■ ; 
 
 I 
 
US') 
 
 ((nrntll Slant foiputl Ethranj 
 
TJ 840.W59 me " Un ' VerS " yLibrary 
 ^'e'fights determination, from an engin 
 
 3 1924 "0i7~530 159 
 
 
 DATE 
 
 DUE 
 
 
 mrwn 
 
 TOUb 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN USA 
 
The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924017530159 
 
WATER RIGHTS 
 DETERMINATION 
 
 From an Engineering Standpoint 
 
 <.\ BY 
 JAY M/WHITHAM, M.A., M.E..-C.E. 
 
 Consulting Engineer 
 
 Formerly U. S. Naval Engineer; Later Prof, of Engineering, Univ. of Ark. 
 
 Member of 'A.S.M.E.; A.S.N.E.; A.S.N.A. and M.E.; N.E.W.W.A.,etc; 
 
 Author of Steam Engine Design, Constructive Steam Engineering, etc. 
 
 " I don't think much of a man 
 who is not wiser to-day than 
 he was yesterday." 
 
 ■ — Lincoln 
 
 FIRST EDITION 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 JOHN WILEY & SONS, Inc. 
 
 London: CHAPMAN & HALL, Limited 
 
 1918 
 
Copyright, 1918 
 
 BY 
 
 JAY M. WHITHAM 
 
 PRESS OF 
 
 BRAUNWORTH ft CO. 
 
 BOOK MANUFACTURERS 
 
 BROOKLYN, N. V. 
 
DEDICATED 
 TO THE MEMORY OF 
 
 (Eatolittt <A. ($oitte) Wljitlfam 
 March i, 1826-DEc. 28, 1916 
 
 " God never made anything that so 
 reflected the attributes of love as 
 the heart of a Mother." 
 
 — H. A. Mooney 
 
PREFACE AND INTRODUCTION 
 
 The wisdom of the wise and the experience of ages may be pre- 
 served by quotation." — Bbnj. Diskabli. 
 
 This book is intended to assist an owner of an in- 
 definite water right in determining: 
 
 1. The meaning of his right as expressed in horse- 
 powers, and 
 
 2. The number of cubic feet of water per second to 
 which he is entitled. 
 
 The Author has had much experience, during the past 
 twenty-seven years, in interpreting such water grants. 
 It was necessary to view the site, ascertain the head pos- 
 sibilities upon the property, study the state of the par- 
 ticular art referred to in the grant, as applying to the 
 time and place, and then learn the types and efficiencies 
 of wheels known and available for use. 
 
 In pursuing such studies the Author has collected the 
 various books relating to milling, millwrighting, tanning, 
 saw mills, paper making, blast furnaces, rolling mills, 
 mechanics, science, water wheels, etc., referred to in the 
 bibliography appended, and others ; has digested then- 
 contents into some 1800 pages of typewriting, and pre- 
 pared an extensive topical index thereof; has visited re- 
 mote localities, examined and tested many existing and 
 operating examples of the early days, as well as ruins 
 of abandoned mills; has conversed or corresponded with 
 scores of millers, millwrights, and operatives in the old 
 
vi PREFACE AND INTRODUCTION 
 
 mills; and has studied many judgments of courts deter- 
 mining the meanings of water grants, and abstracted the 
 printed records thereof, after visiting the properties re- 
 ferred to in the judgments. 
 
 A book of this nature is necessarily a compilation. 
 With the wealth of data obtained it is impossible, in 
 a work of this size, to give more than citations from 
 some of the representative writings. Many tests and 
 power determinations by the author are here published 
 for the first time. 
 
 At sundry times from before 1800 to even after 1900, 
 owners of water powers have granted rights as meas- 
 ured by specific uses, such as to operate "a run of stones," 
 or "one saw," etc., and an equally large number of grants 
 do not have even this restriction, but simply allude to 
 the nature of the industry to be driven. Thus, on one 
 dam in New York, at times from 1808 to 1850, sep- 
 arate water grants were sold for a saw mill, a woolen 
 mill, a machine shop, nail works, a paper mill, a tan- 
 nery, a force pump, a trip hammer, a carding mill, an 
 oil mill, etc., all being subordinate to an undefined cotton 
 mill. There was no mention of the number of saws, the 
 sets of woolen machinery, the mechanisms in the shop, 
 the number of nail cutters, the equipment or product 
 of the paper mill, the number and kind of hides tanned 
 per day, etc. No one is living who worked in the mills 
 as constructed. None of the original mills are in exist- 
 ence. The water rights have been absorbed by some 
 half dozen industries. The industrial character of the lo- 
 cality has changed. 
 
 Should the owners, or the courts, endeavor to measure 
 
PREFACE AND INTRODUCTION vii 
 
 these rights it will be necessary to consult some of the 
 old books referred to in this work, to study old local 
 histories and even old local newspapers, to take the 
 opinions of old millwrights and operators of old saw mills, 
 oil mills, tanneries, etc., gathered from nearby localities, 
 and of engineers familiar (by research) with the state of 
 the arts and with water wheels of from 1808 to 1850. 
 It will, of course, be necessary to examine the sites and 
 form a judgment as to the heads which could reasonably 
 be developed for the wheels available for use at the 
 times. 
 
 Too much reliance should not be given to the various 
 old books on millwrighting. Evans' book for its time 
 (1795) was probably an authority. The flour milling art 
 quickly outgrew that work. Subsequent editions were 
 rearrangements of the old book. Jones, a teacher of me- 
 chanics in a night school, could add no milling value 
 by his revisions. The works of Hughes and Pallett were 
 prepared by men of grist mill experience, and were 
 largely compiled from older books representing English 
 practice. Craik, "a hard-working, practical millwright 
 and miller" wrote an excellent book, but omits all allu- 
 sions to power except for saw mills. None of these 
 writers were engineers or knew much about horse-power 
 and accurate water measurements. 
 
 It is to be remembered that when most of these early 
 grants were made there were neither mechanical engi- 
 neering schools nor professional hydraulic and mechani- 
 cal engineers. The engineering was done by millwrights 
 — men clever with their hands in fashioning water wheels, 
 mill buildings, dams, etc., and generally possessed of a 
 
viii PREFACE AND INTRODUCTION 
 
 fairly clear knowledge of stream possibilities and hydraulic 
 principles. They were not gifted in writing, were se- 
 cretive and jealous of their knowledge, and passed it 
 on to apprentices. The writers were either inventors, 
 owners of small mills, or mathematicians and professors. 
 
 There were growths in every industry from time to 
 time. Evans' mill of 1795 was not the flour mill of 
 1830. "Flat milling" was succeeded by the new "half- 
 high" system, only to be replaced by the "combination" 
 system of rolls for breaking down the wheat and buhrs 
 for grinding its product. Then came the "roller" mill. 
 The old upright saw, with its single blade, gave way to 
 the gang saw. Next the circular came and finally pre- 
 dominated. The time for tanning a hide was greatly 
 reduced by chemical treatment. The hand-formed was 
 replaced by the machine-made sheet of paper. Rags 
 largely gave way to wood for paper stocks. Improve- 
 ments were made in textile machinery. The tendency 
 all along was to "speed up" and get a larger volume 
 of product, thus using more power. It is, therefore, evi- 
 dent that the state of the art for the time of the grant 
 should be known. This work may be of some service 
 in this respect. 
 
 When the earlier grants were made, wooden flutter, 
 undershot, breast, overshot, and tub wheels predominated, 
 one or the other being used as the head at the property 
 and the volume of flow in the stream would justify. 
 Then came the flat-vaned, central-discharge, scroll-cased, 
 wooden wheel and the turbine. Finally, towards the end 
 of the 1840's and through the '50's there was an epi- 
 demic of turbines. Every foundryman near a rapids in 
 
PREFACE AND INTRODUCTION ix 
 
 a river brought out his own design. A total of over 
 300 U. S. patents for turbines were granted up to 1855. 
 These early turbines were generally crude and inefficient 
 as compared with those of to-day. 
 
 It is, therefore, apparent that, when interpreting an 
 early grant, it is essential that the state of the water- 
 wheel art for the time and place should be applied. 
 This work is intended as an aid in determining, by the 
 two steps first outlined, the meaning of an indefinite 
 water power grant. It should, also, be of assistance when 
 forming new grants. If it serves these purposes, in even 
 a small measure, the writer's labors are rewarded. The 
 personal views and opinions of the Author are given in 
 connection with the various topics discussed. 
 
 Jay M. Whitham. 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa., 
 March 1, 1918. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGI 
 
 Preface and Introduction v 
 
 PART ONE 
 
 Weight of a Bushel of Wheat 1 
 
 Bushels of Wheat per Barrel of Flour 2 
 
 Power Required to Grind a Bushel of Wheat per Hour in a Buhr Mill 4 
 Power Required to Clean and Grind a Bushel of Wheat per Hour and 
 
 Convert it into Flour in a Buhr Mill 8 
 
 Power to Drive the Machinery Accompanying Buhr Stones 14 
 
 Speeds of Mill Stones 15 
 
 Bushels of Wheat Ground per Run of Stones per Hour . . . . 17 
 
 History of Buhr Stone Milling in Oswego, N. Y 19 
 
 Power per 100 Barrels of Flour per Twenty-four Hours in Buhr, in 
 
 Combined Roller and Buhr, and in Roller Mills 21 
 
 Power per Run of Stones, Including its Accompanying Machinery, in 
 
 Merchant and Grist Mills 28 
 
 Run of Stones for Corn Meal and Feed Mills 45 
 
 Corn Cracker or Corn Crusher 48 
 
 Water Rights for a Distillery 53 
 
 Starch Mill '. 53 
 
 Oat Meal Mill 54 
 
 Pearl Barley Mill 54 
 
 Saw Mill Grants 56 
 
 Shingle Mill 64 
 
 Bark Mills and Tanneries 66 
 
 Axe Factory 70 
 
 Machine Shop Rights 70 
 
 Blast Furnace, Bellows and Blowers in Iron Works 73 
 
 Iron Rolling Mills 76 
 
 Tilt or Trip Hammer 77 
 
 Nail Factory 79 
 
 Carding and Fulling Mills. . : 80 
 
 xi 
 
xii CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Woolen Mills 82 
 
 Cotton Mills 87 
 
 Plaster Mills 102 
 
 Paper Mills 102 
 
 Oil Mills 107 
 
 PART TWO 
 
 Orifices or Apertures 109 
 
 Coefficient of Discharge through Standard Orifices 113 
 
 Coefficient of Discharge through Bulkhead Gates 115 
 
 Coefficient of Discharge for Gates of Flutter, Undershot, Breast and 
 
 Overshot Wheels 117 
 
 Coefficient of Discharge for Tub, Flat-vaned Central-discharge Scroll- 
 cased Wheels and Other Wheels Having Tapered Spouts 119 
 
 Coefficient of Discharge for Turbines 120 
 
 Grants of Inches of Water 122 
 
 Flutter or Saw Mill Wheel Grants 129 
 
 Tub Wheel Grants 132 
 
 Wooden Scroll-cased Central Discharge Wheel Grants 138 
 
 Undershot Wheel Grants 146 
 
 Poncelet Wheel Grants 153 
 
 Overshot Wheel Grants 154 
 
 Pitchback Wheel Grants 170 
 
 Breast Wheel Grants 170 
 
 Turbine Wheel Grants 176 
 
 Bibliography 187 
 
 Index 195 
 
WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATIONS 
 
 •&QgHgt?!± *f? L f-**f~"'"-'- 
 
 ERRATA 
 
 . Page 5, line 13, for 10-foot read 16-foot. 
 
 18, near center of page, read " In 1858 the 112 runs 
 of stones," etc. 
 
 24, for Mouston, O., read Mouston, Wis. 
 
 58, line 11, omit the word " to." . 
 
 96, line 4, for p. 101 read p. 88. 
 114, 3d line from bottom, for p. 128 read p. 112. 
 129, line 13, for aerpture read aperture. 
 136, line 14, for 1727 read 1797. 
 171, line 23, for p. 181 read p. 159. 
 192, line 3, for Composition read Comparison. 
 
 In a 1916 report of the U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 
 the weights per bushel of wheat for that year of poor yield 
 were given as ranging from 45.8 pounds in South Dakota 
 to 59.8 in Oregon (Mill. Rev., Oct., 1916). 
 
 Bulletin 557 of the U. S. Dept. of Agriculture (1917) 
 gave the following weights of cleaned wheat per bushel : 
 
xii CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Woolen Mills 82 
 
 Cotton Mills 87 
 
 Plaster Mills 102 
 
 Paper Mills 102 
 
 Oil Mills 107 
 
 PART TWO 
 
WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATIONS 
 
 PART ONE 
 
 WEIGHT OF A BUSHEL OF WHEAT 
 
 The weight of wheat per bushel varies with the season, 
 soil, climate and kind, and is usually reckoned as 60 
 pounds, its legal weight. 
 
 Oliver Evans, whose first edition of "The Young Mill- 
 wright and Miller's Guide" appeared in 1795, experi- 
 mented with wheats ranging from 56 to 61 pounds per 
 bushel (Bennett and Elton, p. 197). 
 
 Hughes found that there "are many seasons that 
 wheat overruns its standard weight, and as frequently 
 it falls short of it" (1851 Ed., p. 124). 
 
 Pallett gave 55 to 61 pounds for the weight of a clean 
 white wheat per bushel and 51 to 60 pounds for red wheat 
 (1866 Ed. p. 116.) 
 
 In a 1916 report of the U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 
 the weights per bushel of wheat for that year of poor yield 
 were given as ranging from 45.8 pounds in South Dakota 
 to 59.8 in Oregon (Mill. Rev., Oct., 1916). 
 
 Bulletin 557 of the U. S. Dept. of Agriculture (1917) 
 gave the following weights of cleaned wheat per bushel : 
 
2 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 Soft red winter. . . 61 .4 lb. Hard red winter. . 62. 1 lb. 
 Durum 62.8 lb. Hard red spring. . 60.2 lb. 
 
 With a variable weight per bushel it follows that the bushels 
 of wheat used per barrel of flour cannot be constant. 
 
 BUSHELS OF WHEAT PER BARREL OF FLOUR 
 
 There is no definite and established number of bushels 
 of wheat required to produce a barrel of flour. It ranged 
 from 4.375 to over 5 bushels per barrel of flour in buhr mills, 
 and these consumptions are required now for roller mills 
 in their practical operation from day to day. 
 
 Six sets of experiments by Oliver Evans, made before 
 1795, gave 5.16 bushels of wheat per barrel of flour, the 
 range being from 4.9 to 5.6 bushels (Bennett and Elton, 
 p. 197). 
 
 Hughes, 1851, p. 203, said, "It is well known, that, 
 but a few years ago, it required, with the utmost econ- 
 omy, 5 good bushels of wheat to make a barrel of super- 
 fine flour, and now it is produced, of equally good, or 
 better quality, out of 4 bushels and 15 to 25 pounds, . . ." 
 
 Pallett's tests with various wheats showed an aver- 
 age of 296 pounds or 4.93 bushels of wheat per barrel 
 of "superfine flour" (1866, p. 116). 
 
 Moore, 1878, p. 442, and Haswell, 1909, p. 572, gave 
 5 bushels of Northern and 4.5 of Southern wheat per 
 barrel of flour, and 2 pounds of flour for 3 of bread. 
 
 Jas. Emerson gave from 4.45 to 5.16 bushels of 60- 
 pound wheat to a barrel of flour (Emerson, 1894, p. 118). 
 
 Oliver, 1913, p. 66, states "there are wheats that will. 
 
BUSHEL OF WHEAT PER BARREL OF FLOUR 3 
 
 yield as low as 4.16 bushels . . . per barrel; and there 
 are others that will require over 5 bushels . . ." 
 
 The Millers' Review, Philadelphia, in 1916 and 1917 
 published reports from 199 mills of various kinds and 
 capacities, operating in different parts of the United States, 
 averaging 4.89 bushels of wheat per barrel of flour, with 
 a range from 4.25 to 5.5 bushels. 
 
 Six experienced millers, who operated in merchant 
 buhr mills along the Oswego Valley in New York, in 
 from 1850 to 1870, and two millers operating in similar 
 mills in Richmond, Lynchburg, and Danville, Va., in 
 1860 to 1870, testified in court that such mills used about 
 5 bushels of wheat per barrel of flour. 
 
 A test at Palestine, 111., in 1916, gave a barrel of flour 
 with 4.6 bushels of wheat (Dig. IV, 65). 
 
 Bulletin 557 of U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1917, re- 
 cites laboratory tests of 1283 samples of wheat. Calling 
 196 pounds the weight of a barrel of flour, and 60 pounds 
 to a bushel of wheat, the average of the laboratory tests 
 was 4.62 bushels of clean wheat per barrel of flour. 
 
 Holliwell gives, p. 244, the products from wheat milling 
 as 70 per cent flour, 13.5 per cent pollard or thirds, 15.5 
 per cent bran, and 1 per cent for dust, loss and evaporation. 
 Upon this basis 60 pounds of wheat yields 42 pounds of 
 flour, and 4.7 bushels make a barrel in English mills. 
 
 The U. S. Government prescribed in December, 1917, 
 during the War of the Nations, that a barrel of flour should 
 be made from 264 pounds of wheat, or 4.4 bushels of 60 
 pounds each. This has required millers to put some mid- 
 dlings into the flour. 
 
4 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 POWER TO GRIND A BUSHEL OF WHEAT AN HOUR IN 
 A BUHR MILL 
 
 As distinguished from grinding and dressing in flour 
 making, the power used simply to grind the bushel of wheat 
 per hour varies widely among authorities. 
 
 Oliver Evans * in his 17P5 edition, analyzed the power 
 needed for grinding a bushel of wheat per hour in "cu- 
 bochs," and defined this unit as equivalent to 1 cubic 
 foot of water falling 1 foot in a second. This unit is, there- 
 fore, about one-ninth of a gross or theoretic horse-power. 
 His results were obtained with overshot wheels operating 
 a 5-foot stone at about 102 R.P.M., and are converted 
 into the following table: 
 
 Reference. 
 
 Part I, p. 94 
 110 
 115, 
 119 
 
 Bushels 
 
 Ground 
 
 per Hour. 
 
 3.75 
 5. 
 3.8 
 5.2 
 
 Total Gross 
 Horse-power. 
 
 12.5 
 12.73 
 9.94 
 
 7.27 
 
 Gross Horse- 
 power per 
 Bushel per 
 Hour. 
 
 3.33 
 2.55 
 2.62 
 1.4 
 
 Calling the efficiency of the overshot wheel 75 per 
 cent, the actual power per bushel per hour for grinding, 
 as deduced from Evans, varied from 2.5 to 1.05 net or 
 actual horse-power. 
 
 D'Aubuisson's "Hydraulics" of 1838 (Bennett's trans- 
 
 * Evans coined the term "cuboch." No other writer has adopted or 
 used it. Evans did not allude to the term "horse-power" in his book. He 
 did not mention the efficiency of any water wheel, nor the net power used 
 or required in any operation. 
 
POWER TO GRIND A BUSHEL OF WHEAT 5 
 
 lation of 1852) gives, pp. 448-50, ten tests by Mallett, 
 Evans, Eagen, Montaubau, Tardy, Robert, and others, 
 showing an average of 1.05 horse-power for grinding a 
 bushel of wheat in an hour. 
 
 Byrnes "Practical Model Calculator" (1851), on p. 
 327 of 1866 Ed., stated that 30 cubic feet of water per 
 second falling through 10 feet upon the floats of an under- 
 shot wheel, have power to grind 4 bolls (or 8 bushels, 
 Glynn, p. 88) of wheat per hour, the wheel efficiency being 
 31.45 per cent, which corresponds to 1.34 net horse-power 
 per bushel. 
 
 Hughes, 1851, p. 62, gave an 84-inch Vandewater 
 turbine, 65 per cent efficiency, 10-foot head, using 400 
 inches of water, to grind 98 bushels of wheat per hour, 
 which is 1.05 horse-power per bushel. 
 
 Neville, 1860, p. 399, states that 1 horse-power is 
 needed to grind 1 bushel of wheat an hour, "but much 
 depends on the state of the stones and grain." 
 
 Beardmore, 1850 (p. 57 of 1862 Ed.), states that "An 
 ordinary mill will grind 1 bushel per hour per horse-power 
 — a very good one 1.2 bushel." 
 
 Bartley, 1886, p. 34, gives 15 horse-power for the 
 grinding of 11 bushels of wheat per hour, or 1.36 horse- 
 power per bushel. 
 
 Oliver, 1913, p. 104, gives 7.5 horse-power for grinding 
 6 to 8 bushels of wheat per hour on a 4-foot stone, or 
 from 0.94 to 1.1 horse-power per bushel. 
 
 Molesworth, 1862 (p. 424 of 1896 Ed.), states that 1 
 horse-power per bushel per hour is required for grinding, 
 with a stone, or 2 horse-power for cleaning, grinding and 
 dressing. Hard wheat requires more power. 
 
6 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 Moore, 1880, p. 651, quotes "The Miller" (English), 
 where a stone, without "exhaust" or "combined blast 
 and exhaust," uses 1 horse-power per bushel per hour, 
 and in Scotland 6 horse-power for 4 bushels, or 1.5 horse- 
 power per bushel hour for grinding. 
 
 Nystrom, 1865, p. 154, gives 4.36 horse-power to grind 
 5 bushels of wheat, or 0.87 horse-power per bushel-hour 
 with a 4-foot stone. Haswell, 1878, p. 556, gives the 
 same figure. 
 
 Emerson, 1894, p. 105, claimed that 1 horse-power per 
 bushel is too small for grinding. 
 
 Tests by Gibson, 1868 (Reynolds' "Wheel Book"), 
 at Stockholm, N. Y., used 5.5 horse-power to grind 5 
 bushels per hour; 6.2 horse-power for 6 bushels; and 14.8 
 horse-power for 14 bushels, or an average of 1.08 horse- 
 power per bushel-hour. 
 
 Wolfe's "Mill Book," p. 28, gives a range of from 
 0.9 to 1.67 horse-power per bushel per hour for grinding, 
 with French buhrs of various sizes. 
 
 A. Caseo, a miller of 58 years' experience in large 
 buhr and roller mills in various parts of New York, found 
 that "a run of 4-foot mill stones will not successfully 
 and economically grind more than 16 bushels per hour, 
 consuming about 18 horse-power up to 18.67." This is 
 for grinding alone, and is at the rate of from 1.12 to 1.17 
 horse-power per bushel-hour (Dig. IV, 260). 
 
 Gump's " Old Mill Book " gives 16 horse-power for a 
 3-foot stone at 200 R.P.M. for the grinding of 10| bushels 
 of wheat per hour, or 1.52 horse-power per bushel. 
 
 Capt. W. H. Snyder, of Batavia, N. Y., a milling en- 
 gineer of long experience, allows 1 horse-power to grind 
 
POWER TO GRIND A BUSHEL OF WHEAT 7 
 
 a bushel of wheat an hour, and 0.75 horse-power for the 
 accompanying machinery (Dig. IV, 39). 
 
 Sage Bros. Mill, Elkhart, Ind., 1888, used 21 horse- 
 power to grind 7.5 bushels of wheat per hour, or 2.8 horse- 
 power per bushel (Emerson, 1894, p. 63). 
 
 The grain ground (not cleaned, ground and dressed) 
 per hour per horse-power, according to German practice 
 per Weibe, is given by Kozmin on page 191 of his Russian 
 work on " Flour Milling " (1917) as follows, for wheat and 
 rye without and with ventilation: 
 
 Grain. 
 
 Grinding. 
 
 Without 
 Ventilation. 
 
 With 
 Ventilation. 
 
 Wheat 
 
 Wheat 
 
 Wheat 
 
 Rye... 
 
 Rye. . 
 
 Rye.. 
 
 Single grinding 
 Double grinding 
 Treble grinding 
 Single grinding 
 Double grinding 
 Treble grinding 
 
 59.4 lbs. 
 50.4 lbs. 
 45.0 lbs. 
 
 58.3 lbs. 
 34.9 lbs. 
 
 28.4 lbs. 
 
 79.6 lbs. 
 
 67.3 lbs. 
 
 59.4 lbs. 
 78.8 lbs. 
 47.2 lbs. 
 37.1 lbs. 
 
 Ventilation of the buhrs prevented overheating and 
 increased the capacity. It was introduced into the United 
 States in 1825 to 1835. 
 
 Fenwick, in 1752, found that a 5-foot stone at 90 R.P.M. 
 ground about 10 per cent more wheat than rye with the 
 same power expenditure (Brewster's "Ferguson" II, 164; 
 Grier, p. 211; Glynn, p. 132). 
 
 The engine load at the Melbourne Roller Mills, Phila- 
 delphia, when producing 498 barrels of spring wheat flour 
 and 489 of rye flour was 498.6 horse-power. A week later 
 when grinding 1250 barrels of winter wheat flour the load 
 was 476.4 horse-power. That is, it took 22.2 horse-power 
 more to grind 987 barrels of spring wheat and rye flours 
 
8 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 than 1250 barrels of winter wheat flour (Whitham's 
 tests, 1918). 
 
 The power used simply to grind wheat varies with the 
 size of the mill, its gearing, the nature of its construction, 
 the dress and condition of the stones, the rate of feed, and 
 the kind and condition of the wheat, and ranged from 1 to 
 1.5 horse-power per bushel. 
 
 Roller mills require from 1.25 to 1.75 horse-power per 
 bushel per hour for grinding. 
 
 POWER REQUIRED TO CLEAN AND GRIND A BUSHEL OF 
 WHEAT PER HOUR AND CONVERT IT INTO FLOUR 
 IN A BUHR MILL 
 
 The previous topic dealt only with the power used 
 in grinding a bushel of wheat per hour with buhrs, while 
 this article relates to the power needed to make finished 
 flour from wheat. 
 
 From as early as 1757 down to about 1790, in the 
 United States, and to a later date abroad, the flour null 
 consisted of power-driven stones for grinding, while the 
 handling of wheat and meal, and the cooling, bolting, and 
 packing were done by hand labor (Evans, 1795, Part 
 V, pp. v, vi). 
 
 Oliver Evans invented, prior to 1790, the elevator, 
 conveyor, hopper-boy for cooling, the drill and descender. 
 Their introduction into important mills on the Brandy- 
 wine in Del., at Ellicott City, Md., and at Richmond 
 and Petersburg, Va., had been effected before 1791 (Evans, 
 1795, Part III, pp. 71, 125-6; Part V, p. vi; also, Ben- 
 nett and Elton, p. 198). His improvements almost elim- 
 
POWER REQUIRED TO GRIND A BUSHEL OF WHEAT 9 
 
 inated hand labor and increased the output of the mill, 
 requiring greater power. Their use gradually became gen- 
 eral throughout the milling world. 
 
 Earlier than 1795 grist, toll or custom mills were dis- 
 tinguished from flouring or merchant mills, the latter being 
 more fully equipped and using greater power for an in- 
 creased output (Evans, Part III, pp. 85, 88; Part V, 
 p. vi).* 
 
 The distinction between grist and merchant mills 
 has many times been recognized in contracts and deeds, 
 as in 1828, when Whitney was prevented by Lewis from 
 building and operating at the north end of the dam across 
 the Susquehanna in Binghamton ". . .a common country 
 grist mill, but he- may build a merchant flouring mill for 
 grinding and packing flour as is usual in what is called 
 a merchant mill" (Recorded July 23, 1828 in Book 
 II, p. 107, Broome Co., N. Y. Clerk's Office). 
 
 As in the case of grinding the wheat, the authorities 
 differ widely in the amount of power required to handle, 
 clean and grind the wheat and to cool, bolt and pack the 
 flour, i.e., in the power needed to grind and dress a bushel 
 of wheat per hour. This is explained by variations in mill 
 equipment and condition, and in the wheat used. 
 
 The earliest tests of value seem to have been made 
 by Ellwood Morris, C.E., who was appointed by the 
 Franklin Institute to investigate certain water wheels. 
 From tests with three "excellent overshot flouring mill 
 wheels, with all the modern improvements," Morris, in 
 
 *An "exchange" mill received the farmer's grist and exchanged it for 
 flour made from other wheats. It was therefore of the character of a mar- 
 chant mill (Evans, 1795). 
 
10 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 1838, found that it took "788 cubic feet of water falling 
 1 foot per minute to grind and dress 1 bushel of wheat 
 per hour" {Jour. Frank. Inst. IV, 3d Series, p. 222; 
 also Weisbach, 1849, II, p. 194). This is about 1.5 gross 
 or theoretic horse-power per bushel per hour. Morris's 
 experiments gave from 79.5 to 84.1 per cent overshot 
 wheel efficiencies. Taking 80 per cent, the. net power 
 was 1.2 horse-power. His 1.5 horse-power is quoted by 
 many later writers, such as Scribner (18th Ed., 1878, p. 
 158) and Drake (1888, p. 164). 
 
 Leffel's "Wheel Book" (1883, p. 91) recites that a 
 56-inch turbine, 6.5-foot head, operated, in Tennessee, at 
 0.75 gate, ground and dressed from 15 to 18 bushels of 
 wheat per hour, which corresponds to from 1.7 to 2 horse- 
 power per bushel. 
 
 Wm. Brandt, operating in a 3-run, steam driven, 4-foot 
 buhr mill, in Warren, 111., in 1870, used 60 horse-power 
 for grinding and dressing about 42 bushels per hour. This 
 is equivalent to 1.43 horse-power to grind and dress a 
 bushel per hour (Dig. Ill, 100). 
 
 The Krantz buhr mill, near Wrightsville, Pa., has a 
 24-inch Success wheel, 8-foot head, making and using 18 
 horse-power for a 4-foot stone grinding 5 bushels per 
 hour, or 24 barrels per day. This is 3.6 horse-power to 
 grind and dress a bushel of wheat per hour (Mill. Rev., 
 July, 1916). 
 
 L. G. West, of the Quaker City Mills, Philadelphia, 
 gives, as his early experience in small buhr mills, 12 horse- 
 power to grind and dress 4.5 bushels of wheat per hour 
 in a 24-barrel grist mill, or 2.67 horse-power per bushel. 
 
 H. G. Woolcott, of the Hoffer Mill in Steelton, Pa., 
 
POWER REQUIRED TO GRIND A BUSHEL OF WHEAT 11 
 
 states, from his early experience, that a buhr grist mill 
 grinding and dressing 5 bushels per hour uses from 15 to 18 
 horse-power or from 3 to 3.6 horse-power per bushel of 
 wheat. 
 
 Jos. Himmel, miller, at the Exchange 5-run buhr mills 
 in Oswego, from 1868-92, used from 38 to 40 horse-power 
 per run of 4.5 foot stones to produce, with accompanying 
 machinery, 100 barrels per day, with about 20 bushels 
 of wheat per run per hour, or from 1.9 to 2 horse-power to 
 grind and dress a bushel per hour in a 500-barrel buhr mill. 
 
 Richard Glynn, miller at the Lake Ontario buhr mill, 
 Oswego, 1865-81, with 7 runs of 4.5-foot stones and bolt- 
 ing capacity for 6 runs, and a production of 600 barrels 
 per day, used from 225 to 270 horse-power depending upon 
 the stones and wheat. The wheat ground was about 120 
 bushels hourly. The power used to grind and dress a 
 bushel of wheat per hour was from 1.75 to 2.25 horse-power. 
 
 Jas. Mizen, experienced in buhr milling in England 
 prior to 1870, and in buhr and roller mills of various sizes 
 in New York and Minnesota down to 1895, found that 
 from 4.67 to 5 bushels were used per barrel of flour, and that 
 a 4.5-foot stone and its accompanying machinery, when 
 producing 100 barrels per day, used 35 horse-power. This 
 gives 1.75 horse-power to grind and dress a bushel of wheat 
 per hour. 
 
 Millwright Wm. H. Bullock determined, from his ex- 
 perience in various States, that the power used to make 
 2.5 barrels of flour in twenty-four hours is 1 horse-power. 
 Thus, a 250-barrel mill uses 100 horse-power, a 100- 
 barrel mill, 40 horse-power, etc. This is about 2 horse- 
 power to grind and dress a bushel of wheat per hour. 
 
12 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 F. W. Ormsby, C.E., for several years engaged in de- 
 signing and equipping flour mills in various States, found 
 that the milling trade used 40 horse-power to 100 barrels 
 per twenty-four hours in buhr mills. This figure he veri- 
 fied by wheel experiments and tests at an old Oswego 
 merchant buhr mill. The rule is equivalent to from 1.9 to 2 
 horse-power to grind and dress a bushel of wheat per hour. 
 
 Haswell (1878 Ed., 556) states "For each pair of 4-foot 
 stones, with all the accompanying machinery, etc., there 
 is required 15 horse-power. One pair of 4-foot stones 
 will grind about 5 bushels of wheat per hour." This 
 means 3 horse-power to grind and dress a bushel per hour. 
 Yet Haswell, on the same page, says that only "0.87 horse- 
 power actually" is required to grind a bushel an hour. 
 That leaves 2.13 horse-power per bushel per hour for 
 the accompany machinery — a result no more absurd than 
 is found in many of the old books on milling. 
 
 Molesworth (25th Ed., 1896, 424) gives 2 horse-power 
 as required to grind and dress a bushel of wheat per hour 
 in a buhr mill, dividing the power as follows: 
 
 Grinding 1.00 h.p. 
 
 Dressing and cleaning 0.57 h.p. 
 
 Elevators, etc 0.13 h.p. 
 
 Friction and shafting 0.30 h.p. 
 
 Two small buhr mills in England, cited by Moore 
 (1880, 442), used 1.77 and 2.3 horse-power respectively 
 to grind and dress a bushel per hour. 
 
 At Sage's mill in Elkhart, Ind., 1888, Emerson found 
 3.5 horse-power used to grind and dress a bushel of wheat 
 per hour (Emerson, 1894, 63). 
 
POWER REQUIRED TO GRIND A BUSHEL OF WHEAT 13 
 
 The White & Beynon 6-run mill at Lanesboro, Minn., 
 1874, used 3.18 horse-power to grind and dress a bushel 
 hour (Emerson, 1894, 64, 99.) 
 
 The St. Joseph 100-barrel mill at Mishawaka, Ind., 
 1884, used 93.35 horse-power, or 4.67 horse-power to grind 
 and dress a bushel-hour. (Emerson, 1894, 64.) 
 
 The Eberhart 130-barrel mill, Mishawaka, 1884, used 
 114.08 horse-power or 4.39 horse-power per bushel-hour, 
 while Miller's 175-barrel mill at the same place, used 185.72 
 horse-power, or 5.3 horse-power to grind and dress a bushel 
 per hour. (Emerson, 1894, 65.) 
 
 Capt. W. H. Snyder, milling engineer, found that with 
 a buhr stone 1 horse-power is needed to grind and 0.75 
 horse-power to operate the accompanying machinery, or 
 1.75 horse-power to grind and dress a bushel-hour. 
 
 Leffel's "Wheel Book" of 1877 gave the wheels and 
 heads in nine small buhr mills, in various places, and 
 either the wheat handled per hour or the flour made, from 
 which it appears that they averaged 1.93 horse-power 
 of wheels to grind and dress 1 bushel-hour. 
 
 The power required to grind and dress a bushel of wheat 
 per hour in mills of various sizes in Russia is deduced from 
 Kozmin's " Flour Milling," 1917, p. 577, to be about the 
 same as in the United States, or as follows : 
 
 Bushels per Hour 
 
 Corresponding Bbls. 
 
 of Flour per Day at 
 
 4f Bush, per Bbl. 
 
 H.p. to Drive 
 Mill. 
 
 H.p. per Bushel 
 
 of "Wheat per 
 
 Hour. 
 
 15.3 
 
 77 
 
 40 
 
 2.61 
 
 76.5 
 
 385 
 
 157 
 
 2.05 
 
 153.0 
 
 770 
 
 290 
 
 1.90 
 
 229.5 
 
 1155 
 
 420 
 
 1.83 
 
 306.0 
 
 1540 
 
 550 
 
 1.80 
 
14 
 
 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 The power to grind the wheat and operate the accom- 
 panying machinery in a buhr or in a roller mill varies from 
 1.6 to 2 horse-power per bushel per hour. 
 
 POWER TO DRIVE THE MACHINERY ACCOMPANYING 
 BUHR STONES 
 
 Such accompanying machinery consisted of smutter,* 
 and elevators, conveyors, hopper-boy or its equivalent 
 cooler, bolts or reels, packer, etc. (Pallett, pp. 62, 64, 68, 
 70, 85). The power they consumed added to that needed 
 for grinding constituted the total used by the mill. 
 
 The power used by the accompanying machinery per 
 bushel of wheat per hour was: 
 
 0.75 h.p. per W. H. Snyder, milling engineer; 
 0.67 h.p. per L. G. West, experienced operator; 
 1.05-1.2 h.p. per H. J. Woolcott, experienced operator; . 
 
 0.7 h.p. per Jas! Mizen, experienced miller; 
 .62-0.75 h.p. per Rich. Glynn, experienced miller; ' 
 
 0.50 h.p. per F. W. Ormsby, C.E., mill engineer; . 
 0.7-0.75 h.p. per Jos. Himmel, experienced miller; 
 1.00 h.p. per Molesworth. 
 
 The total power used to grind a bushel of wheat per 
 hour and convert it into flour may be divided as follows: 
 
 Grinding, 
 Per Cent. 
 
 Accompanying 
 
 Machinery, 
 Per Cent. 
 
 Authority. 
 
 50 
 
 75 
 
 65 
 
 60 
 
 67 
 
 67 
 
 62.5 
 
 64 
 
 57 
 
 50 
 
 25 
 
 35 
 
 40 
 
 33 
 
 33 
 
 37.5 
 
 36 
 
 43 
 
 Molesworth 
 
 West; Ormsby 
 
 Woolcott 
 
 Mizen 
 
 Holliwell 
 
 Glynn 
 
 Himmel 
 
 Hill 
 
 Snyder 
 
 ' Smut machine was in use at Janius, N. Y., in 1810 (Clinton). 
 
SPEED OF MILL STONES 15 
 
 SPEED OF MILL STONES 
 
 An early speed rule was, R.P.M. = 500 -h diameter of 
 the stone in feet. Thus a 4.5-foot stone would operate, 
 by this rule, at 111 R.P.M., a speed prevailing before 
 1795. 
 
 Haswell (1878, p. 556), allowed 2000 feet per minute 
 for the speed of the rim of the stone, which corresponds 
 to 141 R.P.M. for a 4.5-foot stone. The Noye Mfg. Co. 
 allowed 2500 feet per minute, corresponding to 177 R.P.M. 
 for a 4.5-foot stone. 
 
 Gump's old "Mill Book" gave 350 R.P.M. for a 3-foot 
 stone, or 3300 feet per minute. 
 
 The table on page 16 is a summary of the speeds of 
 mill stones at sundry dates, as given by various writers 
 and millmen. 
 
 Studying this speed table it is to be noted that some- 
 times the same author gives widely different speed for 
 a particular stone, such as 92 to 160 R.P.M. for a 
 4.5-foot stone by Pallett. No doubt such ranges 
 obtained in practice at all times, especially as be 
 tween grist and merchant mills. The country grist mills 
 usually operated at slow speeds, while the merchant mills 
 speeded up for volume of output, thereby using greater 
 power. 
 
 Necessarily the power per run varied with the speed and 
 work done. A small stone at high speed .would grind as much 
 or more wheat than a larger, slow-speed stone. 
 
 The earliest literature relating to the power varia- 
 tions with stones of different sizes is found in Evans' trea- 
 
16 
 
 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 
 
 SPEEDS OF 
 
 MILL 
 
 STONES 
 
 
 Stone. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Authority. 
 
 R.P.M. 
 
 Stone. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Authority. 
 
 R.P.M. 
 
 96" 
 
 1795 
 
 Evans* 
 
 60 
 
 54" 
 
 1854 
 
 Haswell* 
 
 130 
 
 90 
 
 1806 
 
 Gregory 
 
 60 
 
 54 
 
 1860 
 
 Snyder* 
 
 180-200 
 
 84 
 
 1795 
 
 Evans* 
 
 69.4 
 
 54 
 
 1866 
 
 Pallett* 
 
 150-160 
 
 82 
 
 1795 
 
 Evans* 
 
 71 
 
 54 
 
 1866 
 
 Pallett* 
 
 92-97 
 
 72 
 
 1795 
 
 Evans* 
 
 81-95 
 
 54 
 
 1868 
 
 Glynn* 
 
 165-170 
 
 72 
 
 1795 
 
 Banks 
 
 100 
 
 54 
 
 1870 
 
 Mizen* 
 
 160-180 
 
 72 
 
 1804 
 
 Gray 
 
 60 
 
 54 
 
 1870 
 
 Holliwell 
 
 140 
 
 72 
 
 1806 
 
 Gregory 
 
 60 
 
 54 
 
 1878 
 
 Haswell* 
 
 143 
 
 72 
 
 1826 
 
 Nicholses? 
 
 60 
 
 54 
 
 1879 
 
 Moore 
 
 105 
 
 72 
 
 1832 
 
 Jones* 
 
 81 
 
 54 
 
 1880 
 
 West* 
 
 160 
 
 72 
 
 1880 
 
 Ormsby* 
 
 130 
 
 54 
 
 1880 
 
 Ormsby* 
 
 180 
 
 70 
 
 1879 
 
 Moore 
 
 70 
 
 54 
 
 1887 
 
 Rechard* 
 
 160 
 
 66 
 
 1795 
 
 Evans* 
 
 88 
 
 54 
 
 
 Nordyke* 
 
 185 
 
 66 
 
 1880 
 
 Ormsby* 
 
 145 
 
 51 
 
 1795 
 
 Evans* 
 
 125 
 
 64 
 
 1795 
 
 Evans* 
 
 113 
 
 51 
 
 1879 
 
 Moore 
 
 110 
 
 60 
 
 1754 
 
 Fen wick 
 
 90 
 
 48 
 
 1795 
 
 Evans* 
 
 121§ 
 
 60 
 
 1795 
 
 Banks 
 
 100 
 
 48 
 
 1795 
 
 Ellicott* 
 
 106 
 
 60 
 
 1795 
 
 Evans* 
 
 97-114 
 
 48 
 
 1851 
 
 Byrne 
 
 125 
 
 60 
 
 1795 
 
 Ellicott* 
 
 88 
 
 48 
 
 1852 
 
 Templeton 
 
 125 
 
 60 
 
 1806 
 
 Gregory 
 
 90 
 
 48 
 
 1854 
 
 Tomlinson 
 
 100 
 
 60 
 
 1826 
 
 Nicholson 
 
 90 
 
 48 
 
 1865 
 
 Nystron.* 
 
 120 
 
 60 
 
 1832 
 
 Jones* 
 
 97-100 
 
 48 
 
 1866 
 
 Pallett* 
 
 180-190 
 
 60 
 
 1842 
 
 Grier 
 
 90 
 
 48 
 
 1871 
 
 Wait* 
 
 140 
 
 60 
 
 1851 
 
 Byrne 
 
 90-100 
 
 48 
 
 1878 
 
 Haswell* 
 
 151 
 
 60 
 
 1852 
 
 Templeton 
 
 100 
 
 48 
 
 1879 
 
 Moore 
 
 120 
 
 60 
 
 1879 
 
 Moore 
 
 90 
 
 48 
 
 1880 
 
 Woolcott* 
 
 160-200 
 
 60 
 
 1880 
 
 Ormsby* 
 
 160 
 
 48 
 
 1880 
 
 West* 
 
 160 
 
 60 
 
 1894 
 
 Emerson* 
 
 145 
 
 48 
 
 1880 
 
 Ormsby* 
 
 200 
 
 60 
 
 
 Nordyke* 
 
 175 
 
 48 
 
 1880 
 
 Molesworth 
 
 130-140 
 
 58 
 
 1795 
 
 Evans* 
 
 105 
 
 48 
 
 1887 
 
 Rechard* 
 
 180 
 
 56 
 
 1795 
 
 Evans* 
 
 116-122 
 
 48 
 
 
 Munson* 
 
 190 
 
 54 
 
 1754 
 
 Fenwick 
 
 100 
 
 48 
 
 
 Nordyke* 
 
 195 
 
 54 
 
 1795 
 
 Evans* 
 
 104-108 
 
 48 
 
 
 Babcock* 
 
 180-200 
 
 54 
 
 1795 
 
 Ellicott* 
 
 97 
 
 48 
 
 1913 
 
 Oliver* 
 
 150-200 
 
 54 
 
 1806 
 
 Gregory 
 
 100 
 
 42 
 
 1795 
 
 Evans* 
 
 138.8 
 
 54 
 
 1827 
 
 Jamison 
 
 120 
 
 42 
 
 1887 
 
 Rechard* 
 
 20C 
 
 54 
 
 1832 
 
 Jones* 
 
 108 
 
 42 
 
 
 Nordyke* 
 
 240 
 
 54 
 
 1851 
 
 Hughes* 
 
 150-160 
 
 36 
 
 1866 
 
 Pallett* 
 
 230-240 
 
 54 
 
 1851 
 
 Hughes* 
 
 175-180 
 
 36 
 
 1880 
 
 Ormsby* 
 
 265 
 
 54 
 
 1851 
 
 Hughes* 
 
 168 
 
 36 
 
 1887 
 
 Rechard* 
 
 230-240 
 
 54 
 
 1851 
 
 Byrne 
 
 111 
 
 36 
 
 
 Nordyke* 
 
 300 
 
 54 
 
 1851 
 
 Templeton 
 
 111 
 
 
 
 
 
 * The American writers are marked. 
 
