nuisance of a smoky factory, but a money consideration of the advantages to be obtained by such abatement; and it will not be denied, that economy may induce many to undertake what philanthropy would in vain have urged them to attempt. Falling in with this weakness, inventors find the readiest road to the ear of manufacturers to be the promise of economy in the measures they propose. Many indeed broadly say,"What do I care for the smoke my factory chimney makes? I do no more than my neighbours; but, if I allow you to try your plan, what saving will it produce, how much less fuel shall I consume, or how much more steam will my boiler produce?" Thus the individual whose nuisance is to be abated requires to know, not how much he is to pay for abating it, but how much he is to gain if he undertakes it.

"We are not, however, to treat the nuisance-makers as we would a set of truant children, and promise them the sugar plums of economy and savings if they will but abstain from doing mischief, and infecting the atmosphere of our towns. This would be unworthy of both. It is the business of a committee to say, that a public nuisance exists-that it may be abated-and that the public good demands that it should. There can be no objection to add, as a justification for recommending coercive measures, that, having investigated the several proposed methods, it appears that more or less of economy will certainly attend the adoption of remedial measures. The relative degrees of economy, however, or its direct causes, it is not for them to determine, inasmuch as they depend on a variety of circumstances wholly foreign to their object. This is an important point, and I will illustrate it by some examples.

Improved combustion and improved evaporation are as essentially different, as the action of the copper of a still differs from that of its condensing worm. The evaporative effect of the former may far exceed the condensing power of the latter. So the improved state of a furnace may find no corresponding improvement in the boiler. The error of estimating the value of any proposed system of combustion by the quantity of steam generated, is dangerous and defective, and should be carefully avoided. Something of the kind appeared at the late meeting in this theatre, though not in the same degree as at the Leeds meeting, where a distinct series of questions were put to each patentee. These were "How long has your plan been tried? What effect had it on the boilers? What had been the saving of fuel?" Now the mere enunciation of such a course of inquiry offers the most convincing proof of the existence of an erro

493

neous view of the subject on the part of the public.

"Were I to suggest queries, such as would elicit useful or necessary information, they should be in this train:-To what extent was visible smoke reduced? Did the interior of the furnace and flues exhibit more or less flame and heat? What means have you of ascertaining whether more or less heat was generated? What was the temperature of the escaping products by the chimney? Was it increased or diminished? Was the draught increased by your system? there a greater or lesser concentration of heat in the furnace, or was it more uniformly distributed along the flues? What means have you of ascertaining these several facts, beyond the mere appearance at the chimney tops? Does your plan require any and what adjustment in the admission of air, by valve or otherwise? Does the fire require any particular mode of management?

Was

"A series of such like questions could readily be framed, which would at once test the merits of the several plans. Such a list of questions from the committee would soon be adopted by the public, and to these questions written replies would soon be required. Instead of a series of such questions, the cry is, "What saving will be effected?" Yet the amount of saving to be realized by any plan for effecting a more perfect combustion, depends on many different considerations, and opens a wide and difficult subject. I call on any practical man to show the extent to which an improved system of combustion in the furnace refers to an improved system of generating steam in the boiler; for in this lies the main question, and our main source of error. I will here illustrate it by a practical reference.

low

"The experimental furnace and boiler now in Fennel-street, when first erected in Liverpool on the old plan, produced much smoke, and had a bad draught from a narrow, chimney. The interior of the flues was filled with a dense black cloud of smoke and soot; their temperature was very low, and the evaporative power of the boiler at a corresponding low point. On admitting air to the gases behind the bridge, the whole was changed; the gases which before had been converted into smoke, were now converted into flame, and gave much heat. This was attended with a greatly increased temperature in the flues, and a greater amount of evaporation in the boiler; still the evaporation was low, and apparently disproportioned to the increased quantity of heat generated and filling the flues; yet the combustion was as perfect as possible, and equal to what is seen in the most improved lamp. From an inspection of the interior, by means of sight holes, and from the high temperature and

494

increased draught apparent in the flues, it was manifest that much of the heat generated by the improved combustion was escaping by the chimney. It was equally manifest, that the boiler was unable to take up the heat generated in the furnace and flues, and thus was the low amount of evaporation accounted for. The mystery was thus at once solved; the fault was proved to lie with the boiler, and its limited heatabsorbing faculty, and not in the heat-generative faculty of the furnace, which appeared almost perfection.

