^An £arly Steamboat "Plan of
John Fitch
T
wo unpublished papers of John Fitch are printed and discussed on the following pages. They apparently originated in
the summer of 1785, when the mind of the adventuring
silversmith and surveyor had just become obsessed by the steamboat
idea. They seem to bring an amount of new light, and a multitude
of new problems, into the fascinating and obscure story of Fitch.
More generally, they show how circuitous the progress of thought
can be.
The first paper is a kind of steamboat prospectus, in Fitch's handwriting, illustrated by a fairly simple steam engine diagram. 1 For
many decades this paper, and especially the drawing forming part of
it, was believed to be lost.2 One modern writer discussed the specification part of it briefly,3 but there is much in it that deserves fuller
notice and deeper study.
To the Honorable Philosophical society Philadelphia4
The necessity for some helps5 to assist the Navigation of the River
Misasippi6 has induced me freqently to wish it might be rendered more easy
1 Fitch Papers, f. 1732,1733 (description), and f. 2800, 2801 (diagram), Library of Congress.
2 Thompson Westcott, Life of John Fitch (Philadelphia, 1857), 132; Mira Clarke Parsons,
"John Fitch, Inventor of Steamboats," Ohio Archaeological and Historical Publications, VIII
(1900), 402.
3 Greville Bathe, An Engineer's Miscellany (Philadelphia, 1938), Chap. IV. Even Bathe
assumes "a drawing not now to be found," but he reconstructs it remarkably well from the
description, omitting only parts H, L, and O. He writes that he saw only six volumes of Fitch
Papers. Ibid., 35, 42, 44. There are seven volumes in the Library of Congress; the drawings
are in Vol. VI.
4
An officer of this society, Dr. John Ewing, was well known to Fitch. See Note 52.
5 This may refer to a similar expression used in George Washington's certificate for James
Rumsey, advertised by the latter in 1784. Ella M. Turner, James Rumsey (Scottdale, Pa.,
1931), 14. See also Note 51.
6 The Mississippi then was nominally French and Spanish, actually more Indian. James T.
Flexner, Steamboats Come True (New York, 1944), 81.
63
64
FRANK D. PRAGER
January
than it is at present,7 and having a greater desire than genius for effecting
new and valuable improvements, I have happened on one which appears to
me may be made useful. But since forming this I have been informed that
there are Engines for working pumps upon the same principals,8 and therefore doubt not but there are much greater refinements on the art than my
present undegested Ideas, which are as yet almost too confused to give a
draft of the Machine, yet flatter myself, if the principals by which it workes
are rational, that the other parts will come more clear in the Executing of it.
The form of the machine as I would propose it to be made—
I would propose two globes made of wrought Iron two feet diameter as at
A, to work alternately or together, and tubes to them on one side that
should be two feet 2 inches above the top of the globes as B, and Sd globes
to be filled with water, in Sd tubes I would have stoppers that should play
easy two feet without giving vent, and they to be perhaps 4, 5, or 6 inches
diameter as at C, and the Sd stopper have a hole, and near the top of Sd
stopper to have a cock fixed at D, and when it had rose to a certain height,
to be turned and vented by the chains aa, which whould also winde two
springs made fast to the stopper and Cock at dd, that when the chains
slackened they should turn the cock and stop the vent.9 and to have a beam
to Sd stoppers as II, and that to play up and down in a channel in two upright pieces of Iron to keep the stopper in its place as bb bb,10 and on
the top of Sd upright pieces to have a piece accross as kk, to Sd Cross piece
I would screw two springs perhaps five feet Long that should rest at the
opposit end on the beam of the stopper, whose business should be to force
in the stopper11 and winde the fuzee of a wheel as cc cc.12 to the beam of Sd
stopper I would make fast a double chain at LL, and them united in MM,
thence over two shivs (or pulleys) at EE, thence made fast to a fuzee at N.
7
See Seymour Dunbar, A History of Travel in America (Indianapolis, Ind., 1915), 38-40.
8 According to the so-called Fitch Autobiography (p. 112) and Fitch Steamboat History
(p. 2), both in the Library Company of Philadelphia, Pastor Irwin showed Fitch a volume of
Benjamin Martin's Philosophia Britannica. It was probably the second edition (London,
1759), which, in Vol. II, 70-87, describes and illustrates various forms of Worcester, Savery,
and Newcomen steam engines.
9 Up to this point, Fitch describes a fairly conventional Newcomen steam engine.
10 Piston-rod guides, as here suggested, had been used rarely. See illustrations 242 and 260
in^Abraham Wolf, History of Science, Technology and Philosophy in the Eighteenth Century
(London, 1952).
II
These piston return springs may be original with Fitch; about their significance, see
Note 66. Bathe, 42, not having seen the drawing, makes only a short reference to these springs.
