Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

THE MUSOTON.

the ivory bowl being cut expressly to fit the shape of the parts circumjacent to the auricle. The instrument is also very efficient in dry cupping, and from its simplicity it is likely to prove very useful and convenient.

[graphic]

THE BUDE LIGHT.

Sir,-It appears probable that the Budelight will come into considerable use for purposes of general illumination, and probably in many places where the gasometers and apparatus necessary for generating the gas may be inconvenient. To obviate this, the old Portable Gas Company should look out their apparatus, as it seems to me a fair opportunity offers itself for them to make some use of what failed when coal gas was employed, owing to the partial decomposition of the gas, an effect which would not take place in the case of oxygen, as it did with carburetted hydrogen. If you think the preceding hint for the use of portable vessels of oxygen gas likely to interest your readers, I shall feel gratified by its insertion. I remain, Sir, your obedient servant, London, November 1, 1841.

E. M. I.

Cases are sometimes met with, in which, from the improper use of acoustic instruments, or from a sudden and very loud noise, the membrana tympani is rendered concavo-convex in an improper sense. To remedy this, Mr. John Harrison Curtis, the surgeon_to_the Royal Dispensary for Diseases of the Ear, has constructed an instrument consisting of a bag of caoutchouc, with a large ivory bowl attached to it and pierced in its centre, with an aperture communicating with the interior of the caoutchouc bag, to which he has given the name of the Musoton. By emptying the bag of air, and then applying the bowl over the ear, such a force is exerted by it on the air being again introduced, that the membrane is drawn out and restored to its natural condition. The bowl (see prefixed engraving) is connected to the caoutchouc bag by a long ivory nipple on its upper surface, on which the caoutchouc is securely fastened. When applied over the ear it is perfectly air-tight,

Sir,

CEMENT FOR SILK.

Having from its commencement been a reader of your valuable publication, I trust to my no small profit as regards scientific research,-I shall feel greatly obliged if, through your numerous readers, I could learn whether there exists any kind of cement for silk, in pieces? I have gone through your work, and can discover nothing, beyond some propositions for forming an Indian-rubber menstruum for a purpose analogous, but the plan seems imperfect. I once met with an aëronaut who informed me that he had such a preparation, and could, moreover, encase his balloon therewith, so as to prevent the escape of the gas; at all events, I should be glad to know if such an article, as regards the adhesive principle, can be purchased, and where? I remain, Sir,

November 16, 1841.

A CONSTANT READER.

CASTING OF SPECULA.

Sir,-In No. 697, (December, 1836,) of the Mechanics' Magazine, your ingenious correspondent, Mr. Lassell, gave your readers a very masterly essay on the casting of specula. I have long been expecting Mr. Lassell would extend his essay to the art of

IMPORTANT PATENT LAW CASE-CRANE V. PRICE.

figuring and polishing, which is by far the most difficult branch of art. If he would favour the readers of your work with the other part of the process, I do not hesitate to assert, that the Mechanics' Magazine would be in possession of the very best method of casting, grinding, polishing, and figuring specula for reflecting telescopes, that has appeared in print.

I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,
ROBERT JONES.

Newcastle, January 19, 1842.
P.S.-Perhaps Mr. Lassell would favour
us with a description of his " Observatory
lately erected at Starfield, near Liverpool.

IMPORTANT PATENT LAW CASE.

[ocr errors]

Crane v. Price and others. This case, of the greatest importance to all patentees, as well as to the particular parties, and to the iron trade in general, occupied the attention of the Court of Common Pleas during three days of last week. The plaintiff's patent, dated 28th September, 1836, was for an improvement in the manufacture of iron, and the specification claimed as the invention, "the application of anthracite, or stonecoal, combined with a hot air blast, in the smelting or manufacture of iron from ironstone, mine, or ore."

At the trial, before the Lord Chief Justice Tindal, the verdict was found for the plaintiff, subject to a special case.

