Motion and Proportion in Simon Stevin’s Mechanics

Mechanical Philosophy: Science of Mechanics

“…The authors of theoretical texts simply assumed that any practitioner was able to use the proper material to construct actual machines that could adequately perform their function, making sure that lever arms were indeed approximately inflexible and that the presence of unavoidable friction and other concomitant impediments could be appropriately managed. As Stevin put it, the task of the practitioner was to take care that "by closer and more painstaking care one may get as near to the perfection of the theory as the purpose of the case requires for the benefit of man" (Stevin, 1961, p. 619) (see (Van Dyck, 2017, in press-b) for further analysis). Matter constituted no independent object for theoretical reflection because mechanics could proceed on the basis of a relatively stable body of practical know-how that ensured the applicability of the theoretical scheme.…”

“…Stevin's treatment of mechanical operations differed from Guidobaldo's in a number of ways (see (Van Dyck, 2017) for further comments). Most importantly, it included a successful analysis of the inclined plane, which was not directly based on the law of the lever, but on the exclusion of perpetual motion.…”