American Precision Museum - Windsor Vermont

G&L4nahalf · Jun 29, 2017

Per prior arrangements to measure and photograph the machinery, we arrived Sun May 8, 2017; about 3pm, coming in from Bangor, Maine. The staff was waiting for us, and gave us the full red-carpet treatment. This was the first week-end the museum was open for the warm season, but there were not many visitors.

Windsor is a small town, pop ~3500, located just off Interstate 91, putting it less than a half-days drive from about anywhere in the northeast. I 91 is a beautiful road, well designed for the mountains, light traffic, and you can sail right along.

But at the start of our country in 1891, Windsor was the mover and shaker for Vermont, and continued until some time after the Civil War.

Starting from a little before the Civil War, and extending a little past it, Windsor was the major hub for machine-tool development and improvement; taking over the position that Harper's Ferry had some 40 years earlier under Roswell Lee and Colonel Bomford (per info supplied by cncFireman). The milling-machine was invented here in Windsor, by one Joe Brown of Brown&Sharpe fame in 1861, and the milling-machine is second only to the engine-lathe in significance for furthering modern technology. This is the heritage for Windsor, and I think they did a magnificent job in preserving it.

Lamson, Goodnow & Yale machine tool manufacturing complex in Windsor Vermont.jpg

In the words of the museum :

The Museum preserves the heritage of the mechanical arts, celebrates the ingenuity of our mechanical forebears, and explores the effects of their work on our everyday lives. The American Precision Museum, housed in the original Robbins & Lawrence Armory, now holds the largest collection of historically significant machine tools in the nation.Precision manufacturing touches us all. Without it, we would not have the mass communication, rapid transportation, modern standards of sanitation and medical care, abundant food and clothing, or the leisure for universal education.The tools and the methods which make mass production possible were pioneered at the Robbins & Lawrence Armory in Windsor, Vermont. Using precision metal and wood cutting machines and high standards of accuracy, Robbins & Lawrence proved the effectiveness of a new type of manufacturing that would soon be known as the American System. Across America, a powerful machine tool industry grew up, flourishing especially in New England and the northern Midwest. Today, even in the age of plastics and microprocessors, the concept of precision manufacturing provides the foundation for modern industry around the world.

The emphasis of the museum is demonstrating the links from the early inventions to transmission to modern-state machine-tools. They have a number of examples to do this. They also have a number of interactive exhibits that allow even children to make items on machinery.

For the manner that they carried out their purpose, they are # 1 in the country.
For Civil War buffs interested in the machine-tool development from that era, this is the #1 place to go.

about 1850 Inletting machine. Ames Mfg Co, Chicopee, Mass. This machine cut a recessed bed into the gunstock, in just the right shape to receive the lockplate. It could cut out a lock-bed in as little as 45 seconds. Others call this approach to manufacturing - the "American System". Here in the USA, we call it MASS PRODUCTION..

I enthusiastically recommend this place as a top spot to go..

George

G&L4nahalf · Jun 29, 2017

The Water-wheel Power System

contemporary photograph of the works complex while it existed.

The museum is now housed in the tall building on the right with a cupola on the top of the roof. At full steam, the complex had over 300 workers giving it their all. That.. required some serious water power..

Archaeologists excavated the water-wheel pit, and on the basis of scratch marks on the wall, and the dimensions of the pit, were able to establish the size of the wheel. She was an 18 footer, top-shot. There was a 200 acre reservoir upstream, giving a 25' head to the tailrace exit. About 4' from the incoming sluice dump, to the top of the 18' wheel, and 3' for the tailrace to drain. The big-wheel paddles were normally equipped with leather flap-valves covering drain holes, expediting water release on the up-turn cycle.

According to the calculations of the English civil engineer John Smeaton in the 18th century, a top-shot put out about 3 times the power, as an under-shot of the same size. Compare the example of Pawtucket.

On the basis of an actual working water-wheel at Pawtucket, putting out close to 50 hp, and the size of the Windsor complex, the 18' dia and wide wheel surely put out about 150 hp on the belts. It must have been a sight to behold...

