WHAT SETTLED THE SUBMARINE.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 May 1921, Page 8

WHAT SETTLED THE SUBMARINE.

DEPTH-CHARGE CLAIM. WAR-TIME INVENTIONS. London, March 3. Ramming was the only method which was found at all effective. Nets were tried, but by themselves they were not sufficient to overcome the danger. Then the Channel net was soon passed by the Germans. The thing that fettled the submarine was the depth charge. Those four interesting points related to the warfare bn submarines, and they were mentioned by Mr. Kerley, K.C., on behalf of Mr. L. D. Newitt, chief elec'trieal engineer of Chatham Dockyard, whose claim came before the Royal Commission of Awards to Investors this week.

Mr. Kerley mentioned that his client had turned out a lajge number of inventions, and during the war £300,000 was spent directly in carrying out apparatus devised by him. He put forward claims in respect of 22 inventions, of which eleven were submitted to the Commission, and he w’as now proceeding with regard to only -six thefn. For his hydraulic gear for the release of depth charges he was paid on account £lOO, and £250 on general account in respect of the others, and he also received £lOO from the United States Navy for their use of the depth charge apparatus, a tal of £450. His salary was £BOO ya year, plus war bonus. In respect of this invention, and also the hydraulic system of searchlights, substantial awards ought to be given.

Dealing with the hydraulic depth charge mechanism, Mr. Kerley said when the submarine menace became serious great difficulty was found in dealing with the danger. The essentials of the depth charge were in instant release at a given point, otherwise there would be danger to following vessels. The problem was successfully overcome by the applicant, and 2800 were completed at a total cost of £116,D00.

-Mr. Moritz (for the Crown) was prepared to admit that this was a valuable invention, and it had now become standdard practice. The real merit was in suggesting hydraulic release. The Admiralty were agreed that the device was deserving of an award of a substantial amount.

Dealing with improvement in circuit breakers for use in gun circuits, Mr. Kerley said the essence of this was that when firing a broadside or salvo, it was necessary that all guns should go off at the same instant, and this it accomplished. The sum of about £30,000 was spent on the apparatus. The Admiralty agreed that the invention was of considerable value, and that the inventor was entitled to some award. ’ Subsequently, “improvements in electric soldering irons” were mentioned. Mr. Justice Sargant considered the matter to be so insignificant and trifling and so much within t)ie scope of the duties of the inventor that it should not have been presented to the Commission. If they were to give awards in such cases they would have hundreds of thousands of applications from workmen all over the country. Referring to another invention, Mr. Justice Sargent remarked: “Until a few months ago economy was a virtue that had entirely gone out of fashion, and it was thought that most people might carry on exactly as they thought fit without regard to that consideration, but there is a different state of haw."