Leonhard Euler and the Theory of Ships

Horst Nowacki, Berlin

Abstract

On April 15, 2007 the scientific world has commemorated Leonhard Euler’s 300th
birthday. Euler’s eminent work has become famous in many fields: Mathematics,
mechanics, optics, acoustics, astronomy and geodesy, even in the theory of music. This
article will recall his no less distinguished contributions to the founding of the modern
theory of ships. These are not so widely known to the general professional public. In
laying these foundations in ship theory like in other fields Euler was seeking “first
principles, generality, order and above all clarity”. This article will highlight those
achievements for which we owe him our gratitude.

There is no doubt that Leonhard Euler was one of the founders of the modern theory of
ships. He raised many fundamental questions for the first time and through all phases of
his professional lifetime devoted himself to subjects of ship theory. Thereby he gave a
unique profile to this still nascent scientific discipline. Many of his approaches have
been of lasting, incisive influence on the structure of this field. Some of his ideas have
become so much a matter of routine today that we have forgotten their descent from
Euler. This article will synoptically review Euler’s contributions to the foundation of
this discipline, will correlate them with the stages of Euler’s own scientific
development, embedded in the rich environment of scientific enlightenment in the 18th
c., and will appreciate the value of his lasting aftereffects until today. The same example
will serve to recognize the fertile field of tension always existing between Euler’s
fundamental orientation and his desire to make contributions to practical applications,
which has remained characteristic of ship theory to the present day. Without claiming
completeness in detail this article aims at giving a coherent overview of Euler’s
approaches and objectives in this discipline. This synopsis will be presented primarily
from the viewpoint of engineering science in its current stage of development.

1. Introduction

Leonhard Euler (1707-1783) is famous for many brilliant scientific achievements in

mathematics, in solid and fluid mechanics, as a physicist in optics and acoustics, in
astronomy and geodesy, and even in the theory of music. Euler excelled also in the
application of science to practical problems, which in our current awareness has been
relegated to the background. One of his favorite application themes was also the theory
of ships, i.e., the application of the scientific principles of solid and fluid mechanics to
practical and technical problems in the design, performance evaluation and in the
operation of ships. Euler throughout his scientific career devoted no small share of his
investigations and publications to such topics in the theory of ships.

It is all the more surprising that Euler’s role in the foundation of modern ship theory
and the substance of his contributions are not widely known today, even among
specialists who are working on matters of ship theory today. In this regard the statement
made by the French geometer Taquet in the 17th c., referring to Archimedes, the
classical ancestor of ship theory, may also be applied to Leonhard Euler:

“All praise him, few read him, all admire him, few understand him”.

Many causes may have contributed to creating this gap in our historical memory. First,
Euler wrote the majority of his publications in Latin, the classical language of

-1-
Fig. 1: Leonhard Euler (1707-1783) Fig. 2: Pierre Bouguer (1698-1758)

science at the Academies in his era, in particular also his principal opus on Ship Theory,
the famous “Scientia Navalis”[1] (1749). Thus the access thereto by practitioners of
shipbuilding must have been difficult, even during Euler’s lifetime. Until today there
exists no complete translation of “Scientia Navalis”, a two volume work of ca. 900
pages, into a modern language. Second, it is true that he gave an analytical exposition of
the subject in brilliant clarity of style, but he rarely ever concerned himself with
numerical examples for specific, built or designed ships. Third, he presumed from his
reader an understanding of the mathematical notation of analysis and of the methods of
infinitesimal calculus, which was not widely spread in his days. Thus his publications
on the theory of the ship became accessible and comprehensible to the general public
only after a long delay. Nevertheless his influence in science was always well perceived
and even without many readers did reach those who later continued his work in
developing ship theory, certainly no later than in the 19th c.

Euler is not the only founder of the modern theory of ships. Among his contemporaries
the French scientist Pierre Bouguer (1698-1758), hydrographer, mathematician,
geodesist, physicist and in particular also ship theoretician must be mentioned who had
played a similar eminent role in the 18th c. Bouguer has by his principal opus “Traité
du Navire” [2] (1746), written in French, during his lifetime no doubt gained faster and
more direct influence on developments in practice, in particular since he was willing
also to furnish practical examples and numerical calculation methods. Bouguer and
Euler both were first to use infinitesimal calculus as an approach to subjects of ship
theory. This is why I count both of them as founders of “modern” ship theory. Their
contemporaries, especially during the second half of the 18th c., such as D’Alembert,
Jorge Juan de Santacilia or Chapman, also made other, influential contributions to the
fundamentals of the theory of ships. In this illustrious field Euler is eminent by his long
range impact on the whole field of ship theory which he founded on the first principles
of mechanics and to which he gave a systematic structure. This is why Euler’s role as a
founder of ship theory will be particularly stressed in this article.

In the following sections a chronological survey will be given first illustrating how
topics of ship theory accompanied Euler’s whole scientific career. Then Euler’s
individual contributions are sorted by thematic aspects and are assigned to the most
important subtopics of ship theory: Hydrostatics and ship stability, resistance,
propulsion, maneuvering and ship motions in rigid body degrees of freedom. His impact
on the development of general fluid mechanics will be briefly recorded, too. This
overview will demonstrate the close interrelation between fundamentals and

-2-
applications in his work, and will illustrate on the other hand how even a brilliant
scientist like Euler cannot offer all definitive solutions in one strike, but must
continuously learn by experience to achieve a mature form of his insights. Euler
accepted and succeeded in this lifelong learning process.

In later literature Euler by some commentators, and not infrequently, was characterized
as a pure mathematician without motivation for practical applications. I must dismiss
such views (cf. also Truesdell [3], Eckert [4]). Rather it is essentially demonstrated by
his contributions to the foundation of the theory of ships that his goal in this context was
to achieve practical success in applications by a well constructed physical foundation.
This message will also be presented in this article.

2. The Theory of Ships in Euler’s Biography

Euler’s biography is well known from multitudinous presentations (e.g. Fellmann [5]).
His oeuvre has been very systematically documented and reprinted in his Collected
Works (Opera Omnia Euleri [6]), although these comprehensive series have not yet
been fully completed. In this collection his treatises dealing with the theory of ships are
contained, too (Series II, vols. 18-21). Table I gives an overview of Euler’s
contributions to this subject area with reference to the Enestroem Index Nos. of his
publications. In these volumes generally very elaborate appreciations and interpretations
of his works are given. The following must be mentioned in particular in the context of
fluid mechanics and ship theory: Truesdell [3], Habicht [7, 8, 9]. Further in the same
vein important summaries are given in: Burckhardt et al. [10], Szabó[11], Mikhajlov
[12], Calinger [13]. In addition several general textbooks on the history of fluid
mechanics contain sections appreciating Euler’s contributions (e.g. in Calero [14],
Darrigol [15]). The monograph by Ferreiro [16] on the history of ship science in the
17th and 18th c. also touches on many details of Euler’s life and work. The contents of
such available sources shall not be repeated here. Suffice it to acknowledge in gratitude
that I owe them much inspiration.

Rather I just want to retrace here how it happened that Euler developed a predilection
for subjects of the theory of ships, a preference that is not obvious for the son of an
Alpine country, and how he consistently returned to his early maritime application
interests during many stations of his vita. Table I shows evidence that his related
publications appeared between 1727 and 1782. How did this lifelong affinity arise?

Leonhard Euler was born in Basel, Switzerland on April 15, 1707 as the son of the
Swiss reformed priest Paulus Euler and his wife Margarethe née Brucker. He attended
a Latin Grammar School in Basel at the age of 8 to 13, as was customary, and then
enrolled at Basel University in preparatory courses. Here before he was age 15 he met
his later mentor and patron Johann Bernoulli (1667-1748), one of the leading scientists
of this era in mathematics and mechanics , from whom he took courses in these two
subjects. Bernoulli very early recognized Euler’s eminent talent and invited him to take
part in the series of Saturday private meetings in his house which he held with his sons
and selected guests and where mathematical subjects were discussed, literature was
reviewed and problems were solved. This is where Euler also got acquainted with
Johann Bernoulli’s sons, in particular with Daniel Bernoulli (1700-1782), with whom
he developed a long lasting friendship. After completing his first degree in 1723 by the
Magister examination, although Euler at his father’s urging then enrolled in the divinity
faculty, he continued intensively to concentrate on mathematical studies under Johann
Bernoulli, who much promoted him.

Now it was essentially a coincidence that Johann Bernoulli had already for some time
concerned himself with special questions of ship theory because he regarded this field
as a promising area for applying the still new methods of infinitesimal calculus,
developed

-3-
 Table I: Euler’s Publications on Subjects of Ship Theory

Place in
Opera Manu- Publi- Publi-
Enestroem
Title Omnia, script cation cation
Index No. Series Date Date Place
vol., p.
Meditationes super problemate nautico,
quod illustrissima regia Parisiensis
Academia scientiarum proposuit II 20,
E.4 1727 1728 Paris
(Thoughts on the Nautical Problem Posed 1-35
by the Most Illustrious Royal Parisian
Academy of Sciences)
Dissertation sur la meilleure construction
du cabestan II 20,
E.78 1741 1745 Paris
(Treatise on the Best Construction of the 36-82
Capstan)
De motu cymbarum remis propulsarum in
fluviis II 20, St.
E.94 1738 1747 Peters-
(On the Motion of Barges Propelled by 83-100 burg
Oars on Rivers)
Scientia Navalis, seu tractatus de St.
E.110/ construendis ac dirigendis navibus II 18/19,
1741 1749 Peters-
E.111 (Ship Theory or Treatise on the 2 vols.
burg
Construction and Steering of Ships)
Mémoire sur la force des rames
II 20,
E.116 (Memorandum on the Force of Rudders) 1747 1749 Berlin
101-129
Examen artificii navis a principio motus St.
interno propellendi II 20, 1747/
E.137 1750 Peters-
(Examination of the Thought to Propel A 130-145 1748
burg
Ship by the Principle of Internal Motion )
Meditationes in quaestionem
observationibus temporis momentum II 20,
E.150 determinandi 1747 1750 Paris
130-145
(Thoughts on the Question of Determining
the Momentum by Observation of Time)
De promotione navium sine vi venti II 20,
E.413 (On the Propulsion of Ships without the 1753 1771 Paris
146-189
Force of Wind)
Sur le roulis et le tangage
II 21,
E.415 (On Rolling and Pitching) 1759 1771 Paris
1-30
Théorie complette de la construction et de St.
la manœuvre des vaisseaux II 21,
E.426 1778 1781 Peters-
(Complete Theory of the Construction and 80-222
burg
Maneuvering of Ships)

-4-
 Table I: Euler’s Publications on Subjects of Ship Theory (cont.)

