Spinning, Doubling, and Twisting Silk Machine Patent Model
Patent No. 977, issued on October 10, 1838
Harrison Holland of Northampton, Massachusetts
The central part of Holland’s patent concerned the stop motion mechanism on a silk thread making machine. If a thread broke, a small rod, connected to each of the threads by bent wires, would drop. A lever, to which the rod was attached, would come in contact with the drum and then stop the machine by throwing it out of gear. Also included in the patent was a method to change the twist of the silk thread by using a short cylinder.
In his patent specification, Angell stated that “this temple is of the kind which holds the selvage of the cloth between jaws, which are opened by the beat of the lathe, and is in many respects similar to such as have been long in use.” He claimed, as his invention, the way in which the upper and lower jaws were connected by pins to form the hinge-joints.
On the original wrapper containing the patent application papers is a faint handwritten note “see Saml. P. Mason’s Temple July 1837.” In the process of checking Angell’s patent, Charles M. Keller, the patent examiner, probably wrote that notation but found no conflict with the Mason patent and thus granted Angell his patent.
This patent was an improvement on Day’s earlier patent (9692x) of June 2, 1836, which was destroyed in the 1836 fire and reconstructed by the Patent Office for the Columbian Exposition of 1893.
The difference between the two patents is the addition of a gauge-plate to the end of the machine, by which it became a strandmaker. Day stated that his method of making cordage had two advantages over those in common use. First, the twist given to the strand was uniform throughout its length. Second, as the cord was made, it was wound on a bobbin, thereby eliminating the need for long rope walks and large buildings. The whole process could be done in a room that was only slightly larger than the cordage machine and the bobbin frame.
Benjamin Hartford and William B. Tilton of Enfield, New Hampshire
Hartford and Tilton improved upon the construction of heddles (the mechanisms that raise and lower warp threads) by using strips of rolled flat metal with an eye punched through the middle of each strip to allow for the passage of warp yarns. Heddles were commonly constructed of cord. The replacement of metal for cord produced a more durable heddle. These one-piece metallic strips and the construction of the heddle frame were the basis of their patent. The heddles slid on two rods and were attached to adjustable clasps, permitting the heddles to correspond to the part of the reed (a comb-like device used to space the warp yarns evenly) that was in operation.
Fairman’s improvements, consisting of an additional cam and a set of treadles, were applied to power looms in common use. His improvements allowed the harnesses to operate more smoothly and the warp to open, enabling the shuttle to pass more easily. The end result was that the loom was better suited to weaving either light or heavy fabrics. Six pages and three illustrations in Clinton Gilroy’s 1844 book, The Art of Weaving, are spent in describing Fairman’s patent. Gilroy commented that Fairman’s loom would probably work fine for simple weaves, but for fancy patterned work, requiring 10 to 100 heddle frames, it would be totally impractical.
Comfort Thorp, the younger brother of textile machinery inventor John Thorp, worked for Thomas and William Fletcher in their mill near North Providence. His patent improved the method of securing and holding the cop, or yarn cylinder, on the common power loom shuttle, preventing slips that would waste yarn and cause imperfections in the woven cloth.
The patent model he submitted contained two types of tongues. One used a common round tongue with wire spiraled around it. The other consisted of a tongue with ridges or notches similar to the teeth of a saw blade. The two loom shuttle tongues were neatly exhibited in a box, probably to keep them from being separated or lost in the cases at the Patent Office.
Howarth’s and Jones’s patent covered certain improvements on flyers and spindles attached to machinery (such as throstles or spinning frames) where a twisting apparatus was needed. The improvements were useful for roving and spinning cotton or other fibers.
They experienced some delay in obtaining a patent and hired R. H. Eddy of Boston, a patent attorney, to represent them. Their original claims were abridged and condensed. In the last letter (December 1, 1836) from Eddy to Commissioner of Patents Henry Ellsworth, Eddy returned the amended specification without any other essential changes in it and said “. . . leaving it to your discretion to reject or admit the claim. . . . But I supposed that the arrangement and combination of these different parts with each other might show sufficient novelty to constitute and claim to a patent.” Presumably with Eddy’s help, Howarth and Jones were able to receive their patent.
