DoN. Nichols wrote:
On 2009-04-20, riverman wrote:

Well ... this *could* be a form of bench stop. Bolt it (or
perhaps a pair of them in line) to a bench top, put a board edge down in
there. Start planing the top edge, and the clamps will tighten onto the
wood. When it comes time to do the other edge, pull it back to open the
grip, flip it over, and reinstall to start planing again.
I don't see that. These guys were very meticulous in their
toolmongery...the direction of pull between the 'hole' in the arm and
the locking cam tells me that this tool was designed so that it was
free to move around the hole. If it were bolted down firmly to a bench
or table, the lines of force would not be along the shaft from the
hole. If it were free to move (tied by a rope, or even carried with a
T-handle through the hole), then the clamp would hang in such a way
that the cam took all the force, locking it down tighter.

Mount them in shallow recesses in the bench top so only the jaws
stick above the top. Secure them with a screw which allows them to
pivot as needed, but holds them firmly in place to the benchtop.

A recess would also take part of the jaws below the surface. It seems a
recess deep enough to get the head of the screw out of the way wouldn't
leave much of the jaws usable.


Mount them with the screw eye towards the operator and the jaws
pointing away.

Spread the jaws enough and drop in the board.

Then pinch the jaws tighter and apply force from the operator
end (as would be applied by running a plane along the top edge of the
board.) The cam tightens when force is in that direction.

I think the owner said they wouldn't spread more than half an inch or
so. That sounds more like webbing than boards.


Also, if used in the manner you describe, I think the cam would
prevent you from getting the plank OUT, not hold it in tighter. Am I
reading you wrong?

Pull the board back towards the operator and the clamps release.

Depending on how hard you shoved the board in planing, for example,
there would be friction resisting your removal effort.

I think this will turn out to be something that either is used to hold
on to tarps or some other cloth while they are under tension (either
from being pulled, or from hanging while being hoisted), or else had a
handle or strap and was some sort of carrying device.

While I still like my original suggestion that it was for
clamping webbing straps (canvas or other woven material), I do consider
the bench stop function to be a possibility for rough work. For fine
work, you would use polished brass, or wood to avoid marring the
workpiece surface.

Enjoy,
DoN.

According to a 1900 patent for a wire frame that shut off water by
folding a hose, garden hoses used to resemble webbing.

About 1850, NYC needed a special water tower to have pressure for water
in the upper floors of buildings; that indicates that water pressure was
typically low. A 1920 patent speaks of a need to station somebody at
the faucet to shut off water in a hose. If this was a hose shutoff, the
friction of the single-cam action would be just the thing to keep water
pressure from opening the jaws.

One loose end is whether the jaws were wide enough for the typical size
of canvas garden hoses. Some hoses have a 5/8" diameter these days.
Flattened, that would require 1" jaws.

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:41:30 -0400, E Z Peaces
wrote:

About 1850, NYC needed a special water tower to have pressure for water
in the upper floors of buildings; that indicates that water pressure was
typically low.

Howdy,

(Just as an aside) that was true then, and is true now:

Many tall buildings in NYC have large wooden water tanks on
their roofs for just that purpose.

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

Kenneth wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:41:30 -0400, E Z Peaces
wrote:

About 1850, NYC needed a special water tower to have pressure for water
in the upper floors of buildings; that indicates that water pressure was
typically low.

Howdy,

(Just as an aside) that was true then, and is true now:

Many tall buildings in NYC have large wooden water tanks on
their roofs for just that purpose.

All the best,

Google provides access to a book by Lazarus White. It says about 1800
the Manhattan Company installed an iron tank to supply 1400 houses
through 20 miles of mains. The tank is within a 4-story building, so I
guess pressure at the street would have been about 15 psi.

The book says that in 1880, in many parts of the city, water would reach
only the second story of a house. That would be about 5 psi at the
street. I see why tall buildings had tanks.

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:45:06 -0400, E Z Peaces
wrote:

Kenneth wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:41:30 -0400, E Z Peaces
wrote:

About 1850, NYC needed a special water tower to have pressure for water
in the upper floors of buildings; that indicates that water pressure was
typically low.

Howdy,

(Just as an aside) that was true then, and is true now:

Many tall buildings in NYC have large wooden water tanks on
their roofs for just that purpose.

All the best,

Google provides access to a book by Lazarus White. It says about 1800
the Manhattan Company installed an iron tank to supply 1400 houses
through 20 miles of mains. The tank is within a 4-story building, so I
guess pressure at the street would have been about 15 psi.

The book says that in 1880, in many parts of the city, water would reach
only the second story of a house. That would be about 5 psi at the
street. I see why tall buildings had tanks.

Hi again,

There was a piece on "Dirty Jobs" about the company (and
they seem to have a lock on it) that replaces the roof
tanks.

I found it fascinating...

The whole process was virtually unchanged from the era of
the 1880s.

The machines were all original from that era.

'Great...

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

Kenneth wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:45:06 -0400, E Z Peaces
wrote:

Kenneth wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:41:30 -0400, E Z Peaces
wrote:

About 1850, NYC needed a special water tower to have pressure for water
in the upper floors of buildings; that indicates that water pressure was
typically low.
Howdy,

(Just as an aside) that was true then, and is true now:

Many tall buildings in NYC have large wooden water tanks on
their roofs for just that purpose.

All the best,
Google provides access to a book by Lazarus White. It says about 1800
the Manhattan Company installed an iron tank to supply 1400 houses
through 20 miles of mains. The tank is within a 4-story building, so I
guess pressure at the street would have been about 15 psi.

The book says that in 1880, in many parts of the city, water would reach
only the second story of a house. That would be about 5 psi at the
street. I see why tall buildings had tanks.

Hi again,

There was a piece on "Dirty Jobs" about the company (and
they seem to have a lock on it) that replaces the roof
tanks.

I found it fascinating...

The whole process was virtually unchanged from the era of
the 1880s.

The machines were all original from that era.

'Great...

All the best,

I estimated the date about 1850 from a Public TV program that happened
to run a couple of days ago, about the NYC water works. I may be
confused. Maybe they were talking about the tank installed by the
Manhattan Company, which went into business in 1799.

If NYC buildings needed their own pumps in the 1880s, I imagine pressure
was lower than today in most of America. Even where a high water head
was available, Wouldn't modern water pressure would have fatigued
masonry and plumbing? (A municipal system with 80 PSI at the street
could supply a toilet 18 stories up.)

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:49:23 -0400, E Z Peaces
wrote:

Kenneth wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:45:06 -0400, E Z Peaces
wrote:

Kenneth wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:41:30 -0400, E Z Peaces
wrote:

About 1850, NYC needed a special water tower to have pressure for water
in the upper floors of buildings; that indicates that water pressure was
typically low.
Howdy,

(Just as an aside) that was true then, and is true now:

Many tall buildings in NYC have large wooden water tanks on
their roofs for just that purpose.

All the best,
Google provides access to a book by Lazarus White. It says about 1800
the Manhattan Company installed an iron tank to supply 1400 houses
through 20 miles of mains. The tank is within a 4-story building, so I
guess pressure at the street would have been about 15 psi.

The book says that in 1880, in many parts of the city, water would reach
only the second story of a house. That would be about 5 psi at the
street. I see why tall buildings had tanks.

Hi again,

There was a piece on "Dirty Jobs" about the company (and
they seem to have a lock on it) that replaces the roof
tanks.

I found it fascinating...

The whole process was virtually unchanged from the era of
the 1880s.

The machines were all original from that era.

'Great...

All the best,

I estimated the date about 1850 from a Public TV program that happened
to run a couple of days ago, about the NYC water works. I may be
confused. Maybe they were talking about the tank installed by the
Manhattan Company, which went into business in 1799.

If NYC buildings needed their own pumps in the 1880s, I imagine pressure
was lower than today in most of America. Even where a high water head
was available, Wouldn't modern water pressure would have fatigued
masonry and plumbing? (A municipal system with 80 PSI at the street
could supply a toilet 18 stories up.)

Hi again,

My recollection of the details is vague, but...

I do remember that there was a legal requirement that water
in NYC be supplied by the city to a particular pressure.
(According to some stuff I found online, that level is
85PSI.)

But, quite obviously there are many buildings in the Apple
quite a bit taller than the 18 or so stories that would get
you.

Hence, the tanks...

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

On Apr 22, 1:41*am, E Z Peaces wrote:


About 1850, NYC needed a special water tower to have pressure for water
in the upper floors of buildings; that indicates that water pressure was
typically low. *A 1920 patent speaks of a need to station somebody at
the faucet to shut off water in a hose. *If this was a hose shutoff, the
friction of the single-cam action would be just the thing to keep water
pressure from opening the jaws.

One loose end is whether the jaws were wide enough for the typical size
of canvas garden hoses. *Some hoses have a 5/8" diameter these days.
Flattened, that would require 1" jaws.- Hide quoted text -


Consider that when it gets jammed into the clamp, its *not* flattened.
If it were a hose clamp, it would have to accept a full and
pressurized hose.

I think there are some other options we are not considering. Since
Stearns made bicycles, and later cars, there is a possibility that
this is some component of either. I propose some of the following:

--a retainer for some sort of strap...maybe to hold the brakes or to
hold the hood up or something
--some part of a bicycle...maybe on a trailer or to tow something
--a rein holder on a carriage
--a universal axle wrench

or the Universal "What Is It" default....a carpet stretcher.

