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

[cncFireman]

That is very interesting the idea of link chain used for a screw lathe. It seems as if makers had a few different ways to power feed a slide in the early days.

 

[Heavey Metal]

At MIT there is an exceedingly brilliant proffesor of linguistics called Noam Chomsky, born and bred in America, and writer of over 100 books. If you want to know why American recorded history is, shall we say "unreliable" I would suggest you all read some of them, especially "For reasons of state" You would then realise why the American establishment has been editing and rewriting its history for generations.

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

The rack is upside down and backwards in the trough that it runs in.

There would have been a pinion on the shaft that the hand wheel/ pulley is mounted to that

Would engage the rack and move the carriage.

The rack would have been fastened to the carriage with some form of a pinch bolt.

 

[cncFireman]

At full travel the rack would protrude from the end of the bed like the twin off the Moffet Mills lathe in possession of one of the members here like shown below. Another reason why some builders may have gone the way of using a chain for feed to not have a rack sliding in and out of the end of the bed. Some of the makers may have opted for a chain also over a leadscrew as they may have not had the resource to turn a screw accurately enough for use. Just a thought I doubt we will ever fully understand the choices they made.

Does any one have a picture of the first Putnam lathe as seen in the picture below? I thought I had read that the Fitchburg Historical Society has the lathe?

 

[ManicMetalBasher]

G
My comments have not been personal.
Nor, I imagine, are the comments made by regular contributors to this forum, who have forgotten more than I know about the early history of machine tools.

Contributors who I invite to shoot me down in flames for any incorrect assumptions made below.

The contributors here are not motivated by hopes of personal gain.
They are not motivated, as many contributions to PM are, by a need to get machines running ASAP to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.

The discovery of the Antikythera mechanism destroyed many assumptions about technological advances C0BC.

There may be some artifacts in the tombs of Chinese Emperors from a similar historical period which will similarly revolutionise historical thinking about the origins of mechanical engineering.

Nobody knows how much evidence remains of mechanical engineering history in Europe and North America since 1707. 1707 being the date which my searches indicate was when the first Newcomen engine was installed.

What is, I hope, agreed, is that we examine the evidence first; evidence however fragmentary, incomplete, and unsatisfactory. Only thereafter do we create explanations, called hypotheses in the so-called "exact sciences". Hypotheses which will probably be forever provisional.

We do not start with the conclusion and then select the "evidence" to conform thereto.

Suggestion G, tabulate your findings (Excel spreadsheet or similar). This will highlight similarities/differences, and possibly patterns of machine tool development, which will not be as evident using your text based contributions hitherto.

If you can demonstrate, or at least posit, some new explanations, which accord with the currently available facts, I will congratulate you, here. I would expect most contributors would do the same.

But this cannot be on your terms, you must follow the procedure noted above, not because I say so, but because that is the only way you will get credibility.

Best wishes
Rich

 

[G&L4nahalf]

G
My comments have not been personal.
Nor, I imagine, are the comments made by regular contributors to this forum, who have forgotten more than I know about the early history of machine tools.

Contributors who I invite to shoot me down in flames for any incorrect assumptions made below.

The contributors here are not motivated by hopes of personal gain.
They are not motivated, as many contributions to PM are, by a need to get machines running ASAP to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.

The discovery of the Antikythera mechanism destroyed many assumptions about technological advances C0BC.

There may be some artifacts in the tombs of Chinese Emperors from a similar historical period which will similarly revolutionise historical thinking about the origins of mechanical engineering.

Nobody knows how much evidence remains of mechanical engineering history in Europe and North America since 1707. 1707 being the date which my searches indicate was when the first Newcomen engine was installed.

What is, I hope, agreed, is that we examine the evidence first; evidence however fragmentary, incomplete, and unsatisfactory. Only thereafter do we create explanations, called hypotheses in the so-called "exact sciences". Hypotheses which will probably be forever provisional.

We do not start with the conclusion and then select the "evidence" to conform thereto.

Suggestion G, tabulate your findings (Excel spreadsheet or similar). This will highlight similarities/differences, and possibly patterns of machine tool development, which will not be as evident using your text based contributions hitherto.

If you can demonstrate, or at least posit, some new explanations, which accord with the currently available facts, I will congratulate you, here. I would expect most contributors would do the same.