Flexner, 77, concludes erroneously that the pistons were "pulled upward by springs." He had
no access to the Fitch Papers. Ibid., 379.
12
Bathe, 51, concludes correctly from the text alone that a ratchet is meant. Subsequent
documents, like*Fitch Papers, f. 2452-2457, speak of "rock wheels." Bathe credits the watchmaker Voigt with the ratchet idea. However, Fitch, a former watch mender himself, wrote the
paper"severaljnonths before he is generally assumed to have met Voigt. See Flexner, 100; also
Note 45.
FIG. I
6s
66
FRANK D. PRAGER
January
that when the stopper rises it turns the wheel, and when it shuts windes the
fuzee.13 on the same axis of the fuzee wheel I would have two water wheels14
made of Iron in the following manner, (which is not represented in the
plate). I would have them perhaps five times the diamiter of the fuzee,16
that by turning the fuzee two feet, would turn the waterwheel 10 feet, and
would have the paddles or Buckets hung on hinges on the out side of the
wheel,16 that is on the part that should be the greatest extream from the
axletree, and when they had passed their nader about 20 or 300 I would
have their bolts flung of by a piece of Iron that should slip round on the
inside brace of the wheel, and let them turn and follow the wheel edgways
till they come on the opposite side of the wheel, when their own weight
should bring them to their place and bolt them fast. In order to cool the
water in the tubes, I would have a cistern of water at F, that should empty
into the tubes two feet above the globes thro' a door with hinges at top, in
the inside of the tubes; that when the stopper drew above that it should be
thrown open by a spring, and under Sd door have holes drilled in such a
manner as to throw the water in fibers in every direction thro* the tubes, so
that the tubes might be quenched sudden and the water falling in small
drops might heat by the time it reached the Globes, and when the stopper
shut to shut the door and with that the water.17 I would have a kittle
(which is not represented in the plate) that should also answer the end of a
stove for the fire of the globes, and the scalding water that should expend
out of the vent I would collect into the kittle, and when the water was
exausted out of a globe I would fill it with hot water out of the kittle, in
order to fill the globes I would have a short tube on the top at O and a cock
13
This was the opposite of conventional steam engine practice in 1785. The innovation was
crude. It provided for venting of used, expanded steam to the atmosphere, and also for
(internal) condensation. Such crude ideas, however, may be historically effective.
14
Apparently on the two sides of the boat. It seems that Bathe, who did not see the drawing and, on the whole, did not consider the ensuing discussion (see Notes 47-57 and text), was
misled. He wrote of "spiral" paddle wheels (p. 36) and of "oars" (p. 42) in connection with
Fitch's original design ideas. Fitch did leave a spiral propeller drawing (Fitch Papers, f. 2793),
but there is no evidence that it had anything to do with the ideas of 1785. The oar idea came
up in 1786. See Note 62.
15 The diameter of the ratchet (see the inset at the upper left of the drawing) is shown as
about 1.6 times the stroke length of the piston. The latter is specified as two feet (see text
after this Note reference). Accordingly, it seems—assuming that the drawing was roughly to
scale—that the ratchet had a 3.15-foot diameter, and the paddle wheel "perhaps five times" as
much. The text to Note 36 approximately confirms these estimates.
16 The apparent purpose was to make sure that the piston's "whole force be applied." See
Query 3 in Fitch's description. Similar ideas turned up in the British patents of Buchanan,
Oldham, and others, 1813, 1820, etc.
l 7 This was probably borrowed from "Payne," cited by Martin, 87; /.*., John Payne,
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (London), Vol. 41, II (1740/41), 821-828.
1955
A N
EARLY STEAMBOAT PLAN OF JOHN FITCH
6j
to Sd tubes.18 I would also have the works of the other Globe fixed in like
manner to the same fuze wheel to a fuzee on the opposit side, or to another
wheel on the same axel tree19—The reasons of my placing the tubes on one
side of the globes is, that the chains may draw perpendicular in order that
they may draw equal; also to prevent a friction which an oblique draft
might cause in the stopper.20 I have chosen Globes for the boilers principally because they are stronger21 —
The reasons that induces me to believe it may answer some valuable purpose in a Boat are these: I believe it will act forcibly, and I believe the
whole force may be applyed to rowing a boat22—
Query I st
In how short a space of time could Sd stopper be made to
Vibrate and rais two thousand w* each time it raised.23
Query 2nd After it had risen the two feet and received a damp of cold
water at the time it would be the most useful for the works,
what would be the least quantity of scalding water that it could
be made to vent.
Query 3 d
Could not its whole force be applyed to rowing a boat.24
18 The tubes O apparently provided the basis for Fitch's otherwise obscure claim to priority
over Rumsey in the invention of a pipe boiler. About this claim, see Flexner, 140, 390; Bathe,
26, may give too much credit to Fitch.
