Lathe. History of invention and production. Andrey Konstantinovich Nartov taught even European emperors the craft of turning. A lathe with a Nartov support
History dates the invention of the lathe to 650. BC e. The machine consisted of two established centers, between which a workpiece made of wood, bone or horn was clamped. A slave or apprentice rotated the workpiece (one or more turns in one direction, then in the other). The master held the cutter in his hands and, pressing it in the right place against the workpiece, removed the chips, giving the workpiece the required shape.
Later, a bow with a loosely stretched (sagging) bowstring was used to set the workpiece in motion. The string was wrapped around the cylindrical part of the workpiece so that it formed a loop around the workpiece. When the bow moved in one direction or the other, similar to the movement of a saw when sawing a log, the workpiece made several revolutions around its axis, first in one direction and then in the other.
In the XIV - XV centuries they were common with a foot drive. The foot drive consisted of an ochepa - an elastic pole, cantilevered above the machine. A string was attached to the end of the pole, which was wrapped one turn around the workpiece and attached to the pedal with its lower end. When the pedal was pressed, the string was stretched, forcing the workpiece to make one or two turns, and the pole to bend. When the pedal was released, the pole straightened, pulled the string up, and the workpiece made the same revolutions in the other direction.
Around 1430, instead of an ochep, they began to use a mechanism that included a pedal, a connecting rod and a crank, thus obtaining a drive similar to the foot drive of a sewing machine, which was common in the 20th century. From that time on, the workpiece on the lathe received, instead of an oscillatory movement, rotation in one direction throughout the entire turning process.
In 1500, the lathe already had steel centers and a steady rest, which could be strengthened anywhere between the centers.
On such machines, quite complex parts were processed, which were bodies of rotation, right up to a ball. But the drive of the machines that existed at that time was too low-power for metal processing, and the forces of the hand holding the cutter were insufficient to remove large chips from the workpiece. As a result, metal processing turned out to be ineffective. It was necessary to replace the worker's hand with a special mechanism, and the muscular force driving the machine with a more powerful engine.
The advent of the water wheel led to an increase in labor productivity, while having a powerful revolutionary effect on the development of technology. And from the middle of the 14th century. water drives began to spread in metalworking.
In the middle of the 16th century, Jacques Besson (died 1569) invented a lathe for cutting cylindrical and conical screws.
At the beginning of the 18th century, Andrei Konstantinovich Nartov (1693-1756), a mechanic under Peter the Great, invented an original lathe-copying and screw-cutting machine with a mechanized support and a set of replaceable gears. To truly understand the global significance of these inventions, let's return to the evolution of the lathe.
In the 17th century lathes appeared, in which the workpiece was no longer driven by the muscular power of the turner, but with the help of a water wheel, but the cutter, as before, was held in the hand of the turner. At the beginning of the 18th century. lathes were increasingly used for cutting metals rather than wood, and therefore the problem of rigidly fastening the cutter and moving it along the table surface being processed was very relevant. And for the first time, the problem of a self-propelled caliper was successfully solved in A.K. Nartov’s copying machine in 1712.
The inventors took a long time to come to the idea of mechanized movement of the cutter. For the first time, this problem became especially acute when solving such technical problems as thread cutting, applying complex patterns to luxury goods, making gears, etc. To obtain a thread on a shaft, for example, markings were first made, for which a paper tape of the required width was wound onto the shaft, along the edges of which the outline of the future thread was applied. After marking, the threads were filed by hand. Not to mention the labor intensity of such a process, it is very difficult to obtain satisfactory quality of carving in this way.
And Nartov not only solved the problem of mechanizing this operation, but in 1718-1729. I improved the scheme myself. The copying finger and support were driven by the same lead screw, but with different cutting pitches under the cutter and under the copier. Thus, automatic movement of the support along the axis of the workpiece was ensured. True, there was no cross-feed yet; instead, the swing of the “copier-workpiece” system was introduced. Therefore, work on the creation of the caliper continued. In particular, Tula mechanics Alexey Surnin and Pavel Zakhava created their own caliper. A more advanced design of the support, close to the modern one, was created by the English machine tool builder Maudsley, but A.K. Nartov remains the first to find a way to solve this problem.
Second half of the 18th century. in the machine tool industry was marked by a sharp increase in the scope of application of metal-cutting machines and the search for a satisfactory design for a universal lathe that could be used for various purposes.
In 1751, J. Vaucanson in France built a machine, which, in its technical data, already resembled a universal one. It was made of metal, had a powerful frame, two metal centers, two V-shaped guides, and a copper support that ensured mechanized movement of the tool in the longitudinal and transverse directions. At the same time, this machine did not have a system for clamping the workpiece in a chuck, although this device existed in other machine designs. Here provision was made for securing the workpiece only in the centers. The distance between centers could be changed within 10 cm. Therefore, only parts of approximately the same length could be processed on Vaucanson’s machine.
In 1778, the Englishman D. Ramedon developed two types of thread cutting machines. In one machine, a diamond cutting tool moved along parallel guides along a rotating workpiece, the speed of which was set by the rotation of a reference screw. Replaceable gears made it possible to obtain threads with different pitches. The second machine made it possible to produce threads with different pitches on parts longer than the length of the standard. The cutter moved along the workpiece using a string wound onto the central key.
In 1795, the French mechanic Senault made a specialized lathe for cutting screws. The designer provided replaceable gears, a large lead screw, and a simple mechanized caliper. The machine was devoid of any decorations with which the craftsmen previously loved to decorate their products.
The accumulated experience made it possible by the end of the 18th century to create a universal lathe, which became the basis of mechanical engineering. Its author was Henry Maudsley. In 1794, he created a caliper design, which was rather imperfect. In 1798, having founded his own workshop for the production of machine tools, he significantly improved the support, which made it possible to create a version of a universal lathe.
In 1800, Maudsley improved this machine, and then created a third version, which contained all the elements that screw-cutting lathes have today. It is significant that Maudsley understood the need to unify certain types of parts and was the first to introduce standardization of threads on screws and nuts. He began producing sets of taps and dies for cutting threads.
One of Maudsley's students and successors was R. Roberts. He improved the lathe by placing the lead screw in front of the frame, adding gearing, and moving the control handles to the front panel of the machine, which made operating the machine more convenient. This machine operated until 1909.
Another former Maudsley employee, D. Clement, created a lobe lathe for processing large-diameter parts. He took into account that at a constant speed of rotation of the part and a constant feed speed, as the cutter moves from the periphery to the center, the cutting speed will fall, and he created a system for increasing the speed.
In 1835, D. Whitworth invented an automatic feed in the transverse direction, which was connected to a longitudinal feed mechanism. This completed the fundamental improvement of turning equipment.
The next stage is the automation of lathes. Here the palm belonged to the Americans. In the USA, the development of metal processing technology began later than in Europe. American machine tools of the first half of the 19th century. significantly inferior to Maudsley machines.
In the second half of the 19th century. The quality of American machines was already quite high. The machines were mass-produced, and full interchangeability of parts and blocks produced by one company was introduced. If a part broke, it was enough to order a similar one from the factory and replace the broken part with a whole one without any adjustment.
In the second half of the 19th century. elements were introduced that ensure complete mechanization of processing - an automatic feed unit in both coordinates, a perfect system for fastening the cutter and the part. Cutting and feed modes changed quickly and without significant effort. The lathes had elements of automation - automatic stop of the machine when a certain size was reached, a system for automatically controlling the speed of frontal turning, etc.
However, the main achievement of the American machine tool industry was not the development of the traditional lathe, but the creation of its modification - the turret lathe. In connection with the need to manufacture new small arms (revolvers), S. Fitch in 1845 developed and built a revolver machine with eight cutting tools in the turret head. The speed of tool change dramatically increased the productivity of the machine in the production of serial products. This was a serious step towards the creation of automatic machines.
The first automatic machines have already appeared in woodworking: in 1842 such an automatic machine was built by K. Vipil, and in 1846 by T. Sloan.
The first universal automatic lathe was invented in 1873. Chr. Spencer.
One of the most important achievements of mechanical engineering at the beginning of the 19th century was the spread of metal-cutting machines with calipers - mechanical holders for the cutter. The introduction of the caliper immediately led to the improvement and reduction in cost of all machines, and gave impetus to new improvements and inventions.
The support is designed to move during processing of a cutting tool fixed in the tool holder. It consists of a lower slide (longitudinal slide) 1, which moves along the frame guides using a handle 15 and ensures the movement of the cutter along the workpiece. On the lower slide, transverse slides (transverse slide) 3 move along guides 12, which ensure the movement of the cutter perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the workpiece (part).
On the transverse slide 3 there is a rotary plate 4, which is secured with a nut 10. The upper slide 11 moves along the guides 5 of the rotary plate 4 (using the handle 13), which together with the plate 4 can be rotated in a horizontal plane relative to the transverse slide and ensure the movement of the cutter at an angle to the axis of rotation of the workpiece (part).
The tool holder (cutting head) 6 with bolts 8 is attached to the upper slide using a handle 9, which moves along the screw 7. The support movement is driven from the lead screw 2, from the lead shaft located under the lead screw, or manually. Automatic feeds are turned on using handle 14.
The cross support device is shown in the figure below. Along the guides of the longitudinal support 1, a lead screw 12 equipped with a handle 10 moves the slide of the transverse support. The lead screw 12 is fixed at one end in the longitudinal support 1, and the other is connected to a nut (consisting of two parts 15 and 13 and a wedge 14), which is attached to the transverse slide 9. By tightening the screw 16, the nuts 15 and 13 are moved apart (with a wedge 14) , due to which the gap between the lead screw 12 and the nut 15 is selected. 
