Record and brief — Margaret C. Freeman, Appellant, vs. George Asmus
Supreme Court brief1891
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
RECORD, CASE No. 13,482.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
OCTOBER “TEEN,
oo
I= 1.
TERM No., 323.
MARGARET C. FREEMAN, APPELLANT,
GEORGE ASMUS.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
FILED JANUARY 30, 1889.
eee
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER "TERM, 191.
TERM No., 323.
MARGARET C. FREEMAN, APPELLANT,
vs.
GEORGE ASMUS.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
INDEX.
Original. Print.
NTs ceniceigik wiki eticeniisane incanntbinn
met Of Compiaint...... ...... .-
EEE ERE eee eae
Replication aks al Na
Evidence for complainant ._...-.---
Testimony of George Asmus
Julian Kennedy ._~---. ---
George Asmus (recalled) _-
SO a |, nea een ne nee D
NE alee
Exhibit Asmus Sketch No. 1—Drawing of defendant’s North
Cornwall furnace... ---
No. 2—Drawing of open-front construc-
a ae
a ~ ~ ~ ee | — —
Jupp & DerwkiLer, Prinrers, WasHinaton, D. C., JANUARY 16, 1892.
I me oe
IT NDEX.
Reissue letters patent No. 3204,
setters patent No, 209,113, granted Henry C. ¢
KE xX } i} bit I erme
of F. W. Lurmann, November 24, 1868 Rane
Asmus, assignee
mrrittinger Octo-
i : +" ] } ‘
Evidence por caerit iin . os o« — = =e oe
i gPaety
Exhibits offered
Text
]
ii
Henry L. Br : oe ane
Comparison of Asmus’ original and reissue patents. -.----------
Reissue letters patent No. 3204. eranted George Asmus, assignee,
& : November 24 'Ralite as als aaa il ‘aise — ais setae ha
Letters patent N » FO44T. vrat ted I W. L iran
[St)7 _.
“Exhibit Assignment Assignment of F. W.
»
th November ,
Exh rit Reissue File I e-Wwrapper and eontents in the miuat-
Li i I - SLC it? ~ }
, ‘ i (5% ore Asn |
“ —
h* , 7 4 ls wa
Ys | i . ‘4 | ‘ ? ’ ‘ ‘*, , . *) > ? "
“ Exhibit Dunbar Suit -Record from cireuit eco
™? tar ? t \ T
iLt's t Vv tis
Pe qT) ( A t .
‘Exhibit Merle Patent ’’—French letters peat
‘“ Exhibit Kerl ”’ Extract from Kerl’s Meta iro’
tin-smelting furnace, publish
| “~ rz y ’
‘“ Exhibit Peres -Extract from Perey’s Metallu
steel, London, 1864 wee tie
‘ Exhibit Bedson ’—Enelish
‘
George Bedson June 12, 1863
‘“ Exhibit Dalton ’’—English letters patent No
Daniel Dalton May 4, 185:
Letters patent No. 1057, granted Isane C
Bryant
}838
etters patent No.
DP as
ulv 27. [Bod —.
as to **' Suxon
dat Freiburg,
1470, granted
1000, granted
December oi.
Original.
79
Print.
46
49
DO
es)
Ou
rs)
wae
oD 4
104
105
107
109
110
INDEX.
Letters patent No. 38513, granted James F.
1865
Stileman May 12,
Exhibit Grettinger Sketch No. 1—Drawing____-_-. 2-2...
No. 2—Drawing ; 6: adil atakckomaiie
Be a ik a
No. 4—Drawing ss ancl ae hes Eas
Exhibit Asmus Paper—Extract from the Engineering and Min-
ing Journal of February 5, 1876, show-
ing paper read by George Asmus before
the American Institute of Mining En-
gineers at the Cleveland meeting, Oc-
Ra Taian eins ties ls Sees Wace aa
Argument and submission .... 2... 122466 cccces sses asian pibiaGeld
Opinion of Judge Butler- wi ie ii asia adeeb edie caapeaianaeaimmaiaa
Interlocutory RNIN os corse se eucachaniel ccieiacieat a mba: ein eas. aceieepieiapias aiditilaladid aa eee
Report OEE PR ALLL NE = LOE A OT EY Eee SE
Evidence for complainant on the aceounting-.---- pare Jnseapiialedatiadsia
Testimony of Thomas 6. Kerr. ~~ - sah kei aes. & Sisteiaie dlepadigemaaeamians iclical
meee: Tis FROOCW s «dscns atvenina
William J. Moorhead err
License from Asmus to The Edgar Thomson Steel
Co.. Limited, April 11, IS7Y —
i— Recei pted bill of Asmus to The Edgar Thomson Steel
Co., Limited, April 10, 1879.......-.-.
C—Receipted bill of Asmus to The Edgar Thomson Steel
Co., Limited, April 27, 1880 i a a ll eel
D—License from Asmus to The Edgar Thomson Steel Co.,
Limited. March 15.
E—Receipted bill of Asmus to The Edgar Thomson Steel
eee ee | a ere
F—Receipted bill of Asinus to Lucy Furnace Co., March
i: a - ‘hsm sane
(;—Letter of Asmus to Carnegie, March 14, 188] .._ ~~
H— Letter of Carnegie to Asmus, March 14, 1881
I—Receipt of Asmus to Moorhead,
Mav 21, 1880
Exhibit A
—— — ——— a
1881. _
MeCleane & Co.,
Testimony of Walter Kennedy -__- ee
Seereneritk SRO TOTO oie a ire ee ccs ces cue
Robert C. Porter_____- 7 ‘ seit icaommeaait
Evidence for defendant on the accounting ___-_ ___- ae eae ay ean Tee
eae OE AU IG se ests tent wie inthe haces lees wins
Exhibit Coleman's License—License from Asmus to Coleman,
November 3, 1883___-- Po opemT ve
zeatimony of Thaney TF. Be cccsisn vena nina sseksnnen sien tiie
Asmus, to Arthurand Horace Brock _-
Exhibit Brock Letter—Letter of Arthur and Horace
Asmus, February 27, 1884... ._-.. ---.
Testimony of Richard BON g «1. cacti oi se cess sons sses send ,
Exhibit Meily License—License from
ie th WO ici
Complainant’s exceptions to master’s report _-.-----.- ------ ---- ----
frock to
Original.
184
187
188
189
190
Tit
Print.
114
116
116
116
116
'y escillileg e
IV INDEX.
Original. Print.
Muster’s report on IG a tan orcs cise sinning Weolwinete si wei pariah 2: <4 —
Order taking exceptions under advisement ____..--.. -----..--.----- 206 150
Opinion of Judge a SEER are ae eo nih cat wav Neidlat baba a dpocal s stale 257 150
Final decree ~____- IE Oe SORE OE Os See 2 . An alrcer OSE AV. PHS 152
Petition of I iti aiwwnie SSE a li SET SE 268 153
aS aia Re pe og ay“ ali aie Sica 276 155
Citation and acceptance of service of same-___- pic <teaed aidbalelae puts 278 156
See ee OW OCU OREO nok ke kk woe Sa ce eee weee woe ; 273 156 |
oy
s,
ee
Reka
Se le
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. i
1 In the Circuit Court of the United States in and for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, in the Third Circuit.
GEORGE ASMUS
versus
MARGARET C. FREEMAN
Unitep STATES OF AMERICA, os
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, { °
Pleas and proceedings before the honorable the judges of the circuit
court of the United States in and for the eastern district of Penn-
sylvania, in the third circuit, of April session, 1884, No. 8.
It is thus contained :
Be it remeinbered that on the seventh day of March, in the year
of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four, George
Asmus, by his solicitors, Messrs. Bakewell and Kerr, comes
2 into court here and files his bill of complaint against Mar-
garet C. Freeman in the words and figures following, to wit:
3 United States Circuit Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
GEORGE ASMUS
versus No. 8. In Equity.
MARGARET C. FREEMAN.
To the honorable the judges of the circuit eourt of the United States
in and for the eastern district of Pennsylvania:
George Asmus, of the city, county, and State of New York and a
citizen of said State, brings this bill of complaint against Margaret
C. Freeman, a citizen of the State of Pennsylvania.
I. And thereupon your orator complains and says that on or be-
fore the Sth day of November, in the year one thousand eight hun-
dred and sixty-seven, one F. W. Luermann was the true, original,
and first inventor of a certain new and useful improvement in blast
furnaces not known or used before and not for more than two years
prior to the date of his application for a patent in public use or on
sale with his consent or allowance.
4 I]. And your orator further shows unto your honors that
the said F. W. Luermann, having made due application
therefor and in all respects complied with the couditions of the then
existing law of Congress, obtained letters patent of the United States,
No. 70447, dated November Sth, 1867, for his said invention, and
that said Luermann having assigned his said invention and letters
patent to your orator, your orator, for good and Jawful cause, sur-
rendered the said letters patent No. 70447 to the Commissioner of
Patents and obtained a reissue of the said letters patent in accord-
ance with law for the residue of the term thereof; which said reissue
is numbered No. 5204 and dated November 24th, 1868, as by the
said last-mentioned letters patent, or a duly authenticated copy
thereof in court to be produced, will fully and at large appear.
1—323
2 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS.
III. And your orator further shows that he has caused the said
improvement to be extensively applied to practical use and granted
a large number of licenses to use the same, and has been, and, but
for the infringement by the defendant hereinafter complained of
and by others, your orator would still be, in the undisturbed pos-
session, use, and enjoyment of the exclusive privileges secured by
the said reissued letters patent and in receipt of the profits of the
same. —
IV. And your orator further shows unto your honors that on the
17th day of October, 1877, your orator brought suit in equity in the
United States cireuit court for the western district of Pennsylvania
against The Dunbar Furnace Co., Charles Parish, and A. B. De
Saulles for an injunction and account of damages and. profits for
the infringement of the said reissued letters patent; that the said
Dunbar Furnace Co. ef al., defendants therein, filed their answer to
the said bill, denying the validity of the said reissued letters pat-
ent, the novelty of the invention therein deseribed and claimed,
and the infringement thereof by them; that issue was Joined,
o proofs taken, and the cause presented to the said court, the
Hon. Wm. MekKkennan, circuit judge, presiding, by counsel
for both parties, and that thereupon Judge Meclkennan gave a de-
cree sustalning the said reissued letters patent as valid and granting
an injunetion and an account against the said defendants, all of
which matters and things are of record and unreversed at No. 215,
November term, 1877, in the equity docket of said court.
V. And your orator further shows unto your honors, as he ts In-
formed and. believes, that the said defendant herein named, wel]
knowing all the facts hereinbefore set forth, is now constructing and
using blast furnace in some parts thereof substantially the same In
construction and operation as in the said reissued letters patent
mentioned, the exclusive right and privilege to make and use
which, and vend the same to others to be used, Is by law vested
n your orator.
VI. And so it is, may it please your honors, that the said defend-
ant, as vour orator is informed and believes, without the license of
your orator, against his will,and in violation of his rights, has made
and used and intends te continue still to make and use the said
improvements within the eastern district of Pennsylvania, and re-
fuse- to pay to your orator any of the profits which she has made
by such unlawful manufacture and use or to desist from the further
infringement of said reissued letters patent; all of which aets and
doings are in violation of the exclusive rights and privileges so as
aforesaid vested in your orator under and by virtue of said reissued
letters patent and are contrary to equity and good conscience and
tend to the manifest injury of your orator in the preniises.
VII. To the end, therefore, that the defendant mav, if she. can,
show reason why your orator should not have the relief hereby
prayed, and that she may make a full disclosure and dis-
6 covery of all the matters aforesaid, and upon her corporal
oath and according to the best and utmost of her knowl-
edge, remembrance, information, and belief full, true, direct, and
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 3
perfect answer make to the matters and things hereinbefore stated
and charged, and particularly to such of the several interrogatories
hereinafter numbered and set forth, as by the note hereunder writ-
ten are required to answer—that is to say:
1. Whether the said original letters patent No. 70447, herein-
before mentioned, were granted and issued to F. W. Luermann on
November 5th, 1867, for improvement in blast furnaces, as afore-
said.
2. Whether the said original letters patent No. 70447 were re-
issued to vour orator on November 24th, 1868, as aforesaid.
3. Whether the said defendants or either and which of them has
at any time and when and during what period of time made, used,
or sold any and how many blast furnaces constructed in whole or
in part upon the principles and in the manner described in reissued
letters patent No. 3204, granted to your orator as aforesaid. De-
scribe minutely and in detail their construction and operation.
VIII. And that the said defendant may answer the premises, and
that she may be decreed to account for and pay over the income or
profits thus unlawfully derived or which might have been derived
from the violation of the rights of your orator as aforesaid, your
orator prays that your honors, upon entering of the decree in favor
of your orator against said defendant for infringement, as above
prayed for, may also proceed to assess or cause to be assessed under
your directions as well the profits or income to be derived there-
from, to be accounted for as aforesaid, also, in addition thereto, the
damages sustained by your orator by reason of such infringements,
and that your honors may increase the actual datnages so assessed
to a sum equal to three times the amount of such assessment,
under the circumstances of the willful and unjust infringe-
ment committed by said defendant, as hereinbefore set forth ;
and, further, that the said defendant may be restrained from
any further violation of the rights of your orator as aforesaid, your
orator prays that your honors may granta writ of injunction issuing
from and under the seal of this honorable court or issued by one of
your honors perpetually enjoining and restraining the said defend-
ant and her clerks, attorneys, servants, agents, and workmen from
anv further construction or sale or use in any manner of said pat-
ented improvements or any part thereof in violation of the rights of
vour orator as aforesaid; and your orator further prays that a pro-
visional or preliminary injunction be issued restraining the said
defendant from any further infringement of said recited letters
patent pending in this cause, and he prays for such other relief as
the equity of the case may require and to your honors may seem
meet.
[X. May it please your honors to grant unto your orator not only
a writ of injunction conformable to the prayer of this bill, but also
a writof subpcena of the United States of America directed to the
suid Margaret C. Freeman, commanding her, on a day certain
therein to be named, to appear and answer unto this bill of com-
plaint and to abide and perform such order and decree in the prem-
~]
4 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS.
ises as to the court shall seem meet and may be required by the
principles of equity and good conscience.
GEORGE ASMUS.
BAKEWELL & KERR,
Solicitors and Counsel for Complainant.
Nore.—The defendant is required to answer each of the foregoing
»
interrogatories, numbered 1 to 3, inclusive.
BAKEWELL & KERR,
Solicitors for Complainant.
§ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, &
, ° ° re . a> t>)
Western District of Pennsylvania, |
Before me, the subseriber, duly authorized to administer oaths,
personally came George Asmus, the complainant in the foregoing
bill named, who, being duly sworn, deposes and says that so tar as
the statements herein contained are within his own knowledge
they are true, and as they are derived from the information of
others he verily believes them to be true; and he further says
that he verily believes the said F. W. Luermann in said_ bill
named to be the original, true, and first inventor of the new and
useful improvement in blast furnaces which is described in the
reissue letters patent granted to deponent and mentioned in the
foregoing bill; and, further, that the said deponent verily believes
that the title of the said complainant is as set forth in said bill.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 7th day of November,
A. D. 1885.
[ SEAL. ] W. B. CORWIN,
- Notary Public.
(Endorsed:) No. 8. April sess., 1884. U. S. circuit court, east-
ern district of Penna. In equity. George Asmus versus Margaret
C. Freeman. Bill of complaint. Filed March 7, 1884. Samuel
Bell, Esq., clerk. Issue subpoena, returnable to the first Monday of
April next. Bakewell & Kerr, solicitors for complainant.
9 And afterwards, to wit, on the seventeenth day of May, in
the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-
four, the respondent, by her solicitors, William D. Baldwin, Esquire,
and Wayne MacVeagh, Esquire, comes into court here and files her
answer in the words and figures following, viz:
10 United States Cireuit Court in and for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. In Equity.
GEORGE ASMUS )
US »No. 8. April Session, 1884. °
MARGARET C. Freemay. |
The Answer of Margaret C. Freeman, Defendant, fo the Bill of Complaint
of George Asmus, Complainant.
This defendant, now and at all times hereafter saving and reserv-
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 5
ing to herselfall and all manner of benefit or advantage of exception
or otherwise that can or may be had or taken to the manifold errors,
uncertainties, Imperfections, and insufficiencies in the said bill of
complaint contained, for answer to said bill or to so much and such
parts thereof as this defendant is advised it is necessary for her to
make answer unto, answering, says:
I. This defendant denies that F. W. Lurmann was the inventor or
the true, original, and first inventor of a certain alleged im-
11 provement in blast furnaces, as in said complaint alleged ;
she denies that said alleged improvement was new and useful ;
and she here, as more particularly hereinafter, denies that the same
was not known or used before the supposed invention thereof by said
Lurmann, and that it was not for more than two years prior to the
date of bis application for patent in public use or on sale in tlre
United States both with and without his consent or allowance.
If. Upon information and belief this defendant admits that the
said F. W. Lurmann obtained letters patent of the United States
No. 70447, dated November 5, 1867, for an improvement in blast
furnaces alleged to be of his invention ; but she denies that the said
F. W. Lurmann was the original and first inventor of the said al-
leged invention, and she denies that the said Lurmann made due
application therefor, and that he in all respects complied with the
conditions of the then existing law of Congress, as in said bill al-
leged.
