the first power tool

On 8/18/2015 8:13 PM, krw wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:24:36 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 8/17/2015 9:11 PM, krw wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:03:26 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Electric Comet <[email protected]> wrote in news:mqtffu$o75$4
>>>> @dont-email.me:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> This makes no sense unless there is some other cheap source of energy
>>> that can't be easily throttled, nearby (like a nuke).
>>
>> I dunno. It seems unusual but...
>>
>> I don't think they have that much control over the hydroelectric
>> generation. They build a damn, water level rises and they harness the
>> flow to generate needed power. If their capacity exceeds their needs
>> and the needs of other areas or power companies tied into their
>> production, what can they do? Surely they can cut out the generators
>> and stop production and just let the water bypass the turbines. They
>> can't stop the water flow or it will cause flooding.
>
> SO where are they going to pump the water to?

I was thinking - and I think John McCoy (and perhaps another poster) -
of a different reservoir. It's not as if you were just standing there
pouring water back and forth into the same two glasses.

If you view the water as fuel to run the generator (turbines) or ???,
then by using the electricity generated which is in excess of that
currently needed (low demand period at night?) to pump fuel (water) to
that other reservoir which may not be filling by itself as quickly you
now have an expanded source of "fuel" with which to run a different
generator turbine or divert the water for irrigation purposes. Somewhat
analogous, I think, to a storage battery. Electric "fuel" is stored in
a cell, water "fuel" is stored in the reservoir.


>>
>> I liken the Colorado "solution" to a storage battery. They are charging
>> up a power source capable of providing, perhaps, additional
>> hydroelectric capacity during peak demand or, alternatively (as someone
>> mentioned), provide water for irrigation. Simple case (or maybe not so
>> simple logistically) of making the most of what they have?

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 17:28:49 -0700, Electric Comet
<[email protected]> wrote:

>i was doing some drilling with the drill press today and appreciated the fact
>that i just applied downward force to drill a big hole with a forstner bit and the
>motor did the rest
>
>compared to an attempt with a brace and bit recently i am very aware that
>a drill press is good
>
>but it got me thinking about the succession of power tools in a historical
>perspective
>
>i figure the saw was the first one to get some power behind it with those
>big lumber mills saws
>
>but what was next
>i think power drills must have been the next one
>
>power in this sense is not animal powered
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabitha_Babbitt

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> @swbelldotnet says...
>>
>> On 8/15/2015 7:13 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
>>> @swbelldotnet says...
>>>>
>>>> On 8/15/2015 2:30 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabitha_Babbitt
>>>>>> Circular saw was invented by a woman and used water power. 1813.
>>>>>
>>>>> A common claim, but not true. The Royal Navy had circular saws
>>>>> in the Portsmouth dockyards in the 1790s and contemporary texts
>>>>> don't describe them as a new invention. The Portsmouth dockyard
>>>>> had numerous tools powered by steam engine and belting by 1802,
>>>>> some of which have been preserved.
>>>>>
>>>>> The actual inventor of the circular saw seems to be lost to time.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>> There seems to be some confusion here. The woman invented the circular
>>>> blade design. I'm clueless who invented the circular saw.
>>>
>>> So if she did not invent the circular saw then what was the purpose of
>>> the circular blade design?
>>
>> The need was for a more efficient and durable design. The dual stroke
>> of the straight blades only cut in one direction. The return stroke was
>> a wasted motion as far as cutting was concerned. The circular blade
>> never has to reverse direction to continue the cycle.
>>
>> I'm sure you could envision how spinning the circular blade would not be
>> a stretch of the imagination.
>>
>> No all of this is with the assumption that we both agree that a circular
>> saw spins a circular blade.
>
> Are you being deliberately annoying or do you have something wrong with
> you?

I'm sorry if the answer is still too complicated for you to understand. I
tried to explain in the simplest way that I could when you asked what
seemed to be a simple question. Perhaps you did not understand the
question you asked. It's not really complicated.

Reread your question several times and my answer the same amount of
times. That might help.

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:24:36 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 8/17/2015 9:11 PM, krw wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:03:26 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Electric Comet <[email protected]> wrote in news:mqtffu$o75$4
>>> @dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> This makes no sense unless there is some other cheap source of energy
>> that can't be easily throttled, nearby (like a nuke).
>
>I dunno. It seems unusual but...
>
>I don't think they have that much control over the hydroelectric
>generation. They build a damn, water level rises and they harness the
>flow to generate needed power. If their capacity exceeds their needs
>and the needs of other areas or power companies tied into their
>production, what can they do? Surely they can cut out the generators
>and stop production and just let the water bypass the turbines. They
>can't stop the water flow or it will cause flooding.

SO where are they going to pump the water to?
>
>I liken the Colorado "solution" to a storage battery. They are charging
>up a power source capable of providing, perhaps, additional
>hydroelectric capacity during peak demand or, alternatively (as someone
>mentioned), provide water for irrigation. Simple case (or maybe not so
>simple logistically) of making the most of what they have?
>
>
>

On 8/17/2015 8:45 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 08/17/2015 6:39 AM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>> On 8/16/2015 10:04 PM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 8/16/2015 9:43 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>>>> On 8/16/2015 9:23 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>> British Patent 1152, issued in 1777
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A simple Google search...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> British patent, No. 1152.
>>>>
>>>> To SAMUEL MILLER, of Southampton,
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> 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.
>>
> ...
>
>> "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. ...
>
> 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.

On 8/18/2015 9:46 AM, John McCoy wrote:
> krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:qv45talkq7anukj0cerhgtd3m9hoi7t54l@
> 4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:03:26 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> This makes no sense unless there is some other cheap source of energy
>> that can't be easily throttled, nearby (like a nuke).
>
> It's generally the case with steam plants (coal fired, nuclear,
> whatever) that they can't be run efficiently at lower power
> outputs. So where possible, it makes sense to size the steam
> plant at, say 90% of maximum demand, run the steam plant at
> 100% capacity all the time, and save 10% at night so you can
> provide 110% capacity when demand is at maximum.

How would you suppose the 10% is stored, batteries?

On 8/18/2015 11:41 AM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 08/18/2015 08:21 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 8/18/2015 9:46 AM, John McCoy wrote:
>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:qv45talkq7anukj0cerhgtd3m9hoi7t54l@
>>> 4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:03:26 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> This makes no sense unless there is some other cheap source of energy
>>>> that can't be easily throttled, nearby (like a nuke).
>>>
>>> It's generally the case with steam plants (coal fired, nuclear,
>>> whatever) that they can't be run efficiently at lower power
>>> outputs. So where possible, it makes sense to size the steam
>>> plant at, say 90% of maximum demand, run the steam plant at
>>> 100% capacity all the time, and save 10% at night so you can
>>> provide 110% capacity when demand is at maximum.
>>
>> How would you suppose the 10% is stored, batteries?
>>
>>
>>
>>
> For solar, one method is salt - not table salt, but salt:
>
> <http://phys.org/news/2013-10-arizona-solar-hours-sun.html>
>
>
>

That is pretty cool, not photovoltaic. I missed the salt part.
I could see how rain during the night might hamper but there is probably
not much problem with that considering where it is located.

On 8/16/2015 1:40 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:40:56 -0500, Leon wrote:
>
>> May I suggest you kill file me so that I don't bother you any more and
>> visa versa?
>
> That was my solution, Leon. I think he gets his kicks from being
> annoying.
>


I give too much credit to everyone and am reluctant to kill file any one
fearing that they just might have something useful to say.

