The Iron Age 1910-02-10: Vol 85 Iss 6

THE IRON AGE New York, Thursday, February 10, 1910. THE VANCOUVER STEEL FOUNDRY. The Only Steel Foundry in Canada West of the Great Lakes. The demand for steel castings in the western part of Canada has increased with the rapid development of that section. Machinery used in the lumber and mining industries must be constructed to withstand very heavy work. Steel castings, which enter largely into the manufacture of this class of machinery, had to be shipped from the eastern part of Canada or im- ported from the United States or England. This was The plant has a present capacity of eight tons per day and is so designed that extensions for handling double that capacity can be made as required without interrupting the operation of the present foundry. It is of steel construction throughout, having a main bay 120 ft. long and 50 ft. wide, with a side bay 120 ft. long and 30 ft. wide, as shown on the ground plan, Fig. 2. The side bay is designed to provide the most Fig. 1.—A View in the New Steel Foundry of the Vancouver Engineering Works. Ltd., Vancouver, British Columbia. expensive because of high freight rates and long de- liveries. Realizing the growing need in that portion of the Dominion, early in 1909 the Vancouver Engineering Works, Ltd., decided to add a steel foundry to its plant at Vancouver, British Columbia. The side blown converter for making steel was adopted after careful consideration of the most economical process for pro- ducing a light tonnage and after personal inspection of various plants by F. L. Leighton, the general man- ager. In May, 1909, the Whiting Foundry Equipment Company, Harvey, Ill., was commissioned to design and equip the steel foundry. Erection of the plant was commenced in June and the equipment installed during the following September. The first blow of steel was successfully made October 12 under the supervision of the Whiting Company’s steel foundry engineer. compact grouping of the melting and converting de- partment, the coreroom, sand mill and cleaning de- partment, without in any way interfering with the economical operation of each. In the design every effort was made to secure a continuous system in order that the raw material might be converted into finished castings without any reverse movements. The steel foundry is so arranged in the plot of the general plant that the movement of all departments is in the direc- tion of the castings storehouse. The cupola is the standard Whiting No. 4, and the hight from floor level to top of the stack is 35 ft. The melting capacity is about seven tons per hour. The cupola charging floor is 22 ft. long and 20 ft. wide, and is served by a two-ton electric elevator having a lift of 16 ft. To facilitate the handling of melting stock an industria] track of 24-in. gauge connects the —— a FLASK YARD TUMSLERS + CLEANING ROOM SCALE THE IRON AGE February 10, 1910 Be FT oO WASH SINKS |G Ol Laemnneii—ninh 20 foo iP iH }} LOCKERS 4 ' TN ail EE eeninineens a on LL = 7) | y = gfe. ~~ -/ | a / GhHORT te 1 I Y ‘ £ ea \ z ae - Ke Cony ERTER 4 (caer = | | SAND MILL TI g. o = = > z > t as © 2 > . 4 3 z E & c “ WH OS a p) 5 < 2 Z ° y > « f nr € ° - .S . ” — SLOWER ROON> ELEVATOR CORE OVEN elevator with the stock yard. Iron is tapped from the Plan of the Vancouver Engineering cupola into a 6000-Ib. ladle carried by a pneumatic jib crane of four tons capacity, as shown in F Two taps are made to obtain a full charge for the converter. This is done to avoid holding the molten iron in the hearth of the cupola, where it is exposed to the in- candescent coke, from which it will absorb sulphur, especially if the manganese content is low. . 8.—The Whiting Cupola and Converter, After the and the Jib Crane and Ladle Serving Them. RAILROAD TRACK Works Steel Foundry. ladle is filled the jib crane hoists it to the pouring position, shown in Fig. 4, and the iron is transferred to the converter to be blown into steel. Since no phosphorus or sulphur can be removed, owing to the acid lining of the converter, it is neces- sary to melt the maximum limit being 0.04 per cent. for each. manganese content ranges from 0.60 per cent. to I.50 an iron running low in these elements, The February 10, 1910 per cent. The cupola charge is so proportioned as to give about I per cent. of manganese, this limit being set because it counteracts the affinity of the iron for the sulphur in the coke, and also minimizes the wear on the converter lining. As the percentage of silicon in the cupola charge should be from 1.80 per cent. to 2 per cent., in the iron it ranges from 1.20 per cent. to 3.50 per cent. The extensive manufacture of boilers, tanks, &c., gives this company a heavy stock of punch- ings and clippings to draw upon for the cupola charge. To produce steel castings of high grade careful atten- tion is given the sulphur and phosphorus limitations. The converter, having a capacity of 2 tons, is of the standard Whiting type. It occupies a floor space 20 x 12 ft. and is separated from the remainder of the side bay by a steel curtain wall. It is carried on cast steel trunnions, which revolve in heavy cast iron stand- ards, and spans a concrete pit into which the ladle is lowered to receive the finished steel, as shown in Fig. 1. A large hood is suspended above the con- verter to carry the fumes outside the building. The hight of the converter is 10 ft. when in blowing posi- tion. It is lined with a composition of ganister, sand and fireclay, rammed around a wood form. This lining, if repaired when necessary, will give at least 180 or 200 blows. Iron from the cupola is poured into the converter, which is then turned to an upright position for blow- ing. The air pressure ranges from 3 to 5 Ib. per square inch and is regulated by a valve at the operator’s platform. The blowing operation requires from 15 to 20 min., varying with the percentage of metalloids in _ the iron. It is necessary that the time be as brief as possible, as upon the rapidity of the blow depends the temperature of the bath. Fig. 5 shows the con- verter during the progress of the blow. Reduction in the weight of metal is about 18 per cent. The steel comes from the converter at 1700 degrees C., a tem- perature insuring sufficient fluidity to yield sharp, sound castings of light section. Back of the converter, and on a level with the foundry floor, is the blower room, which is equipped with a positive pressure blower for the converter and a steel pressure blower for the cupola. The positive pressure blower, built by the P, H. & F. M. Roots Com- pany, Connersville, Ind., is a No. 5, belt connected to Fig. 4.