Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

DEMPSTER'S SYSTEM OF BUILDING AND RIGGING VESSELS: 505 rge for them to experiment with should be built, As, for example, suppose the wind to and a subscription has accordingly been entered

be blowing from A towards Cin the diainto for the purpose, in shares of 11. each

gram. The vessel starts at Con the larthe vessel to be the property of the subscribers.

board tack, and sails six miles, when she The system of Mr. Dempster is ingenious and

will fetch D. About ship, and sail six plausible. We sincerely hope, therefore, that the

miles on the starboard tack, when she will subscription will be speedily filled up, and that

fetch A; the vessel will then have gone the performances of the experimental vessel may

from C to A, six miles dead to windward. come up to the inventor's anticipations, in which case he will hardly fail to be well rewarded for the time and trouble he appears to have bestowed upon his invention. From the description of it which follows, and which is from the pen of the inventor himself, it will be seen that it divides itself into two parts—the first relating to the build of the vessel-the second to the rigging, and that either may be adopted quite independently of the other.ED. M. M.]

1. New Form of Hull. The advantages of the new form of hull shown in fig. 1, are these: First, The My reason

supposing she would be possibility of building a vessel so formed, so weatherly are these: When the wind particularly strong at the bottom. Iron was blowing sufficiently strong, so as to would be the best material for construc make such a formed vessel careen over, tion, as it would answer the threefold the more she careened, the more length purpose of being strong, weighty, and and body of the vessel would be immersed would leave sufficient capacity for the re in the fluid to leeward, whilst the conrequisite ballast which should be placed trary would be the case to windward ; so low. When the ballast is all fitted for the that the greater pressure of the fluid on formation of the vessel's bottom, a deck the lee side of the vessel, and acting upon could be laid over it, and so securely a little weather helm, would, in my opicaulked, that, in the event of leaking be nion, have a tendency to press her to low, the water would not flow up. windward of the course she was going;

Secondly, A vessel so formed would and as the sails of the rig incline remarkbe less liable to damage herself in the ably close to the wind, they, of course, event of striking a rock or any other hard will be of assistance in bringing out my substance, as the shock would be less hypothesis. sudden than that of a vessel with a per With respect to the stability of such a pendicular stem, and, unless she was to vessel, I think there can be no question ; stick exactly on the point, the chances because the ballast lying low, and the would be in her favour for again coming vessel having a good beam, sail may be off. Getting aground on a sand-bank she carried on until every mast went by the would not bump so heavily as a vessel board. with a long keel, whilst there would be The action of the wind, also, upon the little danger of her breaking her back. weather quarter of such a formed vessel,

Thirdly, The sailing qualities of such whilst beating to windward, would have a formed vessel will be good, and her no bad effect; the action of the wind property for quick turning unequalled, as upon a square-sterned vessel retards her both the rudder and sails can be made at progress. once to act in bringing her round.

In building a vessel upon this prin, Her weatherly qualities, I have no ciple, intended to possess the combined doubt, will be good. It is my opinion advantages of speed, weatherly qualities, that, with a six-knot breeze upon a wind, stability, and to be capable of performing where the water was smooth, and no cur rapid evolutions, it is required that she rent, she would make an equilateral tri must be constructed upon the strictest angular course; that is to say, if she were mathematical calculations ; that is to say, to sail six miles on one tack, and six miles the exact dimensions of that portion of on the other, she would go six miles to her bottom which is intended for the windward.

ballast to lie and hold her to wind,

ward, must be nicely determined, so as The sails are hoisted up by a single tie, to show as little resistance to the fluid as that reeves through the swivel at the possible; whilst, at the same time, it must mast-head, so that, in case the yards be exceedingly strong.

should be turned round and round, the It is my opinion that no more body of tie is always kept clear. When these a vessel (intended for fast-sailing wea sails are set tight, there is an equal strain therly qualities) ought to be immersed in on both leech ropes, and, as the greatest the fluid than what is actually necessary body of the canvass is low, the principal to secure her stability, and keep her to strain comes on the swivels at the stem. windward; as it stands to reason that all heads and the lower yards that spread long vessels must drag a certain portion them. of the fluid along with them, which tends The fore and after masts can be secured a little to retard their velocity. But it with shrouds on each side, and stays must also be remembered, that if there is from the main and main-top mast head. one square foot less of resisting surface The lower lifts will be sufficient support exposed to the fluid than what is neces to prevent the masts from bending upsary to keep to windward, it would be wards. equally as bad, because upon a wind the The main-mast may be rigged, and vessel would fall to leeward.

