Visit ebookfinal.

com to download the full version and

explore more ebooks or textbooks

Modeling and Control of Fuel Cells Distributed

Generation Applications IEEE Press Series on Power
Engineering 1st Edition M. H. Nehrir

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://ebookfinal.com/download/modeling-and-control-of-
fuel-cells-distributed-generation-applications-ieee-press-
series-on-power-engineering-1st-edition-m-h-nehrir/

Explore and download more ebooks or textbook at ebookfinal.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Micro Fuel Cells Principles and Applications 1st Edition

Tim Zhao

https://ebookfinal.com/download/micro-fuel-cells-principles-and-
applications-1st-edition-tim-zhao/

Computational Intelligence in Bioinformatics IEEE Press

Series on Computational Intelligence 1st Edition Gary B.
Fogel
https://ebookfinal.com/download/computational-intelligence-in-
bioinformatics-ieee-press-series-on-computational-intelligence-1st-
edition-gary-b-fogel/

Complex Electromagnetic Problems and Numerical Simulation

Approaches Ieee Press Series on Electromagnetic Wave
Theory 1st Edition Levent Sevgi
https://ebookfinal.com/download/complex-electromagnetic-problems-and-
numerical-simulation-approaches-ieee-press-series-on-electromagnetic-
wave-theory-1st-edition-levent-sevgi/

Electric Bicycles A Guide to Design and Use IEEE Press

Series on Electronics Technology 1st Edition William C.
Morchin
https://ebookfinal.com/download/electric-bicycles-a-guide-to-design-
and-use-ieee-press-series-on-electronics-technology-1st-edition-
william-c-morchin/
Wireless Video Communications Second to Third Generation
and Beyond IEEE Series on Mobile Digital Communications
1st Edition Lajos L. Hanzo
https://ebookfinal.com/download/wireless-video-communications-second-
to-third-generation-and-beyond-ieee-series-on-mobile-digital-
communications-1st-edition-lajos-l-hanzo/

Emergent Information Technologies and Enabling Policies

for Counter Terrorism IEEE Press Series on Computational
Intelligence 1st Edition Robert L. Popp
https://ebookfinal.com/download/emergent-information-technologies-and-
enabling-policies-for-counter-terrorism-ieee-press-series-on-
computational-intelligence-1st-edition-robert-l-popp/

Cyber Physical Distributed Systems Modeling Reliability

Analysis and Applications 1st Edition Huadong Mo

https://ebookfinal.com/download/cyber-physical-distributed-systems-
modeling-reliability-analysis-and-applications-1st-edition-huadong-mo/

Fuel Cells Problems and Solutions The ECS Series of Texts

and Monographs 2nd Edition Vladimir S. Bagotsky

https://ebookfinal.com/download/fuel-cells-problems-and-solutions-the-
ecs-series-of-texts-and-monographs-2nd-edition-vladimir-s-bagotsky/

Solid Oxide Fuel Cells Jeffrey Fergus

https://ebookfinal.com/download/solid-oxide-fuel-cells-jeffrey-fergus/
Modeling and Control of Fuel Cells Distributed
Generation Applications IEEE Press Series on Power
Engineering 1st Edition M. H. Nehrir Digital Instant
Download
Author(s): M. H. Nehrir, C. Wang
ISBN(s): 9780470233283, 0470233281
Edition: 1
File Details: PDF, 12.81 MB
Year: 2009
Language: english
MODELING AND
CONTROL OF
FUEL CELLS
BOOKS IN THE IEEE PRESS SERIES ON POWER ENGINEERING

Principles of Electric Machines with Power Electronic Applications, Second Edition

M.E. El-Hawary

Pulse Width Modulation for Power Converters: Principles and Practice

D. Grahame Holmes and Thomas Lipo

Analysis of Electric Machinery and Drive Systems, Second Edition

Paul C. Krause, Oleg Wasynczuk, and Scott D. Sudhoff

Risk Assessment for Power Systems: Models, Methods, and Applications

Wenyuan Li

Optimization Principles: Practical Applications to the Operations of Markets of the

Electric Power Industry
Narayan S. Rau

Electric Economics: Regulation and Deregulation

Geoffrey Rothwell and Tomas Gomez

Electric Power Systems: Analysis and Control

Fabio Saccomanno

Electrical Insulation for Rotating Machines: Design, Evaluation, Aging, Testing, and
Repair
Greg Stone, Edward A. Boulter, Ian Culbert, and Hussein Dhirani

Signal Processing of Power Quality Disturbances

Math H. J. Bollen and Irene Y. H. Gu

Instantaneous Power Theory and Applications to Power Conditioning

Hirofumi Akagi, Edson H. Watanabe and Mauricio Aredes

Maintaining Mission Critical Systems in a 24/7 Environment

Peter M. Curtis

Elements of Tidal-Electric Engineering

Robert H. Clark

Handbook of Large Turbo-Generator Operation and Maintenance, Second Edition

Geoff Klempner and Isidor Kerszenbaum

Introduction to Electrical Power Systems

Mohamed E. El-Hawary

Modeling and Control of Fuel Cells: Distributed Generation Applications

M. Hashem Nehrir and Caisheng Wang
MODELING AND
CONTROL OF
FUEL CELLS
Distributed Generation Applications

M. Hashem Nehrir
Caisheng Wang

IEEE
PRESS
SERIES
ON
POWER
ENGINEERING

+,IEEE
IEEE Press

�WILEY
A JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., PUBLICATION
 IEEE Press
445 Hoes Lane
Piscataway, NJ 08854

IEEE Press Editorial Board

Lajos Hanzo, Editor in Chief

R Abari T. Chen B.M. Hammerli

J. Anderson T. O. Croda O.Malik
S. Basu M. El Hawary S. Nahavandi
A. Chatterjee S. Farshchi W. Reeve

KennethMoore, Director of IEEE Book and Information Services (BIS)

Jeanne Audino, Project Editor

Technical Reviewers
Rama Ramakumar, Oklahoma State University
Kai Strunz, Technical University of Berlin

Copyright © 2009 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. All rights reserved.
Published simultaneously in Canada

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or
by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as
permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the United States Copyright Act, without either the prior
written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per copy fee to
the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers,MA 01923, (978) 750 8400,
fax (978) 750 4470, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission
should be addressed to the Pennissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., III River Street, Hoboken,
NJ 07030, (201) 748 6011, fax (201) 748 6008, or online at
Limit ofLiabilitylDisciaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in
preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or
completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of
merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales
representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be
suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the
publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including
but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact our
Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762 2974, outside the United States at
(317) 572 3993 or fax (317) 572 4002.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may
not be available in electronic formats. For more information about Wiley products, visit our web site
at www.wiley.com.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available.

