World Patent Information 25 (2003) 203–209

www.elsevier.com/locate/worpatin

Submarine telegraph cables, patents and electromagnetic field theory

Brian Spear

36 Forest Approach, Woodford Green, Essex IG8 9BS, UK

Abstract

In the context of the scientific ideas and theories of the 19th century, the author explores the evolution of telegraphic cables for

submarine use. The many technical hurdles that had to be overcome, both in the strength of the cables and in their capacity to

transmit signals effectively are described. The account is illuminated by the contributions, personalities and, mainly UK, patents of

the main players involved. Coming mainly from the UK, USA and Germany, they include Wheatstone, Morse, Siemens, Faraday,

Thomson, Varley, Field and Whitehouse. The practical and commercial value of the patents is emphasised.

� 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Historical context; Submarine telegraphic cables; Patent value; Electromagnetic field theory; Wheatstone; Morse; Maxwell; Siemens;

Faraday; Thomson; Kelvin; Varley; Field; Whitehouse

1. Introduction and early history

The work of Michael Faraday (see Fig. 1) on elec-

tromagnetic field theory from 1831 was a major triumphfor 19th century physics but less well known is how its

acceptance was intimately concerned with the submarine

telegraph cable industry and its numerous patents. In

Ancient Egypt it was known to draw wire with dies;

stranded rope manufacture is of even older origin.

Probably the first successful attempt to transmit charge

was in 1730 when John Gray in England sent electro-

static charges several hundred feet using a damp hempenline suspended on silk threads; using metal wire it in-

creased to several miles. In 1795 the Spaniard Don

Francisco Salva wrote a paper on telegraphy suggesting

underground cables with paper insulated wires covered

in pitch and resin; he eventually built a 26 mile telegraph

line at Madrid. A Russian diplomat, Baron Von Schil-

ling, built a number of successful telegraph cables be-

tween 1809 and 1837 which widely publicised theconcept. Francis Reynolds developed a telegraph in

1816 and offered it to the British Navy who, having just

successfully won a war, had no time or money for in-

novations and rejected it!

E-mail address: brian_spear31@hotmail.com (B. Spear).

0172-2190/03/$ - see front matter � 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/S0172-2190(03)00072-3

2. Telegraphy, railways and early patents

However, the main spur to large scale telegraphy was

the railway boom which started in the 1830s in Englandand expanded rapidly in the 1840s. This produced an

urgent need for effective telegraphy to synchronise train

movements (before then many parts of England kept

different times) and provided a ready made network

where surface cables could be easily laid without inter-

ference from property owners demanding access money.

The first noted GB patent, to Wheatstone and Cooke [1]

was granted on 10 June 1837. Charles Wheatstone(1802–1875)––see Fig. 2––was a University Professor

and friend of Faraday after whom the Wheatstone

bridge is named, while William Cooke (1806–1879) was

a businessman who had seen Schilling�s telegraph inGermany. This used five needles which pointed to

numbers and letters singly or in pairs––see Fig. 3.

Telegraph networks rapidly followed the railway, not

only in Europe but in the USA where Samuel Morse(1791–1872) had been interested in telegraphy from at

least 1835 and filed a patent application in 1838, granted

in 1840 [2], which included the famous Morse code. He

built a successful experimental line from Washington to

Baltimore in 1844 and by 1861 lines had reached Cali-

fornia. The telegraphic boom produced a stream of

patents (see Appendix A); Alexander Bain [3] included

the first facsimile machine but it took about 130 yearsfor this idea to take off.

Fig. 3. GB 7390 of 1837, to Wheatstone and Cooke.

Fig. 2. Sir Charles Wheatstone. Source: IEE Archives.

Fig. 1. Michael Faraday. Source: IEE Archives.

204 B. Spear / World Patent Information 25 (2003) 203–209

3. Underground and submarine cables: the problems of

retardation and blurring

Also in 1843 gutta percha, derived from a Malayan

tree, was found to be a good electrical insulator and

made underground or submarine cables practicable. In

1848 Werner Siemens was an Officer in the Prussian

Army involved in laying a cable from Berlin to Frank-furt, it being buried underground to prevent damage. He

soon noticed that the signals suffered from retardation

and blurring, an effect not found in overhead cables, and

eventually published his conclusions on the causes but

these aroused little interest as the defective underground

cables were replaced by overhead lines in the early

1850s. Wheatstone had experimented with submarine

cables in Swansea in 1844 and the first cable betweenEngland and France was laid in 1850, transmission

ceasing when some French fishermen severed the cable!