The amount of movement of the transverse slide is determined by dial 11. A rotating plate 8 is attached to the transverse slide (with nuts 7), together with which the upper slide 6 and tool holder 5 rotate. On some machines, a rear tool holder 2 is installed on the transverse slide 9 for turning grooves, cutting, etc. work that can be performed by moving the transverse support, as well as a bracket 3 with a shield 4 that protects the worker from chips and cutting fluid.
The lathe has a very ancient history, and over the years its design has changed very little. By rotating a piece of wood, the master could use a chisel to give it the most bizarre cylindrical shape. To do this, he pressed the chisel against a rapidly rotating piece of wood, separated circular shavings from it and gradually gave the workpiece the desired shape. In the details of their design, machines could differ quite significantly from each other, but until the end of the 18th century, they all had one fundamental feature: during processing, the workpiece rotated, and the cutter was in the hands of the master.
Exceptions to this rule were very rare, and can by no means be considered typical of this era. For example, cutter holders have become widespread in copying machines. With the help of such machines, a worker who did not have special skills could produce intricate products of very complex shapes. To do this, they used a bronze model, which had the appearance of a product, but was larger in size (usually 2:1). The required image was obtained on the workpiece as follows.
The machine was equipped with two supports that made it possible to turn products without the participation of a worker’s hand: in one a copying finger was fixed, in the other - a cutter. The fixed copying finger looked like a rod, on the pointed end of which there was a small roller. The model was constantly pressed against the roller of the copying finger using a special spring. While the machine was operating, it began to rotate and, in accordance with the protrusions and depressions on its surface, made oscillatory movements.
These movements of the model were transmitted through a system of gears to a rotating workpiece, which repeated them. The workpiece was in contact with the cutter, similar to how the model was in contact with the tracing finger. Depending on the relief of the model, the workpiece either approached the cutter or moved away from it. At the same time, the thickness of the chips also changed. After many passes of the cutter along the surface of the workpiece, a relief similar to that on the model appeared, but on a smaller scale.
The copying machine was a very complex and expensive tool. Only very wealthy people could buy it. In the first half of the 18th century, when the fashion for turned wood and bone products arose, many European monarchs and titled nobility were engaged in turning work. For the most part, copying machines were intended for them.
But these devices are not widely used in turning. A simple lathe fully satisfied all human needs until the second half of the 18th century. However, since the middle of the century, the need to process massive iron parts with great precision began to arise more and more often. Shafts, screws of various sizes, gears were the first machine parts, the mechanical production of which became a question immediately after their appearance, since they were required in huge quantities.
The need for high-precision processing of metal blanks began to be felt especially acute after the implementation of Watt’s great invention. The manufacture of parts for steam engines turned out to be a very difficult technical task for the level that mechanical engineering had reached in the 18th century.
Usually the chisel was mounted on a long hook-shaped stick. The worker held it in his hands, leaning on a special stand like a lever. This work required great professional skills and great physical strength. Any mistake led to damage to the entire workpiece or to too large a processing error.
In 1765, due to the impossibility of drilling with sufficient accuracy a cylinder two feet long and six inches in diameter, Watt was forced to resort to a malleable cylinder. The cylinder, nine feet long and 28 inches in diameter, was bored to an accuracy of "the thickness of a small finger."
Since the beginning of the 19th century, a gradual revolution in mechanical engineering began. The old lathe is being replaced one by one by new high-precision automatic machines equipped with calipers. The beginning of this revolution was laid by the screw-cutting lathe of the English mechanic Henry Maudsley, which made it possible to automatically turn screws and bolts with any thread.
Screw cutting has long remained a technical challenge because it requires great precision and skill. Mechanics have long thought about how to simplify this operation. Back in 1701, the work of C. Plumet described a method for cutting screws using a primitive caliper.
To do this, a piece of screw was soldered to the workpiece as a shank. The pitch of the soldered screw had to be equal to the pitch of the screw that needed to be cut on the workpiece. Then the workpiece was installed in the simplest detachable wooden headstocks; the headstock supported the body of the workpiece, and a soldered screw was inserted into the backstock. When the screw rotated, the wooden socket of the tailstock was crushed into the shape of the screw and served as a nut, as a result of which the entire workpiece moved towards the headstock. The feed per revolution was such that it allowed the stationary cutter to cut the screw with the required pitch.
A similar kind of device was on the screw-cutting lathe of 1785, which was the immediate predecessor of the Maudsley machine. Here, the thread cutting, which served as a model for the screw being manufactured, was applied directly to the spindle, which held the workpiece and caused it to rotate. (A spindle is the name given to the rotating shaft of a lathe with a device for clamping the workpiece.) This made it possible to do cutting on screws by machine: the worker rotated the workpiece, which, due to the thread of the spindle, just like in the Plumet device, began to move progressively relative to a fixed cutter that the worker held on a stick.
Thus, the product received a thread that exactly matched the spindle thread. However, the accuracy and straightness of the processing here depended solely on the strength and firmness of the hand of the worker guiding the tool. This was a great inconvenience. In addition, the threads on the spindle were only 8-10 mm, which allowed only very short screws to be cut.
The screw cutting machine designed by Maudsley represented a significant advance. The history of its invention is described as follows by contemporaries. In 1794-1795, Maudsley, still a young but already very experienced mechanic, worked in the workshop of the famous inventor Brahma.
Bramah and Maudsley were faced with the task of increasing the number of parts produced on the machines. However, the old lathe was inconvenient for this. Having begun work on its improvement, Maudsley equipped it with a cross support in 1794.
The lower part of the support (slide) was installed on the same frame with the tailstock of the machine and could slide along its guide. In any place, the caliper could be firmly fixed with a screw. On the lower sled were the upper ones, arranged in a similar way. With their help, the cutter, fixed with a screw in a slot at the end of a steel bar, could move in the transverse direction.
The caliper moved in the longitudinal and transverse directions using two lead screws. By moving the cutter using a support close to the workpiece, rigidly mounting it on a cross slide, and then moving it along the surface being processed, it was possible to cut off excess metal with great precision. In this case, the support performed the function of the worker’s hand holding the cutter. In fact, there was nothing new in the described design, but it was a necessary step towards further improvements.
Leaving Brahmah shortly after his invention, Maudsley founded his own workshop and in 1798 created a more advanced lathe. This machine was an important milestone in the development of machine tool construction, since for the first time it made it possible to automatically cut screws of any length and any pitch.
The weak point of the old lathe was that it could only cut short screws. It couldn’t be otherwise because there was no support, the worker’s hand had to remain motionless, and the workpiece itself moved along with the spindle. In the Maudsley machine, the workpiece remained motionless, and the support with the cutter fixed in it moved.
In order to make the caliper move on the lower slide along the machine, Maudsley connected the headstock spindle to the caliper lead screw using two gears. The rotating screw was screwed into a nut, which pulled the caliper slide behind it and forced it to slide along the frame. Since the lead screw rotated at the same speed as the spindle, a thread was cut on the workpiece with the same pitch that was on this screw. For cutting screws with different pitches, the machine had a supply of lead screws.
Automatic screw cutting on the machine occurred as follows. The workpiece was clamped and ground to the required dimensions, without turning on the mechanical feed of the caliper. After this, the lead screw was connected to the spindle, and screw cutting was carried out in several passes of the cutter. Each caliper's return movement was done manually after turning off the self-propelled feed. Thus, the lead screw and caliper completely replaced the worker’s hand. Moreover, they made it possible to cut threads much more accurately and faster than on previous machines.
In 1800, Maudsley made a remarkable improvement to his machine - instead of a set of interchangeable lead screws, he used a set of interchangeable gears that connected the spindle and the lead screw (there were 28 of them with a number of teeth from 15 to 50).
On his machine, Maudsley cut threads with such amazing precision and accuracy that it seemed almost a miracle to his contemporaries. In particular, he cut the adjusting screw and nut for an astronomical instrument, which for a long time was considered an unsurpassed masterpiece of precision. The screw was five feet long and two inches in diameter with 50 turns for every inch. The carving was so small that it could not be seen with the naked eye. Soon, the improved Maudsley machine became widespread and served as a model for many other metal-cutting machines. In 1817, a planer with a slide was created, which made it possible to quickly process flat surfaces. In 1818, Whitney invented the milling machine. In 1839, a carousel machine appeared, etc.
Nartov Andrey Konstantinovich (1683 - 1756)
A figure of the time of Peter the Great. Russian mechanic and inventor. He studied at the School of Mathematical and Navigational Sciences in Moscow. Around 1718, he was sent abroad by the Tsar to improve his art of turning and “acquire knowledge in mechanics and mathematics.” At the direction of Peter I, Nartov was soon transferred to St. Petersburg and appointed the Tsar’s personal turner in the palace turning workshop.
Working here in 1712-1725, Nartov invented and built a number of lathes (including copying machines) that were perfect and original in their kinematic design, some of which were equipped with mechanical supports. With the advent of the caliper, the problem of manufacturing machine parts of strictly defined geometric shapes, the problem of producing machines by machines, was solved.
In 1726-1727 and 1733 Nartov worked at the Moscow Mint, where he created original coining machines. In the same 1733, Nartov created a mechanism for raising the “Tsar Bell”. After the death of Peter, Nartov was commissioned to make a “triumphal pillar” in honor of the emperor, depicting all his “battles”.
