Transcript of Record — DeForest Radio Co. v. General Elec. Co.

Supreme Court brief1931

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Vol. 1

3 TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD

fro

. We

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1080

Neo. 630

7 — * —

- DsFOREST RADIO COMPANY, PETITIONER,

7 vs.

". GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY —

pie: CIRCUIT

"COURT oF ee ro THE T CIRCUIT’

8 * 4

. INDEX.

PLEADINGS AND TESTIMONY. N n

&. Vol. Page?

denne te, ven Wi ens Shi via’ NW See N

t Entries in No. 598 ..... N % 14% %% d ERIE MB |

of Complaint in No. 39 eA ee

as Amended in No. 5 ũ999 Pr re oF r

t’s Bill of Particu lars eee Ves eee OD ae

5 it’s Supplemental Bill of Particulars — [[ 12

I ot Complaint in No. 5933. Ale eg

Wewer ar Amended in No: 503. ee Ce. ig ae

enen e Nen 1230

—S n ett enn

t's Prima Facie PPV en. is e

re Proofs 46 46 55353564 pres (et e ee EVE TS I 145

ndant’s Depositions ......... e een 11 959

Ars Rebuttal Proofs ...... edle .. . . ?. e koe Ae MENS

es Sur-Rebuttal Pros ) . eee e eee Sane

ie Sur-Rebuttal Pröster Bt .. .. eee 1000 III 1910

iadix to Plaintiff's Record . eee ere fe eber LIT 1940

PLAINTIFF'S PRIMA FACIE PROOFS.

a VVV a 17 ie

Mah Rath Ra 58

* U e 4. f. 5 „„ „„ „ „„ 11

„ r <

; Examination’ Shu Sa he Vuh b> oh eee

Direct Examination b\ivneasatedensvanetasnsunnsneestesttennees

5 5 e

: 22. csccisscsosvesvvecneenvecn

7 ° 4

é Direet ‘Blamination, cosnyatsereveedtesesaghssseeseeseesebenets

- Colpitts; Bawin

e .

7 * ‘ . 1

Direct e ellen eee.

* 1 ‘ . * W *

Ve Crosg-Examination ——— * el eee eeereeye ey Tite snpeee

2 ; ° 1

> * — 8

, ‘ 10

een

—

U * ®

MD bee. f.

nr *

„eee ee e e 6

„%„%%„„ „ „ „6 „ „ 6 „ „„ Pee d .

2 .

et 1 5 „ —

. *

hes - *

5 eee

0 La

27 * 1

e eee - I!

E — 0 a (ee 4.

GINS SARIN ET eee

N 5

eee,

eee

very

/ et J ‘2 6 S : 2

. uke a 74

* 8 a 92 ;

, — 1 * r . —

4 * © 8 ; a . .

‘all weal . bid

en d 1. 1 :

‘Direct Rxaminatica’ ,. 4. 4 M „ 29 Del?

Drees Examination (Resumed) . . . . 4 . l, 11

—A b e e sig 0

Milan, Robert A.— a

+. Direct Examination . ... Poy oe Libba ve aes ae

Cross: Examination ee e eee eee

Re-Direct Examination ...... Sbaseasces eee e 1

Een Harold Lee— 72 55 g

3 wel, Austin Y.—

eee

. 3 bee 3 | PLAINTIFFS REBUTTAL PROOFS. Sas

8 b N e

D „ 8

— „%%% %6%„%„ „„ ee e e III

„. ab g eee in

Examination be „„ e eee i

— — M eee eee 11

— *

Vol. Page

- Langmie, ie Oh oe Sit | . ‘

Direct Examination * 2.299 Reig: —ͤ— ** Se IE 10%

Cross-Examinatioaan 3 ee e ee Sea

Re- Direet Examination VFVTTTTVVTT cn e n woe III

f Re- Cross- Examination . 3 S ‘eset OEE 4

White, Winam C... . e Pie

Direct. Examination RVVTTTCTTVCTE . III 16

ö Cross · Examination Pera 8 ee TIL” 10

2 DEFENDANT'S SUR-REBUTTAL. PROOFS. :

Arnold, Harold D. (Recalled)— „

Direct Examination e 559259ꝙ 2 337õ hb eee — III 1867

‘Cross-Examination V V . 1878

185 Hecker, Joseph A.— 3 : a : . : —

, Peet Examination V „ 9 l 1789

JJ... e . III 186

Re- Direct Examination „ „ HI 187

5 ® Re. Cross-Euamination J ͤ V III. 1847

T ; eS a

Direct Examination 3 . e

. * Cross-Exantination ,......... Peay é 188 e e

„ Re-Direct Examination b. % . . . ee

| Hunter, Frederick . „ Aas . N

Direct Examination ............ PT III 1893

cCross-Exa bination. ß RH etE cases III 1905

- + Re-Direct Examination e . III 1907

5 —— VVV F. III 1907

* ae

PLAINTIFF'S SUR-REBUTTAt erben „

1 5 — ae ep * N

Di E mi „ is 8 5

8 . . me 215

i Hon. Huex M. 1 nal FF

5 U. 8. District Judge, : 1

—

Appearances: As — .

United States District Cea:

Wilmington, Delaware, 8

uesday, October 26, 1926,

ifm NINTH DAY.

Ou. her

Xx. e If. your Honor crt you will a:

recall that near the close of yesterday’s session, Be

Mr. Davis asked several questions of Dr. Arnold,

which indicated, and in fact, stated that he had te-

tified on thé motion to dissolve to a certain fact.

One of the questions to which i objected was:

XO. 250. And therefore, although the curve

; héve i is exactly the kind of curve that was testified

on the motion to arge was characteristic of gas,

in fact, you sai , a

6 bn sure there was no gas in this tube???

Now, we have searched Pr. Arnold 8 testi aes

it was most characteristic of

| mony . and indeed on the

priority record, 1

Now, I assume Mr: Davis would not have

stated that, except, of coarse, as an error, unless

he thought there was such testimony; but in jus-

tice to the witness, I now ask that statements of

Dr. Arnold’s testimony given on the motion to dis-

‘solve or on the priority, he confined to such testi-

i and that counsel’s questions indicate when :

Ma Davin: I Ja Honor please, We touts.

| Moy which Thad in aid va, unden give

* 4 1 De

| Harold 5 Arnold ~ „

1⁰ 0 o'clock A. * M.

des Harold b. Arnold e

that I remembered it as Dr. Arnold’s own testi-

mony. It was actually the testimony of Dr. 1

kan and of Mr. Van der Bijl.

-Tue Court: Then Judge Haight’s. Woti

should be granted, and his objection. should have

been suitelah,

your refreshed recollection. ~

I wonder if counsel won't come up and tell mer

two or three things before we get started, because .

1 have these things in my mind.

a (Discussion. 3

ae Hanoup D. 3 resumes the stand.

Onde Harlan (Continued).

By Mr. Davis: ce

A289. ‘Dr. Arnold, may I e you to, wen at

your answer to XQ. 137, 138 and 139, on page 631 of ~

the record? =

A. I have the page, but the eatin 6 me.

if XQ: 260. The questions are XQ. 137, 138 and. 139.

A. Yes, IL have read them over..

XQ. 261. Now, in view of thosg / answers, do 1

‘ withdraw your answer to Q. 74, page, put.

A. Is that on direct? E

X. 262. On direct, ves.

A. Why, no, I see no reason for ü g that,’ a

misread them they say the same thing in sense.

263. I said to you XO. 137: And that the

| vacuum was good enongh and the tube was well en

ne so that at 200 volts or more its oper: wt

on.’

N 1 interfered with by positive iqnizatic

You said: 1 do not remember using those exact

words.“ 1 said: “Ts, that a 18 statement or bok

behalf of Dr. Arnold by other experts. I regret

‘and I take it that the motion now

is to strike it out; and you cat fe- put the question |

in such a way as you see fit, Mr. n in view of

Harold D. Arnold.

ak that tube! And you said: 41 think I ‘iit

state the matter in this way.“ And you went on ard

* stated it in a different way, practically denying having

said what I suggested you had said. It turns out on.

reference to Q 74, that what you said, as far as I can

see, is exactly what I suggested you said; is that right!

A. All that you say is certainly not right. I made

ment on niy cross-examination, which to my

mind is identical in sense with the statement that I

made on my direct 1 ion. When you, asked me

if I had used. ‘certain words on my direct examination

I replied that I did not remember using those words,

because I certainly do not carry in mind the exact

words that I used from hour to hour. I do carry in

mind the sense of what I said, but to my mind there is

no contradiction whatever between what I said on cross’

at this place and what T said on direct at the mere yon 1

indicated.

Mn. Daves} I would like to mark for identi ca-

tion, if I may, the sketch which’ I showed the wit-

ness at XQ. 1998. .

XQ. 264, I will: ask the writnisks if this is ‘the sketch :

which I showed him, is it

ee Ee hardly know how to answer it. 1 do nat

3 whether this is the sketch you showed me or not-

a N. 265. Does-it look like it? N

5 . It. does. 0 5

— Tux Cover: Or P duitoata: I think the wit-

| ness had i in mind whether that was the identical 3

= we:

Tun Wrrxnss: That i is what I had i in mind. 1

odd not 17187 to that. Ske

8 266. Mr. Davis is not interested Whether it te

We identical copy but whether it is the we, or a tke

owe the one you had. 8

Harold D. Arnold

15155 is like the paper which you salute me.

MIX. Davis: May I have it marked Son?

( .Received and marked ‘Plaintiff's. Exhibit >

B for identification.) ce ie.

Mn. Haicut: Is not that in the Ne exhibit

book on pridxity?

Mn. Davis? I Wan not.

By Mn. Davis: 2 :

3 XQ. 267. That is a sketch which as I Pe.

yesterday, and as I think the witness stated yesterday,

if I am not mistaken, is the same as some of the

sketches, those E. S. sketches in the exhibit book, but

we plot two curves on a sheet by itself, instead of hav-

ing them all in the oF sheet, Is that onppattally or-

rect?

I would like * compare that curve with the

actual curve which you say it is like e 1 dare an-

swer that question. 5

ee XO. 268. Now, you will remember that yesterday

we were discussing the tube 20, and that it was e

n A. I have refreshed my mind on What peppered,

there by reading over TRO NOU ie! olen (ce

X. 269. Will you please state—— —_.

A. e e eee

originally pumped on the 17th of January, 1913, rod

thereafter, an account of four repr ings; that makes

“five. purnpings in all. a

Wee * 270. There was eas one ‘more, v was there 4

not? ; eee

85 F ere: 5

XQ. 271. e first time it was Racca it wan

called 207 . Be gens c 55

i AD ‘Pat is right

XO. 272. AUR a ti e n

does ede twas pumped, Hwan 2037 hae

8 \ 5

: att

“%

Harold D. Arnold

A. That i is not clear in the book. It iba my impres-.

sion that the tube wag not then repumped. I think the

number was changed from 20 to 20.1, because it was to

de repumped and it was desired to be referred to as hav-

ing been repumped with a subscript and for some rea- „

Son the subscript 1 was added without any intended ~~

designation of repumping. That is my interpretation 5

of the book, but the book ee not Bay whether it was re-

or not. :

| XO. 273. Lou say vou 8 looked over ihe’ 8

What notes did you look over?

A. I looked over the notes that are in this so-called

exhibit book, Do you want me to name the pages?

XO. 274. No. Thank you. I asked you if those

were the only notes you had access to? |

A. Those are the only notes I had access to.

XG. 275. Now, if you will be kind enough to turn

to page 105 of that notébook, which is Arnold Priority —

* No. 18, being extracts from Pierce s notebook

Ne. 9, you will note that the record seems to show

that the 20.1 designation was given to it before it was

repumped on a molecular pump; is that right? :

ee ne eee

reads: ö

“This andion \ was 3 down a by the mer- 5 5

_cury pump.“ g

g VVV

pumped down at that time rather than heving boen

ue gd eae ease in its original

ne. : ne

‘The matter is not clear. 10 g it is probably an

unimportant point.

TTT

een eee ee ee ae Soni oy

i ee „ nats

H wreka os Arnold

A That i is right. © r

X. 277. However many times it may have dect

pumped when these readings at the top of page 105

were made, it was immediately r ped with the

Gaede molecular ‘panip on that da Keep re ©, is 1 ‘

right? |

A. That is earned : | | .

XQ. 278. And then it was a tophaniiett the next ret

I.won’t trouble you you on that because we went through

it yesterday. -It was répumped ere sagt ina few

«days, as I remember it? | 170 f

8 A. That is vorreet. :

XQ. 279. You attributed RNY. the repumping :

which made it 20.2 to the desire’ to test the Gaede mole- t

cular pump! | |

; A. ‘That is correct. A :

Q, 280. To what do you attribute ia rep

by made at 203% BO Boe |

igs 21) SY” halve it pet eons my best bene U

that, because I was not ‘present of my recollection a *

the time it was done. 5

XQ. 281. e ne Modhde yen iu Wee

not know, Doctor. Von said something e aon 2.

e menieg ost pretty ian if ;

A. Tantalum filaments? ae

ares emp Haas : a

A. Yes, burn ont very ‘anil a

3 eee that fee * he |

? 3 eee, :

284. 1 eee e :

Harold P. Arnold e

A. 7

me the general conduct of the work at the time, al-

‘though I was not personally present. :

XC. 285. If you are speaking of the 3 practice of

i your own laboratory, go ahead.

A. Very well. At that time, the men who were

5 working with the molecular pump were very desirous of

acquiring skill in its übe. It was a rather delicate

piece of apparatus’, to use, as I indicated in one of my.

earlier answers; and they were also desirous af eom-

paring for themselves the results obtained with the

- Gaede Molecular Pump and the Mercury Pump. That

I believe is the reason why this particular lamp bulb

was re-evacuatel several times alternately with the

Gaede Molhuar Pump and the Mercury Vapor Pump,

and I think I should state that as far as this No. 20 is

3 concerned, it relates to a certain glass bulb, It should

not be considered for a moment that in the embodi-

subseripts 1, 2 3 and so forth,

in its operating characteristics or

ents designated

e bulb was

he alike i in ‘its vacuum: conditions. The one reason “For 7

putting on the No. 20 was to keep track of that seg

5 Geular. ee, ball, e its service in the labora-

2 Exhibit B 5

re of 22 or refer:

. asked me 0

122 5 r eve 5

Harold D. Arnold

in the Interference, beginning at page 838 of the

Interference record, which is page 370 of rena ack 8 re. Me

buttal oii motion, testified as follows:

Dr. Van der Bijl’s diagrams in Arnold Ex.

hibits 55, 57, 59 and 60, all show that, as a matter

of fact, the kinds of gases which are likel * 1

15 5 in thermionic N as. residuals

r Auce large changes ‘which are markedly

able in the saturation region at pressures at ace

7 they are not noticeable at all in the space a .

se region; so that, in practical devices, tests in

' saturation region are in many, many instances

. i much more sensitive in the detection of small

75 auantities of gas in tubes than are tests in the

space charge region.“

‘Do you remember that; I mean, ie you e a

that the Doctor testified substantially to that effect

A. I have heard you read it.

X. 269. I am asking if you remember it?

1 A. Ido not, remember hearing Professor Milli-

< kan say that. I doubt if I was present when he said it.

e XO. 528 pe you remember reading it in the rec-

: ord? N

3 I do not at the moment recall having reed thi 1

I ag Lagi ny I fet it over myself to 4 :

at. tl vay no mall N 1 585 escapes = a

<- Oh

Ge DP

Harold D. Ame 657 5

‘xe. 299. You would not call this curve 20.2 re-

produeible over a very wide range of voltage, would

yok? That is, you would not call it reproducible where

these loops are? +.

A. Oh, no, indeed. That curve is not reproducible |

on u the ‘saturation portion. If you so desire I will ex-

plain. about that saturation portion. :

XQ. 293. I think you have explained Wit day.

A. No, I do not think I explained yesterday. 1

think you asked me perhaps what I thought was the

reason why: the thing was variable, byt 1 did not go

into any complete explanation.

X. 294. Take the upper curve. At what voltage !

does the lack of reproducibility manifest itself on this

particular curve you have before yout 6

A. From about 23 volts upward to 240 volts there

: are not on this curve any two points that are alike.

1 XQ. 295. At what current does this lack of repro-

- dueibility manifest itself! .

A. From about 2.7 milliamperes upwards. there ;

‘are no two points which: correspond. :

XO. 296. What is the energy corresponding to

33 2.7 milliamperes? ?:

+: . Will you pepat that question, please!

XQ. 297. What is the energy corresponding to

e e en „

A. Is that tho way you want me to answer it now?

a 3 voltages. 7

7 0 208 1 wish you would use the ones you have :

mec > Aone e ire -_ gn

658 |. Harold D. Arnold:

XQ. 301. You said, did you sof at page 2921 of %

the record in the interference, being page 167 of the

Arnold priority record: ;

„We had previous K. formed certain very

definite opinions as to er ca ca

city which a 3 should have and

these opinions have since been verified and we

are now working to the e power 3

that we laid down at that time. These

r ould

pit oa ti po allegory apse P08: line the same

t of energy that the ordinary desk telephone

in common use is capable. of putting out on the

J line. It was on this ground that I stated we knew

that we needed to have about one watt nae: ;

put from the telephone repeater.’’

„„ 1

A. Yes, I so testified and that is co das of the’

present day. Will yon let me reframe | 700 tes.

: tified and I would so testify today. |

25 "XQ, 302. At O. 88-1 do not think you need trou- 5

ble to refer to it—ahout the vaenun pump being backed

up by another pump yi a „ ee

A. In my present, direct? 71 ts 8

. XQ. 303, Yes, yesterday. Do you e

scribing how there ‘were thres pumps in series? “ah

A. Mr. Richmond described in detail how the

5 pu nnn

ak: aoe tes the ordinary . — saa

Harold D. Arnold 659

xa 306. I veer how loud winld the input be in

this tube and you said: ms

The person penta moe tone

ok voice such as one — use in commercial tele-

|: phone service.“

Rae * That i is correct. 6 soft

|. XQ. 807. And it amplified under those sbailionst

A. Ves, it did, there-is a record of it in the book.

I XQ. 308, How’ was this any better than the tubes

which DeForest brought you in November? ] 0

A. Because the De Forest tubes were noisy, irreg- .

ular and erratic in their operation and this one was

oy XO. 309. The DeForest: tube ‘Was not boley in its

aten if you were below a certain volume? 1 85

A. That is trüe, 8 IL say it amplified the ticking

a a watch and sounds of that general loudness ‘quite .

ae XQ. 810, Bait you spoke not in a normal tone 1

; “of voie what happened * .