Mr. Sergeant Bompas and Mr. Rotch for the defendants.-There has been no infringement of the plaintiff's patent. The defendants admit that they have used anthracite mixed with common coal, but what the plaintiff's specification claims is, the use of anthracite alone. To constitute an infringement of the plaintiff's patent, the anthracite must be used either alone, or with such a small admixture of ordinary coal as would be merely a colourable evasion. The mere use of anthracite is not new. In some parts of the coal fields, the anthracite is so mixed up with common coal, that the use of some portion of it along with the other coal could not be avoided; and that some use has been made of it appears from the specifications of several patents. As, for instance, of Martin's patent, June 23, 1804; of Harper's patent, August 28, 1824; of Philip Taylor's patent, February 28, 1826; of Botfield's patent, April 2, 1828. The anthracite could only be used under peculiar circumstances; it could not be used at all with equal advantage; but some use of it could be made. Now, the defendants have used anthracite with coke, in the proportion of about 5 cwt. of the former to about 9 cwt. of the latter. It is impossible to call such an use of anthracite an infringement of

109

Mr. Crane's patent, which is for making iron with anthracite as the sole fuel. The defendants have never used anthracite alone, and it cannot be said that the use of it mixed with coke in such a proportion is a mere colourable evasion. The plaintiff is in this dilemma. If his patent is for the use of stone-coal alone, without any admixture of other fuel, then the defendants have not infringed it; if, on the other hand, it is for the use of stone-coal in general, whether alone or mixed, then it is void for want of novelty.

Next come two questions, which though technically distinct, do in fact involve each other-is the plaintiff the first inventor? and is the subject-matter of his patent a new manufacture within the statute? Mr. Neilson had already a patent for the hot-blast, which had been extensively used under license from him; and except by him, or under license from him, there is no evidence of any hotblast whatever having been used in the kingdom. The plaintiff had himself taken out a license from Mr. Neilson. How, then, does the plaintiff's case stand? Mr. Neilson, by his specification, tells all the world, the plaintiff among the rest, that this hot-blast is an invention of the greatest importance for the smelting of iron. The plaintiff tries it with anthracite, and it succeeds; and then he says, "This is my invention-I will have a patent for it." But Mr. Neilson's patent is not for the use of the hot-blast with bituminous coal, or with any other particular sort of coal; it is for the use of it to blast furnaces, all furnaces whatsoever. Here is no new manufacture, no experiment was tried, no expense gone to; Mr. Crane takes out a license to use Mr. Neilson's hot-blast, tries it with anthracite, finds, as Mr. Neilson had told him in his specification, that it would succeed, and takes out his patent. There is no pretence for saying that Mr. Crane is an inventor, or that this is a new manufacture. Here is a known material, used in a known manner, for a known purpose, the manufacture of iron. All the world knew that the hot-blast could be used for the manufacture of iron; that anthracite could be used for the same purpose, though not so advantageously by itself. There cannot, then, be a patent for using a thing, for the same purpose, in a way which every one knows. All that the plaintiff has done was in the mere ordinary course of using Neilson's hot-blast; he has only followed up that which Mr. Neilson, by his specification, had told him was useful, and he has done nothing else whatever.

Next, the nature of the invention is not sufficiently described in the specification; for anthracite cannot be used with any real advantage in the ordinary large furnaces, and therefore to make that specification

good, it should give some explanation with respect to the sort of furnace required. It is not denied that anthracite may be used both in large and small furnaces; but as it can be used more advantageously in small than in large furnaces, the plaintiff ought to have pointed that out in his specification. The plaintiff's patent is also void as an infringement upon Neilson's, by reason of the express proviso in the patent, that it shall not interfere with any previous patent. The plaintiff's patent is an interfering with the patent of Neilson, which was for the use of hot air generally, in all furnaces whatsoever.