19 The double ratchets here suggested are illustrated in Fitch Papers, f. 2796, 2804, and
2807.
20 Obviously, Fitch was under the impression that boiler and cylinder had to be integral.
The document of Aug. 30 shows them separate.
21 The apparent meaning is that they stand higher pressures. See Note 23. Unfortunately,
it was impossible in Philadelphia in 1785 to obtain globes of the required size or to join them
together from segments in a steam and fire proof manner. It does not appear that globes were
actually tried by Fitch.
22 This essential "belief" of Fitch was, as yet, purely speculative. However, he proved it
during the next five years. This was his chief historic achievement.
23 The text after reference to Note 8 shows that a piston of from four to six inches in diameter was used for this purpose. Thus, it appears—unless Fitch was more confused than his drawing indicates—that he proposed using steam pressures of from 70 to 155 pounds per square inch.
By 1785 standards, these were extremely high pressures. In Fitch's hands they remained purely
theoretical, but the idea may have passed on to others who were able to profit from his disappointments. See Notes 21, 37, and 44.
24 For the conflicting answers of Fitch and Franklin, see text to Notes 37 and 64.
68
Query 4 th
FRANK D. PRAGER
January
Would it not work quick and forceble enough to row a boat
against strong currents.
Query 5 th Could not one globe be set to work, before another would exaust.
Query 6th
If the scalding water should be collected into the cistern, or it
supplyed with hot water out of the Kittle, could there not be as
much flung into the tubes as would exaust without impeeding
its motion.25
Query 7th
If the stoppers were made fast and a vent given to a pipe something in the form of the pipe of a fire engine, and there should
be a Key to Sd pipe, that by turning it should stop the vent and
open a hole big enough to let in a musket or rifle ball, and over
Sd hole there should be a tube that should contain a number of
balls, and when the key was turned and opened the hole, it
should admit one to drop in, when the key was turned back, the
hole closed, and the vent given, would it not throw the ball
forcibly enough to prevent an enemy from boarding Sd boat.26
If the Querys should be improperly asked, and the Honorable
Society will amend them, it will much oblige,
Their Very Humble Servent
JOHN FITCH
Bucks County
the i8t August 1785
The second document is an application for Federal "encouragement/' again in Fitch's handwriting and again illustrated by a
sketch.27
25 This statement may reflect a vague idea about Watt's separate condenser (British
Patent 913/1769). A valuable analysis of later Fitch condenser developments is given by
Bathe, particularly on pages 46-50, but important details, noted, for instance, on pages 39 and
45, remain in need of further elaboration.
26 Compare also Abraham Wolf, A History of Science, Technology and Philosophy (London,
I95o), 55o.
27 Fitch Papers, f. 1737 (description), and f. 2799 (diagram).
1955
AN EARLY STEAMBOAT PLAN OF JOHN FITCH
69
To the Honourable the Committee of Congress28
It is with the greatest Diffidence tho' with the advice of several Gentlemen of Science,29 I have at last presumed to lay at your feet an Attempt to
assist the inland Navigation of the United States, and particularly calculated for the Waters of the Mississippi, by a steam Engine; I have not
attempted to lay down the particular Construction of the Engine but only
the principles by which it operates, as the method and force of the Pistons
working is better known to you than I am able to describe. I have also given
a rough model how the force of the piston may be applied to the rowing of a
Boat.30 Neither are my Ideas as yet so clear with respect to the valves, the
Pipes, the Cocks Etc, as to give a draft of the Engine suitable for each one
to perform his office; therefore have omited Braces Supports Etc. neither
did I when I drew my first draft know there was such an Engine ever used,
and very lately since I saw the draft of one, but doubt not every part of this
may be made to worke on the same principles if they differ in form.31 In
the rough draft I have Presented I suppose B to be the Boiler, C the
Cilender, D the Piston,32 GG a Beam to which the Piston is made fast, II
two pieces of wood made fast to the end of the Beam, FF two upright
pieces of Timber, aaaa a channel in Sd pieces of of [sic] Timber for the
Blocks at the end of the Piston Beam to play up and down, bbbb a small
Cable or Chain made fast to the Beam of the Piston, EE two Shives (or
Pulleys) for the Cable to run on.33 The greatest difficulty that has occurred
to me is the gaugeing of the water in a rough sea so as always to keep a
suitable quantity: the most practible method that yet appears to me is to
make the Boiler something in form as represented by LL,34 and a proper
quantity of Water at m, and the gaugeing pipes at gg, as a small quantity of
water will at that place raise or lower it, and being small and curved it will
not be put in such agetation by the working of the Boat—
The reasons that induce me to believe it may answer a valuable purpose
in a Boat are these—Ferguson in his lectures35 informs us that 2000 gallons
is a sufficient quantity of Water for a Piston of 40 inches diameter; and as
40 inches diameter is to 2000 gallons, so is 12 inches the size I proposed, to
28 See Note 52. Fitch simultaneously handed a short petition to the president of Congress,
dated Aug. 29, 1785. That petition is better known than the present specification. See, for
instance, Flexner, 79. Bathe, 43, dates the present specification as of Aug. 30,1786. This seems
to be a slip of the pen; Fitch's date, 1785, is very clearly written.