—Charging the Converter. THE IRON AGE The Converter During a Blow. Fig. 5.- a 75-hp. Allis-Chalmers Bullock alternating current motor. The steel pressure blower, built by the B. F. Sturtevant Company, Hyde Park, Mass., is a No. 6, belted to a 10-hp. Allis-Chalmers Bullock alternating current motor. The blast main to the converter is in a straight line to insure the minimum loss due to fric- tion. A 14-in. blast pipe connects the cupola with the blower. The blast for the cupola is regulated by a standard blast gate. The coreroom, core oven and mold drying oven are in the side bay, adjoining the cupola room, and cover an area 40 ft. long and 30 ft. wide. The mold drying oven, which holds two cars, is 18 ft. long and to ft. wide and is fitted with a Kinnear roller curtain door. The core oven is 10 x Io ft., equipped with side shelves for cores, and has a swinging steel plate door. Coal is used for fuel. Adjoining the core room is the sand mill room, with a 72-in. mill, built by the Vancouver - Engineering Works, Ltd. This mill is of the undergeared type and is belt driven by a 25-hp. Allis-Chalmers Bullock alter- nating current motor. A pneumatic sand shaker, built by the Hanna Engineering Works, Chicago, is between the sand mill and core room. The cleaning room adjoins the blower room and opens into the main bay. The equipment consists of a cold saw of the 2-B type and two power hand saws, built by the Quincy, Manchester, Sargent Company, Chicago. Two type C Diamond emery grinders, built by the Diamond Machine Company, Providence, R. I., provide ample facility for grinding the present output of the foundry. Provision has been made for the future installation of an annealing furnace. The Vancouver Engineering Works, Ltd., manu- facture an extensive line of logging and sawmill ma- chinery, all types of boilers, burners for sawmills, and mining machinery. ——_.9-——————— At a meeting of stockholders of the Standard Gauge Steel Company and the Standard Connecting Rod Com- pany, held in Beaver Falls, Pa., February 1, it was decided to consolidate the two concerns under the name of the Standard Gauge Steel Company. A new char- ter will be applied for and the capital stock will be increased. Officers of the consolidated company have not yet been elected. THE IRON INVENTIONS AND PATENT PROCEEDINGS. How Inventions May Be and How They Should Be Protected. AGE February 10, 1910 BY A PATENT EXPERT. A great deal of rather indiscriminating criticism has been directed against the United States patent system and the United States Patent Office. Doubtless fault lies somewhere either in the laws or their admin- istration. In order that errors may be corrected it is necessary to locate them. For this purpose it may be well to recall the origin of our patent laws and then briefly consider how the inventor may be compensated for the labor, time and money expended in developing his invention and rendering the fruits of it available to the public. Such consideration might lead to the opinion that our system of patent privileges ought to be abandoned or modified or the administration of it improved. Origin of United States Patent Law. The United States Patent law, which provides for an absolute though limited monopoly of an invention, is based strictly upon the principles laid down in Eng- land in 1603 in Darcy versus Allin (Noy, 178)—the celebrated case of monopolies—and the English statute of monopolies (21 Jac. I, c. 3), passed in 1623, although the authority of Congress to enact such a law is de- rived from our constitution. The definition of a law- ful monopoly, adopted by the judges in the case of monopolies, was this: Where any man by his own charge and industry, or by his own wit or invention, doth bring any new trade into the realm, or any engine tending to the furtherance of a trad». that never was used before, and that for the good of the realm; that in such cases the king may grant to him a mo- nopoly patent for some reasonable time, until the subjects may learn the same, in consideration of the good that he doth bring to the commonwealth; otherwise not. The fathers of the republic, and particularly Jeffer- son, were alive to the expediency of encouraging trade and manufactures. They appreciated thoroughly how England had advanced in wealth and power by such encouragement. The power to grant patents in Eng- land was a prerogative of the crown. Since in this country there was no crowned head whom the inher- ited common law could endow with this prerogative, it was thought wise to delegate to the Federal Congress the authority to pass laws “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.” The study of ways and means by which a nation may support itself was inseparable from Jefferson’s statecraft. How clearly he philosophized on the sub- ject of patents as a means of promoting manufactures and trade appears in his published letters. It is most natural, therefore, that after the independence of the colonies had been secured and a constitution adopted he should apply his statesmanship to the subject, among others, of industrial encouragement. None knew bet- ter than he the history of monopolies in England and the dividing line between those that were vicious and those that were beneficent to the people. On January 8, 1790, within one year after his in- auguration, President Washington recommended to Congress legislation for promoting the progress of science and the useful arts in accordance with the con- stitutional provision. The President’s recommendation was instigated by Jefferson. Annals of the time indi- cate that he drafted the bill, which, with minor changes, became a law on April 10, 1790. Mention is made in his writings of the great difficulty he experi- enced in