On 8/16/2015 8:24 AM, Leon wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
>> @swbelldotnet says...
>>>
>>> On 8/15/2015 7:13 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
>>>> @swbelldotnet says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/15/2015 2:30 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabitha_Babbitt
>>>>>>> Circular saw was invented by a woman and used water power. 1813.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A common claim, but not true. The Royal Navy had circular saws
>>>>>> in the Portsmouth dockyards in the 1790s and contemporary texts
>>>>>> don't describe them as a new invention. The Portsmouth dockyard
>>>>>> had numerous tools powered by steam engine and belting by 1802,
>>>>>> some of which have been preserved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The actual inventor of the circular saw seems to be lost to time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>>>
>>>>> There seems to be some confusion here. The woman invented the circular
>>>>> blade design. I'm clueless who invented the circular saw.
>>>>
>>>> So if she did not invent the circular saw then what was the purpose of
>>>> the circular blade design?
>>>
>>> The need was for a more efficient and durable design. The dual stroke
>>> of the straight blades only cut in one direction. The return stroke was
>>> a wasted motion as far as cutting was concerned. The circular blade
>>> never has to reverse direction to continue the cycle.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you could envision how spinning the circular blade would not be
>>> a stretch of the imagination.
>>>
>>> No all of this is with the assumption that we both agree that a circular
>>> saw spins a circular blade.
>>
>> Are you being deliberately annoying or do you have something wrong with
>> you?
>
> I'm sorry if the answer is still too complicated for you to understand. I
> tried to explain in the simplest way that I could when you asked what
> seemed to be a simple question. Perhaps you did not understand the
> question you asked. It's not really complicated.
>
> Reread your question several times and my answer the same amount of
> times. That might help.
>


So just to clarify, you asked,
So if she did not invent the circular saw then what was the purpose of
the circular blade design?

Consider this. A saw, any saw, a circular saw, will not cut with out a
blade. A blade is not a saw. A saw can be a saw with out a blade. So
if you were thinking that a circular blade is a circular saw, I can see
how you would be confused on the whole issue.

She came up with a better design blade, some one else came up with a way
to operate the blade, The machine/tool that operates that circular
blade would be called a saw, and or circular saw.

On 08/15/2015 07:12 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 8/15/2015 7:13 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
>> @swbelldotnet says...
>>>
>>> On 8/15/2015 2:30 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabitha_Babbitt
>>>>> Circular saw was invented by a woman and used water power. 1813.
>>>>
>>>> A common claim, but not true. The Royal Navy had circular saws
>>>> in the Portsmouth dockyards in the 1790s and contemporary texts
>>>> don't describe them as a new invention. The Portsmouth dockyard
>>>> had numerous tools powered by steam engine and belting by 1802,
>>>> some of which have been preserved.
>>>>
>>>> The actual inventor of the circular saw seems to be lost to time.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>> There seems to be some confusion here. The woman invented the circular
>>> blade design. I'm clueless who invented the circular saw.
>>
>> So if she did not invent the circular saw then what was the purpose of
>> the circular blade design?
>
> The need was for a more efficient and durable design. The dual stroke
> of the straight blades only cut in one direction. The return stroke was
> a wasted motion as far as cutting was concerned.

Ackshooley, the old two man crosscut saw I used cut on both strokes.
The teeth were symmetrical in both directions.

> The circular blade
> never has to reverse direction to continue the cycle.
>
> I'm sure you could envision how spinning the circular blade would not be
> a stretch of the imagination.
>
> No all of this is with the assumption that we both agree that a circular
> saw spins a circular blade.
>
>
>


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 08/17/2015 02:03 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> Electric Comet <[email protected]> wrote in news:mqtffu$o75$4
> @dont-email.me:
>
>> 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
>
> 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
>
Also at Grand Coulee. The water is used for irrigation, recreation and
power generation.

http://www.usbr.gov/pn/grandcoulee/pubs/powergeneration.pdf

--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 08/18/2015 08:21 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 8/18/2015 9:46 AM, John McCoy wrote:
>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:qv45talkq7anukj0cerhgtd3m9hoi7t54l@
>> 4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:03:26 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> This makes no sense unless there is some other cheap source of energy
>>> that can't be easily throttled, nearby (like a nuke).
>>
>> It's generally the case with steam plants (coal fired, nuclear,
>> whatever) that they can't be run efficiently at lower power
>> outputs. So where possible, it makes sense to size the steam
>> plant at, say 90% of maximum demand, run the steam plant at
>> 100% capacity all the time, and save 10% at night so you can
>> provide 110% capacity when demand is at maximum.
>
> How would you suppose the 10% is stored, batteries?
>
>
>
>
For solar, one method is salt - not table salt, but salt:

<http://phys.org/news/2013-10-arizona-solar-hours-sun.html>




--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 08/18/2015 11:22 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 8/18/2015 11:41 AM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>> On 08/18/2015 08:21 AM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 8/18/2015 9:46 AM, John McCoy wrote:
>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:qv45talkq7anukj0cerhgtd3m9hoi7t54l@
>>>> 4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:03:26 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> This makes no sense unless there is some other cheap source of energy
>>>>> that can't be easily throttled, nearby (like a nuke).
>>>>
>>>> It's generally the case with steam plants (coal fired, nuclear,
>>>> whatever) that they can't be run efficiently at lower power
>>>> outputs. So where possible, it makes sense to size the steam
>>>> plant at, say 90% of maximum demand, run the steam plant at
>>>> 100% capacity all the time, and save 10% at night so you can
>>>> provide 110% capacity when demand is at maximum.
>>>
>>> How would you suppose the 10% is stored, batteries?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> For solar, one method is salt - not table salt, but salt:
>>
>> <http://phys.org/news/2013-10-arizona-solar-hours-sun.html>
>>
>>
>>
>
> That is pretty cool, not photovoltaic. I missed the salt part.
> I could see how rain during the night might hamper but there is probably
> not much problem with that considering where it is located.
>
There's a link at the bottom of the page that gives more on the tanks of
"molten salt" at 700+ degrees...


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 8/17/2015 6:13 PM, Spalted Walt wrote:
Snip




> Perhaps the circular saw dates back much, MUCH further than has been
> discussed thus far?
> Exhibit 5:
> http://pages.citebite.com/u4c5p8n0e1eqg
>
> http://pages.citebite.com/l4d5t7o9i9rjh
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yxe1NwAazjY
>

Don't say that too loudly. Did you find a patent? LOL

On 8/16/2015 12:50 PM, krw wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 08:48:14 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 8/15/2015 6:42 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> There seems to be some confusion here. The woman invented the circular
>>>> blade design. I'm clueless who invented the circular saw.
>>>
>>> Well, I'll admit to being confused how you could have a circular
>>> saw without a circular blade...
>>
>> This circular argument needs to stop! ;)
>>
> I saw that coming.
>

Would that be a Saw Stop?

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:19:54 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> Unquestionably Confused <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> > I agree, but the OP's question was rather vague and the followup
>> > answers wandered all over the place as well.
>> >
>> > Just to throw some more sh*t in the game, the first time a human
>> > hooked an animal to any device that performed some sort of work on
>> > behalf of said human could probably be said to be a power tool driven
>> > by other than the user's hand power.
>>
>> OP specifically excluded tools using animal power (which
>> presumably also includes human power).
>>
>> There's a bit of a fuzzyness there, tho, if you consider
>> stored power. If an animal compresses a spring, or carries
>> water to an elevated tank, and that is then later used to
>> power a tool is it still animal powered?
>>
>> John
>
>Flashing on "The Windup Girl". If your date is powered by springs wound
>up by animals, then what?

Muskrat love?

On 8/18/2015 7:45 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> But unless I am missing something here, It does not matter how much
>> water is in the reservoir/lake because whatever water is there to begin
>> with is enough to operate the power plant at capacity.
>>
>> Unless the water goes to a different reservoir that does not naturally
>> refill itself to power the smaller generator.
>
> Ah, I see the problem.
>
> The site I'm familiar with, Cabin Creek in Colorado, is typical.
> There is one lake/reservoir above Georgetown, and another one
> about 800 vertical feet further up the mountain. They pump
> water from the lower one to the upper at night, and let it flow
> from the upper to the lower (thru the generator turbine) in
> the daytime.
>
> The upper reservoir does get a little water from snowmelt,
> but that's lagniappe. Mostly it's the same water being pumped
> up and down every day.
>
> John
>
Gotcha.

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:15:56 -0700, Electric Comet
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:36:51 +0000 (UTC)
>John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> There's a bit of a fuzzyness there, tho, if you consider
>> stored power. If an animal compresses a spring, or carries
>> water to an elevated tank, and that is then later used to
>> power a tool is it still animal powered?
>
>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

Pump storage is not unique to the South Pacific. It's not unheard of
in the US.

>but really it is gravity at work but we still call it water power
>
No, water power is really solar power.

