73ap001

7/25/2019 73ap001

1/31

The Mechanisation of GlassContainer Production

by

Michael CABLE, PhD, DScTech, TkDhc, HonFSGT

Read at the Royal Entomological Society, London 17 October 2001

INTRODUCTION

The invention of the blowpipe around AD 50 made it possible to expand a mass of hotglass on the end of the pipe. This allowed the manufacture of hollow glass containers withundamaged mirror-like internal surfaces which possessed many advantages, particularlyimpermeability, lack of reaction with most of the materials that might be stored in them, andtransparency. It also became possible to make containers of standard dimensions and vari-ous shapes by blowing the glass in a mould. The main problem for the user was makingan air tight seal but that was alleviated by making bottles with narrow necks and mouths:eventually the manufacture of closures of various kinds became a small but importantindustry.

Glass gathered on a blowpipe naturally tends to form a large drop of circular cross

section which may be maintained by continually rotating the pipe; it may then be stretchedor slumped back on itself by holding the blowpipe either down or up as well as by blowing.A small bubble must be blown quickly otherwise the glass around the nose of the blowpipebecomes too viscous to flow when blown (the pressure that can be exerted by mouth beingquite small). Only a few tools and simple but skilled operations are then needed to form abottle that maintains its circular section and has a flat base to stand on. When cool enoughnot to deform under its own weight, it may be attached to apunty(a short metal rod) or heldby a simple cage, cracked off the blow pipe, and the neck reheated to make a proper mouthbefore being annealed. That is why the mouth of a glass container is always known as thefinish.

Using a mould to form the body can produce large numbers of containers of almostidentical external dimensions but to obtain a uniform internal capacity the same quantity ofglass must be gathered every time. Immediately blowing a gather into a cylindrical mouldgives a bottle with thin corners, thick neck, and thick base because the glass that is stretchedfurther inevitably becomes thinner; similar problems arise in blowing a bottle of rectangularor oval cross section, see Fig. 1. A considerable amount of shaping may be needed before theglass can be blown to give the desired uniform wall thickness. This preliminary shaping toform theparisonuses gravity to stretch or shorten the gather and also involves rolling it ona flat surface (a marver). These skills were developed long ago and used with very littlechange for many centuries.

The time needed to make a bottle varied with the size and type of article but could be asmuch as two or three minutes. By the nineteenth century teams of glass-makers, each doing

Trans. Newcomen Soc.,73 (20012002), 131

yright The Newcomen Society 2006 all rights reserved

7/25/2019 73ap001

2/31

2 THE MECHANISATION OF GLASS CONTAINER PRODUCTION

just one part of the cycle of operations, were commonly used to speed the manufacture,especially where fuel for the furnace was expensive. The rules of the Yorkshire Glass BottleMakers Union in 1838 mention five grades of member: journeyman, gatherer, blower, bottlemaker, and apprentice (Hodkin1 ).

As the nineteenth century advanced, the growth of towns and cities and of trade vastlyincreased the need for glass containers for beer, wines, chemicals, and many other products.Soon after Queen Victorias accession glass manufacturers were actively seeking ways of

developing their industry, as is shown by patents for improvements in furnaces (see, forexample, Chance Brothers2, Bessemer3) and the use of iron moulds for which Magoun4

obtained two patents in 1847. Pressing of ware was the first section of the industry to showprogress, especially in the United States from around 1860, partly because only one highlyskilled worker, the gatherer, was necessary. The other main branches of the industryrequired much greater numbers of skilled workmen. However, the limitations on shapeimposed by using a mould for both the internal and external form of the ware restrict thekinds of containers made by pressing to those widest at the mouth, such as jugs and bowlsor, today, television screens.

Neither of the two main branches of the industry, containers and flat glass, had seen amajor advance for several hundred years, except for the invention of cast plate glass inFrance around 1695, but the successful development of the Siemens regenerative tank in

1867 (Cable

5

) made possible the continuous supply of the much increased quantities of glassthat were needed for increased production and stimulated the search for effective methodsof large scale manufacture.

BASIC PHYSICS

Glasses are Newtonian liquids for which rate of flow is proportional to applied stress. Quitesmall stresses or pressures can be used in glass making, so the apparatus used does not needto be massive.

Fig. 1. Undesirable distribution of wallthickness obtained by blowing a simple gatherin moulds: (a) vertical section of typical bottle,(b) transverse cross section of square bottle.


7/25/2019 73ap001

3/31

THE MECHANISATION OF GLASS CONTAINER PRODUCTION 3

All the main methods of making glassware rely on the very rapid variation of viscositywith temperature. At the high temperatures (13501650C) used to melt them, silicateglasses are very viscous compared with most familiar liquids and the viscosity, which definesthe rate of flow under applied stresses, increases rapidly as temperature falls. Glass manu-facturing operations depend on adjusting the viscosity (by selecting the right temperature)so that only small stresses are needed but gravity does not entirely govern its flow, thensimultaneously shaping the glass and cooling it so that it is too viscous to flow under gravityonce it has attained the desired form. Each stage of manufacture has an appropriate visco-sity and thus temperature: control of heat transfer is vital. If the shaping cannot be com-pleted quickly, as is often the case in hand working, the partly formed object may have to bereheated, consuming more time and thermal energy.

The most important properties of the glass thus are viscosity, density, thermal conduc-

tivity, and specific heat. However, it should be noted that glass forming operations begin attemperatures at which thermal radiation has an important role in heat transfer and thecolour of the glass, or more precisely its transparency to infrared radiation, affects heattransmission and thus glass forming operations (Cable6).

The variation of viscosity, usually denoted by Greek eta (g), with temperature isgreater than for any other property commonly dealt with and is so large that glass makersusually speak of its logarithm, not its actual value and use the deciPascal second (dPa s)as the unit. At maximum melting temperature the viscosity is about log g=2 and forstress release during annealing it has increased by a factor about 1012to around log g=14.Viscosity also varies greatly with glass composition.

GLASS FORMING OPERATIONS

It is convenient to divide the whole cycle of operations into three stages, gathering the glassfrom the furnace, forming (usually by blowing), and annealing. Glass makers understandthe term annealingto mean slow cooling of the glass to leave very little internal stress atroom temperature. Figure 2 shows these ranges marked on the viscositytemperature curvefor a typical sodalimesilica glass. Rates of flow can be varied by adjusting either tempera-ture or the pressures used but rates of heat transfer are not so easy to accelerate and heattransfer often controls the maximum rate of production. As has often happened, inventorsdeveloped processes by experience, intuition, and experiment, with scientific understandingand analysis lagging behind until recently.

Conditions at the glassmould interface are crucial. If the glass is too hot it flows soeasily under gravity that it cannot be controlled. If the mould is too hot, even if the glass is atthe right temperature, the two stick together. When conditions are just right, the glass flowsto the shape of the mould and the two may very briefly stick together: however, the glass iscooled somewhat and contracts whilst the mould is heated and expands. The stressesthereby produced are sufficient to break the weak adhesion and the two separate. If the glassis too cool it cannot flow to the required shape under the stresses being used and it mayfracture. Too cool a mould chills the glass too much and it flows unevenly to look rather likehammered pewter; the glass may also develop fine surface cracks that greatly impair itsstrength. There is therefore a limited range of temperatures for both glass and mould withinwhich good results can be obtained. This behaviour means that the heat transfer coefficientat the inner surface of the mould varies considerably with time of contact.


7/25/2019 73ap001

4/31


Moulds are usually made in halves, split vertically, as they need to open and close, andare mostly made from special grades of cast iron but other alloys are used for some compo-nents. Moulds have to be designed to keep the temperatures of all their parts in the correctrange and to give up as much heat whilst empty as they gain from the glass whilst thecontainer is being formed. A mould can make around five million containers.

