WILKINSON AND BRAMAH
In the previous chapter it was stated that John Wilkinson, of Bersham,
made the steam engine commercially possible by first boring Watt’s
cylinders with the degree of accuracy necessary, and that his boring
machine was probably the first metal-cutting tool capable of doing
large work with anything like modern accuracy. Although Wilkinson was
not primarily a tool builder but an iron master, this achievement alone
is sufficient to make him interesting to the tool builders of today.
He was born in 1728. His father made his financial start by
manufacturing a crimping iron for ironing the fancy ruffles of the
day. John Wilkinson first started a blast furnace at Belston and later
joined his father in an iron works the latter had built at Bersham,
near Chester. By developing a method of smelting and puddling iron
with coal instead of wood-charcoal, he obtained an immense commercial
advantage over his rivals and soon became a powerful factor in the iron
industry. Later, he built other works, notably one at Broseley, near
Coalbrookdale on the Severn.
One of the important branches of his work was the casting and finishing
of cannon. It was in connection with this that he invented the boring
machine referred to. He bored the first cylinder for Boulton & Watt in
1775. Farey, in his “History of the Steam Engine,” says:
In the old method, the borer for cutting the metal was not guided in
its progress,[12] and therefore followed the incorrect form given to
the cylinder in casting it; it was scarcely insured that every part
of the cylinder should be circular; and there was no certainty that
the cylinder would be straight. This method was thought sufficient
for old engines; but Mr. Watt’s engines required greater precision.
[12] See Fig. 1.
Mr. Wilkinson’s machine, which is now the common boring-machine,
has a straight central bar of great strength, which occupies the
central axis of the cylinder, during the operation of boring; and the
borer, or cutting instrument, is accurately fitted to slide along
this bar, which, being made perfectly straight, serves as a sort of
ruler, to give a rectilinear direction to the borer in its progress,
so as to produce a cylinder equally straight in the length, and
circular in the circumference. This method insures all the accuracy
the subject is capable of; for if the cylinder is cast ever so
crooked, the machine will bore it straight and true, provided there
is metal enough to form the required cylinder by cutting away the
superfluities.[13]
[13] Farey: “Treatise on the Steam Engine,” p. 326. 1827.
Wilkinson’s relations with Boulton & Watt became very intimate. He
showed his confidence in the new engine by ordering the first one
built at Soho to blow the bellows of his iron works at Broseley.
Great interest was felt in the success of this engine. Other iron
manufacturers suspended their building operations to see what the
engine could do and Watt himself superintended every detail of its
construction and erection. Before it was finished Boulton wrote to Watt:
Pray tell Mr. Wilkinson to get a dozen cylinders cast and bored from
12 to 50 inches in diameter, and as many condensers of suitable
sizes; the latter must be sent here, as we will keep them ready
fitted up, and then an engine can be turned out of hand in two
or three weeks. I have fixed my mind upon making from 12 to 15
reciprocating, and 50 rotative engines per annum.[14]
[14] Smiles: “Boulton & Watt,” p. 185. London, 1904.
This letter is interesting as showing Boulton’s clear grasp of the
principles of manufacturing. Later, when Boulton & Watt were hard
pressed financially, Wilkinson took a considerable share in their
business and when the rotative engine was developed he ordered the
first one. He consequently has the honor of being the purchaser of the
first reciprocating and the first rotary engine turned out by Watt.
Later, when Watt was educating his son to take up his work, he sent him
for a year to Wilkinson’s iron works at Bersham, to learn their methods.
Fig. 7, taken from an old encyclopedia of manufacturing and
engineering, shows the boring machine used for boring Watt’s steam
cylinders.
On two oaken stringers _SS_, frames _FF_ were mounted which carried a
hollow boring bar _A_ driven from the end. The cylinder to be bored
was clamped to saddles, as shown. The cutters were carried on a head
which rotated with the bar and was fed along it by means of an internal
feed-rod and rack. In the machine shown the feeding was done by a
weight and lever which actuated a pinion gearing with the rack _R_, but
later a positive feed, through a train of gears operated by the main
boring-bar, was used. Two roughing cuts and a finishing cut were used,
and the average feed is given as ¹⁄₁₆ inch per revolution. While this
machine may seem crude, a comparison with Smeaton’s boring machine,
Fig. 1, will show how great an advance it was over the best which
preceded it.
Wilkinson was a pioneer in many lines. He built and launched the first
iron vessel and in a letter dated July 14, 1787, says:
Yesterday week my iron boat was launched. It answers all my
expectations, and has convinced the unbelievers who were 999 in
a thousand. It will be only a nine days wonder, and then be like
Columbus’s egg.[15]
[15] “_Beiträge zur Geschichte der Technik und Industrie_,” 3. Band.
S. 227. Berlin, 1911.
In another letter written a little over a year later, he says:
There have been launched two Iron Vessels in my service since Sept.
1st: one is a canal boat for this [i.e., Birmingham] navigation, the
other a barge of 40 tons for the River Severn. The last was floated
on Monday and is, I expect, at Stourport with a loading of bar iron.
My clerk at Broseley advises me that she swims remarkably light and
exceeds my expectations.[16]
[16] _Ibid._, 3. Band. S. 227.
In 1788 William Symington built and ran a steam-operated boat on
Dalswinton Loch in Scotland, which was a small, light craft with two
hulls, made of tinned sheet-iron plates.[17] It has been erroneously
claimed that this was the first iron boat. It was at best the second.
Although of no commercial importance, it is of very great historical
interest as it antedated Fulton’s “Clermont” by many years.
[17] Autobiography of James Nasmyth, p. 30. London, 1883.
Twenty-three years later, in 1810, Onions & Son of Broseley built the
next iron boats, also for use upon the Severn. Five years later Mr.
Jervons of Liverpool built a small iron boat for use on the Mersey. In
1821 an iron vessel was built at the Horsley works in Staffordshire,
which sailed from London to Havre and went up the Seine to Paris.[18]
Iron vessels were built from time to time after that, but it was fully
twenty-five years before they came into general use.
[18] Smiles: “Men of Invention and Industry,” pp. 51-52. New York,
1885.
[Illustration: FIGURE 6. JOHN WILKINSON]
[Illustration: FIGURE 7. WILKINSON’S BORING MACHINE
USED FOR MACHINING THE CYLINDERS OF WATT ENGINES]
With Abraham Darby, 3d, Wilkinson has the honor of having built, in
1779, the first iron bridge, which spanned the Severn at Broseley. This
bridge had a span of 100 feet 6 inches, and a clear height of 48 feet,
and is standing today as good as ever.[19] He invented also the method
of making continuous lead pipe.
[19] Smiles: “Industrial Biography,” p. 119. Boston, 1864. Also,
_Beiträge_, etc., 3. Band. S. 226.
He was a man of great ability, strong and masterful. Boulton wrote of
him to Watt:
I can’t say but that I admire John Wilkinson for his decisive, clear,
and distinct character, which is, I think, a first-rate one of its
kind.[20]
[20] Smiles: “Boulton & Watt,” p. 438. London, 1904.
There is a note of qualification in the last clause. With all his
admirable qualities Wilkinson was not always amiable and he was in
constant feud with the other members of his family. He became very
wealthy, but his large estate was dissipated in a famous lawsuit
between his heirs.
Forceful and able as Wilkinson was, another man, Joseph Bramah, living
in London about the same time, had a much more direct influence on
tool building. Bramah was a Yorkshire farmer’s boy, born in 1748, and
lame.[21] As he could not work on the farm he learned the cabinet
maker’s trade, went to London, and, in the course of his work which
took him into the well-to-do houses about town, he made his first
successful invention--the modern water-closet. He patented it in 1778
and 1783, and it continues to this day in substantially the same form.
In 1784 he patented a lock, which was an improvement on Barron’s,
invented ten years before, and was one of the most successful ever
invented. For many years it had the reputation of being absolutely
unpickable. Confident of this, Bramah placed a large padlock on a board
in his shop window in Piccadilly and posted beneath it the following
notice:
“The artist who can make an instrument that will pick or open this
lock shall receive two hundred guineas the moment it is produced.”
[21] The best account of Bramah is given in Smiles’ “Industrial
Biography,” pp. 228-244. Boston, 1864.
Many tried to open it. In one attempt made in 1817, a clever mechanic
named Russell spent a week on it and gave it up in despair. In 1851
Alfred C. Hobbs, an American, mastered it and won the money. He was
allowed a _month_ in which to work and the Committee of Referees
in their report stated that he spent sixteen days, and an actual
working time of fifty-one hours, in doing it. This gave Hobbs a great
reputation, which he enhanced by picking every other lock well known in
England at that time, and then showing how it was done.
This started up the liveliest kind of a controversy and gave everyone
a chance to write to the _Times_. They all began first picking, then
tearing each other’s locks. Headlines of “Love (Hobbs?) Laughs at
Locksmiths,” “Equivocator” and other like terms appeared.[22]
[22] Price: “Fire and Thief-proof Depositories, and Locks and Keys.”
