The Irish standard., 1891-06-06
PERPETUAL MOTION PATENTS.
why tho Government stopped Taking the
Face re ft,s f.rsa ls. f9SE3$


.fE #a Fees of the Cranks- sss @ IS
The patent Office has recently ceased
to Be a party to the fraud of perpetual
motion. Until three years ago it was
customary to take first fees (Hfteen
dolIars) from the perpetual motion
cranks as well as from all other would
be inventors Then, in course Of time, a
letter was sent to the perpetual motion
applicant telling him that his claim
was based upon an irrational principle,
and that he must furnish working
model OF course, that was the end OF
the application. The model never came,
and the fee remained in the treasury.
About three years ago, says the st.
Louis Globe Democrat, Principal Ex-
aminer William L. Aughinbaugh went
to the commissioner and suggested
that, as rejection Of the perpetual mo-
tlon claim was inevitable, it would be
fairer to. refuse the first fees OF such
claimants and to send them a circular
Immediately upon the fling Of their APP
plications telling them that no consld-
Grafton would be given their papers I'M
til a working model was filed. This
course has been pursued ever since.
But repeatedly the discoverer OF per-
petual motion has been very indignant
at the rejection Of his rendered fee.
One way that has been adopted by the
cranks to get around the new rule IN
tended for their benefit is to drop the
claim of perpetual motion and put in
the drawings for a motor NotWlth-
standing the policy Of the patent office
to discourage the perpetual motion
craze and to save time and money for
people, at least two or three claims OF
this character are put in every month.
Not long ago Kansas man claimed
to have set up the perpetual motion ma
chine, and to have it in operation at his
home. He wrote TO the patent Office to
know if the affidavit of Senator Plumb
would be accepted instead OF the work
ing model as the basis for a patent.
The examiner felt obliged to refuse.
Sometimes the perpetual motion In
ventor appears with a pocket full Of
bearings and connections which he
asks the examiner to accept ais evidence
that he has solved the problem. But
the examiner insists that he must see
the perpetual motion before he grants
the patent. .5s5
Last summer a New York lawyer
named Todd came all the way to WASH
ington with parts of a machine, and had
quite a controversy with the office be-
cause the patent was refused. he III
sisted that he had seen the machine in
operation, that it was running day
after day, and keeping cider press 60
ing to boot. There. was no deviating
from the rule. The lawyer went back
to New York, saying that he would pro.
duce the machine. He was not seen
again until the centennial celebra
ton, when he reminded the ex-
aminer of the case and told how he had
been fooled. At the time of making APP
plication the lawyer really believed
that his client had discovered the long
sought principle. But when he got
back to New York and told that the
patent had been refused the client con-
fessed. The perpetual motion was nc
motion at all. Power was concealed in
the cider press. It ran the press and the
press made the perpetual motion ma
chine 20 too. The inventor had been
charging ten cents admission to see
perpetual motion. He had fooled the
public and his lawyer, and he hoped
to slip through claim.