ISBN 978 0 470 23328 3

Printed in the United States of America

CONTENTS

Preface xiii

Acknowledgments xvii

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background: A Brief History of U.S. Electric Utility

Formation and Restructuring I
1.2 Power Deregulation and Distributed Generation 3
DG Types 7
Fuel Cell DG 9
The Hydrogen Economy 13
1.5.1 Introduction 13
1.5.2 Challenges of Transition to a
Hydrogen Economy 14
1.5.3 Hydrogen Production 15
1.5.3.1 Hydrogen Production by Reforming
Natural Gas 16
15.3.2 Hydrogen Production from Coal 17
1.5.3.3 Hydrogen Production from
Nuclear Energy 18
1.5.3.4 Hydrogen Production
by Water Electrolysis 19

v
vi CONTENTS

1.5.3.5 Solar Energy to Hydrogen 19

1.5.3.6 Wind Energy to Hydrogen 20
1.5.3.7 Biomass Energy to Hydrogen 20
1.5.4 Hydrogen Storage and Distribution 21
1.5.5 Department of Energy Hydrogen-Related
Activities 22
1.5.5.1 Hydrogen Production 22
1.5.5.2 Hydrogen Basic Research 23
1.5.5.3 Hydrogen Delivery 23
1.5.5.4 Hydrogen Storage 24
1.5.5.5 Hydrogen Energy Conversion
(Fuel Cells) 24
1.5.6 The Role of This Book 26
References 27

2 Principles of Operation of Fuel Cells 29

2.1 Introduction 29
2.2 Chemical and Thermal Energy of an Element 30
2.3 Fundamentals of Thermodynamics 31
2.3.1 The First Law of Thermodynamics 31
2.3.2 The Second Law of Thermodynamics 32
2.4 Fundamentals of Electrochemical Processes 34
The Gibbs Free Energy 34
2.5 Energy Balance in Chemical Reactions 35
2.6 The Nernst Equation 37
2.7 Fuel Cell Basics 38
2.8 Types of Fuel Cells 40
2.9 Fuel Cell Equivalent Circuit 53
2.10 Capacitance of Double-Layer Charge Effect 54
2.11 Summary 55
References 56

3 Dynamic Modeling and Simulation of PEM

Fuel Cells 57

3.1 Introduction: Need for Fuel Cell Dynamic Models 57

3.2 Nomenclature (PEMFC) 58
3.3 PEMFC Dynamic Model Development 60
3.3.1 Gas Diffusion at the Electrodes 62
3.3.2 Material Conservation 64
3.3.3 PEMFC Output Voltage 65
 CONTENTS vii

3.3.4 PEMFC Voltage Drops 67

3.3.5 Thermodynamic Energy Balance for PEMFC 69
3.4 PEMFC Model Structure 71
3.5 Equivalent Electrical Circuit Model of PEMFC 72
3.6 PEMFC Model Validation 77
References 83

4 Dynamic Modeling and Simulation of Solid

Oxide Fuel Cells 85

4.1 Introduction 85
4.2 Nomenclature (SOFC) 86
4.3 SOFC Dynamic Model Development 88
4.3.1 Effective Partial Pressures 89
4.3.2 Material Conservation 92
4.3.3 SOFC Output Voltage 94
4.3.3.1 Activation Voltage Drop 95
4.3.4 Thermodynamic Energy Balance
for Tubular SOFC 98
4.3.4.1 The Fuel Cell Tube 99
4.3.4.2 Fuel 100
4.3.4.3 Air Between Cell and Air Supply
Tube (AST) 100
4.3.4.4 Air Supply Tube 101
4.3.4.5 Air in AST 101
4.4 SOFC Dynamic Model Structure 102
4.5 SOFC Model Response-Constant Fuel
Flow Operation 103
4.5.1 Steady-State Characteristics 103
4.5.2 Dynamic Response 106
4.5.2.1 Dynamics Due to the Double-Layer
Charge Effect 106
4.5.2.2 Dynamics Due to the Effect
of Pressure 108
4.5.2.3 Dynamics Due to the Effect of
Temperature 109
4.6 SOFC Model Response-Constant Fuel
Utilization Operation 111
4.6.1 Steady-State Characteristics 112
4.6.2 Dynamic Response 113
References 114
viii CONTENTS

5 Principles of Operation and Modeling

of Electrolyzers 116

5.1 Principle of Operation of Electrolyzers 116

5.2 Dynamic Modeling of Electrolyzers 117
5.2.1 Electrolyzer Steady-State (V-I)
Characteristics 119
5.2.2 Modeling Hydrogen Production Rate 120
5.2.3 Electrolyzer Thermal Model 122
5.3 Electrolyzer Model Implementation 123
References 125

6 Power Electronic Interfacing Circuits

for Fuel Cell Applications 1 26

6.1 Introduction 126

6.2 Overview of Basic Power Electronic Switches 128
6.2.1 Diode 128
6.2.2 Thyristor 129
6.2.3 Bipolar Junction Transistor (BJT) 130
6.2.4 Metal-Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect
Transistor (MOSFET) 131
6.2.5 Gate Tum-Off Thyristor (GTO) 132
6.2.6 Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistor (IGBT) 133
6.2.7 MOS-Controlled Thyristor (MCT) 133
6.3 ac/dc Rectifiers 135
6.3.1 Circuit Topologies 135
6.3.2 Simplified Model for Three-Phase
Controllable Rectifiers 138
6.4 dc to dc Converters 140
6.4.1 Boost Converters 141
6.4.1.1 Circuit Topology 141
6.4.1.2 Small-Signal State-Space Model 142
6.4.1.3 Average Model for Long-Time
Simulation 144
6.4.2 Buck Converters 146
6.4.2.1 Circuit Topology 146
6.4.2.2 Small-Signal State-Space Model
for Buck dc/dc Converters 148
6.4.2.3 Average Model for Long-Time
Simulation 149
 CONTENTS ix

6.5 Three-Phase dc/ac Inverters 150

6.5.1 Circuit Topology 150
6.5.2 State-Space Model 153
6.5.3 abc/dq Transformation 156
6.5.4 dq Representation of the State-Space Model 157
6.5.5 Ideal Model for Three-Phase V SI 159
References 162

7 Control of Grid-Connected Fuel Cell Power

Generation Systems 163

7.1 Introduction 163

7.2 Grid-Connected System Configuration 164
7.2.1 PEMFC Unit Configuration 166
7.2.2 SOFC Unit Configuration 166
7.3 Controller Designs for dc/dc Converters
and the Inverter 168
7.3.1 Circuit and Controller Design for the
Boost dc/dc Converter 168
7.3.1.1 Circuit Design 168
7.3.l.2 Controller Design 170
7.3.2 Controller Design for the Three-Phase V SI 173
7.3.2.1 Current Control Loop 174
7.3.2.2 Voltage Control Loop 176
7.3.2.3 Overall Power Control System
for the Inverter 181
7.4 Simulation Results 182
7.4.1 Desired P and Q Delivered to the
Grid-Heavy Loading 182
7.4.1.1 PEMFC DG 182
7.4.l.2 SOFC DG 184
7.4.2 Desired P Delivered to the Grid, Q Consumed
from the Grid: Light Loading 186
7.4.2.1 PEMFC DG 187
7.4.2.2 SOFC DG 188
7.4.3 Load-Following Analysis for Fuel Cells 189
7.4.3.1 Fixed Power Supply from the Grid 189
7.4.3.2 Fixed Power Supply from the FCDG 191
7.4.4 Fault Analysis 192
7.5 Summary 195
References 195
X CONTENTS

