512 The Trials of Cream Separators at Doncaster. 
clean, but the rapidity witli whlcli this separator got through its 
work was wonderful. It is an excellent machine, and well fitted 
for dairy factories of the largest kind, while the application of 
the discs is a clever invention and in many cases well worth the 
extra cleaning and care required in their use. 
No. 4293, " Biirmeister and Wain's " (Danish), size B, 43?. 5s. 
— 125 gallons of milk were separated in the hour, 150 gallons 
being the quantity stated. The power employed was 1'717 h.p., 
this being fair, but in efficiency the machine came out inferior 
to the " Leviathan " and the " Alexandra." The number of 
revolutions was 4,000 per minute, and the temperature of 
separation 88° Fahr. The separation was only better than in 
the case of the " Leviathan," and inferior to the other three 
machines, 92*9 per cent, of the butter-fat of the whole-milk 
being removed, and 0'311 per cent, of fat being left in the 
skim-milk. The loss in working was large, the drum holding 
so much. This was the only machine that could really be 
easily regulated to produce thick or thin cream at will whilst 
in motion. This was done by withdrawing the cream tube so as 
to take only the outer wall of cream, or, by advancing it, to take 
a thicker shaving (to which the action may be likened) off the 
cream, and thus more milk with it, thereby making the result- 
ing cream of a thinner consistency. It occupied fifteen minutes 
to dismantle and clean the machine, and six minutes to put it 
together again. This separator was a fine strong machine, and 
worked very well : to it was fitted " Jonsson's Intermediate 
Motion," which prevents the allowed maximum speed from being 
exceeded. This machine was able to elevate the skim-milk as 
it came from the separator. 
From the foregoing remarks on the several machines it 
may be gathered that, in point of power required for working, 
the "Alexandra" machine was the best, and the "Leviathan." 
next best, while, in the matter of efficiency, these two machines 
also stood before the others. Whereas, however, the separa- 
tion effected by the " Alexandra " and " Reading Royal " 
machines was excellent, the " Leviathan " and Danish machines 
failed very considerably. For simplicity of construction, facility 
of dismantling and cleaning, as also in its ready portability, 
the "Alexandra" had no equal, and, in the end, this machine 
stood, in the Judges' opinion, well ahead of its rivals. 
Between the other machines there was but little to choose, 
and better separation on the part of either the "Leviathan"" or- 
the Danish machine might have put one of them in the position 
taken by the second-prize winner, the " Reading Royal," which, 
