The evolution of the Engine Lathe : A hypothesis ?

[fciron]

btw.. onepass, do you have an idea why most of the time, responders do not discuss points that are brought up, that most have never considered before ? Things that are genuine news.. hmmm

I suppose this makes me one of the negative Nellies, but it would be easier for people to address your points if we knew what they were. I still haven't figured or what your hypothesis is or what part of the commonly accepted history you disagree with.

It is nice to hear that people stopped taking pride in their work in the 1960s. I'm used to people blaming it on my generation.

Lewis

 

[Gary McGarity]

) Going back to engine lathes is economic suicide, and tales of different modes of economic suicide doesn't change that fact.

This is not a thread about economics.

However, while you brought the subject up, I have observed that the quickest way for a shop to go bust is to buy a bunch of CNC machines, and not have enough to feed them. I've seen it happen several times.

Sometimes you can make a part faster in a vice, with a hand file, than to make it on a machine.

 

[G&L4nahalf]

Hi onepass.......

btw.. onepass, do you have an idea why most of the time, responders do not discuss points that are brought up, that most have never considered before ? Things that are genuine news.. hmmm

I suppose this makes me one of the negative Nellies, but it would be easier for people to address your points if we knew what they were. I still haven't figured or what your hypothesis is or what part of the commonly accepted history you disagree with.

It is nice to hear that people stopped taking pride in their work in the 1960s. I'm used to people blaming it on my generation.

Lewis

Hi Lewis, absolutely beautiful post for me, with perfect timing

" I suppose this makes me one of the negative Nellies "

not at all.. your comments were directed into positive constructive discussion..

my hypothesis is - that in the present references giving treatment of the historical origin of the engine-lathe - that they are full of misinformation, and that is the case also, with the earlier historians, because they did not have the benefit of our hindsight. We are now in the time of 1830 to 1850 on this thread; which is the earliest that I have been able to trace the direct ancestry of the standard engine-lathe.

Someone, or more likely; some.. on this forum do or does have the picture/painting/patent of that oldest genuine ancestor. Or they have seen it.

Taking my que from your quote from me.. so many things I have posted ( I can think of about a dozen at the moment ) that emphasize support for my proposals by image illustrations, are just passed over.. I have a LOT of more ammunition; but so far - the tigers have not taken the bait..

btw, the latest outrageous misinformation I came across was on an "advanced" wiki site that touts itself as improvement over the original wiki, for technological reference. They informed all that the ancient engine-lathe "cone-heads" were back in the [ancient] 1950s..

On the other note about people not having pride in their work - I think we would have heard similar comments at 1915, 1815, 1715 etc etc, because the truth is that most people do not have the approach to work that someone with pride takes.

All the best, George

 

[Leg17]

my hypothesis is - that in the present references giving treatment of the historical origin of the engine-lathe - that they are full of misinformation, .....
..... We are now in the time of 1830 to 1850 on this thread; which is the earliest that I have been able to trace the direct ancestry of the standard engine-lathe.

Would you PLEASE consider explaining your hypothesis that ROLT, et al, are "full of misinformation" and just what you propose is the real truth that links,or ignores, Maudsley, to "the time of 1830-1850 .... the direct ancestry of the standard engine-lathe" ???

Or are you simply fishing for the earliest example of what your definition is of the "standard engine lathe"?

 

[partsproduction]

On the other note about people not having pride in their work - I think we would have heard similar comments at 1915, 1815, 1715 etc etc, because the truth is that most people do not have the approach to work that someone with pride takes.

You hit upon a hobby horse of mine there. If you are operating any machine your feelings for that machine, the respect you hold for its designers all the way back into antiquity, what that machine gives you! in the way of providing for your needs (And much more, respect for that Wondrous Creator who gifted mankind with minds able to design them more than all else) WILL show in both the quality of what you produce and in the longevity of the machine itself.
I'm one who is conscious of adopting my personal identity and self respect from what I'm gifted with, the tools and the abilities to use them, so abusing tools is against everything I believe in. So, if I have a machine I try to treat it as if it belongs to Someone else, because really, it does. Be it made in America or Taiwan or India, doesn't matter, I try to treat it with care.