When all of Peter's turning accessories and objects, as well as the "triumphal pillar", were handed over to the Academy of Sciences, then, at the insistence of the head of the academy, Baron Korf, who considered Nartov the only person capable of finishing the "pillar", he was transferred to the academy "to the turning machine tools", for the management of turning and mechanical students and mechanics. Petrovskaya turning, transformed by Nartov into academic workshops, served as the basis for the subsequent work of M.V. Lomonosov, and then I.P. Kulibin (especially in the field of instrument making).
In 1742, Nartov brought a complaint to the Senate against the academy adviser Schumacher, with whom he had arguments over a money issue, and then achieved the appointment of an investigation of Schumacher, in whose place Nartov himself was appointed. He stayed in this position for only 1.5 years, because he turned out to be “ignorant of anything but the art of turning and autocratic”; he ordered the archives of the academic chancellery to be sealed, treated the academicians rudely, and finally brought matters to the point that Lomonosov and other members began to ask for the return of Schumacher, who again took over the management of the academy in 1744, and Nartov concentrated his activities “on cannon and artillery in fact."
1738-1756, working in the Artillery Department, Nartov created machines for drilling channels and turning cannon trunnions, original fuses, and an optical sight; proposed new methods for casting cannons and sealing shells in the gun channel. In 1741 Nartov invented a rapid-fire battery of 44 three-pound mortars. In this battery, for the first time in the history of artillery, a screw lifting mechanism was used, which made it possible to give the mortars the desired elevation angle.
Nartov’s discovered manuscript “A Clear Spectacle of Machines” describes more than 20 lathes, lathe-copying, and screw-cutting lathes of various designs. The drawings and technical descriptions made by Nartov testify to his great engineering knowledge. He also published: “Memorable narratives and speeches of Peter the Great” and “Theatrum machinarum”.
Henry Maudslay Henry 1771-1831
English mechanic and industrialist. He created a screw-cutting lathe with a mechanized support (1797), mechanized the production of screws, nuts, etc. He spent his early years in Woolwich near London.
At the age of 12 he began working as a cartridge filler at the Woolwich Arsenal, and at the age of 18 he was the best blacksmith of the arsenal and a mechanic in the workshop of J. Bram, the best workshop in London. Later he opened his own workshop, then a factory in Lambeth.
Created the Maudsley Laboratory. Designer. Mechanical engineer. He created a mechanized lathe support of his own design. I came up with an original set of replacement gears. Invented a cross-planing machine with a crank mechanism. Created or improved a large number of different metal-cutting machines. He built steam ship engines for Russia.
The outstanding Russian mechanic of the first half of the 18th century, Andrei Konstantinovich Nartov, was born in 1693 into the family of a “man of common rank.”
In 1709, as a fifteen-year-old teenager, Nartov began working as a turner at the School of Mathematical and Navigational Sciences (or, as it was more often called, the Navigation School), founded by Peter I in 1701. The building of the Sukharev Tower was allocated for the Navigation School in Moscow. The school was subordinated to the Armory Chamber, represented by boyar F.A. Golovin and the famous “profit maker” clerk Alexei Kurbatov. Since 1706, it moved to the maritime department.
Kurbatov reported in 1703 that “nowadays, many of all ranks and subsistence people have recognized the sweetness of that science, send their children to those schools, and now they themselves are underage and Reiter children (i.e., children of cavalrymen) and young clerks from orders come with great desire."
In 1715, the senior classes of the Navigation School were transferred to St. Petersburg and then transformed into the Naval Academy. And the Navigation School in Moscow remained as a preparatory school for it. The navigation school was involved in solving such practical problems as training sailors during the construction of the fleet in Voronezh, measuring the “promising road” between Moscow and St. Petersburg, etc.
The people who headed the Navigation School, and Peter himself, considered knowledge of crafts necessary for everyone graduating from this educational institution. A number of workshops were created at the school, where students acquired relevant knowledge and skills in crafts and where tools and various equipment for the school itself were made.
In 1703, a turning workshop was created. Peter I paid special attention to it, since he himself was very fond of turning.
Nartov’s teacher in turning was master Egan (Johann) Bleer. After his death (in May 1712), young Nartov was appointed head of the turning workshop and custodian of its equipment.
The art of turning originated in ancient times. Throughout the Middle Ages, the lathe underwent various design improvements.
In the 17th - 18th centuries, turning was one of the most important types of artistic craft. The requirements for a turner as a craftsman were varied.
Turning at that time meant all types of machining of wood, bone, horn, metal and other materials using cutting tools, except for drilling and reaming. On lathes they turned the outer and inner surfaces of products, engraved disks and cylinders, made medals, etc.
Lathes were usually driven by the turner himself using a hand or foot drive.
One of the French turning experts wrote that a turner must know metalworking and carpentry, be a good mechanic, and be able to invent and make various tools for a lathe.
A full-fledged master also had to master the basics of mathematics. And along with this, the manufacture of medals and similar products required truly artistic talents.
Nartov mastered the knowledge and skills of a lathe through diligent, constant practical work.
Peter I visited the Navigation School and, for the sake of relaxation and entertainment, worked there in a turning workshop. He drew attention to the “sharply understood” young man, who often helped him with technical advice in the manufacture of this or that thing.
In 1712, Peter transferred Nartov to St. Petersburg, to his personal turning workshop, where Nartov was to work with Peter for 12 years.
The personal turning shop of Peter I was located in the Summer Palace next to the reception office and was often the site of the most important secret meetings on foreign and domestic policy issues.
Soon, Nartov received the title of “personal turner” of Peter I. This was the title of a particularly trusted person, one of the “close-knit” people. Since Peter regularly spent short hours of leisure at the lathe (usually in the afternoon) and met with those close to him there, the “personal turner” had to not only teach Peter all the intricacies of the craft, but also ensure that no one entered the lathe without special permission from Peter.
This order was monitored by the “nearby roommates,” the so-called “orderlies,” i.e., the orderlies on duty (one of them was later V.I. Suvorov, the father of the famous commander), cabinet secretary A.V. Makarov and the “personal turner”.
There were almost no servants in the Summer Palace. Peter did not like lackeys and limited himself to one single valet, Poluboyarov, and a cook, Felten.
While working in the Summer Palace, Nartov had to closely observe the internal routine of Peter I’s life and meet with his associates - the arrogant nobleman, the “most illustrious” A.D. Menshikov; the famous winner over the Swedes, Field Marshal B.P. Sheremetev; the terrible “Prince Caesar” F.Yu. Romodanovsky, who was in charge of the “search” for the most important state crimes; Chancellor G.I. Golovkin; Admiral F.M. Apraksin; diplomats P.A. Tolstoy and P.P. Shafirov; Prosecutor General P.P. Yaguzhinsky; chief of artillery, scientist Ya.V. Bruce, whom the clergy glorified as a “warlock,” as well as with other scientists, inventors, architects, etc. Nartov subsequently outlined his impressions in an extremely interesting work, which he called “Memorable Narratives and Speeches of Peter the Great.”
Only Romodanovsky and Sheremetev had the right to enter Peter’s lathe without reporting. The rest, even Catherine and “dear friend” Menshikov, were obliged to report about themselves.
The Tsar's turning workshop was not the only workshop on the territory of the Summer Garden. In addition to Nartov, such turning specialists as mechanic Singer, master Yuri Kurnosy (or Kurnosov), turners Varlam Fedorov and Philip Maksimov worked at the Summer Palace.
Throughout 1712-1718, Nartov increasingly improved in the art of turning under the guidance of more experienced senior comrades - Yuri Snubnosy and Singer. Nartov had the opportunity to study the design of the most advanced machines at that time, which were used to replenish the workshops of the Summer Palace.
Peter began purchasing turning machines during his first trip abroad in 1697-1698. Several medal lathes and copying machines for the same lathe were made in Moscow by Nartov’s teacher, Johann Bleer, at the beginning of the 18th century.
Of great interest was the turning and copying machine, built in St. Petersburg in 1712 and called the “colossus that works roses.” This machine made it possible to produce patterned recesses and process relief images on cylindrical (wooden or metal) parts using a copier.
Much attention, as usual in that era, was paid to the external design of the machine, which was a massive oak workbench with twisted legs, carved stands and other decorations.
Nartov took an increasing part in the construction of turning and other “machines”. So, in 1716 he made a small press for embossing snuff boxes.
In 1717, Nartov received Peter’s order to “remake again” three lathes.
In Nartov’s later inventory it is listed as “a pink colossus with a set, which is screwed to the table with three screws, made by me in 1718.” Now this machine is in the St. Petersburg Museum “Summer Palace of Peter I”.
In 1718, Nartov, together with Singer, began constructing a new lathe and copying machine for turning patterns on cylindrical surfaces. This machine was completed in 1729.
In July 1718, the twenty-five-year-old master Nartov was sent abroad by Peter to improve his mathematics and applied mechanics and to become familiar with the latest achievements of Western European technology.
His first destination was Berlin. Nartov was supposed to deliver gifts from Peter I to the Prussian king Frederick William I, including an excellent lathe, as well as several tall soldiers (for the royal guard). In addition, Nartov was obliged to teach Friedrich-Wilhelm the art of turning. Friedrich Wilhelm, a lover of turning, but a very mediocre master, wanted to compare with Peter in this art. Nartov lived in Berlin and Potsdam for six months, teaching the king. Next, he was instructed to “obtain information about the newly invented best steaming and bending of oak used in ship construction” and to collect models of physical tools, as well as various mechanical and hydraulic devices from the best craftsmen in London and Paris.
