1. Harjes recommended that Edison have Joshua Bailey continue to seek new sources of capital rather than have the French telephone forced into judicial liquidation. He enclosed a letter to the same effect from Henry Harrisse. Harjes to TAE, 24 Feb. 1880; Harrisse to Harjes, 24 Feb. 1880; both DF (TAEM 56:43, 45; TAED D8048ZAC, D8048ZAD).

2. Harjes twice cabled Edison on 18 March. The first was a long message advising that Edward d’Auberjon’s investors were “much displeased with action of Puskas party” and consequently refused to modify the contract signed two weeks earlier (see Doc. 1909). Harjes warned that “affairs are suffering much by present inaction and uncertainties and Page 699that your earliest possible decision by cable is necessary equity and the probability of success seems to be in favor of the contract with Auberjohn mailed march fifth; besides withdrawal of Auberjohn and his party owing to their powerful influence might prevent success of any company formed by others.” About five hours later he cabled again: “should you be in favor of contract Auberjon advise me so but do not sign same until I report further as I should prefer first to secure from Auberjon additional clauses in your favor.” On 22 March Edison cabled Harjes: “You may accept for me and sign any contract which will produce a reasonable return and will put a stop to the present intriguing and which will most quickly put telephone in practical operation in France.” Harjes to TAE, both 18 Mar. 1880; TAE to Harjes, 22 Mar. 1880; all DF ( TAEM 56:96, 98, 105; TAED D8048ZBD, D8048ZBE, D8048ZBK).

3. Harjes enclosed a copy of his telegram saying that he “Could not carry sufficiently advantageous conditions with Auberjon. Have just closed and signed contract with group represented by Banque Franco Egyptienne which remains binding without any optional clause. New company will probably be formed immediately, but must be formed during this year, meanwhile they will expend if necessary up to five hundred thousand francs for furthering the enterprise, such expenditures subject to my approval.” He reported that Edison would have a forty percent stake in the new company, or at least 900,000 francs; however, the contract specified that this portion was for all the patentees jointly. The old company was to be liquidated. The previous week Bailey sent Edison a 358-word cable urging acceptance of Auberjon’s proposal, which had been amended to guarantee Edison a 200,000 franc minimum share. Harjes to TAE, 31 Mar. 1880; Agreement with Franco Egyptienne Bank, Bailey, Elisha Gray, and Theodore Puskas, 27 Mar. 1880; Bailey to TAE, 20 Mar. 1880; all DF (TAEM 56:128, 109, 100; TAED D8048ZBT, D8048ZBS, D8048ZBG).

4. Bailey was still in Paris the last week of April; he was in New York by 18 May and planned to visit Menlo Park the next day. Bailey to TAE, 27 Apr. and 18 May 1880, DF (TAEM 56:161, 165; TAED D8048ZCU, D8048ZCZ).

5. Edison enclosed the power with a letter to Harjes on 21 November 1879. The power was dated 2 December, probably the date Harjes signed it, but no letter from that day has been found. Harjes to TAE, 16 Dec. 1879, DF (TAEM 52:450; TAED D7940ZDS).

6. Edward Auberjon has not been further identified.

7. The Credit Industriel et Commercial was a large deposit bank. Chartered in 1859 largely to promote the practice of writing checks in France, it also underwrote securities for domestic and foreign ventures. Cameron 1961, 172.

8. Probably either the Société Financière d’Egypte, a joint stock bank that predated the Banque Franco-Egyptienne, or the Société Financière, which was heavily involved in railroad construction on the Continent. Cameron 1961, 186, 317, 320.

9. Unidentified.

10. Unidentified.

11. This article provided that the bank was to advance up to 500,000 francs prior to the formation of the company. In the event it advanced the full amount but the company was not organized by the last day of 1880, Page 700the bank was to have a sixty percent share of the patents, or a smaller share in proportion to its contribution. The bank’s share was not to exceed sixty percent under any circumstance.

12. This section stipulated that a company resulting from a merger with the new Edison company would have to include Edison’s name in any circulars which advertised the patents it controlled.

1. In an undated note, probably written on 1 or 2 April, Johnson enclosed Edward Bouverie’s 31 March letter stating that negotiations with the Bell interests had gone so far “that we could not honourably back out of it—if the other side are willing to go on.” Johnson explained that he had urged Bouverie to “make Haste slowly with amalgamation giving as a reason that I was informed you were again experimenting with the Page 702chalk” and that he believed “the early expectations as to this frictional principle business were on the verge of being realized.” Johnson concluded his letter to Edison by noting that “we are in a financial hole— & amalgamation seems the only way out.” Johnson to TAE, n.d; Bouverie to Johnson, 31 Mar. 1880; both DF (TAEM 56:560, 561; TAED D8049ZCW, D8049ZCX).

2. Article twenty of Edison’s contract with the telephone company reserved to him one-half the company’s “goodwill,” or difference between its capital investment and market value upon expiration of the patents. Agreement with Edison Telephone Co. of London, 14 July 1879, DF (TAEM 52:617; TAED D7941ZCV).

3. Arnold White explained in this letter to Johnson that it was proposed to have stockholders “exchange their existing shares for shares in the new Company in the proportion of Bell 200 Edison 115.” He assured Johnson that Bouverie and his advisers had “determined that the whole thing might go to blazes before they departed from the honourable understanding with Mr Edison to the effect that his name and interest shd be maintained under all circumstances.” The new company was to be named the “United Telephone Co. Lim. (Bell & Edison patents).” White expressed misgivings about the merger but assured Johnson that “Bouverie has taken the right course in the interest of Mr Edison & the shareholders. The great mistake we made in founding the Company, was in raising far too little money in the first instance. When we found we wanted more, the patent suit and the P.O. case cropped up, & while the Board persist in disclosing to intending investors the true facts of the case, no money can be got from the public, especially as it is the opposition, and not we who have the financial standing in the U. States.” White to Johnson, 1 Apr. 1880, DF (TAEM 56:571; TAED D8049ZCZ).

4. On 16 April Arnold White drafted a circular letter from the company apprising shareholders of the proposed merger terms. It suggested that some of the additional capital needed to complete the process could be raised by offering a new stock issue to existing shareholders. Edison Telephone Co. of London draft circular, 16 Apr. 1880, DF (TAEM 56: 598; TAED D8049ZDM).

5. Arnold White advised Johnson that it had become apparent that to maintain Edison’s rights to the company’s goodwill it would be “necessary to maintain the skeleton of the Company in order to hold the existing shares of the present holders. This will of course debar them—the holders—from realisation of their shares in case of death or emergency & will handicap them with a crushing weight in comparison with the ‘Bell’ holders in the new Company.” Johnson promptly relayed this information to Edison, cautioning him that “Under these Circumstances the Edison Co will find it difficult, if not impossible to induce Capitalists to put in any money.” White to Johnson, 3 Apr. 1880; Johnson to TAE, 5 Apr. 1880; both DF (TAEM 56:575, 579; TAED D8049ZDA, D8049ZDE).

1. See Doc. 1914. John Ott appears to have resumed work on this device the previous day. On 5 April he “finished a new receiver and motor connected therewith but does not think it a success himself, the chalk being directly on shaft of revolving armature, revolves too rapidly, and not running as quietly as those previously made.” Mott Journal N-80-03-14:40, 48–49, Lab. (TAEM 33:704, 708; TAED N053:21, 25).

2. James Hipple began working as a glassblowing assistant earlier in the year and remained connected with Edison lighting companies for many years. Jehl 1937–41, 496; Alfred Chatard to Charles Batchelor, 9 July 1883, Batchelor (TAEM 92:501; TAED MB091B); Hipple to TAE, 25 Sept. 1887; Philip Dyer to TAE, 7 June 1889; both DF (TAEM 120:50, 125:262; TAED D8741AAE, D8905ADV).

3. As a favor to Edwin Fox, Edison took in George Crosby as a laborer, promising to pay only his room and board but no wages. Crosby later stated that he began working at the laboratory in November 1879; the first extant time sheet for him is the week of 19 March 1880. Edison’s testimony, 41, Crosby’s testimony, 25, 29, Böhm v. Edison (TAED W100DED032 [image 10], W100DEC025 [images 1, 5]); Fox to TAE, 9 Aug. 1880, DF (TAEM 53:510; TAED D8014T); Time Sheets, NjWOE.

4. Mott recorded the previous day that workers were “Experimenting tonight on drying sand by centrifugal machine driven by electricity, took sewing machine motor from office for the purpose find the sand to dry very quickly and rendered fit to seive in a few minute (say 10).” More trials were made on 2 April. Edison noted in his April 1880 ore separator patent application (U.S. Pat. 228,329) that wet sand could be dried before being processed but did not refer specifically to a centrifuge. Mott Journal N-80-03-14:40, 43, Lab. (TAEM 33:704–705; TAED N053:21, 22).

5. The “double pump” refers to the Sprengel and Geissler combination (see Doc. 1816). Mott noted that the next day Edison was “still on pumps.” Edison testified in a subsequent patent interference that in the spring of 1880 he “started two of my assistants, Dr. Moses . . . and Francis Jehl, experimenting to obtain a cheap and rapid pump, and less complicated than the ones that we were using.” Jehl stated in the same proceeding that he wanted to “do away with all fancy glass blowing about the pumps, to cut all the scollops off, and have a simple vacuum pump for practical use,” one “which could be constructed by a boy having two or three weeks practice in glass blowing, which was easily prepared, and took a good deal less room than the combination.” Mott Journal N-80-03-14:43, Lab. (TAEM 33:705; TAED N053:22); Edison’s testimony, 35, Page 704Jehl’s testimony, 16, 15, Böhm v. Edison (TAED W100DED032 [image 4], W100DED002 [15, 14]).

Böhm’s 13 April drawing of a “Single Sprengel pump devised by Upton.” The upper mercury jet did not work.

Click for larger view
View full resolution

Moses designed a pump referred to by Mott as a “cyphon pump” which was built by Ludwig Böhm on 9 April and tested the next day. It was unsatisfactory, which Edison attributed to the “cyphon” attachment rather than the pump itself but further tests failed to produce good results. On 13 April Böhm constructed an apparatus for Upton in which the mercury apparently passed successively through two jets in a single Sprengel tube. Mott Journal N-80-03-14:59, 61, 66; N-80-03-19:7–17; N-80-02-08.1:98, Lab. (TAEM 33:713–14, 718; 34:610–15, 281; TAED N053:30, 31, 34; N068:4–9; N063:80).

Jehl’s attachment for sealing lamps to the pump without traditional ground glass joints.

Click for larger view
View full resolution

About 16 April Jehl devised an alternative to the ground glass joints through which lamps were connected to the pump. He inserted the open tube of an unsealed lamp through the center hole of one of the rubber stoppers used in the chemical laboratory, and placed the stopper into a cone-shaped glass fixture blown by Böhm and attached to the pump. He incorporated this into a pump made on 18 April by William Holzer, an American glassblower who began working as Böhm’s assistant in January. Mott described it as “very simple, free of stop cocks, takes but little room, and comparatively little mercury.” Jehl successfully tested this during the next week and it became the basis of the pumps in Edison’s Page 705first lamp factory (N-80-03-19:29, N-80-03-14:84, both Lab. [TAEM 34:620, 33:727; TAED N068:14; N053:43]; Jehl 1937–41, 495, 800–804). However, other pumps were made and tested throughout April and Böhm made almost daily sketches of related apparatus through the beginning of May (N-80-03-14:72, 74, 78, 86–87, 94, 102, 104, 106; N-80-03-19:15–25, 31–99; both Lab. [TAEM 33:721–22, 724, 728, 732, 736–38; 34:614–19, 622–54; TAED N053:37, 38, 40, 44, 48, 52–55; N068:8–13, 16–48]). A number of these drawings were copied into a separate notebook and Edison later submitted some of them as evidence in the interference case (N-79-02-20.2:27–45; Lab. [TAEM 38:909–18; TAED N146:13–22]; Edison’s exhibits 2–4, Böhm v. Edison [TAED W100DED059B, W100DED059C, W100DED059D]).

1. The Stevens Institute is located in Hoboken. The article appeared in the 17 April Scientific American, which usually was available about ten days before the issue date.

2. Alfred Mayer had worked as a machinist, studied chemistry, physics, physiology, and mathematics, and taught at various colleges before organizing the physics program at Stevens Institute in 1871. He visited Menlo Park several times in 1878 and published an article on the phonograph in Popular Science Monthly (Mayer 1878a). ANB, s.v. “Mayer, Alfred Marshall” and TAEB 4:13 n. 9, 32 nn. 1 and 7, 76 n. 1, 158 n. 1.

