The Trials of Self-binding Harvesters at Chester. 
1 09 
sheaves were rather loosely and irregularly tied. A shower of rain made 
the corn very damp before the plot was finished, and prevented the machine 
from doing the best work of which it was capable. Under the circumstances 
a travelling buttor would probably have tended to improve the sheafing, but 
on this machine it was conspicuous by its absence. Four stops, due to damp 
mole-heaps. Time, 84^ minutes. 
(2) Next came No. 2403 (Keyworth), low platform, rear-discharge binder, 
and perhaps this attracted more attention than fell to the share of any other 
machine, as the construction and method of working differ very widely from 
those in any of its rivals. The separation is good, but there is some waste, 
both from the binding-platform and from the reel, the latter picking up odd 
straws in front and dropping them in rear of the cutting-platform. This was 
a good plot, but the straw was still damp after the shower. There is great 
control of the position of the band on the sheaf, and the draught certainly 
looks light. There were four stops, twice from string broken, and twice to 
clear finger-bar. Time, 38 minutes. 
(3) No. 5171 (Hornsby). This was a fairly good plot, and the corn was dry. 
The work was well done, and with no stops. The separation was very good, 
and it was easy to see that this is largely due to the dependent rocking arms, 
which at the moment that the binding-arm comes forward, move in the 
opposite direction, meet the loose corn, and hold it back till the sheaf is 
tied and discharged. This very important addition is confined to the two 
machines exhibited by Messrs. Hornsby, and it is not too much to say that 
to this feature alone a large measure of their success is attributable. Very 
little waste. Time, 31 minutes. 
(4) No. 2321 (Kearsley). Good plot. Sheafing very moderate. Two 
stops on account of broken string. Much waste. Nine loose sheaves. 
Time, 26£ minutes. 
(5) No. 1562 (Samuelson). A good plot, corn rather longer. Sheafing 
inferior, and tension of band irregular. One stop, due to soil choking 
finger-bar. Time, 39£ minutes. 
(6) No. 5172 (Hornsby). This was a somewhat uneven plot, but the work 
was thoroughly well done; the separation and sheafing were good, and the 
travelling buttor worked well. The sheaf-carrier was very efficient, both on 
this machine and on No. 5171, and enabled the driver to deposit the sheaves 
in rows with the utmost regularity. This is a matter of some consequence, 
as it saves labour in stooking. Time, 27 1 minutes. 
(7) No. 2322 (Kearsley). Good plot. Fairly good work. No stops. 
Time, 27 minutes. 
(8) No. 4031 (Massey-Harris). Good plot as regards corn, but the 
ground very uneven, with one very bad open furrow and loose soil. Not- 
withstanding these difficulties there were no stops, though a very low cut 
was taken, and it was quite remarkable to notice how the finger-bar shaved 
the surface of the ground without choking. 1 The sheaves showed a slight 
tendency to necklace — i.e. to hang together by the heads; this was remedied 
by putting down the hinged heading-board. Sheafing and binding good. 
Very little waste. Time, 35 minutes. 
(9) No. 1563 (Samuelson). In this plot were some badly-laid pieces, and 
1 This led to an inspection and comparison of all finger-bars, the result 
showing a very great difference in shape and sectional outline of the respective 
finger-bars and cutting-platforms, especially as regards the greater or less 
obstruction presented by the under surface to the ground when at work. This 
comparison was greatly in favour of the machines exhibited by Messrs. 
Hornsby and Messrs. Massey-Harris, in which the obstruction was practically 
nijl- • . 
