Page:The Kinematics of Machinery.djvu/34

12 are considered by themselves as observed in the bodies surrounding us, and specially in those systems of apparatus which we call machines, I have given the name , from κινημα, motion." He further on encouraged the treatment of the science in text-books, for which he foresaw great use,—but he did not enter into any further details regarding it.

The seed thus sown by Ampère has borne rich fruit,—the was soon taken up (in France first of all) as a separate study, and a literature for it came rapidly into existence. The proposed name met with the most ready acceptance in France, and has since become more or less familiar in many other places.undefined In the scientific limitation of the nature and aims of the study, however, the clearness so much to be desired has by no means been attained.

The next important original work is the "Principles of Mechanism" of the late Professor Willis (1841), a remarkable book, full of valuable illustrations from applied Kinematics, and of thoughts in relation to their real connection with each other. In system Willis differs from Monge. He considers that the scheme of Lanz, "notwithstanding its apparent simplicity," must be considered "a merely popular arrangement." He finds further in Lanz and Bétancourt a contradiction of Ampère's definition, in their inclusion of waterwheels, windmills and so on, among mechanisms, and will only allow that those mechanisms are pure which consist entirely of rigid bodies. With these mechanisms he lays special stress upon the important characteristic that they do not determine the motions in direction and velocity, as Monge says, but only the  in direction and velocity between the motions occurring in the machine. According to whether these relations in any mechanism are constant or varying, he placed it in one or other of three classes, each of which has subdivisions corresponding to the means used for transmitting the motion (rolling-contact,—sliding contact, &c.)

Willis' observations bear throughout the mark of careful and earnest investigation, but while there is much in them that is true, there are also some things that are incorrect, as especially the exclusion of hydraulic and other such machines. To this I will return further on. It is worthy of note, however, that Willis' classification has never taken root in his own country, but that much more