True Inventor Research Articles

The tarnished myth of British precedence: William Friese-Greene, Robert Paul and evidence vs. boosterism

ABSTRACT For at least 40 years after the death of William Friese Greene, the belief that he was the ‘true inventor’ of cinema flourished in Britain, bolstered initially by the pioneer historian Will Day, then by an unscholarly 1948 biography, Friese-Greene: Close-up of an Inventor, which served as the basis for the 1951 film The Magic Box, with its touching portrayal of Friese-Greene supposedly demonstrating his breakthrough to a bewildered policeman. Continuing research reveals that a version of this ‘primal scene’ did occur, although with Robert Paul and Birt Acres as its protagonists rather than Friese-Greene, whose achievements were substantially discredited in the 1960s. Yet Paul’s true status has been slow to gain recognition, with the narrative appeal of Friese-Greene as a ‘forgotten pioneer’ remaining potent.

Who Contributed More on Calculus? Newton or Leibniz?

Modern calculus is a strong tool in mathematical models and analysis. It is greatly applied in a variety of aspects including astrology, computer science, physics, business, etc. However, its origin has been debated between two great mathematicians from 18th century: Newton and Leibniz. Newton claimed to have invented calculus first, and had used this technique in some of his papers. However, no published records could prove his discovery. Leibniz published the first paper regarding the discovery of calculus “Nova Methodus pro Maximis et Minims” (New Method for the Greatest and the Least). Newton then accused Leibniz of stealing his idea and asserted his credit for inventing calculus. In this essay, to explain the cause of the Newton-Leibniz controversy, the discovery of calculus is evaluated from both Newton’s and Leibniz’s aspects. Their different methods are compared to answer the question: who is the true inventor of calculus?

The Codivilla spring: from then to now and beyond.

The ankle-foot-orthosis (AFO), originally called Codivilla spring, is an orthotic device prescribed to the patients with foot drop due to neurological diseases in order to control the range of motion of the ankle joint and to compensate the muscle weakness/spasticity, thus optimizing the gait function. In this paper, a historical revision of the most known and used AFO worldwide from the origin of its name and the first applications at the Rizzoli Orthopedic Institute to the most advanced solutions in use today is covered. Through the critical analysis of the historical documents available, the paper reports on the controversy about the true inventor of the Codivilla spring during the first decades of the XX century. In terms of their design and indications, adult and child AFOs are presented. Finally, possible approaches for the selection of the correct orthosis and the individual prescription are discussed in order to manage specific mechanical neuromuscular deficiencies of the subject's ankle-foot complex, optimizing walking efficiency.

Originality and Influence: Charles Gröll’s Role in the Invention of the Double-Action Harp

Sébastien Erard (1752–1831) is widely considered the father of the modern harp, in part because of his invention (c. 1786) of the forked discs that shorten the vibrating length of the strings by a semitone, but above all for his 1810 invention of the double action, a mechanical system that allows the harpist to play in all keys and which has been used on virtually all concert pedal harps for the past two centuries. However, Erard’s double-action harp model was similar to that of the Warsaw-born artist and inventor Charles Gröll (1770–1857), who had submitted his patent in 1807, almost three years before Erard. Moreover, Erard bought the rights to Gröll’s patent prior to finalising his own. For these reasons, some critics since the nineteenth century have called into question Erard’s claim to authorship of the double-action harp, suggesting that Gröll was its true inventor. The purpose of the present article is to clarify Gröll’s role by placing it in the context of the evolution of Erard’s ideas, established by a number of sources that have recently come to light.
 Gröll’s patent is more heavily indebted to Erard’s inventions than Erard’s patent is to Gröll’s. Indeed, the only elements from Gröll’s patent that remained in Erard’s 1810 patent were elements that had in fact been invented by Erard: the double-notched pedal box and the forked discs. The linkage between the pedals and the forked discs was the weakest part of Gröll’s patent, one that was conspicuously not adopted by Erard, undoubtedly due to the excessive friction inherent in its construction.
 Erard’s 1810 patent has endured because it proved itself to be the first satisfyingly functional double-action system. However, Gröll’s doubling of the forked discs can be seen as a crucial step in the evolution of the double action, as long as one keeps in mind that Gröll’s is a composite invention whose individual parts had all been invented by others: the double mechanism by Cousineau, and the double-notched pedal box and forked disc by Erard. In conclusion, if we continue to consider Erard the father of the double-action harp, we might at least allow for Georges Cousineau to be its spiritual godfather, and for Charles Gröll to be its Polish uncle.

