OutdoorKing Repair Forum Forums Finding and Swapping Idle Chatter So where did it all begin?

So it is commonly said that Victa was the invention of the rotary mower, a statement I now feel I have seen enough evidence against to dispel, however, what was the first rotary mower.

I have found references to the 'Rotoscythe' dating back to the 40's... Can we go further?

Oh, and for a little food for thought, a clipping from "The Morning Bulletin" a local newspaper in Rockhampton, this add is from an edition marked 07 July 1950.

Hi Ty,
From my research I have found some interesting news.
The worlds first second rotary lawn mower was invented by William Beazley in 1929.

In fact the publication Popular Mechanics report that:
1929: William Beazley builds a power rotary lawnmower with blades that are driven horizontal to the grass rather than perpendicular like traditional reel mowers, creating a very close cut. It was known as the 'Whirlwind'.

Here are his patents dated 1933, though originally filed on June 15 1929:




And here's what happened later in 1941:
38 F.Supp. 756 (1941)
BEAZLEY POWER MOWER CO., Inc., et al.
v.
PEARCE et al.
District Court, E. D. Wisconsin.
May 1, 1941.
Guy Conrad, Lecher, Michael, Whyte & Spohn, and William Buckley, all of Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiffs.
A. L. Morsell, Jr., of Milwaukee, Wis., for defendants.

DUFFY, District Judge.

This is a patent suit charging infringement of Claims 2 and 4 of Reissue Letters Patent No. 18,944, issued September 12, 1933.

The plaintiff Beazley Power Mower Company is the owner of the patent. The plaintiff Whirlwind Lawn Mowers Sales Corporation, now known as Whirlwind Lawn Mower Corporation, is the exclusive licensee.

The defense is invalidity and non-infringement. Under the first heading the defendants challenge the legality of the act of the Commissioner of Patents in reissuing the patent in question. They also contend that the claims in this suit are invalid and void as anticipated by several prior patents.

The patent in suit relates to a power operated lawn mower, which differs from the usual cutting reel type in that in lieu of a reel which rotates on a horizontal axis, it employs horizontally rotating knives mounted on a vertical axis.

The patentee has combined a blade type cutter rotatable in a horizontal path, a fan surface or air deflecting surface, a housing having certain special characteristics, with a wheeled or mobile frame, and with a motor, so that the whole may be moved over the grass to be cut, and the fan surface and the cutter rapidly rotated from the motor.

The distinguishing features claimed are (1) the horizontally disposed rotatable blade type cutter; (2) the housing having the characteristic of a confined air space open at the bottom adjacent to the ground; and (3) the fan or air deflecting surface which must be rotatable with the cutter and so operatively or functionally interrelated with the cutter and the housing that axial air currents are produced upwardly past both the path of movement and the field of action of the cutters.

Patentee contends that the air flow, to be effective, must be upwardly through the zone which constitutes the field of action of the cutter; that by reason of this action the grass is lifted upwardly from the ground and held erect in the field of the cutters so as to be cut by the cutting edges thereof.

Patentee points out that the housing has a special function: That it is not only an enclosure and a guard, but also serves as a cowl or shroud for the air deflecting surfaces to build up a counter pressure or a back pressure to the centrifugal action of the rapidly rotating fan and cutter; that the tendency of the air, by reason of centrifugal force, to flow radially outward in a direction parallel to the upper and lower surfaces of the rotating cutter or fan, is overcome; that the air deflecting surfaces rotating with the cutter are hence enabled to exert their upward or axial lift in such a manner as to draw the grass or other material to be cut into an upright position in the field of action of the cutter. The patentee contends that this is the gist of the novel mode of operation of the patented combination.

