Reply to Fred Rosse re 1861 padle propulsion patent

[John1950]

Dear Fred
Many thanks for your authoritative work on my ancestor’s invention, just received from the Scarborough Maritime Heritage Centre - it is crystal clear even to the technically illiterate like myself. I was pleased to see that you believe some boats may even have been built, using a slimmed-down mechanical design.
If you ever come across a photo or engraving of an actual craft like this I would appreciate your letting me know either directly or via the Maritime Heritage Centre. I somehow doubt that anyone will ever re-create one for historical or leisure purposes, given that the aesthetics compare unfavourably with the grace of the conventional paddle steamer - unless of course the rather ungainly paddles were concealed by a covering...
Also (and here again I tread in dangerous technical waters) it strikes me that movement through the water with a single crank would have been a rather jerky experience for passengers, like travelling by rowing boat: a surge forward followed by a slack in pace. Perhaps the inventor hoped that the additional 3 cranks would smooth this out.... Or maybe he was just interested in powering larger vessels. As you point out the ambition of going to scale would have been foiled by the mechanical practicalities.
Either way, his ambitions came to an abrupt halt on the stormy night of November 2nd 1861, when Scarborough's brand new 12-oared lifeboat came to grief while attending to a stricken schooner. Lord Charles, aged 48, and 4 other volunteers who came to the assistance of the lifeboat men, died in the attempt. The Scarborough RNLI – Royal National Lifeboat Association – generously sponsored several events around the 150th anniversary last year.
My great grandfather’s personal papers have all disappeared but the family thinks he was in Scarborough to find a backer for his steam propulsion design, patented in May of that year. In the mid nineteenth century Scarborough was a busy North Sea port, notably harbouring oar-powered "cobbles" for the profitable herring trade. Perhaps he had an eye on modernising the fishing fleet.
His only other patent (at least known to me) was for an “Archimedean” screw-based plough, which won an award at the Northumberland County Show in 1859 but was judged by farmers as too prone to breakdown. He was a soldier by profession (Northern Ireland, North America, the Crimea) who described and painted scenes of the battles he was engaged in, though his only publication was of the insurrection in Canada, 1836-38. In keeping with the demographics of the time he was one of eight siblings, and produced as many children – one of whom was my grandfather.
Thanks, again John

[fredrosse]

Very interesting history, glad it is preserved.

As far as the thrust issue with only one set of paddles on each side of the ship, I think that may not have been such an issue. American walking beam sidewheelers almost all had single cylinder double acting engines, so for every revolution of the engine, there were two periods of no thrust (engine top dead center and bottom dead center), immediately followed by a short period of highest thrust when full steam pressure is admitted into the cylinder. Thie alternating action is easy to see on the videos of my sidewheeler. This alternate surging can be detected, but is not too great. I also detected similar surging on lake Como, on the Concordia, which uses a three cylinder double acting engine and is also a sidewheeler, but about 120 feet long. With alternate port/starboard rowing, we would have something like paddling a canoe, although a heavy boat would tend to hold a much more steady course.