Scientific American Supplement, No. 561, October 2, 1886 — John Shaqi
Scientific American Supplement, No. 561, October 2, 1886Various
Science
Scientific American Supplement, No. 561, October 2, 1886
Various
Science -- Periodicals
It must be admitted that this press provides for the greatest possible
economy of time, and for the largest output, for the capital employed,
which can be attained. The rams and the men are constantly in action,
and not a single moment is lost. For filling each box 78 seconds are
allowed, and there is ample time for the preliminary lashing.
[Illustration: COMPOUND HYDRAULIC PRESS. FIGS. 5 and 6.]
Figs. 5 and 6 show a modification of this press, designed to turn out
sixty bales per hour. It has only one set of long-stroke rams, with
three revolvers. The bale receives its preliminary lashing while in
the position, B (Fig. 6). Fifty-three seconds are available for
filling the box, and the same time for the preliminary lashing. It is
found, however, that three-quarters of a minute is sufficient for the
complete hooping of a bale.
[Illustration: COMPOUND HYDRAULIC PRESS. FIGS. 7 and 8.]
Figs. 7 and 8 show a similar press intended for jute pressing. This
has only one box, which is fixed, as the material has to be packed in
an orderly manner. Its speed is sixty bales an hour.--_Engineering._
* * * * *
JET PROPELLERS.--HYDRAULIC PROPULSION OF VESSELS.
Certain mechanical devices appear to exercise a remarkable influence
on some minds, and engineers are blamed for not adopting them, in no
very measured terms in some cases. It is not in any way necessary that
these devices should have been invented by the men who advocate their
adoption, in order to secure that advocacy. The intrinsic attractions
of the scheme suffice to evoke eulogy; and engineers sometimes find it
very difficult to make those who believe in such devices understand
that there are valid reasons standing in the way of their adoption.
One such device is hydraulic propulsion. A correspondent in a recent
impression suggested its immediate and extended use in yachts at all
events, and we willingly published his letter, because the system does
no doubt lend itself very freely to adoption for a particular class of
yachts, namely, those provided with auxiliary power only. But because
this is the case it must not be assumed that the jet propeller is
better than screw or paddle-wheel propulsion; and it is just as well,
before, correspondence extends further, that we should explain why and
in what way it is not satisfactory. The arguments to be urged in favor
of hydraulic propulsion are many and cogent; but it will not fail to
strike our readers, we think, that all these arguments refer, not to
the efficiency of the system, but to its convenience. A ship with a
hydraulic propeller can sail without let or hindrance; a powerful pump
is provided, which will deal with an enormous leak, and so on. If all
the good things which hydraulic propulsion promises could be had
combined with a fair efficiency, then the days of the screw propeller
and the paddle wheel would be numbered; but the efficiency of the
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account