into their cisterns at all? A remedy so simple, and so certain-so comprehensive, and yet so economical-that much longer to refrain from adopting, it will bring down the condemnation of Parliament and the public, upon the heads of those whose monopolizing selfishness refuses to secure so great a boon for their customers? That remedy is, Mr. Stuckey's System of Filtration, which, by one machine alone, 5 feet square, as stated by Lord Brougham in the House of Peers, filters no less than two millions five hundred thousand gallons every 24 hours, both effectually and beautifully. Now, touching the non-application of that remedy, mark what Mr. Stuckey modestly states, in his petition to the House of Commons:-" That so satisfied were the representatives of the Water Companies, then present, with the capability, utility, and superiority of your petitioner's system of filtration, that your petitioner has been informed by some of their chief officers, and believes it to be true, that they would immediately adopt your petitioner's system of filtration, and give the inhabitants of London the vast advantage of pure, limpid and sparkling water, provided any scheme could be devised to repay them the expense, comparatively small as it would be, of adopting and carrying on the processes of filtration by your petitioner's invention; but, as they were afraid that they would not be permitted to increase their rates, in the present temper of the public mind, and of the two Houses of Legislature, they must defer doing so, until your petitioner could point out some means of creating a remunerating fund to meet the cost." No wonder, after such an allegation as this, a notice was given in the House of Commons of future enquiry into the conduct of the Water Companies in this matter-no wonder that gentlemen wishing to offer their services, "for a consideration," to such wealthy corporations, at the hour of their trial, are beginning to show themselves; but it will not dopledges have been given by Members of both Houses of Parliament-not so much to enquire into the foul and filthy state of the water, for that is already so demonstrated, that the unblushing effrontery of monopoly cannot now stammer out another syllable of denial; but, to come at once to the question, Have the Water Companies kept good faith with the public and with Parliament, by "effectually filtering" their supply, as they promised and pledged themselves to do? Your correspondent, Mr. Baddeley, seems to sneer at the notice for next session, which Mr. Hawkes has given. Does your correspondent know, whether Mr. Hawkes gave that notice on his own part, or on the part of a highly influential member of the Government, who will probably preside over the committee? Does Mr. Baddeley know, that a Noble Lord in the House of Peers, the first in one respect in the land, has promised a similar enquiry in the Lords? I am sure, if your correspondent, had been aware of these matters, and of others, which I only know in confidence, he would have paused before treating with levity an enquiry likely to be productive of such valuable results, as that of which notice has been given. For every life lost by impure waterfor all the diseases generated therebyfor most of the cases of English cholera, now so prevalent, those who, from selfish considerations, refuse to "effectually filter" the water they supply when they have it in their power, are answerable, if not to man, to God! A very small cost by companies realizing very large profits, would confer on their customers an inestimable blessing;-is it too late to hope that such may soon be the case, so as to prevent the necessity of Parliamentary interference ? I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient servant, Grafton-street, September 14, 1842. SMOKING ON RAILWAYS. B. Sir, I prefer addressing you on the following subject, in preference to the Editor of any other publication who might feel interest enough in the matter to notice it, because, being known to you, you will have confidence in the correctness and truth of what I relate. A short time since, a foreigner travelling in the coupée of a second class carriage on the Brighton Railway, smoked a cigar. The guard warned him that the practice was not allowed. Nevertheless, the gentleman, most likely used to the way such things are managed on the Birmingham line, when the guard retired from performing his duty, continued to smoke, and finished his cigar. At the next station, he was met by a demand for his ticket, ordered out of the coupée, and subjected to the following treatment. The guard addressing one of the officers on the platform, warned him that, "that person was not to be allowed to proceed to London by any train that night," and there the gentleman was left! The guard on being remonstrated with, very civilly replied he could not help it-such were his orders--he should be discharged, or fined, if he did not execute them-and there was a director in the next carriage. Now, Sir, I ask, whether such a mode of punishment ought to be tolerated in a free country? If such is the rule of the Brighton line, it ought to be distinctly notified to every passenger. Complaint at its enforcement could not then be made, although we might exclaim against its severity. Surely, to have taken the man's ticket away, and forced him, before he could proceed to London to buy another would have been punishment enough. Nine shillings and sixpence for smoking a cigar is paying dearly for one's whistle, but arbitrarily to debar him from proceeding by the same train was, to my thinking, most unjust and cruel. The individual in question may have been put, to not only great inconvenience, but possibly very heavy expense, by being detained from the completion of his journey so many hours. What makes the present case worse is, the circumstance of the victim being a foreigner. The directors of the Brighton Railway as a body, are not over popular; surely there ought to be wit enough among so many, to devise some scheme for the enforcement of a regulation proper enough in itself, and not quite so obviously tyrannical. Yours faithfully, AN OLD CORRESPONDENT. [The reasonable complaint of our "Old" and much esteemed correspondent, brings to mind the remedy once facetiously proposed by another of our contributors, for the nuisance for such it undoubtedly is-the commission of which involved his foreign friend in such unpleasant consequences. It was to this purpose -that smoking on railways should not be absolutely prohibited (for the liberty of the subject's sake!) but that the smokers should be obliged, by Act of Parliament, as the engines are to consume their own smoke. ED. M. M.] a "mechanical disadvantage." I suspect, however, the change will not much benefit your correspondent. He wishes to quarrel with me because I exemplified practically my meaning of the term "loss of power," but did not define it. What nice, but unnecessary distinctions! I wish he had exemplified his meaning, as I requested of him, and I would make him a present of what he intended for definition. I am glad, however, that I have pinned your correspondent down to a practical point, by the definition he has given, as above, of the crank's action. Your correspondent says, at page 77 in the present volume, that if I should at any time prove, ever so clearly, any practical loss to exist in any engine or machine of my construction, I must look somewhere else than to the crank for the cause. Now, I would be glad to know what occasion I have to look elsewhere for the cause, if it can be shown to exist in the "mechanical disadvantage " of the crank, or the mechanical disadvantage of any other description of shifting leverage? Your correspondent's meaning of the term "loss of power" is this, that unless that loss is irrecoverable, it cannot properly be called loss, though there may be a “mechanical disadvantage," which may be neutralized by some contrivance, as a fly-wheel, for instance. If your correspondent had read my papers attentively, he would have discovered a mode much more effectual than a fly-wheel for gaining his object, for overcoming the mechanical disadvantage of the crank, and mending that defect. At page 470, vol. xxxv, I stated, that when the work required to be done by the engine, or rather the resistance which that work opposed to motion, varied in the proportion of the shifting leverage of the crank, then there was no deficiency of effect; as, when the weights of 56 and 28 pounds were put in motion by the shifting leverage, there was no loss. But no contrivance, as I before stated, placed between the first mover and the crank, or even the fly-wheel, would have that effect, and the work required to be done cannot have the varying motion above mentioned given to it in practice; but if it could, the effect would be, that the whole arrangement could not properly be called a crank action, because the power applied every instant was exactly equivalent to the work required to be done at the same moment; and a little consideration will show that a fly-wheel, in this arrangement, would be injurious. Your correspondent states that, in all his papers, he never mentioned the word "friction," and it is very true he did not; he was too cautious to commit himself; but it is equally true that I did mention it, and that all my arguments are built upon that important element in practical mechanics, though to the mathematician a most troublesome one. If your correspondent will take the trouble to look back, and read over again these experiments, about which so much has been said, he will find that they are introduced with the observation, that the crank, considered in the abstract, and without reference to friction, might, for all the purposes of my experiments and the line of argument made use of, be supposed incapable of losing power; and hence arose the necessity that my explanation should fully show, in the most practical manner, my meaning of the words "loss of power," but which he considers cannot properly be called other than a mechanical deficiency of effect. As I said before, I am perfectly willing to subscribe to this; but your correspondent must admit, that if my experiments prove that a "mechanical disadvantage," and a deficiency of effect, does exist in making use of the crank, or any other description of shifting leverage, which would not take place if the crank were removed, then in practice the deficiency should be considered due to the crank alone, and that it is a matter of the first consequence to remove it, if practicable to do so. And if the practical mechanic, seeing this, and endeavouring to give motion to machinery without the intervention of a crank, has an idea he can perform a greater quantity of work with one bushel of coals, by so doing, than he could with nearly two, when using the crank, I hope your correspondent will also admit, that all the gentlemen who wrote on the subject, in favour of his views, and considered such a person (and expressed themselves to that effect) as unacquainted with the first principles of mechanics, should withdraw such assertions, and make some excuse for having so inconsiderately expressed themselves on a subject, without having made themselves better acquainted with it. Your correspondent mentions that, to restore the mechanical disadvantage, it is only necessary to procure a fly-wheel, the momentum whereof will restore any deficiency of effect to the crank. He will find, however, by referring to my experiments, and to my recapitulations of them, that I showed that want of momentum in the first mover was a cause of mechanical deficiency in any system of shifting leverages. How would he give momentum to the steam when applied as a first mover? The beautiful idea of a fly, by its momentum, accumulating and storing up power in one part of the crank's movements, to be given out where necessary, would be very well, if experiments could prove that no deficiency of effect took place by the shifting leverage at 285 the moment of transferring power; but it becomes a mere fiction when the deficiency is proved to exist-when it is proved that the first mover cannot give over to the fly, through the medium of the crank, all the power, without any deficiency. At page 71 in your last Number is given a paper read at the Cornwall Polytechnic Society, (these Cornwall engineers will certainly make your mathematicians go mad.) being applied to pump water to work watergiving an account of a large steam-engine wheels. This idea is not altogether new, for Watt originally employed steam-engines without a crank for that purpose; but it was reserved for the present day, and for a Cornwall engineer, to demonstrate by actual experiment, and on a sufficiently large scale, that it is much more economical to pump water for that purpose by steam, than to withstanding the well-known loss which make use of a crank to the engine. Nottakes place in working water-wheels, this mode had an advantage over the crank, in the proportion of 14 to 10. What, therefore, must the mechanical deficiency of the crank have been? Nearly one-half more work was, it appears, performed with a bushel of coals than when a crank was made use of. And this, too, though there was a considerable deficiency of effect in the working of the water-wheel. Your correspondent's mode of making nice distinctions is amusing. In reference to a quotation from your Aberdeen correspondent he states, that instead of saying, that one engine had nearly double the power of the other," I said, " correspondent admitted that the crank enyour northern gine did not do one-half the work of the other." I will leave it to the mathematicians to discover the difference: certainly, there was no misrepresentation or exaggeration in the case, on my part, although I quoted at the time from memory. With respect to a misrepresentation, or rather, I should call it, an erroneous version, which your correspondent has given of my experiments, it is necessary to say a few words. The facts stated in these experiments, (p. 259, vol. xxxv.,) your correspondent does not question; it is only the conclusions drawn from them that he quarrels with. The two weights of 56 and 28 lbs. were moved over a space of 6 inches by a power of 50 lbs. moving through a space of 4 inches perpendicular. This was done, be it remarked, by a shifting leverage, so arranged, that the power applied by means of the changing leverage was equivalent at the changes to the work required to be done. The weight of 56 lbs. had to be drawn 2 inches, with the full effect of the first mover moving 2 inches, and 28 lbs. to be drawn 4 inches with that power reduced one-half by the lever, and moving 2 inches more. Your correspondent admits that a weight representing the average of these numbers, combined with the spaces passed over, namely, a weight of 374 lbs. could not be drawn over the same space of 6 inches by means of the shifting leverage. Now, it is only necessary for me to prove, by the facts stated in that paper, that a weight of 37 lbs. was actually drawn over that distance with a power represented by 50 lbs. moving through a space of 4 inches, when there was no shifting leverage, and when the power exerted was uniform and constant. This was performed; and had your correspondent quoted the passage which I now give, and which I complained that he suppressed, or did not give a correct version of, the true state of the case would be seen. "I removed the cross bar from the table where these experiments were performed, and put the weight of 37 lbs. on the board k, and I attached the cord which passed from this board k along the table, and down the pulley to one end of a short lever of the third order, fixed under the table: I put the weight of 50 lbs. on this lever in such a position, that a motion of 4 inches given to this weight or power would cause the end of this lever, to which the line aforesaid was attached, to move 6 inches; by drawing back the board k, with the weights of 37 lbs. thereon, a few inches, this board and weight was moved over a space of 6 inches.” Now, was there any thing imaginary in this experiment? On the contrary, it is an experiment which, by the very conditions on which it is expressed-by the limitations given, render a practical trial unnecessary; for all that I require your correspondent to admit, and which he does not call in question, is, that the weight of 37 lbs. could not, when the shifting leverage was made use of, be drawn 6 inches. It will be observed, that 28 lbs. was the greatest weight which could be drawn when the cross-bar was made use of, and brought up to the stop by the power; but when I increased the leverage, when I attached the power to the lever under the table, a motion of 4 inches to the power imparted a motion of 6 inches to the end of the lever to which the string was fastened; whereas a motion of 4 inches in the power gave a motion of 8 inches to the end of the crossbar, making use of the shifting leverage to which the string was fastened. It is not extraordinary that, under the former circumstances, 37 lbs. should have been drawn 6 Strictly speaking, it was a motion of 2 inches which gave a motion of 4 inches to the end of the cross-bar; but as this is the same proportion, it can make no difference, the line being made fast to the centre of the cross-bar. inches, while in the latter case only 28 lbs. could have been drawn. Let us for a moment longer confine our attention to this experiment, and connect it with the non-momentum apparatus, and see how the matter stands. Making use of the shifting lever or cross-bar on the table, and the friction-rollers, the greatest weight which can be drawn by the spring beyond the line mark on the table is 28 lbs. ; by the limits the experiment is confined to, no greater weight could pass that line. Now let us remove the cross-bar, and attach the short lever under the table, and fix the spring to it, in the same position as before the weight of 50 lbs. had been placed. The leverage in this latter case will be to the leverage where the cross-bar was made use of in the proportion of 4 to 3. We have the proportion, therefore, as follows: as 3: 4 :: 28: 37 lbs.; so that the spring, by means of the increased leverage, is enabled to draw 37 lbs. over a space of 6 inches, whereas with the shifting leverage it could not draw a greater weight than 28 lbs. beyond the line; in other words, the same power being made use of in one case, and with a shifting leverage, a weight of 28 lbs. is the greatest which can be drawn; in the other, 374. In this case I want your correspondent to admit nothing, and I challenge and defy him to question the "Oh! but," says truth of the experiment. my opponent, "recollect there is no steam consuming when the motion is retarded, and that it is in proportion to the work that it is consumed." I do recollect this very well; and I also recollect, that a much greater quantity of steam will be required to make the same quantity of work be done as when the shifting leverage is away. I am not certain whether your correspondent may understand this explanation; but if your readers can, I am perfectly satisfied. I say I have doubts of his understanding it; and I have cause to think so, when he states that I am placed in a dilemma by an experiment he describes. Why, in all the experiments with the spring, the motion was confined to a space of 4 inches; and when I discovered what was the greatest quantity of work it was capable of performing, (the only object required,) why trouble myself about any quantity of work below it? An engine of ten-horse power will do the work of one horse, or any number under ten, but will not do the work of a greater number; but he wishes to build a calculation on the smallest quantity of work the engine can do. The problem reminds one of an ass race, where the beast last in wins the day. I hope he will not introduce the principle in the present discussion, and contend, by such dilemmas, that the person who has the worst of the argument is the most successful. Your correspondent has a curious mode of reasoning. He says it would be absurd to suppose that 74 lbs. could be drawn 3 inches, because 56 lbs. was, by the terms, the greatest weight which could be drawn; and at the same time he says, it is quite practical to do it by proper arrangements. No doubt it is; but I required the weight to be drawn 6 inches, and 37 lbs. was the greatest weight it could be done with, for a short distance. Your correspondent asks me whether, in a steam-boat, where two engines are used, and two cranks at right angles, and no momentum, (as he says,) is required, I contend for a loss of power? I answer,-Without doubt, I do; and exactly to the same amount as if there were but one crank and although, as at present constructed, the double crank cannot be dispensed with, it is on many accounts a most objectionable mode of working. : I am, &c., M. ABSTRACTS OF SPECIFICATIONS OF ENGLISH PATENTS RECENTLY ENROLLED. JOHN GREEN THE YOUNGER, OF NEWTOWN, IN THE COUNTY OF WORCESTER, FARMER, for certain improvements in cutting, or reducing turnips, mangel worzel, carrots, and other roots for food for horned cattle, horses and other animals. Enrolment Office, September 7, 1842. These improvements are stated to consist: Firstly, in the construction of a machine, or apparatus for reducing, or grinding into pulp and small pieces, turnips, and any of those roots which are, or may be used as food for cattle and other animals, and which roots have been previously cut into slices, or strips: and, secondly, in the combination of this machine with other well known machinery, or apparatus for cutting the said roots into slices or strips, so that when combined they shall form one machine, and perform the two operations simultaneously. The machinery which performs these two operations of cutting and grinding, is very fully and clearly described, and illustrated by a number of well executed drawings. The grinding apparatus, which constitutes the principal, if not sole novelty, is composed of an outer cylinder, which has projecting from its interior surface, a number of spikes, or studs, which are cast upon it and arranged in circular rows; the spikes, or studs of the first row being longer than those of the second, and the second longer than the third, and so on-the spikes of each row gradually diminishing in length as they recede from the first row, and each row being at the same time a proportionately less distance apart (as are also the spikes them selves,) that is to say, the spikes themselves are closer together in each row in proportion to the distance it is situated from the first row, or in other words, the first row contains the least number, and the last row the greatest number of spikes or studs, and the intervening rows a number in proportion to their distance from these two extremes. At the lower part of the cylinder there are three boxes placed at equal distances apart, which each contain an adjusting plate hung upon a hinge, and capable of being moved to and fro by a screw. These boxes are used to regulate the fineness or coarseness of the pulp and small pieces, by being placed nearer to, or further from a wooden conical roller placed within the cylinder, which has a number of spikes, or studs, projecting from its surface, which are arranged in precisely the same way in every respect as the spikes upon the cylinder; but upon this conical roller, there are, besides the spikes, or studs, two rows of knives, each row containing four knives, which are equidistant from each other, and used to remove the pulp and small pieces from between the spikes or studs on the cylinder, which would otherwise be liable to clog. Claim." Firstly, I claim that combination of machinery which I have described as forming a reducing or grinding apparatus, and also any other combination of mechanical parts for reducing, or grinding previouslycut pieces of roots into a pulp, and small pieces, in which combination the roots are operated upon by moveable surfaces, or by surfaces, part of which are moveable, and part of which are stationary, and upon which are placed spikes, or studs, or any other similar projections which will produce a like effect; and, secondly, I claim the combination of such reducing or grinding apparatus, with other machinery or apparatus (such as I have described for cutting the said roots into slices or strips,) but I lay no claim whatever to this cutting machine alone." The patentee adds, "that the object in reducing these roots into a pulp and small pieces is, that they may be mixed with a portion of chaff, which makes a very economical and nutritious food for cattle." "It is obvious," he says, "that when fodder of an inferior quality is cut into chaff and mixed with a portion of ground roots, it would be much more eagerly devoured by cattle, than when the roots and fodder are given alternately." The machinery may, he thinks, be also "beneficially employed in cutting or reducing apples and pears previously to being ground in the ordinary cider mill, which would very much facilitate and expedite the latter operation." JOB CUTLER, OF BIRMINGHAM, for im |