August 6, 1915.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN

273

SOUTH WALES INSTITUTE OF
ENGINEERS.

An ordinary general meeting of the South Wales
Institute of Engineers was held at Cardiff on Thursday,
July 29, Mr. J. Fox Tallis presiding, in the absence of
Principal Griffiths, president.

Geology of the South Wales Coal Field.

Discussion was resumed on Part III. of Mr. H. K.
Jordan’s paper on the South Wales Coal Field.

At the outset, Mr. Jordan drew attention to an
interesting variety of anthracite coal which he had
intended to describe in Part III., but by an oversight
had not done so. In some parts of the Gwendraeth
Valley the Gwendraeth seam of coal was overlaid by an
impersistent band of coal some 4 to 8 in. thick, which
differed materially from the other, or lower bed, which
had an average thickness of about 2 ft. 10 in. The upper
band, wherever it occurred, did not form part of the
2 ft. 10 in., but was an addition to it. The colliers had
appropriately named the upper band “ Pitch
anthracite,” for it resembled pitch in appearance. It
differed from the normal anthracite of the lower part of
the seam in the following particulars :—It did not
possess the lustrous black colour of the normal
anthracite, but was of a dull pitch colour. Its fracture
was more markedly conchoidal, and in its analysis it
differed also. This analysis showed the “ pitch
anthracite ” to have a higher volatile content, less
carbon, and more than three times as much ash than
the bottom or main part of the seam contained, which
necessarily increased the specific gravity of the former.
Thus the “ pitch anthracite ” appeared to bear the same
relationship to the bottom coal that the ‘ ‘ Lantern. ’ ’ or
Cannel coal did to the No. 3 Rhondda in the eastern part
of the coal field. That was to say, both occurred imper-
sistently on the top of a seam, and added to its normal
thickness. They both possessed a higher volatile
content, a considerably greater percentage of ash, and
a higher specific gravity than the main part of the seams
upon which they respectively rested. It would appear
to be probable that the physical conditions which
prevailed during the deposition of the main beds of these
seams changed before the upper bed was laid down, and
it might have been that the vegetation which constituted
the upper bed was carried by a turbid current and
deposited with its greater amount of impurities upon the
main portion of the seams. Be that as it may, the
point he advanced in Part I. of his work on the coal field,
that the impurities in the original coal afforded it some
degree of protection from de-bituminisation was further
supported by the evidence of the “ pitch anthracite.”
(Mr. Jordan exhibited a piece of “ pitch anthracite ” for
inspection by the members.)

Mr. D. F. Davies, F.G.S., Llannon, Carmarthenshire,
congratulated Mr. Jordan upon his further contribution
on the South Wales coal field. He was sure the mining
engineers of the western part of the coal field, which
was a very disturbed area, were greatly indebted to Mr.
Jordan for putting them on the right track for future
deep mining in that district. With regard to the
Llwydcoed seams, he had followed Mr. Jordan’s deduc-
tions and conclusions very carefully, and he agreed with
him that the Llwydcoed veins were very much higher
in the series than as put forward by the Geological
Survey. As to the throw of the Tumble Fault, he was
pleased Mr. Jordan had been able to estimate this, and
he had no doubt that when in the near future this fault
was proved by the Great Mountain Colliery Company,
J\Ir. Jordan would be found to be nearly correct. He
had to thank Mr. Jordan for being the first to give any
idea of the throw of the Brynbanel and Brynmonyn over-
thrust, and also as to their probable extent.

Mr. W. D. Wight said as to the identity of th(5
Malthouse seam with No. 2. Rhondda, he was at a loss
to understand why it came to be correlated differently in
face of the undoubted evidence.

The discussion was adjourned.

By-Products of Coal.

The meeting proceeded to the consideration of the
following papers :—“ The Products of Coal Distillation,”
by W. J. A. Butterfield, M.A., F.I.C.; “Coke Oven
By-Products,” by Thomas G. Watts, B.Sc. ; “ The Coal
Trades and Allied Industries,” by R. H. Greaves, M.Sc.

The Chairman said it behoved them all, and especially
capitalists, to encourage in every way the youth of this
country in carrying out tests and experiments by
rendering facilities for the discovery of new industries.
Until recent years the chief object of the mining engineer
was to sink and equip a colliery for the purpose of
working coal and placing it in trucks at the pit head in
•the most economical way. Then it was handed over to
another party to dispose of it, and very often there was
little kindred feeling between the two parties. One
considered he had done all that was required or necssary
when he had placed the coal in the truck; the other when
he had disposed of it and received the money. This
phase of management should cease to exist, and the
mining engineer and commercial man should unite their
efforts to ascertain whether they were getting all the
value out of the coal it was capable of giving. Small
collieries were not in a position to erect auxiliary works;
and this offered an opening for independent companies
to acquire a large quantity of coal that could be worked,
but was at present lying dormant, not being considered
marketable. With proper manipulation this coal could
be rendered profitable. There were many acres of coal,
especially near the crops, that could be worked cheaply,
but for which there was at present no market.

