Discussion of "A History of Some Foundations of Modern Radio-Electronics Technology" Page 1259

tained in our previous paper. We do not choose to comment upon the extraneous material except when it appears to have an indirect bearing upon our own material. Our critic has long been known to us as a member of the IRE History Committee. As such he has been given, in the past, much material from our files in which he had expressed interest by correspondence. We regret that we did not have the opportunity of commenting upon his present paper before it was presented for publication, and that we are now compelled to take up valuable space to clear up matters that could have been attended to by a continuation of our personal correspondence. In presenting our paper, we expected comments in addition to those kindly furnished by the reviewers of our first submitted draft, and we would have welcomed constructive criticism of our effort to establish radio-electronic history upon a more correct basis.

For purposes of later identification, we will number the items upon which we wish to comment consecutively in the order of appearance in the Critique. We will then give for each item a quotation from the Critique, to assist a reader in locating the material to which we are responding. Thereupon will follow our rebuttal or comment for each case. At the end of our rebuttal or comments on all items, we will list such references to published or unpublished material as may seem appropriate, with reference numbers for each documentation corresponding to the items to which they pertain. Moreover, we will be glad to supply copies of listed unpublished material to the Editor of the Proceedings, and to the Chairman of the IRE History Committee. The items upon which we wish to comment follow.

I. INTRODUCTION

1) Critique. “. . . the roots of our modern technology trace back generally to sources other than the Hammond Laboratory.”

Comment. Many of the roots that nourished the work of the Hammond group and its contemporaries were recorded in our paper: the pioneering work of Wilson and Evans, Tesla, Shoemaker, in basic radiodynamics; of Edison, Fleming, De Forest in basic electronics; of Tesla and Fessenden leading to the development of basic intermediate frequency circuitry; and the initial thinking of Gueroult, Taylor, Helmholtz, Ehret in the field of frequency modulation. The later work of the Hammond group and of its contemporaries in these four fields has been set forth on the basis of our best knowledge.

2. Critique. “Hammond’s work was conducted in secret, as the authors aver, . . . .”

Rebuttal. Hammond’s early work for radiodynamics was conducted in secret in the same sense that the Manhattan Project in atomic energy was conducted in secret. It was not kept from the military, for example, but parts of the work were kept from Congress by the military. All that we averred was that “publication of technical and historical information was highly limited by governmental and self-imposed restrictions.” The governmental restrictions were mainly by act of Congress requiring certain patent applications to be placed in the secret archives of the Patent Office, as set forth in the paper. Self-imposed restrictions were for the purpose of observing the proprieties and keeping faith with officials who expressed their convictions very freely in defense matters. In this rebuttal, we are lifting a self-imposed restriction in one matter, because we know the officials quoted would so desire it under the present circumstances.

Radio-electronic work mainly of defense interest has always been either developed in close cooperation with the military, or in the initial stages has been brought to the attention of the proper Governmental authorities. Radio-electronic work mainly of commercial interest has had a proper outlet to the industry through conferences, demonstrations, and patent arrangements. For example, consider the early work leading up to intermediate frequency circuitry. In February, 1912, even before the filing of a patent application, information of military and commercial value was given both to B. F. Miessner, temporarily of the Lowenstein-Hammond laboratory, and to Dr. L. W. Austin of the Navy Department. Thus in a Miessner letter¹: “Mr. Lowenstein had kindly loaned me your letters to him concerning the new selective system. Contrary to my usual custom, I believe the invention a good one. It, at least, is a very good way of dodging the Tesla and Fessenden patents. . . .” The manner of referring to the Tesla and Fessenden contributions, of course, was not the way that Hammond had put the matter, but serves to identify² the material under discussion. Also, in a later letter³: “I am glad to learn what Dr. Austin thinks about your new selective system and the probability of its being applicable for commercial as well as tel-automatic work. Kindly accept my thanks for the letter. I believe that by being in touch as closely as possible with all phases of the work I can tackle my part of it in the proper way.”

Thus there was no improper holding back of information, either from a top level Government expert, or from a technician of a subsidiary laboratory.

II. THE RADIODYNAMIC TORPEDO

3) Critique. “. . . but singularly omitted from mention is the one who received from the Patent Office the underlying claims, . . . .”

Rebuttal. The claim cited is not an underlying claim because of the clause “as set forth,” without which the claim would probably not have been allowed, since it would then have read upon the wire-controlled torpedo covered by patents long since expired. A very similar claim, also with the restriction “as set forth,” is in the Tesla patent, our previous footnote 2, as follows:

“5. The combination with a source of electrical waves or disturbances of a moving vessel or vehicle, and mechanism thereon for propelling, steering or operating the same, and controlling apparatus adapted to be actuated by the influence of said waves or disturbances at a distance from the source, as set forth.” Neither the cited Fiske nor Tesla claims were infringed by Hammond in his 1914 Natalia installation, because of the “as set forth” clauses. Wilson and Evans, with a December 29, 1897, British filing date, very probably had an effective date of invention prior to both Tesla and Fiske. The precise reason that Fiske was not named by us as a pioneer is because of our understanding that from a chronological standpoint Wilson and Evans preceded him, and from a practical standpoint of experimental demonstration, Wilson and Evans and Tesla built radiodynamic models controlled from a distance. In the latter years of their effectiveness, the Fiske patents were owned⁴ by the Western Electric Company. Presumably because of the response to the cited Hammond letter, it was regretfully entered into the record⁵: “I was informed that the patent was never developed into an operating machine.” Fiske’s works in Navy fields such as range-finders and torpedo-planes were much admired by Hammond, but not even personal friendship would be a reason for naming him as a pioneer in the field of radiodynamics.

4) Critique. “In the summer of 1915, Hammond was selling to a Congress worried by the European War then raging, his system of wireless control of torpedoes.”

Rebuttal. This is a gross exaggeration. In March of 1915, the approach to Congress was not by Hammond but by Secretary of War Garrison⁶ who urged that the Hammond inventions be given favorable consideration. But the Congressional leaders considered it then too late to enter the matter on the agenda for that session. General Weaver, Chief of Coast Artillery, then advised Hammond that if he so desired, he could now take his inventions to a better market abroad (as Hiram Maxim had done), without deserving any censure at home. Mr. Hammond elected to await the next session of Congress, and the Fortifications Committee of the House held early hearings from January 24 to February 10, 1916. Both the Army and the Navy experts reported very favorably in a hundred pages of printed record, our previous footnote 14.

Even in the summer of 1916, Congress was not worried about the war, as long as it raged only in Europe. Its concern was that sooner or later there would be a winner of that war, and that foreign battleships might eventually appear off our coasts to bombard our cities. The Hammond invention was of great interest because it promised a method of sending a powerful guided missile out to sea under precision control from an aeroplane, much farther than was possible with the ballistic missiles from coast defense guns. Senator Townsend of Michigan⁷ expressed it concisely: “Now it seems to me that in these uncertain times, in these times when we are preparing for defensive war, the United States Government cannot

¹ B. F. Miessner to Hammond, February 6, 1912.
² Disclosure of Hammond, leading to U. S. Patents 1,522,882 and 1,491,772.
³ B. F. Meissner to Hammond, February 12, 1912.
⁴ Congressional Record, 64th Congress, 1st Session, p. 10875, col. 1; June 13, 1916.
⁵ J. H. Hammond, Jr., “Telautomatics,” vol. 2, p. 35; 1910–1912. Copy available in Navy Dept. Library.
⁶ Congressional Record, 64th Congress, 1st Session, p. 11785, col. 1; June 30, 1916.
⁷ Ibid., p. 11667, col. 2; June 28, 1916.