Contact of the glass with the parison mould inevitably chills the surface of the glass asthe parison is being shaped and reheat of the glass is necessary. Very steep temperaturegradients occur near the surfaces of the glass whilst it is in contact with the mould. Whenshaping of the parison is finished the mould halves are opened just a fraction to create asmall air gap between glass and mould. This suddenly causes a great decrease in the rate ofheat transfer from the glass; as a result the chilled surface layer regains temperature and itsviscosity decreases so that the parison is more easily blown in the second mould.

An appreciable proportion of the heat removed from the glass is lost from the innersurface of the mould by cooling it with compressed air whilst empty but conduction throughthe wall and loss from the outer surface is also important. The latter is controlled by forcedconvection of air.

These phenomena were first studied in as much detail as the available rather crude

experimental methods allowed 60 years ago (Boow7

). The state of knowledge in the 1960swas reported in an American Ceramic Society symposium8on heat transfer. Computermodelling is now widely used but that still depends on assumptions about various importantparameters.

FALTERING FIRST STEPS

The earliest known patent for a vertically split iron mould with movable base plate andmeans for blowing with compressed air to make bottles was granted to Mein9 of Glasgow in

Fig. 2. Typical viscosity-temperature curvefor a silicate glass showing the ranges usedat different stages of glass forming.


7/25/2019 73ap001

5/31


1859. It was closely followed by those of Kilner10and Bowron.11The earliest US patentappears to be that of Weber12in 1876.

The most important change to the manual process was to make the mouth or finishfirst, so that the glass could be held in a neck ringwhilst the rest of the operations wereperformed. Three American patents recognised this and showed how it might be done bypressing then blowing. The first was granted to Gillender13in 1865. A few years later theAtterburys14patented pressing the finish, with spout and handle, of a wide-mouth pitcherbefore blowing the body. Arbogast15in 1882 patented a process for pressing the parison ofnarrow-mouth ware (Figure 3) then blowing the final article. That patent recognised thenecessity of using a neck ring and two separate moulds to form a parison and then the finalarticle. Arbogast sold the rights for his method to the D.C. Ripley company in 1885 andsome machines based on it were made but hostility of the glass blowers union prevented

their effective exploitation. Only after that company had been taken over by the UnitedStates Glass Company which granted licences to other firms not under union control, didone of those, the New Enterprise Glass Company, successfully produce any containers(Vaseline jars) by this method in 1893.

Around 1865 Josiah Arnall, the postmaster at Ferrybridge in Yorkshire, having seenbottles being made whilst carrying out his duties, conceived the idea of mechanising theprocess but failed to persuade the glass manufacturer (Edgar Breffitt) whom he tried tointerest (English16). Almost 20 years later H.M. Ashley, manager of an iron foundry atFerrybridge, went to live at the same house as Arnall and the two of them must have dis-cussed Arnalls idea because they jointly obtained a patent in 1886.17This proposed to use aninverted body mould with a plug at the bottom to make the mouth of the container and asliding base plate to press the glass down into the neck ring to form the mouth. This baseplate was then to be retracted to the top of the mould and compressed air used to blow the

bottle (Figure 4). Ashley18obtained another patent for a somewhat more elaborate versiononly six months later. That envisaged forming the bottle by applying suction to the outsiderather than compressed air internally or using materials that would volatilise on heating. Itseems that Ashley had left his post in the iron works to devote himself entirely to glassmachines because he described himself as a machinist, not a factory manager in that patent.

Within a year Ashley19obtained another patent with two crucial improvements, theprovision of a separate neck ring mould to hold the glass during the other manipulationsand the use of a separate parison mould; the latter gave a much better distribution of wallthickness. The patent also envisaged making a four arm rotating machine.

A simple machine with one pair of moulds mounted on a sturdy wooden upright (hencetheplankmachine) was tried at Armley in Leeds, Castleford, or Knottingley in 1886 (fouraccounts, Hodkin1, English,16Turner20, and Meigh,21differ about the place where the firstmachine was made and the location of the first trial). A machine of this type for regularproduction was installed at the works of Sykes & McVay in Castleford the next year.Although it was rather primitive, the results encouraged Ashley to continue and the AshleyBottle Company was formed in 1887. A newspaper report of that year22described thisadvance in bottle making at length and claimed that the labour cost of making a gross ofbottles was reduced from 3s 10p (0.192) to only 3d (0.013) when using the machine.Ashleys23next patent was for a method of inserting the glass marble that provided the sealin Codd mineral water bottles.

A better engineered version of the machine which worked in the same way, constructedin iron, was patented in 188924(Fig. 5). The machine needed to be fed by hand with gobs of


7/25/2019 73ap001

6/31


Fig. 5. Ashleys later version of the original machine. Parisonmould A and neck ring B both held by tongs, Blow mould C israised by treadle D after parison is turned upright.

Fig. 3. The press and blowprocess illustrated in Arbogastspatent.

Fig. 4. Ashleys original plankmachine.


7/25/2019 73ap001

7/31


glass, an obvious limitation. Achieving an almost constant weight of glass and thus internalcapacity required a skilled gatherer to perform a rather boring task. One gatherer couldsupply two of these machines and make 1560 soda-water bottles in a 10.5 hour shift. Thatwas a considerable advance over the traditional hand process.

At the same time Ashley applied for another patent25for a machine with four moulds ona rotating table so that four parisons were simultaneously at different stages of manufacturebut there was still only one body mould, mounted externally, and Ashley again mentionedthe possibility of forming by applying vacuum rather than compressed air. That machinerequired a source of power such as a belt drive powered by a steam engine, a supply ofcompressed air, and one workman besides the gatherer. The first of those machines werebuilt in Sheffield but proved ineffective, probably because the timing of the mechanicaloperations did not match the rate at which the glass cooled. The use of compressed air tooperate a piston to open and close the parison mould and allowing the blower to control therotation of a machine with only three parison moulds was an improvement. That versionallowed two men to make 2160 bottles per working day. At one stage Ashley had ten ofthose semi-automatic machines in operation at Castleford. Unfortunately the Ashley Com-pany did not prosper, for various reasons including hostility of the local unions, and it waswound up in 1894, some time after its troubles began.

Horne,26who had worked with Ashley, obtained another patent in his own name andbegan to manufacture similar machines. Dralle27saw 22 machines, possibly made by Horneand supplied by a Siemens tank, in operation at Castleford in 1892. By 1917 Horne had sold200 of his machines in Britain. He also sold machines to France, Germany, and the USA(Turner20). These early English machines were known by the name Johnny Bullin the USA.

Boucher, a glass manufacturer in Cognac, obtained patents in 1894 and 1895; hismachines became widely used in France from 1897; Forsters in St Helens bought the rightsto the Boucher machine in 1899 or 1900 and sold some of their machines in both England

and Scotland (Turner20). In Germany Schiller introduced a press and blow machine in 1905and both blow-blow and suction machines (these terms are explained below) the next year;Schiller machines were used extensively in Europe for several decades. By 1932 around 700Schiller machines had been sold in Europe including Russia. Such semi-automatic machinesremained in use until around 1960 for the production of small containers such as ink bottlesand those for some cosmetic and pharmaceutical products. However, the lack of a goodmechanicalgob feederto supply them held back the development of those machines forabout 25 years.

COMPRESSED AIR IN THE GLASSHOUSE

At the end of the nineteenth century it was still not widespread practice to have air com-

pressors or vacuum pumps in glass houses (forced draught was not used for furnaces)and Ashley had suggested the use of materials that vaporised when heated, instead ofcompressed air, for blowing.

The first known supplement to blowing by lung power alone was to run a little waterdown the blowpipe, from the mouth, then quickly cover the mouthpiece with the thumb totrap the steam formed as the water evaporated. This trick was often used when blowinglarge vessels. The earliest recorded mechanical device was a small manually operated pumpthat could be applied to the mouth piece of a blow pipe; thispompe Robinetwas invented bya blower of that name with limited lung-power working at Baccarat in 1824 (Appert28 ).Kirn29noted in 1830 that blowers at St. Louis in the Vosges used cylindrical bellows for large


7/25/2019 73ap001

8/31


articles and to attain a greater pressure so that designs cut in the surface of the mould weresharply impressed on the surface of the glass thereby avoiding having subsequently to cutthe designs on medium quality wares. His account does not make it clear whether that wasthe Robinet invention.

