On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Lifeboats Which Can Be Launched on Either Beam To the Editor of the Scientific American: With reference to the article appearing under the above heading in your interesting journal of June 7th last, allow me to correct the statement that the ' Flushing steamers are owned by the Netherland State Railways. These steamers are owned and operated by a separate corporation, namely, the Zeeland Steamship Company. At the same time I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the devices by which lifeboats can be launched from either side of the vessel, has not only been installed on the night steamers of the Flushing line, as day steamers of this company, running between Queenboro and Flushing, have for a long time been similarly equipped. Another life-saving device has been introduced on the Flushing steamers, namely, an accumulator battery, situated near the wireless room far above the water level. In case the ship's dynamo should be stopped for any reason, its work is taken up automatically by this accumulator battery, which develops enough power to keep the wireless apparatus in operation for about eight hours after the dynamo stops. New York city. C. Bakker, General Agent. The Inventor and Price Fixing To the Editor of the Scientific American: I have read with very much gratification the article on Benefits of Our Patent System--the Difference Between Monopoly and Patent Protection, by Jesse B. Fay of Cleveland. It seems to me that no one could read this article without getting a very clear idea of the difference between the illegal monopoly and the monopoly granted by the patent system. The article excellently supplements the vindication of the patent monopoly set out in the minority report accompanying the Oldfield bill. Referring to the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States declaring that the patentee has no-right to control the price of the patented article after the ownership has passed from him, it occurs to me that there is a misconception as to what actually takes place in the sale of the patented article where the patentee fixes the final selling price. In such case, the seller retaining the right to fix the price, as has been done in safety razors and other things, it is clear to my mind that the patentee or seller has not parted with his complete title in the article. He retains enough of title in the vended articles to entitle him to say at what price the articles shall be sold. The transaction is very much akin to conditional sales, well recognized in common law, where the vendor retains title in the articles of merchandise until he has fully received his pay, and yet for all practical purposes, so far as the vendee or merchant is concerned, he has bought the goods outright, subject, of course, to this remnant of title left to the vendor. If the owner of a patent retains the right to fix the selling price, he is, in a similar manner, retaining a portion of his title that would legally give him the right to dictate the selling price. Unless the patentee is able to control the price at which Ms goods shall be sold, the value of his monopoly is gone, a fact that has been abundantly pre ven in the history of many patented articles getting into the hands of price cutters, as department stores and the like. This phase of the case, however, has been so abundantly manifested by much previous discussion that it is not necessary for me to suggest anything further. If the recent decision is final, it seems to me it is worth while for those interested in patent matters to work for restoration of the right of the patentee to fix the final selling price. C. W. Dickinson. La Crosse, Wis. The Maximum Parcel To the Editor of the Scientific American: In your number of May 17th, 1913, Mr. Joseph Becker has an interesting communication on the maximum parcel that can be accepted for transportation under the present Parcels Post regulations, which prescribe that the sum of the girth and length must not exceed 72 inches. Very likely Mr. Becker's interpretation of the regulations agrees with that of the Post Office Department, but I venture to point out that it is not consistent with the wording of the regulations, which say in measuring length the greatest distance in a straight line between the two ends of the parcel shall be taken. If we have a rectangular package and take as its length the perpendicular distance between the planes of the ends, we are using for the length not the greatest distance in a straight line between two' ends, but the least distance between the two ends. The greatest distance in a straight line between the two ends of a rectangular package is obviously the diagonal of the solid. In this case the largest rectangular package that can be accepted under the literal wording of the Parcels Post regulations is, using dimensions to three decimal places, 10.286 inches square and 27.214 inches long on an edge; the diagonal being 30.857 inches. Such a package will contain 2,879 cubic inches only. The very largest volume that can be accepted for Parcels Post transmission under the regulations will be a cylinder with spherical ends, as indicated in the inclosed sketch which gives an axial section of the solid. The diameter of the cylinder will be, to the third decimal place, 14.106 inches, and the length of the side, to the third decimal place, will W--- !?X8!?7 -- --4 I The maximum parcel. be 23.821 inches, the cubical contents being 4,032.19 inches. The problem of the maximum volume was recently printed as a puzzle in a New York newspaper, and a right cylinder with plain ends was given as a solution. This solution was open to