Heinrich Goebel

The title of this article is ambiguous. Further meanings are listed under Heinrich Göbel (disambiguation) .

Heinrich Göbel, photography from New York

Johann Heinrich Christoph Conrad Göbel (born April 20, 1818 in Springe , Kingdom of Hanover , † December 4, 1893 in New York ; after 1849 also known as Henry Goebel ) was a precision mechanic of German origin who became a US citizen in 1865.

Göbel became known in the USA and Europe in 1893 through newspaper reports about his claim that he had already manufactured and used the first incandescent lamps with high-resistance carbon filament ( carbon filament lamps ) in the 1850s , but without applying for a patent in this regard . The patent for this type of lamp was granted to Thomas Alva Edison in 1880 .

In a series of patent litigation, incandescent lamp manufacturers in the USA attempted to prove the invalidity of the Edison patent from 1880 on the basis of Göbel's assertion in order to avoid a closure of their production due to patent infringement, which the patent owner Edison Electric Light Co. However, Göbel's claims of invention could not be proven. According to the current state of research, they are rejected as untrue.

After Göbel's death, a legend was handed down in various versions and in some cases epic, according to which Göbel is often considered the first inventor of the incandescent lamp in Germany.

Göbel acquired patents for an improvement in sewing machines (1865), for an improvement in the Geißler pump (1882) and for a technique for connecting carbon threads with metal wires in light bulbs (1882). These three patents had no influence on further technical developments.

Life and accomplishments

Jump 1818-1848

Birthplace of Heinrich Göbel in Springe According to the results of the source research, the birthplace declared in 1929 is not the actual birthplace, which no longer exists and was also not at this point.

Göbel was born as the son of Johann Heinrich Christian Göbel from Zorge and his wife Marie Eleonore Hüper from Springe. His father was a landscape gardener and also hired himself as a peddler selling chocolate.

Göbel completed his visit to the church boys' school in Springe in 1832. In 1834 Göbel began an apprenticeship as a locksmith in Springe. In the tax documents that still exist, he is listed as a watchmaker with little income after 1837. In New York he later stated 1837 as the year his business was founded. However, there is no evidence of a shop in Springe.

In 1844 Göbel married Sophie Lübke, b. Rodewig from Springe. At the wedding, he registered a watchmaker profession in the church register. Son Ernst August Friedrich was born on December 13, 1844, but soon passed away. Son Johann Carl was born on June 8, 1846, and daughter Marie Sophie on July 30, 1848.

In 1848 Göbel emigrated with his family to the USA via Bremen . He left Springe on November 13, 1848 and a short time later Germany on the emigrant sailing ship "JW Andrews". When entering the USA, he stated that his profession was mechanic.

New York 1849-1881

Göbel variant of the Geißler pump. The crank mechanism and the single-lever tilt mechanism simplify operation. The tiltable arrangement saves a mechanical valve, since the pipe is closed by mercury depending on the position. The Geissler pump itself was already out of date in 1882 because vacuum pumps from Sprengel u. a. a better vacuum quality could be achieved.

On January 31, 1849, Goebel arrived with his family in New York. He opened a jewelry store at 391 Monroe Street (binding in the lease), which he later moved to 271 Monroe Street. Göbel ran the shop as a repair mechanic.

From the end of the 1850s to the 1870s, Göbel regularly drove a horse-drawn carriage to the center of New York in order to earn additional income as a showman of an allegedly self-made 12-foot telescope. In patent lawsuits of 1893, a large number of witnesses on both sides remembered the "telescope-man". Göbel was a member of a Masonic lodge of German immigrants in New York .

On March 23, 1865, he took the oath on the Constitution of the United States of America and was henceforth an American citizen. The document is signed by Henry Goebel . The name was changed at an unknown time after 1852, when he was still signing with H.Göbel . Also in 1865, Göbel registered the patent “Säumer für sewing machines”, No. 47,632. It is possible that his daughter, who works as a seamstress, and a jeweler friend, who also acquired patents for sewing machine technology, had suggested it. The patent was economically unsuccessful, but in 1893 Göbel claimed that the sewing machine manufacturer Singer had used it illegally and that he had only "inconvenienced" when trying to protect his rights without success.

In 1872 Goebel moved to 500 Grand Street and 468 Grand Street in 1877. Grand Street was evidently a better business location. The business may have evolved into a better stocked watch, jewelry, optics, and precision engineering store over the years.

In January 1880, Thomas Alva Edison was awarded US Patent No. 223,898 for an electric incandescent lamp with carbon filament in an evacuated glass envelope. After Edison's wave of founding electrical companies, Göbel's son Adolph worked for American Electric Light Co. in 1881. At this company, some former employees of Edison Electric Light Co. were involved in the development and production of light bulbs. In the search for employees to solve precision mechanical problems in the construction of light bulbs, according to witnesses, they became aware of Göbel through their son in 1893, who was then also employed. Göbel himself swore in 1893 that managers of the American Electric Light Co. became aware of him because of alleged electric lamps in his shop. In 1893 he described a kind of consultancy and supplier activity for the American Electric Light Co. from 1881. The contract is said to have stipulated activity bound by instructions. In particular, he contributed to eliminating a production bottleneck in filaments by designing a cutting machine that was then made by toolmakers . Obviously, at Göbel's request, the contract was not renewed after six months because he wanted to market his improvement ideas himself and not leave them to the American Electric Light Co.

New York 1882-1893

Alleged Göbel lamp no.5 from 1882

Together with his friend John W. Kulenkamp, ​​Göbel wanted to participate in the light bulb business. Several patent applications funded by Kulenkamp were rejected because attempts were made to patent known technology.

In 1882, Göbel held an exhibition in his shop to find sponsors for the production of an incandescent lamp supposedly developed by him. In the later patent litigation, this type was referred to as the Goebel lamp no. Eight lamps were put on display according to The New York Times report , which gave off a white, flicker-free light. Goebel is said to have said that these lamps have a filament with the highest resistance ever achieved, which enables low energy consumption. He gave reed grass as the material. According to the newspaper report, Göbel is said to have claimed ownership of all patents for the production of the lamp he was exhibiting. At this point in time, however, he had not yet had a lamp patent. In addition, the lamp presented infringed the Edison patent in several points.

The New York Times reported that Göbel have said on the lamp exhibition on 29 April 1882 that the electric light was much older believed than Americans. He himself invented an electric light 29 years ago and had problems because the neighbors believed in a fire and alerted the fire department. Since then, he has been continuously involved in experiments. A professor in Hanover had already developed a good electric light before he emigrated to the USA, but died before a production could be set up. According to reports in The New York Times , Göbel did not claim at the end of April 1882 that he had anticipated the Edison invention. The formulation of the newspaper “electric light” also leaves the technical implementation open. The assertion of Göbel's electrical engineering work before 1880, which first appeared on April 29, 1882, cannot be substantiated with sources prior to this date.

Detail drawing from patent 266.358. The spiral holder for the carbon thread is made directly from the introductory current-carrying platinum wire. Compared to the connections by electroplating developed in 1882, this is uneconomical. The patent could not be marketed.

In 1882 Göbel received a patent for the improvement of the Geissler pump (No. 252,658, registered in August 1881) and, together with John W. Kulenkamp, ​​another patent for a connection technology for carbon filaments with live lead wires in light bulbs (No. 266,358). In 1893, Göbel claimed to have developed this technology as early as the 1850s and to have used it in alleged lamp manufacture. The Electrical World commented that under these circumstances, patenting in 1882 was late and thus legally inadmissible.

The earliest clear evidence that Göbel had something to do with incandescent lamps date back to 1881 and 1882: patent applications and the granting of patents, a contract with a lamp manufacturer and newspaper reports about a lamp demonstration in Göbel's shop.

As a result of the lamp exhibition, the technology broker William C. Dreyer became interested in Göbel's work and paid this money for an exploitation option. Göbel tore up the agreement with his partner John W. Kulenkamp at a notary and fell out with him in order to participate in emerging business opportunities alone. During this time, Göbel was to develop an incandescent lamp for the Arnoux & Hochhausen company; however, the result was unsatisfactory.

Obviously, Göbel's contact with the incandescent lamp industry, which was first verifiable in mid-1881, ended again in 1883 with no success. The two registered patents could not be marketed. However, through numerous contacts, Göbel learned that there was a much greater interest in lamps from before 1880, with which the Edison patent could be questioned. He was also visited several times by lawyers who wanted to challenge the Edison patent for previous inventions and investigated his claims. However, according to their later portrayals, he was unable to provide any evidence or old lamps.

In September 1887 Göbel's wife died, with whom he had eleven more children in America. Of the fourteen children, seven were still alive in 1893 (the birth of a total of ten children could be verified). Göbel withdrew from his business in the 1880s. In 1886 Henry Goebel jun. named as the owner of the shop. When he submitted the affidavits in January 1893, he gave Tappan near New York as his residence, which according to some sources was a Masonic dormitory.

In 1893 Göbel made seven affidavits in which he described his life and electrical engineering work and, as essence, claimed priority on the invention of the incandescent lamp with a high-resistance carbon filament made of bamboo and vacuum sealing by means of platinum wires melted into the glass envelope. With this, Göbel became a witness in defense of three light bulb manufacturers who had been given injunctive relief by the Edison Electric Light Company. The patent attorneys Witter and Kenyon also defended these three clients with the objection of patent invalidity because of earlier inventions and made Göbel's testimony the main evidence of the defense. A detailed history of electrical work before his emigration to the USA and continuous lamp developments in the USA from the early 1850s as well as numerous supporting evidence appeared here for the first time, including lamps allegedly produced before 1880. However, no conclusive evidence for the anticipation of the Edison invention has been presented.

The 1893 trials attracted attention in journals and daily newspapers in the United States and Europe. All four courts dealing with the patent dispute had doubts about the allegations made (see “Patent litigation ” ).

The grave of Heinrich Göbel and his wife ("Eliza" according to the grave directory) in the Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn, New York.

Goebel died of pneumonia on December 4, 1893, while the trial was still in progress. The death certificate shows 504, 6th Avenue, New York as the place of death. He was buried in Brooklyn's Green-Wood Cemetery . The manufacturers' patent disputes dragged on until May 1894. Patent disputes between Edison Electric Light Co. and users of patent-infringing incandescent lamps, who also invoked the alleged Göbel anticipation, are known until January 1895.

