What's new
What's new

A summary of the evolvement of the Engine-Lathe in the USA part 1 of 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
George,
I think you are probably wrong about the population make-up at the time of the Revolution. Aside from the Dutch in New York and the German-speaking people in Pennsylvania (few of which came from what was then, or is now, part of Germany — most came from German-speaking parts of what is now the Czech Republic) the population was overwhelming of British origin.

As to lingering resentment over the Revolution, much, if not most of this is a result of the stilted history we've been taught. The Revolution was not as popular, or widely supported as our popular historians have made it out to be. The general figure used now is that 1/3 of the population was for it, 1/3 against it and 1/3 were indifferent. One need only look at the large number of loyalists who emigrated after the war to understand this, despite the fact that the Treaty of Paris stipulated that all property confiscated from loyalists during the war had to be returned. Most of it was, and some returned to the United States but I know of at least one instance, in the last 20 years, where local popular resentment against the Revolution was mobilized to prevent the expansion of a Revolutionary battlefield National Park. I have to admit that really surprised me, because I can hardly imagine those memories having survived over two hundred years.

But this is straying very far from the original topic. As to water power vs. steam... New England has a plentiful supply of moving water, much more than most of Britain, so even after the invention of the steam engine it was less useful in an American context than it was in Britain. Added to that, because they came so late, our industrial centers often grew up around rivers. In Britain, this wasn't always the case. Birmingham, which was arguably the center of British metal manufacturing from at least the early 18th century has quite poor sources of water power. Even Boulton's famous Soho factory had to close down when the water levels fell. This never happened in Pawtucket. Also, New England didn't have deep pit mining and most of the early steam engines were erected for pumping out mines.
 
Last edited:
Ted, are you referring to the Windsor Granite bed lathe ?

The placard at the museum has IICRC 1830.

However, under the considerations Panhard has detailed, museum curatorship can and may be questioned.

I took the 1830 date with a bag of salt.

When the Windsor lathe is compared to the 1833 lathe and the wood-bed Wilkinson mill lathe, it is imo only slightly advanced over the Wilkinson lathe. Images below for comparison, and I've lightened up the Windsor lathe to show better the detail.

But come on all you English expert antiquarian evaluators; whom I freely and without reservation acknowledge your in general superiority in that field to American... what in the dickens is the big hand-wheel positioned below the head-stock for ?

George

View attachment 160817
View attachment 160818
View attachment 160819


The hand wheel below the head stock is for manual feed of the carriage. The hand wheel connects to the chain sprocket under the headstock. I don't have a photo of the underside of this lathe but it should be obvious how it works.
 

Attachments

  • 042a.jpg
    042a.jpg
    94 KB · Views: 229
With appreciation and many thanks to cncFireman

This is from the link he supplied earlier to the Smithsonian site. I had wondered how the shops at Windsor had sold lathes as cheaply as they did.

It has no lead-screw that I could see, and no power feed to the pinion. In other words hand feed on turning. No threading.

Surely these are the types of simplified lathes commonly used in the Civil War for mass-production.

Howe's supervisory approach to work is imo demonstrated in this machine. Why pay a man to watch the machine when you could just eliminate some non-crucially essential components, and therefore sell the machine for quite a bit less and still make a profit.. And maybe as "Parts" might put it : tap into the greedy niche. Let the operator work instead of watch.

For the possibility that some of the readers are not aware, it is possible to click on the thumbnails 3 times, each time enlarging the image. When done, click the back page button at the top of the browser which will return to the post.

The Smithsonian link picture has definition so high, that it is almost possible to get to a microscope quality.

I did not have a good example from the 1850s decade before this. Thanks again cncFireman

George

http://ids.si.edu/ids/deliveryService?id=NMAH-73-6424&

View attachment 160615

View attachment 160616

View attachment 160623

Are you saying that this Howe lathe does not have a power feed? It looks to me that the area that I circled is a power feed of some kind.
 

Attachments

  • Howe lathe2.jpg
    Howe lathe2.jpg
    88.7 KB · Views: 307
Moderator -

I think it is time that you locked this thread. It is clear to me that the original poster is simply trying to stir up hatred when there is none and take offense when none was intended.

