I went everywhere visiting engines at work and in process of construction, to observe this particular feature of the overhanging crank, which was universal in horizontal engines. In this class of engines, running slowly, its defective nature was not productive of serious consequences, because no stress was exerted on the cap bolts and the shaft was made larger in proportion to the power of the engine, as it had to carry the fly-wheel. But I was astonished to see the extent to which the overhang of the single crank was allowed. Builders seemed to be perfectly regardless of its unmechanical nature. First, the crank-pin was made with a length of bearing surface equal to about twice its diameter; then a stout collar was formed on the pin between its bearing surface and the crank. The latter was made thick and a long hub was formed on the back of it. I was told that the long hub was necessary in order to give a proper depth of eye to receive the shaft. This being turned down smaller than the journal, so that the crank might be forced on up to a shoulder, the eye needed to be deep or the crank would not be held securely. Finally, the journal boxes were made with flanges on the ends, sometimes projecting a couple of inches. Altogether, the transverse distance from the center line of the engine to the solid support of the shaft in the pillow-block was about twice what it needed to be. I also saw in some cases the eccentric placed between the crank and the pillow-block. Fifteen years later I saw a large engine sent from Belgium to our 1876 Exhibition which was made in this manner. I determined at once that such a construction would not do for high-speed engines, and proceeded to change every one of these features. The single crank could not be avoided, but its overhang could be much reduced. [Illustration: OLD AND NEW CRANKS AND JOURNAL BOXES. THE CRANKS ARE SHOWN IN THE VERTICAL POSITION. CRANKS AND TOP AND BOTTOM BOXES ARE SHOWN IN SECTION.] The following sketches show the changes which were then made, and all of which have been retained. The inside collar on the crank-pin was dispensed with and the diameter of the pin was made greater than its length, the projected area being generally increased. The shank of the pin was made larger and shorter, and was riveted at the back. Instead of turning the shaft down smaller than the journal to receive the crank, I made it with a large head for this purpose. The keyway could then be planed out and the key fitted above the surface of the journal, and the joint was so much further from the axis that but little more than one half the depth was required in the crank-eye.