Compressed air was first used extensively in a glass works at Clichy where it wasinstalled by Appert28in 1879. As a considerable range of wares was made there, the air wasavailable at three pressures of about 0.2, 1, and 3 kg/cm2. Once the idea of compressedair was accepted, it began to be used to drive machines, for mould cooling, and to assistventilation around the furnace. Air compressors soon became a necessary adjunct to thecommercial glasshouse.

THE FIRST AUTOMATIC MACHINE

M.J. Owens (18591923) was the son of Irish immigrants to the United States. He beganwork in a glass factory in Wheeling, West Virginia, at the age of ten, when his father died,and had become a skilled blower by the age of 15. Over the next decade he acquired someeducation and began to display considerable ability.

Edward D. Libbey moved his glass works from Massachusetts to Toledo, Ohio in 1888for several reasons including strikes by the workers, also the availability of cheaper sand andnatural gas in Toledo (Scoville30). In that year Owens joined a team of blowers making chim-neys for oil lamps in Libbeys factory. Libbey soon recognised the exceptional abilities of hisemployee and within two years Owens was promoted to be superintendent of the factory inwhich position he devoted his mind to ways of increasing production.

He began to think about machines, first for making lamp chimneys and then contai-ners. In 1892 he obtained his first patent for a mechanical device to replace the person, often

a boy, who crouched at the blowers feet just to open and close the mould in which the glasswas blown (Owens31). Owens also conceived a machine that would assist a blower by remov-ing moils, the glass left adhering to the nose of the blowpipe when the article had beenremoved to finish its mouth.

Owens approached the problem of mechanisation in a new way, beginning by consider-ing what his own experience told him was the crucial question, namely how to gather thecorrect quantity of glass every time, a question that others including Ashley had notaddressed. He decided that filling a gathering mould by suction was the best approach andused a mould attached to a device rather like a large bicycle pump to test this idea: theearliest patent to describe such an implement for vacuum gathering was by Croskey andLocke.32The promising results led Owens to base his machine on filling a gathering mouldwhich also served as the parison mould, by suction. Owens later said that the basic ideafor a bottle machine occurred to him in 1898 but it took five years of development work,

generously supported by E.D. Libbey, to produce a machine that worked.Patents granted to Owens in 189596 show that he was already attempting to mecha-nise glass forming but his ideas were then rather primitive and confined to aids for the glassblower. However, the earliest patents granted to Owens33for his bottle machine alreadyincluded all its essential features. One of his main ideas was to make the machine rotatecontinuously around a central pillar bearing cams that controlled most of the operations.Although that was very neat and precise, it allowed only limited possibility of adjustment tothe timing of the various stages and the range of movement of the components.

The main sequence of operations on the Owens machine is shown in Figure 6. Theparison mould dips into a pool of glass and is filled by suction; on lifting it out of the pool a


7/25/2019 73ap001

9/31


knife flicks across to sever the thread of glass still connecting the two. The parison begins toelongate under the influence of both gravity and a puff of air blown in to prevent freezingof the mouth. Then the parison mould opens and the halves of the blow mould and a baseplate rise from below to enclose the parison so that the bottle can be blown. After coolingsufficiently in the mould, the neck ring is removed, the body mould opens and the base platetilts so that the bottle falls off and is carried to the annealing lehr. The whole sequence ofoperations to make one container occupied about one revolution of the machine. A

six-arm machine, his fourth, was run successfully at the Toledo Glass Company in 1903;that led to formation of the Owens Bottle Machine Company which started to producemachines that year. As they needed no skilled gatherer they were quickly taken up by somemanufacturers.

Owens had to build onto the furnace a separate heated chamber containing a largeslowly rotating shallow bowl, called the rotating pot, so that successive moulds dipped intofresh unchilled glass; this also prevented the problems that could arise if the mould werebeing dragged through stationary glass during gathering.

Continuous rotation used much less power than intermittent rotation but, on theearliest machines, the whole rotating part of the machine was lowered during gathering

Fig. 6. The sequence of operations of an Owens machine. (1) Filling parison mouldby suction; (2) mould raised and knife severing tail; (3) parison mould opened andblow mould about to enclose parison; (4) parison in blow mould; (5) bottle blown;(6) blow mould and neck ring opened for bottle to be removed.


7/25/2019 73ap001

10/31


then raised again and that required rather elaborate counterweights. Owens then developeda version (type AN, introduced in 1912) on which each head was raised and lowered indi-vidually by cam action. Figure 7 shows part of such a machine in position to gather theglass.

The original version (type A) had six arms carrying identical sets of moulds and couldmake containers of from 120 to 1200 mL capacity at rates of 4 to 40 per minute; it was 2.5min diameter. Improved versions which extended the range of capacities and increased speedof production appeared at intervals. Table 1 shows the range of machines eventually pro-

duced. The limited range of adjustment possible on a machine where most actions were cam-controlled was partly responsible for the range of variants produced. Owens machinesneeded about 3 hp to rotate the pot and 6 hp for the machine itself but the provision ofvacuum, blowing air and cooling air for the moulds required about another 47 hp (Dralleand Keppeler34). The large rotating pot also considerably increased the fuel consumption ofthe furnace.

The first Owens machine to be brought to England was installed at Trafford Park,Manchester in 1906. That machine was transferred to Alloa Glass Works in Scotlandin 1908 and remained in operation there until about 1931 (Turner20). Owens saw thatproductivity could be improved by having two cavities in one mould body, where the

Fig. 7. Section through the parison mould head of an Owensmachine. Parison mould A lowered to gather glass from rotatingbowl B.


7/25/2019 73ap001

11/31


dimensions allowed, and later by mounting two sets of moulds on each arm of the machine(types CA and CB). The former practice eventually led to up to four small containers beingmade in one set of moulds. The AT machine introduced in 1915 was huge (4 m diameter),weighing more than 100 tons, but it could make carboys of capacity up to 5 gallons at a rateof 5 to 6 per minute (Meigh35).

The fifteen arm machines (AQ and AV) could make as many bottles as 50 skilled blow-

ers but the traditional methods were not at once made obsolete. All the Owens machineswere large (the CA was more than 5 m in diameter) and expensive; a complete unit cost $80,000 in the early days, although it could work out up to 70 tons of glass a day. They were bestsuited to making very long runs of one design of container. Table 2 shows a comparison ofthe costs of production by hand and by Owens machine made in the UK in 191920(Meigh35); the machine decreased the overall cost by 37%.

TABLE 1

The Owens range of machines

Type No. of Year Capacity Productionarms introduced fl. oz.(US) per min.

A 6 190304 440 1020AC 6 1908 440 1122AE 6 1909 464 1224AD 10 1909 464 2426AL 8 1912 16160 812AN 10 1912 0.12511.5 2060AR 10 1912 480 1245AQ 15 1914 480 1860

CA 10* 192023 max. 8 80320CB 10* 192023 832 80160AT 6 1915 961952 67OS 6 1954 735 2242

* Two sets of moulds per arm

TABLE 2

Costs () for making one gross of the same article (United Kingdom, 191920)

OwensMachine Hand

Raw Materials 0.134 0.107Coal 0.149 0.198Electricity 0.013 0.004Wages: Furnace 0.020 0.026Bottle making 0.026 0.385Repairs 0.037 0.048Royalties 0.013 0Interest on capital 0.009 0Other costs 0.323 0.389TOTAL 0.724 1.157


7/25/2019 73ap001

12/31


Owens machines were only licensed under strict conditions that many glass manufac-turers found irksome and some found unacceptable (Biram36). Other engineers thereforecontinued their efforts to make smaller, cheaper, and more flexible machines. Most of thesewere two table blow-bloworpress-and-blowmachines: these terms refer to the main methodof forming the parison and then the final article. For some reason suck-blow(which wouldapply to the Owens machine) was never used. These machines usually had parisons beingformed in moulds mounted on one table and the final articles blown in moulds mounted onthe other: these are described below.