Hiram Wheeler’s domestic wheel was for spinning wool. He titled his invention “inclined spinner,” referring to the fact that the operator would sit at the wheel as opposed to standing and walking when using the typical wool wheel. When the treadle was forced down by the operator’s foot, a cord pulled the carriage and spinning wheel head away from the spinner. A weight brought both of them back toward the spinner. This movement of the carriage was equivalent to the spinner walking forward to the spindle tip for the draw out and then back to the wheel. Wheeler specifically claimed as his invention this sliding action of the wheel head.
Humphries’s innovation was the addition of a supplementary layer to the bottom of a carpet to provide an extra cushion and to strengthen the overall structure. The added stuffer weft is a stout, loosely twisted cord, woven into the underside of the carpet and interlaced with the ground warp. These samples of carpeting are important because they are the earliest known examples of patented carpeting in the United States.
Whether this patent was utilized is unknown but there is evidence of Humphries being involved in the manufacture of carpeting. The Journal of the Franklin Institute lists premiums awarded at their eighth exhibition in 1833. John Humphries was presented a premium for four pieces of Brussels carpeting. The judges noted that “these goods are of excellent quality and style, and satisfactory assurances have been received that they are exclusively of American workmanship throughout all the processes from the raw material to the finished product of the loom.”
According to his patent specification, Yerkes patented “the revolving arrangement and combination of the sliding shaft, with the broach, or with the spool, for the purpose of removing and renewing the latter . . . .” The action of the sliding shaft enabled the operator to remove and change the spool when the spring was pressed down. In addition, he patented the ring in combination with the flyers that distributed the yarn on the spool. Yerkes intended his improvements to be used on machines for spinning cotton and other fibers.
Reeling, Spinning, and Twisting Silk Machine Patent Model
Patent No. 1,367, issued October 12, 1839
Jacob Pratt of Sherborn, Massachusetts
Pratt is an example of an inventor who thought he had a more complicated original invention than he actually had. In his patent application file, his specification makes four claims. Out of those four, only one was approved by Charles M. Keller, the patent examiner, and that claim was for using a trough of zinc. The trough held spools of silk fibers prior to spinning and was filled with warm water, which kept the fibers from sticking together.
The Journal of the Franklin Institute, 1840, commented: “Its construction is, in general, similar to such as is well known, and is not claimed as new . . . No particular reason is given for making the troughs of zinc, and we suppose that copper would do equally well; but from the special mention of this metal we were led to look for some ground of preference to it.”
John Thorp and William G. Angell of Providence, Rhode Island
These heddles, both wire and twine, were exhibited in the Patent Office in a round wooden frame. In the patent specification, Thorp and Angell described the dimensions of heddles for use on a common power loom. A chain of the heddles was formed by taking two pieces of wire or twine and tying them with a common square knot, “which will unite them in the same way and manner that a lady ties her apron strings or a child his shoestrings.” The placement of the knots resulted in the formation of the eyes of the heddles, which raise and lower warp threads in weaving cloth.
Thorp and Angell did not include a patent drawing with the specification. The 1841 Journal of the Franklin Institute remarked of this omission: “We must suppose . . . that the description, although to us somewhat obscure, would be clear to a professional weaver.”
Swasey’s patent concerned the setting of teazles ( thistle-like plant heads) in the wires of the large napping cylinder. He also claimed certain springs and levers that shifted the cloth rollers in and out of gear. This shifting of the cloth rollers caused the cloth to come in contact with the teazles as the cloth was wound forward and then disengaged the cloth from the teazles as the cloth rewound.
In this way, the cloth could roll from one cylinder to another as long as necessary to ensure a well-napped surface. Also, the shifting of gears did not require a person to match and unmatch the gears. Friction bands on the ends of the cloth rollers, together with hanging weights, kept tension on the cloth even.
Kimball’s patent refers to the application of friction to the yarn beam of a power loom. This was accomplished by using a belt, made of steel or iron, which formed nearly a circle around the warp beam. Friction was created by adjusting a screw that caused the circular belt to contract or expand in turn, to increase or decrease the drag on the beam. An elliptical spring eased the movement of the beam within the belt and helped maintain the evenness of the cloth.
In his patent specification, Golding noted that the frame of the doubling and twisting machine was to be constructed like any of the “modern” frames. It would have gears, and an eccentric, or heart, motion to guide the thread on the spool. His patent claim concerned the arrangement of the machinery that prevented wasting the thread if it broke. This was accomplished by stopping the spindle and raising the feeding-down roller.
