the first power tool

Page 4 of 8  
snipped-for-privacy@newsgroup.pls says...

British Patent 1152, issued in 1777
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/16/2015 8:30 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/16/2015 9:23 PM, Leon wrote:

A simple Google search...
British patent, No. 1152.
To SAMUEL MILLER, of Southampton,
Sail maker, &c., &c.
NOW KNOW YE, that, in compliance with the said proviso, I, the said Samuel Miller, do hereby declare that my said invention, of an entirely new machine for the more expeditiously sawing all kinds of wood, stone, and ivory, is described in the manner following (that is to say):—
The machine that gives the power, a horizontal windmill. The shaft of this mill stands vertical, with four levers fixed to it at right angles with the shaft, to which levers are fixed the sails. These sails when in motion are one-half of their time horizontal, the other vertical. The upright shaft being in motion, communicates its power to a horizontal shaft. This shaft hath a large wheel to it, round which goes a rope or chain, which is continued to a smaller; through the small wheel goes a square bar of iron, that receives the saws, which are a circular figure. Those saws being in motion, the matter or substance they are to cut is brought forward as follows:— The horizontal shaft, as mentioned before, hath a small wheel on it, with a groove to receive a rope; the rope is continued to a smaller, that hath a pinion to it, connected to a straight bar under the chariot, which hath teeth to match the pinion; the chariot moves in a groove likewise on a centre; it hath two motions. one to advance forward, and the other sideways, which is performed by a screw annexed to the end of the chariot. This screw is turned by hand to direct the pieces against the saws, agreeable to any line wanted to be cut.
In witness whereof, I, the said Samuel Miller, have hereunto set my hand and seal, this Fifth day of August, One thousand seven hundred and seventy-seven.
[Signed] “SAMUEL MILLER.” (L.S.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/16/2015 9:43 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:

I don't see circular blade any where, if this is the patent for a circular blade. Seems more a patent for saw mill machinery.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/16/2015 10:04 PM, Leon wrote:

[snip]

[snip]

Tried to help but it appears reading comprehension may not be your strong suit. What is? A contrary attitude or something else as others have suggested?
"that receives the saws, which are a circular figure," written in the stilted language (or legalese) of the times seems to suggest to everyone else a circular saw. What do YOU think it means? An early version of the Stryker saw with a half moon blade (but it could be called circular) that cuts by vibrating against solid resistance?
Try clicking on a few of these links and read them through. If you plan on being obstinate, the least you could do is do a bit of investigation on your own and read what's out there rather than just shaking your head "No!"
http://ronin-group.org/shop_circular_saw_history.html
http://www.woodworkinghistory.com/glossary_circular_saw.htm
http://www.yorksaw.com/blog/2009/12/history-of-the-circular-saw/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/17/2015 6:39 AM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:

No need to get uppity. I stated I was being anal and the key words that I was looking for. Did you see circular blade?
This could easily be describing a band saw which has a circular blade which is circular too.

and yet we have see several links describing the Quaker woman as being the first. You posting this, does this make you obstinate?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/17/2015 8:20 AM, Leon wrote:

Again, it goes to comprehension, I guess. Tabitha Babbit was born in 1784 and the first patent mentioned for circular saws was issued 1777. If she was able to invent the circular saw 7 years before she was born, why didn't she invent the multi-tool and SawStop while she was at it?
"There is an oft-quoted assertion that the circular saw blade was invented in 1813 by Shaker Sister Tabitha Babbitt (1784–1854). This is most often cited by Shaker “historians”, aficionados-of or workers-in that design idiom, or by other parties who are simply parroting the aforementioned mentioned sources. However, there is nothing in the historical record to document this claim, and considering the existence of the Miller patent some thirty-six years before, and various authoritative and credible sources on the history of woodworking technology describing systems in use more than a century before that, this claim is unsubstantiated and without basis in fact."
Your band saw comment is equally telling. The bandsaw was invented in 1808 by William Newberry, but it never really went anywhere until the French developed a metallic blade that could withstand the constant flexing ca 1860.
Maybe the circular blade you attribute to Samuel Miller's patent was a 50' coil of chain saw blade.
Ignorance can be cured, stupid is forever.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/17/2015 8:20 AM, Leon wrote: ...
...

Absolute nonsense. Where would the square iron bar onto which the saws are placed go for a bandsaw and where are the two supporting wheels that would be required mentioned? You are simply being an ...
Read for the meaning, not with a preconceived notion of having to have a particular word of modern usage in a document of nearly 250 years' age simply to try to make an argument.
...

