Got the pics scanned and prepped. Gotta prepare a shipment for UPS, then I'll do Smithsonian.

What got me into the Smithsonian Institution? The Wall Street Journal…. sort of.

I had read an article in there about the Rolamite. They said something like, “History’s 27th basic mechanism hasn’t revolutionized industry.” That’s not an exact quote. I can’t find the copy of the article that I saved. I only hope that I didn’t throw it out accidentally in one of my spring cleaning fits.

I contacted the writer at the WSJ and asked him the source of the list of basic mechanisms and just who defines a basic mechanism anyway, because I could find no definition.

He responded with the list drawn up by engineers at Sandia Laboratories where the inventor worked. The inventor, Donald F. Wilkes needed to shorten some steel bands and stuck a couple of cylinders in the channel where they hung, and observed how freely they moved. Presto, a new mechanism by accident.

I knew my indexer was a basic mechanism, but who’s going to listen to me? I’m a total unknown. Navel lint in the business world.

What recognized authority could I get to define and declare the Newbould Indexer to be a basic mechanism? Who would be an authority in that area? Why, the Smithsonian Institution of course. They would know all the history wouldn’t they?

I drove my body down to Washington, and got to the Science and Technology building rather late on a Friday afternoon. Telling one of the guards my desire, he said most everyone had left already, and those not gone would not want to see anyone this late on a Friday.

I put on my best long face and said I drove all this way for this, are ya gonna turn me away?

He had pity on me and called an assistant to the director in the area that dealt with these kinds of tools. If he was a she, I’d have kissed her.

The guy he called told him to send me up, but he could only see me for a few minutes since he was ready to leave. I’m sad to say I can’t remember his name, but here a picture of him in his office that I took on a subsequent visit. I’m hoping to do some research and learn his name.




Lucky me. The guy knew tools and mechanisms very well. I plunked down my little plastic model, and as soon as he understood it, he got VERY excited. He called whoever was expecting him and told them he’d be late. We sat there for an hour or so talking about it, and I asked him if he considered the indexer to be a basic mechanism. He said definitely it was. My insides were jumping for joy. I asked would the Smithsonian say so in a letter so that I could use it. He said no, they don’t do that kind of thing, but they would like to have one for display in the museum. My immediate disappointment at the “no” became ecstasy for the rest of the sentence. That was the last thing I expected. Never in my dreams did it cross my mind that they would want one.

Guess how I answered him… yes, or no? Need another guess?

He said he couldn’t promise when they would display it, but they would display it, and they would preserve it permanently in their collection.

You’ve heard the expression walking on air? I don’t think my feet hit the ground till I got back to New Jersey.

Next post, I’ll put in pics of the display, plus more.

It’s been fun for me dredging up the memories of all the good experiences I’ve had along the way. Lots more to share if you can stand it.

Quote:

Lots more to share if you can stand it.

R.J

I think the guys are going to riot if you don’t keep it up. I’m really enjoying it. So please keep thumping away.

I’ve really enjoyed reading it top to bottom for the first time. For some obscure reason I just about shed a tear when you mentioned your fathers comments. Bit of a common nerve there.

Given that the Smithsonian is such a huge place. Is yours in the Science / Technology – Behring centre?

Keep up the good work.

Best Regards Phil.

Some of us possibly wouldn't riot, but we might pine away....

When I Googled 'Rolamite' and "basic mechanism" the first five hits all included the string "The only "basic mechanism" invented in the 20th century" - so that was a pretty thorough piece of PR, however it didn't stop the Rolamite becoming (as several other hits put it)
"the forgotten invention", so it's always reassuring to find instances where PR sizzle does not substitute for substance.

I read about it years ago, filed it under 'ingenious mechanisms', and pretty much forgot about it (although I have used steel bands several times in mechanisms for conveying tension without stretch, in lieu of wires..... of course this is hardly novel, but it does keep the turning sheaves gratifyingly small)

Interestingly, I had to resort to the 'wayback machine' internet archive site to retrieve several linked items relating to the Rolamite (not always successfully !), so it seems even on the internet to be in the process of being forgotten....

Seems to me (without thinking it through) that your invention is almost unique among 'basic mechanisms' in solving a very specific and very important need. Is that at all how you see it?

Yes, I do think my indexer filled a need, and that's why it became a commercial success in spite of my ineptitude as a businessman/marketer.

I'm particularly proud of the fact that since the need has existed for many centuries, and so many talented engineers and mechanics tried to fill that need as evidenced by the various solutions developed, I was the one who took the features that had been known for so long by so many, and arranged them in a new way which created a practical, simple, solution.