A. I vent into that i ‘some delall and as you .

dememberfit is. function of the voltage which is in b

te Plate cireuit, but the stdtinpentt eee that it failed 25

im general. 8

0 811. Now, dd; testify on motion to dis-

solve in this case? Did you Wine ae en, 4

A. Ves, I did. > e

0.312. ou aide did you not, in that testimony

on motion to 0 on page 13 of your rebuttal tes- ,

a | erg e. ehe ur

ae +e hase 260) § feiss g

88 ‘i . n — 5 0 5 4 28

2 2 F bre 52 f

8 eln addition, the : “net the .

aaudion would handle did not give us the

1 olf * in telephone 8 ä

6600 5 “Harold D. “Arnold

we W 0 It would handle ‘the energy neces-

sary for an ordinary conversation, but under ex.

1. treme conditions telephone repeaters are subs

« jected to currents arising from s h of much

more than ordinary Wannen wrt RS LOE

0 fe that true t i

A. That is the t Fed yes, HKr.

XQ. 314. And you went on: i n

„o give the wecessary n margin of saleby; and

at the same time to fit in with the voltag ah ad

— volts available in the plant for the B es

I estimated that it would be desirable to ;

ae ‘the electron. current from the file ment, and

to raise the normal rating voltage from about

40 wolts, as preseribed by DeForest for using the

tubes. as wireless detectors, to the 120 or 130 volts

which we had available. % a »

“That is your testimony 9. :

A. That is corr | ee |

A 315. And e tt Weld not bende the

energy necessary for an ordifiary- conversation ? 5

. 1 do not recall that I said just those words,

n but I have explained in considerable detail just phat :

e eee

XQ. 316. I do not think I care for that.

eee Tak 30 9 sow me whee Ch

‘shat n en l I ania? 53

X. 317. You said in your direct teatiinony . on

Friday, did vou not, that if you spoke as loudly as the

2 :

2 3

;

20 318. How — reer the ctenograpber!

A. About eight feet on an air link. cae

1 0 And you see on the motion thet it * 8

5 would handle bie, e Ne for an ee,

<% |

3 5 e „ 661 N fas.

A. That is re | 5

0 im. 320. When did you ‘give that tanz, on

the 19th of November, 1919, as appears from page 4697

- Mr. RiczMonp: Please give him the page. .

g Mn. Davis: From the first page on that volume „ Bae

that he has. 0 8

A. Les, the date of tis debian is 49th ay of

Noveylber, 1919. But, Mr. Davis, I want it understood -

: when I say an ordinary conversation, I am not

b erring to an ordinary conversation between two per-

sons in a room. I am referring to a telephone conve «

gation. / Pay

XQ. 321. What i is the ddiftetesiod? ee :

A. The difference is that a person speaks waite sea

differently’ in a telephone transmitter than he does if

he is directing his conversafion to a person in the room

Vith him, In general, for an ordinary telephone con- s

versation the average person drops his voice so that

zn person sitting as much as five or six feet from him

2 can only with difficulty understand what he says, Of.

.egurse, if a person is talking on the telephone over a

a long: distance connection then he very frequen raises

_ his voice more londly than one does in any conversa-

Ss tion between persons in an open room. But by ordi-

nary conversation in connection with tests of fudion

TA, I mean the conversations of the sort that one has :

over the telephone ‘with a person in a nearby place, et

: are ho dee itt ext e sak e tone e

into the telephobe transmitter.

20. 322. In your ‘answer to Q. 89, at page 1201 of :

A. Tou must have the number of the question

Pony oR: Tast an ser W ap Gaba. The Page

. bee It is page 614, Q. 89. Tou say that you did

eee ee eee

3 ——

Poe

5 o — > 2 7

6 —- Harold D. Arnold -

vapor. into the audion and mercury vapor is a very :

potent agent of destroying the pure electron flow in a

c device. That is the reason, is it not, that you did not

co r the tubes that Trimble pumped in January —

and Fe e were high vacuum tubes? 75

A. Oh, no. No, the tubes that Trimble pumped in

January or February might be high vacuum tubes or

they may not be high vacuum. Trimble-was attempt

ing to acquire the mechanical art of making these au.

dions and carrying out the processes of mounting the

; filaments ‘and heating the filaments while pumping, and

all the other tricks of. the trade that are probably fa-

miliar to people in the p e, pat were Totally

unf jar to us.

X. 324. That i is, he was not . 3 |

A. And the tubes which he made were e af all 3 f

grees of vacuum, I assume. .

- XQ. 325. ane ‘were always n on a mereury ce

pum

nf 5 They were 1 5 pumped ona mercury pump.

By :

-_ perature, then there exists in the device a pre :

mercury vapor of the order of a micron, but

° ‘the vapor pressure of merenry ar alg 3

lower than the vapor pressure of mercury itself, 80. I

. 326. So that they must have had a mieron of

mercury or so in them N i

A. Not necessarily:

XO. 327. Why not? :

: A. For the very good reason that be Ras a Jevise ae

freely open to an open surface of mercury at rogm tem-

device is then sealed off from the source of fr

eury and if there is in n i

very tenuous atmosphere of mercury: vapor, co

contact with the material, which, for — might 1 :

ein no reason to * that the pressure of -_ .

Harold D. Arnold . 663

vapor in Trimble’s tubes was necessarily. a micron. - It

might very well be very much lower.

XQ. 328. Do you agree or disagree with the testi-

7. .° mony which Trimble himself gave about the vaennm in

those tubes? se

A. I will have to see the testimony before 5 ean ae

state that.. : bei

XO. 329. In Arnold' 8 priority en page 92,

Interference record page 2246, the last complete para-

graph about the middle of the paragraph, ‘Trimble

says: = 2 revs

„We found that the gas “tebe 304 to this

mercury vapor were about the same as in the tubes

as they were. pumped bei DeForest or MeCand-

less. 1 4 5

Do you agree with that? ae Aa 3 8 85 :

A. I do not believe 1 quite agree with that e ;

as it is stated 5

8 XQ. 330-31. Do you agree with the next statement:

“ae At one time in this connection,“ he goes on,

tried stopping gold foil in the conduit from the

bulb to the pump to block off the mercury Ae 5

| _ but did not make a success of it. oe.

5 Mn. Halobr: I object to the Wien 88

I. think the witness did not finish his answer before

the second question was put. He said: I cannot

; agree to it exactly as stated, but. , And then

‘came another question. Am I correct there?

~~) ere Wrrness + I did want to say something.

VCO. 332. Finish your answer, Doctor . with. 5

draw the other question for a moment. ö a

A. I wish you would re-read that question. (XQ.

5 29 and answer repeated as recorded in record.) That

was the answer which I had not finished. Mr. Trimble,

as I. said before, was a mechanic, and the terms that

be „ in n speaking of his work ‘were not terms

„3 Harold D. Arnold

that I could always, or can now: ede © outa

The fact is that those tubes did show gas effects, a8

did the tubes pumped by De Forest or MeCandless,

which I think was the meaning of the sentence you —

read to me, but I am not in a position to agree With

the assumption that appears in here on the part of

Trimble that those gas effects were necessarily due to

mereury vapor. They may or may not have been.

XQ. 333. He says that they were due to mercury —

vapor, and he says they were about the same as the

DeForest tubes, does he not?

A. He does say so. ;

ee XQ. 334. Did you read this statement of Trim.

ble’s before it was filed?

ee I do not remember. CoH Te 58 wie

XQ. 335. You have not any doubt? 5 8

A. It is very likely that I did, but 1 have no pres.

ent remembrance of it. 8

XQ. 336. And this was not an eat Waben at -

Trimble’s but was 2 ee ane mne,

. written out

A. My réddledkion, of the matter i is that this is .

statement prepared by Mr. Trimble in consultation

uith one of our patent counsel, and to the best of my

remembrance, I had no part whatever in the prepara-

tion of that and was not consulted about it, and if!

did read it at any time, it was merely as I would have

read any part of the. evidence. casually ; but the state -

ment is not in its essence contrary to fact, not con

trary to the statement that I would make at present,

nae because the tubes that he made did show gas effects

the same as to the effects as did the tubes of D .

end Medan dees, but can wot agree non that e

were necessarily due to identically the same gas.

ae pff ĩ˙⸗‚

i 7

Harold D. Arnold

XO. 337. You still are of the opinion that thle

5 mereury vapor was a very potent agent in .

the pure electron flow i in a device?

A. I am. 5 0 .

XO. 338. Meaning by mercury vapor, re amount |

of mercury vapor. corresponding to oe tem-

, A. Why, no. That was not what I meant.

XO. 339. What did you mean? 5

A. My answer is based upon my experience partic-

_ ularly with the Von Lieben, Reisz & Strauss tubes.

These tubes operated: in the presence of mercury va-

por generated by an amalgam, and the vapor pressure

of that amalgam was stated to me by the inventors to

be about zero point three ciphers two millimeters of

mercury at room temperature, which is somewhat be-

low the mereury pressure of free mercury in room tem-

perature, as I recall it, and those tubes-certainly op-

erated in the presence of ionization of mercury vapor,

so I was not cotfining my meaning at all to mereury

vapor at pressures corresponding to room temperature.

XO. 340. These Von Lieben-Reisz tubes operate

as I think you testified, and I know that varieus wit-_.

nesses testified i in your bebalf,; ‘because of om ioniza-

8 tion? . ey

. Yes, sir, they did. The ionization of wee

gas.

X 341. Then your 1 qualification of my statements |

= really is an extension of it, is it nöt, that is, my sugges-

tion was that the amount of mercury rresponding to

atmospherie temperature would impete the operation

of a tube and be a potent agent in destroying the pure

| electron flow in-a device. ‘Now, that Pressure is about a

Micron and a half, is it not?

A. Which part of. — question am I supposed to

aver /

a half.

| question is not quite true, and I do not like to answer

‘the question unless it is true.

the pressure corresponding to atmospheric tempera-

ture in the case of mercury? N

potent agent in gage the pure electron flow i in a *

tion that I objected to. I do not like the word would.

low vacuum device, as you have just testified? ©

ization device, yes, sir. I think I did not testify as

to just what the pressure of the mercury vapor was in

told me it was point three ciphers two. I am not very

sure about that, but in general I am perfectly willing

microns down to the order of a tenth of a mier

way in tubes of various constractions, be sufficient to ü

5 eee noticeable ionization effects.

Lape ‘Gaede: N Pump? |

666 Earola D. Ari

5 x0 342. The last part of 10 bent the micron and :

A. ‘Spiceiuan the’ statement in the first part of ‘i.

X. 343. We will take it one at a time. What is

A. As I recall it, in the neighborhood of a micron, -

XQ. 344. I am told it is a micron and a half; is ig

that true ~

A. I would’ agree to that if you say so. 5

XQ. 345. Your answer to Q. 89 means, does it not,

that that amount of mercury gressure would be a very

device? y

A. No- and that i is the part of your previous ques-

It might be, under certain circumstances a very potent

dagen. Under other. circumstances, it aise E no oe

‘considerable effect whatever. a

XO. 346. And then about one-seventh or one-

eighth of that Pressure made the Von Lieben device a

A. Made the Von Lieben device operate as an ae

that Von Lieben device. I testified that the inventor —

to admit that mercury pressures of the order of ten

XQ. 347. Now, the Gaede. Molecular Pump gave

you a better vacuum than you were able to 5 from

. *

— 8 4

10 ee „

A. It did. .

XO. 348. And this was indicated how, i in the oper: |

ation of the tube?

1 A. By the absence of guch effects of ionization as

blue haze at high voltages—erratic operation as tele-

phone repeaters at lower voltages——

XQ. 349. I beg your pardon, Doctor, go ahead.

pt A. Perhaps if I can ask the stenographer. to-eor=~

. rect that answer right now, I would like the en .

„absence to be inserted before the words ‘‘erratic| 5

behavior“ . 8

XQ. 350. So that the answer . ‘

A. (As repeated by the. stenographer) : “By the

absence of such effects of ionization as blue haze at

high voltages nd absence of erratic operation as tele-

phone repeaters at lower voltages.” *

That is correct.

XQ. 351. Following along the 3 of this

tube 20, the next thing that happened to it was it was

w Achausted on the mercury pump; is that right, and : |

became 20.37 f

A. Ves, it became 20.3 ater being re-pumped on

‘the mercury pump.

XO. 352. And you refer 10 your sketeh E. S.

86,908 which is in this exhibit book of yours, part of

. oy Exhibit 18, it says at the 2955 on the left-hand

ifs he e 203 e to 1002 millimeters

pressure with meroury pomp,” 9 85 1

: = it not? : 95 Sp 15 7 “ “a 85

A. Les. i

XQ. 353. So thiat thers: ‘must be en there

5 bade the mercury, if the measurement is correct? |

A. Certainly, the gauge indionted the presence of

3 72 25 millimsters of gas.

dure, by comparison with the two curves?

668 ees “Harold D. Arnold -

X. 354. And that would indicate the mercury 45

; es temperature = something alist,

A. In the gauge, yes, sir

XQ. 355. In the tube?

A. It might or might not be.

XQ. 356. What is a gauge for?

„ The gauge reading is taken before the tubs tae .

- sealed from the pump, and the taking of a reading on

a MeLeod gauge is a matter of some minutes; and. I

have no reason to be sure that the vacuum tube when

sealed off has just this vacuum. However, I think the

presumption, is that there was quite: a n gas in the

tube at that time.

XQ. 357. I thought you bad some other kind of

gauge: by that time? a ova

A. That I used on the mercury apt

XQ. 358. 1 do not know, Doctor; ae you = :

tell me.

A. I did have another sort of gauge at that N

but I was using the eee gauge on those 1

2. 359. Wee wai: it e :

A. I can not call to mind a perfect picture of that

| set-up, but as a rule, the mercury gauge was connected

| seaer fe merry pump tan way the abe being

exhausted.

XQ. 500. Nor, will you please compare’ the curve

of audion 20.3 evacuated on a mercury pump with has

20.3, the eviderices of these two microns of gas pres-

| oe a Bee Sead evidence ‘of S ean

| eave of anion 203, and tll me wherein you fd ia |

wt he

Harold . 1 669

dein gn wheter or notte a tube of the type

eee ee, sain in suit?

Ae ef dies opie tuht itil net 5

5 » XQ. . ͤ ———

2 nn K. 8. 86,908, as compared with the upper curve on

5 86,907, which would lead you to believe that one: was

oo a gas tube and the other was — vacuum tube or

vice versa? ?

A. Yes, I do. uh.

X. 363. What is itt. ;

A. On the upper curve of E. S. 86,908, there § is a

word blue haze inserted up near the saturation on

the curve and blue haze would certainly not ‘be ob-

tained in tubes without ionization. °-

XO. 364. I meant to ask you, Doctor, and I will

ask you now the same question directing it to the shape

of the curve as dis guished from the notations 15 the

curve

A. Given the two curves as drawn al iithout - 8

any additional statement other than the curves them-

selves, I would not dare to hazard a guess as to

whether one was a poor vacuum and the other was a

vacuum curve. I can explain just 1 1 am in

XO. 365. On page 2188 of the Interference Rec :

FFF

a TT

from tbe 7-4, which is the same logarithmic. plot

which was to the Court yesterday, is that cor-

‘ rect, being ——— l

ee e

XO. 366. Ton just testified that you cannot tell

is high vacuum tube or not?

. A.

Harold D. Arnold

n Vosid. tek Loat

tell@you the sense which is this, that I do not believe

that the curve EB, IB, curve of such vacuum tubes

as these may be taken as a true indication of the de- a

gree of vacuum within them.

: XO. 368. Then why did you take the trouble o

page 2183 to point out that the logarithmic plot on

this particular tube 7-A was a straight line?

A. That was not very much trouble.

XC. 369. Why did you take the trouble?

A. It whe done because such a straight line loga- |

* rithmic plot is mentioned in the patent application.

XQ. 370. And your own patent application filed

before you had seen Dr. Langmuir’s application Spoke |

of the tube following the Child law, did it not?

A. I do not recall.

. XQ. 371. Now, lot us look at 20.4, which is on this

same sheet E. 8. 867908 and the data beginning on

page 108.

3 -eurves? .

nne

108, where the tables are and to this curve E. S. 86,908.

ö Referring first to the page 108, the tube was re-evac-

uated on the molecular pump, was it not?

A. It is 80 stated on page 108. AY oy as 8

X. 373. And you have no doubt of it?

A. I have no doubt of it whatever. |

- XQ. 974. On the first run blue haze showed a4 |

51.6 volts, is that correct! on

— 2 A That is the first entry of blue haze, yes.

XQ. 375. And each of the readings from that point

| wp $0 the h conta lm e

. ton of bine ha, init matt

en Wel, the net four reedingareaoemmpniod

Rr 816. Are there any other readings? —

A. Do you wish me to refer to the tables or to th

5 Harold D. redid a

A. Tes, there are three other readings on that

--- game page and there is no such note of blue haze on

them and they are taken at lower voltages on the plate

than. the last four entriés.that blue haze related to,

but not alk at lower voltages than the, first zecord *

| blue haze appears there. That is a very complica

answer and perhaps I had better state it this way. Blue

haze first appears at voltage 51.6, is aghin recorded at

57, at 62, at 73 and at 72.5. However, at the next volt-

age of 56.5 it is not recorded, showing that the tube,

hud improved its vacuum by the passage of the bind

haze.

XO. 377. Wien anrie on 1 8. 86906

to this run which we have been di

A. At the moment I think non of r ves do.

a . 378, You do not think that run v plotted :

A. No, I think not.

XC. 379. Then what is the next run on this tube,

is that the run at the left-hand column of page 1091 |

ies ihe WR pot planes: eee justo what-you mes

by a run?

XQ. 380. I do not know, Doctor.

A. Neither do I. ae

XQ. 381. I see a curve on this sheet 25 1 suppose

ene saa eee e neee e ee

A. Yes, sir.

4 XQ. 86% 1 wonld assume that the etries at the

bottom of page 108 were one run of that tube, am I

wrong in that assumption} ?

1 camnot answer that unless T:imow what you :

e 8 6. |

f XQ. 388. Well, he went up and he went down |

4 A. That is,correct; and if by a run you mean

r otra han %, know just

what you mean. ee e eee a

, „

e > Harold D. i

Ae 0. 3 384 I se batvodetet in terms. I r

8 eee eee

series for a definite purpose to find out something.

A. If that is your definition-Twill accept that.

X. 385. At any rate, there are further deb

8 1 again froro the lower value i in the left —

- eolamn on page 109. : page oo

es, sir. a „

Q. 386. Arft tenn readings plotted o on 1 8. $6, .

2 Ok ae Those are plotted apparently ‘ as “the: dotted.

curves hn E. S. 86,908. .

XC. 887. In that case ‘current is highly irrepro.

Adaucible at what voltage 1. *

A. These dotted curves are el Anh peculiar

structure and relate to two increases and decreases of.

voltage. ©. - :

85 ‘XQ. 388: Take thie first one first. :

j A. The upward and downward variations in eek

age did not give the same current values above about

48 ‘volts as shown on the curve, but the curve is not

very ‘accurate in that particular portion and I can

make my answer more definite by referring to the data

if you think it is important enough.