BUSHELS OF WHEAT GROUND PER HOUR 17 
 
 tise (1795, Part I, p. 121), in which he theoretically de- 
 duced that this range might be: 
 
 3.5-foot stone 58 per cent 
 
 4-foot stone 78 per cent 
 
 4.5-foot stone 100 per cent 
 
 5-foot stone 125 per cent 
 
 5.5-foot stone 153 per cent 
 
 6-foot stone 183 per cent 
 
 6.5-foot stone 219 per cent 
 
 7-foot stone 252 per cent 
 
 F. W. Ormsby, C.E., testified in court that a 5-foot 
 stone would use about 19 per cent more power than a 
 4.5-foot one, provided the stones were speeded by the 
 rule of 2500 feet rim speed per minute, generally in use 
 before 1880 and later. 
 
 Hughes (1851, p. 55) and Pallett (1866, p. 227) make 
 a 4.5-foot stone use 12 per cent more power than a 4-foot. 
 
 BUSHELS OF WHEAT GROUND PER HOUR PER RUN OF 
 
 STONES 
 
 The literature upon this subject is not only voluminous 
 but widely and wildly variable. 
 
 In 1806 Brewster gave his rule, stating he had found 
 that ". . . the quantity of flour ground per hour, in pounds 
 avoirdupois, will be equal to the product of the square of 
 the mill stone's radius, and the number 125" (Brewster's 
 "Ferguson," II, 165-6). 
 
 From this 1806 rule is computed the grinding capacities 
 per run for various sizes of stones as follows: 
 
18 
 
 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 Diameter of 
 
 Flouk Ghound pek Houb. 
 
 Bushels of 
 
 Wheat per Hour 
 
 at 5 to the 
 
 Barrel. 
 
 Barrels Flour 
 
 Stone, Feet. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Barrels. 
 
 per 24 Hours. 
 
 4 
 
 4.5 
 
 5 
 
 500 
 633 
 781 
 
 2.55 
 3.23 
 3.98 
 
 12.75 
 16.15 
 19.90 
 
 61.2 
 87.5 
 95.5 
 
 No old merchant miller, experienced with buhr mill 
 practice, or the history of milling, will question the grind- 
 ing possibilities of this Brewster rule of 1806, provided 
 the plant had adequate power. The rule is confirmed by 
 the practice of 1830 to 1880 in the buhr milling centerd 
 of the United States. 
 
 The Oswego mills ground 100 barrels of flour per run 
 per day or from 18 to 20 bushels per hour. The stones 
 were generally 4.5-foot at 170 to 180 R.P.M. 
 
 In 1858 the 88 runs of stones in Oswego used over 50,000 
 bushels of wheat daily, or over 18.6 bushels per run per 
 hour. 
 
 The following tabulation shows the variations in wheat 
 grinding per run of 4.5-foot stones per hour: 
 
 Year. 
 
 Bushel, 
 Hour. 
 
 R.P.M. 
 
 Authority. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Bushel, 
 Hour. 
 
 R.P.M. 
 
 Authority. 
 
 1795 
 1806 
 1847 
 1848 
 1850 
 1851 
 1851 
 1854 
 1857 
 1859 
 1860 
 
 3.5 
 16.2 
 16 
 
 18-20 
 18-20 
 
 6-14 
 16-18 
 
 8.3 
 17-20 
 18-2G 
 
 20 
 
 108.1 
 
 97-180 
 130 
 
 200 
 
 Evans 
 
 Brewster 
 
 Churchill 
 
 Clark 
 
 Churchill 
 
 Hughes 
 
 Hancock 
 
 Haswell 
 
 Hancock 
 
 French 
 
 Snyder 
 
 1866 
 1868 
 1870 
 1870 
 1870 
 1877 
 1879 
 1880 
 1880 
 1881 
 1888 
 
 10-15 
 18-20 
 
 12 
 18-20 
 
 8 
 
 18-20 
 
 3.67 
 
 17-20 
 
 10 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 150-160 
 160-170 
 
 160-180 
 
 105 
 180 
 160-180 
 105 
 100 
 
 Pallett 
 
 Himmel 
 
 Williams 
 
 Mizen 
 
 Craik 
 
 Johnson 
 
 Moora 
 
 Ormsby 
 
 Woolcott 
 
 Bookwalter 
 
 Glynn 
 
HISTORY OP BUHR STONE MILLING 19 
 
 HISTORY OF BUHR STONE MILLING IN OSWEGO, N. Y. 
 
 "A small grist and saw mill were built by Froman 
 & Brockett, at the falls, in 1809" in Oswego (Clark's 
 "Onondaga," II, 387). 
 
 There was a grist mill in Oswego in 1824 (Spafford's 
 "Gazetteer of the State of N. Y."). 
 
 "In 1830 . . . two flouring mills with 6 runs of stone 
 each were in operation, and a third was in progress of 
 construction" in Oswego (Churchill). 
 
 In 1834 the mills aggregated 29 runs of stones (Church- 
 ill's "Landmarks," pp. 366, 368). 
 
 In 1836 there were "six very large merchant grist 
 mills" in Oswego (Gordon's "Gazet. of State of N. Y."). 
 
 By 1842 Oswego had "7 extensive flouring mills con- 
 taining 47 runs of stones" (Disturnell's "Gazet. of the 
 State of N. Y.," p. 308). 
 
 "In 1847-8 Moses Merrick & Co. built what was 
 known as the Seneca Mills ... 4 miles south of Oswego. 
 The mill contained 15 runs of stone with a daily capacity 
 of 1200 barrels, at that time the largest in the United 
 States. It burned in 1864 (Churchill's "Landmarks," 
 p. 372). 
 
 Clark's "Onondaga," of 1849, II, 391, states that 
 " Wonderful improvements have been made within the last 
 few years, in the construction of mills, at Oswego, and a single 
 run of stone will turn out 100 to 150 barrels daily. Many of 
 the improved mills, have a separate water wheel for every 
 run, which expedites the process of manufacturing flour, 
 beyond anything of former invention. 
 
20 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 "Considerable additions have been made to the Oswego 
 flouring mills during the past year (i.e., 1848). The mill 
 of Henry Wright ... is capable of manufacturing 400 
 barrels of superfine flour daily, and his machines for clean- 
 ing, screening and separating impurities, are decided im- 
 provements upon any hitherto in use. The new mill of 
 Messrs. Mills, Whitney & Co., up the river, has 5 runs 
 of stone. . . Messrs. Merrick, Davis & Co., have just 
 put in operation a new improved mill, with 8 run of 
 stone, capable of manufacturing 800 barrels of flour 
 daily." 
 
 At Oswego in 1850 were a total of 18 mills, having 88 
 runs of stones and a daily capacity of 8750 barrels of 
 flour. (Churchill's "Landmarks," pp. 372-3). 
 
 By 1852 Oswego had 16 mills with 82 runs of stones and 
 a daily capacity of 7420 barrels of flour (Knorr and Hancock's 
 " Oswego Directory and Compendium of Useful Infor- 
 mation" 1852, pp. 41 et seq.). 
 
 In 1857 Oswego had a total of 16 mills and 86 runs of 
 stone with a capacity of 8400 barrels per day (Hancock's 
 " Oswego Directory," 1857, p. 21). 
 
 In 1858 Oswego had 16 mills with a total of 88 runs 
 and a daily capacity of 8800 barrels of flour. " Add to 
 these the 5 mills up the river, within 10 miles of the city, 
 and we have an aggregate of 112 run of stone, which require, 
 when running at their full extent, over 50,000 bushels of 
 wheat per day " (" Commercial Times' 2d Annual 
 Review of the Trade and Commerce of Oswego for 
 1858," p. 5). 
 
 French's " Gazetteer of the State of N. Y.," 1860, p. 525: 
 " The Oswego Mills, 18 in number, with an aggregate of 
 
POWER PER 100 BARRELS PER 24 HOURS 21 
 
 100 run of stone, are capable of grinding and packing 
 10,000 barrels of flour daily." 
 
 In 1870 there were 14 mills in Oswego aggregating 73 
 runs, and 6 at Fulton, 9 miles up the river, with 34 runs, 
 making a total of 107 runs of stones in the vicinity 
 (Churchill, p. 383). 
 
 In 1877 there were 13 mills, aggregating 80 runs and 
 a daily capacity of about 6610 barrels (Johnson's " His- 
 tory of Oswego Co., 1877, pp. 171-2). 
 
 This digest of the history of milling in Oswego shows 
 that the capacity of a run of stones from 1830 to 1880 
 was from 85 to 100 barrels. The mills generally operated 
 4.5-foot stones at speeds from 170 to 180 R.P.M. Each 
 stone was driven by a separate wheel, while the accompany- 
 ing machinery had its own wheel or wheels. 
 
 POWER PER 100 BARRELS OF FLOUR PER 24 HOURS IN 
 BUHR, m COMBINED BUHR AND ROLLER, AND 
 IN ROLLER MERCHANT MILLS 
 
 Enough has been given as to the flouring art in Oswego, 
 in its thriving days (1830-1880), as a merchant buhr- 
 milling center, to show that a run of 4.5-foot stones, operated 
 at from 170 to 180 R.P.M., ground and dressed from 18 to 
 20 bushels of wheat per hour, and produced 100 barrels of 
 flour per twenty-four hours, at a power expenditure varying 
 from 30 to 40 horse-power, dependent upon the conditions 
 at, and size of the particular mill. 
 
 The following table shows details as to some of the mills 
 as disclosed by the testimony in court of millers operating 
 them: 
 
22 
 
 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 Authority. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Stones, 
 Feet. 
 
 Wheat 
 
 per 
 
 Hour, 
 
 Bushels. 
 
 Barrels 
 Flour 
 24 Hrs. 
 
 Power, 
 Total 
 Horse- 
 power. 
 
 Power 
 per 
 Run, 
 Horse- 
 power. 
 
 Power 
 per 100 
 Barrels, 
 24 Hrs. 
 Horse- 
 power. 
 
 Caseo. . 
 Short. . 
 Himmel 
 Glynn*. 
 Mizen. . 
 
 1860 
 1864 
 1864 
 1865 
 1870 
 
 5-4 
 
 4-4.67 
 5-4.5 
 7-4.5 
 6-4.5 
 
 100 
 115 
 
 400 
 400 
 500 
 600 
 600 
 
 126 
 152 
 190 
 225 
 210 
 
 25.2 
 
 38 
 
 38 
 
 37.5 
 
 35 
 
 31.5 
 
 38 
 
 38 
 
 37.5 
 
 35 
 
 * The mill had bolting capacity for but 6 stones. 
 
 Millwright W. S. Morse, who constructed and over- 
 hauled many of the large mills of the Oswego Valley, and 
 elsewhere in New York, from and after 1859, testified that 
 it was necessary to proportion the mills by the rule that it 
 took 20 horse-power per run to grind the wheat and about 
 a like amount for other uses. He stated that a 5-run mill 
 would use 100 horse-power in grinding, 40 horse-power for 
 smutting, and 60 horse-power for elevators, conveyors, 
 bolting, etc., or 200 horse-power total, or 40 horse-power 
 per run. 
 
 Millwright W. H. Bullock testified that the rule among 
 the trade in various states was that 1 horse-power would 
 make 2.5 barrels of flour in twenty-four hours, or a 100- 
 barrel mill would use 40 horse-power. 
 
 Frederick O. Clark was connected with the Oswego 
 milling industry as an operator from 1852 to 1892. He 
 testified that the mills had a product of 100 barrels of flour 
 in twenty-four hours per run, and that this was the capacity 
 of a run of stones generally recognized at that place. 
 
 A compilation made from old wheel books of turbine 
 manufacturers, in which were given the wheel installations 
 
POWER PER 100 BARRELS PER 24 HOURS 23 
 
 and the heads, and the product in barrels of flour per day, 
 covering the years 1881 to 1890 for 28 mills, with a total 
 production of 23,990 barrels per day, and 8475 horse-power 
 of wheels, gave an average of 35.3 horse-power per 100 
 barrels per twenty-four hours. The mills were in the middle 
 west, and were both roller and combination of roller and 
 buhr mills. 
 
 Jno. W. Hill, C.E., tested the Freeman steam mill at 
 LaCrosse, Wis., in March, 1879. It had a combination of 
 rolls and buhrs for grinding. Flour was made at the rate 
 of 531 barrels in twenty-four hours by developing 270.56 
 horse-power in the engine, or 51 horse-power per 100 barrels 
 daily. The grinding took 64 per cent of the power. 
 
 James Emerson, hydraulic engineer, measured the water 
 power in 3 mills at Mishawaka, Ind., in 1884 and found: 
 
 Eberhart's mill, 130 bbls., 114.08 h.p. or 87.7 h.p. per 100 bbls., 24 hrs. 
 Millers' mill, 175 bbls., 185.72 h.p. or 106.1 h.p. per 100 bbls., 24 hrs. 
 St. Joseph's mill, 100 bbls., 93.35 h.p. or 93.3 h.p. per 100 bbls., 24 hrs. 
 
 The following table is deduced from p. 578 of Kozmin's 
 "Flour Milling" of 1917, and gives the power used in Russia 
 per 100 barrels of flour per twenty-four hours with various 
 systems of milling: 
 
 Systems of Milling. 
 
 Power per 100 
 Bbls. in 24 Hrs. 
 
 Grinding only — a whole wheat product 
 
 Grinding and scouring — a whole wheat product 
 
 Breaking, grinding and scouring — a whole wheat product .... 
 
 Breaking, grinding, scouring and bolting 
 
 Breaking, grinding, scouring, bolting and sifting 
 
 Breaking, grinding, scouring, bolting, sifting and dressing . . 
 Long system of gradual reduction including scouring, bolt- 
 ing, sifting and dressing 
 
 20.91 h.p. 
 24.55 h.p. 
 27.27 h.p. 
 31.82 h.p. 
 36.36 h.p. 
 45.45 
 
 50.00 h.p. 
 
Feb., 
 
 1905, 
 
 1100 
 
 Nov. 
 
 , 1905, 
 
 1374 
 
 Apr., 
 
 1905 
 
 800 
 
 Oct., 
 
 1905, 
 
 800 
 
 Jan., 
 
 1911, 
 
 1246 
 
 Jan., 
 
 1901, 
 
 950 
 
 May 
 
 , 1902, 
 
 1000 
 
 380 
 
 34.5 
 
 434 
 
 31.6 
 
 271 
 
 33.9 
 
 276 
 
 34.5 
 
 398 
 
 31.9 
 
 354 
 
 37.2 
 
 357 
 
 35.7 
 
 24 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 In this connection 100 Russian poods equal 90 pounds 
 avoirdupois (Cent. Diet.). 
 
 The Author has made tests of steam roller mills, meas- 
 uring the power at five-minute intervals for the day in 
 each case, with the following results: 
 
 Hofler Mill, Steelton, Pa., Dec, 1904, 1000 bbls. day, 360 h.p. 36 h.p. per 100 bbls. 
 
 Hofler Mill, Steelton, Pa., 
 
 Hoffer Mill, Steelton, Pa., 
 
 Quaker City, Phila., Pa., 
 
 Quaker City, Phila., Pa., 
 
 Millbourne, Phila., Pa., 
 
 Paxton Mill, Steelton, Pa., 
 
 Paxton Mill, Steelton, Pa., 
 
 At the Millbourne Roller Mills, Philadelphia, grinding 
 1250 barrels of winter wheat flour, 38.1 horse-power were 
 used per 100 barrels per day; and when grinding 987 barrels 
 of flour, 489 barrels made from rye and the balance from 
 spring wheat, 50.5 horse-power were used per 100 barrels 
 per day (Whitham's tests, 1918). 
 
 The Author collected data from 16 roller mills with ca- 
 pacities ranging from 25 to 80 barrels and averaging 52 bar- 
 rels per day. They produced at the rate of 72 horse-power 
 per 100 barrels per twenty-four hours. 
 
 A 100-barrel roller merchant mill at Xenia, O., used 55 
 horse-power. 
 
 A 125-barrel roller merchant mill at Mouston, O., used 60 
 horse-poWer or 48 horse-power per 100 barrels, twenty- 
 four hours. 
 
 A 300-barrel roller merchant mill at Warren, 111., used 145 
 horse-power or 48 horse-power per 100 barrels, twenty- 
 four hours. 
 
 J. R. Thomas, of Richmond, Va., an old, experienced 
 miller, gives 30 horse-power on the line shaft of the buhr 
 
POWER PER 100 BARRELS PER 24 HOURS 25 
 
 or roller mill, as needed and used in making 100 barrels per 
 twenty-four hours, as a minimum, and 32 horse-power as a 
 maximum. To this should be added the loss of power 
 between the water wheels or engine and the line shaft. 
 This power applies only to large mills, small mills using 
 more per 100 barrels. 
 
 J. W. Flaherty, late President of the Va. Millers' Asso., 
 an old, experienced miller at Lynchburg and Danville, finds 
 that from 32 to 33 horse-power on the line shaft are needed 
 per 100 barrels of flour per day in large buhr and also in 
 large roller mills. To this should be added the friction of 
 the main drive. 
 
 A. F. Ordway, Beaver Dam, Wis., born in 1833, is an 
 experienced millwright and mill engineer. His experience 
 began in Vermont and was continued after he went to Wis- 
 consin in 1857. His work has covered parts of five states 
 in the Middle West. He states that, in a buhr mill, from 
 4.5 to 4.75 bushels of wheat made a barrel of flour; that a 
 4.5-foot stone ground 20 bushels per hour in a merchant 
 mill using 25 horse-power; that the accompanying machin- 
 ery used 15 horse-power per run; and that 40 horse-power 
 was used per run, producing 100 barrels per day. 
 
 Holliwell (p. 271) makes a 10 " sack " mill use from 
 70 to 80 horse-power of which two-thirds is consumed by 
 the rolls and one-third by the cleaning machinery, etc. 
 He adds that it is " not far wrong to say that 10 horse-power 
 per sack is used in well-designed roller mills of which one- 
 half is wanted for the rolls." He finds that sometimes it 
 takes 12 horse-power or more per " sack." Since 1870 
 (per Cent. Diet.) a " sack " in England has been 4 Imperial 
 or 4.125 Winchester or U. S. bushels. Accordingly, a 10 
 
26 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 sack mill uses 41.25 U. S. bushels per hour, which divided 
 by 4.7 bushels to the barrel of flour (Holliwell, p. 244), cor- 
 responds to 8.77 barrels per hour, or 210 barrels per twenty- 
 four hours. Since he makes this mill use from 70 to 80 
 horse-power, he gives from 33.3 to 38.1 horse-power per 100 
 barrels per day. Taking the 10 horse-power per sack or 
 4.125 U. S. bushels, Holliwell makes the grinding and dress- 
 ing of a bushel per hour to be 2.42 horse-power. He further 
 gives 12 horse-power or more as often used per sack, cor- 
 responding to 2.9 horse-power per bushel per hour, as rep- 
 resenting English practice in roller mills. 
 
 At Dayton, Ohio (Part 2, p. 465, of 10 U. S. Census," 
 1880), are water powers leased as " runs of water " and 
 defined as 233.3 cubic foot per minute under 15 feet head. 
 This amounts to 6.625 gross horse-power, or 5.3 horse power 
 with wheels of 80 per cent efficiency. 
 
 A judgment entered on Nov. 6, 1875 in the case of Cum- 
 mings v. Carrington, in the Supreme Court of Oswego Co., 
 N. Y. decreed that a run of stones and accompanying 
 machinery on the Varick canal in Oswego meant: 
 
 2000 cubic feet minute for mills with 10-foot head. 
 1900 10.5 
 
 1800 11 
 
 1700 12 
 
 1500 13 
 
 The waters, under the heads named, will give an average 
 of 30.25 net horse-power per run of stones when using 80 
 per cent wheels, or 37.75 gross horse-power. The mills 
 on this canal produced from 85 to 100 barrels per run per 
 day, using 4.5-foot stones, at 170 to 180 R.P.M. The rights, 
 
POWER PER 100 BARRELS PER 24 HOURS 27 
 
 adjudicated in 1875, were granted at sundry times from. 
 1826 to 1860. At the hearings, men operating buhr mills 
 on this canal gave evidence as to the water actually used, 
 the power developed, and the flour production. Any con- 
 troversy was referred to the then existing and operating 
 mill at the place for settlement. 
 
 Capt. W. H. Snyder, Milling Engineer, Batavia, N. Y., 
 born in 1838 and experienced with the systems of buhr- 
 stone milling in the United States, Canada, England, Scot- 
 land and Ireland, gives the following information relative 
 thereto under date of March 17, 1917: 
 
 A run of 4.5-foot buhr stones in 1850 to 1860 in a mer- 
 chant mill operated at from 180 to 200 R.P.M.; used 4.33 
 bushels of winter, and sometimes as low as 4.27 of hard 
 spring wheats per barrel of flour, ground as much as 20 bushels 
 of wheat per hour, made as much as 110.75 barrels of flour 
 per day; and used 20 horse-power for grinding and 15 horse- 
 power for the accompanying machinery, or 35 horse-power 
 per run. 
 
 Kozmin's " Flour Milling," translated from the Russian 
 in 1917, shows (p. 577) the power used in cleaning, grinding 
 and dressing certain quantities of wheat per 24 hrs. 
 Assuming 4| bushels of wheat to the barrel of flour, the 
 power required is 
 
 77bbl. mill 40 h.p. or 53.2 h.p. per 100 bbls. daily. 
 
 385 " 157 " 40.8 ' " " 
 
 770 " 290 " 37.7 " 
 1155 " 420 " 36.4 " 
 1540 " 550 " 35.7 " " 
 
 The Russian and American power demands per 100 barrels 
 are nearly identical. 
 
28 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 POWER PER RUN OF STONES, INCLUDING ITS ACCOM- 
 PANYING MACHINERY, IN MERCHANT AND 
 GRIST MILLS 
 
 Enough has been given to show that from 30 to 40 
 horse-power was used in Oswego to drive a run of stones 
 and its accompanying machinery when that city was a 
 flouring center from 1830 to 1880. Also it has been shown 
 that such powers were used and required elsewhere to grind 
 as much wheat per hour per run or to produce a like output 
 per day. It has just been shown that the court, in the case 
 of the Varick canal in that city, confirmed the conclusions 
 given as to water and power needs and uses per run. 
 
 On the opposite side of the river, in Oswego, is another 
 Power Company operating the Hydraulic Canal. It has 
 leased water sufficient to drive a run of stones and its accom- 
 panying machinery at sundry times. The leases outstanding 
 and made for a period of nine hundred and ninety-nine 
 years, and defined in runs of stones* are as tabulated 
 on page 29. 
 
 The grants defining the water per run by particular 
 wheels, limited the amounts to the life time of the wheels 
 after which some undefined adjustment is to be made. 
 Turbine wheels installed in 1848 and 1850 in Holyoke 
 are in active service to-day. The life of a wheel is like 
 that of a clock. If repairs and renewals of parts are kept 
 up, the life is great, and probably longer than for that steam 
 pumping-engine in England which has operated for one 
 
 •The leases do not specify the diameter or speed of the stones. Only 
 one lease speaks of the stone in connection with a flouring mill. The leases 
 do not require the water to be used for milling or for any other specific purpose. 
 
POWER PER RUN OF STONES 29 
 
 RUNS OF STONES LEASED FROM THE HYDRAULIC CANAL IN OSWEGO 
 
 Grantee. 
 
 Class of 
 
 a 
 8 
 
 a P 
 
 Water. 
 
 o h 
 
 
 .3 >• 
 § S 
 
 w 
 
 1st class 
 
 17.74 
 
 Unconditional 
 
 17.14 
 
 do 
 
 13.04 
 
 1st class 
 
 17.74 
 
 do 
 
 17.74 
 
 do 
 
 17.74 
 
 do 
 
 17.74 
 
 Unconditional 
 
 16.60 
 
 2d class 
 
 17.74 
 
 Unconditional 
 
 13.55 
 
 1st & 2d class 
 
 17.74 
 
 1st class 
 
 17.74 
 
 Unconditional 
 
 13.35 
 
 Surplus 
 
 13.04 
 
 do 
 
 .17.14 
 
 do 
 
 13.04 
 
 do 
 
 17.19 
 
 do 
 
 17.14 
 
 2d surplus 
 
 16.60 
 
 Surplus 
 
 16.60 
 
 do 
 
 16.60 
 
 do 
 
 11.08 
 
 do 
 
 12.25 
 
 2d surplus 
 
 16.60 
 
 Water in Cu.ft. 
 sec. per Run as 
 Defined in Lease. 
 
 o 02 
 
 O 
 
 o. © 
 
 1826 
 1827 
 1828 
 1828 
 1830 
 1830 
 1831 
 1833 
 1833 
 1835 
 1843 
 1844 
 1846 
 1846 
 1857 
 1875 
 1881 
 1883 
 1883 
 1885 
 
 1888 
 
 1889 
 
 1890 
 
 1890 
 
 Branson & Morgan 
 
 Brown 
 
 Hurlbut 
 
 Fitzhugh 
 
 Brown . ^ 
 
 Cole 
 
 Burkle 
 
 Oswego Cotton Co. 
 
 Lawrence 
 
 Eno 
 
 Ames 
 
 Doolittle 
 
 Cochrane 
 
 Leib 
 
 Ames 
 
 Hubbard & North. 
 
 Pardee 
 
 Post & Henderson. 
 Shade Cloth Co . . . 
 CondS 
 
 Cond6 . . . 
 
 Gordon . 
 
 CondS . 
 
 4 
 1 
 1 
 3 
 1 
 4 
 1 
 4 
 3 
 3 
 2 
 4 
 1 
 1.5 
 1 
 
 .5 
 1 
 1 
 5 
 2 
 
 4.5 
 
 Shade Cloth Co . 
 
 11.75 
 Not defined 
 do 
 11.75 
 11.75 
 Not defined 
 do 
 do 
 do 
 do 
 do 
 do 
 do 
 do 
 11.75 
 11.75 
 13.5 
 Not defined 
 do 
 40-in. Risdon D.C. 
 wheel for 2 runs 
 or 38.58 cfs. per 
 run. 
 48-in. Hercules 
 wheel for 4.5 
 runs or 34.64 
 cfs. per run. 
 One No. 9 Leffel 
 wheel or 24.4 
 c.f.s. per run. 
 One 39-in. Her- 
 cules wheel or 
 90.2 c.f.s. per 
 run. 
 Not defined 
 
 23.68 
 
 18.94 
 
 18.94 
 18.94 
 
 72.75 
 
 65.12 
 
 33.84 
 
 126.00 
 
 18.30 
 13.33 
 21.10 
 
 58.20 
 
 52.12 
 
 27.15 
 
 100.80 
 
 hundred years, and is yet in service (" Compressed Air," 
 XXII, No. 7, July, 1917.) 
 
 On this canal in Oswego are grants ranging from 16.67 
 to 126 gross horse-power per run. Many of the lessees 
 operated flour mills for more than a generation, producing 
 
30 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 from 85 to 100 barrels of flour daily per run of stones. 
 Every lessee has and had wheels largely in excess of the power 
 given by 11.75 cubic feet second per run. A run of stones 
 on this particular canal has never been determined by a 
 court, and the doctrine of practical location or construction 
 must control should a finding be made. Wheels installed, 
 regardless of their wastefulness or type, will, after a long 
 lapse of time, form by their use, the measures and limita- 
 tions of the grant. As to the test of practical construction 
 or interpretation, consult: 
 
 Jacquin vs. Boutard, 89 Hun, 437 affirmed 157 JV. Y., 686. 
 
 Chicago vs. Sheldon, 9 Wall, 50, 54. 
 
 Topliff vs. Topliff, 122 U. S., 121, 131. 
 
 Ins. Co. vs. Butcher, 95 U. S., 273. 
 
 Hatch vs. Dwight, 17 Mass., 299. 
 
 Woolsey vs. Funke, 121 JV. Y., 87, 92. 
 
 Dodge vs. Zimmer, 110 JV. Y., 48. 
 
 Nicholl vs. Sands, 131 JV. Y., 24. 
 
 Sattler vs. Hallock, 160 JV. Y., 291, 30 
 
 Seymour vs. Warren, 179 JV. Y., 1, 6. 
 
 Wimme vs. Mehrbach (3d Dept.), 130 App. Div. (JV. Y.), 
 329, 331. 
 
 French vs. Carhardt, 1 JV. Y., 96-102. 
 
 Bridger vs. Pierson, 45 JV. Y., 601, 604. 
 
 " Now, it has been often held that the practical con- 
 struction put upon a contract by the parties to it is some- 
 times almost conclusive as to its meaning, for there is no 
 surer way to find out what parties mean than to see what 
 they have done " (89 Hun, 437). 
 
 " If this contract is to be regarded as somewhat indefinite 
 or ambiguous, we may resort to the surrounding facts and 
 
POWER PER RUN OF STONES 31 
 
 circumstances as they existed when it was made to aid us 
 in its interpretation and also consider the practical con- 
 struction which the parties have given it. Its interpreta- 
 tion by them is a consideration of importance " (160 N. Y., 
 291). 
 
 The latest and most conclusive decision in determining 
 that the doctrine of practical construction holds for water 
 rights grants is the case of the Carthage Tissue Paper Mills 
 vs. Carthage, 200 N. Y., 1, which follows along the line 
 marked out in Groat vs. Moak, 94 N. Y., 115. 
 
 " Practical construction by uniform and unquestioned 
 practice from the outset, especially when continued for a 
 long period of time, is entitled to great if not controlling 
 weight for it shows how the parties who made the contract, 
 understood it; if they did not know what they meant, who 
 can know? " 
 
 " When the parties (193 N. Y., 543, 548) to a contract of 
 doubtful meaning, guided by self-interest, enforce it for a 
 long time by consistent and uniform course of conduct, so 
 as to give the practical meaning, the courts will treat it as 
 having that meaning even if as an original proposition they 
 might have given it a different meaning." 
 
 " The lack of practical knowledge of hydraulics a gen- 
 eration since caused a looseness in contracts pertaining to 
 milling matters that has been productive of an immense 
 amount of vexatious and expensive litigations. It is only 
 necessary to glance at the methods adopted by the various 
 Water Power Companies of the country for determining 
 the quantity of water leased — to learn that there has been 
 no generally recognized standard for such measurements 
 even among those claiming to be engineers and experts 
 
32 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 in such matters; it would seem that the average boy, ten 
 years of age, who has ever played with toy water wheels 
 would be able to provide something more definite than the 
 Oswego plan " (Emerson, 1878, p. 18). 
 
 Nine miles up the river from Oswego is Fulton, which 
 had several large flour mills equipped with buhrs. Many of 
 the water grants were for water sufficient to economically 
 operate a run of stones and its accompanying machinery 
 in the most approved manner. In the case of Wm. G. Gage 
 vs. DeWitt Gardner and Others, the Decree of the Supreme 
 Court of Oswego Co., N. Y. in 1891 was that a run as granted 
 was " 140 inches of water under a 12-foot head." This 
 means 27 cubic feet per second under a 12-foot head, or 
 36.8 gross horse-power, or 29.47 net horse-power with 
 wheels 80 per cent efficient (see article on " Inches of 
 Water"). 
 
 The Decree in the case of Henry Rodee et al. vs. City of 
 Ogdensburg, et al., in the Supreme Court of St. Lawrence Co., 
 N. Y., 1872, found 
 
 " That the quantity of water which constitutes a run 
 of water . . . , being such quantity as was sufficient with the 
 most approved wheels and water saving machinery to pro- 
 pel a run of stone with the necessary bolts and machinery 
 of a flouring mill, at the time said conveyances were executed, 
 is 25 cubic feet per second when the fall is 9 feet, or enough 
 to produce an equivalent power when the fall is more or 
 less — the said quantity being nearly equal to 25 horse- 
 power, and said quantity is the amount hereinafter speci- 
 fied as the standard quantity per run" (p. 279 of Printed 
 Record). 
 
 Note that 25 cubic feet second on 9-foot head is actually 
 
POWER PER RUN OF STONES 33 
 
 25.57 gross horse-power. The 25 horse-power mentioned 
 in the decree is gross, not net horse-power, and 80 per cent 
 wheel efficiency the power is 20.46 horse-power. On page 
 218 of the "Printed Record" in that case, one run of water 
 for a "Toll or custom grist is given as 25 horse-power, or 
 the same as already noted for a "flouring mill." That is, 
 the Decree made a grist mill use as much water and power 
 as a merchant mill. It will appear later that, from the 
 earliest times, the merchant mill has used the greater power. 
 
 In the case of Watts T. Loomis vs. Henry Cheney Hammer 
 Co. and Others, Judgment April 22, 1893, in Supreme Court 
 of Herkimer Co., N. Y., the court decreed that: 
 
 Thirty-six cubic feet second constituted 3 runs of stones 
 on lot 3; 32 constituted 4 runs on lot 9; and 36 cubic feet 
 second supplied 4 runs on lot 8. No mention was made of 
 the heads, which were about 10.5 feet on lot 3, 14.5 on lot 
 8 and 16 feet on lot 9, as assumed for 1836. 
 
 It seems that the various water power owners agreed, 
 in 1887, to have Attorney Charles Rhodes, Agent of the 
 Oswego Hydraulic Canal Co. (who laid claim to being an 
 engineer), examine their titles and determine the propor- 
 tion of the half flow of the Mohawk river at Little Falls, 
 to which they were entitled. In Rhodes' report he en- 
 deavored also to designate the extent of each right as 
 measured in cubic feet per second. His determinations 
 were, without opposition, embodied in the decree of 1893, 
 as above recited. The original grants for lots 3, 9 and 8 
 were made in 1836. The remainder of the half river was 
 divided into seventeen parts and these three lots were only 
 a part of the grants. Rhodes reported that Oliver Evans' 
 book was the standard of 1836 (although Evans had been 
 
34 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 dead seventeen years at the time of the grants, and had 
 written his book on milling in 1795, or forty-one years 
 earlier), that Evans made a run 10 horse-power, which 
 Rhodes said would be obtained with overshot or breast 
 wheels, of 70 per cent efficiency, under the heads as before 
 given, which heads he took from hearsay. Rhodes in these 
 1887 studies had no power to call witnesses or administer 
 an oath. He was influential, if not controlling, in deter- 
 mining the meaning of a run of stone on the Varick canal 
 as decreed in 1875 (see page 26) to be water enough to give 
 37.75 gross horse-power for grants of from 1828 to 1860, 
 or 30.25 net horse-power with 80 per cent turbines. 
 
 Rhodes in 1885 to 1890 was the agent who made the 
 Oswego leases with Conde and Gordon for a total of 9.5 
 runs of stones (see page 29) permitting in the lease certain 
 turbines to be used to measure the grants, and conveying 
 water represented by from 33.84 to 126 gross horse-power 
 per run. Can it be that a run is only 10 horse-power in 
 Little Falls and from 30 to 100 horse-power in Oswego — 
 as determined by the same man? Rhodes called the effi- 
 ciency of overshot and breast wheels the same, or 70 per 
 cent which is an error. 
 
 Note further that Evans nowhere mentioned the term 
 horse-power in his book nor gave the percentage of efficiency 
 of any water wheel, nor the net power used for any purpose. 
 This Little Falls decree was made simply to proportion 
 the variable half river flow among the different owners, 
 so that they could bear their several parts of the upkeep 
 of the dam and bulkheads and power canal, and not to deter- 
 mine or measure a run of stones. 
 
 On the Saranac river in Plattsburg, N. Y., were divided 
 
POWER PER RUN OF STONES 35 
 
 water interests dated 1829. These were determined in 
 Hartwell & Winslow vs. Mutual Life Ins. Co., in the Supreme 
 Court of Clinton Co. in 1884. 
 
 On the trial a mass of expert testimony was introduced 
 by engineers, millwrights and millers, as well as evidence 
 as to the use of water in the past. The court found that the 
 water for 8 runs of stones was 259.463 cubic feet second. 
 In one part of the decision a head of 11 feet 8 inches was 
 mentioned. 
 
 The decision was reversed on appeal (50 Hun, 497), and 
 a second decision rendered. The final decree was that 8 
 runs are measured by 233.517 cubic feet second, without 
 the head being mentioned. In the trial the head was shown 
 to be 13 feet, which is the head now actually in use at the 
 mills. 
 
 The first Plattsburg decree gave, for the 1829 grant, 
 259.463 cubic feet seconds when the head had been taken 
 as 11 feet 8 inches down to the centers of the tub wheel 
 runners. The centers of the throats for the tub wheels 
 were 10.5 inches above the centers of the runners, and 
 the court thought the referee erred in taking the larger head. 
 The court also ruled that some coefficient of discharge 
 other than 100 per cent should probably have been applied. 
 
 The spouting velocity for a head of 11 feet 8 inches is 
 27.405 feet per second, and for 10 feet 9.5 inches, it is 
 26.362. 
 
 Accordingly the aggregate throat areas for the spouts of 
 the tub wheels were 9.467 square feet, as is found from 
 
 Q = 259.463= A X 27.405. 
 
 The referee in his second report (which was accepted by 
 
36 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 all parties) found for the 8 runs a total of 233.517 cubic 
 feet per second. Taking the reduced head, it appears that 
 the referee used for his final report a discharge coefficient 
 for the tub wheels of about 94 per cent as is deduced from 
 £he following equation : 
 
 Q = 233.517 = 9.467 Xcoefficient X26.362 
 
 It is to be noted that the court's decision is based on use, 
 and the doctrine of practical location, also that " the quan- 
 tity to which the plaintiffs are now entitled is the same as 
 it was then (i.e., in 1829) . . . We think the plaintiffs . . . 
 are not obliged to reduce the quantity because improved 
 modern appliances can give equal efficiency (i.e., net power) 
 to a much smaller volume of water." 
 
 The 233.517 cubic feet seconds on 10 feet 9.5 inches 
 head, and 35 per cent efficiency for tub wheels give 100.2 
 net horse-power, or 12.5 horse-power per run. 
 
 It is a matter of interest that 259.463 cubic feet second 
 under 11 feet 8 inches head is the same in power as 233.517 
 cubic feet second under 13 feet head, each being a total of 
 344 gross horse-power for the 8 runs, or 43 gross horse-power 
 per run of stones. This gives 34.4 net horse-power at 80 
 per cent wheel efficiency. 
 
 One of the most interesting cases on divided water inter- 
 est, and the doctrine of practical construction, is known as 
 the Carthage Tissue Paper Mills vs. Village of Carthage and 
 Others, 200 N. Y., 1. 
 
 The hearings were held in 1904. Among the many 
 grants and decrees were the following relating to grist 
 mills: 
 
POWER PER RUN OF STONES 
 
 37 
 
 Date. 
 
 Water Right. 
 
 Court's Finding. 
 
 1830 
 
 "... Sufficient water to carry saw for a saw 
 mill, or 3 pairs of grinding stones." 
 
 
 1860 
 
 "Right for an ordinary grist mill with' 4 runs of 
 stones " 
 
 
 1866 
 
 "Right for a common country grist mill with 5 
 runs of stones, constructed in the most approved 
 principles to save water" 
 
 
 
 
 
 The decree did not mention the head of water. The 
 testimony varied as to the head which was measured, dur- 
 ing the hearings, to be about 9 feet. It will later be shown 
 that when a grant of water is made in inches of aperture, 
 then an opening of the square inches named is meant, and 
 the orifice must be " standard," i.e., constructed with sharp, 
 square edges and without ajutage effect. But when a 
 grant is made of inches of water it is measured by the 
 theoretical discharge through an opening of the area in 
 square inches named, and under the existing head. 
 
 Upon this basis the Tissue Paper case found for grist 
 mills: 
 
 Date. 
 
 Ins. of Water 
 per Run. 
 
 Cu.ft. sec. 
 
 Gross H.p. per 
 Run, 9 Ft. Head. 
 
 Net H.p. with 
 
 80 Per Cent 
 
 Wheels. 
 
 1830 
 1860 
 1866 
 
 266.67 
 
 250 
 
 220 
 
 44.4 
 41.7 
 36.7 
 
 45.4 
 42.6 
 37.5 
 
 36.3 
 33.1 
 30.0 
 
 No doubt the court had the improvements in the effi- 
 ciency of water wheels in mind, as between 1830 and 1866, 
 when determining the inches of water per run of stones in a 
 common country grist mill, and was also aware that the 
 
38 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 efficiencies were below 80 per cent, and the net power 
 per run was less than here computed with that percentage. 
 
 In Powers vs. Perkins, 132 Mich., 33, " Complainant built 
 a water power canal, the power of which was placed at 
 66 runs of stones, or 990 horse-power ..." This is 15 
 horse-power per run. 
 
 LeffePs 1877 Wheel Book contains sizes of wheels and 
 heads for 269 grist mills in 22 states of this country, with an 
 aggregate of 488 runs of stones (or an average of 1.8 runs 
 per mill), and an average installation of 15.4 horse-power 
 per run. 
 
 Pache's grist mill at Glenora, N. Y., built in 1833, oper- 
 ates three runs of 4§-foot stones and accompanying machinery 
 on wheat, buckwheat and corn or feed, respectively. It 
 was operated up to 1874 by a 24-foot overshot wheel, 12 
 feet wide, 8-inch buckets, and about 4-foot head, producing 
 about 85 horse-power. It was replaced by an 8-inch Mun- 
 son turbine under 124-foot head and rated at 69 horse- 
 power. Transmission losses of about 16 horse-power were 
 eliminated by the use of the turbine and the substitution of 
 belts and more direct drives for spur gearing and a system 
 of jack shafting. The overshot made about 1\ R.P.M. 
 as compared with 1400 by the turbine. 
 
