- 8. October–December 1880
- Chapter
- Johns Hopkins University Press
- pp. 875-965
-
- View Citation
- Additional Information
October–December 1880
During the fall and early winter Edison found himself in the unfamiliar position of having to depend upon events and circumstances beyond his immediate control. The small-scale Menlo Park central station and distribution system he had hoped to demonstrate in the summer was still not ready. The initial failure of the insulated underground conductors accounted for some of the delay, but more critical now was the fact that construction of the Porter-Allen engine for the large dynamo was months behind schedule. In late October, Edison was forced to slow down work on the dynamo and he protested to the engine builders that “Every little delay is embarrassing to us at this time and we cannot wait longer” but the engine was not delivered until January.1 In the meantime, he began investigating other forms of high-speed engines which might be suited to the dynamo. The lamp factory had its own problems. Some, like contaminated mercury and the refractory circulating pump, were readily addressed. More complex was the task of assembling and training a new workforce. As Charles Batchelor noted in regard to one job seeker, Edison’s experience with highly skilled glassblowers accustomed to making scientific or clinical instruments was “anything but satisfactory for manufacturing work. We find it a great deal easier to break in new men on our work than try to get experimental men to do manufacturing work.”2 Most of the tasks, Edison told a reporter, were “so entirely new that I have had to teach everybody how to do the work, and that takes time.” 3 Wholly out of his control was a drought followed by an early freeze, making it difficult to get enough water for the steam engines which provided power for the laboratory, machine shop, and factory. As Page 876he began to plan the New York central station district, Edison was forced to await the approval of city authorities to lay conductors beneath the streets and sidewalks. Lastly, he testified for five days in November in the telephone interference cases and for another day in a quadruplex telegraph interference. Sometime in November, Francis Upton began to determine the conductors needed for a small electric lighting station in a house being built by financier William Henry Vanderbilt in New York. Edward Johnson, who was placed in charge of the installation, wrote that this plan pleased Edison “because it sort of fills up the long delay—& acts as a sort of sop to the capital.”4 Edison asked Johnson to offer similar systems for all new houses being constructed on 5th Avenue.
Edison continued to improve the electric lamp. In late October, he resumed experiments, with Francis Jehl, on depositing volatile hydrocarbons onto the carbon lamp filaments; Edward Acheson continued related work in late November. At the end of that month Edison and William Hammer began two weeks of experiments trying to understand and prevent “electrical carrying” in the lamps. Though not successful, this research was partly responsible for Edison’s decision in early December to replace all vacuum pumps in the factory with a simpler and more compact design. With the factory operating—albeit nowhere near the rate of 1,200 lamps per day he envisioned—Edison had a steady supply of lamps for testing. He and his assistants continued to compare bamboo, bast, other fibers, and even some cardboard filaments. Already largely convinced of bamboo’s superiority, he had John Segredor continue his search for supplies of the cane in Cuba, where Segredor died of yellow fever. He dispatched William Moore to Japan in October and in November engaged a geologist and experienced explorer, John Branner, to search in Brazil. On 1 December, Charles Batchelor ordered all subsequent lamps to be made with bamboo filaments of specific dimensions, secured to the lead-in wires with platinum clamps. Two weeks later John Lawson began successfully electroplating a metal coating onto the filament ends to prevent breakage. Soon after Albert Herrick extended this idea to try to join “the wires and carbons direct by plating them together,” eliminating the timeconsuming and costly use of screw clamps.5 The technique had been proven successful by the end of December, and though not yet ready for adoption in the factory it was subsequently used in Edison’s lamps for years. By late November Edison had full confidence in the superiority of his lamp to all Page 877others, whether gas or electric. He was therefore thoroughly rankled, both professionally and personally, by newspaper reports in which his friend George Barker of the University of Pennsylvania praised the incandescent light of Hiram Maxim, whom Edison contended had stolen the design from him. Henry Morton of the Stevens Institute also endorsed the Maxim lamp enthusiastically.
As usual, Edison directed work simultaneously on other components of the electric light and power system. During October, Francis Upton made comprehensive cost calculations for the construction and operation of a New York central station. The specific requirements for that station became clearer as James Russell returned data from his canvass of lighting and power use in the proposed service district and Upton and William Hammer tabulated results from each block. Combining these figures with geographical information provided by fire insurance maps, Upton and Hammer began calculating the amount of copper needed to meet the anticipated electrical load in each block. At the beginning of December Edison hired Hermann Claudius, an Austrian telegraph engineer, to assist with these calculations and eventually to build a model of the entire feeder and main conductor network. In the meantime, construction of the large direct-connected dynamo continued and on 11 December Edison filed a patent application covering its novel armature arrangement in which solid bars of copper were connected to radial copper plates. A few days later he also drafted two caveats dealing with dynamo voltage regulation. Sustaining the increased patent activity that began during the summer, during this period Edison executed twentytwo applications that resulted in U.S. patents.
Edison made a number of important business and administrative arrangements during the last quarter of 1880. He and Grosvenor Lowrey quietly made plans to place Sherburne Eaton, a prominent corporate lawyer and former colleague of Lowrey’s who had been acting as an unofficial advisor, on the board of the Edison Electric Light Co.; Eaton became vice president and general manager in January 1881. When electric light investors declined to venture into the lamp manufacturing business, Edison formed the Edison Electric Lamp Co. in mid-November as a partnership with Charles Batchelor, Francis Upton, and Edward Johnson. The Edison Electric Illuminating Co. of New York was created a month later, with the support of Edison’s investors, to generate and sell electricity in Manhattan. To help ensure that New York City would grant a Page 878franchise for the underground conductors, Edison and Grosvenor Lowrey arranged for the Board of Aldermen, city administrators, and company investors to spend an evening at the laboratory on 20 December. Guests enjoyed a lavish catered dinner and saw Menlo Park illuminated by more than two hundred lamps. Also in mid-December Edison tried unsuccessfully to secure an agreement with the British chemist William Crookes for the lamp factory to produce radiometers. An old business arrangement came back to haunt Edison in November when he was sued by Lucy Seyfert, wife of an investor in the Automatic Telegraph Co., for payment of $7,000 in promissory notes given in 1874 as part of a complex plan to raise money for that company.
The high point of Edison’s Menlo Park workforce probably was reached by early October. Five employees are known to have left during that month. Among them was Ludwig Böhm, never well-liked at the laboratory or lamp factory, who left on bad terms after quarreling with Batchelor. Edison later accused him of providing confidential information to Hiram Maxim after resigning. Laboratory assistant Arthur Andrus also departed. More than a dozen others left before the end of the year. This group included several recent hires and a number of laborers, the need for whose services presumably ended with completion of the underground conductors and the lamp Page 879factory, which started its regular payroll on 11 November. A number of new employees first appear in the Menlo Park payroll records in November and December, most of whom were probably employed at the lamp factory. The one significant addition to the laboratory staff was Hermann Claudius, who arrived in mid-December.
1. Doc. 2006.
2. Charles Batchelor to Stockton Griffin, Nov. 1880, DF (TAEM 53:525; TAED D8014ZAI).
3. “How Far Edison Has Got,” New York World, 29 Nov. 1880, Cat. 1062:20, Scraps. ( TAEM 89:18; TAED SM062020).
4. Johnson to Uriah Painter, 10 Dec. 1880, UHP.
5. Mott Journal N-80-07-10:253, Lab. (TAEM 37:429; TAED N117:127).
To John Michels
[Menlo Park,] Oct 5th [1880]
Dear Sir:
In the last issue of Science (Oct 2d) I notice a great deal of space given to Wiesendanger.1 Now I dont suppose you are aware of it but in Europe Wiesdenanger is looked upon as little less than an idiot and such stuff as the article referred to is nothing more nor less than a disgrace to a scientific paper. If such a thing is possible I would like to see the proofs of what is to appear in Science before the paper is published and thereby avoid as much as possible that which would be detrimental to its interests.2 Very truly
L (letterpress copy), NjWOE, Lbk. 6:452 (TAEM 80:389; TAED LB006452). Written by Stockton Griffin; circled “C” written at top of page.
1. This republication of Theodore Wiesendanger’s paper before the British Association for the Advancement of Science on “An Improved Electric Motor” comprised a page and a half of text and another full page of drawings (Science 1 [1880]: 170 – 72). Wiesendanger contended that the design of electric motors differs fundamentally from that of generators, particularly regarding the “mischievous theory” that a motor’s efficiency “bears a definite and direct proportion to the magnetoinductive power of its field magnets, and that an increase of power in the field-magnets alone must necessarily produce greater capabilities of the machine.” He claimed to have built a satisfactory motor “in which the power of the field magnets is as nearly possible equal to that of an armature.” He also proposed several unconventional armature shapes in order that “nearly the entire motion of the revolving armature should be either one of approach or of withdrawal” with respect to the field poles. Page 880Nothing further is known about Wiesendanger; a portion of this article is in Cat. 1026:105, Scraps. (TAEM 25:60; TAED SM026105a).
2. Michels replied that he was unaware of the reputation described by Edison and had treated Wiesendanger’s article as a “paper read before the British Association at its last meeting, and republished by the English Journals, and as such worth reproduction.” He added that “the Journal is well advised on all subjects except Physics,” a service which Otto Moses had recently ceased to perform as promised. Michels noted that he had been “submitting all new papers on Physics to him, and should have done so with Wiesendangers.— I would like to know if Mr Moses is still advising the Journal on these points, and will forward papers on Physics to him as before if such is the case.” Michels to TAE, 6 Oct. 1880, DF (TAEM 55:454; TAED D8041ZAN).
William Hammer to James Russell 1
[Menlo Park,] Oct 5 [1880] Dear Sir.
Mr Edison desires that the no of kerosene lamps be entered in the “Statistics” that they be counted as you would gas jets, only mark kerosene and say if they have globes, and also if they are placed on gas chandeliers.2
Also get as near as possible the number of gas jets ordinarily burned between the hours of 5 and 6 P.M. Winter & Summer—the winter particularly
Also if parties have no elevator, or hoist, if they would like one if they could get the power [----]a twenty five (25) or thirty cents a day. Of course you can judge if parties need a hoist.= 3
Yours &c
ALS (letterpress copy), NjWOE, Lbk. 6:451 (TAEM 80:388; TAED LB006451). Circled “C” written at top. a Faint letterpress copy.
1. James Russell apparently began working for Edison in the summer of 1880 (see note 2). Nothing is known of him prior to this time. Time Sheets, NjWOE.
2. William Hammer recalled many years later that Edison asked him in the spring of 1880 to
see what I could find in the way of maps of the lower part of New York City. I returned with some five maps of several different scales and putting together two 10 ft. laboratory tables I laid out a large map on one scale of the section Mr. Edison and his associates decided would prove most suitable for the 1st District.
A Mr. James Russell and a set of canvassers were then sent through this District during every hour of the day and night and made a note in their books of every light, whether of gas, oil or candle which they found in the district and they also took note of a number of mules kept up in loft buildings for operating freight Page 881elevators, this being with a view of replacing them with electric motors.
These men reported to me and I collected their data and entered it in the proper places on the large map. [Hammer to Frank Smith, 31 Aug. 1932, “Hammer, William J.,” Pioneers Bio.]
Russell and others reportedly started canvassing sometime in July in an area bounded by Pine St. (soon extended one block to Wall St.) on the south, Broadway and Park Row on the west and northwest, Frankfort St. on the north, and the East River (“An Inventor’s Workshop,” New York Times, 9 Aug. 1880; “Edison’s Progress,” New York Sun, 9 Sept. 1880; Cat. 1241, items 1517 and 1532, Batchelor [TAEM 94:609, 614; TAED MBSB21517X, MBSB21532X]). In the middle of September Sherburne Eaton informed Edison that Russell had reported that “nobody refuses to answer his questions.” The survey notebooks are not extant but Russell had completed two by this time and at least six by early November. Summaries and tabulations made separately by Hammer and Upton indicate that each one included roughly 100 to 200 addresses. Respondents were asked, among other things, about the number and types of gas burners used, quantity of gas consumed, business hours, insurance rates, adequacy of ventilation, whether they were bothered by heat, how far any underground vaults extended towards the street, and several questions related to power usage (Eaton to TAE, 17 Sept. 1880, DF [TAEM 54:72; TAED D8023ZAF]; Mott Journal N-80-07-10:159, 179, 195; N-80-11-25:27–127, N-80-08-13:47–129; all Lab. [TAEM 37:381, 391, 399; 593– 635, 38:315 – 52; TAED N117:79, 89, 97; N120:7– 50, N132:26 – 63]). Sometime in early September Hammer and Francis Upton began using fire insurance maps, which provided a wealth of color-coded detail, to count the buildings and measure the length of conductors needed for each block of the projected first district (N-80-09-09:33– 97, Lab. [TAEM 38:157– 89; TAED N129:17– 50]; for a brief history of insurance maps and published examples see Cohen and Augustyn 1997, 128 – 29 and Ristow 1981, 3– 5).
Hammer recalled that Upton taught him “the formulas for calculating the amount of copper necessary and I personally did a large amount of this work and subsequently made a smaller working map which was the first used” for laying underground conductors. General calculations of the size of conductors and pipes began by mid-October; Hammer and Upton made detailed calculations of the length and weight of conductors for each of 51 squares in the service district of more than 11,000 lamps. Hammer to Frank Smith, 31 Aug. 1932, “Hammer, William J.,” Pioneers Bio.; N-80-09-09:199 – 269, N-80-08-00:2 –109, N-81-00-01: 1–183, all Lab. (TAEM 38:238 – 71, 36:638 – 91, 39:513– 605; TAED N129:99 –132, N110:1– 54, N165:1– 92).
3. Russell replied to Edison the next day that he would begin enumerating kerosene lamps. He also stated that “The books already in your possession show the maximum number of gas jets burned between the hours of 5 & 6 P.M.—especially in Winter” but noted that it was “almost impossible to arrive at a correct estimate of the amount of gas burned in Summer” because many businesses closed before dark. He stated that elevators “would be universally used if the power could be supplied at the price you name. This information will be found in the ‘statistics’ in Page 882future.” Russell to TAE, 6 Oct. 1880, DF (TAEM 54:79; TAED D8023ZAJ).
Notebook Entry: Electric Lighting
[Menlo Park, c. October 7, 18801]
Summary of Lot 12a
The average of all the lamps tested (91) to be found on pages 221 to 231 3a
Volts. | Ohms. | Foot Lbs. |
148.a | 188.2a | 5282a |
That is 300 Candles per Horse Power were obtaineda
From the record kept of 89 lamps the average time of burning was found to be 310 minutesa
Thirty eight (38) lamps were blue at the clamps the average of 27 of these gives
Volts. | Ohms. | Foot lbs. |
151a | 152a | 5352a |
minutes 22041 ÷ 82 = 268b average for 82 lamps of Lot 1
22 041
1350
1050
745
703
701
22 103
27 483 ÷ 89 = 308c minutes average for 89 lamps.a
Average time of burning of 32 lamps in first test which burnt their resistance 198 d minutes.a
One page 249 is the table showing the number of lamps that gave out during the succeeding 50 minutes.4
On page 219 is an analysis of the places at which the lamps broke 51 lamps5
On page 243 is a table showing the lamps that showed blue at the clamps 6
Result.
These lamps were made with very poor vacuums and in a number of cases the sealing of the wires through the glass was defective. The wire was simply run through the glass of the inside part which was sucked in.
The lamps that lasted the longest were those which took below the average E.M.F. to bring them to the 48 candles. Lamp 40 which lasted 1350 minutes showed at the end of that time no blackening on the clamp It was tested twice for economy and was found the to bef ag fraction less economical at the end of the test than at the beginning though practically the same. The resistance and E.M.F were also practically unaltered. This shows that when the lamps are sufficiently exhausted that they are permanent.
All the lamps that were blue at the clamps at the beginning of the test gave out before 700 minutes.
X, NjWOE, Lab., N-80-08-18:261 (TAEM 36:833; TAED N111:128). Written by Francis Jehl; document multiply signed. aFollowed by dividing mark. bForm of equation altered. cObscured overwritten text; form of equation altered. dMultiply underlined. eBalance of document by Francis Upton. f “to be” interlined above. gObscured overwritten text.
1. This summary was written following tests of Lot 1. The last dated entry for those tests is 6 October (see note 2).
2. The rough record of lamps tested from Lot 1 (numbers 1–100) are found in a notebook kept by Francis Jehl. This was the first lot of lamps sent from the lamp factory to the laboratory for testing. On the first page of the book is a copy of a note from Charles Batchelor to Francis Upton in which he noted that the first 38 lamps sent on 27 September were all made from “fishing rod Bamboo prior to September 25th and are unpicked; so that we consider them poor” (N-80-09-27, Lab. [TAEM 37:446; TAED N119]). In another notebook Batchelor noted that Lot 1 was “to consist of 159 lamps of Fibres generally not picked but made from the fishing poles we have bought.” He also noted that these lamps were all sent to the laboratory by 5 October (N-80-09-28:19, Lab. [TAEM 36:469; TAED N106:10]). Additional records of these lamp tests are found in the same notebook as this document beginning on page 39 where Jehl made a record, dated 6 October, of the 100 Lot 1 lamps “brought up to dull red and bad lamps picked out” and in another book (N-80-08-18:39, N-80-11-25:17– 25, Lab. [ TAEM 36:726, 37:589 – 92; TAED N111:20, N120:3– 6]). On the pages following Jehl’s note Edison made additional rough notes regarding these lamps that are summarized in this document and on the tables preceding it. Many of his notes include drawings of the points where lamps broke that were combined into the drawing in this document and on page 219 (see note 5).Page 884
3. Pages 221– 29 are a table; page 231 contains calculations for the following results. N-80-08-18:221– 31, Lab. (TAEM 36:817– 22; TAED N111:111–16).
4. N-80-08-18:249, Lab. (TAEM 36:829; TAED N111:123).
5. The following drawing reproduces one found on page 219. Below the original is a note by Edison that “the breaks occur on both sides but I have massed them all on one side” (N-80-08-18:219, Lab. [TAEM 36: 816; TAED N111:110]). It is based on a 28 September drawing by Charles Batchelor of a loop marked by divisions “for showing position of faults” (N-80-09-28:1, Lab. [TAEM 36:460; TAED N106:1]).
6. N-80-08-18:243, Lab. (TAEM 36:826; TAED N111:120); on the blue appearance around the clamps see headnote Doc. 1898.
From Charles Cuttriss
Duxbury, Mass Oct 11th 1880
Dear Sir,
Until the last month I have been unable to experiment on the cable with the chalk cylinders you kindly gave me in June.1
I found on making one up in the form of a Telephone that it only sounded when the negative current passed through the chalk from the axis to the palladium the positive current having no effect unless passed through in an opposite direction.— I therefore constructed an instrument as per diagram.2 The cable was connected to the centre of one chalk & the earth to centre of the other, the bridge across was of copper faced with palladium, the rubber wheel gave a steady pressure & allowed the bridge to move without other friction than that caused by the chalks, which moving in opposite directions counteract one another when no current is passing.
I can get a strong motion with the cable current everytime it is reversed; but it will not show the fall of potential when pos or neg currents are sent consecutively; & as you know in cables of 700 miles or more, the pos & neg currents when senta consecutively never fall more than one third of their original potential, and to this slight change the instrument will not respond. When it is worked with an almost infinitely small current by an Page 885ordinary cable key, it works finely because the chalks are short circuited between each current, but if not so short circuited the bridge will not return to zero till after a lapse of ½ second or so. From this it would appear as though the gases formed by the current took some short time to recombine when the circuit was either left open or was of a high resistance such as 10,000 ohms. When a Minotti cell 3 of 20,000 ohms are used in the battery circuit of an ordinary cable key the instrument works perfectly, the chalks being in short circuit between every signal, but if the 20,000 ohms are in the line circuit the movement at first is very small (on sending successive pos or neg currents) and soon the bridge is held over steadily. I am still working on it but so far have been unable to overcome the difficulty. The resistance of the instrument from axis to axis when stationary (the chalks being only half inch in diameter) is about 100,000 ohms, & when the chalks revolve it goes down to 80,000 ohms with a positive current & 60,000 ohms with a negative. I think if I could get the resistance down to about 3 or 4 thousand ohms it might work better.
Do you think a platinum cylinder with a thin film of ordinary tobacco pipe clay baked on it would have the desired effect when impregnated with the proper solutions? Hoping that this account of my experiment may be of interest to you, I am, Yours Truly,
〈When you get the device just so it will work strongly with 3 or 4 volts through several mega ohms Have you tr but its very difficult to get it just right= try a condenser in circuit of about 3⁄10 microfarad capacity
Have you tried an induction coil putting chalks in secondary= I pack & ship you a telephone for trial 5b working Morse signals & listening reading by sound try that under various conditions. a platina point in centre of diaphragm ought to open & close circuit if signals are strong when you try I havec tob make a relay I have found with certain adjustments and conditions that the lever moved slugish seeming to require time like electrification & at other times under different adjustments & conditions it would actually open & close the circuit with enormous rapidity & I have made it a self vibrator & it actually gave vibrationsb so rapid that it would whistle so shrill as to nearly peirce your ears Its just a question of experiment I had it working one time that whena a Thomson cable gal only went 10 degs on the scale when in same circuit yet the sounder closed & opened every time=〉
Page 886ALS, NjWOE, DF (TAEM 55:658; TAED D8043ZAU). aInterlined above. bObscured overwritten text. c“I have” interlined above.
1. This probably refers to Edison’s electromotograph relay.
2. Drawing on separate enclosure.
3. The Menotti battery, which had a flat, circular anode soldered to a gutta-percha-covered wire, was used primarily for testing and for long cable lines. Prescott 1877, 60 – 61; Ternant 1881, 246 – 47.
4. Charles Cuttriss had been with the Anglo-American Telegraph Co. for over a decade and was at this time in charge of the company’s station in Duxbury, Mass. In January 1880 he had asked Edison for a job; Edison replied that he might have a position in connection with electric lighting and asked him to write back in a month. Cuttriss did so but Edison had no job at the time. Cuttriss went on to become electrician for the Commercial Cable Co. and made some important improvements in cable telegraphy. Cuttriss to TAE, 3 Jan. and 13 Feb. 1881, DF (TAEM 53: 486, 495; TAED D8014A, D8014G); Bright 1974 [1898], 615 –16, 619, 673, 679.
5. This was apparently an electromotograph receiver. In a 20 February 1881 letter to Edison Cuttriss reported on his experiments using it on a cable line and on an artificial cable. He found it to be “exceedingly sensitive & if it can be made to work without ‘sticking’ I think it would be by far the most delicate relay yet found, & just the one for cable work, it acts so far just as a chemical telegraph would.” On 23 February Edison replied, “Your very friendly and pains-taking experiments pleased me very much indeed. I am quite sure you will yet prove what we think possible. The thing can be done; let us do it. . . . Is there anything else you want?” DF (TAEM 57:357, 360; TAED D8106A, D8106B).
Draft to Otto Pettersson 1
[Menlo Park, October 12, 18802]
Your communication of the___recd—3 I have never published any papers that amount to anything on science as my work has been mostly practical It is true that I have introduced the word “pressure of Electricity” instead of Electromotive force for the reason that Electromotive the latter is a term few comprehend the itsa whole meaning and because and because “pressure” is the proper term
In my practical work I had thought out aa certain theroy of Electricity which I considered the true one—and all my results have been obtained by and of this theory which is that simply this that there is a currentb and this current hcan have its velocity increased or decreased by a greater or lesser pressure, that a [----in?]c the current that if it is desired to transfer & achieve a million foot lbs of energy from one point to another tenb miles apart that a current, of infinite weakness & hence a wire of infinitely small sectiond may be used and the work transferred by increasing the velocity of theis weake current. Page 887As an analogy I have used the illustration of the transmission of power by a belt or ba Leather band from one shaft of the to another TheIf we consider the size of the belt to represent the current & the velocity of the same tob represent the pressure,4 then it is seen that if we use a band 1 foot wide running at a velocity of 1000 feet per minute we may transfer say 10 horse power of energy whereas if we use a belt only 6 inches in width and a velocity of 2000 feet per minute we can stilla transfer the 10 hp of energy so we may continue weakening our belt unti and increasing its velocity until it is a thin as a single spider web & still transfer the 10 h.p. No is pressure costs nothing The power transferred depending entirely upon the number of square inches or units of belt surface passing a given point per minute, so with Electricity witha the weakest current and a high pressure energy [enerey?] energyf can be transferred over the thinnest smallest conductors by increasing the velocity of the same by increasing the pressure, so that a greater number of units shall pass a given point in the circuit in a given time—
I have never used the aether in my theories always considered that all transfer of energy in every form could be explained by vibrations of matter as we know itg How matter, no matter although of extreme lightness could be transferred through denser matter at the enormous velocity at which electricity flows I cannot conceive but could conceive its transmission by vibration very easily. The oxidation of zinc in the air produces vibrations of light. The oxidation in a battery must beb the same only under different conditions & in a different degree hence there must also be vibrations. These vibrations must necessarily be slower than that due to the radiant heat of thea lowest refrangibility= If a single cell is used we obtain a slow oxidation and a current of say 1 if a single cell is put on an incandescent wire we get make it [------]c light of rays of low refrangibility now if we add a cell to each, we do not increase the current but I think it was De La Rue who by means of a revolving mirror proved that the light in a Giessler tube from a Battery of a great number of cells was discontinuous.5 Very truly yours
If we take a single cell, the rapidity of oxidation of the zinc in that cell cannot be increased by increasing the size of the plates or by the use of better excitents 6 etc, but if we connect into the circuit a second cell then the lamps rapidity of oxidation is raised by the action of the other cell upon the zinc of the Page 888first cell. Then there are vibrations set up which have higher rates, as would be the case if the rapidity of the oxidation of zinc in air was increased by some means. Very truly yours
ADfS, NjWOE, DF (TAEM 53:882; TAED D8020ZHS). aInterlined above. bObscured overwritten text. cCanceled. d“& hence . . . section” interlined below and in right margin. eInterlined below. f“[enerey?] energy” illegible and interlined below. g“matter as we know it” interlined above.