Interesting, that about the time the water-wheel itself was installed, they had the foresight to also install an auxiliary steam-power emergency backup power source..

George

G&L4nahalf · Jun 29, 2017

A Sampling of some of the exhibits - Part 1

1845 Planer made by Putnam Machine company, Fitchburg Mass. Gift from Chester B Chappel

This oldest example of a iron Horizontal Boring Mill is the oldest that I know of. It was not on display when I was there. The museum rotates some of the exhibits, and I have no further information about it. Sure wish I could have seen it, because the HBM was my favorite machine-tool to run.

Serial # 1 ( !! ). 1938. A gift from the Bridgeport company, when Bridgeport was acquired by the conglomerate Textron. Imagine the bragging rights you will have after you go to see it.. " I've had my hands on the very.. first.. Bridgeport, that was ever built !! ... Note the round bar for the arm, and could that really be a slotter on the rear of the arm ?

Surface Grinder
From about 1895, Garvin Machine Co. NY, NY. Are there any equally good quality examples out there before 1895 ?

Drill-press

About 1840 - 1850. Phoenix Iron Works - George S Lincoln Co. Hartford Conn.

Continued, George

G&L4nahalf · Jun 29, 2017

Sampling # 2

1825 hand powered planer by an unknown maker.jpg

1825 ! Unknown builder... So close and yet so far.. Why did he not put a belt pulley on it ?

1864 E G Lamson planer, made in Windsor Vermont !! Possibly in the museum building.. Over 150 years ago !

1860 Vertical Shaper Warner & Whitney, Nashua, NH.jpg

1860 Vertical shaper, Warner & Whitney, Nashua, NH

I've had the opportunity to only run one in my entire career. Without Windsor's date, I would not believe how old this class of machine tool is.

1940-50 Jones & Lamison Optical Comparator.jpg

1940-50 Jones & Lamison Optical Comparator,

It was very surprising to me, that to see how many good machinists avoided using the optical comparator. How often I would see in good shops, an optical comparator sitting in a corner of a tool room, and never touched. I found it to be a very useful tool, and if I were to start back up again, I think I would like one next to my work bench.

George

JBoogie · Jun 30, 2017

Joseph Brown inventing the milling machine in 1861 is an alternative fact. Maybe you meant universal milling machine. Don't recall hearing it being inventing in Windsor though.

TedinNorfolk · Jul 1, 2017

Great museum,I wish we had such a one over here. Over here not nearly the importance is attached to old machine tools as it ought to be. Indeed hardly any. The museums mission statement,explaining its raison d'etre,could not be truer. Without the machine tools,what do we have?

G&L4nahalf · Jul 1, 2017

Hi Ted

Much appreciation for your comment.

So far I've barely touched on the significance of Windsor's exhibits, and there is quite a bit more, that I haven't posted yet. I have enough for a couple of weeks, and am in the middle of a "block-buster" response to the comment immediately above yours.

It makes me feel good when others find my interest, of interest to themselves also..

The best to you, George

Milland · Jul 1, 2017

The museum is almost next-door to me (a bit over an hour away), and to my chagrin I haven't visited it yet. It's on my "to do list", thanks for the postings.

99Panhard · Jul 1, 2017

JBoogie said:
Joseph Brown inventing the milling machine in 1861 is an alternative fact. Maybe you meant universal milling machine. Don't recall hearing it being inventing in Windsor though.

Interesting you mention that. I was a guest at the debut of a new official history of Brown & Sharpe two weeks ago where I met the author. He repeats that story, clearly taken from Joseph Wickham Roe, that the Universal Mill was designed to make twist drill bits to drill the nipples of the contract M1861 rifle muskets being made by the Providence Tool Company. He seemed like a nice guy who knows absolutely nothing about machines or historical industrial process. I believe Brown did make the first universal mill, but not for that reason and I base that on the observation that it appears that no one who has repeated this story has ever looked at a musket nipple. In fact, they are still available as "NOS" parts, so many were made during the Civil War. When I was younger they cost about $1... now they are $10 but they are still out there. If you wanted to shoot your CW rifle, it was cheaper to buy an original than a reproduction. I still have a few, unused.