 This grist mill has one of Evans' hopper-boys which has 
 not been used for forty years or longer. Its four-sided 
 revolving screen is eighty-five years old. Other mechanisms 
 have been in use for from forty to sixty years. Its Harris 
 smutter is seventy years old. 
 
 The stones turn at 125 R.P.M. The wheat stone grinds 
 from 8 to 10 bushels per hour and produces from 40 to 50 
 barrels of flour per twenty-four hours. The full power of 
 
POWER PER RUN OF STONES "39 
 
 the turbine is required for the operation of the three runs, 
 each of which uses about the same power (Whitham, 1918). 
 
 Haswell, evidently referring to a grist mill, gives 15 
 horse-power for a 4-foot run grinding 5 bushels per hour 
 (1878 Ed., p. 556). Leffel's Wheel Book of 1890, p, 48, 
 allows 20 horse-power per run of 4-foot stones and auxilia- 
 ries in merchant mills, and from 10 to 12 horse-power for 
 country mills. In 1913 the Leffel Co. gave 15 horse-power 
 for a run of 4 to 4.5-foot stones, figured on needing 1.5 
 horse-power per bushel hour, or grinding 10 bushels. 
 
 Moore allowed 15 horse-power for a 4-foot stone and its 
 machinery (p. 505) as did Leonard (1848, p. 40), and, also, 
 Emerson (1894, p. 99). 
 
 Nordyke and Marmon's Mill Book allows 20 horse-power 
 for 4-foot stone using 15 bushels per hour, or 1.33 horse- 
 power per bushel for simply grinding the wheat. 
 
 Rechard, 1887 Wheel Book, says: " For merchant mills 
 allow 20 horse-power to a pair of burrs (4 feet) and the neces- 
 sary machinery for cleaning and bolting, and for country 
 mills about 10 horse-power to a pair of burrs." 
 
 Hughes issued his first edition of " Miller's and Mill- 
 wright's Assistant " in 1851 . On p. 55 he gives a table relating 
 to the " inches of water " needed with 4.5 and 4-foot stones 
 in grist mills, stating that the powers are respectively 6 
 and 5 horse-power. 
 
 Hughes, p. 8, claimed to be a " practical miller." He 
 had a small mill in Michigan having previously worked in 
 a grist mill in Ohio, and said (p. 101) : " This very day that 
 I am writing this article, my own experience fully convinces 
 me of this fact. I went to my usual avocation in attending 
 the business of my mill. I have one of Howd's Patent 
 
40 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 Direct Action Water- Wheels; my head and fall is usually 
 about 5 feet. This day, November 26, 1848, I had high 
 water setting back on my wheel 36 inches ..." 
 
 Pallett, of St. Louis, in writing his " Miller, Millwright 
 and Engineer," preface and copyright of 1866, ^ absorbed 
 p. 55 of Hughes, giving it on p. 227, without credit. 
 
 These two books are so often mentioned as authorities 
 on the power of a run of stones that it is well to here 
 reproduce the entire table and page referred to, as 
 shown on p. 41. 
 
 In order to show the engineering meaning of this table, 
 take a 4.5-foot stone, with its accompanying machinery 
 in a grist mill, with 16-foot head, using, per table, 68 inches 
 of water, and developing 6 horse-power. The article on 
 " Inches of Water," later on, discloses that the correspond- 
 ing water used is 15.1 cubic feet per second, which is 27.4 
 gross horse-power for the head selected. If only 6 horse- 
 power is obtained, then the wheel efficiency is only 21.89 
 per cent, or only about two-thirds of that of an old-fashioned 
 undershot wheel. 
 
 Note that Hughes, on his preceding page, discussed 
 " Combination reaction wheels," which (p. 53) he mentions 
 as represented by the Lansing turbine, and, on pp. 57-64, 
 by the Howd and Jagger turbines. On p. 66 his table is 
 for Jagger turbines of 65 per cent efficiency. Note, also, 
 that on the page following the table Hughes takes up over- 
 shot and breast wheels whose efficiency, as is well known, 
 ranges from 65 to 80 per cent for the former, and from 40 
 to 60 for the latter. 
 
 The same may be said of Pallett. On the preceding page 
 he treated " overshot or breast wheels " (as if they were 
 
POWER PER RUN OF STONES 
 
 41 
 
 A TABLE 
 
 Of the Number op Inches of Water Necessary to Drive One Run of 
 Stones, with all the Requisite Machinery for Grist and Saw 
 Mills, which Will Be Found Convenient for all Practical Pur- 
 poses. Under Heads of Water from 4 to 30 Feet 
 
 Height 
 of Head 
 
 Size of Stone 
 in Feet. 
 
 Horse- 
 power. 
 
 Horse- 
 power. 
 
 Number of Saws being One. 
 
 in Feet. 
 
 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 558 
 
 460 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 The same quantity of water that 
 
 5 
 
 363 
 
 300 
 
 
 
 is here used for a 4-foot stone 
 
 6 
 
 311 
 
 250 
 
 
 
 is sufficient for one saw; and 
 
 7 
 
 245 
 
 200 
 
 
 
 where a greater number of 
 
 8 
 
 190 
 
 160 
 
 
 
 either saws or stones are re- 
 
 9 
 
 163 
 
 130 
 
 
 
 quired, you should double the 
 
 10 
 
 137 
 
 112 
 
 
 
 quantity in proportion to the 
 
 11 
 
 122 
 
 102 
 
 
 
 number, as in the case of four 
 
 12 
 
 107 
 
 89 
 
 
 
 run of stones; you requ're four 
 
 13 
 
 95 
 
 80 
 
 
 
 wheels, with the same number of 
 
 14 
 
 83 
 
 70 
 
 
 
 inches for each size stone, as 
 
 15 
 
 75 
 
 62 
 
 
 
 per table. But, in all cases 
 
 16 
 
 68 
 
 57 
 
 
 
 for merchant flouring mills, 
 
 17 
 
 62 
 
 51 
 
 
 
 you require an extra wheel, 
 
 18 
 
 57 
 
 47 
 
 
 
 which all the machinery should 
 
 19 
 
 52 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 be attached to, with about 
 
 20 
 
 48 
 
 41 
 
 
 
 one-half the power as cal- 
 
 21 
 
 45 
 
 37 
 
 
 
 culated for one run of 4|-foot 
 
 22 
 
 43 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 stones. 
 
 23 
 
 39 
 
 32 
 
 
 
 
 . 24 
 
 37 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 
 25 
 
 35 
 
 29 
 
 
 
 
 26 
 
 32 
 
 27 
 
 
 
 
 27 
 
 31 
 
 26 
 
 
 
 
 28 
 
 29 
 
 24 
 
 
 
 
 29 
 
 28 
 
 23 
 
 
 
 
 30 
 
 26 
 
 22 
 
 
 
 
 identical), and on the page following his table he discussed 
 the weights of columns of water. 
 
 Only one conclusion is evident, that both Hughes and 
 Pallett were millers with experience restricted to small 
 
42 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 grist-like mills, and unable to determine the powers used. 
 Their books are compilations from outgrown writings on 
 milling, principally relating to English practice. 
 
 If Hughes' 5 or 6 horse-power is sufficient for a run of 
 stones, then it would produce not to exceed 10 barrels of 
 flour per twenty-four hours. Yet Hughes states that the 
 capacity of a run is 50 barrels per day (p. 89); 50 to 65 
 barrels (p. 89) ; 37.5 to 50 barrels (p. 96) ; and 70 barrels 
 (p. 259). On pp. 82 and 83 he said "... a stone 4.5 feet 
 diameter, making 175 R.P.M., grinding 15 bushels 
 per hour. . . " On p. 203 he gives 4.5 bushels per 
 barrel, so that 15 bushels is 3.33 "barrels per hour or 
 80 barrels per day. In no part of Hughes' book is 
 the amount of power given except in the table above 
 referred to. It is evident that Hughes knew but little 
 about power. 
 
 Pallett makes a 4.5-foot stone grind from 10 to 15 bushels 
 per hour (pp. 30, 54, 67, 75) and no one believes that it 
 can be done with his 6 horse-power. He makes (p. 181) 
 a two-run mill grind 100 to 120 barrels per day, which no 
 one believes can be done with twice his 6 horse-power. 
 Comparing pp. 181 and 202, his steam plant, according 
 to his own rules, makes 82 horse-power to produce 100 to 
 120 barrels per day in a 2-run mill. 
 
 A grist mill must, of necessity, have at least 2 runs of 
 stones, one for wheat and the other for corn and feed, since the 
 dressing of the stones is different for these two uses (Pallett, 
 p. 45). Accordingly a grant of sufficient water to operate 
 a grist mill means at least from 12 to 15 horse-power for wheat 
 milling, and from 15 to 18 horse-power for corn or feed grind- 
 ing, a total of at least 30 horse-power. In the early days 
 
POWER PER RUN OF STONES 43 
 
 grist mills were abundant, there being 250 in Chester Co., 
 Pa. (" Mill. Rev.," May, 1916). 
 
 B. W. Dedrick, in charge of the Milling School hi State 
 College, Pa., whose milling experiences began in 1876, and 
 who has operated mills representing every stage of milling 
 development since 1800, gives the power to operate a run 
 of stones to produce 100 barrels per twenty-four hours, as 
 
 Horse-power 
 
 1st. Old system of " flat " or low buhr stone milling. 31 
 
 2d. New system, or " half high " buhr milling 40 
 
 3d. With the " combination " system of rolls for 
 
 breaking down and a buhr for grinding 40 
 
 4th. With a modern " roller " mill using ring-oiling 
 
 bearings 30-35 
 
 "It is to be assumed that the mill stones are in good 
 condition to grind the maximum capacity. Dull stones 
 consume a great deal more power. Either the feed must 
 be decreased, or the pressure increased by closer setting, 
 which means increase of power, of 1 to 3 more horse-powers " 
 (Dedrick). 
 
 The system of " flat " or " low " buhr milling lasted, 
 in the United States, until about 1867 or 1868 (Ordway) 
 or 1873 to 1874 (Dedrick), when it was replaced by the 
 " half-high " system. In about 1875 or 1876 (Ordway) 
 " breaking down " rolls were introduced and formed, with 
 the grinding stones, the "combination" system. The full 
 " roller " system began in 1877 or 1878 (Ordway) and had 
 replaced stones in flour making, generally throughout the 
 country, by 1890 (Dedrick). 
 
 Leonard's ' ' Mechanical Prinoipia, ' ' New York, 1 848, treats 
 
44 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 principally of water wheels and cotton mills. He, however, 
 gives a table relating to a 4.5-foot stone, which, with accom- 
 panying machinery, will use 14 " calculated " or 12 actual 
 horse-power (p. 149). He evidently had a grist mill in 
 mind. 
 
 The writer has personally examined 52 grist mills, in 
 12 states, determined the wheels in use and measured the 
 heads and falls, and found that these common country 
 mills used from 12 to 18 horse-power per run of stone, in- 
 cluding accompanying machinery, with an average of 15.3 
 horse-power. 
 
 In conclusion, enough has been given to show that a run 
 of stones, with its accompanying machinery, called for 
 
 30 to 40 horse-power in a first-class merchant mill yielding 
 85 to 100 barrels per day; 
 
 20 to 25 horse-power in a second class merchant mill yield- 
 ing from 50 to 60 barrels per day, and from 
 
 12 to 15 horse-power in a common country grist mill. 
 
 Definitions: 
 
 Grist: A portion of grain brought to a mill to be ground (Stand. 
 Diet., 795). 
 
 Grist: A grinding. Grain carried to the mill to be ground separately 
 for the owner. The amount ground at one time; the grain carried 
 to the mill for grinding at one time. (Cent. Diet. Ill, 2628). 
 
 Flouring Mill: A mill for making flour, usually on a large scale; dis- 
 tinguished from grist mill (Cent. Diet. Ill, 2282). 
 
 Grinding Mills: Bed stone; a stationary mill stone, usually the lower 
 one. 
 
 Runner: A revolving mill stone, usually the upper one. 
 
 Run of stones: A pair of mill stones in working order (Knight's 
 "American Mech. Diet.," Vol. I, 1019). 
 
 Corn: Grains, such as wheat, rye, barley, maize, etc. In England it 
 is usually understood as signifying wheat; while in America and 
 in most parts of the world, the term implies maize or Indian corn 
 (Herbert, Vol. I, p. 402). 
 
RUN OF STONES FOR CORN MEAL 45 
 
 Grain is the matured, clean, sound, air-dried seed of any cereal or buck- 
 wheat. 
 
 Meal, unless otherwise specifically qualified in these standards is a clean, 
 sound product made by grinding the grain without the addition 
 thereto or removal therefrom of any essential product or part thereof. 
 
 Flour is the fine, clean sound product made from wheat meal by bolting 
 or by a process accomplishing the same result ("Mill. Review," 
 January, 1916). 
 
 RUN OF STONES FOR CORN MEAL AND FEED MILLS 
 
 The legal weights of corn are, shelled at 56 pounds to the 
 bushel, and 70 pounds on the cob.* 
 
 The Rogers Mill, at Hyer, W. Va., operates a 4-foot run 
 on 200 bushels of corn a day, and a cob crusher on 30 bushels 
 per hour, with a 25 horse-power engine ("Mill. Rev.," Nov., 
 1916.) 
 
 Wood's Mill, at Fredericksburg, Va., has (driven by 
 electricity) : 
 
 Two 3-foot stones at 240 R.P.M. on corn grinding, using 
 16 horse-power minimum and 20.5 horse-power maxi- 
 mum, and 
 
 One 3-foot stone at 240 R.P.M. also on corn meal, usirg 
 13.57 horse-power maximum and 5.25 minimum. 
 
 One Attrition mill with power range of 7.5 to 16 horse-power. 
 
 The Nesbitt Mill, at E. Springfield, Pa., reported, " I 
 dressed the 54-inch burr feed run . . . The first hour I 
 ground 1600 pounds of meal " ("Mill. Rev.," Apr., 1916). 
 This is about 28 bushels per hour per 4.5 foot stone, when 
 sharp. 
 
 * Oats weigh 32 pounds per bushel; barley, 48 pounds; rye, 56 pounds - 
 buckwheat, 52 pounds; and bran, 20 pounds. 
 
46 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 Bartley, 1900, p. 34, gives, for a 4-foot stone: 
 
 6 horse-power for 6 bushels of corn per hour; 8 horse- 
 power for 9 bushels; and 10 horse-power for 12. 
 
 Wolfe's " Mill Book," p. 25, gives powers as follows for 
 grinding corn with Munson's under runner buhrs: 
 
 Stone. Bushels per hour. Horse-power Speed of Stone, R.P.M. 
 
 36 35 to 60 15 to 20 290 
 
 42 60 to 75 20 to 25 240 
 
 Pierce's mill, at Ivanhoe, Va. (erected in 1843), has (1917) 
 two 4-foot buhrs at 160 R.P.M. 
 
 One grinds 10 bushels of corn per hour generally, but 
 can be pushed to grind from 15 to 20 bushels. 
 
 Each run uses about 15 horse-power when grinding 10 
 bushels of corn per hour. One run is on feed. 
 
 This is at the rate of 1.5 horse-power per bushel hour. 
 
 In the trial of the case of Carthage Tissue Mills vs. Village 
 of Carthage (N. Y.) and Others in 1904, Jos. V. Guyot testi- 
 fied that in 1845 he used a fiat-vaned, central-discharge 
 wooden wheel, 300 square inches throat, 9-foot head, to 
 operate a run of stones grinding corn for meal, and, also 
 at times on feed grinding. Calling the coefficient of dis- 
 charge 95 per cent and the efficiency 35 per cent, the power 
 developed by the wheel was about 17 net horse-power. 
 
 The Firtilitz Mill, near Lancaster, Pa., has a 20-horse- 
 power wheel operating an attrition mill ("Mill. Rev.," 
 Dec, 1915). 
 
 Moore, pp. 652-3, gives, for portable corn mills, 
 
 3.5-foot stone at 275 R.P.M., 15 horse-power, to grind 
 20 bushels of corn per hour into fine meal, or 30 
 bushels into coarse, or to crack 200 bushels. 
 
RUN OF STONES FOR CORN MEAL 47 
 
 B. W. Dedrick, of the Milling Department of State Col- 
 lege, Pa., gives: 
 
 16 horse-power for a 4-foot stone, grinding 30 bushels 
 of coarse feed, or from 10 to 12 bushels of fine 
 corn meal per hour. 
 
 Wells, p. 153, says: " It requires about 1.33 horse-power 
 to grind a bushel of corn (per hcur) of ordinary hardness to 
 an average fineness." 
 
 At the Sage Mill, Elkhardt, Ind., 1888, it took 42 horse- 
 power to grind 20 bushels of corn an hour, or 2.1 horse-power 
 per bushel hour (Emerson, 1894, p. 63). 
 
 Emerson reported another test he had made with a 
 16-foot breast wheel, 13 feet wide, with buckets 18 inches 
 deep, 12-foot head, producing 28.08 horse-power and very 
 coarsely grinding 2050 pounds per hour, or 1.3 bushels of 
 old corn per horse-power per hour. He found (p. 73) that 
 1 horse-power coarsely ground from 2.1 to 2.2 bushels of 
 new corn per hour (1894, pp. 72-3). 
 
 In a test at N. Sunderland, Mass., 29.5 horse-power 
 drove a 5-foot buhr stone at 145 R.P.M., grinding 61 bushels 
 of corn per hour, or 1 horse-power to 2.07 bushels (Emer- 
 son, 1894, p. 97). 
 
 Gump's " Old Mill Book " makes a 3-foot stone at 200 
 R.P.M. on wheat, or 350 R.P.M. on corn or feed, grind 
 (without cleaning, bolting or dressing) as follows by the use 
 of 16 horse-power: 
 10| bushels of wheat, or 1.52 horse-power to simply grind a 
 
 bushel per hour, or 
 27| bushels of corn into meal, or 1.72 bushels per hour per- 
 
 horse-power. 
 42| bushels of feed per hour, or 2.66 bushels per horse-power. 
 
48 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 This mill book gives 1 horse-power for 2 bushels of feed 
 per hour when ground in an attrition mill. 
 
 Smith's Mill, Skippackville, Pa., 1879, ground 24 bushels 
 corn per hour with a 10.8 horse-power Cope wheel. 
 
 Craik ground 8 bushels of corn per hour with a 4.5-foot 
 stone, or 8.33 bushels of mixed grain for feed (p. 131). 
 
 Tests by the Author, in 1912, at the Dunlop Mills in 
 S. Richmond, Va., with three 4-foot and four 3.5-foot 
 buhrs, at 180 R.P.M. showed that the 7 stones ground 
 a total of 1200 bushels of corn meal in twenty-four hours 
 with a 36-inch Smith-McCormick turbine, 18-foot head, 
 105 horse-power, or 7.1 bushels per run per hour, and 2.1 
 horse-power per bushel, and 15 horse-power per run. A 
 bushel of meal being 48 pounds, 43 bushels of corn were 
 ground hourly, or 2.44 horse-power were used per bushel 
 of kiln-dried corn per hour. The product was a very finely 
 ground meal. 
 
 The power a run of stones used in grinding corn meal, 
 or in grinding feed, depended upon the size and speed and 
 condition of the stone, and the amount of power available, as 
 well as the strength of the feed to the buhrs, and the fineness 
 of the meal. It was fully as much as the 12 to 15 horse-power 
 per run found for a grist mill on wheat, and probably ranged 
 from 15 to 18 horse-power. 
 
 CORN CRACKER OR CORN CRUSHER 
 
 Definition: " Corn Cracker: A farm or plantation mill 
 having an outer iron shell with a corrugated inner surface, 
 and a core or cone with sharp projections which, rotating 
 within the shell, coarsely grinds the corn for stock feeding. 
 
CORN CRACKER OR CORN CRUSHER 49 
 
 Used for grinding on the cob" (Knight's " New Mechanical 
 Dictionary," Boston, 1884, p. 221). 
 
 This definition applies to the ordinary form of crackers 
 or crusher found in almost every grist mill. It is constructed 
 like the bark grinder found in tanneries and described by 
 Morfit (1852, p. 132), and which ground a ton or cord of 
 bark per hour with a 10-horse-power engine. 
 
 " In some mills, and many forms of corn crackers, metallic 
 plates have been substituted for stones," among the first 
 being a patent to Dervoux, for a French military mill in 
 1824 (Knight's "Amer. Mch. Diet.," Vol. I, 1020). 
 
 Hughes, 1851, p. 215, described Ross' " new and per- 
 fect machine for cracking corn on the cob," and says, that it 
 is an improvement over the then old-fashioned corn crusher. 
 The Ross cracker was " capable of cracking from 20 to 50 
 bushels per hour " when turning at about 200 R.P.M. 
 
 The Author recalls a horizontal corn cracker or cob 
 crusher in use at Martintown, Wis., in about 1865. The 
 revolving cylinder was a log of wood with heavy spike heads 
 projecting from its surface. It was set in a case, the con- 
 cave of which was also provided with heavy, projecting 
 spike heads. The spikes extended outward about an inch. 
 The ear corn was shoveled into the cracker and the product 
 discharged, as broken cobs, shelled corn, and partially 
 cracked corn at the bottom. There was an adjustment 
 controlling the size of the broken cobs, etc. 
 
 Sometimes the product from the cracker was fed as such, 
 but, preferably, it was put through a feed or chop buhr. 
 The farmers believed that the cob was of value for distend- 
 ing purposes. 
 
50 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 By a deed of 1867 Gardner, Makepeace & Smith acquired 
 an old mill at Theresa, N. Y., and water rights " to drive 
 the 5 runs of stone, corn cracker, smut machine," etc., in 
 the mill. Snell testified that the " corn cracker was nothing 
 but an old-fashioned bark-mill such as tanners use." 
 
 Millers call this machine " a corn cracker," a " cob 
 crusher," and a " corn crusher," mdiscriminately, but it 
 relates to the treatment of the ear corn, and to the bark- 
 mill type. 
 
 Schaeffer, Merkle & Co., Fleetwood, Pa., gave an ex- 
 cellent illustration of this corn cracker in their catalogue 
 of 1886, and said, " Our Corn and Cob Breaker will break 
 30 bushels of corn per hour, and can be set or regulated by a 
 set screw for fine or coarse. Corn can be cracked without 
 running it over the chopping stones." 
 
 A similar illustration is found in Rechard's "Wheel Book" 
 of 1887, p. 52, with a capacity of 30 to 60 bushels per hour, 
 depending upon the setting as to a fine or a coarse product. 
 This corn cracker, set coarse, was also used as a corn sheller. 
 Again, it was used to crack and, also, to coarsely grind 
 shelled corn. 
 
 The Ridgeway " Wheel Book," p. Ill, gives a cut of 
 a small corn and cob crusher requiring only ^ horse-power. 
 
 H. J. Woolcott, experienced miller, Steelton, Pa., says, 
 that the present form of machine, which is like a coffee 
 mill, is the same as used fifty years ago or longer, and 
 " the power it requires — depends upon how fast you feed 
 this machine which . . . runs all the way from 1 to 3 horse- 
 power." 
 
 The Wolfe Co. states that such corn crackers use from 
 5 to 8 horse-power. 
 
CORN CRACKER OR CORN CRUSHER 51 
 
 Sullivan's corn and cob crusher " for cracking, crushing 
 and shelling corn " is given in the old Gump Mill Book, as 
 having a capacity of from 100 to 125 bushels of product per 
 hour, all being reduced to the size of the kernel, for his No. 
 
 7 machine, and from 50 to 100 bushels per hour when the 
 product is reduced to the size of wheat or smaller. His 
 No. 12 machine is given as reducing the product to half 
 the size of a kernel for 125 to 200 bushels per hour. " The 
 cone may readily be raised or lowered — securing a wide 
 range of adjustment. The cob alone may be cracked, or the 
 "corn and cob reduced entirely to a coarse meal. . . . Eight 
 horse-power will answer for any form of cracker . . . The 
 speed can vary from 100 revolutions per minute upward; 
 about 300 to 400 give high capacity." 
 
 The same mill book gives for the " Economy " corn 
 crusher, which is a horizontal machine, — 
 
 No. 14. 20 to 35 bushel-hour, 500 to 700 R.P.M., 2 to 
 4 horse-power. 
 
 No. 15. 40 to 70 bushel-hour, 500 to 700 R.P.M., 4 to 
 
 8 horse-power. 
 
 The " Triumph " corn and cob crusher (of the inverted 
 coffee grinder type) ". . . can be adjusted to crush the cob 
 coarse, medium or fine, ready to be finished on the buhrs or 
 rolls." 
 
 J. R. Thomas, an experienced miller of Richmond, Va., 
 says that in his early days out west, " What we called a corn 
 cracker was a 3.5 or 4-foot stone of open stock coarsely 
 cracked and furrowed, and we used about 10 horse-power 
 to put through 50 bushels an hour. We used the same 
 stone to grind corn and oats, and all kinds of coarse feed." 
 Shelled corn, rather than ear corn was used. 
 
52 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 The Carter Mill, Luray, Va., had in 1888, one Alcott 
 24-inch turbine, 8-foot head, 8.8 horse-power at full gate. 
 At half gate it operated a " chopper and corn crusher." 
 
 The O'Bold Mill, McSherrystown, Pa., 1883, drove 
 " the choppers and corn crackers " with a 24-inch Rechard 
 turbine, 9.5-foot head, 13.46 horse-power. 
 
 Worrall's Mill, West Chester, Pa., 1882, drove two 4.5 
 runs of buhr stones with accompanying machinery and a 
 " corn breaker " with a 50-inch Cope wheel, 5-foot head, 
 15.6 horse-power. 
 
 A 20.4 horse-power Cope wheel at Wright's Mill, West 
 Grove, Pa., 1882, ground 9 bushels of feed and also " breaks 
 corn." 
 
 OdelFs Mills, Croton, N. Y., 1871, drove a run of stones 
 and, also, a " corn cracker " with a 14.6 horse-power 
 Reynolds turbine. 
 
 Hibbard's Mill, New Windsor, Md., 1889, drove, simul- 
 taneously, a 2.5-foot and a 4-foot buhr stone, and a " corn 
 crusher '' with a Burnham turbine of 8.86 horse-power 
 capacity. 
 
 Roger's Mill, Hyer, W. Va., with a 25 horse-power 
 engine drives a " corn cob crusher " handling 30 bushels 
 per hour, and a 4-foot stone for 200 bushels of com per day 
 (" Mill. Rev.," Nov., 1916.) 
 
 A 25-barrel " Midget " Marvel flour mill and a " Dread- 
 naught single attrition chopper and crusher " are driven 
 by a 25 horse-power gas engine at Petersburg, O. (Ibid.). 
 
 Wait, 1871, stated that a No. 36 Champion turbine, 
 8.5-foot head, 16.8 horse-power will " drive a 4.5 foot buhr 
 stone to grind 25 bushels of corn and cob per hour, and 
 run a cracker at the same time." 
 
WATER RIGHT FOR A DISTILLERY— STARCH MILL 53 
 
 From tests made by the Author at the Weaver Mill, near 
 Hudson, N. Y., and elsewhere, the power used by an earcorn 
 " crusher " or " cracker " ranged from 3 to 7 horse-power, 
 dependent upon the speed, the available power and the steadi- 
 ness and amount of the feed, and the fineness of the product. 
 
 WATER RIGHT FOR A DISTILLERY 
 
 The decree in the case of Henry Rodee et al. vs. City of 
 Ogdensburg et al., 1872, Supreme Court of St. Lawrence 
 Co., N. Y., found that the water necessary for a " most 
 approved " breast wheel turning a run of stones for grind- 
 ing grain for a distillery, and the grain and meal elevators, 
 and to turn and bolt and mash the meal was 25 cubic feet 
 per second and 9-foot head. This is about 25 gross horse- 
 power or 12.5 net horse-power with the wheel efficiency at 
 50 per cent. 
 
 STARCH MILL 
 
 Emerson, 1894, p. 62, gave a test, in 1888, at Muzzy's 
 starch mill in Elkhart, Ind., using 1000 bushels of corn 
 per day with turbines generating 56.37 horse-power^ 
 
 Dynamometer tests of a 4.5-foot buhr stone, at 250 
 R.P.M., on the wet re-grinding of corn at the Kingsford 
 Starch Works, in Oswego, N. Y., by Wm. H. Bullock, mill- 
 wright, showed 65 net horse-power consumed by it in 1903. 
 This stone reground the product from 3 runs of stones 
 which had handled 2200 bushels in eight hours, and from 
 which 30 pounds of starch per bushel had already been 
 extracted. The second grinding yielded about 10 per cent 
 starch. 
 
54 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 WATER RIGHTS OF AN OAT MEAL MILL 
 
 Craik, 1870, p. 335, describes an oat meal mill and 
 states that it requires less power than for grinding corn 
 into meal. 
 
 In 1895, a 200-barrel oat meal mill, in Warren, 111., 
 was driven by an 80 horse-power steam engine, operated at 
 rating, or it used 40 horse-power per 100 barrels per twenty- 
 four hours (Brandt). 
 
 On Lot D, Factory Square, Watertown, N. Y., Kimball 
 operated an oat meal mill from 1861, or earlier, down to 
 1887. It had a round pan-oven set over a furnace. A 
 power-driven rake or agitator was used during the roasting. 
 There were one 4-foot hulling stone, rigidly set; steel cut- 
 ters for cutting the hulled meal; and separators, suction 
 fans, elevators and conveyors (Rhines) 
 
 WATER RIGHTS OF PEARL BARLEY MILLS 
 
 Pearl, or pot barley mills are described by Pallett, 
 1866, pp. 91-93; Craik, 1870, pp. 366-382; Knight, 1876, 
 p. 1550, Vol. II; and by Evans, 1795. 
 
 Up to about 1890 a pearl barley mill operated at Mott- 
 ville, N. Y., having a right to the flew of water through an 
 aperture of 100 effective, or 160 gross square inches under the 
 head on the property of 16.2 feet. This right was limited to 
 the use of 21.5 cubic feet of water per second under the head 
 given, or to 31.3 net horse-power with a wheel of 80 per cent 
 efficiency. 
 
 In this Mottville mill were an elevator and conveyor to 
 a smutter; a four-section screen for assorting the barley; 
 
WATER RIGHTS OF PEARL BARLEY MILLS 55 
 
 four elevators and conveyors feeding the assorted seeds 
 into storage bins; two pearling mills, one being used, while 
 the other was being emptied and recharged; a dust elevator 
 and conveyor; a finished pearled barley elevator and con- 
 veyor; and a packer. The mill used the full capacity of 
 the water right, or 31 horse-power (Whitham). 
 
 Farwell and Rhines, under a grant of 1827 of " water 
 sufficient to operate a machine shop, a forcing pump, and 
 a trip hammer, in all equivalent to three wheels," upon what 
 is known as lot D on Factory Square, at Watertown, N. Y., 
 ran a pearl barley mill after 1887, for ten years. 
 
 This mill had three Scotch pearling stones for barley, 
 one being in reserve, each 5 feet diameter by 14-inch face, 
 turning at 200 R.P.M. They were encased in perforated 
 metal, the casings being 6 or 7 inches away from the stones. 
 A charge of about 3 bushels of barley was made, which, 
 after treating for about thirty minutes, was automatically 
 discharged. The pearler was then automatically recharged. 
 
 The first pearling removed the rougher coating from 
 the barley. Pearling was repeated until the barley was 
 reduced to the size needed. There were six sizes or gradings, 
 from No. 1 to No. 6. The latter was about the size of " a 
 pin head." The mill was usually operated on Size No. 3. 
 
 This mill used barley to produce 150 kegs of pearl 
 barley, each 100 pounds, in seven days, using two pearlers. 
 Rhines testified that the power used was from 40 to 50 horse- 
 power per stone, or from 80 to 100 horse-power total, for 
 15,000 pounds of No. 3 pearl barley per week. Kimball 
 had operated this mill from as early as 1861 down to 1887, 
 using two pearlers at a time. 
 
 A split-pea mill is described by Craik, 1870, p. 364. 
 
56 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 SAW MILL WATER GRANTS 
 
 Water grants for specific uses, and indefinite as to 
 quantity to be conveyed, were made in the period from 1800 
 to about 1900. Those relating to saw mills were generally 
 applied to plants having a flat, up-and-down saw of about 
 6 feet length by 7 or 8 inches breadth for a " gate " (Evans, 
 Part V, p. 82), or 7.5 feet by 7 inches for a "mulley" 
 (or gateless) blade (Pallett, p. 119). 
 
 The " sash " or " gate " saw (known as English gate) 
 was set in a frame, resembling a window sash, and was thin- 
 ner and ran slower than the mulley saw. The mulley saw 
 was thicker and stiffer than the gate saw, and cut a wider 
 kerf (Pallett, Elliott, Craik). 
 
 The speeds of these saws were: 
 
 " 200 and upwards per minute " (Pallett, 1866, p. 122; 
 Reynolds, 1868). 
 
 120 to 130 R.P.M., driven by a flutter wheel (Pallett, 
 1866, p. 232). 
 
 150 to 180 R.P.M. (Bartley, 1900, p. 34). 
 
 " For a single upright saw allow 10 horse-power, speed 
 about 175 per minute. If more power is used, increase 
 the speed in proportion" (Rechard, 1887, p. 99). 
 
 150 R.P.M. will cut 2000 to 3000 feet per day, 10 horse- 
 power allowed for a medium upright saw (Curtis, 1881, 
 p. 53). 
 
 120 R.P.M. per Evans, 1795, Part V, p. 77. 
 
 " 400 clips per minute " (Reynolds, 1868). 
 
 100 to 130 strokes per minute, Jones (Evans, 1795, 
 App. 9). 
 
SAW MILL WATER GRANTS 57 
 
 Such saw mills, as they existed from before 1795 down 
 to 1860 or 1870, were operated by three water wheels. 
 
 The saw blade was driven by a flutter wheel in order to 
 have a high speed. Pallett (p. 232) in 1866 wrote that flutter 
 wheels " are mostly used for propelling the saw in saw 
 mills — when the water is plenty, and the fall above 6 feet 
 — (they are) low and wide when the head is small, and high 
 and narrow when there is a high head ..." 
 
 The log carriage was operated by a " spur " or 
 " gig " wheel, generally of the pattern known as a tub 
 wheel. 
 
 The logs were hauled to the carriage by a " bull " 
 wheel, usually a tub wheel, which could readily supply 
 two saws. 
 
 Excellent illustrations of these old saw mills are to be 
 found in Plate IX of Part V of Evans' 1795 Ed.; Plate 28 
 of Gregory's Mechanics of 1806; Craik, 1870, Fig. 34; 
 Glynn, 1885, p. 73. 
 
 Deeds of 1841 and 1853 for the Woodward saw mill at 
 Wausau, Wis., were for a " double saw mill " with " 2 
 water wheels " (one for each saw), " a bull wheel " (for 
 pulling logs out of the river), " two gig wheels " (for driving 
 the log carriages, and a wheel for the " edging saw," or a 
 total of 6 wheels. 
 
 The 1842 deed for the Plumber mill at Wausau with 
 its " double saw " prescribed 5 wheels. 
 
 The deed of 1848 (at Wausau) to Fahley for a " double 
 saw mill " prescribed 7 wheels. 
 
 An old grant of water for " a saw mill " means, unless 
 otherwise stated, sufficient to operate but one saw, its carriage 
 and log drag, i.e., three primitive water wheels. 
 
58 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 Before endeavoring to fix the amount of power needed 
 to be generated to operate " a saw mill " it is well to study 
 the old literature as to the power consumed in wood sawing 
 and the product in board measure per day. Evidently 
 this varies with large and small logs, green and dry wood, 
 hard and soft woods, the sharpness or dullness of the saw, 
 and the width of the kerf . 
 
 Haswell, 1854 edition, p. 297, described a steam saw mill 
 with two vertical or upright saws, each with 34-inch stroke. 
 A 10 by 48-inch engine at 35 R.P.M. was supplied with 
 steam from three to 30 inches by 20 feet plain cylinder 
 boilers, under 90 to 100 pounds steam pressure. The 
 engines received steam at full stroke, which is equivalent 
 to 54 horse-power production for 2 saws. 
 
 The wood sawed was yellow pine cut at the rate of an 
 18-inch board, 30 feet long, or 45 square feet per minute, 
 or 2700 feet B.M. per hour. Accordingly 1 horse-power 
 cut 50 feet B.M. of yellow pine per hour (see, also, Moore, 
 1880, p. 642). 
 
 Several authorities state that 1 horse-power will saw, 
 with circular and gang mills, 75 per cent as much hard as 
 soft wood. Applying this rule to the up-and-down saw, 
 it would have sawed 37 feet B.M. of hard wood per horse- 
 power per hour. From this it appears that the capacity 
 of a single up-and-down saw is, when supplied with ample 
 power, 1350 feet B.M. per hour of yellow pine, or 1000 
 feet of hard wood, using 27 horse-power. 
 
 Tests of the power used by such saws have been made 
 as follows: 
 
 The McLaughlin Mill on Big Elk Creek, Md., had one 
 up-and-down saw driven by a 14 by 8-feet overshot wheel, 
 
SAW MILL WATER GRANTS 59 
 
 with buckets 18 inches deep, spaced 21 inches apart, and 
 developing about 25 horse-power (Whitham). 
 
 The Stevens Mill, built 1807, on Darby Creek, near 
 Philadelphia, has such a saw driven by a 30.5-inch Leffel 
 wheel since 1868, with a 12-foot head, producing 24 horse- 
 power (Whitham, 1918). 
 
 The James Mill, on Ridley Creek, near West Chester, 
 Pa., had, 1907, such a saw driven by a 20-inch Cope wheel, 
 15.25-foot head, 15 horse-power (Whitham). 
 
 The Dutton mill, on Chester Creek, near West Chester, 
 Pa., had (1909) such a saw driven by a 30.5-inch Leffel 
 wheel, 11-foot head, 19 horse-power (Whitham). 
 
 Ten mulley saws in New York State were, prior to 1877, 
 provided with Leffel wheels averaging 20.6 horse-power, 
 while 21 such saws, in various states, were listed in Leffel's 
 " Wheel Book," of 1877, as averaging 19.2 horse-power. 
 
 As already noted, an upright saw at 150 R.P.M. is given 
 by Curtis as using 10 horse-power, while Rechard gives the 
 same power for 175 R.P.M., and the Haswell test gave 
 27 horse-power-hour, 1854, for a saw doing much more work. 
 
 D. C. Gibbs, a millwright, 1868, gave a product of 
 4000 to 5000 feet per day for 21 horse-power (Reynolds). 
 
 Moore, 1880, p. 88, makes a modern saw mill, using 36 
 horse-power, do the work of 150 men in saw pits, handling 
 75 whip saws. 
 
 Craik, 1870, p. 241, complained of insufficient power in 
 saw mills and urged ample wheel power. 
 
 Moore, 1880, p. 92, speaking of a saw mill, said " Give 
 it plenty of power, if you don't, you might as well shut 
 up shop at once." 
 
 The Adams Mill, near Rockland, Del., built in Colonial 
 
60 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 days, has a steel overshot wheel of 22 horse-power for its 
 up-and-down saw. It took the full power to slowly saw 
 an 18-inch oak log (Whitham, 1914). 
 
 The Peters' Mill, Bushkill, Pa., 1870, had an up-and- 
 down saw, 24-inch stroke, driven by a flutter wheel 2 feet 
 diameter by 8 feet long, with a head of 12 feet, and speed of 
 180 R.P.M. The carriage was driven by a 3-foot flutter 
 wheel, 2-foot face, turning on an upright shaft. The prod- 
 uct was only about 1000 feet B.M. per ten hours (Mill- 
 wright C. D. Wallace). 
 
 Wait, 1871, gives a 19.8 horse-power Champion tur- 
 bine to drive a saw, and stated that a similar wheel of 17 
 horse-power drove Lyttle's saw. 
 
 In the trial of the Carthage Tissue Paper Mills vs. 
 Village of Carthage et al. in the Supreme Court of Jefferson 
 Co., N. Y., a grant of 1830 called for "... a sufficient 
 quantity of water to carry saw for a saw mill, or 3 pairs of 
 grinding stones." The Decree placed this grant at 800 
 inches of water. The head is 9 feet. On page 37, it has 
 been shown that this grant amounts to 136.2 gross horse- 
 power. Calling the wheel efficiencies 20 per cent in 1830, 
 the net horse-power determined was 27.2 horse-power. 
 
 In the same action was a grant of 1853, or " Right to 
 carry a common double saw mill having 2 gates, 2 flutter 
 wheels, 2 spur wheels, 1 bull wheel." The " two gates " 
 mean two (English) gate saws, i.e., two up-and-down saws 
 each set in a sash or gate frame, as distinguishes from the 
 mulley saws. The flutter wheels drove the saws, the spur 
 wheels operated the log carriages, and the single bull wheel 
 supplied logs from the mill pond for the two saws. 
 
 The court found and decreed 1400 inches of water as 
 
SAW MILL WATER GRANTS 61 
 
 representing this grant. The head was 9 feet. The decree 
 calls for 233.3 cubic feet per second, or 238.6 gross horse- 
 power. Such wheels would have an average efficiency of 
 about 20 per cent, so that the saw mill used for its two saws 
 47.7 horse-power, or about 24 horse-power per saw. 
 
 It is unnecessary to consider the 5 horse-power per saw 
 given by Hughes, 1851, p. 55, Pallett, 1866, p. 227, and 
 Leonard, 1848, pp. 147-8. Leonard allows 1 horse-power 
 more for the up-and-down than for a circular saw of unknown 
 diameter and speed. These men are answered by examples 
 and records of such saws in use to-day. 
 
 An up-and-down saw, properly supplied with water, 
 used from 20 to 25 horse-power, including the driving of the 
 log carriage and the log pulling. As constructed the primitive 
 wheels were wasteful in water, so that the amount used would 
 produce much more power with modern wheels. 
 
 Although few water grants for saw mills alluded to the 
 use of water to operate a gang saw or a circular saw, and 
 although the power such saws take is so largely dependent 
 upon the diameter and speed of the circular saw, or the 
 number of blades in a gang saw mill, as well as upon the 
 character of the wood handled, yet it may be well to briefly 
 summarize the old literature upon these two kinds of saw 
 mills. 
 
 Circular saws were introduced into England, from 
 Holland, by General Bentham, and were in use at the Ports- 
 mouth dock yard in 1826 (Nicholson, 1826, p. 444; Jamison, 
 1836, p. 913). Their use began in this country before 1848 
 (Leonard, p. 147), and quickly became general. The use 
 of gang saws preceded circular saws in America, and were 
 mentioned in a water grant of 1824 at Baldwinsville, N. Y. 
 
62 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 Gangs had been used on the Danube as early as 1575. 
 Benj. Cummins, of Bentonsville, N. Y., made the first 
 circular saw in the United States in about 1814, but their 
 use grew out of the 1820 patent to Eastman and Jaquit, of 
 Brunswick, Me. The endless band saw, invented by Wm. 
 Newberry, London, Eng., in 1808, came into extensive use 
 in about 1870 (Disston). 
 
 Craik, 1870, p. 234, said that a gang saw, with 2 or 3 
 dozen saw blades, usually took twice the power of a single 
 up-and-down gate saw, and that a large circular saw used 
 twice as much power as the gang saw. He meant that these 
 saws, not only took the extra power, but, also, cut more 
 wood in proportion. 
 
 The gang saws consisted of a number of small blades, 
 all individually set in a common gate, or sash, so as to com- 
 pletely cut the log at one time, rather than a board at a 
 time. They were known as a " live," a " stock," and a 
 " Yankee " gang mill (Craik, pp. 223-228). Gang mills 
 made the smoothest and best lumber, commanding the high- 
 est prices. Craik, on pp. 141-143 described several gang 
 mills in northern New York. 
 
 Barnes' saw mill at Pine Lake, N. Y., 1882, had a 
 36-inch Lesner turbine, 11-foot head, 31 horse-power, 
 driving a gang with 30 saw blades, to cut 1000 feet B.M. 
 of 1-inch boards per hour, spruce and hemlock, or to saw 
 32 feet with 1 horse-power. 
 
 A gang mill making 120 strokes per minute, stroke of 
 20 inches, uses 1 horse-power for 45 feet of dry pine, or 34 
 of dry hard wood, oak, etc. (Haswell, 1878, p. 557; Moore, 
 1880, p. 93). 
 
 Turbines of 105 horse-power capacity drove Roads' 
 
SAW MILL WATER GRANTS 63 
 
 double gang saw mill at Eau Galle, Wis., or 52.5 horse-power 
 per gang (Leffel, 1877). 
 
 The literature upon circular saws may be summarized 
 as follows: 
 
 The perimetral speed of circular saws is given as 7000 
 feet per minute by Craik, 1870, p. 241, and from 6000 to 
 7000 feet by Moore, 1880, pp. 90-93. Moore lists saws up 
 to 76 inches diameter. 
 
 Leffel's " Wheel Book," of 1877, gives a list of 69 mills, 
 each with an undefined circular saw, the turbines for which 
 averaged 32.6 horse-power per saw. It also gives turbine 
 capacities of 20 horse-power for a 30-inch saw; 22.7 horse- 
 power for a 40-inch; 23.2 for a 48-inch; 26.5 for a 50-inch; 
 40.3 for a 54-inch; 58.9 for a 60-inch; and 52.8 for a 72- 
 inch circular saw. 
 
 Victor wheel capacities averaging 34.5 horse-power were 
 given for 18 mills, in 1885, per circular saw. 
 
 Craik, 1870, pp. 242-3 gives for soft wood lumber pro- 
 duced in twelve hours: 
 
 2,500 ft. B.M. by expending 12 h.p., 40 in. saw. 
 4,000 
 6 to 7,000 
 
 8 to 9,000 
 
 9 to 11,000 
 12 to 18,000 
 
 Carley's " Wheel Book " gives the production of cir- 
 cular saws in twelve hours as 52-inch saw, 2 to 5000 feet 
 B.M. ; 56-inch, 8 to 10,000 feet; and 60-inch saw from 10 to 
 15,000 feet depending upon the kind of wood. 
 
 The Curtis " Wheel Book " of 1881 gives 15 to 20 horse- 
 
 15 
 
 48 
 
 20 
 
 54 
 
 25 
 
 60 
 
 30 
 
 72 
 
 40 
 
 Largest made, 
 
64 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 power for sawing 3 to 5000 feet of pine or hemlock in ten 
 hours ; and 35 horse-power for 1000 feet per hour of the same, 
 the latter with a 48-inch saw. 
 
 Bartley's " Wheel Book " gives productions in ten hours 
 of 4 to 6000 feet B.M. with 15 horse-power; 6 to 10,000 
 feet with 15 to 20 horse-power; 8 to 15,000 feet for 20 to 
 30 horse-power; and 12 to 20,000 feet with 20 to 40 horse- 
 power, depending upon the kind of wood. 
 
 A mill in Utah sawed 5000 to 6000 feet in twelve hours 
 with a 52-inch saw, using a 20 horse-power engine (Leffel, 
 1883, p. 20). 
 
 The table on p. 65 of the products of circular saw mills 
 has been compiled from various Wheel Books. 
 
 SHINGLE MILL 
 
 Gannett's mill, at North Fairfield, Me., 1881, had a 
 production of from 20 to 24,000 shingles daily, using a 
 Curtis turbine of from 20 to 30 horse-power. 
 
 Whitmore, Washington, Me., 1881, had a Curtis turbine, 
 of the same power as Gannett, driving a board saw, 1.5-inch 
 cut; a cylinder stave mill, 0.75-inch cut; a cut-off saw; 
 and a shingle machine. 
 
 Osborn, Square Village, N. J., 1869, had a Reynolds 
 wheel of 18.5 horse-power capacity for driving a 42-inch 
 circular saw and a small saw on pickets and shingles. 
 
 Shank, at Shanksville, Fa., 1889, used an 11 horse-power 
 Burnham turbine to drive two 24-inch and one 10-inch saw 
 for shingles and laths. 
 
SAW MILL WATER GRANTS 
 
 65 
 
 Circular Saw Mill and Place. 
 
 Q 
 
 Saw 
 In. 
 
 Wheel. 
 
 Product of Mill. 
 
 
 1882 
 
 
 79-h.p. Leffel 
 
 30 to 35,000 ft. day, 
 also edger and slab 
 cutter. 
 
 From Trump's "Wheel Book " 
 
 
 
 27-h.p. Leffel 
 
 " Power necessary to 
 drive small coun- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 try mill." 
 
 Iver's, Stevensville, Mont 
 
 
 24 
 
 44i-h.p. Leffel 
 
 Also drove a shingle, 
 cut-off and lath 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 saw, and 20-in. 
 
 
 
 
 
 planer. 
 
 
 1882 
 
 48 
 
 12-h.p. Rechard 
 
 3000 ft. oak lumber 
 per day. 
 
 Clearwaters, Rhinebeck, N. Y . . . 
 
 
 54 
 
 24-h.p. Alcott 
 
 Sawed hardwood. 
 
 Bigalow's, Newfoundland, N. J . . 
 
 
 54 
 
 34-h.p. Alcott 
 
 Did not use all the 
 water power. 
 
 Blackburn's, War Eagle, Ark .... 
 
 1881 
 
 
 37-h.p. Victor 
 
 1000 ft. of 1 in. 
 boards an hour. 
 
 Spear's, W. Suffleld, Conn 
 
 1885 
 
 48 
 
 24-h.p. Victor 
 
 
 
 1885 
 
 54 
 
 65-h.p. Victor 
 
 1000 ft. in 35 min. 
 
 Palmer's, Wagnersboro, Va 
 
 1885 
 
 52 
 
 93-h.p. Victor 
 
 4000 ft. hard wood 
 lumber per hour. 
 
 Perkins', Bakersfield, Va 
 
 1889 
 
 
 40-h.p. Eureka 
 
 8 to 1000 ft. in an 
 hour. 
 
 Hubbard's, Guilford, Conn 
 
 1888 
 
 54 
 
 31-h.p. Eureka 
 
 
 Allen's, Westport, Mass 
 
 1858 
 
 
 25}-h.p. Warren 
 46-h.p. Warren 
 
 
 Loughinghouse's, Boyds F'ry, N.C. 
 
 1856 
 
 60 
 
 
 
 1886 
 
 
 35-h.p. Bodine 
 28-h.p. Curtis 
 
 15,000 ft. daily. 
 1000 to 1300 ft.hr. 
 
 Allen's, Rossie, N. Y 
 
 1885 
 
 54 
 
 Skerry's, S. Bangor, N. Y 
 
 1881 
 
 
 38-h.p. Curtis 
 
 10 to 12,000 ft. day. 
 
 Branson's, Ogdensburg, N. Y. . . . 
 
 1881 
 
 54 
 
 10-h.p. Curtis 
 
 2000 ft.hr. saw at 
 600 R.P.M. saw 
 feed 3 in. 
 
 Hlndbind's, Montgomery Cr., Cal. 
 
 1889 
 
 
 81-h.p. Burnham 
 
 Over 3500 ft. yellow 
 pine per hour. 
 
 Grimsley's, Ft. Gaines, Ga 
 
 1889 
 
 2-52 
 
 36-h.p. Burnham 
 
 10 to 12,000 ft. per 
 day. 
 
 Lewis', Mt. Airy, Md 
 
 1889 
 1889 
 
 50 
 
 16-h.p. Burnham 
 16$ h.p. Burnham 
 47}-h.p. Burnham 
 58-h.p. Burnham 
 35-h.p. Burnham 
 
 
 Thary's, Shoals, W. Va 
 
 3 to 4000 ft. per day. 
 600 ft. maple per hr. 
 
 Griggs', Holland, N. Y 
 
 1889 
 
 
 Hunt's, Mclndoes, Vt 
 
 1889 
 1889 
 
 50 
 
 Wimberly's, St. George, S. C 
 
 4 to 5000 ft. pine 
 
 
 
 
 
 lumber per day. 
 
 Knapp's, Knapp, Pa 
 
 1889 
 
 
 27^-h.p. Burnham 
 
 5 to 7000 ft. per day. 
 Saw at 450 R.P.M. 
 
 Prince's, Farmville, Va 
 
 1889 
 1889 
 
 46 
 52 
 
 18-h.p. Burnham 
 24-h.p. Burnham 
 
 Swope's, Old Hundred, N. C, 
 
 6 to 7000 ft. yellow 
 
 
 
 
 
 pine per day. 
 
 Rand's, Goldsboro, N. Y 
 
 1889 
 
 50 
 
 17-h.p. Burhnam 
 
 500 ft. boards per hr. 
 
66 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 BARK MILLS AND TANNERD2S 
 
 Many grants of water were made between 1800 and 1880 
 for the operation of " a bark mill " and for the use of " a 
 tannery." A grant for a bark mill is comparatively definite 
 as to the power the water granted was to produce. The 
 grant for a tannery is necessarily vague and uncertain, 
 since the water power used will depend upon the number and 
 kind of hides treated per day, and whether sole leather, 
 uppers, cow hide, sheep and calf skins, etc., are tanned. 
 In any event, as with all grants for a specific use, the state 
 of the art as to water wheel construction and efficiency, 
 must be considered for the particular time and place. If 
 any one is available to give the history and use made of the 
 water power upon the premises, then a definite measurement 
 of the grant is possible. Otherwise, the state of the art as 
 to the particular industry and probable wheel installation 
 must be studied and used to assist in forming a conclusion. 
 
 A bark mill alone might be used in the preparation of 
 extracts, which would be sold as such. Again, a tannery 
 might buy its extracts and not have a bark mill. But it is 
 generally understood that, except in large modern city 
 tanneries, a " tannery " includes a bark mill and machinery 
 for treating and finishing the hides. 
 
 A bark mill has been described as almost identical 
 in construction with a " Corn Cracker," used for crushing 
 corn-on-the-cob. It differs, only, in that just above the 
 revolving cone are ear-like cast-iron lugs which strike the 
 bark and break it into pieces suitable for grinding in the 
 mill. 
 
 The Author tested two such bark mills in 1913 at the 
 
BARK MILLS AND TANNERIES 67 
 
 Cover Tanneries, in Elkton, W. Va. The two grinders 
 used 24.7 horse-power; their drag conveyors 2.2 horse- 
 power; and the friction of the engine and its driven jack 
 shaft was 12.1 horse-power; making a total of 39 horse- 
 power, or 19.5 horse-power per bark mill. The power 
 was measured at five-minute intervals for one-half day, 
 and the results here given are averages (See p. 69 for 
 details of this tannery). 
 
 Gregory's "Mechanics," London, 1806, Vol. II, pp. 103-6, 
 described a primitive bark mill and tannery in England. 
 
 Morfit, 1852, p. 132, states that " When (a bark mill) 
 is worked to its utmost capacity, it will grind from 1 to 2 
 cords of bark per hour, and must be driven at the rate of 
 150 R.P.M. by a 10 horse-power engine." This relates to 
 the Wiltse mill, as made at Catskill, N. Y. 
 
 Rechard, 1887, pp. 100-2, gives an illustration of a bark 
 mill, speed 60 to 80 R.P.M., and requiring 8 horse-power 
 to grind a cord of bark per hour. 
 
 On the Indian river, 1| miles above Theresa, N. Y., 
 was a tannery with the right to use 400 inches of water 
 (Deed of Henry to Wm. N. Seeber, Dec. 5, 1848, Recorded 
 in Book 89, p. 162 of Records of Jefferson Co.). The head 
 at this place is 10 feet. The grant, accordingly, calls for 
 70 cubic feet of water per second, corresponding to 79.5 
 gross or theoretic horse-power. With breast wheels of 
 50 per cent efficiency the net power is about 40 horse-power. 
 
 In the 1911 trial of the Carthage (N. Y.) Machine Works 
 vs. Island Paper Co. one issue was the water power used by 
 a tannery handling 100 hides of sole leather per day (1840 
 to 1860), and having a bark mill grinding 9 to 12 cords or 
 tons of bark per twelve hours; a double kicker or hide mill 
 
68 
 
 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 or fulling machine; a cage scrubber or scourer for the hides; 
 a liquor pump, under about 7-foot head; a leather roller 
 for dressing tanned hides; and a small drinking water pump. 
 The wheels used were undershot and flat-vaned wooden 
 central discharge, under a 6-foot effective head, although 
 the property head was 11 feet. Old operatives testified 
 to these facts and gave dimensions as to the sizes of the 
 wheels. 
 
 Experienced tanners and engineers gave evidence as 
 to the power required, dividing it as follows : 
 
 Item. 
 
 Hiteman 
 Bros., of 
 W. Win- 
 field, N. Y. 
 H.p. 
 
 Babcock & 
 
 Whitbam, 
 
 of TJtica 
 
 & Phila. 
 
 H.p. 
 
 Fosser of 
 
 Newberry, 
 
 Pa. 
 
 H.p. 
 
 Randolph 
 
 of Camden, 
 
 N. J. 
 
 H.p. 
 
 Thomas, of 
 
 Little 
 Falls, N. Y. 
 
 H.p. 
 
 Bark Mill 
 
 25 -35 
 
 5 
 
 4-6 
 
 5-6 
 
 6 
 
 *- 1 
 10 
 
 15 
 5 
 3 
 5 
 4 
 1 
 
 10 
 
 15-20 
 
 10 -20 
 
 2- 3 
 
 4- 5 
 
 5- 6 
 1 
 
 Included 
 
 10 
 5 
 
 4 
 5 
 5 
 1 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 Scrubber 
 
 Leather roller 
 
 6 
 4 
 6 
 2 
 
 i 
 
 10 
 
 Friction of drives 
 
 Total h.p 
 
 55J-69 
 
 43 
 
 37-55 
 
 40 
 
 38i 
 
 
 
 The last three men were not called, but made the power 
 estimates given. 
 
 The Hubbard tannery, at Oswego, N. Y., is described 
 in the Oswego " Directory and Compendium of Useful 
 Information," 1852, as occupying a building 200 by 45 feet, 
 with three wings, each 75 by 50 feet. It had 159 vats, 
 tanned 40,000 hides in 1851, and had a yearly capacity of 
 50,000. It employed 25 hands. 
 
 The Hubbard tannery had leases, from the Hydraulic 
 
BARK MILLS AND TANNERIES 69 
 
 Canal Co., of water power defined in terms of runs of stones. 
 It had undetermined leases for 2.5 runs, and a lease for 
 one-half run which was defined and produced 8.33 gross 
 horse-power. On the opposite side of the river a lease 
 has been adjudicated as water equivalent to 37.75 gross 
 horse-power per run, so that, on this basis, the tannery 
 leases aggregated (2.5x37.75+8.33=) 102.7 gross horse- 
 power, or about 60 net horse-power with 60 per cent wheels. 
 
 The Mosser bark mill and tannery, Newberry, Pa., had 
 in 1911, a daily capacity of 450 sole-leather hides. Its 
 steam power was measured to be a trifle over 200 horse-power 
 or 44 horse-power per 100 hides per day (Whitham's 
 test). 
 
 The Cover tannery, at Elkton, W. Va., 1913, had the 
 2 bark grinders, described (on p. 67) as using 39 horse-power. 
 It also had 4 leather rollers, one unhairing machine, a lime 
 mixer, an oiling wheel or drum, 4 vat rockers and two 4-inch 
 rotary liquor pumps, using 18.4 horse-power. Two fans 
 used 10.6 horse-power and sundry pumps 15 horse-power. 
 The total measured power was 83 horse-power. This 
 Cover tannery handled 110 soleleather hides daily, or 220 
 sides, using 75.5 horse-power per 100 hides per day (Whit- 
 ham's test). 
 
 The Jannery tannery in Philadelphia has no bark mill 
 and leachers. On a twenty-hour test in 1913 it treated 225 
 sole leather hides (450 sides) using 146 engine horse-power, 
 or 65 horse-power per 100 hides per day. (Whitham's 
 test.) 
 
 In the Carthage Tissue Mill case, it developed that the 
 grant of 1866 of water for a 5-run " common, country, grist 
 mill," decreed as 1100 inches of water (p. 37), was used for 
 
70 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 eighteen years as a tannery having four central-discbarge 
 flat-vaned wooden wheels, operating, respectively, the bark 
 mill, the hide mill, the leather roller and the pumps. The 
 head was 9 feet, calling for 183.5 cubic feet per second, 
 or 187.5 gross horse-power. Placing the wheel efficiency 
 40 per cent for such wheels, the net power was 75 horse- 
 power. 
 
 Hiteman Bros., at W. Winfield, N. Y., handle 1800 
 hides daily on calf skin uppers, and use from 125 to 150 
 horse-power (1911). 
 
 A small sumac extract mill requires 15 horse-power 
 according to Rechard (1887, 100). 
 
 AXE FACTORY WATER USES, OR MACHINE SHOP WATER 
 GRANT OF 1833 
 
 The 1833 grant at Carthage, N. Y., was for " sufficient 
 water to carry a machine shop." The size of the building 
 was given in the grant as 34 by 44 feet with 3 stories and a 
 basement. 
 
 The water power was used for an axe factory, with a 
 machine shop on the second floor, which, though burned 
 in 1836, was immediately rebuilt and operated down to 
 about 1860. 
 
 The only evidence before the court was given by Guyot, 
 born 1826, as follows: 
 
 Inches 
 of Water. 
 
 Bellows was driven by a high breast wheel 10 feet 
 diameter by 3.5 feet wide used " pretty con- 
 stantly " to blow the fires to make axes, and 
 using about 150 
 
AXE FACTORY WATER USES 71 
 
 Inches 
 of Water. 
 
 Drop or tilt hammer was driven by an undershot 
 wheel about 6 feet diameter, operating about 
 one-third of the time, two or three minutes at a 
 time, and using about 150 
 
 Grindstone, to grind and polish the axes, was driven 
 by an 8-foot undershot, about 8 feet wide, with 
 gate opening 8 inches by 8 feet and used " pretty 
 steady " 768 
 
 Machine shop on the second floor was operated by an 
 8-foot tub wheel with throat of spout at the wheel 
 of size 14 by 20 inches 280 
 
 Up to 1848 the 4 wheels used about 1348 
 
 In 1848 the grindstone was replaced by a 600-pound 
 forge hammer driven by a new undershot wheel with a gate 
 taking 10 inches by 8 feet of water, or about 960 inches, 
 rather than 768 as before. 
 
 From 1848 to about 1860 the plant took about 1540 
 inches of water. 
 
 The head is the same now as formerly, or about 9 feet. 
 
 The court decreed that this right called for 1500 inches 
 of water, which measures the power to " carry a machine 
 shop." It, also, measured the power to carry an axe 
 factory, as developed at the time and place. 
 
 The water called for by the decree, with 9-foot head, is 
 250 cubic feet second; and corresponds to 255.7 gross horse- 
 power. Calling the average efficiency of these small wheels 
 30 per cent, the power was 77 horse-power. 
 
 A large part of this power must have been absorbed by 
 
.72 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 the friction of transmission, as was the case in all of the early 
 and primitive developments. 
 
 The Lyman lease, of 1826, on the Hydraulic Canal, at 
 Oswego, N. Y., was for water to " turn and keep in operation 
 such necessary machinery as the said (Lyman) may . . . 
 use for the purpose of working metals and making machinery 
 of the same . . . provided that the water so to be taken and 
 used . . . shall not exceed the quantity which shall be 
 necessary to keep in operation a common saw mill con- 
 structed upon the most approved plan with one saw." 
 
 This Lyman lease has never been adjudicated and fixed. 
 It was a machine shop lease. It has all along been considered 
 the same as a run of stones and its accompanying machin- 
 ery, by the water takers on the canal. The head on the 
 property was 17.14 feet in 1908. On the other side of the 
 river a run of stones has been decreed to be enough to make 
 30.25 net horse-power with an 80 per cent efficient turbine 
 (P- 26). 
 
 The Author has measured the power in at least twenty 
 small machine shops, attached to industrial plants, con- 
 sisting of a post drill press, grindstone, a planer, and a couple 
 of metal lathes, and found that 15 horse-power is ample. 
 But where a shop is opened for general repair or construc- 
 tion work, the power required is seldom less than from 25 
 to 30 horse-power unless it is little more than a one-man 
 shop. 
 
WATER RIGHTS FOR IRON WORKS 73 
 
 WATER RIGHTS FOR BLAST FURNACE-BELLOWS- 
 BLOWERS IN IRON WORKS 
 
 As indicating, somewhat, the extent of water power 
 requued to operate an early Blast Furnace, the following 
 summary of the literature upon them is here given. 
 
 Haswell (1844 edition, p. 261) gives data regarding the 
 blowing engine for an iron furnace at Lanakoning, Md., 
 as follows : 
 
 The furnace had boshes 14 feet diameter, which fell in 
 or narrowed 6.33 inches to every foot rise. The blowing 
 engine had a steam cylinder 18 by 96 inches. The air com- 
 pressor had a cylinder 60 by 96 inches. The speed was 
 12 R.P.M. The steam pressure was 50 pounds. The 
 air-blast pressure was from 2 to 2.5 pounds for a quantity 
 of 3770 cubic feet minute. There were five boilers, each 
 3 by 24 feet. The air required to produce 10 tons of pig 
 iron and burn 50 tons of coal was 100 tons. The ore yielded 
 33 per cent of iron. The power required to operate the blast 
 was about 50 horse-power. 
 
 Haswell (1860 edition, p. 300) gives the following data 
 for the operation of a blast furnace at Mount Savage, Md. : 
 There were four furnaces, each 14 feet diameter, and each 
 producing 100 tons of pig iron per week. A condensing 
 engine, with 56-inch by 10-foot cylinder, at 15 R.P.M., 
 was supplied with steam at 60 pounds pressure, and operated 
 at 25 per cent cut-off. The steam was supplied by six 
 boilers, each 5 by 24 feet, with a 22-inch flue in each, double 
 returned. The grates were 198 square feet. The blast 
 cylinder, driven by the steam engine, was 126 inches diam- 
 eter by 10-foot stroke, at 15 R.P.M. The blast pressure 
 
74 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 was from 4 to 5 pounds per square inch. The blast pipe 
 sectional area was 20 per cent of the blast cylinder piston's 
 area. The engine power made is computed to be about 
 200 horse-power per furnace. 
 
 Haswell (Ibid.) gives an example of a blowing engine 
 for " two furnaces and two fineries," making 240 tons of 
 " forge " pig iron per week. A non-condensing engine of 
 20 by 96-inch cylinder, at 28 R.P.M., operated with steam 
 of from 50 to 60 pounds pressure. The steam followed full 
 stroke in the cylinder. It drove two blowing engines, 
 each with cylinder 62 by 96 inches at 22 R.P.M., pro- 
 viding a blast of 2.5 pounds per square inch. One blast 
 furnace had two 3-inch and one 3.25-inch tuyeres; the other 
 had three 3-inch. One " finery " had 6 tuyeres 1.125 inches 
 and the other four of 1.125 inches. The ore yielded from 
 40 to 45 per cent of iron. The blast temperature was 
 600° F. The engine power developed is computed to be 
 210 horse-power, or 55 horse-power per furnace. 
 
 In the case of the Carthage Tissue Paper Mills vs. The 
 Village of Carthage (N. Y.) et al., the water rights of the 
 Blast Furnace property were decreed to be 1400 inches of 
 water. The head was 9 feet. The furnace was built in 
 1819 and operated until 1875 or 1876. It had a 25 by 6-foot 
 undershot wheel for the bellows or blast, and " S " wheel 
 for operating the ore crusher, and a 14 by 5-foot undershot 
 wheel for cinder stamping. The decree calls for 233.33 
 cubic feet of water, which would give about 239 gross, or 
 72 net horse-power, the wheel efficiencies being taken at 
 30 per cent. 
 
 Haswell (1854 Edition, p. 179) gives a 24 by 6-foot 
 overshot wheel, with seventy 14-inch deep buckets, and a 
 
WATER RIGHTS FOR IRON WORKS 75 
 
 stream 0.75 by 51 inches under a 6.5-foot head, the wheel 
 making 4.25 R.P.M. to drive two 60 by 61-inch blowing 
 cylinders in Peter Townsend's furnace, at Monroe, N. J., 
 to produce 34 tons of No. 1 iron per week. The data given 
 calls for about 11 net horse-power. 
 
 Bennett's "D'Aubuisson," 1838, pp. 344-5, gives an under- 
 shot wheel 20.34 by 13.45 feet, at 7 R.P.M., with 40 buckets 
 each 2.3 feet broad, supplied by a stream of water 8.89 
 square feet at a velocity of 16 feet second, or 141.3 cubic 
 feet second to supply 26.49 cubic feet of air per second for 
 a blast furnace. This is equivalent to about 12 horse-power 
 to operate the blast. 
 
 In the trial of the Carthage Tissue case, it was shown 
 that a breast wheel used 150 inches of water to operate a 
 blast for heating axes in an axe factory. This corresponds 
 to about 25 cubic feet of water per second, or to 9.5 net 
 horse-power with 40 per cent wheel efficiency. 
 
 Leonard, 1848, p. 150, gives 6 horse-power per ton of 
 No. 1 iron per day, and on pp. 143, 144, he gives a table of 
 sizes of overshot and breast wheels to be used. 
 
 In about 1770 the Long Pond Forge was established at 
 the present site of Hewitt, N. J., and received its water from 
 the outlet of Greenwood lake. Prior to 1835 Ryerson, who 
 then owned the forge property, constructed a crude stone 
 dam across the lake outlet in order to store water for use 
 by his forge and saw mill during the dry season. It also 
 provided better power for the small furnace of 1812, which 
 he was then operating in conjunction with the forge and saw 
 mill. 
 
 On March 7, 1837, Ryerson deeded to the Morris Canal 
 and Others property with the following reservation: " Ex- 
 
76 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 cepting, also, and the said Jacob M. Ryerson hereby expressly 
 reserves to and for himself, his heirs and assigns forever, 
 the right to draw and having, at all times, from said reser- 
 voir (Greenwood Lake) through the gates of said new dam 
 (at outlet of said Lake) so much water as will with the natural 
 flow of the intermediate streams be sufficient for all the neces- 
 sary purposes of a forge with two fires and a saw mill with 
 one saw at the site of his present Long Pond forge and saw 
 mill." 
 
 This property for many years operated two blast fur- 
 naces under this water grant supplied with power by two 
 overshot water wheels as follows: 
 
 The lower wheel was 25 feet diameter by 6 feet 10.5 
 inches effective width. It had 82 elbow buckets, 15 inches 
 deep. The sluice gate was 6 feet wide with an 8-inch lift. 
 The head on the center of the sluice opening was 39 inches. 
 
 The upper wheel was 24 feet 10 inches diameter by 6 feet 
 11.5 inches effective width. It had 76 elbow buckets, 
 13.5 inches deep. Its sluice gate opening was 6.25 inches 
 by 6 feet, with 39-inch head. 
 
 The wheels had a capacity for 48 and 36 cubic feet per 
 second respectively, and, at 80 per cent efficiency, could 
 produce 116 and 86 net horse-power, or a total of 202 
 horse-power (Whitham). 
 
 IRON ROLLING MILLS 
 
 Nystrom, 1865, p. 154, gives 80 horse-power to operate 
 an iron rolling mill having 2 pairs of roughing and 2 pairs 
 of finishing rolls, each at 70 R.P.M.; 6 puddling and 2 
 welding furnaces; and a production of 10 tons of bar iron 
 
WATER RIGHTS TO DRIVE A TRIP-HAMMER 77 
 
 in twenty-four hours. He gives 5 horse-power per square 
 foot of plates rolled in a plate mill. 
 
 Bennett's " D'Aubuisson," pp. 351-353, describes a 30- 
 horse-power breast wheel and its design such as is suitable 
 for a rolling mill of the "ordinary kind"; while some, 
 operated at a greater velocity, use 50 horse-power. He 
 proposed a breast wheel 24.28 feet diameter, with 48 floats 
 10.5 feet wide, turning at 6 R.P.M., with an available head 
 of 8.2 feet; and using 50.7 cubic feet of water per second for 
 48 gross, or 30 net horse-power. 
 
 Fairbairn, p. 540, describes a rolling mill and illustrates 
 it in his Fig. 325. 
 
 WATER RIGHTS TO DRIVE A TILT OR TRIP-HAMMER 
 
 Rights have been made of water sufficient to operate 
 a trip or tilt-hammer. The old literature is: 
 
 Nicholson, 1826, p. 334, gives a hammer of 3.25 hundred- 
 weight, 17-inch lift, 150 blows per minute; or one of 2 
 hundredweight, 14-inch lift, 225 blows; or one of 1.33 
 hundredweight, 12-inch lift, 300 blows per minute, as being 
 operated by an 18-foot overshot wheel, at 6.25 R.P.M. 
 Also, he gives a mill having a 2-hundredweight hammer 
 operating at 350 blows per minute, and two 1.33 hundred- 
 weight at 400 blows. 
 
 Overman (1851, p. 261) illustrates a small trip hammer 
 with 500 strokes per minute for a 2-inch lift, 400 for 3-inch, 
 300 for 6-inch, and 200 for 10-inch. 
 
 Haswell (1878, p. 441), states that 17.5 cubic feet of 
 water per second, falling 25 feet onto an undershot wheel, 
 
78 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 drove a 1500-pound hammer, at from 100 to 120 blows per 
 minute, the lift ranging from 12 to 15 inches. This is 16.7 
 net horse-power for a 33 per cent efficient wheel. 
 
 Haswell, also, gave 21.5 cubic feet of water per second, 
 12.5-foot fall, 7.75-foot undershot wheel, 500-pound hammer 
 at 100 blows per minute, 34-inch lift. - This is 10.5 net 
 horse-power with a 33 per cent wheel efficiency. 
 
 Bloxam's "Metals," 1876, p. 76, states that the ppwer 
 to drive a trip hammer varies with the weight of the hammer, 
 its lift, and the rapidity of the blows. For a small machine 
 shop it is probably a 500-pound hammer making 60 blows 
 per minute, and using 7 net horse-power. But in order to 
 use the hammer, a forge is required and one too large for 
 hand operation. From 12 to 15 horse-power would be 
 required to operate this hammer and its power blast. 
 
 In the Carthage Tissue Paper Mills case an undershot 
 wheel was used to drive a 600-pound forge hammer. The 
 wheel operated under 7-foot head, with a gate opening of 
 970 square inches. This corresponds to about 15 net horse- 
 power. 
 
 Beardmore's "Hydrology," 1850, p. 20, gives Rennie's 
 tests of a water wheel producing 8.9 net horse-power driving 
 a 7-hundredweight hammer, 106 blows per minute, 20-inch 
 lift. 
 
 Bennett's "D'Aubuisson," 1838, p. 400, gives the follow- 
 ing table of trip hammer tests with water wheels. The first 
 tests were made by Egen, and those at Agennois were by 
 D'Aubuisson (see page 79): 
 
 D'Aubuisson found that the quantity of water needed 
 for a hammer increased nearly as the cube of the hammer's 
 velocity. 
 
WATER RIGHTS FOR A NAIL FACTORY 
 
 79 
 
 
 Hammed. 
 
 Wheel 
 
 Diam., 
 
 Ft. 
 
 Fall, 
 Ft. 
 
 Cu.ft. 
 Sec. 
 
 Gross, 
 H.p. 
 
 Place. 
 
 Weight, 
 Lbs. 
 
 Lift, 
 Ft. 
 
 Blows, 
 
 Min. 
 
 Westphalia 
 
 WestphaUa 
 
 Sweden 
 
 66 
 154 
 496 
 1323 
 705 
 705 
 
 0.59 
 1.54 
 2.88 
 2.13 
 2.29 
 
 313 
 224 
 103 
 
 85 
 110 
 
 90 
 
 8.82 
 7.48 
 7.74 
 6.72 
 6.86 
 9.18 
 
 16.27 
 14.04 
 12.40 
 11.15 
 11.81 
 11.74 
 
 10.806 
 22.249 
 21.542 
 15.185 
 15.892 
 15.892 
 
 20.1 
 35.5 
 31.5 
 19.5 
 21.6 
 21.5 
 
 Morin in 1836 conducted very complete overshot wheel 
 tests, the power being used to drive a tilt hammer (Weis- 
 bach, II, 193). 
 
 Whitney deeded to Greenley and Williams land on which 
 was erected a furnace in Binghamton, N. Y., in a building 
 40 by 56 feet, " ... land and building to be used exclu- 
 sively for furnace and trip hammer, with the privilege of 
 taking water from the pond . . . equal to 2.5 horse- 
 power " (recorded Oct. 16, 1829, Book 12, p. 162, Clerk's 
 Office of Broome County). 
 
 WATER RIGHTS FOR A NAIL FACTORY 
 
 Leonard's " Mechanical Principia," 1848, pp. 139, 140, 
 gives a table of overshot and breast wheels to operate nail 
 cutting machines, while on p. 150, he gives 9 horse-power 
 to operate 6 machines, 10 for 7, 12 for 8, 13 for 9, and 15 
 horse-power for 10 machines. 
 
 The Carthage (N. Y.) Tissue Paper Mills case decreed 
 that the grant of 1833 of " ... a sufficient quantity of 
 water to carry a pair of rollers to roll iron, and 15 machines 
 to make nails " is 1000 inches of water. The head was 9 
 
80 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 feet. An undershot wheel operated the rolls, and a tub 
 wheel drove the nail cutters. The water decreed amounted 
 to 166.67 cubic feet per second and gives 60 horse-power, 
 when calling the average efficiency of the two kinds of 
 wheels 35 per cent. 
 
 It is evident that in any old nail factory power was used, 
 not only to operate the nail cutters, but to prepare the stock 
 for cutting. Accordingly, a grant of water to operate a nail 
 factory of a certain number of cutters, must include the muck 
 rolls for the treatment of the iron, after it has left the puddle 
 furnace, and the iron rolls for shaping the heated muck bars. 
 
 WATER RIGHTS OF CARDING AND FULLING MILLS 
 
 Brown deeded to Solon Stone certain lands " together 
 with the privilege of taking the water . . . sufficient to 
 carry four carding machines and one fulling stock " at Dexter, 
 N. Y. (recorded Nov. 21, 1831, Liber H2 of Deeds, p. 
 232, Office Clerk of Jefferson Co.). The extent of this 
 right has never been adjudicated. The property operated 
 a flutter wheel (for the fulling mill, down to the early 1880's) 
 and a 6-foot scroll-cased, fiat-vaned, wooden, central- 
 discharge water wheel (down to 1895 or 1898). The mill 
 (1909) is in ruins. The head on the property is 13 feet. 
 The effective head upon the two wheels was 12 feet. The 
 central-discharge wheel had a throat of 2.28 square feet, 
 and the flutter's throat was 3 square feet. Calling the 
 coefficient of discharge 94 per cent for the central discharge 
 and 81.25 per cent for the flutter wheel, they vented 60 
 and 78 cubic feet of water per second, respectively. With 
 40 per cent wheel efficiency for the central discharge and 20 
 
WATER RIGHTS FOR CARDING MILLS 81 
 
 per cent for the flutter wheel, the net powers of the wheels 
 were 32 and 21 horse-power, respectively, or 53 horse-power 
 total. This is at the rate of about 13 horse-power of wheel 
 installation per single carding mill. 
 
 Brown leased from the Hydraulic Canal Co. in Oswego, 
 N. Y., in 1827, sufficient water "... to turn and keep in 
 operation such necessary machinery as " he should put in 
 " . . . for the purpose of carding, spinning, and cloth dress- 
 ing, provided " the amount used should not exceed that 
 required " to turn one run of stones." 
 
 This lease has never been adjudicated. As already 
 noted, a run of stones has been determined on the canal 
 upon the opposite bank of the river in Oswego to be sufficient 
 to yield 30.25 net horse-power with wheels of 80 per cent 
 efficiency. 
 
 In the Carthage Tissue Paper Mills case, the axe-helve 
 property was for a time operated to drive a carding mill 
 (number of machines not stated) by means of a 7-foot 
 central-discharge, scroll-cased, flat-vaned, wooden wheel 
 under about 8-foot head. This corresponds to about 25 net 
 horse-power, wheel capacity, using 40 per cent efficiency. 
 
 Oliver Evans, 1795, Part V, p. 86, and Plate XII, also 
 Craik, 1870, Fig. 42, give descriptions and illustrations of 
 fulling mills. 
 
 Bourne says, that " In fulling cloth at Beaucbamps, each 
 piece being 220 yards long, 0.66 wide, and weighing 121 to 
 127 pounds, the fuller makes 100 to 120 strokes per minute* 
 each piece requires two hours to full it, and the expenditure 
 of 2 horse-power during that time" (Moore, 1880, p. 441). 
 
82 
 
 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 WOOLEN MILLS 
 
 An indefinite water grant, sufficient to operate a woolen 
 mill, is definite to the extent that the mill must have at least one 
 full set of machinery. Such mills are rated in sets, as a one 
 set, two sets, etc., relating to sets of complete mechanisms 
 for converting raw wool into a finished, woven fabric. 
 The power used per set varies with the kind and weight 
 of cloth made, and its finish. 
 
 The Author made all-day tests at the following mills in 
 Massachusetts and Rhode Island in 1895, to determine the 
 power used. The variations in power per set are due to 
 differences in sizes of mills and in the quality and character 
 of the goods made. Most of these mills were from forty 
 to sixty years old. 
 
 Mill. 
 
 Collier 
 
 Newton Darling 
 
 A. W. Darling 
 
 Butler 
 
 Darling & Thayer . . . 
 
 Mann Bros 
 
 Bottomly 
 
 Smith 
 
 Atlanta 
 
 Aldrich 
 
 Irving 
 
 Kent 
 
 ■Hopedale 
 
 Curtis 
 
 Olney 
 
 Calumet 
 
 Lippitt 
 
 Evans and Seagrave . 
 
 Hecla 
 
 Riverdale 
 
 Blackstone 
 
 H.p. Used per Set. 
 
 35 
 30 
 30 
 18 
 22 
 20 
 27 
 13 
 26 
 26 
 25 
 22 
 33 
 28 
 17 
 22 
 27 
 17 
 22 
 17 
 17 
 
WOOLEN MILLS 83 
 
 Ayres' 12-set blanket mill, Philadelphia, had an average 
 day load of 201.6 horse-power on August 5, 1902, and 211 
 horse-power on January 28, 1918, or 16.8 and 17.6 horse- 
 power per set, respectively. On the first test the loading 
 was 
 
 Picker department 38.2 h.p. 
 
 Carding and spinning 61 . 1 h.p. 
 
 Weaving and finishing 33 . 3 h.p. 
 
 Friction of engine and shafting 69 . h.p. 
 
 Total 201 . 6 h.p. 
 
 This load did not include lighting or the dye house. The 
 friction constituted 34.2 per cent of the total load (Whit- 
 ham's tests). 
 
 Glazier's 10-set mill at S. Glastonbury, Conn., produc- 
 ing men and women's goods, hat and cap cloth, etc., has an 
 average load of 225 horse-power or 25 horse-power per set 
 (Whitham, test in 1918). 
 
 Stott's four mills at Stottsville, N. Y., operated with one 
 used for the finishing of the cloth made in the other three, 
 were tested by the Author in 1904, the power measurements 
 consuming two days at each plant. The mills had 44 sets 
 of woolen machinery, or 12 sets at Mill 1, 15 sets at Mill 2, 
 No. 3 Mill was used for dyeing, finishing, etc., and 17 sets 
 at Mill 4. The Mills were located, Nos. 1 and 2 on the 
 upper falls, No. 3 on the middle falls, and No. 4 at the 
 lower. 
 
 The Stott Mills used a total of 773 horse-power, or 17.6 
 horse-power per set. They manufactured light-weight 
 woolen dress goods. Some of the machines in use were 
 over sixty years old. 
 
84 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 As illustrating the mechanisms, Mill No. 1 had for its 
 12 sets the following equipment (it being remembered that 
 the scouring and washing and dyeing of the raw wool, 
 and the finishing of the goods were done at Mill No. 3 
 nearby); a burring picker; a mixing picker; a duster; 
 3 grinders; twenty-six 40 by 40-inch D. & F. cards; ten 
 48 by 40-inch D. & F. cards; ten 260 spindles D. & F. 
 spinning mules; three 240 spindles D. & F. spinning mules; 
 twenty-six 42-inch Reynolds looms; twenty-eight 70-inch 
 Crompton looms, Dobby heads; 6 spoolers, etc. 
 
 The Allen Woolen Mills, near Rochester, had wheels of 
 75 horse-power capacity operating 4 sets of machinery in 
 1893 (Whitham). 
 
 The Keystone spinning mills, Philadelphia, has 34 sets 
 of carpet yarn spinning machinery, using 14.7 horse-power 
 per set. It has no weaving nor dyeing department 
 (Whitham). 
 
 Leffel's "Wheel Book" of 1883, p. 123, mentions a 
 turbine installation of 52 horse-power, said to operate a 
 6-set woolen mill with wheel gates half-opened. The mill 
 must have had another source of power. 
 
 Moore, 1880, p. 559, gives 30 horse-power as driving 
 19 wool combers having a total of 350 rollers; 16 mules with 
 3400 spindles; a winder with 60 rollers to prepare the warp; 
 2 warping machines; 2 self-acting feeders; 100 power looms 
 at 115 R.P.M.; 2 lathes for iron and wood; and a pump. 
 It produced 13,600 cops of woolen thread of 45 cops per 
 pound, each measuring 32 yards. The looms make daily 
 four pieces of double width merino of 68 yards each, and 
 four pieces of sample merino of 1.2 to 1.4 yards broad, and 
 each 88 yards long. 
 
WOOLEN MILLS 85 
 
 Wells, 1869, p. 155, states that the power used in woolen 
 mills is "at the average rate of one set to 8 net horse- 
 power." This can apply only to very large mills. 
 
 Emerson, 1894, p. 100, gives 11.08 horse-power per set 
 in Beebe, Weber & Co.'s 8-set woolen mill in Holyoke. He 
 also, p. 154, gives 6.14 horse-power per set in the 22-set 
 Woolen Mill at Vasselboro, Me., making light cassimeres; 
 7.5 horse-power per set in Walker's 4 set mill, Lowell, on 
 flannels; 10 horse-power per set in Inman's 4-set mill on 
 heavy doeskin, pants goods, at Pascoag, R. I. ; and 8 horse- 
 power in Beebee, Webber & Co.'s 8-set mill in Holyoke on 
 pants goods. Emerson measured simply the net power at 
 the machines. 
 
 Emerson, p. 156, gives a list of machinery in a 1-set 
 woolen mill, while on pp. 155 et seq. he illustrates the various 
 machines used. His list of machinery per set is, one wool 
 and waste duster, which answers for 6 sets, as does the 
 mixing picker; 3 cards per set, i.e., first and second breaker, 
 and finisher; mules, 400 spindles per set; two spoolers; 
 a dresser, reel and beamer for 6 sets; 5 broad and narrow 
 looms per set; 2 fulling mills; a washer answers for 8 sets; 
 a hydro-extractor is sufficient for 6 sets; 2 gigs; shears 
 will provide for 4 sets; and a brusher answers for 6 sets as 
 does also a press. 
 
