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
[Signed] “SAMUEL MILLER.” (L.S.)
Tried to help but it appears reading comprehension may not be your
strong suit. What is? A contrary attitude or something else as others
"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
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?
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.
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).
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...
And as I have stated, I am being anal. This can be read to be
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.
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
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?
The same could be said of your interpretation. The 250 year old
language could be the problem or maybe not.
or this which suggests others invented the blade
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
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.
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).
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
Then there is mention of 1600's Ducth wind mills that drove saw blades
instead of millstones.
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".
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.