westcoast_dave Posted December 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 Thanks for the insight, makes the processes easier to visualize. I have also have quit the term "miller" for anything other than hand gathered. Gotta give Peltier his due. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 Really enjoying this thread and the level of knowledge and detail you all are bringing to the discussion. When referencing "ying-yang" Pelts, do you mean the Pelts that look as if they were twisted at the "equater" while the "poles" were held statonary? I have a handfull of them that I have pictured below. That's them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
migbar Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 John, I'm glad you got nothin' to sell, because with all due respect, I'm still not buying it. The illustration of the finished marble in the patent drawing is inconvenient in that it does not resemble a feathered slag, but it does appear to be what this set up would produce. I am adamant in my belief that feathered slags were made by casting chunks of white cullet onto the surface of the base glass in the furnace, as opposed to ladles of molten glass. The patent drawing shows a pool of glass below the first side port, that would have been added in a molten state with the charging ladle, and it is stretching out toward the discharge well as a single line of glass surrounded by the base glass. As it piles up on the inclined surface below, it would be a mass of looping lines in all directions, as shown in the drawing. Glass is viscous stuff, and at the fast pace that the gobs are cut, while flowing out the hole to be cut (ka-chink-ka-chink-ka-chink), I seriously doubt, even at high temperature, that nested chevron patterns would be formed continuously on the gob or drip. There would be some pattern movement, surely, but I suggest that the feathering aberrations of the stream would be more likely to occur in a different set up, due to interaction with a plunger, and without the 9" drop into a piling up chamber. I continue to believe this is more likely a possible set up for the wildly patterned so-called "Millers", and the "burnt" marbles. There is plenty of reason to use opaque glass in a process that piles up the glass, even if you can't see inside the marble, because the resulting patterns on the surface of the marble could be extraordinary, if you like folded loops and flames and stuff. I think Sellers Peltier realized that, too. You may scoff and laugh, if you like. Oh...as for the nice reverse twist marbles, as much as I've always wanted to believe that Sellers Peltier made those on purpose, I never found any info to back up that hope, and I have to agree that they just happen sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
migbar Posted December 3, 2014 Report Share Posted December 3, 2014 and hey....I'm old....I'm a stoner....sometimes I say stupid things... that's just the way it is.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Marbles Posted December 3, 2014 Report Share Posted December 3, 2014 John, I'm glad you got nothin' to sell, because with all due respect, I'm still not buying it. The illustration of the finished marble in the patent drawing is inconvenient in that it does not resemble a feathered slag, but it does appear to be what this set up would produce. I am adamant in my belief that feathered slags were made by casting chunks of white cullet onto the surface of the base glass in the furnace, as opposed to ladles of molten glass. The patent drawing shows a pool of glass below the first side port, that would have been added in a molten state with the charging ladle, and it is stretching out toward the discharge well as a single line of glass surrounded by the base glass. As it piles up on the inclined surface below, it would be a mass of looping lines in all directions, as shown in the drawing. Glass is viscous stuff, and at the fast pace that the gobs are cut, while flowing out the hole to be cut (ka-chink-ka-chink-ka-chink), I seriously doubt, even at high temperature, that nested chevron patterns would be formed continuously on the gob or drip. There would be some pattern movement, surely, but I suggest that the feathering aberrations of the stream would be more likely to occur in a different set up, due to interaction with a plunger, and without the 9" drop into a piling up chamber. I continue to believe this is more likely a possible set up for the wildly patterned so-called "Millers", and the "burnt" marbles. There is plenty of reason to use opaque glass in a process that piles up the glass, even if you can't see inside the marble, because the resulting patterns on the surface of the marble could be extraordinary, if you like folded loops and flames and stuff. I think Sellers Peltier realized that, too. You may scoff and laugh, if you like. Oh...as for the nice reverse twist marbles, as much as I've always wanted to believe that Sellers Peltier made those on purpose, I never found any info to back up that hope, and I have to agree that they just happen sometimes. Mike, John, I'm glad you got nothin' to sell, because with all due respect, I'm still not buying it. No problem. The illustration of the finished marble in the patent drawing is inconvenient in that it does not resemble a feathered slag, but it does appear to be what this set up would produce. No, not inconvenient, just incorrect. Why is it incorrect? Look at Figure 6 again. "Remove" in your mind the dark squiggly lines overlaying the hanging gob. You will see the lines stretched vertically on the gob (as described in his patent). Any glass pattern created upstream will be stretched from gravity as it passes through the second orifice. No way would it be possible for a "wire-pull" or a swirl gather to survive intact (as drawn in Figure 7) as it extrudes through the nozzle. By diverting the stream in this manner by causing the stream to adhere to the heated inclined surface 24, the stream will be caused to come in contact with the lower part of the auxiliary furnace rather than falling directly through the opening 30 in the lower bushing 25. The heat in the auxiliary chamber 23 is preferably so controlled and distributed, as to cause this downwardly flowing column of material to adhere to one side of the cone throat 34—35 of the block 33 as clearly shown in Fig. 1 of the drawings. This supplements the effect of the oriffice surfaces 13-12, in drawing out the more or, less irregular mass of the striating ingredient into the desired striae. The flowing body of the components, passes through the auxiliary furnace chamber 23 where it is allowed to be further elongated and produce a more finely striated stream of molten material. The piled material will then slowly flow towards and through the opening 30 of the lower bushing 28 and pass downwardly into an elongated form, as clearly shown in Figs. 1 and 6 of the drawings. Patent US1927650 is a utility