CHAPTER XXVII

My Last Connection with the Company.

Iwill close this account of my engineering experience by relating two incidents.

Among the orders which I brought from Newark was one from the firm of B. F. Avery & Sons, plow-manufacturers, of Louisville, Ky., the head of which had first established the manufacture of plows in the Southern States. Mr. George Avery, one of the sons, had come to me and asked for a list of the engines I had running, and took the pains to visit a number of them, also those of other prominent builders, and as a result of this extended comparison he brought me his order for an 18×30-inch engine, with strong expressions of the manifest superiority of the high-speed engine. This engine was about the first one I finished in the Southwark Foundry. By great carelessness it was permitted to go out without the crank-pin being hardened and ground, which was contrary to my invariable practice. The man who erected the engine left the crank-pin boxes too loose, and young Mr. Avery, who was quite an amateur mechanic, undertook to tighten them up; he succeeded in heating the pin and causing it to be badly torn. He made the best job of it that he could with a file, and the engine ran in that crippled condition.

Soon after I left Philadelphia, they concluded they ought to have a hardened crank-pin and wrote to the Southwark Foundry respecting it. They received a reply that it would be necessary to take the shaft out and send it to Philadelphia, and their works would need to be interrupted about three weeks. The firm then wrote to me in New York asking me to come to Louisville and examine the engine and advise them what to do, which invitation Iaccepted. The letter to the Southwark Foundry had been written by their manager, and in it he stated that the engine pounded so badly that it could be heard two blocks away, it was so wasteful it was almost impossible to keep up steam for it, and that they lived in such dread of its breaking down that their hair was all turning white. I felt that this letter, after making full allowance for its obvious exaggerations, reflected pretty badly, not only on the engine, but also on the boilers. These were two return-tubular boilers which I had designed myself. I had reflected a good deal on the observation shown to me by the engineer at Willimantic, and had felt that tubular boilers needed a better vertical circulation. This was limited by the small space left for the descending currents, the sides being filled with tubes almost touching the shell. So I allowed a space five inches wide between the shell of the boiler on the sides and bottom and the nearest tubes, as it was evident to me that the water, filled with bubbles of steam, would rush up among the tubes fast enough if the comparatively solid water at the sides could only get down. I also left off the upper row of tubes to allow more space above them for the steam, and from this arrangement I anticipated very superior results.

On my arrival in Louisville I thought, before presenting myself at the office, I would go into the works, which was open to everybody, and see what the state of affairs really was. I was directed to the boiler-house, on entering which I saw that one of the boilers was idle. My first thought was that it had been disabled by some accident, and their being limited to one boiler accounted for the difficulty they experienced in supplying the engine with steam. I asked the fireman, who I found sitting in a chair, what had happened to put this boiler out of commission. He said, “Nothing at all. They used both boilers at first, but after a while they thought they did not need both, so they shut one down, and it has been shut down ever since.” “Well,” said I, “you must have to fire pretty strong to make one boiler answer.” “No,” said he, “I have been firing boilers over twelve years and this is the easiest job I have ever had.” He then showed me his thin fire and damper two thirds closed. So in two minutes I was relieved from a load of anxiety about both boiler and engine, forI had before me the evidence of their phenomenal economy, and I gave the manager credit for one good square lie. I then asked him the way to the engine-room; he told me, “Right through that door.” I listened for the pound that could be heard two blocks away and heard a faint sound. On opening the door, which was opposite the crank, it was more distinct. There was no one in the engine-room, but while I was looking the engine over the engineer came in. I introduced myself and asked how the engine was doing. He said, “Very well, all but that little knock in the crank-pin.” I asked him if he had any trouble with it. He said, “None at all.” “No worry or anxiety?” “Never thought of such a thing,” he said.

A number of years after I met in New York a young gentleman, Mr. Benjamin Capwell, now of the firm of Kenyon, Hoag & Capwell, 817 Broadway, New York, who had been in the office of B. F. Avery & Sons at that time. I told him this story. He said he was not at all surprised; the boys in the office heard this manager every day dictating letters just as full of falsehoods as this one. I learned afterward that he held his position through a cabal in the company, and that soon after I was there the president succeeded in getting rid of him.

