hidden hit counter


HOME

 

FORUM ARCHIVE

 

CAD PLANS

 

TECH FEATURES

 

ADMIN 1

 

ADMIN 2



Top The TRMA Discussion Forum topic #28752
View in linear mode

Subject: "Discouraging news on the Murray's front" Previous topic | Next topic
bpreadFri Sep-19-08 07:17 AM
Member since Sep 28th 2003
2629 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list
#28752, "Discouraging news on the Murray's front"


          

I thought that with this post I might be claiming victory in the Murray's Challenge. Not so. I contacted the British Library to see if they had any listings for patents regarding disengaging gear for Digby Murray. I gave them a time range and they actually searched beyond it. They said they showed only two patents and they were both from 1866. That didn't sound right to me so I contacted the British Patent Office which is now known as the Intellectual Property Office. They did a search and also showed only these two patents from 1866. I thought wow, maybe this gear was actually older than we had originally thought. I got the copies of the patents yesterday. They enclosed a note about the disengaging gear #1347 which said that while Murray was the inventor, the patent was under the name of Thornton. The reason is that you had to be living in Britain to file a patent under your name. Murray was living in India in 1866 so he had Mr. Thornton file the patent for his invention.
I looked at both patents and neither are what we are looking for. The first is a release hook but it is a hook/block combination which would be used as part of the falls. The block would be the lower part of the falls and its hook would engage a lifting ring on the boat. The method on Titanic was that an eye on the fall block engaged a hinged hook in the boat.
The other patent was basically a release device which used a lever and chains to disengage the falls. We don't know what Titanic's simultaneous disengagement mechanism looked like but this patent didn't show any kind of hinged hook in the boat like we have seen on Titanic.

This raises a couple of difficult questions:
1. Was some other patent by Murray filed under someone elses's name.
In that case, one would have to look at all patents from approximately 1866 to 1895 having to do with disengaging gear to see if you could find the right one.

2. There is also the possibility that while the disengaging gear was named after it's inventor Murray that it was never patented. It may have been found that this technology changed so fast that there wasn't any real need to protect one's invention against theft.
If that is the case then we really are sunk as far as getting detailed drawings. Only a manufacturer would have that and we don't know who manufactured these things.

Wish I had better news.

Regards,
Bob Read

  

Alert | IP Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Replies to this topic
This page is in overload mode.[View all]

Lord MorbiusSat Sep-20-08 02:34 PM
Member since May 06th 2007
438 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list
#28778, "RE: Discouraging news on the Murray's front"
In response to Reply # 0


          

Bob, thats why i mentioned in the last thread that it was dependant on who filed the patent. It may have been "called" Murray's but that doesn't necissarily mean it was not filed by another person or maybe a company.

Tell me this... Do we have any evidence that this device was not exclusive to White Star? (this could be significant)

And sorry to be a pain but can you list all known references to this device again.

- Mervyn.

Mervyn Pritchard
Former Maintenance Officer
SS Nomadic.

  

