Our new toy...

I can't wait to try it out. The entire tower travels laterally on a rack and pinion set up by turning the cast knob. We should get it next week. According to the seller it is 3 times stiffer than a Miller's Falls.

Daiku let me know that he can't see the photo -- I can see it fine, but in case others can't, here is a link to the photo and another try at posting the photo .

Our new toy....

It is a thing of beauty. Do you have more details you can share with us? Maker, model, are there more for sale?

It is indeed a thing of beauty. I bet it was expensive in its day.

Here is a link to the dealer's write up...

Jim Bode Tools website
It was made by R. Ball and Co., Worcester, Mass. Patent date of July 7, 1868.

After just a little web research I have found that they made stationary wood working machines such as planers in the 1860-1880 time frame. Also made rifles in the last years of the War of Northern Aggression. Don't know much else.

I am always on the lookout for boring machines and have yet to see one like that, beautiful! It appears to be geared for higher speed and less torque. It might just be the picture but the driven miter gear looks to be smaller than the driver, any how it looks great let us know how well it works. I really like the idea of not getting off the timber to move the boring bit up or down the mortise.

IT'S BEAUTIFUL.

Your new boring machine looks GREAT!!!!! I want get one too!!!!
Enjoy trying it out!!!

nice piece...

almost like medical equipment.

It is always a pleasure to see a new type of machine. Thanks for posting the picture. Is the gear ratio 1:1?

Tim

That is not a new machine.... just one we haven't seen very often.....

Gabel –

That sure is something all right. I'd be torn, do I use this beautiful thing, or do I make sure it is preserved for oohs and aahs in the future.

You might have already done this, but I thought the link would fit the thread nicely -

http://www.google.com/patents?id=lGE_AAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=159164&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=0_1#PPA2,M1

And being that my great granfather (yup,only my Dads grandpappy) was born in '64 and was named Robert Lee and that I visited the Rebel Mount Rushmore with Whit, I will refrain from commenting on the allusion to a war of northern aggression.

Tim,

The seller says it is 1.5 to 1 gearing, so I bet we'll need finer threaded lead screws or arms like the incredible hulk for those 1.5 and 2" holes.

Jim,

Have you seen others like this? I wonder how many are out there?

No, I've never seen one like this, that's why I said you don't see them very often.

I have sat for many hours on a boring machine. My mind is never idle during those times, so I developed a depth stop for my two most used machines. Does this one have a depth stop? One of the other developments I ponder is a machine run off peddles so your legs do the work, it has become rather bulky, and not easily transported. The interesting item on your machine is the moveable head/base. I have thought of a cog that digs into the timber face and advances the machine to the next hole. This newly discovered machine solves that issue.

With a 1:1.5 ratio you may want to find a very fine threaded 2" bit and I now use a modern 1-1/2" bit instead of the older bits. They cut a nice clean hole and they have a coarse feed screw. You can always extent out the arms.

I am curious about its use or admiration, same as Will. Not to put you on the spot but what was the cost of this rig. A ball park figure will suffice.

Tim

Will, I wonder why we don't see more of these modified machines? Were they simply not needed? The machines I use are "simple" in comparison, not as many gizmos to mess with and the same job is completed. Timber framing as well, was winding down and this technology maybe just fell by the wayside. So, not many of these improved machines were manufactured. The step from a T-auger without a feed screw to the boring machine was a large step. What year was the chain morticer we know today put into production, 1980's?

Tim

That's very cool.

Well, we got the machine on Saturday and Whit and I tried it out boring some 2" holes in green SYP using a fairly aggressively threaded bit. The handles extend tremendously or else it would be pretty tough to turn with the 1.5 to 1 gearing. I think it took about 50 turns to get down just past 4". We will play with the thread count and handle extensions as we try to dial in the machine to be most efficient. I had to finish hanging a screen door at home, so it was a brief trial.


Tim and Will-- we will use it some, but not too often, I imagine. I have a Boss I am trying to get working that would likely be the main machine. As for the cost, it was about what you would pay for a clean Miller's Falls these days.

I think the reason you see more of the simple machines is that they were affordable and worked well. This particular machine is very well made, and I can imagine it must have been a bit pricey for the average house carpenter. But a Snell or Ajax or something like that would have been more affordable.

Good point about framing with timbers being on its way out as these machines were being developed. The market for boring machines probably started shrinking in the 1880's or so and I suppose tool makers didn't put money into improvements and innovations for a shrinking market.