Place in
Opera Manu- Publi- Publi-
Enestroem Omnia,
Title script cation cation-
Index No. Ser., Date Date Place
vol.,p.
Essai d’une théorie de la résistance
qu’éprouve la proue d’un vaisseau dans
son mouvement II 21,
E.520 1778 1781 Paris
(Attempt at a Theory of Resistance 223-229
Referring to the Forebody of a Ship in its
Motion)
De vi fluminis ad naves sursum trahendas
applicanda II 21, St.
E.545 1780 1783 Peters-
(On the Force to Apply to Tow Ships 230-242 burg
upriver)

by Newton and Leibniz. Johann Bernoulli in a treatise as early as 1714 [17] had been
first to attempt to apply Newton’s impact theory of resistance (cf. below) to determine
the forces acting on a ship sailing before the wind, viz., both the hull resistance due to
underwater hydrodynamic forces and the thrust acting on the sails due to the
aerodynamic effects of wind. He achieved this in a mathematically valid way by
integration of the fluid dynamic impact forces acting on their respective areas of
application. However the agreement of these predictions with empirical observation was
disappointing, which was to be attributed to the inadequate premises stipulated in
Newton’s impact theory for the determination of the resistance in water and air. The
subject remained of intriguing interest to Bernoulli and met a fashion of his time which
favored subjects aiming at improvements in the performance of technical systems such
as ships by means of scientific methods.

When the Parisian Royal Academy of Sciences launched a prize contest in 1726 in order
to determine the optimal configuration, number and height of masts for sailing vessel
propulsion, Johann Bernoulli encouraged his student Leonhard Euler to submit a
contribution. Why Johann Bernoulli did not participate in the contest himself, cannot be
clearly stated. Perhaps he wanted to promote Euler and at the same time avoid the risk
of laying open his cards to the competition? In any case it was in this way that Euler’s
first treatise [18] on a subject of ship theory was initiated, which he submitted in 1727
at the age of 20.

Euler earned the recognition of a runner-up award (Grade: “Accessit”). The first prize
went to Pierre Bouguer, the already better known French scientist, who had been
working on the issue of ship masting for some time. It is futile to compare the merits of
the two treatises today. For on the one hand the two authors started from very similar
fundamental premises, in particular from Newton’s impact theory of resistance as well
as a precise knowledge of contemporary sail force theory, which had been intensively
and controversially debated during the decades before the contest (Renau [19], Huygens
[20]). On the other hand neither author yet achieved a satisfactory solution to the
problem. Both suffered from deficits in the fundamentals of hydrostatics which were
required for determining the equilibrium floating condition by trim and heel angle when
the ship was displaced by wind loads. This issue was circumnavigated. Euler e.g.
assumed the vessel to be fixed (or frozen in ice) temporarily in a heeled and trimmed
condition. It appears however that with respect to such weak assumptions the results of
the prize contest and the knowledge achieved were not to the satisfaction of Euler at
least, perhaps not of Bouguer either. For both continued to work on the subject and
certainly had recognized the deficits in the fundamentals of ship hydrostatics.

-5-
In any event Euler by this experience had established a first closer acquaintance with
subjects of the mechanics of ships, had familiarized himself with the concepts of ship
geometry, sailing equipment and nautical topics and from then on maintained a lasting
interest in problems of ship theory as issues of applied mechanics and mathematical
analysis.

Still in 1727 Euler received an attractive offer from the Russian Imperial Academy of
Sciences in St. Petersburg, founded by Tsar Peter I in 1725. He was pleased to accept
this offer, initially with a modest salary as a research fellow. He traveled by ship on the
Rhine from Basel to Mainz, from there by horse drawn coach to Lubeck where he
embarked on a ship to cross the Baltic Sea to reach the Neva in St. Petersburg in June
1727. He was scientifically quite successful right away and soon advanced to be
appointed a full member of the Academy (1731) with responsibilities in physics, and
especially in mathematics and mechanics. His first St. Petersburg period extended from
1727 to 1741. During this time he also intensively dealt with topics in ship theory.

This is attested first of all by the minutes and reports of the Academy, which in 1735
assigned to Euler a review of a treatise submitted by La Croix on the transverse stability
of the ship and, as his reply makes evident, found him well prepared to point out errors
in La Croix’ derivation and to provide the correct answer, at least for the simple shape
of a floating parallelepiped. Euler’s stability criterion from the beginning was a positive
restoring moment when the ship was inclined by a very small (infinitesimal) angle. A
general solution for ships of arbitrary hull form was already in preparation in 1735.

His reputation for outstanding knowledge in the theory of ships became well known at
the Academy, so in 1737 – probably at his prior request – he was commissioned by the
Academy to write a comprehensive treatise on the whole range of subjects in ship
theory. Therefrom resulted Euler’s most famous opus on this subject, the two volume
treatise Scientia Navalis. Euler’s manuscripts for this work were completed by 1741,
but he failed to find a publisher for this voluminous, very specialized treatise in Latin so
that after very long delays this monumental work of early ship theory did not appear
until 1749 in St. Petersburg. (Pierre Bouguer’s “Traité du Navire” [2], a work of
comparable significance, had been developed simultaneously and independently (see
[21]), but was published in 1746 in Paris soon after Bouguer’s return from an Andean
scientific expedition conducted from 1735 to 1744 by the Parisian Academy [16]).

After many scientifically fertile years in St. Petersburg Euler in view of a certain
political turmoil in Russia accepted an invitation by King Frederick II of Prussia to
move to Berlin in 1741, where he was involved in the foundation of the Royal Academy
of Sciences (1745) and where he worked through 1766. During his Berlin years Euler,
officially responsible for the class of mathematics, was active in many fields of science
and remained very creative. Fluid mechanics from these years owes him many
important, even today still fundamental results:

- Euler’s equation of the motion of a fluid volume element (1752),

- The rejection of Newton’s impact theory of resistance, practised as „common rule“
until that time (1753),
- The establishment of a new field theory of fluids, i.e., a continuum theory of fluid
mechanics, based on the modern concepts of pressure and velocity, initially applied
to ideal fluids (1755),
- Beginnings of potential flow theory (1755),
- Considerations on fluid friction (1751).

These fundamental results led to a new level of understanding of flow phenomena,

furnished the exposition for a catalogue of questions for a large class of applications and

-6-
had lasting effects on the further development of fluid mechanics. The discipline of ship
theory was included in this spectrum.

Although the most important branches of ship theory had been addressed already in his
Scientia Navalis, Euler found the opportunity also in his Berlin years to go deeper into
certain questions and to arrive at new results. The most important subjects during this
period include ship propulsion [E.116, E.413/[22]] and ship motions in oscillatory
degrees of freedom [E.415]. Several of these new studies were motivated by prize
contests of the Parisian Academy in which Euler participated with success.

After some irritating quarrels with Friedrich II, Euler in 1766 returned to St. Petersburg,
where he was welcomed with open arms. During his second St. Petersburg period
(1766-1783) several further studies in ship theory were performed. The most important
lasting effects probably stem from his “Théorie Complète...” [E.426/[24]], a French
abridged and extended translation of Scientia Navalis in popularized form. This work
soon was used as a textbook, too, in the education of French naval constructors.

Euler by his lifetime oeuvre has lastingly formed and enriched ship theory. He has
based it on the first principles of mechanics and thus placed it on a stable foundation for
its future development. He was not able to provide definitive answers to all questions
raised. Much remained open. But he had cast a basic structure of the field in which
scientific work could steadily progress.

3. Individual Contributions to Ship Theory

3.1 Hydrostatics and Ship Stability

The foundations of hydrostatics were laid by Archimedes in antiquity, who lived from
ca. 287 to 212 B.C. In his famous treatise “On Floating Bodies” [25] he derived what
later became known as the Principle of Archimedes, i.e., the theorem of equilibrium
between the forces of weight and buoyancy for a floating object of arbitrary shape. In
the same treatise, Part II, he also established a criterion of stability of this equilibrium
for a body floating at rest, though only for the special case of a body of simple shape,
the axisymmetric paraboloid. His justification was that in an inclined position of the
body the couple formed by the forces of buoyancy and weight (= displacement) must
provide a positive restoring moment for the floating position to be stable. Else the body
heels over further and may capsize. For further details cf. Nowacki [26]. Archimedes as
far as we know did not yet apply this criterion to actual ships.

This knowledge possessed by Archimedes was almost completely forgotten for many
centuries, although fortunately a few handwritten copies of his treatise [25] in Latin and
in Greek were preserved [26]. But it took many centuries, almost two millennia, before
the essential insights in this treatise were rediscovered and applied. It was first Stevin
[27], then Pascal [28] and also Huygens [29] who resurrected hydrostatics (and
aerostatics) and applied them to modern systems. Stevin, the Flemish/Dutch scientist,
also first introduced the concept of hydrostatic pressure, based on the weight of the
fluid column. Huygens first investigated the hydrostatic stability of simple,
homogeneous bodies as they were rotated about their longitudinal axis by 360 degrees,
however did not publish his results so that these appeared only posthumously in the
beginning of the 20th c. in his Collected Works [29].

A few further cuts were taken at the stability problem by Hoste [30] (1698) and by La
Croix [31] (1735), but they remained still without success. Bouguer und Euler, too, in
their prize contest treatises of 1727 did not yet offer a practically promising approach. It
was only by means of integral calculus that they later succeeded, independently of each
other, to develop criteria for the hydrostatic stability of ships of arbitrary shape, which

-7-
were published in their treatises, Traité du Navire [2] and Scientia Navalis [1] in 1746
and 1749, respectively. Euler’s approach will be discussed here in more detail.

To understand Euler’s objectives in his Scientia Navalis, it is useful to take a look at the
title of this work and the subtitles of the two volumes, which in free English translation
are:

“Ship Science or Treatise on the Construction and Operation of Ships:

Vol. I: General Theory of the Position and Motion of Bodies Floating in Water,
Vol. II: Reasons and Rules for the Construction and Steering of Ships.”

Euler never chose the wording “Theory of Ships”, as later authors did. But since his
opus concerns the “Science of Ships” and he aspired to furnish a general theory of the
equilibrium at rest and the motion dynamics of floating bodies, applicable in
shipbuilding and ship operations, as his title and subtitles claim, it is fair to state that his
objective was the development of a Theory of the Ship, which comprises the
fundamentals of mechanics for the design, construction and operation of ships. This
claim is justified by the systematic structure of his work, even if he was not able, being
limited to the methods of his time, to do justice to all related questions of ship theory.
He did already provide very significant contributions to the hydrostatics and stability of
ships. These subjects were treated in Chapters I-IV of Vol. I and Chapters I-III and V of
Vol. II of his Scientia Navalis, both in their fundamentals (Vol. I) and their applications
to ships (Vol. II).

