[CW] Origin of the term BUG

Mon Jul 12 07:41:58 EDT 2010

Thanks John for the thorough treatment of the term BUG -
Maybe this will help alligiviate our Vibro(com)plex ;0)

73, Henry OZ1UF/OU5T, Cph.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "D.J.J. Ring, Jr." <n1ea at arrl.net>
To: "CW Reflector" <cw at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 5:25 AM
Subject: [CW] Origin of the term BUG

> >From John Casale, W2Ni.
>
> I wrote an article on this back in 2004 for the AWA.
> This posting motivated me to make an expanded web version of it if
> anyone is interested in the topic.
> 73, John W2NI
>
> http://www.telegraph-history.org/bug/index.html
>
> The Origin of the Word "Bug"
> The technical and legal history of the name given to semi-automatic 
> transmitters
> There are two meanings to the word "bug" in the history of the
> telegraph. The first use of the word has its roots as a technical
> problem heard on duplex and quadruplex telegraph circuits. The second
> meaning evolved from the technical problem to become a nickname given
> to semi-automatic transmitters.
>
> The Bug Trade Mark
>
> With permission by The Vibroplex Co., Inc.
> During the 1870s, long before the semi automatic key was invented, a
> "bug" to telegraph engineers, inventors and telegraphers had a very
> specific meaning. It was commonly associated with false signals that
> were heard on early multiple telegraphy circuits, specifically on
> duplex and quadruplex circuits.
>
> A duplex circuit allowed two messages to be sent in opposite
> directions at the same time with two operators at each end of the
> wire. When false signals occurred, the wire was considered "bugs" or
> "buggy." There is one story that this terminology originated on a
> duplex circuit when a cockroach covered in ink crawled across a tap of
> a rheostat causing the circuit to go out of balance. A rheostat was
> used in multiple telegraphy systems to create an artificial line for
> balancing the current of the main line. It is hard to verify if the
> cockroach story is true or merely folklore but the rheostat/duplex
> reference adds some creditability to it.
>
> Later, when then Quadruplex was developed, there was a more specific
> use of the word "bug." In the Quadruplex, four simultaneous messages
> were possible on a single wire - two from each direction. One of the
> relays used in the "Quad" was called a neutral relay. When the current
> was reversing polarity on the line, there was a period when there was
> no magnetism on the coils of the relay. The armature on the neutral
> relay had a tendency to fall back on its stop generating false and
> interfering signals, or breaks on the wire. The sound of these false
> signals were refered to as a "Bug" on the wire, and the neutral
> relay's armature in this case, being the cause, was the "Bug."
>
> Thomas Edison was plagued with these false signals with his early
> Quadruplex designs. According to The Papers of Thomas A. Edison,
> Edison's approach when he could not eliminate the cause of a problem,
> was to come up with "an arrangement that rendered the effects
> insignificant."
>
> Edison designed various electro mechanical circuits to take care of
> the transition time when the polarity was reversing and he called his
> designs, "Bug Traps." His first bug trap consisted of a repeating
> sounder installed between the neutral relay and the local sounder. The
> delayed response of the repeating sounder isolated the false signals
> from ever reaching and activating the local sounder. After Edison,
> several other inventors came up with their own designs to eliminate
> these false signals on quadruplex circuits. By 1890, the term "bug" in
> the telegraph industry had evolved to commonly describe a fault heard
> on multiple telegraphy systems and was used to identify the source of
> a problem on a circuit.*
> Semi-automatic Transmitters
> When the first semi-automatic keys appeared on the wires around
> 1904/1905, they were first advertised and called transmitters. But,
> around 1908, a change occurred when telegraphers started to call them
> by the nickname, "bug," because they frequently sounded like one on a
> circuit.
>
> The first telegraphers to use the new transmitters were some of the
> best telegraphers in the country. They were considered "First Class"
> or "A1" telegraphers and worked the important circuits where high
> speed was necessity -- they were paid bonuses to send fast and thus
> motivated to buy them. Naturally with that much practice, they were
> the first to master the new transmitters. But, the majority of the
> telegraphers trying out the new semi-automatic transmitters worked
> slower speed circuits with plenty of intervals with no activity. When
> they started using the new transmitters, they were criticized for
> sending many errors. Their lack of experience and mis-adjustment of
> the transmitters sometimes resulted in excessive and "clipped" dots
> also causing what sounded like a "bug" on the circuit.
