What is it? Set 344

[Bill]

1577--the "fulcrum" is massive and the ends are thin...it looks like it could have been used to lift something heavy off of the ground. It might work to fit drywall?

Bill

[Lobby Dosser]

You meant 1977? If so, what are the three screw holes for?

[Lobby Dosser]

1980 - Hodgsonia Nut Nutcracker

[Bill]

To make sure it doesn't slip away? If it were a foot-powered lift one side would probably be more foot-receptive. Still it appears designed to take advantage of leverage. Note lack of symmetry.

Bill

[Lobby Dosser]

Bill, you snipped out your bit about drywall. Makes all the difference.

[1577--the "fulcrum" is massive and the ends are thin...it looks like it could have been used to lift something heavy off of the ground. It might work to fit drywall?

Bill]

[Robert]

1975 Lock picking 1979 bullet

Robert

[Doug Miller]

Kinda reminds me of the story that ran in the Indianapolis paper some years ago about a local man who had joined the Army and had to endure a lot of razzing about his name and rank. He's of Italian ancestry; his name is pronounced as "orr-ih-FEE-chay"... but it's *spelled* "Orifice". And since he had just joined, his rank was, of course, Private. Private Orifice.

Good thing he didn't join the Navy.

[Doug Miller]

I'm sure it would work for that purpose, but its apparent age argues against that being the use it was designed for.

[J Burns]

1977: on the left, the plate has two screw holes. On the right, it has one. I think it was mounted so that the left fork extended past the edge of a counter, where it might be bumped.

How about a small, durable balance to weigh something like nails in one-pound increments? An attachment with a hanging pan would have gone on the left fork and an attachment with a counterweight would have gone on the right fork. A fork would keep the attachment from rotating and let it slide home to the predetermined distance from the fulcrum.

The right fork is closer to the fulcrum than the left fork, but that doesn't mean a weight attached to the right fork would be closer than a hook attached to the left fork.

[Sonny]

1977 - It's only 5-3/4" long, tapered prongs 1" long and 1" apart. The teeter-totter action (*Four seat teeter-totter for Lilliputians) is less than an inch. The chain latch suggestion seems to be the best, so for, IMO, but Rob hasn't verified that as correct. There are old latches, for large shutters, that have a single sided/arm lever mechanism, but not double pronged. Those shutter latches had 2 parts, one for the shutter and one on the window facing. I can't think of any other bifold closure (?) that would require that (1977) sort of mechanism (with another piece to go with it at each end), either. But it's obvious there is another part that plugs into or is caught/hooked onto those prongs. Whatever movement is there, is slight.... to assist in leveling/aligning 2 sides of something? I can't imagine the unit standing alone, with some small extensions (plug-ins) on each end, only, like a door knock missing the knocking parts.

1980 - Whatever it clamps, it can't be too tight. The top knob is made for hand tightening, at most, not cranking. I highly suspect it's for domestic use, only... guessing: maybe for holding some sort of bag/sack for hand sewing closed. *Chicken/turkey/goose guillotine!

Sonny

[J. Clarke]

But a "corporal lite" would be a Lance Corporal, and I don't think you wanna call one of them "shit" to his face.

[Rob H.]

It was photographed in an antique store, so it's just the price tag, they didn't know what it was for.

Tough set this week, the two mystery items are still unidentified, the rest of the answers can be seen here:

[J Burns]

If with an attachment in place, the load hung from a point between the tips of the tines, I measure 78mm from the fulcrum. The corresponding distance on my triple-beam balance is 64mm.

I see two limitations on accuracy: imprecision in distances from the fulcrum, and friction at the fulcrum. In some applications, a rugged fulcrum and the ability to remove protruding parts would matter more than accuracy.

Instead of a hardware store, how about a farm? In his feed house, my uncle had a spring scale to hang a bucket. I think it read to 60 pounds. Even if it had been accurate, it couldn't be read precisely. However, it was cheap, durable, and out of the way.

To measure feed within 5%, 1977 looks like an improvement on my uncle's spring scale: cheaper, smaller, more accurate, more reliable, more durable. If it measured as much as 60 pounds, I would expect an attachment to hold a small balance weight much farther from the fulcrum than the load.