In March 1719, Nartov wrote a somewhat disappointed letter from London to Peter: “...Here I have not found such lathe masters who surpassed Russian masters; and the drawings for the colossus that your royal majesty ordered to be made here, I showed to the craftsmen and they cannot make them according to them.”
But although the skill of English designers in this area did not satisfy Nartov, on the whole the trip to England brought him great benefit. Having studied a number of branches of advanced English technology for that time, Nartov ordered various instruments and mechanisms from England, as well as “mechanical books” both for Peter and for himself.
By the way, he spent the funds given to him for food on this, and then spent the rest of his stay abroad in dire need.
Having moved to Paris (in the fall of 1719), Nartov found the “turning machines” he needed and organized the production of machines of this type to be sent to Russia. On the other hand, he also brought a machine of his design (made in 1717) to France, which is still kept in one of the Paris museums.
As a keepsake for the Paris Academy of Sciences, Nartov carved bas-relief portraits of Louis XIV and XV, as well as the ruler of France, the Duke of Orleans, with whom Peter had recently conducted diplomatic negotiations. These portraits have not survived to this day. In Paris, only one medallion, turned on Nartov’s machine, has survived.
Simultaneously with demonstrating his turning art, Nartov persistently studied mathematics and other sciences under the guidance of prominent French scientists of the time. The Paris Academy of Sciences took Nartov under its special protection. Nartov was “entrusted” to the famous mathematician and mechanic P. Varignon, the inventor Pizhon and other specialists.
When Nartov left Paris (at the end of 1720), the honorary president of the Academy of Sciences J.-P. Binion provided the master with a flattering review, which noted “his constant diligence in mathematical studies, the great successes that he made in mechanics, especially in that part that concerns the lathe, and his other good qualities.”
Binyon speaks of Nartov’s artistic turning works as follows: “It’s impossible to see anything more marvelous! Cleanliness, serviceability and subtlety (subtlety) are in them, and the metal comes out of the stamp no better, just as it comes out of the Nartov lathe...”
Peter was very pleased with this review, ordered it to be translated into Russian and more than once showed it to young nobles sent to study abroad, saying: “I wish you would do the same with the same success.”
Upon his return from abroad, Nartov was appointed manager of all the workshops of the Summer Palace. The mechanic's range of creative interests expanded more and more. He closely followed new literature. Nartov's memoirs mention various works translated and published (or prepared for publication) by order of Peter.
We are talking there primarily about books on technology and applied mechanics. “Plumier, my favorite art of turning, has already been translated (Peter is referring to the work of the French scientist and designer Charles Plumier “The Art of Turning”) and Sturm Mechanics (a treatise on the mechanics of I.-H. Sturm),” Peter said with satisfaction to Nartov, who saw Also in Peter’s personal library there are “other books that belonged before the construction of locks, mills, factories and mining plants.” Books on military engineering are also mentioned in Nartov’s notes.
The book by C. Plumier was translated into Russian by order of Peter in 1716 and was kept in a single handwritten copy in his library.
As for the book mentioned by Nartov by I.-Kh. Sturm, work on its translation began in 1708-1709. However, the translation of this work, carried out twice (first by A.A. Vyanius, and then by J.V. Bruce), turned out to be unsatisfactory. Instead of “Assault Mechanics”, in 1722 the valuable work of G.G. was published. Skornyakov-Pisarev “Static Science or Mechanics” is one of the first original Russian works on mechanics.
The following works on military engineering were published in these decades: “The Victorious Fortress” by the Austrian engineer E.-F. Borgsdorf, written at the end of the 17th century and published in 1708; “New Fortress Building” by the Dutchman Cuthorn (1709); “Military Architecture” by the above-mentioned Sturm (1709); “A new manner of fortifying cities” by the French fortification specialist F. Blondel (1711); “The True Method of Strengthening Cities, Published by the Glorious Engineer Vauban” (1724) translated by V.I. Suvorova and others.
Nartov’s main occupation continued to be the construction of various machine tools and other mechanisms. So, in 1721, according to his designs, two machines were built in the workshops of the Admiralty. One of them was intended for copying relief images on medals, boxes, cases, etc. (now it is in the Hermitage). The second machine was built for cutting teeth on watch wheels.
In 1722, Nartov built a machine for drilling fountain pipes laid in Peterhof (now Petrodvorets), and in 1723 he completed the manufacture of two more machines.
Back in 1717, Nartov began training mechanics and turners. Among his students, Stepan Yakovlev stood out for his abilities.
Under the leadership of Nartov, S. Yakovlev built, for example, two lathes (now kept in the Hermitage), a large winding clock with chimes, etc.
Nartov's other students were Ivan Leontyev, Pyotr Sholyshkin, Andrey Korovin, Alexander Zhurakhovsky, Semyon Matveev.
Sometimes Nartov had to travel with Peter from St. Petersburg. So, in the summer of 1724, when Peter went to Meller’s Istinsky (Istetsky) ironworks for gymnastics and treatment with ferruginous waters, he took Nartov with him, firstly, to continue working on the lathe together with the mechanic and, secondly to carry out various experiments on melting cast iron for casting guns.
Nartov was engaged not only in improving machine tools and turning, but also in a wider range of technical issues. In particular, Peter instructed Nartov to “come up with mechanical ways to chop stone easier and straighter” for the Kronstadt Canal, as well as “how to open and lock the sluice gates on this canal.”
Peter undoubtedly valued his best technical specialist. However, Nartov’s financial situation remained very difficult, and the talented Russian mechanic could not achieve any normal working conditions.
The need that the outstanding Russian designer was in is evidenced by Nartov’s “petition” addressed to Peter, compiled in the spring of 1723. Only at the end of 1723 was Nartov’s salary increased from 300 to 600 rubles per year.
Of the machines created by Nartov in the 20s, the most interesting is the already mentioned large lathe and copying machine of 1718-1729, intended for processing cylindrical relief surfaces. In the design of the machine, the techniques of artistic craft characteristic of the 18th century were combined with the highest technological achievements of that time.
According to the fashion of that time, the machine was designed “architecturally”. It was decorated with wood carvings. The metal parts have been engraved. A special structure was attached to the machine in the form of columns with a portal, on the bases of which there were bas-relief medals glorifying Peter and his founding of St. Petersburg.
Of great interest are the Nart proposals developed by 1724 on the organization of the Academy of Arts. They testify to the breadth of outlook and education of the thirty-year-old mechanic, who became an active participant in the cultural transformations of the first quarter of the 18th century.
Relief medallion “St. Peter" in the process of production on Nartov's restored "personal colossus"
It is known that back in 1718-1719, Peter planned to “establish in St. Petersburg a society of learned people who would work to improve the arts and science.” The approved project for the creation of the Academy of Sciences was announced by a personal decree from the Senate in January 1724.
Peter also included in the terms of reference of the Academy of Sciences “the arts,” that is, crafts and art (“there should be a department of arts, and especially a mechanical one”).
Nartov, who took part in the discussion of the project of the Academy of Sciences, proposed to Peter to organize a special “Academy of Various Arts”. On December 8, 1724, he submitted a corresponding memorandum to Peter.
“By the establishment of such an Academy,” Nartov wrote there, “and its good efforts... many different and praiseworthy arts will multiply and come to their proper dignity. And this Academy can be created in common (created jointly) by those masters worthy of their titles who are determined to be in it.”
Nartov developed a detailed list of master specialists who were supposed to work in such an Academy. In this list, in addition to sculptors, painters and architects, there were masters of carpentry, joinery, turning, metalworking, and engraving. The list also included a master of optical affairs, a master of fountain works, and other specialists.
Peter I paid great attention to Nartov’s proposals and compiled his own list of “arts” that were to be studied at this Academy. This list is close to Nart's. Along with the painting, sculptural and architectural arts, the “arts” were listed there - turning, engraving, “mills of all kinds”, “sluices”, “fountains and other things that belong to hydraulics”, mathematical instruments, medicinal instruments, watchmaking, etc. .
Peter intended to appoint Nartov as director of the Academy of Arts. Together with the architect Mikhail Zemtsov, Nartov was tasked with developing a design for a building with 115 rooms in which the Academy of Arts was to operate and where its future students were to study.
Peter's death interrupted the discussion of the Nart project. The government of Catherine I rejected it, limiting itself to organizing only the Academy of Sciences. However, as we will see later, many of the workshops envisaged by Nartov were organized in this Academy of Sciences.
The noble reaction of the second quarter of the 18th century had a negative impact on the development of domestic science and technology. Nevertheless, economic and military demands forced the implementation of the most important measures in that area, planned during the period of transformations of the first quarter of the century.
Neither Menshikov, who actually seized power into his own hands after the death of Peter I and the accession of Catherine I to the throne, nor the other temporary workers who replaced him felt any particular sympathy for the former “personal turner.”
The mechanic's situation worsened. Work on improving lathes and artistic turning in the workshops of the Summer Palace was interrupted. Since 1727, even the payment of salaries to Nartov and his assistants ceased.
However, Nartov not only did not lose heart, but even ensured that his knowledge and abilities received a wider scope of application than under Peter.
For the remarkable innovator of technology, a new period of creating various mechanisms for production purposes began. At the beginning of 1727, Nartov was sent to the Moscow Mint to study the process of making coins. Nartov’s activities were provided with significant support by one of the most prominent associates of Peter I - the organizer of new industrial enterprises and the first mining schools, the versatile Russian scientist Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686-1750).