But I've seen people who see a new machine start out calling it junk, and somehow they turn it into junk! The SAME machine I have at home in my shop, cared for and glistening with oil sheen, doing stellar duty every day and any faults corrected permanently. I've seen this with my own eyes! That the attitude, either one of stewardship for, or disgust for, will manifest itself either way. The machine will last and pay back for a great long time for those willing to coax it's goodness out.

 

[G&L4nahalf]

Would you PLEASE consider explaining your hypothesis that ROLT, et al, are "full of misinformation" and just what you propose is the real truth that links,or ignores, Maudsley, to "the time of 1830-1850 .... the direct ancestry of the standard engine-lathe" ???

Or are you simply fishing for the earliest example of what your definition is of the "standard engine lathe"?

Well firstly, 1830 takes us back 185 years to my reckoning. That's quite a bit for a real engine lathe..

Secondly, "ROLT, et al," were infatuated with Maudslay.. When it came to the lathe, in their view - he invented it all. Almost God himself to read what they wrote.. I'm not buying it, and had plans to cover that very issue in the very near future.

Thirdly, "are you simply fishing for the earliest example of what your definition is of the "standard engine lathe"? "

It is NO LONGER "my" definition.. It is NOW the uncontested as yet - definition of the Practical Machinist Forum. I have submitted this proposal for legitimate peer review from some of the top experts in the world. It is not my problem that they may of not been interested enough to challenge the proposal. The fact is - this thread has been viewed over 5000 times by the forum, and that should have been enough viewing for a legitimate challenge to the statement that I put forward to the forum for their consideration. This refers especially to the post with my schematic defining a standard engine-lathe that is now the topic.

If anyone has a dispute or challenge as to the proposed definition that I put forward, then; let them legitimately discuss it here and now.. or they will be faced with a de facto accepted definition. Then, the future question will be - why did they not challenge it when they had the chance ?

 

[Limy Sami]

I have submitted this proposal for legitimate peer review from some of the top experts in the world.?

Talk about the ego has landed ............What top experts in the world ?

 

[mwr]

Talk about the ego has landed ............What top experts in the world ?

Please, you'll just encourage him.

 

[Gewehr 98]

...this thread has been viewed over 5000 times by the forum...

Some are perhaps viewing this thread merely for the impending train wreck.

 

[G&L4nahalf]

Talk about the ego has landed ............What top experts in the world ?

Well I see Mr Cockney is at it again.. er..ahh is it Miss Clitney ?

 

[cellardoor7]

Free Thermite

 

[PDW]

If anyone has a dispute or challenge as to the proposed definition that I put forward, then; let them legitimately discuss it here and now.. or they will be faced with a de facto accepted definition. Then, the future question will be - why did they not challenge it when they had the chance ?

A couple points.

First, you *have* been challenged by a number of people on a number of points. You're simply too narcissistic and have such a bad case of NIH that you can't recognise that.

Second, you're a lightweight intellect with delusions of importance and competence. Nobody here really cares what you write because it's pretty much unmitigated garbage, stream of consciousness with no research behind it.

I don't recognise you as an authority on *anything* let along machine tools. I'm only reading this thread to throw rocks and add to my post count.

You're either trolling or really stupid, and I'm bored with no other flamewars in progress ATM. That's the limit of your interest to me - playing internet Whack-a-mole.

PDW

 

[E.F. Thumann]

So you post a vague "hypothesis", that almost no one on this thread can understand......and when most of us don't want to be trolled.......you announce that the general population of PM " agrees bc we aren't outright challenging you". As others have said: you are posting personal opinions after reading books that others have researched/written. Big deal, we all have opinions. Where is your ORIGINAL research for any of your unending claims? It's easy to sit back in your warm reclining chair 150 years after Maudslay, et al, have basically fired up a revolution, and shit all over their accomplishments, isn't it? The more you post, the more of an ill-read, sanctimonious ass you come off as.

 

[G&L4nahalf]

A couple points.

First, you *have* been challenged by a number of people on a number of points. You're simply too narcissistic and have such a bad case of NIH that you can't recognise that.