Well-run Owens machines gave notable increases in several important aspects of con-tainer quality: uniformity of dimensions, weight and capacity being the most important.However, the Owens process suffered from one technical defect that proved impossible toeliminate. The base of the container always had a fold in it caused by the chilled tail of glass

inevitably made as the parison mould lifted and the knife severed the glass still attaching itto the pool (Dingwall37). This cut-offscar was a weakness but not very important so long asthe base of the bottle was thick but it became an important problem as containers becamelighter and their walls thinner.

OTHER SUCTION MACHINES

Some other machines using suction gathering were developed and quite widely used. In 1920the British Redfern38machine was installed at Castleford in Yorkshire specifically to makewhisky bottles. It operated in the same way as the Owens machine and looked very similarbut differed in many details; there were six, ten, and fifteen arm versions. It was designed to

operate with much longer intervals between being stood down for cleaning and servicing.However, it arrived too late to become a serious competitor.Emile Roirant39 (18821955), a brilliant French engineer who liked frequently to

remind his colleagues, Always remember that any fool can make a complicated machine,was more successful because he initially addressed a different market, the many Europeanmanufacturers who worked on a much smaller scale and with little capital. His firstsuccessful machine (type B, Fig. 8) was introduced in 1922. It had one set of mouldsand could be wheeled up to a working hole intended for a glass-blower. Most of the opera-tions were controlled by a cam about 1 m in diameter mounted on a transverse horizontalaxis. Many such machines were sold to small firms in Europe. The Roirant A6,introduced in 1928 was a six station intermittently rotating machine for the usual rangeof containers; the Roirant B2, patented in 1928, made containers of capacity from 10 to 60L at a rate better than 1 per minute. Roirants last machine, the R7 (not suction-fed),

was introduced in 1950; it was a very efficient compact continuously rotating single tablemachine.

The Monish40 machine, made by Moncrieff in Perth was also quite widely usedbetween about 1930 and 1950; its name was a combination of those of the company andthe inventor, McNish. The Monish Major was a one table rotary semi-automatic machinewith three sets of moulds and needed only 2 hp to run it. A paddle in the forehearth pushedthe glass chilled by gathering out of the way before the next gather was made. The Monishcould make up to 1100 gross of 90 to 180 mL bottles per week and needed very littlemaintenance.


7/25/2019 73ap001

13/31


FEEDERS AND FOREHEARTHS

Blow-blow and press-and-blow machines need to be supplied with gobs of glass from aforehearth and feeder. The forehearth conditions the glass so that it is at constant uniformtemperature and the feeder forms the gobs and drops them into the moulds at the rightmoments. The early development of such machines was retarded by the lack of a good gobfeeder but the possibility of success was first demonstrated by Homer Brooke,41born inYorkshire but then working in New Jersey or New York, who patented a feeder in 1903.

The Brooke gravity gob feeder relied on cup-like moulds mounted on arms rotatingabout a vertical axis and flat knives rotating in the opposite direction to interrupt a continu-ous stream of glass falling from an orifice. When the mould of the glass forming machine laybelow the orifice, the stream fell directly into it. When sufficient glass had been deliveredthe stream was interrupted by a cup and severed by a knife, the cup collecting the glass untilthe next mould was in place. The cup was then tilted to dump its accumulated glass into themould, see Figure 9. This method had the obvious disadvantage of the glass cooling as it wascollected in the cup, so that it would not flow uniformly when blown and the wall thicknessof the ware would be randomly variable. There was also a tendency to entrap air bubbles asthe stream fell into the cup. Despite these disadvantages, the Brooke feeder was taken up forcheap wares by several companies including Ball Brothers and Hazel Atlas: the latterobtained their own patent for a similar device, with shears above the cup, in 1925.

Fig. 8. The Roirant type B machine. Operations are controlled by cam A; parison mould B is also

shown in gathering position B; blow mould is at C.


7/25/2019 73ap001

14/31


Fig. 9. Brookes gob feeder showing sequence of (1) filling mould; (2) interrupting stream;(3) collecting glass in cup whilst mould moves on; (4) cup tilting to fill next mould, and (5) glassfalling directly into mould.

The Hartford-Fairmont Syndicate had been established in 1912 specifically to makenew and improved machines that could compete with the Owens machine. They thereforehad to take up the challenge to develop an effective gob feeder. One of the engineers whomthey employed was Karl E. Peiler, an MIT graduate, and he worked on that project, amongmany others, during much of his long career of 42 years.

At first Peiler42 tried to mechanise the actions of a hand gatherer, see Figure 10, butsoon had to abandon that method. However, the much more sophisticated control devicesnow available mean that such feeders can be bought today and are used for especially heavyarticles such as large television screens. Next he tried using rather more viscous glass which

fell through an orifice that was provided with an adjustable central needle to control theflow of glass and shears below the orifice to sever the glass when required. An intermittentflow was provided by a paddle that moved back and forth just behind the orifice. This

Fig. 10. Peilers first gob feeder reproducing a hand gatherers actions.


7/25/2019 73ap001

15/31


paddle-needle feeder,43Figure 11, was introduced in 1915 and 120 of them were in use threeyears later (Meigh44). It turned out that they gave best control of gob weight and shape whenoperated considerably faster than one machine required and so were often used to feed twoor three machines. It will be seen below that this diversion of the gobs from one orifice todifferent paths was a notably useful development.

Peiler45continued to seek a better method and introduced the first model of what hasbecome the standard type of feeder in 1922. Dowse and Meigh46reviewed the current devel-opment of gob feeders in 1921; Swain47wrote another well illustrated review ten years later.The modern feeder uses flow through an orifice which has a concentric tube just above it anda central plunger which can be moved cyclically up and down (Figure 12), the effect of itsmotion being largely confined by the tube to the glass in and around the orifice. This makesit possible to accelerate flow of glass out of the orifice as the plunger moves down and to

retard or even reverse the flow as it is moved upwards. The gap below the tube is adjusted tocontrol the average flow.

The viscosity of silicate glass melts varies very rapidly with temperature according tothe TammannVogelFulcher equation (Cable48), see Figure 2,

log g= A + B/(TT0)

where A, B, and T0are constants depending on glass composition. Maintaining a constantgob weight thus requires very close control of the temperature of the glass and that is themain function of the forehearth. If gob weight, hence also the capacity of the container, areto be kept to within 1%, the viscosity may not vary by more than 1%. For a typical glassbeing fed at 1200C this means keeping the temperature constant to within little more thanplus or minus 1C, a remarkably tight standard.

The main functions of the forehearth, which has the gob feeder mounted at its far end,are to carry the glass from the furnace to the machine and achieve the constancy and unifor-mity of temperature that the feeder requires. This is achieved by using a relatively wide butshallow enclosed channel with numerous sets of small gas burners fitted in the side wallsabove the stream of glass along its whole length and also means to supply cooling air abovethe surface of the glass. By adjusting these ways of heating and cooling the glass can bethermally conditioned even if its temperature in the working end of the furnace varies. Peilerand his colleagues also worked on these problems, introducing improvements step by stepand in 1944 produced the first version of the type forehearth still widely used today, seeFigure 13.49Rotating the tube that forms part of the feeder mechanism maintains a flow ofglass around the nose of the forehearth and avoids the glass at the tip becoming chilled.