1. Sven Otto Pettersson (1848 –1941) was a noted Swedish chemist particularly interested in electricity and the chemical properties of sea water. In his recent letter to Edison (see note 3) he identified himself as a docent at the University of Upsala; he later became professor of chemistry at the University of Stockholm. WWWS, 1338.
2. Stockton Griffin dated this draft on back of the last page.
3. Pettersson wrote on 25 September that he was preparing a monograph on electricity and wished to critique an explanation of electric current in terms of the ether in which “The electromotoric force entering in the circuit acts similar to the heart of the human body, compelling the aether to flow through the entire circuit like the blood in the veins of the body.” He explained that he had seen a paper suggesting “that the idea of electric currents of ‘high pressure’ has been introduced into science by you,” and asked Edison to send copies of “those papers, wherein you have treated the theoretic parts of electricity.” DF ( TAEM 53:864; TAED D8020ZHB).
4. Edison evidently had discussed this analogy in the laboratory before December 1879, when Samuel Mott attributed it to him in a notebook devoted to “Things to be looked-up and remembered both electrical and otherwise.” N-79-12-00:1, 13, Lab. (TAEM 35:704, 710; TAED N083:1, 7).
5. Warren de la Rue, the English chemist and astronomer, conducted a long series of experiments in the 1860’s with discharges from large batteries through Geissler tubes, but his work produced little new knowledge. Previously, the English electrical experimenter John Gassiot made significant advances in following up W. R. Grove’s 1852 announcement of striations in sparks in a rarefied gas. Gassiot investigated this phenomenon for several years, attributing it to “pulsations or impulses of a force” acting on a rarified medium. In one set of experiments Gassiot produced the striations using a 400-cell Grove battery, and he used a rotating and vibrating mirror arrangement to demonstrate the intermittent nature of the discharge under certain conditions. DSB, s.vv. “De la Rue, Warren,” “Gassiot, John Peter”; Atkinson 1902, 997– 99.
6. That is, the electrolyte.
Notebook Entry: Electric Lighting
[Menlo Park, October 12 18801]
Note—
The first 3 lamps that bursted tonight had no resistancea coils= perhaps Resistance on all heated, increased their resistance hence the ones that had no res must have been higher=
The lamps tested tonight were a very nice lot, only 1 or too that are noticably low & perhaps Res for these was wrong— Apparantly there is no oxidation by leakage as I do not notice any noticable increase in spots=b
Must look out for cracks in tits= after test over=
X, NjWOE, Lab., N-80-10-15.2:117 (TAEM 39:60; N149:59). aObscured overwritten text. bFollowed by “over” written as page turn.
1. In his journal entry of this date Charles Mott noted that “98 lamps of the second hundred from the lamp factory were started about three o’clock this morning burning at an estimate of forty eight candles and about twenty remained whole and burning up to six oclock in the evening when the current was turned off and to have the remaining lamps retested for vacuum and resistance” (Mott Journal N-80-07-10: 161, Lab. [ TAEM 37:382; TAED N117:80]). One of the books noted by Mott as containing records of these tests is missing (No. 173). Other records are found in the remainder of this notebook and in several other books (N-80-10-15.2, N-80-10-08, N-80-10-12:99 – 201, N-80-10-15.1: 1–104, N-80-11-25:13–15, all Lab. [TAEM 39:2, 38:966, 39:748 – 77, 37:647– 99, 37:587– 88; TAED N149, N148, N171:48 – 77, N121:1– 52, N120:1– 2]). A note by Charles Batchelor describes Lot 2 as consisting of carbons made from bamboo poles “said to be of Chinese wild growth” purchased by William Moore from New York supplier John Deltour. A third lot was made from the same bamboo but “whilst they were on the pumps they were brought up to 70 candles for 2 or 3 seconds” (N-80-09-28:19 – 23, Lab. [TAEM 36:470 – 72; TAED N106:10 –12]; Wilson 1880, 357).
From Ludwig Böhm
Metuchen Oct. 14th &16th 1880.
Dear sir,
Receiving the last time a kind of treatment of some of your assistants which no man with any sense of honor can bear and disliking the ways things are managed in the line I work ina whihch put me in a peculiar position I feel obliged to write this letter. About two weeks ago a man who has been my assistant for nearly half a year wanted to knock me down and break my neck without any cause in Mr. Batch. presence. Yesterday Mr. Batch and I had a disagreement from a cause not worth to be mentioned which wentb so far that I had to hear that you were a dem side better off if I were not here. If work[ing?]c in Page 890my line I do not want to be bossed by people that understand less than I or nothing of it, I think I gave sufficient proofs that I understand my line. very well. thoroughly. That things are managed by ignorant parties is very disadvantegous to you1 I cite only the last thing you know off already: the carbon tester when fixed up by “the boys.” 2 I have no doubt they did the best they could but a whole week was that time lost. The loss of money did not amount to anything but the delay a whole weeks delay! What I worked for was progress! I did not work for progress the last time because I liked the parties I had to deal with, not because I liked the treatment I received for the services I have rendered, but because I sympathized with you, because I liked the great problem we were working on. But now things have gone too far. For a few days I take a vacation to go on my uncle’s farm which I did not see yet. Then I came back to hear whether you agree with the things described. In conclusion I say that I do not want higher wages and that I do not want to interfer with partiesb manufacturing3 Remaining your obedient
ALS, NjWOE, DF (TAEM 53:517; TAED D8014ZAB). aInterlined above. bObscured overwritten text. cObscured by ink stain.
1. Nothing is known of these particular incidents; the assistant referred to may be William Holzer, with whom Böhm apparently had a tense working relationship. Edison had moved Böhm from the “glass house” near the laboratory down to the lamp factory at the end of August. Edison later testified that he had offered him piecework “but he preferred the raise of wages; Mr. Bohm’s salary was the largest paid to any one in my employ, for the reason that I could not get a glass blower at the time to fill his place, and I had to pay him what he asked” (Mott Journal N-80-07-10:101, Lab. [TAEM 37:352; TAED N117:50]; Böhm’s testimony, 8, and Edison’s testimony, 38, Böhm v. Edison [ TAED W100DEC002 (image 7); W100DED032 (image 7)]). Böhm was unusual among Edison’s employees in that he did not fit into the Menlo Park milieu. Francis Jehl recalled that “The boys teased him often, for although he was a fine glass blower he was so conscious of his own abilities that it was more than some could endure”; when he quit Menlo Park Charles Mott remarked that it was because the position was “not consistant with his honor and birth” (Jehl 1937– 41, 495, 516; Mott Journal N-80-07-10:176, Lab. [TAEM 37:390; TAED N117:88]).
2. This was probably the “carbon prover” for which Edison and Batchelor had executed a patent application in July (see headnote p. 767), a number of which were used in the lamp factory. Böhm may be referring to the discovery, reported by Mott on 14 September, that “the testers with larger contractions were found to break by the weight & fall of the mercury, and a medium will have to be determined at which the pumps will stand and do the most effective work.” On 1 October Edison received tubing “for experimenting on the proper size and proportionPage 891 between the contraction and the tube, to give the best results in exhausting also to determine the most economical size or thickness of tubing that will best resist, without breaking, the fall or pound of the mercury.” Mott reported on 29 October that Charles Batchelor dispensed with the difficulty of having the tester and pump joined as a single unit, arranging instead to handle the testing globe as an ordinary lamp globe which could be detached from the pump so that the carbons could be “put in and taken out by one man at his bench and thus avoid much danger of breakage both of glass and carbons.” Mott Journal N-80-07-10:129, 151, 189, Lab. (TAEM 37:366, 377, 396; TAED N117: 64, 75, 94).
3. On Wednesday, 20 October, Böhm evidently enclosed this letter with his announcement to Edison that he would be “leaving Menlo Park and your services on Friday next. The causes may be known to you already. I dislike the treatment I received for the services I have rendered and am convinced that some of your assistants and I could not agree for any length of time. I therfor give up my present position.” Two days later he asked Edison for a reference letter (Böhm to TAE, 20 and 22 Oct. 1880, DF [TAEM 53:519, 521;TAED D8014ZAC, D8014ZAD]). Böhm subsequently testified that he had expected some profit-sharing arrangement in connection with the lamp factory. He also testified that shortly before giving notice he had contacted the inventor Hiram Maxim, then developing his own incandescent electric light, who hired him immediately upon his resignation. Böhm remained with Maxim’s United States Electric Lighting Co. for about six months before joining the American Electric Light Co. as electrician and superintendent. During his tenure with Maxim’s company Böhm filed a patent application on a modified Sprengel pump he claimed to have invented at Menlo Park. The application was placed in interference with one filed by Edison in January 1881, which issued to Edison as U.S. Pat. 248,433 (Böhm’s testimony, 15 –17, 6 – 7, Böhm v. Edison [TAED W100DEC002 (images 14 –16, 5 – 6)]).
R. G. Dun & Co. Credit Report 1
[Newark?]2 Octr 15/80 Electrician
Thos. A Edison
37003 Former reports give the nature of this mans assets & their worth so far as they can be learned4 Edison said to be progressing towards the perfection of his Electric Light & may soon be a very wealthy man Cannot estimate him as he now stands but he has always paid & it seems to be the general opinion that he will still pay as fast as he can He must have an income now of a good many thousands a year but his constant experimenting eats up money exceedingly fast & it is thought that he so far has not laid up much 313.
D (abstract), New Jersey, Vol. 52, p. 290, R.G. Dun & Co. Collection, Baker Library, Harvard Business School.Page 892
1. R. G. Dun & Co., established in 1841 as the Mercantile Agency, was by 1871 one of two major credit-reporting firms in the United States. See ANB, s.v. “Dun, Robert Graham” and TAEB 1:469 n. 1.
2. R. G. Dun clerks transcribed individual reports filed by agents into large ledgers organized by state and county. In 1871 the firm opened an office in Newark; it is presumably there that the ledger in which this report appears was maintained. See TAEB 1:469 n. 1.
3. This number refers to the agent making the report. The book containing the matched codes and names has been lost. The meaning of the number at the end of the document is unknown.
4. Between Doc. 1614 and this report, abstracts dated 18 September 1879 and March 1880 similarly noted that Edison used most of his indeterminately large income for experimental costs but that he had a long history of meeting his obligations. RGD, N.J. 52:290.
From William Moore
San Francisco, Oct. 17, 1880a
Dear Sir
Since my arrival here I have been on the lookout for Bamboo but have been unable to find any quantity of a suitable kind—
I went on board the Steamer Columbia which has just arrived in port, saw your machines with which the parties are highly pleased, with, one of the lamps they say has run overb 800 hours—but just at prestent they are greatly in want of lamps as about half of those first sent are played out—1
The Columbia has a Maxim machine to run the head light—2
There is a fair show made in this city with Brush machines, there being three located at a central stations, feeding forty lights placed at prominent points within a radius of a mile from station—3
There are also eight Brushb lights at this hotel but they do not give the satisfaction desired and the managers of the hotel with whom I have talked are favorable to adopting your system of lighting—
I have been informed that the sailing vessells which ply between here and Japan are taken off during the winter months, being employed on this coast for carrying grain, so I no doubt willb be obliged to send by steamer for a few months I am also informed that the Japanese are very tricky in their dealings and would make a corner whenever they can, so I think it will be as well when the best stock bamboo is found to lay in a good supply and not depend much on future supply through agents but I will know better how the land lays when I get on the other side
-
Page 893Bamboo sawed in lengths Dutyb Free
-
d[itt]o split one or more times 35%
Just seen Capt. Henderson of the Columbia—hec said he had telegraphed to you several times for lamps—and it is now becoming a matter of serious importance as so many are examining the system and observe the failure of so many lamps—4
I sail within an hour—will keep you well informed of my movements and do my best in the Bamboo line—5 as soon as you are ready to put your lightsc on the market I wish you would send me particulars, prices etc—as I may be in a position to place some to advantage— Yours truly
ALS, NjWOE, DF (TAEM 53:894; TAED D8020ZHY). Letterhead of Palace Hotel. a“San Francisco,” and “18” preprinted. bInterlined above. cObscured overwritten text.
1. See Doc. 1976 n. 3.
2. This machine may have been like the one described in Maxim’s British specification filed in April 1880 for the same improvements covered by his first four United States generator patents, all of which issued on 8 June 1880 (Brit. Pat. 1,392 [1880]; Dredge 1885, 2:cx–cxi; U.S. Pats. 228,543, 228,544, 228,545, 228,546). The 23 October 1880 issue of Scientific American illustrated a self-regulating machine of this type that employed one armature to produce the main current and a similar but smaller armature on the same shaft with its own field magnets as an exciter. An electromagnet in the outside circuit moved a gear train that would adjust the position of the commutator brushes in the exciting machine, thereby controlling the field strength of the main generator. It is also possible that the Columbia had the Maxim machine shown in the 28 August 1880 Scientific American; this form had no evident regulator but was intended for marine applications. The Columbia’s headlight was a Maxim arc light, presumably like the self-adjusting focusing lamps for marine use illustrated and described in the 28 August and 16 October 1880 Scientific American. When the ship was docked in New York it reportedly could illuminate buildings across the East River in Brooklyn (“Recent Developments in Electric Lighting,” Sci. Am. 43 [1880]: 255, 262; “Electric Light for Marine Use,” ibid., 43 [1880]: 127, 130; “Maxim’s New Focusing Electric Lamp,” ibid., 43 [1880]: 242; “The Columbia,” ibid., 43 [1880]: 326).
3. This dynamo was designed by Charles Brush and manufactured in several forms by the Telegraph Supply Co. of Cleveland. The machine produced the strong currents needed for arc lighting and dissipated heat relatively well; it was also noted for the ease with which it could be maintained and repaired. An undated promotional pamphlet of the Anglo-American Brush Electric Light Co., Ltd. included a testimonial (dated 24 April 1879) from Senator William Sharon, owner of the Palace Hotel, that the establishment’s Brush generators and ten lamps worked “to our entire satisfaction.” TAEB 4:584 n. 4; Anglo-American Brush Electric Co., undated pamphlet, DF (TAEM 54:334; TAED D8026ZEP).Page 894
4. Henderson’s telegrams have not been found but W. H. Starbuck of the Oregon Railway and Navigation Co. had written Edison on 26 July to ask about the lamps Edison had promised Henderson, noting that he had “just received telegrams from Capt Bolles & Mr Henderson saying there are no lights there [in Portland, Ore.] and the ship is not half supplied.” Edison replied that he had been unable to supply lamps because “we have not got our factory completed and its impossible for us to take time to make them by hand as were the ones furnished the Columbia and they are too imperfect when so made. Mr. H[enderson] will have to wait until the factory is running (about 6 weeks) when he can have them by the gross as we will turn out 1200 a day.” The first entry in a new order book, dated 20 September, was made for 250 “Lamps for S. S. Columbia.” The lamps were apparently not made and sent until mid-April 1881. Starbuck to TAE, 26 July 1880, DF (TAEM 53:795; TAED D8020ZFU); photostatic copy of TAE to Starbuck, 27 July 1880, OrHi; Order No. 1, Cat. 1301 [p. 1], Batchelor (TAEM 91:294; TAED MBN007:1); Philip Dyer to TAE, 16 Apr. 1881, DF (TAEM 57:851; TAED D8123ZAX).
5. At least one shipment from Moore had been received by 31 December, when Charles Mott reported that strips cut from the bamboo were “exceedingly fine and unusually free of pith, came out very fine from the carbonizing flask.” By early February the Edison Electric Lamp Co. had arranged through Moore for 500,000 splints each month, presumably of the Madake bamboo. In March, however, Edison notified Upton that the splints being received were unsatisfactory, and Moore was recalled by the middle of that month. Mott Journal N-80-07-10: 269, Lab. (TAEM 37:437; TAED N117:135); Edison Electric Lamp Co. to Mourilyan Heiman and Co., March 1880; Francis Upton to TAE, 12 Mar. 1880; both DF ( TAEM 57:820, 818; TAED D8123ZAA, D8123Z); Samuel Insull to Upton, 11 Mar. 1881, Lbk. 8:41; (TAEM 80:854; TAED LB008041).
A set of instructions written by an unidentified laboratory staff member, probably in December 1880 or early 1881, lists the desirable qualities of bamboo to be shipped in lots of 100,000 to 1,000,000 per month: “a very hard and dense fibre or wood on and near the outer edge”; joints to be “as straight as possible”; no less than nine inches in length and four in circumference; the tops of the canes should not be used “as the wood is not so hard or dense”; the material to be “clean, well seasoned and free from insects.” N-80-12-21:272 – 75, Lab. (TAEM 38:668 – 69; TAED 140:1– 2).
6. William H. Moore reportedly had been acquainted with Edison since 1875 but more recently was selling Weston generators in England. On 6 October Stockton Griffin instructed William Carman to give Moore $530 in cash and have him call on Calvin Goddard; a letter of credit had already been arranged (Jehl 1937– 41, 620; Griffin to Carman, 6 Oct. 1880, DF [TAEM 53:876; TAED D8020ZHL]). Francis Jehl recalled that before Moore left
Edison showed him what the desirable characteristics and qualities were that he was after; he instructed him how to proceed and how to test bamboo—of which there were over two hundred species, some reaching a height of 120 feet and a diameter of one foot. Edison also Page 895sent him into the library to look up and study Japan together with everything pertaining to it. . . . When he was ready to start Edison provided him with various utensils and apparatus, among which was a good microscope. He was given letters and credentials to our political representatives in China and Japan, in addition to which he received letters of introduction to business houses in the East from friends of his own in England. A few of us boys gave him a quiet send-off. From that day he was called ‘Japanese Moore.’ [Jehl 1937–41, 620 – 21]
Moore later worked several years for the Edison Co. for Isolated Lighting and the Edison Machine Works (Jehl 1937– 41, 622 – 23).
Notebook Entry: Electric Lighting
[Menlo Park,] Oct 19 1880
Tried the experiment of washing out the dyro-carbons1
Volatized First one I look and tried was to bring the carbon up bright when I had the vapor of Chloroform I got a thick deposit of carbon.
second. first was a carbon tried in the vapor of Bi-sulphide. This Carbon was burning for about ten minutes in the vapor and then I took it out, the carbon seemed to be gooda
Second Def [lection] 265 This carbon was in the vapor for 15 minutes and gave a good light, and carbon when taken out was good
Third. 210 This carbon was burning in the vapor of Bisulphide for about 20 minutes and gave a good bright light. I then took it out.a
X, NjWOE, Lab., N-80-07-05:168 (TAEM 36:351; TAED N104:86). Written by Francis Jehl. a Followed by dividing mark.
1. Jehl meant hydrocarbons. Four days earlier Edison had executed a patent application for a method of removing hydrogen in the carbon by passing “Chlorine gas, or some gas which combines readily with hydrogen, but not with carbon” through a flask containing the carbon heated to a high temperature (U.S. Pat. 239,148). Jehl evidently began these experiments on 16 October and continued them until 22 October, when Charles Mott recorded that he did not get “very favorable results.” N-80-07-05:172, Mott Journal N-80-07-10:168, 177; both Lab. (TAEM 36:353, 37:386, 390; TAED N104:88; N117:84, 88).
John Kruesi Memorandum: Time Sheets
[Menlo Park,] Oct 21st 1880a
All employes are requ[ired]b to put a keep their time [sheets?]b in view and to put down their time accurately every night chargedc to the propper account Every Night 1 〈OK E.B. 2d〉
AD, NjWOE, DF (TAEM 54:371; TAED D8030I). Written by John Kruesi. aDate written by Ernest Berggren. bObscured by stain and damage to paper. cInterlined above. dMarginalia written by Ernest Berggren.
1. Time sheets from this period are in Box 143, Employee Records, NjWOE.
2. Ernest Berggren was hired as an assistant bookkeeper in April 1880 at the age of sixteen. He remained associated with Edison for most of his working life, becoming head accountant for Edison General Electric and then for General Electric. He was later secretary and treasurer for the Edison Phonograph Co. and Thomas A. Edison, Inc. “Berggren, Ernest J.,” Pioneers Bio.
Notebook Entry: Electric Lighting
[Menlo Park,] Oct 21, 1880
Made an experiment by generating gas from (gasoline) in a flask and then passing it in a mould in which there was some carbons. When finished, we found that they were covered too much.1
X, NjWOE, Lab., N-80-07-05:174 (TAEM 36:354; TAED N104:89). Written by Francis Jehl.
1. Experiments on treating carbon filaments with hydrocarbon vapor continued intermittently for several weeks. On 25 October Charles Mott reported that
Page 897Mr. Edison and Frances are to day experimenting on building up and making carbons more homogeneous paper was soaked in tar and placed in mould. Napthaline gas was passed through the mould while in the furnace the paper carbonized hard, smoothe, very homogeneous with a ring like a piece of steel. A lamp was then put on a pump and napthaline vessel connected with gauge tube. After passing the mercury for a time to remove a portion of the air and permit the gas to replace it, the loop was carefully heated by the current, but at first gave every appearance of oxidization and was exceedingly irregular. after running the pump for a few minutes longer, the current was again applied and the loop gradually evened up and soon gave appearance of being entirely even. The inside of the globe was however also coated the carbon was removed by Mr. Edison and found to be nicely coated and of good appearance under the microscope and more tough or tinasious than the ordinary carbon. Several trials were then made of passing napthaline through the mould, in the furnace, in which was placed Bamboo strips &c. but with indiferent and varying results.
The following day Mott noted that they were continuing the experiments and had “fair success except one explosion which they had prepared for by placing the lamp in a box.” On 4 November “Six carbons treated in gasoline gas were taken to the Factory to be put in lamps. Two put in and sent up were exhausted and broken by Francis before any test could be made or merits noted.” The next day treated lamps were completed at the factory and sent to the laboratory where Edison and Jehl continued their experiments. They “worked very late on treating carbons and carbonizing in the furnace with nickel mould and gasses with varying success” (N-80-07-05:175 – 80; N-80-10-25:1, 3– 4; N-80-10-01: 15, 17, 29; Mott Journal N-80-07-10:181– 83, 189, 193– 94; all Lab. [TAEM 36:354 – 57; 34:136, 139 – 40; 41:1074 – 75, 1084; 37:392 – 93, 396, 398 – 99; TAED N104:89 – 92; N060:1, 4 – 5; N304:9 –10, 20; N117:90 – 91, 94, 96 – 97]). On 16 November Albert Herrick began treating filaments with hydrochloric acid and other chemicals to build them up, then promptly returned to hydrocarbons. Mott reported on 18 November that a filament built up with gasoline vapor was lighted at 30 candlepower for about an hour then raised to about 500 candlepower for 4½ minutes before it broke (N-80-11-16:1– 45, Mott Journal N-80-07-10:210, both Lab. [TAEM 37:884 – 905, 407; N125:1– 23, N117:105]).
This research resulted in several patent applications. On 5 November Edison executed one for a process of passing hydrocarbon vapor through a flask containing heated carbon filaments. Edison indicated that the hydrocarbon vapor filled ruptures in the fiber structure which formed during carbonization and reduced filament life. Two weeks later he completed another application covering the use of this process for enlarging the ends of the carbon in order to form a better connection with the clamps. At the end of December he executed a third application, this one for building up lamp carbons by enclosing them with naphthalene and focusing an arc lamp or other heat source on particular weak spots, so that the hydrocarbon would vaporize and be deposited there. In November Charles Mott remarked that Edison had found that naphthalene crystals sealed in a lamp and volatilized by the heat of the filament produced “a smoother and more perfect coating and building” than other substances. Edison incorporated this discovery in the third application, in which he stated that a small number of naphthalene crystals could be sealed in the lamp globe to repair “the waste of carbon due the process known as ‘electrical carrying.’” U.S. Pats. 248,426, 239,151, and 248,416; Mott Journal N-80-07-10:212, Lab. (TAEM 37:408; TAED N117:106).
