diff options
Diffstat (limited to '29633.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 29633.txt | 2138 |
1 files changed, 2138 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/29633.txt b/29633.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d0b0713 --- /dev/null +++ b/29633.txt @@ -0,0 +1,2138 @@ +Project Gutenberg's The Beginnings of Cheap Steel, by Philip W. Bishop + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Beginnings of Cheap Steel + +Author: Philip W. Bishop + +Release Date: August 8, 2009 [EBook #29633] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BEGINNINGS OF CHEAP STEEL *** + + + + +Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net + + + + + + +CONTRIBUTIONS FROM +THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY: +PAPER 3 + + + +THE BEGINNINGS OF CHEAP STEEL + + +_Philip W. Bishop_ + + + + +STEEL BEFORE THE 1850's 29 + +BESSEMER AND HIS COMPETITORS 30 + +ROBERT MUSHET 33 + +EBBW VALE AND THE BESSEMER PROCESS 35 + +MUSHET AND BESSEMER 37 + +WILLIAM KELLY'S AIR-BOILING PROCESS 42 + +CONCLUSIONS 46 + + + + +THE BEGINNINGS OF CHEAP STEEL + +By Philip W. Bishop + + +_Other inventors claimed a part in the invention of the Bessemer +process of making steel. Here, the contemporary discussion in the +technical press is re-examined to throw light on the relations of these +various claimants to the iron and steel industry of their time, as +having a possible connection with the antagonism shown by the +ironmasters toward Bessemer's ideas._ + +THE AUTHOR: _Philip W. Bishop is curator of arts and manufactures, +Museum of History and Technology, in the Smithsonian Institution's +United States National Museum._ + + +The development of the world's productive resources during the 19th +century, accelerated in general by major innovations in the field of +power, transportation, and textiles, was retarded by the occurrence of +certain bottlenecks. One of these affected the flow of suitable and +economical raw materials to the machine tool and transportation +industries: in spite of a rapid growth of iron production, the methods +of making steel remained as they were in the previous century; and +outputs remained negligible. + +In the decade 1855-1865, this situation was completely changed in Great +Britain and in Europe generally; and when the United States emerged +from the Civil War, that country found itself in a position to take +advantage of the European innovations and to start a period of growth +which, in the next 50 years, was to establish her as the world's +largest producer of steel. + +This study reviews the controversy as to the origin of the process +which, for more than 35 years[1] provided the greater part of the steel +production of the United States. It concerns four men for whom priority +of invention in one or more aspects of the process has been claimed. + + [1] From 1870 through 1907, "Bessemer" production accounted for + not less than 50 percent of United States steel production. From + 1880 through 1895, 80 percent of all steel came from this source: + Historical Statistics of the United States 1789-1945 (Washington, + U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1949), Tables + J. 165-170 at p. 187. + +The process consists in forcing through molten cast iron, held in a +vessel called a converter, a stream of cold air under pressure. The +combination of the oxygen in the air with the silicon and carbon in the +metal raises the temperature of the latter in a spectacular way and +after "blowing" for a certain period, eliminates the carbon from the +metal. Since steel of various qualities demands the inclusion of from +0.15 to 1.70 percent of carbon, the blow has to be terminated before +the elimination of the whole carbon content; or if the carbon content +has been eliminated the appropriate percentage of carbon has to be put +back. This latter operation is carried out by adding a precise quantity +of manganiferous pig-iron (spiegeleisen) or ferromanganese, the +manganese serving to remove the oxygen, which has combined with the +iron during the blow. + +The controversy which surrounded its development concerned two aspects +of the process: The use of the cold air blast to raise the temperature +of the molten metal, and the application of manganese to overcome the +problem of control of the carbon and oxygen content. + +Bessemer, who began his experiments in the making of iron and steel in +1854, secured his first patent in Great Britain in January 1855, and +was persuaded to present information about his discovery to a meeting +of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held at +Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, in August 1856. His title "The Manufacture +of Iron without Fuel" was given wide publicity in Great Britain and in +the United States. Among those who wrote to the papers to contest +Bessemer's theories were several claimants to priority of invention. + +Two men claimed that they had anticipated Bessemer in the invention of +a method of treating molten metal with air-blasts for the purpose of +"purifying" or decarbonizing iron. Both were Americans. Joseph Gilbert +Martien, of Newark, New Jersey, who at the time of Bessemer's address +was working at the plant of the Ebbw Vale Iron Works, in South Wales, +secured a provisional patent a few days before Bessemer obtained one of +his series of patents for making cast steel, a circumstance which +provided ammunition for those who wished to dispute Bessemer's somewhat +spectacular claims. William Kelly, an ironmaster of Eddyville, +Kentucky, brought into action by an American report of Bessemer's +British Association paper, opposed the granting of a United States +patent to Bessemer and substantiated, to the satisfaction of the +Commissioner of Patents, his claim to priority in the "air boiling" +process. + +A third man, this one a Scot resident in England, intervened to claim +that he had devised the means whereby Martien's and Bessemer's ideas +could be made practical. He was Robert Mushet of Coleford, +Gloucestershire, a metallurgist and self-appointed "sage" of the +British iron and steel industry who also was associated with the Ebbw +Vale Iron Works as a consultant. He, like his American contemporaries, +has become established in the public mind as one upon whom Henry +Bessemer was dependent for the origin and success of his process. Since +Bessemer was the only one of the group to make money from the expansion +of the steel industry consequent upon the introduction of the new +technique, the suspicion has remained that he exploited the inventions +of the others, if indeed he did not steal them. + +In this study, based largely upon the contemporary discussion in the +technical press, the relation of the four men to each other is +re-examined and an attempt is made to place the controversy of +1855-1865 in focus. The necessity for a reappraisal arises from the +fact that today's references to the origin of Bessemer steel[2] often +contain chronological and other inaccuracies arising in many cases from +a dependence on secondary and sometimes unreliable sources. As a +result, Kelly's contribution has, perhaps, been overemphasized, with +the effect of derogating from the work of another American, Alexander +Lyman Holley, who more than any man is entitled to credit for +establishing Bessemer steel in America.[3] + + [2] See especially material distributed by the American Iron and + Steel Institute in connection with its celebration of the + centennial of Steel: "Steel centennial (1957), press + information," prepared by Hill and Knowlton, Inc., and released + by the Institute as of May 1, 1957. + + [3] Holley's work is outside the scope of this paper. Belatedly, + his biography is now being written. It can hardly fail to + substantiate the contention that during his short life + (1832-1882) Holley, who negotiated the purchase of the American + rights to Bessemer's process, also adapted his methods to the + American scene and laid a substantial part of the foundation for + the modern American steel industry. + + +Steel Before the 1850's + +In spite of a rapid increase in the use of machines and the +overwhelming demand for iron products for the expanding railroads, the +use of steel had expanded little prior to 1855. The methods of +production were still largely those of a century earlier. Slow +preparation of the steel by cementation or in crucibles meant a +disproportionate consumption of fuel and a resulting high cost. +Production in small quantities prevented the adoption of steel in uses +which required large initial masses of metal. Steel was, in fact, a +luxury product. + +The work of Reaumur and, especially, of Huntsman, whose development of +cast steel after 1740 secured an international reputation for +Sheffield, had established the cementation and crucible processes as +the primary source of cast steel, for nearly 100 years. Josiah Marshall +Heath's patents of 1839, were the first developments in the direction +of cheaper steel, his process leading to a reduction of from 30 to 40 +percent in the price of good steel in the Sheffield market.[4] Heath's +secret was the addition to the charge of from 1 to 3 percent of +carburet of manganese[5] as a deoxidizer. Heath's failure to word his +patent so as to cover also his method of producing carburet of +manganese led to the effective breakdown of that patent and to the +general adoption of his process without payment of license or royalty. +In spite of this reduction in the cost of its production, steel +remained, until after the midpoint of the century, an insignificant +item in the output of the iron and steel industry, being used +principally in the manufacture of cutlery and edge tools. + + [4] Andrew Ure, _Dictionary of arts, manufactures and mines_, New + York, 1856, p. 735. + + [5] See abridgement of British patent 8021 of 1839 quoted by + James S. Jeans, _Steel_, London, 1880, p. 28 ff. It is not clear + that Heath was aware of the precise chemical effect of the use of + manganese in this way. + +The stimulus towards new methods of making steel and, indeed, of making +new steels came curiously enough from outside the established industry, +from a man who was not an ironmaster--Henry Bessemer. The way in which +Bessemer challenged the trade was itself unusual. There are few cases +in which a stranger to an industry has taken the risk of giving a +description of a new process in a public forum like a meeting of the +British Association for the Advancement of Science. He challenged the +trade, not only to attack his theories but to produce evidence from +their own plants that they could provide an alternative means of +satisfying an emergent demand. Whether or not Bessemer is entitled to +claim priority of invention, one can but agree with the ironmaster who +said:[6] "Mr. Bessemer has raised such a spirit of enquiry throughout +... the land as must lead to an improved system of manufacture." + + [6] _Mining Journal_, 1857, vol. 27, p. 465. + + +Bessemer and his Competitors + +Henry Bessemer (1813-1898), an Englishman of French extraction, was the +son of a mechanical engineer with a special interest in metallurgy. His +environment and his unusual ability to synthesize his observation and +experience enabled Bessemer to begin a career of invention by +registering his first patent at the age of 25. His active experimenting +continued until his death, although the public record of his results +ended with a patent issued on the day before his seventieth birthday. A +total of 117 British patents[7] bear his name, not all of them, by any +means, successful in the sense of producing a substantial income. +Curiously, Bessemer's financial stability was assured by the success of +an invention he did not patent. This was a process of making bronze +powder and gold paint, until the 1830's a secret held in Germany. +Bessemer's substitute for an expensive imported product, in the then +state of the patent laws, would have failed to give him an adequate +reward if he had been unable to keep his process secret. To assure this +reward, he had to design, assemble, and organize a plant capable of +operation with a minimum of hired labor and with close security +control. The fact that he kept the method secret for 40 years, suggests +that his machinery[8] (Bessemer describes it as virtually automatic in +operation) represented an appreciation of coordinated design greatly in +advance of his time. His experience must have directly contributed to +his conception of his steel process not as a metallurgical trick but as +an industrial process; for when the time came, Bessemer patented his +discovery as a process rather than as a formula. + + [7] _Sir Henry Bessemer, F.R.S., an autobiography_, London, 1905, + p. 332. + + [8] _Ibid._, p. 59 ff. + +In the light of subsequent developments, it is necessary to consider +Bessemer's attitude toward the patent privilege. He describes his +secret gold paint as an example of "what the public has had to pay for +not being able to give ... security to the inventor" in a situation +where the production of the material "could not be identified as having +been made by any particular form of mechanism."