Euler opened Chapter I of Vol. I (Equilibrium of floating bodies) with the sentence:

”The pressure which the water exerts on an immersed body at a specific point is normal
to the body surface, and the force which an individual surface element experiences is
equal to the weight of a cylindrical water column whose basis is equal to the surface
element and whose height is equal to the submergence (z) of the element under the
water surface.“

This implies the defition of hydrostatic pressure p = γ z and also of the resulting
buoyancy force F by integration over the body surface S

F = ∫ p dS = γ V with V = displacement volume

As already underscored by Truesdell [3], Euler formulated here in a single sentence the
necessary and sufficient axiomatic premises on which hydrostatics are entirely based.
These premises can hardly be stated more concisely and clearly. In contrast to
Archimedes, who knew only the resultant hydrostatic buoyancy force, but not the
pressure, Euler (and similarly Bouguer) derived the buoyancy force as the integral of
the hydrostatic pressure distribution. This cleared the way to calculating the buoyancy
force for arbitrary body shapes.

By moment equilibrium it also holds that the buoyancy and weight resultants must act
in the same vertical plane.

In the course of Chapter I Euler further calculated the equilibrium floating positions of
simple prismatic shapes (triangular, trapezoidal and rectangular cross section) through a
rotation of 360 degrees from the condition that the volume and weight centroids must lie
in the same vertical plane. Each of these shapes has several equilibrium positions which
may be stable, unstable or indifferent. The stability of each position requires its own
investigation.

-8-
In Chapter III (Stability of the equilibrium of floating bodies) Euler dealt with the
derivation of a stability criterion. He proceeded in the following steps:

STEP 1: Premises and Axioms

In his stability considerations like on the issue of equilibrium Euler proceeded from the
same premises as cited regarding the hydrostatic pressure in a fluid at rest and its action
normal to the surface.

STEP 2: Resultant Buoyancy and Weight Forces

The resultant buoyancy force in the upright floating condition of the ship by Euler was
determined as the resultant of the hydrostatic pressures acting on the submerged part of
the body surface. This force acts through the volume centroid F of the underwater hull
form (in English today: Center of Buoyancy CB), which Euler called “centrum
magnitudinis”.

Analogously Euler combined all weight components of the ship into the resulting
weight force acting through the center of gravity G.

STEP 3: Volumes and Centroids

Euler defined the geometrical relationships for volumes and centroids in analytic form
by integral expressions for arbitrary hull forms and floating conditions, but left the
evaluation of these expressions to numerical methods. The closed form evaluation of the
integrals succeeded only for simple, regular shapes, which he used as examples.

STEP 4: Stability Criterion

Euler just tersely stated:

“The stability by which a floating body is retained in equilibrium will be determined

from the restoring moment arising when the body is displaced from equilibrium by an
infinitesimally small angle”.

This basic idea stemmed from Archimedes, too, but was here applied to ships. Euler
pointed out that the ship must have a sufficient reserve of stability to be able to resist the
external effects of heeling moments.

STEP 5: Evaluation of the Criterion

Euler began his derivation by considering a planar cross section of the ship (Fig. 3).
The cross section was intentionally assumed to be non-symmetrical to keep the
derivation general. The ship was displaced by a very small angle from the floating
position AB to the new floating position ab. Thereby the triangle bCB was immersed,
the triangle aCA emerged, so that the area centroid of the triangles moved from the
emerging to the immersed side. The area centroid of the whole cross section thereby
moved parallel to this shift to the immersed side (shift theorem of Archimedes). From
this action a restoring couple resulted, formed by the weight force (acting through G)
and the buoyancy of the cross section (acting through the shifted area centroid of the
cross section). By integration of these effects over the entire ship length Euler obtained
the restoring moment for the whole ship. Therefrom resulted after a few intermediate
steps the expression for the restoring moment (for a symmetrical ship), which is very
well known today:

-9-
Fig. 3: Derivation for a cross section (according to Euler [1]): Displacement of the
volume centroid O to the immersed side,
G = center of gravity

MREST = Δ (GB + IT/V) = Δ (GB + BM) = Δ GM,

where Δ = γ V = displacement
V = volume under the water surface
GB = distance from the center of gravity to the center of buoyancy, positive
for B above G
IT = area moment of inertia
BM = IT/V
GM = GB +BM = “transverse metacentric height”

Thus the floating position is stable at small angles of inclination provided that the
restoring moment Δ GM is positive. This is called positive initial stability of the ship.

This result is entirely equivalent to Bouguer’s in [2], who for a stable ship postulates a
positive metacentric height GM. The name “metacenter” stems from Bouguer and was
never used by Euler, who was not familiar with this terminology. But in fact both derive
the magnitude of GM from the ship form by the same expression in order to judge the
initial stability. Euler uses a physical quantity, Bouguer a geometric one in formulating
the stability criterion.Further details on the derivation of the stability criterion by Euler
und Bouguer, also in comparison, are given by Nowacki and Ferreiro [21].

Extensions:

The knowledge of the metacentric height GM for the transverse stability and by analogy
of the longitudinal metacentric height GML for the longitudinal stability of the ship now
also permitted deriving the equilibrium floating condition of the ship provided that the
internal weight distribution in the ship and the external loads, e.g. wind loads in the
sails, were known by magnitude and direction. Thereby one could predict the angles of
heel and trim for any desired internal weight distribution and external load case. Thus
both Bouguer and Euler closed a knowledge gap still existing in their 1727 prize contest
treatises.

Further Euler demonstrated in his Scientia Navalis, Vol. I, Ch. IV, how the stability of a
ship can be improved, e.g., by lowering the center of gravity, by raising the center of
buoyancy or by broadening the design waterplane (raising of the metacenter). The
effects of weight displacements aboard the vessel or changes of the cargo distribution
during loading and unloading as well as the effects of ballast placement by quantity and
position were analyzed as practical questions. These results have not lost any practical
relevance and accuracy until today.

- 10 -
3.2 Ship Resistance

In order to better appreciate Euler’s contributions to the theory of ship resistance, a few
remarks on the earlier developments on this subject will be useful. The interest in
predicting the resistance of a hull form and in improving the design of the hull shape in
order to reduce the resistance and to increase the achievable ship speed in practical
applications is probably as ancient as seafaring. Theoretical methods for resistance
prediction, however, based on scientific grounds were not developed before the stage of
the “Scientific Revolution” in the 17th and 18th c.

In experimental work Christiaan Huygens (1629-1695) and Edmé Mariotte (1620-

1684) must be named as important precursors. Huygens [32] already in 1669 in a small
towing tank performed resistance tests with simply shaped ship models, which were
towed by a falling weight apparatus (Fig. 4), in order to determine the dependence of
the resistance R on the speed V. He found a quadratic resistance law: R ~ V2. Mariotte
[33] investigated other simple shapes, which he exposed to a current, e.g., in a current
in a river or in air, in order to measure their resistance. He found the relationship R ~
ρV2, hence also a proportionality to the density of the fluid medium ρ. Both sets of
experimental results were published only posthumously (1698 for Huygens, 1686 for
Mariotte).

Newton who first published his Principia in 1687 certainly was not familiar with these
results at that time. But in his own way he quite independently arrived at corresponding
conclusions. Thus at the beginning of the 18th c. from various sources there was
agreement that the resistance law for objects in parallel inflow had the following
structure:

R ~ ρV2 S or R = CD ρV2 S ,

where S = reference area, e.g., the projection of the maximum cross section (midship
section)
ρ = density of the fluid
CD = resistance coefficient

Fig. 4: Towing test apparatus with falling weight according to Huygens [32]

- 11 -
If this assumption was accepted, the most important open question was the dependence
of the resistance coefficient on the body shape, the direction of inflow and other
potential influences. Resistance research, at least in the 18th c., concentrated on this key
question, strongly motivated by the goal of finding favorable shapes in fluid flow.

Newton devoted the second volume of his Principia completely to fluid mechanics
whose theory he newly conceived from fundamentals. Newton took an experimental and
theoretical approach, but in his theory had to confine himself to simple cases. In his
models of thought he introduced many distinct cases and for each set of assumptions
argued very cautiously and with incisive simplifications. Although he clearly
recognized that in fluid mechanics the influences of inertia forces, gravity forces and
viscous effects all play a certain role, in studying resistance he much favored the
situation with pure inertia effects and for this case developed a corpuscular resistance
theory with the following further assumptions:

- Let the onflow be composed of mass particles (corpuscles) that move on parallel
paths with uniform velocity V toward the body (or obstacle).

- Let the fluid medium be so „thin“, i.e., of such low density, that the particles
maintain a small, but finite distance from each other without colliding with or
influencing each other.

- The fluid be either elastic so that the particles bouncing on the obstacle are repelled
as in an elastic impact without loss of kinetic energy (Fig. 5A); or the fluid be inelastic
so that the particle motion upon impact is completely stopped. In the event of oblique
inflow the particle paths are deflected and mirrored relative to the body normal at the
point of contact (Fig. 5B).

- According to the laws of impact in the elastic or inelastic case the resistance of the
object can be determined by the momentum balance of the fluid mass stream. The
resistance in the elastic case is twice as high as in an inelastic fluid. Newton found the
resistance coefficients for several simple body shapes on the basis of these laws and
assumptions.

Newton himself was very cautious when justifying this experiment of thought for a
body in a “thin”, corpuscular medium subject only to inertia forces. He never claimed
the existence of thin media in nature. He explicitly pronounced that water was not a thin
medium. Rather he considered this case as a hypothetical scenario and perhaps as a
limiting case that could never be reached. In a different place he directly mentions
viscous and gravity effects. But unfortunately his disciples and adherents were not so
cautious. They quickly and uncritically proceeded to apply Newton’s theory to thin
media, which they called “impact theory”, to real fluids and e.g. to bodies in water and
air. The results were entirely disappointing, but due to Newton’s authority such
misleading concepts were widespread for a considerable time. The main deficits of
impact theory became clearly evident in such applications which were well outside the
range of validity which Newton had claimed:

- The corpuscular theory does not permit any particles to reach the rear side of the
body in its inflow. Rather they are all reflected from the front side. Thus only the front
side will incur any resistance. The orbits of all particles near the body are unrealistic.

- The neglect of viscous and gravity effects gravely impairs the prediction of
resistance. If inertia effects are assumed to be the only existing forces, then each body
shape will have its own, speed independent CD value. In a real fluid, however, as we
know today, the resistance coefficients depend on several categories of forces and
hence on several parameters of similitude.

- 12 -
These critical insights were not pronounced in the beginning of the 18th c. Rather for at
least half a century impact theory remained the only available, even though increasingly
distrusted method for predicting the ship resistance.

