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.
The Phonoptikon and the Optophone To the Editor of the Scientific American : I find in your issue of August 14th an account of F. C. Browne's “Phonoptikon,” which is claimed to be an improvement on my “type-reading Optophone.” As both instruments are described as enabling totally blind persons to read ordinary type by ear, some remarks on the respective merits of the two instruments may not be out of place! The phonoptikon uses the net extra current obtained from a selenium cell mounted in a Wheatstone bridge when the cell is illuminated. This principle I adopted in my first exploring optophone (1912), but I discarded it on account of the slowness with which selenium recovers from illumination. In the Reading Optophone I use the fluctuations of current produced by intermittent illumination, and thus I reduce the effect of lag to about 1-1000 of a second. In fact, the response to light and to darkness is instantaneous. The available current is, of course,' reduced in about the same proportion, so that sensitive telephone receivers of high resistance (8,000 ohms) have to be used. The telephone relay figured in my Royal Society paper I have also discarded, as it did not respond equally to different notes. The claim to distinguish all the ordinary letters by means of only three components arranged vertically I can hardly regard as serious. In any case, I found six the minimum number, and with these all letters could be distinguished. The greatest difficulty encountered is to distinguish between “ u” and “n,” and even this was done without fail by Prof. Muirhead, of Birmingham, after 10 minutes' practice. I see no advantage in moving the receiver over the printed page instead of vice versa. The great practical difficulty is to maintain a good alinement, and in the phonoptikon as illustrated I see no contrivance' for doing so. In the optophone this is done on the typewriter principle. The two advantages which I do recognize in the phonoptikon are the absence of clockwork for producing intermittent light, and the fact that blank white paper gives no sound. On the other hand, there is a complex mechanism for current interruption; and the “ black” response, while making learning much easier, will not, in my opinion, sensibly affect expert readers. The difference is similar to that between various systems of shorthand, where ease of acquisition only tells in the first stages. Besides, it is in general more appropriate that white should give a sound, and not black. Now that the problem of ordinary reading for the blind has been seriously attacked along two different lines (and with complete success along at least one of them ), we may hope that the instruments may soon become generally available. Here in England the scarcity of Nernst lamps and high-resistance telephones, due to the war, has practically stopped the manufacture of the optophone for the present. But American inventors and manufacturers are entirely free to use its principle in any way they choose. The main point is that those dwelling in darkness should perceive the light. I am greatly interested in F. C. Browne's researches on selenium crystals, which clear up some hitherto obscure questions of theory. If these crystals are much more effective as receivers than ordinary “cells,” it will be valuable, but I find it quite possible to obtain “normal galvanometric efficiencies” of 100,000 micrometers per lumen under standard conditions (1 volt, 1 lux, and lh minute alternating exposure to light and dark) with cells provided with carbon electrodes. This is much in excess of the older results, and I should be glad to know whether the new crystals can surpass it. Yours truly, E. E. Fournier d'Alee, D. Sc. 21 Gower Street, London. September 22nd, 1915. Rules of Practice of the United States Patent Office To the Editor of the Scientific American : I was interested in reading Mr. John F. Robb's letter in your issue of the 6th inst., but 1 cannot agree with all of his criticisms of the present rules of practice of the Patent Office. First, in regard to his remarks on Rule 75 I fail to see where the public for which he pleads is concerned. Should an invention be donated to the public simply because one inventor, while describing an invention, failed to recognize or claim it, and another and earlier inventor of the same device be deprived of his rights for that reason? Under the law, one of the two inventors is entitled to a patent; is it material to the public which of them is granted the monopoly? I think not. As Mr. Robb rightly says, the omission of the claims from the first issued patent is sometimes the direct fault of the attorney; at others, however, it is because the patentee recognizes that he did not invent the particular structure shown, but, whatever the reason, the patentee must take the responsibility. Certainly neither is a reason for depriving a later applicant but earlier inventor of the fruits of his labor. Mr. Robb seems to assume that all claims coming under this rule are broader than those in the patent back of which the applicant swears. More frequently I believe the claims are on parts or combinations of elements which do not form the main subject-matter of the patent. Often, also, the patents sworn back of show part only of the combination of elements of the claims, being cited with other patents to form a full anticipation. Since the law gives the inventor two years from the date of his first public use of his invention within which to file his application, and since he is undoubtedly serving the public better if he actually reduces to practice and markets his invention instead of devoting his energies to establishing a constructive reduction to practice by filing his application and letting it lie, some such rule as Rule 75 is necessary and desirable. I find this particularly well illustrated in my administration of the Patent Department of the Packard Motor Car Company. For instance, all the energies of the Engineering Department of the company were concentrated last year on the early production of the Packard Twin-Six, and there was little opportunity to get drawings out long enough to study and from which to prepare applications. Hence many applications have been delayed in filing, but the public is benefited in that the actual reduction to practice and the marketing is an accomplished fact. Certainly there would be no equity in depriving our inventors of the right to carry their dates back to their early drawings simply because some other inventor, for instance, had used the illustrations of our car which have been published broadcast in the trade magazines, to illustrate in his patent drawings some altered construction or attachment which he had devised, and had hurried his application into and through the office. Yet without Rule 75 we would be barred and would have no redress. On the matter of multiplicity of claims I believe Mr. Robb is after the wrong class of cases. There will always be applications on large and. complicated machinery that will require a hundred or two hundred or more claims to properly cover the subject-matter. The examiners in certain classes expect that, and are not objecting. The class of cases that are objectionable