Iff. Whether said Lurmann assigned his said alleged invention
and letters patent to complainant, as in said bill alleged, this de-
fendant is not informed, save by the allegations in that behalf in
said bill contained, and, upon information and advice, denies said
allegation, and leaves the complainant to make such proof thereof
as he may be advised.
She admits that complainant surrendered the said letters patent
No. 70447 to the Commissioner of Patents and obtained a reissue of
said letters patent, which said reissue is numbered 3204 and dated
November 24,1868; but she denies that said letters patent No. 70447
were surrendered for good and lawful cause or that said reissued
letters patent No. 2204 were obtained or granted in accordance with
the law or for the residue of the term thereof, and she further denies
that the said reissued letters patent No. 5204 were for the same in-
vention which was specified in the said original letters patent
12 No. 70447, but, on the contrary, this defendant avers that
said reissued letters patent were obtained on the application
of an assignee and without the knowledge or consent of the in-
ventor for the purpose of expanding or enlarging the claims thereof
so as to cover an invention other and different from that described
and claimed in said original letters patent, and that the said re-
issued letters patent as allowed and issued were unlawfully and un-
warrantably expanded and enlarged and cover inventions other and
different from and broader than those described and claimed in said
original letters patent, and that said reissued letters patent are there-
fore void.
IV. This defendant is not informed, save by said bill, whether or
at TNT SS ay Nee Ge ae .
6 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS.
not the complainant has caused the said alleged improvement to be
extensively applied to practical use and granted a large number of
licenses to use the same, and leave- the complainant to make such
proof in that behalfas he may be advised.
V. This defendant denies that she is now infringing or hasatany
time infringed the said alleged improvement or any part or parts
thereof, as in said bill alleged, or that she has done or intended to
do anything to disturb the possession, use, and enjoyment of the
alleged exclusive privileges secured by the said reissued letters pat-
ent and the receipt of the profits of the same, as in said bill alleged.
VI. Tiis defendant believes it to be true that complainant brought
suit in equity in the United States circuit court for the western dis-
trict of Pennsylvania against The Dunbar Furnace Company,
Charles Parish, and A. S. Desaulles, but not at the time alleged in
sald bill: but this defendant, on information and belief, charges that
the said suit or proceeding against The Dunbar Furnace Company
and the other defendants was not, in any fair sense, an adversary
suit or proceeding, and that the statements in the bill of eom-
13 plaintin the fourth paragraph thereof as to the same are
incorrect, misleading, and untrue; that it is true such a suit
was commenced an d that some evidence was taken therein on the
part of the complainant, bat that there was no proper defence to said
sult, no te stimony take Ih On be half of the de ‘fendants, and no @Cross-
examination of the complainant, the principal witness in the case:
that no service was made upon one of the defendants; that no an-
swer was ever filed by hime: that a decree was entered for the com-
plainant against all the defendants, notwithstanding such want of
service, and the case referred to a master for an account of profits
and damages and an injunction ordered to issue, but, so far as these
defendants have been able to ascertain, no such writ of injunction
was ever granted and no further proceedings were ever had before
the master and no final deeree was ever entered in said sutt.
This defendant further says that she was not party or privy to said
alleged suit, and tnat she is not bound or coneluded by the decision
therein.
Vil. This defendant denies that she is now constructing or using
any blast furnace, In some parts thereof or any part thereof, which
is substantially the same in construction and operation as In the
said reissued letters patent mentioned, the exclusive right and priv-
ileve to make and use whieh and vend the same to others to be
used is bv law vested in said e OmMyp lainant.
VIEL. This defendant denies that she has violated any rights of the
complainant or has made and used or intended to make and. use
the aid alleged several Improvements or any or either of them
within the eastern district of Pennsylvania or elsewhere, or that
she has done or intended to do anything in violation of said re-
issued letters patent or of the alle ved CXC lusiv e rigats and privileges
of said complainant thereunder or by virtue thereof.
14 IX. This defendant, further sania says that shortly
after the above-mentioned decree in the suit of the Dunbar
Furnace Co. complainant alleged that this defendant and her asso-
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 7
clates were infringing the said Lurmann patent and called their at-
tention to said suit; that they replied, denying said infringement
or any intention of infringement, and requested to be informed in
what the infringement consisted; that complainant replied, reiter-
ating the charge of infringement, bu; without specifying wherein it
consisted. Upon their refusal to listen to his demands, without
knowing specifically what they were, complainant’s attorney wrote
specifying the alleged ground of infringement, referring ! o the Dun-
bar suit, and suggesting a settlement; that upon the advice of coun-
sel, after full Investigation, they declined to recognize said com-
plainant’s alleged rights, and that for more than three years they
heard nothing more of complainant’s alleged rights, during all of
which time their furnaces were in operation with the full know ledge
and acquiescence of said complainant.
X. This defendant, further answering, says that the interrogatories
contained in the 7th ‘paragraph of the bill of complaint bave all
been hereinbefore specifically answered. As an additional answer
to the od section thereof, this defendant denies that she has at any
time made, used, or sold blast furnaces constructed, in whole or in
part, upon the principles and in the manner described in said re-
issued letters patent No. 3204, the only furnaces used by her being
constructed in substantial accordance with letters patent No. 209,119,
granted October 22, 1878, to Henry C. Grittinger, the manager of
this defendant’s and her associates’ works at Cornwall, Pennsylvania,
with the exception of the omission of the water-cooling pipe in the
weight plate and around the slag-discharge opening, the use of such
water pipe having been for some time discontinued, this defendant
not using any water-cooled arrangement to regulate or control the
flow of slag through the furnace.
15 XI. This defend: ant, further answering, upon information
and belief denies that the said reissued letters patent No.
3204, dated November 24, 1868, is valid; but, on the contrary,
alleges that it is invalid and void for the following reasons, to wit:
Ist. Because said reissue application was never assented to, signed,
or sworn to by the inventor.
2d. Because it is for an invention different from that claimed in
the original patent.
od. Because the said reissue contains much new matter interpo-
lated by the assignee.
4th. Because the specification of said reissued letters patent is not
sufficient to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which
the alleged invention appertains to make, construct, and use the
same with practical success.
Sth. Beeause the alleged improvements attempted to be patented
in said letters patent did not involve or require invention and did
not differ in any patentable respect from what was before said al-
leged invention known and used in this country or described in
patents and printed publications.
6th. Because there is no patentable combination between the ele-
ments constituting the first claim of said reissued letters patent,
and because no invention was required to produce the same.
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS.
7th. Because the specification of said reissued letters patent does
not sufficiently describe the method of controlling the discharge of
slag from blast furnaces by regulating the temperature of the slag-
discharge piece, as claimed in the 7th claim of said reissue, to ena-
ble persons skilled in the art or science to which it appertains or
with which it is most nearly connected to practice the same; that
said method did not involve or require invention and did not dif-
fer In any patentable respect from what was before said alleged in-
vention known and used in this country or described in patents and
printed publications. —
16 Sth. Beeause the 7th claim of the said reissued letters pat-
ent No. 5204 is void if construed to cover all methods of con-
trolling the discharge of slag from blast furnaces by regulating the
temperature of the slag-discharge piece, because it is not for an art,
machine, or manufacture or composition of matter or for any im-
provement on either.
9th. Because the apparatus or alleged invention deseribed, shown,
and contained in said patent is not a patentable invention, but is
inoperative and incapable of being applied to practical use without
the further exercise of inventive skill or experiment.
10th. Beeause the said F. W. Lurmann was not the original or
first inventor or discoverer of the thing patented in said reissued
letters patent No. 5204 or of anv substantial or material part thereof,
but that long prior to said alleged invention or diseovery by the
said Lurmann the thing so patented or a substantial and material
part thereof or substantial and material parts thereof claimed as
new in said reissued letters patent No. 5204 had been invented or
discovered and used in publie by and known — numerous persons
whose names and residence and the localities of whose prior use
are now unknown to these defendants, but which, when known,
these defendants pray leave by proper amendment to Insert in their
answer.
17 11. Because the thing patented in and by said reissued let-
ters patent No. 3204 ora substantial and material part or
substantial and material parts thereof claimed therein as new had
long prior to the alleged Invention thereof by said Lurmann been
patented or described or contained in letters patent numbered and
dated and issued as follows, to wit: |
U.S. letters patent No. 1057, granted to I. C. Bryant for blast fur-
nace December 31. 1836.
U.S. letters patent No. 58513, granted to Stileman & Ellis for
cupola furnace May 12, 1868.
British letters patent No. 1000, granted to Daniel Dalton for fur-
nace dated, May 4, 1855.
British letters patent No. 147U, granted tu George Bedson June
12, 1863.
French letters patent No. 12855, granted to —— Merle July 27,
1804.
12th. Because the thing patented in and by said reissued let-ers
patent No. 3204 or a substantial and material part thereof or sub-
stantial and material parts thereof claimed therein as new had long
. EOS A ORE eB BE He
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 9
prior to the alleged invention thereof by said Lurmann been fully
described, contained, and set forth in the following printed works
and publications, to wit:
Kerl’s Metallurgy, voi. 1, pages 157, 158, plate II, Fig. 33, the title
of which is as follows: “ Handbuch der Metallurgischen Hiitten-
kunde zum Gebrauche bei Vorlesungen und zum Selbstsudium.
Bearbeitet von Bruno Kerl, Konige, Hannor, Hiittenmeister und
Lehrer der Htittenkunde und Probirkunst an der Kénige, Berg-
schule zu Clausthal. In drei Binden. Erster Band, mit 7 litogra-
phirten Tafeien. Freiberg: Vorlag von J.G. Engelhardt, 1855.”
18 Percy's Metallurgy, pages 354, 356, 357, Figs. 29, 32, 44, the
full title of which work is as follows: “ Metallurgy: The
Art of Extracting Metals from their Ores and Adapting Them to
Various Purposes of Manufacture. By John Percy, M. D., F. R.S.,
lecturer on metallurgy at the Royal School of Mines. Iron and
steel, with illustrations, chiefly from drawings carefully laid down
to scale. London: John Murray, Albemarle street, 1864.”
Also in sundry other patents and publications, the grantees and
names and dates of which are now unknown to this defendant, but
which when known this defendant prays leave by proper amend-
ment to insert in this answer.
13th. Because in view of the state of the art at the time of the
alleged invention by said Lurmann the claims of said reissued letters
patent are too broad, covering inventions before made by others and
of which he was not and lis assignee is not entitled to the exclusive
use and enjoyment.
14th. Because if said Lurmann or his assignee ever had a right
to a patent for the alleged improvement specified in reissued letters
patent No. 3204 or the right to have the same secured by letters
patent he abandoned and forfeited the same and lost all such right
by his delay in applying for letters patent therefor, and the same
were put into public use and on sale in this country more than two
years before his application for a patent thereon.
XII. And this defendant, further answering, denies the equity of
said complainant's bill as prayed for in said bill of complaint.
Without this, that there is any other matter, cause, or thing in
said complainant’s said bill of complaint contained material or
necessary for this defendant to make answer unto and not herein
and hereby well and sufficiently answered, confessed, traversed,
avoided, or denied is true to the knowledge or belief of this
19 defendant; all which matters and things this defendant is
ready and willing to aver, maintain, and prove as this hon-
orable court shall direct, and humbly prays to be hence dismissed
with her reasonable costs and charges in this behalf most wrong-
fully sustained.
MARGARET C. FREEMAN,
By her attorney-in-fact, WM. COLEMAN FREEMAN.
WM. D. BALDWIN,
WAYNE MacVEAGH,
Of Counsel,
2—323
cenasiiaiiingin degen an
10 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS.
Unirep States oF AMERICA, es
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, § "
William Coleman Freeman, being duly sworn, deposes and says we
that he is the attorney-in-fact for the aforesaid defendant, Margaret
C. Freeman, and as such more familiar with the facts of this ease
than is said defendant; that he has read the foregoing answer by
him subseribed, and that the facts set forth 1n said answer are true
of his own knowledge except such as are stated on information and
belief, and as to those he verily believes them to be true.
WM. COLEMAN FREEMAN.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 13th day of May, 1884.
L. M. LEIWIG,
Justice of the Peace.
20 (Endorsed :) No. 8. April sess., 1884. C. C. U.S., E. D. of
Pa. Asmus vs. Freeman. Answer. Filed May 17, 1884.
21 And afterwards, to wit, on the fourteenth day of June, in
the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-
four, the complainant, by his solicitors, Messrs. Bakewell and Kerr,
comes into court here and files his replication in the words and fig-
ures following, viz:
Circuit Court of the United States, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
No. 8 of April Session, 1884.
GEORGE ASMUS
Us. >In Equity.
MARGARET C. FREEMAN.
The replication of the complainant, George Asmus, to the answer of
the defendant, Margaret C. Freeman.
This repliant, saving and reserving to himself all and all
22 manner of advantage of exception to the manifold insuffi-
ciencies of the said answer, for replication thereto says that he
will aver and prove his said bill to be true, certain, and sufficient in
the law to be answered unto, and that the said answer of the said
defendant is uncertain, insufficient, and untrue; without this, that
any other matter or thing whatever in the said answer contained
material or effectual in the law to be replied unto, confessed and
avoided, traversed and denied, is true; all of which matters and
things this repliant is and will be ready to aver and prove as this
honorable court shall direct, and humbly prays as in and by his
said bill he has already prayed.
BAKEWELL & KERR,
Solicitors for Complainants.
23 (Endorsed:) No. 8. Aprilsession, 1884. U.S. cireuit court;
eastern district of Pennsylvania. Inequity. George Asmus
versus Margaret C. Freeman. Replication. Filed June 14, 1884.
Bakewell & Kerr, solicitors for complainant.
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 11
24 In the Circuit Court of the United States, Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
GEORGE ASMUS
VErSUS No.8. April Sessions, 1884.
MARGARET C. FREEMAN. -
Complainant’s Record.
Bakewell & Kerr, counsel for complainant.
25 In the Circuit Court of the United States, Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
GEORGE ASMUS
VErSUS No. 8. April Sessions, 1884.
MARGARET C. FREEMAN.
Examination of witnesses and other evidence on behalf of complaia-
ant under the 67th rule in equity, as amended, pursuant to agree-
ment of counsel, before W. B. Corwin, notary publie and special
examiner, by consent of counsel, at the office of Bakewell & Kerr,
No. 401 Grant street, Pittsburgh, Pa., beginning on June 27th at
10 o'clock a. m.
Present: Thomas B. Kerr, Esq., on part of complainant, and Wil-
liam D. Baldwin, Esq., on part of respondent.
GEORGE AsMuUs,a witness produced on part of complainant, being
duly sworn, deposes and says:
Int. 1. State your name, age, residence, and occupation.
Ans. George Asmus; age, fifty-four years; residence, New York
city; occupation, mining éngineer and metallurgist.
Int. 2. Are vou the complainant in this ease and the patentee of
reissue letters patent No. 3204, dated November 24th, 1868, for im-
provement in blast furnace ?
26 Ans. I am.
Int. 3. Are you familiar with the construction of the de-
fendant’s furnace in this ease? If so, please describe it.
Ans. Tam. The furnace is constructed with an absolutely closed
front and the cinder is discharged directly from the hearth through
an opening cooled by water. I produce a sketch showing how this
is accomplished. The plate A has a prolongation of about twelve
inches, reaching through the wall of the hearth towards the inside.
This plate is thoroughly cooled by pipes through which water is
constantly running. An opening about nine inches wide and ten
inches high is left in this plate, through which the cinder is dis-
charged. The rear of the dam-plate B is wailed up.
Int. 4. Deseribe how the opening through the plate A is closed
and how the tapping of cinder is effected.
Ans. The opening is filled with clay, and at proper intervals a
hole is punched through this clay in order to tap the cinder.
Int. 5. In what direction is the opening through the clay made?
Ans. Horizontaliy.
12 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS.
(Sketch referred to by witness offered in evidence as “ Exhibit
Asmus Sketch No. 1.)
Int. 6. What do you mean by the expression “closed front” used
in your third answer?
Ans. A blast furnace where the cinder discharge takes place
directly from the hearth and not through the medium of a fore
hearth, the latter being an outside part of the hearth proper at fur-
naces which are technically called open-front farnaces.
Int. 7. Please produce a sketch illustrating the construction of an
open-front furnace.
Ans. The sketch [ produce represents a vertical section, showing
hearth A and fore hearth F of a blast furnace working with an open
front. A tymp plate, E, often cooled with water, was in use long
ago with such furnaces, but the cinder was not tapped directly from
the hearth. It was taken out through the fore hearth F,
27 which manipulation caused a great loss of time and great
deal of labor. The mode of operation at these open-hearth
furnaces is this: The fore hearth F is filled with clay,and when the
einder has risen to the level of the tuyeres an opening is made with
iron bars ata steep angle through the clay, and the cinder has to
rise to the level of the dam D, over which it flows away. A part of
the clay which is under the tymp plate E forms an intercepting trap,
preventing the blast getting into the fore hearth. This part of the
clay, marked in the sketch C, is called the stopper, and, as it 1s eaten
away very quickly by the cinder flowing underneath it, it had often
to be repaired. E-indicates the iron tap.