Considering first the legality of the reissue patent, defendants contend that there was no inadvertence, accident, or mistake in the original Letters Patent; and that, therefore, the Commissioner acted beyond his authority in granting the reissue. Careful consideration reveals that patentee's solicitor was mistaken about the state of the prior art, and also with reference to the true nature and character of the invention. In the prosecution of the original patent no claims were presented which pointed out that the invention resided in combining a rotatable blade type cutter in a certain manner with a housing defining a confined air space open at its bottom adjacent to the ground, and also providing a fan or air deflecting surface, and so functionally interrelating such a surface with the cutter and with the housing as to provide a structural organization which had the new mode of operation characterizing the combination, that is, a mode of operation wherein air is advanced upwardly from the ground in the region of the cutter and past the path of movement of the cutter so as to draw grass upwardly within the field of action of the cutter.

The situation here is similar to that described in the case of Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U.S. 156, page 171, 12 S.Ct. 825, 831, 36 L.Ed. 658, where the court said: "* * * Under such circumstances, it would be manifestly unjust to deny him the benefit of a reissue to secure to him his actual invention, provided it is evident that there has been a mistake and he has been guilty of no want of reasonable diligence in discovering it, and no third persons have in the mean time acquired the right to manufacture or sell what he had failed to claim. * * *"

The application for the reissue was filed within approximately eight months after the issuance of the original patent. It is our opinion that the reissue was properly granted.

Upon the question of anticipation, the defendants cite numerous patents, but seem to rely particularly upon Sera Patent No. 1,622,611, Frey Patent No. 1,899,564, Muzzy Patent No. 1,332,657, and Durkee Patent No. 1,656,105.

Sera Patent seeks to utilize safety razor blades for the purpose of cutting lawns. It may well be doubted whether such a machine could possibly be of any practical operation. However, there is nothing in the specifications of that patent which teaches the production of air currents which are capable of raising the grass into the field of action of the cutters. One of the drawings does disclose that the razor blades would be tilted. It is apparent that if there were any upward air currents it would be entirely accidental and incidental, and not anticipated by the inventor. There is testimony in this case that any incidental upward air current which might be created by the tilted razor blades would be offset by the air currents from the centrifugal force which would be generated. The Sera Patent does not have a device which functions in the manner which the patented combination does, and it cannot produce the results which the patented combination produces.

The application for the Frey Patent was pending in the Patent Office at the same time as the application for the reissue patent in suit. From the classification given, it is apparent that the two applications were before the same examiner. No interference was declared, and it follows that the Patent Office must have been of the opinion that there was no common patentable subject matter involved in these applications. Blaw-Knox Co. v. Erie Steel Construction Co., D.C., 47 F.2d 895. In addition, Frey does not have a housing so constructed as to be capable of functioning as a shroud or cowl to build up the necessary back pressure; in fact, Frey's housing would seem to be constructed for the purpose of relieving back pressure. This is evident by the enlarging discharge duct. Furthermore, Frey does not have his fan surface and cutters and housing so combined or interrelated that an upward flow of air is produced through the field of action of the cutters.

In the Muzzy Patent the housing has a rearwardly disposed spout through which the grass is mechanically pitched. This type of housing differs from the patent in suit as there would not be a confined space which would function as hereinbefore described. Muzzy makes no claim in his specifications nor in his claims that air currents are produced that flow upward through the field of action of his cutter. Another difference is that Muzzy uses a disk type of cutter rather than the blade type of the patent in suit.

The Durkee Patent does call for an axial upward flow of air in the field of action of his cutters. In the drawing Durkee shows that he has five separate cutting units, requiring five vertical shafts. Durkee has an entirely different approach, however, to the problem from the patented combination. The multiplicity of units which he requires with their very apparent disadvantages indicates that it is not an anticipation of the combination of the patent in suit.

The other patents cited by defendants have been considered, but are not regarded as anticipating the combination of the patent in suit. In no instance in the prior art is a housing so constructed and so specially combined with the other elements as to function as a cowl, to build up a counter pressure or back pressure to the centrifugal effect of the rapidly rotating fan surface and cutter and thereby allow the fan surface to produce air currents directed to the field of action of the cutters.

In considering the question of infringement, a close scrutiny must be had of the alleged infringing device. The defendant L. H. Pearce was formerly associated with the plaintiffs, and was in charge of production during the development and manufacture of the plaintiffs' mower. After a disagreement in 1937, the defendant withdrew and formed his own corporation, which is the co-defendant herein. He immediately started to manufacture a mower which he apparently designed so as to be as close as possible to the mower manufactured and sold by the plaintiffs. The question is whether he has avoided an infringement.