The hole is VERY small and it is tapered from top to bottom. (Reproduction nipples have a hole that is not tapered or tapered in the opposite direction.) Did they make tapered twist drills? Also, that part had been made in huge quantity since at least 1842 for both the M1842 percussion muskets and the M1842 pistols as well as tens of thousands M1821 flint muskets that were converted to percussion, not to mention millions of much smaller nipples for revolvers and other civilian arms. I have recently examined a set of original armory-made gauges for inspecting contractor-made pistols, including the pieces that were used to check the size and the taper of the hole in the nipple. Why Providence Tool would need a completely new machine to make a part that was already being made in the millions by numerous suppliers is beyond me. They may have wanted a fast way to make twist drills for any number of reasons but I suspect this is a case of a partly true story, interpreted by someone who knew nothing about the specifics of gun making technology, repeated endlessly until it assumes the aura of truth.

When were tiny wire gage twist drills first offered?

jp

G&L4nahalf · Jul 2, 2017

Purpose of the first milling machine

99Panhard said:
Interesting you mention that. I was a guest at the debut of a new official history of Brown & Sharpe two weeks ago where I met the author of the new book. He repeats that story, clearly taken from Joseph Wickham Roe, that the Universal Mill was designed to make twist drill bits to drill the nipples of the contract M1861 rifle muskets being made by the Providence Tool Company. He seemed like a nice guy who knows absolutely nothing about machines or historical industrial process. I believe Brown did make the first universal mill, but not for that reason and I base that on the observation that it does't appear that anyone who has repeated this story has ever looked at a musket nipple. In fact, they are still available as "NOS" parts, so many were made during the Civil War. When I was younger they cost about $1... now they are $10 but they are still out there. If you wanted to shoot your CW rifle, it was cheaper to buy an original than a reproduction. I still have a few, unused.

The hole is VERY small and it is tapered from top to bottom. (Reproduction nipples have a hole that is not tapered or tapered in the opposite direction.) Did they make tapered twist drills? Also, that part had been made in huge quantity since at least 1842 for both the M1842 percussion muskets and the M1842 pistols as well as tens of thousands M1821 flint muskets that were converted to percussion, not to mention millions of much smaller nipples for revolvers and other civilian arms. I have recently examined a set of original armory-made gauges for inspecting contractor-made pistols, including the pieces that were used to check the size and the taper of the hole in the nipple. Why Providence Tool would need a completely new machine to make a part that was already being made in the millions by numerous suppliers is beyond me. They may have wanted a fast way to make twist drills for any number of reasons but I suspect this is a case of a partly true story, interpreted by someone who knew nothing about the specifics of gun making technology, repeated endlessly until it assumes the aura of truth.

When were tiny wire gage twist drills first offered?

Really really appreciate this post..

1. First, I think we're talking about drilling in the 1/16" range. Especially for Brown's sewing machine part of his operation. Larger twist drills in 1860 by none other than J Brown.

2. Pretty sure no small spiral fluted twist drills at 1860. Small drill bits made for long and accurate service, resemble more the design used for HBMs in the 2 to 3" range (gun drills). A spade tip included angle ~90 degrees, with 2 long straight flutes. I think this design is still used for very small drill bits used for accurate industrial applications.

3. If machining flutes for 1/16" dia twist drills, was Joe Brown's objective, then; his design was a vast overkill. A machine to do that job, could have been 100th the size of his "universal" miller. Joe Brown was never guilty of overkill in his life. OTH, how would you hand feed a divider for the larger sizes ? He already had a specialized machine for that, and on the market in 1860.

4. What applications did J. Brown have in mind, when he termed his creation a "universal" milling machine. In 1860 while he was designing his machine, the frame of reference for a milling machine, was a rotary file cutter, configured in a non-straight design, for replacing hand filing on thin sheets of metal used in the Civil War black-powder guns. Existing machines already in use for that application, were not in need of improvement, and in fact; using any type of milling cutter would be a step backwards.

