G&L4nahalf
Cast Iron
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2014
- Location
- Temporarily Florida
I think so..
After pondering over about a half-dozen books on Maudslay written close to his time, I find myself in strong disagreement with the present common historical evaluation of Maueslay's effect on the advancement of industrial technology. Same with Palmer and some others.
Some typical examples in the common reference literature on Maudslay :
1. Wiki : "Henry Maudslay (pronunciation and spelling) (22 August 1771 – 14 February 1831) was a British machine tool innovator, tool and die maker, and inventor. He is considered a founding father of machine tool technology."
2. Henry Maudslay Facts from : http://biography.yourdictionary.com/henry-maudslay = "British mechanical engineer Henry Maudslay (1771-1831), known as the father of the machine-tool industry, laid an important foundation for the Industrial Revolution by improving interchangeability and precision in tool-making. ..."
3. Encyclopædia Britannica : "... British engineer and inventor of the metal lathe and other devices."
Item 1a : There was no tool and die industry (as we understand the term) in 1831 !
1b : What evidence is there for this ? The machine tool industry was not (imo) established until at least 40 years after his death.
2a. : This would mean to me, that all further developments were descended from his initiations.
3a : preposterous ! Do they intend to convey the meaning of a lathe made entirely of metal ?
These are typical inaccurate comments written by those with little actual familiarity with the topic; and have repeated what a long list of previous repeating writers have written, with each transmission of writing introducing additional inaccuracies. Early writers do not have the benefit of our hindsight from a century of later developments.
Our reference per practicalmachinist is to an historical event that significantly advanced technical progress in the metal-working machine-tool industry. I suggest that historical progress might be compared to a stair-case winding up a tall building. Each step on the stair-way could then symbolize advancements in progress, with every pause on the landings going up, as a place for re-evaluations and dead-ends in technological progress.
Maudslay was a dead-end. So was Palmer.
There are considerations often overlooked, that determine or affect the acceptance of new developments and consequent adoption of the new concepts into progress.
We often hear of who invented or first introduced a new concept.
In itself, this is historically irrelevant.
If I may, an example : there has been quite a lot written about an Indian tribe living in the South-American desert, whom supposedly invented the Jet-Airplane (or rocket) a very long time ago. If they did.. ( I don't believe they did ) it is historically irrelevant, since there is no continuity with the development of our present air-transport. No-one now - has directly incorporated or built on - any of their (supposed by some) technology into the aircraft industry.
So with Maudslay and Palmer. If B&S stole outright Palmer's concept for a pocket measuring device ( which is not out of the question ) or otoh, paid Palmer's widow double what the business was worth - is still historically irrelevant for the acceptance of the micrometer into wide-spread industrial adoption. It took B&S's distributive capability for this to happen. Further - even the up to 20 or 25 mm range for Palmer's micrometer had little pertinence for industry outside France at that time - the incorporation of one inch measurement capability was the deciding factor in wide-spread adoption by the manufacturing industry. B&S gets credit for the micrometer. Starrett's subtle improvements, ergonomic design, and above all - lower price, was the next step in evolvement.
If France needs recognition for the invention of a precision pocket measuring device, I suggest the 6"(!!) straight-bar vernier-caliper be given precedence over Palmer's fraction of an inch wire-measuring device.
In the case of Maudslay's (supposed) screw-cutting lathe, I can find NO feature innovated by him, incorporated into further lathe development. No-one took up his concept of sharp-angled un-reinforced ways. Making a double set of change gears for every thread-pitch is impractical. I am pretty sure I came across two direct descendants of Maudslay's thread cutting paraphernalia on two occasions. They followed exactly the description given by James Nasmyth. The mechanism did NOT incorporate gearing; and floated along the shaft to be threaded, as best I can describe it (because of my disgust for being asked to try it) in my mind resembling a "Ridged" pipe-threader. The pitch settings were as Nasmyth described - protractor principle - with the pitch-settings cast into the "protractor-dial", and as the thread-pitch got smaller, the numbers on the "protractor-dial" got progressively closer together. An impression of total inaccuracy. A knife blade set at an angle scored the shaft which was then followed in a second operation with a miniature standard shaped threading tool cutting a thousandth of an inch or so deep. After multiple repeat operations, a standard size threading tool was replaced in the device, still continuing with the few thousandths cut per pass, and still floating on the carriage. To my surprise, when I measured the threads over an 8' length, they were accurate to within .010". If this is... the Maudslay system, then; all I have for it is disgust. I think the examples I saw, were sold in the late 1940s for a market that was not capable of calculating thread-pitch settings on the change-gear-box.
Maudslay was quite likely the leading progressive in his time; but that in itself hardly qualifies his as the great innovator. There were many progressives in Great-Britain at the time; some close to Maudslay in quality.
I would substitute in his place for influence in technological development - James Nasmyth and the steam-hammer which produced the economical steel as raw-material for machine-tool processing. Per a thread-cutting lathe, I would think Roberts would have preeminence over Maudslay.
I would also like to see the entity that crucially introduced the quick-change gear-box into the front of the engine-lathe, given credit; and especially the American mathematician whom introduced the formulas and calculations for gearing be credited for his MAJOR contribution for technological progression. In the back of my mind, I think it was Biggs; but was unable to find out exactly who - even after several day's search on the Inet.
