THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



133 



vary in the same proportion as they did in 

 the case of the Crane, the result of experi- 

 ment No. 4 at 12 inches would have been as 

 follows : 



Bingham 15 5-13 



Crane 10 



Cornell ...18 6-13 



Substituting these figures for those in No. 

 4, and comparing Nos. 2 and 4, we have 



Enclosed Induced 



current, current. 



Bingham 17 15 5-13 



Crane 10 — 



Cornell 30 18 613 



The foregoing experiments show that, with 

 fire barrels loaded with very closely packed 

 fuel, the induced current is weaker in the 

 Bingham and in the Cornell smoker than it 

 is in the same smokers with an enclosed cur- 

 rent, such as these smokers had had ; and it 

 shows that the enclosed current in the Crane 

 smoker is weaker than either the induced or 

 enclosed current in the other two smokers. 

 How much of this weakness should be at- 

 tached to the slight leakage above mentioned 

 it is difficult to say, but I am of the opinion 

 that, considering the expenditure of force 

 required to open the checkvalve, and the 

 loss through friction in a long air passage, 

 and in turning a right angle, it is not possi- 

 ble to construct a Crane smoker, having a 

 blast as strong as that of the Bingham, when 

 each is loaded with an ordinary charge of 

 fuel. The experiments show also that in 

 every case the blast in the Cornell smoker is 

 stronger than it is in either of the others. 

 The greatest volume of smoke necessarily 

 accompanies the strongest blast, when the 

 fuel is properly managed. 



The relative strength of the blast of two 

 smokers may be tested approximately, with- 

 out an instrument, by placing a handful of 

 heavy tacks or light wire nails on a table and 

 blowing upon them with one of the smokers, 

 at such a distance that the current will dis- 

 turb them just a little. Then try placing 

 the nozzle of the other smoker at the same 

 point, and blowing, it can easily be seen 

 which blast is the stronger 



The three smokers and the cylinder of 

 fuel, just as they were, when I made them, 

 are now in the possession of Mr. W. Z. 

 Hutchinson, of the Review, who, I am sure, 

 will willingly lend them to anyone wishing 

 to repeat my experiments. 



Lindsay. Ont. April G, 1898. 



[After reading Mr. Corueil's article I was 

 quite a little puzzled to comprehend ivhy 

 there should be so much difference between 



the Cornell and Bingham smokers when both 

 wore used with enclosed currents. Both had 

 the same size of bellows and fire barrel, and 

 with a tube passing from the bellows to the 

 fire barrel it seemed to me that they were 

 exactly identical. There was only one point 

 in which I could conceive that there might 

 be a difference, and that was in the size of 

 the openings for the blast to leave the bel- 

 lows. I wrote to Mr. Cornell for an expla- 

 nation, and found it was as I suspected. It 

 is impossible to give Mr. Cornell's explana- 

 tion in full in this issue, although I may do 

 so at some future time, but I will try and 

 give the gist of it. Among other things he 

 said : 



" The tube in the Cornell bellows is 42-100 

 of an inch in diameter. I have not meas- 

 ured the tube in the Bingham so accurately, 

 but I believe it is about 5-lG, making a dif- 

 ference of less than 1-8 of an inch in the size 

 of the tubes. * * * * I do not believe 

 that delivering a bellows full of air against 

 the fan in the time required by the Cornell, 

 instead of the longer time required by the 

 Bingham, affords a complete explanation. 

 When testing the smokers for leakages, I 

 found that if the pressure was continued and 

 the vent kept closed, only a short time was 

 required to close the bellows, although there 

 was no perceptible escape of air. The air 

 must escape through the walls of the bellows. 

 Since the time required for discharging the 

 air of the Bingham bellows is greater, a cor- 

 respondingly greater* proportion of the air 

 would escape through the walls of the bel- 

 lows. * * * * In using the size of tube 

 that I did it never occurred to me that its 

 differing in size from that of the Bingham 

 would effect the result, but I can see that a 

 blast might be reduced, by using a small 

 vent, to such a state of attenuation that it 

 would not reach the fan at all, at 17 inches, 

 but would be overcome by the resistance of 

 the air between the nozzle and the instru- 

 ment. To a slight degree the Bingham blast 

 may be affected in this way, but it is hard to 

 believe that it accounts for the whole of it. 



* * * * There is now an element of 

 uncertainty as to how much I gain by my 

 induced currents. I may try the whole thing 

 over again. You see when we commence to 

 experiment we never know what may be re- 

 vealed." 



When I met Mr. Bingham last winter at 

 our Michigan State convention, we talked 

 smokers long if not loud, and he called my 

 attention to the fact that the size of the vent 

 in his smoker bellows was the result of care- 

 ful experiments. If smaller than it is, the 

 blast would be too weak ; if larger, it would 

 be so strong that fire and sparks would be 

 driven out at the nozzle. The present size is 

 the "golden mean." 



Of course, the true test of a smoker is ac- 

 tual work in the apiary. If it suits there, if 