COMPETITORS FOR THE OWENS MACHINE

Most of the inventors of smaller more flexible competitors for the Owens machine adoptedthe use of a gob feeder and the principle of mounting parison moulds on one rotating tableand blow moulds on another, the parison being transferred from one to the other where thetwo tables came closest together. At first the tables only carried the moulds, typically six, sothat each table had to be rotated one sixth of a revolution then stopped whilst externallymounted components, such as blow heads, performed their function, see Figure 14. Theearliest versions needed both a gatherer and a boy to transfer the neck ring holding the


7/25/2019 73ap001

16/31


Fig. 11. The Hartford paddle needle feeder shown (1) at the beginning of gob formationand (2) just before raising the needle and severing the gob.


7/25/2019 73ap001

17/31


Fig. 12. Essential parts of the modern type ofHartford feeder. (A) Glass in the forehearth;(B) reciprocating plunger; (C) rotating tube;(D) orifice; (E) shears.

Fig. 13. A typical forehearth showing the series of gas burners along the sides and the coolingsystem. In the main part of the channel the glass is cooled to the temperature needed by the feederand then, in the equalising section, the temperature made as uniform as possible.

parison to the blow table; the first machines to obviate this manual transfer were known asNo-Boymachines. It was soon realised that mounting some of the operating components on

the tables themselves, so that operations could occur whilst the tables were moving, wouldsave a lot of time, power, and wear, and increase efficiency. Some machines were then madeto rotate continuously but many other retained an intermittent motion which made it rathereasier for every gob to drop cleanly into the mould.

Table 3 makes clear the economic pressure to produce improved machines in the 1920swhen glassmaking was recognised as an industry with very high labour costs. The type ofmachine was not specified, the data are presumably typical values. Figure 15 shows how thecontinued rapid growth of production in the USA was mostly due to these machines oncecompetitors of the Owens became available.


7/25/2019 73ap001

18/31


Fig. 14. Typical layout of a two-table blow-blow or press and blow machine.

Fig. 15. Early growth of container productionby machine in the USA showing popularity ofgob fed machines once they became available.

TABLE 3

Increase in efficiency of glass container machines over hand manufacture (United States, 1927)

Type Increase in Decrease inof ware Productivity Labour cost

% %

4 oz Pharmaceutical 4110 970.5 pint Soda 1640 931 pint Whisky 742 901 quart Milk 1449 955 gallon Carboy 994 83


7/25/2019 73ap001

19/31


Some of the most popular machines were made by the Lynch Corporation50and byONeill,51both based in the USA. The two tables were usually linked directly by gearing,sometimes around the rims of the tables themselves to ensure accuracy of alignment, whichwas especially important at the station where transfer of the parison to the blow mould tookplace.

A brief review of the development of ONeill machines may help to understand howprogress was made (Moody52). The first ONeill machine was a power driven press firstmade in 1893; it was fed by glass from a ladle passing between two rolls that shapedit somewhat before it dropped into the mould. It proved effective and popular, therebyhelping to convince glass manufacturers that their future lay with machines.

The first ONeill blow-blow machine to sell in appreciable numbers was the No. 20.This was a rather odd type, in effect two machines built back to back, a central pillar carry-

ing two parison moulds each of which supplied two blow moulds on a small rotating table:Ashleys early machines had several parisons and one blow mould. After considerable fur-ther development work the semi-automatic No. 21 was produced. It may be considered theprototype of the later series of machines, having six parison (or blank) moulds on one tableand six blow moulds on the other table but it still had to be fed by a gatherer and a boy hadto remove the parison, turn it over and transfer it to the blow mould; the same boy removedthe finished bottle from the blow mould. Obviously the machine rotated only intermittently,the drive being pneumatic. Compressed air was used to ensure that the glass filled the neckring completely and then to blow the parison.

Important advances were incorporated in the No. 25 machine which also had sixparison and six blow moulds. The parison mould was turned upright before reaching thetransfer position; transfer to the blow mould and removal of the finished bottle were also

done automatically: this was one of the first No-Boy machines.Experience indicated that the parison could be formed more quickly than the final

article could be blown so the No. 28 machine, for larger ware, had six parison moulds andeight blow moulds. However, the first of the No. 30 series for smaller ware returned to six ofeach.

The engineering of the No. 40 series was improved, being sturdier and using ball androller bearings where none had been used before. All of those machines were driven bycompressed air, the consumption of which was ever increasing. The No. 50 series wastherefore provided with electric drives.

Improved models of the No. 30 series were then produced with a 3 hp electric drive, PIVgearbox and used one heart-shaped cam. The timings of up to 15 pneumatically operatedactions could be varied over wider ranges than before. One of these lines could be for

vacuum to aid formation of the finish.Electric drives were obviously most suitable for continuously rotating machines. Someintermittently moving machines were also driven by continuously running electric motorsvia Geneva drives to produce the required motion but more relied on pneumatic pistondrives which could give quicker acceleration and deceleration. Widespread use of com-pressed air for pneumatic drives was rather obvious when the air was needed for blowingand for mould cooling. Pistons operated by compressed air were also much easier to fit tomachines that needed motions in several different positions and directions than havingdirect mechanical links for all operations. The compressed air was usually supplied at 23


7/25/2019 73ap001

20/31


atm pressure but, as ONeill noted, when machines became larger and faster it could becomevery costly to provide as much as was needed for all purposes.

Pneumatic drives for numerous separate operations were also kinder than directmechanical links when mishaps occurred and made various possible failures, such as piecesof broken bottle lodging in unfortunate places, less catastrophic. They also allowed rates ofmotion to be adjusted. Their popularity was thus no surprise.

Giegerich and Trier53described all the types of machine in use when their book waspublished. Some machines were developed with both sets of moulds mounted on one table,like the Owens machine, for example the Roirant R7 and machines made by Mitchell54

in Bradford. When one considers the billions of containers that one machine could make,the number of machines that any manufacturer could expect to sell must always havebeen small and profit margins not likely to be very encouraging. It is therefore rather sur-

prising but gratifying that so many talented engineers have devoted themselves to the glassindustry. The United States was long the country with the biggest markets, the largest glasscompanies, and thus the obvious home for many developments.

THE INDIVIDUAL SECTION MACHINE

The Hartford company also worked on machines for making bottles and in 1924 HenryIngle invented a machine that was eventually to make all others obsolete. This was the Indi-vidual Section or IS machine. Although the basic operations are the same as with othergob-fed machines, the engineering is completely different. As the name indicates each pair ofmoulds on this machine can act separately from the others; this has obvious advantages

when repairs or servicing are necessary. Ingles machine has an inverted parison mould onone side sitting above the neck ring which is mounted on an arm that swings verticallythrough 180 to transfer the parison to the blow mould on the other side. The moulds them-selves remain stationary, except for opening and closing: the IS thus shared some importantfeatures with Ashleys original machine. The basic operations of the blow-blow IS machineare shown in Figure 16. Although a patent was applied for in 1924, the patent was notgranted until 1932 (Ingle55), presumably because the patent examiners could not recognisethe uniqueness of the machine.

The IS machine had many advantages apart from being able to continue operatingsome sections whilst others were being serviced. Much smaller masses of metal had to bemoved and most of the crucial operations were operated pneumatically by adjustable con-tacts fitted to grooves in a large diameter rotating drum in the base of the machine which

gave both accuracy and flexibility of the timing of many of the operations. Having themoulds always in almost the same positions made it easier to design efficient mould cooling.In the early days a typical IS machine was built from either four or five sections joined

together, side by side, and driven from the same drive shaft. This required use of a distribu-tor to send each successive gob to a different section of the machine but such devices hadalready been developed for use with the paddle needle feeder. The first commercial foursection IS machine was installed at the Carr Lowrey works in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1927.Today 12 and 16-section IS machines are common. Large machines need two separateforehearths and gob feeders to supply them.


