Gee, Brian - The Early Development of The Magneto-Electric Machine

ANNALS OF SCIENCE, 50 (1993), 1 0 1 - 1 3 3
The Early Development of the Magneto-Electric Machine
BRIAN GEE
18 Barton Close, Landrake, Saltash, Cornwall PL12 5BA, U.K.
Received 19 April 1991
Summary
Downloaded by [Johann Christian Senckenberg] at 21:43 20 November 2014
Attribution of the magneto-electric machine to Michael Faraday derives from the

fact that it was he who proposed and named such a machine following his discovery
of electromagnetic induction. Faraday did not, however, build such a machine
although he did contrive to generate electricity with a revolving disc device. The
technological origins of the first viable magneto-electric machines stem rather from
a different concept in design although, of course, wholly dependent upon the newly
discovered electromagnetic principle. Thus, although Faraday's position remains
without question, it is, nevertheless, largely due to other practitioners, such as the
instrument makers Pixii, Saxton, and Clarke, that practical development took place
in the 1830s. The present paper considers the early development of the magneto-
electric machine and pays particular attention to the communication of ideas
among the community of philosopher-mechanics.
Contents
1. Prologue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
2. The Pixii machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
3. Joseph Saxton and the Adelaide Gallery magnet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
4. News across the Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
5. Saxton and the Literary Gazette affray. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6. The manufacture of E. M. Clarke's machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
7. The Clarke-Saxton division on 'true invention'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
8. Epilogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
1. Prologue
At the time of his discovery of electromagnetic induction, Michael Faraday was at
pains to distinguish between that effect derived from a voltaic source (as with his
celebrated induction ring) and that derived directly from a magnet. The latter he termed
magneto-electricity, the subject of which forms the basis for this paper.
F r o m Faraday's standpoint the extraction of electricity directly from a magnet was
of considerable theoretical interest, not least since it would vindicate the supposition,
contained in Amprre's theory, that magnetism itself was of an electrical nature. Indeed,
the problem of how to 'convert magnetism into electricity' had been with him since
1822, although the mode of performing this feat had eluded him then and over the
intervening years.' With the solution in hand in 1831 it became a matter of course that
he should demonstrate the equivalence of magneto-electricity with voltaic electricity,
thermoelectricity, and c o m m o n electricity through well-known effects such as the
shock, the spark, and the ability of current electricity to decompose water. Yet the
' This was the famous diary memorandum of 1822 when the combination of coil and bar magnet
obstinately did not oblige. Quarterly Journal of Science, 19 (1825), 338.
0003 3790/93 $10"009 1993 Taylor&Francis Ltd.
102 B. Gee
\
\
t..
(a) wJ
Figure 1. Faraday's revolving disc machine: (a) according to his Diary (183l); (b) according to
Saxton (1832).
transient effects of magneto-electricity, derived from the reciprocating motion of a

magnet within a coil, and first achieved on 17 October 1831, were hardly suited to this
purpose. As an alternative, therefore, he contrived to produce a continuous supply of
magneto-electricity via the rim and axle of a hand-cranked disc, which rotated between
the pole-pieces of a permanent magnet.
The revolving disc machine (Figure 1)2 was ready on 28 October 1831. However,
lamenting the inability of this machine to provide the vital evidence of identity,
Faraday wrote the following admission in his first report to the Royal Society:
I have never been able to produce any sensation upon the tongue by the wires
connecting the conductors applied to the edge of the revolving plate .... Nor have
I been able to heat a fine platina wire, or produce a spark, or convulse the limbs of
a frog. I have failed also to produce any chemical effects by electricity thus
evolved. 3
These tests had failed for want of sufficient current, although there was clearly an
abundance of current within the disc, as evidenced by a ten-pound magnet, suspended
alongside, which tended to follow the course of the revolving plate.
How then could a machine be made that would somehow extract more of the
'hidden' current? 'Two rough trials were made', reports Faraday, 'with the intention of
constructing a magneto-electric machine'. 4 Painstakingly he varied what he thought to
be relevant factors: copper discs of different diameters were tried and even replaced with
a disc of iron but with no reported advantage. Yet with the original arrangement still in
use several weeks later, he remarked: 'It is a striking thing, to observe the revolving
copper plate become thus a new electrical machine... ,.5
z Figure 1 (a) from Faraday's Diary, Being the Various Philosophical Notes of Experimental Investigation
Made by Michael Faraday, edited by Thomas Martin, 7 vols (London, 1932-1936), i, 381; Figure 1 (b) from
A. D. Bathe, 'Notice of some Electromagnetic Experiments', Journal of the Franklin Institute, 10 (1832),
66-72 (p. 66).
3 M. Faraday, Experimental Researches in Electricity, 2 vols (London, 1839), I, First Series, p. 38, para.
133.
, Ibid., p. 39, para. 135. Faraday's naming of the famed machine (his italics).
s Ibid., if, Second Series, p. 45, para. 154.
The early development of the magneto-electric machine 103
Persisting with the original conception, hoping to multiply the available current by
employing a series arrangement of rotating discs, he then proposed:
One form of apparatus which I purpose having arranged, is to have several discs
superposed; the discs are to be metallically connected, alternately at the edges and
at the centres, by means of mercury; and are to be revolved alternately in opposite
directions; i.e. the first, third, fifth etc. to the right hand, and the second, fourth,
sixth, etc. to the left hand; the whole being placed so that the discs are
perpendicular to the dip, or intersect most directly the magnetic curves of
powerful magnets. The electricity will be from the centre to the circumference in
one set of discs, and from the circumference to the centre in those on each side of
them; thus action of the whole will conjoin to produce one combined and more
powerful current. ~
Such a cumbersome arrangement might well have improved the available current
although there is no evidence to show that this proposal was followed through. In any
case Faraday's fixation over the matter of design should be contrasted with that fluidity
of mind often exhibited by engineers, who creatively rearrange the established
principles in novel ways for better effect. Perhaps conscious of his own weakness in this
respect, and certainly anxious to press on with his research programme, he offered the
following excuse for not furthering the task of improvement:
I have rather, however, been desirous of discussing new facts and new relations
dependent on magneto-electric induction, than of exalting the force of those
already obtained; being assured that the latter would find full development
thereafter. 7
Indeed, as he had imagined, the magneto-electric machine was fully developed
elsewhere and, as it turned out, on entirely different lines from those where it began, that
is, without reference to the revolving disc machine as its progenitor.
2. The Pixii machine

The single most important observation that prompted others to investigate
Faraday's electromagnetic discovery was his report of seeing a spark while experiment-
ing with the soft-iron ring. 8 Not only did this spark support the notion of an electrical
origin for magnetism but also it suggested that electricity might be derived directly
from a 'common' (permanent) magnet just as it had been from his 'artificial'
(electromagnet) source.
News of the spark seen 'in a particular instance', as Faraday had claimed, was
communicated to J.-P. Hachette on 17 December 1831 and subsequently discussed at a
meeting of the French Academy on 26 December 1831. 9 Outside the Parisian circle
others came to hear of Faraday's advance through the published reports of the
Academy meetings. In particular, it was noted at the Ducal Museum in Florence by the
co-researchers Leopoldo Nobili and Vincenzio Antinori, who immediately set out to
6Ibid., p. 46, para. 158.

7 Ibid., p.47, para. 159.
8 The Selected Correspondence of Michael Faraday, edited by L. Pearce Williams, 2 vols (Cambridge,
1971), l, 1812-1848, Faraday to Phillips, 29 November 1831, 209-10.
9 Le Temps. Journal de Pro#rds, Paris, No. 801, 28 December 1831, and Le Lycke. Journal des Sciences et
des Soci~t~s Savantes, Paris, No. 35, 29 December 1831.
104 B. Gee
investigate the report. It is sufficient here to note that the Italians succeeded in
inventing a spark-apparatus by the end of January 1832, that is, in advance of
Faraday's own success with a permanent magnet on 8 February, which only became
public knowledge in May 1832. l~ Consequently, two similar modes of spark-
production (but with distinct ways of breaking the circuit) were available to the
Parisian instrument maker, Hippolyte Pixii, by the summer of 1832. This began a
course of action that ultimately led to the invention for which he is remembered today,
namely the magneto-electric machine.
The business of comprehending, designing, and constructing an efficient magneto-
electric machine, capable of producing rectified current for (electrolytic) decomposition
from the simple knowledge of spark production, within a matter of only a few months,
is by no means obvious nor simple. Neither is it obvious why the Pixii instrument-
making workshop should wish to be involved in this task? 1 It is appropriate therefore
to consider, albeit briefly, how this particular machine came into being.
At the outset of this discussion it should be appreciated that Pixii already had a
grounding in electromagnetism through the various commissions undertaken for
Amp6re, whose needs in electromagnetic apparatus at the l~cole Polytechnique
extended throughout the 1820s. Likewise, as technician at the Sorbonne, Pixii was
engaged by Claude Pouillet to prepare demonstrations for the annual summer course.
The recent advances then brought about by Faraday were foremost in Pouillet's plans.
In particular, he was keen to show the spark but whereas both Nobili and Faraday had
been satisfied with somewhat rude arrangements, Pouillet had insisted on something
more reliable. Pixii's first task, therefore, was to construct replicas of the apparatus of
Nobili and Faraday in order to see what improvements might be made. 12
During their preliminary investigations with the reconstructions, Pouillet and Pixii
found that 'breaking' rather than 'making' contact was the preferred technique for
eliciting sparks. Also, as expected, stronger magnets improved the visibility of the
sparks although, inevitably, this increased the difficulty of separating the magnet from
its stirrup-shaped 'lifter'. The most important detail noted by the collaborators,
however, was that sparks frequently appeared d u r i n 9 the c o u r s e o f s e p a r a t i o n of the
lifter from contact with the poles, thus suggesting that initial contact between poles and
stirrup was quite unnecessary. This observation led to the design of a rotary
mechanism, with magnetic poles skipping past the coil-carrying 'lifter', which
eventually was demonstrated before some 800 persons at Pouillet's lecture. According
to Hachette, who witnessed the event, the sparks were readily visible when viewed in
front of a black hat which Pouillet used as backdrop. 13
By this time Pixii had sufficient acquaintance with the phenomena to proceed on his
own towards what was to become the first effective magneto-electric machine. Figure 2
shows a prototype that was seen in Pixii's workshop in about August when the
lo Details on the earliest modes of spark production and their positions in order of priority, are explored
in Brian Gee, 'Faraday's Plight and the Origins of the Magneto-ElectricSpark', Nuncius: Annali di Storia
della Scienza, v, part 1 (1990), 43~69.
11The Pixii philosophical instrument-making workshop had a long-standing place in French science,
even beforethe Revolution when the business was in the possession of the Dumotiez brothers. Later, c. 1815,
under their nephew, Nicolas-Constant Pixii, connections were developed with the emerging teaching
institutions. M. Daumas, Les Instruments scientifiques aux X V I U et X V I I F Sidcles (Paris, 1953),pp. 378-80.
12Hippolyte Pixii, Nouveaux Appareils Electro-Maynetiques (Paris, 1833), p. 10.
13For briefdesigndetails, see Hachette's letter to Faraday, 9 July 1832,in Williams(footnote8),1,229 30.
Figure 2. Prototype of the Pixii machine (1832).
American Charles T. Jackson called there. 14 In principal, this was the very first a.c.
magneto although, on Hachette's insistence, Pixii was encouraged to develop a machine
capable of delivering electricity for chemical decomposition. In other words, not only
had it to provide sparks and the shock, but also it had to succeed in that other
important test that Faraday had sought with his revolving disc machine without
positive result.
Thus the problem was set. Pixii knew that the current should be reversed during
each half-revolution of the magnet if a one-directional current flow was to be achieved.
Furthermore, he was faced with the difficulty of how best to maximize the inducing
effect during each half cycle. No personal account or diary exists of how Pixii solved
these problems but, most likely, he arrived at their solution by the well-tried method of
trial and error. Evidence of his success may be seen today in extant machines, such as
those preserved in the Deutsches Museum in Munich or the Museo di Storia della
Scienza in Florence (Figure 3). By applying previously gained experience with a bascule
#lectrique (a see-saw cross-over or reversing switch originally employed as a current
reversing switch in Amp~re's electrodynamic experiments) Pixii contrived to produce
the correct current reversal via a cam coupled to the hand-turned horseshoe magnet.
Initial teething troubles, mainly arising from unwanted vibrations that caused a loss of
mercury from the cup contacts, quickly disappeared when copper contacts amalga-
mated with mercury were substituted.
Pixii's machine had taken shape throughout August and its readiness was
announced to members of the French Academy by Hachette on 3 September 1832.
Referring to the drawing in Figure 4, based on a Pixii leaflet in which Hachette tells of
14Charles T. Jackson, 'Notice of the revolvingelectricmagnet of Mr Pixii of Paris', AmericanJournalof

