vision of a specification by erasures made | L. ed. 426; Stow v. Chicago, 104 U. S. 547,
26 L. ed. 816.
under the guise of a disclaimer.

Union Metallic Cartridge Co. v. United States Cartridge Co. 112 U. S. 624, 28 L. ed. 828, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 475; 15 Am. & Eng. P. C. 367; Hailes v. Albany Stove Co. 123 U. S. 582, 31 L. ed. 284, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 262; Collins Co. v. Coes, 130 U. S. 56, 32 L. ed. 858, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 514; Hurlbut v. Schillinger, 130 U. S. 456, 32 L. ed. 1011, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 584; Sessions v. Romadka, 145 U. S. 29, 36 L. ed. 609, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 799; Grant v. Walter, 148 U. S. 547, 37 L. ed. 552, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 699; Torrant v. Duluth Lumber Co. 30 Fed. 830; Rumford Chemical Works v. Lauer, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 615, Fed. Cas. No. 12,135; White v. E. P. Gleason Mfg. Co. 21 Blatchf. 364, 17 Fed. 159; Albany Steam Trap Co. v. Worthington, 25 C. C. A. 258, 51 U. S. App. 164, 79

Fed. 966.

This court has never permitted itself to hesitate in affirming the rights of the publie to continue the use of any known process, because of real or alleged discoveries of peculiar advantages in such use.

Lovell Mfg. Co. v. Cary, 147 U. S. 623, 37 L. ed. 307, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 472; Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U. S. 150, 23 L. ed. 267; Ansonia Brass & Copper Co. v. Electrical Supply Co. 144 U. S. 11, 36 L. ed. 327, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 601. See also Wood-Paper Patent, 23 Wall. 566, sub nom. American Wood Paper Co. v. Fiber Disintegrating Co. 23 L. ed. 31; Blake v. San Francisco, 113 U. S. 679, 28 L. ed. 1070, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 692; Burt v. Evory, 133 U. S. 349, 33 L. ed. 647, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 394; French v. Carter, 137 U. S. 239, 34 L. ed. 664, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 90; Busell Trimmer Co. v. Stevens, 137 U. S. 435, 34 L. ed. 723, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 150; United States Mitis Co. v. Carnegie Steel Co. 89 Fed. 343; Falk Mfg. Co. v. Missouri R. Co. 43 C. C. A. 240, 103 Fed. 295.

The "Furniture Spring" case, Lovell Mfg. Co. v. Cary, 147 U. S. 623, 37 L. ed. 307, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 472; and the "Glue Soup" case, Leggett v. Standard Oil Co. 149 U. S. 287, 37 L. ed. 737, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 902, are controlling of the present issue.

The application of an old process or machine to a similar or analogous subject, with no change in the manner of application and no result substantially distinct in its nature, will not sustain a patent, even if the new form of result has not been contemplated.

Improvement in degree by substituting
one old material for another old material
is not invention.

Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 11 How. 248, 13
L. ed. 683.

Mere change in size, weight, form, pro-
portion, and shape, without change in fùne-
tion, is not patentable.

Phillips v. Page, 24 How. 164, 16 L. ed. 639; Smith v. Nichols, 21 Wall. 112, 22 L. ed. 566; Dalton v. Jennings, 93 U. S. 271, 23 L. ed. 925; Pomace Holder Co. v. Ferguson, 119 U. S. 335, 30 L. ed. 406, 7 Sup. Ct.. Rep. 382; Milligan & H. Glue Co. v. Upton, 97 U. S. 3, 24 L. ed. 985; Estey v. Burdett, 109 U. S. 633, 27 L. ed. 1058, 3 Sup Ct. Rep. 531; Peters v. Active Mfg. Co. 12 U. S. 530, 32 L. ed. 738, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 389; Grant v. Walter, 148 U. S. 547, 37 L. ed. 552, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 699; Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co. 152 U. S. 425, 38 L. ed. 500, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 627; Wright v. Yuengling, 155 U. S. 47, 39 L. ed. 64, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1; American Road Mach. Co. v. Pennock & S. Co. 164 U. S. 26, 41 L. ed. 337, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1; Busell Trimmer Co. v. Stevens, 137 U. S. 423, 34 L. ed. 719, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 150; Consolidated Roller Mill Co. v. Walker, 138 U. S. 124, 34 L. ed. 920, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 292; Marchand v. Emken, 132 U. S. 195, 33 L. ed. 332, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 65.

*Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opinion [410] of the court:

Steel is a product, or, perhaps, more accurately, a species of iron, refined of some of its grosser elements, intermediate in the amount of its carbon between wrought and cast-iron, and tempered to a hardness which enables it to take a cutting edge, a toughness sufficient to bear a heavy strain, an elasticity which adapts it for springs and other articles requiring resiliency, as well as a susceptibility to polish, which makes it useful for ornamental and artistic purposes.

Pig iron, which was the original basis for the manufacture of all iron and steel, is made by the reduction of iron ore in large blast furnaces, which are filled with layers of ore, charcoal or coke, and flux. By the agency of this the iron is melted out and falls to the bottom of the furnaces, is drawn out through openings for that purpose into canals, and finally into Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Locomotive En-molds, where it solidifies into what are gine Safety Truck Co. 110 U. S. 490, 28 L. termed pigs. Prior to the invention of Sir ed. 222, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 220; Miller v. Foree, Henry Bessemer, steel was manufactured 116 U. S. 22, 29 L. ed. 552, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. from a pig-iron base by a tedious and ex204; Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37, 23 L. ed. pensive process of refining in furnaces 200; American Road Mach. Co. v. Pennock adapted to that purpose. The process was & S. Co. 164 U. S. 26, 41 L. ed. 337, 17 Sup. so costly that steel was little used except Ct. Rep. 1; Mast, F. & Co. v. Stover Mfg. Co. for cutlery and comparatively small arti177 U. S. 485, 44 L. ed. 856, 20 Sup. Ct. cles, and was practically unknown in the Rep. 708. construction of bridges, rails, buildings, and other structures where large quantities of iron were required.

Generally, improvement in degree is not patentable.

Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U. S. 150, 23 L. ed. 267; Dunbar v. Myers, 94 U. S. 187, 24 L. ed. 34; Crouch v. Roemer, 103 U. S. 797, 26

In 1856 Bessemer discovered a process of purifying iron without the use of fuel, by blowing air through a molten mass of pig

and from which the molten metal was withdrawn into the converters. Had the amount required for the converters in each case been the exact product of one or more cupolas, no reservoirs would have been necessary, but as the demand was variable, a storage of molten metal was required to retain the product of one or more cupolas, until it was required for the converters. Of course, as the product of two or more furnaces was drawn off into these receiving ladles, there would be some intermixing of those products, although the receiving ladles do not appear to have been used for that purpose, the operators relying more particularly upon the careful selection of pigs beforehand, to obtain the requisite uniformity for conversion into steel. The ladles being open at the top, the molten metal could not long be retained in them, and in the best practice it was so arranged that the withdrawals from the reservoir were made every few minutes, and without regard to the amount left in the reservoir after each withdrawal. It will be borne in mind that the object in either case, whether by direct or indirect process, is to obtain, as far as possible, a uniform product of iron for the converter.

iron placed in a refractory lined vessel called | pola furnaces was drawn off into such resera converter, whereby the silicon, carbon, voirs, which were made large enough to and other nonmetallic constituents were hold the product of two or three furnaces, consumed, and the iron thus fitted for immediate conversion into steel by recarbonization. The present process of recarbonization was a supplementary invention of Mushet, who accomplished it by the introduction of ferro-manganese, or spiegel-eisen, while the iron in a molten state was issuing from the converter, in which it had been purified, and was thus converted into steel. The process of running molten metal from blast furnaces into pigs and remelting them in cupola furnaces for use in a converter was termed the indirect process, and was generally used prior to the Jones invention. (411] *His process is thus described by Bessemer in his patent of 1869: "The most important of these operations consist in melting the pig metal, transferring it in the molten state to the converting vessel, blowing air through it, and converting it into a malleable metal, mixing the metal so converted with a certain quantity of fluid manganesian pig iron, pouring the mixed metals into a casting ladle, and running it from thence through a suitable valve into ingots or other molds, and the removal therefrom of the ingots or other cast masses when solidified." This invention of Bessemer, simple as it appears, may be said not only to have revolutionized the manufacture of steel, and to have introduced it into large constructions where it had never been seen before, but to have created for it uses to which ordinary iron had been but illy adapted.