X. 389. Now, subsequently other readings were

taken which correspond to the smaller loop 5 these 2

dotted line loops? | ien :

A. That is correct. =

XQ. 390. Where is the data ‘That dn 0b |

. tom of that same column, is it not, the left-hand col -

ate aS | ae

A. Yes, the last third of the column roughly. 2

ieee 14

readings on the right-hand column on the same pages. :

8 F

: 5 ; : = ee 85 2 „ ; :

Harold P. 2 ar d :

axe. 302. In those readings there are several en

2 165 of. blue haze, are there not?

A. There are three, to be exact.

Fag * A

XO. 393. And in one case the same voltage, 108,

is given right together, two current values, in one

case 10,600 and in the other case 5400, is that correct?

a A. The 10,600 is an entry of blue haze and there

is no such. entry at 5400, showing that the e read-

ing was attended by blue haze.

XQ. 394. And further down on the right-hand.

side there is a reading 134 under the volts and 7600

with a dash and the words „fell to’’?. What does that

mean?

: ‘microamperes which as time went on diminished to a

reading of 5600 microamperes at which time the plats

voltage was—-well, the record -is not quite distinct

there as to whether the plate voltage was 138 or 134,

but I assume it was probably 134 volts. I should point

out of course that in this column the filament current

is different than it was in the first column on that page.

XQ. 395. Yes, the last set of curves was taken

with a 69 amperes in the cathode e is that

right?

A. Falling to .68 for the last of the 1

that is correct. Lou see, the currents used in these

experiments were subject to variation because they

were generally drawn from dry cells and as the dry

cells would run down the current would vary some-

what.

XQ. 996-97. 1 do not quite see how that would ac-

count for that because the voltage is given—take for

. instance the top of that column filament current 69,

. filament voltage 57. Further down the notations were

repeated and then r

dee and stil 87 . |

aa 0 : : 1

— N

A. That at n bite es deka e 069000

- 674 We Ste ‘Harold D. Arnold.”

A. ‘That I think i is quite easily 1 „

in making these readings one approximates the last

figure and if the reading at 69 were 69 and 57.5 it might

well be recorded as 57 and if the lower one were 68 a

and 56.8, it might be recorded as 57. There was noth-

ing critical i in mund as to these currents and voltages

and the records are presumably accurate toa reason-

able extent.

Tun ‘Court: We will take our morning re

oess now. , a

(Here a short recess was ie *

(After a short recess.)

. XQ. 398. Will you look at page 2242 of the . >

7 ference Record, which is page 88 of Arnold’s priority a

record, folio 263; Mr. Pierce is testifying and he einn 3

speaking of this some 20.2, i is he not?

A. So he says. 7.

X. 399. He says: l £99

wie ee We pushed our voltages higher and hi pet, 8

volts without any blue haze. Pre :

ro. — had never gone much if any higher

than 100 volts without encountering blue haze, so

that the improvement given by the new male .

pump was very noteworthy.” 3 N

Is that a correct statement?

A. That is correct. x

XQ. 400. The whole statement is correct, as 1

read it? 8 *

A. Yes, you have 824 it K

XQ. 401. No. Do you agree with it, Doctor! .

ag Oh, yes, that e with my remem- N

8 N

= * 4 OES 7

. 402. Now, will you look at page 103 of the .

ook which is Arnold’s priority exhibit

1 ‘No. 18, that is a record of some readings on a ae an :

W : ae

inen VV

ve So it says. } 3

X. 403. What kind of a vacuum was in that tube

Lit you do not remember, just say so, Doctor?

A. I was locking at the record to see if there was

any record of a pressure reading here, but I donot

see any. I remember that tube. It Was a very com-

plicated sort of a tube with a movable element. at-

tached to a large, a fairly large piece of iron, made to

be moved by a magnet from without the tube; and al- 5

though I see no record here of the vacuum, it is my

: opinion that he probably had a N peor vacuum

in there. |

80 forth in there? 1

A. Yes, the iron was 8 a cylinder, a eylindri-

“eal case in such a way that that iron could not be

heated to a very high temperature in an evacuatign.

XO. 405. In this series of readings, the voltage

appears to have been carried up to pretty high fig-

ures; for example, 284; is that correct, or first :

‘column at the right-hand side of the e

A. Yes, I see that

XQ. 406. Is there any reading of blue haze on

3 No, there is not any.

3 0. 407. There must have been. blue haze, must

: wot there?

: CA i wesld think vacy.grovebl 1

blue haze, although I would not be too sure ahem that .

because those ‘adjustable devices allowed one to in-

-erease the distance between the anode and the eee

at will, and if that distance were made rather consid-

‘erable at the time this voltage was 284 volts, it is pos-

Pog ee not have been any blue haze there.

XQ. 408. But this is on April 18th

AS A. That is the date, yes, sir. oe

XQ. 409. And 20.2 was April 25th?

XO. 404. On. aceount of having so much i iron, and 2 |

„„ “Harold D. am

A; ‘That is the dt | ae

XQ. 410. And 20.2 was the first den ele

up above 100 volts without showing blue haze?

A. Well, I see the dilemma in which you have ap.

parently induced me here. I am not sure that L agrees

with Mr. Pierce, even if he made the statement that

there had been no device that went above 100 volts

without blue haze up to that time, and certainly now,

with this record before me, I am not i in a position to

state positively that there had been no device prior

to thaf time that went to 100 volts without blue hase,

: (No XQs. 411 to 450, inclusive.) =

XQ. 451. You made the statement yesterday, if

my recollection is correct, that where we find in these

Sheets, these Pierce sheets, an entry describing a series

of readings, and otäng a series of readings, and the

factor blue haze did not occur, that we niight rely

os on the fact that there was no blue haze; is tik ye a

position? ;

A. Well, again, your question is a double questiag

I do not recall making that exact statement, and cer-

tainly that is not, as you have aes, e en.,

XC. 452. What is your position? 5

A. My position is this, that when blue haze is Te

corded in these notebooks, it was certainly present;

that when it is not recorded in the notebooks, either it

was not present or it was not considered of importance

enough to record the time the observation was made,

In other words, the absence of the marking blue

haze is an indication, and merely an indication, that -

meme It ig not a

ö "XQ, 458, Was this tube N-2 baked, do you .

i 9 re & a:

| A. When it was * pumped o on a the Gaede pam, d

you mean? 5

ong Harold D: Arnold oe use art

5 ase what pene it was pumped on, but b it was

A. Oh, no. 1 misunderstood weil question, 1˙

ge you asked about tube No. 20.2,

X. 455. I am speaking of N. 2. f ae 85

A. This tube N-2. I have no recollection as 52

bow it was pumped.

XQ. 456. Now, these aden in , Philadelphia f in. the

fal of 1913, what sort of cathodes did they n

A. Wehnelt oxide cathodes.

NO. 457. And on what pump were they exhausted!

A. The (taede molecular pump.

XC. 458. How many tubes were evacuated o on ati

Gaede molecular pump in 19147

A. I have no idea. A considerable number. Per- is

hape several score, at any rate.

XC. 459. When did you first get a good thie with

4 Wehnelt cathode? !

A. That requires e my definition of a

good tube. Our work on Wehnelt cathodes was di-

rected toward producing a good Wehnelt cathode and

we got a good workable Wehnelt cathode in the early

summer or late spring of 1913. It was a cathode which

we could use. Usable Wehnelt cathode is perhaps a.

better expression than a good Wehnélt cathode. Now,

gs to when we first got a tube which with one of these

Wehnelt cathodes would operate satisfactorily for tele-

phone repeater service, I cannot state. You appreciate

probably that the tests that we made with tubes involv-

ing these Wehnelt cathodes were tests as to the Weh

nelt cathodes and there was no effort in the early part

„the work to produce tubes which were of such a na-

ture as to be directly applicable to the telephone plant.

c We tried a great variety of compounds on the fllaments

uno arrive at a suitable one and with each com-

bound there were certain problems of evacuation that

made the tube: 8 all differ one . another.

No. 20, which is Arnold’s r er 34, a ee

„ understand you to say Exhibit 247

tory notebooks. I do not know which one.

678 Harold P. Arnold. 5

XQ. 460. I notice on page 183 of Pierce’s e

book No. 26.

XQ. 461. Exhibit 28 The very back part of is

book. | W

See ‘Vas’ Thave i | e

XO. 462. The entry i is not to be sbntounded with

N9.111 on May 26, 1913, book 26, pages 86, 91-98, E. 8.

eee signed Nicolson. e 8

What was this bock 267

A. It must have been one of our 0 labor |

| XQ. 463. I would like to see that book and I would

like to see all the books containing records of the ex-

hanst of tubes on the Gaede ‘molecular pump in e

year 1913. May I see them? -

MIX. Haient: I would suggest that you ak’ u.

Mn. Davis; It is addressed to whom it may

concern. a

THE Caen’ i are asking counsel 5 e.

defendant to produce those books, I assume

MI. Davis: T am, sir. Dr. Arnold is the

ot this great laboratory. *

Tun Court: He is here as a ‘witness; and

ake course the request is addressed to the defendan

Ton can pass on, having made that requ

> eounsel, and they will let us know whether th

; eee ee „ d

. ow, yourhave spoken, coming 4

“Tae Count: Ido not ‘now. thet an L. nee

OL ee ace te ee with the rat

man Eg he eee

Harold D; Arnold s 0

4 Mn: Haron: We do not intend to withhold the

3 books if we have them here. 5 8

MX. Davis: We did serve written ile N i

the trial for the produetion, but Mr. Haight i is not 15

Standing on the formality.

Mꝝ. HAlonr: It would not be effective on 14 :

De Forest Company to produce: books of the A. T.

& T. It would lay the foundation for the offering

of secondary. evidence, but we are not standing on

anything of that kind, and if we have the books f

here we will get them. The notice that was served

oon Mr. Darby was 88 3 n eee

wm its nature. 5

Be By Mn. Dive:

XQ. 465. Coming back now y to November 1, 1912,

: there were, if I analyze your. testimony correctly, three

effects or conditions which you noted, first, when the

battery voltage was too high there was always blue

5 glow i in the tube; second. sometimes when the battery

4 e Was hich but not high enough to make tlie bine

_ glow, the mere act of conversation or loud conversation

“would ¢ ause a blue glow intermittently; and third, even

ben battery voltage was below the point where

this last effect would take place, conversation above a

oertain standard of loudness. would not be Properly

‘Teproducec ; is that correct? as :

ee A. This is a correct statement, yes, of the facts as,

o the operation of the DeForect audion at that time.

See 40. 466. And vou- rather sharply distinguished 5

‘the first and the third of these three Hoste 3 in your

stin ony yesterday, did you not!?! can

. I think I attempted to explain all three of them. |

las; not know just what you refer to by a sharp dis-

= u. Certainly they are very different. If there

"inayat that i nt nr there Twill by lad to

, . 7 1255

2 4 4 8 f ! *

é ‘ . 9 nae

* a ; ; e

8 Harold D. AI

X. 467. e ee 0 0 „%

where you said: Quite apart from that and!

was trying to bring out and I understand you to agree

with the fact that blue glow when the battery voltage

was too high was a different thing from the effect No, 3.

when the sound was below a certain ee the

Sound is not reproduced? 5

A. It is somewhat different as to cause and some-

_ what different as to evidence; that · is to say, when one

listened under the two circumstances the speech was

not well reproduced, but in case of blue haze the diffi-

culty was frequently one of attendant noise. In the case 4

of the lower B battery the effect was one of distortion

of the speech without as much senders: 3 noise. De

I make that quite clear?

XO. 468. Very clear, Doctor. Now. on pages 564

and 566, in answer to some questions from the Court

which are not numbered, you went into quite a detailed .

explanation of this third effect, illustrated by. the fact

that for 7 5 if you should 1 to reduce the cur. :

A. Yes, sir, 1 do remember that:

0. 469. J suppose what that’ means is this, is. 42

reuit from the tube an alternating e

having substantially the same wave form as the wave

form of the current which went into the tube and

went on to the grid?

A. That is ¢ 7

XI. 470. In order to do that you must have?

aapibatty bf i eave , hanging

rent to anton which tol are going to make

h —

ß; 61

1 „

XQ. 471. As r example, if the tube was only —

eee milliampere and some change 5

which the grid asked to make, or asked the tube

to make, involved a milliampere and a half, then the

current would rise to a milliampere and could not rise

any further and that woul’ N . bad ieee wee

vould it not? oo

A. No, 1 think that in itselk would not make bad

reproduction, as you have stated it, because I think

pon have the numbers stated a li wrongly.

XQ. 472. Are we not talking really about what i is

ealled over- modulation?

4 . L 4 . awe’ tue subepribe: 50 Ws dsds

terms as those unless they are very carefully defined.

I think the way. you stated it before is much more

delear, which is that as the voltage is ‘impressed upon

mie grid rising and falling, the current in the plate

| cirouit must be capable of rising and falling to cor-

is ng amounts, but my answer to your question

» ais to increasing: from one milliampere to a milliam

pere and a half was based upon this, that if the plate i

eurrent is called uj-an to increase to a milliampere and

half and it can only increase to a milliampere, then

I think the distortion in the speech would be hardly

- noticeable but if it were called upon to inerease to three

milliamperes, for example, and could only increase to

a would. be e a

Another way of stating the matter is that experi:

dw shows telephone speech can be very considerably :

, defaced or distorted as regards its electric wave form

bers the ear is capable of noticing that it is unpleas- 3

X. 473. ‘Now, aie you name in the e telephone

_ ast for that 2 „

eH 5 they have a 4 copious socal

9 something of the order of several times thut

required by speech. We have done that by putting in

ee e high emissivity of the Wanne ;

XQ. 476. You. took ont a Mth of 0 10

you not, Dr. Arnold, on applications filed after No-

vember Ist, 1912, and prior to November Ist, 1915

„ Ay Yes, I ink there were several patents issued

: ee er eee Vekunat: thom détens Brn

X. 477. One of them was No. 114,845, 1

A i,

ey e eee er ere to lar a

de else gere of ax aon devin

5 ine ar of the telephone subscriber. Perha

et nine bit e sentence N

bs 10 ey Harold b. Arnold - ae 683

ds involved eee ee

there would be a surge of current through the B-bat-

2 tery circuit, and through the transformer, which would

give a loud click in the telephone subscriber’s receiver

and that is recognized as a very undesirable thing in

telephone practice. Now, this r stance which, I in-

foals e ral 8 in Figure I

„of the patent, was for the purpose of preventing such

surges in case ofan, accident, and in order that this

resistance might not interfere with the passage of

the useful telephone currente through the repeater,

it is bridged by a condenser marked No. 9, it being well

understood that the useful telephone currents will

flow through the condenser being alternating currents,

but me harmful surges that I wish to prevent will not

a ‘oug ‘the condenser to such a degree. In short,

mis device is a device, similar to a fuse.

at "x9. 479. ‘This atement“you have made is quite

on erent: from the raging e

to the object, is it not)

e ee e e bet

XQ, 480. Suppose you read it.

a e

8 en 5 oe

Gis wars

rdinaty telephone systems, ¢ are. rene. upon oom

u F

. _ Produces, undesirable results.

phe me

684 Harold D. Arnold

3 ceases almost e the blue

haze a 82 It has been found rimentally

that the establishment of the. condition of dis-

charge described abdéve as the blue haze may be

prevented by placing, in series with the battery,

a balancing resistance of such hi h value that the

increase in current which would normally take

place when. the condition in the bulb correspond.

ing to the bine haze results in such an in-

crease in fall of potential across the resistance

as to render the maintenance of the condition bor.

responding to blue haze impossible...

Does that fe ith as reeollection as to your rea- *

sons for putting that in there?

A. It refreshes my rebollection as to the 8

I had forgotten that that was what the patent stated;

and with my recollection refreshed by that, I do re.

member that at the time of filing this patent, that was

one of the considerations in view. The main consider

ation in the use of the device was the one which I have

stated, and I had for the moment forgotten that in the

-patent application, the matter of hlue haze was .

tioned. I may say this that the sta in the patent ~

RRR

haze does aur in, an audion, it is to a considerable

extsnt.similer. to @‘zhort rt cironit in the endioyy and ,

XQ. 482. That is the only reason given in .

Fa patent, is it nott oF :

ey AL Yes, that i the only renson given in the pal

e And in the u i nas, 5 OI,

Pate

KediDiued i

| A. Yes, that is what the claim says. I find in

from recollection, I had forgotten the con-

tents of the patent. I thought I remembered the pat-

ent from the picture, but I find I was mistaken.

XQ. 483. Now, when you filed luis. application,

ee were you talking about the tubes in the condition in.

‘ “which you had then brought them, or were you talk-

ing about the tubes shown to you by De Forest!

A. I doubt if I was talking about either. I think

that the tubes contemplated here were any tubes which

might have-gaseous ionization within them. At that

; time, Ihave no recollection as to what was in mind as

to the exact type of tube. ;

XQ. 484. You did not mention in the application

any improvement which you made 0 in the

audion, did you!. 89 8

A. shall have to look at it. 3

No. Apparently not. Apparently this does not re-

late to the audion any way as a device. It simply re-

lates to a resistance inserted in there for protective

XQ. 485. I call your attention to patent No.

. 1,128,279, issued February 16, 1915, on an application ;

- filed May 16, 1914.

Mr, Hatent: We shall have to find that.

X. 486. The patent beginning at page 2348 of

+ FO atau Pose yg a A pa A :

_ ference, and the drawing being on page 2351. This has

to do, has it not, with an arrangement in which a plu-

ay of audion elements have a common anode?

patting ene

4 hia age E e ES, + aaa what the

66% Harold B. Arnold

In an eleetrie wave repeating apparatus, a 3

plurality of . ne pore: a common

f In this case, the cen is in the audion it.

self largely, is it not? b

A. I have not read the patent through carefully,

but it appears to me to refer to a method of use in

the specification, rather than to an improvement i in the

audion element. It says, line 15, page sss

Its 8 is to improve the quality of trans.

mission by 2 in the output circuit elec-

“trie waves free from distortion with respect to

the input waves. a.

XO. 488: My understanding, Dr. arnold) is that

Mr. Colpitts had filed an application on some method

of using two audions to pass current both ways or

something of that sort and that the invention here con-

sists in the improvement over Mr. Colpitts’ idea which

we discussed the other day when he was on the stand, :

consisting of putting both of the audions in one bulb,

as it were, and that the claims are directed „ =

sort of an improvement. ce

A. Yes, I see now on line 68, page 1, “it says:

eh oe 0 andion Aren, * combing’ 3

— * improvement in- that disclosed in

filed Jan. 8. 1914. 4

XG. 489, Ana it ens doe it not, on ge,

- Bitte pal parts of an audion element

15 a heated filament or other sot

Harold D. Arnold 687

; ‘Characteristic features of the. 8 are

that current can flow in one direction only in the

ionized stream, and that the strength of current

in the stream flowing from its source to the plate

is modified by electrostatic rather than by electro- °

magnetic force as in some other Sia of *gaseous’ :

repeaters.””

