CA1161211A - Curling brush - Google Patents
Curling brushInfo
- Publication number
- CA1161211A CA1161211A CA000364777A CA364777A CA1161211A CA 1161211 A CA1161211 A CA 1161211A CA 000364777 A CA000364777 A CA 000364777A CA 364777 A CA364777 A CA 364777A CA 1161211 A CA1161211 A CA 1161211A
- Authority
- CA
- Canada
- Prior art keywords
- brush
- curling
- mantle
- specified
- stone
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Expired
Links
Landscapes
- Brushes (AREA)
Abstract
ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE
The conventional curling brush is designed purely to add to the distance and control of the curling rock by raising the temperature of the ice in the path of the rock by frictional means. In this invention aerodynamic principles and electro-static effects are used to supplement the effect of friction.
The rock is already an airfoil. In this invention the brush is also shaped as an airfoil and a mechanism to rush air between the rock and the brush. In addition electrostatic charges built up in the process of sweeping at near freezing temperatures are also utilized.
The conventional curling brush is designed purely to add to the distance and control of the curling rock by raising the temperature of the ice in the path of the rock by frictional means. In this invention aerodynamic principles and electro-static effects are used to supplement the effect of friction.
The rock is already an airfoil. In this invention the brush is also shaped as an airfoil and a mechanism to rush air between the rock and the brush. In addition electrostatic charges built up in the process of sweeping at near freezing temperatures are also utilized.
Description
This invention relates to an improvement in the con-ventional curling brush so that it performs the same two functions as a curling broom. Brooms are modifications of the kitchen broom.
Brushes are miniturized janitors' push brooms. Among curlers the relative attributes of the two devices is a source of endless debate. The generally accepted purpose for either device is that it melts the ice in the path of the stone thereby lengthening the shot or restricting the amounts it curls (curves~, not that they pull .
As background eight 42-pound stones are played by each of two four-man teams to complete an end (inning). Games usually are 8 or 10 ends The object is to throw your stones about 130 feet to the center of a 12-foot target. Only stones closer to center than any opponents stones count. They must also at least touch the outside circle which has a 12-foot diameter.
Stones are always thrown to revolve one way or the other because the coùrse of a straight stone is unpredicable-they pick up turns. Sweeping is an effort to correct the st~ne's path.
Players can sweep the length of the sheet except that the two players in the house are the only ones allowed to sweep the last six feet. However, the~ can sweep both their own and their opponent's stones. Under desirable ice conditions an average sweeper may make 6 to 8 feet difference in length or about a foot difference in curl. A new rule permits sweeping in any direction instead of across the path. This adds to the variety of sweeping patterns. Other variables include: (1) length and speed, (2) ability to sweep from either side, (3) more power on the push or pull stroke, and (4) the downward pressure applied. This means that minor design fluctuations are necessary to accomodate dif-ferent styles.
It can easily be established that a broom has the addi-tional capacity ~o create a vacuum and pull a rock along while presently designed brushes have an insignificant effect. Make a ring out o a sheet of cardboard or styrofoam somewhere near the dimensions of the curling stone which is 36 inches in circumference and 4.5 inches high. Sweep with the hand over the rock with even a kitchen broom and notice that the object sucks forward. This experiment is valid because the stone being swept in competition is in motion on a nearly frictionless surface-a sort of linear fly-wheel. Sweeping therefore need not overcome the inertia of a 42-pound chunk of granite; it must keep the "flywheel" going. The force of your little finger along can add 6 to 8 inches to a die-ing stone. Experiments to date on my airfoil designs lead me to believe that another two feet in length is probable. I would estimate the reduction in curl at something over an inch. These differences seem insignificant unless you realize that games are won and lost by 1/16 of an inch. All clubs have special measuring devices accurate to about 1~64".
The object of my invention is to shape the curling brush head so that it uses aerodynamic (Bernculli's) principles to pro-duce the vacuum creating attribu~es inherent in a curling broom with both the curling stone and the brush head acting as airfoils.