[nt. 8. You speak about a loss of time in the tapping of cinder in
furnaces of the open-front construction. Please state what are the
causes of that loss and what its effect is in the production of the
furnace.
Ans. The loss of time in keeping the fore hearth in repair differs
with different furnaces using different material, but on an average it
amounts to two to three hours of time out of twenty-four. During
the repair the blast has to be taken off, and no iron is made during
that time. The hot blast cools off because no gas is produced during
that time, and after the blast is let on again colder air as before is
blown into the furnace, which aiso decreases the output—not only
the output, but at the same time the quality of the iron produced—
that is to say, a furnace fitted for working correctly with a certain
degree of heat in its blast cannot be disturbed in this respect with-
out damaging the product.
Int. 9. State what effect, if any, the furnace has on its fuel during
the time that its blast is taken off.
Ans. There is air passing through the furnace by the open front,
burning fuel slowly and doing no smelting, so a loss of fuel is the
consequence.
Int. 10. You have spoken about a great deal of labor being: re-
quired in the working of a furnace with an open front. Please state
what that labor is and what causes the necessity for it.
Ans, As not only the cinder, but also the iron, is discharged
&
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 13
through the fore hearth, it is necessary to keep the same
28 always In such a condition that the iron discharge can be
easily accomplished. The fore hearth, being a comparatively
cold outside part of the hearth proper, is always filled with half-
smolten clay and with half-smolten ore and unconsumed fuel mixed
up with iron. This conglomerate of substances, being out of the reach
of the blast, has to be removed frequently ; else it will form a tough
mass, which cannot be broken into for letting out the iron, and it 1s
this cleaning out, which has to be done in most cases every time the
Iron is tapped, which causes much loss of time and the very hardest
Jabor the furnace men were subjected to. With a closed front all
this is done away with entirely. The iron is tapped by a short cut
directly from the hearth, and so is the cinder.
Int. 11. Please state any advantages that occur to you in the use
of the closed front or Luermann system over the prior open-front
construction.
Ans. There is one advantage in the construction itself. The
hearth, having no outside projection, becomes stronger by being held
together like a barrel with hoops. The main advantages are in the
fact that a closed-front furnace runs all the timne under full pressure,
not necessitating any repairs concerning the cinder discharge and
not needing hard work done by skilied labor about the front parts,
which are the weakest in open-front furnaces, while it is just as
strong as any part of the hearth as soon as the closed-front system
is adopted.
Int. 12. State what, if any, effect it has upon the output of the
furnace and upon the amount of fuel used.
Ans. The effect as to output and saving of fuel is very different
with different furnaces. Whenever a large amount of cinder is
made, in consequence of lean ores, the destructive effect of the cinder
outflow is greater than where rich ores are smelted. Atan average
I find that a saving of at least ten per cent. of fuel and more output
of twenty per cent. of iron is effected by changing from the open-
hearth: system to that of the closed front. I have known of
some instances where the output was doubled by making the
change. |
29 Int. 13. Please state what the general construction of the
furnaces was prior to the introduction of the Luermann in-
vention.
Ans. Open frouts.
Int. 14. You have spoken about closed-front furnaces. Please
state what construction, if any, of cinder-discharge opening is used
with such furnaces.
Ans. In building the hearth an opening is left in the wall at the
proper height, a foot or two below the tuyeres, through which the
cinder is tapped directly from the hearth, and this opening is pro-
tected by water-cooled castings or water coils from being eaten away
or enlarged.
Int. 15. What effect, if any, would be produced by the tapping
of the cinder in the absence of this provision for protecting the
opening?
14 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS.
Ans. The brick-work of that part of the hearth where the cinder
is discharged would be melted away by the cinder flowing through
an unprotected opening.
Int. 16. State whether or not a closed-breast furnace without such
provision for protecting the wall at the cinder opening would be a
practically useful and operative furnace. |
Ans. Such a furnace would not be practicable for the reasons
given before, especially where hot blast, high pressure, and lean
ores come together, all tending in their effects to destroy such an
unprotected opening.
Int. 17. Referring now to the defendant’s furnace as shown by
“Exhibit Asmus Sketch No. 1,” please state whether or not the
construction is such as to effect the protection of the wall at the
cinder outlet which vou have just described.
Ans. It is. The cinder outlet C in the sketch is protected from
three sides, it being made through the water-cooled plate A.
Int. 18. How far does the cooling effect of a water-cooled rasting
of the kind used by the defendant at the cinder-discharge opening
of her furnace afford an efficient protection to adjacent parts of the
wall ?
Ans. The cooling effect of water plates, as they are usually made
to protect brick-work at the furnaces, is practically to a dis-
30) tance of about six inches. It can be inereased by the use of
larger water pipes and higher water pressure if desired.
Int. 19. How large is the opening usually made through the clay
stopper which is placed in the notch C of furnaces constructed like
the defendant’s when it is desired to tap the cinder ?
Ans. About an inch.
Int. 20. Hlow far from the lower side of the notch is the opening
usually made?
Ans. About the middle of the noteh.
Int. 21. State what, if any, advantages of the closed-breast system
are obtained in furnaces constructed like the defendant’s.
Ans. Defendant is by the construction she uses enabled to run
the furnace without interrupting the blast. There is no fore hearth
to be cleaned out, no time lost,and no labor to be performed in order
to keep the cinder tap in shape.
Int. 22. State whether this invention has gone into use In any
furnaces by your licenses; if so, what furnaces.
Ans. It has been adopted by a great many furnaces. Forinstance,
the following :
Charlotte Furnace Coinpany, Scottdale, Pa.
Graff, Bennett & Co., Pittsburgh, Pa. ‘
Solo furnaces, -
Norton iron works, Ashland, Ky.
Shoenberger, Blair & Co., Pennsylvania.
Monticello furnace, “
Edgar Hill [ron Co., ”
Cambria Iron works,
Bethlehem iron works,
Pennsylvania steel works,
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS.
Laughlin & Co., Pennsylvania.
Hooven & Sons, -
Westerman Iron Co., °
Isabella furnaces, =
: Valley Iron Co., ”
Siefert, McManus & Co., +
Spearman [ron Co., <3
sé
Scranton iron works,
ol Brady’s Bend iron works, Pennsylvania.
Muirkirk furnace, Maryland.
Brown, Bonnell & Co., Ohio.
S. M. Carpenter, :
A. Bradly, ‘
Belfast Iron Co., ”
Cleveland Iron Co.,
Jackson Iron Co., Michigan.
Western Iron Co., Indiana.
‘North Jersey Iron Co., New Jersey.
Morris Iron Co., a
Gaylord Iron & Pipe Co., Kentucky.
Cedar Point furnace, New York.
Bay State Iron Co., >
Crane Iron Co., Catasauqua, Pa.
Chester rolling mills, Chester, Pa.
S. Robbins & Sons, Philadelphia, Pa.
Robert H. Coleman, Lebanon, Pa. ,
Edgar Thompson furnaces (Carnegie Bros.), Bessemer, Pa.
Lucy furnaces, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Dunbar furnaces, Dunbar, Pa.
Longdale Iron Co., Longdale, Va.
Low Moor Iron Co., Virginia.
Rising Fawn furnace (Walker Coal and Iron Co.), Georgia.
Eureka Co., Oxmore, Ala.
Belmont furnaces, Wheeling, W. Va.
Riverside furnaces, 17
Top Mill furnace,
Benwood iron works,
Chattanooga iron works, Chattanooga, Tenn.
Hoggsett & Co., Favette, Pa.
> |S. Bellaire iron & nail works, Bellaire, O.
Wheeling Iron Co., Wheeling, W. Va.
Junction Iron Co., near Steubenville, O.
ée
6
(Sketch of the open-front construction referred to by witness in
Int. 7 is now put in evidence as “Complainant’s Exhibit Asmus
Sketch No. 2.”)
32 Int. 23. Please state when, where, and under what cir-
cumstances you saw the defendant’s furnace and whether
you ever made any demand for royalty for the same.
Ans. I saw the furnace on May 17th, 1883. It was in blast. It
16 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS.
was shown to me by the manager, Mr. Grittinger. I told him that
I considered this construction as an infringement on my patent,
and that the owner would have to take out a license. The furnace
is situated near Lebanon, Pa., and is ealled the North Cornwall
furnace.
(Counsel for complainant offers in evidence an uncertified printed
Patent Office copy of the specification of reissue patent No. 3204,
granted to complainant on November 24th, 1868, for improvement
in blast furnaces, marked “ Exhibit Complainant’s Patent,” certifi-
eation of which is waived by counsel for respendent.)
(It is hereby stipulated that printed Patent Office copies of U. S.
natents and Blue Book copy of British specifications may be used
by either party in this case as evidence without certification, sub-
ject to correction at any time, by the production of certified copies,
if desired.)
In answer to a question to that effect by counsel for respondent,
counsel for complainant states that infringement of the first and
sixth claims of the patent is charged against the defendant.
Cross-examlnation °
X Int. 24. Please examine “ Exhibit Sketch No. 1” and your
third answer relating thereto. You say defendant’s furnace has an
absolutely closed breast, while the sketch shows an apparent open-
ing. Please deseribe the construction a little more clearly as to
how the space between A and Bb is closed.
Ans. The space between A and Bb, as sketched in No. 1, indicates
only that amount of distance to show that they are different plates.
In fact, the lower edge of plate A is at a level with the upper edge
of plate 5, or nearly SO.
33 X Int. 25. Please deseribe briefly the parts represented in
that sketch No. 1 with regard to the reference letters marked
thereon.
Ans. A is an upright plate, cooled by water, with a horizontal
prolongation reaching about twelve inches towards the inside of the
hearth, and in this plate, cut out of it and the prolongation, is the
opening C, through which the cinder is discharged. The cooling
water pipes extend through the whole plate A to the upright part
and through the horizontal extension. The plate B is a little in
front of plate A. The former is in cirele with the outside of the
hearth, while the plate A is set in deeper into the furnace, forming
a niche apparently made to get nearer to the hearth where tlie
einder is fluid. ‘The plate 3 may technically be called a dam-plate
here, though the horizontal space between A and B does by no
means constitute a fere hearth, the space being walled up and the
einder being discharged through the opening C by a_ horizontal
thrust and directly from the hearth. D indicates the tapping hole
for the Iron.
X Int. 26. In “ Exhibit Sketch No.2” you represent an open-front
or fore hearth furnace. How far in front of the tymp plate does
such a fore hearth usually extend ?
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 17
Ans. From two to four feet, according to the size of the furnace.
X Int. 27. As a matter of fact, are not furnaces frequently worked
with a fore hearth not greater than ten inches?
Ans. There are furnaces which are running that way, but I never
saw one before [ introduced the Luermann’s construction in this
country. <A fore hearth being only ten inches long is, in every
technical sense of the word, no fore hearth any more. It is impossi-
ble to dig it out, and all those furnaces with such short distance
between tymp and dam plate tap the cinder directly from the hearth
and not from the lower part of the hearth under a stopper, which is,
in fact, nothing but a downward prolongation of the tymp, consti-
tuting an intercepting trap between hearth and fore hearth. The
very word “short neck,” which is used for this imitation, is younger
than Luermann’s patent.
X Int. 28. At what point between ten inches and twe feet,
34 in your estimation, would a fore hearth cease to be a fore
hearth ?
Ans. It would cease to bea fore hearth where it is impossible and
at the same time unnecessary to repair a stopper, because only a
very short distance between tymp and dam plate would make it
possible to run the furnace without cleaning out the recess called
fore hearth. I think the minimum of this distance must be at least
two feet. If the fore hearth is long enough to enable the workmen
to repair the stopper, it would be too long to allow running the fur-
nace without cleaning out the fore hearth, the dam-plate being too
far away from the real heat of the hearth, and the masses filling
that fore part would chill, often making the iron tap difficult and
in a great many cases impossible. Practice has shown that no recess
at all is the best way, and a recess of ten inches is only an obstacle
to the practical working of the furnace, it being a closed front with
a part of the old disease and without its former intention. The old
fore hearth was a necessity until it was found how the cinder could
be run from a furnace without ruining that part of the wall, and
this was by cooling it properly.
X Int. 29. Is that the best answer as to actual distances that you
are able to give to the foregoing question ?
Ans. Practically speaking, a furnace ceases to have an open front
where the horizontal distance between tymp and dam plates is so
much shortened that the tapping of the cinder straight from the
hearth is possible and can be done constantly without the necessity
of opening that front and cleaning it out. It is practically impos-
sible to run a furnace on the open-front system, with a stopper or
intercepting cinder trap, where the distance between tymp and dam
is less than two feet.
X Int. 30. Then, practically speaking, I understand you to claim
that a fore hearth of less than twenty-four inches ceases to be a fore
hearth and becomes substantially a closed breast. Is that correct?
Ans. Practically, yes.
35 X Int. 31. Your “ Exhibit Sketch No. 2” shows a stop-
per, C, projecting below the tymp and below the top of the
dam-plate. For the sake of clearness, we will call the material clos-
4) “ oe
v—oZ
18 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS.
ing the opening between thisstopper and tiie wall D of the dam-
plate the filling. Now, practically, how far below the top of the dam-
plate does the stopper C of the blast furnace usually extend ?
Ans. About eighteen inches. ‘They hold it as deep as they can,
but it eats away.
X Int. 82. With a downward projection of eighteen inches below
the dam-plate on the part of the stopper and a distance of two feet
between the adjacent walls of the two, at what angle would it be
necessary to perforate the filling to secure the discharge of the cin-
der ?
Ans. At an angle of about forty degrees, or something of that
kind.
X Int. 33. And this angle would increase as the fore hearth is
shortened, would it not ?
Ans. Yes. 7
X Int. 34. Then, as lunderstand vour construction of Luermann’s
patent, the horizontality of the discharge opening for the cinder has
no relation to the question of infringement ?
Ans. It is a direct cinder tap from the hearth, omitting an inter-
cepting trap formed by the stopper, which, in fact, constitutes the
closed front; there being no stopper, it follows that the closed front
is made by a horizontal thrust. The downward thrust, as it 1s done
at an open-front hearth, is made in order to form a stopper and _ to
prevent the cinder in the hearth to be thrown by the pressure of the
blast into the casting-house.
X Int. 35. Then, as I understand your last answer, it is the omis-
sion of the intercepting trap formed by the stopper which, in fact,
constitutes the distinction between an open and a closed front fur-
nace; 1s that correct ?
Ans. Yes; it is the absence of the intercepting trap and the fore
hearth which both constitute the open front.
36 X Int. 36. Then, as | understand it, your answers 8 to 12,
inclusive, as to the relative advantages and disadvantages of
the open and closed front furnaces have been based upon the un-
derstanding developed in your X answers 27 to 35, inciusive. Is
that correct ?
Ans. Yes.
GEORGE ASMUS.
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, |
City of Pittsburg. }
I, W. B. Corwin, notary public and special examiner in the
within-named cause, do hereby certify that on the day herein named
[ was attended by Thomas Bb. Kerr, Esq., of counsel for complain-
ant, and William D. Baldwin, Esq., of counsel for respondent and
the witness herein named, at the office of Bakewell & Kerr, No. 401
Grant street, Pittsburg, Pa., and, the said witness being of sound
mind and lawful age and having been by me duly sworn to testify
the truth, the deposition was reduced to writing by me and signed
by the witness in my presence.
italien Meta dimetin a lel OTE AREY ema lie Fe Oa Ae =
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 19
I further certify that I am not of counsel for either of the parties °
to this cause or interested in the event of the same.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and official
seal this 27th day of June, 1884.
: W. B. CORWIN,
Notary Public.
37 Rebutting Evidence.
Examination of witnesses and other evidence on behalf of complain-
ant under the 67th rule in equity, as amended, pursuant to agree-
ment of counsel, before W. B. Corwin, notary publie and special
examiner, at the office of Bakewell & Kerr, No. 110 Diamond
street, Pittsburgh, Pa., beginning on September 16, 1885, at 10
o'clock a. m.
Present: Thomas B. Kerr, Esq., on part of complainant, and Wil-
liam D. Baldwin, Esq, on part of respondent.
JULIAN KENNEDY, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
Int. 1. State your name, age, residence, and occupation.
Ans. Julian Kennedy; age, 33 years; residence, Pittsburgh, Pa. ;
occupation, furnace manager.
| Int. 2. How long have you been engaged in your present business ?
Ans. About six years continuously now.
Int. 38. What furnaces have you had charge of during that time?
Ans. Edgar Thomson furnaces and the Lucy furnaces. I had
charge of five furnaces at the Edgar Thomson for four years and
two at the Lucy for the last two years. The five Edgar Thomson
furnaces were all built under my charge.
Int. 4. What is the class of the Carnegie and Luey furnaces ?
| Ans. The Edgar Thomson had one thirteen and four twenty-feet
furnaces, the latter being eighty feet high and among the largest in
| the country. The Luey furnaces are also twenty feet in diameter
and eighty feet high, and are all fitted with modern applications.