3. Benjamin Thomas was a research assistant to Alfred Mayer at the Stevens Institute, where he earned a doctorate in 1880. He continued his research in photometry and enjoyed a long teaching career at the University of Missouri and Ohio State University. WWW–1, s.v. “Thomas, Benjamin Franklin.”

4. Mayer wrote to Edison on 2 March that one of his students had visited Menlo Park and reported “that you had expressed some surprise at my having one of your electric-lamps in my possession, as only a few had left your hands which were in good order.” Mayer “had no idea that the lamps were not in the hands of many persons, thereon I should have applied directly to you.” He explained that he requested one from Scientific American about three weeks earlier “because it was convenient for me then to get it without going to Menlo Park.” Mayer had since “been making many experiments on the lamp,” mainly to determine the carbon’s cold resistance. He requested “the loan of a few of your lamps to extend my work in the direction of ascertaining the amount of light given by definite amounts of electromotive force.” Stockton Griffin docketed Mayer’s letter “no ans.” Mayer to TAE, 2 Mar. 1880, DF (TAEM 53:678; TAED D8020ZCE).

5. A Grove cell produced 1.9 volts. TAEB 1:615 n. 1.

6. William Sugg & Co. manufactured photometers in London, both of Sugg’s own and others’ design. The reference here may be to an instrument devised by Sugg in which the flame from an Argand lamp passed through a screen so that the lower, more stable part of the flame could be used as a reference (Dibdin 1889, 10, 193). The practice of laboratory photometry at this time was devoted to efforts to measure and standardize lamps and commercial illuminating gas; visual instruments generally provided a means for comparing the intensity of light from a Page 710test lamp to a known standard over a fixed distance. Despite great commercial and, especially in Britain, bureaucratic efforts in recent years to reduce uncertainty in the testing process, contemporary photometers employed a variety of ways to view the light, such as through reflectors, screens, slits and disks. Additionally, although actual candles had been widely supplanted by lamps there was no consensus about what type of lamp or even what kind of gas to use in determining a uniform standard (Dibdin 1889, 1–50; Johnston 1996, 273–81); on the disparity of luminous standards see Dredge 1885, 2:151–73.

7. The English chemist Augustus Matthiessen studied the electrical, physical, and chemical properties of metals, and had served on the British Association Committee on the Standards of Electrical Resistance. Matthiessen 1858 states the change in conductivity with temperature of nearly three dozen substances including three forms of graphite and two of coke. DSB, s.v. “Matthiessen, Augustus.”

8. In a correction published in the 1 May issue the authors stated that this figure “was, in fact, the amount gained by the cathode, the loss of the anode being a trifle greater. The gain of weight was, of course, what it was intended to take, so that the error was only in the expression, and not in the process or result.” “Some Electrical Measurements of One of Mr. Edison’s Horseshoe Lamps”, Sci. Am. 42 (1880): 273, reprinted in the 15 May Telegraphic Journal and Electrical Review, p. 178, Edison Electric Light Co. v. U.S. Electric Lighting Co., Vol. VI, pp. 4241–43, Lit. (TAEM 48:632–33; TAED QD012G:138–39).

9. Misprinted as “0.00326”; cf. Doc. 1852. The deposition rate per hour given below is of the correct order of magnitude.

10. In their published correction (see note 8) the authors explained that this was determined by “measuring the light at every azimuth varying by ten degrees between 0° and 180°, that this was approximately the true expression for the total amount of light emitted.” They noted that the mathematical analysis given in Rowland and Barker 1880 produced a different result “but as the experiment shows this result not to be attained in fact, it is evident that the assumptions on which the mathematical reasoning is based do not include all the conditions present in the experiment.” They reported that two subsequent efforts to measure the intensity of light gave results which “agree very closely with each other and with our former determinations.” In August, the eminent electrician Moses Farmer offered Edison a lengthy analytical comparison of the results reported by Morton and his colleagues with those of Rowland and Barker. Farmer to TAE, 11 Aug. 1880, Upton (TAEM 95: 608; TAED MU049).

1. It is not clear why Gouraud began numbering his letters concerning the London telephone company. He sent Edison numbers three through six on 20 April (one of which is Doc. 1933) and number seven two days later; no number two has been found. DF (TAEM 56:615, 619–20, 638; TAED D8049ZDR, D8049ZDS, D8049ZDT, D8049ZDX).

2. Edison cabled Gouraud on 24 March “Have you closed with Bouverie new basis” and also sent a similar question to Johnson. Gouraud answered promptly that he had done so but the next day wrote a letter explaining that the contract “is in the hands of the lawyers and is understood to be definitely settled as regards Mr Bouverie & myself upon a basis which I understand you to have approved and desired me to give assent to.” Edison in the meantime had cabled for confirmation to Johnson, who replied on 25 March: “Not closed still haggling Will cable when agony over.” TAE to Gouraud, 24 Mar. 1880; TAE to Johnson, both 24 Mar. 1880; Gouraud to TAE, 24 and 25 Mar. 1880; Johnson to TAE, 25 Mar. 1880; all DF (TAEM 56:547–48, 552, 549; TAED D8049ZCM, D8049ZCN, D8049ZCP, D8049ZCO, D8049ZCS, D8049ZCQ).

3. Gouraud quotes the complete texts of his 3 April cable and Edison’s reply the same day (DF [TAEM 56:578, 577; TAED D8049ZDB, D8049ZDC]). Johnson explained this issue to Edison in a letter on 5 April:

Bouverie stipulated for 5% [on?] the capital of the Co before any division was had with you— I consented= When Gouraud & Waterhouse came together it transpired that the Company held this 5% to be a sort of 1st mortgage on the earnings under any & all circumstances, that is to say If 7% was earned the 5% was 1st deducted & then the 2% was divided with you— Gouraud held—and I so understood it in the 1st place—that you simply guaranteed the Co 5%—thus if 7% was earned the Co got 5% & you got the remaining 2% . . . or in case 12% was earned each got 6%= But it seems such was not Bouveries intention—it was simply that the Co was to have 5% first & then a division was to be made—thus if the earnings were 12% the Co get 5 + 3½% or 8½% & you got 3½%. Page 713[Johnson to TAE, 5 Apr. 1880, DF ( TAEM 56:579; TAED D8049ZDE)]

Johnson recommended accepting Bouverie’s compromise in which the company would yield its interpretation of the 5% guarantee in exchange for Edison waiving his so-called good will rights because of uncertainty “whether your good will at the expiration of the Patent will be worth as much as the proper division of the Earnings meantime.” See also Doc. 1925 n. 3.

4. Gouraud cabled “Bouveries terms accepted” on 8 April. He sent the contract for Edison’s signature on 17 April and Johnson sent a copy with his own comments two days later, but no copy has been found. Gouraud to TAE, 8 Apr. and 21 May 1880; Johnson to TAE, 17 and 19 Apr. 1880; all DF (TAEM 55:697; 56:663, 603, 607; TAED D8046V, D8049ZEK, D8049ZDN, D8049ZDQ).

1. Stockton Griffin’s docket note indicates he sent this letter on 8 April 1880. It was published in the Chicago Tribune on 11 April (p. 5) in essentially the same form as Edison’s corrected draft.

2. Joseph Medill acquired an interest in the Chicago Tribune by 1855 and took full control of the paper in 1874. He was a lawyer by training but spent most of his working life in the newspaper business; he also helped found the Republican Party. ANB, s.v. “Medill, Joseph.”

3. See Doc. 1916 n. 3. The American Machinist also had unidentified engineers making preliminary tests of the efficiency of Edison’s system on 6 April, and they planned to return for more complete experiments (“Change in Edison’s Electric Lighting System,” American Machinist, 24 Apr. 1880, 8; Mott Journal N-80-03-14:50, Lab. [TAEM 33:709; TAED N053:26]). In response to its initial report, Edison sent the American Machinist a lengthy and highly critical letter based on drafts and calculations by himself and Charles Clarke. One point of contention was the amount of power required to turn the shafting and dynamo with no load, with Edison referring to an informal competition in April during which he and several assistants each succeeded in turning the machine by hand more than a thousand revolutions per minute. In addition he had Clarke calculate frictional losses in the belts and pulleys of the dynamometer (TAE to American Machinist, 20 Apr. 1880, Lbk. 5:847 [TAEM 80:246; TAED LB005847]; N-80-02-08.2:129, N-80-03-31:70–137, N-80-03-15:81–85, Mott Journal N-80-03-14:75, 82–83; all Lab. [TAEM 34:388, 904–38; 35:631–33; 33:722, 726; TAED N066:66, N072: 36–70, N082:42–44, N053:38, 42]). In its 1 May issue the journal indicated that the report was being revised by the engineers and would be published later. At that time it did describe generally the new fiber filaments and durability of the lamps. The following week, however, it stated that the report was complete “but upon consultation with the engineers making it, we have decided to withhold its publication until the complete test can be made, which we purpose making whenever lights enough are in operation to make the report authoritative. As Mr. Edison has substituted a fibre loop for the paper loop formerly used, materially affecting the essential points of resistance, power and durability, it is believed that publication of results at this time would be unfair both to the public and to the Edison lighting system.” There is no evidence either of subsequent tests for this purpose or that the report was ever published Page 715(“Change in Edison’s Electric Lighting System,” American Machinist, 8 May 1880, 8).

4. Henry Hall was a New York Tribune reporter who had written on electric lighting for that paper and the London Times, in the latter case to Edison’s apparent dissatisfaction. In November 1879 he had complained to Edison that “in the past it has been perfectly impossible for me to get any exact information about your light. You have never let me see it, and all my information has been at second hand.” Edison invited him later that month. Hall may have come for the purpose of this article on 20 March, when Mott reported that Edwin Fox visited with unidentified reporters from the New York Tribune and Sun. Hall’s dispatch to the Chicago Tribune was dated 1 April 1880 and published on 5 April (“Electric Light,” Chicago Tribune, 5 Apr. 1880, 7; an abbreviated and undated republication from an unidentified source is in Cat. 1241, item 1486, Batchelor [TAEM 94:594; TAED MBSB21486X]). Hall to TAE, 3 Nov. 1878, 6 Nov. 1879, DF (TAEM 17:221, 49:738; TAED D7805ZEF, D7906ZBJ); Mott Journal N-80-03-14:20, Lab. (TAEM 33:694; TAED N053:11).

5. Hall’s article (see note 4) declared that Edison was making no further progress and only continued experimenting to “kill time” or manipulate stock prices. It stated that Edison had originally made two hundred lamps, of which “only about eighty ever were able to burn any length of time, and these eighty have followed each other, one at a time, into the outer darkness of disaster, two only excepted. . . . One of these two surviving lamps has burned 1,700 hours, so Edison says. The average of the others was 600 or 700 hours, which would be equal to four months of ordinary usage.”

6. Edison may have had in mind the critique of Doc. 1927, which would have been available about a week before this.

7. Hall did discuss the test of Henry Rowland and George Barker, whom he described as “personal friends of Edison,” but concluded that it “goes for nothing after all. It is a laboratory experiment, with everything in favor of a favorable result,” particularly the report’s assumptions about dynamo efficiency. He also noted the authors reserved judgment about the durability and manufacturing cost of the lamps (see Doc. 1914 n. 3). Referring to construction of new generators at Menlo Park, the article anticipated that “If Edison can maintain 600 sixteen-candle lights with his eighty horse-power engine and twenty machines, he will undoubtedly make a certain success of his light. Barring breakages of lamps he will be able to sell his light as cheaply as gas. I predict, however, that he will not maintain more than 240 or 300 lights with this power, his achievement so far being between three and four lights per horse-power. We shall see in due time.”

1. On 6 April Charles Batchelor began drawing tools for cutting, trimming, and forming wood for lamps, each piece “to be 4 × .02 × .02 and bent into shape by steaming or heating process.” According to Charles Mott, whose journal provides an almost daily record of experiments related to wooden loops, his brother Samuel was on the same day “set at work on drawing of very thin wood (or vaneering) to be cut in narrow strips, bent in horse shoe or other shapes for carbonizing.” Batchelor sketched various alternative shapes on 7 April, when he and Edison prepared a list of 160 types of wood to try. Mott noted that the first samples were carbonized on 8 April but these did “not turn out entirely satisfactory being some-what misshapen.” On 25 April Edison executed a patent application for strips with broadened ends that were cut, shaved, or split off a block of wood and then bent into shape. He also filed an application on 24 May for “cutting or stamping from a veneer, a piece of wood with thickened or broadened ends” to be carbonized. This was rejected repeatedly and finally abandoned; only the drawings and claims are extant. N-80-03-29:27–44; Mott Journal N-80-03-14: 50–54, both Lab. (TAEM 33:427–36; 709–11; TAED N051:15–24, N053:26–28); U.S. Pat. 238,868; Patent Application Casebook E-2536:84, PS (TAEM 45:705; TAED PT020084).