Sciences, 24 (1833), 146-7.
106 B. Gee
Figure 3. A Pixii machine (1833). Courtesy of the Deutsches Museum (Munich).

Figure 4. Plan of a Pixii machine (1833). Courtesy of the Institution of Electrical Engineers.
the history of its development, 15 the machine comprised a compound permanent

magnet with pole pieces that could revolve face to face with the soft-iron horseshoe
armaturecarrying the silk-covered copper wire. In operation it allowed an external
electromagnet to support about 15 kg and could display vivid sparks. An alternative
armature (with wire over one thousand metres long) allowed the external electromag-
net to support 100 kg and could demonstrate violent sparks, provide painful shocks,
diverge gold leaves of a 'voltacondensor' (electroscope), and with the reversing switch,
could rapidly decompose acidulated water into its constituents hydrogen and oxygen.
Despite its credit-worthiness, Amprre did not allow Hachette's announcement to
pass without reminding fellow Academicians that it was he who had first suggested the
idea of a reversing switch (the bascule) to Pixii in connection with his early
electromagnetic experiments. Even so, Pixii had conjoined an established technical
principle with the new physical phenomenon. Appreciating this step as being genuinely
inventive, Hachette encouraged him to submit the machine for the Academy's
Montyon prize for mechanics. Thus it was, on 26 November 1832 at a special s~ance
publique, that Pixii presented his new machine before the jurors (Prony, Girard, Arago,
Navier, and Hachette himself). Their approbation followed and Pixii was awarded the
Montyon gold medal and prize of 300 francs. 16
15See footnote 12. Preservedin the Ronalds Collection,Archivesof the Institute of ElectricalEngineers,
London.
16Hachette in Pixii (footnote 12),p. 19.
108 B. Gee
Within a year of Faraday's failed machine, or, more appropriately here, within only
a matter of weeks of intensive development, the ingenious Parisian instrument maker
had created an entirely new product for the scientific market. The demand was
immediate, with commissions coming from the l~cole Polytechnique and the University
Faculty of Medicine. According to a pamphlet issued by the Pixii establishment at the
beginning of 1833,17 four versions of the machine were available: one spectacular
(similar to the one presented to the Academy whose magnet could carry 100 kg) listed at
F 1 200; two of modest size (one similar to that sold to the l~cole Polytechnique whose
magnet could carry 60 kg), priced at F 700; another (similar to that sold to the Faculty
of Medicine whose magnet could carry 30 kg), priced at F 500; and the smallest (which
could not decompose water but, as a philosophical toy, provided entertainment with
shocks and sparks in the tradition of physique amusante), priced at F 180. Two years
later this same range became the basis of an entirely new section in the Pixii general
catalogue, is
3. Joseph Saxton and the Adelaide Gallery magnet

Not far behind Pixii in these developments was Joseph Saxton, a versatile American
who had ventured to England late in 1831 in order to widen his practical experience. 19
Back home in Philadelphia he had proved his engineering competence through a
variety of innovatory devices. 2~ Saxton's partner and former master, the clockmaker
Isiah Lukens, had made an earlier expedition to London for the purpose of seeking out
new markets. Therefore links between engineering fraternities on both sides of the
Atlantic were well-established. 21 Thus, when Saxton arrived, sometime during the
winter of 1831-32, he quickly met Jacob Perkins, an American engineer resident in
London and known to Saxton through a common friend, Coleman Sellers; also
Thomas Gill, Lukens's London agent, perhaps better remembered today as the editor
of the Technical Repository. These contacts were instrumental in securing his
introduction to the circle of civil engineers who were then setting up the Adelaide
Gallery of Practical Science, an altogether new metropolitan venture that wanted to
provide a public face for engineering practitioners with a bent for applying science.
Thus, through the Gallery's proprietors, Saxton was commissioned to make a large
permanent magnet for display in the new Gallery.
Saxton was well qualified to carry out this task. Shortly after completing the
Independence Hall clock in Philadelphia in 1824, for which he gained a Franklin
Institute silver medal, another member of the group of keen philosopher-mechanics
centred upon the Franklin Institute, Franklin Peale, had built a large magnet for the
Philadelphia Museum. Forging the ironwork was a routine matter but the technique of
energizing it required the know-how of Lukens to perform the task. The process would
have been long and tedious and it is likely, although not known with certainty, that
Saxton would have had a hand in this operation. Certainly he knew the art before
17Pixii (footnote 12), pp. 3-4.