On 8/15/2015 12:14 PM, knuttle wrote:
> On 8/15/2015 12:08 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 8/15/2015 6:32 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>> On 8/14/2015 8:28 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
>>>> i was doing some drilling with the drill press today and appreciated
>>>> the fact
>>>> that i just applied downward force to drill a big hole with a forstner
>>>> bit and the
>>>> motor did the rest
>>>>
>>>> compared to an attempt with a brace and bit recently i am very aware
>>>> that
>>>> a drill press is good
>>>>
>>>> but it got me thinking about the succession of power tools in a
>>>> historical
>>>> perspective
>>>>
>>>> i figure the saw was the first one to get some power behind it with
>>>> those
>>>> big lumber mills saws
>>>>
>>>> but what was next
>>>> i think power drills must have been the next one
>>>>
>>>> power in this sense is not animal powered
>>>>
>>>
>>> I suspect you are right about the first power tools being those used in
>>> sawmills. However I suspect that the reciprocating saw was used before
>>> the circular saw. A reciprocation saw could be connected to a water
>>> wheel and operated with a cam. The circular saw would need a complicated
>>> set of gears to make spin
>>
>> Yes, a "woman" invented the circular saw blade to solve the ills of the
>> straight blade saw.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Per the article there is a question of whether a woman invented the saw
> or told every one she did. Per the article it have been invented else
> where, but first publicized Tabitha ;-)

She invented the "blade design". But regardless what does location have
to do with whether it was a man or woman that came up with the idea? ;~)

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 17:28:49 -0700, Electric Comet <[email protected]>
wrote:

>i was doing some drilling with the drill press today and appreciated the fact
>that i just applied downward force to drill a big hole with a forstner bit and the
>motor did the rest
>
>compared to an attempt with a brace and bit recently i am very aware that
>a drill press is good
>
>but it got me thinking about the succession of power tools in a historical
>perspective
>
>i figure the saw was the first one to get some power behind it with those
>big lumber mills saws
>
>but what was next
>i think power drills must have been the next one
>
>power in this sense is not animal powered
>

History Of Power Tools - A History Documentary Film
45 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/embed/aqsM_6UQq68

HTH

On 8/16/2015 8:30 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:47:45 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Spalted Walt <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 21:06:06 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/15/2015 6:42 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>>>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There seems to be some confusion here. The woman invented the
>>>>>>> circular blade design. I'm clueless who invented the circular saw.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I'll admit to being confused how you could have a circular
>>>>>> saw without a circular blade...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure the machine to run the blade came a touch later. But for
>>>>> sure there was no circular saw before there was a circular blade. ;~)
>>>>
>>>> Your explanation is pretty much spot on acording to the History
>>>> Channel and Wood Magazine's Bill Krier.
>>>> "Her idea was adopted by shaker woodworkers"
>>>
>>> Spot on, but wrong. Tabitha Babbitt did not invent the
>>> circular saw, and did not invent the circular saw blade.
>>> It's a good story, but there's plenty of reference to
>>> circular saws long before Babbitt and the Shakers.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>> "plenty of reference" and yet you don't provide us with any?
>> Cite proof or it didn't happen ^@^
>
> British Patent 1152, issued in 1777
>
Care to provide the details to that patent?

On 8/15/2015 6:42 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> There seems to be some confusion here. The woman invented the circular
>> blade design. I'm clueless who invented the circular saw.
>
> Well, I'll admit to being confused how you could have a circular
> saw without a circular blade...
>
> John
>

I'm sure the machine to run the blade came a touch later. But for sure
there was no circular saw before there was a circular blade. ;~)

On 8/17/2015 8:20 AM, Leon wrote:

>> 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!"
>
> 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.

>
>
>>
>> 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/
>>
>>
>>
>

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On 8/14/2015 8:28 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
> > i was doing some drilling with the drill press today and appreciated the fact
> > that i just applied downward force to drill a big hole with a forstner bit and the
> > motor did the rest
> >
> > compared to an attempt with a brace and bit recently i am very aware that
> > a drill press is good
> >
> > but it got me thinking about the succession of power tools in a historical
> > perspective
> >
> > i figure the saw was the first one to get some power behind it with those
> > big lumber mills saws
> >
> > but what was next
> > i think power drills must have been the next one
> >
> > power in this sense is not animal powered
> >
>
> I suspect you are right about the first power tools being those used in
> sawmills. However I suspect that the reciprocating saw was used before
> the circular saw. A reciprocation saw could be connected to a water
> wheel and operated with a cam. The circular saw would need a complicated
> set of gears to make spin

Why would it need gears? Just turn the shaft with a belt.

> Before the Circular saw was used probably the most common type of saw
> was what was called a Pit saw. It was a cross cut saw, and was used on
> a on a platform pit arrangement. One person on the platform that other
> person in the pit and the log between them.
>
> On this line of thought another power tool may have been the water
> powered hammer mill.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> I'm finding it difficult, so far, to pin down the first tool driven by
> other than hand, but here's something relevant to what we commonly call
> power tools:
>
> In 1895, 16 years after Thomas Edison invented the incandescent electric
> lamp, the German engineering company C&E Fein combined the power of an
> electric motor with a manual drill to develop the world's very first
> power tool. (It was about 19 years later that Mr. Black and Mr. Decker
> teamed up to improve on this invention by making it lighter, more
> powerful and capable of being operated by a single DIYer<g>)
>
> (maybe that's why they are so expensive... A company that old, if it
> didn't properly fund its pension debt could have quite a bill coming due
> 120 years down the pike.<g>)

Interesting, but that's a very narrow definition of "power tool". Steam
locomotives are tools and the first of those went into service around
1804. And then there was John Henry and the steam drill . . .

I don't know when the first powered tool went into service, but the
Romans had a sawmill running around 300 AD.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 17:28:49 -0700, Electric Comet
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >i was doing some drilling with the drill press today and appreciated the fact
> >that i just applied downward force to drill a big hole with a forstner bit and the
> >motor did the rest
> >
> >compared to an attempt with a brace and bit recently i am very aware that
> >a drill press is good
> >
> >but it got me thinking about the succession of power tools in a historical
> >perspective
> >
> >i figure the saw was the first one to get some power behind it with those
> >big lumber mills saws
> >
> >but what was next
> >i think power drills must have been the next one
> >
> >power in this sense is not animal powered
> >
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabitha_Babbitt

She's associated with the circular saw, not the first power tool.

In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
>
> On 8/15/2015 6:32 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> > On 8/14/2015 8:28 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
> >> i was doing some drilling with the drill press today and appreciated
> >> the fact
> >> that i just applied downward force to drill a big hole with a forstner
> >> bit and the
> >> motor did the rest
> >>
> >> compared to an attempt with a brace and bit recently i am very aware that
> >> a drill press is good
> >>
> >> but it got me thinking about the succession of power tools in a
> >> historical
> >> perspective
> >>
> >> i figure the saw was the first one to get some power behind it with those
> >> big lumber mills saws
> >>
> >> but what was next
> >> i think power drills must have been the next one
> >>
> >> power in this sense is not animal powered
> >>
> >
> > I suspect you are right about the first power tools being those used in
> > sawmills. However I suspect that the reciprocating saw was used before
> > the circular saw. A reciprocation saw could be connected to a water
> > wheel and operated with a cam. The circular saw would need a complicated
> > set of gears to make spin
>
> Yes, a "woman" invented the circular saw blade to solve the ills of the
> straight blade saw.

