Sale H SO Tel wine i ¥ 7 i : AMEN ‘ ies in th 4 wie ata) Ny Sater iY PAA Ht BN 2 eo ae tt ot a 5 sz% C ty ANN PEAY PRaN AR WaMront ah Bans Wty Dy wot Sy) es » a in ay EMD A aay Ws nine eh 5 r 7 t a Senge eee 4 Wi 5 7 i ¥ poet Caan it By) ee Furs is Gd 1 Ae i} ane eee ei 4) ae ihe P HARVARD UNIVERSITY e Library of the Museum of Comparative Zoology LIBRARY JAN 2 4 1964 HARVARD UNIVERSITY. SMPEASONITAN INSTITUTION UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM © BULLETIN 228 WASHINGTON, D.C. 1963 JAN £4 1904 HARVARD UNIVERSITY. NMOS En Cie OMe Esra le Sue Oo Reve AU IN Dy vie HN OMe OrG 4 Papers 19-30 On Sczence and Technology CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY SP MaI INES ONE IAGNT ONGSeh h Win WONG WAS Hil ING LOIN Ds e2) D963 Publications of the United States National Museum The schoJarly publications of the United States National Museum include two series, Proceedings of the United States National Museum and United States National Museum Bulletin. In these series are published original articles and monographs dealing with the collections and work of the Museum and setting forth newly acquired facts in the fields of Anthropology, Biology, Geology, History, and Technology. Copies of each publication are distributed to Jibraries and scientific organizations and to specialists and others interested in the different subjects. The Proceedings, begun in 1878, are intended for the publication, in separate form, of shorter papers. These are gathered in volumes, octavo in size, with the publication date of each paper recorded in the table of contents of the volume. In the Bulletin series, the first of which was issued in 1875, appear longer, sepa- rate publications consisting of monographs (occasionally in several parts) and volumes in which are collected works on related subjects. Bulletins are either cctavo or quarto in size, depending on the needs of the presentation. Since 1902 papers relating to the botanical collections of the Museum have been published in the Bulletin series under the heading Contributions from the United States National Herbarium. The present collection of Contributions from the Museum of History and Tech- nology, Papers 19-30c, comprises Bulletin 228. FRANK A. TAYLOR Director, United States National Museum In acknowledgment of the many contri- butions of the Burndy Library to the advancement and encouragement of Studies of the history of science and technology, these papers are dedicated to Bern Dibner aT) Papers Page Elevator systems of the Eiffel Tower 1889................... Syonanitene I Rospert M. VocEL ijohnebiricssongandethesacenote cal Oni Cer erate tiny ea 41 EucEeNE S. FERGUSON The pioneer steamship SAVANNAH: A study for a scale model....... 61 Howarp I. CHAPELLE Drawings and pharmacy in al-Zahrawi’s 1oth-century surgical treatise. . 81 SamMr HAMARNEH The introduction of self-registering meteorological instruments........ 95 Ropert P. MuLTHAUF Introduction of the locomotive safety truck.............-.....--.005. 117 Joun H. Wuirte The migrations of an American boat type.........---+-+-++see esses 133 Howarp I. CHAPELLE Holcomb, Fitz, and Peate: Three 19th-century American telescope Introduction—Rosert P. MULTHAUF I. Amasa Holcomb—Autobiographical sketch IT. Henry Fitz-—Loutsr Firz Hower III. John Peate—F. W. Preston anp WiLu1aM J. McGRarTH, JR. Kinematics of mechanisms from the time of Watt...............-..- 185 EuGENE S. FERGUSON The development of electrical technology in the 1gth century: 1. The electrochemical cell and the electromagnet..............-...-...55. 231 W. JAMEs KinG The development of electrical technology in the 19th century: 2. The telesraplyandathestelephonernyer- ater etree eee ere acne a 273 W. James Kinc The development of electrical technology in the rgth century: 3. The earlyzarcslightwandsseneratonne cena or cra 333 W. JAMEs Kinc - pend teis’ i: Ny ele B= BS 7 ; fy Sralltahie ie » LIBRARY APR 16 1969, HARVARD UNIVERS ITY a | pe SS : a= D (oe. ol ES RIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM 2 a HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY | TED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM WASHINGTON, D.C., 1961 NE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM Tue Museum of History AND TECHNOLOGY: Paper 19 ELEVATOR SYSTEMS OF THE EIFFEL Tower, 1889 Robert M. Vogel PREPARATORY WORK FOR THE TOWER 4 THE TOWER’S STRUCTURAL RATIONALE ELEVATOR DEVELOPMENT BEFORE THE TOWER 6 THE TOWER’S ELEVATORS 20 EPILOGUE 37 ELEVATOR SYSTEMS VER ase NITIES ee LIBRARY APR 16 1968 HARVARD UNIVERSITY of the EIFFEL TOWER, 1889 By Robert M. Vogel This article traces the evolution of the powered passenger elevator from its initial development in the mid-19th century to the installation of the three sep- arate elevator systems in the Exffel Tower zn 1889. The design of the Tower's elevators involved problems of capacity, length of rise, and safety far greater than any previously encountered in the field; and the equip- ment that resulted was the first capable of meeting the conditions of vertical transportation found in the just emerging skyscraper. Tue Avutuor: Robert M. Vogel 75 associate curator of mechanical and civil engineering, United States National Museum, Smithsonian Institution. and central feature of the Universal Exposition of 1889 at Paris has become one of the best known of It was among the most outstanding T= 1,000-roor TOWER that formed the focal point man’s works. technological achievements of an age which was itself remarkable for such achievements. Second to the interest shown in the tower’s structural aspects was the interest in its mechanical organs. Of these, the most exceptional were the three separate elevator systems by which the upper levels were made accessible to the Exposition visitors. The design of these systems involved problems far greater than had been encountered in previous elevator work any- where in the world. The basis of these difficulties was the amplification of the two conditions that were the normal determinants in elevator design—pas- senger capacity and height of rise. In addition, there was the problem, totally new, of fitting elevator shafts to the curvature of the Tower’s legs. The study of the various solutions to these problems presents a concise view of the capabilities of the ele- vator art just prior to the beginning of the most recent phase of its development, marked by the entry of electricity into the field. The great confidence of the Tower’s builder in his own engineering ability can be fully appreciated, however, only when notice is taken of one exceptional way in which the project differed from works of earlier periods as well as from contemporary ones. In almost every case, these other works had evolved, in a natural and progressive way, from a fundamental concept firmly based upon precedent. This was true of such notable structures of the time as the Brooklyn Bridge and, to a lesser extent, the Forth Bridge. For the design of his tower, there was virtually no experience in structural history from which Eiffel could draw other than a series of high piers that his own firm had designed earlier for railway bridges. It was these designs that led Eiffel to consider the practicality of iron structures of extreme height. 2 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY AS Figure 1.—The Eiffel Tower at the time of the Universal Exposition of 1889 at Paris. (From La Nature, June 29, 1889, vol. 17, p. 73.) PAPER 19: ELEVATOR SYSTEMS OF THE EIFFEL TOWER Figure 2.—Gustave Eiffel (1832-1923). (From Gustave Eiffel, La Tour de Trois Cents Metres, Paris, 1900, frontispiece.) There was, it is true, some inspiration to be found in the paper projects of several earlier designers— themselves inspired by that compulsion which through- out history seems to have driven men to attempt the erection of magnificently high structures. One such inspiration was a proposal made in 1832 by the celebrated but eccentric Welsh engineer Richard Trevithick to erect a 1,000-foot, conical, cast-iron tower (fig. 3) to celebrate the passing of the Reform Bill. Of particular interest in light cf the present discussion was Trevithick’s plan to raise visitors to the summit on a pistcn, driven upward within the structure’s hollow central tube by com- pressed air. It probably is fortunate for Trevithick’s reputation that his plan died shortly after this and the project was forgotten. One project of genuine promise was a _ tower proposed by the eminent American engineering firm of Clarke, Reeves & Company to be erected at the Centennial Exhibition at Philadelphia in 1876. At the time, this firm was perhaps the leading designer and erector of iron structures in the United States, having executed such works as the Girard Avenue Bridge over the Schuylkill at Fairmount Park, and most of New York’s early elevated railway system. The company’s proposal (fig. 4) for a 1,000-foot shaft of wrought-iron columns braced by a continuous web of diagonals was based upon sound theoretical knowl- edge and practical experience. Nevertheless, the natural hesitation that the fair’s sponsors apparently felt in the face of so heroic a scheme could not be overcome, and this project also remained a vision. Preparatory Work for the Tower In the year 1885, the Eiffel firm, which also had an extensive background of experience in structural engineering, undertook a series of investigations of tall metallic piers based upon its recent experiences with several lofty railway viaducts and bridges. The most spectacular of these was the famous Garabit Viaduct (1880-1884), which carries a railroad some 400 feet above the valley of the Truyere in southern France. While the 200-foot height of the viaduct’s two greatest piers was not startling even at that period, the studies proved that piers of far greater height were entirely feasible in iron construction. This led to the design of a 395-foot pier, which, although never incorporated into a bridge, may be said to have been the direct basis for the Eiffel Tower. Preliminary studies for a 300-meter tower were made with the 1889 fair immediately in mind. With an assurance born of positive knowledge, Eiffel in June of 1886 approached the Exposition commissioners with the project. There can be no doubt that only the singular respect with which Eiffel was regarded not only by his profession but by the entire nation motivated the Commission to approve a plan which, in the hands of a figure of less stature, would have been considered grossly impractical. Between this time and commencement of the Tower’s construction at the end of January 1887, there arose one of the most persistently annoying of the numerous difficulties, both structural and social, which con- fronted Eiffel as the project advanced. In the wake of the initial enthusiasm—on the part of the fair’s Commission inspired by the desire to create a monu- ment to French technological achievement, and on the 4 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY part of the majority of Frenchmen by the stirring of their imagination at the magnitude of the structure— there grew a rising movement of disfavor. The nucleus was, not surprisingly, formed mainly of the intelligentsia, but objections were made by prominent Frenchmen in all walks of life. The most interesting point to be noted in a retrospection of this often violent opposition was that, although the Tower’s every aspect was attacked, there was remarkably little criticism of its structural feasibility, either by the engineering profession or, as seems traditionally to be the case with bold and unprecedented undertakings, by large numbers of the technically uninformed laity. True, there was an undercurrent of what might be characterized as unease by many property owners in the structure’s shadow, but the most obstinate element of resistance was that which deplored the Tower as a mechanistic intrusion upon the architectural and natural beauties of Paris. This resistance voiced its fury in a flood of special newspaper editions, petitions, and manifestos signed by such lights of the fine and literary arts as De Maupassant, Gounod, Dumas fils, and others. The eloquence of one article, which appeared in several Paris papers in February 1887, was typical: We protest in the name of French taste and the national art culture against the erection of a staggering Tower, like a gigantic kitchen chimney dominating Paris, eclipsing by its barbarous mass Notre Dame, the Sainte-Chapelle, the tower of St. Jacques, the Déme des Invalides, the Arc de Triomphe, humiliating these monuments by an act of mad- ness.! Further, a prediction was made that the entire city would become dishonored by the odious shadow of the odious column of bolted sheet iron. It is impossible to determine what influence these outcries might have had on the project had they been organized sooner. But inasmuch as the Commission had, in November 1886, provided 1,500,000 francs for its commencement, the work had been fairly launched by the time the protestations became loud enough to threaten and they were ineffectual. Upon completion, many of the most vigorous prot- estants became as vigorous in their praise of the Tower, but a hard core of critics continued for several years to circulate petitions advocating its demolition by the government. One of these critics, it was said— probably apocryphally—took an office on the first platform, that being the only place in Paris from which the Tower could not be seen. 1 Translated from Jean A. Keim, La Tour Exffel, Paris, 1950. Figure 3.—Trevethick’s proposed cast-iron tower (1832) would have been 1,000 feet high, 100 feet in diameter at the base, 12 feet at the top, and surmounted by a colossal statue. (From F. Dye, Popular Engineering, London, 1895, Pp. 205.) The Tower's Structural Rationale During the previously mentioned studies of high piers undertaken by the Eiffel firm, it was established that as the base width of these piers increased in proportion to their height, the diagonal bracing con- necting the vertical members, necessary for rigidity, became so long as to be subject to high flexural stresses from wind and columnar loading. To resist these stresses, the bracing required extremely large sections which greatly increased the surface of the structure exposed to the wind, and was, moreover, decidedly uneconomical. To overcome this difficulty, the principle which became the basic design concept of the Tower was developed. The material which would otherwise have been used for the continuous lattice of diagonal bracing was concentrated in the four corner columns of the Tower, and these verticals were connected only at PAPER 19: ELEVATOR SYSTEMS OF THE EIFFEL TOWER 5 Figure 4.—The proposed 1,000-foot iron tower designed by Clarke, Reeves & Co. for the Cen- tennial Exhibition of 1876 at Philadelphia. (From Sczentific American, Jan. 24, 1874, vol. 30, p- 47-) two widely separated points by the deep bands of trussing which formed the first and second platforms. A slight curvature inward was given to the main piers to further widen the base and increase the stability of the structure. Ata point slightly above the second platform, the four members converged to the extent that conventional bracing became more economical, and they were joined. That this theory was successful not only practically, but visually, is evident from the resulting work. The curve of the legs and the openings beneath the two lower platforms are primarily responsible for the Tower’s graceful beauty as well as for its structural soundness. The design of the Tower was not actually the work of Eiffel himself but of two of his chief engineers, Emile Nouguier (1840-?) and Maurice Keechlin (1856-1946)—the men who _ had conducted the high pier studies—and the architect Stéphen Sauvestre (1847-?). In the planning of the foundations, extreme care was used to ensure adequate footing, but in spite of the Tower’s light weight in proportion to its bulk, and the low earth pressure it exerted, uneven pier settle- ment with resultant leaning of the Tower was con- sidered a dangerous possibility.2 To compensate for this eventuality, a device was used whose ingenious directness justifies a brief description. In the base of each of the 16 columns forming the four main legs was incorporated an opening into which an 800-ton hydraulic press could be placed, capable of raising the member slightly. A thin steel shim could then be inserted to make the necessary correction (fig. 5). The system was used only during construction to overcome minor erection discrepancies. In order to appreciate fully the problem which confronted the Tower’s designers and sponsors when they turned to the problem of making its observation areas accessible to the fair’s visitors, it is first necessary to investigate briefly the contemporary state of elevator art. Elevator Development before the Tower While power-driven hoists and elevators in many forms had been used since the early years of the 19th century, the ever-present possibility of breakage of the hoisting rope restricted their use almost entirely to the handling of goods in mills and warehouses.’ Not until the invention of a device which would posi- tively prevent this was there much basis for work on other elements of the system. The first workable mechanism to prevent the car from dropping to the bottom of the hoistway in event of rope failure was the product of Elisha G. Otis (1811-1861), a mechanic of Yonkers, New York. The invention was made more or less as a matter of course along with the other machinery for a new mattress factory of which Otis was master mechanic. The importance of this invention soon became evident to Otis, and he introduced his device to the 2 The foundation footings exerted a pressure on the earth of about 200 pounds per square foot, roughly one-sixth that of the Washington Monument, then the highest structure in the world. 3 A type of elevator known as the “teagle’? was in use in some multistory English factories by about 1835. From its description, this-elevator appears to have been primarily for the use of passengers, but it unquestionably carried freight as well. The machine shown in figure 7 had, with the exception of a car safety, all the features of later systems driven from line shafting—counterweight, control from the car, and reversal by straight and crossed belts. 6 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 5.—Correcting erection discrepancies by raising pier member—with hydraulic press and hand pump—and inserting shims. (From La Nature, Feb. 18, 1888, vol. 16, p. 184.) Figure 6.—The promenade beneath the Eiffel Tower, 1889. (From La Nature, Nov. 30, 1889, vol. 17, p. 425.) PAPER 19: ELEVATOR SYSTEMS OF THE EIFFEL TOWER Ze) | Figure 7.—Teagle elevator in an English mill about 1845. Power was taken from the line shafting. London, n.d. [ca. 1845].) public three years later during the second season of the New York Crystal Palace Exhibition, in 1854. Here he would demonstrate dramatically the perfect safety of his elevator by cutting the hoisting rope of a suspended platform on which he himself stood, uttering the immortal words which have come to be inseparably associated with the history of the elevator— “All safe, gentlemen!” * The invention achieved popularity slowly, but did find increasing favor in manufactories throughout the eastern United States. The significance of Otis’ early work in this field lay strictly in the safety features of his elevators rather than in the hoisting equipment. His earliest systems were operated by machinery similar to that of the teagle elevator in which the hoisting drum was driven from the mill shafting by simple fast and loose pulleys with crossed and straight belts to raise, lower, and stop. ‘This scheme, already common at the time, was itself a direct improvement on the ancient hand-powered drum hoist. 4The Otis safety, of which a modified form is still used, consisted essentially of a leaf wagon spring, on the car frame, kept strained by the tension of the hoisting cables. If these gave way, the spring, released, drove dogs into continuous racks on the vertical guides, holding the car or platform in place. (From Pictorial Gallery of Arts, Volume of Useful Arts, The first complete elevator machine in the United States, constructed in 1855, was a complex and in- efficient contrivance built around an_ oscillating- cylinder steam engine. The advantages of an elevator system independent of the mill drive quickly became apparent, and by 1860 improved steam elevator machines were being produced in some quantity, but almost exclusively for freight service. It is not clear when the first elevator was installed explicitly for passenger service, but it was probably in 1857, when Otis placed one in a store on Broadway at Broome Street in New York. In the decade following the Civil War, tall build- ings had just begun to emerge; and, although the skylines of the world’s great cities were still dominated by church spires, there was increasing activity in the development of elevator apparatus adapted to the transportation of people as well as of merchandise. Operators of hotels and stores gradually became aware of the commercial advantages to be gained by eleva- ting their patrons even one or two floors above the ground, by machinery. The steam engine formed the foundation of the early elevator industry, but as build- ing heights increased it was gradually replaced by hydraulic, and ultimately by electrical, systems. 8 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY : Pee Figure 8.—In the typical steam elevator machine two vertical cylinders were situated either above or below the crankshaft, and a small pulley was keyed to the crankshaft. In a light-duty machine, the power was trans- mitted by flatbelt from the small pulley to a larger one mounted directly on the drum. In heavy-duty machines, spur gearing was interposed between the large secondary pulley and the winding drum. (Photo courtesy of Otis Elevator Company.) THE STEAM ELEVATOR The progression from an elevator machine powered by the line shafting of a mill to one in which the power source was independent would appear a simple and direct one. Nevertheless, it was about 40 years after the introduction of the powered elevator before it became common to couple elevator machines di- rectly to separate engines. The multiple belt and pulley transmission system was at first retained, but it soon became evident that a more satisfactory service resulted from stopping and reversing the engine itself, using a single fixed belt to connect the engine and winding mechanism. Interestingly, the same pattern was followed 40 years later when the first attempts were made to apply the electric motor to elevator drive. Figure 9.—Several manufacturers built steam machines in which a gear on the drum shaft meshed directly with a worm on the crankshaft. This arrangement eliminated the belt, and, since the drum could not drive the engine through the worm gearing, no brake was neces- sary for holding the load. (Courtesy of Otis Elevator Company.) By 1870 the steam elevator machine had attained its ultimate form, which, except for a number of minor refinements, was to remain unchanged until the type became completely obsolete toward the end of the century. By the last quarter of the century, a continuous series of improvements in the valving, control systems, and safety features of the steam machine had made possible an elevator able to compete with the subse- quently appearing hydraulic systems for freight and low-rise passenger service insofar as smoothness, control, and lifting power were concerned. However, steam machinery began to fail in this competition as the increasing height of buildings rapidly extended the demands of speed and length of rise. The limitation in rise constituted the most serious shortcoming of the steam elevator (figs. 8-10), an in- herent defect that did not exist in the various hydraulic systems. Since the only practical way in which the power of a steam engine could be applied to the haulage of elevator cables was through a rotational system, the PAPER 19: ELEVATOR SYSTEMS OF THE EIFFEL TOWER 2) 552119—61 2 Figure 10.—Components of the steam passen- ger elevator at the time of its peak development and use (1876). (From The First One Hundrea @ Years, Otis Elevator Company, 1953.) cables invariably were wound on a drum. ‘The travel or rise of the car was therefore limited by the cable capacity of the winding drum. As building heights increased, drums became necessarily longer and larger until they grew so cumbersome as to impose a serious limitation upon further upward growth. A drum machine rarely could be used for a lift of more than 150 feet.® Another organic difficulty existing in drum machines was the dangerous possibility of the car—or the counterweight, whose cables often wound on the drum—being drawn past the normal top limit and into the upper supporting works. Only safety stops could prevent such an occurrence if the operator failed to stop the car at the top or bottom of the shaft, and even these were not always effective. Hydraulic machines were not susceptible to this danger, the piston or plunger being arrested by the ends of the cylinder at the extremes of travel. THE HYDRAULIC ELEVATOR The rope-geared hydraulic elevator, which was eventually to become known as the “‘standard of the industry,’ is generally thought to have evolved directly from an invention of the English engineer Sir William Armstrong (1810-1900) of ordnance fame. In 1846 he developed a water-powered crane, utilizing the hydraulic head available from a reservoir on a hill 200 feet above. The system was not basically different from the simple hydraulic press so well known at the time. Water, admitted to a horizontal cylinder, displaced a piston and rod to which a sheave was attached. Around the sheave passed a loop of chain, one end of which was fixed, the other running over guide sheaves and terminating at the crane arm with a lifting hook. As the piston was pressed into the cylinder, the free end of the chain was drawn up at triple the piston speed, raising the load. The effect was simply that 5 A notable exception was the elevator in the Washington Monument. Installed in 1880 for raising materials during the structure’s final period of erection and afterwards con- verted to passenger service, it was for many years the highest- rise elevator in the world (about 500 feet), and was certainly among the slowest, having a speed of 50 feet per minute. ie Visseyaas Save See Y RE GRRCeS GY Z See Se SG y = — 2 PORTS SOPTTN YW ‘ { EM note S77 AS AW” 3 ALL y CNL TROT RT STR RITN Figure 11.—Armstrong’s hydraulic crane. The main cylinder was inclined, permitting gravity to assist in overhauling the hook. The small cylinder ro- tated the crane. (From John H. Jallings, Elevators, Chicago, 1916, p. 82.) of a 3-to-1 tackle, with the effort and load elements reversed. Simple valves controlled admission and exhaust of the water. (See fig. 11.) The success of this system initiated a sizable industr in England, and the hydraulic crane, with man modifications, was in common use there for man years. Such cranes were introduced in the United States in about 1867 but never became popular; they did, however, have a profound influence on the elevator art, forming the basis of the third generic type to achieve widespread use in this country. The ease of translation from the Armstrong crane to an elevator system could hardly have been more evident, only two alterations of consequence being necessary in the passage. A guided platform or car was substituted for the hook; and the control valves were connected to a stationary endless rope that was accessible to an operator on the car. The rope-geared hydraulic system (fig. 13) appeared in mature form in about 1876. However, before it had become the “‘standard elevator” through a_ process of refinement, another system was introduced which merits notice if for no other reason than that its popularity for some years seems remarkable in view of its preposterously unsafe design. Patented by Cyrus W. Baldwin of Boston in January 1870, this system was termed the Hydro-Atmospheric Elevator, but more commonly known as the water-balance ele- vator (fig. 12). It employed water not under pressure but simply as mass under the influence of gravity. The elevator car’s supporting cables ran over sheaves at the top of the shaft to a large iron bucket, which traveled in aclosed tube or well adjacent to and the same length as the shaft. To raise the car, the operator caused a valve to open, filling the bucket with water from a roof tank. When the weight of water was sufficient to overbalance the loaded car, the bucket descended, raising the car. On its ascent the car was stopped at intermediate floors by a strong brake that gripped the guides. Upon reaching the top, the operator was able to open a valve in the bucket, now at the bottom of its travel, and discharge its contents into a base- ment tank, to be pumped back to the roof. No longer counterbalanced, the car could descend, its speed controlled solely by the brake. The great popularity of this novel system apparently was due to its smooth operation, high speed, simplicity, and economy of operation. Managed by a skillful PAPER 19: ELEVATOR SYSTEMS OF THE EIFFEL TOWER 11 REGRESS Be ee BESES! i BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS Figure 12.—Final development of the Baldwin- Hale water balance elevator, 1873. The brake, kept applied by powerful springs, was released only by steady pressure on a lever. ‘There were two additional controls—the continuous rope that opened the cistern valve to fill the bucket, and a second lever to open the valve of the bucket to empty it. (From United States Rail- road and Mining Register, Apr. 12, 1873, vol. 17, @ p.3.) operator, it was capable of speeds far greater than other systems could then achieve—up to a frightening 1,800 feet per minute.® In addition to the element of potential danger from careless operation or failure of the brake, the Baldwin system was extremely expensive to install as a result of the second shaft, which of course was required to be more or less watertight. Much of the water-balance elevator’s development and refinement was done by William E. Hale of Chicago, who also made most of the installations. The system has, therefore, come to bear his name more commonly than Baldwin’s. The popularity of the water-balance system waned after only a few years, being eclipsed by more rational systems. Hale eventually abandoned it and became the western agent for Otis—by this time prominent in the field—and subsequently was influential in develop- ment of the hydraulic elevator. The rope-geared system of hydraulic elevator oper- ation was so basically simple that by 1880 it had been embraced by virtually all manufacturers. However, for years most builders continued to maintain a line of steam and belt driven machines for freight service. Inspired by the rapid increase of taller and taller buildings, there was a concentrated effort, heightened by severe competition, to refine the basic system. By the late 1880’s a vast number of improvements in detail had appeared, and this form of elevator was considered to be almost without defect. It was safe. Absence of a drum enabled the car to be carried by a number of cables rather than by one or two, and rendered overtravel impossible. It was fast. Control devices had received probably the most attention by engineers and were as perfect and sensitive as was 6 Today, although not limited by the machinery, speeds are set at a maximum of about 1,400 feet per minute. If higher speeds were used, an impractically long express run would be necessary for starting and stopping in order to prevent an acceleration so rapid as to be uncomfortable to passengers and a strain on the equipment. FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 13.—Vertical cylinder, rope-geared hy- draulic elevator with 2:1 gear ratio and rope control (about 1880). For higher rises and speeds, ratios of up to 10:1 were used, and the endless rope was replaced by a lever. (Cour- tesy of Otis Elevator Company.) i) possible with mechanical means. Cars with lever control could be run at the high speeds required for high buildings, yet they could be stopped with a smoothness and precision unattainable earlier with systems in which the valves were controlled by an endless rope, worked by the operator. It was almost completely silent, and when the cylinder was placed vertically in a well near the shaft, practically no valuable floor space was occupied. But most im- portant, the length of rise was unlimited because no drum was used. As greater rises were required, the multiplication of the ropes and sheaves was simply increased, raising the piston-car travel ratio and permitting the cylinder to remain of manageable length. The ratio was often as high as 10 or 12 to 1, the car moving 10 or 12 feet to the piston’s 1. In addition to its principal advantages, the hydraulic elevator could be operated directly from municipal water mains in the many cities where there was sufficient pressure, thus eliminating a large investment in tanks, pumps and boilers (fig. 14). By far the greatest development in this specialized branch of mechanical engineering occurred in the United States. The comparative position of Amer- ican practice, which will be demonstrated farther on, is indicated by the fact that Otis Brothers and other large elevator concerns in the United States were able to establish offices in many of the major cities of Europe and compete very successfully with local firms in spite of the higher costs due to shipment. This also demonstrates the extent of error in the oft-heard statement that the skyscraper was the direct result of the elevator’s invention. There is no question that continued elevator improvement was an essential factor in the rapid increase of building heights. However, consideration of the situation in European cities, where buildings of over 10 stories were (and still are) rare in spite of the availability of similar elevator techniques, points to the fundamental matter of tradition. The European city simply did not develop with the lack of judicial restraint which characterized metropolitan growth in the United States. The American tendency to confine mercantile activity to the smallest possible area resulted in ex- cessive land values, which drove buildings skyward. PAPER 19: ELEVATOR SYSTEMS OF THE EIFFEL TOWER Figure 14.—In the various hydraulic systems, a pump was required if pressure from water mains was insufficient to operate the elevator directly. There was either a gravity tank on the roof or a pressure tank in the basement. (From ‘Thomas E. Brown, Jr., ““Che American Passenger Elevator,” Engineering Magazine (New York), June 1893, vol. 5, p. 340.) The elevator followed, or, at most, kept pace with, the development of higher buildings. European elevator development—notwithstanding the number of American rope-geared hydraulic machines sold in Europe in the 10 years or so preceding the Paris fair of 1889—was confined mainly to varia- tions on the direct plunger type, which was first used in English factories in the 1830’s. ‘The plunger eleva- tor (fig. 16), an even closer derivative of the hydraulic press then Armstrong’s crane, was nothing more than a platform on the upper end of a vertical plunger that rose from a cylinder as water was forced in. ‘There were two reasons for this European practice. The first and most apparent was tbe rarity of tall buildings. The drilling of a well to receive the cylinder was thus a matter of little difficulty. This well had to be equivalent in depth to the elevator rise. The second reason was an innate European distrust of cable-hung elevator systems in any form, an attitude that will be discussed more fully farther on. THE ELECTRIC ELEVATOR At the time the Eiffel Tower elevators were under consideration, water under pressure was, from a practical standpoint, the only agent capable of ful- filling the power and control requirements of this particularly severe service. Steam, as previously mentioned, had already been found wanting in several respects. Electricity, on the other hand, seemed to hold promise for almost every field of human endeavor. By 1888 the electric motor had behind it a 10- or 15-year history of active develop- ment. Frank J. Sprague had already placed in successful operation a sizable electric trolley-car system, and was manufacturing motors of up to 20 horsepower in commercial quantity. Lighting gen- erators were being produced in sizes far greater. There were, nevertheless, many obstacles preventing the translation of this progress into machinery capable of hauling large groups of people a vertical distance of 1,000 feet with unquestionable dependability. The first application of electricity to elevator pro- pulsion was an experiment of the distinguished German electrician Werner von Siemens, who, in 1880, constructed a car that successfully climbed a rack by means of a motor and worm gearing beneath its deck (figs. 17, 18)—again, the characteristic European distrust of cable suspension. However, the effect of this success on subsequent development was negligible. Significant use of electricity in this field occurred somewhat later, and in a manner parallel to that by which steam was first applied to the ele- vator—the driving of mechanical (belt driven) elevator machines by individual motors. Slightly later came another application of the “conversion” type. This was the simple substitution of electrically driven pumps (fig. 21) for steam pumps in hydraulic installations. It will be recalled that pumps were necessary in cases where water main pressure was insufficient to operate the elevator directly. In both of these cases the operational demands on the motor were of course identical to those on the prime movers which they replaced; no reversal of direction was necessary, the speed was constant, and the load was nearly constant. Furthermore, the load could be applied to the motor gradually through automatic relief valves on the pump and in the mechanical machines by slippage as the belt was shifted from the loose to the fast pulleys. The ulti- mate simplicity in control resulted from permitting the motor to run continuously, drawing current only 14 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY ) | | } Ace (om Wh | i lee Hill Sera, Swen POOLE. : Figure 15.—Rope-geared hydraulic freight elevator using a horizontal cylinder (about 1883). (From a Lane & Bodley illustrated catalog of hydraulic elevators, Cincinnati, n.d.) PAPER 19; ELEVATOR SYSTEMS OF THE EIFFEL TOWER 115) speed picked up; precisely the method used to start traction motors. In the early attempts to couple the motor directly to the winding drum through worm gearing, this “notching up” was transmitted to the car as a jerking motion, disagreeable to passengers and hard on machinery. Furthermore, the controller contacts had a short life because of the arcing which In all, such systems were unsatisfactory and generally unreliable, and were held in disfavor by both elevator experts resulted from heavy starting currents. and owners. There was, moreover, little inducement to over- come the problem of control and other minor prob- lems because of a more serious difficulty which had Figure 16.—English direct plunger hydraulic (From F. Dye, Popular Engineering, London, 1895, p. 280.) elevator (about 1895). in proportion to its loading. The direct-current motor of the 1880’s was easily capable of such service, and it was widely used in this way. Adaptation of the motor to the direct drive of an elevator machine was quite another matter, the difficulties being largely those of control. At this time the only practical means of starting a motor under load was by introducing resistance into the circuit and cutting it out in a series of steps as the Figure 17.—Siemens’ electric rack-climbing elevator of 1880. (From Werner von Siemens, Gesammelte Abhandlungen und Vortrage, Berlin, 1881, pl. 5.) 16 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY persisted since the days of steam. This was the matter of the drum and its attendant limitations. The motor’s action being rotatory, the winding drum was the only practical way in which to apply its motive power to hoisting. This single fact shut electricity almost completely out of any large-scale elevator business until after the turn of the century. True, there was a certain amount of development, after about 1887, of the electric worm-drive drum machine for slow-speed, low-rise service (fig. 19). But the first installation of this type that was con- sidered practically successful—in that it was in con- tinuous use for a long period—was not made until 1889,7 the year in which the Eiffel Tower was com- pleted. Pertinent is the one nearly successful attempt which was made to approach the high-rise problem electri- cally. In 1888, Charles R. Pratt, an elevator engineer of Montclair, New Jersey, invented a machine based on the horizontal cylinder rope-geared hydraulic elevator, in which the two sets of sheaves were drawn apart by a screw and traveling nut. The screw was revolved directly by a Sprague motor, the system being known as the Sprague-Pratt. While a number of installations were made, the machine was subject to several serious mechanical faults and passed out of use around 1900. Generally, electricity as a practical workable power for elevators seemed to hold little promise in 1888.8 7 Two machines, by Otis, in the Demarest Building, Fifth Avenue and 33d Street, New York. They were in use for over 30 years. 8 Although the eventually successful application of electric power to the elevator did not occur until 1904, and therefore goes beyond the chronological scope of this discussion, it was of such importance insofar as current practice is concerned as to be worthy of brief mention. In that year the first gearless traction machine was installed by Otis in a Chicago theatre. As the name implies, the cables were not wrapped on a drum but passed, from the car, over a grooved sheave directly on the motor shaft, the other ends being attached to the counter- weights. The result was a system of beautiful simplicity, capable of any rise and speed with no proportionate increase in the number or size of its parts, and free from any possibility of car or weights being drawn into the machinery. ‘This system is still the only one used for rises of over 100 feet or so. By the time ofits introduction, motor controls had been improved to the point of complete practicability. ————— eens SSS EE SSS SSS JR NOI) INT Ae Figure 18.—Motor and drive mechanism of Siemens’ elevator. (From Alfred R. Urban- itzky, Electricity in the Service of Man, London, 1886, p. 646.) PAPER 19: ELEVATOR SYSTEMS OF THE EIFFEL TOWER 17 552119——61——_3 Morse, Williams & Co., BUILDERS OF “ric ELEVATORS, GH ELECTRIC ELEVATOR. Write us for Circulars and Prices. Main Office and Works, 1105 Frankford Avenue, PHILADELPHIA. New York OFFIC, 5 108 Liberty Street. Boston OFFICE. 19 Pearl Street. New Haven “ : . 82 Church Street. BALTIMORE ‘‘ 2 4 P Builders’ Exchange. PITTSBURG Oth , : 413 Fourth Avenue. SCRANTON 425 Spruce Street. Figure 19.—The electric elevator in its earliest commercial form (1891), with the motor connected directly to the load. By this time, incandescent lighting circuits in large cities were sufficiently extensive to make such installations practical. However, capacity and lift were severely limited by weaknesses of the control system and the necessity of using a drum. (From Electrical World, Jan. 2, 1897, vol. 20, p. xcvii.) BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY IME IO Joy bya 1s SS) IE ee aD) Jl ae LIFE AND LABOR-SAVING SCREW HOISTING MACHINE, FOR THE USE OF Stores, Hotels, Warehouses, Factories, Sugar Refineries, Packing Houses, Mills, Docks, Mines, &c. MANUFACTURED BY CAMPBELL, WHITTIER & CO., ROXBURY, MASS. Sole Agents for the New England States. The’ above Engraving illustrates a very superior Hoisting Machine, designed for Store and Warehouse Hoisting. It is very simple in its construction, compact, durable, and not liable to get out of order. An examination of the Engraving will con- vinee any one who has any knowledge of Machinery, that the serew is the only safe principle on which to construct a Hoisting Machine or Elevator. Figure 20.—Advertisement for the Miller screw-hoisting machine, about 1867 (see p. 23). From flyer in the United States National Museum. PAPER 19: ELEVATOR SYSTEMS OF THE EIFFEL TOWER 19 Figure 21.—The first widespread use of electricity in the eleva- tor field was to drive belt-type mechanical machines and the pumps of hydraulic systems (see p. 14) as shown here. (From Electrical World, Jan. 4, 1890, vol. 15, p. 4.) The Tower’s Elevators A ereat part of the Eiffel ‘Tower’s worth and its raison détre lay in the overwhelming visual power by which it was to symbolize to a world audience the scientific, artistic, and, above all, the technical achievements of the French Republic. Another con- sideration, in Eiffel’s opinion, was its great potential value as a scientific observatory. At its summit grand experiments and observations would be possible in such fields as meteorology and astronomy. In this respect it was welcomed as a tremendous improvement over the balloon and steam winch that had been featured in this service at the 1878 Paris exposition. Experiments were also to be conducted on the elec- trical illumination of cities from great heights. The great strategic value of the Tower as an observation post also was recognized. But from the beginning, sight was never lost of the structure’s great value as an unprecedented public attraction, and its systematic exploitation in this manner played a part in its planning, second perhaps only to the basic design. The conveyance of multitudes of visitors to the Tower’s first or main platform and a somewhat lesser number to the summit was a technical problem whose seriousness Eiffel must certainly have been aware of at the project’s onset. While a few visitors could be expected to walk to the first or possibly second stage, 377 feet above the ground, the main means of trans- port obviously had to be elevators. Indeed, the two aspects of the Tower with which the Exposition com- missioners were most deeply concerned were the adequate grounding of lightning and the provision of a reliable system of elevators, which they insisted be unconditionally safe. To study the elevator problem, Eiffel retained a man named Backmann who was considered an expert on the subject. Apparently Backmann originally was to design the complete system, but he was to prove inadequate to the task. As his few schemes are 20 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY studied it becomes increasingly difficult to imagine eae by what qualifications he was regarded as either an elevator expert or designer by Eiffel and the Com- mission. His proposals appear, with one exception, to have been decidedly retrogressive, and, further, to incorporate the most undesirable features of those earlier systems he chose to borrow from. Nothing has been discovered regarding his work, if any, on elevators for the lower section of the Tower. Realiz- ing the difficulty of this aspect of the problem, he may not have attempted its solution, and confined his work to the upper half where the structure permitted a straight, vertical run. The Backmann design for the upper elevators was based upon a principle which had been attractive to 3rd stage + 906 * many inventors in the mid-19th century period of ele- vator development—that of “screwing the car up” by means of a threaded element and a nut, either of which might be rotated and the other remain station- ary. The analogy to a nut and bolt made the scheme an obvious one at that early time, but its inherent complexity soon became equally evident and it never Intermediate platform achieved practical success. Backmann projected two cylindrical cars that traveled in parallel shafts and balanced one another from opposite ends of common cables that passed over a sheave in the upperworks. Around the inside of each shaft extended a spiral 644' ies aoe oe a 2nd stage a a ea ae a a a a Figure 22.—Various levels of the Eiffel Tower. (Adapted from Gustave Eiffel, La Tour de Trois Cents Metres, Paris, 1900, pl. 1.) 380 ' Ist stage 186! Stata TE eae sien aaa St SOATEST EET pions Ta Se NS Ne ae SOR PAPER 19: ELEVATOR SYSTEMS OF THE EIFFEL TOWER 21 22 Figure 23.—Backmann’s proposed helicoidal elevator for the upper section of the Eiffel Tower. The cars were to be self- powered by electric motors. Note similarity to the Miller system (fig. 20). (Adapted from The Engineer (London), Aug. 3, 1888, vol. 66, p. 101.) BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY track upon which ran rollers attached to revolving frames underneath the cars. When the frames were made to revolve, the rollers, running around the track, would raise or lower one car, the other traveling in the opposite direction (fig. 23). In the plan as first presented, a ground-based steam engine drove the frames and rollers through an end- less fly rope—traveling at high speed presumably to permit it to be of small diameter and still transmit a reasonable amount of power—which engaged pulleys on the cars. The design was remarkably similar to that of the Miller Patent Screw Hoisting Machine, which had had a brief life in the United States around 1865. The Miller system (see p. 19) used a flat belt rather than a rope (fig. 20). This plan was quickly rejected, probably because of anticipated difficulties with the rope transmission.® Backmann’s second proposal, actually approved by the Commission, incorporated the only—although highly significant—innovation evident in his designs. For the rope transmission, electric motors were sub- stituted, one in each car to drive the roller frame directly. With this modification, the plan does not seem quite as unreasonable, and would probably have worked. However, it would certainly bave lacked the necessary durability and would have been extremely expensive. The Commission discarded the whole scheme about the middle of 1888, giving two reasons for its action: (1) the novelty of the system and the attendant possibility of stoppages which might seri- ously interrupt the “exploitation of the Tower,” and (2) fear that the rollers running around the tracks would cause excessive noise and vibration. Both reasons seem quite incredible when the Backmann system is compared to one of those actually used— the Roux, described below—which obviously must have been subject to identical failings, and on a far greater scale. More likely there existed an unspoken distrust of electric propulsion. That the Backmann system should have been given serious consideration at all reflects the uncertainty surrounding the entire matter of providing elevator service of such unusual nature. Had the Eiffel Tower been erected only 15 years later, the situation would have been simply one of selection. As it was, Eiffel § Mechanical transmission of power by wire rope was a well developed practice at this time, involving in many instances high powers and distances up to a mile. To attempt this system in the Eiffel Tower, crowded with structural work, machinery and people, was another matter. and the commissioners were governed not by what they wanted but largely by what was available. THE OTIS SYSTEM The curvature of the Tower’s legs imposed a prob- lem unique in elevator design, and it caused great annoyance to Eiffel, the fair’s Commission, and all others concerned. Since a vertical shaftway any- where within the open area beneath the first platform was esthetically unthinkable, the elevators could be placed only in the inclined legs. The problem of reaching the first platform was not serious. The legs were wide enough and their curvature so slight in this lower portion as to permit them to contain a straight run of track, and the service could have been designed along the lines of an ordinary inclined rail- way. It was estimated that the great majority of visitors would go only to this level, attracted by the several international restaurants, bars and _ other features located there. Two elevators to operate only that far were contracted for with no difficulty— one to be placed in the east leg and one in the west. To transport people to the second platform was an altogether different problem. Since there was to be a single run from the ground, it would have been necessary to form the elevator guides either with a constant curvature, approximating that of the legs, or with a series of straight chords connected by short segmental curves of small radius. Eiffel planned initially to use the first method, but the second was adopted ultimately, probably as being the simpler because only two straight lengths of run were found to be necessary. Bids were invited for two elevators on this basis— one each for the north and south legs. Here the un- precedented character of the matter became evident— there was not a firm in France willing to undertake the work. The American Elevator Company, the European branch of Otis Brothers & Company, did submit a proposal through its Paris office, Otis Ascenseur Cie., but the Commission was compelled to reject it because a clause in the fair’s charter pro- hibited the use of any foreign material in the con- struction of the Tower. Furthermore, there was a strong prejudice against foreign contractors, which, because of the general background of disfavor sur- rounding the project during its early stages, was an element worth serious consideration by the Commis- sion. The bidding time was extended, and many attempts were made to attract a native design but none was forthcoming. PAPER 19: ELEVATOR SYSTEMS OF THE EIFFEL TOWER 23) As time grew short, it became imperative to resolve the matter, and the Commission, in desperation, awarded the contract to Otis in July 1887 for the amount of $22,500.° A curious footnote to the affair appeared much later in the form of a published interview! with W. Frank Hall, Otis’ Paris repre- sentative: “Yes,” said Mr. Hall, ‘‘this is the first elevator of its kind. Our people for thirty-eight years have been doing this work, and have constructed thousands of elevators vertically, and many on an incline, but never one to strike a radius of 160 feet for a distance of over 50 feet. It has required a great amount of preparatory study and we have worked on it for three years.” “That was before you got the contract?” “Quite so, but we knew that, although the French au- thorities were very reluctant to give away this piece of work, they would be bound to come to us, and so we were preparing for them.” Such supreme confidence must have rapidly evapo- rated as events progressed. Despite the invaluable advertising to be derived from an installation of such distinction, the Otises would probably have defaulted had they foreseen the difficulties which preceded completion of the work. The proposed system (fig. 24) was based fundamen- tally upon Otis’ standard hydraulic elevator, but it was recognizable only in basic operating principle (fig. 25). Tracks of regular rail section replaced the guides be- cause of the incline, and the double-decked cabin (fig. 29) ran on small flanged wheels. This much of the 10 According to Otis Elevator Company, the final price, because of extras, was $30,000. In Pall Mall Gazette, as quoted in The Engineering and Building Record and the Sanitary Engineer, May 25, 1889, vol. 19, p. 345. Figure 24.—General arrangement of Otis ele- vator system in Eiffel Tower. (From The Engineer (London), July 19, 1889, vol. 68, p. 58.) x UL bs is Soft KALI SL EM NL ¢ Ary} ff | oe ; 24 BULLETIN 228: a CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND VSWR oF seo rao TECHNOLOGY 5 fixed pullies / 6 movable pullies Cabin at bottom of run (ascending) Cabin at top of run (descending) Figure 25.—Schematic diagram of the rigging of the Otis system. (Adapted from Gustave Eiffel, La Tour de Trois Cents Metres, Paris, 1900, p. 127.) apparatus was really not unlike that of an ordinary in- clined railway. Motive power was provided by the customary hydraulic cylinder (fig. 26), set on an angle roughly equal to the incline of the lower section of run. Balancing the cabin’s dead weight was a counterpoise carriage (fig. 27) loaded with pig iron that traveled on a second set of rails beneath the main track. Like the driving system, the counterweight was rope-geared, 3 to 1, so that its travel was about 125 feet to the cabin’s 377 feet. Everything about the system was on a scale far heavier than found in the normal elevator of the type. The cylinder, of 38-inch bore, was 36 feet long. Rather than a simple nest of pulleys, the piston rods pulled a large guided carriage or “‘chariot’”’ bearing six movable sheaves (fig. 28). Corresponding were five stationary sheaves, the whole reeved to form an immense 12-purchase tackle. The car, attached to the free ends of the cables, was hauled up as the piston drew the two sheave assemblies apart. In examining the system, it is difficult to determine what single element in its design might have caused such a problem as to have been beyond the engineer- ing ability of a French firm, and to have caused such concern to a large, well-established American organ- ization of Otis’ wide elevator and inclined railway experience. Indeed, when the French system— which served the first platform from the east and west legs—is examined, it appears curious that a national technology capable of producing a machine at such a level of complexity should have been unable to deal easily with the entire matter. This can be plausibly explained only on the basis of Europe’s previously mentioned lack of experience with rope- geared and other cable-hung elevator systems. The difficulty attending Otis’ work, usually true in the case of all innovations, lay unquestionably in the multitudes of details—many of them, of course, invisible when only the successfully working end product is observed. More than a matter of detail was the Commission’s demand for perfect safety, which precipitated a situa- tion typical of many confronting Otis during the entire work. Otis had wished to coordinate the entire design process through Mr. Hall, with technical matters handled by mail. Nevertheless, at Eiffel’s insistence, and with some inconvenience, in 1888 the company dispatched the project’s engineer, Thomas E. Brown, Jr., to Paris for a direct consultation. Mild conflict over minor details ensued, but a gross differ- ence of opinion arose ultimately between the American and French engineers over the safety of the system. The disagreement threatened to halt the entire project. In common with all elevators in which the car hangs by cables, the prime consideration here was a means of arresting the cabin should the cables fail. As originally presented to Eiffel, the plans indicated an elaborate modification of the standard Otis safety device—itself a direct derivative of E.G. Otis’ original. If any one of the six hoisting cables broke or stretched unduly, or if their tension slackened for any reason, powerful leaf springs were released causing brake shoes to grip the rails. The essential feature of the design was the car’s arrest by friction between its grippers and the rails so that the stopping action was gradual, not sudden as in the elevator safety. During proof trials of the safety, made prior to the fair’s opening by cutting away a set of temporary hoisting cables, the cabin would fall about 10 feet before being halted. Although highly efficient and of unquestionable security, this safety device was considered an insufh- cient safeguard by Eiffel, who, speaking in the name of the Commission, demanded the application of a device known as the rack and pinion safety that was used to some extent on European cog railways. The commissioners not only considered this system more reliable but felt that one of its features was a necessity: PAPER 19: ELEVATOR SYSTEMS OF THE EIFFEL TOWER 25 Distivbuteur di. cy linalre. Voir details Jug 13 14% VOXXWY") MH sere pour arreter fa cabiune dans te cas ou le con ductenr est dans Cimpesst bilite de le farre Le dexsuv_ in aigue Liaweret Hobimet purges UMS Manometre sy. - ¢ Chepeau-du Cylindre [off Arvél du suppor’ des tiges Loy aia presto. ° Support des tages Au pistty dans 5a position extreme = iy /°Yf Ps, Celle: posttions ealreme i, ferston ( corvespoud @ la (abiae arriwee au bas dese , course, au. Rex-de-Ch. ©) > y Entreoise de la poutre Se EE - aa cylindre Tuyau-de communication: entre le distrrbiitece eb la party super” du, cylindre Be ae Distributeur _ NT | oy: 1, | “gf Support. des tiges du \ peston. (Ce support reste \ dans celle postion pendan~ ya ‘ que. le piston parcourt Ca. | partes tnf'de sa course pa ‘de sa.course.). iH - HC ondutts ae 1 COMIN LCE - Hérorw. avce les ff ; ssonpapes Y), Choe q Hj / Fistor [ Cette posttion- ractr Pinte: correspond & la labine arrivee au haut de sa _ course, au 2°" erage / f Support en. fonte du (yltadre sup la (Poetre Ba » \ fend du lCylindre hydraatigue: ll a 7 Shobtnet purge du lylindre BDecharge . Jusgu ad niveaie aw Réstrvotr ae décharge « SS / © Robiuct purgeur aw Cylondre an-adessous due niveau “Au Heservoir Ae decharge Yi Atlathe asucylindre sis la. powutre Leutre at Cylindre fe tugau-remonty pour Aeverser (es eae . dans le Heservory ce aecharge Figure 26.—Section through the Otis power cylinder. (Adapted from Gustave Eiffel, La Tour de Trois Cents Métres, Paris, 1900, pl. 22.) 26 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY & Figure 27.—Details of the counterweight carriage in the Otis system. Gustave Eiffel, La Tour de Trois Cents Meétres, Paris, 1900, pl. 22+.) a device that permitted the car to be lowered by hand, even after failure of all the hoisting cables. The serious shortcomings of the rack and pinion were its great noisiness and the limitation it imposed on hoisting speed. Both disadvantages were due to the constant engagement of a pinion on the car with a continuous rack set between the rails. The meeting ended in an impasse, with Brown unwilling to approve the objectionable apparatus and able only to return to New York and lay the matter before his company. While Eiffel’s attitude in the matter may appear highly unreasonable, it must be said that during a subsequent meeting between Brown and Keechlin, the French engineer implied that a mutual antagonism had arisen between the Tower’s creator and the Com- mission. ‘Thus, since his own judgment must have had little influence with the commissioners at that time, Eiffel was compelled to specify what he well knew were excessive safety provisions. This decision placed Otis Brothers in a decidedly uncomfortable position, at the mercy of the Com- mission. W. E. Hale, promoter of the water balance elevator—who by then had a strong voice in Otis’ affairs—expressed the seriousness of the matter in a letter to the company’s president, Charles R. Otis, following receipt of Brown’s report on the Paris conference. Referring to wheel, Hale wrote the controversial cog- . . if this must be arranged so that the car is effected [sic] in its operation by constant contact with the rack and pin- PAPER 19: ELEVATOR SYSTEMS OF THE EIFFEL, (From ion . . . so as to communicate the noise and jar, and un- pleasant motion which such an arrangement always pro- duces, I should favor giving up the whole matter rather than allying ourselves with any such abortion. .. . we would be the laughing stock of the world, for putting up such a contrivance. This difficult situation apparently was the product of a somewhat general contract phrased in terms of service to be provided rather than of specific equip- ment to be used. This is not unusual, but it did leave open to later dispute such ambiguous clauses as “adequate safety devices are to be provided.” Although faced with the loss not only of all previ- ously expended design work but also of an advertise- ment of international consequence, the company apparently concurred with Hale and so advised Paris. Unfortunately, there are no Otis records to reveal the subsequent transactions, but we may assume that Otis’ threat of withdrawal prevailed, coupled as it was with Eiffel’s confidence in the American equip- ment. The system went into operation as originally designed, free of the odious rack and pinion. That, unfortunately, was not the final disagreement. Before the fair’s opening in May 1889, the relationship was strained so drastically that a mutually satisfactory conclusion to the project must indeed have seemed hopeless. The numerous minor structural modifica- tions of the Tower legs found necessary as construction progressed had necessitated certain equivalent altera- tion to the Otis design insofar as its dependency upon TOWER Di the framework was affected. Consequently, work on the machinery was set back by some months. Eiffel was informed that although everything was guaranteed to be in full operation by opening day on May 1, the contractual deadline of January 1 could not possibly be met. Eiffel, now unquestionably acting on his own volition, responded by cable, refusing all payment. Charles Otis’ reply, a classic of indignation, disclosed to Eiffel the jeopardy in which his impetuosity had placed the success of the entire project: After all else we have borne and suffered and achieved in your behalf, we regard this as a trifle too much; and we do not hesitate to declare, in the strongest terms possible to the English language, that we will not put up with it... and, if there is to be War, under the existing circumstances, propose that at least part of it shall be fought on American ground. If Mr. Eiffel shall, on the contrary, treat us as we believe we are entitled to be treated, under the circum- stances, and his confidence in our integrity to serve him well shall be restored in season to admit of the completion of this work at the time wanted, well and good; but it must be done at once . . . otherwise we shall ship no more work from this side, and Mr. Eiffel must charge to himself the consequences of his own acts. This message apparently had the desired effect and the matter was somehow resolved, as the machinery was in full operation when the Exposition opened. The installation must have had immense promotional value for Otis Brothers, particularly in its contrast to the somewhat anomalous French system. ‘This con- trast evidently was visible to the technically un- sophisticated as well as to visiting engineers. Several newspapers reported that the Otis elevators were one of the best American exhibits at the fair. In spite of their large over-all scale and the com- plication of the basic pattern imposed by the unique situation, the Otis elevators performed weil and justified the original judgment and confidence which had prompted Eiffel to fight for their installation. Aside from the obvious advantage of simplicity when compared to the French machines, their operation was relatively quiet, and fast. The double car, traveling at 400 feet per minute, carried 40 persons, all seated because of the change of inclination. The main valve or distributor that controlled the flow of water to and from the driving cylinder was operated from the car by cables. The hydraulic head necessary to produce pressure within the cylinder was obtained from a large open reservoir on the second platform. After being exhausted from the cylinder, the water was pumped back up by two Girard pumps (fig. 31) in the engine room at the base of the Tower’s south leg. THE SYSTEM OF ROUX, COMBALUZIER AND LEPAPE There can be little doubt that the French elevators placed in the east and west piers to carry visitors to the first stage of the Tower had the important second- ary function of saving face. That an engineer of Eiffel’s mechanical perception would have permitted their use, unless compelled to do so by the Exposition Commission, is unthinkable. Whatever the attitudes of the commissioners may have been, it must be said— recalling the Backmann system—that they did not fear innovation. The machinery installed by the firm of Roux, Combaluzier and Lepape was novel in every respect, but it was a product of misguided ingenuity and set no precedent. The system, never duplicated, was conceived, born, lived a brief and not overly creditable life, and died, entirely within the Tower. Basis of the French system was an endless chain of short, rigid, articulated links (fig. 35), to one point of which the car was attached. As the chain moved, the car was raised or lowered. Recalling the European distrust of suspended elevators, it is interesting to note that the car was pushed up by the links below, not drawn by those above, thus the active links were in compression. ‘To prevent buckling of the column, the chain was enclosed in a conduit (fig. 36). Excessive friction was prevented by a pair of small rollers at each of the knuckle joints between the links. The system was, in fact, a duplicate one, with a chain on either side of the car. At the bottom of the run the chains passed around huge sprocket wheels, 12.80 feet in diameter, with pockets on their peripheries to engage the joints. Smaller wheels at the top guided the chains. If by some motive force the wheel (fig. 33) were turned counterclockwise, the lower half of the chain would be driven upward, carrying the car with it. Slots on the inside faces of the lower guide trunks permitted passage of the connection between the car and chain. Lead weights on certain links of the chains’ upper or return sections counterbalanced most of the car’s dead weight. Two horizontal cylinders rotated the driving sprockets through a mechanism whose effect was similar to the rope-gearing of the standard hydraulic elevator, but which might be described as chain 28 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY >) int wes oo enn ren et | ae N=: es —f, AG AN RRS NEST ALS | os! =e res o = 3k Figure 28.—Plan and section of the Otis system’s movable pulley assembly, or chariot. Piston rods are at left. (Adapted from The Engineer (London), July 19, 1889, vol. 68, p. 58.) gearing. The cylinders were of the pushing rather than the pulling type used in the Otis system; that is, the pressure was introduced behind the plungers, driving them out. To the ends of the plungers were fixed smooth-faced sheaves, over which were looped heavy quadruple-link pitch chains, one end of each being solidly attached to the machine base. The free ends ran under the cylinder and made another half-wrap around small sprockets keyed to the main drive shaft. As the plungers were forced outward, the free ends of the chain moved in the opposite direc- tion, at twice the velocity and linear displacement of the plungers. The drive sprockets were thereby revolved, driving up the car. Descent was made simply by permitting the cylinders to exhaust, the car dropping of its own weight. The over-all gear or ratio of the system was the multiplication due to the double purchase of the plunger sheaves times the ratio of the chain and drive sprocket diameters: 2(12.80/1.97) or about 13:1. To drive the car 218 feet to the first platform of the Tower the plungers traveled only about 16.5 feet. To penetrate the inventive rationale behind this strange machine is not difficult. Aware of the funda- mental dictum of absolute safety before all else, the Roux engineers turned logically to the safest known elevator type—the direct plunger. This type of elevator, being well suited to low rises, formed the main body of European practice at the time, and in this fact lay the further attraction of a system firmly based on tradition. Since the piers between the ground and first platform could accommodate a straight, although inclined run, the solution might obviously have been to use an inclined, direct plunger. The only difficulty would have been that of drilling a 220-foot, inclined well for the cylinder. While a difficult problem, it would not have been insur- mountable. What then was the reason for using a design vastly more complex? The only reasonable answer that presents itself is that the designers, work- PAPER 19: ELEVATOR SYSTEMS OF THE EIFFEL TOWER 29 Figure 29.—Section through cabin of the Otis elevator. Note the pivoted floor-sections. As the car traveled, these floor-sections were leveled by the operator to compensate for the change of inclination; however, they were soon removed because they interfered with the load- ing and unloading of passengers. (From La Nature, May 4, 1889, vol. 17, p. 360.) ing in a period before the Otis bid had been accepted, were attempting to evolve an apparatus capable of the complete service to the second platform. ‘The use of a rigid direct plunger thus precluded, it became necessary to transpose the basic idea in order to adapt it to the curvature of the Tower leg, and at the same time retain its inherent quality of safety. Continuing the conceptual sequence, the idea of a plunger made in some manner flexible apparently suggested itself, becoming the heart of the Roux machines. Here then was a design exhibiting strange contrast. It was on the one hand completely novel, devised ex- pressly for this trying service; yet on the other hand it was derived from and fundamentally based on a thoroughly traditional system. If nothing else, it was safe beyond question. In Eiffel’s own words, the Roux lifts “not only were safe, but appeared safe; a most desirable feature in lifts traveling to such heights and carrying the general public.” The system’s shortcomings could hardly be more evident. Friction resulting from the more than 320 joints in the flexible pistons, each carrying two rollers, plus that from the pitch chains must have been im- mense. The noise created by such multiplicity of parts can only be imagined. Capacity was equivalent to that of the Otis system. About 100 people could be carried in the double-deck cabin, some standing. The speed, however, was only 200 feet per minute, understandably low. If it had been the initial intention of the designers to operate their cars to the second platform, they must shortly have become aware of the impracticability of this plan, caused by an inherent characteristic of the apparatus. As long as the compressive force acted along the longitudinal axis of the links, there was no lateral resultant and the only load on the small rollers was that due to the dead weight of the link itself. However, if a curve had been introduced in the guide channels to increase the incline of the upper run, as done by Otis, the force on those links traversing the bend would have been eccentric— assuming the car to be in the upper section, above the bend. The difference between the two sections (based upon the Otis system) was 78°9’ minus 54°35’, or 23°34’, the tangent of which equals 0.436. Forty- three percent of the unbalanced weight of the car and load would then have borne upon the, say, 12 sets of rollers on the curve. The immense frictional load thus added to the entire system would certainly have made it dismally inefficient, if not actually unworkable. In spite of Eiffel’s public remarks regarding the safety of the Roux machinery, in private he did not trouble to conceal his doubts. Otis’ representative, Hall, discussing this toward the end of Brown’s pre- viously mentioned report, probably presented a fairly accurate picture of the situation. His comments were based on conversations with Eiffel and Keoechlin: Mr. Gibson, Mr. Hanning [who were other Otis employ- ees] and myself came to the unanimous conclusion that Mr. Eiffel had been forced to order those other machines, from outside parties, against his own judgment: and that he was very much in doubt as to their being a practical success— and was, therefore, all the more anxious to put in our ma- 12 From speech at annual summer meeting of Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Paris, 1889. Quoted in Engineering, July 5, 1889, vol. 48, p. 18. 30 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 30.—Upperworks and passenger platforms of the Otis system (From La Nature, Aug. 10, 1889, vol. 17, p. 169.) at second level. chines (which he did have faith in) . . . and if the others ate up coal in proportions greatly in excess of ours, he would have it to say .. . “Gentlemen, these are my choice of elevators, those are yours &c.” ‘There was a published . In which Eiffel stated... meet some American gentlemen the following day, who were to provide him with elevators—grand elevators, I think he said. ... interview . . that he was to The Roux and the Otis systems both drew their water supply from the same tanks; also, each system used similar distributing valves (fig.32) operated from the cars. Although no reports have been found of actual controlled tests comparing the efficiencies of the Otis and Roux systems, a general quantitative comparison may be made from the balance figures given for each (p. 40), where it is seen that 2,665 pounds of excess tractive effort were allowed to over- come the friction of the Otis machinery against 13,856 pounds for the Roux. THE EDOUX SYSTEM The section of the Tower presenting the least diffi- culty to elevator installation was that above the juncture of the four legs—from the second platform to the third, or observation, enclosure. There was no question that French equipment could perform this service. The run being perfectly straight and vertical, the only unusual demand upon contemporary elevator technology was the length of rise—525 feet. The system ultimately selected (fig. 37) appealed to the Commission largely because of a smiliar one that had been installed in one tower of the famous Troca- dero ® and which had been operating successfully for 10 years. It was the direct plunger system of Leon Edoux, and was, for the time, far more rationally contrived than Backmann’s helicoidal system. Edoux, an old schoolmate of Eiffel’s, had built thousands of elevators in France and was possibly the country’s most successful inventor and manufacturer in the field. It is likely that he did not attempt to obtain the contract for the elevator equipment in the Tower legs, as his experience was based almost entirely on plunger systems, a type, as we have seen, not readily adaptable to that situation. What is puzzling was the failure of the Commission’s members to recognize sooner Edoux’s obvious ability to provide equipment for the upper run. It may have been due to their inexplicable confidence in Backmann. 13 Located near the Tower, built for the Paris fair of 1878. PAPER 19: ELEVATOR SYSTEMS OF THE EIFFEL TOWER 31 Figure 31.—The French Roux systems. The direct plunger elevator was the only type in which European practice was in advance of American practice at this time. 20th century, into competition with electrical systems, was the Not until the beginning of the when hydraulic systems were forced direct plunger elevator improved in America to the extent of being practically capable of high rises and speeds. Another reason for its early disfavor in the United States was the necessity for drilling an expen- sive plunger well equal in length to the rise."* As mentioned, the most serious problem confronting Edoux was the extremely high rise of 525 feet. The Trocadero elevator, then the highest plunger machine in the world, traveled only about 230 feet. A second- 14 [Improved oil-well drilling techniques were influential in the intense but short burst of popularity enjoyed by direct plunger systems in the United States between 1899 and 1910. In New York, many such systems of 200-foot rise, and one of 380 feet, were installed. 32 BULLETIN 228: Ne EE F< _ = A aS a a! ae eee Yy YHyygp Ge y Y Girard pumps that supplied the Otis and (From La Nature, Oct. 5, 1889, vol. 17, p. 292.) ary difficulty was the esthetic undesirability of per- mitting a plunger cylinder to project downward a distance equal to such a rise, which would have carried it directly into the center of the open area be- neath the first platform (fig. 6). Both problems were met by an ingenious modification of the basic system. The run was divided into two equal sections, each of 262 feet, and two cars were used. One operated from the bottom of the run at the second platform level to an intermediate platform half-way up, while the other operated from this point to the observation platform near the top of the Tower. The two sections were of course parallel, but offset. A central guide, on the Tower’s center-line, running the entire 525 feet served both cars, with shorter guides on either side—one for the upper and one for the lower run. Thus, each car traveled only half the total distance. The two cars were connected, as in the Backmann system, by steel cables running over sheaves at the CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY < ; Water under| pressure See Figure 32.—The Otis distributor, with valves shown in motionless, neutral position. Since the main valve at all times was subjected to the full operating pressure, it was necessary to drive this valve with a servo piston. The control cable operated only the servo piston’s valve. (Adapted from Gustave Eiffel, La Tour de Trois Cents Metres, Paris, 1900, p. 130.) top, balancing each other and eliminating the need for counterweights. Two driving rams were used. By being placed beneath the upper car, their cylinders extended downward only the 262 feet to the second platform and so did not project beyond the confines of the system itself.1° In making the upward or down- 15 An obvious question arises here: What prevents a plunger 200 or 300 feet long and no more than 16 inches in diameter from buckling under its compressive loading? ‘The answer is simply that most of this length is not in compression but in tension. The Edoux rams, when fully extended, virtually hung from the upper car, sustained by the weight of 500 feet of cable on the other side of the sheaves. As the upper car descended this effect diminished, but as the rams moved back into the cyl- inders their unsupported length was correspondingly reduced. ward trip, the passengers had to change from one car to the other at the intermediate platform, where the two met and parted (fig. 39). This transfer was the only undesirable feature of what was, on the whole, a thoroughly efficient and well designed work of ele- vator engineering. In operation, water was admitted to the two cylinders from a tank on the third platform. The resultant hydraulic head was sufficient to force out the rams and raise the upper car. As the rams and car rose, the rising water level in the cylinders caused a progressive reduction of the available head. This negative effect was further heightened by the fact that, as the rams moved upward, less and less of their PAPER 19: ELEVATOR SYSTEMS OF THE EIFFEL TOWER 39) Control valves C OF ae = 34 BULLETIN 228: Figure 33.—General arrangement of the Roux Combaluzier and Lepape elevator. CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 34.—Roux, Combaluzier and Lepape machinery and cabin at the Tower’s base. (From La Nature, Aug. 10, 1889, vol. 17, p. 168.) length was buoyed by the water within the cylinders, increasing their effective weight. These two factors were, however, exactly compensated for by the lengthening of the cables on the other side of the pulleys as the lower car descended. Perfect balance of the system’s dead load for any position of the cabins was, therefore, a quality inherent in its design. How- ever, there were two extreme conditions of live loading which required consideration: the lower car full and the upper empty, or vice versa. To permit the upper car to descend under the first condition, the plungers were made sufficiently heavy, by the addition of cast iron at their lower ends, to overbalance the weight of a capacity load in the lower car. The second condition demanded simply that the system be power- ful enough to lift the unbalanced weight of the plungers plus the weight of passengers in the upper car. As in the other systems, safety was a matter of prime importance. In this case, the element of risk lay in the possibility of the suspended car falling. The upper car, resting on the rams, was virtually free of such danger. Here again the influence of Backmann was felt—a brake of his design was applied (fig. 38). It was, trueto form, a throwback, similar safety devices having proven unsuccessful much earlier. Attached to the lower car were two helically threaded vertical PAPER 19: ELEVATOR SYSTEMS OF THE EIFFEL TOWER 35 ” 39 34 (1 Meter ) Figure 35.—Detail of links in the Roux system. (From Gustave Eiffel, La Tour de Trois Cents Metres, Paris, 1900, p. 156.) rollers, working within the hollow guides. Corre- sponding helical ribs in the guides rotated the rollers as the car moved. If the car speed exceeded a set Figure 36.—Section of guide trunks in the Roux system. (From Gustave Eiffel, La Tour de Trois Cents Métres, Paris, 1900, p. 156.) limit, the increased resistance offered by the apparatus drove the rollers up into friction cups, slowing or ' stopping the car. The device was considered ineffectual by Edoux and Eiffel, who were aware that the ultimate safety of the system resulted from the use of supporting cables far heavier than necessary. There were four such cables, with a total sectional area of 15.5 square inches. The total maximum load to which the cables might be subjected was about 47,000 pounds, producing a stress of about 3,000 pounds per square inch com- pared to a breaking stress of 140,000 pounds per square inch—a safety factor of 46! 1¢ 16 M. A. Ansaloni, ““The Lifts in the Eiffel Tower,’ quoted in Engineering, July 5, 1889, vol. 48, p. 23. The strength of steel when drawn into wire is increased tremendously. Break- ing stresses of 140,000 p.s.i. were not particularly high at the time. Special cables with breaking stresses of up to 370,000 p-s.l. were available. 36 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 3rd stage Suspension cables Intermediate stage 2nd Stage G Figure 37.—Schematic diagram of the Edoux system. (Adapted from Gustave Eiffel, La Tour de Trois Cents Metres, Paris, 1900, p. 175.) Helicoidal brake Cabin floor Figure 38.—Vertical section through lower (suspended) Edoux car, showing Backmann helicoidal safety brake. (Adapted from Gus- tave Eiffel, La Tour Eiffel en rg00, Paris, 1902, p. 12.) Friction cone A curiosity in connection with the Edoux system was the use of Worthington (American) pumps (fig. 40) to carry the water exhausted from the cylinders back to the supply tanks. No record has been found that might explain why this particular exception was made to the “foreign materials” stipulation. This exception is even more strange in view of Otis’ futile request for the same pumps and the fact that any number of native machines must have been available. It is possible that Edoux’s personal influence was sufficient to overcome the authority of the regulation. PAPER 19: ELEVATOR SYSTEMS OF THE EIFFEL TOWER 3if IL ll Kt | Figure 39.—Passengers changing cars on Edoux elevator at inter- mediate platform. (From La Nature, May 4, 1889, vol. 17, p. 361.) homme ~ Figure 40.—Worthington tandem compound steam pumps, at base of the Tower’s south pier, supplied water for the Edoux system. The tank was at 896 feet, but suction was taken from the top of the cylinders at 643 feet; therefore, the pumps worked against a head of only about 250 feet. (From La Nature, Oct. 5, 1889, vol. 17, p. 293.) BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 41.—Recent view of lower car of the Edoux system, showing slotted cylindrical guides that enclose the cables. Epilogue In 1900, after the customary 11-year period, Paris again prepared for an international exposition, about 5 years too early to take advantage of the great prog- ress made by the electric elevator. When the Roux machines, the weakest element in the Eiffel Tower system, were replaced at this time, it was by other hydraulics. Built by the well known French en- gineering organization of Fives-Lilles, the new ma- chines were the ultimate in power, control, and general excellence of operation. As in the Otis system, the cars ran all the way to the second platform. The Fives-Lilles equipment reflected the advance of European elevator engineering in this short time. The machines were rope-geared and incorporated the elegant feature of self-leveling cabins which com- pensated for the varying track inclination. For the 1900 fair, the Otis elevator in the south pier was also removed and a wide stairway to the first platform built in its place. In 1912, 25 years after Backmann’s startling proposal to use electricity for his system, the remaining Otis elevator was replaced by a small electric one. This innovation was reluctantly intro- duced solely for the purpose of accommodating visitors in the winter when the hydraulic systems were shut PAPER 19: ELEVATOR SYSTEMS OF THE EIFFEL TOWER 3h) down due to freezing weather. The electric elevator had a short life, being removed in 1922 when the number of winter visitors increased far beyond its capacity. However, the two hydraulic systems were modified to operate in freezing temperatures—pre- sumably by the simple expedient of adding an anti- freezing chemical to the water—and operation was placed on a year-round basis. Today the two Fives-Lilles hydraulic systems remain in full use; and visitors reach the Tower’s summit by Edoux’s elevator (fig. 41), which is all that remains of the original installation. BALANCE OF THE THREE ELEvator SysTEMS The Otis System Negative effect Weight of cabin: 23,900 lb. Xsin 78°9’ (incline of upper run) 23, 390 lb Live load: 40 persons @150 lb.=6,000 Xsin 78°09’ 5, 872 aa — 29, 262 lb. Positive effect Ghuineeete 55, 000 Xsin 54°35 (incline of lower run) eiaronie 3 (rope gear ratio) Weight of piston and chariot: 33, obortsinl S435 12 (ratio) 2,245 _ 156 p.s.i. 1,134 sq. in. (piston area) Power: TouGatio) 14, 742 31, 927 |b. Excess to overcome friction 2, 665 lb. The Roux, Combaluzier and Lepape System Negative effect Weight of cabin: 14,100 sin 54°35/ 11, 500 lb. Live load: 100 persons @150 lb.=15,000 sin 54°35/ 12, 220 — 23.7 20m» Positive effect Counterweight: 6,600 sin 54°35’ 5, 380 _ 156 p.s.i. <2 (pistons) X 1,341.5 sq. in. (piston area) 6 lb Power: 1G Canto) 32, 196 37,57 ; Excess to overcome friction 13, 856 Ib. The Edoux System Negative effect Unbalanced weight of plungers (necessary to raise full lower car and weight of cables on lower side) 42, 330 |b. Live load: 60 persons @150 lb. g, 000 —5I, 330 lb. Positive effect Power: 227.5 p.s.i.< 2(plungers) < 124 sq. in. (plunger area) 56, 420 lb. Excess to overcome friction 5, 090 |b. 40 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1961 = ae eae ‘HARVARD UNIVERSITY 1 ’ { i i i ! Lan wy 4 wi ' Dies ’ j iy “4 yt n i ne! i Hi hy : , Py Wa Mit Cabiigaee , j t RETO AGT is vy sein) ie h CONTRIBUTIONS FROM Tue Museum or History AND TECHNOLOGY: Paper 20 Joun EricssoN AND THE AGE OF CALORIC Eugene S. Ferguson THE BUILDER THE “‘ERICSSON’’ AND HER ENGINE THE TRIAL OF THE ‘‘ERICSSON”’ STATE OF THE ART PERFORMANCE FIGURES THE GRAND PRINCIPLE ESTIMATE OF POWER DEVELOPED 43 44 45 4] 49 52 59 John Evicsson and the Age of Caloric In the middle of the 19th century John Ericsson built a ship powered by an enormous caloric engine that was expected to demonstrate his ‘grand prin- ciple,’ that heat—supposed by him and many others to be a material fluid—could be used over and over again as a substitute for fuel. At a time when the relationship between heat and mechanical work was not entirely clear, the ships trial un excited a storm of controversy. A study of the details reveals the difficulties that beset the engineers and scientists who were striving to understand the laws of thermodynamics governing this relationship. Tue Autuor: Eugene S. Ferguson is curator of the division of mechanical and civil engineering in the United States National Museum, Smithsonian Eugene S. Ferguson Institution. In 1852 Capt. John Ericsson built the caloric ship Ericsson, %mtended for transatlantic service. The enormous caloric engine of the Ericsson, dwarfing even the largest of huge steam engines then in ex- istence on land and sea, was heralded by the popular press as the precursor of a new era in power generation. The caloric engine was a reciprocating air engine. Its distinctive feature, aside from its size, was a regenerator designed by Captain Ericsson to exploit his ‘grand principle,” which said that caloric (heat) could be used over and over again to produce power. He did not claim to be the author of the principle, but he was its most ardent supporter. Experience and intuition told many critics that there was a fallacy involved in Captain Ericsson’s reasoning, but few of these critics could explain clearly and convincingly just why caloric could not be used more than once. One might suppose that the caloric theory, in which a subtle elastic fluid called caloric was used to explain the observed phenomena of heat flow, had quietly expired when the mechanical equivalent of heat (one B.t.u.=778 ft.-lb.) had been determined in the 1840’s. And no doubt the theory would have expired had not Captain Ericsson announced his support of it in such tangible form. If the Ericsson had not been built, it is likely that, as the emerging science of thermodynamics was reported in the journals of learned societies, only an occasional “hear, hear!’ would have punctuated the gradual process of correction and clarification; on the other hand, we now should know a great deal less about the intellectual climate into which the new theories were being introduced. The decade before the Civil War had more than its share of monumental engineering works. The Crystal Palaces in London and in New York, John Roebling’s 800-foot Niagara span, the great iron ship Great Eastern, the Atlantic Cable, Pennsylvania’s Horseshoe Curve, and the Collins Line steamships crossing the North Atlantic on a schedule that defied wind and tide, all were accomplishments that have 42 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 1.—The Ericsson in 1853, from a lithograph published by Sarony & Major, New York. such a daring and audacious quality about them that they still move one to admiration. Not the least of such bold achievements was the building of the massive engine of the Ericsson. As noted by the New-York Daily Tribune, this caloric engine was shown to the world ‘“‘on a scale unprecedented in the history of inventions.” } The Ericsson excited a great deal of attention, being the subject of spirited discussions on both sides of the Atlantic. In the course of explaining, debating. attacking, and defending the idea upon which the success of the enterprise depended, engineers and scientists stated, as best they could in the absence of a clear and satisfactory theory of heat, their under- standing of the processes involved in the appearance of power at an engine’s crankshaft. It is the object of this article to explore the general state of the art and science of engineering thermo- dynamics at the middle of the 19th century as reflected 1 New-York Daily Tribune, January 12, 1853. (In United States National Museum.) by the particularly striking and revealing events and discussions revolving around John Ericsson’s contro- versial ship. The Builder Born in Sweden in 1803, John Ericsson came to America in 1839 after an active engineering career of thirteen years in England. Best known for his building of the highly successful Monitor during the Civil War, he had earlier successfully promoted the application of the screw propeller to ship propulsion. His innovations in the design of the railroad loco- motive, steam fire engine, and steam engine may not have pointed the direction for the main stream of engineering advance, but his unceasing energy in producing and promoting new ideas unquestionably had a significant effect upon the course travelled by the main stream. PAPER 20: JOHN ERICSSON AND THE AGE OF CALORIC 43 The Ericsson and Her Engine The Ericsson was a finely modeled wooden ship about 250 feet long, with a beam of 40 feet and depth of hold of 27 feet. Her registered tonnage was 1,903. By way of comparison, the Collins Line ships were about 285 feet long, with a beam of 45 feet and tonnage of 2,750. The four working cylinders of the engine, vertical and in-line, each 14 feet in diameter and having a stroke of 6 feet, were individually connected to four supply, or compressor, cylinders, each 1115 feet in diameter. A supply cylinder was located above each working cylinder. This ponderous air engine, with a working displacement two and a half times that of the largest steam engines, was connected to a crankshaft on which turned 32-foot paddle wheels at a speed of about 9 revolutions per minute. No drawings of the Ericsson's engine were ever published, and Captain Ericsson’s beautifully exe- cuted working drawings have not survived; however, the arrangement of each cylinder was similar to that shown in figure 3, which is a copy of the patent specification drawing of 1851.2, A conjectural sketch of the arrangement of the driving mechanism is given in figure 5. ‘Two sets of working and supply cylinders were forward of the paddleshaft and two sets were abaft of it. A pivoted horizontal working beam transmitted power from the two forward units through a connecting rod to the crank; a second working beam and connecting rod were provided for the after units. a single crankpin.® The device that was designed to make possible the repeated use of caloric was the regenerator. Each regenerator—one was provided for each cylinder— consisted of a chamber 6 feet high, 4 feet wide, and 1 foot thick. This space was filled with 150 sheets of iron wire mesh, which had about 10 wires to the inch in each direction; each wire was about a thirty- second of an inch in diameter.* Atmospheric air was drawn into the upper cylinder as its piston moved downward, and the air was com- pressed as the piston rose. The two connecting rods shared When a compression pressure of about 8 pounds per square inch was 2 U.S. Patent 8481, November 4, 1851. 3 American Journal of Science and Arts [Silliman’s Journal of Science], 1853, ser. 2, vol. 15, pp. 394-395. 4 The size of the mesh is derived from conflicting evidence: New-York Daily Times, January 12, 1853; Appletons’ Mechanics? Magazine and Engineers’ Journal, 1853, vol. 3, pp. 38, 39, 92. Figure 2.