so phrasing a certain section as to properly safeguard what he conceived to be the rights of the public and at the same time encourage the inventor. On June 27, 1790, writing of this law, he said: “ The act of Congress authorizing the issue of patents for new discoveries has given a spring to invention beyond my conception.” The First Examination System and the First Examiners, The law of 1790 established the first “ examination system” of patents. It authorized the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War and the Attorney-General, “or any two of them,” to grant patents for any such “useful art, manufacture, engine, machine, or de- vice or any improvement thereon not before known or used, if they shall deem the same sufficiently useful and important.” Accordingly Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox and Edmund Randolph, who respectively held the offices designated, acted as the first patent examiners and during their terms of service granted about 50 patents. The phrase “if they shall deem them sufficiently useful and important” seems to us, in the light of 120 years of judicial construction, an unfortunate one. It was popularly supposed to give the patent board arbitrary power of rejection for supposed insufficiency in degree of utility and importance, and hence to be a source of potential injustice to the inventor and a loss to the public, because of the impossibility of prejudg- ing the degree of usefulness of an invention. But it must be remembered that there were few precedents extant except the English case of monopolies to guide the legislators, and that Jefferson’s mind was reaching into the unknown when he phrased that act. Notwithstanding the questionable phraseology of the law, it does not appear that the distinguished patent board of 1790 exercised any arbitrary power. On the contrary, the writings of Jefferson indicate that it es- tablished, with care, rules by which to test the presence or absence of invention in every case that came before it, all of which are now controlling in every court of law that has to do with patent cases. Of this matter he writes as follows: ‘ As a member of the patent board for several years while the law authorized a board to grant or refuse patents, I saw with what slow progress a system of general rules could be matured. Some, however, were established by that board. One of these was that a machine of which we were possessed might be applied by every man to any use of which it was susceptible, and that this right ought not to be taken from him and given to a monopolist, because the first had per- haps occasion to apply it. Thus, a screw for crushing plas- ter might be employed for crushing corn cobs, and a chain pump for raising water might be used for raising wheat, this being merely a change of application. Another rule was that a change of material should not give title to a patent, as the making of a plowshare of cast rather than of wrought iron, a comb of iron instead of horn or ivory, or the con- necting buckets by a band of leather rather than of hemp or of iron. A third was that a mere change of form should give no right to a patent, as a high quartered shoe instead of a low one, a round hat instead of a three-square, or a square bucket instead of a round one. But for this rule all the changes of fashion in dress could have been under a tax of patents. These were among the rules which the uniform decisions of the board had already established. Jefferson’s Theory of Patent Privilege, The patent act of 1790 was an outgrowth of Jeffer- son’s study of the theory and history of property rights and was entirely consistent with his notions thereof. What those notions were with respect to monopolies of inventions is clearly set forth in one of his letters, as follows: Stable ownership is the gift of social law and it is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious, then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain February 10, 1910 could, of natural right, be claimed as exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may ex- clusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dipossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, becausle every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me receives instruction himself with- out lessening mine, as he who lights his taper at mine re ceives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man anc improvement of his condition, seems to be peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space without lessening their den- sity in any point, and, like the air in which we breathe, move and have our physical being, incapable of confinement and exclusive appropriation. Inventions, then, cannot in nature be a subject of property. Society may give an ex- clusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encour- agement to men to pursue ideas which may possess utility, but this may or may not be done according to the will and convenience of society without claim or complaint from anybody. In the philosophy of Jefferson, the only considera- tion for, as well as the sole justification of, a system of patent privileges was the benefit to society likely to arise therefrom. Consistently therewith, the act of 1790 gave equal privileges to all persons, citizens or aliens, requiring only such fees as would cover actual expenses and reasonable proof of novelty, utility and invention as a condition precedent to the grant. The average fee for obtaining a patent under that law was about $s. The Registration System Tried for 43 Years, In less than three years after its passage the law of 1790 was superseded by the act of February 21, 1793, which provided for the grant of patents as a matter of course, without examination, upon the filing of a sworn application therefor. In its essentials it was the antithesis of the preceding act. It discrim- inated against aliens, and otherwise violated the theory of patent privileges held by Jefferson, who grieved over the change, pointed out the consequences likely to result from neglecting the just relationship between society and the inventor, and urged that the abuses from frivolous and