7/25/2019 73ap001

21/31


IS machines were expensive and few were installed in Europe before the mid 1950s butvery few other machines have been installed anywhere since about 1970. A number of firmsdeveloped other more advanced variants of two table machines, for example Heye56 inGermany, but by that time the IS was so widely used and well supported across the worldthat any other machine, however good, found it impossible to establish a secure foothold inthe industry. This was also partly due to the continued development of the IS machine, ashas been described by Edgington and Drummond.57Double gob operation (using a mouldwith two cavities to make two articles at the same time) was introduced in 1939. TheVertiflow cooling system (Foster and Jones58), developed around 1980, was a particularlyimportant advance; it uses vertical passages, which may vary in cross-sectional area, drilledin the mould wall for cooling by compressed air. This gives much more efficient well-controlled and less noisy cooling than relying entirely on forced convection cooling of onlythe external mould surfaces. Electronic control was installed from 1974.

A press and blow process, Figure 17, for wide-mouth articles such as jam jars was intro-duced in the USA in 1939. However, one of the most important of all developments towardsthe end of the last century was the introduction of narrow neck press and blow operationwhich is now very widely used. This variant allows pressed parisons to be made for almostall types of container; one of its most important features is the ability to control exactly thewall thickness of the parison, something that is necessary to make light weight single trip

Fig. 16. The basic operations of the IS machine.(1) Gob drops into inverted parison mould;(2) baffle in place and blow down applied;(3) guide ring removed and parison blown.Centre, parison swinging over to blow mouldposition; (4) parison enclosed by blow mould and

reheating; (5) bottle being blown;(6) finished bottle standing on base plate.


7/25/2019 73ap001

22/31


Fig. 17. Parison formation by the wide mouth press and blow processon the IS machine.


7/25/2019 73ap001

23/31


containers with thinner walls. Numerous other developments have been made but not yetused commercially; for example providing an intermediate neck ring mould between parisonand blow moulds to allow more cooling of the finish (Jones59).

IS machines are usually used to make containers of capacity up to about 1 litre; slightmodification of a standard machine to make an 8 litre container weighing 2.2 kg wasrecorded by Thorpe.60

THIN-WALLED WARE

When Michael Owens became a teen-aged glass-blower, cylindrical glass chimneys for oillamps were still important products. His first patented invention related to those. They weremade by blowing in a paste mould, that is a mould internally coated with a porous layer ofcarbonised material which is used wet. The steam produced by blowing the hot glass againstthe wet wall of the mould extracts heat from the glass and prevents close contact of the twowhich means that the surface of the glass retains its bright mirror finish and is very littledamaged by contact with the mould. Rotating the glass in the mould smoothes out someirregularities and prevents appearance of a vertical seam where the two halves of the mouldfit together. Paste moulds can only be used where the amount of heat that must be removedfrom the glass is little more than is needed to evaporate water, so it is limited to thin walledwares like lamp chimneys, drinking glasses, and electric lamp bulbs which are only around1 mm thick.

Soon after 1913, when the US General Electric Company introduced tungsten fila-ments, electric lamp bulbs were needed in rapidly increasing numbers and blowing by handcould no longer keep up with demand. A semiautomatic machine was invented in 1912 by

Chamberlain61

and used by Corning Glass Works and a four arm Empire machine, patentedin 1914 (Pitt62) also became widely used. In 1919 Turner63reported that the United Statesproduced more than 200 million bulbs a year. Many bulbs were still made by hand andTurner noted that the American system, which employed a gatherer, a blower, and anunskilled assistant could produce 1200 to 1300 bulbs in a 9 hour shift; yet the British systemwhere every blower worked alone produced 800 bulbs per person in a 8 hour shift. The needfor an automatic machine was obvious.

One of the most versatile and successful was the Westlake, another machine fromToledo, Ohio, the basic patents being obtained by Kadow64in 191518. Both the Empireand Westlake machines were clearly based on copying the skilled blowers series of opera-tions. Those of the Westlake, which made two bulbs on each of its twelve arms, are shown inFigure 18: a pair of small gathering moulds shoot forward into the tank and are filled bysuction, on retraction the gobs fall onto the upturned ends of two blow pipes where they aregripped by neck rings and blowing begins; after several puffs and partial collapse of theembryonic bulb, the blow pipes swing through 180 and the parisons are enclosed by theblow moulds, in which they continuously rotate as they are blown, finally the neck ringopens to release the bulb and the mould drops down into a bath of water. The Westlakemachine does not need the rotating pot necessary with the Owens machine because the smallsize of the gathering moulds and short contact times do not greatly chill the pool of glassduring gathering.

Dralle and Keppeler65claimed only 45000 bulbs/day as normal for a twelve arm (24blowpipe) Westlake in 1923 but said that only eleven such machines made over 100 million


7/25/2019 73ap001

24/31


Fig. 18. Sequence of operations on the Westlake machine. (1) Gathering by suction;(2) dropping gob onto blow pipe; (3) plug raised and gob gripped; (4) parison blown;(5) parison sagged; (6) blowpipe turned over and bulb blown.


7/25/2019 73ap001

25/31


bulbs that year in the USA. Nevertheless, the market for lamp bulbs seemed insatiable andthat led Corning Glass Works develop a completely new type of machine. This, the CorningRibbon or 399 Machine66, was conceived by W.J. Woods but largely developed by D.E.

Gray, Cornings chief engineer, around 1926. Woods was, like Owens, an experienced glassblower who had become factory superintendent. The machine, see Figure 19, has a linearlayout. A ribbon of glass carried horizontally in a straight line on a series of metal platespasses between two caterpillar belts. Blow heads are mounted on one belt placed above theribbon and and blow moulds are carried by another such belt below the ribbon. Holes in themetal plates supporting the ribbon allow the glass to sag through and the blow heads con-tact the upper surface of the ribbon to do the blowing. As the bulbs begin to form the blowmoulds (wetted paste moulds) rise from below, enclose the parisons and rotate whilst thebulbs are blown. At the other end the blow moulds open and drop away leaving a string ofbulbs hanging from the now solid ribbon from which they are cracked off and collected.

The machine was so unusual that the patent contains 18 pages with 47 beautifullydrawn diagrams which identify more than 350 components, as well as fifteen pages of text.Preston67reported that the original machine had a ribbon moving at 0.6 m/s and could makeup to 300 bulbs per minute. A version to make containers was patented but not exploited.The first ribbon machine to be installed outside the USA began operation in Yorkshire in1950 and even today only a few of these machines, which have been improved but neversuperseded, can make almost the whole worlds supply of light bulbs (Suey68).

Westlake machines or their direct descendents remain in use today for small-scale lampbulb production and for the manufacture of thin walled drinking glasses, including somewine glasses with a short neck and foot. Emhart developed a popular rotary paste mouldmachine, the H-28 in the 1930s. A later version of that machine is still widely used fortableware (Edgington and Drummond57).

Fig. 19. The Corning ribbon machine for lamp bulbs. (1) Rolls shaping stream of glass;(2) blow heads engaging upper edge of glass ribbon; (3) parisons forming through holes inplates; (4) blow moulds rising from water bath; (5) blow mould opening to release bulbs;(6) blow head raised; (7) bulbs cut from ribbon and collected.


7/25/2019 73ap001

26/31


Small low voltage bulbs for torches and suchlike are generally made from verticallengths of tubing placed in much smaller rotating machines where the bottom end of thetube is reheated and worked as the machine rotates (Mickley and Thomas69).

EFFICIENCY

The most efficient machine is the one that can make a given container at the greatest ratewith minimum rejects. Shaping the molten glass can be done very quickly, even with the lowpressures of the compressed air that are used; opening and closing moulds and movingfrom one operation to the next can also be done quickly. In general it is the removal ofthe heat from the glass and then from the moulds that determines the overall rate ofmanufacture.

Giegerich70devised a very useful simple scheme for analysing and comparing the per-formance of different machines. The overall rate of manufacture is clearly given by the rateat which gobs are supplied but, as two moulds are used, the time to make each container canbe almost double that and the maximum efficiency would be achieved by parison formingand blowing to final shape each taking the same time. Although opening and closing mouldsmust require some time, as must cooling the mould before it can be used again, Giegerichconsidered all such time as wasted. He therefore divided the whole cycle into four stages: thetimes for forming the parison tP, reheating it tR, blowing the final article tB,and cooling inthe mould tC, the total time tTto form one article obviously being the sum of these, seeFigure 20. The interval tL = tG 0.5tT between a parison being removed from its mould andthe next gob being charged represents the lost time.

