Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

the weather.. The learned counsel proceeded to observe on the specification and drawings, explaining to the jury the several modes of manufacture. From the descriptions given, we gathered that for standing rigging a series of iron wires were laid in a straight or parallel line, or salvagee fashion; the tension, which in no way diminishes the size of the rope, or lengthens the same, and which is necessary, to obtain an equal strength, being acquired by application of machinery to that object. The specimens submitted to the jury varied from 14 inch to 3 inches in circumference, and the wires of which surh ropes were formed from 50 to 150; the rope this formed is then di ped in a solution of Indian rubber, and the interstices so filled up; it is then “ parcelled," or covered with a binding of woollen list, so as to exclude the moisture, and to protect the wires from oxidation; this being done, the rope is “served over," or bound round with spun yarn, so that, when finished, it represents the appearance of the ordinary hempen ripe, with the exception of its being one-half the size of that of hemp. One of the grounds of defence was, that lines, or strings of hemp. forming a rope, or rigging, of a similar construction to that of the wire rope, had ben used, such lines or strings having been " served" as with the wire rope or rigzing, and thus that there was no novelty in the invention; but he would be prepared to show, and it was perhaps, a question for the court to determine, whether the application of wire, as in this case, was not a manufacture under the Act, inasmuch that, although the application might be the same, the material used was altogether dissimilar. The defence, as he understood it, was, that the manufacture of the two ropes, or standing riggingthat is, of hemp and wire-were similar in their construction, but that the patent could thus be upset he considered absurd, inasmuch that he would, by evidence of witnesses who had been engaged in maritime affairs for many years, prove the superiority of the wire rigging over that of hemp, and give their evidence as to its utility, and the advantages it afforded. With regard to the second patent, that was simply an improvement on the first, in making the loop, or so splicing the wire, as to obtain a firm hold. The learned counsel proceeded to call his witnesses.

Mr. Whellan, seventy-two years of age, was & master rigger in Liverpool, and had been forty years employed in that capacity. He had never known of wire rigging being used before the date of plaintiff's patent in 1835. Has since fitted the Great Lirer pool, of 1,400 tons, with rigging of that de'scription; the John Garrow, Guadalupe, and many others; considered the invention as useful, and that the wire rope had a decided advantage as to strength, at the same time that it was less bulky, and consequently held less wind. Witness considered that its application was equally advantageous to sailing-vessels and steamers. The Great Liverpool was fitted about five years since, and the John Garrow in 1839, which vessel was now in Liverpool, the rigging having stood the weather. Upon the cross examination of this witness by Mr. Corrie, he stated that he had been engaged in fitting steam-vessels for the past twenty years; that the rigging had been, so far as the funnel was concerned, part iron chains, and part lempen rope—the chain being used to prevent ignition by sparks from the chimney.

Mr. Binks was foreman of the plaintiff, and had manufact red the wire rigging. He had, from an early age, bien employed under government as a rope-inaker, having been thirty-four years in that employment, and, for the past eight years, been engaged by the plaintiff in the manufacture of wire standing rigging and ropes; had never heard of wire rope or rigging before the patent of Mr. Smith: considered it a very desirable thing, and believed that any one might manufacture the article from ihe description giveu in the specification, which was so simple, that no difficulty could exist wjih any practical man ; the second patent was an improvement on the first, in forming the loop and splicing, which were imperfect in the original patent.

Mr. Shaw, marine manager of the City of Dublin and Oriental Steam Companies, had heard, by chance, of the patented wire standing rigging, in 1838, he was induced to test it, and accordingly applied it to vessels belonging to the City of Dublin Steam Company; the result had been highly satisfactory, and he had since used it in numerous instances in preference to hempen rope. He considered the invention invaluable, and, as an evidence of the high opinion he entertained of it he had fitted his own yacht with it, and the more experience he had of its properties, and the advantages attendant on its use, the more he was pleased and satisfied of its merits. Not only was there greater lightness of the material employed, but the security and strength of the standing rigging so manufactured, as well as the less resistance it offered to the wind, formed important features as regarded steam-vessels ; but the advantages were not confined to this description of vessels, but were equally applicable, and perhaps more so under peculiar circumstances, to sailing.vessels, embracing men-of-war, as there was less surface presented in case of battle to the action of shot, and so far as his own experience went, confirmed, as such was hy Mr. Snow Harris and others, the lightning conduetoss constructed on the same principle by the plaintff were proved to be superior to any which had been subunitted. He was now titting the Hindostan with the like rigging, and had, in fact, adopted it in every instance since he had become aware of its valuable properties. In the tropics the wire rope, he considered, would be invaluable, and, as an evidence of its lasting properties, he stated that he had rigged a vessel which, after three years, was found to be in as good order as when the wire rigging was first applied. As to the expense, he considered the wire rope cheaper, taking strength for strength, as compared with that of hemp.- Mr. Shaw, on crossexamination, stated that he had been connected with, and had directed his attention to steam.Ves. sels for the last eighteen years; that he had never known wires, or rods of iron, to be bound together in a lateral positinti, but that rods of iron had been connected by rings or eyes, and so applied to the funnels as stays or ropes, but that such were quite