29
John Ewing and Robert Patterson, in particular. Flexner, 78.
30 Bathe, 42.
31
No cold water injection is shown. Compare Note 13.
32 Note the improved terminology.
33 Later, Fitch developed away from the cable. Fitch Papers, f. 2804 and 2441. He probably
held on to the ratchet to the end. Bathe, 51.
34 The upper sphere probably takes the place of the "kittle" of Aug. 1, 1785.
35 James Ferguson, Lectures on Select Subjects (London, 1776), 143-151.
FIG. I
70
1955
A N
EARLY STEAMBOAT PLAN OF JOHN FITCH
71
about 180 gallons. Which he informs us will strike 16 times in a minute, and
each Stroke six feet or more.36 Than if the fuzee be 2 feet diameter, and the
waterwheels 12 feet, the Piston moveing 6 feet 3 inches, moves the water
wheels 37 feet 6 inches; and if it strikes 15 times in a minute and 6 feet
3 inches at a time, I expect it will rise in about 2 seconds, and if the wheels
move 37/^ feet in 2 seconds, I am of opinion that it would carry the Boat
66 feet in 4 seconds,37 which is equal to 11% miles pr hour. Yet I expect it
must work more moderate or endanger the works—
Proposals of John Fitch to enable Sd Fitch to erect a steam Engine for
rowing a Boat.
Whereas the Sd John Fitch has lately published a map of the Western
Teritory,38 wh may have a good effect to instruct youths in geography and
give a general Idea of the Country; and as the price is so small the poorer
sort of people may purchase; also it may have a tendency to promote the
sale of Sd Lands by encourageing many to become adventurers, And as it
must be several years before there can be an accurate Map of that Country,
he presumes that it may be rather to the advantage than disadvantage of
the United States to encourage the sale of Sd Maps.
Sd Fitch proposes, should the United States see fit to encourage the sale
of Sd Maps, to the amount of four thousand subscribers, that he will obligate
himself to execute Sd Machine at his own expence39: and think himself
happy in thus promoting the interest of his Country, and will expect no
further reward unless it answers in practise as well as in theory, and then
submit it to the Honourable Congress, to judge of its utility, and his
reward.40
New York, the 30 August 1785.
JOHN FITCH
It has been known that Fitch built experimental steamboat models
in 1785 and 1786, that he demonstrated an operating steamboat
from the summer of 1787 on, that he organized a scheduled steamboat service in 1790, and that his boats were propelled by strange
mechanical oar systems, using side oars during the first three years
36 Only part of this information is given by Ferguson.
37 On actual trial this turned out to be a gross overestimation.
38 See Phillip L. Phillips, The Rare Map of the Northwest, T/SJ, by John Fitch (Washington,
1916).
39 Fitch later proposed a similar scheme in Virginia. Flexner, 90.
40 In May, 1785, Congress had promised a bounty of 30,000 acres to Rumsey, contingent
upon his showing that his mechanized boat could go upstream. Journals of the Continental
Congress, 1774-1789, XXIV, 433-434; XXVIII, 349-350. This episode has been overlooked by
the Fitch and Rumsey literature.
72
FRANK D. PRAGER
January
and then oars in back of the rudder. It has also been known that
Fitch's organization collapsed because of financial and publicity
trouble, which in turn was caused largely by technical difficulties.41
It has been assumed that associates of Fitch, principally William
Thornton, proposed paddle wheels and that Fitch opposed them.42
The documents of August, 1785, suggest that Fitch's position in
the evolution of steamboats should be re-evaluated. No comprehensive review of his work will here be undertaken; that could be
attempted only upon the publication of the many other Fitch documents remaining unpublished. We can, however, try to determine
which parts of Fitch's plan of 1785 were new or old, which were
considered good or bad, and what the immediate effect of such
discussion was.
It seems convenient to separate this analysis into three parts—
Fitch's engine, his power transmission, and his ship propulsion. The
third part, ship propulsion, is more fully documented than the other
two parts.