Pearce's mower (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2) utilizes cutter arms (Plaintiffs' Exhibits 2a and 2b), which have upwardly facing bevels or milling. It is common practice to construct cutting instrumentalities by beveling on the top side only. The front of the housing of defendants' mower extends forwardly at an angle which is nearer to being parallel to the ground than it is to being vertical and confining as shown by Wall 15 of the Beazley Patent. Furthermore, the forwardmost edge of the extending front wall of the housing in the Pearce mower terminates at a point higher from the ground than the lower edges of the side walls, so that a part of the front of the Pearce housing is open. The defendants' mower does not have any fan or air advancing means except the bevel or the milled edge of the cutter arm. The lower cutter arm (Exhibit 2a) is the one customarily used and an examination of the defendants' mower in evidence discloses that this cutter arm is not within the housing, but rather below it. The plaintiffs are placed in a somewhat embarrassing position because, in order to establish their patent over the prior art, it was necessary to stress the importance of the fan or air advancing means as an essential feature of the invention.

In the oath to the reissue application Beazley stated: "* * * the prior art failed to teach the provision of a power mower characterized by the organization with a wheeled frame of a housing thereon defining a confined air space open at the bottom adjacent the ground with a power driven cutter supported for rotation in a horizontal path adjacent said bottom opening and with a fan so especially combined with the housing and cutter that its air deflecting surfaces advance air upwardly from the ground * * *."

The file wrapper discloses that when the examiner brought forth the Sera Patent, Beazley argued if there were any upward air currents by reason of the tilted razor blades, it was only accidental. It would appear that at that time Beazley was relying on the use of a particular type of fan or air advancing means in addition to a cutter. Beazley cannot very well stress the importance of the fan in order to obtain the allowance of his claims, and then say that the fan is unimportant when trying to hold one as an infringer.

The plaintiffs are perhaps correct in their contention that the particular form of the fan surface is not an essential of the invention of the claims of the patent in suit, but considering the various differences that have been heretofore pointed out, it is our opinion that the defendant Pearce has succeeded in avoiding an infringement.

Hi to All,
From the Powerhouse Museum I have just learned that:

While the Victa rotary lawn-mower was not the first of its kind, the light weight and ease of manufacture were innovative. A British patent for a rotary lawn-mower exists from 1929, and Lawrence Hall built a rotary lawn-mower in Sydney in 1948.

Lawrence Hall, a boat engine builder, invented a rotary blade lawn-mower to cut his parents lawn in 1948. His 'Mowhall' had blades mounted onto a plough disc and used a kerosene tin as the petrol tank, a boat motor and a tubular steel frame. It was so heavy that his son and nephew had to pull it with a rope as well as push it across the lawn.
Mervyn Victor Richardson saw Hall's mower demonstrated in a park in Concord, Sydney and forgot about it. Four years later, he made some cylinder type mowers for his son's part time lawn-mowing business.

And courtesy of the Collections Australia Network:

The story behind Lawrence Hall�s �Mowhall� mower and Mervyn Richardson�s �Victa�

Lawrence Hall was a self-taught inventor who went on to become a Marine Engineer. In 1948, tired pushing a lawnmower around his mother�s lawn and around the grounds of the Cabarita Speedboat Club he set about finding an easier way to get the job done.

Using his engineering knowledge he set about building a motorised lawnmower. Using a disc from a plough, tin cans and steel pipe scraps he constructed a prototype powered by another of Hall�s inventions, a three-horsepower marine engine. In 1993 the Sydney Morning Herald interviewed his son Walter who claimed that �It was a heavy old monster and I nearly cut my foot off with it.�

But Walter also claims that this prototype of Hall�s �Mowhall� mower, was used before Mervyn Victor Richardson�s �Victa� mower was ever built. Richardson, who went on to be credited by most people for inventing Australia�s first petrol-engine rotary mower, started work on his �Victa� mower in a garage in Concord in 1952.

