Many thanks to both Carolyn and Peter for their kind and helpful responses
(and thank you, Bob, for forwarding Carolyn's email). Special thanks to you,
Carolyn, for pulling some of the data from Woodcroft. I wasn't aware that his
Index of English patents had been reprinted in 1969. That prompted me to do
some additional online searching, and I discovered that another version is now
available on CD-ROM. For those to whom it may be of interest, it is
titled "Early British Patents, A Cradle of Inventions, British Patents 1617 to
1889," and is published by Metal Finishing Information Services Ltd, in the
UK. Cost is $120 U.S. It is described as a searchable database of ca. 350,000
British patent titles, numbers, their dates and inventors, plus 3300 early
Scottish patents. Note that this CD covers patents up to 1888, going beyond
Woodcroft's original compilation (up to 1852). A search on WorldCat shows
that no U.S. library yet has a copy. The URL for the CD on the Metal
Finishing Information Services website is
http://finpubs.demonweb.co.uk/patents.htm Now if I can just get my university
to shell out the $120!
Concerning some of the comments provided by Peter:
Quoting Peter King:
> I associate the name Sanderson with the Sheffield steel industry (rather
> than with iron): see K. Barraclough, Steelmaking before Bessemer: I Blister
> Steel (The Metals Society, London 1984), 104-6 - he refers to Sanderson
> Brothers.
The Charles Sanderson to which I referred could well be the same, as his
U.S. patent of 1841 indicates he was from Sheffield. The 1838 English patent
found by Carolyn further confirms his having been involved with iron smelting
processes.
Quoting Peter King:
> Patents constitute an interesting subject, but it needs to be born in mind
> that a considerable number of 19th century ones were uneconomic,
> impracticable, or just not implemented.
That is exactly what I am trying to explore in connection with the direct-
process patents. The 19th century patents offer a partial means of tracing
the development of ideas and approaches related to "improving" direct-process,
wrought iron production. And the economy, practicality, and degree of
implementation of the patents are intriguing and interrelated concerns. Given
that patent holders could license the use of their inventions, the element of
salesmanship becomes an additional consideration. Here in upstate New York,
where charcoal bloomery forges were so common and successful, I unexpectedly
found three cases where forge owners in the 1870s bought licenses for setting
up patented processes and apparatus for deoxidizing the ore. Knowing the
inventors and patent specifications is useful in trying to assess the
circumstances and degree of success associated with undertaking such ventures
(at least one was highly unsuccessful).
Thanks again to Carolyn and Peter.
Gordon Pollard