Tim, I think chain morticers have been around a while in Europe. I saw an old metal-bodied Mafell that could have been from the 40's. I'm not sure about Makita's but I would guess pre 1980.

Tim -

I'm with Gabel, variations of electric driven portable mortisers have long been available in overseas markets. There was a market there, while there was none here, and those market forces still influence, what, is available from where today. Demand from our direction doesn't amount to much more than an irritation, which is why Ryobi (love my R-HCM's) and Hitachi (sold back my housing router when they bailed, – yup despite my deep disdain bodering on hatred for routers, the numerous daps demanded by common purlins meant the cost of labor won out over health concerns – The real threat of no parts decided it , despite how well designed – better than the Mak – powerful and shim-able it was) And I'm guessing, this is a big part of why the full line of Makita offerings is still not available here.

Gabel -

I am not convinced there was a falling demand and a failing market influencing new mortising technology as the 19th century came closer to its close.

As I stated in the other BM thread, many many variations continued to be patented through the last half of the century, the last I found was ' 99, and catalogs continued to offer them for sale into the 1920's. And yes, the first stick frames hereabouts date from the late 40's, but timber continued to be the material of choice in public buildings – town halls and churches - This, and a demand for barns and bridges - in a building boom (which did abate during two recessions) in an expanding America which happened to be blessed with a seemingly inexhaustible supply of an easily worked building material , continued to contribute to a sustained demand on into the 20th.

Fewer of the bells and whistles variants survive because fewer were sold, that aspect of human nature hasn't changed. Then as now, we buy just a smidge above our means (well, we can stretch our means a little more than those we follow) And the KISS principle might maybe have still been important to people as practical as carpenters tend to be, despite the propensity of people to accept every innovation as an improvement over yesterdays lot.

And I'm sure the many overly complicated variants might well have (told'ya about my machine so pristine) gone to scrap. While we might spend wonder over what in truth might be a poorly performing machine, no carpenter from the day was gonna wax romantic over something that didn't perform as advertised or needed, and then put it in the best'est and dry'est spot he knew to store stuff...

Here's a few more of the myriad of variations that were patented -

This is one of my favorite letters patent, not because it is recognizable to me, or in that it is a hollow chisel and a little ahead of its time, but because it speaks to adjustability, and the inventor is seemingly interested in ( could this be ) planes of reference, more than he is just slap it down on that imperfect surface and go. What were those planes of reference ? Judging by the wheres and whens I'm guessing this one never went into production and no physical example exists to try to cypher out the maybes. Another casualty of war ?


http://www.google.com/patents?id=CAJkAAA...ges&cad=0_1


As example of the what we know as outside the norm, here's another patent from ' 60 -

http://www.google.com/patents?id=4FhoAAAAEBAJ&dq=29920&jtp=1#PPA1,M1

Though, his actions ten years later suggest that first patent may have paid dividends, and though ten years time finds Mr Smith has now moved further west, his inventions certainly don't move towards the simpler -


http://www.google.com/patents?id=BgpYAAA...ges&cad=0_1

It is interesting how borders can limit technology. That will pass, soon. When I made my above statement I was just living in my little world and forgot the folks East and West of me.

We watched the movie, Flash of Genius, the other night. It pointed out the not so pleasent side of bussiness. Where the ideas come from and who owns them. I now have to go back and reread some of those links to see if they mention flash of genius moment.

Tim

wow, that's one sexy beast please post a vid of it in action when you get it

Will do. We'll be on site the next week and a half, but once we get back, that will be on the to-do list.

Gabel:

How'd this rig actually perform?

half my keyboard quit orking in the la t eek, but once i get it repaired i'll give an update.

Ok, I've got a whole keyboard to use.

So far, it looks better than it works. We have broken the mechanism that holds the head up and sheared the pin that holds the main drive gear on the shaft, but we had a new pin machined and haven't had time to mess around with it again.

Gable, I have sheared off my shear pin a number of times, it is the weak link. I now use a simple cedar shingle nail, I have not changed it for a number of frames. I am using the 1-1/2" bit more in tough wood, spruce specifically, and even pine, it is just easier. What size bit were you using and the wood?

Tim

inch and a half in oak.

The problem is that the shear pin is overly complicated and is part of the mechanism for engaging the withdrawal gear.

The pin is tapered on both ends and held in the shaft with a spring (didn't know that till it came out -- never saw it, just heard it.) We've got to figure out how it all worked and then get a new spring.

We were using it during a one day demonstration/workshop. We finished the day with the trusty Boss Double Eagle.