along with it the water which would have flowed issued from the syphon, had the other end not dipped into the water of the vessel. We know, that if the horizontal part of the syphon had been continued far enough, and if no retardation were occasioned by friction, the column of water in the upright leg would have accelerated like any heavy body; and when the half of it had arrived at the bottom of that leg, the whole in the horizontal part would be moving with the velocity acquired by falling from the surface. The water of the vessel which issues through the surrounding ring very quickly acquires a much greater velocity than what the water descending in the syphon would acquire in the same time, and it drags this last water along with it both by tenacity and friction, and it drags it out till its action is opposed by the want of equilibrium produced in the syphon, by the elevation in the one leg and the depression in the other. We imagine that little can be concluded from the experiment with respect to the real non-pressure. Nay, if the sides of the syphon be supposed infinitely thin, so that there would be no curvature of the filaments of the surrounding water at the mouth of the syphon, we do not very distinctly see any source of non-pressure. For we are not altogether satisfied with the proof which Mr. Buat offers for this measure of the pressure of a stream of fluid gliding along a surface, and obstructed by friction or any other cause. We imagine that passing water in the present experiment would be a little retarded by accelerating continually the water descending in the syphon, and renewed a-top, supposing the upper end open; because this water would not of itself acquire more than half this velocity. It however drags it out, till it not only resists with a force equal to the weight of the whole vertical column, but even exceeds it by \( \frac{1}{10} \). This it is able to do, because the whole pressure by which the water issues from an orifice has been shown (by Daniel Bernoulli) to be equal to twice this weight. We therefore consider this beautifully experiment as chiefly valuable, by giving us a measure of the tenacity of the water; and we wish that it were repeated in a variety of depths, in order to discover what relation the force exerted bears to the depth. It would seem that the tenacity, being a certain determinate thing, the proportion of 100 to 112 would not be constant; and that the observed ratio would be made up of two parts, one of them constant, and the other proportional to the depth under the surface.

But still this experiment is intimately connected with the matter in hand; and this apparent non-pressure on the hinder part of a body exposed to a stream, from whatever cause it proceeds, does operate in the action of water on this hinder part, and must be taken into the account.

We must therefore follow the chevalier de Buat in further his discussions on this subject. A prismatic body, having its prow and poop equal and parallel surfaces, and plunged horizontally into a fluid, will require a force to keep it firm in the direction of its axis precisely equal to the difference between the real pressures exerted on its prow and poop. If the fluid is at rest, this difference will be nothing, because the opposite dead pressures of the fluid will be equal: but in a stream, there is superadded to the dead pressure on the prow the active pressure arising from the deflections of the filaments of this fluid.

If the dead pressure on the poop remained in its full intensity by the perfect stagnation of the water behind it, the whole sensible pressure on the body would be the active pressure only on the prow, represented by \( m h \). If, on the other hand, we could suppose that the water behind the body moved continually away from it (being renewed laterally) with the velocity of the stream, the dead pressure would be entirely removed from its poop, and the whole sensible pressure, or what must be opposed by some external force, would be \( m h + h \). Neither of these can happen; and the real state of the case must be between these extremes.

The following experiments were tried: The perforated box with its vertical tube was exposed to the stream, the brass plate being turned down the stream. The velocity was again 36 inches per second.

The central hole A alone being opened, gave a non-pressure of 13 lines.

A hole B, \( \frac{1}{8} \) of an inch from the edge, gave 15 lines.

A hole C, near the surface, gave 15-7 lines.

A hole D, at the lower angle, gave 15-3 lines.

Here it appears that there is a very considerable non-pressure, increasing from the centre to the border. This increase undoubtedly proceeds from the greater lateral velocity with which the water is gliding in from the sides. The water behind was by no means stagnant, although moving off with a much smaller velocity than that of the passing stream, and it was visibly removed from the sides, and gradually licked away at its further extremity.