The beginning of a critical reanalysis and reformulation of fluid mechanics was made in
1727 by Daniel Bernoulli [35], when in experiments he measured the force exerted by a
jet impinging on a flat plate and detected fundamental contradictions between his
results and Newton’s impact theory. He then developed a new theory for pipe flows,
based on the energy conservation principle, which for this case yielded a new
relationship between pressure and velocity in a „stream tube”, the predecessor of
Bernoulli’s equation. In its further development this led to a new paradigm for fluid
mechanics for the parallel onset flow of a flat plate [36], where in contrast to impact
theory the streamlines (and thus the particle orbits) are no longer reflected upon impact,
but are deflected laterally before impact (Figs. 5C and 5D). This concept was also
elaborately presented in Daniel Bernoulli’s famous book “Hydrodynamica” [37].

His father Johann Bernoulli in his no less famous book “Hydraulica” [38], which
appeared in 1742, carried these ideas a little further in a more general vein and based
his derivations on Newton’s Lex Secunda (in place of the energy principle), which he
applied to a free volume element in the flow. He also introduced the concept of
“internal fluid pressure” in a moving fluid, whereby the Bernoulli equation for a
“stream tube” obtained the form well known today.

Fig. 5: Flow characteristics in parallel onset flow of a flat plate according to Newton and
Daniel Bernoulli:
A. Newtons impact theory in an elastic, thin medium (reflected particles), inflow
normal to the plate.
B. The same theory, oblique inflow.
C. Daniel Bernoulli’s theory of deflected streamlines, normal inflow.
D. The same for oblique inflow.

- 13 -
This was the state of knowledge that Euler, who corresponded frequently with both
Bernoullis, found by around 1742, before he began to base his own ideas on it and to
arrive at an original new view of fluid mechanics. At the time when his Scientia Navalis
was written, viz., between 1737 and 1741, Euler was still an adherent of Newton’s
impact theory of the resistance. Therefore in this principal work of his [1] and also in
the later adapted French translation, the Théorie Complète [21], we find only deductions
based on impact theory. Euler expressed his later contrasting views in other places.
Nonetheless it is worthwhile to briefly reexamine Euler’s thoughts in Scientia Navalis,
also with respect to resistance, at least because of his systematic approach.

In Scientia Navalis, vol. I, Chapter V, Euler first considered the resistance of planar
figures or planar cross sections of cylindrical bodies (Example: A rectangular rudder
with constant profiled cross sections). He determined the resulting resistance in normal
or oblique inflow in three different ways: By Newton’s impact theory in an elastic or an
inelastic medium or thirdly by the energy principle. All three results have the same
structure (in modern notation):

R = CD ρV2 S ,

as stated by Newton above. Euler did not commit himself to any of the CD values, but
argued that it was only the structure of the expression which mattered, while the
coefficient had to be brought into agreement with experiments anyway. Besides the
theoretical CD value represented an upper bound because the theory neglected that the
fluid particles were not strictly repelled, but could reach the rear side of the body. This
was an elegant way out of the dilemma, but not a quantitative solution.

Euler then proceeded to determine the resistance coefficient for several simple shapes of
cross sections (triangle, circular and elliptical segment etc.). It is of interest that he
already searched for an optimal profile form with minimal resistance with certain profile
dimensions (length, thickness) as given constraints. Newton had already posed the
problem of an axisymmetric body shape of least resistance and had formulated a
variational problem for this special case. Euler went one step further and specified here
the general problem statement for a variational problem with equality constraints whose
general theory he published later in 1744 [39], hence after completing the manuscript
for the Scientia Navalis. He solved it here for special cases. Further examples by Euler
were related to the effects of oblique inflow on foils (under an angle of incidence),
hence on their resistance, lift and moment. His systematic approach is admirable,
though unfortunately the quantitative results based on impact theory are useless.
In a corresponding way in Scientia Navalis, vol. I, Chapter VI, Euler approached the
resistance problem for spatial solid shapes. He started out with the basic expression for
the resistance and moment of a solid in parallel inflow according to impact theory, but
then restricted himself to the special case of inflow parallel to the axis of symmetrical
shapes. His procedure in generating families (or systematic series) of shapes is
remarkably modern. He created mathematical hull form representations that can be
systematically varied so that a whole range of typical shiplike form parameters is
covered. The ship form or hull surface was represented in parameter form by r(u,v) =
{x(u,v), y(u,v), z(u,v)} and was applied to the special case where separation of
variables is feasible, e.g., x(u,v) = f(u) g(v), where u and v are parametric, curvilinear
coordinates in the surface. Then it is easy to generate families or types of shapes in
which all stations or all buttocks or all waterlines are affine curves. (A similar approach
was frequently taken much later in ship theory for systematic investigations of hull form
variation, e.g., by Weinblum [40] in wave resistance studies). Euler then examined the
resistance of various types and treated some of them by optimization based on
variational calculus. Further he discussed special shapes in which the forebody, the only
part relevant to resistance in impact theory, was conical, pyramidal or cono-cuneiform
(cono-cuneus by John Wallis [41]) or was an axisymmetric shape (with circular section
shapes). It is clearly evident that by these variations in ship form he was aiming at a
systematic overview, almost a compendium, on the dependence of resistance on shape

- 14 -
design, a very practical purpose. His plan was again brilliantly logical, we may call it
“systematic engineering”. His results regrettably shared the fate of impact theory which
soon became obsolete. Euler recognized the weak points early, but during his lifetime
there did not yet exist a viable alternative for resistance prediction. A fundamental new
start was required.

The first steps in this new direction were still taken by Euler himself, inspired by a few
discoveries by his contemporaries. An important impetus came from the ballistic
experiments performed by the Englishman Benjamin Robins, whose results were
described in his book “New Principles of Gunnery” [42] in 1742. Robins had shot with
spherical projectiles against a target disk suspended as a pendulum and had found out
that Newton’s impact theory was completely untenable for the resistance of his
projectiles. Euler [43] had the opportunity in 1745 to translate Robins’ book into
German and provided its text with many elaborate comments and footnotes. He fully
agreed with Robins in his criticisms, fundamentally rejected the idea of a “thin
medium”, because such a fluid was not found in nature, and he developed his own first
ideas, inspired by the Bernoullis, on how the flow about a body could be described more
realistically by “stream tubes” that enclose the body shape and remain attached to its
afterbody. (On this episode, cf. also Truesdell [3], Szabó [11] and Calero [14]).

3.3 Field Theory of Fluids

In the following years Euler turned above all to general fundamentals of fluid
mechanics, which were not yet applicable to ship theory, but were necessary to create a
new basis on which later also the theory of ships could be safely founded. Euler was no
doubt strongly influenced by the results obtained by Daniel Bernoulli (stream tube
concept, energy conservation theorem, deflection of the flow before impact), by Johann
Bernoulli (Second law of dynamics applied to a volume element, internal pressure,
Bernoulli equation for a fluid filament or in a stream tube) and by Robins (refutation of
impact theory). D’Alembert [44] somewhat earlier had already formulated a first “field
theory” for the flow about bodies in a fluid. Euler likewise wanted to establish the laws
of continuum mechanics in fluids, i.e., the laws for the state variables pressure and
velocity in any desired point of the fluid flow, e.g. in the flow about a body.
D’Alembert’s field theory had consistently avoided the use of concepts like pressure as
a state variable and force according to Newton’s dynamics. Euler based his approach on
Newton’s laws and chose pressure and velocity as state variables. He thus created the
foundation of the modern field theory of fluids, as we know it and use it today.

Euler pursued the goal of replacing Newton’s impact theory by a new theory which
dealt with the physical state variables in the whole domain of the fluid treated as a
deformable medium. His axiomatic premises were:

- Newton’s laws as principles of dynamics.

- Constitutive equations, i.e., information about the material properties of the fluid,
initially regarded as an ideal fluid, and on the boundaries of the fluid domain.
- Conservation laws, especially on the conservation of mass (hence the continuity
equation).

From this information alone pressure and velocity can be determined. These variables of
state are multivariate functions of the location in the field. Euler’s approach, the
application of Newton’s Lex Secunda to a fluid volume element, yielded the equations
of motion of the element, the famous Euler equations in the form of a set of partial
differential equations. The continuity equation is of a comparable form.

The Euler equations and the continuity equation constitute the foundation of the field
theory of fluid dynamics. Euler developed this theory in general form in a few classical
papers [45], [46], [47], [48], [49] between 1752 and 1756. His theory holds for planar
and spatial flows in incompressible and compressible fluids.

- 15 -
Thereby the equations of state of the flow problem are established. Therefrom a form of
the Bernoulli equation can also be derived that holds for any arbitrary streamline in the
entire fluid domain. If the boundary conditions are added, a complete problem
formulation results in a form that is called boundary value problem today. In Euler’s
time the mathematical theory for solving partial differential equations and boundary
value problems was developed concurrently with the treatment of this flow problem of
field theory. Euler himself created important foundations although initially solution
methods for arbitrary given body shapes were still missing. Euler showed that the field
under certain conditions may possess a velocity potential for which solutions can more
readily be built up. This was the starting point for the later development of singularity
methods to solve this type of boundary value problem of potential theory.

If in some specific case the solution for the state variables is known, a streamline field
map can be developed and therefrom, as Euler suggested, especially for the streamlines
on the body surface velocity and pressure distributions can be derived. Pressure
integration then yields the resulting force on the body. In an ideal fluid, as D’Alembert’s
paradox anticipated and Euler was able to confirm by pressure integration, the result
which is obvious to us today is achieved, viz., that the resistance of a deeply submerged
body in a steady flow vanishes. Thus field theory proved the following facts to start
with:

- The assumptions of Newton’s impact theory for the resistance are not tenable.

- A flow that remains attached to the entire body surface and whose afterbody
therefore contributes to the resistance is feasible.

- In an ideal, loss-free fluid the resistance vanishes.

By these results fluid mechanics had overcome a difficult stalemate and was able to
develop further without impairing contradictions. For application in ship theory the new
insights gained were apt to produce a rich harvest later in the 19th and 20th c. Today the
practically successful analytical and numerical methods for calculating the flow about
an arbitrary ship form in an ideal fluid all are based on Euler’s equations of fluid
mechanics on the one hand, and on Euler’s field theory on the other hand.

The other major obstacle, which prevented the development of a realistic theory of
resistance and which unfortunately could not be removed in the 18th c. any more, was
the lack of understanding the causes of wavemaking and viscous resistance. For the
resistance cannot be realistically estimated without taking into account the energy losses
caused by the effects of gravity and hence wavemaking on the one hand, and those
caused by the viscosity of the fluid on the other hand. In the case of a real fluid the
resistance law must account for several parameters of similitude (later called Froude
number, Reynolds number etc.) and therefore must provide more than one freely
allocable resistance coefficient. In the 18th c. the influence of both resistance
components was underestimated. The effects of wavemaking were first more clearly
recognized in model experiments (Juan [50], Chapman [51]) and there followed first,
immature theoretical hypotheses [50]. The friction on the body surface was judged as
low [cf. also Euler [52]) and was regarded as negligible in the interior of the fluid. It
was only by the thorough experiments performed by Beaufoy [53] beginning in 1793 on
the frictional drag on plates that the relatively considerable significance of frictional
resistance, also on ships, was realized. It still took a long time before William Froude
[54] presented a method that took into account several parameters of similitude in ship
resistance and thereby permitted faithful prediction of full scale ship resistance from
model tests. The theories of wave resistance and viscous resistance could not reach
maturity before that insight.