The Attorney-General, Mr. Vaughan Richards, Mr. Montague Smith, and Mr. Webster, for the plaintiff.-With respect to the question of infringement, it is uncertain, on the evidence, whether the defendants were not using all anthracite; but supposing it not to have been so, the use of ths of that fuel in the manufacture of iron, in combination with the hot-blast, is a piracy of the plaintiff's invention. Would the defendants have used anthracite at all, had they not been taught to do so by the plaintiff's specification; did any person so use it? Was it known as a fuel to be beneficially employed in the manufacture of iron? The evidence shows that the best iron is made by the use of all anthracite; the defendants are contented with part of the advantage, in hopes of evading the plaintiff's patent right. The plaintiff has discovered a new fuel for a particular purpose; the use of any substantial quantity of that fuel is an infringement of his right. The plaintiff's claim is generally to the use of anthracite beneficially for the purpose of smelting iron, and the specification describes the manner in which it is to be so used. As to the novelty of this invention, the specifications of former patents go a long way to prove the plaintiff's case. It was a great desideratum to be able to use this anthracite; numerous attempts were made, patents were taken out for supposed methods of using it, but they all failed. The use of anthracite at Abercrave was a signal failure; iron was made by the use of anthracite, but it was at a loss of from 21. to 47. per ton; and the iron made was so bad, tender, and short, that it was got rid of with the greatest difficulty, the attempt soon abandoned, and the furnace given up. There is no single instance, before the plaintiff's patent, of anthracite ever having been used beneficially. If so, how came its use to be abandoned, or the discovery of the method of using it so great a desideratum. The material existed in abundance, but nothing was done with it; the instant that Crane's patent becomes known, the value of the whole anthracite district is increased beyond all estimate.

As to the result of the The quantity of fuel used is yield of the furnace is greater. produced is superior in quality.

process,less, the The iron It is a new

species of iron, such as has never before been produced in this country, or in any other, from coal, more nearly resembling the iron from vegetable charcoal than any other. Its superiority to ordinary iron is proved by the evidence of several witnesses, both as respects the uses to which it is applicable, as chain-cables, and the comparative strength of this and ordinary iron. Thus a better and a cheaper iron, and in fact a new article of commerce, has been produced. But it is said that there is not a sufficient amount of invention. How otherwise is the amount of invention to be measured than by the magnitude of the result? The test is not so much the amount of merit in the inventor as the amount of benefit from the invention. What merit is there in the mere receiver of a communication from abroad? And yet he is entitled to a patent. Some most important inventions have been the result of mere accident. The omission of the maundril, in Russell's patent, was the device of an idle workman to save himself trouble. The method of making water tabbies was discovered by the accident of a man's spitting on the floor. But, in fact, it did require thought and consideration to judge what the result of the application of the hot-blast to anthracite would be. It was necessary to consider what the effect of the hot-blast would be on the anthracite; what sort of iron would be the result. The proper degree of heat was to be considered; the proper proportion of coal and ore; the proper size of the pieces of anthracite; all of which are described in the specification. It is important to remark that the iron made with hot-blast and common coal is inferior to that made with cold-blast, while that made with hot-blast and anthracite is superior. Does Mr. Crane prevent any one from doing what he did before? There is, then, novelty in his invention. The objection is, that this is not a new manufacture within the statute. The cases which interpret those words show, that any material modification of the manner of making a merchantable commodity, producing an improvement in it, is a new manufacture, even if all the substances used were known and used before, provided they were not so used. In Daniel's patent, the method of shearing cloth from end to end with a rotary cutter was known; the method of shearing it from list to list with shears was known; a patent for shearing from list to list, with the same rotary cutter, previously used for shearing from end to end, was sustained, In the case of Hall's patent, the use of gas to pro

SPECIFICATIONS OF RECENT ENGLISH PATENTS.

duce a flame was known; the flame of oil had been used to singe off the fibres from lace, yet a patent for the application of the flame of gas to that purpose was sustained. In Derosne's patent, which was for the application of charcoal as a filter for sugar, there was nothing new in the method of using the charcoal as a filter, or in the sugar produced; but, though this was litigated on other grounds, the question of its not being a proper subject of a patent was never raised.

