Brass Goods Standardization

Brass Goods Standardization

This is distinctly the age of Standardization. It is a logical development arising from realization of the waste that has previously resulted from haphazard and go-as-you-please methods. Whatever evils have followed in the train of the World War it has this one thing to its credit that it showed the absolute necessity for oneness of action, for the cutting of unnecessary operations and processes and for the conservation of energy and material—that is, to sum up in one word, Standardization.

Thus the movement which had been begun before the war received a vast impetus through governmental action forced by the necessities of the conflict, in the matter of standardization. Naturally both the fields to which FIRE AND WATER ENGINEERING is devoted have been affected and benefited equally with others. In the fire field, for instance, there has been the spreading movement toward standardization of hose couplings and hydrants which has done so much for fire protection. In the water works field there have also been several similarly important movements; as witness the formation of the Standardization Council in the American Water Works Association, the adoption of the standards for disk meters and so on.

The latest and one of the most promising of these standardization movements is that represented by the report of the Joint Committee on Standardization of Brass Goods for Water Works. The full text of this report, it will be remembered, was published on page 58.1 of the September 28 issue of FIRE AND WATER ENGINEERING.

In this issue on page 967 there is printed an important article by Fred Schulder, of the United Brass Manufacturing Company, in which the writer sets forth clearlv the reasons for the various items in the standardization report. It is to be hoped that this article will be carefully read in connection with the report by those interested—which means practically every water works superintendent—and frankly criticized. It is only by thorough discussion that the best results in the adoption of a standard can be attained.

The columns of FIRE AND WATER ENGINEERING, of course, are open to any one desiring to discuss the report or Mr. Schulder’s article on it. Let us hear from you.

BRASS GOODS STANDARDIZATION

BRASS GOODS STANDARDIZATION

Sub-committee on Standardization of Water Works Brass Goods of the Brass Manufacturers’ Association Makes a Report

The sub-committee on Standardization of Water Works Brass Goods of the National Association of Brass Manufacturers, of which Adolph Mueller is chairman, has made the following report and recommendations to that association. Copies of these recommendations have been sent to the water works associations and there will be a number of matters which no doubt will have to be carefully analyzed by committees of the associations before the final action on the adoption of the recommendations is taken. There are committees on Standardization of Water Works Brass Goods in Connection with Services both in the American and the New England Water Works Associations.

Cleveland, Ohio, July 15, 1920.

To the National Association of Brass Manufacturers:

Your sub-committee met yesterday: Chairman Mueller and Members Fisher and Schoenberger were present, and Member Hills absent. There was unanimous agreement on the following recommendations:

1st—On all brass goods intended for under ground service the metal mixture to be standardized, specifying definite limits of tolerance for each ingredient.

2nd—That all essential dimensions be standardized and minimum weights specified.

3rd—To eliminate from corporation cocks

  1. (a) The ⅜-inch size
  2. (b) All Round Bodies
  3. (c) Female Threaded outlet
  4. (d) Hex Plug Recess
  5. (e) Mueller Coupling Thread
  6. (f) Quarter Bend Coupling
  7. (g) Increasing Size Lead Flange Cocks
  8. (h) Lead Flange Cocks for 3-A Lead and
  9. (i) On the sizes smaller than 1¼-inch to eliminate squares and hexes.

Also to discourage the use of the ⅝-inch size.

4th—All corporation cocks to have two fiat sides for wrench hold, and the sizes 144-inch, 144-inch and 2-inch to have a hex on the inlet side.

5th—All Lead Flange Corporation Cocks to have Lead Flange Coupling Thread such as used by the H. Mueller Manufacturing Company for Extra Strong Lead Pipe.

6th—The thread on the inlet end of corporation cocks to be one of three.

  1. (a) The Mueller Thread
  2. (b) The Coarse Thread for Wood Mains
  3. (c) The Standard Iron Pipe Thread,

7th—(a) Corporation cocks with Mueller Inlet Thread to have full bore and on the Outlet end a Mueller Screw Plug Thread and either a Lead Flange Coupling Thread as described under item 5, or a Standard Iron Pipe Coupling Thread one size larger than the nominal size of the cock. On the ⅝-inch size this is to be a 1-inch thread.

  1. (b) Corporation Cocks with coarse thread for Wood Mains to have a Full Plain Bore, and coupling threads described under
  2. (a)of this item.
  3. (c) Corporation Cocks with Iron Pipe Inlet Thread to be discouraged, and not to be made in a ⅝-inch size. The bore for the ½-inch cock to be 15/32-inchfor the ¾” cock 11/16inch and for the 1-inch cock ⅞-inch. The outlet end to be provided with a Mueller Screw Plug Thread and coupling threads described under (a) of this item.

8th—Couplings with Male Iron Pipe Thread at Outlet End to have this thread one size smaller than Thread in Coupling Nut.

9th—All Couplings (including Meter Couplings) and all Solder Nipples to have full Bore.

10th-In the matter of curb cocks it is recommended.

  1. (a) That the Lead Flange Couplings correspond to those recommended for corporation cocks.
  2. (b) To eliminate all Male Threads. Fine Threads, and other special threads (This does not affect the Salt Lake City or Fitchburg Patterns).
  3. (c) To discourage the use of “H” Pattern Cocks—The standardization of Minneapolis Threads, etc., is postponed for further consideration.

Respect fully Submitted ADOLPH Mueller—Chairman R. B. HILLS

ARTHUR I. FISHER W. J. SCHOENBERGER

Poster Contest Feature at Convention

Milwaukee carried off the honors at the Poster Contest of the Gamewell Company at the I. A. F. E. Convention at Toronto. One hundred and fifty posters were submitted and seventy-six of the best ones were displayed at the Gamewell Booth. Four chiefs, Murphy of Buffalo, Henderson of Kansas City; Ten Eyk of Hamilton and Henderson of Bradford, Pa.; were the judges. George Fischer of Milwaukee won the first prize of $300. Chester Crow of Chicago won the second prize of $100. D. D. Stumpf of New York was awarded third prize. O. H. Mitchell of Chicago and Ernest Forshaw of New York were awarded fifth and sixth prizes respectively and seventh and eighth prizes went to T. T. Grimsdale of New York and Mr. Schwartz of New Jersey. Twenty other posters were awarded honorable mention for excellence of idea, composition and coloring. Posters were received from all parts of the United States and Canada and the task of deciding the best was a most difficult one. The judges finally decided on a poster which emphasized the idea that most cities had an adequate number of parks, natatoriums, public buildings, paved streets, etc., and yet were strangely deficient in the number of fire alarm boxes. The judges were complimented on their choice by all who viewed the exhibition. In addition to the poster display the Gamewell Company had a complete display of up-to-date aparatus. An old wooden fire alarm box, one of the first boxes put in service in this country, attracted much attention, especially as it was displayed alongside one of the most modern Peerless boxes. The shunt type box for the protection of business concerns and the combination fire and drill box used in schools were also given close inspection by the chiefs, who realized the need of protection for industrial concerns and schools.

The Northern Electric Company Ltd., the manufacturers and distributors of Gamewell apparatus in Canada, had the booth adjoining the Gamewell booth. Their booth was the gathering place of the Canadian chiefs who are determined that the cities in the states shall not have more adequate fire signaling protection than their own cities.