* The following curious calculations are extracted from a printed paper drawn up by the plaintiff and circulated in court during the trial:-" The weight of standing rigging now fitted and afloat in the navy is about 7,000 tons; and, taking the price of hempen rope at 161. per ton, the value of a first outfit for the whole of the navy will be 322,0001., upon which, by using my wire rope for the same purpose, a saving would be effected of 107,3331., without taking into consideration the more than triple time that wire rope will last. It may also be observed, that the wire rope only exposes two-fifths of the surface to the wind, thus rendering ships rigged with wire to those with hemp less leewardly. It appears that 2303 lbs. of hempen ropes thus applied expose a surface of 1,264 square feet to the wind, whereas, the wire rope, possessing strength as 804 wire is to 634 hemp, exposes only 515 square feet; and, as the whole surface of hempen standing rigging now fitted in the navy exposes (according to the above calcuJation) a surface of 860,000 square feet, whereas, the wire rope has only one of 344,000 square feetlenving a difference in favour of wire rope of 529,112 square feet; and, allowing the mean force of the wind to be 11b, upon the square foot, the power saved on a leeway would be equal to about 4000horse power, or equal to the canvas of more than the whole of the sails of twenty-four frigates, and the displacement saved would be about 3500 tons, which would be equal to about 700.horse powerinaking a saving, in all, of 1700 horse power; and if this is called money, by charging 201. per horse, it will be a saving of about 100,0004.; and, with the 105,0001., being the difference of the first cost of an outfit, it makes a total of above 200,0001. every three years."

distinct and different from the patent of the plaintist, which consisted of a number of wires bound together, and covered, or immersed, in a solution, and then “served" with spun yarn. The witness was examined at considerable length as to wire rope, or rigging, having been used for other purposes, and reference was made to the Menai and other suspension bridges, but it appeared that the witness had no knowledge of any application of wire in the form patented, the several bridges referred to being composed of chains and rod-iron. Witness had seen a bridge at Rouen constructed of Fire, but which was not protected by any serving, or corering, being exposed to the action of the atmosphere--the severai wires being buoped, or clamped, together at certain distances.

Captain Beris, R. N., liolding an appointment under Government, at Liverpool, as superintendent of the Mail Department. He had, by the directions of the Admiralty, examined and carefully surveyed the John Garrow, an iron vessel, (800 tons) rigged with the plaintift's wire rope, and had reported thereon; that he found the patent rigging to answer every purpose, and considered it as an excellent invention; the rigging he found to be in a perfect state, having examined it with care; in his opinion the wire rigging had an advantage over that or hemp-upwards of twenty Government vessels had been filled with that description of rigging.

Mr. Robertson, a rope-maker, was in the habit of making standing riggiig; he had rigged thirty yessels with the wire rigging, not of his own manufacture, but with that of the plaintiff's; never knew such description until the patent of the plaintiff's ; had read the specifications of the several paients of 1831 and 1837; and could readily manufacture the rope or sigging from the description therein given, and the accompanyi:g drawings.

Mr. Grantham, who is an engineer, and largely embarked in iron ship building, (the author of a work lately reviewed in our columns,) deposed that having read the specifications, and examined the drawings, he should feel no difficulty i manufat. turing the standing rigging, or rope, as therein described; had been practically acquainted with engineering and mechanics for the past seventeen or eighteen years; could not apprehend that the slightest dilliculty would present itself to any person in the mauufacture under the specification; had never heard of any similar application of iron wire, or rods, as that comprehended in the patent, and which he considered exceedingly valuable, and a useful invention.

On cross-examination the witness stated, that he was an engineer by profession--that he had never known wire applied io rope, or heard of the invention antecedent io the plaintift's patent. The counsel for the defendant having drawn the attention of the witness to the manufacture of a toasting-fork, which vas composed of twisted wire, he admitted that such an application was certainly not novel, but thought it distinct from a rope or rigging--had seen wire employed in many ways, but never as a rope until the plaintiff s patent. Witne-s described the specification, as understood by him, and expressed his belief that the mean ng of the claim put forward by the patentee was that of embracing the manufac are of all metallic ropes, or combination of wires according to the specification, without reference to the metal of which such wire is composed.