[9] The inability to +obtain a patent over the method of production meant that the disclosure +of his formula, necessary for patent specification, would openly invite +competitors, including the Germans, to evolve their own techniques. +Bessemer concludes:[10] + + Had the invention been patented, it would have become public + property in fourteen years from the date of the patent, after which + period the public would have been able to buy bronze powder at its + present [_i.e._, _ca._ 1890] market price, viz. from two shillings + and three pence to two shillings and nine pence per pound. But this + important secret was kept for about thirty-five years and the + public had to pay excessively high prices for twenty-one years + longer than they would have done had the invention become public + property in fourteen years, as it would have been if patented. Even + this does not represent all the disadvantages resulting from secret + manufacture. While every detail of production was a profound + secret, there were no improvements made by the outside public in + any one of the machines employed during the whole thirty-five + years; whereas during the fourteen years, if the invention had been + patented, there would, in all probability have been many improved + machines invented and many novel features applied to totally + different manufactures. + + [9] _Ibid._, p. 82. + + [10] _Ibid._, p. 83. + +While these words, to some extent, were the rationalizations of an old +man, Bessemer's career showed that his philosophy had a practical +foundation; and, if this was indeed his belief, the episode explains in +large measure Bessemer's later insistence on the legal niceties of the +patent procedure. The effect of this will be seen. + +Bessemer's intervention in the field of iron and steel was preceded by +a period of experiments in the manufacture of glass. Here Bessemer +claims to have made glass for the first time in the open hearth of a +reverberatory furnace.[11] His work in glass manufacture at least gave +him considerable experience in the problems of fusion under high +temperatures and provided some support for his later claim that in +applying the reverberatory furnace to the manufacture of malleable iron +as described in his first patent of January 1855, he had in some manner +anticipated the work of C. W. Siemens and Emil Martin.[12] + + [11] _Ibid._, p. 108 ff. + + [12] _Ibid._, p. 141. Bessemer's assertion that he had approached + "within measurable distance" of anticipating the Siemens-Martin + process, made in a paper presented at a meeting of the American + Society of Mechanical Engineers (_Transactions of the American + Society of Mechanical Engineers_, 1897, vol. 28, p. 459), evoked + strong criticism of Bessemer's lack of generosity (_ibid._, p. + 482). One commentator, friendly to Bessemer, put it that + "Bessemer's relation to the open-hearth process was very much + like Kelly's to the Bessemer process.... Although he was + measurably near to the open-hearth process, he did not follow it + up and make it a commercial success...." (_ibid._, p. 491). + +The general interest in problems of ordnance and armor, stimulated by +the Crimean War (1854-1856), was shared by Bessemer, whose ingenuity +soon produced a design for a projectile which could provide its own +rotation when fired from a smooth-bore gun.[13] Bessemer's failure to +interest the British War Office in the idea led him to submit his +design to the Emperor Napoleon III. Trials made with the encouragement +of the Emperor showed the inadequacy of the cast-iron guns of the +period to deal with the heavier shot; and Bessemer was presented with a +new problem which, with "the open mind which derived from a limited +knowledge of the metallurgy of war," he attacked with impetuosity. +Within three weeks of his experiments in France, he had applied for a +patent for "Improvements in the Manufacture of Iron and Steel."[14] +This covered the fusion of steel with pig or cast iron and, though this +must be regarded as only the first practical step toward the Bessemer +process,[15] it was his experiments with the furnace which provided +Bessemer with the idea for his later developments. + + [13] British patent 2489, November 24, 1854. + + [14] Bessemer, _op. cit._ (footnote 7), p. 137 He received + British patent 66, dated January 10, 1855. + + [15] See James W. Dredge, "Henry Bessemer 1813-1898," + _Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers_, + 1898, vol. 19, p. 911. + +These were described in his patent dated October 17, 1855 (British +patent 2321). This patent is significant to the present study because +his application for an American patent, based on similar +specifications, led to the interference of William Kelly and to the +subsequent denial of the American patent.[16] In British patent 2321 +Bessemer proposed to convert his steel in crucibles, arranged in a +suitable furnace and each having a vertical tuyere, through which air +under pressure was forced through the molten metal. As Dredge[17] +points out, Bessemer's association of the air blast with the increase +in the temperature of the metal "showed his appreciation of the end in +view, and the general way of attaining it, though his mechanical +details were still crude and imperfect." + + [16] See U.S. Patent Office, Decision of Commissioner of Patents, + dated April 13, 1857, in Kelly vs. Bessemer Interference. This is + further discussed below (p. 42). + + [17] Dredge, _op. cit._ (footnote 15), p. 912. + +[Illustration: Figure 1.--BESSEMER'S DESIGN FOR A CONVERTER, AS SHOWN +IN U.S. PATENT 16082. This patent, dated November 11, 1856, corresponds +with British patent 356, dated February 12, 1856. The more familiar +design of converter appeared first in British patent 578, March 1, +1860. The contrast with Kelly's schematic drawing in Fig. 2 (p. 42) is +noticeable.] + +Experiments were continued and several more British patents were +applied for before Bessemer made his appearance before the British +Association on August 13, 1856.[18] Bessemer described his first +converter and its operation in some detail. Although he was soon to +realize that he "too readily allowed myself to bring my inventions +under public notice,"[19] Bessemer had now thrown out a challenge which +eventually had to be taken up, regardless of the strength of the vested +interests involved. The provocation came from his claims that the +product of the first stage of the conversion was the equivalent of +charcoal iron, the processes following the smelting being conducted +without contact with, or the use of, any mineral fuel; and that further +blowing could be used to produce any quality of metal, that is, a steel +with any desired percentage of carbon. Yet, the principal irritant to +the complacency of the ironmaster must have been Bessemer's attack on +an industry which had gone on increasing the size of its smelting +furnaces, thus improving the uniformity of its pig-iron, without +modifying the puddling process, which at best could handle no more than +400 to 500 pounds of iron at a time, divided into the "homeopathic +doses" of 70 or 80 pounds capable of being handled by human labor.[20] +Bessemer's claim to "do" 800 pounds of metal in 30 minutes against the +puddling furnace's output of 500 pounds in two hours was calculated to +arouse the opposition of those who feared the loss of capital invested +in puddling furnaces and of those who suspected that their jobs might +be in jeopardy. The ensuing criticism of Bessemer has to be +interpreted, therefore, with this in mind; not by any means was it +entirely based on objective consideration of the method or the +product.[21] + + [18] Bessemer's paper was reported in _The Times_, London, August + 14, 1856. By the time the Transactions of the British Association + were prepared for publication, the controversy aroused by + Bessemer's claim to manufacture "malleable iron and steel without + fuel" had broken out and it was decided not to report the paper. + Dredge (_op. cit._, footnote 15, p. 915) describes this decision + as "sagacious." + + [19] Bessemer, _op. cit._ (footnote 7), p. 164. + + [20] _The Times_, London, August 14, 1856. + + [21] David Mushet recognized that Bessemer's great feature was + this effort to "raise the after processes ... to a level + commensurate with the preceding case" (_Mining Journal_, 1856, p. + 599). + +Within a month of his address, Bessemer had sold licenses to several +ironmasters (outside Sheffield) and so provided himself with capital +with which to continue his development work; but he refused to sell his +patents outright to the Ebbw Vale Iron Works and by this action, as +will be seen, he created an enemy for himself. + +The three years between 1856 and 1859, when Bessemer opened his own +steel works in Sheffield, were occupied in tracing the causes of his +initial difficulties. There was continued controversy in the technical +press. Bessemer (unless he used a _nom-de-plume_) took no part in it +and remained silent until he made another public appearance before the +Institution of Civil Engineers in London (May 1859). By this time +Bessemer's process was accepted as a practical one, and the claims of +Robert Mushet to share in his achievement was becoming clamorous. + + +Robert Mushet + +Robert (Forester) Mushet (1811-1891), born in the Forest of Dean, +Gloucestershire, of a Scots father (David, 1772-1847) himself a noted +contributor to the metallurgy of iron and steel, is, like the American +William Kelly, considered by many to have been a victim of Bessemer's +astuteness--or villainy. Because of Robert Mushet's preference for the +quiet of Coleford, many important facts about his career are lacking; +but even if his physical life was that of a recluse, his frequent and +verbose contributions to the correspondence columns of the technical +press made him well-known to the iron trade. It is from these letters +that he must be judged. + +In view of his propensity to intervene pontifically in every discussion +concerning the manufacture of iron and steel, it is somewhat surprising +that he refrained from comment on Bessemer's British Association +address of August 1856 for more than fourteen months. The debate was +opened over the signature of his brother David who shared the family +facility with the pen.