—John Ericsson. (From a_photo- graph by C. D. Fredericks & Co., New York; in division of mechanical and civil engineering, United States National Museum.) reached, the compressed charge was delivered to the The air from the receiver was then led through the regenerator, where it was warmed by the screen-wire packing of the regenerator, and into the working cylinder. The furnace beneath the working cylinder further heated the charge of air in the cylinder; the air expanded as it was heated and thus raised the piston of the working cylinder. Finally, the air in the working cylinder, after it had done its work on the piston, was exhausted through the re- generator. The exhaust air warmed the screen-wire receiver. packing, which was then ready to impart its energy Processes of the cycle are outlined in a series of sketches (figure 6), and to the next incoming air charge. the cycle is shown on pressure-volume and tempera- ture-entropy coordinates in figure 7. The remarkable feature of the engine, according to its designer, was the ingenious employment of the re- generator. In it, he said, the spent charge, being exhausted from the cylinder, deposited its caloric as it passed through on its way to the atmosphere. ‘The caloric, lurking among the thousands of tiny spaces 44 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY in the screen-wire packing, lay ready to be picked up by the incoming air charge as it passed from the receiver to the working cylinder. Thus, Ericsson maintained, the caloric could be used over and over again. The furnace was needed only to supply the inevitable losses of caloric by radiation and by the “heat lost by the expansion of the acting medium.” ® How simple the idea appeared, and how attractive! Its implications were not clear to Captain Ericsson, but it will be found that the errors into which he fell were not yet plainly marked or easily explained. On the other hand, a substantial number of engineers and others recognized intuitively that he was, in fact, pursuing a will-o’-the-wisp. The Trial of the Evicsson The trial voyage, on Tuesday, January 11, 1853, was expected to supply the definitive answer to the questions and speculations that had been accumu- lating while, over a period of a year or more, the ship and her engine were being built. The information that had been parceled out to the press by Captain Ericsson concerning the caloric engines was accepted for the most part uncritically, and the community at large was prepared to see a revolution in power-plant practice take place in the protected waters of New York Bay. An assemblage of perhaps 60 people was invited to be present. Editors or reporters of all the New York dailies, Freeman Hunt of the Merchants’ Magazine, and, according to the New-York Daily Times, ‘a few gentlemen whose scientific abilities render them amply qualified to pronounce judgment upon a_ project fraught with such momentous results’ ® were taken on board the Ericsson at the Battery. One of the scientific gentlemen, Prof. James J. Mapes, consultant on brewing and agricultural chemistry and good friend of the inventor, was present as speaker at the sumptuous banquet that was to crown the festive occasion. There was, however, one uninvited guest. Orson Munn, the 28-year-old editor of Sczentifc American, slipped on board unnoticed“ and sounded the only jarring note in an otherwise solid and harmonious chorus of praise. Munn, a patent solicitor who used his paper’s columns to promote the inventions of his 5 U.S. Patent 8481, November 4, 1851. 8 New-York Daily Times, January 12, 1853. 7 Scientific American, January 22, 1853, vol. 8, p. 149. Figure 3.—Patent drawing of Ericsson’s caloric engine, 1851. (From Mechanics’ Magazine, London, July 19, 1851, vol. 55, p. 41.) clients, had not been invited for the reason that Captain Ericsson could hardly expect fair treatment by him, because Ericsson was not Munn’s client. The harbor of New York was, as usual, a busy one. There were coastwise and harbor sailing craft, clippers bound out for California, transatlantic packet ships, and, as if to proclaim that the age of steam was here to stay, the Collins liner Baltic thrashed her way past the Ericsson at her usual 14 knots.§ The trial voyage took the Ericsson from the Battery to a point off Fort Diamond (now Fort Lafayette) in the Narrows, about 7 miles distant, and return. The ship was under way for about two hours and a half. A well-planned program—one journal, editor was not invited, called it ‘‘a sort of ‘sell’ played off on the reporters” “—kept the gentlemen of the press occupied. There was a breakfast for those who had been hurried by the early hour of departure, and wine for those who had not. In the great cabin, Captain Ericsson, using a pasteboard working model, explained “in a very persuasive manner” how the engine worked, and why. When they were not other- wise occupied, the reporters could go down to the whose 8 Scientific American, March 5, 1853, vol. 8, p. 197. 9 Appletons’ Mechanics?’ Magazine and Engineers’ Journal, May 1853, p. 117. PAPER 20: JOHN ERICSSON AND THE AGE OF CALORIC 45 engine room, where their host capitalized on the low speed of the great engine by letting his guests embark “Our sensation on riding up and down on these huge pistons,”’ wrote one of the editorial riders, “we shall not soon forget.” !° Finally, there was a banquet, followed by speeches, toasts, and long and loud upon the open tops of the 14-foot pistons. applause. The inevitable resolution, extolling the virtues of the caloric engine and its modest inventor, was drawn up by the committee appointed for the purpose, and its signing by nearly all hands closed the festivities for the day. As the party scrambled ashore, irreverent editor Munn piped a “Vive la humbug!” Professor Mapes quickly plugged the shocked silence with his exclama- tion, ‘‘Here’s a man proposing his own health!’ 1 Next morning, the papers gave their reports to the public. The New-York Daily Tribune led off with: The demonstration is perfect. The age of Steam is closed; the age of Caloric opens. Fulton and Watt belong to the Past; Ericsson is the great mechanical genius of the Present and the Future. The New-York Daily Times referred to the event as one “‘which will be held memorable in the ages yet to come.” The Daily Times also reported in detail the question and answer session that Captain Ericsson presided over during the trial trip. Some explanation of the uniformly laudatory tone of the press is to be found in the reporters’ reactions to the inventor’s replies. To anyone who might object to the fact that the ship made only 64% knots (7 statute miles per hour) while the Collins liners made 14 knots, it was made abundantly clear that . it was not intended on this occasion to exhibit the sailing qualities of this vessel; so that this rate of speed should be considered rather as the minimum than the maximum of her capability. There were mechanical imperfections in the engines that Captain Ericsson was well aware of, he said, and they would be rectified. Besides, the power could be augmented by increasing the size of the cylinders. He had from the first wanted to make the cylinders 16 feet in diameter, but the constructors would not then attempt so large a casting. Now, said Captain 10 Ericsson’s Caloric Engine; Articles . . . Taken from the Daily Journals of the City of New York, Washington, 1853, p. 6. 1 New-York Daily Times, January 12, 1853. 2 New-York Daily Tribune, January 12, 1853. Ericsson, Messrs. Hogg and Delamater (the con- structors) would be glad to make 20-foot diameter cylinders ‘‘at their own risk.” This pronouncement was met by “‘great applause.”” And when the Captain said that the trial “‘has exceeded my highest anticipa- tions,” the cabin rang with cheers.¥ The Scientific American’s treatment of the incident was on the whole reasonable. Editor Munn noted [the] machinery have shown themselves to have long heads, and skilful hands. We have never seen anything to He did, however, question the competence of the newspaper writers who were present on this occasion, stating that Captain Ericsson was “‘far more modest of what he has done than they are.” He ventured the thought that “‘we cannot but think that the good opinion of one eminent practical engineer in favor of the hot air engine would be worth more than all the rest of the daily paper fraternity besides.” | In February the Ericsson made a round trip to that ‘‘the designer and constructors of .. . compare with the castings.” Washington, a voyage of about 500 miles, at a speed variously reported as averaging 4.7 to 6.0 knots, while the public was assured that ‘‘she made no attempt to try her speed on her way hither, that forming no part of the object of her voyage.” The ship was visited in Washington by President Fillmore, President-Elect Pierce, and delegations from both houses of Congress. Captain Ericsson convinced the Secretary of the Navy that a large caloric frigate could be built that would attain a minimum speed of 10 knots with a maximum fuel consumption of 8 tons of coal in 24 hours. Accordingly, the Secretary asked the Congress to appropriate $500,000 to have Captain Ericsson build such a vessel.!® Fortunately, the Committee on Naval Affairs quietly laid the request aside. There was never any question about the fact that the caloric engine propelled the Ericsson. However, merely moving a ship was not enough. In order to compete successfully with existing engines the caloric engine had to move a ship at least twice as rapidly as it had done thus far, and this was clearly beyond its capacity. 13 New-York Daily Times, January 12, 1853. 14 Scientific American, January 22, 1853, vol. 8, p. 149. 15 Scientific American, March 5, 1853, vol. 8, p. 197. 16 National Intelligencer, Washington, February 25 and March 3, 1853. 46 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY When the inventor became convinced finally that the maximum rather than the minimum of the Ericsson's capability had been demonstrated, his financial backers underwrote for the ship a new caloric engine with smaller cylinders, to be operated at higher pressure. When this new engine was tried in New York Bay, with the ship performing beauti- fully and with no outside observers on board, “‘at the very moment of success—of brilliant success,” a violent squall hit the ship. An open cargo door, open for the discharge of rubbish, allowed her to fill rapidly and she sank to the bottom. She was quickly raised; but, in spite of its announced success, the new engine was replaced by a steam engine. No public explanation was given by Captain Ericsson at this time for the abandonment of his caloric engine. The caloric engine was claimed to be safer and vastly more economical than a steam plant. It was safer—there was no boiler to explode—but it is doubtful whether the caloric engine was economical in pounds of fuel burned per horsepower hour output. When the additional bulk of the engine is considered, as compared to a steam power plant, it becomes evident why Captain Ericsson finally was forced to return to steam. If an air engine operating at the low pressures then attainable were made powerful enough to compete with a steam engine, its bulk would have exceeded the capacity of the ship’s hull. In a later patent, for an “‘improve- ment in air-engines,’ Captain Ericsson referred to the caloric engine of the Ericsson: ‘“‘Experience has demonstrated that the power of such engines will always be found insufficient for practical purposes.”’ '® more State of the Art In his 1824 essay on work and heat, Sadi Carnot had observed that ‘‘in spite of the efforts of many enterprising souls to improve heat engines, and in spite of the satisfactory state to which engines have been brought, their theory is but little understood, 17 William Church, Life of John Ericsson, New York, 1890 vol. 1, p. 195. 18 U.S. Patent 13348, July 31, 1855. For note on steam engines in the Ericsson, see Mechanics’ Magazine, London, 1855, vol. 63, pp. 5-6. For outline of subsequent history of the ship, which survived until 1892, see Erik Heyl, Early American Steamers, 2 vols., Buffalo, 1956, vol. 2, pp. 79-80. For recent work on air-engine development, see Philips Technical Review, 1947, vol. 9, pp. 97-104, 125-134. and attempts to improve them are still guided nearly by chance.” 1° The situation was not materially different in 1852, although Carnot and his successors had developed the principles that led eventually to coherent and demon- strable statements of the laws of thermodynamics. The men who actually designed and built engines were not generally conversant with the latest findings of scientists. If occasionally an engineer waded through an English paper or the translation of a French or German work, the implications of the new ideas were seldom clear because the scientists them- selves were groping for, but had not yet established, an orderly theory of heat. Steam was the dominant motive power, and, both in power and in economy, steam engines were quite highly developed. In size, few exceeded the 2,290 horsepower engine of the Collins liner Arctzc that consisted of two double-acting cylinders, each 8 feet in diameter with a stroke of 10 feet.2? In economy, none exceeded the stationary Cornish pumping engines, which required about 2% pounds of coal per horsepower hour output. In the 70 years since Watt’s highly successful steam engines had been introduced, numerous attempts had been made to build a safer and more economical prime mover that could be used in their place.*? There were two general lines of approach to the problem. The first involved the employment of a working fluid other than steam. The second aimed to conserve and utilize heat by internal combustion—that is, by burn- ing fuel in the working space of the engine. Alcohol, ether, and mercury—all of which have a lower heat of vaporization (requiring less heat to vaporize each pound of liquid) than water—were tried in numerous engines. The inventors assumed that the work done by each pound of vapor was the same for all vapors; therefore, vapor that could be generated with the least expenditure of heat would be the most desirable. In 1824 Mechanics Magazine 19 Sadi Carnot, Réflexions sur la Puissance Motrice de Feu, Paris, 1824; reprinted in Annales de Ecole Normale Supérieure, ser. 2, 1872, vol. 1, p. 396. Also available in English translation by R. H. Thurston as Reflections on the Motive Power of Heat, New York, 1890. 20 John H. Morrison, History of the American Steam Navy, New York, 1903, p. 412. 21 An excellent summary of the history is George H. Babcock’s “Substitutes for Steam,” Transactions of the American Soctety of Mechanical Engineers, 1885-1886, vol. 7, pp. 680-741. PAPER 20: JOHN ERICSSON AND THE AGE OF CALORIC 47 reported that Sir Humphry Davy had “‘discovered that the application of a certain gas, 15 times heavier than the atmosphere, to the mechanism of the steam engine, will produce a power fully equal to that which now results from the application of steam.” * This gas (mercury ?) was not to be the successor to steam, however. A water-ether binary vapor cycle, often discussed, was made to do useful work by at least one builder. Steam, exhausted from a conventional steam engine, was condensed in a tubular heat exchanger, contain- ing ether, that served as an ether boiler. The ether was then expanded in a separate working cylinder and condensed in a conventional surface condenser. Sucha power plant was actually used about this time in a vessel plying the Mediterranean between Marseilles and Algiers.” Dozens of internal combustion engines, in which the energy of fuel was imparted directly to the working medium, had been designed and _ tested since the time of Christiaan Huygens, who in 1680 tried to use gunpowder in a vertical engine cylinder. In the 1820’s, Samuel Brown built in England a number of atmospheric gas engines in which an intermittent gas flame in the working cylinder heated air for each stroke of the engine. Instead of making use of the expansive force of the heated air, the designer arranged for the air to be cooled, and the vacuum thus produced enabled the atmosphere to do work on the outside face of the piston. Samuel Morey, in America, adapted the idea to a turpentine engine and added a carbureting chamber to evaporate and collect the combustible turpentine vapor. But the internal combustion engine in any form was not in general use by midcentury. Heated air had been more successfully employed by compressing a charge of air in a compressor cylinder, heating the charge in a furnace, and delivering it under pressure to a working cylinder. James Glaze- brook, an English engineer, when designing an air engine in 1797, noted the advantage of using the air exhausted from the working cylinder to assist the furnace in heating the next charge of air.*4* This was the idea of the regenerator, which in Captain 22 Mechanics’ Magazine, London, 1824, vol. 1, p. 68. 23 Practical Mechanics Journal, London, 1853-1854, vol. 6, p. 217; W. J. M. Rankine, A Manual of the Steam Engine, ed. 15, London, 1902, p. 444. 24 British Patent 2164, August 3, 1797. Ericsson’s caloric engine was to be referred to as the “grand principle.” Robert and James Stirling, of Scotland, patented air engines in 1827 and 1840,” and for three years one of their engines supplied power for a foundry in Dundee.” A regenerator had been considered by the Stirlings as a necessary unit in each of their designs, and the 1840 improvement consisted of a separate “plate box,’ or regenerator, an im- perfect version of the one finally adopted by Captain Ericsson. Nor was Captain Ericsson a latecomer among air- engine designers. In 1826, in England, he had built an air engine with a separate vessel for heating the air, and a “refrigerator” for cooling it; while this engine would run, it could not be lubricated satis- factorily because of high air temperatures. It had no regenerator.” In 1833 Ericsson patented his first “caloric”? engine (fig. 8), which had a regenerator in the form of a tubular heat exchanger.” In the ensuing discussion of the merits of the caloric idea as advanced by Ericsson, the celebrated Professor Faraday devoted one. of his popular lectures to Ericsson’s engine. The inventor probably was in the audience when the professor, at the outset of his lecture, declared that it had just occurred to him that the explanation that he had carefully prepared of the engine’s principle was in error, and that at the moment he did not know why the engine worked at all.?9 A host of other ideas for prime movers had been brought forward in the decades before 1850. Like the caloric engine, many of the engines would run and would do useful work; but of all the schemes for supplanting steam engines with superior prime movers, none had yet been able to show an economic advantage over conventional steam systems. It was on this shoal that many a promising device was grounded. The question of ‘‘Will it pay?” was one that had to be convincingly answered in the affirma- tive before an engine could be sold to a critical buyer. Let us look for a moment, then, at the actual per- formance of the caloric engines of the Ericsson. 25 British Patents 5456, July 20, 1827, and 8652, October 1, 1840. 26 Minutes of Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers, London, 1853, vol. 12, p. 600. 27 [bid., p. 351. 28 British Patent 6409, April 4, 1833. 29 Mechanics’ Magazine, London, March 1, 1834, vol. 20, p- 368. 48 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY —7=_ ee Figure 4.—Two-cylinder stationary test engine built before the engine for the Ericsson was started. Each working cylinder was 6 feet in diameter. The length of stroke was 2 feet. Journal, February 1853, vol. 3, pl. 2.) Performance Figures Captain Ericsson never chose to subject his caloric engine to examination by a competent observer and he published no performance figures that exhibited evidence of their having been determined by an actual test of the engine. When critics began to analyze the performance of the engine, using such data as they could find, and to publish their results, Ericsson was quick to question the motives, experience, ability, and conclusions of each writer, but he was not willing to give actual performance figures. Inadvertently, he gave a few data in his replies to his ‘“‘detractors,’”’ and some indi- cation of his understanding of thermodynamic prin- ciples was thus supplied. Captain Ericsson particularly objected to the mathe- matical approach of Maj. John G. Barnard, which had been published serially.°° Barnard—an Aimy en- gineer who had graduated from West Point in 1833 at the age of 18, ranking second in a class of 43—made a series of elaborate calculations; but even allowing for faulty data, his results were frequently in error. 30 Appletons’ Mechanics’ Magazine and Engineers’ Journal, 1853, vol. 3, pp. 82-86, 152-158, 217-221. (From Appletons’ Mechamcs’ Magazine and Engineers’ He became so involved in details that he was unable However, he was well aware of the mechanical equivalent of heat, and to sustain a convincing argument. stated clearly its application to the regenerative feature of the caloric engine. Captain Ericsson characterized Major Barnard’s calculations as ‘‘symbolical mystifi- cation, the horror of all practical men—a mystification which smatterers invariably inflict on them,” and proceeded to show, by diagrams and arithmetic, that the ‘“‘theoretical power of the engine was 1313 horses.’ *! Major Barnard had concluded that the indicated horsepower of the caloric engine was 262.°° Captain Ericsson, during his press conference in the Ericsson, had said it was 600. The Sczentific American arrived at the preposterously precise figure of 244.572 horse- power. Various other calculations ranged from 116 to 316 horsepower.** 31 [bid., pp. 121-122. 32 Tbid., p. 218. 33 Scientific American, 1853, vol. 8, p. 149; Mechanics’ Magazine, London, 1853, vol. 58, p. 170 [208 hp.]; American Journal of Science and Arts, 1853, ser. 2, vol. 15, p. 405 [316 hp.]; Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1852-1857, vol. 3, p- 29 [116 hp.]; Ad¢inutes of Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engi- neers, 1853, vol. 12, pp. 331, 348 [208 and 226 hp.]. PAPER 20: JOHN ERICSSON AND THE AGE OF CALORIC 49 560619—60 2 32-foot diameter paddle wheel = ~ NOZA Connecting rod 7 yy ~ iN Axis of paddle shaft fe) Figure 5.—Conjectural reconstruction of arrangement of driving gear in the Ericsson. Reporters at the trial run rode on the pistons. A remark of Thomas Ewbank, sometime U.S. Patent Commissioner, became more and more per- tinent as the acrimonious debate over the success or failure of the caloric engine continued. ‘Why theorize, argue and quarrel for months about the weight of a piece of metal,”? said Mr. Ewbank, ‘‘when the scales are at your elbows?” ** A Prony friction brake dynamometer, although difficult to apply to the ship’s engine, could have been used on the so- called 60-horsepower test engine that Captain Erics- son built before proceeding with the Ericsson’s engine. *° The scales are no longer at our elbows, and I have found no complete nor entirely consistent set of data; but I have made a calculation based upon data that were published at the time,** making such assumptions as now appear reasonable and in every case weighting my assumptions in favor of the engine. The result, at nine revolutions per minute of the paddleshaft, is 34 Journal of the Franklin Institute, 1854, vol. 38, p. 33. 35 A Prony brake, used to test a rotary steam engine, is described and illustrated in Appletons’? Mechanics’ Magazine and Engineers’ Journal, 1852, vol. 2, pp. 26, 91. Such a brake was shown at the Mechanics’ Fair in Boston and was reported in North American Review, January 1840, vol. 50, p. 227. 36 The most complete listing is in Appletons’ Mechanics’? Maga- zine and Engineers’ Journal, 1853, vol. 3, pp. 39-40. about 250 horsepower. My calculation is shown on pages 59 and 60. A comparison, of sorts, can be made with the reason- ably corroborated performance figures for marine steam engines. The resistance of the Ericsson, in the speed range considered, probably varied more nearly as the cube of the velocity, as Prof. William Norton of Yale University assumed in his calculations,” than as the square of the velocity, as Ericsson believed. There- fore, an increase of speed from 6% to 13 knots would require on the order of eight times the power output at 644 knots; that is, nearly 2,000 horsepower. The Arctic, a larger vessel, developed 2,290 horsepower; *® the Washington, about the same size as the Ericsson, developed 2,000 horsepower.*® Professor Norton, basing his calculations upon horse- power figures for several ocean-going steamers at various speeds, and taking into account the cross- sectional area of the vessels’ hulls, estimated the horsepower that would be required to propel a vessel 37 American Journal of Science and Arts, 1853, ser. 2, vol. 15, pp. 393-413. 38 Scientific American, 1853, vol. 8, p. 189. 39 Scientific American, 1846-1847, vol. 2, p. 85. 50 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY | } |. Fresh air enters supply cylinder as piston moves downward. | [I Ii 4. Compressed air flows through re- generator to working cylinder dur- ing first part of working stroke. the furnace. 2. Compressed air flows from supply cylinder to receiver when piston nears end of upward stroke. 3. Compressed air remains in receiver during downward stroke of piston WH me ) Ya | ix 5. After cutoff, air in working cylinder expands as it receives heat from a 6. Hot air is exhausted through the regenerator to atmosphere. Figure 6.—The successive processes of the caloric engine cycle. In each illustration the supply cylinder is above the working cylinder; the receiver is at upper left; and the regenerator is shown as the shaded rectangle below the receiver. as large as the Ericsson at 6% knots. His results ranged from 247 to 276 horsepower, suggesting again that the actual output of the caloric engine probably was on the order of 250 horsepower. From the standpoint of fuel consumption, fairly reliable data were available for steamships, but no data were forthcoming for the Ericsson. Captain Ericsson said that the actual consumption of coal was 6 tons, and that his furnaces could not possibly burn more than 7 tons in 24 hours. When this statement— made when the ship had been in operation for only a few hours—was challenged, he raised his limit to 8 tons per day.*® Using his figure for the area of 40 Appletons’ Mechanics’ Magazine and Engineers’ Journal, 1853, vol. 3, pp. 27, 92. grate surface, it would appear that a normal fire, burning with natural draft, might consume about 12 tons of coal per day.*! A Collins liner, operating at 6% knots, would be expected to burn about this latter amount of coal.¥ The sort of testing to which Captain Ericsson’s caloric engines were subjected is indicated by his description of his 60-horsepower engine, after which the Ericsson’s engine was patterned: 41 Richard Sennet (Marine Steam Engine, ed. 2, London, 1885, pp. 88, 93) gave 21 pounds per hour per square foot as about the minimum consumption for a cramped boiler firebox. *” Thomas Tredgold, Marine Engines and Boilers, London, n. d., vol. 1, division 8, p. 30; George H. Preble, Chronological History of Steam Navigation, Philadelphia, 1883, p. 320; Mechanics’ Maga- zine, London, 1853, vol. 58, p. 324. PAPER 20: JOHN ERICSSON AND THE AGE OF CALORIC Sil After putting a moderate quantity of fuel in the furnace, it has been found that the engine works with full power for three hours without fresh feed, and after removing the fires entirely, it has frequently worked for one hour.*? The operation of the engine for an hour (under no load) with only the energy stored in the brickwerk of the firebox attests merely to the excellence of the engine’s construction. However, the phenomenon of an engine operating with no apparent external heat supply bolstered Captain Ericsson’s belief in the efficacy of the regenerator. In reply to the objections of one of his critics, he confirmed his belief that “‘the regenerators are the principal heater,” and that ‘“‘the duty of the furnace will mainly be that of supplying heat lost by radiation, etc., which is no more at high than low speed.”’ “* Small air engines, commonly called caloric engines, were built by the thousands in the latter years of the 19th century. because they would operate without feed water and These small engines were popular required little cooling water and little attention. Rated by manpower rather than horsepower (‘‘alto- gether too high a standard for a Domestic Motor’ **), the engines were used for pumping water, driving printing presses, and for many other tasks requiring moderate power. A propeller-type cooling fan, for parlor use, was powered by a caloric engine, the “Take Breeze’ fan being advertised as late as 1917." The convenience, not the economy, made such an engine popular. The following statement, which appeared in the promotional literature *’ of the domestic air engine, typified Captain Ericsson’s ap- proach to the problem of engine performance: In regard to the quantity of fuel required by the new motor it need be only stated that in every trial made it has been found but a fraction of that required by an ordinary high pressure Steam Engine of equal power. Any definite state- ment on this head would involve the consideration of various kinds of fuel and demand a series of experiments which would be as costly as useless in view of the admitted great economy of the Caloric Engine. 43 Appletons’ Mechanics’ Magazine and Engineers’ Journal, 1853, vol. 3, p. 38. 44 [bid., p. 121. 45 A circular dated November 5, 1857, and signed by John B. Kitching, Ericsson’s financial backer for the engine in the Ericsson and subsequent caloric engines, im collection of Ericsson papers held by American-Swedish Historical Founda- tion, Philadelphia (hereinafter referred to as Ericsson Papers). 46 Broadside, in data file, division of mechanical and civil engineering, United States National Museum. 47 Circular. See footnote 45. The Grand Principle “JT am sanguine you know,” wrote Captain Erics- son—his enthusiasm undampened and _ his beliefs unaltered more than a year after the caloric engine of the Ericsson had been abandoned—‘‘and therefore expect confidently to succeed . . . with the dazzling principle which compels metallic threads to yield than of scoala amlihtese metallic threads, located in the regenerator, sup- posedly seized the caloric of the air being exhausted and held it until it could be taken up by the incoming air charge. more force mountains This grand principle was simplicity itself, according to Captain Ericsson, who said he could never under- stand why so many “‘men of talent repeatedly com- promise their reputation by putting forth statements to the public, exhibiting their utter unacquaintance with this all-important property of the principal part of the caloric engine.”’ * Caloric, he said, could be used over and over again. And why not? Professor Cleghorn, at the University of Edinburgh, had said in 1779 that caloric was indestructible and uncreatable.” It was, according to the 1819 Cyclopaedia of Abraham Rees, ‘‘an elastic fluid sui generis, capable of pervading with various degrees of facility, all the solid bodies with which we are acquainted. ...” The writer in the C)yclopaedia explained in detail the meticulous experiments of Count Rumford, which seemed to prove that caloric had no weight, but he dismissed Rumford’s work as too gross, writing: ““There may be an indefinite series of material substances, each a million times rarer than the preceding....” The fact that it could not be weighed was no proof of its weightlessness.*! Appleton’s Dictionary of Machines (1851) stated that “Caloric is usually treated of as if it were a material substance; but, like light and electricity, its true nature has yet to be determined.” Perhaps the oddest theory was that of a Mr. Wilder, which was published in Scientific American in 1847.°° 48 Ericsson to Messrs. Stoughton, Tyler, and Bloodgood, January 16, 1855. Ericsson Papers; see footnote 45. 49 Appletons’ Mechanics’ Magazine and Engineers’ fournal, 1853, vol. 3, p. 123. 50 Joseph H. Keenan, “Adventure in Science,’ Mechanical Engineering, May 1958, vol. 80, pp. 79-83. 51 Abraham Rees, Cyclopaedia, London, 1819, “Caloric.” 52 Vol. 3, 1847-1848, p. 449. 52 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY “Tt has been proved,” wrote Mr. Wilder, “that explosions in steam engines are the consequence of the escape of elementary caloric . . . .”?. This caloric, he went on, is an ‘‘zmponderable fluid of incalculable velocity which will shatter to pieces everything that offers resistance to its progress in a certain direction.” Editor Munn agreed with Mr. Wilder except in one detail: ““We differ from Mr. Wilder in our opinion regarding what fis caloric is. We believe it to be electricity.” The idea that caloric was an indestructible fluid was supported by a general belief that a given quantity of heat, used to generate steam for a steam engine, passed through the engine without any diminution in quantity. Carnot, in his 1824 treatise, made this assumption, although his notes indicate that he was not satisfied with this aspect of the caloric theory. Mechanics’ Magazine,** of London, in 1852 explained why ‘“‘the production of mechanical force by heat is unaccompanied by any loss of heat.’? The amount of heat contained in a given quantity of steam could be determined by condensing the steam in a water bath and noting the rise of temperature of the water. If the same quantity of steam were conducted to the water bath through a steam engine cylinder, the engine would produce useful work, and it would be found that the “‘same elevation of temperature will take place as when the steam was not previously em- ployed” in the engine. Captain Ericsson was not concerned with describing caloric, however. He intended to use it—over and over again. Although Ericsson fostered the popular idea that the caloric was trapped in the interstices of the wire mesh—numbering some 50,000,000 “minute cells” =— and was to be given back to the next charge of air passing through the regenerator, a calculation shows that no such fanciful explanation is needed. The total volume of the iron in the wire mesh was nearly 5% cubic feet.5° When the regenerator reached equilibrium conditions, there would be a gradient of temperature from the cold end of the regenerator to the hot end. The cold end was probably about 120° 53 Carnot, op. cit. (footnote 19). 54 Vol. 56, p. 449. 55 New-York Daily footnote 57. Times, January 12, 1853. Also, see 58 See footnote 4. 1853. No calculation of volume was made in F., while the hot end may have been close to the operating temperature of the working cylinder, about 480° F. Taking into account the specific heats of air and iron, it can be shown that any element of the regenerator would be heated and cooled by successive charges of air through a range of not more than fifteen degrees. Thus, the regenerator was of ample size to act as a heat exchanger, but a regenerator, un- fortunately, could not, even under the influence of Captain Ericsson’s sanguinity, seize caloric after it had done work and return it to the engine to be used over again. The regenerative principle is widely used today in power plants. In gas turbine power plants, a heat exchanger is employed to heat air on its way from the compressor to the combustion chamber. The exhaust air from the turbine is the heating medium. In steam power plants, steam is bled off from the turbine at as many as eight different stages, to be used for heating feed water in shell-and- tube type heat exchangers. The purpose of the re- generator is to reduce irreversible heating of the working medium; that is, to use a source of heat only slightly above the temperature of the medium being heated. Several engineers in Captain Erics- son’s time recognized that the regenerator could utilize heat that would otherwise be wasted, but not heat that already had done work. Other contemporaries of Ericsson were not troubled by any such niceties. Professor Harvefeldt, of Sweden, who may have been the one who planted the seed of the caloric engine, was quoted as having said in a lecture, attended by the young John Ericsson, that ‘‘there is nothing in the theory of heat which proves that a common spirit-lamp may not be sufficient to drive an engine of a hundred horse- power.” *” John O. Sargent, confidant and solicitor for Captain Ericsson, had said in 1844 at a public lecture in Boston that “‘Ericsson’s theory of heat is altogether in opposition to the received notion, that the mechanical force produced will bear a direct known proportion to the caloric generated ... .” 8 In the same vein, the editor of Appletons? Mechanics’ Magazine and Engineers’ Journal wrote: *° 57 Appletons? Mechanics’ Magazine and Engineers’? Journal, 1852, vol. 2, p. 261. 58 [bid. 59 Appletons’ Mechanics?’ Magazine and Engineers’ Journal, 1853, vol. 3, p. 117. PAPER 20: JOHN ERICSSON AND THE AGE OF CALORIC ey) There is a fundamental principle involved in the “‘regen- erator” of Ericsson, Stirling, and others, which, could it be employed without drawbacks or losses, would allow one ounce of coal per day to pump out the Niagara river, and keep it dry. Professor Pierce, in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, said that he considered the idea that heat cannot be used over and over again to be a fundamental rule, which has only a single exception, that of steam... .’ © Even the brilliant Lord Kelvin, as late as 1848, said: © The conversion of heat into mechanical effect is probably impossible, certainly undiscovered. . . . This seems to be nearly universally held. ... A contrary opinion, however, has been advocated by Mr. Joule of Manchester, some very remarkable discoveries which he has made . . . seeming to indicate an actual conversion of mechanical effort into caloric. No experiment is adduced in which the converse operation is exhibited... . By 1853 Lord Kelvin had resolved his difficulty, but among practicing engineers the 1848 ideas persisted opinion for many years longer. The reason is quite understandable for the per- sistence of the belief that no heat was consumed in passing through a steam engine. Because of the low thermal efficiency of steam engines then in use (on the order of 2 to 5 percent) and the difficulty of measuring the quantities of heat involved, any dis- crepancy between the heat added to and removed from the steam cylinder was charged to a loss by radiation. The carefully controlled experiments by Regnault in Paris finally established a measurable difference between the heat added to steam in a boiler and the heat rejected to a condenser. Regnault’s results complemented those of Joule. Regnault showed that heat could be converted to work; Joule, that work could be converted to heat. On reading very carefully the several patent specifi- cations of Captain Ericsson, one will always find a clause that tends to prove that the inventor was not trying to get more energy from a fuel than it con- tained, but that he wanted merely to utilize the energy in its entirety. In his 1851 patent * appears the paragraph: 60 Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1852-1857, vol. 3, p. 28. 61 Quoted in Keenan, op. cit. (footnote 50), p. 82. 62 U.S. Patent 8481, November 4, 1851. Accordingly, while in the steam-engine the caloric is constantly wasted by being passed into the condenser or by being carried off into the atmosphere, the caloric is [in the caloric engine] employed over and over again, dispensing with the employment of combustibles, excepting for the purpose of restoring the heat lost by the expansion of the acting medium and that lost by radiation; also for the pur- pose of making good the small deficiency unavoidable in the transfer and retransfer of the caloric. The phrase “‘heat lost by the expansion of the acting medium,” if construed as the mechanical equivalent delivered to the working piston, acquits Captain Ericsson of the charge that he was proposing a perpetual motion device. But even this point is ob- scured by his statement, in another place, that the actual “‘loss of heat’? by this expansion was “‘two ounces of coal per hour per horse-power.”” He used a heating value for coal of 11,000 British thermal units per pound.® Had he recognized the signifi- cance of mechanical equivalent of heat, which had been determined experimentally by Joule several years earlier,** he might have avoided the statement that (11,000=) 1,375 British thermal units of heat would produce one horsepower-hour (or 2,545 Btu) of work. There was so much conflicting evidence being published in the various technical journals at the time, however, that Captain Ericsson can perhaps be excused for not extracting from the welter of confusion the simple fact that was later recognized as the key to the First Law of thermodynamics. But if Captain Ericsson did not attempt to violate the First Law, which is unlikely, it is certain that his theory of heat was in direct opposition to the Second Law of thermodynamics. If he accepted the con- clusion of Regnault as fact, and admitted that 5 percent of the heat had been converted to work, he might immediately say: ‘‘Yes, but there is still a waste of 95 percent; I will recover that.’ There was, in 1853, no clear explanation why that was not possible. The Second Law, in terms of everyday experience, says that heat will not, of its own accord, flow from a lower to a higher temperature. This leads to the corollary pertinent to the caloric engine: No heat engine, taking heat from a single source, can convert all the heat to work and produce no other effect. 83 Appletons’ Mechanics’ Magazine and Engineers’ Journal, 1853, vol. 3, p. 38. 6{The order of development is tabulated in Minutes of Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers, 1853, vol. 12, p. 574. 54 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY visentropic isentropic Pressure Volume const pressure const volume cS —~const pressure Temperature Entropy Figure 7.—Idealized caloric engine cycle, thermodynamically similar to the Stirling air engine cycle and to the modern gas turbine cycle. The toe (dotted) of the p-v diagram can be approached in the gas turbine cycle, while the constant volume expansion 4-5 is necessary in the reciprocating air engine cycle because of limitations on maximum cylinder volume. That is, part of the energy supplied to the working cylinder can be converted to work, and only part of it, whether or not a regenerator is used. The portion of energy that can be converted depends upon the temperature at which heat is added to the working medium (source temperature) and the temperature at which heat is rejected to a condenser or the atmos- phere by the working medium (receiver temperature). Under the operating conditions of the caloric engine of the Ericsson, the maximum convertible portion of heat to work was about one-third, and it is probable that the actual conversion was more like one-sixteenth. It is not surprising that Ericsson was snared by the Second Law, which had only just been stated in English by Lord Kelvin, who properly credited Carnot and Clausius with the necessary ideas. It was to take another generation of intellectual struggle to get the two laws and their implications arranged in an intelligible form.” The views and beliefs of many of Captain Ericsson’s American contemporaries have already been indi- cated. An accurate appraisal of the ideas of other practicing engineers in the United States cannot be made because there existed in 1853 no association of engineers competent to discuss the caloric engine. However, the British Institution of Civil Engineers devoted at least three of its weekly meetings in 1853 65 Keenan, op. cit. (footnote 50). to a “calm and deliberate discussion” of the caloric engine. Sir George Cayley, an elderly member of the Institution who for half a century, off and on, had been working on an air engine of his own design, was not dismayed by the idea that perpetual motion was involved in the caloric argument. A billiard ball on a smooth surface would, he pointed out, roll on forever if friction did not intervene. The escape of heat in the caloric engine resembled friction. He was confident that, if the practical difficulties such as radiation losses and destructively high metal tempera- tures could be overcome, the regenerative principle was capable of reducing the consumption of fuel ‘‘to an infinitesimal quantity.” ®” At the other extreme, Mr. Hawksley, another member, stated flatly that ‘“‘the machine involved a mechanical fallacy, as the regenerator produced no mechanical effect whatever.” Air passed and re- passed the regenerator as a result of the movement of pistons; therefore the regenerator could not be the cause of the pistons’ movement. He conceded that the engine would run, but, he said, “‘no part of these results were, however, produced by the regener- ator but, on the contrary, simply by the coal consumed under the cylinder bottom. . . .” ®& 68 Minutes of the Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers, 1853, vol. 12, p. 351. 87 [bid., pp. 334-335. 88 [bid., pp. 349, 593. PAPER 20: JOHN ERICSSON AND THE AGE OF CALORIC 55 56 Figure 8.—Two versions of Ericsson’s caloric engine, 1833. ‘The same elements as used in the later engines—compressor, heater, regenerator, and working cylinder—are present in this earlier version of the caloric engine, designed while John Ericsson was in England. Aside from unsolved problems of lubrication, this engine, like others built by Ericsson, was promising so long as actual performance tests were not made. (Top, reproduced from wood engraving in Scientific American, Jan. 29, 1853, vol. 8, p. 153. Bottom, from Mechanics’ Magazine, London, Nov. 9, 1833, vol. 20, p. 81.) BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY P| | SSNS v eh Figure 9.—Stirling air engine, 1845. Although the Stirlings had been experi- menting with the regenerative cycle for nearly 30 years, their first practical engine was built around 1844. One of two air vessels is shown cut away. The air that is used as the working fluid is transferred alternately from the space above the displacer piston through the generator to the space below it; meanwhile, air is supplied to and returned from the working cylinder, shown between the two air vessels. (From Minutes of Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 1845, vol. 4, pl. 24.) Benjamin Cheverton, not as dogmatic as Mr. Hawksley, thought the principle of the regenerator faulty. He agreed that caloric was not consumed when work was produced, but he pointed out that “the change takes place, not in the quantity, but in the intensity of heat.” He was groping in the direc- tion of the concept of availability, and he was the first to admit that his argument was circumspect for “want of an adequate terminology.” 89 Tbid., pp. 316-317. Captain Fitzroy, of the Royal Navy, sometime captain of the renowned Beagle, said that the chief argument against the imputed fallacy was the fact that the Ericsson had ‘‘actually been propelled through the water.’ The relative economy of air and steam was, he said, “‘entirely another question.” ” Karl Wilhelm Siemens—later Sir William, whose name is associated with the regenerative furnace for metallurgical purposes that he was soon to intro- 10 [bid., p. 350. PAPER 20: JOHN ERICSSON AND THE AGE OF GALORIC By duce—attempted to deal quantitatively with the question of economy. He had concluded that the “theoretical consumption of a perfect caloric engine amounted to only one-fourteenth part of the theoreti- cal consumption of a Boulton and Watt condensing engine.” He stated he believed that this economy was not practically attainable in the caloric engine, but that he was hard at work on a steam engine he hoped would approach the ideal.” Professor Faraday recalled that he had, 20 years before, believed heated air might be used as a motive power, but even then he had, “‘with some diffidence, ventured to express his conviction of the almost un- conquerable practical difficulties surrounding the case, and of the fallacy of the presumed advantages of the regenerator.” He still retained his doubts.” The vice president of the Institution, Isambard Kinedom Brunel, who at this time was completely engrossed with the details of planning his monumental ship Great Eastern, “‘agreed in considering the regen- erator to be a mystification, and the difficulty of the matter arose from its plausibility. It was extremely difficult to disprove that which did not exist at all.” It looked like perpetual motion to him, and he was “inclined to regard it just as he would any attempt to produce perpetual motion.” ® Mr. Pole, a steam engineer, exhibiting perhaps more diplomacy than wisdom, made the observation with regard to the “so-called regenerator” that it would be found, ‘‘as in many other disputed cases, the truth lay between the extremes.” “ The measure of the situation on both sides of the Atlantic was taken by F. A. P. Barnard, professor of chemistry and natural history at the University of Alabama. His comments appeared Journal of Science: 7 The confusion of thought which appears to prevail on the subject, is probably in a great degree owing to the fact, that the theory of heat, in its relation to force, has recently undergone a great and important change; so that men, who argue from its doctrines as taught twenty years ago, are liable to commit the most serious errors. in Szlliman’s In 1855, when he was about to patent another version of his air engine, Captain Ericsson declared: 11 Ibid., pp. 345-3406. 72 Tbid., pp. 348-349. 8 Thid., p. 349. 14 Tbid., p. 594. 7 American Journal of Science and Arts [Silliman’s Journal of Science], 1853, ser. 2, vol. 16, p. 218. 58 BULLETIN 228: Figure 10.—This hot-air pumping engine, patented by Ericsson in 1880, is an example of the small domestic air engines, without regenerators, that were manufactured in large quantities from about 1860. The engine shown here—built by the Rider-Ericsson Engine Company as serial no. 18,637—measures 66 inches in over-all height. (USNM 309533; Smithsonian photo 39028-A.) “T yet contend that a mass of wire not greater than a common haystack will on this principle, some day, be found to yield more motive power than a mountain of coal.’ 7 When Mr. Cheverton heard of the new engine, he stated his view of Captain Ericsson’s work: Mr. Ericsson certainly displays great talent in devising mechanical riddles wherewith to puzzle the engineering 76 Ericsson to P. B. Tyler, January 17, 1855. Ericsson Papers; see footnote 45. : 7 Mechanics’ Magazine, London, 1856, vol. 64, p. 82. CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY world. His ingenuity is unquestionable; but it is thrown away on inventions which betray, in a very remarkable manner, the absence of true philosophical conceptions of the physical ideas embodied in their operations; and their fallacies are so curiously concealed in his contrivances, that he is not only led astray himself, but many people are induced to follow him in pursuit of the zgnis fatuus of his vagrant imagination. Any careful student of Captain Ericsson’s engineer- ing activities—as distinguished from his promotional activities—must sympathize with Mr. Cheverton, even though he may not fully subscribe to his senti- ment. Certain it is, however, that the epic of the Ericsson demonstrated dramatically, as no lesser under- taking could have done, the uncertain state of under- standing of the principles of engineering thermo- dynamics in the 1850’s. EstimMaTE OF PowrErR DEVELOPED The following calculations, based on approximate data, have been made to support my estimate of 250 horsepower output of the Ericsson’s engine (page 50). The net work output at the paddle shaft is determined as the difference between the working cylinders’ output and the input to the supply cylinders, re- duced by factors to account for departure of the actual from idealized operating conditions. The maximum design pressure of the engine was 12 pounds per square inch gage. The reports of the trial trip agree on 8 pounds per square inch as the attained pressure. I have found no evidence that a higher pressure was attained while this engine The data upon which my calculations were based are as follows: Working cylinders, single acting Number of cylinders 4 Diameter of each cylinder 14 ft. Length of stroke 6 ft. Supply (compressor) cylinders, single acting Number of cylinders 4 Diameter of each cylinder 11 ft. 5in. Length of stroke 6 ft. Clearances (assumed) o Inlet air pressure (assumed) 14.5 p.S.i. abs. Maximum air pressure in cycle, approx. 8.3 23.0 p.s.i. p-S.i. gage abs. Point of cutoff in working cylinder 34 stroke Working strokes per minute 9 The work output of a single working cylinder during one cycle of operation (one revolution) is represented in figure a by the area bounded by the p-v trace 1-2-3-4-5. Cylinder volumes at point of cutoff, v3, and at end of stroke, v4, are 680 and 906 cubic feet, respectively. Assuming isentropic ex- pansion of air during process 3-4, fs can be shown to be 15.4 pounds per square inch absolute. Work, W, for the individual processes is calculated as follows: Wi 2= (1) W_3=po(v3— v2) = 23.0 144(680—0) was in the ship. = 2,250,000 ft. lb. (2) 9 8 23 | Bean 2 me) &\pv" -|const. 3 5 Sj 2 pica; 9, eS im : Qa a S ez/ T slp i eo o | = > 2 ” 15 t 5 a ry o 6 a a 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Cylinder volume, cu. ft. Cylinder volume, cu. ft. Figure 11.—Pressure-volume diagram: a, For working cylinder; 4, for supply cylinder. PAPER 20: JOHN ERICSSON AND THE AGE OF CALORIC 59) 4 W3_4= | pdv where p3v5= pv 3 __ psvs— fr Pele — =15.4* 144 906—23.0 144 680 = 607,000 ft. lb. (3) W,;=0 (4) Ws1=ps(0%—v;) = 15.0 144(0—906) = — 1,960,000 ft. Ib. (5) The sum of equations (1) through (5) is 897,000 ft. lb., the work output. Similarly, the work input to a single supply cylinder during one cycle of operation (one revolution) is represented in figure ) by the area bounded by the p-v trace 6-7-8-9. Cylinder volumes at beginning of compression, v7, and at end of compression, vg, are 612 and 430 cubic feet, respectively, if the compression process is assumed to be polytropic with n=1.30. Work, W, for individual processes is calculated as follows: We-1=fo(Ug—27) = 14.5 144(0— 612) =— 1,280,000 ft. Ib. (6) __ pivi— fads Wr 3= Te =14.5 144 612—23.0 144 430 —0.30 =477,000 ft. lb. (7) We_9=fs(vs—v9) = 23.0 144(430—0) =1,423,000 ft. Ib. (8) The sum of equations (6) through (8) is 620,000 ft. lb., the work input. Assuming a “diagram factor’? (actual indicated work-+indicated work according to idealized p-v diagrams) of 0.90, and assuming an over-all me- chanical efficiency (accounting for friction losses) of 0.90, the net work output per revolution for the four pairs of cylinders may be written 0.90 0.90(897,000— 620,000) X4=904,000 ft. Ib. (9) Multiplying net work (equation 9) by 9 revolutions per minute and dividing by 33,000 foot pounds per horsepower-minute gives the net horsepower output at the paddle shaft as 247: 904,000 9 Net horsepower output= 33,000 = 247 hp. U.S, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1960 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D.C. - Price 15 cents K At a ses Ihe Pioneer Steamship | a SAVANNAH ° APR 16 1963 Study for a Scale Model univers by Howard I. Chapelte Jeo] CONTRIBUTIONS FROM Tue Museum oF History AND TECHNOLOGY: Paper 21 Tue PIONEER STEAMSHIP SAVANNAH: A Stupy For A ScALE MopEL Howard I. Chapelle 61 Howard I. Chapelle The Pioneer Steamship mus. COMP. ZOO “LIBRARY APR 16 (968 HARVARD UNIVERSITY SAVANNAH: A Study for a Scale Model The original plans of the pioneer transatlantic steamer Savannah no longer exist, and many popular representations of the famous vessel have been based on a 70-year-old model in the United States National Museum. This model, however, differs in several important respects from contemporary illustrations. To correct these apparent inaccuracies in a new, authentic model, a reconstruction of the original plans was undertaken, using as sources the ship's logbook and customhouse description, a French report on American steam vessels published in 1823, and Russtan newspaper accounts contemporary with the Savannah's visit to St. Petersburg on her historic voyage of 1819. The development of this research and the resulting information in terms of her measurements and general description are related here. Tue Autruor: Howard I. Chapelle is curator of transportation in the United States National Museum, Smithsonian Institution. HE UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM has in its watercraft collection a rigged scale model purported to be of the pioneer transatlantic steamer Savannah. For many years this model was generally accepted as being a reasonably accurate representation and was the basis for countless illustrations. Curiously enough, the model (USNM 160364) does not agree with the pub- lished catalog description’ as to the side paddle wheels. Neither does it agree with the material in the Marestier report,” which is accepted as the only source for a contemporary picture of the Savannah. 1 Carl W. Mitman, Catalogue of the Watercraft Collection in the United States National Museum, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 127, 1923. 2 Jean Baptiste Marestier, Mémoire sur les Bateaux @ Vapeur de Etats-Unis d’ Amérique, Paris, 1823. The recent naming of an atomic-powered ship in honor of the famous steamer greatly increased popular interest in the pioneer ship and its supposed model. Consequently, the National Museum undertook the research necessary to correct or replace the existing model. This research has been carried out by the staff of the Museum’s transportation division with the aid of Frank O. Braynard of the American Mer- chant Marine Institute, Eugene S. Ferguson, curator of mechanical and civil engineering at the Museum, and others. The Savannah crossed from Savannah, Georgia, to Liverpool, England, in the period May 22 to June 20, 1819, and proceeded to the Baltic, where she entered at St. Petersburg (now Leningrad), Stockholm, and a few other ports. On her return she reached Savannah on November 30, and on December 3 she 62 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 1.—Old model of the Savannah, built under the supervision of Captain Collins. ‘This model has been removed from exhibition in the United States National Museum because of inaccuracies. (USNM 160364; Smithsonian photo 14355.) sailed for Washington, D.C., arriving on December 16. Her original logbook now on exhibition in the Museum,’ covers the period between March 28, 1819, when she first left New York for Savannah, to Decem- ber 1819 when she was at Washington. The old model (fig. 1) was built about 1890-1892 by Lawrence Jenson, a master shipwright and model 3 A memorandum dated April 20, 1899, in the manuscript file on the watercraft collection shows that the Museum had both the rigged model and the original logbook at that time. Also in the collection were a coffee urn and miniature portrait of the Savannah’s captain, Moses Rogers, that had been pre- sented to him abroad; later, these items were returned to the donor. A cup and saucer belonging to Captain Rogers also had been given to the Museum, and they are now in its his- torical collection, builder of Gloucester and Rockport, Massachusetts, under the supervision of Capt. Joseph Collins of the U.S. Fish Commission. Notes in the records of the Museum’s transportation division show that the research for this model was done by Captain Collins through use of an unidentified lithograph, printed after the transatlantic voyage, and what then could be learned about American sailing ships contemporary with the Savannah. In these notes the complaint is made that no contemporary representation of the steamship had then been found. The old, inaccurate model, built to the scale of one- half inch to the foot, represents an auxiliary, side- wheel, ship-rigged steamer. The model scale meas- urements are about 120 feet in over-all length, 29 feet in beam, and 13 feet 6 inches depth in hold. The PAPER 21: THE PIONEER STEAMSHIP SAVANNAH: A STUDY FOR A SCALE MODEL 63 Figure 2.—The United States National Museum’s new model of the Savannah. This model was built by Arthur Henning, Inc., of New York City, from the ship’s plans as reconstructed by staff members of the Museum’s division of transportation. (USM 319026.) tonnage is stated on the exhibit card to have been about 350 tons, old measurement. The model has crude wooden side paddles of the radial type, a tall straight smokestack between fore and main masts, a small deckhouse forward of the stack, a raised quarter- deck, and a round stern. The first step in the research for creating a more faithful representation of the Savannah was to obtain the customhouse description of the ship. It was readily established that she was built as a sailing packet ship by the Fickett and Crockett shipyard * at Corlaer’s Hook, East River, New York, and that she was launched August 22, 1818. Her register shows that she was 98 feet 6 inches in length between perpendiculars, 25 feet 10 inches in beam, 14 feet 2 inches depth in hold, of 319 70/94 tons burthen, and with square stern, round tuck, no quarter galleries, and a man’s bust figurehead. These dimensions of the Savannah required the researchers to investigate the method of taking register dimensions in 1818. It was found that the custom- house rule then in effect measured length between 4Robert Greenhalgh Albion, Square Riggers on Schedule, Princeton, New Jersey, 1938. Between the years 1817 and 1837 the yard. of Fickett and Crockett also operated at various times under the name of S. & F. Fickett and the name of Fickett and Thomas. The yard appears to have specialized in the construction of coastal packet ships, because only 4 ocean packets, against 24 coastal packets, were built by the various partnerships in which Fickett was a member. 64 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY perpendiculars above the upper deck, from “‘foreside of the main stem”’ to the “‘after side of the sternpost.”’ The beam was measured outside of plank at the widest point in the hull, above the main wales. Ifa vessel were single-decked, the depth was measured alongside the keelson at main hatch from ceiling to underside of deck plank; if double-decked, one-half the measured beam was the register depth.° However, inspection of the register of a number of ships of 1815-1840 showed that, in practice, double-decked ships commonly were measured as single-decked ships; this obviously was the case in the Savannah. Also, due to the lack of precise measuring devices, the register dimensions were not always accurate, particularly those of the length, which often were in error as much as one foot in a hundred, as was found by investigation of various classes of vessels. Because of inherent difficulties in measuring to the required points, this condition lasted even after steel tapes were introduced late in the 19th century. The Museum’s researchers next turned their atten- tion to examination of the Marestier work, a French report on early American steam vessels that had become known to some American marine historians in the 1920’s. The author was a French naval con- structor who, on orders from his government, had spent two years in the United States between 1819 and 1822 studying American steam vessels, schooners, and naval vessels. The published report contained only material on steam vessels and schooners. ‘The portion dealing with naval vessels was not published, and the manuscript has not been found to the present time (1960). The publication, a rare book, was available in only a few collectors’ libraries or public institutions in the United States. In 1930 the writer translated the chapter on schooners,’ and in 1957 Sidney Withington translated most of the remainder.’ As a result of these publications and earlier published references, the Marestier material became widely known to persons interested in ships. Withington’s translation states that the Savannah measured 30.48 meters (100 feet) in length and 7.92 meters (26 feet) in beam and that she drew 3.66 meters (12 feet) in port and 4.27 meters (14 feet) loaded. Marestier’s sketch (see fig. 3) of the outboard of the 5 L. M’Kay, The Practical Shipbuilder, New York, 1839. 6 Howard I. Chapelle, The Baltimore Clipper, Salem, Massa- chusetts, 1930, pp. 112-134. 7 Sidney Withington, translator, Memoir on Steamboats of the United States of America by Jean Baptiste Marestier, Mystic, Con- necticut, 1957. Savannah shows a ship-rigged, flush-decked vessel with a small deckhouse forward of the mainmast and nearly abreast of the side paddle wheels. The stack is a little forward of the deckhouse and has an elbow at its top. Netting quarter-deck rail is shown and a bust figurehead is indicated. The position of the hawse pipe shown at the bow indicates the wheel shaft to have been at or about deck level. For structural reasons, and in compliance with the sketch, the wheel shaft would have been just above the deck. Marestier’s drawings of the engine and _ paddle wheels § are reproduced in figure 4. The nonoscil- lating engine is inclined toward the paddle-wheel shaft. The connecting rod operates a crosshead to which is pivoted a pitman, or oscillating rod, that operates the paddle-wheel crankshaft. Alongside the steam cylinder is an air pump cylinder, also connected to the crosshead. The steam inlet and outlet pipes enter a valve chest on top of the steam cylinder, which is described as being 1.035 meters (3.4 feet) in diameter, and of 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) in stroke. The paddle wheels are shown as being of iron, with two fixed arms opposite one another on the hub. The other arms (four above and four below the fixed arms) are pivoted to the hub and held spread by chain stays. These eight blades fold, in pairs, to each of the fixed arms. The wheels are shown in elevation, with the upper pivoted arms folded on top of the fixed arms, and in cross section; the latter shows the shape of the buckets, hub, and outboard bearing of the shaft. The wheels are described as being 4.9 meters (16 feet) in diameter, while the buckets are 1.42 meters (4.65 feet) wide and 0.83 meters (2.72 feet) deep. The two outer corners of each bucket are snyed off at nearly 45°. The wheels are shown folded in the sketch; according to the description, they could be unshipped from the shaft and stowed on deck when desired. The method of removing the wheels from the shaft is not described, but from the drawings it seems probable that they were detached from the shaft by removing a lock bolt outboard and sliding the wheels off the square shaft. The hub seems adequate for this. Marestier states that this removal could be accomplished in 15 to 20 minutes; the logbook shows that it took 20 to 30 minutes to perform this operation at sea. Marestier states that the ship had spencer masts and trysails on fore and main, and a spencer mast on the mizzen for a spanker; he illustrates these as having 8 [bid., pl. 7, figs. 32, 33, 35. PAPER 21: THE PIONEER STEAMSHIP SAVANNAH: A STUDY FOR A SCALE MODEL 65 ee Figure 3.—Marestier’s sketch of the Savannah (from plate 8 in Withington’s translation of the Marestier report). Heights of lower masts are excessive by all known American masting rules; and, according to Marestier’s drawing of the engine (see figure 4), the deckhouse is too short. royal poles, but with no royal yards crossed.? The smokestack is described as pivoted. The mainstay is double, setting up at deck, near rail, and forward of the foremost shrouds of the foremast to clear the stack and foremast. The boilers were in the hold, but Marestier gives no dimensions. However, he comments that, in Amer- ican steamers, the space for steam in the boilers varied from 6 to 12 times the capacity of the cylinder. He gives the Savannah’s boiler pressure as 2 to 5 pounds per square inch and the maximum revolution of the wheels as 16 revolutions per minute. The boilers could burn coal or wood. Judging by Marestier’s sketch of the ship, the stack was at the firebox end; the boiler or boilers were underneath the engine. ° Tbid., pl. 3, fig. 10. The log of the Savannah gives little useful technical information other than that the ship readily made 9 to 10 knots under sail in fresh winds, showing she could sail well. Under steam alone the log credits the ship with a speed of 6 knots; Marestier estimated her speed at 5\ knots in smooth water. The log shows that she usually furled her sails when steaming, though on a few occasions she used both steam and sail. In her crossing from Savannah to Liverpool she appears to have been under steam for a little less than 90 hours in a period of about 18 days (out of the total of 29 days and 11 hours required to cross). There is no evidence of any intent to make the whole passage under steam alone, for the vessel was intended to be an auxiliary, with sails the chief propulsion. Captain Collins states in his notes that the ship was built by Francis Fickett as a Havre packet, that she 66 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 4.—Marestier’s drawings of the Savannah’s engine (from plate 7 in Withington’s transla- tion of the Marestier report). The graphic dimensions do not precisely correspond to the scale of dimensions in Marestier’s text, nor with other recorded measurements. stowed 75 tons of coal and 25 cords of wood, and cost $50,000. Apparently quoting Preble !° to a great extent, he also states that the engine developed 90 horsepower and had a 40-inch diameter cylinder with a stroke of 5 feet. Preble states that the ship was purchased for con- version to a steamer after launching and gives state- ments by Stevens Rogers, sailing master of the Savannah, to the effect that the ship was built as a Havre packet and that the project ruined financially one of the investors, William Scarborough. Rogers, who made these statements in 1856, also said the ship 10 Geo. Henry Preble, A Chronological History of the Origin and Development of Steam Navigation, 1543-1882, Philadelphia, 1883. was built by ‘‘Crocker and Fickett.’’ Contemporary newspapers, quoted by Preble, state that the ship had 32 berths in staterooms for passengers. Morrison "! credits the building of the Savannah to Francis Fickett and says she was intended for the Havre packet run. He states that the vessel cost $50,000; that her paddle wheels, each with eight buckets, were 16 feet in diameter; and that she had canvas wheel boxes supported by an iron frame. Morrison also relates the history of the ship after her return from Russia—the removal and the sale of her machinery to James P. Allaire, the operation of the 11 John H. Morrison, A History of American Steam Navigation, New York, 1930. PAPER 21: THE PIONEER STEAMSHIP SAVANNAH: A STUDY FOR A SCALE MODEL 67 ship as a sailing packet between New York and Savannah under the ownership and command of Captain Holdridge, and her stranding and loss during an east-northeast gale on November 5, 1821, at Great South Beach, off Bellport, on the south shore of Long Island. He also states that the steam cylinder of her engine was exhibited at the Crystal Palace Fair in New York during 1853, and that the ship proved uneconomical due to the large amount of space occupied by the engine, boilers, and fuel, leaving little space for cargo. Morrison apparently used some of the statements made in 1836 and 1856 by Stevens Rogers, who was the sailing master on the famous voyage. Tyler '? names the stockholders of the Savannah Steamship Company, owner of the Savannah. ‘The company was proposed by Capt. Moses Rogers, and its shareholders were William Scarborough, John McKenna, Samuel Howard, Charles Howard, Robert Isaacs, S. C. Dunning, A. B. Fannin, John Haslett, A. S. Bullock, James Bullock, John Bogue, Andrew Low, Col. J. P. Henry, J. Minis, John Sparkman, Robert Mitchell, R. Habersham, J. Habersham, Gideon Pott, W. S. Gillet, and Samuel Yates. Tyler establishes, by the company’s charter, that the objec- tive was to institute a New York-Savannah packet service, for which the Savannah was to be the first ship. He shows that, due to the economic depression of 1819, the Savannah sailed to Liverpool in ballast and without passengers. Her fuel capacity is given as 1,500 bushels (75 tons) of coal and 25 cords of wood. [It should be noted that 1,500 bushels of bituminous coal does not quite equal 75 tons.] Tyler quotes S. C. Gilfillan '? as to criticisms of the engine and its design. Partington '* estimated coal consumption to be nearly 10 tons a day; remarked on the uneconomical 4 arrangement of the ship, with the engine and boiler occupying the greater part of the space amidships, between fore and main masts; and located the axle of the paddle wheel “‘above the bends,” that is, in the topsides above the wale. The description he gives of the unshipping of the wheels is that the pivoted blades were removed and the fixed blades, in horizontal position, were left on the shaft. This agrees with a Russian description referred to later. The logbook 12 David Budlong Tyler, Steam Conquers the Atlantic, New York and London, 1939, 13S, C. Gilfillan, Inventing the Ship, New York, 1935. 14 Charles Frederich Partington, An Historical and Descriptive Account of the Steam Engine, London, 1822. repeatedly speaks of “‘shipping’’ and “‘unshipping”’ the paddle wheels, indicating that the wheels were entirely removed from the shafts and stowed on deck. Watkins '* showed, by the account books of Stephen Vail, owner of the Speedwell Ironworks near Morris- town, New Jersey, that the engine was built by Vail, but apparently to designs by Daniel Dod. The latter built the Savannah’s boiler at Elizabeth, New Jersey, and made some parts of the engine, which he furnished, incomplete in some instances, to Vail. These account books, which were in the possession of John Lidgerwood of New York City in 1890, show the steam cylinder to have had an inside diameter of 40% inches and a 5-foot stroke. Reference in the account books to an error in Dod’s draught of a piston proves that Dod designed the engine. Watkins states that the engine was rated at 90 horsepower. He does not give the diameter of the pump cylinder, but, judging by the scaling of Marestier’s drawing and by a rather indefinite entry in the Vail account book, it appears to have been between 17 and 18 inches. Quoting Captain Collins at some length, Watkins writes that the mainmast was placed farther aft than was usual in a sailing ship, and that the vessel had a round stern. Collins apparently based his opinion upon an unidentified “contemporaneous lithograph’? and upon “all other illustrations of this famous vessel.’’ Collins’ con- ception of the appearance of the Savannah is shown in a drawing by C. B. Hudson that is reproduced as the frontispiece in Watkins’ publication. A state- ment by Stevens Rogers that was published in the New London Gazette in 1836 appears to have been the original source for statements regarding the Savannah’s fuel capacity, her sale, and her loss in 1821 while owned and commanded by Capt. Nathaniel Holdredge, ‘‘now master of the Liverpool packet ship lnited States.” Rogers’ tombstone, on which there is a small carving Watkins also gives a picture of Stevens purported to be of the Savannah. The tombstone was made in 1868. From a Russian newspaper contempcrary with the Savannah’s visit to St. Petersburg, Frank Braynard found a statement that the vessel had two boilers, each 27 feet long and 6 feet in diameter.’® It was also shown she had at least one chain cable. Considerable 15 J. Elfreth Watkins, ““The Log of the Savannah,” in Report of the U.S. National Museum for the Year Ending June 30, 1890, 1891, pp. 611-639. 16 Previously, the author had assumed there was one boiler with two flues. 68 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY information on the cabin arrangement and the method of folding the wheels was also obtained from this Russian source. In spite of a very extensive bibliography on the Savannah, the basic sources for reliable technical description are Marestier’s report on American steamers, the logbook of the ship, Watkins’ extracts from the Speedwell Iron Works account book, the customhouse records, and some of the statements made by Stevens Rogers between 1836 and 1856. Plans of the ship, or a builder’s half-model, have not been found. Marestier’s sketch of the Savannah, which is not a scale drawing, and his drawings of the engine and paddle wheels were the only available illustrations upon which reconstruction could be based. Through the efforts of Malcolm Bell, Jr., of Savan- nah, Georgia, and Frank Braynard, a search was made by Russian authorities at Leningrad for contemporary references to the ship. This work resulted in informa- tion as to how the side wheels were folded, the dimensions of the boilers, and some description of the cabins and fittings As to the ship itself, the customhouse registered dimensions are of prime importance; they fix the over-all hull dimensions within reasonable limits. A vessel of 1818 measuring 98 feet 6 inches between perpendiculars would have been 100 to 104 feet long at rail. The type of ship represented by the Savannah is well established. All references are in agreement that she was built as a packet ship—a Havre or transatlantic packet in most accounts. The packet ships listed by Albion '’ show that all the pioneer ships of the transatlantic Black Ball Line—which began operation with the sailing of the 424-ton James Monroe on January 5, 1818— measured at least 103 feet 6 inches between perpen- diculars. ‘Two of the pioneer ships of the first Havre Line—which did not begin operation until 1822— were under 98 feet between perpendiculars. The second Havre Line began operation in 1823; of its four pioneer packets, two were purchased general traders measuring under 98 feet between perpendic- ulars. The coastal packets built between 1817 and 1823 were all under 100 feet between perpendiculars. It is apparent, then, that the size of the early packets did not indicate, with any degree of certainty, the trade in which they might be employed. Belief that the Savannah was built as a Havre packet is based upon Stevens Rogers’ statements, and her 17 Op. cit. (footmote 4). size obviously does not make this impossible; never- theless, it seems highly improbable that she was built for the Havre service because no Havre line of packets had been organized as early as 1818 out of New York or Savannah so far as can be found. However, the matter is not of very great concern as it is probably true that the models of coastal and _ transatlantic packet ships were quite similar at the period of the Savannah. This statement is supported by the plan of a coastal packet built seven years after the Savannah. The hull-type of these early packets can be estab- lished. While no half-models or plans of packets built before 1832 could be found, offset tables of a Philadelphia-New Orleans packet of 1824-1825 were obtained through the courtesy of William Salisbury, an English marine historian who had been studying the British mail packets. These offset tables had been sent from Washington on March 25, 1831, by John Lenthall, U.S. naval constructor, to William Morgan and Augustin Creuze, London editors, for publica- tion.!§ The offset tables were for a packet ship 103 feet between the perpendiculars of the builder (rather than between those of the customhouse) and 27 feet moulded beam. An examination of the files on American packet vessels in the collection of Carl C. Cutler, curator emeritus of the Mystic Marine Mu- seum, showed with certainty that the offsets were for the Ohio, built at Philadelphia late in 1825. The drawings of this ship (fig. 5) were made from the offset tables and from other measurements; minor de- tails are from portraits of packet ships, particularly of the first New York (1822-1834) of the Black Ball Line. The Ohio was two-decked, with the upper deck flush. She had rather straight sheer, 27-inch bul- warks, a moderately full but easy entrance, a fine, long run, and little drag to the keel. The midsection was formed with moderately short and rising floor, round and easy bilge, and some tumble-home in the topside. The stem raked a good deal for a ship- rigged vessel; the post raked slightly. There was a distance of 6 feet between upper and lower deck planks. ‘The stern was of the square transom, round tuck form, as mentioned in the Savannah’s register. Lenthall reported the Ohio to have been a good sailer and to have had other desirable qualities. She was registered as being of 351.86 tons burthen, 105.5 feet between perpendiculars, and 27.4 feet in extreme 18 William Morgan and Augustin Creuze, eds., Papers on Naval Architecture, London, n.d., no. 12, p. 387. PAPER 21: THE PIONEER STEAMSHIP SAVANNAH: A STUDY FOR A SCALE MODEL 69 579766—61 2 ayi sjuasatdo1 02/0 ene 40 Kae, wostily .y aiidep 1yt0p) Uebsoy ey 1OYL ~ 120s. bLeK S SOF KUO WISE Yer 26ed L euapeLPIy [BACs CO Tdeey ILON & poyrygod pue Yep se Lew uspbulijrege wey joysiay wyor Ag pueyby of der YeHjo Potton D/geoen iat poob we flay [MOF Of BIOL PUe IHALE LIB] LO MON) ~ D1 L{ZBO/ Gof 2d SY, FER) CYCLE ed 48 H1108 VUE VIP TROD ‘sdiys yoyoed uvowoury Apree Jo odAy petouss ayy, “UNI suvITIC MON-ETYdpopepryg ot 10y Szgr ut vrydyjopeyryg ie ama ‘ozy¢Q drys yoyoed [eiseoo oy Jo soury—'S inst Pa =a oe ————— E Sa Senge = eer gear eoe mera aoe eget Q Len, oH + LAE IDI ELIE osy ude Bas pions 908 4201198 10.8 Beseor raul} fadoy 20 OF Ob of J SYS SY RY O1b DO 0:8 wooy Figg 9 popjaow 9.3) ppeynyseug L0;l2 bempnow weog 6.20) ped je pompaoius 4p bus 0:60) Teted peg ypbia7 -: rensnypsog CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY BULLETIN 228 70 ‘ypuupangy ay JO JUBIASURLIe [eIoUDS PUR soUT] [NY IYI JO UONONSUOdaY—'g INST boungyti) See O14, PE y209 sede 21098 21h MEH 2 | 12d 2ey| pare re : [eee 0:2 poseds yag ‘ = — La 4 on) oe wov0ds 17 44 ' AS : sy waste buy Ore oar x woos | u 7 ‘ < 6:60 SS UO D FS) ¥220 % Pop/new YfPeQ 2 2/24 U! WCQ 0) 52 "Yoosd 'aulaspre weoog hse Pipe ug. 13.66 sdlad $29 yd6ue7 separ sey TE ce al yur yo 2pirul of s2ul7 Jo 17/109 LIM | ] ee = = eS So ee = = —a = L800 0.81 ——— Mbi7 es. [eae WE trode por boy Pee Pee Bil Jee: M 0 ent pueann? CLE = COUfI05- PIL, oT Oe ied WBA g | YY eH- - Laps Jeoy ef ; ee [2UU0Y) ye aa “4 \ foiy cea 9 OY ou ee CMH 4 boon oyj apes ple B/g/ U/ lO May JO flag EM He Isley yf O12 Of f21tIA-~LUOHS. JTL, PL. HINNWYS 7Yp. fo woppmgrery fo 71 A STUDY FOR A SCALE MODEL THE PIONEER STEAMSHIP SAVANNAH: PAPER 21 beam. She was, therefore, about 7 feet longer and about 2 feet 3 inches wider than the Savannah. ‘The plan shows she was about 2 feet 4 inches deeper in hold than the Savannah, and, according to Cutler, she had ‘‘an unexpected degree of sophistication for a coastal packet of that period.” !® By modern stand- ards, the Ohio shows a well-advanced design for the period. Reconstructing the Plans The first step in the reconstruction of the Savannah's plans was to block out the register dimensions on a scale of one-quarter inch to the foot in a drawing and then to work out the profile, using the Ofzo plan as a general guide. This produced a hull about 100 feet 9 inches in length at main rail to inside of plank, or ““moulded’’; 25 feet 6 inches moulded beam, allowing 3 inches for plank (as usual in a ship of this size and date); and about 15 feet 4 inches moulded depth at side, keel rabbet to underside of upper deck. ‘The bulwarks were drawn at 28 inches height. Next, the mast positions were decided by prorating from the plan of the Ofio the position of each mast from the fore perpendicular and then modifying these positions slightly by use of masting rules contained in M’Kay’s book ”° of 1839. Since it appears that the Savannah may not have been purchased for conversion to a steamer until near the date of her launch and because of the lack of iden- tification of the lithograph referred to by Collins, the statement that the mainmast was placed farther aft than normal was rejected. At launch her mast part- ners would have been in place and the deck laid. Any alterations in the position of the mainmast then would have made it impractical for the owners to demand them of the builders without heavy additional ex- pense. In addition, the plan, as it was developed, indicated no need for such alteration. The plan of the engine, drawn to the same scale as the profile plan, was shifted about on the lower deck in the hull profile to determine where the engine and side paddle wheel shaft might be located. A little experimentation and study made it certain that the proper location could be estimated within a foot or so, to scale, as to fore and aft positions. The after end of the cylinder, and its piping, had to clear the mainmast by at least 9 to 10 inches to allow removal © Letter from Carl C. Cutler to the author, November 24, 1958. 20 Op. cit. (footnote 5). of the cylinder head for inspection and repair. The position of the wheels, stack, and masts in Marestier’s sketch of the ship make it certain that the engine was on the lower deck, abaft the paddle wheel shaft. Due to differences between the dimensions stated by Mares- tier and in the Vail account books and what the graphic scale in Marestier’s engine drawings produce, the exact dimensions of the engine are uncertain. Nevertheless, they can be approximated with enough As a result of this treat- ment, it seems fully apparent that the engine was abaft the paddle wheel shaft, with frame extending abaft the mainmast on the lower deck; there does not appear to be a practical alternative in the light of the available evidence. This matter will be referred to accuracy for our purpose. again. The size of the cylinder and its valve chest and the inclined position of the cylinder indicate conclusively that the valve chest was in the mainhatch, which would normally be just forward of the mainmast. Even then, the after flange of the cylinder would just clear the lower deck, allowing 6 feet between decks, as in the Ohio. The cylinder would have been about 6 feet long; the graphic scale indicated 6 feet 3 inches. The diameter of the cylinder plus height of valve chest seems to have been 5 feet 9 inches to 6 feet. Because of the use of the crosshead and a connecting rod, pivoted at crosshead, the oscillating rod (or pitman) and piston together equalled twice the stroke plus allowance for stuffing box, crosshead, and _pit- man bearings. ‘Therefore, the engine’s over-all length, from head of cylinder to the centerline of the side paddle wheel shaft, could not have been much less than 15 feet 9 inches, and probably as much as 16 feet 2 inches, thus making the length at extreme These dimensions indicate that the centerline of the side paddle wheel shaft must have been from 38 to 39 feet from the forward perpendicular. It is not clear how the wheel shaft was mounted in the vessel. Taking into consideration her depth and her reported draught, light and loaded, the Marestier sketch, and the hull structure then used, it seems reasonable to place the centerline of the shaft (which seems to have been about 7 to 8 inches square) about 12 inches above the upper (or spar) deck to allow proper dip of the blades. This position would have given proper blade im- clearance of crank throw as much as 19 feet. mersion at the mean draught of 13 feet. In order to get the engine below deck, and to get the boiler or boilers placed, it was necessary to cut a large opening in the two decks. It may be assumed TP BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY that this opening was big enough to take the cylinder, without valve chest, and also the boilers, which went into the hold. Taking the proportions of other boilers as shown by Marestier, it has been estimated that the Savannah might have had a boiler about 18 to 20 feet in length, 7 to 8 feet wide, and 6 to 6% feet high at firebox. The form might be the same as that of Fulton the First, illustrated in the translation of Marestier’s report.” However, since the Russian de- scriptions * indicate there were two boilers, each measuring 6 feet in diameter and 27 feet in length, the two boilers would have reached past the main- mast if they were located in the same manner and in the same place as the boilers shown in the illustration of Fulton the First. Consequently, if the Russian de- scription is accepted, there would have been a need for longer fuel (coal) spaces in the wings. The boilers, then, were the largest piece of equip- ment to be passed through the decks; for this an opening (estimated to have been about 10% feet wide and 8% feet long) probably was cut through both decks about 3 feet forward of the main hatch, which was commonly a little forward of the mainmast. The boilers could then have been lowered, after end first, into the hold. The opening in the lower deck could then have been closed, except for a small hatchway perhaps, and the steam cylinder let down to the lower deck and moved aft into position. To allow the crosshead to reach its maximum travel, the opening in the upper deck would have been about 10% feet wide—the over-all width of the engine frame—and would have been left open, inside the deckhouse. The width of the boilers might be particularly important because it would determine the deadrise at floor in the hull. The apparently precise dimen- sions of the boilers given in the Russian description were utilized to arrive at a suitable hull form. Both a single boiler and a double boiler (as described in the Russian accounts) were placed in the hull to assure the correct space estimates. Since the engine, as shown by Marestier, had an air-pump cylinder alongside the steam cylinder (with the pistons of both attached to the crosshead), it is evident that a condenser was employed. This con- denser would not have been much larger than the air-pump cylinder. It may have been placed under the side paddle wheel axle on the lower deck, but its mode of operation is unknown. Possibly it was of 21 Withington, op. cit. (footnote 7), pl. 9, figs. 55, 56. *2 Report of Malcolm Bell, Jr., and Frank Braynard. the jet type, with pumps operating off the paddle wheel axle and with a return of condensate from a hot well into the feed water line. A number of possibilities could be mentioned, all speculative. However, there was no doubt that this equipment could be properly installed in the reconstructed hull, either on the lower deck or in the hold. Two questions have been raised as to machinery arrangement—whether the engine, and boilers also, might have been forward of the wheel shaft, and whether the wheel shaft was above or below deck. If the engine were placed forward of the wheel shaft, the wheels might be farther aft than is proposed in the reconstruction. However, the smokestack could not then be forward of the wheel shaft as shown by Marestier because it would have had to pass through the engine frame, thus interfering with the movement of the large crosshead. If the engine were abaft the wheel shaft, the stack could have been only as shown by Marestier. The boilers might then have been forward of the wheel shaft only if the stack were at the end away from the firebox. However, the length of the boilers as indicated by the Russian description would then have required them to pass through the bows! Models have been built of the Savannah in which the engine and boilers are forward of the paddle wheel shaft, and the shaft below the main deck. This was accomplished by placing the engine off center so that the stack came through the decks alongside it. This is an impractical arrangement because it would have created an impossible ballasting problem. The weight of the engine, to port in the models, would have to have been counteracted by ballast to starboard. Due to the coal bunkers, and the possibility of two boilers below the engine in the hold, there would not have been room for sufficient ballast. In addition, were such ballasting possible, the combined weights were too far forward to give proper trim, and a great deal more ballast would have been required far aft, a most impractical proceeding. The position of the wheel shaft was determined as described earlier. The ship was apparently well- advanced in construction at the time of purchase. Her clamps and shelves supporting her upper deck beams, which then would have been in place, were important strength members. In reconstructing, to place the wheel shaft below these members would not only bring the engine nearly level—it is described and shown inclined by Marestier—but also would immerse the paddle blades too deeply for the draft PAPER 21: THE PIONEER STEAMSHIP SAVANNAH: A STUDY FOR A SCALE MODEL 1) and depth of the hull. To place the shaft below or through the lowest clamp member would require the shaft centerline to be at least 3 feet below the upper deck, and this would contradict Marestier. These questions indicate the importance of a scaled drawing when deciding arrangement in the reconstruction of a ship under the circumstances existing in the Savan- nah. Some models have been built with the shaft below deck by disregarding the structural and dimensional objections just outlined. ‘The question of the number of boilers originally was raised by Braynard. A single boiler with double flues was a common boiler design in American steam- boats of 1818-1828, and this form of boiler is shown in a number of Marestier’s drawings. In general de- scriptions, ‘‘boiler’? and “‘boilers’? are often used interchangeably, and this probably came about through confusion over the number of flues. A “single boiler, double flues,’? would thus become ‘boilers,’ apparently. The Russian description spe- cifically states there were two boilers, and gives specific dimensions; though these probably are not exact. Either a single boiler with double flues, or double boilers, each with a single flue, could have been fitted in the reconstruction. However, fuel space is affected and, with double boilers, the cross-sections of the bunkers are reduced to about 20 square feet each; therefore, the bunkers would have to become much longer. It may be said that the boiler capacities in relation to dimensions of the steam cylinder as indi- cated in the Russian description far exceed those given by Marestier. As a practical matter of ship design, it seems that the single boiler would have been a more logical fitting than double boilers. The boilers were apparently of copper, and expensive. However, this matter does not affect the hull-form and dimen- sions established for the reconstruction, as the draw- ings proved. The Russian description does show that the cargo space was extremely small and practically nonexistent, indicating the effect of the large boiler capacity. All requirements that have been given can be ap- proximated for space necessary in the hull. It is established that the ship carried about 75 tons of coal and 25 cords of wood. The coal would take up from about 1,700 to 1,850 cubic feet of space, and because of its weight it would have to be bunkered alongside the boilers in the lower hold, where there would be ample room, in the reconstruction, for two bunkers, each in excess of 30 square feet in cross section and about 28 feet in length for a single boiler; one third more bunker space, in length, would be required for double boilers. Such bunkers would together hold about the required tonnage or cubic footage. The cord wood would have required, say, two bunkers each of about 60 square feet in cross section and 20 to 24 feet inlength. Because of the light weight, the cord wood could have been stowed in the wings on the lower deck. There is room for the required stowage on the lower deck in the reconstructed hull, leaving ample passages under either side of the engine frame. Marestier shows the location of the stack as being abreast the buckets on the forward side of the paddle wheels, and it has been so placed in the reconstruc- tion. The deckhouse shown in Marestier’s sketch extends from a little forward of the mainmast to a little forward of the paddle wheel axle. Probably this house actually covered the main hatch and the crank-connecting-rod hatchway; therefore, Mares- tier shows it too short. In the reconstruction, the deckhouse works out as between 17 and 18 feet long. Its width can only be guessed at, but it probably would have been as wide as the opening cut in the upper deck for machinery—say 11 feet. Perhaps this house contained the engineer’s stateroom and that of his assistant, as well as a ladderway to the engine room. Doors on the sides of the house gave access to these spaces and to the inboard shaft bearings. Bunker hatches were probably forward of the house and out- board; these are taken as being about 2 feet 6 inches wide and 3 feet 6 inches long—large enough to allow coal baskets to be lowered through them, as well as to allow cord wood to be passed below. A fidley hatch, in which the stack passed through the upper deck, would have been a square hatch forward of the deckhouse. This hatch, about 2% to 3 feet square, would have been fitted with an iron or iron-bound fidley grating, with solid cover over. The stack could have been swivelled, to bring the elbow to leeward. The upper portion of the stack probably overlapped the lower portion at least 3 to 4 feet above the fidley coaming, and the upper stack rested on a collar bearing at the bottom of the overlap. Perhaps straps were bolted to the side of the upper stack to take heaving bars athwartships, by which two men could rotate the upper stack to turn the elbow to leeward. The bearings of the paddle wheel axle were perhaps four in number. Two, one either side of the crank, may have been secured to the engine frame just inside the deckhouse walls. Two were certainly outboard, one on each side, fastened to the topsides, as shown 74 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY in Marestier’s sketch of the wheel construction. The axle, probably square in cross section, turned only at the bearings and wrist pin. It may have been cast in two parts, each with a crank arm, and then joined by the wrist pin, after the latter had been turned. The wheels, shown in much detail in Marestier’s sketches of the engine, had flanged hubs to which the pivoted arms or spokes were bolted. The fixed arms were integral parts of the outer hubs. The inner flanges were cast with the hubs. To fold the blades, the fixed arms were brought parallel to the rail, then the chain span between each pair of the pivoted blades on top of the wheel was disconnected and a pair of the blades, each way, were dropped on top of the fixed arms, or blades, and lashed there. The wheel was then given a half-revolution and the process repeated. The wheel could then have been unshipped from the hub by sliding it off the square shaft end after removing, let us suppose, a bolt or pin in the hub. Some writers, like Collins, refer to a ‘jointed”’ or “‘hinged”’ axle, but Marestier makes no mention of such an arrangement; indeed, his sketch makes a ‘“‘broken” axle impractical. The wheels could have been removed from the axle and lifted aboard by use of tackles from the main yard ends, or from a fore spencer gaff if it were made long enough. However, as stated in the Russian description, the pivoted blades were removed and stowed aboard, leaving only the two fixed arms in a horizontal posi- tion outboard. This is a far more convenient treat- ment than unshipping the whole wheel, as might be supposed from logbook mention of “‘shipping’’ or “unshipping”’ the wheels. There remain some other matters to be explored. The ship was fitted with 32 passenger berths in state- rooms. The passenger accommodations for first class passengers in the early (1820-1830) packets were aft, on the lower deck. The berths would have been about 6 feet 2 inches long, and 2% feet wide. With berths placed athwartships and allowing for cabin bulkheads, there would have remained a space at least 10 to 12 feet wide down the centerline of the ship. This space would have provided space for a mess table and a lounge area. Each stateroom would then have been about 7 feet long fore and aft and could have contained four athwartship berths. The space available abaft the middle of the after cargo hatch would have allowed four staterooms on each side and room at the extreme stern for a small master’s cabin, with toilets on each side. The cabin of the mates and stewards, containing two berths each, would then have been about abreast of the fore end of the after cargo hatch. The galley would have been on the lower deck, just abaft the foremast and forward of the fore cargo hatch. Food would have been carried aft along the lower deck to the cabin, by way of passages on either side of the engine frame. Cabin stores would have been in the hold below the passenger accommodation, and here food, water, and other stores would have been kept. A small cargo space, say of about 1,500 to 2,500 cubic feet, depending on bunkers, would have been possible in the after hold. A fore cargo hold of about 1,000 to 1,500 cubic feet of contents could be ex- pected; forward of this would have been sail locker, spare rigging gear, and a cable tier. On the lower deck, above these spaces, a forecastle might have had berths for 12 to 14 men. The cables and chain would be passed through the forecastle to the cable tier below by chutes leading from cable scuttles in the upper deck abaft the windlass on each side of the centerline of the ship. The upper deck, abaft the mainmast, was reserved for use of the passengers and officers of a packet. The low, 28-inch bulwarks were insufficient to give proper protection there, so they were increased by employing a 16-inch rail made of a cap supported by iron stan- chions above the main rail. This rail was closed in by a tarred netting extending from the main rail up- ward to the quarter-deck rail cap and running from the mainmast aft to the stern. This is plainly shown in Marestier’s sketch of the Savannah as well as in some portraits of early packet ships. Though the passenger accommodations described were far from palatial by modern standards, they were considered adequate in the 1820’s and for al- most 15 years afterwards. The staterooms had no individual toilets. Usually there were two small toilets, one on each side of the stern cabin, at the ex- treme stern on the lower deck, in the quarters. Usually the master’s stateroom and toilet were to starboard, with a public space and toilet to port. Sometimes toilets for the crew were placed forward, on either bow abaft the catheads on the upper deck. These were small cabinets accommodating one person each, and with the door closed for privacy there was not room to stand. To enter the user backed in, crouching. Such cabinets are not shown by Mares- tier, so probably the crew used the headrails, as then was usual in merchant vessels. The hull-form to be chosen had to enclose all spaces that have been described or listed. Since the Savannah PAPER 21: THE PIONEER STEAMSHIP SAVANNAH: A STUDY FOR A SCALE MODEL 75 is known to have sailed quite fast for her length, her lines had to equal those of the Ohio; however, her smaller size and other factors indicated a somewhat different hull-form, with harder turn of the bilge and a little less deadrise. Due to the position of the ma- chinery, the effect of its weight and that of the neces- sary fuel had to be considered. The midsection, or cross section of greatest area, would have to have been only a little abaft the paddle wheel axle to allow proper trim with a minimum of ballast. It was found by this criterion that the midsection of the recon- structed hull was located in proportion to length in a comparable manner to that of the Ohzo. The run could have been made about as long and easy, in proportion, as that of the Ohio; likewise, the entrance could have been equally well designed for sailing. Probably a little ballast—stone, gravel, sand or pig iron—was required under the temporary flooring of the cargo holds, most of it abaft the mainmast. Some ballast would normally have been placed under the cabin stores, in the run. The boilers, engine, and fuel weights were relatively important. To trim the ship, with minimum ballast, the location of the ma- chinery weights would have to have been about as It may be observed that the engine and fuel weights are rela- shown in the reconstruction drawings. tively great for the recorded hull dimensions and resultant displacement limitation, indicating only a small quantity of ballast would have been employed under any circumstance. Using the Ohio as a guide, the midsection was formed to comply with the dimensions of the boilers and with due regard to the small dimensions of the Savannah. The result was a section having very mod- erate rise of straight floor, carried farther out in pro- portion to beam than in the Ofzo, but with rather easy turn of the bilge and moderate tumble-home in the upper topsides. ‘This section has a form found in plans of some American freighting ships of 1815-1830, but with slightly slacker bilge. The stern used in the reconstruction was the “square stern and round tuck” seen in the Ohio and referred to in the Savannah’s register. Collins’ “‘round stern,” shown in Hudson’s drawing, did not come into use in America until about 1824, and then in naval ships only, so far as existing plans of American vessels show. The reconstructed hull-form (figure 6) shows the man’s bust figurehead mentioned in the register, and the supporting head and trail mouldings employed in the packets and other American ships of the period. The figurehead may have had some relation to the original or intended name of the ship prior to her purchase for conversion. No detailed description has been found. A ship built to the drawing would at least sail well and would carry her machinery, fuel, etc., as indicated in the descriptions that exist. Whether or not the hull is precisely like that of the original ship can never be determined until the orig- inal plan, or model, is found. The proposed deck arrangement is shown in dotted lines, in plan view. The rig shown in figure 7 is based upon Marestier’s sketch and his incomplete description. Since the ship had long royal poles on her topgallant masts it is highly probable she crossed royal yards, like the later packet ships. The proportions for the length of spars are based upon the masting rules given by M’Kay” in 1839. The fore spencer gaff, used as a crane for handling coal and cargo if the fore or main yards were not available, may have been long enough to be used also as a crane to handle the side wheels. The stack and mainstays may have made the fore spencer sail a nuisance, so it may not have been set while the vessel had her engine. In general, aside from the use of the spencers on fore and main, the sail plan shown is of standard proportions and ar- rangement of 1815-1825. For rigging, Darcy Lever’s book** was consulted. The drawing of the recon- structed Savannah’s sail plan agrees with contemporary sail plans of ships in the author’s collection. The log shows she set studding sails and had all the light canvas of a ship of her type. There remain a number of matters that do not directly concern the reconstruction project but which are of sufficient technical importance to warrant com- ment. Apparently the engine was mounted on a wooden frame consisting of two large oak timbers on each side, say about 10’7>10’’, one above the other, that probably supported iron saddles in which the two cylinders rested. Between each pair would have been the iron track, or channel, in which the ends of the crosshead travelled, along the axis of the engine in elevation. These frames measured about 9 feet 2 inches, outside to outside, and reached from the beams of the upper deck on either side of the crank hatchway to abaft the mainmast on the lower deck. It is probable that the fore and after ends of the frame were supported by stanchions stepped on 23 M’ Kay, op. cit. (footnote 5). 