Alert | IP Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Replies to this subthread
RE: Discouraging news on the Murray's front, bpread, Sep 20th 2008, #2
      RE: Discouraging news on the Murray's front, kylemesker, Sep 20th 2008, #3
           RE: Discouraging news on the Murray's front, Ralph Currell, Sep 20th 2008, #4
           RE: Discouraging news on the Murray's front, bpread, Sep 20th 2008, #5
           RE: Discouraging news on the Murray's front, kylemesker, Sep 20th 2008, #6
           RE: Discouraging news on the Murray's front, Lord Morbius, Sep 20th 2008, #7
           The plot thickens, Ralph Currell, Sep 20th 2008, #8
                RE: The plot thickens, kylemesker, Sep 20th 2008, #9
                     RE: The plot thickens, Lord Morbius, Sep 20th 2008, #10
                     RE: The plot thickens, kylemesker, Sep 20th 2008, #11
                     RE: The plot thickens, Ralph Currell, Sep 20th 2008, #12
                          Still hunting, kylemesker, Oct 22nd 2008, #13
                          RE: Still hunting, bpread, Oct 22nd 2008, #14
                               RE: Still hunting, Paul_Lee, Oct 22nd 2008, #15
                               RE: Still hunting, Jonathan, Oct 23rd 2008, #16
                               RE: Still hunting, kylemesker, Oct 23rd 2008, #17
                                    RE: Still hunting, kylemesker, Nov 03rd 2008, #18
                                         RE: Still hunting, Jonathan, Nov 04th 2008, #19
                                         RE: Still hunting, Ralph Currell, Nov 04th 2008, #21
                          I thought I had found it, bpread, Nov 04th 2008, #20
                               RE: I thought I had found it, jds88, Nov 04th 2008, #22
                               RE: I thought I had found it, bpread, Nov 04th 2008, #23
                                    Welin - best of luck, Jonathan, Nov 05th 2008, #24
                               RE: I thought I had found it, kylemesker, Nov 05th 2008, #25
                               Here's Murray's 1866 patent, bpread, Nov 05th 2008, #26
                               RE: Here's Murray's 1866 patent, kylemesker, Nov 05th 2008, #27
                               RE: I thought I had found it, Ralph Currell, Nov 23rd 2008, #35
                                    RE: I thought I had found it, bpread, Nov 23rd 2008, #36
                                         RE: I thought I had found it, kylemesker, Nov 23rd 2008, #37
                               Information on H&W patent, bpread, Nov 08th 2008, #28
                                    RE: Article on the H&W Patent, kylemesker, Nov 12th 2008, #29
                                    Still on the hunt, bpread, Nov 12th 2008, #30
                                         RE: Still on the hunt, kylemesker, Nov 13th 2008, #31
                                              RE: Still on the hunt, bpread, Nov 13th 2008, #32
                                    RE: Information on H&W patent, kylemesker, Nov 20th 2008, #33
                                         RE: Information on H&W patent, bpread, Nov 20th 2008, #34
           RE: Captain Allen Luckhurst, swtpickle, Aug 28th 2012, #77
                RE: Captain Allen Luckhurst, bpread, Aug 29th 2012, #78
                     RE: Captain Allen Luckhurst, swtpickle, Aug 29th 2012, #79
                          RE: Captain Allen Luckhurst, bpread, Aug 29th 2012, #80
                               RE: Captain Allen Luckhurst, swtpickle, Aug 29th 2012, #81
                                    RE: Captain Allen Luckhurst, kylemesker, Sep 03rd 2012, #82

bpreadMon Dec-01-08 07:18 PM
Member since Sep 28th 2003
2629 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list
#29363, "Dead ends and a conceptual problem"
In response to Reply # 0


          

I just received a summary of British patents in the classification to which boat disengaging gear belonged from 1892 through 1899. I was very hopeful that I would find the Murray's gear in this group because there were quite a few. These summaries are found in a reference known as Classified Abridgements (of British Patents) They are grouped by classification number and year and they have limited drawings for each. There were a couple of possibilities but nothing jumped out as clearly being the Murray's gear.
This brings us to a conceptual problem. We know that Murray's name isn't on this patent. How then do we declare a 100% positive identification? The initial reason we were searching for this was to identify all its details because photos only gave us partial information. We might be able to find a patent that seems to be pretty close to what we see in photos but since there are aspects we can't see in photos, how do we declare a positive identification?
At this point, the only way I can see that this can be accomplished is not through patent illustrations but through period advertisements. They are likely to identify it as Murray's gear.
Then, armed with the illustration in the ad, we may be able to find the right patent. But personally I think the patent route as the primary avenue of research focus has been played out.
Speaking of dead ends, there is another to report. I saw a photo of the inside of purportedly one of Nomadic's lifeboats and it didn't have the Murray's gear. All it had was a simple hook. That was a good idea for investigation but we can discard it now.
I haven't searched U.S. Patents so I don't know if the gear was patented under Murray's name here but I doubt it.
I don't know what the best period journals to search would be. I think Kyle and Ralph have been on this track and I wish them well.
I wish I had better news to report but maybe closing off some rabbit holes has its own value.
Good hunting.