5. Modern commentators usually include a dividing-head in the picture, implying that the dividing-head filled out the final requirement for the term "universal" by supplementing the 3 axis capability. This idea doesn't fly either, because his design uses the "X" axis for any proposed dividing-head work. In his first production run or some dozens of machines he was restricted to some type of "stub-arbor" cutting-tool arrangement, because there was no outboard arbor support in his early design. That means, if dividing-work was his intention, he needed some kind of very flimsy more than 6" long stub-arbor that can't be made to work even to at the present. (because the arbor has to be less than 1/2 the diameter of the cutter, and it needs to extend out more than 1/2 the width of the table.)

The mystery deepens,

Geo

99Panhard · Jul 2, 2017

I don't see much of a mystery.
VERY VERY few people commenting about subjects like this have even seen an early mill, much less run one or see one run. They include the dividing head because they were part of the original setup but more because the dividing head is in most, if not all, of the original illustrations they are using. A person who knows nothing about how they work cannot differentiate between the mill and the head... they probably think they are all one piece.

I spend a lot of time explaining to the authors of the books I edit that 99% of their readers have almost zero knowledge of the technical aspects of what they are talking about. ALL OF THEM (and I include myself) make the mistake of presuming too much knowledge on the part of the reader. Fortunately, I don't have to deal with the other type of author – the one who knows nothing but doesn't realize it.

Journalists will tell you that they can write authoritatively about any subject... that it is the writing that counts, not the technical knowledge. They can't, but are so ignorant of most subjects that neither their editors (if any are left) or their readers can tell.

Oh... and R.S. Lawrence, the "mechanic" behind Robbins & Lawrence (the factory the Precision Museum is in) developed the "profiler" by which I suspect he meant a milling machine that traced a master part. These so impressed Sir Joseph Whitworth when he visited in 1853 (I'm not sure of the exact year)that he cabled home for an increased appropriation to purchase as many machines as he could. The British government gave him a blank cheque.

G&L4nahalf · Jul 2, 2017

Trying to determine exactly what Joe B meant by "Universal"

As opposed to what he considered a "Plain" milling machine.
The following early B&S ad is of some help..

[SUB][/SUB]

But I didn't see on the example of his machine in the museum, any evidence for a table swivel on the "Y" axis saddle..

The mystery still deepens..

Geo

G&L4nahalf · Jul 2, 2017

Correction on the OP

JBoogie said:
Joseph Brown inventing the milling machine in 1861 is an alternative fact. Maybe you meant universal milling machine. Don't recall hearing it being inventing in Windsor though.

Thank you for the correction. Joe B did invent the "Universal" in Providence, R I. While writing the OP, I had my mind on the half-dozen claimants for being the FIRST milling-machine, or - an earlier version of a milling-machine than Joe Brown's.

Those claims are bogus, because they are just rotary-file machines, not designed for real milling work.

You and Panhard jolted me into reexamining claims for "first" and "earliest" milling-machines.

Thank you, George

Joe in NH · Jul 2, 2017

The green machine above is a universal mill - so called because the table can be swiveled - such as to do the helix of a twist drill flute.

Machine No. 1 which is in the Smithsonian is green - with brass gear covers at either end of the table. Ed Battison had ideas and these brass covers were his. The machine which currently resides at the APM is Ed Battison's No. 62 IIRC.

I have nearly the same Brown & Sharpe non-overam mill (Serial No. 1233 IIRC) which was made in the early 1880s (at that point Brown & Sharpe made both the earlier "non-overarm" version and an "improved" overarm version - the machines were nearly identical other than overarm.)

The swivel is not apparent on any of these and is only faintly graduated even on my later machine - but the swivel is made between the table slide (Green painted "scupper" tray type slide shown above) and the machined square immediately above it from which the table lateral makes its movement.

Ed Battison said that early B&S Universal Mills were almost always painted green - up to perhaps his number 62 or so - when the color du jour turned black. Ed thought there might even be a red painted mill made as the now lost No. 4 or 5.