illegal patents sure to issue was “likely to cause more inconvenience than is counter- vailed by those really useful.” This change is sup- posed to have been instigated by selfish interests that had become powerful by reason of patent grants, but were dissatisfied with the rejection of some applica- tions by the patent board. The registration law of 1793 remained in force 43 years. The pernicious monopolies and other evils that grew out of it finally aroused public protest that did not, however, gather sufficient strength until 1836 to secure legislative action. In that year a committee of Congress was appointed to investigate the patent law and the Patent Office. That committee reported in considerable detail the various evils it found to exist which Jefferson had predicted in general terms. Con- gress, therefore, repealed the registration law and sub- stituted for it the law of 1836, providing for a return to the examination system, and of this act our present patent statutes are a development. The statutes retained until 1870 the bad phraseol- ogy, “ sufficiently useful and important,” of the act of 1790, and for some years the discrimination against foreigners of the act of 1793, contrary to the Jeffer- sonian theory. Should the theories of Jefferson regarding the pro- tection of invention be modified or should the theory of artificial rewards for ingenuity be entirely aban- doned ? No Natural Property Right in Invention, There is no natural right of property in an inven- tion. If one devises a new machine and makes one or more of them, the idea of natural justice developed THE IRON AGE 325 by society makes those products of his ingenuity and labor his property to do with as he pleases, but does not prohibit others from inventing, making and using precisely similar machines. The actual invention al- ways lies in the mental conception or idea, notwith- standing that, for various reasons, the law does not allow of a patent for the conception of idea, but only for the useful art or thing through which the idea is made available in the industrial arts. lf an abstract invention were property to which the inventor had a natural right, then society ought to protect the owner perpetually in the possession of it; the limitations of his ownership to a few years would be monstruous injustice. But the very nature of an idea renders it incapable of exclusive possession except as it may be retained in secret. When it is once di- vulged, it may be possessed by any one, nor does the originator possess any less because the receiver of it possesses the whole. It is, therefore, very different from a pair of shoes, for example, which cannot be property of both the giver and receiver. “ He who re- ceives an idea from me receives instruction himself without lessening mine, as he who lights his taper at mine receives light without darkening me,” The inventor has a natural right to practice his in- vention in secret. Trade secrets were maintained in families during the Middle Ages, and descended from father to son. In the possession of such secrets per- sons were protected to a certain extent by law, and such is the case to-day. At the present time, however, it is much more difficult to practice inventions in con- cealment from the world than it was in the Middle Ages. No doubt there are still trade secrets, and the law reports cite many examples of effort to secretly use a machine or carry out a process. But it is very doubtful if at the present time any machine can be so used in successful and lucrative manufacture for any considerable period, even if it be possible to so utilize a process. Only process inventions and those machines used in manufacturing are capable of secret use. All ma- chines and articles made for sale are necessarily known to the world. The great difficulty in concealing from the public even those inventions capable of secret use, as well as the small proportion of them compared with the whole field of invention, renders this mode of getting his return unsatisfactory to the inventor. This concealment of inventions should clearly be dis- couraged on grounds of public policy. Arts of the early and Middle Ages have become lost through con- cealment, and the people derive no lasting benefits from secret inventions. Advisability of Rewarding Inventions, As there is no natural right of property in inven- tions, and as it is impossible in most cases to conceal the invention and at the same time derive benefit from it, it is clear that few inventors are altruistic enough to expend the labor and time, and few capitalists so benevolent as to invest the large sums of money fre- quently necessary to render a discovery available to the public, if the time and money so expended are to be lost to them, because others may come in and reap equally without equal expenditure. Political econo- mists of every school have agreed in considering the encouragement of inventions by society essential to the highest economical development. Thus the world in general has come to approve the practice of offering to an inventor a reward or prize, provided he will fully disclose his invention and demonstrate its utility. Two methods of rewarding ingenuity have been pro- posed and tried: 1. A money reward paid in a lump sum by the State, in consideration of which the in- ventor shall disclose and relinquish his invention. 