Legend formation after Göbel's death

Göbel fell into oblivion in the USA and the story was initially ignored in Germany. In Germany, however, an independent legend about Göbel developed from 1911, which made him the "true inventor of the light bulb".

The common core of the variants of the legend claims that the German Heinrich Göbel invented the incandescent lamp in 1854, 25 years before the American Thomas Alva Edison, and a court ruling in a case over several instances would confirm this. Economic and Göbel idealistic motives are attributed to Thomas Alva Edison. This representation is not anchored in historical events and also contradicts the technical history of the incandescent lamp, which was a continuous development with small advances over a long period from around 1800 and many patents were granted from 1841. Character ascriptions of the legend are also not to be justified with sources on the historical person; rather, ideological perspectives were projected onto the characters in the legend. The variants of the legend are not an exclusive reproduction of unsecured claims by Göbel, but differ significantly from them and sometimes even contradict Göbel's claims of 1893 (see “Development of the Göbel legend” ).

Since 2000, several research and research projects have dealt with Göbel.

Patent litigation

course

The Edison Electric Light Co. sued various manufacturers of incandescent lamps for patent infringement from 1885. The Edison Electric Light Co. patent litigation against the United States Electric Lighting Co. lasted from 1885 to 1892 and ended with the confirmation of the Edison patents on two major points. The hermetically sealed glass envelope with fused platinum wires and the high-resistance filament made from carbonized plant fibers were confirmed by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals as major innovations in the art of lamp manufacture . The state of incandescent lamp technology when the patent was granted to Edison was carefully examined, but Göbel's achievements were not claimed by anyone. In 1892 there were around 15 manufacturers of light bulbs in the USA. Journalists suspected that as a result of the court ruling, the market share of Edison Electric Light Co. would increase from then 40% to 100% and bring the company at least two million dollars in additional profit annually, which according to current purchasing power (2007) would be several billion dollars represents.

In 1893 Göbel was the most important witness in patent lawsuits of the Edison Electric Light Co. against light bulb manufacturers in Boston, Oconto and St. Louis, whose production Edison wanted to close on the basis of the previous confirmation of his patents. These defended themselves again with the claim that the patent to Edison 1879 had been wrongly granted. For the first time, the claim was made that Göbel had already produced vacuum light bulbs with a carbon filament made of bamboo in a fused glass envelope with introducing platinum wires in the 1850s. According to this representation, the carbon filament incandescent lamp was not an innovation in 1879 even after the determination of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals and therefore not patentable. In magazines from 1893 and in specialist literature, this similar legal procedure by the defendant companies against the legal effect of the Edison patent is called "Goebel defense" in independent legal proceedings. The term is also used in a court decision to describe the defendant's submission as a whole.

Court decisions in patent litigation
Feb. 18, 1893	Injunction against Beacon Vacuum Pump and Electric Company, Boston (Judge Lebaron B. Colt)
Apr 21, 1893	Denial of an injunction against Columbia Incandescent Lamp Company, St. Louis (Judge Moses Hallett)
Jul 20, 1893	Injunction against Electric Manufacturing Company, Oconto (Milwaukee court; Judge William H. Seaman)
Jan. 26, 1894	Injunctions against the Philadelphia Trust Co., Manufacturers' Club of Philadelphia and Spreckels Sugar-Refining Co., Philadelphia (Judge Acheson)
May 1, 1894	Confirmation of the injunction against Electric Manufacturing Company, Oconto in the second instance (court Chicago; Judge James G. Jenkins)
Jan. 11, 1895	Confirmation of the injunction against Philadelphia Trust Co, Philadelphia in the second instance (Judge Wales)
no main proceedings
Nov 19, 1894	Edison Electric Light Company's patent 223,898 expires (General Electric from 1893); Patent applied for November 30, 1879 / issued January 27, 1880

In addition to the sued companies, large parts of the electrical industry in the USA had a great interest in the case of the Edison patent, since the incandescent lamp monopoly also dominated the market for electrical engineering infrastructure. The dispute at the time about the invention of the incandescent lamp with carbon filament is explained by the fact that these products were the only consumers of electrical energy in households. They are closely related to the construction of electrical energy supply networks and the electrification of civilization. This connection also established the extensive economic interests of the time. It is therefore reasonable to assume that third parties were also involved behind the scenes and participated in the defense strategy: The Electrical World reports on a call to the electrical industry for financial and moral support for the defense in these cases against the Edison patent. Both sides eventually brought in several attorneys and a large number of affidavits. In the proceedings against the Columbia company, 181 people supported the Goebel defense with affidavits and 142 people supported the Edison side.

The patent litigation of 1893 with "Goebel defense" was a procedure for applying for preliminary injunction (motion for a preliminary injunction) by the patent owner. These proceedings should have been followed by a final hearing , which apparently never took place, as the Edison patent in 1894 expired prematurely through a government agreement between the USA and Canada to harmonize patent terms. The reason for the dispute was thus eliminated. The quarreling industrial companies fought for money and market shares, not for inventor honor. Goebel witnessed the defense of the sued company. He himself would not have benefited from a case of the Edison patent because it would not have happened to him. Goebel himself said that he had no interest in the outcome of the proceedings and that he was not hostile to Edison; accordingly, the interest in proving an invention before 1880 for the purpose of combating Thomas Alva Edison's filament lamp patent was solely on the part of industrial competitors.

The assertion of Göbel's earlier invention was not recognized by the court due to a lack of solid evidence. The injunction requested by patent owner Edison Electric Light Co. has been issued in two of three patent lawsuits against light bulb manufacturers. The respective judges gave Göbel's allegations no chance of success in the main proceedings.

Beacon process

In Edison Electric Light Co.'s patent infringement case against Beacon Vacuum Pump and Electric Co., Judge Colt questioned the value of related and financially interested witnesses on events 35 years ago. Quote from the grounds of the court decision:

“It has often been laid down that a meritorious invention is not to be defeated by something which rests in speculation or experiment, or which is rudimentary or incomplete. The law requires not conjecture, but certainty. It is easy after an important invention has gone into public use for persons to come forward with claims that they invented the same thing years before, and to endeavor to establish this by the recollection of witnesses as to events long past. Such evidence is to be received with great caution, and the presumption of novelty arising from the grant of the patent is not to be overcome except upon clear and convincing proof. "

“It has often been found that a meritorious invention cannot be beaten with something based on speculation or experimentation, or rudimentary or incomplete. The law does not require guesswork, it requires certainty. After an important invention is disseminated, it is easy for anyone to come up with claims that they invented the same thing years ago and to back it up with the memories of witnesses of events long ago. Such statements must be assessed with great caution. The acceptance of an innovation associated with the granting of a patent cannot be replaced by anything but clear and convincing evidence. "

Accordingly, the suspicion of pretense was in the room. The judge's suspicion of fraud is also made clear by Judge Colt's statement on Exhibit Lamp 4:

“As for Lamp No. 4, I cannot but view it with suspicion. It presents a new appearance. The reason given for not introducing it before the hearing is unsatisfactory. This lamp, to my mind, envelops with a cloud of distrust the whole Goebel story. It is simply impossible under the circumstances to believe that a lamp so constructed could have been made by Goebel before 1872. Nothing in the evidence warrants such a supposition, and other things show it to be untrue. "

“As for lamp 4, I can only view it with suspicion. It represents a novel form. The reasons given for not presenting this lamp before this negotiation are unsatisfactory. In my opinion, this lamp envelops the whole Göbel story with a cloud of suspicion. Under these circumstances, it is simply impossible to believe that a lamp designed in this way could have been manufactured by Göbel before 1872. Nothing in the evidence justifies such an assumption and other things show that it is untrue. "

In 1893 it was claimed that the invention took place in the 1850s, with further developments over the next 25 years. Since the lamp did not appear in public before 1893, although it must have been in Göbel's economic interest after the events from 1880 onwards, Judge Colt considered the date of manufacture to be untrue. Goebel had z. B. 1882 tried to sell the rights to his developments to the Edison Electric Light Co. This refused because, after research at the time, he had never produced lamps that could be used in practice and had not contributed any development ideas. Edison Electric Light Co. saw no need to purchase the rights to secure their own patents. In 1882 Göbel had not offered evidence such as the lamp 4 presented in 1893 to the Edison Electric Light Co., although that would have promoted the conclusion of the business he himself was striving for.

Columbia trial

Columbia advertising following the St. Louis court ruling. Buyers are guaranteed legal security and a picture of Heinrich Göbel is promised.

In the dispute against the Columbia, St. Louis company, the injunction was denied. The judge allowed Columbia to continue producing incandescent lamps on condition that a bail of $ 20,000 was made. The decision between the legal force of Edison's patent and the defense presented by the defense against the patent in the form of Göbel's priority claims was thus postponed to a complex main proceedings, with legal disadvantages for Edison as plaintiff. In view of the large number of witnesses and counter-witnesses to events long in the past, Judge Moses Hallett also formulated his concerns about the existence of Göbel's claims solely on the basis of testimony. Hallett did not recognize Göbel's alleged invention from the 1850s, but did not rule it out. Since the offers of evidence were testimony, the credibility of which could only be assessed in the personal presence of the witnesses in a main trial, he saw sufficient reasons to protect the Columbia company from the legal effect of the Edison patent. The main proceedings could hardly have been carried out before the Edison patent expired in 1894. The Edison Electric Light Co. was out of date without a decision on the matter. In the opinion of journalists, the court decision had a reference character for the entire southern United States. The Edison Electric Light Co., based in the northern states, could no longer enforce its patent there.

