Patent Pending Blog - Patents and the History of Technology

The Origin of Coffee and the Croissant

In 1683, the Ottoman army besieged the Austrian city of Vienna, as part of a steady push of conquest toward central Europe.  The vastly outnumbered Viennese fought valiantly, and held out against strong efforts to tunnel under the city walls and blow up the city gates with gunpowder.  Nearing desperation, and totally surrounded by Turkish forces, the Viennese sent a spy to penetreate the Turkish lines and reach the camp of Christian allied forces massed nearby.  A Pole with experience in Turkish culture, dress and speech, walked through the Turkish army camps, observed their number and disposition, and reached allied forces. 

With this inside information, the Polish forces, under John Sobieski, attacked, and defeated the Ottoman Turks under Kara Mustafa, and saved Vienna from the merciless slaughter that had been visited upon the rest of the countryside. The Turks left behind anything not essential to their flight, including 500 pounds of what was thought to be camel food.  As payment for his service, the Polish spy, Georg Kolschitzky accepted the camel food, which he knew was coffee from his experience in Istanbul.  With the coffee, he opened the first coffee shop in Vienna, and produced the first Viennese roast coffee. 

One colorful story is that the local bakers, working at night, heard the tunneling sounds of the Turks, and saved the city by alerting the defenders.  To celebrate the victory over the Turks, they created a special pastry in the shape of the symbol of the Turks, the cresent, which became the croissant.  This story is likely not correct, as most historians attribute the croissant to French creation no later than 1850.  WHATEVER!

Fulton's Airphibian

After WWII, America was certain that a new age of science and technology would make flying cars an everyday event.  Several flying cars were made, but they all had the worst of both worlds. They were lame airplanes, which converted to lame automobiles.  Any airplane that had to carry a automobile wheels, suspension, and drive train, is going to be a lame airplane.  The first to get CAA certification was the Airphibian, made by Robert Fulton. 

It was designed to be a fully functional, if somewhat lame, automobile, which converts to a fully functional, if somewhat lame, airplane.  However, the idea sure sounds fun, and one wonders if current technology could produce an updated Airphibian with better performance.

The Airphibian was designed by Robert Fulton Jr. in 1945, and was intended to fly into an airport, drop the propeller, wings and tail, and drive into town from the airport. 

It was a high wing monoplane, with four wheels.  Steering of the car was by turning the steering wheel, and use of the pedals for brake and clutch functions.  It would do 55 mph on the ground, and 110 mph in the air. 

Several production models were made, and over the years, experienced 200,000 miles on the ground and 6000 + conversions.  However, sales never caught on, and the conversion process was considered complicated.  Performance in the air was poor, due to the weight problems mentioned above.  The Fulton Airphibian inspired other car/plane conversions, but none have given us the flying car dreamed of as a commuter car. 

The first Stealth Aircraft

The first stealth aircraft was designed in 1928, and flown in 1929, as a test of a new concept: a flying wing.  It was built by John Northrup, who came back to the flying wing design after WWII.  The propeller driven version of the post WWII wing was called the B-36, and with jet engines it became the B-49.  At YB-49 is a movie of the B-49 taking off. When it first flew, a company press release gushed ..."Spewing a twin trail of black smoke, the sky monster swept into the air before the awed thousands gathered to witness the historic take-off."

The wing had a range of 3200 miles, max speed of 493 mph, wingspan of 172 feet.  A test model of the B-49 crashed in 1950, killing test pilot Glen Edwards.  Muroc Air Force Base was renamed Edwards Air Force Base in his honor.  A second prototype crashed when taxiing.  The plane's design had great promise in range and lifting capacity, because the design minimized drag, but the technology of the day was not capable of controlling it in flight.  The designers needed the computers not available until 20 years later to help fly the aircraft.  More information at B-49: The Northrup Flying Wing.

Santa Claus Detector

Tis the season for Santa Claus detectors, such as that shown in U.S. Patent 5,523,741.  With this device, a ribbon is stretched across the front of a chimney, and attached to the ring at the toe of the stocking.  When SC comes through the chimney, the ribbon activates the device, which lights up.  If it is lit when a child gets up in the morning, he knows that SC has been there.  Sounds pretty foolproof.

Chouinard Hexcentrics

Shortly after introducing mass produced chrome moly steel pitons to the climbing world, Yvon Chouinard began so see their effects.  Especially on popular routes, small cracks that had once been protected by a thin lost arrow, now needed large angle pitons, or stacked angles, or even a bong!  The thin cracks in the granite had become an ever growing gouge in the rock. 