Mr. Hindmarsh then put in admissions of the parents and specifications, and the fact that the defendant had infringed them, which were read, and closed the plaintiit's case - the learned counsel admitting that, from the absence of a witness, he had no evidence to show that the second patent had been infringed.

Mr. Corrie proceeded to address the jury on the merits of the case, and directed the attention of the learned judge to the legal and technical objections which he considered might be fairly brought forward, and which could nor, in his opinion, have any other effect than that of obtaining a verdict for his client. The manufacturewhich the plaintiff claimed

to himself was in reality no invention of a new manufacture, and the specification was nothing more than a general claim; indeed, on reference to the words in which the specification was summed up, it would be apparent to his Lordship that there were no grounds for the action whereon the plaintiff could claim a verdict. It had been shown that rods, or links, of iron had been previously used for standing rigging, or stays, on board of ressels, and he believed his Lordship and the Jury would be of opinion that the manufacture was by no means novel or deserving of that protection contemplated and acquired under the statute of James. Again, supposing for a moment that it should be in the opinion of the court as coming under such statute, and was designated a manufacture, he should then contend that such manufacture was not novel, inasmuch that he had an illustration sufficient for his purpose in the manufacture of a toasting-furk, which, being composed of twisted wires, was, in fact, the same as the wire rope, or standing rigging -the material of which it was composed being the same.

The Presiding Judge (Baron Maule) here inter: rupted Mr. Corrie, by observing that it was a very different thing to toast bread on a toasting-fork, and to make a rope of wire--the idea seemed to him ab. surd.

Mr. Corrie continued, by adverting to cases which had been determined, and on which he relied, as precedents in the present instance. The learned counsel admitted the usefulness and value of the invention, which, he observed, could not be controverted after the evidence afforded that day: but he contended there was no novelty in such invention to which the plaintiff could lay claim.

Mr Baron Maule having submitted to the counsel for the plaintiff that a question might be left with the Court to determine whether the invention or manufacture was a fit subject for a patent,

Mr. Hindmarsh preferred leaving the question to be decided by the Jury.

The learned Judge then summed up the evidence and observed that, if the question had been left with him, he should at once have declared the patent good.

On application made by the counsel for the defendant, leave was given to move for a nonsuit on one of the counts, and with such reservation, the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.

The Judge expressed bis readiness to certify for costs.

Smith v. Watson. This was a second action between the same parties, as in the former case, involving the merits of a further patent taken out by the plaintiff in the year 1839, for the manufacture of wire rope, in a form and manner dissimilar from the two patents of 1835 and 1836, being a twisted rope formed of strands as in the manufacture of hempen rope, the only difference being in the material. The address of the learned counsel for the plaintiff was a mere echo of his speech on the first action, and the evidence generally throughout was a mere repetition or confirmation of that previously given, the only difference being, that the evidence here given related to the merits of the wire rope, and nct to that of standing rigging or salvagee rope.

Mr. Mayes, a rigger, employed on the Blackwall Railway, deposed that in the course of his duties he had laid down sixteen miles of hempen rope on the railway when first opened, the circumference of which was from 5 inches to 75 inches. The wire rope of the plaintiff had been applied on the railway upwards of twelve months since: the carriages on the line were drawn by a length of rope which was drawn or wound over a drum by means of stationary engines at the termini. Wimess had never heard of any wire rope until he became acquainted with that of the plaintitl's. The wire rope had been found to answer ihe purpose, and the consequence was that the use of hempen rope had been discontinued, and the whole of the line was now worked

[ocr errors][merged small]

by wire rope. Had tested the strength of wire rope of four inches circumference with various specimens of hempen rope, varying in size from 51 inches to 7) inches, and found the former to be of greater strength than the latter. Had never known ihe plaintiff's rope to break, although the swivels and splicings had in some instances given way. The hempen rope, when in use, was subject to continued breakages, having known the rope to break two or three times in one day. Witness considered the invention as useful, and more economical, from there being less wear and tear, as also froin its being of smaller circumference, and less weight.

Mr. Woods, engineer of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, disposed to the plaintiff's wire rope being used in the tunnel at the Liverpool terminus. It was found to answer the purpose, but not having been at work any considerable length of time he could not undertake to draw a comparison between it and hemp. The size of the rope was 4-inch diameter, or 24-in. circumference; the hempen rope which had been previously used was a 11-inch; the rope worked over a drum of 3 feet diameter.