24 Darcy Lever, Sheet Anchor, London, 1808-1811. Providence, Rhode Island, 1930.) (Reprint, 76 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY SAVANNAH Spars, Standing 4199/79 4 Horking Sails Noses AI Math, Dia,» 1" for cach 3-0 of length 4 cia af freitlerrecs, 4 da at Cap. Bowsprit same as manmast, Jibboom Aia> I tor each #0 of length, Flying Sibboom dia!" for cach 570° of eng th, Pole + aa. Yoras, dias | for each 4:0 of length, 2 or 3 dia at end of arms, Foya/ Yards, Ha.> 1 or each 5'0° of length Tops, fore 4 mainz Va beam of s/1p, mizzen, 44 main lop width, erase cutrees Us of respective S Trestlefrees, depth-4 of pee/ of sopra, tucknen 4g depth, length £ width of op Punring Wg ee, references:~ Navthical Routine. Murphy & Jetfers Ship Mode! Socrety of Khede H/and, ed 1933, (Higgins) “Sheet Anchor, Darty Lever, Charles E. Lauriat, ed. /93€ Wheel box supported by fur iren brackets, to wpship, Jeated in iron sockers ovrside of Fai/. Canvas covers top and inboard side of whee/ P2745 79910 wo 40 2s pipiititt ! ! L Stale i feet 5 Le ts L Figure 7.—Reconstructed drawing of spar and outboard profile of the Savannah. indicate working sails. Standing rigging only is shown. Drawn fo build new exhibition mede/:~ th Chapelle, UL. Nationa! Museun Tmitpreaian lnstitetion Dee.18, (958 Stale fg “10” Dotted lines Royal yards were set flying and were crossed only when the ship was under full sail, never at anchor. the lower deck at the fore end and in the hold at the after end. The crosshead was of iron and probably had shoes at the ends to work in the tracks or channels in the frame. To help steady the crosshead, these shoes probably were a foot or more long, for the loading of the crosshead is spread out. The pitman to the paddle wheel shaft is to starboard of the center- line of the engine; the steam cylinder piston is slightly off center of the frame and crosshead; and the piston of the air cylinder is close to the port engine frame. The steam lines to the valves of the steam cylinder come in horizontally over the frames. As has been mentioned, the frame may also have supported the paddle wheel axle bearings at the crank. This engine has been criticized by some writers (see Tyler’s® résumé of Gilfillan’s*® comments), but the Savannah logbook shows it gave no trouble, and should be compared with the logs of Sirius and Great Western as summarized by Tyler. The relatively slow piston speed and small power put little strain on the moving parts. Tallow was probably used for lubrication, being introduced into the valve chest by pots on top of the casing, where radiated heat would melt the tal- low. From the valve chest the melted tallow was carried into the cylinder, and from there probably passed into the jet condenser. No doubt the lubri- cant became a sludge that had to be removed from the condenser at least once every 48 hours. There is 25 David Budlong Tyler, Steam Conquers the Atlantic, New York and London, 1939. 26S. C. Gilfillan, Inventing the Ship, New York, 1935. PAPER 21: THE PIONEER STEAMSHIP SAVANNAH: A STUDY FOR A SCALE MODEL ah oe Figure 8.—Stern-quarter view of the new model of the Savannah, showing one wheel partially folded and the iron frames for canvas wheel-boxes in place. no real evidence that the engine and boilers suffered any great strains; the operating pressure of steam must have been low at all times. The boilers were probably of very low efficiency and made steam slow- ly. Fuel consumption was high, and, according to the logbook, the vessel ran out of coal when she reached the English coast; however, she had enough fuel left to steam up the Mersey to Liverpool, probably using wood. At the time she ran out of coal she had used her engine about 80 to 83 hours. While this indicates a fuel consumption of almost a ton per hour, it must be remembered that the intermittent opera- 78 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY SSH Se Figure 9.—Bow-quarter view of the new model of the Savannah, showing deck arrangement details. tion of the engine required expenditure of fuel to This was one of the weaknesses in the auxiliary steamship, raise steam in cold boilers over and over again. particularly, as in the case of the Savannah, when the engine was used a number of times during a voyage without long periods of continuous operation. Also, there is doubt that the vessel carried as much as 75 tons of coal; she probably had no more than 55 to 60 tons aboard, if the figure of 1,500 bushels is correct. [t is impossible to establish exact weight-cubic meas- urements with the available data. Though the authorities quoted seem to agree that the Savannah could steam only 4% to 5% knots in smooth water, her logbook credits her with 6 knots However, this is probably an approximation affected by current and sea rather than a truly logged speed. Judging by references in the logbook, the Savannah carried one boat on the stern davits. The davits, shown in Marestier’s sketch, would handle a boat of about 16 to 18 feet in length. At sea the boat was probably carried on top of the deckhouse. The ves- sel obtained a new boat during her European trip. It is probable that the lack of passengers is why a second boat, which could have been stowed on the deckhouse roof, was omitted. There is no record of how the Savannah was painted, except that the logbook refers to her “‘bright”’ strake. Packets appear to have followed what once was a Philadelphia practice in having a varnished band along the topsides. Marestier’s sketch indicates that there may have been four or five bands of color, beginning at or a little above deck and wide enough for the top band to be up about two-fifths the height of the bulwarks. The hull was commonly black. The bands were red, white, and blue and there was under steam alone at sea. a “bright” strake, or alternate black and varnished bands. These bands were about 3 to 5 inches wide. Sometimes the “‘bright’’ band, as mentioned in the Savannah logbook, was along the topside just above and adjacent to the top of the wale, or belt of thick planking, or might be the uppermost strake of the wale. Perhaps the Savannah had a wide bright band above the wale and multicolored bands just above the deck. The headrails were painted black, with mould- ings at top and bottom of rails and with knees picked out with very narrow bands of yellow, or “‘beading.”’ The figurehead was then commonly painted in na- tural colors, to suit the form of head if a figure or a bust. ‘The bowsprit and davits probably were black. Deck structures were probably white, the neck natural, with waterways and inside of bulwarks white, the stack black, and rail caps varnished. In this period it was unusual to copper a wooden ship before launch, so it is doubtful that the Savannah was copper sheathed. Since her voyage occurred dur- ing a period of financial depression, it is probable that her bottom was ‘‘white” (tallow and verdigris). The reconstruction described herein produced a plan for a model that complied to the fullest extent with all the known dimensions and descriptions of the Savannah that have yet been found. The result showed that the United States National Museum’s old model could not be altered to agree with the known features of the Savannah and that a new model was therefore necessary. So that the new model would be comparable to other models of early Ameri- can steamers, existing or intended, in the Watercraft Collection, it was constructed on the scale of one- quarter inch to the foot. The new model (figs. 2, 8, and 9) is now on exhibition at the Smithsonian Institution. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C.—Price 25 cents’ 80 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY U.S, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 196! f ee 1eik : rawings and Pharmacy in al-Aahrawi's 10th-Contuny Qurgical Treatise MUS. COMP. ZOOL, LIBRARY by Sami Hamarneh APR 16 (963 HARVARD UNIVERSITY _ pages 81-94, from TIONS FROM THE MUSEUM Le STORY AND TECHNOLOGY \ rey HAE Z V4 PER ‘ ‘OR Nees as HSOW OT . WASHINGTON, D.C, 1961. ED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM oo BULLETIN 228 N INSTITUTION CONTRIBUTIONS FROM Tue Museum oF History aND TECHNOLOGY PapER 22 DRAWINGS AND PHARMACY IN AL-ZAHRAWIS 10TH-CENTURY SURGICAL TREATISE Sami Hamarneh 81 MUS. COMP. LOUL. LIBRARY APR 16 1968 sony catch aiesilge Rinne toe I) Wop) Lagasse tea éjoass Papi My in dol glQyecljNej5ogt na Gam ‘WP REPID AAAI ANoleglyj lines yes (oo —“agpl oMiso) 0929 )iay Ce ee 5c aa Lito UL Mol) ta) h31at)) ha aL 3 Re rgh)rouu| Wale, N62} s esas rheg ai hut a|nlaI)Z5s Gel Rotana Sas, gait 2p) ‘lps! oe! Zeled) WSN ib sera) lalla abs? pelo \5 a: BiglSCiphe anbwopeialigaglitelep Sealy Bide eee Vert AVlanLlerc);)s [05.82 ee & SI ci eo eee As raseleelasslppopt pelea yac ties {lac Li1O.0 65 gioadelas;s sania PA € poe 1.—Reproduc of a page from original Arabic manuscript indexed oes NF. = 4768" at Oesterreichische Nationalbiblio tty Wine Con tesy Oesterreichische Nat nalbiblio thek, Drawings and Pharmacy in al-Aahrawi's (Oth-Century Surgical Sreatise by Sami Hamarneh Probably the earliest independent work in Arabic Spain to embrace the whole of medical knowledge of the time is the encyclopedzc al- Tasrif, wratten in the late 10th century by Abu al-Qasim al- Lahrawt, also known as Abulcasis. Consisting of 30 treatises, wt 15 the only known work of al-Zahraw2 and it brought him high prestige in the western world. Here we are concerned only with his last treatise, on surgery. With its many drawings of surgical instruments, intended for the instruction of apprentices, its descriptions of formulas and medicinal preparations, and its lucid observations on surgical procedures, this treatise 1s perhaps the oldest of its kind. Scholars today have available a translation of the text and repro- ductions of the drawings, but many of the latter are greatly modified from the originals. This study reproduces examples of al-Zahrawt's original illustra- tions, compares some wrth early drawings based on them, and com- ments on passages in the treatise of interest to students of pharmacy and medical therapy. Tue Autuor: Sami Hamarneh undertook this research into the history of medicine in connection with his duties as associate curator of medical sciences in the United States National Museum, Smith- sonian Institution. HE INTRODUCTION OF THE WRIT- INGS of Abu al-Qasim Khalaf ibn “Abbas al-Zahrawi—better known as Abulcasis (d. ca. 1013)—to Western Europe was through the Latin translation of his surgical treatise (maqalah) by Gerard of Cremona (d. 1187).' The response to this treatise, thereafter, was much greater than the attention paid to the surgery of any of the three renowned physicians of the Eastern Caliphate: al- Razi (Latin, Rhazes, d. ca. 925), the greatest clinician in Arabic medicine; al-Majusi (Haly Abbas, d. 994), the author of the encyclopedic medical work, al- 1 George Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science, Baltimore, 1927, vol. 1, p. 681. PAPER 22: DRAWINGS AND PHARMACY IN AL-ZAHRAWIS SURGICAL TREATISE 83 Seber. 7% i Msc Tsnd oe a Ord) C35 By—e shy coll Gg bias ¥ a Bit) * Slee ol etl xe BR, Sp Eco yell Co GS LI ow Cee Se Qs 6 Figure 2.—The myrtle-leaf shape recommended for paper on which medicine is to be placed for cauterizing eyelid. Yop, from original Arabic manuscript (Tiib. MS. gr), courtesy Universitatsbibliothek ‘Ttibingen. Malaki;? and Ibn Sina (Avicenna, 980-1037), the author of the famous al-Qaniin fi al- Tibb, a codification of the whole of medical knowledge. Because of the widespread dissemination of this Latin version in medieval Europe beginning with the latter part of the 12th century, al-Zahrawi attained more prestige in the West than he did in Arabic Spain, his native country, or in any other part of the Islamic world.* The fame attached to this surgical treatise, the 30th and last in al-Zahrawi’s encyclopedic work al-Tasrif Liman ‘ Ajiza ‘an al-Ta’lvf, is founded on certain merits. The text is characterized by lucidity, careful descrip- tion, and a touch of original observation of the surgical operations to which the treatise as a whole is devoted.* Al-Zahrawi furnishes his own drawings of the surgical and dental instruments he used, devised, or recommended for a more efficient performance. The illustrations were intended to provide instructional 2 Mohammad S. Abu Ganima, in Abul-Kasim ein Forscher der Arabischen Medizin, Berlin, 1929, suggested that description of operations in al-Majusi’s surgery is clearer than that in al- Zahrawi’s—a statement which does not seem acceptable. 8 Max Neuburger, Geschichte der Medizin, Stuttgart, 1911, vol. 2, pt. 1, pp. 178-179. 4 Heinrich Haeser, Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Medizin und der epidemischen Krankheiten, Jena, 1875, vol. 1, pp. 578-584; and Donald Campbell, Arabian Medicine and Its Influence on the Middle” Ages, London, 1926, vol. 1, p. 88. 84 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY Bottom, from Channing, Albucasis. material for apprentices—whom al-Zahrawi calls his would read the work later on.® The treatise is me eee 2 Oy) IN OI =O) Plo SE Ys foyer Iho (S|! th Sates 12 US Fe oy lees aS} Whitford Tere bears Apa) Ub l2slai pL 2 anse Je —— Figure 3.—Small funnel for pouring heated lead into fistula of the eye for cauterization. Top, from original Arabic manuscript (Vel. 2491), courtesy Siileymaniye Umumi Kiitti- phanesi Miidiirliigti. Bottom, from Sudhoff, Chirurgie, courtesy National Library of Medicine. 5 See the prelude to the treatise. AND TECHNOLOGY sabiabspal Saree edi anne varagy wed alungané aU fete p a2 Gt een. piictii fs rite Sed - plicti.oeinde Senge cacecaioned fe donec fanety caurerigddi epar frigidum, 5 Femmn ccc cee inex ido pate. Figure 4.—Circular cauterization in stomach ailments. Top, from original Arabic manu- script (Tiib. MS. 91), courtesy Univer- sitatsbibliothek Tiibingen. Bottom, from the 1531 Latin edition of Pietro d’Argellata, Chirurgia Argellata cum Albucasis, hereinafter cited as Argellata 1531, courtesy National Library of Medicine. probably the oldest one known today that contains such instructive surgical illustrations and text.® This surgical treatise has been investigated, trans- lated, and commented upon by eminent historians 6 Fielding H. Garrison (An Introduction of the History of Medicine, ed. 4, rev., Philadelphia, 1929, p. 132), states, in reference to “Sudhoff and others,” that many drawings earlier than those of al-Zahrawi have been discovered in medieval manuscripts. However, Garrison overlooked the fact that al-Zahrawi’s surgical illustrations were mainly depicted for instructional purposes—a unique approach. It should be noted also that al-Zahrawi died almost a century earlier than Garrison thought. See also Martin S. Spink, ““Arabian Gynaecological, Obstetrical and Genito-Urinary Practice Illustrated from Albucasis,”’ Pro- ceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 1937, vol. 30, p. 654. PAPER 22: of medicine and surgery to whose works I shall refer in this article. However, the pharmaceutic and therapeutic details of the treatise have been some- what overlooked. As to the various illustrations of the surgical instru- ments (over 200 figures in all), an almost complete representation of samples has been introduced by Channing,’ Leclerc,* Gurlt,? Sudhoff,!? and others. Nevertheless, a good number of the reproduced drawings are greatly modified, most likely having been influenced by earlier illustrations in several Latin and vernacular versions of the treatise.!! This becomes clearer on comparison with seven Arabic manu- scripts that have not been fully examined by Western scholars before and that—in several instances—show more authentic drawings of al-Zahrawi’s surgical instruments than any heretofore published.'” 7 Johannis Channing, Albucasis de Chirurgia. Arabice et Latine, Oxford, 1778, 2 vols. (hereinafter referred to as Channing, Albucasis). ‘The text has many errors in spelling and grammar, but Leclerc went too far in criticizing this edition, which has many merits. Moreover, the surgical illustrations (reproduced from the Huntington and Marsh manuscripts of the Bodleian Library) in Channing’s edition are of special interest. 8 Lucien Leclerc, La Chirurgie d’ Abulcasis, Paris, 1861 (herein- after referred to as Leclerc, Abulcasis). This excellent French version was first published in a series of articles in Gazette Médicale de V Algérie, and seems influenced by Channing’s edition more than Leclerc admits. Leclerc consulted several Arabic copies of the treatise as well as Latin and vernacular translations, but only a few of these Arabic manuscripts are considered complete. The Arabic manuscripts studied for the present article are not the same as those used by Leclerc. See also Leclerc’s monumental work, Histoire de la Médecine Arabe, Paris, 1876, vol. 1, pp. 453-457. 9 Ernst Gurlt, Geschichte der Chirurgie und ihrer Ausiibung Volkschirurgie-Alterthum-M ittelalter-Renaissance, Berlin, 1898, vol. 1, pp. 620-649, with more than 100 figures. In the text and illustrations, Gurlt relied upon Leclerc’s translation and modi- fied drawings of the surgical instruments; nevertheless, he presents a brief, systematic study—probably the best so far—of the entire treatise. 10 Karl Sudhoff, Beitrage zur Geschichte der Chirurgie im Mut- telalter, Leipzig, 1918 (hereinafter referred to as Sudhoff, Chirurgie), vol. 2, pp. 16-84, with a few plates. Although Sudhoff consulted the fragmentary Arabic manuscript indexed as “Cod. Arab. 1989” in Gotha, Germany, he relied mainly upon Latin versions of the treatise and the illustrations contained in them. 11 See Leclerc, Abulcasis, in introduction. 12 The seven Arabic manuscripts are indexed as “Berlin MS. Or. fol. 91,?? temporarily at Universitatsbibliothek Tiibingen, in Germany; ‘Escorial MS. Arabe No. 876,” at Biblioteca del Monasterio de San Lorenzo el Real de El Escorial, in Spain; “Wien MS. Cod. N.F. 476 A.,’’ at Oesterreichische National- bibliothek, in Vienna; and ‘ ‘Ali Emiri Arabi No. 2854,” “Besir Aga Nos. 502 and 503,” and “‘Veliyyudin No. 2491,” all ‘at DRAWINGS AND PHARMACY IN AL-ZAHRAWI’S SURGICAL TREATISE 85 pe ae fg, Mo lall pske gellcs bl bes Tech enyd alls! s aaa Adley by 0 slo SNS pdr bey oO ss) esate enh ae aie dooys Hel Ueda, ELE ELE EEE OE _ Mia KLE Su Ke faa (Se he Sly ne sb Hc joel Lal y we” oo, ael, euere Lig B YY jo Za zc Litas — te Kshase bso slap eo, poe Bilan hy sdbonaspy : re EE ce ajeb bosons yoiaill Layla 9 5 habe 9 5? encwnlrs tris capera fm hdc figurd eb Ge ees 2 ee te ee, j (pacligh en int canted an grotieedl i nivighise fa camera tin eugiiatinen Figure 6.—Cautery in hernia. Top, from Le estiriainn, converts colicin quéndote © original Arabic manuscript (Vel. 2491 sath et titivam: Paaterta tn cr Bt enBodce rag 2 3 : vera S rn #9 ), | wii trip iy ot cence one courtesy Siileymaniye Umumi Kiitiiphanesi pcan ae Miidiirliigii. Bottom, from Leclerc, Albulcasis. This article therefore, is an attempt to present a sample of these illustrations with brief comments \ regarding certain figures and passages of interest to Ve pharmacy and medical therapy. : With much gratitude I express my indebtedness to Prof. G. Folch Jou of Madrid, to Dr. A. Stiheyl Unver and Mr. H. Dener of Istanbul, and to the librarians of the depository institutions for their cooperation in the Figure 5.—Ink markings for identifying place of cauterization. Top, from original Arabic reproduction of the manuscripts on microfilm. manuscript (Vel. 2491), courtesy Siiley- ap Ae maniye oe Se ate Miidiirligii. 222 ods proper PON peo obey thd Fue Bottom, from Argellata 1531, courtesy Na- Sa SN DS \Ve Lu leet! M2 ee}pobews wash |G tional Library of Medicine. Stileymaniye Umumi Kiitiiphanesi Miidiirliighii, in Istanbul. Hereinafter these manuscripts are referred to, respectively, as Tiib. MS. 91; Esc. 876; Wien 476 A; Ali 2854; Bes. 502; Bes. 503; and Vel. 2491. The Smithsonian Institution recently ob- ehoblsy se tained a microfilm copy of Bankipore Manuscript No. 17 from o Ve me zy } the Khuda Bakhsh O. P. Library, Patna (Bihar), India. This aicinaah manuscript, containing only the 30th treatise of al-Tasrif, was copied in 1189; therefore, it is the earliest dated Arabic manu- script of the surgical treatise known to exist. The surgical illustrations therein add weight to the belief that the Arabic manuscripts show more originality in the drawings than do the later copied versions, which often were inaccurate and possibly distorted. About ten other illustrations from the y 5 Ns EE Arabic manuscript in Istanbul indexed as ‘“Topkapi MS. No. 1990” (which contains 215 beautifully illustrated figures) were presented by A. S. Unver and Hiiseyin Usman in an extract Figure.7.—Fine tweezer for removing foreign bodies from the ear. Top, from original titled “Meshur Arab Cerrahi Elbiilkasimi Zehravi ve onum Ki- Arabic manuscript (Ali 2854), courtesy tabiil Cerrahiyesi, > Istanbul, 1935. See also Unver, Serefeddin Siileymaniye Umumi Kiitiiphanesi Midir- - Sabuncouglu: Kitabiil Cerrahiyei Illhaniye, Istanbul, 1939, pp. [5]-7. liigii. Bottom, from Leclerc, Abulcasis. 86 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY © Phe eho LL) Mg Saar Yas yyy! ew ft orl as) me? or ee 5s KY ey olooy)! Hl Wrpenias oly aw) as SB)! \aoh\ BRS) — ees ‘i IWR Dao cuNel his in tractaca inftillationum. Inftillado vero tua vel olcorum yel me- dicamentorum in aurem, cum hujus forme inftrumento fat ; ficut vides. Ex argento vel zre id conficias, inferne anguftum (in illo foramen fic parvuin,) amplum. et Jatum a parte fuperiori. Er fi vis Figure 8.—Syringe with metal plunger-pump. Top, from original Arabic manuscript (Ali 2854), courtesy Siileymaniye Umumi Kiitiiphanesi Miidiirliigi. Bottom, from Channing, Albucasis. Al-Zahrawi frequently introduces his treatises with brief instructive and sometimes informative preludes. However, in launching the last treatise of al-Tasrif he expounded in a most interesting and illuminating manner the status of surgery during his time. He also explains the reasons that forced him to write on this topic and why he wished to include, as he did, pre- cautions, advice, instructional notes, and beautifully illustrated surgical drawings. For example, the prel- ude to the treatise mentions four incidents that he witnessed, all ending with tragic results because of the ignorance of physicians who attempted to operate on patients without the proper training in anatomy and surgical manipulation. ‘‘For if one does not have the » al-Zahrawi protests, then . he is apt to fall in errors that lead to death as 29 13 knowledge of anatomy, ce I have seen it happen to many. Al-Zahrawi divides his surgical treatise into three sections (abwab). In the first section (56 chapters)" he elaborates upon the uses and disadvantages of 13 See introduction to the treatise; for example, Bes. 502, fol. 522v-523v and Vel. 2491, fol. 104r-105v. See also K. P. J. Sprengel, Versuch einer pragmatischen Geschichte der Arzneikunde, Halle, 1823, vol. 2, pp. 449-451. George J. Fisher, in “Abul- Casem Chalaf Ibn Abbas al-Zahrawi, Commonly Called Albucasis,’’ Annals of Anatomy and Surgery, July-December, 1883, vol. 8, pp. 24-25, gives a translation of only the first part of the introduction. 14 There are 56 chapters listed in almost all manuscripts and commentary works I checked except Tiib. MS. 91 and Esc. 876, where only 55 chapters are listed. be +b» BU prado botdlestra, « ge Aang ipialhyMe fen bity ba pods | span fyepe Hac aurem eft forma infundibuli fternuratorii quo inflilentur nafo eave 1. olea vel medicina. SS ee Ex argento, vel ex wre, fiat, lampadi parva: fimile, uti Lecythus, | apertum, et canalis ejus ad eundem modum. Et fi vis, facias cannu- lam claufam, ficut arundinem, et lecythus infundibuli fternutatorit Figure 9.—Metal nose dropper. Yop, from original Arabic manuscript (Ttib. MS. gr), courtesy Universitatsbibliothek ‘Tubingen. Middle, from Channing, Albucasis (Smithsonian photo 46891-C). Bottom, Sudhoff, Chirurgie, National Library of Medicine. from courtesy cautery in general. And on the ground that “fire touches only the ailing part. . much damage to surrounding area, . without causing oy) as caustic medi- cine does, he prefers cautery by fire (al-kay bi al-nar) to cautery by medicine (bi al-dawa).'° This, he adds, ‘became clear to us through lifelong experience, dili- 22 16 gent practice, and thorough investigations of facts. 15 Al-Zahrawi mentions several caustic medicines used in cautery, among which are garlic, mustard, melted lead, slaked or unslaked lime with or without soap, Uhapsia (Ruta graveolens Linn.), and juice of the Oriental cashew nut (Senecarpus anacardium Linn.). 16 Vel. 2491, fol. 106; Bes. 502, fol. 523r—524v. “ce 2 common PAPER 22: DRAWINGS AND PHARMACY IN AL-ZAHRAWIS SURGICAL TREATISE 87 Slope jana Sheehy Ses>g! “198 Splazel_s AM ne oe 6 Ate orl. eg) Figure 10.—Dental scrapers. Top, from orig- inal Arabic manuscript (Vel. 2491), courtesy Stleymaniye Umumi Kiitiiphanesi Miidiir- ligt. Left, from Argellata 1531, courtesy National Library of Medicine. Right, from Channing, Albucasis. He also proposes that instruments made of iron are more practical in many ways than those made of gold, because often, when gold instruments are put in fire, they either are not heated enough or are overheated, causing the gold to melt. Al-Zahrawi gently refutes the superstition that cautery is ‘‘good only in springtime,” and states that under the right conditions of the body’s humors it could be used in all seasons.”’ ‘7 Although he recom- mends cautery rather highly, he never minimizes the 17 Al-Zahrawi criticizes those who interpret the saying “cautery is the end of treatment” to mean that cauterization is the best and only conclusive treatment at the physician’s 88 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY a¢6 Aegieve Abels. salliecada Sta NS 5 Figure 11.—Dental forceps. op, from original Arabic manuscript (Tiib. MS. 91), courtesy Universitatsbibliothek ‘Tiibingen. Bottom, from Leclerc, Abulcasis. importance of treatment by drugs. Actually, he encourages the use of drugs, before, with, and after ‘8 For example, in chapter 16 on “‘the cauterization of eyelid when its hair grows reversedly into the eye,” he recommends treatment by cautery and by medicine. In cautery, the area where fire is to be placed is marked with ink in the shape of a myrtle leaf. is applied to the eyelid over a paper in the shape of a myrtle leaf (fig. 2). In chapter 17 the author refers to an ancient method regarding cautery of the fistula in the inner corner of the eye. After incising the fistula, one ‘‘dirham”’ | (derived from the Greek “‘drachma,”’ which is equal to about 2.97 grams) !° of melted lead is poured into it through a fine funnel used for cauterization (fig. 3). cauterization. In drug treatment, the caustic medicine disposal. He points out that other treatments, such as drugs, should be resorted to first, and used until they prove of no avail; and he states that only after cautery proves to be the cure should it be considered the completion of medical treat- ment—‘‘al-kay akhir al-tibb.” See Vel. 2491, fol. 106; and Bes. 502, fol. 524r—525v. 18 For healing, soothing, or emollient purposes, al-Zahwari suggested medications, such as egg white, salt water (normal saline), sap of psyllium, several ointments, “duhn’’ of rose, and other ‘‘adhan” (plural of ‘“‘duhn,” the fatty or oily essences extracted from various substances through pharmaceutical processes). 19 For a more accurate estimate of the equivalence of “dirham” according to ‘the area in which the measurement was taken, the reader may consult Walter Hinz, Islamische Masse und Gewichte umgerechnet ins metrische System, Leiden, 1955, pt. 1, pp. 2-8; and George C. Miles, Early Arabic Glass Weights and Stamps, New York, 1948, p. 6. St Sao ee ¥ é RG Maki moas LSg 058 “ine le. t \adarliapocnerocinae dehdeniiatar Ng rican Dat Pema- Qh annem foluiar sor inckdicar copaifloatio — printed og foxne dation. Rt Agere reration’s ae SSS. SS gus Re prredeat oene ynis cut duo pat eae wiriakpin | to coe _ Moderne vaccine 7 fit ex 0 ficay areata fdoco er quomineitur one ¢ | quo SOAS Reh, GSE Hypo sds, aS SN) Cshas ly eins Ss SS GS tre ESS Gr? . ree ss Figure 12.—Golden bridge to stabilize shaky teeth. Top, from original Arabic manuscript (Tiib. MS. 91), courtesy Universitatsbibliothek Tiibingen. courtesy National Library of Medicine. In like manner, al-Zahrawi discusses cautery of the stomach and the “cold liver” in chapters 26 and 27, respectively. The drawings therein represent shapes of the burns on the skin (fig. 4) and marks of ink to be drawn beneath the cartilage of the ribs (fig. 5) for the purpose of spotting the area of operation. Here also he describes carefully and clearly the methods of applying cautery and the types, position, and number of tools employed in each case. He likewise depicts (in chapter 45) instruments used in the treatment of hernia (fig. 6). The second section (bab), with about 99 chapters,”? deals with incision, puncturing, venesection, cupping, surgery on abscesses, and the withdrawal of arrows from the body. Al-Zahrawi warns that ignorance in such operations may lead to damage of an artery or vein, causing loss of blood ‘‘by which life is sus- tained.” *! Moreover, needle and thread (more than one kind is mentioned) for the stitching of wounds are repeatedly recommended. According to al-Zahrawi, foreign bodies that lodge in the ear (chapter 6) are of four origins: (1) eral stones”’ “min- or substances resembling mineral stones such as iron and glass; (2) plant seeds (chick-peas and 20 The contents of several manuscripts (such as Ali 2854. Wien 476 A, Bes. 503, and Tiib. MS. 91) give different numbers, 21 See, for example, Tiib. MS. 91, fol. 45v; and Bes. 502, fol. 530v. PAPER 22: Left, from Argellata 1531, Right, from Channing, Albucasis. beans); (3) liquids, such as water and vinegar; and (4) animals, such as fleas. Several instruments are recom- mended for the removal of such foreign bodies—fine tweezers shaped like a dropper (fig. 7), a syringe with plunger-pump, and a tube made of silver or copper (fig. 8). Also of interest to pharmacy and therapy is the advice in regard to the use of lubricants to be applied before administering these fine instru- ments into the body’s cavities. Chapter 24 is concerned with the treatment of the polypus that grows in the nose. The various kinds (including cancer growth), shapes, and colors of this type tumor and its treatment by surgery or medicine are described. A hollowed nose-dropper made of metal in the shape of a small kerosene lamp ” is sug- gested (fig. 9). The dropper is held by its handle while its contents are heated before use. Applying heat to nose drops was probably proposed because it serves two purposes: it allows easier flow of the “duhn,” or the fatty substance used, and it raises the temperature of the drops to that of the body. In his discussion on dental hygiene,”* al-Zahrawi 22 Sudhoff, of. cit. (footnote 10), p. 29, fig. 6. 23For a more detailed and interesting discussion with beautiful illustrations included, the reader may consult Ch. Niel, “La Chirurgie Dentaire D’Abulcasis Comparée a celle des Maures du Trarza,’’ Revue de Stematologie, April 1911, vol. 18, pp. [169]-180 and 222-229. DRAWINGS AND PHARMACY IN AL-ZAHRAWI’S SURGICAL TREATISE 89 describes scrapers and dental forceps for teeth cleaning and extraction (figs. 10, 11) and brings in a few points of historical interest.?* He warns of the common error of extracting the adjacent healthy tooth instead of the ailing one due to the patient’s sense deception. For a gargle he prescribes salt water, vinegar, and wine (sharab). To stop hemorrhage he used blue vitriol (al-zaj)—copper sulfate in our modern terminology. In chapter 33 al-Zahrawi discusses bridge-making for the consolidation of shaky teeth (fig. 12). He prefers the use of stable gold over silver which, he says, putrifies and rots in a short time. In a rational ap- proach, he also suggests that the fallen tooth itself, or a similar one shaped out of a cow’s bone, be installed and connected with adjacent, stable teeth by a bridge. Now, turning to chapter 36, we find al-Zahrawi describing a knife-thin tongue depressor (fig. 13) that he used to facilitate the examination of inflamed tonsils and other swellings of the throat; it was made of silver or copper. And in chapter 37 (chapter 34 in Bes. 503), he describes the excision of an inflamed uvula by surgery. In the same chapter, he also men- tions the use of instruments made of steel. Of pharmaceutical interest is the following free translation of the formula he prescribes “‘as a milder treatment to be resorted to only when the 5 by fumigation... swelling is subsiding”: * Take pennyroyal [Mentha pulegium Linn.], absinthe [Artemisia maritima Linn.], thyme, rue, hyssop, camomile, abrotanum [Artemisia abrotanum Linn.], and other similar herbs. Put all in a casserole and cover them with vinegar. Then close tightly with clay [lutwm-sapientiae]—except for a small hole in the middle of the cover—and boil. Connect one end of a hollowed instrument, a crude form of an inhaler [fig. 14], with the hole in the cover and insert the other end, which contains the nozzle, into the patient’s mouth, allowing the vapor to rise up to the uvula. And if you are not able to secure this instrument, take a straw and attach its end to an egg-shell. The egg-shell will prevent burns in the patient’s mouth that might be caused by the heated vapor. 24Tt is regrettable that Franz Rosenthal in his fine article “Bibliographical Notes on Medieval Muslim Dentistry” (Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 1960, vol. 34, pp. 52-60) failed to refer to this or any other section of al-Zahrawi’s work. 25 Bes. 502, fol. 538. See also Channing, Albucasis, pp. 206-208. For the identification of the drugs and their botanical origins the author of the present paper consulted H. P. J. Renaud and Georges S. Colin, Tuhfat al-Ahbab, Glossaire de la Matiére Médicale Marocaine, Paris, 1934, pp. 133, 143, 193-194, and Max Meyerhof, Un Glossaire de Matiére Médicale Composé par Maimonide, Cairo, 1940, pp. 168-169. whsad > f58 lout aslo ahd oleae Bose ode Mya) “YG he epee IS uy cS bbw Waar oh ple coy) dias > ases Watseiil3 Wiel itedd Soak ay os Suvs e ex argento vel ex zre conficias; fit fubtile ficur cultellus ; cum etenim ope ejus lingua deprimitur. tumor manifeftus tibi reddetur, inque illum cadet vifus tuus. Sumas adeoque hamum et in Amygdalam Figure 13.—Metal tongue depressor. Top, from original Arabic manuscript (Ali 2854), courtesy Siileymaniye Umumi Kiitiiphanesi Miidirliigii. Bottom, from Channing, Albu- casis. wz ere Ul yel onls spiel aes ~ Tt iat Q dale * 6 e & ®& db Pl else Et slles § 3 \ENaacotls KS, centers 7 fic inmedio olle foramen fuper quod componas tar RArementen concasam fm bunc moda. ——— > eee Fiat ex argétoraut ere: z intromittat extremitas in qua eft granatum fn os infirmi sonec afcendar vapo2 ad vaulam foper canulam vonec obfcurecur paula mulm3. ocinde ite’ ra foperipfem mulrotiens oonec arefcat, Lt cane ne facias Figure 14.—Crude form of an inhaler. Top, from original Arabic manuscript (Tiib. MS. gt), courtesy Universitatsbibliothek ‘Tiib- ingen. Bottom, from Argellata 1531, courtesy National Library of Medicine. Al-Zahrawi repeats in chapter 53, on cancer, what Greek physicians had said earlier, that cancer could be removed by surgery only at its first stage and when found in a removable part of the body, such as the 90 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Sb aS LL bp 3 ge 3) wz) : Ss gan FOREN aus Bulge uageaiGuan. SYP LAG! apenas agate WN Gb Jas a! oa) g bye SY Beast bob lad Boh ge Ayllbos Pole saced Pp He SPU pamper lsyeiel eral 3) Dad cere i CD\e Glicate cliterigationie vetice cumclapfedra.Lep.tir, Oando accidit fn vefica vicos t aut fangnisin e& congelatur : ant coarctetur fn ca pues ots diftillarein cam aques 7 mecicinasztonc fiat cum inftrumento quod nominatur clapfedra: 6 of ferncaeina. —____e___ AUS in evevemirate, EN enten fards.f dsnSith ce fons rs foraniinazouo ex pre pnatz vnii ex pte alvera:fcut vides:z locus cocauussin quo eft Wud qo tazpetlisir Pri Htideces, bd opiler ipfus fine additione dorzc gi trabi€ <6 ¢0 aligd er bamidicatibus. arrrabaf tz gi impeliif'cii eo expellgenr Figure 15.—Metallic syringe for injecting solu- tions into the bladder. Top, from original Arabic manuscript (Bes. 503), courtesy Stileymaniye Umumi Kiittiphanesi Miidiir- liigii. Bottom, from Argellata 1531, courtesy National Library of Medicine. aay Lacpled) ial tinge a)las hap gilded f Beale QF ysl Pe UNE Wadler Ss FO)! Figure 16.—Metallic or porcelain syringes for injection of enemas. Top, from original Arabic manuscript (Ali 2854), courtesy Sileymaniye Umumi Kiittiphanesi Miidtir- liigii. Bottom, from Argellata 1531, courtesy National Library of Medicine. breast. ‘Therefore, he confesses that neither he nor any one else he knew of ever applied surgery with success on advanced cancer.”® Of special interest in chapter 59 is the metallic “syringe” (fig. 15) used to inject medicinal solutions into the bladder: “‘The hollow passage [of the syringe] should be exactly equal to the plunger it contains and no more, so that when such fluids from an excess of humors are aspirated they will be drawn out, and likewise when the solutions are injected they will be pushed in easily.” Such description of the use of a ‘“‘bladder syringe” in the late 10th century clearly points to the practical and interesting approach to surgery in al-Tasrif. Moreover, his description of the removal of a stone from the bladder—an operation we now call lithotomy to bladder surgery. One of the earliest recorded operations for the extractions of two dead fetuses from the womb is clearly described in chapter 76. The account of this case shows not only al-Zahrawi’s intelligent approach is considered a contribution as a shrewd observer but also his clinical and surgical ability. Drawings of bulb-syringe instruments used for ad- ministering enemas in ailments of the rectum and for the treatment of diarrhea and colic are depicted in chapter 83. The text describes several kinds of syringes made of silver, porcelain, and copper in various sizes (fig. 16). Of particular interest is an illustration of a syringe, especially recommended for children, to which a piece of leather (jildah) is attached (fig. 17). ‘This instrument is a precursor of our modern bulb syringe. In chapter 84 al-Zahrawi turns to the treatmnet of various wounds. He prescribes the following powder formula for use: ‘Take olibanum [frankin- cense] and dragon’s blood,*” two parts of each, and three parts of slaked or unslaked lime. Pound them well, pass through a sieve and apply the powder to the wound.” In cases of damaged blood vessels, he tied the arteries by ligature, a practice of which he was a pioneer. In another chapter he describes four methods for suturing the intestines. Al-Zahrawi, being associated with war casualties and writing his treatise about the end of the 10th 26 Tiib. MS. 91, fol. 99v. 27 Dragon’s blood is a resin obtained from the scales covering the surface of the ripe fruits of ““Daemonorops draco Blume” (Heber W. Youngken, Textbook of Pharmacognosy, ed. 6, Phila- delphia, 1948, p. 175). See also Renaud and Colin, of. cit. (footnote 25), pp. 54-55. PAPER 22: DRAWINGS AND PHARMACY IN AL-ZAHRAWI’S SURGICAL TREATISE 91 dd be aye a) at 090 0M 8 ely Figure 17—A crude form of bulb syringe recommended for use with children. Top, from original Arabic manuscript (Ali 2854), courtesy Siileymaniye Umumi Kiitiiphanesi Miidiirliigii. Bottom, from Leclerc, Abulcasis. century, no doubt had the experience of dealing with cases involving injuries caused by arrows. The text in chapter 94 discloses his observations in elaborate investigations regarding the extraction of various kinds of arrows from the body.** Accordingly, several kinds of hooks and forceps for removing arrows are described and depicted in the treatise (see fig. 18). Al-Zahrawis mention of Turkish bows and arrows led Freind to believe, erroneously, that the author of the treatise must have lived in the 12th century,” notwithstanding the fact that Turkish bows and arrows were in common use in the latter part of the 10th century. The next chapter, on cupping, mentions the use of cups made of horns, wood, copper, or glass, accord- ing to circumstances and the availability of material. The methods of treatment are divided into two kinds: dry cupping, with or without fire, and wet cupping (see fig. 19). He prescribes ointments and aromatic 28 Heinrich Frélich, ‘‘Abul-Kasem als Kriegschirurg,”’ Archiv fiir klinische Chirurgie, 1884, vol. 30, pp. 365-376. This well- presented study was reviewed by Paul Schede in Centralblatt fiir Chirurgie, 1884, no. 38, pp. 626-627. 29 Johannis Freind, The History of Physick, London, 1726, vol. 2, p. 129 »P ; AME es ladle See 5e0s BIG 9) 44 Figura truforis, in quo eft cavitas, et trufor; — = BS SBS Ste] Figura Truforis furdi 5 Figure 18.—Hooks and forceps used for the extraction of arrows. Top, from original Arabic manuscript (Tiib. MS. 91), courtesy Universitatsbibliothek Tiibingen. Bottom, from Channing, Albucasis. and medicated waters to be applied befcre and after cupping to facilitate healing. Only when cupping is not possible, as on the nose, fingers, and similar parts of the human body, does he propose the use of leeches for treatment.*® Evidently this is an indica- tion that he did not, as generally supposed, encourage the widespread use of leeches. The third and final section, cf 35 chapters, deals with the reduction, luxation, and treatment cf injured bones, including fracture cf the pelvis. The advices and warnings in the prelude of this secticn appear to repeat some of al-Zahrawi’s sayings that had been covered in his previous introductions. ‘The text, how- ever, presents many facets of interest to the health 30 In several manuscripts, the chapter on the use of leeches is the last one in the second section of the treatise. 92 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Sis Ue ltns BS Wi gcsul A Wylie Dy Bl sine sas BBLs5) SRA en SERS CS SRS = nae ee sella Ase LS Git amplimdo orifici) clue puog dighoms apertoy png formanimus:7 Grites cus in pfundo fit medicras poles ¢ fit inlatere etus inloco qui eft circiter medfi cius Figure 19.—Cupping. Top, from _ original Arabic manuscript (Tiib. MS. 91), courtesy Universitatsbibliothek Tiibingen. Bottom, from Argellata 1531, courtesy National Library of Medicine. professions. It elaborates upon the application of various forms of bandages and plasters in a variety of operations. Al-Zahrawi’s detailed description re- lating to fractures of bones is a fine anatomical document of historical interest. He illustrates and describes special methods for tying injured or broken bones, and he suggests that bandages made of soft linen be less and less tight as distance increases from the injured place (chapter 1). For the protection of areas adjacent to the injured part against contact with edges of splints he advocates padding with soft gauze and carded wool. In some cases, to guard against swelling, he preferred a delay of one or more Ee SK a Nas a) bli stlepaios pb Aca NLL SSE NSB he Kes Figure 20.—Splint “in the shape of a spoon without a bowl.” Top, from original Arabic manuscript (Tiib. MS. 91), courtesy Uni- versitatsbibliothek ‘Tiibingen. Bottom, from Channing, Albucasis. days in applying bandages over splints. Al-Zahrawi also devised and depicted many kinds and shapes of splints for use in simple and compound fractures of the head, shoulders, arms, fingers, etc. (see fig. 20). For example, in discussing the reduction of the humerus, he recommends a splint consisting of a smooth, thin stick bent in the shape of a bow with two strings, each attached to one end of the stick (fig. 21). The injured bone is then placed in the middle of the bent splint for reduction while the patient is seated on a chair. Tying is applied only when there is no “thot” swelling (chapter 11). One of the remarkable observations made in this sec- tion is the description of the paralysis caused by frac- ture of the spine. Of interest to historians of medical therapy and phar- macy are the recipes for poultices that al-Zahrawi recommends for use over fractured bones. For ex- ample, he gives the following recipe for one such poultice: “Take the so-called ‘mill’s dust’ [ghubar al-raya], which is the part of the wheat flour that clings to the walls of the mill during grinding [lubab al-daqiq], and, without sifting away the bran, knead PAPER 22: DRAWINGS AND PHARMACY IN AL-ZAHRAWIS SURGICAL TREATISE 93 _erpleee el iba) Late dpe y ena [gp lool RF ea in Sac sa Ge PR PP Ktligent in ouab’extremt tatibas suc igameia.vein de fulpendat extoco & cove iedeat ifirm? top fede. velnde siiciot brachii fans fracum foper ignihwontc peueniar ad tiillich eines i cuiug medio ht anece curui cas ligni. Deinde fafpende ocluper iptam aligd grave "irae? vt extedat ipfias mintiter ad. Snferiora.ocinde equer medic? fractord manib7fuls fimaul oonec redeat fracture fm ab op3.€ £t modus alter eft v¢ refupinetur infirmus fupcernicem faem 2 fsipende manta ¢iug a colo iphus cu ligaméto.ocinde Pcipe ouobue mini Figure 21.—A_ splint to support the arm. Top, from original Arabic manuscript (Cod. N.F. 476A), courtesy Oesterreichische Na- tionalbibliothek. Bottom, from Argellata 1531, courtesy National Library of Medicine. with white-of-egg to a medium consistency, and apply.”” Another, more elaborate, recipe cails for 10 dirhams each of the roots of wild pomegranate [Glossostemon brugiert D.C.], chickling vetch [the grass pea, Lathymus sativus], and white marshmallow; 5 dirhams each of myrrh and aloes; 6 dirhams of white gum Arabic [Acacia]; and 20 dirhams of bole [friable earthy clay consisting largely of hydrous silicates of aluminum and magnesium, usually colored red because of impurities of iron oxide]. Procedure was to pound all ingredients gently, pass them through a sieve, and knead with water or white-of-egg (chapter il). The question arises as to whether al-Zahrawi did any human dissection. The answer is uncertain be- cause our knowledge of his life is fragmentary. How- ever, he gives no clue to the dissection of humans in any of the 30 treatises of al-Tasrif—his only known writings—and there is no evidence that he practiced it in secret. His upright attitude as a Muslim who repeatedly emphasized his adherence to his faith sug- gests that he relied completely on animal dissection and the writings of his Greek-Roman and Islamic predecessors. Physicians in both the Islamic domain and in Christendom for many centuries were hostile to the idea of human dissection for any purpose be- cause of their traditional socio-religious convictions, considering it an unethical and undignified practice. Perhaps it has been al-Zahrawi’s original contribu- tions to surgery, his enthusiasm in emphasizing the value of anatomical knowledge, and his recognition of the necessity that only well-educated, well-trained doctors should perform surgery that have led some medical historians to wonder whether he did human dissection at some time in his long years of experience. In Summary The few examples of illustrations of surgical instru- ments given here indicate that the Arabic manuscripts, in general, have preserved the original, oriental, artistic features of the drawings in a way that has been overlooked al-Tasrif. In presenting his personal observations and original ideas on surgery late in life, al-Zahrawi, for the most part, was inspired by a thorough acquaintance with Greek and Arabic medical literature supplemented by lifelong intelligent observation and experience. Through its descriptions and illustrations, the sur- gical treatise of al-Zahrawi very likely played a significant role in the designing of improved surgical instruments in the Middle Ages. Also, the treatise no doubt promoted the development of improved sur- gical techniques in Islam and, through its translations, promoted these techniques to an even greater extent in the West, a fact that justifies the fame of this treatise as the highest expression of the development of surgery in Arabic Spain—a treatise whose influence continued to the Renaissance. It contributed in no small measure to the idea of equipping learned and well-trained surgeons with the best surgical tecls and techniques of the time; moreover, it encouraged the invention of new instruments to meet differing cir- in Latin and vernacular versions of cumstances and special conditions. These tools no doubt greatly facilitated the work of the surgeon. Throughout the text of al-Tasrif al-Zahrawi gave careful attention to the importance of pharmaceuti- cal preparations in the healing art, including cases requiring surgery. 94 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY ae AMEE S yee abbas Sorin U.S, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1961 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D.C. - Price 20 cents q ie, LBL, SSNS 6 The Introduction of ® #SELF- REGISTERING |METEOROLOGICAL INSTRUMENTS Robert P. Multhauf MUS. COMP. Zool, LIBRARY APR 16 1969 HARVARD UNIVERSITY 23 pages 95-116, from ~) I IBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY NITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM q BULLETIN 228 ONIAN INSTITUTION e WASHINGTON, D.C., 1961 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM: Tue Museum or History anp TECHNOLOGY: Paper 23 Tue INTRODUCTION OF SELF-REGISTERING METEOROLOGICAL INSTRUMENTS Robert P Multhauf THE FIRST SELF-REGISTERING INSTRUMENTS 99 SELF-REGISTERING SYSTEMS 105 CONCLUSIONS 114 MUS. COMP. ZOOL. LIBRARY APR 16 1963 HARVARD UNIVERSITY. The Introduction of SELF-REGISTERING METEOROLOGICAL INSTRUMENTS Robert P. Multhauf The development of self-vegestering meteorological instruments began very shortly after that of scientific meteorological observation itself. Yet at was not until the 1860's, two centuries after the beginning of sczentific observation, that the self-vegistering instrument became a factor 2n meteorology. This time delay is attributable less to deficiencies in the techniques of mstrument-making than to deficiencies in the organization of meteorology itself. The critical factor was the establishment in the 1860's of well-financed and competently directed meteorological obser- vatorzes, most of which were created as adjuncts to astronomical observatories. THe Autuor: Robert P. Multhauf is head curator of the de- partment of sczence and technology in the United States National Museum, Smithsonian Institution. HE FLOWERING OF SCIENCE in the 17th century was accompanied by an efflo- rescence of instrument invention as luxurious as that of science itself. Although there were fore- shadowing events, this flowering seems to have owed much to Galileo, whose interest in the measurement of natural phenomena is well known, and who is him- self credited with the invention of the thermometer and the hydrostatic balance, both of which he devised in connection with experimentation on specific scien- tific problems. Many, if not most, of the other Italian instrument inventors of the early 17th century were his disciples. Benedetto Castelli, being inter- ested in the effect of rainfall on the level of a lake, constructed a rain gauge about 1628. Santorio, well known as a pioneer in the quantification of animal physiology, is credited with observations, about 1626, that led to the development of the hygrometer. Both of these contemporaries were interested in Galileo’s most famous invention, the thermoscope— forerunner of the thermometer—which he developed about 1597 as a method of obtaining comparisons of 96 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY temperature. The utility of the instrument was im- mediately recognized by physicists (not by chemists, oddly enough), and much ingenuity was expended on its perfection over a 50-year period, in northern Europe as well as in Italy. The conversion of this open, air-expansion thermoscope into the modern thermometer was accomplished by the Florentine Accademia del Cimento about 1660. Galileo also inspired the barometer, through his speculations on the vacuum, which, in 1643, led his disciple Torricelli to experiments proving the limita- tion to nature’s horror of a vacuum. ‘Torricelli’s ap- paratus, unlike Galileo’s thermoscope, represented the barometer in essentially its classical form. In his earliest experiments, Torricelli observed that the air tended to become ‘‘thicker and thinner’’; as a conse- quence, we find the barometer in use (with the ther- mometer) for meteorological observation as early as 1649.1 The meetings of the Accademia terminated in 1667, but the 5-year-old Royal Society of London had al- ready become as fruitful a source of new instruments, largely through the abilities of its demonstrator, Robert Hooke, whose task it was to entertain and instruct the members with experiments. In the course of devising these experiments Hooke became perhaps the most prolific instrument inventor of all time. He seems to have invented the first wind pressure gauge, as an aid to seamen, and he improved the bathometer, hygrometer, hydrometer, and barometer, as well as instruments not directly involved in measurement such as the vacuum pump and sea-water sampling devices. As in Florence, these instruments were immediately brought to bear on the observation of nature. It does not appear, however, that we would be justified in concluding that the rise of scientific mete- orology was inspired by the invention of instruments, for meteorology had begun to free itself of the tradi- tional weather-lore and demonology early in the 17th 1 On early meteorological instruments see A. Wolf, A Mistory of Science, Technology and Philosophy in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, New York, 1935, and E. Gerland and F. Traumiiller, Geschichte der physikalischen Experimentierkunst, Leipzig, 1899. On the recognition of the meteorological significance of the barometer by Torricelli and its meteorological use in 1649 see K. Schneider-Carius, Wetterkunde Wetterforschung, Freiburg and Munich, 1955, pp. 62, 71. Figure 1.—A set of typical Smithsonian meteorological instruments as recommended in instructions to observers issued by the Institution in the 1850's. Zop (from left): maximum-minimum thermometer of Pro- fessor Phillips, dry-bulb and wet-bulb ther- mometers, and mercurial barometer by Green of New York. Lower eft: rain gauge. The wet-bulb thermometer, although typical, is actually a later instrument. The rain gauge isa replica. (Smithsonian photo 46740.) PAPER 23: THE INTRODUCTION OF SELF-REGISTERING METEOROLOGICAL INSTRUMENTS century. The Landgraf of Hesse described some simultaneous weather observations, made without instruments, in 1637. Francis Bacon’s ‘‘Natural His- tory of the Wind,” considered the first special work of this kind to attain general circulation, appeared in 1622.2 It seems likely that the rise of scientific meteorology was an aspect of the general rationaliza- tion of nature study which occurred at this time, and that the initial impetus for such progress was gained not from the invention of instruments but from the need of navigators for wind data at a time when long voyages out of sight of land were becoming common- place. It should be noted in this connection that the two most important instruments, the thermometer and barometer, were in no way inspired by an interest in meteorology. But the observation made early in the history of the barometer that the atmospheric pressure varied in some relationship to visible changes in the weather soon brought that instrument into use as a “weather glass.’ In particular, winds were attributed to disturbances of barometric equilibrium, and wind- barometric studies were made by Evangelista Torri- celli, Edmé Mariotte, and Edmund Halley, the lat- ter publishing the first meteorological chart. In 1678-1679 Gottfried Leibniz endeavored to encourage observations to test the capacity of the barometer for foretelling the weather.® Other questions of a quasi-meteorological nature interested the scientists of this period, and brought other instruments into use. Observations of rainfall and evaporation were made in pursuit of the ancient question of the sources of terrestrial water, the main- tenance of the levels of seas, etc. Physicians brought instruments to bear on the question of the relation- ship between weather and the incidence of disease. The interrelationship between these various meteor- ological enterprises was not long in becoming ap- parent. Soon after its founding in 1657 the Floren- 2 Bacon’s book emphasizes “‘direct”? and “indirect”? experi- ments, and calls for the systematization of observation, but it does not mention instruments. It is reprinted in Basil Monta- gu’s The Works of Francis Bacon, Lord Chancellor of England, London, 1825, vols. 10 and 14. 3 Wolf, op. cit. (footnote 1), pp. 312, 316-320. The interest of the Royal Society in the barometer seems to have been initiated by Descartes’ theory that the instrument’s variation was caused by the pressure of the moon. tine academy undertook, through the distribution of thermometers, barometers, hygrometers, and rain gauges, the establishment of an international net- work of meteorological observation stations, a net- work which did not survive the demise of the Accademia itself ten years later. Not for over a century was the first thoroughgoing attempt made at systematic observation. There was a meteorological section in the Academy of Sciences at Mannheim from 1763, and subsequently a separate society for meteorology. In 1783, the Academy published observations from 39 stations, those from the central station comprising data from the hygrometer, wind vane (but not anemometer), rain gauge, evaporimeter, and apparatus for geo- magnetism and atmospheric electricity, as well as data from the thermometer and barometer. The Mannheim system was also short-lived, being termi- nated by the Napoleonic invasion, but systems of comparable scope were attempted throughout Europe and America during the next generation. In the United States the office of the Surgeon General, U.S. Army, began the first systematic observation in 1819, using only the thermometer and wind vane, to which were added the barometer and hygrometer in 1840-1841 and the wind force anemometer, rain gauge, and wet bulb thermometer in 1843. State weather observation systems mean- while had been inaugurated in New York (1825), Pennsylvania (1836), and Ohio (1842).* Nearly 200 years of observation had not, however, noticeably improved the weather, and the naive faith in the power of instruments to reveal its mys- teries, which had possessed many an early meteor- ologist, no longer charmed the scientist of the early In the first published report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1833, J. D. Forbes called for a reorganization of 19th century. procedures: In the science of Astronomy, for example, as in that of Optics, the great general truths which emerge in the progress of discovery, though depending for their establishment upon a multitude of independent facts and observations, possess sufficient unity to connect in the mind the bearing of the 4 On early meteorology in the United States see the report of Joseph Henry in Report of the Commissioner of Patents, Agricul- ture, for the Year 1855, 1856, p. 357ff.; also, Army Meteorological Register for Twelve Years, 1843-1854, 1855, introduction. 98 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY whole; and the more perfectly understood connexion of parts invites to further generalization. Very different is the position of an infant science like Meteorology. The unity of the whole . . . is not always kept in view, even as far as our present very limited general conceptions will admit of: and as few persons have devoted their whole attention to this science alone . . . no wonder that we find strewed over its irregular and far-spread surface, patches of cultivation upon spots chosen without discrimination and treated on no common principle, which defy the improver to inclose, and the surveyor to estimate and connect them. Meteorological instruments have been for the most part treated like toys, and much time and labor have been lost in making and recording observations utterly useless for any scientific purpose. Even the numerous registers of a rather superior class . . . hardly contain one jot of information ready for incorporation in a Report on the progress of Meteorology ... . The most general mistake probably consists in the idea that Meteorology, as a science, has no other object but an experimental acquaintance with the condition of those variable elements which from day to day constitute the general and vague result of the state of the weather at any given spot; not considering that... when grouped together with others of the same character, [they] may afford the most valuable aid to scientific generalization.° Forbes goes on to call for a greater emphasis on theory, and the replacement of the many small-scale observatories with ‘“‘a few great Registers” to be ade- quately maintained by ‘‘great Societies’ or by the government. He suggests that the time for pursuit of theory might be gained from “‘the vague mechanical task to which at present they generally devote their time, namely the search for great numerical accuracy, to a superfluity of decimal places exceeding the com- pass of the instrument to verify.” From its founding the British Association sponsored systematic observation at various places. In 1842 it initiated observations at the Kew Observatory, which has continued until today to be the premier meteoro- logical observatory in the British Empire. The American scientist Joseph Henry observed the func- tioning of an observatory maintained by the British Association at Plymouth in 1837, and when he became Secretary of the new Smithsonian Institution a few years later he made the furtherance of meteorology one of its first objectives. 5 J. D. Forbes, “Report upon the Recent Progress and Present State of Meteorology,’ Report of the First and Second Meetings of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1831 and 1832, 1833, pp. 196-197. The Kew Observatory set a pattern for systematic observation in England as, from 1855, did the Smith- sonian Institution in the United States. The instru- ments used differed little from those in use at Mann- heim over half a century earlier ° (fig. 1). They were undoubtedly more accurate, but this should not be overstressed. Forbes had noted in his report of 1832 that some scientists were then calling for a return to Torricelli, for the construction of a temporary barom- eter on the site in preference to reliance on the then existing manufactured instruments. The First Self-Registering Instruments From the middle of the 17th century meteorological observations were recorded in manuscript books known as “registers,” many of which were published in the early scientific journals. The most effective utilization of these observations was in the compilation of the history of particular storms, but where a larger synthesis was concerned they tended, as Forbes has shown, to show themselves unsystematic and non- comparable. The principal problems of meteoro- logical observation have been from the outset the construction of precisely comparable instruments and their use to produce comparable records. The former problem has been frequently discussed, and perhaps, as Forbes suggests, overemphasized. It is the latter problem with which we are here concerned. The idea of mechanizing the process of observation, not yet accomplished in Forbes’ time, had been put forward within a little over a decade of the first use of the thermometer and barometer in meteorology. On December 9, 1663, Christopher Wren presented the Royal Society with a design for a ‘“‘weather clock,” of which a drawing is extant.? This drawing (fig. 2) 6 On the instruments used at Mannheim see Gerland and Traumiiller, op. cit. footnote 1, p. 349ff. The Princeton physi- cist Arnold Guyot prepared a set of instructions for observers that was published in Tenth Annual Report . . . of the Smith- sonian Institution, 1856, p.215ff. Itappears from the Annual Report of the British Association for the Advance of Science in the 1830's that the instruments used in England were nearly the same as those later adopted by the Smithsonian, although British observatories were beginning to experiment with the self- registering anemometer at that time. A typical set of the Smithsonian instruments is shown in figure 1. 7H. Alan Lloyd, “Horology and Meteorology,’ Journal Suisse a’ Horlogerie, November—December, 1953, nos. 11, 12, p. 372, fig. 1. PAPER 23: THE INTRODUCTION OF SELF-REGISTERING METEOROLOGICAL INSTRUMENTS 99 Figure 2.—A contemporary drawing of Wren’s “weather clock.” (Photo courtesy Royal Society of London.) shows an ordinary clock to which is attached a pencil- carrying rack, geared to the hour pinion. A discus- sion of the clock’s ‘‘reduction to practice’? began the involvement of Robert Hooke, who was “instructed” in September 1664 to make ‘“‘a pendulum clock applicable to the observing of the changes in the weather.” § This tribute to Hooke’s reputation—and to the versatility of the mechanic arts at this time—was slightly overoptimistic, as 15 years ensued before the clock made its appearance. References to this clock are frequent in the records of the Royal Society—being mainly periodic injunc- tions to Hooke to get on with the work—until its completion in May 1679. The description which Hooke was asked to supply was subsequently found 8R. T. Gunther, Early Science in Oxford, vol. 6, The Life and Work of Robert Hooke, pt. 1, Oxford, 1930, p. 196. In 1670, Hooke’s proposed clock was referred to as “‘such a one, as Dr. Wren had formerly contrived”? (Gunther, p. 365). among his papers and printed by William Derham as follows: ° The weather-clock consists of two parts; first, that which measures the time, which is a strong and large pendulum- clock, which moves a week, with once winding up, and is sufficient to turn a cylinder (upon which the paper is rolled) twice round in a day, and also to lift a hammer for striking the punches, once every quarter of an hour. Secondly, of several instruments for measuring the degrees 9 William Derham, Philosophical Experiments amd Observations of . . « Dr. Robert Hooke, London, 1726, pp. 41-42 (reprinted in Gunther, of. cit. footnote 8, vol. 7, pp. 519-520). This description, dated December 5, 1678, predates the Royal Society’s request for a description (Gunther, of. cit. footnote 8, p. 656) by four months, but the Society no longer has any description of the clock. As to the actual completion of the clock, the president of the Society visited “Mr. Hooke’s turret’’ to see it in January of 1678/79 but it was not reported “ready to be shown” until the following May (Gunther, pp. 506, 518). 100 BULLETIN 228: GONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY of alteration, in the several things, to be observed. The first is, the barometer, which moves the first punch, an inch and half, serving to shew the difference between the greatest and the least pressure of the air. The second is, the ther- mometer, which moves the punch that shews the differences between the greatest heat in summer, and the least in winter. The third is, the hygroscope, moving the punch, which shews the difference between the moistest and driest airs. The fourth is, the rain-bucket, serving to shew the quantity of rain that falls; this hath two parts or punches; the first, to shew what part of the bucket is fill’d, when there falls not enough to make it empty itself; the second, to shew how many full buckets have been emptied. The fifth is the wind vane; this hath also two parts; the first to shew the strength of the wind, which is observed by the number of revolutions in the vane-mill, and marked by three punches; the first marks every 10,000 revolutions, the second every 1,000, and the third every 100: The second, to shew the quarters of the wind, this hath four punches; the first with one point, marking the North quarters, viz. N.: N. by E.: N. by W.: NNE.: NNW.: NE. by N. and N.W. by N.: NE. and N.W. The second hath two points, marking the East and its quarters. The third hath three points, marking the South and its quarters. ‘The fourth hath four points, marking the West and its quarters. Some of these punches give one mark, every 100 revolutions of the vane- mill. The stations or places of the first four punches are marked on a scrowl of paper, by the clock-hammer, falling every quarter of an hour. The punches, belonging to the fifth, are marked on the said scrowl, by the revolutions of the vane, which are accounted by a small numerator, standing at the top of the clock-case, which is moved by the vane-mill. What, exactly, were the instruments applied by Hooke to his weather clock? It is not always easy even to guess, because it appears that Wren was actually the first to contrive such a device and seems to have developed nearly as many instruments as Hooke. It might be supposed that Hooke would have adapted to the weather clock his wheel-barome- ter, introduced in 1667, but it also appears that Wren had described (and perhaps built) a balance barometer before 1667.%° we have no evidence of original work by Hooke, As to the thermometer, but we do have a description of Wren’s self-register- ing thermometer, a circular, mercury-filled tube in 10 Wren’s clock and its wind vane and anemometer, ther- mometer, barometer, and rain gauge are described by T. Sprat, The History of the Royal Society . . . , London, 1667, pp. 312-313. On the balance-barometer, see also footnote 28, below, and figure 4. which changes in temperature move ‘‘the whole in- strument, like a wheel on its axis.” ! The hygroscope (hygrometer) probably existed in more versions than any other instrument, although we know nothing of any versions by Wren. Hooke may have used his own “oat-beard”’ instrument.” Derham follows his description of the clock—which has been quoted above—with a detailed description of a tipping-bucket rain gauge invented by Hooke and used with the clock. He also notes that in 1670 Hooke had described two other types of rain gauge in which a bucket was counterbalanced in one case by a string of bullets and in another by an immersed weight. But here again, Sprat records the invention of a tipping-bucket gauge by Wren before 1667. Hooke has been generally regarded as the first inventor of an anemometer, in 1662.8 But this invention was a pressure-plate gauge—that is, a metal plate held with its face against the wind— whereas the gauge used with the weather clock is clearly a windmill type, of which type this may be the first. Wren also had an anemometer, but we have no description of it. Hooke’s account does not refer to other instruments which the weather clock is supposed to have had, according to a description quoted by Gunther, which concludes the enumera- tion of the elements recorded with ‘‘sunshine, etc.’ ™ 11 Since the above was written, additional information on this clock has been published by H. E. Hoff and L. A. Geddes, “Graphic Recording before Carl Ludwig: An Historical Summary,” Archives Internationales d’ Histoire des Sciences, 1959, vol. 12, pp. 1-25. Hoff and Geddes call attention to a report on the clock by Monconys, who saw the instrument in 1663 and published a brief description and crude sketch (Balthasar Monconys, Les Voyages de Balthasar de Monconys; Documents pour Histoire de la Science, avec une Introduction par M. Charles Henry, Paris, 1887). Monconys says that the thermometer “causes a tablet to rise and fall while a pencil bears against it.” The instrument shown in his sketch resembles a Galilean thermo- scope. 12 Hooke’s “oat-beard hygrometer” was described in 1667, but Torricelli seems to have invented the same thing in 1646, according to E. Gerland, “‘Historical Sketch of Instrumental Meteorology,” in “Report of the International Meteorological Congress Held at Chicago, Ill., August 21-24, 1893,” O. L. Fassig, ed., U.S. Weather Bureau Bulletin No. 17, pt. 3, 1896, pp. 687-699. 183 But a Dutch patent was awarded to one William Douglas in 1627 for the determination of wind pressure (G. Doorman, Patents for Inventions in the Netherlands during the 16th, 17th and 18th Centuries, The Hague, 1942, p. 127), and Leonardo da Vinci left a sketch of both a wind pressure meter and a hygrometer (Codex Atlanticus, 249 va and 8 vb). 14 Gunther, of. cit. (footnote 8), pp. 433, 502. PAPER 23: THE INTRODUCTION OF SELF-REGISTERING METEOROLOGICAL INSTRUMENTS 101 tt: eK 1 hl ee AI i Figure 3.—Dolland’s “atmospheric recorder’: 1, siphon and float barometer; 2, balance (?) thermometer; 3, hygrometer; 4, electrometer; 5, float rain gauge; 6, float evaporimeter; 7, suspended-weight wind force indicator; 8, wind direction indicator; 9, clock; 10, receivers for rain gauge and evaporimeter. (From Official . . . Catalogue of the Great Exhibition, 1851, London, 1851, pt. 2). One can only wish for further information on the mechanism by which the punches—or in Wren’s clock, the pencils—were moved. But it is apparent that Hooke’s clock was actually used for some time. The 17th century was not entirely unprepared for the idea of such a self-registering instrument. Water clocks and other devices in which natural forces governed a pointer were known in antiquity, as were counters of the type of the odometer. A water clock described in Italy in 1524 was essentially an inversion of one of Hooke’s rain gauges, that in which a bucket was balanced against a string of bullets.'° The mechanical clock also had a considerable history in the 17th century, and had long since been applied to the operations of figures through cams, as was almost certainly the case with the punches in Hooke’s clock. Still, the combination of an instrument- actuated pointer with a clock-actuated time-scale and a means of obtaining a permanent record represent a group of innovations which certainly ranks among the greatest in the history of instrumenta- tion. It appears that we owe these innovations to Wren and Hooke. Hooke’s clock contributed nothing to the systema- tization of meteorological observation, and the last record of it appears to have been a note on its “‘re- fitting’ in 1690. Its complexity is sufficient reason for its ephemeral history, but complexity in machine design was the fashion of the time and Hooke may have intended no more than a mechanistic tour de force. On the other hand, he may have recognized the desideratum to which later meteorologists fre- quently returned—the need for simultaneous obser- vations of several instruments on the same register. In any case, no instrument so comprehensive seems to have been attempted again until the middle of the 19th century, when George Dolland exhibited one at the Great Exhibition in London (see fig. 3). The weather elements recorded by Dolland’s instru- ment were the same as those recorded by Hooke’s, except that atmospheric electricity (unknown in Hooke’s time) was recorded and sunshine was not recorded. Striking hammers were used by Dolland for some of the instruments and ‘‘ever pointed pencils” for the others. Dolland’s barometer was a wheel instrument controlling a hammer. His ther- 15 Battista della Valle, Vallo Libro Continente Appertiniente ad Capitanii, Retenere and Fortificare una Citta . . . , Venetia, 1523 (reported under the date 1524 in G. H. Baillie, Clocks and Watches, an Historical Bibliography, London, 1951). mometric element consisted of 12 balanced mercury thermometers. Its mode of operation is not clear, but it probably was similar to that of the thermometer developed by Karl Kreil in Prague about the same time (fig. 4). Dolland’s wind force indicator con- sisted of a pressure plate counterbalanced by a string of suspended weights. Altogether, it is not clear that Dolland’s instrument was superior to Hooke’s, or that its career was longer.'® The 171 years between these two instruments were not lacking in inventiveness in this field, but even though inventors set the more modest aim of a self- recording instrument for a single piece of meteor- ological data, their brain children were uniformly still-born. Then, during the period 1840-1850, we see the appearance of a series of self-registering instruments which were actually used, which were widely adopted by observatories, and which were superseded by superior rather than abandoned. This development was undoubtedly a consequence of the establishment at that time of permanent observatories under competent scientific direction. Long experience had demonstrated to the meteor- ologists of the 1840’s that the principal obstacle to the success of self-registering instruments was friction. Forbes had indicated that the most urgent need was for automatic registration of wind data, as the erratic fluctuation of the wind demanded more frequent observation than any manual system could accom- plish. instruments Two of the British Association’s observers produced separate recording instruments for wind direction and force in the late 1830’s, a prompt response which suggests that it was not the idea which was lacking. One of these instruments— designed by William Whewell—contained gearing, the friction of which vitiated its utility as it had that of a number of predecessors. The other, designed by A. Follet Osler, was free of gearing; it separately recerded wind pressure and direction on a sheet of paper moved laterally by clockwork. The pressure element was a spring-loaded pressure plate carried 16 Dolland’s instrument, called an “‘atmospheric recorder,” is described in the Official, Descriptive and Illustrated Catalogue to the Great Exhibition, 1851, London, 1851, pt. 2, pp. 414-415. As the George Dolland who joined the famous Dolland firm in 1804 would have been about 80 years of age in 1850, the George Dolland who exhibited this instrument may have been a younger relative. PAPER 23: THE INTRODUCTION OF SELF-REGISTERING METEOROLOGICAL INSTRUMENTS 103 579767—61——2 Autographes Barometer und Thermometer. Figure 4.—Kreil’s balance thermometer, 1843. tische und meteorologische Beobachtungen zu Prag, Prague, 1843, vol. 3, fig. 1.) the vane to face the wind. Both this plate and the vane itself were made to around by move pencils through linkages of chains and_ pulleys.” Osler’s anemometer (fig. 5) deserves to be called 17 ‘The Osler anemometer and most of the other self-register- ing instruments mentioned in this paper are described and il- lustrated in C. Abbe, “Treatise on Meteorological Apparatus and Methods,” Annual Report of the Chief Signal Officer for 1887, Washington, 1888. The use of the Osler instrument at the British Association’s observatory at Plymouth is mentioned in the Association’s annual reports from 1838. There were a number of earlier self-registering anemometers, but no evidence of their extended use. See J. K. Laughton, ‘‘Historical Sketch of Anemometry and Anemometers,’? Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 1882, vol. 8, pp. 161-188. (From Karl Kreil, AMagne- the first successful meteorological instrument; it was standard equipment in British observatories until the latter part of the 19th century when it was replaced by the cup-anemometer of Robinson. Self-recording barometers and thermometers were more vulnerable to the influence of friction than were wind instruments, self-registering but fortunately pressure and temperature were also less subject to sudden fluctuation, and so self-registration was less necessary. Nevertheless, two events cccurred in the 1840's which led to the development cf self-registering instruments. One event was the development of the geomagnetic observatory, which used the magne- tometer, an instrument as delicate as the barometer 104 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 5-—Osler’s plate anemometer, 1837. The instrument is Figure self-registering pressure shown with a tipping-bucket rain gauge. (From Abbe, of. cit. footnote 17.) and thermometer, and (as it then seemed), as subject to fluctuation as the wind vane. The other event was tbe development of photography, making possible a recording method free of friction. In 1845 Francis Ronalds at Kew Observatory and Charles Brooke at Greenwich undertook to develop apparatus to register the magnetometer, electrometer, thermometer, and barometer by photography.'8 This was six years after Daguerre’s discovery of the photographic proc- ess. The magnetometers of both investigators were put into use in 1847, and the barometers and ther- mometers shortly after. They were based on the de- flection—by a mirror in the case of the magnetometer and electrometer and by the mercury in the barom- eter and thermometer—of a beam of light directed 18 On Ronalds’ work see reports of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, from 1846 to 1850. On Brooke’s work see Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1847, vol. 137, pp. 59-68. against a photographic plate. Brooke exhibited his instruments at the Great Exhibition of 1850, and they subsequently became items of commerce and stand- ard appurtenances of the major observatory until nearly the end of the century (fig. 6). Their advan- tages in accuracy were tinally insufficient to offset the inconvenience to which a photographic instrument was subject. Before 1850 the British observatories at Kew and Greenwich (the latter an astronomical observatory with auxiliary meteorological activity) had_ self- registering apparatus in use for most of the elements observed. Self-Registering Systems In 1870 the Signal Corps, U. $8. Army, took on the burden of official meteorology in the United States as the result of a joint resolution of the Congress and in accordance with Joseph Henry’s dictum that the Smithsonian Institution should not become the per- manent agency for such scientific work once its permanency had been decided upon. Smithsonian meteorology had not involved self-recording instru- ments, and neither did that of the Signal Corps at the outset “because of the expense of the apparatus, and because nothing of that kind was at that time manufactured in this country.” !° But almost immediately after 1870 the Signal Corps undertook an evidently well-financed program for the “Complete outfits” were purchased, representing Wild’s system, the Kew introduction of self-registration. system as made by Beckley, Hipp’s system (fig. 8), Secci’s meteorograph (figs. 9, 10), Draper’s system, and Hough’s printing barograph and thermograph. Of these only the Kew system, the photographic sys- tem already mentioned, could have been obtained before 1867. Like Kew, Daniel Draper’s observatory in Central Park, New York City, was established primarily for meteorological observation.” Draper was one of the sons of the prominent scientist J. W. Draper. Hipp was an instrument-maker of Neuchatel who special- ized in precision clocks.*! The others after whom 19 CG, Abbe, ‘The Meteorological Work of the U.S. Signal Service, 1870 to 1871,” in Fassig, op. cit. (footnote 12), pt. 2, 1895, p. 263. 20 Annual Report of the Director of the Meteorological Observatory, Central Park, New York, 1871, p. 1ff. 21 Oevsterreichische Gesellschaft fiir Meteorologie, it 19) E qi > (r WJ 1) gs LICK oO BAROMETER k al registering barometer, as used in the Lic °s mechanic Figure 11.—Draper (Photo courtesy Lick Observatory.) Observatory. Lal NSTRUMENTS AL I REGISTERING METEOROLOGIC OF SELF THE INTRODUCTION PAPER 23 E . F barometer, about 1871. registering Figure 12.—Hough’s electromechanical 1 (| i | Al | a: P | ia 5 i . i q eS } j ei il Figure 13.—Feuss’ “balance barometer after Samuel Morland,” 1880. Wren probably was the originator of this type of instrument. (From Loewenherz, op. cit. footnote 28.) Figure 14.—Marvin’s mechanical registering barometer, 1905. This instrument was for- merly in the U.S. Weather Bureau. (USNAL 316500; Smithsonian photo 46740-E.) Figure 15.—‘‘Steelyard barometer” as shown in Charles Hutton’s Mathematical and Philo- sophical Dictionary (London, 1796, vol. 1, p. 188). Hutton makes no reference to the originator of this instrument; he attributes the “Diagonal” (or inclined) barometer to Samuel Morland. stimulation to the staff in the invention of other instruments.”’ *! From 1875 the question was no longer one of the introduction of self-registering instruments to major observatories but their complete mechanization and the extension of registration to substations. Having accepted self-registration, meteorologists turned their attention to the simplification of instruments. In 1904 Charles Marvin, of what is now the U.S. Weather Bureau, brought the self-registering barometer into something of a full circle by producing an instrument (fig. 14) that was nothing more than Hooke’s wheel barometer directly adapted to recording.*? But this process of simplification had been accomplished at a stroke, about 1880, with the introduction by the 31 Abbe, of. cit. (footnote 19), pp. 263-264. 32 Because of its superior accuracy to the aneroid barograph, Marvin’s barometer was in use through the 1940’s. See R. N. Covert, ‘Meteorological Instruments and Apparatus Employed by the United States Weather Bureau,” Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1925, vol. 10, p. 322. Parisian instrument-maker Jules Richard of a self- registering barometer and a thermometer combining the simplest form of instrument with the simplest form of registration (see fig. 16). This innovation, which fixed the form of the conventional registering instru- ment until the advent of the radiosonde, seems to have stemmed from a source quite outside meteorology— the technology of the steam gauge. Richard’s thermo- metric element was the curved metal tube of elliptical cross-section that Bourdon had developed several dec- ades earlier as a steam gauge. Pressure within such a tube causes it to straighten, and thus to move a pointer attached to one end. Bourdon had opened it to the steam source. Richard filled it with alcohol, closed it, and found that the expansion of the alcohol on heating caused a similar straightening. His baromet- ric element was a type of aneroid, which Hipp had al- ready used but which Richard may have also adopted from a type of steam gauge. For a recording mech- anism, Richard was able to use a simple direct lever connection, as the forces involved in his instruments, being concentrated, were not greatly bampered by friction.*® By 1900 these simple and inexpensive in- struments had relegated to the scrap pile, unfortu- nately literally, the elegant products of the mass attack of observatory directors in the 1860’s on the problem of the self-registering thermometer and barometer.** Conclusions In view of the rarity of special studies on the history of meteorological instruments, it is impossible to claim that this brief review has neglected no important in- struments, and conclusions as to the lineage of the 33 Both of Richard’s instruments (described in Bulletin Mensuel de la Société d’ Encouragement pour I’ Industrie Nationale, November 1882, ser. 3, vol. 9, pp. 531-543) were in use at Kew by 1885 and at the U.S. Weather Bureau by 1888. The firm of Richard Freres claimed in 1889 to have made 7,000 registering instruments, of which the majority were probably thermographs and barographs. At that time, certainly no other maker had made more than a small fraction of this number of self-register- ing instruments. The origin of Richard’s thermograph seems to have been the ‘‘elastic manometer” described by E. Bourdon in 1851 (Bulletin de la Société d’ Encouragement pour ’ Industrie Na- tionale, 1851, no. 562, p. 197). While attempting to restore a flattened still-pipe, Bourdon had discovered the property of tubes to change shape under fluid pressure. The instrument he de- veloped in consequence became the standard steam pressure gauge. 34 A few of these instruments, such as the Marvin barograph, survived for some time because of their superior accuracy. Even as museum pieces, only a few exist today. 114 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 16.—Richard’s registering aneroid barometer, an instrument used at the U.S. Weather Bureau about 1888. ‘The Richard registering thermometer is similar, the aneroid being replaced by an alcohol-filled Bourdon tube. (USNM 252981; Smithsonian photo 46740-C.) late 19th century instruments can only be tentatively drawn. ‘The conclusion is inescapable, however, that the majority of the instruments upon which the self- registering systems of the late 19th century were based had been proposed and, in most cases, actually con- structed in the 17th century. It is also evident that in the 17th century at least one attempt was made at a system as comprehensive as any accomplished in the 19th century. To attribute the success of self-registering instru- ments in the late 19th century to the unquestionable improvements in the techniques of the instrument- maker is to beg the question, for it is by no means clear that the techniques of the 17th-century instru- ment-maker were unequal to the task. It should also be noted that the photographic and electromagnetic systems of the 19th century seem to have been some- thing of an interlude, for some of the latest and most durable (all of Draper’s and Richard’s instruments and Marvin’s barograph) were purely mechanical instruments, as had been those of Hooke and Wren. If we conclude that the 19th-century instruments were more accurate, we should also recall Forbes’ comments upon the question of instrumental accuracy. What, then, was the essential difference between the 17th and 19th centuries that made possible the development of the self-registering observatory? It would appear to have been a difference of degree— the maturation in the 19th century of certain features PAPER 23: THE INTRODUCTION OF SELF-REGISTERING METEOROLOGICAL INSTRUMENTS 115 of the 17th. The most important of these features were the spread throughout the western world of the spirit that had animated the scientific societies of Florence and London, the continued popularity of the astronomical observatory as an object of the philanthropy of an affluent society, and the continued existence of the nonspecialized scientist. Under these circumstances such nonmeteorologists as Wheatstone, Henry, Hough, Wild, and Secci had the temerity to range over the whole of the not yet compartmented branches of science and technology, fully confident that they were capable of finding thereby a solution to any problem important enough to warrant their attention. U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1961 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C. - Price 25 cents * OS ens = } ¥ ra Z i ! ‘ ay \ 3 7 > Ses ' if t i i n * 1 5 c Hae f ee : H is P 3 Fe b f vy : i ’ i > a ae 2 a x *% ine : ; ; i : a) "oe vi t; 1 “ah i At : 48 se i ; “ mi i > i A ie eo he Hae nee Be i aN } VAL aR WB) ass aE SHON estes ay et ‘ é Br ‘ ~ Ly = ‘ t c } = 3 7 i t Y Cx ” bs cA . ita et 4 4 fe! if ¢ ; x mabe * “ Ru 33 = { ay ~ oe - tk poy, 4 7 7 r * ‘ ; ‘ . x a4 ‘ tr ir ) J fi , ‘ 3 ‘ (=n as ea ) ‘s j ima =:-—- oN 24 pages 117-131, from NTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY NITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 228 ITHSONIAN INSTITUTION e WASHINGTON, D.C., 1961 ‘ CONTRIBUTIONS FROM Tue Museum or History AND TECHNOLOGY: Paper 24 INTRODUCTION OF Tue Locomotive SAFETY TRUCK John H. White INTRODUCTION OF THE LOCOMOTIVE SAFETY TRUCK mus. COMP. ZOO LIBRARY APR 16 (963 HARVARD UNIV ERSITY. John H. White Pioneer railroading was dangerous. Wath increased speed and density of traffic came an increase in catastrophic wrecks that forced operators to take heed for the safety of thear passen- gers and freight. This safety was painfully achieved through the slow process of zmproving equipment part by part. Antedating such spectacular post-Civil War advances as the steel rail, automatic coupler, and airbrake, was the invention of the safety truck for locomotives. Intended to lead the bobbing, weaving locomotive around curves on the rough track of the early roads, it did much to reduce the all too numerous derailments that were a major cause of accidents. THe AvutHor: John H. White, is associate curator, in charge of land transportation, in the Smithsonian Institution's Museum of History and Technology, United States National Museum. MERICAN RAILROADS Of the early 19th century were cheaply and hastily built. They were charac- terized by inferior roadbeds, steep grades, sharp curves, and rough track. In spring, poor drainage and lack of ballast might cause the track to sink into the soggy roadbed and produced an unstable path. In winter this same roadbed could freeze into a hard and unyielding pavement on which the rolling stock was pounded to pieces. In those pioneering times the demand for new roads left little capital to improve or expand existing lines; therefore equipment was needed that could accom- modate itself to the existing operating conditions. The first locomotives used in this country had been imported from England. Designed for well-ballasted track with large-radius curves and gentle gradients, they all too frequently left the rails, and the unsuita- bility of the essentially rigid British design soon became apparent. The challenge posed by the American roadbed was met by American mechanics. By the mid-1830’s a distinctive American locomotive had evolved that might best be described by the word ‘‘flexible.” The basic features of its running gear were a bar frame and equalizing levers to provide vertical relief and a leading truck to provide lateral relief. Of these devices the truck was probably the most im- portant, and more readily than any one component distinguished the American running gear from that used by the British before 1860. It was John B. Jervis who is generally credited with first applying the truck to the locomotive. His design, shown in figure 1, was developed in 1831-32. Its merits quickly became apparent, and by 1835 it 118 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY LOCOMOTIVE ENGINE : BROWER JOMAMTELAN, al Ficure 1.