>
> Telegraphers using the new semi-automatic transmitters, in addition to
> learning to use them properly, had to learn to modify their sending
> technique and speed depending on circuit conditions and the type of
> circuit they were on. This too was to prevent false signals from being
> transmitted. This was noted by telegraph engineer and author, Donald
> McNicol in 1913: ....although the sending machines at present in use
> have surely made for increased speed of signaling, they have, in many
> instances, been the cause of poorly founded reflections being cast
> upon the electrical efficiency of a certain class of circuits.
>
> The Bug Trade Mark
> During the 1920s the right to use the word "bug" in trade was
> challenged in court. The case was between two of the best known key
> manufacturers is the U.S. at that time, The Vibroplex Co. and J.H.
> Bunnell & Co.
>
> Vibroplex attempted to stop J.H. Bunnell & Co. from using the word
> "bug" in association with Bunnell's semi-automatic transmitter the
> "Gold Bug." Vibroplex had recently failed to stop Bunnell from
> manufacturing the Gold Bug in an earlier law suit that they lost in
> appeal. Prior to this law suit, Vibroplex had a very successful track
> record of stopping competitors in their tracks, and in some cases,
> even preventing them from even getting beyond the experimental stage.
> But, after Vibroplex's loss in appeal to Bunnell, they felt their only
> legal option left was to try stop Bunnell from using the name, "Bug"
> in a new law suit.
>
> Vibroplex probably took on more than they bargained for when going up
> against the Bunnell Company and in a bitter court case, also lost this
> trade mark suit in both the lower and appeal courts. Beneath the
> Judges opinions in both courts are some interesting details on the
> history and use of the name bug and the character of the two companies
> selling them. I will highlight a few of the arguments for both sides
> in this case.
>
> Vibroplex phamplet
>
>>From a Vibroplex Co. pamphlet
> showing their various Trade Marks
>
>
> The arguments by Vibroplex:
> Vibroplex felt that a trade-mark relates solely to something in trade,
> and not at all to what is used in mere conversation. Vibroplex stated
> that on or about March 1, 1919, they adopted and began to use three
> new Trade Marks. First, the representations of a bug with conventional
> lightning rays radiating from it. Second, the words "Lightning Bug,"
> and third, the word, "Bug" itself. Some of these trade marks along
> with "Vibroplex," were placed on all machines that they manufactured
> from that date forward. (Vibroplex formally applied for the three new
> Trade Marks a year later, on May 11, 1920.) They claimed that there
> was not one instance in existence of the word "bug" having been used
> in trade by anyone prior to them using it as a trade mark on March 1,
> 1919. They felt the word bug was never used by an inventor, maker or
> seller and challenged Bunnell to produce an ad that showed the word
> "bug" being used in describing an instrument.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gold Bug Ad
>
> Bunnell Gold Bug Ad
>
>
>
> The arguments by Bunnell:
> Bunnell felt that Vibroplex knew that its "broad patents" were about
> to expire and in view of the approaching termination of its "patent
> monopoly," applied for a trade mark in 1920 for the common name "bug,"
> well aware of the fact that it had existed for at least a dozen years
> previously. In 1913, six years before Vibroplex claims to have first
> used the name bug, Bunnell designed an experimental bug of its own and
> named it the "Gold Bug." They felt that Bunnell has the right to use
> "Gold Bug" just as Vibroplex has the right to use "Lightning Bug" in
> trade.
>
> Bunnell felt that all "fluttering arm, multi-legged appearing
> telegraph keys," had been known to and called by everyone in the
> telegraph art or trade, by their common name bug and that the name was
> used to distinguish them from the other genus telegraph key, "Morse"
> which is made and sold by many manufacturers. Bunnell stated that the
> entire trade applied the word bug not only to Vibroplexes but to all
> other species of "bugs" that were known to telegraphers, i.e., as with
> a Mecograph Bug.
