Discussion of "A History of Some Foundations of Modern Radio-Electronics Technology" Page 1261

possibly have been criticized from another source.

8) Critique. “This modification was rather obvious since the idea of steering a ship automatically from a magnetic compass was old.”

Rebuttal. We were writing about engineering, not about ideas. Our critic, as in many other instances, fails to cite any reference by which one may judge whether the engineering was along new and useful lines. The idea of an antiballistic missile is also old, but a tremendous amount of inventive research and development is necessary before the idea gets to the engineering stage, for the modern application.

9) Critique. “. . . as if the automatic pilot originated with Hammond.”

Rebuttal. Many might consider the gyro-equipment of a naval torpedo to exemplify an “automatic pilot.” Certainly Chandler, previous footnote 16, has stated, “. . . we must regard the gyroscope as the compass of the torpedo as well as its pilot.” But certainly it is the function of a pilot to change the course of a craft during a run, and the devices of naval torpedoes did not provide for that functioning. And the Sperry gyro-compass mechanism did not provide for a connection with the steering engine. We did not emphasize the Hammond contribution to the complete automatic pilot system now used in the navigation of surface vessels and aircraft, since we were concerned mainly with radio-electronics. Now that the issue has been raised, we consider that the officials of the Government involved would approve the lifting of a “self-imposed restriction” and the release of a part of the transcript¹⁶ of a high-level conference of 1916 in which the Hammond contribution was discussed.

“Mr. Hammond: I think that there is perhaps another use which might be of considerable value. I have been in touch with Mr. Sperry about the proposition, and that is the gyroscope control of these boats. We have demonstrated, of course, that the steering is entirely automatic under the control of the gyro-compass, and it is very accurate, in fact a great deal more accurate than any quartermaster would be. In very heavy weather off Gloucester in a fifty-foot boat, we found that a deviation of our course on a compass was very small and better than any of the quartermasters could hold the course, and that even with sudden movements of large waves, that the mechanism responded so rapidly as not to allow the boat to be thrown off the course. It seems that that might have a very valuable application in the future, in the steering of ships in line, and in the steering of submarines, and in the steering of transatlantic vessels to maintain a more accurate course. The mechanism is foolproof, so far as we have been able to find it. Colonel Devine has observed its action for a number of miles.

“Mr. Sherley: What do you gentlemen say as to the value of that, assuming that control is such as has been indicated?

“Rear Admiral Fiske: That is a very old subject, that question of automatic steering of ships, and there are all sorts of opinions upon it. Some people think it is highly desirable to have ships steered automatically, and I am of that impression myself, provided, of course, that the apparatus is of such character that the helmsman, if he was there, in case of danger of collision, could assume control. If there was danger of collision, for instance, you would not want the ship to be steered automatically if a ship were coming across the bow.

“Mr. Sherley: Admiral, what have you to say about that?

“Rear Admiral Benson: I agree with Admiral Fiske, that if you always have a man there. There is always this element of danger if you have something running automatically you are very apt to trust too much to it and take too much risk, but the principle, of course, is absolutely correct. If you have something that is automatic, that can be changed instantly, of course it is very desirable. The only possible danger could be the fact you trust too much to it and leave it.

“General Weaver: I would like to ask Mr. Hammond if it can’t be changed instantly.

“Mr. Hammond: It can be changed instantly, because in our work we have a man on the lookout so as to avoid running down targets when we are attempting to hit them, and also to get around the marine laws, because I do not know that it is permissible for vessels to travel without a crew ad libitum around harbors. We have found in cases of such emergency that by the mere pressure of a key the gyro-control is disconnected entirely and the control comes under the hand of the man himself. That is, instantaneous.

“Captain Bullard: In this system that you speak of, which is your system, you only impress the energy on it when you want to change course?

“Mr. Hammond: Exactly.

“Captain Bullard: Otherwise you are set on a given course and the gyro holds it there.

“Mr. Hammond: Exactly.

“Lieutenant Decker: I might be able to say something there. I have seen considerable service in the Navy and am quite familiar with ordinary steering apparatus on board a battleship. From what I know of the Hammond system and the system used by the Navy, I see no reason to believe that this system could not be applied to the ordinary steering apparatus as installed upon the ordinary battleship, and so arranged that the control could pass from the gyroscope or automatic steering device over to either an electrical device that is controlled by hand, or to the ordinary system as at present installed. In other words, the connection between the gyroscope control and the ordinary control is so flexible that it could be changed instantly, with the mere throwing of a switch or depression of a key.”

Five years later, Admiral Bullard was in charge of the installation on the target ship Iowa, which to our best knowledge was the first capital ship to be fitted with automatic pilot equipment. The gyroscope was supplied by Sperry, and the linkage to the rudder was by the Hammond Laboratory and the General Electric Company. The Navy report¹⁷ states that the equipment “will keep vessel on a steady course and is reliable. The instrument will prove of great value in any experiment or operation where vessel must maintain a steady course. It is an expert Helmsman.”

The Hammond contribution, therefore, was not in the development of automatic course stabilization per se, nor was it in the development of a continuously-running gyroscope. His contribution was to the mechanisms for shifting the course that was stabilized by the gyro, and for switching the system from automatic to manual steering. This point of view is substantiated by some of the patent claims in the three co-filed and co-issued patents cited. Thus typically broad claim 54 of patent 1,418,788 is pertinent:

“The combination with a movable body, of means automatically operative to stabilize said body with respect to a given axis, and means to modify the automatic operation of said stabilizing means and to rotate said body selectively in either direction about said axis.”

10) Critique. “. . . as if these patents cover course stabilization and the automatic pilot. They do not: they apply only to the application thereto of radio control.”

Rebuttal. This statement is in error. There are more than ten claims such as that just quoted in which radiant energy is not mentioned. The patents cover change of the stabilized course by manual as well as by remote radiant energy control.

11) Critique. “. . . the arrangement shown . . . is unserviceably crude.”

Rebuttal. The word “unserviceably” is highly improper. The patents were cited to support the antecedent statement and to provide a readily-available reference to the basic ideas of this new art. The reference was in a footnote because the techniques were mainly not radio-electronic. As the patents were co-issued, our critic should have at least examined the patents 1,418,789 and 1,418,791 with arrangements more in accordance with our description of the Natalia installation, using patented and unpatented improvements. Anyone familiar with the history of inventions knows that practically all important basic patents show devices which years later would be considered crude. The Telephone Company itself developed from the capital value inherent in the crude device shown in the Bell patent application of February 14, 1876. But the fact that such devices are considered to be “new and useful” by the experts of the Patent Office is the best nontechnical evidence that they were not “unserviceably” crude. Note that our critic is not only challenging the conclusions of our own Patent Office, but also the experts who permitted the issuance of the corresponding European patents: French 474,906; British 16,328; German 348,277. It should be noted that this was a period in which even Army and Navy officers retained personal rights even in defense-connected inventions. Actually, these Hammond ap-

¹⁶ “Informal Conference on the Hammond Radio-dynamic System for the Control of Torpedoes,” Washington, D. C., pp. 15–20; February 9, 1916.
¹⁷ “Special Radio Report, Radio Design Problem No. 70, Radio and Sonodynamic Control,” U. S. S. OHIO, p. 8; September 20, 1920.