On 8 April Batchelor sketched a “New loop for lamps.” Charles Dean began on 10 April to make an attachment for the lathe which would cut wood to the desired shape, eliminating the need to steam and bend it. He finished three days later and it was successfully tested in the laboratory (N-80-03-29:45; Mott Journal N-80-03-14:58, 63, 66, 70, 75; both Lab. [TAEM 33:436, 713, 715, 718, 720, 722; TAED N051:24; N053:30, 32, 34, 36, 38]). On 15 April Batchelor drew up thirteen specifications for a “New Machine for cutting closed wooden loops” that were probably embodied in the “Automatic machine for cutting wood loops” that was tested on 20 April (N-80-03-29:75, Mott Journal N-80-03-14:90, both Lab. [TAEM 33:451, 730; TAED N051:39, N053:46]); sketches and notes from around this time are probably related to that machine as well Page 717(N-80-03-29:45–117; Mott Journal N-80-03-14:86, both Lab. [TAEM 33:436–72, 728; TAED N051:24–60, N053:44]). Edison described this method of forming the loops in a patent application executed on 15 June: “a block of wood is taken and cut in a machine or lathe for turning irregular forms until its shape is that of an elongated oval. . . . The interior is then reamed out in a suitable machine, so that the block then resembles a series of carbon horseshoes with closed ends piled upon each other. The length of the oval is with the grain of the wood. The block is then split or sawed into very thin layers or slips, each forming ultimately one horseshoe carbon” (U.S. Pat. 248,417).

Charles Batchelor’s drawing of a machine for shaping wood filaments.

Click for larger view
View full resolution

By the first of May a hydraulic press operated by an electric motor was being used to press wood for related experiments. On 21 May Mott observed that Charles Dean was “jubilant over his success today in working the cam milling machine with complete success and getting out about 100 loops of box[wood] & Holly in excellent shape and in several cases sawing them so perfectly that the whole five loops were left joined at the thick ends.” In early June Dean began building a machine which he apparently intended to perform all the milling operations without requiring transfer of the work to another machine. His first prototype was not satisfactory and he continued to work on the design into July. Mott Journal N-80-03-14:119, 127, 130, 138, 142–43, 156, 163, 184, 212, 226, Lab. (TAEM 33:744, 748, 750, 754, 756, 763, 766, 776, 790, 797; TAED N053:61, 65, 67, 71, 73, 80, 83, 94, 108, 115); Doc. 1950.

Several dozen wood samples were carbonized and tried in lamps in April and May without notable success. Edison later attributed this both to the fact that wood fibers do not all grow parallel and consequently were often damaged while cutting the loops, and to the relatively large dimensions of the fibers resulting in “very porous and friable” carbon (N-80-03-06:99–129, Lab. [TAEM 33:1009–24; TAED N057:49–64]; Edison’s testimony, 5:3106–3107, Edison Electric Light Co. v. U.S. Electric Lighting Co., Lit. [TAEM 48:60; TAED QD012F:58]).

2. Following this entry Lawson listed nineteen wood samples (and their weights) placed in alcohol this day. He removed them on 13 April, Page 718noting the color of the alcohol extract in each instance, and placed them in ether. He soaked them successively in aqua ammonia and hydrochloric acid until 4 May, and on 12 May treated them with chlorine gas and washed them in water. Thirteen days later, he weighed the samples “After being well dried” and found substantial losses from their initial values. He weighed them again on 26 May after a day’s exposure to the atmosphere, finding in most cases a slight gain in mass; he repeated this the next day and found a gain or loss in only nine samples. Also on 27 May Lawson started over with samples of eighteen different woods; these experiments continued until 1 July. On 28 June he also tried drying bast fibers by similar methods. N-79-03-10.2:111–41, Lab. (TAEM 31:1171–81; TAED N032:45–55).

1. Page 719Mott noted in his journal that on this day “Lawson commenced a series of experiments with the view of obtaining gold and other metals from Pyrites tailings.” About a month earlier Lawson had begun subjecting forms of chalcopyrite, a copper-iron sulfide which sometimes bears gold, to a variety of chemical processes but did not report any results. Then on 25 March he “fused chalcopyrite with metallic lead, part of this lead entered into combination with the other two sulphides forming an easily fusible sulphide; a bar of this was cast and used as an anode to try whether copper could be removed from it by means of the electric current.” Again he did not indicate results and seems to have made no further experiments until those described in this document. Mott Journal N-80-03-14:66, N-79-03-31:101–105, both Lab. (TAEM 33:718, 32: 635–37; TAED N053:34, N040:29–31).

It is not known exactly what material Lawson had to work with at this time but Edison was receiving samples of mine tailings from throughout the West and instructed one correspondent to describe a container he had sent “as we are rec[e]i[vi]ng several daily & Everyone fails to mark box.” TAE marginalia on Baldwin, Sexton & Peterson to TAE, 1 Apr. 1880, DF (TAEM 54:638; TAED D8034ZAI).

2. This experiment marks a return to research on chlorination of ores (see Doc. 1844 n. 6). On 1 June Charles Mott noted in his diary that Edison explained to two mining men

how cheaply Chlorine water could be made and had a battery jar filled with salt and water. (I should judge about one pound of salt and two quarts of water) a paper partition was then placed in the jar and a carbon plate immersed in water one on each side of paper the electric current derived from the Dynamo line was then passed through by connecting to each carbon plate. In very few minutes the gas was quite preceptible to the smell and soon after, the water on one side of partition began to turn green. [Mott Journal N-80-03-14:204–205, Lab. (TAEM 33:786; TAED N053:104)]

This process was repeated on 9 and 10 June, and Otto Moses and Alfred Haid made further experiments with powdered gold and also silver ores the next week. Moses believed the process would be “economical especially in ores that do not contain too much metal other than gold, as in presence of other metals the chlorine would act first upon them and leave the gold till the last.” Additional gold was later found in one of the carbon electrodes. Mott Journal N-80-03-14:225, 232, 246–49, 252, Lab. (TAEM 33:796, 800, 807–808, 810; TAED N053:114, 118, 125–26, 128).

In mid-May Lawson tried a different approach, pouring finely powdered pyrites through a red-hot iron tube; the results are unknown. About that time he also attempted to purify mercury with auriferous pyrites in an electrochemical process but this proved unsuccessful. Mott Journal N-80-03-14:162, 160, 200; N-79-03-31:111, Lab. (TAEM 33: 765, 764, 784; 32:640; TAED N053:82, 81, 102; N040:34).

1. Michels intended to replicate the size and layout of the British scientific journal Nature. In early May, as he was arranging for publication of the first issue, he predicted that the journal would become “a power, and the leading Scientific Journal in this Country, and the only one which will be read abroad— A new face will be put on the reports of Scientific inquiry (not before it is wanted) and the ring of corrupt Scientific men and their pretended scientific Journals will feel the force of ‘ Science.’” This is the first extant reference by Michels to the journal’s title. Michels to TAE, 7 May 1880, DF (TAEM 55:374; TAED D8041F).

2. At Edison’s suggestion, Michels prepared a prospectus for potential investors by 27 April. Michels planned to capitalize the journal by sale of one hundred twenty shares at $100 apiece, with twenty going to each of five investors and the remainder to himself. He told Edison that he had enlisted Frederic Shonnard and a second prospective investor but wanted “three out of the five to be your firm friends” and also wished “to establish it as quietly as possible, and keep private who financially back it.” Edison agreed to take twenty shares and to try to interest New York investors. Michels later proposed increasing the initial capital to $25,000, half to be arranged by Edison and the remainder by Shonnard. At that time he also suggested that sales would be higher if the journal were “considered your organ.” Prospectus enclosed with Michels to Griffin, 30 Apr. 1880; Michels to TAE, 27 Apr. and 6 May 1880; Shonnard to TAE, 26 July 1879; all DF (TAEM 55:367, 364, 372; 50:91; TAED D8041C, D8041B, D8041E, D7919ZBN); Stockton Griffin to Michels, 29 Apr. 1880, Lbk. 5:867 (TAEM 80:257; TAED LB005867).

3. Burt Wilder was a noted comparative anatomist. He had been a professor of zoology at Cornell and since 1874 had taught physiology at the University of Maine medical school. NCAB 4:481.

4. John Michels was a journalist and former editorial writer for the New York Times who also contributed to Popular Science Monthly and other journals. About this time he was editor of the Industrial News, a publication of the Inventors’ Institute in New York. Michels prospectus, April 1880; Michels to TAE, 16 Oct. 1879; both DF (TAEM 55:368, 49:734; TAED D8041C, D7906ZBH).

1. Gouraud outlined the terms of the presumptive merger in a separate letter the same day (“No 4”). Gouraud to TAE, 20 Apr. 1880, DF (TAEM 56:620; TAED D8049ZDT).

2. That is, property to be returned to the grantor after a specified period; in this case Edison’s share of the company’s goodwill. Black 1879, s.v. “reversionary interest.”

3. The undated draft agreement designating Alfred Renshaw as trustee is in DF (TAEM 56:858; TAED D8049ZIP); it was superceded by an amended version (see Docs. 1945 n. 3 and 1954 n. 3). On 5 May Edison replied, “Like your trust scheme but must satisfy Johnson,” to whom he cabled a few minutes later, “Gourauds trust idea good investigate with lawyer. whats objections” (TAE to Gouraud, 5 May 1880; TAE to Johnson, 5 May 1880; both DF [TAEM 56:658, 657; TAED D8049ZEG, D8049ZEF]).

4. That is, selling shares worth £15,000 at par to net £75,000.

5. The value of the company’s “goodwill”; see Doc. 1925 n. 2.

6. In his letter “No 3” written the same day, Gouraud reported that the company directors had asked him

to take in the paid up capital of a proposed amalgamated company of the Bell & Edison interests share to the amount of £10,000 in full liquidation of your reversion—that is that you should have nothing more out of it no matter what the Company made. . . . I resolutely objected as there was no reason given for the request other than that it would make easier the amalgamation with the Bell Company and no one could give a single substantial reason for this assumption as the basis of the proposed amalgamation is of such a character as it cannot be the slightest concern to the Bell people what the Edison Company gives you or whether you hold your reversion under the several agreements or cancel it by the acceptance of shares. As they must have known that the position that they assumed was utterly untenable, and they quickly abandoned it. [Gouraud to TAE, 20 Apr. 1880, DF (TAEM 56:615; TAED D8049ZDR)]

Nevertheless Edward Bouverie urged Edison on 21 April to accept the offer, stating that he was advised that the chance of the company accruing goodwill in excess of royalties already paid was “remote & not worth regarding as a matter of pecuniary value to be estimated” (Bouverie to TAE, 21 Apr. 1880, DF [ TAEM 56:627; TAED D8049ZDV]).

Johnson had written Edison on 19 April that he “had reason to believe that he [Gouraud] considers the amount proffered a liberal one—but with him there is a much more important Consideration viz= His voting & representative power for you= You will see that in case you sell outright your reversionary interests you have no longer any use for a representative Page 725director.” He suggested that the reversionary question could be addressed independently of amalgamation in a supplemental agreement, without consulting Gouraud (Johnson to TAE, 19 Apr. 1880, DF [ TAEM 56:607; TAED D8049ZDQ]). Three days later he put the proposal in this light:

Bell Co’s stock is at a high premium but whether it will be when a large amount of the new Co’s stock is thrown upon the market or not is another thing— In any event the question for you is—Are you likely to get 10 000£ from your def[erre]d interests after the Co has repocketed the 35 000£ already paid you & a 5% on their capital additional— Then dividing the remainder by 2= Will half of it Equal 10,000£ shares in the new Co immediately in hand—& saleable if you so elect—suppose we say at the present premium— about 500%? Rose colors eh? [Johnson to TAE, 22 Apr. 1880, DF (TAEM 56:634; TAED D8049ZDW)]

On 7 May, several days after he would have received these various letters, Edison informed Bouverie that he did not wish to “be an obstructionist but I cannot in view of my knowledge of the commercial aspects of the telephone in this country the enormous profits now being made and the great future here, accept the £10,000 cash or shares. I much prefer to wait and I will be glad to take my chances” (TAE to Bouverie, 7 May 1880, Lbk. 6:2 [TAEM 80:283; TAED LB006002]). Bouverie subsequently asked him to reconsider (see Doc. 1954).