Steam engines had been designed in various forms prior to Fitch's
time. Few had been imported or built in America.48
The steam engine of the eighteenth century, known as the Newcomen or Atmospheric Engine, was a phlegmatic monster, useful only
where bulk of machinery did not matter. The pressure of the atmosphere, 14.7 pounds per square inch, acted on one side of a piston. On
the other side, a vacuum was alternately created and destroyed; that
is, steam, at atmospheric pressure, was applied, followed by cold
water to condense the steam. When the vacuum was "on," the air
pressure shifted the piston to the vacuum side, operating a pump or
other machine and raising a weight. When the vacuum was "off," the
weight returned the piston to its original position. Tremendous
weights of fuel were consumed in generating the required steam. This
41 See, for example, Flexner, 100-207, and illustrations following page 86. As to an alleged
operating model with paddle wheels, see Westcott, 122-124.
42 Greville and Dorothy Bathe, Oliver Evans (Philadelphia, 1935), 222; Thornton Papers,
f. 2141 and 2142, Library of Congress.
43 For steamboat proposals, 1690-1782, see Flexner, 14-16, 38-49; for an early American
steam engine builder, see Bathe, 117-129, and American Philosophical Society Proceedings,
XXII, 83. There is no adequate history of steamboats despite the efforts of Jean B. Marestier,
Mimoire sur les Bateaux a Vapeur des £tats Unis d'AmSrique (Paris, 1824); Bennet Woodcroft,
Sketch of the Origin and Progress of Steam Navigation (London, 1848); George H. Preble,
Chronological History of . . . Steam Navigation (Philadelphia, 1895), etc.
1955
AN EARLY STEAMBOAT PLAN OF JOHN FITCH
73
expense was greatly reduced by the famous Newcomen-Watt engine,
but the complication and bulk of the machine itself were increased.
At various times during the eighteenth century experiments were
made with steam pressures higher than atmospheric pressure. Such
higher pressures made it possible to dispense with the vacuum and
the complicated machinery creating and destroying it. The resulting
simplification was the main or only objective of the early experimenters, but much greater advantages were later discovered.
For steamboats and steam carriages, the high-pressure, noncondensing engine has the advantage that it can be made relatively
small and light. This fact, which is now elementary, was not obvious
in Fitch's time. It had to be discovered by men willing to try new
things and to think new thoughts.
It was also necessary for those men to build or obtain parts which
were beyond the ordinary skills available: boilers able to create
higher pressures, and cylinders able to withstand them. There was no
literature about such problems, and no one had produced a working
model, either intentionally or accidentally.
Such was the background of Fitch's plan of August, 1785. Shortly
afterward, directed and competitive efforts to create high-pressure
automotive engines started among a number of men who knew Fitch
well.44 The question arises whether the plan of August, 1785, with its
various imperfections, forms a link between the incipient ideas of the
earlier period and the epoch-making high-pressure developments of
subsequent years. Fitch's plan itself went through two stages in
August, 1785—with and without vacuum machinery. In both stages
44
See Note 23. Jacob Leupold's engine of 1725 is usually called "the first high pressure
engine." Elijah Galloway, History . . . of the Steam Engine (London, 1830), 40. Better examples could be found. Steam engine histories are almost as inadequate as steamboat histories,
in spite of the research recorded in Robert Stuart, Descriptive History of the Steam Engine
(London, 1824), and Historic Anecdotes of the Steam Engine (London, 1829); Henry W. Dickinson, A Short History of the Steam Engine (Cambridge, 1939), and his books on Watt, Boulton,
Trevithick and Fulton; Robert H. Thurston, A History of the Growth of the Steam Engine
(Ithaca, N. Y., 1939). After Fitch, the invention or practical completion of the high pressure
engine was disputed mainly between John Stevens and Oliver Evans, aside from claims of
Rumsey, Fulton, and others. See, for instance, Flexner, 267, 287; Bathe, 55-60; G. and D.
Bathe, 34-106. Stevens had been in close contact with Fitch. Flexner, 93, 94, 237. It should
also be noted that an Evans had worked for Fitch in 1792, the year that Oliver Evans came to
Philadelphia. Fitch Papers, f. 2504. Was he Oliver Evans? The first high pressure engine
specification of Oliver Evans, copied by G. and D. Bathe, 88 and 89, used language most
similar to that of Fitch.
74
FRANK D. PRAGER
January
it was crude, and neither stage was actually reduced to practice by
him. Nevertheless, the question remains.
Between the engine and the paddle wheels, or propulsion means,
Fitch provided a double ratchet transmission, the principle of which
his first drawing showed at H. He used this mechanism, instead of the
now usual piston rod, pitman, and crank. He used springs L, instead
of the now usual flywheel, to overcome the starting inertia and friction between forward and backward piston strokes.