But this cannot be on your terms, you must follow the procedure noted above, not because I say so, but because that is the only way you will get credibility.

Best wishes
Rich

Rich, thank you for what I perceive as a conciliatory, even warm attempt at reconciliation.

This merits my considerate response.

I am troubled by the persistent English avoidance of acknowledging American achievements.

In the several occasions I have lived - worked - and traveled in Europe, I did not see this avoidance in Ireland, France, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, Germany and Italy. Not even in Communist Yugoslavia 79-80 where I came in contact with Russians while traveling through-out that country.

Only in England..

I have also taken criticism for "flag-waving" even from my personal friend whom posted on this thread.

If I may.. a clarification.

While the astronauts were landing on the moon, I was there. At NASA. In a machine shop with my business partner talking with an engine-lathe machinist running now considered an antique machine. Just a walk from Mission Control. My partner was the chief-scientist for the prime contractor. His job was overseeing a team that designed-built-and tested the American Flag to be planted on the Moon. The Flag had to un-furl in an umbrella like opening device, and after opening, give the appearance of waving in the vacuum on the Moon. That was the real purpose of sending the astronauts there. To demonstrate to a then doubting world, American capabilities.

I have also taken much criticism from those proclaiming that I don't know what I'm writing about.

I have been in machine-shops hardly without interruption for now 73 years. I have been running engine-lathes, for 62 years, and repairing and rebuilding them; along with virtually all of the equipment normally used. I have liquidated my son's and my rebuilding shop just a few months back and we are now restarting a new shop; property bought, building up, and machinery starting to be brought in.. It will be staffed with "antique" machinery.. To work on a contract for a large corporation.

images below of a sample of my work. The customer was quite happy. He is using it in production.


I know that many of my critics have no "practical machinist" experience.. They have read a lot of books..

For myself, I will never ridicule, humiliate or intentionally embarrass even the most humble member of this forum who has just got his antique machine and submitted his first post. I will look at him with even a fondness, and wish him the best.

My attempt at cordiality, George

 

[G&L4nahalf]

At full travel the rack would protrude from the end of the bed like the twin off the Moffet Mills lathe in possession of one of the members here like shown below. Another reason why some builders may have gone the way of using a chain for feed to not have a rack sliding in and out of the end of the bed. Some of the makers may have opted for a chain also over a leadscrew as they may have not had the resource to turn a screw accurately enough for use. Just a thought I doubt we will ever fully understand the choices they made.

Does any one have a picture of the first Putnam lathe as seen in the picture below? I thought I had read that the Fitchburg Historical Society has the lathe?

CNC, I am excited !!

I am seeing the same things as you, and I think we are on the verge of a MAJOR historical breakthrough on the development of the engine-lathe in the USA.

For me, the key is in your Getty image, and this as yet unexplained mysterious rack moving in an out the lathe.

It would be nice to see a sketch from heavymetal showing his interpretation.

I think once we can nail down a precise date for this rack movement things will start to all come together.

This is opening up machine-tool evolvement in areas previously never covered, even.. by some of the early American machine-tool historians.

Congratulation on your discoveries !!

George

 

[ManicMetalBasher]

G, Thank you for your #85 which I read carefully.

Another suggestion, do not expect too much of yourself.

Research into the evolution of machine tools is very much work in progress.
This research will probably never be complete.
This research could be totally transformed, at any time, by the discovery of one, currently unknown, machine.
All any individual can do is add to the little pile of available facts, this is much more worthwhile, if more mundane, than adding to the large pile of speculation.

What I am doing in this forum, apart from being a critic, is learning from the work of others. I am not intending to do any work myself.

A number of early machine tools have been discussed in this, and similar, threads on PM recently.
But the machines are not described in numbers. I do not remember one photograph which had a rule placed on the machine by which its size could be estimated.

If the machine has wooden parts, which wood(s) are used and where? Which woodworking joints are used? Has the wood undergone dendrochronological testing? If so does the dating conform with the provisional, provenance of the machine? Are there any other organic materials, eg pollen, which could also be tested?

Which metals are used, and where? Have samples of these metals undergone metallurgical testing? What, if anything, does this new information tell us?