—Design drawing showing the 4-wheel leading truck, developed in 1831 by John B. Jervis, applied to the Brother Jonathan. ‘This locomotive, one of the earliest to use a leading truck, was built in June 1832 by the West Point Foundry Association for the Mohawk and Hudson Rail Road. The truck is attached to the locomotive frame by a center pin, but the forward weight of the locomotive is carried by a roller which bears on the frame of the truck. (Smithsonian photo 36716—a) had been universally recognized in this country. The truck successfully led the locomotive around sharp curves, the resultant 3-point suspension enabled the machine to traverse even the roughest of tracks, and, altogether, the design did far less damage to the lightly built U.S. lines than did the rigid, imported r] ~ 1 engines. 1 Three-point suspension in a 4-2-0 was easily gained—the center plate of the truck and the two bearings of the driving wheel axle. On a 4-4-0 the center plate served as one point, while the fulcrum of each equalizing lever served as the other two points, thus providing the desirable and highly stable 3-point suspension. The truck frame, fabricated from iron straps and castings, was attached to the locomotive by a pin around which it might rotate. At first the weight was received by rollers or chafing pads mounted on the side beams of the truck. However, the friction of these bearing surfaces and their location at a consider- able distance from the center pin combined to restrict the free movement of the truck. By the early 1850's the point of bearing was transferred to the center plate, producing a truck that turned more freely.” 2 American Railroad Journal, 1853, vol. 9, p. 427. PAPER 24: INTRODUCTION OF THE LOCOMOTIVE SAFETY TRUCK 119 U7, Sy FIG. 4. Figure 2.—The 4-wheel Bissell truck as shown in the drawing for British patent 1273, issued May 5, 1857. 120 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY fe rox] A—Truck frame B—Equalizing lever C—Locomotive frame D—Double incline plane (Centering device) E—Truck bolster F—Swivel pin (Pivot point) Drawn by J. H. White, June, 1960 Ficure 3.—Typical 4-wheel Bissell Safety truck of 1860. ‘This drawing is based on plate 69 of Alexander L. Holley’s, American and European Railway Practice in the Economical Generation of Steam, New York, 1861. (Smithsonian photo 46946) For single axle engines this simple form of truck was entirely satisfactory, but it proved less satisfactory for 4- and 6-coupled machines. Also, as train speeds increased, so did the number of derailments. Many of these could be traced to the inability of the engine to negotiate curves at speed. Levi Bissell, a New York inventor who investigated this problem in the 1850’s, correctly analyzed the difficulty. He ob- served that when the engine was proceeding on straight tracks the leading truck tended to oscillate and chatter about the center pin, and he noted that it was this action that imparted a fearful pitching motion to the locomotive at speed. The derailments were traced to the action of the truck as the engine entered a curve. This action can be more easily understood from reference to Bissell’s patent drawing in figure 2. For example, let us say that an 8-wheel engine, fitted with a center-swing truck, enters a right-hand curve. The left truck wheels bear hard against the left rail. The drivers jam obliquely across the track, with the right front and left rear wheels grinding into the rails. As a result, the locomotive tends to leave the track in the direction of the arrow shown on the figure (bottom drawing). It will be noted that the truck center pintle is in fact the fulcrum for this leverage. Under such strain the truck wheels are particularly likely to leave the rails when they encounter an obstruction. Once derailed, the truck would then spin around on the deadly center pin, throwing the locomotive over. In effect, then, the center pin of the conventional truck extended the rigid wheel-base of the engine, and caused the truck to act much as would a single set of leading wheels fitted rigidly to the engine frame far ahead of the front driving wheels. Bissell proposed to correct the faults of the conventional truck by fitting the locomotives with his invention, the first practical safety truck to be patented. Since the primary requirements were to keep the leading wheel axles at right angles to the rails whether on a straight or curved track, and to allow the driving axles to remain parallel, or nearly so, to the radial line of the curve, he moved the center pin to a point behind the truck and just in front of the forward driving axle. This shortened the wheelbase of the engine and removed the danger of the pintle serving as a fulcrum between the truck and the driving wheels, thus allowing them to assume a comfortable position on a curve. Since the truck could assume the correct angle when entering curves, it was claimed in the patent specification that, unless all four wheels were simulta- PAPER 24: INTRODUCTION OF THE LOCOMOTIVE SAFETY TRUCK 121 re Half Section thn.cd. Front View. Ficure 4.—A 4-wheel safety truck fitted with A. F. Smith’s swing-bolter centering device. Built by the Hinkley Locomotive Works. From Gustavus Weissenborn, American Locomotive Engineering and Railway Mechanism, New York, 1871, pl. 88. neously lifted off the track, the truck could pass over “quite a considerable obstruction.” * Bissell further claimed: In running on either a straight or curved track one of the truck wheels often breaks off, and the truck swivels around on its center pin in consequence, and throws the engine off the track, but with my device one wheel, or even the two wheels on the opposite sides diagonally of the truck might break off and still the truck would not run off, because its position is set and it has no axis of motion around which it could swing. . .. The other problem Bissell wished to correct was the oscillation and chatter of the leading truck. This was accomplished by a simple centering device in the form of a pair of V-shaped double incline planes (D on fig. 3) situated at the center of the truck frame (A). The lower planes of the pair were fastened to the truck frame and the upper, cast in the form of a bridge, were attached to the locomotive frame (C) by a center plate. But while the portion of the locomotive’s weight assigned to the leading wheels 3 Connecting both truck axles with an equalizing lever so that they acted in sympathy with each other also did much to pre- vent derailments on rough trackage. 122 was borne at the center of the truck, as in the conventional design, the center plate was no longer the point of rotation. On a straight track the V’s would be at their bottom position and thus prevent the truck from vibrating. When the locomotive entered a curve the planes allowed its forward weight to bear continuously on all four wheels, and at the same time controlled any exaggerated swing caused by centrifugal force. The centering device is thus explained in the patent specification (figure numbers are omitted): I therefore obviate this difficulty [the oscillation of the truck] by providing two inclined planes . . . formed double as shown and of an angle proportioned to the weight of the forward part of the locomotive and the velocity of the same, ... The position of the inclines is such that the blocks [V’s] rest in the lowest part of the double inclines when the engine is on a straight track, and on coming onto a curve the inertia of the engine . . . is expended in going up the inclines, as the truck moves laterally toward the inner part of the curve; and on coming onto a straight line 4 Bissell states in the patent specification that inclined planes had been previously applied to railroad car trucks. His claim rested on the application of this device to locomotive trucks. BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY ons h ~ e / = SS ea nvamtat SX SS . Half sectiontrCD. || aus / Ber pice ) Conc a =e ea OA FGDs \ \ \ Figure 5.—Detail drawing of the radius-bar truck, patented by William S. Hudson in 1864, as applied to the New Jersey Railroad and Transportation Company No. 4g. From Gustavus Weissenborn, American Locomotive Engineering and Railway Mechanism, New York, 1871, pl. 8. the blocks, descend to the bottom of the inclines and the engine is prevented from acquiring a sidewise or oscillating motion. Bissell applied for a U.S. patent on April 23, 1857. His petition was initially denied. A weary debate of several months duration followed between the patent examiner and Bissell’s attorneys. During this time Bissell was busy promoting the application of his truck even though he had no patent for protection. In May of 1857 he showed a working model of his improvement to Gilbert M. Milligan, secretary of the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey.° Samuel L. Moore, master mechanic of that railroad, also inspected the model. Both were so impressed that it was decided to fit the device to the locomotive Lebanon, which at the time was undergoing repairs at the road’s Elizabeth Port, New Jersey, shops.® Although the engine was less than 18 months old, her tires were badly worn and she oscillated at high speed. Early in June of that year a series of tests were held with the Lebanon. Moore said of these trials: ‘ 5 From a sworn statement of G. M. Milligan dated July 2, 1857. This along with letters, petitions, receipts, and other such material quoted in this discussion are from the Patent Office papers housed in the National Archives, Washington, D.C. (hereafter referred to as Patent Office papers). 6 The Lebanon was a 4-4-0, used in freight service, that had been built by the New Jersey Locomotive and Machine Com- pany in December 1855. 7 Letter dated July 2, 1857, from S. L. Moore (Patent Office papers). After the said invention of Bissell had been applied the engine was run out onto a curve which she turned apparently with nearly as much facility as she would travel on a straight line, and the forward part of the engine rose on the inclines as the truck entered the curve and remained fixed while running around said curve and then resumed its former position on entering a straight track, and the trial was pronounced by all who saw it as most satisfactory, even by those who before pronounced that it would be a failure. At a subsequent trial under a full pressure of steam and a velocity of about thirty miles per hour the entering and leaving the curve was equally satisfactory, the same being accurately observed by a man located on the cow catcher. . . . The engine was run at its greatest possible velocity at least forty miles per hour on a straight track and the previous “shaking of the head’? [oscillation] was found to be entirely overcome, and the engine run as steadily as a car would have done. . . At one of the trials a bar of iron 94 x 4 inches was spiked down across one of the rails diagonally of the track, . . . and the employees of the company took the precaution to fill in around the track to facilitate getting the engine back again, supposing she must jump off; however on passing over slowly she still kept the track and the speed was increased until she passed over said bar. . considerable speed. . while under a Messers. Moore and Milligan heartily endorsed the truck as a complete success. Milligan predicted that *“‘the time is not far distant when locomotives will be considered incomplete and comparatively unsafe without this improvement particularly on roads which have many curves.” 8 Statement cited in footnote 5. PAPER 24: INTRODUCTION OF THE LOCOMOTIVE SAFETY TRUCK 123 Figure 6.—The New Jersey Railroad and Transportation Company No. 12, built in 1868, was equipped with the radius bar truck, a modification by William S. Hudson of the original Bissell truck. The General Darcy and several other engines built at the Jersey City shops of the road, under the direction of John Headden, were fitted with the Hudson truck. Note that the radius bar is connected to the truck frame just behind the rear leading wheels. U.S. Patent Commissioner Charles Mason was so impressed by the evidence of the New Jersey trials, reinforced by the arguments of Bissell’s attorneys, that he agreed to grant a United States patent.? It was issued as no. 17913 on August 4, 1857, and reissued October 18, 1864 as no. 1794. British patent 1273 had been issued earlier (May 5, 1857), and patents were also secured in France, Belgium, Austria, and Russia. The Rogers Locomotive Works in 1858 was one of the earliest builders to apply the improved truck. By 1860 they had fitted many of their engines with it and were endorsing the device to prospective customers. In the same year the American Railway Review noted that the truck was in extensive use, stating: 1” . . the advantages of the arrangement are so obvious and its results so well established by practice in this country 9 Letter dated July 11, 1857, Charles Mason to Levi Bissell (Patent Office papers). 10 American Railway Review, February 9, 1860, vol. 2, p. 71. (Smithsonian photo 46806-l) and Europe that a treatise on its principles will hardly be needed. It is no longer an experiment; and the earlier it is applied to all engines, the better the running and repair accounts will look. The success of Bissell’s invention prompted others Alba F. Smith came forward in 1862 with the simple substitu- to perfect safety trucks for locomotives. tion of swing links (fig. 4) for the incline planes." A swing-bolster truck had been developed 20 years earlier for use on railroad cars,’ and while Smith recognized this in his patent, he based his claim on the specific application of the idea to locomotive trucks. That the swing links succeeded the incline planes as a centering device was mainly because they U.S. patent 34377, February 11, 1862. 12 Davenport & Bridges, car builders of Cambridge, Massa- chusetts, in 1841, obtained a U.S. patent for a swing-beam truck. 124 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Ficure 7.—Bissell’s 2-wheel truck of 1858 as shown by the drawing for British patent 2751, issued December 1, 1858. were cheaper and simpler to construct, and not, as has been claimed, that the V’s wore out quickly." Smith’s swing-bolster truck, with the heart pendant link, a later refinement, became the dominating form of centering devices and was used well into this cen- tury. It was to be superseded in more recent years by the constant resistance and gear roller centering devices which, like Bissell’s invention, depended on the double incline plane principle. The British-born engineer William S. Hudson, superintendent of the Rogers Works and an early proponent of the Bissell truck, in 1864 obtained a 13 Gustavus Weissenborn in his authoritative American Loco- motive Engineering and Railway Mechanism (New York, 1871, p- 131), stated that when in use the V’s soon acquired a polished surface which seemed to defy wear. patent! for improving Bissell’s safety truck. Hudson contended that since the Bissell arrangement had a fixed pivot point it could traverse only one given radius accurately. He proposed to replace the fixed pivot with a radius bar (see fig. 5) one end of which was attached to the locomotive under the smoke-box and the other to rear of the truck frame, at the same point of attachment as in the Bissell plan. Thus, according to Hudson, the pivot point could move laterally so that the truck might more easily accom- modate itself to a curve of any radius. He further claimed that a better distribution of weight was effected and that the use of the radius bar relieved the center bearing casting of much of the strain of propelling the truck. 144U.S. patent 42662, May 10, 1864. PAPER 24: INTRODUCTION OF THE LOCOMOTIVE SAFETY TRUCK 125 Ficure 8.—A 2-whceel Bissell truck installed on the Pennsylvania Railroad’s No. 9. This engine originally an o-8-o Winans Camel built in February 1854, was rebuilt by John P. Laird in 1867, at which time the (Smithsonian photo 46806-k) Bissell truck was added. Note that Hudson equalizing lever was not used. The British journal Engineering, in an article other- wise friendly to the inventor, expressed some skepti- cism as to the real merit of Hudson’s invention.!® If Mr. Hudson’s truck, . . . be examined, it will be seen that the radius link serves no other purpose than that of carrying the truck along with the engine, and this could obviously be equally done by the pivot or central pin of the truck itself. It is probable that few builders other than Rogers made use of the Hudson radial link.!® One of these was John Headden, whose General Darcy, shown in figure 6, was fitted with the Hudson truck. Thus, by 1860 there had been perfected and adopted a successful 4-wheel safety truck for 4-4—0’s and 4-6—0’s used in general mixed and passenger 15 Engineering, July 12, 1867, vol. 4, p. 29. ‘6 John Headcen, master mechanic of the New Jersey Rail- road and Transportation Company, built at the road’s Jersey City shops several loccmotives equipped with Hudson’s variety of the Bissell truck. Headden, upon the death of Hudson, succeeded him in 1881 as superintendent of the Roger Works. service. But as the decade advanced, the need grew for heavy freight engines that could be safely run at speed. Without a pilot truck, the leading driving axle of the freight engine was generally overloaded. While the application of a 4-wheel truck reduced this front-end overload and permitted faster running it materially reduced the traction of the drivers by bearing too great a portion of the total weight. This loss of traction was of course highly undesirable and generally disqualified the use of 4-wheel trucks for freight engines. What was needed was a truck which would guide the 0-6—0’s and 0—8-0’s around curves and yet leave the greater portion of the weight on the drivers. The 2-wheel, or pony, truck met these requirements. !7 17 It is believed that Harrison, Winans and Eastwick made one of the first uses of a 2-wheel radial truck on a 2-6-0 built at the Alexandroysky Arsenal, St. Petersburg, in 1844—46. The success or exact particulars of these machines is unknown. See John Jahn, Die Dampflokomotive in Entwicklungsgeschichtlicher Darstellung Ihres Gesamtaufbaues, Berlin, 1924, p. 239; Richard E. 126 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSUEM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Ficure 9.—Running gear and truck designed by John L. Whetstone, as shown in the drawing for U.S. patent 27850, issued April 10, 1860. Levi Bissell produced the basic patent for such a truck in 1857. Zerah Colburn in September of that year had suggested to Bissell that he develop a 2-wheel truck. Such a device, he believed, would be well received in Britain.'* He was quite correct, as will shortly be seen. In nearly every respect Bissell’s 2-wheel truck (see fig. 7) followed the idea of the original patent for the 4-wheel truck, which he claimed as the basis for the present invention. The pintle was located behind the truck axle, near the front driving-wheel axle, Peunoyer, “‘Messrs. Harrison, Winans & Eastwick, St. Peters- burg, Russia,’ Railway and Locomotiwe Historical Society Bulletin no. 47, September 1938, p. 46; and Joseph Harrison, Jr., 7he Locomotive Engine, and Philadelphia’s Share in its Early Improve- ments, Philadelphia, 1872, p. 52. 18 Zerah Colburn, Locomotive Engineering and the Mechanism of Railways, . . . , London, 1871, p. 99. Zerah Colburn (1832— 1870) was one of the best informed and most vocal authorities on 19th-century American locomotive construction. He not only designed advanced machines while working at the New Jersey Locomotive Works but also advocated many reforms in locomotive design. He published the Razlroad Advocate in New York City for several years. In 1858 he became editor of The Engineer and in 1866 founded the technical journal Engineering. and the weight was carried by incline planes that also served as the centering device. A study of the patent drawing in figure 7 reveals several interesting points. Note that the V’s, and thus the point of bearing, are slightly in front of the It was suggested in the 5) center line of the truck axle. patent specification that the V’s might be placed to the front, rear, or directly over the axle, but in most actual applications they were placed directly over the axle. Note also that the locomotive shown on the figure is obviously a standard high-wheel American type which has suffered the rather awkward substitution of a pony truck for its regular 4-wheel arrangement. It is probable that few if any American types were so rebuilt. Bissell was granted U.S. patent 21936 on November 2, 1858. British patent 2751 was issued for the same device on December 1, 1858. A few months later, in the summer of 1859, service tests of Bissell’s new truck began in England. First known use of the truck was on the British East- ern Counties Railway No. 248, a rigid-frame 2-4-0 built by Kitson in 1855. The leading wheels of the engine, as originally constructed, were attached to the frame in the same manner as the drivers and thus had PAPER 24: INTRODUCTION OF THE LOCOMOTIVE SAFETY TRUCK 127 Engine Frame Centre line of Cylinder Ficure 10.—The Hudson-Bissell truck permitted the introduction of Mogul and Consolidation type freight locomotives. This drawing shows a typical installation for a Consolidation of the 1880’s. Item A is the equalizing lever which connects the truck to the springs of the front driving wheels. From figures 891-3 in J. G. A. Meyer, Modern Locomotive Construction, New York, John Wiley, 1904, p. 543. no lateral freedom. For the test the front pedestals, which held the journal. boxes of the leading wheels, were cut off and a Bissell pony truck was substituted. About a year later Alexander L. Holley reported on the success of the test.’ The 248 had operated 17,500 miles, at speeds up to 50 m.p.h., safely and satisfactorily. The engine not only rode more steadily but showed a remarkable reduction in flange The road was so pleased that by 1866 they 20 wear. had equipped 21 locomotives with Bissell trucks. Several other British lines followed the example of the Eastern Counties Railway. 19 American Railway Review, June 8, 1860, vol. 2, p. 392. Holley was a well known authority on locomotive engineering and the author of several books on the subject. 20 Engineering May 11, 1866, vol. 1, p. 313. By this time (1866), the Eastern Counties Railway had become part of the Great Eastern system. At first Bissell’s 2-wheel truck received wider appli- cation in Europe than in this country, because most American roads, despite the interest in developing heavier freight locomotives, continued to depend upon the 4-4-0 as a dual-purpose machine. It was not until after 1870, when Mogul and Consolidation types appeared in greater numbers, that the 2-wheel truck became common in the United States. The first use, known to the writer, of the Bissell pony in this country occurred in November or De- cember of 1859 on the Memphis and Charleston Railroad. D. H. Feger, master mechanic of the railroad reported, eight months later, that since the locomotive had been fitted with the Bissell truck “she has never left the rail and previous to her having this truck she was off the rail almost daily.” 7 In 21 American Railway Review July 26, 1860, vol. 2, p. 38. 128 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY ANUP RA CTU COM BURT OTG PRE! TO COWlOat 7a ROGERS LOCOMOTIVE & MACHINE WORKS Ficure 11.—The New Jersey Railroad and Transportation Company Vo. 36, built by the Rogers Locomotive and Machine Works in 1863, was one of the first locomotives to be equipped by this firm with a 2-wheel Bissell truck. (Smithsonian photo 46806—m) the same report Feger stated that he planned to re- equip another locomotive in the same manner. The Baldwin Locomotive Works in December 1860 built a group of rather awkward looking 2—6—0’s for the Louisville and Nashville Railroad. Equipped with Bissell trucks, these were undoubtedly among the very first new locomotives to be so built. The first consolidation type was built by Baldwin in 1866; it was equipped with a 2-wheel Bissell safety truck. The Rogers Locomotive and Machine Works and the New Jersey Locomotive and Machine Works, both of Paterson, New Jersey, in the early 1860's began building Moguls; these are known to have had Bissell trucks. Other builders followed their example, so that by the 1870’s 2-wheel trucks had become relatively common. It should be noted that the 2-wheel truck was not an absolute success until it was equalized with the front driving axle. This arrangement was perfected in 1864 by William S. Hudson, but before describing his invention it will be helpful to discuss several earlier attempts to equalize pony trucks with the drivers. In 1857 John P. Laird, then master mechanic of the Marietta and Cincinnati Railroad, rebuilt an old Niles 8-wheeler into a curious 2-6-0 on which only the two rear driving wheels were coupled. The front driver was driven by a chain and sprocket, and the pilot wheels were equalized with the front driving axle. The success or failure of the arrangement has not been definitely determined, but whatever the outcome, Laird continued his experiments when he became superintendent of motive power for the Pennsylvania Railroad in 1862. He abandoned the chain drive for a more conventional arrangement of side rods, but the truck and his plan of equaliza- tion were much the same as that tried earlier. Laird used two equalizing levers, attached at one end to the front spring hangers and at the other to the truck, PAPER 24: INTRODUCTION OF THE LOCOMOTIVE SAFETY TRUCK 129 LOCOMOTIVE ENCINE SAFETY TRUCK CO. OF NEW YORK. Sareea Proprietors of the SO — following Letters Patent granted to Levi Bissell, Aug. 4, 1857, Nov. 2, 1858 (e tended Nov. 2, 1872); A. W. Smith, Feb. 11, 1862; D. R. Pratt, Oct. 16, 1860; W. S. Hudson, April 5, 18 and May 10, 1864. DRAWINGS FURNISHED AND LICENSES GRANTED ON APPLICATION. A. F. SMITH, President. ALBERT BRIDGES, Treas, M. F. MOORE, Sec’y and Agent No 46 Cortlandt st. WN. Y. Ficure 12.—Notice of the Locomotive Safety ‘Truck Company listing the patents held by it. From Railroad Gazette, March 3, 1876. but in a way to allow the truck to swing horizontally. The fulcrum for each lever was mounted on the underside of the front frame rail. A number of old 8-wheel Baldwin flexible-beam engines and several Winan’s Camels were rebuilt in this way. One of these is shown in figure 8. Laird, however, eventually became dissatisfied with his arrangement and _ re- equipped the engines with Bissell trucks. John L. Whetstone on April 10, 1860, obtained U.S. patent 27850, which strikingly anticipated the plan Hudson was to develop four years later.” Whetstone did not use a Bissell truck and was in fact more concerned in relieving the excess weight, often a 50% overload, from the front axle of 0-6-0 locomotives and in distributing a portion of that weight to a pony truck. His arrangement may be readily understood from the patent drawing in figure 9. Probably the best features of the design was the transverse H-beam that connected the spring hangers to the truck frame, which in this case also served as 22 Whetstone was chief designer for Niles & Co., a Cincinnati locomotive builder. His invention apparently did not receive a test, since the company closed shortly before the patent was granted. No other builder seemed interested. the equalizing lever (note that the ball “‘C” acts as the fulcrum). Hudson made use of this same device but in a more practical manner. He found that while the Bissell pony truck could satisfactorily adjust itself laterally and could lead the locomotive around curves, it could not handle the varying loads imposed upon it by the rough trackage typical of American railroads. At one moment an undue amount of weight would fall upon the truck because the drivers were over a depression in the roadbed. This condition overloaded the truck’s springs and also resulted in a momentary loss of adhesion, causing the drivers to slip. Conversely, when the truck hit a depression too much weight was thrust upon the driving wheels, and broken springs or other damage might result. Hudson’s ingenious remedy to this problem was simple and straightforward (see fig. 10). A heavy equalizing lever that connected the truck to the springs of the front driving wheels was placed on the longitudinal centerline of the locomotive, with the fulcrum under the cylinder saddle. Thus the truck and front driver reacted together to all the inequalities and shocks offered by the roadbed. 130 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY In October of 1863, under Hudson’s direction, two 2-6-0’s equipped with Bissell trucks were built at the Rogers Works for the New Jersey Railroad and Trans- portation Company. Probably some fault was found with the suspension of these machines, numbered 35 and 36, for the next 2-6-0, numbered 39, built for the New Jersey road was equipped with Hudson’s equalizer. This engine, completed in January 1865, is believed to be the first Mogul so equipped.* The Locomotive Engine Safety Truck Company (see fig. 11) was formed in the 1870’s, with A. F. Smith as president, to exploit the patents of Bissell, Smith, and Hudson. For several years notices appeared in the columns of the Railroad Gazette re- porting suits by the Company against various rail- roads and locomotive builders for unauthorized use The Gazette of May 29, 1875, carries a protest of the Company against the Man- chester Locomotive Works for unlicensed use of Smith’s patent of 1862. In the issue of August 28, of their patents. ” 2 Paul T. Warner, “Mogul Type Locomotives,” Railway and Locomotive Historical Society Bulletin no. 100, April 1959. 1875, is reported the Company’s success in establish- ing the validity of Smith’s patent: Some important settlements for the use of the patent have lately been made with the company, one of them being with the Western Railroad Association, whose headquarters are at Chicago, which includes the principal western roads. Through this the company receives its royalty on several hundred locomotives. IN SUMMARY It can be stated that Hudson’s modification of the Bissell truck is of unquestioned importance, for with- out the introduction of the equalizer it is doubtful if the 2-wheel pony truck would have been a complete Bissell’s 4-wheel truck was extensively employed, but it did not enjoy success on American railroads. the universal popularity of the 2-wheel truck, and in the 1880’s was eclipsed by other forms of 4-wheel safety trucks. ‘The Hudson-Bissell pony truck, how- ever, survived in its basic form to recent times, when, in the late 1940’s and early 1950s, the last steam locomotives were constructed in this country. U.S, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1961 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C. - Price 20 cents MIGRATIONS OF AMERICAN me (f a MUS. COMP. ZOOL. LIBRARY APR 16 i963 HARVARD UNIVERSITY. CONTRIBUTIONS FROM Tue Museum or History AND TECHNOLOGY: Paper 25 THE Mi1GRATIONS OF AN AMERICAN Boat Typz Howard I. Chapelle THE NEW HAVEN SHARPIE THE CHESAPEAKE BAY SHARPIE THE NORTH CAROLINA SHARPIE SHARPIES IN OTHER AREAS DOUBLE-ENDED SHARPIES MODERN SHARPIE DEVELOPMENT 136 148 149 151 IS 154 THE MIGRATIONS OF AN AMERICAN MUS. COMP, 2001 BOAT TYPE APR 16 1963 HARVARD by Howard I. ChapeNN\WERSITY Ficure 1.—Scale model of a New Haven sharpie of 1885, complete with tongs. (USNM 318023; Smithsonian photo 47033-C.) 134 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY The New Haven sharpie, a flat-bottomed sailing skiff, was originally developed for oyster fishing, about the middle of the last century. Very economical to build, easy to handle, maneuverable, fast and seaworthy, the type was soon adapted for fishing along the eastern and southeastern coasts of the United States and in other aveas. Later, because of its speed, the sharpie became popular for racing and yachting. This study of the sharpie type—its origin, development and spread—and the plans and descriptions of various regional types here presented, grew out of research to provide models for the hall of marine transportation in the Smithsonian's new Museum of History and Technology. Tue Auruor: Howard I. Chapelle is curator of transportation in the U.S. National Museum, Smithsonian Institution. OR A COMMERCIAL BOAT TO GAIN widespread popularity and use, it must be suited to a variety of weather and water conditions and must have some very marked economic advantages over any other boats that might be used in the same occupation. Although there were more than 200 distinct types of small sailing craft employed in North American fisheries and in along-shore occupations during the last 60 years of the 19th century, only rarely was one of these boat types found to be so well suited to a particular occupation that its use spread to areas at any great distance from the original locale. Those craft that were ‘“‘production-built,” generally rowing boats, were sold along the coast or inland for a variety of uses, of course. The New England dory, the seine boat, the Connecticut drag boat, and the yawl were such production-built boats. In general, flat-bottomed rowing and sailing craft were the most widely used of the North American boat types. The flat-bottomed hull appeared in two basic forms: the scow, or punt, and the “‘flatiron,”’ or sharp-bowed skiff. Most scows were box-shaped with raking or curved ends in profile; punts had their sides curved fore and aft in plan and usually had curved ends in profile. The rigs on scows varied with the size of the boat. A small scow might have a one-mast or two-mast spritsail rig, or might be gaff rigged; a large scow might be sloop rigged or schooner rigged. Flat- iron skiffs were sharp-bowed, usually with square, raked transom stern, and their rigs varied according to their size and to suit the occupation in which they were employed. Many were sloop rigged with gaff main- sails; others were two-mast, two-sail boats, usually with leg-of-mutton sails, although occasionally some other kind of sail was used. If a skiff had a two-mast rig, it was commonly called a “‘sharpie”’; a sloop-rigged skiff often was known as a “‘flattie.”’ Both scows and flat-bottomed skiffs existed in Colonial times, and both probably originated in Europe. Their simple design permitted construction with relatively little waste of materials and labor. Owing to the extreme simplicity of the majority of scow types, it is usually impossible to determine wheth- er scows used in different areas were directly related in design and construction. Occasionally, however, a definite relationship between scow types may be as- sumed because of certain marked similarities in fitting and construction details. The same occasion for doubt exists with regard to the relationships of sharp-bowed skiffs of different areas, with one exception—the large, flat-bottomed sailing skiff known as the “sharpie.” PAPER 25: THE MIGRATIONS OF AN AMERICAN BOAT TYPE 135 The New Haven Sharpie The sharpie was so distinctive in form, proportion, and appearance that her movements from area to area can be traced with confidence. This boat type was particularly well suited to oyster fishing, and during the last four decades of the 19th century its use spread along the Atlantic coast of North America as new oyster fisheries and markets opened. ‘The refinements that distinguished the sharpie from other flat-bottomed skiffs first appeared in some boats that were built at New Haven, Connecticut, in the late 1840’s. These craft were built to be used in the then-important New Haven oyster fishery that was carried on, for the most part, by tonging in shallow water. The claims for the ‘‘invention” of a boat type are usually without the support of contemporary testi- mony. In the case of the New Haven sharpie two claims were made, both of which appeared in the sporting magazine Forest and Stream. ‘The first of these claims, undated, attributed the invention of the New Haven sharpie to a boat carpenter named Taylor, a In the January 30, 1879, issue of Forest and Stream there appeared a letter from Mr. M. Goodsell stating that the boat built by Taylor, which was named Trotter, was not the first sharpie.’ Mr. Goodsell claimed that he and his brother had built the first New Haven sharpie in 1848 and that, because of her speed, she had been named Telegraph. The Goodsell claim was never contested in Forest and Stream, and it is reasonable to suppose, in the circum- native of Vermont.! stances, that had there been any question concerning the authenticity of this claim it would have been challenged. No contemporary description of these early New Haven sharpies seems to be available. However, judging by records made in the 1870’s, we may assume that the first boats of this type were long, rather narrow, open, flat-bottomed skiffs with a square stern and a centerboard; they were rigged with two masts and two leg-of-mutton sails. Until the appearance of the early sharpies, dugout canoes built of a single white pine log had been used at New Haven for 1 Forest and Stream, January 23, 1879, vol. 11, no. 25, p. 504. 2 Forest and Stream, January 30, 1879, vol. 11, no. 26, p. 500. tonging. The pine logs used for these canoes came mostly from inland Connecticut, but they were ob- tainable also in northern New England and New York. The canoes ranged from 28 to 35 feet in length, 15 to 20 inches in depth, and 3 feet to 3 feet 6 inches in beam. They were built to float on about 3 or 4 inches of water. The bottoms of these canoes were about 3 inches thick, giving a low center of gravity and the power to carry sail in a breeze. The canoes were rigged with one or two pole masts with leg- of-mutton sails stepped in thwarts. A single leeboard was fitted and secured to the hull with a short piece of line made fast to the centerline of the boat. With this arrangement the leeboard could be raised and lowered and also shifted to the lee side on each tack. This took the strain off the sides of the canoe that would have been created by the usual leeboard fitting.’ Construction of such canoes ceased in the 1870’s, but some remained in use into the present century. The first New Haven sharpies were 28 to 30 feet long—about the same length as most of the log canoes. Although the early sharpie probably resembled the flatiron skiff in her hull shape, she was primarily a sailing boat rather than a rowing or combination rowing-sailing craft. The New Haven sharpie’s de- velopment * was rapid, and by 1880 her ultimate form had been taken as to shape of hull, rig, construction fittings, and size. Some changes were made after- wards, but they were in minor details, such as finish and small fittings. The New Haven sharpie was built in two sizes for One carried 75 to 100 bushels of oysters and was 26 to 28 feet in length; the other carried 150 to 175 bushels and was 35 to 36 feet in length. ‘The smaller sharpie was usually rigged with a single mast and sail, though some small boats were fitted for two sails. The larger boat was always fitted to carry two masts, but by shifting the foremast to a second step more nearly amidships she could be worked with one mast and sail. The New Haven sharpie retained its original proportions. It was long, narrow, and low in freeboard and was fitted with a centerboard. In its development it became _half- decked. There was enough fore-and-aft camber in the flat bottom so that, if the boat was not carrying the oyster fishery. 3 Henry Hall, Special Agent, 10th U.S. Census, Report on the Shipbuilding Industry of the United States, Washington, 1880-1885, pp. 29-32. 4 Howard I. Chapelle, American Small Sailing Craft, New York, 1951, pp. 100-133, figs. 38-48. 136 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY FicurE 2.—A New Haven sharpie and dugouts on the Quinnipiac River, New Haven, Connecticut, about the turn of the century. much weight, the heel of her straight and upright stem was an inch or two above the water. The stern, usually round, was planked with vertical staving that produced a thin counter. The sheer was usually marked and well proportioned. The New Haven sharpie was a handsome and graceful craft, her straight-line sections being hidden to some extent by the flare of her sides and the longitudinal curves of her hull. The structure of New Haven sharpies was strong and rather heavy, consisting of white pine plank and oak framing. The sides were commonly wide plank. Each side had two or three strakes that were pieced up at the ends to form the sheer. The sides of large sharpies were commonly 1 inches thick before fin- ishing, while those of the smaller sharpies were 1 inches thick. The sharpie’s bottom was planked athwartships with planking of the same thickness as the sides and of 6 to 8 inches in width. That part of the bottom that cleared the water, at the bow and under the stern, was often made of tongue-and-groove planking, or else the seams athwartship would be splined. Inside the boat there was a keelson made of three planks, in lamination, standing on edge side by side, sawn to the profile of the bottom, and running about three-fourths to seven-eighths the length of the boat. The middle one of these three planks was omit- ted at the centerboard case to form a slot. Afore and abaft the slot the keelson members were cross- bolted and spiked. The ends of the keelson were usually extended to the stem and to the stern by flat planks that were scarphed into the bottom of the built-up keelson. The chines of the sharpie were of oak planks that were of about the same thickness as the side planks and 4 to 7 inches deep when finished. ‘The chine logs were sawn to the profile of the bottom and sprung to the sweep of the sides in plan view. The side frames were mere Cleats, 14 by 3 inches. In the 1880’s these cleats were shaped so that the inboard face was 2 inches wide and the outboard face 3 inches wide, but later this shaping was generally omitted. PAPER 25: THE MIGRATIONS OF AN AMERICAN BOAT TYPE IBY oh7 bursoopw ' \ ' \ woyrnysie) wey pouarof-MI1S | Bueg Uys wag reg eh § per04g ed traig 94) maweys wip oS pouuah ocy, eeren p4eoys ep. € poy je wp F/ ‘sonstoyIeAeY UONON.YsUOS puke USIsap Surmoys aidaeys usaepY Mon [eoIdAy Jo ue[g—‘& aynory ee ueIHES = See SE Shes 7 UOl/dey ly AS Ra ys LF Las pee] (204) mL) Zi Cy Foye ge ‘uoyog teddo? wos ‘yam ae fof Ul 2407 Pod Aly PafUlwd //OW eT f/ foes BD “Z ° yuryd so 2plryne af saulz ov lL vorjeoH fo POL 4 oSSSSoe Csayeyd reg "Laur a7ep 7 (204 Mo psy 27 00 1 ' ' t 1 ‘ ' W7 he 941f $8 BU fo Y42ag TEG-§ FoUlys jo 'wWooew ay WY Of 11 [OL 0:6 P2207 OLS 3,96 - 1d 12d 429 yp6u27 wosey Mey 10 069 $7998 4/0P b46/ //9 YY 2d10Y¢ Lael Moff umoys re de @ 270 Ui gusol ay Pes U0, yOe/C, $9 (ial/aLy Pe Neerel oe worjaey p on BOG Aipesd Of UMBS Mif/32hy Ub 620/47 souiy 4+ 71) 53 .uo be pa@d! je) / wor f/ wer, Boy cau) "/0f 47 syrow Buinored sap my pue ploMmijy{ U1 fefOu {rod UW Bey, peseosb opi Mey PAO oys CIB. 2 pory (2 &p. f/ 1 CUE Seg Wf 281 Ap At the fore end of the sharpie’s centerboard case rf there was an edge-bolted bulkhead of solid white pine, “ 1\ or 134 inches thick, with scuppers cut in the bottom 4 RN 00 Ss . - a ii $ edge. A step about halfway up in this bulkhead gave 2 . y 1 fa : easy access to the foredeck. In the 1880's that part 2 ea sf Heh of the bulkhead above the step was made of vertical 9 Mas a Hate staving that curved athwartships, but this feature & mit a i was later eliminated. In the upper portion of the s Bon SS iy iran bulkhead there was often a small rectangular opening Be eee for ventilation. The decking of the sharpie was made of white pine “C7 \ a planks 114 inches thick and 7 to 10 inches wide. The \| & stem was a triangular-sectioned piece of oak meas- uring 6 by 9 inches before it was finished. The side plank ran past the forward edge of the stem and was = Meh! 25 tos ee til Whee fi mitered to form a sharp cutwater. The miter was covered by a brass bar stemband to which was brazed White hell and deck two side plates *%. or 4 inch thick. This stemband, which was tacked to the side plank, usually measured \ or % inch by 34 inch and it turned under the stem, running under the bottom for a foot or two. The band also passed over a stemhead and ran to the deck, having been shaped over the head of the stem by heating and molding over a pattern. The sharpie’s stern was composed of two horizontal oak frames, one at chine and one at sheer; each was about 1% inches thick. The outer faces of these frames were beveled. The planking around the stern on these frames was vertical staving that had been tapered, hollowed, and shaped to fit the flare of the stern. ‘This vertical staving was usually 1%4 inches thick before it was finished. ‘The raw edges of the deck plank were covered by a false wale \ to *4 inch thick and 3 or 4 inches deep, and by an oak guard strip that was half-oval in section and tapered toward the ends. Vertical staving was used to carry the wale around the stern. The guard around the stern was usually of stemmed oak. The cockpit ran from the bulkhead at the center- board case to within 4 or 5 feet of the stern, where there was a light joiner bulkhead. A low coaming was fitted around the cockpit and a finger rail ran along the sides of the deck. ‘The boat had a small square hatch in the foredeck and two mast holes, one at the stem and one at the forward bulkhead. A tie rod, *{ inch in diameter, passed through the hull athwartships, just forward of the forward bulkhead; the ends of the tie rod were “‘up-set’’ or headed over clench rings on the outside of the wale. The hull was usually painted white or gray, and the interior color usually buff or gray. | J4emy, —--+ ‘oq promt (4 val & Mai! Cheep » Tumbling Mast Seep ae Lines te ovtide plank Ficure 4.—Plan of a large Chesapeake Bay sharpie taken from remains of boat. * era sheets Sim phaak Ib &k cage bolls wor 2048 $99 a = N nw Shea, Gripe £ Dagger care rd Beige bats Kechon 4 deep, ‘nae If PAPER 25: THE MIGRATION OF AN AMERICAN BOAT TYPE 139 FIGURE 5.—Chesapeake Bay sharpie with daggerboard, about 1885. (Photo courtesy Wirth Munroe.) The two working masts of a 35- to 36-foot sharpie were made of spruce or white pine and had a diam- eter of 44 to 5 inches at deck and 145 inches at head. Their sail hoists were 28 to 30 feet, and the sail spread was about 65 yards. Instead of booms, sprits were used; these were set up at the heels with tackles to the masts. In most sharpies the sails were hoisted to a single-sheave block at the mast heads and were fitted with wood or metal mast hoops. Because of the use of the sprit and heel tackle, the conventional method of reefing was not possible. The reef bands of the sails were parallel to the masts, and reefing was accomplished by low- ing a sail and tying the reef points while rehoisting. The mast revolved in tacking in order to prevent binding of the sprit under the tension of the heel tackle. The tenon at the foot of the mast was round, and to the shoulder of the tenon a brass ring was nailed or screwed. Another brass ring was fastened around the mast step. These rings acted as bearings on which the mast could revolve. Because there was no standing rigging and the masts revolved, the sheets could be let go when the boat was running downwind, so that the sails would swing forward. In this way the power of the rig could be reduced without the bother of reefing or furling. Sometimes, when the wind was light, tonging was performed while the boat drifted slowly downwind with sails fluttering. The tonger, stand- ing on the side deck or on the stern, could tong or “nip” oysters from a thin bed without having to pole or row the sharpie. The unstayed masts of the sharpie were flexible and in heavy weather spilled some wind, relieving the heeling moment of the sails to some degree. In sum- mer the 35- to 36-foot boats carried both masts, but in winter, or in squally weather, it was usual to leave the mainmast ashore and step the foremast in the hole just forward of the bulkhead at the centerboard case, thereby balancing the rig in relation to the center- board. New .Haven sharpies usually had excellent balance, and tongers could sail them into a slip, drop the board so that it touched bottom, and, using the large rudders, bring the boats into the wind by spinning them almost within their length. This could be done becaused there was no skeg. When sharpies 140 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Ficure 6.—North Carolina sharpie with one reef in moderate gale, about 1885. (Photo courtesy Wirth Munroe.) had skegs, as they did in some localities, they were not so sensitive as the New Havenboats. Ifasharpiehada skeg, it was possible to use one sail without shifting the mast, but at a great sacrifice in general maneuver- ability Kunhardt ° writing in the mid-1880’s, described the New Haven sharpie as being 33 to 35 feet long, about 5 feet 9 inches to 6 feet wide on the bottom, and with a depth of about 36 inches at stem, 24 inches amid- ships, and 12 inches at stern. The flare increased rapidly from the bow toward amidships, where it became 3! inches for every 12 inches of depth. 5 C. P. Kunhardt, Small Yachts: Their Design and Construction, Exemplified by the Ruling Types of Modern Practice, New York, 1886 (rev. ed., 1891, pp. 287-298). The increase of flare was more gradual toward the stern, where the flare was equal to about 4 inches to the foot. According to Kunhardt, a 35-foot sharpie hull weighed 2,000 to 2,500 pounds and carried about 5 short tons in cargo. The sharpie usually had its round stern carried out quite thin. If the stern was square, the transom was set at a rake of not less than 45°. Although it cost about $15 more than the transom stern, the round stern was favored because tonging from it was easier; also, when the boat was tacked, the round stern did not foul the main sheet and was also less likely to ship a sea than was the square stern. Kunhardt remarks that sharpies lay quiet when anchored by the stern, making the ground tackle easier to handle. PAPER 25: THE MIGRATIONS OF AN AMERICAN BOAT TYPE 141 596397—61 2 wrieymen Buide We, =o hjerued Quel 17200041 | jes ay Flies | Ty 241 pamed.92 Be ypeq abe wes § | He DAM peed \ buiycseir 9.9 Valse Se 064 Cee opr Hi ao ss zs : Me ye & \s Be, 2 | yen ates fe - wea ae \ Sac oy woo 6027 fuMoUyun acieyy I> aeeye JHYthQ wUY010D Y{JON; & fo emo2) wing ‘Jog JO sureuial WO.I Uaye} Iouooyps ardaeys eurorey YON Jo uefg—g aynorg “Q881 IOX MON ‘2929017 usapopy fo sag Surymay ay) Cg pafyquaxgy ‘Uononagsuory pun usage ay :s]yov.q Jug UL ipreyuNyy “q “ Aq uoats suorsusurp pue sayoiays uo paseq yorus urdeszsoy Aeg oyvodesoy e jo uefg—L aunong NZ 2 vn [ food, | yand, Cl Les yun = 46) Sexs yo 101g AO ORY WB (0 YIID $4 22 18 fo. 4201p fe Woeg le %eg 24090 7M | AE AYAM LOL metas th f/f LOUD | Thole reed jog y4bus7 Wey WN CHS AM Ya) My Woy Posies spioyuny J DAG Ny LOYD 12P wie (bme/P '1umsdlI/OHds Wed) UMOLT 990/ yreuy uidette, pueshsepy "s,0991 ay} Jo aidieys PuToreD YON Jo ur[g—6 aunory - I TS YEH Lie [=a sewed) 12095. o1s0#, Ld Pm] day, sm | h Ct POM FUGA 5 a oO ‘HUw/e yO eeit{no Of S217 a | 'g ways jo 1 ways jo vey “grog 2Aeqe fli TM] “pe ‘Ore irs 4/220 ° ‘gf 2u1y2 2 (9-6 4749p 2 62g ‘umoyr 242yM woes yoy 44M jee OF Waiesf “fj wo4 FO le “oO iga¢ — 1du2d 29 448027 wy posnoag pool apou 24} ue PE ite Ser tei hey bathing Uajog Béjop busty sas Laan 24) Ag spew VOpoul buyer pobbls Wo) speis BuIMe4y PHS 2b +89/ aidieyS Buyjose) YON The cost of the New Haven sharpie was very low. Hall stated that in 1880-1882 oyster sharpies could be built for as little as $200, and that large sharpies, 40 feet long, cost less than $400.° In 1886 a sharpie with a capacity for 150 to 175 bushels of oysters cost about $250, including spars and sails.’ In 1880 it was not uncommon to see nearly 200 sharpies longside the wharves at Fairhaven, Connecticut, at nightfall. The speed of the oyster sharpies attracted attention in the 1870’s, and in the next decade many yachts were built on sharpie lines, being rigged either as standard sharpies or as sloops, schooners, or yawls. Oyster tonging sharpies were raced, and often a sharpie of this type was built especially for racing. One example of a racing sharpie had the following dimensions: Length: Boy Width on deck: 8’ Flare, to 1’ of depth: 4’ Width of stern: 4y! Depth of stern: NO? Depth at bow: KOM Sheer: ANS Centerboard: a4 Width of washboards or sidedecks: 12’’ Length of rudder: 6’ Depth of rudder: epee Height of foremast: 45’ Diameter of foremast: GY Head of foremast: 1447” Height of mainmast: 40’ Diameter of mainmast: eae Head of mainmast: BY The sharpie with the above dimensions was decked- over 10 feet foreward and 4 feet aft. She carried a 17-foot plank bowsprit, to the ends of which were fitted vertical clubs 8 to 10 feet long. When racing, this sharpie carried a 75-yard foresail, a 60-yard main- sail, a 30-yard jib, a 40-yard squaresail, and a 45-yard main staysail; two 16-foot planks were run out to windward and 11 members of the 12-man crew sat on them to hold the boat from capsizing. Figure 3 shows a plan of a sharpie built at the highest point in the development of this type boat. This plan makes evident the very distinct character of the sharpie in model, proportion, arrangement, 6 Hall, op. cit. (footnote 3), pp. 30, 32. 7 Kunhardt, of. cit. (footnote 5), pp. 225, 295. Figure 10.—North Carolina sharpie under sail. construction, and rig.* The sharpie represented by the plan is somewhat narrower and has more flare in the sides than indicated by the dimensions given by Kunhardt. The boatmen at New Haven were con- vinced that a narrow sharpie was faster than a wide one, and some preferred strongly flaring sides, though others thought the upright-sided sharpie was faster. These boatmen also believed that the shape of the bottom camber fore and aft was important, that the heel of the stem should not be immersed, and that the bottom should run aft in a straight line to about the fore end of the centerboard case and then fair in a long sweep into the run, which straightened out before it passed the after end of the waterline. Some racing sharpies had deeper sterns than tonging boats, a feature that produced a faster boat by reducing the amount of bottom camber. The use of the sharpie began to spread to other areas almost immediately after its appearance at New Haven. As early as 1855 sharpies of the 100-bushel class were being built on Long Island across the Sound from New Haven and Bridgeport, and by 1857 there were two-masted, 150-bushel sharpies in lower New York Harbor. Sloop-rigged sharpies 24 to 28 feet long and retaining the characteristics of the New Haven sharpies in construction and most of its basic design features, but with some increase in proportion- 8 Full-scale examples of sharpies may be seen at the Mariners’ Museum, Newport News, Virginia, and at the Mystic Marine Museum, Mystic, Connecticut. 144 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Ficure 11.—North Carolina sharpie schooner hauled up for painting. ate beam, were extensively used in the small oyster fisheries west of New Haven. There were also a few sloop-type sharpies in the eastern Sound. In some areas this modification of the sharpie eventually de- veloped its own characteristics and became known as the “‘flattie,’ a type that was popular on the north shore of Long Island, on the Chesapeake Bay, and in Florida at Key West and Tampa. The sharpie’s rapid spread in use can be accounted for by its low cost, light draft, speed, handiness under sail, graceful appearance, and rather astonishing sea- worthiness. Since oyster tonging was never carried on in heavy weather, it was by chance rather than intent that the seaworthiness of this New Haven tong- ing boat was discovered. There is a case on record in which a tonging sharpie rescued the crew of a coasting schooner at Branford, Connecticut, during a severe gale, after other boats had proved unable to approach the wreck. However, efforts to improve on the sharpie resulted in the construction of boats that had neither the beauty nor the other advantages of the original type. This was particularly true of sharpies built as yachts with large cabins and heavy rigs. Because the sta- bility of the sharpie’s shoal hull was limited, the added weight of high, long cabin trunks and attendant furniture reduced the boat’s safety potential. Wind- age of the topside structures necessary on sharpie yachts also affected speed, particularly in sailing to windward. Hence, there was an immediate trend toward the addition of deadrise in the bottom of the yachts, a feature that sufficiently increased displace- ment and draft so that the superstructure and rig could be better carried. Because of its large cabin, the sharpie yacht when under sail was generally less workable than the fishing sharpie. Although it was harmful to the sailing of the boat, many of the sharpie yachts had markedly increased beam. ‘The first sharpie yacht of any size was the Lucky, a half-model of which is in the Model Room of the New York Yacht Club. The Lucky, built in 1855 from a model by Robert Fish, was 51 feet long with a 13-foot beam; she drew 2 feet 10 inches with her centerboard raised. According to firsthand reports, she was a satisfactory cruiser, except that she was not very weatherly be- cause her centerboard was too small. PAPER 25: THE MIGRATIONS OF AN AMERICAN BOAT TYPE 145 AGED Ficure 12.—North Carolina sharpie schooner converted to yacht, 1937. Kunhardt mentions the extraordinary sailing speed of some sharpies, as does certain correspondence in Forest and Stream. A large sharpie was reported to have run 11 nautical miles in 34 minutes, and a big sharpie schooner is said to have averaged 16 knots in 3 consecutive hours of sailing. ‘Tonging sharpies with racing rigs were said to have sailed in smooth water at speeds of 15 and 16 knots. Although such reports may be exaggerations, there is no doubt that sharpies of the New Haven type were among the fastest of American sailing fishing boats. Sharpie builders in New Haven very early developed a ‘production’ method. In the initial stages of building, the hull was upside down. First, the sides Ficure 13.—Bow of North Carolina sharpie schooner showing head rigging. 146 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Ficure 14.—The entrance of a North Carolina sharpie schooner and details of her sharp lines and planking. Note scarphs in plank. were assembled and the planking and frames secured; then the inner stem was built, and the sides nailed to it, after which the bulkhead and a few rough tem- porary molds were made and put in place and the boat’s sides bent to the desired curve in plain view. For bending the sides a ‘Spanish windlass” of rope or chain was used. ‘The chine pieces were inserted in notches in the molds inside the side planking and fastened, then the keelson was made and placed in notches in the molds and bulkhead along the center- line. Next, the upper and lower stern frames were made and secured, and the stern staved vertically. Plank extensions of the keelson were fitted, the bottom laid, and the boat turned over. Sometimes the case was made and fitted with the keelson structure, but sometimes this was not done until the deck and in- board works were finished. The son of Lester Rowe, a noted sharpie builder at New Haven, told me, in 1925, that it was not uncom- mon for his father and two helpers to build a sharpie, hull and spars, in 6 working days, and that one year his father and two helpers built 31 sharpies. This was at a time after power saws and planers had come into use, and the heavy cutting and finishing of timber was done at a mill, from patterns. In spite of Barnegat Bay’s extensive oyster beds and its proximity to New Haven, the sharpie never became popular in that region, where a small sailing scow known as the ‘“‘garvey” was already in favor. The garvey was punt-shaped, with its bow narrower than the stern; it had a sledlike profile with moderately flaring sides and a half-deck; and it was rigged with two spritsails, each with a moderate peak to the head and the usual diagonal sprit. The garvey was as fast and as well suited to oyster tonging as the sharpie, if not so handsome; also, it had an economic advantage over the New Haven boat because it was a little cheaper to build and could carry the same load on ® The foremast of the garvey was the taller and carried the larger sail. At one time garveys had leeboards, but by 1850 they commonly had centerboards and either a skeg aft with a rudder outboard or an iron-stocked rudder, with the stock passing through the stern overhang just foreward of the raking transom. The garvey was commonly 24 to 26 feet long with a beam on deck of 6 feet 4 inches to 6 feet 6 inches and a bottom of 5 feet to 5 feet 3 inches. PAPER 25: THE MIGRATIONS OF AN AMERICAN BOAT TYPE 147 Ficure 15.—Midbody and stern of a North Carolina sharpie schooner showing planking, molding, and other details. shorter length. Probably it was the garvey’s relative unattractiveness and the fact that it was a ‘“‘scow”’ that prevented it from competing with the sharpie in areas outside of New Jersey. The Chesapeake Bay Sharpie The sharpie appeared on the Chesapeake Bay in the early 1870’s, but she did not retain her New Haven characteristics very long. Prior to her appearance on the Bay, the oyster fishery there had used several boats, of which the log canoe appears to have been the most popular. Some flat-bottomed skiffs had also been used for tonging. There is a tradition that sometime in the early 1870’s a New Haven sharpie named Frolic was found adrift on the Bay near Tangier Island. Some copies of the Frolic were made locally, and modifications were added later. This tradition is supported by certain circumstantial evidence. Until 20 years ago Tangier Island skiffs certainly resembled the sharpie above the waterline, being long, rather narrow, straight-stem, round-stern, two-masted craft, although their bottoms were V-shaped rather than flat. The large number of boat types suitable for oyster fishery on the Bay probably prevented the adoption of the New Haven sharpie in a recognizable form. After the Civil War, however, a large sailing skiff did become popular in many parts of the Chesa- peake. Boats of this type had a square stern, a curved stem in profile, a strong flare, a flat bottom, a sharply raking transom, and a centerboard of the “dagger- board” form. ‘They were rigged with two leg-of-mut- ton sails. Sprits were used instead of booms, and there was sometimes a short bowsprit, carrying a jib. The rudder was outboard on a skeg. These skiffs ranged in length from about 18 feet to 28 feet. “Those in the 24- to 28-foot range were half-decked; the smaller ones were entirely open. In the late 1880’s or early 1890’s the V-bottomed hull became extremely popular on the Chesapeake, replacing the flat-bottom almost entirely, as at Tangier Island. Hence, very few flat-bottomed boats or their remains survive, although a few 18-foot skiffs are still in use. Characteristics of the large flat-bottomed Chesa- peake Bay skiff are shown in figure 4. While it is possible that the narrow beam of this skiff, the straightness of both ends of its bottom camber, and its rig show some New Haven sharpie influence, these characteristics are so similar to those of the flatiron skiff that it is doubtful that many of the Bay sharpies had any real relation to the New Haven boats. As indicated by figures 5 and 7, the Chesapeake flat- bottoms constituted a distinct type of skiff. Except 148 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Ficure 16.—Stern of a North Carolina sharpie schooner showing planking, staving, molding, and balanced rudder. for those skiffs used in the Tangier Island area, it is not evident that the Bay skiffs were influenced by the New Haven sharpie to any great degree, in form at least. Schooner-rigged sharpies developed on Long Island Sound as early as 1870, and their hulls were only slightly modified versions of the New Haven hull in basic design and construction. These boats were, however, larger than New Haven sharpies, and a few were employed as oyster dredges. After a time it was found that sharpie construction proved weak in boats much over 50 feet. However, strong sharpie hulls of great length eventually were produced by edge-fasten- ing the sides and by using more tie rods than were required by a smaller sharpie. ‘Transverse tie rods set up with turnbuckles were first used on the New Haven sharpie, and they were retained on boats that were patterned after her in other areas. Because of this influence, such tie rods finally appeared on the large V-bottomed sailing craft on Chesapeake Bay. The sharpie schooner seems to have been more popular on the Chesapeake Bay than on Long Island Sound. The rig alone appealed to Bay sailors, who were experienced with schooners. Of all the flat- bottomed skiffs employed on the Bay, only the schoon- er can be said to have retained much of the appear- ance of the Connecticut sharpies. Bay sharpie schooners often were fitted with wells and used as terrapin smacks (fig. 7). As a schooner, the sharpie was relatively small, usually being about 30 to 38 feet over-all. Since the 1880’s the magazine Forest and Stream and, later, magazines such as Outing, Rudder, and Yachting have been the media by which ideas concerning all kinds of watercraft from pleasure boats to work boats have been transmitted. By studying such periodicals, Chesapeake Bay boatbuilders managed to keep abreast of the progress in boat design being made in new yachts. In fact, it may have been because of articles in these publications that the daggerboard came to replace the pivoted centerboard in Chesa- peake Bay skiffs and that the whole V-bottom design became popular so rapidly in the Bay area. The North Carolina Sharpie In the 1870’s the heavily populated oyster beds of the North Carolina Sounds began to be exploited. Following the Civil War that region had become a depressed area with little boatbuilding industry. ‘The small boat predominating in the area was a modified yawl that had sprits for mainsail and topsail, a jib set up to the stem head, a centerboard, and waterways along the sides. This type of craft, known as the PAPER 25: THE MIGRATIONS OF AN AMERICAN BOAT TYPE 149 Figure 17.—Deck of a North Carolina sharpie schooner showing U-shaped main hatch typical of sharpies used in the Carolina Sounds. “Albemarle Sound boat” or ‘“Croatan boat,’ had been developed in the vicinity of Roanoke Island for the local shad fishery. Although it was seaworthy and fast under sail, this boat was not particularly well suited for the oyster fishery because of its high free- board and lack of working deck for tonging. Because the oyster grounds in the Carolina Sounds were some distance from the market ports, boats larger than the standard 34- to 36-foot New Haven sharpie were desirable; and by 1881 the Carolina Sounds sharpie had begun to develop characteristics of its own. These large sharpies could be decked and, when necessary, fitted with a cabin. In all other respects the North Carolina sharpie closely resembled the New Haven boat. Some of the Carolina boats were square-sterned, but, as at New Haven, the round stern apparently was more popular. Most Carolina sharpies were from 40 to 45 feet long. Some had a cramped forecastle under the foredeck, others had a cuddy or trunk cabin aft, and a few had trunk cabins forward and aft. Figure 6 is a drawing of a rigged model that was built to test the design before the construction of a full-sized boat was at- tempted.!? The 1884 North Carolina sharpie shown in this plan has two small cuddies; it also has the U-shaped main hatch typical of the Carolina sharpie. It appears that the clubs shown at the ends of the sprits were very often used on the Carolina sharpies, but they were rarely used on the New Haven tongers except when the craft were rigged for racing. The Carolina Sounds sharpie shown under sail in figure 8 is from 42 to 45 feet long and has no cuddy. The Carolina Sounds sharpies retained the excellent sailing qualities of the New Haven type and were well finished. The two-sail, two-mast New Haven rig was popular with tongers, but the schooner-rigged sharpie that soon developed (figs. 9, 11-18) was preferred for dredging. It was thought that a schooner rig allowed more adjustment of sail area and thus would give better handling of the boat under all weather condi- 10 In building shoal draft sailing vessels, this practice was usually possible and often proved helpful. In the National Watercraft Collection at the United States National Museum there is a rigged model of a Piscataqua gundalow that was built for testing under sail before construction of the full-scale vessel. 150 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Ficure 18.—Deck of a North Carolina sharpie schooner under sail showing pump box near rail and portion of afterhouse. tions. This was important because oyster dredging could be carried on in rough weather when tonging would be impractical. Like the Maryland terrapin smack, the Carolina sharpie schooner adhered closely to New Haven principles of design and construction. However, Carolina sharpie schooners were larger than terrapin smacks, having an over-all length of from 40 to 52 feet. These schooners remained in use well into the 20th century and, in fact, did not go out of use entirely until about 1938. In the 1920’s and 1930’s many such boats were converted to yachts. They were fast under sail and very stiff, and with auxiliary engines they were equally as fast and required a relatively small amount of power. Large Carolina sharpie schooners often made long coasting voyages, such as between New York and the West Indies. Sharpies in Other Areas The Carolina Sounds area was the last place in which the sharpie was extensively employed. How- ever, in 1876 the sharpie was introduced into Florida by the late R. M. Munroe when he took to Biscayne Bay a sharpie yacht that had been built for him by Brown of Tottenville, Staten Island. Afterwards various types of modified sharpies were introduced in Florida. On the Gulf Coast at Tampa two-masted PAPER 25: THE MIGRATIONS OF AN AMERICAN BOAT TYPE IS Ficure 19.—Sharpie yacht Pelican built in 1885 for Florida waters. She was a successful shoal-draft sailing cruiser. (Photo courtesy Wirth Munroe.) sharpies and sharpie schooners were used to carry fish to market, but they had only very faint resemblance to the original New Haven boat. The sharpie also appeared in the Great Lakes area, but here its development seems to have beenentirely independent of the New Haven type. It is possible that the Great Lakes sharpie devolved from the common flatiron skiff. The sharpie yacht was introduced on Lake Cham- plain in the late 1870’s by Rev. W. H. H. Murray, who wrote for Forest and Stream under the pen name of ‘Adirondack Murray.’’? The hull of the Champlain sharpie retained most of the characteristics of the New Haven hull, but the Champlain boats were fitted with a wide variety of rigs, some highly experimental. A few commercial sharpies were built at Burlington, Vermont, for hauling produce on the lake, but most of the sharpies built there were yachts. Double-Ended Sharpies The use of the principles of flatiron skiff design in sharp-stern, or “‘double-ended,” boats has been com- On the Chesapeake Bay a number of small, double-ended sailing skiffs, usually fitted with a cen- mon. terboard and a single leg-of-mutton sail, were in use in the 1880’s. It is doubtful, however, that these skiffs had any real relationship to the New Haven sharpie. They may have developed from the “three-plank” canoe !! used on the Bay in colonial times. The ‘‘cabin skiff,’ a double-ended, half-decked, trunk-cabin boat with a long head and a cuddy forward, was also in use on the Bay in the 1880s. This boat, which was rigged like a bugeye, had a bottom of planks that were over 3 inches thick, 11 A primitive craft made of three wide planks, one of which formed the entire bottom. 152 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Ficure 20.—Florida sharpie yacht of about 1890. laid fore-and-aft, and edge-bolted. The entire bottom was made on two blocks or “‘sleepers’? placed near the ends. ‘The sides were bevelled, and heavy stones were placed amidships to give a slight fore-and-aft camber to the bottom. The sides, washboards, and end decks were then built, the stones removed, and the centerboard case fitted. In spite of its slightly cam- bered flat bottom, this boat, though truly a flatiron skiff in midsection form, had no real relation to the New Haven sharpie; it probably owed its origin to the Chesapeake log canoe, for which it was an inexpensive substitute. R. M. Munroe built double-ended sharpies in Florida, and one of these was used to carry mail between Biscayne Bay and Palm Beach. Although Munroe’s double-enders were certainly related to the New Haven sharpie, they were markedly modified and almost all were yachts. A schooner-rigged, double-ended sharpie was used in the vicinity of San Juan Island, Washington, in the 1880’s, but since the heels of the stem and stern posts were immersed it is very doubtful that this sharpie was related in any way to the New Haven boats. PAPER 25: THE MIGRATIONS OF AN AMERICAN BOAT TYPE 153 Modern Sharpie Development The story of the New Haven sharpie presents an interesting case in the history of the development of small commercial boats in America. As has been shown, the New Haven sharpie took only about 40 years to reach a very efficient stage of development as a fishing sailboat. It was economical to build, well suited to its work, a fast sailer, and attractive in appearance. When sailing vessels ceased to be used by the fishing industry, the sharpie was almost forgotten, but some slight evidence of its influence on construction re- mains. For instance, transverse tie rods are used in the large Chesapeake Bay ‘“‘skipjacks,’”? and Chesa- peak motorboats still have round, vertically staved sterns, as do the ‘‘Hatteras boats’? used on the Caro- lina Sounds. But the sharpie hull form has now almost completely disappeared in both areas, except in a few surviving flat-bottomed sailing skiffs. Recently the flat-bottomed hull has come into use in small, outboard-powered commercial fishing skiffs, but, unfortunately, these boats usually are modeled after the primitive flatiron skiff and are short in length. The New Haven sharpie proved that a long, narrow hull is most efficient in a flat-bottomed boat, but no utilization has yet been made of its design as the basis for the design of a modern fishing launch. U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1961 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D.C. Price 25 cents a - ; - =al ‘ e ; Shh 4 7 te ( a = i : ; : (3 i 5 i c ; her : ia ete, - . : 5 i i y ; th Sib 4 - oy! I t ; en i 2 ( = | ~ = ar a te y pans Se re Be ie HOLCOMB, FITZ,and PEATE: Three 19th Century American Telescope Makers : Introduction by Robert P. Multhauf MUS. COMP. ZOOL, LIBRARY MUS. COMP. ZOOL. APR 16 1969 i. a AP vee Cea Se ee eal oa y 4. HARVARD UNIVERSITY HARVARD UNIVERSITY. meh Ee Oe eet oe ee ee Seog Nore aay - ~ ee NS eee ee oe Sees © 5 ARS RELE pPS PeR ap aeaTonS Paper 26, pages 155-184, from CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 228 : x q 7 Henry W. Dickinson and Rhys Jenkins, James Watt and the Steam Engine, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1927, pp. 146-148, pls. 14, 31. This work presents a full and knowledgeable dis- cussion, based on primary material, of the development of Watt’s many contributions to mechanical technology. It is ably summarized in Dickinson, of. cit. (footnote 2). 6 John Farey, A Treatise on the Steam Engine, London, 1827, pp. 408-409. 7 Reports of the Late John Smeaton, F.R.S., London, 1812, vol. 2, pp. 378-380. 8 Farey, op. cit. (footnote 6), p. 409. which are fastened rotchets and clicks or palls. . . .” He did, however, propose to “add a fly or flys, in order to render the motion more regular and uni- form.” Unfortunately for us, he submitted no draw- ings with his patent specification. ® James Pickard, of Birmingham, like Boulton, a buttonmaker, in 1780 patented a counterweighted crank device (fig. 6) that was expected to remove the objection to a crank, which operated with changing In figure 6, the counterweighted wheel, revolving twice for leverage and thus irregular power. each revolution of the crank (4), would allow the counter- weight to descend while the crank passed the dead- center position and would be raised while the crank had maximum leverage. No mention of a flywheel was made in this patent. Wasbrough, finding that his ‘“‘rotchets and clicks” did not serve, actually used, in 1780, a crank with a flywheel. Watt was aware of this, but he remained unconvinced of the superiority of the crank over other devices and did not immediately appreciate the regulating ability of a flywheel.’ In April 1781 Watt wrote to Boulton, who was then out of town: “I know from experiment that the other contrivance, which you saw me try, performs at least as well, and has in fact many advantages over the crank.”’'’ The “other contrivance” probably was his swash wheel which he built and which appeared on his next important patent specification (fig. 7a). Also in this patent were four other devices, one of which was easily recognizable as a crank, and two of which were eccentrics (fig. 7a, b). The fourth device was the well-known sun-and-planet gearing (fig. 7e).’% In spite of the similarity of the simple crank to the several variations devised by Watt, this patent drew no fire from Wasbrough or Pickard, perhaps because no reasonable person would contend that the crank itself was a patentable feature, or perhaps because the similarity was not at that time so obvious. However, Watt steered clear of directly discernible application of cranks because he preferred to avoid a suit that might overthrow his or other patents. For example, if the Wasbrough and Pickard patents had been voided, they would have become public property; ° British Patent 1213, March 10, 1779. 10 British Patent 1263, August 23, 1780. 4 Dickinson and Jenkins, of. cit. (footnote 5), pp. 150, 154. 12 Tbid., p. 154. 13 William Murdock, at this time a Boulton and Watt erector, may have suggested this arrangement. Jbid., p. 506. 192 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY A.D.1780. Aug. 23.N°1263. PICKARD’S SPECIFICATION. | enrolled drawing is colored. (1 SHEET.) Drawn on Stone by Malby & Sons Lonpon: Pnnted by Georcr Eowarp Evie: and Wi sw Printers to the Queens most Freelleat Majesty, M poriswoone ; Figure 6.—One of the steam engine “Crank Patents” that hindered James Watt’s progress. This patent, granted to James Pickard in 1780, claimed only the arrangement of counterweights, not the crank. The crank pin to which the connecting rod was attached is at Aa. From British Patent 1263, August 23, 1780. and Watt feared that they might “get into the hands of men more ingenious,’ who would give Boulton and Watt more competition than Wasbrough and Pickard.'* The sun-and-planet arrangement, with gears of equal size, was adopted by Watt for nearly all the rotative engines that he built during the term of the “crank patents.’ This arrangement had the advan- tage of turning the flywheel through two revolutions during a single cycle of operation of the piston, thus requiring a flywheel only one-fourth the size of the flywheel needed if a simple crank were used. The optional link (jk of fig. 7e) was used in the engines as built. From the first, the rotative engines were made double-acting—that is, work was done by steam alternately in each end of the cylinder. The double- acting engine, unlike the single-acting pumping engine, required a piston rod that would push as well as pull. It was in the solution of this problem that Watt’s originality and sure judgment were most clearly demonstrated. 14 Muirhead, of. cit. (footnote 3), vol. 3, note on p. 39. A rack and sector arrangement (fig. 8) was used on some engines. The first one, according to Watt, “has broke out several teeth of the rack, but works steady.” © A little later he told a correspondent that his double-acting engine ‘‘acts so powerfully that it has broken all its tackling repeatedly. We have now tamed it. however.” ! It was about a year later that the straight-line linkage 17 was thought out. “I have started a new 15 James Watt, March 31, 1783, quoted in Dickinson and Jenkins, op. cit. (footnote 5), p. 140. 16 Watt to De Luc, April 26, 1783, quoted in Muirhead, op. cit. (footnote 3), vol. 2, p. 174. 17 Watt’s was a four-bar linkage. All four-bar straight-line linkages that have no sliding pairs trace only an approximately straight line. The exact straight-line linkage in a single plane was not known until 1864 (see p. 204). In 1853 Pierre-Frédéric Sarrus (1798-1861), a French professor of mathematics at Strasbourg, devised an accordion-like spatial linkage that traced a true straight line. Described but not illustrated (Académie des Sciences, Paris, Comptes rendus, 1853, vol. 36, pp. 1036-1038, 1125), the mechanism was forgotten and twice reinvented; finally, the original invention was redis- covered by an English wiiter in 1905. For chronology, see Florian Cajori, A History of Mathematics, ed. 2, New York, 1919, p. 301. PAPER 27: KINEMATICS FROM THE TIME OF WATT 193 600860—62 2) (a) “Inclined wheel.” The vertical shaft at D is rotated by action of wheels H and J on cam, or swash plate, ABC. Boulton and Watt tried this device but dis- carded it. it in (b) (c) “Eccentric wheel” with external yoke hung from working beam. The wheel pivots at C. Counterweighted crank wheel. 194 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY a 2 Z (d) ss - “Becentric Wheel” with internal driving wheel hung from working beam. Wheel B is pivoted at cen- ter of shaft A. (¢) Sun-and-planet gearing. Thisis _ the idea actually employed in i Boulton and Watt engines. As the optional link 7K held the H gearwhecl centers always equi- § distant, the annular guide G | was not used. : E H H i i E Hy Figure 7.—James Watt’s five alternative devices for the conversion of reciprocating motion to rotary motion in a steam engine. (British Patent 1306, October 25, 1781). From James P. Muirhead, The Origin and Progress of the Mechanical Inventions of James Watt (London, 1854, vol. 3, pls. 3-5, 7)- hare,’ Watt wrote to his partner. “‘I have got a glimpse of a method of causing the piston-rod to move up and down perpendicularly, by only fixing it to a piece of iron upon the beam, without chains, or perpendicular guides, or untowardly frictions, arch- heads, or other pieces of clumsiness .... I have only tried it in a slight model yet, so cannot build upon it, though I think it a very probable thing to succeed, and one of the most ingenious simple pieces of mechanism I have contrived ... .” 8 Watt’s marvelously simple straight-line linkage was incorporated into a large beam engine almost imme- 18 Muirhead, op. cit. (footnote 3), vol. 2, pp. 191-192. diately, and the usually pessimistic and reserved in- ventor was close to a state of elation when he told Boulton that the “new central perpendicular motion answers beyond expectation, and does not make the shadow of a noise.’’ 8 This linkage, which was in- cluded in an extensive patent of 1784, and two alterna- tive devices are illustrated here (fig. 9). One of the alternatives is a guided crosshead (fig. 9, top right). Brilliant as was the conception of this linkage, it was followed up by a synthesis that is very little short of incredible. In order to make the linkage attached to the beam of his engines more compact, Watt had 19 [bid., p. 202. PAPER 27: KINEMATICS FROM THE TIME OF WATT 195 | ERR OCCUR IR OIE: LenBescOsesHNO MEN Figure 8.—Watt engine of 1782 (British Patent 1321, March 12, 1782) showing the rack and sector used to guide the upper end of the piston rod and to transmit force from piston to working beam. This engine, with a 30-inch cylinder and an 8-foot stroke, was arranged for pumping. Pump rod SS is hung from sector of the working beam. From James P. Muirhead, The Origin and Progress of the Mechanical Inventions of James Watt (London, 1854, vol. 3, pl. 15). 196 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY MM \ <« \ X \ \ wm N —— a || > plumbed his experience for ideas; his experience had yielded up the work done much earlier on a drafting machine that made use of a pantograph.”? Watt combined his straight-line linkage with a pantograph, one link becoming a member of the pantograph. The length of each oscillating link of the straight- line linkage was thus reduced to one-fourth instead of one-half the beam length, and the entire mechanism 20 “Tt has only one fault,” he had told a friend on December 24, 1773, after describing the drafting machine to him, “which is, that it will not do, because it describes conic sections in- stead of straight lines.” Jbid., p. 71. Figure 9.—Watt’s mechanisms for guiding the upper end of the piston rod of a double-acting engine (British Patent 1432, April 28, 1784). Top left, straight-line linkage; top right, crosshead and guide arrangement; ower left, piston rod A is guided by sectors D and E, suspended by flexible cords. From James P. Muirhead, The i] Origin and Progress of the Mechanical Inventions of James Watt (London, 1854, vol. 3, pls. 21, 22). could be constructed so that it would not extend beyond the end of the working beam. This arrange- ment soon came to be known as Watt’s “‘parallel motion” (fig. 10).*! Years later Watt told his son: ‘Though I am not over anxious after fame, yet ‘parallel motion” 21 Throughout the 19th century the term was used indiscriminately to refer to any straight-line linkage. I have not discovered the origin of the term. Watt did not use it in his patent specification, and I have not found it in his writings or elsewhere before 1808 (see footnote 22). The Cyclopaedia (Abraham Rees, ed., London, 1819, vol. 26) defined parallel motion as ‘‘a term used among practical mechanics to denote the rectilinear motion of a piston-rod, &c. PAPER 27: KINEMATICS FROM THE TIME OF WATT 197 10.—Watt’s “parallel motion.” En- Pivot F From Figure gine’s working beam is pivoted at A. is attached to the engine frame. Dyonysius Lardner, The Steam Engine (Phila- delphia, 1852), pl. 5 (American ed. 5 from London ed. 5). I am more proud of the parallel motion than of any other mechanical invention I have ever made.”** The Watt four-bar linkage was employed 75 years after its inception by the American Charles B. Richards when, in 1861, he designed his first high- speed engine indicator (fig. 11). Introduced into England the following year, the Richards Indicator was an immediate success, and many thousands were sold over the next 20 or 30 years.” In considering the order of synthetic ability required to design the straight-line linkage and to combine it with a pantograph, it should be kept in mind that this was the first one of a long line of such mechanisms.** Once the idea was abroad, it was only to be expected that many variations and alternative solutions should appear. One wonders, however, in the direction of its length; and contrivances, by which such alternate rectilinear motions are converted into continuous rotatory ones, or vice versa. . . .” Robert Willis in his Principles of Mechanism (London, 1841, p. 399) described parallel motion as ‘fa term somewhat aukwardly applied to a combination of jointed rods, the purpose of which is to cause a point to describe a straight line. . . 2’ A.B. Kempe in How to Draw a Straight Line (London, 1877, p. 49) wrote: “I have been more than once asked to get rid of the objectionable term ‘parallel motion.’ I do not know how it came to be employed, and it certainly does not express what is intended. The expression, however, has now become crystallised, and I for one cannot undertake to find a solvent.” 22 Muirhead, of. cit. (footnote 3), vol. 3, note on p. 89. 23 Charles T. Porter, Engineering Reminiscences, New York, 1908, pp. 58-59, 90. what direction the subsequent work would have taken if Watt had not so clearly pointed the way. In 1827 John Farey, in his exhaustive study of the steam engine, wrote perhaps the best contem- porary view of Watt’s work. Farey as a young man had several times talked with the aging Watt, and he had reflected upon the nature of the intellect that had caused Watt to be recognized as a genius, even within his own lifetime. In attempting to explain Watt’s genius, Farey set down some observations that are pertinent not only to kinematic synthesis but to the currently fashionable term ‘‘creativity.”’ In Farey’s opinion Watt’s inventive faculty was Figure 11.—Richards high-speed engine indi- cator of 1861, showing application of the Watt straight-line linkage. sonian photo 46570). (USNM 307515; Smith- far superior to that of any of his contemporaries; but his many and various ideas would have been of little use if he had not possessed a very high order of judgment, that “faculty of distinguishing between ideas; decomposing compound ideas into more 24 At least one earlier straight-line linkage, an arrangement later ascribed to Richard Roberts, had been depicted before Watt’s patent (Pierre Patte, Mémoirs sur les objets les plus im- portans de V architecture, Paris, 1769, p. 229 and pl. 11). However, this linkage (reproduced here in figure 18) had no detectable influence on Watt or on subsequent practice. 198 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 12.—Cartwright’s geared straight-line mechanism of about 1800, From Abraham Rees, The Cyclopaedia (London, 1819, “Steam Engine,” pl. 5). simple elements; arranging them into classes, and comparing them together... .” Farey was of the opinion that while a mind like Watt’s could produce brilliant new ideas, still the “common stock of ideas which are current amongst communities and professions, will generally prove to be of a better quality than the average of those new ideas, which can be produced by any individual from the operation of his own mind, without assistance from others.”’ Farey concluded with the observation that “the most useful additions to that common stock, usually proceed from the individuals who are well acquainted with the whole series.” 7° To Draw a Straight Line During most of the century after James Watt had produced his parallel motion, the problem of devising a linkage, one point of which would describe a straight line, was one that tickled the fancies of mathematicians, of ingenious mechanics, and of gentlemanly dabblers in ideas. ‘The quest for a straight-line mechanism more accurate than that of Watt far outlasted the pressing practical need for such a device. Large metal planing machines were well known by 1830, and by midcentury crossheads and crosshead guides were used on both sides of the Atlantic in engines with and without working beams. By 1819 John Farey had observed quite accurately that, in England at least, many other schemes had been tried and found wanting and that “‘no methods have been found so good as the original engine; and we accordingly find, that all the most established and experienced manufacturers make engines which are not altered in any great feature from Mr. Watt’s original engine... .” Two mechanisms for producing a straight line were introduced before the Boulton and Watt monopoly ended in 1800. Perhaps the first was by Edmund Cartwright (1743-1823), who is said to have had the original idea for a power loom. This geared device (fig. 12), was characterized patroniz- ingly by a contemporary American editor as pos- sessing “‘as much merit as can possibly be attributed to a gentleman engaged in the pursuit of mechanical studies for his own amusement.” *” Only a few small engines were made under the patent.”* The properties of a hypocycloid were recognized by James White, an English engineer, in his geared design which employed a pivot located on the pitch circle of a spur gear revolving inside an internal gear. The diameter of the pitch circle of the spur gear was one-half that of the internal gear, with the 25 Farey, op. cit. (footnote 6), pp. 651, 652. 26In Rees, op. cit. (footnote 21), vol. 34 (“Steam Engine’’). John Farey was the writer of this article (see Farey, of. cit., p. vi). 27 Emporium of Arts and Sciences, December 1813, new ser., vol. Zs saa), M5 Jos hile 28 Farey, op. cit. (footnote 6), p. 666. PAPER 27: KINEMATICS FROM THE TIME OF WATT 199 Figure 13.—James White's straight-line mechanism, about hypocycloidal 1800. The fly-weights (at the ends of the diagonal arm) From James White, A New Century of Inventions (Manchester, 1822, pl. 7). functioned as a flywheel. result that the pivot, to which the piston rod was connected, traced out a diameter of the large pitch circle (fig. 13). White in 1801 received from Napoleon Bonaparte a medal for this invention when it was exhibited at an industrial exposition in Paris.” Some steam engines employing White’s mechanism were built, but without conspicuous commercial success. White himself rather agreed that while his invention was ‘‘allowed to possess curious prop- erties, and to be a pretty thing, opinions do not all concur in declaring it, essentially and generally, a good thing.” *° The first of the non-Watt four-bar linkages ap- peared shortly after 1800. hopper beam motion is somewhat obscure, although The origin of the grass- 29 H. W. Dickinson, ‘“‘James White and His ‘New Century of Inventions,’ *’ Transactions of the Newcomen Society, 1949-1951, vol. 27, pp. 175-179. 30 James White, A New Century of Inventions, Manchester, 1822, pp. 30-31, 338. A hypocycloidal engine used in Stourbridge, England, is in the Henry Ford Museum. 200 Figure 14.—Freemantle straight-line linkage, later called the Scott Russell linkage. From British Patent 2741, November 17, 1803. it came to be associated with the name of Oliver Evans, the American pioneer in the employment of high-pressure steam. A similar idea, employing an isosceles linkage, was patented in 1803 by William Freemantle, an English watchmaker (fig. 14).%! This is the linkage that was attributed much later to John Scott Russell (1808-1882), the prominent naval architect.** An inconclusive hint that Evans had devised his straight-line linkage by 1805 appeared in a plate illustrating his Abortion of the Young Steam Engineer’s Guide (Philadelphia, 1805), and it was certainly used on his Columbian engine (fig. 15), which was built before 1813. The Freemantle linkage, in modified form, appeared in Rees’s Cyclo- paedia of 1819 (fig. 16), but it is doubtful whether even this would have been readily recognized as identical with the Evans linkage, because the con- necting rod was at the opposite end of the working beam from the piston rod, in accordance with established usage, while in the Evans linkage the crank and connecting rod were at the same end of the beam. It is possible that Evans got his idea from an earlier English periodical, but concrete evidence is lacking. If the idea did in fact originate with Evans, it is strange that he did not mention it in his patent claims, or in the descriptions that he published of his 31 British Patent 2741, November 17, 1803. 32 William J. M. Rankine, Manual of Machinery and Millwork, ed. 6, London, 1887, p. 275. BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY not escape Oliver Evans, and he was not a man of excessive modesty where his own inventions were concerned, Another four-bar straight-line linkage that became well known was attributed to Richard Roberts of Manchester (1789-1864), who around 1820 had built one of the first metal planing machines, which ma- chines helped make the quest for straight-line linkages largely academic. I have not discovered what occa- sioned the introduction of the Roberts linkage, but it dated from before 1841. Although Roberts patented many complex textile machines, an inspection of all of his patent drawings has failed to provide proof that he was the inventor of the Roberts linkage.** The fact that the same linkage is shown in an engraving of 1769 (fig. 18) further confuses the issue.*? Figure 15.—Oliver Evans’ “Columbian” en- : S gine, 1813, showing the Evans, or ‘“‘grass- The appearance in 1864 of Peaucellier’s exact hopper,” straight-line linkage. From Emporium straight-line linkage went nearly unnoticed. A of Arts and Sciences (new ser., vol. 2, no. 3, April 1814, pl. opposite p. 380). 33 Greville and Dorothy Bathe, Oliver Evans, Philadelphia, 1935, pp. 88, 196, and passim. F : 34 Robert Willis (of. czt. [footnote 21] p. 411) credited Richard 33 “ SnSMies: The practical advantage of the Evans Roberts with the linkage. Roberts’ 15 British patent drawings linkage, utilizing as it could a much lighter working exhibit complex applications of cams, levers, guided rods, beam than the Watt or Freemantle engines, would cords, and so forth, but no straight-line mechanism. In his patent no. 6258 of April 13, 1832, for a steam engine and loco- motive carriage, Roberts used Watt’s “‘parallel motion”? on a beam driven by a vertical cylinder. G 35 This engraving appeared as plate 11 in Pierre Patte’s 1769 work (op. cit. footnote 24). Patte stated that the machine de- picted in his plate 11 was invented by M. de Voglie and was actually used in 1756. wa co ge 16.