Mr. T. G. Watts said the tables in Mr. Greaves’
paper were some of the most important that had ever
been published together. The information with regard

to the commercial possibilities were very valuable. It
showed that while Germany had a large output of
naphthylamine, benzols, and so on, in 1913, she had a
shortage of anthracene, and had to import it. Now,
there was a large amount of anthracene to be obtained in
South Wales—in face, an enormous quantity.

The discussion was adjourned, as was also that on
Mr. P. N. Hambly’s paper describing “ A Modern
Regenerative Coke-Oven Installation, with Notes on the
Measurement of the Gas.”

LETTERS TO THE EDITORS.

The Editors are not responsible either for the statements
made, or the opinions expressed by correspondents.

All communications must be authenticated by the name and
address of the sender, whether for publication or not.

• No notice can be taken of anonymous communications.
As replies to questions are only given by way of published
answers to correspondents, and not by letter, stamped
addressed envelopes are not required to be sent.

CAGE COLLISIONS.

Sirs,—At a recent inquest on men injured after the
cages collided we had the usual avoidance of the tech-
nical aspects of the question, and an overlooking of the
fact that such collision was preventable by collision pre-
venters, several types of which are well known.

Separation guides were recommended, but these are
not sufficient to prevent cage collisions, as such events
are of common occurrence, whatever type of guides are
used. Cage bumps are generally slight rubs, but occa-
sionally so dangerous as to merit collision preventers
worth serious attention. The bump is a mechanical
matter easily preventable by mechanical means.

Of the two principal collision preventers, No. 1
enlarges the centre of separation guides and presents a
rigid resistance to cages out of the line of gravity, and
enables use of thin or old ropes for the parts above and
below the preventer; No. 2 preventer is a sort of guide
rail track, which ensures cages travelling in a rigid guide
path at the cage pass-bye, and economises the whole cost
of separation guides. Both sorts are likely to be
economical, as wTell as.safe.	M. C.

August 2, 1915.

THE ACQUISITION OF ENEMY PATENT RIGHTS.

Sirs,—For 37 weeks I have been contributing to your
patents columns weekly lists of patents which have
been granted in favour of residents of enemy countries.
These have been furnished in view of the Emergency
Patents Acts, under which, as you are aware, it is
possible , for a British manufacturer to apply to the
Board of Trade for a licence empowering him to manu-
facture in this country under any ememy patent. Many
British manufacturers are still of the impression that
these licences are of little use in that they will be
deprived of them upon the expiration of hostilities.
This is not the case. It has been established beyond
doubt that the British manufacturer wrill retain his
licence after hostilities. There may have to be a
readjustment of royalties (even during the war a small
royalty has to be paid to the Treasury), but it will be
impossible for the enemy proprietor to impose harsh
terms, and to hold that he will not acquiesce in the
continuance of the licence unless his terms are met,
because in such an event the Board of Trade will
intervene, and after hearing the parties itself fix a
reasonable royalty.

A glance at the repeated lists of enemy patents which
have been inserted in your journal gives an indication
of the energies which our enemies have in the past few
years been devoting to matters relating to the subjects
with which your journal deals. It is reasonable to
assume that all of these patents are of importance,
because in each case the proprietor has seen fit to
obtain the English patent, probably in addition to the
patent in his own country. The inventions are thus,
generally speaking, upon a higher status than inventions
which are only patented in the home country. Among
the inventions which have been listed, there must un-
doubtedly be a number of inventions of the extremes!
importance. I have endeavoured in the lists to give as
clear an indication as possible of the subject matter of
the invention, and it is believed that your readers, with
their knowledge of the matters to which the inventions
relate, will readily identify the inventions of premier
merit. No doubt a number of the inventions have
already been exploited in this country, as, for instance,
by. importation. In the past these foreign-owned
British patents have upon a very large scale been held,
not to encourage British manufacture, but solely to
close the English market to the British manufacturer,
so that the proprietor may import the patented goods
from the foreign country in which he is established.
It is true that there has existed in this country since
1907 the compulsory law designed to counteract this
practice. But the 1907 compulsory working law has
hardly been a success. Throughout the four years next
subsequent to the commencement of this law, that is,
until December 1911, only 81 applications for revocation
were lodged; 42 of these were abandoned or dropped
owing to expiry of the patents, and on the whole during
the period referred to there were only some five patents
per annum actually revoked for non-compliance with
the law.