2. An exclusive right to the use and profits of the in- vention for a limited period, in consideration of which the inventor shall fully disclose it. The first of these methods may be equitable enough 326 in theory, but to most minds its impracticability is apparent. It has, however, been frequently advocated, and among others, by so able a man as Sir William Armstrong. It has been spasmodically tried at different times in different countries. It was the adopted system in France for a brief period during the first empire and proved a lamentable failure. It is not possible to de- termine in each case the money value of an invention nor to avoid the disputes and jealousies caused by such awards. The ingenuity or actual degree of invention displayed is not a measure of usefulness to the public. In fact, experience teaches that it is morally impossible to prejudge the pecuniary value of any invention. Congress is without constitutional authority to es- tablish a system of money rewards to inventors. Had, however, some of the amendments proposed to the Fed- eral convention been adopted that power would have existed. One amendment proposed empowered Con- gress “to encourage, by proper premiums and pro- visions, the advancement of useful knowledge and dis- coveries””; another “to establish public institutions, rewards and immunities for the promotion of agricul- ture, commerce and manufactures.” The second method mentioned above for rewarding ingenuity is the only one authorized in our constitution, and is the one most approved and adopted wherever artificial reward is offered for invention. In fact, rea- son points to the grant of an exclusive right to the fruits of an invention as the only expedient form of reward. An exclusive right is peculiarly attractive to the inventor; the hazard and the boundless possibilities spur him as other rewards would not, while to the pub- lic its automaticity recommends it—he who does not wish to use need not pay. In the words of Bentham: It is an instance of a reward peculiarly adapted to the nature of the service, and adapts itself with the utmost nicety to those rules of proportion to which it is most diffi- cult for reward artificially instituted by the Legislature to conform. If confined, as it ought to be, to the precise point in which the originality of the invention consists, it is con- ferred with the least possible waste of expense. It causes a service to be rendered which, without it, a man would not have a motive for rendering. It is variable, equa- ble, commensurable, characteristic, exemplary, frugal, pro- motive of perseverance, subservient to compensation, popu- lar and reasonable. An exclusive right to an invention is a monopoly of the most absolute type. Such a monopoly destroys and curtails the natural right of others and is defensible only on the ground of public policy. Experience has established the wisdom of such monopoly grants, under proper restrictions, when they are confined “ to the pre- cise point in which the originality of the invention con- sists.” It is therefore highly essential to the welfare of the people that grants of patents be properly con- trolled by the people. Otherwise will follow annoying interference with individual rights and great waste of money in unproductive labor. Two schemes for the creation and control of patent monopolies have been adopted, each designed to encour- age and reward inventors and yet guard the public against pernicious monopolies. One of these is em- bodied in what is commonly known as the “ registration system” and the other as the “examination system.” The Registration System. Under the registration system a patent issues to the applicant as a matter of course after filing a full written description of the invention properly sworn to, and he takes the patent at his own hazard. Prima facie validity does not attach to it, and the courts must be depended on to establish its value. There may be modifications of and additions to this fundamental idea of the regis- tration plan, such as the right of individuals to oppose the grant, a partial or complete search for anticipating references by the Patent Office without power to reject, and privilege of amending the patent to avoid annul- ment by the courts. Under such a system the agent of the people in executing the grant has ministerial duties only. To guard the public interests the fees are usually THE IRON AGE February 10, 1910 high, acting as deterrents and compensation by taxation for public loss in possible litigation; periodical taxes are sometimes imposed; licensing is enforced under penalty of repeal of the patent; and the patent is in- validated by the court when it is in litigation before it, if in any particular it claims more than the actual in- vention. The tendency of such a system is to place burdens upon the meritorious inventor, checking the filing of applications by the poor, encouraging the secret practice of inventions, while at the same time affording oppor- tunity for the unscrupulous to blackmail the public by invalid patents, which undoubtedly exists in spite of the theory of caveat emptor upon which such a system is based and of the various checks imposed. The Examination System, Under the examination system patents are not granted as matter of course, and at the peril of the applicants. An inventor must first make a sworn ap- plication containing a full disclosure of the invention and define in formal statements or claims the precise combination of steps or elements that he considers him- self to have invented. The agent of the people, to make their bargain with the inventor, acts not merely in a ministerial and advisory capacity, but must make or cause to be made a thorough investigation into the novelty, utility and originality of the thing claimed, and must grant or refuse a patent in whole or in part in accordance with the result of his investigations. He has a most delicate duty to perform in behalf of the people, failure in which may impose serious expense and inconvenience. Prima facie validity attaches to the patent, it hav- ing been granted only after examination by an officer peculiarly qualified by training and experience to pass upon the delicate and important questions presented. The public, by inspection of the clear and exact claims, is apprised of the extent of the restrictions it has con- sented to be bound by, and the patentee may with con- fidence solicit capital to engage in manufacture in order that he may reap his reward and speedily make avail- able to the people the benefits of his discovery. No act originating after the grant, short of express abandon- ment or some extraordinary consideration of public policy, can defeat his right to the exclusive privilege. The fees are sufficient in theory only to defray the ex- pense of examination, the sole consideration as well as the sole justification for the grant being the public good; hence, also, no discrimination is made against aliens. If, by inadvertence, a claim