What is the 88 of that. statement? py igit pH!

A. That statement describes very clearly in the

common terminology of a few years ago the perform-

ance of a vacuum tube device of the audion character

_ 4n the condition in which the discharge i is a pure elec-

tron discharge. It is obvious that today one who was

familiar only with the terminology of today might be

misled by the term ‘‘source of ionization,’’ line 25,

page 1. But that term was a common term and is still

not an uncommon term for an electron-emitting fila-

ment, as J think I had occasion to use in my direct tes-

timony the term negative i ion and the term positive ion.

They were all called ions originally and nowadays we

do make a distinction between a negative ion and the

electron by terms in order to clearly indicate the dif-

ference in mass between the negative ion and the nega-

tive electron, but in the terminology of about this time

or a little earlier ionization was used to inelude posi-

tire and negative ions and electrons, and further: on,

une bal where it. , “The current Can flow i in one

g oe otter’ than the pure electrons then the current

1 d flow in both directions. Of course, it is conceiv-

ible that the words might read also upon a device

which 1 nothing in it but pure positive ions, but

ions indicate

Would say that those words which you have read indi-

688 Ag Harold D. —

cate clearly 3 and definitely a high vacuum audi on 495 a

operating in the presence of a pure electron stream

and -I think would so have been understood as of Be

date of issuance of the patent, 1915.

N. 490. Did you ever see a Tungar Walid

A. At a distance. I never saw one very close at

hand. :

X. 491. ‘You ‘are not familiar with it?

A. T am not familiar with it, no, sir. |

‘XQ. 492. You know as a matter of fact, 40 you

not, that very, perfect rectification can be obtained i in

a tube containing a very considerable quantity 0 gas.

at mode voltages?

A. Nb, I do not know that that Was the case. 1

think you will have to define your term very perfect“ 2

a little more accurate if you want me to subscribe to

your statement. I understand that the Tungar recti.

fier is not a very perfect rectifier. I understood that

its use was rather being discontinued. I may add, how:

ever, that the matter of rectification is subject t to

mathematical computation and if one is given the num. &

ber of electrons present and the number of positive ~

ions present and their masses respectively, then with

due mathematical labor one can find out how much

current will flow in the one direction carried by the :

positive carriers, and how much will flow in the 0

directidn carried by the negative carriers and if

noe han preg gtr anger A

te Arnold-Langmt r Interference, you had wha

: ped oe en of the action of hog

. a

all dearly.

Harold D. Ba ae

ae 10 , 40 Will you look at de drawing’ mere Dr.

Arnold, which is opposite page 36 of the Interference

: “record in the Arno}d-Langmuir Interference? i

< to 1 a eee eee eee *

XQ. 495. There is 8 curve OABC’K, which is set

up in that application as being the eurve ol a high

vacuum tube, is it not?

4 T eue 107 che dba üs Up üs

ture appears to be a picture associated with my appli-

“cation, but the context does not seem to be. It seems

to be associated with Dr. Langmuir’s application.

4 XQ. 496. Perhaps we have the wrong figure. It

=f opposite Page 36. re

| Mn. RroRNOD: Tell him where ‘the specificn

tion is. 4 3

XQ. 497. Doeter, you urg Hebt beet the pasture,

but the Arnold application follows the drawing rather

1 L mean it precedes it. 55 N

A. I have it now, yes, sir. ake

XO. 498. Wa e e e t

is, the specifications. Will you look at page 9, near

ie bottom of the page, line 28, according to the num.

5 oot ore

A. The a portion, which: you have indicated reads, ae

, ing, 25 | ae

Se Ak the te tte ofthe cath, ind ot

5 ined at the value assum 3 an:

i ee that St to which you refer me?

res 20. 499. Nea. gy coer ec

— —

bon in 16 is that oorrectf i ad

a: . "Harold b. Arnold 8

A, Kon would slp me st you would give mw the

lips:

XO 200 Sine e 10, and hegins: “Now sup:

pose a small quantity

A. 1 do not find: any reference to it. 5

. XQ. 501. G is mentioned on page 11, line 28. as

3 A. Yes, according to the ion ef. the text that

yon have pointed out to me curve OABHG is il.

lustrative i in a theoretical way of what will N

if as stated on line 26, If still more molecules per 4

C. are present or are readily liberated in the tube the

instabilitz may. begin at.and proceed, along the dotted

7 part d.“

ay X. 502. N you ee patent 1,129,

: 942, March 5, 1915, application filed May 28, 1914. :

es eee

. it Soldton 18 Yue’ wo,

ee ee eee, for securing See

its in circuits of low 3 ö

1 phon a7 2 in GHEE! FS

Site he 5 g

2 &

Harold D. Arnold, | Cie

. 10h mot think that in qite corres.

10505 What do you do? 25

4A. I exiticize patent eee that are sub:

mitted to me for signature as to the fogs: set. sini in

them with reference to my work. f 5

XO. 506. Whether they describe y your vom prop-

erly? :

4. Whetlier they deseribe my work r

= XQ: 507. I assume you do that, If they describe

‘whole theory. wrong, you’ would call attention to it?

A. Yes, I would call attention to it if it had the

' theor wrong but I do not concern myself so much with

theory in these applications. I may say this, that I i

would not knowingly allow any seriously misleading

. . in a patent . over my 5

0. 608. 1 assume that, Doctor. But you give . oC

epar a pretty} Lon tonal sures

a. di ties :

era tic ie om |

| . —* it was not! 67

ft Ae 60 0 on nat 3 line 16 p pat 15 .

60 3 eaking Of vac

Tepe: 3 andy tnt that expression

your work wrongly, had the connections wrong and the

Ts 8

ee | Harold D. Arnold

0 flow W .

trodes in space maintained in a conductive’ state by —

the are or otherwise. That would be including your

ee mercury repeater, would it not? In fact, it goes on to

talk about Age mercury repeater i in the next sentence;

—

does it not? 8

vs he Oh, yes, you are quite right. ja fas:

X. 512. So that the expression vacuum thee :

onic repeaters as used in this patent is used in the :

sense broad enough to include a great many things?

eee Salted Sho nanan here en, |

inelnde a mercury are repeater. . 5

XQ. 513. But the expression vacuum discharges

repeater includes mercury arct en ae

A. Oh, yes. Pies te moe

: XO. 514. And the expression 8 epeater

includes the DeForest audion. That is all. I want to

Nelle en, par the Von Laier Babe Wees ;

„„ wad cannot 9 that quéstion without: 0 a

oa 8 the 3 and pening tare it} is 2 . have not a

| ox. ä

Vo. 4,129,943, iseued May 2, 1915, on applicatio

eee — — 1 :

| Herold D. Arnold , 803

66 sana Wer the

patent instead of before them. It is very 2

A. I have the patent before me. .

XQ. 519. This again in stated to be a gaseous re

_ poate, ia it ott : -

8 sir; eansatasapentar inieisenita dee im-

_Pedance the title of the patent. 7 a

X. 520. And illustrates the three: lestroge vae-

eee

A. It does. .

X. 521. And these e wait are dis- i

— doigned by yo for axe with

dat sort of a tube! Lite |

"A, It is my. present recollection that ‘this ‘patent

ies only to high vacuum audions, but 1 eannot-et-

‘tempt to define the scope of the patent. i

ER: 1 e ak dun tuk: the noupay that’

- for the patent lawyers; and not for you: I simply

meant to ask you whether the invention of the patent |

ee te ee.

: cages i

„ Ves, it Wes

XQ. 523. But you a-did not mention the high wae

Seams adios ee eee nts:

e te our wa for tht witht

: ng it through, if that is ‘agreeable. 1

| X. 524.25. Please do not take my word, because I |

a ee ee eee Doctor, but correct

te statement later, if you want to. have not read it

through recently. Now, Patent No. 1,128,280, page

275 eee 2377, is issued Feb-

ruary 16, 1915, on an applicatior ‘fled dune 2. 1914.

_ getter .

Ans and wer onl} aes a damper: detector.” „ ee

oe a Harold b. Arnold

A. wil you wait ane the. mt number again?

Fatent No. 1,128,280.) 3 5 * :

Tun Court: : Where is thaty Mr. | Davist =

Mr. Davis: Page 2375.

; * Yes, the heading of this is wien et

r, and i in the first paragraph it says: . i

N ew and useful i rovements i in the

| oy imp Poi

4 ep

XO. 526. Looking to the Stewie. it appears tobe,

does it not, a rather complex tube having several ele.

ments connected together in various wayst- ad

A. No. I would not say so. It. has ane filament, ©

two grids and one plate, rather similar to the ordinary

DeForest audion set, but the filament is ent in two

parts, one part appears on the one side of the plate an .

the other on the other side of the plate. een

dicks ‘that you ref ope a:high vacuum d

ee eee ipa in rang oh

Harold D. Arnotd

„Now if the potential of ‘either i input electrode

becomes more tive, the current the fila-

ment to the plate do no more than fall to zero,

dime the unilateral conductivity of the space will

net allow a corre in the opposite direction

That, i in words, i is a pretty clear statement of a

pure electron device. On the other hand, this particn-

lar patent is s certainly not a patent designed to cover

* invention of the high vacuum audion, as such,

. 529. It is a patent which relates to an appfl-

cat mn. or improvement on that; is that right? en

. An improvement in structure, yes, sir.

X. 530. But it does not disclose the e of

e ant

Dig A. It certainly, does. not, Giscloge 1 in any. de-

Rs X . enn. Do you. consider that one shld i in ‘the

art, if the art 1

UI. Haier; The . not finish

a: 4 Mn. Davis: I beg your pardon. 10 .

1 (Continuing): I was goin to say it ae not

disclose it 2. any detail, but as I Gg seed,

Leth, 2 Aes she

“art as oa hed gael zn ie

would know how to build such an audion?. mye

A, As to the features disclosed in this patent,

Bou 533. But 1 “features would not pe any

696 . Harold D. Arnolu .

XO. 534. They would not, hava: the use e which you

contemplated when you filed the application?

a A. I am not prepared to say that this sort of

structure might not be useful in some of the tubes,

such as your company makes, where there i is gas pres.

ent in the tube.

„ Tes, Doctor, but you were making an

invention of an improvement of a high vacuum andion,

that is what you had in mind and what you were think.

ing about when you filed the application; that is the

use you N ae to put this improvement to, was it

not, as an improvement in the high vacuum audion! |

A. I. cannot do very much more than refer to the

statement here: An improvement in thermionic de-

tectors,’’ which was written at that time, and I think.

the patent itself speaks pretty clearly, for certainly

et what it is, and I think for what it is intended tobe,

XQ. 536. June 8 1914, that was about the time

vou were ready to make the first test on ae tung

continental line?!

A. June 8, 19144 e ee

XQ. 537. Is that right! oie

A. That was about the time we were ready to con-

nect through for the first demonstration, the parts of

the circuit had ere in operation-with audion repeaters

before that ti Aine ‘

OL ea a 10 that time you considered you had

kully solved alll this problem with chest vacuum, and

knew how to- make the tube! 55%

A. For telephone repeater service. agate 1

XO. 539. And were proceeding with the develo

ment of more powerful tubes for Eadie! .

A. Yes, that is correct.

XI. 540. And there was not a ghost of a thought

in your whole organization among the respective. heads

Uke yourself, of using any low vacuum tubes i in tele.

ae Phone service, was there 8 „

—

a? - : ,

PP Saami Saanich a a ind halal — 9

6. 8

bontemplate the use of low vacuum tubes in our tele-

phone service. -

we 541. You mean ballast? 3

Tun Covurr: What is that?

Mr. Davis: Ballast.

: A. No, Ido not mean: ballast ben: What I have 3

in mind is tubes in which we actually make use of

-. jonized gas discharge; but that. I think is immaterial

at the moment, because we were not at that time con-

‘templating using telephone repeater elements i in Which

das ionization played any considerable part.

XQ. 542. Ani yet you do not in your e

. tion, do you, describe or say anything about this spe-

‘¢ial high vacuum which you. then knew how to oe N

or how to make it?

8 This patent does not disclose the vacuum in 5

It indicates that it was a pure electron. de-

vice, en it is not a patent on a vacuum, or on a method

» of getting a vacuum, or on a condition of vacuum. It

is a patent, as I seesit, on the arrangement of the fila-

| ment grid and the plate within the bulb. |

XQ. 543. Now this patent No. 1, 168,270, on page

2991, is another patent of yours, issued January 18,

1916, on an application filed December 14, 1914.

> has to do with a protective device, does it not; the

drawing is on page 23927 N e

A. Ves, sir. It is entitled “A Protective Device i

for Electric. Cireuits. “

. XQ. 544. And the en thing to be SEINE

is a vacuum tube, is it not, and the on therewith - +

associated?

A. Yes, it is a vacuum tube, ashing a filament and

a8 plate but no grid; and used in a particular circuit.

I think the patent relates to the method of use and not

000 the construction of the device. ,

1 a

py . 1 can not agree with your statement just as

you make it, because we not only then, but do now.

Harold D. Arnold 67

” ot?

: 698 Harold B. Arnold

, By Mn. Davis:

when we adjourned for luncheon? -

x0 545. Now, will you look at page 2403, patent

No. 1, 200, 796, October 10, 1916, on an application filed.

September 3, 1915, the drawing. is on page 2405; 1.

that another, of your patents, Doctor :

Mr. Davis: Will you look at it here, Doctort

Would your Honor like to adjourn N lunch!

Tun Court: Then we will come back at 2.15.

3 { 4 e .

Abran Ruons s.

Mr. Davis: I would like to inquire from my _

kriends on the other side what action they have

taken or are prepared to take with reference to

our request for the get TH of certain doen.

‘ments: -

„ Mn. Haroun: We will let you see en

that we have. The only thing that we have not

got here, which I have neglected to state this

morning, because I did not want: to interrupt your

A . cross-examination, was that book. : See

MI. Davis: The only question is a question of 5

order and we will look this over tonight but in case

we have not got them when the defendants close

5 their case, we will take: x—

gary. b . Noes

Tue Bowater: You will work that out i ina prac

tical Way.

XQ. 546. Have you had an opportunity to look

over the particular patent of which we were .

A. Te 3 pes

XQ. 547. What does it relate to in. a general *

A. This patent is entitled Power limiting de-

vices, and relates to the use gf vacuum tubes having

two elements for purpases 0 e N wer

— NSS EDM SEPM NYT OR NTI

‘ 2

15 Horold D. Ano 1 | 699 |

XO. 548.-That is ising a vibe itself as a pro-

tectivo device?

A. The tube plus the bent, yes, sir.

XQ. 549. All of these applications which woc :

into patents which. we have been discussing were filed

within a reasonable time after the invention. was made

respectively, were they not?

A. I doubt if I can answer that question in such

u general form. I certainly cannot answer it with re-

. spect to any particular patent without reference to

the records in our patent department. Frequently

there are lapses of a year or so.

XQ, 550. Most of those applications were filed i in

19414 and some in 1915. It is true, is it not, that they

ere all invented after November 1, 19127

A. That is true. 5

XO. 551. So that, without ‘trying to en

what a feasonable time is they were ipvented after No-

vember 1, 1912, and most of them were filed in 1914. 1 8

Von did Kot file the application for the invention of |

the Langmuir' patent, the application which was in-

volved in the. Interference, until November 2, 1915,

ral ee

chat is correct, is it not:

A. That is correct. ö 5

X. 552. And that was because there was a pe-

nod! in which you thought it was not an invention?

A. I have a bit of difficulty with your wording. I

vVould hardly say I thought it was not an invention. I

will say it did not occur to me that it was an inven-

tion. There is a distinotion there that is clear in my

0 at least. atin wide bs F

XO. 553. There was a period in which you did *

“not ‘think that it was an invention?

A. During that period there was ao thought re.

a at all concerned with whether this was an: inven

tion or was not an invention. It simply did not caller

my . it . be an jnvention.: :

700 : Harold b. Als

XQ. 554. It is true, is it not, that the Telephone |

Company was a commercial concern which rested upon

patent rights and it was making p&tent claims when. ~

ever it found anything patentable? |

A. As a general.statement I suppose that is true.“

I. do not think I am qualified to answer that state-

ment very well. I do not think it rests upon patent

rights entirely. 5.

XQ. 555. Dr. Millikan on page 875 of the Inter-

. ference record at page 407 of Arnold’s rebuttal on mo-

tion made exactly that statement. Would you disagree

with him!

a . Mn. Hunt: I Nn

Mr. Davis: I do not insist on the question.

I do not think it is very important.

Tun Court: All right.

„XC. 556, And then later you were advised by the

Patent Depfrtment that it was an invention, a that

correct? !

A. I was advised by our - Patent Department that

in their opinion à patent application should be filed

upon this subject matter as they thought that a pat:

ent might be issued on it.

XQ. 557. They gave you such advice as justified

you in taking the usual inventor's oath !? 4

A. Yes, their advice plus my knowledge of the

contents of the application ifstified my taking .the

Asual inventor’s oath.

— 0.558. That is, if you had been: advised and ö

believed it was not an invention, you would not f

taken the oath?

mA, T de:sot remember the. wording of the inves:

tor’s oath, but if my memory is correct it is that one :

~ swears that he believes he is the first inventor, ang

to that extent, at any rate, if that is the wording of the

oath, I could subscribe to it now as well as then but it

is not my recollection that you swear that you have

‘ ¢ 5 f 1

te ° ayy os 2

EI * 5

: ‘ . 1 Ky

"Harold D. Arnold. = 01

+ a l

made an invention. That 1 presume is to bo deter- 8 5

mined by the Patent Department and. the courts.

X. 559. I do not think any inventor will be held

responsible for judgment on e question of law of the.

kind, but it is a question of good faith if you think you

are the first fbventor you have the right to make the

boat. ee Rie te

A. I thought I Was the first inventor, yes, sir.

X.. 560. Were you present at a meeting or-confer- ©

ende which was held on Easter Sunday, 1915, on the

occasion of certain wireless telephone experiments? ..

A. Easter Sunday 1915, I was in Montauk, Long

~ Feland, conducting with the help of: a number of as:

sistants a wireless demonstration from Montauk to

Wilthington, Delaware, and at that demonstration were

a considerable number of people and various conversa-

- tions were held at that time.. I, however, was concerned |

principally with the operation of the apparatus of

which I had.charge and took very little part in the

conversations, nor do I remember them at all clearly, —

X. 561. Dr. Millikan has (estified to an interview

at which you weré present and at.which other things -

happened and I want to know whether your recollec- —

tion agrees with Dr. Millikan’s as to what took place

at this interview. He says at page 874 of the Inter.

Rupees recur oer Bs

Who had the good fortune of by wireless

CCC

5 ton. It Was On: ’

: Jewatt informed me that he had just learned that

Ton have nto: recollection ot that?