Around this same No. 62 time Brown & Sharpe changed the mill somewhat changing how the table elevation is made - or at least attached to the foundation. Methinks early mills might have been wont to "break off" at the tang in which the elevating screw is run through - my later mill has the base casting extended all the way to the machine foot - which is inherently stronger.

Other changes for sake of usability were made. My dial plate on the front of the machine is larger, round rather than oval, and the markings more bold and dials larger in diameter.

Joe in NH

northernsinger · Jul 2, 2017

I'm grateful that the American Precision Museum was supportive of my efforts--unsuccessful--last winter to open a new museum of 19th century wood working machinery made in New England. The current director was a very significant positive resource and I will continue to think about this museum's aid to me, especially as my venture, though aborted now, might have another life again.

On the other hand--despite the value that I see in the Museum--I have never been completely satisfied with its efforts and, indeed, I am not always satisfied with its focus. What I see as its missteps have guided me significantly to try something else. Whether I can do this--or do this better than some others--remains to be seen.

The museum business is a hard one, and I understand that, so all must be applauded for their try at this, whether fully successful or not.

G&L4nahalf · Jul 3, 2017

Mystery Solved

Joe in NH said:
The green machine above is a universal mill - so called because the table can be swiveled - such as to do the helix of a twist drill flute.

Machine No. 1 which is in the Smithsonian is green - with brass gear covers at either end of the table. Ed Battison had ideas and these brass covers were his. The machine which currently resides at the APM is Ed Battison's No. 62 IIRC.

I have nearly the same Brown & Sharpe non-overam mill (Serial No. 1233 IIRC) which was made in the early 1880s (at that point Brown & Sharpe made both the earlier "non-overarm" version and an "improved" overarm version - the machines were nearly identical other than overarm.)

The swivel is not apparent on any of these and is only faintly graduated even on my later machine - but the swivel is made between the table slide (Green painted "scupper" tray type slide shown above) and the machined square immediately above it from which the table lateral makes its movement.

Ed Battison said that early B&S Universal Mills were almost always painted green - up to perhaps his number 62 or so - when the color du jour turned black. Ed thought there might even be a red painted mill made as the now lost No. 4 or 5.

Around this same No. 62 time Brown & Sharpe changed the mill somewhat changing how the table elevation is made - or at least attached to the foundation. Methinks early mills might have been wont to "break off" at the tang in which the elevating screw is run through - my later mill has the base casting extended all the way to the machine foot - which is inherently stronger.

Other changes for sake of usability were made. My dial plate on the front of the machine is larger, round rather than oval, and the markings more bold and dials larger in diameter.

Joe in NH

Hi Joe,

Great thanks for this, and my great congratulation to you, for acquiring one of the greatest and most significant machine tools of all time.. IMO..
The sheer beauty and elegance of execution from concept to market is imho, the top example from the 1800s.

It is a wondrous fact, that none of the concepts within J B's design, were ever discarded by following horizontal milling-machine makers of medium to heavy duty industrial class machines. For 100 years... Their improvements were simple : more beef, more speed, and bigger cuts..

My short list of J B's conceptual design. 1. A very robust column from the floor to the top of the pulley drive. This arrangement allowed maximum capacity for the height of the work-piece relative to the machine. 2. An extra robust knee carrying the mechanisms for the 3 axis movements. 3. A compact yet sturdy saddle for the "Y" axis. 4. A relatively long and narrow table, again, allowing maximum length for the work-piece; relative to the overall size of the machine.

This fact should give us the conclusion, that this machine is the genuine progenitor for America's industrial class milling-machines. Further confirmation comes from the fact that of the half-dozen earlier claimants put forward for some kind of recognition as contributing to the invention of the milling-machine... not one that I could see, ever had a concept adopted by following makers of milling-machines.

B&S number 1 is the Great G Grandfather of American milling-machines. J. Brown is the true inventor of the milling-machine in 1861.

[SIZE=+1]Joseph Rogers Brown (1810 - 1876) Brown & Sharpe

Joe, I invite corrections, differing opinions, or further comments from you..