should be allowed to which a patentee is not lawfully entitled the court will not invalidate the entire patent submitted but only the particular portion of it that is found not to be of the patentee’s invention. The examination system is not in intent a system of class taxation. Burdensome restrictions are not placed upon inventors. The small expense encourages the poor man to give his ideas to the world; conceal- ment of inventions is hardly worth while; the meri- torious inventor has a property right with a good title which the would-be infringer and the investor will re- spect. It makes of the Patent Office a repository of industrial art and science that can have no superior, and it insures against lost arts. It stimulates to the best advantage the industries of a nation. It sets many in- telligencies at work extracting knowledge from the nebulz of ideas to increase the happiness of humanity. The United States has had both systems. The orig- inators of our patent laws believed the examination sys- tem the only one suited to a republican form of govern- ment and framed the law of 1790. In 1793 a registra- tion law was passed, and in 1836 legislation was had providing for return to the examination system. As previously stated, the present laws are substantially the same as, and in accordance with, the theory of Jef- ferson. A careful study of the two systems of exclusive February 10, 1910 monopolies of inventions can hardly fail to show that in theory the examination system is most consistent with the public welfare. It has been so considered by the able minds who established it in the United States after careful consideration of the workings of both in actual practice, and it has been adopted by the philo- sophical German people after long study of the question. The Necessity of Efficient Administration of Exam- ination System. So far as criticism is directed against the essentials of the law, it is without foundation. Most of that directed against the Patent Office will not bear analysis. Some of it is, however, justified. This just criticism of the Patent Office is due to the inadequate administra- tion of the law. The business of the Patent Office is increasing with such rapidity that it is difficult for Con- gress to appreciate the necessity for supplying the Com- missioner of Patents with the personnel, material and accommodations necessary to handle the business of the office efficiently. The inadequacy of the machinery to administer the law properly tends to reduce the exam- ination system to a level with the registration system, but without the compensation of the latter. It is plain that if inventors may secure whatever they ask for, throwing the risk upon the public, the effect upon the welfare of the people will be more disastrous than if they secured it at their own risk and under a system of registration. Very often the proposition is advanced to take from the Patent Office the power of rejection, giving to it merely advisory power, com- pelling a search and citation of refer- ences, but leaving the applicant to cancel or insist upon his claim as he sees fit. The advocates of this plan never suggest, however, throwing upon the patentee the risk of claiming more than his invention. They wish to leave that burden on the people, as it now is. This means a prop- osition to adopt a registration system without its checks. Such a system would annul the fundamental principles upon which a lawful system of special privileges can be built. If we are to change to a registration system we must adopt it with all its accompaniments, other- wise it is probable that the whole fabric would end in disaster. It is characteristic of a bad law that the more strictly it is administered the worse are its effects, while of a good law the opposite is true. It can hardly be seriously maintained that a more accurate administration of the United States laws governing the grant of patents would result in greater injury to the people, for whose benefit the patent laws were enacted. Some of the abuses in the administration of our pat- ent system are: The long periods within which applica- tions are sometimes retained pending in secrecy within the Patent Office; the expense and delays of interfer- erices unnecessarily instituted; the allowance of patent monopolies substantially for results, instead of for. the ways or means of attaining the results; the. allowance of claims for means when the actual invention is a method; the abuse of reissues. The ways by which inventions may be protected or rewarded have been pointed out. To the question, “ How should inventions be protected?” it is answered: In the manner planned by Jefferson, and by a system of patent privileges administered and controlled as con- templated by the laws of the United States.. But good laws must be well administered to give the people the benefit of them, and it would be well if discriminating criticism could be brought to bear effectively upon Congress to secure for the Patent Office, by a wise ex- penditude of the $7,000,000 éxcess fees paid into the Treasury by inventors, the machinery necessary to ad- minister them efficiently. THE IRON AGE 327 The Caskey Swivel Joint Pneumatic Hose Coupling. The Caskey Valve Company, 99 John street, New York, has added to its line of valves the patented Cas- key swivel joint pneumatic hose coupling. This is a radical advance in couplings, warranted by the com- pany to remain tight under all pressures. The important characteristics of this device; which is made of brass, include, first, a perfect swivel joint which eliminates any tendency to the kinking of hose; second, tight joints under any and all pressures, thus preventing any leakage whatever, and, third, a one- eighth turn couples or uncouples it. The construction is such that there is no dependence on jamming to make the joint; the pressure does it all, and as the pressure is increased the packing becomes more effec- tive. The point is made that as 1 hp. is required to com- press 5 cu. ft. of free air to 100 lb., a small leak at each coupling under such pressure wastes in the aggregate many horsepower. A powerful spring keeps the coup- ling securely