- 16 -
3.4 Ship propulsion

In the 18th c. ship propulsion by wind energy in sailing and by human energy in rowing
were the predominant methods and energy sources. Euler investigated the mechanical
principles for both methods of propulsion. Besides he analyzed certain innovative, not
yet practically applicable propulsion systems like the paddle wheel, the screw propeller
and jet propulsion.

Already in his prize contest treatise [18] of 1727 Euler -not unlike Bouguer- devoted his
attention to sail propulsion. In the spirit of Newton and other precursors he analyzed the
forces acting on a sail and the resistance of the hull by means of impact theory. Later in
Scientia Navalis and even still in his Théorie Complète -like many of his
contemporaries- he remained committed to this approach. This unfortunately led to
rather misleading results regarding the forces acting on the hull and the sails. Fig. 6
shows the component decomposition in the forebody for resistance and thrust.
According to impact theory the hull resistance acts on the forebody normal to its
surface, and hence obliquely upward. In the example of the figure Euler assumed a
spherical segment bow shape so that all impact force contributions acted through the
center W of the spherical shell. The resultant WR acted in a direction normal to the
spherical segment in its area centroid. Now it was the dominant opinion in the 18th c.
that masts and their sails in design should be arranged in such a way that the resultant
sail force would have a horizontal forward thrust component, intended to act also
through the point W, called “point vélique”, and then in steady motion should be in
equilibrium with the horizontal component of the resistance. Thereby it was intended to
prevent a trimming moment formed by the couple of resistance and thrust. However
these considerations on the point vélique were grossly misleading and also superfluous.
For firstly the resistance resultant in actual fact by no means acts obliquely upward,
secondly it is possible to compensate the inevitable trimming moment by the nose of the
sailing vessel by means of ballast or other design measures.

Fig. 6: Hull resistance and sail forces with point of intersection in the point vélique W
( Euler [1])

In addition it caused difficulties that the sail forces could not be accurately estimated
according to impact theory. It was assumed that the sail area of several masts could be
lumped in the centroid of all sail areas and that the resultant sail force would act through
this point, as impact theory without accounting for any sail interactions would suggest.
Aerodynamic effects as the cause of lift and drag of the sails were still unknown.
Therefore the predictions of sail forces were unrealistic in magnitude and direction. The
further assumption of impact theory that the sail force resultant in oblique inflow would
vary with the square of the angle of incidence (sin2 α law) was false, which was not

- 17 -
recognized before some experiments in the second half of the 18th c. In conclusion in
Euler’s time the propulsive forces acting on hull and sail and hence the resulting ship
speed could not be realistically predicted.

It must be acknowledged as a positive element of understanding that the force

components acting on ship and sail and their interactions were correctly identified, and
the equilibrium position of the sailing vessel by drift angle, trim and heel angle were
qualitatively properly understood. Regarding trim and heel the progress made in ship
hydrostatics prior to 1750 had furnished important prerequisites (cf. Section 3.1). On
further details in the development of sailing theory during this period, see also Ludwig
Rank [55].

Although Euler’s results on rowing, paddle wheel and screw propulsion still suffered
from their reliance on impact theory for force predictions and hence failed to be of
quantitative value, they still made a lasting contribution to propulsion theory which lies
primarily in the analysis of the acting physical principles and mechanisms, which are
fundamentally based on the momentum balance. Euler’s scientific courage must be
admired to study the mechanical principles of propulsion systems which in his day were
not yet ready to be technically realized.

In 1753 on the occasion of another prize contest by the Parisian Académie Royale des
Sciences Euler had submitted a treatise [22] that dealt with the propulsion of ships
without windpower, i.e., without sails („De promotione navium sine vi venti“, E.413).
This award winning treatise written at a time when sail propulsion was still by far the
dominant propulsion method for all major ships gave a basic overview of alternative
propulsion methods, whose power was to be provided essentially by the humans on
board, be it by known means like rowing, be it by mechanisms to be newly developed
similar to the paddle wheel or the screw propeller, yes, even by jet propulsion as
propagated earlier by Daniel Bernoulli. Though Euler did not develop such new
propulsion systems to technical maturity as patents, he still qualitatively described
correctly their physical principles of operation, also for propulsion systems which could
only be realized in the 19th c. by means of steam power. Thus he cannot be regarded as
the inventor of such later solutions, but he anticipated by more than half a century
before their realization the physical explanation of the performance of paddle wheel,
screw propeller and jet propulsion.

Human Performance Limits

Euler began his considerations with the question of how much mechanical power a
human according to his physiological capacity can provide continuously. He estimated
that a man under favorable load conditions may be able to move a load of about 15 kp at
a velocity of about 0.65 m/sec for an extended period of time. This in today’s units
corresponds to providing a power of about 100 Watts continuously. This power capacity
agrees surprisingly well with current data on the continuous power performance of
humans, if we disregard sportive peak performances in shorter time intervals. Euler
adapted the power absorption of his ship propulsion systems to this human performance
potential.

Oar Propulsion

The principle of ship propulsion by rowing was schematically regarded by Euler as if a

submerged planar plate (FF, Fig. 7) was attached to a linkage system gliding on a roller
C and was arranged forward of the bow (or abaft the stern) so that it could be
horizontally shifted in a direction opposite to the motion of the ship. Thereby water
mass is accelerated backward and a reaction force is generated on the plate which drives
the ship forward as a thrust. After this work cycle the plate must be raised from the
water, transferred back through the air and lowered into the water again (as the oar in
rowing).

- 18 -
 Fig. 7: Ship propulsion by backward shifting of a plate in water (Euler [22])

Let the ship velocity be C, the horizontal velocity of the plate relative to the ship be V,
hence the horizontal velocity of the plate relative to water is V – C. Then if V is greater
than C, a positive thrust is acting on the plate which drives the ship and in steady
motion exactly overcomes the resistance. Euler thus equated thrust and resistance and
determined the achievable velocity C of the ship from the power input by the crew at an
assumed velocity V of the plate or “oar blade”. Unfortunately Euler, as was still
common practice at this time, used Newton’s impact theory for estimating the influence
of hull form and velocity upon the resistance coefficient, which was unrealistic and
resulted in quantitatively misleading conclusions, which were later also rejected by
Euler himself. Qualitatively it was correct that an increase in the area of the plate and a
reduction of the hull resistance would improve the propulsion of the ship and increase
the achievable ship speed.

Euler expected an improvement in the efficiency of this propulsion method if the blade
was fitted with rotatable slats like Venetian blinds (Fig. 8) which during the return
stroke of the blade would be turned into a horizontal position and hence would have a
low resistance. Thus this kind of unidirectionally permeable blade could be arranged on
both sides of the hull and connected to a system of levers OA-NN so that the blades
could be continuously moved back and forth.

Propulsion System with Cranked Shaft

The previous idea was further simplified if the blades on both board sides were driven
by a horizontal shaft DD (Fig. 9) whose center part CC is cranked so that the propelling
forces can act on the crank. The blades by their slats are again unidirectionally
permeable and are intended to move continuously back and forth in their submerged
condition.

Fig. 8: Venetian blind blade with Fig. 9: Drive of Venetian blind

rotatable slats and lever system for blades by means of rotatable, cranked
attachment and position control of shaft [22].
the blades [22].

- 19 -
The paddle wheel principle

Fig. 10: Ship propulsion by two “paddle wheels” with plates as blades [22]

In order to avoid this pendulum like motion, which was not very practical as Euler
probably also realized, in order to make the permeable blades dispensable and in order
to operate in a continuous motion, it was almost cogently necessary to arrive at the
principle of the paddle wheel (Fig. 10). Here several plates are attached to the spokes of
the driving shaft on both sides of the hull which are driven by the shaft AA, which in
turn is kept in steady rotation by means of a whim gear (E, D) by the crew rotating the
arms M about the vertical axis OO. The blades are not profiled like paddles, but they do
provide a steady thrust while they are immersed in the water. The “paddle wheel” as a
steadily rotating engine according to Euler is a logical further advance of the idea of the
“oar blade”, which works only intermittently in a horizontal translation. Thus Euler
succeeded immediately in generalizing the balance of input power vs. usefully delivered
thrust power from the oar blade to the paddle wheel. “Paddle wheel propulsion” is thus
regarded as a generalized, continuously operating form of “oar blade propulsion” with
improved efficiency.

The “screw propeller principle”

Encouraged by the proven idea of the windmill Euler in his next step arrived at a
propulsion system whose configuration resembled a modern screw propeller (Fig. 11).
A system rotatable about the longitudinal axis AB is arranged in front of the bow or
abaft the stern of a ship to whose spokes planar blades FF are attached with some angle
of inclination relative to the longitudinal direction. Thereby in their rotation they
experience a longitudinal force (thrust) and a circumferential force, similar to a modern
screw propeller, though without the helical curvature of the blade surface and without
modern profiled blade sections.

Fig. 11: Propulsion by propeller with Fig. 12: Velocities and forces
planar blades [22] acting on the blade [22]

- 20 -
In his analysis of propeller operation, Euler took into consideration the mean effects
acting on the blade, lumped into its area centroid G. He combined the components of
inflow in the direction of advance (αG) and in the circumferential direction (GL) into
the resultant GN (Fig. 12), acting with an angle of incidence γ to the blade. In this
context, too, Euler remained prepossessed by Newton’s impact theory of resistance and
therefore in his analysis of the force acting on the blade section (through G) accounted
only for the normal force GH, perpendicular to the blade, which has components in the
circumferential and advance directions. Thus he neglected the tangential forces of the
blade section and all effects of foil theory acting on the blade, which are known today.
Thereby his analysis remained crudely approximative. Qualitatively his theory did
correctly explain the chain of phenomena by which a planar blade propeller or later a
screw propeller in its rotation, in order to overcome blade resistance in the
circumferential direction, absorbs propulsive power and at the same time generates a
thrust in the direction of advance.

Jet propulsion

The efflux from a containment vessel or the flux through a vessel or pipe causes a
reaction force acting on the boundaries of the vessel as is known from the garden hose.
The flow vessel or pipe can be arranged in a ship in such a way that the resulting
reaction force provides a thrust for ship propulsion.

Euler picked up this idea following suggestions by Daniel Bernoulli

(“Hydrodynamica”, 1738), analyzed the acting forces and conceived a jet propulsion
system for a ship (Fig. 13). The flow through the system of pipes is induced either by
the pressure head of a tank arranged in a high position or by a reciprocating piston pump
(EE) in the pipe. This pump in principle can be driven by human operator power.