Quote from the court decision by Judge Hallet:

“It is said that Goebel is involved in contradictions and misstatements of fact, due to the lapsing memory of old age, or to untruthfulness. Be it like that. He does not appear to be an adventurer or an impostor. It is not reasonable to believe that he made the story related in his affidavit, and did not make the lamp he has described. Whatever may be said as to Goebel's veracity, he is supported at many points by witnesses of good repute, who speak with precision, and apparently with deliberation. ... I need not refer to the possible effect of cross-examination in the case of a multitude of witnesses. What now seems plain enough may altogether disappear, and new facts may come to the surface under that crucial test. "

“It is said that Göbel is involved in contradictions and misunderstandings because of declining age-related memory performance or because of dishonesty. Be that as it may, he does not appear to be an adventurer or a deceiver. There is no reason to believe that he invented the story in his affidavit and did not make the lamp described. Whatever one can say about Göbel's credibility, he is supported in many respects by witnesses of good reputation who testify precisely and clearly with prudence. ... I don't need to point out the possible outcome of a cross-examination with a large number of witnesses. What seems plausible at the moment can disappear completely and new facts can appear in the decisive test. "

Electric process

In the patent dispute against Electric, Oconto, the injunction requested by Edison has been issued. Judge Seaman addressed the lack of plausibility of the assertion made, since no motive and no goal had been shown, especially for Göbel's very expensive and very time-consuming work. From a technical point of view, too, he did not see a sufficient motive for working with high electrical voltage, which had to be laboriously generated with many battery cells before the invention of the dynamo. Judge Seaman considered testimony from the Edison side plausible, stating that Göbel had been offered $ 250,000 for old lamps in 1882 and that the possibility of counterfeit lamps had been openly discussed at the time. He suspected that it was in these events that a story of fraud was suggested. Judge Seaman also suspected a possible loss of reality by Göbel, who might no longer be able to differentiate between an imaginary story and real events. The court did not call the story proven untrue. The arguments established the inadequacy of evidence to invalidate Edison's patent without prior careful judicial factual research in a trial.

In this case, the preliminary injunction that had been issued was reviewed by court proceedings in the second instance, but this should not be confused with main proceedings. The court confirmed the injunction and stated that the history of Göbel's light bulbs was surrounded by an “atmosphere of improbability”. The court found it unlikely, among other things, that a lamp shown in the middle of New York would remain unknown to the public. The alleged developments were judged to be implausible, in particular because of the failure to apply for a patent, since Göbel had carefully looked after his rights in 1865 and applied for a patent for comparatively insignificant sewing machine technology. He was therefore familiar with patent law and the procedure. The later German legend conceals the patent registered by Göbel in 1865 for an improvement of the conical snail trimmer for sewing machines and claims a lack of money and a lack of knowledge of the English language and patent law as reasons for the failure to apply for a patent for the light bulb.

Philadelphia trial

The Edison Electric Light Co. filed for injunctions against other companies in the northern states because they used light bulbs from the production of patent-infringing companies. These invoked the "Goebel defense" and the court decision in St. Louis, which allowed Columbia to continue production for the time being. Circuit Court (ED Pennsylvania) Judge Acheson granted Edison's v. Philadelphia Trust Safedeposit & Ins ruling on January 26, 1894. Co, Manufacturers' Club of Philadelphia and Spreckels Sugar-Refining Co. filed for injunctions to cease using patent-infringing bulbs. New evidence for the alleged Göbel anticipation was not presented. The injunction against the Philadelphia Trust Safedeposit company was filed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Confirmed on January 11, 1895. The unsatisfactory evidence in the form of timely testimony and existing doubts about the alleged Göbel anticipation would conflict with the legal requirements for a provisional annulment of the legal force of Edison's patent according to the reasons given by Judge Wales. The judges, however, did not form their own opinion about the alleged Göbel anticipation, but referred to the previous proceedings. The Edison Electric Light Co. had no immediate benefit from the Philadelphia court ruling. The initiation of the proceedings in 1893 presumably had the purpose of preventing further large customers in the northern states from buying patent-infringing incandescent lamps.

The procedures for applying for interim injunctions resulted in preliminary court rulings in which no final judgment was reached. From a formal point of view, the “Goebel defense” was therefore not judged.

Up-to-date drawings or records of the Göbel lamps were not available in 1893. Göbel's shop was run by his son, he himself was retired. The tools allegedly used in the alleged lamp production were also no longer available. All Göbel lamps produced according to the testimony were lost except for three defective ones from earlier stages of development. From memory, Göbel made drawings, reconstructed the tools allegedly used before 1880 and made lamps of his alleged different constructions for court purposes. When the "Goebel Defense" was in need of evidence, a son of Göbel's son accidentally found a lamp that he said he had owned as early as 1878. Another lamp allegedly produced around 1872 was found by Göbel himself. This family witness evidence was the only lamp before the courts that was supposed to have existed before 1879 and that had all of the design features of the Edison patent.

Alleged Göbel tools for the production of filaments presented to the courts in 1893

A lamp reproduction plays an important role in the legend. This was evidence of the defendant companies to prove the suitability of the alleged Göbel technology. Reproductions of his lamp constructions made by Göbel in 1893 under the supervision of court witnesses with his tools burned for 45, 87 and 166 hours. When the patent was granted in 1878, Swan burned carbon filament lamps for 14.5 hours and Edison 40 hours in 1879. The lamp reproduction took place in the workshop of the sued company Beacon and also had no evidential value for the production of such lamps before 1880. Obviously only employees of this company, whose jobs were endangered by the cessation of production, witnessed the test results and the production of the lamps by Göbel himself his old tools and exactly according to the claimed procedure. Reviewers of the Edison side, among them from Lauscha originating Ludwig Karl Bohm , denied the quality of the reproduced lamps. Judge Seaman doubted that Göbel could have made the lamp without Beacon's help. Some variants of the later legend relocate the process to the courtroom, derive Göbel's ingenious craftsmanship from it and ascribe decisive evidential value to the reproduction.

In the course of 1893, Lewis Howard Latimer , who was entrusted with the control of the proceedings at Edison, identified more and more people who had dealt with Göbel in the course of his life and who had not heard or noticed anything about his alleged electrical work after taking their oaths.

In the course of 1893, several witnesses withdrew their statements in support of the Goebel defense. Among them was the 80-year-old Dutch physicist Prof. van der Weyde, who had previously sworn to see Göbel's telescope car and the carbon filament lamps in person.

The Electrical World reported in 1893, among other things, that a son of Göbel, then 39-year-old Henry Jr., revoked his original testimony and was henceforth available to the Edison side as a witness. Henry Goebel jun. stated that it was he, and not his father, who manufactured lamps No. 1, 2 and 3 before the court in September 1892. In this case, as in other cases, the parties suspected each other of bribing witnesses.

According to reports in The Electrical World , some selected witnesses were cross-examined in mid-1893. In the opinion of the newspaper, the “Goebel defense” emerged stronger because the witnesses interviewed held up their credibility. In particular, Göbel's son William, who was 29 years old at the time and named an actor, was questioned. He answered more than 800 questions. In particular, he assured that as long as his childhood memories went back, there had always been lightbulbs in his parents' house. However, the newspaper is likely to report incorrectly or ambiguously. Obviously, extrajudicial questioning of the witnesses took place in order to underpin their credibility. The interrogation protocols were presented as evidence, but this does not constitute a cross-examination involving the opposing party and the judge.

Allegations of the "Goebel defense"

On January 21, 1893, Göbel submitted an affidavit to a notary in German with minor additions to further notary appointments, which was the main evidence of the defendant companies against the Edison patent.

First page of Göbel's affidavit of January 21, 1893

He announced the following about his origins and training:

He comes from Springe in Germany and his father was a chocolate manufacturer with a higher education. His father was also good friends with higher education. He came into contact with these circles through his father and took part in their “scientific and chemical investigations”. His job in Germany was a mechanic, watchmaker and optician and he “learned his trade in Springe”. With a doctor of medicine in Springe he acquired basic chemical knowledge. He had worked with a professor Münchhausen and acquired electrical engineering knowledge from him. Prof. Münchhausen had "extensive knowledge in the electrical field".

Göbel claimed the following electrical engineering and precision engineering work in Germany before 1848:

He manufactured thermometers, barometers and geometric instruments in Germany and built a large number of instruments under the guidance of Prof. Münchhausen for the "School for Technology" in Hanover. Prof. Münchhausen often stayed in Göbel's study in Springe to discuss “scientific objects”. Under the guidance of Prof. Münchhausen, he carried out experiments to generate light using electricity. He was involved in the manufacture of galvanic batteries and experiments with arc lamps and incandescent lamps. He had learned that the expansion coefficient of platinum and glass was the same. He himself developed suitable processes for carbonizing organic materials. In Springe he also made a magnetic machine that consisted of a "large magnet with windings rotating in front of the poles". He became known with the "electric arc and his behavior". Prof. Münchhausen taught him the basic principle of the incandescent lamp:

Munchhausen said that if these pieces of coal were surrounded in a room from which oxygen is excluded, they would not burn, but would remain glowing and give light, and he thought that this would be a good means of providing practical light to achieve".

Electrotechnical work in New York from 1849 and Göbel sworn the success of the invention as follows:

After emigrating to New York in 1848 he pursued his employment as a watchmaker and resumed his experiments with electricity after he had sufficient funds available. He made many clocks and timepieces, many of which were in use for many years. In addition, he had made experiments with a "raw game engine". He installed a self-made arc lamp on the roof of the house of his shop. Neighbors had alerted the fire brigade because they had taken the light appearance for a fire, whereupon he was warned by a judge to refrain from such mischief.

"Lamp No. 1". Göbel's drawing from January 21, 1893

The alleged Göbel lamp No. 1 presented to the court in 1893

He then turned back to experiments with incandescent lamps and made the first "early in the 1850s". As the glass material he initially used the glass from Cologne water bottles and later tubular glass. He melted the introductory wires directly into the glass envelope; iron, copper and platinum were used as metals. He preferred platinum, but not always on hand because of the high costs. He charred glowing material in heated graphite and used flax, reed, black cane and tampiko as material. From 1872 he only used bamboo fibers obtained from umbrella sticks, pipe pipes and fishing rods because these could be made "very fine". Furthermore, he was able to produce very thin filaments, so that the number of his battery cells was insufficient to make them glow. The diameter of its filaments was a hundredth of an inch and finer. The venting of his lamps was carried out with the Torricelli process. With regard to the internal structure, he differentiates between a “butcher's saw” and a “hairpin” (filament in the shape of a rod or horseshoe). To connect metal wires and glow material, he worked with both furnace shine and with galvanization of the carbon thread. He received electricity through the action of chemical cells. He had a battery with 80 cells, at least 30 cells were required to "ignite a lamp". However, the light bulbs could not have burned for long because the battery "gave up" after an hour. However, he did recognize that the battery would provide three hours of electricity with longer filaments. His lamps could be used indefinitely up to the accidental breakage of the glass envelope. Only with some lamps was the filament burned immediately the first time it was switched on. He had made lamps 1, 2 and 3, which had now broken, in Monroestreet using an oil flame and a blowpipe before the road was connected to the gas supply (the gas supply was built in 1854). He recognizes these lamps as his brand. When the gas supply was being built and his shop was not yet connected, he was suspected of illegally extracting gas because the bright electric light in his shop was mistaken for gas light.

The alleged Göbel lamp No. 4 presented to the court in 1893

He continued to develop his lamps and produced lamp 4 before 1872. The lamp 5 was also made in-house. Lamps 1 through 5 would document the development of his capabilities over the years. After 1872 he heard about the Geissler pump and used it to vent his lamps. Before 1879 he made very small lamps, some “no bigger than a pea” and gave away many of them. A man from the American Electric Light Comp. visited him in 1881 and was interested in his lamps. He initially allowed his son Adolph to work for the company and later allowed himself to be persuaded to produce coal for the company. Since he had taken care of his business, he did not find out what was going on in the outside world. Not until 1881 with the American Electric Light Comp. he found out about Edison and the invention of "power machines for delivering electricity". He understood and spoke English well, but couldn't read it, so he didn't read a newspaper. Until 1881 he did not know that anyone other than himself would have manufactured and used light bulbs. Until recently, he owned a large number of the lamps he made. However, when he left his business in 1890, his property was "scattered in different directions".

Goebel described the use of allegedly produced incandescent lamps as follows:

He used his lamps for various purposes. The display box of his shop was lit from time to time with the lamps, whereby all customers could have seen the lamps. He had a clock in the bedroom that was lit on the hour by a lamp and a switch mechanism. Later he was able to turn on the lamp on the clock with a switch on his bed. While he lived on Monroe Street, he regularly exhibited a self-made telescope on a horse-drawn cart in Union Square and allowed the public to view the celestial bodies for a fee. Sometimes he "put" some of his light bulbs on the car and "lit" them to "attract the audience's attention". Hundreds of people could have seen his lamps in this way. Other uses such as sewing work by Göbel's daughter with electric light lighting, sworn Göbel's children.

Contrary to the German legend, Göbel did not claim to be the sole invention of the incandescent lamp. Quote from the affidavit of January 21, 1893:

“Soon after, I turned my attention to incandescent lamps, or incandescent lamps as they are now called. What I accomplished in this direction, I have always regarded as the execution, as far as the main design of the lamp is taken into account, as the statements and views of Professor Munchausen, and in my experiments I used such material as was available. ... What I did myself mostly resulted in carrying out my thoughts on Münchhausen and I before my arrival in this country. "

This swearing was underpinned by numerous other testimony, each of which confirmed parts of Göbel's statements. Many witnesses came from the Goebel family, their circle of friends and those interested in the case of the Edison patent. Initially three, later five lamps were presented, which were not functional in 1893. These are said to have been produced and used before 1880. Defense experts confirmed the quality of the lamps and the anticipation of the main design features of the Edison patent. However, no evidence that can be unequivocally dated prior to 1880 was presented.

Further allegations were brought into the court proceedings by his sons alone, without Göbel's involvement. This included the story of a presentation of lamps as part of a birthday party in 1878 to numerous friends and relatives who were present and supported this with affidavits. Mrs. Göbels, who died in 1893, also played a role in these claims. One of the lamps shown at the celebration is said to have been relocated and forgotten, but was found again in 1893.

Proof of an earlier public demonstration of the operational invention was necessary to prove that a technology was known and therefore that it was patented as an innovation. The knowledge of the professional world or the media, however, was legally irrelevant. With the lamps on Göbel's telescope cart in the middle of New York and in the window of Göbel's shop, this public demonstration was asserted and it was argued that the techniques in the art of lamp making had been known since the 1850s, even though the experts had not consciously registered them. Since no observer of lamps on the telescope car could have noticed the patent-relevant things such as the material and diameter of the filament, the submission of a lamp and the proof of its existence before 1880 was also necessary for evidence. The alleged uses should prove that it was a completed invention of a practically usable incandescent lamp and not experiments. The assertion of the "Goebel Defense" thus fulfilled the legal requirements for the challenge of the Edison patent without having to assert any influence or any effect of the invention outside of Goebel's personal circle. An invention with merit in technical progress for the benefit of the general public, however, was not claimed.

However, it is not certain that proving an invention before the patent was granted to Edison was the actual strategy of the defense. A process carry-over strategy until the patent expires cannot be ruled out. In the patent dispute against the Columbia company, the defense was successful. Judge Colt in the Beacon patent dispute has disapproved of the defense strategy, which, regardless of the veracity of the anticipated allegation, would in fact have thwarted the patentee's use of the patent.

Doubts about allegations of the "Goebel defense"

All assessments based on historical sources from Göbel's life span agree that Göbel's alleged anticipation of the Edison invention is unlikely and completely uncertain. A research paper from 2006 also found fraudulent intentions. The suspicion of fraud was also raised at the time of the patent trials of 1893 by counter-witnesses, lawyers on the Edison side, judges and some journalists. After these assessments, the actual biography of Göbel was overlaid with a constructed lamp developer biography in order to simulate an invention success before the patent was granted to Edison.

Contemporary assessments

Portrait of Göbel from Western Electrician magazine , published on the cover of the December 16, 1893 issue in an obituary.

In 1893, a lack of credibility, the improbability of the allegations made and the lack of reliable evidence were the reasons why the Goebel defense was given no prospect of success in a main trial in three out of four court decisions. Furthermore, numerous contradictions and implausibilities gave rise to doubts in the court proceedings. In addition to judicial skepticism, doubts arise as a result of independent research outside of the court proceedings at the time.

The London magazine The Electrical Review reported on research in Springe and Hanover . The author of the article, AM Tanner, wrote in February 1894 that he had spoken to the professor of mechanical engineering Christian Moritz Rühlmann at the Technical University of Hanover. He is said to have informed him that a person in Münchhausen was never known as a professor in the Kingdom of Hanover. Professor Rühlmann thought the story about electrical experiments in the Hanoverian villages around 1840 was amusing. According to the report, he is said to have pointed out that not even the accessories for electrical experiments were available in the Kingdom of Hanover at the time.

"Visit Springe, remarked Professor Rühlmann, and you will probably learn that Goebel evolved all of his alleged electrical experiments out of his inner consciousness, and that they have no foundation in fact."

"Visit Springe, remarked Professor Rühlmann, and you will probably realize that Goebel invented all of his alleged electrical experiments and that they are not based on facts."

Professor Münchhausen was not known to anyone in Springe either, and according to Tanner no one could confirm Göbel's electrical experiments in Springe. Tanner wrote in his report that the alleged professor Münchhausen was a leading physicist of his time and yet at least in Germany he must be as well known as Ohm, Bunsen or Helmholtz. In Springe he found out that Göbel was a locksmith who later repaired clocks in markets, but not a trained clockmaker and optician. Since Göbel's descriptions had evoked ideas about Springe as a center of scientific activity in the USA, Tanner corrected in his report that Springe was a farming village that could not be compared with London and New York. As a result of his research, Tanner suspected a hoax story behind the anticipation assertion made in the USA. The German technology magazine ETZ also doubted Göbel's claims in 1893 and drew a comparison with the fraudulent anticipation claims in the dispute over telephone patents. EAKrüger doubted the truth of the Göbel story in the introduction to his specialist book The Manufacture of the Electric Incandescent Lamp, published in 1894 .

Current assessments

More recent research on the life story of Göbel confirms the information given by Tanner as early as 1894. B. 2001 found a locksmith training contract.

Göbel's description of his origin is distorting and cannot be confirmed with sources from Springe. His father was not a highly educated chocolate maker, but an impoverished landscaper and chocolate peddler. At that time there were no circles of higher education in the rural Springe, which were engaged in scientific experiments. The doctor, the pharmacist and the pastor had a higher education; school lessons were given by church staff such as cantor and sexton. Copies of the thermometers, barometers or geometric instruments allegedly manufactured by Göbel were never found.

According to Göbel, the invention was based on sources of knowledge in the Springe / Hanover area in the years 1837-1848, the existence of which, however, cannot be confirmed by examination. With the school for technology that he mentioned, Göbel probably meant today's University of Hanover . From 1831 it was called the Higher Trade School . Evidence for deliveries by a craftsman Göbel was not found. There are no known sources for electrical research work in the Kingdom of Hanover at the time. In particular, the existence of a professor named several times in connection with electricity and light experiments could not be verified even by current research. Different sources name "Professor Münchhausen" or "Professor Mönighausen" - "Professor Münchhausen" is the name Göbel mentioned several times according to court files, and "Mönighausen" is a fantasy name first used by journalist Franklin Pope in 1893, because neither genealogy databases nor onomastics books nor internet search engines result References to the use of the name "Mönighausen" as a family name.

Independent documents, such as the New York Times report of 1882, support doubts about the allegations of 1893. In 1893 Göbel alleged the anticipation of the bamboo charcoal filament and its exclusive use of this material since 1872, but in 1882 named reed grass as a material.

The philological analysis of the extensive text material for academic papers revealed a number of other contradictions and implausibilities. Evidently completely improbable statements such as the alleged manufacture of lamps the size of a pea, the manufacture of electromagnetic machines in Springe and obvious allusions to the literary figure of the “baron of lies” Münchhausen allow different interpretations. It is possible that Göbel was no longer able to assess the credibility of his false statements as his mental powers waned. The possibility of a loss of reality was also expressed in the Electric patent dispute by Judge Seaman. In his doctoral thesis from 2006, Hans-Christian Rohde put forward the thesis that, in order to ease his conscience in the court proceedings, Göbel wanted to make it clear that the story was wrong. He rates the alleged anticipation of the Edison invention as follows:

“The story of Henry Goebels Incandescent Lamps served in 1882 and 1893 to promote immediate economic interests. The intentions of the actors must be seen as fraudulent. "

As a result of his examination of the evidence from the patent litigation and independently created archive material, Rohde states:

"There is not the slightest evidence from before 1880 to support that Henry Goebel was in any way related to the manufacture of electric light bulbs."

The assertions first brought up by Göbel in view of a lamp exhibition in 1882 were used, according to an analysis by Hans-Christian Rohde, to search for investors for lamp production. The story was well known in specialist circles. It was designed by lawyers in 1893 for the "Goebel Defense" and was instrumentalized in the fight against the Edison patent. Twisting of facts by partisan experts and falsification of witness statements were part of the strategy.

Göbel did not appear in person before any court in 1893. His health shortly before his death is unclear. Evidence suggests that the defense in the patent litigation of 1893 should be judged as a fraudulent construct by lawyers and an electrical expert who fell out with Edison in the interests of Edison's competitors. It is unknown whether Göbel got involved in these proceedings of his own free will or whether he could not withstand the pressure of lawyers and his sons. There is no clear picture of Göbel's role and responsibility, as the available sources allow different interpretations. Göbel himself applied the basics of his alleged light bulb work before 1880 without a doubt, which in more recent works is judged either as showing off or as imposture. His attempts to participate in the light bulb business in 1882 are judged dishonest. The extent of his responsibility for the move to false statements sworn according to current assessments in 1893 in the context of court disputes over large financial interests of third parties is unclear.

Regardless of the lack of evidence for an anticipation of Thomas Alva Edison's incandescent lamp invention, Göbel's chances were enormously reduced by education, time and money. Nevertheless, the emigrant, living in economically modest circumstances, who had to support an extended family and had no access to the advances in knowledge in university circles, managed to work in the high-tech industry of his time from 1881 at the age of 63 and to develop patentable techniques. The work documented in the patents show that Göbel had the ability to solve mechanical and fine mechanical problems. Knowledge in the fields of electrophysics and vacuum physics was not required for these patents.

Technical feasibility

Earliest Goebel photo released by the media ( Electrical Engineer January 25, 1893)

In a TV documentary broadcast in 2007, Marc Greuther, curator at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn (Michigan), and Frank Dittmann, curator at the Deutsches Museum in Munich, judged Göbel's solution to the complex problems and their manageability in terms of production technology as unlikely. Marc Greuther named about 200 individual steps necessary to produce an incandescent lamp with the technology available at the time. This supports the opinion of Thomas Alva Edison at the time, who said in an affidavit of the patent processes of 1893 that Göbel must be the most unusual person of all time if he anticipated the research knowledge developed by the Edison Electric Light Company solely through the power of his thoughts.

The development of an incandescent lamp requires the solution of numerous problems and high manufacturing precision, which alone enables the step from a glowing effect to a permanently usable incandescent lamp. In addition to Göbel's ability to solve the problems, experts in the patent litigation of 1893 also questioned the suitability of alleged production processes and constructions for a permanently usable incandescent lamp.

Even more than with the previously used platinum filaments, various difficulties arise in the manufacture of functioning carbon filament lamps. These include the precise manufacture of a long, thin carbon thread with a uniform cross-section, the achievement of a high-quality vacuum, the sensitivity of the brittle thread, the connection between metal and carbon material and the need for a complex process to remove the gases trapped and adhering in the carbon material. Since Göbel had no vacuum pump and no measuring instruments available in the 1850s, his ability to generate a sufficient vacuum and to precisely adjust the filament to the small temperature window that would allow continuous operation are particularly questioned.

Furthermore, the suitability of the power sources available in the 1850s for the use on a horse-drawn cart for telescope applications with electric light is doubtful. Cyrus Brackett, professor of physics at Princeton and reviewer on the Edison side in the 1893 patent litigation, cited 300 to 400 pounds of weight for the necessary power source. It is unlikely that the high costs of battery power could be financed from the proceeds from a telescope showman. The batteries of the 1850s are acids in open containers. The lawyers of the "Goebel Defense" reacted with a modified statement by Göbel, according to which he only occasionally used electric light to advertise his telescopic car and used oil lamps more often because of the power source problems.

Göbel's craftsmanship, praised by German legend, was called into question in the patent litigation of 1893 in relation to glass processing. The high-quality glass processing of lamp 4 is attributed to a trained glassblower. The Edison experts complained that none of the lamps allegedly reproduced by Göbel himself corresponded to this important piece of evidence.

There is no scientific work to clarify the expert dispute of 1893 on the technical problem complexes outlined. In 2006, Marc Greuther found the Göbel lamps that were believed to be lost from the patent litigation in 1893. Edward Covington documented this find in April 2006 and published it on the Internet. Evidence 4 and 9 relating to the Edison patent are also among the lamps found.

Development of the Göbel legend

Franklin L. Pope (1893)

Probably a photo from 1893 of Göbel with a telescope in front of the Göbel store to support the Göbel story; actual date of recording unknown between 1886 and 1893

Franklin Leonard Pope was, according to biographers, one of the most respected men in the US electrical industry and a highly paid advisor on patent matters at the time. He was also the editor of Electrical Engineer , president of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, and a distinguished court expert. At the age of 29, Pope met the then destitute 22-year-old Thomas Alva Edison and founded the first electrical company in which Edison was involved. Pope has evidently seen the rise of his ex-boyfriend Edison ambivalent. As a reviewer, Pope often represented plaintiffs against Edison companies and relativized inventive achievements ascribed to Edison in journalistic terms.

Even before the court rulings, Pope wrote a positive article about Goebel, entitled The Carbon Filament Lamp of 1859 — The Story of an Overlooked Invention (" The Carbon Filament Lamp of 1859 - The Story of an Overlooked Invention "). This article is the original journalistic source of the Göbel legend. As an expert, Pope also represented the Göbel side in court in 1893.

The article conveyed Göbel, hitherto unknown to the public, as an overlooked inventive genius and sensation and made Göbel's claims appear justified even before the court proceedings. The article appeared just two days after the "Goebel defense" was submitted in writing to the court, which is an indication of preparation and planned time coordination. In his dissertation, Hans-Christian Rohde assesses Pope as a fraudulent technical advisor to the “Goebel defense”.

The article of January 1893 contains obviously incorrect statements of fact. For example, Goebel's father is presented as the consul of the Netherlands in New York. It is unclear whether Göbel was the informant or whether Pope or the law firm Witter & Kenyon made this claim in order to position Göbel in the interests of the law firm or of Edison's competitors.

Franklin Pope claims in his article, which appeared as the cover story of the Electrical Engineer on January 25, 1893, a number of facts that differ from what Göbel said. For example, he uses the name Mönighausen instead of Münchhausen for Göbel's alleged teachers. The article also claims that the zinc-carbon batteries, which were only invented in 1866, were used in Göbel's alleged developments in the 1850s. Göbel himself only mentioned the chemical effect of cells as a power source. The repetition of this information in later articles in newspapers in different countries demonstrates the importance of Franklin Pope in creating the legend.

The Goebel story was perceived in other media and by later technical historians through the Pope article from January 1893 and not through the complex court proceedings with several thousand pages of documents. Pope's article was misinterpreted as a well-researched journalistic article, both at the time of publication and later.

It is easy to assume that the electrical industry discussed its problems with the Edison patent and Edison's market power with respected advisor Pope. The construction of the “Goebel defense” as an intrigue against Edison is conceivable as a result of such discussions. Pope's personal interests, the business interests of the lawyers Witter & Kenyon, and industrial interests of Edison's competitors may have come together, with Göbel possibly representing no more than a means in their power struggles with a biography shaped for the purpose.

After the court ruling in St. Louis, the electrical engineer summarized Göbel's work with "crude work" . But it is now a great challenge to refute Göbel's claims, because the burden of proof now rests on the plaintiffs (Edison Electric Light Co.). In the meantime, the art of lamp making is free of copyrights and it will stay that way. This alluded to the fact that a major lawsuit could not be conducted before the patent expired and Edison was legally outmaneuvered. As a major inventor, Göbel played his role for three months in industrial disputes and the battle between the warring men Pope and Edison.

Edward Covington points out that Pope did not mention Göbel in the second edition of his book Evolution of the Electric Incandescent Lamp , published in 1894 .

1893-1945

In the Berlin technology magazine ETZ , issue 7 of the year 1893, the Göbel legend was first claimed in Germany. The source was Franklin Pope's article. The author may have been unaware that this article appeared in the run-up to patent litigation in which Pope was an appraiser for a party. The lamp developments of Göbel before the patent was granted to Edison, to be proven in pending court hearings in the USA, were thus also published in Germany as an undoubted fact.

In 1893, in issue 18 (?) On page 206, volume XIV. Of the ETZ, a critical article on the light bulb dispute in America and Göbel's claims appeared. The reporting is skeptical and comes to the conclusion "... the romantic story of the poor inventor Goebel will soon be forgotten."

The story then evidently went unnoticed for 18 years before the Berlin technology historian Lothar Arends published it in 1911. He saw in Göbel in particular the inventor of the electric neon advertising. In response to a counter-question, Arends failed to provide evidence and source information about the then source research for the history of technology and natural sciences in Berlin (QFG). In 1912, the technology historian Franz Maria Feldhaus , who was in contact with Arends, wrote about the Göbel legend in the ETZ with fictitious claims such as "... excellent schooling, prosperity in America" and the like. In 1915 the history sheets for technology, industry and trade published the Göbel legend according to information from Arends in nos. 5 and 6.

Based on this factually incorrect information, among other things, the Berlin engineer Hermann Beckmann , who had a doctorate in Germany, put the claim into circulation in 1923 that Göbel's invention had been proven by a court judgment in the third and final court. In addition to the false record of performance, the article contains numerous other defects, for example Beckmann confused the publication date of an obituary (December 16, 1893) with the date of Göbel's death (December 4, 1893). Beckmann cites sources for his article, but they contain something completely different from his article. For example, he cites the report by the journalist Tanner, who questioned the “Göbel Münchhausen lamp story” after researching Springe, as a confirming source for his national inventor story. Beckmann's verdict on Göbel was: "The German inventor Göbel deserves to be named in the first place among the pioneers of electrical engineering."

The VDE association and interested industrial groups took up Beckmann's article and made the Beckmann story of the inventor Göbel important. In 1926 the entry "Heinrich Göbel" was included in Meyer's Konversations-Lexikon , and in 1928 in the Brockhaus Encyclopedia . In the Siemensstadt housing estate built in Berlin from 1929 to 1931 , which was added to the UNESCO World Heritage List in July 2008, a square and a street were named after Göbel. Beckmann also gave the ceremonial speech on September 14, 1929 when a plaque was installed on the alleged birthplace of Göbel in Springe. The Electrotechnical Society of Hanover initiated the award.

Commemorative plaque from 1929 on the declared birth house with an Edison light bulb and Edison screw base. Dedicated by the VERBAND DEUTSCHER ELEKTROTECHNIKER and the ELEKTROTECHNISCHEN GESELLSCHAFT HANNOVER (designed by Hermann Scheuertstuhl )

The Elektrotechnische Zeitung reported on the speech:

"Dr. Beckmann, who has the merit of having wrested the name Goebel from oblivion, provided conclusive evidence of Heinrich Goebel's priority claims for the first-time production and ready-to-use demonstration of the first usable carbon filament lamp in a complete description of Heinrich Goebel's inventiveness and the American court proceedings at the time. ... His closing words came to an end in the exhortation 'Honor your German masters!' "

It is unclear whether Hermann Beckmann was wrong or forged, and whether the professors from the Technical University of Hanover who were present at the 1929 memorial ceremony in Springe did not check the Beckmann story or covered a forgery. Beckmann, who died in 1933, saw the independent achievements of Swan and Edison, unlike many later authors of the legend, but not diminished.

Linguistic inaccuracies by journalists and von Beckmann led to the fact that the alleged development of the first incandescent lamp with carbon filament became the invention of the incandescent lamp, and sometimes the invention of electric light. In fact, other types of incandescent lamps (with platinum filaments) were patented as early as the 1840s; electric arc lamps were introduced as early as the early 19th century and illuminated the Place de la Concorde in Paris in 1844.

Beckmann's article was no longer questioned for a long time. The Göbel legend spread and solidified during the National Socialist era . Göbel's alleged achievement 25 years before people from other nations corresponded to Nazi ideology; several names after Göbel took place at this time. Examples are the Heinrich-Göbel-Realschule in Springe (1939) and Heinrich-Göbel-Strasse in Munich (1938). In 1938, the Nazi-controlled press designated the plaque on the alleged Göbel birthplace as a memorial to a German inventor's deed and a small German sanctuary . The book Men at Work - Life Pictures of German Inventors and Researchers , published in 1939, gives an impression of the Göbel picture of that time :

“And now - America’s highest judges say:“ You, Heinrich Goebel, are the real inventor of this light! ”Father Goebel even forgives Edison for his theft. Let the Yankee make as much money as he wants. May the General Electric Co. make millions all the time! He, the German, has enchanted the face of the world! ... Germans, always Germans, humble people, hobbyists and scholars, without greed for money and fame, but experts, entire experts - benefactors of humanity. "

Since 1945

Light bulb symbol on the Göbel Bastion above Springe

Inscription of the Göbel-Bastei in Springe with wrong date of death according to Beckmann

Monument erected in Springe in 1993 "The Fertilization of Darkness by Mr. Bottle Light"

Labeling of the Göbel monument at the District Court of Springe, with the assertion of patent litigation and the technically impossible perfume flashlight

The legend variants of the Nazi era were incompatible with post-war relations with the United States. For this reason, new versions of legends transferred the idea of ​​reconciliation to the legendary figures Göbel and Edison; for example, Edison is said to have admired Göbel's achievement, who in turn sees himself as the forerunner of an even greater inventor. Negative character attributions by Edison were omitted in the representations, while the idealistic character representation of the legendary figure Göbel, formed during the National Socialist era, was retained.

In 1949, the standard work The Electric-Lamp Industrie: Technological Change and Economic Development from 1800 to 1947 by Arthur A. Bright was published as the result of research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology . Bright notes that, contrary to his designation as the inventor of the incandescent lamp, Göbel was first mentioned in specialist literature in 1885 by some German authors, that his work was never relevant to the commercial production of lamps and never entered scientific knowledge for the benefit of future experimenters. Bright's account of the Boston and St Louis trials contradicts Beckmann's claim of a priority judgment in Göbel's favor in the last instance. Editors of encyclopedias, authors of specialist books and technology museums in Germany have ignored Göbel's assessment in this standard work.

Copies of affidavits by the “Goebel Defense” came to Springe in an unknown manner before the availability of copiers, probably in the early 1950s. In 1954, a school class was busy translating them. An evaluation of the approx. 530 pages and a comparison with the legend did not take place. The documents in Springe were ignored until 1998.

In 1954 a Göbel bastion was built in Springe. The light bulb manufacturer Osram spread the Göbel legend in brochures and later on the Internet. In 1956 Walter Rüsch's novel The Shining Bottle was published. The life of the inventor Heinrich Göbel. Franz Bauer , rector of a primary school in Nuremberg, published an epic version of the legend in 1964 as a book for young people under the title Die Sonne der Nacht . A Göbel production of the school radio decorated the legend with imaginative details and claimed z. B. the vacuum sealing of alleged Göbel bottle lamps with marbles. In 1967, a secondary school in Berlin-Neukölln was named after Göbel.

A further development of the inventor myth in the GDR is not known. In reference works, however, Göbel was also listed as the light bulb inventor on the basis of Beckmann's 1923 court success.

The local press in Springe reported uncritically about Göbel for more than 70 years and attributed to him services that he did not claim for himself, but mainly attributed to Prof. Münchhausen. In 1993, on the 100th anniversary of his death, another Göbel memorial was erected in a niche of the Springe district court, which the artist Heiko Prodlik-Olbrich calls The Fertilization of Darkness by Mister Bottle Light .

The entry "Heinrich Göbel" was deleted from the Brockhaus encyclopedia as early as the 1990s . The Bibliographical Institute & F. A. Brockhaus stated: "The general level of awareness of Göbel, which is reflected in the problem of finding evidence, justified no inclusion in the new edition of our lexicon" . As a result, the City Council of Springe passed a resolution on October 15, 1998 for entry into the plant. National newspapers such as Die Zeit and several television stations reported.

In response to the problem of missing documents, Friedrich Gisselmann subsequently founded the “Heinrich Göbel Stammtisch” for the maintenance and research of the story. From this group it was also published for the first time in Germany that Beckmann's assertion of a patent process won through three courts is incorrect and that there are further inconsistencies between sources and legend. The museum in the castle courtyard in Springe began acquiring sources around the year 2000. Some inconsistencies were discovered and corrected.

However, Göbel was still recognized without criticism. Examples of this are the “150 Years of Light Bulb” anniversary celebrations in Springe 2004 and a Göbel postage stamp issued in the same year. According to a report on the ZDF program Our Best - the Greatest Invention in June 2005, the Neue Deister-Zeitung wrote on June 21, 2005: “The Springer is one of the greatest inventors in human history - this is the result of a ZDF survey. "

The association VDE, which is jointly responsible for the creation of the Göbel legend, spread the Göbel legend until 2010 and interpreted it for its interests. In 2005, the Initiative Partners for Innovations of the federal government, associations and industrial companies published a publication German Stars - 50 Innovations Everyone Should Know About inventions from Germany. The incandescent lamp is claimed to be a German invention, Göbel is one of the 50 stars of the global image campaign.

In 1989 a book published in Switzerland criticized the German description of the history of the light bulb invention. From mid-2005, publications appeared in Germany that characterized the legend as such and replaced it with a source-based representation.

The Göbel exhibition in the Museum Springe was closed in December 2005 due to new research results. The local press in Springe reported on new research results several times from December 2005.

The 21st edition of the Brockhaus has taken up the entry "Heinrich Göbel" with the wrong date of Göbel's death and the assertion of a judicial recognition of Göbel's priority claims to the inventorship (Volume 11, 2006). The publisher gives the year the light bulb was invented as 1854 and not only ignores the lack of evidence for Göbel's alleged achievement, but also granted patents for light bulbs in England in the 1840s. However, the current online edition of Brockhaus (as of 2018) is based on the results of source research and describes Göbel's earlier representations as legend.

In 2007, Göbel was increasingly reported in television programs, events and national newspapers. Many of the institutions involved with Göbel have revised a performance attribution as the inventor of the incandescent lamp in response to the publications of source research. For example, the state of Lower Saxony no longer mentions Göbel on the website of the inventors from the state. The German Museum in Munich has also revoked the earlier attribution of the incandescent lamp invention, while the city of Springe (November 2017) described Göbel's invention of the incandescent lamp as controversial and at the same time called the earlier depiction a legend .

In more recent times (2012) the portrayal of Göbel as a disenchanted technological genius and the assessment of the processes as a grotesque chapter in the history of technology is typical for the reception in the media. By copying from representations refuted by the source research, however, the legend is also published.

The perfume flashlight

First Day Cover Postage Stamp 150 Years of Light Bulb
Stefan Klein, Olaf Neumann , 2004
Link to the picture (please note copyrights )

Depictions of Göbel lamps in the shape of a perfume bottle, such as on the Göbel postage stamp issued by the Federal Ministry of Finance in 2004 , are a misinterpretation of a Göbel statement from 1893 from the 1930s. Göbel claimed that his lamps were tubular and about 30 cm been long.

• Goebel said in 1893: “My first attempts at the manufacture of light bulbs were made with Cologne water bottles as the glass part. I tried to process this glass with the blowpipe, but had great difficulties with it, because it was so fragile and it was difficult to make a well-enveloping glass bell with it. " Regarding the drawing of Göbel lamp no. 1, he says: " The The first lamps of this type that I made were made from Cologne water bottles, but later I made them out of tubular glass. ” If these lamps existed at all before 1879, according to him, the shape of the lamp was always that of drawing 1.
• Hermann Beckmann wrote in 1923: “To make the outer shells of his light bulbs, Göbel first used vessels that he made from eau-de-Cologne bottles; later he used a wide glass tube, which he gave a suitable shape by blowing. "
• In the 1930s, misinterpretations of the bottle lamp emerged, for example in the magazine Funk in issue 4 1938: "Empty Eau de Cologne bottles served as a glass body and into this he put the charred strip of a bamboo stick" .

Since the 1930s, there have been different representations of the Göbel statement depending on the way in which the information was written off.

Venting a bottle using the Torricelli method would also be difficult. A glass tube would have to be melted and melted again, with an effect on the shape of the bottle. The vacuum sealing of the exhibit shown on the Göbel postage stamp was not possible with any material known at the time and also contradicts drawing No. 1 and Göbel's statement that he melted the lead wires into the glass envelope. A carbon thread of the length necessary for the claimed invention of the high-resistance incandescent lamp does not fit into a conventional perfume bottle. Today's incandescent lamps have relatively small glass envelopes, as the metal threads used are brought into spiral shapes of the necessary length. Carbon filament lamps made by Edison and other manufacturers in the 1880s were much larger than a perfume bottle. The exhibit shown on the stamp is a functionless dummy in the form of an unusually large perfume bottle, which distorts the stamp image in scale. The diameter of the glow material of the dummy shown does not meet the requirements of a filament. The exhibit is a physically absurd object that documents the ideas of laypeople about early incandescent lamps, inspired by the legend. In the case of the postage stamp, however, the statement “150 years of incandescent lamp 2004” is not based on reliable sources.

Honors

• In 1929 a ceremony initiated by the Electrotechnical Society of Hanover took place on the believed 75th anniversary of the invention of the incandescent lamp in honor of Heinrich Göbel. A memorial plaque was attached to the declared birthplace and the former Deisterweg in Springe was renamed Heinrich-Göbel-Straße.
• In 1939, during the National Socialist era, the newly founded middle school and later secondary school in Springe was named after Heinrich Göbel. The school was closed at the end of the 2018/2019 school year and replaced by an integrated comprehensive school , which is not named after Heinrich Göbel.
• In 1954, on the believed 100th anniversary of the incandescent lamp invention, the Göbel Bastion with a lamp symbol on an obelisk was built above Springe. The monument was renovated in 2018 for Göbel's 200th birthday and equipped with LED lighting technology. Additional inscription plaques are to be attached to this and other memorials for Göbel in Springe, taking into account the results of the source research.
• In 1967 the Heinrich-Goebel-Oberschule in Berlin-Neukölln got its name, in 1989 it was renamed Thomas-More-Oberschule.
• In 1993, on the 100th anniversary of Heinrich Göbel's death, a Göbel memorial was erected at the district court in Springe.
• In 2004, on the believed 150th anniversary of the incandescent lamp invention, Heinrich Göbel issued the postage stamp 150 years of electric incandescent lamp in Germany and presented it at a ceremony in Springe dedicated to Heinrich Göbel.
• In 2018, for Göbel's 200th birthday, a ceremony took place in Springe, but Göbel was no longer honored as the inventor of the incandescent lamp. A lecture about the results of the source research and the appreciation of his life path were the focus of the celebration. The emigrant had integrated himself in New York, had risen into civil society, had eight children, but he did not take the truth seriously.
• In Barsinghausen , Bremen - Horn-Lehe , Chemnitz , Darmstadt , Gehrden , Giesen locality Ahrbergen , Grevenbroich , Gütersloh , Hamburg - Volksdorf , Hannover , Lilienthal , Luneburg , Mühldorf , Munich , Muenster (Hessen) , Neustadt am Rübenberge , Schulenburg (Pattensen) , Röthenbach , Springe and Wennigsen (Deister) streets were named after him, in Berlin one street and one square. Most names were made between 1929 and 1960. The names come in the variants Goebelstraße, Göbelstraße, Heinrich-Goebel-Straße and Heinrich-Göbel-Straße. In the case of other Goebelstraßen, Göbelstraßen, Göbelwege and Goebelwegen in Germany, there is no information as to whether the names were named after the light bulb inventor Heinrich Göbel. In 2017, the Bremen-Horn-Lehe Transport Committee discussed an application for the renaming of Heinrich-Goebel-Straße there, which was prompted by the results of the source research on Heinrich Göbel, and he argued that the application did not come from the residents of the Street, refused.

literature

• Arthur Aaron Bright: The Electric-Lamp Industry: Technological Change and Economic Development from 1800 to 1947. Arno Press, New York 1972, ISBN 0-405-04690-1 .
• Hans-Christian Rohde: The Göbel legend - the struggle for the invention of the light bulb. Zu Klampen, Springe 2007, ISBN 978-3-86674-006-8 (The book is based on a dissertation submitted by the author to the University of Hanover in 2006. The author was a member of the board of the Museum Springe in 2006).
• K. Jäger, F. Heilbronner: Lexicon of electrical engineers . 2nd revised and expanded edition. VDE Verlag, 2010, ISBN 978-3-8007-2903-6 , p. 158 f.
• Adolf Wißner:  Goebel, Johann Heinrich Christoph Conrad. In: New German Biography (NDB). Volume 6, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1964, ISBN 3-428-00187-7 , p. 503 f. ( Digitized version ).

Magazine articles

• The electrical engineering journals of 1893 and 1894, especially The Electrical World and The Electrical Engineer , report in many articles on the patent processes
• Court decisions in the United States have been published in the Federal Reporter since 1880 . The decisions related to the “Goebel defense” can be found in volumes f1.54, f1.56, f1.57, f1. 60, f1.61 and f1.65. The Federal Reporter has been available online since 2008. The names of the cases are listed below:
  • Edison Electric Light v. Beacon Vol. 54, p. 678
  • Edison Electric Light v. Columbia Vol. 56, p. 496
  • Edison Electric Light v. Electric, Oconto Vol. 57, p. 616
  • Electric, Oconto v. Edison Electric Light appeal Vol. 61, p. 834
  • Edison Electric Light v. Philadelphia Trust Vol. 60, p. 397
  • Philadelphia Trust v. Edison Electric Light appeal Vol. 65, p. 551
• Frank Dittmann: Heinrich Goebel - the rise and fall of a German legend. In: History of Technology. 74, 2 (2007): 149-160, ISSN  0040-117X

Other sources

• The case files are located in the National Record Administration of the USA responsible for the respective court locations of Boston, Chicago and St. Louis. The central documents are the court decisions and the affidavit of Göbel from January 21, 1893, in which he describes life and electrical engineering work. Parts of the files (copies of the affidavits of the "Goebel Defense", approx. 500 pages) are also in the City Archives Springe and in the City Library Springe. Copies of documents from US court archives, which Hans-Christian Rohde obtained for his dissertation, are in the archive of the Museum Springe.
• Sources on the early authors of the Göbel legend Arends and Feldhaus are available to the public in the so-called Feldhaus archive of the German Museum of Technology in Berlin .
• Friedrich Gisselmann's Göbel collection, comprising eight folders, is accessible to the public in the Springe city archive. The collection contains copies of documents, copies of newspaper articles from the years 1893 to 2001 as well as records of unsuccessful research to confirm Göbel's statements. The translations also available in this collection were made by laypeople.

Web links

Commons : Heinrich Goebel  - Collection of images, videos and audio files

• Literature by and about Heinrich Göbel in the catalog of the German National Library
• Edward Covington: A Review of the Henry Goebel Defense. ( Memento from January 11, 2017 in the Internet Archive ) Brief description of the patent processes with “Goebel defense”.
• Frank Levis Dyer et al. A .: Edison his life and inventions 1929 / Henry Goebel Defense of 1893
• Postage stamp archive: variant of the perfume bottle legend. ( Memento from May 29, 2016 in the Internet Archive )
• Youtube video clip: Hans-Christian Rohde on Heinrich Göbel (H1 television, November 1, 2011, 4 min.)
• Dailymotion video: Patents and Talents Episode 13: Mr. Göbel's light bulb (SWR TV, May 27, 2007, 30 min.)
• Heinrich Göbel and Springe project by students of the Springe high school in 2019. The city of Springe is planning to link this website to the city's Göbel memorials via QR code.