It is a further object of my invention to utilize boundry-layer control to enhance the lift factor. It is a further object of my invention to offset the airfoil to insure that the brushing friction and the aerodynamic pull are not working at cross purposes.
LZ~
It is a further object of my invention to permit sweeping from either side. It is a further ob~ect of my invention to accomodate diagonal or on-the-line sweeping by louvering the broom so air is pushed during half the stroke only. It is a final object of my invention to utilize surfaces that build up electrostatic charges to attract the rock and utilize all the kinetic energy of the brushing motion.
The invention resides in designing a mantle for the curl-ing brush that will create the vacuum or lift produced by airplane wings, sails, etc. It further resides in recognizing the nuances of good sweeping so that ice melting and aerodynamic pulling complement each other. It further resides in adapting the brush to diagonal and on-the-line sweeping. It finally resides in recognizing the inherent properties of certain materials to enhance the effectiveness of the device.
No prior art is referenced because none was located in the search by a patent attorney. Patents on brooms were found but none on brushes. Innovations I have seen, which probably were not patented, had to do with varying the handle angle or utilizing
Brushes are miniturized janitors' push brooms. Among curlers the relative attributes of the two devices is a source of endless debate. The generally accepted purpose for either device is that it melts the ice in the path of the stone thereby lengthening the shot or restricting the amounts it curls (curves~, not that they pull .
As background eight 42-pound stones are played by each of two four-man teams to complete an end (inning). Games usually are 8 or 10 ends The object is to throw your stones about 130 feet to the center of a 12-foot target. Only stones closer to center than any opponents stones count. They must also at least touch the outside circle which has a 12-foot diameter.
Stones are always thrown to revolve one way or the other because the coùrse of a straight stone is unpredicable-they pick up turns. Sweeping is an effort to correct the st~ne's path.
Players can sweep the length of the sheet except that the two players in the house are the only ones allowed to sweep the last six feet. However, the~ can sweep both their own and their opponent's stones. Under desirable ice conditions an average sweeper may make 6 to 8 feet difference in length or about a foot difference in curl. A new rule permits sweeping in any direction instead of across the path. This adds to the variety of sweeping patterns. Other variables include: (1) length and speed, (2) ability to sweep from either side, (3) more power on the push or pull stroke, and (4) the downward pressure applied. This means that minor design fluctuations are necessary to accomodate dif-ferent styles.
It can easily be established that a broom has the addi-tional capacity ~o create a vacuum and pull a rock along while presently designed brushes have an insignificant effect. Make a ring out o a sheet of cardboard or styrofoam somewhere near the dimensions of the curling stone which is 36 inches in circumference and 4.5 inches high. Sweep with the hand over the rock with even a kitchen broom and notice that the object sucks forward. This experiment is valid because the stone being swept in competition is in motion on a nearly frictionless surface-a sort of linear fly-wheel. Sweeping therefore need not overcome the inertia of a 42-pound chunk of granite; it must keep the "flywheel" going. The force of your little finger along can add 6 to 8 inches to a die-ing stone. Experiments to date on my airfoil designs lead me to believe that another two feet in length is probable. I would estimate the reduction in curl at something over an inch. These differences seem insignificant unless you realize that games are won and lost by 1/16 of an inch. All clubs have special measuring devices accurate to about 1~64".
The object of my invention is to shape the curling brush head so that it uses aerodynamic (Bernculli's) principles to pro-duce the vacuum creating attribu~es inherent in a curling broom with both the curling stone and the brush head acting as airfoils.
It is a further object of my invention to utilize boundry-layer control to enhance the lift factor. It is a further object of my invention to offset the airfoil to insure that the brushing friction and the aerodynamic pull are not working at cross purposes.
LZ~
It is a further object of my invention to permit sweeping from either side. It is a further ob~ect of my invention to accomodate diagonal or on-the-line sweeping by louvering the broom so air is pushed during half the stroke only. It is a final object of my invention to utilize surfaces that build up electrostatic charges to attract the rock and utilize all the kinetic energy of the brushing motion.