 Fairbairn, pp. 467 et seq., describes the process of 
 manufacture in a woolen mill, and on p. 472 he gives the 
 speeds of the machinery. 
 
 Webber's test of 1871-1873 with a dynamometer gave 
 net powers at the machines as follows, according to his 
 "Manual for Power for Machines, Shafts, and Belts," pp. 50 
 et seq. : 
 
86 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 Horse-power. 
 
 Wool cards 1 .27-0.91 
 
 Woolen looms . 63-0 . 22 
 
 Fulling mill 2.54 
 
 Wool jacks . 66 
 
 Gigs 2-0.51 
 
 30-inch hydro-extractor 1 . 82 
 
 38-inch hydro-extractor 2 
 
 In tests from 1874 to 1879 Webber found, pp. 56 et seq., 
 net powers at the woolen machines of : 
 
 Horse-power, 
 
 Cards 0.77-2.11 
 
 Spinning mule . 97-1 . 55 
 
 Hydro, 60 inches 4.26 
 
 Rinser for fulling, 16 inches 2 . 84 
 
 Pickers 5.7-8.8 
 
 Looms 1 horse-power for 2.58-5.4 
 
 16-inch double fulling mill 3 . 08 
 
 108-inch broad gig, 48 1 .52 
 
 Groat vs. Moat, 94 N. Y. 115, makes a 4-set woolen mill 
 use 10 horse-power per set. 
 
 Leffel's "Wheel Book" of 1877 mentions 9 woolen 
 mills aggregating. 49 sets, having turbines averaging 10 
 horse-power per set. 
 
 A. F. Ordway, mill engineer and millwright, Beaver 
 Dam, Wis., found a 4-set woolen mill in Wisconsin to use 
 98.6 horse-power, as determined with an engine indicator and 
 a transmission dynamometer, in 1897, or 24.6 horse-power 
 per set. The indicator checked the dynamometer. 
 
 The general operations or processes followed in a woolen 
 mill are: 1. Sorting and washing. 2. Teasing and opening. 
 
COTTON MILLS 87 
 
 3. Carding, roving and spinning. 4. Warping, dressing 
 and weaving. 5. Finishing, i.e., washing (over reels), 
 fulling, washing (the reverse of fulling), gigging, passing 
 over teasel cards, shearing and cutting (Fairbairn, p. 449). 
 
 " Carding — A process in which the staples and fibres of 
 material are thoroughly disentangled and subsequently- 
 blended together so as to produce a film or sliver of material 
 of a uniform character " ('' Wool Year Book," 1913, p. 504). 
 
 " Fulling — An operation through which wool cloth is 
 passed to increase it in thickness, density, and solidity, and 
 also to improve it in handle " (Ibid., p. 517). 
 
 COTTON MILLS 
 
 Cotton mills are rated by number of spindles, rather 
 than by sets of machines — as in the woolen trade. 
 
 The process of manufacturing cotton fabric is outlined 
 by the late Jas. J. Fearon, of Philadelphia, as follows : 
 
 1. Open the cotton bales and 
 
 2. Pick the cotton. 
 
 3. Finisher breaker picker prepares the cotton into laps. 
 
 4. Cards, in the railroad head make cotton into a rope 
 form called sliver. 
 
 5. Drawing frames receive the sliver and draw cotton 
 down to a sliver of smaller draught to meet the particular 
 size of the yarn desired. This may require a second drawing. 
 
 6. Slubbing machine receives this product and draws it 
 into a thread and puts it onto bobbins. 
 
 7. In the speeders two or more bobbins are consolidated 
 into a new thread, wound onto cone-shaped or onto old 
 flanged bobbins. 
 
 8. Spinning frame's creel (creel is a frame holding any 
 
88 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 number of bobbins or spools) draws and spins to desired 
 yarn size. 
 
 9. Winders, where the yarn is put onto spools. 
 
 10. Slasher, to be sized and starched. 
 
 11. Beamer, to be arranged into desired number of 
 threads for weaving. 
 
 12. Looms. 
 
 13. Finishing — cleaned, brushed, calendered, rolled, 
 measured and baled. 
 
 Emerson, 1894, pp. 121 et seq., describes more fully the 
 process of manufacture and gives illustrations. 
 
 Gregory's " Mechanics," 1806, p. 411, describes a yarn 
 mill, while Buchanan's 3d " Essay on Millwork," 1809, 
 pp. 11, 15, 33, 34, discusses the early changes in the mechan- 
 isms used. 
 
 Webber's " Power for Machines, Shafts and Belts," 
 1891, pp. 124-229, gives a historical sketch of the cotton 
 industry and development in the United States up to 1876. 
 
 Cotton machinery was introduced into the United States 
 in 1790, at Pawtucket, R. I., by Samuel Slater. 
 
 Abbott, 1835, p. 106, states that " 1 horse-power is 
 calculated, at a medium, to drive: 
 
 100 throstle spindles, with preparation, for cotton yarn 
 twist: or 
 
 500 spindles, with preparation, for mule yarn, No. 48: or 
 
 1000 spindles, with preparation, for mule yarn, No. 110, 
 and for intermediate yarn, in the same proportion; or 
 
 12 power looms, with preparation." 
 
 (Note. Abbott evidently copied this table from 
 Buchanan's " First Essay on Millwork," 1808, p. 131, or 
 from Grier's " Mechanic's Calculator.") 
 
COTTON MILLS 89 
 
 Abbott then gives the so-called " Lowell (Mass.) Stand- 
 ard," or 
 
 " Twenty-four cubic feet of water per second, 30-foot fall, 
 has been found sufficient to operate 4000 spindles, with all 
 the preparatory machinery, for spinning cotton yarn, about 
 No. 30, together with the looms necessary to weave the same. 
 The spindles in use at that place (Lowell) are all of the sort 
 called ' dead spindles,' requiring rather more power to oper- 
 ate them than the common English throstle spindles alluded 
 to in the above table. The difference in power required for 
 the dead spindle is probably as 4000 to 4300 or 4400. Calling 
 4000 dead spindles equal to 4400 throstle spindles, the power 
 required to operate them, together with the necessary pre- 
 paratory machinery will be 
 
 Equal to that of 44 horses 
 
 144 looms (12 looms to the horse) . 12 
 
 Horse-power 56 horses " 
 
 Note. Twenty-four cubic feet second, 30-foot head = 
 81.82 gross horse-power and is known in the cotton districts 
 in New England as about 65 net horse-power, and is com- 
 monly termed a " mill power " (Whitham). 
 
 Abbott, p. 107, proceeds to justify his rule as follows: 
 
 24 cu. ft. sec. = 1440 cu. ft. min. = 90,000 lbs. min. 
 
 90,000 X 30-f t. fall = 2,700,000 f t.-lbs. 
 
 Deduct one-third for loss by friction and 
 
 otherwise 900,000 
 
 Used 1,800,000 ft.-lbs. 
 
90 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 1,800,000-^32,000 (Boulton & Watt's standard, p. 104) = 
 
 56.25 h.p. 
 
 Abbott states that at the Hamilton Mills, Lowell, the 
 same quantity of machinery is operated by 60 cubic feet cf 
 water per second on a 12-foot fall. He then gives : 
 
 " The 56.25 horse-power required for the above mills 
 would be sufficient to put in motion; 
 
 " 56,000 mule spindles, with preparation, for spinning 
 yarn as fine as No. 110, or 
 
 " 10,000 mule spindles, for spinning yarn for warp and 
 weft as fine as No. 48, together with 
 
 " 400 looms to weave the same." 
 
 " It is partly a consequence of the great expense of power 
 to operate throstle spindles, that the throstle twist commands 
 a higher relative price in Manchester than yarn of the same 
 fineness spun upon mules." 
 
 Leonard's " Mechanical Principia," N. Y., 1848, XIX, 
 states that his power to operate cotton machinery was ob- 
 tained,by comparing the water wheels of factories with the 
 machinery equipment — and is an estimate, rather than a 
 test or measurement. On pp. 19, 20, he states, that " Dead 
 and ring spindles (cotton) frames turn off about 25 per 
 cent more than the mule when spinning filling; as filling 
 is about half of the whole production of the factory; the 
 increased production when the filling is spun on the mule 
 will be about 12 per cent, hence there will be about 12 
 per cent more attendant machinery for a given number of 
 spindles, including looms; will require about two-thirds 
 of the whole power; hence the increased power due by 
 direct proportion is about 8 per cent; it will be safe to allow 
 
COTTON MILLS 91 
 
 7 per cent. The power required to spin a given amount of 
 filling on a frame will exceed the power required to spin the 
 same on the mule about 25 per cent; since the spinning 
 requires one-third of the whole power, ..." 
 
 Leonard, p. 21, states, " It will be noticed that this 
 table is calculated for mules and frames; if the filling is 
 spun on the ring or dead spindle frame, add about 12 per 
 cent to the attendant machinery; if the filling and warp 
 is spun on the Danforth frame add 40 per cent to the 
 attendant machinery." 
 
 Leonard, p. 64, discusses the cotton machinery which 
 may be operated in a mill building, three stories high, 
 containing spinning frames, looms, and attendant mechan- 
 isms. His table gives the lengths of the building, per 1000 
 spindles as follows: 
 
 40 feet wide by 42 feet long; 42 feet wide by 40 feet long; 
 44 by 38 feet; 46 by 36; 48 by 34; 50 by 33; 52 by 32; 54 
 by 31 ; and 56 feet wide by 30 feet long. The average is 5 
 square feet of floor space per spindle. 
 
 Example: A cotton mill 50 feet wide, 4 stories high, 
 is to have 6000 spindles. What is its length by Leonard's 
 table? 
 
 For 3 stories, 50 feet wide, the length is 33 feet for 1000 
 spindles, or 198 feet for 6000. 
 
 But the mill is 4 stories, rather than 3, high, hence the 
 length is three-fourths of 198 or 148.5 feet, or say 150 
 feet. 
 
 Cramer's "Useful Information for Cotton Manu- 
 facturers," 1906, Vol. 3, p. 1169, gives a table showing 
 the floor space in square feet per spindle as used in 
 
92 
 
 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 seven modern cotton yarn and in forty modern cotton 
 spinning and weaving mills built in various parts of the 
 United States and making various classes of goods, from 
 which it appears — 
 
 Cotton yarn mills use 3.24 to 4 square feet per spindle 
 with an average of 3.60 square feet. 
 
 Cotton spinning and weaving mills used from 3.12 to 
 7.15 square feet per spindle with an average of 5.03 square 
 feet, or the same as given by Leonard, in 1848. 
 
 Leonard's table of power for cotton machinery, p. 66, 
 may be abstracted as follows, the power relating to 1000 
 spindles, or multiples thereof in proportion: 
 
 Yarn. 
 
 Calculated H.p. 
 
 Actual H.p. 
 
 Frame Spindles: 
 
 
 
 Nos. 10-20 
 
 19 
 
 14i 
 
 20-30 
 
 17 
 
 12| 
 
 3CM0 
 
 16 
 
 12 
 
 Mule and Frame Spindles: 
 
 
 
 Nos. 10-20 
 
 17 
 
 121 
 
 20-30 
 
 15 
 
 HI 
 
 30-40 
 
 14 
 
 10J 
 
 Mule Spindles: 
 
 
 
 Nos. 10-20 
 
 16 
 
 12 
 
 20-30 
 
 14 
 
 10* 
 
 30-40 
 
 13 
 
 91 
 
 Example: The power to drive 6000 mule spindles on 
 No. 36 yarn, including the driving of the looms is 6 X 13 =78 
 horse-power calculated, or 6x9.75=58.5 actual horse- 
 power per Leonard's table. 
 
 Leonard, p. 76, gives a table for the Attendant Cotton 
 Machinery in plants of from 1000 to 10,000 spindles, from 
 which is abstracted his figures for a 1000 mule and frame 
 spindle equipment as follows: 
 
COTTON MILLS 
 
 93 
 
 Size of Yarn No. 
 
 5 to 10 
 
 10 to 20 
 
 20 to 30 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 12 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 64 
 
 12 
 
 10 
 
 64 
 
 50 
 
 40 
 
 1000 
 
 1000 
 
 1000 
 
 28 
 
 28 
 
 28 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 24 
 
 28 
 
 28 
 
 30 to 40 
 
 Willowers 
 
 Pickers, 2 beaters 
 
 Single, 30-inch cards . . . . 
 
 R. R. Heads 
 
 3 head draw-frames .... 
 
 Speeder spindles 
 
 Fine spindles 
 
 Mule and frame spindles 
 
 Spooler spindles 
 
 Warpers 
 
 Dressers 
 
 Looms 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 10 
 
 38 
 1000 
 
 28 
 1 
 1 
 
 25 
 
 The operatives required in a cotton mill are given by 
 Leonard, p. 84, as follows: 
 
 
 
 
 
 Yarn Number. 
 
 
 
 
 Spindles. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 15 
 
 20 
 
 25 
 
 30 
 
 35 
 
 40 
 
 1,000 
 
 36 
 
 35 
 
 33 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 39 
 
 27 
 
 26 
 
 2,000 
 
 72 
 
 69 
 
 66 
 
 63 
 
 60 
 
 57 
 
 54 
 
 52 
 
 3,000 
 
 108 
 
 103 
 
 99 
 
 94 
 
 90 
 
 85 
 
 81 
 
 78 
 
 4,000 
 
 144 
 
 138 
 
 132 
 
 126 
 
 120 
 
 114 
 
 108 
 
 104 
 
 5,000 
 
 180 
 
 172 
 
 165 
 
 157 
 
 150 
 
 142 
 
 135 
 
 130 
 
 6,000 
 
 216 
 
 207 
 
 198 
 
 189 
 
 180 
 
 171 
 
 162 
 
 156 
 
 7,000 
 
 252 
 
 241 
 
 231 
 
 220 
 
 210 
 
 199 
 
 189 
 
 182 
 
 8,000 
 
 288 
 
 276 
 
 264 
 
 252 
 
 240 
 
 228 
 
 216 
 
 208 
 
 9,000 
 
 324 
 
 310 
 
 297 
 
 283 
 
 270 
 
 256 
 
 243 
 
 234 
 
 10,000 
 
 360 
 
 345 
 
 330 
 
 315 
 
 300 
 
 285 
 
 270 
 
 260 
 
 Thus for 2000 spindles on goods of No. 20 yarn, 63 hands 
 are required in the mill. 
 
 On Jan. 1, 1849, the Glasgow Cotton Mills, at South 
 Hadley, Mass., received a grant of water sufficient to oper- 
 ate 10,000 cotton spindles making No. 14 yarn together 
 with machinery to convert it into finished cloth. It was 
 
94 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 the understanding that 25 cubic feet of water per second, 
 used in a turbine under 30-foot head, would drive 3584 
 spindles on No. 14 yarn and the weaving machinery, accord- 
 ing to the Lowell standard of 1849, and it is called a " mill 
 power," or 65 net horse-power. Hence 1 horse-power 
 drove 55 spindles on No. 14 yarn. 
 
 The Oswego Cotton Mills in 1852 (per " Directory and 
 Compendium ") had 2436 spindles, 71 looms, 60 opera- 
 tives, and used 230,000 pounds of cotton and produced 
 625,000 yards of 36-inch sheeting in 1851. It had, per 
 lease of 1835, " water sufficient to turn 4 runs of mill stones 
 and the usual machinery connected therewith". . . ." 
 This lease was not definite as to the quantity of water leased, 
 and it has never been adjudicated. On the Varick canal, 
 on the opposite back in Oswego, the courts decreed that a 
 run is sufficient water to produce 30.25 net horse-power 
 with wheels of 80 per cent efficiency. On that basis this 
 mill had a horse-power of water for 20 spindles used on 
 coarse sheetings. 
 
 Haswell, 1854, p. 179, gives the Rocky Glen Cotton Mill, 
 at Fishkill, N. Y., as having 6144 self-acting mule spindles; 
 160 looms on print goods, 27 inches wide, No. 33 yarn 
 (33 hanks to pound) and producing 2400 hanks in eleven 
 hours. The machinery was driven by a high breast wheel 
 24 feet 4 inches diameter by 20.75-foot face, with 70 buckets 
 15.75 inches deep, the total fall being 20 feet, divided into 
 4 feet for the head and 16 feet for the fall, and supplied by a 
 gate giving an opening 20 by 2 feet. Wheel made 4.5 
 R.P.M. 
 
 Such wheel produces about 180 net horse-power, which 
 would give 1 horse-power to about 34 spindles. A con- 
 
COTTON MILLS 95 
 
 siderable part of the work done by this slow wheel was, 
 no doubt, absorbed by the drive. 
 
 According to Groat vs. Moak, 94 N. Y., 115, the cotton 
 mill there described drove 33.6 spindles per horse-power. 
 The mill was 98 by 48 feet, 5 stories, and its machinery 
 consisted of 3360 spindles and 80 looms. The court fixed 
 100 horse-power as required to drive the mill. According 
 to Leonard's rule the building was adapted to 4800 
 spindles. 
 
 An old grant at Little Falls, N. Y., for the Whitman 
 Cotton Mill, which had 4032 " spindles on No. 29 yarn " 
 and the necessary machinery for converting cotton into 
 cloth, was construed to require with the mill friction pro- 
 portioned among the several machines: 
 
 Horse-power. 
 
 1 bale opener 2 
 
 1 hopper feeder with opener and single. 4 
 
 1 two-beater finishers 5 
 
 1 thread extractor, hard ends \ 
 
 8 revolving flat cards, 50-inch cylinders 5| 
 
 1 set drawing frames, 27 deliveries .... 4 
 
 1 slubber frame, 66 spindles If 
 
 2 intermediate frames, 88 spindles each 2 
 18 ring spinning frames, 4032 spindles . . 49| 
 
 6 roving frames, 112 spindles each 7| 
 
 1 winder, 200 spindles 2 
 
 2 beaming frames or warpers 1 
 
 1 sizing machine or slasher 2 
 
 125 looms, on No. 29 fine yarn 37J 
 
 Total, including shafting 124 
 
96 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 The spindles on No. 29 yarn per horse-power are esti- 
 mated at 32.5 for this Whitman mill (Whitham, Crosby). 
 
 Baird's "American Cotton Spinner," 1860, p. 46, gives the 
 same power table as has been noted on p. 101, for Abbott, 
 Buchanan and Grier, with slight modifications, or 1 horse- 
 power drives 
 
 100 throstle spindles on No. 25 yarn twist, including 
 necessary preparation, or 
 
 250 mule spindles, with preparation, on No. 25 yarn 
 filling, or 
 
 500 mule spindles with preparation on No. 60 yarn 
 filling, and for intermediate numbers in preparation, or 
 
 12 power looms, with warping, sizing, etc. 
 
 Wells, 1869, p. 155, allows from 30 to 100 spindles to 
 the horse-power, or 60 as an average. 
 
 C. T. Main, M.E., usually figures on 40 spindles to a 
 horse-power (1899). Emerson, p. 120, allows 50 per horse- 
 power as an average. Whitham found 37 per horse- 
 power, as noted on page 100. 
 
 Fairbairn's " Mills and Millwork " (written before 1860), 
 p. 454, of 1878 Ed., gives a history of the changes in the 
 cotton mills construction " during the past thirty years," 
 and particularly in the arrangement of the machinery in 
 the buildings. On p. 456, Fairbairn described a cotton 
 mill for India, with engines of 600 indicated horse-power. 
 On p. 464, he gives the speeds of the various machinery in 
 this Indian mill. 
 
 Lister's " Cotton Manufacture," 1914, explains in detail 
 the difference between throstle, ring and mule spinning, and 
 the meaning of sliver, slubbing, etc. 
 
 Moore, 1880, p. 559, describes an English mill with 
 
COTTON MILLS 97 
 
 22,060 "hand-mule" spindles and 260 looms, using 125 
 engine horse-power or 1 horse-power to 176.5 spindles. He 
 gives 1 horse-power to drive 305 hand-mule spindles, with 
 preparation; or 230 self-acting spindles, with preparation; 
 or 104 throstle spindles, with preparation; or 10.5 looms 
 with common sizing. 
 
 Including preparation, 1 throstle =3 hand-mule =2.25 
 self-acting spindles. 
 
 Exclusive of preparation, 1 throstle =3.5 hand-mule 
 =2.56 self-acting spindles. 
 
 Average breadth of looms is 37 inches, making 123 picks 
 per minute (Moore). 
 
 Webber, pp. 12-48, gives dynamometer tests of the power 
 used by and at cotton machines, covering a period from 
 1871 to 1873. His results do not include the friction of 
 transmission due to shafting and belting. The tests are 
 summarized in the table on page 98. 
 
 Webber, p. 79, found that of the 609.31 net horse-power 
 made in a heavy sheeting mill, with an average yarn of 
 12.75, 33 spindles were used to the horse-power, and the 
 division of power was 
 
 Picking and carding, 29.62 per cent; spinning, 48.02 
 per cent; dressing, 4.58 per cent; and weaving, 17.78 
 per cent. He added only 15 per cent to the net power 
 for shafting friction of the mill. 
 
 On p. 80, Webber gave data as to a mill on denims, 
 ticks, etc., with an average of No. 11 yarn, and using 35.9 
 spindles per horse-power. 
 
 On p. 81, Webber found that a mill on fancy pantaloonery, 
 shirting, stripes, etc., with No. 16.5 average yarn, used a 
 horse-power for 43.77 spindles. 
 
98 
 
 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 Machine. 
 
 H.p. Range 
 per Machine. 
 
 Range of Spindles 
 per h.p. 
 
 Cotton openers 
 
 Cotton pickers 
 
 Cotton openers and lappers. 
 
 Cotton cards 
 
 Railway heads for cards. . . . 
 
 Cotton drawing frames 
 
 Dead spindle roving frames. 
 Roving frames 
 
 Throstle dead spinning. 
 Ring spinning 
 
 Sawyer spindle, ring spinning . 
 
 Rabbath spindle, ring spinning. 
 Pearl spindle, ring spinning. . . . 
 
 Birkhead spindle, ring spinning. . . 
 Richardson spindle, ring spinning. 
 Excelsior spindle, ring spinning. . . 
 
 Perry spindle, dead, ring spinning . 
 Pusey spindle, dead, ring spinning. 
 
 Mule spinning 
 
 Cotton looms 
 
 Cotton spoolers . 
 Cotton twisters . 
 Cotton warpers . 
 Cotton dressers . 
 Slashers 
 
 12.5 -1.6 
 12.4 -3.0 
 16.1 -3.9 
 9.2 -1.9 
 2.5 -0.23 
 1.9 -0.47 
 1.9 -0.84 
 2.2 -0.65 
 
 3.0 -0.79 
 
 2.1 -0.59 
 2.8 -0.46 
 2.0 -0.78 
 
 2.7 -0.87 
 
 2.8 -0.77 
 3.4 -1.61 
 1.63-0.38 
 1.53-0.76 
 1.38-0 95 
 1.29-0.95 
 1.75-1.27 
 1.52-0.94 
 1.96-1.05 
 2.26-0.59 
 3.19-0.58 
 1.82-0.57 
 2.22-0.74 
 3.7 -1.26 
 
 0.53-0.17 
 2.3 -0.67 
 0.17-0.11 
 2.14-1.14 
 1.58-0.70 
 
 23 
 
 2S 
 
 25 
 
 45 
 
 50 
 
 64 
 
 83 
 
 54 
 
 60 
 
 78 
 
 116 
 
 114 
 
 134 
 
 107 
 
 105 
 
 106 
 
 88. 
 
 64. 
 
 78. 
 
 67. 
 
 153. 
 
 17-5.1 
 
 h.p. 
 
 3- 62.5 
 
 8- 68 
 
 3- 60.9 
 
 0-120. 
 
 0-276 
 
 0-164 
 
 0-147 
 
 0-167 
 
 0- S3 
 
 5-340 
 
 0-169 
 
 0-169 
 
 0-141 
 
 0-138 
 
 0-139 
 
 0-199 
 
 0-344 
 
 0-22S 
 
 5-226 
 
 0-156.2 
 
 0-382.5 
 
 looms to 
 
 In another mill, p. S2, Webber found that No. 26 average 
 yarn on fine sheetings used a horse-power to 70 spindles; 
 while still another mill with 32 yarn, same goods, used a 
 horse-power for 66.6 spindles. 
 
 On fine shirtings and cambrics, No. 33 yarn, 66.3 spindles 
 
COTTON MILLS 99 
 
 were used per horse-power; Mill G on 33 yarn for corset 
 jeans used 62.5 spindles per horse-power; Mill H on 31 
 yarn, print cloth, mule spinning, used 72 spindles per horse- 
 power; Mill I, No. 32 yarn, print cloth, mule spinning, 
 76.7 spindles; and Mill K, 49 yarn, fine cambrics, used 75.6 
 spindles per horse-power. 
 
 In all of these mill tests Webber ascertained the power 
 used by each machine separately, took their aggregate, 
 and added only 15 per cent for the mill friction. (This 
 15 per cent is entirely too small, Whitham.) 
 
 In 1888, Emerson, p. 62, of 1894 Ed., found that 19.31 
 horse-power drove a knitting mill at Elkhart, Ind., having 
 two 48-inch cards; 3 jacks, in all 720 spindles; 2 Parker 
 twisters, 96 spindles each; 4 spoolers, dusters, dryer and 
 fan; stocking dryer and fan ; kulp winders; hydro-extractor; 
 and 60 knitting machines. 
 
 On p. 120, Emerson gives 1 horse-power to 50 spindles 
 as a " fair average estimate," and states that this rule also 
 holds for silk mills. He gives from 35 to 50 spindles in a 
 mill per loom used. 
 
 Emerson, p. 128, found 10.61 net horse-power driving a 
 ribbon and webbing mill having 73 tape looms, etc. 
 
 Emerson, p. 129, found at the Nelson Cotton Mill, 
 Winchendon, Mass., on denims, sheetings, and colored goods, 
 that 4 pickers used 28.70 horse-power; 64 cards used 40.64 
 horse-power; 2 drawing frames used 31.61 horse-power; 
 180 looms used 18.52 horse-power; and the shafting (24.8 
 per cent of the total load) was 39.33 horse-power; total 
 158.80 horse-power. The mill had 7300 spindles, or 46 
 per horse-power. 
 
 Emerson tested at Natick, R. I., in 1874 (p. 129), 10,364 
 
100 
 
 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 mule spindles and other machinery for making print goods, 
 using 263 horse-power or 39 spindles per horse-power. 
 
 At Putnam, Conn., in a mill with 5632 frame and 6768 
 mule spindles, 200 horse-power drove the mill, or 1 horse- 
 power drove 62 spindles (Emerson, p. 129). 
 
 A Janesville, Wis., cotton mill operated 330 sheeting 
 looms and preparation with a 539 horse-power New Ameri- 
 can turbine. 
 
 The Author has determined the power in the twenty- 
 three cotton mills named in the following table at simdry 
 times since 1896. The mills were on various fabrics and yarns. 
 
 Mill. 
 
 Place. 
 
 Spindles. 
 
 H.P. 
 
 Used. 
 
 Spindles 
 per h.p. 
 
 Millbury 
 
 Cordis 
 
 Millbury, Mass 
 
 12.842 
 6,800 
 16,000 
 13,000 
 35,864 
 15,680 
 50,000 
 43,436 
 16,000 
 42,160 
 14,000 
 24,500 
 17,357 
 95,000 
 32,832 
 41,920 
 46,954 
 19,136 
 42,640 
 119,000 
 52,000 
 
 181,618 
 99,656 
 
 275 
 
 257 
 
 325 
 
 325 
 
 1,000 
 
 250 
 
 1,500 
 
 1,250 
 
 365 
 
 1,200 
 
 380 
 
 700 
 
 450 
 
 2,100 
 
 800 
 
 S60 
 
 1,000 
 
 416 
 
 1,000 
 
 2,400 
 
 2,500 
 
 6,784 
 2,079 
 
 46.7 
 
 Millbury, Mass 
 
 26.4 
 
 Sutton 
 
 Saunders 
 
 Fisher 
 
 Farmersville, Mass 
 
 Rockdale, Mass 
 
 49.2 
 40.0 
 35.9 
 
 Farmersville . . . 
 Whitin 
 
 62.6 
 33.3 
 
 Blackstone .... 
 
 Ballou 
 
 Globe 
 
 Woonsocket, R. I 
 
 Woonsocket, R. I 
 
 Mannville, R. I 
 
 34.8 
 43.9 
 35.1 
 
 Eagle 
 
 36.9 
 
 Hamlet 
 
 Mannville 
 
 35.0 
 38.5 
 43.3 
 
 
 Albion, R. I 
 
 41.0 
 
 
 Ashton, R. I 
 
 48.7 
 
 No. 4 
 
 Lonsdale, R. I 
 
 47.0 
 
 No. 1 
 
 Lonsdale, R. I 
 
 46.0 
 
 Albion 
 
 Hamilton (1).. . 
 
 Valley Falls, R. I 
 
 Lowell, Mass 
 
 42.6 
 49.6 
 
 Appleton (2) . . . 
 
 Lowell, Mass 
 
 20 8 
 
 Tremont Suf- 
 folk (3) 
 
 Lowell, Mass 
 
 26 8 
 
 
 
 47 9 
 
 Total and a 
 
 
 
 1,038,395 
 
 28,216 
 
 36.7 
 
 (1) Prints; (2) naps and cotton flannels; (3) various. 
 
COTTON MILLS 
 
 It is to be observed that textile machinery of all kinds 
 is now operated at speeds thought to be impossible forty 
 years ago. The first important speeding was in 1870- 
 1880, while greater speeds are used to-day than in 1890. 
 Increased speeds mean more power expenditure per spindle. 
 In 1849, the Glasgow Mill at S. Hadley Falls, Mass. (see 
 p. 93) was allowed 55 spindles per horse-power on No. 14 
 yarn, while Webber found only 42 spindles to the horse- 
 power on this yarn in his tests of 1870-1880, showing the 
 change in thirty years due to speeding the machines. 
 
 Howard and Bullough, Whitin Machine Works, and other 
 manufacturers of cotton machinery publish tables showing 
 the net power claimed to be required to operate the various 
 machines in mills of to-day. Such tables are useful in 
 proportioning the mill provided a good margin is allowed in 
 the power plant installation. 
 
 " The friction load of the shafting, belting, etc., is not 
 to be lost sight of in making power calculations and varies 
 from 15 per cent, to 25 per cent, in modern mills, even 35 
 to 40 per cent, being by no means unheard of in old mills " 
 (Cramer's " Useful Information for Cotton Manufacturers," 
 Vol. 3, p. 1158). 
 
 " It is not out of place to call attention at this point to 
 a phase in the general subject of power required to drive. . . . 
 I refer to the well-known fact of the increased power required 
 at times to start up machinery when it is cold, this being 
 particularly noticeable on Monday mornings." 
 
 " Nor is it necessary to more than call attention to the 
 simple fact that the power required to drive machinery de- 
 pends upon its cleanliness, its being set level or plumb — its 
 alignment. Tables ... are on a basis of machines being 
 
102 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 properly set, oiled, cleaned, and otherwise cared for " (Ibid., 
 p. 1161). 
 
 PLASTER MILLS 
 
 In 1852, Ames operated a mill in Oswego, N. Y., pro- 
 ducing 20,000 barrels of " water lime " per year and 20,000 
 barrels of plaster. He employed 15 hands. 
 
 In 1870, Williams, at Ithaca, N. Y., used a 45 horse-power 
 Leffel wheel to drive a stone cracker in a plaster mill and a 
 run of 57-inch stones, and accompanying machinery, for 
 grinding the cracked stone into plaster. The product was 
 1 ton per hour. He stated that the wheel operated at half 
 gate. 
 
 Dewey and Stewart, Owosso, Mich., 1864, had a 38 
 horse-power Reynolds turbine, which they claimed would 
 grind 3 tons of plaster per hour. 
 
 PAPER MILLS 
 
 Wm. Rittinghuysen (now Rittenhouse), of Holland, 
 built the first paper mill in America at Roxborough, near 
 Philadelphia, on paper mill run, in 1690, using linen rags 
 and flax products as a stock. The first mill in New England 
 was at Milton, Mass., 1730. In 1750, " beaters " were 
 invented, in Holland, to " commingle rags into paper pulp." 
 In 1751, experiments were made for producing paper from 
 " suitable vegetables — as a substitute for rags." In 1756, 
 straw was used as a substitute for rags. In 1774, chlorine 
 gas was used for bleaching the paper stock, in place of ex- 
 posure to sunlight. In 1798, Robert of France invented 
 
PAPER MILLS 103 
 
 " a way to make, with one man and without fire, by means 
 of machines, sheets of paper of very large size, even 12 feet 
 wide and 50 feet long," and a patent was granted in 1800. 
 This was the beginning of paper making " in the web on 
 endless wire cloth." Two Englishmen, Henry and Sealy 
 Fourdrinier, aided by the engineering skill of Bryan Donkin, 
 "built and set up the first 'Fourdrinier' machine at Frog- 
 more in 1803, consisting of what is known as the ' wet end ' 
 of a machine." In 1801 Koop discovered a method of extract- 
 ing ink from old papers and using them for new paper 
 stock. In 1809, Dickinson, of England, invented the "cylin- 
 der machine " which competed with the Fourdrinier 
 " Instead of a traveling wire cloth," Dickinson " conceived 
 the plan of a polished, hollow brass cylinder, perforated with 
 holes and covered with wire cloth, which revolved over and 
 just in contact with the prepared pulp, sucking up the water 
 by rarefaction and leaving the filaments sufficiently strong 
 to be carried by the usual process to completion." In about 
 1820, the first paper machine was introduced into America, 
 probably at Gilpin's mill on the Brandywine. In 1821, 
 Crompton, of England, patented cylinders for drying and 
 finishing the paper, and shears to cut the paper into sheets. 
 Causon, of France, applied the suction box of Dickinson to 
 the Fourdrinier machine in 1826. Crompton and Miller 
 patented the slitter in 1826. Ibotson, of England, intro- 
 duced screens to separate " knots from paper stuff " in 
 1830. The dandy roll was invented by Wilks in 1830 " to 
 facilitate the escape of water from the pulp-web, previously 
 to its being subjected to the pressing rolls." In 1830, 
 Dickinson patented " a mode of making paper in two layers 
 or strata which were brought together on a second cylinder " 
 
104 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 thus making cardboard. In 1820, Gilpin patented calenders 
 to finish the paper's surface (Hardy's " Landmarks in 
 Paper Making"). 
 
 Nicholson's " Operative Mechanic and Machinist," 
 1826, p. 366, speaks of the cylinder in the " washer " and 
 also in the " beater," turning at 120 to 150 R.P.M. He 
 states that the Fourdrinier machine had already replaced 
 the hand sieve in forming the sheet. On p. 369 Nicholson 
 says, " The quantity of water which a paper mill can com- 
 mand to turn its engines, generally limits the extent of its 
 trade." 
 
 Oliver Evans, 1795, Part I, p. 121, gives, " The engine 
 of a paper mill, roll 2 feet diameter, 2 feet long, revolving 
 160 times in a minute, requires power equal to a 4-foot 
 stone grinding 5 bushels (of wheat) per hour." Evans 
 probably referred to a beating engine with a 2-foot roll, 
 2 feet long, cutting rag stock, and using 12 to 15 horse-power. 
 
 Gregory's " Mechanics," 1806, II, 190, gives a paper 
 mill using 1 ton of old rope per week, expending 300 pounds 
 at 390 feet per minute, or 3.54 horse-power, the mill opera- 
 ting from ten to twelve hours per day. He gives the equiv- 
 alent of 4.77 horse-power when 2 tons of rope stock are used. 
 This power is a theoretic deduction by Prof. Gregory, and 
 evidently relates to the work in the beater. 
 
 Emerson, 1894, p. 62, gives 67.11 as the power used in 
 1888 at Elkhart, Ind., by 4 beaters, washers, Jordan, 
 pumps, paper machine, rag cutter and duster, the product 
 being 1 ton per day of tissue paper at the Globe mill. 
 
 On p. 171, Emerson gave 55.36 horse-power as the 
 maximum power required to operate four beaters in a 4-ton 
 mill on manilla papers, using jute stock. 
 
PAPER MILLS 105 
 
 On p. 177, Emerson gave 258 net horse-power as used at 
 No. 1 Whiting mill, at Hoiyoke, for the production of 4 
 tons per day of fine writing paper, or 65 horse-power per 
 ton. 
 
 On pp. 177-178, Emerson gives the following for the 
 Housatonic mill of Smith Paper Co., Lee, Mass.: 800- 
 pound beaters on rag stock, 40-inch roll, 46 inches long, 
 15.25 horse-power; 300-pound beater on rag stock, roll 
 28 by 33 inches, 9.25 horse-power; 62-inch paper machine 
 at 61 feet minute, 8.9 horse-power, and at 78 feet minute, 
 10.8 horse-power; the auxiliaries to the machine used 4.1 
 horse-power. , 
 
 On p. 178, Emerson gave a 500-pound rag beater at the 
 Hoiyoke Paper Co.'s mill as using 80 horse-power. At 
 Fitchburg, Emerson found that three 450-pound beaters 
 (one used as a washer) and attached machinery used 49 
 horse-power. On page 179, a 450-pound beater is given 
 as using 13 horse-power. 
 
 The Pejepscott Paper Mills, Maine, used 3500 horse- 
 power of Risdon turbines driving 14 pulp wood grinders, 
 at 200 R.P.M., and producing 66.5 tons of ground wood 
 pulp per day, or 1 ton per 53 horse-power (about). Whit- 
 ham's tests at Fulton, Dexter, and Carthage, N. Y., gave a 
 ton of ground spruce wood pulp per day of twenty-four 
 hours by expending from 60 to 65 horse-power (1913- 
 1918). 
 
 Brownell, Ercildown, Pa., 1883, gave a 58-horse-power 
 Leffel wheel as operating three 600-pound beaters, 36-inch 
 roll, one 60-inch board machine, a pair of calender rolls, 
 and a centrifugal pump. 
 
 Bartley, p. 34, of " Wheel Book," 1886, gives 10 horse- 
 
106 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 power for a 350-pound beater, and 15 horse-power for 500 
 pounds. 
 
 The old Farrah " Sunny Dale " paper mill was built in 
 1815, and burned in 1850. It was immediately rebuilt, and 
 is still operating (1916). It is on Beaver Creek, a tributary 
 of the Brandywine. It has a 24-foot overshot wheel, 5 
 feet clear width, with buckets 10 inches deep, spaced 12 
 inches. The head is 33 inches. The sluice gate, 4.5 feet 
 wide, is usually lifted from 6 to 8 inches. The wheel makes 
 about 7 R.P.M. The power is about 55 horse-power. 
 The mill operates a rope cutter, and a 300-pound beater- 
 washer. The 36-inch cylinder paper machine is operated 
 by a 12-horse-power steam engine. There is a stationary 
 ragboiler. The product is 20 reams of tissue paper, or 
 200 pounds per twenty-four hours. The total power is 
 about 67 horse-power (Hanby). 
 
 The Crane upper and lower mills, Westfield, Mass. 
 (1911), used 500 horse-power of turbines and engines to 
 produce 4 tons of fine writing paper per day from new, 
 bleached linen collar and shirt trimmings (Whitham). 
 
 The Worthy paper mill, Mittineague, Mass. (1911), 
 produced 4 tons of bond and ledger paper daily with 336 
 horse-power using rags and sulphite stocks (Whitham). 
 
 Mittineague mills 1 and 2 (1911) made 14.8 tons of fine 
 writings daily with 1520 horse-power using cotton rags 
 (Whitham). 
 
 The Collins mill, at N. Wilbraham, Mass., 1902, made 7 
 tons of fine writings daily, from rags and sulphite, with 790 
 horse-power (Whitham). 
 
 The grant of 1818 to Caswell, at Watertown, N; Y., 
 was a lot 66 feet wide and water " sufficient to carry a paper 
 
WATER RIGHTS OF LINSEED OIL MILL 107 
 
 mill." The amount of water thus granted has not been 
 determined. A subsequent owner, in 1853, sold half of the 
 water rights, defining this half as 4 runs of stones. 
 
 It is probable that this 1818 mill had a rag duster and 
 cutter, a small beater (used also as a washer), pumps, hand 
 sieves for forming the sheets, and a power press. The shaft- 
 ing was no doubt costly in power. The wheels available 
 for use at the site and time were inefficient. No doubt 
 there are many such indefinite paper grants requiring 
 adjudication, 
 
 WATER RIGHTS OF A FLAX OR LINSEED OIL MILL 
 
 Fred. C. Rogers for twenty years operated probably the 
 last country oil mill in New York, or down to 1892. It was 
 on Oatka creek, about 1.5 miles south of LeRoy. The mill 
 operated by a 48 and a 39-inch Rose wheel, 7 foot-head, 
 40 horse-power, total rating. 
 
 In the operat on of the mill a continuous stream of 
 flax seed (weighing 56 pounds per bushel) fed a pair of 8 
 by 8 inch metal-crushing rolls, which flattened, but did not 
 grind the seed, and took about 5 horse-power. 
 
 The crushed seeds were fed to the grinder, or chaser, 
 consisting of a flat, stationary stone, over which revolved 
 a heavy edge stone, or grinder, traveling around a vertical 
 shaft, and revolving in a vertical plane. It used from 
 7 to 8 horse-power. 
 
 The ground seed was then fed into an oven, having 
 agitators, where it was cooked. The agitators took about 
 3 horse-power. 
 
 The cooked oil meal was then put into a hydraulic 
 
108 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 press, 70 pounds or 1.25 bushels at a time, and pressed to a 
 final intensity of 400 tons to the square inch. This removed 
 the oil. The press took about 8 to 10 horse-power. The 
 oil cake, or residue, was broken and ground in a steel mill 
 using from 12 to 15 horse-power. The mill used from 
 35 to 40 horse-power and handled about 2.5 bushels per hour, 
 yielding about 2 gallons of linseed oil to the bushel. 
 
 Fairbairn's " Mills and Millwork," 1878, 4th Ed., p. 506, 
 gives an excellent description of an oil mill. This book 
 was written in 1841 (p. 573). 
 
 Tomlinson, London, 1854, in his " Cyclopaedia of Arts," 
 p. 332, Vol. II, illustrates an oil mill, as does, also Knight's 
 "Amer. Mech. Diet.," 1876, II, 1550. 
 
 Moore, 1880, p. 441, gives 6000 pounds for the weight of 
 the edge runner or grinder in an oil mill, turned about a 
 central vertical shaft at 10 R. P. M. He fed 55 lbs. of 
 seed every ten minutes, and thus crushed 3300 pounds per 
 twelve hours, producing 1320 pounds of oil. He gives 
 only 2.72 horse-power as being expended, which is wrong, 
 as is evident from a study of Rogers' mill. 
 
 Beardmore, p. 20, quotes Rennie's test of a water wheel 
 at an oil mill. The fall was 15.5 feet; the rim speed of the 
 wheel 270.5 feet per minute; diameter, 16 feet; breadth 
 2.5 feet; buckets 9 inches deep; the head gate was opened 
 18 by 4 inches; and 194.4 cubic feet of water per minute 
 was used, producing 5.73 " nominal " horse-power.* 
 
 Wait, 1871, gives his No. 27 Champion turbine, 6-foot 
 head, 5.9 horse-power to run a " flax mill." 
 