Except for these springs L, Fitch's power transmission was substantially identical with one that had been tried occasionally by
European steamboat and steam carriage experimenters.46 We are
completely mystified about the manner in which the double ratchet
transmission came into Fitch's mind. Previous American steamboat
speculation had apparently followed quite different lines of thought.46
The answer may lie somewhere in the unpublished papers of Fitch or
in sources mentioned therein.
We now come to the paddle wheels described, but not illustrated,
in Fitch's first plan. The basic fact of importance is that Fitch, long
before Thornton and, of course, very long before Fulton, wrote: "On
the same axis of the fuzee wheel I would have two water wheels. . . .
I would have them perhaps five times the diamiter of the fuzee." He
then asked, "Would it not work quick and forceble enough to row a
boat against strong currents?"47
Paddle wheels used as boat propulsion means had been known to
some extent before steamboat days. However, they had been rare,
much rarer than water wheels employed as mill drives. Boatpropelling paddle wheels had been powered by men or animals.
Fitch, himself, had seen such a boat, with a horse treadmill on it, in
45
Principally by Papin, 1690-1711 (Wolf [1950], 548-550, and Thurston, 50-51); Hulls,
1736 (British Patent 556/1736, and Stuart [1829], I, 200-201); Washbrough, 1779 (British
Patent 1213/1779); and Claude F. D . Jouffroy, 1782 (Des Bateaux h Vapeur [Paris, 1839], 1216, by his son, Achille F. Jouffroy d'Abbans).
46
William Henry of Lancaster, Pa., and Thomas Paine about 1778 discussed steamboat
plans (erroneously traced to Watt in Francis Jordan, Jr., Life of William Henry of Lancastery
1729-1786 [Lancaster, Pa., 1910], 71-86). Henry considered a reaction steam turbine to power
the propulsion means (paddle wheel?) of a boat. Fitch Papers, f. 1841-1848; Flexner, 383-384;
Edward Ford, David Rittenhouse, Astronomer-Patriot, 1732-1796 (Philadelphia, 1946), 61, 87,
88, 147; Moncure D . Conway, Life of Thomas Paine (New York, 1892), II, 460-467.
47 See Note 14.
1955
AN EARLY STEAMBOAT PLAN OF JOHN FITCH
75
Boston Harbor.48 The details about that Boston boat are unknown.
Perhaps they would explain Fitch's curious proposal about a paddle
wheel made of iron and with paddles hung on hinges, with a tilting
mechanism apparently using cam action and gravity to hold the
paddles in water-impelling positions only between the entering and
leaving points. The answer might be found in old Boston records.
Fitch was in Boston only long before and long after 1785.49 It may
therefore be assumed that various other possibilities for mechanically
propelled boats came to his mind before the steamboat idea took hold
of it. He may have received pertinent impressions during his years as
a western explorer, 1780-1785. There were men of wide and rather
pertinent experience in the group of those who commissioned Fitch
and at times accompanied him in the staking out of western lands.
One of those men was William Churchill Houston, a Trenton lawyer,
who in 1782 shared Fitch's Indian captivity.50 In 1784 Houston belonged to a congressional committee that dealt with boat-improvement claims presented by James McMechen and later by James
Rumsey.51 Another outstanding member of Fitch's group, long before
the days of his steamboat company, was Dr. John Ewing, minister,
scientist, and most loyal friend. After Fitch's steamboat conception
in the spring of 1785, it was Ewing who "put the scheme afloat," and
steered it initially in the direction of the committee on which
Houston had served.52 Too little is known about Houston and Ewing
in the Fitch literature.
As shown by Fitch's provision of a paddle-tilting mechanism in his
memorandum of August 1, 1785, he at that time harbored doubts
about the sufficiency of plain, rigid paddles. Then, between August 1
and August 30, he dropped all reference to paddle wheel details from
his description. He did speak of "waterwheels" having a twelve-foot
diameter. He also mentioned a "rough sea." His model53 showed an
48
Preble, xiii, cites paddle wheels of 1472 and subsequent years in addition to questionable
ancient beginnings. The paddle wheel seen by Fitch is mentioned in a letter of Voigt to Thornton, 1809, Thornton Papers, f. 494.
49 Flexner, 23, 233.
60
Fitch Autobiography, 55-107, pages 60 and 61 in particular.
51
Journals of the Continental Congress, XXVII, 672.
52 Flexner, 78, 79. A new committee was appointed since the membership of Congress had
changed. Journals of the Continental Congress, X X I X , 669, 672.
53 See Note 30.
j6
FRANK D. PRAGER
January
endless paddle chain with a curious handle for manual demonstration, and used end wheels for the chain which could hardly be
assumed to be more than five or six feet in diameter in a fairly
large boat. The interpretation of the model is far from certain on the
basis of the published documents, but it seems to suggest gradually
mounting doubts in Fitch's mind about the adequacy of revolving
paddles, with or without tilting motion.