Below, I've included a close-up of the swivel box assembly for the table swivel. How was the table unlocked, the angle of the table reset, and then, locked into place ?

I have been wondering, if Ed or you came across any OEM stub arbors ?
Below is a picture from Windsor [ 1850 Frederick Howe index milling-machine] showing a stub arbor about 6" long. I am extremely skeptical about it being OEM.

1850 Frederick Howe index milling-machine.jpg

all the best, George

[/SIZE]

Joe in NH · Jul 3, 2017

Below, I've included a close-up of the swivel box assembly for the table swivel. How was the table unlocked, the angle of the table reset, and then, locked into place ?

As you look at the "front" of the machine, the lateral traverse (manual) handle is on your left. Below this handle, actually on the underside of the lateral slide, is a 5/8" hex head bolt. The bolt is actually in the lower "scupper" piece, and the scupper is relieved a bit to allow access with a wrench to this 5/8" bolt head. Undoing this bolt a turn allows the entire lateral slide to be turned. The universal joints and sliders on the right side move to accommodate this movement.

My No. 1233 is currently not functional and set up. I have the complete countershaft (which has its own unique story.) In fact I have yet to really explore the contents of the machine storage/column now transferred to a box. ONe thing I have examined is apparently a set of change gears used with the dividing head. Actually TWO sets of gears - both nearly complete IIRC but one obviously a larger size than the other. Alas, no dividing head came with my mill, although I have a line I should check back on with someone who does have the correct head they would be willing to sell.

IIRC there was very limited tooling/arbors with the mill. A stub arbor does not come to mind - although given a lack of over-arm, one would think this the first line of machine tooling.

Anyway - I'm now back to a "flip-phone" which seems resistant to putting pictures on my computer. The smart phone did MUCH better both in picture quality and flexibility in use USB'ed to a PC.

I should get my 3 megapixel snapshop camera out and charged up - that actually works pretty well with the PC.

Joe in NH

G&L4nahalf · Jul 3, 2017

Brown&Sharpe's #1 milling-machine - where that road ended about 100 yrs later

[SUB][/SUB]As a follow up to the previous post discussing Brown&Sharpe's first milling-machine.

I'm including a list of 5 images which I believe to be illustrating the most popular heavy-duty industrial class of horizontal milling-machines from approximately 1960. These are from my own experience of being in a very lot of heavy manufacturing plants at that time, and a little later..

I've only used 3 machine-tool manufacturers, because that is what I saw. There may be others that should be included in the list.
All of these machines incorporate the design concepts of Joe Brown in 1861.

None of the machines are in the Windsor museum.

Milwaukee #5 from instruction manual.jpg

[#5 Milwaukee]
The most ubiquitous of all... The standard color was close to the instruction manual. Frills, fancies, bells and whistles and shineys were kept to the absolute minimum. But the machines were indestructible. I think the main buyers for these machines were hard-nosed purchasing agents from big companies, trying to shave off the very last dollar off the deal. Good machines to start a dumb kid on, and that is exactly what most places did.

[#5 Kearney & Trekker]
A dealer paint job. As I recall, OEM was medium gray (blue-gray?). Somehow, K&T had a better "feel" than the Milwukees.

Cincy milling-machine-machine-tools 2.jpg

Cincinnati #4 ?

A very very accurate and tight machine. Preferred by those places with a discernment for quality. OEM paint a shade of green.

[K&T vert] Cincinnati had a version very similar to the K&T, but I found the Cincinnati to be more rugged and simpler to operate. For those places who were told by their foremans - they absolutely must have at least one vertical - but when it was delivered, there was no work put on it. I know there had to be exceptions to my general observation, but I didn't see it. The reason I have included this very heavy duty vertical machine, is that B&S original concepts are still integral to the heavy-duty verticals.

The absolute ultimate development for the heavy-duty horizontal milling-machine. I don't think the vertical head was intended to be removed. It had the purpose of an auxiliary attachment, yet the robustness of in effect making the machine a hybrid; vertical and horizontal. This machine had to have had an outboard arbor support of some type, the illustration for how it was done, hopefully may be found in an old manual.