Eventually the �Victa� mower made Richardson a multi-millionaire but while many agree he deserved credit for his insight into the mower�s potential others, like Walter, also felt he copied the basic form and method of propulsion from Lawrence Hall�s �Mowhall� mower. The Hall family�s claim is backed up by John Longhurst who was a teenager apprenticed to Hall as a fitter and machinist around this time.

According to Longhurst, Merve Richardson, then an associate of Hall�s, visited the workshop one day when Hall was fitting his mower with a �snorkel� to prevent the engine being clogged with dust. After Merve commented on what a wonderful idea it was Hall proceeded to demonstrate how the mower could cut even the longest grass.

Eventually Richardson came up with the �Victa� mower which was much lighter and more compact in design and which would go on to make millions. Hall�s �Mowhall� mower while far less successful is arguably no less important to this great Australian story of invention. It is certainly rarer and this �Mowhall� mower has been on display in the Concord Heritage Society Museum since the 1980s, accompanied by a sign declaring it to be �the machine from which all modern mowers were copies�.

That is some wonderful detail there Darryl, and yes I certainly can't find reference to anything as simple to make, or as easy to move, as the Victa.

Having owned a rotoscythe, I can say with all certainty it is NOT highly manoeuvrable!

So we have Merv & Victa in 1952
Lawrence Hall and the Mowhall in 48

And THIS rotoscythe reference in 1946.

Hi Ty, go back to the previous post of mine... Rotaries in 1929 Yee haaa!

Woah, Missed that first one, WOW, that is news...

That certainly seems to go back much, much further than anything encountered so far to my knowledge... Just wow...I'll be on the phone to you very soon, what a find!!!!!

After doing a little search based on the name, age and that interesting concept of a horizontal crank shaft rotary mower, I have just come across these two, much later, the first, an adver dates to 1948, the second, a series of pictures of a mower again seems no older than the 40's, perhaps Grumpy can date that briggs for us?

Hello Ty, Deejay and ODK members,

I'm new to these forums. I'm 'czislowski' from that other site, Vintage Mowers.
I was not aware of the 1929 Beazley patent. It shows how sharing information
can really help our understanding.

I had known for some time that there was a problem with the English Rotoscythe
being the first 'rotary' mower. I have found an earlier American patent filed in
October of 1928 - the 1928 Miller Patent - and I reproduce that below, along
with images from Old Lawnmowers and Stuff

All very interesting.
-------------------------------------
CyberJack

Hi, and welcome aboard CyberJack, I hope Outdoor King can provide you with as much value and information as VM.net does, and I can see from your first post that you are certainly going to feel very welcome here!

This is amazing stuff from the common myth of Victa "Inventing" the rotary mower (Not to discredit Merv's success in improving, marketing and producing it) we have now moved back 24 years.

This all helps create a valuable timeline, I was aware that electric rotary's appear to have come before petrol ones (perhaps the Beazly Patents 90 degree drive system shows a reluctance to leave the concept of horizontal crank shafts behind, and therefore complexities in design) but so far the time difference is looking a lot closer.

1928 we see the miller patent, which seems to me to be electric, then in 1929 we have the beazly patent, both in electric and petrol.

To give a timeline based on evidence so far we can see

1928: The Idea of an Electric Rotary Mower is recorded.
1929: The Idea of a Petrol Rotary Mower is Recorded.
1946: Evidence of a Petrol Powered, Vertical Shaft Rotary Mower, With Catcher.
1948: Evidence of a Petrol Powered Rotary Mower being Created in Australia
1952: The Creation of the peach Tin, A Light, Easy to manoeuvre Vertical Shaft Rotary Mower Created in Australia

We have all we need easily accessible to discern Victa's first Mower, Catcher, Self-Drive, Rear Catcher, Governed Carby etc.

But this is the kind of information that helps peice together the same timeline world wide.