If there is a leadscrew what are its dimensions? Repeat this for every machine component. In short create detailed part and assembly drawings for the available parts which would enable anyone who wished to, to create a replica.

The documents which form (it is hoped or believed) part of the machine history, need a similar analysis.
Has every document which has a signature been compared with other documents from the same source?
Do fingerprints on the document match known instances of the supposed author?

I will stop here because I do not intend to, and am not qualified to, write an essay on forensic science.
If was attempting the challenge you have set for yourself, the first thing I would do is to read some books on forensic science. The first thing you would learn is do not clean anything, you are destroying the evidence.

Carrying out such an analysis is a lot of work, but performing this, produces facts. Admittedly some facts will be statistical limits and uncertainties. These facts (ignoring errors or advances in science and technology) cannot be challenged by anyone. Unfortunately some facts will be unwelcome, they disprove the hypothesis you were working with; so the hypothesis must change, not the facts.

Your heart is already in the right place George, send your brain to meet it.

I hope this of some help.
Rich

 

[Billtodd]

I have been in machine-shops hardly without interruption for now 73 years. I have been running engine-lathes, for 62 years,

For me, the key is in your Getty image, and this as yet unexplained mysterious rack moving in an out the lathe.

You are kidding George ? - you think the rack is mysterious????

These are weighted lathes, the narrow guides rails provide next to no area for a lubricating oil film . Moving the carriage manually would have be a bastard! - Impossible to get any kind of finish.

[edit - resuming after interruption]

The lathe design seems to have started with a chain driven carriage but, as any anyone who has ever pulled on a chain fall will know, looped -linked chains are not good for power transmission. Even a pitch chain, with pressed-steel link and pins on sprockets, the weight of the catenary (the hanging chain which will act like a spring) once coupled to the friction in the slide way (and no doubt , the swinging of the weight) will cause the carriage to hop and skip its way along the guides at the slightest provocation.

The obvious fix is to replace the chain with a more rigid rack that can pull or push the carriage. That way, the lathe does not need to be redesigned and the rack and drive can be easily decoupled when not required, to prevent it becoming a hazard (as anyone who's cracked their knee into a bar feeder will know).


Bill

 

[cncFireman]

George - Quite a few of the early lathes had the "rack drive" configuration. Both of the wood bed lathes at the Smithsonian have this same rack drive. You can see both of them in the pictures. However longer lathes would have needed other forms of a power feed. That seems to be why the longer lathes seem to be chain driven. Can you imagine 15' -20' of rack protruding out the end of a lathe at full travel? Quite a few early "looking lathes" have lead screws as well including the 14' Moore & Colby wood bed lathe. William Moore and Ebenezer Colby setup shop in 1833 and it is said to become Moore and Bement after William Bement became the partner (another big name in the early maker days) Bement had apprenticed at M & C for years before partnering. It is also written that Wilkinsons first engine lathe had a lead screw but without evidence that is not a fact. It is a fact that he did have a screw lathe before that and had the ability to machine a screw for his first engine lathe. My unknown wood bed lathe has the power feed stuff missing just a flat of the spindle shaft where the power was taken off. My lathe was found in a 9' form with the ways to be in a hair under 3' sections. I have two more 3' front sections with the rack shelf which points to this lathe being at one time at least 15' long.

Another thing I have noticed is other known makes have the same style of tail stock as the Wilkinson Mill/Moffet Mill/Corn field/APM lathes including the Moore & Colby. Which of course is easy to guess is that makers borrowed or down right copied other designs? This one is interesting to me. It is a unknown lathe with an early american style head stock pattern. Modern screw and rack configuration. Yet look at the tailstock. Possible american built lathe with an English influence to the tailstock? Also notice the flat top ways.

 

[partsproduction]

CNCfireman, where is the lathe shown above? It is interesting, is the handwheel "Handed" correctly? (Meaning does turning clockwise move the carriage to the right?)

 

[cncFireman]

It has been posted on PM before in some of the older threads.I does look like a direct drive pinion. The older wood bed early lathe I have recently taken in is missing its pinion and I am planning to build a direct drive wrong way pinion to try it out for simplicity.