"Having discovered the disease, I set about devising the remedy. In this case, the evaporation being low, engineers, under the old system, would have recommended enlarging the fire-grate. This was the usual and infallible remedy, as we find it laid down in so many treatises, under the old smokemaking system, with imperfect combustion, where the flues did little in producing evaporation, and the heat from the furnace itself, and a few feet beyond it, had to do the greater part of the work. To enlarge the furnace, while set on the old plan, as it would enlarge the radiating surface, would certainly have produced a greater measure of evaporation. In the boiler in question, however, as set on the new plan, it only increased the consumption of fuel, without materially increasing the evaporation, seeing that the flues were already filled with a current of heat beyond what the boiler could absorb. The remedy, manifestly, would have been a new and enlarged boiler, with enlarged absorbing surfaces, thus to take up that redundant heat which was then lost by the chimney. As this was impracticable, the only alternative lay in increasing the absorbing power of the flue surface. This was accomplished by the introduction of a series of conduction pins, as already described; and the evaporative effect was at once so considerably raised, that the same quantity of water was evaporated in 21 minutes, which before had required 28 minutes, and from the same weight of fuel. This increased heat-absorbing faculty was also satisfactorily confirmed by the important fact, that the temperature of the escaping heat was proportionably diminished.

'Now, had I been asked, as Mr. Houldsworth was, at the late meeting, as to the result of the new plan, in the first instance I should have said, that, as far as was evidenced by the generation of steam, the saving was 5 or 10 per cent.; but subsequently, and without any increased consumption of fuel, I must have said 20 or 30 per cent. more. Do we not thus see the danger of considering the question of economy, as indicated by the amount of evaporation, and not sufficiently distinguishing between the

functions of the boiler and those of the furnace? Let improved plans of furnaces be tested by the increased quantity of heat they produce, and the boiler by the quantity of this heat which it can apply in the generation of steam; but let these two essentially different results be not confounded.”

[To be concluded in our next.]

IMPORTANT PATENT LAW CASES.

Court of Common Pleas.
June 13.

Crane v. Price and others.

The Judgment.

[For a full report of the argument in this case, see Mechanics' Magazine, Feb. 5, 1842, No. 965.] The Court now gave judgment in this important case, which was fully argued two terms ago, when various objections were raised to the patent, the principal one being that the combination of hot blast with anthracite in the manufacture of iron, was not a new manufacture within the statute of James, hot blast having before been used with bituminous coal, and anthracite having been used before with cold blast.

The Lord Chief Justice Tindal, in delivering the judgment of the Court said"We are of opinion that if the result produced by such a combination is either a new article, or a better article, or a cheaper article, to the public, than that produced before by the old method, that such a combination is an invention or manufacture intended by the statute, and may well become the subject of a patent. There are numerous instances of patents which have been granted where the invention consisted in no more than in the use of things already known, and acting with them in a manner already known, and producing effects already known, but producing those effects so as to be more economically or beneficially enjoyed by the public; as Hall's, "for applying the flame of gas to singe off the superfluous fibres of lace and Derosne's," in which the invention consisted in filtering the syrup of sugar through charcoal, which had been used before in filtering almost every thing except the syrup of sugar; and Hill's patent for the use of slags or cinders, previously considered useless in the manufacture of iron. The only question. therefore, to be considered on the evidence is, was the iron produced a better or cheaper article than was produced before? Upon these points, on looking at the evidence, it appears that the yield of the furnace was more, the nature, properties, and quality of the iron better, and the expense of making the iron less. It was objected that the quality or degree of invention was so small that it could not become the subject of a patent; and that any one, with a licence from

Neilson, had a full right to apply the hotblast to any coal. But, in point of law, the labour of thought, or experiments, and the expenditure of money, are not the essential grounds of consideration on which the question whether the invention is or is not the subject matter of a patent, ought to depend. For, if the invention be new, and useful to the public, it is not material whether it be the result of long experiment and profound research or the result of some sudden and lucky thought, or mere accidental dis

covery.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Court of Queen's Bench,

June 15.