"These results," said one of the witnesses (Kennedy), speaking of the process used before that of Jones, "are not obtained by the practice of taking metal from two blast furnaces by running a train of ladles in front of them and tapping into each ladle While in the Bessemer specification of half a charge and following it from a second 1856 it is said "the iron to be used for the furnace. By such practice, of course, there is purposes of my present invention may be con- some independent equalization of the comveyed by a gutter in a fluid state direct from position of each ladle or of the ladles of the smelting furnace where it has been ob- each group, but it affords no further advantained from the ore," without the expense tage, and in fact would not obviate the dif and delay incident to the intermediate cupo-ficulties of direct metal working. It does la process, practical experience, in this not enable the converter manager to foretell country at least, showed that the refining the character of each charge from the charof iron without first casting it into pigs, se-acter of the preceding charge, and would lecting or mixing the pigs, and remelting therefore entail the uncertainties of operathem, was attended with such expense that the entire abandonment of the practice was tion and the irregularity of the product seriously considered. The difficulty was in which the Jones method avoids." the material variations between different It had long been an object of manufacturportions of the same cast, and even differ-ers that steel should be made directly from ent parts of the same pig,-an irregularity the molten metal, as it comes from the blast which was increased when the metal was drawn from several furnaces. Thre added to this frequent changes in the character and composition of the ore, coke, and limestone flux with which the furnace was charged. The consequence was that the nonuniform chemical composition of the metal from the molten blast furnaces yielded products of steel, such as rails and beams, which were not only irregular chemically, but of irregular and uncertain final condition,--some sound, others of imperfect strength and full of flaws.


furnaces, without having to pass through the intermediate or cupola process, which[413] involved the casting of the furnace metal into pigs. These, after becoming cold, were assorted, broken up, recharged and remelted in a cupola furnace, and then placed in a converter for conversion into steel. By this cupola process a product, practically uniform in character and suitable for further treatment in the converters, was secured, but at the expense (more than 60 cents per ton) of rehandling and remelting the iron as it came from the blast furnaces, in cupoThese irregularities were in a measure las, and the contamination of the metal obviated, not only by a careful selection of with sulphur evolved from the coke in the pigs beforehand, but by the necessity of process of remelting. The obstacles conemploying open receiving ladles or reservoirs nected with this method and the difficulties [412] into which the product of one or more cu-attendant upon the use of the direct process

[ocr errors]

are thus comprehensively set forth by Mr. imately the theoretical advantages of the
Julian Kennedy, one of the experts:
direct process."