Chouinard turned to a natural form of protection to replace pitons, and that was the chockstone.  Chockstones are stones that wedge in a vertical crack, and can be from the size of a quarter, to the size of a Subaru.  Climbers sometimes used them for protection when they seemed solid, and when nothing else was available. 

Using the principle of the chockstone, he created a hexagonal shaped artificial chockstone, made of aluminum.  These could be carried on a hardware rack like pitons, placed without use of a hammer, and removed by un upward tug. They were set by a hard downward tug, after being placed in a crack that was generally smaller than the width of the hex.  The harder they were pulled down, the more they jammed into the rock.  US Patent 3,948,485 is for a device called an Irregular Hexagonal Mountaineering Chock, marketed as the Hexcentric, in various sizes.

 

Beaver Dams Outlawed!

The following are perported to be actual letters, from the Michigan DEQ, and from landowner Ryan DeVries:

Dear Mr. DeVries,

It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental
Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above
referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal
landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity:

Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet
stream of Spring Pond. A permit must be issued prior to the start of this
type of activity.

A review of the Department's files shows that no permits have been issued.
Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in
violation Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and
Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being
sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, annotated.

The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially
failed during a recent rain event, causing debris and flooding at
downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently
hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to
cease and desist all activities at this location, and to restore the
stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the
dams from the stream channel. All restoration work shall be completed no
later than January 31, 2003.

Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that
a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff.

Failure to comply with this request or any further unauthorized
activity on the site may result in this case being referred for
elevated enforcement action.

We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this
matter. Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any
questions.

Sincerely,
David L. Price
District Representative Land and Water Management Division

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



File No. 97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Montcalm County.

Dear Mr. Price,

Your certified letter dated 12/17/02 has been handed to me to respond to.

I am the legal landowner but not the Contractor at 2088 Dagget,
Pierson, Michigan. A couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized)
process of constructing and maintaining two wood "debris" dams across the
outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, authorize, nor
supervise their dam project, I think they would be highly offended that
you call their skillful use of nature's building materials "debris." I
would like to challenge your department to attempt to emulate their dam
project any time and/or any place you choose. I believe I can safely state
there is no way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam
resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam
determination and/or their dam work ethic.

As to your request, I do not think the beavers are aware that they must
first fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity.

My first dam question to you is: (1) Are you trying to discriminate
against my Spring Pond Beavers or (2) do you require all beavers
throughout this State to conform to said dam request?

If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers,
through the Freedom of Information Act, I request completed copies of all
those other applicable beaver dam permits that have been issued.

Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301,
Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and environmental
Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections
324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, annotated.

I have several concerns. My first concern is, aren't the beavers
entitled to legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are
financially destitute and are unable to pay for said representation, so
the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department's
dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent
rain event causing flooding is proof that this is a natural occurrence,
which the Department is required to protect. In other words, we should
leave the Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling
their dam names.

If you want the stream "restored" to a dam free-flow condition please
contact the beavers, but if you are going to arrest them, they obviously
did not pay any attention to your dam letter they being unable to read
English. In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to
build their unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is
green and water flows downstream. They have more dam rights than I do to
live and enjoy Spring Pond.

If the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection lives
up to its name, it should protect the natural resources (Beavers) and the
environment (Beavers' Dams). So, as far as the beavers and I are
concerned, this dam case can be referred for more elevated enforcement
action right now. Why wait until 1/31/2003? The Spring Pond Beavers may be
under the dam ice then and there will be no way for you or your dam staff
to contact/harass them then.

In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention to a real
environmental quality (health) problem in the area. It is the bears!

Bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you
should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the beavers alone. If
you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! (The bears
are not careful where they dump!) Being unable to comply with your dam
request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I
am sending this response to your dam office.

Thank You,
Ryan DeVries & The Dam Beavers

The GI Pocket Stove

The Coleman company was started more than 100 years ago, by a young entrepreneur named W.C. Coleman.  While a law student, he began selling lanterns as a part time job, and in a few years bought the lantern company.  His greatest attribute was that he was able to change his marketing strategies and products to match the customer's needs.  In WWII the Coleman Co. made a great little gas stove that was the perfect camp stove for GIs in the field.  It was the GI Pocket Stove.