The comments were made to another poster in context to connotations in speech when different cultures communicate.

I have been to Germany numerous times; too much to count. I read fair German, speak it well to other peoples whom German is their second language.

However.. Every time I went to Germany, I managed to offend most I came in contact with. The exception being those who had traveled to the USA.

This was not the case in France, Holland, Italy, Greece etc.,etc.

I certainly do not try to stir up hatred; I get way too much without trying.

Now come on Sir, let's give it another try. I want to be your friend.

Sincerely, George
 
Last edited:
To give just one example of how many machine tools were already being used in America pre civil war. The Saco Manufacturing Company had about 60 lathes by 1829. Mostly small however it notes. It's successor company has the machine inventory from 1852 to list as follows; 165 machine tools; 77 engine lathes 5 of which are 20' long, 48 hand lathes, 10 planers one of which was 26' long, and other drill machines, bolt machines, and gear cutters. Another book states that the Saco Manufacturing Company althought less sophisticated has in its machine shop more machinery than the Springfield Armory. The Saco Manufacturing Company established a mill in 1826. They erected a brick cotton mill 47' x 210' 7 stories high per the town of Saco history page. The mill was burned down in 1830 and bought by the York Manufacturing Co. who manufactured cotton on the island until 1958.

cncFireman, I can't do justice in this post for the thanks I need to give you for all the information you have shared. Because of that information, I've been able to fill in quite a number of gaps that I had in my picture of events transpiring during this most interesting time in the development of the machine-tool industry in the United States. I will try to elaborate more when the thread quiets down some. Also, there is more info further in the old thread about the cornfield lathe; discussing chains and the patent date for the roller chain. Some one brought up proof that identical chain had been made some time before the patent date. iow the patentee had got a patent on something previously in existence

In very much appreciation, George
 
The hand wheel below the head stock is for manual feed of the carriage. The hand wheel connects to the chain sprocket under the headstock. I don't have a photo of the underside of this lathe but it should be obvious how it works.


Yes that was obvious to us too. The mystery is what is the rack doing there ? Without checking, it seems there were racks on at least some of the other Wilkinson lathes too.

The problem then becomes how does the hand-wheel pinion engage and/or disengage the chain and/or rack ? I don't think the system had the hand-wheel turning all the time; there had to be some reason why the Wilkinson wood-bed lathe had leather strips fastened on the OD, obviously for gripping. Did someone put them on later when they converted the lathe to a wood-lathe ? I don't think so. But maybe...

Possibly someone might have more info on the chain drive on some of the other of these machines.. Especially the "corn-field" lathe brought up by cncFireman.

George
 


Comment has been made that these sort of things do not happen in a vacuum. In the case of David Wilkinson - he lived in a village of a few hundred souls. Communication with the outside was by buggy, and a 5 mile trip with a short visit and then, return home took the better part of a day. His technology background was from his father and family only. They were a people that habitually found genius solutions to metal work challenges. We have a large number of examples in the historical record.



Actually, Pawtucket is quite close to Providence which was, at the time, a major east coast seaport. I think there were also quite a few more than a "few hundred" people living there. In fact, Pawtucket is where it is precisely because of the river and falls directly adjacent to Wilkinson's Mill and the Slater Mill (which is next door).

Providence had, among other companies, the firm of Congdon & Carpenter, founded in 1798 and suppliers to the metal working trade. They were major importers of British iron and steel and were in business until some time in the late 1970s or early 1980s. When they finally went out of business, they were the oldest company in Rhode Island and maybe the oldest in the United States. We also had Nightingale & Baker, in the same business, founded in 1811 and in business until about 10 years ago. (My ex-girlfriends sister and her husband owned it.) Then there was the Jenks (or Jencks) family — musket contractors to the War Department in 1798 and 1808 (there is still a Jencks Machine Company in Central Falls, RI)and Buell & Greenleaf, who had a 1799 contract for sabers with the War Department. Rather than being a backwater, this area was a hotbed of metal working. That's just the ones that come to mind immediately. There was probably no better place in the entire country to be exposed to the latest metal-working technology, be it American or British.
 