Int. 5. State whether those furnaces are of the kind known as
closed-breast furnaces.
ofan
| Ans. They are.
Int. 6. What arrangement is used in those furnaces for discharg-
; ing the cinder?
Ans. The cinder is discharged through a water-cooled block.
08 Int. 7. State whether or not they were operated by license
under the Luermann patent.
Ans. They were.
Int. 8. Please describe the form of the Luermann cinder-discharge
arrangement used in those furnaces.
Ans. We use a large conical iron block, cooled by water coil built
in the well of the hearth. Inside of this is inserted a small conical
iron block similarly cooled. In the small end of this is inserted a
bronze water-cooled block, having an opening of from an inch and
a quarter to an inch and three-quarters in diameter. This bronze
ee . . -
me
20 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS.
‘block is closed by an iron plug, which is withdrawn when it is
desired to tap cinder.
Int. 9. Look at the sketch now shown you and state whether it
represents the construction you have just described ; and, if so, indi-
cate the parts you have mentioned by letters of reference marked haca
thereon. ’
Ans. It does; a shows the well of the hearth, 6 the largest
water-cooled block, c the intermediate block, and d the small bronze : a
block.
Int. 10. Piease state whether you ever ran one of these furnaces at
any time—and, if so, for how long a period—without the block d.
Ans. We have at various times run them without the block d for
perhaps two or three or four days at a time.
Int. 11. State the reason for doing so.
Ans. We did this when the furnace was not working very well
and the cinder not fluid enough to run well through the small
block.
[nt. 12. Did that occur when the furnace was running regularly,
so far as the smelting operation was concerned ?
Ans. Yes; the furnace was running regulariy, out owing to being
slightly eold or to variations tn the material the cinder was not as
fluid as we like to have it.
Int. 13. Were these irregularities in the smelting operation of fre-
quent occurrence or only occasionally ?
Ans. They were not of very frequent occurrence. —
Int. 14. What was the size of the cinder-discharge opening on
these occasions when the block d was not used ? ;
Ans. About four and a half inches.
ov Int. 15. Please state whether vou ever ran any of these
furnaces at any time—and, if so, for how long—without the |
block ec. 4
Ans. We have run on several occasions without it for from six
to twenty-four hours or longer.
[ut. 16. What was the oceasion for this?
Ans. One cause was the accidental loss of the block by burn-
ing; at other times it was withdrawn when the furnace was work-
ing very irregularly, in order to remove the thick slag.
Int. 17. On such occasions did anything else come out of the
furnacg beside the slag?
Ans. Yes; we sometimes blew out considerable fuel and ore and ~
limestone.
Int. 18. When you were working the furnaces without the block aie
d, and also when you were working them without the blocks ¢ d,
did you flush the cinder in the same way as when you were working
with the bleck d ?
Ans. Yes; except that 1t was generally more trouble to stop the
outlet, involving slacking down of the blowing engine.
Int. 19. What did you use to stop the cinder opening on these
occasions ?
Ans. Clay and fire-brick bats.
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 91
Int. 20. How did you open the cinder opening when you de-
sired to flush on such occasions?
Ans. By driving an iron bar through the clay stopper.
Int. 21. What effect, if any, did the flow of cinder thus made in
i g the clay and fire-brick stopping have upon the same?
\ ‘ . : ; a ee
Ans. It generally enlarged it considerably, allowing the escape of
considerable hot gases and the blowing out of a good deal of hot
¢
|
tL coke.
Int. 22. What was the diameter of the opening when the block c¢
was not used ? :
Ans. About sixteen inches.
Int. 23. You have given your experience as furnace manager as
being confined to the past six years. Had you any experience prior
to that time in connection with blast furnaces; and, if so, in what
capacity and for what length of time?
40 Ans. I was for one year employed as a draughtsman and
one vear as engineer and another year in the office—that is
that is, from 1869 to 1872. Then in J876 and 1878 about one year’s
experience as assistant managerand manager. Thatisall the actual
experience; in the meantime I was studying with reference to fur-
naces at school.
é Int. 24. Please state how generally closed-breast furnaces having
water-cooled cinder outlet are in use in this country.
Ans. I think they are used in nine-tenths of what we call the
ao better class of furnaces, making from eighty tons upwards a day.
Int. 25. Upon what sources of information or knowledge do you
base your last answer? |
Ans. From observation, from conversation with furnace engineers,
and from drawings and descriptions in the technical journals.
| Int. 26. Can vou state what construction was used prior to the
: introduction of closed breasts ?
Ans. The general construction was a cylindrical hearth with an
opening in front called a fore hearth closed by a dam, the wall of
the hearth above the fore hearth being built thin, protected by a
water-cooled casting called a trap, the opening at the top of the
fore hearth being of considerable size and closed during the regular
working of the furnace by a heavy plate held down against the
pressure of the blast, either by loading with weights or fastening
some kind of a prop above it.
Int. 27. State whether or not this form of furnace is distinguished
by any name from the form of furnace known as closed fronts; and,
abo if so, what?
Ans. It is called the open-front furnace.
~—
ee
Cross-examination by W. D. Batpwin, Esq., subject to objections,
as follows: It having been agreed that said objections should be
stated at the close of direct examination with the same force and ef-
fect as if made at the time the questions were asked or answered,
the entire deposition is objected to as irrelevant and immaterial to
any issue raised by the pleading and as not rebuttal,
to
bo
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS.
(Counsel for complainant offers in evidence the sketch
41 referred to by the witness in his deposition, which is marked
“Complainant’s Exhibit Kennedy.”)
X Int. 28. When was the license granted referred to in your sev-
enth answer?
Ans. The first license at Edgar Thomson was granted, I think,
in 1879; the others at various times afterwards. I can’t recollect.
At the Lucey furnaces I don’t remember the dates; they were
granted before I took charge of them.
X Int. 29. Was the consideration for those licenses a fixed sum or
an annual royalty ?
(Objected to as incompetent.)
Ans. It was a fixed sum.
X Int. 30. How often, on an average, was the plug withdrawn
from the bronze block d to tap the cinder, as stated in your eighth
answer ?
Ans. About sixteen times in twenty-four hours.
X Int. 31. About how long at a time?
Ans. Perhaps fifteen or twenty minutes.
X Int. 82. What fuel was used in the furnaces of which you were
manager during the operations about which you have testified ?
Ans. Mostly coke; for a short time a mixture of coke and anthra-
cite coal.
X Int. 33. What flux did you use?
Ans. Limestone.
X Int. 34. State the character of the flux as to purity or as mixed
with other material, such as slate, for instanee?
Ans. The flux was generaliy of pretty pure limestone, containing
carbonate of lime, but sometimes we used stone containing as high
as ten per cent. of silica and six or eight of alumina; also used at
times stone containing considerable magnesia.
X Int. 85. Did you ever encounter slate in your fuel or flux under
circumstance above mentioned ?
Ans. We generally had a little slate in the fuel.
X Int. 36. How did that qualify or affect the working of the fur-
naces ?
Ans. It had no appreciable effect on the working of the fur-
4? nace, except that it increases the ash and reduces the carbon
in the coke, requiring more limestone.
X Int. 37. What proportion of furnaces at work in this country
do you understand to make over eighty tons of iron a day.
Ans. I can’t answer that very intelligently.
X Int. 88. What number of such furnaces do you know of -our
own knowledge to exist ?
Ans. About forty furnaces. ,
X Int. 39. Wherein, if in any respect, do you understand the
operation of the furnaces you have described to differ when the
blocks ¢ and d are in place and when they are removed, as you have
described ?
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 93
Ans. When the blocks ¢ and d are in place the tapping bole is
easily closed without reducing the pressure of blast in the furnace,
but when they are out the clay stopper of the block 8 is likely to be
fluxed away by the slag flowing through and enlarging the open-
ing from the size of the bar—say one and three-quarter inches—to
a size of four or five inches or more, allowing fuel to be blown out and
rendering it necessary to reduce the blast so that the furnacemen
can stop the hole again. This causes irregular working to a cer-
tain extent, also a loss of time, loss of fuel and of hot gases.
JULIAN KENNEDY.
GEORGE AsmMus recalled for rebuttal:
Int. 37. What is the effect of the chilling up of the fore hearth in
an open-front furnace?
Ans. Difficulty of getting out the iron and cinder.
Int. 38. What effect, if anv, would it have on the smelting process
or operation of the furnace?
Ans. It would be necessary to remove that chilled substance from
that portion of the furnace called fore hearth. The running of the
blast would have to be interrupted until the proper outlets for cinder
and iron are opened again; else cinder and iron would rise te the
tuyeres and above them, destroying the tuyeres. This will
43 happen when the chill is sufficiently complete that cinder
and iron cannot be tapped through the ordinary opening.
Int. 39. What steps are necessary to effect the tapping of the iron
through a chilled fore hearth?
Ans. Extremely hard working with chisels and bars toget through
the tough substances which fill ‘the fore hearth.
Int. 40. In the Defendant’s Exhibit Grittinger Sketch No. 2 the
iron notch is shown as provided with an opening reaching in to the
hearth of the furnace through the chilled cinder and stock; please
state whether that channel would remain open during the interval
between the tappings of the iron.
Ans. On that sketch the iron tap and the cinder tap are drawn as
open. I cannot tell whether they are opened artificially or not. It
may or it may not.
Int. 41. What would be the effect of permitting a chill to remain
in the fore hearth?
Ans. It would endanger the working of the furnace altogether.
Int. 42. How?
Ans. Because so long as the cause of the chill continues, what-
ever that cause may be, the chill will grow into the furnace, will
fill up the whole hearth, and necessitate finally the blowing out of
the furnace.
Int. 43. How does the extension of the chill into the hearth of the
furnace affect the operation of the iron notch?
Ans. The distance between the outside of the iron notch and
the point in the furnace where the iron is in a molten state is get-
ting greater, and it becomes more and more difficult to keep the
notch open.
D4 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS.
Int. 44. What time is required to open the iron notch for the pur-
pose of tapping in such case ?
Ans. Irom one hour to twenty-four hours.
Int. 45. While this time is elapsing what is the furnace doing?
Ans. Standing still from the moment that there is no more room
ip the hearth to receive any more iron or cinder.
Int. 46. What moment is that?
Ans. When the cinder is up to the tuyeres; the cinder tap
44 ‘an’t be left open because the men are working at the iron
notch.
Int. 47. In case the furnace should be stopped for the reason last
given what would be the effect of the stoppage ?
Ans. A further increase of difficulties on account of the half-molten
stock above the tuyeres cooling off.
[nt. 48. What effect has the operation of melting out a chill upon
the character of the product, if any, and what doves such operation
necessitate in reference to the charge?
Ans. The smelting out of a chill is only possible by dving away
with the causes which originate the chill, and those causes may be
of various kinds,such as water in the furnace or not enough fuel or
too little flux or a combination of the whole. Ifthe wrong charge
was the cause the charge would be altered in such a way as to make
a cinder which is able to dissolve the solid masses in the hearth.
More coal has to be used to produce sufficient temperature to remedy
the evil. Very often all there means do not have effect, and the re-
sult isa salamander, which puts a stop to the operation. In this
case the output is stopped altogether. Under all circumstances the
output is lessened and the quality of iron will be different from that
which was intended to be produced.
Int. 49. Is there any more liability of the occurrence of a chill in
one of the two classes of furnaces known as open and closed fronts
than there is in the other?
Ans. Yes; there is a great difference.
apt to be chilled than the closed front.
Int. 50. For what reason ?
Ans. The fore hearth, which constitutes an essential part of the
open-front hearth, is an offset of the hearth itself—a kind of a box
extending outwards—and in consequence the coldest part of the
Any chill that may occur will show itself first in the fore
The open front is more
hearth.
hearth.
[nt. 51. What is necessary to prevent the occurrence of chills in
an open-front furnace ?
Ans. You have to open the top of the fore hearth frequently and
dig out the matter which fills it.
Int. 52. What is the character of the work necessary in cleaning
out the fore hearth ? |
45 Ans. It is the hardest work about the blast furnaces on ac-
count of the matter spoken of issuing red hot and in 4 half-
molten state, difficult to remove on account of its toughness and
temperature.
ee - —<—
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 95
Int. 53. Who introduced the Luermann system of closed-breast
furnaces into the United States ?
Ans. I did.
Int. 54. What knowledge did you have at that time of the fur-
naces which were in operation in the United States ?
Ans. Only the general knowledge that the furnaces in the United
States did not differ in any important way from those in the old
world.
Int. 55. Did you visit any of these furnaces ?
Ans. Immediately after the patent was issued I visited the prin-
cipal iron centers in the United States and explained, after having
seen the blast furnaces, Lurmann’s patent to the owners.
Int. 56. What construction did you find in those furnaces at that
time ?
Ans. Long open fronts throughout.
Int. 57. What proportion of the furnaces in use prior to 1870 did
you visit ?
Ans. I saw the most important furnaces, but what proportion of
those in use I could not say.
Int. 58. Can you state what proportion of furnaces in the United
States were using or were constructed with closed breasts and water-
cooled cinder outlets in the year 1884 ?
Ans. Perhaps half. A. great many, however, did not work under
the Luermann patent, having made some sort of an arrangement
which made tlie furnaces working with closed fronts and water-
cooled cinder outlet in a different shape from Luermann’s invention
shows, trying to evade in this way paying the patent fees.
Adjourned to Sept. 17, at 9.50 p. m.
PITTSBURGH, Sept. 17, 1885.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
Present: Counsel as before.
Witness desires to change his last answer by changing the
word “invention ” to “drawing.” I desire to add that the
46 large furnaces which are fitted up according to modern sci-
ence are all running, with a few exceptions, under license
sold to them by me under the Luermann patent.
Int. 59. In your list of licenses given in your former deposition
you name the furnaces of Robert H. Coleman, at Lebanon, Pa. Do
you know what stock is used in those furnaces and whether it differs
at all from the stock used by the defendants ?
Ans. It is the same as far as I know or have seen there.
Int. 60. Please describe the construction of the cinder notch in
the Robert H. Coleman furnaces, at Lebanon.
Ans. They have closed fronts and tap the cinder directly from
the hearth through a small cinder notch with about one and a half
inch opening. ‘This notch or block is set in a larger conical casting.
The cinder block and this casting are cooled by water.
Int. 61. Is there any provision in the Robert H. Coleman furnaces
4—323
26 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS.
for getting rid of what the defendant calls “ bone,” in case any
should remain unsmelted ?
Ans. I do not know what is meant by bones in stock, but I sup-
pose it is matter which can’t be smelted. Provision to get rid of
such matter is made in the furnaces in question; is made in all
Luermann furnaces, as clearly given in the description of the inven-
tion in the patent. The cinder block is in such cases slipped out,
a larger opening being accomplished by this, through which such
matter can be removed. In the patent drawing this opening 1s pro-
tected by the water-cooled plate C. At the Colebrook furnaces,
which is the name of the Robert H. Coleman furnaces, at Lebanon,
the conical water-cooled casting spoken of takes the place of plate
C. It holds the cinder block and serves as a guard in case the cinder
block is taken out.
Int. 62. How would such unfused matter be removed in case the
furnace was worked without the cinder block ?
Ans. The larger hole is filled up with clay and sand, and when
cinder is tapped a hole is dug through such sand wide enough to
remove the stuff in question. ‘It is blown out with the cinder.
Int. 63. Did you ever know any of the furnaces which
47 have been licensed by you and which use the Luermann im-
provement to be operated at any time without the cinder
block ; and, if so, for how long a period and how frequently ?
Ans. Yes; I know several. For instance, the furnaces of the
Jackson [ron Company, which are cuarcoal furnaces, are operated
for at least twelve years now with closed fronts, without a cinder
block proper. ‘The cinder is tapped through a water-cooled, saddle-
shaped casting about 18 inches long and 12 inches wide, which
casting is set into the wall of the furnace.
Int. 64. The question is broad enough to include occasional omis-
sion of the cinder block. What is the practice among the users of
Luermann furnaces with regard to that?
Ans. They use cinder blocks with holes as small as possible in
ordinary work—that is, when the furnace is in good condition.
Whenever the furnace is out of order they take the cinder block
out and tap for awhile through the larger opening left for that
purpose.
Int. 65. What do you mean by the furnace being out of order ?
Ans. The furnace is out of order in this sense, whenever the
cinder is not fluid enough to pass through a hole smaller than about
three inches. Some furnaces make constantly sluggish cinder and
use cinder blocks with holes from two to three inches wide, while
the standard size is from an inch and a quarter to an inch and
half throughout the furnaces in the country.
Inter. 66. What is a tymp?
Ans. A tymp is the wall above the fore hearth, being a part of
the walls surrounding the main hearth of a blast furnace with an
open front. The tymp is protected by aniron plate called the tymp
plate, which in many cases is cooled with water. It is set against
the tymp vertically or at a slight angle, and has on its lower end a
horizontal prolongation re eaching under the arch, which forms the
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 27
under edge of the tymp. This prolongation keeps the so-called
stopper from smelting away. The stopper reaches downwards and
is a mass of clay, which forms the intercepting trap essential to a
furnace with an open front. The cinder runs out under the stop-
per, and its outflow is not through the water-cooled plate
48 called tymp plate. It rises then to the top of the dam and
flows away.