> ie 2 . ' 1 ae

. Herold 2. Arnold _ eit

found that Dr. La uir hüd . tent a

cations in which emul ola med that he 225

8 * a electron discharges,” and 86

forth,

ae De you 88 matt nS

A. I do remember ‘conversations about this mat.

ter with Professor Millikan, but 1 cannot place them

with positiveness as of that day and place. Certainly

they were at just about that time.

XO. 562. And you remember, do you, that Pr. i

" Jewett informed you of the fact that the General Elec- ©

tric Company had an application for Langmuir? _

A. No, I do not remember that Dr. Jewett in-

formed me. It would be. a li tle unusual for him to

do-so, because he was not my édiate superior. !

do not remember how I was informed. If Dr. Jewett

intended to inform me, he would der a have passed

the information through Mr. Colpitts. |

15 XO 563. Well, Dr. Millkan's eeatimoliy is Ws to”

a group of men consisting of Dr. Jewett, Dr. Colpitts,

Dr. Arnold and Dr. Van der Bij}, apparently ee. ke

a on this Easter Sunday? |

A. We were together, yes, sir, on that hie

pes | XQ. 564, And it was at that meeting, acco

Dr. Millikan’s testimony, that this infor

given, that is, that Dr. Jewett me

. e mo Wellies een at’ that :

being the subject of disclosure by Jewett, to me at that 75

5 88 quite definite in my memory that the e“ 5

a Harold D. wie baa 108

ns heten My 8 of some detallset what do-

curred that day is témarkably cléar, but not on this.

XQ, 565. Then when my good friend Judge Haight |

aid on page 222 of the We record p

e „But in Ootober of 1916, 3 learned for the

rst time in the American Telephone & 832

Com that uir was

gt, tion, a patent filed för an invention which they

| en that Arnold had mad Gia the only thing nat

: e y 0 at

coüld be done and filéd an a Meas for a pat-

1 85 on behalf of Arnold“ —ane 0 n.

He was in error as to the date, was fer, 5

A. I do not know exactly what Judge Haight had

i mind there. My o recollection is that—well, my

own recollection does not run as to October, because

at that time I Was in San Francisco. It may be that

at that time the company learned that the United

States application had been filéd. I do not know about

that. I think. Judge Haight will have to apex for

that himself. ‘

20. 566. But you knew. it in the apring? | 1

A. I knew it along about Waster time, yes, iis:

XO. 567, Now, Dr. Millikan further testifies on

page 407 of this book, which is pagg 875 of the Inter:

ference record, and I want to know whether vou ere:

member the oovurrence :

i 93 When Dr. Jewett dake she 6 1 thought

0 e into In *

6 Harold D. Arnold 8 *

tor the good of the public, then there was some.

— mee oux 3

Do 5 . that? ‘ae

A. I remember Professor Millikan expressing

those sentiments with the utmost clearness: during

about that time, and the only time that I saw Professor

Millikan, to my recollection, was during the week of |

_ Eastern Sunday, 1915, and from then on I did not se»

bim until perhaps late in the fall of 1915; so his senti-

ments must have been conveyed to me as of about that

po nna th that I do not, recall exactly the

conversation that fessor Millikan testified to at

Montauk. 75

XQ. 568. Well, ‘the implication ——— ie |

A. The implication is entirely correct. Kt ¢

XG. 569. Then the implication is that 4 Inter-

ference was to be obtained to prevent Langmuir from

getting a patent; is that right »

ed Mr. Harout: I object to that. J. de wot Un

A the witness should be called upon to construe Pro-

fessor Millikan's testimony. 5 4

M. Davis: I am not asking the witness ts.

construe Professor Millikan’s testimony. He saye

: the implication contained in the testimony is cor- .

rect. I am asking him what the implication is.

* Tun Cobnr: What you are asking him for, is,

. 1 Davis, to state the substance of that

regis Malla Feen

the exact language 4

Ms Dip ars Yu if your Honor ples, wl

; t is, the question I am

. oii the anni Taming 7 *

ting a paeat to te Aro or wa for he a ,

- stopping the ee ;

* ——— — — — *

22 0

230

withdraw the question?

Mn. Davis: - ask that question.

Tun Court: Very well. „

Mr. Haicut: Let · the question be read.

Tun Court: That question was withdrawn.

(XQ. 570. repeated hy the stenographer as

8 recorded.) 7 N — } 785

Mn. HAionr: May IL. admonish the witness

that his answer should be upon his own knowl-

edge! I presume if he does not know he should

not indulge in any guess or conjecturés,. because

the Telephone Company is a pretty big organiza-

tion, and this witness is only a bog in the wheel.

A. To my knowledge, the invention. wag filed for

the purpose of securing a patent for me on this sub-

_ ject matter, if the patent should prove to be pateht-

g able. N ‘ i 5 22 i ;

XO. 571. And on November 2, 1915, as you have

just said, you filed the application, and on November

18, 1915, ySur attorneys wrote a letter, did they not, i

to the patent office asking that an Interference be de-

glared with the Langmuir application supposed to be

„ then pending, page 18 of the Interferenee record?

A. The jetter which you have shown me addressed

to‘the Commissioner of Patents requests that any al-

lowable claims of the Langmuir applicaſion which

could be made by Arnold, should be su ed to him

_ fot the purpose of Interference.

XQ. 572. And the Interference was act. ally de-

clared on August 8, 1915, ds appears on page 27 of

the Interference record and on November 25, 1915,

page 2446 of the Interferende Record ou filed, or your

attorneys filed for you, a motion to dissolve the Inter.

ferencet 2 e NE DA

„ Hotel D. Ae OB

Tun Count: That is a step beyond. Then you .

— .

‘ — FD

* * 8

ay Harold D. Arnold 5

„„ MB. Rice MOND: ae: Davis, are you, sure at 5

5 the year 1% eee aes Aus na

' Mn. Har HT: You said 1915. on

Mr. Ricuigenp: You said 1915. twice.

Mr. Davis: I hope I am right. The Intareß

ende was declared on eee 8, 1916, is that right,

Mr. Richmond! 5

Mr. Ricmonp: It may be, I do’ sit know. 1. .

do not think it was in 1915. pit - ge

Mn. Davis; It appeam from page 27 of the

Interference Récord that the Interference letter

was dated August 8, 1916. My note is wrong, 5

Four Honor te that extent. ;

XO. 573. Now, this motion to e on page

4 24⁴⁴⁶ of the Interference record is: dated New Vork, ie

November 24, 1916. Do you remeinber that motion to,

. dissolve, Dr. Arnold?» 5

„„ recall that there was ; sugh a motion to dis. Me

5 &olve, but I do not recall. Mie wording of i, nor the

time of its execution. 5

0 100 574. We will rae to rely n the record ‘fof 5

-. the date which appears en page of the Interfer:

ence record as November 24; and one of the dine

Hof the motion was that the claims were not pated

td either „Was it not? :

dn wield ean not tell without e the m..

tion. I do not carry that in my mind. 1 1

XO. 575. You remember that the point of „

motion was that the thing was not. benen dont

ent .

5 A. 1 per clearly. in: bet that ‘cans repeals

in our minds as to the patentability of cer parts.

Lam net at all aure of any dont as to the patentabil

1 ity entirely. “Qo 5

ne Ne ber- the third ground of the m6

tion: That the claims constituting the counts are not

oe 3 on to cite 8 |

1A Marit. Arnold 5 r

Sai article, a Lilienfeld article, a Mash article;

a Lenard article, and an article by Majorqno..: Is that

correct!

d answer this, that it was my own persopal belief at the

. Vour ene of the contents which you have |

just read me is correct? And perhaps I can add to the

time. that claims as broad as that were included in the

original application would probably not be allowed by

the Patent Office and that is frequently the case in

applications naturally to introduce claims as broad

patent applications because an effort is made in such

as possible, and it is my recollection that those claims

practically and entirely were thrown out in the Patent

Office as unpatentable, so that to that extent my, opin-

ion was the opinion of the Patent Office.

XO 577. Lou remember that one of the elaims of

„ the original interference was allowed and is now one a

r of the Langmuir patent? !

A. 1 think that is the case, yes, sir.

XO. 578. Do you remember a paper me in this

Interference. on your behalf appearing on. page “a

ok the Interference Record?

A Now.

XQ. 579. An amdsvit of ole Peter I. Wold in

which he asks for more time in order to find some ref- . ©

erences to show that the issue was unpatentabley

A. No, 1 do not remember it.

Bong 580. And on that motion to dissolve testimony

7 80

A ‘That 3 ‘is correct.

3 a . ae in that motion you testified as a vit. :

nal Yeu, its | sy

ies of the DeForest. audion?

oe Raper: acta think ounsel: wil

582. 1 1 Une, ‘tg the behavior 5

| Is that correct? Did you say that? ay.

708 Harold D. Arnold

Save to point out to the witness exactly what he

refers to without general statements, ‘because we

had the unfortunate experience yesterday of Bet

ting wrong on that.

. Mn. Davis: I am testing the witness’ 8 recollee. :

tion, if your Honor please.

Mn. Haren ; I-submit that it cannot be teste

without the witnéss’s——— _—~

Tun Coorr: I think the bbjection is wall

taken.

XO. 583. Wil yon please 2 that book at page

470, Dr. Arnold, which is page 2 of the rebuttal testi.

mony on motion? That is your testimony, i is it not!

A. I have it.

XO. 584. That is your testimdny, is it not?

A. Ves, sir. 3

XQ. 585. And referring to the page betore i is the )

: testimony given on the: 19th day of N ovember, 19197

A. That is correct.

XQ. 586. Lou say in your answer to Q. 2:

a “During November, 1912, 1 ende i

with an audion which had been left us 175

Lee De Forest, and in connection with these ex.

a periments, I became curious to know what the

relation is between current and ce e in a .

electron discharge i e

. 1 ae

tae toe „

65 e widih'T bad beed tad to wake n

img it out were such as could never be met

5 FE — —

Harold 5. e 5 5 oe 709

surprised to ind that the equation held éven as ap-

proximately as it. did for a DeForest audion where

the- presence of the * and other disturbing fac-

tors Woch naturally be expected to cause consider-

able departure pe results computed with the.

ideal assumptions which I had made. I have here

some e, showing the way in which the particu-

lar DeForest audion to which I have referred above

did conform with the ideal ene The data

‘was taken in. Novembér, 1912.’

That was ‘your testimony? 8

» A. That was. my testimony thén and it still is.

XQ. 588. And then you give data, a table of data

on page 473, which is page 5, and on page 475, which |

is page 7, you give a plot of that data; is that correct!

A. Yes; that is correct.

X. 589. ‘And that is the same data and the same

plot as you showed this Court heaves! as your Ex-

“hibit 9; is that right? :

A. May I look at Exhibit 9 to make sure of that?

XO. 590. Surely.

A. That is a part of the same data plotted in 1 the

same way as far as T can se. J:

X. 591. That is to say, you: produeed this data is

| a this plot in 1919, as a plot of the prior art, of = ö

DeForest, audion; is that right?! i

; Or On sas ceabcted bo aphotial wiididel?-, 15

b 1 am not sure what 1 8

3 ‘the argument was in this matter. ee 1

XQ. 592. You know, do you not, that. the argument |

0 was that the issue was unpatentable because that i is the

95 a DeForest audion worked?

. I do not recall he argament myself as to thi ;

* dicular plot. 5

. Suppose we lock at Phat you said. 955

Tux Court: Do you mean the De Forest au- 5

don as it was without further evacuation?

710 Void D. Arnold 4

A Ma, Davis: Yes. My position i is that this wit

ness in 1919, when he was trying. to knock ont this

issue, testified to this curve and this data ag a

curve of the standard DeForest prior art audion

and that is the only possible construction that I

can put on tha somes Now he claims it as hig

reduction to pra 8

XQ. 594. For. desta: you said Rad page en

which is page 8, did you not, 2

‘* Altho this correspondence between te

theoretical calculation and the results ‘obtaiied in

the actual DeForest audion was r f

was not at all Feen 08 ; ies

and 80 on, and on page 480 you said:

„My first active interest in vacuum tube de.

vices of the audion type dates from the time that

Dr. De Forest left one of his tubes with us in the

Fall of 1912, and, as I have stated above in au.

der to Q. 2, I experimented with this tube in an

: ttempt to find out ow it operated from A pre

> Head thecretial point-of-view.”

2 ( 7

dna you said at page 482, which is page 14 4

bottom of page 481: Nous # es

“In order to make ine the use of the. :

tubes at voltages of the order that I had decided

was desirable, it was obvious aps hee oo

taken to overcome: the 8 that 0

| Harold;D. A . “tir

A. Those statements that. you have bead ave ‘cor-

Be rectly read from ‘the’ record and are statements of

fact. The audion to which ‘they relate is the original.

8 DeForest audion 7-A which I produced here a .

days ago and about which 1 testified.

XQ. 595. But not in the condition f in which iv: was

8 lett by DeForest?

A. Certainly not vail in the condition in whieh

it was left by Mr. De Forest.

- . XQ. 596. Not quite in the condition?

A. No. No device of that sort can be used for a

considerable period of time and remain in the same

condition. |

XQ. 597. You said on page 2182 of the Interfer- .

“ence Record, did you not, which is nooner 28 of Arnold 2

priority record: 5

Magee In Fespect to its capacity: for a considerable

voltage range of operation without gas effects, .

this audion 7-A did not in the. same Gass eae

11 orest audions that were left

h us in erg ti 1912.”’

A wilt you. give me that page number paint

XQ 598. Page 28 of the Interference Record,

A Amnold’s. record on priority. This is headed Use

| — Electron: ene Data from Audion 7-A. sag

Fon said:

7 65 “ou said that when you were e contesting priority, pas

Ti rad correctly froin the n is

1 *

N 2

„ ° 5

San

"712

Ga which 3 is page 2188 of the Interference record, you tee

. * testimony on the motion?

Harold D. Arnold» #

‘ xQ. 599. And that sein ‘ands yout Via ade

when you claimed to be the first inventor’, ee

A. To the best of my knowledge and belief I nen

have qisclaimed being the first inventor, so that I cer ·

tainly was claiming it at that time. 17

XQ. 600. Let us get it straight. The testimony -

which I have read you first in which you first produced

this curve and the plot and the data for. which the plot

was made was given by von at the time when you were

testifying in your own behalf on the motion to dis.

aolve; is that true?

A. That is correct. :

XQ. 601. And this testimony I have 8004 you lust

was given by you after the motion to dissolve had been

determined and when the Interference mann Was

at issue on priority! 5

A. Yes, sir, and the twe tatements are not to my,

mind irreconcilable.

XQ, 602, And on page 34 6f that same volama,™

tified, did you not? : jedi

on „Almost all of the early: audions. ‘with which

we de were destroyed, but on account of the

pon ev character of 7-A, its superior vacuum

: nt use we had made of the data

it — us, it was one of a few early audions that

were put into the Western Electric Comet

| Museum.”

| ae That is pbitrects. | * 5 14

| . 603. And that is the sam ai to. hl 1

you referred as an ordinary De Forest audion i in y

22 , eee

X. 604. Page 14, top of the page of Arnol

i e

"Harold D. Arnold | 115

„J have no doubt that some of the DeForest

audions as originally made would have operated

at 120 volts entirely NN As a matter

of fact, the one that I gave data of} in answer to

2.20 perated to 80 volts, a ana would very probably

have gone ‘considerably higher. Hie

A. You have ‘vend correctly trons. the wegen but

that to my mind is not a statement to the same effect

as the statement which you have just asked me to cor-

-. poborate.

XC. 605. Dr. Arnold, at the time when ven a 5

that your counsel were trying to destroy this invention,

to destroy the patentability of this invention and you

were called as a witness to that effect, you produced

this curve of the Mdion 7-A and said it was the curve

of a DeForest audion without saying that you had

made any changes on it or had done any work on it;

is that correct?

4 A. That is not e 1 did not detail any proc-

esses that had been pursued_in order to modify its

-. characteristics, but I am quite sure that 1 testified that

the tube had been used.

XO. 605a. Of course you ad to use it to-take the

characteristics. Did you natant + which would

give one the impression that the uten had ‘been:

transformed in its characteristics? _

Mx. Hienr: I object to that. The witness.

a cannot be an expert to, testify as to what impres-

sion would be conveyed by what he testified to:

b e Leere e

N a ?

2 xq. 606. Now, her: erer, to neun by thee

“prepared statements on the question of priority, Dr

7 these statements I think you said 5

ang were carefully sh ia: and discussed with ies

wee

. 2 3

See) ee

IM. Harald D. Arnold

lawyers, and 80 forth, and you recognized. the thing»

was important; do you remember that!?!

A. I do not remember saying that, but I certainly

did recognize that the matter was important, and

they were carefully discussed. I do not recall saying

at this. morning. ,

X. 607. And carefully ee a

il. And very carefully prepared, yes, sir.

XC. 608. Now, in all those statements—I havé

myself not deen able to find, and I amy asking you to

answer the question I am going to ask you on ‘the as.

sumption that I am right—I have not been able to

find any place in which you said that you intentionally.

or deliberately, or knowingly improved the vacuum on

that tube. I have found many places in which you said

that you did improve it, and that you cleaned it up, and

that you had a clean-up action, but I find no place in

which you deliberately said you did. Yesterday, I

- “think it Wagz vou did testify; if I understood you cor-

reetly, on page 597, of a deliberate. premeditated at

‘tempt at a clean-up; i is that right?

A. I do not recall the exact words of. my tekimelh

Festerday, but I can re-state the fact which may, 1

hope, agree with the statement of yesterday, which —

was that in the experiments which I asked Pierce o

conduet. I instructed. him to repeatedly increase the |

voltage to such a value as would bring on blue hase

and that I kney/that thereby the vacuum would very

- probably—I n have stated certainly—be im ov

because: J was familiar with the corresp lean-

_effect in X-ray tubes. That, TRE a ave

6 an thé sense of my testimony yesterday.

X. 608a. It was substantially what ye

8 1 Page 597. 3 you did Any uy

$ fee Arwdld 3 1

et A er probably not in those ark 1 do not

recall that testimony i complete detail. ; \

XO. 609. Now,’of course, it was quite important

whether thiss thing had happened to this DeForest

audion. in your hands or the hands of Pierce, whether |

it was an accident or a premeditated thing, was it not?

Mn. Hares: 1 bject: to that, if your Honor

please. j

(Diseussion. )

Tae Court: It seents to me the question to be

put vy Mr. Davis, the real point of that as I under-

stand it, is not that something that was material

was omitted, but the evidence that was produced

Was affirmatively mislea ing in the absence of the

* supplemental testimony. ;

MI. Davis: If your Honor please, may I ex-

plain what I understand the atts to ber e

: Tur Court: N V ö .