sails made to be worked on it, as on board The only disadvantages of the hull upon of any other square rigged-vessel; bat the new construction is, great draft of what I would recommend for small craft is, water, and unfitness for grounding in a that the top-gallant and royal mast (which tideway where it is hard, as she would will be one spar,) go sliding gunter falay over at a considerable angle. Were shion abaft the main and main-top mast, she to ground where the bottom was soft, which is also one spar. the last mentioned disadvantage would be When the top-gallant mast is struck, overcome.

its heel may be stepped on deck, so that, Were a vessel of this plan to be built when its backstays are set up, it will be upon a slip, a cradle for launching her in no burden upon the main mast, but could easily be constructed. Were she

rather a support. to be built in a dry dock, the water, of The square sails on the main-mast course, would just be allowed to flow in, have the advantage of receiving the full and she would float out; and in the event strength of the breeze from all points; of her requiring repairs, the necessary there being no eddy winds to affect them precaution would also be taken to have either from fore or mizen topsails. Sail. the ways suitable for the purpose.

ing off the wind, studding sails may be

set from all the yards as required. II. New Rig.

The safety of the foregoing rig in The advantages of the new rig are power, tacking, wearing, or boxhauling, is un. safety, and handiness, having a decided equalled. There is no danger apprehended superiority for expeditious working, and as there is in that of a main-boom jibbing; being capable of manoeuvring a vessel there is little danger of splitting sails, as through more evolutions with greater ex jibs are so liable to do. actness than any other rig that ever pre

The fore and aft equilateral sails go ceded it.

round on their centre: they are easily The fore and aft equilateral sails being worked, reduced, or taken in. set, a vessel is always under government From the sails being equally balanced when there is wind, and will never miss over the vessel, she is not so liable to pitch stays if properly managed; as the sails heavily as rigs where the greater quanhave an equal advantage of propelling and tity of canvass is before the centre of manæuvring astern as they have ahead. gravity.

The principle upon which these sails A vessel properly adapted for this rig are worked is simply this ; there are ought to be sufficiently large, so as to adyards fixed at the middle in swivels on mit of the lower yards working clear of each stem - head, those yards are kept from the heads of those standing on deck. topping either way by lifts that are made I may also remark, that, in performing fast to other swivels at the mast-heads. any of the evolutions above specified,

The sheets of the sails are hauled out there is no necessity to swing the lower with travellers round the yards.

yards round, unless the person who is work

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors][merged small]

The length of hull A C. Upon A C construct the equilateral triangle, A DC and AFC on the opposite side of the line. Join DF. Draw C E and A R parallel to D F. Make the angles C F E, A F R, equal to DFA, DFC. Produce DC, DA. Through the angles of meeting R and E, draw the line PROBLEM, and it is finished. Then will ROBLE represent the length of hull, B F will be the depth, FE, F R the stem and stern posts, FOX, FLC the fore and after masts. F B D the main mast. PRO, LEM, is the length of the fore and after yards. Twice CEM or ARP are the fore and after sails. AC will be the length of main stays, and A D, C D the main-top-gallant stays.

PATENT LAW CASES.

Crane v. Price, and others. (We gave very briefly in our last Number the substance of the judgment in this important case ; but have since been favoured by the plaintiff with the following literal copy of the shorthand-writer's notes.)

Judgment. The Lord Chief Justice Tindall :- This was an action on the case for the infringement of a patent granted to the plaintiff on the 28th of September, 1836, for an improvement in the manufacture of iron. The declaration was in the usual form, and the defendants pleaded thereto, first, that they were not guilty ; secondly, that the plaintiff was not the first and true inventor of the said improvement

upon each of which pleas issue was joined ;-thirdly, after setting out at length the plaintiff's specification, the defendants pleaded that the alleged improvement therein described was not a new manufacture invented by the plaintiff within the intent and meaning of the statute, as to the public use and exercise thereof in England; which allegation was traversed by the plaintiff in his replication ; fourthly, the defendant pleaded that the nature of the plaintiff's invention, and the manner in which it was to be performed, was not particularly described or ascertained by the plaintiff in his specification-upon which plea issue was joined ;-and in their last plea, the defendants, after referring to the plaintiff's specification before set out in the third plea, stated the grant of letters patent, dated the 11th of September, 1828, to one James Beaumont Neilson, for an improved application of air to produce heat in fires, forges and furnaces, where bellows and other blowing apparatus were required—that Neilson's invention was the production and application of a hot-air blast, and was in public use with Neilson's licence in the smelting and manufacturing of iron from iron-stone, and was the hot-air blast in the plaintiff's specification mentioned—that the plaintiff could not use the hot-air blast mentioned in his specification without Neilson's licence, and that he had obtained such licence before the grant of his letters patent, and that the

