Informational Site NetworkInformational Site Network
   Home - Steel Making - Categories - Manufacturing and the Economy of Machinery

Steel Making

The Theory Of Tempering
Steel that has been hardened is generally harder and more br...

Uses Of The Various Tempers Of Carbon Tool Steel
DIE TEMPER.--No. 3: All kinds of dies for deep stamping, pres...

Silicon prevents, to a large extent, defects such as gas bubb...

Air-hardening Steels
These steels are recommended for boring, turning and planing...

Furnace Data
In order to give definite information concerning furnaces, fu...

Preventing Cracks In Hardening
The blacksmith in the small shop, where equipment is usually ...

Hardening High-speed Steel
In forging use coke for fuel in the forge. Heat steel slowly ...

Preventing Carburizing By Copper-plating
Copper-plating has been found effective and must have a thick...

Properties Of Alloy Steels
The following table shows the percentages of carbon, manganes...

Tempering Colors On Carbon Steels
Opinions differ as to the temperature which is indicated by t...

Blending The Compound
Essentially, this consists of the sturdy, power-driven separa...

Impact Tests
Impact tests are of considerable importance as an indication ...

Effect Of Different Carburizing Material
[Illustrations: FIGS. 33 to 37.] Each of these different p...

William Kelly's Air-boiling Process
An account of Bessemer's address to the British Association w...

Sulphur is another impurity and high sulphur is even a greate...

There is no mystery or secret about the proper annealing of d...

Liberty Motor Connecting Rods
The requirements for materials for the Liberty motor connecti...

Brown Automatic Signaling Pyrometer
In large heat-treating plants it has been customary to mainta...

The Leeds And Northrup Potentiometer System
The potentiometer pyrometer system is both flexible and subst...

Annealing Alloy Steel
The term alloy steel, from the steel maker's point of view, r...

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

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.

Next: Mushet And Bessemer

Previous: Robert Mushet

Add to Add to Reddit Add to Digg Add to Add to Google Add to Twitter Add to Stumble Upon
Add to Informational Site Network

Viewed 3337