8 Control of Stand-Alone Fuel Cell Power

Generation Systems 198

8.1 Introduction 198

8.2 System Description and Control Strategy 199
8.3 Load Transient Mitigation Control 201
8.3.1 Circuit Model for Lead-Acid Batteries 202
8.3.2 Battery ChargeIDischarge Controller 203
8.3.3 Filter Design 204
8.4 Simulation Results 205
8.4.1 The Load Transients 206
8.4.1.1 The dc Load Transients 206
8.4.1.2 The ac Load Transients 207
8.4.2 Load Transient Mitigation 209
8.4.2.1 PEMFC System 209
8.4.2.2 SOFC System 212
8.4.3 Battery ChargeIDischarge Controller 214
8.5 Summary 216
References 216

9 Hybrid Fuel Cell Based Energy

System Case Studies 219

9.1 Introduction 219

9.2 Hybrid Electronically Interfaced Systems 221
9.2.1 The dc-Coupled Systems 222
9.2.2 The ac-Coupled Systems 224
9.2.3 Stand-Alone Versus Grid-Connected Systems 225
9.3 Fuel Cells in Hybrid Combined Heat
and Power Operation Mode 226
9.4 Case Study I: A Hybrid Stand-Alone
Wind-PV-FC System 227
9.4.1 System Configuration 227
9.4.2 System Unit Sizing 230
9.4.3 System Component Characteristics 232
9.4.3.1 The Wind Energy Conversion
System Model 233
9.4.3.2 The Photovoltaic Array Model 234
9.4.3.3 The Fuel Cell and Electrolyzer Models 235
9.4.4 System Control 236
9.4.4.1 The Overall Power Management
Strategy 236
 CONTENTS xi

9.4.4.2 The Wind-Turbine Pitch Angle

Controller 236
9.4.4.3 The PV Maximum Power Point
Tracking (MPPT) Control 238
9.4.4.4 The ac Bus Voltage Regulator 240
9.4.4.5 The Electrolyzer Controller 241
9.4.5 Simulation Results 241
9.5 Case Study II: SOFC Efficiency Evaluation in Hybrid
Operation Mode 247
9.5.1 Thermodynamic Laws and SOFC Efficiency 248
9.5.2 Hydrogen Fuel Heating Values 253
9.5.3 SOFC Electrical Efficiency 255
9.5.4 SOFC Efficiency in Hybrid CHP
Operation Mode 256
9.6 Summary 259
References 260

10 Present Challenges and Future of Fuel Cells 265

10.1 Introduction 265

10.2 Fuel Cell System Operations 266
10.2.1 Fuel Processor 266
10.2.2 Fuel Cell Stack 267
10.2.3 Power Conditioner System 269
10.2.4 Balance of Plant (BOP) Systems 272
10.3 Present Challenges and Opportunities 272
10.3.1 Cost 272
10.3.2 Fuel and Fuel Infrastructure 273
10.3.3 Materials and Manufacturing 274
10.4 U.S. Fuel Cell R&D Programs 275
10.4.1 DOE's SOFC-Related Programs 276
10.5 Future of Fuel Cells: A Summary and
Authors Opinions 278
References 279

Appendix A Instruction for Running the PEMFC and SOFC

Models and Their Distributed Generation
Application Models 2 82

Index 291
PREFACE

Fuel cells (FCs) have caught intensive attention in the last decade.
Following their successful development for the manned space program by
the U.S. National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) in the
1960s, significant advances have been achieved in the fuel cell technology
and the applications of different types of fuel cells.
Environmental concerns and world-wide social and political pressure to
reduce carbon dioxide emission, and the desire to seek higher energy
conversion efficiencies in electrical power generation, have been the main
drivers for fuel cell technological advances and their applications,
including distributed power generation and fuel cell vehicle applications.
Electrical power producers are seeking ways to gain competitive position
in the deregulated power market by contributing to reduced environmental
emissions. In addition, as a part of the requirement to pursue technologies
to reduce carbon emissions, the automobile industry has started FC vehicle
development with the ultimate goal of reaching zero-emission car.
The operation of fuel cells, being based on electrochemical principles, is
normally better understood by scientists (i.e., chemists, physicists, and
material scientists) and chemical engineers working in this area. Since the
end product of fuel cells is electricity, their operation also needs to be
understood by electrical engineers working in the area to be able to design
interfacing electrical circuits and controllers to achieve their improved
performance. For this reason accurate and user-friendly dynamic fuel cell
models are needed to evaluate their steady-state and transient performance

xiii
xiv PREFACE

from electrical engineering. This book bridges the gap between the two
groups, namely scientists/chemical engineers and electrical engineers. It
explains the principle of operation of fuel cells in a simple language
understood by electrical engineers. It also explains the development of
physically-based dynamic models for PEM fuel cells (PEMFCs) and
tubular solid-oxide fuel cells (SOFCs), which have great potential for
distributed generation (DG) and mobile applications. The main focus of the
book, however, is on modeling, control and applications of the above two
types of fuel cells. PEMFCs are suitable for residential and backup power
as well as DG and FC vehicle applications. SOFCs are high-temperature
fuel cells suitable for DG and combined heat and power (CHP) operation to
achieve high system energy efficiency.
This book is the result of over 10 years of research on PEMFC and
SOFe. It combines the theory, modeling, interfacing, and control of FC
systems in one place. The book is intended to be a resource for all
engineers, in particular, electrical, chemical, and mechanical engineers,
and for all those interested in designing controllers and interfacing circuits
for FC energy systems and FC vehicles of the future. An overview of the
chapters covered in the book is given below:
Chapter 1 gives a brief history of U.S. electric utility formation and
background about the restructured utility that leads to increased interest in
DG. Then, an overview of DG and its different types, DG applications of
FCs, an introduction to hydrogen economy, and a need for a FC-powered
society are covered.
Chapter 2 gives a brief coverage of electrical and thermal energy,
fundamentals of thermodynamics, and electrochemical processes, which
have lead to the operation of FCs. The of operation of major
types of FCs and electrolyzer are also covered.
Chapters 3-5 cover the modeling of PEMFC, tubular SOFC, and
electrolyzer, respectively. The development of a physically-based dynamic
model and equivalent electrical circuit model for PEMFC and PEMFC model
validation are given in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 covers the development of a
physically-based dynamic model for tubular SOFC under different operating
conditions. The process of water electrolysis and electrolyzer modeling are
introduced in Chapter 5. The emphasis in these chapters is on the electrical
terminal characteristics of PEMFC, tubular SOFC, and electrolyzer.
An introduction to and modeling of power electronic switching devices
and circuits for FC energy systems is given in Chapter 6. Power electronic
(power conditioning) devices are important and integral part of FC systems
to obtain conditioned electricity output with desired power quality. The
 PREFACE XV