Temples are attachments on looms designed to keep the cloth at a uniform width during weaving. Self-acting temples required no adjustment as the cloth was woven, for they automatically adjusted their position. The greater speed obtained with power weaving made the use of self-acting temples a necessity.
The basic construction of Mason’s temples was similar to others of the period. The patented feature of his temple concerned the arrangement of the parts by which the jaws or forceps were forced open and released their hold on the cloth.
Mason patented other useful textile machinery. Notable were an 1830 speeder for roving cotton (a speeder is a machine used in cotton yarn spinning that inserts a twist to the yarn and winds it on the bobbin) and a cotton whipper (a machine that separates clumps of cotton) in 1834. James Montgomery, in his 1840 edition of “Cotton manufacture of the United States Contrasted with that of Great Britain,” wrote that he considered the whipper the best, cheapest, and simplest that he had seen in factory use over a span of thirty years.
Faber’s patent related to the construction of the common hand card used for carding cotton or wool prior to the spinning process. He specifically patented using wood veneer, instead of leather, for the foundation that contained the card’s wire teeth. The wood was cut from 1/8 to 3/16 of an inch in thickness, 4 inches in width, and 4 to 8 inches in length. The wood was then steeped in water to soften it so that when placed in a card-making machine, it could be pricked and the teeth inserted. The veneer was nailed to another piece of wood and a handle inserted to form the hand card.
Although Faber did not claim credit for inventing the card-making machine, in his patent specification he did mention that he had made improvements on it.
Baldwin’s patent consisted of a steel spring and catch made in one piece that fits inside the wooden bobbin. In his patent specification, he claimed this avoided the expense of separate catches and springs that were in the common shuttle as then in use. The arrangement and construction of the spring and catch were such that pushing the bobbin down on the spindle and into the mouth of the shuttle secured the bobbin on the catch. By pulling up on the bobbin, the head of the spindle pushed down on the spring, which in turn disengaged the catch and released the bobbin. These improvements make it easier for the bobbin changer to replenish the shuttle with thread.
An earlier notice of Baldwin’s loom shuttle appears in the Journal of the American Institute. In 1838, at the eleventh Annual Fair of the American Institute, James and E. Baldwin were awarded a diploma for an improved loom shuttle. On May 3, 1859, James Baldwin was successful in having the shuttle awarded Reissue Patent No. 710.
Weaving with horsehair was difficult and slow because the weaver had to select an individual horsehair for each weft and insert it into the warp. Harvey’s loom was a step toward mechanizing this process. But Harvey dealt only with changing from a hand loom to a power loom, not with the problem of weaving with horsehair. Even in his patent specification, he mentioned that the “hook” (a simple wooden rod with a hook at one end by which the horsehair was drawn in to be woven) is “made in the usual way.” Harvey detailed his improvements as the application of power to both the movement of the hook and the operation of the loom overall.
At the tenth Annual Fair of the American Institute in 1837, Harvey was awarded a gold medal for his “hair seating loom.” The Journal of the American Institute, published in 1838, remarked that “this is the first application of power to weaving hair cloth; and concerning the extent of the article [hair cloth] now used for furniture, we think the loom is entitled to the highest consideration.”
Loom for Weaving Knotted Counterpanes Patent Model
Patent No. 546, issued January 6, 1838
Erastus B. Bigelow of West Boylston, Massachusetts
Erastus B. Bigelow primarily claimed the mechanism that raised the knots that formed the figures or patterns on the counterpane. His patent specification was lengthy, five pages of drawings and nine pages of written specifications.
In 1840, the editor of the Journal of the Franklin Institute wrote, “. . . the goods produced in this loom are of a quality very superior to such as are produced in the hand loom; at all events we have not met with any thing of the kind in the shops that will compare with them for texture, and for beauty and regularity of pattern. . . . We anticipate that at a very early day, American counterpanes will become as general as berths on board steamboats, and as beds at hotels. The articles are for sale in all our large cities, and as soon as there is a sufficient supply, will make their way into every part of the Union.”
Bigelow was a prolific inventor, patenting at least 33 loom improvements. In 1842 he revolutionized carpet manufacture by a series of inventions that made the carpet loom automatic. The automatic features enabled manufacturers to replace male weavers with less costly female weavers or boys. His inventions for the power weaving of Brussels, Jacquard, Ingrain, and Wilton carpet were quite successful. Before the mid-19th century, the importance of these inventions was recognized both in the United States and in Europe.