Jump to content
Mander Organ Builders Forum

Vincent Willis’s Tubular Pneumatic patent of 1889


Declan Curran
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm particularly interested in Vincent Willis’s Tubular Pneumatic patent of 1889 which I have been told, by trusted sources, was equal to any electro - pneumatic in terms of responsiveness and repetition although almost prohibitively expensive.

 

Does anyone know where I can get a copy of the patent or describe what set this apart from the rest of the pack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm particularly interested in Vincent Willis’s Tubular Pneumatic patent of 1889 which I have been told, by trusted sources, was equal to any electro - pneumatic in terms of responsiveness and repetition although almost prohibitively expensive.

 

Does anyone know where I can get a copy of the patent or describe what set this apart from the rest of the pack.

 

 

You could try contacting Dr David Wylde via here.

 

A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...thought this was the same as the old one?

 

Hi

 

The Willis firm was bought by David Wylde a few years back, and now operates from Liverpool - and by all accounts, does a better job than in the last days of its previous incarnation. I'm certainly satisfied with the restoration they did here.

 

Every Blessing

 

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm particularly interested in Vincent Willis’s Tubular Pneumatic patent of 1889 which I have been told, by trusted sources, was equal to any electro - pneumatic in terms of responsiveness and repetition although almost prohibitively expensive.

 

Does anyone know where I can get a copy of the patent or describe what set this apart from the rest of the pack.

 

Is this of any assistance?

http://www.google.com/patents?id=OMBMAAAAE...lis&f=false

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting thought. The former Willis company operated from Petersfield, Hampshire, and was run under the direction of Henry Willis IV.

 

 

 

Not only an INTERESTING thought, but also a true one.

 

There is only one company named "Henry Willis & Sons Ltd" Mr. Oakley. Our Company Registration number is 70718, registered in 1901. I took over as Managing Director, installed in that position by HW4, on the 2nd Oct 1997 and the shareholding was subsequently acquired from all of the former shareholders on the 28th of November of that same year. There was no "change" of company, winding-up, cessestion of trading etc., only a change of Directors and then share holders - as is often the case in limited Companies. Henry Willis, Henry Willis & Sons and then Henry Willis & sons Ltd (to quote all three names) has traded continuously since 1845.

As to the quiet implication that we can't be the same as we don't still operate from Petersfield - sorry, have I missed something there? We moved our Head Office (and Registered Office therefore) to Liverpool in 2001, where we have had a Branch since 1854; we still have a southern Branch, though not in Petersfield. For information we have been with the same Bank for 143 years.

 

 

Now back to the subject:

 

The drawing which you have referred members to doesn't shew the complete action - this is only the dual-membrane exhaust and supply valve chamber and does not include the motor springing arrangements. Be aware that lodged Patent specification drawings rarely, if ever, gave a full or accurate view, for obvious reasons. Interestingly one of the Witnesses is named Spackman - as in Charles Spackman Barker. I'll look out the original documents on Monday, if anyone is interested.

 

The 1889 patent action is referred to in the firm as "Willis Lever" and we have restored six actions of that type in the past few years, another one to come in soon.

 

DW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote name='Henry Willis' date='Jan 8 2011, 06:12 PM' post='56132']

There is only one company named "Henry Willis & Sons Ltd" Mr. Oakley. Our Company Registration number is 70718, registered in 1901. I took over as Managing Director, installed in that position by HW4, on the 2nd Oct 1997 and the shareholding was subsequently acquired from all of the former shareholders on the 28th of November of that same year. There was no "change" of company, winding-up, cessestion of trading etc., only a change of Directors and then share holders - as is often the case in limited Companies. Henry Willis, Henry Willis & Sons and then Henry Willis & sons Ltd (to quote all three names) has traded continuously since 1845.

As to the quiet implication that we can't be the same as we don't still operate from Petersfield - sorry, have I missed something there? We moved our Head Office (and Registered Office therefore) to Liverpool in 2001, where we have had a Branch since 1854; we still have a southern Branch, though not in Petersfield. For information we have been with the same Bank for 143 years.

 

 

Mr Wyld, thank-you for your response. The mystery surrounding Henry Willis & Sons Limited, for mystery it has been since it apparently disappeared from the UK organ-building industry with the retirement some years ago of Henry Willis IV, has perplexed many. And the fact that the company suddenly appeared with a new head office/works in Liverpool and not Petersfield further added to the perplexity. Perhaps it was just due to poor public relations. But the organ-building industry is perhaps not exactly unknown for the buy-out of trading names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....And it is noteworthy, that this system is already partially

an electropneumatic one !

 

Pierre

 

Pierre,

Yes indeed ! this is certainly a surprise to me. In fact it seems more electro than tubular. If I understand it correctly the valve in Figure 2 and the pneumatic motor in Figure 1 could be mounted very close to each other therefore the length of pipe a connecting these two devices could be very short indeed, i.e. the pipe a did not run from the pneumatic motor back to a valve mechanism mounted directly behind the keyboard as in many conventional T.P. designs (often resulting in varying and excessive pipe lengths with one or more elbows, all causing varying degrees of pressure drop and therefore response time), rather this distance between the pneumatic motor and the keyboard was mostly covered by wire (from keyboard to the to the electro-magnets in Figure 2).

Am I correct ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...