given out in the picker room, where the girders gave way; therefore I should judge that it was a pretty good system to have the driving power in the middle of the mill. There are 20,000 spindles in that mill, and they have been running ever since 1853.

Mr. KILBURN. Mr. President, it may not be out of order for me to state that, years ago, we did not put upon the ordinary shafting more than one-third the load it was capable of bearing. I think the rule followed years ago by A. D. LOCKWOOD, of obtaining the power of shafting, was to cube the diameter, divide by the velocity in revolution, and multiply by 100. To-day in using ordinary shafting we usually divide by 33. The way ordinary shafting is made to-day, it is capable of bearing three times the load that was formerly put upon it. A cold rolled iron or cold rolled steel shafting is capable of bearing twice as much as ordinary iron; or, fall a little below that, and call it 17 to 1. I see Mr. KNIGHT of the Amory Mills here to-day. He can tell us what the result has been by the use of shafting in that mill, some of which is smaller than I have spoken of.

In

Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. President, I can only say that the transmission of power in the Amory Mill is very satisfactory. The only peculiarity that I have noticed in the spinning room is that the shafting runs at very high speed, enabling us to use very large pulleys on the frames. We use a fourteen-inch pulley to drive 240 spindles; and we have no slipping of belts. one of our mills we put in some spinning frames very similar to those in the Amory Mill, and both run 9,000 revolutions on No. 28 yarn. We did not get the yarn per spindle, that we did in the Amory Mill; very much to my surprise. On inquiry into the cause, I found that, as the bobbin was filled, the load became heavier on the spindles, and the belts were slipping. We did not get the speed on the front rolls that we did when they began with empty bobbins. The size of the frame-pulley, there, was nine inches. The pulley on shafting was something like 34 inches, I think, in diameter; but passed up through the floor onto the nine-inch pulley; as you see,

covering only a small part of the circumference of the nine-inch pulley. In the Amory Mill we have no trouble of that kind. The slipping of belts, or anything of that kind, is almost an unheard-of thing.

Mr. Wм. J. KENT. Mr. President, when I was at the Grinnell Mill we had our belts all at one end; and we were thereby enabled to raise them up and get rid of the dirt, and passed the belt through the belt hole from one room to another. Mr. BOURNE. Mr. President, I would like to inquire about the cold rolled shaft. I have had a little experience, and my experience has not been wholly satisfactory. I put in some a number of years ago. Whether I have had poor luck, or not,

I cannot say.

Mr. KILBURN. Mr. President, I would say, as the result of my experience, that I occasionally get a poor shaft made of cold rolled iron; and when I do I send it back to the manufacturers and tell them to send me a new one, and I get it.

The PRESIDENT. We had a steel shaft in one of our mills that broke, and was renewed, several times; finally we got disgusted with it, and threw it out, and put in its place a common iron shaft of the same size, which has given us no trouble.

Mr. KILBURN. I have not been troubled with the iron shaft. The brittleness of the steel shaft makes it objectionable, and I have avoided its use; but I have found extreme satisfaction in the use of the cold rolled iron, as far as my experience has

gone.

Mr. MESSENGER. Mr. President, I presume the first cost of shafting would be considerable, would it not?.

Mr. KILBURN. Of course the less shafting, the easier it is

to run.

Mr. PARKER. It does not seem to me that the advantage of taking power into the end of the mill has been proven. On the other hand, I think that, as mills are belted to-day,—and no one perhaps would think of building a mill without putting the belting within a closed room or belt tower, there is just as much light cut off from the machinery as if the belts were taken in at the centre or the engine room, and the belt tower

were placed in the centre of the mill, rather than at the end. At a mill in Lawrence there is a belt tower about 12 feet square that contains all the belts which drive the mill; requiring about 1,200 horse-power. Those belts enter the mill horizontally, without interfering with the running of the machinery. Possibly there is a little trouble in arranging the counter-belts which are needed near these main belts; but aside from that there is no interference, and there is no trouble whatever in bringing the belts in where they belong, and getting power on the main shafting. The suggestion that the shafting would have to be larger if the power enters at one end of the mill is a vital one; making the shafting cost more than it would if you should take your power in at the centre of the mill, especially where the power at the centre of the mill can be quickly distributed from that point. Several mills that I am acquainted with have the picking department, for instance, at the opposite end of the mill from where the engines are; and a very large amount of power has to be taken over a large shaft the whole length of the mill. There, of course, the application of the power at the centre of the mill or nearer the picker room would be of obvious advantage; but as mills are ordinarily arranged, or, we will say, with the best arrangement that it is possible to make, there is no doubt in my mind that the shafting could be placed in a mill for less money where the power was taken in at the centre than at the end; and I cannot see how there would be any less light in the mill so arranged. In the case of the Lawrence mill the shaft runs across the mill, and the belts are run with a quarter turn; and where the belts enter the different rooms they run over carrier pulleys. We have never had any trouble with these belts. All are 20 inches wide, and two of them over 240 feet in length; and they have run eight years.