—Modified Freemantle linkage, ; 1819, which is kinematically the same as the Hl: Evans linkage. Pivots D and E are attached to i engine frame. From Abraham Rees, The i Cyclopaedia (London, 1819, ‘‘Parallel Motions,” pl. 3). PAPER 27: KINEMATICS FROM THE TIME OF WATT 201 600S60—62 2 a} AML) mn uu Figure 17.—Straight-line linkage (be- fore 1841) attributed to Richard Roberts by Robert Willis. From A. B. Kempe, How to Draw a Straight Line (London, 1877, p. 10). decade later, when news of its invention crossed the Channel to England, this linkage excited a flurry of interest, and variations of it occupied mathematical minds for several years. For at least 10 years before and 20 years after the final solution of the problem, Professor Chebyshey,*° a noted mathematician of the University of St. Petersburg, was interested in the matter. Judging by his published works and _ his 36 This is the Library of Congress spelling jer «tu, fond te Chai Figure 18.—Machine for sawing off pilings under water, about 1760, designed by De Voglie. The Roberts linkage operates the bar (Q in detailed sketch) at the rear of the machine below the operators. The significance of the linkage apparently was not generally recognized. A similar machine depicted in Diderot’s Encyclopédie, published several years later, did not employ the straight- line linkage. From Pierre Patte, Memoirs sur les objets plus importants de l architec- ture (Paris, 1769, pl. 11). d 202 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 19.—Pafnutii (1821-1894), Russian mathematician active in analysis and synthesis of straight-line mecha- Figure L’vovich Chebyshev nisms. From Ouvres de P. L. Tchebychef (St. Petersburg, 1907, vol. 2, frontispiece). reputation abroad, Chebyshev’s interest amounted to an obsession. Pafnutii L’vovich Chebyshev was born in 1821, near Moscow, and entered the University of Moscow in 1837. In 1853, after visiting France and England and observing carefully the progress of applied me- chanics in those countries, he read his first paper on approximate straight-line linkages, and over the next 30 years he attacked the problem with new vigor at least a dozen times. He found that the two principal straight-line linkages then in use were Watt’s and Evans’. Chebyshev noted the departure of these linkages from a straight line and calculated the deviation as of the fifth degree, or about 0.0008 inch per inch of beam length. He proposed a modification of the Watt linkage to refine its accu- racy but found that he would have to more than double the length of the working beam. Chebyshev concluded ruefully that his modification “present great practical difficulties.” °7 would 37 Oeuvres de P. L. Tchebychef, 2 vols., St. Petersburg, 1899— 1907, vol. 1, p. 538; vol. 2, pp. 57, 85. Figure 20.—Chebyshev’s combination (about 1867) of Watt’s and Evans’ linkages to reduce errors inherent in each. Points C, C’, and C” are fixed; A is the tracing point. From Oeuvres de P. L. Tchebychef (St. Petersburg, 1907, vol. 2, p. 93). At length an idea occurred to Chebyshev that would enable him to approach if not quite attain a true straight line. If one mechanism was good, he reasoned, two would be better, et cetera, ad infinitum. The idea was simply to combine, or compound, four- link approximate linkages, arranging them in such a way that the errors would be successively reduced. Contemplating first a combination of the Watt and Evans linkages (fig. 19), Chebyshev recognized that if point D of the Watt linkage followed nearly a straight line, point A of the Evans linkage would depart even less from a straight line. He calculated the deviation in this case as of the 11th degree. He then replaced Watt’s linkage by one that is usually called the Chebyshev straight-line mechanism (fig. 20), with the result that precision was increased to the 13th degree.*® The steam engine that he dis- played at the Vienna Exhibition in 1873 employed this linkage—the Chebyshev mechanism compounded with the Evans, or approximate isosceles, linkage. An English visitor to the exhibition commented that 38 [bid., vol. 2, pp. 93, 94. PAPER 27: KINEMATICS FROM THE TIME OF WATT 203 Figure 21.— Top: Chebyshey straight- line linkage, 1867; from A. B. Kempe, How to Draw a Straight Line (London, 1877, p. 11). Bottom: Chebyshey- Evans combination, 1867; from Oeuvres de P. L. Tchebychef (St. Petersburg, 1907, vol. 2, p. 94). Points C, C’, and C” are fixed. A is the tracing point. “the motion is of little or no practical use, for we can scarcely imagine circumstances under which it would be more advantageous to use such a complicated system of levers, with so many joints to be lubricated and so many pins to wear, than a solid guide of some kind; but at the same time the arrangement is very ingenious and in this respect reflects great credit on its designer.”’ There is a persistent rumor that Professor Chebyshev sought to demonstrate the impossibility of constructing any linkage, regardless of the number of links, that 59 Engineering, October 3, 1873, vol. 16, p. 284. Figure 22.—Peaucellier exact straight- line linkage, 1873. From A. B. Kempe, How to Draw a Straight Line (London, 1877, p. 12). Figure 23.—Model of the Peaucellier “Compas Composé,’ deposited in Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, Paris, 1875. Photo courtesy of the Conservatoire. would generate a straight line; but I have found only a dubious statement in the Grande Encyclopédie*® of the late 19th century and a report of a conversation with the Russian by an Englishman, James Sylvester, to the effect that Chebyshev had “‘succeeded in proving the nonexistence of a five-bar link-work capable of producing a perfect parallel motion. . . .’*! Regard- less of what tradition may have to say about what Chebyshev said, it is of course well known that Captain Peaucellier was the man who finally syn- thesized the exact straight-line mechanism that bears his name. 40 La Grande Encyclopédie, Paris, 1886 (‘‘Peaucellier’’). 41 James Sylvester, “‘Recent Discoveries in Mechanical Con- version of Motion,” Notices of the Proceedings of the Royal Insti- tution of Great Britain, 1873-1875, vol. 7, p. 181. The fixed link was not counted by Sylvester; in modern parlance this would be a six-link mechanism. : 204 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 24.—James Joseph Sylvester (1814-1897), mathematician and lec- turer on straight-line linkages. From Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (1898, vol. 63, opposite p. 161). Charles-Nicolas Peaucellier, a graduate of the Ecole Polytechnique and a captain in the French corps of engineers, was 32 years old in 1864 when he wrote a short letter to the editor of Nowvelles Annales de mathématiques (ser. 2, vol. 3, pp. 414-415) in Paris. He called attention to what he termed “‘compound compasses,” a class of linkages that included Watt’s parallel motion, the pantograph, and the polar planimeter. He proposed to design linkages to describe a straight line, a circle of any radius no matter how large, and conic sections, and he indicated in his letter that he had arrived at a solution. This letter stirred no pens in reply, and during the next 10 years the problem merely led to the filling of a few academic pages by Peaucellier and Amédée Mannheim (1831-1906), also a graduate of Ecole Polytechnique, a professor of mathematics, and the designer of the Mannheim slide rule. Finally, in 1873, Captain Peaucellier gave his solution to the readers of the Nouvelles Annales. His reasoning, which has a distinct flavor of discovery by hindsight, was that since a linkage generates a curve that can be expressed algebraically, it must follow that any algebraic curve can be generated by a suitable link- age—it was only necessary to find the suitable linkage. He then gave a neat geometric proof, suggested by Mannheim, for his straight-line ‘‘compound com- pass.” On a Friday evening in January 1874 Albemarle Street in London was filled with carriages, each 42 Charles-Nicholas Peaucellier, ‘‘Note sur une question de geométrie de compas,”’ Nouvelles Annales de mathématiques, 1873, ser. 2, vol. 12, pp. 71-78. A sketch of Mannheim’s work is in Florian Cajori, A History of the Logarithmic Slide Rule, New York, about 1910, reprinted in String Figures and Other Monographs, New York, Chelsea Publishing Company, 1960. i f: SS hes Soeeorsarees <) Figure 25.—Mr. Prim’s blowing engine used for ventilating the House of Commons, 1877. The crosshead of the reciprocating air pump is guided by a Peaucillier linkage shown at the center. The slate-lined air cylinders had rubber-flap inlet and exhaust valves and a piston whose periphery was formed by two rows of brush bristles. Prim’s machine was driven by a steam engine. Photograph by Science Museum, London. PAPER 27: KINEMATICS FROM THE TIME OF WATT 205 maneuvering to unload its charge of gentlemen and their ladies at the door of the venerable hall of the Royal Institution. Amidst a “‘mightly rustling of silks,” the elegant crowd made its way to the audi- torium for one of the famous weekly lectures. The speaker on this occasion was James Joseph Sylvester, a small intense man with an enormous head, sometime professor of mathematics at the University of Virginia, in America, and more recently at the Royal Military Academy in Woolwich. He spoke from the same rostrum that had been occupied by Davy, Faraday, Tyndall, Maxwell, and many other notable scientists. Professor Sylvester’s subject was ‘“‘Recent Discoveries in Mechanical Conversion of Motion.”** Remarking upon the popular appeal of most of the lectures, a contemporary observer noted that while many listeners might prefer to hear Professor Tyndall expound on the acoustic opacity of the atmosphere, “those of a higher and drier turn of mind experience ineffable delight when Professor Sylvester holds forth on the conversion of circular into parallel motion.’’** Sylvester’s aim was to bring the Peaucellier linkage to the notice of the English-speaking world, as it had been brought to his attention by Chebyshey—during a recent visit of the Russian to England—and to give his listeners some insight into the vastness of the field that he saw opened by the discovery of the French soldier.*° “The perfect parallel motion of Peaucellier looks so simple,”? he observed, ‘‘and moves so easily that people who see it at work almost universally express astonishment that it waited so long to be discovered.” But that was not his reaction at all. The more one reflects upon the problem, Sylvester continued, he ‘“‘wonders the more that it was ever found out, and 48 Sylvester, op. cit. (footnote 41), pp. 179-198. It appears from a comment in this lecture that Sylvester was responsible for the word “‘linkage.’’? According to Sylvester, a linkage consists of an even number of links, a ‘“‘link-work’”’ of an odd number. Since the fixed member was not considered as a link by Sylvester, this distinction became utterly confusing when Reuleaux’s work was published in 1876. Although “link” was used by Watt in a patent specification, it is not probable that he ever used the term “‘link-work’’—at any rate, my search for his use of it has been fruitless. ‘‘Link work’? is used by Willis (op. cit. footnote 21), but the term most likely did not originate with him. I have not found the word “‘linkage”’ used earlier than Sylvester. 44 Bernard H. Becker, Sczentific London, London, 1874, pp. 45, 50, 51. 45 Sylvester, op. cit. (footnote 41), p. 183; Nature, November 13, 1873, vol. 9, p. 33. 206 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM can see no reason why it should have been discovered for a hundred years to come. Viewed a priori there was nothing to lead up toit. It bears not the remotest analogy (except in the fact of a double centring) to Watt’s parallel motion or any of its progeny.’’*® It must be pointed out, parenthetically at least, that James Watt had not only had to solve the prob- lem as best he could, but that he had no inkling, so far as experience was concerned, that a solvable problem existed. Sylvester interrupted his panegyric long enough to enumerate some of the practical results of the Peau- cellier linkage. He said that Mr. Penrose, the eminent architect and surveyor to St. Paul’s Cathe- dral, had “‘put up a house-pump worked by a negative Peaucellier cell, to the great wonderment of the plumber employed, who could hardly believe his senses when he saw the sling attached to the piston- rod moving in a true vertical line, instead of wobbling Sylvester could see no reason “‘why the perfect parallel motion should not as usual from side to side.” be employed with equal advantage in the construc- tion of ordinary water-closets.”” The linkage was to be employed by “‘a gentleman of fortune” in a marine engine for his yacht, and there was talk of using it to guide a piston rod “‘in certain machinery connected with some new apparatus for the ventilation and filtration of the air of the Houses of Parliament.” In due course, Mr. Prim, ‘“‘engineer to the Houses,”’ was pleased to show his adaptation of the Peaucellier linkage to his new blowing engines, which proved to be exceptionally quiet in their operation (fig. 25).*7 A bit on the ludicrous side, also, was Sylvester’s 78-bar linkage that traced a straight line along the line con- necting the two fixed centers of the linkage. *® Before dismissing with a smile the quaint ideas of our Victorian forbears, however, it is well to ask, 88 years later, whether some rather elaborate work re- ported recently on the synthesis of straight-line mecha- nisms is more to the point, when the principal objective appears to be the moving of an indicator on a “‘pleas- ing, expanded” (i.e., squashed flat) radio dial.* But Professor Sylvester was more interested, really, in the mathematical possibilities of the Peaucellier linkage, as no doubt our modern investigators are. Through a compounding of Peaucellier mechanisms, 46 Sylvester, op. cit. (footnote 41), p. 181. 47 [bid., pp. 182, 183, 188, 193. 48 Kempe, op. cit. (footnote 21), p. 17. 49 Machine Design, December 1954, vol. 26, p. 210. THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 26.—Sylvester-Kempe trans- lating linkage, 1877. The upper and lower plates remain parallel and equidistant. From A. B. Kempe, How to Draw a Straight Line (London, 1877; P- 37)- he had already devised square-root and cube-root extractors, an angle trisector, and a quadratic- binomial root extractor, and he could see no limits to the computing abilities of linkages as yet un- discovered. °° Sylvester recalled fondly, in a footnote to his lecture, his experience with a little mechanical model of the Peaucellier linkage at an earlier dinner meeting of the Philosophical Club of the Royal Society. The Peaucellier model had been greeted by the members with lively expressions of admiration “‘when it was brought in with the dessert, to be seen by them after dinner, as is the laudable custom among members of that eminent body in making known to each other the latest scientific novelties.” And Sylvester would never forget the reaction of his brilliant friend Sir William Thomson (later Lord Kelvin) upon being handed the same model in the Athenaeum Club. After Sir William had operated it for a time, Sylvester reached for the model, but he was rebuffed by the exclamation “‘No! I have not had nearly enough of it—it is the most beautiful thing I have ever seen in my life.” > The aftermath of Professor Sylvester’s performance at the Royal Institution was considerable excitement amongst a limited company of interested mathemati- cians. Many alternatives to the Peaucellier straight- 50 Sylvester, op. cit. (footnote 41), p. 191. 51 Tbid., p. 183. (1746-1818), professor of mathematics at the Ecole Poly- technique from 1794 and founder of the academic discipline of machine kinematics, From Livre du Polytechnique (Paris, 1895, vol. 1, frontispece). Figure 27.—Gaspard Monge Centenare, 1794-1894, Ecole line linkage were suggested by several writers of papers for learned journals.*” In the summer of 1876, after Sylvester had departed from England to take up his post as professor of mathematics in the new Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Alfred Bray Kempe, a young barrister who pursued mathematics as a hobby, delivered at London’s South Kensington Museum a lecture with the provocative title ““How to Draw a Straight Line.” ® In order to justify the Peaucellier linkage, Kempe belabored the point that a perfect circle could be generated by means of a pivoted bar and a pencil, while the generation of a straight line was most diffi- cult if not impossible until Captain Peaucellier came ® For a summary of developments and references, see Kempe, of. cit. (footnote 21), pp. 49-51. Two of Hart’s six-link exact straight-line linkages referred to by Kempe are illus- trated in Henry M. Cundy and A. P. Rollett, Mathematical Models, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1952, pp. 204-205. Peaucellier’s linkage was of eight links. 53 Kempe, of. cit. (footnote 21), p. 26. PAPER 27: KINEMATICS FROM THE TIME OF WATT 207 “(1 Jd S11gi ‘sieg) sauryoopy sap auvjuawaysy opwey, SonayoRy] ‘q “N Uvof wo1y ‘stvoA OO JOAO ACJ Ayeyndod aprm podolus yey) s}UsUTZAOU JROTURYIaUT JO s}IeYyo AueUL JO ISIE oY SVM SIU], “QOgI ‘sustURYoU ArejUsUIITa JO JeYD ONdoUAS s,o1JO4yIePT—"gz ANSI iyi UP pseeerpionee _. ue spe are aye 2) FNL _ cL mee “Pe MLeO MOL? 9 (NO MUYWOD 971 ]NOIY yu DUDA NOY ey CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 228: BULLETIN 208 along. A straight line could be drawn along a straight edge; but how was one to determine whether the straight edge was straight? He did not weaken his argument by suggesting the obvious possibility of using a piece of string. Kempe had collaborated with Sylvester in pursuing the latter’s first thoughts on the subject, and one result, that to my mind exemplifies the general direction of their thinking, was the Sylvester-Kempe ‘‘parallel motion” (fig. 26). Enthusiastic as Kempe was, however, he injected an apologetic note in his lecture. “That these results are valuable cannot I think be doubted,” he said, “though it may well be that their great beauty has led some to attribute to them an importance which they do not really possess. . . .” He went on to say that 50 years earlier, before the great improve- ments in the production of true plane surfaces, the straight-line mechanisms would have been more important than in 1876, but he added that “linkages have not at present, I think, been sufficiently put before the mechanician to enable us to say what value should really be set upon them.” ** It was during this same summer of 1876, at the Loan Exhibition of Scientific Apparatus in the South Kensington Museum, that the work of Franz Reu- leaux, which was to have an important and lasting influence on kinematics everywhere, was first intro- duced to English engineers. Some 300 beautifully constructed teaching aids, known as the Berlin kine- matic models,: were loaned to the exhibition by the Royal Industrial School in Berlin, of which Reuleaux was the director. These models were used by Prof. Alexander B. W. Kennedy of University College, London, to help explain Reuleaux’s new and revolu- tionary theory of machines.” 54 Tbid., pp. 6-7. I have not pursued the matter of cognate linkages (the Watt and Evans linkages are cognates) because the Roberts-Chebyshev theorem escaped my earlier search, as it had apparently escaped most others until 1958. See R. S. Hartenberg and J. Denavit, ““The Fecund Four-Bar,” Trans- actions of the Fifth Conference on Mechanisms, Cleveland, Penton Publishing Company, 1958, pp. 194-206, reprinted in Machine Design, April 16, 1959, vol. 31, pp. 149-152. See also A. E. R. de Jonge, ‘‘The Correlation of Hinged Four-Bar Straight-Line Motion Devices by Means of the Roberts Theorem and a New Proof of the Latter,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, March 18, 1960, vol. 84, art. 3, pp. 75-145 (published separately). 55 Alexander B. W. Kennedy, ‘‘The Berlin Kinematic Models,” Engineering, September 15, 1876, vol. 22, pp. 239-240. Scholars and Machines When, in 1829, André-Marie Ampére (1775-1836) was Called upon to prepare a course in theoretical and experimental physics for the Collége de France, he first set about determining the limits of the field of physics. This exercise suggested to his wide-ranging intellect not only the definition of physics but the classification of all human knowledge. He prepared his scheme of classification, tried it out on his physics students, found it incomplete, returned to his study, and produced finally a two-volume work wherein the province of kinematics was first marked out for all to see and consider.*® Only a few lines could be devoted to so specialized a branch as kinematics, but Ampére managed to capture the central idea of the subject. Cinématique (from the Greek word for movement) was, according to Ampere, the science ‘in which movements are considered in themselves [independent of the forces which produce them], as we observe them in solid bodies all about us, and especially in the assemblages called machines.” °’ Kinematics, as the study soon came to be known in English,** was one of the two branches of elementary mechanics, the other being statics. In his definition of kinematics, Ampére stated what the faculty of mathematics at the Ecole Polytech- nique, in Paris, had been groping toward since the school’s opening some 40 years earlier. The study of mechanisms as an intellectual discipline most cer- tainly had its origin on the left bank of the Seine, in this school spawned, as suggested by one French historian, by the great Encyclopédie of Diderot and d’Alembert. Because the Ecole Polytechnique had such a far- reaching influence upon the point of view from which mechanisms were contemplated by scholars for nearly a century after the time of Watt, and by compilers of dictionaries of mechanical movements for an even 56 André-Marie Ampére, Essai sur la philosophie des sciences, une exposition analytique d’une classification naturelle de toutes les connaissances humaines, 2 vols., Paris, 1838 (for origin of the project, see vol. 1, pp. v, xv). 57 Tbid., vol. 1, pp. 51-52. 58 Willis (op. cit. footnote 21) adopted the word ‘‘kinematics,”’ and this Anglicization subsequently became the standard term for this branch of mechanics. 59 G. Pinet, Histotre de Ecole Polytechnique, Paris, 1887, pp. viii-ix. In their forthcoming book on kinematic synthesis, R. S. Hartenberg and J. Denavit will trace the germinal ideas of Jacob Leupold and Leonhard Euler of the 18th century. PAPER 27: KINEMATICS FROM THE TIME OF WATT 209 longer time, it is well to look for a moment at the early work that was done there. If one is interested in ori- gins, it might be profitable for him to investigate the military school in the ancient town of Méziéres, about 150 miles northeast of Paris. It was here that Lazare Carnot, one of the principal founders of the Ecole Polytechnique, in 1783 published his essay on ma- chines, which was concerned, among other things, with showing the impossibility of ‘‘perpetual motion”; and it was from Méziéres that Gaspard Monge and Jean Hachette ®! came to Paris to work out the system of mechanism classification that has come to be asso- ciated with the names of Lanz and Bétancourt. Gaspard Monge (1746-1818), who while a drafts- man at Méziéres originated the methods of descriptive geometry, came to the Ecole Polytechnique as pro- fessor of mathematics upon its founding in 1794, the second year of the French Republic. According to Jean Nicolas Pierre Hachette (1769-1834), who was junior to Monge in the department of descriptive ge- ometry, Monge planned to give a two-months’ course devoted to the elements of machines. Having barely gotten his department under way, however, Monge became involved in Napoleon’s ambitious scientific mission to Egypt and, taking leave of his family and his students, embarked for the distant shores. ‘Being left in charge,’ wrote Hachette, “I prepared the course of which Monge had given only the first idea, and I pursued the study of machines in order to analyze and classify them, and to relate geometrical and mechanical principles to their construction.” Changes of curriculum delayed introduction of the course until 1806, and not until 1811 was his textbook ready, but the outline of his ideas was presented to his classes in chart form (fig. 28). This chart was the first of the widely popular synoptical tables of me- chanical movements.” Hachette classified all mechanisms by considering the conversion of one motion into another. His ele- mentary motions were continuous circular, alternating circular, continuous rectilinear, and alternating rec- tilinear. Combining one motion with another—for 60 Lazare N. M. Carnot, Essai sur les machines en général, Méziéres, 1783 (later published as Principes fondamentaux de Vequilibre et du mouvement, Paris, 1803). 61 Biographical notices of Monge and Hachette appear in Encyclopaedia Britannica, ed. 11. See also L’ Ecole Polytechnique, Livre du Centenaire, Paris, 1895, vol. 1, p. 11ff. 62 Jean N. P. Hachette, Traité élémentaire des machines, Paris, 1811, p. v. example, a treadle and crank conyerted alternating circular to continuous circular motion—he devised a system that supplied a frame of reference for the study of mechanisms. In the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Hachette’s treatise, in the original French, was used as a textbook in 1824, and perhaps earlier.” Lanz and Bétancourt, scholars from Spain at the Ecole Polytechnique, plugged some of the gaps in Hachette’s system by adding continuous and alter- nating curvilinear motion, which doubled the number of combinations to be treated, but the advance of their work over that of Hachette was one of degree rather than of kind.™ Giuseppe Antonio Borgnis, an Italian ‘“‘engineer and member of many academies”? and professor of mechanics at the University of Pavia in Italy, in his monumental, nine-volume Traité complet de méchanique appliquée aux arts, caused a bifurcation of the structure built upon Hachette’s foundation of classification when he introduced six orders of machine elements and subdivided these into classes and species. His six orders were récepteurs (receivers of motion from the prime mover), communicateurs, modificateurs (modifiers of velocity), supports (e.g., bearings), regulateurs (e.g., 63 This work was among the books sent back by Sylvanus Thayer when he visited France in 1816 to observe the education of the French army cadets. Thayer’s visit resulted in his adopting the philosophy of the Ecole Polytechnique in his reorganization of the U.S. Military Academy and, incidentally, in his inclusion of Hachette’s course in the Academy’s curric- ulum (U.S. Congress, American State Papers, Washington, 1832-1861, Class v, Military Affairs, vol. 2, p. 661: Sidney Forman, West Point, New York, 1950, pp. 36-60). There is a collection of miscellaneous papers (indexed under Sylvanus Thayer and William McRee, U.S. National Archives, RG 77, Office, Chief of Engineers, Boxes 1 and 6) pertaining to the U.S. Military Academy of this period, but I found no mention of kinematics in this collection. 64 Phillipe Louis Lanz and Augustin de Bétancourt, Essai sur la composition des machines, Paris, 1808. Hachette’s chart and an outline of his elementary course on machines is bound with the Princeton University Library copy of the Lanz and Bétan- court work. This copy probably represents the first textbook of kinematics. Bétancourt was born in 1760 in Teneriffe, at- tended the military school in Madrid, and became inspector- general of Spanish roads and canals. He was in England before 1789, learning how to build Watt engines, and he introduced the engines to Paris in 1790 (see Farey, op. cit., p. 655). He entered Russian service in 1808 and died in St. Petersburg in 1826 (J. C. Poggendorff, Biographisches-litera- risches Handwérterbuch fiir Mathematik ... , Leipzig, 1863, vol. 1. 210 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 29.—Robert Willis (1800-1875), Jack- sonian Professor, Cambridge University, and author of Principles of Mechanism, one of the landmark books in the development of kine- matics of mechanisms. ville and Caius College, Cambridge University. Photo courtesy Gon- governors), and operateurs, which produced the final effect. The brilliant Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis (1792- 1843)—remembered mainly for a paper of a dozen pages explaining the nature of the acceleration that bears his name ®—was another graduate of the Ecole Polytechnique who wrote on the subject of machines. His book,®’ published in 1829, was provoked by his recognition that the designer of machines needed more knowledge than his undergraduate work at the Ecole 65 Giuseppe Antonio Borgnis, Théorie de la mécanique usuelle in Traité complet de mécanique appliquée aux arts, Paris, 1818, vol. 1, pp. xiv-xvi. 66 Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis, ‘‘Memoire sur les equations du mouvement relatif des systémes de corps,’ Journal de V Ecole Polytechnique, 1835, vol. 15, pp. 142-154. 87 Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis, De Calcul de l’effet des machines, Paris, 1829. In this book Coriolis proposed the now generally accepted equation, work=force X distance (pp. iii, 2). Polytechnique was likely to give him. Although he embraced a part of Borgnis’ approach, adopting récepteurs, communicateurs, and operateurs, Coriolis indi- cated by the title of his book that he was more con- cerned with forces than with relative displacements. However, the attractively simple three-element scheme of Coriolis became well fixed in French thinking.®® Michel Chasles (1793-1880), another graduate of the Ecole Polytechnique, contributed some incisive ideas in his papers on instant centers®® published during the 1830's, but their tremendous importance in kinematic analysis was not recognized until much later. 68 The renowned Jean Victor Poncelet lent weight to this scheme. (See Franz Reuleaux, Theoretische Kinematik: Grund- ztige einer Theorie des Maschinenwesens, Braunschweig, 1875, translated by Alexander B. W. Kennedy as The Ainematics of Machinery: Outlines of a Theory of Machines, London, 1876, pp. 11, 487. I have used the Kennedy translation in the Reuleaux references throughout the present work.) 69 The instant center was probably first recognized by Jean Bernoulli (1667-1748) in his ‘‘De Centro Spontaneo Rota- tionis” (Johannis Bernoulli . . . Opera Omnia. . 1742, vol. 4, p. 265ff.). . , Lausanne, Figure 30.—Franz Reuleaux (1829-1905). His Theoretische Rinematik, published in 1875, pro- vided the basis for modern kinematic analysis. Photo courtesy Deutsches Museum, Munich. PAPER 27: KINEMATICS FROM THE TIME OF WATT 211 Acting upon Ampeére’s clear exposition of the province of kinematics and excluding, as Ampére had done, the consideration of forces, an Englishman, Robert Willis, made the next giant stride forward in the analysis of mechanisms. Willis was 37 years old in 1837 when he was appointed professor of natural and experimental philosophy at Cambridge. In the same year Professor Willis—a man of prodigious energy and industry and an authority on archeology and architectural history as well as mechanisms— read his important paper “On the Teeth of Wheels” the Institution of Civil Engineers’? and commenced at Cambridge his lectures on kinematics of mechanisms that culminated in his 1841 book Principles of Mechanism.” It seemed clear to Willis that the problem of devising a mechanism for a given purpose ought to be attacked systematically, perhaps mathematically, in order to determine ‘‘all the forms and arrangements that are applicable to the desired purpose,’ from which the designer might select the simplest or most suitable combination. ‘At present,’ he wrote, “‘questions of this kind can only be solved by that species of intu1- tion which long familiarity with a subject usually confers upon experienced persons, but which they are totally unable to communicate to others.” before In analyzing the process by which a machine was designed, Willis observed: ‘“‘When the mind of a mechanician is occupied with the contrivance of a machine. he must wait until, in the midst of his meditations, some happy combination presents itself to his mind which may answer his purpose.” He ventured the opinion that at this stage of the design process ‘‘the motions of the machine are the principal subject of contemplation, rather than the forces applied to it, or the work it has to do.’? Therefore 7 Robert Willis, ‘On the Teeth of Wheels,’ Transactions of the Institution of Civil Engineers of London, 1838, vol. 2, pp. 89-112. 71 Willis, op. cit. (footnote 21). Through the kindness of its owner (Mr. Warren G. Ogden of North Andover, Massachu- setts), I have had access to Willis’ own copy of his 1841 edition of Principles of Mechanism. ‘The book is interleaved, and it contains notes made by Willis from time to time until at least 1870, when the second edition was issued. Corrections, emendations, notations of some of his sources (for example, the De Voglie linkage mentioned in footnote 35 above), notes to himself to ‘‘examine the general case’? and ‘‘examine the modern forms’ of straight-line devices are interspersed with references to authors that had borrowed from his work without acknowledgment. Of one author Willis writes an indignant ‘‘He ignores my work.” 212 he was prepared to adopt without reservation Am- peére’s view of kinematics, and, if possible, to make the science useful to engineers by stating principles that could be applied without having to fit the problem at hand into the framework of the systems of classification and description that had gone before. He appraised the ‘“‘celebrated system” of Lanz and Bétancourt as “‘a merely popular arrangement, not- withstanding the apparently scientific sumplicity of the scheme.” He rejected this scheme because “no attempt is made to subject the motions to calcu- lation, or to reduce these laws to general formulas, for which indeed the system is totally unfitted.” Borgnis had done a better job, Willis thought, in actually describing machinery, with his ‘‘orders”’ based upon the functions of machine elements or mechanisms within the machine, but again there was no means suggested by which the kinematics of mechanisms could be systematically investigated. Although Willis commenced his treatise with yet another “‘synoptical table of the elementary combi- nations of pure mechanism,” his view shifted quickly He was consistent in © from description to analysis. his pursuit of analytical methods for “‘pure mech- anism,’ eschewing any excursions into the realm of forces and absolute velocities. He grasped the important of relative displacements of machine elements, and based his treatment upon “the proportions and relations between the velocities and directions of the pieces, and not upon their concept 2972 actual and separate motions. That he did not succeed in developing the ‘‘for- mulas”’ that would enable the student to determine ‘fall the forms and arrangements that are applicable to the desired purpose’—that he did not present a rational approach to synthesis—is not to be won- dered at. nibbling at the fringes of the problem. Well over a century later we still are Willis did, nonetheless, give the thoughtful reader a glimpse of the most powerful tool for kinematic synthesis that has yet been devised; namely, kinematic analysis, in which the argument is confined to the relative displacements of points on links of a mechanism, and through which the designer may grasp the nature of the means at his disposal for the solution of any particular problem. As remarked by Reuleaux a generation later, there was much in Professor Willis’s book that was wrong, 72 [bid., pp. iv, x-xii, xxi, 15. BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY but it was an original, thoughtful work that departed in spirit if not always in method from its predecessors. Principles of Mechanism was a prominent landmark along the road to a rational discipline of machine- kinematics. A phenomenal was the Scottish professor of civil engineering at the University of Glasgow, William John MacQuorn Rankine. Although he was at the University for only 17 years—he died at the age of 52, in 1872— he turned out during that time four thick manuals engineer of the 19th century on such diverse subjects as civil engineering, ship- building, thermodynamics, and machinery and mill- work, in addition to literally hundreds of papers, articles, and notes for scientific journals and the technical press. Endowed with apparently boundless energy, he found time from his studies to command a battalion of rifle volunteers and to compose and sing comic and patriotic songs. His manuals, often used as textbooks, were widely circulated and went through many editions. Rankine’s work had a profound effect upon the practice of engineering by setting out principles in a form that could be grasped by people who were dismayed by the treatment usually found in the learned journals. When Rankine’s book titled A Manual of Machinery and Millwork was published in 1869 it was accurately characterized by a reviewer as “‘dealing with the principles of machinery and millworks, and as such it is entirely distinct from [other works on the same sub- ject] which treat more of the practical applications of such principles than of the principles themselves.” Rankine borrowed what appeared useful from Willis’ Principles of Mechanism and from other sources. His treatment of kinematics was not as closely reasoned as the later treatises of Reuleaux and Kennedy, which will be considered below. Rankine did, however, for the first time show the utility of instant centers in velocity analysis, although he made use only of the instant centers involving the fixed link of a linkage. Like others before him, he considered the fixed link of a mechanism as something quite different from the movable links, and he did not perceive the possibilities opened up by determining the instant center of two movable links. Many other books dealing with mechanisms were published during the middle third of the century, but none of them had a discernible influence upon the 73 Engineering, London, August 13, 1869, vol. 8, p. 111. PAPER 27: KINEMATICS FROM THE TIME OF WATT advance of kinematical ideas.’* The center of inquiry had by the 1860’s shifted from France to Germany. Only by scattered individuals in England, Italy, and France was there any impatience with the well- established, general understanding of the machine- building art. In Germany, on the other hand, there was a surge of industrial activity that attracted some very able men to the problems of how machines ought to be built. Among the first of these was Ferdinand Redtenbacher (1809-1863), professor of mechanical engineering in the polytechnic school in Karlsruhe, not far from Heidelberg. Redtenbacher, although he despaired of the possibility of finding a “‘true system on which to base the study of mechanisms,’ was nevertheless a factor in the development of such a system. He had young Franz Reuleaux in his classes for two years, from 1850. During that time the older man’s commanding presence, his ability as a lecturer, and his infectious impatience with the existing order influenced Reuleaux to follow the scholar’s trail that led him to eminence as an authority of the first rank.”° Before he was 25 years old Franz Reuleaux pub- lished, in collaboration with a classmate, a textbook whose translated title would be Constructive Lessons for the Machine Shop.'® His several years in the workshop, before and after coming under Redtenbacher’s influence, gave his works a practical flavor, simple and direct. According to one observer, Reuleaux’s book exhibited “‘a recognition of the claims of practice such as Englishmen do not generally associate with the writings of a German scientific professor.”’ Reuleaux’s original ideas on kinematics, which are responsible for the way in which we look at mecha- nisms today, were sufficiently formed in 1864 for him to lecture upon them.’* Starting in 1871, he pub- 74 Several such books are referred to by Reuleaux, of. cit. (footnote 68), pp. 12-16. 75 See Carl Weihe, ‘‘Franz Reuleaux und die Grundlagen seiner Kinematik,’? Deutsches Museum, Munich, Abhandlung und Berichte, 1942, p. 2; Friedrich Klemm, Technik: Eine Geschichte ihrer Probleme, Freiburg and Munich, Verlag Karl Alber, 1954, translated by Dorothea W. Singer as A History of Western Technology, New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959, jo aly 7 See Weihe, of. cit. (footnote 75), p. 3; Hans Zopke, ‘‘Pro- fessor Franz Reuleaux,” Cassier’s Magazine, December 1896, vol. 11, pp. 133-139; Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1904-1905, vol. 26, pp. 813-817. ™ Engineering, London, September 8, 1876, vol. 22, p. 197. 78 A. E. Richard de Jonge, “‘What is Wrong with Kinematics and Mechanisms?”? Mechanical Engineering, April 1942, vol. 64, pp. 273-278 (comments on this paper are in Mechanical Engi. Zils lished his findings serially in the publication of the Verein zur Beférderung des Gewerbefleisses in Preus- sen (Society for the Advancement of Industry in In 1875 these articles were brought together in the book that estab- 79 Prussia), of which he was editor. lished his fame— Theoretische hinematik . In the introduction of this book, Reuleaux wrote: In the development of every exact science, its substance having grown sufficiently to make generalization possible, there is a time when a series of changes bring it into clear- ness. This time has most certainly arrived for the science of kinematics. The number of mechanisms has grown almost out of measure, and the number of ways in which they are applied no less. It has become absolutely impossible still to hold the thread which can lead in any way through this labyrinth by the existing methods.* Reauleaux’s confidence that it would be his own work that would bring order out of confusion was well founded. His book had already been translated into Italian and was being translated into French when, only a year after its publication, it was presented by Prof. Alexander B. W. Kennedy in English trans- lation.*! The book was enthusiastically reviewed by the weekly London journal Engineering,” and it was given lengthy notice by the rival journal, The Engineer. The editor of The Engineer thought that the mechanician would find in it many new ideas, that he would be “taught to detect hitherto hidden resemblances, and that he must part—reluctantly, perhaps—with many of his old notions.’ ‘‘But,’ added the editor with considerable justice, ‘‘that he [the mechanician] would suddenly recognize in Professor Reuleaux’s ‘kinematic notation,’ ‘analysis,’ and ‘synthesis,’ the long-felt want of his professional existence we do not for a moment 92 83 believe. Indeed, the fresh and sharp ideas of Reuleaux were somewhat clouded by a long (600- page) presentation; and his kinematic notation, which neering, October 1942, vol. 64, pp. 744-751); Zopke, op. cit. (footnote 76), p. 135. 79 Reuleaux, of. cit. (footnote 68). This was not the last of Reuleaux’s books. His trilogy on kinematics and machine de- sign is discussed by De Jonge, of. czt. (footnote 78). 80 Reuleaux, op. cit. (footnote 68), p. 23. 81 Thid., p. ill. 82 Engineering, loc. cit. (footnote 77). 83 The Engineer, London, March 30 and April 13, 1877, vol. 43, pp. 211-212, 247-248. 214 Figure 31.—Alexander Blackie William Ken- nedy (1847-1928), translator of Reuleaux’ Theoretische AKinematik and discoverer of Ken- nedy’s “Law of Three Centers.” From Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers (1907, vol. 167, frontispiece). required another attempt at classification, did not sim- plify the presentation of radically new ideas. Nevertheless, no earlier author had seen the problem of kinematic analysis so clearly or had introduced so much that was fresh, new, and of lasting value. Reuleaux was first to state the concept of the pair; by his concept of the expansion of pairs he was able to show similarities in mechanisms that had no appar- ent relation. He was first to recognize that the fixed link of a mechanism was kinematically the same as the movable links. This led him to the important notion of inversion of linkages, fixing successively the various links and thus changing the function of the mecha- 84 It is perhaps significant that the first paper of the First Con- ference on Mechanisms at Purdue University was Allen S. Hall’s ‘“Mechanisms and Their Classification,’ which appeared in Machine Design, December 1953, vol. 25, pp. 174-180. The place of classification in kinematic synthesis is suggested in Ferdinand Freudenstein’s ‘““Trends in Kinematics of Mecha- nisms, Applied Mechanics Reviews, September 1959, vol. 12, pp. 587-590. BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY nism. He devoted 40 pages to showing, with obvious delight, the kinematic identity of one design after an- other of rotary steam engines, demolishing for all time the fond hopes of ingenious but ill-informed inventors who think that improvements and advances in mecha- nism design consist in contortion and complexity. The chapter on synthesis was likewise fresh, but it consisted of a discussion, not a system; and Reuleaux stressed the idea that I have mentioned above in con- nection with Willis’ book, that synthesis will be suc- cessful in proportion to the designer’s understanding and appreciation of analysis. Reuleaux tried to put the designer on the right track by showing him clearly “the essential simplicity of the means with which we have to work” and by demonstrating to him “‘that the many things which have to be done can be done with but few means, and that the principles underlying them all lie clearly before us.”* It remained for Sir Alexander Blackie William Ken- nedy (1847-1928) and Robert Henry Smith (1852— 1916) to add to Reuleaux’s work the elements that would give kinematic analysis essentially its modern shape. Kennedy, the translator of Reuleaux’s book, be- came professor of engineering at the University Col- lege in London in 1874, and eventually served as presi- dent both of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Smith, who had taught in the Imperial University of Japan, was professor of engineering at Mason College, now a part of Birmingham University, in England. While Reuleaux had used instant centers almost ex- clusively for the construction of centrodes (paths of successive positions of an instant center), Professor Kennedy recognized that instant centers might be used in velocity analysis. His book, Mechanics of Ma- chinery, was published in 1886 (‘‘partly through pres- sure of work and partly through ill-health, this book appears only now’). In it he developed the law of three centers, now known as Kennedy’s theorem. He noted that his law of three centers “‘was first given, I believe, by Aronhold, although its previous publica- tion was unknown to me until some years after I had given it in my lectures.” 8° In fact, the law had been published by Siegfried Heinrich Aronhold (1819— 1884) in his ‘Outline of Kinematic Geometry,” which appeared in 1872 alongside Reuleaux’s series in the 85 Reuleaux, op. cit. (footnote 68), p. 582. 8° Alexander B. W. Kennedy, The Mechanics of Machinery, ed. 3, London, 1898, pp. vii, x. PAPER 27: KINEMATICS FROM THE TIME OF WATT Figure 32.—Robert Henry Smith (1852-1916), originator of velocity and acceleration polygons for kinematic analysis. Photo courtesy the Librarian, Birmingham Reference Library, England. journal that Reuleaux edited. Apparently Reuleaux did not preceive its particular significance at that time.*? Kennedy, after locating instant centers, determined velocities by calculation and accelerations by graphical differentiation of velocities, and he noted in his preface that he had been unable, for a variety of reasons, to make use in his book of Smith’s recent work. Professor Kennedy at least was aware of Smith’s surprisingly advanced ideas, which seem to have been generally ignored by Americans and Englishmen alike. Professor Smith, in a paper before the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1885, stated clearly the ideas and methods for construction of velocity and acceleration diagrams of linkages.** For the first time, velocity and acceleration ‘images’ of links (fig. 33) were presented. It is unfortunate that Smith’s ideas were permitted to languish for so long a time. By 1885 nearly all the tools for modern kinematic 87 Siegfried Heinrich Aronhold, ‘‘Outline of Kinematic Geom- etry,” Verein zur Beforderung des Gewerbefleisses in Preussen, 1872, vol. 51, pp. 129-155. Kennedy’s theorem is on pp. 137-138. 88 Robert H. Smith, ‘““A New Graphic Analysis of the Kine- matics of Mechanisms,” Transactions of the Royal Society of Edin- burgh, 1882-1885, vol. 32, pp. 507-517, and pl. 82. Smith used 2S analysis had been forged. Before discussing subse- quent developments in analysis and synthesis, how- ever, it will be profitable to inquire what the mechani- cian—designer and builder of machines—was doing while all of this intellectual effort was being expended. Mechanicians and Mechanisms While the inductive process of recognizing and stating true principles of the kinematics of mechan- isms was proceeding through three generations of French, English, and finally German scholars, the actual design of mechanisms went ahead with scant regard for what the scholars were doing and saying. After the demonstration by Boulton and Watt that large mechanisms could be wrought with sufficient precision to be useful, the English tool builders Mauds- lay, Roberts, Clement, Nasmyth, and Whitworth developed machine tools of increasing size and truth, The design of other machinery kept pace with— sometimes just behind, sometimes just ahead of—the capacity and capability of machine tools. In general, there was an increasing sophistication of mechanisms that could only be accounted for by an increase of information with which the individual designer could start. Reuleaux pointed out in 1875 that the “almost feverish progress made in the regions of technical work”? was ‘‘not a consequence of any increased capa- city for intellectual action in the race, but only the perfecting and extending of the tools with which the intellect works.’? These tools, he said, ‘thave in- creased in number just like those in the modern mechanical workshop—the men who work them remain the same.’”? Reuleaux went on to say that the theory and practice of machine-kinematics had “carried on a separate existence side by side.” The 5. this paper as the basis for a chapter in his Graphics or the Art of Calculating by Drawing Lines, London, 1889, pp. 144-162. Ina footnote of his paper, Smith credited Fleeming Jenkin (1833- 1885) with suggesting the term “image.” After discarding as “practically useless’? Kennedy’s graphical differentiation, Smith complained that he had “‘failed to find any practical use”’ for Reuleaux’s ‘“‘method of centroids, more properly called axoids.’’ Such statements were not calculated to encourage Kennedy and Reuleaux to advertise Smith’s fame; however, I found no indication that either one took offense at the criticism. Smith’s velocity and acceleration diagrams were included (ap- parently embalmed, so far as American engineers were con- cerned) in Encyclopaedia Britannica, ed. 11, 1910, vol. 17, pp. 1008-1009. reason for this failure to apply theory to practice, and vice versa, must be sought in the defects of the theory, he thought, because “‘the mechanisms themselves have been quietly developed in practical machine-design, by invention and improvement, regardless of whether or not they were accorded any direct and proper theoretical recognition.”” He pointed out that the theories had thus far “‘furnished no new mecha- nisms.” °° It is reasonable, therefore, to ask what was respon- sible for the appearance of new mechanisms, and then to see what sort of mechanisms had their origins in this period. It is immediately evident to a designer that the progress in mechanisms came about through the spread of knowledge of what had already been done; but designers of the last century had neither the leisure nor means to be constantly visiting other workshops, near and far, to observe and study the latest developments. In the 1800’s, as now, word must in the main be spread by the printed page. Hachette’s chart (fig. 28) had set the pattern for display of mechanical contrivances in practical jour- nals and in the large number of mechanical diction- aries that were compiled to meet an apparent demand for such information. It is a little surprising, however, to find how persistent were some of Hachette’s ideas that could only have come from the uppermost superficial layer of his cranium. See, for example, his ‘‘anchored ferryboat” (fig. 34). This device, employed by Hachette to show conversion of con- tinuous rectilinear motion into alternating circular motion, appeared in one publication after another throughout the 19th century. As late as 1903 the ferryboat was still anchored in Hiscox’s Mechanical Movements, although the tide had changed (fig. 35).°° During the upsurge of the Lyceum—or working- man’s institute—movement in the 1820's, Jacob Bigelow, Rumford professor of applied science at Harvard University, gave his popular lectures on the “Elements of Technology” before capacity audiences in Boston. In preparing his lecture on the elements of machinery, Bigelow used as his authorities Hachette, Lanz and Bétancourt, and Olinthus Gregory’s mechanical dictionary, an English work in which 89 Reuleaux, of. cit. (footnote 68), p. 8. 90 Gardner D. Hiscox, ed., Mechanical Movements, ed. 10, New York, 1903, p. 151. The ferryboat did not appear in the 1917 edition. : 216 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Mechanism Bi Diagram 5 Velocity Diagram P2 pear Bs N \ \ a \ \ X \ \, Ta \ aS par ai \ 5 / \ \ \. Acceleration i. a \ \ Diagram 7 \ \ XY ‘i \ \ \ / ‘ a ’ . / eA ieeeenn | \ NS y, 2a ! ‘ \ , ee \ ee eee : G -" eee ' \ wee eres Se | \ Oe eae = ; \ pee ae eh | < om Secret | Sse F iio Se Cee a ee — 185) eS en ae | : J Ves SS See . aN S Ces \ Bi Sih ee , —— \ a 1 ‘ja | Fe Sa Neen aan SSS L Ar oh ‘Bi | (ureome iP Wed / ‘ oe | ! / es / \ ! / eee! ' , \ / | / eee | g a / | | / Nf ; \! pe a { Bia Figure 33.—Smith’s velocity image (the two figures at top), and his velocity, mechanism, and acceleration diagrams, 1885. The image of link BACD is shown as figure bacd. The lines pa, pb, pe, and pd are velocity vectors. This novel, original, and powerful analytical method was not generally adopted in English or American schools until nearly 50 years atter its inception. From Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (1882-1885, vol. 32, pl. 82). PAPER 27: KINEMATICS FROM THE TIME OF WATT soe = ——— ArT ner si CCC = LS ee Wail ‘nt an Hachette’s classification scheme was copied and his chart reproduced.*! A translation of the work of Lanz and Bétancourt under the title Analytical Essay on the Construction of Machines, was published about 1820 at London by Rudolph Ackermann (for whom the Ackermann steering linkage was named), and their synoptic chart was reprinted again in 1822 in Durham.* In the United States, Appleton’s Dictionary of Machines * (1851) adopted the same system and used the same figures. 92 Apparently the wood engraver traced directly onto his 1 Jacob Bigelow, Elements of Technology, ed. 2, Boston, 1831, pp. 231-256; Olinthus Gregory, A Treatise of Mechanics, 3 vols., ed. 3, London, 1815. ® Rudolph Ackermann, Analptical Essay on the Construction of Machines, London, about 1820, a translation of Lanz and Bétan- court, op. cit. (footnote 64). % ‘Thomas Fenwick, Essays on Practical Mechanics, ed. 3, Dur- ham, England, 1822 %4 Appleton’s Dictionary of Machines, Mechanics, Engine-Work, and New York, 1851 (‘Motion’). Engineering, 2 vols., Figure 35.—Ferryboat from Gardner D. Hiscox, ed., Mechanical Movements (ed. 10, New York, 1903, p. 151). ATEN gt en ening \ SSS ACs Thee AN reas AWWA hy Figure 34.—Hachette’s ferryboat of 1808, a ‘“‘machine” for converting continuous rectilinear motion into motion. From Phillipe Louis Lanz and Augustin de Bétancourt, Essai sur la composition des machines (Paris, 1808, pl. 2). alternating circular block the figures from one of the reprints of Lanz and Bétancourt’s chart because the figures are in every case exact mirror images of the originals. In the Dictionary of Engineering * (London, 1873), the figures were redrawn and dozens of mechanisms were added to the repertory of mechanical motions; the result was a fair catalog of sound ideas. The ferryboat still tugged at its anchor cable, however. Knight's American Mechanical Dictionary,*” a classic of detailed pictorial information compiled by a US. patent examiner, contained well over 10,000 finely detailed figures of various kinds of mechanical con- trivances. Knight did not have a separate section on mechanisms, but there was little need for one of the Hachette variety, huge and fascinating compendium of ideas to be filed away in the synthetic mind. One reason for the popularity and usefulness of the various pictorial works was the peculiar ability of a wood or steel engraving to convey precise mechanical information, an advantage not possessed by modern halftone processes. Many patent journals and other mechanical periodicals concerned with mechanics were available in English from the beginning of the 19th century, but few of them found their way into the hands of American mechanicians until after 1820. Oliver Evans (1755-1819) had much to say about “the difficulties inventive mechanics labored under for want of published records of what had preceded them, and for works of reference to help the be- because his whole dictionary was a % E. F. and N. Spon, Dictionary of Engineering, London 1873, pp. 2421-2452. 98 [bid., p. 2447. 7 Edward H. Knight, Anight’s American Mechanical Dictionary, 3 vols., New York 1874-1876. BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Wt Yy Wilde Yi Figure 36.—Typical mechanisms from E. F. and N. Spon, Dictionary or Engineering (London, 1873, pp. 2426, 2478). ginner.” °§ In 1817 the North American Review also remarked upon the scarcity of engineering books in America.*? The Sczentific American, which appeared in 1845 as a patent journal edited by the patent promoter Rufus Porter, carried almost from its beginning a column or so entitled ‘Mechanical Movements,’ in which one or two mechanisms—borrowed from an English work that had borrowed from a French work—were illus- trated and explained. The American Artisan began a similar series in 1864, and in 1868 it published a compilation of the series as Five Hundred and Seven Mechanical Movements, “‘embracing all those which are most important in dynamics, hydraulics, hydrostatics, pneumatics, steam engines... and miscellaneous machinery.” 1°° This collection went through many editions; it was last revived in 1943 under the title 98 George Escol Sellers in American Machinist, July 12, 1884, Wolk 1/5 jab ob 99 North-American Review and Miscellaneous Journal, 1819, new ser., vol. 8, pp. 13-15, 25. 100 Henry T. Brown, ed., Five Hundred and Seven Mechanical Movements, New York, 1868. A Manual of Mechanical Movements. This 1943 edition included photographs of kinematic models.1°! Many readers are already well acquainted with the three volumes of Ingenious Mechanisms for Designers and Inventors,’ a work that resulted from a contest, an- nounced by Machinery (vol. 33, p. 405) in 1927, in which seven prizes were offered for the seven best articles on unpublished ingenious mechanisms. There was an interesting class of United States pat- ents called ““Mechanical Movements” that comprised scores of patents issued throughout the middle decades of the 19th century. A sampling of these patents shows that while some were for devices used in partic- ular machines—such as a ratchet device for a num- bering machine, a locking index for gunmaking ma- chinery, and a few gear trains—the great majority were for converting reciprocating motion to rotary motion. Even a cursory examination of these patents reveals an appalling absence of sound mechanical sense, and many of them appear to be attempts at 101 Will M. Clark, A Manual of Mechanical Movements, Garden City, New York, 1943. 102 Ingenious Mechanisms for Designers and Inventors (vols. 1 and 2 edited by F. D. Jones, vol. 3 edited by H. L. Horton), New York, Industrial Press, 1930-1951. PAPER 27: KINEMATICS FROM THE TIME OF WATT 219 “perpetual motion,” in spite of an occasional dis- claimer of such intent. Typical of many of these patented devices was a linkage for ‘‘multiplying’? the motion of a flywheel, proposed in 1841 by Charles Johnson of Amity, IIli- nois (fig. 37). “‘It is not pretended that there is any actual gain of power,” wrote Mr. Johnson; and prob- ably he meant it. The avowed purpose of his linkage was to increase the speed of a flywheel and thus 5 decrease its size,!% An Englishman who a few years earlier had in- vented a ‘“‘new Motion” had claimed that his device would supersede the ‘“‘ordinary crank in steam en- gines,” the beam, parallel motion, and ‘‘external fly- wheel,”’ reduce friction, neutralize ‘‘all extra con- tending power,” and leave nothing for the piston to do ‘‘but the work intended to be done.” A correspondent of the Repertory of Patent Inventions made short work of this device: ‘There is hardly one assertion that can be supported by proof,’ he wrote, ‘and most of them are palpable misstatements.’? The writer attacked “the ‘beetle impetus wheel,’ which he [the inventor] thinks us all so beetle-headed, as not to perceive to be a flywheel,’ and concluded with the statement: ‘“‘In short the whole production evinces gross ignorance either of machinery, if the patentee really believed what he asserted, or of mankind, if he did not.’’ 1 Although many of the mechanisms for which patents were taken out were designed by persons who would make no use of the principles involved even if such principles could at that time have been clearly stated, it is a regrettable fact that worthless mechanisms often got as much space as sound ones in patent journals, and objections such as the one above were infrequent. The slanted information thus conveyed to the young mechanician, who was just accumulating his first kinematic repertory, was at times sadly misleading. From even this sketchy outline of the literature on the subject, it should be fairly evident that there has been available to the mechanician an enormous quan- tity of information about mechanical linkages and other devices. Whatever one may think of the quality of the literature, it has undoubtedly had influence not only in supplying designers with information but in forming a tradition of how one ought to supply the 103 U.S. Patent 2295, October 11, 1841. 104 Repertory of Patent Inventions, ser. 3, October 1828, vol. 7, pp. 196-200, and December 1828, vol. 7, pp. 357-361. Figure 37.—Johnson’s ‘“‘converting motion,’ 1841. The linkage causes the flywheel to make two revolutions for each double-stroke of the engine piston rod B. From U.S. Patent 2295, October 11, 1841. background that will enable the mind to assemble and synthesize the necessary mechanism for a given pur- pose. 1% Some of the mechanisms that have been given names—such as the Watt straight-line linkage and the Geneva stop—have appeared in textbook after textbook. Their only excuse for being seems to be that the authors must include them or risk censure by colleagues. Such mechanisms are more interesting to a reader, certainly, when he has some idea of what the name has to do with the mechanism, and who originated it. One such mechanism is the drag link. After I had learned of the drag link (as most American engineering students do), I wondered for awhile, and eventually despaired of making any sense out of the term. What, I wanted to know, was being dragged? Recently, in Nicholson’s Operative Mechanic and British Machinist (1826), I ran across the sketch reproduced here as figure 38. This figure, explained Mr. Nicholson (in vol. 1, p. 32) ‘“‘represents the coupling link used by Messrs. Boulton and Watt in their portable steam engines. a, a strong iron pin, projecting from one of the arms of the fly-wheel B; D, a crank connected with the shaft c; and £, a link to couple the pin a and the crank p together, so the motion may be communicated to the shaft c.” So the drag link was actually a link of a coupling. Nothing could be more logical. A drag link mecha- nism now makes sense to me. Directly related to the drag link coupling were the 105 Some additional catalogs of “mechanical movements” are listed in the selected references at the end of this paper. 220 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 38.—Drag link coupling used on Boulton and Watt portable en- gines. The link E drags one shaft when the other turns. From John Nicholson, The Operative Mechanic, and British Machinist (Philadelphia, 1826, vol. 1, pl. 5). patents of John Oldham (1779-1840), an Irish engineer who is remembered mainly for the coupling that bears his name (fig. 39). His three patents, which were for various forms of steamboat feathering paddle wheels, involved linkages kinematically similar to the drag link coupling, although it is quite unlikely that Oldham recognized the similarity. However, for his well-known coupling, which employs an inversion of the elliptical trammel mechanism, I have found no evidence of a patent. Probably it was part of the machinery that he designed for the Bank of Ireland’s printing house, of which Oldham was manager for many years. ‘Mr. Oldham and his beautiful system” were brought to the Bank of England in 1836, where Oldham remained until his death in 1840.16 The Geneva stop mechanism (fig. 40) was properly described by Willis as a device to permit less than a full revolution of the star wheel and thus to prevent overwinding of a watch spring. It was called Geneva stop because it was used in Geneva watches. The Geneva wheel mechanism, which permits full rotation of the star wheel and which is frequently used for 106 Oldham’s paddle-wheel patents were British Patents 4169 (October 10, 1817), 4429 (January 15, 1820), and 5445 (Febru- ary 1, 1827). Robert Willis (of. cit. footnote 21, p. 167) noticed the existence of the coupling. Drawings or descriptions of the banknote machinery apparently have not been published though they probably still exist in the banks’ archives. The quotation is from Frederick G. Hall, The Bank of Ireland 1783-1946, Dublin, 1949. John Francis in his History of the Bank of England (London, 1848, vol. 2, p. 232) wrote: “The new machinery for printing the notes, which was introduced by Mr. Oldham . . is well worthy of a visit, but would be uninteresting to delineate.” Figure 39.—T7op, Original Oldham coupling built before 1840, using a cross (instead of a center disk), as sketched by Robert Willis in personal copy of his Principles of Mechanism (London, 1841, p. 167). Bottom, Oldham coupling as illustrated in Alexander B. W. Kennedy, Avnematics of Machinery, a transla- tion of Franz Reuleaux’ Theoretishe Ainematik (London, 1876, pp. 315-316). intermittent drives, was improperly called a Geneva stop in a recent textbook probably because the logical origin of the term had been lost. The name for the Scotch yoke seems to be of fairly recent origin, the linkage being called by a Scotsman in 1869 a ‘“‘crank and slot-headed sliding rod” (fig. 41). I suppose that it is now known as a Scotch yoke because, in America at least, a ‘Scotch’? was a slotted bar that was slipped under a collar on a string of well-drilling tools to support them while a section was being added (fig. 42). It was surprising to me to find that the Ackermann steering linkage, used today on most automobiles, was patented in 1818 when Detroit was still a frontier town.!%” Furthermore, the man who took out the patent described himself as Rudolph Ackermann, publisher and printseller. I thought I had the necessary clue to the linkage’s origin when I noticed that the first English translation of the Lanz and Bétancourt treatise was published by Ackermann, but the connection finally proved to be more logical, if less direct. Ackermann (1764-1834), son of a Bavarian coach builder, had spent a number of 107 British Patent 4212, January 27, 1818. PAPER 27: KINEMATICS FROM THE TIME OF WATT Dol Figure 40.—Geneva stop mechanism first used in Geneva watches to pre- vent overwinding. ‘The starwheel B had one convex surface (g-f, dotted) so the wheel could be turned less than a full revolution. After Robert Willis, Principles of Mechanism (London, 1841, p. 266). Figure 41.—Scotch yoke, described as a “crank and slot-headed sliding rod.” From W. J. M. Rankine, A Manual of Machinery and Millwork (ed. 6, London, 1887, p. 169). its own intrinsic merit,’ as Ackermann predicted it would.1°8 The Whitworth quick-return mechanism (fig. 44) was first applied to a slotter, or vertical shaper, in 1849, and was exhibited in 1851 at the Great Exhibi- 108 Rudolph Ackermann, Observations on Ackermann’s Patent Moveable Axles, London, 1819. It was interesting to me to note an abstract of W. A. Wolfe’s paper “Analytical Design of an Ackermann Steering Linkage’? in Mechanical Engineering, Sep- tember 1958, vol. 80, p. 92. years designing coaches for English gentlemen in London, where he made his home. One of his more notable commissions was for the design of Admiral Nelson’s funeral car in 1805. The Ackermann steering linkage was not actually Ackermann’s invention, although he took out the British patent in his name and promoted the introduction of the running gear of which the linkage was a part (fig. 43). The actual inventor was Ackermann’s friend George Lanken- sperger of Munich, coachmaker to the King of Bavaria. The advantage of being able to turn a carriage around in a limited area without danger of oversetting was immediately obvious, and while there was considerable opposition by English coach- makers to an innovation for which a premium had to be paid, the invention soon “‘made its way from 222 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 42.—A “Scotch” supporting the top member of a string of well- drilling tools while a section is being added, 1876. From Edward H. Knight, Anight’s American Mechanical Dictionary (New York, 1876, p. 2057). Figure 43.—Ackermann steering linkage of 1818, currently used in automobiles. This linkage was invented by George Lankensperger, coachmaker to the King of Bavaria. From Dinglers Polytechnisches Journal (1820, vol. r, pl. 7). tion in London.!2 Willis’ comments on the mecha- nism are reproduced in figure 44. I hope that Sir Joseph Whitworth (1803-1887) will be remembered for sounder mechanical contrivances than this. Mechanisms in America, 1875-1955 Engineering colleges in the United States were oc- cupied until the late 1940’s with extending, refining, and sharpening the tools of analysis that had been suggested by Willis, Rankine, Reuleaux, Kennedy, and Smith. The actual practice of kinematic synthesis went on apace, but designers often declined such help as the analytical methods might give them and there was little exchange of ideas between scholars and practitioners. The capability and precision of machine tools were greatly enhanced during this period, although, with the exception of the centerless grinder, no significant new types of tools appeared. The machines that were made with machine tools increased in complexity and, with the introduction of ideas that made mass produc- 109 The quick-return mechanism (British Patent 12907, December 19, 1849) was perhaps first publicly described in Charles Tomlinson, ed., Cyclopaedia of Useful Arts and Manu- factures, London, 1854, vol. 1, p. exliv. tion of complex mechanical products economically feasible, there was an accelerating increase in quan- tity. The adoption of standards for all sorts of com- ponent parts also had an important bearing upon the ability of a designer economically to produce mecha- nisms that operated very nearly as he hoped they would. The study of kinematics has been considered for nearly 80 years as a necessary part of the mechanical engineer’s training, as the dozens of textbooks that have been published over the years make amply clear. Until recently, however, one would look in vain for original work in America in the analysis or rational synthesis of mechanisms. One of the very earliest American textbooks of kine- matics was the 1883 work of Charles W. MacCord (1836-1915), who had been appointed professor of mechanical drawing at Stevens Institute of Technol- ogy in Hoboken after serving John Ericsson, designer of the Monitor, as chief draftsman during the Civil War.!!° Based upon the findings of Willis and Ran- kine, MacCord’s Avnematics came too early to be in- fluenced by Kennedy’s improvements upon Reul- eaux’s work. When the faculty at Washington University in St. Louis introduced in 1885 a curriculum in “dynamic 10 A biographical notice and a bibliography of MacCord appears in Morton Memorial: A History of the Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, 1905, pp. 219-222. PAPER 27: KINEMATICS FROM THE TIME OF WATT DOB Ge sz WE ee gage MEE ree A He baw Wee Atm $l fe Lt fe YK Jen u daly x fe. | piagh og es Vie ate: he foc Mita LLCL 7 lebwrthe Ape ALo A Migle eS Zg / iw) bo aS Figure 44.—Quick-return mechanism. Top, Early representation of the quick-return mech- anism patented by Whitworth in 1849, from William Johnson, ed., The Imperial a of machinery (Glasgow, about 1855, pl. 88). Middle, Sketch by Robert Willis from his copy of Principles of Mechanism (London, 1841, p. 264), which “shews Whitworth dissected into a simpler form’’; it is as obscure as most subse- quent attempts have been to explain this mechanism without a schematic diagram. Bottom, Linkage that is kinematically equivalent to Whitworth’s, from Robert Willis, Principles of Mechanism (London, 1841, p. 264). 5 engineering,”’ reflecting a dissatisfaction with the tra- ditional branches of engineering, kinematics was a senior subject and was taught from Rankine’s Ma- chinery and Millwork. At Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Peter Schwamb, professor of machine design, put together in 1885 a set of printed notes on the kinematics of based on Reuleaux’s and Rankine’s Out of these notes grew one of the most dur- able of American textbooks, first published in 1904.1! In the first edition of this work, acceleration was men- mechanisms, works. Velocities in linkages were determined by orthogonal components tioned only once in passing (on p. 4). Instant centers were used only to determine velocities of various points on the same link. Angular velocity ratios were frequently noted. In the third edition, published in 1921, linear and angular accelerations were defined, but no accel- eration analyses were made. transferred from link to link. Velocity analyses were The fourth edi- tion (1930) was essentially unchanged from the pre- vious one. altered without essential change. Treatment of velocity analysis was im- proved in the fifth edition (1938) and acceleration analysis was added. A sixth edition, further revised by Prof. V. L. Doughtie of the University of Texas, appeared in 1947. Before 1900, several other books on mechanisms had been published, and all followed one or another 11 Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1885-1886, vol. 7, p. 757. 12 Peter Schwamb and Allyne L. Merrill, Elements of Mecha- nism, New York, 1904. In addition to the work of Reuleaux and Rankine, the authors acknowledged their use of the publi- cations of Charles MacCord, Stillman W. Robinson, Thomas W. Goodeve, and William C. Unwin. For complete titles see the list of selected references. BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY of the patterns of their predecessors. Professors Woods and Stahl, at the Universities of Illinois and Purdue, respectively, who published their Elementary Mechanism in 1885, said in their preface what has been said by many other American authors and what should have “We make little claim to originality of the subject-matter,’’ wrote Woods and Stahl, “free use having been made of all available matter on the subject... . been said by many more. oy) Our claim to considera- tion is based almost entirely on the manner in which the subject has been presented.’’ Not content with this disclaimer, they continued: ‘“‘There is, in fact, very little room for such originality, the ground having been almost writers.”” 18 The similarity and aridity of kinematics textbooks in this country from around 1910 are most striking. The generation of textbook writers following MacCord, Woods and Stahl, Barr of Cornell, Robin- son of Ohio State, and Schwamb and Merrill managed to squeeze out any remaining juice in the subject, and the dessication and sterilization of textbooks was completely covered by previous nearly complete when my generation used them in the 1930’s. Kinematics was then, in more than one school, very nearly as it was characterized by an observer in 1942—‘‘on an intellectual par with mechanical drafting.” 1 I can recall my own naive belief that a textbook contained all that was known of the subject; and I was not disabused of my belief by my own textbook or by my teacher. I think I detect in several recent books a fresh, less final, and less tidy treatment of the kinematics of mechanisms, but I would yet recommend that anyone who thinks of writing a textbook take time to review, carefully and at first hand, not only the desk copies of books that he has accumulated but a score or more of earlier works, covering the last century at least. Such a study should result in a better appreciation of what constitutes a contribution to knowledge and what constitutes merely the ringing of another change. The author of the contentious article that appeared in Mechanical Engineering in 1942 under the title ‘What is Wrong with Kinematics and Mechanisms?” made several pronouncements that were questioned by various readers, but his remarks on the meagerness of the college courses of kinematics and the ‘“‘curious 13 Arthur T. Woods and Albert W. Stahl, Elementary Mecha- nism, New York, 1885. 14 Mechanical Engineering, October 1942, vol. 64, p. 745. fact”? that the textbooks ‘‘are all strangely similar in their incompleteness” went unchallenged and were, in fact, quite timely." It appears that in the early 1940’s the general class- room treatment of accelerations was at a level well below the existing knowledge of the subject, for in a series of articles by two teachers at Purdue attention was called to the serious consequences of errors in acceleration analysis occasioned by omitting the Coriolis component.!!© These authors were reversing a trend that had been given impetus by an article written in 1920 by one of their predecessors, Henry N. Bonis. The earlier article, appearing in a prac- tical-and-proud-of-it technical magazine, demon- strated how the acceleration of a point on a flywheel governor might be determined “without the use of the fictitious acceleration of Coriolis.” The author’s analysis was right enough, and he closed his article with the unimpeachable statement that “it is better psychologically for the student and practically for the engineer to understand the fundamentals thoroughly than to use a complex formula that may be mis- applied.’ However, many readers undoubtedly read only the lead paragraph, sagely nodded their heads when they reached the word ‘“‘fictitious,”” which con- firmed their half-formed conviction that anything as abstruse as the Coriolis component could have no bearing upon a practical problem, and turned the page to the “‘practical kinks” section.1!” Less than 20 years ago one might have read in Mechanical Engineering that ‘“‘Practical machinery does not originate in mathematical formulas nor in beautiful vector While this remark was in a letter evoked by an article, and was not a diagrams.” reflection of editorial policy, it was nevertheless representative of an element in the American tradition of engineering. The unconscious arrogance that is displayed in this statement of the ‘‘practical” designer’s creed is giving way to recognition of the value of scholarly work. Lest the scholar develop arrogance of another sort, however, it is well to 115 De Jonge, op. cit. (footnote 78). 16 A. S. Hall and E. S. Ault, “How Acceleration Analysis Can Be Improved,” Machine Design, February 1943, vol. 15, pp. 100-102, 162, 164; and March 1943, vol. 15, pp. 90-92, 168, 170. See also A. S. Hall, “Teaching Coriolis’ Law,” Journal of Engineering Education, June 1948, vol. 38, pp. 757-765. 17 Henry N. Bonis, ‘“The Law of Coriolis,” American Machin- ist, November 18, 1920, vol. 53, pp. 928-930. See also “Accel- eration Determinations,’ American Machinist, November 25 and December 2, 1920, vol. 53, pp. 977-981 and 1027-1029. PAPER 27: KINEMATICS FROM THE TIME OF WATT 225 Figure 45.—Paths of 11 points on the coupler (horizontal) link are plotted ie (jem! through one cycle. Dashes indicate equal time intervals. “A drafting “It is not a hear the author of the statement out. machine is a useful tool,’ he wrote. substitute for a draftsman.’ "® The scholarly interest in a subject is fairly repre- sented by the papers that are published in the trans- actions of professional societies and, more recently, by original papers that appear in specialized maga- From 1900 to 1930 there were few papers on mechanisms, and most of those that did appear were concerned with descriptions of new ‘‘mechanical In the 1930’s the number of papers reported in Engineering Index increased sharply, but only because the editors had begun to include foreign-language listings. There has been in Germany a thread of continuity zines. motions.” in the kinematics of mechanisms since the time of While most of the work has had to do with analysis, the teasing question of synthesis that Reuleaux raised in his work has never been ignored. The developments in Germany and elsewhere have Reuleaux. 8 Mechanical Engineering, October 1942, vol. 64, p. 746. 226 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY From John A. : He Hrones and G. L. Nelson, Analysis of the Four Bar Linkage (New York, 1951, p. 635). 1 been ably reviewed by others,’ and it is only to be noted here that two of the German papers, published in 1939 in Maschinenbau, appear to have been the sparks for the conflagration that still is increasing in extent and intensity. According to summaries in Engineering Index, R. Kraus, writing on the synthesis of the double-crank mechanism, drew fire from the Russian Z. S. Bloch, who, in 1940, discussed critically Kraus’s articles and proceeded to give the outline of the “correct analysis of the problem’ and a general numerical solution for the synthesis of ‘“‘any four-bar linkage.” !?° Russian work in mechanisms, dating back to Chebyshev and following the “Chebyshev theory of synthesis” in which algebraic methods are used to determine paths of minimum deviation from a 19 Grodzinski, Bottema, De Jonge, and Hartenberg and Denavit. For complete titles see list of selected references. 120 My source, as noted, is Engineering Index. Kraus’s articles are reported in 1939 and Bloch’s in 1940, both under the section heading “Mechanisms.” AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 46.—Coupler-point path-generating ma- chine for four-bar linkage. This device, built by Professor Willis as a teaching aid for demon- strating straight-line linkages, could have been adapted to produce a plate like the one shown in figure 45. From Robert Willis, A System of Apparatus for the Use of Lecturers and Experimenters . . . (London 1851, pl. 3). given curve, has also been reviewed elsewhere,'*! and I can add nothing of value. ~'When, after World War II, some of the possibilities of kinematic synthesis were recognized in the United States, a few perceptive teachers fanned the tinder into an open flame. The first publication of note in this country on the synthesis of linkages was a practical one, but in con- ception and undertaking it was a bold enterprise. In a book by John A. Hrones and G. L. Nelson, tl A. E. Richard de Jonge, ‘‘Are the Russians Ahead in Mechanism Analysis?” Machine Design, September 1951, vol. 23, pp. 127, 200-208; O. Bottema, ‘‘Recent Work on Kinematics,” Applied Mechanics Reviews, April 1953, vol. 6, pp. 169-170. Analysis of the Four Bar Linkage (1951), the four-bar crank-and-rocker mechanism was exhaustively ana- lyzed mechanically and the results were presented graphically. This work was faintly praised by a Dutch scholar, O. Bottema, who observed that the ‘‘com- plicated analytical theory of the three-bar [sic] curve has undoubtedly kept the engineer from using it” and who went on to say that ‘“‘we fully understand the publication of an atlas by Hrones and Nelson containing thousands of trajectories which must be 22.122" Neverthe- less, the authors furnished designers with a tool that could be readily, almost instantly, understood (fig. 45), and the atlas has enjoyed wide circulation.'** The idea of a geometrical approach to synthesis has very useful in many design problems. been exploited by others in more recent publica- tions,!** and it is likely that many more variations on this theme will appear. Pursuit of solutions to the ‘‘complicated analytical theory” of linkages was stimulated by publication of Ferdinand Freudenstein’s “‘Analytical Approach to the Design of Four-Link Mechanisms” in 1954,!°> and an increasing interest in the problem is indicated by the extensive literature that has appeared in the last five years. The proper role of rational methods in the synthesis of mechanisms is not yet clear. ‘‘While we may talk about kinematic synthesis,” wrote two of today’s lead- ers in the field, ‘“‘we are really talking about a hope for the future rather than a great reality of the present.’’!° When the mental equipment and the enthusiasm of scholars who are devoting their time to the problems of kinematic synthesis are considered, however, it is 122 Bottema, op. cit. (footnote 121). 3 In 1851 Robert Willis had designed a coupler-point path- generating machine (fig. 46) that could have been used to produce a work similar to that of Hrones and Nelson. 124 R. S, Hartenberg and J. Denavit, “Systematic Mechanism Design,” Machine Design, September 1954, vol. 26, pp. 167-175, and October 1954, vol. 26, pp. 257-265; A. S. Hall, A. R. Holowenko, and H. G. Laughlin, ‘“‘Four-Bar Lever Crank Mechanism,” Design News, September 15, 1957, vol. 12, pp. 130-139, October 1, 1957, vol. 12, pp. 145-154, and October 15, 1957, vol. 12, pp. 132-141. For a nomographic approach, with particular application to computers, see Antonin Svoboda, Computing Mechanisms and Linkages, New York, 1948. 125 Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1954, vol. 76, pp. 483-492. See also Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1955, vol. 77, pp. 853-861, and 1956, vol. 78, pp. 779-787. 126 R. §. Hartenberg and J. Denavit, “Kinematic Synthesis,” Machine Design, September 6, 1956, vol. 28, pp. 101-105. D} 12 PAPER 27: KINEMATICS FROM THE TIME OF WATT DOT difficult to see how important new ideas can fail to be produced. An annual Conference on Mechanisms, sponsored by Purdue University and Machine Design, was inau- gurated in 1953 and has met with a lively response. Among other manifestations of current interest in mechanisms, the contributions of Americans to inter- national conferences on mechanisms reflects the grow- ing recognition of the value of scholarly investigation of the kind that can scarcely hope to yield immediately tangible results. While we look to the future, one may ask how a lengthy view of the past can be justified. It seems to me that there is inherent in the almost feverish activity of the present the danger of becoming so preoccupied with operational theory that the goals may become clouded and the synthesis (let us put it less elegantly: the design) of mechanisms may never quite come into focus. If one knows nothing of the past, I wonder how he can with any confidence decide in what direction he must turn in order to face the future. Acknowledgment I am grateful to Professors Richard S. Hartenberg and Allen S. Hall, Jr., for reading the manuscript, making helpful comments, and suggesting material that I had not found. The errors, however, are mine. 228 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Additional References The following list of additional reference material on kinematics may be of help to readers who desire to do independent research. The material is listed according to the section headings in the text of the present article. TO DRAW A STRAIGHT LINE Kempe, A. B. How to Draw a Straight Line. London, 1877. Contains a useful bibliography. Reprinted in Squaring the Circle and Other Monographs, New York, Chelsea Publishing Company, 1953. Much attention has been given to straight-line mechanisms since the time of Kempe; at least a half dozen articles have appeared in the United States since 1950, but I did not investigate the literature published after 1877. SCHOLARS AND MACHINES Beck, THEopor. Beitrdage zur Geschichte des Maschinenbaues. Berlin, 1899. Reviews of early works, such as those by Leonardo da Vinci, Biringuccio, Besson, Zonca, etc. Borenis, GrusEPpPE ANTONIO. Traité complet de mécanique appliquée aux arts. Paris, 1818-1821, 9 vols. Contains several hundred finely detailed plates of machines. LABOULAYE, CHARLES. Traité dé cinématique ou théorie des mécanismes. Paris, 1861 (ed. 2). This work was quoted frequently by Laboulaye’s contemporaries. Rovat Socrety or Lonpon. Catalogue of Scientific Papers, 1800-1900, Author Index. London, 1867-1902, and Cambridge, 1914-1925. Catalogue of Scientific Papers, 1800-1900, Subject Index. London, 1909, vol. 2. This subject index was started in 1908, and by 1914 three volumes (the third in two parts) had been published; however, this subject index was never com- pleted. Volume 2, titled Mechanics, has some 200 entries under “Linkages.” It is interesting to note that both of the Royal Society’s monumental catalogs grew out of a suggestion made by Joseph Henry at a British Association meeting in Glasgow in 1855. Wespacu, Jutius. The Mechanics of the Machinery of Transmission, vol. 3, pt. 1, sec. 2 of Mechanics of Engineering and Machinery, translated by J. F. Klein. New York, 1890 (ed. 2). MECHANISMS AND MECHANICIANS BarBer, THomas W. Engineers Sketch-Book. London, 1890 (ed. 2). Herkimer, Hersert. Engineers Illustrated Thesaurus. New York, 1952. Periopicats. Artizan, from 1843; Practical Mechanic and Engineer's Magazine, from 1841; Repertory of Arts and Manufactures, from 1794; Newton's London fournal of Arts and Science, from 1820. (The preceding periodicals have many plates of patent specification drawings.) The Engineer, November 10, 1933, vol. 156, p. 463, and Engineering, November 10, 1933, vol. 136, p. 525. (Recent English views ques- tioning the utility of kinematics.) PAPER 27: KINEMATICS FROM THE TIME OF WATT 229 Tate, THomas. Elements of Mechanism. London, 1851. Contains figures from Lanz and Bétancourt (1808). Wyt1son, JAMES. Mechanical Inventor's Guide. London, 1859. Contains figures from Henry Adcock, Adcock’s Engineers’ Pocket-Book, 1558. MECHANISMS IN AMERICA, 1875-1955 ALBERT, CALVIN D., AND Rocers, F. D. Ainematics of Machinery. New York, 1931. Contains a bibliography that includes works not mentioned in the present paper. Barr, JoHN H. Ainematics of Machinery. New York, 1899. An early textbook. The author taught at Cornell University. Becos, JosepH S. Mechanism. New York, 1955. Contains an extensive and useful bibliography. Bortema, O. ‘‘Recent Work on Kinematics,” Applied Mechanics Reviews, April 1953, vol. 6, pp. 169-170. CONFERENCE ON MECHANISMS. This conference was sponsored by Purdue University and Machine Design. Transactions of the first two conferences appeared as special sections in Machine Design, December 1953, vol. 25, pp. 173-220, December 1954, vol. 26, pp. 187— 236, and in collected reprints. Papers of the third and fourth conferences (May 1956 and October 1957) appeared in Machine Design over several months following each conference and in collected reprints. Papers of the fifth conference (October 1958) were collected and preprinted for conference participants; subsequently, all papers appeared in Machine Design. Collected reprints and preprints are avail- able (May 1960) from Penton Publishing Company, Cleveland, Ohio. DE Joncr, A. E. RicuHarp. ‘‘Kinematic Synthesis of Mechanisms,” Mechanical Engineering, July 1940, vol. 62, pp. 537-542. ‘““A Brief Account of Modern Kinematics,’ Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1943, vol. 65, pp. 663-683. GoopEvE, THomas M. The Elements of Mechanism. London, 1903. An early textbook. Gropzinsk!1, Paut, AND McEwen, Ewen. ‘‘Link Mechanisms in Modern Kine- matics,’ Journal and Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 1954, vol. 168, pp. 877-896. This article evoked interesting discussion. It is unfortunate that Grodzinski’s periodical, Mechanism, An International Bibliography, which was published in London in 1956-1957 and which terminated shortly after his death, has not been revived. Grodzinski’s incisive views and informative essays are valuable and interesting. HarTeENBERG, R. S. “Complex Numbers and Four-Bar Linkages,”’ Machine Design, March 20, 1958, vol. 30, pp. 156-163. This is an excellent primer. The author explains complex numbers in his usual lucid fashion. HarvTenserG, R. S., AND Denavir, J. ‘‘Kinematic Synthesis,” Machine Design, Sep- tember 6, 1956, vol. 28, pp. 101-105. MacCorp, CHARLEs. Ainematics. New York, 1883. An early textbook. Ropinson, StiruMAn W. Principles of Mechanism. New York, 1896. An early textbook. The author taught at Ohio State University. Unwin, Witiam C. The Elements of Machine Design. New York, 1882 (ed. 4). An early textbook. The author taught at Royal Indian Engineering College, in England. BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1962 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Price 40 cents DEVELOPMENT OF RIAL TECHNOLOGY “= HE (91H CENTURY: = “S UNIVERSITY ‘The Electrochemical Cell and the Flectromagnet - by W. James King 231-271, from UTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM ORY AND TECHNOLOGY D STATES NATIONAL MusEUM _| BULLETIN 228 STITUTION =» +~—~—s WASHINGTON, D.C, 1962. CONTRIBUTIONS FROM Tue Museum oF History AND TECHNOLOGY Paper 28 Tuer DEVELOPMENT OF ELEcTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: 1. THe ELECTROCHEMICAL CELL AND THE ELECTROMAGNET W. James King 231 THE DEVELOPMENT UF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19th CENTURY: 1. The Electrochemical Cell and the Electromagnet by W. James King This paper—first in a series tracing the early history of electrical invention—deals with two devices basic to most of the later inventions in this field. Starting with the early researches of Luigi Galvani and Alessandro Volta in the late 1700's, it highlights developments involving the electrochemical cell and the electromagnet during the period that culminated in the invention of various electric motors in the mid-19th century. Among the devices described and illustrated are objects in the collections of the Smithsonian. They include the 1831 electromagnet of Joseph Henry, later to become first head of the Institution, and the U.S. Patent Office model of Thomas Davenport's electric motor, the first to be patented in America. Tue Autuor: W. James King—formerly curator of electricity in the United States National Museum, Smithsonian Institution— is associated with the American Institute of Physics. UCH of electrical technology depends upon an understanding of the properties of a coil of wire about an iron core. When an electric current is sent through a coil, the coil becomes an electro- magnet that produces a mechanical force which may be turned on and off; moreover, this mechanical force may be controlled at a distance and in any arbitrary manner. On the other hand, an electric current is induced in the coil if a magnet is moved near it. Almost all electrical machinery with moving parts depends on these simple properties. Static electricity had been known for some time before electromagnetism was discovered. However, it was not until the chemical cell was devised and made practical that electromagnets could be applied to invention. The first part of this article deals with the story of the chemical cell, together with some of its first commercial applications; the second part concerns elec- tromagnets and how they were first applied to motors. PAPER 28: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: I 233 Tom. VIZ: Figure 1.—Galvani’s experiments in animal electricity. From Luigi Galvani, De Viribus Electricitatis in Motu Musculari Commentarius, Bologna, 1791, trans- lated by Margaret Foley, Norwalk, Connecticut, 1953, pl. 3. The Electrochemical Cell Luigi Galvani, professor of anatomy at Bologna, was studying the relation between electricity and mus- cular tissue when he discovered that if the exposed nerve of a frog’s leg were touched by metals under certain conditions, a contraction of the muscle would result (figs. 1, 2). This discovery led Galvani to ex- plain muscular contractions in terms of an electrical nervous fluid being conducted, stored, and dis- charged.! ‘Tissue, living or dead, was the receptacle of this fluid, and so could act as a kind of Leyden jar. Previous experience had shown that a Leyden jar could produce a spark only after “‘electrical fluid” had been condensed in it; however, an electrical effect could be detected in the tissue each time. Because of this, the suspicion arose that perhaps the electrical fluid might be some kind of life force. 1 Luigi Galvani, De Viribus Electricitatis in Motu Musculari Commentarius, Bologna, 1791, translated by Margaret Foley, Burndy Library Publication No. 10, Norwalk, Connecticut, 1953. Galvani’s explanation was first elaborated ? and then contested * by Alessandro Volta, who finally concluded that animal tissue was not necessary to produce the electrical effect and that all that was needed was two dissimilar metals separated by a poor conductor.* As a result of his research, Volta was able to design his famous voltaic pile (figs. 3, 4), which multiplied the effect of a single pair of dissimilar metals. The pile was formed by stacking pairs of metals separated by disks of paper moistened with salt water in the sequence: silver-paper-zinc-silver-paper- zinc, etc. These piles were found to increase their 2 Alessandro Volta, ‘‘Account of Some Discoveries Made by Mr. Galvani, of Bologna; with Experiments and Observations on Them,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (hereinafter referred to as Philosophical Transactions), 1793, vol. 83, pp. 10-44. 3 Allesandro Volta, ‘‘Observations on Animal Electricity; Being the Substance of ‘Two Letters from A. Volta to Professor Gren,” Philosophical Magazine, 1799, vol. 4, pp. 59-68, 163-171, 306-312. 4 Alessandro Volta, ‘“‘On the Electricity Excited by the Mere Contact of Conducting Substances of Different Kinds,” .Philo- sophical Magazine, 1800, vol. 7, pp. 289-311. 234 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Lom VP. Figure 2.