18Pixii,p~reet ills(successeursde Dumotiez),Catalogue des Principaux Instruments de Physique, Chimie,
Optique, Math~matique (Paris, 1835),passim.
19Biographical accounts of the life and work of Joseph Saxton, except for the London period, are
generally well-documentedin Dictionary of Scientific Biography and elsewhere.Material employedhere is
derived froman unpublished typescriptby A. H. Frazier,'Joseph Saxton in London' (1972),and the Joseph
Saxton Papers (Record Unit 7056),both in the Archives of the Smithsonian Institution.
20A. H. Frazier, 'Joseph Saxton', Smithsonian Journal of History, 3 (1968),45-76.
21Isiah Lukens(1779-1846)was vice-presidentof the Franklin Institute fromits foundationto his death,
except for the years spent abroad (1826-1829).Journal of the Franklin Institute, 42 (1846),423-5.
coming to London. The Philadelphia magnet was 43 inches around its outer rim (in
traditional horseshoe fashion), its weight was 53 pounds, and it was capable of lifting
310 pounds. 22 Saxton's goal was to build something similar but on a grander scale. The
London magnet, when finished in April 1832, comprised eight compounded plates,
some 62 inches around the external perimeter, with a lifting power exceeding that of the
Philadelphia magnet.
It was during the time that Saxton was manufacturing the Adelaide Gallery magnet
that Faraday's rotating disc machine and induction ring experiment were becoming
known among devotees and instrument makers alike. 23 Saxton is known to have
witnessed Faraday's demonstrations at the Royal Institution from the evidence of
letters sent to Lukens. On 14 April 1832 he wrote of how Faraday had produced
magneto-electricity with the revolving disc machine, and how he himself had managed
the induction effect with a coil, bar magnet, and galvanometer.24 More interesting in
the present context was the message contained in a second letter, dated 11 May 1832, in
which it appears that the magnet under construction was finding a new purpose.
Saxton writes:
Since my last, I have heard of a method of producing a spark from a magnet,
discovered, I believe by an Italian. This experiment I made at once upon a large
horseshoe magnet which I am making for Mr Perkins and his partners. One of
your large magnets will answer the same purpose. Make a cylinder of soft iron of
an inch, or three-fourths of an inch in diameter, and of the usual length of the
keeper; place two discs of brass or wood upon this cylinder, and at such a distance
apart that will conveniently pass between the poles of the magnet; between these
wind, say fifty feet of bobbin wire which may be of iron covered with cotton; let
the ends of this coil be bent over the ends of the cylinders and brought down until
they touch the poles of the magnet. The ends should be of such a length that on
bringing the cylinder to the magnet, one of the ends will touch when the cylinder is
about half an inch from the magnet, and the other at one-fourth inch. The
cylinder being thus arranged, and in contact with the magnet, on drawing it
suddenly away, a spark will pass between the end of the wire and the pole of the
magnet.25
Of course, Lukens would find no difficulty in interpreting Saxton's specifications:
the language is that of a philosopher-mechanic spreading know-how. Indeed Saxton's
letters were of sufficient importance as a primary source of intelligence about Faraday's
experiments for A. D. Bache, President of the Franklin Institute, to arrange for the
relevant extracts to be published in the Institute's Journal. In other words, the
intelligence was passed from philosopher-mechanic to philosopher-mechanic before
reaching the scholar-scientists--a route entirely the converse of that by which Pixii had
acquired his insight.
22 Franklin Peale, 'Notice of a large magnet', Journal of the Franklin Institute, 6 (1830), 284.
23 Reports of Faraday's public demonstrations at the Royal Institution were reported in the Literary
Gazette, No. 788, 25 February 1832, p. 119, and No. 791, 17 March 1832, p. 169.
24 Report of Saxton's letter to Lukens in A. D. Bache, 'Notice of some electro-magnetic experiments',
Journal of the Franklin Institute, 10 (1832), 66.
2s A. D. Bathe, 'Description of a revolving keeper magnet, for producing electric currents by J. Saxton',
Journal of the Franklin Institute, 13 (1834), 155~.
110 B. Gee
Other evidence from Saxton's diary shows how, on 2 May, he devised a spark
apparatus with a lever attachment for releasing the permanent magnet. The entry for
the following day reads: 26
May 3, 1832
Showed the experiment to Professor Ritchie, T. Gill, J. I. Hawkins and Mr
Whitwell.
William Ritchie, Professor of Experimental Philosophy at the University (now
University College, London), was impressed and immediately requested Saxton to
show the spark before an audience there. Other entries reveal how Saxton eventually
met Faraday at the Royal Institution, and how this success with the spark apparatus
led to his demonstrating it at Kensington Palace before those gathered for one of the
Duke of Sussex's 'Conversation Parties'. 27
Throughout June, Saxton perfected the trick of igniting gunpowder by the spark,
and later of firing a mortar by this means. This last spectacle was the kind of piece de
thkdttre that the public had come to expect through the hourly explosions of Perkins's
steam gun at the Adelaide Gallery. The mechanism for performing this trick was a
fanciful addition and presented no technical problems; the means of obtaining bigger
sparks from the magnet, however, was problematical. One obvious answer was to make
the magnet stronger. Four plates were added, making twelve in all, which after re-
energizing could support a total load of about 525 pounds, that is, some 70~o stronger
than the Philadelphia great magnet. Yet the spark remained obstinate. Finally, the
solution came from a consideration of the 'bonnet wire' employed in winding the
original coil. Using four strands, instead of a single strand, the re-wound coil gave the
desired effect. By trial and error Saxton had altered the conductivity and hence the
resistance of the coil, although he did not recognize this in a theoretical sense. 28 The
new arrangement was delivered to the Gallery on 28 September 1832 and was received,
according to his Diary, 'much to the satisfaction of the proprietors'. 29
There was certainly no competitive race between Saxton and his counterpart across
the Channel. Whether or not Saxton learned of Pixii's spark-producing trials from a
friend, or whether he developed ideas independently, remains a detail yet to be decided.
What is known, however, is that by 6 December 1832 Saxton had sketched in his
scrapbook the arrangement he intended to build and, alongside the sketch, had written:
'... and if it operates as I expect it will, sparks will be seen...' (Figure 5). 30 Shortly
afterwards he learned that he was not alone in such an endeavour. His Diary reveals:
December 18, 1832.
Tuesday, at 22 Sussex Street. This morning I met Doct. Ritchie at the door. After
some conversation I proposed to show him the plan I had contrived to get the full
effect of a magnet in producing a spark, but he declined seeing it, and said he was
at something of the kind himself.
26All extracts quoted from Saxton's diary are derived from Frazier (footnote 19).
27Ibid.
28Although Ohm had published his now classic research on electrical conductivitysome five years
previously,it was little known in Britain and neither accepted nor understood. See B. Gee, 'Georg Simon
Ohm', Physics Education, 4 (1969), 106-13.
29Saxton's diary entry for 28 September 1832,see Frazier (footnote 19).
30Joseph Saxton Papers, Smithsonian Archives(footnote 19).
Figure 5. Facsimile from Saxton's Scrapbook (1834). Courtesy of the Smithsonian Institution
Archives.
112 B. Gee
"r.
~ o ., []Wt~M]tIII
~ , ~
1 Iitt' !' I" II

~J~:,',"~'~':,~~", ~s~.,~tt!l!
j:'" . . 1.tttlJffflttlf
. . . II. . tilt
. l',Illt]
. ~t~i, ~i,;:l~,t~J~J,Itf:l~tfl,lltlt~.:
(a)
.7"~I .g
T,j r
t'
-P,-. _i
g7 ~
l '..~ .... ,-~ 1

(b)
Figure 6. The Saxton machine: (a) as originally displayed (1833); (b) with double armature
(1835).
Ritchie's position, mentioned here in passing only, but worthy of further study, is of
interest although the tardy presentation of his spark apparatus does not allow him any
priority. Before succeeding Dionysius Lardner at the University, he had studied in
France under J.-B. Biot, whose appreciation of electromagnetism was second to none,
save perhaps Amprre's. His interests in electrical science are apparent from a paper
read before the Royal Society on 21 March 1833, in which he makes the following point:
After... the mode of obtaining a spark from a common magnet by the method of
SS. Nobili and Antinori pointed out, I clearly perceived the mode of obtaining a
current of electricity, almost continuous, by the revolving apparatus I am going to
describe. Though the apparatus was partly constructed nine months ago, yet the
laborious duties of my profession prevented me from completing it until very

recently. 31
This undoubtedly was the 'something of the kind' recorded by Saxton on 18
December (above). It is not clear whether Ritchie produced a magneto-electric machine
before Saxton or vice versa, but Ritchie did not demonstrate his machine until much
later. Certainly, it was not until June 1833, that is a full six months after Pixii's declared
success, that Saxton indicated satisfaction with his machine. The relevant entry in the
diary then reveals:
June 20, 1833
Made a trial of the new arrangement of the Magneto-Electric Machine. Found it
to surpass expectations. It produces a continuous spark and so much of a shock
to the tongue and lips that it is impossible to bear it for any length of time.
Thus, with the 'new arrangement' in working order it was promptly taken to
Cambridge for exhibition at the third annual meeting of the British Association. On its
return, and after some further modification to provide a unidirectional (pulsed) current,
it was installed as one of the Adelaide Gallery's prime exhibits. A version of this is
illustrated in Figure 6 (a). 32 Later, after January 1835, Saxton arranged a double pair of
coils, for intensity and quantity as shown in Figure 6 (b). 33 The latter, which could
provide the usual run of sparks and shocks as well as decomposing water, was soon
available for purchase from the instrument makers, Watkins & Hill, at a cost of twelve
guineas. 34
4. N e w s across the Atlantic

First-hand news of the younger Pixii and his machine was brought to America by
Charles T. Jackson and was announced in Silliman's American Journal of Science in a
communication dated 25 December 1832 (although not published until April 1833).
Jackson writes:
While in Paris, I examined, with Mr Pixii, a new instrument lately invented by his
son. It may be called a Magneto-electric machine. As Mr Pixii deposited a
3~W. Ritchie, 'Experimental researches in electro-magnetismand magneto-electricity',Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society, London, 123 (1833), 313-21 (p. 320).
32Illustration in Saxton's scrapbook according to Frazier (footnote 19),p. 22a.
33Ibid., p. 22; describedby Saxtonin a letter to Lukens and communicatedby A. D. Bache,'Description
of a revolvingkeepermagnet, for producingelectricalcurrents', Journal of the Franklin Institute, 13 (1834),
155-6.
3,*Watkins & Hill, Catalogue of Optical, Mathematicaland Philosophical Instruments(London, 1836and
1838), p. 86.
114 B. Gee
description of this machine in the Academy of Sciences, I have the right to g_ive
you some account of it. This machine is a curious invention destined to show the
identity of electricity and magnetism, and may, perhaps, in the course of time,
supersede the use of the c o m m o n electric machine and galvanic pile. 35
The machine seen by Jackson was the prototype mentioned earlier. Appended to
this announcement was an account of the editor's (Silliman's) own experiments on
sparks and shocks carried out in the laboratories at Yale University. 36 Silliman had
saved up two other papers on this new subject: one by John P. Emmett explaining the
new technology of producing 'magnetic galvanism', and the other, a translation of
Amprre's paper on the Pixii machine, by Oliver P. Hubbard: 37 These were the first
papers to appear in the United States on the new phenomena.

By his own admission, it was the publication of these papers that caused Joseph
Henry to return to the study of electromagnetism, a subject that he had put aside while
settling into his new appointment at Princeton University. Commenting on these
papers in a letter to SiUiman, dated 18 April 1833, he wrote:
The facts developed are all except one in accordance with my previous notions on
dynamic action of the electric principle as exhibited in Magnetic and Galvanic
phenomina [sic]. The only one which appears surprising to me is that which you
mention of a flash being observed between the lifter and the poles of the large
Galvanic magnet. I am entirely at a loss to conceive how the magnetic action in
that case would produce induction as an electric current. The subject deserves
investigation as it may lead to some new principle of electric and magnetic
action. 38
Indeed, it was this subject that caused Henry to tread a path that ultimately led to
the concept of self-induction. This aspect is not elaborated here.
Although Silliman's Journal was the first source of information on the new
phenomena available to scholar-scientists like Henry, it should be remembered that it
was not the first source for members of the Franklin Institute. They already had news of
the spark, but not of Pixii's machine, through Saxton's communications to Lukens.
Lukens was secretary of the Institute and, therefore, in easy communication with the
eminent A. D. Bache, who was president. In turn, the free exchange of information
between Silliman and Bache would have aided the percolation of practical experience
to readers of the American Journal o f Science. In any event Silliman would have
commenced his Yale experiments as a result of communications received in this
manner. 39
A further communication from Saxton to Lukens, dated 15 August 1833, and
therefore written sometime after his drbut with the magneto-electric machine at the
3~C. T. Jackson, 'Notice of the RevolvingElectric Magnet of M. Pixii', American Journal of Science, 24
(1834), 103.
36Silliman's addendum to Jackson 0834), ibid., 103.
37j. p. Emmett, 'A new mode of developingmagneticgalvanismby which may be obtained shocks, vivid
sparks and galvaniccurrents from a horse-shoemagnet', American Journal of Science, 24 (1834), 77-86; O. P.
Hubbard (translator), 'Communicationsto the Academyof Sciences upon an experimentof M. Pixii relative
to a current produced by Rotation of a Magnet with an Improved Apparatus', American Journal of Science,
24 (1834), 144-5.
as N. Reingold, The Papers of Joseph Henry, 4 vols (Washington D.C.), n (1975), p. 64.
39B. Sinclair, Philadelphia's Philosopher Mechanics: A History of the Franklin Institute 1824-1865
(Baltimore, 1974), passim.
Cambridge meeting of the British Association, contained details of its design and
construction. 4~ This time the letter was transmitted via Rembrandt Peale, another
member of the renowned Philadelphian family then visiting London. From this
information Lukens began to manufacture machines for devotees within the local
group. These were ready early in the New Year and Henry was informed of their
availability through Jacob Green, Professor of Chemistry at the Jefferson Memorial
College. Green writes:
1-13 February 1834] Mr Lukens has just finished 6 of Mr Saxton's Electro
Magnetic Machines for sparks, shocks, &c. Bache, Hare, Gummery, Banker, &
myself have each taken one. They are 30 dollars each. I promised Lukens to write
to know if you wanted the remaining one, and he says he will make no more at
that price. So if you want it you can drop a line. 41
In reply, on 17 February 1834, Henry (prompted also to discuss the various
contrivances then in use for his regenerated p r o g r a m m e of electromagnetic research)
added:
Give my respects to my friend Lukens & tell him that ifI can raise money from the
trustees at their next meeting for an increase of the apparatus I will purchase the
remaining machine but do not let him lose the opportunity of selling it on my
account. 42
As it turned out, Henry did not buy the surplus machine. 43 Bache, however,
delighted with the performance of his machine, decided that Saxton's letter to Lukens
should (as previously) become common knowledge through the Journal of the Franklin
Institute. This appeared in March 1834 and remains the only source of technical detail
written by Saxton himself. 44
Meanwhile Lukens began constructing another magneto-electric machine accord-
ing to Saxton's letter. ' M r Isiah Lukens', wrote Green, 'with his usual ingenuity, has
converted the immense artificial magnet belonging to the Philadelphia Museum into
an apparatus for producing electrical currents'. 45 This was the magnet that he had
energized for the elder Peale back in 1824. With the assistance of yet another member of
that prominent family, Titian R. Peale, Lukens set out to provide the e x p e c t e d
repertoire of experiments, including the spark, the fusion of metals, the ignition of
inflammable bodies, the decomposition of water, the shock, the effect on a galvano-
meter and electrometer, and finally, the induction of magnetism in a soft-iron bar. Some
of the effects were startling indeed, while others were less successful. In particular, a
shock, administered between the upper lip and tongue to an un-named person causing
the facial muscles to contract convulsively, allowed Green to remark that the machine
40Frazier (footnote 19), pp. 28, 18.