Are you saying that this Howe lathe does not have a power feed? It looks to me that the area that I circled is a power feed of some kind.


this link should take you to their highly magnifyable image. It lets you get the machine up to your nose. The link takes you to the page, then - Howe's lathe is the 3rd one down I think. On the left side. Then click on that thumbnail for the high definition image. A regular link does not seem to work on this redirected page.

Collections Search Results | National Museum of American History

Geo
 
What's missing here is that real historical research is very time consuming, difficult work. The internet is a poor source, if only because there is no objective vetting of what is posted. Artifacts, in themselves, are also a very poor source of real information unless they are found in an archaeological context or are accompanied with period sources that provide a real provenance. Both of these factors are rare in America, especially in the area of Historical Archaeology.

This is exactly what is wrong with the OP's threads, and why I've been requesting some source citations for weeks now. You explained the problem more eloquently than I've been able to.

I have no problem with the OP's theories, as he has implied. However, I DO have a problem with his unproven theories, some of which are based on faulty information, being presented as if they are fact.

Andy
 
George :
Comment has been made that these sort of things do not happen in a vacuum. In the case of David Wilkinson - he lived in a village of a few hundred souls. Communication with the outside was by buggy, and a 5 mile trip with a short visit and then, return home took the better part of a day. His technology background was from his father and family only. They were a people that habitually found genius solutions to metal work challenges. We have a large number of examples in the historical record.


Actually, Pawtucket is quite close to Providence which was, at the time, a major east coast seaport. I think there were also quite a few more than a "few hundred" people living there. In fact, Pawtucket is where it is precisely because of the river and falls directly adjacent to Wilkinson's Mill and the Slater Mill (which is next door).

Providence had, among other companies, the firm of Congdon & Carpenter, founded in 1798 and suppliers to the metal working trade. They were major importers of British iron and steel and were in business until some time in the late 1970s or early 1980s. When they finally went out of business, they were the oldest company in Rhode Island and maybe the oldest in the United States. We also had Nightingale & Baker, in the same business, founded in 1811 and in business until about 10 years ago. (My ex-girlfriends sister and her husband owned it.) Then there was the Jenks (or Jencks) family — musket contractors to the War Department in 1798 and 1808 (there is still a Jencks Machine Company in Central Falls, RI)and Buell & Greenleaf, who had a 1799 contract for sabers with the War Department. Rather than being a backwater, this area was a hotbed of metal working. That's just the ones that come to mind immediately. There was probably no better place in the entire country to be exposed to the latest metal-working technology, be it American or British.

I stand corrected. Thank you. Interesting..

George
 
Well many of these early lathes had different forms of engagement. The corn field lathe that "appears to be the same as the Moffett Mill lathe" had two racks one on the standard location on the outside of the bed. One inside the bed.(However the outside rack and pinion may be a later modification as the Moffett Mill lathe does not appear to have the outside rack. I would have to 're-read the thread its about 11 or 12 pages long with a ton of information. He has a picture in the thread with the slide traversed to the spindle and the rack protruding the end of the bed by many feet. The Moore and Colby lathe owned by a member here is a wood bed lathe with the standard of a large hand wheel. The hand wheel drives a set of beveled gears as seen in the pictures of that lathe. The owner of the Moore and Colby also says that the lathe has a leadscrew however not viewable in the pictures. A few other primitive wood bed lathes that have been found also have leadscrews. It's is mentioned in the Wilkinson family memoirs that Wilkinson stated that his first engine lathe was based on his original screw cutting lathe and had a leadscrew. Wether that is true or not is unknown but he did have a lathe to build a leadscrew for his engine lathe so it is very possible Wilkinsons 1806ish engine lathe had a leadscrew.

If you look closely at the picture of the Moffet Mill lathe you will see that just like Bruce's lathe the power is taken from the spindle. Then belted down to a worm drive on the lower part of the bed. That drives another pulley that goes back up to the large hand wheel drive. There is a lever on the front of the lathe that looks to disengage the worm drive and pinion. Thus the hand wheel would be free to manually traverse the slide.

Most of these other early lathes with the hand wheel to the side of the spindle all have a lever to the right of the hand wheel. This is likely to disengage power feed and allow the large hand wheel to manually traverse the slide.