are the two to ten claim cases in which the attorneys insist upon asking for fifty or a hundred claims. To place a maximum limit on the number of claims would be of very doubtful validity, and also defeat the real object by encouraging a multiplicity of claims in the smaller cases where they are most objectionable. The remedy is the one used now of rejecting a claim or series of claims on another allowed claim. The matters of oral prosecution of cases and of the form of specifications and claims do not seem to me to rightly come within the rules. The examiners frequently hold conferences with attorneys and save much time thereby. No rule is necessary to enlarge their powers in this regard. The proposals heretofore made and advocated I believe by the Scientific American to raise the standard of attorneys practising before the Patent Office by conducting examinations will do more toward raising the standard of patent specifications than prescribing rules, of doubtful validity, requiring a certain style of specification and claim writing that might fit one or a hundred cases, but that would be absolutely inapplicable to another. Let the Commissioner suggest and educate along these lines, but may he hesitate to tell us how we shall describe an invention that has not yet been made. Milton Tibbetts, Patent Counsel, Packard Motor Car Company. Detroit, Mich. The National Guard Question To the Editor of the Scientific American : In your issue of October 23rd, “ Patriot “ complains of the fact that the National Guard is subject to the duty of protecting life and property. He says very truthfully indeed that the “ regular army have proved themselves to be better able to patrol and keep order in strike districts than militia.” Certainly, in what districts are they not better able? Does he not know why? Because' they are trained officers and men, organized. Can his own organization truthfully be said to be composed of trained officers and men and really organized? No, only drilled. To what use does he propose to put the National Guard since he desires to abolish its original use ? He answers immediately, “In time of war.” But that is all he says. He cannot say that the Colorado Guard and the Texas Guard might board transports at San Francisco and proceed to Hawaii. He cannot even say that the Texas Guard might move to another: state, because the Governor of Texas, protecting his own border, might tie-up the removal of his Guard until their need was probably past. He might say that he is prepared to enter as an organization at the outbreak of war the volunteer army for which provision was made in the last Congress. Then he is, in the height of excitement, to disorganize and reorganize. Fine prospects. About six months after this entry into the Volunteers he is beginning to get organized. Why, “ Patriot,” with all these difficulties, are you not striving for an establishment that will mean something instead of looking vainly for a place in our citizen-army for one who owes his allegiance first to his union, then to the law? In the organization and plan of preservation of states it is contemplated, whether “it says so “ or not, that universal compulsory military service shall be the power and protection of the state. Collective education emanates from the organized state. Military preparedness is nothing more than military education, with its physical adjuncts. The state (whether Federal or state) provides the means and wherewithal to take the seven-year-old child and give him his education. This, mind you, first for the good of the state. So, also, should the state take the, say twenty-year-old, man and give him his, say eight months, military educa, tion. And this one continuous tour of duty. His sub, sequent assignment to reserves and so forth is a matter for the General Staff and the General Board to settle and recommend to Congress. Officers? Yes, and noncommissioned officers could be provided as they are for instance, in the Army of the French Republic. But, of cours!!, we Americans are all officers. You say, “My goodness, we would have a million men in our Army and Navy. That would be awful.” Maybe so, but there is a hundred million of us and thousands of miles of sea-coast and foreign border around this richest land on earth, not mentioning our possessions. Your National Guard, “Patriot,” is a flimsy affair, makeshift and haphazard compared with a genuine military force. It deviates from its purpose at every possible point, just as you would now have it omit its cardinal duty. In our next war all the disorganizing and reorganizing, with the help of politics, will be carried out successfully within about eight months and the war will be confined to our own country where we have so carefully planned to wage it. If you are an officer in the National Guard you are justly a patriot, for I am aware of the patriotism necessary to this labor. My respects. But let us all face the music and help secure for our country a military and naval establishment based on sound reasoning and the lessons of the past; instead of hopping first to one-fad and then another, ultimately paying the penalty for providing only expedients. As an illustration: The congressman from this district, in a letter to the writer, under date of August 11th, makes the following statement : “It seems that the battleship has been of little use in this war in Europe.” This absurd statement is made with a view of diverting money from battleships to airships and under-water craft as though one or the other should be built at the expense of the other. Citizen. Putting the Wood-Boring Larva to Work To the Editor of the Scientific American : I have noticed several times that you published articles about wood-boring animals, but' I do not remember seeing an article where such animals were put to work to achieve a practical end. The extract below from Smithsonian correspondence shows that result has been obtained, also how such work can be hastened. I would like to know if any person knows of such a method of boring a long hole, also if they can add any information to that given by Mr. Beede. Here is the extract which tells how the Sioux bore a tube for a tobacco pipe stem or musical instrument of ash wood: "They go to a dead ash tree and capture a wood boring larva found in such trees. In the stick they wish bored they remove the pith for about three inches with a bone awl. In this cage they place the larva, and to expedite its work they heat the wood below the animal. It follows the pith, cutting a round hole about one quarter of an inch in diameter. A tube so formed they consider sacred and' never enlarge its bore, and a larva so used is to them sacred ; when its work is done it is carefully returned to where they got it. Their native name for the larva is Psechte-wabluska, of brownish-black color, and a large one is about an inch long, possibly an Elaterid larva."—From the Rev. A. McG. Beede's (Sioux Co., North Dakota) letter of March 23rd, 1915. It is very hard to get information about anything an Indian considers sacred. Possibly some person among your readers may have a personal knowledge of the use of a larva in making bores. E. H. Hawley. Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum, Washington, D. C.