41 Reingold (footnote 38), pp. 158-9. One of these machines is preserved at the Franklin Institute
Museum, Philadelphia.
42Ibid., pp. 164-5.
4a Ibid., 165n. Henry did not own a magneto-electricmachine until he purchased one from the London
instrument maker E. M. Clarke during his European tour in 1837. He did, nevertheless, experiment
extensively with a Saxton-type machine that he may have borrowed.
44Bache (footnote 25), pp. 153~4.
45j. Green, 'Account of some experiments made with Mr Jos. Saxton's Electro-magnetic machine',
Journal of the FranklinInstitute, 13 (1834), 219-22.
116 B. Gee
might be used with advantage for medical treatments in place of the common electrical
machine. Compared with his own efforts using the smaller machine made by Lukens,
Green concluded that the Museum's great magnet had not yet been used to its full
potential.
A report of these tests was written up for the Journal of the Franklin Institute in
April 1834 and speedily reprinted in London in the Mechanics Magazine in May 1834.
Thus it appears that intelligence of Saxton's machine had to travel both ways across the
Atlantic before practitioners in Britain had the benefit of his ingenuity.46
5. Saxton and the Literary Gazette affray

No account of the first public appearance of Saxton's magneto-electric machine at
the British Association exhibition at Cambridge in 1833 is printed in the Association's

Report, although S. T. Coleridge, who was present, spoke with equal enthusiasm of
Faraday's 'discovery of the inductive electrical effects of magnetism' and of 'the
ingenious invention of Mr Saxton by which the transient electrical currents might
exhibit their effects in so brilliant and powerful a manner'. 47 Not all commentators,
however, held such a fair balance between the achievements of discovery and invention.
Seemingly, values and intentions were otherwise for Mary Somerville who was just
then completing her magnum opus on unity in the physical sciences, a thesis in which she
gladly seized upon Faraday's discovery of electromagnetic induction as supporting
evidence. 48
There is, in Somerville's writing, a perceived hierarchy in which Saxton's invention
is presented simply to magnify the name of Faraday as discoverer. Consider, for
instance, the following paragraph with which she concludes a precise description of
Saxton's machine:
Thus by rotation of the armature, the circuit is alternately broken and renewed;
and as it is only at these moments that electric action is manifested, a brilliant
spark takes place every time the copper point touches the surface of the mercury.
Platina wire is ignited, shocks smart enough to be disagreeable are given, and
water is decomposed with astonishing rapidity, by the same means, which proves
beyond a doubt the identity of the magnetic and electric agencies, and places Mr
Faraday, whose experiments established this principle, in the first rank of
experimental philosophers. 49
It was all very well to exalt the name of Faraday but, in the view of one reader, her
omission of Saxton's name in the quoted passage was not to pass by without comment.
In a letter to the Mechanics Magazine, the same issue in which a drawing of Saxton's
machine appeared for the first time, s~ 'an esteemed correspondent' wrote:
Mrs Somerville has acted not very handsomely in describing Mr Saxton's
magneto-electric apparatus in as much as she has omitted all mention of that
46 Idem, reprinted in Mechanics Magazine, 21 (1834), 333 5.

47Cited in J. Henry, 'Memoirs of Joseph Saxton, 1799 1873' [read 4 October 1874], Biographical
Memoirs (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1877), p. 299.
4a M. Somerville, On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences (London, 1834), a seminal work which ran
into ten editions.
49 Ibid., 1834, pp. 339-40.
50 An illustration of the Saxton machine owned by J. Rutter appears on the title page of the Mechanics
Magazine, issue for 3 May 1834, and an account appears therein, 21 (1834), pp. 65-6. Rutter's own machine
was donated to the Science M u s e u m (London) by his grandson, H. F. Rutter, in 1929.
gentleman's name and spoken as though it were merely an improvement on Mr

Faraday's methods and put forward in detraction of his I-Saxton's] justly
acquired fame. 51
In the view of this correspondent, so it seems, Saxton had been passed over by one
who clearly did not appreciate the etiquette of acknowledging the first person to
demonstrate the effect with an invention of his own design. 52 Continuing to admonish
Mrs Somerville for her omission, the writer added:
It was by its means that Mr Saxton was the first person--in this country at least--
to elicit the first spark from the magnet alone, while Mr Faraday, however 'easy'
it may appear to Mrs Somerville, was unsuccessful in all his efforts to accomplish
that point. The 'proof of identity of magnetic and electric fluids by producing the
spark was incomplete till it was exhibited by means of this apparatus. Mr
Faraday expressed himself highly pleased with it, when it was shown at
Cambridge, and has never manifested aught that is contrary to the kind and
generous feelings congenial to his character, and so becoming of a man of
science.53
It is interesting to enquire who this esteemed correspondent who bolstered Saxton's
standing might have been. Certainly it was a daring act to rebuke one of London's
scientific and literary figures. To posit an answer it is necessary to return to an
accusation that took place shortly after the magneto-electric machine had been
installed in the Adelaide Gallery.
The editor of the London Literary Gazette had then pointed his quill in Saxton's
direction, seemingly in an attempt to stir up gossip concerning who had been the first to
obtain and demonstrate the spark. As already mentioned, a dispute had broken out
earlier on this matter. 54 Faraday had obtained the spark 'in a particular case' but had
been preceded by Nobili and Antinori in demonstrating it. Some unfortunate prior
reporting of the Italian success in the Literary Gazette led to confusion, which Faraday
had feared might diminish his standing. Despite his attempts, and those of his friend
J. D. Forbes, to 'correct' subsequent statements, the problem of priority persisted well
into 1833. The following Literary Gazette extract, from the issue for 3 August 1833,
shows how the matter still raged and contains a hint that Saxton was trying to usurp
credit that was justly Faraday's. 55 It ran:
The following notice is now running the round of newspapers:
'who steals my purse steals trash'
Important Discovery in Science!--We understand that Mr Saxton, who first
produced the electric spark from a magnet, and thus proved the great affinity, if
not the identity, of electricity and magnetism, has just had his labours crowned
with success with another brilliant discovery--the decomposition of water by
magnetism.
51 'An esteemed correspondent', Mechanics Magazine, 21 (1834), 96.

52 It is known that Mary Somerville always requested several 'dignatories' to read through written-up
paragraphs before the completion of her task. E. C. Patterson, 'The Case of Mary Somerville', Proceedings of
the American Philosophical Society, 118(1974),269 75. Ifthe 'esteemed correspondent' had been aware ofthis
he may have been angered all the more that Saxton should have been 'passed over'!
53 'An esteemed correspondent' (footnote 51).
54Gee (footnote 10).
55 Literary Gazette, No. 864 (1833), 490.
118 B. Gee
The history of the magnetic electric spark is simply this:

Mr Faraday first obtained it by means of an electric magnet; Nobili and Antinori,
having learned what Faraday had done, next obtained it from induction by a
common magnet. Mr Forbes, shortly after, obtained it by induction from a
powerful natural magnet. Mr Saxton made a powerful magnet, and of course
obtained it exactly as Signori Nobili and Antinori had described it in the Annales
de Chimie. Dr Ritchie next applied the lever to separate the lifter by a sudden jerk,
and thus increased the brilliancy of the spark; the spark being made to strike offin
the interior of a glass tube, and detonate a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen. Mr
Saxton then applied the lever to his large magnet. Pixii of Paris by a powerful
revolving magnet first obtained chemical decomposition and that too of water.
Mr Saxton has merely repeated his experiments. How such a gross falsehood
should find its way into the public papers, in the very country where the spark was
first obtained, seems to us somewhat of a mystery! We shall be happy to insert any
communication from Mr Saxton, vindicating his claims to these brilliant
discoveries.
The innocent American, not accustomed to the inner wheelings and dealings of
London society and preferring recognition through exhibition rather than publication,
was cornered in an unfair challenge. Nevertheless, the next issue of the Literary Gazette
contained his enforced reply: 56
August 7, 1833
To the Editor of the Literary Gazette
Sir,
I have been much surprised at seeing the manner in which you have
introduced my name into your report of the meeting at Cambridge. Now, as I
have never directly or indirectly said anything that could lead any persons to
believe that I claimed being the first to produce the spark from a magnet, I must
request that you will take the earliest opportunity to correct the ill feeling towards
me that your remarks are so well calculated to produce. With regard to the article
you allude to, as going the rounds of the newspapers, I can only say that I have
never seen it before, nor have I any knowledge of where it came from. I only
shewed the decomposition of water as a thing not before done in London. The
only thing that I claim is new is the particular arrangement of the parts of the
machine with which I produced the decomposition of water; and as it was
contrived without any knowledge of what Pixiis [sic] had done, and believing it
to be a far superior machine to his, or any that has yet been made, I shall continue
to claim it until it is shewn that a similar one has been made before.
I am etc.
J. Saxton.
This letter is absolute. Saxton claimed priority only on the matter of being the first
in London to demonstrate the decomposition of water by this means; there was no
pretension whatsoever on the matter of the magneto-electric spark.