[J Burns]

Whiskey!

Traditionally in England, the US gallon was a standard size for a wine barrel. The imperial gallon was a standard size for a beer barrel.

In the 19th Century, American saloons didn't have the wholesome atmosphere of pubs. Small, recyclable barrels may have been the most practical way to drink whiskey, wine, and possibly beer at home.

On a counter, 1980 would position a small barrel where a glass could be put under the spout. When the level was low, the barrel could be reclamped so it tilted down toward the tap.

The screw may be wooden for elegance. Wooden threads may have worn out frequently. That could be why the screw is so long. If threads wore or broke, you could use new threads by sawing an inch off the end.

[Doug Miller]

Sorry, not buying that. Among other things, the openings in the clamp jaws have *far* too tight a radius of curvature to have ever been intended to hold a barrrel. Further, the length of the screw clearly shows that the device is intended to accomodate either objects of vastly different sizes, or one object whose size or shape changes vastly as the tool is used. Your explanation below of the purpose of the long screw seems far-fetched, to put it charitably.

[Josepi]

Can you cite links to prove your opinion?

I didn't think so.

[J Burns]

Wooden threads don't hold up well on a push broom. That's why I think

1980 has a wooden screw for visual appeal. If I damaged a wooden screw, I couldn't make a new one, but I could saw the end off if it had length to spare.

The cutouts are about a third of the width of the frame opening. If the radius were half that width, that is, the same as a barrel that would completely fill the frame, the cutouts would form corners of about 40 degrees. From the photo, who can say for sure it's more than 40 degrees?

If the angle is more than 40 degrees, that means the cutouts are a little small for a barrel that would fill the frame. It's better for them to be too small than two big. If a cutout is too big for a barrel, the barrel will contact only the center of the cutout. The barrel could twist, allowing the bulge of the barrel to slip out. If the cutout is too small, the corners of the cutout will contact the barrel, preventing twisting.

Ebay has lots of small wine barrels with cradles. One barrel was made in 1947. They're still popular because even if you buy wine and liquor in bottles, keeping it in wood can improve it.

1980 may have two advantages over ordinary cradles. First, when the level got low, it would be easy to tilt the barrel by pulling the top of the frame forward and putting shims under the heels of the feet. Second, the clamp could hold a piece of cloth over the vent, keeping bugs out and protecting the flavor while allowing air to be sucked in as the beverage was drawn. With a cradle, you'd have to remember to replace the vent stopper.

Liquor barrels would have been less desirable after 1933 than before

1919. Pneumatic tires must have made the brittleness of bottles less of a problem than in the 19th Century, and returnable barrels would have had to be shipped farther. Bottles were probably cheaper and tougher than before.

[Rob H.]

Interesting theory, I'll pass it on the the person who sent the photo.

This makes a good segue to a previous item from a few weeks ago, the one that I had thought was a barrel stand, it was shot in a small museum but they didn't have the item identified. I sent them an email and here is their reply:

"It's a stand that was used to bundle rolls of wallpaper in preparation for shipping. A paper covering material (possibly cardboard) was placed in the form. Then printed rolls of wallpaper were placed on the covering and the covering was wrapped around the bundle. The leather straps were also wrapped around the bundle and tightened with the crank to compress the rolls. Then string or tape was wrapped around to secure the bundle, ready for shipping. The stand is open in the middle so string could be put around the package and then lifted out of the stand."

Here's a photo in case you forgot what it looks like:

a gold star is awarded to everyone who thought this was some type of bundler.

Rob

[dpb]

Rob H. wrote: ...

Yeah, but doubtful imo; just doesn't look like it would do the job (well) and many of the conjectures I don't think hold up at all.

I presume there's a slot in the legs that let the upper half rise up? I really don't know the precise function but I'm wagering the form follow the function very closely and doesn't include tipping it up w/ shims under the legs or sawing off the end of the threads on the press screw...

kewl, thanks for the update...

--

[Lobby Dosser]

Sure you could. Just use a die like you would for a bolt. I still have a bunch of sacrificial face plates I made from wood when I had a Nova lathe. Use a 1 & 1/8" tap to make them.