[22] Recognizing Bessemer's invention as a +"congruous appendage to [the] now highly developed powers of the blast +furnace" which he describes as "too convenient, too powerful and too +capable of further development to be superseded by any retrograde +process," David Mushet greeted Bessemer's discovery as "one of the +greatest operations ever devised in metallurgy."[23] A month later, +however, David Mushet had so modified his opinion of Bessemer as to +come to the conclusion that the latter "must indeed be classed with the +most unfortunate inventors." He gave as his reason for this turnabout +his discovery that Joseph Martien had demonstrated his process of +"purifying" metal successfully and had indeed been granted a +provisional patent a month before Bessemer. The sharp practice of +Martien's patent lawyer, Mushet claimed, had deprived him of an +opportunity of proving priority of invention against Bessemer. Mushet +was convinced that Martien's was the first in the field.[24] + + [22] See _Mining Journal_, 1857, vol. 27, pp. 839 and 855. David + Mushet withdrew from the discussion after 1858 and his relapse + into obscurity is only broken by an appeal for funds for the + family of Henry Cort. A biographer of the Mushets is of the + opinion that Robert Mushet wrote these letters and obtained + David's signature to them (Fred M. Osborn, _The story of the + Mushets_, London, 1952, p. 44, footnote). The similarity in the + style of the two brothers is extraordinary enough to support this + idea. If this is so, Robert Mushet who disagreed with himself as + "Sideros" was also in controversy with himself writing as + "David." + + [23] _Mining Journal_, 1856, vol. 26, p. 567. + + [24] _Ibid._, pp. 631 and 647. The case of Martien will be + discussed below (p. 36). David Mushet had overlooked Bessemer's + patent of January 10, 1855. + +Robert Mushet's campaign on behalf of his own claims to have made the +Bessemer process effective was introduced in October 1857, two years +after the beginning of Bessemer's experiment and after one year of +silence on Bessemer's part. Writing as "Sideros"[25] he gave credit to +Martien for "the great discovery that pig-iron can, whilst in the fluid +state, be purified ... by forcing currents of air under it ...," though +Martien had failed to observe the use of temperature by the "deflation +of the iron itself"; and for discovering that-- + + when the carbon has been all, or nearly all, dissipated, the + temperature increases to an almost inconceivable extent, so that + the mass, when containing only as much carbon as is requisite to + constitute with it cast steel ... still retains a perfect degree of + fluidity. + + [25] _Mining Journal_, 1857, vol. 27, p. 723. Robert Mushet was a + constant correspondent of the _Mining Journal_ from 1848. The + adoption of a pseudonym, peculiar apparently to 1857-1858 (see + _Dictionary of national biography_, vol. 39, p. 429), enabled him + to carry on two debates at a time and also to sing his own + praises. + +This, says "Sideros," was no new observation; "it had been before the +metallurgical world, both practical and scientific, for centuries," but +Bessemer was the first to show that this generation of heat could be +attained by blowing cold air through the melted iron. Mushet goes on to +show, however, that the steel thus produced by Bessemer was not +commercially valuable because the sulphur and phosphorous remained, and +the dispersion of oxide of iron through the mass "imported to it the +inveterate hot-short quality which no subsequent operation could +expel." "Sideros" concludes that Bessemer's discovery was "at least for +a time" now shelved and arrested in its progress; and it had been left +"to an individual of the name of Mushet" to show that if "fluid +metallic manganese" were combined with the fluid Bessemer iron, the +portion of manganese thus alloyed would unite with the oxygen of the +oxide and pass off as slag, removing the hot-short quality of the iron. +Robert Mushet had demonstrated his product to "Sideros" and had +patented his discovery, though "not one print, literary or scientific, +had condescended to notice it." + +"Sideros" viewed Mushet's discovery as a "spark amongst dry faggots +that will one day light up a blaze which will astonish the world when +the unfortunate inventor can no longer reap the fruits of his life-long +toil and unflinching perseverance." In an ensuing letter he[26] summed +up the situation as he saw it: + +Nothing that Mr. Mushet can hereafter invent can entitle him to the +merit of Mr. Bessemer's great discovery ... and ... nothing that Mr. +Bessemer may hereafter patent can deprive Mr. Robert Mushet of having +been the first to remove the obstacles to the success of Mr. Bessemer's +process. + + [26] _Ibid._, p. 823. Mushet's distinction between an inventor + and a patentee is indicative of the disdain of a son of David + Mushet for an amateur (see also p. 886). + +Bessemer still did not intervene in the newspaper discussion; nor had +he had any serious supporters, at least in the early stage.[27] + + [27] One William Green had commented extensively on David + Mushet's early praise of the Bessemer process and on his sudden + reversal in favor of Martien soon after Bessemer's British + Association address (_Mechanics' Magazine_, 1856, vol. 65, p. 373 + ff.). Green wrote from Caledonian Road, and the proximity to + Baxter House, Bessemer's London headquarters, suggests the + possibility that Green was writing for Bessemer. + +Publication in the _Mining Journal_ of a list of Mushet's patents,[28] +evidently in response to Sideros' complaint, now presented Bessemer +with notice of Robert Mushet's activity, even if he had not already +observed his claims as they were presented to the Patent Office. +Mushet, said the _Mining Journal_-- + + appears to intend to carry on his researches from the point where + Mr. J. G. Martien left off and is proceeding on the Bessemer plan + of patenting each idea as it occurs to his imaginative brain. He + proposes to make both iron and steel but does not appear to have + quite decided as to the course of action ... to accomplish his + object, and therefore claims various processes, some of which are + never likely to realize the inventor's expectations, although + decidedly novel, whilst others are but slight modification of + inventions which have already been tried and failed. + + [28] _Mining Journal_, 1857, vol. 27, p. 764. + +The contemporary attitude is reflected in another comment by the +_Mining Journal_:[29] + + Although the application of chemical knowledge to the manufacture + of malleable iron cannot fail to produce beneficial results, the + quality of the metal depends more upon the mechanical than the + chemical processes.... Without wishing in any way to discourage the + iron chemists, we have no hesitation in giving this as our opinion + which we shall maintain until the contrary be actually proved. With + regard to steel, there may be a large field for chemical research + ... however, we believe that unless the iron be of a nature adapted + for the manufacture of steel by ordinary processes, the purely + chemical inventions will only give a metal of a very uniform + quality. + + [29] _Ibid._, p. 764. + +Another correspondent, William Green, was of the opinion that Mushet's +"new compounds and alloys," promised well as an auxiliary to the +Bessemer process but that "the evil which it was intended to remove was +more visionary than real." Bessemer's chief difficulty was the +phosphorus, not the oxide of iron "as Mr. Mushet assumes." This, +Bessemer no doubt would deal with in due course, but meanwhile he did +well "to concentrate his energies upon the steel operations," after +which he would have time to tackle "the difficulties which have so far +retarded the iron operations."[30] + + [30] _Ibid._, p. 791. + +Mushet[31] claims to have taken out his patent of September 22, 1856, +covering the famous "triple compound," after he-- + + had fully ascertained, upon the ordinary scale of manufacture that + air-purified cast-iron, when treated as set forth in my + specifications, would afford tough malleable iron ... I found, + however, that the remelting of the coke pig-iron, in contact with + coke fuel, hardened the iron too much, and it became evident that + an air-furnace was more proper for my purpose ... [the + difficulties] arose, not from any defect in my process, but were + owing to the small quantity of the metal operated upon and the + imperfect arrangement of the purifying vessel, which ought to be so + constituted that it may be turned upon an axis, the blast taken + off, the alloy added and the steel poured out through a spout ... + _Such a purifying vessel Mr. Bessemer has delineated in one of his + patents._ + + [31] _Ibid._, p. 770 (italics supplied). + +Mushet also claimed to have designed his own "purifying and mixing" +furnace, of 20-ton capacity, which he had submitted to the Ebbw Vale +Iron Works "many months ago," without comment from them. There is an +intriguing reference to the painful subject of two patents not +proceeded with, and not discussed "in the avaricious hope that the +parties connected with the patents will make me honorable amends ... +these patents were suppressed without my knowledge or consent." Lest +his qualifications should be questioned, Mushet concludes: + + I do not profess to be an iron chemist, but I have undoubtedly made + more experiments upon the subject of iron and steel than any man + now living and I am thereby enabled to say that all I know is but + little in comparison with what has yet to be discovered. + +So began Mushet's claim to have solved Bessemer's problem, a claim +which was to fill the correspondence columns of the engineering +journals for the next ten years. Interpretation of this correspondence +is made difficult by our ignorance of the facts concerning the control +of Mushet's patents. These have to be pieced together from his +scattered references to the subject. + +His experiments were conducted, at least nearly up to the close of the +year 1856, with the cooperation of Thomas Brown of the Ebbw Vale Iron +Works.[32] The price of this assistance was apparently half interest in +Mushet's patents, though for reasons which Mushet does not explain the +deed prepared to effect the transfer was never executed.[33] Mushet +continued, however, to regard the patents as "wholly my own, though at +the same time, I am bound in honor to take no unfair advantage of the +non-execution of that deed." A possible explanation of this situation +may be found in Ebbw Vale's activities in connection with Martien and +Bessemer, as well as with an Austrian inventor, Uchatius. + + [32] _Ibid._, p. 770. + + [33] _Ibid._, p. 823. + + +Ebbw Vale and the Bessemer Process + +After his British Association address in August 1856, Bessemer had +received applications from several ironmasters for licenses, which were +issued in return for a down payment and a nominal royalty of 25 pence +per ton. Among those who started negotiations was Mr. Thomas Brown of +Ebbw Vale Iron Works, one of the largest of the South Wales plants. He +proposed, however, instead of a license, an outright purchase of +Bessemer's patents for L50,000. Bessemer refused to sell, and according +to his[34] account-- + + intense disappointment and anger quite got the better of [Brown] + and for the moment he could not realize the fact of my refusal.... + [He then] left me very abruptly, saying in an irritated tone ... + "I'll make you see the matter differently yet" and slammed the door + after him. + + [34] Bessemer, _op. cit._ (footnote 7), p. 169. + +David Mushet's advocacy of Martien's claim to priority over Bessemer +has already been noticed (p. 33). From him we learn[35] that Martien's +experiments leading to his patent of September 15, 1855, had been +carried out at the Ebbw Vale Works in South Wales, where he engaged in +"perfecting the Renton process."