I am curios as to when certain improvements came about, there seems to be quite a gap between the patents of the late 20's, and the self propelled, rear catcher, vertical shaft petrol engined Rotoscythe in the 40's.

Honestly it is seeming to me that a lot of moves Victa made where not new idea's, just implementations of existing concepts in much more successful ways.

Just to add more, with this we can date some form of 'Catcher' well, grass collector, to 1937.

The "Whirlwind" Company went on the become the Toro of today.. In fact, The old Toro's sill said "TORO-WHIRLWIND"



Kori

Hi Kori, that's right in a sense mate, TORO took over Whirlwind in 1948. Here is some of the history.

The Bull Tractor Company of Minneapolis, MN, sells more farm tractors than any other brand but has trouble finding a reliable source of engines.

The Toro Motor Company is founded on July 10, 1914 to build tractor engines for The Bull Tractor Company. Although established as an independent company, the name �Toro� is chosen due to the company�s
association with Bull Tractor. Toro co-founder, John Samuel Clapper, becomes the company�s first president. Clapper goes on to serve as president
for 29 years (1914-1943), leading the company through challenging times including a devastating farm depression in the early 1920�s, the Great Depression, and both World Wars. Clapper is active in all phases of the business and earns 16 patents. Under his stewardship, Toro becomes a world leader in the golf and industrial turf management business and begins to tap into the fledging homeowner market.

1945
An investment group led by three young World War II veterans and former Dartmouth classmates � David Lilly, Bob Gibson and Whit Miller � purchase Toro. Long-time Toro vice-president and sales manager Kenneth Goit is named president of the company.

1948
In a move David Lilly would later describe as �one of the best business decisions we ever made,� Toro acquires Whirlwind of Milwaukee, WI, a manufacturer of rotary lawn mowers. Toro engineers design a safer, enclosed rotary mower deck that boosts consumer acceptance and and purchases of the new rotaries.

Hi CyberJack, and a warm welcome to the forum. With your wealth of knowledge of vintage mowers, it certainly is nice to have you aboard.

Already I see that I will have to edit my post on the Beazley Patent as it is not the first rotary, that title belongs to the Miller Patent in 1928....That is great information, and thanks for posting it.

You will find many and varied threads in our archives, some of which may interest you and to which your contribution would be much appreciated.

There is one here on the Victa Model 4 Automatic, that has sparked some interest and debate....Click HERE

I hope you find site navigation easy and once again, welcome to OutdoorKing.

Hello ODK members,

Thank you Deejay for making me welcome here at this wonderful site. I also thank Mr Davis, who suggested I be exposed to a potential wider audience than the great Vintage Mowers site I have posted to over many years.

I share his view that information should be shared, but I am more enamoured by the �first question� that Ty raises: �who was the first to . . . ?� and �Why is that significant?� I guess that's what animates my research. I'm not a collector.

This is the most difficult forum topic to respond to as a newbie because of the broad scope of the responses. It is my view that ODK may need a separate History forum category at some point. I don�t think these topics are simply idle chatter. Anyway, I�m not sure where to start, so I�ll just start.

I would like to challenge the Powerhouse Museum�s assessment of vintage mower history, particularly I would like at some future time to present a clarification of Lawrence Hall�s and Mervyn Victor Richardson�s contribution to it. The Powerhouse has been influential in propagating some myths of early Australian rotary mowers and probably due to no fault of its own. That will have to be another post.

Ty�s mention of the British Rotoscythe is a story in itself and close to my vintage mower heart. Under-appreciated for its advanced design, it remains largely an untold story. Ty�s note that the machine was �not highly manoeuvrable� is so true. It lacked differential action on the roller. Had Power Specialities (and then Shay Limited) realized the significance of their accessory rear side wheels (and removed the rear roller), we could have had a machine as advanced as the VC Victas of the 1970s � high arch, rear catcher, cowled engine.

On that point, the 1928 Miller Patent shows two versions of the cutting arrangement � figures 4 and 5. The Rotoscythe patent of a few years� later used the figure 5 arrangement (the blades were discs mounted on a blade holder). The figure 4 arrangement is essentially the same as is most commonly found on USA machines today � the bar blade.