Euler first calculated the resulting reaction force on the boundaries of the vessel for a
system with arbitrary cross section distribution and in some arbitrary spatial position.
He demonstrated that this force depended only on the flow rate and on the area and
orientation of the inlet and outlet cross sections, but not on the cross section variation of
the vessel between the end sections.

Fig. 13: Jet propulsion system according to Euler [22] with piston pump (EE)

He then addressed the most favorable case for ship propulsion (Fig. 13) where the fluid
enters the system through a horizontal pipe of cross section EE from abaft and after a
deflection of 180 degrees leaves the system rearward via a horizontal pipe nozzle with
the orifice FF. The cross section of the orifice FF can be made very small relative to the
intake cross section at EE, thus very high jet velocities can be achieved.

- 21 -
Mechanically the process was subdivided by Euler into two cycles (Fig. 13), the intake
cycle and the ejection cycle: During the intake cycle fluid is sucked into the pipe system
from below (at the suction funnel at B), the valve at n is open, the valve at m closed.
Because of the deflection of the fluid by 90 degrees at A a certain horizontal force
already arises which acts as thrust. During the ejection cycle the piston is advanced
forward, the valve at n closes, the one at m opens, the jet can now exit at FF. This cycle
generates a very high thrust due to the great jet velocity and the complete deflection by
180 degrees. In order to alleviate the thrust fluctuations between cycles, Euler
advocated two parallel jet systems in counter rhythm.

In his example powering calculations Euler then recognized the limitation that jet
propulsion can profitably operate probably only at great propulsive power which
exceeded the powering potential from human energy, i.e., from the energy sources
available in his day.

Aftereffects

Although first experiments with and patents for paddle wheels, screw propellers and jet
propulsion had existed for some time before Euler’s publications, the realization of
those ideas still failed in Euler’s time, essentially due to the lack of a power source of
sufficient capacity aboard ships. It was only after the introduction of steam propulsion
that more advanced inventions were able to achieve technical and commercial success.
Euler’s physical explanations and calculations for such propulsion systems most likely
were not known to those inventors. It was only much later that his thoughts were
reassessed and were apt to be taken into consideration in modern theories of ship
propulsion. As successful inventors of some of the earliest, patented and more mature
solutions deserve to be named:

- Steam ship with paddle wheel: Symington (1802), Robert Fulton (1807)
- Screw propeller: Ressel (1826), Ericsson (1834-36), Smith (1838)
- Jet propulsion: Ruthven (1851), Seydell (1856) and the cannon boat
WATERWITCH (1867)

3.5 Maneuvering

In ship theory the term „maneuvering“ generally comprises all motions of the ship
taking place in the horizontal plane as translations (parallel and normal to the ship’s
longitudinal axis) and as rotation about the vertical axis (yawing). Let the coupling with
other degrees of freedom of the ship be neglected here as a first approximation. Thus
maneuvering does include the dynamic behavior of the ship on a straight course, also in
oblique inflow, and in turning maneuvers. Great technical and practical significance was
attributed above all to the optimization of sailing performance of the big sailing vessels
of the 18th c. in different wind conditions and directions. This is why studies of ship
theory already in the early 18th c. had been concerned with maneuvering theories
(Renau [19], Huygens [20], Johann Bernoulli [17]). Euler continued the work of these
precursors by his own contributions, above all on the dynamics and aero- and
hydrodynamics of sailing ships, and gave essential new momentum to this topic area.
The most essential results can again be found in the “Scientia Navalis” [1] and in the
“Théorie Complète” [24]. The synopses by Habicht in [7], [8], [9] are very helpful for
the understanding, too.

The analysis of ship maneuvers requires physical and analytical knowledge in the
following areas:

- 22 -
- The magnitude and direction of forces and moments acting on hull, sail and rudder,
also for wind directions obliquely to the course.
- The dynamics of the system, especially under the influence of inertia, sailing rig
and resistance forces.
- The solution of the equations of motion.

Euler concerned himself thoroughly with all these aspects. His determination of forces
and moments here again suffered from the weaknesses of Newton’s impact theory, but
his contributions to the system dynamics and the integration of the equations of motion
remained unaffected by this. They were in part breakthroughs and are valid until today.
These applications of mechanics and infinitesimal calculus to ship motions in
maneuvers belong to the first practically and technically successful contributions by
modern dynamics and fluid mechanics.

In Scientia Navalis [1], vol. I, Chapter II Euler developed an approach for the rotational
motion of an extended body system of arbitrary mass distribution and about a given,
fixed axis of rotation through the body center of gravity. Here he still presumed “free
rotation” about the axis through the CG, i.e., he disregarded any “bearing reactions”
that may result from the coupling with other inertia effects stemming from simultaneous
rotation about other axes (by deviational moments). These assumptions would hold
strictly only if the principal axes of inertia were chosen as coordinate system. For ships
he chose an orthogonal coordinate system through the center of gravity with the
longitudinal axis being horizontal in the ship center plane. Thereby the simplification in
neglecting the couplings holds in good approximation. Then by integration over all
mass elements of the ship he obtained the angular momentum M in a turning motion
(where r = distance of the mass element dm from the center of rotation):

M= Θ (dω/dt), where Θ = ∫ r2 dm= the axial mass moment of inertia,

and ω = angular velocity.

The mass moment of inertia was first introduced by Euler in this place and for the
present purpose (he named it „momentum inertiae“). With these preparations the motion
of the maneuvering ship could now be derived by integration of the translational and
rotational laws of dynamics, if the external forces, i.e., thrust and resistance, and their
moments, were known. However Euler still neglected the influence of the
hydrodynamic mass moment of inertia which in a turning maneuver may be of
comparable magnitude as the mass moment of inertia of the body.

Euler now first calculated a few examples for the axial mass moments of inertia of
simple, homogeneous bodies. Then he investigated the motions of the ship on a straight
course before the wind, e.g., in a stopping maneuver with the ship slowed down by its
resistance with all sails reefed, or in accelerating the ship from rest by a given sail force.
Finally he considered also the case of oblique wind, i.e., with the wind acting obliquely
to the course and the rudder laid for coursekeeping at steady speed. In this application
the drift angle was estimated empirically from plausible assumptions and was assumed
to be speed independent. The heel angle under wind load was estimated hydrostatically
and the sail force was adjusted thereto. In systematic series investigations the sail forces
were then investigated for wind directions before the wind, with quartering winds and
pointing high. Even the deflection of the sail cloth was taken into account, though
everything only according to impact theory. With these “polar curves” of the rig (in
today’s terminology) Euler was also able to deal with nautical problems, e.g., finding
favorable strategies for cruising against the wind.

Regarding the placement of masts and the arrangement of sail area, a subject to which
Euler returned several times, he applied the dynamics of maneuvering to arrive at very
practical recommendations. The masts and their sails should be placed in such a way
that the sail force resultant through the sail area centroid would act slightly abaft the

- 23 -
center of action of the transverse hull resistance (“lateral plan centroid”) so that the
couple of these two forces would turn the forebody into the wind. This tendency could
be compensated by minor rudder action to keep the ship on course. By contrast ships
tending to drift leeward suffered from increasing drift angles, resistance increases and
difficulties in coursekeeping. Euler was able to explain such observed phenomena
plausibly by his mechanics of maneuvering. The prediction of forces by magnitude and
direction was more difficult. The centers of action of the resulting forces on the sails in
air and on the hull under water were estimated in accordance with impact theory to lie in
the centroids of the respective areas, thus in the sail area centroid and the lateral plan
area centroid, respectively.

The simplifications made in the choice of axes of inertia continued to concern Euler for
some more time. It was only later in the context of his analysis of the arbitrary rotational
motion of a body and in connection with the equations of motion of the gyroscope [56],
[57] that he arrived at a general solution for the arbitrary rotation of a body about its
centroid, formulated in terms of the “principal axes of inertia” through the center of
gravity. If the rotational motion of the body was represented with reference to these
three orthogonal axes, then the deviational moments of inertia would vanish and the
equations of motion with uncoupled inertia terms would hold exactly in this reference
frame. The principal axes of inertia were defined and determined by Euler according to
an idea by Segner (1707-1777), who had published this in 1758.

The theory of ships in this field owes much gratitude to Euler’s efforts and insights that
have remained of classical, lasting value throughout the field of mechanics, i.e., well
beyond the initially motivating field of ship motions.

3.6 Ship motions

The ship, considered as a rigid body, has three oscillatory degrees of freedom in which
inertial and restoring forces or moments exist so that a periodic oscillation may arise:
Heaving (translation parallel to the vertical axis), rolling (rotation about the longitudinal
axis) and pitching (rotation about the transverse axis of the ship). These motions are
designated in this subsection as “oscillatory ship motions”, or briefly as “ship motions”.
Since in all of these degrees of freedom hydrostatic forces or moments are involved, it is
rather easy to date the time since when the treatment of these oscillations became
feasible, viz., only after Bouguer and Euler had created a foundation for the calculation
of such restoring forces or moments acting on the ship in its position displaced from
equilibrium. Thus it is no coincidence that both, again independently and almost
simultaneously, published first theories on oscillatory ship motions, viz., in their
monumental principal works Théorie du Navire [2] und Scientia Navalis [1] (appeared
in 1746 and 1749). The solutions and even calculation methods proposed by both are
not equal, but in practice equivalent. Thus we may limit ourselves here to the narration
of Euler’s contributions.

Fortunately in addition a very substantial part of the correspondence between Euler and
Johann as well as Daniel Bernoulli has been conserved (“Commercium Epistolicum”
[58], contained in Series IVa of [6]), which contains several letters dating from 1738 to
1740 on the subject of ship oscillations. Euler, who at this time was writing a chapter on
ship motions in Scientia Navalis, had succeeded in convincing his teacher Johann and
his friend Daniel Bernoulli to work on similar tasks. Therefrom resulted, in addition to
Euler’s own results, also some publications by the Bernoullis during the same period,
e.g., by Daniel Bernoulli [59] in the years 1738/39.

The studies initially concentrated on the determination of natural frequencies and

periods of ship oscillations in order to predict or avoid resonances. For this purpose it
was required to know inertia and restoring forces or moments, which could now be
predicted quite realistically by available methods. (However the influence of

- 24 -
hydrodynamic masses, which may be of considerable magnitude in many degrees of
freedom, was not yet taken into account).