"Ever since the invention of the Bessemer process it has been well recognized that great economics could be attained by transferring the molten metal from the blast furnace to the converter without allowing it to solidify. Until within a few years, however, this direct process, as it has been called, has not been generally used. It is easy to see why this was the case. The fluctuation in the chemical composition of the metal from the blast furnace was too great to allow that degree of uniformity of product in the Bessemer steel produced from it which is absolutely necessary in the case of steel rails, for example, which must be as reliable as human skill can make them, and where no reasonable expense can be spared to make them perfectly safe and trustworthy. A very few broken rails in a track, with the damage to property and human life which this might cause, would far more than offset any possible saving in a year's work, due to the use of the direct process. For this reason the practice, until within comparatively recent years, has been to cast the metal in pigs, then to analyze This difficulty, and it seems to have been it and reject any portion not closely approx- so serious as to render the direct process imating a rigid specification in its chemical commercially impracticable,-Jones sought composition, and to select, mix, and then to remedy, and did remedy, by creating a melt the approved metal in cupola furnaces. covered reservoir of molten metal between By this means very great uniformity of the blast furnaces and the converters, in chemical composition of the remelted metal which should always be maintained a large can be obtained, and good and reliable steel quantity of metal, happily termed by the made from it with regularity and certain- district judge a dominant pool, which ty." should be drawn off in small quantities at a time, and replenished by a like quantity of metal from the blast furnaces. In this way, while the metals taken from the sev"After studying the results which had eral blast furnaces might differ in their been obtained at the Edgar Thomson works heat and constituent elements, yet, being and elsewhere in the use of the direct pro-received and mixed with the molten metal cess, I consulted with Mr. James Gayley, in the dominant pool, they were, when dis and we agreed that in the building of a new charged from the reservoir, approximately, works it would not be profitable to use di- though not perfectly, uniform, the original rect metal, but that, on the contrary, the dis- variations having been lost in their mixadvantages resulting from the irregularity ture with the dominant pool. "It is therein the product were so great that it would fore plain," says the district judge in his be better to go to the expense of building opinion, "that with a mixer thus operated, and using cupola furnaces. We did not it is possible to have wide variations in the then perceive any means adequate to over- composition of the blast furnace metal come these disadvantages." charges added, and at the same time the successive withdrawals for the Bessemer · converter show quite small and gradual changes of composition. The heat of the detained mass is affected by the incoming "Third. The embarrassing feature of the charges just from the blast furnace, but direct process is the irregularity in the heat the heat of such addition, whether relative-that is to say, in the silicon of the ly high or low, must mingle with, be modicharges resulting in the large amount of fied by, and average with, the heat of the scrap due to too little of this element, and larger and dominating mass." It is not in the increased number of second-quality insisted that this method gave absolutely rails due to too much of it; while in France, uniform results, "nor," says the witness where 3 to 5 per cent of manganese is the Fry, "did the inventor, as I understood heating ingredient, there may always be an him. comprehend such, but, on the conexcess of this latter element without injur- trary, he recognized the practical impossiing the quality of the steel, although the bility of rendering uniform a continuous variation of heat is here, also, a serious supply of metal, and desired only to reduce difficulty. In other words, it has not yet the abrupt changes of the several portions been practicable to work the blast furnace added to the gradual changes of the porwith sufficient regularity to realize approx- tions withdrawn, and this is what he

"Fourth. The obvious remedy is to mix a number of blast-furnace charges, so as to reduce the irregularity to a minimum. Two systems of doing this are on the eve of trial: The one is simply mixing so few charges in a tank that the metal will be drawn out before it chills; the other is to store a larger number of charges in a heated tank,-that is to say, in an immense open-hearth furnace."

"A few words of history may be of interest. Mr Bessemer's early intention was to use blast-furnace metal direct. The earlier Bessemer practice, especially that in Sweden, was with metal right from the blast furnace. But this practice did not make headway, except where there was from 3 to 5 per cent of manganese in the pig blown, for reasons just mentioned; *so that[415] while it soon became standard at Terrenoire and elsewhere in France, as well as in Sweden, and to some extent in Germany, yet in England it was not only unused, but pronounced impracticable so late as September, 1874."

*Speaking of a time when the direct process (before that of Jones) had been in use for several years, he said:

The difficulties connected with the prior devices are also stated in an article by Mr. Holley, published in 1877, from which we extract the following paragraph:

worked out from his invention in a thor- | been abandoned. In regard to this the
oughly practical way."
witness Kennedy said:

While the patent in suit is for a process, "The Jones method has made the direct and not for a mechanism, the process will process, which was attended with great be the more easily understood by a refer-danger and difficulties before the date of ence to the apparatus above reproduced, his invention, a thoroughly practicable and [416] which consists of a *reservoir, or closed re- successful one. Instead of it being a quesceptacle, commonly termed a "mixer," tion of great doubt whether to run the lined with fire brick of sufficient thickness to retain the heat of the molten iron, and of such size and strength as to be capable of receiving and retaining a large amount -"say, 100 tons" of molten iron. This reservoir is mounted upon journals, and is adapted to be tipped so as to receive at one end molten metal from the blast furnaces, carried to it in cars, and by being tipped in the other direction, to discharge the same into similar cars, in which it is carried to the converter. The essence of the invention lies in the fact that the tip is so regulated by a stop that the reservoir can never be wholly emptied, but a "considerable quantity" of metal always remains,-a dominant pool, into which successive additions are received.

metal direct to the converter or remelt it, as it was up to the time of Jones's invention, no one would now think of building a new works containing both furnaces and converters without arranging to mix the metal by the Jones method, which not only effects an immense saving in the cost of operating the works, but enables a uniformly good product to be made, and also a purer product than can be obtained from cupola metal, which absorbs and is contaminated by sulphur from the coke which constitutes the fuel of the cupola."