Mu. Davis: These able were. very eare-

fully prepared, make no mistake about that. They

were prepared with the utmost care. Now, we

K know, and there is no question that Dr. Arnold had

a De Forest audion on November Ist. The records

bd how that he directed ‘Pierce to make some read-

ings, to take his characteristi¢ curves, and the note-

books show uninterrupted characteristic curve

readings going on up to November 30th, perhaps,

1 of characteristies and the notebooks are

fe! all just alike’; that is, you look at the heading of

ö 10 a “the page, and it is Characteristie between grid

andi plate, and the next page, it is characteristic .

between p C

ee b

716 ut Harold D. Arnold 135 , :

Tun Court: To the DeForest tube?

Mr, Davis: To that 7-A audion. f

Tun Court: To alter its charaoteristi¢s? :

: Mr. Davis: There is no question these charac.

teristics were altered, that is very clear, and our

position is, and has been, it was dus fo an acci-

dent, the very existence of which was not known

to Dr. Arnold and an accident which he never re

_ prod and was unable to reproduce, as he did

not understand it. I say that much, just to give

your Honor the background ¹ which this

is about. N *

Tun Courr: Les. 7

Mn. Davis: Now, then, you can read that testi: \

mony, that prepared statement of Dr.

rey prepared statement of Mr. Pierce as corro ag:

_ witness, and all those statements, and you 3

language which seems to me that they did some.

thing to that audion; but every time you analyst

that language, you see it is carefully prepared to

give the impression, but actually does not say any

more than they. passed current through it. He

| Harold D. Arnold N 1

Ma Harout: Why do you suppose the witslees

comes here and makes the statentent, if he did not

make it there? Has suddenly his conscience gone

Ah back on him, sd that he comes before a court-where

hae can be cfpss-examined and cross-examined at

length; that his conscience has suddenly changed,

and the witness has now the boldness to come and

state things that he did not dare to state in the

sanctum of the office of his on attorney?

Mr. Davis: If your Honor please, a great

many years have gone on since these things hap-

pened and a great deal of pressure has been put

> on upon this situation. Dr. Arnold's mind has dwelt

on this matter a great deal. This morning, for

example, we had an illustration when we asked

him what a certain patént of his was for. He told

us he gave us the statement and looking at the-pat-

ent itself, it was r an entirely different n, ee

but I am not criti it.

. Tun Cover: Tun not mlsled by that, I bep⸗

pened to have one experienge of my own on the

. witness stahd, where I had no doubt in the world

that a certain fact e and I so testified, and

the expression of the o counsel’s eounte .

. nano told me that he was surprised, and to show. .

i bim that he was dead wrong, I called for the paper.

75 e eee

; not disturb me very much, because I realize from

chat one experience the frailty of my memory, and

dconsequentiy, the frailty of the memory of other

Pf. gr apy id

6 so that it seems to me that you

4 6 in your last statement; Mr. Davis,

: er ar an, |

other two. At the mment, I see no

RS Se nee, :

Harold D. Anal Ve

ee e at 1. last part, mat is, what: they aia a

cee : ultimately to clean up at that time, if I get your

f thought in your last statement. Now, then, the

=f first question dealt with the appreciation of the

= importance, and it. seems to me you shift how in.

ae ners ae

„„ sense, but I mean drawing his attention to the-

laboratory rather than to the Patent ane in your

8 last question. * 8.

! UI. Dags: I am coming to that, it your Honor

5 Pane 5

n Gene Win you do this. 80 that we may

know ekactly where we are—put a new quéstion 8

Which you think is proper to be answered, beari

5 in mind the discussion that has been had. Tle :

„ °: mean that that discussion shall affect you éxeept

as it throws a 8 on the e question which vou have 515

* e 5 Se:

XO. 610. Did you tell your ü at the time 17

“before the time these statements Were prepared, Dr. 5

ee 5 Arnold, that you did instruct. Mr. W to go up toa

: blue glow⸗in order. to get a clean- up?

A. ‘Births best ob m rer liesen mots 1 dd, but

am not entirely clear us to just what I told the N

__ wha prepared the affidavit. Certainly if 1 told him that

Vit would have been in conformity with the facts, and i:

aid not tell him that, it would have been an omission 1

ich 1 would have regretted. | <

: "XQ. G1. Do you know why that statentent vas 5

‘not included in your prepared statement 2355

X No. I do not en why #2 was not ineluded 8

8 my prepared statement. wedi vs

W 612 Ton attended how'man bf abe Beahbes

N in this interference? ee

ate aminer of ee Ma CoRR St “ach 1 i Aes

Dotan A

ii 3 ® © 75 8 ; a i . ; :

2 ¥ 2

a a * 5

eral . 1 ü

1 | Harold D. Ar,ꝭfAl, 7

X 613. And the Board of Examiners. in chief,

were yon not?

A. Oh, wait a minute. To the:best of my present

recollection, I was in Washington twice, and once in

the Patent Office; but I do not remember which ttibu-

“nal; it was in the Patent Office." ee 1

Tn Count: We will take a ‘short Yecess now. 5

„ (Atera chort recess.)

XO. 619. Coming back again to November ist.

1912, whgtAvas the voltage and current which the au-

dion wald handle properly? -

Tux Court: That is -A 0

Mn. Davis: The audion which was exhibited

by De Forest, aud which Dr. Arnold found in Mr.

_ Colpitts’ office on November ist.- - 7

A. There were two or three different audion ele-

ments left by DeForest, the voltgge and currents for

“them were different among themselyes, not however

very greatly different, and the voltage for satisfactory

operation as a telephone repeater at ordinary voice :

loudness in the sense of a*low conversational tone as

- used over the telephone instrument or fer faint sounds,

“fainter than that which 1 have just defined, I would .

bay thé voltage that could be used was about forty volts

or a little lower, perhaps between ‘thirty and forty —

. yolts. I want to make that anatter of loudness quite,

Hoar and since there is some difficulty in tue interpre-

0 614. Can not you forget the loudness? Al

ir means is you must not overload, if you use-the ex-

pression in the rough way in which I am using it; is

not that it?) ***

A. No, no. ‘You must not get blue haze.

X. 615. You spoke of a voltage on the device

at which: it would not blue haze however loudly you.

emight speak? 3 3 5 ox . 4.

5 ees 8 Beir

8 : * 3 re =

* > ot 3

ee + 3 8 * 5

: 2 s i

720 ~~: +«Harold D. Arnold : } |

A. Yes, there was auch a voltage. 95

XQ. . 616. But that was not the normal voltage?

A. That was the voltage somewhere in the order

of thirty volts as I recall it. The whole range: of oper. 3

ation ran from the voltage of thirty volts plus or minus

a few volts to the vicinity of forty volts, plus or minus

a few volts, and at the upper voltage blue haze

; occasionally and intermittently | appear,

XQ 617. If you overloadedꝰ? |

A. If you overloaded, and at the lower voltage

the articulation would be poor, if you saa) too load, 3

. 618. If you overloaded?”

Yes, if you overloaded.

XQ. 619-20. Now, you testified in your 15 :

4 record, en 12, page 2166 of the Interference record;

And since the voltage i in those original tubes

ran about 40 volts and the current about 150 m.

ergamperes, the maximum available output power

4% would be less ‘than’ six milliwatts.”’ - 4

eee that A your recollection? *

A. Bhat is not my 3 but 1 oan seal

XQ. 621. Near the top of page 12 of that bookt

A. Was the last word in the preceding question

3 „Hillivatts- f (Question repeated by the 7

pher.) That is the faet. 3

XQ. 622. You went on, did you not:

' On the other hand, the Arnold are repes

operating at 220 volts, could put on the line a

3 watts. The power that an ordinary telep

| . line is of e

Fe * walt.“ ae

Is that true? ae

A suas tw coe 1 veil ee

ee pode

pep Rh:

X. 623. Now, you testified on page 2193 of the

Interference record, which is page 39 of the same book

which you have: dc e ö

We understood thoroughly in November

15912 that the principles of operation of the high

vacuum repeater bulb that contemplated were

the same as-for the original DeForest. and Me-

Candless audions such as DeForest audion 7-A.

when they were kept below the voltage at which

gas effects appeared:

Are you still of that opinion?

A. I am. a ö 2 rae oy

XQ. 624, So that so long as you did not ask the

DeForest tube to do more than a certain amount of

work, it is your view that it did that work all right!

A. Providing the voltage on the plate was suffi-

/ gi fk in be 5

K. 625. Provided that your plate voltages and

current were low enough, and you did not overload it?

As I will put it clearly this ‘way—provided the

plate voltage did not reach the place where ionization -

became apparent and provided the input speech was

not sufficient to produce ionization, then, if the input

speech was not so loud as to cause distortion because

ok the inadequate electron supply, the reproduction

V. 626. But all those limitations together

amount to a very severe limitation as a practical ma-.

ter from a telephone standpoint! .

A. Les, a limitatio ‘that would have made the de-

ie of practically no value in the telephone plant.

.. 627. Now, mm vou please look at your prior.

it Exhibit No. 251 This appears to be a, photostat

spy of page 5 of Kendall’s notebook No. 42, noting

"dion repeater at Philadelphia on October 15, 1913.

VS tee si

122; =, Harold D. Arnold

The. atime of that page, if I 3 it e

5 gives the energy conditions under which those tubes :

went into service, service which has sometimes here

been called commercial service and sometimes called

: ‘experimental service, ‘but whatever yau call it, it shows

he energy conditions. What were those energy con.

ditions i in current and voltage? 5 sae 7 iad ne

„ Mr. Hater: I think I ought j

question, because I thi ntains an erroneous

statement. Mr, Davis says that service that has

sometimes been referred to as commercial service.

. and other times as experimental service, and I do

not think there lias been any such evidence. .

Discussion.) 1

Mr. Davis: I will ask Dr. 1 to ae

the question including any characterization of the

eireuit, either commercial or uncommercial, and

not being. bound by it, as if I had not said it. 5

A. The record to which you direct my 1 :

at the bottom of page 5, Exhibit 25, shows that 9.30

oe clock on the 18th of October, 1913, 8 Be

upon element 23.11 and at 9. 40, ten minutes ee :

the record says, Talk O. K. Somewhat louder.“ And

at 9.55 P. M. the record says, “Talk O. K. On the

ing. This does not show much gain..

Tue dath is sufficient, to indicate that about fo

two volts were in the plate circuit of audion 6.11

about forty. recs the plate circuit of audion 23

oe does not indicate the plate currents which were

ea hat

it does indicate that the dev

g to give much gain

‘Harold D. Arnold” 5 723

any further kram the record or + from, any knowledge 45

ol my own with respect to the power in that circuit.

XO. 628. The currents are given just above, are

matt Seventy rene seven munten, ands

4 2

= XQ. 629. I am told I am in error in reading“

minutes. It is miles.

A. I;see the record to which you ‘tele and that

- reoord was apparently taken before the elements were

put into the circuit and that does indicate that audion

6.11 with twenty-eight volts had a current of 170 miero-

amperes, and that audion 23.11—no, it does not state :

what current was in audion 23.11 with twenty-five cells.

I wish the stenographer. will go back and correct

twenty-eight volts to eee bells i in the. eben

ing sentence.

X. 630. It gives les 23.11 on N. V. which means

New York, 23 cells 70 microamperes.: oi. tii

A. Where are you reading from now!

XO. 631. Lam referring to this line here, Doster;

B. 11 on N. X. tort ee |

A. Yes, I see. : 25

9 gern iden’ rang .

does it mean? Doesn't it mean what it says? ;

ie Misi L presume it does, bat I am trying to pussle out |

jit what it aay. fia D :

X. 633. Lou had two: ren one to New. York :

Fe ‘one to Washington and here you have one audion.

arked with On Wa.“ ‘The other one m marked On

N. V. Does it not mean that one was on ann „

ingto cireuit and one on the New York di Sahih

8 I would not be sure about that. It says, „Atter

this test over; test between networks,“ and then imme-

diately follows what you have quoted, 6.11 on Wa.“

and 23.11 on N. V.““ ‘Tt seems to me not improbable.»

—

„ Harold P. Arnold

from my ‘deedllection of things that 1 4

there at Philadelphia that this might refer to a test on

the Washington and New York simulating net works,

but I am not sure about that. This record is = my

record and I uave to speak from my best interpretation

as to Mr. Kendall’s record.

XC. 634. Th vecint wae put in to show the com.

mencement of the commercial service with an audion

repeater at Philadelphia, and it says at the top: Test

between New Vork and Philadelphia to see about .

ting this circuit.?

A. It looks 10 0 like* putting: et .

XQ. 635. And it mentions various cells, 39 calls

and 21 cells and 31 cells and finally it comes down %

28 and 22 and against that there 18 a notation, ‘‘ Which

is to be used in service. I take it that that 28 was on

the New York line and 22 on the Washington line, or

_ viee versa, or Baltimore. I do not know which. Bat

that is the figure of the number of cells to be used for

Be servings it not? V

A. T en ane en ine not: Yes, that is wht

it says, and that undoubtedly is what it means.

XC. 636. And just below the Line. te-whieh 1 oll

your attention, it shows the same figures 22 and %

| de and the other on te New York So you have at

e $8 calle apd 110 micronmperna=” eg

started gives the voltages, as I understand the re

as 288 cells and 25 cells, respectively. However,

difference between 25 and 28 is not very large.

X. 637. Let us take the-28 94 the ma cimun

forgot the 25 and 22. 28 cells gave a nicroa

eee et. f eis a

| eee

Mba: Hm 3

XQ. 638. How much was the energy? 3

A. The energy in the plate circuit, if that was 42

F;olts, is the product of 42 and 110, or 4.6 milliwatts,

V. 639. That is about two-thirds of the energy

which the DeForest audion would handle properly?

1 A. Thereabouts. I would like to call your atten-

tion to the fact that this does not show much gain as

indicated right at the bottom of the page. .

VO. 640. You had a tube in the spring of 1914. \

_ which would handle five milliamperes at ninety volts,

Is that right? i 12 8

A. Can you refer me to the reference? a

.d. 641. Tes, I think I can find the place. On

page 136 of the Arnold priority record, page 2280 of

the Interference Record, folio 408, you say: Cy

„ had clearly in mind a special tube which fo

we were running on life. test at that time and 3

which throughout the week of the day when I BS alee

“talked with him was ‘operating with about five . |

a eee aR of electron current at about 90 an

0 „ whe ’ eee Hae Bs Aree

—.

And this statement referred, did it not, to a talk which =

you had with Dr, Langmuir in the spring of the year

14 1 may be wrong about the date of the talk.

aud if I am I wish you would correct me. I gather

from page 2289 that the talk was in April, 1914.

A. I will have to ask for the quotation you have

9 0

2. Then later you

ich were used in important wireless

Were they of the:type shown in Fig. 4

\ >

\ .

— 2

;

„ hare’. Arnold -

of the 1 atiadied to your appt ation; ‘hig :

you will find e page 36 of the Interference Bes

N IO ae ae ie = |

5 the plate in this case, Perhaps you can explain tothe

ris 41 alloy, which is a resistance alloy, largely con

of being as it is in the other figures, a mere strip

A. They were ‘of that 1 type, ae

XQ. 643. There is a very unusual t ot :

Court ‘briefly what that construction is.

. A. The plate in this case consists of a N

X. 644. Bent back and forth like a slice of.

A. Just a second. It is a ribbon of Driver Har.

sisting of nickel, bent back and forth in such a way as

to make a complete electrical conducting path from one

end of the plate to the other end of the plate, the elec

tric circuit going zigzag down the length of the plate

XQ. 645; There are two plates

A. There are two plates, one on either side of 8

dlement with a grid between the plates and filament, —

XO. 645a. The peculiarity of the construction to

which I wish to call attention is that the plate instead —

‘metal, a mere sheet of metal, is made up of this

_ sttip’of Driver Harris material 21 back

_ ections ‘ary concerned; i eon correct?

Harold P. Arnold „

gas out 65 heat. generated by babe nn ene we

passed a heating current through the plates and thus

got them hot much more quickly and with much better

conservation of the filament which used to suffer under |

» ‘bombardment.

> XQ. 646. You have ‘ipo a good deal ‘about the

. Wehnelt ‘cathode and you said it was very difficult. It -

. was quite a job to develop this cathode, did you ‘not?

A. That is a fat. 5

XQ. 647. And that i is a rather expensive cath:

ode, is it not?

A. I would hardly say: jt is a “ienae expensive ee

cathode. I presume that the amount of cathode in an

ordinary tube would not cost over half a cent or some

thing of that order. Le

expensive than the ‘tubes: with 185

f a ‘cathode, were they not?. |

A. The ‘question of the expense of the tube W

not of the cathode but was one of the goodness of

tubes, and the tubes that were made with this Sache ee

Vere superior to any tubes made with any other cath-

ode, and were produced at a very much higher vacuum,

| arin onder stunt! Tig time was required in 5

: vere pumping operation.

. The ‘cost of the tube lies quite Sebkideaels in the

pur ses, part of it of course is in the fabri-

Sana tml pr eters

part is in the labo

5 _ that is why the Wehnelt oxid tubes have been more ex-

* P

f people who’ pump the tubes and

5 * ‘ Harold D. Arnold « he

in ien ke which be are.now making. 1

cathodes. that we have to pump for }

fous haute, whereai.no auch time is required on tan

other tubes with Wehnelt oxides. No, the- question iu 5

one of the degree of vacuum required and the amoum

ol voltage and current at which the device is to be od. .

X. 650, You spoke, I think, of 35,000 hours’

N *

V .

ave telephone repeater service all over the country. be

Lane arene he Scene’ e eee

Oia

F I di not moms

J Cs

Harold B. Arnold

0 654. What can you say?

‘dion did give which is perhaps somewhat similar to

that; that is, the curves that we have in the record, 2

which were taken with the De Forest audion 7-A dur -

ing its various stages of prooedure, but I am mot pre-

pared to say that that dotted curve can be taken as

ntative of the DeForest audion curve. As a

matter of fact, I have no idea that that curve was

X. 655. ee e Di,

‘eda. C

You agree, do you not, that it is characteristic of

. gas tube to have a rather sudden sise in voltage

the ionizing potential?

A. Tubes that are v ery gassy do have that, pro-

viding the filament is hot enough to sive a copious elec-

tron emission.

X00 656: Provided it does-not-saturate, it does 7

eee provided saturation is not close

enough to affect it. For example, this curve on

"$87,498 which is one of the early curves of audion 7,

ee ee the e e let

te ae

arrows

Ian Count: What is the paget

A Davis: Unfortunately, those books 1

* not paged.

Mn. anon: The exhibite are numbered.

e 1 . Davis: I know they are. It is Exhibit 8.

Rie * » Court: I have it.

808 That curve which starts at the origin

than eee

ee e

; „ is actually made use of in scientific experiments to

S34

700 A | Harold D, Arnold :

A. Les, that curve was . I think, with .

ee detector 7, with considerable positive i ioniza.

5 n present, W ionization disappeared at the =

of the curve for considerable tent and the CULE

dropped . downward. |

' aes Then you think there is something that

. cam be told about: a tube by a. study * its perform.

ance? ;

ere | There i is if. you have seen the tube and know

how it behaves.

