# Transcript of Record — DeForest Radio Co. v. General Elec. Co. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386008_0055%3A02 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Transcript of Record - **Published:** January 1, 1931 - **Citation:** 283 U.S. 664 ## 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 oh eee Direct Examination b\ivneasatedensvanetasnsunnsneestesttennees 5 5 e : 22. csccisscsosvesvvecneenvecn 7 ° 4 é Direet ‘Blamination, cosnyatsereveedtesesaghssseeseeseesebenets - Colpitts; Bawin e . * o 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 * — OF 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 t 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 2 * 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- 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 VF 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 )J 2 : 2 3 ee : ; 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, 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 -_ . 5 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- 1 , 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 / ay 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 n N 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 4 | 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 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 9 : 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 1 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 * 3 * 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 2 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 W 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 e 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 7 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 at 4 hia age E e ES, + aaa what the 0 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 r 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 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 a ” ot? : 698 Harold B. Arnold , By Mn. Davis: when we adjourned for luncheon? - 8 o 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 a 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 ee 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 2 „ 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 ie ies of the DeForest. audion? oe Raper: acta think ounsel: wil 582. 1 1 Une, ‘tg the behavior 5 0 ~ | 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 „ 8 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 5 | 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 4 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 bs . 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 . 8 | 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, : Ag 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. | 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 ee at .* . e 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 r! 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 . 3 2. Then later you ich were used in important wireless Were they of the:type shown in Fig. 4 \ > \ . 8 — 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 V _ ections ‘ary concerned; i eon correct? a: a 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 2 J Cs Harold B. Arnold 0 654. What can you say? 25 9 DR ‘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 1 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. 2 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 8 * 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 Pa ae = 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. 9 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 3 * : 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 : F A. That is correct. FF 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 abou [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386008_0055%3A02. Public record. Not legal advice.