Second, you're a lightweight intellect with delusions of importance and competence. Nobody here really cares what you write because it's pretty much unmitigated garbage, stream of consciousness with no research behind it.

I don't recognise you as an authority on *anything* let along machine tools. I'm only reading this thread to throw rocks and add to my post count.

You're either trolling or really stupid, and I'm bored with no other flamewars in progress ATM. That's the limit of your interest to me - playing internet Whack-a-mole.

PDW

I have heard there are places in Australia where there are poisonous things beyond belief..

you make the point

 

[Limy Sami]

I repent, I have seen the light, so to try and save my mortal soul, have given a G&L4nahalf a ''like'' for every post on this thread.

 

[G&L4nahalf]

So you post a vague "hypothesis", that almost no one on this thread can understand......and when most of us don't want to be trolled.......you announce that the general population of PM " agrees bc we aren't outright challenging you". As others have said: you are posting personal opinions after reading books that others have researched/written. Big deal, we all have opinions. Where is your ORIGINAL research for any of your unending claims? It's easy to sit back in your warm reclining chair 150 years after Maudslay, et al, have basically fired up a revolution, and shit all over their accomplishments, isn't it? The more you post, the more of an ill-read, sanctimonious ass you come off as.

Well at least you spelled his name correct..

You have quite a few followers

As I've written before, why read this thread ?

You can go start your own thread.. Show us all your interesting ideas. Show us how much response you get. Show us how long you stay up.. on and on and on..

 

[Andy FitzGibbon]

It is not my problem that they may of not been interested enough to challenge the proposal.

Yes, it is, because you have yet to post any thing that might interest any of them. Personal opinions, based on no real research and supported by no hard evidence, don't carry much weight.

Andy

 

[ManicMetalBasher]

And the winner of the 2018 Nobel Prize for Literature is G&L4ntwentyeightanda bit'ish

#156
"Show us how long you stay up.. on and on and on.."

and on ad libitum.

I did warn you all about the conclusion . . .

#28 MMB
"At column three at the West end of the Temple of Osiris, at Karnak, in the chapel dedicated to Anubis there is a bas-relief showing the operation of a pole-lathe"

There is a limit to how much reverence should be shown to a 76 year old with more women than John Travolta, this limit was exceeded in the Maudslay thread.

In the real world, which is on the other PM fora, populated by real engineers, with real, real-time problems, the essence would be contained in several terse paragraphs, the problem solved, and everybody would return to the every day problems of earning a living.

As an antique myself, I like learning about engineering history, and I do so learn from many people on PM. For which thank you.

There is, however, a place where G&Letc can make his name, the theatre. One review of an early production of "Waiting for Godot", the play by the, later Nobel prize winning dramatist, Samuel Beckett, described the performance as "a play in which nothing happens, twice".

Twice! Twice? Move over Shakespeare, G&L is coming.

 

[RC99]

Too many words and not enough pictures in this thread.. I am a picture person myself.

 

[G&L4nahalf]

#156
......

and ..

and ..

There is a limit to how much reverence should be shown to a 76 year old with more women than John Travolta, this limit was exceeded in the Maudslay thread.

and ...

Move over Shakespeare, G&L is coming.

Now now Basher

I had prompted you to get involved with the Post on the 1851 British World Trade Fair

I now realize that I was overly optimistic in my encouragement for you to make a mark with some real contribution to a significant discussion.

After mulling that idea over some more, I realized that you would just have given us only a more emphatic replay of the 1851 monarchical orchestrated view. Downplaying the American exhibit. English Upper-class smoke-fog reassuring the internal exploited that all will be well..

Well, we didn't buy it in 1775 and most of us here are not buying your home-grown English upper-class world view NOW.

Totally pretentious.....

Did like your comment "There is a limit to how much reverence should be shown to a 76 year old with more women than John Travolta"

Took my 25 year old grandson with me yesterday on business and pleasure. His mother says I am his hero, and he wants to be just like me. Got himself a nice lady early in the day, but while we were dining later in the evening with one of my outstanding exotics, he got a little giddy. This is the first time he has gotten to go with me as man to man.