[36] Martien's own process consisted in +passing air through metal as it was run in a trough from the furnace +and before it passed into the puddling furnace. + + [35] _Mining Journal_, 1856, vol. 26, p. 631. + + [36] James Renton's process (U.S. patent 8613, December 23, 1851) + had been developed at Newark, New Jersey, in 1854. It was a + modification of the puddling furnace, in which the ore and carbon + were heated in tubs, utilizing the waste heat of the + reverberatory furnace (see the _Mechanics' Magazine_, vol. 62, p. + 246, 1855). Renton died at Newark in September 1856 (_Mechanics' + Magazine_, 1856, vol. 65, p. 422). + +It is known that Martien's patent was in the hands of the Ebbw Vale +Iron Works by March 1857.[37] This fact must be added to our knowledge +that Mushet's patent of September 22, 1856 was drawn up with a specific +reference to the application of his "triple compound" to "iron ... +purified by the action of air, in the manner invented by Joseph Gilbert +Martien,"[38] and that this and his other manganese patents were under +the effective control of Ebbw Vale. It seems a reasonable deduction +from these circumstances that Brown's offer to buy out Bessemer and his +subsequent threat were the consequences of a determination by Ebbw Vale +to attack Bessemer by means of patent infringement suits. + + [37] _Mining Journal_, 1857, vol. 27, p. 193. + + [38] British patent 2219, September 22, 1856. + +Some aspects of the Ebbw Vale situation are not yet explained. Martien +came to South Wales from Newark, New Jersey, where he had been manager +of Renton's Patent Semi-Bituminous Coal Furnace, owned by James Quimby, +and where he had something to do with the installation of Renton's +first furnace in 1854. The first furnace was unsuccessful.[39] Martien +next appears in Britain, at the Ebbw Vale Iron Works. No information is +available as to whether Martien's own furnace was actually installed at +Ebbw Vale, although as noted above, David Mushet claims to have been +invited to see it there. + + [39] Joseph P. Lesley, _The iron manufacturer's guide_, New York, + 1859, p. 34. Martien's name is spelled Marteen. A description of + the furnace is given in _Scientific American_ of February 11, + 1854, (vol. 9, p. 169). In the patent interference proceedings + referred to below, it was stated that the furnace was in + successful operation in 1854. + +Martien secured an American patent for his process in 1857 and to file +his application appears to have gone to the United States, where he +remained at least until October 1858.[40] He seems to have taken the +opportunity to apply for another patent for a furnace similar to that +of James Renton. This led to interferences proceedings in which Martien +showed that he had worked on this furnace at Bridgend, Glamorganshire +(one of the Ebbw Vale plants), improving Renton's design by increasing +the number of "deoxydizing tubes." This variation in Renton's design +was held not patentable, and in any case Renton's firm was able to show +that they had successfully installed the furnace at Newark in +1852-1853, while Martien could not satisfy the Commissioner that his +installation had been made before September 1854. Priority was +therefore awarded to Quimby, Brown, Renton, and Creswell.[41] + + [40] U.S. patent 16690, February 22, 1857. A correspondent of the + _Mining Journal_ (1858, vol. 28, p. 713) states that Martien had + not returned to England by October 1858. + + [41] U.S. Patent Office, Decision of Commissioner of Patents, + dated May 26, 1859 in the matter of interference between the + application of James M. Quimby and others ... and of Joseph + Martien. + +Since Renton had not patented his furnace in Great Britain, Martien's +use of his earlier knowledge of Renton's work and of his experience at +Bridgend in an attempt to upset Renton's priority is a curious and at +present unexplainable episode. Perhaps the early records of the Ebbw +Vale Iron Works, if they exist, will show whether this episode was in +some way linked to the firm's optimistic combination of the British +patents of Martien and Mushet. + +That Ebbw Vale exerted every effort to find an alternative to +Bessemer's process is suggested, also, by their purchase in 1856 of the +British rights to the Uchatius process, invented by an Austrian Army +officer. The provisional patent specifications, dated October 1, 1855, +showed that Uchatius proposed to make cast steel directly from pig-iron +by melting granulated pig-iron in a crucible with pulverized "sparry +iron" (siderite) and fine clay or with gray oxide of manganese, which +would determine the amount of carbon combining with the iron. This +process, which was to prove commercially successful in Great Britain +and in Sweden but was not used in America,[42] appeared to Ebbw Vale to +be something from which, "we can have steel produced at the price +proposed by Mr. Bessemer, notwithstanding the failure of his process to +fulfil the promise."[43] + + [42] J. S. Jeans, _op. cit._ (footnote 5), p. 108. The process is + not mentioned by James M. Swank, _History of the manufacture of + iron in all ages_, Philadelphia, American Iron and Steel + Association, 1892. + + [43] _Mining Journal_, 1856, vol. 26, p. 707. + +So far as is known only one direct attempt was made, presumably +instigated by Ebbw Vale, to enforce their patents against Bessemer, who +records[44] a visit by Mushet's agent some two or three months before a +renewal fee on Mushet's basic manganese patents became payable in 1859. +Bessemer "entirely repudiated" Mushet's patents and offered to perform +his operations in the presence of Mushet's lawyers and witnesses at the +Sheffield Works so that a prosecution for infringement "would be a very +simple matter." That, he says, was the last heard from the agent or +from Mushet on the subject.[45] The renewal fee was not paid and the +patents were therefore abandoned by Ebbw Vale and their associates, a +fact which did not come to Mushet's knowledge until 1861, when he +himself declared that the patent "was never in my hands at all [so] +that I could not enforce it."[46] + + [44] Bessemer, _op. cit._ (footnote 7), p. 290. + + [45] The American Iron and Steel Institute's "Steel centennial + (1957) press information" (see footnote 2), includes a pamphlet, + "Kelly lighted the fireworks ..." by Vaughn Shelton (New York, + 1956), which asserts (p. 12) that Bessemer paid the renewal fee + and became the owner of Mushet's "vital" patent. + + [46] Robert Mushet, _The Bessemer-Mushet process_, Cheltenham, + 1883, p. 24; _The Engineer_, 1861, vol. 12, pp. 177 and 189. + +Further support for the thesis that Ebbw Vale's policy was in part +dictated by a desire to make Bessemer "see the matter differently" is +to be found in the climatic episode. Work on Martien's patents had not +been abandoned and in 1861 certain patents were taken out by George +Parry, Ebbw Vale's furnace manager. These, represented as improvements +of Martien's designs, were regarded by Bessemer as clear infringements +of his own patents.[47] When it came to Bessemer's knowledge that Ebbw +Vale was proposing to "go to the public" for additional capital with +which to finance, in part, a large scale working of Parry's process, he +threatened the financial promoter with injunctions and succeeded in +opening negotiations for a settlement. All the patents "which had been +for years suspended" over Bessemer were turned over to him for L30,000. +Ebbw Vale, thereupon, issued their prospectus[48] with the significant +statement that the directors "have agreed for a license for the +manufacture of steel by the Bessemer process which, from the peculiar +resources they possess, they will be enabled to produce in very large +quantities...." So Bessemer became the owner of the Martien and Parry +patents. Mushet's basic patents no longer existed. + + [47] _The Engineer_, 1862, vol. 14, p. 3. Bessemer, _op. cit._ + (footnote 7), p. 296. + + [48] _Mining Journal_, 1864, vol. 34, p. 478. + + +Mushet and Bessemer + +That Mushet was "used" by Ebbw Vale against Bessemer is, perhaps, only +an assumption; but that he was badly treated by Ebbw Vale is subject to +no doubt. Mushet's business capacity was small but it is difficult to +believe that he could have been so foolish as to assign an interest in +his patents to Ebbw Vale without in some way insuring his right of +consultation about their disposition. He claims that even in the +drafting of his specifications he was obliged to follow die demands of +Ebbw Vale, which firm, believing, "on the advice of Mr. Hindmarsh, the +most eminent patent counsel of the day,"[49] that Martien's patent +outranked Bessemer's, insisted that Mushet link his process to +Martien's. This, as late as 1861, Mushet believed to be in effective +operation.[50] His later repudiation of the process as an absurd and +impracticable patent process "possessing neither value nor utility"[51] +may more truly represent his opinion, especially as, when he wrote his +1861 comment, he still did not know of the disappearance of his +patents. + + [49] _The Engineer_, 1861, vol. 12, p. 189. + + [50] _Ibid._, p. 78. + + [51] Mushet, _op. cit._ (footnote 46), p. 9. + +Mushet's boast[52] that he had never been into an ironworks other than +his own in Coleford is a clue to the interpretation of his behavior in +general and also of his frequent presumptuous claims. When, for +instance, the development of the Uchatius process was publicized, he +gave his opinion[53] that the process was a useless one and had been +patented before Uchatius "understood its nature"; yet later[54] he +could claim that the process was "in fact, my own invention and I had +made and sold the steel thus produced for some years previously to the +date of Captain Uchatius' patent". Moreover, he claims to have +instructed Uchatius' agents in its operation! He may, at this later +date, have recalled his challenge (the first of many such) in which he +offered Uchatius' agent in England to pay a monetary penalty if he +could not show a superior method of producing "sound serviceable cast +steel from British coke pig-iron, _on the stomic plan_ and without any +mixture of clay, oxide of manganese or any of these pot destroying +ingredients."[55] + + [52] _Ibid._, p. 25. + + [53] _Mining Journal_, 1857, vol. 27, p. 755. + + [54] Mushet, _op. cit._ (footnote 46), p. 28. The Uchatius + process became the "You-cheat-us" process to Mushet (_Mining + Journal_, 1858, vol. 28, p. 34). + + [55] _Mining Journal_, 1857, vol. 27, p. 755 (italics supplied). + +It was David Mushet (or Robert, using his brother's name)[56] who +accused Bessemer, or rather his patent agent, Carpmael, of sharp +practice in connection with Martien's specification, an allegation +later supported by Martien's first patent agent, Avery.