« PreviousContinue »
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, ete., 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. Joux 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. Kvicit. 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 clements 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.
Mr. HERVEY KENT. If a mill is belted properly in one end, and the shafting arranged, and the machinery with the shafting, I claim it can be put in for the same money as the new belting and shafting
Mr. KILBURN. I would like to ask Mr. GREENE, in connection with his remarks, if he thinks it will be better to put his pickers in as he suggests, rather than put them in at the opposite end as suggested by my friend Mr. PARKER.
Mr. GREENE. I should probably agree with Mr. PARKER. I should certainly place the picking, which takes so large an amount of power, as near the engine as possible, and not at the opposite end of the mill.
Mr. KILBURN. I thought he described it at the opposite end of the mill as the reason why it took more shafting.
Mr. D. M. THOMPSON. Mr. President, in responding to the request for my views upon the subject, I will simply say, I have generally preferred to apply the power at the end of the mills; for the reasons already stated by Mr. KILBURN and Mr. GREENE. It is important to reach the main lines as directly as possible, and avoid intermediary shafts. I have applied the power at the centres with very satisfactory results ; in some cases enclosing the head shafts within towers upon the side of the mill. There are some advantages in the reduced sizes of the shafts required for distribution as compared with long lines. There has been a considerable improvement in the quality of material and the manufacture of shafting during the past twenty or thirty years. We run our shafting at such speeds as easily admit a much greater length than formerly. The tendency is or has been towards high speed upon machinery, for the purpose of a larger production as compared with even ten years since. This increase of speed is at the expense of power; but the conditions are usually such as admit a choice in the selection of the points of location for the motors, and I regard them as generally more satisfactory when located at the ends of the mill.
Mr. CHARLES R. MAKEPEACE. Mr. President, about three years ago I was called on to make plans for a 26,000 spindle mill. The agent of the mill was a careful man, and went into all the
questions involved very thoroughly; and especially this question of the best way to shaft the mill. At his request two plans were made; one showing an arrangement of machinery which brought the power in at the end, the other in at the centre. When the schedules of shafting were made out, they were submitted to four or five builders of shafting, all responsible parties; and much to our surprise the greatest difference in the proposals was only $17.41.
I have been very much interested in Mr. KILBURN's paper on this subject; but would like to have him repeat the formula he gave for determining the size of cold rolled shafts,
Mr. KILBURN. The cube of the diameter divided by the velocity in revolution, and multiplied by nineteen.
Mr. MAKEPEACE. That is a very good formula so far as it goes; but tells us nothing unless we know the length of the bay, or distance between bearings. Whether he applies this formula to bearings six, eight or ten feet apart.
Mr. GREENE. Mr. President, I would like, without taking up any more time, to make a simple correction. Two references have been made to Mr. Lockwood's formula ; and I only deem it right to say that the formula stated by Mr. KILBURN was never used by Mr. LOCKWOOD, as far as I have knowledge.
Mr. KILBURN. Prior to your day?
The PRESIDENT. If there is nothing more to be said on this subject, we will proceed to the next topic, “ The use of single or double boss rolls on spinning frames; from which can be derived the most benefit?” The discussion is to be opened by Mr. WILLIAM J. KENT of New Bedford.
Mr. KENT. For many years I was led to believe that the double-boss roll on spinning frames was far superior to the single. About four years ago I put into the Wamsutta Mills a large number of new spinning frames, and this subject was discussed very thoroughly at that time; we at last decided to adopt the singleboss rolls; but even then I was not convinced that they would produce so much better work than the double-boss could. Since that time we have tried many experiments; and I am now thoroughly convinced that more even, and consequently stronger, yarn can be made with the single than with the double boss rolls. Some of the most important advantages I will name:
. 1. It is almost impossible to make double yarn; and this is of great moment in mills making fine yarns, and, in mills where they sell their product, it is even greater.
The distance between the ends as they are delivered from the rolls being so much greater, - in one case 24 inches on single, in the
other 13 inches, — and the stirrup coming between the ends,
gives it the advantage.
2. We can produce much more even yarn, and thereby obtain a greater breaking strength; the following sizes will show to what extent, on No. 45 warp yarn :
On coarse yarn, such as No. 30 warp, there is not so much variation in number, and sometimes yarn spun on double-boss rolls would be equally as even as that spun on single; but the advantage in break still remains, as the following sizes will show : Double.
Size, 29.41, . Break, 68 29.41, .
67 30.77, .
72 30.30, .
72 30.77, ..
73 30.53, .