To W. H. Merrick
[Menlo Park,] Oct. 27th [1880]
Dear Sir:
From his visit to your works and conversation with your foreman, Mr. Batchelor gained the impression that the soleplate and pillow-blocks are nearly completed and possibly can be shipped in a week. If this is so, if you can accommodate us by pushing those parts on to completion and can ship them to us on Tuesday, Nov. 3rd, without fail, please let us know immediately Page 898and we will delay work upon the magnets so that they can be finished in place. 1
If you cannot do this in the stated timea we must resort to the old method of finishing on the lathe.
Every little delay is embarassing to us at this time and we cannot wait longer. I cannot comprehend why there should be such an unexplained delay in the completion of the engine, neither could Mr. Batchelor, judging from the superficial observations of a visit, excepting that no one seemed to be working upon the different parts, and to him it seemed a question of labor. As to that of course we cannot judge, and know not whether to ascribe it to that fact, or that some plans or proportioning of parts, which involve important principles essential to perfect success, may not be yet fully determined upon.2
Be that as it may, it has caused great uneasiness and irritation among the prominent members of the Electric Light Co. and a consequent state of nervousness and unrest on our part, placing us between two fires. Not only this, but the additional expense of delay amounts to thousands of dollars.
Highly as we endorse your engines, believing them to be the best for workmanship, speed, reliability, and economy, we are nevertheless fearful that after the trial we shall be left in the lurch, without engines or any hope of getting them, and for self-protection and to advance our interests that we shall have to adapt the various forms of direct and indirect engines to our dynamo. I hear with pleasure that you have ordered a large number of fine tools and have taken measures to obtain them with the least delay.
Will you please put all the pressure which you can possibly bring to bear towards completing this engine?
Every week delayed increases the difficulties. Yours truly
LS (letterpress copy), NjWOE, Lbk. 6:501 (TAEM 80:399; TAED LB006501). Written by Charles Clarke. a “in . . . time” interlined above.
1. Charles Batchelor and John Kruesi spent Tuesday, October 26, in Philadelphia. According to Charles Mott, they made a rather discouraging report to Edison about the engine but thought the bed plate would arrive “in time to facilitate matters here, and obviate any delay on the dynamo part.” On 28 October Merrick replied to this document that “If the country were not to be saved or otherwise we would finish the bed in 1 hot day As it is we can finish it on Wednesday [4 November] & ship it at once on completion.” Mott indicated that the bed plate reached the Menlo Park depot on 13 November and was brought to the machine shop two days later. On 20 November, about the time the bed was being installed on its new foundation in the shop, the “polar extensions of the Page 899magnets of large dynamo were placed on the large lathe preparatory to boaring out the helix.” Merrick to TAE, 28 Oct. 1880, DF (TAEM 53: 920; TAED D8020ZIJ); Mott Journal N-80-07-10:183– 84, 202, 204, 207, 211, 213, Lab. (TAEM 37:393– 94, 403– 4, 406, 408 – 9; TAED N117: 91– 92, 101– 2, 104, 106 – 7).
2. The expansive shops occupied by the Southwark firm had been unused for some time, during which the tools became unfit from neglect. Porter, the foundry’s vice president for manufacturing, had expected to order new ones when the company was organized in the first part of 1880 but did not receive authority to do so until mid-September; as a result the company built no engines during the summer. About this time Porter did order a large amount of equipment, principally from England. When Edison inquired in December about having another engine built, Merrick replied that “we have decided not to take any more orders on guarantee as to time of delivery until we are very much better prepared to push work through in lots.” Shortly after that, however, Merrick was willing to consider a contract to build a smaller engine for the steamship City of Rome, for which Edison was planning a lighting system. Porter 1908, 276 – 81, 287, 291, 295 – 96, 299 – 301; Merrick to TAE, 14 Dec. 1880, DF (TAEM 53:1000; TAED D8020ZJX); Clarke to Merrick, 18 and 23 Dec. 1880, Lbk. 6:690, 718; (TAEM 80:445, 451; TAED LB006690, LB006718) N-80-00-02:1, Lab. (TAEM 39:1137; TAED N179:1).
Notebook Entry: Electric Lighting
[Menlo Park,] Oct 31 1880
I propose to make a pulping machine that will pulp paper fibre to extreme fineness & make paper from it & submitting the paper to hydraulic presses & afterwards cut carbons from it & coat them after carbonization with a layer of gas carbon—1
I also propose to comb the finest flax or hemp fibre longitudinally & moisten with a gummy substance which will be carbonizable & press sheets of this by pressure & afterwards cut as with Bamboo—
Chas Batchelor
X, NjWOE, Lab., N-80-10-25:44 (TAEM 34:179; TAED N060:44). Document multiply signed.
1. On 30 October Edison filed a patent application that was subsequently rejected by the Patent Office in which he claimed a method of “forming carbon articles of a definite desired shape, consisting in cutting or shaping the articles from paper, and then carbonizing the shaped paper, while under pressure or strain.” He also claimed “as a new article of manufacture, flexible carbon in sheets, or in definitely shaped articles, formed from sheets of carbonizable material” (E-2536:198, PS [TAEM 45:719; TAED PT020198]). Edison’s U.S. Patent 242,900, executed on 21 October and filed on 5 November, covered a process of forming carbons in any shape by passing a vapor of bisulphide of carbon, chloride of Page 900carbon, volatile paraffin, or naptha through a flask until a sufficient quantity was deposited on a metal form. This was then placed in a bath of acid until the metal was eaten away, leaving only the carbon.
Notebook Entry: Electric Lighting
[Menlo Park, October 1880?1]
Central Station (1)
Estimate for 10 000a lamps fed from a central station each giving 16 candles
It is found that 8 of these may be obtained of from one horse power indicatedb
Say that a gas burner giving 16 candles consumes 5 feet of gas an hour for comparison
200 hours for 1000 feet or 10 000 lamps will consume 50,000 feet ana hour
Call in electricity an equivalent of a 1000 cu feet of gas an M 50 M ana hour 250 M a day 310a days in year in the district chosen
-
310
-
250
-
15,500
-
62
-
77,500 M cu. feet a yearb
Olda estimate2
$159,300 invested
-
5.2022
-
4.8893
-
.3129a
$2.05 investment per M.
At 8 per H.P. 10 000 lamps will take 1250 H.P. It is estimated that 1200 H.P. will be able to supply this amount.
Structurec
This can be placed in one building 25′ X 100′.
The iron structure is estimated in Book 100 p. 503
120,000 lbs of iron | |
.05 | |
$6000.00 | $6,000 |
Foundation | 2,500 |
Fire proof floors | 2,000 |
10,500a |
Page 901
Boilers 600 H.Pd | |
Babcock and wWilcox estimate. see letter 4 | |
600 H.P. boiler in place with economizer | $12,875 |
Stack | 800 |
Steam pump | 375 |
Blower | 300 |
Engine with counter shafts | 650 |
Piping | 165 |
Ash elevator | 400 |
Coal bunker | 800 |
600 H.P.d | $16,365 |
1200 H. P. Boilers (1) | |
Complete Boilers | $24,500 |
Stacks | 1600 |
Steam Pumps | 750 |
Blowers | 600 |
Dynamos for Blowing | 1000 |
piping | 330 |
Ash Elevator | 400 |
Coal bunker | 1000 |
$30,180 | |
Engines Dynamosd | |
Mr. K.5 estimates cost at $4800 X 10= 48 000 | |
Extra Electrical apparatus $2000 | |
Total (1) | |
Building | 8,500 |
Boilers | 30,180 |
Engines Dynamos | 48,000 |
Extra Electrical | 2000 |
88,680 | |
Conductors | 2000 |
90,680a | |
175 ohm lamp | $27,000 |
Pipes | $30,000 |
$57,000a | |
88,680 | |
145,680 | |
Meters | 5,000 |
150,680 | |
2,000 | |
152,680 | |
Page 902 | |
Depreciation (1) | |
Station | |
Boilers 10% | $3018 |
Building 2% | 170 |
Engines Dynamos 3% | 1440 |
Extra Electrical 2% | 40 |
Meters 5 | 250 |
Conductors 2% on whole 57,000 | |
.02 | |
1140.00 | 1140 |
6058 | |
Labor | |
1 Engineer, chief | 5.00 |
1 Engineer | 3.00 |
1 Wipera @ 1.50 | 1.50 |
1 1st fireman @ 2.25 | 2.25 |
1 fireman @ 1.75 | 1.75 |
2 laborers @ 1.50 | 3.00 |
1 Regulator @ 2.25 | 2.25 |
1 Regulatora @ 1.75a | 1.75 |
dayly | 20.50 |
365 | |
year | 7,482 |
Datab | |
$200 per H.P. per year [-----]e deliveredb | |
Present machine costf good for 70 lamps | $350 |
Conductors copper | 27,000a |
Pipes | 25,000 |
Insulation | 5000 |
$57,000 |
The labor account is taken thus a cheif engineer who will be on duty from 12 M to 12 midnight An assistant who will be on duty from 12 midnight to 12 M. A wiper who will be on duty from 7 A.M to 7 P.M. One fireman @ $2.25 who will be on duty from 12 M to 12 midnight One fireman @ $1.75 who will be on duty from 12 midnight to 12 M One laborer from 7 A.M. to 7 P.M another from 12 M to 12 midnight. One regulator @ $2.25 from 12 M to 12 midnight one @ $1.75 from 12 midnight to 12 M.
Thus the cheif engineer will be on duty during the most important Page 903part of the day, and the wiper will be under each of the engineers. The head fireman will also be on duty and haveg between 5 & 6 P.M two laborers. This system will offer a good chance for promotions
Executive expenses year | $4000 |
Coal | |
$2.80 per ton delivered | 3 lbs per H.P. per hour |
1200 | |
3 | |
3600 lbs per hour | |
5 | |
18,000 lbs per day | 8.03 tons per day6 |
$22.50 daily | $8212.5 year |
Oil, waste, water7 taken as ⅓ coal
yearly | $ 2737 |
Rent insurance taxes | $ 7000 |
Summary | |
Depreciation | $ 6058 |
Labor | 7,482 |
Executive | 4,000 |
Coal | 8,212 |
Oil waste &c | 2,737 |
Rent &c | 7,000 |
$35,489 | |
Lamps | 10,500 |
45,989 |
If 10 000 light cana be sold for 5 fhours dailya if it is equivalent to 250,000 Cu. feet of Cu feeth gas.
365 | |
250 | |
18,250 M yeally | |
730 | |
91,250 | |
1.508 | |
45,625.00 | |
9125 | |
Receipts | 136,875.00 |
Expenses | 45,989 |
$90,886 [pat?]e to pay for patent rights and interest |
Page 904 | |
If company capitilizes at twice the cost of plant | $150,680 |
2 | |
301,360 |
The receipts will pay a dividend of 30 per cent. 60% on investment
X, NjWOE, Lab., N-80-11-15:71 (TAEM 39:817; TAED N172:36). Written by Francis Upton. Miscellaneous rough calculations not transcribed; various erasures not indicated. Some commas added for clarity to numerals in calculations. aObscured overwritten text. bFollowed by dividing mark. cInterlined in left margin and multiply underlined. dMultiply underlined. eCanceled. fInterlined above. g“and have” interlined above. h“Cu feet” interlined above.
1. In the forty pages following this notebook entry Francis Upton wrote several similar undated estimates based on different assumptions. Then he made a series of tabulations, also undated, of data from the first three central station district survey books returned by James Russell (see Doc. 1995). Russell brought the third book to Menlo Park on 9 October and the fourth on 16 October. N-80-11-15:143– 49; Mott Journal N-80-07-10:159, 168; both Lab. (TAEM 39:853– 56; 37:381, 386; TAED N172: 72 – 75; N117:79, 84).
2. No extant earlier estimate of central station costs matches the numbers found here. For earlier estimates, see Docs. 1897 and 1958.
3. Upton apparently made a mistake in the number of the book. There is nothing on this page in Book 100 and no estimate of the cost of the iron structure can be found in that book. The estimate in question has not been found. N-81-04-12, Lab. (TAEM 36:55; TAED N100).
4. See Doc. 1958 n. 1.
5. Probably John Kruesi. The estimate has not been found.
6. That is, long tons.
7. Upton calculated the cost of water on page 82 but apprently decided instead to include it along with oil and waste as a percentage of the coal costs. N-80-11-15:82, Lab. (TAEM 39:876; TAED N172:42).
8. On the facing page Upton divided annual operating expenses of $45,749 (apparently based on figures that he later amended) by the yearly M (91,250) to determine a cost of 50 cents per M. He then calculated gross receipts based on a charge of $2.25 per M but here he uses the figure of $1.50 per M instead. N-80-11-15:96, Lab. (TAEM 39:883; TAED N172:49).
To Vesey Butler
[Menlo Park,] Nov 4 [1880]
Dear Sir:
Your kind favor of the 28th ult with enclosures is just at hand. I am greatly obliged to you for the kindness shown to poor Segredor. Your cable announcing his death was a great shock & surprise to us all.1 As far as I can learn he had no relatives in this country. I think he told me this himself, and I believe Page 905he said that he had no near relatives living. He had been injured in a railroad accident and was laid up in a hospital at Newark N.J. some 6 weeks—at one time littlea hopes of his life being saved was entertained. I dont think he had been out of the hospital month when he headed for Havana2 We all cautioned him about his diet and about drinking cold drinks but as you say he was very self-willed and would always do in these respects about as he pleased and this I doubt not caused his death.3
I have not yet determined what to do in regard to filling his place. I have a man now en route from San Fran for Japan to get cane and also have two parties engaged in South America so that I am pretty sure of getting an abundant supply soon.4
I will remit the amount due you in a few days.5 Very truly
L (letterpress copy), NjWOE, Lbk. 6:521 (TAEM 80:403; TAED LB006521). Written by Stockton Griffin; circled “C” at top of page. aObscured overwritten text.
1. Butler had cabled from Havana on 27 October “John dead vomito Telegraph instructions,” to which Edison replied: “Bury him my expense.” Butler explained in his 28 October letter that Segredor had died from “one of the severest & most virulent cases” of yellow fever seen by the attending doctors. Only one enclosure, an inventory of Segredor’s personal effects, has been found but Butler stated he was also sending receipts for expenses paid, including a charge for Segredor’s bedding which the landlord insisted on having burned. Butler to TAE, 27 and 28 Oct. 1880; TAE to Butler, 27 Oct. 1880; all DF (TAEM 53:912, 914; TAED D8020ZIF, D8020ZII, D8020ZIG).
2. According to John Kelly, who wrote Edison on letterhead of the Western Electric Manufacturing Co., Segredor was “severely injured by jumping from a train” on 15 July when it did not stop in Newark as he had expected. Kelly stated that Segredor had no friends and had asked him to contact Edison. Kelly to TAE, 16 July 1880, DF (TAEM 53:182; TAED D8004ZDV).
3. Butler reported in his 28 October letter (see note 1) that the doctors thought Segredor was “predisposed” to yellow fever, “having suffered from malaria & peritonitis also from the fact that he was constantly taking excessive doses of quinine.” Segredor also “exposed himself very much to the Sun and eat very heartily both against my advice.” Butler stated that he had cautioned Segredor against cold drinks “but he had a special temper of his own, self willed & invariably did as he thought fit.” In one of his lengthy dispatches from Florida, Segredor wrote in late September that he had suffered the chills and fever endemic to the area and as a result was “taking heavy doses of quinine night & morning & it has left me afraid.” Segredor to TAE, 25 Sept. 1880, DF (TAEM 53: 855; TAED D8020ZGY).
4. See Doc. 2012. Edison evidently also had an arrangement with Fabbri & Chauncey to get plant samples from their South American associates. Page 906TAE to Fabbri & Chauncey, 11 Nov. 1880, Lbk. 6:543 (TAEM 80:407; TAED LB006543).
5. Edison presumably meant not only the expenses on Segredor’s behalf but also $320 for cane samples Butler had recently collected. Butler to TAE, 27 Nov. 1880, DF (TAEM 53:913; TAED D8020ZIH).
From Henry Morton
HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY.a Nov. 4th 1880.
Dear Sir
I am now engaged in making a series of measurements with various incandescent electric lamps and would be pleased to have one or more of your recent lamps to measure at the same time, in which case I should give my results in a paper on the general subject which I am preparing to read before the National Academy at their coming meeting.1 From statements I have seen in the papers I judge that you may be under the impression that I have some interest, financial or other, which might bias my judgement unfavorably towards your efforts in developing the incandescent electric lamp; I therefore take this occasion to assure you that this is not the case and that my feelings towards you and your labors are altogether of the most friendly description and that no one will be more ready than I to acknowledge the full value of every thing you accomplish as fast as each result is reached. Very truly yours
〈Our large mach for pumping up merc from low to high level is broken 2 we expect to have it going in 5 or 6 days soon thereafter as possible I will send ayou a doz lamps for test— lamp we use now is about 140 ohms & requires 30400 ft pds running 16 candles— I certainly have belv’d that you have not treated me exactly right for reasons wh I cannot fathom〉3
ALS, NjWOE, DF (TAEM 53:927; TAED D8020ZIN). Letterhead of the Stevens Institute of Technology. a “HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY.” preprinted.
1. Morton’s paper has not been found but reportedly was titled “Measurement of new form of electric lamps operating by incandescence” and was presented at the mid-November meeting of the Academy in New York; see also Doc. 2017 n. 1. National Academy of Sciences 1884, 52.
2. The New York Herald reported two weeks later that Edison’s lamp factory was “not working at its full force because of a leakage in his mercury pump, which supplied the 500 vacuum pumps. The leakage caused the salivation of a number of his employés, and obliged him to suspend operations until a new mercury-tight pump was procured.” Because of mechanical problems with his chain-driven mercury pump Edison had Page 907John Kruesi design and order a new screw pump in late September (see headnote, p. 767 n. 17) but it did not arrive until 4 December. Charles Mott noted after its first operation on 8 December that “although run at slow speed it passed the mercury up very nicely and very encouraging results are reasonably expected.” “Electric Light,” New York Herald, 18 Nov. 1880, Cat.1241, item 1541, Batchelor (TAEM 94:617; TAED MBSB21541X); Mott Journal N-80-07-10:232, 238, Lab. (TAEM 37: 418, 421; TAED N117:116, 119).
3. Morton thanked Edison for his promise of lamps and stated that although he often disagreed with statements attributed to Edison in the daily press he always tried to “express my dissent or opposing views in an inoffensive manner, and I think that you will find that I have accompanied such statements with an expression of my high appreciation of your personal abilities.” He added that Edison’s “unfavorable impression . . . must be the result of some misunderstanding, and if you will kindly point out specifically, in what I have seemed to do you a wrong I feel confident that an explanation will clear up the difficulty. My only motive has been a desire to check the extravigance of certain ignorant and irresponsible newspaper writers and prevent some of the damage which their exagerations seemed likely to occasion.” Stockton Griffin indicated on this letter that Edison did not reply. Morton to TAE, 8 Nov. 1880, DF (TAEM 53:932; TAED D8020ZIQ).
From Lemuel Serrell
New York, Nov 5 18880a
My Dear Sir
Please bear in mind the appointment for Monday next on the Telephone cases A. to N. and No. 1; This takes in the whole history of the development of the telephone on your part— Please look this matter over sufficiently to be generally posted; I will come over early so as to go over matters with you before the examination; I will try and reach M. P. by 8 oclock.1
Please bear in mind the request that you make notes of such things as you think important to patent which you have not applied for as yet—
If you have not returned the power atty for Germany sent to you by Mr McKenzie please do so tomorrow.—2 Yours truly
ALS, NjWOE, DF (TAEM 55:202; TAED D8036ZFF). Letterhead of Lemuel Serrell. a “New York,” and “188” preprinted.
1. On the origin and disposition of this set of telephone interference cases, see Doc. 1270, esp. nn. 1 and 3. Edison’s testimony began on Monday morning, 8 November, and continued until Thursday, 11 November; Charles Batchelor’s testimony began on Friday, after which the proceedings were adjourned until the second week of December. Edison’s and Batchelor’s testimony, TI 1:3–133, 223– 62 (TAEM 11:22 –108; TAED TI1:19 – 84, 85 –105).Page 908
2. The power of attorney has not been found and McKenzie has not been identified.
To Fabbri & Chauncey
[Menlo Park,] Nov 8th [1880]
Gentlemen
I am about sending an Agent to South America to procure samples of bamboo or cane. He will visit Para Pernambuco, Bahia, Rio Janeiro and Buenos Ayres. I would consider it a special favor if you will give him letters of introduction to your correspondents in those places. His name is John C. Branner.1
Mr. Branner or some one from my works here will call on you for the letters.2 Very truly
L (letterpress copy), NjWOE, Lbk. 6:531 (TAEM 80:406; TAED LB006531). Written by Stockton Griffin; circled “C” at top of page.
1. Edison described Branner to Fabbri & Chauncey as “a first class botanist” who “has been all through South America.” He promised that Branner would “not only search for the proper kinds of bamboo but will also collect samples of all other classes of fibres which may be of use.” John Branner studied geology at Cornell University and as an undergraduate participated in a major survey of Brazil from 1874 to 1877. He remained in that country in connection with gold mining until 1880, when he returned to Brooklyn. He subsequently became professor of geology at Indiana University and then Stanford University, which he served as president from 1913 to 1916. TAE to Fabbri & Chauncey, 11 Nov. 1880, Lbk. 6:543 ( TAEM 80:407; TAED LB006543); ANB, s.v. “Branner, John Casper.”
2. No letters have been found. Branner executed the contract of his employment on 15 November. At the end of the month he reported on his visit to the botanical museum of Cornell University. At that time he acknowledged Edison’s letter of credit and outlined his travel plans. He also described his itinerary in detail in a newspaper interview shortly before his departure for Para, Brazil, on 4 December. Agreement with John Branner, 15 Nov. 1880, Miller (TAEM 86:308; TAED HM800131); Branner to TAE, 30 Nov. 1880, DF (TAEM 53:970; TAED D8020ZJH); “Into Brazil for Edison,” New York Times, 27 Nov. 1880, 8.
From George Soren
NY Friday P.M. 12th Nov 1880a
Dear Mr Edison.
As Secretary of the meeting of Trustees of E. E. Light Co held to day, I was instructed to advise you of a resolution thru paper to the effect that the Executive Committee be requested to visit Mr Edison at Menlo Park, early next week for the purpose Page 909of consulting with him as to measures to be taken for bringing the Company light before the public—
The Committee will come down on Monday afternoon, arriving about four oclock1
The resolution also requires the Secy to request Mr Edison to have Mr Wilbur present at the same time.2
I am sorry that I have not by me, at this moment, the exact text of the resolution It shall be sent to you however on Monday.3 With best wishes, Sincerely yours
ALS, NjWOE, DF (TAEM 54:100; TAED D8023ZAX). a”NY” and “Nov 1880” written by Stockton Griffin, presumably upon receipt.
1. Grosvenor Lowrey was ill and unable to attend the meeting at Menlo Park. He and Soren both telegraphed Edison to ask him to go to Lowrey’s home in Tarrytown in order to arrange some contracts and other matters but Edison replied that it was “impossible to go we are working night & day here.” Lowrey to TAE, 15 Nov. 1880; Soren to TAE and TAE to Soren, both 16 Nov. 1880; all DF (TAEM 54:103– 4; TAED D8023ZBA, D8023ZBC, D8023ZBD).
2. Soren telegraphed Edison before the meeting to remind him that the committee wanted patent attorney Zenas Wilber in attendance. Soren to TAE, 15 Nov. 1880, DF (TAEM 54:103; TAED D8023ZAZ).
3. Not found.
From B. Franklin Fisher
Philadelphia, Nov. 16 1880a
Dear Sir
I have in my hands for collection upon behalf of Mrs Seyfert two notes amounting with interest to about seven thousand dollars—and these notes are about six years old I will be compelled to commence suit in order to preserve the rights of the holder unless the same are paid forthwith— 1 I called to see Mr Reiff about them— While he admitted their correctness he plead present inability and wanted delay until pendingb suits should be determined—2 this I cannot do—time compels me to insist upon their present payment is being secured. Please let me know your pleasure by return mail 3 Yours truly
ALS, NjWOE, DF (TAEM 55:575; TAED D8042ZBM). Letterhead of law office of B. Franklin Fisher. a“Philadelphia,” and “188” preprinted. bObscured overwritten text.
1. Mrs. Seyfert was Lucy Seyfert, the wife of William Seyfert, a Philadelphia investor in the Automatic Telegraph Co. As part of a complex plan to raise cash in 1874, Edison gave promissory notes to George Harrington, Page 910who later endorsed at least one to William. This was never redeemed but instead passed to Lucy Seyfert in a business arrangement with her husband. See TAEB 2:235 n. 3, 363 n. 2; Lucy Seyfert’s testimony, 12 –13, Seyfert v. Edison, Lit. (TAEM 46:415; TAED QD011:8).