All three scientist - and Bouguer likewise- had noticed the analogy between a physical
pendulum, which had been investigated earlier by Galileo and Huygens, as it occurs in a
pendulum clock, and the ship moving in an oscillatory degree of freedom. This analogy
is founded on the fact that both system types to the first approximation (small
amplitudes) constitute linear oscillators with isochronous periodic oscillations, as the
equations of motion will readily demonstrate. If we follow Euler’s derivation for the
pendulum and for the rolling ship (small roll angle φ) for a free oscillation, the
following comparison can be drawn:

Pendulum (Mass m, center of gravity distance from center of rotation s):

Equation of motion: Θ (d2φ/dt2) + m g s φ = 0

Equivalent pendulum length: lEQU = Θ/(m s)

Natural period: T=2π l EQU g

Rolling Ship (Mass m, metacentric height GM):

Equation of motion: Θ (d2φ/dt2) + m g GM φ = 0

Equivalent pendulum length: lEQU = Θ/(m GM)

Natural period: T = 2 π l EQU g = 2 π " (!GM )

where Θ = mass moment of inertia in rolling (φ)

The analogies are clearly visible, especially between s and GM.

Corresponding results were obtained by Johann Bernoulli for heaving and by Euler and
Daniel Bernoulli for pitching, by Daniel Bernoulli also for coupled rolling and heaving
[59].

In design it was the purpose to avoid great accelerations at resonance, thus to reduce the
natural frequencies and to increase the natural periods. In rolling, e.g., where GM must
not be chosen too small, Euler (like others) recommended to increase the mass moment
of inertia Θ by shifting any movable masses inside the ship as far away from the center
of gravity as possible. A plausible idea, but only practicable within narrow limits.

It should be noted with interest, too, that Euler in a later treatise [23] on rolling and
pitching almost in passing ((§16-§19) also mentions how to determine the internal loads
of the ship, e.g., at midship section. In his ingenious way Euler takes a planar vertical
section through the hull girder and determines the longitudinal bending moment as an
internal load in this cross section. By this influence he also explains the deflection of the
hull in longitudinal bending, the much feared “hogging”. The article further elaborates
on how dynamic loads must be added to to the static loading. This to my knowledge is
the first historical entry point into those methods which later developed into
longitudinal strength calculations for ships and became indispensable in dimensioning
the structure of the hull.

The treatment of ship oscillations by Euler and his contemporaries however still had
significant gaps and limitations:

- Neglect of hydrodynamic mass and damping forces,

- 25 -
- Lack of load assumptions for excitation forces and moments, especially by the
seaway, hence lack of data for forced oscillations,
- Simplification in the choice of oscillation axes through the center of gravity as
being parallel and orthogonal to the waterplane in place of the principal axes of
inertia,
- Limitation to small amplitudes, linearization,
- Absence of statistical methods for frequency and extreme value analysis.

Euler was aware of the majority of these limitations, as his cautious premises and
disclaimers usually indicate. Nevertheless we must recognize and pay our tribute to the
useful knowledge already achieved in Euler’s era, both in scientific substance and in
qualitative practical insights.

4. Conclusions

By consistent application of the first principles of mechanics and fluid mechanics,

which Euler in part had created or extended himself, he was able to base the new,
application oriented scientific discipline of ship theory on a firm foundation and thereby
to help lay the ground for modern ship theory. He left his mark on the structure of this
field. Many of his results are still valid and of lasting value. The following
achievements deserve to be singled out as especially noteworthy:

o The foundation of criteria and calculation methods for the hydrostatic stability of
ships, derived by integration of the pressure distribution in the fluid at rest, acting on the
ship slightly displaced from equlibrium. The application of stability criteria already at
the design stage as a starting point for more systematic analysis of the safety of ships.

o Initially application of Newton’s impact theory of resistance, which yielded false

predictions, yet combining correct system dynamics with false force coefficients. Later
after intensive efforts discarding of the misleading impact theory and creation of the
promising field theory.

o Contributions to the laws of ship propulsion by sailing, rowing, paddle wheel,

screw propeller and jet propulsion. Correct application of the momentum theorem to
explaining the principles of propulsion, unfortunately with wrong force coefficients.

o Fundamental studies on system dynamics of the maneuvering vessel with flow

effects on hull, sail and rudder, also solution of the equations of motion.

o Contributions to ship oscillations by deriving the natural periods for rolling,

heaving and pitching based on inertia and hydrostatic restoring forces.

In all these activities we owe Euler our gratitude not only for his important insights in
the theory of ships, but also for what Truesdell [3] already praised as the special
characteristic of style in all of Euler’s work:

“First principles, generality, order and above all clarity”.

It took a major span of time before Eulers insights were understood by the engineers
and found acceptance in practice. But even in his lifetime there were a few enlightened
contemporaries and practitioners who recognized and appreciated the value of
theoretically well founded knowledge. The eminent Swedish naval constructor F.H. af
Chapman [56] may be quoted here as a key witness who had comprehensive practical

- 26 -
experience in shipbuilding, but was also familiar with the literature of his era, hence
also with Bouguer’s and Euler’s treatises, which he held in high esteem. He stated:

“Without a good theory design is only a game of hazard!”

Acknowledgments

The author expresses his sincere gratitude to the Max Planck Institute of the History of
Science in Berlin, where he has served as a Visiting Scholar since 2001, for always
generous support and advice. The present study was supported in particular by the
available rich reference material. Further he acknowledges with thanks the useful
information provided by Jörg Blaurock, Hamburg, on the history of the paddle wheel.
He is also grateful to his friends Walter Debler and Harry Benford for careful
proofreading and good advice.

A condensed version of this article was presented in the Captain Ralph R. and Florence
Peachman Lecture at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor on April 16, 2007. This
occasion provided an additional incentive for preparing these notes in commemoration
of Leonhard Euler’s tercentenary and of his contributions to ship theory.
.
References

1. Leonhard Euler: “Scientia Navalis seu Tractatus de Construendis ac Dirigendis

Navibus”, 2 vols., St. Petersburg, 1749. Reprinted in Euler’s Opera Omnia [6], Series II,
vols. 18 and 19, Zurich and Basel, 1967 and 1972.
2. Pierre Bouguer: “Traité du Navire, de sa Construction et de ses Mouvemens”,
Jombert, Paris, 1746.
3. Truesdell, Clifford A.: “Rational Fluid Mechanics, 1687-1765”, in Leonhardi Euleri
Opera Omnia [6] (“Complete Works of Leonhard Euler”), issued by the Euler-
Commission of the Swiss Academy of Natural Sciences, Series II, vol. 12, pp. VII-
CXXV, Lausanne, 1954.
4. Eckert, Michael: “Euler and the Fountains of Sanssouci”, Archive for History of
Exact Sciences, vol. 56, no.6, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, November 2002, pp. 451-
468.
5. Fellmann, E.A.,: “Leonhard Euler”, translated from German by Erika Gautschi and
Walter Gautschi, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel-Boston-Berlin, 2007.
6. Euler, Leonhard: “Leonhardi Euleri Opera Omnia” (“Collected Works of Leonhard
Euler”), issued by the Euler-Commission of the Swiss Academy of Natural Sciences, in
four series, some volumes still in preparation, published in Leipzig and Berlin since
1911, in Basel since 1975.
7. Habicht, Walter: “Leonhard Eulers Schiffstheorie, Einleitung und Kommentar zu den
Bänden 18 und 19 der zweiten Serie” (“Leonhard Euler’s Ship Theory, Introduction and
Commentary to vols. 18 and 19 of Series II”), in [6], Series II, vol. 21,
“Commentationes Mechanicae et Astronomicae ad Scientiam Navalem Pertinentes”,
vol. II, W. Habicht (Ed.), Swiss Academy of Natural Sciences, Bern, Orell Füssli
Verlag, Zurich, 1978.
8. Habicht, Walter: “Einleitung zu Band 20 der zweiten Serie” (“Introduction to vol. 20
of Series II”), in [6], Series II, vol. 20, “Commentationes Mechanicae et Astronomicae
ad Scientiam Navalem Pertinentes”, vol. I, W. Habicht (Ed.), Swiss Academy of Natural
Sciences, Bern, Orell Füssli Verlag, Zurich, 1974.
9. Habicht, Walter: “Einleitung zu Band 21 der zweiten Serie” (“Introduction to vol. 20
of Series II”), in [6], Series II, vol. 21, “Commentationes Mechanicae et Astronomicae
ad Scientiam Navalem Pertinentes”, vol. II, W. Habicht (Ed.), Swiss Academy of
Natural Sciences, Bern, Orell Füssli Verlag, Zurich, 1978.
10. Burckhardt, J.J., Fellmann, E.A., Habicht, W., (Eds.): “Leonhard Euler 1707-
1783”, Memorial Volume of the Kanton Basel City, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 1983.

- 27 -
11. Szabó, István: “Geschichte der mechanischen Prinzipien und ihrer wichtigsten
Anwendungen” (“ History of the Mechanical Principles and Their Most Important
Applications”), Birkhaeuser Verlag, Basel-Boston-Berlin, 1977, 3rd ed., 1987.
12. Mikhajlov, Gleb K.: “Leonhard Euler und die Entwicklung der theoretischen
Hydraulik im zweiten Viertel des 18. Jahrhunderts” (“Leonhard Euler and the
Development of Theoretical Hydraulics in the Second Quarter of the 18th Century”), pp.
229-241 in [7], 1983.
13. Calinger, Ronald: “Leonhard Euler: The First St. Petersburg Years (1727-1741)”,
Historia Mathematica, vol. 23, pp. 121-166, Academic Press, 1996.
14. Calero, Julián Simón: “La génesis de la Mecánica de Fluidos (1640-1780)”,
Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Madrid, 1996.
15. Darrigol, Olivier: “Worlds of Flow: A History of Hydrodynamics from the
Bernoullis to Prandtl”, Oxford University Press, Oxford-New York, 2005.
16. Ferreiro, Larrie D.: “Ships and Science: The Birth of Naval Architecture in the
Scientific Revolution, 1660-1800”, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2007.
17. Bernoulli, Johann: “Essai d’une nouvelle théorie de la manœuvre des vaisseaux”,
Jean George König Publ., Basel, 1714. In: Opera Omnia II, reprinted: Hildesheim 1968,
pp. 1-96.
18. Leonhard Euler: “Meditationes super Problemate Nautico, quod Illustrissima Regia
Parisiensis Academia Scientiarum Proposuit”, in Leonhardi Euleri Opera Omnia [6],
Ser. II, vol. 20, pp. 1-35, E.4, “Commentationes Mechanicae et Astronomicae”, Basel,
1974.
19. Renau, d’Eliçagaray, Bernard: “De la théorie de la manœuvre des vaisseaux”, Paris,
1689.
20. Huygens, Christiaan: “Remarque de m. Huguens sur le livre de la manœuvre des
vaisseaux”, Bibliothèque Universelle, Amsterdam, 1693.
21. Nowacki, Horst und Ferreiro, Larrie D.: “Historical Roots of the Theory of
Hydrostatic Stability of Ships”, 8th Intl. Conf. on the Stability of Ships and Ocean
Vehicles, Madrid, 2003, also Preprint No. 237, Max Planck Institute for the History of
Science, Berlin, 2003.
22. Euler, Leonhard: “De promotione navium sine vi venti” (“On the propulsion of
Ships without Wind Power”), Paris, 1771. Reprinted in Euler’s Collected Works [6],
Series II, vol. 20, pp. 146-189, C.A. Truesdell (Ed.), Basel, 1974.
23. Euler, Leonhard: “Sur le roulis et le tangage: Examen des efforts qu’ont à soutenir
toutes les parties d’un Vaisseau dans le Roulis et dans le Tangage” (“On Rolling and
Pitching …”, Académie Royale des Sciences, Paris, prize treatise 1759, published 1771,
pp. 1-47. Reprinted in Euler’s Collected Works, Series II, vol. 21 (Commentationes
mechanicae et astronomicae), pp. 1-30, W. Habicht (Ed.), Swiss Academy of Natural
Sciences, Bern, Orell Fuessli Verlag, Zurich, 1978.
24. Euler, Leonhard: “Théorie complette (sic) de la construction et de la manœuvre des
vaisseaux”, St. Petersburg, Imperial Academy of Sciences, 1773. Reprinted in Euler’s
Collected Works [6], Series II, vol. 21, pp. 82-222 (E.426), W. Habicht (Ed.), Swiss
Academy of Natural Sciences, Bern, Orell Fuessli Verlag, Zurich, 1978.
25. Archimedes: “The Works of Archimedes”, edited by T.L. Heath, Dover Publ.,
Mineola, N.Y., 2002.
26. Nowacki, Horst: “Archimedes and Ship Stability”, Proc. Euroconference on
“Passenger Ship Design, Operation and Safety”, Anissaras/Chersonissos, Crete, October
2001. Reprinted in extended version as Preprint No. 198, Max Planck Institute for the
History of Science, Berlin, March 2002.
27. Stevin; Simon: “The Principal Works of Simon Stevin”, 5 vols., ed. E.J.
Dijksterhuis, C.V. Swets and Zeitlinger, Amsterdam, 1955. In vol. I (General
Introduction, Mechanics): “De Beghinselen des Waterwichts” (“Elements of
Hydrostatics”) and in the Appendix to “Beghinselen der Weegkonst” (“Elements of the
Art of Weighing”) the short note “Van de Vlietende Topswaerheit” (“On the Floating
Top-Heaviness”), first in Dutch, 1586.
28. Pascal, Blaise: “Traité de l’équilibre des liqueurs, et de la pesanteur de la masse de
l’air”, Guillaume Desprez, Paris, 1663. English translation by Columbia Univ. Press,
New York, 1937, and Octagon Books, New York, 1973.