>
> During the lower court case, Bunnell's lawyer, Philip Farnsworth
> grilled Vibroplex president James Albright on the stand. Here is a
> brief sample where Farnsworth is trying to get a reluctant Albright to
> name the machines produced by its competitors in the past:
> You know that there were a number of machines, six, or eight, or ten
> machines; what were their names before 1920, give us a list; you were
> president of this concern ?
> Albright: I do Not remember.
> Farnsworth: Do you remember the Mecograph bug?
> Albright:Oh, yes.
> Farnsworth: Do you remember the "Auto-Dot" bug?
> Albright:Yes
> And one by one Farnsworth asked Albright for the names, each time
> framing his questions with "bug" until it was finally objected to by
> Vibroplex's attorney, Murray Corrington - but overruled.
>
> Judge Winslow asked Albright if there was any relationship between the
> fact that his trade mark applications were filed in May of 1920 one
> month before the first of their four primary patents was going to
> expire and wanted to know if there was any significance in that.
> Albright's answer:None that I know of.
>
> Vibroplex label from the early 1920s
>
> Vibroplex nameplate designed by James Albright
> in the early 1920s with the Bug Trade Mark.
>
>
> In the Appeal case Bunnell cited the lower court's decision by Judge
> Francis Winslow who stated his opinion on the appearance of a
> semi-automatic transmitter: This vibrating or fluttering arm, because
> of its aptness, probably suggested the name 'BUG'.
>
> Bunnell went on to argue that Vibroplex would have more of a case if
> Bunnell were calling their instruments Bunnell Vibroplexes, but
> instead thought Vibroplex was trying to take a public word and turn it
> into a private monopoly. The case is precisely the same as if a
> plaintiff piano-maker were seeking exclusive trade-mark to the name
> 'piano.'   In January of 1928, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
> upheld the lower court's decision in favor of J.H. Bunnell & Co.
>
> All this legal activity obviously had little effect on the Vibroplex's
> popularity. The Bunnell Gold Bug was short-lived and quickly faded.
> Ironically, J.H. Bunnell & Co. during the law suits, was an active
> dealer for Vibroplex and had been selling Vibroplex Bugs continuously
> since around 1912.
>
> In the early 1920s, Vibroplex Company president, James Albright,
> designed a new metal name plate that included their bug trade mark.
> This move probably made the names Vibroplex and bug synonymous from
> that point on.
> Today the Vibroplex Bug is admired just as it was when Horace Martin
> first introduced it over a hundred years ago.**
> If you hear one on the air it is usually very recognizable, because it
> simply sounds like a bug.
>
>
>
>
> Vibroplex Bug from the late teens.
>
>
>
> * By 1890, the term bug may have been adopted for use in other technical 
> fields.
> ** Horace Martin's first Vibroplex patent was issued August 9, 1904.
> The first public showing of the Vibroplex by Martin was at the
> Telegraph Superintendent's Convention
> in Chattanooga, TN on May 17, 1905.
> The United Electrical Manufacturing Company, (UEM) the company that
> originally manufactured the Vibroplex, first advertised the Vibroplex
> for sale in June of 1905. Horace G. Martin was the vice president and
> general manager of UEM.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Back to the Horace G. Martin page
>
>
> Back to the Telegraph-History home page
>
>
> A version of this article was originally
> published in the February 2004 issue
> of "The OTB," the quarterly journal of
> The Antique Wireless Association.
> ( A nonprofit historical society )
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Copyright (c) by John Casale - W2NI
> Troy, New York
> 2003-2010
> E-Mail
> Sources :
> Electricity and the Electric Telegraph, George B. Prescott, 1877
> The Quadruplex, WM. Maver Jr. & Minor Davis, 1890
> American Telegraph Practice, Donald McNicol, 1913
> The Papers of Thomas A. Edison Vol.II, Rosenberg, Israel, Neir, Andrews, 
> 1991
> National Archives and Records Administration, New York, N.Y. :
> U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 1928
> U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, May 1927
> The Vibroplex Co. Inc. vs. J.H.Bunnell & Co., on Trade-Mark, Bug,
> Files E29-337/ 9720.
> ______________________________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:CW at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.830 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2996 - Release Date: 07/11/10 
08:36:00