A MEMBER. What percentage of the total power is used in driving the shafting and loose pulleys, belts, etc.?

Mr. PARKER. I cannot give any figures for that mill; but I can quote from a paper which Mr. SHELDON should have read here at the last meeting, where he states that the least friction

which he has ever found in a mill is 22 per cent. of the total power, and the largest friction he has ever found in a mill he states as 39 per cent. The average friction for shafting, etc., probably would range somewhere between 23 and 30 per cent. I should not think a mill was running excessively heavy if the friction load was 30 per cent. of the total load. I should think it was very light if it ran as low as 22 per cent. I see several mill engineers here, and I would like to hear from them.

Mr. JOHN KILBURN. I do not think that Mr. SHELDON'S calculations are of any value unless the two mills are doing exactly the same work, running exactly alike.

Mr. KNIGHT. I would say to Mr. PARKER, that our shafts, pulleys, etc., were tested by Mr. MANNING a week ago last Saturday; but there were some elements of uncertainty. We drove three wheels, and had one disconnected; and we assumed that the three wheels required about the same power, each, as the one that was disconnected; deducting the same amount of power for driving each of the three wheels that it took for the one that was disconnected. The power that was used for driving the shaft, pulleys, etc., was less than 20 per cent. of the total power of the mill.

Mr. PARKER. Did that include the main driver?

Mr. KNIGHT. That included everything, the engine as well ; but, as I said, there were those elements of uncertainty that could not be tested.

Mr. BOURNE then stated that he had used for a short time a friction coupling; a model of which he had with him, and exhibited, explaining the method of its use. He stated that with it he could drive 300 horse-power; that he had one doing that, running 500 revolutions a minute. With its use he said he could start, and stop, a shaft, without anybody knowing it in the other parts of the mill.

The PRESIDENT. Undoubtedly that is a good thing, if Mr. BOURNE has no stock in the company.

Mr. BOURNE. I have not any yet, but if it is put on the market, and the price gets down to a lower figure, I do not

know but that I shall go in; but the man who owns it says he is not going to sell it.

Mr. STEPHEN GREENE.

I would like to ask Mr. PARKER if he understands that the per cent. which was taken did not include friction on the engine, as well as the friction on the shafting. It is very important for us to know, in speaking of friction, whether that includes the motor or engine, or simply the friction of the shafting and belting.

Mr. PARKER. I understand it includes the friction of the engine.

Mr. GREENE. Then, when we are speaking of loss in driving shafting, whether it is taken in at the end or the centre, we want to consider the question of shafting alone; not the question of friction on the motor.

But I would like to say while I am up, Mr. President, in regard to taking this power at the end or centre, I really did not know before coming here to-day that there were two opinions on the question. I supposed it had been pretty clearly settled that it was best to take power in at the end; but I am very glad to get all the information. It seems to me we must consider this question, that probably larger mills are to be built in New England in the near future, or at least in the future; and they must be driven by steam power, and in driving from an engine we like to drive as directly as possible. In my own experience I have avoided carrier pulleys and intermediate pulleys, as far as possible. I like to get power directly from the fly-wheel of the engine to the head of the main shaft, and to do that we must take that power in in such a form as would not injuriously affect the room. That is the reason we prefer to have a belt tower that will contain the belts. If we had that, we should certainly desire to have that at the end of the mill; not to cut the mill in two and have two divisions of the mill. In that view I can understand Mr. PARKER'S case, where the shafting is below the level of the floor, and at right angles with the shafting; where he is obliged to take it in by a quarter turn of the belting. He does it in that instance without any very great loss of light, and without any division of the mill.