7. The first article of the proposed trust (see note 2) provided that any modification of Edison’s agreements with the telephone company should be approved by at least a two thirds majority of the certificate holders voting in proportion to the size of their interest.

1. In a letter on 22 April, Johnson suggested that the company had made Edison a “liberal offer” to settle the reversionary interest “more to get rid of Gouraud than to become possessors of a handle for closing up the concern— They want no more to do with him.” Johnson to TAE, 22 Apr. 1880, DF (TAEM 56:634; TAED D8049ZDW).

2. Johnson reported eight days earlier that because the company was in a “bad fix” for money the board had ordered him “to Reduce expenses to a minimum—not to undertake anything not already contracted for— and to reduce my line force to just sufficient to execute orders in hand= This I hold to be a Death Blow.” Johnson to TAE, 19 Apr. 1880, DF (TAEM 56:607; TAED D8049ZDQ).

3. Probably Edwin Holmes, president of the Holmes Burglar Alarm Telegraph Co., defendant in a suit Western Union brought for infringement of the Page patent. Post 1976, 177–81; “The Page Patent,” New York Times, 13 Mar. 1880, 2.

4. While in New York in January 1880, Muirhead had visited Edison on at least one, and probably two, occasions. He may have witnessed Edison’s light at that time. Muirhead to TAE, 2 and 19 Jan. 1880, DF ( TAEM 53:27, 50; TAED D8004B, D8004Z).

1. John Puleston (later knighted) had been a newspaper publisher and banker in the United States before becoming a partner in a London banking house. In addition to that capacity he was at this time also a Member of Parliament. ACAB (supp.), s.v. “Puleston, Sir John Henry.”

2. Puleston had telegraphed from New York: “While here few days next week will hope to see you and be able to get a settlement Please communicate with me” (Puleston to TAE, 26 Apr. 1880, DF [TAEM 55:547; TAED D8042ZAL]). He was referring to £10,000 advanced to Edison in 1873 for automatic telegraph experiments under the Smith, Fleming & Co. contract (Doc. 350) in which he had in the meantime acquired an unspecified interest (see TAEB 2:105 n. 4). Regarding negotiations to settle the dispute, see Doc. 1859.

3. Puleston had discussed the advance money with Edison during a visit to Menlo Park in November 1879 (George Ward to TAE, 17 and 22 Nov. 1879, DF [TAEM 51:928, 932; TAED D7936ZBC, D7936ZBF]). In late January he cabled from London that he had reported their conversation to the other principals who

were gratified to hear that you were ready to turn over to us such interests as you had to a sufficient extent to reimburse us the amount owing to us by you. We have noticed since I saw you, the great rise in the value of your interests in the Electric Light and we feel with this, your Telephone receipts, and the interest you speak of in the Page 729 quadruplex etc, you may now be able without difficulty to pay us fully— I mentioned that you received me frankly and expressed my belief you would make the necessary arrangement— [Puleston to TAE, 24 Jan. 1880, DF (TAEM 55:508; TAED D8042I)]

Edison did not reply to this or two subsequent cables from Puleston but on 27 February he signed a letter ratifying the agreement (Puleston to TAE, 3 and 4 Feb. 1880; Reiff to TAE, 27 Feb. 1880; TAE, Reiff, and George Harrington to Pender, 27 Feb. 1880; all DF [TAEM 55:513–14, 518, 565; TAED D8042K, D8042L, D8042R, D8042ZBB]).

On 11 March Puleston cabled to Edison protesting that “Reiffs proposed arrangement came to nothing, [George] Prescott declining. you frankly acknowledged your readiness to repay and I communicated that fact. You will hardly attempt to fall back on an impossible proposal of Reiff the money was obtained from us and is owing under circumstances which should cause no hesitation whatever on your part to carry out your pledge to me.” Having seen this message as it came through New York, Reiff immediately wrote to Edison that he considered the December agreement final and did “not propose that by any meddleing or statement of Puleston that you shall be made to appear as having consented to return them the money; that suggestion I treated as ridiculous.” Puleston to TAE, 11 Mar. 1880; Reiff to TAE, 11 Mar. 1880; both DF ( TAEM 55:525, 522; TAED D8042V1, D8042U); see Doc. 1859 n. 9.

4. Josiah Reiff paid the seven-year annuity on Edison’s British patent 735 (1873) in February and may have done the same for 1508 (1873) in March or April. Rixon to TAE, 18 and 26 Feb. 1880; Reiff to TAE, both 26 Feb. 1880; Lemuel Serrell to TAE, 22 Mar. 1880; all DF (TAEM 55: 515–17, 70; TAED D8042M, D8042N, D8042P, D8042Q, D8036ZBI).

5. The letter to which Edison referred was probably the one jointly from himself, Reiff, and Harrington to Pender and his associates. Reiff drafted it at the request of Pender’s attorney, A. W. Rixon, to confirm the December 1879 understanding (see Doc. 1859). TAE, Reiff, and Harrington to Pender, 27 Feb. 1880; Reiff to TAE, 27 Feb. 1880, DF (TAEM; 55:565, 518; TAED D8042ZBB, D8042R).

6. Puleston answered this letter from Ottawa, Canada. He protested that “I labor under no mistake whatever—and you have not until now suggested that I was mistaken as to the result of our interview last year,” his recollection of which he claimed to have corroborated by a witness. He stated that he was acting on Pender’s authority and asked Edison to see him upon his return to New York in a few days. Edison marked this letter “no answer” and below Stockton Griffin’s notation that “Mr Puleston sailed for England May 12th 80,” he wrote “are you sure.” The matter evidently lay dormant for two years until Puleston asked Edward Johnson to intercede on his behalf. Puleston to TAE, 2 May 1880; Puleston to Johnson, 17 May 1882; both DF (55:551, 60:141; TAED D8042ZAP, D8204ZBK).

1. This entry immediately follows several pages, dated 8 May, of Charles Clarke’s notes and calculations of weight and costs of a large dynamo for “The Central Station Plant.” N-80-03-31:170–80, Lab. (TAEM 34:956–61; TAED N072:88–93).

2. A lawyer by trade, Charles T. Porter introduced the first successful high-speed stationary steam engine in 1862. It employed Porter’s own design of a centrifugal governor that was unusually sensitive because the weight needed to move the valve mechanism was concentrated in a mass separate from the rotating balls. The governor controlled engine speed by acting upon a variable cutoff valve gear mechanism devised by John Allen rather than upon the throttle, which greatly improved fuel economy. The engine also incorporated a high-speed indicator by Charles Page 731Richards. The Porter-Allen had a much shorter piston stroke than other engines, making possible both its compact and relatively lightweight construction, and superior thermodynamic efficiency. Its high operating speed (several times that of contemporaries) and exceptionally smooth operation under widely varying loads suited it to operating machinery directly rather than through expensive belt or gear systems, and Porter-Allen engines were employed in mills of all types. Hunter 1985, 450–72; Hills 1989, 193–203; Bowditch 1989, 84; on the conceptual development of the engine see Mayr 1975.

Charles Clarke had been in Newark on 20 and 21 April “collecting data on steam and engines and examining into the merrits of quick motion engines.” Porter came to Menlo Park on 22 April and “by demonstrations of his thorough knowledge of the subject, still further confirmed Mr. Edison’s belief in high speeds.” Four days later Clarke returned with Edison to Newark, where he took indicator diagrams from a Porter engine. Porter was back in Menlo Park on 30 April, when Charles Mott indicated that Edison had ordered one of the engines. This may have been for the small dynamo which, according to Mott, John Ott began designing that day as a field exciter “in cases where but few generators are necessary, such as for Steamers, factories, &c.” In a 6 May notebook entry Edison wrote that “Porter can make us a pair of small Engines to work two magnetos. Each self contained. The current from one being used to Energize all the field mags of a central station. the other is for a spare; We have a lever connected with the Governor so that any required speed may be obtained of the Engine hence we can regulate the Electromotive force of the main circuit by varying the speed of the Engine.” It was probably about this time that laboratory assistant Albert Herrick sketched and wrote out the specifications of a small Porter-Allen high speed engine rated at 6⁹⁄33 horsepower. Clarke memorandum, 21 Apr. 1880, DF (TAEM 53:736; TAED D8020ZEF); Mott Journal N-80-03-14:95, 99, 107, 122, 121; Unbound Notes and Drawings [1880]; N-79-06-12:122; N-79-08-28:137–41; all Lab. (TAEM 33:732, 734, 738, 745; 44:999–1002; 35:542, 1124–26; TAED N053:48, 50, 55, 63, 62; NS80AAI; N080:59; N088:70–72).

Edison apparently never acquired one of Porter’s small engines and instead abruptly began planning a much larger dynamo. There is no direct evidence regarding this change. On 5 May Clarke completed his measurements of heat in the dynamo journals. However, he ran more trials on 6 May and reported less favorable results showing 2% of mechanical energy lost as friction in the bearings (Mott Journal N–80-03-14:126, 130, 137–38, 141; N-80-03-31:145–69; both Lab. [TAEM 33:748, 750, 753–55; 34:942–55; TAED N053:65, 67, 70–72; N072:74–87]). Edison’s response was not recorded but the next day Clarke started working out the arrangement of a steam engine with respect to a much larger dynamo and Francis Upton began making the related calculations in Doc. 1937. In the notes he began on 8 May for “ The Central Station Plant” (see note 1) Clarke computed the area and mass of the magnets and began calculating dynamic loads and articulating some of the design concerns expressed in this document. Similar notes regarding the central station follow this document in the notebook (Mott Journal N-80-03-14:147; N-80-03-31:184–95; both Lab. [TAEM 33:758; 34:963–68; TAED N053:75; N072:95–100]). There is no extant correspondence Page 732with Porter from this month but on 11 May Edison drafted a letter to Babcock & Wilcox asking if his boiler could safely carry 120 pounds of steam pressure. Mott reported on 13 May that “Clarke finished details and diagrams for the large 120 horse power dynamo,” which would weigh well over seven tons. Four days later Clarke took the plans and diagrams to the Philadelphia foundry which constructed Porter’s engines (TAE to Babcock & Wilcox, 11 May 1880, N-80-03-29:161; Mott Journal N-80-03-14:165, 173; both Lab. [TAEM 33:492, 766, 770; TAED N051:80; N053:84, 88]).

3. It was common engineering practice at this time to reduce condensation in the cylinder by filling an enclosure or “steam jacket” around the cylinder and steam passages with boiler steam. Hunter 1985, 2:673–74.

4. This is part of Clarke’s analysis of the dynamo efficiency test by the American Machinist (see Doc. 1929 n. 3). In a paragraph that he crossed out Clarke discussed steam engine indicator cards which appeared to “show that the steam does not follow the theoretical law of expansion but is very far from it.” N-80-03-31:117, Lab. (TAEM 34:928; TAED N072:60).

1. Francis Upton’s notes and calculations on this subject dated 8 May immediately precede this document in the notebook. N-79-07-07.1: 148–76, Lab. (TAEM 32:320–34; TAED N037:72–86).

2. The notes preceding this “Recapitulation” are the first evidence since Doc. 1889 of consideration of a longer armature, and are also Upton’s first effort to extrapolate the design characteristics of the larger armature with proportionally more wire. He prefaced them with an attempt to find an algebraic expression of a generator’s resistance and voltage as functions of its armature dimensions and number of coils. He then calculated (on p. 152) the surface area of the “Present Armature,” ten inches in both diameter and length, which produced 110 volts. (Two arithmetic errors led to his determination of 470 square inches, rather than the correct figure of 471.) Under the heading “Heat on machine,” Page 733he specified that the armature could operate 75 lamps, each having resistance of 85 ohms, “for two hours.” In addition to the two armature sizes discussed in this document, Upton also considered one 20 × 20 inches and another 20 X 60 inches long. N-79-07-07.1:148–55, 173, 157, 161, Lab. ( TAEM 32:320–23, 332, 324, 326; TAED N037:72–75, 84, 76, 78).