Could Al-Zahrawi Be Considered a Biomedical Engineer? [Retrospectroscope

In one?s career, it is good to look back at the predecessors in the field. Biomedical engineering history is full of hidden treasures, one of whom is Al-Zahrawi, a Muslim surgeon who had a wide reputation in Europe during the Middle Ages. Herein, besides recalling that he was a surgeon, the intent is to spotlight his talent in biomedical engineering. Important contributions in surgical instruments come up readily in a review of his work, contradicting the view some have maintained of him as a mere compiler. He was a true inventor, creating many surgical instruments that were not known in the Greco-Roman era. Quite early, he produced contributions influencing surgical procedures in Europe from the 14th to the 18th centuries. As a problem solver, he was aware of anatomical and physiological problems, and he moved through design, methods of manufacturing, and practical applications. The illustrations of such instruments in his encyclopedic work, Al-Tasrif, reflect his willingness to teach.

The Truth Machine: A Social History of the Lie Detector by Geoff Bunn (review)

Reviewed by: The Truth Machine: A Social History of the Lie Detector by Geoff Bunn Tal Golan (bio) The Truth Machine: A Social History of the Lie Detector. By Geoff Bunn. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012. Pp. 246. $24.95. Geoff Bunn’s Truth Machine provides us with a novel social history of the lie detector. Earlier histories have documented the birth and development of the technology in the private spheres of the psychological laboratory and the police station. Bunn’s book successfully introduces the public sphere as a crucial site for the historical discourse regarding this most fascinating icon of modernity. Bunn is interested in the science that purports to render hidden emotions legible via physiological measurements, and in the society that embraced the technology and allowed it to flourish. These two concerns account for the book’s dual structure. The first part is focused on the development [End Page 752] of the relevant science in nineteenth-century Europe; the second, on the embrace of the technology by twentieth-century American society. Bunn insists throughout that his two investigations are related, as science both responds to social concerns and shapes them. Bunn starts by roaming through nineteenth-century Europe, to locate the origins of the science of criminology in the growing modern anxieties regarding moral and social order. The Lombrosian school of criminal anthropology, he tells us, was the first to attend to these anxieties by constructing homo criminalis as the problem and itself as the solution. The criminal man was conceived as an evolutionary and moral aberration, recognizable by a set of physiological and social markers that criminology promised to identify and control. Bunn adds a twist to this familiar narrative by paying special attention to the elevation of woman as a chief conundrum for the young discipline of criminology. Conjured to possess an intrinsic hidden culpability, the female body provided a site and an impetus for the development of the gaze, theory, and technology that would later play central roles in lie detection. According to Bunn, homo criminalis had to die before the lie detector could be born. In other words, the technology was available early on, but it could be put together for the task of lie detection only after the conception of the criminal as a distinct biological type of human being was replaced with the notion that we all have the potential for criminality. Bunn locates the shift around the turn to the twentieth century, on both sides of the Atlantic, in the discursive imagination of journalists, novelists, and filmmakers who reflected public anxieties, shaped the public’s imagination, and presented science with a new agenda—to uncover the hidden guilt of ordinary people. At this stage, Bunn’s social history crosses the Atlantic to the new world, where the challenge was met and the twentieth-century legend of the lie detector was born. At least three people claimed the glory for inventing the machine during the 1920s: William Marston, a lawyer-psychologist from Boston; John Larson, a police scientist from Berkeley, California; and Leonard Keeler, a poet’s son and a technical man, who was recruited to help Larson. The intense rivalry that evolved between these three characters fueled much of the early historiography of the lie detector, which has been busy arbitrating their competing claims. Ken Alder’s 2007 The Lie Detectors was the first to step away from these debates. He found the identity debate pointless; the true inventor of the lie detector, he argued, was American popular culture. Bunn agrees with Alder, but his approach is different. Alder did not shy away from the larger social questions, but he preferred to approach them obliquely, in poetic forms, which the technology evokes so well. His attempt at the history of America’s convoluted love-hate affair with the machine resulted in a dark tale about human ambition and self-deception, based on the biographies of [End Page 753] the individuals who conceived, developed, and marketed the lie detector as a technology of honesty and rationality. Bunn chooses to tackle head-on the larger questions about the society that embraced the machine and allowed it to flourish. The later chapters of...

