horse-power, a difference of 124 horse-power, which at $35 per horse-power, per year, would amount to $434.

The difference in spooling alone should be as follows:

=

6" x 13" Doff once in 6 hours, 39 minutes 399 minutes. 5" x 18" Doff once in 4 hours, 53 minutes = 293 minutes. A difference of over 36 per cent.

It costs in the average mill about 45 cents for 100 pounds to spool; 36 per cent of 45 cents would be 162 cents per 100 pounds saved.

The product of 13,500 spindles for one year at 14 pounds per spindle per week for fifty weeks would be 945,000 pounds; a saving of 162 cents per 100 pounds would amount, therefore, to $1,530.90. This shows a saving in spooling alone of nearly $1,100 a year, after deducting the cost for extra power. The cost for doffing in the average mill has been about 1 mills per pound, which would amount to $595.35 on a year's product of the 13,500 spindles. Thus you will see that we have saved $1,702.25 after paying for the extra power amounting to $434. Nor is this all. For who can estimate the saving in the weaving department?

Let us follow the yarn through the mill from the spinning frame and see if we can form any idea of the gain made by saving knots.

In the average mill as run to-day, there are two thousand yards of No. 28 yarn put upon a bobbin on the spinning frame. The length of yarn on a bobbin varies but little.

When the yarn is wound from the bobbin on to the spool, another thread is spliced by tying a knot, and this operation is continued until eight or ten bobbins have been wound on the spool. Then the spools are placed in the warper creel an the yarn is wound off on to the beam, generally holding 1 18,000 yards. Now we will say each thread has 1. these knots are 2,000 yards apart. Suppose the

fifty yards long in the yarn and twenty ens
then every second warp in the looms ha-
By experiment, it is found these kno

to

4,

or four cuts. We have a paper here that was filled out by a weaver with marks representing the breakage that occurred while weaving the three or four cuts, while the knots were coming up.

Imagine a weaver running six looms with three such warps. As a matter of fact, it is seldom such places come up on two looms run by the same weaver at the same time; but as we have shown you, they are only forty cuts or two thousand yards apart in the average mill. What wonder is it that weavers complain of knots?

With the 6 x 14 inches bobbin, the same conditions exist with the exception that the knots are three thousand yards apart, consequently there is a saving of one third of the knots. Instead of having a set of knots in every second warp in the looms, it would be in every third warp.

To sum up the advantages then of a long traverse and large ring over the ordinary practice:

There is a saving in the spinning department which is nearly equal to five times the cost of the extra power consumed.

A reduced cost in weave room, which perhaps cannot be estimated.

Better quality of goods and less labor in both places.

I will add: We have running in our mills several thousand spindles with seven-inch traverse and two-inch ring. The bobbins hold over 6,000 yards of yarn, and the frames run ten hours between doffs. A girl spools for 2,400 spindles and helps doff the frames.

We put this yarn into the hardest goods we have to weave, and have never heard a complaint from the weavers since.

The PRESIDENT. Gentlemen, you have heard the paper read by Mr. KNIGHT, and you now have an opportunity of entering into a discussion of the subject.

Mr. ECCLES. I would like to ask Mr. KNIGHT what would be the gain in the spinning, if the spinning would run equally

as well with a long traverse; and does he apply those to coarse numbers or fine numbers?

Mr. KNIGHT. I took as a standard No. 28 yarn. I think I gave a tolerably good idea of the gain when I showed that in a plant of 13,500 spindles there would be a gain of something over $1,700 just in the spinning alone, after paying for the extra power.

The PRESIDENT. Is there any other gentleman who would like to ask Mr. KNIGHT a question? He is abundantly able to

answer.

Mr. HERVEY KENT. I would like to ask Mr. KNIGHT if he has numbered the yarn on the empty barrel and on the outside, and if he finds any difference in the number; or if he has any eveners whereby he overcomes that difference?