Who then had suggested that the magnetic spark was Saxton's rightful priority?
Could it be the very same person as the 'esteemed correspondent' who had risen to his
defence in the Mechanics Magazine? Consider the following evidence now available
from Saxton's diary: 57
June 7, 1832 At 22 Sussex Street.
At work at the magnet. Was called upon by Mr Watkins. Had some conversation
on the subject of magnetism. He seems to take great interest in my getting the
credit of first getting the spark from the magnet in England--for what notion I do
not know--however time will show whether it is love of justice or to provide
enmity to other parties.
Francis Watkins, the well-known Charing Cross instrument maker, had made that
personal visit only three days after the gala opening of the Adelaide Gallery at which
the magneto-electric spark was demonstrated before an invited audience, including
Faraday. Of course, J. D. Forbes's success in Scotland and that of Nobili-Antinori in
Italy were known; neither of these, however, mattered in terms of a national priority for
England. It is interesting to note that although Faraday, according to his diary, had
actually obtained the spark from the Gowin Knight steel magnet on 8 February 1832 at
Woolwich, he did not demonstrate it publicly until 11 May. 58 Saxton, however, as
described earlier, had demonstrated the spark, first privately before Ritchie, Gill, and
Hawkins on 2 May, and then again, in response to Ritchie's request, publicly on 8 May
1832 at the University, that is, three days prior to Faraday at the Royal Institution. 59
Therefore it would appear that Watkins was perfectly correct in his suspicion and claim
for priority on behalf of the reticent Saxton. Here then seems to be the source of dispute
and also the identity of the 'esteemed correspondent', author of the above-cited letter in
the Mechanics Magazine.
The injustice, as far as Watkins was concerned, remained a matter to be resolved.
Saxton, however, claimed only that he had worked independently of Pixii and that he
believed his to be a 'superior machine' to Pixii's. Cleverly, the dispute was then shifted
from being the matter of priority in demonstration to a vindication that his machine
was indeed superior to Pixii's. On such 'home ground' Saxton had no fears of any
challenge; the sturdy device that had won him admiration at Cambridge would not fail.
Until this time no one in England had seen a Pixii machine and therefore proving
the superiority of the Saxton machine first entailed procuring such a machine. Watkins,
clearly bent on affirming Saxton's position, set about the task of finding a Pixii
machine, eventually obtaining one via the Count di Predivalli. A special soirre was then
arranged for 14 November at the Adelaide Gallery where the two machines, Pixii's and
Saxton's, could be compared for design and performance.
November 14 arrived, and among the distinguished guests present for the evening's
proceedings were Faraday, Richard Phillips, Dionysius Lardner, J. F. Daniell,
William H. Pepys, Edward Turner, Henry Moseley, and 'a host of other scientific
57Frazier (footnote 19).

58Gee (footnote 10),61.
59These dates are determined from Saxton's diary in Frazier (footnote 19).
120 B. Gee
gentlemen'. 6~ The outcome of this event was reported in the 'Arts and Sciences' column
of the Literary Gazette two days later:
National Gallery of Practical Science, Adelaide St.
14 Nov 33--A steel magnet, brought to this country by the Count di Predivalli,
and arranged by Mr Pixii of Paris, was first exhibited under the surveillance of Mr
Watkins of Charing Cross. This magnet, which is placed vertically, is made to
revolve beneath an armature of soft iron, which is stationary; and it very rapidly
decomposed water. First in a single tube, hydrogen gas being evolved from one
wire connected with one pole of the armature, while oxygen gas was given off at
the other, precisely as when the elements of water are disunited by galvanic
agency. The mixed gases were then reconverted into water by the electric spark
after the usual manner. Water was next decomposed, and the elements received in
two tubes; and it was observed that the proportions were, as near as possible, two
to one, affording another proof of polar decomposition. We were next favoured
with an experiment quite new in this country, namely, that of charging a Leyden
jar with magneto-electricity; the truth of which was made evident by the aid of a
delicate electroscope, the gold leaves of which very sensibly diverged.
Mr Saxton then proceeded to operate with the large magnet constructed by
him for the gallery. This magnet is arranged horizontally and fixed, the armature
being made to rotate. This splendid apparatus attracted the universal admiration
of the scientific company present, not only from the beautiful and extraordinary
effects produced by it, but also from its very superior mechanical arrangement. It
gave powerful shocks, brilliant sparks, heated a platinum wire red hot, and
decomposed water; but the experimenter was not so fortunate in charging the jar
as in the the former instance, although there seems to be no doubt that it is
capable of being affected by this magnet.
Mr Faraday, who was the first to discover magneto-electricity, was present
the whole evening, and it must have been extremely gratifying to that gentleman
to have seen the facts of his new science so strikingly demonstrated. 61
The last sentence yet again reflects Faraday's aristocratic position in the scientific
hierarchy. The important detail, however, was the success of Saxton's machine which
was, indeed, a 'very superior mechanical arrangement' despite its lack of success with
the unexpected Leyden jar test. No further improvements were made to the machine
until two years later, when a double armature was added, thus integrating the 'quantity'
(that is, large current) and 'intensity' (that is, high tension) features.
Just eleven days after the soir6e and possibly in response to queries raised by
Watkins at the soir6e, a short note (dated 25 November 1833) bearing upon the subject
arrived at the Charing Cross workshop directly from the Royal Institution. In it
Faraday tells Watkins:
I first obtained the spark with a common magnet (i.e. Dr Knights) at Woolwich 8
Feby 1832 and next day [,] i.e. on the 9th from Mr Daniell's loadstone. The
original spark is referred to in my first paper of date Novr 1831 [i.e. the Royal
Society read paper]. 62
6oF. Watkins, Philosophical Maqazine, 6 (1835),239.

62This note was listed amongthe archivesof Elliott Brothers(successorsto Messrs Watkins & Hill)and
now subsumedby FisherControl Ltd (Lewisbam,London).It was not located on my visit,but is reprintedin
'Instrument Making for Faraday', Instrument Practice (November, 1948),n.p.
The early development o f the magneto-electric machine 121
No mention is made, or, indeed, is necessary to be made of his demonstration of the

spark at the Royal Institution on 11 May which fell after that of Saxton's. Hence it is
implicit and correct that Saxton should have received due recognitition, as Watkins
seemingly wished, for being the first to demonstrate publicly the spark on English soil.
6. The manufacture of E. M. Clarke's machine

To summarize: by the mid-1830s interest in the new machine had spread from Paris
to other major European towns and also, as described earlier, across the Atlantic to
Philadelphia. At the beginning of 1833 the first price list for these machines had been
issued by the Pixii workshop. In London, William Ritchie claimed to have independ-
ently conceived of a rotary apparatus for the production on continuous sparks soon
after reading the Nobili-Antinori paper although he did not complete the task until
well after Pixii's success. Saxton, too, had the basic idea by December 1832 but did not
exhibit his machine proper until the summer of 1833. Also in London the philosophical
instrument maker, John Newman, a privileged supplier to the Royal Institution, made
at least one machine by the end of November 1833 after seeing Saxton's at the Adelaide
Gallery. 63 Thereafter he manufactured others, generally known as 'Saxton's machines'
because of their copied design, which were sold abroad. 64 Similarly in Philadelphia,
Lukens made an initial half-dozen 'Saxton machines' after receiving details directly
from Saxton in the final quarter of 1833. Meanwhile the Pixiis (p6re et ills) continued to
flourish in this new departure, devoting an entire section of their 1835 trade catalogue
to it. 65 Likewise, one of the largest dealers in philosophical apparatus in London,
Messrs Watkins & Hill, introduced magneto-electric machines into their 1836
catalogue although they had already begun to trade in Saxton's machines in the
previous year.
Active in this phase of technological development was Edward M a r m a d u k e Clarke,
a Dublin-trained instrument maker who had left his native Ireland to take up a position
as skilled mechanic at Watkins & Hill some time early in 1833. 66 From the moment of
his arrival in London he had avidly followed Faraday's developments and had taken a
particular interest in Saxton's machine. His commitment to the concept of the machine
and its possibilities m a y be traced to the Autumn of 1833 when his employer, Francis
Watkins, procured a Pixii machine. When it arrived at the workshop it was to Clarke
that it was entrusted for repair and preparation for the forthcoming soir6e at the
Adelaide Gallery when it was to be compared with Saxton's. Here was the origin of his
intimacy with the machine, its principles, its comparative strengths, and its weaknesses.
N o doubt he was also aware of its commercial potential in the medical field.
At this juncture it is worth stating that Clarke was an ambitious man with
seemingly strong aspirations to run his own business. When he left Dublin he was
already in business and, reputedly, a leading light of the Mechanics' Institute there. 67
63An extant Newman magneto-electricmachine of the Clarke pattern is kept in the collection of the
Royal Institution (London).
64See the text associated with footnote 79.
65Pixii Catalogue (1835); see footnote 18.
66Prior to his arrival in London, E. M. Clarke had a connection with Richard Speare of Dublin. For Irish
instrument makers generally, see J. E. Burnett and A. D. Morrison-Low, "Vulgar and Mechanick': The
Scientific Instrument Trade in Ireland 1650-1921 (Dublin and Edinburgh, 1989), pp. 49-50.
67For example,see Anon. [W. White], Handbook of the Royal Panopticon of Science and Arts (London,
1854), passim.
122 B. Gee
Furthermore, he had already exhibited at the Kings Mews Gallery before George
Birkbeck's adjudicative eye, about the time that Faraday made his momentous
discovery of electromagnetic induction. 68 Birkbeck was the founder of the London
Mechanics Institute and much respected promoter of the Mechanics Institute
movement. Clarke's spirit was at all times opportunistic--the tangible evidence of
which comes through accounts of his improvements and displays of the magneto-
electric machine and later the oxyhydrogen microscope. The circumstances surround-
ing his rise to eminence as resident manger of the Royal Panopticon of Science adds
further testimony to his ambitious character.
From the instrument maker's standpoint, the most significant outcome of
electrodynamics in the late 1820s had been the possibility of powered rotary motion
(i.e. the electric motor). 69 Although not yet distinguished properly in the sense of a
technology, it was perceived by Watkins to be a domain ripe for development. Clarke
describes how, from the moment he arrived at the Watkins & Hill establishment, he was
engaged by the proprietor in experiments to find ways of producing 'locomotion by
means of electricity'. 7~ The production of magneto-electricity was something quite
different. The possibility of the magneto-electric machine replacing the obnoxious
chemical battery for 'quantity' and the common electric machine for 'intensity' was no
doubt discussed at the Adelaide Gallery soirre described earlier. Ideas of this nature
certainly seeded Clarke's imagination and led to his setting up in business on his own
within only months of joining Watkins & Hill.
In London at this time Newman and Watkins were the principal providers of
philosophical apparatus. Newman's business was not large, nor did he specialize in
electrical apparatus, although he had built a few such items. By contrast, Watkins was
keen on all electrical developments and had written a book on the subject of
electrodynamics in 1828. 71 Moreover, he had befriended Saxton on his arrival in
Britain and, as has already been seen, had volunteered his support at times. Seen in
retrospect it would appear that Clarke had shrewdly weighed up the viability of the new
machine before resigning from Watkins & Hill's employment. Throughout the latter
part of 1834 and for most of 1835, he was intensively involved in the problem of how to
improve the machine. Faraday had written nothing in this period that might have
helped him to wind the best coils for decomposition, shocks, and sparks. These were
matters to be resolved by 'cut and try' methods alone. In addition to such
developmental problems, he needed an entirely new mechanical arrangement,
something that he could distinguish as his own 'invention'.
Some hint of Clarke's engineering methods are contained in his published account:
Having in November, 1834, tried the effects produced by coils of wire varying in
diameter, I found that the thick copper bell-wire gave brilliant sparks, but no
perceptible shock, whilst, on the contrary, very fine wire gave powerful shocks,
but very indifferent sparks. I took advantage of my discovery, and furnished my
68From a consideration of dates, it seems likelythat Clarke would have first met Watkins during this
preliminary visit to London;he may even have negotiated a position for himselfin Watkins's workshop or,
equally, Watkins may have tempted Clarke into his employment.
69B. Gee, 'Electromotiveengines: pre-technologyand development immediatelyfollowingFaraday's
discovery of electromagneticrotations', History of Technology, 13 (1991), 41-72.
70E. M. Clarke, 'Remarks on a peculiar state of polarity induced in soft iron by voltaic magnetism',
Philosophical Magazine, 6 (1835),422-3.
71F. Watkins, A Popular Sketch of Electro-magnetism, or Electro-dynamics (London, 1828).
machines with two armatures, thereby being enabled to give the separate effects
of quantity and intensity to the fullest extent of power that my magnetic battery
was capable of supplying. 72
Of course, Pixii had derived his sparks using a reversing switch (the bascule) but
Saxton (and Clarke) had achieved this effect by application of the make and break
technique. In modern terminology, when the armature circuit was broken, a self-
inductance in the coils produced a large back e.m.f., which was responsible for the
shock. Not knowing this, and arguing solely in terms of the trial and error approach,
Saxton wrote: 73
January 1, 1835
It appears that in constructing a magneto-electric machine, an important