I don't know why you put "woman" in quotes. Are you suggesting she was
a man in drag or something? However whether she invented it is
debatable--there are earlier references to circular saws, including some
that mention them in passing on patent applications, suggesting that
they were either well established at the time of the application or not
deemed sufficiently interesting to be worth patenting on their own.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On 8/15/2015 8:25 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 8/14/2015 8:28 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
> >>> i was doing some drilling with the drill press today and appreciated the fact
> >>> that i just applied downward force to drill a big hole with a forstner bit and the
> >>> motor did the rest
> >>>
> >>> compared to an attempt with a brace and bit recently i am very aware that
> >>> a drill press is good
> >>>
> >>> but it got me thinking about the succession of power tools in a historical
> >>> perspective
> >>>
> >>> i figure the saw was the first one to get some power behind it with those
> >>> big lumber mills saws
> >>>
> >>> but what was next
> >>> i think power drills must have been the next one
> >>>
> >>> power in this sense is not animal powered
> >>>
> >>
> >> I suspect you are right about the first power tools being those used in
> >> sawmills. However I suspect that the reciprocating saw was used before
> >> the circular saw. A reciprocation saw could be connected to a water
> >> wheel and operated with a cam. The circular saw would need a complicated
> >> set of gears to make spin
> >
> > Why would it need gears? Just turn the shaft with a belt.
> >
> >> Before the Circular saw was used probably the most common type of saw
> >> was what was called a Pit saw. It was a cross cut saw, and was used on
> >> a on a platform pit arrangement. One person on the platform that other
> >> person in the pit and the log between them.
> >>
> >> On this line of thought another power tool may have been the water
> >> powered hammer mill.
> >
> >
> While the saw could be fixed on the water wheel Depending on the ratio
> between the diameter of the water wheel and the saw diameter, it would
> turn relatively slow. The gears would be used to increase the speed of
> the saw blade.

What part of "belt drive" are you having trouble with?

In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
>
> On 8/15/2015 12:16 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> > @swbelldotnet says...
> >>
> >> On 8/15/2015 6:32 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> >>> On 8/14/2015 8:28 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
> >>>> i was doing some drilling with the drill press today and appreciated
> >>>> the fact
> >>>> that i just applied downward force to drill a big hole with a forstner
> >>>> bit and the
> >>>> motor did the rest
> >>>>
> >>>> compared to an attempt with a brace and bit recently i am very aware that
> >>>> a drill press is good
> >>>>
> >>>> but it got me thinking about the succession of power tools in a
> >>>> historical
> >>>> perspective
> >>>>
> >>>> i figure the saw was the first one to get some power behind it with those
> >>>> big lumber mills saws
> >>>>
> >>>> but what was next
> >>>> i think power drills must have been the next one
> >>>>
> >>>> power in this sense is not animal powered
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I suspect you are right about the first power tools being those used in
> >>> sawmills. However I suspect that the reciprocating saw was used before
> >>> the circular saw. A reciprocation saw could be connected to a water
> >>> wheel and operated with a cam. The circular saw would need a complicated
> >>> set of gears to make spin
> >>
> >> Yes, a "woman" invented the circular saw blade to solve the ills of the
> >> straight blade saw.
> >
> > I don't know why you put "woman" in quotes. Are you suggesting she was
> > a man in drag or something?
>
> Is there something "you" want to share with us? Are you suggesting that
> you are a man in drag or visa versa?
>
> I was simply pointing out the recognition of a woman's contribution.

In that case you should have used _underlining_ or *bold*.

In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
>
> On 8/15/2015 2:30 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> > Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
> > news:[email protected]:
> >
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabitha_Babbitt
> >> Circular saw was invented by a woman and used water power. 1813.
> >
> > A common claim, but not true. The Royal Navy had circular saws
> > in the Portsmouth dockyards in the 1790s and contemporary texts
> > don't describe them as a new invention. The Portsmouth dockyard
> > had numerous tools powered by steam engine and belting by 1802,
> > some of which have been preserved.
> >
> > The actual inventor of the circular saw seems to be lost to time.
> >
> > John
> >
> There seems to be some confusion here. The woman invented the circular
> blade design. I'm clueless who invented the circular saw.

So if she did not invent the circular saw then what was the purpose of
the circular blade design? Were the Shakers playing high-stakes Frisbee
or something?

In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
>
> On 8/15/2015 7:13 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> > @swbelldotnet says...
> >>
> >> On 8/15/2015 2:30 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> >>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>> news:[email protected]:
> >>>
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabitha_Babbitt
> >>>> Circular saw was invented by a woman and used water power. 1813.
> >>>
> >>> A common claim, but not true. The Royal Navy had circular saws
> >>> in the Portsmouth dockyards in the 1790s and contemporary texts
> >>> don't describe them as a new invention. The Portsmouth dockyard
> >>> had numerous tools powered by steam engine and belting by 1802,
> >>> some of which have been preserved.
> >>>
> >>> The actual inventor of the circular saw seems to be lost to time.
> >>>
> >>> John
> >>>
> >> There seems to be some confusion here. The woman invented the circular
> >> blade design. I'm clueless who invented the circular saw.
> >
> > So if she did not invent the circular saw then what was the purpose of
> > the circular blade design?
>
> The need was for a more efficient and durable design. The dual stroke
> of the straight blades only cut in one direction. The return stroke was
> a wasted motion as far as cutting was concerned. The circular blade
> never has to reverse direction to continue the cycle.
>
> I'm sure you could envision how spinning the circular blade would not be
> a stretch of the imagination.
>
> No all of this is with the assumption that we both agree that a circular
> saw spins a circular blade.

Are you being deliberately annoying or do you have something wrong with
you?

In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
>
> On 8/16/2015 8:24 AM, Leon wrote:
> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> >> @swbelldotnet says...
> >>>
> >>> On 8/15/2015 7:13 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> >>>> @swbelldotnet says...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 8/15/2015 2:30 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> >>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>>>>> news:[email protected]:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabitha_Babbitt
> >>>>>>> Circular saw was invented by a woman and used water power. 1813.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A common claim, but not true. The Royal Navy had circular saws
> >>>>>> in the Portsmouth dockyards in the 1790s and contemporary texts
> >>>>>> don't describe them as a new invention. The Portsmouth dockyard
> >>>>>> had numerous tools powered by steam engine and belting by 1802,
> >>>>>> some of which have been preserved.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The actual inventor of the circular saw seems to be lost to time.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> John
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> There seems to be some confusion here. The woman invented the circular
> >>>>> blade design. I'm clueless who invented the circular saw.
> >>>>
> >>>> So if she did not invent the circular saw then what was the purpose of
> >>>> the circular blade design?
> >>>
> >>> The need was for a more efficient and durable design. The dual stroke
> >>> of the straight blades only cut in one direction. The return stroke was
> >>> a wasted motion as far as cutting was concerned. The circular blade
> >>> never has to reverse direction to continue the cycle.
> >>>
> >>> I'm sure you could envision how spinning the circular blade would not be
> >>> a stretch of the imagination.
> >>>
> >>> No all of this is with the assumption that we both agree that a circular
> >>> saw spins a circular blade.
> >>
> >> Are you being deliberately annoying or do you have something wrong with
> >> you?
> >
> > I'm sorry if the answer is still too complicated for you to understand. I
> > tried to explain in the simplest way that I could when you asked what
> > seemed to be a simple question. Perhaps you did not understand the
> > question you asked. It's not really complicated.
> >
> > Reread your question several times and my answer the same amount of
> > times. That might help.
> >
>
>
> So just to clarify, you asked,
> So if she did not invent the circular saw then what was the purpose of
> the circular blade design?
>
> Consider this. A saw, any saw, a circular saw, will not cut with out a
> blade. A blade is not a saw. A saw can be a saw with out a blade. So
> if you were thinking that a circular blade is a circular saw, I can see
> how you would be confused on the whole issue.
>
> She came up with a better design blade, some one else came up with a way
> to operate the blade, The machine/tool that operates that circular
> blade would be called a saw, and or circular saw.