Draw O U the length of hull, which bisect at C with the line Z & produced on both sides. With Ith the length of hull in your compasses, place one foot in U and the other in I, and describe the arch UO; and, with the same distance in your compaces, place

using, by the plaintiff, of the hot-air blast iron from iron-stone, mine, or ore. And the in the smelting of iron from iron-stone, com question, therefore, becomes this, whether bined with anthracite or stone-coal, as men admitting the using of the hot-air blast to tioned in his specification, was a using and imi. have been known before in the manufacture tating of Neilson's invention, whereby the of iron with bituminous coal, and the use plaintiff's patent was void. The plaintiff replied of anthracite and stone-coal to have been to this last plea that Neilson's invention was known before in the manufacture of iron not the same hot-air blast; and that the ma. with cold-blast ; but that the combination chinery and apparatus adapted for the applica of the two together (the hot-blast and the tion thereof, mentioned and referred to in the anthracite) were not known to be combined plaintiff's specification, was not, nor was the before in the manufacture of iron, whether using by the plaintiff of the invention, as such combination can be the subject of a described in his specification, a using and patent. We are of opinion that if the reimitating of Neilson's invention, described sult produced by such a combination is either in Neilson's specification ; which allegation a new article, or a better article, or a cheaper is traversed by the defendants in their re article to the public than that produced be. joinder. At the trial before me, a verdict fore by the old method, that such combinawas entered for the plaintiff on all the issues, tion is an invention or manufacture intended subject to the opinion of the Court, upon by the statute, and may well become the the evidence given at the trial, as contained subject of a patent. Such an assumed state in a report agreed upon between the parties, of facts falls clearly within the principle exthe Court being at liberty to draw the same emplified by Abbot, Chief Justice, in the inference from it as a jury might draw. On case of The King v Wheeler, 2d Barnewall the argument it was contended by the de. and Adolphus, 349, where he is determining fendants, that the verdict ought to be entered what is, or what is not the subject of a pafor them on each of the issues joined on the tent, namely, it may perhaps extend to a record ; but as the main question between new proces to be carried on by known inthe parties turns on the third issue, which plements or elements acting upon known involves the question whether the invention substances, and ultimately producing some of the plaintiff is a manufacture within the other known substance, but producing it in intent and meaning of the statute of James, a cheaper or more expeditious manner, or a that is, whether it is or is not the subject better or more useful kind; and it falls, matter of a patent; and as the determina. also, within the doctrine laid down by Lord tion of this issue in favour of the one party or Eldon, in Hill v. Thompson, in 3rd Merivale, the other will render the decision of the other 629, namely, there may be a valid patent for issues free from difficulty, the simplest way a known combination of materials previouswill be to apply ourselves in the first instance ly in use, for the same purpose or even for to that question. Now in order to deter a new method of applying such materials; mine whether the improvement described in but the specification must clearly express the patent is, or is not a manufacture within that it is in respect of such new combingthe statute, we must, in the first place, as tion or application. There are numerous certain precisely what is the invention claimed instances of patents which have been granted, by the plaintiff, and then by the application where the invention consisted in no more of some principles admitted and acknow than in the use of things already known, and ledged in the application of the law relating acting with them in a manner already known, to patents, and by the authority of decided and producing effects already known; but procases, determine the question in dispute be ducing those effects so as to be more econotween the parties. The plaintiff describes mically or beneficially enjoyed by the public. the object of his invention to be the ap It will be sufficient to refer to a few instanplication of anthracite, or stone-coal, com ces, some of which patents have failed on bined with hot-air blast, in the smelting other grounds, but none on the ground that or manufacture of iron from iron-stone, the invention itself was not the subject of a mine, or ore, and states distinctly and patent. We may first instance Hall's patent unequivocally at the end of his specification for applying the flame of gas to sidge off the that he does not claim the use of a hot-air superfluous fibres of lace, where a flame of blast separately as of his invention, when oil had been used before for that same pur. uncombined with the application of anthra pose; Derosne's patent, in which the invention cite or stone-coal; nor does he claim the consisted in filtering the syrup of sugar application of anthracite or stone-coal, when through a filter, to act with animal charcoal, uncombined with the using of hot-air blast; and charcoal from bituminous schistus, where but that what he claims as his invention, is charcoal had been used before in the filter. the application of anthracite, or stone-coal ing of almost every other liquor except the and culm, combined with the using of hot syrup of sugar; Hill's patent in 3d 'Meri. alr blast, in the smelting and manufacture of vale abors referred to, for improvements in

PATENT LAW CASES.

