150 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
Mat. 
mode will produce the most butter. It is contended by 
some, [and very correctly—E ds.] that any process that 
separates the butter from the cream, very suddenly, pro¬ 
duces a less quantity of butter. 
I would also like to be informed, whether there is not 
an advantage in cooling milk in warm weather after 
milking, before taking it to the milk room? It can be 
readily cooled by being put in tin vessels, *hnd placed in 
a vat of cold water; but it is thought by some, that a 
warm liquid will not so readily impart its heat to the 
surrounding atmosphere, as other warm substances.— 
[More so—because it cools in three ways,—by contact, 
by the circulation of its particles, and by evaporation— 
Eds.] I would also like to be informed, if a damp 
room is actually detrimental to the rising of cream, 
and also the best method to prevent cream as it rises on 
the milk, from drying and becoming hard and scaly. 
Will you or some of your correspondents, give me the 
desired information on the above subjects. G. H. T. 
BarbourviUe , N. Y. s March 19, 1853. 
Question .—What is the easiest, quickest and most 
effectual way of ridding a garden of horse-raddish ? J. 
W. Smith. Croton, N. Y. 
Trial of Implements at Geneva, 1852. 
Mr. Tucker —In reply to that portion of the Review of the 
recent trial of Horse-Powers, &c., at Geneva, by H. L. 
Emery, which relates to my machine, my object is to make 
a plain statement of facts. 
The experiments with the balance scales or steelyards, of 
which Mr Emery speaks with so much emphasis, I did not 
consider of any importance, and that the committee viewed 
them in the same light is evident from the fact that the results 
of said experiments did not appear in the report. As the error 
from which Mr. Emery must have made his deductions is in 
the result of the experiment at Utica, and is applied alike to all 
his calculations, it is necessary to copy the result of that ex¬ 
periment from the report: 
“ It is obvious, from the foregoing tables, that Badger’s 
“ machine works with the least friction; or in other words, 
“ gravity gives to his machine a greater amount of useful 
“ power than to either of the other machines on trial, having 
“the advantage in regard to the revolutions of the cylinder 
“ of seven and a half per cent, over Emery & Co., and a 
“ still greater advantage over Westinghouse. In regard to 
“the power exhibited by the weight descending the platform, 
“ it appears that the same weight moved Badger’s platform 
“ 300 feet, and Emery & Co.’s 224 feet, the difference (76 
“ feet) being 25] per cent in favor of Badger’s power.” 
In the above experiment the revolutions of band wheel to 
my power is put down at 360, and the number of feet traveled 
on the platform 300, while it should read thus: 
Badger power—revolutions-of band wheel, 300; number 
of feet'traveled on platform, 250.” 
To prove the truth of this statement, the size of pulley on 
thresher used in experiment, was 5 inches, and size of band 
wheel on my power is 36 inches. Now. 2160 revolutions of 
cylinder requires 300 revolutions of band wheel, and 10 inch¬ 
es platform to each revolution of band wheel requires just 
250 feet of platform traveled per minute. As the revolutions 
of cylinder in the above experiment was obtained by apply¬ 
ing the speedometer directly to the cylinder shaft, and the 
revolutions of band wheel, &c., calculated therefrom, it is 
not singular that such error should exist in the report, nor is 
it singular that Mr. Emery should make use of such'error, in¬ 
asmuch as it enabled him to establish a superiority. Now, 
had the internal gearing of my power been such as to require 
300 feet Velocity of platform to produce 2160 revolutions of 
cylinder, then a portion of Mr. Emery’s argument would 
stand. But calcuiating from the sizes above, it would readi¬ 
ly be discovered that my power is not geared 27 per cent, 
slower than the Emery power, but essentially the same; con¬ 
sequently the deductions, as far as relate to my power, are 
erroneous and of no effect—thus showing that Emery’s pow¬ 
er did not exceed Badger’s by 23 per cent., but that Badger’s 
exceeded Emery’s by 7] per cent, as stated in the report. 