I'm sorry, but you're babbling incoherently. You've been doing enough
of that lately to make me worry for your health. Please get a checkup
and be sure to inform the physician that others tell you that you babble
incoherently at times.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On 8/15/2015 12:09 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> > says...
> >>
> >> I'm finding it difficult, so far, to pin down the first tool driven by
> >> other than hand, but here's something relevant to what we commonly call
> >> power tools:
> >
> [snip]
> >> (maybe that's why they are so expensive... A company that old, if it
> >> didn't properly fund its pension debt could have quite a bill coming due
> >> 120 years down the pike.<g>)
> >
> > Interesting, but that's a very narrow definition of "power tool". Steam
> > locomotives are tools and the first of those went into service around
> > 1804. And then there was John Henry and the steam drill . . .
> >
> > I don't know when the first powered tool went into service, but the
> > Romans had a sawmill running around 300 AD.
>
> I agree, but the OP's question was rather vague and the followup answers
> wandered all over the place as well.
>
> Just to throw some more sh*t in the game, the first time a human hooked
> an animal to any device that performed some sort of work on behalf of
> said human could probably be said to be a power tool driven by other
> than the user's hand power.
>
> When were the Pyramids built? Inca temples? Surely if a system of
> ropes and pulley or levers were employed they would be classed as tools.
> Add one animal to the equation and we're talking power tool in the
> context of the OP's question<g>

Yep. Perhaps the ox-drawn plow was the first "power tool" by that
definition, around 3000 BC.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Unquestionably Confused <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > I agree, but the OP's question was rather vague and the followup
> > answers wandered all over the place as well.
> >
> > Just to throw some more sh*t in the game, the first time a human
> > hooked an animal to any device that performed some sort of work on
> > behalf of said human could probably be said to be a power tool driven
> > by other than the user's hand power.
>
> OP specifically excluded tools using animal power (which
> presumably also includes human power).
>
> There's a bit of a fuzzyness there, tho, if you consider
> stored power. If an animal compresses a spring, or carries
> water to an elevated tank, and that is then later used to
> power a tool is it still animal powered?
>
> John

Flashing on "The Windup Girl". If your date is powered by springs wound
up by animals, then what?

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:40:56 -0500, Leon wrote:
>
> > May I suggest you kill file me so that I don't bother you any more and
> > visa versa?
>
> That was my solution, Leon. I think he gets his kicks from being
> annoying.

Thanks for telling me. <plonk>

In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
>
> On 8/16/2015 1:40 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:40:56 -0500, Leon wrote:
> >
> >> May I suggest you kill file me so that I don't bother you any more and
> >> visa versa?
> >
> > That was my solution, Leon. I think he gets his kicks from being
> > annoying.
> >
>
>
> I give too much credit to everyone and am reluctant to kill file any one
> fearing that they just might have something useful to say.

Which is why I have not killfiled you yet.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:47:45 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Spalted Walt <[email protected]> wrote in
> >news:[email protected]:
> >
> >> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 21:06:06 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 8/15/2015 6:42 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> >>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> >>>> news:[email protected]:
> >>>>
> >>>>> There seems to be some confusion here. The woman invented the
> >>>>> circular blade design. I'm clueless who invented the circular saw.
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, I'll admit to being confused how you could have a circular
> >>>> saw without a circular blade...
> >>>>
> >>>> John
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>I'm sure the machine to run the blade came a touch later. But for
> >>>sure there was no circular saw before there was a circular blade. ;~)
> >>
> >> Your explanation is pretty much spot on acording to the History
> >> Channel and Wood Magazine's Bill Krier.
> >> "Her idea was adopted by shaker woodworkers"
> >
> >Spot on, but wrong. Tabitha Babbitt did not invent the
> >circular saw, and did not invent the circular saw blade.
> >It's a good story, but there's plenty of reference to
> >circular saws long before Babbitt and the Shakers.
> >
> >John
>
> "plenty of reference" and yet you don't provide us with any?
> Cite proof or it didn't happen ^@^

British Patent 1152, issued in 1777

In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
>
> On 8/16/2015 8:30 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:47:45 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Spalted Walt <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>> news:[email protected]:
> >>>
> >>>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 21:06:06 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 8/15/2015 6:42 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> >>>>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> >>>>>> news:[email protected]:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There seems to be some confusion here. The woman invented the
> >>>>>>> circular blade design. I'm clueless who invented the circular saw.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Well, I'll admit to being confused how you could have a circular
> >>>>>> saw without a circular blade...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> John
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm sure the machine to run the blade came a touch later. But for
> >>>>> sure there was no circular saw before there was a circular blade. ;~)
> >>>>
> >>>> Your explanation is pretty much spot on acording to the History
> >>>> Channel and Wood Magazine's Bill Krier.
> >>>> "Her idea was adopted by shaker woodworkers"
> >>>
> >>> Spot on, but wrong. Tabitha Babbitt did not invent the
> >>> circular saw, and did not invent the circular saw blade.
> >>> It's a good story, but there's plenty of reference to
> >>> circular saws long before Babbitt and the Shakers.
> >>>
> >>> John
> >>
> >> "plenty of reference" and yet you don't provide us with any?
> >> Cite proof or it didn't happen ^@^
> >
> > British Patent 1152, issued in 1777
> >
> Care to provide the details to that patent?

What, google is broken?

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On 08/17/2015 8:20 AM, Leon 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.
>
> 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 yet we have see several links describing the Quaker woman as being
> > the first. ...
>
> 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).

She wasn't Amish, she was a Shaker. Not at all the same.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:24:36 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On 8/17/2015 9:11 PM, krw wrote:
> >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:03:26 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Electric Comet <[email protected]> wrote in news:mqtffu$o75$4
> >>> @dont-email.me:
> >>>
> >>>> 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
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> This makes no sense unless there is some other cheap source of energy
> >> that can't be easily throttled, nearby (like a nuke).
> >
> >I dunno. It seems unusual but...
> >
> >I don't think they have that much control over the hydroelectric
> >generation. They build a damn, water level rises and they harness the
> >flow to generate needed power. If their capacity exceeds their needs
> >and the needs of other areas or power companies tied into their
> >production, what can they do? Surely they can cut out the generators
> >and stop production and just let the water bypass the turbines. They
> >can't stop the water flow or it will cause flooding.
>
> SO where are they going to pump the water to?

Some convenient natural or man-made feature that is above the surface
level of the reservoir that feeds the main dam.
> >
> >I liken the Colorado "solution" to a storage battery. They are charging
> >up a power source capable of providing, perhaps, additional
> >hydroelectric capacity during peak demand or, alternatively (as someone
> >mentioned), provide water for irrigation. Simple case (or maybe not so
> >simple logistically) of making the most of what they have?
> >
> >
> >

On 8/16/2015 10:04 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 8/16/2015 9:43 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>> On 8/16/2015 9:23 PM, Leon wrote:
>>> British Patent 1152, issued in 1777
>>
>>
>> A simple Google search...
>>
>>
>>
>> British patent, No. 1152.
>>
>> To SAMUEL MILLER, of Southampton,

[snip]

>> 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.

[snip]

> 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.

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/

On 8/17/2015 3:15 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:36:51 +0000 (UTC)
> John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> There's a bit of a fuzzyness there, tho, if you consider
>> stored power. If an animal compresses a spring, or carries
>> water to an elevated tank, and that is then later used to
>> power a tool is it still animal powered?
>
> that is water powered

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.

On 8/18/2015 10:52 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
> On 8/18/2015 8:13 PM, krw wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:24:36 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/17/2015 9:11 PM, krw wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:03:26 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Electric Comet <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:mqtffu$o75$4
>>>>> @dont-email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> This makes no sense unless there is some other cheap source of energy
>>>> that can't be easily throttled, nearby (like a nuke).
>>>
>>> I dunno. It seems unusual but...
>>>
>>> I don't think they have that much control over the hydroelectric
>>> generation. They build a damn, water level rises and they harness the
>>> flow to generate needed power. If their capacity exceeds their needs
>>> and the needs of other areas or power companies tied into their
>>> production, what can they do? Surely they can cut out the generators
>>> and stop production and just let the water bypass the turbines. They
>>> can't stop the water flow or it will cause flooding.
>>
>> SO where are they going to pump the water to?
>
> I was thinking - and I think John McCoy (and perhaps another poster) -
> of a different reservoir. It's not as if you were just standing there
> pouring water back and forth into the same two glasses.
>
> If you view the water as fuel to run the generator (turbines) or ???,
> then by using the electricity generated which is in excess of that
> currently needed (low demand period at night?) to pump fuel (water) to
> that other reservoir which may not be filling by itself as quickly you
> now have an expanded source of "fuel" with which to run a different
> generator turbine or divert the water for irrigation purposes. Somewhat
> analogous, I think, to a storage battery. Electric "fuel" is stored in
> a cell, water "fuel" is stored in the reservoir.
>
>
>>>
>>> I liken the Colorado "solution" to a storage battery. They are charging
>>> up a power source capable of providing, perhaps, additional
>>> hydroelectric capacity during peak demand or, alternatively (as someone
>>> mentioned), provide water for irrigation. Simple case (or maybe not so
>>> simple logistically) of making the most of what they have?
>
>
Jumping in this very late in the thread,
Just came back from Alaska 2 weeks ago. I thought they had a great use
of water. Alaska is a rain forest in many areas (not all).
They would run a pipe down from the high lakes only about 10-12" pipes
and be able to power many homes from the force of the water in that
small pipe. I imagine had a very good impeller design too. Very efficient.


