. The Civil engineer and architect's journal, scientific and railway gazette. Architecture; Civil engineering; Science. 1816.] THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 307 the first and third terms of his formula had been proved by the labours of preceding investigators. After some further observations, Professor Willis closed the discussion by remarldns on ihe reciprocal action of the pistons as a fruitful cause of resistance aiRl loss of power. [It remains only to give our own opinion on the result of JMr. Russell's labour. On a subject of such great moment to the engineer, a general acco
. The Civil engineer and architect's journal, scientific and railway gazette. Architecture; Civil engineering; Science. 1816.] THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 307 the first and third terms of his formula had been proved by the labours of preceding investigators. After some further observations, Professor Willis closed the discussion by remarldns on ihe reciprocal action of the pistons as a fruitful cause of resistance aiRl loss of power. [It remains only to give our own opinion on the result of JMr. Russell's labour. On a subject of such great moment to the engineer, a general account of the deductions to be made from the arguments employed in the discussion cannot fail to be acceptable, ^^e must begin then by according to Mr. Russell the merit of having approached tlie subject in a philoso- phical spirit. He says that his conclusions are the results of a great number of careful experiments, but he does not dogmatise upon them. On the contrary, he tells us plainly, that his formula has been suggested for want of a better. M'ith respect to the '' remainder" term, which consti- tutes the novelty of his results, he rather asks whether it may not repre- sent physical facts, that asserts that it actually does so. This is precisely the language of a. true student of science. AVhile, however, we feel that Mr. Russell has made a step in the right direction, we unhesitatingly deny that his formula will account even appreximately for the resistance to trains. There appear snIHcieut reasons Un- questioning tlie accuracy of each of the three terms of his expression. The last (C in) makes the axle- friction independent of the velocity; whereas it depends materially on the velocity, as we will show. Mr. Russell says that the friction of the axle is proportional to the pressure, and he evidently takes it (or granted that the only pressure is a vertical one, namely the weight of the carriage. This looks very like an error of principle, for it is obvious that if no
Size: 1352px × 1849px
Photo credit: © The Book Worm / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., boo, bookcentury1800, booksubjectarchitecture, booksubjectscience