[57] The story +was that for the drafting of his final specification, Martien, +presumably with the advice of the Ebbw Vale Iron Works, consulted the +same Carpmael, as "the leading man" in the field. The latter advised +that the provisional specification restricted Martien to the +application of his method to iron flowing in a channel or gutter from +the blast furnace, and so prevented him from applying his aeration +principle in any kind of receptacle. In effect, Carpmael was acting +unprofessionally by giving Bessemer the prior claim to the use of a +receptacle. According to Mushet, Martien had in fact "actually and +publicly proved" his process in a receptacle and not in a gutter, so +that his claim to priority could be maintained on the basis of the +provisional specification. + + [56] See footnote 22. + + [57] _Mining Journal_, 1856, vol. 26, pp. 583, 631. + +This, like other Mushet allegations, was ignored by Bessemer, and +probably with good reason. At any rate, Martien's American patent is in +terms similar to those of the British specification; he or his advisers +seem to have attached no significance to the distinction between a +gutter and a receptacle. + +Mushet's claim to have afforded Bessemer the means of making his own +process useful is still subject to debate. Unfortunately, documentation +of the case is almost wholly one sided, since his biggest publicizer +was Mushet himself. An occasional editorial in the technical press and +a few replies to Mushet's "lucubrations" are all the material which +exists, apart from Bessemer's own story. + +Mushet and at least five other men patented the use of manganese in +steel making in 1856; his own provisional specification was filed +within a month of the publication of Bessemer's British Association +address in August 1856. So it is strange that Robert Mushet did not +until more than a year later join in the controversy which followed +that address.[58] In one of his early letters he claims to have made of +"his" steel a bridge rail of 750 pounds weight; although his brother +insists that he saw the same rail in the Ebbw Vale offices in London in +the spring of 1857, when it was presented as a specimen of Uchatius +steel![59] Robert Mushet's indignant "advertisement" of January 5, +1858,[60] reiterating his parentage of this sample, also claimed a +double-headed steel rail "made by me under another of my patent +processes," and sent to Derby to be laid down there to be "subjected to +intense vertricular triturations." Mushet's description of the +preparation of this ingot[61] shows that it was derived from "Bessemer +scrap" made by Ebbw Vale in the first unsuccessful attempts of that +firm to simulate the Bessemer process. This scrap Mushet had remelted +in pots with spiegel in the proportions of 44 pounds of scrap to 3 of +melted spiegel. It was his claim that the rail was rolled direct from +the ingot, something Bessemer himself could not do at that time. + + [58] October 17, 1857, writing as "Sideros" (_Mining Journal_, + 1857, vol. 27, p. 723). + + [59] _Mining Journal_, 1857, vol. 27, p. 871, and 1858, vol. 28, + p. 12. + + [60] _Ibid._ (1858), p. 34. + + [61] Mushet, _op. cit._ (footnote 46), p. 12. The phrase quoted + is typical of Mushet's style. + +This was the beginning of a series of claims by Mushet as to his +essential contributions to Bessemer's invention. The silence of the +latter during this period is impressive, for according to Bessemer's +own account[62] his British Association address was premature, and +although the sale of licenses actually provided him with working funds, +the impatience of those experimenting with the process and the flood of +competing "inventions" all embarrassed him at the most critical stage +of this development of the process: "It was, however, no use for me to +argue the matter in the press. All that I could say would be mere talk +and I felt that action was necessary, and not words."[63] + + [62] Bessemer, _op. cit._ (footnote 7), pp. 161 ff. and 256 ff. + + [63] _Ibid._, p. 171. + +Action took the form of continued experiments and, by the end of 1857, +a decision to build his own plant at Sheffield.[64] An important +collateral development resulted from the visit to London in May 1857 of +G. F. Goransson of Gefle, Sweden. Using Bessemer equipment, Goransson +began trials of the process in November 1857 and by October 1858 was +able to report: "Our firm has now entirely given up the manufacture of +bar iron, and our blast furnaces and tilt mills are now wholly employed +in making steel by the Bessemer process, which may, therefore, be now +considered an accomplished commercial fact."[65] + + [64] This enterprise, started in conjunction with Galloway's of + Manchester, one of the firms licensed by Bessemer to make his + equipment, was under way by April 1858 (see _Mining Journal_, + 1858, vol. 28, p. 259). + + [65] _Mining Journal_, 1858, vol. 28, p. 696. Mushet commented + (p. 713) that he had done the same thing "eighteen months ago." + +Goransson was later to claim considerable improvements on the method of +introducing the blast, and, in consequence, the first effective +demonstration of the Bessemer method[66]--this at a time when Bessemer +was still remelting the product of his converter in crucibles, after +granulating the steel in water. If Mushet is to be believed, this +success of Goransson's was wholly due to his ore being "totally free +from phosphorous and sulphur."[67] However, Bessemer's own progress was +substantial, for his Sheffield works were reported as being in active +operation in April 1859, and a price for his engineers' tool and +spindle steel was included in the _Mining Journal_ "Mining Market" +weekly quotations for the first time[68] on June 4, 1859. + + [66] Swank, _op. cit._ (footnote 42), p. 405. + + [67] _The Engineer_, 1859, vol. 7, p. 350. + + [68] _Mining Journal_, 1859, vol. 29, pp. 396 and 401. The price + quotation was continued until April 1865. + +In May 1859 Bessemer gave a paper, his first public pronouncement since +August 1856, before the Institution of Civil Engineers.[69] The early +process, he admitted, had led to failure because the process had not +reduced the quantity of sulphur and phosphorous, but his account is +vague as to the manner in which he dealt with this problem: + + Steam and pure hydrogen gas were tried, with more or less success + in the removal of sulphur, and various flues, composed chiefly of + silicates of the oxide of iron and manganese were brought in + contact with the fluid metal, during the process and the quantity + of phosphorous was thereby reduced. + + [69] _The Engineer_, 1859, vol. 7, p. 437. + +But the clear implication is that the commercial operation at Sheffield +was based on the use of the best Swedish pig iron and the hematite pig +from Workington. The use of manganese as standard practice at this time +is not referred to,[70] but the rotary converter and the use of +ganister linings are mentioned for the first time. + + [70] Jeans, _op. cit._ (footnote 5), p. 349 refers to the + hematite ores of Lancashire and Cumberland as "the ores hitherto + almost exclusively used in the Bessemer process." + + A definitive account of the Swedish development of the Bessemer + process, leading to a well-documented claim that the first + practical realization of the process was achieved in Sweden in + July 1858, was recently published (Per Carlberg, "Early + Production of Bessemer Steel at Edsken," _Journal of the Iron and + Steel Institute, Great Britain_, July 1958, vol. 189, p. 201). + +Mushet had, with some intuition, found opportunity to reassert his +contributions to Bessemer a few days before this address, describing +his process as perhaps lacking "the extraordinary merit of Mr. +Bessemer," being "merely a vigorous offshoot proceeding from that great +discovery; but, combined with Mr. Bessemer's process, it places within +the reach of every iron manufacturer to produce cast steel at the same +cost for which he can now make his best iron."[71] + + [71] _The Engineer_, 1859, vol. 7, p. 314. Bessemer's intention + to present his paper had been announced in April. + +One of Mushet's replies to the paper itself took the form of the +announcement of his provisional patent for the use of his triple +compound which, in the opinion of _The Mining Journal_ appeared to be +"but a very slight modification of several of Mr. Bessemer's +inventions." Another half dozen patents appeared within two months, "so +that it is apparent that Mr. Mushet's failure to make the public +appreciate his theories has not injured his inventive faculties."[72] +These patents include, besides variations on his "triple compound" +theme, his important patent on the use of tungsten for cutting tools, +later to be known as Mushet steel.[73] + + [72] _Mining Journal_, 1859, vol. 29, p. 539 and 640. Another + Mushet patent is described as so much like Uchatius' process that + it would seem to be almost unpatentable. + + [73] See Jeans, _op. cit._ (footnote 5), p. 532. + +Mushet's formal pronouncement on Bessemer's paper, dated June 28, 1859, +is perhaps his most intelligible communication on the subject. He alone +"from the first consistently advocated the merits and pointed out the +defects of the Bessemer process," and within a few days of the British +Association address he had shown Ebbw Vale "where the defect would be +found and what would remedy" it. It was not, in fact, the presence of +one-tenth of a percent of sulphur or phosphorous which affected the +result if the Bessemer process were combined with his process by adding +a triple compound of iron, carbon, and manganese to the pig. "There +never was a bar of first-rate cast steel made by the Bessemer process +alone"; (and that included Goransson's product) "and there never can +be, but a cheap kind of steel applicable to several purposes may be +thus produced." After emphasizing the uniqueness of his attempt to make +Bessemer's process successful, he asserts:[74] + + In short, I merely availed myself of a great metallurgical fact, + _which has been for years_ before the eyes of the metallurgical + world, namely that the presence of metallic manganese in iron and + steel conferred upon both an amount of toughness either when cold + or when heated, which the presence at the same time of a notable + amount of sulphur and phosphorous could not overcome. + + [74] _The Engineer_, 1859, vol. 8, p. 13 (italics supplied). It + is noted that Mushet's American patent (17389, of May 26, 1857) + prefers the use of iron "as free as possible from Sulphur and + Phosphorous." + +The succeeding years were enlivened, one by one, by some controversy in +which Mushet invoked the shadow of his late father as support for some +pronouncement, or "edict," as some said, on the subject of making iron +and steel. In 1860, on the question of suitable metal for artillery, +later to be the subject of high controversy among the leading experts +of the day, Mushet found a ready solution in his own gun metal. This he +had developed fifteen years before. It was of a tensile strength better +even than that of Krupp of Essen who was then specializing in the +making of large blocks of cast steel for heavy forgings, and +particularly for guns. Indeed, he was able publicly to challenge Krupp +to produce a cast gun metal or cast steel to stand test against +his.[75] A year later his attack on the distinguished French +metallurgist Fremy, whom he describes as an "ass" for his interest in +the so-called cyanogen process of steel making, did little to enhance +his reputation, whatever the scientific justification for his attack. +His attitude toward the use of New Zealand (Taranaki) metalliferous +sand, which he had previously favored and then condemned in such a way +as to "injure a project he can no longer control,"[76] was another +example of a public behavior evidently resented. + + [75] _The Engineer_, 1860, vol. 9, pp. 366, 416, and _passim_. + + [76] _The Engineer_, 1861, vol. 11, pp. 189, 202, 290, 304. + +By mid-1861, on the other hand, Bessemer was beginning to meet with +increasing respect from the trade. The Society of Engineers received a +dispassionate account of the achievement at the Sheffield Works from E. +Riley, whose firm (Dowlais) was among the earlier and disappointed +licensees of the process.