Wybrow Innovations - Case Study 4 - The Clockwork Generator

CASE STUDY 4
The Clockwork Generator

This arrangement also had the accompanying advantage of ensuring that no mains electricity was involved in a toy used by a Child.

I realised that the clockwork generator could be used for driving all sorts of things such as a cassette player, a radio, and other electrical appliances, so, in 1987, I filed a patent application describing the invention. I built a working prototype using Meccano clockwork motors, gears and an electric motor, and demonstrated that I could drive an electric train with five carriages about four times around a reasonable sized track.

During the development work for the clockwork generator, I purchased a second-hand, hand-operated electric generator, which was sold, originally, by Meccano, under the name "Hand Generator" with the model number 11175, as part of its "Power Drive Series". I believe that the "Hand Generator" was originally on sale in 1975. I have demonstrated that this can be used for operating an electric train set or a radio.

Approaches to industry were made, concerning my clockwork generator, but with no success, and I eventually learned that much prior art on clockwork generators existed.Regrettably, I therefore decided to withdraw my patent application.

I could provide more detail concerning whom I approached, the replies I received, and how I felt about them, but suffice to say that, years later, the clockwork radio surfaced, and I felt that somehow, I had not been given credit for what I had done, and neither had the other inventors whose prior art I had found. I have even been approached by others who have invented clockwork generators and have just had to tell them to "do things themselves" if they are dissatisfied.

However, an opportunity did arise for me to explain, publicly, something about the history of the clockwork generator, because I was able to reply to a question about the origins of clockwork generators, which appeared in the Daily Mail newspaper in 1999: "Was there a clockwork generator before Trevor Baylis's famous invention?" My answer appeared on page 75 of the 7th October 1999 issue of that newspaper, where I explained my situation, and the results of my research:

1.	I filed a patent application entitled "A Mechanical to Electrical Energy Conversion System, on 19th November 1987 (Patent Application Number GB8727041) and, because of the prior art which was discovered from advice which was given by one of the companies which I had approached to gain interest in my invention, and also because of what was discovered from subsequent patent searches, I withdrew my Patent Application on 1st March 1989, so that it would not be published.
2.	A patent application, numbered 536340, for a clockwork torch, entitled, "Improvements in or relating to Portable Electric Light Units or Apparatus" was filed in the name of Joseph Capo-Bianco, on 5th April 1940.
3.	A clockwork generator had been used, in 1909, within a toy clockwork train engine, to generate electricity to drive a lamp on the front of the engine.
4.	A patent, numbered 450224, entitled "Driving Dynamos" was filed by W. Salven-Moser, on 5th October 1934.
5.	A patent, numbered 538134, entitled "Driving Dynamos" was filed by W. J. Wood, on 23rd January 1940.
6.	A patent, numbered 549562, entitled "Clockwork Driven Electric Generators" was filed by J.N. Waite, on 20th April 1942.

So what can we learn from this?

Many inventors have not been recognised for their work on clockwork generators.

I have exposed an idea/invention publicly, and have therefore, seemingly, prevented myself, and anyone else, from obtaining a patent on it. But what does anyone know about what else I may have done before I exposed the idea/invention! Moreover, it is often said that "life is a compromise"; my compromise, here, is to balance the value of exposing the truth about the origins of some ideas/inventions, against the potential disadvantage of exposing an idea/invention prematurely.

If you have an idea/invention, consider publishing a patent application describing it. If you cannot afford to "keep it alive" by paying the £100 to have the Substantive Examination carried out (you will already have paid £180 to have it examined at the Preliminary Examination Stage, and so, be ready for publication) you will, at least, be certain that it will be associated with you as originator.

You do, however, need to be aware that, by publishing it, but without "keeping it alive by paying the Substantive Examination Fee", you will be preventing yourself from obtaining a granted patent on it, and you will also be preventing anyone else from doing so, whilst allowing anyone to use the invention freely.

Bearing in mind that, when you file a patent application, you are protecting the interests of potential backers of your invention as well as your own, you can readily see how important the extra £100 for the Substantive Examination, is, because it is allowing you to take your invention past the publication stage, with the potential for grant.

You can now see why pacing yourself during the exploitation of your idea/invention, is so important. Backers will not want premature exposure of a good idea/invention, so you need to find them as early as possible. However, if you approach them before you have something worth showing, and in an incorrect way, they will not be impressed.

© Dr Brian R. A. Wybrow CSci, C.CHEM, MRSC; Ph.D. (Lond.)
Member of the Institute of Patentees and Inventors
Member of the Royal Society of Chemistry
Member of the Institute of Materials, Minerals & Mining