Int. 67. Look at the Defendant’s “ Exhibit Cinder Flush ” and
state whether the water-covled plate through which the cinder
flows is a tymp plate.
Ans. No; it is not a tymp plate, because there is not a tymp as
there is no fore hearth. -
Int. 68. Is there any difference, so far as the discharge of the
cinder is concerned, between the discharge of cinder where a tymp
plate is used and where.a construction like the defendant’s is used ?
Ans. There is a great difference. In the model cinder flush the
cinder is tapped directly from the furnace and runs by coming out
through the furnace wall through water-cooled plate, while in the
other the cinder runs under the intercepting trap into the fore
hearth, and from here away from the furnace. It shows a closed
front where the cinder is tapped directly from the hearth through
an opening cooled by water.
Int. 69. What is the main purpose of the water cooling in the
Luermann invention ?
Ans. To prevent the smelting away of the surroundings of the
cinder outlet by the passing slag.
Int. 70. Please state what is necessary to the use of a closed-breast
furnace for the manufacture of iron as generally practiced at the
present day. |
Ans. A cinder tap protected by water cooling.
Int. 71. For what reason is it necessary ?
Ans. The cinder dissolves the material out of which the furnace
is built in passing through the necessary cinder outlet. It widens
it constantly if not checked by water-cocled guards. The furnace
would become impracticable after a short time.
Inter. 72. Please state whether or not any other provision than
the water-cooled plate through which the cinder is tapped in the
defendaut’s furnace is necessary to preserve the limits of the cinder-
discharge opening.
Ans. Not necessary.
Int. 73. What was your experience with reference to the intro-
duction of the Luermann invention ?
49 Ans. Most people laughed at it, and the difficulty to induce
anybody to adopt the new plan was extremely great. The
principal objection was that the stock which was shovelled out every
day from the fore hearth could not be taken out any more, and the
furnace was closed. This stock was considered by most furnacemen
infusible dead matter, which had to be removed. It was difficult to
make them understand that it only became dead matter while shut
up in the outside cold box called the fore hearth; that it was noth-
ing but cold and half-smolten ore, beyond the reach of the blast,
28 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS.
becoming so in fact dead matter, which had to be removed. They
could not see that if the furnace had no fore hearth everything that
dropped down upon the surface of the molten iron would rise, would
be under the influence of the smelting heat, and would either smelt
or burn. So the furnace keeps itself clear—it becomes, in fact, self-
acting——and all the loss of time and fuel and the great amount of
work is done away with as soon as the fore hearth ifabandoned. A
few of our leading blast-furnaces nen, however, saw the correctness
of this argument. They allowed me to change their furnaces from
the old to the new system while in blast. In some instances they
abandoned it again for a time because the workingmnen were badly
opposed to the new plan. In the Lehigh valley, for instance, by old
practice, all the coal shoveled out of the furnaces belonged to the fur-
nace laborers, and they lost a great benefit as soon as the coal was
allowed to burn up, for the purpose for which it was thrown into the
funnel head. Still, some of the furnaces kept on working well, and
little by little the truth found its way throughout, until now the
revolution is a complete fact, undisputed by any of our leading blast-
furnace men.
[nt. 74. What has been vour principal business since 1867 ?
Ans. Converting the biast furnaces in the United States from
open-front furnaces to closed-front furnaces, according to Luer-
mann’s patent. |
Int. 75. What was your reason for applying for and obtaining a
reissue of this patent?
Ans. To make the meaning of the whole invention as clear as
possible to all who were concerned.
50 Int. 76. State whether any furnaces having closed breasts
and water-cooled cinder outlets were put in use before your
application for reissue which were not licensed by you.
Ans. None to my knowledge.
[nt. 77. State why you did not apply for a reissue sooner than
you did,
Ans. In arranging a number of furnaces I found that the same
differed more or less in the construction, and I had to adopt my
construction aceording to the circumstances. ‘This made it neces-
sary to give the construction quite different shapes, so the main
points always remainthesame. Thisexperience caused me, in order
to prevent mistakes, to find a formula which expresses the spirit of
the invention in the clearest way possible and which flows plainly
from the technical description given in the original patent. The
experience and the reasoning deriving from it took up some time.
Int. 78. Did you know you were entitled to apply for a reissue of
the patent? ,
Ans. I learned so through my patent lawyers, Van Santvoord &
Hauff, in New York. I learned this about a year after the first
patent was taken out. .
Int. 79. In adapting the invention to different constructions and
circumstances of furnaces, did you have any assistance or suggestion
from any other person ?
Ans, From nobody but Mr, Luermann, who sent me quite a num-
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 29
ber of printed drawings showing the ways be altered the furnaces
in Germany. They were printed with descriptions in three lan-
guages, French, English, and German, and I made use of the same
here as well as in England and France, where I arranged the first
furnaces upon Luermann’s requesting me to do so.
Int. 80. Why did you not have the reissue papers executed by
Mr. Luermann ?
Ans. My legal advisers told me it was not necessary.
Int. 81. Do you know where your licensees got the information
as to the ability to use the invention without the presence of the
cinder block D?
Ans. They got it from me. |
| (Cross-examined by counsel for defendant without waiver
of objections, which are now entered by agreement with the
same force and effect as if entered at the time the questions and
answers were given.)
(The deposition is objected to generally as irrelevant and imma-
terial and as incompetent on rebuttal. Questions and answers from
37 to 52, both inclusive, are objected to as incompetent on rebuttal,
being simply a reiteration in substance of witness’ examination-in-
chief. Questions and answers 59 to 62, both inclusive, are objected
to on the ground of incompetency, irrelevaney, and immateriality,
Robert H. Coleman being neither party nor privy with this defend-
ant or any of his associates, and the matter relating to a construc-
tion of furnace different from that used by the defendant.)
X Int. 82. In answer 46 you say, When the cinder is up to the
tuyeres the cinder tap can’t be left open, because the men are
working at the iron notch. Would that be the case where the two
openings were in different parts of the furnace, so that one would
not be vertically over the other ?
Ans. No; it would not; but the furnace I spoke of is one of those
where they always had them together.
X Int. 88. What do you mean by “ water in the furnace,” as stated
in answer 48?
Ans. A leaking tuyere, for instance, would cause water in the fur-
nace and produce a chill.
X Int. 84. Is such an accident as that mentioned in your last
answer more likely to occur in an open-front furnace than in one
with a closed front?
Ans. No; but the consequence is a different one.
X Int. 85. Suppose such a leak to occur in the back tuyere of a
furnace farthest from the cinder notch, what difference in conse-
quence would ensue?
Ans. That part of the chill which is in the fore hearth cannot
occur in a closed-front furnace, and it will be, at any rate, less work
to get over it than when hearth and fore hearth are chilled up, the
hearth being hot and kept bot by the running down of the fluid iron,
the fore hearth being outside of the heating influence of the
D2 smelting process. Most chills occur in the fore hearth, and
30 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS.
when the cause is known the same will be stopped, but the fore
hearth will have to be dug out.
X Int. 86. How long would it take a leak in a tuyere, so slight as
not to produce an explosion, to chill the fore hearth of a furnace
thirteen feet in diameter at the boshes?
Ans. I do not know.
X Int. 87. When was the Robert H. Coleman license granted, as
mentioned in the = question 7%
Ans. About three or four years ago, when the furnaces were built,
or shortly after that.
X Int, 88. Was a fixed sum ora continuous license fee paid for
the use of that furnace?
Ans. A fixed sum.
X int. 89. Please answer the same question with regard to the
Jackson [ron Company furnaces mentioned in answer 63.
Ans. A fixed sum.
X Int. 90. In Int. 72 you are asked whether any other provision
than the water-cooled plate through which the cinder is tapped in
the defendant’s furnace Is necessary to preserve the limits of the
cinder-discharge opening, and you answered not necessary. Please
refer to the exhibit showing the construction in your mind when
you made that answer.
Ans. This * Exhibit Cinder Flush.” A further provision 1s not
necessary, though this cooling is not quite as complete as it might
be made.
X Int. 91. Grittinger answer 8, page 24 defendant’s record, states
the opening in the casting of the furnace represented by that ex-
hibit to be fourteen by fourteen inches reduced to ten by ten or less
by aclay packing. Was your answer to the 72d [nt. made with
this understanding of the construction of that furnace ?
Ans. Yes. The water-cooled upright plate through which the
cinder is tapped prevents the melting away of the furnace wall, so
keeping the limits of that opening intact.
X Int. 92. Asa matter of facet, do not the water-cooled plates wear
out in time and have to be replaced ?
Ans. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don’t. There
53 is no wear and tear on them, but sometimes they crack the very
first day they are put in, and then they have to be replaced.
X Int. 93. In your 75d answer you say “this stock was consid-
ered by most furnacemen infusible dead matter which had to be
removed. It was difficult to make them understand that it only
became dead matter while shut up in the outside cold box called
the fore hearth; that it was nothing but cold and halt-smolten ore
beyond the reach of the blast, becoming so, in fact, dead matter
which had to be removed.” Do you mean to be’ understood as
saying that as late as 1867 the expert furnace managers of this
country did not understand the constituent material they were ma-
nipulating in the blast furnace and the results produced by such
manipulation ?
Ans. I did not say that all of the leading furnacemen had such
an idea, else nobody would have allowed me to shut up their fur-
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. $1
nace fronts, but it was a common superstition among the melters,
who used to run the furnaces at that time pretty independently of
scientific influences, which have since then taken the lead in the
blast-furnace business. At any rate, the remark in question was
made to me by these men, who tried everything to prevent a change
being made at their furnaces.
I may add that the idea about dead matter in the stock, bone, &c.,
is still not quite abandoned. It isin such places overcome as soon
as proper temperature is given to the furnaces, when most of the
hitherto infusible matter will run out dissolved in the cinder.
There is matter which is with ditheulty consumed, and for this,
under all circumstances, provision ought to be made to have it
taken out of the furnace without much disturbance.
X Int. 94. Do not closed-breast furnaces operated under what you
call the Luerrmann system sometimes become so much obstructed
with infusible dead matier, such as you have mentioned, as to re-
quire the removal of the cinder block in order to clear tiie furnaces
of such dead matter?
Ans. I have not seen one instance of that kind, but very fre-
quently I have seen cinder not fluid enough to be able to run through
asmall hole in a cinder block, and then I have seen the cinder
block taken out and the cinder passed through an opening
o4 wide enough for its fluidity. It may, however, occur that
other matter, as coal-dust, gases in the furnace, is covered by
cinder and protected against combustion. Such obstructions ought
to be removed through a larger hole, of course, but these occurrences
are not the rule, they are but accidental.
X Int. 95. Is unburnt coal which bas passed through the furnace
one of the substances ordinarily shoveled out of a fore hearth ?
Ans. Yes; especially in anthracite furnaces.
X Int. 96. Does it come out mixed with other substances or sepa-
rate ?
Ans. In coke furnaces it is coke more or less impregnated with
cinder; in anthracite furnaces it is lumps of anthracite.
X Int. 97. What kind of mistakes did you expect to prevent by
finding a formula to express the spirit of the Luermann invention,
as stated in your answer 77 ?
Ans. That difference in shape might be taken for a different thing.
Redirect :
Int. 98. Have you examined the following paper exhibits put in
evidence by the defendants, namely, Exhioits Kerl, Merle, Percy,
Bedson, Dalton, Bryant,and Stileman & Ellis? And, if so, please state
whether you have found therein, either described or claimed, the
invention claimed in reissue No. 3204.
Ans. I have examined the papers and did not find anything like
Luermann’s patented improvement. Kerl refers to a furnace for
melting tin; nothing is said about cooling the cinder outlet in any
way. Merle shows a fancy sketch of an impossible furnace. The
inventor introduces on one side of the furnace gases and chemicals
FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS.
MARGARET C.
into the hearth. Nothing is said about the cinder outlet as being
separate from the outlet for the iron.
Percy’s sketch shows the lower part of an open-front blast furnace
and the way to protect the sides of the furnace by water-cooled cast-
ings. Nothing is said beside this. It shows a style of water-cooled
tuveres for the blast.
The Bedson drawing does not show a ground plan, and it
a5) is impossible to see whether it refers to a closed or an open
front. Nothing is said about the mode of discharging the
cinder.
The Dalton drawing shows no ground plan, and it is impossible
to see whether it refers to an open or closed front. The cinder
outlet is marked, but nothing is said that it should be cooled by
water.
The Bryant shows an open front, where the crucible is protected
by water boxes. Nothing is said about the mode of discharging
cinder.
Stileman & Ellis show a cupola furnace, not for making iron, but
for smelting scrap. Cinder and iron are run out together through
2 hole near the bottom into a box, where the iron may accumulate
nd the cinder run off near the top. The whole has no reference
to a blast furnace and refers only to the accumulating box which is
outside of the furnace. :
Int. 99. State whether, in your opinion, a person skilled in the
art could, without other knowledge or information, construct a Luer-
mann furnace from anything contained in these exhibits.
Ans. He could decidedly not.
Int. 100. Please state what relation that part of the specification
of the Luermann patent which relates to the method of controlling
the discharge of slag, forming the subject-matter of the 7th elaim,
bears to the Luermann invention.
Ans. It is one of the finer points, which comes in as inferior sub-
stance to the whole. ;
Int. 101. Under what circumstances is that method practiced and
of utility ?
Ans. Wherever very iean ores are smelted and consequently very
large amounts of cinder are made. In this case it is found highly
convenient to run the cinder all the time from one iron tap to
another. In order to be able to do this the size of the cinder hole
is regulated by the amount of water flowing through the cinder
block. This does away with the labor, which is indispensable for
removing the chilled einder which fills the cinder channel
56 between the furnace and the place where the cinder is run
into cars every time, after cinder is flushed in the ordinary
way.
(Questions 98 to 101 were asked after the cross-examination of the
witness by consent, and the objections as to materiality, relevancy,
and rebuttal are not made against them.
GEORGE ASMUS.
Pm, A
‘ :
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 33
(I desire to currect my answer 22 by striking out the Scranton
iron works from the list of licensees. ‘It was put in by mistake.)
Adjourned to 2.30 p. m.
‘ Met 2.30 p. m
Rosert C. Porter, being duly sworn, deposes and says
Int. 1. State your name, age, residence, and occupation.
Ans. Robert C. Porter; age, 41 years; residence, Pittsburgh, Pa. ;
occupstion, furnace manager of the Soho farnace, Pittsburgh (Moor-
head, McCleane & Co.).
Int. 2. How long have you been engaged in blast-furnacing ?
Ans. Since 1866.
Int. 3. What kind of a furnace did you first operate?
Ans. The open front.
Int. 4. Did you ever have the fore hearth fill up?
Ans. Yes.
Int. 5. What was the effect of that chilling upon the work of tap-
ping the iron ?
Ans. It interfered with the tapping of the iron and made trouble ;
it — delay in drilling for the iron.
Int. 6. Could the furnace be run right along during such delay ?
Ans. Tt frequently happened when we had the open fronts that
with a chill in the hearth orerucible that we cast over the dam and
In that ta continued to run the furnace.
Int. 7. Could you continue to use the furnace without cleaning
out ihe fore hearth by casting over the dam ?
Ans. We could continue to use the furnace, but we con-
o7 sidered the furnace in very bad shape when we were coin-
| pelled to cast over the dam. bs eee
i Int. 5. What was necessary to be done to remedy it? |
. Ans. We always made it a point to either cut out the hearth, if
possible, and if we could not succeed in cutting out the hearth to
| blow out the furnace.
) Int. 9. State whether there was any more liability of a chill occur-
ring in one of two classes of furnaces known as open or closed—one
than in the other—and, if so, which.
Ans. Chills were very frequent in the open-hearth furnace. The
; open hearth was the most liable.
\ Int. 10. What was the cause of this greater liability ?
Ans. What we used to call the long-neck furnaces formed a reser-
voir for dead material, and especially in running on foundry iron
or Bessemer iron and the finer grades of iron, but after these necks
were shortened up so that the point that the iron and cinder was
discharged out from was brought nearer to the center of the furnace
we did not have any trouble with those chills.
Int. 11. When was this change made in furnaces, and to whom
was it due? 7
Ans. I think it was along in 1868 or 1869—I was at Haselton,
Ohio—that [heard the idea of Mr. Luermann doing away with these
—~heer - NYY
Da aa
34 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS.
Jong necks in blast furnaces. We pulled out our dam plate at Hasel-
ton and cut the Jambs out and set the dam-plate beneath the tymp
plate, leaving a space of about six inches between tymp plate and
dam-plate. The cinder was discharged through the stopper under
the tymp plate. This was done on No. 1 furnace. The idea was so
new that we were afraid to attempt it on both furnaces and at-
tempted it on one furnace as an experiment. This improvement
increased the output of the furnaces and did away with a great deal
of hard labor, and did away with long-neck furnaces in the Mahon-
ing valley. My understanding at the time was that the improve-
ment was due to Mr. Luermann.
Int. 12. Did you obtain a license for the Haselton furnace from
Mr. Asmus?
Ans. Not at that time. I don’t know whether they ever did. I
left there a year or so afterwards.
