1853 . 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
29 
Geneva Trial of Implements. 
Review of the recent Trials of Horse Powers and Threshing 
Machines , and the report of the same , by the Committee of 
the New- York State Agricultural Society, at Geneva and 
Utica , under whose supervision it was held. 
If any thing were wanting to prove the great superiority 
of the Endless Chain Horse Power, patented by Horace L. 
EMKRy, over all others of ils class—or if to prove the 
superiority and utility of endless chain powers over all sweep 
powers—it has at length been furnished by the report of the 
committee of the State Agricultural Society, on their trial of 
machinery at Geneva, in July last. 
The trial was one of the largest ever had in this country, and 
probably in the world. It continued nearly two weeks, and was 
attended with avast amount of labor and expense to all con¬ 
cerned, and seemingly every competitor returned to his home 
perfectly satisfied with the experiments to which their ma¬ 
chines had been subjected. 
Although the award for the best Horse Power was given 
the maker of the above Emery power, it is not of half the 
importance as is the report of the several severe tests to which 
all were subjected, as will be seen by reference to the report 
Among other things, it says of the Emery power: 
“ The platform rolls over reels, furnished with clutches so 
“ disposed that its action is nearly in a tangent to the circle, 
<£ and therefore acts to the best advantage. This arrange- 
“ ment seems less liable to wear than any other, and the en- 
“ tire contrivance and perfection of the work, gives to it a 
“ marked superiority.” 
It may here be proper to state, on the authority of two of 
the committee, Mr. Howard and Mr. Holmes, (after publica¬ 
tion of the report ) “that in course of consultation upon the 
relative meri:s of the several other powers, it was considered 
in committee that this one had one-third advantage in utility 
over the best of the others,” but it is nevertheless true that its 
relative utility was not over-estimated, as will hereinafter 
appear. 
One of the first and simplest experiments tried with the se¬ 
veral powers in this class, was to ascertain the relative 
amount of friction, or in other words, how much force was 
absorbed in friction by the powers when not attached to any 
machinery, and running at the velocity required for practical 
purposes. 
It was as follows: Each Two-horse Power was placed at 
an angle of 13®, and two men placed upon the platform, and 
their gravity, (269 lbs.) allowed to move them as nearly as 
possible to that velocity required for threshing. As their 
weight was too great and the velocity too rapid, a spring ba¬ 
lance or steelyards, was attached to the frame work at the 
fore end, and held by the men on the platform—and by this 
means the motion was retarded sufficiently for the experi¬ 
ment. As the position of the steelyards was the same on 
each power, and in a horizontal position, it was reckoned that 
whatever the draft in retarding the mot.on might be, the steel 
yards must show it, as they did; and it was assumed that 
whatever of the propelling force derived from 269 pounds, 
which is equal to about 62 lbs., was not absorbed in friction, 
must be shown upon the steelyards—or in other words, what 
was not upon the steelyards, was absorbed. The result of 
this experiment was as follows, after getting up and maintain¬ 
ing a uniform velocity with each machine: 
Emery’s—-Velocity of platform required for threshing, 169 
feet per minute; velocity in experiment, 292 feet per minute; 
steelyards showed 27 lbs.; absorbed by friction, 35 lbs. 
Badger’s—Velocity of platform required for threshing, 222 
feet per minute; velocity in experiment, 200 feet per minute; 
steelyards showed 11 lbs ; absorbed by friction, 51 lbs. 
Weslinghouse—Velocity of platform required for threshing, 
135 feel per minute ; velocity in experiment 152 feet per mi¬ 
nute; steelyards showed 13 lbs; absorbed by friction, 49 lbs. 
Thus showing, that while the Emery power did move nearly 
75 per cent faster than required, the friction was but 35 lbs.— 
while had it been more retarded, the friction would have 
been considerably reduced below even 35 lbs,, or about 25 
pounds. 
Badger’s power, which was awarded the 2d premium, ab¬ 
sorbed 51 lbs. while running at about its requisite speed for 
threshing, or 46 per cent more than Emery’s power—and pro¬ 
bably this difference would have been 75 or 100 per cent, 
had the velocity of Emery’s been reduced to its usual rate. 
This experiment was also applied to the One-horse Power, 
with the following resulis : with one man, weight 150 lbs., 
producing a power on platform of about 34 lbs. 
Emery’s power in experiment, 192 ft. per min.; 10 lbs. 
on steelyards; amt. absorbed by friction 24 lbs. 
Badger’s power inexpermenl, 146 ft. per min.; 4| lbs. on 
steelyards; amt. absorbed by friction 29| lbs. 
Showing again, while Emery’s power absorbed but 24 lbs., 
while moving about 14 per cent, too fast, the Badger power 
absorbed 29f lbs., about its regular velocity, or 24 per cent, 
more friction than Emery’s. 