These machines are now from a bygone era, but in my youth, state-of-the-art. Did I really age that much ? I don't believe it..

Hope you all found some of this of interest, George

Andy FitzGibbon · Jul 4, 2017

G&L4nahalf said:
[SUB][/SUB]As a follow up to the previous post discussing Brown&Sharpe's first milling-machine.

I'm including a list of 5 images which I believe to be illustrating the most popular heavy-duty industrial class of horizontal milling-machines from approximately 1960. These are from my own experience of being in a very lot of heavy manufacturing plants at that time, and a little later..

I've only used 3 machine-tool manufacturers, because that is what I saw. There may be others that should be included in the list.
All of these machines incorporate the design concepts of Joe Brown in 1861.

None of the machines are in the Windsor museum.

View attachment 202605

[#5 Milwaukee]
The most ubiquitous of all... The standard color was close to the instruction manual. Frills, fancies, bells and whistles and shineys were kept to the absolute minimum. But the machines were indestructible. I think the main buyers for these machines were hard-nosed purchasing agents from big companies, trying to shave off the very last dollar off the deal. Good machines to start a dumb kid on, and that is exactly what most places did.

View attachment 202606

[#5 Kearney & Trekker]
A dealer paint job. As I recall, OEM was medium gray (blue-gray?). Somehow, K&T had a better "feel" than the Milwukees.

View attachment 202607 Cincinnati #4 ?

A very very accurate and tight machine. Preferred by those places with a discernment for quality. OEM paint a shade of green.

View attachment 202610
[K&T vert] Cincinnati had a version very similar to the K&T, but I found the Cincinnati to be more rugged and simpler to operate. For those places who were told by their foremans - they absolutely must have at least one vertical - but when it was delivered, there was no work put on it. I know there had to be exceptions to my general observation, but I didn't see it. The reason I have included this very heavy duty vertical machine, is that B&S original concepts are still integral to the heavy-duty verticals.

View attachment 202611

The absolute ultimate development for the heavy-duty horizontal milling-machine. I don't think the vertical head was intended to be removed. It had the purpose of an auxiliary attachment, yet the robustness of in effect making the machine a hybrid; vertical and horizontal. This machine had to have had an outboard arbor support of some type, the illustration for how it was done, hopefully may be found in an old manual.

These machines are now from a bygone era, but in my youth, state-of-the-art. Did I really age that much ? I don't believe it..

Hope you all found some of this of interest, George

"Milwaukee" was the name of Kearney & Trecker's milling machine line. They are not two different makes.

Andy

Paolo_MD · Jul 5, 2017

George,
Up to now I've been a quiet reader and I do not have neither the deep knowledge nor the time to assess the absolute trustworthiness of your statements. Let's say that they make a few eyebrows raising at the very least.
Revolutionary inventions, that is a radical departure from what existed before, instead of a series of clever improvements are extremely rare. I believe that the transition between rotary filer and milling machine belongs probably to the latter with contemporary evolution of machine and cutters. As with many other inventions, sometimes happen independently in various places when "the time is ripe for it", without any of the inventors being aware of the work of the others.

Could you explain your reasoning for asserting that Mr. Brown is the second greatest mathematician of the 19th century? As far as I know, between the second half of the 1700s and the beginning of the 1900s is the golden age of mathematics and geometry, with inventions like calculus, imaginary numbers, non-euclidean geometry, and much more.

This thread started rather well and promised to become a very interesting one. Probably, with a little bit of care about making only statements backed by facts and abstaining from politics etc., it could still continue to develop into a great thread.

Thanks!

Paolo

American Precision Museum - Windsor Vermont

Cast Iron

Cast Iron

Cast Iron

Cast Iron

Cast Iron

Stainless

Cast Iron

Diamond

Stainless

Cast Iron

Stainless

Cast Iron

Cast Iron

Diamond

Titanium

Cast Iron

Attachments

Diamond

Cast Iron

Diamond

Stainless

Similar threads