Upton continued to make notes and calculations through late May regarding the surface area, winding, and electrical features of armatures. The exact purpose of these notes is unclear (N-79-07-07.1:178–235, Lab. [TAEM 32:335–62; TAED N037:87–114]). On 31 May Upton was “conducting a series of experiments to determine some of the laws governing the construction of electric generators, and to study the economical proportioning of the same, and for determining the best method of winding armature of 120 Horse power Dynamo, which has been determined to be constructed with 47 commutators.” About this time he began to formulate “Laws of winding Dynamo Machines” for which he set out a number of algebraic relationships among voltage and current and two or more design variables such as wire thickness, armature dimensions and speed, and number of commutators (Mott Journal N-80-03-14:202, N-79-07-07.1:238–47, both Lab. [TAEM 33:785, 32:363–67; TAED N053:103, N037:115–19]).

3. This is the power that Upton determined was wasted by internal resistance, or “given off” as heat. He computed this by comparing the known ratio of the resistance of the lamps in multiple arc (1.133 ohms) to that of the armature (.14 ohms), with the unknown ratio of horsepower active in the lamps (9.37) to that lost in the armature. The armature consumed 1.15 horsepower, or 38,200 foot-pounds throughout its area of 470 square inches. Upton also noted that the same machine operating 60 lamps would lose 52 foot-pounds per inch in the armature. N-79-07-07.1:148–75, Lab. (TAEM 32:320–333; TAED N037:72–75).

4. The area given is not that of the armature cylinder. It is not apparent how Upton obtained this figure, although he seems to have included the wires leading to the commutators. It is likewise unclear how he calculated the resistance of this 120 horsepower machine. In one example he did so based on the length of wire on the armature, and in another based on the weight of the copper wire which could be wound in the available space. N-79-07-07.1:163, 172–73, 160–61, 188, Lab. (TAEM 32:327, 332, 326, 340; TAED N037:79, 84, 78, 92).

1. Frank McLaughlin telegraphed Edison from Reno, Nev., on 12 April while returning to California from New York, and again several times from Oroville. On 17 May he wired: “Did tailing shipped by Cummings ever arrive Have you sent me plans etc of mill Answer.” McLaughlin’s letters from that period have not been found. George Carman was dispatched from the laboratory as McLaughlin’s assistant on this trip. McLaughlin to TAE, 12, 16, and 27 Apr., 17 May 1880, DF (TAEM 54:482, 484–85, 488; TAED D8033ZAE, D8033ZAG, D8033ZAH, D8033ZAK); TAE to Robert Cutting, Jr., 26 Mar. 1880, Lbk. 5:787 ( TAEM 80:229; TAED LB005787).

2. This reference is unclear but see Doc. 1941 esp. n. 3.

3. A month earlier Edison replied to a correspondent from Georgia that “I do not work quartz ores but simply the auriferous sand or tailings from hydraulic mines.” Some placer mines produced gold-bearing Page 735quartz in great quantities but this material required a stamping mill to pulverize it (TAE to W. A. Ramsey, 15 Apr. 1880, DF [TAEM 54:679; TAED D8034ZBG]). Around this time Edison was also experimenting with arrangements in which a blast of air was used in conjunction with electromagnets to segregate the material (see also Doc. 1921 n. 1). He sketched such a device on 20 April; experiments continued sporadically through late July (Cat. 1146; N-79-06-12:67; N-80-07-02:29–31; Mott Journal N-80-03-14:90, 99, 135; Mott Journal N-80-07-10:22, 42–43, all Lab. [TAEM 6:671; 35:516; 36:611–12; 33:730, 734, 752; 37:313, 323; TAED NM014:49; N080:33; N108:9–10; N053:46, 50, 69; N117:11, 21]). The 17 July issue of Scientific American described and illustrated this approach, which resembled the 20 April drawing:

The auriferous sands are placed in the hopper and allowed to fall between the poles of a powerful electro-magnet, and a blast of air is directed at right angles against the falling stream of sand just as the latter passes between the poles of the magnet. The non metallic substances are readily blown away, while the metallic portions are retarded by diamagnetism, so that the blast of air has less effect on them than it has on the non-metallic substances. The consequence of this operation is that the sands are divided into two heaps, one containing a large percentage of metal, the other containing a very small percentage, or none at all. [“New Ore Separator,” Sci. Am. 43 (1880): 3]

Scientific American illustration of Edison’s ore separator in which a jet of air was directed against the material falling between the poles of the electromagnet.

Click for larger view
View full resolution

4. Oliver Powers.

5. Bryan Tyson operated what was apparently a modest hydraulic claim on the American River at Gold Run, Calif. McLaughlin sent the sample to Edison on or about 16 April. Alfred Haid conducted the assay and reported that the ores “contain too little gold to work them.” Tyson to TAE, 26 Apr. 1880; McLaughlin to TAE, 16 Apr. 1880; both DF (TAEM 54:693, 484; TAED D8034ZBO, D8033ZAG); N-80-04-17:11, Lab. (TAEM 33:276; TAED N050:5).

6. Haid reported that the pyrites in this sample from Tyson “are not auriferous, but there is some covered gold among them, besides a great deal of amalgams.” Edison noted on Tyson’s letter: “we could work the sulphurets you sent they were very rich.” N-80-04-17:11, Lab. (TAEM 33:276; TAED N050:5); TAE marginalia on Tyson to TAE, 26 Apr. 1880, DF ( TAEM 54:693; TAED D8034ZBO).

7. In addition to seeking tailings from existing hydraulic mines, during the late winter or spring Edison joined with James Banker, Robert Cutting, Jr. and other financiers to form the Miocene Mining Co. to work in the Big Bend area of the North Fork of the Feather River. McLaughlin built the necessary ditches in the latter half of 1880 and began operations in April 1881. TAE to Cutting, Jr., 26 Mar. 1880, Lbk. 5:787 ( TAEM 80:229; TAED LB005787); Enclosure with George Cummings to McLaughlin, 1 Apr. 1880; McLaughlin to Banker and Cutting, 10 Nov. and 10 Dec. 1880; McLaughlin to TAE, 10 and 25 Aug., 16 and 19 Sept., 16 and 30 Dec. 1880, 3 May 1881; all DF (TAEM 54:467, 527, 533, 506, 515, 519, 521, 544, 558; 59:175; TAED D8033Y, D8033ZBH, D8033ZBJ, D8033ZAU, D8033ZAX, D8033ZAZ, D8033ZBC, D8033ZBK, D8033ZBR, D8139K).Page 736

8. The North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co. operated a large and highly profitable hydraulic mine near the town of that name in Nevada County, Calif. Gudde and Gudde 1975, s.v. “North Bloomfield”; Kelley 1959, 40–53.

1. At the beginning of April Edison ordered rails to build one-half mile of track for a demonstration of the electric railroad conceptualized in Doc. 1745. Construction was underway by 10 April, supervised by Julius Hornig. The line consisted of rails spiked to thick ties (so as to remain insulated from the ground) and electrically connected to each other by copper bars (Mott Journal N-80-03-14:43, Lab. [TAEM 33: 705; TAED N053:22]; Hornig memorandum, 4 Apr. 1880, DF [TAEM 55:301; TAED D8039A]; Hornig’s testimony, 18–19, 5–6, 10, Edison v. Siemens v. Field, Lit. [TAEM 46:14, 7–8, 10; TAED QD001:10, 3–4, 6]). Work on the track continued for about a month, during which time a station was built and Hornig designed and oversaw construction of the locomotive with motor and running gear, couplings, and one passenger car (Mott Journal N-80-03-14:56, 58, 60, 83–84, 89, 92, 97, 103, 111, 113, 122, 130, 149, Lab. [TAEM 33:712–14, 726–27, 729, 731, 733, 736, 740–41, 745, 750, 759; TAED N053:29–31, 42–43, 45, 47, 49, 52, 57–58, 63, 67, 76]; TAE to Pioneer Iron Works, 6 and 19 Apr. 1880; Hornig to Pioneer Iron Works, 20 Apr. 1880; Lbk.5:815, 842, 846 [ TAEM 80: 235, 241, 245; TAED LB005815, LB005842, LB005846]; Hornig’s testimony, 3–5, 12–13, Edison v. Siemens v. Field, Lit. [TAEM 46:6–7, 11; TAED QD001:2–3, 7]). The track was completed on 11 May. The next day the locomotive motor, essentially a small Edison dynamo, was tested in the shop and, according to Mott, “found to run like a top.” On 13 May the locomotive was put on the tracks for the first time. Mott reported that it “started off and run slowly with current of 40 Volts after which Mr. Edison put it up to about 120 volts and that current gave it much greater power. the test so far as made shows the electrical parts complete and successful, but by nervousness and inexperience, Mr. Hornig who was running the motor, threw the friction gear on so powerfully and suddenly that he broke [one?] of the large friction wheels and thus ended the fun for today.” The friction drive was replaced by a belt and pulley mechanism the next day, when a number of trips were made, one with nineteen people on board. Edison found that the locomotive could not return up a steep hill at the end of the line and on 14 May decided to alter the pulley ratio “for the purpose of getting more power at sacrifice of speed.” Around this time Charles Batchelor sketched devices apparently intended to grip the rails and pull the train along, but on 17 May the new pulley transmission was tested with Calvin Goddard on board and found to give “very satisfactory results” (Mott Journal N-80-03-14: 160, 162, 164, 167–68, 170, 172; N-80-03-29:163–79; both Lab. [ TAEM 33:764–70; 493–501; TAED N053:81–83, 85–88; N051:81–89]). The 5 June Scientific American (42:354) contains an illustration of the locomotive with the friction drive, which can be compared to the belt and pulley mechanism shown in the 27 July New York Daily Graphic drawing reproduced in Jehl 1937–41 (p. 576). The locomotive was restored in 1930 and is located at the Henry Ford Museum (Acc. no. 29.1980.629), as are two of Edison’s coaches (Acc. nos. 29.1980.1245 and 29.1980.630).

In an interview for an unidentified newspaper in April Edison reportedly predicted that electric railroads could be built in the West which would “go up and down all elevations, like an ordinary highway; there will be no tunnels or heavy cuts or fillings. You see the train would stick to the rails like a tack to a magnet; it couldn’t get off very well unPage 738less the whole track should turn over. The electrical force would give a tremendous traction; the wheels would grasp the track like an iron hand, and climb up a steep hill as a boy would climb a ladder.” Edison also cautioned against “the mistake of attributing this idea primarily to me. In Berlin Prof. Siemens has already built a little road on this pattern, and has organized a great company to construct a system of roads. I have devised an important improvement on his method, and I believe my generator will deliver twenty-five more per cent. of electricity than his; besides which, the road is especially adapted to our long ranges and sparse population, and not to Europe” (“Our New York Letter,” c. 17 Apr. 1880, Cat. 1241, item 1495, Batchelor [TAEM 94:597; TAED MBSB21495]). On 3 June Edison filed a patent application for a “system of electrical rail-roading.” It was rejected, amended, placed in interference, and eventually abandoned. Drawings and the text of its eighteen claims are in Patent Application Casebook E-2536:90–92, PS (TAEM 45:707–709; TAED PT020090); see also Edison v. Siemens v. Field, passim, Lit. (TAEM 46:5–114; TAED QD001).

Charles Batchelor driving the electric railroad with Julius Hornig seated to his right. In the passenger car are several members of the laboratory staff.

Click for larger view
View full resolution

2. Not every trip was uneventful. On 14 May the weight of nineteen people carried the train past the usual stopping point and it hit the station bumper with enough force to lift the locomotive off the tracks. Again on 4 June, according to Mott, the brakes were not applied in time to prevent “a pretty severe bump against the bumper.” The next day Grosvenor Lowrey and Calvin Goddard visited “and after assurances from Mr. Edison and Kruesi that it was perfectly safe and free of danger were pursuaded to take the second ride over the electric tramway. All went very well and with fearful speed until the curve at Freemans road was reached, when the motor jumped the track throwing Martin Force and Kruesi off—and running over the ties seventy yards before it came to a stop. No one was hurt and no damage done.” Mott Journal N-80-03-14:167–68, 215, 217, Lab. (TAEM 33:767–68, 791–92; TAED N053: 85–86, 109–10).

3. Mott noted work on extending the track in several of his weekly summaries beginning 29 May; the project continued into early July (see Doc. 1950). The ruling grade in American railroad construction had been standardized by this time to 116 vertical feet per mile, or about 2 Page 739feet in 91. Mott Journal N-80-03-14:199, 219, 229, 231, 249, 263, 277, Lab. ( TAEM 33:783, 793, 798–99, 808, 815, 822; TAED N053:101, 111, 116–17, 126, 133, 140); Vance 1995, 43.