I was now ready to call on the president, Mr. Samuel Avery. He told me they would like very much to have a hardened crank-pin put in the engine, but of course they could not afford to interrupt their work seriously for that purpose. I replied there would be no difficulty about that. The present pin might be pressed out and a new one inserted in a few hours; all our work being made to gauge, the new pin would be sure to fit. I told him he might safely send an order to the Southwark Foundry to make the new pin, if they would agree to put the work into the hands of Mr. Williams, who was then in their employ, who should direct the manufacture of the pin without any interference, and himself go to Louisville and do the job. The Southwark Foundry agreed to these conditions, and the work was soon done.

While engaged on this proof I wrote to Mr. Williams for an account of setting this pin, and received from him the following interesting letter.

It will be seen that he took the safer but far more laboriousmethod, as no one then in the works could assure him about the crank having been bored to gauge.

It reads to me as if he found himself obliged to enlarge the hole just that one thirty-second of an inch.

The method of verifying the alignment of the pin with the shaft by means of a ground bubble level was originated by me in Newark; where I found also that the pin could be thrown by riveting.

42 Broadway, N. Y., Oct. 21, 1907.Chas. T. Porter, Montclair, N. J.My Dear Mr. Porter: In reply to your request of 14th addressed Cold Springs, I am pleased to give you such account of the crank pin work at B. F. Avery & Sons, at Louisville, in 1883, as my memory will admit of.When I was instructed to do this work I received a letter from you stating that a new crank pin was to be put in and that it should be “hardened in a furnace,” allowing it to remain in a crucible with the carbon at a lowered heat for ten hours.This was done and resulted in a fine job of hardening. The pin was then ground true and smooth. Don’t think I ever saw a prettier job.The old pin had to be taken out and the new one put in. The exact diameter of the old shank was not definitely known. It was thought advisable therefore, to make the new shank about ¹⁄₃₂″ larger than the drawing dimension; so it would surely be large enough to admit of drawing the hole which I proposed to do by hand. Before leaving the works I had a hollow cast iron cylinder or trial plug made, about twice the depth of the crank pin hole in length, about ¹⁄₁₀₀″ smaller than the shank of the new pin and slightly tapered at one end.We cut the bead off the old pin and tried a hydraulic jack on it, but it would not start. We then drilled five or six 1″ holes in the shank and the pin came out easily. The hole was then calipered and found to require considerable dressing. The crank shaft was then tried for level and found by turning in various positions and by using a very sensitive level, to deflect from the horizontal approximately ¹⁄₂ of 1000th of an inch per foot in length.The hole was then enlarged by use of file and scraper, its adjustment being proven as the work progressed by frequent trials of level placed within the hole, at various points in the revolution of the shaft. Finally, the trial plug was workedinto the hole and used as a surface plate, the “high” spots being scraped down and the plug found to line with the shaft and the hole by caliper, found to be approximately ³⁄₁₀₀₀″ smaller than the shank of the pin. The pin was then forced in and found to stand nearly true. The small untruth was easily corrected in riveting up the back and the pin was thrown approximately ²⁄₁₀₀₀″ away from the center line of shaft rotation to offset the deflection that would be occasioned when running by the impact of the steam admission on centers.I think it quite likely that the pin during the twenty-four years’ service up to the present date has worn scarcely a measurable amount.Very truly,E. F. Williams.P. S. I saw the engine about 15 years ago and it was running very smoothly.

42 Broadway, N. Y., Oct. 21, 1907.

Chas. T. Porter, Montclair, N. J.

My Dear Mr. Porter: In reply to your request of 14th addressed Cold Springs, I am pleased to give you such account of the crank pin work at B. F. Avery & Sons, at Louisville, in 1883, as my memory will admit of.

When I was instructed to do this work I received a letter from you stating that a new crank pin was to be put in and that it should be “hardened in a furnace,” allowing it to remain in a crucible with the carbon at a lowered heat for ten hours.

This was done and resulted in a fine job of hardening. The pin was then ground true and smooth. Don’t think I ever saw a prettier job.

The old pin had to be taken out and the new one put in. The exact diameter of the old shank was not definitely known. It was thought advisable therefore, to make the new shank about ¹⁄₃₂″ larger than the drawing dimension; so it would surely be large enough to admit of drawing the hole which I proposed to do by hand. Before leaving the works I had a hollow cast iron cylinder or trial plug made, about twice the depth of the crank pin hole in length, about ¹⁄₁₀₀″ smaller than the shank of the new pin and slightly tapered at one end.