William Seyfert wrote to Edison in April requesting payment of the note held by his wife. He hoped that Edison would “arrange this matter as early as possible as you know it is of long standing— In the meantime please let her have $500. for immediate use & pressing wants either on a/c or a loan.” Edison had recently loaned $300 to the couple. In June Seyfert told Josiah Reiff that having failed to reach agreement with Edison he would hand the matter over to an attorney. Reiff sent a copy of this letter to Edison with the recommendation to “Be advised by me in this matter— I told him not to make a mistake by any hasty action— Rest easy.” Seyfert to TAE, 7 Apr. 1880; Reiff to TAE, 9 Apr. 1880; Seyfert to Reiff, 16 June 1880, enclosed with Reiff to TAE,18 June 1880; all DF (TAEM 55:537, 539, 560, 559; TAED D8042ZAF, D8042ZAG, D8042ZAW, D8042ZAV).
2. After meeting with William Seyfert in May, Reiff suggested that Edison “had better not discuss the question of responsibility” for the contested note. He added that if he could obtain “a settlement with A&P or W.U. all those questions will settle themselves. Meantime, it might be very desirable for you to loan S a little—this will carry the matter along.” Reiff was referring to Harrington v. A&P, for which testimony was taken during the summer, and to his efforts to recover more than seven thousand dollars allegedly owed him under the terms of Doc. 876. Reiff to TAE, 19 May and 16 Aug. 1880; Reiff to Norvin Green, 17 Apr. 1880; all DF (TAEM 55:556, 571, 544; TAED D8042ZAS, D8042ZBI, D8042ZAJ).
3. Edison replied on 19 November, on the basis of a draft written on this letter, that he had “never received any money from Mr Seyfert on the notes referred to they were made for the benefit of the Automatic Telegraph Company (of which Mr Seyfert is a large stockholder) for the purpose of paying a debt due me from the Automatic Telegraph Co. I can do nothing about it.” When he acknowledged receipt of a subsequent letter from Edison about the matter, Reiff advised him not to “complicate yourself by correspondence. Just write Fisher & say you have referred the matter to me, & that you are advised the notes were paid by crediting Seyfert with A&P stock.” TAE to Fisher, 19 Nov. 1880, Lbk. 6:572 ( TAEM 80:417; TAED LB006572A); Reiff to TAE, 22 Nov. 1880, DF ( TAEM 55:579; TAED D8042ZBP); on the Automatic Telegraph Co. stock transaction, see Docs. 522 and 561.
Lucy Seyfert filed suit in New Jersey state court in November 1880. The case went to trial in 1882 over the payment of a single note (Doc. 516). The court issued a directed verdict in her favor and the jury awarded her $5,065.84. The matter continued to dog Edison for several years thereafter. Seyfert v. Edison, Lit. (TAEM 46:407; TAED QD011).
4. Fisher’s letterhead indicated he maintained a law office on South Third St. in downtown Philadelphia.
Charles Clarke to Charles Porter
[Menlo Park,] Nov. 17th [1880]
Dear Sir,
I would like to know if any alterations in the dimension of cylinder or admission and exhaust pipes have been made since your original design was drafted, of which we have the tracing?
This will determine some particulars in our settings.
We wish to lead your exhaust direct into a large Berryman
Feed-water Heater which will show a decided gain in economy1
I presume that you have no objection to so doing, the aggregate area of the tubes being several times larger than the exhaust.
Mr. Edison gained the impression from Mr. Church of the Buckeye Co. 2 that you have the impression the dynamo will not be ready for the engine for at least two months. Nearly all the hands in the machine shop are at work upon it and it is being brought very far towards completion and will be so in much less than three weeks. Every part is here and most of them completed. The armature is in such a condition than the whole force can in a few days be put upon it and soon complete it.3
We hope to have the engine in three weeks.4 I am, Yours very truly,
ALS (letterpress copy), NjWOE, Lbk. 6:557 (TAEM 80:412; TAED LB006557).
1. Feedwater heaters were employed to increase an engine’s efficiency by transferring heat from exhaust steam to the incoming water before it was injected into the boiler. This particular device, patented in 1872 and made by the Berryman Manufacturing Co. of Hartford, Conn., was in wide use and considered to be among the most effective heaters. Knight 1876 – 77, s.v. “Feed-water heater”; “Water-Heater, Regulator, and Alarm for Steam Boilers,” Manufacturer and Builder, 3 (1871): 217–18; “Improvement in the Heating of Feed-Water for Steam Boilers,” ibid., 4 (1872): 193– 94.
Clarke wrote to Porter on 18 November concerning the shaft dimensions, and again the following day to ask for “a drawing of cylinder giving the details of the admission and exhaust pipes, with exact dimensions.” He included a sketch of the proposed connections to the feedwater heater. A week later he asked for the various fittings needed to install the pipes. Clarke to Porter, 18, 19, and 26 Nov. 1880, Lbk. 6:559, 566, 595 (TAEM 80:413, 415, 430; TAED LB006559, LB006566, LB006595).
2. William Church was a manager of the Buckeye Engine Co.’s New York office. He briefly visited Menlo Park this day. Letterhead of Buckeye Engine Co. to TAE, 24 Feb. 1880, DF (TAEM 53:669; TAED D8020ZBW); Clarke to Church, 17 Nov. 1880, Lbk. 6:556 (TAEM 80: 411; TAED LB006556).
3. Charles Mott’s 20 November summary of work during the week indicated that the “Bed plate for Dynamo Engine placed in shop and some preliminary fitting of the parts effected. Discs secured on the armature Page 912shaft, and work on the commutator etc. progressing satisfactorly under Dean.” The next week Mott noted “Dean and several assistants pushing work on the large armature. Logan and others on magnets, base, etc. of large dynamo.” By 2 December the armature disks had been turned on the lathe and were being finished; Charles Dean spent 7 and 8 December soldering the connections. Mott Journal N-80-07-10:214, 225, 229, 236 – 37; N-80-07-27:137; both Lab. (TAEM 37:409, 415, 417, 420 – 21, 251; TAED N117:107, 113, 115, 118 –19; N116:70).
4. Edison told a newspaper reporter one week later that he had planned on starting the Menlo Park demonstration on 15 August “but I was disappointed in not getting the steam-engine ordered from a firm in Philadelphia and promised before that date. I have not yet received the engine, but it is now positively promised me in a little more than two weeks.” Charles Mott recorded that the Porter-Allen engine was delivered to Menlo Park on 4 January, 1881, although the engine shaft was delayed at least another week. “Edison’s Work,” New York Tribune, 26 Nov. 1880, Cat. 1241, item 1547, Batchelor ( TAEM 94:618; TAED MBSB21547X); Mott Journal N-80-07-10:274, Lab. ( TAEM 37:439; TAED N117:137); Clarke to Porter, 10 Jan. 1881, Lbk. 6:780 (TAEM 80: 462; TAED LB006780).
Charles Clarke to J. W. Thompson 1
[Menlo Park,] Nov. 17th [1880]
Dear Sir,
Your favor is at hand.2 In reply I will state that the bolts which are represented in the drawing of the dynamo are for securing the machine to a sole-plate of cast iron upon which the bed-plate of the engine also rests. When you were here we talked that matter over and, as you will recollect, the plan is to have a direct-acting engine; and to have both engine and dynamo upon one cast-iron sole-plate which shall be quite heavy anda perfectly rigid, so that they will be self-contained and not be affected by foundations or floors settling and getting out of alignment. As to the design of engine, that is left entirely to you, both in the designing and construction;3 subject of course to the terms of a contract, covering points relative to economy, performance, durability, duration of trial &c, which has yet to be drawn up by us when you are prepared to undertake the construction of the engine.4
The nature of the agreement would be such as not to cover any details, but that the capability of the engine to fulfill certain standard requirements may be insured5 Yours truly
P.S. The shaft must be continuous. C.L.C.
ALS (letterpress copy), NjWOE, Lbk. 6:551 (TAEM 80:408; TAED LB006551). aObscured overwritten text. bNot copied.Page 913
1. J. W. Thompson was associated with the Buckeye Engine Co. in Salem, Ohio; nothing more is known of him. Letterhead of Buckeye Engine Co. to TAE, 26 Oct. 1880, DF (TAEM 53:911; TAED D8020ZIE).
2. Thompson’s letter has not been found. At the end of October he asked Edison to stop in Salem on the way to Colorado, where newspapers reported he would soon be traveling, because “We will need the promised drawing of a ‘dynamo’ machine to which the engine is to be attached if we are to go on and build one, but besides that there are other points on which a little consultation with you would be to our mutual advantage.” Thompson also provided some general information about the “plan of engine now nearly perfected which is a modification of the regular automatic [cut-off] so far as relates to the valves and gear.” Buckeye Engine Co. to TAE, 26 Oct. 1880, DF (TAEM 53:911; TAED D8020ZIE).
Edison had an eighty horsepower Buckeye engine installed at Menlo Park in 1878 for testing. In early in 1879 he solicited from the company plans for a 1250 horsepower steam plant and evidently inquired about testing another engine. There is no record that this occurred but in September 1880 he wrote to a manufacturer in Buffalo that he was “making tests of different kinds of engines at Menlo Park. If your No 4 will run 600 revolutions and work at a boiler pressure of 120 lbs please ship one to me immediately” ( TAEB 4:600 n. 1; Buckeye Engine Co. to TAE, 7 Jan. 1879; TAE to Dunbar & Sons, 29 Sept. 1880; both DF [TAEM 50:8, 53:872; TAED D7919E, D8020ZHH]). On 8 November Clarke told a Chicago builder that he had learned from Calvin Goddard that “you have a high-speed engine which he understands possesses peculiar merits and might be adapted to running the dynamo-electric machines. If you can give me information as to the type, whether horizontal or vertical, the range of power for which you construct them, the limit to the speed in revolutions to which you can attain, the form of governor and valve gear, and if automatic what would be the smallest engine which you would make automatic? I would like particular information as to one of 120 H.P.” Julius Hornig sent another request for information under Edison’s signature a few days later. About this time Edison drafted a reply to an inquiry from professor John Trowbridge about acquiring a small engine, explaining that he planned “to make a test with high speed engine with single dynamo & with large engine & number of dynamos (Clarke to Milan Bullock, 8 Nov. 1880, Lbk. 6:529 [TAEM 80:404; TAED LB006529];TAE to Bullock, 11 Nov. 1880; TAE marginalia on Trowbridge to TAE, 3 Nov. 1880; both DF [ TAEM 53:936, 923; TAED D8020ZIT, D8020ZIL]).
3. Buckeye engines were noted for their overall excellence and especially for the steadiness and economy afforded by Thompson’s form of shaft governor. In this relatively new class of mechanism, the weights were pivoted near the periphery of the flywheel face so that they moved at right angles to the axis of rotation. As they retreated, they adjusted a sliding cam on the shaft which accordingly controlled the steam cutoff. Because movement of the weights was in accord with inertial rather than simply centrifugal force, the governor responded not only to speed but to the rate of change of speed. In general about this time a shaft governor could maintain an engine within two or three percent of a fixed speed. Hunter 1985, 473– 80.Page 914
4. The next day Clarke wrote a notebook entry stating that “120 H.P. dynamo at 600 revolutions gives 132 Volts. . . . If another magnet is added and only 450 revolutions the E.M.F. will be . . . 132 Volts.” The next day he began making “Calculations for Buckeye Engine The engine to run at 450 which is ¾ of 600 revo. for Porter Engine, masses of iron to be made ⅓ larger.” Over the next several days and again on 6 and 31 December he extrapolated the dimensions, principally of the armature, for the slower dynamo from those of the machine being built for the Porter-Allen engine. N-80-07-27:115 – 39, 209, Lab. (TAEM 37:240 – 52, 289; TAED N116:59 – 71, 108).
Clarke wrote the Buckeye Co. in mid-December outlining some modifications to their plan for the engine and suggesting the bed plate of the Porter-Allen engine as a model for their own. He offered additional comments and suggestions at the end of the month. Clarke to Buckeye Engine Co., 17 and 30 Dec. 1880, Lbk. 6:684, 736 (TAEM 80:441, 453; TAED LB006684, LB006736).
5. Clarke wrote the contract and took it to the Buckeye Co.’s New York office on 2 December (Mott Journal N-80-07-10:228, Lab. [TAEM 37:416; TAED N117:114]). Its terms were accepted the next week by the Edison Electric Light Co., subject to Edison’s personal approval. On 21 December Stockton Griffin drafted a letter from Edison to Calvin Goddard affirming that “an engine which will fulfill the requirements as stated in this contract will prove in every way satisfactory for running the Edison dynamo electric machine.” Edison noted his approval on a similar letter from Clarke the same day, and gave his formal acceptance to the company a few days later (Calvin Goddard to TAE, 10 Dec. 1880; TAE to Goddard, 21 Dec. 1880; both DF [TAEM 54:115, 126; TAED D8023ZBL, D8023ZBU]; Clarke to Goddard, 21 Dec. 1880; TAE to Edison Electric Light Co., 27 Dec. 1880; Lbk. 6:710, 723 [TAEM 80: 449, 452; TAED LB006710, LB006723]). The contract has not been found but Charles Mott noted on 29 December that it had been executed by the Buckeye Co. and, perhaps mistakenly, that it called for a 100 horsepower engine running at 450 revolutions (Mott Journal N-80-07-10:265, Lab. [TAEM 37:435; TAED N117:133]).
To Henry Morton
[Menlo Park,] Nov 18 [1880]
Dear Sir;
Your kind favor of yesterday was duly rec’d.1 I am afraid that you have heretofore taken what has appeared in the newspapers as correct as to what I have said and done. I saw that the article referred to by you in the Sun was mixed, and asa I am probably as well acquainted regarding the unreliability of newspaper accounts as almost any other man of course I did not suppose the report of your lecture was correct in any particular Very truly yours
Page 915L (letterpress copy), NjWOE, Lbk. 6:561 TAEM 80:414; TAED LB006561). Written by Stockton Griffin; circled “C” written above. aInterlined above.
1. Morton wrote that the 17 November New York Sun account of his paper to the National Academy of Science “is incorrect in almost every particular and as I believe you do not agree with me in assuming newspaper reports to be almost invariably unreliable I hasten to assure you that this one in particular is utterly unworthy of consideration and will be at once corrected by me.” The article noted that Morton “has been experimenting with the electric current for several years. He has from the start denied the accuracy of Edison’s results, both as to the amount of applied power recovered in the dynamo-electric machine and the efficiency of the lamps.” Edison’s inability to produce a perfected lamp was attributed to the “constant disintegration of his carbon loops.” The article then described the incandescent lamp of Hiram Maxim and reported that “Maxim’s claim is that the gasoline vapor keeps the carbon loop constantly in repair, and the careful measurements of Prof. Morton with the galvanometer and other instruments confirm the assertion, the Professor said. He added that in a comparison between the Edison lamp and the one just described, he has no hesitation in saying that Maxim’s is the more economical and efficient.” Morton reportedly also stated that the resistance of the Maxim lamps was so great that he “obtained 600 candle power per horsepower, equivalent to about thirty-eight gas jets. In a recent letter to him, Mr. Edison had said that the lamps he was then making give him about 155 candle power per horse power.” Charles Mott noted on 20 November that the Sun published a notice from Morton “to the effect that their report of his lecture . . . was a mass of errors or misrepresentations by their reporter, but does not state in what particulars it is incorrect”; Morton’s disavowal has not been found. Morton to TAE, 17 Nov. 1880, DF (TAEM 53:951; TAED D8020ZIY); “Has Edison Been Outdone?” New York Sun, 17 Nov. 1880, [p. 3]; Mott Journal N-80-07-10:213, Lab. (TAEM 37:409; TAED N117:107).
William Carman to Francis Upton
Menlo Park, N.J., Nov 18 1880.a
Dear Sir
I have this day charged to your a/c $875 57⁄100 being 5% on $17 511.41 as per agreement this includes everything from the start of Lamp Factory.1 I gave you a receipt for $750 which amount is credited to you on the Books2 Very truly
ALS, NjWOE, Upton (TAEM 95:619; TAED MU050B). Letterhead of T. A. Edison. a”Menlo Park, N.J.,” and “1880.” preprinted.
1. Francis Upton, along with Charles Batchelor and Edward Johnson, had joined Edison in forming the Edison Electric Lamp Co.; Upton had a 5% interest. Edison placed Upton in charge of the daily operation of the company and, according to Charles Mott, on 31 December Page 916notices were “posted at the factory to the effect that on and after Jany 1, 81 Mr Upton would take charge and management of that place.” Draft agreement between Edison Electric Light Co. and Edison Electric Lamp Co., January 1881, DF (TAEM 57:761; TAED D8123C); Mott Journal N-80-07-10:269, Lab. (TAEM 37:436; TAED N117:135); Doc. 2051.
2. The receipt, dated the same day, is for $125.57 “proportion to date on account of Lamp Factory now called Edison Electric Lamp Company” (Upton [TAEM 95:620; TAED MU050C]). Upton’s account with Edison is in Personal and Laboratory Accounts: Private Ledger #1:65 (TAEM 88:142; TAED AB005:23).
From Tracy Edson
New York Nov 20, 1880
My Dear Mr Edison
I yesterday received from you the “Plans” for laying Wires in the Streets,1 for which I thank you— A committee has been appointed, of which I am Chairman, to take measures to obtain permission to lay Wires and Tubes for conveying Electricity for illuminatinga the City of New York, and as a preliminary step, I have today called upon the Commissioner of Public Works, Allan Campbell Esq2 with whom I am acquainted, and stated my desire that he should visit Menlo Park with me as soon as you are ready and see you and the Light as I saw it the other evening, in a private and quiet way, before any public exhibition or announcement is made, as he could have a better opportunity, in that way, to examine into and judge of the merits of the system.3
He said he took great interest in the subject, and should be much pleased to visit you, and to see the light, and would go at any time, if I would give him a day or two’s notice beforehand, of the time when you would be ready to see him and show the Light— He also asked if he could bring Mr McCormick, Superintendent of Lamps & Gas,4 to which I assented—
Now as I think it would be a great assistance to us in getting the rights we desire if these Gentlemen should be favorably impressed in regard to our Light, I would like it very much if you would make arrangements to exhibit it to them in the manner above indicated, as soon as you conveniently can, and if you will advise me two days before the time, when you will be ready, I will notify Mr Campbell, and bring him out to see you,— I do not suppose you can be ready next week, and if not, I would suggest Wednesday Dec. 1st or Friday Dec. 3d
Please have the kindness to inform me if either of these days Page 917will suit you, and if not, say when you will be ready, and I will be governed accordingly.5 Very truly Yours,
ALS, NjWOE, DF (TAEM 54:107; TAED D8023ZBG). a Obscured overwritten text.
1. The “Plans” which Edson mentioned have not been found. However, he may have been referring to Edison’s mapping and canvassing of lower Manhattan which occurred throughout the latter half of 1880 (see Doc. 1995).
2. Allan Campbell was an engineer, railroad manager, and New York City public official. In 1874 he became Commissioner of Public Works and in December 1880 he was selected to serve as Comptroller. In 1882 he ran unsuccessfully for mayor on the Citizens’, or Republican, ticket. NCAB 9:466; Bazerman 1999, 223.
3. Edison conducted a round of exhibitions for investors, New York aldermen, reporters, and prominent public figures from November 1880 to early January 1881. See Doc. 2038 regarding Edison’s demonstration for the New York City Board of Aldermen on 20 December. Other noted visitors around this time included the famed French actress Sarah Bernhardt, Western Union president Norvin Green, and financiers Jay Gould and J. P. Morgan. Mott Journal N-80-07-10:204, 220, 226, 258, 278, Lab. (TAEM 37:404, 412, 415, 431, 441; TAED N117:102, 110, 113, 129, 139); Elizabeth Upton to Sarah Upton, 27 Dec. 1880, Upton (TAEM 95:622; TAED MU051); Jehl 1937– 41, 770 – 85; Friedel and Israel 1986, 180 – 83.
4. Stephen McCormick had been investigating the use of electric lighting to illuminate public spaces in New York since at least 1878. In late 1879 and 1880 he grew enthusiastic about using Edison’s incandescent lighting system, particularly in Central Park. On 29 December 1879 Edison had invited him to come to Menlo Park to witness a demonstration of the system, a visit which he made on 3 January 1880. McCormick thanked Edison on 5 January for inviting him, but “regretted, however, that in consequence of the crowd of visitors, I had no opportunity of conversing with you upon the subject of lighting our Central Park, which question has been mooted here. I hope that another opportunity will be afforded me of making you a visit when the throng of visitors cease troubling you.” In a letter of 1 October 1880 McCormick promised Edison, “Any information in regard to the public lamps of this city will be gladly furnished you.” On 27 December he asked Calvin Goddard for detailed information regarding the technical characteristics and economics of Edison’s light for his annual report, in which he promised to “note the advance made in the system of electric lighting and desire especially to refer to the Incandescent system of Mr. Edison.” McCormick to TAE, 2 and 5 Jan., 1 Oct., and 27 Dec. 1880, all DF (TAEM 53:553, 564, 873; 54:129; TAED D8020A, D8020I, D8020ZHI, D8023ZBX); Wilson 1881, 969.
5. According to the docket on this letter and another letter from Edson dated 27 November, Edison replied on 22 November but his reply has not been found. On 27 November Edson confirmed the date of 1 December for Campbell’s and McCormick’s visit, and told Edison that Page 918“they have agreed to come by the 3 P.M. Train on that day, expecting to return by the 6:21 train, and as Mr Goddard informs me that you kindly offered to entertain the Gentlemen at your house, I beg to suggest that you arrange it so that we can return by that train,— I regret to give you and Mrs Edison so much trouble but hope you will excuse it in view of its importance.” Edson to TAE, 27 Nov. 1880, DF ( TAEM 54:111; TAED D8023ZBJ).
Notebook Entry: Electric Lighting
[Menlo Park,] Nov 22nd 1880
Carbon loops
From this date we call the “regular loop” a Bast fibre cut
10 X 17 thousandths
Put on lamps of this kind “Regular” “Date” and Resistance1 〈car[bonize]d 5 hour〉a
X, NjWOE, Lab., N-80-09-28:107 (TAEM 36:511; TAED N106:52). Written by Charles Batchelor. aMarginalia written by Edison.
1. In the preceding days laboratory assistants measured the cold resistance of a number of lamps with bast fibers carbonized for five hours; these values approached 200 ohms. On 18 November Charles Mott noted that “Some carefully made lamps with Bast carbons were tested and gave about 142 ohms at 16 c. and were very even in economy. . . . The lamps were set burning in the case in Laboratory at about 16 candles.” The last one of this lot broke on 10 December after 211 hours. N-80-11-18:1– 51; Mott Journal N-80-07-10:209, 242; both Lab. (TAEM 37:743– 68, 407, 423; TAED N124:1– 27, N117:105, 121).
To Henry Rowland
[Menlo Park,] Nov 24 [1880] Friend Roland
I send you herewith a little item which shows the true scientific spirit.1 The statements ina it are generally absolutely false. Maxim 2 is using my lamp. cCoating carbon by the decomposition of hydro-carbon was tried in every conceivable form of manner by me last January.3 There is not the slightest difficulty in getting 5 or 600 candles from a lamp if the carbon loop is coated with a sufficient thickness of deposited carbon but this reduces the resistance enormously. The whole subject was elaborately investigated by Becqurel many years ago and is to be found in an extensive paper in the Annals de Chemie & physique.4
All the papers for your dynamo machine are prepared and I have drawn up a contract between us which will be submitted Page 919to you. The firm of Dyer & Wilber have the matter in charge. Mr Dyer5 has hunted up the precedents, canvassed the probabilities & believes he can get the patent allowed.6 I shall have the co-operation of the Westn Union Telegph. Co in the matter. Very truly
L, NjWOE, Lbk. 6:594 (TAEM 80:429; TAED LB006594). Original is in HAR. Written by Stockton Griffin; circled “C” written at top right. aInterlined above.
1. The enclosure has not been found but may have been the 22 November New York Post article about the Maxim electric light discussed in Doc. 2022 n. 1.
2. An accomplished inventor, Hiram Maxim had been chief engineer of the United States Electric Lighting Co. since 1878. He had experimented with arc and incandescent lighting, using for the latter strips of platinum and subsequently carbon. Maxim emigrated to England about 1882 and devised the automatic gun which bears his name; he also developed a form of smokeless powder and experimented with heavierthan-air flight. He was knighted in 1901. See ANB, s.v. “Maxim, Sir Hiram” and TAEB 4:778 n. 4.
3. See Doc. 1891; on related experiments about this time, see Doc. 2005.
4. The French chemist and physicist Alexandre-Edmond Becquerel was at this time director of the Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris (DSB, s.v. “Becquerel, Alexandre-Edmond”). Becquerel made extensive studies of electric currents and conductivity, and Edison is probably referring to Becquerel 1853, a paper on the conductivity of gases at high temperatures. In two short paragraphs describing experiments with an atmosphere of hydrogen and “protocarboné” Becquerel reported that his results varied greatly, which he attributed to the decomposition of the heated gas (p. 390). He noted that the platinum electrodes became covered by deposits of carbon liberated from the gas and concluded that his experiments were actually measuring the resistance of this solid carbon.
