Rankings Primer Arbiter Physicist Mathematician Contrarian QE Sites log Claims Sources Research notes

Google Books (Google search, Books tab), 2026-10-08 (Investigator, STEP I)

Site: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks (Chrome) Queries: "Tousey unit" OR "Tousey units" x-ray OR radium OR dosage; Tousey "Cabot" "Shaw" x-ray generator "direct current"; "Cabot, to the need for such an unfluctuating direct current"; Tousey "Medical Record" 1903 interrupter OR "electrolytic interrupter"; Tousey "unerupted" "central incisor" arch x-ray orthodontia. Result: positive (snippets only; the full texts were then sought on Internet Archive).

Found

The Tousey unit (claim 5), with its own publication and uptake by others: - Tousey, "A New Unit of X-ray Power", Archives of the Roentgen Ray, vol. 17 (1913), p.427: "THE proposed new unit -- the Tousey unit is the X radiance which produces upon an ordinary Kodak film a ..." (snippet). This is the primary publication of the unit, which is not in the folder. - Abstracted in JAMA vol. 60 (1913), p.1664, and in Yearbook of General Therapeutics / Materia Medica and Therapeutics (Butler, Favill, Bridge, 1913), p.158. Both snippets mention a "Tousey-meter" ("Twenty Tousey-meter ..."). - Journal of the Florida Medical Association, vol. 3 (1916), p.112, repeats the definition ("One Tousey unit is the X-ray power which will produce upon kodak photographic film an effect equal to that of one-candle power of carbon filament incandescent electric light"). So the unit was in circulation outside New York. - American Journal of Electrotherapeutics and Radiology (1922), p.386 (snippet, apparently Tousey writing): "The amount of x-ray indicated by the 1 second standard application I call for my personal convenience 1 Tousey unit, and I know that 3600 units of soft x-rays will produce severe dermatitis". This is a dose-to-erythema calibration, the numerical bridge that claim 1 (his safe dose) needs. Note that the 1921 book says the unit "is no longer required" [read: claims.md claim 5]; the 1922 snippet shows he still used it personally. - Later historians: R. F. Mould, A History of X-rays and Radium (1980), p.17, and A Century of X-Rays and Radioactivity in Medicine (2018 printing, p.173; first edition 1993 [memory: medium]); both describe the Tousey unit of power among early dosimetry units. This is secondary historical recognition.

Constant-potential generator (claim 6): the same 1913 text ("Cabot, to the need for such an unfluctuating direct current ... Sewall Cabot and his partner, Mr. Joseph T. Shaw") appears in New York Medical Journal vol. 97 (1913) p.648, International Record of Medicine (1913) p.648, and The Medical Brief vol. 41 (1913) p.395 (reprinted or abstracted). Full text was read on Internet Archive (see 2026-10-08-internet-archive.md). The 1915 edition (p.725) and 1921 edition (p.750) carry the "Direct Current Motor Generator for x-Ray Work" section.

Interrupter priority (claim 6 context): Medical Record vol. 64 (1903), p.628: a paper by "TOUSEY, A.M., M.D., NEW YORK. PROFESSOR OF SURGERY AND RECTAL SURGERY NEW YORK SCHOOL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE; SURGEON TO ST ..." describing "interrupter, a Ruhmkorff coil, a rheostat with pole-changer and an x ..." (snippet). This is the 24 Oct 1903 paper the book cites for its priority claim on the beaker interrupter. It also gives his 1903 posts.

Dental arch method (claim 4): - Journal of the New York Institute of Stomatology (1912), p.187, running head "Tousey: Measurements by Radiograph": "... unerupted central incisor is the correct one" (snippet). This is an earlier publication of the arch method than the 1913-1915 society papers. - International Journal of Orthodontia, vol. 2 (1916), p.680: "unerupted permanent teeth of a great number of children, aged 5 or 6 years, taken in such a way as to show the actual width of the unerupted permanent upper and lower central incisor teeth. The idea was to furnish the orthodontist ..." This is probably Tousey's paper or a report of it; the issue was not read.

Bearing (no verdict)

The Tousey unit was published in a radiology journal, abstracted by JAMA, repeated in a state medical journal and recorded by historians of dosimetry. So claim 5's unit is documented beyond the book. The 1922 "3600 units ... severe dermatitis" figure gives the reviewers a number for checking claim 1's dose safety. The arch method was published at least from 1912.