The specifications the Army posted for the stove was that it operate in temperature ranges from -60 to +125 F, on the same fuel used for jeeps and tanks, be light in weight, and no larger than a thermos bottle.  Coleman made a prototype that met those specifications within two months, and 5000 of these stoves went with U.S. troops into North Africa, the U.S. troops first European theater deployment.   The stove ran for 2 hours on a cup of fuel from a jeep, plane, or tank.  By war's end, over a million had been made, and countless meals had been cooked on the little field stoves. 

The GI Pocket Stove has a direct descendent in the Coleman Peak One stove, a solid little stove that still warms many a camper with hot food on a cold morning or evening.

Chouinard Pitons

Pitons have been part of the mountaineer's tool bag since about 1900.  Until the 1960s, they were mostly made in Italy, of fairly soft iron.  In use in the Alps, they were often left in place on a climb, at the places of greatest difficulty. This group of old pitons are made by Cassini of Italy. I shudder to think of leader falls being held by these pieces of crap.  I used these pitons in mountaineering when I was in my teens, climbing peaks in the Sierra Nevada mountains of California in the sixties. 

The world of climbing changed when another Southern California teenager began making pitons.  He made them out of a hard chrome moly steel, and they were so hard that they did not deform in the cracks in the rock, and could be removed and used again many times.  This made them perfect for long routes in Yosemite, where climbers would carry a rack of pitons, and place any one piton and remove it many times during the climb.  The young man was Yvon Chouinard, and his company grew from sales out of his car, to the largest climbing equipment supplier in the world.  It carries on in business as Black Diamond Equipment, and as Patagonia Inc.  These pitons are 70's vintage Chouinard pitons, two in the lost arrow style, and five angle pitons. 

The climbing technique that evolved in Yosemite in the 60's was a two man climbing style.  One climber, attached to the rope and his partner, carries the hardware rack, and as he climbs up, he places pitons periodically, clips a carabiner in the piton, puts the rope through the carabiner, and continues on.  Then if he falls, his rope through the piton will stop his fall.  When the lead climber reaches a point of safety, he anchors himself to the rock using a piton or other protection, and belays the second climber up. As the second climber comes up, he removes the pitons, and places them on a sling.  When he reaches the belayer, the second climber takes the hardware rack, and leads the next pitch, or rope length.  Thus alternating leads, the pair may climb a number of pitches, or rope lengths.  A climb may be one pitch, or many.  Climbs are rated by difficulty, from 5.0 to 5.13, and by how much time they take, from Grade I to Grade VI.

When you are quite a ways above your last protection, on thin holds, and getting tired, there is no better sound than that a Chouinard piton makes as it gets banged into a crack in the rock.  It is a beautiful ringing sound that changes pitch as it goes in, and you can tell by the sound if it is solid.  To remove the piton, you bang it up, then down, and often if comes right out after a few sideways taps.

Spotfire Photos

Mike McMillan is a smokejumper and a photographer.  He divides his time between Alaska and the lower 48, and photographs the fires he works on.  He has a great site at SpotFireImages, which features his wildfire photos.  Check it out.

The Japanese Zero

On today's date, December 7, in 1941, a strike force of 360 airplanes attacked the U.S. Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.  The Japanese planes included a fighter plane whose performance astonished the U.S. Army Air Corp.  This was the Japanese Zero.  The Zero is named for the year that it was first made, the year 2600 in the ancient Japanese calendar.  It was highly superior to any fighter the U.S. had in manueverability, range, and speed, at least in the first years of the war.  It had a rugged airframe, retractable landing gear, and a drop tank that gave it a 1000 mile range.  U.S. tactics were developed to counter the superiority of the Zero, such as to attack by diving from above, and to fight in pairs against the Zero. 

To give you an idea of the power of the Zero, it can be compared to a plane roughly its size, the Cessna 152.  The Zero is about 40 feet from wingtip to wingtip, and about 30 feet long.  It weighs about 6000 when fully loaded with gas and ammo. The Cessna has a wingspan of 33 feet, and a length of 20 feet.  With roughly comparable sizes, the Zero had an engine 10 times as powerful as the Cessna.  The great power combined with small size and light weight gave the Zero its speed, manueverability, and range.

It had some disadvantages, even at the start.  Its fuel tanks were not self sealing, and there was no armor around the pilot.  These defects made the Zero somewhat fragile, and easy to shoot down, it a pilot could get a shot at it.  Airplanes developed by the U.S. later in the war could deal with the Zero in every way, and were much more sturdy.  But early in the war, the Zero was a total surprise to the U.S. airplane designers.