Page:A Letter on the Subject of the Cause (1797).djvu/23

 Article, propoſes the Inventor’s intention, or what he means to do rather than what he has done; but in this, as in the preceding inſtances, he has taken care to be equally incomprehenſible; having reſolved nothing poſitively, given no relation, propoſed what is totally impracticable, and drowned the whole in an undefinable maſs.

Article. This clauſe is a complete jumble of incoherent, unconnected, abſurd, and indigeſted ideas; ſo blended and coagulated with myſtery, ambiguity, and impoſſibility in practice, that it is a diſgrace to the writer, and would undoubtedly ruin any mechanic who might attempt to analyze it.

Article. Here likewiſe the inventor ſtates his Intentions, and not his Actions. And behold! What does he (by way of miſleading) but propoſe what every man of Chymical Science muſt reject? viz. To work Engines by the partial expanſion and condenſation of ſteam. When it is a point long ſince determined, that there is no intermediate heat, or progreſſive operation, in the act of water expanding into ſteam. It muſt therefore follow, that progreſſion is applicable only to the