New York Transfixed: Notes on the Expression of Fear

This article is about nine photographs and what may be seen in them (Figures 1–9). The images are part of a much larger collection conceived of and organized by a group of four friends—Alice Rose George, Gilles Peress, Michael Shulan, and Charles Traub— shortly after 11 September 2001. Their idea was to document what had happened and what was still occurring on the streets of New York City that infamous fall. The group also decided that this makeshift project should be open to ‘‘anybody and everybody’’ and they sent out word as widely as possible that any photograph submitted on this topic would be displayed in an exhibition at Michael Shulan’s SoHo gallery. Figure 1. Unknown photographer (#3029 from here is New York: a democracy of photographs).

Le Dix-huitième Siècle: Histoire, mémoire et rêve. Mélanges offerts à Jean-Marie Goulemot by Didier Masseau

MLR, I03.3, 2oo8 855 Le Dix-huitieme Siecle: histoire,memoire et reve. Melanges offerts aiJean-Marie Goule mot. Ed. by DIDIER MASSEAU. Paris: Champion. 2006. 365 PP. E55. ISBN 978 2-7453-I 332--4. This volume contains twenty-fivecontributions honouring the distinguished career and provocative scholarship of Jean Goulemot. The chapters vary in length and address awide variety of eighteenth-century topics (a fewcover other periods). Occa sionally contributions might be labelled elegant essays rather than scholarly articles with a fullcritical apparatus. Some have a sharply defined focus, e.g.Ragou'ts, Spanish wine, thenotion of darkness, the 'pre-suicidal' writings ofPierre Dombre, Brosses and Italy,Saint-Simon on foreign princes, the neoclassical tragedies of Chenier. Others investigate issues which have implications for the study of the Enlightenment as a whole, e.g. periodization, the lateeighteenth century as a pivotal epoch, the interest in novelty.Given thediversity of the collection, my comments will necessarily be con fined to a fewchapters. Benolt Melanvon attacksmany of the idees reruestraditionally proffered about the period-was Rousseau the true inventor of autobiography? are we certain about the eighteenth-century usage of the termphilosophe, etc.? Equally challenging is the assessment of the late eighteenth century byDidier Masseau, who claims that an appreciation of cultural history may be impeded by being linked to political history. Certainly, he contends, the pOst-1770 period plays a crucial role in the transformationofmentalities but it is wrong todivide thatera into mutually exclu sive groups. Science could be championed by so-called progressive minds as well as providentialists such as Bernardin de Saint-Pierre. Allied observations on Bernardin aremade by Gabriel-Robert Thibault in the exploration of the fundamental impor tance of natural theology and paysage inhis works. In a stimulating enquiry, drawing on contemporary writers as well as those of antiquity,Michel Delon succeeds in pinpointing thepredilection fornew pleasures as positive aspects of existence rather than a threat to established order. Early nineteenth-century views on the authors of the previous century, through a competition at the Institut, are analysed by Jean Jacques Tatin-Gourier. The time-honoured greats are not neglected, with studies on Voltaire as historian ofEurope, memory and identity inRousseau's Reveries, 'figures d'absence' inDiderot, and war in the thought ofMontesquieu. The presence of ge ology in theEncyclopedie is reassessed by JeanEhrard. The late Jacques Proust deftly reveals JohnLocke's reaction toProtestantism inFrance. In short, this is a collection which provides a heterogeneous and appetizing menu worthy of its recipient,who, it is claimed, 'vise toujours a situer lephenomene litterairedans une histoire litteraire, saisie dans toutes ses dimensions' (p. 9). QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST SIMON DAVIES Identityand Transformation in the Plays ofAlexis Piron. By DEREK CONNON. London: Legenda. 2007. x+I82pp. ?45. ISBN 978-I-904350-69-9. Alexis Piron is one of those writers whose range was broad in its time, but who is arguably known today only for his erotica, especially the Ode a Priape, forhis Voltaire-baiting, and forhismasterpiece for theComedie-Franvcaise, La Metromanie of I738. Derek Connon's book surveys a broad range of his theatre, fromhiswriting for theFairs, opera parodies, opera-comique, grande comedie, and tragedy.Structured generically, iteschews a chronological examination of his career toconcentrate upon important examples of his work in each of thesemajor genres, preferring to save until relatively late theearly, formativeworks fortheFairs inorder tobegin insteadwith La Metromanie on thegrounds that this ishis best-known work, and encapsulates many features of his work as a whole. The effect, as one progresses through the book, is ...