Had my power been as carefully fitted for the occasion as was 
the Emery power, it would, in all probability, have exceeded 
it by double that amount. It was my object to exhibit such 
an article as I furnish to ail purchasers, and this I expected 
to be the rule of the society; as taking for a standard an ar¬ 
ticle, the finish and capacity of which could not be reached as 
a general rule; would be apt to shake the confidence of the 
great mass of farmers in the recommendations of the only 
institution to which they can look as a guide. , 
From further perusal of the review, it appears that the au¬ 
thor did not place implicit confidence in his own deductions, 
as he endeavors to show that the Emery power did not pro¬ 
duce as favorable results at Utica as Geneva. He says: 
“ And while this power was transported from Geneva to 
“Albany, and back to Utica, by rairoad, it became filled in 
“ in all its gearings with coal and cinder from the locomo- 
“ tive. being on an open car. It became necessary to take 
“ its every part to pieces, and was cleaned as well as could 
“ be done under the circumstances, while both the others were 
“different powers than used at Geneva, one being brought by 
“ wagon, with great care, to Utica” (this means my power.) 
“ This is nahried 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 was not no- 
“ ticed by them.” It is proper to state here that, having sold 
the machine I had at Geneva, I obtained permission of the 
committee to leave it, and exhibit another at Utica ; and as 
to its being “ brought by wagon with great care,” it is well 
known by all who were present, that the dust was from 2 to 
6 inches deep in the road, and consequently my machine suf¬ 
fered as much as did Emery’s, but it was not taken apart nor 
cleaned. 
Now let us see what the difference in the trials of friction 
were at the two places. By referring to the report, it will be 
discovered that in the experiment at Geneva, in which 6 men 
were placed on the platform, whose aggregate weight was 
925 pounds, the band wheel of Emery’s power produced 240 
revolutions (Badger’s 250), while at Utica, with only 5 men 
on platform, whose aggregate weight was only 714 pounds, 
the band wheel of Emery’s power produced 259 revolutions 
(Badger’s 300), being attached to a thresher in each case. 
This shows that at Utica the Emery power, with about 23 
per cent, less weight on platform, run over 7 per cent, faster 
than at Geneva. From the above, it appears that the Emery 
power was benefited by its journey to Albany, notwithstand- 
ingthe “ coal and cinder, of which the committee would take 
no notice.” It may be proper here to state that in the ex¬ 
periment at Geneva, in which 6 men were placed on platform, 
the result was 250 revolutions of band wheel to my power, 
instead of 150, as in the report It is probably an error in 
figures, and is the cause of the clash in deductions, of which 
Mr. Emery says: “ (Rather an ambiguous method of report¬ 
ing, to say nothing of the errors.)” 
It would be unnecessary to prolong this article, had not the 
author of the review made a long list of comparisons in re¬ 
gard to the threshing tests at Geneva, which tests the com¬ 
mittee pronounced imperfect , and not to be relied upon. 
By referring to the report, it will be found that the time 
consumed in threshing 100 sheaves of wheat, with my ma¬ 
chine, was more than with either of the others. 
In the first place, each competitor was furnished -with 100 
sheaves of wheat. It so happened that the two parcels (one 
for Emery and the other for myself) were of nearly equal 
quality, both being full of grass and weeds. The Emery pow- 
or threshed the parcel assigned it, with the thresher so adjusted 
that it did not thresh clean until the majority of the parcel was 
run through, when the concave u-as screwed down. The time 
consumed in threshing this parcel was 17 minutes 20 seconds. 
From some cause, the Emery power was allowed another 
trial, which was made the next day, the straw in this case be¬ 
ing comparatively free from grass and weeds, and in much 
belter condition. The time consumed was 10 minutes 30 sec¬ 
onds, as in the report. In the meantime the parcel assigned 
to myself lay until the next day in a pile, which caused it to 
sweat and become tough. It was run through while the cyl¬ 
inder was funning at the rate of 1600 revolutions per minute, 
when it requires but 1400 to thresh any kind of gram (being 1\ 
inches larger in diameter, and containing 18 more teeth than 
the Emery Thresher); consequently the grain was not only 
threshed perfectly clean, but the heads were taken off, and the 
straw much cut to pieces. This absorbed a great amount of 
power, and consequently the time consumed was 17 minutes 
30 seconds, being 10 seconds more than the Emery Power. 
Under the circumstances, I asked for another trial, which 
was granted by the committee, but before it could be had, 
the grain got wet, and the result of the first trial was necessa¬ 
rily placed in the report. 
The committee in speaking of the grain in the report, say, 