We cut the bead off the old pin and tried a hydraulic jack on it, but it would not start. We then drilled five or six 1″ holes in the shank and the pin came out easily. The hole was then calipered and found to require considerable dressing. The crank shaft was then tried for level and found by turning in various positions and by using a very sensitive level, to deflect from the horizontal approximately ¹⁄₂ of 1000th of an inch per foot in length.

The hole was then enlarged by use of file and scraper, its adjustment being proven as the work progressed by frequent trials of level placed within the hole, at various points in the revolution of the shaft. Finally, the trial plug was workedinto the hole and used as a surface plate, the “high” spots being scraped down and the plug found to line with the shaft and the hole by caliper, found to be approximately ³⁄₁₀₀₀″ smaller than the shank of the pin. The pin was then forced in and found to stand nearly true. The small untruth was easily corrected in riveting up the back and the pin was thrown approximately ²⁄₁₀₀₀″ away from the center line of shaft rotation to offset the deflection that would be occasioned when running by the impact of the steam admission on centers.

I think it quite likely that the pin during the twenty-four years’ service up to the present date has worn scarcely a measurable amount.

Very truly,E. F. Williams.

P. S. I saw the engine about 15 years ago and it was running very smoothly.

Some time after I had left, the company found that they needed a descriptive and illustrated catalogue of the engine, and they had no one to write it; so they came to me, and in my office in New York I prepared one for them, for which they gave me the credit by printing on the title-page and cover the line, “By Charles T. Porter.” I took the same pains with this that I should have done had I owned the whole place.

The following letter, referring to an engine made by me in Newark, was sent by the addressee to the Southwark Foundry with an order while I was engaged on their catalogue. They made a blue-print of it and sent it to me for insertion.

Youngstown, O., Dec. 21st, 1882Mr. F. L. Waters—Mankato Minn.Dear Sir—Your favor recd, making enquiry how we like the Porter Allen Engine: would say, we have now run it four years, it has never failed one minute or cost one cent for repairs nor varied a revolution from its speed, are using it now non-condensing but think of using a condenser before long. As we use it in connection with our water power, which is variable, sometimes too high and sometimes too low, making up the deficiency with the Engine, be it all or little, we do not know just how much coal we require for a Barrel in case we had no water, this much I think I know. That it is the finest Engine made, Simple, durable, and Economical, and always ready for effective duty.We run a Buckeye in the Diamond Mill and a good Engine at our mine, but the Porter-Allen is my favorite by all odds, ours is 13×24, 160 Revolutions (never more nor less). They are now designed to run 200 Rev. for that size.If neatness effectiveness durability and Economy & Steadiness is any object to you, you will always be glad you bought a Porter-Allen, or I am vastly mistaken.I know that has been my experience. We now run constantly day & night the year round (Sundays excepted).Respectfully YoursHomer Baldwin

Youngstown, O., Dec. 21st, 1882

Mr. F. L. Waters—Mankato Minn.

Dear Sir—

Your favor recd, making enquiry how we like the Porter Allen Engine: would say, we have now run it four years, it has never failed one minute or cost one cent for repairs nor varied a revolution from its speed, are using it now non-condensing but think of using a condenser before long. As we use it in connection with our water power, which is variable, sometimes too high and sometimes too low, making up the deficiency with the Engine, be it all or little, we do not know just how much coal we require for a Barrel in case we had no water, this much I think I know. That it is the finest Engine made, Simple, durable, and Economical, and always ready for effective duty.

We run a Buckeye in the Diamond Mill and a good Engine at our mine, but the Porter-Allen is my favorite by all odds, ours is 13×24, 160 Revolutions (never more nor less). They are now designed to run 200 Rev. for that size.

If neatness effectiveness durability and Economy & Steadiness is any object to you, you will always be glad you bought a Porter-Allen, or I am vastly mistaken.

I know that has been my experience. We now run constantly day & night the year round (Sundays excepted).

Respectfully YoursHomer Baldwin

With the preparation of this catalogue my part in the development and introduction of the high-speed engine seems to have ended.

Back to Index Next