Indeed, the value of the process is not wholly denied, though much depreciated, by the defendant, which relies rather upon the fact that it was well known in the art, and that so far as it is described in the Jones specification and drawings it was not infringed by it.

That the invention is one of very considerable importance is attested by the fact that it was not only put into immediate use in the Edgar Thomson works at Braddock, then owned by the plaintiff, but has since been adopted by all the leading steel manufacturers in this country, and by many similar works in Europe, where the patent was sold for £10,000. Mr. Carnegie, one of the witnesses, says of it: "There were both advantages and disadvantages [in the direct process used prior to Jones's invention], but the disadvantages were so great that we often debated whether to abandon the process or not. We found it impossible to get a uniform quality of rails as well as by the cupola method. When we were still anxiously struggling with the problem, and undecided whether to continue or abandon it, Captain Jones . . . told us that he believed he had invented a plan which would solve the problem. . . . We thought so well of the idea-I was so convinced of its reasonableness-that I directed him to go ahead with his invention. Сарtain Jones did so, and almost from that day hearth only thereof, thereby requiring sev our troubles ended. He had scored a tre-eral hours to smelt or fuse the contents of mendous success; another step forward was taken in the manufacture of steel, and we somewhat blind, and it is difficult to see a large furnace." The specification is are using the invention to-day. Without this invention I believe that we should have abandoned the mode of running direct from the blast furnace. Above all things, the manufacturer has to regard the [417]uniformity of product, the equality of rails; and this uniformity cannot be obtained without Jones's invention, as far as

1. We now proceed to an examination of the question of anticipation, in support of which a number of English patents are produced, which will be briefly considered: First, the British patent to Tabberner of 1856, the object of which was, as stated by the patentee in his specification, "to dispense with the necessity of employing one or more large furnaces, and to use in lieu thereof several small furnaces, the combined capacities whereof are equal to that of one or more large furnaces, and to cause these small furnaces to discharge their contents at short intervals of time into one large reservoir, from which the molten metal may be drawn for casting from. . . The principal features in this invention [418] consist in directing the blast to the body or belly of the furnace, as well as to the hearth thereof, for the purpose of fusing or smelting the entire mass of ore in the furnace simultaneously, or nearly so. The mode hitherto practised in smelting furnaces has been to direct blasts into the

I know."

what definite or valuable result is obtained

by the use of several small instead of one large furnace, except, perhaps, a quicker heating and less delay in its practical operations; but it is sufficient for the purposes of this case to say of it that it contains no suggestion of a mixing of different casts for the purpose of obtaining a more uniform product, and that the invention has It is true that what is termed the direct no relation to a further treatment or reprocess was used in connection with the fining. It does contemplate the use of Bessemer invention in some foreign coun- a reservoir, but there is no suggestion of a tries, notably Sweden and France, with reservation, in such reservoir, of a quantity more or less success, due to the peculiar of molten metal. It is not denied that the character of the ores used in those coun- use of a reservoir from which molten metal tries; but such attempts in this country may be drawn long antedated the Jones had proven practically failures, and had patent. But the best that can be said of

the Tabberner patent is that, if the reser-quality of metal, substantially as hereinbe-
voir had been of sufficient size and properly fore described and illustrated by the draw-
constructed so as to never be completely ings."
emptied, it might have been adapted to
carry out the Jones process; but there is
no evidence that it was ever so constructed,
or that the production of a uniform dis-
charge from the reservoir was contemplat-
ed. That it could not have been intended
for the purpose of carrying out the Besse-
mer process, or any other process, for the
use of blast-furnace metal in a converter,
is evident from the fact that the patent
was nearly simultaneous with the Besse-
mer patent, of the existence of which the
patentee appears to have been entirely ig-


The English patent to Deighton of 1873, for "improvements in the arrangement and mode of working an apparatus for the manufacture of Bessemer steel," contains the closest approximation to the principle of the Jones invention. If this does not anticipate, none does. The primary object of the patent seems to have been to prevent the loss of time while the converters are being cooled and relined or repaired, and 119]again *prepared for work, by providing that the converting vessel shall be so arranged that it can be readily detached from its actuating mechanism and lifted bodily out of its bearings by a suitable crane or other lifting mechanism, and a spare converter substituted in its place.

