User:Prkeller/Kellering

Keller Machines new article content ...

The Keller machine typically is a tracer-controlled, horizontal milling machine, some models of which have up to three spindles, permitting up to three molds/dies to be copied from the original model. It is the tracer that distinguishes the Keller from other milling machines, for it is this element that permits a model of the part to be machined to be made from wood, plaster of paris or other such easily-worked material, with the pattern then used to make casting molds or stamping/forging dies of great precision. Early-model Keller machines used direct connection between the tracer and cutting tool in the manner of a pantograph, with contact pressure maintained by means of weights and pulleys. Inconsistent requirements of light tracer pressure on delicate models and considerable pressure for the cutter head dictated that the weighted system was limited to small dies, such as those required for silverware. Construction of the larger Keller machines had to await the inventive genius of John C. Shaw. Through the use of micro-switches on the tracer head and electric relays and magnetic clutches on cutter head feed motors, he succeeded in maintaining light pressure on the tracer while providing the cutter head pressures required to produce the large dies used for such purposes as stamping automobile body parts. Machining by this process became known as Kellering, and the larger machines became a key production factor in both the automobile and the aerospace industries. Keller machines were originally manufactured by the Keller Mechanical Engraving Co., whose name was subsequently changed to the Keller Mechanical Engineering Co. – KME. In 1931 KME was sold to the Pratt & Whitney Co., Inc. of West Hartford, CT (now defunct). Eventually, the tracer mechanism gave way to computer numerical control (CNC), and those Keller machines that still survive either were manufactured with or have been converted to numerical control.

Contents:

1. The Machine Types

    1.1 Shaping Machines
    1.2 Type D
    1.3 Type BF
    1.4 Type E Series
    1.5 Type BG 1 Series
    1.6 Type BG 2 Series
    1.7 Type BG 3
    1.8 Type BG-22
    1.9 Type BG-71
    1.10 Type BL
    1.11 Type G and GG

2. Specialty Machines

    2.1 Keller Automatic Mold Cutting Machines
    2.2 Type BD Keller Engraving Machines
    2.3 Roll Cutter, Duplicating and Reducing Machines
    2.4 The Kellerflex Flexible Shaft Machine
    2.5 The KELLocatER Jig Boring Machine

3. Other Company Machines Using Keller Controls

    3.1 The Monarch-Keller Form Turning Machine
    3.2 The Electronic Airfoil Milling Machine
    3.3 The Rotary MagneTRACE Milling Machine  

4. Cutters and Cutter Grinders

    4.1  “Milling Cutters & Tracers for Keller Machines” (catalog)
    4.2 Keller Universal Cutter and Radius Grinder Models
    4.3 Pratt & Whitney Cutter and Radius Grinder Models    

5. Control Developments

    5.1 Velvetrace
    5.2 The Numeric Keller 

6. Patents 7. History 8. Bibliography 9. Further Reading

1. The Machine Types:

Shaping Machines were automatic, motor-driven production machines designed for shaping airplane propellers in quantities, with great accuracy, and were adaptable to other uses.

Type D was an Automatic Reducing Machine of the circular reducing type, copying the minutest details of the pattern of a large master. It had a work spindle mounted on a slide, with its position determined by the ratio of reduction. The cutter bar was mounted on a fulcrum at one end, with the tracer carried on the opposite end. Contact of the tracer with the master (as well as the cutter with the die) was maintained by weights. As the master rotates under the tracer, corresponding motion is imparted to the cutter. The capacity of the model was up to 24” in diameter and 12” in depth, with the die capacity is up to 22” in diameter and 12” in depth. It used a motor of about 1 HP and weighed 3,600 lbs. Advertised uses were for silverware (hollow and flat), jewelry, medals, hardware and drop forging dies.

Type BF was an Automatic Straight Line Reducing Machine designed for rectilinear work. Like the Type D, it produces a reduced copy from a large master, and used a similar tracer and cutter bar arrangement, except that it had one tracer and two spindles so that it could cut two dies at once. Also as in the Type D, tracer/cutter contact was maintained by weights. The master capacity was 24” x 24” and up to 18” deep, and with a die capacity of 18” x 18” and 18” deep. It used a ½ HP motor, and weighed 6,000 lbs. It was used for cutting dies, molds, patterns and stamps.

Type E Series Automatic Profiling Machines operated in a manner similar to the Type BF machine, with the difference between the models relating to the size of the die that could be cut. For repetition, a die could serve as a master. Machine weights varied between 3,000 and 11,000 lbs.