Mr. KNIGHT. I have had that question asked me before, and I know that theoretically there would seem to be a difference in the number of the yarn, but as a matter of fact, I do not find any. And if you gentlemen, who have the theory that the yarn is finer on the empty bobbin, that it does not break as strong, or something like that, will take a certain number of bobbins and reel them off from beginning to end, I am convinced you will find the same results that I have; that is, that there is not any difference between the empty and full bobbin. The theory is that there will be less twist, because it takes more turns of the spindle to wind the product of the front roll on the bobbin; but, as a matter of fact, I find no difference, and I have talked with several gentlemen who have tried the same experiment, and I find that they do not discover any difference. Mr. PARKER, I think, has tried the same thing. Mr. KENT. I understand you have not any eveners? Mr. KNIGHT. No, sir; I have not. Mr. KENT.

Your theory knocks Mr. DRAPER'S patent evener in the head, does it not? I know a place where they are putting on eveners to overcome that difference. They think they are making a great gain by so doing.

Mr. KNIGHT. I think I know the place you refer to. But, as a matter of fact, I do not find any difference. Do you, Mr. PARKER?

Mr. PARKER. I never have.

Mr. KNIGHT. If you try the experiment of sizing the yarn from a full bobbin to an empty one, I think you will be convinced there is no difference. It comes one way as often as the other.

Mr. KENT.

have gone to an

The reason that I spoke of it was, because you extreme; and that ought to test the principle, if it is correct. The theory that we have always held, is, that the yarn was finer on the empty barrel.

Mr. KNIGHT.

Mr. BOURNE has made that experiment. Mr. DRAPER. I think there is one great difference in the filling frame and in the warp frame. In the filling frame the barrel of your bobbin is only about three eighths of an inch in diameter, while on your warp frame it is from three fourths of an inch to an inch; and that would be a very vital difference, affecting the whole result, as between the filling and the warp, while the theory might be the same.

Mr. KNIGHT. There is less twist in filling than in warp.

Mr. KENT. It seems to me the ratio would be larger on the warp than it would be on the filling; between the empty and the full bobbin.

Mr. DRAPER. Yes; but if you take an empty spindle without any bobbin, you cannot spin filling, because the draught will break the yarn. So you have to have a bobbin to spin the filling at all.

Mr. STEPHEN GREENE. I would like to ask what his experience is concerning spinning filling as to the longer traverse and larger ring, in regard to getting less changing of shuttles in the weaving?

Mr. KNIGHT. I have not spun very much filling on the spinning frame for a good many years, gentlemen; but I will tell you of a little experience we have had in our mill. We had some old spinning frames that we intended to throw out

of the mill, but finally concluded we would keep them and spin filling on them. The frames were arranged with an inch and three-quarters ring. The spindles were two and one half inches apart. I think the traverse is something like five and one half or six inches. The overseer of the spinning room started those frames with an inch and three-quarters ring, and a bobbin rather larger than the average filling bobbin. I had an idea they would not run well with the inch and threequarters ring on filling: and I suggested some smaller rings; and I bought some smaller rings for one frame, and he said. the frame ran better; and I then bought enough rings for all of these frames. But in the meantime we got short of warp, and turned these frames over; and they ran on warp yarn for quite a little while. Finally we changed them to filling again, and put the new inch and three-eighths rings in. And they had been running but a short time when I had a complaint from the weave room that the yarn pulled off the bobbin; that it was not wound hard enough on the bobbin. I told the spinner to put on a heavier traveller, and had him change his traveller several times until he got a traveller that wound the bobbin hard enough so there was no complaint from the weave room. Then he came to me and said, "Now you have fixed me so I am worse off than I was before." And I have been trying some experiments, and I find, if it is necessary to wind the bobbin as hard as I am winding it now in order that it should weave, I can do it better with an inch and three quarters ring, with a light traveller, than with an inch and three eighths with a heavy traveller. But you must take into consideration the circumstances. The inch and three eighths rings were new ones, and the inch and three quarters rings were old ones, had been run a long time, and, of course, were smooth. That is, perhaps, a singular experience, but as near as I can get at it, those are the facts of the case, and the filling did spin better with the old ring and the light traveller than it did with the new ring and heavy traveller.

Mr. W. J. KENT. I understand Mr. BOURNE has had con