Tatishchev was an adviser to the Berg Collegium, a government institution organized in 1719 by Peter I to manage mining factories. Subsequently, the Berg Collegium supervised primarily state-owned mining and metallurgical plants, but private enterprises were also under its supervision.
Nartov’s mechanical art “put many machines into operation for the coin business,” primarily gurtile machines, that is, devices for notching the edge of a coin being issued, as well as flattening, trimming and printing mills and presses and lathes. This equipment was carried out by Nartov’s orders at the Tula Arms Plant, as well as some other enterprises in the Tula-Kashira region.
In addition, he improved the methods of weighing coins, sought the introduction of precise scales (made according to his design) and weights, a sample (or, as we now say, a standard) of which would be approved by the government and kept in the Academy of Sciences.
At the end of 1727, an urgent recoining of a large batch of copper into small change was organized at the Sestroretsk plant (about 30 km from St. Petersburg). It was one of the best metalworking factories of the first half of the 18th century. General Volkov, who was entrusted with supervising the minting of the coin, asked to transfer Nartov to the Sestroretsk plant, whose technical knowledge and energy he was able to verify during his joint work at the Moscow Mint.
From the spring of 1728 to the end of 1729, Nartov was engaged in setting up equipment for minting coins at the Sestroretsk plant and supervised its production.
In 1733, Nartov was given several assignments in Moscow. First, he returned to work at the Moscow Mint, where he introduced improved coin presses and other mechanisms. Secondly, he was ordered to oversee the casting and raising of the famous Tsar Bell.
However, they did not have time to lift the bell to the bell tower. In 1737, there was a fire in the Kremlin, during which the bell cracked and a piece weighing about 11.5 tons fell off.
Nartov again had to deal with the issue of the Tsar Bell in 1754, when he was given an estimate for raising the bell from the pit and subsequent recasting. However, the government did not approve the estimates. Until 1836, the Tsar Bell remained in the ground, then it was raised to a pedestal. Now tourists visiting the Kremlin examine with interest this wonderful monument of foundry art of the 18th century.
In the mid-30s of the 18th century, Nartov’s activities began at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences.
As noted above, the decision to organize the Academy of Sciences was made during the life of Peter I. However, the first meeting of the academy took place only at the end of 1725.
The Academy of Sciences was opened initially in Shafirov's house on the St. Petersburg side, and then moved to a building with an observatory located on Vasilyevsky Island (now the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography), which housed Peter's Kunstkamera (museum) and library. In another (now defunct) academic building there was a “conference” (academic council) hall of the academy, its archive and printing house.
The administrative side of the Academy's affairs fell into the hands of the half-educated Strasbourg "philosopher" Johann Schumacher. The latter’s career began when he married the daughter of the court cook Felten and received the post of librarian in the cabinet of curiosities of Peter I.
According to the project developed under Peter, a university and a gymnasium were also founded at the Academy, which at first eked out a miserable existence, not even having their own premises. But the first Russian students were brought up there, overcoming all difficulties.
In 1725-1732, at the Academy of Sciences, along with the printing house, engraving and drawing chambers, stone carving workshops, bookbinding and other institutions were organized.
“Chief Commander of the Academy of Sciences” I.A. Korf sought funding for academic workshops and summoned Nartov from Moscow to St. Petersburg to improve their work.
Nartov turned out to be a wonderful organizer. It united academic workshops under the management of the “Expedition (Office) Laboratory of Mechanical and Instrumental Sciences.”
Nartov took care, first of all, to assemble in the lathe workshop, if possible, all the machines from both the Moscow lathe of Peter I, where they “stood forgotten,” and from the workshops of the Summer Palace. The mechanic also began compiling a book “containing a description and genuine mechanical proof of all the mechanical and mathematical turning of machines and instruments” from the time of Peter I. Nartov proposed to “publish this book to the people,” which, however, was not carried out.
Nartov carried out extensive and systematic work at the Academy on training mechanics and master turners. Among Nartov's students, Mikhail Semenov and Pyotr Ermolaev should be named. Nartov provided constant assistance with advice and guidance to P.O. Golynin, his assistants and students (who to a large extent also became Nartov’s students) - F.N. Tiryutin, T.V. Kochkin, A. Ovsyannikov and others.
Nartov participated together with academicians Euler, I.-G Leitman (who did a lot for the development of workshops) and others in the certification of young masters.
The number of Nartov's main students was 8 people in 1736, and 21 people in 1740.
Nartov was often involved as an expert to develop opinions on various inventions (academician G.-V. Richman, mechanics P.N. Krekshin and I. Bruckner, Moscow inventor I. Mokeev, etc.).
Nartov himself continued to work on various inventions. When he compiled an inventory of the machines in his laboratory in 1741, he pointed out several new lathes for “instrument making.”
Nartov was also involved in other inventions. He designed a machine for drawing lead sheets, installed in the workshops of the Admiralty.
Nartov’s participation in the construction of the Kronstadt Canal and docks was important. This construction began back in 1719, but by the 40s it remained unfinished. In 1747 Nartov was sent to Kronstadt. He discussed a number of technical issues with the builders and helped them make the most successful decisions. In particular, he proposed introducing a number of lifting and transport “machines” to service heavy and labor-intensive work by “small people” (i.e., a small number of workers).
According to Nartov's drawings, a machine for cutting large screws was built at the Sestroretsk plant in 1738-1739. Nartov noted that the screws cut on this machine can be used in the construction of equipment for mints, cloth factories, paper mills, etc. “If such a machine existed in Russia, then manufacturers would be more inclined to order such screws from overseas they wouldn’t have hunted,” he emphasized.
In 1739, according to Nartov’s drawings and under the supervision of Nart’s student I. Leontyev, three machines were manufactured at the Sestroretsk plant for printing land maps, i.e. large maps of the area.
Working and living conditions at the Academy of Sciences were unfavorable for Nartov. The mechanic had a large family - a wife, two sons and three daughters. And salaries at the academy were systematically delayed. Employees did not receive it sometimes for a whole year. This attitude towards workers in science and technology was generally characteristic of the government of Anna Ivanovna and Biron.
But at the academy, the matter was further aggravated by the outrageous management of Schumacher and his relatives (Taubert, Ammann, etc.).
Andrei Konstantinovich Nartov, who by this time had received the title of adviser to the academy, stood at the head of the academic staff, outraged by the outrage at the academy by visiting reactionaries.
After the fall of Biron and his friends, and especially after Elizaveta Petrovna came to power as a result of a palace coup, the fight against Schumacher acquired more chances of success.
Supported by some academics, such as the astronomer Delisle, Nartov filed a formal complaint against Schumacher with the Senate. Then, in July 1742, he himself went to Moscow (where the government was then located), taking with him complaints from ordinary servants of the academy. Translators Ivan Gorlitsky and Nikita Popov, students Prokofy Shishkarev and Mikhail Kovrin, engraver student Andrei Polyakov and others also complained about Schumacher. They claimed that Schumacher had embezzled several tens of thousands of rubles of government money assigned to the academy, that he was showing open hostility towards the Russian people and Russian culture, that he was acting against the main provisions of the statute of the Academy of Sciences, developed by Peter I. Gorlitsky wrote to Nartov in Moscow in September 1742 about the hope with which he and his like-minded people awaited the results of Nartov’s trip, and exclaimed: “God grant that the adversaries... the sons of the Russians will be conquered!”
On September 30, Elizabeth signed a decree appointing an investigative commission consisting of Admiral Count N.F. Golovin, Lieutenant General Ignatiev and Prince Yusupov to investigate complaints against Schumacher. Schumacher himself and some of his associates were arrested. All academic affairs were entrusted to Nartov, who became the de facto head of the Academy of Sciences in the position of first adviser.
The historiography of that time often emphasized that Nartov was allegedly completely unprepared to manage the Academy of Sciences. Such allegations are based on the review of the investigative commission by N.F. Golovin that Nartov, “apparently, is insufficient in those matters,” that he “did not attend any decent studies at this academy, because he knows nothing except the art of turning.” This arrogant statement by the titled members of the commission about a person from the common people contradicted the truth. The forty-five-year-old mechanic, a former “near-room” duty officer under Peter I, knew a lot except “turning art.” The breadth of his horizons is evidenced by at least the project of the Academy of Arts.
Academics (especially Schumacher's open and hidden friends) complained that he treated them rudely. The same charges were brought against Lomonosov. They were mainly indignant at the fact that a Russian dared to offend them, and, moreover, not a prince or some nobleman, but the son of a simple Russian peasant. And when academician I.-P. Delisle, during a dispute about priority in the publication of astronomical discoveries, came into hand-to-hand combat with Academician G. Heinsius, and they threw at each other fragments of their own broken measuring instruments, this was considered in the order of things and was left without consequences.
Nartov was accused of allegedly “unnecessarily” sealing the archive of the academic “conference,” citing the fact that it “contains correspondence with foreign states... and about the Kamchatka expedition and observation.”
But it was a very smart move.
In 1739, the Geographical Department of the Academy of Sciences was organized - for a long time the only cartographic institution in Russia, which received geographical information, travel data, maps, etc. from all over the country. Russia's contribution to world geographical science was very significant. Expeditions in the Arctic and Pacific oceans provided a lot of new geographical information.
In the first decades of the 18th century, almost the entire vast space along the northern coast of Asia was explored by Russian navigators, for whom there was a “customary sea passage.”
Russian sailors and “explorers” discovered a new world, “bearing great burdens and laying down their heads,” and described it well, mapping “land unknown from centuries ago.”