Racks and Leadscrew were the original methods of traversing a slide it appears. The chain lathe seems to be a latter development. The first drive chain bicycle was not until 1879 as it is. From what I am trying to dig up is history of the drive chain. It seems that sawmill equiptment didn't get chain driven until the early 1850s
 
cncFireman, I can't do justice in this post for the thanks I need to give you for all the information you have shared. Because of that information, I've been able to fill in quite a number of gaps that I had in my picture of events transpiring during this most interesting time in the development of the machine-tool industry in the United States. I will try to elaborate more when the thread quiets down some. Also, there is more info further in the old thread about the cornfield lathe; discussing chains and the patent date for the roller chain. Some one brought up proof that identical chain had been made some time before the patent date. iow the patentee had got a patent on something previously in existence

In very much appreciation, George

Re Patents — It depends entirely on what was being patented. Was it a type of chain or a small difference in the way the chain was made? Even then, there were any number of conflicting patents and cases of patents being granted for things previously developed. That's what patent attorneys are for (aside from filing for them). This is why I questioned the article someone posted much earlier regarding Wilkinson not getting a patent on his 1806 lathe. How do we even know it was patentable, especially since we don't know what it looked like or how it worked. I think it is safe say he made something that was recognizable as a lathe but suppose it was just a big version of a watch-makers lathe and didn't actually do anything new, just made it possible to do bigger pieces. We simply don't know and unless one suddenly surfaces, or a reliable period description of comes to light, we'll never know. Nor can we draw conclusions as to what it influenced... how in the world would we recognize that since we don't know what it was?
 
Patents are another problem to dial in this early history.The patent office lost most patents to a fire in 1836. They say that only 2000ish patents were recoverable of the 10,000. There are a few early Patents listed that are still interesting as it pertains to the metal cutting lathe. One of The early Patents to survive was one by Sylvester Nash of Harper's Ferry VA. It is a patent for a musket barrel lathe. As you can see his power feed arangement is much like most of the early lathes. The earliest patent recorded that is listed under engine lathes is William Ross of Chester County PA in 1908. However there is no information on that patent as it was likely lost in the fire.
18209-1.jpg

2695700-sylvester-nashs-lathe-for-turning-musket-gettyimages.jpg
 
What irritates me is the attitude of the creator of this thread.
#1 Despite his denials he is antagonistic.
1.1 Previous threads locked by moderator.
1.2 Moderator indicating that this thread may be locked.
1.3 Numerous complaints by other contributors.
How can he not notice this?

#2 His willingness to grab at any straw which supports his pet theory that until 1800 everyone walked around with their knuckles dragging on the ground, until 'mericans showed them how to do it.

#3 His ability to ignore or forget anything which disproves or casts doubt on whatever happens to be his current version of the truth.
This thread contains numerous references to leadscrews.
This thread also contains a reference to Eli Whitney as the inventor of interchangeable parts.

In a previous thread I noted that in Sweden there were leadscrews and interchangeable parts one hundred years before North, Whitney, Wilkinson or whoever is the current creator of mechanical engineering, in the opinion of the world's leading authority.

I need not have bothered.

What really irritates me is the idea that a newcomer to PM will look at this thread, think WTF and depart, never to return. Because the Antique Machinery forum is an island of the blessed compared to the General forum.
 
What irritates me is the attitude of the creator of this thread.
#1 Despite his denials he is antagonistic.
1.1 Previous threads locked by moderator.
1.2 Moderator indicating that this thread may be locked.
1.3 Numerous complaints by other contributors.
How can he not notice this?

#2 His willingness to grab at any straw which supports his pet theory that until 1800 everyone walked around with their knuckles dragging on the ground, until 'mericans showed them how to do it.

#3 His ability to ignore or forget anything which disproves or casts doubt on whatever happens to be his current version of the truth.
This thread contains numerous references to leadscrews.
This thread also contains a reference to Eli Whitney as the inventor of interchangeable parts.

In a previous thread I noted that in Sweden there were leadscrews and interchangeable parts one hundred years before North, Whitney, Wilkinson or whoever is the current creator of mechanical engineering, in the opinion of the world's leading authority.

I need not have bothered.

What really irritates me is the idea that a newcomer to PM will look at this thread, think WTF and depart, never to return. Because the Antique Machinery forum is an island of the blessed compared to the General forum.