locked and jarring will not open it, which heretofore has been a common source of trouble in such devices. The joints are packed with leather and there are no gaskets used. The coupling gives the full area of the hose, there being no reduction in size of the interior. The couplings are made in 4, %, %, 4, 1 and 1% in. diameters. Valves of this type of joint and principle of con- struction, technically known as Caskey compressed air Swivel Joint Pneumatic Hose Coupling Made by the Caskey Valve Company, 99 John Street, New York. valves, are also made. They were originally designed for hydraulic use, but are capable of withstanding air pressures up to 10,000 lb. per square inch, and are equally effective under low or high pressures. Air valves of this description are made of manganese bronze in sizes from % to 3 in. ——____.9---———————. Reinforced Concrete Ties. According to the Railroad Age Gazette, the rein- forced concrete ties designed by L. J. Riegler, Pitts- burgh, Pa., and placed about two years ago in a sec- tion of track on the Pennsylvania Lines West carrying heavy high speed. traffic do not show signs of de- terioration. A-%-in. steel casing on the sides of the tie. with a lap approximately 1% in. on the top and on the bottom and eight strips-punched out and turned into the concrete serve to hold it in position, while three. flat strips’ across the top and the same number across the bottom are bolted to the sides to prevent spreading. Two longitudinal 1%4-in. rods, one near the top and the other near the bottom, provide the necessary rein- forcement. The rails rest on and are fastened to tie plates with two 1-in. bolts on each side of the base, the head bearing on the plates inside of recesses on the bottom. To insulate the rails the overlap of the metal sides is sheared off and bent into the tie at the tie plates, These ties are 7 in. thick, 1 ft. wide and 8% ft. long. This large bearing area results in a sav- ing of ties, as 15 of them take the place of 18 standard wooden ones, and the downward thrust is distributed over a short distance on each side of the tie by round- ing the side slightly. 328 The Kelly High Pressure Sand Blast. Sand blast devices have been in more or less suc- cessful use for 40 years, the first having been patented in 1870. Chiefly they are employed for cleaning stone buildings and soft iron castings, and also for removing paint and light rust from metal structures, but for the last class of work they have not been very successful because of the low pressure used, less than 50 lb. High pressures were prohibitive for this work, as the air and sand came through the same tube, and the force of the particles of the latter impigning on the inner surface of the nozzle soon eroded it. In the Kelly high pressure sand blast made by the High Pressure Sand Blast Company, New York City, these objections have been overcome by the use of a special type of nozzle and separate lines of hose for the sand and the compressed air. This machine, it is stated, will operate at and steadily maintain any rea- sonable pressure, but the best results are obtained by employing a pressure of about 100 Ib. per square inch. It is this radical difference in the construction of the nozzle, as compared with that of other sand blast machines now on the market which have only a single hose that makes the higher pressures practicable. Fig. 1 shows the paint and rust being removed from a steel door by one of these machines. The two light rectangular patches are where the blast has cleared the surface down to the gray metal, and the small circular light spot marks where the sand is working at the instant the photograph was taken. Fig. 2 is a sec- tional view of the Kelly high pressure sand blast ap- paratus, and Fig. 3 illustrates the special patented nozzle used. Among the important applications of the sand blast are cleaning scale from structural steel, re- moving sand and scale from all kinds of castings, cleaning rust and old paint from iron and steel bridges preparatory to repainting, preparing the surfaces of steel cars for painting, removing barnacles from ship bottoms and incrustations from the interior of the hold, cleaning vacuum pans in sugar factories, and removing scale from boiler tubes. Some of this work is now done by hand or by pneumatic chisels, usually at much greater expense and less effectively. Tests made with this apparatus on different classes of work have given the following results: When used THE IRON AGE Fig. 1.—Cleaning a Steel Door with the Kelly Sand Blast. February 10, 1910 to remove paint from steel passenger cars, 16 sq. yd. have been cleaned in 1 hour; at a large oil refinery one Kelly machine cleaned an average of 54 sq. yd. of surface of acid tanks in a day and has replaced 32 men; the record for cleaning the bottom of an iron steam- ship was 40 sq. yd. per day, as against 13 men with Woe \ J’ vo A \ a ——_][|) * Lm 5] ~ te Vy tHe TOH hed here Qs? dttat — > @) 4 & i a Te) < = > = > & < & % 7 ¢ ~ ; a $ & “TY : <= S$ 2 ; = 3 es T) . » aii@l: © in_Al™ ‘ ° > Fig. 2.—Sectional Elevation of the Sand Blast Tank. hand chisels. In the last instance, aside from the sav- ing of labor, the work, it is stated, was much more thorough as the chipping hammers could not remove paint and rust from around rivet heads and pit holes, while it was almost impossible for them to get behind stringers, keelsons, &c. . In foundries the sand blast will remove crust from gear castings in about half the time that it takes pneumatic hammers to do the work; while at a test made on a marine boiler covered with February 10, 1910 very hard lime scale, the blast cleaned the iron at the rate of a square foot per minute. The apparatus illustrated in section in Fig. 2 is made of No. 10 gauge galvanized iron with riveted and soldered seams, tested to withstand an air pressure of 300 Ib. Clean, sharp sand which has been carefully screened through a No. 10 mesh sieve is poured through the funnel in the top of the machine until the sand tank of 300 Ib. capacity is filled. The bottom of the tank is provided with sloping sides to direct the sand into the pipe to which the sand hose is attached. Air is admitted