FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   >>  
se 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
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   >>  



Top keywords:

Bessemer

 

process

 

patents

 

patent

 
making
 

experimental

 

evidence

 

strong

 

invention

 

priority


claims

 

Mushet

 

respect

 
objective
 
primary
 
Cambria
 

blasts

 

called

 

questionable

 

inventor


adjudged

 

Admittedly

 

experimented

 
treatment
 

molten

 

trials

 
attracted
 
developed
 

notice

 
proved

reason
 

popular

 
writers
 

industrial

 
interests
 

rights

 

exchange

 
letter
 

negotiations

 

country


bargaining

 
weapon
 

principal

 

evidently

 
extent
 

apparatus

 

Durfee

 

Johnstown

 
concludes
 

American