5. George W. Dyer was a Washington, D.C. patent attorney who had recently formed a partnership with Zenas Wilber.
6. Edison advised Rowland two years later that “Siemens is prosecuting his case in the Patent Office vigorously and may obtain a patent with broad claims if not stopped by an interference with an application filed in your name” (TAE to Rowland, 1 Dec. 1882, Lbk. 14:491 [TAEM 81: 1035; TAED LB014491]). In January 1883, however, it was discovered that Zenas Wilber, who by then no longer represented Edison, had never filed the papers he prepared. Unable to retrieve them, Edison had Richard Dyer (George Dyer’s son) draw up a new set. The Patent Office rejected the application as unoriginal and Dyer drafted an affidavit for Rowland to swear to “a date of invention earlier than the earliest patent referred to, viz: Siemen’s patent of 1873”; he also asked Rowland to try to recall the terms of his contract with Edison since that document was among those lost by Wilber. Rowland evidently never signed the oath Page 920but did exhibit the armature at the 1884 Electrical Exhibition in Philadelphia (Richard Dyer to Samuel Insull, 8 Jan. 1883, DF [ TAEM 70: 922; TAED D8370J]; TAE to Rowland, 10 Jan. 1883, Lbk. 15:130 [ TAEM 82:79; TAED LB015130], the original is in HAR; Richard Dyer to Rowland, 13 Mar. and 11 Apr. 1883, HAR; Hathaway 1886, 102).
From George Barker
PHILADELPHIA.a Nov. 26, 1880.
Privateb
My dear Edison:—
Your letter of the 23d is at hand this morning. The extract it contained is only another example of the worthlessness of newspaper reports.1 Just as in the Herald last week where you are made to criticise Maxim for sealing up his lamps with sealing wax!!2
Really, however, I wish very much you would go and see Maxim’s lamps. I was entirely sceptical until I saw them; and then I was very much surprised.
I tell you in all frankness, that in my opinion, the method he has for making his carbon loops, consolidates them and gives them a wonderful resisting power and durability. He has run them up to 60 candles for an entire month and they are still good. In Morton’s laboratory we measured them at 80 candles on the photometer, and at Draper’s3 we got 100 candles from each one of eight lamps for six or eight hours consecutively. One of Maxim’s large incandescent lamps ran to 650 candles, photometric measurement, as we saw in Hoboken. Mr. Maxim told me that he had obtained 3000 candles from one of his large lamps.
Now, I have never seen such results as these in your laboratory; nor have I ever seen any one who has seen them there. One of your newest lamps which Morton had at Hoboken, and which he lighted up for comparison, would not give themc I am sure. Professor Young agreed with me that your lamps were not intended to be run above 16 to 20 candles; and that you had not been able to maintain one at 50 candles for 24 hours so far as either of us knew.d I am fully aware that in all this, I ame not fully posted; for I have not been in Menlo since the last of July. But you remember that I have asked for some of your lamps and have been refused.4
Now as to the Evening Post. On Friday the 19th, after the adjournment of the Academy, a reporter for the Post asked me what I thought of Mr. Maxim’s lamp. I replied that I was of the opinion that Mr. M’s improvement in carbons was a great step Page 921in advance. That my friendship for Mr. Edison led me to regret that he had not been the one to hit upon the new method. That Profs. Draper, Morton, and myself had tested the lamps to our satisfaction and had obtained 650 candles by measurement from one of these carbon loops. I believe this is the substance of what I told him. He took no notes but wrote it out from memory evidently; and a poor memory at that. 1st. Morton had the lamps & invited Draper & I to his laboratory to see them. 2d. I said not one word about any letter from you to Draper, for there was none. 3d. Nor about expts. to test the durability of your lamp for we made none. 4th. Nor about the tests of the Maxim lamp which are all wrong. 5th. Nor about your lamp being old twenty years ago. You will therefore see that everything you can properly object to in that article is erroneous. And yet there is just enough of truth in it to make it plausible. If you desire I will write to the Post and give my exact opinion as I have now given it to you.
As to priority, Mr. Maxim’s patent shows that he filed his application for an incandescent carbon filament in a hydrocarbon vapor as early as Oct. 4, 1878.5 And indeed, from Mr. Swan’s lecture in the last Chemical News (which we received here on Tuesday last) it would seem that an incandescent filament of carbon in a vacuum was used by him 20 years ago.6
The Secretary of the U. S. Electric Lighting Company who is an old Yale friend, asked me if my business relations with you were such as to prevent me from making a series of tests upon the Maxim lamp, such as I made upon yours.7 I replied that there were no business relations between you and myself; that our relations were those of personal friendship. That I made the tests upon your lamp without bias, solely to ascertain the facts. And that I supposed you could have no possible objection to my doing the same with their lamps. When these tests are completed, I shall be in a condition to speak more intelligently upon their efficiency and economy. If you care to furnish me some of your best lamps they will have an impartial test with the others.
Please do not misunderstand me. My own self-respect requires me to be honest, even with a friend, like yourself. If I am in error, I hope you will set me right. But if I am not, it is not the part of friendship to conceal from you the facts and lead you to believe better of your lamps than the facts warrant. But never will I knowingly do you an injustice. Cordially yours
Page 922ALS, NjWOE, DF (TAEM 53:960; TAED D8020ZJC). Letterhead of University of Pennsylvania. a“PHILADELPHIA.” preprinted. bMultiply underlined. c“give them” interlined above. d“so far as either of us knew.” interlined above. e Interlined below.
1. Edison wrote Barker on 23 November, “I notice in last evenings NYork Post what purports to be an interview with you & wherein you are made to say some things concerning my Electric Light work which I cannot bring myself to believe ever emanated from you. Will you be good enough to say if you even so much as supplied the reporter with a foundation upon which he could build such an interview.” A clipping of this article was sent to Edison by Egisto Fabbri the same day. TAE to Barker, 23 Nov. 1880, Lbk. 6:587 ( TAEM 80:427; TAED LB006587); Fabbri to TAE, 23 Nov. 1880, DF ( TAEM 53:959; TAED D8020ZJB).
The New York Post of 22 November quoted Barker as saying that “There is no doubt in my mind or in that of Professors Morton and Draper as to the value of Mr. Maxim’s remarkable discovery. For years I have been an admirer of Edison’s search for the true solution of the electric light problem, and I can testify to his unremitting energy and the exhaustive nature of his search. But another man found it. I do not say that Maxim is a better electrician than Edison, but he has invented a lamp which surpasses, I believe, even Edison’s dreams.” He described the results of tests made with Henry Morton at Draper’s laboratory on the Maxim lamps, which were run for 24 hours at a brightness of 650 candles, or the equivalent of 40 gas burners. He reportedly stated that in previous trials Edison’s lamps were unable to maintain a brightness of 50 candles for longer than an hour but Maxim’s gave “the most remarkable performance of an incandescent lamp ever made. Edison has a good generator, but his lamp was old twenty years ago. The hydro-carbon atmosphere of Maxim’s lamp is new.” “The New Electric Light,” New York Evening Post, 22 Nov. 1880, Cat. 1241, item 1545, Batchelor (TAEM 94:618; TAED MBSB21545X).
2. In an 18 November article on the use of Hiram Maxim’s incandescent carbon lights at the Equitable Building in New York, the New York Herald stated that “The sealing of the vacuum, or partial vacuum, is claimed to be accomplished in some other way than by fusing the glass, which is Edison’s patent. On the top of the globes are small pieces of red matter, like sealing wax, and this was said yesterday to be the sealing matter. It was, however, noticeable that on two of the lamps along the wall there was no such red speck, the points, apparently fused in the ordinary way, being visible.” Edison is said to have “smiled at the idea of plugging a vacuum with wax. It would be found, he believed, that the globes were fused at the point.” He reportedly stated that he did not worry about these lamps, “or a hundred like them . . . I always expected them, and there will be more of them. The lamp is to a system of electric lighting what a gas burner is to a gas works. They know just what they are about. It is simply a stockjobbing operation to float electric arc stock.” He added that “my lamp is no secret. Mr. Maxim came here himself and spent an entire day, from morning until late at night, looking over the whole place. Then he has got hold of one of my glass-blowers, and the whole thing is in a nutshell” (“Electric Light,” New York Herald, 18 Nov. 1880, Cat.1241, item 1541, Batchelor [TAEM 94:617; TAED Page 923MBSB21541X]). The glassblower was Ludwig Böhm (see Doc. 2000). Francis Jehl later recalled that when Maxim visited Menlo Park, “Edison explained to him how the paper filaments were made and carbonized and all about the glass-blowing part.” According to Jehl, Böhm was indispensable to Maxim’s efforts to develop his incandescent lamp, because he “had had the opportunity of watching all the various processes by which Edison made a practical lamp, and that acquired knowledge he imparted to Maxim” (Jehl 1937– 41, 611–12). In a recent article on Maxim’s lamp, the Scientific American reported that “The conducting wires, instead of being fused into the glass of the globe, are surrounded with a semi-elastic cement, which is capable of withstanding both heat and pressure. This cement insures a perfect and durable joint between the platinum electrodes and the glass” (“Some Recent Developments in Electric Lighting,” Sci. Am. 43 [1880]: 262).
3. Henry Draper held a variety of teaching positions in natural sciences, chemistry, physics, and medicine at the University of the City of New York (later New York University) from 1860 to his death in 1882. On 17 November he hosted a reception at his laboratory attended by several dozen members of the National Academy of Science and a number of prominent New Yorkers; the event featured an exhibition of Maxim’s lights. Edison had met Draper in 1877 and accompanied his solar eclipse expedition in 1878. ANB, s.v. “Draper, Henry”; “Professor Draper’s Reception,” New York Herald, 18 Nov. 1880, Cat. 1241, item 1542, Batchelor (TAEM 94:617; TAED MBSB21542X); TAEB 3:437 nn. 6 and 4, 4:373.
4. Barker had asked Edison to provide lamps for demonstrations at Harvard University during the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in August and again for Draper’s 17 November National Academy reception. Edison evidently telegraphed that he could not meet the latter request, prompting Barker to reply that he was “sorry you refuse to allow Draper a few of your lamps to show at his reception. He is a good fellow and I feel hurt myself to have him snubbed in this way. So far as he is concerned, the reception will not suffer. He has several other things to show which will be very interesting. And as to lamps, he has been offered some of Maxim’s, which being of low resistance (30 ohms) will be easily run by his engine.” The 22 November New York Evening Post article (see note 1) stated that Edison had explained in a letter to Barker that he could not provide any lamps because of a mechanical problem at the factory, probably that referred to in Doc. 2010. A few months later Edwin Fox wrote Edison that he “happened to meet Dr Draper on Wall St this morning. What have you been doing to him? He is ‘Maxim’ out and out and says that you have nothing to patent.” He will however need stronger arguments than he has to convince me that such is the case.” Barker to TAE, 14 July, 21 Aug., 29 Oct., and 9 Nov. 1880; Fox to TAE 12 Jan. 1881; all DF (TAEM 53:179, 205, 250, 254; 57:572; TAED D8004ZDT, D8004ZES, D8004ZGD, D8004ZGG, D8120L).
5. Maxim’s application of that date was for an incandescent lamp consisting of a straight, thick carbon burner sealed in a bulb with a rarefied atmosphere of a hydrocarbon such as gasoline; it issued on 10 August 1880 as U.S. Patent 230,953. Maxim filed an application in March Page 9241880 for carbonizing flat filaments in the presence of a hydrocarbon vapor and another in April for producing an attenuated hydrocarbon atmosphere in a lamp. These issued in July and August 1880 as U.S. Patents 230,309 and 230,954, respectively. The filament used in Maxim’s most recent lamp was described as having “a double reversed curve like a capital M, with the upper and middle corners rounded” (“Electric Light,” New York Herald, 18 Nov. 1880, Cat.1241, item 1541, Batchelor [TAEM 94:617; TAED MBSB21541X]). According to an interview published in the New York Tribune on 26 November, Edison dismissed the novelty of the lamp:
Every person familiar with the history of the art of electric lighting knows that I was the first person to divide the current and use the portions. That was done by the lamps I exhibited here last winter. Examine the Maxim lamp and what do you find? A glass globe is taken, a carbon filament is bent and placed in it, the air is exhausted and the lamp is sealed up. That is precisely my lamp. No one should be deceived by the peculiar shape given to the filament in the Maxim lamp; it is only done to mislead. There is nothing in the coating of carbon; it is obtained by decomposing a hydro-carbon— a principle old in chemistry, which could only have been patented through ignorance in the Patent Office. There is nothing new in the principle of electric lighting by incandescence; lamps on that principle were made thirty years ago. The novelty is in subdividing the current and utilizing the divided portions, thus producing many lights of less brilliancy; and this principle of subdivision is my discovery. I could have done six months ago what Maxim has done, had I desired to make a show. [“Edison’s Work,” New York Tribune, 26 Nov. 1880, Cat. 1241, item 1547, Batchelor ( TAEM 94:618; TAED MBSB21547X)]
6. Joseph Swan (1828 –1914), a chemist and inventor in photography, incandescent lighting, and electrochemistry, was later knighted (DNB, s.v. “Swan, Sir Joseph Wilson”). Barker was referring to a report in the Chemical News of Swan’s presentation to the Newcastle-Upon-Tyne Literary and Philosophical Society on 20 October 1880. Swan described “an experiment which I tried about twenty years ago” to obtain an incandescent light from a spiral of carbonized cardstock in an evacuated glass bulb. He succeeded in maintaining the carbon at red heat for some time before it broke, but without means to produce a better vacuum and stronger current he abandoned these efforts. He resumed them in October 1877 with “a mere hair” of carbonized cardboard, which he heated electrically while the bulb was being exhausted. He reported that “when the vacuum within the lamp globe was good, and the contact between the carbon and the conductor which supported it sufficient, there was no blackening of the globes, and no appreciable wasting away of the carbons.” Swan argued that this apparatus contravened Edison’s claims, particularly those made in Upton 1880a, to be the inventor of a practical lamp with a thin piece of incandescent carbon in a vacuum. Swan devoted the second portion of his lecture to the design of a projected lighting system composed of low-resistance lamps connected in series (“Proceedings of Societies,” Chemical News 42 [1880]: 227– 31). A substantial extract of Swan’s paper Page 925was reprinted in The Engineer and pasted into a laboratory scrapbook, as were a lengthy account of his lecture in Engineering and a description of his most recent lamp from the English Mechanic (“Electric Lighting,” Engineer, 29 Oct. 1880; “Incandescent Electric Lights,” Engineering, 29 Oct. 1880; “Swan’s Electric Lamp,” English Mechanic, 10 Sept. 1880; all Cat. 1015:113, 111, 102, Scraps. [TAEM 24:59, 58, 54; TAED SM015113a, SM015111e, SM015102a]). For comparisons of Swan’s and Edison’s work on incandescent lamps, see Wise 1982; Friedel and Israel 1986, 90 – 91, 115 –17, and 235 – 36; and Israel 1998, 217.
7. See Doc. 1914.
From George Gouraud
London Nov 27th 1880a
Dear Edison,
I confirm receipt of the following cable from you
“Close up London Need my money” To which I replied
Nov 25th “Draw Sixtyb day two thousand pounds.”1
I notice that you still address me Menlo Park London and sign it. For the future address me “Noside London (your name spelled backwards) without signature and I shall know that it comes from you. Yours truly
I cant “close the thing up” because of reasons you may infer—but you must always have money when you “want it” and I have it or can get it!2 GEGc
LS and ALS, NjWOE, DF (TAEM 56:805; TAED D8049ZHK). Body of letter written by Samuel Insull; letterhead of George Gouraud;. a“London” and “18” preprinted. bObscured overwritten text. cPostscript written and signed by Gouraud.
1. Neither Edison’s nor Gouraud’s cable has been found.
2. Gouraud wrote Edison one week earlier that “You may have heard of White’s disgrace, and the conspiracy that is on foot in the United Company on the part of the Edison directors, no doubt stimulated by White.” Although he went on to discuss Arnold White’s proposal concerning Edison’s reversionary interest, a copy of which he sent to Edison (see Doc. 1989 n. 2), he probably was referring to the split in the United company’s board, principally between directors of the Edison and Bell companies. This came to the fore in December when the Edison faction called a special shareholder meeting to consider a resolution, which Gouraud opposed, expressing no confidence in the United company’s management and course of action. Alfred Renshaw promised that in the meantime “negotiations will take place between Mr. Bouverie & myself for the settlement of your claim & the liquidation of the London Company.” Gouraud to TAE, 20 Nov. 1880; United Telephone Co. circular letters to TAE, 17 and 23 Dec. 1880; Edison Telephone Co. of London Page 926circular letter to TAE, 23 Dec. 1880; Gouraud circular letter to TAE, 24 Dec. 1880; Renshaw to TAE, 16 Dec. 1880; all DF (TAEM 56:798, 829, 833, 835, 837, 828; TAED D8049ZHH, D8049ZIA, D8049ZIB, D8049ZID, D8049ZIE, D8049ZHZ).
From Grosvenor Lowrey
Tarrytown, Nov. 28th 1880.
My dear Edison.
The luck seems badly against me in respect to going out to see you. You know perhaps that I have been confined for more than three weeks to the house, except last Monday, when I went to New York for the almost single purpose of visiting you on Tuesday; but on Tuesday morning I found it prudent to get back as soon as possible, and I have been in bed until yesterday (Saturday) evening. 1 Now I expect to be down town again this week.
I have various topics to discuss with you.
Maxim.)a It is a good “Maxim” not to crow until you are out of the woods; and that is all I have to say about Maxim. I am informed that Dr. Lugo says that more than two years ago he had exactly what Maxim’s patents describe in respect to the use of hydro carbon,2 and as I understand from Mr. Kent3 he proposes now to ask for a patent in precisely the language of Maxim.
Fabbri.)a I enclose a copy of a letter from Mr. Fabbri of Fabbri & Chauncey, and a copy of my answer, as the shortest way to explain that subject. He will no doubt go out to see you about India, and we must put that matter straight as soon as possible. The same should be done in respect to all the other countries.4
Eaton.)5a I am anxious to have Eaton in the Board, and my intention was to propose on the day of the election that he should be elected in the place of a gentleman who has but a small interest and whose presence there is of no importance; but on Election day I was sick, and could not do so.6
There is a little bit of small jealousy about Eaton in the Board; chiefly on the part of one gentleman with whom it is purely technical. He does not like to hear of Mr. Eaton’s being consulted about anything, because he says Mr. Eaton is not officially connected with the company. Probably you and I realize more fully than any body else, that some one is needed who will give his entire time and brain to the business now on hand. My first business when I get out will be to see how a vacancy Page 927can be made and I must ask your co-operation in getting the Board to elect Eaton.
Goddard is a little sensitive about Eaton going in and does not, I think, take quite the right view of the field which is to be occupied,
I have asked Howard Butler,7 who is now studying law, to come into our office and make a special study of infringements as collateral to Mr. Wilber’s investigations.8
I think you desired to retain Causten Browne9 b also, and I am in favor of that, now that we have funds for such expenses.10
What do you think of retaining Storrow, the Bell Telephone man? 11
I hope I shall see you about Wednesday or Thursday. Yours truly,
Enclosures,)
Copies of two letters.)
TL, NjWOE, DF (TAEM 54:112; TAED D8023ZBK). aTyped in left margin. b “e” added by hand.
1. Lowrey telegraphed his worsened condition to Edison on Monday, 15 November, and suggested that “Perhaps in order to arrange contracts and various other things you can come up here some day—arrange with Goddard.” DF (TAEM 54:103; TAED D8023ZBA).
2. Orazio Lugo was identified as a refiner with a laboratory in the University Building of the University of the City of New York (now New York University). Lugo, who claimed to be a former student of Joseph Henry, was in the process of obtaining several patents for the use of dynamo electricity in telegraphy. In 1878 he received two patents for arrangements to circulate a cooling fluid or air through hollow electrodes in arc lamps. In one of these he used porous electrodes of carbon or spongy platinum through which a hydrocarbon oil could pass, cooling them and forming “a deposit of carbon upon the electrodes, which also has the effect of retarding their consumption.” Wilson 1880, 924; Encyc. NYC, s.v. “University Building”; “The Uses of Electricity,” New York Times, 17 Jan. 1881, 5; U.S. Pat. 207,754.
3. Rockwell Kent, Lowrey’s secretary.
4. In his letter to Lowrey, Fabbri stated that he was about to begin negotiations for the electric light in India and wanted “to know whether you have any objection to its being carried out on the plan of our getting a large return of the profits to be derived from the undertaking. I do not think it feasible in this case to sell the invention out and out, or to obtain any money down in advance.” Lowrey answered that he approved of this plan for India and expected Edison would, too. In reply to Fabbri’s inquiry whether the foreign electric light arrangements outlined in Doc. 1920 had ever been formally ratified, Lowrey stated that Edison had forgotten to put his approval in writing but that this would be done. He also urged Fabbri “before going much into the details of the negotiations, to Page 928visit Mr Edison and get his ideas. You will find them very business like, and as the subject is a new one to you, he will give you a great many points which you might otherwise overlook. The development of the telephone business as a commercial undertaking may not furnish much light on the present subject, but will at least warn us that we cannot be too careful.” Fabbri to Lowrey (copy), 26 Nov. 1880, Lowrey to Fabbri (copy), 28 Nov. 1880, both DF (TAEM 54:304, 306; TAED D8026ZDU, D8026ZDW).
5. Sherburne Blake Eaton (1840 –1914) was born in Lowell, Mass., and attended Phillips Andover Academy and Yale College, graduating from the latter in 1862. While serving in the army during the Civil War he earned the title “Major,” by which he became known among his friends. In 1870 Eaton was admitted to the bar in Chicago and the following year joined the firm of Porter, Lowrey & Soren in New York; he formed the firm Carter & Eaton in 1874. He specialized in corporate and bankruptcy law and attained some distinction advocating for customs and revenue law reforms on behalf of the New York Chamber of Commerce. Eaton first visited Menlo Park in June as “a friend of Mr. Lowreys,” and since the end of August had been advising Edison and Lowrey on electric light matters (Hornblower 1891; NCAB 7:130; Israel 1998, 209-228, passim; Porter, Lowrey, Soren and Stone to Stockton Griffin, June 1880, DF [TAEM 54:63; TAED D8023W]; see also TAEM-G2, s.v. “Eaton, Sherburne, Blake”). During the summer Edison and Lowrey reached an understanding with him about taking a seat on the board of directors (see Doc. 2032 n. 1).
6. This took place at the annual meeting of shareholders on 11 November, at which Edison was elected to the board. Edison Electric Light Co. to TAE, 30 Oct. and 11 Nov. 1880, both DF (TAEM 54:96, 99; TAED D8023ZAT, D8023ZAW).
7. Howard Butler was a friend of Francis Upton, whom he introduced to Edison. In 1878, while Butler worked for the Gold & Stock company, Edison asked him to conduct the literature search on electric lighting which Upton subsequently undertook. TAEB 4:689 n. 3, Doc. 1568; TAE to Lowrey, 1 Nov. 1878, Lbk. (TAEM 28:897; TAED LB003471A).
8. Nothing is known of this project but it is possible Wilber was assigned to investigate patents relevant to Edison’s electric light system. In January Edison instructed him to ascertain if a particular meter patent had a clear title because he wished to purchase it. TAE to Wilber, 4 Jan. 1881, DF (TAEM 59:282; TAED D8142C).
9. Causten Browne was a noted Boston attorney with particular expertise in patent and contract law; in 1879 he wrote a favorable analysis of the Fitch telephone transmitter patent which George Prescott sent to Edison. NCAB 10:349; Browne to George Walker, 14 June 1879, Prescott to TAE, 26 June 1880, both DF (TAEM 51:519, 518; TAED D7929ZDC, D7929ZDB).
10. Lowrey may have been anticipating the special shareholders meeting called for 30 November to vote on increasing the company’s capital by an assessment on its stock shares. Edison Electric Light Co. circular letter to TAE, 30 Oct. 1880, DF (TAEM 54:97; TAED D8023ZAU).
11. James Jackson Storrow was a distinguished Boston patent attorney Page 929who, since 1878, was a principal counsel for the Bell Telephone Co. in its extensive litigation over the validity of Bell’s patents. DAB, s.v. “Storrow, James Jackson.”
Notebook Entry: Electric Lighting
X, NjWOE, Lab., N-80-11-16:93 (TAEM 37:925; TAED N125:43).
1. This drawing is probably related to the experimental lamp Edison proposed at the end of Doc. 1898. There are no records of experiments with this design and its function is not clear, but it appears to represent a means of diminishing electrostatic attraction between the glass globe and carbon particles released by the filament. Two days later William Hammer sketched another device exploiting this general idea. In that case a conductive coating such as platina foil was applied to both sides of the glass near the bottom of the globe and placed in contact with the lamp circuit, on the outside portion by a wire and on the inside by a wire and pith ball. At least two such lamps were made in early December. On 10 December Edison suggested another approach in which a fine platinum wire was looped parallel to or coiled around part of the filament and connected at only one end to the lamp circuit. He tested several of these lamps in late December or early January. In another set of experiments during the first week of December Hammer placed a condenser in the bulb and connected it to both poles of the filament. After one experiment in which the adhesive between the condenser’s mica and tinfoil leaves “volatilized & deposited on carbon changing resistance greatly,” Hammer tried fastening the leaves with platinum wire but did not report any results. Order “No 6,” TAE notes of 10 Dec. 1880, both Page 930Box 13, EP&RI; N-80-11-25:256 – 258, N-80 –12-24.1:1–11, both Lab. (TAEM 37:638 – 39, 40:3– 8; TAED N120:53, N186:1– 6).