Note how the bar blade in figure 4 is, in its essence, at the heart of any definition of a rotary mower - It is one piece, but has two opposed scythe blades! In my view, the rotary mower was not revolutionary in its inception � it was a hand scythe that rotated at a fast speed. In other words, it was an invention �waiting to happen�. Nonetheless, its happening caused a revolution in sales.

Likewise, Budding�s reel mower was not revolutionary in its inception. Other �real� heroes would be John Lewis and John Ferrabee in that tale. Nonetheless, its happening caused a revolution.

I found Deejay�s finding of the Beazley Patent a great piece of research, but the more stunning find was the court case between Beazley and his former employee Pearce.

This case represents for me the complexity of determining who invented the rotary mower. That case was won by the defendant because the plaintiff, Beazley, could not establish the third element he asserted was central to his 1929 patent: the fan or air deflecting device.

Today we would define a rotary by two of Beazley�s elements: (1) the horizontally disposed rotatable blade type cutter; (2) the housing having the characteristic of a confined air space open at the bottom adjacent to the ground. The third element, the �deflecting device�, was commonly a part of blade design itself � and that was Beazley�s downfall in the case.

What constitutes a rotary mower is primarily definitional. Below is an example of one I found from 1907. It has Beazley�s first element: (1) the horizontally disposed rotatable blade type cutter. It does not have the second element of an enclosed housing.



Is it a rotary mower? No, it 'cuts' grass rather than slashes it. When one reads the detail one realises that this mower cuts by contra-rotating sickle blades. It is a straight sickle bar mower that has been curved! We have been told that rotaries slash grass, they don�t cut it � only reel mowers do that! So the 1928 Miller 'Pioneer' is the earliest machine I have found to conform to the modern definition I believe constitutes a rotary: horizontal cutter; enclosure; scything or slashing action.

Arguably, Mervyn Richardson's prototype was not a rotary because it lacked an enclosure! He quickly added one though and the Victa rotary mower was born.

I would now like to address Ty�s comments about the importance of timelines. I share Ty�s curiosity about �when certain improvements came about.� I think that is the essence of what animates a vintage mower researcher.

All very thought provoking.
---------------------------------------------
JACK

Oh wow, that is a lot of wonderful information, in regards to the decision yo make this general discussion, that is to just get the information flowing, I will be creating a more defined topic in the long run, but to help keep it accurate and focused, I wanted to get the discussion covered here, as to your post, I will discuss in full shortly, when i'm on a computer, not a phone.

So to discuss in full detail.

Firstly, the aim of this thread, well, what I am hoping to do is create an article comparing the major advancmets Victa made between 1952 and 1975, to the same advancments outside of victa.

Starting with the inception naturally, and discussing what that inception entails, in some senses, Victa's inception combines 3 advancmets, that formed the beginings of the rotary petrol mower.

1, rotating blades working not on a scissor, but a scythe principle, on a spinning horizontal axis.

2, A petrol engine.

3, The engine mounted as so the drive shaft is positioned vertically as opposed to horizontally (in the above patents, this is seen with electric motors, but not petrol)

Adding to this, Victa offered a compact, manoeuvrable and lightweight option, which was, in my opinion, combined with affordability, a major part of it's success.

However, as seen in this thread, these three things had already been combined in the Rotoscythe (Possibly also in the mowhall, however I am unaware of the crankshaft orientation of that machine) the difference in the case of the Rotoscythe, it was large, heavy, cumbersome and expensive.

the patents above show electric machines that satisfy all but the petrol requirement, and further, seem generally light, and simple, however I can't find any evidence of this being applicable to petrol mowers till Victa.

The rotoscythe did seem to have one difference to the modern concept too, to my understanding, it did not work on a 'Vortex' principle for the catcher, and such, is a little different to Victa's later "Hi Arch" as the Hi Arch victa's create an air channel that blows the grass into the catcher, whereas the Rotoscythe has a large open rear, symmetrically, that simply seems to catch grass tossed by the blades.