condition exists with regard to the object in view. That is, if the object is to
construct a machine to produce a violent shock, it is necessary to have the helical
wire in as few pieces, and as long as possible; but if the object is to produce a large
spark, the helix must be composed of a number of pieces of moderate length.
and, three days later,
January 4, 1835
In confirmation of what has been stated above, I have this day made a set of
experiments which prove beyond doubt their truth, for I find that a coil of wire 57
feet long produces a strong shock and but a feeble spark, while a coil of the same
wire, but divided into four pieces, produces a shock so feeble that it is scarcely
noticeable to the tongue, but a very brilliant spark.
Here is the root of how Saxton came to modify the Adelaide Gallery machine by
replacing the single armature with a double armature: one pair of coils for the 'strong
shock' (intensity) and another pair of coils four strands thick for the 'brilliant spark'
(quantity). Most probably conscious of this development Clarke was spurred on to
incorporate something similar in his design even though he claims to have been
engaged in this aspect since November 1834, that is, prior to Saxton.
Over this period Clarke submitted two interim communications to the
Philosophical Magazine, which illustrate his consultations with Faraday. TM One part
of his aim was to supply a set of test apparatus with which to demonstrate the spark, the
shock, and decomposition. The shock, which originally Faraday had sought (though
unsuccessfully) through the muscular convulsion of a frog's leg with a magneto-electric
spark derived from Daniell's loadstone, had been successfully performed by Saxton in
June 1833 and confirmed more or less immediately by Watkins, Saxton, and Fox using
their tongues, v5 Eighteen months later, on 9 January 1835, Clarke showed Faraday his
experiments on the shock, believing this to occur both on making and breaking contact
72E. M. Clarke, 'Description of E. M. Clarke's magnetic electrical machine', PhilosophicalMagazine, 9

(1836), 263-4.
73Frazier (footnote 19), 21.
74E. M. Clarke, 'On a new phenomenon in magneto-electricity',PhilosophicalMagazine, 6 (1835), 169-
70; idem.,'On certain optical effectsof the magnetic-electricalmachine,and on an apparatus for decomposing
water by its means', PhilosophicalMagazine,6 (1835), 427-8. Faraday also had observedthe 'flash'. Faraday
(footnote 3), H, para. 55.
75F. Watkins, 'On the sensation produced upon the tongue by magneto-electricity', Philosophical
Magazine, 3rd series, 2 (1833), 152.
124 B. Gee
but being more pronounced on breaking a circuit. Previously Faraday had found no
shock on making the circuit. 76 Later, in June 1835, after applying the shock to the
forehead (via contact between forehead and vinegar-wetted hand), he reported 'seeing'
(with eyes closed) a curious luminous disc, emanating from a bright spot in waves.
Again Clarke visited Faraday who advised him to repeat the test using wetted paper
between the forehead and conductor terminal.
By the end of the summer Clarke had completed his tests and his magneto-electric
machine was available to the scientific world. An announcement in the Morning Post
for 14 October 1835 ran as follows:
E D W A R D M. CLARKE, Magnetician, 9 Agar-street, Strand (opposite Charing-
cross Hospital), begs leave to state that he is the Inventor and Manufacturer of the
only M A G N E T I C E L E C T R I C A L M A C H I N E that gives the full and separate
effects of quantity and intensity. 77
Not until one year later, however, did he publish a full description of the machine in
the Philosophical Magazine. In this paper Clarke tells something of the background of
his project:
From the time Dr Faraday first discovered magnetic electricity to the present, my
attention, as a philosophical instrument maker, has been entirely devoted to that
branch of science, more especially to the construction of an efficacious magnetic
electrical machine, which after much anxious thought, labour and expense, I now
submit to your notice . . . . 78
Indeed, his risk on leaving the employ of Watkins & Hill together with the
investment of 'anxious thought, labour and expense' to specialize in this domain had
reached a critical point. Publicity, the next step, was naturally important too and, in
this respect, he began his campaign in France.
It should be noted that the younger Pixii had died unexpectedly in the year prior to
Clarke's visit to Paris, possibly leaving his father with some difficulty at meeting
demand. There was, thus, opportunity enough for Clarke to promote his version of the
machine, especially for its superior performance. In a piece of self-congratulatory prose,
written for the first volume of Sturgeon's Annals of Electricity in 1837, the maker
(writing in the third person) provides the following insight:
E. M. Clarke on the occasion of his last visit to Paris, had the honor to exhibit the
effects of the magnetic machine.., to several of the French savans, all of whom
were pleased to express their unqualified approbation. M. le Baron Srguier,
brought the inventor to the French Institute, accompanied by M. Chevalier.
Among others present, during the exhibition of the machine, were MM. Melloni,
Dulong, Savery, and Becquerel. Prof. Arago, who was that day officially engaged,
having heard the results of the experiments with the machine, requested the
inventor to attend the day following at the Observatory, which he did; and that
learned professor also expressed his satisfaction. On the day following, in
consequence of a note received from M. Pouillet, he attended at the Conservatory
76Faraday (footnote 3), II, 357-8, para. 2266.

77Morning Post, 14 October 1835, p. 1, col. 1.
78Clarke (footnote72),262-6 (p. 262).Note: another (longer)descriptionof Clarke's machineappears in
Sturgeon's Annalsof Electricity, 1 (1837), 145-55.
The early development o f the magneto-electric machine 125
of Arts and Sciences, when that learned professor, who, of course, was well
acquainted with the previous magnetic machines, as Pixii's, Newman's (the name
by which Saxton's machine is known on the continent) &c. gave the decided
preference to E. M. Clarke's arrangement; in proof of which he was pleased to
direct that one should be constructed for the Conservatory of Arts, and another
to be deposited in the cabinet of his royal pupil, the Duke of Orleans. 79
Thus launched, and with a reprinted account in Silliman's Journal in 1838, 80 Clarke
was fully established under his chosen style of 'magnetician'.
Some impression of Clarke's magneto-electric machine and its various accessories
may be gained from the illustrations in Figures 7 and 8. 81 The principal parts are the
magnetic battery, the rotating double armature (with intensity coil of 1500 yards of fine
insulated copper wire and the quantity coil of 40 yards of thicker wire), and the
specially designed ' c o m m u t a t o r ' for one-directional current flow. Handles for giving
the shock, apparatus for decomposing water, and additional pieces for igniting
charcoal, scintillating iron wire, making platina wire red hot, etc. could all be obtained
at extra cost. Neither Pixii nor Watkins & Hill, according to contemporary catalogues,
could match Clarke for his range of accessories, although Watkins & Hill offered both
horizontally and vertically mounted machines, matching Clarke's price at twelve
guineas. 82 Even so, Clarke's prowess only lasted a couple of years, that is, until further
technological advance through the induction coil was brought about by Callan and
Page.83 Nevertheless, magneto-electric machines remained in vogue because they were
considered clean and efficient. Unlike induction coils they did not require cumbersome
voltaic batteries and, with a mere turn of a handle, the shock could be produced
without the presence of noxious battery fumes.
7. The Clarke-Saxton division on 'true invention'

With the arrival on the market of Clarke's magneto-electric machine and the
maker's claim to its invention it was natural, if not inevitable, that Saxton would wish to
secure his own prior position as inventor. As a result, a dispute broke out which, at one
level, was to do with priority although, at another more personal level, it was also to do
with long-felt jealousies on Clarke's part. The situation now unfolded begins in the year
prior to the magnetician's promotion of 'E. M. Clarke's' machine.
The first petty remarks to appear in print were written from Clarke's new address at
39 Charles Street (off Parliament Street, Westminster) in August 1835 and relate to the
kind of research activities in which he was engaged while in the employment of Watkins
& Hill two years previously, namely, in attempting to devise some self-acting engine
that could deliver power. These were early days in the development of the electromotive
engine. Watkins had persevered in this endeavour, although without any fruitful input
79Clarke (footnote 72), 155.