Giegerich established several interesting correlations between operating parameters

such as gob weight and the times needed for the various stages on a range of machines.Figure 21 shows just one result: how the rate of production varied with tTfor containers of

Fig. 20. Giegerichs method of analysing machine performance, see text.


7/25/2019 73ap001

27/31


the same weight made on different machines. The upper dashed line shows the maximumefficiency that would result if there was no lost time and the two parts of the cycle eachneeded exactly the same time; the lower dashed line represents half that. Although theRoirant B machine comes closest to the upper line, it operated quite slowly; the bestoverall performance was given by the IS machine and the next best was the Roirant R7. Thesuperior performance of the IS machine owes much to its method of operation, construc-tion, and more efficient mould cooling. Some of its other advantages have already beendescribed.

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

Glass making machines work in arduous conditions, running continuously for days, evenweeks, at a time in a hot environment whilst accurately repeating a sequence of quite com-plex operations. Careful design can minimise the need for servicing and allow necessaryservicing to be quickly done. Even today, as the moulds on a machine do not operate insteady-state conditions, it may take several hours to regain maximum production after anyinterruption. It is therefore important that moulds, although held rigidly and accurately,can be released and changed very quickly when necessary. The ability to stop only one sec-tion at a time is thus an important advantage of the IS machine but impossible on a rotarymachine.

It has already been implied that few machine manufacturers could employ large teamsof design engineers, so many machines underwent continuous modification and improve-

ment. The open literature contains a few papers that examined various aspects of design anddevelopment. The construction and operation of presses which use the simplest method ofmanufacture, was discussed by Nichols71and some other aspects of pressing by Gill.72

A symposium held by the Society of Glass Technology included descriptions of manyof the types of machine then in use but also some critical examination of their performanceand problems. Amongst those papers, Nichols,73who was vastly experienced, noted thatsome machines with rather poorly lubricated plain bearings were not initially fitted withbushes by the manufacturers and he showed that spring performance could often beimproved by changing the size of wire and number of turns used.

Fig. 21. Productivity of different machinesmaking bottles of the same range of weights(Giegerich). IS = IS machine; B and R7 areRoirant machines; LA and L 10 Lynchmachines; AG, AP, and OS are Owensmachines. The Owens machines and Roirant B

were suction-fed.


7/25/2019 73ap001

28/31


CONCLUSION

Although the manufacture of automatic machines for making glass containers is a verysmall section of the engineering industry, many skilled engineers have devoted their talentsto this branch of manufacturing and glass makers have been very well served by theirmachine suppliers. The most efficient methods of making both bottles and thin-walled waresuch as lamp bulbs were established seventy-five years ago. Steady progress has beenmade ever since to keep improving the quality of the wares, productivity and operatingconditions.

The exact requirements for the most efficient processing of glass containers are, eventoday, rather difficult to define exactly and much development was until recently the pro-duct of insight, trial, and error. Computer modelling is now widely used for several aspects

of design and operation but is not yet able to achieve all the targets set. Present practicepushes materials and technology to their limits but the glass industry is always seeking tomake further improvements that can decrease the weight of glass used to make a containerand increase speed of manufacture.

REFERENCES

1. F.W. Hodkin, The contributions of Yorkshire to glass, J.Soc.Glass Technol., Vol. 37 (1953),pp. 21N36N.

2. (a) R.L. Chance, Improvements in the manufacture of glass, English Patent 7596 (1838);(b) J.T. Chance, Improvements in the manufacture of glass, English Patent 7618 (1838);(c) J.T. Chance and H. Badger, Improvements in the manufacture of glass, English Patent 11185(1846); (d) J.T. Chance, Improvements in the manufacture of glass, English Patent 11749 (1847).

3. H. Bessemer, Certain improvements in the manufacture of glass, English Patent 12101 (1848). 4. J. Magoun (a) Molding and pressing glass, USP 5302 (1847); (b) Mold for pressing glass, USP

5303 (1847). 5. M. Cable, The development of glass-melting furnaces, 18501950, Trans. Newcomen Soc.,

vol. 71 (19992000), pp. 20527. 6. M. Cable, Classical glass technology, chapter 1 in Treatise on materials science and technology,

vol. 9, pp. 189, in Glasses and amorphous materials Vol. 9 (editor J. Zarzycki) of Materialsscience and technology: a comprehensive treatment (series editors R.W. Cahn, P. Haasen andE.J. Kramer), (VCH Verlag, Weinheim, 1991).

7. J. Boow and W.E.S. Turner (a) The viscosity and working characteristics of glasses. Part I: Theviscosity of some commercial glasses at temperatures between approximately 500 and 1400C,J.Soc.Glass Technol., vol. 26 (1942), pp. 21540; (b) Part II: The rate of cooling and setting ofcolourless and coloured glasses, ibid., vol. 27 (1943), pp. 95112; (c) Part III: Observations onrate of cooling and viscosity of glasses during manipulation by hand, ibid., vol. 27 (1943)

pp. 20737; (d) Part IV: Observations on rate of cooling and viscosity of glasses during manipu-lation by automatic machines, ibid., vol. 29 (1945) pp. 199232; (e) Part V: Temperaturemeasurements during manipulation of glass by semi-automatic presses, ibid., vol. 29 (1945)pp. 23349.

8. C.L. Babcock, W.D. Kingery, R. Gardon, and others, Symposium on heat transfer phenomenain glasses, J.Am.Cer.Soc., vol. 44 (1961), pp. 30173.

9. A. Mein, Making glass bottles: apparatus connected therewith, BP 680 (1859).10. C., G., W., and J. Kilner, Manufacture of glass bottles and the apparatus connected therewith,

BP 2079 (1860).11. J. Bowron, Manufacture of bottles and other vessels of glass, BP 354 (1861).


7/25/2019 73ap001

29/31


12. A.R. Weber, Moulding Bottles, USP178819 (1876).13. W. Gillinder, Blow pipe for glass blowers, USP51386 (1865).14. J.S. and T.B. Atterbury, Process for molasses pitcher, USP 140236 (1873).15. P. Arbogast, Manufacture of glassware, USP 260819 (1882).16. S. English, The Ashley bottle machine. A historical note, J.Soc.Glass Technol., vol. 7 (1923),

pp. 32434.17. J.C. Arnall & H.M. Ashley, Improvements in the manufacture of bottles and other articles in

blown glass, BP 8677 (1886).18. H.M. Ashley, Improvements in the manufacture of bottles and other articles in glass, BP 14727

(1886).19. H.M. Ashley, Improvements in the manufacture of bottles and other hollowware in glass and in

the machinery for the same, BP3434 (1887).20. W.E.S. Turner, The early development of bottle making machines in Europe, J. Soc. Glass

Technol., vol. 22 (1938), pp. 25058.21. E. Meigh (a) The development of the automatic glass bottle machine, Glass Technol, vol. 1(1960), pp. 2550; (b) E. Meigh, The story of the glass bottleC.E. Ramsden (Stoke on Trent,1972).

22. Glass bottles Sykes MacVay & Companys new process at Castleford, Leeds Mercury,17 December 1887, p. 3, col.12.

23. H.M. Ashley, Improvements in the manufacture of internally stoppered bottles and other likevessels in glass, BP 7560 (1887).

24. H.M. Ashley, Improvement in machinery for making bottles and other like hollow glass-ware,BP 3686 (1889).

25. H.M. Ashley, Improvements in the manufacture of bottles and other articles in blown glass,BP 3673 (1889).

26. J. Horne, Improvements in apparatus for manufacturing glass bottles, BP 24786 (1897).27. R. Dralle and G. Keppeler, Die Glasfabrikation, 2nd edn, vol. 1 (1926) p. 595.

