Discussion of "A History of Some Foundations of Modern Radio-Electronics Technology" Page 1266

modern color TV technique more close than would appear from our paper.

48) Critique. “The presentation of the Chaffee transmitter of Fig. 16 as a part of a ‘noise reduction system’ is misleading. . . .”

Rebuttal. The system undertook to reduce all noises coming into the receiver insofar as they produced equal effects in circuits tuned to the two ends of the spectrum. Hum reduction was cited as an obvious example. The system also reduces disturbances that are not so equally present in both ends of the spectrum. Our critic should check the nature of the spectrum shown with that of a sine-wave FM signal with a modulation index of 2.4 to see that the Chaffee system had the noise reduction merits of modern FM systems, except as to amplitude limiting.

49) Critique. “Appearing initially as a fault, the making of a virtue of this effect was a natural second thought.”

Rebuttal. Knowledge of this effect even in the early broadcast brand of frequencies was the basis of the 1921 work of our junior author in developing the first all-electronic type of FM transmitter, with performance as indicated in Fig. 15.

50) Critique. “Chaffee of the Bell Telephone Laboratories thus sought to utilize it and devised a receiver for an FM system.”

Comment. By the critic’s footnote reference to the papers of J. G. Chaffee, this work was published in 1935. By that time, nearly all the really basic work in the field of FM had been completed and the important patents of the workers cited in our paper had come to issue. It is further believed that the Telephone Company was among those which had rights under the patents and the patent applications covering the Hammond Laboratory work in this field. If it had so desired, the Telephone Company could have made a good commercial beginning in the FM field on the basis of the Hammond patents alone.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Our critic’s attempts to downgrade the judgments of contemporary experts as to the value of Hammond’s work are not the first. At least three prominent pioneers in radio-electronics advised the Government against taking its initial step in radio guidance of missiles. The acting Secretary of War,⁴ in rebuttal advised Congress, in effect, that: Hammond’s work was far advanced over the prior art, with a hundred patent applications and a thousand allowed claims; the patents of Rear Admiral Fiske which some claimed to be basic would expire in about sixteen months, so that there was little danger of trouble from the Western Electric owners; Hammond was holding the Government free from liability in case of infringement suits; and the actual risk was but $30,000 since the Government would not be obligated in case of an adverse report by the newly-to-be-created Board. The recommendations of the previous Army and Navy officers had been so favorable that Congress had no hesitation in proceeding. The value of the inventions, developments and patents had been affirmed by the legal departments of the Army and the Navy, and is most generally accepted by officers and others who have examined the facts. As to the field of intermediate-frequency circuitry, chief patent attorney George E. Folk of the Telephone Company conferred with Hammond even before the termination of the Heising interference, and acknowledged that Hammond was going to be the winner. Therefore he took steps to secure rights under the Hammond inventions and patents for the Telephone Company and further advised the Radio Corporation he thought it should do likewise. This action, coupled with the direct findings of the Radio Corporation and similar advices from others including E. H. Armstrong, resulted in the Hammond work becoming immediately available to the industry without any further litigation.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we deeply regret the necessity of having had to point out the many errors of simple facts on the part of our critic. We regret the necessity of having had to correct so many misinterpretations of our statements in the paper, on points that should not have disturbed him and others. We regret the necessity of having had to go into more personal matters, to show how the various developments appeared to others at the times at which they were being made. By failing to comment upon other matters than the fifty items here discussed, we do not wish to be considered negligent, if there are errors of fact in the extraneous material presented in the critique.

JOHN HAYS HAMMOND, JR.
E. S. PURINGTON
Hammond Research Corp.
Gloucester, Mass.

Replication of Rebuttal by Mr. Espenschied *

Of the fifty points of rebuttal, only a few need further attention:

3) Of the twin Fiske patents of 1900 on the wireless control of torpedoes, Nos. 660,155 and 660,156, Hammond in 1912 called one of them “the first” of its kind, when seeking information about it, as already noted. Subsequently he ignored Fiske, and now the authors reject him. In claiming Hammond did not infringe Fiske, there is quoted a claim, obviously broad, with the contention that the words with which it ends, “as set forth,” limit its scope in some unspecified manner. This refusal to recognize a predecessor lends significance to certain additional information known to the writer which is now presented in justice to Admiral Fiske.

When in 1915–1916 Hammond was selling to a war-worried Uncle Sam his own project of a wireless-controlled torpedo—which never succeeded—Admiral Fiske became concerned lest his patents be infringed and wrote the company to which he had assigned them, the Western Electric Company. That company then had the matter studied by a college-professor patent attorney, P. I. Wold. On March 9, 1916, he reported to Western’s Patent Counsel, D. C. Tanner, saying “we have made a study of the Fiske Patents and certain patents to Hammond, who is a possible infringing party.” He concluded:

. . . that the claims of the Fiske patents are valid, are not subsidiary to other patents and are basic in scope. His arrangement is operative. Hammond has a patent for a somewhat similar device but his claims are limited to his specific apparatus and are furthermore subsidiary to the Fiske claims. We are also unable to see, at present, how Hammond or others can make any devices of this nature without infringing Fiske’s patents. Fiske’s patents, however, expire in about 19 months and any steps, such as infringement warnings, should therefore be taken in the near future. In view of Court decisions on Government contracts it may be that Hammond or others will ignore these patents, in which case our only recourse will be to the Court of Claims.

On March 10, 1916, Tanner sent to his superior, Mr. Swope, a copy of the Wold report. He recommended against taking “any such action against the Government, . . . in view of our relations.” He suggested the company offer to turn back to Admiral Fiske his two patents, “upon repayment by him of what they have cost us.” They are not known to have been repossessed by Fiske. Probably he realized only too well the trials and expense of a lengthy law suit. He is not known to have gained anything from his imaginative and patriotic endeavor; and now we see him denied even recognition. Such is hardly objective technical history!

6) Three statements in the original paper gave the impression that Hammond claimed to have developed, in 1910–1914, the principles of automatic course stabilization by means of the gyro:

Many developments by the Hammond Laboratory established basic principles used in modern airborne guided missiles, including the stabilization principle. . . . (Summary of paper.)

Preliminary work by Hammond . . . resulted in the development of the automatic course stabilization principle. . . . (p. 1192, column 1, lines 27–30).

Automatic Course Stabilization. . . . The first navigational application of this automatic pilot principle was to the third boat, the Natalia of Fig. 2; the system was first put into long period operation on March 25, 1914. . . . (P. 1192, column 2, lines 34–38.)

Surely these claims give that impression. But all is well, now that the authors deny such intention.

12) The insistence of the authors that Hammond, and not Sperry, was the true pioneer in the development of the “automatic pilot,” goes quite against the writer’s impression, and doubtless of many others, but he will not further press the point, leaving it to others better qualified to judge. Perhaps the Sperry people will have something to say. Here is a good example of the many versions one can have of a certain technological origin, depending upon the viewpoint.

15) Hammond U. S. Patent 2,060,198 describes a torpedo in water and electromechanical means for communicating by compression waves with the object to be detected. In the absence of the disclosure of another medium and corresponding communication means, the term torpedo in the claims is to be construed in its ordinary meaning of a waterborne body. Hence, the attempt at making the claim read on the radio-controlled proximity fuse by calling the action the “Proximity” principle, is misleading.

* Received by the IRE, November 3, 1958.