Edison's Method In Inventing - 5

Edison's Method In Inventing - 5

 It is possible only to a broad, comprehensive mind well stored with knowledge, and

backed with resistless, boundless energy, that such a diversified series of experiments and

investigations could be carried on simultaneously and assimilated, even though they

should relate to a class of phenomena already understood and well defined. But if we

pause to consider that the commercial subdivision of the electric current (which was

virtually an invention made to order) involved the solution of problems so unprecedented

that even they themselves had to be created, we cannot but conclude that the afflatus of

innate genius played an important part in the unique methods of investigation instituted

by Edison at that and other times.

The idea of attributing great successes to "genius" has always been repudiated by Edison,

as evidenced by his historic remark that "Genius is 1 per cent. inspiration and 99 per cent.

perspiration." Again, in a conversation many years ago at the laboratory between Edison,

Batchelor, and E. H. Johnson, the latter made allusion to Edison's genius as evidenced by

some of his achievements, when Edison replied:

"Stuff! I tell you genius is hard work, stick-to-it- iveness, and common sense."

"Yes," said Johnson, "I admit there is all that to it, but there's still more. Batch and I have

those qualifications, but although we knew quite a lot about telephones, and worked hard,

we couldn't invent a brand-new non-infringing telephone receiver as you did when

Gouraud cabled for one. Then, how about the subdivision of the electric light?"

"Electric current," corrected Edison.

"True," continued Johnson; "you were the one to make that very distinction. The

scientific world had been working hard on subdivision for years, using what appeared to

be common sense. Results worse than nil. Then you come along, and about the first thing

you do, after looking the ground over, is to start off in the opposite direction, which

subsequently proves to be the only possible way to reach the goal. It seems to me that this

is pretty close to the dictionary definition of genius."

It is said that Edison replied rather incoherently and changed the topic of conversation.

This innate modesty, however, does not prevent Edison from recognizing and classifying

his own methods of investigation. In a conversation with two old associates recently

(April, 1909), he remarked: "It has been said of me that my methods are empirical. That

is true only so far as chemistry is concerned. Did you ever realize that practically all

industrial chemistry is colloidal in its nature? Hard rubber, celluloid, glass, soap, paper,

and lots of others, all have to deal with amorphous substances, as to which comparatively

little has been really settled. My methods are similar to those followed by Luther

Burbank. He plants an acre, and when this is in bloom he inspects it. He has a sharp eye,

and can pick out of thousands a single plant that has promise of what he wants. From this

he gets the seed, and uses his skill and knowledge in producing from it a number of new

plants which, on development, furnish the means of propagating an improved variety in

large quantity. So, when I am after a chemical result that I have in mind, I may make

hundreds or thousands of experiments out of which there may be one that promises

results in the right direction. This I follow up to its legitimate conclusion, discarding the

others, and usually get what I am after. There is no doubt about this being empirical; but

when it comes to problems of a mechanical nature, I want to tell you that all I've ever

tackled and solved have been done by hard, logical thinking." The intense earnestness

and emphasis with which this was said were very impressive to the auditors. This

empirical method may perhaps be better illustrated by a specific example. During the

latter part of the storage battery investigations, after the form of positive element had

been determined upon, it became necessary to ascertain what definite proportions and

what quality of nickel hydrate and nickel flake would give the best results. A series of

positive tubes were filled with the two materials in different proportions--say, nine parts

hydrate to one of flake; eight parts hydrate to two of flake; seven parts hydrate to three of

flake, and so on through varying proportions. Three sets of each of these positives were

made, and all put into separate test tubes with a uniform type of negative element. These

were carried through a long series of charges and discharges under strict test conditions.

From the tabulated results of hundreds of tests there were selected three that showed the

best results. These, however, showed only the superiority of cer- tain PROPORTIONS of

the materials. The next step would be to find out the best QUALITY. Now, as there are

several hundred variations in the quality of nickel flake, and perhaps a thousand ways to

make the hydrate, it will be realized that Edison's methods led to stupendous detail, for

these tests embraced a trial of all the qualities of both materials in the three proportions

found to be most suitable. Among these many thousands of experiments any that showed

extraordinary results were again elaborated by still further series of tests, until Edison

was satisfied that he had obtained the best result in that particular line.