[77] In August 1861, five years after the +ill-fated address before the British Association, the Institution of +Mechanical Engineers, meeting in Sheffield, the center of the British +steel trade, heard papers from Bessemer and from John Brown, a famous +ironmaster. The latter described the making of Bessemer rails, the +product which above all was to absorb the Bessemer plants in America +after 1865. After the meeting, the engineers visited Bessemer's works; +and later it was reported,[78] "at Messrs. John Brown and Company's +works, the Bessemer process was repeated on a still larger scale and a +heavy armor plate rolled in the presence of some 250 visitors...." + + [77] _The Engineer_, 1861, vol. 12, p. 10. + + [78] _Ibid._, p. 63. + +These proceedings invited Robert Mushet's intervention. Still under the +impression that his patent was still alive and, with Martien's, in the +"able hands" of the Ebbw Vale Iron Company, he condemned Bessemer for +his "lack of grace" to do him justice, and took the occasion to indict +the patent system which denied him and Martien the fruits of their +labors.[79] + + [79] _Ibid._, pp. 78 and 177. + +_The Engineer_ found Mushet's position untenable on the very grounds he +was pleading--that patents should not be issued to different men at +different times for the same thing; and showed that Bessemer in his +patents of January 4, 1856, and later, had clearly anticipated Mushet. +In a subsequent article, _The Engineer_ disposed of Martien's and +Mushet's claims with a certain finality. The Ebbw Vale Iron Works had +spent L7,000 trying to carry out the Martien process and it was +unlikely that they would have allowed Bessemer to infringe upon that +patent if they had any grounds for a case. Bessemer was not imitating +Mushet. The latter's "triple compound" required manganese pig-iron +(with a content of 2 to 5 percent of manganese) at L13 per ton while +Bessemer used an oxide of manganese (at a 50 percent concentration): at +L7 per ton. + + The alloy of manganese and other materials now used in the + atmospheric process contains 50 percent of manganese a proportion + which could never be obtained from the blast furnace, owing to the + highly oxidisable nature of that metal. And it is absolutely + necessary, in order to apply any useful alloy of iron, carbon and + manganese, in the manufacture of malleable iron and very soft steel + that the manganese should be largely in excess of the carbon + present.[80] + + [80] _Ibid._, p. 208. There is an intriguing reference in this + editorial to an interference on behalf of Martien against a + Bessemer application for a U.S. patent. No dates are given and + the case has not been located in the record of U.S. Patent + Commissioner's decision. + +Sufficient answer to Mushet was at any rate available in the fact that +many hundreds of tons of excellent "Bessemer metal" made without any +mixture of manganese or spiegeleisen in any form were in successful +use. And, moreover, spiegeleisen was not a discovery of Robert Mushet +or an exclusive product of Germany since it had been made for twenty +years at least from Tow Law (Durham) ores. If Bessemer had refused +Mushet a license (and this was an admitted fact), Bessemer's refusal +must have been made in self-defense: + + Mr. Mushet having set up a number of claims for "improvements" upon + which claims, we have a right to suppose, he was preparing to take + toll from Mr. Bessemer, but which claims, the latter gentleman + discovered, in time, were worthless and accordingly declined any + negotiations with the individual making them.[81] + + [81] _Ibid._, p. 254. + +Mushet's claims were by this time rarely supported in the periodicals. +One interesting article in his favor came in 1864 from a source of +special interest to the American situation. Mushet's American +patent[82] had been bought by an American group interested in the Kelly +process at about this time,[83] and Bessemer's American rights had also +been sold to an American group that included Alexander Lyman +Holley,[84] who had long been associated with Zerah Colburn, another +American engineer. Colburn, who subsequently (1866) established the +London periodical _Engineering_ and is regarded as one of the founders +of engineering journalism, was from 1862 onward a frequent contributor +to other trade papers in London. Colburn's article of 1864[85] seems to +have been of some importance to Mushet, who, in the prospectus of the +Titanic Steel and Iron Company, Ltd., issued soon after, brazenly +asserted[86] that, "by the process of Mr. Mushet _especially when in +combination with the Bessemer process_, steel as good as Swedish steel" +would be produced at L6 per ton. Mushet may have intended to invite a +patent action, but evidently Bessemer could now more than ever afford +to ignore the "sage of Coleford." + + [82] U.S. patent 17389, dated May 26, 1857. The patent was not + renewed when application was made in 1870, on the grounds that + the original patent had been made co-terminal with the British + patent. The latter had been abandoned "by Mushet's own fault" so + that no right existed to an American renewal (U.S. Patent Office, + Decision of Commissioner of Patents, dated September 19, 1870). + + [83] See below, p. 45. The exact date of the purchase of Mushet's + patent is not known. + + [84] _Engineering_, 1882, vol. 33, p. 114. The deal was completed + in 1863. + + [85] _The Engineer_, 1864, vol. 18, pp. 405, 406. + + [86] _Mining Journal_, 1864, vol. 34, pp. 77 and 94 (italics + supplied). It has not yet been possible to ascertain if this + company was successful. Mushet writes from this time on from + Cheltenham, where the company had its offices. Research continues + in this interesting aspect of his career. + +The year 1865 saw Mushet less provocative and more appealing; as for +instance: "It was no fault of Mr. Bessemer's that my patent was lost, +but he ought to acknowledge his obligations to me in a manly, +straightforward manner and this would stamp him as a great man as well +as a great inventor."[87] + + [87] _Mining Engineer_, 1865, vol. 35, p. 86. + +But Bessemer evidently remained convinced of the security of his own +patent position. In an address before the British Association at +Birmingham in September 1865 he made his first public reply to +Mushet.[88] In his long series of patents Mushet had attempted to +secure-- + + almost every conceivable mode of introducing manganese into the + metal.... Manganese and its compounds were so claimed under all + imaginable conditions that if this series of patents could have + been sustained in law, it would have been utterly impossible for + [me] to have employed manganese with steel made by his process, + although it was considered by the trade to be impossible to make + steel from coke-made iron without it. + + [88] _The Engineer_, 1865, vol. 20, p. 174. + +The failure of those who controlled Mushet's batch of patents to renew +them at the end of three years, Bessemer ascribed to the low public +estimation to which Mushet's process had sunk in 1859, and he had +therefore, "used without scruple any of these numerous patents for +manganese without feeling an overwhelming sense of obligation to the +patentee." He was now using ferromanganese made in Glasgow. Another +alloy, consisting of 60 to 80 percent of metallic manganese was also +available to him from Germany. + +This renewed publicity brought forth no immediate reply from Mushet, +but a year later he was invited to read a paper before the British +Association. A report on the meeting stated that in his paper he +repeated his oft-told story, and that "he still thought that the +accident (of the non-payment of the patent stamp duties) ought not to +debar him from receiving the reward to which he was justly entitled." +Bessemer, who was present, reiterated his constant willingness to +submit the matter to the courts of law, but pointed out that Mushet had +not accepted the challenge.[89] + + [89] _Mechanics' Magazine_, 1866, vol. 16, p. 147. + +Three months later, in December 1866, Mushet's daughter called on +Bessemer and asked his help to prevent the loss of their home: "They +tell me you use my father's inventions and are indebted to him for your +success." Bessemer replied characteristically: + + I use what your father has no right to claim; and if he had the + legal position you seem to suppose, he could stop my business by an + injunction tomorrow and get many thousands of pounds compensation + for my infringement of his rights. The only result which followed + from your father taking out his patents was that they pointed out + to me some rights which I already possessed, but of which I was not + availing myself. Thus he did me some service and even for this + unintentional service, I cannot live in a state of indebtedness.... + +With that he gave Miss Mushet money to cover a debt for which distraint +was threatened.[90] Soon after this action, Bessemer made Mushet a +"small allowance" of L300 a year. Bessemer's reasons for making this +payment, he describes as follows: "There was a strong desire on my part +to make him (Mushet) my debtor rather than the reverse, and the payment +had other advantages: the press at that time was violently attacking my +patent and there was the chance that if any of my licensees were thus +induced to resist my claims, all the rest might follow the +example."[91] + + [90] Bessemer, _op. cit._ (footnote 7), p. 294. + + [91] _Ibid._ + +Mushet's Titanic Steel and Iron Company was liquidated in 1871 and its +principal asset, "R. Mushet's special steel," that is, his tungsten +alloy tool metal, was taken over by the Sheffield firm of Samuel Osborn +and Company. The royalties from this, with Bessemer's pension seem to +have left Mushet in a reasonably comfortable condition until his death +in 1891;[92] but even the award of the Bessemer medal by the Iron and +Steel Institute in 1876 failed to remove the conviction that he had +been badly treated. One would like to know more about the politics +which preceded the award of the trade's highest honor. Bessemer at any +rate was persuaded to approve of the presentation and attended the +meeting. Mushet himself did not accept the invitation, "as I may +probably not be then alive."[93] The President of the Institute +emphasized the present good relations between Mushet and Bessemer and +the latter recorded that the hatchet had "long since" been buried. Yet +Mushet continued to brood over the injustice done to him and eventually +recorded his story of the rise and progress of the "Bessemer-Mushet" +process in a pamphlet[94] written apparently without reference to his +earlier statements and so committing himself to many inconsistencies. + + [92] See Fred M. Osborn, _The story of the Mushets_, London, + 1852. + + [93] _Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute_, 1876, p. 3. + + [94] Robert Mushet, _The Bessemer-Mushet process_, Cheltenham, + 1883. + + +William Kelly's "Air-boiling" Process + +An account of Bessemer's address to the British Association was +published in the _Scientific American_ on September 13, 1856.[95] On +September 16, 1856, Martien filed application for a U.S. patent on his +furnace and Mushet for one on the application of his triple compound to +cast iron "purified or decarbonized by the action of air blown or +forced into ... its particles while it is in a molten ... state."