Did

The real questions in respect of Neilson's patent are, Is the plaintiff's hot-blast the same as Neilson's? The fact of his having taken out a license is not conclusive; for he might take a license and not use it. Neilson contemplate the use of anthracite as fuel? Could his apparatus produce the temperature of 600° Fahr.? Could Neilson, following his own specification, have smelted iron with anthracite? It was said in the case of Crossley's patent that the terms of a patent must be taken with reference to the state of knowledge at the time. Neither Neilson, nor any one for eight years after his patent, appears to have contemplated the use of anthracite as a fuel for smelting iron in furnaces. The proviso in the patent simply means that, if a patent be granted for an improvement on a subsisting patent, the second patentee must either wait for the expiration of the first patent, or get a license under it. No real objection can be made to the sufficiency of the specification. It is said that the kind of furnace best calculated for the purpose is not described. The ordinary furnace, which can be, and is used for the purpose, is referred to. It would have been impossible at once to describe the kind of furnace; it would have required the experience of a life to arrive at the knowledge of it; but the plaintiff has described it according to the best of his knowledge at the time; and the invention can be and is worked according to the specification. There is, then, no valid objection, either in law or fact, to the plaintiff's right; no one is prejudiced; Neilson is greatly benefited by the extension of his principle; the public and the nation at large are benefited by the introduction of these new articles of commerce, or by obtaining iron of better quality, and at less cost; the plaintiff has been at all the costs and charges of the introduction of this new manufacture into the realm, and is entitled to reap the benefit which will accrue from the judgment of the Court in his favour.

The Court took time to consider their judgment.

MR. WILLIAMS AND MR. ARMSTRONG.

Sir,-In my letter inserted in the last Magazine, on Mr. Armstrong's New Theory

111

of Diffusion, I perceive there is an error in the column, page 88, where it is stated that Mr. Armstrong "wrote to my agent, stating, among other things, as follows," &c. This, I am informed, was not the fact-Mr. Armstrong having consented to the paper written by the solicitor, and a day and hour having been named, (more than once, I believe,) for the signing, after much alteration, and amendment; but which, for reasons which will appear hereafter, he avoided.

I am, Sir, yours, &c.,
C. W. WILLIAMS.

Liverpool, Jan. 31, 1842.

ABSTRACTS OF SPECIFICATIONS OF ENGLISH PATENTS RECENTLY ENROLLED.

WILLIAM THOMAS BERGER, OF UPPER HOMERTON, GENTLEMAN, for improvements in the Manufacture of starch. Enrolment Office, Dec. 23, 1841.

These improvements relate to a new method of manufacturing starch from rice,-in the first place, by the application of an alkali,-secondly, by the means of fermentation,--and, thirdly, by a combination of both the foregoing and also to a new mode of bluing starch.

In the first process for making starch, 112 lbs. of rice are soaked for two days in water, which is then drawn off, and the rice reduced to a cream, or pulp. A solution of 7 lbs. of carbonate of soda in 34 gallons of water, is then added to the rice pulp, and the mixture stirred every four hours for fifty or sixty hours. After standing twelve or eighteen hours longer, the top liquor which contains the gluten is drawn off, and a second dose of carbonate of soda administered, and the stirring and standing repeated, after which the gluten is removed and the starch finished off in the usual manner.

In the second process, any given quantity of rice is placed in a suitable vessel and covered to the height of 6 or 9 inches with water for fourteen days; the water is then drawn off and the rice spread 6 or 9 inches deep on a clean wooden floor or racks, and frequently turned to prevent heating: when soft, the rice is levigated and finished off in the usual manner. In lieu of the foregoing, which the patentee terms the malting process, he states that he sometimes obtains the requisite fermentation and decomposition of the gluten by soaking the rice in water for five or six weeks. If the colour of the starch thus produced is not good enough, it is heightened by means of a chloride of lime or of soda.

The third process consists of a combination of the foregoing, by treating the fermented pulpy rice with an alkaline salt.

The process of bluing starch, is effected

by the use of artificial ultramarine, taking care, that if any free acid remains in the starch, to neutrulize it by an alkali.

The claim is-1. To the above mode of manufacturing starch from rice, by the application of an alkaline salt, whereby the gluten and starch of rice may be separated, as above described.

2. To the mode of manufacturing starch from rice, by submitting grains of rice to soaking in water and fermenting processes.

3. To the mode of manufacturing starch from rice, by the combined application of an alkaline salt, and a process of fermentation.

4. To the mode of colouring starch by the application of artificial ultramarine.

WILLIAM KNIGHT, OF DURHAM-STREET, STRAND, GENTLEMAN, for the invention of an Indicator for registering the number of passengers using an omnibus or other vehicles. Enrolment Office, Dec. 28, 1841.