Mr. Leslie, the manager of the Anderton Carrying Company, had applied the wire rope of the plaintiff to raising weights, and also on an inclined plane. He was formerly prejudiced against it, but since he had tested its properties he had arrived at the conclusion that it was an invaluable invention, and of great benefit to the community,

Mr. Corrie, on the part of the defendant put in, as evidence, the drawing which accompanied the specification of the patent of 1836, to which he directed the attention of the jury, the learned counsel contending that the twisted wire rope was comprehended in that patent, and, therefore, could not be claimed under the patent of 1839. To illustrate this view of the case, he proceeded to remark on the similarity displayed in the patents of 1836 and 1839, as related to che twisting of the wire, it appearing, however, that in the former case the wire was simply entwined in forming a splice, while in the latter it was regularly laid in strands and formed as a hempen rope.

The learned Judge thought the jury could not do otherwise than give a verdict for the plaintiff, which was done accordingly.

[We have copied the reports of the two preceding cases from the Mining Journal, but have taken the liberty to omit some portions in which the reporter appears to have departed from the line of strict impartiality, which reporters of law proceedings ought invariably to observe. Indeed, we must confess, that when we couple the partizan character of these reports, as given by our contemporary, with certain strange rumours which are abroad respecting the bona fide character of the proceedings reported, we have our doubts whether we should not have done better to omit them altogether. Some of the evidence adduced for the plaintiff certainly is, on the face of it, of a most suspicious description. Take that of the witness Mayes, for example :could no person of more authority than a common labourer be found to speak to the result of the trial made of the plaintiff's wire rope on the Blackwall Railway? Where was Mr. Bidder ? Or Captain Kouth? Mayes swears that the wire rope (meaning Smith's) has been found io"answer the purpose,' and that the consequence has been "that the use of hempen rope has been discontinued, and the whole line of road worked by wire rope" (meaning Smith's wire rope). We question much whether Mr. Bidder or Captain Routh, or any other respectable gentleman connected with the line, would have sworn as much. We have always understood that Smith's wiie rope, so far from answering the purpose on this line liad proved a failure, and that another sort of a much superior description, patented by Mr.

The Queen v. Bynner. [THE SOLAR LAMP PATENT.] We have already, (p. 48 of our present vol.) stated generally that the verdict in this case was for the Crown, whereby the patent has been annulled; but as it may be interesting to many of our readers to know more precisely the grounds for this decision, we now now give a verbal report of the charge of the Judge, (Coleridge) and finding of the Jury, as they are reported in a very long and special account of the trial which appears in the Birmingham Gazette of the 15th inst.

"The Learned Judge after explaining to the Jury the law as applicable to this case, very distinctly analyzed the whole of the evidence, presenting to their consideration cach particular point insisted upon by the prosecution contrasted with the counter-evidence, whereby the defendant endeavoured to refute the same, and, after going through the whole of the case with great clearness and care, which occupied his Lordship about three hours, left the following points for the consideration of the Jury:-Whether a precise size of aperture in the deflector and height above the flame were essential to produce the effect ?- Whether the specitication, aided by the drawings, sufficiently described such size and height?-Whether the peculiar chimney described as essential to produce the fullest effect was beneficial ? And whether the invention could be used with “ordinary chimneys of glass ?"Whether the invention was new? And whether Mr. Bynner was the inventor?

After a very short deliberation tlie Jury returned into Court, and the Foreman stated that they were unanimous in finding that a precise size of aperture and height above the tlame were essential to produce the effect; that the specification aided by the drawings did not sufficiently describe such size and height; that the peculiar chimney was of no use at all; that the invention could not be practically used with ordinary chimneys of glass : that the invention was not new; and that Mr. Bynner was not the inventor.

This finding of the Jury entitled the Crown to a verdict upon the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth issues; the seventh, which was only as to whether the pretended invention was a manufacture within the statute of James the First, was, by consent given for the defendant.

American Enterprise-Canal Steam-boats.-On a visit to Bordentown, we saw two new steam-boats that had just arrived there through the Delaware and Raritan canal, from New York, where they were built, being on their way to this city. The boats are built of iron, and moved by Ericssop's paddle-wheel propeller, which will be wholly under the surface of the water when they are loaded. Each boat is furnished with two of those wheels, which work under the stern-one on either side of the rudder. Besides having an engine, the boats are schooner-rigged, in the most beautiful symmetrical manner of any thing of the kind we liave ever beheld. The length of the boat is 97 feet 4 inches; breadth of beam, 23 feet; depth of bold, 7 feet 6 inches. Their capacity is equal to two hundred and thirty tons of coal. In the Raritan river, the speed of these boats was nearly :en miles per hour. In the canal, six miles the hour. consider that the acme of canal navigation has now been reached, by the performance of these boats.Phil. Eve. Journal.