Type BG 1 Series (BG-1-482, BG-1-602 and BG-1B-724) production was initiated in 1921, and were the first Keller machines to make use of the contouring tracer designed by J. C. Shaw. These machines were significantly bigger than their predecessors, weighing in at 15,000, 16,5000 and 30,000 lbs., respectively. These machines were primarily designed for the cutting of three-dimensional forming, stamping, drawing and forging dies. BG 1s played a significant role in World War II production, and were used postwar by De Havilland Engine Co., Ltd. for the profiling operation on the impeller compressor blades for jet propulsion units. The 724 was also used by the automobile industry for cutting the stamping dies for fenders and rooftops, and is credited with making possible automobile model changes on a yearly basis.

Type BG 2 Series (BG-2-1084 and BG-2-1085) were essentially larger versions of the BG 1, weighing 32,000 and 41,000 lbs., respectively.

Type BG 3 was a very large machine that the operator rode for making set-ups. Data is lacking for this machine.

Type BG-22 was a very large machine introduced in 1935 in fulfillment of an order by Ford Motors. It was offered in three standard sizes (10’ x 5’, 12’ x 6’ and 14’ x 7’) that weighed 72,000, 79,300 and 86,000 lbs., respectively. As with the BG 3, there is an operating platform that the operator can ride when setting up and adjusting the tracer. Major purchasers were Ford and Boeing. A special tilt head cutter was made for this machine understood to have been used for machining the wing spars for Boeing’s B-52 bomber.

Type BG-71 and the Wolverine came on the market after Pratt & Whitney had been acquired by Colt Industries. The BG-71 was a very large machine offered with tracer, numeric and a combination of tracer and numeric controls. It was offered in two sizes, but the 1971 publication describing it does not specify weight. The Wolverine was an even larger machine with tracer control, but spindle and tracer are mounted vertically, and the 1971 publication describing it makes no reference to Keller. It was offered in four models that tipped the scales at 90,000, 93,000, 95,000 and a whopping 125,000 lbs.

Type BL was a smaller machine of either one or three spindles made in three models (2416, 3620 and 4824), weighing 8,000, 9,500 and 14,000 lbs., respectively. The BL was introduced in about 1925, and had a long development history. In WWII, BLs were used by the aviation industry as well as in ordnance plants of both the army and navy. In about 1960 the control system was modernized, with the old electric relays giving way to transistorized circuits and thyratron tubes for power output. Later on, the BL became a prime candidate for computerized control (the BL3622, Model D) .

Type G and GG were smaller and more affordable machines than the BG or even the BL models. The Type G was designed primarily for profiling work, with automatic electric control for vertical and horizontal movements only. The Type GG also provided control for transverse movement, allowing it to reproduce three-dimensional reliefs. The Type G was often used on production lines “for profiling irregular shapes under particularly difficult conditions.” Both Type G and GG weighed in at only 5,500 lbs.

2. Specialty Machines

Keller Automatic Mold Cutting Machines were specifically designed to make molds for glass bottles, and were made in two models: #542 for cutting two molds, and #543 for cutting four molds.  The molds for the classic Coca-Cola bottle were made on one of these machines, probably the #543.  After KME was acquired by P&W, a modernized version was produced as the Pratt & Whitney Automatic Duplicating Machine for Bottle Molds.  Although not designated as a Keller machine, the literature on it specifies that it is equipped with Keller Cutters and Tracer Points.

Type BD Keller Engraving Machines operated in three dimensions, and was motor driven and hand controlled. It was used for steel printing plates and other work requiring extreme delicacy. A major user was a manufacturer of playing cards to assist in the printing of card designs. A photograph but no data is available on this machine.

Roll Cutter, Duplicating and Reducing Machines were automatic, motor driven and were built in two sizes. They were used for cylindrical work, both internal and external for lettering and embossing rolls; also for sectional glassware and tumbler molds.

The Kellerflex Flexible Shaft Machine was a P&W product for burring, sanding, grinding and polishing “for finishing work as it comes off the Keller.”

The KELLocatER Jig Boring Machine featured setup by means of a magnified Vernier scale and the ability to stop automatically at location by means of a magnet clutch driven lead screw guaranteed to be accurate to within 0.0002”. Available literature suggests this machine was produced by KME in 1930-31, and not continued after KME was acquired by P&W.

3. Other Company Machines Using Keller Controls

The Monarch-Keller Form Turning Machine was introduced in the Spring of 1931 by The Monarch Machine Tool Co. of Sidney, OH. It was a very heavy-duty lathe incorporating helical gears, Timken bearings and a Keller tracer and a Keller Magnet [control] Box, and was advertised as “The Machine with the Electric ‘Brain’.” It is interesting to note that in 1955 Monarch was the first U.S. machine builder to build and demonstrate a numerical control (NC) lathe, and would be a major NC and CNC lathe builder into the early 1980's.

