Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Richardson was the first person who made a safety valve which, while it automatically relieved the pressure of steam in the boiler, did not, in effecting that result, reduce the pressure to such an extent as to make the use of the relieving apparatus practically impossible because of the expenditure of time and fuel necessary to bring up the steam again to the proper working standard.
Anderson Greenwood Crosby is a US manufacturing company that produces valves for industrial processes, including pressure relief and tank protection valves. The firm was established as Anderson Greenwood in 1947 in Houston, Texas by Marvin Greenwood , Ben Anderson , and Lomis Slaughter Jr to produce a light aircraft, the AG-14 .
A separate actuator on the piping releases pressure in the line if it crosses a threshold. This releases the pressure on the back of the seal, causing the valve to open. The essential parts of a PORV are a pilot valve (or control pilot), a main valve, a pilot tube, the dome, a disc or piston, and a seat. The volume above the piston is called ...
Case history; Prior: 150 F. 741 (1st Cir. 1906): Holding; It was not unreasonable for a patent owner to use existing equipment embodying old technology rather than to build new machines using new patents.
British Locomotive Catalogue 1825–1923, Volume 2A: London and North Western Railway and its constituent companies. Ashbourne, Derbyshire: Moorland Publishing Company. ISBN 0-903485-51-6. Baxter, Bertram (1982). Baxter, David (ed.). British Locomotive Catalogue 1825–1923. Vol. 3A: Midland Railway and its constituent companies.
Southern Railway Company v. United States, 222 U.S. 20 (1911), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that under the Commerce Clause, the U.S. Congress can regulate safety on intrastate rail traffic because there is a close and substantial connection to interstate traffic.
Voss v. Fisher, 113 U.S. 213 (1885), was a patent case regarding neck-pads for horses. [1] These pads were of various kinds and had been in use well before the patent application was filed.
The case was argued on April 14, 1886 - April 15, 1886 and was decided on October 25, 1886, by vote of 6 to 3. Associate Justice Miller wrote for the Court with Associate Justices Field, Harlan, Woods, Matthews, and Blatchford concurring; Associate Justices Bradley and Gray, along with Chief Justice Waite, dissented.