Page images


mented and unfermented size were cooked the same length of time.

Mr. I should say they were.
Mr. KNIGHT. How long were they cooked?

Sometimes we put our size in as much as an hour.

Mr. Knight. Mr. President, I have had experience on gray goods with both fermented and unfermented starch, potato starch and corn-starch; and I think about all that any of us care to get from a sizing is something that will lay the fibres of the yarn, something that will stick to the yarn while it is weaving. I find that the longer we boil our size, the better it is. I have not been able to find the limit. cook our sizing perhaps an hour and a half or two hours. We have two kettles to a slasher, and keep one boiling until the other is used up; and if we do not boil our sizing, we find right away that there is trouble, but if we cook the sizing a longer time, an hour and a half or two hours, - and I would rather cook it

two hours than an hour and a half, we get the best results. We cook it until it gets thin, and has that blue appearance with which you are familiar. I think you will find that there won't be a great deal of difference between fermented and unfermented, if you boil it long enough. It does not chafe off at the slasher, and does not shed on the floor. I do not think you

will have any more trouble with your harness or in the weaveroom. I think corn-starch will go as far as potato starch, and potato starch as far as corn-starch ; but we use corn-starch because it costs less money. The advantage we get by using dressine on the two slashers for sixteen hundred looms is that the acid keeps the rolls clean in the sizing box, and also keeps the cylinders clean, enabling us to dry the yarn.

I also think the acid takes the place of fermentation. Fermentation produces acetic acid, which causes the starch to dissolve more readily. With dressine, the same result is obtained without the disagreeable features attending fermentation. Nothing else

we have used has helped us at all, and I am inclined to think that under ordinary circumstances starch and water is as good as anything, with perbaps a little tallow. I have tried glue, putting in a pound or two of glue; and, as I said, we all thought we derived some benefit from it for a while, but after a while we found no difference, and abandoned it.

Mr. MESSENGER. Does Mr. Knight continue boiling his size in the size-box while it is running after boiling two hours?

Mr. KNIGHT. Yes, boil all the time; keep it hot.

QUESTION. Do you use any acid or vitriol to cut the tallow or impregnate the yarn?

Mr. KNIGHT. No, sir.
QUESTION. You do not consider it necessary ?

Mr. KNIGHT. No, sir. We keep it agitated all the while that it is in the kettle while the sizing is being cooked, and after that it is put into the size-box over the boiler, where the boiling continues the agitation; and we use it there.

A MEMBER. My experience has been very much like that of Mr. KNIGHT. At first our boiler boiled the starch for an hour and a half, until that blue appearance came that he speaks of. Some gentlemen have spoken of tallow and dressine. I am using what I have not heard mentioned, — whalesfoot, and also a small quantity of turpentine in each kettle, because I got the impression, whether right or not, that it kept the yarn from sticking on the cylinder, and made it easier to penetrate. I may possibly be wrong, but with me it appeared to be a good thing. I thought I got better results with it than I did without it; but I think the secret of the thing is in boiling it a proper length of time, until that blue appearance comes into it.

A MEMBER. I used unfermented size. The difference in the product was not very much, but there was in the way the goods were handled, and in relation to the condition of the harness, and the looms did not run as well with unfermented as with fermented.

The PRESIDENT. Can you tell how much flyings you get from the loom, and the product of the loom with unfermented sizing ? Mr.

I think better results come from fermented sizing than from unfermented. It occurred to me that one point is perhaps established in reference to the matter by the remarks that have been brought out, and that was this, that fermented size does not need to be boiled as much as unfermented, for the boiling of the sizing takes the place of the fermentation. That is a point worth knowing, as Mr. KNIGHT has said ; but in the experiments I tried I ran one set of looms on fermented size and the other on unfermented, and I boiled them the same time. Certainly there was a decided difference in that respect; for the harnesses would be all clogged up with the unfermented, while they were running perfectly clear with the fermented. I do not know that I have answered your question now, Mr. President. I could not tell the difference in the flyings.

The PRESIDENT. I wanted to get a statement, if I could, of the amount of flyings made per loom, and the product per loom. We are producing about thirty-five pounds of cloth per loom of the various kinds of cloth, and make less than four ounces of flying per week per loom, using unfermented potato starch, with no dressine whatever.

A gentleman then asked the President in reference to the members obtaining a copy of Mr. SHELDON's paper. The President stated that it was in the hands of the printer, and it had been expected that it would be read at the meeting; it would appear in the report of the proceedings of this

Mr. E. S. DRAPER. I move you, Mr. President extend a vote of thanks to Colonel FRANCIS and 1 for their papers which have been read here to-day. we have all been very much interested. Carried.

Upon motion of Mr. MCARTHUR, it was voto member have a copy of the paper of Mr. SHELDO published in the report.




As your secretary remarked in his letter inviting me to present a paper upon the above subject, power and speed are certainly matters of vital importance in cotton manufacturing, and would seem to offer an ample field for statement and discussion. And yet I cannot pretend to be able to present to a body of practical manufacturers like this one anything in the shape of information or novelty, especially in a paper prepared, as this must be, in a broken manner, in the midst of the exacting demands of business, and therefore compelled to rely for material entirely upon such data as I have obtained in the regular course of my work.

In looking over some of my older notes, it has occurred to me that it might be interesting to take a glance in retrospection at the subject of power, speed and production, and make some comparisons between our modern mills and those of a few years ago, and remind ourselves of the great changes that have transpired in these respects within two decades. It may not be instructive, but may afford some light recreation and professional satisfaction at the results which have been accomplished by the ingenuity of New England inventors, and the untiring zeal and application which are indisputably the characteristics of the New England cotton manufacturer.

In the close competition demanded in cotton manufacturing to-day, the test question applied to everything is, Will it pay?

There is one exception to this rule, however: when it is a question of larger product of yarn by higher speed at the expense of more power, the manufacturer does not stop to ask, What will it cost? In relative importance for economy of production, speed easily outranks power.

The vital point of importance in regard to power is not, as it is in the labor item, to get along with the least possible amount and at the lowest possible cost. The main thing is to have the power and speed, with absolute certainty and in ample quantity, every minute and hour and day of the year. Probably this truism has been most emphatically appreciated during the past dry season by those manufacturers who have water-power mills with insufficient or no auxiliary steam power; and I venture to say that there are not a few of these who, looking ruefully at the weekly reports of diminished product and consequent increased cost, have felt that if they could only have the power, they would not ask whether it took 1.5 pounds or 5.1 pounds of coal per horse-power to get it.

Every manufacturer knows very well that in the cost of making cotton cloth the cost of the power is the least important of all the items. Labor ranks first, interest and depreciation second, supplies third and power fourth. For economical production, therefore, it is the correct principle to pay the greater attention to the reduction of the three larger items, even though it involves the increase of the smaller one. Increase of speed of spindles is by far the most effectual factor in obtaining this result; and hence it is that any increase of speed that can be obtained without other disadvantages is in the line of economy, regardless of the increased cost of power it may involve. The items of labor and interest and depreciation together are from five to eight times as large as the power item in the best steam mill. The limit to speed, therefore, will not be in the cost of power, but in the capacity of the machines to do good work without increased waste, or excessive wear and tear which shall begin to count too heavily in the item of depreciation. These observations apply of course to the spinning department only.

« PreviousContinue »