 * A " nominal " horse-power is indefinite, meaning one thing at one time 
 or place and something quite different at another. So far as the Author has 
 been able to identify it, a nominal horse-power is from 2.5 to 7 actual horse- 
 power. (Molesworth, p. 483; Fairbairn, p. 456). 
 
PART TWO 
 
 ORIFICE OR APERTURE GRANTS OF WATER POWER 
 
 There are many aperture grants of water rights. Thus, 
 at Cohoes, N. Y., a " mill power " was formerly 100 square 
 inches of water taken through " an aperture in a thin plate, 
 50 inches wide by 2 inches deep, and under a head of 3 feet 
 from the surface of the water to the center of the aperture." 
 In 1859, experiments gave 5.9 cubic feet per second discharge. 
 This was agreed upon, by the contracting parties, as 6 
 cubic feet second, as a new standard, which, when used 
 under 20-foot head, is known as a " mill power," or 13.63 
 gross horse-power, or 10.91 net horse-power with 80 per 
 cent efficient wheels. The annual rental for such a mill 
 power was $200 per year, including the site of the mill. 
 The coefficient of discharge was found to be 62 per cent 
 (" 10th U. S. Census, 1800, Part I, 366"). 
 
 The water power company at Windsor Locks, Conn., 
 chartered in 1824, leased the flow through an orifice of 1 
 square inch, in a thin vertical plate, under a 30-inch head 
 at $2.50 yearly rental. The contraction being complete, 
 the discharge is 0.05425 cubic foot second, which, under a 
 head of 20 feet, amounts to 0.123 gross horse-power. The 
 coefficient of discharge is 62 per cent. The heads at Windsor 
 Locks range from 30 to 27 feet (Ibid., 219). 
 
 109 
 
110 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 At Unionville, Conn., developed 1830, the original 
 leases were for a square foot aperture under a certain head. 
 The lessors claimed that the aperture should be standard, 
 i.e., with sharp edges, while the lessees claimed that the edges 
 should be rounded. At this place there are two 18-foot 
 canal levels, or 36 feet total fall. A " mill power " is 1\ 
 cubic feet per second under 18 feet, or 15.34 gross horse- 
 power (Ibid., 246). 
 
 At Birmingham, Conn., the water grants were for a 
 rectangular aperture of 144 square inches with a head of 
 12 inches above its center. This is called 5 cubic feet second, 
 and was sold for twelve hours per day, six days per week, 
 under the head of 22 feet, so that a mill power there is 12| 
 gross horse-power. The coefficient of discharge is taken 
 as 62.5 per cent. The first or permanent water was sold 
 for $250 yearly rental, and the first surplus $100 (Ibid., pp. 
 312-318). 
 
 At Ansonia, Conn., a mill power was the flow through 
 an aperture of 1 square foot, under a 30-inch head, and 
 amounts to 30 gross horse-power under 33 feet. It was 
 leased for $600 yearly rental for permanent, and from 
 $250 to $500 rental for surplus powers. The coefficient of 
 discharge is 62 per cent (Ibid., pp. 318, 319). 
 
 At Dexter, N. Y., several aperture grants were made, 
 in the early days, the apertures being 3 feet square, or frac- 
 tions thereof. A recent decision * on these grants found 
 that — 
 
 "Where a grant has been held to be of so much water as 
 would pass through a prescribed aperture under all the head 
 
 * Dexler Sulphite Pulp and Paper Co., vs. Jefferson Power Co., ct al., 
 179 N. Y., A. D., 332. 
 
ORIFICE GRANTS OF WATER POWER 111 
 
 available, a judgment requiring defendant to take such water 
 through a standard rectangular aperture of metal with square 
 edges, which was to open into a well-secured and tight flume 
 or bulkhead, was proper, since the grant was not capable 
 of interpretation in terms of a constant flow of a given 
 amount of water, because it fixed no definite head, and the 
 effect of the prescribed aperture would regulate the flow 
 to the defendant's whee's accordingly, the aperture being 
 a standard orifice the character of which was presumably- 
 known to hydraulic engineers at the time when the grant 
 was originally made to the defendant." 
 
 This Dexter decision means that the owner of the 'aper- 
 ture grant must make the aperture standard, with sharp 
 edges, and without ajutage effect. He may draw such 
 waters through this standard aperture for use by his wheels 
 as is practicable at his mill. 
 
 The Schuylkill Navigation Co. vs. Moore, 2 Wharton, 
 477, tried in 1837, related to " the privilege of drawing from 
 the canal ... so much water as can pass through two 
 metallic apertures, one of 50 square inches, and the other 
 250 square inches, respectively, under a head of 3 feet, to 
 be measured from the middle of each of the said apertures, 
 respectively, to the face of the water of the said canal . . . 
 
 " The defendant applied to the aperture a certain conical 
 tube, called an ajutage, by which the flow of the water was 
 enlarged. It appeared that this invention was known to 
 persons conversant with hydraulics, and to some of the 
 officers of the Navigation Company before the making of 
 the contract. Held that the true construction of the con- 
 tract was, that the water was to be drawn in the ordinary 
 way, and that the defendent had no right to increase the 
 
112 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 flow by means of an ajutage." These were water grants 
 of 1828, at the rate of $6 per inch of aperture. 
 
 "Ajutage, a tube fitted to the mouth of a vessel for the 
 purpose of modifying the discharge of water." (Appleton's 
 Diet, of Mechanics and Engr., 1852 ) 
 
 " If a cylindrical orifice is in a partition whose thickness 
 is equal to two and one-half or three times the diameter of 
 the orifice; or if the orifice is a tube of length equal to from 
 two and one-half to three interior diameters, then the orifice 
 is termed a short tube, or ajutage. The sides of short tubes 
 may be parallel, divergent, or convergent." (Art. 225, 
 Fanning.) 
 
 An aperture grant, unless otherwise qualified, means that 
 the water is to be taken through a standard orifice of the size 
 defined or prescribed, the edges being sharp, no adjutage effect 
 obtaining, and the discharge coefficient being about 62 per cent. 
 
 Ajutage effect has been well known for at least nineteen 
 hundred years, having been illegally used by the Romans 
 for increasing the flow of water (Eubank, also Herschel's 
 " Frontinus "). 
 
 To avoid ajutage effect, or " To secure complete con- 
 traction the orifice should be placed at a distance from the 
 sides and bottom of the tank not less than three times the 
 width of the orifice; and in order that the effect of the veloc- 
 ity of approach may be inappreciable the area of the orifice 
 should not exceed one-twentieth of the cross-section of the 
 tank " (Turneaure and Russell's " Hydraulics," 1901, 
 p. 216). 
 
COEFFICIENT OF DISCHARGE 
 
 113 
 
 COEFFICIENT OF DISCHARGE THROUGH STANDARD 
 
 ORIFICES 
 
 A standard orifice is one with square, sharp edges in 
 which ajutage effect is suppressed. " An orifice so formed 
 that the escaping liquid only touches its inner edge is termed 
 a standard orifice, and, on account of the regularity of the 
 results given by such orifices, they are used wherever 
 practicable, for the measurement of water. The object 
 to be attained by a ' standard orifice ' is to reduce the sur- 
 face of contact of the jet with the vessel as nearly as possible 
 to a line, and this result is attained — either by making the 
 orifice in a thin plate or by leaving the inner edge a sharp 
 corner and beveling the outer edge of the orifice" (Alger, 
 pp. 92-95). 
 
 " The standard orifice " is defined " to signify that the 
 opening is so arranged that the water in flowing from it 
 touches only a line, as would be the case in a plate of no 
 thickness. Generally the head of water on an orifice is 
 at least three or four times its vertical height" (Merri- 
 man, 1900, art. 34). 
 
 The coefficients of discharge for standard circular orifices 
 are given as follows: 
 
 
 Per Cent. 
 
 
 Per Cent. 
 
 
 61.7-67.3 
 69.2 
 61.8 
 60.7-61.9 
 
 Ellis... . 
 
 57 3 61 5 
 
 
 
 61 -61-5 
 
 Eytlewein 
 
 
 61 9 
 
 Michelotti 
 
 
 
 
 
 The coefficients of discharge for standard square orifices 
 are given as follows: 
 
114 
 
 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 
 Per Cent. 
 
 
 Per Cent. 
 
 Michelotti 
 
 60.2-61.9 
 
 61.6 
 
 65.5 
 
 57.2-60.5 
 
 62.5 
 
 
 57.2-60 5 
 
 
 Smith 
 
 59 9-61 6 
 
 
 Venturi 
 
 63.1 
 
 
 Dr. Young 
 
 64 
 
 Tredgold 
 
 Alger 
 
 61 
 
 
 
 The coefficients of discharge for _standard rectangular 
 orifices are given as follows: 
 
 Bidome ..... 
 
 Boffnet 
 
 John Banks. . 
 Michelotti. . . 
 Helfham. . . . 
 
 Brincley 
 
 Smeaton. . . . 
 Lispinasse . . . 
 
 Pin 
 
 Isaac Newton 
 
 Poncelet 
 
 Lebros 
 
 Per Cent. 
 
 62-62.6 
 
 .5 
 
 .2 
 
 .5 
 
 .5 
 
 .1 
 
 .1 
 
 59.4-64 
 59.4-64 
 70.7 
 59.6-69 
 59.6-69 
 
 61. 
 67. 
 62. 
 70. 
 63. 
 63. 
 
 Weisbach 
 
 Jackson 
 
 Ey tlewein 
 
 Neville 
 
 Downing 
 
 Perry 
 
 Turneaure and Russell 
 
 Fanning 
 
 Merriman 
 
 Trautwine 
 
 Mead 
 
 Bellasis 
 
 Per Cent. 
 
 61-62 
 
 62.5 
 
 62.1 
 
 62 
 
 62.5 
 
 62 
 
 62 
 
 60.1-62.7 
 
 59-63 
 
 62 
 
 62 
 
 62 
 
 The courts used 62 per cent in 82 Wis. 437, 444; 30 Me. 
 433, 436-7; 45 Pa. State, 61; 2 Wharton (Pa.), 477; etc. 
 
 A coefficient of discharge of 62 per cent is generally recog- 
 nized by hydraulic engineers as holding for sharp-edged orifices 
 whether circular, square or rectangular, when constructed 
 to avoid ajutage effect, i.e., for " standard " apertures. While 
 not absolutely exact for all sizes of openings and heads, it is 
 practically correct. For the setting of a standard orifice 
 so as to avoid ajutage effect, see p. 128. 
 
 The coefficient of discharge is the ratio of the actual to 
 the theoretical flow through an orifice under the vertical 
 
COEFFICIENT OF DISCHARGE 115 
 
 head measured from the surface of the water in the reservoir 
 or flume down to the center of the opening. 
 
 The flow is determined by multiplying the area of open- 
 ing by the velocity through it. The velocity is, theoretically, 
 the square root of the product of twice the acceleration due 
 to gravity and the head, or V2gh. The acceleration of 
 gravity being 32.2, 2g is 64.4, and \/2gh is \/64.4/i, or 
 8.02\//i. Thus, for a 4-foot head, the theoretical spouting 
 . velocity is 8.02 xV4, or 16.04 feet per second. 
 
 The theoretical discharge through an orifice 1.5 feet 
 square under a 4-foot head is 16.04x1.5x1.5=36.09 cubic 
 feet per second. If the contraction is complete, so that the 
 coefficient of discharge is 62 per cent, then the actual flow 
 is 0.62 x 36.09 or 22.4 cubic feet second. 
 
 " The word orifice always signifies an opening, the upper 
 side of which is covered with the liquid in the feeding 
 reservoir: when not qualified it means an opening pierced 
 in a thin wall, the escaping jet only touching the regular 
 line formed by the inner edge or corner with perfect interior 
 contractions" (Hamilton Smith, 1886, p. 5). 
 
 " A rounded interior edge in an orifice is therefore always 
 a source of error where the object of the orifice is the measure- 
 ment of the discharge" (Merriman, 1900, p. 90). 
 
 COEFFICIENT OF DISCHARGE THROUGH BULKHEAD 
 
 GATES 
 
 It is difficult to construct a bulkhead gate at the head of 
 a canal, or flume, or at the entrance to a forebay, " stand- 
 ard." There is bound to be more or less ajutage effect, or 
 a greater or less suppression of the contraction. Accordingly 
 
116 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 the coefficient of discharge is usually greater than 62 per 
 cent. The gate may be constructed to approach and even 
 exceed 100 per cent of the theoretic discharge due to the 
 head. 
 
 Robt. E. Horton found that the head gates of the v 
 so-called mammoth flume in Watertown, N. Y., in 1915, 
 had a discharge coefficient of 82 per cent, and that the 
 velocity of approach in the pond increased the coefficient 
 to 90 per cent. 
 
 The bulkhead gates at the north end of the middle dam 
 in Little Falls, N. Y., have a coefficient of discharge of about 
 95 per cent, including the velocity of approach. 
 
 Trautwine gives 80 per cent discharge coefficient for 
 suppressed contractions (1907, p. 544), while Mead (1908, 
 p. 43) gives 98 or even 99 per cent. Bellasis (1903, p. 46) 
 gives 100 per cent for complete and 81 per cent for half- 
 suppression of the contraction. 
 
 " Two orifices adjacent, separated by a narrow bar, 
 discharge more than the two considered separately because 
 of mutual velocity influences. When the width of bar is 
 less than the least dimension of the orifices the discharge 
 will nearly equal that thru an orifice of area and form 
 like orifices and bar combined less that of an orifice of area 
 and form equal to the bar with contractions supprest next 
 the orifices" (" Amer. C.E. Pocket Book," 1911, p. 842). 
 
 Eytlewein found that openings in the shape of the con- 
 tracted vein had 96.9 per cent discharge coefficient, and for 
 wide openings with the bottom on a level with the reservoir, 
 or sluices with walls in a line with the orifice, the coefficient 
 is 96.1 per cent (Gregory, pp. 268-9). 
 
 Reynolds gave 96.25 per cent discharge coefficient for 
 
COEFFICIENT OF DISCHARGE 117 
 
 gates without contraction (p. 11), Molesworth, 96 per cent 
 (23d Ed., p. 275), and Tredgold, 97.5 per cent (p. 193). 
 
 No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down for the discharge 
 coefficient of a head gate. The range is from 62 to 98 per cent, 
 and the figure to be used is known only when the form of con- 
 struction is given. 
 
 COEFFICIENT OF DISCHARGE FOR GATES AT, AND AD- 
 MITTING WATER ONTO FLUTTER, UNDERSHOT, 
 BREAST AND OVERSHOT WHEELS 
 
 The coefficient varies with the design and construction 
 of the wheel gate and its relation or position with reference 
 to the wheel. Such gates are usually made with contrac- 
 tions suppressed at the bottom and sides of the openings, 
 and partially or entirely at the tops. The openings are wide 
 and shallow, the gate lift being relatively small, so as to 
 give a thin stream suitable for striking or entering the 
 wheel buckets. 
 
 After passing the gate the water feeding an overshot 
 wheel usually traverses a short, sloping apron, sometimes 
 expanding in width, the fall along the apron partially or 
 entirely neutralizing its resistance. 
 
 An undershot wheel usually has a gate close to the 
 buckets, constructed to practically suppress the contraction, 
 while the fall in the chute, from the gate to the bucket, 
 balances the chute's resistance. 
 
 The breast wheel's gate is set against the buckets and 
 contraction is suppressed. The discharge drops into the 
 empty buckets. 
 
 Where the contraction is complete the discharge coefficient 
 
118 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 is 62 per cent. Where the contraction is completely suppressed 
 the coefficient is nearly 100 per cent. With the contraction 
 half suppressed the coefficient of discharge is about midway 
 between 62 and 100 per cent, or about 81 per cent. With the 
 contraction three-fourths suppressed the coefficient is about 
 90 per cent. 
 
 Mahan's " Breese," p. 57, gives 95 per cent as the dis- 
 charge coefficient for these wheels, as does Grier, pp. 211-2. 
 These are for contractions suppressed. 
 
 Scribner, p. 157, and Haswell, 1854, p. 176, give 81.25 
 per cent for the coefficient; Spon, 80.3 per cent; Tredgold, 
 86.25 ; and Appleton, 89 per cent, the contraction not being 
 fully suppressed. 
 
 Reynolds gives 66.7 to 75 per cent; Overman, 67 per 
 cent; Byrne and Templeton, 67.5 per cent; and Leonard, 
 68.8 per cent for the coefficient of discharge for these wheel 
 gates, the contractions being, of course, but partially sup- 
 pressed. 
 
 Builders of the Smith, Eureka, Wilson, Dolan, Chris- 
 tianna and other turbines, in their wheel books, mention 
 62 or 63 per cent as the coefficient of discharge for over- 
 shot wheels — on the assumption, of course, that the con- 
 traction of the wheel gate is complete. 
 
 Flutter wheels are gated like an undershot, and their 
 coefficient of discharge is usually about 95 per cent. 
 
COEFFICIENT OF DISCHARGE 119 
 
 COEFFICIENT OF DISCHARGE FOR TUB, FLAT-VANED, 
 CENTRAL-DISCHARGE, SCROLL-CASE WHEELS, AND 
 OTHER WHEELS SUPPLIED BY TAPERED SPOUTS 
 
 These wheels have spouts tapering to a throat at the 
 wheel. The sides of the spout are inclined at about 14 
 degrees. 
 
 Jas. Emerson, 1894 Ed., 152, says, "One of the com- 
 monest and easiest turns which we see given to water is 
 in the scroll of an ordinary wooden wheel. Supposing this 
 scroll to be 72 inches in diameter with a 12-inch spout 
 leading to it; that is, the diameter of the scroll is 6 times 
 that of the spout and the velocity of the water 25 feet per 
 second (= 10 foot-head). To maintain this velocity requires 
 an additional head of 2.5 feet, but as this loss is hidden by 
 the reduced velocity of the water caused by its impact on 
 the buckets, and also rapidly grows less with its reduced 
 velocity ... It is very generally ignored and sometimes 
 denied altogether." 
 
 This quotation means that the coefficient of discharge is 
 89.3 per cent. Emerson does not here mention the spout 
 as being tapered. 
 
 The Willimansett tapered spout experiments by Emerson, 
 given on p. 36, showed 91.39 per cent discharge coefficient. 
 They were made with one-eighth models of a spout 10 feet 
 long, having its throat 32 by 36 inches at the lower end, 
 and mouth 36 by 48 inches at the upper end, as used at 
 Plattsburg, N. Y., for a tub wheel. 
 
 Bennett's " D'Aubuisson," pp. 407-410, found 95 per 
 cent discharge coefficient for a tapered spout. 
 
 Reynolds, p. 12, gives, "A central discharge wheel 
 
120 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 receiving the water through a spout into a scroll case, and 
 discharging through openings four times the size of the 
 spout, has been made to pass 90 per cent as much water as 
 would be discharged through the best formed ajutage under 
 the same head into the open air." 
 
 Molesworth, p. 275, gives 94 per cent discharge coefficient 
 for a taper spout, or converging mouthpiece, the sides being 
 inclined at 13.5 degrees. 
 
 Alcott, p. 75, for converging, conical spouts, with length 
 three times the diameter, gives 94 per cent discharge coef- 
 ficient. 
 
 Wilson, p. 54, gives the discharge coefficient for wheels 
 with tapered spouts as nearly 100 per cent. 
 
 " A rule for determining the flow of water per second 
 through a spout from a flume as adopted in Hartwell vs. 
 Mutual Life Ins. Co., 50 Hun, 497, 3. N. Y. Supp. 452, was 
 to multiply the square root in the number of feet in the head 
 by 8.025, and multiply this result by the square feet of the 
 area of discharge, and the result was the cubic feet per 
 second" (Farnham on " Waters and Water Rights," 
 III, 2292-2294). 
 
 COEFFICIENT OF DISCHARGE FOR TURBINES 
 
 The coefficient to be applied to the smallest throat or 
 discharge openings in a turbine, in order to determine the 
 volume of flow through it, due to the head of water, is 
 given by builders, as follows: 
 
 Leffel, Poole and Hunt, Success, Reliance and Trump 
 wheels, 60 per cent; Victor and North American, 64 per 
 
COEFFICIENT OF DISCHARGE 121 
 
 cent; Adams or Warren, 62 per cent; Reynolds, 55 per 
 cent; Chase, 62.3 per cent; Wilson, 62.5 per cent; Bodine- 
 Jonval, 63 per cent; and Wemple, 52.5 per cent. 
 
 Jas. Emerson, 1894, p. 42, gives, " There are turbine 
 builders who suppose that their wheels discharge the full 
 quantity theoretically due their openings, while those call- 
 ing themselves engineers generally believe the discharge of 
 such wheels to invariably be about 60 per cent due their 
 openings, when in fact the discharge of turbines varies all the 
 way from 35 to 100 per cent, and in special cases perhaps 
 still more." 
 
 On p. 67, Emerson says, " There is an idea that turbines 
 discharge 60 per cent of the theoretical quantity due their 
 openings. The idea originated from obsolete wheels of the 
 Fourneyron type. Of the modern wheels I have had care of 
 tabling hundreds, yet have never known of one reaching 55 
 per cent of its openings; 52 perhaps is a fair average, 49 
 about all that the American can do." 
 
 Emerson, p. 101, also states that " The discharge of a 
 turbine in proportion to its openings depends upon its 
 construction. 
 
 " With those of a central discharge it is the least; with 
 such wheels of fair efficiency it is likely to range between 
 40 and 50 per cent; with outward discharge, 60 per cent 
 and upwards; while with those discharging the water down- 
 ward, it averages about 55 per cent. 
 
 " The chutes of a curb are made much larger at their 
 outer then their inner ends, consequently, can pass much 
 more water than the wheel will discharge, though the open- 
 ings of the wheel may be somewhat the largest, so that the 
 openings of the wheel govern the discharge." 
 
122 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 Emerson tests of a Tyler turbine, in 1873, showed 51 and 
 52 per cent discharge coefficient (p. 212). 
 
 At Holyoke, flume tests show from about 50 to 62 per 
 cent discharge coefficients. The author found from 52 to 
 55 per cent for several different types of turbines he has 
 measured during the past twenty years. R. E. Horton 
 gives from 40 to 60 per cent (" W. S. and I. P.," 180, p. 90). 
 
 GRANTS OF INCHES OF WATER 
 
 It has already been shown that when a water grant is 
 defined as an aperture of a given, definite size, a discharge 
 coefficient of 62 per cent is to be applied, while it must be a 
 standard orifice with complete contraction, and without a 
 trace of ajutage. The discharge is such as can be reason- 
 ably obtained through said aperture, with its discharge coef- 
 ficient, for the head prevailing. That is, an aperture 
 grant compels the use of a given sized aperture and none 
 other, in a " well-secured and tight flume or bulkhead." 
 The amount of water granted is limited and controlled by 
 the actual use of the aperture defined in the grant.* 
 
 On the other hand, when a grant is made of so many 
 inches of water for a particular locality, the inches are used 
 simply as a convenient measure of the quantity granted, and 
 not as a definition of any particular orifice required to be 
 used.f 
 
 In the early days, say up to 1850, millwrights measured 
 the use of water or the power needed by the throat and the 
 
 * Dexter Sulphite Pulp and Paper Co. vs. Jefferson Power Co., et al., 179 
 N. Y., A. D., 332. 
 
 f Palmer vs. Angel, 69 Hun, 471; 23 N. Y Supp. 397. 
 
GRANTS OF INCHES OF. WATER 123 
 
 head on the throat feeding a tub, flutter, or other primitive 
 type of wheel used. Such throats were usually made with 
 contractions nearly or fully suppressed, and with close to 
 100 per cent discharge coefficients. It became known to 
 millwrights and mill men that so many inches of throat 
 under such a head would drive a saw, or a run of stones, etc. 
 The power and water used were measured by the inches of 
 throat and head, rather than by horse-power or cubic feet 
 per second. 
 
 When a new wheel, say a turbine, was offered to perform 
 the same or more work, it was restricted to the use of no 
 greater number of inches of water than prevailed for the more 
 primitive wheel. In this way it became necessary for tur- 
 bine builders to rate their wheels in inches of water. 
 
 " Our correspondence indicates a frequent misapprehen- 
 sion of the meaning of the term ' square inches of water 
 vented.' Some think that in a (turbine) wheel said to use 
 ' 100 square inches of water ' it is meant that the entire 
 area of the chute apertures measure 100 square inches; 
 others think the meaning to be that the entire area of the 
 discharge aperture is 100 square inches. Neither of these 
 views is correct, but the meaning is that the theoretical 
 discharge under any head, due to the aperture measuring 
 100 square inches in cross-section, would equal the actual 
 discharge of the (turbine) wheel under the same head. A 
 ' square inch of water ' means a stream exactly 1 inch square, 
 and equal in length to the theoretical velocity in feet per second 
 due to the head from under which it issues. For a head of 
 4 feet this length would be 16.04 feet per second; for a head 
 of 10 feet, 25.36 feet per second" (Victor " Turbine Book " 
 1887, p. 23). 
 
124 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 " The square inches at the head of each turbine table 
 show the area of an opening which would theoretically dis- 
 charge the given quantity of water under the given head" 
 (Hercules, p. 22; see Leffel, 1894, p. 23; also, Reynolds, 
 p. 13, and Success, p. 26). 
 
 " It is the custom of most water wheel (turbine) manu- 
 facturers to publish upon their tables the 'number of square 
 inches ' each size wheel vents or uses. This has caused 
 much discussion among millwrights and others as to what 
 is the proper way to measure a (turbine) wheel, some claim- 
 ing that the measure is correct, for upon some powers where 
 the water is leased, it being specified that they leased a certain 
 number of ' square inches ' (the leases having been made when 
 there were no other wheels used upon the stream than the old 
 ' wooden central discharge,' and the customary way being 
 to measure the throat or inlet) ; thus good turbines have been 
 barred out, through the ignorance of the parties interested, 
 because the apertures measured more than the lease called 
 for, when the turbine would have done the same amount of 
 work with one-half the water used by the central discharge 
 whose throat had the required area. The term 'square inches a 
 wheel vents or uses,' is usually, or at least in our case has 
 been determined by measuring the water in the tail race after 
 it had passed through the wheel, finding the number of 
 cubic feet passed per minute, and then computing the size 
 stream required discharged into the open air (without any 
 other resistance) to discharge this amount, and the area of 
 the cross-section of this stream was the number of square 
 inches used by the wheel" (J. C. Wilson, p. 54). 
 
 " The vent of turbines, as usually expressed, is the area of 
 an orifice which would, under any given head, theoretically 
 
GEANTS OF INCHES OF WATER 125 
 
 discharge the same quantity of water that is vented or passed 
 through a turbine under that same head when the wheel is 
 so loaded as to be running at maximum efficiency" (R. E. 
 Horton, "W. S. and I. P." No. 180, p. 89). 
 
 " Manufacturers formerly gave the vent of their wheels 
 in conjunction with the rating tables, and water privileges 
 are often deeded in terms of the right to use a certain number 
 of 'square inches of water' from a stream or power canal. 
 As commonly interpreted this implies no definite coefficient 
 of contraction, the owner being entitled to use as much water 
 as can flow naturally through an orifice of a given area, under 
 the existing head. The limiting value of the coefficient of 
 discharge is unity" (Ibid.). 
 
 " In the use of scroll wheels, fed by short flumes leading 
 out of the race ways, and having a contracted rectangular 
 throat, the ventage agrees more or less closely with the area 
 of the throat" (Ibid.). 
 
 " The vent of a turbine should not be confused with 
 the area of the outlet orifice of the buckets. The actual 
 discharge through a turbine is commonly from 40 to 60 
 per cent of the theoretical discharge of an orifice whose area 
 equals the combined cross-sectional areas of the outlet 
 ports measured in the narrowest section" (Ibid.). 
 
 " Another early modification of the rouet consisted in 
 placing the runner in a spiral case as shown in Plate III (g). 
 Such wheels drew water from the flume by means of a short 
 tapering spout. Spent water was discharged at the top and 
 bottom of the case around the shaft. This type of wheel 
 is known as a scroll-case or central-discharge wheel. They 
 may be operated entirely by impulse or by combined action 
 according to the arrangement of the vanes and the size of 
 
126 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 the inflow and outflow openings in the case. Simple wooden 
 and iron wheels of this type were more extensively used than 
 any other form of water wheel in central and northern 
 New York at one time, and the use of this type, the case 
 having a tapering throat in which the gate was placed, has 
 apparently given rise to the use of the term ' square inches ' 
 in defining water rights, it being customary in deeding water 
 rights to provide for enough water for such a wheel having 
 throat section of a certain number of square inches area. The 
 corresponding quantity of water was substantially equal to the 
 theoretical flow through an orifice of the same size y without 
 contraction, in the wheels operating by impulse" (R. E. 
 Horton's Lecture on Turbine Water Wheel as a Prime 
 Mover, at Potsdam, N. Y., 1909). 
 
 " A square inch of water means a stream exactly an 
 inch square, its length depending upon the head from which 
 it issues; for a head of 4 feet, it means a stream an inch 
 square, 16.04 feet in length, per second; for a head of 
 100 feet, a stream an inch square, 80.35 feet in length, 
 per second. To turn this into cubic feet, multiply by 12, 
 than divide by 1728" (Emerson, 1878, p. 22; see, also, 
 Grimshaw's " The Miller, Millwright and Mill Furnisher/' 
 1882). 
 
 Emerson illustrated this rule by a reference to North 
 Sunderland, Mass., where a grant of 15 inches of water under 
 62-foot head meant 65.77 cubic feet per second (Ibid., 
 p. 20). 
 
 From an engineering standpoint the grant of " inches of 
 water " means the theoretical discharge through a non-con- 
 tracted orifice of the size designated under the head obtaining, 
 the coefficient of discharge being substantially 100 per cent. 
 
GRANTS OF INCHES OP WATER 127 
 
 On the other hand the courts do not generally recognize 
 this definition as established, and when a grant is construed 
 in accordance with the engineering definition, the decision 
 is based upon practical construction and use, rather than 
 upon the engineering basis, as shown by the two cases now 
 to be cited. 
 
 In the case of Palmer vs. Angel, 69 Hun, 471 ; 23 N. Y. 
 Supp. 397, a grant of 1863 was for the right to tap a race 
 way at a certain location and lead water therefrom to the 
 grantee's mill, " also, the right to use, from the race way 
 — 600 inches of water for the purpose of carrying their mills 
 and machinery." The grantor agreed to furnish the water 
 at all times, after reserving 500 inches for his own use. The 
 grantee could obtain up to 200 inches of additional waters 
 at $1.50 per inch. In or before 1865, the grantee bought the 
 additional 200 inches, making 800 inches total as his right. 
 The point in dispute was as to where the water should be 
 measured. The grantor wanted the measurement made at 
 the location where his race was tapped by the grantee. 
 The grantee wanted the measurement made at his wheels. 
 The court cited Cromwell vs. Selden, 3 N. Y. 253; Wakely 
 vs. Davidson, 26 N. Y. 387; Groat vs. Moak, 94 N. Y. 115; 
 Mudge vs. Salisbury, 110 N. Y. 413, stating that in them 
 the water grants were of power — power for saw, grist or other 
 mills, and " the amount of water was measured by the power 
 that was granted." 
 
 " In this (present) case the parties have no specified 
 power granted, but have a specified quantity of water. While 
 the water mentioned in the grant here was, of course, 
 intended to be used for the purpose of producing power, 
 yet the amount of power was not specified, but the amount 
 
128 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 of water was. ... It is not water sufficient to operate a 
 given number of wheels, or water sufficient to operate the 
 mill, but of 800 inches of water. The grant is ' of the right 
 to use from the race way.' The grantor ' agrees to furnish 
 said water in their said race.' . . . The referee has found 
 from the evidence before him that the grant of water is of 
 square inches, and that, at the existing head of water at the 
 point of delivery, it will require an opening or orifice of 1280 
 square inches to permit the delivery of 800 inches, and from 
 this conclusion I can see nothing in the evidence to cause me 
 to differ." Judgment affirmed. All concur.* 
 
 It was held that the measurement must be made at the 
 location where the grantor's raceway was tapped by the 
 grantee. 
 
 In the case of Janesville Cotton Mills vs. Ford, 82 Wis. 
 416, " Held, upon the evidence, that the term ' square inch 
 of water ' had not in 1860 (prior to which time the earlier 
 conveyances were made) acquired, even among hydraulic 
 engineers and mill men, the fixed technical meaning of a 
 stream of water with a cross-section in area of 1 square inch, 
 moving at the velocity due to the given head. The grants 
 are to be construed, therefore, in the light of the surrounding 
 circumstances and the practical construction placed upon 
 them by the parties." 
 
 The parties had by agreement, for several years, em- 
 ployed an engineer to apportion the waters, and he gave to 
 each grantee the inches of water owned by him, " taking as a 
 standard a stream having a cross-section area of a full square 
 
 *Note. By applying a discharge coefficient of 62.5 per cent to the gross 
 area of 1280 square inches, a net area of 800 square inches is obtained. The 
 theoretical flow through 800 square inches is identical with the actual flow 
 through a standard orifice of 1280 square inches. 
 
FLUTTER OR SAW MILL WHEEL 129 
 
 inch and moving with the velocity due to the head." This 
 was the only rule adopted and used by the parties. 
 
 " Held that the practical construction, by the parties 
 interested, of the term ' square inch of water ' in the con- 
 veyances, being reasonable and definite, must be taken as the 
 true construction of that term." 
 
 In this case the grants were for a specified number of 
 inches of water under a head of 4 feet, or its equivalent under 
 any other head. 
 
 The " reasonable " and " definite " rule of millwrights 
 and hydraulic engineers, is likely to hold in determining the 
 meaning of " inches of water " in a grant. There is a clear 
 distinction between such a grant and an " aerpture " 
 grant. 
 
 FLUTTER OR SAW MILL WHEELS 
 
 Flutter wheels are primitive undershots, and the water 
 acts by impulse upon them. The discharge coefficient for 
 the gate of the flutter wheel is nearly or quite 100 per cent 
 as has been shown on page 117. 
 
 The rim or perimetral speed of such wheels is high, so 
 as to give a rapid motion to the upright saw of a saw mill, 
 for which such wheels were commonly used. Craik, p. 95, 
 mentions the rim speed as 67 per cent of the velocity of 
 the water at the wheel gate. 
 
 Flutter wheels are adapted to a head of above 6 feet 
 " where water is plenty. . . . They are built low and wide, 
 for low heads; and high and narrow for high ones, so as to 
 make (for an upright saw blade) about 120 revolutions, or 
 strokes of the saw, in a minute" (Evans 1795 Part 5 
 p. 78). 
 
130 
 
 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 A flutter wheel for an upright saw is recommended by 
 Ellicott as follows; he adding, " but if there is plenty of it 
 (water), thewheelsmay.be made wider than directed in the 
 table, and the mill will be more powerful" (Ibid.). 
 
 1795 TABLE FOR FLUTTER WHEELS TO OPERATE A SAW (Ellicott) 
 
 Head of Water. 
 
 Wheel Diameter. 
 
 Wheel Width. 
 
 Ft. 
 
 Ft. 
 
 In. 
 
 Ft. 
 
 In. 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 8 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 , 2 
 
 11 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 14 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 3 
 
 7 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 20 
 
 3 
 
 11 
 
 1 
 
 10 
 
 25 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 30 
 
 4 
 
 9 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 On p. 9 of the Appendix of Evans, 1795, is given Wm. 
 French's description of a saw mill using a flutter wheel, 
 to make the saw " strike between 100 and 130 strokes in a 
 minute." This has 9 buckets, 4 being active at one time. 
 Buckets 4.5 inches wide. The " go-back " or log carriage 
 wheel described is a tub wheel 4.5 to 6 feet diameter, with 
 16 buckets. French advises the following flutter wheel 
 table for a single saw, the crank arm being about 11 inches, 
 but varied to suit the timber (see page 131 for table). 
 
 Flutter wheels " are mostly used for . . . the saw in 
 saw mills . . . where the water is plenty, and the fall above 
 6 feet . . . adapted to any head above 6 feet . . . (they 
 are) low and wide when the head is small, and high and 
 narrow when there is a high head, so as to have from 120 to 
 
FLUTTER OR SAW MILL WHEEL 
 
 131 
 
 Head. 
 
 Width of Wheel. 
 
 Diameter of Wheel. 
 
 Thhoat. 
 
 Ft. 
 
 Ft. 
 
 Ft. 
 
 In. 
 
 In. 
 
 12 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 
 u 
 
 12 
 
 5i 
 
 3 
 
 
 2 
 
 10 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 
 21 
 
 9 
 
 61 
 
 2 
 
 10 
 
 21 
 
 8 
 
 7 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 2J 
 
 7 
 
 7* 
 
 2 
 
 8 
 
 3* 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 7 
 
 3* 
 
 5 
 
 9 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 31 
 
 130 revolutions or strokes of the saw per minute" (Pallett, 
 1866, p. 232). 
 
 " When the head is about 6 feet, the diameter of the 
 wheel should be about 2 feet 8 inches, the width being 7 or 
 8 feet. . . . There should always be a full head, to give a 
 lively motion; . . . The opening in the gates should be 
 from 3 to 4 inches, that the water may give the required 
 power " (Ibid.). 
 
 Haswell (1909, 571) says that the " nutter or saw mill 
 wheel" operates "under a high head of water," the "water 
 being plenty." 
 
 " The water way for the old flutter wheel is a curve, 
 the circle of which coincides with that of the wheel at the 
 bottom, or termination, but gradually recedes from the wheel 
 as it rises to about the center of the wheel, where this 'com- 
 pass fall ' commences, and is the width of the ' throat ' 
 away from the wheel. Thus only a portion of the water 
 is intercepted by the first float or bucket, the rest passes 
 on to the next one, which intercepts a little more, and so 
 on until the last bucket catches the whole: The gate for 
 this is a piece of thick plank the length of the chute, and 
 
132 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 somewhat wider, and the thick edge next the chute beveled 
 off and slightly rounded, to encourage the entrance of the 
 water" (Craik, pp. 183, 184). 
 
 The flutter wheel, attached to a saw mill, is illustrated 
 by Evans, in his 1795 edition. 
 
 R. E. Horton well summarized the meager data upon 
 flutter wheels when he placed the efficiency at 10 per cent, 
 with the best at 20 per cent (Potsdam, N. Y. Lecture on 
 Turbine Water Wheel as a Prime Mover, also " W. S. and 
 I. P.," No. 180, p. 23). 
 
 In the trial of the Carthage Tissue Paper Mills vs. Village 
 of Carthage, N. Y., Jos. V. Guyot was the only witness able 
 to describe the saw mill built under a grant of 1830. He' 
 described the saw as propelled by a flutter wheel, with 
 buckets and gate each 10 feet long, and the gate raised 7 
 inches, or a use of 840 inches of water under a 9-foot head. 
 He also said that the " gig " wheel (for the go-back of the 
 log carriage) used 150 inches, as did the log-pulling or 
 " bull " wheel. Guyot also said that a single saw would 
 have a flutter wheel 8 feet long with 5 or 6 buckets. The 
 court found 1000 inches of water for a saw mill with one 
 saw. 
 
 TUB WHEELS 
 
 The tub wheel is a primitive turbine acting by impulse. 
 It was used earlier than 1750 (Bennett's " D'Aubuisson," 
 p. 411), and is an American type (Appleton, II, p. 787). 
 
 The old-fashioned spoon or tub wheel had a runner on a 
 vertical shaft, and set in a cylindrical shell, or tub, built 
 up towards the level of the head water. The water was 
 
TUB WHEELS 133 
 
 conducted to the wheel by a tapered spout, the sides making 
 an angle of 11 or 12 degrees. The smallest opening, or 
 throat, was at the tub. One side of the spout was tangent 
 to the tub. The runner, with its vertical shaft concentric 
 with the tub, had a number of paddles, vanes or buckets 
 regularly distributed around its axis. " The horizontal 
 section of the paddles presents a slightly curved form, 
 having its concavity towards the side from which the action 
 of the water comes; cut by a cylinder concentric with 
 the well (or tub), they would give inclined lines more or 
 less like arcs of helices. . . . the water comes through the 
 ' spout ' with considerable velocity, endeavors to circulate 
 all around the well (tub), and, meeting the paddles in its 
 road, obliges them to turn, as well as the axle that supports 
 them. At the same time, the water obeys the law of gravity 
 passes through the wheel by means of the free space between 
 the paddles, and falls into the tail race, which ought to be 
 a little lower ... the water must undergo a good deal of 
 disturbance in entering the wheel, and, moreover, ... it 
 acts upon the latter for too short a time to entirely lose 
 its relative velocity. Also the effective delivery, sometimes 
 very slight and about 0.15, never exceeds 0.40 " (Mahan's 
 " Bresse," pp. 66-68). 
 
 " A tub mill has a horizontal water wheel, that is acted 
 on by the percussion of the water altogether, the shaft is 
 vertical, carrying the (mill) stone on the top of it, and serves 
 in place of a spindle; the lower end of this shaft is set in a 
 step fixed in a bridge-tree, by which the stone is raised or 
 lowered . . . ; the water is shot on the upper side of the 
 wheel, in a tangent direction with its circumference. 
 The wheel runs in a hoop, like a mill stone hoop, projecting 
 
134 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 so far above the wheel as to prevent the water from shooting 
 over the wheel, and whirls it about until it strikes the 
 buckets, because the water is shot on in a deep narrow 
 column, 9 inches wide and 18 inches deep, to drive a 5-foot 
 stone, with 8-foot head — so that all this column (of water) 
 can not enter the buckets until part has passed half way 
 round the wheel, so that there are always nearly half the 
 buckets, struck at once; the buckets are set obliquely, so 
 that the water may strike them at right angles ... As 
 soon as it strikes it escapes under the wheel in every direc- 
 tion ..." (Evans, 1795, Part II, p. 11; see, also, 
 Pallett, p. 230). 
 
 Evans, p. 13, states that the water does not act to 
 advantage on a tub wheel; that the wheel is made small to 
 obtain the needed speed for a mill stone directly connected, 
 and this makes " the buckets take up a third of their diam- 
 eter . . . "; its efficiency is less than an undershot's; for 
 low heads use two spouts per wheel, each 6 by 13 inches, set 
 opposite each other, rather than one spout, 9 by 18 inches; 
 are simple and cheap, needing no gearing; have sufficient 
 speed at 9 or 10-foot fall, and plenty of water; and tubs 
 do not use any more water than do undershots, for the 
 same power, with a fall of 8 feet or more. 
 
 It has been shown on p. 119 that the coefficient of discharge 
 is nearly or quite 100 per cent of that theoretically due to the 
 area of the throat -at the small end of the tapered spout, and the 
 head of water upon the center of that throat. 
 
 Evans, 1795, Part II, 14, gives the wheel speed at the 
 center of the buckets as 66 per cent of the water velocity, 
 or of the theoretical velocity due to the head. On page 
 16 he gives the following: 
 
TUB WHEELS 
 
 135 
 
 EVANS* TUB WHEEL TABLE FOR STONES OF VARIOUS SIZES 
 
 IN 1795 
 
 
 Diameter of Center 
 
 Cubic Feet of 
 
 Areas of 
 
 Throats 
 
 
 of Buckets, Feet. 
 
 Water per Sec. 
 
 of Spouts, Sq.ft. 
 
 Head 
 Feet. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stone Diameter. 
 
 Stone Diameter. 
 
 Stone Diameter. 
 