509 the smelting and working of iron, there the den and lucky thought, or mere accidental invention consisted only in the use and ap discovery. The Case of Monopolies, 11th plication of the slags or cinders thrown off Coke, states the law to be, that where a man, by the operation of smelting, which had by his own charge or industry, or by his own been previously considered useless for the wit or invention, brings a new trade into the production of good and serviceable metal realm, or any engine tending to the furtherby the admixture of mine rubbish ; again, ance of a trade, that never was used before, Daniel's patent was taken out for improve and that was for the good of the realm, that ments in dressing woollen cloth, where the the King may grant him the monopoly of a invention consisted in immersing a roll of patent for a reasonable time. If the combicloth, manufactured in the usual manner, nation now under consideration be, as we into hot water. -See The King o Daniel, in think it is, a manufacture within the statute Mr. Godson's book on patents, 274. The of James the First, there was abundant evi. only question, therefore, that ought to be dence in the cause, that it had been the considered on the evidence is, was the iron great object and desideratum, before the produced by the combination of the hot granting of the patent, to smelt iron stone, by blast and the anthracite a better or a cheaper the means of anthracite coal, and that it had article than was produced from the combi never been done before : there is no evidence nation of the hot-blast and the bituminous on the part of the defendants to meet that coal ? and was the combination described in which the plaintiff brought forward. These the specification new, as to the public use considerations, therefore, enable us to direct thereof in England? And upon the first that the verdict ought to be entered for the point, upon looking at the evidence in the plaintiff, on the third issue ; that it was a cause, we think there is no doubt that the new manufacture-new as to the public use result of the combination of the hot-blast and exercise thereof within England and with the anthracite, on the yield of the fur Wales. On the same ground, also, the senaces was more, the nature, properties, and cond issue is disposed of in favour of the quality of the iron, better, and the expense plaintiff: no evidence was produced on the of making the iron less, than it was under part of the defendant to show any inventor the former process, by means of the combi earlier than the plaintiff; nor does the fact nation of the hot-blast with the bituminous that there was an earlier inventor appear from coal. It is to be observed, that no evidence the cross-examination of the plaintiff's wit. was produced on the part of the defendants

As to the first issue, namely, wheto meet that given by the plaintiff on these ther the defendants had infringed the patent, grounds, and that it was a necessary conse we think it clearly apper.rs on the evidence, quence, from the proof in the cause, that that the defendants hari used, either in part the substitution of the anthracite coal, in or in whole, the combination described in whole or in part, instead of, or in the place the specification of the plaintiff's patent ; of bituminous coal, from the substitution of the plaintiff's evidence goes fully to show that, the manufacture of the iron should be certain infringernents, and that is not met obtained at less expense. It was objectedby any explanation on the part of the de. in the course of the argument, that the fendants. Indeed, the defendants' case did quality or degree of invention was so small, not appear to rest on this point at the trial that it could not become the subject matter so much as on the important question raised of a patent;-that a person who could pro by them, whether the improvement described cure a license to use the hot-air blast under in the specification was a manufacture within Neilson's patent, had a full right to apply the statute of James? Upon the fourth that blast to coal of any nature whatever, issue, which raised no more than the usual whether bituminous or stone coal. But we inquiry—whether the nature of the inven. think, if it were necessary to consider the la tion was sufficiently described in the speci. bour, pains, and expense incurred by the fication—the usual evidence was given, that plaintiff, in bringing his discovery to per persons of competent skill and experience fection, that there is evidence in this cav.se could, by following the direction, produce that the expense was considerable, and the the manufacture described, with success, and experiments numerous. But in point of law, this evidence was entirely unopposed; upon the labour of thought or experiments, and this issue, also, the verdict ought to be enthe expenditure of money, are not the essen tered for the plaintiff. With respect, how. tial grounds of consideration on which the ever, to the issue raised in the rejoinder in question-whether the invention is or is not the plaintiff's replication to the fifth plea, we the subject-matter of a patent? ought to are of opinion, that taking the whole evidepend; for if the invention be new and dence brought forward by the plaintiff, it is useful to the public, it is not material whe. impossible to perceive any substantial or ther it be the result of long experiments and real distinction between the hot-air blast, profound research, or whether by some sud and the muchinery and apparatus described

nesses.

« ZurückWeiter »