Page 46 



BETTER FRUIT 



April 



the machine and, too, that it requires 

 skilled engineers to operate them. Such 

 a power as this is more suitable to large 

 plants than to small ones, and I could 

 scarcely recommend such an engine to 

 anyone who intends to irrigate not more 

 than forty or fifty acres. In many cases 

 the gasoline engine would be the best 

 sort of power to use. Producer gas 

 engines are being used to a considerable 

 extent for pumping and other power pur- 

 poses, and appear to be giving good 

 satisfaction and are economical in the 

 consumption of fuel. 



It is claimed by the builders, and some 

 of the users, that they are the most eco- 

 nomical form of power (where fuel of 

 any sort is required). I have been unable 

 to get any data on the performance of 

 producer gas engines that would be of 

 any great value to intending purchasers 

 of power plants. The last kind of power 

 which I will consider is the current wheel 

 or current motor. So far I have never 

 seen or do not know of any device in 

 the form of a current motor that is of 

 any value for irrigation on a large scale. 

 They may be all right to furnish water 

 to a house or barn, or small tract of 

 land, but beyond this they are worthless. 



In making these remarks on the cur- 

 rent motor I do not want it understood 

 that I am making light of the many 

 devices of this sort for producing power. 

 On the other hand, I admire the genious 

 of the inventors, and believe that some 

 of them have achieved as good results 

 and as practical as possible. The point 

 on which they all fall down lies in the 

 fact that the theoretical power of the 

 current which is utilized by the motor 

 is generally very small. Now, it is plain 

 that it is a physical impossibility to 

 obtain any more than the actual theo- 

 retical power. I have often heard invent- 

 ors of current motors claim for certain 

 specified locations that twenty, thirty or 

 forty horse-power naturally existed in 

 those places, but when an accurate 

 measurement was made the actual theo- 

 retical power would fall down to two, 

 four or six horse-power, as the case 

 might be. And of this theoretical power 

 it is safe to say that not more than from 

 forty to fifty per cent efficiency can be 

 obtained with the best current motors. 

 This will give in practice only from one 

 to three horse-power, which is rather 

 small for pumping purposes in most 

 places. 



Where\'er the currents or rapids of 

 a stream show any considerable amount 

 of power then the best way to utilize it 

 and get the greatest efliciency is by the 

 use of the turbine water wheel. 



Referring back to the steam engine as 

 a power for pumping I want to say that 

 the mf)St economical engines in point of 

 fuel consumption are nr)t always the 

 ones most advisable to buy. If it is for 

 a plant of considerable power, say from 

 fifty horse-power up, then it may be 

 advisable t() use the best automatic 

 engines that can be obtained if the price 

 of fuel is considered. On the other 

 hand, for small plants of ten, fifteen or 

 twenty horse-power the plain slide valve 

 engine will generally be advisable. 



Some builders of automatic engines 

 claim to reduce the consumption of fuel 

 to less than half that required by plain 

 slide valve engines. The comparative 

 steam consumption of these engine's has 

 been shown by many tests to be about 

 as follows: A good slide valve engine, 

 well proportioned to its load, will 

 develop a horse-power on forty-five 

 pounds of water per hour; a good Corliss 

 automatic engine will develop the same 

 amount of power with about twenty-five 

 pounds of water per hour. In both cases 

 this is for simple non-condensing engines. 

 With the compound or triple expansion 

 engines of very large size the amount 

 is then reduced to approximately ten 

 pounds of water per horse-power per 

 hour. But such a plant as this would be 

 quite out of the question for the ordinary 

 sized piece of land, which will generally 

 range from ten to forty acres. 



To get the amount of fuel required for 

 a horse-power we find, in practice, that 

 about the best result obtainable is the 

 evaporation or conversion into steam of 

 ten pounds of water per pound of first 

 class coal. This would give for the 

 finest constructed plants one horse-power 

 per pound of coal per hour, and for the 

 plain, common engine one horse-power 

 for four and one-half pounds of coal. 

 But in common practice these results are 

 not always obtained, and I personally 

 know from experience that double these 

 amounts of fuel are used. Fine tests, 

 showing great economy, is one thing 

 and the results of common practice is 

 quite another. 



