Perhaps no cause of explosion is oftener mentioned than shortness of water, and this is not unfrequently coupled with turning on the feed suddenly into an overheated boiler. Many explosions have been attributed to this cause, when closer investigation would have revealed some far more probable reason. For instance, shortness of water was stated as the cause of the explosion, at Abercarn in 1865, of a single-tube boiler with a very large flue tube, which collapsed upwards from the bottom. The top of the tube and the sides of the shell had not the slightest mark of overheating, although exposed to the flame of three furnaces, one of which worked through the tube, and the others on each side of the shell. In this case the cause of explosion was clearly the weakness of the tube, and not shortness of water. It is erroneous to suppose that if a boiler runs dry, or if the feed is turned into a red-hot boiler, there must necessarily be an explosion. If a boiler unconnected with any other runs rapidly empty, from the breaking of the blow-off pipe or any such cause, it will simply get red-hot and sink out of shape upon the fire, as may often be seen, but no explosion would happen. If the water only falls gradually, as it would if the feed were turned off and evaporation continued, the parts exposed to the fire would get overheated as the water left them. If the subsidence of the water were very slow, those parts might get red-hot, and so much softened and weakened as to be incapable of bearing the pressure, when an explosion would take place, as at Smethwick, in the present year, where the flues were set above the water line, as shown in Fig. 74. [Illustration: _Fig. 74._]