s statement of this efficiency: "'Now the
energy converted is distributed over the whole resistance, hence if the
resistance of the machine be represented by 1 and the exterior circuit
by 9, then of the total energy converted nine-tenths will be useful, as
it is outside of the machine, and one-tenth is lost in the resistance of
the machine.'"

After this the critic goes on to say:

"How any one acquainted with the laws of the electric circuit can make
such statements is what I cannot understand. The statement last quoted
is mathematically absurd. It implies either that the machine is
CAPABLE OF INCREASING ITS OWN ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE NINE TIMES WITHOUT
AN INCREASED EXPENDITURE OF POWER, or that external resistance is NOT
resistance to the current induced in the Edison machine.

"Does Mr. Edison, or any one for him, mean to say that r/n enables him
to obtain nE, and that C IS NOT = E / (r/n + R)? If so Mr. Edison has
discovered something MORE than perpetual motion, and Mr. Keely had
better retire from the field.

"Further on the writer (Mr. Upton) gives us another example of this mode
of reasoning when, emboldened and satisfied with the absurd theory above
exposed, he endeavors to prove the cause of the inefficiency of the
Siemens and other machines. Couldn't the writer of the article see that
since C = E/(r + R) that by R/n or by making R = r, the machine would,
according to his theory, have returned more useful current to the
circuit than could be due to the power employed (and in the ratio
indicated), so that there would actually be a creation of force! . . . .

"In conclusion allow me to say that if Mr Edison thinks he has
accomplished so much by the REDUCTION OF THE INTERNAL RESISTANCE of
his machine, that he has much more to do in this direction before his
machine will equal IN THIS RESPECT others already in the market."

Another participant in the controversy on Edison's generator was a
scientific gentleman, who in a long article published in the Scientific
American, in November, 1879, gravely undertook to instruct Edison in
the A B C of electrical principles, and then proceeded to demonstrate
mathematically the IMPOSSIBILITY of doing WHAT EDISON HAD ACTUALLY DONE.
This critic concludes with a gentle rebuke to the inventor for ill-timed
jesting, and a suggestion to furnish AUTHENTIC information!

In the light of facts, as they were and are, this article is so full of
humor that we shall indulge in a few quot