80American Journal of Science, 33 (1838), 213 24.
8l Theseengravingsare common to all of Clarke's accounts; here they are derivedfrom his List of Prices of
Magnetical, Philosophical, Optical and Chemical Apparatus (London, 1838).
82 A Descriptive Catalogue of Optical, Mathematical, and Philosophical Instruments Constructed and Sold
by Watkins & Hill (London, 1838), p. 86.
83The induction coil was independently the invention of the American Charles G. Page (aided by the
Bostonian philosophical instrument-maker Daniel Davies) and Father Callan of St. Patrick's College,
Maynooth (who was known to Clarke through the London Electrical Society). For Page, see American
Journal of Science, 34 (1838), 364-73; for Callan, see Sturgeon's Annals of Electricity, 1 (1837), 229.
126
Figure 7.
(a)
B. Gee
The Clarke machine (1836).

0
.a2.~
v
~o. o.
eaoo
~ r
c~
,.~ 0
,.1
)
128 B. Gee
from Clarke during his short stay. By dint of his own efforts, however, Watkins had
achieved some modest success in 1835. s4 Writing about this success, in a double jibe,
Clarke tells:
This rotary motion was applied lately to an apparatus copied from that
constructed by Mr Saxton, which construction is merely a modification of one
invented by Professor Ritchie, and exhibited by his assistant (my late talented and
ingenious friend Francis Kirby of the London University) . . . . The only difference
between them is, that invented by the learned Professor makes the voltaic magnet
rotate, while that of Mr Saxton causes the steel magnet to rotate. 85
Watkins had produced a self-sustaining rotary engine similar in arrangement to
Saxton's although Watkins himself referred to it only as a 'magnetic toy'. The details
are not elaborated here although it is relevant to note how Clarke diminishes Saxton's
achievement by calling it 'merely a modification' of Ritchie's. The other, and less
obvious, detail relates to the importance of the named demonstrator, the late Francis
Kirby. s6
Between 1828 and 1832 Watkins held the title of 'Curator of Philosophical
Apparatus' at the University, that is, during the time of Dionysius Lardner when the
Museum of Philosophical Experiments at the University was being s e t u p . 87 At the
change-over of appointments, following Lardner's sudden departure and Ritchie's
arrival, matters had not gone too well for Watkins. The Council of the University
refused him permission to retain the privileged title. Instead they employed Kirby to
carry out all duties expected of a laboratory steward. Kirby executed his duties until
1835 when he died; the position then fell to his son, also called Francis. Aware of
Watkins's diminished relations with the University, Clarke may have hoped for some
business there through the elder Kirby ('my late talented and ingenious friend').
Whatever the case, there is a hint of a split in their relationship with Watkins and
Saxton forming one camp and Clarke and Kirby in the other camp.
The patient American did not at first react to Clarke's allegation that his machine
was 'merely a modification' of Ritchie's although doubtless the matter had not gone
unnoticed by Watkins or Saxton. It took far more than trivial remarks to outrage
Saxton. In fact it took another twelve months and Clarke's October 1836 description of
'his' machine before hackles were visibly raised. Saxton, who had never published any
account of his machine, other than that published by Bache in the Journal of the
Franklin Institute described earlier, was then forced to defend what he knew to be his
invention. Up to this time he had remained content in the knowledge that its priority
was established through public display at the Adelaide Gallery and general acknowl-
edgement by Faraday, DanieU, and Wheatstone in their Royal Society papers. 8s
84F. Watkins, 'On magneto-electricinduction', PhilosophicalMagazine, 3rd series, 7 (1835), 107 13.
85E. M. Clarke, 'Remarks on a peculiar state of polarity induced in soft iron by voltaic magnetism',
Philosophical Magazine, 7 (1835), 423.
86The disguise of Clarke's attack, in an announcement purporting to suggest something new, namely,
that magnetism induced in soft iron by an electromagnet was, somehow, different from that induced by a
permanent magnet, had worked! Joseph Henry, an avid reader of the PhilosophicalMagazine and quite
unaware of the London bickerings,could not let the suggestion pass without putting it to test. Happily he
concluded that there was no such difference. Reingold (footnote 38), m (1979), 51.
s7 B. Gee, 'The place and contribution of the instrument maker in scientificdevelopment, 1820-1850 with
special reference to electromagnetism and the diffusion of science' (Unpublished Ph.D thesis, Leicester
University, 1988), pp. 37-45.
ss j. Saxton, 'Mr J. Saxton on his Magneto-electrical Machine; with remarks on E. M. Clarke's paper in
the preceding number', PhilosophicalMagazine, 9 (1836), 360-5 (p. 361).
In a carefully worded response to Clarke's October claim, despatched in time l'or the
November issue, Saxton provided the following corrective:
I regret that I am called upon to notice a very disingenuous article in the Number
of the Philosophical Magazine for October. A reader unacquainted with the
progress which magneto-electricity has made since this new path of science was
opened by the beautiful and unexpected discoveries of Faraday, might be misled,
from the paper I have alluded to, to believe that the electro-magnetic machine
there represented was the invention of the writer, and that the experiments there
mentioned were for the first time made by its means. No conclusion, however,
would be more erroneous. The machine which Mr Clarke calls his invention,
differs from mine only in a slight variation in the situation of its parts, and is in no
respect superior to it. The experiments which he states in such a manner as to
insinuate that they are capable of being made only by his machine, have every one
been long since performed with my instrument, and Mr Clarke has had every
opportunity of knowing the truth of this statement, s9
Since June 1833 at the Cambridge British Association Meeting or, at least, since the
Adelaide Gallery soirre in November 1833 when Saxton's machine had been compared
with a borrowed Pixii machine, there had been no competition. Even the few machines
manufactured by Newman were termed 'Saxton machines'. However, subsequently,
Clarke's efforts had led to an alternative conception which, in many ways, was more
advantageous than Saxton's. Clarke's published response to the above criticism simply
stated: 'I have not laid claim to the electromagnetic machine (as he calls it) as my
invention, but I have certainly termed a magnetic electrical machine E. M. Clarke's,
owing to a material difference having been made in its construction.. ?.90
It must be emphasized that Clarke was an 'improver of technology' and the degree
to which an improvement constitutes an invention is precisely the kind of matter that
needed clarification by patent. The patent laws, however, were much in need of reform
and no patenting was attempted here. Nevertheless, the words 'E. M. Clarke Inventor',
had been engraved on the plates for publication and on the manufactured artefacts,
meaning that 'machines of this form are of my design'. Saxton refused to accept this
notion and, instead, dwelled upon Clarke's reference to the 'mechanical difference'. He
complained that:
Mr Clarke's machine differs from mine only in a slight variation in the situation of
its parts
to which Clarke countered:
Every scientific inquirer knows what an amazing difference a slight variation in
the situation of the parts will often occasion in a philosophical instrument. 91
As for Saxton's allegation that it was 'in no respect superior to it', Clarke detailed
three obvious advantages:
(a) a reduction in vibration, which is injurious to magnets;
(b) a detachable 'magnetic battery' (i.e. compound magnet); and
(c) a complete dispensation with the mercury cup.
89 Ibid., 360-1.
9o E. M. Clarke, 'Reply of M r E. M. Clarke to M r J. Saxton', PhilosophicalMagazine, 10 (1837), 455-9
(p. 455).
91 Ibid., 456.
130 B. Gee
Integral in these improvements was the vertical mounting of the magnet, instead of
horizontal mounting as in Saxton's.
What Clarke had done was to redesign the machine, incorporating the principles as
understood but also providing a commercial product with greater reliability than
Saxton's. In his estimation, this was very much a matter of'invention'. Offering to settle
the score by competition, he proposed:
All I can expect, all I ask for is fair play. Let the public witness what Mr Saxton's
machine can do, and all that it can do, next witness the effects produced by mine,
and then let them decide which they prefer. 92
This passage has echoes of the very way in which Saxton's machine succeeded over
Pixii's when, in the Literary Gazette, Saxton challenged those who would dispute the
merits of his machine. That had been the purpose of the Adelaide Gallery soirre back in
November 1833 when Clarke, as Watkins's demonstrator of the Pixii machine, had first
'competed' publicly with Saxton; the 'winner' on that occasion being Saxton. In the new
situation Clarke had thrown down the gauntlet for a re-enactment of this earlier
contest; Saxton, however, declined.
In many ways both Saxton and Clarke made equally valuable contributions to the
new technology though at different times. Both had experimented with the length and
thickness of wire needed to provide the shock and the spark. Their individual attempts
to find practical rules for obtaining 'quantity' (i.e. the spark) and 'intensity' (i.e. the
shock) were solved by trial and error, and are equally praiseworthy. Both admitted to
copying Pixii's idea of incorporating these separate needs into a double armature:
Saxton added this feature to the Adelaide Gallery magnet in December 1835, while
Clarke claimed to have sold three machines with this feature somewhat earlier in April
1834. 93 The sense of competition is strong throughout Clarke's reply to Saxton. The
seemingly peevish r e m a r k - - ' / h a d the machine [Pixii's] in my hands before he [Saxton]
had ever seen it. I was then in the employment of Watkins & Hill... and I was the
person in whose hands the machine was placed' [-my italics] 94 smacks more of
jealousy than a statement of privilege or responsibility. There may also have been
other undercurrents stemming from Watkins having favoured the American maker
over the new Irish employee. Both had arrived in London at about the same time, over
the winter of 1832-3: the former had quickly gained Watkins's support while the latter
had remained in the employ of Watkins & Hill only long enough to establish a base
from which he could operate.
The issue at hand, however, centred around the fact that Saxton had blatantly
accused Clarke of 'piracy'. In consequence, all the minutiae supportive to Clarke's
position were to be dragged up. Swingeing criticisms on every detail flooded Clarke's
reply and every authority who had bought, seen, or uttered favourable comment on
'his' machine was cited in evidence. Among these were the chemist, David Boswell Reid,
the electrician, William Sturgeon, the operative chemist, William Leithead, the
professor of natural philosophy, Bachhoffner, at the Polytechnic Institution, and
Clarke's customers in the Irish Royal College of Surgeons, Professor Humphrey Lloyd
and Dr Apjohn. Even Faraday had remarked on its ability to produce the shock and
9z I b i d .
93 I b i d . , 458.
94 I b i d .
Pouillet in Paris had noted how much his machine was different from that of
'Newman's' (meaning those of Saxton's design). However, on the matter of the final
insult, Clarke replied
With respect to Mr Saxton stating that my 'piracy' consisted not in manufactur-
ing his instrument, but in suppressing his name as connected with it--I certainly
have not manufactured any of his instruments since my improved machine was
perfected, although I have had to alter several, and I do not therefore see what
right he has to expect mention to be made of his name. 95
Clarke's intimacy with the imperfections of Saxton's machine and his efforts to
avoid its failings in his own product only reinforced what he believed to be 'inventor's
rights'.
Overall, both Saxton and Clarke had shown something of the engineer's ability to
gain the best effects through their 'working knowledge' and 'technical improvement'.
Perhaps Saxton should be credited with more originality since he had nurtured his
spark-producing machine and magneto-electric machine quite independently of Pixii.
Clarke, who already had access to the relevant principles, was motivated differently
because the development of the machine underpinned his business venture; Saxton, by
contrast, was involved with projects in fields other than electricity. As for settling the
issue over what was 'true invention', there was no final adjudication, either by patent or,
as Clarke may have wished, by public competition. 96
8. Epilogue
It is interesting to reflect that Saxton may not have been able to take up Clarke's
challenge even had he so wished, owing to his impending return to America. His
decision to leave was not prompted by the disagreement with Clarke but by the
prospect of a senior position at the United States Mint. From the beginning of 1835 he
had been engaged in making a special assay balance, following a Congressional Act
that entailed a new United States troy pound. It is significant that the Mint should have
placed the order for this with Saxton across the Atlantic. A personal letter from R. M.
Patterson, director of the Mint, dated 5 November 1835, requested four additional
balances of the same form along with a personal message, 'the wish of many of y o u r
friends, that you should return to Philadelphia...'. 'You see', Patterson added, 'we shall
at once give you a good job to begin with, and I have no doubt that you will find your
situation here better than in England'. 97 The temptation was very strong and Saxton
resolved to leave.
Seemingly, it took most of the year 1836 to wind down his affairs before returning to
the States. Prior to his departure a group of friends organized a farewell dinner at the
Piazza Coffee House in Covent Garden on 26 April 1837. Among the twenty friends
present were William Maugham, chemistry lecturer at the Adelaide Gallery, Charles
Wheatstone, whom Saxton had assisted on several occasions, Benjamin MacNeiU, who
was known in railway engineering circles, and numerous other friends from the
Institution of Civil Engineers, including Francis Watkins. 98 When he arrived back in
95 Ibid.
96 Nevertheless, the dispute itself was of sufficient interest for it to appear (in translation) as 'Beschreibung
von J. Saxton's magneto-elektricher Maschine v P.M. NS IX p. 360. Auszug' in Poggendorff's Annalen der
Physik, 39 (1836), 401-3.
97 A. H. Frazier, 'United State Standards of Weights and Measures', Smithsonian Studies in History of
Technology, No. 40 (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1978), pp. 5-6.
9s Reingold (footnote 38), 111(1975), 323.
132 B. Gee
6'
DAN,~ I)AVI~ J.~