development of the models in the rotating (dq) reference frame, which is

useful in controller design (covered in Chapters 7 and 8) is also presented.
Fuel cells face a variety of load and/or electrical disturbances. Proper
controllers must be integral parts of FC systems to achieve their reliable and
durable operation in delivering electricity of desired quality. Chapters 7
and 8 cover control methodologies and controller designs for stand-alone
and grid-connected operation of FCDO systems, respectively.
Hybrid alternative energy power generation systems are expected to be
an important part of the power generation paradigm of the future. Chapter 9
covers two distinct examples of applying the developed FC models and
controller design methodologies for designing hybrid DO systems
including FCs. The chapter covers the design and performance investiga­
tion of a hybrid wind/photovoltaic (PV)IFC-electrolyzer system using
PEMFC and the operation and efficiency evaluation of SOFC in CHP
(combined-cycle) mode.
Three major challenges to fuel cell commercialization (cost, fuel and
fuel infrastructure, and materials and manufacturing) are outlined in
Chapter 10. A summary of authors' opinions on current developmental
status and future potential of fuel cells is also given in the chapter.
An important feature of this book is the electronic files of the computer
models provided with it, available at ftp://ftp.wiley.comlscLtech med/
fueLcells. They are MATLAB/SIMULINK and PSpice-based files of
PEMFC and MATLAB/SIMULINK-based files of SOFC dynamic models,
and their FCDO applications. The models have been developed and
simulation results obtained on MATLAB/SIMULINK version 7.0.4.
Instruction for running the models is given in Appendix A at the end of
the book. Basic knowledge of MATLAB/SIMULINK or PSPICE is
required to run the models. We hope these models and their DO
applications will be useful to educators, students, and researchers world­
wide in new methodologies for modeling and control of FC
energy systems of the future.

M. HASHEM NEHRIR
CAISHENG
Bozeman, Montana
Detroit, Michigan
January 2009
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank many people and organizations that helped
them in the preparation of this book; without their help and support this
book would not have been possible.
We are most grateful to Dr. Don Pierre, Professor Emeritus of Electrical
& Computer Engineering (ECE) Department at Montana State University
(MSU) for his invaluable suggestions and very careful editing and proof­
reading of nearly the entire book. We also acknowledge the fruitful
discussions we had with Dr. Steven Shaw of MSU ECE Department during
the course of our research.
Dr. Paul Gannon of the MSU Chemical & Biological Engineering
(CBE) Department contributed in the writing of Chapter 10 (Present
Challenges and Future of Fuel Cells). His knowledge on fuel processing,
internal operation of fuel cells and the challenges involved in bringing fuel
cells into widespread use helped us bring this book to completion.
Mr. Chris Colson, currently a Ph.D. candidate in the MSU ECE
Department contributed to the hybrid operation and efficiency evaluation
of SOFC in combined heat and power mode. His previous work in this area
co-authored by the authors of this book, as well as Professor Emeritus Max
Diebert of MSU CBE and Professor Ruhul Amin of MSU Mechanical &
Industrial Engineering, is used as an example in Chapter 9. Mr. Colson also
helped in editing a portion of the book, for which we are thankful.
During the course of our research, we made many presentations at
technical conferences on the modeling and control of PEMFC and SOFC.

xvii
xviii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are thankful to the many people who made constructive comments and
suggestions to us after attending our presentations. Their comments helped
us enrich the contents of this book.
We acknowledge the financial support provided by the following
agencies for work related to the contents of this book: Montana DOE­
EPSCoR (1994-2001), Montana NSF-EPSCoR (1998-2000), U.S.
National Science Foundation (Grant 0135229, 2002-2006), and the High
Temperature Electrochemistry (HiTEC) Fuel Cell Project at MSU, funded
by the U.S. Department of Energy, as a subcontract from Battle Memorial
Institute and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Award DE-AC06-
76RL01830, 2002-2008).
Hashem Nehrir is thankful to MSU for providing him with the release
time (sabbatical leave) for the preparation of the first draft of the book. He
is also thankful to the MSU ECE Department for its institutional support
and encouragement.
We would like to thank the following fuel cell companies for providing
photos of their products for this book: Ballard Power Systems, FuelCell
Energy, ReliOn, Siemens, Versa Power Systems, and Hydrogenics Corp.
We are thankful to Drs. Rama Ramakumar of Oklahoma State
University, Oklahoma and Kai Strunz of University of Berlin,
Germany for their careful review of the book; their constructive comments
and suggestions made the book more comprehensive. We are also thankful
to the staff of IEEE Press-Wiley and Thomson Digital for their dedication
to this book project.
Last but not least, we are thankful to our families for their
and support during the course of development of this book.

M.H. N.
C. W.
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Global environmental concerns and the ever-increasing need for electrical

power generation, steady progress in power deregulation, and tight
constraints over the construction of new transmission lines for long
distance power transmission have created increased interest in distributed
generation (DG). Of particular interest are renewable DGs with free energy
resources,such as wind and solar photovoltaic (PV),and alternative energy
DG sources with low emission of pollutant gases,such as fuel cell (FC) and
microturbine (MT) power generation devices.
In this chapter,some background about the restructured utility that lead
to increased interest in DG is given first. Then,an overview of distributed
generation and its different types is addressed. Distributed generation
applications of fuel cells will be covered next. Finally,since all viable types
of fuel cells use hydrogen (H2) as fuel,the last part of this chapter covers
the hydrogen economy,a need for a fuel-cell-powered society.

1.1 BACKGROUND: A BRIEF HISTORY OF U.S. ELECTRIC

UTILITY FORMATION AND RESTRUCTURING [1-4]

Electric utilities were initially formed in the United States in late

nineteenth century and established as isolated electric systems without

Modeling and Control of Fuel Celis, By M. Hashem Nehrir and Caisheng Wang
Copyright © 2009 The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

1
Discovering Diverse Content Through
Random Scribd Documents
SPEECHES AND PAPERS ON THE
ABOLITION OF PATENTS.
 The following petition, which Mr. Macfie had the honour to present,
contains the motion which gave occasion for the speeches that form
the principal part of this compilation:—

To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of

Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Petition of the Newcastle and Gateshead Chamber
of Commerce
Humbly sheweth,—
That your petitioners have had many opportunities of
becoming acquainted with the working of the laws under
which Patent-rights are granted to inventors in the United
Kingdom.
That your petitioners are informed that notice has been
given in your honourable House of a motion in the following
words:—

“That in the opinion of this House the time has arrived

when the interests of trade and commerce, and the
progress of the arts and sciences in this country, would
be promoted by the abolition of Patents for inventions.”

That your petitioners, believing the proposed total abolition

of Patent-Laws will be of great benefit to the country, are most
desirous that the above-named resolution should be adopted
by your honourable House.
Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the said motion
may pass your honourable House.
And your petitioners will ever pray, &c.
 NOTES OF SPEECH OF MR. MACFIE,
M.P.
Mr. Macfie, after apologies founded partly on the circumstance
that, so far as he knew, this was the first occasion when the policy of
granting Patents for Inventions had been discussed in Parliament,
proceeded to say, that manufacturers could not be indifferent to
improvements. It is indeed significant that they do dislike Patents,
while they appreciate and honour inventors, even those inventors
who claim from the State exclusive privileges, some of whom have
the glory of being among the greatest benefactors of mankind.
In considering the important subject which he now brought
forward, he submitted that it is not the interest of inventors, nor even
the interest of manufacturers, of agriculturists, of miners, nor of
shipping, that this House should consult, but those of the nation. The
question to be considered is, do Patents, on the whole, promote our
national welfare?
Another principle on which he proceeded is, that there can be no
property in ideas. The Creator has so constituted nature that ideas
can be held in common, which is not the case with things material.
Letters Patent for inventions have been instituted in order to confirm
to certain persons, and deprive every other person of, the common,
natural right to act on the ideas or knowledge there patented. These
exclusive privileges, while they last, are, of course, property.
Further: It is a recognised principle, that the State is not bound to
grant Patents. These are grants dictated by royal favour. In the
words of Stephens’ Commentaries: “The grant of a Patent-right is not
ex debito justitiæ, but an act of royal favour.” Every Patent is a
voluntary transference by the State to an individual of power for
fourteen years to tax at pleasure other persons for making or doing
the thing patented; aye, if he likes, to prohibit or withhold the thing
altogether.
Patent-right must not be confounded with Copyright. The latter
stands on perfectly different grounds, and can be advocated and
upheld, as he (Mr. Macfie) himself does, in perfect consistency with
disfavour for the former. There can be no rival claimant to the
authorship of any particular book; many persons may honestly and
indisputably claim originality in an invention. The true similarity
between these two subjects of privilege is not between the book and
the invention or machine, but the book and the specification of the
invention. When you buy a Murray’s handbook, a book on medicine,
or a commercial guide, you are at liberty to act on information you
find in it, and to travel, trade, or prescribe, according to the directions
you find there. But mark the contrast in what Patent-Law creates.
When you buy a specification, you know it tells only of certain things
that you are not at liberty to do.
Lastly: I acknowledge that it is legitimate to legislate with a view to
promote or protect trade. The interference, however, which is now
wanted is not a return to the old protective system of discriminative
duties, but the clearing away of evil laws, and especially deliverance
from the bondage and wrongs involved in Patent monopolies.
For the origin of our definite Patent legislation we go back to the
famous statute of James I. of England. At that time the people of this
kingdom were in a state somewhat resembling our present state.
They were desirous to extend trade and introduce new arts and
manufactures. Parliament was powerful and hated monopolies,
under which the people had been writhing. These it reprobated in the
spirit of the jurists of antiquity. While by that statute it swept away all
other monopolies, it permitted, or tolerated, that the Crown should
grant the exceptional privilege for “the sole working or making of any
manner of new manufactures within this realm, to the true and first
inventor and inventors of such manufactures, which others at the
time of making such Letters Patent and grants shall not use, so as
also they be not contrary to the law nor mischievous to the State, by
raising prices of commodities at home or hurt of trade or generally
inconvenient.”
 The House will keep steadily in view the wholly different condition
of commerce and the arts at that time. When these monopolies were
spared, trade was very far from being developed. The field of
commerce was still in a great measure clear and unoccupied. The
kingdom was, commercially as well as geographically, detached from
the continent. The operations of trade and the arts were slow, were
conducted on a small scale and on rude systems, and yielded large
profits. Exports to foreign parts were inconsiderable. There were no
periodicals to give information as to anything new in the arts and
sciences. Under such circumstances, if new kinds of business were
to be established, it was not unreasonably thought safe, or even
needful, to allure by promise of exclusive privileges. The very
reverse are our present circumstances and condition.
May I be allowed now to call particular attention to the Act.
Anybody may see that it authorised exclusive privileges as
something exceptional, something almost loathed, as “monopolies.”
The House may remember how, in conformity with this view, Patents
used to be construed by the judicial bench with a leaning against
them. It was clearly not contemplated that they were, as they are
now, to be had at a comparatively easy price, by a very simple
course of procedure organised to hand, at an office established and
with machinery ready to be set in motion for the purpose. A rigid
testing examination, or severe, perhaps somewhat adverse, scrutiny
was implied. They were granted for England only, then containing a
small population, and requiring not very much for its supply of any
new article. Moreover, the coveted privilege was a concession of no
more than leave or right to “work” or “make” (not vend), and that
within the kingdom, which, although it is the only thing the Act allows
Patents to be granted for, is not required now-a-days. The right was
conferrible only on the patentee himself; whereas now-a-days, and
perhaps from the first, the usage is altogether different; for the
patentee is now allowed to transfer his right, by licence, to others:
that is, to vend his “invention,” taking the noun, not in its sense of a
thing made, but of a method, or idea, or right to make or do a thing.
Without this licensing, it is of consequence to remember, the
monopoly would be too grossly and glaringly bad to be defensible or
maintainable. There is another contrast: by the words of the statute
nobody could be patentee but only the true and first inventor.
Besides, the subject of a Patent clearly was to be something
palpable and visible—something that admitted not of doubt as to
what it was or as to its being novel—something respecting which
there could be no fear whatever that it would interfere with any
already existing trade. Above all, a process or operation, especially
in a trade that already existed, does not appear to be contemplated
by the statute. How entirely and sadly different is the present
practice in this respect. Let me first quote from Brande’s Dictionary
the opening definition that shows how naturally, and as it seems,
unconsciously, writers speak of “processes,” as the great or only
subject-matter:—

“The word Patent is commonly used to denote a privilege

accorded to an inventor for the sole use of some process by
which an object in demand may be supplied to the public; or
some product already familiar to the public may be made
more easily and efficiently.”

So the commencement of a Paper on Patents, in the last volume

of the Proceedings of the Association for the Promotion of Social
Science—in the following words, “The point asserted in the following
paper is, that in a grant of Letters Patent, the subject of the grant is a
‘process,’ and not ‘product’”—shows as decisively the complete
change that has taken place, and, let us not forget it, without consent
of Parliament, who indeed have never been consulted. The alteration
of the practice, which is nothing less than a new law—a law
diametrically opposed to the spirit of the statute—is the work of the
courts of judicature. Better principles might have been expected to
prevail, for how just is the following reflection, taken from the most
important “Treatise on the Law of Patents:”—

“Every member of the community receives many benefits

from the society in which he lives, and he is therefore bound,
by every means in his power, to advance its interests. And it
seems to be but reasonable that he should be expected to
 promote the public weal by putting the community in
possession of any discovery he makes which may be for the
public good.”

The observations I have been making are founded on the words of

the statute. It is possible, and perhaps I may say probable, that
outside of the statute there was an influence drawing in an opposite
direction, which found expression in the Letters Patent. If these were
scrutinised, it is not unlikely even the earliest would be found not to
contain the strict conditions and limitations which are laid down in the
Act. An incidental proof of this tendency I notice in one Patent which
has met my eye, where, though the duration of the Patent in England
was confined within the permitted period of fourteen years, the
duration in Ireland, which was not subject to the limitation, was in
same grant made so long as between thirty and forty years. I do not
find, in the excellent Chronological Index issued by Mr. Woodcraft on
behalf of the Patent-office, anything at all to indicate that desire to
favour trade was the motive for granting Patents even after the
statute was passed. On the contrary, a money consideration seems
to have been customary. The Crown stipulated for yearly payments
of various amount, some of these being fixed sums, others a tenth,
or three-tenths, or a quarter, or a half, of the clear benefit. In one
case 4d. per bushel of salt was claimed. In another case 6d. per
100lbs. of bones was stipulated for. In another I find 5s. per ton of
metal stipulated. All this is suggestive, but not less the condition,
introduced occasionally, that the articles manufactured should be
sold at moderate rates. The moderate rates appear to have been
sometimes defined, e.g., 100 seals of a new kind were to be sold for
1d. Similar and more stringent care was taken when Copyright first
became the subject of systematic legislation, to prevent the
monopoly from making books dear. All such precautions have, in our
modern unwisdom, disappeared. Grotius requires under monopoly a
restriction on price.
One thing, I presume, may be regarded as certain, that neither in
the Act nor in the Letters is there any vestige of the modern political
heresy that an invention may be legislated for as in any sense
property. Even the high-sounding phrase, “the rights of inventors,”
appears a recent introduction.
It is not forty years since the greatest number of persons allowed
to participate in a Patent was five. This limitation was a lingering
remain of the traditional character of Patents, as monopolies which
ought not to be provided with facilities for extension but rather be
confined within the narrowest bounds.
It is proper I should now prove from that and other authorities in
law, what is the correct interpretation of the word “manufactures” in
the statute, on whose meaning so much depends. My quotations will
exhibit progressive development—a thing justly viewed with
suspicion, whether its sphere be the ecclesiastical or the legal. What
I now bring under notice, taken in connexion with the startling
perversion of the words “first and true inventor” and the setting at
nought the letter and spirit of the words “to make within this realm,”
matches the whimsical and ruinous sophistications we smile at in the
“Tale of a Tub.”
My first appeal is to Sir E. Coke’s “Institutes:”—

“If the substance was in being before, and a new addition

made thereunto, though that addition made the former more
profitable, yet it is not a new manufacture in law.”

That by a manufacture was meant something so definite as to

involve or imply an art in the sense of a trade, will be seen by
another quotation which I make from Serjeant Hawkins, who says
—“the King may grant the sole use of an art invented or first brought
into the realm.” So also in “Bacon’s Abridgment.” The Court of King’s
Bench held—

“A grant of the sole use of a new invented art is good....

This is tied up by the statute to the term of fourteen years; for
after that time it is presumed to be a known trade.”

Mr. Hindmarch writes—

 “It was long doubted whether a mode, method, or process
of itself, and apart from its produce or results, could legally be
made the subject of a Patent privilege.”

After citing cases, he adds—

“These cases show clearly that a process of manufacturing,

separate and apart, may be made the subject of a Patent
privilege.”

Mr. Coryton, in his volume on “The Law of Letters Patent,”

expresses his mind thus plainly:—

“On the assumption that a Patent confers a monopoly, it

follows directly that the subject-matter of the Patent must be a
material thing, capable of sale,[2] and cannot be either an
improvement, principle, method, process, or system. In other
words, the subject-matter must be, as it was originally
defined, a ‘new manufacture.’ A thousand evils have arisen
from affixing other than the literal interpretation to the terms,”
&c.

He quotes Justice Heath, who said—

“That which is the subject of a Patent ought to be vendible;

otherwise it cannot be a new manufacture.”

So Tyndal—

“That it is a manufacture can admit of no doubt: it is a

vendible article, produced by the art and hand of man.”

Mark from the words of Justice Buller, on the same occasion, the
sentiment which was permitted to prevail and neutralise the statute:
—

“Few men possess greater ingenuity, or have greater merit.

If their (Boulton and Watt’s) Patent can be sustained in point
of law, no man ought to envy them the profit and advantages
arising from it. Even if it cannot be supported, no man ought
to envy them the profit,” &c.

We come to C. J. Eyre:—

“According to the letter of the statute, the words ... fall very
short ... but most certainly the exposition of the statute, so far
as usage will expound it, has gone very much beyond the
letter. ‘A deliberate surrender,’ comments Mr. Coryton, ‘of
judicial power in favour of an accumulation of popular
errors.’... Later judges, following in the same course, have
striven rather to regulate the inconsistencies they found, than
to address themselves to the cause and thus prevent the
possibility of their recurrence. Writers on this subject have on
this head followed in the course indicated by the Bench.”

A practical commentary, and a confirmation of Mr. Coryton’s views,

are furnished by the fact that the number of Patents granted in the
six reigns preceding that of Geo. III. was only 540 in 85 years, or
less than 6½ a-year; whereas now a greater number is granted daily.
The actual administration of Patents is exhibited to us by a Return
which the House has been good enough to order on my motion. That
return shows how the rate of multiplication has increased, especially
in Scotland and Ireland.
There have been granted for—

In England
England. Scotland. Ireland. for the
Colonies.
In 1650—None.
 1700 2
1750 7
1800 96 13 2 6
1825 250 62 33 87
1850 523 227 531 191
1866 2,121 2,121 2,121 none
1867 2,292 2,292 2,292 none

There were in operation in the United Kingdom at the end of last

year no fewer than 11,369.
The House is aware that the Patent-office makes a classification of
Patents. The classification for 1866, the latest year that could be
given in the Return, shows that there are nearly 300 classes, and
there were Patents granted that year affecting those classes to the
number of more than thirty each on the average. Taking the
manufacture and refining of sugar as a test of other classes, the
Return shows that in that trade there were granted more than thirty
“affecting processes or operations” (without including hundreds of
others of a more general character, to which manufacturers of all
sorts are subjected, as, for instance, Patents for motive power,
heating, &c.). Many noteworthy matters will meet the eye of any
person who examines the Return, such as the following: For
medical, curative, and similar “revelations,” there were granted about
80; for improvements tending to safety, nearly 350; affecting food,
about 400; affecting steam-boilers, about 160; steam-engines, about
120.
But we have yet to consider the most material points in the Act. To
these I now call attention. The conditions or limitations which the
statute makes necessary are extremely significant. They are in these
words—“Not contrary to the law nor mischievous to the State, by
raising prices of commodities at home or hurt of trade or generally
inconvenient.”
On these words Sir Edward Coke remarks—

“There must be urgens necessitas and evidens utilitas.”

 What might be understood by being “generally inconvenient” in the
statute, and how little disposition there was to render that
disqualification a dead letter, we may gather from the following
extract, which shows that saving of labour was in those early days,
so far from being a recommendation, an inconvenience. Hear the
same authority:—

“There was a new invention found out that bonnets and

caps might be thickened in a fulling mill, by which means
more might be done than by the labours of fourscore men
who got their living by it. It was ordained by an Act, 7 Edward
VI. c. 8, that bonnets and caps should be thickened and fulled
by the strength of men, and not by a fulling mill, for it was
holden inconvenient to turn so many labouring men to
idleness.”

On which passage Mr. Farey (a gentleman eminent on Patent

questions), who quotes it in an elaborate review of Patent-Law at the
end of the Blue Book of 1829, the Report of the Committee on
Patents for Inventions, makes the following remarks: “If this decision
had been followed, it would have set aside every Patent for
invention.” True, and the more’s the pity, perhaps! Let us hail the
admission.
Sir Edward explains, and I read, the whole passage that I have
cited, not as a lawyer might who wished to ascertain whether by
oversight in drawing the Act or by the malleability and elasticity of
language it could be interpreted even non-naturally to suit a purpose,
but as honest, blunt Englishmen would understand it, as the English
gentlemen who passed the Act must have understood it and meant
the Crown to understand it. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that at this
moment, and by this statute, and according to the common law
which this statute declares, Patents are illegal which raise prices or
hurt trade. The framing of the sentence leaves no doubt whatever
that the antecedent to the words “they be not contrary to the law nor
mischievous to the State, by raising prices of commodities at home
or hurt of trade,” are these words, “Letters Patent and grants of
privilege.” The preceding section contains the same words. That
section was introduced in order to shorten the duration of Patents
granted previously, and to nullify any that raised prices or hurt trade.
It is plain that the intention of Parliament and of the Sovereign was to
allow no monopoly to exist whose effect would be either to interfere
with the extent or efficiency of industrial occupations, or to make
prices, even of the new manufacture or commodity, dearer under the
restriction than they would be without it. Even so late as the last
century, the consistency of monopoly with cheapening of prices was
believed in. As an example, I have been told that when the
Paraphrases of the Church of Scotland were issued, the monopoly
was given to a particular printer, with this purpose expressly stated.
What language can be plainer than that of the statute? As that
statute is still the charter of our commercial freedom and the chart by
which we may discover the track we must follow in order to our
return to the open and safe, and as its sound limitations are still the
law of the land, I am entitled at the outset to contend that they ought
to be put in force. They have been utterly neglected, and the nation
suffers much from the neglect. As to this, hear my witnesses. I
produce them chiefly from the following Blue-books: That issued by
the Committee of this House which sat in 1829, that issued by the
Committee of the House of Lords which sat in 1851, and that issued
by the Royal Commission in 1865. Here remark the strange failures
of expectations that characterise the proceedings of Parliament in
regard to Patent-Law. The Committee of 1829 recommended that
they should be allowed to continue their investigations next Session,
but they appear not to have been allowed. After the inquiries of 1851
there was, as a Petition which I have perused, presented to this
House, shows, an understanding that the whole subject would be
inquired into; but this never has been done down to this day. A
Commission was indeed appointed in 1862, but they were confined
to the question of the “working” of the laws. Indications were given,
both before and after it, that the question of the policy of these laws
should be examined into. The Liverpool Chamber of Commerce
repeatedly urged this; e.g., in March, 1862, when that body
petitioned the House thus: “They therefore pray that your honourable
House will appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the policy and
operation of those laws.” But the matter is still in abeyance, and,
notwithstanding promises in a Royal Speech, legislative action is
suspended.
To proceed: Mr. Lennard in this House, in April, 1829, declared his
opinion—“It was not desirable to facilitate overmuch the obtaining of
Patents by any reduction of expense.”
So Sir Robert Peel, in the interest of the manufacturers of
Lancashire, Cheshire, and Yorkshire, deprecated cheapening of
Patents and their consequent multiplication. At that period another
member objected even to the publishing of specifications, because

“It enabled persons to carry the invention abroad, where, of

course, the Patent article was made, the foreign market shut
against the real invention, and the undue benefit granted
foreigners of having the free use of the invention fourteen
years before the patentee’s countrymen.”

The House will observe that the complaint here is not that we were
hurt in British markets—for these the protective system of duties
closed—but that we lost our hold of foreign markets.
Sir Mark Isambard Brunel, the eminent engineer, told the
Committee of 1829:—

“I have had several Patents myself; I think that Patents are

like lottery offices, where people run with great expectations,
and enter anything almost.
“And if they were very cheap, there would be still more
obstacles in the way of good ones. I think the expense of
Patents should be pretty high in this country, or else, if it is
low, you will have hundreds of Patents more yearly, and you
would obstruct very much the valuable pursuits.”

That Patents are, indeed, a lottery in respect to the uncertainty

whether the patentees draw a prize or a blank, I refer to the words of
Mr. Curtis before the Royal Commission:—

“We have taken out a number of Patents, and frequently

those to which we have attached the least importance have
become the most valuable, and, on the contrary, those from
which we have expected large things we have reaped
comparatively no advantage.”

Mr. Coryton says in a note:—

“The opinions of the witnesses examined before the

Committee of the House of Commons in 1829 were almost
unanimous to the effect that Patents should not be too cheap,
lest the country should be inundated with them.”