—Galvani’s experiments in animal electricity. From Luigi Galvani, De Viribus Electricitatis in Motu Musculari Commentarius, Bologna, 1791, trans- lated by Margaret Foley, Norwalk, Connecticut, 1953, pl. 4. effects if more or larger plates were used; but, of course, the heavier the plates, the faster the paper dried out and the faster the pile ceased working. Such dehydration could be avoided by dividing the pile in half and connecting several piles together. Even so, the pile usually was effective for only a couple of days; then it had to be taken apart and cleaned before fur- ther use. Such devices (fig. 5) were in use during the first quarter of the 19th century. Volta devised a bat- tery with a longer life in his “crown of cups.” ® This innovation consisted of a number of cups filled with a saline solution and with a pair of dissimilar metals in eachcup. One metal electrode was joined to its oppo- site mate in the next cup, and so on, until a complete circuit was made. However, the ‘“‘crown of cups” was much bulkier than the pile. Volta’s results were communicated in two well known letters to England, where they promptly stim- ulated further work. Even before the publication of the second letter, William Nicholson and Anthony Carlisle made a pile of 17 silver half-crowns and as 5 Ibid. many zinc disks.® This pile was not powerful enough for their electrochemical experiments, so they made another pile of 36 pairs, and then one of 100 pairs.’ Dissatisfied with the arrangement of the metals in a pile, William Cruickshanks devised his ‘“‘trough” battery.’ For this battery, 60 pairs of zinc and silver plates measuring about 135 inches square were cemented with rosin and beeswax in a trough so that all the zinc plates faced one way and all the silver plates the other way. The cells formed by these metal partitions were “charged” by a dilute solution of ammonium chloride. Trough batteries (such as shown in figs. 6-8) might last several weeks instead of only a couple of days, but even so the 6 William Nicholson, “Account of the New Electrical or Galvanic Apparatus of Sig. Alex. Volta, and Experiments Performed with the Same,’ Journal of Natural Philosophy, Chemistry, and the Arts (hereinafter referred to as Nicholson’s Journal), 1800, vol. 4, pp. 179-187. 7 William Nicholson, Anthony Carlisle, William Cruick- shanks, et al. “Experiments in Galvanic Electricity,” Philo- sophical Magazine, 1800, vol. 7, pp. 337-347. 8 William Cruickshanks, ‘‘Additional Remarks on Galvanic Electricity,” Nicholson’s Journal, 1801, vol. 4, pp. 254-264. PAPER 28: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: I DB'5 S a Sa Tih > uilut Aa) Le Tani = We 2 5.4 ee ein) ae pe eC. ore a, | ee 2 VB :.3) —_ __A_ IMA — a) eey }- adi) WY) — AL 2 THD eae, ca a= "y —— As early as 1801 Davy had devised a two-solution cell to demonstrate his theory that electricity was the result of chemical oxidation rather 25 J. Frederic Daniell, “On Voltaic Combinations,” Philo- sophical Transactions, 1836, vol. 126, pp. 107-124; “Additional Observations on Voltaic Combinations,’ Philosophical Transac- tions, 1836, vol. 126, pp. 125-129; “Further Observations on Voltaic Combinations,’ Philosophical Transactions, 1837, vol. 127, pp. 141-150. PAPER 28: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: I 241 T <—N OSOSSSSSSS S | ict = TT if Figure 14.—Robert Hare’s calorimotor (top) and galvanic deflagrator. From American Journal of Science, 1819, vol. 1, plate opposite p- 413, and 1822, vol. 5, plate opposite p. 95. Detlagrator of 350 paws ——— than of physical contact,?® and Antoine Becquerel had devised another such cell*’ in the 1820’s as a result of Davy’s theories. Daniell set out to test Faraday’s electrochemical theories, and he devised his nonpo- larizable ‘‘Constant Battery” on the results (figs. 15, 16, and 17). In Daniell’s cell an amalgamated zinc electrode in a weak solution of sulfuric acid was separated by an ox gullet from a copper electrode in a copper sulfate solution. John Gassiot made a more durable cell by replacing the gullet by an unglazed 242 Sate I Laphies to 0 Foot Scale O Inches te a Foot Figure 15.—Daniell’s “constant” battery. From Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1836, vol. 126, p. 117, pl. 9. porcelain cylinder.?§ While the high internal resist- ance of the Daniell cell limited the current consider- 26 Humphrey Davy, “An Account of Some Galvanic Combi- nations, Formed by the Arrangement of Single Metallic Plates and Fluids, Analogous to the New Galvanic Apparatus of Mr. Volta,”? Philosophical Transactions, 1801, vol. 91, pp. 397-402. 27 Antoine Becquerel, ‘‘Nouveaux Résultats électro- chimiques,” Annales de chimie et de physique, 1823, vol. 23, pp. 259-260; “De I Etat de l’électricité développée pendant les actions chimiques, et de la mesure de ces derniéres au moyen des effets électriques qui en résultent,’? Annales de chimie et de physique, 1823, vol. 24, pp. 192-205; ‘*Mémoire sur l’électro- chimie et Pemploi de lélectricité pour opérer des combinai- sons,’ Annales de chimie et de physique, 1829, vol. 41, pp. 5-45. 28 John P. Gassiot, “Account of Experiments with Volta- meters, Having Electrodes Exposing Different Surfaces,” London and Edinburgh Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science (title varies, hereinafter referred to as Philosophical Magazine), 1839, vol. 13, pp. 436-439. BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 1, ri TE lili 3 Le ann dal ES cl [My '¢ | alll = L : | 5) ue ceil a TO | Ee ty | l i : il Figure 16.—Laboratory battery of Daniell cells. Batteries, New York, 1880, p. 86. ably and the potential was only 1.1 volts, this voltage was so reliable and unchanging that it was used as a standard up through the 1870’s. A simpler version of the Daniell cell, the “‘gravity” cell, was worked out in the 1850’s by Cromwell F. Varley in England and by Heinrich Meidinger®® in Germany. Meidinger’s three forms of the Daniell cell are shown in figure 18. In these later cells the different densities of the two fluids prevented them from mixing. A. Callaud °° reduced the cell to its simplest form (fig. 19), and a version of this, called the ‘‘crowfoot” cell, was occa- sionally seen until quite recently. The gravity cell was used in the early days of telegraphy and railroad signaling where there were closed circuits with a con- stant but light drain on the cell. William Grove *! devised another variation of a 22 French Patent 38820, November 22, 1858; Heinrich Meidinger, “Uber eine véllig konstante galvanische Batterie,” Annalen der Physik und Chemie (title varies, hereinafter referred to as Annalen der Physik), 1859, vol. 108, pp. 602-610. 30 French Patent 36643, May 19, 1858. 31 W. R. Grove, “On a New Voltaic Combination,” Phzlo- sophical Magazine, 1838, vol. 13, pp. 430-431; “On a Small Voltaic Battery of Great Energy; Some Observations on Voltaic Combinations and Forms of Arrangement; and on the Inactivity of a Copper Positive Electrode in Nitro-Sulfuric Acid,” zbzd., 1839, vol. 15, pp. 287-293. From A. Niaudet, Electric cell of two solutions separated by a porous diaphragm (figs. 20, 21). He used zinc in dilute sulfuric acid and platinum in strong nitric acid. The 1.9-volt output of the Grove cell was almost double the out- put of the Daniell cell, and its low internal resistance enabled it to give currents as high as 10 amperes. However, the Grove cell was expensive to make, and it gave off highly corrosive fumes. It occurred to a number of researchers? to replace the platinum electrode by a cheaper material, but credit for this innovation is usually given to the German chemist Robert Bunsen ** who modified the Grove cell by replacing the platinum electrode with a charcoal rod and by replacing the nitric acid with fuming nitric acid (fig. 22). The Bunsen cell’s voltage was slightly less than that of the Grove cell, but its current was doubled, and it was much cheaper to make. 32 For example, J. T. Cooper, “On the Employment of Carbon in Voltaic Combinations,” Philosophical Magazine, 1840, vol. 16, pp 35-37; and Silliman, op. cit. (footnote 9). 33 Robert Bunsen, “‘Ueber die Anwendung der Kohle zur Volta’schen Batterie,” Annalen der Physik, 1841, vol. 54, pp. 417-420; ‘‘Ueber Bereitung einer das Platin in der Grove’schen Kette ersetzenden Kohle,’ Annalen der Physik, 1842, vol. 55, pp: 265-276. PAPER 28: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: I 243 244 Te ie i: i i ia i i Hl i I (Ny hit) Figure 17.—Battery of Daniell cells as used in American telegraphy. From G. B. Prescott, History, Theory, and Practice of the Electric Telegraph, Boston, 1860, p. 27. Figure 18.—Meidinger’s three forms of the Daniell cell. From T. Karass, Geschichte der Telegraphie, Braunschweig, 1909, p. 68. BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 7 ane it tos ta SM oe SSS Mii: iw, Figure 19.—Callaud’s version of the Daniell cell. From R. Wormell, Electricity in the Service of Man, London and New York, 1886, p. 401. Figure 20.—Shape of the electrodes in a Grove cell. After G. B. Prescott, History, Theory, and Practice of the Electric Telegraph, Boston, 1860, p. 29, fig. 9. Despite its strong fumes, used. the Bunsen cell was widely The Daniell and Grove cells avoided polarization by the use of two solutions. Other nonpolarizing cells using only a single solution also were invented. Alfred Smee *4 made such a single-solution cell by placing a pair of amalgamated zinc plates in dilute sulfuric acid with a platinum (later silver) plate covered with finely divided platinum (figs. 23, 24). While the voltage of Smee’s cell was only about half a volt, it had the advantage of a low cost of mainte- nance and could be used for open-circuit work where there was a very light drainage of current. Bunsen in 1841 *° and R. Warrington in 1842 °° invented one-solution cells that eliminated polarization by using zinc and carbon electrodes in a bichromate and sulfuric acid solution (fig. 25). About the same time J. C. Poggendorff tried a chromic acid cell in his laboratory.*7 The Poggendorff cell gave about two volts, and its low internal resistance enabled it to give high currents for a short period of time. The cell recovered its low resistance on open circuit. Grenet, a Frenchman, devised a bottle version of the chromic acid cell that was widely used in the 1860's (fig. 26). This is the cell that one sees in so many of the physics textbooks of the second half of the 19th century. After midcentury, when electricity was beginning to pass from the laboratory stage to that of industrial application, more rugged versions of the voltaic cell appeared. The development of a storage battery began in 1859 when Gaston Planté decided to compare the polarization resulting from solid films on electrodes of various metals.** With his discovery that lead electrodes gave a more intense and longer-lasting secondary current than electrodes of other metals, 34 Alfred Smee, ““On the Galvanic Properties of the Metallic Elementary Bodies, with a Description of a New Chemico- Mechanical Battery,” Philosophical Magazine, 1840, vol. 16, pp. 315-321. 35 Bunsen, op. (footnote 33), and ‘“‘Spectralanalytische See ais der Physik, 1875, vol. 155, pp. 230- 252. 36 R. Warrington, ‘On the Employment of Chromic Acid as an Agent in Voltaic Arrangements,” Philosophical Magazine, 1842, vol. 20, pp. 393-395; Leeson, in Philosophical Magazine, 1842, vol. 20, p. 262. 37 J. C. Poggendorff, “Uber die mit Chromsaure konstruirten galvanischen Ketten,”’ Annalen der Physik, 1842, vol. 57, pp. 101— 111. 38 Gaston Planté ‘‘Note sur la polarisation yoltaique,” Académie des Sciences, Paris, Comptes rendus, 1859, vol. 49, pp. 402-405. PAPER 28: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: I 245 (im Figure 21.—Grove battery as used in American telegraphy. Prescott, History, Theory, and Practice of the Electric Telegraph, Boston, 1860, p. 68, fig. 7. Planté was able to turn the disadvantage of polariza- tion into an advantage, and, using solid electrodes— Grove’s 1839 cell had gas electrodes—he created the first “storage” (secondary) cell.2° By electrolyzing dilute sulfuric acid with lead electrodes, Planté formed a layer of lead oxide on lead. The charging batteries were then removed, and the secoadary cell could return the stored energy. If not too much current was required, Planté’s cell gave a somewhat (Figs. 27-31). Camille Faure modified the secondary cell by constant potential of 1.5 volts. applying a paste of the red oxide of lead directly to the plates.4? The cell was charged by electrolyzing dilute sulfuric acid with these preformed electrodes. This process converted the red oxide to lead dioxide, and the cell was ready for use (fig. 32). The Faure cell gave two volts and had a more stable operation than did the Planté cell. It appeared at a very opportune time, for it found immediate application in telegraphy; later it was particularly important in Use of the secondary battery to store electricity when the load the production of electrical power. was light and to deliver it to the system when the load was heavy resulted in a one-third reduction in the cost of electrical power. Since secondary cells using acid electrolytes were 39 Gaston Planté, ‘“‘Nouvelle Pile secondaire d’une grande puissance,’’ Académie des Sciences, Paris, Comptes rendus, 1860, vol. 50, pp. 640-642; ‘“‘Recherches sur les courants secondaires et leurs applications,’ Annales de chimie et de physique, 1868, vol. 15, pp. 5-30; Recherches sur Vélectricité, Paris, 1879. 40 C. A. Faure, ‘‘Sur La Pile secondaire de M. C. Faure,” Académie des Sciences, Paris, Comptes rendus, 1881, vol. 92, pp- 951-953. 246 (== aonw =a Sees. NE \ T <—_—-> = il — ») ae naw air tom) Vt ihe 1s i finn Tine = iM i =a i re =A Ei ai ly ul ial ii he F iT Pn én = ii | an co = 7 ee | Uae sila i From G. B. difficult to work with, some inventors turned to alka- line electrolytes. Felix de Lalande and G. Chaperon invented a cell that used iron or copper for one elec- trode and zinc for the other, copper oxide as a depo- larizer, and a caustic soda or potash solution for the electrolyte.‘! The potential was only about one volt, but the low internal resistance of this cell enabled it to produce high currents. 41 Félix de Lalande and G. Chaperon, ‘‘Nouvelle Pile 4 oxyde de cuivre,’’? Académie des Sciences, Paris, Comptes rendus, 1883, vol. 97, pp. 164-166. 1D +- DD TTT === = —— Figure 22.—Bunsen cell. From R. Wormell, , Electricity in the Service of Man, London and New York, 1886, p. 404. BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Thomas A. Edison designed a variation of the Lalande-Chaperon cell in 1889,* but later he invented another form of alkaline accumulator (fig. 34). Nickel-plated steel electrodes were covered with nickel peroxide and graphite to form the anode, and with finely divided iron and graphite to form the cathode. The electrolyte was again a solution of caustic potash. The very high currents that could be drawn by the Edison cell made it practical for use in electric trac- tion. In Edison’s cell—a form of which is still used— the voltage was about 1.3 volts, and the current was even higher than that of the Lalande-Chaperon cell. The dry cell began with the 1868 cell of Georges Leclanché,* which used a solid depolarizer (figs. 33, 35). In the Leclanché cell, a carbon electrode was inserted into a pasty mixture of manganese dioxide and other materials. A zinc electrode in a sal am- monic solution was separated from this mixture by a ceramic cylinder. This cell gave 1.5 volts, but its pasty texture and its high internal resistance limited it to intermittent use, and its current strengths were not too high. However, it was used extensively in the 19th century for telegraph and telephone lines and for other signaling systems. ‘The ancestor of the modern dry cell was C. Gassner’s modification “ (fig. 36) of the Leclanché cell. The electrical characteristics and uses of the Gassner cell were similar to those of the Leclanché cell. A paste of zinc oxide, sal ammoniac, plaster, and zinc chloride formed the electrolyte; and the zinc electrode formed the container. Commercial production of such dry cells began about 1890. After the middle of the 19th century, standardiza- tion of voltages became an increasingly important and, at the same time, difficult problem. At first the Daniell cell was used to provide a reference voltage, but in 1873 J. Latimer Clark*® devised an even more 42U.S. Patent 430279, June 15, 1889; A. E. Kennelly, “The New Edison Storage Battery,” Electrical World, 1901, vol. 37, pp. 867-869. 43 Georges Leclanché, “Pile au peroxyde de manganése a seul liquide,”’ Les Mondes, 1868, vol. 16, pp. 532-535. 44 German Patent 45251, 1887. See also, “‘Gassner’s Dry Battery” in Electrician, 1888, vol. 21, pp. 245-246, 703-704; 1889, vol. 24, p. 185; 1890, vol. 25, p. 508; 1892, vol. 28, pp. 643-644; and Heinrich Krehbiel, ‘‘Vergleichende Unter- suchung von Trockenelementen,”’ FElektrotechnische UNIVERSITY. 2. The Telegraph and the Telephone by W. James King Paper 29, pages 273-332, from CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 228 SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION e WASHINGTON, D.C., 1962 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM Tue Museum oF History AND TECHNOLOGY Paper 29 THe DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: 2. THe TELEGRAPH AND THE TELEPHONE W James King OA | peeeditmetlnal LIBRARY APR 16 1963 HARVARD UNIVERSITY: THE DEVELOPMENT UF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE (9th CENTURY: 2. The Telegraph and the Telephone by W. James King The first attempt to use electric current to transmit information was made by a Bavarian professor, Samuel T. Soemmerring, during the Napoleonic wars. Soemmerring’s invention and many other electrical transducers for communications were at first considered to be curious ‘philosophical toys’ that could never be applied in com- merce; however, they were intermediate steps in the creation of an electrical technology. Their many successors, discussed in this article, played an ever stronger vole in regional growth and economic expansion. Among the instruments described and illustrated in this paper ave those devised by Joseph Henry, Samuel Morse, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, and many lesser-known figures. A number of the 19th-century inventions described are in the collections of the Smithsonian Institution. Tue Autuor: W. James King—formerly curator of electrictty, United States National Museum, Smithsonian Institution—zs associated with the American Institute of Physics. BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Ce PI ————— FicuRE 1.—Chappe telegraph mounted on the roof of the Louvre. From Beschreibung und Abbildung des Telegraphen, Leipzig, 1795, pl. 1. ‘| ry . i cat HE 19TH CENTURY began with the tumult and ferment of the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars which broke many of the political and social barriers that had divided Europe. Through these broken barriers stretched the communication lines of the revolutionary armies, in particular a semaphore telegraph system (figs. 1-5) invented by Claude Chappe in 1792.1 Messages were sent in the Chappe system by using the various positions of the crossarms on a pole to symbolize numbers. Sets of such num- bers could be looked up in a dictionary that correlated each set with a French word. Later the Emperor 1 Anonymous, Beschreibung und Abbildung des Telegraphen, oder der neuerfundenen Fernschreibemaschine in Paris, Leipzig, 1795; Grethe, ‘‘Der erste Chappe’sche Telegraph in Paris, Archiv fiir Post und Telegraphie, 1895, vol. 23, pp. 650-654; Ignace U. J. Chappe, Histoire de la télégraphie, Paris, 1824, 2 vols.; Abbé F. N. M. Moigno, Traité de télégraphie électrique, Paris, 1849, pp- 252-258. PAPER 29: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: In good weather each symbol of a message was carried through the 14 stations between Paris and the Rhine in about 6 minutes. used this telegraph to administer his conquests. It took about a quarter of an hour for a message to go from the Rhine to Berlin.’ Napoleon wanted mobile telegraph units to assist in his invasion of Russia but this project was never car- ried out. At various times during the first part of the 19th century, optical, pneumatic, hydraulic, and electrical telegraphs were both suggested and invented to compete with this semaphore telegraph; but it was not until mid-century that the semaphore telegraph was finally replaced by the electromagnetic telegraph. The first attempt to use electric current to transmit information resulted directly from the use of the Chappe telegraph. Bavaria was allied with France 2 Franz Schnabel, Deutsche Geschichte im Neunzehnten Jahr- hundert, Freiburg, 1929-1937 (4 vols.), vol. 3, pp. 391-392. Il 275 a7 Q + = Figure 2.—Alphabet of the Chappe telegraph. From Beschreibung und Abbildung des Telegraphen, Leipzig, 1795, pl. 3. in the first decade of the 19th century; and when Austria invaded Bavaria this maneuver was reported to Napoleon in Spain with such speed that he was able to meet the invaders on the battlefield in four days. Such rapid transmission of information led the Bavarian king to desire a similar telegraph system; 3T. S. Soemmerring, “Ueber einen elektrischen Tele- graphen,” Die kéniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Miinchen, Denkschriften, 1810, vol. 2, pp. xxvii, 401-414; J. S. Schweigger, “Uber Sémmerring’s elektrischen Telegraphen, I: Darstellung der Sache mit den Worten ihres Erfinders,” Journal fiir Chemie und Physik (hereinafter cited as Schweigger’s Journal), 1811, vol. 2, pp. 217-231; ‘““Bemerkungen tiber Herrn Prem. Lieut. CG. J. A. Pratorius Aufsatz: Uber die Unstatthaftigkeit der 276 and so the prime minister of Bavaria asked the presi- dent of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences, Prof. Samuel T. Soemmerring, a well known anatomist, to transmit this request to the academy. A month later, in August 1809, Soemmerring himself acted on this request by demonstrating a new kind of telegraph (figs. 6, 7) to the academy.® This first galvanic telegraph was based upon the relatively recent discovery of the electrolysis of water. By using 35 wires attached to 35 gold electrodes placed in the bottom of a tank of water with glass walls, Soemmerring could indicate any two letters of the German alphabet (or any numeral) by connecting the appropriate electrodes to a voltaic pile. An effer- vescence at the two electrodes revealed the proper pair, with the first symbol in the sequence indicated by a greater amount of gas forming at the negative electrode than at the positive electrode. By using such a detector of the galvanic current, Soemmerring found that he could transmit signals through 2,000 feet of wire. A call alarm was added to the Soem- merring telegraph in 1810, and the following year this apparatus was operated over a line 4,000 feet long. By then the inventor had reduced the number of wires in the cable by eliminating the numerals; but he added a sign for ‘“‘repeat’’ and one for a period, which made 27 wires in all. Later, in 1812, Soem- merring transmitted signals through 10,000 feet of wire wound on reels. Soemmerring sent models of his electrolytic tele- graph to Paris, Vienna, Geneva, and St. Petersburg. The telegraph was presented to the Institut de France and a committee was formed there to report on it, but the equipment was returned to its inventor in a few years without any formal action having been taken. The Soemmerring telegraph may have been dem- onstrated to Napoleon during the time it was in Paris; at least Napoleon is reported to have rejected it with the comment, ‘“‘C’est une idée germanique.”’ 4 Although Soemmerring’s invention was only a “philosophical toy,” since no tests were made of it elektrischen Telegraphen fiir weite Fernen,” Annalen der Physik, 1811, vol. 39, pp. 478-482; W. Soemmerring, ‘Historische Notizen iiber Samuel Thomas von Soemmerring’s Erfindung des ersten galvanisch-elektrischen Telegraphen,” Physikalische Verein zu Frankfurt am Main, Jahresbericht, 1857-1858, pp. 23-36; J. Hamel, “‘Die Entstehung der galvanischen und elektromag- netischen Telegraphie, ‘‘L’ Académie impériale des sciences de St. Pétersbourg, Bulletin, 1860, vol. 2, cols. 97-136, 298-303. . 4 Schnabel, of. cit. (footnote 2), p. 168. BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Gop py JelegrapBie? LIGNE CO oe SS = Gy) SES LG nffication 2 ——$—$—— —$_S—————— oS oe be Le ly plage OC J BPs 72. w Steaborg S 2 aft oo Bhbcire “ A Ge Vlecwtsssan De gnes % Mb uric LD Govdes 0. CE pe A. 2 GE Ga No Lue ee Ane 3 stay Za bp: 9 (ae [hb a > Oe Vie Nf, ithe), fe [oe Y ie) vi SIS: wl OE 4 if D ron . fe is Lf, OR C1 CO se fel c ) 2S a6 ie wk W74 ia ie fos ~ 6 ob. pOnyee oo os Asboces' /n Vii onl Ve au fi, a <= Ce $0,000 De, pa a. e Fale ch. Preveatd an agent) FicurE 3.—Money order sent by semaphore telegraph in 1816. Note the telegraph Mercury is carrying. Photo courtesy of the Burndy Library. over actual land lines, still it was the first galvanic telegraph that was worked out, and it stimulated development of other electrical telegraphs both directly and indirectly. Thus in 1816 J. R. Coxe ° suggested another electrochemical telegraph. 5 J. R. Coxe, ‘Use of Galvanism as a Telegraph,” Annals of Philosophy, 1816, vol. 7, pp. 162-163. PAPER 29: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: André Marie Ampere ° was the first of many to see in Hans Oersted’s discovery of a relationship between galvanism and magnetism a means of signaling at a distance. However, Ampére did not immediately 6 A. M. Ampére, “Mémoire . . . sur les effets des courans électriques,’ Annales de chimie et de physique, 1820, vol. 15, pp. 59-76, 170-218. I xT Mite SOEST HILDESHEIM A) @ Aner PADERBORN e BRAUNSCHWEIG e SCHWELM ea ERWITTE LP ALFELD F SOLINGEN -<0--~ ARENSBERG ~Q. ° aoe SALZCIT TER acoder is e e Sn DRIEBURG = @ ja seen e oa ALTENA e ~o HOXTER ene aoe on" BELECKE e TON, COELN EIMBECK oe Porn Ons SEEHAUSEN ~. es GOSLAR Oo i HALBERSTADT > ~-O---O-- e i © SIEGBURG ee BONN \ 8 % ZINZIG) ; Ficure 4.—Map of the German semaphore telegraph system s between Berlin and Coblenz during the 1830’s. Adapted from ENG Archiv fuer Post und Telegraphie, 1888, vol. 16, p. 230. recognize the theoretical basis for such a transmission; that is, that the current in a simple closed circuit has the same value at every point in the circuit. Ampére originally believed that each conductor in a circuit— each of the loops of wire in a coil, for example— required its own chemical cell. Pierre Simon Laplace pointed out to Ampére that the Oersted effect could be produced everywhere in a long conductor, which fact argued for the hypothesis that the galvanic current was everywhere the same. Accordingly, a magnetic needle would be able to indicate the pres- ence of a current when a battery was connected to a wire through which the current was passed, no matter how long the wire or how far away the needle. By using a pair of wires and a magnetic needle for each letter of the alphabet, Ampére suggested that one could communicate at a distance by opening and clos- ing the circuit proper to each letter, for the motion of the needle would indicate the appropriate symbol. William Alexander? demonstrated at an exhibit in Edinburgh in 1837 how such an Amperian needle telegraph might be set up (fig. 8). The distance covered by this exhibit was only 5 feet, but the ex- hibit showed how 30 wires and a copper rod, which was used for the common return, could indicate all the letters of the alphabet and some of the punctua- tion marks. When the battery was connected to a certain wire, the closing of the circuit caused the mag- netic needle associated with that wire to move and to uncover the corresponding letter of the alphabet on a panel. The combinations obtained by closing the circuits in proper order resulted in the transmissions of combinations of the letters that formed a word. It would appear that Ampére’s suggestion of an electromagnetic telegraph should have led directly to its invention, but, instead, only the first step toward 7Alexander’s Electric Telegraph,” Mechanics’ Magazine, London, November 25, 1837, vol. 28, pp. 122-123; J. J. Fahie, A History of Electric Telegraphy to the Year 1837, London, 1884, pp. 448-468. 278 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 2 a+ WAl*IVAl* IZA * I Ficure 5.—Ihe semaphore telegraph as adapted to the German railway system by G. A. Treutler. From H. Schellen, Der — elektromag- netische Telegraph, Braun- schweig, 1854, p. 15. MAGDEBURG GENTHIN ee a @ZIESAR BERLIN FicurEe 6.—Soemmerring’s electrochemical telegraph of 1809, general view. From Die kénigliche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Miinchen, Denkschriften, 1809-1810, vol. 2, pl. 5. the realization of such a device had been taken. This first step was the easiest and the one that only a suc- cessful inventor could get beyond. Two problems involved in signaling by means of an electric current had to be overcome in order to produce a workable electromagnetic telegraph. The work of Soemmerring and Ampére had pro- vided inventors with two distinct means of detecting a signal by means of electricity. It was no difficult task to transmit a signal within the confines of a rocm, but it was impossible to produce an effect across a distance of several miles if just an arbitrary combination of coils and batteries was used. Moreover, the telegraphs of Soemmerring and Alexander used 20 to 30 wires. If the messages were to be exchanged between cities miles apart, there was the very considerable economic problem of installation and maintenance of the cir- cuits as well as the technical problem of providing appropriate material for the wire and the proper in- sulation. Yet these problems of signaling at a dis- tance and of reducing the great number of wires re- quired for transmitting signals had to be solved if any commercial application of the telegraph was to be made. Because of the imperfect state of electrical theory, it was usually a little time after the invention of a signaling device before its inventor appreciated that these problems of distance and economy existed. Eventually it was learned that the proper combina- tion of batteries and magnets (impedance matching) solved the problem of transmitting signals over long distances. It was also learned that the great number of lines required could be reduced by the use of a binary code, which was based on the two conditions PAPER 29: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: II 279 LLY LLL , Chr. Srocck del, 1809. M. dug a FicurE 7.—Soemmerring’s electrochemical telegraph of 1809, showing details of construction. From Die kénigliche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Maiinchen, Denkschriften, 1809-1810, vol. 2, pl. 5. 280 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY of a circuit—in one code either all of the current flowed or none of it flowed; in another code the current could flow either in one direction or the other. As a result of certain experiments, it was at first argued that a galvanic current could not be trans- mitted to a point at any great distance. Thus, in 1825 Peter Barlow’ attacked Ampére’s proposal for a telegraph on the basis of the slight effects produced in what Barlow considered very long circuits. Bar- low found that he could detect little Oersted effect at the maximum distance of his circuits, which was 200 feet. Barlow’s conclusion was that the effect diminished approximately as the square root of the distance along the wire from the battery. From this hypotheses Barlow decided that an electric tele- graph based on the Oersted effect was not only im- practical but was theoretically impossible. In spite of Barlow’s animadversions, some inven- tors tried to devise apparatus for a needle telegraph. In 1830 William Ritchie® described an astatic needle galvanometer that could be used as a receiver in such a system. Ritchie agreed with the conclusions of Barlow as to how the current varied along the line but argued that this variation could be overcome by modifying the battery: the longer the tele- graph line, the more pairs of plates were neces- sary to signal over the line. With a needle galvanom- eter and a larger battery than Barlow’s, Ritchie found that he could signal over a distance of several hundred feet. Ohm too stated in 1832 that one needed only to increase the number of plates in the battery and the thickness of the wire in order to produce an effect over a distance.'® A more thorough solution to the problem of trans- mitting electromagnetic signals to a distant point was announced by Joseph MHenry.!! In 1830 Henry demonstrated that an electromagnet could be operated through a thousand feet of wire if an intensity battery, of many pairs of plates, were connected to one end of the line and an intensity electromagnet, of many turns of wire, to the other end. In 1831 and 8 Peter Barlow, ‘‘On the Laws of Electro-Magnetic Action .. 5” Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, 1825, vol. 12, pp. 105-114. 9 Philosophical Magazine, 1830, vol. 7, p. 212. 10 G. T. Fechner, ed., Repertorium der experimental Physik, 1832, vol. 1, pp. 402-403. 11 Joseph Henry, “On the Application of the Principle of the Galvanic Multiplier to Electro-Magnetic Apparatus, and also to the Development of Great Magnetic Power in Soft Iron, with a Small Galvanic Element,” American Journal of Science, 1831, vol. 19, pp. 400-408; ‘‘Proceedings of the Board of HT | a UL ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ: ; .°* Figure 8.—Alexander’s telegraph in which a moving magnetic needle would uncover a letter. From La Lumiére électrique, 1883, vol. 8, P. 333- 1832 he showed his classes at the Albany Academy that by having the electromagnet operate a clapper and strike a bell he could transmit signals through a mile of wire (fig. 9). Sometime in 1836 or 1837 Henry added a relay to a similar long line that had been set up for his classes at Princeton in 1835. An intensity electromagnet actuated by a distant intensity battery closed the local circuit of a powerful quantity electromagnet and a quantity battery. Although Henry realized at an early date that he had all the components of a complete electromagnetic signaling system, he did not attempt to make an invention of them. Regents of the Smithsonian Institution,’ Annual Report of the . . . Smithsonian Institution . . . for the Year 1857, 1858, pp. 85— 117; William B. Taylor, ““Henry and the Telegraph,” Annual Report of the... Smithsonian Institution . . . for the Year 1878, 1879, pp. 262-360; Thomas Coulson, Joseph Henry, His Life and Work, Princeton, 1950. PAPER 29: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: II 281 976628—62——2 signal of 1831-1832. From Annual Report of the Smith- . . for the Year Ending June 30, 1857, 1858, p. 105, fig. 7. FicureE g.—Henry’s “telegraph” sonian Institution . During the 1830’s a number of inventors rec- ognized the possibility that a binary code might reduce the number of wires necessary to transmit electrical telegraphs. Much earlier Schweigger ” had suggested that modifying Soemmerring’s system by the use of a binary code could eliminate many of the wires required in the Soemmerring device, but the first to attempt to put a binary code into prac- tice in an electromagnetic signaling system were two German physicists—Carl F. Gauss and his assistant, Wilhelm Weber. Gauss and Weber also understood how to transmit signals over distances of a mile or so. It was while Gauss was studying the magnetism of the earth that he found that some of the equipment employed in his research could also be used for a telegraph. Gauss had shown an interest in tele- graphs before this; he was one of the many visitors who, during the 1810’s, had stopped in Munich to see Soemmerring’s apparatus, and in the early 1820's he had invented a heliograph, or optical telegraph, that used a binary code. 2 J. S. Schweigger, “Uber Sémmerring’s elektrischen Tele- graphen, III: Nachschreiben des Herausgeber’s,’ Schweig- ger’s Journal, 1811, vol. 2, pp. 238-247. 13 C. F, Gauss, Werke, Berlin, 1929, vol. 11, Abt. 2, Abh. 2, passim; Ernst Feyerabend, Der Telegraph von Gauss und Weber im Werden der elektrischen Telegraphie, Berlin, 1933. It should be noted that in describing the Gauss and Weber telegraph, this work uses units of the local German foot. Gauss had begun his observations on the earth’s magnetism with equipment that he set up in the G6ttingen astronomical observatory in 1832. Early in 1833 Gauss and Weber converted one of their instruments into a needle galyanometer so that they could test the validity of Ohm’s work on circuits. A bar magnet weighing about a pound constituted the needle; the coil consisted of 300 feet of wire; a chemical battery supplied the power; and a commuta- tor could reverse the current in the coil and make the needle swing to the right or left. Weber set up a double copper line that ran between the astro- nomical observatory and the laboratory of the University of Géttingen—a distance of 8,000 feet. Gauss and Weber soon found that their circuit could be used for other purposes as well as for testing Ohm’s theories.'* At first it was used to synchro- nize the clocks between the two buildings, but by Easter 1833 it was part of a communications system that was occasionally used for sending words and even phrases. For an illustration of a later telegraph by Gauss and Weber, see figure 10. In the meantime funds had been obtained by the University of Géttingen for a magnetic observatory, which was in operation by 1834. The same line was extended several hundred feet from the astro- nomical observatory to the magnetic observatory, and a galvanometer with a 4-pound needle and a coil of 1,100 feet of wire were placed in the new building. By the following year that galvanometer had been moved to the laboratory and a new one set up in the astronomical observatory. The needle for the new galvanometer was 1.2 meters long and weighed about 25 pounds. It was hung by a bifilar suspension in order to increase the speed of its response, and the needle was moved inside a multiplier of 2,700 feet of fine wire. The chemical battery, which produced a gradually decreasing current, was replaced by a coil that could induce an electric current whenever it was 14 Géttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, December 27, 1832, vol. 2, pp- 2049-2058; Gottingische gelehrte Anzergen, August 9, 1834, vol. 2, pp. 1265-1274; also reported in Dinglers polytechnisches Journal, 1835, vol. 55, pp. 392-394, and Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 1834, vol. 32, pp. 562-569; letter of November 8, 1833, quoted in F, Danneman, Die Naturwissenschaften in ihrer Entwick- lung und in ihrem usammenhange, Leipzig, 1922, vol. 4, pp. 398— 399; letter of November 20, 1833, quoted in E. Feyerabend, op. cit. (footnote 13), pp. 43-46; Géttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, March 7, 1835, vol. 1, pp. 345-357; ‘‘Erdmagnetismus and Magnetometer,” Jahrbuch fiir 1836 (H. C. Schumacher, ed.), 1836, pp. 38-39. 282 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY FicurE 10.—Gauss and Weber’s telegraph of 1836. From E. Feyerabend, Der Telegraph von Gauss und Weber . . .; Berlin, 1933, P- 41. FicurE 11.—Oblique view of Steinheil’s telegraph. From A. Guerout, “L’Histoire de la télégraphie électrique,’ La Lumiére électrique, 1833, vol. 8, p. 361. PAPER: 29 DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: II 283 moved along a pair of bar magnets (see fig. 10). A year later Weber improved the moving coil mechani- cally and combined the commutator with it. He also added an alarm. Various combinations of left and right swings of the needle up to four in number indicated the various letters of the alphabet. Successive letters were indi- cated by short pauses of the needle, and successive words by longer pauses. ‘The speed of transmission was quite slow—only about seven letters per minute could be sent, although initially only two letters per minute could be sent. In 1835 officials of the Leipzig-Dresden railway who saw the apparatus were so favorably impressed by it that they considered installation of such a tele- graph to control railway traffic. However, in spite of Gauss’ suggestion that possibly the tracks could be used as part of the telegraph circuit, they finally decided that the project would be too expensive. The Gauss-Weber telegraph continued in operation at the University of Géttingen until 1838, when Weber was forced to leave the university because of political difficulties and Gauss turned his attention to other researches. In 1835, at the express invitation of Gauss, Prof. Karl A. Steinheil of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences began working on a simplified and more practical version of Gauss and Weber’s needle telegraph. After making a number of changes, Steinheil completed his apparatus (figs. 11-13) by 1836. ‘The moving coil inductor was replaced by a large magneto based on Clarke’s generator. The moving needle in the multi- plier could be used in one of the following ways: to strike against one of a pair of bells, each of a different tone, or to ink dots on a recording tape. The various combinations of tones, or dots, indicated acoustically, in the case of the bells, or graphically, in the case of the dots, the various letters of the alphabet. The Steinheil telegraph was used successfully over a long circuit. By July 1837 Steinheil had set up three telegraph lines from the laboratory in the acad- emy in Munich—one that extended 0.9 km. to his 15 Karl Steinheil, ‘‘Ueber Steinheil’s electro-magnetischen Telegraphen mit betreffenden historischen Notizen,’”? Dinglers polytechnisches Journal, 1838, vol. 67, pp. 388-391; ‘Notice sur le télégraphe galvanique de M. Steinheil,’ Comptes rendus, 1838, vol. 7, pp. 590-593; ‘‘Beschreibung des galvano-magnetischen Telegraphen zwischen Miinchen und Bogenhausen, errichtet im Jahre 1837,” Dinglers polytechnisches Journal, 1838, vol. 70, pp. 292-302; “Zum Andenken Steinheils,” Archiv fiir Post und Telegraphie, 1888, vol. 16, pp. 402-405. home, one that extended 0.1 km. to the shop of the academy, and one that extended 5 km. to the astro- nomical observatory. Each of these stations was con- nected to the laboratory by a pair of copper or iron wires strung on poles or buildings. A simple switch- ing device at the central telegraph station in the lab- oratory enabled Steinheil to connect any combination of the four stations together. With this system he was able to send about six words per minute. In 1838 the Bavarian government became inter- ested in Steinheil’s telegraph system, and a 5-mile line along the Niirnberg-Flirth railroad was proposed. Steinheil tried to implement Gauss’ suggestion of using the railroad tracks in order to save some of the expenses, but the difficulty in insulating the tracks caused the plan to be abandoned. However, Stein- heil’s experiences showed him in June 1838 how he could use the earth as one half of the telegraph line. The ground return thus obtained reduced the instal- lation and maintenance cost of the telegraph line con- siderably. Steinheil’s telegraph system worked so well on the Ntirnberg-Fiirth railroad that the Bavarian government decided to try a line with a ground return along a portion of the Munich-Augsburg rail- road. However, the expense of installing the single line was still too great, and the authorities decided against the application of Steinheil’s telegraph. Even before Gauss inspected Soemmerring’s tele- graph, it had been seen by Baron Pavel L. Schilling,'® a member of the Russian embassy staff at Munich. Schilling became a close friend of Soemmerring, and it was Schilling who carried Soemmerring’s telegraph to St. Petersburg and a friend of Schilling who took another model to Vienna to demonstrate it to Em- peror Francis I. Schilling later worked out a needle telegraph system, but it is difficult to determine when this occurred, what were the construction details of his first instruments, and how his code functioned. J. Hamel, who knew Schilling personally, reported that Czar Alexander, who died in 1825, had followed Schilling’s efforts to develop an electrical telegraph. 16 Oken’s Isis, 1836, vol. 29, col. 727; G. W. Muncke, article “Telegraph,” Gehler’s physikalisches Woerterbuch, Leipzig, 1838, vol. 9, pp. 100-126; J. Hamel, “Ueber die Erfindung des elektromagnetischen Telegraphen durch Baron Schilling von Canstatt und die Ueberfiihrung des neuen Apparates nach England und Amerika,” Gesellschaft deutscher Naturforscher und Aerzte, Berichte, 1857, vol. 33, pp. 60-65; Hamel, of. cit. (foot- note 3); Auguste Guerout, ‘‘L’Historique de la télégraphie électrique,’ La Lumiére électrique, 1883, vol. 8, pp. 332-339; Feyerabend, of. cit. (footrote 13), pp. 17-22. 284 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY ue aS Be L SS Lk a) @ » UG Vo ‘ Mvignete = Gatoanse hoe / » 2 : ; Z mo rcnpynrel, 7 o aN) Mor aratseM ~ Va aed th Ficure 12.—Details of Steinheil’s telegraph. From Dinglers polytechnisches Journal, 1838, vol. 70, pl. 4. FicureE 13.—Steinheil’s two receivers: one to ink combinations of signs on a moving paper tape and one to produce two different bell sounds. From E. Feyerabend, Der Telegraph von Gauss und Weber . . .; Berlin, 1933, p. 63. PAPER 29: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: II 285 However, this remark could very well have referred to a variant of Soemmerring’s instrument although Hamel implied that he was speaking of a needle tele- eraph. Baron Alexander von Humboldt remarked that in 1832 Schilling had shown an electrical tele- eraph (fig. 14) to Czar Nicholas I in Berlin. The first contemporary description that we have of Schilling’s instruments is a report of a 5-needle, 6-wire telegraph that he successfully exhibited at a scientific meeting in Bonn in 1835. This apparatus was a simple one consisting of five needle galvanom- eters. The suspension of each needle had a paper disk marked with a horizontal stripe on one side and a vertical stripe on the other. The bottom end of the suspension rested in a tiny bowl of mercury to damp the oscillations of the magnetic needle under the in- fluence of the current. Schilling also provided an alarm for his telegraph. ‘The code he used seems to have been a binary one—an idea that may have re- sulted from his visit to Gauss in 1833. A demonstra- tion that Schilling made in Vienna in 1836 induced two local scientists to try to set up a telegraphic line along the streets that could be used with Schilling’s instruments. Another demonstration that Schilling made to the Russian government in 1837 led to plans that were prevented by his death in the same year— the Russian government planned to lay an 8-mile submarine cable in an arm of the Bay of Finland near St. Petersburg to connect the fortress of Kronstadt with Peterhof. The display of the Russian government at the Paris electrical exhibition of 1881 included an apparatus that was said to have been successfully demonstrated previously by Schilling. The transmitter of this apparatus was a 16-key, piano-type. keyboard con- nected by eight wires to a receiver consisting of six needle galvanometers, plus another galvanometer that was used for a call alarm (fig. 15). The Russian government asked M. H. Jacobi to continue Schilling’s work in electrical telegraphy upon the latter’s death, but Jacobi abandoned Schilling’s needle telegraph in favor of another approach." Jacobi sought also to reduce the many wires that had been necessary in Schilling’s instrument by using a 17M. I. Radovskii, Boris Semenovich Iakobi, Leningrad and Moscow, 1953; Akademia Nauk SSSR, Komissiia po istorii fiziko-matematischeskikh nauk, Boris Semenovich Iakobi: Biblio- graficheskii ukazatel, compiled by M. G. Novlianskaia under the editorship of K. I. Shafranovskovo, Moscow and Leningrad, 1953. simpler binary code. Functionally, Jacobi’s first instrument (fig. 16), completed in 1839, was similar to Morse’s 1837 instrument. An electromagnet at the receiving station of the Jacobi telegraph was actuated by a key, at a distant point, that closed a circuit. The resulting up-and-down motion of the armature was recorded as a wavy line on a moving plate. This instrument was used in 1839 on an ex- perimental underground line in St. Petersburg that ran from the Winter Palace across the square to the General Staff Building. In 1843 the line was ex- tended from the Winter Palace to Tsarskoe Selo, some 15 miles away. After experimenting with various electrophysiologi- cal telegraphs in the early 1840's, Jacobi invented a dial telegraph in January 1845 that was similar to an instrument that Wheatstone had patented five years earlier; both instruments used pulses of current to actuate a step-by-step mechanism. After the appa- ratus was successfully tested in 1845 during Russian military maneuvers, it replaced the telegraph instru- ment that had been used earlier on the lines between St. Petersburg and Tsarskoe Selo. Another dial tele- graph operated between St. Petersburg and Peterhof. While working with these lines, Jacobi discovered that they acted as condensers and tended to distort the signal transmitted along them. He found that this distortion was more noticeable with underground lines than with overhead lines. Jacobi’s work in telegraphy must be considered as being of an experimental nature, however, for it was not until 1853, after Siemens and Halske introduced their system, that a semaphore telegraph line be- tween St. Petersburg and Kronstadt was replaced by an electrical one. Efforts were also made in England to work out a needle telegraph using a binary code system. In March 1836 William F. Cooke, the son of an English anatomist, attended a lecture at the University of Heidelberg where he saw Prof. G. W. Muncke dem- onstrate an electrical telegraph '8 (fig. 17). Muncke, the chairman of the meeting at Bonn at which Schilling had exhibited his apparatus, had become so interested in Schilling’s device that he had sought and obtained permission to have a 3-needle model of this telegraph made. Cooke copied Muncke’s model, 18 W. F. Cooke, The Electric Telegraph: Was It Invented by Professor Wheatstone?, London, 1857, 2 vols.; Latimer Clark, “Sir William Fothergill Cooke,” Journal of the Society of Telegraph Engineers, 1879, vol. 8, pp. 361-397. ; 286 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Yocichanenny anes 1 Alalne ISd2 rem Moatyrnth Nintling ven Canstadt agunt Cn) etpporats, cabyintennmeens wn Cea tne Heaascrlicben cfeitcenne Ver Wrscssochogien uy Hh Nearly ange, wabitess Crragiyvcel Sadshy CM reademiey Onuiee tteh aR oasisebacrs aw fagraphen j MCS b him mn} SMhicieeiat wg fhe Nous (8 % uichuwng tina iw Sabre $32. rem fratrall “bebo Uy now Yanofacs tfotocnen etpparats, ubyuemmen ron Gein ina adseatichey ctcailemie Oe Wisse ssscloud fer in SH Melasbug aula, wabrden Orsysnal Ridhtiq: QhucterCa Mairlica Hrssischen Telegraph. as oh Raab © tebhat 1575 Figure 14.—Schilling’s basic elements for his 1832 telegraph (needle galva- nometer and call alarm). Weber . . .; Berlin, 1933, p. 21. From E. Feyerabend, Der Telegraph von Gauss und PAPER 29: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: II 287 Ficure 15.—Schilling’s 6-needle telegraph and alarm as exhibited at the Paris International Electrical Exhibition of 1881. From La Lumiére électrique, 1883, vol. 8, p. 337. Ficure 16.—Jacobi’s recording telegraph of 1839 as shown at the Paris International Electrical Exhibition of 1881. From La Lumiere électrique, 1883, vol. 8, p. 425. 288 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY believing it to be a reproduction of Gauss’ telegraph, and returned to England in April with the intention of transforming his model from a piece of lecture dem- onstration apparatus into a commercial instrument. After spending the summer of 1836 working on the needle telegraph, as well as on an unsuccessful syn- chronous telegraph discussed below, Cooke interested the Liverpool and Manchester railroad in trying his needle telegraph for communications through a rail- road tunnel at Liverpool. However, Cooke soon dis- covered that his instrument, while it would work in the space of a laboratory, would not work over a mile- long line. Since Cooke was neither a professional scientist nor an instrument-maker, he sought technical as- sistance from several prominent men, including Michael Faraday. Finally, in February 1837, he met Charles Wheatstone,!® who was professor of experimental physics at King’s College, London. Several years previous to the time Cooke met him, Wheatstone, with the ultimate intention of devising an electrical telegraph, had been investigating the distant transmission of electrical forces. In 1834 Wheatstone had been successful in sending signals through a reel of wire several miles long and was con- vinced that this newly discovered physical force was capable of being used for communication. In June 1836 Wheatstone had proposed a needle telegraph, the essential part of which used what he called a ‘‘permu- tating keyboard” that could send 30 different signals over six wires. However, Wheatstone had run into the same difficulty as Cooke had—that of transmitting signals over a long line—and the two men decided to tackle their problems together. Wheatstone and Cooke added to their system a sensitive relay that needed to move only 4% inch in order to actuate an alarm, but the main problem of transmitting signals to a distance remained unsolved. During a trip to Europe in 1837 Joseph Henry had visited a number of laboratories, that of Wheatstone, among others. Among the topics Henry discussed during a visit to Wheatstone’s laboratory were the different properties of quantity and intensity electro- magnets, and of how an intensity electromagnet and battery on a very long circuit had been used at Prince- 19 Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 1876, vol. 24, pp. XVi-xxvii (obituary); Minutes of Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 1876, vol. 47, pp. 283-297 (obituary); Magazine of Popular Science and Journal of the Useful Arts, 1837, vol. 3, p. 110. FIGURE 17.—Muncke’s Schilling’s telegraph. From T. Karass, Ge- schichte der Telegraphie, Braunschweig, 1909, p- 136. 3-needle copy of ton to actuate a quantity electromagnet and battery on a local circuit. Possibly as a result of such a dis- cussion, within a few weeks following Henry’s visit to their laboratory Wheatstone and Cooke solved their difficulties in the transmission of telegraph signals over long distances. In May 1837 they applied for a patent on their 5-needle invention, which included a call alarm based on a relay and local circuit (figs. 18, 19, 22). This British patent (7390) was obtained on June 12, 1837. The transmitter of the Wheatstone-Cooke telegraph *° was a set of five tapper keys that acted as switches. The various keys could indicate the various letters by moving different combinations of needles to left and right positions. Wheatstone and Cooke’s instruments were tested with some success in July 1837 on a 1.4-mile line that ran along the London and Birmingham railway between Euston Square and Camden Town. The 5-wire line was mounted on blocks of wood, and the whole was covered with tar and buried in the ground along the railroad tracks. However, mechanical difficulties, the expense of installation, and the problem of proper 20 ““Wheatstone and Cooke’s Electric Telegraph,’ Mechanics’ Magazine, London, August 1, 1840, vol. 33, pp. 161-170; W. H. Preece, “Communication,” Journal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, 1897, vol. 26, pp. 633-635. PAPER 29: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: II 289 insulation prevented further application of this method for a time. On April 18, 1838, Cooke secured British patent 7614 for a much simpler form of the needle telegraph than the one he had patented with Wheatstone the preceding year. This telegraph (figs. 20, 22) was a 5-wire system that still used the five keys to transmit the signal combinations but it required only two needles to indicate the letters of the alphabet. The speed of transmission was about 30 letters per minute. This telegraph was first used on a 13-mile line that was set up in May 1838 in order to control traffic on that part of the Great Western railway that ran from a borough of London (Paddington Station) to West Drayton. ‘The transmission lines were initially placed in iron tubes 6 inches from the ground, but these lines proved to be unsatisfactory, and the inventors soon decided to use bare wire supported by insulators on telegraph poles.”! In 1842 the telegraph line of the Great Western railway was extended five more miles so that it ran past West Drayton to Slough. Other lines were soon put up, and by 1844 the Yarmouth and Norwich railway was dispatching trains by telegraph; London was in telegraphic communication with Dover by 1846 and with Edinburgh by 1848. Wheatstone and Cooke devised, in 1845, a single- needle, 2-wire system (figs. 21, 22) over which the average skilled operator could transmit about 25 words per minute (British patent 10655, May 6, 1845). Either two tapper keys or a single drop handle was used to make the signal combinations. This tele- graph was popular in England until about 1900 and was used for railway lines or telegraph offices where the traffic was heavy but not enough to warrant mechanization. The publicity attendant on the capture of a mur- derer through a telegraph message * in 1845 attracted the attention of the public to the new invention, and it rapidly changed from a curious novelty to a neces- sary means of communication. By the following year the British government was seriously considering a 21 ““Wheatstone’s Electric Telegraph,’ Mechanics’ Magazine, London, August 11, 1838, vol. 29, p. 320; ‘Galvanic Tel- egraph,”’ Mechanics’ Magazine, London, October 20, 1838, vol. 30, p. 48; “The Galvanic Telegraph at the Great Western Railway,’ Mechanics’ Magazine, London, September 7, 1839, vol. 31, p. 432; Francis Whishaw, ‘““The Electric Telegraph— Mr. Cooke’s Improved System as Applied to the Great Western Railway,” Mechanics’ Magazine, London, June 3, 1843, vol. 38, pp. 467-469. 22 Tllustrated London News, November 28, 1846, p. 339 290 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Ficure 18.—Wheatstone and Cooke’s 5-needle telegraph receiver (top) and transmitter of 1837. ‘Two keys on the transmitter had to be depressed to select a given letter. From R. Sabine, The History and Progress of the Electric Telegraph, London, 1872, pp. 44-45. ws aN FicurE 19.—Wheatstone and Cooke’s local circuit (including relay and call alarm) for their 1837 telegraph. From G. B. Prescott, History, Theory, and Practice of the Electric Telegraph, Boston, 1860, p. 414. proposal to connect all government buildings in Eng- land by a network of telegraph lines. The telegraph system between London and Slough was the first one in England to be opened to public service. The ef- fectiveness of communicating by telegraph was proved during the troubled times of 1848 and during the Crimean War. In the 1850’s telegraph lines spread rapidly throughout the continent and Great Britain, and by April 1855 London could communicate directly with Sebastopol. Wheatstone and Cooke also invented another kind of telegraph instrument, known as the dial telegraph. The first version of this system, worked out by Cooke in 1836, was based upon two synchronous me- chanical clocks, the one at the transmitting station indicating the same letter as the one at the receiving station. The transmitting station closed the circuit and permitted the lettered dial on both clocks to turn until the letter desired was indicated at the transmit- ter; whereupon the circuit was opened and the clocks stopped. Since the clocks were synchronized, the receiving one would stop at the same letter as the transmittingone. The transmitting station would then perform the same operations for the next letter and so on. This synchronous system was difficult to reduce to practice, so Wheatstone and Cooke patented another version of a dial telegraph on January 21, 1840 (British patent 8345). In this case the dial at the receiver was driven by the transmitting dial instead of being controlled in its motion at the receiving station. Moving an indicator over the dial at the transmitting station sent a number of pulses down the line according to the number of letters passed over. These pulses released an escapement, allowing a weight-driven pointer to turn until the desired letter step-by- The speech by (13 was indicated. This system was called the step” dial telegraph (figs. 23, 24). Queen Victoria that opened Parliament in 1845 was sent at a rate of five words per minute by this system.” In 1858 Wheatstone modified the dial telegraph by using a magneto to provide the pulses (British patent 1241, August 2, 1858). This form of the dial instru- ment was quite popular with the British for the re- The ABC instrument (fig. 25), as Wheatstone’s dial telegraph usually was mainder of the 19th century. called, had an average speed of about five words per minute; it was used to connect small towns where trafic was light and that were on circuits of not more than four stations. As late as 1920 there were more than 1,000 ABC units still in use. reason for the survival was the simplicity of operation. Apparently, the Edward Davy, an English competitor of Wheatstone and Cooke, came very close to creating a practical 23 and trans- mitting key as used in marine cable telegraphy. From W. H. Preece and J. Sivewright, Telegraphy, New York, 1876, p.138. machine, George M. Phelps *° of Troy, New York, combined certain features of the House and the Hughes machines to produce the Phelps “‘combina- tion telegraph” (fig. 39) that could initially send about 30 words per minute and that was constantly improved until it could send up to 60 words per minute. This combination machine, patented in 1859, had considerable success where traffic was suf- ficiently heavy to warrant the use of a rather compli- cated and expensive machine. In addition to expanding the telegraph across con- tinents, engineers and investors sought to join tele- graph networks that ended at a coastline. In the 1840’s numerous attempts were made to lay a cable under water, but this goal was not attained until gutta-percha was applied as underwater insulation.*! C. V. Walker laid a successful gutta-percha cable along two miles of the English Channel in January 30 George Phelps, U.S. patent 26003 (November 1, 1859); George B. Prescott, History, Theory, and Practice of the Electric Telegraph, Boston, 1860, pp. 144-155; Electricity and the Electric Telegraph, New York, 1888, 2 vols., vol. 2, pp. 642-647. 31 C. Willoughby Smith, The Rise and Extension of Submarine Telegraphy, London, 1891; Charles Bright, Submarine Telegraphs: Their History, Construction and Working, London, 1898; G. R. M. Garatt, One Hundred Years of Submarine Cables, London, 1950. PAPER 29: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: II 576628—62 3 1849, and later the same year a similar cable was successfully laid under the Connecticut River, at Middletown. The brothers Jacob and John Brett laid a gutta-percha cable between Dover and Calais in 1850, but it remained in operation less than a day. Then the brothers manufactured another cable and placed armor over the gutta-percha. This cable was laid in 1851 and remained in operation for a decade. The success of this cable led to more submarine cables: England was joined with Holland and Ireland in 1853 and with India in 1864; among other cables laid in North America was the one joining Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in 1856. One of the men involved in the laying of the New- foundland cable was the retired businessman, Cyrus Field,*? who saw that the cable across the Gulf of St. Lawrence might be the first step in the laying of a cable across the Atlantic. Several years before the Newfoundland cable was jaid, a hydrographer had 32 Charles F. Briggs and Augustus Maverick, The Story of the Telegraph and a History of the Great Atlantic Cable, New York, 1858; Report of the Joint Committee Appointed by the Lords .. . of the Privy Council . . . and the Atlantic Telegraph Company to Inquire into the Construction of Submarine Telegraph Cables, London, 1861; Henry M. Field, The Story of the Atlantic Telegraph, New York, 1892. 305 pointed out the existence of a submarine plateau be- tween Ireland and Newfoundland. This plateau promised a natural advantage for laying an Atlantic cable. In 1856 Field enlisted Charles Bright and John Brett to join him in organizing the Atlantic Telegraph Company for the purpose of undertaking to lay a cable between Newfoundland and Ireland. By 1857 some 2,500 miles of armored gutta-percha cable had been manufactured, and the cable-laying ship started from Ireland at the end of the summer. However, the cable broke about 330 miles away from the starting point, and the project had to be postponed to the following year. It was not until the second attempt in 1858 that the cable was successfully laid; signals were sent through it for a few weeks, but then it failed. In addition to the considerable mechanical problem of contriving a submarine cable for the Atlantic Ocean and of successfully laying it along the bottom, there was also the electrical problem of the invention of a new kind of telegraph receiver. Obviously none of the commercial instruments of the time were able to work through a line thousands of miles long, and it was impossible to insert relays into the circuit of a line at the floor of the sea. Moreover, even if sensitive receivers were used, the line acted like a huge Leyden jar and smeared out the signal. The problem of designing a new receiver for the Atlantic cable was solved by Prof. William Thomson— later Lord Kelvin.*? In 1855 Thomson had published an article on signaling through submarine cables, in which he pointed out some of the problems that would have to be met. After joining the Atlantic Telegraph Company as one of the directors, Thomson turned his attention to finding a practical method of eliminating the difficulties in the detection of oceanic cable signals. The most sensitive detector known at that time was the needle galvanometer ** as provided with a mirror, and it was upon this instrument that Thomson, in 1858, based a new telegraph receiver with a “speaking” galvanometer (fig. 40) that could be used on ship- board without being influenced by the rolling motion of the sea. C. F. Varley (1862) and C. W. Smith (1866) independently showed how the addition of a condenser to each end of the cable would insulate the cable and sharpen the signal, and thus counterbalance the loss of signal definition resulting from its passage 33 Silvanus P. Thompson, Life of William Thomson: Baron Kelvin of Largs, London, 1910, 2 vols. 34 William Thomson, British patent 329 (February 20, 1858). FicurE 41.—Movement of Thomson’s siphon recorder of 1871. From G. B. Prescott, Electricity and the Electric Telegraph, New York, 1859, Pp. 459, 461. through the cable. Later, in 1867,%° Thomson patented the siphon recorder, which was able to furnish a permanent record of the message. In this siphon recorder, a mobile coil of wire about one pole of a stationary permanent magnet replaced the magnetic needle and fixed coil used in conventional galva- nometers. Thomson’s final (1871) form of gal- vanometer *° was so sensitive that the current from a chemical cell (made from a silver thimble) could be detected after being sent across the ocean and back again. By the time these improvements in the cable system were worked out, two successful Atlantic cables had been laid. In spite of the considerable monetary loss resulting from the breakdown of the first Atlantic cable, Cyrus Field did not become discouraged and in 1864 he was able to organize another company, which first at- tempted to laya cable in 1865. This cable came within 660 miles of Newfoundland when it broke. By then it was too late in the year to undertake a relaying; how- ever, in the summer of 1866 Field’s company was successful. Moreover, the company was able to find and use the cable that had been laid the previous year, so that the net result was two cables under the Atlantic Ocean. These cables remained in use for a 35 British patent 2147 (July 23, 1867). 36 British patent 252 (January 31, 1871). 306 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Ficure 42.—American telegraph office (top) and operating room of the mid-rgth century. From T. Shaffner, The Tele- graph Manual, New York, 1859, pp. 459, 461. decade before they went out of service, and by then others had been laid. In addition to the submarine cable system, the land telegraphic system was also growing. By 1865 there were 16,000 miles of telegraph lines in Great Britain, 64,000 miles in France, and 28,000 miles in Prussia. In the United States the Civil War had interfered with the normal economic growth of business, but by the end of the war the three largest telegraph com- PAPER 29: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: Il panies in the country had 83,000 miles of telegraph lines. (See figs. 42-45.) In spite of the tens of thousands of miles of telegraph lines in the world, there never were enough to satisfy the ever-growing need for improved communications. Inventors sought to devise various multiple telegraph systems*’ by which a number of messages could be 37 George B. Prescott, Electricity and the Electric Telegraph, New York, 1888, 2 vols. pp. 769-918. 307 sent over a single line either simultaneously or in rapid succession. A system by which two messages could be sent simultaneously over the same wire was called duplex, and one over which four could be sent at the same time over the same wire (two in each A system that could transmit a number of messages in rapid succes- sion was originally called a multiplex system (fig. 46). Since receivers always were more sluggish than trans- mitters, a multiplex system changed the “dead” inter- vals of the receiver to an advantage. direction) was called quadruplex. Various electrical and mechanical techniques were applied to establish a practical multiplex system that could be duplexed or quadruplexed. The earliest duplex circuit was based upon a bridge circuit in which currents in the transmitting station would divide and then come together again in such a manner as to cancel one another out and not actuate the local receiver. Currents from the other station instead of canceling would add so as to operate the local receiver. Such a bridge circuit could be applied to telegraph systems if the impedance of the telegraph line joining the stations was related in a certain way to the impedance of the stations. The first attempts to work out such a bridge circuit were made in 1853 by Wilhelm Gintl, director of the Austrian State Telegraph, and in 1857 by Carl Frischen, a Hanoverian telegraph inspector. How- ever, the circuits of Gintl and of Frischen and those of certain subsequent inventors tried to match the impedance of the telegraph line with resistances only. Since a real telegraph line has a capacity as well as a resistance, no satisfactory duplex method was devised until both these features were taken into account. Joseph B. Stearns of Boston succeeded in creating a duplex telegraph by adding a capacitance to the circuit in the proper place (fig. 47). Thomas A. Edison ** was the first designer of a practical quadruplex system. In 1874 he showed how two duplex circuits could be superimposed by using a reversal of current to signal in one circuit, and an increase and decrease of current away from the reference level to signal in the other circuit. While the message-carrying capacity of telegraph lines was increased by such duplex and quadruplex methods 38 Thomas A. Edison, U.S. patents 207723 and 207724 (September 3, 1878), and 209241 (October 22, 1878); F. L. Dyer and T. C. Martin, Edison: His Life and Inventions, New York and London, 1910, 2 vols.; Matthew Josephson, Edison: A Biography, New York, 1959. (fig. 48), they reduced the speed of transmission for each station; consequently other methods of multiple telegraphy were sought. Multiplexing a line was another method by which a single line could be used for transmitting messages between a number of stations. Multiplexing was originally a mechanical method that used a commu- tator to switch rapidly among several pairs of trans- mitters and receivers. It is obvious that by this method many messages could be sent over a single line but that they could not be transmitted simul- taneously. The multiplex system was first suggested in 1852 by Moses G. Farmer, whose idea was to set up a commutator, similar to that in the distributor of an automobile, at each end of a telegraph line in such a manner that the motion of the brushes in the commutator was synchronized so as to join corresponding stations at each end of the line. How- ever, it was some time after Farmer conceived this idea that it was reduced to practice. After Patrick B. Delany and Bernhard Meyer had made initial attempts to create a_ practical multiplex system, between 1872 and 1878 J. M. E. Baudot*® managed to devise a workable multiplex system. While the Morse system could send up to 25 dispatches per hour and the European Hughes machine could send 60 dispatches per hour, the duplex process enabled them to transmit 45 and 110 dispatches per hour, respectively. The quadruplex process as applied to the Wheatstone automatic tele- graph could send 90 dispatches per hour and 160 dispatches per hour if the system was duplexed again. A hundred dispatches per hour could be sent by the Meyer multiplex system, and 160 by the Baudot system and almost double that if duplexed. Use of the Baudot system spread in France in the 1880's, and in the late 1890's it was introduced into England. Further improvements in the Baudot system and its 39 French patents 103898 (June 17, 1874), 11719 (March 2, 1876), and 146716 (January 6, 1882); Théodose du Moncel, “Systemes télégraphiques imprimeurs a transmissions mul- tiples,’ La Lumiére électrique, 1880, vol. 2, pp. 61-66, 81-84; “J. P.,” “Etude sur le systéme de transmission multiple et le télégraphe imprimeur de M. Baudot,’” La Lumiére électrique, 1881, vol. 4, pp. 378-380, vol. 5, pp. 53-57; 1882, vol. 6, pp. 55-60, 79-82, 127-131, 177-184, 198-202; Théodose du Moncel, “Rapport . . . sur le télégraphe multiple de M. Baudot,” Bulletin de la Société d’ Encouragement pour ’ Industrie Nationale, 1883, vol. 10, pp. 149-154; A. C. Booth, “The Baudot Telegraph System Duplexed,” Post Office Electrical Engineers’ Journal, 1911, vol. 3, pp. 336-339, and ‘Progress of the Baudot System,” 1914, vol. 6, pp. 324-336. 308 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY combination with other systems led to the present printing telegraph system. Ra The high speed of transmission of the Baudot system was largely due to the replacement of the Morse code by an older one, the 5-unit code, which had originally been used in the Gauss-Weber and the Wheatstone-Cooke telegraph systems. In the 5-unit code each signal was formed by the proper combination of five plus or minus currents. The correct combination of currents was created by depressing the appropriate jacks on a keyboard equipped with five keys. There was one keyboard at each transmitting station, and a number of these sta- tions were connected to the commutator. The com- mutator, as in Farmer’s suggestion, connected each keyboard in succession to the line. Usually four key- boards were used; if so, there were four main seg- ments on the commutator, with one segment for each keyboard. Each segment was further subdivided with one subdivision for each key of the keyboard corre- sponding to that segment. As the brush on the com- mutator moved over the segments, each key of a given keyboard was connected in succession to the line. An RTI th Ficure 43.—Top: American lineman of the mid-1gth century. Bottom: Construction of a telegraph line across the Missouri River in 1851. From T. Shaffner, The Telegraph Manual, New York, 1859, pp. 542, 666. _ pe ssl BARRIT PAPER 29: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: II 309 — a | h a ( ips | Iidnl (tint dulil \ FicurE 44.—Above, and on facing page: English telegraph offices of the mid-1gth century. From T. Shaffner, The Telegraph Manual, New York, 1859, pp. 233, 235- identical commutator moving synchronously at the re- ceiving station switched the combinations of signals to four groups of polarized relays, each relay being con- nected to one of the five subdivisions of the four seg- ments of the receiving commutator. Each group of relays actuated a certain one of the four printers at the end of the line. With this device the operator at each transmitting station could send about 150 letters per minute. (See figs. 49-53.) Also tried was another method of multiple teleg- raphy that used different transmitters—each with its own characteristic frequency of alternating current— that sent the different currents simultaneously over the common line. These currents were sepa- rated at the receiving end of the telegraph by use of analyzers, each of which was sensitive to only one frequency. This method of communication did not have any commercial success until the 20th century, but such harmonic multiple telegraphy led to another means of electrical communication. After trying to send tones and combinations of tones over a telegraph line, some inventors went on to study the 310 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY il Ee PAPER 29: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: II 311 Ficure 45.—English lineman of the mid-19th century. His hat served both as protection from the elements and as storage space for extra tools. From Post Office Electrical Engineers Journal, April 1913, vol. 6, opposite p. 1. possibility of transmitting the sounds produced by the human voice. by means of an electric telephone. Although it was in 1854 that Charles Borseul had suggested a telephone for transmitting the human voice by means of electricity, the term ‘‘telephone”’ was not applied to an actual electrical instrument until Philipp Reis devised his instrument in 1860.* In 1859, after becoming a teacher of science in a gym- nasium near Frankfurt am Main, Reis returned to the studies on sound that he had begun previously. By the following year he had completed his telephone, and he exhibited several forms of it during the next four years. (See figs. 54, 55.) Over 50 articles ap- peared on the Reis telephone, and reproductions of it produced by several instrument-makers appeared in many physical laboratories of Europe and America. 40 Silvanus P. Thompson, Philipp Reis: Inventor of the Telephone, London, 1883. Sending Receiving Line Wire Ficure 46.—Schematic diagram of a pair of multiplex distributors, by means of which one transmitter-receiver after another is switched to a common line. Reprinted (with permis- sion) from A. Albert, Electrical Communication, New York, 1940, p. 230. LINE ae al } ’ re aw" STEARNS'PLAN (34 Ne On fh PDL) Figure 47.—Stearns’ duplex circuit, U.S. patent 126847 (May 14, 1872). From W. H. Preece and J. Sivewright, Telegraphy, New York, 1876, p. 157- By 1869 the Reis instrument had been publicly dem- onstrated in the United States.*! Reis’ instrument was based on the principle that an imperfect or intermittent contact in a circuit can modulate (i.e., control) the current flowing through that circuit. When a diaphragm in the transmitter of the Reis telephone vibrated under the influence of the human voice, a variation occurred in the pressure of a metal point on a metal plate. This variation in pressure modulated the current in the circuit. The receiver of the Reis machine consisted of a knitting needle placed inside an electromagnet which was 41°°The Telephone,” Manufacturer and Builder, 1869, vol. 1, pp. 129-130. ; Sys BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY LINE NEW YORK. BOSTON GROUND CROUND. Ficure 48.—Western Union’s first practical quadruplex circuit, 1874. From G. B. New York, 1878, p. 311. Fankiv dur dishibuliov Prescott, The Speaking Telephone, Perliz div m cniputalwy unl deihee 17 Aoche pee) Fe H lial C } 2+ Couche i] | oe nara ie : = \ ARG) 2“ i ine Aipaeats oe ! i 4. Roi+ t z eae } 42 koucke WN - T+ + ' y he Doo Ses Ligne ot 1 1 5 ' Transmissionsy g Recep lise A ee RE Si ee eS ae i eee mets ol a Cliche -imprimeue aie = eae Sel OUT IB pt cee aoa) | | eee eee eee eee ' EO ae a OO Tex3 t on = QUA AAA A A A _ a R a ARPES Seae Rt Cuteraimants | i + | ee = di wai R? w = : ————— > 2/9 ,0/o|0 TT jelfejee] 2 Scliny | H tanec is ee eS ° mak | | Ses | | | j=|=|2/ =| | ‘Rt Sarre ———S = = oa << << << Cd Dewcloppement dun combinaleur Ficure 49.—Diagram of the Baudot multiplex system. From La Lumiere électrique, 1882, vol. 6, p. 60. mounted on a resonator. the needle vibrate according to the rate at which the diaphragm in the transmitter vibrated, and the resonant box gave the vibrations a greater intensity. This vibration probably was magnetostriction rather than the vibration of the ordinary telephone dia- phragm. If one spoke into the transmitter of a good The electromagnet made PAPER 29: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: instrument, the sound heard by pressing the ear against the cover of the receiver was said to be similar to that of a human voice as filtered through a toy trumpet. It is difficult to determine how well Reis’ telephone could reproduce articulate sounds. The American courts involved in the telephone patent trials declared flatly that the instrument could not reproduce speech II 313 Ficure 50.—Baudot’s alphabet. From La Lumiére électrique, 1880, vol. 2, p. 83. multiplex and could never do so, even with modifications. Some scientists also took this negative position, for it seems to have been a difficult task to get this form of the telephone to reproduce unarticulated sound, let alone speech. But a few scientists, among them Silvanus P. Thompson in Great Britain and E. J. Houston in the United States, asserted that with proper adjustment the Reis instrument could repro- duce and transmit human speech. However, this early telephone must be considered as, at best, another of the ‘philosophical toys” of the 19th century that later, after they had been reduced to practice, became inventions of enormous economic value. Ficure 51.—Baudot’s multiplex telegraph transmitter keyboard. The cadence counter on top of the case enabled the operator to transmit at the correct speed. From La Lumiére électrique, 1882, vol. 6, p. 81. The line of electro-acoustic experimentation that resulted in the telephone started with the discovery that an electric current could produce those mechani- cal vibrations that we hear as sound. As early as 1837, Charles Page found that when an electromagnet Ficure 52.—Baudot’s multiplex transmitter distributor com- mutator. From La Lumiére électrique, 1882, vol. 6, p. 60. 314 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Ivan \, 1 i | NY ii ? j : | i FIGURE 53.—One of the Baudot multiplex receivers, showing the distributor commutator on top of the case. From La Lumiere électrique, 1882, vol. 6, p. 128. Ficure 54.—The Reis telephone transmitter (eft) and receiver that Joseph Henry showed Alexander Graham Bell in 1875. (USNM 180179; Smithsonian photos 30537, 47876-E.) was energized by a current, a sound could be heard in the electromagnet.*? Helmholtz’s classic Die Lehre der Tonempfindungen, the first edition of which appeared in 1862, showed how electromagnets could be used to drive tuning forks, how a tuning fork could be used to produce an alternating current of a given fre- quency, and how only a tuning fork of the right frequency would respond to a given alternating current. But this was not a new discovery, for Abbé 42 Charles Page, “The Production of Galvanic Music,” American Journal of Science, 1837, vol. 32, pp. 396-397; ‘‘Experi- ments in Electro-Magnetism,”’ American Journal of Science, 1838, vol. 33, pp. 118-120. PAPER 29: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: II Laborde* had already suggested in 1860 that a multiple telegraph system might be based upon the proper combination of electrically driven tuning forks. One of the first inventors of a practical communica- tions system using alternating currents of different frequencies was Elisha Gray,*! superintendent of the 43 Abbé Laborde, ‘‘Vibrations transmises et réproduites a distance par lélectricité,’ Comptes rendus, 1860, vol. 50, pp. 692-694. 44 Lloyd W. Taylor, ‘“The Untold Story of the Telephone,’’ American Physics Teacher, 1937, vol. 5, pp. 243-251. Many of the instruments that Gray invented for his harmonic multiple telegraph may still be seen in the Museum of History and Technology of the Smithsonian Institution. 315 meoraseeeueee ocpsameeutamccsscosnuar==— if sven Figure 55.—Reis telephone. ‘Transmitter (top); detail of diaphragm contact (middle); and receiver. Western Electric Manufacturing Company. Some- time during the winter of 1873-1874, he began to construct instruments that could transform mechanical vibrations into electrical signals and then change the signals back again into vibrations. The transmitters that Gray used consisted of electromagnets that caused a metal reed to vibrate, thereby interrupting, at a definite rate, the flow of current in the circuit. By May 1874 Gray had constructed a transmitter of eight such vibrators corresponding to the eight notes of a diatonic scale. By July he had an instrument that could produce two such octaves of alternating current. At the same time that Gray was working on his transmitters, he was also trying various kinds of receivers. He devised two main types. One was based upon the fact that if electricity flows between two solids in rubbing contact, the friction between the two bodies will change with the voltage applied across them. The other type of receiver was based upon the phenomenon already used by Helmholtz and Laborde: the mechanical vibrations produced in the armature of an electromagnet carrying an alter- nating current correspond to the frequency of the current. Gray found the latter method to be more useful, although the former was not too impractical, for Edison’s chalk telephone was subsequently to be based upon it. Gray decided in the spring of 1874 that the receiver should be a circular metal dia- phragm—either partially clamped along its edge or entirely clamped around its circumference—driven by an electromagnet. One of his experimental dia- phragms finally was a metal washbasin (USNM 214296) and the other a metal cover of a shoe-polish can (visible in fig. 57). If one struck out a tune on the keyboard of Gray’s transmitter, then the receiver at the end of the tele- graph line would play the tune. Gray demonstrated his device to officials of the Western Electric Com- pany in New York City in May 1874 and to Joseph Henry at the Smithsonian Institution in the following month. He demonstrated it in London in December of the same year. By January 1875 he had worked out a patentable system for his electric organ* (fists Si) Gray found he could also apply his experimentation to multiple telegraphy. If there were several stations connected to the same telegraph line, each station with its own transmitting frequency, then signals from the different stations could be detected only if a given receiver was tuned to the appropriate fre- quency. He applied for a patent on a harmonic multiple telegraph system (fig. 56) on June 28, 1875, and he received the patent on July 20, 1875.** He also applied his method of transmitting tones of different frequency to the invention of a printing telegraph.” In 1875, while working on the transmitter for his multiple telegraph system, Gray realized that if a number of tones could be sent at the same time over a 45 U.S. patents 165728 (July 20, 1875), transmitter; 166094 (July 27, 1875), receiver; 166095 (July 27, 1875), diaphragm receiver; 166096 (July 27, 1875), transmitter. 46 U.S. patent 173460. 47 U.S. patent 179549. 316 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Ficure 56.—Gray’s harmonic multiple telegraph of 1875. Above, transmitter; below, receiver. By tuning each pair to the same frequency and different pairs to different fre- quencies, as many telegraph messages as there were pairs could be sent over the same line. From U.S. patents 165728 (July 20, 1875) and 166094 (July 27, 1875). Figure 57.—Gray’s telegraph for transmitting musical tones, 1875. A single receiver could respond to any frequency over a broad range. From U.S. patent 166095 (July 27, 1875). telegraph wire, then so could the human voice. At first he tried to devise an instrument capable of separately reproducing each of the most common tones of the human voice. This was necessarily a difficult task because a different unit was contem- plated for each of the main parts of human speech. Late in 1875, however, Gray came upon the so-called “Jover’s telegraph,” which consisted of a_ short cylinder of metal or wood that was open at one end and had a membrane across the other end. The centers of the membranes of two such instruments were connected by a taut wire. When a person spoke into one cylinder, the speech could be heard in the other. This device showed Gray that the vibrating diaphragm receiver he had already invented (fig. 57) should be capable of repeating speech transmitted to it, and that consequently part of his task had already been accomplished. He had only to devise a trans- mitter, which he did a short time later. The transmitter that Gray designed was a cylinder, at one end of which was a diaphragm with a light metal wire fastened to the side facing away from the cylinder. The cylinder was placed over a container PAPER 29: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: I Bld Ficure 58.—Reproductions of Gray’s telephone transmitter (USNM 308211, 308212; Smithsonian photo and receiver of 1876. 17204.) of acidulated water so that when sound entered the cylinder, its diaphragm vibrated and moved the wire attached to it up and down in the liquid. If the liquid and the wire were made part of an electrical circuit with a battery and a Gray receiver, the varying liquid- wire contact would modulate the current produced by the battery, and the receiver would reproduce this modulation in the form of sound. In January 1876 Gray went to Washington to patent some further improvements on his harmonic telegraph and while there drew up a caveat for his method of transmitting and reproducing speech (fig. 58). This caveat was filed on February 14, 1876.48 Gray did not test one of his liquid transmitters until he attended the Philadelphia Centennial Ex- position in July 1876 as one of the judges of the electrical exhibits. He had a transmitter made and 48 George B. Prescott, The Speaking Telephone, Talking Phono- graph and Other Novelties, New York, 1878, pp. 202-205. demonstrated it to some of his friends who were in attendance at the exposition. On the same day that Gray applied for a caveat on the transmission of speech, another inventor applied for a patent on an invention having the same purpose. This other invention received U.S. patent 174465, a number which came to represent one of the most valuable patents ever issued. The man who applied for and received this patent was Alexander Graham Bell. Bell, born in Scotland in 1847, had emigrated to Canada with his parents. He had followed in his family’s tradition of studying human speech and acoustics, and before he left Edinburgh in 1870 he had begun the study of Helmholtz’s Die Lehre der Tonempfindungen. Sometime between 1867 and 1870 further study of the apparatus described in this work—in particular of the tuning forks that were driven by an electromagnet—suggested to him the possibility of a harmonic multiple telegraph. In the fall of 1872, after he had moved from Brantford, 318 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY FIGURE 59.—Reproductions telegraph transmitter and receiver. Smithsonian photo 17204.) Ontario, to Boston, Massachusetts, Bell started experi- menting with such a telegraph. He first considered using tuning forks to interrupt the circuit at the transmitting end, for a tuning fork could produce a response only in another electrically driven tuning fork of the same frequency. A number of forks of different frequencies could thus be used for multiple telegraphy on a single telegraph line. In November 1873 Bell replaced the tuning forks with steel reeds. How- ever, difficulties in putting his concepts into practice caused Bell to drop his experimentation for a while. In the meantime, however, Bell did not cease developing his ideas. During the summer of 1874 it occurred to him that if a magnetized reed were vibrated before a coil of wire it would induce a fluctu- ating current in which the vibrations would corre- spond exactly to the sound waves causing the current. If this undulatory current could actuate at the end of the line an instrument similar to the one producing the current, such a receiver would produce a re- sponse—but only in a receiver tuned to the same fre- quency as that of the transmitter. If those conditions were met, much of the auxiliary apparatus used in most electromagnetic communication devices to interrupt and power the circuit could be eliminated. Moreover, with such a device there would be an exact reproduction of the sound waves transmitted in the form of an undulatory current rather than by the set of pulses produced by a vibrating reed. Bell also speculated that if at one end of a line there were a set of magnetized reeds of varying lengths (like the reeds in a harmonica or Aeolian harp) acting as armatures for an electromagnet and a similar instrument at the other end of the line, such a “tharp” apparatus (fig. 60) would be capable of Bell’s harmonic multiple (USNM 308211, 308212; of transmitting and reproducing complex tones in the same manner that Helmholtz compounded complex sounds with his tuning forks. Indeed, a pair of such instruments might even be capable of transmitting human speech over a telegraph wire. Further speculation suggested to Bell that his complex ‘‘harp’” apparatus might be reduced to a single vibrator. Among the acoustical instruments that Professor Charles Cross of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology showed Bell during the winter of 1873-1874 were Koenig’s manemetric capsule, Scott’s phonautograph, and possibly Reis’ telephone. Bell’s consideration of these instruments brought to his attention the similarity between the mechanical motions of the diaphragms used in them and the motion of his vibrating reeds. He thought that perhaps, if he attached a magnetized armature to the center of a membrane that vibrated under the influence of a human voice, currents could be in- duced that might reproduce the human voice in a similar instrument installed at a distance. ‘This first form of Bell’s magneto telephone is described in his patent of 1876. However, when Bell first made these speculations, he rejected them as impractical, for he held that not enough current could be induced either in the “‘harp’’ instrument or in the membrane instrument to actuate a receiver. Instead of completing work on his telephone, Bell continued to experiment with his harmonic multiple telegraph, for which he obtained a U.S. patent (161739) on April 6, 1875 (fig. 59). Bell successfully demonstrated his telegraph to Western Union officials in March 1875, showing how two messages could be sent simultaneously over 200 miles of telegraph line. Work on the telephone was still in progress, however. PAPER 29: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: IL 319 From G. Prescott, The Speaking Telephone, New York, 1878, p. 67. Ficure 60.—Bell’s “harp” apparatus. Bell had visited Joseph Henry at the Smithsonian Institution and discussed with him some of the prob- lems involved in the reproduction of sound. Bell showed Henry how an empty coil might produce audible sound, and Henry demonstrated a Reis telephone to Bell.*° Some experiments that Bell performed in June 1875 indicated that his speculations of the previous summer concerning a magneto telephone might be feasible after all. During an attempt to send three messages over his multiple telegraph, Bell found that one magnetized reed could actuate another one without a battery in the circuit. Thereupon Bell instructed his associate, Thomas A. Watson,°° to make two instruments, and to use in each instrument a magne- tized reed attached to a membrane diaphragm. ‘The reed acted as an armature to an electromagnet, and the electromagnet was in turn connected to another similar instrument. But while sounds and changes of pitch were audible in its receiver, this membrane telephone (fig. 61) could not reproduce speech. In spite of its failure to transmit articulate speech, Bell drew up patent specifications (fig. 62) for his 49 United States Reports, 1887, vol. 126, pp. 1-584; Alexander G. Bell, The Bell Telephone: The Deposition of Alexander Graham Bell in the Suit Brought by the United States to Annul the Bell Patents, Boston, 1908; Catherine Mackenzie, Alexander Graham Bell: The Man Who Contracted Space, Boston and New York, 1928; F. L. Rhodes, Beginnings of Telephony, New York, 1929; A. G. Bell, U.S. patent 161739 (April 6, 1875). Many of Bell’s instruments for harmonic telegraphy and for telephony are preserved in the Museum of History and Technology of the Smithsonian Institution. The Reis instrument that Henry showed Bell may be seen in the Museum (USNM 780977). 50 Thomas A. Watson, Exploring Life: The Autobiography of Thomas A. Watson, New York and London, 1926. 320 Figure 61.—Reproduction of Bell’s diaphragm magneto telephone of 1875. This model was made under Bell’s direction to serve as an exhibit in one of the many patent trials in which he was involved. (USNM 251533; Smithsonian photo 29310.) membrane telephone, and his patent was granted on March 7, 1876. Among his claims, Bell included the basic method of electrical telephony—electrical currents repeating the wave forms of sounds—as well as all instruments for producing these currents and all instruments for reproducing sound from these cur- rents. Bell’s claims to the basic method of telephony were so broad that they were attacked by some 606 patent suits, all of which were withstood. Bell and Watson were unable to reduce their method to practice until a month after Bell had applied for a patent on it, when Bell tried another kind of transmitter. This transmitter was of a type that modulated the current from a battery and was similar to the one described above in the discussion of Gray’s caveat. On March 9, 1876, Bell’s first model of this instrument transmitted a few sounds that were audible in a membrane receiver, and the next day a better model (fig. 63) transmitted the following famous words well enough to be understood: “Mr. Watson, come here; I want you.” This one instrument that worked enabled Bell to modify his others so they were all brought into operation. BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Fig. 5. FicurE 62.