I remember going into the Bridgeport Machine company in an effort to convince them to use the indexer to mount their heads to make them more easily adjustable. The manager I was talking to, called in an engineer and gave him the indexer instructing him to "check it out". After a time the engineer came back and was asked by the manager if there was anything wrong with it. I'll never forget his reply, "The only thing wrong with this, is that I didn't think of it." Talk about stroking my ego... Wow.

The list of basic mechanisms is debatable in some cases, but I do know that mine fits in the list. As far as I can tell, since the Rolamite patent was owned by the gov't, I'm the only individual to ever own a patent on a basic mechanism. The fact that I did it deliberately rather than by accident, further boosted my pride in it.

RJ, I've been avidly following this and it occurred to me that I should probably say so. Then I noticed that as of now, there have been 1670 views of this new thread!

Guess I'm not the only silent hanger-on. More, more, I need to take another breath.

How many of us are there, (other than RJ and myself) that are old enough to remember the serialized articles in the tech magazines of the 40's and 50's? This is every bit as excruciating, even though the installments are a lot closer than once a month.

Enthralled Bob

Boy, Bob sure hit the nail on the head there.....I've been jumping on the computer at 5 am the last few mornings to see if RJ did a late night post. This is better than a mini-series....

This might be of some interest to a prospective inventer.

Met a new neighbor, who lives behind me and while talking to him I learned that he works for the university(fla). I don't remember his official capacity but it seems that a potential inventor can take an idea to them and they will get the patent, in their name (University of Florida) and market it for you. What you get is 40% of the royalties. Does this sound like an offer you cannot refuse. In some cases it might be worthwhile.

Jim W.

There are several entities that will do that if you have something they deem viable. Some of them are legitimate, many will scam an inventor.

It's very tricky to approach them safely. One should first do a complete prior art search, and at a minimum protect the date of conception via the patent office's program for that purpose, before approaching anyone for that kind of help.

I think the current term for doing that might be a provisional patent, which is not really a patent, but a safer way to disclose an idea. I'm not fully up on the recent changes.

One of the best stories I've read. Was going to say sorry I didn't see it until today. But then it would have been like sitting on pins & needles to wait for the next installment. At least I got to read 3 pages in a row without breaks. As soon as the opening comes up at dinner conversation somewhere, I'm going to work this in & claim to "know" RJ Newbould. Seriously. Some of my scientist friends were gaga over Foundations of Mechanical Accuracy when I lent it. This is taking another aspect of accuracy to a whole 'nother level!

Keep the installments coming. It would make a great book & a good movie. Though to make it mass market the hollywood version might be a bit interesting. You do have at least one hotty worked into the story, any car chases or speedboats for the general public?

No irreverence intended, this really is great.

smt

Not much to talk about tonite. Just a few pics.

This is a shot of the main lobby of what used to be called the Science and Technology Building. If I’m not mistaken, they have changed the name since 1974 when this pic was taken.

Directly on the other side of the Foucault Pendulum is the nine foot display case that they devoted entirely to the Newbould Indexer. It’s a pretty fuzzy pic, but it’s the only one I have.



Here is a closer view showing just the display case. In the center you can see my acrylic plastic first Newbould Indexer. I hand lettered all the markings. As you can see in the following close-up, they look it too.

On the left bottom is a motorized indexer I made for demonstration that opens, the center portion indexes, and when it closes, the top indexes. I still have this, and perhaps I’ll make a movie of it operating.

When PM magazine did a TV segment on my inventions, they included that demonstration model.

On the bottom right, is the first prototype of what eventually became the Model 202, but with totally enclosed plastic plates, and next to it is a prototype magnetic angle plate positioned by steel index plates. I’ll post close-ups of those later.

Just above the magnetic angle plate is a Model 100 with a long slide.

In the upper left is an illustration of a large worm gear, a sine bar, and a vernier protractor.






The infamous first Newbould Indexer.

Mr Newbould

This is SUCH an interesting thread, and it feels quite a privilege to be around when you're making us such a wonderful story from sharing it.

Am I correct in assuming that in the linear case you mention in your patent, there is no analogous constraint to the circular pitch issue, whose side-stepping was the brilliant and novel aspect of your invention?

If so, of course it's academic now as the patent was presumably not challenged, and certainly not successfully, but did you, or do you, think there was any risk attached to referring to the linear case, in case linking the two might provide a pathway for someone to attack your patent who (undiscovered by your search) had previously invented the much less novel and hence more likely linear version?

I don't know if such a challenge would succeed given that your patent would clearly be a major improvement on the earlier invention, but I'm interested in your thoughts.

Secondly, did a linear version ever get implemented, and if not, did you expect that one would when you drafted the patent? I guess what I'm really trying to get a handle on is your thinking at the time you drafted, on the pros and cons of this addition.