Another box, having a great number of holes, all open, indicated a medium of non-pressure equal to 13-5 lines. Another of larger dimensions, but having fewer holes, indicated a non-pressure of $12\frac{7}{8}$.

But the most remarkable, and the most important phenomena, were the following:

The first box was fixed to the side of another box, so that, when all was made smooth, it made a perfect cube, of which the perforated brass plate made the poop.

The apparatus being now exposed on the stream, with the perforated plate looking down the stream,

| Hole A | B | C | |--------|---|---| | | | |

Here was a great diminution of the non-pressions produced by the distance between the prow and the poop.

This box was then fitted in the same manner, so as to make the poop of a box three feet long. In this situation the non-pressures were as follow:

| Hole A | B | |--------|---| | | 1.5 | | | 3.2 |

The non-pressions were still farther diminished by this increase of length.

The box was then exposed with all the holes open, in three different situations:

1st, Single, giving a non-pressure - 13.1 2d, Making the poop of a cube - 5.3 3d, Making the poop of a box three feet long - 3.0

Another larger box:

1st, Single - 12.2 2d, Poop of a cube - 5. 3d, Poop of the long box - 3.2

These are most valuable experiments. They plainly show how important it is to consider the action on the hinder part of the body. For the whole impulse or resistance, which must be withstood or overcome by the external force, is the sum of the active pressure on the fore-part, and of the non-pressure on the hinder part; and they show that this does not depend solely on the form of the prow and poop, but also, and perhaps chiefly, on the length of the body. We see that the non-pressure on the hinder-part was prodigiously diminished (reduced to one-fourth) by making the length of the body triple of the breadth. And hence it appears, that merely lengthening a ship, without making any change in the form either of her prow or her poop, will greatly diminish the resistance to her motion through the water; and this increase of length may be made by continuing the form of the midship frame in several timbers along the keel, by which the capacity of the ship, and her power of carrying sail, will be greatly increased, and her other qualities improved, while her speed is augmented.

It is surely of importance to consider a little the physical cause of this change. The motions are extremely complicated, and we must be contented if we can but perceive a few leading circumstances.

The water is turned aside by the anterior part of the body, and the velocity of the filaments is increased, and they acquire a divergent motion, by which they also push aside the surrounding water. On each side of the body, therefore, they are moving in a divergent direction, and with an increased velocity. But as they are on all sides prefled by the fluid without them, their motions gradually approach parallelism, and their velocities to an equality with the stream. The progressive velocity, or that in the direction of the stream, is checked, at least at first. But since we observe the filaments contipated round the body, and that they are not deflected at right angles to their former direction, it is plain that the real velocity of a filament in its oblique path is augmented.

We always observe, that a stone lying in the sand, and exposed to the wash of the sea, is laid bare at the bottom, and the sand is generally washed away to some distance all around. This is owing to the increased velocity of the water which comes into contact with the stone. It takes up more land than it can keep floating, and it deposits it at a little distance all around, forming a little bank, which surrounds the stone at a small distance. When the filaments of water have passed the body, they are prefled by the ambient fluid into the place which it has quitted, and they glide round its stern, and fill up the space behind. The more divergent and the more rapid they are, when about to fall in behind, the more of the circumambient pressure must be employed to turn them into the trough behind the body, and less of it will remain to press them to the body itself. The extreme of this must obtain when the stream is obstructed by a thin plane only. But when there is some distance between the prow and the poop, the divergency of the filaments which had been turned aside by the prow, is diminished by the time that they have come abreast of the stern, and should turn in behind it. They are therefore more readily made to converge behind the body, and a more considerable part of the surrounding pressure remains unexpended, and therefore presses the water against the stern; and it is evident that this advantage must be so much the greater as the body is longer. But the advantage will soon be susceptible of no very considerable increase: for the lateral and divergent, and accelerated filaments, will soon become nearly parallel and equally rapid with the rest of the stream, that a great increase of length will not make any considerable change in these particulars; and it must be accompanied with an increase of friction.