58 Int. 13. Can you state upon what plan the leading furnaces
of the country generally are built ?
Ans. Closed-front furnaces in all the modern plants—that is,’the
best improved modern furnaces.
Int. 14. What kind of a cinder outlet have they ?
Ans. They are not all alike, but the cinder outlet is protectegl by
water. ‘Three cones is the common style in use.
Int. 15. What kind of a cinder outlet did you use at the Soho
furnace? :
Ans. We had three cones. If the furnace is in good working con-
dition we use all three. If not in good working condition we take
out one and sometimes two—that is, the inside cones.
Int. 16. What is the diameter of the hole in the inside eone ?
Ans. I have two sizes; one is inch and a half and the other two
inches on the inside cone.
Int. 17. What is the diameter of the opening in the second
cone?
Ans. Seven inches in diameter.
Int. 18. What is the diameter in the opening of the outside
cone?
Ans. Fifteen inches inside and thirty inches outside.
Int. 19. State whether or not cones-as used in your furnace are
arranged in the manner shown in Complainant’s “ Exhibit Ken-
nedy”? -
Ans. Just the same; they are put in just the same; the sizes are
not just the same.
Int. 20. How long a time have you run the furnace witnout the
smallest cone ?
Ans. We frequently run two or three days if the furnace is not
working properly.
Int. 21. How long have you run without the two smallest cones ?,
Ans. Never run without the two inside cones except the furnace
is working badly. I always blow in without the two inside
cones.
59 Int. 22. Is there any difference in the operation of flushing
7
"= «
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 35
cinder when you do not use the small cinder block than when you
do use it?
Ans. There is a difference. When our cinder is done flowing we
find it necessary to slack the blast to stop the cinder notch.
Int. 23. With this exception are the operations the same ?
Ans. Just the same.
Int. 24. Do any solid matters ever come out with the slag when
you are tapping through the large hole?
Ans. This is the object of taking out the two inside blocks, to get
rid of troublesome material in the farnace.
Int. 25. Are these irregularities in the smelting operation which
necessitate the removal of the small block of frequent occurrence in
blast furnaces like the Soho ?
Ans. No; they are not, unless we stop to make repairs or slipping
in the furnace.
Int. 26. How much of a change was there in the output of the
Haselton furnace ?
Ans. The output was from 18 to 20 tons a day previous to this
change; afterwards the furnace ran from 25 to 30 tons a day.
(Defendant’s counsel objects to this deposition as irrelevant and
immaterial and not proper rebuttal and declines cross-examination.)
R. C. PORTER.
Adjourned to meet on notice.
60 Testimony of witnesses and other evidence taken on behalf
of complainant pursuaat to notice, before W. B. Corwin,
notary public and special examiner, at the office of Bakewell &
Kerr, No. 110 Diamond street, Pittsburgh, Pa., beginning Sep-
tember 29, 1885, at 10 o’clock a. m.
Present: Thomas B. Kerr, on behalf of complaintant, and Wil-
liam D. Baldwin, Esq., on behalf of defendants.
Ienatics Hann, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
Int. 1. State your name, age, residence, and occupation.
Ans. Ignatius Hahn ; age, 47 vears ; residence, Sharpsburgh, Pa. ;
occupation, engineer and metallurgist.
Int. 2. What experience, if anv, have you had in blast-furnace
practice ?
Ans. After studying inorganic chemistry and metallurgy for about
three years I visited most every year since for several weeks ata
time iron and steel districts, more especially in Europe and in this
country. 1 also was frequently consulted by blast-furnace owners
and ironmen on the proper charges for the production of several
grades of pig-iron, ananalyzed the ores, fluxes, and fuels, as well as
the cinders aud iron produced from the furnaces, and directed them
for the production of the several grades at the blast furnaces.
Int. 3. Did you ever have charge of a blast furnace ?
Ans. For about two vears I was engaged by the Lackawanna Iron
and Coal Company to investigate mineral lands that they owned
and those in adjoining counties and States with a view of finding
36 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS.
ores suitable for the production of Bessemer pig-iron, which [ ana-
lyzed and made experiments at their blast furnaces, at Scranton,
where the charges and the furnace were operated according to my
direction to prove that the ores which I designated as fit for Besse-
mer pig would actually produce such iron. I did not have practical
charge. I gave my directions to the general manager, but I observed
every day that they were executed, and if ev erything was not as [
considered it should be I called their attention to such de-
61 fects to remedy them. I also made pig-iron of various other
ge during that time for mill and foundry purposes.
Int. 4. What was the construction of the Lackawanna furnaces
you have just referred to?
Ans. There were five furnaces, every one of which was provided
with a fore hearth, through which cinder and iron had been tapped ?
Int. 5. Are you acquainted with the Luermann furnace ?
Ans. Yes, sir.
Int. 6. What is the difference between it and the fore-hearth fur-
naces vou have spoken of ?
Ans. While in the ordinary furnaces, such as have been in use at
such time, the blast furnace proper had an adjunct on the outside
thereof consisting of a box of any suitable shape, which stood in
communication with the interior of the furnace whence metal and
cinder first passed through underneath what in such furnaces is
ealled a tyinp, and there remained until sufficient quantity had
accumulated therein for tapping off the cinder over the dam and
subsequently the iron from a hole at a lower part of the dam, the
fore hearth being exposed to constant cooling by the atmosphere,
which is transferred backed towards the hearth proper, in contrast
with this complicated arrangement the Luermann patent consists
in dispensing entirely with tymp, fore hearth, and wall stone,
carrying the surrounding walls of the hearth directly clear down to
the bottom stone without any interruption, and then have a water-
cooled opening at any convenient height above the bottom stone for
tapping the cinder directly from the hearth of the furnace and like-
wise the iron directly froin the hearth.
Int. 7. What advantage, if any,is there in the Luermann furnace
over the old open-front furnace?
Ans. In the open-front furnace, owing to the frequent necessity
of removing the cinder through those large openings from the fore
hearth, the interior becomes more cool, and in consequence thereof
leads to more frequent accumulations, to remove which the dam-
plate must frequently be opened for working out those obstructions,
during which working the blast in all eases must at least
62 be slackened and mostly even stopped for a great length of
time until the hearth is cleaned again. In consequence of
such slackening or stoppage of the blast combustion is jnterrupted
in the interior of the furnace, whereby a larger part of the furnace
becomes considerably cooled and absorbs a greater quantity of fuel
and time to subsequently restore the same heat at which the furnace
works best and which existed before commencing cleaning. Thus
it is safe to say that not only the time actually absorbed in work.
i.
o_o
a
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 37
ing—that is, cleaning out—the fore hearth is lost, but as much
again until the furnace comes again to that temperature that ex-
isted before. Again, frequently it occurs that the flame and blast
passing out through underneath the tymp further reduce the heat
in the furnace and annov attendants by the heat of the flame and
the usual bad smell of the gases issuing from the furnace. A fur-
ther disadvantage of this arrangement consists in the rapid destruc-
tion of the tymp and wall stone, the renewal of which again absorbs
time and retards the operation of the furnace. Inasmuch as Luer-
mann’s invention dispenses with tymp, fore hearth, and the dam-
stone, all the disadvantages enumerated before as existing in the
old-style furnace with fore hearth are readily overcome, and as a
result thereof the production of the furnace is considerably in-
creased, the labor less tiresome, and a greatly reduced amount of
repairs, as all parts have a longer duration and no heat lost. The
furnace works better and more regularly.
Int. 8. Are you familiar with the construction of any blast fur-
naces at the present time ?
Ans. I am,and have repeatedly designed the latest improvements
for blast furnaces for remodeling existing blast furnaces.
Int. 9. Please state what construction is in use in the furnaces
known to you at the present time.
Ans. The best stvle of furnaces now in use generally employ
Luermann’s improvements, but there are still others which adhere
to the old fore hearth and its necessary tymp and wall stone.
Int. 10. Which construction is in the more general use to your
knowledge?
Ans. I think the oid style with fore hearth constitutes the
63 larger number of furnaces at the present day, notwithstand-
ing that Luermann’s improvements give so very satisfactory
results in saving of labor and repairs as well as fuel and greater
production ef pig-iron.
Int. 11. What is the case with larger furnaces known to you ?
Ans. The largest and most economically working blast furnaces
of the present day are supplied almost without exception with Luer-
mann’s improvements.
Int. 12. Are you familiar with Luermann’s original patent No.
70447 ?
Ans. Yes, sir.
Int. 13. What do you understand to be the main improvement
described in that patent ?
Ans. The main improvement is to dispense with the tymp, fore
hearth, and wall stone, close the breast entirely, and ata suitable
height above the bottom stone provide a water-cooled opening for
tapping the cinder and removing whatever obstructions there may
be in the furnace.
Int. 14. What opening or openings are described for removing
the slag ?
Ans. There are several openings, one of which is used while the
furnace is in proper working order, the other, after the removal of
the casting with the just-mentioned opening, being resorted to only
38 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS.
at such times when the furnace is working irregularly by whatever
cause it may have been produced, and then any obstructions, such
as only partly smelted ores or fuel or dust, may be worked out
through that larger opening until the furnace operating has been
righted again or ‘corrected, and then the smaller opening is by pref-
erence again applied.
Int. 15. State whether or not either or both of these openings are
water-cooled.
Ans. They are both water-cooled.
Int. 16. How?
Ans. By circulation of water through pipes in the separate boxes
containing the opening, and in either case the limit of the opening
is pe wfectly preserved by such cooling.
Int. 17. In what is that water circulation contained when the
smaller opening js used, and in what 1s it contained when the larger
opening is used ?
64 Ans. When the smaller opening is used the water-cooling
arrangement is circulating along and around the hole through
which the cinder is run, while in the larger opening it only exists
part of the way of that opening or may be extended inwards.
Int. 18. What is the name of the part through which the water
circulation is when the smaller opening is used ?
Ans. In Luermann’s patent he calls the casting with the smaller
opening a cinder block, D, while the place where the larger opening
is just a mere plate or box cooled by water and lettered in the pat-
ent as ©.
Int. 19. Is that plate C a tymp plate?
Ans. It cannot be called a tymp plate, because there is no tymp,
which only exists in connection with a fore hearth. The principal
invention of Luerman is to dispense with tympand fore hearth and
apply instead thereof a water-cooled opening for removal of the
cinder and oceasionally also obstructions. ;
Int. 20. What relation has the method of controlling the flow of
cinder, desc seep by Luermann, by means of regulating the flow of
water through the cinder block to the main idea expressed in his
patent ¢
Aus. Mr. Luermann says that while the furnace is in the proper
working operation he prefers to employ the cinder block D, the dis-
charge hole through which is sufficiently small that the flow of the
cinder may, if desired, be regulated by the passage of more or less
water in a given time through that cinder block. If the furnaee is
not working properly—that isto say, if, by either improper quantity
or quality of the fluxes, insufficient supply of eoal, deficiency of
either quantity of heat, of the air blast, or through irregular made
of cherging, the cinder begins to run sluggish and through such
improper mode of operating the furnace any obstructions begin to
accumulate in the hearth—in that event the block with the smaller
opening Is removed and the cinder or obstructions either worked
out of the furnace by tools or by the pressure of blast, this being
the principal invention of Mr. Luermann, to have a closed-
ee
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 89
65 breast and water-cooled opening for discharge of these mat-
ters regardless of the size of those openings.
Int. 21. When the block Dis removed can the flow of cinder
through the large opening be regulated by the regulating flow of the
water through the plate C?
Ans. Not with the large opening, and the less it can be controlled
the larger the opening.
Int. 22. Are you familiar with the practice of closed-breast blast
furnaces in and about Pittsburgh? And, if so, state whether you
ever knew them to operate without the block D; and, if so, under
what circumstances and how long at a time.
Ans. I repeatedly visited the large blast furnaces, or, in fact, all
the blast furnaces in the vicinity, as well as those in the East and
West, and during conversation with those in charge thereof heard
that they occasionally removed the block D when the furnace’s
cinder is not running properly, which is then tapped through the
larger opening for from six hours to several days, after which they
again returned to inserting the cinder block D.
Int. 25. Did vou ever see a closed-breast blast furnace working
without the cinder block D?
Ans. As far as my present recollection goes, all those furnaces
used the cinder block D while I was inspecting them.
Int. 24. Is there any statement in the Luermann patent as to the
size of the cinder-discharge opening ?
Ans. There is no special size given; and, indeed, it is literally
said that he uses large and small openings, the former whenever it
is desired to have an opening in the heartii to work through, as
when any irregularity in the smelting process has taken place.
This he effects by the removal of the piece D.
Int. 25. Does the removal of the block D change the furnace from
a closed-breast to an open-breast furnace ?
Ans. It does not, because an open-front blast furnace must have
tymp, fore hearth, and wall stone, as Mr. Luermann’s expressed in-
vention is to dispense with those three elements and pass the cinder
through a water-cooled opening, having thus a closed breast, whether
discharging through the small or the large opening.
66 Int. 26. What is the result of “ irregularity in the smelting
process ”’?
Ans. Whenever the furnace ceases to give fluid cinder, then it
more or less adheres to the walls and encloses particles of ore and
fuel, which are then protected so much against the action of the
blast and insolated from connection with each other as to prevent
in the one case combustion and in the other reduction, thus causing
their descent into the lower part of the hearth and an accumulation
of obstructions therein, which, if not removed timely, may lead to
still larger accumulations, scaffolding, and final closing up of the
entire furnace.
Int. 27. Do you know what material it is that is referred to as
“bone” in the defendant’s testimony in this case ?
Ans. Under the term of “ bone” a mass is understood which fre-
quently is met with in the bituminous and anthracite coal. One
40 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS.
such substance as once analyzed by me, with a view of determining
iis necessary fluxing, had the following compositions relating to
“bone” as it occurred in anthracite: Silica, 55.00; fixed carbon,
24.40; carbonic acid, 0.79; alumina, 15.95; protoxide of iron, 2.11;
lime, 1.46; water, 0.18; sulphuric acid, 0.64. If this occurs fre-
quently and is not guarded against in the fluxing, there being such
a large additional amount of f silica 1, it is apt to reach the hearth in
only a partially fluxed condition and cause the obstruction referred
to in the former answer given by me, but if taken account of in the
determination of the charge of the furnace the accumulations may
be avoided and the fluidity of the cinder preserved. Again, 1n other
places in mining the coal they sometimes take out some of the over-
hanging part of the coal vein, which in those regions mostly consist
of a substanee still more refractory than the one Just mentioned,
having a larger part of alumina. This also can be fluxed, while
that substance now and then comes to the furnace, yet the former
part is more frequently to be contended with and be provided for,
and on account of the advantages to be derived from the use of the
Luermann invention, as enumerated in one of my former answers,
the furnace, being kept so much hotter, to a very great extent
67 overcomes the bad influence of irregular and improper
charging, so that by the very reason of theapplication of the
Luermann patent the frequency of obstructions customary in the
open-frout furnace is nearly altogether avoided, although instances
may occur where parties are compelled, by strikes or other commer-
cial reasons, to change their customary stock and use fora short
time such materials with which they are not acquainted and may
have no time or be certainly forced to their use without sufficient
notice to first examine them, and in such instances Mr. Luermann
says they remove the small opening and work through the large
opening when irregularities occur. For instance, also in fuel sup-
ply, sometimes parties are compelled to use either coke or anthracite
of so impure a quality as to contain as low as 6o per cent. of fixed
‘arbon instead of from 80 to 85 or higher ordinarily employed.
Int. 28. Is there any difficulty in removing that bone from the
furnace if the cinder block D is removed and the turn: ace is worked
without the cinder block ?
Aus. There is not, because even the largest pieces of anthracite—
for instance—as employed are diminished so much in size by flying
when exposed to the heat that long before they reach the cinder tap
they will then pass through such opening, even if they should be
coated with cinder during their passage to that point, and assuming
even there was no fluxing available for melting any part thereof.
Int. 29. Look at Detendant’s “ Exhibit Cinder I-lush” and state
whether the water-cooled plate encircling the cinder opening at ‘he
sides and top is a tymp plate.
Ans. It isnot a tymp plate, because there is no fore hearth in con-
nection with this furnace. |
Int. 80. What is the purpose or what effect does the tunnel-shaped
projection beyond that water-cooled plate have on the operation of
»)
that plate *
an er a
ay
cei od
a
> 6
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 41
Ans. It only increases unnecessarily the surfaces exposed to wear
and repair.
Int. 31. So faras the operation of tapping the cinder is concerned,
does it have any effect ?
Ans. Itisrather more disadvantageous, on: account of increas-
68 ing the distance from the hearth to the space where the cinder
finally escapes to the outside, and would be better if cut off
entirely flush with the outside of the water-cooled plate marked C
in Luermann’s patent.
Int. 32. Look at the model now shown vou and state what it rep-
resents.
Ans. The model now in my hand represents a blast furnace with
closed breast und water-cooled cinder opening, as referred to in Mr.
Luermanun’s patent.
Int. 33. In what does it differ from Defendant’s “ Exhibit Cinder
Flush ”?