However, a number of victa's advancments are indeed present in the rotoscythe.

1) 1952 - Rotary Blades
2) 1952 - Petrol Engine
3) 1952 - Vertical Shaft
4) 1953 - Enclosed Blade Area
5) 1960 - Grass Catcher
6) 1963 - Rear Catcher
7) 1964 - Self Propelled
8) 1972 - Internally Driven Wheel

So it was in many, many ways, ahead of Victa.

It seems to me many of Victa's moves forward were indeed simply releasing idea's that had already been conceived, but in ways that made them affordable and easy to use.

From everything I can understand, the Miller patent brings the rotary idea into play, the Beazly brings in the petrol engine, Possibly the rotoscythe brings in the vertical shaft, and it certainly seems to bring in propulsion and rear catchers.

Yes, there were rear accessory wheels for the rotoscythe, however it was still an immense machine, comparable in weight to some cylinder mowers, and similarly in size and the fact it could not be folded.

I am also curios as to governing, Perhaps Grumpy can tell us when briggs first did this. Victa did it unsuccessfully with the Automatic, and successfully in 1967 with the G2 carby, and moved to vacuum governing in 1974.

Briggs engines have had governors since at least the 1920s Ty, as did most stationary engines at the time. For 4 stroke engines they were an essential feature rather than an advanced one. Unlike port-controlled 2 strokes which require careful port design to be able to run fast, 4 strokes will run to their valve-bounce speed unless governed. In WW2, Briggs made small cheap portable generators for the military, using the air vane governor that the side valve engines are still using now.

Probably the key question is when Briggs began making vertical crankshaft engines, with air vane governors, specifically for rotary lawnmowers. The Model 6H seems to have been their first, in 1950. Here is one made in February, 1951:


You can read a little more about its history here:
http://www.gravelyguy.com/briggs--stratton-2.html

I think it is difficult to justify claims that Victas made years later than this were the first rotary lawnmowers.

Well that is some interesting information, dating the governor back to the 20�s certainly pre dates any of Victa�s attempts, and further, it again changes the way we view Victa.

I�m beginning to get a picture of Mervyn as a very innovative thinker, but not necessarily an inventor, and as such, I�m getting the impression that during it�s most innovative years, Victa, as a company, was similar.

Looking at the �Peach Tin� it�s easy to se why in hindsight, some may question why on earth it sparked something so big, at the time, over in America, we can see the rotary had advanced to the point of Briggs and Stratton having already started making 4-stroke engines for the application in 1950, In England, Rotary mowers were already self propelled, with rear catchers. Worldwide there are pre 1950 examples of Lightweight and manageable electric rotary�s, and dating back to the 20�s we see petrol rotary concepts, and governed engines.

So from what I can see, in 1952, Mervyn Victor Richardson did not really invent anything, what he did was take a number of convenient elements from other designs, and combine them selectively to create a popular product.

It is likely that further to this, some of these advancements and patents were very unknown here, idea�s were not readily researchable, however, it is easy to see that it had all been done before in one way or another.

Now I certainly am not trying to tarnish Victa or Mervyn, I just wish to get a clear understanding of the development of the rotary mower.

But overall, I feel that in 1952, what Merv did, was create a Petrol Rotary Mower that was cheaper, lighter and easier to use than had previously been seen in Australia, and in doing so, created a legend.

I wouldn�t mind finding out two more things at this point, 1) when was the first governed 2 stroke, and 2) what advancements and changes did we see during the 30�s & early 40�s (particularly rotoscythe) as there seems to be little discussed so far between the patents of the late 20�s and the adverts of the late 40�s.

You can see a picture and description of a governed 2 stroke from 1917 here:
http://www.srhf.org/Antique-Farm-Engines-at-FHF.pdf

I don't think there is any suggestion that it was the first, it is just one that has been restored and documented.

The history of advancements and patents during and after the Great Depression I will leave to others, especially Cyberjack.

I can't see the 1917 2-stroke, there seems to be a number of four strokes, and one 1936 Maytag 2 stroke, but either way, this does indeed predate Victa.