[96] +Mushet, by this time, had apparently decided to generalize the +application of his compound instead of citing its use in conjunction +with Martien's process, or, as he put it, he had been obliged to do for +his English specification by the Ebbw Vale Iron Works. + + [95] _Scientific American_, 1856, vol. 12, p. 6. + + [96] U.S. patent 17389, dated May 26, 1857. Martien's U.S. patent + was granted as 16690, dated February 24, 1857. + +[Illustration: Figure 2.--ONLY KNOWN DESIGN FOR KELLY'S AIR-BOILING +FURNACE, FROM U.S. PATENT 17628. _A_ is "the flue to carry off the +carbonic gas formed in decarbonizing the iron," _B_ is the port through +which the charge of fluid iron is received, _C_ and _C'_ are the +tuyeres, and _D_ is the tap hole for letting out the refined metal.] + +The discussion in the _Scientific American_, which was mostly concerned +with Martien's claim to priority, soon evoked a letter from William +Kelly. Writing under date of September 30, 1856, from the Suwanee Iron +Works, Eddyville, Kentucky, he claimed to have started "a series of +experiments" in November 1851 which had been witnessed by hundreds of +persons and "discussed amongst the ironmasters, etc., of this section, +all of whom are perfectly familiar with the whole principle ... as +discovered by me nearly five years ago." A number of English puddlers +had visited him to see his new process. "Several of them have since +returned to England and may have spoken of my invention there." Kelly +expected "shortly to have the invention perfected and bring it before +the public."[97] + + [97] _Scientific American_, 1856, vol. 12, p. 43, Kelly's + suggestion of piracy of his ideas was later enlarged upon by his + biographer John Newton Boucher, _William Kelly: A true history + of the so-called Bessemer process_, Greensburg, Pennsylvania, + 1924. + +Bessemer's application for an American patent was granted during the +week ending November 18, 1856, and Kelly began his interference +proceedings sometime before January 1857.[98] + + [98] _Ibid._, p. 82. Kelly's notice of his intention to take + testimony was addressed to Bessemer on January 12, 1857. See + papers on "Interference, William Kelly vs. Henry Bessemer + Decision April 13, 1857." U.S. Patent Office Records. Quotations + below are from this file, which is now permanently preserved in + the library of the U.S. Patent Office. + +Kelly's witnesses were almost wholly from the ranks of employees or +former employees. The only exception was Dr. Alfred H. Champion, a +physician of Eddyville. Dr. Champion describes a meeting in the fall of +1851 with "two or three practical Ironmasters and others" at which +Kelly described his process and invited all present to see it in +operation. He stated: + + The company present all differed in opinion from Mr. Kelly and + appealed to me as a chemist in confirmation of their doubts. I at + once decided that Mr. Kelly was correct in his Theory and then went + on to explain the received opinion of chemists a century ago on + this subject, and the present received opinion which was in direct + confirmation of the novel theory of Mr. Kelly. I also mentioned the + analogy of said Kelly's process in decarbonising iron to the + process of decarbonising blood in the human lungs. + +The Doctor does not say, specifically, if he or any of the "company" +went to see the process in operation. + +Kelly obtained affidavits from another seventeen witnesses. Ten of +these recorded their recollections of experiments conducted in 1847. +Five described the 1851 work. Two knew of or had seen both. One of the +last group was John B. Evans who became forge manager of Kelly's Union +Forge, a few miles from Suwanee. This evidence is of interest since a +man in his position should have been in a position to tell something +about the results of Kelly's operations in terms of usable metal. +Unfortunately, he limits himself to a comment on the metal which had +chilled around a tuyere which had been sent back to the Forge ("it was +partly malleable and partly refined pig-iron") and to an account of a +conversation with others who had worked some of Kelly's "good wrought +iron" made by the new process. + +Only one of the witnesses (William Soden) makes a reference to the +phenomenon which is an accompaniment of the blowing of a converter: the +prolonged and violent emission of sparks and flames which startled +Bessemer in his first use of the process[99] and which still provides +an exciting, if not awe-inspiring, interlude in a visit to a steel +mill. Soden refers, without much excitement, to a boiling commotion, +but the results of Kelly's "air-boiling" were, evidently, not such as +to impress the rest of those who claimed to have seen his furnace in +operation. Only five of the total of eighteen of the witnesses say that +they witnessed the operations. Soden, incidentally, knew of seven +different "air-boiling" furnaces, some with four and some with eight +tuyeres, but he also neglected to report on the use of the metal. + + [99] Bessemer, _op. cit._ (footnote 7), p. 144. + +As is well known, Kelly satisfied the Acting Commissioner that he had +"made this invention and showed it by drawings and experiment as early +as 1847," and he was awarded priority by the Acting Commissioner's +decision of April 13, 1857, and U.S. Patent 17628 was granted him as of +June 23, 1857. The _Scientific American_ sympathized with Bessemer's +realization that his American patent was "of no more value to him than +so much waste paper" but took the opportunity of chastising Kelly for +his negligence in not securing a patent at a much earlier date and +complained of a patent system which did not require an inventor to make +known his discovery promptly. The journal advocated a "certain fixed +time" after which such an inventor "should not be allowed to subvert a +patent granted to another who has taken proper measures to put the +public in possession of the invention."[100] + + [100] _Scientific American_, 1857, vol. 12, p. 341. + +Little authentic is known about Kelly's activities following the grant +of his patent. His biographer[101] does not document his statements, +many of which appear to be based on the recollections of members of +Kelly's family, and it is difficult to reconcile some of them with what +few facts are available. Kelly's own account of his invention,[102] +itself undated, asserts that he could "refine fifteen hundredweight of +metal in from five to ten minutes," his furnace "supplying a cheap +method of making run-out metal" so that "after trying it a few days we +entirely dispensed with the old and troublesome run-out fires."[103] +This statement suggests that Kelly's method was intended to do just +this; and it is not without interest to note that several of his +witnesses in the Interference proceedings, refer to bringing the metal +"to nature," a term often used in connection with the finery furnace. +If this is so, his assumption that he had anticipated Bessemer was +based on a misapprehension of what the latter was intending to do, that +is, to make steel. + + [101] Boucher, _op. cit._ (footnote 97). + + [102] U.S. Bureau of the Census, _Report on the manufacturers + of the United States at the tenth census (June 1, 1880) ..., + Manufacture of iron and steel_, report prepared by James M. + Swank, special agent, Washington, 1883, p. 124. Mr. Swank was + secretary of the American Iron and Steel Association. This + material was included in his _History of the manufacture of iron + in all ages_, Philadelphia, 1892, p. 397. + + [103] _Ibid._, p. 125. The run-out fire (or "finery" fire) was a + charcoal fire "into which pig-iron, having been melted and + partially refined in one fire, was run and further refined to + convert it to wrought iron by the Lancashire hearth process," + according to A. K. Osborn, _An encyclopaedia of the iron and + steel industry_, New York, 1956. + +This statement leaves the reader under the impression that the process +was in successful use. It is to be contrasted with the statement quoted +above (page 43), dated September 1856, when the process had, clearly, +not been perfected. In this connection, it should be noted that in the +report on the Suwanee Iron Works, included in _The iron manufacturer's +guide_,[104] it is stated that "It is at this furnace that Mr. Kelly's +process for refining iron in the hearth has been most fully +experimented upon." + + [104] J. P. Lesley, _op. cit._ (footnote 39), p. 129. The preface + is dated April 6, 1859. The data was largely collected by Joseph + Lesley of Philadelphia, brother of the author, during a tour of + several months. Since Suwanee production is given for 44 weeks + only of 1857 (_i.e._, through November 4 or 5, 1857) it is + concluded that Lesley's visit was in the last few weeks of 1857. + +A major financial crisis affected United States business in the fall of +1857. It began in the first week of October and by October 31 the +_Economist_ (London) reported that the banks of the United States had +"almost universally suspended specie payment."[105] Kelly was involved +in this crisis and his plant was closed down. According to Swank,[106] +some experiments were made to adapt Kelly's process to need of rolling +mills at the Cambria Iron Works in 1857 and 1858, Kelly himself being +at Johnstown, at least in June 1858. That the experiments were not +particularly successful is suggested by the lack of any American +contributions to the correspondence in the English technical journals. +Kelly was not mentioned as having done more than interfere with +Bessemer's first patent application. The success of the latter in +obtaining patents[107] in the United States in November 1856, covering +"the conversion of molten crude iron ... into steel or malleable iron, +without the use of fuel ..." also escaped the attention of both English +and American writers. + + [105] _Economist_ (London), 1857, vol. 15, pp. 1129, 1209. + + [106] Swank, _op. cit._ (footnote 42), p. 125. John Fritz, in his + _Autobiography_ (New York, 1912, p. 162), refers to experiments + during his time at Johnstown, _i.e._, between June 1854 and July + 1860. _The iron manufacturer's guide_ (see footnote 104) also + refers to Kelly's process as having "just been tried with great + success" at Cambria. + + [107] U.S. patents 16082, dated November 11, 1856, and 16083, + dated November 18, 1856. Bessemer's unsuccessful application + corresponded with his British patent 2321, of 1855 (see footnote + 98). + +It was not until 1861 that the question arose as to what happened to +Kelly's process. The occasion was the publication of an account of +Bessemer's paper at the Sheffield meeting of the (British) Society of +Mechanical Engineers on August 1, 1861. Accepting the evidence of "the +complete industrial success" of Bessemer's process, the _Scientific +American_[108] asked: "Would not some of our enterprising manufacturers +make a good operation by getting hold of the [Kelly] patent and +starting the manufacture of steel in this country?" + + [108] _Scientific American_, 1861, new ser., vol. 5, pp. 148-153. + +There was no response to this rhetorical question, but a further +inquiry as to whether the Kelly patent "could be bought"[109] elicited +a response from Kelly. Writing from Hammondsville, Ohio, Kelly[110] +said, in part: + + I would say that the New England states and New York would be sold + at a fair rate.... I removed from Kentucky about three years ago, + and now reside at New Salisbury about three miles from + Hammondsville and sixty miles from Pittsburg. Accept my thanks for + your kind efforts in endeavoring to draw the attention of the + community to the advantages of my process. + + [109] _Ibid._, p. 310. + + [110] _Ibid._, p. 343. + +This letter suggests that the Kelly process had been dormant since +1858. Whether or not as a result of the publication of this letter, +interest was resumed in Kelly's experiments. Captain Eber Brock Ward of +Detroit and Z. S. Durfee of New Bedford, Massachusetts, obtained +control of Kelly's patent. Durfee himself went to England in the fall +of 1861 in an attempt to secure a license from Bessemer. He returned to +the United States in the early fall of 1862, assuming that he was the +only "citizen of the United States" who had even seen the Bessemer +apparatus.