And several explanations and clear demonstration that while she may have been an independent implementor, she was clearly _NOT_ first (excepting, in her local Amish community).
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

She wasn't Amish, she was a Shaker. Not at all the same.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/17/2015 4:07 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

OK, forgot which it was; Amish came out...Either way, she _still_ wasn't first!!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/17/2015 6:39 AM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:

Not only does it "suggest" it, it says it specifically and without equivocation. I was unaware of this patent previously; that's pretty kewl and thanks quoting it but as I was reading it I was struck with precisely the thought outlined in the link to it that notes that it "... is worded in such a way as to imply that the circular blades were commonplace by that time."
That implication would be my impression as well as that there were in all likelihood various forms and incarnations of saws with circular blades all over particularly western Europe/England far earlier than this that individuals had cobbled up on their own. I'd venture the very first circular cutting blade probably preceded even this by quite a long time and there may well have been something tried clear back in the Roman times or earlier we just haven't come across. Anybody checked all of Archimdes' sketches and/or da Vinci?
We tend to forget there were a lot of _very_ clever folk way back when...in some ways far more so than currently where the "average joe" has become so dependent upon technology available from vendors simply for the asking...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/17/2015 8:45 AM, dpb wrote:

understood almost any way you want it to. It very well could be the real deal but as you have point out maybe this was not the first. I'm not trying to be difficult, it's that there are other equally compelling sources that mention other people and times.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/17/2015 8:50 AM, Leon wrote: ...

This isn't "anal", it's move to the realm of just arguing for the sake of arguing. It can't be reasonably read to mean anything other than what it means; it's quite clearly written albeit in language of 250 yr ago or so, not in today's uni-syllable style. You're deliberately _mis_interpreting it.

Which, specifically, do you think more (or even equally) "compelling" that predate this and what (other than obstinacy) prevents acceptance of this at face value for what it clearly says?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/17/2015 9:47 AM, dpb wrote:

The same could be said of your interpretation. The 250 year old language could be the problem or maybe not.

Or this,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabitha_Babbitt
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/08/circular-saw-invented-shaker-woman/
or this which suggests others invented the blade
http://www.yorksaw.com/blog/2009/12/history-of-the-circular-saw/
or this http://www.ehow.com/facts_5057872_circular-saw-invented.html
http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/inventions/10-things-that-women-invented1.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, it's YOUR inability to understand the English language or a mental condition which you seem to have.

Well now, Leon you have moved from being anal to being a full fledged a**hole. You cannot be that dense. Even the "citations" you offer indicate that Tabitha was not the first, just that she appears to have come upon the principle/design independently.
Do you... Can you.. actually read anything and understand what it is you're reading? Try moving your lips as you mouth the words. That may help!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/17/2015 11:57 AM, Phantom Four wrote:

Piss Off!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/17/2015 10:04 AM, Leon wrote:

the most common searches point out the woman as the inventor. There are plenty of other references that dispute this. I don't argue this point. The references I added give "multiple" possible inventors of the circular blade which include her and the guy that has the British patent.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/17/2015 12:54 PM, Leon wrote: ...

Common searches are simply that--just because they exist doesn't mean they're of any real value. In this case since our Ms. Babbitt wasn't born until _after_ the date of the patent, that pretty conclusively demonstrates she wasn't first irrespective of what they may say.
Also I'll note that you disputed (and selectively and creatively made what appear to be deliberate efforts to obfuscate) the meaning of the patent as being what it clearly states it is simply, it appears, to keep an argument going.
Lastly, rather than as the "devil's advocate" role of providing a constructive interpretation in lieu of the obvious one related specifically to how, instead, it could reasonably be interpreted to have another meaning, you simply said "no" in other places than the aforementioned wrong interpretation.
If you were to care don that mantle and to make that detailed interpretation substantiated by references that indicate whatever terms you think in doubt are indeed misunderstood by us and do have some other than the meaning ascribed, I'd at least consider it (although I don't think there's any case whatever that can be made that it says anything other than the obvious).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/17/2015 1:38 PM, dpb wrote:

Just saying, there are references of others before the date of the patent too. Several years ago my father brought my the claim of the Quaker woman and that is the only one I have heard about until this thread. I'm just saying what makes a copy paste reference to a British Patent more authentic than references to an earlier time, perhaps long before patents even existed. Taylor's Mill going back to 1762 mentions circular saws but no patent was perused. Then there is mention of 1600's Ducth wind mills that drove saw blades instead of millstones.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/17/2015 2:17 PM, Leon wrote: ...

Don't know that _anybody_ in the entire claimed this was _the_ first; simply the first _known_ patent; who knows, there may be earlier of those as well yet to be discovered.
As for claims of whether it's bogus or not; if you want to refute it, it'll need more than "just saying".
--



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.