patent not a design patent. Sellers is trying to protect the machine and process from his competition and the predatory business practices of Hartford-Empire. If Sellers wanted to protect the style of marble, then he would have applied for a Design Patent. Figure 7 is technically inconsequential, but becomes rather a distraction (red herring). False argument: The patent document doesn't show a "feathered" marble, therefore, this patent couldn't be for making "feathered" marbles. Back in the day, you had to apply for patents through law firms. There is a very specific language that must be used. Not only must the language be specific, but the illustrators/draftsmen had to be trained in the "art". You scan send your typed description and sketches to the lawyer, but they will be massaged to conform to the expectations of the patent examiner. These documents went back and forth many times between the parties. It is not uncommon for "translation" errors to occur. The guys doing the work in the law office are completely disconnected from the actual equipment. Still pretty much as it is today. I never met the lawyer handling my first (and only) patent and he never saw the equipment. I am adamant in my belief that feathered slags were made by casting chunks of white cullet onto the surface of the base glass in the furnace, as opposed to ladles of molten glass. The patent drawing shows a pool of glass below the first side port, that would have been added in a molten state with the charging ladle, and it is stretching out toward the discharge well as a single line of glass surrounded by the base glass. No argument here. In fact, the patent leaves open the actual delivery method and heated state of the glass. It even suggest multiple ports to apply glass. However, Sellers doesn't specifically state that chunks of cullet or large frit must be used in order to provide a plethora of mini-streams necessary to get the desired effect of fine striated glass. As it piles up on the inclined surface below, it would be a mass of looping lines in all directions, as shown in the drawing. The drawings do not show looping lines in all directions. Figure 1 shows the accumulation against the side of the second conical nozzle. Figure 6 is a magnified, 90-degree (side) view of Figure 1. Figure 6 clearly shows the glass winding back and forth upon itself like ribbon candy you get at Christmas time. Glass is viscous stuff, and at the fast pace that the gobs are cut, while flowing out the hole to be cut (ka-chink-ka-chink-ka-chink), Don't know how this statement applies to either support or refute any opinions. All I can ask is, "What is fast pace?" "How many cuts per minute?" "Did the shear really make the sound 'ka-chink-ka-chink-ka-chink'?" I seriously doubt, even at high temperature, that nested chevron patterns would be formed continuously on the gob or drip. Okay. That's your opinion. There would be some pattern movement, surely, Agreed. This is a process that is fluid and ever changing. Definitely not a "set it and forget it" operation. but I suggest that the feathering aberrations of the stream would be more likely to occur in a different set up, due to interaction with a plunger, and without the 9" drop into a piling up chamber. This is where we disagree. Feathering isn't a statistic aberration, but a designed outcome. And it is this set-up, as described in the patent, that results in "feathered" marbles. I consider marbles with inferior "feathering" as statistical aberrations. I continue to believe this is more likely a possible set up for the wildly patterned so-called "Millers", and the "burnt" marbles. There is plenty of reason to use opaque glass in a process that piles up the glass, even if you can't see inside the marble, because the resulting patterns on the surface of the marble could be extraordinary, if you like folded loops and flames and stuff. I think Sellers Peltier realized that, too. Really, not part of this discussion. Dave, wanted opinions as to whether Patent US1927650 was used to make feathered slags. Maybe another thread you can start and lay out your argument? You may scoff and laugh, if you like. No scoffing or laughing here in Kansas. Oh...as for the nice reverse twist marbles, as much as I've always wanted to believe that Sellers Peltier made those on purpose, I never found any info to back up that hope, and I have to agree that they just happen sometimes. Agreed. My belief is that these are statistical outliers and an indication that the marble machine wasn't "just right." Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Marbles Posted December 3, 2014 Report Share Posted December 3, 2014 Mike, Finished up my response early in the morning after a night of CAD work. Eyes red, neck hurts, but still a smile on my face. Always enjoy your posts and your engaging debate! Going to bed. John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hipocritter Posted December 3, 2014 Report Share Posted December 3, 2014 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Marbles Posted December 3, 2014 Report Share Posted December 3, 2014 Mike, A very short sleep and off to a meeting. This reminds me of the arguments over what caused the extinction of dinosaurs. Was it a meteor, the earth tilting on axis, a virus or...? Then boom!! Gary Larson comes along and he shows how dinosaurs really became extinct in his one panel illustration. Talk soon! John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mon Posted December 3, 2014 Report Share Posted December 3, 2014 My sister sent me almost every year the panel....."Beware of Doug".....G.Larson was my favorite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
migbar Posted December 3, 2014 Report Share Posted December 3, 2014 Geez...what a jabbermouse ! also...nuh-uh... (thanks, John !) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann Posted December 3, 2014 Report Share Posted December 3, 2014 and hey....I'm old....I'm a stoner....sometimes I say stupid things... that's just the way it is.... And yes, this is one of the reasons I love migbar, no matter what he thinks about patents. I'm a bird of a feather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann Posted December 3, 2014 Report Share Posted December 3, 2014 Mike, Finished up my response early in the morning after a night of CAD work. Eyes red, neck hurts, but still a smile on my face. Always enjoy your posts and your engaging debate! Going to bed. John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles" And all the other stuff he ^^^^ said too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
migbar Posted December 3, 2014 Report Share Posted December 3, 2014 Those youngsters and their wacky CAD work !!!! Hey John...so you have a drafting degree, too, also ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mon Posted December 3, 2014 Report Share Posted December 3, 2014 I believe it;s auto! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now