Ans. The only difference is that in the Defendant’s “ Exhibit
Cinder Flush” the water-cooled cinder opening has an extension
to the outside of the water-cooled plate called C in Mr. Luermann’s
patent. :
(Model referred to by witness offered in evidence as Complainant’s
“ Defendant’s Exhibit Cinder Tap.”)
Adjourned to 2 p.
Met at 2 p. m.
Int. 54. Is it anywhere saidin the Luermann patent, to which
your attention bas been called, that all foreign matters must be re-
duced to a liguid ?
Ans. There is no such interpretation possible from the specifica-
tion; on the contrary, he distinctly states that at times he might
remove solid matters through the water-cooled openings, and for
the very reason of anticipating such occurrences occasionally pre-
fers to make the cinder block movable in order to obtain a larger
opening through which to work the furnace and remove any solid
matter that occurs in it.
Int. 35. In the old open-front furnace was the half-smolten stock
which collected in the fore hearth there by intention ?
Ans.. It was not. The practice of all smelting operations is to
produce everything as cheap as possible, and it is only considered
as a nuisance to be avoided as much as possible to get such accumu-
lations, but they are more apt to collect in fore-hearth furnaces than
in such with closed breast and water-cooled cinder opening, for rea-
sons mentioned before.
69 Int. 36. State whether the fore hearth of such furnaces had
to be cleaned out when the furnace was in a good working con-
dition.
Ans. In the best condition of the furnace we generally had to
clean it out once at least in twenty-four hours. If only know of one
instance in my experience in anthracite furnaces where they got
along without cleaning it for about thirty-six hours, and even then
’ ¢) )
b6—o2o
49 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS.
the amount of cleaning occupied about half an hour; but I also
know, in other instances, where it occupied each time about from
one and a half to three hours, and had to be cleaned from five to six
times in twenty-four hours.
Int. 37. Please state what parts of the cinder-discharge opening
of a closed-breast furnace require to be water-cooled in order to re-
serve the limits of the opening.
Ans. More particularly the top, an d, after that, the sides; the
former part principally because any wear at this point would en-
danger the structure supported by it, inasmuch as, if worn out, the
upper part is apt to fall in, and + cause long delays and expense
for repairs.
Int. 38. Look at the model “ Defendant’s Exhibit Cinder Flush,”
in which you will notice there is no water-cooling at the bottom of
the cinder opening. Please state whether water-cooling 1s neces-
sary at that point to preserve the advantages of a closed-breast fur-
nace.
Ans. It is not, because if worn out at that point it Is very easily
repaired, nothing depending on the part.
Cross-examination by Mr. BALDWIN:
X Int. 39. How far back does vour knowledge of blast furnaces in
this country extend ?
Ans. In this country twenty-one years and in Europe eight years
prior to that.
X Int. 40. In your sixth answer you speak of the ordinary fur-
naces having an adjunct consisting of a box. Of what material was
this box composed t
Ans. In some instances it is nothing but natural stone, in others
it is a mass rammed in a powdered state, and still in others
70 fire-bricks; and, again, there are such where they are lined
In mt inside with metal plates on the bottom of the tymp.
X Int. 41. ‘his so-ealied box inall eases constituted an extension
of the ae or body of the furnace with which it communieated by
a large opening, did it not? :
Ans. By openings of different size, according to the style of the
furnace.
X Int. 42. What was the usual width of this opening, say in a
thirteen-foot furnace ?
Ans. Irom twenty-four to thirty inches.
X Int. 48. What was its depth ?
Ans. That depended on the kind of ore used and the manner in
which the furnace was worked. It varied from,say,twenty inches to
thirty-six Inches. :
X Int. 44. How far did this fore hearth project from the furnace ?
Ans. From twenty to thirty-six inches, according to the capacity
of the furnace, the fuel and the ores in use.
X Int. 45. Was it not the practice to work with much shorter fore
hearths than this?
Ans. After Mr. Luermann’s invention, a great many tried tocome
a
+
MARGARET C. FREEMAN V8. GEORGE ASMUS. 43
as near as possible to the advantages derived from Mr. Luermann’s
invention by shortening more and more the fore hearth.
(Answer objected to as irresponsive and volunteered, and question
repeated.)
I understand that they lately shortened the fore hearths consider-
ably.
X Int. 46. How short have you known such fore hearths to. be
used ?
(Objected to as irrelevant, it not being pertinent to any issue in
this ease.)
Ans. About twelve inches.
X Int. 47. Did these short fore hearths retain the tymp?
Ans. Yes, sir.
X Int. 48. Were those tymps water-cooled prior to 1867?
Ans. In very few cases they were.
71 X Int. 49. In your fifth and sixth answers you speak of the
Luermann furnace. Do you mean by that description the
furnace described in his patent?
Ans. Yes, sir.
X Int. 50. In your sixth answer you speak of carrying the sur-
rounding walis of the hearth directly,clear down to the bottom stone
Without any interruption. Did not the hearth of the open furnace
extend directly to the bottom stone without any interruption ?
Ans. The hearth did, but not the surrounding walls.
X Int. 51. Was it not the practice for many years prior to 1867 to
tap melted iron directly from the hearth of the furnace ?
Ans. In some places they did tap directly from the furnace, but
it was iron.
X Int. 52. In your seventh answer you say, “In consequence of
such slacking or stoppage of the blast combustion is interrupted in
the interior of the furnace, whereby a larger part of the furnace be-
comes considerably cooled.” Do you mean to say that a stoppage
of the blast of the furnace, say for half an hour, would have this
effect ? ,
Ans. The effect will always be shown, and the more the longer the
blast is stopped.
X Int. 53. In your fourteenth answer you say, in substance, that
there are several openings for removing the slag, two of which you
describe. Are there any other openings for removing the slag-de-
seribed in that patent
Ans. There are not.
X Int. 54. I find in that patent these words, “ One or more holes
are made in the said piece D, through which the slag is discharged.”
Did you ever know a furnace worked with more than one slag-dis-
charge opening ? |
Ans. Oceasion-ly they remove the slag-discharge block, which has
one opening, and by its removal a larger opening is left. This is
what I mean by two openings, and the cinder then removed out of
that large opening.
44 MARGARET C. FREEMAN YS. GEORGE ASMUS.
X Int. 55. In your sixteenth answer you say, in substance, that
both of there openings are water-cooled by circulation of water
through piper in the separate boxes contained in the opening.
72 Please point out in the patent where you find that word
“boxes” used.
Ans. Not the special term, but the same meaning. It is called
here a hollow cinder block and a water-cooled plate.
X Int. 56. Please point out in the patent where the word “ cinder
block ” occurs.
Ans. It does not occur. It is called a slag-discharge piece, the
cinder block being the common name by which it is known around
the furnaces.
X Int. 57. Please point out where the word “ cinder” occurs in
the patent, 1f you can find it.
Ans. In looking over the patent I observe that instead of the word
“cinder” the word “slag” is used in the place of the word cinder
mentioned by me, but, technically, both have the same meaning, as
far as blast-furnace practice is concerned.
X Int. 58. Please point out on the drawings of the patent what
vou call these water-cooled boxes.
Ans. One of them is marked by letter D, which is the casting con-
taining the small opening—the slag-discharge piece—and the other
is the water-cooled plate C, containing the larger opening for cinder
to pass through.
X Int. 59. Does the drawing show any method of water cooling
the plate C?
Ans. It is not visible on the drawing, but clearly described in the
specification.
X Int. 60. Is it shown in the drawing as connected with or inde-
pendent of the slag-discharge piece ?
Ans. It is not shown in the drawing, but so described in the
specification. ‘This relates to the water-cooling arrangement.
X Int. 61. Now, please point out in the specification where that
connection Is deseribed.
Ans. I read as follows: “This plate is also cast or made with
channels or pipes running through it, and the channels or pipes of
such plate and of the piece D may be so arranged as to connect or
communicate with each other when the plate C and piece D are in
their proper positions, or they may be independent of each other.”
X Int. 62. How would you have gone to work in 1867, with
73 the knowledge conveyed to you by that paragraph, to have
connected the water channels of those two pieces ?
Ans. By screwing two nipples in the plate C connect them to the
pipes of the slag-discharge piece D by means of two unions and a
T, the exit from the TT to lead to the waste sewer.
X Int. 63. Would that have enabled you to remove the slag-
discharge piece? .
Ans. It would by unscrewing the unions.
X Int. 64. What would then become of the water cireulation in
the plate C?
Ans. One end of the pipe union would be connected to the other
Oe Sa
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 45
half union of the water-supply pipe, and the same proceeding carried
out with the waste pipe.
X Int. 65. Under the circumstances you mention wouldn’t that
have been a pretty hot place to work in?
Ans. Not much, because you have the block inserted in the
discharge piece, which is not removed until after the unions between
slag-discharge piece D and the plate C are disconnected and connee-
tion made between the latter and the main supply and waste pipe.
These connections are in front of the plate C.
X Int. 66. In answer sixteen you state, “In either case the limit
of the opening is perfeetly preserved by such cooling.” Is it not a
fact that any opening through which the slag is being discharged
will wear away or cut out in time?
Ans. The water cireulating in the slag-discharge piece cools off
the cinder passing through that small hole, which naturally will
wear out in time, but not as fast by far as if there was no water-
cooling. The same is the case with plate C, containing the large
discharge opening.
X Int. 67. In answer seventeen you say, in substance, that in the
large opening the water-cooling circulation exists part way of that
opening or may be extended inwards. Where do you find that
statement in the patent ?
Ans. In the following words: “This plate is also cast or made
with channels or pipes running through it.” I don’t find it exactly
in those words, but he don’t put any words of limitation.
74 X Int. 68. In your twentieth answer your say, “If the fur-
nace is not working properlv—that 1s to say, if by either im-
proper quantity or quality of the fluxes, insufficient supply of coal,
deficiency of either quantity of heat, of the air blast, or through
irregular mode of charging, the cinder begins to ran sluggish, and
through such improper mode of operating the furnace any obstrue-
tions begin to accumulate in the bearth—in that event the block
with the small opening is removed and the cinder or obstructions
either worked out of the furnace by tools or by the pressure of blast.”
Where do you find that in the patent?
Ans. This is embodied in the patent in the words given to explain
the object of plate C with the larger opening, which are, “ Or if it is
desired to have an opening in the hearth to work through, as when
any irregularity in the smelting process has taken place.”
X Int. 69. Where is it literally said in the Luermann patent, as
stated in your twenty-fourth answer, in substance, that he uses large
and small discharge openings ?
Ans. It is quoted as follows: “The diminsions of the slag-dis-
charge piece are little less than the openings in which it is placed,
and the space left around it is filled with sand, which can be readily
removed in case it is desired to remove the piece D for repairs or if
it is desired to have an opening in the hearth to work through, as
when any irregularity in the smelting process has taken place.” In
further explanation of this it is evident that if, as he says here,
while the furnace works regularly it is preferable to use the slag-dis-
charge piece D with the small opening, but if the operation of the
46 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS.
furnace becomes irregular, then it is advised to throw out the slag-
discharge piece D for the time being and work the furnace through
the large opening in the water-cooled plate C until the operation of
the furnace is corrected. ,
X Int. 70. In your last answer you speak of a small opening, and
vet say in your other answer there is no special size given. Wha
do you mean by the term small opening, in view of these state-
ments ?
Ans. I mean to say that nowhere in the patent any specific
75 dimensions in inches are given; that the two openings, large
and small, are only to be understood as relatively so.
X Int. 71. Have vou read defendant’s testimony in regard to
“Exhibit Cinder Flush ”?
Ans. I have.
X Int. 72. Point out in Luermann’s patent any water circulation
in the dam- plate as exhibited in Complainant’s “ Exhibit Defendant’s
Cinder Tap.”
Ans. Luermann specifically states that his specifie object is to
dispense with dam-plate, as well as with-tymp and fore hearth, close
the hearth entirely, and discharge the cinder through a water-cooled
opening. There is no dam-plate in the patent.
X Int. 78. As I understand it from your deposition, particularly
your twenty-fourth answer, you have given this deposition with the
understanding that Luermann is still within the limits of his inven-
tion whether he discharges liquid slag through a smali opening
and a removable cinder biock, cooled by water, or through a larger
opening discharges solid matter. Is this correct ?
Ans. It is.
IGN. HAHN.
(H[ere follow diagrams marked pp. 76 & 77.)
79 | Unitep Srates PATENT OFFICE.
GrorGE Asmus, of New York, N. Y., assignee of F. W. Lurmann.
Improvement in Blast Furnaces.
Specification forming part of Letters Patent No. 70447, dated Novem-
ber 5, 1867; reissue No. 3204, dated November 24, 1568.
To all whom in may concern:
Be it known that I. W. Lurmann, of Osnabruck, in the Kingdom
of Prussia, invented a new and useful improvement in blast furnaces,
and TI, George Asmus, of the city, county, and State of New York,
assignee of the said I. W. Lurmann, dd hereby declare the follow-
ing to be a full, clear, and exact description thereof, whieh will en-
able those skilled in the art to make and use the same, reference
being had to the accompanying drawing, forming part of this speci-
fication, in which drawing—
(Here follows diagram marked page 78.)
16
4
Wg. 3 2 3.
Attias 4 vé
COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT ASMUS.
SKETCH NO. 1.
;
A A
zB 24/p,
(>) || 2
DEFENDANTS NORTH CORNWALL FURNACE.
sw
ms
COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT ASMUS.
SKETCH NO. 2.
\
CV.
F, W. LURMANN. 78
Blast Furnace.
No. 3,204. Reissued Nov. 24, 1868.
N
\X
eZ
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 47
Figure 1 is a vertical central section of a furnace built according to
this invention. Fig. 2 is a horizontal section through the tuyeres.
Fig. 3 is a front elevation of the slag-discharge piece or cinder block
detached. Fig. 4 is a vertical section thereof.
Similar letters indicate corresponding parts.
This invention relates to certain improvements in blast furnaces
‘with a closed breast where the slag is discharged through an open-
ing cooled with water in such a manner that the tymp or fore hearth
and the wall stone can be dispensed with, and that the slag can be
tapped directly from the hearth. It consists, further, in a slag-dis-
charge piece or “ cinder block ” of peculiar construciion, as will be
hereinafter more fully explained, whereby the building of a furnace
according to this invention and its correct operation are materially
facilitated.
80 In order to enable those skilled in the art to fully under-
stand the object of this invention, I will first point out the
disadvantages of blast furnaces with the fore hearth, such as are
how in common use for melting iron ore. In such furnaces the
slag is driven out by first being forced below the tymp stone, which
projects below the level of the tuyeres and intercepts the currents
of air and prevents their escape with the slag, which stands in the
fore hearth at the same level as on the hearth, the slag being dis-
charged only when it rises in the fore hearth high enough to over-
flow the top of the wall stone that forms the bottom of the dis-
charging orifice. By this arrangement the tymp stone constitutes
a trap, which intercepts the currents of air and causes their pressure
to be exerted directly on the surface of the slag on thehearth. This
method of construction has several disadvantages, one of which is
the difficulty of keeping the tymp stone and the surrounding parts
in repair, another is that the pressure of the currents of air or wind
is limited by the counter-pressure of the column of slag in the fore
hearth, and another is that, one side of the furnace being occupied
by the fore hearth, no tuyere ean be applied on that side, and con-
sequently the supply of wind is irregularly distributed.
By the improvement which constitutes the subject-matter of this .
present invention these disadvantages are overcome in a simple
and effective manner.
In the drawings the letter A designates the furnace and B several
tuyeres, which are arranged therein at a proper height. The fur-
nace is constructed with a closed breast and the sides of the hearth,
whether round or square, extend clear down to the bottom stone,
the usual opening (sot shown in the drawing) being made in the
lower part of the hearth for the discharge of the iron. ‘The open-
ings for the tuyeres B are distributed at equal distances apart in
the sides of the hearth. At a suitable height from the bottom stone
an opening is left in the hearth, in which is placed a cast-iron or
brass slag-discharge piece or cinder block, D, which is cast or made
with numerous channels or pipes running up and down or In other
directions through it, as shown in Figs.3 and 4. The cinder
81 block D may be formed with a dovetail on its upper end,
which is fitted into the bottom of a stationary metallic plate,
48 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS.
C, connected with the furnace, or it may be attached to said plate in
any other desirable manner or cast solid with the same, if desired.
The plate C is also cast or made with channels or pipes running
through it, and the channels or pipes of said plate and of the cinder
block D may be so arr: — as to connect or communicate with
each other when the plate C and cinder block D are in their proper
position, or they may be independent of each other. In the draw-
ing the plate C is shown above the cinder block; but it may also be
placed below or in any other desirable position in relation to the
same.
The object of the channels or pipes is to permit the plate C and
cinder block D to be cooled by forcing water through them while
the furnace is in operation, proper connections being made for that
purpose with a reservoir of cold water or with a force- pump. One
or more holes are made in the cinder block D, through which the
slag is discharged, the shape of said holes being shown in Figs. 3
and 4,the middle portion being cylindrical, but each end being con-
ical or flaring. The dimensions of the cinder block are a little less
than the opening in which it is placed, and the space left around it
is filled with sand, which can be readily removed in case it is de-
sired to remove the block D to repair it or if it is desired to have
an opening in the hearth to work through, as when any irregularity
in the smelting process has taken place.