Realising this state of affairs, the foreign patentees
do not.entertain grave fears with regard to the safety
of their British, patents, and it is still a fact that a
large number of these patents are held exclusively for
the purpose for which I have said, of controlling the
importation of the articles from abroad. There are a

number of these enemy-owned patents which are of
such impoitance that one has the strongest grounds for
saying that the enemy proprietor would not in peace
times, under any consideration grant a licence.

The opportunity offered by the emergency law is
unprecedented ; it is an opportunity of obtaining a
licence under any enemy patent, hovever important,
and the licence can in fact be retained after the war.

While, however, the licence now obtained can be
retained after the war, it is of the extremes! importance
to impress upon all interested the fact that the
opportunity of obtaining licences will, of course, expire
substantially with the period of the war. No doubt
after the war, if no licence has been obtained, the
proprietors of the patent in question will continue to
enforce their rights in this country, and control the
market, and after the war the probability is that they
would not under any circumstances or terms be willing
to grant a licence. The British manufacturer who has
had the foresight to obtain the licence will thus be
placed at a great advantage in comparison with manu-
facturers who have not.

A review of the situation points to the fact that this
matter amounts to more’ than the capture of enemy
trade; it is the capture of enemy industries ; industries
which have previously been confined exclusively to the
enemy. Difficulties are no doubt at the moment
prevalent in regard to the capture of enemy trade. The
staffs of manufacturers in this country are depleted as
a result of the war, and furthermore, the necessity for
war material rendei s it incumbent upon the manufac-
turer to treat his private enterprise as subservient to
the immediate object of producing the necessities of
war. Notwithstanding this, it must be remembered
that with regard to those industries which have not
been protected by patent, the British manufacturer
will have full right to engage in them after the war,
but as he will not be able to engage in the patented
industries, it would seem eminently desirable that he
should make an effort to now obtain and establish the
enemy patented industry, so that he will have it after
the war.

Patented industries, or a number of patented
industries, undoubtedly range among industries of highest
importance, and, as a result of these having been placed
at the disposal of the British manufacturer, the latter
thus has, with tbe one exception of secret industries,
access to every industry of the enemy. It is important
to remember that when a British manufacturer obtains
a Board of Trade licence under one of these enemy
patents, the licence is granted to him personally; the
patent remains in force as against other British manu-
facturers, and thus the licensee has a degree of
monopoly. It is even believed, although the point has
not been definitely settled, that the Board of Trade
licensee is entitled under his licence to restrain other
unauthorised manufacture under the patent, and thus
the practice is not one of totally revoking the patent,
but simply one of conferring a personal manufacturing
right upon the manufacturer who make'} application to
the Board of Trade. This manufacturer, if he wishes
to do so, is entitled to continue to pay the renewal fees,
should the enemy patentee fail to do so, so that the
enemy patent is kept in force to the advantage of the
British licensee, and these renewal fees he is entitled to
extract from his royalties.

When commencing upon the process of abstracting
and classifying these enemy patents, I thought it
desirable to first abstract the more modern patents.
I therefore began at the commencement of 1911, and
have carried the matter forward to a date which corre-
sponds substantially with the dates of application of
the last of the enemy patents which were granted
before the outbreak of war. As you are doubtless
aware, since the outbreak of war the Patent Office has
discontinued to grant patents to enemy proprietors.

Having thus completed this period, I am now com-
mencing to send you particulars of patents obtained in
the earlier period, and which patents have been kept in
force. These patents are really of greater importance
than a number of the modern patents. As you are
aware, in this country, after the expiration of four
years from the date of the patent, it is necessary to pay
annual renewal fees to keep the patent in force. Only
about 35 or 40 per cent, of the patents which are
granted are renewed after this four years. Thus the
patents which are retained in force for more than four
years can be accepted for the most part as patents the
utility of which has been proved. The value of the test
increases with the number of years that the patents are
kept in force. If the enemy proprietor has paid
renewal fees for several years, fees amounting together
to, say £40 or £50, it is to be assumed that the patent
is one of considerable importance.

In tbe continuance of the preparation of enemy
patent lists for your journal, I am now therefore not
only extracting patents relating to the subjects of your
journal, and which have been applied for by residents of
enemy countries, but am also selecting from these only
those which have been retained in force. I hope that
this will be to the advantage of your readers in placing
before them enemy patents of proved utility, patents
which the enemy has seen fit to maintain in this country
over a number of years—having, no doubt, assured
himself of the practical value of the inventions, and as
the opportunity to obtain a licence under any of these,
and which amounts practically to the acquisition of a
part of the right, is entirely a temporary one, one cannot
too strongly emphasise the extreme desirability of
making use at once of this emergency lawr, and of now
obtaining the privilege, so that it can be enjoyed not
only during hostilities, but also throughout the remaining
part of the term during which the patent remains in
force after the war.

Lewis Wm. Goold, F.C.I.P.A.

5, Corporation-street, Birmingham.

July 24, 1915.