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.
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.”
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.
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.
Seth Parsons’s Patent No. 1,015 was an improvement on his earlier patent, 3082x, granted in 1819. The later patent resembled the earlier one but differed from it by its ability “to shear broad and narrow cloths, the machine operating upon [the cloth] in its passage back and forth both ways without changing it from end to end, thereby saving much time . . .” Also claimed in the patent specification was the motion of a brush that would brush up the nap in either direction, and a few other minor construction details.
Parsons’s Patent No. 3082x had claimed to be an improvement on Samuel Dorr’s 1794 patent cloth shearing machine, which was called the “wheel of knives.” The “wheel of knives” refers to the shearing cylinder that was wrapped with blades in a spiral pattern. Parsons said of his improvement that it could be “composed of frame of suitable size, about 3 feet 7 inches long; 2 feet 4 inches wide and 4 feet high. Instead of knives on a large circle it should be a small one, about 2-1/2 inches in diameter . . .”
In the 1820 Manufacturers Census, there is a reference to Parsons’s first shearing machine being used by a woolen manufacturer, Shearwood and Goreham, from Rensselaer County, New York. This earlier machine is also mentioned in an account of the Patent Office fire of 1836 as being one of several models of valuable improvements in shearing and napping cloth. At the twelfth Exhibition of American Manufacturers, in 1842, Parsons and Wilder were awarded certificates of Honorable Mention for their improved cloth shearing machines.
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.
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.
In 1837, William Mason, who was employed by Crocker and Richmond, developed a speeder (a machine used in cotton yarn spinning) to replace the one that had been invented by George Danforth in 1824.
Mason’s patent consisted of two parts: the method of removing the full spindle and the centrifugal levers. In 1839, the editor of the Journal of the Franklin Institute stated of the first that it was “ingenious, and manifestly good.” Of the second part, he explained that “by their weight at their outer ends, these levers expanded by the centrifugal force, with a power proportioned to their velocity, causing their inner ends to press upon the spools, and laying the yarn hard and compact upon them; and consequently, admitting of a very high degree of speed.” Although Mason was granted Patent No. 724 for his improvements, it proved difficult to thread and to remove the bobbins.
Earlier in his career, Mason had devised a loom for weaving diaper cloth and another loom for weaving damask tablecloths. In 1833, he succeeded in perfecting John Thorp’s ring frame to the point where it was later used extensively in the textile industry. He also invented a self-acting cotton spinning machine (Patent No. 1,801, issued October 8, 1840), which for that period was a successful alternative to the contemporary ring spinning machine.
Mason, with the financial backing of Boston merchant James Kellog Mills, established a machine shop in 1842 called William Mason and Company. Business prospered and in 1845 new buildings were constructed. At that time, Mason’s Taunton shop was considered the largest machine shop in the United States. The shop was particularly successful in manufacturing cotton machinery, as well as machine tools, cupola furnaces, blowers, rifles, Campbell printing presses, gears, and shafts.
Mason found new fame in 1852 when he began building locomotives, the first of which was finished in 1853. His locomotives found wide acceptance for the beauty of design and technical excellence. Mason was a pioneer inventor and manufacturer whose ideas, manufacturing methods, and products had a profound influence on American technology.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
Sibley’s improvement concerned the arrangement of the color box, which held the coloring matter used in printing; the furnishing roll, which supplied the coloring matter to the printing roll; and the doctor, which acted as a scraper to remove any superfluous color from the cylinder. In his patent specification, Sibley stated that the advantage of his machine was “being able to work as heavy an Engraving, last as first, or second, and by which means you can place the Light, delicate colors, first and Black or Chocolate last or as you please.” His patent model shows only one engraved copper roller although the machine was designed to do three- or four-color work with multiple rollers.
Sibley recommended using flour instead of gum to thicken the coloring matter. He calculated that to print 175 pieces, it was necessary to use 42 pounds of gum senegal at 22 cents a pound, which added up to $9.24; whereas 42 pounds of flour cost only 5 cents a pound, for a sum of $2.10. That totaled up to a savings of $7.14 if the flour was used. Whether the use of flour was ever adopted is not known.
By 1836, textile mills in the United States had printed 120 million yards of calicoes. Calico printing was popular among manufacturers largely due to the fact that the printing only added one step to the finishing process and did not affect or complicate the weaving process.
Before William Crompton’s 1837 patent for a fancy power loom was adopted, the harnesses of power looms were controlled by cams. This arrangement limited the number of harnesses that could be utilized, which in turn limited the complexity of patterns that could be woven. In order to vary the pattern, the cams had to be laboriously changed. Crompton’s invention solved both of these problems. In his patent, an endless pattern chain was used, upon which rollers or pins could be variously placed to engage the harness levers (as had the cams) but which allowed any number of harnesses to be used and easily permitted the changing of patterns. Now more elaborate designs could be easily woven on power looms.
In 1806 William Crompton was born in the textile mill town of Preston, England. He was taught how to weave on a cotton hand loom and learned the trade of a machinist. He was thirty when he came to Taunton, Massachusetts, and was employed by Crocker and Richmond. At this textile mill he designed a loom to weave a new more complex patterned fabric. The mill failed in 1837 and Crompton went back to England. He entered into cotton manufacture with John Rostran, and took out a British patent for his loom under Rostran’s name.
Later in 1839 Crompton emigrated with his family back to the United States in order to promote his looms. He met with success when the Middlesex Mills in Lowell, Massachusetts, invited him to alter his fancy cotton loom for the weaving of woolen fabrics. This he accomplished in 1840, and it was considered an important landmark for the woolen industry. In his book, American Textile Machinery, John Hayes quotes the Committee on Patents of the United States House of Representatives, 1878: “ . . . upon the Crompton loom or looms based on it, are woven every yard of fancy cloth in the world.”
In 1849, William’s health declined and his son, George, carried on the business. Like his father, George was an inventor and patented many improvements for the loom. After 1859, the Crompton Loom Work became one of the two largest fancy loom manufacturers in the United States.
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.