The telephone and its several inventors: a history

On March 7, 1876, the U.S. Patent Office issued to a young inventor named Alexander Graham Bell what is arguably the most valuable patent ever: entitled improvements in telegraphy, in truth it secured for Bell the basic principles involved in a telephone. On the same day that Bell filed his patent application, a caveat (a preliminary patent document) was filed by Elisha Gray. This coincidence sparked the first of many debates over whether Bell was the true inventor of the telephone. In the early 1860s Johann Phillipp Reis developed a version of the instrument, but his claims against Bell were hampered by the bungling of his lawyers in demonstrating his instrument in court. This work is a first look at the many men who developed the telephone and an examination of their claims against Bell's patent. A lay description of the phone is also provided, as well as a history of the development of the telephone system.

U.S. refuses to yield royalties on AIDS test

In the latest round of controversy over who is the true inventor of the first diagnostic blood test for AIDS, the Bush Administration has rejected a proposal by the Pasteur Institute that would give the French research institute the bulk of about $8 million per year in royalties from the test. The Pasteur Institute claims that its scientists—and not National Institutes of Health AIDS researcher Robert C. Gallo—were the first to discover the AIDS virus and to create a test to detect it in blood. However, Gallo was granted a patent on the test in 1985, even though Pasteur filed its application first. The French then sued to overturn the patent. But before the suit reached court, the U.S. and French governments agreed in 1987 to a settlement under which the U.S. and Pasteur share the test royalties. This settlement should now be changed, contends Pasteur Institute director Maxime Schwartz, because Gallo last year ...

Keeping a laboratory notebook

Le Monnier, the eighteenth-century astronomer, observed Uranus twelve times, but decided that i t was a fixed star, not a planet. Thegrent discovery fell to Herschel, who identified L'ranus correctly in 1781. Historians have since decided Le Monnier's mistake was due at least in part to his hahit of writing measurements on scraps of paper-including a paper bag originally containing hair powder ( 1 ) . The keeping of good records is essential in a laboratory: a second example is provided by the case of Daniel Drnwbaugh v. Alexander Graham Bell. Rrll filed a patent application for the teleohone in 1875: Lhawhaueh sued. claimine the inven~~ ~ .~ tion for his own and at'court witnesses who testified he had discussed a crude teleohone with them. Rut this uersonal testimony did not convince the Supreme Court, which reiected Drawbaueh's claims lareelv on the basis of his inagility to single propezy dated piece of paper describing the invention (2). A th&d, contemporary instance of the importance of laboratorv notebooks is orovided bv the case of Gordon Gould, who as a young physkist filed application for a basiclaser patent in 1959. Gould failed to get the patent, which was awarded instead in 1960 to Charles Townes and Arthur Schawlow. Gould went to court, claiming he was the true inventor. His challenge was based in part on his research notebook which showed,amongother items, asketch,astatement of the main idea. and n derivation of the acronvm LASKR-~ ~ ~ .~ ~~ Light Amplification by Stimulated s mission-of Radiation (3). In October 1977, after a series of litigated oppositions, Gould was eranted a oatent for onticallv n u m ~ e d laser amplifiers. he world market has been estimated a i between 100 million and 200 million dollars. As these examples suggest, well-kept notebooks are valuable documents. Thev nrovide comulete, accurate records of . . ongoing work. In the event of litigation or contests for patent rights, thev are submitted as evidence. Thev serve the important rolk of corroboration should the reseGher or inventor have to Drove origin or substantiate statements and conclusions. he^ are vnluable documents to validate a company's claims to funds spent for research, particularly in support of ~ tax deductions. The uses of laboratory notebooks are not limited to legal issues. Thev are vehicles for organizine and focusine the thinking of the writer, as well as b2ng receptacles for deLailed procedural information that might not be available in highly compressed journal articles. Finally, they may serve not only the researcher or inventor but also the vublic. If ~ roue r ly . . maintained, they are a record of success and failure, a safeguard against error and carelessness in such important areas as the testing of drugs and chemicals.