—Drawings from Bell’s famous patent of 1876, showing how his invention could be used to transmit and receive both continuous and dis- continuous sound waves. From U.S. patent 174465 (March 7, 1876). Bell’s backers deemed his progress sufficient for a demonstration in June 1876 of several forms of his membrane telephone (fig. 64) together with his multiple telegraph at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition. It was at this exposition that the famous Dom Pedro incident occurred, which is now so familiar that it need not be repeated again. Bell was so discouraged, however, by the poor efficiency of his membrane telephones that he felt it necessary to drop work on his multiple telegraph in order to devote all his time to the telephones. They would work moderately well over a short line, but the apparatus was delicate and did not articulate sounds distinctly enough for practical use. Bell never eliminated the necessity of shouting into his magneto telephone, but he did succeed in improving it somewhat. Early in October of 1876 Bell replaced the steel reed that he had been using on the membrane by a steel plate almost as large as the membrane and glued to it. About the same time Watson re- placed the soft iron core of the electromagnet with a compound permanent magnet. After these changes were made, Bell and Watson tested the new apparatus between two rooms in the building where their laboratory was located and found they had no dif- ficulty in carrying on a ‘‘sustained conversation.” On October 9, 1876, ‘‘sustained conversation was successfully carried on for the first time upon a real line several miles in length.” These improvements inspired Bell a week later to replace the membrane by an all-metal diaphragm clamped around the edge. After placing the resulting structure in a box as large as a professional photog- rapher’s camera of the time, Bell and Watson tested this “box” telephone (fig. 65) over a line 4 or 5 miles long and found they could maintain a conversation. PAPER 29: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: II 321 576628—62 4 Ficure 63.—Reproduction of Bell’s liquid transmitter, his first successful instrument to transmit articulate speech (March 10, 1876). (USNM 252600; Smithsonian photo 47876.) At the end of November they conducted tests on the new device over a 200-mile line running from Boston through Portland, Maine, and back to Salem. They found that some of their sentences could be understood if they shouted although no conversation could be carried on. Bell’s box telephone proved to be a better instrument than the one he had demonstrated at the Philadelphia Centennial, but further work was necessary on it, for it still was not ready for commercial use. Its output was weak even when speech was shouted into it. Moreover, the shouting had to be performed in a cer- tain manner—the mouth had to be placed right against the steel diaphragm, and the words properly intoned. Unless these precautions were taken, the sounds emitted from the receiver had to be trans- lated, which Watson did on several occasions. The box telephone reproduced music more successfully than speech. On January 13, 1877, Bell applied for a patent on his box telephone, which was granted on January 30 as U.S. patent 186787 (fig. 66). Bell’s second patent on the telephone became the fundamental one for the construction of receivers, just as the first one became the fundamental patent on the process of transmitting sound by electricity. About the time Bell was working on his box telephone, a group of scientists at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, began work on this new instrument for communication by electricity.*! During the winter of 1876-1877 and the spring of 1877, Prof. John Pierce, Prof. Eli Blake, Dr. William Chan- ning, and several others at the university sought to reduce the dimensions of the telephone and to in- crease its efficiency. By April they had made their receiver portable, and by the following month they had evolved the hand receiver with its typical conical mouthpiece having a very shallow cavity between it and the thin iron diaphragm (fig. 67). In back of the diaphragm was a permanent bar magnet on which was placed the inducing coil. The intelligibility of speech as reproduced by the telephone was greatly increased by these changes, and the instrument was no longer so awkward to use. The group of sci- entists at Brown freely donated their modifications of the telephone to Bell without any restrictions or Their modifications assisted Bell in producing the first commercial receiver. After the carbon transmitter had been introduced, the size and structure of this early receiving device remained typical of hand receivers for the next half-century. Bell had also been seeking to reduce the size of his legal claims. box telephone, and about this time he similarly pro- duced a hand telephone. By combining it with the modifications produced by the group at Brown, he was able to place a hand telephone in commercial use in June 1877. Once an adequate instrument had been designed, the substitution of the telephone for the telegraph in local circuits spread rapidly. The first commercial telephone line was set up in April 1877 in Somerville, 51 Walter L. Munroe, ‘The Brown University ‘Experi- menters’ and Their Receivers,” Brown Alumni Monthly, 1939, vol. 39, pp. 279-282. Two of these instruments were recently donated to the Museum of History and Technology of the Smithsonian Institution (USNM 316018, 316079). 582 Several of Bell’s hand telephones are preserved in the Museum of History and Technology of the Smithsonian Institution (for example, USNM 251554). 322 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Tron-box receiver Ficure 64.—Telephones exhibited by Alexander Graham Bell at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition of 1876. From The Bell Telephone: The Deposition of Alexander Graham Bell in the Suit Brought by the United States to Annul the Bell Patents, Boston, 1908, pp. 97-100. PAPER 29: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: II 323 324 Ficure 65.—Interior of the box telephone used by Bell and Watson in their experiments in the fall of 1876. sonian photo 17204-D.) (USNM 308214; Smith- Massachusetts; it ran between the shop and the home of Charles Williams. A box telephone was used at each end of this 3-mile line. Requests for other telephones were rather slow in coming, but by June 1877 Bell was able to place his first order with Williams for 25 box telephones and 50 hand telephones. By the end of June there were 230 telephones in use; by the end of July, 750; and by the end of August, 1,300. In July 1877 Bell and his associates formed the Bell Telephone Company in order to exploit this new invention. However, as yet, they did not have an efficient transmitter. The magneto telephone receiver had been capable of improvement and of becoming commercially practical. ‘This was not, however, true of the magneto transmitter. Even if the person using the telephone Ficure 66.—Patent drawings of Bell’s box telephone. From U.S. patent 186787 (Jan- uary 30, 1877). BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 67.—Unassembled parts of the hand telephones worked out at Brown University. At the top is the first form; at the bottom, the second. (USNM 306018, 306019; Smithsonian bhotos 45309, 45309-B.) shouted, the signals transmitted were too weak to travel any great distance. Also, if the telephone line picked up a certain amount of extraneous noise— which it usually did, especially after the introduction of electrical power lines—the weak signals produced by the magneto transmitter were drowned out. Bell’s transmitter was for these reasons too inefficient Ficure 68.—Dolbear’s first magneto telephone. From A. E. Dolbear, The Telephone, Boston, 1877. A q i 8 q I L SRN =; SNS = FicureE 69.—Patent drawing of Berliner’s telephone transmitter and receiver based upon a metal-to-metal contact. From U.S. patent 463569 (November 17, 1891). for commercial use. If the Bell Company was to survive economically, another transmitter had to be found. At the end of 1877 the Western Union Telegraph Company formed, in competition with Bell and his associates, the American Speaking Telephone Com- pany. Western Union had not only bought up the PAPER 29: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: II 325 326 Figure 70.—Reproduction of Berliner’s toy drum microphone. The contact was a needle that pierced a drum membrane against which a metal ball rested. (USNM 309377; Smith- sonian photo 42367.) Ficure 71.—Drawing from one of Edison’s basic microphone patents, showing the use of a semiconductor as one of the microphone contacts. From U.S. patent 474230 (May 3, 1892). Ficure 72.—Patent Office model of one of Edison’s basic microphone patents, showing the use of multiple contacts. (USNM 25 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 622; Smithsonian photo 46777-A.) Ficure 73.—Reproduction of Hughes micro- phone. (USNM 315083-4.) telephone patents of inventors like Elisha Gray and Amos Dolbear * (see fig. 68), but had hired Thomas A. Edison to invent a new transmitter. As will be seen below, the new American Speaking Telephone Company ceased giving competition to the Bell Company in 1880. Both the Bell Telephone Company and the West- ern Union Telegraph Company found a commer- cially practical transmitter in a device that modulated the current from a battery by varying the resistance of the circuit. The Bell Company obtained patent rights on such a transmitter from Emile Berliner and the Western Union Company from Edison. In the meantime other companies had also been formed to enter the telephone business and had applied for 583 Amos Dolbear, The Telephone, Boston and New York, 1877; ‘“‘Researches in Telephony,” Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts-and Sciences, 1878-1879, vol. 14, pp. 77-91. FicurE 74.—Diagram of Blake telephone transmitter. The platinum bead is at H and the carbon block at J. Reprinted (with per- mission) from F. Rhodes, Beginnings of Teleph- ony, Harper and Brothers, New York, 1929, p- 80. PAPER 29: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: II Hi sl i il . iN it aif A c FicureE 75.—Commercial type of Blake Telephone transmitter. From Scientific American, 1879, vol. 41, p. 274. patents on their own transmitters. A long period of litigation ensued, which lasted until 1903. Emile Berliner,** a German immigrant who had come to the United States in 1870, spent his spare time experimenting with electricity. On April 14, 1877, Berliner filed a caveat on a metal-to-metal imperfect contact transmitter (fig. 69) that was similar to that of the Reis telephone but of a more sturdy construc- tion. In this transmitter, modulation was achieved by the variable resistance of the imperfect contact. After applying for a patent on this device on June 4, 1877 (U.S. patent 463569, November 17, 1891), Berliner sold his patent rights to the Bell Company. While few commercial instruments were manufac- tured on the basis of the Berliner patent, it was useful 54 Frederic W. Wile, Emile Berliner; Maker of the Microphone, Indianapolis, 1926. Many of Berliner’s instruments are pre- served in the Museum of History and Technology of the Smithsonian Institution. to the Bell Telephone Company in establishing claims to patent priority. Thomas A. Edison was a well-known telegraph inventor whose ability to invent “to order” was exploited on several occasions during the struggle for control of the remunerative telephone patents. Edison had worked on the harmonic multiple tele- graph, and much of his work ran parallel with that of Bell and Gray. In 1875 he devised an electro- magnetic receiver similar to the receivers of Bell and Gray, and he subsequently found that this receiver could be used as part of a magneto telephone. Edi- son started his work in telephony in 1876, trying to change Reis’ telephone into a commercial device by modifying the contacts. Edison obtained some suc- cess in this experimentation by placing a drop of water between the contacts; however, it was not until the spring of 1876, after replacing Reis’ metallic contacts by semiconducting ones, that he was: able In January 1877 Edison fur- to transmit sentences. 328 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY BLS FicurE 76.—Patent drawing of Hunnings’ carbon granule telephone transmitter. From U.S. patent 246512 (August 30, 1881). ther refined his approach by basing his experimenta- tion upon the fact that the apparent resistance of semi- conductors varied considerably with the pressure, and a few months later he created a successful transmitter. (See figs. 71, 72.) Edison filed the applications for the patents on the first of his many forms of the carbon transmitter on April 1 and 27 and July 20, 1877. Basically Edison’s transmitter consisted of a mass of carbon in various shapes and textures, against which a vibrat- ing diaphram pressed. Change of pressure on the diaphram brought a change of resistance of the car- bon and so modulated the current. Edison’s device soon proved to be better than Bell’s magneto trans- mitter; and although it was insensitive by modern standards, shouting was no longer mandatory in order to carry on a telephone conversation. ‘The Edison transmitter was rugged, and it gave a better quality of reproduction than Bell’s instrument. 55 Thomas Edison, U.S. patents 474230 and 474231 (May 3, 1892) and 203016 (April 30, 1878); Prescott, op. cit. (footnote 48), pp. 218-234; Bell’s Electric Speaking Telephone, New York, FicuRE 77.—Diagram of White’s “‘solid-back” telephone transmitter. Reprinted (with per- mission) from F. Rhodes, Beginnings of Telephony, Harper and Brothers, New York, 1929, p. 81. In Eneland the carbon transmitter was suggested independently by David Hughes in 1878.°° Hughes revived the term ‘‘microphone”’ to describe his var- iable contact transmitter with its remarkable sensi- tivity. Hughes’ microphone (fig. 73) was constructed of several pieces of carbon that rested loosely on or against one another. This whole mass of carbon was mounted on a sounding box. When Hughes announced his discovery, he disclaimed any inten- tion of taking out a patent because his laboratory model, although as sensitive as it was simple, was too erratic in performance to be practical. In America applications for patents on other mod- ulating transmitters were submitted, and it was soon found that there was duplication in their principles of operation and design. Because of various delays, Berliner’s patent was not issued until 1891, and Edi- son did not receive his until 1892. Although the Patent Office originally ruled in Berliner’s favor, in 1894, 1895, and 1901 successive courts declared his patent void because of the delays and because of 1884, pp. 126-174. Patent Office models of some of Edison’s microphones are preserved in the Museum of History and Technology of the Smithsonian Institution. 55 David Hughes, “On the Physical Action of the Micro- phone,” Philosophical Magazine, 1878, vol. 6, pp. 44-50. PAPER 29: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: II 329 Ficure 78.—Patent drawings of Watson’s polarized ringer. From U.S. patent 210886 (December 17, 1878). earlier claims to priority made by Bell and by Edi- son.’ In 1903 the United States Supreme Court finally declared the Berliner patent valid but restrict- ed the claims of this patent to metal electrodes.** In its 1903 ruling the Supreme Court decreed that Berliner’s patent application disclosed invention but added nothing of practical value to the telephone. Because Berliner’s patent was limited to the use of metal electrodes, it did not infringe on the use of carbon transmitters in telephones. Edison’s claims to priority in the invention of the carbon trans- mitter were maintained throughout the lengthly litigation concerning telephone transmitter patents. However, by the end of the legal battle, the American patent rights on his transmitter were lost because his European patents had expired. When a European patent had expired, its American counterpart was also invalid. But long before the courts had reached these deci- sions, commercially successful carbon transmitters had been invented and placed in operation. The first of 57 Federal Reporter, 1895, vol. 65, pp. 86-91; 1895, vol. 68, pp- 542-570; 1901, vol. 109, pp. 976-1056. 58 Federal Reporter, 1903, vol. 119, pp. 893-917. these (figs. 74, 75) was designed by Francis Blake early in 1878. In Blake’s transmitter a platinum bead was fastened to the back of the diaphragm, and the diaphragm pushed the bead against a carbon block. Blake offered his transmitter to the Bell Com- pany, and it was promptly purchased. At first this transmitter gave quite a bit of trouble until Berliner showed how a harder carbon block would improve it. This modification made it a more sensitive instrument than Edison’s transmitter and capable of providing a more powerful signal than either the Bell or Edison device. After Blake’s instrument was patented in England on January 20, 1879, and in the United States on November 29, 1881, it was used extensively for some years by the Bell Company as standard equipment. The next steps in the development of the modulat- ing transmitter were brought about by two inventors who made some changes in the shape and size of the carbon electrodes. An English clergyman named Henry Hunnings " replaced the single piece of carbon used in the Blake instrument by granules of coke. These granules were placed between the diaphragm and a metal back. Hunnings’ English patent was issued September 16, 1878, and the American patent (fig. 76) was issued in 1881 to the American Bell Telephone Company. The Hunnings transmitter was quite efficient. It had the quality of Blake’s trans- mitter but could carry more current than the Blake instrument. In 1886 Edison improved the Hunnings device by substituting granules of anthracite coal for the coke. This improvement fell within the claims of one of Edison’s early patents on the carbon trans- former, and he modified this patent accordingly. The weakness of the granular carbon transmitter was that, with use, a packing of the granules occurred resulting in a loss of sensitivity. This problem was solved by replacing the metal back by a solid block of carbon. ‘This improved device (fig. 77), patented by A. G. White on November 1, 1892 (U.S. patent 485311), is essentially the same as our present carbon transmitter. In the meantime the Bell Company had consoli- dated its rights to the monopoly of the telephone business. In 1878 the American Bell Telephone Com- 59 Francis Blake, U.S. patents 250126-—250129 (November 29, 1881); British patent 229 (January 20, 1879). 60 Henry Hunnings, British patent 3647 (September 16, 1878); U.S. patents 246512 (August 30, 1881) and 250250 (November 29, 1881). 330 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY pany felt that it was in a sufficiently strong position to take action against Western Union’s entry into the field of telephony and accordingly brought suit against an agent of one of Western Union’s subsidiary com- panies. After two years spent collecting testimony and preparing to defend this case, the Western Union lawyer recommended that it be settled out of court. In exchange for agreeing not to enter the telegraph business and for giving 20 percent royalties to West- ern Union for 17 years, the Bell people obtained full rights to all telephone patents held by Western Union (including those of Gray, Dolbear, and Edison), as well as the right to purchase Western Union’s 56,000 telephones and its associated telephone exchanges. This settlement and the Supreme Court decision of 1887 gave the Bell company control of the telephone business for the remainder of the duration of the Bell patents. At first the telephone simply replaced the telegraph in private-line telegraph circuits that already existed." For instance, in May 1877 E. T. Holmes of Boston showed how the new instrument might be connected to a telegraph burglar alarm system. Telephones were connected to the central station of the system during the day, and telegraphs were connected at night. However, Holmes’ demonstration lasted only a few weeks, for problems were involved in connect- ing many telephones with one another that could not be handled in a telegraph central station. The first telephone switchboard that was used for regular commercial service was installed in New Haven in January 1878. In the same year Thomas A. Watson added to the telephone system the polarized ringer (fig. 78), a device for signaling between stations and In 1879 H. L. Roosevelt patented the automatic switch (fig. 79) that notifies calling the operator. the operator when a telephone is in use. The re- mainder of the century brought many changes in the telephone system, including the multiple and the common battery switchboard, as well as some experimental beginnings of automatic switching. In the 1880’s there was a great increase in the number of telephones. The area interconnected by telephone also increased. This increase in the area covered by telephones was made possible by the metallic circuit and by the introduction of hard copper 681 Frederic L. Rhodes, Beginnings of Telephony, New York, 1929, pp. 147-188. Ficure 79.—Patent drawing of Roosevelt’s telephone switch. From U.S. patent 215837 (May 27, 1879). In 1880 and 1881 the telephone company started replacing the single wire for use in telephone lines.” wire and ground circuit inherited from telegraphy with a twisted pair of metal conductors. About the same time a hard copper wire began to be used. This copper material was a more efficient conductor of electricity than the iron and steel wires that had been used in long spans up to this time. These new improvements made it possible to join New 82 [bid., pp. 66-136. PAPER 29: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: II 331 i Fig. 4. LB Fig. 5, Ficure 80.—Patent drawing of Carty’s use of the “phantom” circuit for a combination telegraph and telephone line (*“fig. 4”°) and for a system of telephones (‘‘fig. 5”’). 348512 (August 31, 1886). York with Boston and Philadelphia by the middle of the 1880’s and New York with Chicago by 1892. Some attempts were made to treat telephone lines as telegraph circuits and to duplex them. In 1883 F. Jacob made an unsuccessful attempt to set up a bridge circuit for telephone lines, using resistances only.“ One of the first steps toward the development of a practical bridge circuit was J. J. Carty’s invention of the ‘“‘phantom”’ circuit (fig. 80) in 1886. Carty’s circuit used induction coils instead of resistances, and it enabled three telephone conversations to be carried on over two pairs of wires. However, this system was difficult 83 [bid., pp. 189-195. 64 F. Jacob, U.S. patent 287288 (October 23, 1883). From U.S. patent to apply and so did not come into even limited commercial use until the winter of 1902-1903. During the 1890’s there were many steps—some of which were taken without any understanding of electricity, and some on a sound basis—toward a wireless telegraphy and wireless telephony, but, practically speaking, there were no commercial wireless systems in operation before 1900. Those electrical communications systems that began as unwanted ‘‘philosophical toys’? eventually became essential ingredients of 19th-century society in war and peace, in urban growth and _ national expansion, in stimulating the economic ties between nations, and in the corporate growth within nations. But these important developments are beyond the scope of this article, in which we have sought only to trace the invention and application of the new instruments in terms of the technology of the period. U.S, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1962 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D.C. - Price 70 cents My #, S a tare Sed ; HE DEVELOPMENT OF CIRICAL TECHNOLOGY = “ceee= THE 19th CENTURY: APR 16 1963 HARVARD UNIVERSITY 3. The Early Are Light and Generator by We James King r 30, pages 333-407, from TRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY ITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 228 HSONIAN INSTITUTION ° WASHINGTON, D.C., 1962 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM Tue Muszeum oF History AND [TECHNOLOGY Paper 30 THe DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY Ill Tue Earty Arc Light AND GENERATOR W. James King THE DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY MUS. C LIBRARY APR 16 1963 HARVARD UNIVERSITY: oe vooe VN THE [9th CENTURY: 5. The Early Are Light and Generator by W. James King In 1843 Louts Deleutl showed that he could light the Place de la Concorde in Paris with electricity by using Bunsen cells and charcoal electrodes. Only a few years later the first commercial successes of the electric light occurred when Staite, of England, and Duboscg, of France, used their arc lights in theatrical productions. After Faraday discovered the induction of electric current he devised a magnetoelectric generator, in 1831. However, the practical development of the generator was slow. It was only after the dynamo pronciple of self-excztation had been applied to generators, in the 1860's, and after Jablochkoff showed that many arc lights could be connected to a single generator, in the 1870's, that the electrac light became economically feasible. American developments will be discussed in a subsequent article. Tue Autuor: W. James King—formerly curator of electricity, United States National Museum, Smithsonian Institution—is associated with the American Institute of Physics. HE first commercially successful application of electricity in the 19th century—to electroplat- ing—created a demand for electrical power that could be only partially satisfied by the expensive The second ap- communications, found method of dissolving metals in acids. plication of electricity, to 334 adequate sources of power in such chemical cells, but not the next phase in the development of electrical technclogy. Even more so than in electroplating, the attempts to produce light by electricity required much sturdier and more potent sources of electrical current than chemical cells. BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 1.—Deleuil demonstrates his electric light on the Place de la Concorde in Paris, October 20, 1843. From L’Jllustration, 1843, vol. 2, p- 132. Although electric illumination could become com- mercially practical only after mechanical energy had been substituted for chemical energy in the trans- formation that produced electrical energy, still, the initial advances in the field of electrical light were made with power from chemical cells. By mid- century there were indications that such an application of electricity might be commercially profitable but it was Clear that other sources of power had to be found. Shortly after the voltaic cell was devised, it was found that the current from the cell could produce a number of strange new physical and chemical effects. Attempts to determine the different effects of voltaic electricity included studying the sparks obtained between various materials, which, Humphrey Davy found, became much brighter with charcoal than with metals. Using a battery of 500 double plates at the Royal Society, Davy announced in December 1808 that a glowing arc almost an inch long could be obtained in this manner. By using a 2,000-plate battery at the Royal Institution the following year, he obtained an arc three inches long.! In spite of 1 Humphrey Davy, “An Account of Some Experiments on Galvanic Electricity, Made in the Theater of the Royal Institution,’ Journal of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, 1802, vol. 1, pp. 165-167; ‘“‘An Account of Some New Analytical Researches on the Nature of Certain Bodies, Particularly the its brilliance, no efforts were made to use the newly found “electric light’ because of its impermanence. At the same time, another source of electric light had been suggested in the incandescent glow of fine metallic wires when heavy currents go through them. But the same problems were found to occur with incandescent filaments as with arcs from char- Up to the 1840’s, any attempt to use the gal- vanic current as a practical source of light was futile coal. because of the too-rapid consumption of the charcoal or of the incandescent wire and because the current from the chemical battery lasted for cnly a short time. An additional difficulty in using charcoal in an arc was that of maintaining the correct separation of the electrodes in the face of rapid and irregular burning. The 19th century saw much experimentation and progress in public illumination, and after the invention of the Bunsen and the Grove cells experimenters began to examine seriously the possibility of using the Some of the first successful attempts were made by the Parisian instru- new agency for this purpose. Alkalies, Phosphorus, Sulphur, Carbonaceous Matter, and the Acids Hitherto Undecompounded; with Some General Observations on Chemical Theory,” Philosophical Transactions, 1809, vol. 99, pp. 39-104. Philosophical Magazine, 1810, vol. 35, p. 463. PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: HI 335 Figure 2.—Foucault’s arc-light regulator of 1847. From E. Alglave and J. Boulard, The Electric Light, New York, 1884, p. 62. ment-makers Deleuil, Archereau, and Duboscq during the 1840's.” After a few private demonstrations in 1841, Louis J. Deleuil showed, in 1843, that he could light the Place de la Concorde by electricity (fig. 1).° The 200 Bunsen cells he placed below the statue of Lille produced a discharge between charcoal electrodes in an evacuated glass cylinder that was situated on the knees of the statue. The soft glow penetrated the slight fog on the evening of the demonstration, and Deleuil had been assisted in the trial by Henri A. Archereau the experiment was pronounced a success. who had used a similar method to light his dining 2 “Felairage,”’ La Grande Encyclopédie, Paris, n.d., vol. 15, pp. 341-346; Eugéne Defrance, Histoire de Véclairage des rues de Paris, Paris, 1904; Louis Figuier, Les Applications de la science @ Vindustrie et aux arts en 1855, Paris, 1856, pp. 326-336. 3 Les Mondes, 1863, vol. 2, p. 452; L’Illustration, 1843, vol. 2, p. 132. 336 BULLETIN 228: WILE 4 A i ‘s {I ik H iS GSSSSSSSSY ASSO nT qm ANH TTTS Figure 3.—Staite’s 1847 regulator for changing the position of the lower carbon (placed in d) in his arc light. The upper carbon was fixed in position; the lower carbon’s position was determined by a clockwork whose speed was controlled by a solenoid. From J. Dredge, Electric Illumination, London, n.d. (about 1882), vol. 1, p. 381. room in 1843.4 Archereau followed with other public demonstrations a short time later but without the feature of the evacuated globe. Nevertheless, such pioneer efforts were handicapped by the uneven burning of the carbons that made constant manual operation necessary for continuous performance. 4 J. Balteau, M. Barroux, and Michel Prévost, Dictionnaire de biographie francaise, Paris, 1939, vol. 3, p. 381. CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Léon Foucault initiated progress toward a solution in 1844 with his photometric studies on the radiation from a carbon arc. He discovered that an electrode that was consumed more uniformly and more slowly than charcoal could be made from the hard carbo- naceous deposit formed in coke retorts. He then set to work to devise an automatic regulator for the arc, but, in 1848, he was surprised to read that W. Edward Staite of London had applied for a patent on a regu- lator that appeared to be based on the same principle as his.» Upon invitation by Foucault, a committee from the Académie des Sciences examined his laboratory and verified that his work was independent of Staite’s. However, Foucault’s automatic regulator (fig. 2) for the arc was too delicate and too complicated for use even in the laboratory, and it found little application until it was modified by Duboscq. Staite had begun his work by demonstrating an automatic arc light in a hotel at Sunderland, Durham, in 1847. This light (figs. 3, 4) had finally worked so well that it is said to have remained in use for several years. Public exhibitions in 1848 and 1849 led to what one might consider the first commercial success of the electric light. In May 1849 a ballet called ‘Electra,”’ especially composed for the purpose, intro- duced the arc light to the public at Her Mayjesty’s Theater in London (fig. 5). The ballet was an instant hit, and a command performance was given for Queen Victoria a few weeks later. A_ similar application appeared about the same time across the Channel, where Foucault’s arc lamp was used to simulate the rising sun in Meyerbeer’s latest opera, “Le Prophéte.”’ ° Staite constantly improved his apparatus. In 1849 the average time for continuous operation was 45 minutes; two years later his are light could run with- out interruption for 5 hours. He even demonstrated it to the Queen and to her court at the palace. Then he obtained a request in 1852 that seemed to promise The port of Liver- pool asked him to set up a permanent installation a profitable commercial venture. of his lamps on a high tower so as to permit work to 5 [? Illustration, 1849, vol. 13, p. 6; Léon Foucault, ‘‘Appareil destiné 4 rendre constante la lumiére émanant d’un charbon placé entre les deux pdles d’une pile,’’ Comptes rendus, 1849, vol. 28, pp. 68-69; Théodose du Moncel, Exposé des applications de Pélectricité, Paris, 1856-1862, ed. 2 (5 vols.), vol. 3, pp. 217-219. 5 Emile Alglave and J. Boulard, La Lumiere électrique, son histoire, production et son emploi dans Véclairage public ou privé, Paris, 1882, translated by T. O’Connor Sloane as The Electric Light, New York, 1884, pp. 22-23; Mechanics Magazine, 1847, Figure 4.—Staite’s arc light of 1848. From Illustrated London News, November 18, 1848, vol. 13, p. 317- vol. 46, pp. 621-622; 1848, vol. 48, p. 453; vol. 49, p. 382; Illustrated London News, 1848, vol. 13, pp. 317, 343, 368, 378; 1849, vol. 14, p. 58; London Times, November 2, 1848; Jllus- trated London News, 1849, vol. 14, p. 293; Jules A. Lissajou, in Bulletin de la Société d’ Encouragement pour U Industrie Nationale, 1868, ser. 2, vol. 15, p. 59. Although the Illustrated London News asserts the device was copied in France, Lissajou claims it was used on April 16, 1849, the opening date for Meyerbeer’s opera. PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: III BOT) Figure 5.—Scene from the last act of the ballet “Electra, or the Last Pleaid.”’ vol. 14, p. 293. be carried on at night. These preliminary results ‘ were very encouraging, but Staite’s death brought an end to the project. A portion of Staite’s success was due to his inven- tion of a practical automatic regulator that eliminated the necessity of moving the carbons by hand as they were consumed (fig. 6). The amount of current flowing through the arc controlled the spacing of the carbons by balancing a mechanical force with the attractive force of a solenoid. As the carbons burned, the arc became longer and the current became less The decreased attractive force of the solenoid permitted the carbons to move closer together in Staite’s 1847 regulator due to the increased resistance. 7 Mechanics Magazine, 1849, vol. 50, pp. 538-539; 1850, vol. 52, p. 35; 1851, vol. 54, pp. 411-412; vol. 55, pp. 316— Shs 8525 vols ai) p. ieilile 8 British patents 11449 (November 12, 1846), 11783 (July 3, 1847), 12212 (July 12, 1848), 12772 (September 20, 1849), 634 (March 14, 1853); Mechanics Magazine, 1848, vol. 48, pp. 49-56; 1849, vol. 50, pp. 49-58, 73-80; 1850, vol. 52, pp. 246-248; Illustrated London News, January 1849, vol. 14, p. 58. From Illustrated London News, May 5, 1849, by controlling a clockwork and in his 1853 regulator by controlling the height of a float. This solenoid control came to be a basic feature in the design of all the later successful regulators. Other factors contributing to the success of Staite’s lamp were the semi-enclosure of the arc in a chamber to reduce the consumption of the carbons (a feature that was not again used until the 1890’s, but then with great success) and the use of the hard carbon from coke retorts rather than the much softer charcoal. Fou- cault’s regulator was based on the same solenoid principle as that of Staite’s, but it was set up hori- zontally so that, as the attractive force due to the solenoid became weaker due to the lengthened arc, a detent released a clockwork that moved the elec- trodes together. In the meantime, other regulators had appeared (figs. 8, 9). In France, Archereau, in 1849, also in- vented a regulator that balanced the weight of the carbon electrode against the attractive force of a solenoid (fig. 10), but the system was too insensitive 338 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 6.—Staite’s arc-light regulator of 1853. In this modification of his invention Staite used the upward buoyancy of the float (44) to balance the downward pull of the coil of the solenoid (D). From J. Dredge, Electric Illumination, London, n.d. (about 1882), vol. I, p. 389. and irregular in its action. However, this regulator seemed so promising that after Archereau demon- strated it in a St. Petersburg square Czar Nicholas requested the Russian Academy of Sciences to in- vestigate streetlighting by this method.'? Then, in 1855, Archereau sought to illuminate the port of Marseilles with his arc lamp." In 1850 Duboscq simplified Foucault’s regulator to the extent that it became sufficiently reliable for SSO ISIINS f regular use in the theater as well as for laboratory and lecture demonstrations (figs. 11, 12). The use of the brilliant arc light became so necessary for spec- tacular effects that finally, in 1855, an entire room at the Paris Opera House was set aside for Duboscq’s electrical equipment. The prizes at the Exposition Universelle of Paris in 1855 were handed out in the brilliance of this regulator, with one of the awards going to Duboscq for his invention; other prizes and honors followed successive improvements in the reg- ulator.!2 However, the regulator was still too delicate, —! and there was a disadvantage in that the clockwork required winding. Except for Staite’s lamp, these early regulators were satisfactory only for a relatively short period of ’ British patent 7924 (February 12, 1849); Du Moncel, op. cit. (footnote 5). 10 Tllustrated London News, December 1, 1849, vol. 15, p. 362. 11 Les Mondes, 1863, vol. 2, p. 452. 2 Jules Duboscq, “Note sur un régulateur électrique,” Comptes rendus, 1850, vol. 31, pp. 807-809; Edmond Becquerel, “Rapport ... sur Vappareil photo-électrique de M. Jules Duboscq, opticien,’’ Bulletin de la Société d’ Encouragement pour Industrie Nationale, 1855, ser. 2, vol. 2, pp. 455-461; Hippolyte Fontaine, Eclairage a Uélectricité, Paris, 1877, p. 11; La Lumiére électrique, 1880, vol. 2, pp. 284-288; Cosmos, 1855, vol. 7, pp. 492-494: 1864, vol. 24, pp. 121-126; Du Moncel, op. cit. (footnote 5), vol. 3, pp. 221-231, 280; L’Année scientifique, 1856, vol. 1, pp. 485-486; Mechanics Magazine, 1857, vol. 67, p. 250; 1858, vol. 68, pp. 252-253; Jules A. Lissajou, in Bulletin de la Société d’ Encouragement pour U Industrie Nationale, 1859, ser. 2, vol. 6, p. 254. PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: II 339 340 Figure 7.—How a French cartoonist imagined the lodger of the future would be given his electric ‘‘candle’” by the concierge. From L’Illustration, September 30, 1848, vol. 12, p. 69. time, and so other means of regulating the carbons were sought. Joseph Lacassagne and Rodolphe Thiers devised a differential arc light regulator in which the current resulting from the difference of two controlling circuits fed the moving carbon at the proper speed (figs. 14, 15). By using a battery of 60 Bunsen cells, Lacassagne and Thiers successfully illuminated a square in their home city of Lyons in 1855, and the following year they lit up the Arc de VEtoile and the Avenue des Champs Elysées for four hours in a vain attempt to interest Napoleon III in their invention. After successful trials at Lyons again, where they used two lamps to light the Rue Impériale during the evenings for the entire month of March 1857, Lacassagne died; in the same year the Société d’Encouragement pour 1|’Industrie Nationale awarded a bronze medal for the Lacassagne and Thiers regulator. Thiers sought to exploit the Figure 8.—Demonstration of the new electric light at a balloon in London. From Jllustrated ascension at The Vauxhall London News, August 25, 1849, vol. 15, p. 144. BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 9.—Demonstration of the new electric light during a visit of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert to Dublin, Ireland. From Tllustrated London News, August 11, 1849, vol. 15, p- 96. invention after the death of his partner but without any signs of permanent success. Then, in 1857, Victor Serrin invented a regulator based on some of the best features of that of Duboscq, and it dominated the field for two decades in France and elsewhere (fig. 16).™ in 1859 produced Je modéle suisse (fig. 17) that proved The heart of its reliability rested in the use of two driving systems Further refinements made its superiority over all others. balanced against one another through a linkage in the 13 British patent 2456 (October 20, 1856); Edmond Becquerel, “Rapport sur un régulateur électrique et sur une lampe photo-électrique presentés par MM. Lacassagne et Thiers de Lyons,” Bulletin de la Société d’Encouragement pour I’ Industrie Nationale,1856, ser. 2, vol. 3, p. 672, and 1857, ser. 2, vol. 4, pp. 524-547; Du Moncel, op. cit. (footnote 5), vol. 3, pp. 234-239; vol. 4, pp. 504-506; Cosmos, 1856, vol. 9, pp. 365— 368; 1857, vol. 10, pp. 342-343, 538-539; 1859, vol. 15, pp. 200-202; 1861, vol. 19, p. 113; L’llustration, 1856, vol. 28, p. 299; Mechanics Magazine, 1857, vol. 66, pp. 529-530; L’ Année Scientifique, 1858, vol. 2, p. 488; Les Mondes, 1863, vol. 1, pp. 311-312. 14 Les Mondes, 1867, vol. 14, pp. 543-555; Du Moncel, of. cit. (footnote 5), vol. 4, pp. 492-500. 15 French patent 38506 (October 23, 1858; addition, October 22, 1859); British patent 653 (March 15, 1859); Victor L. M. Serrin, “Régulateur automatique de lumiére électrique,” Comptes rendus, 1860, vol. 50, pp. 903-905; Cosmos, 1860, vol. 16, pp. 514-517; F. P. Le Roux, “Rapport sur... un régulateur automatique de lumiére électrique présenté par M. Serrin,” Bulletin de la Société d’ Encouragement pour Industrie Nationale, 1861, ser. 2, vol. 8, pp. 647-654 (see also 1860, ser. 2, vol. 7, p. 317, and 1866, ser. 2, vol. 13); Les Mondes, 1866, vol. 11, pp. 666-668, form of a parallelogram with one of the vertical sides fixed (fig. 18). As the upper carbon was consumed and lost weight a detent was released, permitting a clockwork to raise the mobile vertical side of the parallelogram and, in turn, to raise the other carbon. The shortened arc allowed a greater current to flow through a solenoid that tended to pull down the mobile side of the parallelogram by means of an armature attached to the linkage. balance was constantly found as the carbons gradually In this manner, a new disappeared. As we shall see below, Serrin’s final regulator (fig. 19) was the one used in the most successful demonstrations of the electric light until the end of the 1870's. that of Serrin was produced by Siemens, and it came A regulator somewhat similar to into wide use in Germany and England. Complaints often were made that the arc light was although it was pointed out to such Nevertheless, the too glaring, critics that so, also, was the sun. intensity of the arc light proved to be a stumbling block to the use of electricity for public lighting. Various efforts were made to reduce the brightness. The intensity of the arc light was reduced by placing it on very high supports, and various kinds of diffusers, such as frosted glass, were tried. Another possibility considered was that perhaps the electric light could be subdivided by placing several arc lights in the If this could be achieved, the glow could be spread over a number of sources. Both Quirini and Deleuil asserted that they had placed same circuit. PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: III 341 614819—62 2 > —— 0h Vr eT & Figure 10.—Archereau’s arc-light regulator. The downward weight of the lower carbon was balanced by the upward pull of the solenoid core. From T. du Moncel, Exposé des applications de Vélectricité, Paris, ed. 2, 1856-1862, vol. 3, pl. 4, fig. 3. several arc lights in the same circuit, the former in 1849 and the latter in 1855. However, such a circuit could be maintained only for a short time.'® After considerable study, L. F. Wartmann, of Switzerland, asserted that the electric light could be subdivided but that the method depended on the system used in the distribution of the illumination.'” However, until the end of the 1870’s, all regulators were inherently unstable when placed in the same circuit, except possibly one. When placed in series, if one went out, they all went out; and when placed in parallel, one tended to quench the others. The only kind of regulator that did not have this innate defect was that of Lacassagne and Thiers, but it is difficult to determine to what extent this advantage 16 Cosmos, 1855, vol. 7, pp. 703-704; 1856, vol. 8, pp. 30-32. 17, F. Wartmann, “‘Sur l’Eclairage électrique,” Brbliothéque Universelle de Geneve, Archives des sciences physiques et naturelles, 1857, vol. 36, pp. 323-334. Figure 11.—Duboscq’s version of the Foucault arc-light regulator. The rate of ascension of the lower carbon was controlled by a clock- work whose escapement was controlled by the solenoid (E). From T. du Moncel, Exposé des applications de UV électricité, Paris, ed. 2, 1856-1862, vol. 3, pl. 4, fig. 4. was realized in practice by the inventors. At any rate, the consensus was that it was not possible to subdivide the electric light. In the decade between 1855 and 1865 a number of attempts were made to use the arc light for military operations and for public celebrations. It has been said that the arc light was tried during the naval attack on Kinburn in 1855 during the Crimean War, and in 1859 during the Italian war of independ- ence. Joseph Henry devised an arc light in 1863 that was intended to be used for the siege of Charles- town during the Civil War, and in the same year celebrated Union arc-light illumination. On the occasion of the visit of Queen Isabella II of Spain to Paris in 1864, Napoleon used 11 Serrin regulators to illuminate the fountains of Boston victories by 18 Du Moncel, of. cit. (footnote 5), vol. 3, pp. 250-251. 342 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 12.—Use of the Duboscq arc light to g | § produce a rainbow for a scene in the opera ‘““Moses”’? at the Paris Opera House in 1860. I From La Lumiére électrique, July 15, 1880, vol. que, Jury 15 2, p. 287. Versailles.!? | Nevertheless, neither the military nor peacetime applications of the arc light took root in contemporary technology. The problems of how to make carbons for the arcs and of how to maintain the carbons at the proper distance and in the same place were more or less solved by 1860, but such endeavors were premature and could have no lasting results until an adequate source of electrical power could be found. Chemical cells had been used as a source of power for the arc lamp but they were admittedly quite expensive. A number of studies had been made showing just how much greater was the cost of producing light by Bunsen cells than by gas or oil, and E. Becquerel concluded that, in Paris, the cost of such light wastat least six times that of gas.*? Another factor that had to be considered was that the acids used constantly gave off noxious fumes and were dangerous for 19 “Eclairage,”’ La Grande Encyclopédie, Paris, n.d., vol. 15, pp. 341-346; Hippolyte Fontaine, Eclairage @ Vélectricité, Paris, 1879, ed. 2, p. 242 (this may refer to the use of electrically detonated mines in the defense of Venice rather than to the electric light; see Journal of the Telegraph, New York, 1868, vol. 1, no. 25, p. 3); Joseph Henry to Alexander Bache, August 21, 1863, in archives of the Smithsonian Institution; Boston Daily Advertiser, August 8, 1863; American Journal of Figure 13.—A later version (1864) of the Science, 1863, ser. 2, vol. 36, pp. 307-308. Duboscq arc-light regulator. From Cosmos, 20 Becquerel, op. cit. (footnote 13); Cosmos, 1857, vol 9, pp. January 28, 1864, vol. 24, p. 122. 417-420. PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: III 343 Figure 14.—Current regulator and arc-light regulator of Lacassagne and Thiers. From Bulletin de la Société a’ Encouragement pour Industrie Nationale, 1857, vol. 4, pl. 113. unskilled workmen to handle. Moreover, even with the best cells of the time, the power was such that the light was appreciably reduced after several hours use. If the light were to be maintained constant, a new battery had to be switched into the circuit. In addition, the cells were too bulky (at least 20 Bunsen cells had to be used for each arc lamp) and too fragile for any extensive application to the industrial arts. There was a laboratory device on hand, however, that did not depend on the consumption of metals to produce electrical power but, instead, transmuted mechanical power into electrical. The reciprocal relation between mechanical motion and electrical current was discovered in the early 1830’s, but almost half a century passed before it was possible to apply this knowledge to the commercial generation of electrical power. Such an application did not become possible until the device known as the dynamo was invented, but simpler generators were well known in the laboratory before that date. Once it had been shown that these generators could be used to supply power for illumination by electricity, a number of inventors sought to bring them from the laboratory into the field of commerce. This laboratory instru- ment was based on Faraday’s discovery of electro- magnetic induction, and we must briefly return to the 1830’s to discuss the development of the generator. Like Oersted, although for somewhat different reasons, Michael Faraday felt that all the forces of nature must be somehow related. In particular, if a certain relation exists between two different forces, the converse of that relation must also exist. Such considerations led Faraday to seek an effect opposite to that of Oersted—that of obtaining an electric current from magnetism. He finally discovered it in the relative motion of a magnet with respect to a closed circuit (fig. 20). Investigation of the same relation was pursued by Joseph Henry about the same time, but his delay in publishing the results has tended to obscure his contributions.”! Mechanical devices that continuously transform energy from a mechanical to an electrical form fol- lowed within a few months of Faraday’s discovery of induction. One of the first such devices was *t Michael Faraday, “‘Experimental Researches in Elec- tricity,’ Philosophical Transactions, 1832, vol 122, pp 125-162; A. Fresnel, “Note sur des essais ayant pour but de décomposer Peau avec un aimant,” Annales de chimie et de physique, 1820, ser. 2, vol. 15, pp. 219-222; Joseph Henry, “‘On the Production of Currents and Sparks of Electricity from Magnetism,” American Journal of Science, 1832, vol. 22, pp. 403-408. 344 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 15.—Another form of the differential arc-light regulator of Lacassagne and ‘Thiers. Two circuits—one permitting and one stop- ping the flow of mercury from the reservoir (a)—controlled the position of the float, to which the lower carbon was fixed. A similar differential principle formed the basis for all the later successful regulators. From J. Dredge, Electric Illumination, London, n.d. (about 1882), vol. 1, p. 392. invented by Faraday himself in November 1831. He called this new device a magnetoelectric generator, in contrast to the electrostatic generator; later, the term was shortened to “magneto.” netoelectric interestingly enough, the converse of Barlow’s “‘wheel,” a simple electric motor. Faraday’s generator could not produce sparks or electrolyze water, but it did deflect the needle of a galvanometer. This first mag- generator was, A somewhat more efficient device was produced by Hippolyte Pixii, who had been instrument-maker \\ RON \W\ g Ss D d. k =) C s. Jess IT L L D BSE ie p P. s CRA ae AY 19 Btn 7 ‘ Ty 5 z iy yA Wh if ‘ ES Mi C] aX z / i SG co = OR 4 oS is \ \ 5 . Y \ IN Nias \ ees SS \ es \ K O06 3 n Figure 16.—One of the earliest (1857) versions of Serrin’s arc-light regulator. From T. du Moncel, Exposé des applications de U électricité, Paris, ed. 2, 1856-1862, vol. 4, p. 493. to D. F. J. Arago and A. M. Ampére for a number of years. Pixii’s magneto generator (fig. 21), which was first demonstrated in a lecture by Ampére at the Sorbonne in September 1832, consisted of a 2-kg. horseshoe magnet mounted on a vertical axis that could be rotated before the poles of an electromagnet The electro- magnet was about 8 cm. high and had 50 meters of that acted as armature to the magnet. copper wire on it. The alternate passage of first a north and then a south pole before the poles of the electromagnet produced an alternating current that went first in one direction along the wire and then the other, in contrast to the current from chemical cells that always went in the same direction. Al- though the resulting gases were mixed, Pixii’s magneto PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: III 345 modele suisse Figure 17.—Serrin’s regulator. From Bulletin de la Société @ En- arc-light couragement pour 0 Industrie Nationale, 1861, vol. 8, pl. 234. could electrolyze water and was a great improve- ment over Faraday’s.” In the month following his Sorbonne demon- stration Ampére reported how Pixii had built a much modified Ampére’s commutator switch so that it could be larger generator than before and had 22 Jean N. P. Hachette, ‘‘Nouvelle Construction d’une ma- chine électromagnétique,” Annales de chimie et de physique, 1832, vol. 50, pp. 322-324, and ‘“‘De I’ Action chimique produite par Vinduction electrique; décomposition de leau,”’ Annales de chimie et de physique, 1832, vol. 51, pp. 72-74; Charles Jackson, “Notice of the Revolving Electric Magnet of Mr. Pixii of Paris,” American Journal of Science, 1833, vol. 24, pp. 146-147; Gehler’s physikalisches Woerterbuch, Leipzig, 1836, new ed., Band 6/2, pp. 1177-1180. used with the generator (fig. 22).% A cam on the axis of the armature actuated the commutator that reversed the directions of the alternations at the appropriate time so as to obtain a more or less unidi- rectional current. ‘The magneto now provided a current similar to that from the chemical cell, and the gases resulting from the electrolysis of water were in the correct proportions. Since it was also possible to rotate the coils making up the armature and to keep the magnets stationary, such modifications soon appeared. One of the first of these was described in a report given by the Rev. William Ritchie in March 1833 on a magnetoelectric generator (fig. 23) that he had worked out during the previous summer.” Ritchie’s armature, in the form of a disk that rotated about an axis perpendicular to its plane, consisted of four coils, 90° apart, that were mounted between two wheels with the axes of the coils parallel to the axis of the supporting wheels. When the armature was rotated, the coils passed in succession between the poles of a permanent magnet and produced an alternating current. In order to obtain a unidirectional or direct current from the rotating armature, Ritchie devised a commutator switch that was mounted directly on the axis of the armature. Other, more practical forms of the Pixii magneto generator were devised a few years later by instrument- makers Joseph Saxton of Washington and Edward Clarke of London.’ popular for laboratory demonstrations and for medical Their magnetos became quite experiments. Saxton modified Pixii’s generator by 23André M. Ampére, ‘“‘Note de M. Ampére sur une expérience de M. Hippolyte Pixii, relative au courant produit par la rotation d’un aimant, a l’aide d’un appareil imaginé par M. Hippolyte Pixii,’’ Annales de chimie et de physique, 1832, vol. 51, pp. 76-79. 24 William Ritchie, “Experimental Researches in Electro- Magnetism and Magneto-Electricity,”’ Philosophical Transac- tions, 1833, vol. 123, pp. 313-321. 25 Joseph Saxton, ‘“‘Description of a Revolving Keeper Magnet, for Producing Electrical Currents,” Yournal of the Franklin Institute, 1834, vol. 13, pp. 155-156; Edward M. Clarke to the editors, Philosophical Magazine, 1836, vol. 9, pp. 262-266; “‘A Description of a Magnetic Electrical Ma- chine,”’ Annals of Electricity, 1837, vol. 1, pp. 145-155; “Reply of Mr. E. M. Clarke to Mr. J. Saxton,” Philosophical Magazine, 1837, new ser., vol. 10, pp. 455-459; ‘“‘Account of a Series of Experiments Made with a Large Magneto-Electrical Machine,” Transactions and Proceedings of the London Electrical Society, 1837— 1840, vol. 1, pp. 73-76. 346 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Ss la From Bulletin de ) of Serrin’s arc-light regulator. proved version (1867 Société d Encouragement pour [ Industrie Nationale, 1867, vol. 14, pl. 371. Figure 18.—Im 347 Ill PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: Q|"*eFn CMLL TLL, From Revue industrielle, May s arc-light regulator. : Figure 19.—Final version (1876) of Serrin’ 3, 1876, p. 181, pl. 12. 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY BULLETIN 348 Figure 20.—Some of the various means used by Faraday to induce an electric current by magnetism: (a) coil to induce a momentary current in another coil by making or breaking the galvanic circuit in the first coil, (b, c) inducing a momentary current by making or breaking a magnetic circuit, (¢) inducing a momentary current by moving a magnet through a coil of wire, and (e) inducing a continuous current by rotating a conducting disk in a magnetic field. The last was the converse of the Barlow wheel experiment. From Philosophical Transactions, 1832, vol. 122, pl. 3. using three instead of two coils, by replacing the single magnet by a compound one, and by placing the axis of the instrument horizontally instead of vertically (fig. 24). Clarke used only a pair of coils, but sought to increase the current by rotating the coils beside the poles instead of in front of the poles as in the Pixii and Saxton machines. Clarke made two sets of coils for his magneto, one of fine wire for high voltage and the other of coarse wire for large currents (figs. 25, 26). Charles Page, of Washington, increased the output of Clarke’s magneto by increasing the intensity of the magnetic field. He placed another compound magnet parallel to that of the Clarke machine and then Figure 21.—Pixii magneto generator, without commutator. From American Journal of (figs. 27, 28). Such devices were made commercially Science, April 1833, vol. 24, p. 146. rotated the coils between the two compound magnets PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: III 349 Figure 22.—Pixii magneto generator with Ampeére’s which is enlarged at the bottom of the figure. From H. W. Dove and L. Moser, Repertorium der Physik, Berlin, 1837, vol. 1, pl. 2. commutator, shown by Daniel Davis, of Boston, beginning in the spring of 1838.76 Most of the preceding instruments of the 1830's were essentially laboratory instruments constructed purposes. One of the earliest commercial applications of magneto generators was for experimental made by John S. Woolrich of Birmingham, England, in the following decade. In his patent application of 1841, Woolrich described how Saxton generators could be modified for electroplating, and his method seemed feasible enough to be tried by the Elkington 26 Charles Page, ““New Magnetic Electrical Machine of Great Power, with Two Parallel Horse-Shoe Magnets, and Two Straight Rotating Armatures, Affording Each, in an Entire Revolution, a Constant Current in the Same Direction,” American Journal of Science, 1838, vol. 34, pp. 163-169; Daniel Davis, Manual of Magnetism, Boston, 1847, ed. 2, pp. 277-282. Figure 23.—Ritchie’s magneto generator. The armature was shaped in the form of a disk, in which the coils (r) passed in succession between the poles of the magnet (M). The commutator is at efgh. From William Ritchie, Researches in Electro-Magnetism and Magneto-Elec- tricity,’ Philosophical Transactions, 1833, vol. 123, pl. 7 (opposite p. 316). “Experimental firm in Birmingham, the same English firm that had already pioneered in electroplating.” Three years later Woolrich designed a more am- bitious generator (fig. 29) that was basically similar to Ritchie’s. Coils and magnets were added to the Ritchie apparatus so that now a disk armature of eight uniformly spaced coils rotated between the poles of four magnets spaced 90° apart. The whole was built in a wooden framework that was 5 feet 4 inches high, 6 feet wide, and 2 feet deep. Faraday is said to have inspected Woolrich’s generator and to have been delighted with this application of electromagnetic induction. The device was sold to the Prime Plating Company, of Birmingham, who used it for many years.”8 27 British patent 9431 (August 1, 1841); Mechanics Magazine 1843, vol. 38, pp. 145-149. 28 Industrial Britain, November 1938, no. 74, p. 1; J. Hamel, ‘“‘Colossale magneto-elektrische Maschine zum Versilbern, und Vergolden,” Journal fuer practische Chemie, 1847, vol. 41, pp. 244-255. 350 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 24.—Saxton’s magneto generator. From Journal of the Franklin Institute, 1834, vol. 13, p. 155. Although Elkington felt that the magnetoelectric machine did not replace the voltaic cell, Woolrich, during the following decade, constructed similar machines (figs. 30, 31) for Elkington* and a few other electroplating companies in Birmingham.*® In 1851, William Millward, of Birmingham, patented a ma- chine *! (fig. 32) that was very similar to Woolrich’s. A few years later a more important application of the magnetoelectric machine was demonstrated— one that had many implications for the future. Frederick H. Holmes showed, in 1853, that a magneto might be used to run an arc light, much to the sur- prise of the well known authority on electricity, E. Becquerel.*? he latter subsequently declared that 29 Mechanics Magazine, 1849, vol. 51, pp. 271-272; Illustrated London News, October 2, 1852, vol. 21, p. 295. 30 Samuel Timmins, Birmingham and the Midland Hardware District, London, 1866, pp. 488-494. 31 British patent 13536 (February 28, 1851). 32D. K. Clark, The Exhibited Machinery of 1862, London, 1864, pp. 286, 431; J. H. Gladstone, ‘‘Lighthouse Illumination by Magneto-Electricity,” Quarterly Journal of Science, 1864, vol. 1, pp. 70-75; Les Mondes, 1864, vol. 4, pp. 57-61. Ube 1 mA hill Nese re cuanke INNS AUT a Figure 25.—Clarke’s generator. From Annals of Electricity, January 1837, vol. I, p. 146. magneto ‘none but a fool or an Englishman would have be- lieved it possible.”’ After several years of experimentation, Holmes patented in 1856 a multiple disk armature machine consisting of many Woolrich generators mounted in a single frame (fig. 33).°° Instead of one disk armature that rotated between the poles of a single bank of permanent magnets, Holmes spun six disk armatures on a common axis between seven parallel banks of permanent magnets. Every other disk was dis- placed through a small angle so as to reduce the fluctuations of the total induced current. The 33 British patent 573 (March 7 and September 6, 1856). This is not the first patent of a Woolrich disk armature ma- chine. As noted earlier in this paper, William Millward took out a patent on a single disk armature machine in 1851. Later this paper will discuss a patent on a multiple disk armature machine taken out in 1852 by E. C. Shepard for Florise Nollet. PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: III Soil Figure 26.—Clarke’s use of his generator to produce rotary motion (top) and an arc between charcoal points (bottom). From Annals of Electricity, January 1837, vol. I, p. 154. magneto rollers that touched the they were placed about 60° collectors current were commutator — bars; apart, with their positions controlled by the speed of rotation. In February 1857, Holmes suggested a possible While considerable progress had been made during the 19th application for the new electric light system. century in increasing the safety of marine commerce, Several decades earlier the Fresnel lens system had been the measures taken were still insufficient. added to the improved Carcel lamp, and new fuels had been discovered that gave a brighter light; although the effectiveness of the lighthouses was thereby increased, they were still inadequate. In 1867 the British Board of Trade reported that in Figure 27.—Davis’ first version of Page’s magneto generator. From Charles Page, “New Magnetic Electrical Machine... ,” American Journal of Science, July 1838, vol. 34, p. 164. Figure 28.—Davis’ improved version of Page’s magneto generator, shown here ringing a bell. From D. Davis, Manual of Magnetism, Boston, ed. 13, 1869, p. 281. one year 1,333 lives and 2,513 vessels were lost in the inland and coastal waters of Great Britain.** Holmes submitted his suggestion to Trinity House, the agency responsible for lighthouses along the coast of England, and proposed to the Elder Brethren of the organization that the combination of arc-light and magnetoelectric machines be used for lighthouses. Although Faraday, who was the scientific advisor to ‘Trinity House at the time, had not been previously convinced of the practicality of the electric light, Holmes so persuaded him that, in May 1857, John 34 A. G. Findlay, “On the Progress of the English Lighthouse System,” Journal of the Society of Arts, 1858, vol. 6, pp. 238-249; Cosmos, 1868, ser. 3, vol. 3, pp. 691-693. B52. BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 29.—The first designed by Woolrich. in 1844. Photos courtesy of Department of Science and Industry, City Museum and Art Gallery, Birmingham, England. magneto generator It was constructed Tyndall, Faraday’s associate, could proudly write to the editor of the French scientific publication Cosmos that he was the first person to be informed by Faraday of a new application of electricity that “consists of an electric light which is truly splendid and which can be immediately employed for illuminating light- houses.”’ * Faraday’s approval was the result of some demon- strations that Holmes made for Faraday and the Trininty House Light Committee in March 1857 in the latter’s experimental “lantern” at Blackwall, near London (fig. 34). It was agreed that a more extensive trial was to be made in a lighthouse, but that Holmes would have to redesign his equipment in order to meet the strict conditions imposed by the Elder Brethren. The machine used at Blackwall was based on Holmes’ patent of the previous year. It had five 35 Cosmos, 1857, vol. 10, pp. 535-536. See also Mechanics Magazine, 1849, vol. 51, pp. 271-272. banks of stationary electromagnets and six rotating disks mounted on a common arbor driven by a 2\-hp. steam engine at 600 r.p.m. There were 6 compound magnets per disk and 24 electromagnets per bank, and the generator was provided with a commutator. The machine was quite large, meas- uring 5 feet square and 445 feet high and weighing 2 tons.8® As a result of the conditions imposed, it now had to be directly coupled to the steam engine, to run at a much lower speed, and to havea sufficiently low electrical output so that it would not be dangerous to the personnel using the equipment. It seems quite 36 F, H. Holmes, “(On Magneto-Electricity, and its Applica- tion to Lighthouse Purposes,’ Journal of the Society of Arts, 1863, vol. 12, pp. 39-43; James N. Douglass, “The Electric Light Applied to Lighthouse Illumination,” Minutes of Pro- ceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 1879, vol. 57, pp. 77-165; Gustave Richard, “L’Eclairage électrique des cdtes d’Angleterre et d’Australie,” La Lumére électrique, 1882, vol. 7, pp. 294-300, 327-329, 341-345, 410-414, 460-464, 480-484. PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: ID 353 Figure 30.—Woolrich’s second magneto gen- From W. H. Carbutt, “Early Electro-Plating Machines,” The Metal Industry, new ser., February 1914, vol. 12, erator, made in 1851. p. 61. probable that a good part of Holmes’ later difficulties stemmed directly from these restrictions. Holmes sought to meet the requirements imposed by Trinity House by reversing the role of the permanent magnets and the electromagnets, and by increasing the strength of the magnetic field between the two. He filed for a patent on the revised form of his generator in 1857 (fig. 35).°7 In the new version, two disks bearing the electromagnets were rotated between three banks of stationary permanent magnets. The steam engine was shown in the patent drawing as directly coupled to the generator. The number of permanent magnets was increased from 6 per disk to 20 per bank and the coils from 24 per bank to 80 per disk. The air gap between the electromagnets and the permanent magnets was considerably reduced. Two machines of the preceding design were tried at the relatively new South Foreland lighthouse on the eastern end of the Straits of Dover. They were about twice as large as those used in the preliminary trials at Blackwall, each being 9% feet wide, 5% feet deep, 9 feet 6 inches high, and weighing 5% tons. Each 37 British patent 2628 (April 14, 1858). 354 generator was coupled directly to a 3-hp. steam engine that drove it at the maximum permissible speed of 90 r.p.m. A Duboscq regulator maintained the carbons of the electric arc at the proper distance. The trials began on December 8, 1858, but results were unsatisfactory and they were discontinued; they were started again in March 1859 and continued until the early months of 1860. The are was apt to go out several times during a night, so that an extra attendant was required just to watch it, but the light could be started again at a touch. After Faraday examined the arc in April 1859 he declared that “Holmes has practically established the fitness and sufficiency of the magneto-electric light for lighthouse 88 Faraday recommended that Holmes’ system be permanently installed and tried under purposes.” actual operating conditions in a lighthouse for a much longer period of time. Also, he reported publicly on the results of Holmes’ system in a lecture given in March 1860 before the Royal Institution, again declaring the result of the experiment to be successful.*® The point source proved to be admirably adapted to the Fresnel lens system, and the arc light that was so glaring proved to be visible at greater distances than an oil flame. But there was still the problem that had to be faced with all new inventions: whether the initial capital investment might prove to be too great and whether the equipment could be economically maintained. No final decision on its use had been made, for there was the ‘‘matter of expense and some other circumstances to be considered.” In the meantime Holmes had devised a regulator similar to that of Serrin. The Holmes system was exhibited in the lighthouse at Dungeness (fig. 36) at the western end of the Straits of Dover in February 1862,*° but it was not permanently installed until June 6, 1862, because three more men had to be added to the personnel at the lighthouse and it was difficult to obtain competent keepers. The machinery used was the same as that installed at South Foreland. 38 Electrician, London, 1862, vol. 3, p. 67; 1863, vol. 3, p. 288; vol. 4, pp. 78-79. See also Holmes, of. cit. (footnote 36) and Richard, op. cit. (footnote 36). 39 Michael Faraday, “On Lighthouse Illumination—The Electric Light,’’ Proceedings of the Royal Society, 1858-1862, vol. 3, pp. 222-223; Electrician, London, 1863, vol. 4, pp. 68, 122-124. 40 Holmes, of. cit. (footnote 36); Richard, of. cit. (footnote 36). BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY FicurE 31.—Another form of Woolrich’s generator as used in electroplating by Elkington and Company in 1852. From The Illustrated Exhibitor and Magazine of Art, 1852, p. 296. PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: III B55 The mean intensity of the beam at the focus was determined to be about 670 candles, while the total intensity was evaluated at about 19,000 candles. The electric light at Dungeness remained in inter- mittent use for a dozen years, but the combination of an inefficient commutator, frequent mechanical breakdowns, and untrained personnel finally led Trinity House to replace it with an oil light in 1874. Meanwhile similar efforts made across the Channel in France proved more successful. These attempts were begun by Florise Nollet, professor of physics at the Ecole Militaire in Brussels and a descendant of Abbé Nollet, the famous 18th-century electrical demon- strator. In 1849 Florise Nollet added to his many inventions a version of the Saxton magneto that could be used either to produce hydrogen and oxygen for a Drummond light by the electrolysis of water or to heat a thin carbon rod to incandescence in a vacuum.*! He then proceeded to design a multiple disk armature generator (fig. 37) which, like Holmes’ generator, was basically similar to that of the Woolrich machine.” Nollet’s magneto had not yet been constructed when he died in 1853, but his specifications then were being considered by a company that called itself the Electric Power Corporation, with headquarters in Genoa. That company obtained the drawings of Nollet’s proposed generator and sought to exploit it The generator would be used to electrolyze water, and the resulting in a kind of perpetual motion project. gases would be used in turn to produce more electricity in a Grove gas battery. After inveigling money out of quite a few prominent people, including Napoleon III, and starting to build six machines according to Nollet’s plans, the company was exposed as a fraud. Holmes was one of those called in to recommend a possible use for the abandoned magnetoelectric machines, and it was at this time he suggested they be utilized for arc lights. Nollet’s patent was sold towards the end of 1855, and the Société Alliance was formed with Auguste Berlioz as director and with Joseph van Malderen, who had been a coworker of Nollet’s, as chief engi- neer. The new company redesigned Nollet’s genera- 41 British patent 13302 (October 24, 1850); Mechanics Maga- zine, 1851, vol. 54, pp. 358, 362-364, 410-411. 42 French patent 11649 (April 26, 1851; addition, April 24, 1852); British patents 14197 (July 6, 1852) and 1587 (July 1, 1853). 43D? Electricité, 1881, vol. 4, p. 154. tor (fig. 38) and sought to place it in commercial use.** The first attempt was made in 1856 at the illuminating gas plant located at the Hotel des Invalides, where the generator was used to provide hydrogen and oxygen by means of electrolysis.*° This generator was formed of six banks of permanent magnets, with eight magnets radially arrangedin each bank, and with the open ends of the magnets pointing towards the axis. There were five disk armatures that rotated between the banks of the permanent magnets (fig. 39). The 16 coils on each disk were connected in series, and the disks could be connected to give either high current or high voltage. In spite of the new company’s efforts, the generator was not very successful and no further commercial applications were tried for several years. An effort was made about this time to obtain some theoretical understanding of the Alliance machines. F. P. Le Roux studied the variation of the current with the external resistance, the variation of voltage with the speed, and the efficiency of an Alliance machine at the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers in Paris (fig. 40).“° He found that some two-thirds of the energy from the engine driving the generator was In addition to recommending certain values for the resistance of the lost internally in the generator. generator, he also pointed out that much energy was lost through the production of sparks by the com- mutator. At the suggestion of Professor Masson, the commutator was removed from the Alliance generator and the efficiency was found to be much greater.’ Instead of direct current, the generators 44 Frank Geraldy, ‘“‘Les Eclairages électriques a Paris, systéme de l’Alliance,”’ La Lumiére électrique, 1880, vol. 2, pp. 259-262. It seems possible that the Compagnie I Alliance was formed at a later date; Rittershaus mentions 1859 in his article ‘‘Zur Geschichte der Dynamo-Maschine” in Der Civilingenieur, 1893, neue Folge, vol. 39, p. 350. British patent 2987 (December 2, 1857); French patent 21590, (July 10, 1858; additions, March 14 and December 17, 1859, August 9, 1865, and December 7, 1866). 45 F. P. Le Roux, “Mémoire sur les machines magnéto- électriques,” Comptes rendus, 1856, vol. 43, pp. 802-805; Du Moncel, op. cit. (footnote 5), vol. 1, pp. 361-364; L’ Année scientifique, 1858, vol. 3, pp. 80-84. 46 FB. P. Le Roux, ‘Etudes sur les machines magnéto-élec- triques,”’ Bibliotheque Universelle de Genéve, Archives des sciences physiques et naturelles, 1856, vol. 33, pp. 198-213. 47 Théodose du Moncel, L’ Eclairage électrique, Paris, 1879, ed 2, p. 59. E. Allard (in Les Phares: Histoire, construction, éclairage, Paris, 1889) says Van Malderen suppressed the com- mutator. 356 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Plan in Seetion Fic... Figure 32.—Patent drawing of Millward’s 1851. From British 13536, February 28, magneto generator, patent specification 1851. were redesigned for the production of alternating current: one end of the coils on each armature was connected to the axis and the other was connected to It was found that a greater amount of current was produced if the re- sistance of the coils were reduced by winding more turns in parallel on each of the 16 spools on the armature. Preliminary results from the new design were so encouraging that the first 5-disk machine constructed since 1856 was demonstrated at the Hotel des Invalides in the early spring of 1859.*8 Unlike Holmes’ constant experimentation, no further changes in the design of the Alliance machine were made. The only modifications were in the number of disks an insulated sleeve on it (fig. 41). in the machine, with six seeming to have been the largest practical number on a single arbor, although Jamin and Roger apparently used a 9-disk machine in 1868. 48 Bulletin de la Société d’ Encouragement pour l’ Industrie Nationale, 1859, vol. 6, p. 189; Du Moncel, of. cit. (footnote 5), vol. 4, pp. 39-47; vol. 5, pp. 102-104. 49 Cosmos, 1860, vol. 17, p. 427. 50 Annales télégraphiques, 1861, vol. 4, p. 84; 1862, vol. 5, pp. 505-520; Bulletin de la Société pour ’ Encouragement de l’ Industrie Nationale, 1861, vol. 8, pp. 181-182: Cosmos, 1861, vol. Fic 2 The Société l’Alliance was sufficiently confident of its redesigned machine to consider public demon- strations, and Berlioz was very energetic in seeing that proper occasions were found. In the late fall of 1860 a combination of the Serrin regulator and the Alliance machine was tried on the Dauphin’s steam frigate,*® and it proved successful “‘in spite of the size of the equipment.’ In the spring of 1861 two 6- disk machines driven by a 4-hp. steam engine were used for public illumination of the Arc de Triomphe at the Place du Carrousel; other demonstrations were carried out at the Place du Palais Royal early in the summer, and civil authorities tested but rejected the light for street illumination.*® In the following year a 4-disk machine shown at the London Exhibition of 1862 produced an arc light of 125 Carcel units mean intensity when driven by a 1}-hp. steam engine at 300 r.pm. The Société Alliance was awarded a medal for that performance.*! When combined with the Serrin arc light (fig. 42), the new Alliance generator proved it could produce 18, pp. 197-200; vol. 19, p. 29; L’Illustration, 1861, vol. 37, p. 347; L’ Année scientifique, 1862, vol. 6, pp. 48-52. 51 Dinglers polytechnisches Journal, 1863, vol. 167, pp. 104-111; Cosmos, 1862, vol. 20, pp. 686-694; Daniel K. Clark, The Exhibited Machinery of 1862, London, 1864, pp. 288-289. PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: III Sih relatively steady illumination with few breakdowns, but it could be used only where unusual conditions justified its high initial cost. Such conditions were to be found in the French lighthouse service, where it was to have more success than Holmes’ machine had had in England. When the arc light first appeared in the theater in 1848, the French administration of public works, which was entrusted with lighthouse service, began to consider the possibility of using this new form of illumination. At first, that body experimented with running the are light by means of chemical cells, but when the experiments of Faraday and Holmes were brought to its attention in 1857, the feasibility of the magnetoelectric machine was considered. However, no action was taken until the director of the French lighthouse administration, Léonce Rey- naud, and his chief engineer, E. Allard, visited Holmes’ installation at South Foreland in April 1859. After hearing of the increased efficiency of the commutator- less Alliance machine, Reynaud decided to obtain By the fall of 1859 the Alliance machine was being tested for possible use in the French lighthouse system. After careful study, Reynaud submitted an extensive report early in 1863 on its possible brightness, the distance from which it could be seen, and the economic advantages of its use in a lighthouse. He found that a 6-disk machine produced an arc of 180 to 190 Carcel units mean intensity when driven by a 2-hp. steam engine, and one for experimentation. 358 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Cs} (== Sy i) FD afl ITI 1! FicureE 33.—On facing page and above: Patent drawings of Holmes’ magneto generator of 1856. Note the current collectors and the speed regulator on the machine. specification 573, March 7, 1856. he recommended that the government purchase a pair of Alliance machines for actual trial in a light- house of the first-order.” 82 L?Tllustration, 1863, vol. 42, p. 190; J. H. Gladstone, “Light- house Illumination by Magneto-Electricity,” Quarterly Journal of Science, 1864, vol. 1, pp. 70-75; Cosmos, 1859, vol. 15, pp. 511-512; Faye, ‘““De lApplication des feux électriques aux phares et 4 illumination 4 longue portée,”’ Comptes rendus, 1861, vol. 52, pp. 375-377, 413-415; Léonce Reynaud, “‘Rap- port sur l’application de la lumiére électrique a l’éclairage des phares,”? Bulletin de la Société d’Encouragement pour I Industrie Nationale, 1863, ser. 2, vol. 10, pp. 496-504. Fontaine (op. cit., footnote 12, p. 352) gives one Carcel unit as 7.4 English candles, and other values of the period ranged between 7.5 and 9.5 candles. The current value of the Carcel uniti s 9.6 English standard candles (Smithsonian Physical Tables, Washing- ton, 1954, rev. ed. 9, p. 92). PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: III From British patent Ina short time the Alliance-Serrin combination began to appear in some of the lighthouses along the coast of France. Following Reynaud’s report, on July 14, 1863, two 6-disk machines were ordered for Cap de la Héve near the port of Le Havre (figs. 43-45). They had the usual combination of 16 electromagnets in each disk and eight permanent magnets in each of the seven banks of magnets. When the machine was driven by a 2-hp. steam engine at 400 r.p.m. the engineers found that about 190 Carcel units were produced in the arc. The south lighthouse on the cape 33 Les Mondes, 1863, vol. 1, pp. 691-694; Cosmos, 1863, vol. 23, p. 115; L’Illustration, 1863, vol. 42, p. 190; L’Année scientifique, 1864, vol. 8, pp. 63-74. 359 aes hy a Base Sees Figure 34.—Holmes’ experimental magneto generator that was demonstrated at Blackwall. From La Lumiere électrique, September 23, 1882, vol. 7, p. 298. went into operation on December 26, 1863, and the results were so encouraging that a pair of the machines were installed in the north lighthouse in 1865.°* Le Roux, in published preliminary engineering reports on the success of the installation at the light- houses, questioned the reliability of the new system, pointing out that, despite previous hopes, the light from the arc was not much brighter than that from oil; also, Reynaud, in a formal report to the French government, concluded that the two lighthouses were too expensive for ordinary use but were valuable where great brilliance was these objections, another installation was made at Cap Gris Nez, near Calais, in February 1869, and other required. Notwithstanding Alliance installations were made outside France— 54 Les Mondes, 1864, vol. 4, pp. 57-61; A. Guerout, “L’Eclai- rage électrique du Port du Havre,’ La Lumiere électrique, 1881, vol. 4, pp. 132-136; Cosmos, 1866, ser. 2, vol. 4, pp. 7-11; L’ Année scientifique, 1866, vol. 11, pp. 48-56. 55 F. P. Le Roux, “Les Machines magnéto-électriques frangaises et l’application de lélectricité a léclairage des phares,” Bulletin de la Société d’ Encouragement pour U Industrie Naticnale, 1867, vol. 14, pp. 677-711, 748-790; Léonce Rey- naud, ‘‘Expériences comparatives des deux systémes d’éclairage des phares a V’huile et a la lumiére électrique, considérés au point de vue économique,” Bulletin de la Société d’ Encourage: ment pour l’ Industrie Nationale, 1867, vol. 14, pp. 776-779; Cosmos, 1866, vol. 4, pp. 7-11. when the Suez Canal was opened in 1869 a lighthouse using Alliance equipment was set up at Port Said, and two years later a similar installation was made at Odessa, in southern Russia.*® The brightness of the arc had been increased, and it was now claimed to be 300 Carcel units. No more French installations were made in the decade following the Franco-Prussian war, but in January 1880 there was a proposal to install electric lighting in all the first-order lighthouses along the coast of France. Palmyra, a city at the mouth of the Gironde River, and Planier, an island in the Mediter- ranean near Marseilles, each obtained an electric lighthouse in 1881. In the following year the French government made a large appropriation for the installation of 46 electric lighthouses along the coast.°” About this time electric lighthouses—but not of the Alliance system—began to appear outside Europe. 58 Cosmos, 1870, ser. 3, vol. 6, pp. 103-104; L’ Année scientifique, 1870-1871, vol. 15, pp. 50-51; ‘Lighthouse,’ Encyclopedia Britannica, New York, 1911, ed. 11, vol. 16, p. 641. 57 Allard, op: cit. (footnote 47), pp. 325-383; “‘Note sur quel- ques objections relatives 4 l'emploi de la lumiére électrique dans les phares,’’ Annales des ponts et chausées, mémoires et docu- ments, 1882, vol. 1, pp. 489-502; A. Guerout, “‘L’Eclairage électrique des cétes de France,” La Lumiere électrique, 1881, vol. 5, pp. 25-35. 360 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY FIG.I. Fic.2. eel] = Figure 35.—Patent drawing of Holmes’ magneto generator of 1857. The magnets rotated, rather than the armature. From British patent specification 2628, October 14, 1857. The first one in the New World was set up at Rio de Janeiro in 1882, and Australia obtained one at Macquarie, in the Bay of Sidney, in the same year.*® The lighthouse was not the only application to navigation that the persistent Berlioz found for his magneto generator. Prince Napoleon again tried it on his yacht in the spring of 1867, and it proved to be so advantageous for traveling at night and for signaling that, after some further experimentation, it was installed permanently; a frigate of the French navy’s Mediterranean fleet and the transatlantic passenger liner St. Laurent were equipped with the Alliance 58 Richard, op. cit. (footnote 36); John Hopkinson, ‘The Electric Lighthouses of Macquarie and of Tino,” Minutes of Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 1886, vol. 87, pp. 243-260. system in 1868; and a public demonstration of the magneto generator was tried at the Gare de I’Est and pronounced to be satisfactory.*® However, it should not be thought that the Alliance system had replaced chemical cells in public illumina- tions. The Fétes des Souverains held by Napoleon III in 1868 in the French capital used chemical cells as the source of power for the 32 Serrin regulators illuminating the Tuileries,°° and Baron Hausmann 59 Les Mondes, 1867, vol. 13, pp. 405-406, 492; 1868, vol. 16, pp. 488-494, 594-595, 700-702; vol. 18, pp. 51-52, 130, 325-327, 458-459, 593-594, 637-639; 1869, vol. 19, pp. 238- 239; vol. 20, pp. 605; vol. 21, pp. 471-472; 1870, vol. 23, pp. 466-467. 60 **Eclairage,’’ La Grande Encyclopédie, Paris, n.d., vol. 15, pp. 341-346; Defrance, of. cit. (footnote 2). PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: III 361 used the same means to enable the laborers to work through the night during his modernization of Paris. During the 1860’s the Alliance machine with a com- An at- tempt was made to use the generator instead of chemical cells in the telegraph central power station mutator was also tried in other enterprises. and it, too, was declared a success, although not as complete a one as the attempt made in Prussia, “since France was larger.’’®? In 1868, the famous Parisian electroplating firm of Christofle sought to imitate its competitor, the Elkington firm with its English generators, by using the Alliance machine for plating.” Some of the first experiments conducted at the Sorbonne’s new physical laboratory in 1868 were concerned with the Alliance machine.” J. C. Jamin and G. Roger continued the work of Le Roux and gave experimental proof for the usual assumption that each coil on the disk armature was equivalent to a chemical cell. The output of the generator could then be calculated by applying Ohm’s law to a battery of cells, each of which produced a certain voltage and had a certain fixed internal resistance. Jamin and Roger also investigated the relationship between the energy necessary to drive the generator Some insight into the cost of the electric light can be obtained from their finding that 100 liters of gas must be consumed in the gas engine driving the generator in order to maintain an electric arc at the and the heat produced in the external circuit. same intensity as a gas burner using one liter of gas per minute. Before the Alliance machine gave way before the superior Gramme machine (discussed below), it played a role, although a minor one, in the defense of Paris during the Franco-Prussian War.® Arc- light stations were installed in the various forts circling the city, and each was provided with four electricians and with equipment garnered from instru- ment-makers, telegraph offices, and_ laboratories. 61 Fournal of the Society of Arts, 1868, vol. 16, p. 826. 62 Les Mondes, 1867, vol. 15, p. 702. 3 Les Mondes, 1867, vol. 13, pp. 405-406; 1868, vol. 16, p. AH: % Le Roux, op. cit. (footnote 87); Cosmos, 1868, vol. 2, pp 6-7; Jules Jamin and Gustay Roger, “Sur les Machines magnéto-électriques,”’ Comptes rendus, 1868, vol. 66, pp. 1100- 1104, and ‘‘Sur les Lois de l’induction,’’ Comptes rendus, 1868, vol. 66, pp. 1250-1252. 6 [Année scientifique, 1874, vol. 18, pp. 430-434; Bulletin de la Société d’Encouragement pour U’Industrie Nationale, 1870, vol. 17, pp. 659-665. Bunsen cells were used in most of these stations, but the brightest light of all, at the Moulin de la Galette, obtained its power from an Alliance machine. ‘The arc lights were not very effective, but they did help to prevent surprise attack and to discourage sappers during the night. When Holmes heard of the French commutatorless machines, he sought to produce machines of a similar type. After filing his first patent specification on an alternator in 1867 (fig. 46), he filed two other patents, one in 1868 and one in 1869.% In 1867 Holmes constructed two alternators (fig. 47) for a new lighthouse to be erected on the northeastern coast of England at Souter Point, near Newcastle. Before installation the new units were sent to the Paris exhibition of 1867 where, at first, they failed to work. Seven banks with eight permanent magnets per bank and six disk-armatures with 16 electomagnets per disk constituted the 3-ton machine, which was 6 feet long, 4 feet 4 inches wide, and 5 feet 6 inches high. About 3 hp. was required to drive the machines at 400 r.p.m. and to produce 1,520 cp. Almost four years elapsed before the machines were in use; they were first turned on in January 1871. But the expenses were only half that at Dungeness, and, most important, the lights were constantly in service. Eight years later two similar machines were installed in each of the two lighthouses at South Foreland. By 1882 there were five electric lighthouses in England and four in France. However, not all of these used the Alliance or the Holmes machines, for serious competition had appeared. The lighthouse at Planier used the more efficient modification of the Alliance machine invented by De Meritens (fig. 48),®* but a still more serious competitor of the magneto By the time the first lighthouse dynamo was installed, in the channel at Lizard Point in 1878, the dynamo gener- ator already had begun to dominate in the field of electric light. Before turning to the story of the dynamo, it might be of interest to compare the performance of the two magneto generators, the Alliance and the Holmes generators was the new dynamo generator. 66 British patents 2307 (February 10, 1868), 2060 (December 23, 1868), and 1744 (December 3, 1869). 87 See Douglass, op. cit. (footnote 36) and Richard, of. cit. (footnote 36). 88 French patent 123766 (April 10, 1878; additions, May 8 and June 26, 1878); Du Moncel, of. cit. (footnote 47), pp. 85-88; Engineering, 1879, vol. 28, pp. 372-373. 362 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Gnducting Mires Gnutucting sim ee Lt ie Figure 36.—Side and end elevations of Holmes’ magneto generator that was installed at Dungeness. From Minutes of Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 1878-1879, vol. 57, pl. 5. machines, with that of the dynamo generator. At the time the magnetoelectric machines were in commercial use, the system of practical electrical units had not been worked out; consequently, what little information is available is not always meaningful, but at least one can obtain some sense of the relative merits of the equipment. One method of measuring the output of an electrical machine was to determine it in terms of the chemical cell. In tests made in 1862 it was shown that a 4-disk Alliance machine was equivalent to 64 Bunsen cells. °° The tests that Jamin and Roger performed in 1863 showed that a 6-disk Alliance machine produced a voltage equal to that of 226 Bunsen cells when the disks were connected in series and, as might be 69 Cosmos, 1862, vol. 20, pp. 686-694. anticipated, a voltage equal to 38 Bunsen cells when the disks were connected in parallel.” Also, one could obtain a crude comparison of the efficiency of various machines by determining the amount of light that each machine produced per unit horsepower. However, these comparative estimates are necessarily nominal because the candlepower of the arc and the horsepower necessary to produce the candlepower were not measured together, at least until 1880; consequently, such estimates should be considered with caution. Another factor that casts doubt on these estimates is that the figures were used to sell the generators rather than to represent scien- tific measurements. Nevertheless, indicative of the order of magnitude, and they became the figures are 70 Jamin and Roger, of. cit. (footnote 64). PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: III 363 LLL \ 1 LLL LLL UAL YALULLULA ELA : Lhe \S LL LLL ga We LLL VAD: ty Figure 37.—On facing page and above: Patent drawings of Nollet machine, 1853. From British patent specification 1587, July 1, 1853. more accurate as the 1880’s were approached. Such figures for the Alliance machine during the decade of the 1860’s are as follows: Num- Carcel ber units Year disks per hp. Reference 1860 6 55-65 Cosmos, 1860, vol. 17, p. 427. 1861 6 65 Cosmos, 1861, vol. 18, pp. 197-200, 646-647. 1862 4 85 Annales Telegraphiques, 1862, vol. 5, pp. 505-520. 1863 6 90-95 Reynaud, of. cit. (footnote 52). 1866 6 65 Le Roux, of. cit. (footnote 55). Of the preceding figures, probably only those for 1866 are adequate for the purpose. (An analogous comparison of electroplating generators can be worked out by determining how much metal was deposited for unit time.) 364 Similar measurements performed in the middle of the following decade led to the first careful comparison of the older magnetoelectric machines and the newer dynamoelectric machines. (That such a test first occurred adecade after the enunciation of the principle of self-excitation serves to demonstrate the slowness with which the commercial electric generator developed.) Holmes had suggested the use of the new kind of generator early in 1869, and had even constructed a pair for the South Foreland lighthouse that year.’ However, despite the fact that the dynamos produced a much brighter light than Holmes’ magneto generators in the tests, the Elder Brethren of Trinity House held it to be wiser to choose 71 Douglass, op. cit. (footnote 36). BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY TABLE 1.—Results of the trial competition of generators in winter of 1876-1877. Light (candles); Candles/h.p. | Cost | Weight} H.p. Order Generator Length | Breadth} Height | (£) | (tons) ab- | R.p.m. of | sorbed Con- | Dif- | Con- | Dif- | merit | | | densed | fused | densed | fused Holmes 47°11" | 47 4” YOY | sO yp || = Be 400 1520 | 1520 480 | 480 6 Alliance 4’ 4” 4’ 6” 4’ 10” 500 1% | 3. 6 400 1950 | 1950 540 540 5 Gramme, no. 1 Dida Digit AON 300 14 | DS) 420 6660 | 4000 1260 760 4 Gramme, no. 2 at oe YY 4’ 1” | 300 14 Ey 1 420 | 6660 | 4000 1260 | 760 4 Siemens, large SY OY 2H SY LOZ 265 1 9.8 480 | 14820 | 8930 | 1510 | 910 3 Siemens, small, no. 58 ee 2H Gy? LO” 75 | \% 35 850 | 5540 | 3340 1580 | 950 2 Siemens, small, no. 68 DB Be OH 10” | yOu ooo) 850 | 6860 | 4140 | 2080 | 1250 1 | PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY JN THE 19TH CENTURY: II 365 614819—62 3 ei r< Figure 38.—One of the first forms of the Alliance machine. Note the brushlike cur- rent collectors. Reproduced, with permission of the publisher, from O. Mahr, Die Entstehung 5 of Geschichtliche Einzeldarstellungen aus der Elektrotechnik, Berlin, J. Springer, 1941), p. 89, fig. 61. der Dynamomaschine (vol. tests were held at South Foreland during the winter of 1876-1877 under the joint supervision of Professor Tyndall, successor to Faraday as scientific adviser to Trinity House, and James N. Douglass, chief engineer of Trinity House. The results of these tests (see table 1) showed the new dynamo to be far superior to the magneto generator.” Of the two dynamos, the Siemens Figure 39.—The usual form of the Alliance generator as provided with a commutator. From Annales telegraphiques, 1862, vol. 5, pl. 5 the magneto generators, which had already been found reliable. The attention of Trinity House was again brought to the new machines in 1876 by an exhibition of the Loan Collection of Scientific Apparatus held at South Kensington. There one could see the dynamos of Gramme and Siemens together with the magnetos of the Société Alliance and of Holmes. ‘Trinity House thereupon invited the manufacturers to a trial com- petition to determine the kind of apparatus best suited for the new lighthouse at Lizard Point. The 366 BULLETIN 22 72 John Tyndall, ‘‘Report on Electric Illumination,’ Engineer- ing, 1877, vol. 24, p. 303; James N. Douglass, ‘“‘Report on Electric Illumination,” Engineering, 1877, vol. 24, pp. 333, 351; Richard Higgs and John Brittle, “Some Recent Improve- ments in Dynamo-Electric Apparatus,” Minutes of Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 1878, vol. 52, pp. 36-98. 