M.V. wrote about them. Lomonosov:
Columbuses of Russia, despising gloomy fate,
Between the ice a new path will be opened to the east,
And our power will reach America.
The results of the northern expeditions aroused enormous (by no means selfish) interest abroad. It was known that Schumacher and Taubert secretly sent abroad secret information about the discoveries of Chirikov and Bering.
And Delisle himself was subsequently repeatedly accused of systematically sending handwritten maps to France that reflected the results of the Kamchatka expeditions and other Russian discoveries in the East, although these materials were not subject to disclosure. Perhaps this is why Delisle, who initially acted in concert with Nartov, soon began to oppose him.
Nartov strove to manage the Academy of Sciences as provided for by Peter's statutes. He fought against unnecessary expenses, sought to connect scientific research with practice, to make academic publications accessible to the Russian reading public and profitable.
Nartov did not abandon the thought of organizing a special Academy of Arts on the basis of the academy’s workshops.
However, there were also mistakes in Nartov’s activities. He underestimated the importance of a number of theoretical studies and often narrowed or simplified the tasks facing the academy. To save money, he stopped publishing the first popular science magazine “Monthly Historical, Genealogical and Geographical Notes” at the St. Petersburg Gazette. On this issue, Nartov had differences with the young Lomonosov, although the matter of fighting the Schumacher clique was their common cause.
Lomonosov returned from abroad to St. Petersburg in 1741.
The bossiness of Schumacher and his friends outraged Lomonosov, and he more than once showed his true mood in various “impertinences.” Although his signature was not on the “denunciations” against Schumacher, the Schumacher clique considered Lomonosov an “accomplice” of Nartov.
Lomonosov had to be an attesting witness when checking the condition of the seals placed by Nartov on the academic archive. As a result of clashes with academicians, Lomonosov was expelled from the “conference” of the Academy of Sciences in February 1743. Nartov stood up for Lomonosov, despite the disagreements that existed between them on certain issues, but the “conference” did not obey Nartov.
Reactionary academics argued that Nartov’s administration created an atmosphere of “disrespect” towards them.
Meanwhile, the efforts and intrigues of Schumacher's influential patrons yielded results. Complaints against Schumacher were interpreted by members of the investigative commission and Elizabeth's close associates (M.I. Vorontsova and others) as a rebellion of commoners against the legal authorities. Particular emphasis was placed on the fact that among the “informers” there are no nobles, and the head of Schumacher’s opponents is a simple turner.
It was for insulting their superiors that the “informers” were sentenced to severe corporal punishment, and Gorlitsky was even sentenced to death. Only by the “ineffable mercy” of Elizabeth were these fighters for the honor of Russian science and technology “absolved of their guilt.” But they were doomed to a hungry, impoverished existence. Reinstated in 1744 with a promotion, Schumacher dismissed them all from the academy.
Schumacher’s friends did not dare touch the former “personal turner” of Peter I, assessor and first adviser to the Nartov Academy. But he was extremely outraged by the rehabilitation of the enemy of Russian culture and his personal “adversary” Schumacher.
He increasingly shifts the center of his inventive activity to the artillery department, although he does not lose connections with academic workshops.
The casting and improvement of artillery pieces was at that time in charge of the Office of the Main Artillery and Fortification. After Peter I, especially during the Bironovschina, this office was often headed by titled officials of foreign origin, who attracted unlucky projectors from abroad, but did not give way to domestic inventors.
However, even during that period, the artillery department was sometimes forced to turn to Nartov to solve the most complex technical problems. Thus, at the end of the 30s, Nartov came up with a new machine for drilling “blank” (that is, cast entirely, without a core) artillery guns almost simultaneously with the Swiss master Maritz the Elder. Note that at that time guns were cast from bronze or cast iron. They were cast in one-piece clay molds with a special core, which was removed after the gun was cast, after which the gun was drilled out on a special machine.
In the “report” of 1740, Martov wrote: “In France, a master came up with an invention (invention) of casting and drilling one-piece guns without a caliber, which is kept secret there; which, imitating, he, Nartov, after a considerable time acquired the following care and diligence...” This was followed by a description of the method of making such tools.
From that time, throughout the 40s and the first half of the 50s, more and more new inventions by Nartov in the field of artillery appeared.
In 1744, Nartov proposed his own method of casting a gun with a ready-made channel that did not require drilling. A copper or iron pipe was inserted into the mold. The metal was poured between the outer walls of this pipe and the walls of the mold.
He also invented a “colossus” for turning gun trunnions - round protrusions on both sides of the gun barrel. By means of axles, the gun was strengthened in the carriage; it was raised and lowered on them.
When in 1754 Nartov presented to the Office of the Main Artillery and Fortification (of which he was a member) a detailed description of all the “inventions” (inventions) he had made in the field of artillery, he described this machine as follows: “The machine I made for grinding cannon , mortar and howitzer pins, a colossus that had never existed before artillery. And according to my aforementioned innovation, the trunnions are sharpened carefully, and many guns have already had their trunnions turned..."
Nartov also invented special mechanisms for drilling holes (“holes”) in cannon wheels and carriages, for drilling and grinding mortars in a “special way,” for grinding bombs and solid cannonballs, for lifting casting molds and finished guns, etc.
He introduced new methods for casting guns and shells, sealing shells (voids in cast metal) in the channel of guns, drying casting molds, etc.
He also created a number of artillery instruments: an original optical sighting device for aiming guns at a target; a device that ensures shooting accuracy (“fairness in the flight of cannonballs”) and others.
In 1741, Nartov invented a rapid-fire gun consisting of 44 barrels arranged radially on a special horizontal circle (machine) mounted on a carriage.
This gun fired a salvo from the sector (including 5-6 barrels) that was currently aimed at the target.
Then the circle turned and the sector prepared for the next salvo took the place of the used one.
Shortly before his death, in 1755, Nartov completed a handwritten book-album entitled “The Wise Sovereign Emperor Peter the Great... THEATRUM MACHINARUM, that is, a CLEAR SPECTACLE OF MACHINES and amazing different kinds of mechanical instruments...”. To carry out the drawings and drawings, Nartov recruited his students Pyotr Ermolaev, as well as “conductors” (technical draftsmen) Philip Baranov, Alexey Zelenov and Stepan Pustoshkin. This generalizing, consolidated pond of Nartov was considered lost for a long time and was discovered by researchers only in the middle of the 20th century.
"Theatrum machinarum" literally means "Machine View". Such reviews were published more than once by mechanics of the 17th-18th centuries. For example, “Theatrum machinarum” by Jacob Leipold (1724) became very famous. When compiling his “Clear Spectacle of Machines,” Nartov relied both on his own work experience (mainly in the turning workshop of Peter I) and on the achievements of mechanics of the late 17th and early 18th centuries in all countries, as far as the literature at his disposal allowed. He studied the book by C. Plumier especially carefully.
Nartov worked on his book-album for about 20 years. He conceived the idea of publishing it “to the people” back in 1736 and wrote then that “this can result in benefits in science, as well as profits for the state Academy of Sciences.” According to Nartov’s plan, “A Clear Spectacle of Machines” was supposed to be a manual for turners and machine tool designers. A.K. Nartov did not have time to collect and bind individual sheets of his book with text and drawings into an album. This was done by his son A.A. Nartov, who provided his father’s work with a dedication to Catherine II.
Interesting are the thoughts expressed by Nartov in the introduction to “The Clear Spectacle of Colossus.” He connected the emergence of mechanics with the needs of “the entire common people” for protection from the “cruelties” of nature: cold, rain, wind, etc. “This, firstly, was the manual for mechanics,” Nartov emphasizes and adds: “And Little by little, as learned people, through tireless diligence, began to invent various tools, machines and many innovations (inventions) for the construction of various buildings, mechanical and all high sciences flourished with considerable benefit.”
Nartov’s statements in the main text of the manuscript about the need to combine science with practice in order to avoid wasted labor and huge unnecessary expenses were equally advanced for that time.
“Practice shows in absolute reality what we have already understood through theory. It produces movement in machines and certifies the theoretical truth through experience.”
Nartov acted on this issue as a like-minded person of Lomonosov.
The introduction is followed by 132 paragraphs of the main text, which covers a wide range of issues in applied mechanics and provides information about machines, tools and products made on machine tools. It is also reported about projects of various monuments, which Nartov worked on a lot throughout his life.
The first chapter of the text describes the content of “mechanical science”. At the same time, Nartov insists on combining theory with practice.
In the second chapter, Nartov examines issues of applied mechanics in relation to the construction of machine tools and the manufacture of their parts. We are talking about the manufacture of parts such as shafts, wheels, frames, screws, calipers, springs, cutters, saws, etc. In particular, Nartov touched upon the issue of obtaining steel tools through carburization, i.e. surface carburization of iron tools, for example saw, by calcining them in a carbon-rich environment. Nartov refers to the substance in which the cemented tools were immersed as a “secret,” since at that time steelmakers kept the composition of this substance a secret.
In the same chapter, Nartov talks about his most important technical innovation in the field of machine tool construction, the use of an improved support, that is, a self-propelled device that carries a cutting tool.
The term "support" was adopted in our language later. Nartov called it a “stand” or “lodrushnik”, and the tool holder, fixed in the support, called “clamping pliers”.
