THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW, 



175 



alternating the connections between the bel- 

 lows and fire barrel for this purpose, this 

 scientific test would have been very interest- 

 ing, although so far as I can discover of very 

 little practical value. As it is, in summing up 

 the results of his experiments Mr. Cornell 

 says : " The foregoing statements show 

 that, with fire barrels loaded with very close- 

 ly packed fuel, tlie induced current is weaker 

 in the Bingham and in the Cornell smokers 

 than it is in the same smokers with an en- 

 closed current." The figures which he gives 

 for the Cornell smoker is 30 for the enclosed 

 current, and 18 for the induced current, 

 which tallies quite closely with some experi- 

 ments I have made. 



The Crane smoker does not appear in these 

 scientific tests to have cut a very handsome 

 figure, nor could I or anyone have expected 

 it would who knows all the circumstances in 

 the case. 



This particular smoker was not made for 

 the purpose of testing scientific principles 

 or to be put to any scientific tests. It was 

 one of two or three smokers that I made 

 with wooden valves for experimental pur- 

 poses and I sent this one to the editor of the 

 Review to show that a most excellent 

 smoker could be made with an enclosed 

 blast, which was strong enough to satisfy 

 the most exacting requirements of the bee- 

 keeper and yet keep the bellows free from 

 sparks and smoke. I was well aware that 

 the check valve was imperfect, which had a 

 tendency to \\ eaken the blast. To remedy 

 this defect, I made my lielJows larger and 

 thus secured as strong a blast as necessary. 



Now what was the Bingham srjioker ? 

 Was it such as he is accustomed to sell as a 

 three inch smoker ? Not at all, as I under- 

 stand it, but one constructed especially for 

 this purpose with a bellows two or three 

 times the usual size, and, of course, two or 

 three times the power. I say two or three 

 times the usual size. I had in my shop an 

 old three inch Bingham smoker and by 

 actual measurement I found the bellows 

 only about one-third the capacity of the bel- 

 lows I have been in the habit of using. I 

 may, however, have been in error in regard 

 to the size of the Bingham bellows as the 

 original leather was ruined by sparks being 

 drawn into the bellows and the bellows had 

 been covered with a new leather which may 

 have been smaller. 



In Mr. Cornell's report he speaks of the 

 tests as those of the Bingham smoker or the 



Crane smoker, etc., and it might look as 

 though there was a war of smokers on, and 

 I fear it would be very misleading if it were 

 not understood that the bellows attached to 

 the Bingham smoker in these trials was very 

 much larger than what he ordinarily useiS 

 while the Crane smoker had the same size 

 of hi Hows. 



After reading the report of Mr. Cornell, I 

 found myself saying, " It can not be and yet 

 it is," or something of that sort, or wonder- 

 ing if the same natural laws hold good in 

 Canada and the United States. The next 

 morning found me at work in my shop as 

 soon as up. With one stroke of the hatchet 

 I split the Bingham bellows and soon had 

 the barrel separated and ready to place on 

 the same size of bellows as a Crane smoker. 

 In all my experiments I had never tested a 

 Bingham cut ofl" blast with my own size of 

 bellows. I measured the two bellows and 

 found the Crane nearly three times the size 

 of the Bingham. I was surprised. Can it 

 be that I have been fooling myself all these 

 years ? I took out the blast tube very care- 

 fully. Whew ! I found it nearly full of creo- 

 sote, and so hard I could not dig it out safely 

 with iron or steel until I had soaked it in 

 water to soften it. What a fool I have been ! 

 I wished I had never bothered my head about 

 smokers. No wonder my Bingham smoker 

 had failed to give a strong blast ! Should I 

 ever have the courage to admit that I had 

 been in error ! But I determined to know 

 for myself just what the difference was. 

 Soon I had a Bingham fire barrel and cut off 

 blast wed to a Crane bellows. So far as 

 I could see the union was perfect. I gave 

 this smoker a new nozzle, "bright and 

 shiny," that just fitted it. 



Now then, taking a Crane smoker that had 

 a fire barrel that had seen service, for I 

 wished to show no partiality, I gave one to 

 my hired man, who has been with me for 

 many years, " Now let us see which can 

 throw smoke the fartherest." Many trials 

 were made, frequently changing smokers 

 with each other. 



These tests seemed to indicate very clearly 

 that the Crane smoker had decidedly the 

 stronger blast, but how much, who could 

 tell. I had no anemometer at hand. One 

 must be made. I took a smooth board. A 

 line across one end indicated the point be- 

 yond which the end of the smoker must not 

 go. Now placing a very light, small box 

 just in front of this line, let us see how far 