On September 14, 1785, Benjamin Franklin returned from Europe
to Philadelphia. Fitch's plan had sufficient support to be presented to
Franklin, as president of the American Philosophical Society, two
weeks after his arrival. For another few weeks, Fitch tried by letters
and visits to gain Franklin's own support.54
Franklin then published, as an open letter to Julien-David Le Roy,
an essay datelined "At sea . . . August 1785." This was read in the
American Philosophical Society on December 2, 1785.55 It had two
parts, not numbered as such, but fairly well separated from each
other. The first part discussed sails and the various actions of
wind; it contained an interesting, early reference to experimental
wind tunnels. The second part dealt mainly with anchors and waves.
However, it also contained rambling remarks on matters more or less
connected with navigation. One of these side remarks formed an
excursus on ship propulsion, and that excursus became important for
Fitch.
It began with a brief discussion of some primitive or exotic boat
propulsion methods. It continued rather abruptly with reference to a
Paris demonstration of 1784, wherein a screw propeller had driven a
boat.56 The exposition ended with a criticism of paddle wheels and an
alternate proposal.
At this point Franklin referred to Figure 12 on the plate of drawings accompanying his letter. This figure showed a paddle wheel im54Flexner, 81.
55 Ibid., 90, 91; printed in American Philosophical Society Transactions, Original Series, II,
294-329; reprinted in A. H. Smyth, ed., The Writings of Benjamin Franklin (New York, 19051907), IX, 372-405. See also the subsequent letters of Julien-David Le Roy to Franklin,
Franklin Papers, XXXIV, 95K; XXXV, 32, 50, American Philosophical Society.
56
This demonstration had been witnessed also by Jefferson and had been reported by him
in 1784/1785 to Hugh Williamson of the congressional committee studying Rumsey's petition.
Julian P. Boyd, ed., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (Princeton, N. J., 1950), VII, 569,
641. The design went back to a proposal made by Paucton in 1768. Preble, xvi, xvii.
I955
AN EARLY STEAMBOAT PLAN OF JOHN FITCH
77
mersed in water all the way to the center. The argument was made
in the text that a "waste of labor" was involved because of the semicircular travel of the paddles through the water: the paddles press
first downwards, then backwards, then upwards, although only the
backward pressure is useful for the forward travel of the boat.
It is true that by placing the wheels higher out of the water, this waste
labor will be diminished in a calm, but where a sea runs the wheels must
unavoidably be often dipped deep in the waves. . . .57
Among the various means of giving motion to a boat, that of Mr.
Bernoulli appears one of the most singular, which was to have fixed in the
boat a tube in the form of an L. . . .58 I would propose the addition of
another such L pipe and that they should stand back to back. . . . A fire
engine might possibly in some cases be applied in this operation with
advantage.
Perhaps this labor of raising water might be spared and the whole force
of a man applied to the moving of a boat by the use of air instead of water.
The historic evaluation of Franklin's letter is not simple. At some
points he only seemed to allude to certain matters, as, for instance,
when he mentioned "various" means of giving motion to a boat.
Many such means had been studied by Europeans who conferred or
corresponded with Franklin. 59 It also seems possible that Franklin
knew of somewhat pertinent American discussions, which have left
faint echoes in our archives.60
Franklin cited Bernoulli's work, published in 1738, on the possibility of propelling a ship by jet action. This same Bernoulli had
received a prize of the French Academy for another work, written in
1753 and published in 1769, wherein he proposed mechanized oar
systems, criticized paddle wheels (as unsuitable for human actuation),
and discussed, critically, proposals of others that a "fire engine"
57 The same argument had previously been made about water wheels for the actuation of
bilge pumps on ships. Pierre Bouguer, Traiti du Navire (Paris, 1746), 93, 94.
58 Daniel Bernoulli, Hydrodynamica (Strasburg, 1738), 293-302. See also John Allen,
British Patent 513/1729, and his pamphlet, Speciminia Technographia (London, 1730), cited byStuart (1829), I, 195-198. The idea goes back to Sir Isaac Newton. Samuel Smiles, The Life
of George Stephenson and of his son Robert Stephenson (London, 1868), 10.
59 In France, see particularly Acad6mie Royale des Sciences, Recueil des Pieces qui ont
remportS les Prix de PAcademie, VII (1769). About Franklin's position in the academy, see
Carl Van Doren, Benjamin Franklin (New York, 1938). In England, see especially Franklin's
contact with Boulton, 1760. Samuel Smiles, Lives of Boulton and Watt (London, 1865), 182-184.
60 See Old Minutes, 6, 14, 17, 45, 46, 54, SS> American Philosophical Society.
78
FRANK D. PRAGER
January
{action dufeu) might be used to propel a boat.61 Did Franklin know
the work of 1753? Did anyone else in America? No definite answers
can presently be given. It seems probable, however, that Franklin did
know of it, and that others did not.