 
 4 Ft. 
 
 5 Ft. 
 
 6 Ft. 
 
 7 Ft. 
 
 4 Ft. 
 
 6 Ft. 
 
 4 Ft. 
 
 6 Ft. 
 
 8 
 
 2.17 
 
 2.73 
 
 3.30 
 
 3.90 
 
 17.34 
 
 40 90 
 
 0.76 
 
 1.79 
 
 10 
 
 2.63 
 
 3.28 
 
 3.97 
 
 4.59 
 
 13.37 
 
 32.72 
 
 .54 
 
 1.28 
 
 12 
 
 2.90 
 
 3.60 
 
 4.34 
 
 4.90 
 
 11.56 
 
 27.26 
 
 .41 
 
 .97 
 
 14 
 
 3.12 
 
 3.90 
 
 4.70 
 
 5.43 
 
 9.90 
 
 23.36 
 
 .33 
 
 .77 
 
 16 
 
 3.34 
 
 4.12 
 
 5.01 
 
 5.83 
 
 8.67 
 
 20.45 
 
 .27 
 
 .60 
 
 18 
 
 3.51 
 
 4.41 
 
 5.32 
 
 6.18 
 
 7.70 
 
 18.18 
 
 .22 
 
 .52 
 
 20 
 
 3.71 
 
 4 62 
 
 5.49 
 
 6.47 
 
 6.93 
 
 16.36 
 
 .19 
 
 .45 
 
 - The cubic feet second of water, in the table quoted, are 
 the theoretical quantities for the throats and heads with a 
 100 per cent discharge coefficient. In this connection it is 
 to be noted that Evans gives 5 bushels of wheat per hour 
 for the capacity of a 5-foot mill stone in 1795, and the power 
 used by various sizes as follows: 
 
 Stone, Ft. 
 
 R.P.M. 
 
 Cubochs.* 
 
 Gross h. p. 
 
 Power Ratio. 
 
 4 
 
 122 
 
 52 
 
 5.78 
 
 100 
 
 5 
 
 98 
 
 111.78 
 
 12.42 
 
 215 
 
 6 
 
 81 
 
 192 
 
 21.33 
 
 369 
 
 7 
 
 70 
 
 313 
 
 34.78 
 
 • 602 
 
 * A cuboch is a term coined by Evans, used only by him, and meant 1 cubic foot 
 of water falling 1 foot in a second. His power theories were unreliable, as is evident 
 to any mill man. 
 
 Evans also says that when the cubochs are divided by 
 half the head the cubic feet per second of water needed are 
 obtained; the cubic feet divided by the velocity gives the 
 area of the throat or gate aperture; and that it is necessary 
 to cast off a foot for the water in the tail race for a geta- 
 
136 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 way, and 9 inches to get the water onto the wheel, or a total 
 head reduction of 21 inches (Part II, pp. 16, 17). This an- 
 alysis by Evans is entirely theoretical as is the power 
 deduced therefrom. 
 
 Emerson (1894, p. 36), tested a tub wheel in 1885 at 
 Highgate, Vt. The water had an open spout or trough with 
 parallel (not tapered) sides. The gate at the head end of the 
 trough had full contractions and 61 per cent discharge co- 
 efficient. Head of 7.25 feet on center of gate opening. 
 Trough was 8 feet long and pitched to make 11-foot head 
 on the half-depth of the wheel. It took 5.2 horse-power 
 to grind a bushel of ordinary, and 5.9 horse-power for a 
 bushel of hard Minnesota wheat per hour. 
 
 The Falls Mill in Fredericksburg, Va., built in 1727, had 
 two tub wheels with throats 16x9 inches each, under an 8 
 ft. head. Alfred Duvall, Millwright, on April 1, 1848, deter- 
 mined their discharges to aggregate 45 cu. ft. of water per 
 second, which corresponds to a 100 per cent coefficient.* 
 J. B. Ficklen, St., former owner, in an affidavit of June 30, 
 1859 (in Forbes vs. W. P. Co.) said that the grinding capac- 
 ity of this mill thus equipped was a total of from 25 to 50 
 bushels of corn per day. 
 
 Bennett's " D'Aubuisson," p. 411, cites a tub wheel 
 3.28 feet diameter, 0.656 foot thick or high, with 9 curved 
 floats or buckets. The tub was 3.34 feet interior or diameter 
 and 6.56 feet deep (axially), the runner being near its bot- 
 tom. The spout had a throat 0.722 foot wide, one side 
 being tangent to the interior of the tub. 
 
 Guyot in the Carthage Tissue Mills case (p. 49 of Record) 
 described an old tub wheel 8 feet diameter with throat of 
 
 * See deed of J. B. Ficklen to Thos. F. Knox, June 27, 1851. 
 
TUB WHEELS 137 
 
 spout 14 by 20 inches. The head was about 9 feet. It ran 
 a machine shop. Guyot also told of 4 tub wheels in a grist 
 mill, each 6 feet diameter with throats of 200 square inches, 
 under the same head (p. 56) ; also, of an 8-foot tub wheel, 
 throat 300 square inches for 3 nail cutters hi a nail factory 
 (p. 65). 
 
 Tub " wheels cannot be recommended, in consequence 
 of the water not acting to advantage . . . even when con- 
 structed in the best possible manner. If the head be low, 
 it is difficult to get a sufficient quantity of water on them, 
 so as to drive them with sufficient power. . . . only suited 
 to those streams where the water runs to waste the whole 
 year ..." (Pallett, p. 231). 
 
 The efficiency of tub wheels has been given as follows : 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Evans, in table above, about 37 
 
 Horton (Potsdam Lecture) 20, best 50 
 
 Drake (p. 160) 27 to 30 
 
 Mahan's " Breese " (p. 68) 15, never exceeds 40 
 
 Abbott (p. 5) 25 
 
 Bennett's " D'Aubuisson" (pp. 416-7). 20 generally, 25 best 
 
 Wells (p. 154) 10 
 
 Scribner (p. 154) 27 to 30 
 
 Many writers class tub and undershot wheels as being of 
 equal efficiency, i.e., from 25 to 35 per cent, which the author 
 adopts. 
 
138 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 WOODEN SCROLL-CASED, CENTRAL-DISCHARGE 
 WHEELS 
 
 Wooden, central-discharge wheels were the prevailing 
 type in the United States in the period between the aban- 
 donment of undershot, tub and breast wheels and the 
 introduction of turbines. This period varied in different 
 localities, but may be given the dates of from 1835 to 1855. 
 Such wheels are now in use in rural localities in grist mills. 
 They were cheap to build, required no cumbersome gearing, 
 and, aside from poor efficiency, had all the advantages of 
 the turbine. They were speeded for direct connection to the 
 mill stones. 
 
 A central-discharge wheel is built with a vertical shaft, 
 wood or iron, to which are secured flat vanes or buckets or 
 paddles. The distance across the center from tip to tip 
 of buckets is the diameter of the wheel or runner. This 
 runner and shaft are carried on a submerged step under- 
 neath the wheel. The runner turns in a case, shaped like 
 a scroll. The top is planked over, but is not ah- tight, 
 there being a small clearance between the cover and the 
 shaft. The scroll side of the case is called the curb. Its 
 interior is smooth and scroll shaped. It is usually built 
 of wood. The bottom is of plank, with a large discharge 
 opening through which the shaft passes and water dis- 
 charges into the wheel-pit. The runner is inside the case 
 and turns without contact with the case, or its cover and 
 floor. The discharge opening is not made so great but that 
 the tips of the buckets will extend beyond its perimeter 
 and over the floor which has not been cut away, and this 
 extension, or overhang, is called the shelf or shoulder. 
 
CENTRAL DISCHARGE WHEELS 139 
 
 Water is supplied to the scroll case by a tapered spout 
 connecting the case with the flume, pond, or other source 
 of supply. The small end of this spout, where it connects 
 with the scroll case, is called the throat. The spout is con- 
 nected tangentially with the casing. There is a gate in 
 the spout, never placed at the throat, but at some point 
 from it towards the pond, so that, the spout being tapered, 
 the gate is larger than the throat. 
 
 Hughes (1855, p. 249), gives an illustration (here repro- 
 duced), and description of this central discharge wheel. 
 
 CENTBAL DISCHARGE WATEH-WHEEL. 
 
 (From Hughes) 
 
 Craik, in his book of 1872, calls these wheels " wooden 
 center vent " on p. 139; " scroll-cased center-vent wheels," 
 on p. 141 ; and on pp. 205-207 he gives the following method 
 of laying out the scroll, illustrating the method: 
 
 " . . . ; the wooden centre vent or scroll wheel being 
 as convenient and cheap as any. This is made by squaring 
 the end of the shaft to six sides, and bolting, or otherwise 
 
140 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 attaching a short piece of plank or float to each square, 
 with the outer ends pointing in the direction the wheel is 
 intended to turn. The scroll may be made of four pieces 
 of timber of the proper depth, framed together, with one 
 side falling out from the square, and leaving an opening 
 for the admission of the water, the scroll mark is struck 
 around upon this, cutting a portion of the circle out of each 
 
 CIIAIK3 ILLUSTRATION FOB A CENTRAL DISCHARGE WHEEL 
 
 piece, and the corners are filled out to the same line. A 
 bottom and cover are spiked on, each having an opening 
 around the shaft to discharge the water. 
 
 " The following method of making a scroll is in some 
 respects preferable: Make a square platform of plank for 
 the bottom, a little larger than the outside of the scroll; 
 make a center mark in this at the point which the center 
 of the shaft will occupy; then with a radius or sweep from 
 this center draw a circle to correspond with the outside 
 
CENTRAL DISCHARGE WHEELS 141 
 
 circumference of the wheel (floats), and from the same 
 center draw another circle about two-thirds of the diameter 
 of the wheel, for the opening for the shaft, and discharge 
 water to pass through. Now mark off the width of the 
 throat for the admission of water, commencing at the circle 
 for the wheel, one side of this throat is the commencement of 
 the scroll, the other side its termination. 
 
 " To mark out the scroll, make a small wheel, the cir- 
 cumference of which is exactly equal to the width of the 
 throats; the wheel may be tested by measuring round it 
 with a string, the length of which is equal' to the width of 
 the throat, or by making a mark on one side of the throat, 
 and rolling it (the wheel) across the space to the other side. 
 If the mark, when the wheel has made its revolution, comes 
 exactly on the other side mark of the throat, it is right; 
 if it overruns that, the wheel is too large, if it falls short, 
 it is too small. Fasten this wheel upon the center of the 
 bottom, and attach a line or a small wire to the edge of 
 it, stretch the wire tight and fix a scratch point in it at the 
 outside line of the throat, now draw the scratch round, 
 keeping the wire tight, to the place of beginning, and 
 the point will mark the scroll, terminating at the inside. 
 Or, you may wind the wire round the wheel, and begin 
 at the inside to mark, allowing the wire to unwind as you 
 describe the scroll, which in this case will terminate at 
 the outside; for this, like other good rules, will work both 
 ways. 
 
 " Now lengthen the wire 1.5 or 2 inches, and describe 
 another mark parallel with the first, and cut the space 
 between, out to the depth of .5 or .75 ins. Cut planks of a 
 length equal to the intended depth of the scroll, and circle 
 
142 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 them like staves, then fit them into this space all around 
 until the scroll is complete, and lastly, make a top or cover 
 the exact counterpart of the bottom, and place on to these 
 staves, and bolt or otherwise fasten the top and bottom 
 together at each corner, and the curb or scroll will be com- 
 plete. The throat, or opening for the admission of water, 
 is connected by a spout with an opening in the flume, which 
 is covered by a gate inside." 
 
 These central-discharge wheels acted by impulse. Hav- 
 ing flat buckets, they were not turbines, since a turbine is 
 denned as a wheel with curved buckets (see Turbines). 
 
 Such central-discharge wooden wheels were used in 
 Martintown, Wis., in the 1860's, and elsewhere in Wis- 
 consin and Illinois, while those now known to have been in 
 use in New York were: 
 
 A 6-foot wheel at Stone's mill in Dexter, up to 1895 or 
 1898. Head 9 to 12 feet, throat 14.75 inches wide by 23 
 inches high, with 6 buckets overhanging or shouldering on 
 the floor 12.25 inches each, the discharge opening being 
 43.5 inches diameter (Brownell, Binninger, Cook, Whitham). 
 
 One 52-inch wheel at Hounsfield, in Young's grist mill, 
 head about 10 feet (Binninger, Whitham). 
 
 One 6-foot wheel at the old pumping station in Water- 
 town, up to about 1885, with throat 16 inches wide by 20 
 inches high (Salisbury). 
 
 One 5.5-foot wheel at Adams, with throat 10 inches 
 wide by 20 inches high (Walker). 
 
 One 5-foot wheel on the Mohawk, throat 10 by 16 inches 
 (Bellinger). 
 
 One 5.75-foot wheel on Indian river, throat 12 by 18 
 inches (Dwyer). 
 
CENTRAL DISCHARGE WHEELS 143 
 
 One 5-foot wheel at Antwerp, throat 12 by 18 inches 
 (Dwyer). 
 
 One 5.5-foot wheel at Ellisburg, is running in Reed's 
 grist mill, with throat 7 by 20 inches (Babcock). 
 
 One 4.5-foot wheel with throat 13 by 26 inches, and dis- 
 charge opening 1.5 to 1.66 of the throat (Mansfield). 
 
 One 4.5-foot wheel, built 1872, at St. Regis Falls, 14 by 
 18-inch throat (Mansfield). 
 
 One 4.5-foot wheel, throat 12 by 18 inches, at Champlain 
 Village (Mansfield). 
 
 Seven 6-foot wheels at Carthage, Harrisville and 
 Croghan, had throats 10 to 12 inches wide by 20 inches high 
 (Galleciez). 
 
 One 5-foot wheel at Snell & Makepeace's flour mill, 
 Theresa, 1867, with paddles 15 or 16 inches wide, throat 
 16 inches high, spout 2 feet long with a stab gate 16 by 16 
 inches, and head of 10 feet, drove smutter and other machin- 
 ery (Snell). 
 
 One 5-foot wheel of the same dimensions, under a 14-foot 
 head drove the " feed " department of the above mill 
 (Snell). 
 
 Two of these wheels, 9-foot head, with throats of 300 
 riuare inches each were in a grist mill in Carthage, from 1840 
 to about 1880 (Guyot). 
 
 Four of these wheels, each with throats of 300 square 
 inches, 9-foot head, were in the tannery at Carthage, from 
 1857 to 1875 (Guyot). 
 
 " All of the flouring mills on the Oswego river were 
 equipped with what was termed the ' central-discharge, or 
 wooden-scroll wheels,' rated at 20 horse-power; each pair 
 of mill stones was propelled by one of these wheels, and 
 
144 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 one or two such wheels for the connecting machinery of a 
 5-run mill manufacturing about 400 barrels of finished flour 
 per twenty-four hours" (Caseo, 1858). 
 
 " Where there is a great volume of water an old wooden 
 center-vent wheel will do good work" (J. C. Watson, Hall, 
 N. Y., 1917). 
 
 Two 5-foot wheels at Hull, Canada, had throats 10 by 
 20 inches, the bucket boards being 20 inches wide. The 
 discharges were from 2.5 to 3 times the throat areas (Mous- 
 seau). 
 
 One 6-foot wheel, at Hull, Canada, had a throat 12 by 
 24 inches, 24-inch buckets, and discharge area 2.5 to 3 
 times the throat area, or about 3 feet diameter, and con- 
 taining a 15-inch shaft, the head being 16 feet (Mousseau). 
 
 In 1912, there were two central-discharge wooden wheels 
 operating in a grist mill at Camden, and one 4.5-foot wheel 
 in Caldwell's carriage factory, at Malone, N. Y. (Whitham). 
 
 These central discharge wheels were designed and built 
 by millwrights who followed general and definite rules, 
 based upon sound hydraulic principles. The scroll was 
 correctly laid out and built with a smooth surface to reduce 
 friction. The spouts were nicely tapered to get a high dis- 
 charge coefficient at the throat. The wheel diameter was 
 made to give the needed speed to its shaft, considering the 
 head, the perimetral speed being about two-thirds of the 
 water's velocity at the throat. The throat, considering 
 the head, was made of area sufficient to give the needed 
 power. The tips of the buckets nicely overlapped the 
 discharge opening, the overlap being sufficient to permit 
 the full opening of throat to face the tips of the buckets. 
 
 The millwright first ascertained the power needed, and then 
 
CENTRAL DISCHAEGE WHEELS 145 
 
 the head available. He proportioned the throat to vent the 
 required water, and the wheel's diameter to give the needed 
 shaft speed. 
 
 The efficiency of the flat-vaned, scroll-cased, central- 
 discharge wheels is given as follows: 
 
 Robt. E. Horton, in his lecture at Potsdam, N. Y., in 
 1909, puts the efficiency at 20 per cent, with the best at 50 
 per cent. 
 
 F. W. Ormsby, C.E., for several years with the Noye 
 Mfg. Co., manufacturing flour-milling machinery, wheels, 
 etc., and who has tested four of these central-discharge wheels 
 at Oswego, put the efficiency at from 30 to 40 per cent. 
 
 G. W. Pearson, C.E., ran a milling test in 1877 with a 
 central-discharge wheel having 8 buckets, and 7-foot head, 
 in competition with a Ryther-Jonval and a Curtis turbine, 
 measuring the corn ground by each and the water used. 
 Assuming " 1 horse-power per hour to grind 60 pounds of 
 corn meal" Pearson computed the efficiencies to be, re- 
 spectively, 52, 47.5 and 86 per cent. Had he taken the 
 Curtis efficiency at 75 per cent (which is more likely), then 
 the efficiency of the central-discharge wheel was 45 per cent, 
 as judged by the grinding done. 
 
 The Author agrees with Mr. Ormsby, and places the effi- 
 ciency of these wheels at from 30 to 40 per cent. 
 
 As shown on p. 119, the coefficient of discharge through 
 the spout feeding these central-discharge wheels, was about 
 100 per cent applied to the area of the throat, and the verti- 
 cal head above its center. These wheels were never built 
 with draft tubes. 
 
146 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 UNDERSHOT WHEELS 
 
 The undershot is the outgrowth of the current wheel. 
 Both are built much like a non-feathering paddle wheel of a 
 steamboat, whether a side or a stern-wheeler. The efficiency 
 of a current wheel is given at 15 per cent by Horton and 16 
 per cent by Neville, or about half of that of an ordinary 
 undershot. 
 
 It has been shown- on p. 117 that the coefficient of dis- 
 charge through the gate of the undershot varies from 62 
 to 100 per cent depending upon the form of the aperture, 
 and that, as usually constructed, it is nearly or quite 100 
 per cent. 
 
 . The development of the undershot, breast and overshot 
 wheels along scientific lines is largely due to the model 
 experiments in 1752-1753 of that marvelous engineer, 
 John Smeaton. The model used was about 2 feet in diam- 
 eter, yet the " maxims " deduced therefrom, and read before 
 the Royal Society in 1759, stand uncontradicted to-day. 
 It is true that wheel developments on a large scale have 
 somewhat modified Smeaton's recommendations in that 
 his advised perimetral speed was found too slow for com- 
 mercial practice. 
 
 The rim or perimetral speed of the undershot is given 
 as follows: 
 
 ■ Banks, Jamieson, Wm. Emerson, Ferguson, Pallett, 
 Mitchell, Neville, Appleton and Abbott, advise that the 
 velocity be 33 per . cent of the spouting velocity of the 
 water under the head at its gate. 
 
 Smeaton, Weisbach and Lea advise the use of 40 per 
 cent. 
 
UNDERSHOT WHEELS 147 
 
 Donaldson, Byrne, Scribner, Ferguson, Overman, and 
 Spon advise 50 per cent. 
 
 Templeton, Byrne and Haswell advise 57 per cent, and 
 Sam, 55 per cent. 
 
 Grier advocates 67 per cent, and D'Aubuisson 40 to 75 
 per cent. 
 
 Evans uses 58 per cent in one of his tables and advises 
 67 per cent in practice, as does Ellicott. 
 
 Craik uses 33 per cent for large and 67 per cent for small 
 wheels. 
 
 Gregory advised 33 to 50 per cent. 
 
 Rankine gives 50 per cent as the best speed, and designs 
 for 70 per cent at times. 
 
 Haswell gives a range of from 50 to 60 per cent, advo- 
 cating 57 per cent, as does Cullen. 
 
 Chambers advocates a rim speed of from 500 to 600 feet 
 per minute or about 10 feet per second. 
 
 Evans, 1795, cites undershots in flouring mills (Part I, 
 Art. 62), as follows: 
 
 " 15. Undershot. Velocity of the water 24.3 per second, 
 velocity of the wheel 16.67 feet, more than two-thirds the 
 velocity of the water. Three of these mills (wheels) are 
 in one house, at Richmond, Virginia — they confirm the 
 theory of undershots, being very good mills. 
 
 " 16. Undershot. Velocity of the water 25.63 feet per 
 second, velocity of the wheel 19.05 feet, being more than 
 two-thirds. Three of these mills (wheels) are in one house, 
 at Petersburg, in Virginia — they are very good mills and 
 confirm the theory." 
 
 Evans also cites " wheel 6 " as making 16 R.P.M. when 
 loaded and 24 when empty, and four wheels at Ellicott's 
 
148 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 Mills, near Baltimore, Md., as making 20 R.P.M. and 
 40 R.P.M. when loaded, as compared with 28 and 56 respec- 
 tively, when empty or doing no work (1795, Part I, 
 Art. 62). 
 
 Evans (Part V, p. 17) gives Ellicott's table for under- 
 shots which advocates 24 R.P.M. for a 12-foot wheel, and 
 25.5 R.P.M. for an 18-foot wheel, or rim speeds of 15 and 
 24 feet per second, respectively, or two-thirds of the velocity 
 due to the head of water. 
 
 Evans of 1832 (on p. 154) gives Parkins' design of an 
 undershot where rim speeds are given as high as 26.36 
 feet per second. 
 
 The American authors advise high perimetral speeds for 
 undershots, or from 50 to 67 per cent of the spouting velocity 
 of the water due to its head. 
 
 Bossut, Dr. Young, Byrne, Pallett and others advise 
 that from 3 to 5 buckets, vanes, or floats be in the water at 
 a time, and acted upon by the impinging stream issuing 
 from the wheel's gate. 
 
 In order to prevent the water from overflowing the floats 
 and wasting, they are to be immersed only 
 
 One-third of their depth, according to D'Aubuisson 
 (1838, p. 329), Weisbach (1847, Vol. II, p. 213), Overman 
 (p. 193), and 
 
 One-half of their depth, according to Dr. Young (1807, 
 Vol. I, p. 322), Byrne (1851, p. 327), and Eytlewein (Tred- 
 gold, p. 210). 
 
 The thickness of the stream of water striking the float 
 is one-third of the depth of the float according to D'Aubuis- 
 son (p. 233), Weisbach (Vol. II, p. 213) and Sam (p. 110), 
 while Rankine (p. 187) gives one-fourth. 
 
UNDERSHOT WHEELS 149 
 
 The thickness of the stream is to be never less than 6 
 nor over 10 inches per Spon (Div. 4, p. 1512), Overman 
 (p. 192), and Blaine (p. 110); 4 to 6 inches per Weisbach; 
 and 6 to 9 inches per Fairbairn (pp. 145-147). 
 
 The radial width or depth of the float or bucket is to 
 be 15 to 18 inches per Haswell (1909, p. 566) ; 10 to 18 inches 
 per Unwin and Blaine (p. 106); 15 to 20 inches per Bresse 
 (p. 23); under 25 inches per D'Aubuisson (p. 333); 12 
 to 18 inches per Weisbach (Vol. II, p. 213); and 18 to 24 
 inches per Fairbairn (pp. 147). 
 
 Undershots are adapted to heads up to 4 feet per Scribner, 
 Drake, Haswell, Pallett, Fairbairn, Byrne, Cullen and 
 others, while Wm. Emerson (p. 198) referred to a grist mill 
 with 16-foot head, and many undershots operated at Car- 
 thage, N. Y., from 1830 to 1850, on 8 and 9-foot heads 
 (Guyot), while the wheels at Ellicott Mills (Evans, Part I, 
 pp. 113, 115) had 11-foot head. Ellicott's table for under- 
 shots driving grist mills (Evans, Part V, p. 17) shows the 
 wheels proportioned for heads of from 8 to 20 feet. 
 
 Parkin (1815) advised falls from 2 to 9 feet as most 
 advantageous for undershots (Evans, 1832, p. 361). 
 
 There is no reason, save loss in economy, for restricting the 
 head for an undershot to 4 feet, and that restriction has never 
 held in the United States. 
 
 The wheel diameter is as great as is possible and never 
 less then seven times the depth of the water as it strikes the 
 wheel per Brewster (Vol. II, p. 147), and he gives (p. 149) 
 Pitot's table for the floats as shown on page 150. 
 
 Fairbairn states that from 12 to 25 feet is the usual range 
 for the diameter of undershots, that from 12 to 16 feet is 
 more effective, and that in his own practice the wheels have 
 
150 
 
 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 Wheel Diameteb. 
 
 Depth op Float Board. 
 
 Ft. 
 
 1 Ft. 
 
 li Ft. 
 
 2 Ft. 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 8 
 
 7 
 
 12 
 
 11 
 
 9 
 
 8 
 
 15 
 
 12 
 
 9 
 
 8 
 
 18 
 
 13 
 
 11 
 
 9 
 
 20 
 
 14 
 
 11 
 
 10 
 
 25 
 
 16 
 
 13 
 
 11 
 
 30 
 
 17 
 
 14 
 
 12 
 
 32 
 
 18 
 
 14 
 
 12 
 
 been from 14 to 18 feet, and that the number of floats is 
 12 + 1.33 X wheel's diameter in feet (pp. 145-147). He also 
 gives diameter = 46\/fan -*■ R.P.M. 
 
 Rankine makes the diameter of the wheel twice the head 
 unless other conditions control (p. 186). 
 
 Lea gives 10 to 23 feet as the range of diameter for under- 
 shots (p. 293). 
 
 Appleton makes the wheel diameter equal to 
 
 19.1 Xrim speed in feet per second -s- R.P.M. 
 
 and the rim speed equal to 2.4 Xthe square root of the head 
 (Vol. II, p. 818). 
 
 Spon gives the following for the relation of the floats 
 to the wheel's diameter (Div. 4, p. 1513) : 
 
 Floats. 
 
 Diameter. 
 
 Floats. 
 
 Diameter. 
 
 
 Ft. 
 
 Ft. 
 
 28 
 32 
 36 
 
 13.12 
 
 16.4 
 
 19.68 
 
 40 
 44 
 
 22.97 
 26.25 
 
UNDERSHOT WHEELS 151 
 
 Haswell gives an undershot using 17.5 cubic feet second 
 and 25-foot fall, driving a 1500-pound trip-hammer, lift 
 12 to 18 inches, and making 100 to 120 blows per minute 
 (1909, p. 571). According to Haswell's rule (on p. 566) 
 the net power developed was 
 
 0.00066X17.5 cu.ft.sec. x25-ft. head X60 = 17.4 h.p., 
 or about 32 per cent of the gross horse-power. 
 
 He states that " The volume of water required for a hammer 
 increases in a much greater ratio than the velocity to be 
 given to it, it being nearly as the cube of the velocity." 
 
 Guyot gave undershot wheels at Carthage, N. Y., from 
 1819-1840, as follows: 
 
 Blast wheel, 25 feet diameter by 6 feet wide, with gate 
 8 by 72 inches and head 9 feet. 
 
 Cinder crusher wheel, 14 feet diameter by 5 feet, gate 
 6 by 60 inches, and head 9 feet. 
 
 Drop hammer wheel, 6 feet diameter, with gate 150 
 inches of water, 9-foot head. 
 
 Axe grinding wheel, 8 feet diameter, 8 feet wide, gate 
 8 by 96 inches, 9-foot head. 
 
 Rolls wheel in nail factory, 25 feet diameter by 6 feet 
 wide, gate 8 by 72 inches, 9-foot head. 
 
 Smeaton built a 27-foot undershot, at 8.5 feet second 
 rim speed for oil mill in 1796, and it moved as regularly as 
 though operating at only 3 feet second (Tredgold, p. 42). 
 
 Rennie, in 1785, tested an undershot on a 5.5-foot fall, 
 the rim speed being 8.6 feet per second, diameter 15 feet, 
 breadth 3 feet, buckets 15 inches deep, using 40.7 cubic feet 
 second of water, and producing 6.86 effective horse-power 
 at 29.5 per cent wheel efficiency (Beardmore, p. 20). He 
 
152 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 tested, also, a wheel with about 4.75-foot fall, 9.05 feet 
 second rim speed, 14 feet diameter by 3.75 feet wide, 14.25 
 inches depth of float, 5.5 net horse-power, or 22.2 per cent 
 efficiency. Another wheel, 10-foot fall, 18 feet second rim 
 speed, 14 feet diameter by 34 inches face, produced 8.9 
 net horse-power at 34.5 per cent wheel efficiency (Ibid). 
 
 Ellicott (Evans, 1895, Part V, p. 11) gives an 18-foot 
 undershot, 3-foot fall, 4 feet width of wheel, 32 floats, 15 
 inches wide or deep, for a 4-foot stone. 
 
 The efficiency of undershot wheels in the use of water for 
 power production is given as follows: 
 
 10 to 33 per cent, Overman; 31.45 to 33 per cent, Byrne; 
 35 per cent, Beardmore; 27 to 33 per cent, Drake, D'Aubuis- 
 son, Scribner; 25 to 50 per cent, Trautwine; 40 per cent the 
 limit, Frye; 25 to 35 per cent, Merriman; 25 to 30 per 
 cent, Ormsby; 33 per cent, Brewster, Templeton, Smeat-on, 
 Haswell, Neville; 22.2 to 35 per cent, Rennie's test; 20 
 to 25 per cent, Ball; 34 per cent, Abbott; 25 per cent, 
 Donaldson; 20 per cent, Eagen's test and Wells; 12.5 
 to 33 per cent, Craik; 27 to 31 per cent, Franklin Institute 
 Tests; 30 per cent, Horton; 30 to 34 per cent, Cullen; and 
 33 per cent the limit, Rankine. 
 
 Example: Given that an old undershot wheel had 
 buckets 18 inches deep, and operated under a head of 9 
 feet, the gate being close to the wheel and constructed so as 
 to avoid contractions. What was the amount of the water 
 used, and the power produced, the wheel being 20 feet 
 diameter and 10 feet wide? 
 
 The theoretical velocity due to 9-foot head is 
 
 8.02V9 =24.06 feet per second. 
 
UNDERSHOT WHEELS 153 
 
 The buckets being 18 inches deep, the depth of the stream 
 is one-third, or 6 inches, and its width 10 feet, the breadth 
 of the gate, so that the gate opening was 6 inches X 10 feet 
 = 5 square feet. 
 
 The theoretical discharge was 5 square feet X 24.06 
 feet per second velocity, or 120.3 cubic feet per second. 
 If the coefficient of discharge was 95 per cent, then 
 the actual discharge was 0.95x120.3 = 114.3 cubic feet 
 second. 
 
 The gross horse-power was 114.3 cubic feet X62.5 pounds 
 x9-foot head -e- 550 or 117.08, and at 33 per cent wheel 
 efficiency the net product was 39 horse-power. 
 
 Smeaton's maxims for the undershot, overshot and breast 
 wheels are 
 
 1. The effective head being constant, the power varies 
 with the quantity of water used; 
 
 2. The quantity of water being constant, the power 
 varies directly with the effective head; 
 
 3. The quantity of water being constant, the power 
 varies as the square of its velocity; 
 
 4. The aperture being constant, the power varies as the 
 cube of the water's velocity. 
 
 PONCELET UNDERSHOT WHEELS 
 
 The Poncelet undershot will not be discussed here as it 
 was never in extensive use in America, and can be studied 
 by reference to the old books. 
 
 The principles governing the undershot apply to the 
 Poncelet. It was used on heads of 6 feet and under; had 
 
154 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 rim speeds equal to about half of the water's velocity; was 
 fed through a gate with contractions practically suppressed; 
 had efficiencies of from 40 to 65 per cent, or much higher 
 than the wooden undershot, and about the same as breast 
 wheels; and differed from the simpler undershot in that 
 its buckets were made of metal and curved. 
 
 OVERSHOT WHEELS 
 
 It has been shown on p. 117 that the coefficient of dis- 
 charge of the gate at the overshot wheel varies from 62 to 
 100 per cent, and is usually much nearer, or quite, the upper 
 than the lower limit. 
 
 The perimetral or rim speed of overshots is given as 
 follows: 
 
 67 per cent of the speed of the water per Evans, Ellicott, 
 Byrne, and Templeton; 55 per cent per Weisbach; 50 per 
 cent per Drake; 50 to 60 per cent per Haswell; 33 to 50 
 per cent per Ferguson; or, expressed otherwise: 
 
 6.5 to 8.5 feet per second per Byrne; 6 feet, Scribner; 
 3, 5, 6.5 and 8 feet per Haswell; 2.5 to 10 feet per Weisbach; 
 3 to 4 feet per Pallett, " is proper " (p. 217), while 9.17 feet 
 is " to the best advantage " (p. 221); 6 feet per Donaldson 
 and Drake; 5.25 to 6.9 feet, Brewster; 2 to 4 feet, Grier; 
 6 feet for 30-foot wheel, 8.2 feet for 50-foot wheel, per Glynn; 
 
 5 feet, Leonard; 4.5 to 8 feet per Rankine; and 5 to 7.5 
 feet per second per Chambers. Smeaton recommended 
 
 6 feet for 24-foot wheel. 
 
 Evans, Edition 1795 (Part I, pp. 108, 109), gives the 
 following examples of overshots: 
 
OVERSHOT WHEELS 
 
 155 
 
 
 Velocity of 
 
 Rim Speed 
 
 
 Place. 
 
 Water, Ft. 
 
 Ft. per 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 
 per Sec. 
 
 Sec. 
 
 
 
 12.90 
 
 8.20 
 
 " Wheel received the water well." 
 
 Stanton, Del 
 
 11.17 
 
 7.44 
 
 " Received the water pretty well." 
 
 Brandywine, Del . 
 
 12.16 
 
 10.20 
 
 " Throws out great part of the water 
 by the back of the buckets." 
 
 Brandywine, Del. 
 
 14.40 
 
 9.30 
 
 " It receives the water very well." 
 
 Bush, Md 
 
 15.79 
 
 7.80 
 
 "... ran too slowly ..." 
 
 Bush, Md 
 
 14.96 
 
 8.80 
 
 " Wheel runs best when head is 
 sunk a little." 
 
 Alexandria, Va. . . 
 
 16.20 
 
 9.10 
 
 " The wheel receives the water 
 well." 
 
 
 11.40 
 
 10.96 
 
 " Backs of the buckets strike the 
 water, and drive a great part 
 over." 
 
 Evans, 1895 (part V, p. 19), gives 550 feet per minute, 
 or 9.17 feet per second as recommended by millwright 
 Ellicott. 
 
 On p. 78 of Part I, Evans, 1795, is recommended the 
 following overshot table: 
 
 Wheel 
 Diam., 
 ' Ft. 
 
 Rim Speed, 
 Ft. Sec. 
 
 Head above 
 
 the Wheel, 
 
 Ft. 
 
 Add for 
 
 Friction of 
 
 Aperture, etc., 
 
 Ft. 
 
 Total Head 
 
 onto Wheel, 
 
 Ft. 
 
 R.P.M. 
 
 10 
 
 6.92 
 
 1.64 
 
 0.1 
 
 1.74 
 
 13 
 
 12 
 
 7.57 
 
 2.00 
 
 .2 
 
 2.20 
 
 12 
 
 14 
 
 8.19 
 
 2.34 
 
 .4 
 
 2.74 
 
 11.17 
 
 16 
 
 8.76 
 
 2.68 
 
 .6 
 
 3.28 
 
 10.4 
 
 20 
 
 9.78 
 
 3.34 
 
 1.0 
 
 4.34 
 
 9.3 
 
 25 
 
 10.95 
 
 4.20 
 
 1.25 
 
 5.45 
 
 8.3 
 
 30 
 
 11.99 
 
 4.90 
 
 1.5 
 
 6.4 
 
 7.63 
 
 Evans, making the rim speed 67 per cent of the water 
 velocity at the wheel's gate, adds to the head theoretically 
 needed to produce that velocity as follows to provide for 
 
156 "WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 " friction " in getting the stream onto the wheel, and the 
 total " head " above the wheel: 
 
 0.1 foot for wheels of from 9 to 12 feet diameter, and 
 
 0.1 foot more for every foot increase in diameter for 
 wheels from 12 to 20 feet diameter, and 
 
 0.5 foot more for every foot increase in diameter for 
 wheels from 20 to 30 feet diameter. 
 
 Thus for a wheel 24 feet diameter, add to the theoretical 
 head, to get the " head " onto the wheel, 
 
 0.1 for 12 feet +0.1 X (20 -12) +0.05 X (24 -20) =1.1 feet 
 (Evans, 1895, Part II, pp. 25-26). 
 
 This rule is imperfectly quoted, without credit, by Tem- 
 pleton (1852, p. 98). 
 
 Craik (1870, p. 105), " many years since," built a large 
 overshot for 9 feet rim speed per second, with a variable 
 " head " of 4 feet and less, " which we have never been 
 able to beat since." The larger the wheel the faster its 
 rim speed. 
 
 Weisbach's discussion of rim speeds of overshots in feet 
 per second, as given in Vol. II, pp. 192, 193, is digested as 
 follows: 
 
 2.1 feet second for Smeaton's wheel model, 75 inches 
 circumference, in 1752, 1753. 
 
 5 feet second is " more suitable " (p. 172). 
 
 10 feet second is found in " many wheels " (p. 172). 
 
 9.25 feet second, D'Aubuisson's test of 32-foot wheel. 
 
 14.3 feet second, Weisbach's test of 22.75-foot wheel, 
 3 feet wide, 48 buckets. 
 
 9.13 feet second, wheel used for pumping and hoisting. 
 
 5 feet second, 10.6-foot wheel, 30 buckets, Morin's test. 
 
 5 feet second, 13-foot wheel, Morin's test. 
 
OVERSHOT WHEELS 157 
 
 6 feet second recommended by Morin for wheels undei 
 6 feet diameter and 
 
 8 feet second for wheels over 6.5 feet diameter. 
 
 7.5 feet second in tests of Exwood Morris showed nearly 
 the same efficiency as when the speed was 4.5 feet per second, 
 and 
 
 6 to 8 feet second speed of overshot's rim was recom- 
 mended by Morris. 
 
 Enough has been shown to indicate that the low rim speeds, 
 recommended by early English writers, are not representative 
 of American practice; that speeds of 8 to 10 feet per second 
 are desirable except for very small wheels; and that the speed 
 permissible is somewhat controlled by the number and dis- 
 position of the buckets. No one owning a large, expensive 
 overshot would materially cut down the power capacity, and 
 increase the percentage of gearing losses, in order to gain a 
 slight increase in the efficiency. 
 
 These conclusions, from American practice, are sustained 
 by Bach's "Die Wasserrader" translated by Prof. Weidner of 
 the University of Wis., and supplemented by Weidner's 
 tests of a Fitz steel overshot wheel, as given in the 
 University Bulletins 529 and 520, respectively (in 
 1913). It is to be noted that the following conclusion 
 of Bach is based upon modern overshots with curved 
 buckets and relatively small fractional losses in the 
 wheel's bearings: 
 
 Page 143, " The chief conclusion ... is that high 
 peripheral velocities of the wheel do not cause such large 
 losses at exit as was supposed. Experiments of the Author 
 (Bach) confirm this result. 
 
 Page 179, " We see from this that, with a rational 
 
158 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 design, the higher peripheral velocities do not cause 
 such a marked decrease in the efficiency as is generally 
 supposed. 
 
 Page 165, "A general rule for the value of v (the rim 
 speed of the wheel) can not be given. It is a matter for 
 the designing engineer to decide upon, after considering all 
 the conditions, including the character of the plant which 
 the wheel is to operate. The value v = 5 feet (per second), 
 which is often found in the "literature on this subject, must 
 be considered inadmissible; 5 feet is too small in the majority 
 of cases." 
 
 In studying the heads for overshot and breast wheels 
 it is necessary to separate the total head or fall at the wheel 
 into two parts, viz.: The "head," which represents the 
 vertical fall above the wheel, and the " fall " which is 
 generally identical with the wheel's diameter. Hence the 
 origin of the term " head and fall." The " head " is actually 
 the vertical distance from the water in the flume, at the sluice 
 or wheel's gate, down to the center of the gate's aperture. 
 There is also a fall from this aperture down into the wheel's 
 bucket, but, since the receiving bucket is beyond the verti- 
 cal center line of the overshot wheel, this small fall is 
 comprehended in the " fall " when the latter is considered 
 equal to the wheel diameter. 
 
 The " head and fall " for an overshot is actually less 
 than the total fall or head at the wheel, as the wheel must 
 hang above the tail waters. A ponderous overshot can 
 not well be hoisted every time the tail water level rises, 
 and, accordingly, its setting is stationary. 
 
 The " head " above the wheel is only partially available 
 for power purposes. The allowance for " head " to be added 
 
OVERSHOT WHEELS 159 
 
 to the " fall " to get the effective head for power with over- 
 shots is as follows: 
 
 Leonard ignores the " head " entirely, calling the effective 
 head or fall simply the wheel's diameter (1848, pp. 24, 25). 
 
 Scribner calls the diameter the fall which is effective in 
 power computations (p. 155). 
 
 Haswell calls the effective head or fall the distance 
 from the center of the opening in the sluice gate down to the 
 tail water (1909, p. 565), and on p. 563 he calls the effective 
 fall as | head +f all. 
 
 This last rule of Haswell, or f head+fall, as being 
 effective, is endorsed by Appleton, while 
 
 Evans, Templeton, Cullen and others use \ head +f all, 
 as representing the head or fall effective for power 
 making. 
 
 The Author adopts "§ head+wheel diameter" as the 
 effective head and fall for overshots, as it is manifest that the 
 clearance between the wheel and the tail water is never utilized 
 for power. There is much force in the argument of. many 
 that only the diameter can be considered as effective. 
 
 We next discuss the efficiency of overshot wheels as 
 given by the old writers, and must remember that, in most 
 instances, no mention is made of the effective head used, 
 so that it does not generally appear which of the following 
 was adopted: 
 
 I head+fall; 
 \ head + fall; 
 Head+fall; 
 \ head + diameter; 
 \ head+diameter; 
 
160 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 Diameter of wheel; 
 
 Total head +fall; 
 
 Center of sluice opening to tail level, or 
 
 Center of sluice to bottom of wheel. 
 
 With turbines the efficiency is based on the actual differ- 
 ence of level between the head and tail waters at the wheel 
 when in operation. Why should any other rule be followed 
 for an overshot? 
 
 It is necessary to remember that the methods for measur- 
 ing the water and the resulting power were not as exact in 
 the old days as now, so that the old efficiencies must not be 
 taken too seriously. If engineers and millwrights knew 
 more about the circumstances attending the efficiency 
 calculations for old tests of overshots, their notion as to the 
 superiority of that wheel would be modified. The superi- 
 ority of the overshot over all other wheels except turbines 
 is shown and accepted, and its superiority in economy 
 over many of the earlier turbines is conceded. Its high 
 economy at low and non-commercial speeds is recognized. 
 Its very high efficiency in actual, commercial, every-day 
 mill work is properly doubted. These comments do not 
 hold for the modern steel overshot, with curved buckets — 
 whose very high efficiency is clearly established, but, rather, 
 apply to the old wooden overshots with elbow buckets. 
 