It should also be added that some well-respected American scholars have cast serious doubt on the whole Eli Whitney story, particularly the interchangeable parts claim. The material is available (on the internet, even), and it's not difficult to find. Anyone doing any sort of serious research on this topic would have run across it by now.

What worries me about threads like this is that they contain so many opinions and unproven theories, many based on faulty information, that are presented as if they are fact. Misinformation perpetuated on the internet is very difficult to reverse. It makes life much more difficult for those of us who take the time to do thorough research.

Andy
 
As was pointed in another thread, not only were the vast majority of early patents lost in a fire, but for several decades the Patent Office accepted any patent submitted, the problems of patentability and prior art were meant to be settled by the various parties in court.

This means that discovery of a patent does not prove anything without follow up research to see whether it could be enforced or not.

The reason we can't simply ignore this thread, as suggested by several people, is the spread of misinformation. A new arrival looking for information on the development of machine tools is likely to find one of these threads full of unproven speculation. If the folks with views differing from George's don't speak up then our newcomer may assume George's views are commonly accepted.

Since George has either ignored or insulted all contrary information presented here I find him no more credible than UFO or Bigfoot theorists.
 
It should also be added that some well-respected American scholars have cast serious doubt on the whole Eli Whitney story, particularly the interchangeable parts claim. The material is available (on the internet, even), and it's not difficult to find. Anyone doing any sort of serious research on this topic would have run across it by now.

I'd say the interchangeable parts story is long dead, at least in creditable circles. It may still have some traction in what I think of as "pop history" on the internet.

Whitney was working on a musket contract for the Ordnance Department. Because he was approaching the project from the same point of view as the Ordnance Department and National Armouries (i.e. striving to achieve interchangeable parts) he was allowed a great deal of latitude, especially missing delivery deadlines when the arms had been partially paid for in advance. The same latitude was allowed Simeon North and Lawrence Pomeroy, two other major contractors. It is arguable that it was North who came closest to achieving the goal with his early Hall's Patent carbines. In any case, the trade off was that any new developments were shared with the armories and the other interested parties. This was a documentable, genuine American contribution to the development of machine tools, driven by the lack of skilled labor in America and the need to manufacture items that, everywhere else in the world, depended on a large body of specialized workmen. It has been all but ignored in this thread for pointless discussion of who influenced what or who made what first.

Everyone recognized the value of the idea of interchangeable parts. There is a letter written by Thomas Jefferson when he was Ambassador to France in which he reports on the French having achieved it and how wonderful it was. In fact, he'd been the dupe of a clever trick. The parts he was shown were all filed in the same jigs...there was no precise measurement involved and the result was unrepeatable unless the French Army was satisfied with a national production of about 5 muskets per week. This was long before Whitney came on the scene. Whitney's muskets have been tested for interchangeability in modern times... they aren't and Whitney didn't live to see true interchangeable parts. The subsequent history of the Whitney armory includes the production of non-interchangeable arms during the Civil War, what Eli Whitney Jr. called "good and servicable"... meaning they worked just fine but did not meet the stringent requirements of the Ordnance Department.

I clearly remember reading a story when I was in, perhaps, the 5th or 6th grade where Eli Whitney travels to Washington to convince the blockheads of the Ordnance Department of the value of his new idea. I remember it because, at that point, I believed it and because the author got several of the technical words wrong. (You can imagine what a grade-school teacher thought of a kid who knew things like that... I'd be arrested today.) I believe there was such a demonstration, but it wasn't to convince the Ordnance Department it was a good idea, it was to convince them that Witney was close to solving the problem (which he wasn't)... and to buy some time for his late deliveries.
 
What irritates me is the attitude of the creator of this thread.
#1 Despite his denials he is antagonistic.
1.1 Previous threads locked by moderator.
1.2 Moderator indicating that this thread may be locked.
1.3 Numerous complaints by other contributors.
How can he not notice this?

#2 His willingness to grab at any straw which supports his pet theory that until 1800 everyone walked around with their knuckles dragging on the ground, until 'mericans showed them how to do it.