Regards,
Bob Read

  

Alert | IP Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Replies to this subthread
RE: Dead ends and a conceptual problem, Ralph Currell, Dec 02nd 2008, #39
      RE: Dead ends and a conceptual problem, bpread, Dec 02nd 2008, #40
           RE: Dead ends and a conceptual problem, kylemesker, Dec 02nd 2008, #41
                RE: Dead ends and a conceptual problem, bpread, Dec 02nd 2008, #42
                     Update, kylemesker, Dec 17th 2008, #43
                          RE: Update, bpread, Dec 17th 2008, #44
                          RE: Update, kylemesker, Dec 17th 2008, #45
                               RE: Update, kylemesker, Jan 06th 2009, #46
                                    A little information, no drawings yet, kylemesker, Jan 22nd 2009, #47
                                         Results of US patent search, kylemesker, Jan 22nd 2009, #48
                                              RE: Results of US patent search, bpread, Jan 23rd 2009, #49
                                                   A new twist?, kylemesker, Feb 04th 2009, #50
                                                        RE: A new twist?, bpread, Feb 04th 2009, #51
                                                        RE: A new twist?, bpread, Feb 04th 2009, #52
                                                        RE: A new twist?, kylemesker, Feb 04th 2009, #53
                                                             RE: A new twist?, jds88, Feb 05th 2009, #55
                                                                  US and British patents, kylemesker, Feb 05th 2009, #58
                                                        RE: A new twist?, Ralph Currell, Feb 04th 2009, #54
                                                             RE: A new twist?, Ralph Currell, Feb 05th 2009, #56
                                                                  RE: A new twist?, kylemesker, Feb 05th 2009, #57
                          Disengaging gear in New York Times article, Ralph Currell, Apr 23rd 2009, #59
                               RE: Disengaging gear in New York Times article, kylemesker, Apr 23rd 2009, #60
                                    RE: Anything new?, kylemesker, Jul 21st 2009, #61
                                         RE: Anything new?, bpread, Jul 21st 2009, #62
                                              RE: Anything new?, Lord Morbius, Sep 23rd 2009, #63
                                                   RE: Anything new?, bpread, Sep 23rd 2009, #64
                                                        RE: Anything new?, Lord Morbius, Sep 23rd 2009, #65
                                                             RE: Anything new?, kylemesker, Sep 24th 2009, #66
                                                                  RE: Anything new?, Lord Morbius, Sep 25th 2009, #67

jds88Mon Sep-28-09 10:57 AM
Member since Dec 17th 2005
172 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list
#32494, "How About Britannic?"
In response to Reply # 0


          

Didn't Britannic sink with some of her lifeboats in place? One would think an expedition might be able to find some intact specimens of the gear, if they knew where to look.

  

Alert | IP Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Replies to this subthread
RE: How About Britannic?, bpread, Sep 28th 2009, #69

bpreadSat Jul-10-10 04:52 PM
Member since Sep 28th 2003
2629 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list
#36423, "Latest News - Where do we go from here?"
In response to Reply # 0


          

Since the last posts on this subject I have been pursuing a systematic investigation of British patents in search of the ever elusive Murray's disengaging gear.
In short summary, Murray's original patent of disengaging gear was made in 1866. It was not the gear we see in photos of Titanic's lifeboats.
No other patents for disengaging gear under Murray's name were ever found. So we were left with a time window of somewhere between 1866 and 1912. In 1891 Pirrie and Wilson patented a disengaging gear. It was hoped that with their connection to H&W that this might be the Murray's gear we see on Olympic and Titanic. It wasn't. However, what that did was narrow the time window. If H&W used this Pirrie and Wilson gear then in must have been an improvement on previous gear and if it was superceded then it must have been by patent gear dating later than 1891.

Since we had no idea what name the Murray's gear might be patented under, the only way to identify it would be to examine drawings of the gear. The only economical way to do that was to examine the drawings in the Classified Abridgments of British Patents. This reference gives an abbreviated description of patents with illustrations within certain classifications. The classification containing boat disengaging gear was Class 115. Over a period of over a year I examined all the patents in this class from 1892 through 1912. I just received the 1907 through 1912 group today.
The bad news is that I found no patents within that sizable time window which resembled Murray's.

