234
[Class IX,
buildings. Instead of three or more barns clusteringround the homestead, one or other in constant -want ofrepair, a single building will suffice for dressing corn andfor chaff-cutting. The very barn-floors saved will beno insignificant item. Now that buildings are requiredfor new purposes, we must, if we can, retrench thosebuildings whose objects are obsolete. Open-air threshingmay appear visionary; but it is quite common with thenew machinery ; nor would any one perform the tediousmanoeuvre of setting horses and men to pull down a rick,place it on carts, and build it up again in the barn, whohad once tried the simple plan of pitching the sheaves atonce into the threshing-machine. These moveable steam-engines have been graduully improved by the yearly trialsof the Agricultural Society . It will be seen by Mr. Carr’sReport* that such yearly trials are still needed, as theworst of those exhibited consumes three times more coalthan the best. Mr. Locke, M.P., whose engineering ex-perience gives weight to his judgment, thinks that inother respects, too, they might be still further im-proved : —
To P. Pcset, Esq., M.P.
London , 11, Adam-street, Adelphi ,Dear Sin, July, 1851.
The detailed report of Mr. Carr, of the results of theexperiments made on the portable steam-engines, hasalready been presented to the Jury over which you preside;and as you desired from me a short statement of my viewsof Mr. Carr's report, 1 beg to send you the following:—
You will find in the tabular statement of the consumptionof fuel, that the several makers stand in the following orderof excellence:—
Per horse-power.
Messrs. Hornsby and Sons - - - 6*79 lbs.
„ Tuxford and Sons - - - - 7*46 „
„ Clayton, Shuttleworth and Co. 8*63 „„ Barrett, Exall, and Andrews - 9*20 „
„ Garrett and Sons - - - -11*65 „
* The mode of ascertaining the amount of duty done andweight of coal consumed, in a given time by each engine,was the same as that adopted by the Royal Agricultural Society of England , at their Annual Show of Implementsand Machinery; and the dynamometer used for the trialwas the same as the one supplied to that Society* by Messrs.Easton and Amos, their consulting engineers.
Messrs. Tuxford and Sons presented the novelty ofplacing their cylinder and working parts in a wrouglit-ironbox at the end of the boiler, having a pair of doors to lockthe whole up when not in work, which I certainly think agood idea, and of some practical importance. But to gainthis, the tubes at the smoke-box end were rendered difficultto be got at. There were two engines brought to the trial-yard upon this construction, one a 6-horse direct-actionupright cylinder, the other a 4-horse oscillating; but theformer worked out the most duty* with the least fuel.
Messrs. Hornsby and Son were distinguished by placingtheir cylinder inside the upper part of the fire-box, thewhole of which, together with the rest of their boiler, wascarefully* felted and lagged with wood; and they had awell-consiructed water-heating apparatus in their smoke-box. which also helped to produce the satisfactory result ofgreat economy* in fuel.
Messrs. Garrett and Son, in their engine, had made agreat effort to combine lightness with strength, having sub-stituted wrought for cast iron in the bearing for crank shaftand other parts. Their boiler presented a great amount ofheating surface, but the fire-box, to insure greater strengthand a less amount of flat surface exposed to steam pressure,was made partially* oval, and considerably* smaller thanmost of its competitors. The fire-bars being above thelevel of many of the tubes of the boiler, and the flame hav-ing to descend over a bridge, the manufacturers expressedthemselves quite aware that this construction of fire-boxwould prevent their standing quite so well as some withrespect to fuel consumed, but considered that superiorstrength, lightness, and portability* would more than com-pensate, this class of engine seldom working more than afew months in the year, and having to be conveyed fromfarm to farm. And I certainly considered this engine themost portable, for its power, of any exhibited. During thetrial some derangement took place in the slide, so that theresult was not so favourable; hut upon the engine beingput through a second trial with Messrs. Clayton, Shuttle-worth, and Co.’s, to test the comparative strength of the
In a subsequent trial, however, made to test the strengthof Llangemieck coal with Messrs. Shuttleworth’s engine, itappears that both engines burnt precisely the same amountof fuel; and Mr. Carr has deduced from this circumstance,that, but for some accidental derangement in the slide, inthe main tabulated experiments the consumption of Messrs.Garrett’s engine, which was 11*65 lbs. per horse-power,would not have been more than Messrs. Shuttleworth’s, or8*63 lbs. per horse power.
This mode of reasoning is, I think, liable to objection ;and I allude to it with a view of preventing an undue im-portance being attached to it. Besides, 1 do not entirelyconcur in the remarks made by Mr. Carr on the construc-tion of these two engines.
Messrs. Garrett’s fire-box is, in my opinion, decidedly in-ferior to Barrett, Exall, and Co.’s; and the workmanshipgenerally is not superior. It is lighter, and so far it isbetter; but whether the smallness of the fire-box, to avoidweight, may not entail other disadvantages, is a question onwhich a doubt may fairly arise.
As regards the engine of ‘‘Kansomes and May,” which,from some accidental defect, did not go through a trial, Iwould beg to say, that in point of workmanship it is equal,if not superior, to any of the engines tried. I think theconnecting-rod might be lengthened with advantage, but inother respects it is, 1 think, a good, serviceable engine. Asregards the other engines. I agree entirely with the remarksI made by Mr. Carr. If 1 might be permitted to suggest ai little advice to the makers of these engines, I would beg ofj them to attend more to the proportions of the various work-j ing parts, and less to external ornament. There is a wantof good proportion in several of the engines; and this, to amechanic or an economical farmer, is of more importancethan a profusion of brass. T t
1 Joseph Locke.
Much progress, however, has been made, as our bestengine now consumes less than 8 lbs. of coal per hour perhorse-power; whereas an engine made by the winningmanufacturer of four years ago consumed 28 lbs., that is,four times as much fuel for the same work.
Llangenneck and Newcastle coals, she worked out to adecimal the same number of pounds of coal burnt per horse-power per hour as her competitor, which, allowing for theproved difference in the strength of the coal in favour of theWelsh, would have given Messrs. Garrett 8*63 lbs. of thatcoal burnt per liorse-powcr per hour instead of 11*65, asshown in the tabular statement; whicii more favourableresult 1 think them quite entitled to, as the derangement inthe slide was purely accidental.
Messrs. Clayton and Co.’s engine was exceedingly simple,and worked well; the governors had perfect control duringthe trial, which was passed through with great steadinessand credit to the makers.
As regards the other engines, I will proceed to noticethem in the order as tested:—
Messrs. Hensman and Son’s 4-horse, of moderate work-manship, was evidently the production of a novice. Theboiler was too small for the power, and the consumption offuel more than as much again as most of the first-classengines.
Mr. Butlin’s 42-horse: workmanship moderate; arrange-ment of working parts simple ; and duty done for coal con-sumed fair when compared with others of its class.
Mr. Caborn’s 9-horse: workmanship moderate ; arrange-ment of engine ill designed; and entire weight far too greatto be generally suitable for a portable engine. The boilerbeing a large one, with considerable heating surface, theduty done was comparatively good.
Messrs. Barrett, Exall, and Andrews’ 4.^-horse: work-manship moderate. The cylinder and crank-shaft bearingin this engine were placed upon the same base-plate, whichwas bolted to the boiler, an arrangement giving superiorstrength and steadiness in working. These makers adopteda link motion, controlling the slide-valve and worked inconnexion with the governor, which we think a very need-less complication, and worked very unsteadily. The boilerwas large for the size of the engine, and the duty done forcoal consumed was more nearly approaching its first-classcompetitors; so that, as a whole, 1 cannot speak less thanfavourably of the engine.
Mr. Burrell's 6-horse: workmanship fair, and arrange-ment of working parts simple and good, and consumption offuel comparatively moderate; so that in this case also Imust report favourably.
Messrs. Roc and Hanson, Strand, London , 4-horse : work-manship very inferior; general arrangement ill-designed