The Electronic Airfoil Milling Machine (Models 102 and 107) were manufactured by the New England Machine and Tool Company of Berlin, CT and sold/serviced by P&W. It produced turbojet blades and turbine buckets and incorporated Keller tracer controls.

The Rotary MagneTRACE Milling Machine manufactured by the New England Machine and Tool Company was a rugged milling machine that incorporated a combination of rotary feed motions and was controlled by a two-axis copying system.

4. Cutters and Cutter Grinders

“Milling Cutters & Tracers for Keller Machines” is a 1940s era catalog of cutters and tracer points for Keller machines produced by P&W.

Keller Universal Cutter and Radius Grinder Models R-4, R-5 and R-6 were offered by KME for maintaining cutters and tracers for Keller machines in the late 1920s.

Pratt & Whitney Cutter and Radius Grinder Models R-6 and R-8 were manufactured by P&W for maintaining cutters and tracers for Keller machines.

5. Control Developments

Velvetrace was a 1959 development that permitted the use of very delicate models because the tracer that did not actually touch it. Instead, the tracer utilized a high-tension spark gap of harmless high-voltage, low-amperage current. The tracer moved to approach the model to within approximately 0.001”, after which the slightest variation in the spark gap was electrically amplified and used to control machine motions through two electro-magnetic clutches. In demonstrations, Velvetrace showed itself capable of tracing the outline of a crumpled ball of aluminum foil or even a glob of shaving cream.

The Numeric Keller was developed in the 1959-60 timeframe as a logical progression from what was already an automatic machine. Instead of building a physical model for the tracer to copy, it became necessary to describe the part to be made by a complicated series of dimensions and codes relative to a “zero” starting print for the three machine axes to be controlled. These codes and dimensions then had to be transferred into a pattern of holes on a punch tape that was read by a Bendix computer, which, in turn, controlled the machine. Later, an IBM 7090 was used instead of the Bendix, which permitted the designers to describe the part to be made in English language terms, rather than complicated codes. There appears to have been two Numeric Kellers: the BL Model D, which looks very similar to the standard BL except for four additional control panels, one of which houses the tape drive. The other is the K 300 Series, that were manufactured in the mid-1960s, after P&W had been acquired by Colt Industries. The models were designated K 301, K 301 and K 303, and were single spindle, two spindle and three spindle machines, respectively. They were very large machines, and tipped the scales at 140 tons.

6. Patents

Patent No. 597, 893, filed July 21, 1897; issued January 25, 1898 to Luigi Campi, assignor to Sidney Alexander Keller Milling Machine “…an improved machine for cutting trimming-dies…in a more rapid , economical, and perfect manner…by the use of a pattern which serves as a guide…”

Patent No. 956,769, filed August 7, 1909; issued May 3, 1910 to Joseph F. Keller and William A. Warman, assignors to Keller Mechanical Engraving Company

Machine for Engraving or Sinking Dies “…an improvement in machines for engraving or sinking dies…more particularly…a device…especially employed in re-producing a die from a templet (sic), model or pattern…of the same size, dimension or contour…”

Patent No. 1,473,592, filed June 21, 1919; issued Nov. 6, 1923 to William P. Cartwright and Joseph F. Keller, assignors to Keller Mechanical Engraving Company Fixture for Die-Cutting Machines and the Like “…die cutting machines, in which the model or pattern is of the same size as the die to be cut…it is…difficult…to properly locate and hold the faces of the model and die in the same plane parallel to…the face plate…our improvement…provides means for securely clamping the model and die in the desired positions…”

Patent No. 1,506,454, filed Feb. 6, 1920; issued Aug. 26, 1924 to John C. Shaw, assignor to Keller Mechanical Engineering Corporation Tracer Control for Diesinking Machines “…in prior machines…the tracer has been held to follow the contour of the pattern by pressure exerted through an adjustable weight operating over suitable pulleys, and this pressure was all the pressure available on the cutter and hence the amount of material removed by the cutter in a given time was limited. In order to apply as much pressure as possible to the cutter, it has been necessary to make the pattern of a hard substance capable of standing a considerable amount of pressure but on account of the expense of such patterns, more delicate patterns are frequently used…my improved tracer control…permit[s] the use of delicate patterns formed of plaster of Paris…and…provide[s] means, including magnetic clutches and screw feed, for positively feeding the cutter…so that as the tracer follows the pattern the cutter will be positively held…[so that] deeper and heavier cuts are possible and hence the time required for making the die is very considerably reduced…”

