Page images

speaks of. This cotton came from northern Texas to St. Louis, I think. I had great difficulty in working it. But later in the season, I bought cotton from southern Texas, and I have found it as good as any cotton I ever worked. I have also found the same difference in relation to other cottons this year. For the past seven or eight months, I think my cotton has worked fully better than it has at any time for the past three years. But I have obtained this result by taking extra pains to get cotton grown in certain localities. I would ask gentlemen if they have had this experience in working cotton from different localities.

[ocr errors]

Mr. WHITEHEAD, of Lowell, Mass.: I would like to make this suggestion, that some manufacturer, who is putting American cotton through five or six rigid beaters, should put a certain grade of his cotton through his present picking apparatus, then pass it through his other machinery without a change in it, and test yarn from this cotton; after doing so, let him put some of the same grade of cotton through his other machinery, and test yarn from this preparation. In England, up to the year 1861, the best yarn manufacturers would not have above three rigid beaters, acting upon one preparation of American cotton, while we are using here -five or six, and in some instances, seven rigid beaters, upon each preparation of picking. After the war commenced, here, in 1861, the English manufacturers were compelled to use a great proportion of Surat cotton, therefore, they increased their number of rigid beaters, to clear this; but now that they receive a good supply of American cotton,-they have gone back to the number of rigid beaters, in each picking apparatus, which they had, prior to 1861. In explanation, they say that the yarn made from a preparation of five or six rigid beaters, is not so strong as when made from a picking of three rigid beaters, each preparation working the same amount of cotton per day.

The CHAIRMAN: The next question is the weighting of top rolls. Has any gentleman present any light to give us on that subject? I will call on Mr. ATKINSON.

Mr. ATKINSON: Mr. NOURSE calls upon me. I suggested the insertion of that article because I have found it more difficult to get information upon the weighting of top rolls than on almost any other subject connected with a cotton mill. Therefore I asked that it might be put in, in order that I


might learn something. I find that there is great harm continually happening in cotton spinning from what is called cutting," which is attributed to imperfections in the top rolls, as one of the causes; also to a bad method of weighting. I am seeking to find out exactly what happens in the machinery when the cutting of the strand takes place; what is the imperfect action of the machinery which causes that thin place in the strand. I have worked out an idea of my own, but before I present it, I would like to find out what the cause is believed to be from those who do the work.

Mr. KILBURN: We should be happy to hear Mr. ATKINSON'S theory that he has worked out.

Mr. CUMNOCK: When Mr. Burke was agent of the Boott cotton mills, some 13 years ago, he had built for No. 3 mill, 50 ring frames of 160 spindles, each. They were made with three top rolls, weighted, covered with cloth and leather. In the course of two or three years, it was found that the 50 frames did not produce as much yarn as was wanted, on account of a change to a finer number, and in order to get length enough, 12 frames of 128 spindles, each, were built, with present rolls weighted; small even roll for the middle, and a larger roll for back, unweighted; the middle and back iron rollers were smooth and uncovered. The roving for the twelve last named was made on the same roving frames as for the 50 frames. Frequent complaints were made that the yarn made on the 12 frames was not as good as that on the 50 frames; did not spin as well, and broke more on the spooling. I made a series. of experiments testing the yarn, daily, for two months, with seven bobbins of roving; changing them backward and forward from the three rolls, weighted, to the front, weighted, and the middle and back unweighted and uncovered. The result proved that on No. 30 yarn, daily average for two months on yarn. tester, that the frames with three rolls, weighted, pulled 544 pounds, while the front roll, weighted, with the light iron roll in the middle, and the large iron roller, back, unweighted, pulled 524 pounds. I furnished the test to Mr. Geo. Richardson, agent of the Lowell machine shop; he objected to it on account of the atmosphere, the frames being in two different rooms. Well, to ascertain whether there was any thing in that, the rolls were changed from one of the lot of 12 frames, into

one of the 50 lot, and vice versa, and then the yarn was tested again. I found there was a slight variation, but practically the same result.

A MEMBER: Will Mr. CUMNOCK give us the draft between the back and middle roll?

Mr. CUMNOCK: I cannot give you the draft exactly, but there was a difference of one tooth between the middle and the back roll, in both cases.

Mr. MCDUFFIE, of Lawrence, Mass.: In my opinion that would have a decided influence upon the result.

Mr. CUMNOCK: The frames were exactly alike in both cases. I have no doubt the gentleman's point is well taken. We all know that an iron roll fluted will deliver a little more than a leather roll. In this case the rolls were smooth; still the drafts in both cases were alike; and there may be something in the point the gentleman has made.

Mr. ATKINSON: The point I am after is this: When the strand is "cut," as we call it, what is the imperfect action of the machinery that causes that cutting? Is it in the roll, or what part of the machinery? How does it happen?

Mr. MCDUFFIE: Do you believe that the iron roll took up faster when the flutes did not fit into each other than the leather roll? If the flutes fitted into each other, I will admit it will take up more, but I cannot see the gentleman's point unless they did.

Mr. CUMNOCK: Well, it will, and the gentleman can try it and see it in this city. The iron rolls were smooth, they were not fluted.

Mr. KILBURN: I once witnessed an experiment which may throw some light upon this question. I saw a frame made by the Whitin Machine Co., with fluted top rolls; the cans well moved back, and the slivers of the drawings broken on the back side, on a level with the floor. The frames started and we run them up until they came up even with the top-board of the roll. We found a variation of six inches in running up from the floor in the different trials that were made. That was six or eight years ago. Whether the flutes fitted into one another or not, I do not know; but I think they had the same number of flutes, but were fluted unequally, and I concluded some of them did mash in, and therefore take up more than the

others. That is to say, they would be eccentric, by reason of the variation of the flutes; two would be coupled together, so that they would act in concert, and therefore take up the sliver.

Mr. JONES: In one of my mills I am spinning yarn for the market, and am constantly changing from fine to coarse numbers, and from coarse to fine. I was spinning No. 16 hosiery yarn on one pair of mules, and I ordered it changed to No. 27. I found that the cloth in which that No. 27 was used looked very uneven indeed. I sent for the superintendent of the yarn mill and had him come down and examine the yarn. I had been changing in that way for three or four years, and I had never seen anything like it before. The superintendent came down and examined the yarn. I was not in the mill at the time, but he came and reported to me at the counting-room. He said he knew what the matter was. Said I, "I am glad of it, for I want it remedied." He said the overseer who changed the mules had not moved the weights. I saw the point at once.

Mr. ATKINSON: What was the exact thing that happened in consequence of not changing the weights? Why did the rolls fail to operate as they had operated before?

Mr. JONES: I suppose the rolls, after running some little time on coarse yarn, if changed to fine yarn, without changing the weights, will not be brought down quite so close as before. I see the gentleman's point. I don't know that I can answer the question any better.

A MEMBER: How are the rolls covered?

Mr. JONES: The rolls are covered in Lowell, by

You know how they are covered, I suppose.

A MEMBER: What kind of cloth is put under the leather? Mr. JONES: I should say it was shoddy. I have examined it as closely as I can.

Mr. RICHARD GARSED, of Philadelphia: Suppose he had used the same size of roving to make his No. 27 as he used to make his No. 16, would there have been any difference in the result? Simply changing the draft, and in no other way changing the machine, what would have been the result, in your opinion?

Mr. JONES: We did not change the roving at all; we simply changed the draft.

Mr. GARSED: If you are going to put two-hank roving under

the rolls for two or three weeks and spin No. 16, and then conclude you will spin some No. 27 upon the same frame with three-and-a-half-hank or three-hank roving, it is plain to any manufacturer that the roll is not in a condition to spin the finer numbers unless it is re-covered, or you take it off from the front and put it in the middle or back; or you can put a new covering upon your roll.

Mr. JONES: What would you do if you did not want to spin but a hundred or two pounds? Would you take the rolls out and change your roving? That was all I wanted.

Mr. ATKINSON: I would like to ask Mr. GARSED why it happens, when that change is made, that the strand comes out alternately thick and thin? What is the irregular action of the roll?

Mr. GARSED: Most of us have traversing tubes upon the frame. Now, the coarse roving, occupying a greater space upon the roll, traverses a short distance, and leaves a point somewhere where the leather of the top roll and the fluting of the bottom roll come in contact without any cotton between them. That is proved by the fluting being worn, where the cotton is not. The moment you put on fine roving, you do not traverse it to the same point when the cotton bunches between the rolls. I am trying to make myself thoroughly understood. You come first to the point where the cotton fibre is brought to the point of contact between the leather and the fluted rolls, while another portion of the cotton is in the open space, in consequence of this corrugation; and the rolls necessarily must pinch on one side and draw that fibre through, leaving a thick place at one point, and the exact draft, as you intend it, at the other.

Again, in answer to your question, the cause of cutting is sometimes the retardation of the middle roll by the waste collected around the pivots of the middle-roll, holding that roll back; and again, the saddle not being properly weighted on the machine, so that one roll will be allowed to revolve at the mere action of the fluted roll under it, while the other is forced to revolve by the action of the weight upon it. Again, it may be caused by a difference in diameter, produced by what is evidently meant by "shoddy cloth." One place in that may be much thicker than another; and under the leather with flocks,

« PreviousContinue »