It was finally recognized that any lock could be picked by a skillful
mechanic with a knowledge of locks, if he were given time enough. The
old Bramah lock, made, by the way, by Henry Maudslay himself, did not
fare so badly. Hobbs had unmolested access to it for days with any
tools he could bring or devise; and though he finally opened it, a lock
probably sixty years old which could stand such an assault for fifty
hours was secure for all ordinary purposes.[23]
[23] Anyone who is interested can find an account of the affair in
Price’s “Fire and Thief-proof Depositories, and Locks and Keys,”
published in 1856, and Mr. Hobbs has given his own personal account
of it, explaining how the work was done, in the Trans. of the A. S.
M. E., Vol. VI, pp. 248-253.
When Bramah began manufacturing the locks he found almost immediately
that they called for a better quality of workmanship than was
available, with even the best manual skill about him. A series of
machine tools had to be devised if they were to be made in the
quantities and of the quality desired. He turned first to an old German
in Moodie’s shop who had the reputation of being the most ingenious
workman in London; but while he, with Bramah, saw the need, he could
not meet it. One of his shopmates, however, suggested a young man at
the Woolwich Arsenal named Henry Maudslay, then only eighteen years old.
Bramah sent for him and Maudslay soon became his right-hand man, and
was made superintendent of the works at nineteen. The work of these two
men in developing the tools needed laid the foundation for the standard
metal-cutting tools of today. The most important improvement was the
slide-rest. Nasmyth later said that he had seen the first one, made
by Maudslay, running in Bramah’s shop and that “in it were all those
arrangements which are to be found in the most modern slide-rest of our
own day” (i.e., fifty years later). Other parts of the metal-cutting
lathe also began to take shape; it has been said that parts of the lock
were milled on a lathe with rotary cutters, and that the beginnings
of the planer were made. How much of this work was Bramah’s and how
much Maudslay’s it would be hard to say. Bramah was a fertile, clever
inventor; but Maudslay was the better general mechanic, had a surer
judgment and a greater influence on subsequent tool design.
About this time Bramah invented the hydraulic press. As he first built
it, the ram was packed with a stuffing-box and gland. This gripped the
ram, retarded the return stroke, and gave him a lot of trouble until
Maudslay substituted the self-tightening cup-leather packing for the
stuffing-box, an improvement which made the device a success.
Bramah’s restless ingenuity was continually at work. He invented a very
successful beer-pump in 1797, the four-way cock, a quill sharpener
which was in general use until quills were superseded by steel pens,
and he dabbled with the steam engine. He was a bitter opponent of Watt
and testified against him in the famous suit of Boulton & Watt against
Hornblower. He maintained the superiority of the old Newcomen engines
and said that the principle of the separate condenser was fallacious,
that Watt had added nothing new which was not worthless, and that his
so-called improvements were “monstrous stupidity.”
In 1802 Bramah obtained a patent for woodworking machinery second only
in importance to that granted Bentham in 1791. Like Bentham, he aimed
to replace manual labor “for producing straight, smooth, and parallel
surfaces on wood and other materials requiring truth, in a manner
much more expeditious and perfect than can be performed by the use
of axes, saws, planes, and other cutting instruments used by hand in
the ordinary way.” His tools were carried in fixed frames and driven
by machinery. In his planing machine, one of which was running in
the Woolwich Arsenal for fifty years, the cutter-head, which carried
twenty-eight tools, was mounted on a vertical shaft and swept across
the work in a horizontal plane. He used this same method in planing
the metal parts for his locks, which corresponds, of course, to our
modern face-milling. He provided for cutting spherical and concave
surfaces and used his device for making wooden bowls.
In 1806 he devised an automatic machine which the Bank of England used
many years in numbering their banknotes, eliminating error and saving
the labor of many clerks.
Maudslay was in his employ from 1789 to 1797. He was getting as
superintendent 30s. ($7.50) a week. A growing family and “the high
cost of living” rendered this insufficient and he applied for more. He
was refused so curtly that he gave up his position and started in for
himself in a small workshop on Oxford Street in London. Later he took
Field in as partner under the firm name of Maudslay & Field.
In 1813 Bramah engaged another man who later had a great influence,
Joseph Clement. Clement soon became his chief draftsman and
superintendent. Salaries had gone up somewhat by that time and he had
an agreement for five years starting on the basis of three guineas a
week with an advance of four shillings each year. At Bramah’s death not
long after, his sons took charge of the business, and soon grew jealous
of Clement’s influence. By mutual consent the contract was terminated
and he went at once to Maudslay & Field as their chief draftsman.