XQ. 659. For inst hee, I remember that Dr. Mit.

kan spoke of a sharp rise at the ionizing voltage as

being an excellent test of a ¢ gas tube: Be you ae

with that! ¢°

A. I would like to see his statement before 1 say |

whether I agree with it or not.

XQ. 660. I hada. very good vais ot that site

. Iban say definitely, however, that in ther

mionie devices in Which there is a considerable amount

Hof gas under certain circumstances there may be

sharp rise at the ionizing voltage, and this sharp rise

determine the ionizing potential of the gas, So that if

a sharp rise oceurs at the ionizing voltage in the ab-

_ gence of other causes which would explain the phe -

mem, the pheptmenon =e very well be due to

XQ. 661. The point Sinn that a great many

things can happen and many inBuences can be at wat

in these tubes? ? 51

Tes, sir. And tbey may all affect the char

acteristie curve. Some in one way and some in 1

_ other, and one has to know the itions very, ery

~ thoroughly before he dare to express an | on as

ne f

1 „ . 5 :

eet 8 8 ; a 3 5 . On 8

os ; HS a on

> : a

Harold B. Arnold x 181 8

| XQ, 662. Dr. Millikan said at page 440 ot your Dan

ee. in rebuttal on — page 917. of the Interfer-

“ence Record:

I do not think that it is 5 to sp

without 1 many other 9 aoe 2

In general, is shown by the curves 1

Which I have referred to from H. A. Wilson, ah ;

from Thomson, and on typewritten pages

. 268 (printed page 363) et seq., of my rebuttal,

5 = and also by the curve given by Dr. Langmuir on

ge 99, there will be a region which is reached

By a sufficient increase in voltage, at which the cur- —

8 3 begins to shoot up in the presence of appre-

ciable quantities of gas because of the increased

multiplication of ions, increased emission, or both,

for, of course, they are intimately connected. I

doc not think it is possible with our present knowl-

edge to lay down any general rules as to when

that increase will occur, for it depends upon the x

previous treatment of the tube, the nature of the |

:” Bement, distance between electrodes, and perhaps

other factors also.“

Do you agree with that statement? 8 ;

A. T agree with that statement but 1 want to make

it very clear that it does not relate to the matter of

your previous questions, because the rise in current

abont which Dr. Millikan is here speaking, as I under-

stand it, is not the rise in current of which I was

speaking a few minutes ago. This is a rise in current

which comes about, as I understand it, by the introdue-

tion of new gas into the vacuum space of the tube dur-

ing certain stages of operation while my previous an-

3 Wer related to behavior when the tube had more or

eg originally.

5 Q. 668. And if you ‘have ‘a tubs ‘which ‘contains

à certain a mount of gas and observe the current say

an A

a ö | |

Actes Ma |

* 8 9

2? 3 : 8 0

1752 5 3 Harold D. Arnold .

3 milliamperes and then pump out the gas observe

the current aud find it to be one milliampere and then

continue to pump some more and find that the current

does not go any further but stays at one milliampere, —

you have there Dr. Millikan’s test, have you not?

A. I think you better point out to me or define to

me in some other way what Dr. Millikan’s test is. I

do not know of any test that goes by that name.

XQ. 664. You heard Dr. Millikan testify here?

5 A. Oh, yes, he testified of the three- electrode test. 5

Is that the one you mean? =

XQ 665. No. Dr. Millikan” testified with regard

to a test which he regarded as a good one which con-

sisted merely in pumping and noting when the current

stopped falling with increased ‘vacuum. 1

A. Ves, I did hear him testify to that.

5 XQ. 666. I was asking yon to imagine such a test

as that case. I suppose that is what the paragraph of

Dr. Millikan, which I read, referred to? 3

A. Then we completely misunderstand each other.

XQ. 667. Perhaps it is hardly worth while to

straighten it out. Under what conditions do you con-

. sider it is proper to use the volt ampere plot to give

information with regard to whether or not the tube

is the tube of the patent? *

A. I do not believe I can specify a set of copies

tions so exact that I would want to pin an opinion as

to whether the tube was or was not a tube of this issue,

if it did or did. not have. certain characteristics. By

characteristics I mean the EB, IB characteristics, pro-

viding that I was not furnished at the same time w.

other additional and corroborative evidence. "8

I the structure of the tube was one with which

was quite familiar and in which I had in

lee eee relationship was at ¥

iota oe

tube just like it and said, Here is an EB, IB charac-

teristic which J have taken on this tube,“ and if that

_ conformed to my experience with that type of tube in

high vacua and did not conform ‘with my experience

with that type of tube in poor vacua, then‘T would think

that that was a pretty good evidence that the tube sub-

mitted was a high vacuum tube. W eae

manufacture of tubes-

XO. 669. No. I am sorry. Is

“to the rebuttal on motion. Tell us in a general way

what the exhaust schedule is on these commercial tubes.

That is, take a small commercial tube. I do not want

to trouble you with the exhaust of a big tube. What

do you do with the tube now or what did you do with -

tue tube at the time of this interference?’ I want to

get an idea of the exhaust precautions in the commer-

cial manufacture of the tube. Take it as of the Qe

when this testimony was given. SOs

A. L eannot speak with any great definiteness on

that because although that entire tube manufacture is

in my department, it has been a good meny years since

I have had anything to do with the actual manufac-

turing processes. However, the general process is to

attach a tube to be exhausted to a vacuum pump and

heat the tube hot in an oven and heat the ‘metallic por-

tions within the tube hot and continue the exhaust unn

til the blue haze has disappeared within the tube, and

then seal the tube off. That was our practice some

years ago when I was more familiar with it than I am

XO. 670. What was the impedance of an ordinary

telephone receiver in 1912, roughly, do you remember ?

A. It is my recollection that it was about 200

= happened after November Ist. You say:

: * . i Harold D. Arnold

ae but that is subject to a wide correction. 1

memory is poor on that. iS

X. 671. And in the modern receivers which you 3

use in modern radio it is higher than that!

A. They have all sorts of receivers that they ue 9

in modern radio. We use in our radio work our ordi-

nary telephone receivers. It is merely a matter of

transformer design whether: ey uce one receiver or

XO. 672. You spoke the other ‘any of the nN :

up of the grid with paralysis of the DeForest. audion

on or about November Ist, which could be cured tem-

porarily or alleviated: by attaching the grid terminal

with the finger. Is that a correct statement? ie

A. That is a correct statement. | 5

XX. 673. That, of course, did not exist when there 5

was ionization in the tube, did it! „

ae e paralysis and ionization were mutually 2

proibibory. ; a

X. 674. At the other sale of the n were they ie:

not really, more or less? ae

A. At any rate they did not iat 8 ee

XO. 675. Now on page 2174 of the Interferenee

record which is page 20 of the Arnold priority record,

: this is your testimony, and you nnn

5 At first I paid almost no attention to

Pierce's work, but when I did give it some :

tion on or shortly before November 16, ge

! and 00 om. eee 3

a) o

e e te telephone ee 9

a about: thin direct cursent: work at:once. !! ris

G 8

Harold D. sisal ie 5 7³⁵

bunden yon say on page 2176, which in page 22:

I will explain with reference to Mr. Pierce’s

notebook 20 and the accom sketches how

we had proceeded with audion No. 7 to clean it up

before using it for the demonstration.“ 5

3 And then you say at the top of page 2179: |

Having cleaned up the grid by leaving the

plate on open circuit we proceeded to clean up ße

plate by leaving the grid on open eireuit. .

LI understand that i in the present tentimony. eae do.

not take the position that what vou did had any effect

on the gases in the plate or grid; is that right!?

A . 1 do not recall that I testified that it had no

effect on those gases. It would have some effect upon

the gases of the plate and grid, and this is the way it

would work: If the audion had been used at, we will

say, 50 volts, and had been. in the habit perhaps of

bine hazing at about that voltage, then if as the result

of blue haze, the gas in the space. was partly con-

sumed, and then if the voltage was again increased

above 50 volts to, we will say, 60 volts, there would be

a further liberation of gases from both the plate and

the grid, which gas might be later again cleaned out

of the space by the action of the blue haze discharge;

dat this process could not go on very long nor could

nch a tube be cleaned up to stand a very much higher

voltage than that for which the plates had been heated

luring the process of manufacture.

ne ¢ pee NPM, Doctor, vou said this:

neren wen roceeded to

ving the grid. on open cireuit.””

a yok sh Hou not * that?

os .

Harold D. Ame

XQ. en. And von testified in this paragraph {

egy ee dhisig’nd't Hell Wine

Proving the vacuum in in this device, not improving

the vacuum condition of the electrodes pa

larly, but cleaning up the gas that might ie

the space, ” ,

| Now, will you 9555 state how yea reconcile thee

statements? | :

A. I reconcile Woge 85 atatemenite by the word

Pe rare As T have just explained the amount |

gas which one would get from the plate and from

Ss gat is quite small, and nevertheless it has à real

effect. I very carefully specified in my direct test.

mony that thé plate and grid would, not be very much

cleaned up. evel ba

XQ. 678. There was no intention of cleaning ab

plate or the grid, was there? Sos 9

A. There was an intention on my part of improv

‘ing the vacuum condition within the audion—— *

XO 679. Dr. Arnold, was there or Was not thes

an intention of cleaning up the grid or the plate?

A euppose ‘you will insist’ that 1 answe f

yes or HOE EX

_ XQ. 680. I would like an intelligible answer.

e vacua yet Pew that ‘ke process : 8

structed Pierce to pursue, would do two thir

en a Ge 4. late ‘and the’ grid to a ce

| |) Harold D. Ahe T

ans was to moe upward the voltage, atwhich the |

bine-haze occurred, if that were possible, and it proved 5

do be possible to a certain extent.

2 681. Doctor, please e hikes you know

now—and I know it is very do it, it is hard

for you and it is hard for any } separate

-what you know now from what you said and knew —

tmen, and just answer this question:) That is whether

you did or did not interitionally clean up the grid ?

acy My answer will have to be

XO. 682. You did intentional} clean up the grid!

A. N g |

XO. 683-4. You aid not say that i in this testimony, :

did you? 12

A. This morning! 5

XQ. 685. No. In the ee on priotity?

A. Possibly not, I do not remember. :

XQ. 686. Ta talking’ now about intention ae die-

tinguished from act. You say, ‘‘Having cleaned up the

grid,“ but you did not say at any point so. far as you:

remember, that you intended to clean up the grid in.

bis testimony on priority!

ue 1 do not recall any such statement in this te

timon on

| 8 aft. So ti that vou knew you were ‘Geaninig up

A. Tam not 80 sure about that. ak

"XG. on Or thn patie heat nd rida

e |

. Loantiot state as tothe exact statements in that a

s Harold D. Arnold

1 ae ee et 50

my a een e priority een the sta ment

beginning: 3

Having Aenne up the grid while * l

. K

plate by 1 ving the grid on open, circuit, as x

es nog ear ye re

That does not say in words that I cleaned up „

the grid by leaving the plate on open circuit, but .

think the implication i is quite clear. a

XO. 689. I have not the slightest doubt. Tn ne vee a

had, when I first read it; will you please show me on

that page of the notebook referred to where it says that

yon cleaned up anything? pe

Mn. Hatent: I ask your 5 attention to ;

a the notebook i is not Dr. Arnold’s note.

* “whether T object to the question. 1 3

„ ae : Ido post sagt because it 175 8

: veel D D. ‘Arnold x | *

4 1 think that just that type of . was.

F ons that we made with

just the same type of e at the moment

indicate which ones they were, but I think there were

many cases in which we had audions with slight blue

haze which by operating for a short N72 had the blue

haze disappear.

X. 691. Oh, Doctor, you have testified that this

DeForest audion brought to you on vember Ist, 15

1 was an audion of the prior art, and you revo-

it, and made it into a high vacuum, tube by

* q series of treatments which you laid out and specified,

and that it is such an exceptional and unique audion

that it was preserved ever since in the museum because

‘of these changes which you made upon it? N

A. Will you please show me where I testified 40

that effect? N.

X. 692. I shall be very glad to show you those

things; which particular statement do you want? \

A. Where I said that it was such a revolutionary

lev e—where I said it was preserved because of the

changes that I had made in it. This certainly does not

conform to any remembrance ot mine: of what 1 have

= to at any time.

My Beech At this time of the afternoon, I prefer to

withdrav the question and to look up all these refer.

endes lat iter, Dr. Arnold. Will you p please tell your own

~ understa ling of the facts ua they are: ‘we will look up

the refer des later; did you or a yon not —. a.

‘ eu

bee @ : 694, oki gy ica „ 5 2

5 it a he a Aer of | some 1 1 vod

1 oe l sd

A very likely T did unh s b

any other one like it. 0

XO. 696. And you said it was preserved ina *

e eee eee eee a al

| 2 8 wet real! that. stitement; t

2d iti | :

Bowed & 697. I have read it to you and gave yo

citation today. .

a A. But that unique character was to my

edge not because of anything that I had done about

or characteristic that it was kept in the museum

think the unique character I referred to was becanse

it was one left by DeForest. ‘Thave'not the non

‘very clearly in mind 3

! XQ. 26 T think we wil hav to fd Oat el

enee.

Mn. Davis: Page 34

40 000 On account of the unique charatter,; :

* page ue of e Interference poeokds' ae

| Harold N. Arvold 1

A. Not Atlefoeterily as a commercial device, I

presume, bat i worked without much. ionization at 60

volts, t is evidenced by the record.

"XQ. 702. Now, you did not try to make any more

high vacuum andions until April?

ö A. I did not personally try to get a bi vacuum

in any other audions until April, but Mr. T , who

was warking under my general direction, did endeavor

uo make some audions and in this process he did ac-

* with wise good: mim in fact, really

20 704 He didnot try to?

A. 1 would not say he did not try to, because

the job that I'set him waa to become familiar with the

art of making these devices. 7

XO. 704. Now,. as long as in February, 1913, yo

bad a demonstration of the artificial line reproducing

or simulating the actual line which you were then ac-

tually building or contemplatifig from N ‘New ‘York to

en Francisco, had vou not!. Ri ive | :

5 aes A. At about that date. t .

XQ 705. And very distinguished: e. were e pres-

e ee e ee e hve:

e That is right. *

* “XQ. 706. Including Mr. Vail himself t en

. L viii have to look it up if yon want me o

Q. 707. here i atimony to thet enen u.

record that Mr. Vail was there! 4 :

255 All right. I will agree with tust f

a 3 M8 nd es mere wee ut i ta ine io

Jou h. a low — level? | oT

7 20.705 You ak telling DeForest ibn tor

le repeaters excepting: at the last repeater, where

ised two: of your mercury-arc repeaters; is that

742 Harita. D. Arnold

n won that eee

termination than that, but I do not know that it n

material.

XQ. 710. Well, the point i is that the repeaters )

I will stop: any. time'yan Svant,:your Honpr. | |

| XQ. 711. ae trying to mabe; Devi 8

nold, is that the repeating throughout the line, except.

at the end, was done by DeForest audiona t 8

A. That is correet. .

XQ. 712. And the energy level of the Hat was :

A. That is correct.

ö the line you kept the enetgy level of that speedier

A. That is correct: °

XQ. 714. And that would have boon imprasti

in an ordinary commercial line?

4. It would have because of the noise induced on

ordinary telephone circuits by exposures: to at i cir-

auits and other causes.

XQ. 715. That is, you keep a high energy level in

order. that your accidental noises may be relatively

small; it is like listening to a broadcasting station if

you: listen: to it pretty near, you fo bot initd’a lot of

static, but if you listen to a distant station, the static

is ‘troublesome; is not that a fair comparison? ret.

A. I think that is a fair comparison. W

Wr er Ua vad Quis ee

Coo

Harold D. Arnold „„

une in a laboratory and an artificial line in u labora-

tory, Dr. Arnold, is a collection of resistances and

inductances and condensers which simulates the réal

Une; is that right—there may be — ne for all

I know?

A. That is generally 8 f :

Tue Oovurt: I did not get it as being in the

laboratory: I thought it was actual.

XQ. 718. ‘think the whole thing was all in the

laboratory, Doctor? i

eile Ming was in d oon

ö XQ. 719, They made something that had the

characteristics of this line that they were going to

build, as near as they could estimate what those char-

acteristics would be, and then they Put this feeble cur-

rent over it, and then at the end amplified it by one or

more so-called arc repeaters, so that it could be heard;

‘now, did-you tell Mr. Vail that ere at

this low energy level

A. I doubt if I spoke to Mr. Vail at all that day, :

because Mr. eee ee appa

without a good deal of circumspection. - |

XQ. 720. Was the: statement made to Thees gan-

tlemen who were witnessing this thing, that this was

a demonstration of it at a low energy level? os

A. Tecan not recall as to that. |

XQ. 721. And no attempt was made to make any

. eageyerdst Girma ial

tion?

these in time for the demonstration.

Mu. Davis: If your Honor please, this is a

“good-place to stop.

Tux Court: beet e t we gg

use of the tube cleans it up; you ara

be eee ee

A. No. de ee eee eee vt 3

—

74⁴

Harold D. Arnold

and vou referred to it in the X-ray: tubes perigee. 2

harder?

Mn. Davis: If your Honor please, it is a very

Tun Covet: You ‘sink told ‘met

Mn. Davis: It is a very complex matter. We

are going into it in some detail i in our nee

(Discussion)

Tax. Covnr: Will you help me on inst one

point, Mr. Davis? The witness used words with _

regard te the 7-A tube that Pierce or whoever it

was, using the tube, thereby drove the gas out of

the electrodes, and then the voltage was increased

up to the ionization point, and then the gas con-

_ sumed. . — as eat.

inquired about a moment ago.

Mn. Davis: There are various forms of clean-.

up on different voltages and different conditions. 2

For example, one elean- up

Tun Courr: 1 do not ask you'to do this in

order to tell me your, evidence. :

XQ. 722. They are all clean-up, I understand, but :

due to different causes; is that right?

: A. They are all commonly referred to as clean:

ups.

Mn. Davis: There may a half a e en res.

‘sons for it.

— K yy

(Whereupon at 5:10 P. M., adjournment was

eee

eee eats

Harold D. Arnold „

U. S. District Court, Wilmington, Del, .

Wednesday, Oetober 27, 1926,

10 B’clock A. M.

“TENTH DAY.

Before: =

_. Hon. HVR M. 1 goo:

. D. 8. District Judge.

— ——

Appearanees: As before.