These experiments, which were taken with the utmost care 
and precision, and repeatedly corroborated by others succeed¬ 
ing them, are wholly left out of the report, while others of 
less pointed results have been recorded. 
One of which was to attach the same threshing cylinder 
alternately to each power, with the same band, and by plac¬ 
ing five men in the Two-horse Powers, to note the distance 
their weight would cause them to travel per minute, as also 
the number of revolutions of the cylinder produced in same 
time. The weight of the five men was 714 lbs., producing 
a force of about 161 lbs. 
Experiment with the Two-horse Powers. 
Emery’s distance travelled, per minute, 218 ft.; revolutions 
of cylinder, 1,996. 
Badger’s distance travelled, per minute, 300 ft.; revolutions 
of cylinder, 2,160. 
Westinghouse’s distance travelled, per minute, 130 ft; re¬ 
volutions of cylinder, 1,390. 
As this experiment combines an attachment to machinery, 
and as the relative velocity of the cylinder to each foot, or the 
whole distance travelled, varies according to the internal 
gearing of the powers themselves, it becomes necessaiy to 
take that difference into our calculations, which we find as 
follows: The cylinder, when attached to Emery’s power, 
revolves 9.15 times per each foot of platform—with Badger’s, 
it revolves 7 1-5 times to each foot—and Westinghouse’s re¬ 
volutions 10.67 times. Thus showing that Badger’s power 
geared 27 per cent, slower than Emery’s and 43 per cent, 
slower than Westinghouse’s, and should pioduee results 
bearing a relative proportion of increase over them. 
Emery’s therefore, as compared with Badger’s should have 
produced but 1620 revolutions, but did 376 revolutions over 
that, thus showing Emery’s to have exceeded Badgers’s by 
23 per cent—and Badger’s to have equalled Westinghouse’s, 
should have produced 2061 revolutions, while he did more by 
about 9 per cent. 
These minutes are copied from the report, but the deduc¬ 
tions are not. They are themselves, self-evident, notwith¬ 
standing the report to the contrary, which reads. 
“ From the foregoing table, (alluding to velocities and dis- 
“ tances,) it is obvious that Badger’s power works with the 
“ least friction, or that gravity gives to his machine a greater 
“ amount of useful power than to either of the others on tri- 
“ nl—being three per cent more than Emery’s and fifty five 
per cent more than Westing house’s.” 
It further says: 
“ Badger’s power is well made, and in this respect deserves 
“ much credit; yet in this excellence it is exceeded by Eme- 
“ ry’s.” 
“ Badger’s is a rack and pinion power, the lags being con- 
“ nected by strong iron links, and the rack, though straight, 
“ is provided with teeth increasing in depth as they approach 
“ the exterior edges of the plates into which it is divided ; and 
“ each plate is perforated in the center, to accommodate the 
“ convexity of the pinion while passing over it, This perfo- 
“ ration weakens the pieces, and increases their liability to 
“ fracture. A rubbing action seems to be inevitable, caus- 
“ ing rapid wear.” 
Justice to the Emery power in this last experiment, re¬ 
quires the statement of the fact, that it was made at Utica 
some two months subsequent to the Geneva trial, and not 
with the understanding with the competitors, that it was to be 
made a part of the report ; and while this power was trans¬ 
ported from Geneva to Albany, and back to Utica by rail¬ 
road, it became filled in all its gearings with coal and cinder 
from the locomotive, being on an open car. It became ne¬ 
cessary to take its every part to pieces, and was cleaned as 
well as could be done under the circumstances—while boih 
the others were different powers than used at Geneva—one 
being brought by wagon with great care to Utica, and the 
other in a box car, by railroad. This is named to show the 
cause of the relative difference in the trials of friction at 
the two places. This fact was made known at the time to 
the committee, but it is not noticed by them. 
The One-horse Powers, which were transported in tight 
cars, suffered no inconvenience from coal and dust, and the 
results were as follows: 
Emery’s, with two men, travelled 104 feet, and produced 
950 revolutions per minute. 
Badger’s, with two men, travelled 87£ feet, and produced 
630 revolutions per minute. 
According to the gearing as before, Badger’s should have 
produced about 1,250 revolutions to have equalled Emery’s— 
but came nearly 50 per cent, short of this standard. 
Where has the report, as published, noticed this discrepan¬ 
cy in the One-horsePowers? Nowhere. It simply gives 
the number of revolutions, without a comment Is it such a 
report as the statistics justify, or is it not? 
Another experiment was made with each set of powers 
connected with threshers as in use, and six men placed on 
the several platforms, weighing 925 lbs., and the velocity al¬ 
lowed to equalize the power or wt. on the platform, and this 