The invention resides in designing a mantle for the curl-ing brush that will create the vacuum or lift produced by airplane wings, sails, etc. It further resides in recognizing the nuances of good sweeping so that ice melting and aerodynamic pulling complement each other. It further resides in adapting the brush to diagonal and on-the-line sweeping. It finally resides in recognizing the inherent properties of certain materials to enhance the effectiveness of the device.
No prior art is referenced because none was located in the search by a patent attorney. Patents on brooms were found but none on brushes. Innovations I have seen, which probably were not patented, had to do with varying the handle angle or utilizing
2.0 plastic bristles. I know of nothing in the art that relates to the concepts embodied in this patent.
Figure 1 is an isometric drawing representing the basic brush/mantle combination with an offset. The two airfoil planes are 1 and 2. The front and back of the mantle are 4 and 3 respec-tively. The handle of the brush is 5 and the brush itself is 6.
The mantle can be an inherent part of the brush or an attachment.
In Figure 1 the apex of the two airfoil surfaces 1 and 2 are offset a ~ew inches to the rear of the brush itself. Some -- 3 ~
~ o sweepers would prefer it centered over the brush. EIowever, many sweepers believe in sweeping slightly off center to favor the biting edge. One edge, due to the spin is going faster than the stone itself. The other is going slower. If the sweeper can slicken the path of this slower edge, they feel they can minimize or delay the curl. For these sweepers an offset is necessary to keep the airfoil action in front of the stone or even to the far side to make this a complementary straightening force. Obviously, by sweeping from the proper side the brush can be used for either turn (spin).
Two other concepts can best be grasped from Figure 1.
; Both brooms and brushes are conventionally held in the non-throwing arm during the delivery to aid the player's balance. Usually the broom or brush rests on the ice. With an offset the front of the brush is available or this purposeO A large centered mantle might interfere. Then either a sliding surface would have to be mounted on the other end of the han~le or the mantle would have to be movable. This is the second concept. The mantle could be slid up off the top of the broom handle. It c~uld also be 50 shaped and drilled to be twisted or even mounted up side down for more versatility.
Figure 2 is a top view of the mantle and brush shown in Figure 1 with surfaces 3 and 4 slightly more rounded. Figure 3 and Figure 4 are also top views showing the other basic shapes of a brush that could be used from either side. Figure 3 shows a shape of the mantle in which the mantle has two indented portions midway between the two curved surfaces, one opening forwardly and the other rearwardly. Figure 5 illustrates the shape of a mantle that could only be used from one side, having onl~ one curvedsurface facing outwardly and away from the brush head at one end of the brush portion of the curling brush. This is shown as off-set, but centered might be more popular. However, since you have two sweepers, you can vary who sweeps closest to the rock. With an offset this model would be useful next to the rock on one turn only. As second sweeper the brush can not create any aerodynamic pull anyway. This is the reason I would ascribe to the fact that on controlled tests one broomer can beat one brusher, but two brushers can beat two broomers. Conventional thought is that the brushes can be used closer together. I contend the second broom has lost its aerodynamic advantage.
To give some idea of scale the sweeping area of a brush varies, but 2" by 8" is a practical average. Figures 6 and 7 show only half a brush to keep the drawings simple. Figure 6 is a side view. A hollowed out well and holes 7 connecting the well to the airfoil sur~ace are shown, The back and forth motion of the brush pulls air in through the holes 7 adding to the vacuum effect of the airfoil. The front view, Figure 7, illustrates that an irregu-lar shaped well could be used rather than a pure conic section.Figure 7 also shows that the airfoil 2 need not be perpendicular to the ice surface. It can slant or curve over the stone giving vertical lift.
Figure 8 illustrates a simple mechanical louver arrange-ment that would allow the use of angular or on-the-line sweeping strokes. It could be used alone since the curling stone is an airfoil in its own right. However, the louvers could be combined with other shapes particularly the wasp-waisted version, Figure 3, Zl ~
Air will be pushed on the out stroke and allowed passage on the return stroke, so that the two strokes don't just cancel each other out.