In October 1882 Edison filed two patent applications incorporating some of these designs. In the first he described the use of “a body or bodies of metal or other conductor of electricity connected with one of the conductors leading to the carbon filament, and surrounding the globe, or situated at several different points around the globe, or placed within the globe and around the filament. Such metal, becoming charged with electricity of the opposite kind to that with which the glass is charged, neutralizes the static attraction and prevents the removal of the particles of carbon.” The second application was for means of “bringing the conductor connected with one of the leading-in wires of the lamp directly into contact with the glass globe, which has the effect of raising the globe to the same or nearly the same potential as the filament.” In another application filed in November 1883, he described “statically charging the globe and filament with electricity from a frictional or other source of static electricity. The polarity of the charge imparted to them is such as to neutralize the charge which will be given when current passes through the carbon filament, and hence the two charges will produce a neutral static condition of the lamp.” The static charge was to be applied at the time of manufacture and would “last a considerable time, it being in some cases almost impossible to discharge the globe. The lamps may, however, if desired, be charged from time to time after they are put into use by means of a portable frictional electric machine” U.S. Pats. 268,206, 273,486, and 425,761.
Notebook Entry: Electric Lighting
[Menlo Park,] Nov 29 1880
Putting bad spots on positive pole side prevents carrying electrically & good side of carbon will bust first1
8 meansa 8 candle incandescence 9 ninea candle incandescence taper carbon2
This method compensates for the carrying of carbon by electricity as the carrying side has lower incandescence and was the way we proposed last summer3 Page 932
X, NjWOE, Lab., N-80-11-16:95 (TAEM 37:926; TAED N125:44). aObscured overwritten text.
1. “Carbon pole” and “Zinc pole” refer to battery terminals. For Edison’s explanation of the observation stated here, see Doc. 2033. In January 1881 he filed a patent application for the practice of “arranging the carbons in the lamps so that the strongest portion thereof, or the portion containing the most material, or the portion having the least resistance, shall be at the negative clamp.” Edison also specified that filaments with defects along half their length could be “utilized by placing them in the lamp so that the defective side becomes the positive end of the loop, the other or perfect side, having less resistance, being made the negative side. By so using such carbons their life or duration will not be materially shortened, as the inevitable carrying then proceeds from the perfect to the imperfect side.” U.S. Pat. 248,418.
2. The previous day Edison sketched similarly tapered filaments designed “To prevent electrical carrying” (N-80-01-13:30 –31, Lab. [TAEM 39:189; TAED N152:12]). In his January 1881 lamp patent application Edison stated that carbons could be constructed or built up by deposit so as to be thicker at one end than the other. This would provide for
a lower resistance and a lower incandescence at the negative end, so that the carrying from such negative end by electrical action is materially reduced, while the total resistance, candle-power, and economy of the carbon may remain the same, its duration or useful period being lengthened proportionately to the reduction of carrying. In practice such carbons should be made so that the unit of incandescence at the negative pole will be about eleven or twelve candle Page 933power, rising gradually to eighteen at the positive pole, the average of the carbon or its total lighting effect being about sixteen candle power. [U.S. Pat. 248,418]
3. See Doc. 1944. The following drawing of a partition lamp suggests that the question of whether carbon was carried along or across the filament legs, which Edison had investigated during the summer, was not entirely settled in his mind. Sometime in October he also sketched a lamp with its carbon legs enclosed in glass tubes, presumably to prevent carrying across the intervening space. N-80-10-15.2:121, Lab. ( TAEM 39:61; TAED N149:61).
Notebook Entry: Electric Lighting
[Menlo Park,] Dec 1st 1880
The lamps made for laboratory from this date will be Bamboo—8 × 17 thousandths—5 hours carbonization—and will be numbered consecutively commencing at 1. All will be under 400 ohms resistance when cold—1 Platinum clamps.— 2
X, NjWOE, Lab., N-80-09-28:115 (TAEM 36:515; TAED N106:56). Written by Charles Batchelor.
1. This limit was presumably to avoid excessive “electrical carrying”; see Doc. 2033.
2. It is not clear what prompted Batchelor to issue this directive but during the preceding week he had received from the lamp factory dozens of bast and bamboo filaments carbonized in slightly varying ways. The decision to use only platinum clamps was made on or before 26 November, when Charles Mott reported that glass blowers in the factory were “removing the carbons from four or five hundred lamps in which they had been secured by clamps other than Platinum to put them in Platinum clamps and Pear shaped globes with wires through the flat seal.” This form of globe was suggested in mid-October as being less expensive. Edison adopted the design after a satisfactory trial a few days later, and at the end of November he applied for patent protection on it. N-80-09-28:109 –15; Mott Journal N-80-07-10:222, 160, 163; N-79-08-28:205; all Lab. (TAEM 36:512 –15, 37:413, 382 – 83; 35:1154; TAED N106:53– 56, N117:111, 80 – 81; N088:100); U.S. Design Pat. 12,631.
During the second week of December experiments were made with fractional lengths of the standard carbon “for use in series or instead of one across in multiple arc.” On 15 December Alex Welsh, who assisted in the lamp factory, noted that “From this day all regular carbons are to be distinguished as follows. A. 6 in[ches]— B 3— C. 2. D 1 ½ by direction of Mr. Batchelor.” Subsequent records of lamp tests generally use these letter designations. Mott Journal N-80-07-10:245, N-80-09-28:129 – 35, both Lab. (TAEM 37:425, 36:522 – 25; TAED N117:123, N106:63– 66).
To Edison Electric Light Co. Executive Committee
[Menlo Park,] Dec 2d [1880] Gentlemen;
I desire to obtain the services of a man for arranging, mapping and figuring out the main and subsidiary conductors for our first district in New York1 as well as for others and I have just been made acquainted with a person who will meet all the requirements of the case. He is a German Electrician, a first class mathematician and understands the subject upon which I desire him to work. He has only been in this country ten days.2 He wants for his services two dollars per day. Will you authorize his engagement for the purpose mentioned? An early reply is desired. Very truly
L (letterpress copy), NjWOE, Lbk. 6:610 (TAEM 80:432; TAED LB006610). Written by Stockton Griffin; circled “C” written at top of page.
1. In August, David Greene of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute wrote to one of his students that Edison “requires a man of ‘peculiar qualifications. . . . [who] must be a good mathematician as he will have to calculate & fix upon the size of the electrical conductors besides collecting much matter for statistics which he will have to work up for practical use.’” Edison reportedly expected that this person would eventually “have the general supervision of laying the pipes & conductors, placing of meters &c &c.” David Greene to James Pearl, 28 Aug. 1880 with James W. Pearl’s 1929 explanatory note, EP&RI.
2. Edison hired Hermann Claudius, an electrical engineer formerly of the Austrian Imperial Telegraph Department, in December. Jehl (1937– 41, 732 – 33) recalled that Claudius at first “spoke but little English and Upton was often forced to use the German he had learned while studying under Helmholtz in Berlin. We soon found that Claudius was an educated man of the old school and that he was extremely accurate in all his calculations, going over them twice or oftener in order to check first results. Like Upton he slung his logarithms about with a facility that commanded respect. Upton explained Edison’s ideas on the matter and Claudius grasped them immediately, for he was not only drilled as a theorist, but had had plenty of practice as an engineer.” Claudius constructed a 15 × 12 foot mockup of the central station district to model its generator and loads. Jehl recalled that
on this board the district that Edison intended lighting up in New York City was accurately drawn to scale. Distribution mains bearing a fixed ratio to the ones intended for use were carefully placed in the streets indicated on this wooden map. These mains were interlocked at corners and the greatest care was taken in every way to insure that the whole was really an exact miniature. The sides and blocks of each street were dotted with tiny resistance coils representing the expected load the central station would have, these loads being calculated from the canvass sheets. All the work was done by Claudius Page 935himself, except that of winding the coils. He gauged and measured everything. . . .
With meticulous fidelity and mathematical precision Claudius put the network into tangible form, all proportioned, even to the length of the streets. Edison was pleased and asked Upton how successful such a work would be if attempted on paper with pencil and logarithms. Upton admitted that it might perhaps be done but that it would be a head breaker and, no doubt, subject to many errors. Edison with pride pointed out the advantage of an exact model which permits eye and brain to work quickly and harmoniously without fatigue. [Jehl 1937– 41, 733– 34]
Claudius later made scale models of several other central station districts. His assistant, Hermann Lemp, later recalled that Claudius “was thorough and painstaking, but slow—terribly slow” (Jehl 1937– 41, 739). Edison dismissed Claudius at the end of 1883 and replaced him with Frank Sprague (Sherburne Eaton to Charles Clarke, 14 Nov.1883, DF [TAEM 66:906; TAED D8329]). Claudius’s calculations, tables, and notes for the first district are in N-80-08-13:130 – 255, Lab. (TAEM 38:353– 413; TAED N132:64 –124).
Charles Mott Journal Entry
[Menlo Park,] Friday Decr 3d 1880
Rails test. The rails of electric Rail way, through which the current is conducted to the pump motor in the gulley, were tested by Mr. Upton and found to be down to 24 ohms. still the motor runs and does its work.1
Hydraulic press. The small tri cylinder engine was moved from the dynamo room into the laboratory and connected up and with the pump of the Hydraulic press, to use it for pressing the ends of the copper bars of the large armature.2
Vacuum. The five hundred pumps made last winter and spring have all been changed, broken, altered and abandoned, and the glass blowers are now at work on an order for two hundred without spark, or McLeod, gauge, but single tube with dryer reservoir and probably to be tested for vacuum by magnets and “blue”—consequently the spark keys and wires were abandoned and taken down.3 Herrig4 to day moved in small room in the supplemental building and is continuing his high vacuum experiments, has to day very large globe encasing the regular carbon to exhaust for observations in the effect on carbon carrying. 5 Frances is also making some experiments on pumps and vacuum in the small front room of Laboratory. has in trial a pump with two fall tubes in which the mercury is conducted from a small reservoir into which it is also deposited through a fall tube with contraction thus getting a vacuum on Page 936the mercury before its final use for exhausting the lamp. to days results unsatisfactory.6
Conductors the light lines to factory were to day increased in capacity by the addition of extra No 10 wires as far as R.R. crossing
AD, NjWOE, Lab., N-80-07-10:230 (TAEM 37:417; TAED N117:115).
1. Faced with an acute shortage of water for his boiler, Edison installed a pump powered by an electric motor to raise water from a small stream to his pond. It was operating by early November. Mott Journal N-80-07-19:167, 187, 189, 196, all Lab. (TAEM 37:385, 395 – 96, 400; TAED N117:83, 93– 94, 98).
2. The press was previously operated by an electric motor. In early November Edison had acquired the small three-cylinder engine, which Charles Mott estimated produced five or six horsepower; it may have been an internal-combustion gas engine. Mott Journal N-80-07-10:191, Lab. (TAEM 37:397; TAED N117:95).
3. Mott presumably referred to a pump not conjoined to a Geissler pump as the “single tube” in contrast to the “double pump” that Edison had been using (see Doc. 1926). Ludwig Böhm had made what Mott described as a “single drop tube pump without gauge” in connection with fruit preservation experiments on 24 August. The single pump, in addition to being simpler to construct, enclosed a smaller volume to evacuate. Concern had been raised during the summer about whether capillary action might distort McLeod gauge readings. Mott noted in his 30 June journal entry that for an experiment, “Boehm made a U shaped apparatus of glass tubing one side about one eighth of an inch bore and the other side of fine gauge tubing and put in about 3 inches of mercury, the mercury stood in the large tube about ¼ of an inch above that in the small tube. (showing much less difference than was expected)” (N-80-03-19:217; Mott Journals N-80-07-10:97, N-80-03-14:269; Lab. [TAEM 34:713, 37:350, 33:818; TAED N068:107; N117:48, N053:136]). Investigation of this problem appears to have been suspended until November, when experiments on the effects of magnetism on carbon carrying were conducted (see Doc. 1944 n. 8). On 24 November Mott reported that during the previous night
six Bamboo lamps were sent to the Laboratory for experiments on high vacuum. Two were exhausted during the night by the pump here and burned about three hours before sealing off It was observed that the vapory blue could be produced at the clamp, even when burning at low heat, by holding a magnet near the glass and that as the vacuum improved the magnet required to be brought in closer proximity with the clamp to reproduce the blue, and the lamps were kept on the pump until no effervescence could be produced by the aid of a strong magnet. They were tested by Francis and found very economical and were perfect in appearance. [Mott Journal N-80-07-10:219, Lab. (TAEM 37:412; TAED N117:110)]
During the next week Edison continued these experiments, including one which was ruined when he, Herrick, and another assistant fell asleep with the lamp on the pump. Then on 2 December, according to Mott, Page 937“All experimental lamps, and pumps used at Laboratory on experiments on high vacuum were removed to the Factory and Herrig [Herrick] & his assistants will, under the direction of Mr. Edison, continue the experiments” (Mott Journal N-80-07-10:221, 225, 228, Lab. [TAEM 37:413, 415 –16; TAED N117:111, 113–14]); see also Doc. 2061 n. 2.
4. Albert Herrick.
5. The only extant records of these experiments are Herrick’s notes from 6 December, but see also Doc. 1898. N-80-11-16:103–105, Lab. (TAEM 37:930 – 31; TAED N125:48 – 49).
6. Edison sketched this sort of pump on 27 November and filed a patent application for it in January which included a nearly identical drawing (Cat. 1146, Lab. [TAEM 6:722; TAED NM014:101]). Designed to prevent air bubbles trapped in the mercury from entering the evacuated space, it consisted of
two drop-tubes, the first one connected to the reservoir and provided with the contraction or strangulation, the second connected to the body to be exhausted, . . . the two being connected by a tube inclined upwardly from the first to the second, so as to form a trapseal between the two. The result of this is that two vacuous spaces are formed, separated by a solid column of mercury. Now, if a globule of air enters the vacuum apparatus, it is caught in the first vacuous space, impairing its tension, while the second vacuous space, which . . . is the important one, is protected. [U.S. Pat. 248,433]
Both the November design and patent application drawing included a spark gauge and a reservoir of heated mercury.
The principle of two successive mercury drops was incorporated into Page 938the modified pumps made for the factory in December. These, however, included a drying tube or reservoir for collecting mercury vapor, shown at the top right of the photograph in Jehl 1937– 41 (p. 805). Above the reservoir is the ground glass tube into which a lamp stem could be inserted (and sealed with mercury) so that it could be removed easily without damaging the apparatus.
To William Pescod 1
[Menlo Park,] Dec 10th [1880]
Sir
Your favor of the 4th Ult was duly rec’d. In my Electric Light system the design is to establish stations in cities & towns and supply the light one half mile in every direction from the Central Station.
This distance is the limit so far as economy is concerned. When the conductors are carried beyond half a mile they must be increased in size and this renders it expensive but where the motive power is water, and the expense nominal I see no reason why conductors of 4 or 5 miles in lengtha cannot be used. Very truly
L (letterpress copy), NjWOE, Lbk. 6:649 (TAEM 80:434; TAED LB006649). Written by Stockton Griffin. a“in length” interlined above.
1. William Pescod wrote from Lambfield, Raughton Head, in Carlisle, England. Nothing further is known about him. In his letter of 4 November he told Edison that he was planning to reclaim some land along a river and wanted to know the feasibility of lighting nearby towns using water power in connection with an electric light central station. DF (TAEM 53:925; TAED D8020ZIM).
From Lucius Foote
Valparaiso, Chile, Dec. 11th 1880a
Dear Sir
Yours of Octr 29th with Deed & Power of Atty was recd by the last mail.1 We have not as yet completed the organization of a Joint stock Co. because we doubted Husbands power to sign for you. Now however that we have your deed we shall proceed with the organization.2
Husband claims, as he says, by arrangement with you, one third of your stock, which would leave you two sixths of the whole. He also insists that he has bought your stock for his own benefit & if any profit results therefrom it must be for his individual benefit The Co have refunded to Husbands the monies Page 939advanced by him, and have allowed him $3000. per year for his services.
The gentlemen associated with me in this business are first class men. They were induced to take hold of it perhaps at my suggestion, and have paid the amount agreed upon for construction purposes, to wit, twenty five thousand dollars. The business may be said to be fairly inaugurated with a promising outlook. It will however go much more slowly than in the United States. We have had many very many annoyances from sources where we should have had harmony and I for one would never undertake the same business under the same circumstances again.
If Husbands fails to come forward with the money for your stock I have no doubt other parties would purchase it. I shall follow your instructions & will remit when the money is paid. Very truly yours
ALS, NjWOE, DF (TAEM 55:897; TAED D8047ZCA). Letterhead of U.S. Consulate. a”Valparaiso, Chile,” and “188” preprinted.
1. The deed is the patent assignment of 8 October 1880. The power of attorney apparently refers to a new arrangement between Husbands and Edison. On 4 October Husbands had cabled Edison “I will give 10 000 cash whole interest close out poor health.” Edison inquired about this to H. H. Eldred, who had rights to one-third of Edison’s share (see Doc. 1823 n. 6). Eldred replied on 7 October that he did not understand what was going on but suggested asking for $20,000. A week or so later Eldred cabled this offer to Husbands, who countered with an offer of $14,000 as “the best that can be done” and which Edison accepted. Edison then sent Husbands a power of attorney but on 6 November Husbands requested that Edison send a different form of assignment. Husbands was still waiting for this in May 1881 when he wrote Edison that “instead of assigning your interest & sending the necessary papers for Peru, Ecuador & Bolivia, you sent a power of attorney to transfer any & all shares of stock that might stand in your name, on the books of said Company upon the payment of $14,000 Gold, aforesaid; as there were no shares issued, the matter for the moment rested. The money is ready, & will be paid any time, when I receive the stock.” Husbands paid the money to Foote at the beginning of June but attached the funds until Edison sent him the proper papers regarding those countries. The effort to resolve the situation was complicated by the Bell Telephone Company takeover of the Western Union telephone business in November 1879 and the subsequent efforts of the Bell interests to consolidate the foreign telephone business. Working through the Continental Telephone Company they sought to acquire rights to Edison’s patents in Continental Europe and South America. Although no arrangement was made for Europe they seem to have come to some understanding in regard to South America as Husbands wrote on 6 September 1881 that he had “received an agreement for Ecuador, Peru & Bolivia from the Continental Page 940Telephone Co.” and was therefore withdrawing the attachment on Edison’s $14,000, which was then paid to him by Foote. Agreement between TAE and Compania Chilena Telefonos de Edison 8 Oct. 1880; Husbands to TAE, 4 and 24 Oct. and 6 Nov. 1880, 9 May, 3 June, 27 July, and 6 Sept. 1881; Eldred to TAE, 7, 14, 18, 26, and 29 Oct. 1880; TAE to Eldred, 15 Oct. 1880 and 30 Oct. 1881; Foote to TAE, 6 Sept 1881; Henry S. Russell to TAE, 14 July, 10 August 1880; Russell to Edison Telephone Co. of Europe, Ltd., 22 July and 31 Aug. 1880; all DF (TAEM 55:889, 885, 893, 896; 59:703, 712, 716, 732; 55:888, 891– 92, 894 – 95; 55:891; 59:741, 733; 56:222, 232, 228, 249; TAED D8047ZBS, D8047ZBO, D8047ZBV1, D8047ZBZ, D8147Q , D8147R, D8147U, D8147X, D8047ZBR, D8047ZBT, D8047ZBU, D8047ZBX, D8047ZBY, D8047ZBT1, D8147ZAF, D8147Y, D8048ZEW, D8048ZFG, D8048ZFB, D8048ZFU); TAE to Eldred, 3 Jan. 1881, Lbk. 6:749 (TAEM 80:456; TAED LB006749).
2. Three days later the Compañia Chilena de Teléfonos de Edison was organized by Husbands, Foote, Santiago Martin, and Pedro MacKellar, who on 25 August had signed a preliminary agreement to acquire the exclusive rights granted to Edison by the Chilean government on 26 April (see Doc. 1959 n. 5). The capitalization was 200,000 pesos divided into 400 shares of 500 pesos each; this was apparently equivalent to the $100,000 capital called for in Edison’s agreement with Husbands (Doc. 1823). Foote, Martin, MacKellar, and M. MacNeil each subscribed for 50 shares in the company. Husbands subscribed the other 200 shares, two-thirds of which was reserved for Edison. Berthold 1924, 38 – 39; “La Compania Chilena de Telefonos de Edison,” La Patria (Valparaiso), 25 May 1881, Cat. 1034, Scraps. (TAEM 25:411; TAED SM034055b).
To Edison Electric Light Co.
Menlo Park N.J. Dec 13 1880
To The Edison Electric Light Co.
My occupations here prevent me from attending the meetings of the board and I think it will be for the interests of the Co that I should resign as a director and that you should elect Major Sherburne B Eaton in my place.1 I have great confidence in Major Eatons capacity and I do not doubt the board will concede the propriety of my naming my successor. I suggest that the transaction of the Companys business will be made more easy anda systematic by creating the office of Electrician, and for the present you may perhaps think me competent for the place; at any event there need be no salary attached to the office until further notice. Very Respy Yours
ALS, NjWOE, DF (TAEM 54:116; TAED D8023ZBM). a Obscured overwritten text.
1. Edison and Lowrey had reached an understanding with Eaton in the summer of 1880 about his prospective involvement with the company, Page 941the terms of which were put in the form of a letter from Lowrey, also signed by Edison, after his election to the board. Eaton was given an option on fifteen shares of stock each held by Edison and Lowrey, and on additional shares to be contributed by other stockholders. Shares were valued at $100 apiece and Eaton was to purchase them in blocks of five shares every six months until all the shares were purchased or he ceased to be an officer of the company. Lowrey explained to Eaton that this was to “secure your entire time and service for the Company and thus for our interest in it. We are confident that those services will possess special value over and above the services of other men whom we might employ.” Lowrey to TAE, 19 Jan. 1881, enclosing Lowrey and TAE to Eaton, 15 Jan. 1881, both DF (TAEM 58:5 – 6; TAED D8126B1, D8126C).
Eaton served as vice president and general manager of the company from January 1881 until he became president in 1882. He was succeeded by Eugene Crowell in a corporate shakeup in 1884 but remained connected with the company as general counsel. Between 1881 and 1884 he was also a director and vice president of the Edison Electric Illuminating Co. of New York and president of the Edison Electric Light Co. of Europe. In the late 1880s he became Edison’s personal attorney. Hornblower 1891; NCAB 7:130; Israel 1998, 209-28, passim.
