the top, it permits the cotton to stand all right after it is pushed out of the bin. The cotton is piled up on the back side of this arrangement, and the man who opens the cotton keeps this full all the time, so that the man who is feeding is not using cotton last opened, but is using cotton that has been opened the longest. This accomplishes two purposes: it gives the cotton a chance to dry, and, as Mr. LEIGH said, to become of the same temperature, and does away with the nuisance of calling in everybody to open cotton and interfere with the shipping of goods, etc., one or two days in the week. It places the duty of opening the cotton on one or two men. I think it is a very good arrangement. There is another advantage, and that is, that the cotton is always close by the man who is feeding on the apron. As he uses the cotton up more is pried forward, and the empty planks are carried back and filled again. Mr. BOURNE has a man who feeds one hundred and fifty thousand pounds of cotton a week. I have a man feeding one hundred thousand pounds, and he thinks he has all he can attend to. The PRESIDENT. The question has been asked why it was more essential to have an evener lap for single than double cards. With an English card we have less doublings, and of course the evener we start the more likely we are to make an even thread. Mr. BROWN. The same thing is true of the American card. The PRESIDENT. I do not deny that. I do not deny that. I said in my paper that it was essential to have an even lap for American cards, but I think it is more essential to have it for the single English card system. Mr. W. J. KENT. Why doesn't Mr. ATHERTON put a gauge box on his system? Mr. ATHERTON. I have never seen the necessity for that. I have never used a gauge box. I have been making pickers for twenty-three years, and have never seen the necessity for it, judging from the expression of our customers. It may be a necessity with some machines, but has never been with ours. The PRESIDENT. I would like to ask Mr. JOHNSTON what he thinks about trunks; would he apply them if he had his picking system all on one floor? Mr. JOHNSTON. I don't know as it is easy to answer that question. I think, considering the changes made in lappers and the advantages claimed for each kind, that, if I were going to build a picking room to-day, I should want to look round before I decided that. I have three picking rooms where the systems are all on one floor and where I have trunks, and two picking rooms where I have no trunks. I think the picking system that I have is doing as well as any other system. At the same time, the dirt that is got out in my trunks seems to prove the advantages of the trunk system over the system without it. Mr. KNIGHT. I am a sort of neutral man on the trunk and gauge-box question; but it seems to me that the gauge box, if you have a trunk, is quite an advantage. Those who have the self feeder have noticed that in some places the cotton gathers in large bunches and in other places the teeth are bare. It seems to me that this trouble is somewhat neutralized by the gauge box, and therefore I am in favor of it. Mr. PERHAM. I would like to say another word in regard to the trunk system. It has been said that the cleaning of the trunk from refuse collected, is an objection to it. To-day trunks are built with an exhaust arrangement for cleaning which does away with that difficulty. A MEMBER. I will say, in reply to Mr. BROWN's statement, that there is no trouble in putting through a bale in five minutes. I have run bale breakers for several years. The PRESIDENT. We will now pass to the next topic, "What is the best design for line shafting, transmitting over fifty horse-power, permitting stopping and starting on any floor without interfering with the motor or with other shafting?" by Mr. STEPHEN GREENE of Boston, Mass. Mr. GREENE. I wish to say, in the beginning, that I would like to alter the wording of the topic. It would seem to border on presumption for me to say anything on the topic worded exactly as it is. I don't like to speak about the best design for transmitting power; I would prefer to call the topic a design, not the best. I have thought also it would please the members of the Association better for me to say what I have to say, and present a sketch of what I would illustrate, rather than read a paper. So I shall present this drawing, which is prepared for the actual case of a mill transmitting about one thousand horse-power, and present it as an illustration of transmitting the power into various rooms. On this drawing the right-hand sketch represents a transverse section through a rope tower, showing the transmission of power from the main fly-wheel of the engine to the head lines of the main shafts in the various rooms. These head shafts are carried on steel beams which are built into the brickwork of the belt tower, and shown by longitudinal section. This longitudinal section gives the position of the shafts with relation to these beams. The shafts are carried by pillowblock bearings, and extend through thimbles in the wall into the main room. There is no great improvement in that over what is employed in any of our first-class mills. The simple device I suggest is to place on the shaft, just outside the rope tower wall in the main room, a friction cut-off coupling. I do not propose to discuss the merits of the various kinds of friction cut-off couplings. I suppose all of you have any number of circulars setting forth the merits of these various couplings; but any good friction cut-off coupling can be placed in the main line of shafting, with a lever extending down within reach, possibly not of a man standing on the floor, but by going up a few steps it could be reached. Then, having that so arranged, it could be operated in stopping or starting the shafting in each room. This could be applied at any of the other lines of shafting. |