When relayed in 1851, heavily armoured this time, it

worked successfully and was extremely profitable but it

was again noted that the signals suffered retardation and

blurring. This reduced the effective signalling speed (and

profits) and thus might render longer cables unwork-

able, especially as in long submarine cables receivedsignals would be very weak as they could not be am-

plified in mid ocean. Before building such cables it was

therefore necessary to solve this problem. Latimer Clark

of the Electric Telegraph Company investigated retar-

dation at length and published the results in 1852 in the

oddly named Chemical Record and Drug Price Current

which attracted little interest. The following year he

B. Spear / World Patent Information 25 (2003) 203–209 205

invited Faraday to observe his experiments on this

phenomenon, a matter of some urgency in view of the

numerous expensive submarine cable plans then being

mooted.Faraday (1791–1867) was, at this time, Britain�s most

famous electrical expert and therefore the ideal man to

give an authoritative opinion. In particular he had dis-

covered electromagnetic induction in 1831 though, as he

was pre-eminently an experimentalist rather than a

mathematical theory man, his views on fields and lines

of force were often considered to be a prop for those

who could not handle the mathematics. Faraday hadenvisaged retardation in 1838 but published his con-

clusions on Clark�s experiments in the Philosophical

Magazine in 1854. In effect, he said that the cable was

charging up like a giant Leyden jar and explained this in

terms of his electromagnetic theory, the problem being

caused by the gutta percha dielectric rather than the wire

itself. It appears that Siemens came to similar conclu-

sions.William Thomson (1824–1907)––see Fig. 4––was a

mathematical physicist who became a Professor at

Glasgow University aged 22, believed that electrical

theory and practice should go hand in hand, and had a

particular interest in precise electrical measurement. He

responded to Faraday�s analysis by theoretical calcula-tions of submarine cable inductive capacity, concluding

that retardation varied with cable resistance and ca-pacitance and thus the delay time increased as the

square of the cable length. This threw doubt on the

practicability of a transatlantic cable as, even if it

worked, it might be too slow to be profitable. He sug-

gested corrective measures including increasing both

wire and insulation diameter to decrease resistance while

Fig. 4. William Thomson (Lord Kelvin). Source: IEE Archives.

maintaining constant capacity. Publication of this was

delayed until 1855, by which time Thomson had secured

his GB patent [4]. Unlike Faraday, a member of a small

religious sect with no commercial interests, Thomsonwas keenly aware of the benefits of the patent system.

4. Transatlantic cable––early successes, and many failures

The Atlantic Telegraph Company�s project had beenunderway since 1854 under the leadership of a New

York businessman Cyrus Field, Liverpool merchantsand ship owners being the biggest financial subscribers.

Thomson eventually became a director, the chief engi-

neer was Charles Bright, but the electrician was Wild-

man Whitehouse who had started as a medical man but

had acquired some practical telegraphic experience, not

to mention a number of patents, for example [5] which

concerns a telegraphic relay––see Fig. 5.

Whitehouse had a non-mathematical, non-theoryapproach to telegraphy and essentially believed in scal-

ing up the practical results of successful short distance

cables. In 1855 he argued that cables built according to

Thomson�s theory of the law of squares would effectivelybe too bulky to be laid (also more expensive, if less likely

to snap), whereas by ignoring the theory and relying on

the practical results achieved so far with thin cables, all

would be well––good news for the company promoterswho had already ordered a thin cable and were keen to

complete the project as quickly and cheaply as possible.

Although Thomson, Whitehouse and others agreed the

project was feasible, no agreement on theory or practice

was reached and the technical debate continued as lay-

ing commenced in 1857 using cables largely conforming

Fig. 5. GB 2617 of 1855 to Whitehouse.

206 B. Spear / World Patent Information 25 (2003) 203–209

to Whitehouse�s ideas. To speed work two cable sup-pliers were used, it later being discovered that one used a

left-handed lay for outer wires while the other used a

right-handed lay––requiring a complex splice to fit themtogether. The difficulty of laying thin cables in rough

weather from unsuitable small ships caused endless

problems and the cable eventually snapped, work being

resumed in 1858 with improved cable paying out ma-

chinery. Despite appalling weather (one ship nearly sank

taking Thomson with her) and further cable partings, on

17th August 1858 a message was successfully transmit-

ted down the completed cable and the resulting cele-brations were immense; a torchlight procession in New

York even led to the Town Hall being set on fire. A

subsequent message that cancelled the move of a British

army regiment from Canada to India, saved £50,000 and

confirmed the potential commercial value of the cable.

However, the transmitted signals rapidly deteriorated

and communication could only be maintained by

Thomson�s mirror galvanometer [6], which read veryweak signals––see Fig. 6.

