The point to all of the references that I have made is that 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.
Leon wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:
Well, if you're going to cite Wikipedia, how about this:
Note that it includes no less than 4 prior claims to the invention before Ms Babbitt, including the Portsmouth Dockyard I previously mentioned, and the Miller patent J. Clarke cited.
John
Spalted Walt wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Some ways up thread I did.
John
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).
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
That seems a reasonable statement. I seem to remember reading somewhere that her first version was powered by a treadle from a (yarn) spinning wheel.
I note that, by Electric Comet's original query, that means it was not a power tool by his definition.
John
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.
On 08/16/2015 9:56 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote: ...
Actually, our Mr. Miller describes a moving (XY axes_ table saw in his patent outlining the manner in which it was used...
"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."
Now, granted, he being a sailmaker (and other &c &c :) ) undoubtedly his version was more for beams and all for boatmaking and hence quite a lot larger than the typical furniture/cabinet maker's needs, it clearly was a tablesaw for the purpose of other than sawing logs lengthwise into lumber.
Exactly my point, now. There are multiple references to this claim. And the 1600's Dutch wind mills. Pick the one you want to believe. It really does not matter which you believe, history is not going to change and discrepancies can be found with all.
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".
On 08/17/2015 2:21 PM, Leon wrote: ...
That's a far cry from any previous posting claim, sorry.
But if you're going to claim there's something bogus, it needs more than just shouting to refute it...actual research and documentation is the only way to correct the record (which is what reputable historians and even collectors and amateurs at least attempt to do).
Well at least I will admit that there are other claims.
They can't all be true, And for that matter a record can be false and or incorrect. Not saying that this one is but only one of the claims would be correct in being the first to invent. And like you said, research would have to be done but even that would only be as accurate as the available documentation.
And I don't claim to be an expert, historian or amateur historian. It is just that there are multiple claims over the last 400 years and the one with the patent is not the earliest.
now which was first water or wind power i would guess water but it is only a guess
but i wonder what the first powered lathe was powered by water or wind or steam or did it just make the jump from spring pole to electric
i had it wrong as others pointed out the mill powered by water seems to be pretty old
now i wonder when wind mills were devised though
that is water powered
just like using the force of methane gas emanating from a cow to turn the blades of a windmill would still be wind powered you could even ignite and it would still be wind powered unless the cow goes too
now in the south pacific they use solar power during the day because there is plenty of sun but at night they had a problem so they use solar power pumps to pump water to elevation and at night they rely on water power to watch their favorite shows
but really it is gravity at work but we still call it water power
There were many woodworking shops located near rivers, streams. Most all the equipment was run by belts driven by a water wheel.
I would feel confident in saying that those shops existed before electricity was introduced.
Googled, and found this. Look at the second picture.
You might like this too.
Yes water power.
The stored water could have gotten there by a few different ways, rain, run off from a river, etc.
It does not really matter how the stored energy gets there, the energy that directly powers the tool is what drives the tool.
Electric Comet wrote in news:mqtffu$o75$4 @dont-email.me:
They do the reverse thing in Colorado - at night when electric demand is low, they use the excess electricity to pump water up to a lake way up in the mountains, and in the daytime when they need extra capacity, they let it flow back down thru generators.
John
She wasn't Amish, she was a Shaker. Not at all the same.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.