Discussion of "A History of Some Foundations of Modern Radio-Electronics Technology" Page 1267

16), 17), and 18) Robert Marriott’s statement concerning the early use of the Audion, namely that:

This form of detector was used to some extent as early as 1906.

is quite correct if it is understood what “this form of detector” was as of 1906. It was the diode, or two-element form, with “B” battery added by de Forest, as described in his 1906 AIEE paper entitled “The Audion.” Marriott was well aware of this, the first, form of Audion, and was not limiting himself to the subsequent form, the grid triode, which later “stole the show.” It was the authors, Hammond and Purington, who so limited him, by inserting, in connection with his statement, the words “three-electrode form of detector.” Thereby Marriott’s statement was altered, making the use of the grid Audion appear somewhat earlier than was the case. A small point, but one worth keeping straight historically.

The grid Audion was invented in the winter of 1906–1907. It began to be “used to some extent” not until 1907 to the writer’s knowledge. The first public disclosure of it was by de Forest himself in his Brooklyn lecture on “Wireless” of March 14, 1907, already mentioned. The patent for the grid Audion was applied for January 29, 1907. It issued February 18, 1908 (not 1907 as previously stated by the present writer, an error he is glad to have corrected)—No. 879,532.

22) The authors appear not to have understood the comment. Fritz Lowenstein, employing de Forest’s grid Audion, but wishing another name for his own purposes, called it an “ion controller”—much as had de Forest rechristened the Fleming Valve, to which he added a plate voltage, calling it “The Audion” as per his 1906 AIEE paper. How interleaving are inventions, but how reticent inventors to admit it!

29) The present writer mentioned several steps taken by Dr. H. D. Arnold in the telephone company’s laboratory in attaining higher vacuum and generally improving de Forest’s grid Audion, one of them being the importing of the latest kind of vacuum pump, the Gaede molecular, received in April, 1913. From this date, the authors assert “. . . the Telephone Company work was much later than that of the General Electric Company in the production of high-vacuum tubes.” Quite the opposite was the conclusion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the famous Arnold-Langmuir litigation over the high-vacuum tube, where the telephone company’s priority was recognized in these words:

August 20, 1912, the earliest date claimed for Langmuir was rejected rightly, we think, by the district court, which held that Langmuir was anticipated by Arnold in November, 1912.¹

The high-vacuum tube, in its use in transmitting as well as receiving, over wires as well as by radio, proved to be second only to the grid Audion itself as a cornerstone of modern radio-electronics.

Finally, a personal note. The writer’s discussion of the Hammond-Purington paper has been offered to balance its excessive claims, in the interest of more correct technical history. The writer is not a spokesman for the telephone company, has not consulted the company, from which he has been retired some years. He has merely used knowledge that came to him in a long active career in the field.

Comments on “Replication of Rebuttal” by Mr. Hammond and Mr. Purington*

At the outset, we wish to thank our critic for making clear to all what we had long since sensed, that his “Critique” of our September, 1957 paper in the Proc. IRE was not reviewed by an executive of the Telephone Company. We are pleased that we must proceed further with only nine of the fifty items which we discussed in our first response. Our final comments follow.

3) The Fiske Patents: In our files, the only statement by Admiral Fiske concerning these patents is that made in the high-policy conference of February 9, 1916, (our rebuttal reference 9a, p. 35 of the report): “Rear Admiral Fiske: I suppose you understand that I am not an unbiased witness. I want that understood. I invented this general scheme in 1897 and got a patent on it, and the patent has not expired. It is a basic patent. I want that understood.” There was no mention of any reduction to practice either by Fiske or by the Western Electric Company. Our interpretation of the word “as” in the phrase “as set forth” is the dictionary meaning “in the same manner.” We feel no patent lawyer would accept a claim with the words “as set forth” at the end of an otherwise basic claim unless by compulsion. We did not quote the Fiske claim, but a very similar Tesla claim. By the words “. . . our only recourse . . .” in the Wold report to Tanner, it would appear that Prof. P. I. Wold was more closely related to the Western Electric Company than our critic would like his readers to believe. Upon continued study of the patents after his inquiry concerning them cited by our critic, Hammond found design errors which experts believed rendered the structures inoperative. Even after the Tanner recommendation not to take action against the Government, the possibility of such action was called to the attention of the Government by another and presumably disinterested engineer, to which Hammond responded by guaranteeing to hold the Government harmless in case of any and all patent difficulties. In a paper covering contributions to technology, it would have been improper to refer to one as a pioneer whose inventive effort was not reduced to practice by himself or by others as his agents. Please note, however, that in rebutting our critic in this matter, we do not wish to create the impression that we do not have great admiration for the extensive pioneering work of Fiske in other fields of naval development.

“. . . which never succeeded . . .” is a complete misstatement of fact. The Hammond torpedo-control system tested by the Navy at the Newport Torpedo Station fulfilled the exacting requirements of the Chief of Naval Ordnance, and the report of these successful demonstrations was given by Admiral Leahy to the Secretary of the Navy. The non-use of the device was due to naval policy and this was formulated upon the problem of mass production for war and difficulties encountered with the new magnetic detonators. The Hammond control system was widely used in the control of naval targets, and the Hammond-Sperry inventions created the target “drones” and finally the basic control of modern missiles.

6) Developments of 1910–1914: The sentences which gave our critic trouble will, we believe, not confuse those who take the adjacent sentences and paragraph headings into consideration.

12) The Automatic Pilot: Others better qualified to judge will first consider the meaning of the word combination “automatic pilot.” Then we are confident that they will not have difficulty in differentiating between the contributions of Sperry and of Hammond to the navigational art.

15) The Proximity Principle: Patents are written to be read and understood by experts. The terms used are to be interpreted as broadly as expert usage will permit. As regards this patent, the expert usage had been established for more than a decade. Thus, during the conference of a distinguished group of high officers with Hammond at Fort Monroe, August 23, 1918, the following was officially recorded. (Emphasis is by us.)

“General Squier: You have shown this afternoon the control of the regular torpedo in water both by the radio device and also by acoustics. Why do you limit yourself to water? Why don’t you get an aerial torpedo?

“Mr. Hammond: I have covered that entirely from the standpoint of patents. The reason that I have not given it more thought is that I am specifically attacking the underwater section of capital ships. . . . I have not made any experiments; I have merely concentrated on this proposition for the Coast Artillery.

“General Squier: Is the aerial torpedo a harder problem?

“Mr. Hammond: It is harder to my mind.”

Note that in a single paragraph, the Chief Signal Officer of World War I referred to two kinds of torpedoes and to two kinds of energy by which they may be controlled. Clearly the examiner of the proximity patent years later would have required Hammond to insert underwater before “torpedo” and acoustic before “energy,” if he had intended to restrict the scope of the patent to the form set forth. It is inconsistent for our critic to assert that the Fiske claim terminating with the words “as set forth” is basic to the radio-control principle in forms not shown, and yet to deny that the Hammond claim cited in our paper is not basic to the proximity principle generally, with the words “as set forth” absent. In contrast with

¹ The decision, handed down May 25, 1931, recognized also that de Forest himself had gone part way to high-vacuum, without fully knowing what he was doing. Published in “Cases Argued and Decided in the Supreme Court of the United States,” Book 75, Lawyers Edition, 1931. De Forest Radio Co., Petitioner, vs General Electric Co., No. 660.
* Received by the IRE, May 13, 1959.