US Patent: 26,627
|
Lathe attachment for cutting veneers
Machine for making shoe-peg blanks
|
|
Patentee:
|
|
| Benjamin F. Sturtevant (exact or similar names) - Boston, MA |
| Manufacturer: |
| Not known to have been produced |
|
|
Patent Dates:
|
| Granted: |
Dec. 27, 1859 |
USPTO (New site tip)
Google Patents
Report data errors or omissions to steward
Jeff Joslin
Vintage Machinery entry for B. F. Sturtevant
|
|
Description: |
| The 1873 "Decisions of the Commissioner of Patents" reports that this patent was granted an extension. The report summarizes the invention thusly: "It is designed to cut sheets thicker than common veneers without crippling or splitting them in the operation. It was well known that a thin sheet could be cut from the periphery of a solid cylinder of wood by circumrasion, or shaved from the surface of a plank, without disturbing the texture of its fibers, and that where the conditions are the same the danger of splitting or breaking is always increased as the thickness of the sheet is increased."The applicant wanted to cut sheets thick enough to be used for picture backs and shoe-peg blanks, which none of the existing veneer-cutters would successfully do. The variation he had to make from existing veneer-cutters was apparently slight, taking for comparison the machines of Humphrey (2,834), and Fontainemoreau, patented in England May 25, 1847, upon which the remonstrants mainly rely as anticipating Sturtevant's invention. It was such, however, as to accomplish the result he had in view, which, it is not satisfactorily, was, or could be, accomplished before his invention was made. (Huh?) In every veneer-cutter there is a knife for cutting the sheet, and a guide, or presser-bar, to impinge against the block a little above the knife-edge. In Humphrey's machine the presser-guide is a roller, and in Fontainemoreau's it is a casting with a curvilinear face. The applicant simply beveled the front of his presser-bar, giving it such a shape that, when its working edge was pressed with considerable force against the periphery of the block opposite the cutting-edge of the knife, it would slightly bend the wood fiber upward. Then the knife, instead of wedging and bending the sheet sharply at the cutting-point, would find it already bent on the block, and would simply sever it and compress it at and below the cutting-point, perpendicularly against the lower face or bevel of the fixed presser-bar. ...The experiments made at the hearing, as well as the testimony in the case, plainly establish the truth of this theory of construction and operation, and mark this part of the applicant's invention as distinctive and important."The patented invention has been extensively used, the inventor retaining the business in his own hands, and receiving therefrom a large annual income. ... The diligence of the applicant has been exemplary, and his success remarkable. The profit he has derived from this invention is large, even taking it at his own estimate. But nearly doubling it, as the remonstrants do in their estimate, which is not without some reasonable basis, it is unusually large, reaching nearly $130,000. The amount of money however, which an inventor has received for his invention has no relation to the question of granting an extension, except as to its correspondence with the labor and expense incurred by him and the ascertained value of the invention to the public. The mere fact that a great profit has been realized is not a sufficient reason for refusing an extension, if the sum is disproportionate to the public benefits derived from the invention through the labors of the inventor. Although the remuneration of this applicant is admitted by him to have been over $50,000, the advantage of his device to the public has been so many times this amount, that I should not be warranted in holding him adequately remunerated." |
|