There is, however, a further provision in the patent, as follows:

"Instead of manufacturing Bessemer iron or steel from pig iron, which has been melted in cupolas, my invention also consists in taking the molten metal directly from the blast furnace to the converter, in which case I prefer to arrange the Bessemer plant in a line at a right angle to a row of two or more blast furnaces, and place a vessel to receive the molten metal tapped from two or more blast furnaces to get a better average of metal which will be more suitable for making Bessemer steel or metal of uniform quality, the vessel or receiver being placed on a weighing machine so that any required weight may be drawn or tapped from it and charged into the converter."

While Deighton seems to have conceived the idea that uniformity of product was necessary to the successful use of the direct process, and might be attained by mixing the discharge from several blast furnaces in an open reservoir, standing between *the [420] furnaces and the converter, the dominant idea of the Jones invention, that a constant quantity of molten iron should always be kept in such reservoir to serve as a basis for such mixture and an equalizer of the different discharges, does not seem to have occurred to him. As the discharge pipe was located at the bottom of the reservoir, it was certainly possible to empty it entirely, and the testimony in the case indicates that this was the natural method of operation. If this were so, then the reservoir accomplished nothing beyond the mixing of each batch of metal introduced into it from the different blast furnaces. There is nowhere in the specification a suggestion of supplying to and withdrawing from the reservoir small amounts at a time, a constant quantity of metal being retained in the reservoir for the purpose of equalizing the different products of the blast furnaces. While the Deighton reservoir, if a cover had been added to it, might perhaps have been utilized for that purpose, there is no evidence that such use ever occurred to the inventor. Indeed, the absence of a cover to the reservoir is evidence, even to a nonexpert, that it was not contemplated that a permanent quantity of molten iron should be retained in it, since a radiation of heat would thereby be produced and the contents skulled or crusted over with a layer of refuse iron or slag. The testimony is clear that the Jones process cannot be carried on in an open reservoir, and the absence of a cover is conclusive that it is not so used.

It is insisted, however, that defendants have demonstrated, by practical experimentation with a plant constructed according to the specification of the Deighton patent, that the results are practically the same as those obtained by the Jones proThe specifications provide for manufac- cess. This plant, however, was constructed turing Bessemer steel directly from the after suit brought, long after the Deighton smelting furnace by employing gates or patent had been allowed to expire, and with channels for molten metal from each fur- no opportunity afforded the plaintiffs to innace, leading to a reservoir, which is placed spect the plant or witness its operation. low enough to give fall for the molten met- The tank was fitted with a cover, and a conal to flow from the blast furnace to this stant pool of molten metal retained in it; reservoir, which forms a receptacle for mix- but this was not the Deighton process, but ing the molten metal from two or more of the Jones process adapted to the Deighton the smelting furnaces. From the reservoir device. Were this evidence admissible at the mixed molten metal is tapped, and flows all, we are satisfied that it is met by the down the swivel trough into the convert- fact that if the Deighton patent had been By placing the reservoir on a weighing adaptable to the Jones process, it is scarcely machine, it can be readily ascertained when possible that its merits should have failed[421] the exact quantity required has been tapped to seize upon the attention of manufacturfrom it into the converter. The sixth ers, who would have brought the patent inclaim of the patent is for "the system or to general use, instead of allowing it to mode of arranging and working Bessemer lapse for the nonpayment of a comparativeconverters with a receiver or receptacle for ly small fee. As something in the nature mixing the molten metal from two or more of the Jones process was needed to enable smelting furnaces to get a more uniform steel to be manufactured directly from the


« ForrigeFortsett »