Prototypes of the caliper are found in the machines of Italian and French masters of the 15th-17th centuries. C. Plumier also paid a lot of attention to devices of this kind. But Nartov and his assistants took a further important step forward. In his own words, the calipers he introduced “moved freely in all directions.” The caliper was driven by a complex transmission mechanism consisting of gears and gears. A special part of the machine (the so-called copying finger) moved along the relief surface of the model being copied. The transmission mechanism forced the caliper to repeat all movements of the copying finger. As a result, the cutter, fixed in the support by means of a tool holder, reproduced on the surface of the product the same relief pattern that was on the model, but usually on a different scale.
At the time of Nartov, the caliper could only receive limited use, although the inventor himself, back in the late 30s, proposed using machines with self-propelled calipers for production needs. But several decades later, having undergone further improvement in England (the mechanic G. Modeli played a decisive role in this matter at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries), the caliper began to play a huge role in the metalworking industry.
Let's return to Nartov's album.
In the third chapter it is said there that “it is necessary to note about the foundry and carpentry arts” for the manufacture of those from which products are then copied on machines.
Then descriptions and drawings of 33 machines of various types are given: commodity-copying, planing, screw-cutting, drilling, etc. Images of a variety of metalworking, turning, carpentry, sharpening, measuring and drawing tools are also given.
Several pages of the album are devoted to the project of a monument (triumphal pillar) in honor of Peter I. It is believed that the famous sculptor K.-B. participated in the development of the project of this monument, as well as its details (in particular, bas-relief drawings). Rastrelli and architect N. Pino. However, this issue remains controversial.
Enthusiastic about the personality of Peter I, Nartov sought to implement this project (in a slightly revised form) for a quarter of a century, starting in 1725. In the 30s of the 18th century, he made several parts of the triumphal pillar on lathes and copying machines in the form of belts decorated with reliefs. However, the monument project remained unfulfilled.
The album also depicts the original medals carved by Nartov. In their theme, these medals are associated with the triumphal pillar: they are dedicated to the significant victories of Peter the Great’s reign - the capture by Russian troops of Noteburg-Oreshok (later Shlisselburg), Nyenschantz (on the site of which St. Petersburg was founded in 1703), Narva, Yuryev-Derpt, Vyborg, etc. d.
Thus, “A Clear Spectacle of Machines” was a work that summed up Nartov’s versatile activities as a machine tool builder and a true artist of turning. Acquaintance with this latest work of the talented Russian mechanic makes us once again recall Binyon’s review, dating back to 1720, about the “great successes” that Nartov “made in mechanics, especially in that part that concerns the lathe.”
After his death, large debts remained, as he invested a lot of personal funds in scientific research. As soon as he died, an announcement about the sale of his property appeared in the St. Petersburg Gazette. After Nartov, there were debts to “various people up to 2,000 rubles. and the government fee is 1929 rubles.” Nartov was buried in the fence of the Church of the Annunciation on Vasilyevsky Island. His grave in the small Annunciation Cemetery was lost over time.
Only in the fall of 1950 in Leningrad, on the territory of a long-abolished cemetery that had existed since 1738 at the Church of the Annunciation, was the grave of A.K. accidentally found. Nartov with a tombstone made of red granite with the inscription: “Here is buried the body of state councilor Andrei Konstantinovich Nartov, who served with honor and glory to the sovereigns Peter the First, Catherine the First, Peter the Second, Anna Ioannovna, Elizaveta Petrovna and provided many important services to the fatherland in various state departments, born in Moscow in 1680 March 28 days and died in St. Petersburg 1756 April 6 days.” However, the dates of birth and death indicated on the tombstone are not accurate. A study of documents preserved in the archives (a service record filled out personally by A.K. Nartov himself, a church record of his burial, a report from his son about the death of his father) gives reason to believe that Andrei Konstantinovich Nartov was born in 1693, and not in 1680 and died not on April 6, but on April 16 (27), 1756. Apparently, the tombstone was made some time after the funeral and the dates on it were given not from documents, but from memory, which is why the error arose.
In the same 1950, the remains of the royal turner, an outstanding engineer and scientist, were transferred to the Lazarevskoye cemetery of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra and reburied next to the grave of M.V. Lomonosov. In 1956, a tombstone was installed on Nartov’s grave - a copy of the sarcophagus found in 1950 (with an erroneous date of birth).
“The Tsar's turner” Andrei Konstantinovich Nartov was one of the genius inventors noticed and brought onto the broad road by Peter I. He worked in the turning workshop of the Moscow Navigation School, in Peter's workshops of the Summer Palace, at the Mint in Moscow, at the Sestroretsk plant, at the Kronstadt channel, in the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences and in the Artillery Department. During his not too long life, he invented and built more than thirty machines of various profiles, which had no equal in the world. narrative Nartov's introduction of a self-propelled caliper. He made a number of other important inventions for Russia in the field of artillery weapons. He played a significant role in the development of coinage technology in Russia and achieved outstanding success in many other industries. History has not forgotten and cannot forget the great inventor, the remarkable innovator of Russian technology.
Literature:
M.: State educational and pedagogical publishing house of the Ministry of Education of the RSFSR, 1962
Metalworking machines appeared as a replacement for machines for processing materials made of stone, wood, and bone. They received design features from the very first assembled devices.
With the help of fire, it became possible to manufacture parts of bodies of rotation.The first devices for the manufacture of bodies of rotation did not correspond to any specific type of machine tool. They were primitive, but at the same time functional. As production developed over the centuries, machines also improved. One of the first groups of machine tools to appear is the turning group of machines. The first lathe was invented Theodore of Samos in the 6th century BC. This happened on the ancient island of Samos. This device looked like a primitive mechanism with an axis of rotation and a bow string for drive. This device was worked manually, and therefore required significant physical effort. It often required the effort of two or even more people to work. An assistant craftsman was also needed to hold the product being processed or to launch the bowstring.
In the mid-16th century, Jacques Besson designed the first lathe for cutting cylindrical and conical screws. A significant contribution to the development of machine tool building was made by the Russian mechanic Andrei Konstantinovich Nartov. He designs an original lathe-copying and screw-cutting machine with a mechanized support and a set of replaceable gears.
And currently, the turning type of machine tools is the most common and significant in manufacturing. Before the industrial revolution, metal materials were almost never processed on machines. The impetus for equipment modernization was industrialization. The need to use iron in the production of parts led to the improvement of metal-cutting tools and equipment. New types of metalworking machines began to be designed. This led to the formation of the main groups of machine tools: turning, milling, drilling, multifunctional machines.
The next stage in the development of machine tools was the emergence of CNC machines. The first CNC machine was manufactured by BENDIX Corp. In 1955, machine tools with numerical software were born, but their distribution did not advance due to the mistrust of entrepreneurs. The US government was forced to rent purchased CNC machines to large companies.
The production of domestic CNC machines for industrial use began with the 1K62PU screw-cutting lathe and the 1541P rotary lathe.
Currently, a huge number of machines are presented on the machine tool market. On our website you can:
Get acquainted with the main models of machines
China is rightfully the world center for machine tool manufacturing. Its factories produce the best machines in terms of price-quality ratio:
Advantages of buying a new Chinese machine
Our contacts
To main
Metal cutting machines:
buy a universal screw-cutting lathe;
buy a metal lathe;
CNC lathe, buy a CNC milling machine;
benchtop lathe , buy a mini lathe;
milling machine (vertical horizontal milling machine ; universal milling machine) buy;
In 650 BC. The machine consisted of two elements, between which a workpiece made of wood, bone or horn was clamped. A slave or apprentice rotated the workpiece (one or more turns in one direction, then in the other). The master held the cutter in his hands and, pressing it in the right place against the workpiece, removed the chips, giving the workpiece the required shape.
In the 14th and 15th centuries, foot-driven lathes were common. The foot drive consisted of an ochep - a so-called elastic pole, fixed above the machine. A string was attached to the end of the pole, which was wrapped one turn around the workpiece and attached to the pedal with its lower end. When the pedal was pressed, the string was stretched, forcing the workpiece to make one or two turns, and the pole to bend. When the pedal was released, the pole straightened, pulled the string up, and the workpiece made the same revolutions in the other direction.
In 1500, the lathe already had steel centers and a steady rest, which could be strengthened anywhere between the centers.
On such machines, quite complex parts were processed, which were bodies of rotation, right up to a ball. But the drive of the machines that existed at that time was too low-power for metal processing, and the forces of the hand holding the cutter were insufficient to remove large chips from the workpiece. As a result, metal processing turned out to be ineffective, and it was necessary to replace the worker’s hand with a special mechanism, and the muscular force driving the machine with a more powerful engine.
In the mid-16th century, Jacques Besson invented a lathe for cutting cylindrical and conical screws.
In the 17th century, lathes appeared, in which the workpiece was no longer driven by the muscular power of the turner, but with the help of a water wheel, but the cutter, as before, was held in the hand of the turner.
At the beginning of the 18th century, lathes were increasingly used for cutting metals rather than wood, and therefore the problem of rigidly attaching a cutter and moving it along the table surface being processed was very relevant.
The accumulated experience made it possible by the end of the 18th century to create a universal lathe, which became the basis of mechanical engineering.
The next stage was the automation of lathes. Here the palm belonged to the Americans. In the second half of the 19th century, the quality of American machine tools was already quite high. The machines were mass-produced, and full interchangeability of parts and blocks produced by one company was introduced. If a part broke, it was enough to order a similar part from the factory and replace the broken one with a whole one without adjustment.
In the second half of the 19th century, elements were introduced that ensured complete mechanization of processing - an automatic feed unit in both coordinates, a perfect system for fastening the cutter and the part. Cutting and feed modes changed quickly and without significant effort. The lathes had elements of automation - automatic stop of the machine when a certain size was reached, a system for automatically controlling the speed of frontal turning.