under a pressure of about 100 lb. from the compressor near the bottom of the machine, and passes off through the air hose outlet higher up on the opposite side of the tank. The compressed air is carried through a I-in. hose from the machine to the nozzle where it is accelerated to a high velocity by passing through an orifice 3-16 in. in diameter. This hose is not subject to any wear, and will stand an air pressure of 150 Ib. A 3%-in. hose is THE IRON AGE 329 blast can be operated by compressed air under any pres- sure from 15 to 150 Ib., according to the class of work to be done, the best pressure for cleaning iron and steel work is from 90 to 100 Ib. At the latter pressure about 70 cu. ft. of free air is used per minute, which is claimed to be approximately 60 per cent. of the quan- tity used by other machines. It is also very economical as regards the consumption of sand, it being stated that the average daily consumption is about I I-3 tons per day, while low pressure machines use from three to six times as much. The cost of operation and maintenance is stated to be 20 cents per day. pe A Large Cox Motor Driven Pipe Threader. Individual drive from a variable speed motor has its advantages in many machine tool operations where economy and rapid production are important factors. Speed variation secured by cone pulleys or gears is by steps of comparatively large changes in speed. On the other hand, the adjustable speed motor makes pos- sible fine gradations and a substantially continuous range, enabling a tool to be worked always at the proper speed to give the best results. Often the avoid- ance of expensive and cumbersome speed changing apparatus, following the use of the adjustable speed motor, has resulted in reducing the cost of the tool taken complete with its motor, aside from the items of increased convenience and improved operation. The accompanying illustration shows a Westing- house type SA adjustable speed direct current motor An 8-In. Pipe Threading Machine Built by the Cox & Sons Company, Philadelphia, Pa., capt gianmmmennranmieumediamne , Driven by a Westinghouse Adjustable Speed Motor. employed to convey the sand from the sand tank to the nozzle. This hose takes a mixture of sand and air at a low velocity, and feeds it into the high velocity jet, and the combined jets of sand and air then pass out through the 44-in. orifice at the end of the nozzle at a compara- tively high velocity. Removable tips are used where the nozzle is most exposed to wear—that is, at the orifice at the end of the sand hose and the opening at the end of the nozzle where the combined jet of sand and air passes out. The cost of these tips is very slight, and when worn out they can be easily and quickly replaced. It is almost impossible to operate the ordinary type of sand blast with air containing much moisture, but it is stated that the presence of water in the com- pressed air does not interfere with the effective work- ing of the Kelly high pressure sand blast. While the with a speed variation ratio of one to four, driving a machine for cutting and threading pipe from 2% to 8 in. in diameter, built by the Cox & Sons Company, Philadelphia, Pa. These machines are designed in sizes to handle pipes up to 18 in. internal diameter, and the special motor drive supplied has proved espe- cially satisfactory. Where quick changes in speed may be required, as in small shops handling a number of different sizes of pipe, such changes can be most eas- ily made with the adjustable speed drive, saving the time lost in shifting gears or belts and bringing the machine promptly to its most efficient cutting rate. As seen from the illustration, the pipe threader is provided with one set of gear changes, and has an oil system which keeps the cutting tool well flooded with oil. The types of tool holders mounted on the movable carriage are of an improved design for this class of work. 330 Weber Reinforced Concrete Chimneys. The reinforced concrete chimney has been one of the many important developments in that class of construction within the past few years. While con- crete chimneys are not new, some having been built a considerable time ago, it is only within the last decade that the use of reinforced concrete has been a matter of interest throughout the country. This was due to the fact that the few concrete chimneys built a long time ago were not a commercial success, since the cost was so much higher than for chimneys constructed of brick or other material as to be pro- hibitory. The concrete chimney perfected to overcome this cost question has proved successful from both com- Fs om | | | | THE IRON February 10, 1910 AGE being 54-in. round bars, as a general rule. The..walls of this cylindrical type of chimney are straight and the chimney requires only a little more space at the base than at the top, which is of considerable ad- vantage in most modern power plants where space is an important factor. The Coniform concrete chimney is another type now built extensively by the same company. This is so named because it is built in the form of a true frustum of a cone; it is circular and its wall is of uni- form thickness at any given cross section throughout, and the diameter and the thickness of the wall decrease in a uniform ratio from the base to the top. This type of chimney is generally reinforced with vertical bars of 34-in. round steel and horizontal rings of %-in. round steel. The reinforcing bars in the wall of the chimney extend down into the foundation and are —) + 5- . i K--5'8 > SECTIONAT TOP B_Y-HORIZONTAL RINGS[| ~e- 14CENTER P* TO CENTER », c 6! 6 7M) | 2d oi * ---8-414" a Fig. 1. Fig. 2. Reinferced Concrete Chimneys Built by the Weber Chimney Company, Chicago, Ill. mercial and technical standpoints, and many hundreds of these chimneys have been built throughout the United States, Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Porto Rico and many European countries. Such chimneys, as built extensively by the Weber Chimney Company, Chicago, Ill., are of the cylindrical type, consisting of an inner and an outer shell for the lower third of the hight and of a single wall from that point to the top with an expa