[111] + + [111] His claim is somewhat doubtful. Alexander Lyman Holley, who + was later to be responsible for the design of most of the first + Bessemer plants in the United States had been in England in 1859, + 1860, and 1862. In view of his interest in ordnance and armor, it + is unlikely that Bessemer could have escaped his alert + observation. His first visit specifically in connection with the + Bessemer process appears to have been in 1863, but he is said to + have begun to interest financiers and ironmasters in the Bessemer + process after his visit in 1862 (_Engineering_, 1882, vol. 33, p. + 115). + +In June, 1862, W. F. Durfee, a cousin of Z. S. Durfee, was asked by +Ward to report on Kelly's process. The report[112] was unfavorable. +"The description of [the apparatus] used by Mr. Kelly at his abandoned +works in Kentucky satisfied me that it was not suited for an experiment +on so large a scale as was contemplated at Wyandotte [Detroit]." Since +it was "confidently expected that Z. S. Durfee would be successful in +his efforts to purchase [Bessemer's patents], it was thought only to be +anticipating the acquisition of property rights ... to use such of his +inventions as best suited the purpose in view." + + [112] W. F. Durfee: "An account of the experimental steel works + at Wyandotte, Michigan," _Transactions of the American Society of + Mechanical Engineers_, 1884, vol. 6, p. 40 ff. + +Thus the first "Bessemer" plant in the United States came into being +without benefit of a license and supported only by a patent "not +suited" for a large experiment. Kelly seems to have had no part in +these developments. They took some time to come to formation. Although +the converter was ready by September 1862, the blowing engine was not +completed until the spring of 1864 and the first "blow" successfully +made in 1864. It may be no more than a coincidence that the start of +production seems to have been impossible before the arrival in this +country of a young man, L. M. Hart, who had been trained in Bessemer +operations at the plant of the Jackson Brothers at St. Seurin (near +Bordeaux) France. The Jacksons had become Bessemer's partners in +respect of the French rights; and the recruitment of Hart suggests the +possibility that it was from this French source that Z. S. Durfee +obtained his initial technical data on the operation of the Bessemer +process.[113] + + [113] Research in the French sources continues. The arrival of L. + M. Hart at Boston is recorded as of April 1, 1864, his ship being + the SS _Africa_ out of Liverpool, England (Archives of the United + States, card index of passenger arrivals 1849-1891 list No. 39). + +During the organization of the plant at Wyandotte, Kelly was called +back to Cambria, probably by Daniel J. Morrell, who, later, became a +partner with Ward and Z. S. Durfee in the formation of the Kelly +Pneumatic Process Company.[114] We learn from John E. Fry,[115] the +iron moulder who was assigned to help Kelly, that-- + + in 1862 Mr. Kelly returned to Johnstown for a crucial, and as it + turned out, a final series of experiments by him with a rotative + [Bessemer converter] _made abroad and imported for his purpose_. + This converter embodied in its materials and construction several + of Mr. Bessemer's patented factors, of which, up to the close of + Mr. Kelly's experiments above noted, he seemed to have no knowledge + or conception. And it was as late as on the occasion of his return + in 1862, to operate the experimental Bessemer converter, that he + first recognized, by its adoption, the necessity for or the + importance of any after treatment of, or additions required by the + blown metal to convert it into steel. + + [114] Swank, _op. cit._ (footnote 42), p. 409. + + [115] _Johnstown Daily Democrat_, souvenir edition, autumn 1894 + (italics supplied). Mr. Fry was at the Cambria Iron Works from + 1858 until after 1882. + +Fry later asserted[116] that Kelly's experiments in 1862 were simply +attempts to copy Bessemer's methods. (The possibility is under +investigation that the so-called "pioneer converter" now on loan to the +U.S. National Museum from the Bethlehem Steel Company, is the +converter referred to by Fry.) + + [116] _Engineering_, 1896, vol. 61, p. 615. + +William Kelly, in effect, disappeared from the record until 1871 when +he applied for an extension of his patent of June 23, 1857. The +application was opposed (by whom, the record does not state) on the +grounds that the invention was not novel when it was originally issued, +and that it would be against the public interest to extend its term. +The Commissioner ruled that,[117] on the first question, it was settled +practice of the Patent Office not to reconsider former decisions on +questions of fact; the novelty of Kelly's invention had been +re-examined when the patent was reissued in November 1857. Testimony +showed that the patent was very valuable; and that Kelly "had been +untiring in his efforts to introduce it into use but the opposition of +iron manufacturers and the amount of capital required prevented him +from receiving anything from his patent until within very few years +past." Kelly's expenditures were shown to have amounted to $11,500, +whereas he had received only $2,400. Since no evidence was filed in +support of the public interest aspect of the case, the Commissioner +found no substantial reason for denying the extension; indeed "very few +patentees are able to present so strong grounds for extension as the +applicant in the case." + + [117] See U.S. Patent Office, Decision of Commissioner of + Patents, dated June 15, 1871. + +In a similar application in the previous year, Bessemer had failed to +win an extension of his U.S. patent 16082, of November 11, 1856, for +the sole reason that his British patent with which it had been made +co-terminal had duly expired at the end of its fourteen years of life, +and it would have been inequitable to give Bessemer protection in the +United States while British iron-masters were not under similar +restraint. But if it had not been for this consideration, Bessemer +"would be justly entitled to what he asks on this occasion." The +Commissioner[118] observed: "It may be questioned whether [Bessemer] +was first to discover the principle upon which his process was founded. +But we owe its reduction to practice to his untiring industry and +perseverance, his superior skill and science and his great outlay." + + [118] U.S. Patent Office, Decision of Commissioner of Patents + dated February 12, 1870. + + +Conclusions + +Martien was probably never a serious contender for the honor of +discovering the atmospheric process of making steel. In the present +state of the record, it is not an unreasonable assumption that his +patent was never seriously exploited and that the Ebbw Vale Iron Works +hoped to use it, in conjunction with the Mushet patents, to upset +Bessemer's patents. + +The position of Mushet is not so clear, and it is hoped that further +research can eventually throw a clearer light on his relationship with +the Ebbw Vale Iron Works. It may well be that the "opinion of +metallurgists in later years"[119] is sound, and that both Mushet and +Bessemer had successfully worked at the same problem. The study of +Mushet's letters to the technical press and of the attitude of the +editors of those papers to Mushet suggests the possibility that he, +too, was used by Ebbw Vale for the purposes of their attacks on +Bessemer. Mushet admits that he was not a free agent in respect of +these patents, and the failure of Ebbw Vale to ensure their full life +under English patent law indicates clearly enough that by 1859 the firm +had realized that their position was not strong enough to warrant a +legal suit for infringement against Bessemer. Their purchase of the +Uchatius process and their final attempt to develop Martien's ideas +through the Parry patents, which exposed them to a very real risk of a +suit by Bessemer, are also indications of the politics in the case. +Mushet seems to have been a willing enough victim of Ebbw Vale's +scheming. His letters show an almost presumptuous assumption of the +mantle of his father; while his sometimes absurd claims to priority of +invention (and demonstration) of practically every new idea in the +manufacturing of iron and steel progressively reduced the respect for +his name. Bessemer claims an impressive array of precedents for the use +of manganese in steel making and, given his attitude to patents and his +reliance on professional advice in this respect, he should perhaps, be +given the benefit of the doubt. A dispassionate judgment would be that +Bessemer owed more to the development work of his Swedish licensees +than to Mushet. + + [119] William T. Jeans, _The creators of the age of steel_, + London, 1884. + +Kelly's right to be adjudged the joint inventor of what is now often +called the Kelly-Bessemer process is questionable.[120] Admittedly, he +experimented in the treatment of molten metal with air blasts, but it +is by no means clear, on the evidence, that he got beyond the +experimental stage. It is certain that he never had the objective of +making steel, which was Bessemer's primary aim. Nor is there evidence +that his process was taken beyond the experimental stage by the Cambria +Works. The rejection of his "apparatus" by W. F. Durfee must have been +based, to some extent at least, upon the Johnstown trials. There are +strong grounds then, for agreeing with one historian[121] who +concludes: + + The fact that Kelly was an American is evidently the principal + reason why certain popular writers have made much of an invention + that, had not Bessemer developed his process, would never have + attracted notice. Kelly's patent proved very useful to industrial + interests in this country as a bargaining weapon in negotiations + with the Bessemer group for the exchange of patent rights. + + [120] Bessemer dealt with Kelly's claim to priority in a letter + to _Engineering_, 1896, vol. 61, p. 367. + + [121] Louis C. Hunter, "The heavy industries since 1860," in H. + F. Williamson (editor), _The growth of the American economy_, New + York, 1944, p. 469. + +Kelly's suggestion[122] that some British puddlers may have +communicated his secret to Bessemer can, probably, never be verified. +All that can be said is that Bessemer was not an ironman; his contacts +with the iron trade were, so far as can be ascertained, nonexistent +until he himself invaded Sheffield. So it is unlikely that such a +secret would have been taken to him, even if he were a well-known +inventor. + + [122] Later developed into a dramatic story by Boucher, _op. + cit._ (footnote 97). + + + + + + +End of Project Gutenberg's The Beginnings of Cheap Steel, by Philip W. Bishop + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BEGINNINGS OF CHEAP STEEL *** + +***** This file should be named 29633.txt or 29633.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + https://www.gutenberg.org/2/9/6/3/29633/ + +Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +https://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at https://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit https://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + https://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |