What is it? Set 279



    Hmm ... it looks like a drop-forged tool, perhaps zinc coated, and a *thin* zinc coating, not hot dip galvanized which would have been done earlier.

    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.
    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.

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

    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.
--
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DoN. Nichols wrote:

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.

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

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

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:41:30 -0400, E Z Peaces

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."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kenneth wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:45:06 -0400, E Z Peaces

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."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kenneth wrote:

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.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:49:23 -0400, E Z Peaces

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."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kenneth wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
riverman wrote:

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.

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

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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    I agree that is is wrong for lines on a sailboat. But there are two simple work-arounds for the lack of a spring on the jaw.
a)    Suspend it by the eye which is shown at the bottom in the photo     and the jaw would close by gravity.
b)    Pull the webbing to be clamped (not rope, I think, with those     jaws) sideways against the movable jaw, and then allow a little     draw-back of the webbing which will drag the jaw closed.

    Again -- the same could solve it -- but those jaws would leave a serious imprint on the leather -- especially assuming wet leather to start with to allow the stretching.

    Poor shape for gripping a round handle, though that would have the eye up and the jaws down. I would expect it to rapidly wear the paint off the handle, followed by removing wood every time it is used.
    Enjoy,         DoN.
--
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DoN. Nichols wrote:

Wouldn't the shear between the fixed and the moving jaw damage webbing?

Suppose you have a bucket in one hand and want to use the other hand to take the mop from the clamp. The way the jaws are shaped, you should be able to slide the handle out sideways if you pull slightly upward to loosen the clamp. You might similarly be able to insert a handle from the side.
The ridges look rounded. I think similar ridges on metal decking would not damage my shoes. The jaws wouldn't close very hard on a two-pound mop.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I just heard back about your second question, the metal part does unscrew from the handle.
Rob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
1588: A doorknocker for the blacksmith shop. Jon

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I think that you guys have "nailed" 1588. A door knocker. Why? Well, it's made to look like an anvil, but cannot be used as one. The movement of the hammer is restricted, and the horn is not accessible. It could possibly be a whimsical nutcracker, but the mounting holes are not needed, and they are too carefully done for that application.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
1588 Based on absolute ignorance, I'll suggest that this is a cute door-knocker by/for a blacksmith enthusiast.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good guess, door knocker is correct.
Rob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It is a silly thought, but it would be amusing to contemplate this door-knocker coupled to a delay/amplifier so that if it were struck it would produce the ting-Clang of a blacksmith/apprentice strike.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

1589 looks like an old style fid for splicing wire rope.
Len
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    Posting from Rec.crafts.metalworking as always.
1585)    You pull a webbing strap through it (or leather, I     guess), and when you relax your pull it pulls the jaws closed if     the strap is in contact with the hinged jaw. Not as much     tension as a ratchet strap, but good for holding things down in     general.
1586)    A style of "wiggler" used for centering a workpiece in a 4-jaw     chuck (where each jaw is individually adjustable). You place     the sharp point at the end of the ball in a center punch, or the     ball itself in a center-drilled hole, with the rectangular shank     in the toolpost, and adjust the cross-feed until the other end     from the ball/point end is near the center in the tailstock.
    As you rotate the chuck, the free end draws a circle in the air     whose diameter is a function of how far off center the workpiece     is. So -- you adjust jaws until the end is stationary through a     full revolution of the chuck.
    Note that the rod can slide in the gimbal, and the closer the     gimbal is to the workpiece the larger the circle at the free end     will be.
    It is no longer made, based on a catalog from the late 1990s.
1587)    No idea -- sorry.
1588)    I *like* it. A neat trade (or hobby) specific door knocker.
1589)    Hmm ... a strange one, but I have a couple of guesses.
    1)    A tool for laying rope (center line goes through the         hole in the center, and three others go through the 3/4         circle notches, and you turn the handle around it as you         go along the length of the rope being made.
    2)    A bobbin for weaving nets (fairly large opening ones.)
        The line being carried by the bobbin wraps through the         three notches, and is unwound a notch at a time as you         need the extra length.
1590)    For measuring the thickness of sheet metal. (Or perhaps wire.)
    The handle protects the knuckles of the user from the edges of     the metal.
    You turn the disc until the end of the screw clamps the sheet     metal against the anvil.
    The numbers (starting next to the '0' at about 5:00 o'clock     indicate the gauge thickness of the metal. (There have been a     number of measurement systems for sheet metal and wire, and I     can't tell which of the systems is used on this one. But in all     of the systems the large the number, the smaller the thickness.
    This represents the number of passes through rollers which make     it thinner each pass. Note that this goes through about 1 and     1/3 turns before it gets from the "0" which is when the empty     gauge closes to the "0" which is quite thick -- and it goes on     to "00" at about 1 and one-half turns.
    Note how steep the threads are. Those are mult-start threads,     (three or four, I think) so 1-1/2 turns take you from fully     closed to fully open.
    Now to see what others have suggested.
    Enjoy,         DoN.
--
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.