Thought maybe some of you would find this interesting within the confines of the discussion.....D.T., pg. 219...J. Collins
In a machine such as mine, on the other hand, the motive force, the ability to move itself and drive other objects makes up the FORM of the device, without which its framework is just any old heap of material, which has completely lost its essence. To cause the machine to stop requires the application of a greater external force, and can be accomplished without difficulty whenever one requires it, e.ga. for the machines longer conservation. Such a cessation can also occur through the wearing-out or breaking of the machines parts. The first is a "moral accident", the second a "material accident". As an example of the ideas I am discussing, coincide the case of two small metal spheres, one of iron and one of lead. For both of them, their FORM consists in their regular sphericity. But we find that, placed in a furnace, one loses its shape quicker that the other. Therefore the greater or lesser "meltability" of such spheres is not the result of "sphericalness" - common to both - but to the physical characteristics of the two materials. And it is this "material accident" which is the FORMAL CAUSE of the difference.
A bit of a lead up to that last paragraph....he was defending the notion that his machine was and should be deemed
perpetual, not
eternal....in that it would simply take one of these situations to stop it from turning. All else being equal, the principle that "drives" his machine is...in and of itself...a perpetuating force.
Same book just the next paragraph.....
And so I must stress that if a Perpetual MOtion machine of the type I have described really is in conformity with the demands of the most eminent mathematicians and engineers, thin it really deserves the Perpetual Motion appellation no matter how fragile the material from which it is consturcted. The case is no different from that of a leadin or even waxen sphere. They are both as perfectly deserving of the description "sphere" as is an iron one, despite the fact that the latter will withstand fire and other attacks better than the two former. For form gives the essence of the thing.
Make of these what you will, but he's definitely trying to explain something here. Right off the bat he seems to separate a "framework" from that which provides the
driving force. Twice he describes this FORM as the essence of the device. I wouldn't dig too deep in what he used as descriptions simply because he was not one to give much of anything away. I do think he is trying to convey a simple understanding that his device would maintain
perpetuity as long as this FORM is maintained.
Steve
Finding the right solution...is usually a function of asking the right questions. -A. Einstein