- 28 -
29. Huygens, Christiaan: “De iis quae liquido supernatant libri tres”, 1650. Published in
“Œuvres Complètes de Christiaan Huygens”, vol. 11, pp. 82-210, Martinus Nijhoff, The
Hague, 1908. Reprinted by Swets and Zeitlinger, Amsterdam, 1967.
30. Hoste, Paul: “Théorie de la construction des vaisseaux” (“Theory of Ship
Construction”), Arisson & Posule, Lyon, 1697.
31. La Croix, César Marie de: “Eclaircissemens sur l'extrait du méchanisme des
mouvemens des corps flotans” (“Explanations on the extract of the mechanism of
motion of floating bodies”), Robustel, Paris, 1736.
32. Huygens, Christiaan: Personal notes by Huygens on his experiments of 1669,
“Expériences de 1669 sur la force de l’eau ou de l’air en mouvement et sur les
résistances éprouvées par des corps traversant ces milieux”, edited and posthumously
published by Jean-Baptiste du Hamel, Regiae Scientiarum Academiae Historia Parisiis,
1698. Reprinted in Huygens’ Œuvres Complètes, vol. 19, pp. 120-143, Dutch Society of
Sciences, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1937.
33. Mariotte, Edmé: “Traité du mouvement des eaux et des autres corps fluides”
(“Treatise on the motion of water and other fluid bodies”) posthumously edited and
published by Philippe de la Hire, Estrenne Michallet, Paris, 1686.
34. Newton, Isaac: “Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica” (“Mathematical
Principles of Natural Philosophy”), 1st ed., London, 1687, 2nd ed., Cambridge, 1713, 3rd
ed., London, 1726. English translation by I.B. Cohen and A. Whitman, Univ. of
California Press, Berkeley, 1999.
35. Bernoulli, Daniel: “Dissertatio de actione fluidorum in corpora solida et moto
solidorum in fluidis” (“Treatise on the action of fluids on solid bodies and on the motion
of solids in fluids”), Comm. Acad. Petrop., vol. III, 1728.
36. Bernoulli, Daniel: “De legibus quibusdam mechanicis, quas natura constanter
affectat, nondum descriptis, earum usu hydrodynamico, pro determinanda vi venae
contra planum incurrentis” (“On certain, not yet described laws of mechanics, which
nature constantly applies, on their hydrodynamic application for determining the force
of a jet impinging on a planar plate”), Comm. Acad. Petrop., vol. VIII, 1736 (1741).
37. Bernoulli, Daniel: “Hydrodynamica sive de viribus et motibus fluidorum
commentarii”, Strassburg, 1738. German translation by Karl Flierl: “Hydrodynamik
oder Kommentare über die Kräfte und Bewegungen der Flüssigkeiten”, Publications by
the Research Institute of the Deutsches Museum für die Geschichte der
Naturwissenschaften und der Technik, Series C, Munich, 1965.
38. Bernoulli, Johann: “Hydraulica, nunc primum detecta ac demonstrata directe ex
fundamentis pure mechanicis” (“Hydraulics, now first discovered and directly
demonstrated on strictly mechanical foundations”, 1742, Opera Omnia IV, pp. 387-493,
Hildesheim, 1968.
39. Euler, Leonhard: “Methodus inveniendi lineas curvas maximi minimive proprietate
gaudentes, sive solutio problematis isoperimetrici latissimo sensu accepti” (Method to
find curves enjoying the property of a maximum or minimum or solution to the
isoperimetric problem considered in the broadest sense”), Lausanne, Genf, 1744. Opera
Omnia, Ser. I, vol. 24 (E.65).
40. Weinblum, G.: “Schiffsform und Wellenwiderstand” (“Ship Form and Wave
Resistance”), Jahrb. der Schiffbautechnischen Ges., vol. 33, 1932.
41. Wallis, John: “Cono-cuneus or the Shipwright’s Circular Wedge”, Annex to
„Treatise on Algebra“, Playford, London, 1685.
42. Robins, Benjamin: “New Principles of Gunnery”, 1742, reprinted in Mathematical
Tracts, London, 1761.
43. Euler, Leonhard: “Neue Grundsätze der Artillerie…”. (“New Principles of
Gunnery…”), in [6], Series II, vol. 14, pp. 1-409 (E.77). German translation of [42] with
many explanations and comments, Berlin, 1745.
44. D’Alembert, Jean LeRond: “Traité de l’équilibre et du mouvement des fluides,
pour servir au traité de dynamique” (“Treatise on the equilibrium and motion of fluids
serving for the treatise on dynamics”), Paris 1744.
45. Euler, Leonhard: “Principia motus fluidorum” (“Principles of Fluid Motion”),
Mém. Acad. Berlin. 1752, published in Berlin, 1756. Reprinted in [6], Series II, vol. 12,
pp. 133-168.

- 29 -
46. Euler, Leonhard: “Principes généraux de l’état d’équilibre des fluides” (“General
principles of the state of equilibrium of fluids”), Mém. Acad. Berlin, 1753, published in
vol. XI, 1755. Reprinted in [6], Series II, vol. 12, pp.133-168 (E.258).
47. Euler, Leonhard: “Principes généraux du mouvement des fluides” (“General
Principles of the Motion of Fluids”), Mém. Acad. Berlin, vol. XI, 1755. Reprinted in
[6], Series II, vol. 12, pp. 54-91 (E.226).
48. Euler, Leonhard: “Continuation des recherches sur la théorie du mouvement des
fluides” (“Continuation of the research on the theory of fluid motion”), Mém. Acad.
Berlin, vol. XI, 1755. Reprinted in [6], Series II, vol. 12, pp. 92-132 (E.227).
49. “Widerstand der Flüssigkeiten”), 1756, veröffentlicht in Novi Comm. Acad.
Petrop., vol. VIII, St. Petersburg, 1760/61. Reprinted [6], Series II, vol. 12, pp. 215-243
(E.276).
50. Juan y Santacilia, Jorge: “Examen Marítimo, Theórico Práctico, ó Tratado de
Mechanica aplicado á la Construccion, Conocimiento a Manejo de los Navios y Demas
Embarcaciones”, Madrid, 1771. Facsimile reproduction by Artes Graficas Cruz, Madrid,
1992.
51. Chapman, Frederik Henrik af: “Tractat om skeppsbyggeriet” („Treatise on
Shipbuilding“), 1775, French translation with comments by Vial du Clairbois, Paris,
1781, German translation of the French version by G. Timmermann, Hamburg, 1972.
52. Euler, Leonhard: “Tentamen theoriae de frictione fluidorum” (“Attempt of a theory
on the friction of fluids”), 1751. Reprinted in [6], Series II, vol. 12, pp. 69-214 (E.260).
53. Beaufoy, Mark: “Some Account of a Set of Experiments Made in the Greenland
Dock in the Years 1793-98”, Annals of Phil., vol. III, 1814, pp. 42-50.
54. Froude, William: “Observations and suggestions on the subject of determining by
experiment the resistance of ships”, correspondence with the Amiralty, reprinted in
“The papers of William Froude (1810-1879)”, Inst. of Naval Architects, London, 1955.
55. Rank, Ludwig: “Die Theorie des Segelns in ihrer Entwicklung” (“The Theory of
Sailing in its Development“), Dietrich Reimer Verlag, Berlin, 1984.
56. Euler, Leonhard: “Du mouvement de rotation des corps solides autour d’un axe
variable”, 1758. Reprinted in [6], Ser. II, vol. 8, pp. 200-235 (E.292).
57. Euler Leonhard: “Nova methodus motum corporum rigidorum determinandi”
(“New Method for Determining the Motion of Rigid Bodies”), Novi Commentarii
Academiae Scientiarum Petropolitanae, vol. 20 (1775), published 1776. Reprinted in
[6], Ser. II, vol. 9, pp. 99-125 (E.479).
58. Euler, Leonhard: Several letters in [6], Series IVa, “Commercium Epistolicum”,
vol. 2. Eds.: E.A. Fellmann and Gleb K. Mikhajlov, edited by the Euler Commission of
the Swiss Academy of Natural Sciences and the Russian Academy of Sciences,
Birkhäuser, Basel, 1998.
59. Bernoulli, Daniel: “De Motibus Oscillatoriis Corporum Humido Insidentium” (“On
the Oscillatory Motions of Floating Bodies”), Comm. Acad. Petrop., vol. 11, 1739
(1750).

- 30 -