#3 His ability to ignore or forget anything which disproves or casts doubt on whatever happens to be his current version of the truth.
This thread contains numerous references to leadscrews.
This thread also contains a reference to Eli Whitney as the inventor of interchangeable parts.

In a previous thread I noted that in Sweden there were leadscrews and interchangeable parts one hundred years before North, Whitney, Wilkinson or whoever is the current creator of mechanical engineering, in the opinion of the world's leading authority.

I need not have bothered.

What really irritates me is the idea that a newcomer to PM will look at this thread, think WTF and depart, never to return. Because the Antique Machinery forum is an island of the blessed compared to the General forum.


Well said Manic.

As I stated in an earlier post, this OP is blatantly trolling.

mumble mumble, but no f***** never listened to me anyway, .........mumble mumble, ........................until they realised and it was too late, .......mumble mumble, .......do they ever say I was right all along? ......mumble mumble ......do they F***.
 
To add a quick quote from the Wilkinson story. It goes on to tell of the use of David Wilkinsons first engine lathe. The first use as we know was put in use to built textile machinery. David partnering with his brother Daniel had gone under the name of David Wilkinson & Company. They were very successful not only at their Pomfret Mill who was managed by his brother Smith but all through out the states. The following quote from David gives you an idea of just how wide spread they were in fueling the industry.

"We built machinery to go to almost every part of the country. From Pomfret and Killingly, Connecticut, to Hartford, Vermont, to Waltham and other towns in Massachusetts, for Wall & Wells, Trenton, New Jersey, for Union and Gray, on the Patapsco; for the Warren factories, on the Gunpowder, near Baltimore, to Tarboro' and Martinburgh, North Carolina, two factories in Georgia, to Louisiana, to Pittsburgh, to Delaware, to Virginia and many others" -David Wilkinson

As for his view on lost opportunity to Patent his inventions.

"It was unfortunate for me patenting my machine, when the machine making and manufacturing business in this country was only in it's infancy. The patent would run out before it could be brought into very extensive use. It certainly did run out without my deriving that benefit from the invention, I was justly entitled to. One solitary ten dollar note is surely but small recompense for an improvement that is worth all the other tools in use, in any workshop in the world, for finishing brass and iron work. I was always just too engaged in various business to look after and make profit from my inventions"

Then with characteristic resignation that softened the bitterness, he added

"Other people, I hope, gained something by them" -David Wilkinson
 
I had no intention of aiding and abetting this thread, one of a recent series which diminished the whole forum, but now it has been uplifted by input from some highly respected contributors.

I was particularly pleased to see 99Panhard’s comments on the 'interchangeable manufacture' myths. I have read many articles on the subject, but they nearly all avoid addressing the awkward questions, giving no examples of specific components and the required quality of fit. For example, does the interchangeability involve routing out a pocket in a wooden stock, and hammering a component in, or does it involve machining two metal components which have to go together with a defined close fit? Neither are the sources very forthcoming on whether a component is fully machined to precise dimensions, or whether it’s machined and then filed to pass through a gauge or template. In fact I only recall seeing a single Paper which actually addressed the tolerances involved in early ‘interchangeable manufacture’.

Moving on, cncFireman wondered about the history of the drive chain. The earliest maker of pitch chains for machinery (mainly textile machinery) that I'm aware of was James Slater of Salford, in business from about 1860. Initially the chains were just pinned links, but in 1864 Slater patented the introduction of rollers to the pins. In 1879 his business was bought by Hans Renold.

However, I was recently looking at a pitch chain made c.1710! It was small, though. Very small, in fact. It was a fusee chain for a pocket watch, on display at the World Museum, Liverpool. See photos.

JD Fusee01.jpg DSCN2941aa.jpg

Of course, it wasn’t necessary to use pitch chains for lathes. I have previously posted information about an early screwcutting lathe which had used an ordinary link chain. See thread below:-

http://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/antique-machinery-and-history/aspects-early-screw-thread-manufacture-270065/

The lathe, made by Gallimore of Sheffield, was featured in a book dated 1833. The date of the lathe is not known. The book refers to the firm having been 'noted for their manufacture of large screws, especially those used for elevating the breeches of cannon during the late war'. The 'late war' would be the Napoleonic wars, 1793-1815.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.








 
Back
Top