We

LONDON : Edited, Printed, and Published by J. C. Robertson, at the Mechavics' Magazine Office,

No. 166, Fleet-street.--Sold by W. and A. Galignani, Rue Vivienne, Paris;

Machin and Co., Dublin ; and W.C. Campbell and Cu,, Haniburgh.

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

ROWLEY'S ROTARY STEAM-ENGINE.

Manchester, 14, Upper Brook-street,
August 2, 1842.

through the inlet pipe L, exerts itself Sir,—The little success which has against the pistons, it will cause the hitherto attended rotary steam-engines wheel C C to revolve; and as the guidehas caused most people to be sceptical as pins of the pistons travel in the endless to their ever being able to compete in groove B B, the pistons will be alter. efficiency, economy, and durability, with nately drawn towards the centre of the reciprocating ones. Influenced by this, wheel, to enable them to pass the abutI resolved not to publish any statements ment M M, and then be again projected regarding the one patented by me, till it into the steam-chamber; after the steam had worked for such a length of time as has exerted its force against the pistons, would enable me to speak confidently as it will escape by the exit-pipe N. 00 to its performances.

denotes the chamber for metallic abutI have now pleasure in forwarding ment packings. you, for insertion in your very interesting The engine is employed in turning publication, accounts of the stationary wire, or rather ripping blocks; and as engine belonging to Messrs. R. Johnson the force which is exerted is constantly and Brother; and also of a locomotive, varying, (the mercurial gauge attached to on the same plan, which has been expe the cylinder ranging from 5 lbs. to 35 lbs.) rimented with on the Liverpool Railway. it is difficult to estimate the horse power I have the honour to be, sir,

actually used. Your very obedient servant, To calculate the power, multiply the EDWARD BUTLER ROWLEY, number of square inches on the piston,

(Late R. N.) 58, by the pressure, 30 lbs., and that by I. The Stationary Engine.

mean length of steam chamber, 8:4 feet, Diameter of steam-wheel, 36 inches;

which multiply by number of revolutions breadth of ditto, 144 inches; depth of

per minute, 80; then dividing by 33.000

will give the horse power. ditto, 4 inches; mean length of steam

Thus, 58 x 30 x 84 x 80 33.000 chamber, 100 inches; pistons or slides,

35.4 horse power. 58 square inches, subjected to the action

Messrs. R. Johnson and Brother have of steam ; number of revolutions, 80 per minute; with 1 lb. pressure ungeared,

permitted the publishing of the following

letters. or with less than 5 lbs. driving shafting.

Wire Mill, 27, Dale-street, Manchester, It stands on a bed-plate, 5 feet by 4,

August 14, 1842. and is 31 feet high.

" Mr. E. B. Rowley. By reference to the figures 1, 2, and 3, it will be seen that the engine is com

Sir,-We have great pleasure in stating

that we are perfectly satisfied with the regu. posed of an outer ring, or cylinder, A A

larity of working of the rotary steam-engine. A, and two side plates, exactly alike,

The consumption of fuel, and time worked having on their inner side an endless

during the five weeks ending July 29th last, groove, B B B, formed of a segment of

are as follows-338 hours time, and 48 tons a circle, a a a, and a portion of an irre 10 cwt. of coal. The engine has been at gular curve, b b b. There is a circular

work on our premises for the last seventeen wheel or apparatus, CCC, having three months. chambers, DDD, in it, for the reception

We are, &c. &c." of the pistons E E E, and for allowing the same to slide in and out. This wheel " This is to certify, that I have had the has two flanches, G GG, having grooves

management of Mr. Rowley's Patent Rotary in them, H H, for the support of the

Engine for the last eleven months, and tes. pistons, and is firmly keyed on the cen

tify that it works remarkably well and powertral shaft F F, which passes through the

fully. The engine has been lately examined,

and found in excellent condition. side plates, and revolves in suitable bear

“ William AMPALETT, Engineer, ings. The guide-pins of the pistons, " At Messrs. R. Johns and Brother." KK K, travel in the endless groove

"August 5, 1812." B B B, on the inner side of the side plates.

II. The Rotary Locomotive. Thus it will be seen, that, as the ex The best method of arrangement must pansive power of the steam, introduced be decided by experiment. I am at pre

[ocr errors]
« ZurückWeiter »