~AKlgI~ N,~. tt
~rnhtll. Bost~u.
Figure 9. A simple magneto-electric machine by Daniel Davis (c. 1838).
Philadelphia some time in May, he took up the 'good job' at the Mint. Old friendships
were resumed with Lukens and the circle at the Franklin Institute; in the same year
Lukens and Patterson nominated him for membership of the American Philosophical
Society. 99
Meanwhile Clarke sought patronage among those devotees who became founder
members of the new London Electrical Society, which arose out of meetings held at his
Lowther Arcade workshop when William Sturgeon lectured there in 1837. ~~176 As
interest in electricity waned in the early 1840s, he took up another object that also
demanded his skills as a technological 'improver', namely the oxy-hydrogen micro-
scope. Curiously, he appears to have shown little interest in the development of the
alternative to the magneto-electric machine, the induction coil, but in any case there
were presumably greater profits ahead once he had acquired the Rodney Iron Works in
Battersea, sometime around 1845. Then he added light engineering and trade in steam
boats, river barges, and locomotives to his business interests. 1~
With Clarke's retreat from electrical interests, Saxton's return to the States, and
Watkins's illness in the 1840s, there was little input to the development of the magneto-
electrical machine in Britain. Moreover, the general decline of electrical interests of
many practitioners, depicted by the effective closure of the London Electrical Society in
1841, created an opportunity for the development elsewhere of this field. Further
development took place in the States, where Charles Page developed a more powerful
99j. Henry, 'Memoir of Joseph Saxton, 1799-1873', Biographical Memoirs (Washington: National
Academy of Sciences, 1877).
1oo'E. M. Clarke and the "rise and fall" of the London ElectricalSociety',in Gee (footnote87), 189-97.
lol List of Engines, Machines, and Tools made and sold by E. M. Clarke, Rodney Iron Works, Battersea,
Surrey; and 428 Strand, London [c. 1845].
machine with two, parallel horseshoe magnets. 1~ His collaboration with the
instrument maker Daniel Davis of Boston led to a variety of magneto-electric devices
over the succeeding years. 1o3 (See Figure 9.) Quantity-produced 'magnetos', therefore,
were not the initiative of British manufacture, but due to makers in the States. For
example, an advertisement appearing in the Photographic Society's Journal in 1858
informs that the import of magneto-electric machines was undertaken by J. Atkinson of
37 Manchester Street, Liverpool, and that these were sold by ' M r Bolton, Chemist,
Holborn Bars; Messrs. Knight & Son, Foster Lane, and nearly all the photographic
dealers in the Kingdom'. 1~ Within two decades, therefore, these artefacts, which once
had been nurtured in and sold bespoke from small London workshops, had given way
to manufacture overseas, where improved design and entrepreneurial skills had
decidedly taken an ascendant course.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to express a special thanks to Dr W. H. Brock (University of
Leicester), Mr C. N. Brown (Science Museum, London), Dr W. D. H a c k m a n n
(Museum for the History of Science, Oxford), and not least the referee of this paper, who
each have offered constructive criticism in the progress of this study. Also appreciated is
the help provided by Mrs Irene McCabe (Royal Insititution, London) in allowing
access to certain Faraday papers, and by Mrs Lenore Symons (Institution of Electrical
Engineers, London) for providing a copy of the Pixii leaflet. Finally, I am grateful to
Marc Rothenberg and William A. Deiss, respectively of the Joseph Henry Papers and
the Archives of the Smithsonian Institution (Washington, D.C.), for copy of Frazier's
unpublished manuscript and confirmatory facsimiles from Joseph Saxton's Papers.
102C. Page, 'New magneticelectricalmachine of great power, with two parallel horse-shoemagnets, and
two straight rotating armatures, affording each, in an entire revolution, a constant current in the same
direction', American Journal of Science, 34 (1838), 164.
i o3R. Sherman,'Charles Page, Daniel Davis,and their electromagneticapparatus', Rittenhouse,2 (1988),
34~47.
1o4Classified advertisement,in The Liverpooland Manchester PhotooraphicJournal, new series 2, No. 8
(1858), 106. From other subsequent advertisementsby Atkinson (for example, The PhotographicJournal, 6
(1860), 1) it is shown that the imported magnetic machines are by Davis and Kidder.

Gee, Brian - The Early Development of The Magneto-Electric Machine

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gee, Brian - The Early Development of The Magneto-Electric Machine

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANNALS OF SCIENCE, 50 (1993), 1 0 1 - 1 3 3

The Early Development of the Magneto-Electric Machine

Received 19 April 1991

Attribution of the magneto-electric machine to Michael Faraday derives from the

transient effects of magneto-electricity, derived from the reciprocating motion of a

2. The Pixii machine

6Ibid., p. 46, para. 158.

Figure 2. Prototype of the Pixii machine (1832).

14Charles T. Jackson, 'Notice of the revolvingelectricmagnet of Mr Pixii of Paris', AmericanJournalof

Figure 3. A Pixii machine (1833). Courtesy of the Deutsches Museum (Munich).

the history of its development, 15 the machine comprised a compound permanent

3. Joseph Saxton and the Adelaide Gallery magnet

17Pixii (footnote 12), pp. 3-4.

1 Iitt' !' I" II

l '..~ .... ,-~ 1

laborious duties of my profession prevented me from completing it until very

4. N e w s across the Atlantic

3~W. Ritchie, 'Experimental researches in electro-magnetismand magneto-electricity',Philosophical

papers to appear in the United States on the new phenomena.

40Frazier (footnote 19), pp. 28, 18.

5. Saxton and the Literary Gazette affray

the British Association exhibition at Cambridge in 1833 is printed in the Association's

46 Idem, reprinted in Mechanics Magazine, 21 (1834), 333 5.

gentleman's name and spoken as though it were merely an improvement on Mr

51 'An esteemed correspondent', Mechanics Magazine, 21 (1834), 96.

The history of the magnetic electric spark is simply this:

56 Literary Gazette, No. 865 (1833), 510.

57Frazier (footnote 19).

6oF. Watkins, Philosophical Maqazine, 6 (1835),239.

No mention is made, or, indeed, is necessary to be made of his demonstration of the

6. The manufacture of E. M. Clarke's machine

It appears that in constructing a magneto-electric machine, an important

72E. M. Clarke, 'Description of E. M. Clarke's magnetic electrical machine', PhilosophicalMagazine, 9

76Faraday (footnote 3), II, 357-8, para. 2266.

7. The Clarke-Saxton division on 'true invention'

79Clarke (footnote 72), 155.

The Clarke machine (1836).

DAN,~ I)AVI~ J.~

Figure 9. A simple magneto-electric machine by Daniel Davis (c. 1838).

decidedly taken an ascendant course.

You might also like