To Henry Rowland
Menlo Park Dec 13 1880
My Dear Rowland,
It is a clear case of hedging on the part of Morton.1 That terrible temper of Barker hasand his unfamiliarity with the subject has caused him to make statements in the press against me. He stated that Maxim’s lamp was entirely new, that my lamp was 20 years old and didnt last more than an hour at 50 candles, that Maxims had pa patent prior to meine in which he used a filiment of carbon and other things I wrote him asking him if the statements were made by him and his letter is also a sorry attempt at hedging.2 It plainly conveys thea that he made the statements, for instance he says, “I never said you lamp was twenty years old” but then you know he says Swan of England claims to have done it 20 years ago. Barker is now affiliated with the Maxim Co through Farmer3 etc, and I can only expect bitter enimity his ignorance of the subject is the only thing I fear either from himb Morton or anyone else.= Both Morton & Barker are probably ignorant of the fact that the destruction of a carbon loop in a good vacuum is due entirely to electrical carrying and is a function of the [power?]c electromotive force betweenb the two sides of the loop and the unit incandescence that the life of a loop will be increased when its resistance is lessb by reason of the lower electromotive force used or its life Page 942willb be the same when a unit surface is at a much higher incandescence. for instance you can obtain for instance at the rate of sayd a 500 candles incandescence unit radiating surface when the resistance is says 10 ohms and the life of the lamp say 100 ohhours while you must reduce the unit incandescence to 250 candles to obtain the same life if the lamp is 20 ohms, (this is not exactly it but will illustrate)e—and so on so that while the merest trio using my lamp and making the Carbon 10 ohms (some 5 ohms) as Maxim doesa can obtain to the unitiated remarkable results— You know to effect a commercial subdivision of the electric light that the multiple arc system is only onef permissible for many reasons & to render this available the lamps must have a high resistance. the amount of money invested in copper being directly dependent upon the resistance of the lamps, beside the necessity of low resistance Dynamos station applicances & house wires, my greatest efforts have been to obtain a lamp of the highest resistance and one which will last the longest at such resistance. the high electromotive forces necessary with high resistance lamps has made this a terrible job but I have worked until I have 160 ohm lamp whose life will average over 300 hours. Now comes in Barker & Morton and announces that the greatest advances Inb electric lighting has been made by Maxim because he exhibited their small lamps of 5 ohms resistance whichf gave 2 & 300 candle power; not knowing that the [---]c whole thing was a question of electromotive forcea and that I have made lamps which gave 800 & 900 candles, but of course were very low resistance and the The proof that they know nothing about this carrying is that they say that the deposit takes place at the weakest spot In one sense this is correct if the bad spot perfect part of the carbon is below the decomposing point of the hydrocarbon, but when the whole of the carbon has reached the temperature necessary to effect decomposition the deposit goes on all over the same The spot seem apparantlyf dissappears although it does not actually. The extra resistance at the bad spot soon becomes a small factor owing to the great conductivity [of th?]c for heat & electricity of the deposited carbon, notb 3 in 100b of the bamboos that I use can the slightest spot be detected. If such a spot is very apparent onb one side of the loop all that is necessary is to connect that side with the positive wire and when the lamp fails it will be not at this spot but on the negative side4 out of 200 lamps tested at one timeg every one busted by electrical carrying and always on the negative side no matter if there were no spots. If [---]c I have made during Page 943the last year as great many experiments with deposited carbon but always found that electrical carrying effected it more than the natural carbon besides it reduced my resistance & every extra ohm was an advantage. If one of my bamboos be coated by deposit in vacua, the most carbon will be deposited on the positive side & this willb generally show [------]c the least bright If now the bright side be put in connection with the positive pole, and the lamp put to 50 candles incandescence in the course of several hours the dull side will have become brightest i.e.h the negative sidei and present a black appearance while the positive will retain its steel like color= & soon the lamp goes; There are so many phenomenon with high electromotive forces & high resistance loops & vacua which are brought out with a magnet that it would fill a book— when you get a chance to come over drop off & I will show you some; I forgot to mention that Barkers temper got the best of him because I could not spare any lamps for Drapers reception. Save everyb scrap of paper relating to that Dynamo of yours as we shall need itthem to pull the thing through Will write you again in a few days regarding this case. Yours
P.S. The filiment of Carbon mentioned by Barker as patented long ago by Maxim is this5j
This is a healthy “filiment” Its nothing more than one of the many old attempts madeb at incandescent lightingk—low resistance, made carbon, cemented vacuum chamber etc— Maxim used a “Rubber Cork” This is a mean thing to throw up at me at this late day.a Have you noticed lately the utter indiference of the technical press in giving credit of scientificb work to “previous or first publication and public exhibition” In England a man named sSwan has arisen made a paper lamp of 100 ohms resistance in glass vacuum exactlyb in shapeb & in every detail like mine & claims to have done it 20 years ago has delivered a lecture before the Soc Tel Engrs 6 is highly complimented for his [ag?]c great contributions to the subdivision of the electric Light etc most all the technical press claim it as Page 944English only one makes the remark that it would be interesting to know where Mr. Swan’s labors may be found in printed form previous to myb publication & exhibitions. The Daily newspaper press on the other hand says that Swan only exhibited my lamp; There wont be much protection to a scientific man if his previous publication & exhibition counts for nothing=
ALS, MdBJ, HAR (TAED X100AB). aFollowed by “over” to indicate page turn. bObscured overwritten text. cCanceled. d”for instance . . . say” interlined above. e“(this . . . illustrate)” interlined above. fInterlined above. g“tested . . . time” interlined above. hCircled. i“the negative side” interlined above. jFollowed by right-pointing fist. k“ing” interlined below.
1. Rowland wrote the week before that although he was
as much surprised as you were to see the statements about Maxim’s lamp, as of course it is only yours with a slight modification in the method of making it. But I was scarcely surprised to see Morton bring forward anything which might afford him a loophole to escape the consequences of his opinion that your light would not prove successful For he probably sees reason to alter his opinion now, and thus brings forward a rival. You alone will show the world what you have done and dispose of all these petty hangers on. [Rowland to TAE, 7 Dec. 1880, DF (TAEM 53:991; TAED D8020ZJS)]
2. Doc. 2022.
3. Moses Farmer (1820 –1893), electrician at the U.S. Torpedo Station in Newport, R.I. since 1872, was one of the most prolific electrical inventors of the day. He demonstrated an incandescent platinum lamp in 1859 and continued experimenting at intervals with a variety of electric lighting devices. When he left the Torpedo Station in 1881 he became a consulting engineer for the U.S. Electric Lighting Co. At this time he reportedly had an arrangement with the company for the display of one of his lamps at its offices in the Equitable Building. This lamp was presumably the one that Farmer patented in 1879, consisting of a small piece of carbon in a sealed globe filled with nitrogen or other nonoxidizing gas (ANB, s.v. “Farmer, Moses Gerrish”; “Gas and Electricity,” Sanitary Engineer, 1 Dec. 1880, Cat. 1015:124, Scraps. [TAEM 24:66; TAED SM015123d]; U.S. Pat. 213,643). An article containing Farmer’s description of his early electric lighting experiments is reprinted in Defendant’s depositions and exhibits 4:2185 – 87, Edison Electric Light Co. v. U.S. Electric Lighting Co., Lit. (TAEM 47:916; TAED QD012E2185); a resumé of his subsequent research is in Prescott 1879, 515 – 25.
4. See Doc. 2026.
5. See Doc. 2022 esp. n. 5.
6. Swan’s 24 November lecture to the Society of Telegraph Engineers apparently was similar to the October presentation discussed in Doc. 2022 n. 6. A substantial portion of a lengthy article about it was placed in a laboratory scrapbook, as were more cursory reports. “Swan’s Page 945Lamp at the Society of Telegraph Engineers,” Electrician, 27 Nov. 1880; “The Society of Telegraph Engineers,” Telegraphic Journal and Electrical Review, 14 Dec. 1880; “Notes,” ibid., 14 Dec. 1880; “Incandescent Electric Lights,” Nature, 2 Dec. 1880; all Cat. 1015:122, 125, 128, Scraps. (TAEM 24:64, 67, 69; TAED SM015122a, SM015125d, SM015125e, SM015128c).
Draft to William Crookes 1
[Menlo Park, December 15, 18802]
Dr Sir—
I have now nearly completed works for turning a daily output [put?]a of 1200 of my Carbon filiment Lamps in high vacua and am errecting other works whichb will have a daily capacity of 15 000 lamps; and It has occurred to me that as you have a patent on your Radiometer3 here and that my works and yourself might derive a nice little fairc income from the sale of these instruments because our facilities here will permit of their manufacture [---------]a at a price which will allowd of their sale at 50 to 75c cents each or lesse which will soc popularize them that the sales would be very large [There is?]a and considerable market in NYork shop windows permanentc Please answer if you would make any arrangement with me for working the patent4 Yours
ADfS, NjWOE, DF (TAEM 54:26; TAED D8021S). Letterbook copies are in Lbk. 6:671, 818 (TAEM 80:438, 471; TAED LB006671, LB006818). aCanceled. bObscured overwritten text. cInterlined above. d“of their . . . will allow” interlined above. e“or less” interlined above.
1. William Crookes (later knighted) was a leading chemist, physicist, and science publisher who was most noted for his discovery of the element thallium and for his cathode-ray investigations, which led to his development of the radiometer. DSB, s.v. “Crookes, William.”
2. The draft was docketed only “Dec. 1880”; the date is taken from letterbook copies of the letter sent to Crookes. Lbk. 6:671, 818 (TAEM 80:438, 471; TAED LB006671, LB006818).
3. Crookes devised the standard form of the radiometer in 1875. It consists of a partially evacuated glass globe in which four vanes are suspended on a vertical rod. Each vane is black on one side and white (or silver) on the other. When the radiometer is placed near a light source the vanes turn (the speed increasing with the intensity of the light). Crookes believed that the movement of the black side of the vanes away from the light was caused by light radiation pressure on that side. In fact, the black side would absorb the rays while the white side reflected them back. Osborne Reynolds and James Clerk Maxwell showed in 1879 that it was the pressure of gas molecules flowing along the edge of the vanes from the hotter side (black) to the colder side (white) that caused them to rotate. Woodruff 1966; DeKosky 1976, 36 – 47.Page 946
4. Crookes replied on 4 January 1881 that several years previously he had made arrangements with the Boston instrument maker E. S. Ritchie and Co. but that they lacked the facilities to manufacture the radiometer at a sufficiently low price. He suggested that Edison write to Ritchie and also wrote to the firm himself. In reply to Edison’s letter Edward Ritchie indicated that he would be in New York at the beginning of February and would be happy to meet with Edison. Although Ritchie arranged to come out to Menlo Park it is not known if they reached an agreement and there is no evidence that Edison manufactured the radiometer. Crookes to TAE, 4 Jan. 1881; E. S. Ritchie to TAE, 21 Jan. 1881; Edward Ritchie to TAE, 2 Feb. 1881; all DF (TAEM 57:33, 50, 62; TAED D8104C, D8104P, D8104ZAA); TAE to E. S. Ritchie & Co., 18 Jan. 1881, Lbk. 6:818 (TAEM 80:471; TAED LB006818A).
From Calvin Goddard
New York, Decem 15 1880.a
My dear Edison,
I enclose rough draught of a letter addressed to the Hon. John J. Morris 1 which it is considered desirable for you to write and sign, to be used with him for the purpose of securing the right to lay pipes and wires in the whole City of New York. As it is important that we should have this paper to use tomorrow I send it to you by Mr. Tracy, 2 who will bring it back to me this evening Very truly Yours
ENCLOSUREb
New York, Decem 15 1880c
Hon. John J. Morris, President of the Board of Alderman, Dear Sir:
Learning from Major Taylor4 that you expressed an unwillingness to vote for the passage of a resolution granting permission to the Edison Electric Light Company to lay its pipes in the City of New York until it had demonstrated the practicability and advantages of the system under a resolution passed for that purpose two years ago. I beg most respectfully to say that the reasons I did not avail myself of the permission granted to make an experiment in the City of New York were: My shop and laboratory had been previously established at Menlo Park where I had abundance of room & trained assistants and where I could elaborate the experiment much more satisfactorily and cheaply than I could possibly have done in the crowded streets of New York. You can readily understand that such a work as I have been engaged in for the past two years must necessarily have been in its earlier stages largely experimental, requiring Page 947constant changes to adapt the system to the developments that occurred from time to time and had I undertaken the experiment in the City, must have resulted in great inconvenience not only to me but to the public, in frequent disturbance of the streets in thed laying and changing of the necessary conductors. More than a year ago I had so far completed my experiments that I was enabled to satisfactorily demonstrate the efficiency of my system of lighting5 and am now ready to introduce it practically in New York & elsewhere & it is for this purpose I desire the permission for which our Company is about to make application and as a considerable amount of capital must be invested it is desirable that the Company have something more than a mere permit, revocable at pleasure.
I should be very much pleased to confer with you personally upon this subject and to that end would be glad if you would name an early day when you would visit me at Menlo Park 6 that I may show you the system at work here and give you full information in regard to the plans of the Company for introducing the light in the City of New York & I have no doubt that I can rely on your hearty co-operation in a work of so much importance to the City.
L, NjWOE, DF (TAEM 54:117; TAED D8023ZBN). Written in an unknown hand; letterhead of Edison Electric Light Co. a“New York” and “188” preprinted. bEnclosure is Df; written in an unknown hand on letterhead of Edison Electric Light Co. c“New York,” and “18” preprinted. dInterlined above.
1. John J. Morris served as president of the Board of Aldermen for only one year. Ency. NYC, s.v. “Common Council.”
2. Probably Tracy Edson.
3. Unidentified.
4. Although little is known about Major Robert Taylor, he was apparently connected with the Edison Electric Illuminating Co. According to Francis Jehl, the day after Edison hosted the aldermen at Menlo Park “the Board of Aldermen met at the City Hall and the Edison matter came up. Many of the aldermen, so the newspapers reported, regaled themselves with reminiscences of the pilgrimage. Major Robert Taylor gave each a printed copy of the resolution which the Edison Electric Illuminating Company desired the Common Council to pass.” Jehl 1937–1941, 784.
5. For Edison’s demonstrations at Menlo Park in late 1879 and early 1880, see Docs. 1856, 1865, 1867, 1869, and 1873; Israel 1998, 187– 88; and Bazerman 1999, 180 – 85.
6. Morris and several other members of the Board of Aldermen and other New York City officials attended a demonstration and banquet at Menlo Park on 20 December (Doc. 2038).
Page 948VOLTAGE REGULATION Doc. 2036
One of the major technical challenges which Edison faced in developing a system of electric illumination was voltage regulation, or keeping a generator’s output voltage constant despite changing loads.1 Edison’s projected system of electric lighting used high-resistance (about 100 to 140 ohms) lamps arranged in parallel across a line voltage of about 110 volts. 2 Since these lamps were connected in parallel to the generator, the amount of current drawn from the generator varied in direct proportion to the number of lamps put into the circuit while voltage remained roughly constant throughout the distribution and generation system. However, as the current increased with the number of lamps put in circuit, two consequent effects in the armature resulted in lower voltages at the generator terminals. The first effect was higher resistive losses in the armature winding which, following Ohm’s Law, increased in direct proportion to the current increase. Since Edison designed his generators to have a very low armature resistance, on the order of a few hundredths of an ohm, these resistive losses accounted for a drop of only a few volts. The second effect, now referred to as armature reaction, was a distortion of the generator’s internal magnetic field by the current flowing through the armature, and it produced a voltage, called counter electromotive force, which was of opposite polarity to the output voltage.
Edison sought to keep generator voltage constant for the benefit of both customers and central station managers. The most important reason for voltage regulation was to ensure proper operation of customers’ incandescent lamps and electric motors. While Edison’s lamps could tolerate some variations in voltage, wide fluctuations changed the level of illumination provided by the lamps. Indeed, Edison’s early isolated illuminating plants featured a voltage regulator which the customer could use to change the intensity of the lamps.3 However, high line voltages significantly shortened their operating lives. At the central generating station, engineers needed to regulate the output voltage of generators in order to distribute evenly the loads each generator carried. At central stations, several generators were connected in parallel to the line. If a generator’s voltage was more than one or two percent below the line voltage, current flowed back into its armature, causing it to run as a motor and forcing the other generators to supply power to it as well as to the external load. A mismatch in the Page 949voltage regulation characteristics of a bank of generators thus created an imbalance in the loads they carried, which led to uneven wear on the generators. Although Edison seems to have recognized this problem as early as June 1879, it was not until he set up his first central station at Menlo Park in December 1879 that he began to consider specific ways to solve it.4
In addition, electric motors, such as those used in sewing machines and pumps, operated at a specific speed determined by the line voltage.5 Motor speed could also be regulated at the motor itself, by adjusting the current circulating in its field coils. Since voltage regulation of a generator and speed regulation of a motor both involved varying the field excitation of both types of machine, Edison developed methods to keep motor speed constant irrespective of fluctuations in line voltage at the same time that he worked on ways to regulate generator voltage. Edison recognized the necessity for motor speed regulation as early as December 1879 and devised specific methods for this in late October and early November 1880.6
On 16 December 1880 Edison drafted two caveats outlining many methods of regulating generator voltage and motor speed.7 The general method of maintaining the voltage constant at the output of the generator was to vary the generator’s excitation field in response to changing current demand. Edison explored two broad ways of doing this. The first was to change the magnetic circuit formed by the two field coils, yoke, and pole pieces, and Edison’s preferred method of doing this was to introduce an air gap into the magnetic circuit. The second was to control the amount of current flowing through the field coils, and Edison’s most usual method was to place a variable resistance in the field coil circuit. The two caveats drafted on 16 December 1880 showed several specific ways to regulate a generator’s voltage. In Caveat 101 Edison described several ways to “regulate the field of force magnets of a Dynamo Electric Machine automatically and also to provide means for automatically governing electro-motors when the work is a varying quantity and an even speed is required.”8 He showed seventeen ways to control the current circulating in the field coil of a generator or motor, most of which adjusted a variable resistance in the field coil circuit. In Caveat 102 (Doc. 2036) Edison described several ways to accomplish a more general result, to regulate the generator voltage “by regulating either automatically or by hand the strength of the field magnet.” In this caveat he used four general approaches to control the strength of the excitation field: 1) changing the magnetic circuit Page 950by raising and lowering the magnet’s yoke, 2) varying an adjustable resistance in the field coil circuit, 3) using a relay to open and close the field coil circuit, or 4) varying the current output of a separate generator used to provide field excitation for the main generators.9
1. Edison described his general approach to the problem of voltage regulation in an 1879 British patent: “the electro-motive force of the machine is analogous to the pressure in the system of gas lighting, and at dusk, when the lamps are being rapidly connected to the circuit, the electrometer will show a slight drop in the electro-motive force or pressure, and this may be increased by increasing the speed of the prime mover, or increasing the power of the field magnets. The latter method is the one I prefer” (British Patent 2,402 [1879], Batchelor [TAEM 92: 118; TAED MBP017]). His experiments on voltage regulation began in the autumn of 1878, and in his October 1881 testimony for a patent interference, he gave a history of his work on this problem. Edison claimed that after obtaining a Wallace dynamo in September 1878 he had “continuously used dynamo electric machines of various kinds without intermission, in which the strength of the field of force magnets was varied by means of an adjustable resistance. . . . In fact the nature of the lamp which I have been experimenting on since 1878, is such that I could not have used a dynamo machine, except I used devices for regulating the strength of the field of force magnets” (Keith v. Edison v. Brush, 6–11 Lit. [TAEM 46:117–19; TAED QD002:4 – 6]).
Edison first investigated the use of a variable resistance in series with the field coil as a means to control the strength of the magnetic field in October 1878 (see Docs. 1506 and 1514). According to his interference testimony he began work in February 1879 on a variable resistance in shunt across the field coil; he filed a patent application on this arrangement in September 1879 (U.S. Patent 219,393). In his installation at Menlo Park used for public demonstrations between November 1879 and February 1880, Edison used one generator to supply current to the field coils of several generators, which in turn supplied power to the lamps. He used a manually controlled variable resistance to adjust the excitation field of the generator powering the field coils of the main generators, thereby regulating the voltage on the mains. The New York Herald reported on 28 December 1879 that Edison used a “method of regulating the strength of the current to be used at the central stations. By moving a little wheel the assistant in charge of this branch of the system was enabled to readily vary the strength of the electric lights from the merest glimmer to a dazzling incandescence.” Two days later the New York Herald described the manual regulation system in greater detail, noting that it used a mirror galvanometer to indicate voltage on the mains. According to the reporter, Charles Batchelor claimed, “It may be done automatically, but it hasn’t been thought out yet.” Francis Jehl later recalled that he operated the voltage regulator during these demonstrations and a demonstration for the famed actress Sarah Bernhardt in December 1880. “Edison’s Light,” New York Herald, 28 Dec. 1879, Cat. 1241, item 1396; “Electricity and Gas,” New York Herald, 30 Dec. 1879, Cat. 1241, Page 951item 1401; both Batchelor (TAEM 94:551, 555; TAED MBSB21396X, MBSB21401X); Jehl 1937– 41 (411, 77– 72).
Edison also used a manual voltage regulation scheme for his first isolated lighting plant, on the steamship Columbia in May 1880. He described this method in his 28 January 1880 patent application covering the general features of his generation and distribution system (Doc. 1890). In November 1881 Edison devised an automatic regulating system for isolated plants, which he described as “working ‘bang up’ . . . I congratulate myself that this is a pretty good thing for Isolated business as without it we should constantly be at variance with purchasers as to the life of our lamps.” TAE to Edward Johnson, 27 Nov. 1881, Lbk. 9:373 (TAEM 81:134; TAED LB009373).
2. In the patent application he executed on 28 January 1880 for his system of electric lighting (see Doc. 1890), Edison stated that he preferred his lamps to have a resistance of 100 ohms. The figure of 140 ohms is from Edison Co. for Isolated Lighting 1883, 9.
3. Edison Co. for Isolated Lighting 1882, 7.
4. British Patent 2,402 (1879), Batchelor (TAEM 92:118; TAED MBP017); Draft for British provisional specification and U.S. caveat (pp. 2 – 9), 19 Dec. 1879, Cat. 1146, Lab. ( TAEM 6:653; TAED NM014: 29 – 36); after revision this draft became the basis for British Patent 33 (1880), Batchelor (TAEM 92:146; TAED MBP02).
5. For Edison’s work on electric motors, see Doc. 1800.
6. Draft for British provisional specification and U.S. caveat (pp. 12 – 16), 19 Dec. 1879, Cat. 1146; N-80-10-25:32, 38, 61– 62; both Lab. (TAEM 6:689 – 93; 34:167, 173, 197– 98; TAED NM014:40 – 44; N060: 32, 38, 62 – 63).
7. On 27 August Charles Mott recorded in his journal that Edison and Upton discussed “ways, mean and apparatuses for determining the electro motive force or pressure in the several lines leading from any central station and for maintaining and equalizing the same. Mr. Edison made several sketches of devices and means to determine and regulate, which were marked ‘caveat’ but I could or did not get them to determine the nature of their operation or give description.” Developmental work for these caveats occurred from late August to early November 1880. N-80-07-10:103– 4; Unbound Notes and Drawings (1880); N-80-10-25: 18, 45 – 53; Cat. 1146; N-80-10-01:45; all Lab. (TAEM 37:353– 54; 44: 1006; 34:162; 6:687, 41:1089; TAED N117:51– 52, NS80AAM, N060: 18, 45 – 53, NM014ZAE, N304:28).
8. Edison’s Caveat 101 (TAED W100ABQ).
9. Edison also considered two other approaches not found in these caveats. On 27 August 1880 he sketched an arrangement for putting a motor in the field excitation circuit. The motor produced an electromotive force in opposition to the voltage providing excitation current to the line generators. As the line voltage increased, the speed of the motor and its counter electromotive force both increased, thus decreasing the current sent to the field coils of the line generators and reducing their output voltage. He included arrangements based on this approach in patent applications that he executed on 16 December 1880 and 25 February 1881; these issued as U.S. Pats. 239,374 and 248,421, respectively.
On 3 January 1881, Edison sketched another system to regulate voltage by switching fixed resistances in parallel across the generator’s field Page 952coil in response to changing load. When a group of lamps was turned on, the same switch placed a resistance across the generator’s field coil, thereby providing voltage regulation. Edison intended this system to be used in isolated lighting on board ships, in street lighting, or in other applications in which loads were switched on and off centrally rather than by individual customers. He executed a patent application covering this arrangement on 31 January; this issued in October 1881 as U.S. Pat. 248,422. Cat. 1147, Lab. (TAEM 44:225; TAED NM016AAA).
Caveat: Electric Lighting
[Menlo Park,] December 16, 1880a
The object of this invention is to increaseb or diminish the electro-motive force of a Faradic machine bobbin, by regulating either automatically or by hand the strength of the field magnet.
In the accompanying drawing:
Figure 1, shows the field magnet which is energized by a multiple arc circuit a. a. across the bobbin B, and the strength of the magnetic field is varied by adjusting the bulk yoke of the magnet to or from its poles by means of the screw S. The other end of the yoke being pivoted to the pole of the magnet.
Figure 2, shows a double wound field magnet, both coilsb of which are energized by the current from the bobbin B. The coil D is the main coil, and the current passes through it in one direction, while the coil C is so wound that the current passes in the opposite direction. An adjustable resistance R is placed in the same circuit as the coil C. Now the effect of the currents in Page 953the two coils is to neutralize each other, but by adjusting the resistance R, the strength of C may be reduced, and the field magnet will be energized by the current in D. I will mention that the coil C might be so wound, that the currents would not tend to make opposite magnetisms, and the regulation would take place by adjusting the resistance R. There might even be several coils, one or more thrown into circuit in multiple arc or in series, or two in series and several of each series in multiple arc
In figure 3, is shown a self make and break. E is the field magnet, and B the bobbin. a is an iron lever or spring attracted by a stud of iron projecting upward from the ends of the field magnet. This spring normally is in contact with the circuit closing point D, completing the circuit of the field magnet. If now current is generated in the bobbin B, the field magnet will be energized, and when it attains a certain pre-determined strength the spring a is attracted and opens the circuit of the field and continuing to vibrate, prevents the field from becoming any stronger than is desired.
In practice it is essential that there should be several springs or levers so arranged that the circuit is broken simultaneously in several places, so as to prevent the spark to as great an extent as possible.
Page 954In figure 4 is shown an automatic regulation of the field of force magnets.
A is a motor with its field magnet and bobbin in the same circuit, and is energized by being connected across the main conductors B and C. The shaft of this motor is provided with a governor which serves to give motion to a lever L. The end of this lever, rests upon a rapidly revolving circuit wheel G, whose surface is partly of an insulating, and partly of a conducting material. This wheel is connected to a wire which leads to three field of force magnets D, E, F, the ends of the wires being then connected to the main conductor C, while the lever L is connected to the main conductor B. The wheel G is so arranged that at the bottom it has a metallic surface nearly around its whole circumference, and this gradually decreases until there is scarcely any metal at the top, the cylinder at this point having insulating material over nearly the whole of its periphery. If now the bobbins of D, E, and F are rotated, the motor A is set in motion, and G also being in motion, the field magnets will be energized, and will never go above a certain strength, for if the current increases in the main conductors, the motor will accelerate, the governor will lift the arm higher on G and the currentb through the field of force magnets will be decreased, in consequence of the resistance of the insulating material which covers the upper part of G.