While not illustrated, styrofoam and saran wrap are two examples of materials that build up an electrostatic charge when in motion in a cold environment.
Figure 1 is an isometric drawing representing the basic brush/mantle combination with an offset. The two airfoil planes are 1 and 2. The front and back of the mantle are 4 and 3 respec-tively. The handle of the brush is 5 and the brush itself is 6.
The mantle can be an inherent part of the brush or an attachment.
In Figure 1 the apex of the two airfoil surfaces 1 and 2 are offset a ~ew inches to the rear of the brush itself. Some -- 3 ~
~ o sweepers would prefer it centered over the brush. EIowever, many sweepers believe in sweeping slightly off center to favor the biting edge. One edge, due to the spin is going faster than the stone itself. The other is going slower. If the sweeper can slicken the path of this slower edge, they feel they can minimize or delay the curl. For these sweepers an offset is necessary to keep the airfoil action in front of the stone or even to the far side to make this a complementary straightening force. Obviously, by sweeping from the proper side the brush can be used for either turn (spin).
Two other concepts can best be grasped from Figure 1.
; Both brooms and brushes are conventionally held in the non-throwing arm during the delivery to aid the player's balance. Usually the broom or brush rests on the ice. With an offset the front of the brush is available or this purposeO A large centered mantle might interfere. Then either a sliding surface would have to be mounted on the other end of the han~le or the mantle would have to be movable. This is the second concept. The mantle could be slid up off the top of the broom handle. It c~uld also be 50 shaped and drilled to be twisted or even mounted up side down for more versatility.
Figure 2 is a top view of the mantle and brush shown in Figure 1 with surfaces 3 and 4 slightly more rounded. Figure 3 and Figure 4 are also top views showing the other basic shapes of a brush that could be used from either side. Figure 3 shows a shape of the mantle in which the mantle has two indented portions midway between the two curved surfaces, one opening forwardly and the other rearwardly. Figure 5 illustrates the shape of a mantle that could only be used from one side, having onl~ one curvedsurface facing outwardly and away from the brush head at one end of the brush portion of the curling brush. This is shown as off-set, but centered might be more popular. However, since you have two sweepers, you can vary who sweeps closest to the rock. With an offset this model would be useful next to the rock on one turn only. As second sweeper the brush can not create any aerodynamic pull anyway. This is the reason I would ascribe to the fact that on controlled tests one broomer can beat one brusher, but two brushers can beat two broomers. Conventional thought is that the brushes can be used closer together. I contend the second broom has lost its aerodynamic advantage.
To give some idea of scale the sweeping area of a brush varies, but 2" by 8" is a practical average. Figures 6 and 7 show only half a brush to keep the drawings simple. Figure 6 is a side view. A hollowed out well and holes 7 connecting the well to the airfoil sur~ace are shown, The back and forth motion of the brush pulls air in through the holes 7 adding to the vacuum effect of the airfoil. The front view, Figure 7, illustrates that an irregu-lar shaped well could be used rather than a pure conic section.Figure 7 also shows that the airfoil 2 need not be perpendicular to the ice surface. It can slant or curve over the stone giving vertical lift.
Figure 8 illustrates a simple mechanical louver arrange-ment that would allow the use of angular or on-the-line sweeping strokes. It could be used alone since the curling stone is an airfoil in its own right. However, the louvers could be combined with other shapes particularly the wasp-waisted version, Figure 3, Zl ~
Air will be pushed on the out stroke and allowed passage on the return stroke, so that the two strokes don't just cancel each other out.
While not illustrated, styrofoam and saran wrap are two examples of materials that build up an electrostatic charge when in motion in a cold environment.
Claims (7)
PROPERTY OF PRIVILEGE IS CLAIMED ARE DEFINED AS FOLLOWS:
1. A curling brush for sweeping ice to affect the movement of a thrown curling stone, the curling brush comprising:
(a) a handle adapted to be grasped by a user in pushing and pulling the curling brush over the ice; and (b) a brush head having a brush portion and a mantle portion having a generally vertically extending curved surface adapted to function as an air foil and create a slight vacuum relative to ambient atmospheric pressure beside the brush head as the curling brush is pushed and pulled over the ice.