The amount of gasoline required to 

 produce a commercial horse-power is 

 generally estimated at one pint per hour 

 per horse-power. I ha\'e known of 

 cases where they claim to produce a 

 horse-power with half the amount, but 

 in general I do not think it is safe to 

 rely upon such a small quantity. 



At one time I was working nine steam 

 engines, ranging from ten to one hundred 

 horse-power, and the cost of fuel was an 

 important matter. I found by a practical 

 test that a cord of dry fir or tamarack 

 wood would do as much work as a ton 

 of Rock Springs coal. 



The limit of elevation which it is prac- 

 tical to lift water by pumping for irriga- 

 tion depends almost entirely upon the 

 value of the crops produced. High 

 priced and very valuable crops will stand 

 the cost of pumping to elevations as high 

 as .300 to 400 feet. At my own place, 

 near Spokane, I pump to an elevation 

 of about 200 feet with steam power and 

 irrigate about forty acres. We use a 

 7xl0-inch twelve horse-power slide valve 

 engine, connected by a belt to a Gould 

 triplex plunger pump, and a thirty horse- 

 power boiler, and it requires about two 

 cords of fir or tamarack wood per acre 

 per year. This is for about eighty days' 

 irrigating season, and using about three- 

 fourths of an acre foot of water. These 

 results are not economical, but our wood 

 costs only the cutting. 



The amount of water required per acre 

 varies greatly in different localities for 

 dififerent crops and different age trees. 

 The climatic conditif)ns alone will affect 

 the amount of water required to a large 



extent. An old orchard will require sev- 

 eral times as much water as a very 

 young one. Sandy soils need very much 

 more water than fine, compact soils. 



It will be seen from the above forms 

 of power for irrigation and from local 

 conditions that no definite or exact 

 amount of fuel or cost per acre can be 

 given that will cover all cases, but care- 

 ful consideration and examination by 

 some competent engineer should be 

 made for each particular location. 



At this point it may be well to say 

 that in many of the United States gov- 

 ernment calculations the engineers allow 

 one cubic foot per second per 160 acres, 

 which is equal to one acre foot in about 

 eighty days. An acre foot is the amount 

 of water required to cover an acre of 

 land one foot deep. In some cases this 

 amount is more than is necessary, while 

 in others it is entirely inadequate. 



The first thing to be considered in a 

 pumping project is the amount of water 

 needed and the next is the amount of 

 power required; third, the kind of power 

 best adapted to the location, which can 

 be determined as follows: First, water 

 power by turbine wheels; second, if you 

 are near an electric line then electric 

 power would be the next choice; third, 

 if you are in a locality where wood or 

 coal is plentiful and cheap then a steam 

 engine would probably be the best, espe- 

 cially if you are in a locality where 

 gasoline is expensive; fourth, if at a 

 considerable distance from a railroad and 

 not under any of the above conditions 

 then a gasoline engine would be advisable; 

 fifth, if near a lignite mine or in a locality 

 where lignite or other suitable fuel can 

 be obtained at a reasonable price then I 

 would say investigate carefully the pro- 

 ducer gas engine. 



In estimating the amount of power 

 necessary for pumping three factors 

 must always be considered, as follows: 



Time, number of cubic feet of water 

 and the height it is to be raised. The 

 application of these three factors give 

 only the theoretical power, and it is the 

 common practice to double the theoret- 

 ical power to overcome friction, leak- 

 age and other imperfections. The size of 

 delivery pipe is often responsible for 

 waste of power. It should be borne in 

 mind that by doubling the diameter of 

 a pipe increases its carrying capacity 

 nearly five times, yet it does not gen- 

 erally cost more than twice as much. 

 It may also be well to mention that the 

 amount of power required to pump any 

 given quantity of water (other things 

 being equal) is directly in proportion 

 to the height at which it is to be deliv- 

 ered. For example, if it requires ten 

 horse-power to pump a certain quantity 

 of water to an elevation of 100 feet it 

 will require twenty horse-power to pump 

 the same quantity two hundred feet high. 



Reducing to its simplest form the con- 

 tents of this paper we may deduce the 

 following, from which conclusions' can 

 be drawn as to the best means of power 

 and pumping by taking into considera- 

 tion local conditions: First, the water 

 power by turbine wheels is first choice; 

 second, that electric power, when it can 



