Technikatörténeti szemle 4. (1967)

TANULMÁNYOK - Endrei Walter: A többszerszámos munkagép

THE MULTITOOL MACHINE The author discusses a technical historical phenomenon, quite natural for the modern view — just because of this researchers have neglected its origin and the fundamental ideological changes accompanying its appearance up to now. In antiquity and middle age the multitool machine fed by one source of energy can be considered unknown. The teadmill or waterwheel operated one instrument only. Characteristic illustrations of the above said are the mill-works at Barbegal. which utilized an 18.6 m level difference by 16 waterwheels in a gradual arrangement. The idea that one wheel could work more pairs of millstones or some other machine element, has not turned up in this period. Probably the endeavour to utilize intensively the energy transmitted by a camshaft led to connecting more machine elements to the crusher, pounder and hammering mechanisms, developed from the 11th century. Mediaeval fulling-, stamp-, paper-, tiltmills, etc. are operating with 2—8 pounders or hammers from the 14—15th century onwards. Circumstances of the birth of this machine type are unknown, especially those, becoming the media of these revolutionary changes. Machines worked by the camshaft liberated man of heavy or monotonous physical labour, but required little attention and only slight manual skill. But in case of multitool machines, introduced in textile industry, technical solutions on a higher level were needed. Their first example, the 13th century silk filatory is a totally developed construction. The multispindle twister and spinner, the so called Lucca filatory, operated by a great quantity of water, have been followed by the check small ware loom and manyneedle knitting frame in the 16th century. Naturally in the period between the above two dates these problems were not neglected: e. g. Leonardo da Vinci designed a 4-bobbin distaff, 15-bobbin rope layer, 4-course shearing- and 5-course nap raising machine. All the same a stagnation in the 14—15th century prevalent on other fields, too, might give some food for meditation. In the 17th century the introduction of multitool textile machines (reelers, windles) continued and in the 18th century with the spinning machine the industrial revolution wins. In the 17th and 18th century in spite of certain forms of social resistance (secrecy, guild laws) the filatory, small ware loom and knitting frame are rapidly spreading. At the same time in other branches of industry multitool machines, causing revolutionary changes in productivity, appear only in the 19th century. The outlined development raises a lot of problems. What can be the explanation of a psychological inhibition, hindering society in recognizing a technically obvious conception? A number of phenomena besides the retarded realization of the multitool machine — e. g. the wheel is unknown in New World societies, similarly pedal drive in antiquity — are not clear for us. The reason why the multitool solution of crusher, pounder and hammering mills meant an impasse and why only in textile industry were multitool machines on a higher technical level applied before the industrial revolution, are not yet explained. An analysis of economic and social conditions will clear why the technical idea gained ground in rather isolated, luxury producing trades only. It is an especially striking fact that the 13th century filatory has a far more complicated construction than the first, 18th century spinning frame of a very similar design.