is'.t: 



r.LKANINGvS IN BIU' Cri/rURIv 



91 



Vcs, I dill ihiuk you were favoring the sup- 

 ply-dealer at the expense of the bee-keeper, 

 but suj)posed it was because you were under 

 the false impression that you were favoring 

 both. One may be mistaken in this as in oth- 

 er ways — in fact, more readily, for the consid- 

 eration of unconscious bias comes in. 



So far I am not certain that I may not have 

 got the worst of it ; but now for the next 

 rounil — look out ! You say you have " care- 

 fully tested" every combined section-machine 

 sent you. Wliai does this mean ? A machine 

 ifi/j^/t/ be carefully tested in twenty minutes, 

 and a verdict given. Rut in the case of any 

 machine depending partly for its speed on the. 

 way it is handled, a short test is no test at all, 

 unless its defects are quite obvious. Other- 

 wise no machine you test is on equal terms 

 with the Daisy. Not less than five thousand 

 sections should be put up, and ten thousand 

 would be better. Tlie operator must learn to 

 finger it as an expert does a piano. This re- 

 quires time, and lots of it ; but I see no other 

 way to do. Piano-fingering is exceedingly 

 awkward work for a long time ; but, when 

 once learned, the motions required are as ele- 

 gant and effective as they formerly seemed 

 awkward and unnatural. 



I have not tested the Daisy — not because I 

 do not want to, but because I have not time at 

 present, and have not a suitable lamp. But I 

 will leave it to you whether there are not some 

 things I can say about it, as well as the Hub- 

 bard, which I have not worked either. (I 

 have used, besides the Raiichfuss, the Parker 

 and the Clark machines, and a treadle press 

 called the Beeson. ) My objection to all sepa- 

 rate machines is that, in folding, certain mo- 

 tions are gone through with that have to be 

 done over again when the foundation is fasten- 

 ed. If you could combine the Daisy and the 

 Hubbard, wouldn't you do it? But, this idea 

 is "theoretical." Not so. The other day I 

 made repeated experiments with lots of twen- 

 ty sections each on my machine, some previ- 

 ously folded, and some not, to ascertain how 

 much extra time the folding took when both 

 operations were performed together. One lot, 

 already folded, was supjDlied with top sheets 

 at a rate which, if continued, would be 4o(J an 

 hour. Another was folded and .supplied with 

 top sheets at the rate of 4;3() an hour — a very 

 trifling difference which leaves the Hubbard 

 out of sight, even at the rate of 500 in 1") min- 

 utes. In another case, in which both top 

 sheets and bottom starters were used, one lot 

 with and one without folding at the same 

 time, rar/i lot was done in 4>4 minutes (or 266 

 an hour) — no difference at all. (By the way, 

 what is the record of the Daisy in putting in 

 both top sheets and bottom starters?) I may 

 mention here that I made several trials of 

 20 sections each on the folding part alone, out 

 of curiosity. The average was 20 in 6-") sec- 

 onds — a rate of 1000 in .■)4 minutes. An expert 

 might equal the Hubbard. But, of course, 

 there would be no object in folding separately. 

 I mention this simply to show that no time is 

 lost by the method of folding employed. 



In fastening bottom .starters only, in previ- 

 ously folded sections, I reached the rate of 490 



an hour. Small starters a])])ear to be handled 

 a trifle easier than full sheets. When this 

 rate, with my experience (at that time), in 

 putting up only 'jOOO .sections on this machine 

 IS comi)ared with your rate of ')00 an hour, and 

 an experience of hundreds of thou.sands, prob- 

 ably, on the Dai.sy, I don't think there can be 

 much doubt as to the conclusion to be drawn 

 concerning the foundation-fastening portion 

 of the Rauchfuss macliine ; and when you 

 come to add the ]n minutes previously requir- 

 ed to fold those ")()() on the Hubbard, and then 

 compare the total result with the fact that the 

 combined macliine adds less than three min- 

 utes to its separate record to accomplish the 

 same result, it looks as though inexperience 

 with the combined machine actually did bet- 

 ter work than experience with the separate 

 ones. 



But I hear some one say, "Oh ! if you are 

 going to compare your spurts with the ordina- 

 ry records of others." To this I calmly reply, 

 Consider the piano again. A beginner of, say, 

 400 hours' practice may spurt all he pleases ; 

 but he can not run a scale, nor hop around 

 among the sixty-fourth notes, nor execute a 

 trill, at a quarter of the rate in which an ex- 

 pert does it, and the latter will carry on a con- 

 versation at the same time. In other words, 

 when speed depends on strength the inexperi- 

 enced may gain by spurting, but not when it 

 depends on dexterity. Of this I became pain- 

 fully aware when, in making the "spurts," 

 my fingers boggled and hit the corner of the 

 pr ss more, it seemed, than the}- did before. 



As to quality, I grant the excellence of the 

 toggle-joint in saving power, but contend that 

 sufficient power for the purpose can be saved 

 in other ways. The Rauchfuss machine saves 

 power in two wa3's ; first, by a treadle, by 

 means of which the same bodily exertion with 

 the foot applies greater force than with the 

 hand ; second, by a lever in the machine it- 

 s :-lf. The power is at one end, the fulcrum at 

 the other, and the pressure is applied about a 

 third of the di.stance from the fulcrum to the 

 power. If any person were inclined to criti- 

 cise the resulting exertion required, he could 

 do so without touching on the principles of 

 the machine. It would only be necessary to 

 lessen the distance from the fulcrum to the 

 point of pressure. But I do not know that 

 there woidd be any object in doing this. As 

 it is, the exertion is trifling (on properly dove- 

 tailed .sections), and, what is more to the pur- 

 pose, the work is perfect, so I do not think 

 the Hubbard would be preferred on account of 

 superiority in results. 



Passing to the quality of the work done in 

 fastening foundation, I call your attention to 

 Mr. Hutchin.son's statement that he has met 

 with better success in fastening flat-bottom 

 foundation by pressure than with the heated- 

 ]3late machines. I assume that, among the 

 latter, he includes the Dais}- ; but he does not 

 include the Rauchfuss, as he has not tried it. 

 Somnambulist, too, says this is his (or her) 

 last year with the heated plate. Hence, with- 

 out having used it I may infer there is some 

 reason for thinking the work of the Daisy is 

 not perfect ; for, although neither of them 



