At the trial of the nozzle referred to in my last, we used a single line of 2 1/2 hose. The size of both nozzles was one inch and the water pressure the same in both cases. On Saturday, July 2d, we instituted further experiments in the same direction, the result of which showed your theory to be correct. One of the trials was with a nozzle loaned to us by E. M. Waldron, the well known coupling manufacturer of Providence, R. I. This nozzle was made very nearly after the plan shown in THE JOURNAL of June 11, but of the result I will let Mr. Waldron speak for himself. I mention it to show that others are experimenting.

After various experiments, we attached an ordinary 1-inch nozzle directly to the butt of the hose and that just beat everything else, both in the quantity of water and distance thrown. The trial was made by attaching two lines of 2 1/2 hose to the same hydrant. On one we placed the nozzle without any discharge pipe and on the other an ordinary metallic discharge pipe tour feet long with i-inch nozzle. As the two pieces of hose were exactly alike and laid in the same way, while the hydrant outlets were exactly alike and operated by a single valve, there could be no difference in the amount of water delivered unless there was some difference at the point of discharge. The result was that at le st five eighths of the water thrown came out of the nozzle where no pipe was used and was projected some twenty or thirty feel farther than the other stream.

It seems to me that this demonstrates conclusively that you are, as J. E. Gillespie remarks, “on the right line, even if you are not scientific,” and I hope that your idea will be followed out by tests ot alt sorts until the exact truth is established, no matter whose pet plans are upset or set up. GEO. WORRALL.

WOONSOCKET, R. I., July 4, 1881.

[ Every experiment made thus far in accordance with our suggestion —dispensing with the play pipe, and setting a square-shouldered nozzle into the open butt—tends to prove that the play pipe is one of the most serious obstructions placed in a line of hose. That fact demonstrated, the question is how to get the best stream of water without the pipe. We have suggested a nozzle with parallel sides set into the butt, and have given our reasons for believing it to be the most effective of obtaining large, powerful streams. Mr. Worrall tried the experiment, and reported that it was a failure ; we suggested that he try again under more favorable conditions, and above he gives the result of the second trial. We presume Mr. Worrall is now a convert to our theory. To demonstrate how much of an obstruction the play-pipe is, it is only necessary to play through the open butt, and get as much water pressure on the Engine as possible; it won’t be much. Then put in a play pipe with a gauge at the base of it, and the number of pounds registered on it will tell just how many pounds of resistance to the flow of the stream the play pipe has added. Having demonstrated that the play pipe is an obstruction, experiments must show us how to get the best stream without it. We have offered our suggestion ; it may not be the best; being a wholly unscientific person, we presume it is not; but we wait to hear a better plan suggested by those scientific persons who have laughed at our suggestion, and who will not believe their own senses when practice proves theory to be wrong. Until they can give us something better than the play-pipe, they should not be “too previous” in condemning experiments that are actually giving us better results at the nozzle. We are greatly obliged to Mr. Worrall for the interest he has taken in the matter, and hope he will apply the knowledge he has obtained to actual fire extinguishment at the first favorable opportunity.—Editor THE JOURNAL.]

No posts to display