(a) a handle adapted to be grasped by a user in pushing and pulling the curling brush over the ice; and (b) a brush head having a brush portion and a mantle portion having a generally vertically extending curved surface adapted to function as an air foil and create a slight vacuum relative to ambient atmospheric pressure beside the brush head as the curling brush is pushed and pulled over the ice.
2. The curling brush specified in Claim 1 wherein the mantle portion is removably attached to one of the brush portion and the handle.
3. The curling brush specified in Claim 1 wherein the brush portion has front and rear sides, the handle inclines toward the rear side of the brush portion, and the mantle portion is offset toward the rearward side of the brush portion.
4. The curling brush specified in Claim 1 wherein the mantle portion has two curved surfaces one facing outwardly and away from the brush head at each end of the brush portion, whereupon a slight vacuum may be created between the brush head and the curling stone when the brush head is moved back and forth in front of the curling stone without regard to which side of the path of the curling stone the user of the curling brush is standing.
5. The curling brush specified in Claim 4 wherein the mantle portion has two indented portions midway between the two curved surfaces, one opening forwardly and one rearwardly.
6. The curling brush specified in Claim 1 wherein the mantle portion has one curved surface facing outwardly and away from the brush head at one end of the brush portion.
7. The curling brush specified in Claim 1 wherein the mantle includes an upwardly opening cavity and air passage holes extending from the curved surface to the cavity.
Priority Applications (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA000364777A CA1161211A (en) | 1980-11-17 | 1980-11-17 | Curling brush |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA000364777A CA1161211A (en) | 1980-11-17 | 1980-11-17 | Curling brush |
Publications (1)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CA1161211A true CA1161211A (en) | 1984-01-31 |
Family
ID=4118455
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA000364777A Expired CA1161211A (en) | 1980-11-17 | 1980-11-17 | Curling brush |
Country Status (1)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| CA (1) | CA1161211A (en) |
Cited By (1)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WO2020102848A1 (en) * | 2018-11-22 | 2020-05-28 | Aero-Tech Pty Ltd | Downforce sweeper |
-
1980
- 1980-11-17 CA CA000364777A patent/CA1161211A/en not_active Expired
Cited By (1)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WO2020102848A1 (en) * | 2018-11-22 | 2020-05-28 | Aero-Tech Pty Ltd | Downforce sweeper |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| US2710753A (en) | Projectile catching and throwing device | |
| US7618330B2 (en) | Golf club | |
| US5290039A (en) | Ball throwing and catching scoop | |
| US8028684B1 (en) | Device and method of throwing objects | |
| US5133555A (en) | Golf putter | |
| WO2001049375A1 (en) | A compliant face golf club | |
| EP0510126A1 (en) | Paddle game using suction cup projectile | |
| US6267697B1 (en) | Hockey stick with triangular handle and multiple bending planes | |
| US20060196162A1 (en) | Ergonomic rake | |
| US3909977A (en) | Noise-making clapper | |
| US5674141A (en) | Broomball broom | |
| AU2006226178A1 (en) | A method and apparatus for throwing and catching | |
| CA1161211A (en) | Curling brush | |
| JP4290885B2 (en) | Boomerang and launcher | |
| US3341202A (en) | Golf club | |
| US4326714A (en) | Game implement | |
| US4368890A (en) | Paddle game apparatus | |
| US4595205A (en) | Jai-alai cesta | |
| US4506885A (en) | Exercising device and method | |
| US3326554A (en) | Golf club including arcuate grip means | |
| US1946373A (en) | Bat | |
| CN201168397Y (en) | Holding type table tennis bat with clip | |
| US1262060A (en) | Toy gun. | |
| CN204996088U (en) | Table tennis bat with pen -hold grip | |
| NL1009357C1 (en) | Construction of tennis racquet |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| MKEX | Expiry |