4. On 3 June Edison received castings for three additional cars and his carpenters began constructing the frames almost immediately. One of the new cars was run on the track for the first time on 14 June. In the meantime, Mott noted that a bell and headlight were put on the locomotive on 26 May and “Mrs Edison and some of her friends riding on same in evening probably the first electric lamp ever used as head light.” Mott Journal N-80-03-14:213, 216, 231, 234, 191, Lab. (TAEM 33:790, 792, 799, 801, 779; TAED N053:108, 110, 117, 119, 97).

5. Charles Flammer sketched the new mould and specified that it should be “5 inches long to lay fibers in slot and ends will draw up in carbonizing.” The use of nickel for carbonizing moulds was apparently suggested by Julius Hornig about 7 May. According to Mott, when Flammer tried his new design on 17 May he got ten of twelve bast fibers out “in first rate order, convincing himself that nickel is preferable to carbon in moulds probably in consequence of containing less air.” During the next ten days Flammer obtained even better results by securing the fibers in the mould and by cutting the slot more closely to the dimensions of the fibers. N-80-03-06:124; Mott Journal N-80-03-14:145, 173, 188, 193; both Lab. ( TAEM 33:1022, 757, 770, 778, 780; TAED N057:63; N053:74, 88, 96, 98).

Charles Flammer’s drawing of a fiber lying in the slotted nickel mould.

Click for larger view
View full resolution

6. Possibly Brown Ayres. Having just completed a fellowship at Johns Hopkins under Henry Rowland, Ayres wrote to Edison in March asking for a job (Ayres to TAE, 23 Mar. 1880, DF [TAEM 53:496; TAED D8014G1]). He had visited Edison in 1878, the year he graduated from the Stevens Institute. There is no record of his employment at Menlo Park and later in the year Ayres was appointed professor of physics and electrical engineering at Tulane University; he eventually became president of the University of Tennessee (see TAEB 4:159 n. 3).

7. At the end of April Edison purchased from Robert Gilliland the former electric pen factory across the railroad tracks in Menlo Park, which had stood vacant since the transfer of manufacturing to Western Electric in late 1876 (TAE agreement with Robert Gilliland, 24 Apr. 1880, Gilliland receipt to TAE, 30 Apr. 1880, DF [TAEM 54:13–14; TAED D8021I, D8021J]; see Doc. 817 and TAEB 3:410 n. 1). Mott reported that as early as 9 April Charles Clarke included the factory when calculating the size of conductors to be laid through Menlo Park. Edison’s carpenters began repairing the structure on 3 May; by 1 June they had finished this work and also made a frame for the electrically-powered pump for supplying mercury and set up “tables for about twenty four glass blowers. One double table in center of room to accomodate 8 on a side and one next outside wall for about same number. Also bench to accomodate five persons for putting carbons in clamps & clamps on conductors &c.” On 3 May John Ott had disassembled and carefully measured the vacuum pump prototype and prepared scale drawings for the glassblowers. The first one hundred pumps were completed on 2 June and were tested and carried down the hill to the factory three days later (Mott Journal N-80-03-14:56, 67, 131, 143, 186, 199, 207, 129, 209; Mott Journal N-80-07-10:4, 6, 15–16, 21, 25, 45, 54–56, Page 74059, 65, 68–69, 72, 75, 80; both Lab. [TAEM 33:712, 718, 750, 756, 777, 783, 787, 749, 788; 37:304–305, 309–310, 312, 314, 324, 329–31, 334, 336, 338–39, 342; TAED N053:29, 34, 67, 73, 95, 101, 105, 66, 106; N117:2–3, 7–8, 10, 12, 22, 27–29, 32, 34, 36–37, 40]).

8. James Bradley first worked as a machinist for Edison in Newark in 1872. When Edison moved to Menlo Park he remained in Newark and worked successively for Joseph Murray and Edward Weston; he hired on again in Edison’s machine shop at the end of 1879. TAEB 3:589 n. 4.

9. Batchelor had started sketching this apparatus on 6 May, which two days later Mott indicated was intended “for making the clamps entire, without handling and running through the different machines as has heretofore been the custom.” Accompanying drawings he made on 8 May, Batchelor specified eleven discrete operations this machine would perform (N-80-03-29:135–55, Mott Journal N-80-03-14:149, both Lab. [ TAEM 33:480–90, 759; TAED N051:68–78, N053:76]; see Friedel and Israel 1986 [pp. 168–69] for two of the 8 May drawings). Construction was well under way by 29 May and continued through late June as Batchelor designed components for it (Mott Journal N-80-03-14:199, 219, 230; N-80-03-29:183–91, 199–223, 237–49, Lab. [TAEM 33:783, 793, 799, 802, 480–90, 503–507, 510–22, 529–35; TAED N053:101, 111, 117; N051:91–95, 98–110, 117–23]). On 28 June he made sketches and notes on the “New clamp making machine” and on 20 July listed fourteen alterations to be made in the present design (N-80-06-28:1–3, 23–31, Lab. [TAEM 36:72–73, 83–87; TAED N102: 1–2, 12–16]). Batchelor made drawings related to the clamp machine through the summer (N-80-06-28:5–17, 67; N-80-06-02:89–95, 105, 109–117; N-80-03-29:265; all Lab. [TAEM 36:74–80, 105, 438–42, 446, 448–52; 33:536; TAED N102:3–9, 34; N105:42–46, 50, 52–56; N051:124]). Mott made reference to work on the machine in nearly all of his weekly summaries of “work general” through mid-October (Mott Journal N-80-07-10, passim, Lab. [TAEM 37:302; TAED N117]).

10. Mott refers to the spark tubes used to measure atmospheric pressure. S. E. Tellman, a lieutenant at the U.S. Military Academy, inquired if Edison would make and sell four vacuum tubes for classroom use at the Academy. Edison replied that he would do so and instructed Stockton Griffin to “give order to Boehm to make & [William] Hammer to bring to high vacuum— Say to Tellman that we do not manufacture for sale but will give them to him.” On 18 May Ludwig Böhm wrote out the order, indicating that the tubes were to be about eight inches long (Tellman to TAE, 10 and 12 May 1880, with TAE marginalia, DF [TAEM 53:753, 755; TAED D8020ZES, D8020ZET]; N-80-03-19:98, Lab. [TAEM 34:654; TAED N068:48]). During the summer Edison also made a vacuum tube for Charles Young, who used it for brief research on the thermo-electric properties of iron and platinum (Young to Upton, 12 Aug. 1880, Upton [TAEM 95:615; TAED MU050]; Young 1880).

11. These lamps were numbered 1082 through 1089. The bast loops were carbonized in the slotted nickel mould and fitted with cocoanut shell clamps. N-80-03-06:25, Lab. (TAEM 33:1002; TAED N057:13).

1. Riley organized the Rockaway Elevated Rail-Road Co. to build and operate an elevated line across the narrow peninsula of southern Long Island from Jamaica Bay to Rockaway Beach on the Atlantic Ocean. He intended to employ his patented “Riley centre and safety rails,” and after seeing a news account of Edison’s electric railroad he wrote on 18 May to ask if the motor could be adapted to his track. Edison noted on that letter, “Can’t go into it if you want to see the RR come down.” Riley visited Menlo Park on Tuesday, 25 May. Riley to TAE, 18 May 1880; Riley circular letter, 1880; both DF (TAEM 55:302, 304; TAED D8039B, D8039C); Mott Journal N-80-03-14:189, Lab. (TAEM 33:778; TAED N053:96).

In early August Edison also agreed to meet with backers of the Brooklyn & Atlantic Beach Elevated Railroad about the electric engine but the meeting did not take place. B. F. Newhouse to TAE, 2 Aug. 1880, Cat. 2174, Scraps. (TAEM 89:263; TAED SB012AAJ); Newhouse to TAE, 3 Aug. 1880, DF (TAEM 55:334; TAED D8039ZAC).

2. Riley was president of the Rockaway Elevated Rail-Road Co. (see note 1).

3. This draft reply is the basis for Edison’s answer, to which he added that his electric railroad would still “require quite a great deal of work to make it practical. I am making changes in it daily and do not know yet where the end is” (TAE to Riley, 1 June 1880, Lbk. 6:55 [TAEM 80:294; TAED LB006055]). Despite this disclaimer, Edison collected information Page 742from the month of April on the “Cost of Motive Power & Lighting” of the Manhattan Elevated, which operated all of New York’s elevated lines. Calvin Goddard arranged for two officers of that company to visit Menlo Park on 10 June and advised Edison to “have the RRd in good order & don’t try to break anybody’s neck” (Manhattan Railway operating expenses, Apr. 1880; Goddard to TAE, 8 June 1880; both Cat. 2174, Scraps. [TAEM 89:251, 253; TAED SB012AAB, SB012AAD]; Klein 1986, 282–83).

1. Charles Mott noted on this date that “Seventeen or eighteen bags of Ores and tailings were received to day most of them from Powers claim and sent by McLaughlin. Mr. Edison has been testing some of them.” The following day he wrote that “Mr Edison is to day much interested in testing the ores and tailings received from McLaughlin and directed Lawson to make certain experiments for removing the coating from particles of gold so they would be rendered in a state subject to the Page 744action of mercury.” Mott Journal N-80-03-14:198, 201, Lab. (TAEM 33:783–84; TAED N053:101–102).

2. In his covering letter Frank McLaughlin indicated that this shipment, the most recent of several, “about exhausts the claims in the immediate vicinity of the contemplated mill, and will doubtless be all that you will require. . . . If the result of the assays of the samples forwarded warrent it I can contract with the Chinese working the Lava Beds for twenty five to one hundred tons per day of tailings like sample for $2.00 per ton.” McLaughlin included a list identifying the numbered samples he sent that day by Wells Fargo express. However, Stockton Griffin noted on 27 May that “part of this letter went to Dr Haid” and most of the list has not been found. McLaughlin to TAE, 19 May 1880, DF (TAEM 54:489; TAED D8033ZAL).

McLaughlin’s samples were just a few of the many that Edison received for analysis, most of them unsolicited. Edison and Alfred Haid used part of the notebook for recording assay results from dozens of samples; they usually recorded the sources, many of which Charles Mott also noted in his journal (N-80-04-17:3–89; Mott Journal N-80-03-14, passim; Lab. [TAEM 33:285–315, 683; TAED N050:1–44, N053]). Related correspondence which sometimes includes Edison’s marginal notations about his separation process and results of particular assays, is in Mining—Mines & Ores (D-80-34), DF (TAEM 54:577; TAED D8034). In August Edison filed a patent application (Case 226) covering a “method of treating so-called auriferous sulphurets [gold-bearing metallic sulphides (Raymond 1881, s.v. “sulphurets”)], which consists in reducing them to powder, and then subjecting the resulting material (either raw or roasted) to the action of a magnetic separator.” The application was rejected and eventually abandoned (Patent Application Casebook E-2536:114, PS [ TAEM 45:710; TAED PT020114]).

3. The meaning of this phrase is uncertain. “Henrietta,” a lightweight dress cloth, suggests that it may refer to material captured in so-called “blanket-tables,” which were essentially sluice boxes lined with fine cloth to catch the gold, mercury, and amalgam settling from the discharge of a stamping mill. OED, s.v. “henrietta”; Lock 1882, 1052–54.

4. That is, small particles of metallic gold. OED, s.v. “colour,” 10a.

5. Haid noted on a facing page that a wet assay determined that this ore would yield 0.447 ounces of gold per ton. By a fire assay he determined it would produce 0.5 ounces of gold and an equal amount of silver. Edison later entered this information himself in the notebook, indicating that the results given by Haid were from non-magnetic material; the magnetic portion yielded a tiny fraction of this amount, which Edison concluded was “probably picked up by particles.” Haid also reported results from McLaughlin specimen number seventeen, containing roasted pyrites from a mine near Stockton which contained $1,152 in gold to the ton. N-80-04-17:18, 67, 16, Lab. (TAEM 33:280, 304, 279; TAED N050:9, 33, 8).

6. Edison later recorded Haid’s assay and the amount of material in this sample classed as “Coarse,” “magnetic,” and “Auriferous.” He noted the presence of two scales of gold and much mercury and observed that “more magnetic could probably be taken out with strong mag.” N-80-04-17:43, Lab. (TAEM 33:292; TAED N050:21).

7. Edison also made a separate entry for this sample, recording the amount of material in each category. He again commented that “about Page 74550 grms more could be taken out with strong magnet.” N-80-04-17:41, Lab. (TAEM 33:291; TAED N050:20).