Later he, too, set up for himself and had an important part in the
development of the screw-cutting lathe, the planer and standard screw
threads. Whitworth was one of his workmen and Clement’s work on taps
and dies formed the basis of the Whitworth thread.
Bramah died in 1814, at the age of sixty-six. He was a man of widely
recognized influence, a keen and independent thinker, a good talker,
and, though it might not appear from what has been said, a cheery and
always welcome companion. He left a reputation for absolute business
integrity and the quality of his workmanship was unrivaled until his
later years, when he was equaled only by those he had himself trained.
He gave the world some great and valuable devices and paved the way for
others. His influence on modern tools can probably never be accurately
judged, but Smiles’ tribute to him is as true today as when it was
written, two generations ago:
From his shops at Pimlico came Henry Maudslay, Joseph Clement,
and many more first-class mechanics, who carried the mechanical
arts to still higher perfection, and gave an impulse to mechanical
engineering the effects of which are still felt in every branch of
industry.[24]
[24] Smiles: “Industrial Biography,” p. 244.
Bramah had an invincible dislike for sitting for his portrait and
consequently none exists. A death-mask was made by Sir Francis
Chantrey, who executed the Watt statue in Westminster Abbey, but it
was unfortunately destroyed by Lady Chantrey. The complete catalog
of the National Portrait Gallery in London[25] gives Bramah’s name.
The reference, however, directs one to Walker’s famous engraving of
the “Eminent Men of Science Living in 1807-1808,” which shows about
fifty distinguished scientists and engineers grouped in the Library
of the Royal Institution. This engraving is the result of four years’
careful study. It was grouped by Sir John Gilbert, drawn by John Skill,
and finished by William Walker and his wife. Bramah’s figure, No. 6,
appears in this group, but _with his back turned_, the only one in that
position. It is a singular tribute to Bramah’s influence among his
generation of scientists that this picture would have been considered
incomplete without him. As no portrait of him existed he was included,
but with his face turned away. The figure was drawn in accordance with
a description furnished by Bramah’s grandson, E. H. Bramah.
[25] Cust’s.
[Illustration: FIGURE 8. EMINENT MEN OF SCIENCE LIVING IN 1807-8
FROM WALKER’S ENGRAVING IN THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY, LONDON
1. William Allen, 1770-1843
2. Francis Bailey, 1774-1844
3. Sir Joseph Banks, 1743-1820
4. Sir Samuel Bentham, 1737-1831
5. Matthew Boulton, 1728-1807
6. Joseph Bramah, 1749-1814
7. Robert Brown, 1773-1859
8. Sir Marc Isambard Brunel, 1769-1849
9. Edmund Cartwright, 1743-1823
10. Hon. Henry Cavendish, 1731-1810
11. Sir William Congreve, 1772-1828
12. Samuel Crompton, 1735-1827
13. John Dalton, 1766-1844
14. Sir Humphrey Davy, 1778-1829
15. Peter Dollond, 1731-1820
16. Bryan Donkin, 1768-1855
17. Thomas Cochrane, Earl of Dundonald, 1775-1860
18. Henry Fourdrinier, 1766-1854
19. Davis Giddy Gilbert, 1767-1839
20. Charles Hatchett, 1765-1847
21. William Henry, 1774-1836
22. Sir William Herschel, 1738-1822
23. Edward Charles Howard, 1774-1816
24. Joseph Huddart, 1740-1816
25. Edward Jenner, 1749-1823
26. William Jessop, 1745-1814
27. Henry Kater, 1777-1835
28. Sir John Leslie, 1766-1832
29. Nevil Maskelyne, 1732-1811
30. Henry Maudslay, 1771-1831
31. Patrick Miller, 1730-1815
32. William Murdock, 1754-1839
33. Robert Nylne, 1733-1811
34. Alexander Nasmyth, 1758-1840
35. John Playfair, 1748-1819
36. John Rennie, 1761-1821
37. Sir Francis Ronalds, 1788-1873
38. Count Rumford, 1753-1814
39. Daniel Rutherford, 1749-1819
40. Charles, third Earl Stanhope, 1753-1816
41. William Symington, 1763-1831
42. Thomas Telford, 1757-1834
43. Charles Tennant, 1768-1838
44. Thomas Thomson, 1773-1852
45. Richard Trevithick, 1771-1833
46. James Watt, 1736-1819
47. William Hyde Wollaston, 1766-1828
48. Thomas Young, 1773-1829
Group originated by William Walker. Designed by Sir John Gilbert.
Engraved by Walker and Zobel.]
The engraving includes many other men of interest whose names are
indicated. Some of them have already been considered; others, while
famous as engineers, worked in fields other than the one we are
considering.