Circular Motion and Rectilinear Motion

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


We find in an exchange an article endeavoring to draw amusement from the writings of Vitruvius, upon the principles of mechanics. One of the extracts made from this ancient author, who lived a short time previous to the birth of Christ, is the following : “ I have briefly explained,” he says, “ the principles of machines of draft, in which, as the powers and nature of the motion are different, so they generate two effects, one direct, the other circular, but it must be confessed that neither rectilinear nor circular motion can without the other be of much assistance in raising weights." Now, so far from seeing anything very amusing in this statement, the more we consider it the more we feel surprise at the comprehensiveness of the proposition. We see in it a generalization, the truth of which is exemplified in every machine. So large a proportion of the motions of the parts of machinery may be included in ths classes rectilinear and circular, that the very few exceptions wherein the curvilinear motions are other than these, are scarcely worth consideration; and wherever they are employed it is always at a sacrifice of economy in power, the former motions being the least expensive of movements. Where, as in the case of the crank and pitman, a rectilinear motion and circular motion are coupled, there may be a loss in the application of the power to useful work, always consequent upon the increase of the number of moving parts in a machine; but when a crank drives a pitman, or winds up a rope on an axle, the losses suffered in these arrangements of working parts, are consequent upon practical difficulties. In theory there should be no loss. We know that these losses are referable to friction, inertia of parts, rigidity, etc. , and therefore in theoretical formula We may justly pride ourselves on modern progress in science ; but the old philosophers undoubtedly saw and comprehended more than is sometimes credited to them.

Scientific American Magazine Vol 21 Issue 17This article was published with the title “Circular Motion and Rectilinear Motion” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 21 No. 17 (), p. 265
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican10231869-265a

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe