The Centrifugal Rotary Engine Company of Lancaster 1870-1871

Engine,’ which concerned an attempt to manufacture turbines in
Lancaster in 1870. Geist, who had been editor of the Lancaster
Daily Express in 1870, was well qualified to write his paper for he
knew the men involved and had witnessed a preliminary test of
Gibson’s engine.¹ Since the publication of
Geist’s article the papers of Judge Alexander L. Hayes
(1793-1875) have been donated to the Lancaster County Historical
Society; among them were a number of items which related the
attempt of Hayes, Gibson, and others to perfect Gibson’s
Turbine and organize a company called the Centrifugal Rotary Engine
Company to manufacture it. This paper is based primarily on the
Hayes papers.

Alexander L. Hayes came to Lancaster in 1827 as Judge of the
District Court for Lancaster and York Counties. From 1833 to 1849
he was President Judge of the District Court of Lancaster County.
Hayes was also involved in numerous business enterprises in
Lancaster and was the most ardent backer of Samuel Gibson, inventor
of a steam turbine.²

Samuel Gibson was a resident of Safe Harbor and at one time had
worked at the iron works there. In 1869 he listed his occupation as
that of watchmaker.³ He was already a successful
inventor, having patented a paint brush which was made in York,
Pennsylvania, by the Gibson Brush Manufactory, operated by Isaac W.
G. Wierman.⁴

Samuel Gibson had first conceived the idea for a steam turbine
(at that time called a centrifugal rotary steam engine) after
reading about the reaction turbine made by Hero of Alexandria in
the first century of the Christian Era.⁵ Hero’s
engine consisted of a hollow metal ball on trunnions through one of
which steam was piped from a boiler. The ball had bent pipes on
opposite sides through which the steam was released, causing the
ball to spin on its axis.⁶

Since Hero’s time many efforts had been made to duplicate
his principle in a practical rotary engine. One effort was patented
in 1784 by Wolfgang von Kempelen of Press-burg, Hungary.
Kempelen’s engine was dismissed by James Watt, developer of the
reciprocating steam engine in the 1770s, who reasoned that the high
velocity of steam would give the rotary engine a speed, at
efficient operation, that would be too fast for the state of the
mechanical arts at that time.⁷

Samuel Gibson had probably never heard of Kempelen’s engine
or other rotary engine experiments. Consequently, he started fresh
with only the reaction turbine of Hero to base his designs on. By
long study and a series of experiments he developed a rotary engine
which he felt was economical in power, material, and space.(8)
Gibson made application for a patent for ‘Improvement in Rotary
Engines’ on August 15, 1870.

In the Gibson rotary engine, steam was piped from a boiler to a
hollow cylinder in the hub of the rotary wheel. The casing of the
wheel was hollow and a series of buckets were cut on the inside
circumference of the casing. Two tubes, opposite one another,
directed steam from the stationary hub cylinder to the buckets in
the movable wheel to provide rotary motion. The tubes were arranged
so that the end of one tube was against a bucket while the end of
the other was between two buckets, to give constant alternating
power. Gibson claimed as new the combination of the wheel with its
hollow casing and buckets, stationary steam tubes and hub cylinder,
and tube heads.⁹

At about the same time I. W. G. Wierman, who had an interest in
Gibson’s new patent, wrote up a stock prospectus for the
proposed Centrifugal Rotary Engine Company. The company was to be
capitalized at $650,000 and was to pay Gibson $350,000 in cash and
$300,00 in stock for his patent rights. The prospectus claimed that
Gibson’s invention would open a new era in the ‘steam
world;’ that the engine could be sold for one-half the price of
other types of stationary engines and still provide the company
with profits of two hundred or three hundred percent; that the
engine would ‘command as ready a sale as the sewing
machine;’ and that the company’s entire capital stock could
be sold to a few capitalists within forty-eight hours of its
appearance on the market.¹⁰

The prospectus was altered by Wierman, who wrote to Gibson on
September 14, 1870, and suggested several possible changes,
including an increase in the capital stock to $1,250,000. Wierman
suggested that Gibson speak to Judge Hayes about the
prospectus.¹¹ The grandiose plan for a stock company
named the Centrifugal Rotary Engine Company never materialized; the
firm never existed except as a partnership of Hayes, Wierman, and
Gibson.

Gibson’s original engine, probably built in Safe Harbor, was
tested during September at the foundry and machine shop of William
Diller, in Lancaster. The test was a complete success; the engine
ran two lathes with ‘marked economy of steam.’ The
spectators agreed that Gibson had ‘the correct principle of
steam application’ and that perfection of the mechanism was all
that was necessary to ensure the engine’s success. Gibson
himself was not satisfied with the test; he thought that the engine
required better balance and other improvements. Further tests were
therefore postponed.¹²

Although the partnership of Hayes, Gibson, and Wierman was still
an informal one, the three men hired William Diller on September
23, 1870, to begin building an engine. Diller was a skilled
machinist; he and his employees manufactured reciprocating steam
engines, drill presses, lathes, iron railings, shafting, and other
products, and did mill work and gear cutting. Thus he was well
prepared to build Gibson’s engine. Because the patent had not
yet been granted, Diller had a private room at the rear of his shop
set up to keep construction of the engine away from prying
eyes.¹³

Judge Hayes wanted the prototype centrifugal rotary engine
exhibited at the Park Association Fair, which opened in Lancaster
on October 4. It could not be shown because Gibson was taken ill in
late September. Gibson went to Safe Harbor to recover and the
engine could not be readied for display by others.¹⁴

On October 4, 1870, Gibson received his first patent (#108,016)
on ‘Improvement in Rotary Engines.’ The patent was issued
to ‘Samuel Gibson, Lancaster, assignor to himself and to I. W.
G. Wierman, York, Pa.'(15)

Hayes had already agreed to purchase a one-eighth interest in
Gibson’s patent; the indenture to transfer such interest was
signed October 10. Hayes paid one thousand dollars cash and also
gave Gibson one-half interest in Hayes’ patent of a method for
preventing the explosion of steam boilers. The shares in patent
#108,016 were thereafter: Gibson,
⁵/₈Wierman,²/₈; and
Hayes, ¹/₈

In a letter to Wierman in October, Hayes suggested that the
partners hire Diller to manufacture the Gibson engine, with Diller
to provide every thing except the design and the necessary capital.
Diller had previously stated that with an increase in his work
force he could build two engines per day. Hayes thought that if
sales of the engine proved successful, the Centrifugal Rotary
Engine Company could establish its own factory after six months or
so and thereafter buy castings from Diller.¹⁷

With the receipt of Diller’s first bill, for $236.45, on
November 5, 1870, the partners formalized their partnership as the
Centrifugal Rotary Engine Company, a name used informally prior to
that date.¹⁸ Hayes served as treasurer of the firm; his
memorandum of cash received and cash paid out has survived. Initial
deposits of $200 each to the company’s account were made by
Wierman on November 12, by Hayes on November 24 and by Gibson on
November 29.¹⁹ Diller’s initial bill, for work done
between September 23 and November 5, was paid by Judge Hayes on
November 5 and was not recorded on the memorandum which he later
made out.²⁰

Work on the first engine built by Diller and referred to as the
‘small engine’ was well underway by November 8, when a
great many parts were purchased. Included were such vital items as
the governor, the force pump, the steam gauge, the main shaft, and
the foundation plate and grate bars. A boiler made by the John Best
Company of Lancaster was purchased at the same time.²¹
Work on the engine was carried on virtually every day from November
14 to December 10²³. The rate for skilled workers was
fifty cents an hour while the rate for the helper was twenty-five
cents an hour.²² Bills were received regularly from
Diller; Hayes paid out $50 on November 12, $100 on November 19,
$100 on November 26, and $200 on December 10.23 In addition to
building the ‘small engine,’ Diller began work on
additional engines. Castings were made for one engine on November
18, for three engines on November 25, and for another engine on
November 28.²⁴

Work on the ‘small engine’ was completed in time for a
test of its power on December 10, 1870. All those who had witnessed
the test in September were present except for Geist. Diller’s
engineer and senior machinist were also present. A total of eight
men viewed the engine on its test bed in a room 12 x 14 feet. The
test, which ended in tragedy, was described by Geist, who had
learned the details from Hayes:

After the engine had been running fifteen or twenty minutes,
attaining a great velocity, so great that Mr. Dickey remarked he
did not think it safe, himself and others stepped back a few paces,
which doubtless saved them from injury, for a minute later the
revolving wheel burst with a loud report, breaking the solid rim of
the engine, and hurling the fragments with great violence. Mr.
Diller, who was holding a light, was knocked down and the light
extinguished. Another light was procured, when it was found Mr.
Diller had his right leg broken and Mr. Gibson was struck by a
fragment on the forehead which rebounded from the ceiling, cutting
a gash into the bone. He was also struck on the instep and knocked
down.²⁵

None of the other men were injured. Judge Hayes wrote an
explanation of the cause of the accident for publication in the
local newspapers. Apparently a rumor had circulated throughout the
city that the explosion had been caused by steam. Hayes refuted
this rumor but inadvertently made the engine itself suspect. He
stated in part:

The sole cause of the accident was the strain of the centrifugal
motion, which was too strong for the revolving wheel, which, after
it had been cast, had been incautiously weakened by cutting a
series of rectangular buttresses into its circumference to receive
the impact of the escape steam and by perforating the same
circumference with several apertures on one side to balance the
wheel.

Weakened as the wheel was, had there been the gearing which was
some days before attached to it, running two lathes belted up and
down to and from the shaft, by which the speed of the wheel was
diminished more than one-half, it would not have parted. Mr. Diller
has an emery wheel which revolves 3,400 times in a minute, and he
is of the opinion that the pulley on the countershaft of the
centrifugal rotary engine was, on Saturday evening, driven at twice
that velocity. There are two methods of guarding against a
recurrence of a similar accident; one is by having the engine well
loaded while in motion; the other by increasing the strength of the
revolving wheel, using for that purpose metal of greater tenacity;
or casting the wheel solid.²⁶

The accident and the injury to Mr. Diller caused a great shock
in Lancaster. Potential investors were discouraged and capital
necessary to organize a stock company could not be raised. Geist
recalled that the engine came to be called ‘Gibson’s Folly.
‘ It is probably that Hayes’ explanation of the accident
made many men fearful of the engine’s basic design. William
Diller never fully recovered from his injuries and died on January
16, 1872, at the age of 64.²⁷

In spite of the accident, Hayes and Wierman continued to support
work on Gibson’s engine. Gibson had already redesigned his
engine and applied for another patent on November 3, 1870.
²⁸ Castings for engines already under construction were
altered, presumably to correct the faults which had caused the
destruction of the ‘small engine.’ Work on the engines was
carried on daily from December 20 to January 5 except for a New
Year’s Day rest. The last work done in the Diller shop was the
completion of one of the engines on February 1 after eleven days
work.²⁹

In January 1871 the machine work and assembly of engines was
transferred from Diller’s shop to that of Heupel & Huber,
general machinists and iron and brass founders,³⁰ The
change from Diller to Heupel & Huber may have been made to
conserve capital, for Heupel & Huber s rate was ten cents per
hour less than that of Diller³²

Payments of $100 each were made to the partnership by Wierman on
January 7 and by Hayes on January 9. Gibson made no cash deposit to
the partnership. However, on January 10 he received his second
patent (#110,912) for ‘Improvement in Rotary Engines.’ The
patent was assigned jointly to Gibson, Hayes, and Wierman.
Presumably this was Gibson’s contribution to the partnership.
With cash on hand the bill of Diller for $177.61 for work completed
to January 5 was paid on January 9.³²

Gibson s new patent appeared to be substantially similar to this
first patent on the rotary engine. However, there was one
outstanding change. In the new design, the outer wheel was
stationary while the inner wheel revolved. This fundamental
difference meant that the revolving mass was of much lower weight.
Gibson had modified his earlier design by attaching the two steam
tubes in a wheel which revolved inside the now stationary casing.
The casing became the frame and the small inner wheel was connected
to the main shaft.³³ Although the new design appeared to
rectify the weight problem, it made the steam passage more
difficult to seal and the machinery more difficult to
lubricate.

Gibson’s changes to his engine made pattern changes
necessary; Heupel & Huber’s patternmaker worked a total of
sixty hours making changes. Apparently nothing had been done until
the patent was granted. By February 3, 1871, the large engine
completed by Diller had been set up in the Heupel & Huber shop
and piped in, a rather expensive operation.³⁴ Just two
weeks later a small engine based on the new patent was set up after
the large engine had been taken down. Alterations to the small
engine included changes from iron to brass castings for some
parts.³⁵ This engine was tested in early March and
apparently proved satisfactory. However, work on it was carried out
throughout March. Brass castings for another engine were made at
the same time.³⁶ The Centrifugal Rotary Engines Company
purchased 323 pounds of iron castings during February and March.
This presumably was for parts for engines of the new
pattern.³⁷

Experiments on the engines, apparently conducted on a
trial-and-error basis, put abnormal wear on the engine mechanism.
The engine company had purchased a self-adjusting injector from
William Sellers & Company, Philadelphia, and a steam regulator
(governor) from Pickering & Davis, Portland, Connecticut, in
mid-February.³⁸ Less than a month after delivery both
injector and regulator had to be extensively repaired by Heupel
& Huber.³⁹ During March the shafting, hangers,
pulleys, and other fixtures for the engines were continually being
taken down, worked on, and readjusted.⁴⁰

The partnership of Hayes, Gibson, and Wierman was apparently
dissolved during March 1871. Hayes and Wierman had paid $100 each
to the company’s account on February 9 and had made additional
payments of $133.65 each in late February. Bills continued to be
received but no further payments were made to the accounts of the
Centrifugal Rotary Engine Company.⁴¹ The partners had
apparently lost hope in the eventual perfection of Gibson’s
design. Although the various engines had been set up, no really
successful test of the new engine had been made. In early April,
Hayes ordered Heupel & Huber to do no more work on any of the
engines. Wierman and Hayes then made an inventory of parts on hand
and wrote up a statement of bills paid out and payments made to the
partnership. Wierman indicated they wanted a final
settlement.⁴²

On March 24, 1871, Gibson sold his rights in Patent #110,912 to
Henry W. Hager for $900. Hager, a partner in Hager & Bros, and
postmaster of Lancaster, agreed to pay Gibson one-half if the
patent was resold, one-half of any royalties, or one-half of any
profits from manufacturing the engine. Gibson agreed to give Hager
‘services in construction of engine’ and one-third interest
in any improvements to the engine.(43)

Although Hayes and Wierman had wanted work on the engines
halted, Heupel & Huber worked many hours on the largest engine
in late April, apparently at Hager’s order. All bills for this
work were sent to Hager, who had presumably taken over active
management of the company’s affairs by some arrangement with
Judge Hayes. Hager received bills from Heupel & Huber for a
total of 201 hours work on the engine from mid-April to mid-June.
Work on all other engines had been halted in late March. When the
large engine was completed on June 17 all work by Heupel &
Huber for the Centrifugal Rotary Engine Company
ceased.⁴⁴

Although the Centrifugal Rotary Engine Company was a failure,
neither Samuel Gibson nor I. W. G. Wierman gave up their efforts to
perfect the engine and put it into production. Wierman was said to
be ‘manufacturing engines’ in York in August 1871. There is
no evidence to show that he made a success of the venture. In 1873
he was proprietor of the Keystone Cigar Manufactory in
York.⁴⁵

Gibson continued work on the engine after moving to the
Farmer’s Hotel in York in late 1871. He received a patent on a
combined rotary engine and boiler in January 1872, and had already
designed further improvements to the engine. In February, Gibson
offered a one-fourth interest in the patent to Hayes, his only
remaining financial backer in Lancaster.⁴⁶ Gibson
displayed a model of his improved design at the office of the
York True Democrat in early February. The engine was
described as a ‘revolving piston’ engine. Gibson planned to
build such an engine, 6×6 inches in size and having a capacity of
five horsepower, to propel the press of the True Democrat.
Gibson continued at his work, even listing his occupation in 1873
as ‘patentee Rotary steam engine.’⁴⁷

The Centrifugal Rotary Engine Company of Lancaster was doomed to
failure when it began, primarily because of the flaws in
Gibson’s design; the basic inability of such a design to use
steam efficiently except at very high speeds, proven to Watt’s
satisfaction in 1784; and the primitive state of such metals
technology in 1870. J. M. W. Geist stated in his paper that the
practical success of the steam turbine was not demonstrated until
1884, when C. A. Parson developed a compound rotary
engine.⁴⁸ What Geist failed to point out was the basic
difference between the Gibson and the Parsons turbines. The Gibson
engine was related to the type of turbine (perfected after 1884)
known generically as the ‘impulse turbine.’ In such a
turbine, high velocity steam is discharged against a series of
small buckets on the circumference of a large wheel keyed to the
driving shaft. The Parson turbine is an ‘impulse-reaction
turbine,’ in which the steam passes through a number of rings
of fixed blades and of moving blades, expanding as it travels. The
impulse turbine is basically a high speed turbine useful for
running dynamos, while the impulse-reaction turbine is useful for
marine engineering and for running most types of
machinery.⁴⁹

Gibson’s basic design resulted in an engine too powerful to
run machinery and obviously too powerful to withstand the
centrifugal force it created. The disintegration of the small
engine on December 10. 1870, was a direct result of such force.
Whether the change from solid core and revolving wheel (patent
108,016) to stationary wheel and revolving core (patent 110,912)
solved the centrifugal force problem is undetermined because of a
lack of serious testing after December 1870. The engine certainly
needed more work than was possible on any reasonable amount of
capital which could have been raised in Lancaster.

Even had the engine been perfected it could not have been used
as planned, for success depended upon a market where the engine
could have been sold profitably. Such a market did not exist prior
to the early 1880’s when Thomas A. Edison opened central
stations for incandescent lighting in New York City (1882) and
Sunbury, Pennsylvania (1883). When such stations were opened
throughout the country, the dynamos were powered by the ubiquitous
reciprocating steam engine.⁵⁰