Sandiford v. Neild and others.

This was an action for the infringment of the plaintiff's patent of June, 1838, for certain improvements in the art of block printing, and in the arrangements connected therewith.

The Attorney General, Mr. M. D. Hill, and Mr. Crompton, were counsel for the plaintiff; Messrs. Kelly and Webster for the defendants.

The specification described the invention to consist in making light frames of wood or other material, to which moveable patterns were attached, by which means printing surfaces might be formed, having many times the area of the ordinary blocks, and large enough to print handkerchiefs, with border patterns, at one impression, and light enough to be easily managed by hand. The specification also described the invention to consist in a method of arranging the pattern on the blocks in several strips or portions at the same impression, and in completing the impression, by advancing the block forward at each impression by a distance equal to the width of one of these portions of the pattern, so that if the block contained three patterns, the whole impression or print on the fabric would be completed by three impressions of the block.

The defendants used a machine, the subject of a patent granted to Hampson in 1840, also for improvements in block printing, in which the blocks were solid heavy blocks, made in the same manner as the ordinary blocks, but sufficiently large to print a square equal to the width of the piece, and having the pattern cut and brassed on the face of the block, but arranged in six or more portions. A separate colour was transferred to each of these portions by a sieve of peculiar construction.

The block was counterbalanced over a pulley, and moved by the hand, and gave the impression by the blow on its descent. The fabric to be printed was advanced by

495

machinery at each impression a space equal to the width of one portion of the pattern on the block, that is, if the face of the block had a pattern arranged in six divisions, the whole printing would be completed by six successive impressions.

The alleged infringement was, the using these large blocks, having the pattern so arranged as to print over the same portion of the cloth several times; the block at each descent overlaying, with a fresh colour and pattern, a portion previously printed.

The defendants, among other things, pleaded, that the invention, the infringement of which was complained of, viz., the arranging the pattern in a particular manner, and the printing over the same piece of cloth more than once, instead of completing each portion by one impression, was not a manufacture, or the subject of the patent laws.

The counsel for the defendants, at the close of the plaintiff's case, called on the learned judge to direct a verdict for the defendants on these points. They contended that the one part of such invention was a mode of arrangement which might have been the subject of protection by registration, but that any particular pattern, or set of patterns, cut and brassed on blocks in the usual manner, was no manufacture, and that the other part of the invention was a particular mode of using a block which, when combined with appropriate machinery, would be a manufacture; but, unless so combined, could not be considered in law an invention to be protected by letters patent-that in short it was a mere mode of using, which was not of itself a manufacture, though it might be rendered so.

The learned judge reserved these and some other objections, as there were several questions to be disposed of by the jury.

The defendants put in the specification of a patent of Mr. Applegath's, of November, 1836, from which, and the subsequent practice, it appeared that frames having the pattern or blocks fastened to them, so as to be moveable, had been used before the date of the plaintiff's patent; and in which the cloth was advanced in successive portions according to the number of patterns and colours to be printed.

The jury found a verdict for the defendants.

ABSTRACTS OF SPECIFICATIONS OF ENGLISH PATENTS RECENTLY ENROLLED. WM. EDWARD NEWTON, OF CHANCERYLANE, C. E., for certain improvements in the production of ammonia. (Communicated by a foreigner residing abroad.) Petty Bag Office, May 9, 1842.

The present improvements in the production of ammonia, consist in producing it