I don't really have any good news other than the fact that for future research, I have eliminated a major avenue of investigation.
One idea I have begun evaluating is the possibility that the disengaging gear we see on Titanic and Olympic is just a modification of the original Murray's gear and it wasn't re-patented. If you look at the original Murray's gear (images in one of my earlier posts in this thread) you will see that the general aspects of the design of the original gear and Titanic's are very similar. The main difference is that the original had the hook incorporated as part of the lower fall block. If you take the hook and its supporting mechanism out of the block you have something which is very close to Titanic's. I'm going to do some study on the two devices and see if I can reconcile them.

Beyond that, I don't know of any other systematic avenues of investigation. Every so often I do an Google and Google Books search
to see if there are any new entries for "Murray's disengaging gear".
Period advertisements are still a possibility but I don't know of any systematic approach. There is still the matter of the "A. Luckhurst (1909)" entry. If Luckhurst had to submit drawings with his registration of the Murray's gear then that might be a possibility but in what archive that might be found is unknown to me. A search of U.S. Patents was not successful.

So there's the state of things as of today. I hope somebody comes up with some new concrete leads.

Regards,
Bob Read

  

Alert | IP Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Replies to this subthread
RE: Latest News - Where do we go from here?, kylemesker, Jul 15th 2010, #71

bpreadSat Feb-12-11 10:46 AM
Member since Sep 28th 2003
2629 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list
#41109, "Dead End"
In response to Reply # 0


          

This is the latest news on the search for illustrations or information on the Murray's disengaging gear.
I was looking through the Paperless Archives DVD of the Titanic disaster. In the British Inquiry section there were documents submitted to the inquiry. There was a document outlining the lifeboat particulars of Titanic. In this document it stated that the boats were equipped with Harland and Wolff's disengaging gear, the design of which was previously approved on M.9522.91. This reference number refers to a document generated by the Marine division of the Board of Trade in 1891. I had hoped that if this document from 1891 could be located then it might have an illustration of the design which was approved.
I paid a private researcher to try to find the document in question. Today I received word from her that the document in question had been destroyed according to National Archives records.
So after looking at all disengaging gear patent illustrations from 1887-1912, none matched what we see in photos of the gear in Titanic's lifeboats. All these patents were examined because the only British Patent for disengaging gear with Murray's name attached was in 1866. This disengaging gear did not match the gear seen on Olympic/Titanic.
This obscure reference to a Board of Trade document seemed to be one of the last viable search alternatives and it has turned up a dead end.

The device seen in photos of Titanic's lifeboats has a basic design similarity to the 1866 patent. The photos do not show the gear used to release the disengaging gear. That is why the illustrations were needed. "Andrews Notebook" describes the gear as "Capt. Murray's Improved Disengaging Gear". My hunch is that the original 1866 patent was "improved" but not re-patented as a new device. The only avenue available is if the Google Books archive keeps expanding and the device shows up in an article or a period advertisement. Until then I know of no avenue left for a systematic search.

Regards,
Bob Read

  

Alert | IP Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Replies to this subthread
Addendum, bpread, Feb 12th 2011, #73
      RE: Addendum, Ralph Currell, Feb 13th 2011, #74
           RE: Addendum, bpread, Feb 13th 2011, #75
                New research article on Murray's Disengaging Gear, Art Braunschweiger, Aug 21st 2011, #76

JasonFri Sep-07-12 12:36 AM
Member since Jan 18th 2004
542 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list
#47536, "RE: Discouraging news on the Murray's front"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

I have an old article somewhere on Lifeboats, and it touched on this subject. There was a name associated with some patent or other - and it wasn't Murray.

I'll have a look for it.

/Jason

  

Alert | IP Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Replies to this subthread
James Nelson, Jason, Sep 12th 2012, #84
      RE: James Nelson, bpread, Sep 13th 2012, #85
           RE: James Nelson, Jason, Sep 13th 2012, #86

Top The TRMA Discussion Forum topic #28752 Previous topic | Next topic


Titanic artwork at top of page is owned and copyright of Stuart Williamson and is used with permission.