Standard Plunger Elevator Co. v. Stokes

200 F. 766, 119 C.C.A. 246, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1907
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Standard Plunger Elevator Co. v. Stokes. Read the opinion of the Court — 212 F. 941
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided November 11, 1912·No. No. 35·Published

Opinion

EACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

There is a sharp controversy as to the interpretation to be given to certain written contracts between Earsson and the complainant or its predecessors. This branch of the case need not be discussed, since the defendants concede that they are estopped from denying the validity of the patent, and complainant concedes that [767]*767defendants are at liberty to contend for such a construction of the claims of the patent as will leave defendants’ structure outside of the scope of those claims.

The structure covered by the patent is a hydraulic elevator of the direct-acting plunger type. In this type the car is mounted on a plunger or piston, which runs through a stuffing box into a cylinder. The cylinder is of sufficient depth to receive the plunger when the car is at its lowest level. The plunger is elevated by the action of water, which is forced into the cylinder under pressure by a pump. The water enters the pump from a storage tank, and, after being acted upon by the pump, passes into an air pressure tank, called a supply tank, from which it is fed into the cylinder by the operation of a valve worked by the elevator man. As shown in the patent, there is no air pressure in the storage tank. The elevator car rises under the action of this water thus forced into the cylinder till it reaches its upper level. When it descends, the plunger forces out the water in the cylinder, which then flows back into the storage tank — also sometimes called the exhaust tank, since it receives the water from the cylinder after it has done its work. In order to reduce the amount of power exerted to move the plunger and car, they are counterweighted. We may now consider the patent in suit.

The specifications state that, although it was quite practicable with short-run elevators to counterweight the car and plunger, so that the pump did not have too much work to do, there were serious difficulties and some unsafety in thus operating long-run elevators. “This is due to the fact that, in raising a long plunger and a comparatively heavy car, comparatively heavy weights are set in motion. This in itself would not be objectionable, if it were possible to counterweight plunger and car up to the full limit of weight, less the amount of weight required to start the unloaded car on its downward travel, which is the limit to which comparatively short-run, low-speed plunger elevators may be counterweighted.” After pointing out why it is that long-run elevators cannot be counterweighted to the same limit as short-run ones, and showing the result of an over-counterweighted system of this kind, the patentee says:

“In the high-speed plunger elevator plants of over 200 feet run, which have, already been practically installed, it has been found necessary to have a preponderance of weight in the plunger and car over the weight of the counterweight of nearly 3,500 pounds, and the efficiency of such elevators as heretofore installed has been decreased by the amount of power necessarily wasted in raising this unbalanced dead weight at each stroke of the elevator.”

He then discloses the special object of the invention, which is to provide a water-circulating system for plunger elevators, in which a water column will he acted upon by the unbalanced weight of the plunger and the car during the downward movement of the elevator. By this means a certain amount of pressure will be stored for use at the next operation, which pressure will assist the operation of the pump, so that the amount of work to be actually performed by the supply pump will be diminished and a greater efficiency thus insured.

In prior systems, as the patentee says, the inlet and outlet pipes, [768]*768through which the water passes to and from the cylinder, were connected with the supply pump and storage tank in the basement or lower part of the building. Since there was no air pressure in the storage tank, and it stood substantially at the level of the outlet from the cylinder, there was nothing to impart pressure to the water in the storage tank or in the pipe running therefrom to the pump. In the invention disclosed, however:

“The inlet and outlet pipes extend up into the building for sufficient distance to form water columns to act as hereinafter described. At its upper end the outlet pipe is connected with a storage tank, and the water from the storage tank is pumped into an air-pressure tank. * * * Instead of having two separate water columns, and instead of locating the pump in the upper part of the building, I may employ a single water column, which is connected to the lower part of the storage tank. A water column thus located. will aid the operation of the ordinary double-acting pumps employed in the usual elevator plants in the proportion that the static pressure of the water column bears to the working pressure required for the elevator. * * * In the operation of a plunger elevator, constructed according to my invention, the necessary preponderance of plunger and car over the counterweight will operate during the down stroke of the elevator to raise a water column, lifting a certain amount of water to the elevated storage tank, which will give a certain static head or pressure of water, which will diminish the amount of work required to be done by the supply pump.”

After pointing out that a 250-foot run elevator plant, with a certain counterweight and plunger diameter, will require 200 pounds working pressure to secure the desired speed of operation, the patentee says:

“In direct plunger elevators as heretofore installed, this entire working pressure of 200 pounds is furnished entirely by the supply pump, while in an apparatus constructed according to my invention, more than half the wording pressure will be supplied by the water column.”

The drawings of the patent show the storage tank located at about the upper level of the moving car. In an illustrative diagram used on the argument, the storage tank itself is located near the lower level; but the pipe which connects the storage tank with the pump rises to a level so far above them before it turns to complete its connection that there is a column of water contributing the required static pressure in aid of the pump. Such an arrangement is manifestly an equivalent of the water circulating system of the patent. The claims read:

“1. In a hydraulic elevator system, the combination of a vertical cylinder, a plunger running in said cylinder, a car on the upper end of the plunger, a counterbalance for the greater part of the weight of the car and plunger, with the counterweight cables acting to offset the buoyancy of the plunger, a to-and-from pipe opening into the upper end of the cylinder, a storage tank connected thereto and located far enough above the upper end of the cylinder so that its static pressure will substantially balance the preponderance in •weight of plunger and car over their counterbalance, a pressure tank, and a pump intermediate the storage tank and pressure tank; said parts being arranged so that the static pressure of the storage tank will assist the operation of the pump in raising the elevator.
“2.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Standard Plunger Elevator Co. v. Stokes, 200 F. 766, 119 C.C.A. 246, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1907 (2d Cir. 1912).

200 F. 766 (Standard Plunger Elevator Co. v. Stokes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.