8. Edison may have intended fluctuant, meaning undulating or wavelike. OED, s.vv. “fluctuant,” “flucti-.”

9. Haid arrived at this determination through computations at the bottom of the page which have been omitted. He assumed the valuation of gold at $20 per (troy) ounce, a figure consistent with other sources. Lock 1882, 121–44, 179; Ency. Brit., s.v. “Gold.”

10. This sample is the only one for which a portion of McLaughlin’s description survives (see note 2). He indicated that it consisted of tailings from a flume at Dry Creek (one of several mining locations by that name in the vicinity) after a month of operation. He stated that the mine produced about five tons of such material every day. Gudde and Gudde 1975, s.v. “Dry Creek.”

1. George Gouraud cabled Edison on 1 June “Amalgamation unanimous both Companies.” The agreement forming the United Telephone Co., Ltd. was dated 13 May but not executed until 2 June. The new company’s deputy chairman was Edward Bouverie; five of its eleven directors, including Bouverie and Gouraud, had been connected with the Edison company (Gouraud to TAE, 1 June 1880; Arnold White to TAE, 8 June 1880; Agreement of 13 May 1880; United Telephone Co., Ltd. circular, 8 June 1880; all DF [TAEM 56:681, 693, 694, 701; TAED D8049ZFA, D8049ZFE, D8049ZFF, D8049ZFF1]). A promotional pamphlet and subscriber directory published in August by the United company is in PPC (TAEM 96:636; TAED CA018A).

2. Johnson had cabled Edison on 25 May: “Gouraud imperilling amalgamation by new and absurd demands Cable him following withdraw claim to profit on United Company Capital vote for amalgamation without further demur.” The next day Edison queried Gouraud, “what causes delay amalgamation.” Shortly before 1 p.m. on 31 May Edison received a message from Bouverie on behalf of the London company stating “Amalgamation in great peril if it fails Company must wind up board and myself will abandon it. Gouraud asks fresh terms last moment inadmissable Rush answer shareholders meeting tomorrow last chance.” Johnson to TAE, 25 May 1880; TAE to Gouraud, 26 May 1880; Bouverie to TAE, 31 May 1880; all DF (TAEM 56:672–73, 678; TAED D8049ZEP, D8049ZEQ, D8049ZEU).

3. Shortly after 1 p.m. on 31 May Edison received Johnson’s message to “Cable quephone [the London company] your approval amalgamation.” On the same paper on which Bouverie’s earlier cable (see note 2) was transcribed Edison wrote a message to Gouraud which he sent at 2 p.m.: “Telegrams state you ask for fresh terms which will imperil amalgamation. The terms stated in your letter satisfactory to me why not close matter up.” Johnson to TAE, 31 May 1880; TAE to Gouraud, 31 May 1880; both DF (TAEM 56:679, 678; TAED D8049ZEX, D8049ZEV).

4. At 3:20 p.m. on 31 May Johnson cabled “Have seen Bouveries Gourauds cables Dont cable reply either all will be right.” Six minutes later Edison received Gouraud’s message: “Counsel advised settling your reversion before amalgamation This endeavor frightened Bouverie hence his misleading Cable I shall vote for amalgamation as independent shareholder but not as your proxy which is unnecessary and counsel advises would jeopardize your future Your only course silence I guarantee amalgamation.” Johnson to TAE, 31 May 1880; Gouraud to Page 748TAE, 31 May 1880; both DF ( TAEM 56:677, 678; TAED D8049ZEY1, D8049ZEY2).

Gouraud later explained that he was advised, in the absence of a guarantee of Edison’s future interest, that he should not “vote on your proxy for the amalgamation lest the fact of so doing might be used against you in the future I at no time in the negotiations said that I would vote your proxy against the amalgamation but that is evidently what Bouverie feared I would do if I did not vote your share for it. Of course I did not show him my whole hand but allowed him to draw whatever inference that he might please.” Gouraud to TAE, 4 June 1880, DF (TAEM 56:688; TAED D8049ZFD).

5. Edison wrote the reply, “I will if I knew the basis,” on the reverse of the first cable from Johnson that day. He also wrote and then canceled a draft reply on the same paper which concluded “You and Gouraud have mixed me up. Cannot answer too perplexed by you and gourauds communications.” TAE to Johnson, 31 May 1880; TAE marginalia on Johnson to TAE, 31 May 1880; both DF (TAEM 56:680, 679; TAED D8049ZEY, D8049ZEX).

6. Johnson cabled at 6:40 p.m.: “Contention on reversionary only basis as you know it cable approval amalgamation without prejudice your interest in future profits.” Johnson to TAE, 31 May 1880, DF ( TAEM 56:681; TAED D8049ZEZ).

7. Johnson had already declined a position with the United Company and, on the assumption that Edison would not be ready to introduce the electric light in England during the summer, planned to travel on the Continent before returning to New York. Johnson to TAE, 12 May 1880, DF (TAEM 56:661; TAED D8049ZEJ).

1. Upton may have planned this experiment to verify calculations that Charles Clarke made, according to Charles Mott, “of the fall in electromotive force in a system of conductor and lamps as established and Page 750put down here in the Park, with view of devising means of maintaining the same constant and further calculating the additional cost of maintaining it by feeding the mains with extra conductors and the points where such feeding can be done most effectually and economically.” On 8 June Mott stated that Francis Jehl carried out this experiment with “the resistance coils he had prepared each of the ten to represent a lamp of 100 ohms. the purpose of the experiment being to determine the fall of Potential. The fall through the ten resistances was from 84⅔ to 79⅔ volts and from 16½ to 12½ candle power” (Mott Journal N-80-03-14: 214, 224, Lab. [TAEM 33:791, 796; TAED N053:109, 114]). Several of Francis Upton’s rough sketches from 1 June showing various distribution arrangements precede this document; Upton made additional related notes and sketches on 7 June (N-79-07-05:246–53, 269–71, Lab. [TAEM 33:253–56, 264–65; TAED N048:121–25, 132–33]). The drawing below, which appears on the facing page, is probably a form of resistance box.

2. See Doc. 1937 n. 2.

3. At the end of May Upton made experiments in which “The wires [were] connected on the large machine so that the current generated in each could be separately tested. . . . This shows that the distribution of magnetic effect is very nearly the same throughout the whole field.” A few days later Upton had made more tests with one of the “small dynamos” designed at the end of April and used for laboratory experiments (see Doc. 1936 n. 2). Mott noted that he was “unable, with 75 volts, to saturate the cast iron bases of the magnets. The inability to saturate is explained as due to the resistance to magnetism of cast iron in consequence of the amount of carbon it contains. Test was to determine the electromotive force at varying saturation of magnet” (N-79-07-05:235–43; Mott Journal N-80-03-14:220; both Lab. [TAEM 33:247–51, 794; TAED N048:115–19, N053:112]).

4. Upton began a series of motor tests in mid-May, first using a regular Edison dynamo and later a small “cast iron motor.” His intention seems to have been to determine the amount of mechanical power produced under various conditions of the line current and field magnets. Upton’s notes are difficult to interpret because, as Mott noted on 14 and 21 May, he made some of the experiments in conjunction with meter tests and on other occasions ran the same machine alternately as a motor and a generator. N-79-07-05:7–73, 111–21, 139–43, 179, 197, 203–207, 227–31; Mott Journal N-80-03-14:167, 185; both Lab.(TAEM 33: 138–67, 186–90, 199–201, 219, 228, 231–33, 243–45 767, 776; TAED N048:5–34, 53–58, 67–69, 87, 96, 99–101, 111–13; N053:85, 94).

5. Mott reported on 1 May that John Lawson started a series of meter tests designed to “ascertain whether or not the rolling of copper plate injures the surface of the copper to an extent sufficient to cause uneaqual deposit thereon”; this proved not to be the case. On 10 May Lawson began practical trials in conjunction with Upton’s motor tests (see note 4) by putting “meters in line of Dynamo current, to be tested for accuracy with readings of Galvanometer and calculations by Francis.” Mott noted on 15 and 17 May that Upton was continuing experiments to determine “the influence of strong and weak currents upon shunts for meter purposes” (Mott Journal N-80-03-14:126, 185, 156, 167, 171, 173; N-79-07-05:75–108, 123, 127–31,145–47, 209–13, 262–68; N-80-01-02.4: Page 75184–93; both Lab. [TAEM 33:748, 776, 763, 767, 769–70, 168–85, 191, 193–95, 202–03, 234–36, 246, 261–64; 35:776–80; TAED N053:65, 94, 80, 85, 87–88; N048:35–52, 59, 61–63, 70–71, 102–104, 129–132; N084:34–38]).

6. During the second week of June Upton conducted tests which, unlike those described in note 5, appear to have been designed specifically to measure the electromotive force of the meters themselves and to compare meter and galvanometer measurements of battery currents. N-79-11-21:31–133, 148, Lab. (TAEM 32:485–536, 544; TAED N039:7–58, 66).

1. Unidentified.

2. Ludwig Böhm sketched and briefly described this instrument the previous day. In the next week he apparently made two similar instruments for Moses. N-80-03-19:115, 121, 123, Lab. (TAEM 34:662, 665–66; TAED N068:56, 59–60).

Page 753 Drawing by Otto Moses of apparatus for smelting aluminum. Aluminum oxide was to be placed in the cup at d and heated by an electric current; the entire device was enclosed in a bell jar connected to a vacuum pump.

Click for larger view
View full resolution

3. Edison took no evident steps to carry out his earlier proposal to produce pure aluminum (see Doc. 1902) until 2 June, when Otto Moses began trying “to reduce to metallic form Al2O3 by reduction in a stick of incandescent Carbon, heated by passage of the electric current: the experiment to be conducted in vacuo.” Moses sketched and described the experimental apparatus but concluded that it “is not durable, difficult to be made and liable to make bad contacts.” He tried several modifications to overcome these objections but did not succeed until 7 June with a crucible of carbonized boxwood. He tried more experiments without success and this journal entry is the last record of his investigations. N-80-01-28:[51–55]; Mott Journal N-80-03-14:209–210, 218, 220, 231, 235; both Lab. (TAEM 33:855–57, 788–89, 793–94, 799, 801; TAED N055:25–27; N053:106–107, 111–12, 117, 119).

4. This was a rare extended leave for Batchelor, who did not return to work until 28 June. Mott Journal N-80-03-14:264, Lab. (TAEM 33:816; TAED N053:134).

5. Two days previously Edison had telegraphed Princeton physics professor Charles Young: “When will you be able to make an examination of the mysterious blue halo in the lamp by the spectroscope.” Young replied the same day that he could “come down and examine it anytime you like.” TAE to Young and Young to TAE, both 15 June 1880, DF (TAEM 53:770; TAED D8020ZFD and D8020ZFE).

6. See headnote p. 623. On 15 June Mott indicated that “Mr. Edison was of opinion that the carbon was being carried from one side to the other of the loop directly across and for farther investigation he had a lamp made with a oval shaped glass partition attached between the connecting wires and extending nearly to the top of the loop at right angles with the faces. The lamp was put on pumps but not yet heated.” Ludwig Böhm sketched two views of this arrangement the same day. Mott Journal N-80-03-14:235–36, N-80-03-19:113, both Lab. (TAEM 33:801–02, 34:661; TAED N053:119–20, N068:55).

Ludwig Böhm’s 15 June drawings of the experimental partition between the filament legs.

Click for larger view
View full resolution

On 17 June Mott noted that the

lamp made with glass partition and tested at intense heat yesterday and the one from which the Hydrogen lines were obtained in spectroscope Page 754 was broken in the carbon today. Other lamps were made with mica partition extending down nearly to bottom of large globe, one was exhausted on the pump and heated up Mr. Edison then for experiment let air in so the guage mercury filled about three fourths the globe and burned it at high incandescence for long time the lamp showed all the charasterics of lamp with high vacuum and showed the vapory blue the same as the plain lamps. [N-03-14:242, Lab. (TAEM 33:805; TAED N053:123)]

7. In mid-July Francis Jehl designed a “Circuit changer” that rapidly reversed the polarity in a lamp circuit. The device was tested in several lamps but was unsatisfactory at the speed at which it was intended to operate. Edison and an assistant later designed variations on this apparatus (see Doc. 1985). Mott Journal N-80-07-10:7; N-80-06-29:141, 157, 257–59; N-80-07-23:23, 29; all Lab. (TAEM 37:305; 36:195, 203, 253–54, 852, 855; TAED N117:3; N103:72, 80, 130–31; N112:11, 14).