8: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Onfim 1=3 53 0 Cours FS) if ; 2 Courbes des forces electromolrices ( @mpavarson par opposition . ) See ee tae On a pric pour mite’ [a force claclromotsice Je Pelément de Burncew Nombre de bobiaes on tension 200 tours. i nm et ————+ . + ry 7 8 9 HH 1 1S He 1 1 17 18 19 20 UM WI 24h BF 16 217 28 19 JO Nombre de he 4 £ hatines ea tension Figure 40.—Results of Le Roux’s study of the relation between the speed of rotation and the voltage (open circuit) for varying numbers of coils on the armature of an Alliance generator. From F. P. Le Roux, “Etudes sur les machines magnéto-électriques,” Archives des sciences physiques et naturelles, 1856, vol. 33, figs. 1-3 (following p. 263). proved itself to be electrically and mechanically superior. In addition to being cheaper as well as less bulky, the Siemens dynamo could produce twice as many candles per horsepower as its best magneto competitor. By examining the tabulation, the respective proportions of the Holmes magneto and the Siemens dynamo can be seen to be as follows: bulk, 114 to 1; weight, 28 to 1; total light produced, 1 to 5; light produced per horsepower, 1 to 4; cost per unit of light, 9 to 1. Obviously, the magneto generator could not compete with the new dynamo generator, and ‘Trinity House decided to install the Siemens dynamo instead of the Holmes generator at Lizard Point. Hippolyte Fontaine, of the Gramme firm, protested to the editor of Engineering that the trials were unfair, since the Gramme machine used in the tests was the 1874 model rather than the new ¢ppe d’atelier (actually, the company had refused to submit a model). Fon- taine quoted Tresca—who had tested the new Gramme machine—as having found that 2 hp. produced 7,000 candles. Fontaine further went on to describe PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: III 367 Figure 41.—Details of Alliance magneto generator, without commutator. From Bulletin de la Société d’ Encouragement pour Industrie Nationale, ser. 2, 1867, vol. 14, pl. 370 (facing p. 804). te ae L 7 the machine as costing £100, as being 2 feet long, 1 foot 2 inches wide, and 2 feet high, and as weighing 360 pounds.” Actually, the results cited were overly sanguine on Fontaine’s part—Tresca found that the 300-Carcel-unit dynamo required 2.8 hp. and the 1,850-Carcel-unit machine required 7.7 hp. This would result in 107 and 240 Carcel units per horse- power, which still seems quite high. The central testing depot of the French lighthouse administration carried out similar tests of the Alliance, De Meritens, and Gramme machines during the years 1880-1882. As can be seen from the following 73 Engineering, 1877, vol. 24, p. 322 (see also letter from Charles Ball, p. 348); Henri E. Tresca, ‘‘Gompte rendu des expériences faites pour la détermination du travail dépensé par les machines magnéto-électrique de M. Gramme, employées pour produire de la lumiére dans les ateliers de MM. Sautter et Lemonnier,” Comptes rendus, 1876, vol. 82, pp. 299-305. 74 Allard, op. cit. (footnote 47), pp. 339-348, Figure 42.—Alliance generator being used to drive an arc light. From Bulletin de la Société d’ Encouragement pour l Industrie Nationale, ser. 2, 1867, vol. 14, fig. 16 (p. 692). 368 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Re rfl [NJ RD ROR DAA & RELEASE I) Ficure 43.—Above, Double lighthouse at Cap de la Héve outside the harbor of Le Havre. At right, Arrangement of the steam engines and the Alliance generators in the south lighthouse. From E. Allard, Phares et balises, vol. 5 of Les Travaux publics de la France, L. Reynaud, ed., Paris, 1883, pp. 59, 109. tabulation, the Alliance generator produced approx- imately the same carcels per horsepower as it had in the South Foreland tests, the Gramme dynamo had improved somewhat, and the De Meritens magneto, surprisingly enough, proved to be about as efficient as the Gramme machine: Mechan- Mean spherical ial hp iensity (Carcels) Generator R.p.m. absorbed Total Per hp. Alliance 450 4.6 275 60 Gramme, large 550 ili, 1010 88 Gramme, small 600 5.5 493 91 Gramme, improved small 680 4.2 342 81 De Meritens, low speed 431 5.8 537 93 De Meritens, high speed 827 iil, 9 1015 85 From these figures and from the results of other tests that are mentioned below, it can readily be seen that the dynamo was a great advance over the older machines in terms of bulk, weight, candles produced per horsepower, and initial cost. Despite such advantages, the magnetoelectric machine was not displaced by the dynamoelectric machine until the end of the 1870’s, and even then not completely. The changes that made possible a mechanically and electrically more efficient generator were intro- duced into experimental machines during the very slow commercial expansion of magneto generators in the 1860’s. These basic modifications were changes in the design of the armature, the substitution of electromagnets for permanent magnets as a means of producing the field, and the introduction of self- excitation where the current induced in the armature passed through the field coils and produced " the field in which the armature is placed. The last modification was the one that is considered character- istic of the dynamo. Although it took over a decade for these innovations to be combined in one machine, they laid the foundation for the modern dynamo. The first basic improvement in the form of the armature was due to Werner Siemens, at that time a well-known telegraph inventor and one of the partners in the Siemens and Halske firm in Berlin. In 1856 he replaced the disk armature that had been used in practically all the previous machines by a much simpler one shaped like a weaver’s shuttle, with PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: III 369 | | cot / = CoOuPE VERTICALE, YY Mh os) H PLAN. By MME Ev£évation. — Pian. Figure 44.—Details of the arrangement of the arc light in the lighthouse at Cap de la Héve. From E. Allard, Phares et balises, vol. 5 of Les Travaux publics de la France, L. Reynaud, ed., Paris, 1883, pp. 110, 111. an H cross-section.”? The wire was wound longi- tudinally into the cavities in the armature and the ends of the wire were led out to a commutator divided 75 British patent 2107 (provisional specification filed Septem- ber 10, 1856); Werner Siemens, ‘‘Ueber eine neue Construction magneto elektrischer Maschine,”’ Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 1857, vol. 101, pp. 271-274. into two parts. The armature was spun on its long axis between rounded-out cavities in the poles of the field magnets (fig. 49). This shuttle-type armature was more efficient mechanically than the disk armature. Because of its more compact form, the shuttle armature could be driven with less power than could a disk armature of 370 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 45.—Generator room in the south lighthouse at Cap de la Héve, showing the two sets of Alliance generators. From E. Allard, Phares et balises, vol. 5 of Les Travaux publics de la France, L. Reynaud, ed., Paris, 1883, 48th plate at end of volume. the same weight. Also, the more compact form made possible a more rigid structure, and Siemens could reduce the air gap between the magnetic pole and the armature to a very small amount, thus increasing the magnetic flux cut by the wires of the armature as well as the speed of rotation. Moreover, the armature was located between the poles where the flux density was greatest instead of beside the poles where the flux density was much less. Consequently, the over-all electrical efficiency was increased to the point where the heating of the armature became a problem for the first time. Because of these advantages, the shuttle armature was used in the most successful generators of the next decade or so. Siemens applied his shuttle generator to operate an indicator telegraph. Another innovation that seemed to promise still greater efficiency was the ring armature, first devised by aman named Elias in the 1840’s (fig. 50). Antonio Pacinotti, a student at the University of Pisa, again invented such an armature for an electric motor in 1863 (figs. 51, 52) but his call to military duties pre- vented him from developing it.”° ‘The practical de- velopment of the ring armature was due to Zénobe T. Gramme who, in 1870, patented a magneto gen- erator with a toroidal core of soft iron wire that had many coils of copper wire wound around the core and 76 Antonio Pacinotti, ‘“‘Descrizione di una macchinetta elet- tromagnetica,” JJ Nuovo Cimento, 1863, vol. 19, pp. 378-384; “Sur une Machine électromagnétique, construite en 1860, d’aprés le méme principe que la machine de M. Gramme,” Comptes rendus, 1871, vol. 73, pp. 543-544; Franklin L. Pope, “The Genesis of the Modern Dynamo—Antonio Pacinotti,”’ Electrical Engineer, 1892, vol. 14, pp. 259-262, 283-284, 307, 339-341. PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: II 371 Figure 46.—Patent drawing of Holmes’ alternator of 1867. From British patent specification 2307, August 10, 1867. joined so as to form one continuous closed coil.” Connections from the many subdivisions of the coil led to the numerous corresponding commutator bars on the axis of the armature (figs. 53-55). While the shuttle armature of Siemens was more efficient than the Alliance disk armature, much current was wasted in the open-circuit coil in com- mutation; that is, in the reversal of the direction of the current at each revolution which led to sparking at the brushes. Gramme’s closed circuit coil, with its Many-part commutator, mitigated the problem of commutation and produced a steadier output. In addition, Gramme’s armature had a considerable advantage over the Siemens armature in that it did not become excessively hot. However, since the wire on the inside of the ring armature was shielded by the wire on the outside, not all the’ coil was useful 77 French patent 87938 (November 22, 1869; additions, April 11, 1870, and February 27, 1872; the first addition concerned the ring armature); British patent 1668 (June 9, 1870). in producing the output current and the resistance of the armature was greater than it need be. The most efficient armature, and the basis of the modern one, is the drum armature, which was worked out in March 1872 by Friedrich von Hefner-Alteneck, chief engineer at the Siemens and Halske factory in Berlin and first exhibited at the Vienna Exposition of 1873 (fig. 56). Von Hefner-Alteneck devised an armature with a method of winding that minimized the unproductive end-turns that did not cut the magnetic field, but his armature still retained the advantage of the Gramme ring in commutation. Instead of winding the wire about a torus, Von Hefner-Alteneck wound the wire about the outside of a drum-shaped armature. If he had threaded the turns through the interior of the cylinder, it would have been topologically the same as winding a torus; instead, he passed the wire directly across the end faces of the cylinder to a point on the opposite lateral wall. This resulted in only the end-turns not cutting the lines of force. The relative amount of unproductive wire was further reduced by making 372 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 47.—Holmes’ alternator at the Souter Point lighthouse. From La Lumiére électrique, October 7, 1882, vol. 7, p. 341. Figure 48.—De Meritens’ mag- neto generator. From Engi- neering, 1879, vol. 28, p. 372. PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: III SD 614819—62— —4 Figure 49.—Siemens’ magneto generator, using his shuttle armature. The armature coil (HH) was wound upon the armature core (FGF’). From E. W. Siemens, “Ueber eine neue Construction magnetoelektrischer Ma- schinen,”’ Annalen der Physik, 1857, vol. 101, fig. 2. the cylinder long with respect to the diameter. Another modification was that, instead of the single coil of wire as in the Siemens armature, there were now 16 coils that had their terminals reversed twice each revolution. ‘The 2-part commutator of Siemens was accordingly replaced by a 16-part one. ‘The coils were interconnected at the commutator bars so as to form a single closed-circuit coil.” Nevertheless, heating of the armature was a con- siderable problem in the original design of 1873. 78 British patent 2006 (June 5, 1873); French patent 99828 (July 5, 1873; addition, June 21, 1878); Engineering, 1873, vol. 16, p. 490; Higgs and Brittle, op. cit. (footnote 72); James Dredge, ed., Electric Illumination, London, 1882, vol. 1, pp. 215-293. SY, WG XG « \S \ at aves NAG (( ( ig Figure 50.—Ring armature devised by Elias in the 1840’s. It was designed for a motor rather than for a generator. From La Lumiere électrique, 1882, vol. 7, p. 14, fig. 13. In order to avoid this, Von Hefner-Alteneck fixed the soft iron core of the armature and rotated the coils. Siemens tried to reduce the temperature by water cooling and by laminating the armature, but the former method was too awkward to be practical, and the latter one was unsuccessful at the time. Very few drum armature dynamos were made and sold; however, the 1876 exhibition in South Kensing- ton showed that these originally unpromising gener- ators had been reduced to practice. The tests of Tyndall and Douglass proved them to be the most efficient of all the units they compared. The armature no longer overheated as it had in the earlier stages of its development, and its output was more constant. In addition, provision was made to reduce sparking at the commutator by including an arrangement for shifting the position of the brushes. At first the drum armature did not seem as practical as the ring armature, for it was quite difficult to wind the coils on the drum and to insulate the suc- cessive coils from one another; so, the advantage of the many-part commutator of Gramme seemed lost. In addition, ventilation was much easier for the ring than for the drum, particularly when the drum was a solid rather than a hollow cylinder. 374 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 51.—Pacinotti’s ring armature, as used in a motor, with a field produced by electro- magnets. Pacinotti found he could use the machine as a generator by replacing the field electromagnets with permanent magnets. From La Lumiére électrique, 1882, vol. 7, p. 15, fig. 14. But the inherent advantages of the drum armature were greater. After it was discovered that the coils could be inserted in slits on the core and _ better methods of laminating the core and of winding the coils were introduced, the drum armature was put to use; it has remained in use to the present time. But the production of current in all these early generators was hampered considerably by the lack of sufficiently strong fields. Charles Wheatstone had introduced electromagnets into the generator that he used for his telegraph of 1845, but this arrangement was generally deemed too clumsy as it required chemical cells in addition to the generator itself.” In 1864, Henry Wilde patented a generator in which a magneto was substituted for the chemical cells 79 British patent 10665 (May 6, 1845). 80 British patent 3006 (June 4, 1864); Henry Wilde, ‘“‘Experi- mental Researches in Magnetism and Electricity,’ Philosophical Magazine, 1866, ser. 4, vol. 32, pp. 148-152, and 1867, ser. 4, vol. 34, pp. 81-104; Les Mondes, 1866, vol. 11, pp. 319-324, 373, 629-636; vol. 12, pp. 24-26; Théodose du Moncel, Exposé des applications de lélectricité, Paris, 1872-1878, ed. 3 (5 vols.) vol. 2, pp. 226-230. (fig. 57). ‘The current from the magneto was then used to excite the electromagnet field coils of another generator. One motor drove both magneto generator and electromagnet generator.° A few years later William Ladd simplified the double structure by combining the two separate fields in one unit (fig. 58). Wire was wound around permanent bar magnets which were placed parallel to and above each other. An armature was rotated between each pair of poles at the end of the magnets. One armature provided current for the coils on the permanent magnets and so added to the latter’s field while the output current was taken from the other armature.*! When demonstrated at the Paris Exhibition of 1867, both Wilde’s and Ladd’s machines produced 81 William Ladd, ‘(On a Magneto-Electrical Machine,” Philosophical Magazine, 1867, ser. 4, vol. 33, pp. 544-545; “On a New Form of Dynamo-Magnetic Machine,” Reports of the British Associaticn for the Advancement of Science, 1867, vol. 37, pp. 13-14; “On a Further Development of the Dynamo Magneto Electric Machine,” Reports of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1868, vol. 38, pp. 19-20; Du Moncel, of. cit. (footnote 80), vol. 2, pp. 230-234. PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: III Sy/5) Fig. 2 Fey 2. Fig. &. Figure 52.—Pacinotti’s illustrations in the original pamphlet describing his machine, as reproduced in Electrical Engineer, September 21, 1892, vol. 14, p. 260. Figure 53.—Gramme’s ring armature, showing the many coils (B) that were connected to commutator plates (R). From S. P. Thomp- son, Dynamo-Electric Machinery, ed. 2, London, 1886, p. 116. sufficient power to maintain an arc light, to the great astonishment cf the spectators. ‘The small size of these generators provided a striking contrast to the bulky magneto generators of the Holmes and the Alliance systems that also were exhibited. The Wilde machines were so promising that within two years the Alliance company had purchased the French patent; the Scottish commission for lighthouses was trying them in an installation; and the Elkington firm in England was using a number of them for electroplating. However, by that time the next step—that of self-excitation—had been taken, and the machines of 1867 already were potentially outmoded. Some isolated efforts at self-excitation had been made by Sgren Hjorth * of Denmark in 1851, by Wilhelm Sinsteden ** of Germany in 1861, and by Moses 82 Les Mondes, 1867, vol. 14, pp. 161-165; 1869, vol. 21, pp. 152-154; 1871, vol. 26, pp. 94-96. 8 British patent 2198 (provisional specification filed October 14, 1854); Sigurd Smith, Sgren Hjorth, Inventor of the Dynamo- Electric Principle, Copenhagen, 1912. 84 Wilhelm Sinsteden, ‘“‘Ueber die Anwendung eines mit einer Drahtspirale armirten Stahlmagnets in der dynamo- elektrischen Maschine,”’ Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 1869, vol. 137, pp. 289-296. 376 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 54.—Gramme’s magneto with his ring armature. Note the disk-shaped current collectors. From Chronique de ?industrie, April 17, 1872, p. 84. Tig. 2 Fig. 1. { re ey Y yee a 4 od Tan “Rita Figure 55.—A slightly later version of Gramme’s magneto with ring armature, showing the many-part commutator and the use of wire brushes as current collectors. From Chronique de lindustrie, August 13, 1873, p. 223. PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: III SIT Figure 56.—Two views of the Von Hefner- Alteneck dynamo with drum armature as shown at the Vienna Exhibition of 1873. The armature core (s—s1, n—-n,) is fixed and the armature windings (coiled on abcd) rotate. From J. Dredge, Electric Illumination, London, n.d. (about 1882), vol. 1, p. 278. Farmer * of the United States in 1865 but their work did not lead to further development. A few years later, in 1867, the principle of self-excitation was simultaneously enunciated by Charles Wheatstone,*® by S. Alfred Varley,§’ and by Werner Siemens (figs. 59-61).88 The discoveries of Wheatstone and Siemens were even announced at the same meeting, in London. The basic theory of self-excitation is simple. All iron is magnetized to some extent, however slight it may be, and it is sufficient to induce some current 85 H. Wilde, ‘‘On Siemens’ and Wheatstone’s Magneto- Electric Machines,” Proceedings of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester, 1867, vol. 6, pp. 103-107; George B. Prescott, Dynamo-Electricity, New York, 1884, p. 123. 86 Philosophical Magazine, 1867, ser. 4, vol. 33, pp. 471-474. 87 British patent 3394 (December 24, 1866); also, Engineering, 1877, vol. 24, pp. 322, 348. 88 Werner Siemens, “Ueber die Unwandlung von Arbeitskraft in elektrischen Strome ohne Anwendung permanenter Mag- nete,” Monatsberichte der Koeniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften Figure 57.—Wilde’s application of a magneto generator to provide the electromagnet field of a second generator. From Philosophical Magazine, 1867, vol. 34, pl. 2. in the armature of an electromagnet generator when the armature is rotated between the poles of the electromagnet before any current flows through the electromagnet and before the core of the electro- If connections are made so that this current passes through the electromagnet, it will increase the magnetic field in which the armature turns, and this in turn increases the induced Under proper conditions, the process will continue until the core of the field magnet magnet is ‘‘magnetized.” current, and so on. zu Berlin, 1867, pp. 55-58; C. William Siemens, “On the Con- version of Dynamical into Electrical Force without the Aid of Permanent Magnetism,” Philosophical Magazine, 1867, ser. 4, vol. 33, pp. 469-471; British patent 261 (filed January 31, 1867); Adolf Thomalen, ‘‘Zur Geschichte der Dynamoma- schine,”’ Beitrage zur Geschichte der Technik und Industrie, 1917, vol. 7, pp. 134-168. For an excellent introduction to the early history of the dynamo, see Otto Mahr, Die Entstehung der Dynamomaschine, vol. 5 of Geschichtliche Einzeldarstellungen aus der Elektrotechnik, Berlin, 1941, pp. 129-140. 378 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY | ll Figure 58.—Ladd’s electromagnet generator as used to drive an combination magne to- arc light. From La Lumeére électrique, 1882, vol. 7, p- 13, fig. 12. Figure 59.—Wheatstone’s dynamo of 1866. From J. Dredge, Electric Illumination, London, n.d. (about 1882), vol. 1, p. 137. is magnetically saturated and no further increase in current is possible at that particular speed of armature rotation. The distinctive term ‘“dynamo-electric machine,” in contrast to the usual term “‘magneto- electric machine,” was applied to this new kind of generator by Werner Siemens in his announcement Figure 60.—Varley’s dynamo of 1866. From J. Dredge, Electric Illumination, London, n.d. (about 1882), vol. 1, p. 138. Figure 61.—Siemens’ dynamo of 1866. From A. Thomalen, “Zur Geschichte der Dynamo- Maschine,” Beitrdge zur Geschichte der Technik und Industrie, 1916, vol. 7, p. 141. of the new principle. Since then, the term has been shortened to ‘‘dynamo.”’ Gramme was the first to make the dynamo a success commercially.8° He was a Belgian carpenter who worked with a compatriot, Joseph van Malderen, at the shop of the Société Alliance as model-maker. As Gramme’s interest in electricity grew, he left the shop to further his education and to become an instrument-maker by working with Ruhmkorff and then Disdéri (or, some say, Froment). He finally turned to working out his own ideas, and his first 89 O. Colson, ‘“Zénobe Gramme: Sa Vie et ses oeuvres,” Wallonia, 1903, vol. 11, pp. 261-279; Jean Pelseneer, Zénobe Gramme, Brussels, 1944, ed. 2. PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: II Bo TMT TTT TTT ~~ a Figure 62.—Gramme’s first commercial dy- namo for electroplating. From Revue indus- trielle, November 25, 1874, p. 406, fig. 5. inventions of the 1860’s were based on magneto- electric machines of the multiple-disk Woolrich type, although one of the specifications in his patent of 1867, mentioned previously, he patented the ring armature in 1870. With the Count d’Ivernois as financial backer, and Hippolyte Fontaine as the director, the Société des Machines Magneto-électriques Gramme was founded sometime during the winter of 1870-1871 to manu- facture a generator with the new type of ring arma- February 26, implied _ self-excitation.°° As ture; however, the Franco-Prussian war and _ its 99 French patent 75172 (February 26, November 21, 1868, and August 13, 1869). 1868: additions, consequences delayed the entrepreneurs for a time. Instead the Société commissioned the instrument- maker Bréguet to make magneto generators with a ring armature in the early 1870’s for laboratory and small shop use.*! ‘The experience gained by varying the form of these small magneto generators served as a guide in the later construction of the Gramme dynamo. In 1871 Gramme presented to the Académie des Sciences a generator based on Ladd’s design but with Gramme’s ring armatures instead of Siemens’ shuttle A parallel pair of horizontal bar- electromagnets, one above the other, had ring armatures between the poles at each end of the pair. armatures. One ring armature supplied current for the electro- magnets and the other supplied the output current. An article appearing in the Comptes rendus brought the new kind of armature to the attention of the scientific world and investigators to try to determine how the current was induced in it. Gramme patented in 1872 a machine that combined the use of the ring armature, wire brushes to collect the current from the armature, and field excitation by a magneto, the armature of which was on the served to stimulate several same arbor as that of the electromagnet generator. By the end of that year the first commercial Gramme generator appeared on the market (figs. 62, 63).% While this machine was still based on the design of Ladd’s apparatus, the modifications considerably improved the efficiency. Instead of using bar- electromagnets arranged horizontally, Gramme used cylindrical electromagnets and arranged them verti- 1 Chronique de lindustrie, 1872, vol. 1, pp. 84, 179-180; Du Moncel, of. cit. (footnote 80), vol. 2, pp. 219-222; Alfred N. Bréguet, ““Gramme’s Electro-Magnetic Machine,” Eng7- neering, 1872, vol. 13, p. 289. #2 Z. T. Gramme, “Sur une Machine magnéto-électrique produisant des courants continus,”’ Comptes rendus, 1871, vol. 73, pp. 175-178; Théodose du Moncel, of. cit. (footnote 80), vol. 2, pp. 538-544; ‘‘Note sur les courants induits résultant de Vaction des aimants sur les bobines d’induction normalement a leur axe,’ Comptes rendus, 1872, vol. 74, pp. 1335-1339; J. M. Gaugain, “Sur les Courants d’induction developpés dans la machine de M. Gramme,” Comptes rendus, 1872, vol. 75, pp. 138-141, 627-630, 828-831; Engineering, 1871, vol. 12, pp. 87, 173. % French patent 87938 (addition of February 27, 1872); Z. T. Gramme, ‘Sur les Machines magnéto-électriques Gramme, appliquées a la galvanoplastie et 4 la production de la lumiére,” Comptes rendus, 1872, vol. 75, pp. 1497-1500; Chronique de Vindustrie, 1873, vol. 2, pp. 86-87, 99, 223-224. 380 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY =e = cally, and instead of leaving the magnetic circuit open at the ends, he completed the circuit by placing cast-iron plates across the top and bottom of the electromagnets. He provided for the gap in the magnetic circuit in which the armature rotated by leaving a space in the middle of each of the cores of the electromagnets where there were no turns of the field coils. Crescent-shaped pole-pieces were attached to this bare area so as to shunt the magnetic PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: III ‘al see TpyAT rilhy Figure 63—Gramme’s first commercial dy- namo for an arc light. From Chronique de Pindustrie, April 12, 1873, pp. 86, 87, April 30, 1873; Pp. 99- field from one electromagnet to the other and thereby pass through the armatures. The armatures were mounted on a common axis perpendicular to that of the electromagnets and they rotated between the concave faces of the pole-pieces. One of the armatures produced the current for the electromagnets of the other armatures, and brushes of silver-plated copper wire collected the current induced in them. The generators were made in two forms, one of low 381 O ei ee UD qi {I ll i NU i HU I (u c ire “_“0uu00nNN Viren ease GOTT ee Figure 64.—Gramme’s arc-light dynamo, 1874 version. From Revue industrielle, November 25, 1874, p. 408. wire on the armature for electrochemical purposes, and one of high resistance resistance with coarse with fine wire on the armature for use with arc lights. The high-current electrochemical machine had two armatures on a common axis and four electromagnets. It weighed about 750 kg., measured 0.8 meters square by 1.3 meters high, and required 175 kg. of copper wire. When driven by a 1-hp. engine at 300 r.p.m. it produced about 150 amperes at 2 volts, which implied an efficiency of about 40 percent. The high-voltage three armatures and six electromagnets. It weighed about arc-light machine used 1,000 kg. and measured 0.8 meters square and 1.25 meters high. The electromagnets required 250 kg. of copper wire and the armature required 75 kg. of copper wire. When driven by a 4-hp. engine at 300 r.p.m. the machine produced a light of about 850 Carcel units, about four times as much as the 382 Figure 65.—-Gramme’s first form of the type a’ atelier electroplating. From Revue industrielle, November 25, 1874, p. 407. dynamo for iii Figure 66.—Gramme’s first form of the type @ atelier dynamo for arc lights. industrielle, November 25, 1874, p. 409. From Revue BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 67.—Gramme’s magneto as provided with Jamin’s compound magnets. From H. Fontaine, Eclairage a Vélectricité, Paris, 1877, Pp. 104. mE ; TMI il TN ? ‘ a : == z = a Z 6-disk Alliance machine. The voltage was equal to that of 105 normal Bunsen cells, and the current was equal to that of 5 such cells. Roughly speaking, such power implied an efficiency of 50 percent. The cost Arc-light demonstrations were made in the new Clock Tower of the machine was £400 in England. of Parliament in London in 1873, but since the machine was quite apt to overheat the arc lights were discontinued in favor of gas. At the beginning of 1874, Gramme cut down the size and considerably increased the efficiency of both the high-resistance and low-resistance generators by relying completely on the principle of self-excitation.” The new model, called the type d’atelier (figs. 65, 66), reduced the number of armatures to one and reduced 9$ Engineering, 1873, vol. 15, pp. 291-292. % Z. T. Gramme, ‘‘Sur les Nouveaux Perfectionnements apportés aux machines magnéto-électriques,’’ Comptes rendus, 1874, vol. 79, pp. 1178-1182; Alfred N. Bréguet, ‘‘Machine magnéto-électrique de M. Gramme,”’ Revue industrielle, 1874, vol. 3, pp. 405-410; Engineering, 1874, vol. 18, pp. 412-414. the number of electromagnets necessary to supply the field. The electromagnets were still cylindrical in form but were placed horizontally, with one above the other, as in the original Ladd generator. The axis of the single armature was horizontal and in the same vertical plane as the electromagnets instead of being perpendicular as in the Ladd machine. As before, the magnetic circuit was completed by cast-iron plates at the ends. Other changes made it possible to increase the speed of rotation without excessive heating of the armature. One electrochemical model and two arc-light models were now produced. The electrochemical machine (fig. 65) weighed 177.5 kg., measured 0.55 meters square by 0.60 meters high, and used only 47 kg. of copper wire for both armature and field. When driv- en by a %-hp. motor at 500 r.p.m. it would produce the same amount of current as its predecessor. Two sizes of the arc-light machine were made—a large one based on the previous vertical arrangement of the electromagnets (fig. 64) and a small one based on the new horizontal arrangement of the type @atelier (fig. 66). The large arc-light machine used six electro- PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: III 383 ali i ow aL =— <2 = RLWC Figure 68.—Gramme’s 1876 type d’ atelier dynamo for use with arc lights. From Reoue industrielle, February 9, 1876, p. 57. magnets grouped in the form of a triangle on each side of the armature, and each group had a common pole-piece. This machine weighed 700 kg. and measured 0.90 meter square by 0.65 meter high. There were 180 kg. of copper wire on the electro- magnets and 40 kg. on the armature. This large generator normally produced a light of 500 Carcel units, but it was claimed that this amount of light could be almost doubled by increasing the speed of the generator. The smaller machine weighed 183 kg. and measured 0.55 meter square by 0.60 meter high. There were 47 kg. of wire on both armature and field. The armature on the small arc-light machine was what Gramme termed dédoublé, that is, there were two windings on the single core with a set of commutator bars on each side of the form (fig. 66).°° These two windings could then be connected so as to double the current or to double the voltage. The in- tensity of the arc light at 900 r.p.m. was 200 Carcel units. Small lecture magnetos using Jamin’s com- pound magnets also were produced at this time (fig. 67). Later improvements enabled Gramme to reduce the cost and increase the efficiency of his generators still % Alfred N. Bréguet, “Note sur la machine Gramme 4 Panneau dédoublé,” Revue industrielle, 1876, vol. 5, pp. 106-110. 384 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM @ atelier dynamo for use with are lights. From Revue industrielle, May 2, 1877, p. 173. Figure 69.—Gramme’s 1877 ¢tppe THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY further. In 1876 a smaller and lighter version of the type d atelier generator appeared that weighed 180 kg. and measured 0.60 meter high, 0.35 meter wide, and 0.65 meter long (fig. 68).°7 There were 28 kg. of copper wire on the electromagnets and 4.5 kg. on the armature. When driven by a 2-hp. motor at 820 r.p.m. the generator would produce 200 Carcel units; when driven by a 3-hp. motor at 920 r.p.m. it would produce 400 Carcel units. Another model was brought out in 1877 (figs. 69, 70). Table 2 gives the values claimed by the French manufacturer for three of the type d’atelier models in January 1879 (fig. 71).°° Both C and D models had dédoublé armatures, so that the two halves of the generator could be connected in quantity (parallel) or in tension (series). In the tabulation, C(T) refers to model C connected in tension, D(Q) to model D connected in quantity, and A(2) to two model A generators. For some reason, the manufacturer gave the light intensity for model A in candles and for models C and D in Carcel units. By his later improvements Gramme had converted the electric generator from a laboratory curiosity or an awkward magnetoelectric machine into a fully practical dynamo, ready for commercial exploitation. In 1874, four Gramme generators were sold; by 1875, 12 had been sold; by 1876, 85; by 1877, 350; by the middle of 1878, 500; and by 1879, over 1,000. Mechanically, the Gramme dynamo was efficient, TasLe 2.—Manufacturer’s claims for three type d’atelier models in January 1679. Price Length-width-height Weight Model (£) (inches) (lbs.) Ao 80 27%4 x 1534 x 2234 407 A(2) 160 39 x 1914 x 1534 748 c(Q) 240 29 x 21% x 25% 858 C(T) 211 29 x 21% x 25% 858 D(Q) 360 37% x 3114 x 33% 2200 D(T) 360 374 x 3145 x 33% 2200 compact, and durable; electrically, unlike previous dynamos, it produced a relatively constant output that was greater than that of any previous one, except possibly the Siemens machine. Although the efficiency seems to have ranged between 80 and 90 percent and the main application, until the end of the 1870’s, was in the electrochemical industries, the electric light and even the transmission of power was now a possibility.®® A short time after the commercial appearance of these new dynamos, the world of inventors discovered 97 Z. T. Gramme, ‘Recherche sur lemploi des machines magnéto-électriques 4 courants continus,’’ Comptes rendus, 1877, vol. 84, pp. 1386-1389; Hippolyte Fontaine, “Eclairage a Pélectricité,” Revue industrielle, 1877, vol. 6, pp. 173-174; 1878, vol. 7, pp. 248-250; op. cit. (footnote 12), passim; Engi- neering, 1879, vol. 28, p. 64. 88 Douglass, op. cit. (footnote 36), p. 129. 99 Fontaine, of. cit. (footnote 12), p. 89; Engineering, 1878, vol. 25, p. 526; M. Mascart, “Sur les Machines magnéto- électriques,” Journal de physique, 1877, vol. 6, pp. 203-212, 297-305; 1878, vol. 7, pp. 79-92, 363-377; Felix Auerbach and O. E. Meyer, ‘Ueber die Stréme der Gramme’schen Mas- chine,” Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 1879, vol. 8, pp. 494-514; 1880, vol. 9, pp. 676-679; E. Hospitalier, “Sur le Rendement électrique des machines gramme,” La Lumiére électrique, 1879, vol. 1, pp. 114-117. R.p.m. Ap. Light CP/HP. 900 20) 6300 2400 900 5.0 14000 2800 1250 8.0 2500 310 700 5.0 1500 300 550 12. 0 4000 300 300 7.0 2000 290 that such generators could be used as electric motors. This was not a new principle; it had been latent, if not explicit, in all the previous work on generators and motors. Gramme had even noted this in his 1870 patent. However, it was a relatively new theory that a dynamo could be so used, and it was soon found that a better motor than ever before could be produced. The usual story is that the discovery was an accidental one—one of the workers at the Vienna Exhibition of 1873 happened to connect two Gramme dynamos together and found that one generator could drive the other as an electric motor. Hippolyte Fontaine promptly made such an arrangement part of the Gramme exhibit. A centrifugal pump was driven by a Gramme motor that received its power from a Gramme dynamo three-quarters of a mile away; the pump, in turn, supplied a small waterfall (fig. 73). Fontaine was prompt in publicizing his finding that 1 hp. could be transmitted over wires in this manner with an efficiency of about 50 percent. At the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition of 1876, Gramme dynamos were shown running arc lamps, electro- plating, and driving another Gramme dynamo as a motor; and by 1879 Fontaine could assert for this process an over-all efficiency of about 63 percent PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: III 385 NA CAAA AON NASNS SAME ANN AAS CIO IAA ERE RAIN NE. SENN LEAN TS Figure 70.—Gramme’s 1877 type d’atelier dynamo as driven by a steam engine. t init TU oT NANAN S SAE RASS Sr aA ws From Revue industrielle, May 9, 1877, p. 182. instead of 50 percent (fig. 72).1°° With such examples, a new phase in electrical technology seemed to be opening. The introduction of the Gramme dynamo into commerce and industry had repercussions in both Europe and America. As mentioned earlier, the firm of Siemens and Halske had exhibited the drum armature in a magneto detonator for mines and in an alternator excited by a separate magneto generator at the Vienna Exhibition of 1873 (fig. 74). A few units with a drum armature were made in the next few years for commercial use, but these, while comparing very favorably with the Gramme dynamo, did not really enter commerce until 1877, after the 100 Fontaine, op. cit. (footnote 12), pp. 89, 109; op. cit. (foot- note 19), pp. 127-128; Alfred N. Bréguet, ‘“‘Notes of Experi- ments on the Electric Currents Produced by the Gramme Magneto-Electric Machine,’ Reports of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1874, vol. 44, pp. 33-34; L’Illus- tration, 1933, vol. 186, p. 411; Engineering, 1879, vol. 28, pp. 416-418. reports of Tyndall and Douglass! were published. In the following two years the English Siemens firm sold more than £60,000 worth of these units.! It was probably because of this increasing competition that Gramme countered with his new type d atelier model. The commercial Siemens machine of the late 1870’s (figs. 75-77) had about the same external appearance as the machine displayed at the Vienna Exposition.1% As with Gramme’s early dynamos, it was based on the Ladd machine. A pair of flat bar-electromagnets was placed horizontally, and the axis of the armature was perpendicular to the plane of the electromagnets instead of lying in it, as in Gramme’s type @ atelier. Since the electromagnets were placed close together, 101 Tyndall, of. eit. (footnote 72); Douglas, op. cit. (footnote 72). 102 Engineering, 1879, vol. 28, p. 102. 103 British patent 2006 (June 5, 1873); Du Moncel, of. cit. (footnote 80), vol. 5, pp. 525-532; Higgs and Brittle, op. cit. (footnote 72); Fontaine, op. cit. (footnote 19); Dredge, op. cit. (footnote 78), pp. 275-287. 386 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY wi | ae \ . as Hat | . | : MI a : \ ep ny | : l : ama fl te in the midsection of the cores was pushed aside to form a circular arch to permit the armature to be placed between them. The magnetic circuit was completed by vertical iron plates at the ends. One of the first exact measurements on the efficiency of a dynamo was made by John Hopkinson when he determined the efficiency of the Siemens generator and found it to range between 88 and 90 percent, depending on the amount of current drawn.'% The Siemens firm also constructed motors (fig. 77d, e). Higgs and Brittle, two of the men associated with William Siemens in the construction of the English | ! 1 b 1 cn peepee: “: ' ! c) | = eS | Se ee - = po { 1 oie, Figure 71—Gramme’s Model A (top left), Model CG (above), and Model D generators of 1879. From Minutes of Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers, 1879, vol. 57, pp. 126, 127. Siemens dynamo, obtained the results 105 shown in table 3 on the three models that the English firm produced. J. N. Shoolbred made a comparison of the three models of the Siemens machine and the three models of the Gramme type d’atelier in 1878.1 See table 4. As can be readily seen, the Gramme dynamo proved to be superior in each of the three sizes compared. Since all models presumably were tested under the same conditions, and presumably without any bias, these values should be more objective than the others cited. Another evaluation of the two kinds of machines 10 John Hopkinson, “On Electric Lighting,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 1879, pp. 238-249. 105 Higgs and Brittle, op. cit. (footnote 72). 108 J. N. Shoolbred, ‘‘On the Present State of Electric Light- ing,” Engineering, 1878, vol. 26, pp. 362-365. PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: III 387 woe | ra ae ila LC ee MN Hl in) b) eer | eens “ = N Hii ie, a [NS ated =z NS i £ \ AY ORS Wi AAITT a4 — NS Ne ° NN yO NN ac) 0 Mal i SY ) SS: Nit = an = BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 388 Coupe transversale FicurE 72.—Further steps in the transmission of power: Gramme motors of 1879. From Revue indus- trielle, November 19, 1879, pl. 23. PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: II 389 Figure 73.—Marcel Deprez repeats Fontaine’s demonstration showing that electric power could be transmitted at a distance. Deprez transmitted his power 57 kilometers to drive a Gramme motor belted to a centrifugal pump at the Munich Exposition of 1882. From La Lumiere électrique, 1883, vol. 8, p. 131. was made the following year at the school of military engineering in Chatham, England.'*’ See table 5. 107 “Bericht tiber Versuche mit elektrischen Lichtapparaten seitens der Militair-Ingenieurschule in Chatham in den Jahren 1879-1880,” LElektrotechnische Zeitschrift, 1881, vol. 2, pp- 67-71, 105-110. The two Siemens model B machines were connected in parallel, as were the two Gramme model A gener- ators. While the results are not directly comparable with those of Shoolbred, nevertheless they again suggest the electrical superiority of the Gramme dynamo. On the other hand, the reported efficiency TABLE 3.—Data on three models of an English Siemens dynamo produced by Higgs and Brittle. Length-width-height Weight Model (inches) (lbs.) A 25 x 21 x 8.8 298 B ZI KI2Gex ES 419 Cc 44 x 28.3 x 12.6 1279 R.p.m. Light (candles) Hp. CP/HP 1100 1000 15—2.10) 9500-670 850 4000 350=375) 115051330 480 14800 9-10 1480-1650 390 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 74.—The Siemens and Halske alternator with external exciter, as shown in Vienna Exhibition of 1873. From A. Thomalen, “Zur Geschichte der Dynamomaschine,” Beitrage zur Geschichte der Technik und Industrie, 1916, vol. 7, p. 149. Figure 75.—The Siemens and Halske dynamo From J. Dredge, Electric Illumina- p. of 1876. tion, London, n.d. (about 1882), 280. vol. TABLE 4.—Shoolbred’s comparison of three models of the Siemens machine and three models of the Gramme type d’atelier, 1678. Machine and mode Siemens, Model A Siemens, Model B Siemens, Model C Gramme, Model M Gramme, Model A Gramme, Model CG Rpm, 850 650 360 1600 900 700 Candles 1200 6000 14000 2000 6000 15000 Hp. to drive on aAnreop Candles Hp. 600 1500 1750 1333 2400 3000 Weight 250 375 1150 150 375 800 Cost(£) 70 112 250 70 100 300 TABLE 5.—Evaluation of the Siemens and Gramme dynamos at Chatham, England, in 1879. Machine and model Siemens, Model B, two Gramme, Model A, two Gramme, Model C Gramme, Model D Gramme, Model D PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: R.p.m. 680 875 1200 500 475 Candles 19140 18300 19500 27500 22500 Hp. to drive 13: 9. OF 15. 12: 4 Nrugn Candles/Hp. 1430 1920 2050 1820 1770 Cost Efficiency (£) 244 160 240 360 360 (7) 73 88 85 89 88 Ill I, Soil —— Fig: L. Figure 76.—Details of the Siemens and Halske dynamo of 1876. For clarity, the brushes have been omitted in the drawing. From R. W. H. P. Higgs and J. R. Brittle, “Some Recent Apparatus,’ Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 1878, vol. 52, pp. 36-098, pl. 1. of the Gramme dynamos is quite close to that of the Siemens dynamo as measured by Hopkinson and others. Up to this point, three-quarters of the way through the 19th century, the electric light was possible, but it was not very practical commercially. Serrin’s regulator could be used but it was so delicate that adjustment was difficult, and it was both mechanically and electrically complicated. Only one are lamp could be used as a load in the circuit of the generators then in use; to place two regulators in the same circuit would, in effect, prevent either one from working. Moreover, the arc light was too bright Improvements in Dynamo-Electric for any purpose other than illuminating large areas, some means had to be found of “‘subdividing”’ it so that the brilliancy of a single arc lamp in a single circuit could be spread over many lamps of weaker intensity in the same circuit. Practical electrical generators had been invented, but the initial expense of plant installation—which was that of a gas or steam engine plus the electrical generator and the other electrical equipment that could only be used for a single light—was prohibitive for ordinary purposes (figs. 78, 79). Some means had to be found whereby such a large capital investment could be used for a number of lights that would be of lesser intensity than 392 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 77.—a, Brushes and commutator; 6, armature connections, and c, output regulator for the Siemens and Halske dynamo of 1876; d, e, views of a Siemens and Halske motor of the same date with a permanent magnet field and drum armature. From R. W. H. P. Higgs and J. R. Brittle, “Some Recent Improvements in Dynamo-Electric Apparatus,” Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 1878, vol. 52, pp. 36-98, pl. 1. the current form of the arc light and that would all be on the same circuit. This was the problem of the subdivision of the electric light. The first significant step towards the solution of this problem was made by a Russian military engineer named Paul Jablochkoff.!° He had retired 108 “‘Jablochkoff,” La Grande Encyclopédie, Paris, n.d., vol. 20, p. 1152; Electrician, London, 1894, vol. 32, pp. 663-664. from the army in order to devote himself to the in- vention of an electrical light and decided to visit the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition of 1876. How- ever, he tarried in Paris in order to visit Bréguet’s electrical shop, where both Gramme dynamos and Serrin regulators were constructed; and he was so fascinated by what he saw that he never finished his journey. Instead, he found employment at Bréguet’s PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: II 393 Figure 78.—Mobile arc-light unit, using a Gramme generator. From Chronique de Tindustrie, 1879, p. 93. aes clor. Ke Figure 79.—Arc light on HMS Thunderer. From La Lumiére élec- trique, October 1882, vol. 7, p. 347- 394 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY shop and stayed there for a number of years. After patenting a novel kind of electromagnet, he turned to the electrical lamp, and the innovations he in- troduced gave a tremendous impetus to the com- mercial application and exploitation of the dynamo. Jablochkoff found a means of producing a carbon arc that regulated itself without the use of any mechanism. He based his lamp (called a “‘candle”’) on the circumstances that if two carbons are placed side by side and parallel to one another, and so close that an arc could form at the ends, it would continue to burn until the carbons were entirely consumed. An insulating material—first kaolin and then a mixture of barium and calcium sulphates—was used to separate the two electrodes. ‘The role of the spacer, called a ‘“‘colombin,” is not clear; apparently it provided some of the glow, and perhaps it reduced the voltage necessary to maintain the arc. Direct current was first tried, but since the positive electrode in an arc burns twice as fast as the negative, alternating current was used to make both burn at an equal rate. Each ‘‘candle” provided a light equal to that from 200 to 500 standard candles, depending on the generator and the particular circuit (fig. 80). With this device, Jablochkoff solved two of the problems of the subdivision of the electric light— that of placing several lights in the same circuit and that of reducing the intensity of the arc light. Al- though the “candles”? flickered somewhat and only lasted for one or two hours, the light was whiter and brighter than that from gas, and it was not as blinding as that from the ordinary arc light. As used in an onyx globe (fig. 81), it gave a broad and diffused glow that seemed to have been occasionally on the pinkish side. Since there was no mechanism to be con- stantly fluctuating in the circuit and causing unstable operation of the other lamps, several ‘‘candles” could be placed in a single circuit. To further increase the subdivisibility of a circuit of electric “candles,” Jablochkoff first tried to use condensers and then 109 French patent 112024 (filed March 23, 1876; additions, September 16, October 2, October 23, November 21, 1876, March 31, 1877, March 11, 1879); British patent 3552 (Sep- tember 11, 1876); L. Denayrouze, “Sur une Nouvelle Lampe électrique imaginée par M. Jablochkoff,’’ Comptes rendus, 1876, vol. 83, pp. 813-814; Du Moncel, op. cit. (footnote 80), vol. 5, pp. 472-475, 515-518; Engineering, 1878, vol. 26, pp. 125-127; William E. Langdon, “On a New Form of Electric Light,” Journal of the Society of Telegraph Engineers, 1877, vol. 6, pp. 303-319. Figure 80.—U.S. Patent Office model of the Jablochkoff candle. (USNM 252646, Smith- sonian photo 8899-A.) PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: III 395 Figure 81.—Drawing of the Jablochkoff candle, candle holder, and onyx globe. As each candle was consumed, another of the four candles in the base was manually switched into position. From Review industrielle, June 5, 1878, p. 223. transformers (fig. 82) in the circuit, but he found no definite advantages." The primaries of the trans- formers were strung in series in the circuit of the generator and the ‘‘candles”’ were similarly placed in series in the secondaries of the various transformers. The Jablochkoff “candle” made possible the first electric illumination on a broad commercial scale. 10 [,, Denayrouze and P. Jablochkoff, ‘‘Divisibilité de la lumiére électrique,” Comptes rendus, 1877, vol. 84, pp. 750-752; P, Jablochkoff, ‘Application des bouteilles de Leyde de grande surface pour distribuer en plusieurs points l’effet du courant d’une source unique d’électricité avec renforcement de cet effet,” Comptes rendus, 1877, vol. 85, pp. 1098-110; British patent 1996 (May 22, 1877); French patent 120684 (October 11, 1877; addition, October 12, 1878); Engineering, 1881, vol. 32, p. 391. MACHINE Figure 82.—Circuit diagram showing how Jablochkoff used transformers for the sub- division of his electric lights. From Engz- neering, October 14, 1881, vol. 32, p. 391. 396 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS. FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 83.—The interior of the Hippodrome in Paris as lighted by Jablochkoff candles. From E. Alglave and J. Boulard, The Electric Light, translated by T. Sloane, New York, 1889, p. 104, fig. 66. _—— Se ORO Se ae eS ee SSS Figure 84.—Avenue de l Opéra in Paris as illuminated by Jablochkoff candles in 1878. From SSS_E_E= ¢ SSS== La Lumiére électrique, 1881, vol. 4, p. 186. = —SS=SS= =——S=SS== “eT nt a gel. * i 614819—62 5 398 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY (— Fic. 24. Figure 85.—The Jablochkoff system of electric lighting as applied in London in 1881. Auto- matic switches connected another candle into the circuit when one burned out. From Engineering, September 23, 1881, vol. 32, pp. 300, 301. PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: III B99 400 Fig. Coupe ABC. Va --TN per SESS yp Ss yy iY ty 4 \N Yl. SRN EES Y LA. € Zee Beene BS WQS RERRAG 3 ane AS 6 SES Se WN WN eee ene : Fig.3. Vue en plan. BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Aig & Coupe transversale et Profil. i Les figures /. 2&3 representent la machine Gramme @ courants alternatifs nouveau modéle Figure 86.—On facing page and above: Gramme’s alternator of 1878 for a 4-circuit Jablochkoff candle system, with four candles per circuit. The current for the rotating field was supplied by a separate type d’atelier exciter. From Revue industrielle, June 5, 1878, pp. 226-227, pl. 12. Figure 87.—Gramme’s self-excited alternator (1880) for the Jablochkoff candle system. From Revue industrielle, February 11, 1880, P- 53- PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: III 401 Coupe longitudinale 402 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Coupe transversale Coupe transversale par la bobine a courant continu. parla bobine 4 courant alternatif i Bee ae Se ge eee NN eH i fe I WSN Ee Se ee eae NWN [iE | Vue du céte de la Poutlte Mj Hi}: 5 by N Figure 88.—On facing page and above: Details of Gramme’s self-excited alternator of 1880. From Revue industrielle, February 11, 1880, pp. 56-57, pl. 3. PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: III 403 Figure 89.—Siemens’ alternator (left), and separate exciter, for use in a Jablochkoff candle From J. Dredge, Electric Illumination, London, n.d. (about 1882), vol. 1, figs. 272, system. 273. In April 1877, 16 of the ‘‘candles”’ were placed in the The Parisian Hippodrome followed a short time later with a system that included both Serrin regulators and Jablochkoff “candles”; however, this system was installed by Hippolyte Fontaine instead of Jablochkoff’s Société Générale d’Electricité (fig. 83). Electric illumina- tion moved from the laboratory to the stock market when the Avenue de l’Opéra and the Place de P Opéra were lighted by 62 of these new devices in May 1878 for the Paris Universal Exhibition of 1878 (fig. 84). The grand total of some 300 ‘candles’ along the Grands-Magasins du Louvre in Paris. boulevards and in public buildings made apparent to all the newest of the wonders of electricity; ac- cordingly, the price of gas stocks dropped 10 percent. In December 1878 the Municipal Council of Paris decided to try the ‘candles’ for public illumination, in competition with gas, for one year.!! 111 Les Mondes, 1877, vol. 42, pp. 709-710; 1879, vol. 48, pp. 221-222; Engineering, 1877, vol. 23, pp. 366, 384-385; 1878, vol. 26, pp. 24, 479; 1879, vol. 27, pp. 104-105, 415; La Lumiere électrique, 1880, vol. 2, pp. 229-230, 301-305; 1881, vol. 4, pp. 185-188; Revue industrielle, 1877, p. 369; Fontaine, op. cit. (footnote 19), pp. 215-216: Defrance, op. cit. (footnote 2) London imitated the example of Paris a short time later. After trying the Jablochkoff system on an experimental scale at Billingsgate Market, in Decem- ber 1878 the municipal government installed 20 “candles” along the Thames Embankment and 16 along the Holborn Viaduct; they were placed about 50 yards apart. The system proved to be so satis- factory that, in May 1879, 20 more ‘‘candles’’? were added along the Embankment, and in October of the same year 10 were placed on Waterloo Bridge. By 1880 subdivision of the electric light had proceeded to the point that a single central power station at Charing Cross fed over 75 “‘candles’” in one system that extended 1 mile northeast along the Thames Embankment to Waterloo Bridge and Holborn Viaduct and in another that extended 1 mile south- west to Victoria Station.!! The mechanical and electrical details of the system were further refined during the following year (fig. 85). 112 Engineering, 1878, vol. 26, pp. 494; 1880, vol. 29, p. 268; Revue industrielle, 1880, vol. 9, p. 148; Berly, ‘‘Notes on the Jablochkoff System of Electric Lighting,” Journal of the Society of Telegraph Engineers, 1880, vol. 9, pp. 135-161. 404 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY == ES At first the Alliance machine was used to supply the power, and this allowed the now rather moribund Société l’Alliance to continue its existence. However, it was soon found that the Gramme generators were more efficient.!% In addition, with his usual in- genuity, in 1878 Gramme devised alternating current generators for 4, 16, and later 32 ‘‘candles”’ (fig. 86).14 One type d’atelier dynamo was used to provide the current for the electromagnet field coils of one or more alternators. These last had a rotating field, with 8 radial poles, and a stationary armature. The coils were grouped on the stator so that a number of circuits (normally with four “‘candles”’ per circuit) could be taken off a single alternator. Each “‘candle”’ provided about 100 Carcel units, and, as the following tabulation shows, each consumed about 1 hp.: Cost Length/width| Weight ae eee: ed Candles height (cm.) (kg.) R.p.m. Hp. (£) (francs) 16 89 x 86 x 78 650 600. 16 400 10, 000 6 70 x 40 x 52 280 700 6 200 5, 000 4 55 x 40 x 48 190 800 4 100 2, 500 113 Tes Mondes, 1877, vol. 42, pp. 346-347; vol. 43, p. 779. 14 French patent 120649 (October 23, 1877; additions, December 3, 1877, and September 1, 1879); British patent 953 (March 9, 1878); Revue industrielle, 1878, vol. 7, pp. 222- 224; Engineering, 1878, vol. 26, pp. 63-66; 1881, vol. 32, pp. 251-253, 275-277, 299-302, 326-329, 353-355; Fontaine, op. cit. (footnote 19), pp. 161-166. Figure 90.—Iwo views of Siemens’ self-excited alternator of 1882. From J. Dredge, Electric illumination, London, n.d. (about 1882), vol. 1, figs. 274, 275. Two years later, in 1880, Gramme devised his which combined both the alternator of 1878 and a 4-pole dynamo within a single frame (figs. 87, 88).!!° factured—a small model weighing 280 kg. and re- machine auto-excitatrice, Two sizes were manu- quiring 4 hp. to supply 12 “‘candles,” and a large one weighing 470 kg. and requiring 8 hp. to supply 24 ‘‘candles.” from 20 to 30 Carcel units. The light from each ‘“‘candle” was Apparently this machine auto-excitatrice was not patented. The Siemens dynamos also were used in the Jabloch- How- ever, it was not long before the Siemens firm had koff system to excite the Gramme alternator. designed its own alternator (fig. 89) and had a Paris agent who supplied it in quantity. The construction of the Siemens alternator was essentially that of the Woolrich machine, with electromagnets substituted for the permanent magnets and with a disk armature rotating between two stationary rings of electromag- nets.!!5 Depending on the size of the machine, there 115 Revue industrielle, 1880, vol. 9, pp. 53, 56-57: La Lumiere électrique, 1880, vol. 2, pp. 88-89; Engineering, 1880, vol. 29, p. 136. 116 German patents 2245 (March 9, 1878) and 3383 (April 3, 1878); French patents 123307 (March 20, 1878) and 12479 (May 27, 1878); British patent 3134 (August 8, 1878); La Lumiere électrique, 1879, vol. 1, pp. 25-26; Engineering, 1879, vol. 27, pp. 181-182. PAPER 30: DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY: II 405 Figure g1.—Central station of Ja- blochkoff electric light system (1880) for illuminating an exposition of paintings in Paris. From La Lu- miére électrique, June 15, 1880, vol. 2, p. 228. were 8 or 16 electromagnets in each of the stationary rings and in the disk armature. The alternator was constructed in three sizes—4-, 8-, and 16-light machines that, with their exciters, required, respec- tively, 4, 7, and 13 hp. The smallest machine was cited as providing a light of 300 candles from each of the four “‘candles.”? The Siemens firm also manu- factured a self-excited alternator (fig. 90). For a while it seemed as if the Jablochkoff system might be the solution to the problem of the electric light. During the next few years its application expanded quite rapidly; in addition to its use in cities (figs. 91, 92) it was utilized to light the cabins of ships. But the sudden rise of this new device came to an almost equally as sudden halt as more economic means of subdividing the electric light were developed. 406 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Figure 92.—The harbor at Le Havre Jablochkoff Lumiere élec- as illuminated by candles. From La trique, July 30, 1881, vol. 4, p. 135. Nevertheless, the Jablochkoff system showed that a single central station could provide electrical power at a number of different locations. Also, some of the most essential problems of distribution were tackled; even the use of transformers was attempted. Most important, the Jablochkoff system showed that the subdivision of the electric light was possible, and it attracted the attention of financiers to this new form of investment. The system soon was replaced by others that were electrically and economically more feasible, but, in the meantime, another phase of electrical technology had been added to the growing list that already included electrochemistry and electrical communications. U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1962 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C.—Price 70 cents 2846 O12 Index Papers 28-30 (pp 231-407), The Development of Electrical Technology in the 19th Century, are indexed separately, starting on page 41. Parts 1-3, Abbe, C., 104, 105, 110, 114 Accademia del Cimento, Florence, 97 Achromatic telescope, 158, 162, 167, 170, 182, 183 Ackermann, Rudolph, 218, 221, 222 steering linkage, 218, 221, 222, 223 Adcock, Henry, 230 Adler Planetarium, 159 Age of Caloric, John Ericsson and the, 41—- 60 A’Hearn, Frank, 174 air engine, Stirling, 57 Albermarle-Sound boat, 150 Albion, Robert Greenhalgh, 64, 69 Albucasis, see al-Zahrawi Allaire, James P., 67 Allegheny College, 171, 172, 175 Allegheny Observatory, 158, 159, 169, 170 Alvin Clark and Sons, 158 American Association for the Advance- ment of Science, 177 American Boat Type, the Migrations of an, U3 dal American Elevator Company, 23 American Institute, 166 Fair, New York, 158, 168 American Optical Company, 178 Philosophical Society, 157 Photographical Society, 168 American-Swedish Historical Foundation, Phila., 52 American University, 171, 172, 178, 179, 180, 184 anemometer, 98, 99, 101, 104 self-registering pressure-plate, 105 aneroid barometer, 109, 114, I15 Ansaloni, M. A., 36 Arctic, Collins liner, 47, 50 d’Argellata, 85, 86, 90, 91, 93, 94 Armstrong, Sir William, 10 crane, II, 14 Arnold, N. T., 173 Aronhold, Siegfried Heinrich, 215 arrows, withdrawal of, 89, 91, 92 INDEX—PAPERS 19-27 Arthur Henning, Inc., 64 astronomy, 98 Athenaeum Club, 207 atmospheric recorder, 102, 103 Ault, E. S., 225 Avicenna, see Ibn Sina, 84 Bache, Alexander D., 163, 181 Backmann, 20, 21, 22, 23, 35 system, 23, 28, 31, 32 Bacon, Benoni B., 162 Francis, 98 Baldwin, Cyrus W., 11 Baldwin-Hale water balance elevator, 12 Baldwin Locomotive Works, 129, 130 Baltic, Collins liner, 45 Barnard, F. A. P., 58 John G., 49 barograph, 105, 106, 114, 115 barometer, 97, 98, 99, IOI, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 109, III aneroid, 109 balance, 101, 113 electromechanical registering, 112 mercurial, 97, 106 self-registering, 114 siphon and float, 102 wheel, 101, 114 Barr, John H., 225, 230 bathometer, 97 Beck, Theodor, 188, 229 Becker, Bernard W., 206 Bell, Malcolm, Jr., 69, 73 Berlin kinematic models, 209 Bern Observatory, 106 Bernoulli, Jean, 211 Bétancourt, Augustin de, 210, 212, 216, 218, 221, 230 Bigelow, Jacob, 216, 218 Bissell, Levi, 121, 122, 123, 124, 127, 130 safety truck, 120, 121, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131 Black Ball Line, 69 Bloch, Z. S., 226 bolometer, 159 Bonaparte, Napoleon, 200 Bonis, Henry N., 225 Borgnis, Giuseppe Antonio, 210, 211, 212, 229 Boulton, Matthew, 188, 189, 191, 192, 195 Boulton and Watt, firm, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 199 condensing engine, 58 steam engine, 192, 220, 221 Bourdon, E., 114 Brahe, ‘Tycho, 156 Brashear, John, 158, 159, 172, 176, 178 Braynard, Frank O., 62, 68, 69, 73, 74 British Association for the Advancement of Science, 98, 99, 103, 105, 106, 107, 110 British Eastern Counties Railway, 127 British Institution of Civil Engineers, 55 British patents, 192, 193, 195, 196, 197, 200, 201, 221, 223 Brooke, Charles, 105 Brother Jonathan, locomotive, 119 Brown, Henry T., 219 Thomas E., Jr., 14, 25, 27 Brunel, Isambard Kingdom, 58 cabin skiff, 152 Cajori, Florian, 193, 205 caloric engine, 51, 52, 55, 50; 57, 58 Calver, George, 159 Cambridge University, 211 cameras, 168, 170 Campbell, Donald, 84 Carnot, Lazare, 210 Sadi, 47, 53 Cartwright, Edmund, 199 Castelli, Benedetto, 96 cautery, 87, 88, 89 Cayley, Sir George, 55 C. D. Fredericks & Co., 44 Central Railroad Company of New Jersey, 123 Champlain sharpie, 152 409 Channing, Johannis, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93 Chapelle, Howard I.: The Migrations of an American Boat Type, 133-155 The Pioneer Steamship Savannah: a Study for a Scale Model, 61-80 Chase, G. B., 173 Chasles, Michel, 211 Chebyshev, Pafnutif L’vovich, 186, 202, 203, 204, 206, 209, 226 Chelsea Publishing Company, 205 Chesapeake Bay, 139-154. sharpie, 139, 140, 148, 149 skiff, 148, 149 skipjacks, 154 terrapin smack, 142, 149 Chesapeake log canoe, 153 Chesapeake motorboats, 154 Cheverton, Benjamin, 57, 58, 59 Chilean astronomical expedition, 158 Church, William, 47 Civil War, 149, 223 Clark, Alvan, 158, 159, 172 Clarke, Reeves & Company, 4, 6 Cleghorn, Prof., 52 clocks, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103 water, 103 weather, 99, 100, 101 Wren’s, 103 Coffin, James H., 107 Colburn, Zerah, 127 Collége de France, 209 Collins, Joseph, 63, 68, 75 Collins Line steamships, 42, 44, 46, 51 Columbia University, 158, 168, 170 Columbian engine, 200, 201 comet-seeker telescope, 164, 168, 184 Common, A. A., 159, 173 Connecticut drag boat, 135 Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, 204 consolidation type locomotive, 128 Coriolis, Gaspard-Gustave de, 211, 225 Cornell University, 225, 230 Cornish, James, 160 Violet, 160 counterweighted crank wheel, 194 Croatan boat, 150 Crump, Clifford C., 180 Cundy, Henry M., 207 cupping, 92 Daguerre, 105, 158, 163, 168 Davy, Sir Humphry, 48, 206 Dawes, W. R., 158 Day, William, 165 410 Dearborn Observatory, 159 Dener, H., 86 dental hygiene, 88, 89, go Derham, William, 100 Deutsches Museum, Munich, 211 Dod, Daniel, 68 Dodds, H. G., 179, 180 Dolland, George, 102, 103, 181, 182 Dorpat telescope, 183 dory, New England, 135 double-ended sharpies, 152-153 Doughtie, V. L., 224 Douglas, William, 101 Draconis, 181, 182, 183 drag link coupling, 220, 221 Draper, Daniel, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110, Lt, 105 Henry, 172 draw telescope, 164, 184 Drawings and Pharmacy in al-Zahrawi’s toth-Century Surgical Treatise, 81— 94 dugout canoes, 136 Dye, F., 5, 16 Eastern Counties Railway, 128 eccentric wheel, 194, 195 Ecole Polytechnique, 205, 207, 209, 210, QI Edoux, Leon, 31, 32, 36, 37 Edoux system, 37, 38, 39, 40 Eichner, L. C., 164 Eiffel, Gustave, 4, 6, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 36, 37 Eiffel Tower, 4, 5, 7, 14, 17, 20, 23, 39 electromagnetic meteorological register, 106, 115 electrometer, 102, 105 elevator, helicoidal, 22 hydraulic, 10, 15, 16 hydro-atmospheric, 11 steam, 9, 10 Teagle, 8 Elevator Systems of the Eiffel Tower, 1889, I-40 engine, air, 57 steam, 186, 191, 192 Ericsson, Capt. John, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47> 48; 49, 50 51, 52> 53> 54s 55» 58; 223 Ericsson, caloric ship, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, Bb Bn by Bib By) Erie Conference of the Methodist Church, I) UTR Ma Sho) Espey, James P., 163 Euler, Leonhard, 209 Evans, Oliver, 200, 201, 203, 209, 218 evaporimeter, 98, 102 Ewbank, ‘Thomas, 50 Farey, John, 192, 198, 199 Fassig, O. L., 101, 105 Fecker, J. W., 178, 180 Feger, D. H., 128, 129 Fenwick, Thomas, 218 Ferguson, Eugene S.: John Ericsson and the Age of Caloric, 41-60 Kinematics of Mechanisms from the Time of Watt, 185-230 Fickett, Francis, 67 Fickett and Crockett shipyard, 64 Fickett and Thomas shipyard, 64 Fillmore, President, 46 Finn, A. N., 180 Fish, Robert, 145 Fitz, Arthur V. A., 164 Benjamin, 170 Charles, 170 George, 170 Harry, 168, 170 Henry, 158, 159, 164-170, 184 Julia Ann Wells, 170 Louise, 170 Mark, 165 Robert, 170 Susan Page, 164 Fitzroy, Captain, 57 Fives-Lilles engineering company, 39, 40 “flatiron” or sharp-bowed skiff, 135, 148, GY) aya gy 1G) flattie, 135, 145 Forbes, J. D., 98, 99, 103, 115 Forman, Sidney, 210 four-bar linkage, 227 Franklin, Benjamin, 160 Franklin Institute, Philadelphia, 158, 163, 181, 182, 184 Freemantle, William, 200 Freemantle engine, 201 Freind, Johannis, 92 Freudenstein, Ferdinand, 214, 227 Frolic, sharpie, 148 Fulton the First, vessel, 73 Galilei, Galileo, 96, 97, 101, 156 “garvey,” sailing scow, 147, 148 Gautier, 180 Geddes, L. A., 101 General Darcy, locomotive, 124, 126 Geneva stop, 220, 221, 222 Geneva wheel mechanism, 221 Gerard of Cremona, 83 Gilfillan, S. C., 68, 77 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Gilliss, James M., 158, 170 Glazebrook, James, 48 Goodsell, M., 136 grain mill, 189 Great Exhibition in London, 102, 103, 105, 222 Great Lakes sharpie, 152 Greenwich Observatory, 105 Gregory, Olinthus, 216, 218 gundalow, Piscataqua, 150 Gurlt, Ernst, 85 Guyot, Arnold, 99 Hachette, Jean N. P., 208, 210, 216, 218 Hale, George Ellery, 156, 171 William E., 12, 27 Hall, Allen S., Jr., 214, 225, 228 Frederick G., 221 W. Frank, 24, 25, 30 Halley, Edmund, 98 Hamarneh, Sami: Drawings and Phar- macy in al-Zahrawi’s 10th-Century Surgical Treatise, 81-94 Hamilton, William, 163, 182, 184. Hare, Robert, 163 Harriman University, Tennessee, 172 Harrison, Winans and Eastwick, 126, 127 Harvefeldt, Prof., 53 Hassler, Ferdinand, 157 Hatteras boats, 154. Havre Line, 69 Hawksley, Mr., 55, 57 Headden, John, 124, 126 helicoidal elevator, 22 Henry, Joseph, 98, 99, 105, 116, 229 Henry Ford Museum, 200 Herschelian reflecting telescope, 156, 157, 162, 163, 166, 182, 183, 184 Heyl, Erik, 47 Hinkley Locomotive Works, 122 Hipp’s system, 105, 109, 114 Hiscox, Gardner D., 216, 218 Hodge, John, 174, 175 Hodge Manufacturing Co., 174 Hoff, H. E., ror Hogg and Delamater, constructors, 45 Holcomb, Abijah, 161 Amasa, 156, 157, 158, 160-164, 171, 181, 182 Climena, 160 Elijah, 160 Elijah, Jr., 160 Judah, ist, 160 Lucy, 160 Nathaniel, 2nd, 160 Nathaniel, 3rd, 160 INDEX—PAPERS 19-27 Holcomb, Newton, 160 Silas, 160 Holcomb, Fitz, and Peate: Three 19th Century American Telescope Makers, 155-184 Holdredge, Capt. Nathaniel, 68 Hooke, Robert, 97, 100, 101, 103, 108, 114, 115 Horton, H. L., 219 Hough, George, 105, 106, 107, 109, 112, 116 Howard, George, 159, 174, 175, 176, 178 Howell, Louise Fitz: Henry Fitz, 1808- 1863, 164-170 Hoyt, W. F., 172 Hrones, John A., 226, 227 Hudson, C. B., 68, 76 William S., 123, 124, 125, 126, 129, 130, 131 Hudson truck, 124 Hudson-Bissell truck, 128, 131 Hukill, G. P., 173 Humason, G. H., 173 Hurst, Bishop, 173 Hutton, Charles, 109, 114 Huygens, Christiaan, 48 hydraulic elevator, 10, 15, 16 direct plunger, 16 rope-geared, 15 hydro-atmospheric elevator, 11 hydrometer, 97 hydrostatic balance, 96 hygrometer, 96, 97, 98, 101, 102 hygroscope, 101 hypocycloidal engine, 200 Introduction of Self-Registering Meteor- ological Instruments, 95-116 Introduction of the Locomotive Safety Truck, 117-131 J. W. Fecker Company, 178, 180 Jallings, John H., 11 James Monroe, packet ship, 69 Jenkin, Fleeming, 216 Jenkins, Rhys, 192 Jenson, Lawrence, 63 Jervis, John J., 118, 119 John Ericsson and the Age of Caloric, 41— 60 Johns Hopkins University, 207 Johnson, Charles, 220 John, 168 Jones, F. D., 219 Keenan, Joseph H., 52, 54, 55 Keim, Jean A., 5 Kelvin, Lord, 54, 207 Kempe, A. B., 198, 202, 204, 206, 207, 209, 229 Kendell, Gillet, 162 Noadiah, 162 Kennedy, Alexander B. W., 209, 211, 213, 214, 215, 216, 221, 223 Kew Observatory, 99, 105, 114 Kinematics of Mechanisms from the Time of Watt, 185-230 Kitching, John B., 52 Kitson, 127 Klein, J. F., 229 Klemm, Friedrich, 213 Knight, Edward H., 218, 222 Koechlin, Maurice, 6, 27, 30 Kraus, R., 226 Kreil, Karl, 103, 104, 106 Kunhardt, C. P., 141, 142, 144, 146 Lacroix, E., 106, 109, 110 Laird, John P., 126, 129, 130 Lambert, George, 173, 174 Langley, Samuel Pierpont, 159 Lankensperger, George, 222, 223 Lanz, Phillipe Louis, 210, 212, 216, 218, 221, 230 Lardner, Dyonysius, 198 Laughlin, H. G., 22 Lebanon, locomotive, 123 Leclerc, Lucien, 85, 86, 92 Leibniz, Gottfried, 98, 109 lens, 184 edging and testing machine, 184 grinding machine, 184. polishing machine, 184. Leupold, Jacob, 209 Lever, Darcy, 76, 77 Lick Observatory, 111, 159 Locomotive Engine Safety Truck Co., 130, 131 log canoe, 148 London’s South Kensington Museum, 207 Loomis, Prof., 170 Louisville and Nashville Railroad, 129 Lucky, sharpie yacht, 145 Lukens, Isiah T., 163 magnetometer, 104, 105 al-Majusi, 83, 84 Manchester Locomotive Works, 131 Mannheim, Amédée, 205 slide rule, 205 Mapes, James J., 45, 46 Marestier, Jean Baptiste, 62, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72; 73, 74> 75> 76 80 Marietta and Cincinnati Railroad, 129 Mariotte, Edmé, 98 411 Marvin, Charles, 114, 115 Maryland terrapin smack, 142, 149, 151 Mason, Charles, 124 Mechanisms, Kinematics of, from Time of Watt, 185-230 Memphis and Charleston Railroad, 128 M’Kay, L., 65, 72, 76 Merrill, Allyne L., 224, 225 meteorograph, 105, 110 Meteorological Instruments, The Intro- duction of Self-Registering, 95-116 Migrations of an American Boat Type, The, 133-154 Milham, W. I., 157 Miller screw-hoisting machine, 19, 22, 23 Milligan, Gilbert M., 123 mogul type freight locomotive, 128, 129, 131 Mohawk and Huron Rail Road, 119 Monconys, Balthasar, 101 Monge, Gaspard, 207, 210 Monitor, ironclad, 43, 223 Moore, Samuel M., 123 Morey, Samuel, 48 Morland, Samuel, 108, 109, 113, 114 Morrison, John H., 47, 67, 68, 173, 176 Morse, Williams & Co., 18 Muirhead, James P., 189, 193, 195, 196, 197, 198 Multhauf, Robert P.: Introduction to Holcomb, Fitz, and Peate, Three 1gth Century Telescope Makers, the 155-184 The Introduction of Self-Registering Meteorological Instruments, 95- 116 Munn, Orson, 45, 46, 53 Munroe, R. M., 151, 153 Murphy & Jeffers, Ship Model Society of Rhode Island, 77 Murray, W. H. H., 152 Museum of History and ‘Technology, Smithsonian Institution, 164, 179, 180 Nasmyth, 216 National Bureau of Standards, 178, 180 National Library of Medicine, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90; 91, 93, 94 National Watercraft collection, 150 Nelson, Admiral, 222 Nelson, G. L., 226, 22 New England dory, 135 New Haven sharpie, 133-154 New Jersey Locomotive and Machine Company, 123, 127, 129 412 New Jersey Railroad and Transportation Company, 123, 124, 126, 129, 131 New York, packet ship, 69 New York Crystal Palace Exhibition, 8 New York Yacht Club, 145 Newcomen, Thomas, 191 beam engine, 191 Newtonian form, 181 Nicholson, John, 220 Niles 8-wheeler, 129 North Carolina sharpie, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151 Norton, William, 50 Nouguier, Emile, 6 Oberlin College, 171 Odometer, 103 Ogden, Warren G., 212 Ohio, packet ship, 69, 70, 72, 76 Ohio State University, 225, 230 Ohio Wesleyan University, 180 Oldham, John, 221 coupling, 221 Osler, A. Foliet, 103, 104 Otis, Charles R., 27, 28 Elisha G., 6, 8, 12, 25 Otis Elevator Company, 9, 10, 13, 17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 39, 40 Overton, Silas, 170 pantograph, 205 Papal Observatory, 106 parallel motion engine, 198, 201, 205, 206 Paris Exposition of 1900, 180 Patte, Pierre, 198, 201, 202 Patten, Richard, 157 Peate, John, 159, 171-184 Mary, 171 Thomas, 171 Peaucellier, Charles—Nicolas, 204, 205, 206 Pelican, sharpie yacht, 152 pendulum, bimetalic, 108 Pennsylvania Hospital, 182 Pennsylvania Railroad, 126, 129 Penrose, 206 Perkins Observatory, University, 180 Pharmacy and Drawings in al-Zahrawi’s 1oth-Century Surgical ‘Treatise, 81-94 . Philadelphia-New Orleans packet, 69, 70 Pickard, James, 192, 193 Pierce, President-Elect, 46 Pinet, G., 209 Ohio Wesleyan Pioneer Steamship Savannah: A Study for a Scale Model, 61-80 Piscataqua gundalow, 150 planing machine, 201 plunger hydraulic elevator, 16 polar planimeter, 205 Polaris, 181, 183 Pole, Mr., 58 Poncelet, Jean Victor, 211 Porter, Charles T., 198 Rufus, 219 Post, Mary, 160 Pratt, Charles R., 17 Preble, George H., 51 pressure-volume diagram, 59 Preston, F. W., and McGrath, William J., Jr.: John Peate, 1820-1903, 171- 180 Prim’s blowing engine, 205, 206 Princeton University Library, 210 pumps, 32, 37, 38 French Girard, 32 Vacuum, 97 Worthington, 37, 38 quadrants, 156, 157 quick-return mechanism, 223, 224 radiosonde, 114 rain-gauge, 97, 98, 101, 102, 103, 105 Ramelli, Agostino, 187, 189, 190 Rankine, William J. M., 48, 200, 213, 222, 223, 224 al-Razi, 83 Redtenbacher, Ferdinand, 213 Rees, Abraham, 52, 197, 199, 200, 201 reflecting telescope, 158, 159, 163, 172 refracting telescope, 157, 158, 159, 172 Regnault, Henri-Victor, 54 Reuleaux, Franz, 186, 206, 209, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 221, 223, 224, 226 Rhazes, (al-Razi), 83 Richard, Jules, 114, 115 Richards, Charles B., 198 Rider-Ericsson Engine Company, 58 Rittenhouse, David, 157 Roberts, Richard, 198, 201, 202, 209, 216 Robinson, T. R., 104, 110 Roebling, John, 42 Rogers, Moses, 63, 68 Stevens, 67, 68, 69 Rogers Locomotive Works, 124, 125, 126, 12Q, 131 , Rollett, A. P., 207 Ronalds, Francis, 105 rotative engines, 193 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Roux, Combaluzier and Lapape, 28, 34, 35) 49 system, 22, 28, 30, 31, 36, 39, 40 Rowe, Lester, 146 Royal Society of London, 97, 99, 100, 105, 108, 157, 192, 22 Rumford, Count, 52 Russell, John Scott, 200 Rutherford, L. M., 158, 168, 170 S. & F. Fickett shipyard, see Fickett and Crockett, 64 safety truck, four-wheel, HAD, WO, uh two-wheel, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131 St. Gobain Company of France, 173 Salisbury, William, 69 Sargent, John O., 53 Sarrus, Pierre-Frédéric, 193 Sarton, George, 83 Sauvestre, Stéphen, 6 Savannah (vessel) model, 61-80 Savannah Steamship Company, share- holders, 68 sawmill, up-and-down, 187 schooner-rigged sharpies, 149, 150 Schwamb, Peter, 224, 225 Scotch yoke, 221, 222 ScOW 135, 147, 148 sea-water sampling device, 97 Sedgwick, H. G., 179 Seine boat, 135 self-registering systems, electromagnetic, 105-114 Hipp’s, 105, 109, 114 Kew’s, 105, 114 Secci’s, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 116 Wild’s, 105 106, 116 self-registering systems, mechanical, 105- 114 Draper’s, 105 Sellers, George Escol, 219 Sennet, Richard, 51 sharpie, 136-154 Chesapeake Bay, 148-149 double-ended, 152-153 modern, 154 New Haven, 133-154 North Carolina, 141-151 schooner-rigged, 149, 150 sloop-type, 145 Siemens, Karl Wilhelm, 57 Werner von, 14, 16 H ol, Signal Corps, U.S. Army, 105, 110 Silliman, Prof. Benjamin, 157, 162 INDEX—PAPERS 19-27 Sina, Ibn, 84 Singer, Dorothea, 213 skiff, flatiron or sharpbowed, 135, 148, 152 Weep Woy: slider-crank mechanism, 188 Smack, Maryland terrapin, 142, 149, 151 Smeaton, John, 192 Smith, Alba, F., 122, 124, 125, 130, 131 Robert Henry, 215, 217, 223 Smithsonian Institution, 58, 97, 99, 105, 107, 108, 113, 115, 198 spectroscopes, 159 Speedwell Ironworks, 68, 69 Spon, E. F. and N., 218, 219 Sprague, Frank J., 14, 17 Stahi, Albert W., 225 Standard Plate Glass Company, 159, 174, 175, 176, 179 steam elevator, 9, 10 steam engine, 186, 191, 192 steam gage, 114 Steere, Grace E. Holcomb, 184 Steinhill and Foucault, 159 Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, 223 Stirling, Robert and James, 48, 54, 57 Storey, Eva C. Holcomb, 184 straight-line mechanism, 199, 200, 201, 203 Stubbs, R. N., 171, 172, 173 Sudhoff, Karl, 85, 87, 89 sun-and-planet gearing, 192, 193, 195 Surgeon General’s office, U.S. Army, 98 surveyors instruments, 162 Svoboda, Antonin, 227 swing-bolster truck, 122, 124, 125 Sylvester, James Joseph, 186, 204, 205, 206, 207, 209 Teagle elevator, 8 Telegraph, sharpie, 136 telescope, 156-184 achromatic, 162, 167, 170, 182, 183 comet-seeker, 164, 168, 184 Dorpat, 183 draw, 164, 184 Gregorian, 181, 182, 183 Herschelian reflecting, 156, 157, 162, 163, 166, 182, 183, 184 reflecting, 172, 173, 182 refracting, 168, 172, 184 transit, 163, 184 Yerkes refracting, 159, 171 telescopic theodolite, 157 textile machine, 201 Thayer, Sylvanus, 210 thermograph, 105, 114 thermometer, 96, 97, 98, 99. 104, 105, 106, 108 balance, 104 dry-bulb, 97 electrical contact, 109 ROT OS maximum-minimum, 97 mercurial, 107 self-registering, 101, 115 wet-bulb, 97, 98 thermoscope, 96, 97, 101 Thiel College, Greensville, Pa., 172 Thomson, Sir William (See Lord Kelvin) 207 three-plank canoes, 152 Thurston, R. H., 47 Tilton, H. C., 174 Tomlinson, Charles, 223 Tool, A. Q., 180 Torricelli, Evangelista, 97, 98, 99, 101, 217 transit, 157, 163 Tredgold, Thomas, 51 Trevithick, Richard, 4, 5 Trotter, sharpie, 136 truck, four-wheel safety, 120, 121, TIO; N27. radius-bar, 123 swing bolster, 122, 124, 125 two-wheel safety, 125, 126, 127, 128. 129, 131 Tyler, David Budlong, 52, 68, 77 United States, packet ship, 68 U.S. Army Signal Corps, 105, 110 122, U.S. National Museum, 43, 44, 52, 58. 63, 64, 71, 77, 80, 108, 113, 115, 134, 150, 157, 161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 168, 171, 179, 184, 198 U.S. Navy, Depot of Charts and Instru- ments, 157, 158 U.S. Weather Bureau, 101, 113, 114, 115 Urbanitzky, Alfred R., 17 vacuum pump, 97 Vail, Stephen, 68, 72 Vienna Exhibition, 1873, 203 Vinci, Leonardo da, 101, 187, 188 Virgines, 182 Vogel, Robert M.: Elevator Systems of the - Eiffel Tower, 1889; 1-40 Voglie, de, linkage, 201, 202, 212 Walker, Sears C., 163 Wampler, Squire, 158, 159 Warner and Swasey, 159, 179 Wasbrough, Matthew, 192, 193 413 Washington, vessel, 50 Washington Monument elevator, 6, 10 Watkins, J. Elfreth, 68, 69 Watt, James, 186, 187, 188, 191, 192, 193, 195, 197, 198, 199, 203, 205, 206, 209 engine, 196, 201 steam engine, 47, 188, 191 straight-line linkage, ‘weather glass,” see barometer, 98 Weihe, Carl, 213 Weissenborn, Gustavus, 122, 123, 125 Wells, Julia Ann, 168 West Point Foundry Association, 119 Western Railroad Association, 131 Wheatstone, Charles, 106, 107, 116 wheel-barometer, 101, 114 220 414 Whetstone, John L., 127, 130 Whewell, William, 103 White, James, 199, 200 John H.: Introduction of the Loco- motive Safety Truck, 117-131 Whitworth, Joseph, 216, 222, 223, 224 Willis, Robert, 187, 198, 201, 202, 206, 209, 211, 212, 215, 221, 222, 223, 224, 227 Winans camel engine, 126, 130 wind, meteorological instruments, 97, 98, 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 110 direction indicator, 102 force indicator, 102 pressure gage, 97, 101 vane, 98, 105 velocity indicator, 106, 110 wind—continued self-registering direction 107 Withington, Sidney, 65, 73 Wolf, A., 97, 98 Wolfe, W. A., 222 Woods, Arthur T., 225 Worthington pumps, 37, 38 Wren, Christopher, 99, 100, 101, 103, 108. 113, 115 yawl, 135, 149 Yerkes refracting telescope, 159, 171 Young, William J., 163 Youngken, Heber W., g1 al-Zahraw1, Abu al-Qasim Khalaf ibn Abbas, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, O92 8935, 94 indicator. BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Index To Papers 28-30, The Development of Electrical Technology in the 19th Century, Académie des Sciences, Paris, 245, 246, 254, 256, 337; 380 Albany (New York) Academy, 259, 281 Alexander, William, 278, 279, 281 Allard, E., 356, 358, 360, 368, 369, 371 Alliance machine, 356, 357, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 372; 376, 383, 405 American Bell Telephone Company, 330 Ampére, A. M., 209, 212, 257, 258, 277, 278, 279, 281, 345, 346 Arago, Dominique, 254, 256, 258 Arc de Triomphe, 357 Archereau, Henri A., 336, 338, 339 arc-light regulator, 342 armature, 255 Atlantic Telegraph Company, 306 Austrian State Telegraph, 308 Bain, Alexander, 292, 293, 300 electrochemical telegraph, 296 system, 293 Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, 299 Barlow, Peter, 240, 260, 261, 281 wheel, 259, 345, 349 Baudot, J. M. E., 308 system, 308, 309, 313 multiplex alphabet, 314 multiplex telegraph keyboard, 314 Bavarian Academy of Sciences, 276, 284 Becquerel, Edmund, 341, 343, 351 Belgrave Institute, London, 292 Bell, Alexander Graham, 318, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 328, 330 box telephone, 324 harmonic multiple telegraph, 319, 321 magneto telephone, 319, 320, 321, 329 liquid transmitter, 322 Telephone Company, 324, 325, 327, 328, 330, 331 telephones, 323 Berliner, Emile, 327, 328, 329, 330 drum microphone, 326 telephone transmitter, 325 INDEX—PAPERS 28-30 Parts 1-3 (pp. 231-407) Berlioz, Auguste, 356, 357, 361 Blake, Francis, 330 telephone transmitter, 327, 328, 330 Bréguet, Alfred N., 380, 383, 384, 386, 393 Brett, Jacob and John, 305, 306 Bright, Charles, 305, 306 British Patent, 265, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 306, 330, 338, 339, 341, 350, 251, 359, 357, 358, 359, 361, 362, 364, 379; 372; 374, 375» 378; 386, 395; 405 Brittle, John, 366, 374, 386, 387. 390, 392, 393 Brown University, 322, 325 Bunsen, Robert, 243, 245 battery, 250 cell, 245, 246, 249, 335, 336, 340, 343; 362, 383 Burndy Library, 277 calorimotor, 240, 242 Cap de la Héve lighthouse, 370, 371 Carcel lamp, 352 units, 357, 358; 359, 360, 364, 368, 369, 382, 384, 385, 405 Carlisle, Anthony, 235, 248, 250 Carty, J. J-, 332 phantom circuit, 332 electromechanical, Bunsen, 246 Clark, 247, 248, 255 Daneill, 239 Foure, 252 Gassner, 254 Grenet, 249 Grove, 243 Lalande-Chaperon, 247 Leclanche, 252 Planté, 250 Smee, 247 Weston, 256 Chappe, Ignace U. J., 275 telegraph, 275, 286 Children, John G., 238, 239 Christofle electroplating firm, 362 cell, City Museum and Art Gallery, Birming- ham, England, 353 Civil War, 307 Clarke, Edward M., 346, 349 Uriah, 265 Clarke, electric locomotive, 265 generator, 284, 351, 352 motor, 265, 268 Colton, G. Q., 266 electric locomotive, 268 Committee of Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, 298, 299 commutator, 255 Concord Antiquarian Society, 294 Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers, 356 Cooke, W. F., 286, 289, 291, 292 Cooke’s two-needle telegraph, 292 Cornell University, 300 Cosmos, 268, 339, 341, 342, 343, 352: 3535 357, 359, 360, 362, 363, 364 Crimean War, 291, 342 Cross, Charles, 319 crowfoot cell, 243 crown of cups battery, 235, 236 Cruickshanks, William, 235, 236, 248, 250 trough battery, 235, 259 dal Negro, Salvatore, 261 Daniell, J. Frederic, 241 cell battery, 239, 242, 243, 244, 245, 247 Davenport, Thomas, 263, 264, 265, 269 electric “‘train’”’, 264 motor, 264, 265 Davidson, Robert, 265, 269 electric locomotive, 264 Davis, Daniel, 267, 269, 350, 352 Davy, Edward, 291, 292, 293 Humphrey, 236, 238, 239, 241, 242, 250, 256, 335 De Meritens, 362, 368 magneto, 369, 373 Defrance, Eugéne, 336, 404 Delaney, Patrick B., 308 415 Deleuil, Louis, 334, 335, 336, 341 Denayrouze, L., 395, 396 Deprez, Marcel, 390 Development of Electrical ‘Technology in the rgth Century: 1. The Electro- chemical cell and the Electromag- net, 231-271. 2. The Telegraph and the Telephone, 273-332. 3. The Early Arc Light and Generator, 333-407 Dolbear, A. E., 325, 327, 331 magneto telephone, 325 Douglass, James N., 353, 362, 364, 366, 3745 385, 386 Dredge, J-, 336, 339, 345, 374, 378, 379 386, 404, 405 Drummond light, 356 Duboscq, Jules, 336, 337; 339; 341 arc-light regulator, 342, 343, 354 E. 8. Greeley & Co., 253 Ecole Militaire, Brussels, 356 Edison, Thomas A., 247, 308, 327. 328, 32933302033 cell, 247 chalk telephone, 316 microphone, 326 storage battery, 252 Edmondson, T., 261 motor, 262, “Electra,’’ ballet, 337, 338 Electric Power Corporation, 356 electrochemical telegraph, 298, 300 electromagnet, 255, 256, 314, 315, 318, 319, 345: 354 375» 378, 380, 383, 495 electromagnetic telegraph, 298 Electromechanical Cell and the Electro- magnet, 231-271. Elias, P., 266, 374 ring armature motor, 267, 371, 374 Elkington, George R., 254, 351 firm, Manchester, 254, 350, 355» 362, 376 Exposition Universelle, Paris, 339 Fahie, J. J., 278, 292 Faraday, Michael, 240, 260, 261, 289, 344, 345, 346, 349, 350, 352, 253, 354 358, 366 circulating wire, 259 Farmer, Moses G., 268, 308, 309, 378 electric train, 270 Jona Faure cell, 252 Faye, 359 Fétes des Souverains, 361 416 Feyerabend, Ernst, 282, 283, 284, 285, 287, 294, 295, 296 Field, Cyrus, 305, 306 Fontaine, Hippolyte, 339, 343, 359, 367 368, 380, 383, 385. 386, 390, 404 405 Foucault, Léon, 337 arc-light regulator, 336, 338, 339, 342 French Patent, 243, 308, 341, 356, 362, 372, 380, 395, 405 Fresnel, A., 344 lens system, 352, 354 Froment, G., 268, 269, 379 motor, 270 Fuller’s trough battery, 239 Gale, Leonard, 296, 297 Galvani, Luigi, 233, 234, 295 galvanic apparatus, 238 deflagrator, 240, 242 galvanometer, 257, 306 Gassner, C., 247 cell, 247, 254 Gauss, C. F., 282, 284, 286 Gauss and Weber telegraph, 282, 283, 284, 289, 309 Gladstone, J. H., 351, 359 G6ttingen astronomical observatory, 282 Gramme, Z. T., 368, 379, 380, 383, 385 alternator, 400, 401, 402, 403, 405 candles, 405 dédoublé armatures, 384, 385 dynamo, 379, 380, 381, 382, 385, 386, 399; 392; 393 machine, 362, 365, 366, 367, 369, 372, 387, 388, 389, 394; 405 machine auto-excitatrice, 405 magneto, 377, 383 motor, 388, 389, 390 ring, 372; 374, 376, 377 type d’atelier dynamo, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 391, 401, 405 Grands-Magasins du Paris, 404 Gray, Elisha, 315, 316, 317, 318, 320, 327, 328, 331 electric organ, 316 harmonic multiple telegraph, 317 telephone transmitter and receiver, 318 Great Battery, Royal Institution of Great Britain, 238, 240 Great Exhibition, London, 268 Great Western railway, 290 Grenet, 245, 249 Grenet cell, 249 Grove, W. R., 243 battery, 246, 356 cell, 243, 245, 246, 263, 266, 268, 335 Guerout, A., 283, 284, 360 Halske, 286 Hamel, J., 276, 284, 286, 350 Hare, Robert, 240 calorimotor, 242, 259, 261 Hefner-Alteneck, Frederick Von, 372, 374 dynamo, 378 Helmholtz, 315, 316, 318, 319 Henry, Joseph, 240, 250, 259, 261, 281, 289, 316, 320, 342, 343, 344 electromagnetic motor, 260 quantity electromagnet, 258, 263, 289 telegraph signal, 282 Higgs, Richard, 366, 374, 386, 387, 390, 392> 393 Hippodrome, 397, 404 Hjorth, Sdren, 268, 376 motor, 271 Holmes, E. T., 331 Frederick H., 351, 352, 353, 354, 350, 357, 358, 362, 364, 366 alternator, 362, 372, 373 generator, 356, 358, 359, 360, 361. 363, 364, 365, 376 magneto, 367 regulator, 354 259. Hopkinson, John, 361, 387, 392 Htel des Invalides, 356, 357 House, Royal E., 300 printing telegraph, 302, 303. 304 Houston, E. J., 314 Hughes, David, 302, 329 microphone, 327, 329 printing telegraph, 302, 303, 304, 305, 308 Hunnings, Henry, 330 telephone transmitter, 329 Institut de France, 276 Isabella II of Spain, 342 Jablockoff, Paul, 393, 395, 396 candle, 395, 396; 397; 494, 407 electric system, 398, 399, 400, 401, 404, 405, 406, 407 Société Générale d’Electricité, 404 Jacobi, M. H., 254, 260, 262, 263, 269, 286 motor, 263 6 recording telegraph, 288 Jamin’s compound magnets, 383 Johnson, Walter K., 268 BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY Joule, James, 265, 269 motor, 267 rotating motor, 266 Karass, T., 241, 244, 252, 254, 289 Kemp, K. T., 237, 241 ‘King, W. James: The Development of Electrical Technology in the 19th Century: 1. The Electrochemical Cell and the Electromagnet, 231— 271. 2. The Telegraph and the Telephone, 273-332. 3. The Early Arc Light and Generator, 333-407 King’s College, London, 289 Koenig’s manemetric capsule, 319 Lacassagne, Joseph, 340, 342, 344 Lacassagne and Thiers’ current regulator, 344, 345 Ladd, William, 375, 380 generator, 375, 379, 383, 386 Lalande, Félix de, 246 Lalande-Chaperon cell, 247 Laplace, Pierre Simon, 278 Leclanché, Georges, 247 cell, 252, 253 Leeson, 245 Le Roux, F. P., 341, 356, 360, 362, 364, 367 Leipzig-Dresden railway, 284 Leyden jar, 234, 306 Lissajou, Jules A., 337, 339 Liverpool and Manchester railroad, 289 London and Birmingham railway, 289 London Exhibition, 357 Magnetic Telegraph Company, 300 Mahr, O., 366, 378 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 319 Masson, 356 Meyer, O. E., 385 multiplex system, 308 Millward, William, 351 magneto generator, 357 Moncel, Théodose du, 270, 271, 308, 337, 339, 341, 342, 345, 356, 357. 362, 375» 380, 386, 395 Morse, Samuel F. B., 286, 295, 296, 299, 300; 309 key, 293, 298 system, 293, 295, 298, 302, 308 receiver and transmitter, 299 relay plan, 300, 301 Morse-Vail telegraph, 300, 301 Muncke, G. W., 284, 286, 289 Munich Exposition, 390 Munich-Augsburg railroad, 284 INDEX—PAPERS 28-30 Museum of History and Technology, 295, 315, 322, 328, 329 Napoleon, 275, 276, 361 Napoleon ITI, 268, 340, 342, 356, 361 National Bureau of Standards, 248, 256 needle telegraph, 278 New York University, 295, 296, 298 Nicholas I, Czar, 286, 339 Nicholson, William, 235, 238, 248, 250 Nollet, Florise, 351, 356 magneto, 356, 364 Niirnberg-Firth railroad, 284 Oersted, Hans C., 239, 241, 256, 278, 281, 344 trough battery, 241 Ohm, 281, 282, 362 Pacinotti’s ring armature, 371, 375, 376 Page, Charles Grafton, 267, 269, 314, 315, 349; 359 352 magneto generator, 352 reciprocating motor, 269, 270 rotating motor, 268, 269 Paris Exposition, 362, 375 Paris International Electrical Exhibition, 1881, 288 Paris Opera House, 339, 343 Paris Universal Exhibition, 404 Pepys, William, 236, 238 combination printing telegraph, 304 plunge battery, 240 trough battery, 239 Philadelphia Centennial Exposition, 318, 321, 323, 385, 393 Pixii, Hippolyte, 345 magneto generator, 345, 349, 350 Planté, Gaston, 245, 246, 250, 251 cell, 246, 250, 251 plunge battery, 238, 240, 241 Poggendorff, J. C., 245, 257, 259 cell, 245 condenser, 257 Pope, Franklin L., 263, 297, 371 312 Preece, W. H., 297, 304, 305, 312 Prescott, G. B., 244, 245, 246, 248, 291, 296, 302, 304, 305, 306, 307; 313; 318, 320, 378 Priestley, Joseph, 238 trough battery, 238 Prime Plating Company, 350 Prince Albert, 341 Princeton University, 281 Queen Victoria, 291, 337, 341 Quirini, 341 Razi, al-, 83 Reis, Philipp, 312 telephone, 312, 313, 316, 319, 320, 328 Reynaud, Léonce, 358, 359, 360, 364, 371 Reynier, 252 Rhodes, F. L., 320, 327, 329, 331 Richard, Gustave, 353, 354, 361, 362 Ritchie, W., 261, 269, 281, 346, 350 magneto generator, 350 motor, 262 Rive, Auguste de la, 240, 241, 254, 256 Roger, Jules Jamin and Gustav, 362, 363 Roosevelt’s telephone switch, 331 Royal Institution, 240, 260, 335, 354 Royal Society of Great Britain, 335 Ruhmkorff, 379 Russian Academy of Sciences, 339 Sabine, R., 290, 295 St. Laurent, vessel, 361 Samson battery, 253 Saxton, Joseph, 346, 349 generators, 350, 351 magneto, 356 Schellen, H., 277 Schilling, Pavel L., 284, 286 basic elements, 287 telegraph and alarm, 286, 288, 289 Schnabel, Franz, 275, 276 Schweigger, J. S., 256, 257, 276, 282 multiplier, 257 Scott’s phonautograph, 319 Scoville firm, Waterbury, Conn., 254 semaphore telegraph, 276, 277 Serrin, Victor L. M., 341 arc light, 357 modéle suisse arc-light regulator, 341, 342, 345, 346, 347, 348, 354, 357: 361, 392, 393, 404 Shaffner, T., 292, 293, 307, 309, 310, 311 Shoolbred, J. N., 387, 390, 391 Siemens, 286, 341, 365, 366, 367, 369, 370, 371; 372) 374, 378; 379; 380, 387, 390, 391, 392; 393, 404, 405, 406 armature, 369-372, 374, 380 dynamo, 365-367, 385, 387-393, 405 Werner, 378, 379, 386 William, 378, 387 Siemens and Halske, 372, 386, 387, 406 Silliman, Benjamin, 236, 243, 259 Sivewright, J., 297, 304, 305, 312 Smee, Alfred, 245 cell, 245, 247, 248 Smith, C. Willoughby, 305, 306 F. O. J., 298 Sigurd, 376 417 Smithsonian Institution, 237, 238, 249, 256, 258, 259, 264, 266, 267, 268, 269, 295, 298, 299, 300, 301, 303; 315, 316, 318, 320, 321, 324, 325, 326, 328, 329, 343, 395 Société d’Encouragement pour I’ Industrie Nationale, 340 Société des Machines Magneto-électriques Gramme, 380 Société Alliance, 356, 357, 366, 369, 405 Soemmerring, Samuel T., 276, 279 electrochemical telegraph, 279, 280, 282, 284, 286 Sorbonne, 345, 362 Soiiter Point lighthouse, 373 South Foreland lighthouse, 354, 364 Speedwell Iron Plant, 298 Spencer, 254 Spender, T., 254 Staite, W. Edward, 337, 338 arc light, 337, 338; 339 regulator, 336, 338, 339 Stearns, Joseph B., 308 duplex circuit, 312 Steinheil, Karl A., 284 telegraph, 283, 284, 285 Sturgeon, William, 241, 258, 261, 262 electromagnet, 257 motor, 262 Taylor, William, 265 Telegraph, needle, 278 Ten Eyck, 260 The American Speaking Telephone Com- pany, 325, 327 Thiers, Rudolphe, 340, 342, 344 Thomalen, Adolf, 378, 379 418 Thompson, Silvanus P., 306, 312, 314, 376 Thomson, William, 306 siphon recorder, 306 speaking galvanometer, 305 Thunderer, HMS, 394 Tresca, Henri E., 367, 368 Trinity House, 352, 353, 354, 356, 364, 366, 367 trough battery, 235, 238, 239,240 Turnbull, L., 296 Tyndall, John, 353, 366, 374, 386 U.S. National Museum, 237, 238, 249, 256, 258, 259, 264, 266, 267, 268, 269, 299, 300, 301, 303, 318, 320, 321, 324, 325, 326, 327, 395 U.S. Patent, 247, 264, 268, 300, 303, 304, 308, 312, 316, 317, 318, 321, 324, 325, 326, 329, 330; 331; 332 U.S. Patent Office, 263, 303, 329, 395 U. S. Supreme Court, 330, 331 Vail, Alfred, 294, 297, 298, 300, 301 van Malderen, Joseph, 356, 379 Varley, Cromwell F., 243, 306 Varley, S. Alfred, 378 dynamo, 379 Vienna Exposition, 372, 378, 385, 386, 391 Volta, Alessandro, 233, 234, 235, 236, 248 Volta prize, 268 Voltaic pile, 234, 237 Walker, Charles V., 254, 305 Wartmann, L. F., 342 Watkins, Francis, 262 “motor, 263 Watson, Thomas A., 320, 321, 331 polarized motor, 330, 331 Weber, Wilhelm, 282, 284 Western Electric Manufacturing Com- pany, 316 Western Union ‘Telegraph Company, 299730033193 32531327/33e quadruplex circuit, 313 Weston, E., 247 cell, 247, 248, 256 Wheatstone, Charles, 286, 291, 292, 375, 378 ABC telegraph, 296 automatic telegraph, 297, 308 Wheatstone-Cooke dial telegraph, 291, 295 Wheatstone-Cooke single-needle telegraph, 2 OS 2H: Wheatstone-Cooke step-by-step transmit- ter, 295 Wheatstone-Cooke telegraph, 280, 291; 309 White, A. C., 330 “solid back’? telephone transmitter, 3293 339 Wilde, Henry, 375, 378 Williams, Charles, 324 Wollaston, William, 239, 256 U-shaped electrodes, 241 290, Woodbury, Levi, 296 Woolrich, John S., 350 disk armature machine, 351, 405 generator, 350, 351, 353, 354) 355, 356, 380 Wormell, R., 239, 245, 246, 252 Wright, John, 254 Thomas, 265 Yarmouth and Norwich railway, 290 a . = i -