Sir George Cayley, Father of Aerial Navigation (1773-1857)

“The true inventor of the aeroplane and one of the most powerful geniuses in the history of aviation” are the words used by a modern French authority, Charles Dollfus, to describe Sir George Cayley (1773-1857), a scholarly Yorkshire baronet who until fairly recently was unknown to many historians of applied science. This curious state of affairs has been righted by the researches of the late J. E. Hodgson, of Dollfus, of the late Captain J. L. Pritchard, and of the present speaker, who have now secured universal agreement in regarding Cayley as the true inventor, or perhaps originator, of the modern aeroplane, and the originator of the science of aerodynamics as applied to aircraft. And, in 1962, the Royal Society itself admitted that “the absence of the name of Sir George Cayley from the Roll of Fellows is one of the most notable omissions”.

Joint inventorship of computers

The term joint inventorship asks but does not necessarily answer the question, “Who is the true inventor of a computer?” I will try to show how “wrong” inventors are joined, how such improper joinder can be avoided, and its dangers. While the law permits the addition or subtraction of improperly joined inventors, it does not permit the substitution of one set of inventors for another set of inventors. Thus, despite corrective weapons, there are some pitfalls which must be avoided.

Records of Eli Whitney's Cotton Gin Patent

Some confusion has existed concerning Eli Whitney's patent for the cotton gin and the texts of the papers relating to the patent. Mirsky and Nevins 1 refer to the destruction of Whitney's papers in 1795 and the destruction of the Patent Office records in 1836, describe copies of a detailed description of the gin and of a condensed version, and indicate that the drawings are missing; other than copying the short description in an appendix the matter is not pursued further. Lewton 2 gathered a large amount of information concerning existing descriptions, drawings, and models of the original gin and pointed out inconsistencies and gaps. Older writers referred to by Lewton exhibit some misunderstanding and lack of information. Consideration of the requirements of the patent law in Whitney's day, the methods used by the Patent Office in restoring records lost by the fire of 1836, and study of existing papers will resolve most if not all of the confusion and discrepancies. This is attempted in the present note, which is limited to identifying the texts of the papers and showing the sources of a recent Patent Office publication. In August of 1959 the United States Patent Office published for the first time the specification of the patent issued to Eli Whitney for his invention of the cotton gin, together with a copy of the original patent drawing. The patent grant itself was also included in the publication. A patent is a grant by the government of certain exclusive rights to the inventor; a physical document granting these rights is made out, signed, sealed, and delivered to the inventor. The form and content of this patent document have varied in different periods, as have the requirements and procedures for obtaining a patent.3 Whitney's patent was issued under the Patent Act of February 21, 1793,4 which replaced the first United States patent act, of April 10, 1790. There was no Patent Office, the business of issuing patents being handled in the office of the Secretary of State. In order to receive a patent the statute required the following of the inventor: (1) A petition to the Secretary of State; this was merely a formal request for a patent. (2) An oath or affirmation that he believed himself to be the true inventor.

Early history of chromatography.

Our letter on the history of chromatography1 has been commented on inter alia by Zechmeister2, who directs attention to one of his papers3 not cited in our letter and claims that in this he has done justice to Day, whom we have described as the true discoverer of chromatography. Here, however, as in the later publication4 which we did quote, he again names Tswett as “the true inventor of chromatography in all of its important aspects”. Even in this earlier publication3, however, Zechmeister does not quote the really important paper describing Day's work in detail5, and referred to by us in our previous letter and elsewhere1,6, nor does he pass any comment on it in his letter2; nor, again, does he comment upon the paper by Engler and Albrecht7 to which we referred. Both these papers are, however, of the utmost importance. Moreover, our own further literary researches indicate that the manifold roots of chromatography must, accepting Zechmeister's own definition of chromatography4, be sought even earlier than we had supposed. It is important to notice that his definition does not include the process of development, which appears to have been Tswett's only new contribution.

