Daily independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 188?-1915, 1891-07-10
PERPETUAL MOTION PATENTS.

PERPETUAL MOTION PATENTS.
why the Government stopped Taking tho
hh'- - Fees OF tho Cranks- i.i... :.
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, (ifteen
dollars) from the perpetual motion
cranks as well as from all other would
be inventors. Then, in course of time,
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 En-.
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 n circular
Immediately upon the filing of their ap-
pications telling them that no consid-
Grafton would be given their papers un-
til working model was fled. 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 motor" Notwith-
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 { &
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 as evidence
that he has solved the problem. But
the examiner insists that he must see
the perpetual motion before he grants
the patent.
Last summer a New York lawyer
named Todd came all the way to Wash
ington with parts of machine, and had
quite controversy with the Office be-
cause the patent was refused. lie in
sisted that he had seen" the machine in
operation, that it was running day
after day, and keeping a cider press go
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-
amincr of the case and told how he had
been fooled. At the time of making ap-
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 no
motion at all. Power was concealed in
the cider press. 1t ran the press and the
press made the perpetual motion ma
chine go too. The inventor had been
charging ten cents admission to see
perpetual motion. He had fooled the
public and his lawyer, and he hoped
10 slip through claim.
,tyifh