The cable finally failed completely on September 18th

so the whole project was a complete write off leaving the

Company with a loss of half a million pounds, a huge

sum for that period. The cause of failure was mainly

faulty insulation due to manufacturing problems and

subsequent cable handling. However, Whitehouse ag-

gravated matters by using 2000 V induction coils in at-tempts to push the signals through by brute force. This

led to his being made the scapegoat and dismissed, a fate

that awaited most of the other employees as the money

had largely run out. However, the remaining directors

realised that they would have to accept Thomson�s ad-vice for any future attempt.

The Red Sea and India cable of 1859–1860 then

failed, causing the British Government severe financiallosses. Among other problems in tropical waters, worms

bored into the insulation and barnacles weighed down

unsupported thin cables so much that they snapped. The

Government and the Company effectively had a joint

technical enquiry, the Submarine Telegraph Committee,

where experts (including Wheatstone and Latimer

Clark) cross-examined all concerned including White-

Fig. 6. GB 329 of 1858 to Thomson.

house and Thomson. Their report in 1861 confirmed

that, of over 11,000 miles of submarine cable laid, only

3000 were actually working.

5. Cable industry standards

Thomson emerged with his reputation enhanced,

particularly with his views on field theory and work onelectrical measurement––e.g. proving that the conduc-

tivities of the copper samples used in the cable varied by

ratios of up to 2:1 which greatly affected cable perfor-

mance. Henceforth telegraphy would closely harmonise

theory and practice and use precise quantitative mea-

surement. Following reports by Siemens, Latimer Clark

and Bright on the need for a uniform system of units in

the cable industry, the British Association set up astandards committee whose work eventually led to the

ohms, amps etc. standards used today. Among the

workers on the resistance standard was Clerk Maxwell––

see Fig. 7––who had a previous interest in telegraphy.

The Company appointed a Scientific Committee which

closely supervised future cable construction, though it

rejected india rubber insulation––proposed by Hooper

[7] for example––on the grounds that it was too risky touse an untried material on such an important project.

6. Transatlantic cables––success at last

The cable manufacturers merged by 1864 to become

the Telegraph Construction and Maintenance Company

under John Pender which took half the shares in the

Atlantic Telegraph Company, Field having difficulties in

raising money as the Civil War was then raging in

America. When the project restarted in 1865 the cables

Fig. 7. James Clerk Maxwell. Source: IEE Archives.

B. Spear / World Patent Information 25 (2003) 203–209 207

were of far higher quality and the largest ship in the

world, Brunel�s 20,000 ton Great Eastern, was used ascable layer––a relief to her owners as she had been a

commercial disaster till then. However, the cable snap-ped again and it was 1866 before it was finally completed

and working successfully. This set off a wave of other

projects spanning the world over the next 20 years, most

controlled from GB and many by Pender, which even-

tually merged to become the Cable and Wireless Com-

pany. In fact GB had such a commanding lead in this

field that it not only controlled most of the routes, es-

pecially the lucrative ones, but also dominated subma-rine cable manufacture and laying as well. This lasted till

effective long distance radio networks were operative in

the 1930s.

Fig. 9. GB 1318 of 1855 to Varley.

7. Telegraphic patents––the business end

Thomson, with his associates Fleeming Jenkin (1833–1885) and Varley (1828–1883), had produced a series of

patents covering telegraphic improvements intended to

increase the cost effectiveness of the transmissions. For

example Varley [8]––see Fig. 8—produced improved

electromagnets for telegraphic relays which gave in-

creased power for the same amount of wire––see Fig.

9––and [9]––soft iron needles for telegraphic indica-

tors––see Fig. 10.A joint patent by Thomson and Jenkin [10]––see Fig.

11––adjusted various contacts between line and electri-

cal source to give increased signalling speed through

submarine or underground wires. This resulted in a

partnership agreement between the two; even at this

stage their eyes were firmly fixed on the commercial

possibilities. Their numerous patents clearly covered

valuable technical improvements since, in 1869, all threecame to a very lucrative patent agreement with the

Fig. 8. C.F. Varley. Source: IEE Archives. Fig. 10. GB 3059 of 1856 to Varley.

Fig. 11. GB 2047 of 1860 to Thomson and Jenkin.

208 B. Spear / World Patent Information 25 (2003) 203–209

telegraph companies with a settlement of £7000 and an

annual payment of £2500 (figures which should be

multiplied by at least 100 to give 2003 values). Thomson

was knighted in 1866, bought a large yacht and built a

mansion costing £12,000, and became an establishment

figure as Lord Kelvin in 1892.

Their immense earnings came at a time when there

was widespread discussion of the workings of the GBpatent system which, although cheaper after the 1852

reforms, still had many unsatisfactory features, e.g. no

technical search and examination. In fact, as North

German and Dutch governments had abolished patents

in the 1860s, some thought that GB should follow their

example. Not surprisingly, Thomson was in favour of

reform rather than abolition.