--
Jeff

On 8/15/2015 9:47 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 08/15/2015 07:12 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 8/15/2015 7:13 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
>>> @swbelldotnet says...
>>>>
>>>> On 8/15/2015 2:30 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabitha_Babbitt
>>>>>> Circular saw was invented by a woman and used water power. 1813.
>>>>>
>>>>> A common claim, but not true. The Royal Navy had circular saws
>>>>> in the Portsmouth dockyards in the 1790s and contemporary texts
>>>>> don't describe them as a new invention. The Portsmouth dockyard
>>>>> had numerous tools powered by steam engine and belting by 1802,
>>>>> some of which have been preserved.
>>>>>
>>>>> The actual inventor of the circular saw seems to be lost to time.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>> There seems to be some confusion here. The woman invented the circular
>>>> blade design. I'm clueless who invented the circular saw.
>>>
>>> So if she did not invent the circular saw then what was the purpose of
>>> the circular blade design?
>>
>> The need was for a more efficient and durable design. The dual stroke
>> of the straight blades only cut in one direction. The return stroke was
>> a wasted motion as far as cutting was concerned.
>
> Ackshooley, the old two man crosscut saw I used cut on both strokes. The
> teeth were symmetrical in both directions.

Yeah,,, but were you around in the early 1800's when the circular blade
was invented to replace the single stroke in the saw mill? LOL



>
>> The circular blade
>> never has to reverse direction to continue the cycle.
>>
>> I'm sure you could envision how spinning the circular blade would not be
>> a stretch of the imagination.
>>
>> No all of this is with the assumption that we both agree that a circular
>> saw spins a circular blade.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

On 8/16/2015 9:26 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> @swbelldotnet says...
>>
>> On 8/16/2015 8:24 AM, Leon wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
>>>> @swbelldotnet says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/15/2015 7:13 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
>>>>>> @swbelldotnet says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/15/2015 2:30 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabitha_Babbitt
>>>>>>>>> Circular saw was invented by a woman and used water power. 1813.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A common claim, but not true. The Royal Navy had circular saws
>>>>>>>> in the Portsmouth dockyards in the 1790s and contemporary texts
>>>>>>>> don't describe them as a new invention. The Portsmouth dockyard
>>>>>>>> had numerous tools powered by steam engine and belting by 1802,
>>>>>>>> some of which have been preserved.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The actual inventor of the circular saw seems to be lost to time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There seems to be some confusion here. The woman invented the circular
>>>>>>> blade design. I'm clueless who invented the circular saw.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if she did not invent the circular saw then what was the purpose of
>>>>>> the circular blade design?
>>>>>
>>>>> The need was for a more efficient and durable design. The dual stroke
>>>>> of the straight blades only cut in one direction. The return stroke was
>>>>> a wasted motion as far as cutting was concerned. The circular blade
>>>>> never has to reverse direction to continue the cycle.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure you could envision how spinning the circular blade would not be
>>>>> a stretch of the imagination.
>>>>>
>>>>> No all of this is with the assumption that we both agree that a circular
>>>>> saw spins a circular blade.
>>>>
>>>> Are you being deliberately annoying or do you have something wrong with
>>>> you?
>>>
>>> I'm sorry if the answer is still too complicated for you to understand. I
>>> tried to explain in the simplest way that I could when you asked what
>>> seemed to be a simple question. Perhaps you did not understand the
>>> question you asked. It's not really complicated.
>>>
>>> Reread your question several times and my answer the same amount of
>>> times. That might help.
>>>
>>
>>
>> So just to clarify, you asked,
>> So if she did not invent the circular saw then what was the purpose of
>> the circular blade design?
>>
>> Consider this. A saw, any saw, a circular saw, will not cut with out a
>> blade. A blade is not a saw. A saw can be a saw with out a blade. So
>> if you were thinking that a circular blade is a circular saw, I can see
>> how you would be confused on the whole issue.
>>
>> She came up with a better design blade, some one else came up with a way
>> to operate the blade, The machine/tool that operates that circular
>> blade would be called a saw, and or circular saw.
>
> I'm sorry, but you're babbling incoherently. You've been doing enough
> of that lately to make me worry for your health. Please get a checkup
> and be sure to inform the physician that others tell you that you babble
> incoherently at times.
>


Wow grade school responses.... I have mentioned this to another here,
I'll mention it again to you. You asked a question. I gave you an
answer, a stupid simple answer, an answer you should have respond with
DOH! Why did I not think of that. Forrest, trees. Instead you show
your true colors again.
May I suggest yo kill file me so that I don't bother you any more and
visa versa? I certainly have never seen any benefit from anything from
your comments. And you seem to be in the wrong news group since yo
never build anything.

On 8/18/2015 5:24 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 08/18/2015 11:22 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 8/18/2015 11:41 AM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>> On 08/18/2015 08:21 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>> On 8/18/2015 9:46 AM, John McCoy wrote:
>>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:qv45talkq7anukj0cerhgtd3m9hoi7t54l@
>>>>> 4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:03:26 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This makes no sense unless there is some other cheap source of energy
>>>>>> that can't be easily throttled, nearby (like a nuke).
>>>>>
>>>>> It's generally the case with steam plants (coal fired, nuclear,
>>>>> whatever) that they can't be run efficiently at lower power
>>>>> outputs. So where possible, it makes sense to size the steam
>>>>> plant at, say 90% of maximum demand, run the steam plant at
>>>>> 100% capacity all the time, and save 10% at night so you can
>>>>> provide 110% capacity when demand is at maximum.
>>>>
>>>> How would you suppose the 10% is stored, batteries?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> For solar, one method is salt - not table salt, but salt:
>>>
>>> <http://phys.org/news/2013-10-arizona-solar-hours-sun.html>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That is pretty cool, not photovoltaic. I missed the salt part.
>> I could see how rain during the night might hamper but there is probably
>> not much problem with that considering where it is located.
>>
> There's a link at the bottom of the page that gives more on the tanks of
> "molten salt" at 700+ degrees...
>
>

Gotcha thanks

On 8/17/2015 1:30 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Or this,
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabitha_Babbitt
>
> Well, if you're going to cite Wikipedia, how about this:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_saw#History
>
> 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
>

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 8/17/2015 9:11 PM, krw wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:03:26 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Electric Comet <[email protected]> wrote in news:mqtffu$o75$4
>> @dont-email.me:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> 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.
>
> This makes no sense unless there is some other cheap source of energy
> that can't be easily throttled, nearby (like a nuke).

I dunno. It seems unusual but...

I don't think they have that much control over the hydroelectric
generation. They build a damn, water level rises and they harness the
flow to generate needed power. If their capacity exceeds their needs
and the needs of other areas or power companies tied into their
production, what can they do? Surely they can cut out the generators
and stop production and just let the water bypass the turbines. They
can't stop the water flow or it will cause flooding.

I liken the Colorado "solution" to a storage battery. They are charging
up a power source capable of providing, perhaps, additional
hydroelectric capacity during peak demand or, alternatively (as someone
mentioned), provide water for irrigation. Simple case (or maybe not so
simple logistically) of making the most of what they have?

dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> On 08/14/2015 7:28 PM, Electric Comet wrote:

>> power in this sense is not animal powered
>
> Well, that's pretty limiting definition in terms of historical
> precedence but water was certainly around quite early as a power
> source.

I think the trick here is going to be defining what's a tool
more than what's power, but certainly you're right that
water powered mills for grinding grains have been around for
a very long time.

As another contender, I'll offer the spring-pole lathe,
altho that's arguably animal (human) powered.

John

Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabitha_Babbitt
> Circular saw was invented by a woman and used water power. 1813.