FOOTNOTES

1. Papers Read Before the Lancaster County Historical
Society. Vol. VIII, No. 5, March 4, 1904, pages 129-141.
2.  Franklin Ellis and Samuel Evans. History of Lancaster
County, Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, Everts & Peck. 1883,
pages 230-231.
3. Geist, page 129. Lancaster County (Pa.) Tax Assessment for
Manor Township, 1869, tenants on property.
4.  Letter, I. W. G. Wierman to Samuel Gibson, September 14,
1870, on company stationery. York County Directory, 1870-1871,
page 101. Hays Papers.
5. Geist, page 132.
6.  H. W. Dickinson. A Short History of the Steam Engine.
New York, MacMillian, 1938, page 186.
7. Ibid, pages 187-189.
8. Geist, page 132.
9.  Samuel Gibson, ‘Improvement in Rotary Engines,’
patent 108,016, October 4, 1870. An original copy is in the
Hayes Papers.
10.  Undated prospectus for Centrifugal Rotary Engine
Company, apparently in handwriting of I. W. G. Wierman,
HP.
11.  Letter, I. W. G. Wierman to Samuel Gibson, September 14,
1870. HP.
12. Geist, page 130. Directory of Lancaster County,
1869-1870, pages 38 and 49.
13. Bill of William Diller to Samuel Gibson & Co.,
November 5, 1870. HP Geist, pages 129-130.
14. Letter, A. L. Hayes to Edmund H. Bell, October 3, 1870.
Bell was a grandson of Hayes. HP.
15. Geist, page 136.
16. Indenture between Samuel Gibson and Alexander L. Hayes,
dated October 10, 1870; stamped by the United States Patent Office
on October 19, 1870. HP.
17.  Letter, A. L. Hayes to I. W. G. Wierman, October 26,
1870. HP.
18.   Letter, W. C. Chapman to A. L. Hayes, January 11,
1873. HP.
19.  Centrifugal Rotary Engine Company, accounts to April 1,
1871, cash received. HP.
20.  Bill, William Diller to Samuel Gibson & Co.,
November 5 1870. HP
21.  Bill, William Diller to Samuel Gibson & Co.,
November 19, 1870. HP.
22.  Bills, William Diller to Samuel Gibson & Co.,
November 19, November 26, and December 10, 1870. HP.
23.  Centrifugal Rotary Engine Company, account to April 1,
1871, cash paid out. HP.
24.  Bills, William Diller to Samuel Gibson & Co.,
November 19, November 26, and December 10, 1870. HP.
25. Geist, pages 133-134.
26. Ibid, pages 135-136.
27.  Ibid., page 136. Lancaster Inquirer,
January 20, 1872.
28. Samuel Gibson. ‘Improvement in Rotary Engines,’
patent 110,912, January 10, 1871. HP.
29.  Bill, William Diller to Samuel Gibson & Co., January
6, 1871. Bill, William Diller to Centrifugal Rotary Steam Engine
Company, February 4, 1871. HP.
30.   Bill, Heupel & Huber to Messrs, Hayes, Gibson
& Co., January 14, 1871. HP.
31.   Bill, Heupel & Huber to Messers. Hayes, Gibson
& Co., January 28, 1871. HP.
32.  Geist, page 137. Centrifugal Rotary Engine Company,
accounts to April 1, 1871, cash received and cash paid out.
HP.
33. Samuel Gibson, ‘Improvement to Rotary Engines,’
patent 110,912, January 10,1871. HP.
34.   Bill, Heupel & Huber to Messers. Hayes, Gibson
& Co., February 3, 1871. HP.
35.   Bill, Heupel & Huber to Messers. Hayes, Gibson
& Co., February 17, 1871. HP.
36.   Bill, Heupel & Huber to Messers. Hayes, Gibson
& Co., March 11, 1871. HP.
37.  Bill, R. Blickenderfer to Centrifugal Rotary Engine Co.,
March 16, 1871. HP.
38.  Bill, William Sellers & Co., Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, to A. L. Hayes, February 23, 1871. Bill, Pickering
& Davis, Portland, Connecticut, to Centrifugal Rotary Engine
Company, February 21, 1871. HP.
39.  Bill, Heupel & Huber to Centrifugal Engine Co.,
March 17, 1871. HP.
40.  Bill, Heupel & Huber to Centrifugal Engine Co.,
March 25 and March 31, 1871. HP.
41.  Centrifugal Rotary Engine Company, accounts to April 1,
1871, cash received and cash paid out. HP.
42.  Letter, I. W. G. Wierman, to A. L. Hayes, April 12,
1871. HP.
43. Indenture between Samuel Gibson and Henry W. Hager, dated
March 24, 1871. HP.
44.   Bills. Heupel & Huber to Mr. H. Hager, May 1,
May 13, May 20, June 3 and June 17, 1871. HP.
45.  Letter, John Gibson, York, to A. L. Hayes, August 19,
1871. HP Eisenhart’s York Directory, 1873, page
111.
46. Letter, Samuel Gibson to A. L. Hayes, February 7, 1872.
HP.
47.  York True Democrat, early February
1872. HP Eisenhart’s York Directory, 1873, page
43.
48.Geist, page 138.
49.  J. W. Sothern. The Marine Steam Turbine. 2nd
Edition. London, Whittaker, 1906, pages 10-11.
50. William Adams Simonds. Edison: His Life, His Work,
His Genius. Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill, 1934, pages
215-224.