28. L. Appert, Sur le soufflage du verre par lair comprim, C. R.Acad.Sci.Paris,vol. 96 (1893),pp. 163537.

29. Kirn, ber den Betrieb der Hohl- und Fensterglashtten im Bhmer Waldgebirge, in denVosges und in einigen Gegenden von Suddeutschland, Karstens Archiv. Miner, vol. 2 (1830),pp. 24784.

30. W.C. Scoville, Revolution in glassmaking(Harvard University Press, 1948).31. M.J. Owens, Apparatus for mechanically operating paste glass molds, USP 482526 (1892).32. J.H. Croskey and J. Locke, Pneumatic apparatus for lifting and discharging molten material,

USP 575214 (1897).33. M.J. Owens, (a) Glass shaping machine, USP 766768 (1904); (b) Glass melting and shaping

device, USP 774690 (1904).34. R. Dralle and G. Keppeler, Die Glasfabrikation, 2nd edn, vol. 1 (1926) p. 662.35. E. Meigh, The development of the automatic glass bottle machine: a story of some pioneers,

Glass Technol., vol. 1 (1961), pp. 2550.

36. R.S. Biram, The introduction of the Owens machine into Europe, J.Soc.Glass Technol., vol. 42(1958), pp. 19N45N.

37. A. Dingwall, Note on the use of the term cut-off scar, J.Soc.Glass Technol., vol. 38 (1954),p. 49.

38. F. Redfern, The new British 15-arm automatic suction bottle machine, J.Soc.Glass Technol.,vol. 5 (1921), pp. 25765.

39. (a) Anon, The development of the Roirant machines, Glass, vol. 13 (1936), pp. 28082;(b) H. Severin, Die Entwicklung der Roirant maschine A6, Glastech. Ber., vol. 20 (1942),pp. 6571; (c) A. Wyss, Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Roirant maschine, Glastech. Ber.,vol. 35 (1962), pp. 7984.


7/25/2019 73ap001

30/31


40. J. Moncrieff Ltd and A.L. McNish (a) Improvements in rotary machines for manufacturingglass hollow-ware and other moulded articles of glass, BP320024 (1928); (b) Improvements inpaddle mechanism for circulating molten glass, BP 320033 (1928); (c) J. Creaser, L.G. Creaserand F.W. Hodkin, Suction and feeder-fed bottle-making machines, J.Soc.Glass Tech.,vol. 37(1953), pp. 4856.

41. H. Brooke (a) Dividing molten material, BP 24324 (1901); (b) Device for cutting molten mate-rial and distributing same, USP 723983 (1903); (c) Automatic feeding devices for glass-makingmachinery, J.Soc.Glass Technol., vol. 4 (1920), pp. 29698.

42. K.E. Peiler, Method and machine for gathering glass, USP 1324464 (1919).43. K.E. Peiler, Improvements in apparatus for feeding molten glass, BP 142786 (1920).44. E. Meigh, Ref. 35, p. 38.45. K.E. Peiler (a) The Hartford-Empire feeder, BP 227078 and 227079 (1924); (b) Glass feeder

mechanism, BP 254281 (1926).

46. G. Dowse and E. Meigh, Automatic glass feeding devices, J.Soc.Glass Technol., vol. 5 (1921),pp. 13455.47. R.E. Swain, A study of pulsating feeders for molten glass, Glass Ind., vol. 13 (1932), pp. 99102,

11517, 13336.48. M. Cable, Ref. 6, pp. 2025.49. K.E. Peiler and W.T. Baker, Temperature control of forehearth for molten glass, USP 2139770

(1938); USP 2139911 (1938).50. (a) Lynch Machinery Co., Improvements in Glass blowing machines, BP 160366 (1921);

(b) Anon, Details of a new bottle machine by Lynch, Glass Ind., vol. 12 (1931), pp.11924;(c) A. Stein, Konstruktion und Arbeitsweise der Lynch 44 Maschine, Glastech.Ber., vol. 36(1963), pp. 25965.

51. (a) F. ONeill, The ONeill suction machine, BP 315154 (1928).52. (a) D.M. Moody, ONeill machines, J.Soc.Glass Tech., vol. 37 (1953), pp. 4547 [with plates];

(b) Anon, Frank ONeill pioneer glass working machinery builder, Nat.Glass Budget, vol. 59,

no. 10 (1943), pp. 1113.53. W. Giegerich and W. Trier, Glasmaschinen; Aufbau und Betrieb der Maschinen zur Formgebung

des heisses Glases(Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1964).54. (a) W.D. Mitchell, Mitchell feeder-fed glass-forming machines, J.Soc.Glass Technol., vol. 37

(1953), pp. 4143; (b) T. Platt, Mitchell machines, J. Soc. Glass Technol., vol. 37 (1953),pp. 7175.

55. H.W. Ingle, Glass blowing machine and method, USP 1843159 (1932).56. (a) W. Muschalek, Neuere deutsche Hohlglasautomaten, Glastech. Ber, vol. 36 (1963),

pp. 26673; (b) L. Schaar and H.G. Seidel, Stand der Heye-Maschinenentwicklung, Glastech.Ber., vol. 48 (1975), pp. 4350.

57. J.H. Edgington and C.H. Drummond, Emhart glass and the story of glass packaging(EmhartGlass, Epworth, UK, 1996), pp. 295.

58. T.V. Foster and S.P Jones, (a) Mould arrangements for glassware forming machines, Europatent 0 102 820; (b) T.V. Foster, Mould arrangement for a cyclicly [ sic] operating glassware

forming machine, Euro patent 0 153 534; (c) T.V. Foster, S.P Jones, and J.H. Williams, Applica-tion of a cooling system to general glass works use with the aid of mathematical modelling tech-niques, Proceedings XIV International Glass, vol. III (Congress, New Delhi, 1986), pp. 8087.

59. S.P. Jones, Method of manufacture of glass containers in a section of an IS machine,USP 5649989 (1997).

60. B.F. Thorpe, Large jar successfully produced on IS machine, Glass Internat., vol. 22, no. 5(1999), p. 27.

61. B.D. Chamberlain, Apparatus for production of blown-glass articles, USP 1124702 (1915).62. H.H. Pitt, Some notes on American methods and practice in the glass industry, J.Soc.Glass

Technol., vol. 2 (1918), pp. 1929.


7/25/2019 73ap001

31/31


63. W.E.S. Turner, The glass industry in North America, J. Soc. Glass Tech., vol. 3 (1919),pp. 166200.

64. A. Kadow (a) Transmission apparatus, USP 1142487 (b) Raising and lowering mechanism,USP 1151795 (1915) (c) Glass-forming machine, USP 1251671 (1918).

65. R. Dralle and G. Keppeler, Die Glasfabrikation, vol. 1, 2nd edn (1926), p. 632.66. W.J. Woods and D.E. Gray, Glass working machine, USP 1790397, (1931).67. F.W.Preston, New lamps for old, Glass Ind., vol. 12 (1931), pp. 15965.68. N.Y. Suey, The ribbon machine half a century on, Glass Ind., vol. 60 (1979), pp. 3031.69. E. Mickley and M. Thomas, ber die Herstellung von Lampkolben aus Rohren, Glastech.Ber.,

vol. 36 (1963), pp. 273277.70. W. Giegerich, Relations between heat losses of glass, forming times, and bottle production in

blowing machines, J.Amer.Cer.Soc., vol. 44 (1961), pp. 34653.71. N.A. Nichols, Some problems of glass presses, J.Soc.Glass Tech., vol. 38 (1954), pp. 3448.

72. H.S.Y. Gill, The effect of composition on the manufacture of glassware by pressing, J.Soc.Glass Tech., vol. 38 (1954), pp. 1733.

73. N.A. Nichols, Improvements needed in glass-making machines, J.Soc.Glass Technol., vol. 37(1953), pp. 6170.

73ap001

Documents