A common claim, but not true. The Royal Navy had circular saws
in the Portsmouth dockyards in the 1790s and contemporary texts
don't describe them as a new invention. The Portsmouth dockyard
had numerous tools powered by steam engine and belting by 1802,
some of which have been preserved.

The actual inventor of the circular saw seems to be lost to time.

John

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> There seems to be some confusion here. The woman invented the circular
> blade design. I'm clueless who invented the circular saw.

Well, I'll admit to being confused how you could have a circular
saw without a circular blade...

John

dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> I don't know but expect at the same time or very shortly after the were
> adapted to cut to length...folks didn't generally wait around back then
> for somebody else to come up with a modification; _somebody_ at a mill
> somewhere did it long before the electric motor and the Skilsaw like
> portable tool.

I'd agree. Steam powered saw mills I've seen from the 1890's
(sample size of 2) have two blades, a large one for ripping,
and a smaller one mounted on a swinging arm crosswise to the
carriage, to cut boards to length.

The swinging arm allowed the blade to move, which otherwise
would be difficult with a belt drive.

I'd guess someone figured that arrangement out very soon after
they figured out how to spin the ripping blade.

John

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 8/15/2015 6:42 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> There seems to be some confusion here. The woman invented the circular
>>> blade design. I'm clueless who invented the circular saw.
>>
>> Well, I'll admit to being confused how you could have a circular
>> saw without a circular blade...
>>
>> John
>>
>
> I'm sure the machine to run the blade came a touch later. But for sure
> there was no circular saw before there was a circular blade. ;~)

Well, with apologies to Unquestionably Confused, it seems
evident that circular saws existed long before Ms Babbitt.
Ergo, since the blade must have existed before the saw by
your own admission, Ms Babbitt did not invent either the
saw or the blade.

John

Unquestionably Confused <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I agree, but the OP's question was rather vague and the followup
> answers wandered all over the place as well.
>
> Just to throw some more sh*t in the game, the first time a human
> hooked an animal to any device that performed some sort of work on
> behalf of said human could probably be said to be a power tool driven
> by other than the user's hand power.

OP specifically excluded tools using animal power (which
presumably also includes human power).

There's a bit of a fuzzyness there, tho, if you consider
stored power. If an animal compresses a spring, or carries
water to an elevated tank, and that is then later used to
power a tool is it still animal powered?

John

Spalted Walt <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 21:06:06 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>>On 8/15/2015 6:42 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> There seems to be some confusion here. The woman invented the
>>>> circular blade design. I'm clueless who invented the circular saw.
>>>
>>> Well, I'll admit to being confused how you could have a circular
>>> saw without a circular blade...
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>
>>I'm sure the machine to run the blade came a touch later. But for
>>sure there was no circular saw before there was a circular blade. ;~)
>
> Your explanation is pretty much spot on acording to the History
> Channel and Wood Magazine's Bill Krier.
> "Her idea was adopted by shaker woodworkers"

Spot on, but wrong. Tabitha Babbitt did not invent the
circular saw, and did not invent the circular saw blade.
It's a good story, but there's plenty of reference to
circular saws long before Babbitt and the Shakers.

John

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 8/17/2015 9:47 AM, dpb wrote:
>> On 08/17/2015 8:50 AM, Leon wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> And as I have stated, I am being anal. This can be read to be
>>> understood almost any way you want it to.
>>
>> 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.
>
> The same could be said of your interpretation. The 250 year old
> language could be the problem or maybe not.

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


>> 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?
>>
>> --
>
> Or this,
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabitha_Babbitt
>
> http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/08/circular-saw-invented-s
> haker-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-w
> omen-invented1.htm

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!

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Or this,
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabitha_Babbitt

Well, if you're going to cite Wikipedia, how about this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_saw#History

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 <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> "plenty of reference" and yet you don't provide us with any?
> Cite proof or it didn't happen ^@^

Some ways up thread I did.

John

Electric Comet <[email protected]> wrote in news:mqtffu$o75$4
@dont-email.me:

> 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

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

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 8/17/2015 2:56 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 14:43:22 +0000 (UTC)
>> John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> As another contender, I'll offer the spring-pole lathe,
>>> altho that's arguably animal (human) powered.
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> 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.

I'd agree with you that water powered (and horse powered)
lathes came before steam powered (and all of them well before
electric lathes).

It's probably worth noting, tho, that demand for lathes to
make anything other that light stuff like chair spindles was
pretty minimal prior to the invention of the steam engine
and consequent Industrial Age, so water powered lathes would
not have been very common.

John

Electric Comet <[email protected]> wrote in news:mqte58$o75$1
@dont-email.me:

> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 08:59:07 -0500
> dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Well, that's pretty limiting definition in terms of historical
>> precedence but water was certainly around quite early as a power
>> source.
>
> now which was first water or wind power
> i would guess water but it is only a guess

Pretty sure water predates wind as a power source for milling
grain and stuff (the Greeks and Romans had water mills), but
purely as a power source you'd have to count sails on boats,
I think, and those go back to the ancient Egyptians if not
even further back.

John

krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:qv45talkq7anukj0cerhgtd3m9hoi7t54l@
4ax.com:

> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:03:26 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:

>>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.
>
> This makes no sense unless there is some other cheap source of energy
> that can't be easily throttled, nearby (like a nuke).

It's generally the case with steam plants (coal fired, nuclear,
whatever) that they can't be run efficiently at lower power
outputs. So where possible, it makes sense to size the steam
plant at, say 90% of maximum demand, run the steam plant at
100% capacity all the time, and save 10% at night so you can
provide 110% capacity when demand is at maximum.

(to Unquestionably's point, yes, hydro is easily controlled.
Unlike a steam plant where there's typically only one turbine,
hydro plants usually have multiple turbines that can be cut
in and out, and running them at less than full capacity
isn't as inefficient as it is with a steam turbine).

John

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 8/18/2015 9:46 AM, John McCoy wrote:
>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:qv45talkq7anukj0cerhgtd3m9hoi7t54l@ 4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:03:26 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> This makes no sense unless there is some other cheap source of
>>> energy that can't be easily throttled, nearby (like a nuke).
>>
>> It's generally the case with steam plants (coal fired, nuclear,
>> whatever) that they can't be run efficiently at lower power
>> outputs. So where possible, it makes sense to size the steam
>> plant at, say 90% of maximum demand, run the steam plant at
>> 100% capacity all the time, and save 10% at night so you can
>> provide 110% capacity when demand is at maximum.
>
> How would you suppose the 10% is stored, batteries?

Um, if you read upthread a bit, you'd see it's stored by
pumping water uphill, and then letting it flow back down
thru hydroelectric generators when it's needed.

Batteries, while theoretically possible, in practice are
a lot more complicated than using water. They're used in
a few places on a small scale. Other small scale storage
mechanisms include compressed air, and electrolizing water
into hydrogen and oxygen (later recombined in a fuel cell).

I'd guess pumped water makes up 99% of the electric utility
energy storage capacity.

One of the problems with solar energy is that places which
are good for large-scale solar tend to be flat, meaning
that pumped water storage (for night time use) isn't
possible. There's a fortune to be made for whoever figures
out a good alternative.

John

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 8/18/2015 11:46 AM, John McCoy wrote:
>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 8/18/2015 9:46 AM, John McCoy wrote:

>>>> It's generally the case with steam plants (coal fired, nuclear,
>>>> whatever) that they can't be run efficiently at lower power
>>>> outputs. So where possible, it makes sense to size the steam
>>>> plant at, say 90% of maximum demand, run the steam plant at
>>>> 100% capacity all the time, and save 10% at night so you can
>>>> provide 110% capacity when demand is at maximum.

> Yeah I saw that.... but, If you run at 100% capacity/output, having
> 10% more water/fuel is not going to increase capacity. You still have
> the bottle neck of 100% capacity. Maybe I am mixing two different
> explanations here.

I think I wasn't clear there.

Suspose the peak demand is 100MW - daytime, AC running in
the summer, heat in the winter, businesses have all their
machines and computers and whatnot running. And at night the
demand is only 70MW, because people are sleeping, not using
much electric equipment.