This invention consists of a counting or registering apparatus, contained in a box or case affixed to the side of the vehicle, which apparatus is acted upon by the axle of a revolving shaft, placed across the upper part of the door way or entrance to the vehicle. Through this shaft are placed two pairs of arms or levers, sliding at right angles to each other, one pair lying horizontally under the roof, while the second pair hang down against the door, and are moved by each passenger that enters the vehicle: thereby causing the ratchet wheel to be moved one tooth, which numbers one on the units cylinder.

The claim is to the combination of a counting apparatus, with an apparatus for causing the said counting apparatus to register the number of passengers travelling in an omnibus or other vehicle; such last mentioned apparatus being a revolving shaft, placed across the upper part or roof of the vehicle near the door way; such shaft having two pairs of arms or levers sliding through at right angles to each other, and when at rest, one of the pairs of arms lying horizontally under the roof, while the other pair hangs down against the door way, to form an obstruction which must be moved out of the way by the passenger on entering and leaving the vehicle.

JOHN VENABLES, OF BURSLEM, STAFFORDSHIRE, EARTHENWARE MANUFACturer, and JOHN TUNNICLIFF, OF THE SAME PLACE, BRICKLAYER, for a new and improved method of building and constructing vens Oused by potters and china manufacturers in the firing of their wares. Enrolment Office, January 18, 1842.

The patentees state, that the furnaces ordinarily employed by potters consume an extravagant quantity of fuel, relatively to the quantity of ware which they contain;

and the object of the present improvement is, to subject an increased quantity of goods to the action of the fire at one and the same time, and thereby economise the fuel. For this purpose, a cylindrical oven is formed, with a dome-shaped top, with a series of fire-places disposed around it, of a size and number proportioned to the magnitude of the oven. The heat is led into the interior of the oven by suitable flues, and a ledge or shelf is carried round the inner wall, upon which a circular stack or tier of saggars, (earthen frames for containing the wares to be fired, called by the workmen_bungs,) while other tiers of the same are disposed about the floor in the ordinary way. In another form of oven, the ledges are not employed, but the flues are so disposed as to admit the heat between the several circles of the saggars. The ovens thus constructed are equally applicable either to the biscuit-baking, or to the gloss, or glazing process.

The claim is to the construction of ovens with one or more ledge or ledges, as shown, and also of ovens without a ledge or shelf, but with flues or vents either raised above the floor of the oven, or not at all raised, but with simple openings in the floor; whereby the patentees are enabled, in each of such several modes, to place one or more circles of saggars behind the flues or vents, and thereby to enlarge the capacity of the oven for the process of firing, without the expenditure of any extra quantity of coal or other fuel.

NOTES AND NOTICES.

Patent Iron Mason.-A machine under this name, (for which a patent has just been taken out,) is about to be erected in one of Mr. Nelson's quarries, at Woodside, Glasgow. The stones go into the machine rough as they come from the quarrymen's pick, and come out polished ashlar on the surface, and cut parallel and square on the sides, fully prepared for the builder, and this at an expense of not more than a fourth of work done by hand. The present machine is calculated to do the work of 250 men, reckoning only six hours' work out of every ten. The machine has been constructed by Messrs. P. W. M'Onie and Co., engineers, Scotland-street, Tradeston, the design and arrangements being the work of Mr. P. M.Onie, of that firm. We understand the machine, with the experimenting and patents, has cost 1,000., although new machines of the same size can now be made for one-third of that sum, and smaller ones proportionably cheaper. -Glasgow Practical Mechanic.

The Hannibal.-The keel of a 90-gun ship, to be thus named, has been laid on the stocks from which the Trafalgar was launched, in Woolwich Dockyard, and a number of workmen are actively engaged in preparing the materials necessary for her construction. The Hannibal will be a splendid vessel, on Sir William Symond's plan, and have a great breadth of beam, for which all the vessels designed by the present Surveyor of the navy are distinguished. The dimensions of the Hannibal are to be as follows:ft. in.

Length on gun-deck ................................
Breadth, extreme...................................

for tonnage moulded

Depth in hold

204 0

60 0

39 2

38 4

23 S

LONDON: Edited, Printed, and Published by J. C. Robertson, at the Mechanics' Magazine Office,
No. 166, Fleet-street.-Sold by W. and A. Galignani, Rue Vivienne, Paris;
Machin and Co., Dublin; and W. C. Campbell and Co., Hamburgh.

« ZurückWeiter »