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Edison patent 223898 “Electric Lamp” The patent is considered to be one of the technically and economically most important of the 19th century.
2. ↑ Hans-Christian Rohde: The Göbel legend - the struggle for the invention of the light bulb. To Klampen, Springe 2007, ISBN 978-3-86674-006-8 .
3. ↑ Göbel's birthplace in the Lower Saxony Monument Atlas
4. ↑ Hans-Christian Rohde: The Göbel legend. P. 96.
5. ↑ Biographical information up to 1848 is taken from a leaflet from February 15, 2004 by Friedrich Gisselmann, who dealt with the sources in Springe. The sources about Göbel in Springe essentially consist of entries in the church register and an apprenticeship contract that was found, which documents the beginning of a locksmith apprenticeship.
6. ↑ According to the church register, her name was Sophie Betty Julie Lübcke nee Rodewig. Betty is a short form of Elisabeth, in English Eliza. Possibly she went by the name of Eliza after emigrating to the USA.
7. ↑ Hans-Christian Rohde: The Göbel legend. P. 65.
8. ↑ Göbel patent 47632 "Säumer"
9. ↑ Dietmar Moews: Expert opinion on source criticism Heinrich Göbel. In: New sensuality. 56 (March 2007), pp. 25–46 (The author is the publisher of Neue Sinnlichkeit. Self-published publication)
10. ↑ Reports in The New York Times and The New York World of April 30, 1882 and May 1, 1882, respectively.
11. ^ Online archive of The New York Times : A NEW INCANDESCENT LIGHT. A GERMAN ELECTRICIAN'S INVENTION April 30, 1882 , accessed September 21, 2007.
12. ↑ Göbel patent 252658 "Vacuum pump"
13. ↑ Göbel patent 266358 "Carbon filament-metal connection"
14. ^ The Oconto Incandescent Lamp Case. In: The Electrical World. Vol. XXII, no. 3, July 15, 1893, p. 49.
15. ↑ Henry Goebel. In: The Electrical World. Vol. XXI, No. 18, May 6, 1893, p. 332.
16. ↑ Hans-Christian Rohde: The Göbel legend. P. 75.
17. ^ Death of Henry Goebel. In: The Electrical World. Vol. XXII, no. December 26, 16, 1893.
18. ↑ Edison's patent upheld. In: The New York Times. July 15, 1891 and October 5, 1892.
19. ↑ According to information from Hans-Christian Rohde, the journal Electrical Engineer Vol. XV, No. 248 of February 1, 1893, p. 120 in a heading the term "goebel defense". The electrical engineer had published the Göbel story a week earlier through the cover article by Franklin Pope as the first magazine and triggered the inclusion in other media.
20. ^ The Incandescent Lamp Situation. In: The Electrical World. Vol. XXI, No. 13, April 1, 1893, p. 113.
21. ↑ Hans-Christian Rohde: The Göbel legend. P. 41.
22. ↑ On Injunction Granted Against the Beacon Vacuum Pump and Electrical Co.-The Goebel Claims Rejected. In: The Electrical Engineer. Vol. XV, No. 251, February 22, 1893, p. 188.
23. ^ Effect of Judge Hallett's Decision. In: The Electrical World. Vol. XXI, No. 17, April 29, 1893, p. 312.
24. ^ Decision in the Columbia Incandescent Lamp Suit. In: The Electrical World , Vol. XXI, No. 17, April 29, 1893, p. 312.
25. ↑ EDISON ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. et aI. v. COLUMBIA INCANDESCENT LAMP CO. et aI. (Circuit Court, ED Missouri, ED April 21, 1893.). In: Federal Reporter. Vol. 56, p. 496, No 3707
26. ↑ Since Electric is not suitable as an abbreviated proper name for Electric Manufacturing Company , newspapers named this patent dispute after the company headquarters The Oconto Case , which, however, encourages the misunderstanding that it was the place of jurisdiction.
27. ^ Decision in the Oconto Incandescent Lamp Suit. In: The Electrical World. Vol. XXII, no. 5, July 29, 1893, p. 86.
28. ↑ The exact legal character of the appeal (an appeal to an appellate court) as a revision, appeal or complaint is unclear. The appeal of a judicial review of a preliminary injunction was only available to the respondent. The plaintiff, on the other hand, had to bring his action to a main proceedings in the event of his application being rejected.
29. ^ The Oconto Lamp Case. In: The Electrical World. Vol. XXIII, No. 19, May 12, 1894, p. 636.
30. ↑ EDISON ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. et al. v. PHILADELPHIA TRUST SAFEDEPOSIT & INS. CO. et al. In: Federal Reporter , Vol. 60, p. 397, No 29, 30, 31
31. ↑ PHILADELPHIA TRUST, SAFEDEPOSIT & INS. CO. et al. v. EDISON ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. et al. In: Federal Reporter. Vol. 65, p. 551, No 21
32. ^ The Columbia Incandescent Lamp Company Case. In: The Electrical World. Vol. XXI, No. 16, April 22, 1893, p. 294.
33. ↑ Hans-Christian Rohde: The Göbel legend. P. 73 and p. 204.
34. ^ The Oconto Incandescent Lamp Case. In: The Electrical World. Vol. XXII, no. 3, July 15, 1893, p. 45.
35. ^ The Oconto Incandescent Lamp Case. II In: The Electrical World. Vol. XXII, no. 4, July 22, 1893, pp. 57 and pp. 68-71. Quote: "All of the new testimony for the defense in this case, covering some 650 pages of the printed record, was given under oath and the witnesses were subjected to the most rigid cross examination. Not only was the defense not discredited thereby, but materially strengthened. ”Cross-examination was uncommon in injunction proceedings.
36. ↑ In the following written court decision in the Electric, Oconto case of July 20, 1893, there is no reference to a judicial cross-examination and its result, but a reference to the questionnaire protocols submitted as evidence of the “Goebel defense”.
37. ↑ ^{a b c} A. M. Tanner: The Goebel-Munchhausen Lamp Story. In: The Electrical Review. Vol. 34, No. 845, February 2, 1894, p. 113, London.
38. ↑ Friedrich Naumann : A technology scientist from the very beginning - On the 100th anniversary of the death of Christian Moritz Rühlmann ( Memento of the original from September 29, 2005 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The  archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , accessed June 4, 2006.
39. ↑ The light bulb dispute in America. In: ETZ Elektrotechnische Zeitung. Volume 14, No. 14, April 7, 1893, p. 206.
40. ↑ EAKrüger: The manufacture of the electric light bulb. , Leipzig, 1894, published by Oskar Leiner, p. 2
41. ^ History of the University of Hanover , accessed on November 27, 2017.
42. ↑ Hans-Christian Rohde: The Göbel legend. P. 133.
43. ↑ Hans-Christian Rohde: The Göbel legend. P. 69.
44. ↑ Hans-Christian Rohde: The Göbel legend. P. 73 and P. 77.
45. ^ "The lamp of Mr. Göbel", TV documentary by the SWR. First broadcast on May 27, 2007.
46. ↑ Hans-Christian Rohde: The Göbel legend. P.56.
47. ^ Edward Covington: Goebel Original and Reproduced Lamps. ( Memento from February 1, 2017 in the Internet Archive ) (Photos of the Göbel lamps found in 2006 / evidence from the patent trials.)
48. ^ Paul Israel: Edison: A Life of Invention. John Wiley & Sons, 1998, ISBN 0-471-36270-0 , p. 55.
49. ^ Franklin Leonard Pope: The Carbon Filament Lamp of 1859 — The Story of an Overlooked Invention. In: The Electrical Engineer. Vol. XV, No. 247, January 25, 1893, p. 77.
50. ↑ Hans-Christian Rohde: The Göbel legend. Pp. 82-86.
51. ^ The Incandescent Lamp Situation. In: The Electrical Engineer. Vol. XV, No. 261, May 3, 1893, p. 426.
52. ↑ The inventor of the incandescent lamp. In: ETZ Elektrotechnische Zeitschrift - Organ of the VDE. No. 7, February 17, 1893, pp. 89-90.
53. ^ Source: Deutsches Technikmuseum Berlin, Feldhaus-Archiv, copy in Göbel files 488, pp. 47–48.
54. ↑ Dietmar Moews: History of the Technology of Electric Light In: Neue Sinnlichkeit 53 (December 2005), pp. 22-48 (The author is the editor of Neue Sinnlichkeit. Self-published)
55. ^ Hermann Beckmann: The first electric light bulb. In: ETZ Elektrotechnische Zeitschrift - Organ of the VDE. No. 47/48, November 29, 1923, pp. 1031-1034.
56. ^ Heinrich Goebel celebration in Springe am Deister. In: ETZ Elektrotechnische Zeitschrift - Organ of the VDE. No. 41.10. October 1929, p. 1492.
57. ↑ Ulrich Manthey: 'Ewige Lampe' abused for propaganda. In: New Deister newspaper. January 20, 2007.
58. ^ Ernst Georg Erich Lorenz: Men at work - life pictures of German inventors and researchers. Loewe, Stuttgart 1939, p. 19.
59. ↑ Heiko Prodlik-Olbrich: The Göbel monument at the district court in Springe. In: 2006 yearbook of the Friends' Association for the City of Springe. December 2006, pp. 87-91.
60. ↑ Hans-Christian Rohde: The Göbel legend. P. 114.
61. ^ Arthur A. Bright jr .: The Electric-Lamp Industrie: Technological Change and Economic Development from 1800 to 1947 , New York, 1949, The Macmillan Company, p. 89 (New edition 1972 see section literature)
62. ↑ See for example brochure “100 Years of OSRAM” from September 2006, accessed on August 12, 2007, no longer available online
63. ↑ Walter Rüsch: The glowing bottle. Benziger Verlag, Cologne 1956. The Brockhaus edition from 1969 names this novel as the source of the Göbel entry in addition to the Beckmann article from 1923.
64. ↑ Franz Bauer: The sun of the night. Markus-Verlag, Munich 1964. In this variant of the legend, Edison had the German watchmaker's “funny, sausage-shaped lamps” that were supposed to burn for so long, when his developments stalled in 1879 at 40 hours, and then achieved a breakthrough in 1880 Use of the bamboo filament from Göbel technology. The discrediting of Edison as a plagiarist ties in with the representations of the Nazi era.
65. ↑ Since a school merger in 1989, the school has been named after Thomas More.
66. ↑ See, for example, entries by Goebel, Heinrich and Glühlampe in Meyers Neues Lexikon in 8 volumes, 3rd vol., Bibliographisches Institut, Leipzig 1962, p. 705: “... manufactured carbon filament incandescent lamps on an experimental basis in 1854, as was proven in a patent dispute against Edison in 1893. “ The formulation, like some comparable entries in other works, promotes the misunderstanding of a patent dispute between the people Edison and Göbel. The West Encyclopedia Brockhaus from 1969 explicitly cites the Beckmann article from 1923 as the source for the Göbel entry.
67. ↑ Norbert Raabe: Fight the Brockhaus! In: The time. 11/1999.
68. ↑ See, for example, speech by VDE President Klaus Wucherer at the VDE Congress 2004 (PDF), accessed on February 18, 2011, no longer available online
69. ↑ German stars. 50 innovations that everyone should know. ( Memento of October 8, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
70. ↑ Bayerischer Rundfunk: “German Inventions”, accessed on August 21, 2006, no longer available online
71. ↑ Ernst Erb: Radios from yesterday. M&K Computer Verlag, Lucerne, 1989, ISBN 3-907007-09-3 . (From the 4th edition Funk Verlag Bernhard Hein, Dessau 2009, ISBN 978-3-939197-49-2 .) P. 9. The author refuted the German view of the invention of the incandescent lamp by Göbel in 1854 under the aspect of the development history of the incandescent lamp with patents granted since the 1840s and ready-to-use products from 1880. The author did not recognize false information from the German legend such as the claimed success in patent litigation.
72. ↑ Heinrich Göbel is downgraded. In: New Deister newspaper. March 11, 2006.
73. ↑ cf. Stadt Jump about Heinrich Göbel . The Museum at the courtyard of City Jump Jump else has the past performance attribution canceled as the authorities responsible for monuments and tourism authorities and political bodies of the city in a converted Göbel exhibition.
74. ↑ Armin Strohmeyer: Heinrich Göbel and the light bulb. ( Memento from March 21, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Contribution to radioZeitreisen Bayerischer Rundfunk BR2 , March 9, 2012.
75. ↑ Göbel pear receives LED technology. In: Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung, local section Deisteranzeiger , March 16, 2018, p. 1
76. ^ Christian Zett: Farewell to "Lügenlampenhausen" . In: Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung, local section Deisteranzeiger , March 22, 2018, p. 1
77. ↑ Ralf T. Mischer: Historian throws light on Göbel . In: Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung, local section Deisteranzeiger , April 21, 2018, p. 1
78. ↑ Timo Thalmann: Hochstapler as namesake In: Weser-Kurier , November 30, 2017, accessed on March 15, 2018.

This version was added to the list of articles worth reading on August 22, 2007 .