Now, suspose we design a powerplant with maximum capacity of
90MW. We're 10MW short of what's needed for peak demand,
but we have 20MW extra at night. So we use some of that 20MW
to pump water uphill at night, and in the daytime we let it
run back thru a 10MW hydro generator. Thus we get the extra
10MW we need at peak demand times.

This all makes sense because:

a) powerplants are expensive, and the savings from building
a 90MW plant instead of a 100MW plant pretty much covers
building the pumping plant.

b) running a 90MW powerplant at 70MW is inefficient, and will
consume almost as much fuel as running it at 90MW, so the
power used for pumping is almost free.

John

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> But unless I am missing something here, It does not matter how much
> water is in the reservoir/lake because whatever water is there to begin
> with is enough to operate the power plant at capacity.
>
> Unless the water goes to a different reservoir that does not naturally
> refill itself to power the smaller generator.

Ah, I see the problem.

The site I'm familiar with, Cabin Creek in Colorado, is typical.
There is one lake/reservoir above Georgetown, and another one
about 800 vertical feet further up the mountain. They pump
water from the lower one to the upper at night, and let it flow
from the upper to the lower (thru the generator turbine) in
the daytime.

The upper reservoir does get a little water from snowmelt,
but that's lagniappe. Mostly it's the same water being pumped
up and down every day.

John

On 8/15/2015 12:09 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>>
>> I'm finding it difficult, so far, to pin down the first tool driven by
>> other than hand, but here's something relevant to what we commonly call
>> power tools:
>
[snip]
>> (maybe that's why they are so expensive... A company that old, if it
>> didn't properly fund its pension debt could have quite a bill coming due
>> 120 years down the pike.<g>)
>
> Interesting, but that's a very narrow definition of "power tool". Steam
> locomotives are tools and the first of those went into service around
> 1804. And then there was John Henry and the steam drill . . .
>
> I don't know when the first powered tool went into service, but the
> Romans had a sawmill running around 300 AD.

I agree, but the OP's question was rather vague and the followup answers
wandered all over the place as well.

Just to throw some more sh*t in the game, the first time a human hooked
an animal to any device that performed some sort of work on behalf of
said human could probably be said to be a power tool driven by other
than the user's hand power.

When were the Pyramids built? Inca temples? Surely if a system of
ropes and pulley or levers were employed they would be classed as tools.
Add one animal to the equation and we're talking power tool in the
context of the OP's question<g>

On 8/17/2015 1:38 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 08/17/2015 12:54 PM, Leon wrote:
> ...
>
>> 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
was perused.
Then there is mention of 1600's Ducth wind mills that drove saw blades
instead of millstones.

On 8/15/2015 7:32 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 8/14/2015 8:28 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
>> i was doing some drilling with the drill press today and appreciated
>> the fact
>> that i just applied downward force to drill a big hole with a forstner
>> bit and the
>> motor did the rest
>>
>> compared to an attempt with a brace and bit recently i am very aware that
>> a drill press is good
>>
>> but it got me thinking about the succession of power tools in a
>> historical
>> perspective
>>
>> i figure the saw was the first one to get some power behind it with those
>> big lumber mills saws
>>
>> but what was next
>> i think power drills must have been the next one
>>
>> power in this sense is not animal powered
>>
>
> I suspect you are right about the first power tools being those used in
> sawmills. However I suspect that the reciprocating saw was used before
> the circular saw. A reciprocation saw could be connected to a water
> wheel and operated with a cam. The circular saw would need a complicated
> set of gears to make spin
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabitha_Babbitt
Circular saw was invented by a woman and used water power. 1813.

On 8/17/2015 3:20 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 8/17/2015 2:56 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 14:43:22 +0000 (UTC)
>> John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> As another contender, I'll offer the spring-pole lathe,
>>> altho that's arguably animal (human) powered.
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> 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.
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=water+driven+woodworking+shop&rlz=1C1CHUE_enUS575US575&espv=2&biw=1536&bih=783&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CC0QsARqFQoTCMT20OP3sMcCFccqiAodtqoAtw&dpr=1.25
>
>
>
You might like this too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D_V5smCaOw

On 8/18/2015 2:27 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 8/18/2015 11:46 AM, John McCoy wrote:
>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 8/18/2015 9:46 AM, John McCoy wrote:
>
>>>>> It's generally the case with steam plants (coal fired, nuclear,
>>>>> whatever) that they can't be run efficiently at lower power
>>>>> outputs. So where possible, it makes sense to size the steam
>>>>> plant at, say 90% of maximum demand, run the steam plant at
>>>>> 100% capacity all the time, and save 10% at night so you can
>>>>> provide 110% capacity when demand is at maximum.
>
>> Yeah I saw that.... but, If you run at 100% capacity/output, having
>> 10% more water/fuel is not going to increase capacity. You still have
>> the bottle neck of 100% capacity. Maybe I am mixing two different
>> explanations here.
>
> I think I wasn't clear there.
>
> Suspose the peak demand is 100MW - daytime, AC running in
> the summer, heat in the winter, businesses have all their
> machines and computers and whatnot running. And at night the
> demand is only 70MW, because people are sleeping, not using
> much electric equipment.
>
> Now, suspose we design a powerplant with maximum capacity of
> 90MW. We're 10MW short of what's needed for peak demand,
> but we have 20MW extra at night. So we use some of that 20MW
> to pump water uphill at night, and in the daytime we let it
> run back thru a 10MW hydro generator. Thus we get the extra
> 10MW we need at peak demand times.
>
> This all makes sense because:
But unless I am missing something here, It does not matter how much
water is in the reservoir/lake because whatever water is there to begin
with is enough to operate the power plant at capacity.

Unless the water goes to a different reservoir that does not naturally
refill itself to power the smaller generator.


And FWIW I am picturing Lake Mead as the reservoir.

On 8/18/2015 11:46 AM, John McCoy wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 8/18/2015 9:46 AM, John McCoy wrote:
>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:qv45talkq7anukj0cerhgtd3m9hoi7t54l@ 4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:03:26 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> This makes no sense unless there is some other cheap source of
>>>> energy that can't be easily throttled, nearby (like a nuke).
>>>
>>> It's generally the case with steam plants (coal fired, nuclear,
>>> whatever) that they can't be run efficiently at lower power
>>> outputs. So where possible, it makes sense to size the steam
>>> plant at, say 90% of maximum demand, run the steam plant at
>>> 100% capacity all the time, and save 10% at night so you can
>>> provide 110% capacity when demand is at maximum.
>>
>> How would you suppose the 10% is stored, batteries?
>
> Um, if you read upthread a bit, you'd see it's stored by
> pumping water uphill, and then letting it flow back down
> thru hydroelectric generators when it's needed.

Yeah I saw that.... but, If you run at 100% capacity/output, having 10%
more water/fuel is not going to increase capacity. You still have the
bottle neck of 100% capacity. Maybe I am mixing two different
explanations here.
And, it seems that if capacity is only 90 percent of demand, taping
into 100% capacity to pump water back the the reservoir that it would be
counter productive. Certainly there is a loss of capacity pumping the
water back up stream than it produces.



>
> Batteries, while theoretically possible, in practice are
> a lot more complicated than using water. They're used in
> a few places on a small scale. Other small scale storage
> mechanisms include compressed air, and electrolizing water
> into hydrogen and oxygen (later recombined in a fuel cell).

Understood but batteries supplement/add to output. Recycling water does
not add to on demand capacity, unless the lake is about to go dry.

Not arguing with you here, just kicking thing around.

On 8/16/2015 9:43 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
> On 8/16/2015 9:23 PM, Leon wrote:
>> British Patent 1152, issued in 1777
>
>
> 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.)

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.

On 8/17/2015 2:28 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 08/17/2015 2:21 PM, Leon wrote:
> ...
>
>> 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.
>
> That's a far cry from any previous posting claim, sorry.

Well at least I will admit that there are other claims.



>
> 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).
>
> --

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.

On 8/17/2015 10:04 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 8/17/2015 9:47 AM, dpb wrote:
>> On 08/17/2015 8:50 AM, Leon wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> And as I have stated, I am being anal. This can be read to be understood
>>> almost any way you want it to.
>>
>> 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.
>
> The same could be said of your interpretation. The 250 year old
> language could be the problem or maybe not.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> --
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
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.