3 % Ma. D. If your r Honor 3 our : tienda

on the other side were good enough to. let us have.

last evening some of the papers of which Iwpoke -

yesterday and others we are to have today; and I

understand that in some way it will be possible for

me to further cross-examine Dr. Arnold to get

information as to the meaning of abbreviations, |

and so forth, and things of that sort, or anything

khat comes up in these papers, if we decide we

need it. Vour Honor will realize it will take some

üttlle time to analyze these papers, and I under-

Stand that there is some understanding that the

technical question whether it is rebuttal, and so

‘Nes forth, will be waived to that extent; Set sight, 5

Judge Haight! ‘a

Mn. HALT: I do not know that ‘there has

been any understanding. I think that you made

the statement yesterday and I do not know

_. whether I said anything or not. I quite appreci- —

ate that it is quite difficult, if not impossible, for

Mr. Dayis to go through these books if he wanted

do ask Dr. Arnold any questions about them. Only

one of the books, however, is hig book; they are

books of other people, and I do not know exactly

| eee ae shall draw the limit. i appreciate Per: ee

; 25 Sine 10 oy

746 = Harold D. Arnold

fectly well that your Honor will have it under your

control as to whether it is rebuttal or whether it

is not. I do not see any reason why I should not

-accedé to Mr. Davis’ request. 1

( Discussion.) N

Mr. Davis: And I want to be quite sure, if

your Honor please, if it should develop there were

entries in this book which seem to be inconsistent

with the testimony which this witness has given,

should want to show those parts to the witness

and ask him what his explanation was. |

| Tue Court: I understood that. 24

M. Davis: With that exception, if your

* please, I have ie eee the ene ‘

; tion. P ö

Mn. e iced the further cross-examina-

tion is to be limited to those particular books. — See

MX. Davis: ‘Thave finished the cross-examina-

tion and I shall not ask any further oross-exam-

‘ination except first, as such cores up in connection

with any re- direct; and second, as such comes up

to be Fan, connection with these books and 4

papers. a

Wi Tur Cobrr: ZowreroteaxiinindGdy W,

ee be completed now but only for the information dis-

8 ere ee 1 ur e es e .

N A “

at BN .

N . eS eS ko we

. Set ba. ae Dy eS

re ** a 5

Ne eee ee ss

€ n e

es eerie? cies aad Aree ee

* ene iE =e a (ort ver pas 5h tees 5 oi

Harold D. Arnold 7⁴⁷

a when they were being bombarded. “will

vou please explain about that? me 7

A. The auxiliary electrodes in these mercury arc

repeaters were cathodes and they were placed on the

edge of the main mercury are stream. The potential

that was applied to these cathodes varied under dif-

ferent conditions. Under the normal operating condi-

tions that we finally arrived at, these electrodes were

at the potential of 110 volts negative with respect to

“the main anode of the are, but in other embodiments of

8 the device, potentials of 220 volts were used in opera- aoe

tion, and in the pumping procedure, as I have testi- :

led, voltages very much higher, certainly as high as

40 or 500 volts were used in bombarding n auxil-

dary” electrodes. ;

The way this bene int occurred is quite im-

ple. I was interested in heating the auxiliary ‘elec-

_ trodes to get the gas out of them. The mercury arc

gtream furnished an abundant supply of both positive

ſons and negative ions. By applying a high negative 8

3 potential to the auxiliary electrodes the positive ions,

mad in this ease they were positively charged mercury | iS

atoms, were drawn from the are stream, accelerated

under the action of tlie voltage and impinged on the

auxiliary electrode with a speed and energy corre-

sponding to the voltage which was applied to the elec-

The flow of current to these auxiliary electrodes

5 ‘vas limited in the device itself by a process that T will ye

yecks e briefly.

? ten 2 The current was carried almost entirely by posi-

BS pe sitive ions produsdd a ‘positive space charge of elec.

ic 338 been think very clearly xplait

rent at a given voltage and N e ‘this’ 6e

eee ont i bi he ie ft 5

74 5 Harold D. Arnold

ee trom ths are 5 stream to these electrodes 10 per the

forty or fifty milliamperes that I have testified to as

the current ee obtained to these e elec-

trodes. - |

I may add that ieleatrons ee no ‘considerable 4

part in this. eurrent flow into the are stream, because

the auxiliary electrodes, although visi 7 hot were not

sufficiently hot to Bave a large thermionic emission nor ei.

were they of material suitable for thermi i .

A RDQ. 724. Did you understand this positive space 2

5 charge effect at the time we are speaking of: Tes

A. I did. It was a phenomenon that was well

„ known qualitatively. I did not at that time know the

* exact numerical relationship between the current and

tlie voltage. That had not been worked out to my knowl-

5 edge at the time 1 was doing the work to which I re.

ferred, Which began in the summer of 1911.

ER. 725. I think that in your eross-examination |

mention was made of a 1913 tube, designated audion

19. B. Win vou please tell briefly how that appears Re

in the record i in the Arnold priority exhibit bock?

gs Mn. Davis: I object to the question on le

sate ground that I have no recollection of having ann = |

up this audion 8 9 on the Srone-cxamingtion: |

Discussion.) ae

“Mz, Ricumowp: J think that whet’ want sh

bring out about that tube is just what is in the

i 5 _ ea i an emt ur i .

85 a eee e

Harold D. bin 1 7489

C „

of the De Forest type of structure, and a part of that

procedure is to evacuate the tubes, and a very impor-

kunt part of the procedure is to learn how to so eon-

duct the exhaust that the filament: will not be destroyed

during the exhaust. Therefore, the work that Trimble:

was doing was an entirely normal procedure i in. view of

my instructions to hin. 3

BODO. 727. Will you please refer to. that sheet of

1 priority Exhibit No. 19, designated E. S. aden

A. This curve, Exhibit 19, your Honor.

RD. 728. (Continuing.) I think it is the first

5 r ; it is the first blueprint in Exhibit 19.

A have dbs) pe

DO. 8 (bst) end dinogte: Aine: two :

be curves for audion 2032, and the effect of tempera

dure changes and gas effects and filament composition, 3

"the effects on auch loops? |

“A; Referring to these curves, it hould be noticed

+ fant the right-hand portion of the enrves are taken in

what is commonly known as saturation; that is to say,

de voltage applied is sufficient to pull across the space 5

all of the electrons that the filament is capable then of

emitting. Therefore, the values of the current that are

found in those portions of these curves which have

‘loops, are determined by the emission of the fllament, 0

“+ and not by the enten of the space.

Now, I would like to outline the conditions that

ay influence the emission of the flament, and these

conditions are in general two: The first is the tempera-

ture of the filament; and the second of the general con-

ditions, is the nature of the surface of a filament. 1

Vill speak first of the temperature of the filamer eee

That is: rily- determined by the current flowing

through the filament under thé action of the A- battery,

and should the voltage of the A- battery vary, the cur-

—F—W3WBGGGA et ee

85 temperature, i is éxceedingly rapid. Therefore, a small!

erated at these electrodes. ay

| _) mapnbet\the filament ead ite consequent e

750 ae : : Harold D. ee „

ture would Fury Iti isa well. 1 physical fact * N

the variation of electron emission with variation f

variation in the voltage of the battery used to supply

current to the filament, would result in a large change

in the ener of the Mann and its power 44 me

emission. 8

Secondly, wader this ad dend of temperature, ag

E I ces mention another cause which sometimes con- A

- tributes to the temperature of the. filament, and · that · is

the bombardment by positive ions. It is well known

. that if a discharge passes in a thermionic. device 2

_ which there is gas‘ ionization, the positive ions are „„

driven against the filament. This evidences itself in

some cases by the actual erosion of the fllament and its

f destruction, but even though the bombardment of pos: og

tive carriers may not be severe enough to injure the;

-. “filament, it does provide heat for the filament in just

the same way as I have explained a few moments ago;

the bombardment of the auxiliary electrodes in the

mercury are by positive ions did cause heat to be cn. ee

Therefore, in a tube in which thered is a. consider.

able amount of gas present, and a thermionic discharge 15

N ature. e ene eee eee, e.

a the. apece.iof, Shi deviate: .

higher olta the harder the positive carriers

the lament and the hotter the filament gots, and if

_ filament: does so increase its temperature by bombs

ment, then its electron emission will mee,

15 amar beam ask barg nude ng eloctrom:es

N well known to increase rapidly with the te tu

Referring now to the loop ob dlintop dntes

h to whic ial ye

eee | Harold D. Arnold ay 751

a Salih 60 volts applied on.the plate and baiting to

240 volts applied on the plate, it is seen that the curve

: of emission drops as the voltage is increased ; neverthe-

less, if there were positive ions present, they were gen-

erating four times as much heat at 240 volts as they

were at 60 volts, because the heat which. they generate

is directed proportionately to the voltage by which they

are driven; and were such positive bombardment play-

PTT

which in this picture is shown as diminishing from 60

| rolts to 240 volts, would have increased and not. have

ee ee eee eee eee

the temperature of the fllament, and the normal expec-

tation of the behavior of a fllament current with time

_ when the filament, was supplied with current from a

battery, would be that the filament current and the tem- 1

perature would decrease with time, and therefore the

emissivity of the filament would decrease with time,

and the curve would droop, as it does in this picture.

Therefore, as far as the effect. of temperature

bon che emission of the filament is concerned, I see.

“in this curve results which can be explained on the

VVTT—T—T—TT

which are entirely contrary. to the theory that gas

eee re ene dert in die pertommanee.

ol this tube.

a Von to retürn to the second of the general con-

- siderations affecting emission of the filament, which.

is the condition of the filament surfate, again there

are two factors which are principally concerned in de-

terminir istic of the surface of the fil.

ment, ‘Pho firat is the effect of the materials which — 8

den within the flament itself and the second i the ek. 1

ee dee of 3 — e have

ry * * or 7 +tF

ae nee Prise ee *

Harold b. Arnold

ee A to the firet of these, it is eiivell ia

„ Nee

ingly’ or unknowingly introduced into me

ments, do substantially and in many cases enorm’

increase their emissivity and it is also well-known

eee e way inert

progressive in their nature. I will simply indicate.

as an example of that performante the well-known

characteristic of tungsten which has thoria within it,

5 2 ———

will also undoubtedly occur if a filament has within it

. e ot een eee or een it n en een

5 ‘gases nuch are ‘occluded. 0 5

i . eaiy ‘that te tated

W well known fact that tantalum has the property

occluding within its surface a large amount of g.

Fern, vt bre bee ae s- Wr U is wer.

5 very slowly at any 8 below the’ 1 melir

PAARL he de

— explain varia fa tags es tl

| ae we fet —

Harotd sian „

. 3 mut Gs reibe hlt fae t00

Small as to leave a device unquestionably. within the

domain of this present patent which is ix litigation, are :

nevertheless entirely sufficient to modify, and in some

cases to practically destroy the especial emitting

power of the thorium which comes to the surface of —

~ the thoriated tungsten filament. |

In this audion No. 20 pumped on the molebular

: pant) there was certainly some gas present because

eee eee ee eee. Such

minute traces of gas as were undou a

vould from my experience give a reaso ee

tion of changes in the surface emissivity of the tan-

dum filament, vorreapanding to the change of roughly ;

40 per cent., which is evidenced on this curve.

Tigers Tt was in view of my consideration of these two

“| general:clasées of phenomena, ench with its two sub- |

elasses of phenomena, and their effect’ upon the fila’

ment that I based my statement that the action of gas »

e Gila wad: would ‘be: this: last thing’ that Eowould

Ser reel ab explaining the nature of these loops.

a The first ching that 1 would think of would be #:

= | hang i Temperate dn to th ‘lament batary. |

Tus second thing thet one might investigate would be hae

the pe sibility of ion bombardment, but that is ruled

bout be of the direction and slope of the curve.

se The third thing that one might think of would be

changes in the composition of the filament. And I am

ot the opinion that those were very important. And

ae the fourth thing that one might think of would be the

_ hc ele cme of thig very tiny residue of

ga N e rr ert .

AS orm een

754 5 Harold D. Arnold’ He

is a dotted line with a notation opposite saying one

minute. It we refer to the data from which the curve

is plotted we will see that the data indicatés that there

was an unusual delay in taking those readings and ape. |

. cifically mentions one minute.

| The effect on the curve there at a 3 of 117

+>. volts, which diminishéd the electron current appre- _

_ ciably, was a change not due to 3 change in voltage,

_: “because the voltage remained constant, But was a

change of one of these three kinds that I haye men-

tioned, either a change in température of the filament, |

5 chanze i in its surface condition because of a redis-

tribution in its internal components or a change. in

its surface nature because of the reaction of its gur-

Ss face with minute traces of gas. 3 4

. i RDO. 730. How did this audion 20.2 to metal we 1

\ 8 55 have just referred stand in relation to your expected )

attainment for le telephone repenter ? —

. A. It showed a sufficiently good vacuum condition 1

19 for a good telephone repeater.. It showed a structure

3 15 8 which was capable of withstanding \satisfactorily ap- 3

: plied voltages higher than those we contemplatel :

using; in fact, about twice as- high, namely, 240. volts,

It showed a possible electron emission of about the

ere that I had ‘in mind st the top: of. the loop at the 5

top of the page: tp" He:

2 731. fe act 3 9

5 e top l 86,907. The 1

however, was not mechanically and struetur ally of a

design suitable for service in the telephone plant.. 1

should perhaps point out that the curve illustrated on

this sheet in which currents of the order of six or seven 5

a milliamperes are indicated with voltages of the order

ok sixty volts, is indicative of the current that flowed

—ftrom the, filament when the grid and the plate were

5 ; ; electrically connected, and therefore are not represen-

tm 5 the. currents that would flow in ‘the levies,

0 ni * N

i 2

0 *

H arold D. *

4 48 the electrical connection was e as is used! in a

“telephone repeater, in which,the plate is connected ee

the phone and throughout the B-battery, and the grid is

connected to the alternating current source of supply.

B.). 732. Then, does that curve. on that sheet ;

represent the volt ampere relation when the gain tests .

were taken with that tube on April 25, 1913

A. I am quite sure that it does not. ö

Tun Court: Do you mind reading that. adalat

(RDO. 732 and answer repeated as recorded.)

Tue Wirness: It is my r liection that the

curve on this sheet was taken with the grid and

plate electrically connected togèther, so that elec-

trom Were drawn in parallel to both grid and

_ plate. This would result in the passage of a larger

current across the space at a smaller voltage than

would be the case with * iene connected i in a re-

peating circuit.

RDO. 733. And as eee with. connecting the

wid to the plate, how would the grid be connected for

the talking tests or the gain tests, ‘ think you already.

said! 2

A. The arid would be e through a trans-

former to the speech input which it is desired to am- ;

plify, . and although the electrical connection would

actually run from the grid to the filament, there would

de a B-battety, or if any battery, at least a very small

battery: included in that connection, so that no consid- -.

erable flow of electrons would be drawn to the plate.

B00. 734. I understood you to say that when you

pamped this audion 20. 2, you would not have made a

record of the procedure in evacuating it according to

the normal course of Na work. Wil ites please ex-

: plain that answer?

* Otic no rave mad ora 0 the DFC

"cedure i in pamping, because sal eo of that test

Vas to test the —— of te new. en en

a a

—

pump did operate satisfaetorily to progure a very high

vacuum; and my entire attention was directed to that.

Hy ‘filaments were used!

recall it.

is. It is a condition that exists when repeaters are

eee eee

designed to avoid singinggand therefore the amount ol N

me : is N 5 a » 5 27

756 5 Harold D. Arnold „

pears The procedure as sit relates to the treatment of

the tube itself was not at that time in question; andthe

procedure followed, was the procedure which was old

to us at that time. The important matter in my mind,

was to discover whether this new Gaede molecular ,

RDQ. 735. For the tubes that were used at Phila-

_ delphia, in October, 1913, and eee what kind of .

A. To the best of my. ee Wehnelt oxide

filaments entirely. It is possible that a tantalum fila-

ment may have been ere en but if 80, I do not now

RDO. 736. Will you pltase refer to Exhibit No. 2

of the Arnold priority exhibits? On eross- examination,

your. attention was directed to the voltage of 39 cells~

‘and 21 cells about a quarter of the way down the page,

and the decreasing values of those voltages until they —

got down to 28 cells and 22 cells, at which point the

record states: which is to be used, for service.) Can’ :

you point out any reason for that reduction of voltage!

A. Yes. The reason is very clearly stated on the

page just above the quotation which you have given,

where it says: because of singing. If I may read:

this i in a little more detail, the book states |

31 cells and 24 cells cut to > 80 cells 1 *

cells, because of singing. * :

I think I explained quite 1 0 what this singing’.

used if the telephone vireuit is not so designed be

thoroughly balanced throughout. The eircuit that ve

were then using at Philadelphia, the circuit that fn

with was not adequate,

amplification which could be used on that circuit was

- limited. 2 85 method that Mr. Kendall en in de.

* Ey

tes

. ai

Harold D. Arnold 7587

creasing the amplification of his amplifier units was a

method that is not infrequently used in present-day |

radio practice, that of — the meaner

voltage

RDO. 737. Did that destense in 1 voltage indicate. :

that anything was wrong with the audions ? 8

A. Not at all. It had no relation with the internal 5

behavior of the audion elements.

RDO. 738. Referring to the time, Easter Sunday,

- early in April, 1915, did you know at that time what

Langmuir was claiming in respeet to the subject mat- :

ter of this litigation? ~

A. I did not. All that I knew was what had been

told me by someone, I think through Dr. Jewett, and

went no further than the, statement, that he understood

* Dr. Langmuir was applying for a patent on the sort ;

of high vacuum device that we were using.

RD. 739. When did you first learn with any de.

gree of definiteness what was the basis for the claims ?

: When I returned from San Francisco, which

to the beat of my recollection was the last week in Oc-

tober, 1915. 1 found then that the papers, as far as

they could be obtained, had been assembled and I was

_shown-the papers or such of was shown some

papers by our Patent Department. | “

RDO. 740. ‘What do you mean by papers?

A. I mean 8

RDO. 741. Memoranda, publivations! 5

A. I do not want to state with any exactness what: ;

i those papers were, because I cannot femember the na-

ture of the papers themselves, but I am quite clear |

that some papers, N

fleations or printed deer wech or something of that

nature was shown me at that time. In other words, I

am quite clear in my memory that I was not merely - |

told about it but I was shown some of the written evi-

dence, 0

a 9

758 Harold D. Arnold

f RDO. 742. You were questioned yesterday i in re.

gard to these djagrams on pages 6 and 7 of the Ar.

nold rebuttal’ testimony onthe motions. I will get

the page in the record. Those are pages 474 and 475

in the Interferepce record. Just please explain briefly

about those diagrams, what they mean and their sig.

nificance,

A. The diagram that is marked by Figure lisa.

plot of the plate current versus the plate voltage of

the De Forest audion of November, 1912, on ordinary

cross-section paper, and the Figure 2 is a sist of the

same data on logarithmic paper.

„ Rö. 748. At the time in November, 1912, whit

yee cleaned up audion 7-A as you have testified, please

tell what was your attitude ‘toward that phenomenon

in ‘respect ‘to your understanding of it, and your inten-

tions and I will add your emotions.

9 Mr. Davis: ‘IP your Honor plegge, I object.

35 Tue Court: Will you make your objection -

: 5

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.