 

[G&L4nahalf]

It has been posted on PM before in some of the older threads.I does look like a direct drive pinion. The older wood bed early lathe I have recently taken in is missing its pinion and I am planning to build a direct drive wrong way pinion to try it out for simplicity.

cncFireman and all,

I've lightened up your picture so all can see the detail better.

all the best, George

 

[G&L4nahalf]

More "mystery" rack

These are cncFireman's 1817 Nash lathe pictures that I have enlarged and hopefully will format correctly. If so, they should show more detail.







Note the rack..

It does not appear to be attached to anything.

I would think it would be attached to the carriage.

The drive design at the bottom connected to the worm-gearing is found on a number of other lathes. I think many of them are pulley-belted instead of geared. IIRC.

The rack schematic is physically logical, as the pinion holds it down, not so - on what I can see on the other early lathes. They appear to have the rack floating in the air. The problem with all this is - the interchange of chain-drive and rack and pinion on a number of machines having both.

I think a crucial detail is whether the rack teeth are up or down on the other machines.

Geo

 

[cncFireman]

Another early lathe with history was built by Nathaniel Wiley of Watertown NY. The lathes swings 22" and reaches 10' between centers. Wood bed. "It has a rack drive instead of chain and the rack is clamped to the carriage depending on length of work. Wiley used the lathe in his shop until 1852 when it was sold to Bliss & Brown of Charthage NY. Bliss & Brown had the lathe in use until 1866 then sold it for 75$ to Mr Slater of Black River NY. Mr. Slater used the lathe until 1889 when it was put out doors to make way for more modern machinery and is now surrounded by scrap iron and weeds. Engraver removed weeds and scrap for clarity"

 

[Greg Menke]

Deleted argumentative posts. Will close this thread next time.

Mod

 

[Billtodd]

I think a crucial detail is whether the rack teeth are up or down on the other machines.

I'm still not sure where you're going with this George? There's nothing revolutionary about the use of a rack drive .

Verbruggen's 1778 cannon boring lathe (below ,courtesy Wikipedia) was rack drive.

A replica of a smaller version in Portsmouth ( see Dial Arch Square at Woolwich) shows the rack with teeth (or pins) on the side.

Bill

 

[G&L4nahalf]

The earliest engine lathes design

cncFireman, you continue to amaze me..

You have brought out so much never before known.. or at least, not considered.

Your wood-bed posts are imo a giant historical breakthrough.. Imagine - you have brought us to at least 1817 - probably earlier. That's within about 10 ! years of David Wilkinson's invention of the general purpose engine-lathe.

Because I'm not sure how long the thread will be open, I won't put up my analysis of your research now.

Would like to say at this time, something dawned on me that we've all seen, but not considered.

The Wilkinson-mill wood bed has been built with the wood base integral with the metal-works top.

Not like I had originally concluded, that the metal work was a super-structure mounted on a wood-bench.

I had to ponder on that. I think your wood-bed lathes are showing the same characteristics.

image included below for convenience..

Also, what started the breakthrough was you noticing that the DW lathe had no pinion. Now I'm almost certain that you were right about the possibility that someone had just laid the rack on the bed. There never was a pinion in the normal position that we would have expected.

It looks like we are on the very edge of putting all this together.. I hope we can finish this MAJOR machine-tool engine-lathe historical breakthrough before the thread gets shut down.

Geo

 

[Billtodd]

That's within about 10 ! years of David Wilkinson's invention of the general purpose engine-lathe.

George,

If you're going to write David Wilkinson into machine-tool history as the inventor of the 'engine'*lathe (he may well deserve to be there), then you are going to need more than a few pictures of early Wilkinson type machines and speculation. Typological analysis is compelling, but it will not 'stand up in court'.

We know the American patents were lost, did he file patents anywhere else? Are his patents cited on other existing patents (this might give a clue as to what exactly he was patenting)

Earlier you dismissed a museum curator's dating of the stone-bed lathe. Do you why he dated it to 1830? what evidence was used? was it misinterpreted? does it mention DW?

Bill

*ISTR a rambling and incomplete discussion on here as to what exactly constitutes an 'engine' lathe.

 

[ManicMetalBasher]

Well I tried, and failed, twice.
I should have known better, the first time.
I should not have tried the second time.

 

[Monarchist]

Well I tried, and failed, twice.
I should have known better, the first time.
I should not have tried the second time.

"All part of life's bitch travesty" as they say..."