Among my private papers, I find in 1851 the Manchester Chamber

of Commerce expressing the same fear in a letter to Mr. F. Hill, a
portion of which I now present:—

“It is considered by this Board to be a primary axiom that

every Patent granted is, during its exclusiveness, a limitation
to a certain extent of the general rights of the people, and that
in those Patents which have reference to manufacturing
processes there may be a disturbance of the general industry
of the people. This Board would, therefore, deprecate a too
great facility in the obtaining of Patents. If the cost be made
cheap, every trifling improvement in every process of
manufacture would be secured by a Patent. In a few years no
man would be able to make such improvement in his
machinery, or processes, as his own experience may
suggest, without infringing upon some other person’s Patent.
Endless litigation would follow, and the spirit of invention in
small matters would be rather checked than encouraged.”
 The realisation of these fears, as well as the inconsistency of our
practice with the conditions which our forefathers, more wise than
the present generation, imposed, will be seen from the specimen
extracts which I will now read, begging that it be remembered a very
large reduction in the cost of Patents was made in 1852. The House
will pardon me if it finds these extracts are not arranged with any
rigid regard to order, but form a too rudis indigestaque moles.
The following prove that there is a natural tendency to excessive
multiplication of Patents, and to the making of the same inventions,
and of inventions directed to the same end, or moving on the same
line, by a number of persons at or about one and the same time.
This very week you read in the papers a judgment given by the
Lord Chancellor, which contains the declaration that a person in
specifying an invention may be held as preventing “the loss for a
year or more to the public of the fruits of the ingenuity of many minds
which commonly are working together in regard to the same
invention.”
The Journal of Jurisprudence says well:—

“The rights of the inventor are also liable to interference of

another kind. A rival manufacturer invents independently the
same machine, or one involving the same principle. He is
then, by natural law, at liberty to publish his invention without
regard to the rights of the first inventor, seeing that he did not
acquire his knowledge of its powers from the latter, and
experience proves that, in point of fact, the same processes
are frequently discovered by different individuals
independently of each other. In an age of mechanical
invention, an inventor cannot deprive the world of a new
process by keeping it a secret. He can at most only retard the
progress of discovery by a few years.... We submit that the
fundamental principle of any legislative contract between
inventors and the public should be, that the right of using the
invention should be open to all Her Majesty’s subjects.
Exclusive privileges, conferred for the purpose of enabling
 patentees to divide their profits with a few favoured
manufacturing establishments, are indefensible upon any
recognised principles of economy. Patents are in fact, as they
are in law considered to be, trading monopolies; and the
interests of the public imperatively require that, as
monopolies, they should be swept away.”

Mr. Webster, Q.C., a high authority, says:—

“I mean the discovery, for instance, of some chemical

property, or the application of some property, of matter of
recent discovery, or a certain effect, for instance, in dyeing;
that becoming known as a chemical law, then persons rush to
obtain Patents for different applications and different
modifications of it.”

See by my next quotations how great is the obstruction the

multiplication of Patents creates, or, in the words of the Act, the
“general inconvenience” they occasion.
Mr. James Meadows Rendel, Civil Engineer, in 1851:—

“During the twenty-five years that I have been in practice, I

have frequently felt the inconvenience of the present state of
the Patent-Law, particularly with reference to the excessive
number of Patents taken out for frivolous and unimportant
inventions, which I think are much more embarrassing than
the Patents that apply to really important inventions.
“I have found them interfere in a way that very much
embarrasses an engineer in carrying out large works, without
being of the slightest advantage to the inventors, excepting
that in some cases a man who takes out a Patent finds a
capitalist (however frivolous the invention) who will buy the
Patent, as a sort of patent-monger, who holds it, not for any
useful purpose, but as a means of making claims which
embarrass persons who are not prepared to dispute
 questions of that sort. I think that in that way many Patents
are granted which are but of little benefit to the real inventor,
serving only to fill the coffers of parties who only keep them to
inconvenience those who might have occasion to use the
particular invention in some adjunct way which was never
contemplated by the inventor.
“After you have designed something that is really useful in
engineering works, you are told that some part of that design
interferes with some Patent granted for an entirely different
purpose, and which might in itself be frivolous, but important
in the new combination; and one has such a horror of the
Patent-Laws, that one evades it by designing something else,
perhaps as good in itself, but giving one infinite trouble,
without any advantage to the holder of the Patent. I have
frequently found this to be the case.”

Mr. W. S. Hale, candle manufacturer, said in 1851, in answer to

the question—

“At present they are obstructions to you?—Decidedly.

“You say that, practically, you have found the existence of
Patents in themselves useless—a great obstruction to the
introduction of inventions which would otherwise have been of
value?—Certainly.
“The great objection which I conceive many parties have to
introduce real improvements arises from useless Patents. I
am in treaty now for one or two which in themselves are
useless, yet they contain the germ of something, and it is
worth my while, if I can get them for a small sum, to purchase
them; but directly you make application for a Patent of that
description, it becomes very valuable all at once; the party
conceives you are desirous of possessing yourself of it, and
that you will be inclined to give anything for the use of it.”
 In like manner Sir William Armstrong answered this question, put
in 1864—

“Is it within your knowledge that considerable

inconvenience does exist in those branches of business with
which you are most conversant from the multiplicity of
Patents?—Most certainly, and great obstruction.”

So also Mr. James Spence, of Liverpool, a well-known

correspondent of the Times during the American war, said—

“It is difficult for a manufacturer to move in any direction

without treading on the toes of some sort of a patentee.”

Likewise Mr. Montague E. Smith, Q.C., M.P., said:—

“In several cases in which I have myself been counsel, very

great inconvenience has arisen from the multiplicity of Patents
which an inventor has had to wade through to see that he has
not been anticipated.”

How truly did Sir W. Armstrong observe to the Commission—

“You cannot grant a monopoly without excluding other

persons who are working upon the same subject.”

Again:—

“Here the State grants to an individual a monopoly, and

therefore the public are at his mercy.”

Mr. J. S. Russell, who himself has taken out a good many Patents,
speaks more specifically:—
 “There are a great many Patents of that kind taken out for
boilers of steam-engines, and boilers of steam-engines admit
of a very enormous variety of shape and proportion without
damaging their efficiency.... The consequence is, that I have
not defended any of my own. I have never made of mine
more than a mere registry of priority of invention. I have not
made mine a source of money, but I have suffered in this way
from Patents: I have gone on, in the course of my business,
doing my ordinary work, and I have found other people taking
out Patents for what I was doing without calling it an
invention, and then prosecuting me under the Patent they had
taken out for my own inventions, and it appears that there is
nothing to prohibit them from doing that.”

This I can from experience endorse. He is then asked—

“If you were able to prove that you had been carrying on an
invention, whatever it might be, at the time when the person
claiming to hold a Patent for it took out his Patent, would not
that relieve you from all difficulty in the matter?—It would only
give me the pleasure of defending a law-suit.”

Mr. Curtis, engineer, Manchester, said:—

“Many parties in trade have made alterations without being

aware of their being patented, and when they have used them
for a length of time, they have found that the patentee has
come upon them and made a claim for Patent-right.”

Mr. Platt, of Oldham, whom you are happy to see as a member,

said:—

“I think that there is scarcely a week, certainly not a month,

that passes but what we have a notice of some kind or other
of things that we have never heard of in any way, and do not
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookfinal.com