Both good questions. Thanks for asking.

One of the reasons that I'm taking time to put this thread in here, is that Robert Vogel, who was Chairman of the Department of Science and Technology asked me, way back then, to write my history for them, and the steps I used to patent and bring it to the market. He told me that it was unique for them to have a live inventor of such a significant mechanism, and they would preserve my writings along with the indexer to give future interested persons a view into my thought process. He stressed that I should please do this before I die.

This forum is a perfect venue to do that because some of the questions asked here are making me address things that I probably would not think to include in my writings.

There are no analogous constraints in comparing the linear to the circular other than the fact that a circular mechanism has a specific length restraint. That is enough difference to make a circular application unique. During my searches I looked for examples of both. I could not find any for a linear version, nor could the examiner. There are many uses found of a simple linear lock using a serrated form, but we found none that used a differential adapter member for small adjustment.

Including the linear version in my patent was a "just in case" scenario. Just in case anyone had, or wanted to make, something similar, and just in case I could think of a good application. I never did think of a good application which was sufficiently superior to existing mechanisms to warrant making it.

I never gave a second thought to anyone being able to get around the patent. Can you think of a way? If you remove any of the three elements, it no longer works. Whatever can be added to it for an application does not change the need for the basic indexing mechanism to make it work.

And thanks to all for your kind comments in here. They are much appreciated.

Can't wait for the next one...just like everyone else!

RJ....what did your dad think when he saw how interested Smithsonian was in your work? Bet that was one proud dad....

Yes he was, and of course that was very gratifying to me. Unfortunately he was sick at the time of the display, and never got to see it in person.

He did, however, go with me to visit Browne & Sharpe when I showed it to them to see if they had an interest in adding a version to their line of tools.

He was sitting on the sidelines when the engineers were ohhh-ing and ahhh-ing over it, and he was beaming all over. Unlike Starrett, they didn't think that it would fit into their line.

Starrett is another interesting chapter.

OK, your saying "Just in case anyone had ... made something similar" raises an interesting point....

I think there might be (or have been) a difference between US patent law and that applying elsewhere.

It's not possible here to defend a patent for something which is later shown to have been made previously with public knowledge, even if that prior item was never patented.

I'm hazy about the US situation - on the one hand, I know there's a difference around "first to invent" which is preeminent elsewhere and 'first to file' which I believe to be the crucial element in the US.

On the other, I'm aware of several US patents which have been successfully attacked by demonstration of prior implementations which had NOT been patented: The patents for Hoyle Schweitzer's windsurfer, and the B&D Workmate workbench.

In both cases, the prior implementation was incredibly obscure, and the attack was not by the prior inventors, but by competing companies.
In the windsurfer case, these companies ganged up and pooled their resources for a very expensive and exhaustive search no single company could have justified, because they considered the inventor was charging too much for licensing his invention. It's said that if he had been more reasonable he would have done much better in the long run - a rather salutary example, I guess.

Sorry for the irrelevant ramble, which just goes to illustrate the limits of my understanding of different patent laws in different jurisdictions.

In any case, as I said, my question (could your patent have been successfully attacked had someone been able to demonstrate a prior, linear implementation) was - happily - academic.
In any event, I imagine they could only have attacked the linear part of your patent, as by no stretch of the imagination could the argument have been upheld that the extension to the circular case was 'obvious'.

You are quite correct that an example of prior art either in the public domain or a prior patent issued or pending, could defeat the linear aspect without defeating the circular.

Both now, and back then, we could find no example of a linear application as described in my patent, in any country. When an examiner does his search, he goes to any source he can find. That includes U.S. and foreign patents, both issued and pending, and published literature from any source.

Had an example emerged which was missed, it could very well nullify mine.

I was not concerned because I saw (and still see) the linear application to be a minor one. I was just trying to cover as many bases as I could.

"First to file" is not an absolute here. To the best of my knowledge, it's still true that if the filing dates are sufficiently close, an interference can still be declared to determine "first to invent". That being said, if it is determined that the first inventor did not have due diligence in proceeding to file an application, he/she could still lose the case. Not only must you invent it first, you must make your application within a reasonable length of time from the date of conception/invention.

Am I ever excited. The man responsible for bringing the Newbould Indexer into the Smithsonian has been identified.

In another thread here they are speaking of going to the American Precision Museum in Vermont. That rang a bell because my "Main Man" in the Smithsonian told me he was leaving to manage a museum in New England and wanted a Newbould Indexer for that museum, which I promised to give him.

He is Ed Battison, the founder of that museum, and seems to still be active there. http://www.americanprecision.org/History.html

I must get in touch with him, and fulfill my old promise.

I'm so happy I could $h!t.....