the cast was poured it would be allowed to cool 

 somewhat. When it was judged cool enough, it 

 would be pushed into a liiln to be annealed. After 

 it had remained in the kiln a certain length of time — ■ 

 again based simply on judgement — a quantity of 

 pre-heated sand was to be poured over the mold as 

 insulation. A further innovation was the use of a 

 zinc sheet placed on the underside of the mold to 

 avoid the possibility of trouble from grease on the 

 casting table. This was the initial plan of operation. 



Sometime early in 1895 the first attempt was 

 made. It was an immediate failure. The zinc 

 sheet, intended to protect the cast from grease, 

 volatilized when the molten glass was poured on it, 

 bubbled up through the glass, and, of course, ruined 

 the cast. 



The second attempt was evidently made sometime 

 in March. The casting itself was successful. Sand 

 had been substituted for the zinc sheet. The cast 

 was placed in the kiln, and when it was thought to 

 be set the insulating sand was poured over it. After 

 a time variously estimated at from 4 to 11 days, 

 the cast was considered sufficiently annealed, and 

 was examined. 



When the sand was remo\-ed, the disc was found 

 in fragments. There was also a large concavity in 

 what would have been the face of the disc. The 

 sand had been poured over it before the glass was 

 sufficiently set. However, the disc had been de- 

 stroyed by its iron mold. The mold had contracted 

 against the disc, bending the bolt and deforming 

 the hinges, and this trememdous pressure had 

 shattered the glass. The next issue of the trade 

 paper jubilantly noted the failures. They also 

 included Dr. Peate in their derision. They said in 

 effect that at least this experience would save the 

 old preacher the waste of many years of tim.e and 

 eflfort.i' 



This slur on their most esteemed citizen brought 

 the Greenville papers into the battle. The Budget 

 had also made the mistake of implying that any 

 number of Pittsburgh manufacturers were willing 

 and able to make the disc. John Morrison, at that 

 time editor of the Greenville Advance Argus, and 

 source of much of our information regarding this 

 controversy, immediately called the bluff of the trade 

 paper, which was able to supply but one name, that 

 of a George A. McBeth Company. This firm 

 promptly declined without qualification. Later the 



" Clipping of uncertain data from the Pittsburgh Leader, 

 quoting the National Glass Budget. Preston, p. 139 and n, 55. 



name of the Phillips Semner Co. was given, and this 

 firm guaranteed a perfect disc within 60 days for a 

 "remunerative price," but would not state what this 

 price was.^° Therefore Dr. Peate could not deal 

 with the firm. 



Although the hue and cry continued for a few more 

 weeks, the battle was really over, for Howard was soon 

 to cast his disc. He had replaced the iron bolts in 

 his mold with bolts of red oak dipped in nitric acid and 

 then charred. The purpose of this was to relieve the 

 strain on the glass by having the wooden pegs break 

 as the mold contracted. 



The third cast was in the kiln and in process of 

 being annealed when Howard read in the Budget 

 an article that set forth the difficulties of successfully 

 casting optical glass. This article was anonymous 

 and was obviously the work of an expert; it is thought 

 to have been written by John Brashear.^' Al- 

 though Howard was thoroughly discouraged by this 

 article, the cast had already been made and no harm 

 could be done now by allowing it to cool and be 

 examined. 



In May 1895 Howard, with the workmen, opened 

 the kiln. The mold was loose, so the pegs had sheared 

 as expected. When the sand was removed the disc 

 was found to be whole. A close inspection revealed 

 no obvious faults. The disc was gently carried to 

 an inspection room and Dr. Peate was immediately 

 sent for. He arrived, examined the disc for a mo- 

 ment, then said, "Give me a hammer." Before anyone 

 could move he seized a nearby hatchet and knocked 

 off the sprue, or tail left as the pot was removed from 

 the mold. The onlookers feared the lens would 

 "explode," as predicted by its detractors, but the 

 only result was the removal of the tail, as Dr. Peate 

 expected. ^^ 



The Budget was still saying it couldn't be done. 

 Commenting on a May 1, 1895, announcement of the 

 removal of the disc from the kiln, the paper seized on 

 the fact that the disc was still warm to predict that it 

 would be shattered before Peate could examine it, 

 and reiterated its low opinion of Standard Plate. By 

 the time this issue was in the hands of its readers 

 however, the disc had been inspected and approved 

 by Peate. 



Newspapers in Pittsburgh and elsewhere carried the 

 news of the great American disc. The embarrassed 

 Budget replied that it was not talking about the mere 



z» Preston, p. 140. 

 21 Preston, p. 139. 

 -■ Preston, p. 140. 



176 



BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 