Ref : Bill/rivett608 posted - Exceptionally Rare & Historically Important Micrometer by PALMER on 02-19-2011, 10:06 PM
http://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/antique-machinery-and-history/exceptionally-rare-historically-important-micrometer-palmer-220198/
George, keeping my word to Stephen Thomas
After pondering over about a half-dozen books on Maudslay written close to his time, I find myself in strong disagreement with the present common historical evaluation of Maueslay's effect on the advancement of industrial technology. Same with Palmer and some others.
Some typical examples in the common reference literature on Maudslay :
1. Wiki : "Henry Maudslay (pronunciation and spelling) (22 August 1771 – 14 February 1831) was a British machine tool innovator, tool and die maker, and inventor. He is considered a founding father of machine tool technology."
2. Henry Maudslay Facts from : http://biography.yourdictionary.com/henry-maudslay = "British mechanical engineer Henry Maudslay (1771-1831), known as the father of the machine-tool industry, laid an important foundation for the Industrial Revolution by improving interchangeability and precision in tool-making. ..."
3. Encyclopædia Britannica : "... British engineer and inventor of the metal lathe and other devices."
Item 1a : There was no tool and die industry (as we understand the term) in 1831 !
1b : What evidence is there for this ? The machine tool industry was not (imo) established until at least 40 years after his death.
2a. : This would mean to me, that all further developments were descended from his initiations.
3a : preposterous ! Do they intend to convey the meaning of a lathe made entirely of metal ?
These are typical inaccurate comments written by those with little actual familiarity with the topic; and have repeated what a long list of previous repeating writers have written, with each transmission of writing introducing additional inaccuracies. Early writers do not have the benefit of our hindsight from a century of later developments.
Our reference per practicalmachinist is to an historical event that significantly advanced technical progress in the metal-working machine-tool industry. I suggest that historical progress might be compared to a stair-case winding up a tall building. Each step on the stair-way could then symbolize advancements in progress, with every pause on the landings going up, as a place for re-evaluations and dead-ends in technological progress.
Maudslay was a dead-end. So was Palmer.
There are considerations often overlooked, that determine or affect the acceptance of new developments and consequent adoption of the new concepts into progress.
We often hear of who invented or first introduced a new concept.
In itself, this is historically irrelevant.
If I may, an example : there has been quite a lot written about an Indian tribe living in the South-American desert, whom supposedly invented the Jet-Airplane (or rocket) a very long time ago. If they did.. ( I don't believe they did ) it is historically irrelevant, since there is no continuity with the development of our present air-transport. No-one now - has directly incorporated or built on - any of their (supposed by some) technology into the aircraft industry.
So with Maudslay and Palmer. If B&S stole outright Palmer's concept for a pocket measuring device ( which is not out of the question ) or otoh, paid Palmer's widow double what the business was worth - is still historically irrelevant for the acceptance of the micrometer into wide-spread industrial adoption. It took B&S's distributive capability for this to happen. Further - even the up to 20 or 25 mm range for Palmer's micrometer had little pertinence for industry outside France at that time - the incorporation of one inch measurement capability was the deciding factor in wide-spread adoption by the manufacturing industry. B&S gets credit for the micrometer. Starrett's subtle improvements, ergonomic design, and above all - lower price, was the next step in evolvement.
If France needs recognition for the invention of a precision pocket measuring device, I suggest the 6"(!!) straight-bar vernier-caliper be given precedence over Palmer's fraction of an inch wire-measuring device.
In the case of Maudslay's (supposed) screw-cutting lathe, I can find NO feature innovated by him, incorporated into further lathe development. No-one took up his concept of sharp-angled un-reinforced ways. Making a double set of change gears for every thread-pitch is impractical. I am pretty sure I came across two direct descendants of Maudslay's thread cutting paraphernalia on two occasions. They followed exactly the description given by James Nasmyth. The mechanism did NOT incorporate gearing; and floated along the shaft to be threaded, as best I can describe it (because of my disgust for being asked to try it) in my mind resembling a "Ridged" pipe-threader. The pitch settings were as Nasmyth described - protractor principle - with the pitch-settings cast into the "protractor-dial", and as the thread-pitch got smaller, the numbers on the "protractor-dial" got progressively closer together. An impression of total inaccuracy. A knife blade set at an angle scored the shaft which was then followed in a second operation with a miniature standard shaped threading tool cutting a thousandth of an inch or so deep. After multiple repeat operations, a standard size threading tool was replaced in the device, still continuing with the few thousandths cut per pass, and still floating on the carriage. To my surprise, when I measured the threads over an 8' length, they were accurate to within .010". If this is... the Maudslay system, then; all I have for it is disgust. I think the examples I saw, were sold in the late 1940s for a market that was not capable of calculating thread-pitch settings on the change-gear-box.
Maudslay was quite likely the leading progressive in his time; but that in itself hardly qualifies his as the great innovator. There were many progressives in Great-Britain at the time; some close to Maudslay in quality.
I would substitute in his place for influence in technological development - James Nasmyth and the steam-hammer which produced the economical steel as raw-material for machine-tool processing. Per a thread-cutting lathe, I would think Roberts would have preeminence over Maudslay.
I would also like to see the entity that crucially introduced the quick-change gear-box into the front of the engine-lathe, given credit; and especially the American mathematician whom introduced the formulas and calculations for gearing be credited for his MAJOR contribution for technological progression. In the back of my mind, I think it was Biggs; but was unable to find out exactly who - even after several day's search on the Inet.
Ref : Bill/rivett608 posted - Exceptionally Rare & Historically Important Micrometer by PALMER on 02-19-2011, 10:06 PM
http://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/antique-machinery-and-history/exceptionally-rare-historically-important-micrometer-palmer-220198/
George, keeping my word to Stephen Thomas