The continuous GB technical debate also gainedsupport for Faraday�s field theory and by 1873, whenClerk Maxwell�s Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism

was published, field theory was effectively orthodoxy in

GB though not in Germany where it took Herz�s ex-periments around 1890 for its acceptance to be wide-

spread.

8. Legacy––a sound practical and theoretical base for thefuture

It is sometimes said that Victorian engineers and

businessmen were self-taught practical men with no in-

terest in theoretical science. Telegraphy revolutionised

world communications and, with the huge financial in-

vestment, virtually all the infant electrical engineering

profession in GB were involved. Given the commercial

importance of telegraphy, tremendous attention was

given to electromagnetic field theory by the leading

theoreticians of the period and thus modern scientifictheory was shaped by the large scale practical experi-

ments in telegraphy. Electrical measurement was revo-

lutionised and electrical standards introduced. Thus

theory and practice in this field advanced hand in hand.

And the more commercially aware also saw the benefits

of keeping a strong patent portfolio.

Acknowledgements

(1) This article has been prepared, in part, in the

course of the author�s research for an M.Sc. in theHistory of Science, Medicine and Technology at Impe-

rial College, London, UK.

(2) The images in Figs. 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 are reproduced

with kind permission of the Institution of Electrical

Engineers, London, UK, from their Archives.

Appendix A

Before the 1852 reforms, patenting in GB was both

complicated and very expensive; despite this numerous

telegraphic GB patents were filed including, for exam-ple:

Charles Wheatstone, 7 in all of which at least 7390/

1837, 8345/1840 and 10,655/1845 were telegraphic.Alexander Bain, 10 in all of which at least 9204/1841,

9745/1843, 10,838/1845, 11,480/46 and 14,146/1852

were telegraphic.

After 1852, patenting in the UK became far cheaper

and the numbers increased tremendously, for example:

William Thomson 2547/1854, 329/1858, 2047/1860

(with Jenkin), 1784/1865.

Cromwell Fleetwood Varley 371/1854, 2555/1854,

1318/1855, 3059/1856, 1509/1859, 206/1860, 1484/

1861, 1512/1861, 3078/1861, 3453/1862, 3055/1863,2683/1868.

Fleeming Jenkin 667/161, 2155/1865, 390/1869, 3236/

1869.

E.O.W. Whitehouse 2617/1855, 1726/1856.

Sir C.T. Bright 465/1860.

W. Hooper 881/1859.

Again, some of these inventors also filed patents

unrelated to telegraphy.

Bibliography

R.M. Black, The History of Electric Wires and Cables

(London: Peter Peregrinus, 1983, ISBN 086341 001 4).

B. Spear / World Patent Information 25 (2003) 203–209 209

Stephen Van Dulken, Inventing The 19th Century

(London: The British Library, 2001, ISBN 0-7123-

0881-4).

Crosbie Smith and M. Norton Wise, Energy and Empire(England: Cambridge University Press, 1989, ISBN 0

521 26173 2).

D.R. Headrick, The Tentacles of Progress (New York,

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988, ISBN 0-19-

505115-7).

B.J. Hunt, Michael Faraday, cable telegraphy and the

rise of field theory, History of Technology 13 (1991)

1–19.

References

[1] Wheatstone C, Cooke WF. Electric telegraphs. GB7390 of 1837.

[2] Morse SFB. Improvement in the mode of communicating

information by signals by the application of electro-magnetism.

US 1647 of 1840.

[3] Bain A. Electric time-pieces and telegraphs. GB 9745 of 1843.

[4] Thomson W, Rankine WJM, Thomson J. Electric telegraphs. GB

2547 of 1854.

[5] Whitehouse W. Electric telegraphs. GB 2617 of 1855.

[6] Thomson W. Electric telegraphs. GB 329 of 1858.

[7] Hooper W. Insulating and protecting telegraphic conductors. GB

881 of 1859.

[8] Varley CF. Electric telegraphs. GB 1318 of 1855.

[9] Varley CF. Electric telegraphs. GB 3059 of 1856.

[10] Thomson W, Jenkin F. Telegraphic communication. GB 2047 of

1860.

Brian Spear trained as an electrical engineerand spent his career in the UK Patent Office.This included 22 years examining patent ap-plications relating to computers, control sys-tems and telecommunications. He has alsospent 10 years on developing computer data-bases/searching, working in the UK PatentOffice commercial search arm––the Searchand Advisory Service, and on publicity ac-tivities including lecturing on IPR to a widerange of organisations. He has recently retiredand is studying for an M.Sc. in the History ofScience, Medicine and Technology at Impe-rial College London.