Who Is the True Inventor?

The question "who is the true inventor," is often asked about many modern inventions. In an attempt to establish a criterion for ascertaining the true role of different contributors to human progress, we must make it clear to ourselves as to what factors are usually involved in making great inventions and discoveries. It seems that a satisfactory answer to this query can be found by postulating the following working hypothesis. Imagine that all kinds of general ideas, when time is ripe, are found, so to say, "floating in the air." How they get there is immaterial to the present thesis. As general progress marches on, humanity reaches different levels of intellectual and spiritual maturity, at which it becomes capable of assimilating certain ideas heretofore unrevealed to it, or revealed and long forgotten. In this general evolutionary movement a few individuals, pioneers of the spirit, become attuned earlier than others to some of these ideas, more readily respond to them and perceive their manifestation in observable phenomena, while other people pass them by without noticing them. History shows that, in addition to some other necessary qualities, the condition without which the matter cannot be, for such an ability to perceive and to discover seems to be a spirit full of interest and devotion to the subject and the absence of prejudices. These people become channels through which humanity as a whole receives new ideas. They are those who are born great. It is argued that the outlined hypothesis and its inferences, once accepted, can help one more easily to untangle the existing ambiguities, discrepancies, and outright errors in historical information as often given in textbooks on science, historical essays and in so-called historical movies.

Philosophy of the American Patent

THE patent is often referred to as a reward for invention. This is incorrect and it is unfortunate because it tends to support a viewpoint favored by the enemies of the American patent system whose objective it is to demote the patent from its present honorable estate as a property right to the status of a mere privilege or a franchise of uncertain tenure. Now, nobody can get a patent or any other reward from the U. S. Government merely by making or developing a patentable invention. This is a matter of common knowledge. That the patent is not granted as a reward for invention is demonstrated by the sequence of events. True, patents on inventions are granted, and no one but the first and true inventor is eligible for the grant. But to be eligible, one must do more than make a patentable invention, and to receive a patent, the inventor must do more ...

The Promotion of Scientific Research

PUBLIC attention was directed to the subject of scientific research by the proceedings at the annual meeting of the trustees of the Carnegie Trust, and especially by the prominence given to the promotion of original research in the speech of Mr. Balfour, reported in NATURE of March 4. The reports of the proceedings may have engendered in some minds exaggerated notions as to the extent to which philanthropic effort may succeed in solving the problem of providing incentives to original research. It will be as well, therefore, to mention, for the information of those who are unacquainted with the regulations under which monies subject to the trust may be applied in the promotion of original research, that the incomes of the beneficiaries under the trust are very limited, and the conditions which are specified in the scheme of the trustees are very restrictive. Mr. Balfour, though he spoke encouragingly of the methods adopted by the trustees, alluded to the difficulty and delicacy of the task of selecting people for original work, and to the “puzzling questions of administration” with which it is surrounded; and it seems impossible, without the aid of legislation, to devise any scheme for the application of monies to research purposes which will succeed in inspiring confidence in research workers and which will not greatly restrict the research work which it may be designed to encourage. Had inventors of patentable inventions been encumbered by conditions similar to those to which research workers who are the objects of private munificence are subjected, the progress of invention would have been immeasurably retarded. The conditions under which the invention of patentable inventions is stimulated do not necessitate an inventor relinquishing the pursuit of any trade, occupation, or profession in which he may be engaged. He is under no obligation to satisfy anyone as to the direction his labours may take, and he is free to devote his talents to the work of invention at such times as he may for himself determine. Moreover, forms of judicial procedure are made available for him by which he can defend his claim to be described as “the true and first inventor” of his invention, whether that be disputed by rival inventors, or opposed on false or fraudulent grounds, or be the subject of official objection.

An account of the rise and attempts, of a way to conveigh liquors immediately into the mass of blood

Whereas there have lately appeared in publick some books, printed beyond the seas, treating of the way of Injecting liquors into veines; in which books the original of the Invention seems to be adscribed to others, besides him, to whom it really belongs; It will surely not be thought amiss, if something be said, whereby the true inventor's right may beyond exception be asserted & preserved; To which end, there will need no more, than barely to represent the time when, and the place where, & among whom it was first started and put to tryal.