West Virginia argus. [volume] (Kingwood, W. Va.) 1877-1946, 1892-05-12
PERPETUAL MOTION PATENTS.
Svhy tho Governments stopped Taking tn
Fees OF tho Cranks.

Why tho Governments stopped Taking tho
Fees OF tho CrunkS.
The patent office has recently ceased
70 be party to the fraud of perpetual
motion. Until three yenrs ago IL was
customary to take FIRST fees" Fifteen
doliars) from the perpetual motion
cranlxs as well as from all other would
be inventors. Then. In course OF tame. n
letter was sent TO tho perpetual motion
applicant telling him that his claim
was based upon an irrational principle,
and that he must furnish working
Inodcl. OF course, that was the end of
the application. The model never c,imo,
and the fec remained in the treasury.
About three years ago, says the ST.
Louis Globe-Dcmocrat, Principal Ex-
aniner William l.. Aughinbaugh went
60 the commissioner and suggested
that, as rejection of the perpetual mo-
tion claim was inevitable, 1t would be
faircr TO refuse the first fees of such
claimants and to send them a circular
immediately upon the filing OF their APP
plicatioas telling them that no consid-
Grafton would be given their papers un-
Gil working model was fled This
course has been pursued ever since.
petunl motion has been very indignant
ut the rejection of his rendered fec
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
10 discourage the perpetual motion
n a
people, ct least two or three claims of
this character are pat in every month.
Not long ago Kansas man claimcd
TO have set up the perpetual motion ma
chine, and to have it in operation ut his
homo. lie wrote To the patent Office to
know IL the affidavit of Senator Plumb
would be accepted instead of the work.
ing model as tho basis for q patent.
The examiner felt obliged To refuse.
Sometimes the perpetual motion In
ventor appears with pocket full Of
bearings and connections which he
asks the examiner to accept rs evidence
that he has solved the problem. But
thc examiner insists that he must see
the perpetual motion before he grants
the patent.
Last summer New York lawyer
named Todd came all the way to Wash
fngton with parts of machine, and had
quite n 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 n cider press GO
ing TO boot. There was no deviating
from the rule. The lawyer went back
70 New York, saying that he would pro-
duce the machine. lie was not seen
ugain 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 no
motion Mt all. Power was concealed In
the cider press II ran the press and the
press made the perpetual motion ma
chine 90 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 Elm thrOrlOh "A claim