street-car service the case is different. Mr. Holmes, in Chicago, who is the pioneer, in the East, of railway cable transmission, acknowledges that it takes seventy-four per cent. of his total power to move a cable. Out of one hundred horse powers that he uses altogether, he only gets twenty-six horse power on his cars, so that, when you come to long distances, cable distribution does not show up as nicely as the gentleman has stated.

Mr. Henry R. Towne.-One application of the electric motor is pertinent. The Yale and Towne Manufacturing Company has built a transfer table for the Pennsylvania Railroad, operated by an electric motor. It is substantially a traveling crane on the ground. The operation of the machine is satisfactory in all respects. The first cost of electric motors is at present prohibitory for many purposes; for example, in crane work. It would be a very desirable thing, indeed, if we could use a small motor for each of the two or three functions of a crane; but in a recent case which I investigated, the cost of three motors for such a purpose, each of them approximating about ten horse-power, would have mounted to almost exactly the sum total of the cost of the crane itself, and the mechanism which they would have displaced would have been comparatively trifling in amount. So that at the present time, while the electric motor is exceedingly clean and convenient and useful, its first cost is certainly so great as to preclude its use for many purposes, where economy of first cost is essential.

The use of hemp rope, which has been referred to, is hardly comparable with the cable railway traction. In the latter case the distances are enormous as compared with the former. The weight of the rope itself, and the friction and resistance of the numerous sheaves and curves, is undoubtedly disproportionate to anything occurring in ordinary hemp-rope transmission in factories. The latter transmission is very economical, and is used almost exclusively in England, now,-much more largely for heavy transmission than leather belting.

No. 354-78.

Is it right or wrong in theory to put a central support under the bed of engines of the Corliss type? Do you know of any bad results from its use, or from its absence?

Mr. H. H. Suplee.-I think it possible the question has something to do with the address of Prof. Sweet, delivered at the Franklin Institute, at which he advocated three-point supports for

all machinery, claiming that the fourth leg was like the fourth leg of a tipping table. He made the statement that the only use for this support was to keep the foundation from coming up.

Mr. Scott A. Smith.-I speak on this subject from the fact of my intimate contact with Mr. Corliss, from 1850 to 1863. I know that he did not consider that there was involved the gain of any advantage in mechanical or scientific principles of construction, by the omission of a support under his girder bed. To know a man thoroughly is to be largely qualified to understand his reasons why in mechanical construction. While Mr. Corliss surrounded himself with the most skillful workmen, and rigidly insisted on the best work, yet he was pervaded with an intuitive desire for economy in the use of material, and for facility in construction. At the time of his invention of the girder bed a prevailing idea with him was to have both the bed, and the main, or crank, bearing, so made that they could be used from the same pattern, same castings,-for either a right or left hand engine. He repelled the idea of having spotting pieces, which would show as a deformity, on the top side of the guides and elsewhere. These are some of the reasons which led him to omit a central support. Since 1858, when he first introduced the girder bed, Mr. Corliss did build some engines with a central support, and for the reason, as I believe, that he appreciated the necessity for the same, growing out of the fact of constantly increasing number of revolutions, and higher and higher initial pressures.

Mr. C. S. Dutton.-I suppose this matter all comes from the question whether the bed is made strong enough, or whether it is not. There is no trouble about carrying the weight; that is easily done if the bed is made strong enough. In point of fact the Corliss engine was originally designed some thirty-five or more years ago, when comparatively low steam pressures were used. Those engines were designed to use from 40 to 50 pounds boiler pressure, and to cut off about one-fifth stroke, so that the vertical stress which came on the girder was comparatively a small amount. At about half stroke the vertical component of the stress at the crosshead is at a maximum.

At this point, the center of the stroke, of course the inertia does not modify the pressure, as exerted on the piston, to any appreciable extent. And we have practically one-third of the pressure on the piston at this point converted into vertical force. If we are cutting off with one-fifth stroke, of course the pressure is reduced

considerably. Unfortunately our engine-users in this country have got into the habit of crowding their engines pretty hard. A great number of users of Corliss engines force them up to one-half cutoff, or farther. In this case we maintain very nearly full boiler pressure up to where the maximum amount of force is converted into vertical stress, so that in using 90 to 100 pounds pressure, and following up to half stroke, we get a very largely increased amount of vertical stress on the guides. This may explain why with some of the older engines it has been found necessary to prop them up in the center. Another thing-I do not know how far the question of the actual amount of stress at this point has been taken into consideration in designing these girders; but from a casual inspection of them I would say that in the larger engines it is altogether probable that the girder has been deepened to correspond with the increased amount of pressure there. In fact, in looking at them, they appear to only deepen about in proportion to the diameter of the cylinder, while the pressure, as you know, increases as the square of the diameter. It seems to me that is about all there is in that question.

Mr. Henry R. Towne.-It would seem to me that the question turns somewhat on the character of the foundation under the engine. In my own experience we are running a Corliss engine having the middle leg. It has been in use for seven or eight years, and we have never had any trouble whatever from an attempt of the leg to elevate itself. I fancy that if the foundation is a thoroughly good one, and no disturbance or settling occurs, the middle leg ought certainly to be not only unobjectionable, but of course would give a further stiffening to the engine frame.

CCCLV.

MEMORIAL NOTICES OF MEMBERS DECEASED
DURING THE YEAR.

JAMES BEGGS.

Mr. Beggs was born in the year 1843. In March 3, 1854, he was apprenticed with Danforth, Cooke & Co., at Paterson, N. J., serving two years at boiler making and five and a half years in general machinery and mill-wrighting. He left in 1859, and was for eighteen months at the South Brooklyn Marine Engine Works, on this class of engine, and for the same period on locomotive valve-motions. In 1861 he enlisted in the New Jersey Volunteers, and served until 1864 in the many engagements of his division; and afterwards he served in the drawing-room of the D.. L. and W. Railroad for one year, and two years as general foreman of their shops at Scranton, acting as master mechanic. He was five years engineer in charge of the steam-engine and boiler department of Todd & Rafferty, until 1872, and for two years acted as general superintendent over the 800 men employed in the elevator works of Crane Bros., at Chicago. For the last sixteen years he was in business for himself, constructing silk factories and in general practice of warming and ventilation of buildings, and at the same time carried on a mercantile department in this city. He was also consulting engineer of the Passaic Water Works.

He took his own life in a fit of temporary aberration of mind, on the 19th of July, 1889. He became a member of this society at the New York meeting of 1883.

ALFRED B. COUCH.

Mr. Alfred B. Couch was born May 17, 1829. He entered the shop of McKay & Hoadley in 1847, and from that time until February, 1864, he served as apprentice and journeyman, as foreman seven years, and as draughtsman two years. From 1864 to 1871 he was superintendent and general manager of The New York Steam-Engine Company's Works, in charge of design and con

struction. In August of that year he became mechanical engineer at the Industrial Works of Wm. B. Bement & Son, in Philadelphia, with whom he remained as designer until the time of his death.

He had made a specialty of machine tools for nearly seventeen years, and at the time of his death was a recognized authority in these lines. He was one of the charter members of this society, joining it in the spring of 1880, and passed away August 2, 1888.

WILLIAM MILLER

Mr. Miller was born in Dumbartonshire, Scotland, July 21, 1820. He became an apprentice in an iron forge February 15, 1835, and served six years. For twenty-two years after that he worked as journeyman. In 1849 he came to this country, connecting himself with the West Point Iron Foundry, at Cold Spring. He returned to Scotland in 1855, with the idea of permanently locating himself there, and had connected himself with the shipyard of the Dennys, on the Clyde, at Dumbarton. In 1858 he made his beginning at Pittsburg, forming the Duquesne Forge, of which Mr. Miller became sole proprietor in 1864. Mr. Miller had the honor of forging the first armor-plate made in the United States for the U. S. Frigate Ironsides. He also forged the first battery of cast-steel cannon, or field-pieces for the army, in that same year.

In 1882 the business was still further enlarged, and a new building put up, when the corporation became known as the Miller Forge Company. He became a member of this society at the Nashville (XVII.) meeting, in May, 1888. He died September 12, 1888.

HARVEY F. GASKILL.

Mr. Gaskill was born January 19, 1845. He is said to have shown unusual capacity as an inventor at a very early age, principally in agricultural machinery. In 1873 he entered the employ of The Holly Manufacturing Company, of Lockport, as draughtsman, and in 1877 became their mechanical engineer and superintendent, which he remained till the time of his death. He designed the pump which is known by his name, and is also known as the responsible designer of the standard design of water-works pumping engine put on the market by his company.