Patent No. 1,588,856, filed Jan. 22, 1924; issued June 15, 1926 to John C. Shaw, assignor to Keller Mechanical Engineering Corporation Contouring Tracer “…one object of my improved contouring tracer is to…provide…[an]…interlocking mechanism, whereby excessive feed motion in one direction…is adapted through the interlocking mechanism to break the…feed circuit…and simultaneously reverse the feed…another object is to reduce the number of contact carrying arms to a minimum and to reduce the movement of the contacts…[to]…increase the sensitiveness of the control…”

Patent No. 1,683,581, filed March 4, 1924; issued Sept. 4, 1928 to John C. Shaw, assignor to Keller Mechanical Engineering Corporation Electrical Operation and Control of Machine Tools “…in my improved machine, I provide for the electrical control of the movements by means of a tracer following a template or model, the machine being provided with suitable switches and relays for automatic operation under control of the tracer or for manual control by the operator, as may be desired.”

Patent No. 2,207,830, filed Sept. 26, 1938; issued July 16, 1940 to Robert D. Shaw, assignor to Niles-Bement-Pond Company Tracer Controlled Machine Tool “An object…is to provide an improved cooperative relationship between the tracer moving mechanism…and its cutter moving mechanism…so that the movements of the cutter may be controlled by a tracer…mounted remote from and connected to the cutting machine by flexible means such as an electric cable…”

7. History

In 1896 Sidney A. Keller and Joseph F. Keller formed a partnership in New York and went into the business of designing and manufacturing dies for the silverware industry. At that time there were no machines produced by machine builders in this country that were sufficiently accurate to make such dies, and consequently the small Keller shop used engraving and reducing machines that had been made in Europe.

Since Joseph Keller was a mechanical engineer, he eventually developed machines made in their small shop for their own use. Then, as business broadened and prospered, they saw a market for small forging dies as well as silverware dies. Joseph therefore designed and built a one-to-one duplicating machine and also a weight-controlled machine for the duplication of forging dies. This machine was designated the E 1 Automatic Die Cutter Machine, that was produced in various models until about 1930, and was still in use for several decades after that in some small machine shops around the country.

In the course of normal business, some of the customers for silverware and forging dies visited the Keller plant in Brooklyn and became interested in the process used in producing the dies. It then followed that some of these customers asked if they could purchase these machines, and, it then developed that the Keller Mechanical Engraving Company became machine tool builders, and along the way changed its name to the Keller Mechanical Engineering Company (KME). The first machine was sold to Crescent Tool Company in 1915, and this order was immediately followed by one for six machines, this time the customer being Remington Arms in Ilion, New York. Shortly thereafter orders for reducing machines (Type D) were received from International Silver Company and other silverware manufacturing companies. Parenthetically, some machines of this type were still in operation in the late 1950s, and at that time there were customers who were still asking where new machines of this variety could be purchased.

In 1916 John C. Shaw came on the scene. He was trained as a Mechanical Engineer at the Stevens Institute of Technology, and went into the gas business in 1904 in the days when a gas works had to blow up every so often "just to keep in form." It irritated him to see the works disintegrate every time an operator with a hangover opened the wrong valve at the wrong time. So he came up with the answer: a mechanical-electrical valve control and interlock that took the guesswork out of the business of gas making. It was this device that gave him the idea for an electrical machine tool control. To develop this idea he quit the gas business to work with KME because it had been recognized for twenty years as a manufacturer of mechanically-controlled automatic die sinkers.

But that was in 1916, and World War I was raging in Europe, which created a demand for wooden airplane propellers. John Shaw’s ideas had to wait while KME’s design and manufacturing facilities were occupied in the manufacture of special machines for the production of wooden propellers. Here, speed and accuracy were the essentials – the substitution of an automatic machine for a rare human skill in order to machine propellers at the rate of twelve minutes each.

As the size of forging dies increased it was realized that the Type E machine was no longer sufficient, and after the Armistice the course was clear for John Shaw to develop his idea. By 1920 he had completed designs for the first Electric Tracer Control Keller Machine – Type BG 1. The first machine, serial #550, was shipped to the Budd Company in Philadelphia in March, 1921, and the second machine was shipped in July of the same year. It is interesting to note that the idea for this machine had been discussed with the people at Budd and the order for the first machine was placed before it was even completed, an indication of Budd’s trust in KME’s capabilities.

