30 
THE CULTIVATOR, 
Jan. 
velocity noted for one minute, as follows—(rather an ambigu¬ 
ous method of reporting, to say nothing of the errors) : 
Badger’s power, 150 revolutions of wheel, 10 in. of platform 
to each re volution=197 feet, g aining perpendicular of 44.32, 
feet, for 232 pounds, while it should read— 
Badger’s power, 150 rev., 10 in. each for platform,=125 feet 
equal to raising 925 pounds 28.11 ft. peipendicular besides 
its own friction. 
Emery’s power 140 rev., 10| in. each for platform,=207 feet, 
equal to raising 925 pounds 46.56 ft. perpendicular, besides 
its own friction. 
Westinghouse’s 256 rev., in. each for platform,=152 feet, 
equal to raising 925 pounds 34.19 ft. perpendicular, besides 
its own friction. 
If this shows anything, it is that the Emery power and 
thresher combined, runs much more easily than either of the 
others. ■ 
Another experiment was, to place two men upon the plat¬ 
forms of the Two-horse Powers without threshers or steel¬ 
yards, and allow the velocity and power (232 lbs. on platform) 
to equalise each other, and note the distance travelled—with 
the following result: 
“ Badger’s power 218revolutions, 10 in. each, =2 6 feet of 
platform, perpendicular elevation of 45.69 feel for 52.25 lbs.” 
Supposing the 286 feet to be correct (which should be 190 ft.) 
the elevation would be 64.68 ft.—while it should read thu..— 
Number Motion of Eleva’tion Distance 
Name. rev. of p’tform to 2321bs.be- motion of 
pulley, each rev. sides frc’n. platform. 
Emery,. 430 lOf 83.91 ft. 371 ft. 
Badger, .... 218 10 42.97 190 
Westing house, 3S6 7} 51.79 229 
Thus showing conclusively the great difference in the fric¬ 
tion of the powers themselves, as also with threshers attached, 
is in favor of the Emery power. 
The next experiment is that of threshing grain with horses 
weighing 2,200 lbs., placed upon the several platforms, and a 
quantity of grain, 100 sheaves, weighed off to each competitor. 
The travel of the horses, the time occupied, the weight of 
grain obtained, the velocity of the cylinders during the thresh¬ 
ing of the grain, the number of men required, &c. 
Name of 
maker. 
Number of horses 
used. 
Number of men 
employed. 
Weight of sheaves 
threshed. 
T2 
4) 
s 
<D 
O 
© 
2 .E 
.5? SS 
’5 h 
t , 
Time required in 
threshing. 
Weight of horses 
used without har¬ 
ness. 
Revolutions of Cy¬ 
linder. 
lbs. 
lbs. 
m. s.' 
lbs. 
| 
Emery, ........... 
2 
5 ' 
810 
169 
10.30 
2200 
1550 
Badger, .......... 
2. 
5 
850 
156 
17.30 
2200 
1600 
Westinghouse, ... 
2 
5 
954 
200 
13.30 
2200 
1450 
P.tls, Lever power 
draft. 
and Self Cleaner, 
8 
7 
934 
191 
5„30: 
un’kn. 
1350 
Hall, Lever power 
and Self Cleaner, 
8 . 
; 6 
1000 
192 
8.00 
do 
1650 
From this table we obtained the following deductions, 
which will show the relative cost of threshing with the end¬ 
less chain powers with great accuracy as the experiment was 
tried with every circumstance alike with each, and in a man¬ 
ner where there was no possibility of favoritism nor decep¬ 
tion—as the whole work was done by the gravity alone, and 
each machine new, and horses not before used on any power. 
Name of Power. 
Distance tra- 
vel’d byhor¬ 
ses per min. 
in feet. 
Ratio of 
grain to 
sheaves. 
Pounds of 
whealthrs’d 
per min. 
No. of lbs. at 
same rate 
for 10 hours. 
No. of bus’ls 
for 10 hs. at 
60 lbs. per 
bushel. 
Cost pr. bu’l 
with 5 men 
& 2 horses, 
Cost per bu. 
with 3 men 
& 2hor’s, at 
same rates. 
Emery’s, .... 
169.28 
.201 
16.09 
9654 
160 54-60 
$.0373 
$.0248 
Badger's, ... 
222.22 
.183 
8.91 
5346 
89 6-60 
.0637 
.0446 
Westinghouse,. 
135.68 
.209 
14.81 
8886 
148 6-60 
.0405 
.0279 
Pius’, Lever Power and 
Cleaner.__... ... 
Hall’s do,.... 
.207 
.192 
35.27 
24.00 
21162 
14400 
352 42-60 
240 
8 hors 7 men. 