William Hammer’s November 1880 magnet arrangement for manipulating the blue emanation at the clamps.

Click for larger view
View full resolution

8. Edison explored the former suggestion in November (see Doc. 2026). Efforts to use magnets to disperse the blue emanation at the clamp (associated with electrical carrying) were made in the third week of July and again in November, when William Hammer sketched a “Revolving magnet” at the base of a lamp globe (N-80-07-23:33–35, N-80-11-25:260, Lab. [TAEM 36:857–58, 37:640; TAED N112:16–17, N120:55]). In January 1881 Edison applied for a patent on a lamp with a magnet fixed at its base to “attract the highly electrified carbon vapor” so that the “carbon particles thrown off by the carbon filament may be attracted downwardly, in order that the formation of an arc between the limbs of the carbon, and also whereby the blackening of the inclosing glass chamber . . . may be avoided” (U.S. Pat. 251,548).

9. Martin Force.

10. This was apparently a continuation of the experiments described in Doc. 1930.

1. This unexecuted agreement is in Miller (TAEM 86:349; TAED HM800138). What may be a fragment of a draft written in an unknown hand with Edison’s emendations is in Miller ( TAEM 86:277; TAED HM800127). Gouraud’s interests in Edison’s telephone contracts in a number of foreign countries were secured by agreements executed in August 1880 (see Doc. 1978).

2. A damaged and undated copy of the contract Edison apparently Page 757signed with George Newington, trustee for the prospective company, is in DF (TAEM 56:852; TAED D8049ZIO). Its terms are the same as those first outlined in the enclosure below. It was superceded in August 1880 (see Doc. 1978).

3. Johnson’s letter has not been found. On 4 June Gouraud had written Edison to disregard the trust deed sent earlier (see Doc. 1933 n. 2) because the telephone amalgamation necessitated some alterations (DF [ TAEM 56:687; TAED D8049ZFC]). Edison executed a revised agreement in mid-July (see Doc. 1954 n. 3).

4. Gardiner Hubbard, Alexander Graham Bell’s father-in-law and organizer of the Bell Telephone Co., had been among the organizers of the Edison Speaking Phonograph Co. See ANB, s.v. “Hubbard, Gardiner Greene” and TAEB 3:500 n. 5; Doc. 1190.

5. Not found but see Doc. 1978.

6. This is essentially the text of Gouraud’s cable. Gouraud to TAE, 12 June 1880, DF (TAEM 55:718; TAED D8046ZAM).

7. Edison sent this cable on 12 June 1880. TAE to Gouraud, DF (TAEM 55:719; TAED D8046ZAN).

8. Gouraud to TAE, 14 June 1880, DF (TAEM 55:719; TAED D8046ZAN1).

9. This message has not been found.

10. This is essentially the text of Gouraud’s cable (Gouraud to TAE, 16 June 1880, DF [TAEM 55:722; TAED D8046ZAS]). These terms were incorporated into the revised contract with Newington (see note 2).

1. Telegraphic communication on this subject began on 8 June, when Gouraud cabled “Cannot you possibly include any more countries for universal telephone company.” Edison replied the next day, “The Edison Telephone Company of Europe are open for a trade.” Gouraud wrote on 10 June that he intended the new company “to go into this business wherever it may be done and to that end acquire such patents as it can in any case when it may be desirable.” He also stated that he would instruct Michael Moore (who had arrived in New York in April with letters of introduction from Edward Johnson) to open negotiations with the European Edison company. Edison assigned a number of European patents and pending applications to that company on 28 May; on 11 June, with the minimum of stock subscribed, the directors voted to issue shares for the first time. Gouraud to TAE, 8 and 10 June 1880; TAE to Gouraud, 9 June 1880; Johnson to TAE, 30 Mar. 1880; Moore to TAE, 19 Apr. 1880; Edison Telephone Co. of Europe resolution, 5 June 1880; directors’ minutes, 11 June 1880; all DF (TAEM 55:714, 717; 56:606, 604, 186, 196; TAED D8046ZAI, D8046ZAL, D8046ZAJ, D8049ZDP, D8049ZDO, D8048ZDU, D8048ZEB2).

2. Gouraud reported on 18 June that he could not meet all the demands of the European Edison company “unless Bell same countries can be united can that be done,” to which Edison promptly answered: “Bell has no patent leaves us only valid exploitieurs.” Gouraud to TAE and TAE to Gouraud, both 18 June 1880, DF ( TAEM 55:730; TAED D8046ZAV, D8046ZAW).

On 19 June Edison cabled Gouraud the suggestion that the company might agree to “royalty three dollars year per telephone in European Countries if guaranteed vigorous & immediate exploitation, with Johnson in charge.” Gouraud made a counter-offer two days later and pledged a “vigorous working policy immediate establishment exchanges chief Page 759cities Johnson chief engineer.” However, Johnson had just cabled Edison that he would not accept the position and Edison wired Gouraud, “Johnson declines, would not do anything without him.” Johnson reiterated his decision the next day but after Edison advised him “Better accept four or five months engagement Continent until light ready” he cabled on 23 June, “Cannot remain longer in Europe am offered absolute control policy men and apparatus with appointment electrician will this accomplish your object” (TAE to Gouraud, 19 and 21 June 1880; Gouraud to TAE, 21 June 1880; Johnson to TAE, 21, 22 and 23 June 1880; TAE to Johnson, 22 June 1880; all DF [TAEM 55:731, 733–35; TAED D8046ZAX, D8046ZBA, D8046ZAZ, D8046ZBB, D8046ZBC, D8046ZBE, D8046ZBD]). Gouraud informed Edison that same day that Johnson had accepted “as special favor appointment electrician” on those terms. He followed this by cabling another counter-offer, prompting Edison to reply that the “Stockholders will accept if ten thousand pounds is paid advance royalty. But will give no option on stock; remember they can do as well by settling peicemeal as with Russia Belgium Hungary.” After another cautionary cable from Edison, Gouraud sent word on 29 June that he would come to New York and asked Edison to “keep European offer open.” On 24 August Edison telegraphed Banker that “Gouraud offers in addition to two dollars yearly Royalty a guarantee that first year shall net us ten thousand in Royalty think we better close the thing up this basis as he sails tomorrow” to England (Gouraud to TAE, 23, 25, and 29 June 1880; TAE to Gouraud, 26 and 28 June 1880; TAE to Banker, 24 Aug. 1880; all DF [TAEM 55:735–37, 744; TAED D8046ZBF, D8046ZBG, D8046ZBK, D8046ZBI, D8046ZBJ, D8046ZBO]). During this period Edison also entertained negotiations with the Bell interests for a combination in Russia, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. No settlement was reached, however, and the European matter was unresolved at the beginning of October when Gouraud cabled “What about Edison European They make a great mistake in this delay large and powerful Anglo American syndicate forming here to work. Bell everywhere” (H. S. Russell to TAE, 14 and 22 July1880; Russell to Griffin, 31 Aug. 1880; Gouraud to TAE, 1 Oct. 1880; all DF [TAEM 56:222, 228, 249, 261; TAED D8048ZEW, D8048ZFB, D8048ZFU, D8048ZFZ]; TAE to Russell, 13 Aug. 1880, Lbk. 6:303 [TAEM 80:360; TAED LB006303]).

1. Stockton Griffin made a docket note on the reverse on 1 July, presumably the date Edison received this letter.

2. Samuel Insull (1859–1938), a London native, had been Gouraud’s secretary since early 1879. On 7 April he wrote Edison that Johnson had “handed me your cable saying ‘If Insull can translate French send him,’” to which he had already replied “No regretfully.” It is not known exactly what job Edison had in mind at that time. Insull did become Edison’s secretary in February 1881 and remained closely associated with him until 1892; thereafter he built a multi-state electric and gas utility empire based in Chicago. ANB, s.v. “Insull, Samuel;” McDonald 1962, 11–22; Insull to TAE, 7 and 5 Apr. 1880, DF (TAEM 53:501, 143; 56:578; TAED D8014H, D8004ZCM, D8049ZDD).

1. The enclosed statement follows in DF (TAEM 55:405; TAED D8041P). On 3 June Edison leased an office for Science at 229 Broadway in New York and by 9 June had advanced Michels $350 in cash (agreement with John Hamilton, 3 June 1880; Michels receipt to TAE, 9 June 1880; both DF [TAEM 389, 396; TAED D8041L, D8041N1]). Sometime during the month Edison had drawn up an agreement to provide full financial support for one year, after which Michels was to have a 20% interest if the journal had become profitable. This contract was never signed but Edison continued to pay all expenses, including the salaries of Michels and an assistant (draft agreement with Michels, June 1880, DF [TAEM 55:412; TAED D8041R1]). Michels subsequently sent Page 762weekly statements of his account, which are in Science (D-80-041 and D-81-044), DF (TAEM 55:360, 59:451; TAED D8041, D8144).

2. Michels forwarded the bill for $67.76 a few days later. Five thousand copies of the first issue were printed. Michels to Griffin with enclosure, 30 June 1880, DF (TAEM 55:408; TAED D8041Q).

3. Edward Holden was an assistant to Simon Newcomb at the U.S. Naval Observatory. He was concurrently a principal advisor for construction of the Lick Observatory, of which he subsequently became director; he also served (1886–88) as president of the University of California (ANB, s.v. “Holden, Edward Singleton” and DSB, s.v. “Holden, Edward Singleton”). Holden wrote the lead article, “The United States Naval Observatory, Washington,” for the first issue of Science, which was dated 3 July 1880 (pp. 1–3).

4. This issue included a short article by Francis Upton on “Electricity as Power.” Upton discussed in general terms the economics of generating and transmitting electricity for power, and devoted the final four paragraphs to electric railroads and Edison’s experiments on that subject. Science 1 (1880): 5, Cat. 1008:84, Scraps. (TAEM 23:369; TAED SM008084).

5. Frederic Shonnard, whom Michels described as a nephew of Senator Roscoe Conkling and “a gentleman of wealth having considerable property at Yonkers,” was connected with the Malleable Nickel Alloy Co. in New York. Michels to TAE, 6 May and 27 Apr. 1880; Malleable Nickel Alloy Co. to TAE; 26 July 1879, all DF ( TAEM 55:372, 364; 50:91; TAED D8041E, D8041B, D7919ZBN).

6. In a separate advertising supplement to this issue (and subsequent ones) Michels published the names of seventeen “well known and esteemed Scientists” who had “expressed either their intention to contribute, or their approval of the object of the Journal, and good wishes for its success.” He had enumerated all but one of these, including Holden, Spencer Baird, Charles Young, and Othniel Marsh, the week before in a letter to Griffin, to whom he had earlier excerpted letters of support from Baird and Young. Science 1 (1880): ii; Michels to Griffin, 19 June 1880; Michels to TAE, 24 May 1880; both DF ( TAEM 55:397, 381; TAED D8041O, D8041H).

7. Michels presumably had in mind an assertion of the journal’s independence. The unsigned lead article in the second issue was a defense of the planned electric light demonstration at Menlo Park, which it called “Edison’s answer to all the meretricious arguments and scientific hair-splitting which has been of late, with little generosity, carefully disseminated to his disadvantage. Taking the view that it is a waste of time to argue theoretically, on that which can be demonstrated practically, Edison, through all this wrangle has been silent, but not idle; while others talked, he has worked. ” “The Edison Light,” Science 1 (1880): 18, Cat. 1017 (TAEM 24:189; TAED SM017063a).

8. The magazine’s full title was Harper’s Weekly, A Journal of Civilization. The firm Harper & Bros. was managed at this time by five sons of the founding Harper brothers. Tebbel 1975, 191.

1. W. H. Patton was superintendent (since 1878) of the Consolidated Virginia Co., which developed the most lucrative mine holdings in the Comstock Lode. Smith 1943, 149.

2. Patton asked Edison to apprise him of the “present condition of your researches in the application of Electricity to the conveyance of power—for instance the generating of the Electricity by water power— conveyance of the same to any distance and its utilization by transformation into power again—also what loss is sustained during the transmission.” Edison’s draft reply on this letter is essentially the same as the final version written by Griffin (Patton to TAE, 8 June 1880, DF [TAEM 54:396; TAED D8032P]). On Edison’s prior interest in this subject, see Doc. 1788 esp. n. 1.

3. Virginia City was located directly over the “Big Bonanza” of the Comstock Lode, in extreme western Nevada. Smith 1943, 151; Elliott 1973, 144–51.