the same objection pointed out above, namely, that for such a figure the length was not the greatest distance in a straight line between the two ends, but the least distance in a straight line between the two ends. D. W. Taylor, Washington, D. C. Naval Constructor, U.S.N. Grant Linton Replies to Mr. Hanna To the Editor of the Scientific American: Your ssue of date May 10th is at hand, containing your correspondent's criticism of my plan of aeroplane supporting surface design discussed in my letter of March 10th. Mr. Hanna claims that the sustaining force of the wire or cord constitutes of itself an element in- the equilibrium of the forces. This is indeed true; for, besides the on!l system of forces, namely, weight balanced by the vertical component of the air pressure or lift, there is the horizontal component of the air pressure or drift balanced by the sustaining cord, which latter system the writer omitted to mention in order to avoid complexing the problem. Mr. Hanna has confused these two distinct and entirely separate sets of forces. Thus, the only appreciative effect the sustaining cord could possibly exert upon the vertical system is that caused by its own weight, which of course would be negligible. Mr. Hanna challenges my assertion that the air is flowing horizontally at the forward edge of the fabric. Is it necessary to mention that when the writer used the term horizontal he did so only to indicate the general direction of the line of flow of the air stream? Whether the direction of flow were horizontal or slightly divergent from the horizontal could not have a detrimental effect upon the proper working of the fabric. Again, Mr. Hanna avers that at greater angles of incidence than 30 degrees there will be a decrease in the absolute lift of the air pressure, but an increase in the absolute drift, instead of a proportionate decrease in each case. Now we have Mr. Hanna's word for it farther down in his letter that 5 degrees is about the maximum (angle of incidence) now found in efficient aeroplanes, so that this fact then precludes the possibility of the exception cited having any effect upon the feasibility of the plan proposed. Mr. Hanna's confessed ignorance of the truth ci' my statement that in both classes of vehicles the best efficiency could only be obtained by altering the length of the cord, is hard to reconcile with his own declaration that the late A. Cary Smith, by means of a contrivance called the reach reef, which enabled the curvature of a sail to be varied manually at will, succeeded in substantially increasing the speed of a number of racing yachts. Evidently Mr. Hanna is unaware of the fact that exquisiteness of detail is just as an important matter, and more so in the design of the aeroplane than in the design of the sailing yacht, or that refinement of existing models constitutes of itself the chief hope of the student of the heavier-than-air machine. As an answer to Mr. Hanna's contradiction of my statement that full speed when once attained is as regular as that of the highest types of machinery, the writer would cite as a particular instance the performance of Vedrines, the winner of the last contest for the Gordon-Bennett Aviation Trophy, at Clearing, IlL, September 9th, commenting upon which Major Samuel Reber says: The speed at which he (Vedrines) made his fastest lap was 106.3 miles per hour, and that at which he made Ms slowest was 103.2 miles per hour; . . . the maximum percentage variation in speed made in any lap from his average speed was 1.8 per cent, or in other words, a speed regulation obtained - only in the highest types of automatic- machinery. As for the reference to reports of tests made on a Zodiac biplane, let the writer inform Mr. Hanna that the biplane is by no means acknowledged the most highly specialized type of the heavier-than-air machine; also that though the ability to vary the speed of horizontal flight within wide limits is a most desirable quality of the aeroplane, this feature (as attained at present) is only a proof of poor design, or at least of inefficient running. As an authority for the belief in the parabola as the only correct basic curve for wing sections, which Mr. Hanna takes exception to next, the writer could quote no other than the Montgomery, whom Mr. Hanna mentions so often in his letter. How Mr. Hanna could have put any other construction upon my meaning than one identical with the belief held by the gentleman himself is a mystery to the present writer. Not to further intrude upon valuable space in what would be mere reiteration, therefore, the reader is referred to the last paragraph of the letter in which the plan was originally proposed, where he will find the final answer to Mr. Hanna. When Mr. Hanna says, I have often observed a piece of fabric suspended by one edge in a current of air, and I never saw one piece rise to a sufficiently acute angle of incidence for aeroplane use without beginning to flap or undulate, he shows clearly that he has failed to grasp even the fundamental principle of the plan, for the undulating of the fabric mentioned by him obviously could occur only when the speed of the air is such that the pressure exerted by it upon the fabric is vastly greater than the weight of the fabric itself. This condition is commonly seen when Ii piece of flexible fabric (necessarily very light unless loaded) is suspended in a wind of even moderate velocity; and it is quite clear, from his own description, that this is the condition Mr. Hanna had in mind when he made the statement quoted above. Then again Mr. Hanna falls into a very grave error in assuming that, because the, upward component of the air pressure) is uniformly