.0311 
0458 
From the above it will be seen that the report charges each 
of the Endless Chain Horse Powers, with five men in attend¬ 
ance, while in no instance were more than three men en¬ 
gaged in these threshing experiments—and further, three 
men can as well manage either of them, as six or seven men 
can the larger machines; while they are charged with only 
that number. With the endless chain, the necessity of a dri¬ 
ver is avoided, as the feeder of the thresher not only attends 
his own team, but has the whole under his control, and can 
cheek or stop the whole instantly, by means of brakes and 
lever. 
It is also observable that the yield is little better than 
half a crop, while it is mixed with much weeds and gross, 
requiring about the same power and labor as it would to pro¬ 
duce results double what we have before us. As the ratio 
of wheat to straw bears a very uniform proportion, these ex¬ 
periments form good data from which to make the follow¬ 
ing deductions: 
The Emery power required the team to travel but 1.9 miles 
per hour, and with the force of gravity alone, threshed of this 
grain at the rate of 161 bushels per day, of cleaned wheat 
at an actual cost, with the three men, of less than 2£ cts. 
per bushel, which, cleared from the fine chaff with fan mill, 
will add somewhat to that sum, making say three cents per bu. 
over boarding, and calculating the board of three men and 
two horses at 37£ cts. each per day, will cost 4 cents and 
1 6-10 mills per bushel, or in a good yield, about half that sum. 
Badger's power requires over 2£ miles travel of team per 
hour, and threshed hut 89 bushels of cleaned wheat per day, 
costing for three men and two horses, 4 cents 4 6-10th mills 
per bushel, or cleared up at 4 cents 9 8-10th mills, over 
board, or including board of men and team, 7 ets. and 8-10ths 
of a mill per bushel—or in good yield about half that sum. 
Westinghouse’s power required less travel of team, being 
but about 1.6 miles per hour, threshing 148 bushels per day, 
costing with three men and two horses, 2 cents 7 and 7-10ths 
mills per bushel over board, or cleaned up, 3 cts. and 2 9-10th 
mills per bushel, or including board, 4 cents 5 8-10th mills 
per bushel—or in good yield about half that sum, thus show¬ 
ing at a glance, that while Badger’s team travelled 30 per 
cent faster, he threshed 45 per cent slower, costing 70 per cl. 
more per bushel than with Emery’s power, and that with 
Westinghouse, the team travelled 19 per cent slower-—thresh¬ 
ed 9 per cent slower—costing ten per cent more per bushel 
than with Emery’s. 
It is proper to remark here, that Westinghouse was at one 
time the agent for selling- the Emery power, and but recently 
has made the kind used at these trials, which, excepting an al¬ 
teration in increasing the gearing, (to its disadvantage in 
strength and durability,) is in all other respects essentially the 
same as the Emery power, and is claimed to be a bare-faced 
infringement of his letters patent, and legal proceedings have 
been directed against him therefor—thus establishing beyond 
cavil the superiority of the Emery’s Endless Chain Power 
over all others, and particularly the rack and pinion. 
The writer would willingly stop here but for the reason that 
an unfair, equally erroneous and unjust comparision is made 
in said report, between the two premium machines in the dif¬ 
ferent classes, which is wholly foreign to the subject, and 
drawm from prejudice or the want of a proper understanding 
of the long series of experiments accompanying the same, 
and is not deducible from any thing connected with the re¬ 
ports of the experiments. 
Notwithstanding the report says —“ These diflerent classes 
“ cannot be compared with each other, your committee have 
“ viewed them as unconnected,” in the very next paragraph 
it says, “ The table shows Emery’s machine requires twice 
“ the time to perform the same work that Pitt’s machine will 
“ accomplish,” then goes on with an ingenious calculation, and 
carries it through, showing thereby that grain can be threshed 
by Pitt’s machine, just 3 and 7-10th mills less than with Eme¬ 
ry’s, and that, “ This difference will pay the extra interest on 
“ the cost of the larger machine, the expense of keeping it 
“ in repair, and the cost of an elevator to remove the straw to 
“ the stack-yard.” Again it says, “These advantages be- 
“ long alike to all the machines of the class of which Pitt’s is 
“ the representative,” while Hall’s, in the same trial, of the 
same class, and the next best, came, by the same rule, more 
than 44 per cent, short of Pitt’s, while the public well know 
the relative merits of the two are barely discernible. And 
again it says, “ An earnest endeavor has been used to ascer- 
“ tain and record facts in relation to each machine, with the 
“ nearest approach to mathematical accuracy, and from such 
a premises to determine merits and excellences,” and in the 