There are very obvious reflections. And if we attend minutely to the way in which the almost stagnant fluid behind the body is expended and renewed, we shall see all these effects confirmed and augmented. But as we cannot say anything on this subject that is precise, or that can be made the subject of computation, it is needless to enter into a more minute discussion. The diminution of the non-pressure towards the centre most probably arises from the smaller force which is necessary to be expended in the inflection of the lateral filaments, already inflected in some degree, and having their velocity diminished. But it is a subject highly deserving the attention of the mathematicians; and we presume to invite them to the study of the motions of these lateral filaments, pushing the body, and prefled into its wake by forces which are susceptible of no difficult investigation. It seems highly probable, that if a prismatic box, with a square stern, were fitted with an addition precisely shaped like the water which would (abtracting tenacity and friction) have been stagnant behind it, the quantity of non-pressure would be the smallest possible. The mathematician would surely discover circumstances which would Buat's deductions from his experiments.

In the mean time, let us attend to the deductions which Mr de Buat has made from his few experiments.

When the velocity is three feet per second, requiring the productive height $21 \cdot 5$ lines, the heights corresponding to the non-prelude on the poop of a thin plane is $14 \cdot 41$ lines (taking in several circumstances of judicious correction, which we have not mentioned), that of a foot cube is $5 \cdot 83$, and that of a box of triple length is $3 \cdot 5$.

Let $q$ express the variable ratio of these to the height producing the velocity, so that $q/h$ may express the non-prelude in every case; we have,

| For a thin plane | $q = 5 \cdot 67$ | |------------------|---------------| | a cube | $q = 2 \cdot 71$ | | a box = 3 cubes | $q = 1 \cdot 53$ |

It is evident that the value of $q$ has a dependence on the proportion of the length, and the transverse section of the body. A series of experiments on prismatic bodies showed Mr de Buat that the deviation of the filaments was similar in similar bodies, and that this obtained even in dilute prisms, when the lengths were as the square-roots of the transverse sections. Although therefore the experiments were not sufficiently numerous for deducing the precise law, it seemed not impossible to derive from them a very useful approximation.

By a dexterous comparison he found, that if $l$ expresses the length of the prism, and $s$ the area of the transverse section, and $L$ expresses the common logarithm of the quantity to which it is prefixed, we shall express the non-prelude pretty accurately by the formula

$$L \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{s}} \right).$$

Hence arises an important remark, that when the height corresponding to the non-prelude is greater than $\sqrt{s}$, and the body is little immersed in the fluid, there will be a void behind it. Thus a surface of a square inch, just immersed in a current of three feet per second, will have a void behind it. A foot square will be in a similar condition when the velocity is 12 feet.

We must be careful to distinguish this non-prelude from the other causes of resistance, which are always necessarily combined with it. It is superadditive to the active impulsion on the prow, to the statical pressure of the accumulation ahead of the body, the statical pressure arising from the depression behind it, the effects of friction, and the effects of tenacity. It is indeed next to impossible to eliminate them separately, and many of them are actually combined in the measures now given. Nothing can determine the pure non-preludes till we can ascertain the motions of the filaments.

M. de Buat here takes occasion to controvert the universally adopted maxim, that the prelude occasioned by a stream of fluid on a fixed body is the same with that on a body moving with equal velocity in a quiescent fluid. He repeated all these experiments with the perforated box in still water. The general distinction was, that both the preludes and the non-prelude in this case were less, and that the odds were chiefly to be observed near the edges of the surface. The general factor of the prelude of a stream on the anterior surface was $m = 1 \cdot 86$; but that on a moving body through a still fluid is only $m = 1$. He observed no non-prelude even at the very edge of the prow, but even a sensible prelude. The prelude, therefore, or resistance, is more equably diffused over the surface of the prow than the impulse is.—He also found that the resistances diminished in a less ratio than the squares of the velocities, especially in small velocities.

The non-preludes increased in a greater ratio than the squares of the velocities. The ratio of the velocities to a small velocity of $2 \cdot 5$ inches per second increased geometrically, the value of $q$ increased arithmetically; and we may determine $q$ for any velocity $V$ by this proportion

$$L \left( \frac{V}{2 \cdot 2} \right) = 0 \cdot 5 : q,$$

and $q = \frac{2 \cdot 2}{2 \cdot 8}$. That is, let the common logarithm of the velocity, divided by $2 \cdot 5$, be considered as a common number; divide this common number by $2 \cdot 5$, the quotient is $q$, which must be multiplied by the productive height. The product is the prelude.

When Piot's tube was exposed to the stream, we had $m = 1$; but when it is carried through still water, $m = 1 \cdot 22$. When it was turned from the stream, we had $q = 0 \cdot 157$; but when carried through still water, $q = 0 \cdot 138$. A remarkable experiment.

When the tube was moved laterally through the water, so that the motion was in the direction of the ports of its mouth, the non-prelude was $= 1$. This is one of his chief arguments for his theory of non-prelude. He does not give the detail of the experiment, and only infers the result in his table.

As a body exposed to a stream deflects the fluid, heaps it up, and increases its velocity; so a body moved through a still fluid turns it aside, causes it to swell up before it, and gives it a real motion alongside of it in the opposite direction. And as the body exposed to a stream has a quantity of fluid almost stagnant both before and behind; so a body moved through a still fluid carries before it and drags after it a quantity of fluid, which accompanies it with nearly an equal velocity. This addition to the quantity of matter in motion must make a diminution of its velocity; and this forms a very considerable part of the observed resistance.

We cannot, however, help remarking that it would be difficult to require very distinct and strong proof indeed to overturn the common opinion, which is founded on our most well founded, certain and simple conceptions of motion, and on a law of nature to which we have never observed an exception. M. de Buat's experiments, though most judiciously contrived, and executed with scrupulous care, are by no means of this kind. They were, of absolute necessity, very complicated; and many circumstances, impossible to avoid or to appreciate, rendered the observation, or at least the comparison, of the velocities, very uncertain.

We can see but two circumstances which do not admit of an easy or immediate comparison in the two states of the problem. When a body is exposed to a stream in our experiments, in order to have an impulse of bodies made on it, there is a force tending to move the body in running backwards, independent of the real impulse or prelude or still water occasioned by the deflection of the stream. We cannot have Resistance have a stream except in consequence of a sloping surface. Suppose a body floating on this stream. It will not only fall down along with the stream, but it will fall down the stream, and will therefore go faster along the canal than the stream does; for it is floating on an inclined plane; and if we examine it by the laws of hydrostatics, we shall find, that besides its own tendency to slide down this inclined plane, there is an odds of hydrostatical pressure, which pushes it down this plane. It will therefore go along the canal faster than the stream. For this acceleration depends on the difference of pressure at the two ends, and will be more remarkable as the body is larger, and especially as it is longer. This may be distinctly observed. All floating bodies go into the stream of the river, because there they find the smallest obstruction to the acquisition of this motion along the inclined plane; and when a number of bodies are thus floating down the stream, the largest and longest outstrip the rest. A log of wood floating down in this manner may be observed to make its way very fast among the chips and sawdust which float alongside of it.

Now when, in the course of our experiments, a body is supported against the action of the stream, and the impulse is measured by the force employed to support it, it is plain that part of this force is employed to act against that tendency which the body has to outstrip the stream. This does not appear in our experiment, when we move a body with the velocity of this stream through still water having a horizontal surface.

The other distinguishing circumstance is, that the retardations of a stream arising from friction are found to be nearly as the velocities. When, therefore, a stream moving in a limited canal is checked by a body put in its way, the diminution of velocity occasioned by the friction of the stream having already produced its effect, the impulse is not affected by it; but when the body puts the still water in motion, the friction of the bottom produces some effect, by retarding the receipt of the water. This, however, must be next to nothing.

The chief difference will arise from its being almost impossible to make an exact comparison of the velocities: for when a body is moved against the stream, the relative velocity is the same in all the filaments. But when we expose a body to a stream, the velocity of the different filaments is not the same; because it decreases from the middle of the stream to the sides.

Mr Buat found the total sensible resistance of a plate 12 inches square, and measured, not by the height of water in the tube of the perforated box, but by weights acting on the arm of a balance, having its centre 15 inches under the surface of a stream moving three feet per second, to be 19.46 pounds; that of a cube of the same dimensions was 15.22; and that of a prism three feet long was 13.87; that of a prism five feet long was 14.27. The three first agree extremely well with the determination of \( m \) and \( q \), by the experiments with the perforated box. The total resistance of the last was undoubtedly much increased by friction, and by the retrograde force of so long a prism floating in an inclined stream. This last by computation is 0.223 pounds; this added to \( h(m+q) \), which is 13.39, gives 13.81, leaving 0.46 for the effect of friction.

If the same resistances be computed on the supposition that the body moves in still water, in which case resistance, we have \( m=1 \), and \( q \) for a thin plate = 0.433; and if \( q \) be computed for the lengths of the other two bodies by the formula \( \frac{1}{q} = L + \frac{1}{\sqrt{L}} \); we shall get for the resistances 14.94; 12.22; and 11.49.

Hence Mr Buat concludes, that the resistances in these two states are nearly in the ratio of 13 to 10. This, he thinks, will account for the difference observed water adhering to a body moving in still water, &c.

Mr Buat next endeavours to ascertain the quantity of water which is made to adhere in some degree to a body which is carried along through still water, or which remains nearly stagnant in the midst of a stream. He takes the sum of the motions in the direction of the stream, viz., the sum of the actual motions of all those particles which have lost part of their motion, and he divides this sum by the general velocity of the stream. The quotient is equivalent to a certain quantity of water perfectly stagnant round the body. Without being able to determine this with precision, he observes, that it augments as the resistance diminishes; for in the case of a longer body, the filaments are observed to converge to a greater distance behind the body. The stagnant mass ahead of the body is more constant; for the deflection and resistance at the prow are observed not to be affected at the length of the body. Mr Buat, by a very nice analysis of many circumstances, comes to this conclusion, that the whole quantity of fluid, which in this manner accompanies the solid body, remains the same whatever is the velocity. He might have deduced it at once, from the consideration that the curves described by the filaments are the same in all velocities.

He then relates a number of experiments made to ascertain the absolute quantity thus made to accompany the body. These were made by causing pendulums to oscillate in fluids. Newton had determined the resistances to such oscillation by the diminution of the arches of vibration. Mr Buat determines the quantity of dragged fluid by the increase of their duration; for this stagnation or dragging is in fact adding a quantity of matter to be moved, without any addition to the moving force. It was ingeniously observed by Newton, that the time of oscillation was not sensibly affected by the resistance of the fluid: a compensation, almost complete, being made by the diminution of the arches of vibration; and experiment confirmed this. If, therefore, a great augmentation of the time of vibration be observed, it must be ascribed to the additional quantity of matter which is thus dragged into motion, and it may be employed for its measurement. Thus, let \( a \) be the length of a pendulum swinging seconds in vacuo, and \( l \) the length of a second's pendulum swinging in a fluid. Let \( p \) be the weight of the body in the fluid, and \( P \) the weight of the body displaced by it; \( P+p \) will express its weight in vacuo, and \( \frac{P+p}{p} \) will be the ratio of these weights. We shall therefore have \( \frac{P+p}{p} = \frac{a}{l} \) and \( l = \frac{ap}{P+p} \).

Let \( n \) express the sum of the fluid displaced, and the fluid dragged along, \( n \) being a greater number than unity, Resistance, unity, to be determined by experiment. The mass in motion is no longer $P + \rho$, but $P + n\rho$, while its weight in the fluid is still $\rho$. Therefore we must have

$$I = \frac{a\rho}{n\rho + P} = \frac{a}{n + \frac{P}{\rho}}, \quad \text{and} \quad n = \frac{\rho}{P} \left( \frac{a}{\rho} - 1 \right).$$

A prodigious number of experiments made by M. Buat on spheres vibrating in water gave values of $n$, which were very constant, namely, from 1.5 to 1.7; and by considering the circumstances which accompanied the variations of $n$ (which he found to arise chiefly from the curvature of the path described by the ball), he states the mean value of the number $n$ at 1.583. So that a sphere in motion drags along with it about $\frac{6}{5}$ of its own bulk of fluid with a velocity equal to its own.

He made similar experiments with prisms, pyramids, and other bodies, and found a complete confirmation of his assertion, that prisms of equal lengths and sections, though dissimilar, dragged equal quantities of fluid; that similar prisms and prisms not similar, but whose lengths were as the square root of their sections, dragged quantities proportional to their bulks.

He found a general value of $n$ for prismatic bodies, which alone may be considered as a valuable truth; namely, that $n = 0.705 \sqrt{\frac{\rho}{P}} + 1.13$.

From all these circumstances, we see an intimate connection between the pressures, non-pressures, and the fluid dragged along with the body. Indeed this is immediately deducible from the first principles; for what Mr Buat calls the dragged fluid is in fact a certain portion of the whole change of motion produced in the direction of the bodies motion.

It was found, that with respect to thin planes, spheres, and pyramidal bodies of equal bases, the resistances were inversely as the quantities of fluid dragged along.

The intelligent reader will readily observe, that these views of the Chevalier Buat are not so much discoveries of new principles as they are classifications of consequences, which may all be deduced from the general principles employed by D'Alembert and other mathematicians. But they greatly assist us in forming notions of different parts of the procedure of nature in the mutual action of fluids and solids on each other. This must be very acceptable in a subject which it is by no means probable that we shall be able to investigate with mathematical precision. We have given an account of these last observations, that we may omit nothing of consequence that has been written on the subject; and we take this opportunity of recommending the *Hydraulique* of Mr Buat as a most ingenious work, containing more original, ingenious, and practically useful thoughts, than all the performances we have met with. His doctrine of the principle of uniform motion of fluids in pipes and open canals, will be of immense service to all engineers, and enable them to determine with sufficient precision the most important questions in their profession; questions which at present they are hardly able to guess at. See *Rivers and Water Works*.

The only circumstance which we have not noticed in detail, is the change of resistance produced by the void, or tendency to a void, which obtains behind the body; and we omitted a particular discussion, merely because we could say nothing sufficiently precise on the subject. Resistance. Persons not accustomed to the discussions in the physico-mathematical sciences, are apt to entertain doubts or false notions connected with this circumstance, which we shall attempt to remove; and with this we shall conclude this dissertation.

If a fluid were perfectly incompressible, and were contained in a vessel incapable of extension, it is impossible that any void could be formed behind the body; and in this case it is not very easy to see how motion could be performed in it. A sphere moved in such a medium could not advance the smallest distance, unless some particles of the fluid, in filling up the space left by it, moved with a velocity next to infinite. Some degree of compressibility, however small, seems necessary. If this be insensible, it may be rigidly demonstrated, that an external force of compression will make no sensible change in the internal motions, or in the resistances. This indeed is not obvious, but is an immediate consequence of the quadruplerium pressure of fluids. As much as the pressure is augmented by the external compressions in one side of a body, so much is it augmented on the other side; and the same must be said of every particle. Nothing more is necessary for securing the same motions by the same partial and internal forces; and this is fully verified by experiment. Water remains equally fluid under any compressions. In some of Sir Isaac Newton's experiments balls of four inches diameter were made so light as to preponderate in water only three grains. These balls descended in the same manner as they would have descended in a fluid where the resistance was equal in every part; yet, when they were near the bottom of a vessel nine feet deep, the compression round them was at least 2400 times the moving force; whereas, when near the top of the vessel, it was not above 50 or 60 times.

But in a fluid sensibly compressible, or which is not confined, a void may be left behind the body. Its motion may be so swift that the surrounding pressure may not suffice for filling up the deserted space; and, in this case, a flatical pressure will be added to the resistance. This may be the case in a vessel or pond of water having an open surface exposed to the finite or limited pressure of the atmosphere. The question now is, whether the resistance will be increased by an increase of external pressure? Supposing a sphere moving near the surface of water, and another moving equally fast at four times the depth. If the motion be so swift that a void is formed in both cases, there is no doubt but that the sphere which moves at the greatest depth is most retarded by the pressure of the water. If there is no void in either case, then, because the quadruple depth would cause the water to flow in with only a double velocity, it would seem that the resistance would be greater; and indeed the water flowing in laterally with a double velocity produces a quadruple non-pressure.—But, on the other hand, the pressure at a small depth may be insufficient for preventing a void, while that below effectually prevents it; and this was observed in some experiments of Chevalier de Borda. The effect, therefore, of greater immersion, or of greater compression, in an elastic fluid, does not follow a precise ratio of the pressure, but depends partly on absolute quantities. It cannot, therefore, be stated by any very simple formula what increase or diminution of resistance will result. It is evident, that a smaller elevation will suffice when the body is more immersed, because the check or impulse given by the body below is propagated, not vertically only, but in every direction; and therefore the elevation is not confined to that part of the surface which is immediately above the moving body, but extends so much further laterally as the centre of agitation is deeper: Thus, the elevation necessary for the passage of the body is so much smaller; and it is the height only of this accumulation or wave which determines the backward pressure on the body. D'Ulloa's equation may happen to quadrature with two experiments at different depths, without being nearly just; for any two points may be in a curve, without exhibiting its equation. Three points will do it with some approach to precision; but four, at least, are necessary for giving any notion of its nature. D'Ullon has only given two experiments, which we mentioned in another place.

We may here observe, that it is this circumstance which immediately produces the great resistance to the motion of a body through a fluid in a narrow canal.—The fluid cannot pass the body, unless the area of the section be sufficiently extensive. A narrow canal prevents the extension sidewise. The water must therefore heap up, till the section and velocity of diffusion are sufficiently enlarged, and thus a great backward pressure is produced. (See the second series of Experiments by the French Academicians; see also Franklin's Essays.) It is important, and will be considered in another place.

Thus have we attempted to give our readers some account of one of the most interesting problems in the whole of mechanical philosophy. We are sorry that so little advantage can be derived from the united efforts of the first mathematicians of Europe, and that there is so little hope of greatly improving our scientific knowledge of the subject. What we have delivered will, however, enable our readers to peruse the writings of those who have applied the theories to practical purposes. Such, for instance, are the treatises of John Bernoulli, of Bouguer, and of Euler, on the construction and working of ships, and the occasional differences of different authors on water-mills. In this last application the ordinary theory is not without its value, for the impulses are nearly perpendicular; in which case they do not materially deviate from the duplicate proportion of the sine of incidence. But even here this theory, applied as it commonly is, misleads us exceedingly. The impulse on one float may be accurately enough stated by it; but the authors have not been attentive to the motion of the water after it has made its impulse; and the impulse on the next float is stated the same as if the parallel filaments of water, which were not stopped by the preceding float, did impinge on the opposite part of the second, in the same manner, and with the same obliquity and energy, as if it were detached from the rest. But this does not in the least resemble the real process of nature.

Suppose the floats B, C, D, H (fig. 26.) of a wheel immersed in a stream whose surface moves in the direction AK, and that this surface meets the float B in E. The part BE alone is supposed to be impelled; whereas the water, checked by the float, heaps up on it to e.—Then drawing the horizontal line BF, the part CF of the... Resolution, in Chemistry, the reduction of a mixed body into its component parts or first principles, as far as can be done by a proper analysis.

Resolution, in Medicine, the disappearing of any tumor without coming to suppuration or forming an abscess.