Figure 5, shows a somewhat similar device. A is a motor worked from the main conductors H, K. It is provided with a governor which working an arm G moves the commutators of a bobbin B. This bobbin is rotated between a field magnet by power. The current from D serves to energize the field magnets E, F, J, and the automatic movement of the commutator serves to regulate the strength of the current.Page 955
Figure 6, shows a Dynamo machine A, rotated by the motor B, by means of a friction wheel n, running in the surface of a disk m. The dynamo machine A, energizes the field of force magnets, supplying the main conductors. In its normal position the disk n is above the center of m. As the speed of B increases, the governor carries n outwardly toward the edge of m , and slows down the dynamo A and this in its turn decreases the strength of the current on the main conductors, which slows the motor B and so on, thus giving automatic regulation.
Figure 7, shows an axial magnet a with an iron core B or to be more accurate a coil of wire, in the same circuit with a. This core is kept out from the center of the axial bobbin by a spiral spring. Two field of force magnets have their two extremities connected to the main conductors, while their other extremities are connected to resistance coils G, whereby the strength of the current in the field of force magnets may be regulated. An arm Xd swinging in a circle comes in contact with a series of pins connected to these resistance coils. This arm is connected to the other main conductor H.Page 956
The axial bobbin a being connected to the main conductors it draws down the iron core or coil of wire if that be used, against the retractile resistance or force of the spiral spring, and by means of the rack and pinion rotates the arm X and puts a resistance into the field of force magnet’s circuit. The regulation then becomes automatic.
In figure 8, is shown a dynamo machine A which serves to energize the field magnets. It is run by a belt from a motor set in motion by current from the main conductor. B represents this motor. It is provided with a governor the balls of which raise and lower a circuit breaking wheel G like that shown in figure 4. Four springs rest upon its periphery. The wheel is divided into two sections. When the speed of the governor increases, the wheel is raised, and the circuit is closed for a shorter interval of time at each revolution as the speed increases. The object of the four springs is to break the circuit in four places simultaneously and thus prevent the spark.
Witnesses: S. D. Mott
DS, MdNACP, RG-241, Edison Caveat 102 (TAED W100ABR). Petition and oath omitted. aPlace taken from petition; date taken from oath, form altered. bObscured overwritten text. cAll figures are on two separate sheets at the end of the caveat. dInterlined above.
1. This method for varying a generator’s excitation field used a manually adjustable air gap between one pole of the field coil and the yoke. Edison was exploiting the fact that in a magnet nearly all of the magnetic field is concentrated within an air gap, and that the strength of the magnetic field varies inversely with the length of the air gap. Typically, in a generator the only air gap is between the pole pieces, and this gap provides the magnetic field which induces the generator output voltage in the armature. By introducing another air gap between the yoke and field coil, Edison reduced the strength of the magnetic field seen by the armature. Edison sketched this arrangement on 30 October 1880 and Page 957again on 9 March 1881 when he also sketched two other embodiments of this principle. The first employed a means to raise and lower a cut-out section of the magnet yoke, either manually or automatically. Edison noted on one of his drawings that he wanted to “use this for prime field mach to work other fields also for isolated,” in other words to control the current which a secondary generator provided to the field coils of a bank of generators connected to the mains, or to the field coil of a single generator used in an isolated lighting plant. The second alternative arrangement changed the magnetic field by using a lever to provide a shunt for the magnetic field between the yoke and pole pieces. When this lever connected the yoke and pole pieces, it provided another metallic path for the magnetic field, hence reducing the magnetic field strength within the generator. Edison executed and filed two patent applications in May 1881 showing each of these alternate arrangements (U.S. Pats. 263,134 and 263,136). N-80-10-25:12; N-81-03-09:1–11, 24; Cat. 1147; all Lab. (TAEM 34:147; 40:652 – 57, 664; 44:234; TAED N060:12; N206:1– 6, 13; NM016AAJ).
2. On 2 October 1880 Edison sketched a similar arrangement, a double-wound field coil without the resistance in series with the smaller coil. On 30 October he sketched a design substantially identical to that shown in this caveat, with the series resistance included in the circuit of the smaller field coil. N-80-10-01:43, N-80-10-25:13, both Lab. (TAEM 41:1089, 34:147; TAED N304:27, N060:13).
3. In this arrangement Edison limited the strength of the excitation field by energizing a relay when the current in the field coil increased above a predetermined value. When this relay energized, it opened the field coil circuit and cut off the excitation field. When the current in the field coil decreased below another predetermined value, the relay deenergized and closed the field coil circuit. On 30 October 1880 Edison drew a substantially identical design and the next day wrote in a notebook entry:
For isolated Engines and Dynamos such as used for boats I propose to carry out the idea of putting the field magnet in multiple arc, and so arranging the wire & Lamps that when all the lamps are on the field magnet will still be nearly saturated ie. The current will still be sufficient to nearly saturate the magnet & to also arrange it that should the speed increase to such an extent by accident as to double the light in the lamps a magnet will open the circuit of Lamps or field mag or perhaps I will use a governor on the dynamo itself which when the field is saturated & any great increase of speed is attained by accident the gover will move a lever & open the field magnet [N-80-10-25:14, 42 – 43, Lab. (TAEM 34:148, 186 – 87; TAED N060:14, 42 – 43)]
4. On 1 June 1880 Charles Mott recorded in his journal that Edison had sketched a design like that shown in Fig. 4, a “new form of electric governor which increases or diminishes the amount of current by raising or lowering a cylinder insulated at entire circumference of one end while at or near the opposite end the insulation gradually diminishes in width till lost in a point in revolving the conducting one half surface of the cylinder will remain in contact with the brush or spring, through a Page 958greater or less space according to the prependicular position of the cilinder which is varied by the revolving speed of the governor. Both of which were given to [Samuel] Mott from which he was directed to make patent office drawings.” The sketch to which Mott refers has not been located, but Edison executed a patent for this design on 31 July 1880 (U.S. Pat. 248,434). He also sketched a similar design on 30 October 1880. Mott Journal N-80-03-14:206 – 7, N– 80-10-25:15, both Lab. ( TAEM 33:787, 34:149; TAED N053:105, N060:15).
5. Edison sketched this design on 2 November 1880 and again on 3 February 1881 with the note “ patent,” but he apparently did not file a patent application for this arrangement (N-80-10-25:45 – 46, Lab. [TAEM 34:189 – 90; TAED N060:45 – 46]; for Edison’s work on brush position, see Doc. 1896). It is similar to a design patented earlier by Hiram Maxim, who also a used a motor and system of gearing to shift the position of the brushes on the generator supplying excitation current to the line generators (U.S. Pat. 228,543; Brit Pat. 1,392 [1880]; “Recent Developments in Electric Lighting,” Scientific American, 23 Oct. 1880, 255, 262).
6. In this and figure 8, Edison used a secondary generator to provide current to the field coils of the line generators, and he regulated the voltage at the output of the line generators by varying the current which the secondary generator provided to the field coils of the line generators. This current was regulated by using a motor to change the speed of the secondary generator. In these figures, Edison arranged the field coils of the line generators in parallel, but in other designs he arranged them in series. Edison sketched the design shown in figure 6 on 3 February 1881 with the note “patent.” In late February and early March he executed two patent applications using a motor to regulate the speed of a secondary generator (U.S. Pats. 251,550 and 482,549). The second of these had a broad claim covering “the method of regulating the generative force of one or a battery of electrical generators by regulating the amount of current flowing through the field circuit thereof, by adjustably governing or regulating the speed of the engine driving the generator furnishing the current for the field circuit.” Edison was granted this patent in September 1892, only after he abandoned this claim and reduced the scope of his patent to cover only “means for varying the speed of the excitingmachine independently” of the line generators. Cat. 1147, Lab. (TAEM 44:233; TAED NM016AAI); Pat. App. 482,549.
7. On 31 October 1880 Edison sketched a prior version of this regulation method using an axial magnet to control a variable resistance placed in the field coil circuit. This sketch showed a lever pivoted at the center with the axial magnet at one end and a spring at the other; this arrangement is nearly identical to that which appeared in figure 1 of Edison’s Caveat 101 (TAED W100ABQ). On 2 November he replaced the pivoted lever and spring with a spiral spring attached directly to the plunger of the axial magnet, the design which appears here. Edison sketched this regulation method with the note “patent” on 29 December; on 26 February 1881 he executed a patent application covering the use of an axial magnet to control a variable resistance placed in the field coil circuit (U.S. Pat. 251,555). A variable resistance such as the one shown in this drawing was used in regulating the first dynamo sent to South America. N-80-10-25:17, 53; Cat. 1146; N-81-02-20:49, 55 – 59; Page 959all Lab. (TAEM 34:161, 188; 6:734; 40:994, 997– 98; TAED N060:17, 53; NM014ZAV, N214:25, 28 – 30).
8. Edison also sketched this rotating cylinder design with four contacts on 2 November 1880. N-80-10-25:51– 52, Lab. (TAEM 34:186 – 87; TAED N060:51– 52).
From Grosvenor Lowrey
New York. Dec. 17, 1880.a
My dear Edison:
I shall not present your letter of resignation as Mr. Fabbri very strongly objects to your leaving the Board. His expression was that “Edison’s name is a tower of strength to us, and if he never attended a meeting, it would be a great loss if his name should not appear at all times among the names of the Directors.” As soon as the matter was put to me in that way, I confess I saw it in the same light. I, therefore, mustered up courage to go to another Director, who has promised to resign. The reason I did not go to him before was that I have had some unpleasant business relations with him and was afraid he would have thought me actuated by some spite to him.1
We yesterday organized and filed the articles of association of the “Edison Electric Illuminating Company of New York,” under the general gas company act of this state, stating the object of the organization to be to illuminate the streets, &c. by gas.2 We have to state this as the object in order to perfect a legal incorporation, but every gas company has by law after it is organized, the right to turn itself into an Electric Light Company, and we have prepared a long ordinance to be submitted to the Common Council if we are so advised, granting us the franchise to lay down wires over the entire city.3
I was told yesterday that Mr. Hyde4 claims that they can make their lamps for ten cents each, and that they can burn ten per horse power. The size of the conductor was not stated. Yours very truly
Enclosed is copy of the proposed ordinance, which we shall introduce on Tuesday & Griffith will explain all the rest.b
TLS, NjWOE, DF (TAEM 54:121; TAED D8023ZBQ). Letterhead of Porter, Lowery, Soren & Stone. a“New York.” preprinted. bPostscript written by Lowrey.
1. Robert Gallaway, vice president of the company, resigned in mid- January when Sherburne Eaton was elected. Calvin Goddard to TAE, 10 Jan. 1881, DF (TAEM 58:3; TAED D8126A).Page 960
2. The Certificate of Incorporation of the Edison Electric Illuminating Co. of New York is dated 16 December but was filed on 17 December. The organizers were Tracy Edson, Robert L. Cutting, Jr., Egisto Fabbri, Jose de Navarro, James Banker, and Nathan G. Miller. NNNCC-Ar (TAED X119JA).
3. Not found but see Doc. 2039 n. 2.
4. Probably Henry Hyde, who evidently was president of the U.S. Electric Lighting Co. Wilson 1881, 753.
Draft to New York City Board of Aldermen
New York, Dec. 18tha 1880.
PRIVATE.
Dear Sir:
I shall be very glad to see you, with other members of the City Government, at Menlo Park on Monday evening at o’clock, Decem 20thb to witness an exhibition of Electric Lighting and also the various operations connected therewithc which are being carried on in my Laboratory and shops, with a view to make a perfect in the production of ad light, adapted to ordinary domestic & commerciale use.1
This is in no sense a public exhibition; however, but every facility will howeverf be afforded to invited guests to see all that is involved in the manufacture of the lamps and the production of the light.
The train leaves Courtlandt Street Ferry at 4:30a o’clock and returns from Menlo Park at 9:30a o’clock. Very respectfully yours
TL, NjWOE, DF (TAEM 54:123; TAED D8023ZBR). Insertions, interlineations, and signature written in an unknown hand. aInserted by hand. b“Decem 20th” interlined above. c“connected therewith” interlined above. d“in the production of a” interlined above. e“& commercial” interlined above. f Interlined above.
1. Edison hosted this demonstration for about forty city officials, including the aldermen, in order to convince them to support the Edison Electric Light Company’s efforts to obtain a franchise giving it rights of way to install electrical mains under New York City streets (William Carman to Calvin Goddard and Goddard to Carman, both 20 Dec. 1880; DF [TAEM 54:125; TAED D8023ZBS, D8023ZBT]); see Doc. 2039 n. 2). According to newspaper reports city officials included Board of Aldermen president John J. Morris, Superintendent of Gas and Lamps S. McCormick, Park Commissioners Green and Lane, Excise Commissioner Mitchell, and aldermen McClave, Jacobus, Strack, Wade, Kirk, Fink, and Slevin. Also present were Grosvenor Lowrey, Tracy Edson, Sherburne Eaton, Calvin Goddard, and Nathan Miller of the Edison Electric Light Co., as well as Ernest Biedermann, J. C. Henderson, Major Page 961Robert Taylor, a Mr. S. C. Wilson, and a Mr. G. Salvyera of Paris (“Aldermen at Menlo Park,” New York Truth, 21 Dec. 1880; “The Wizard of Menlo Park,” New York Herald, 21 Dec. 1880; Cat.1241, Items 1557, 1558; Batchelor [TAEM 94:623; TAED MBSB21557X, MBSB21558X]; see also Jehl 1937– 41, 779 – 85). After demonstrating his system and explaining its working, Edison provided the visitors a lavish banquet catered by Delmonico with a menu selected by Grosvenor Lowrey. Charles Mott noted in his diary entry for 20 December, “In the evening, by invitation, the Alderman of New York City were here to see the working of the lamp and system and to pertake of both solid and fluid refreshments. The room of Laboratory was illuminated with 37 lamps and presented a fine appearance, in all about 239 lamps were illuminated. The boys had their racket at Davis’s [Hotel]— Part of whom celebrated at their own expense” (Mott Journal N-80-07-10:258, Lab. [TAEM 37:431; TAED N117:129]).
Edison increased the number of outdoor lamps by early January for a more public exhibition. The 22 January Scientific American reported that five hundred lamps had been placed in lines extending from the laboratory “half a mile to right and left, the entire area under illumination being, from the slope of the land, easily visible from the central station. The lamps are in a circuit comprising seven miles and three-quarters of wire, and are supplied by a current generated by nine dynamo-electric machines driven by one engine. . . . Simply as an exhibition of perfect illumination under perfect control, covering a vast area, this array of lamps presents a most remarkable and delightful sight, and is alone well worthy of a trip to Menlo Park.” “Electric Illumination at Menlo Park,” Sci. Am. 44 (1881): 44.
From Grosvenor Lowrey
New York. Dec. 21, 1880.a
My dear Edison:
I said this morning I was going to draw the Lamp Manufacturing Contract, but when I sat down to it I was reminded that I had previously found myself lacking in proper information and that I had asked you the last time I was at Menlo, to make Page 962an outline draft of it for me. Can you do that? My impression is that the Company cannot give itself away upon the manufacture of its Lamps by putting it out of its power, in case it should be dissatisfied, to make them for itself or for others to make them. The best which can be done with such an arrangement is to make it to the mutual profit of each party to continue the arrangement. You will remember Mr. Goddard’s plan of an adjustable scale of prices, by which you were to have a larger pro rata of profit as the cost to the Company went down. He can draw that clause more satisfactorily than any one else probably and I will ask him to do it and will send it to you. 1
The ordinance was referred to-day to the Law Committee of the Board of Aldermen and goes over until next week.2 Perhaps we shall not get the franchise from this Board as their time is so short. Very truly yours
TLS, NjWOE, DF (TAEM 54:127; TAED D8023ZBV). Letterhead of Porter, Lowrey, Soren & Stone. a”New York.” preprinted.
1. A relatively simple contract was drafted in January 1881, possibly by Edison himself; Edison had Charles Mott make a copy of this draft on 7 February ( Mott Journal, PN-81-01-19, Lab. [TAEM 43:1124; TAED NP014:10]). The parties to the agreement were the Edison Electric Light Co. and Edison, Charles Batchelor, Francis Upton, and Edward Johnson, acting as partners in the Edison Electric Lamp Co. This draft became the basis for a much more detailed draft that is dated only 1881 and which was probably the result of discussions between Lowrey and the Light Co. In this draft the names of Edison’s partners are crossed out and the agreement is between the Light Co. and the Lamp Co. The final agreement is only between Edison and the Light Co., with Edison’s partners in the Lamp Co. mentioned as his manufacturing partners but not named as the Lamp Co. Edison was to receive no compensation for his efforts in regard to lamp manufacture but his partners were to receive “a fair and usual compensation for the[ir] actual services.” The second draft and final version were largely concerned with the efforts of the Light Co. to protect its interests while also giving Edison an exclusive license for the manufacture of lamps used in connection with the Edison system. In addition, there was considerable discussion regarding the amount the Lamp Co. would charge the Light Co. for lamps. The first draft has the figure of 35 cents, which was crossed out and changed to 40 cents in the second draft but in the final agreement the figure was 35 cents. In addition, the second draft included a clause concerning the “endeavor to reduce the cost of manufacturing the standard lamp, and after receiving from sales of lamps the amount actually invested in the business of said Lamp Company, and whenever after such amount is received , the cost thereof shall fall below thirty-two cents each, it will pay over to the Light Company, one-half the difference between that price and the actual cost of the lamps manufactured.” This section was partially underlined with a notation in the hand of Edison’s Page 963secretary Samuel Insull that “this is to cover great loss in experimental work to date.” It was included in the final agreement but without the reference to the money invested in the Lamp Co. According to the contract, Edison and his partners agreed to invest “in actual cash immediately not less than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for the establishment of a suitable manufactory capable of furnishing one thousand lamps complete during each and every working day in the year, the investment already made at Menlo Park for that purpose being taken as a part of the same.” Edison reportedly estimated that manufacturing costs averaged $1.10 per lamp about this time. TAE draft agreement with Edison Electric Light Co., Jan. 1881, DF (TAEM 57:761; TAED D8123C); Edison Electric Light Co. draft agreement with Edison Lamp Co., n.d. 1881, Miller (TAEM 86:426; TAED HM810156); TAE agreement with Edison Electric Light Co., 8 Mar. 1881, Defendant’s depositions and exhibits, 5: 2352 – 57, Edison Electric Light Co. v. U.S. Electric Lighting Co., Lit. (TAEM 47:999; TAED QD012E2352); Jehl 1937– 41, 816.
2. According to Charles Mott’s journal the New York Herald reported on 29 December that “the Law Committee of the Board of Alderman to whom was referred the application of the Edison Illuminating Co. for privileges of laying their wires in the Streets, had reported a resolution that that Co or other Elec. Light Cos have the privilege by paying to the City 10 cts per foot for the streets disturbed and after five years three per cent of their gross receipts” (Mott Journal N-80-07-10:264, Lab. [TAEM 37:434; TAED N117:132]). The New York Herald, in articles on 20 and 21 January, opposed this provision, noting that gas companies and the Brush Electric Light Company did not have to pay this fee for rights-of-way. The Brush company had obtained permission to lay underground wires for an experimental arc lighting system to illuminate Broadway between 14th and 34th streets; the city government did not require the Brush company to pay a fee for rights-of-way for this installation and only required it to repair any damage to the streets resulting from the work (“Lightning Over Snow,” 20 Jan. 1881; and “The Aldermen and the Edison Light,” 21 Jan. 1881; Cat. 1241, items 1573 and 1571; Batchelor [TAEM 94:627; TAED MBSB21573, MBSB21571X]; “New Lights Along Broadway,” 8 Dec. 1880, New York Times, copy found in scrapbook in Hammer Ser. 2 Box 25). An undated printed resolution authorizing the company to place its wires underground in New York City is in DF (TAEM 57:744; TAED D8122S) but this was not the one adopted as it required the Edison Electric Light Co. to deposit a sum with the city sufficient to cover the costs of restoring any affected streets to their prior condition. Instead, on 22 March 1881 the aldermen passed a resolution allowing the Edison company to place its wires underground or overhead after paying a security deposit determined by the mayor, the comptroller and the commissioner of public works, with the work to be done under the latter’s supervision. The company was to be charged a rate of 1% per lineal foot. This resolution was vetoed by Mayor William Grace on 5 April but the aldermen overrode the veto on 12 April and subsequently passed resolutions (also vetoed and overridden) granting the same privileges to the Brush Co. and United States Illuminating Co. (DF [TAEM 57:746, 748; TAED D8122S1, D8122S2]). See Bazerman 1999 (224 – 28) for an analysis of the political battle over street franchises for electric lighting.
From Calvin Goddard
New York, Decem 30 1880.a
My dear Sir:
Notwithstanding all that has been written on the subject of Electric lighting and our system in particular, the general public seem to have a very incorrect notion of what it is we propose to do so aA large number of letters are received asking information which wuld well be answered by a printed circular giving a brief description of the system, how the light is produced, how managed, and how used. Something of this sort would be extremely useful, not only as a means of answering correspondents but to combine with other information in respect to the organizing of companies, granting of licenses etc. which we must shortly issue to send to parties whose applications are on file & who have been promised information when the Company was ready for business. Will you kindly allow Mr. Clark or Mr. Upton, or both, under your direction to prepare the material for such ab circular making it as brief as the subject will allow simply giving a general idea of the system, and send it to me as soon as possible. 1
We had quite a satisfactory meeting of the Executive Committee today at which I represented your views as expressed yesterday2 & measures have been taken to perfect our Company organization for active business. Very truly Yours,
The circular should include Lighting for cities & towns Lighting Factories & detached buildings already supplied with power Lighting Steamersc
LS, NjWOE, DF (TAEM 54:133; TAED D8023ZCA). Letterhead of Edison Electric Light Co.; written in an unknown hand. a“New York,” and “18” preprinted. bInterlined above. cPostscript written by Goddard.
1. In his journal entry of 10 January Charles Mott noted “All night several worked on a Practical treatise on Elec. as known here, for Publication in Book form” (Mott Journal, PN-80-09-23, Lab. [TAEM 43: 1108; TAED NP013:45]). Edison, Charles Batchelor, Edward Johnson, and Charles Clarke used portions of six undated notebooks to outline the scope and sources of the proposed publication; Francis Upton also contributed. The entries suggest that the book would include a full description of Edison’s system; criticisms of incandescent electric lighting; the history and economic basis of the gas lighting industry; and historical precedents of scientific and technical opposition to significant technological changes (N-80-06-16.1, N-81-01-00:1– 9, N-81-01-25, N-80-00-04, N-79-07-12, N-81-01-21, all Lab. [TAEM 39:1138, 40:14 – 49, 224, 253, 280, 284; TAED N184, N187:1– 5, N188, N189, N190, N191]). Edison also drafted a letter in one of these books asking Uriah Painter to gather publications of the Bureau of Statistics and also to look for relevant information published from the United States census. The Page 965spine of one of the notebooks is stamped “Edison’s Prospectus Book” (TAE to Painter, 21 Jan. 1881, N-81-01-21:284, Lab. [TAEM 40:303; TAED N191:18]). Edison never published such a work but Edward Johnson probably used some of this material in preparing an essay dated 15 September 1881 on “Edison Electric Light Stock considered as a speculative holding for the ensuing quarter” (Johnson typescript, 15 Sept. 1881, DF [TAEM 58:37; TAED D8126ZAB]).
2. Nothing is known of any discussion between Edison and Goddard.
From Grosvenor Lowrey
New York, Dec 31st 1880a
My dear Edison
I wish you this year a happy “New York,” & great increase of of fame & fortune.
In respect to the financial necessity of which you spoke to Fabbri & me, do not give yourself uneasiness. 1 They must & will be provided for by your friends in a proper way, that is, so as not to give you trouble of any sort.
Twombly wished me to speak to you about your having (as he understands) allowed American Union wires on your premises. He thinks you ought not to do so being a W. U. soldier. 2
He wished me to say so to you & I promised but have forgotten it when I had seen you. Therefore I write now.
If by any chance you make any call in town on [Saturday?]b come see my wife at the Victoria Hotel cor 27th St & 5th Av. Tell Mrs. Edison I have gone back on my advice to her & have gone to a Hotel. But it was necessary to be in town & I could not get any other place now. Yours truly
ALS, NjWOE, DF (TAEM 53:277; TAED D8004ZGZ1). Letterhead of Porter, Lowrey, Soren & Stone. a“New York” and “18” preprinted. bIllegible.
1. Nothing further is known about this matter.
2. On 23 December “American Union wires were to day connected with the Laboratory for telegraphic communication.” On 31 December Charles Mott “remained up all night to discover if possible” who had disconnected those wires from the switchboard on several occasions; he apparently was not successful. Mott Journal N-80-07-10:261, 268, Lab. (TAEM 37:433, 436; TAED N117:131, 134); see also Doc. 1764 n. 1.