1. Field of the Invention
The invention relates to ball-and-socket type, internally-connected fluid pipe joints, particularly when used as nozzle coupling units.
2. Description of the Related Act, Including Information Disclosed Under 37 CFR .sctn..sctn. 1.97-1.99.
Ball-and-socket joints for fluid pipes, conduits and the like are known to the art. They have been used in a variety of environments to provide substantially universal pivotal movement of the connected members. In many places such joints are required to withstand great flow pressures. In the case of ball-and-socket joints of an early vintage, the friction and binding which was occasioned between the parts by the great internal pressure was such as to make the joint rigid and difficult to operate. In such joints, the direct engagement of the ball-and-socket joint parts was depended upon to hold the parts in proper relation.
To attempt to solve that problem, a number of various ball-and-socket joint constructions were devised. These constructions featured a variety of internal and externally applied joining or coupling devices for holding the ball and socket members in engagement against the internal pressure tending to separate them, while affording relatively free movement of the ball means within the socket. See, e.g., Hawley, U.S. Pat. No. 840,325 (external device); Phillips, U.S. Pat. No. 866,061 (internal device); Forth, U.S. Pat. No. 950,665 (internal device); Koenig, U.S. Pat. No. 979,513 (internal device); Forth, U.S. Pat. No. 1,145,578 (internal/external device); Norris, U.S. Pat. No. 2,080,500 (internal/external device); Morse, et al. U.S. Pat. No. 2,921,803 (internal device); and Tracy, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 2,761,701 (internal device).
While these constructions were alleged to alleviate the difficulty in adjustment of the joint, particularly where high pressure flows were encountered, those difficulties continued. The curvative devices had to be configured so as to take just the right degree of strain off the ball-and-socket, yet provide sufficient fit to avoid leakage. This was especially the case where it was desired that the joint be maintained in a fixed orientation after adjustment. The known constructions favored continual adjustment, having no means whatever to lock in or maintain a desired orientation after it had been obtained.
The only structure that presented an undisclosed potential for maintaining a desired orientation was that of Forth U.S. Pat. No. 1,145,578. Theoretically, one might have been able to tighten, with an appropriate tool, confining nut 6 sufficiently so that spiral spring 7 would exert enough force to hold member 4 in a desired orientation with respect to member 2. The force of fluid flow, however, is always parallel to bolt 5 in Forth's structure, and hence parallel to the direction of restraining force exerted by spring 7. It thus would always be attempting to overcome the bias of the spring, which would occur with greater ease as the age of the device increased and the spring's force diminished. This would result in alteration of the relative position of members 2 and 4 and loss of the desired orientation.
Even if one had attempted to lock the Forth device into a desired orientation, tools and time would always be necessary to go from a first, locked-in orientation of members 2 and 4 to a second, locked-in orientation. Continued tightening and untightening of confining nut 6 would also hasten the aging and weakening of spring 7, making loss of the desired orientation all the more probable.
The known internal devices for holding the ball and socket members in engagement against the internal pressure also were susceptible to failure in continued, high pressure service. The internal devices, at their points of pivoting and rotation, presented a substantial impediment to fluid flow. This transmitted substantial forces to the pivoting and rotating members, both directly and through flexure or bending of the bolt or rod means used to hold the ball and socket members together. Failures of such devices were known, with often catastrophic separation of the ball and socket members. Moreover, use of these internal devices required a higher inlet pressure to the joint than would otherwise be necessary to maintain a desired outlet pressure, a plainly undesirable attribute.
None of the engagement-device-equipped ball and socket fluid pipe joints presented means for defeating the internal pressure-induced movement of the entire joint itself, with respect to the surrounding environment. In instances where these joints communicated directly to the environment through either their ball or socket member (though such communication through the ball member was more prevalent), such as where a nozzle was attached to the downstream side of the ball means, the escaping fluid, driven by the now-released internal pressure, would through reaction thereto drive, move or ofttimes "fly" the joint about. The extreme danger of such an occurrence is readily apparent, but was overcome only by the expedient of having individuals physically hold the joint against such movement. No other means for securing such a fluid pipe joint to the environment were known--particularly where the flexibility of securing and releasing said joint quickly was desired or necessary.
In addition, direct communication to the environment, such as by a nozzle, produced internal reaction forces which the engagement-device-equipped ball and socket fluid pipe joint had to withstand while operating. Adjustment of the joint when fluid was flowing to the environment was impossible because of the internal back-pressure or reactive forces. And, once again, such joints would ofttimes fail catastrophically by disengagement of the ball and socket or internal engagement devices.
There was a need in the art, therefore, for a ball-and-socket type fluid pipe joint which could overcome these shortcomings. An optimum device would present the following characteristics, in combination, not presented by known devices:
1. the ball-and-socket joint would be provided with internal means to hold the members of the joint in engagement against internal pressure tending to cause their separation, which means would themselves resist pressure-induced flexure, bending and failure at their pivot/rotation points;
2. the ball-and-socket joint would be capable of being locked into a desired ball-to-socket orientation, without the need for tools, and without relying upon locking or biasing forces exerted in a direction parallel to that of fluid flow through said joint;
3. the ball-and-socket joint would be capable of rapid unlocking, movement to a new, desired ball-to-socket orienation, and relocking, even while under fluid flow to an environment; and
4. the ball-and-socket joint would be capable of rapid, releasable securement to means in an environment, without the need for tools, and without hampering or restricting its capability of being locked into a desired ball-to-socket orientation, rapidly adjustable to a second, desired ball-to-socket orientation without release from the environment.
No known ball-and-socket type device is extant, particularly no such device capable of functioning as a nozzle coupling unit, in which the socket member is provided with a hose or other source of fluid, and the ball member is provided with a nozzle for dispensing or dispersing the fluid into an environment.
USPTO Backgrounds
USPTO Backgrounds