History dates the invention of the lathe to 650. BC e. The machine consisted of two coaxially installed centers, between which a workpiece made of wood, bone or horn was clamped. A slave or apprentice rotated the workpiece (one or more turns in one direction, then in the other). The master held the cutter in his hands and, pressing it in the right place against the workpiece, removed the chips, giving the workpiece the required shape. Later, a bow with a loosely stretched (sagging) bowstring was used to set the workpiece in motion. The string was wrapped around the cylindrical part of the workpiece so that it formed a loop around the workpiece. When the bow moved in one direction or the other, similar to the movement of a saw when sawing a log, the workpiece made several revolutions around its axis, first in one direction and then in the other. In the 14th and 15th centuries, foot-driven lathes were common. The foot drive consisted of an ochepa - an elastic pole, cantilevered above the machine. A string was attached to the end of the pole, which was wrapped one turn around the workpiece and attached to the pedal with its lower end. When the pedal was pressed, the string was stretched, forcing the workpiece to make one or two turns, and the pole to bend. When the pedal was released, the pole straightened, pulled the string up, and the workpiece made the same turns in the other direction. Around 1430, instead of an ochep, they began to use a mechanism that included a pedal, a connecting rod and a crank, thus obtaining a drive similar to the foot drive of a sewing machine, which was common in the 20th century. From that time on, the workpiece on the lathe received, instead of an oscillatory movement, rotation in one direction throughout the entire turning process. In 1500, the lathe already had steel centers and a steady rest, which could be strengthened anywhere between the centers.
On such machines, quite complex parts were processed, which were bodies of rotation, right up to a ball. But the drive of the machines that existed at that time was too low-power for metal processing, and the forces of the hand holding the cutter were insufficient to remove large chips from the workpiece. As a result, metal processing turned out to be ineffective. it was necessary to replace the worker's hand with a special mechanism, and the muscular force driving the machine with a more powerful engine. The advent of the water wheel led to an increase in labor productivity, while having a powerful revolutionary effect on the development of technology. And from the middle of the 14th century. water drives began to spread in metalworking. In the middle of the 16th century, Jacques Besson (died 1569) invented a lathe for cutting cylindrical and conical screws. At the beginning of the 18th century, Andrei Konstantinovich Nartov (1693-1756), a mechanic for Peter the Great, invented an original lathe-copying and screw-cutting machine with a mechanized support and a set of replaceable gears. To truly understand the global significance of these inventions, let's return to the evolution of the lathe. In the 17th century lathes appeared, in which the workpiece was no longer driven by the muscular power of the turner, but with the help of a water wheel, but the cutter, as before, was held in the hand of the turner. At the beginning of the 18th century. lathes were increasingly used for cutting metals rather than wood, and therefore the problem of rigidly fastening the cutter and moving it along the table surface being processed was very relevant. And for the first time, the problem of a self-propelled caliper was successfully solved in the copying machine of A.K. Nartov in 1712.
The inventors took a long time to come to the idea of mechanized movement of the cutter. For the first time, this problem became especially acute when solving such technical problems as thread cutting, applying complex patterns to luxury goods, making gears, etc. To obtain a thread on a shaft, for example, markings were first made, for which a paper tape of the required width was wound onto the shaft, along the edges of which the outline of the future thread was applied. After marking, the threads were filed by hand. Not to mention the labor intensity of such a process, it is very difficult to obtain satisfactory quality of carving in this way. And Nartov not only solved the problem of mechanizing this operation, but in 1718-1729. I improved the scheme myself. The copying finger and support were driven by the same lead screw, but with different cutting pitches under the cutter and under the copier. In this way, automatic movement of the support along the axis of the workpiece was ensured. True, there was no cross-feed yet; instead, the swing of the “copier-workpiece” system was introduced. Therefore, work on the creation of the caliper continued. In particular, Tula mechanics Alexey Surnin and Pavel Zakhava created their own caliper. A more advanced support design, close to the modern one, was created by the English machine tool builder Maudsley, but A.K. Nartov remains the first to find a way to solve this problem. In general, cutting screws has long remained a complex technical task, since it requires high precision and skill. Mechanics have long thought about how to simplify this operation. Back in 1701, the work of C. Plumet described a method for cutting screws using a primitive caliper. To do this, a piece of screw was soldered to the workpiece as a shank. The pitch of the soldered screw had to be equal to the pitch of the screw that needed to be cut on the workpiece. Then the workpiece was installed in the simplest detachable wooden headstocks; the headstock supported the body of the workpiece, and a soldered screw was inserted into the backstock. When the screw rotated, the wooden socket of the tailstock was crushed into the shape of the screw and served as a nut, as a result of which the entire workpiece moved towards the headstock. The feed per revolution was such that it allowed the stationary cutter to cut the screw with the required pitch. A similar kind of device was on the screw-cutting lathe of 1785, which was the immediate predecessor of the Maudsley machine. Here, the thread cutting, which served as a model for the screw being manufactured, was applied directly to the spindle, which held the workpiece and caused it to rotate. (A spindle is the name given to the rotating shaft of a lathe with a device for clamping the workpiece.) This made it possible to do cutting on screws by machine: the worker rotated the workpiece, which, due to the thread of the spindle, just like in the Plumet device, began to move progressively relative to a fixed cutter that the worker held on a stick. In this way, the product received a thread that exactly matched the spindle thread. However, the accuracy and straightness of the processing here depended solely on the strength and firmness of the hand of the worker guiding the tool. This was a great inconvenience. In addition, the threads on the spindle were only 8-10 mm, which allowed only very short screws to be cut.
Second half of the 18th century. in the machine tool industry was marked by a sharp increase in the scope of application of metal-cutting machines and the search for a satisfactory design for a universal lathe that could be used for various purposes. In 1751, J. Vaucanson in France built a machine, which, in its technical data, already resembled a universal one. It was made of metal, had a powerful frame, two metal centers, two V-shaped guides, and a copper support that ensured mechanized movement of the tool in the longitudinal and transverse directions. At the same time, this machine did not have a system for clamping the workpiece in a chuck, although this device existed in other machine designs. Here provision was made for securing the workpiece only in the centers. The distance between centers could be changed within 10 cm. Therefore, only parts of approximately the same length could be processed on Vaucanson’s machine. In 1778, the Englishman D. Ramedon developed two types of thread cutting machines. In one machine, a diamond cutting tool moved along parallel guides along a rotating workpiece, the speed of which was set by the rotation of a reference screw. Replaceable gears made it possible to obtain threads with different pitches. The second machine made it possible to produce threads with different pitches on parts longer than the length of the standard. The cutter moved along the workpiece using a string wound onto the central key. In 1795, the French mechanic Senault made a specialized lathe for cutting screws. The designer provided replaceable gears, a large lead screw, and a simple mechanized caliper. The machine was devoid of any decorations with which the craftsmen had previously liked to decorate their products.
The accumulated experience made it possible by the end of the 18th century to create a universal lathe, which became the basis of mechanical engineering. Its author was Henry Maudsley. In 1794, he created a caliper design, which was rather imperfect. In 1798, having founded his own workshop for the production of machine tools, he significantly improved the support, which made it possible to create a version of a universal lathe. In 1800, Maudsley improved this machine, and then created a third version, which contained all the elements that screw-cutting lathes have today. It is significant that Maudsley understood the need to unify certain types of parts and was the first to introduce standardization of threads on screws and nuts. He began producing sets of taps and dies for cutting threads. Roberts' lathe One of the students and successors of Maudsley's work was R. Roberts. He improved the lathe by placing the lead screw in front of the bed, adding gearing, and moving the control handles to the front panel of the machine, which made operating the machine more convenient. This machine operated until 1909. Another former Maudsley employee, D. Clement, created a lobe lathe for processing large diameter parts. He took into account that at a constant speed of rotation of the part and a constant feed speed, as the cutter moves from the periphery to the center, the cutting speed will fall, and he created a system for increasing the speed. In 1835, D. Whitworth invented an automatic feed in the transverse direction, which was connected to a longitudinal feed mechanism. This completed the fundamental improvement of turning equipment.
The next stage is the automation of lathes. Here the palm belonged to the Americans. In the USA, the development of metal processing technology began later than in Europe. American machine tools of the first half of the 19th century. significantly inferior to Maudsley machines. In the second half of the 19th century. The quality of American machines was already quite high. The machines were mass-produced, and full interchangeability of parts and blocks produced by one company was introduced. If a part broke, it was enough to order a similar one from the factory and replace the broken part with a whole one without any adjustment. In the second half of the 19th century. elements were introduced that ensure complete mechanization of processing - an automatic feed unit in both coordinates, a perfect system for fastening the cutter and the part. Cutting and feed modes changed quickly and without significant effort. The lathes had elements of automation - automatic stop of the machine when a certain size was reached, a system for automatically controlling the speed of frontal turning, etc. However, the main achievement of the American machine tool industry was not the development of the traditional lathe, but the creation of its modification - the turret lathe. In connection with the need to manufacture new small arms (revolvers), S. Fitch in 1845 developed and built a revolver machine with eight cutting tools in the turret head. The speed of tool change dramatically increased the productivity of the machine in the production of serial products. This was a serious step towards the creation of automatic machines. The first automatic machines have already appeared in woodworking: in 1842 such an automatic machine was built by K. Vipil, and in 1846 by T. Sloan. The first universal automatic lathe was invented in 1873 by Chr. Spencer.