It is significant that Fitch's talks with Franklin were promptly
followed by actions seemingly in line with Bernoulli's ideas, and not
only the ideas of 1738. Fitch wrote and no doubt believed that a
mechanized oar design occurred to him in a sleepless night in the
early part of 1786.62 But how had the idea entered his mind? It had
the greatest similarity to those discussed by Bernoulli in 1753, and
this similarity has been overlooked by Fitch's biographers, supporters, and adversaries down to the present time. It may be possible to
bring further light into these matters when more of the papers of
Fitch, and also of Franklin, have been published.
One thing seems clear from the record at hand: Franklin, with
characteristic vigor, wanted to influence boat building in accordance
with the scientific tradition at his command. He amplified and developed this tradition independently. His proposal differed from
Bernoulli's of 1738 as to jet details, and from the unnamed Bernoulli
thesis of 1753 as to possible functions of fire engines.
Either by coincidence or by intention, Franklin's letter gave a
direct answer to one of Fitch's queries of August 1, 1785. Fitch had
asked whether his engine's "whole force" could not be applied to
rowing a boat.63 Franklin proposed a jet device in order that the
assumed waste labor of paddle wheels be spared and the "whole
force" of a man, or in some cases of an engine, be applied.64
Unfortunately, both question and answer were based on insufficient physical analysis. Purely static "force" concepts were used by
both Fitch and Franklin. Actually, hydrodynamic concepts are involved. They were then known only to a very few.65 Their details
need not be developed here; only their pertinent results will be mentioned, and those only so far as necessary to clarify those ancient
trials and errors.
61 Recueil des Pieces qui ont remportS les Prix de PAcad^mie, VII, 62-67, 94-98. The restatements of Marestier, Preble, etc., are inaccurate.
62 Fitch Autobiography, 116; Flexner, 105.
63 See Note 24.
64 See after reference to Note 58.
65 Bernoulli, passim; Wolf (1952), 71, 72.
1955
A N
EARLY STEAMBOAT PLAN OF JOHN FITCH
79
Neither the Bernoulli jets nor the Bernoulli oar devices provided
any improvement over the paddle wheel; on the contrary, both were
inherently more wasteful of energy. Bernoulli had proposed them as
possible improvements over conventional oars, and that they may be.
The paddle wheel's waste labor—to use this archaic term—is actually
quite small in comparison with the waste labor involved in the intermittent starting and stopping of the plunger-actuated jet and oar
systems.
In other words, those jet and oar systems were devoid of flywheel
effect. Fitch's paddle wheel of August i, 1785, with or without
paddle-tilting mechanism, would have involved at least some little
inherent flywheel action. Such action was very necessary for successful operation of the steam engines then available, and it appears from
Fitch's provision of the springs L that he had enough mechanical
intuition to feel the need for some such action. It seems, however,
that few if any other persons in Philadelphia in 1785 were aware of
this need. The engine-flywheel principle had been suppressed almost
as soon as it had been discovered in England.66 It had to be rediscovered independently. The scientific tradition centering about
Bernoulli, which was concerned with possible improvements over
human rowing action, contained nothing of constructive value for
this flywheel problem, although Bernoulli was one of the fathers of
dynamics.
Rediscovery actually may have taken place. There is some evidence that Fitch added a walking beam and flywheel to the engine
of his ill-starred 'Perseverance in 1790.67
Fulton, seventeen years later, used a Boulton-Watt engine,68
which then combined the walking beam and flywheel as a matter of
course.69 With that combination, and with everything else substantially in the same form as in Fitch's plan of 1785, the steamboat
became a spectacular success within less than a year.70 Influence and
66 The suppression came as a result of Boulton-Watt's shrewd policy. Smiles, Lives of
Boulton and Watt, 1S6-293. For the invention, see Fitzgerald, Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society, Vol. S3 (I763)> l39\ Washbrough, British Patent 1213/1779; Pickard, British
Patent 1363/1780.
67 Bathe, 47, S368Flexner, 301, 318.
69 See, for example, the illustration in Smiles, Lives of Boulton and Watt, 355.
70 Flexner, 319-332.
8O
FRANK D. PRAGER
January
money were involved,71 but no influence or money could buy the
necessary mastery over the laws of hydrodynamics and other physical forces involved. That mastery did not come to Fulton because of
any greater social receptiveness of his time. It came to him because
the pioneers who preceded him had blasted away former errors and
opened up new insights. Such, at least, seems to be the proper conclusion from this tentative analysis of Fitch's paddle wheel plans of
1785 and 1786.
Chicago, III.
71 ibid,, 333-363-
FRANK
D. PRAGER