--riverman

Kenneth wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:49:23 -0400, E Z Peaces
wrote:

Kenneth wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:45:06 -0400, E Z Peaces
wrote:

Kenneth wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:41:30 -0400, E Z Peaces
wrote:

About 1850, NYC needed a special water tower to have pressure for water
in the upper floors of buildings; that indicates that water pressure was
typically low.
Howdy,

(Just as an aside) that was true then, and is true now:

Many tall buildings in NYC have large wooden water tanks on
their roofs for just that purpose.

All the best,
Google provides access to a book by Lazarus White. It says about 1800
the Manhattan Company installed an iron tank to supply 1400 houses
through 20 miles of mains. The tank is within a 4-story building, so I
guess pressure at the street would have been about 15 psi.

The book says that in 1880, in many parts of the city, water would reach
only the second story of a house. That would be about 5 psi at the
street. I see why tall buildings had tanks.
Hi again,

There was a piece on "Dirty Jobs" about the company (and
they seem to have a lock on it) that replaces the roof
tanks.

I found it fascinating...

The whole process was virtually unchanged from the era of
the 1880s.

The machines were all original from that era.

'Great...

All the best,
I estimated the date about 1850 from a Public TV program that happened
to run a couple of days ago, about the NYC water works. I may be
confused. Maybe they were talking about the tank installed by the
Manhattan Company, which went into business in 1799.

If NYC buildings needed their own pumps in the 1880s, I imagine pressure
was lower than today in most of America. Even where a high water head
was available, Wouldn't modern water pressure would have fatigued
masonry and plumbing? (A municipal system with 80 PSI at the street
could supply a toilet 18 stories up.)

Hi again,

My recollection of the details is vague, but...

I do remember that there was a legal requirement that water
in NYC be supplied by the city to a particular pressure.
(According to some stuff I found online, that level is
85PSI.)

But, quite obviously there are many buildings in the Apple
quite a bit taller than the 18 or so stories that would get
you.

Hence, the tanks...

All the best,

I've checked the New York Times. In 1906, the pressure at hydrants in
the Wooster Street area (southern Manhattan) was 21 - 34 psi.

In 1908, firemen set up a portable water tower that produced 120 psi.
It burst a 6" pipe and 3 hoses.


In 1914 the Merchants Association in midtown asked for increased
pressure. At the water plant, the head was 120 feet (51 psi), but at
the point of use it wouldn't climb more than 4 stories. They said if it
could be increased to climb 10 stories, their members would have
$300,000 in pumping costs and reduce the cost of sprinkler systems.
They claimed it could be done without damaging the water plant.

In 1917, the Water Department distributed 100,000 pamphlets warning that
on April Fools Day, pressure would be increased from about 30 to about
60 pounds, depending on location.

On 83rd Street in 1920, firemen could get water to the upper part of a
5-story building, but only if they didn't use many hoses at once.

At one point in June of 1971, water pressure dropped as low as 10 psi,
then returned to its normal 35 - 60 psi.

riverman wrote:
On Apr 22, 1:41 am, E Z Peaces wrote:

About 1850, NYC needed a special water tower to have pressure for water
in the upper floors of buildings; that indicates that water pressure was
typically low. A 1920 patent speaks of a need to station somebody at
the faucet to shut off water in a hose. If this was a hose shutoff, the
friction of the single-cam action would be just the thing to keep water
pressure from opening the jaws.

One loose end is whether the jaws were wide enough for the typical size
of canvas garden hoses. Some hoses have a 5/8" diameter these days.
Flattened, that would require 1" jaws.- Hide quoted text -


Consider that when it gets jammed into the clamp, its *not* flattened.
If it were a hose clamp, it would have to accept a full and
pressurized hose.

Without a shutoff nozzle, the hose wouldn't be pressurized until the
clamp was closed.

I tried a 5/8" vinyl hose today. At 50F, it was probably much stiffer
than a canvas hose a century ago. With water running, I could squeeze
it flat enough with my fingers to feel the sides touch. Water still
flowed. I think a mechanical clamp could stop the flow.

Water pressure around here is probably about 50 psi. A century ago in
NYC is was about 20 - 35. It may have been lower in places where they
didn't try to fight fires in tall buildings using mains pressure.


I think there are some other options we are not considering. Since
Stearns made bicycles, and later cars, there is a possibility that
this is some component of either. I propose some of the following:

--a retainer for some sort of strap...maybe to hold the brakes or to
hold the hood up or something
--some part of a bicycle...maybe on a trailer or to tow something
--a rein holder on a carriage

In a bouncing vehicle, wouldn't the clamp swing around its mounting
screw? Wouldn't the jaws rattle?

--a universal axle wrench

I'd call it a wrench for very small axles.

or the Universal "What Is It" default....a carpet stretcher.

--riverman