The BG 1 was quickly made in a number of sizes as orders began to come into the small plant in Brooklyn. Machines larger than 6’ x 4’ were designated BG 2s, and presumably a similar criterion was used for designation of the BG 3. The BG machines were followed by the BL machine, which looked a good deal like the more modern versions, including the latest numeric model. An electric tracer was also developed for the E Type machine, and similar electric controls were developed for use on lathes, planers and other machines. By the time it was purchased by Pratt & Whitney Company, Inc. of West Hartford, CT (P&W) in 1931, KME had sold and shipped over 4,000 machines.

It was soon discovered that after the forging dies had been produced on the Keller Machine, it was necessary to “barber” or “bench” the dies so that they could be used in the presses. Accordingly, a small flexible shaft grinding and finishing machine was developed and named the Kellerflex. It was produced in considerable numbers by P&W.

Along with the Keller machines, KME, and later P&W produced a wide variety of burrs made of high-speed steel for their use. In a similar manner, it was recognized that nearly all the operations performed on Keller Automatic Milling Machines required the use of either ball nose or radius end mills. It obviously followed that customers using such a machine had to have a quick and convenient way to resharpen and grind their cutters. Recognizing this need, KME brought out the Keller Cutter and Radius Grinder, and modifications of this machine were later sold by P&W as welcome companion pieces for the Keller BL and BG type machines.

As previously mentioned, Sidney A. Keller sold KME to P&W in 1931, and soon thereafter the whole facility was moved from the home plant in Brooklyn, NY to P&W’s facilities in Hartford, CT pending removal to the brand-new plant in West Hartford, CT that was inaugurated in December of 1939. Before the P&W purchase of KME, John C. Shaw had been joined by his brother, Robert E. Shaw, and both moved to Hartford with the company together with the top sales and manufacturing personnel. There the Shaw brothers continued to refine and enlarge upon the controls for Keller Machines. It has been pointed out that, had it not been for their contribution to the development of the BG Type Keller machines, it would not have been possible for the automobile industry to make model changes on an annual basis. Without such automated machining, it would have simply taken to long to make the necessary large-scale dies.

After the Shaw brothers left the scene, design responsibility for the Keller line passed to J. J. Jaeger, then Chief Engineer and later President of P&W. Two of Sidney A. Keller’s sons joined P&W, Alexander S. Keller as Vice President and Richard D. Keller as head of Sales for the Keller Division. Other members of the original Keller sales force at P&W were Paul Renno and Harry Reichert.

An undated KME publication contains “A Representative List of Users of Keller Automatic Tool Room Machines with full Electrical Control" i.e., BL or BG 1 or larger, that shows the location of some 160 machines. Of these, 88 are in the hands of automobile industry entities, of which Ford alone has 16. Also, 25 had been sold to companies outside the U.S., mainly Germany.

It has been noted that the machine tool industry is “first in, last out” of difficulties relating to recessions in the business cycle. But beyond this, P&W suffered from a series of corporate takeovers that hastened its demise. In 1954, P&W became part of the Penn-Texas Corp., assembled by German-born financier Leopold Silberstein, who hoped to make it part of a vast industrial empire. But then corporate raider Alfons Landa wrested control of it from Silberstein and used the company to seize control of old-line machinery manufacturer Fairbanks Morse, changing its name to Fairbanks Whitney. Boardroom battles then ensued to determine who would head the company as it went seriously in the red. P&W ultimately ended up as part of Colt Industries, which apparently only made a bad situation worse. But in any case, since virtually the entire U.S. machine tool industry has either gone out of existence or moved offshore, there was probably no way P&W and its Keller Division could have survived to the present day.

8. Bibliography

American Machinist (1925) Shop Equipment News Keller Toolroom Milling Machine, Type BL Hammond, Edward K. (1916) Machinery Mechanical Die-Sinking Herb, Charles O. (1934) Machinery The Dies Behind Those Streamlines Herb, Charles O. (1935) Machinery Unusual Jobs on Keller Machines Keller, Joseph F. (1921) Mechanical Engineering, the Journal of The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Die Sinking and Metal Pattern-making by Automatic Machine Keller Mechanical Engineering Corporation (1929) The Keller Diesinking Machines Miller, R. E. (1935, March 28) Iron Age Huge Keller Automatic Cuts Dies for New Large Auto Body Stampings Pratt & Whitney Company (1930) Accuracy for Seventy Years, 1860 – 1930 Pratt & Whitney Division, Fairbanks Whitney (Undated Training Manual) Selling the Pratt & Whitney Keller Method Pratt & Whitney Division, Niles-Bement-Pond Company (1940) 80 Active Years http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,874560,00.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,829936,00.html

9. Further Reading

Begeman, M.L. & Amstead, B. H. (1969) Manufacturing Processes Woodbury, Robert S. (1972) Studies in the History of Machine Tools