The flow of the cooling water through the cinder block D is regu-
lated for the purpose of controlling the disch: arge of the slag through
it. By allowing much cooling water to c ‘ireulate through its water
channels or pipes the temperature of the block D is lowered suffi-
ciently to allow a coating of slag to adhere and choke its discharge
openings, which are of fess diameter in the middle than at their
ends. By reducing the flow of cooling water the cinder block is al-
lowed to retain a higher teinperature, and in consequence the slag
is melted out of the disch: arge openings, and they become clear and
open and permit the slag to flow without interruption. When the
slag in the hearth is below the level of the discharge openings the
latter are simply closed by an iron plug.
2 This invention can be easily applied by those skilled in the
art to which it belongs to blast furnaces of the common con-
struction by removing the fore hearth and closing the aperture left
in the breast of the furnace under the tymp stone by inserting the
plate C with the cinder block D.
The principal advantages derived from this invention are as fol-
lows: First, it permits a high pressure of wind ; second, the hearth
is preserved in better condition than where the common mode of
construction is retained ; third, the labor of the operation of smelt-
ing is lessened ; fourth, it allows one more side of the hearth for a
tuyere; fifth, it avoids the stoppages of the wind supply, now nee-
essary as often as the iron is discharged; sixth, a considerable in-
crease is gained in the product of the furnace, while at the same
time the cost of labor and repairs is lessened.
Having thus described this invention what I claim as new and
desire to secure by letters patent is—
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 49
1. A blast furnace with a closed breast where the slag is discharged
through an opening or openings cooled by water, substantially as
set forth.
2. The slag-discharge piece or cinder block D, constructed and ar-
ranged substantially as described.
3. The cinder block D, in combination with the plate C, to which
it is attached, substantially as described.
4. The shape of the discharge opening or openings of the cinder
block D, being made flaring at its ends and of diminished diameter
in the middle or central part, substantially as described.
o. The combining of the slag-discharge piecé or cinder block with
a series of water channels or pipes, substantially as and for the pur-
pose above set forth. :
6. Combining with the metallic plate C aseries of water channels
or pipes, substantially as and for the purpose set forth.
7. The method of controlling the discharge of slag from
83 blast furnaces by regulating the temperature of the siag-dls-
charge piece or cinder block, substantially as described.
This specification signed by me this 24th day of October, 1868.
| GEORGE ASMUS.
Witnesses :
H. HAUFF.
ERNEST F. KASTENHUBER.
Unitep States PATENT OFFICE.
Henry C. Grirtincer, of Cornwall, Pennsylvania.
Improvement in Flushing Slag or Cinder from Blast Furnaces.
Specification forming part of Letters Patent No. 209,119, dated
October 22, 1878; application filed September 16, 1878.
To all whom it may concern:
Be it known that I, Henry C. Grittinger, of Cornwall, in the
eounty of Lebanon and State of Pennsylvania, have invented a new
and useful improvement in the method of flushing slag or cinder
from blast furnaces in the manufacture of iron, and certain im-
provements in apparatus therefor, of which the following is a speci-
fitation : |
The object of my invention is to flush out or remove froin the
furnace at intervals, with the slag and cinder, any infusible or in-
soluble material injurious to the iron—such as slate, unburned lime,
dirt, &e.
Heretofore in the working of commonly used furnaces of ordinary
construction it has been customary, in tapping or removing the
melted slag and cinder from a blast furnace, to make an
84 opening under the weight plate, if an open-front furnace, or
ata place specifically intended for the purpose, if a closed
furnace, usually with an iron bar of small size—say about an inch
and a quarter in thickness. Such method is objectionable, the
aed 2992
50 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS.
aperture or flushing opening so made being limited in area by the
material surrounding it to a few square inches, thus preventing the
earrving off with the slag and cinder of the injurious solid matters
or infusible material accumulated in the crucible of the furnace.
Provision has also been made for flushing by a perforated water
block or discharge piece in an opening in the hearth of a furnace,
through which to discharge the slag, &c. Moreover, it has been
proposed to control the discharge (so as to flush at intervals) by
regulating the temperature of the discharge piece, so that Its open-
ing might choke up by cooling and the clogging slag be melted by
heating.
My improvements consist, in the first place, of a novel method,
herelnaf{ter dese] ibed. oft flushing or washing out, at intervals, with
the slag and cinder, such infusible material or foreign solid sub-
7 | yi tnulate on the melted iron in the crucible of the
bia mreby Thecreasineg the \ eld and linproving the quality of
the iron; and, in the second place, my lmnprovements consist In cer-
tain peculiar organization of parts and in certain combinations of
devices whereby the furnace is adapted for carrying out my im-
proved method.
I employ an attachment or device provided with a large opening
and attached to or inserted either in the side or in the fore part of
the furnace a little below the level of the tuyeres, said attachment
consisting of a tymp or water breast, which may be either separate
from or combined with a water block or tuyere, with or without a
bottom, or simply a water block or tuyere, the large aperture or
flushing opening being closed by means of a door, which is fastened
in position by a ratchet and detent, weighted lever, or prop. ‘The
tymp, water block, or tuyere may be made of metal or of fire-clay
or any refractory material or a combination of these,and be suitably
protected, as may be required, by means of a flow of cold water run-
ning through it or through a coil of pipe inclosed in or encircling
it in suitable well-known ways. The attachment is placed.
85 in position and secured in suitable way, the opening packed
and stopped (with wet coal dust and stopping clay), the stop-
ping being prevented from blowing out by securing the door. After
the blast has been put on the furnace and continued until the cinder
has risen above the bottom of the tuyeres the blast is slackened,
the door thrown back, and the outside packing of clay removed and
an opening made through the coal-dust stopping. The blast, being
again thrown on, speedily removes all the stopping, exposing a large
flushing outlet, through which the slag, cinder, &c., is carried off.
After nearly all the cinder has been flushed out the blast is thrown
off and the aperture again closed preparatory to repetitions of the
above-described operation at proper intervals.
The improvements claimed will hereinafter be desiguated.
In the accompanying drawings—
(Here follow diagrams marked pp. 88, 89, & 90.)
a A NR lI ALE te A A, MBN.
iii |S
88
2 Sheets—Sheet 1.
H.C. GRITTINGER.
, Flushing Slag or Cinder from Blast-Furnaoes.
’ No. 209,119. Patented Oct. 22, 1878.
ng 4
| mana
Mo. S22.
Big £. | Atttmanw 2, ES
oa
aX CUALIVAMAR
f
WITMESSES INVENTOR.
Z WE — flenry C. Grittinger .
—By hie Ailorneys
WF Klgine fototurin, Miblara Mig
Ao
cy .
'
;
83
2 Sheets—Sheet 2
H. C. GRITTINGER.
Plushing Slag or Cinder from Blast-Furnaces.
No. 209,119. Patented Oct. 22, 1878.
ile A 3.
Bl cai ¢ ony
‘*
i ;
| ee B
‘ate P H [ahHe
a 7
Y } a
NFPA
Me LS
E¢
LY & 2G ao
pee wise
an A 7
Wo. 323
4,
Aawes,
WITNESSES INVENTOR
oe Manry C Grittinger
uc PF fred By his Attorneys
tr § Klgns Gat ture, MGDdwe Higa
AR ne mic
J
J) '
NN ddd
ee
—= [Us ’
Bos, |i
COMP
LAINANT’S EXHIBIT KENNEDY
90
AVIP CO. Cpa
Asm
us vs Freeman and Alden
U.S.Cireuit Court
Eastern District of Pa
daft 1C6-F6
FA CaN OER WO ert my
ei tchieeehe tien ah aes Ce od
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 51
which show so much of a blast furnace as is necessary to illustrate
my improvements or means for carrving out my method, embodied
in the best way now known to me, figure 1 is a front elevation of the
furnace with the shaft omitted, that portion downward from or in-
cluding and below the boshes only being shown; Fig. 2, a cross-
section on the line 2 2 of Fig. 1. Fig. 3 isa view showing in detail
the front of the flushing device or attachment, with parts removed ;
Fig. 4, a top view of the tymp or water breast; Fig. 5, a section on
the line 5 5of Fig.3; Fig. 6, a top view of the weight plate, to which
the water block is attached; Fig. 7, a top view of devices shown in
Figs. 3 and 5. .
Any suitable furnace, A, is provided with tuyeres B of the desired
number, and a little below the level of the bottom portions of the
tuyeres is provided a flushing opening, C. The top of the opening
Y might be on a level with the bottoms of the tuyere openings, or
very slightly above, but it is preferably below the level of the
tuveres.
The device or attachment (considered as a whole) by which the
flushing aperture is provided and secured to the furnace is, in the
present instance, constructed as follows—that is, made up of a tymp
or water breast, D; a water block or tuyere, E, with the large open-
ing C; a hinged door, F, to close the opening, connections, or coup-
ling attachments (presently to be described) between the dif-
86 ferent parts; a weight plate or bottom, G, for the water block,
and water-circulating pipes H and H’ for cooling the parts.
The tymp D may be cast in one piece with the water block E and
weight plate or bottom piece G or the weight plate with the tymp
be cast separately from the waier block, as shown by the dotted lines,
Fig. 4. In the preferred construction (shown by the drawings) the
weight plate G is secured to the bottom of the water block by means
of lugs g g, on the weight plate, to which are jointed bars or upright
rods I 1, which are shouldered near the upper ends and pass through
openings in the ends of a cross-bar, J, on the top of the water block,
and are secured to said cross-bar by keys or wedge-pins e e, passing
through the uprights I above the bar. Lugs K K, on the tymp
plate or water breast D, serve, in connection with eye-bars or short
links L Land the rods I I, to connect the water block and tymp
plate. The links are each pivoted at one end to the lugs K and at
their opposite ends are shouldered and pass through openings in the
rods I and are drawn tight and secured by pins or wedges /, passing
through the links in front of the rods. By this construction any
part of the device which may be broken or otherwise injured may
be removed and renewed without impairing the rest.
The door F is secured to a curved hinged arm or bail, M, attached
to a pivot or turning rod, N, removably mounted in suitable bear-
ing lugs or supports upon the top of the water block. A suitable
notched disk or ratchet stop, O, upon one end of the rod N, is acted
upon by a detent, P, so as to securely hold the door when closed,
but any other suitable securing device may be employed.
The operation is as follows: Before putting the blast on the fur-
nace the aperture or opening is closed first with wet coal dust prop-
O2 MARGARET C, FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. <@
erly packed with a stopping hook to within a few inches of the out-
side. Upon this is then packed in a similar manner a few inches
in thickness of stopping clay, and all securely prevented from blow-
ing out by the door properly fastened. After the blast is put on the
furnace I prefer to let the cinder in the furnace rise above the bot- -
tom of the tuyeres. The blast is then slackened upon the
87 furnace, the door unfastened and thrown back, and the out-
side packing of clay removed. An opening is then made 4
through the coal-dust stopping by means of an iron pricking bar.
The blast is then thrown on the furnace again and speedily removes
all the coal-dust stopping with the washing out or flushing of the
slag or cinder, which also carries off with it such infusible material
as may have passed down to the crucible of the furnace. After
nearly all the cinder has been flushed out the blast is thrown off the
furnace and the aperture again closed in the manner above de-
scribed.
The above-described operation is repeated at intervals between
the successive times for casting or running the Iron. '
sy my improvements in the manufacture of iron the yield of
the furnace is increased and the quality of the iron materially im-
proved.
I claim as of my own invention—
1. As an improvement in the manufacture of iron, the hereinbe-
fore-deseribed method of flushing the cinder, &e., directly from the
furnace at intervals, which consists in slackening the blast and open- —_
ing the flushing aperture, then throwing on the blast to flush and
again slackening to admit of the closing of the flushing aperture,
substantially as set forth.
2. A blast furnace provided with the tuyeres, the flushing aper-
ture, and the door for closing said aperture, substantially as and for
the purpose set forth.
3. The hereinbefore-described sectional flushing device or attach-
ment, consisting of the combination of the tymp or water breast, the
water block or tuyere, provided with the large opening, the hinged
door, the weight plate, and the water-circulating pipes.
[In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name.
HENRY C. GRITTINGER,.
- Witnesses :
GEORGE WALTZ. |
WM. C. FREEMAN. 4
9] [In the United States Circuit Court, Eastern District of Penn- —_
sylvania.
GEORGE ASMUS )
Us. ‘e Equity. No.8. April Session, 1884.
MARGARET C. FREEMAN.
Defendant’s Record.
Wm. D. Baldwin, Wayne MacVeagh, defendant’s counsel.
coro natant tthe AED EAE ALE a .
MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 53
92 Circuit Court of the United States, Eastern Division of Penn-
sylvania.
4 c > ASMU
GEORGE ASMUS No. 8.
V8.
A April Session, 1884.
MarGAReEtT C. FREEMAN. ; , 1854
Examination of witnesses and other evidence on behalf of defend-
ant under the 67th rule in equity, as amended, pursuant to the
annexed agreement of counsel and notice hereto attached, before
Howard ©. Shirk, special examiner, at his office, corner 9th and
Willow streets, Lebanon, Pa., beginning February 11th, 1885, at
10 o'clock a. m.
Present: Thomas S. Kerr, Esq., on part of complainant, and
Wm. D. Baldwin, Esq., on part of respondent. -
’
Counsel for respondent offers in evidence the following exhibits,
respectively marked as hereinafter mentioned, to wit:
Certified copies of the following documents: |
1. Assignment from F. W. Lurmann to George Asmus dated July
12, 1867, recorded September 16, 1867, marked “ Exhibit Assign-
ment.”
2. Letters patent 70477, granted IF. W. Lurmann for improve-
ment in blast furnaces November 5, 1867, marked “ Exhibit Lur-
mann Patent.” |
3. File contents and drawing of the application for the reissue of
the aforesaid letters patent No. 70477, reissued to George
93 Asmus, assignee of said Lurmann, November 24, 1868
marked “ Exhibit Reissue File.’’*
4. Docket entries and extracts from the record of the suit of George
Asmus vs. Dunbar Furnace Company et al., No. 215, November term,
1877, in the circuit court of the United States for the western district
of Pennsylvania, marked “ Exhibit Dunbar Suit.”
The following are the parts offered in evidence under this
heading:
Ist. Docket entry.
2d. The bill.
3d. The subpcena and endorsements thereon.
4th. The answer.
5th. The replication.
6th. The motion to close testimony and order thereon.
7th. Notice of complainant’s testimony.
Sth. Extracts from the record, being the parts relating to the
testimony of George Asmus comprised in the following pages of the
certified copy of the Dunbar suit, to wit: Page 22; the paragraph
lines 24 to 32, both inclusive; page 33, and lines 20 to 26, both
inclusive, page 49 thereof.
9th. Order for decree and endorsements thereon.
10th. Decree and endorsements thereon.
* For reissue specification see ‘‘ Exhibit Complainant’s Patent,’’ complainant’s
record.
54 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS.
11th. Clerk’s certificate.
5. Drawing and translation of Merle’s French letters patent
20368, for improvements in blast furnaces, granted July 27, 1854,
marked “ Exhibit Merle Patent.”
6. United States letters patent No. 1057, granted Isaac C. Bryant
December 31, 1838, for improvements in the furnace for manufact-
uring iron, marked “ Exhibit Bryant Patent.”
94 7. United States letters patent No. 38513, granted to Stile-
man and Ellis for improvements in melting and smelting
furnace May 12, 1863, marked ‘Exhibit Stileman & Ellis Patent.”
8. Translation from the text, page 158, vol. I, of Kerl’s Metallurgy,
and tracing of figure 33, sheet 2, in the matter of the same, “Saxon
Fire Smelting Furnace,” published at Freiburg, 1855, marked “ Ex-
hibit Kerl.” ‘
9. Description of hearth for blast furnaces and tracing of figures
32, 44, 47, 49, and lower portion of figure 29, in the matter of the
same, from Percy’s Metallurgy, [ron and Steel, London, 1864, marked
“Exhibit Perey.”
(It is stipulated between counsel that typewriter copies of the text
of the above-mentioned exhibits, certified by the examiner, may be
substituted for the originals, which are to be produced when called
for.)
Defendant also offers in evidence the following models:
10. A model illustrating the construction of the lower portion of
the defendant’s furnace at North Cornwall, marked “ Exhibit Fur-
nace.”
11. A model of the open frort of said furnace as originally used,
marked “ Exhibit Open Front.”
12. A model of the same with Grittinger’s cinder-flushing attach-
ment, marked “ Exhibit Grittinger.”
5. A sectional model of an old open-hearth furnace, marked
“Exhibit Open Hearth.”
14. A sectional model illustrating the construction of the flushing
arrangement of defendant’s furnace, marked “ Exhibit Cinder Flush.”
15. A similar illustrative model of Lurmann’s slag-discharge ap-
paratus, marked “ Exhibit Lurmann.”
Henry C. Grittinger.
Henry C. GRITTINGER, a witness produced on the part of the re-
spondent, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
QJ. 1. State your name, age, residence, and occupation.
99 A. My name is Henry C. Grittinger ; aged forty-two years ;
residence, Cornwall, Pa.; occupation, bl
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.