 No one will deny that the efficiency of overshots at 
 restricted gates, i.e., when using only part quantity, is 
 nearly as high as when fully supplied with water, and this 
 can not be said to hold for turbines. 
 
 The literature relating to the efficiency of Overshot 
 Wheels is here summarized: 
 
OVERSHOT WHEELS 
 
 161 
 
 Author. 
 
 Date. 
 
 Efficiencies. 
 
 Smeaton 
 
 1752-3 
 
 67% with model 2 ft. diameter. 
 2.67 times the undershot's efficiency. 
 1.75 times the undershot's efficiency. 
 1.4 times the breast's efficiency. 
 
 Borda 
 
 
 Evans * 
 
 1795 
 
 
 
 
 
 1.08 times the pitchback's efficiency. 
 
 
 1806 
 
 2.6 times the undershot's efficiency. 
 2.4 times the undershot's efficiency. 
 
 
 
 
 
 1.75 times the breast's efficiency. 
 
 Brewster 
 
 1806 
 
 67 to 80% 
 
 Less than 50% for 16-ft. wheel, 20-ft. fall. 
 
 80% 
 
 Parkin * 
 
 1815 
 
 Jamieson 
 
 1827 
 
 Franklin Insti.*. . . 
 
 1829 
 
 67 to 82% on 10-ft. wheels. 
 75 to 84% on lS.-ft. wheels. 
 80% with the best large wheels. 
 Elbow buckets are most efficient. 
 
 Abbott * 
 
 1835 
 
 68% 
 
 69%, wheel 7.47 ft. diameter. 
 
 65%, wheel 10.6 ft. diameter. 
 
 Morin 
 
 1836 
 
 
 
 
 
 25 to 60%, wheel 13 ft. diameter. 
 
 Jamieson 
 
 1836 
 
 2.5 times the undershot's efficiency. 
 70% in general, 77% on Mallett's test. 
 
 
 1838 
 
 Weisbach 
 
 1848 
 
 25 to 80% on tests; range 65 to 84%. 
 78% on test by Weisbach. 
 
 
 
 
 
 80% for 35-ft. wheel or larger. 
 
 
 
 Small wheels are less efficient, than large. 
 
 Leonard * 
 
 1848 
 
 65% in general. 
 
 48% for 9-ft. wheel; 62%, 14 ft. 
 
 77% for 30-ft wheel. 
 
 Hebert 
 
 1848 
 1851 
 
 67%, or double the undershot. 
 
 Byrne 
 
 62.9 to 66% based on the entire fall. 
 
 
 
 80% based on the diameter only. 
 
 
 
 Double the undershot's efficiency. 
 
 
 
 Highest with small "heads" and big "falls." 
 
 Overman 
 
 1851 
 
 70% is the limit; range 20 to 70%. 
 
 
 65% with curved buckets. 
 
 
 1852 
 
 67% 
 
 
 1854 
 
 2.6 times the undershot's efficiency. 
 
 
 1854 
 
 66% 
 
 Fairbairn 
 
 1859 
 
 73.3% for good wheel. 
 
 Rankine 
 
 1859 
 
 66 to 80% 
 
 Neville 
 
 1860 
 
 67% 
 
 
 
 * Denotes American writers. 
 
162 
 
 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 Author. 
 
 Date. 
 
 Efficiencies. 
 
 Beardmore 
 
 1862 
 
 64.8%; 60 to 65% range. 
 
 Wells * 
 
 1869 
 
 60% 
 
 Cullen 
 
 1871 
 
 73% 
 
 75% on the average; range 75 to 80% 
 
 60%, fair allowance. 
 
 Spon 
 
 1871 
 
 Chambers 
 
 1872 
 
 
 
 70%, doubtful if ever obtained. 
 
 
 
 75%, highest ever mentioned. 
 
 
 1876 
 
 75% 
 
 Scribner * 
 
 1878 
 
 66% based on total fall. 
 60 to 80%. 
 
 Drake * 
 
 1879 
 
 66%, range 60 to 80% 
 65% is the best. 
 
 Cope* 
 
 1882 
 
 
 1885 
 
 73 to 80% 
 
 85 per cent is a safe estimate. 
 
 67% is the limit. 
 
 
 1887 
 
 Emerson * 
 
 1894 
 
 Blaine * 
 
 1897 
 
 60 to 75% 
 
 
 1904 
 
 
 Holliwell 
 
 1904 
 1907 
 
 66% 
 
 Trautwine * 
 
 67 to 75% 
 
 Horton * 
 
 1909 
 
 60%, best 85% 
 
 66% generally; 60 to 68% range. 
 
 75% for speed of 3 ft. per second. 
 
 Haswell * 
 
 1909 
 
 
 
 
 
 .70% for speed of 6} ft. per second. 
 
 
 1911 
 
 60 to 88% 
 
 Fitz * 
 
 1912 
 
 60 to 75% for wooden wheels. 
 
 
 1913 
 
 
 
 15 to 25% is lost in the gearing. 
 
 Frye * 
 
 1913 
 
 75% is the limit. 
 
 * Denotes American writers. 
 
 "It is unfortunate for the world's progress that the 
 records and conditions of failures are seldom made known. 
 The record of a failure, while of great value from an educa- 
 tional standpoint, may considerably injure the reputation 
 of an engineer or manufacturer, and consequently results 
 of tests and experiments, unless fully satisfactory, are seldom 
 published or known except by those closely interested. For 
 this reason, the published tests of water wheels usually repre- 
 sent the most successful work of the maker and the best prac- 
 
OVERSHOT WHEELS 163 
 
 tical results he has been able to secure" (Meade, p. 369). 
 This comment applies to turbines and to all other forms of 
 water wheels. 
 
 In every-day mill work the commercial efficiency of a wooden 
 overshot with elbow buckets, operating at about 9 feet rim speed 
 per second, is about 65 per cent although it may go to 75 per 
 cent if the " head " is small, relatively to the diameter, with 
 a reduction in rim speed, and the work done by the wheel 
 is correspondingly curtailed. This observation relates to 
 the power produced on the wheel's shaft, and does not include 
 transmission losses. 
 
 Overshots are adapted to combined heads and falls as 
 follows : 
 
 Trump, Risdon and Alcott state that overshots are sel- 
 dom used on falls under from 15 to 20 feet, and give a 16-foot 
 wheel diameter for a total 20-foot head and fall. 
 
 Drake, Byrne and others give the overshot as available 
 for heads and fall of 10 feet and upwards. 
 
 Appleton gives 28 inches " head " for wheels of 13 to 
 20 feet diameter. 
 
 Leonard makes the wheel diameter 3 feet less than the 
 head and fall. 
 
 Weisbach gives overshots ranging from 8 to 64 feet 
 diameter. It is generally understood that the heads and 
 falls for which wheels are adapted are 
 
 Undershots, 4 or 5 feet and under; 
 Breast wheels, 4 or 5 to 10 feet; and 
 Overshots, 10 feet and upwards; 
 although undershots are built for falls of at least 16 feet, 
 breasts are seldom built for falls exceeding 10 feet, and over- 
 shots are sometimes used on heads below 10 feet. 
 
164 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 The following are examples of overshots: 
 
 The "Old Town Grist Mill," on Briggs brook, in the 
 heart of New London, Conn., built in 1650, and continuously 
 operated down to after 1914, has an 18-foot overshot 6 
 feet clear width, with 48 elbow buckets, each 16 inches deep. 
 
 This mill has 2 runs of granite stones and a corn cracker 
 or crusher. It grinds rye and corn meal, feed, graham, 
 cracked corn, cob-meal, provender, etc. The 20-horse- 
 power wheel operates the 2 stones, or one stone and the corn 
 cracker at a time (R. C. Smith). 
 
 The Bullington Mill, Axton, Va., has a 12-foot overshot, 
 5-foot face, operating a buhr flour mill, the wheel buckets 
 being two-thirds filled ("Mill. Rev."). 
 
 The old Hampton grist mill, near Towson, Md., on 
 Peterson creek, a colonial mill operating until about 1910, 
 had two 15.5 feet overshots, one 4-foot 10 inches, and the 
 other 5 feet 6.5 inches clear width, the former with 9 inches 
 and the latter 8 inches elbow buckets, 27 inches " head " 
 on each, operating two runs of 4-foot stones and accompany- 
 ing machinery, and producing a combined 39.2 horse-power 
 (Whitham). 
 
 The old Poge mills on Back Creek, near Roanoke, Va., 
 had (1913) two old overshots as follows: 
 
 One 18 feet diameter and 5-foot face, 10-inch elbow 
 buckets, 3-foot head, 32.7 horse-power, drove two runs of 
 4-foot buhr stones, etc., in a grist mill. 
 
 The other was 15 feet diameter and 6.5-foot face, 10- 
 inch buckets, 30-inch head, 32.4 horse-power, and operated 
 a 48-inch circular saw and log carriage in a country saw 
 mill (Whitham). 
 
 The old Haxall buhr mills at Richmond, Va., operated 
 
OVERSHOT WHEELS 165 
 
 six 18-foot overshots, 12 feet net width, under a " head " 
 of 4 feet, each with gates 12 feet by 4 inches usual lift, with 
 contractions nearly suppressed and produced about 550 
 net horse-power on the wheel shafts. The mill made 
 1200 barrels of flour per day, or 45.8 horse-power per 100 
 barrels. It had 20 runs of 3.5 and 20 of 4-foot buhrs, 
 operating on the gradual reduction system just before the 
 advent of the roller process (W. S. Lockett). 
 
 The old Gallego mill in Richmond, Va., famous in the 
 West India trade, was built in 1789 under Oliver Evans' 
 design, and had, in 1887, 23 runs of 5.5-foot buhrs operating 
 at 140 R.P.M., some being used on middlings. The mill 
 operated by three overshots, each 32 feet diameter by 12 
 feet effective width. The three gates were each 12 feet 
 wide and lifted, in ordinary mill operation, 4 inches. They 
 were constructed for a discharge coefficient of 90 per cent. 
 The elbow buckets were 12 inches deep. The wheels pro- 
 duced about 530 horse-power. The capacity of the mill was 
 1500 barrels of flour daily. The power per 100 barrels daily, 
 including transmission, was about 35.3 horse-power. The 
 power per run was 23 horse-power, but some of these runs 
 were on middlings (W. S. Lockett). 
 
 The old Knox mill at Fredericksburg, Va., had three 
 16-foot overshots on a 20-foot head and fail. Two were 
 11 feet and one 15 feet net width. The elbow buckets 
 were 17 inches deep and spaced 19 inches on the perimeter 
 (Whitham). 
 
 The Henry Burden overshot at Troy, N. Y., was built 
 in 1838 to operate a rolling mill and machine shop. It was 
 60 feet diameter by 22 feet net width, with buckets only 
 6 inches deep. It made from 1.5 to 2 R.P.M. and about 
 
166 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 600 horse-power, drawing its supply from the Wynantskill 
 ("Engr. Rec," Vol. LXXI, No. 24). 
 
 The overshot at Cyfarthfa Iron Works, in South Wales, 
 was 50 feet diameter by 6 feet wide, with 156 buckets. It 
 made 2.5 R.P.M. and was built in 1800 for blowing fur- 
 naces (Glynn, p. 83). 
 
 Donkin, of London, built a 76.5-foot overshot, 2-foot 
 face, 160 buckets, 30 horse-power, and also one 80 feet 
 diameter by 8-foot face (Glynn, p. 84). 
 
 The Newlin flour mill on Fishkill creek, N. Y., is given 
 by Haswell (1854, p. 179, and Scribner, p. 160), as producing 
 5 barrels, with three 4.5-foot buhr stones, at 130 R.P.M., 
 and elevating 400 bushels of grain 36 feet per hour, with an 
 overshot 22 feet diameter by 8-foot face, the gate being 80 
 inches wide and lifted 1.75 inches. The wheel had 52 
 buckets, 12 inches deep, and made 3.5 R.P.M. or 4 feet 
 per second rim speed. The head on the gate was 2.07 
 feet. 
 
 The Peter Townsend furnace, Monroe, N. J., had one 
 24-foot overshot, 6 feet wide, with 70 buckets, 14 inches 
 deep. The stream of water was 0.75 by 51 inches, under a 
 head of 6.5 feet. The wheel made 4.5 R.P.M. (Haswell, 
 1854, p. 179). 
 
 A ilour mill in Richmond, Va., had five 18 by 14.5- 
 foot overshot wheels, 15 inches depth of buckets, 2.5-foot 
 head of water, gate opening per wheel 2.5 inches by 14 
 feet to produce 30 barrels of flour per hour (Haswell, 
 1854, p. 304). 
 
 Other overshot wheels in mills at this present time are: 
 
 12 feet diameter by 9.5-foot face at Wannamaker's grist 
 mill, Kresgeville, Pa. 
 
OVERSHOT WHEELS 167 
 
 17 feet diameter by 4-foot face at Yingling's grist and 
 saw mill, Pleasant Valley, Md. 
 
 24 feet diameter by 3-foot face at Meyer's roller mill, 
 Logantown, Pa. 
 
 24 feet diameter by 5-foot face at Tissue Paper Mill, 
 Beaver Valley, Pa. 
 
 The buckets of an overshot wheel should not be so filled 
 as to waste Water until it has performed all the work possible. 
 The buckets of such overshots as were in general use in 
 1790 to 1860 were built of wood and of the elbow pattern, 
 as shown by the old writers, and as found to-day in remote 
 localities. 
 
 The percentage of bucket filling is given by the various 
 writers as follows: 
 
 33 per cent per Haswell (1909, p. 564) and Pallett (1866, 
 p. 218). 
 
 33 to 50 per cent per Fairbairn (1859, p. 144). 
 
 50 per cent per Appleton (1852, Vol. I, p. 834), and Weid- 
 ner (p. 127). who says: 
 
 " Variations in the discbarge within reasonable limits, 
 so that the coefficient of filling does not exceed approximately 
 one-half, has little, if any, effect on the wheel efficiency." 
 
 64 per cent per Scribner (p. 157). 
 
 67 per cent per Glynn (1885, p. 131) ; Fairbairn (1859, p. 
 121), who said, "... in general it is not advisable that the 
 buckets should ever be more than two-thirds filled with the 
 average supply of water "; and per Rankine (1859, p. 182), 
 Brewster (1806, Vol. II, p. 193), Grier (1842, p. 205), and 
 the Bullington Mill at Axton, Va. ("Mill. Rev.," Oct., 
 1915). 
 
 Haswell (1909, p. 564) advises shallow buckets, recom- 
 
168 
 
 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 mending 10 to 12 inches depth, and 15 inches at times, and a 
 great number of small ones (p. 563). 
 
 Blaine advises 10 to 18 inches depth of buckets, which is 
 their perimetral spacing also. 
 
 D'Aubuisson advised buckets as follows (p. 371) : 
 
 Diameter, Ft. 
 
 No. of Buckets. 
 
 Diameter, Ft. 
 
 No. of Buckets. 
 
 9.84 
 13.12 
 16.40 
 19.69 
 
 24 
 36 
 44 
 56 
 
 26.25 
 32.81 
 39.37 
 
 76 
 
 96 
 
 108 
 
 In this connection D'Aubuisson made the buckets 1.049 
 feet apart on the perimeter, and 0.984 feet deep, elbow 
 shape. 
 
 Appleton (Vol. II, p. 797) advises: 
 
 Diameter, Ft. 
 
 No. of Buckets. 
 
 Diameter, Ft. 
 
 No. of Buckets. 
 
 12 
 
 24 
 
 32 
 
 72 
 
 17 
 
 36 
 
 38 
 
 84 
 
 21 
 
 44 
 
 40 
 
 92 
 
 25 
 
 52 
 
 42 
 
 96 
 
 28 
 
 60 
 
 46 
 
 108 
 
 Spon (Div. 5, pp. 1912, 1913) advises 16-inch bucket 
 depth and the same for the perimetral spacing; 6 to 8 
 inches thickness of the stream of water approaching the 
 buckets; and " heads " for total heads and falls as follows: 
 
 Feet. 
 
 24-inch " head " for total head and fall of 10 -13 . 33 
 28-inch " head " for total head and fall of 13.33-20 
 32-inch " head " for total head and fall of 20 -23 .33 
 36-inch " head " for total head and fall of 23.33-26.67 A 
 
OVERSHOT WHEELS 169 
 
 Rankine (p. 182) makes the bucket depth range from 
 12 to 21 inches, with 15 inches usually. 
 
 The quantity of water which an overshot can use is given 
 by Rankine (p. 182) as follows: 
 
 Q =0.67 uLb\l -~], in which 
 
 Q = cubic feet of water per second; 
 u =rim or perimetral speed in feet per second; 
 L = clear length of bucket in feet (axially); 
 r= radius of the wheel in feet; 
 b = radial depth of the elbow bucket in feet. 
 
 Example: Wheel 16 feet diameter, or r =8 feet. 
 Rim speed 9.1 feet second =u. The clear length of a 
 bucket or width of the face of the wheel = 15 feet =L. 
 The depth of the bucket, b = 17 inches = 1.42 feet. Then 
 
 Q =0.67 X9.1 X15 Xl.42 x [l -^1 = 117.4 cu.ft.sec. 
 
 If the " head " above this wheel is 4 feet, and the sluice 
 gate is 15 feet wide with 90 per cent discharge coefficient, 
 then the gate lift to supply the needed water is found as 
 follows : 
 
 Q = 117.4 =0.90 X 15 ft. wide Xlift of gate X8.02 V4-ft. head, 
 whence lift =0.54 feet, or about 6.5 inches. 
 
 In this example the effective head and fall is 
 
 f of the 4-foot head+the 16-foot wheel diameter = 18 feet. 
 
 Calling the efficiency 67 per cent, the net power was 
 
 117.4 cubic feet second X62.5 pounds per cubic foot X 18-foot 
 head and fall X 67 per cent efficiency -7-550 = 160. 
 
170 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 Pitch-back wheels are overshots having the water flume 
 and gate approaching from the side in which the water is 
 laid onto the wheel, rather than having the water brought 
 over the top of the wheel. For that reason it sometimes 
 occurs that the diameter of the pitch-back is equal to or 
 greater than the combined head and fall. The speed, dis- 
 charge coefficients of gates, and efficiencies of the pitch- 
 back and overshot are almost identical, as is also their 
 bucket design. 
 
 Rankine makes his rule, just given, for the amount of 
 water used by overshots apply also to pitch-back and 
 breast wheels. 
 
 BREAST WHEELS 
 
 It has been stated on p. 163 that breast wheels are gener- 
 ally adapted to heads of from 4 to 10 feet. When the water 
 enters the buckets at about the elevation of the shaft it is 
 termed a " breast wheel "; when the entrance is below that 
 elevation the wheel is termed a " low-breast "; and when 
 the water is received above the elevation of the shaft, the 
 wheel is termed a " high-breast." 
 
 The forms of breast wheels, like overshots, have a 
 " head " and a " fall," and the " head " acts by impulse 
 upon the buckets (as with the undershot), while the " fall " 
 acts by gravity (as with the overshot). Hence the breast 
 wheel is said to be a combination of the under and the 
 overshots, and to be suited to the heads and falls inter- 
 mediate between those specially suited for their uses. 
 
 The breast wheel has its weighted portion built in a curb 
 
BREAST WHEELS 171 
 
 or concave, concentric with its axis, so as to hold the water 
 in the buckets until the water reaches the tail level. 
 
 The coefficient of discharge for the gate of the breast wheel 
 is almost or quite 100 per cent, as the contraction is generally 
 suppressed, and the stream can fall freely into the empty 
 buckets one at a time. 
 
 Ferguson advises that the rim or perimetral speed be 
 from 33 to 50 per cent of the velocity of the water at the 
 gate; Grier, 43 per cent; Evans, 58 per cent plus the accel- 
 eration due to the fall between the gate and empty bucket; 
 Rankine, 50 per cent; Haswell, 50 to 60 per cent; while 
 Byrne and Templeton advise 67 per cent. 
 
 Fairbairn recommends a rim speed of from 3| to 7 feet 
 per second; Leonard and Weisbach, 5 feet; Donaldson, 
 6 feet; Cullen, 6 to 8 feet; and Rankine from 6 to 12 feet. 
 
 The rim speeds of breasts and overshots are about the same, 
 or around 9 feet per second in American practice. 
 
 The effective head and fall, as for overshots, is given as 
 I of the head+the fall, according to Haswell and Appleton; 
 and I of the head+the fall, according to Evans, Cullen and 
 others. 
 
 The Author recommends \ head +f all as being effective, 
 the " head " and " fall " meaning as discussed on p. 181. 
 
 Breast-wheel efficiencies are given as follows: 
 
 Jamieson 1827 50 to 60% wheel efficiency 
 
 Beardmore 1862 55% 
 
 Scribner 1878 45 to 50% 
 
 Haswell 1909 45 to 65% 
 
 60 to 68% for high-breasts. 
 
 Frye 1915 60 to 65% 
 
 Merriman 1914 60 to 88% 
 
 Trautwine 1910 50% 
 
 Ormsby 1851 50% 
 
 Pallett 1866 Half that of overshot. 
 
172 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 Hughes 1851 Half that of Jonval turbine. 
 
 Drake 1879 45 to 50% 
 
 Ferguson 1806 Less than that for an overshot 
 
 Templeton 1852 50% 
 
 Overman 1851 40% is the limit. 
 
 22 to 60% range. 
 
 Leonard 1842 48 to 77% 
 
 Byrne 1851 67% 
 
 Neville 1863 50% average efficiency. 
 
 Abbott 1835 52% 
 
 Fairbairn 1864 75% for high-breast. 
 
 Weisbach 1848 53 to 65% per Elwood Morris. 
 
 60 to 69% per Morin. 
 
 48 to 52% per Eagen. 
 
 52 to 80% per Mulhouse. 
 
 57 to 63% per Franklin Inst. 
 
 Moore 1880 50% 
 
 Holliwell 1904 60% 
 
 It is evident that the efficiency will vary with the type of 
 the breast wheel, being but little better than an undershot for 
 " low-breasts," or about 35 to 40 per cent; 45 to 55 per cent 
 for the ordinary " breast " wheel; and 60 to nearly 65 per cent 
 for " high-breasts " — which closely approach the " pitch-back " 
 wheel. 
 
 Evans, 1795 (Part II, p. 20), suggested the following 
 breast wheel for a run of 5-foot stones: 
 
 Wheel diameter, 15 feet; 10-foot total fall divided into 
 a 6.2-foot " head " and a 3.8 foot " fall "; £x6.2+3.8 =6.9 
 feet effective head and fall; 20.16 feet second water velocity 
 for 6.2-foot head; 20.16x0.577 = 13.07 feet second rim 
 speed of the wheel, corresponding to 16.6 R.P.M. of the 
 15-foot wheel; stone and wheel geared 6 to 1; stone at 
 99.6 R.P.M. ; 16.2 cubic feet second of water needed; and 
 canal or head race section 10.8 square feet, or canal velocity 
 1.5 feet per second. 
 
BREAST WHEELS 173 
 
 Evans, 1795 (Part V, p. 18), gave millwright Ellicott's 
 views of breast wheels for a run of stone as follows: 
 
 Eight-foot head and fall for a low-breast wheel of 18 feet 
 diameter, with 56 buckets, the face or width of the wheel 
 being 9 inches for each foot of the stone's diameter; and 12- 
 foot head and fall for a " middling " breast wheel, 18 feet 
 diameter, having 8 inches width for each foot of the stone's 
 diameter; and 3-foot head plus 10-foot fall for a high- 
 breast wheel, 16 feet diameter, 48 buckets, and 7 inches of 
 width for each foot of diameter of the stone. 
 
 Brewster, 1806, advised a 20-foot wheel for a 10-foot 
 head and fall. 
 
 Glynn, p. 93, gives a breast wheel at the Belper cotton 
 mill, 12.5 diameter, 43 feet wide, 24 floats. 
 
 Fairbairn found that the relation between the cubic 
 feet of contents of a bucket and the square feet of entrance 
 to the bucket for water should be in the ratio of 4.8 to 1 
 for breast wheels; but when the breast wheel receives the 
 water 10 or 12 degrees above the center, the ratio is 3 to 1 ; 
 while the depth of the bucket is about three times the net 
 width of the opening between the lips of the buckets 
 (Glynn, p. 94). 
 
 The old 1822 breast wheels at the Fairmount water 
 works of Philadelphia were 
 One 15 feet diameter X 15 feet wide, under 1-foot head 
 
 and 7-foot fall, 11.5 R.P.M. 
 Two 16 feet diameter X 15 feet wide, under 1-foot head 
 and 7.5-foot fall, 13 R.P.M. 
 
 The wheels stopped an average of sixty-four hours per 
 month due to the back water exceeding 16 inches. They 
 
174 
 
 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 were replaced by Jonval turbines in 1849 which had nearly 
 twice the efficiency (Report of 1853). 
 
 Fairbairn constructed the following breast wheels 
 (Beardmore, p. 19). 
 
 Fall, Ft. 
 
 Cu.ft.sec. 
 of Water. 
 
 Diameter of 
 Wheel, Ft. 
 
 Breadth of 
 Wheel, Ft. 
 
 Bucket 
 Depth, In. 
 
 Rim Speed, 
 Ft. sec. 
 
 10 
 
 
 18 
 16 
 16 
 16 
 16 
 15.5 
 
 18 
 
 21 
 
 20 
 
 18 
 
 14.8 
 
 17.5 
 
 22 
 24 
 21 
 20 
 21 
 20 
 
 5 66 
 
 9 
 7.83 
 
 116 
 
 6 41 
 
 9.5 
 
 8 
 
 45 
 
 5.5 
 6.25 
 5 54 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 Emerson (1894, p. 72) tested a breast wheel 16 feet diam- 
 eter by 13 feet wide, with buckets 18 inches deep, the head 
 and fall being 12 feet. It produced 28.08 horse-power. 
 
 Haswell (1854, p. 179) gives a 24-foot 4-inch high-breast 
 wheel, 20 feet 9 inches wide, with 70 buckets, 15.75 inches 
 deep, at 4.5 R.P.M. driving the Rocky Glen cotton factory 
 at Fishkill, N. Yi The mill had 6144 self-acting mule 
 spindles, 160 looms on 27-inch print cloths, made of No. 33 
 yarn (33 hanks per pound) and produced 24,000 hanks in 
 eleven hours. The total head and fall was 20 feet, of which 
 the " fall " was 16 feet. 
 
 At Carthage, N. Y., a 10-foot breast wheel, 3.5 feet wide, 
 with the head and fall about 9 feet, the " fall " being 7 feet, 
 with the gate opening 42 by 8 inches and 2-foot " head," 
 drove a blast for an axe factory (Guyot). 
 
 At New Hope, Pa., are low-breast wheels lifting water 
 from the Delaware river into the Lehigh canal during seasons 
 of low flow (Whitham, 1918). 
 
 Byrne (1851, p. 328) gives a breast wheel table (here 
 abbreviated) as follows : 
 
BREAST WHEELS 
 
 175 
 
 Bead and 
 
 Floats. 
 
 Diameter of 
 Wheel, Ft. 
 
 
 Fall, Ft. 
 
 Breadth, Ft. 
 
 Depth, Ft. 
 
 Ft. sec. 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 0.69 
 1.03 
 1.37 
 1.71 
 
 6.20 
 2.25 
 1.10 
 0.77 
 
 6.02 
 
 9.02 
 
 12.04 
 
 15.04 
 
 4.36 
 5.35 
 6.17 
 6.90 
 
 Blaine (p. 107) advised buckets to be spaced 5 to 8 inches 
 for high, and 9 to 12 inches for low-breast wheels. 
 
 Rankine gives the rule quoted on p. 169 for the water 
 used by either breast or overshot wheels. 
 
 Haswell (1909, p. 568) makes the distance between two 
 buckets from 1.3 to 1.5 times the " head " over the gate for 
 wheels of low velocity, and more for higher speeds, and the 
 depth of the buckets from 10 to 15 inches. The depth of the 
 stream of water admitted to the buckets is nearly equal to 
 their spacings. The wheel is speeded to have the buckets 
 from 50 to 63 per cent filled. Rankine makes the bucket 
 fill 67 per cent. 
 
 Elwood Morris on the tests of a 20-foot breast wheel for 
 the Franklin Institute in 1829-30 found: 
 
 
 Fall, Ft. 
 
 Efficiency with 
 
 Head, Ft. 
 
 Elbow Buckets, 
 Per Cent. 
 
 Radial Buckets, 
 Per Cent. 
 
 0.75 
 
 17.00 
 
 73.1 
 
 65.3 
 
 
 13.67 
 
 65.8 
 
 62.8 
 
 4.29 
 
 10.96 
 
 54.4 
 
 32.9 
 
 2.00 
 
 7.00 
 
 62.0 
 
 53.1 
 
 1.00 
 
 3.67 
 
 55.5 
 
 53.3 
 
 The leakage of water between the breast wheel and its 
 curb is from 10 to 15 per cent according to Haswell (1909, 
 p. 569). 
 
176 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 TURBINE WHEELS 
 
 " A turbine is a motor for utilizing the energy of the water 
 by causing it to flow through curved buckets or channels on 
 which it exerts a reactionary pressure constituting the motive 
 force. 
 
 " As distinguished from a water wheel, in the older and 
 narrower sense of the word, a turbine may be defined as a 
 water wheel in which a motion of the water relatively. to the 
 bucket is essential to its action. 
 
 "A turbine consists essentially of a ring, or a pair of 
 rings, to which are attached curved vanes arranged uniformly 
 round the circumference revolving on a shaft or spindle to 
 which the ring or pair of rings is connected by a boss and 
 arms, or by other suitable means " (Bodmer, 3d Ed., 
 p. 24. See, also, Knight, III, 2256; Innes, 3d Ed., p. 37; 
 Rankine, art. 171; Sam, p. Ill, etc.). 
 
 " A turbine may be defined as a water wheel in which the 
 water is admitted to all the vanes or buckets simultaneously. 
 It is thus distinguished from vertical water wheels, which 
 receive the water at the top or one side only, and from 
 impulse wheels, which receive a spouting jet or jets from 
 nozzles directed tangentially against the perimeter of the 
 wheel. 
 
 " The component parts of a turbine are the ' runner,' 
 the ' case,' the ' gate ' or ' gates/ and the ' guides.' Com- 
 monly the gates and guides are included in the ' case.' The 
 runner is that portion of the turbine which revolves. It 
 comprises the vanes, the crown plate, partition plates or 
 rim bands, which cover, sub-divide, or strengthen the vanes, 
 and the power shaft. The term ' bucket ' is applied to the 
 
TURBINE WHEELS 177 
 
 passage for the water in the runner. The vanes or floats 
 are the partitions separating the buckets and forming the 
 runner. The term ' buckets ' is also often used to signify 
 the vanes. The ' chutes ' are the openings through which 
 the water passes into the wheel, and the ' guides ' are the 
 partitions separating the chutes. The gates serve to 
 shut off and regulate the supply. 
 
 " The flow of water through a turbine may be directed 
 either radially inward or outward or parallel to the axis, 
 or inward and parallel, or inward, parallel, and outward. 
 The representative type of these several classes: 
 
 " Tangential flow: Barker's mill. 
 
 " Parallel flow: Jonval turbine. 
 
 " Radial outward flow: Fourneyron turbine. 
 
 " Radial inward flow: Thompson vortex turbine; Francis 
 turbine. 
 
 " Inward and downward flow: central-discharge scroll 
 wheels and earlier American type of wheels; Swain turbine. 
 
 " Inward, downward, and outward flow: American type 
 of turbine" (Horton's "W. S. and I. P.," No. 180, p. 9). 
 
 Segner, of Gottingen, and, more recently, Euler, in 
 1752, made a study of reaction wheels. Euler's studies led 
 to the construction in 1754 of a turbine, much like the later 
 Fontaine, and set up many of them with improvements 
 (Bresse, p. 69). 
 
 Oliver Evans showed a model of his reaction wheel to 
 the Legislature of Maryland in 1786 and obtained a patent 
 therefrom, and he observed in 1795 that Rumsey in Europe 
 had then obtained a patent for a similar one (Evans, II, 34). 
 
 Benj. Tyler obtained a turbine patent in the United 
 Stages in 1804, and this is quoted in full by Emerson in his 
 
178 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 1894 edition. Ephriam Hubble also obtained a U. S. 
 patent in 1808. 
 
 Abroad there seems to have been but little turbine 
 activity after Euler's time until Burdin constructed his 
 reaction turbine in 1824, after the Euler type. Fourney- 
 ron, inspired by Burdin, brought out his well-known design 
 (Bresse, p. 69) in 1827, in France (" W. S. & I. P.," 180, p. 
 10). 
 
 Poncelet's turbine was brought out in 1826, Parker's 
 in the U. S. in 1828, Wing's in the U. S. in 1830, St. 
 Blaisen's and Jonval, in 1837, S. B. Howd's in the U. S. 
 in 1837, Parker's 2d design in. 1840, Boyden's in 1844, 
 Jagger's in 1852, Alonzo Warren's in 1853, John Tyler's 
 in 1855, A. M. Swain's in 1855 and 1862, American in 1859, 
 Leffel's in 1866, Wemple's or Lesner's in 1871, Victor's in 
 1872, Bisdon in 1874, Helmer or Rome in 1876, etc. Besides 
 these there were very many other turbine designs in this 
 country between 1840 and 1860, as is well noted in 
 Francis' " Lowell Hydraulic Experiments," edition of 1855, 
 as follows: 
 
 " A vast amount of ingenuity has been expended by intel- 
 ligent millwrights on turbines; and it was said, several 
 years since, that not less than 300 patents relating to them 
 had been granted by the U. S. Government. They continue, 
 perhaps, as much as ever, to be the subject of almost in- 
 numerable modifications. Within a few years there has been 
 a manifest improvement in them, 'and there are now (1855) 
 several varieties in use, in which the wheels themselves are of 
 simple forms, and of single pieces of cast iron, giving a useful 
 effect approaching 60 per cent of the power expended." 
 
 " The number and variety of forms of these wheels 
 
TURBINE WHEELS 179 
 
 (reaction turbines) is so great that it is out of the question 
 to enumerate them all in this work. The great variety of 
 this kind of water motors at present in use, each claiming 
 peculiar advantages, is an object which claims the atten- 
 tion of the engineer. All of these claims may be easily 
 examined by means of the friction-brake . . . and there is 
 no way of arriving at safe conclusions but by the use of the 
 friction-brake "• (Gihon's " Overman," 1851, pp. 315, 316). 
 
 " Within the last ten or fifteen years a numerous tribe 
 of reaction (turbine) wheels have sprung into existence 
 ..." (Hughes, 1851). 
 
 As already noted, nearly every foundry near a water 
 power had its own turbine design. Many of these early 
 wheels were never catalogued nor tabled, although they are 
 occasionally met in remote localities, and can be measured 
 and tested. 
 
 The only reason for alluding to turbines in this book is 
 that many grants of indefinite water rights were developed 
 with turbines, and a study of the early designs is of value in 
 connection with the doctrine of practical location and inter- 
 pretation. Thus, at a remote point in the woods of Wis- 
 consin in 1858, many miles away from a railroad, where the 
 settlement consisted of only a few houses, and in a district 
 where the fields had to be cleared in order that wheat and 
 corn could be grown, a water grant for " two runs of stones 
 and a corn cracker " was given. Manifestly this was a 
 grist and not a merchant mill grant. In construing this 
 grant a man was found who had worked in the mill in 1862. 
 He testified that it then operated by a turbine, and that an 
 abandoned turbine was in the yard alongside. The head 
 and fall as developed in 1916 is 9 feet. It is believed that 
 
180 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 the head arid fall which would have been reasonably de- 
 veloped in 1858 was 7 feet. The water granted had to 
 develop about 35 horse-power. Calling the turbine efficiency 
 65 per cent for that date, the water granted amounted to 
 about 64 cubic feet per second. 
 
 Too much reliance is not to be placed upon the early 
 efficiency tests of turbines, since the methods used were not 
 as accurate as obtaining to-day. In studying turbine 
 efficiencies, tests later than about 1880 will not be con- 
 sidered here. The published turbine efficiencies, obtained 
 prior to 1880, as gathered by the Author, are here given: 
 
 According to Bennett's " D'Aubuisson," the first turbine 
 actually tested was a Fourneyron of 6 horse-power in 1827. 
 It is claimed to have made 80 per cent efficiency. The 
 second Fourneyron was built in 1831 and produced from 
 7 to 8 horse-power. Shortly before this period " The 
 Society for the Encouragement of National Industry " 
 had offered a 6000-franc prize for " the best application, on 
 a great scale, of the hydraulic turbine, or wheels with curved 
 floats, of B&idor, to mills and manufacturers." Fourneyron 
 won this prize as noted in a Bulletin of the Society in 1834. 
 Fourneyron in that year built a turbine for a spinning mill 
 near Paris, and later others for use in France and Germany. 
 He built a 13-inch turbine for a 354-foot fall, which 
 developed 40 horse-power. In 1838, he installed four tur- 
 bines near Paris in the mill of St. Maur, each driving ten 
 mill stones (pp. 419, 420). 
 
 Other tests at various places of the Fourneyron turbines 
 before 1840 by Morin, as given by D'Aubuisson (pp. 430- 
 433), showed 69.6, 79, 76.9 and 78 per cent efficiencies. 
 
 Along about this time tests of " duct-wheels or roues 
 
TURBINE WHEELS 181 
 
 a coloirs " showed 67 per cent and of Carnot's denaids, 70 
 to 75 per cent efficiencies. 
 
 D'Aubuisson, who wrote in 1838, finally concluded 
 that, " It (the efficiency) is about 70 per cent for good ver- 
 tical wheels and turbines." 
 
 Coming now to turbine performances in the United 
 States, the first tests available were made by Elwood Morris 
 at the Rockland cotton mills and at the duPont works 
 on the Brandywine in Delaware, upon Fourneyron tur- 
 bines, and reported in the " Journ. of the Frank. Inst." 
 for 1843. One turbine, 56 inches diameter, 6-foot fall, used 
 1700 cubic feet of water per minute at 71 per cent effi- 
 ciency. The other turbine gave 75 per cent. The com- 
 ment regarding these tests was, " The experiments on one 
 of these wheels indicates a useful effect of 75 per cent, — a 
 result as good as that claimed for the practical effect of 
 the best overshot wheels, which had heretofore in this country 
 been considered unapproached in their economical use of 
 water." 
 
 Following these experiments by Morris were the tests at 
 Lowell, Mass., of Boyden turbines at the Appleton and the 
 Boott mills in 1844 and 1846 where the efficiencies obtained 
 were 75 and 88 per cent, respectively (Mahan's " Bresse," 
 pp. 141, 142.) 
 
 American inventors did not go to the expense of turbine 
 tests at this period, but claimed efficiencies as follows: 
 
 The Lansing, Parker, Vandewater and Howd are rated 
 as first-class turbines by Hughes, who wrote from 1848 to 
 1851, and were claimed to have about 65 per cent efficiency. 
 
 The Parker is given 66 per cent efficiency by Leonard, 
 who wrote in . 1848. Byrne published in 1852 turbine 
 
182 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 tables prepared by his brother, who died in New York in 
 April, 1851, based on 60 per cent efficiency. Hughes, 1855, 
 issued a table of the Jagger turbine of 1852 showing 65 per 
 cent efficiency. The Alonzo Warren turbine of 1853 was listed 
 in his wheel book of 1858 as having 75 per cent efficiency. 
 
 Robert E. Horton calls the early American turbines and 
 also those of the Jonval type as having from 60 to 70 per 
 cent efficiency (Potsdam Lecture in 1910). 
 
 The next American tests available were conducted by 
 Henry M. Birkinbine at the Fairmount Water Works in 
 Philadelphia in 1859 and 1860 to determine which make or 
 type of turbines should be installed. The results are pub- 
 lished in the Report of the Water Bureau for 1861. The 
 best efficiencies of the individual wheels are here tabulated: 
 
 Per Cent. 
 
 Stevenson's second wheel 87 . 77 
 
 Geyelin's second wheel 82 . 10 
 
 Andrews and Kalbach's third wheel 81 . 97 
 
 Collins' second wheel 76.62 
 
 Andrews and Kalbach's second wheel 75 . 91 
 
 Smith's Parker's fourth trial 75 . 69 
 
 Smith's Parker's third trial 74.67 
 
 Stevenson's first wheel 73.35 
 
 Blake 71 .69 
 
 Tyler 71 .23 
 
 Geyelin's (double) first wheel 67.99 
 
 Smith's Parker's second wheel 67 . 26 
 
 Merchant's Goodwin 64 . 12 
 
 Mason's Smith 63 .24 
 
 Andrew's first wheel 62.05 
 
 Rich 61 .32 
 
 Littlepage 54.15 
 
 Monroe 53.59 
 
 Collin's first wheel 47 . 34 
 
 The next tests of turbines, whose records are available, 
 were conducted in 1876 at the Centennial Exposition in Phila- 
 delphia, as follows, the figures giving the efficiency at full gate: 
 
TURBINE WHEELS 183 
 
 Per Cent. 
 
 20-inch wheel, Barker & Harris 68 -76.3 
 
 30 Risdon 86.5-87.7 
 
 24 Knowlton & Dolan 76.3-77.4 
 
 24 A. N. Wolff, first test 70.9-73.1 
 
 A. N. Wolff, second test 72.6-74.9 
 
 26 Noye & Sons, Buffalo 59.4-65.3 
 
 27 Goldie & McCullough, Gait, Ont 73.7-82.2 
 
 30 John Tyler, Clairmont, N. H 76. 1-78.8 
 
 24 Wm. F. Mosser, Allentown, Pa 72.7-75.1 
 
 26J Bollinger, York, Pa 68 -70.5 
 
 27 Bollinger, York, Pa 63.7-73.7 
 
 27 Experimental, York Mfg. Co., York, Pa 51 . 2-64 . 6 
 
 26 National, Bristol, Conn 75.9-83.8 
 
 30 Cope & Sons, W. Chester, Pa 66.8-79.1 
 
 25 Tait's Centennial, Rochester, N. Y 73 . 8-82 . 1 
 
 36 Geyelin's double Jonval, R. D. Wood & Co 76.4-78.2 
 
 36 Geyelin's single Jonval, R. D. Wood & Co 77 -83 . 4 
 
 24 Chase Mfg. Co., Orange, Mass 60.3-68.3 
 
 24 Rodney Hunt, Orange, Mass 76.6-78.8 
 
 30 Stout, Mills & Temple, Dayton, 66 . 7-68 . 5 
 
 The test efficiencies of 1879-1880 at Holyoke, Mass., 
 as published by the Water Power Co. are here summarized: 
 
 Per Cent. Per Cent. 
 
 Wemple 72.6-75.6 Wetmore 76.0-77.8 
 
 Tyler 78.1-82.2 Royer 66.9-75.2 
 
 Moessinger & H 58.9-72.6 Monarch " 41.4-50.3 
 
 Victor 80.4-83.3 New American 74.2-77.2 
 
 Walsh 72.1-74.4 Hercules 76.5-82.9 
 
 King 57.0-62.6 Royer 77.0-80.0 
 
 Tyler 79.7-80.3 Cyclone 34.2-52.5 
 
 Thompson 69.8-72.4 Hunt. 80.0-85.2 
 
 Sherwood 66.5-67.7 Mercey 64.5-70.6 
 
 Perry 76.6-81.4 Rechard 67.0-69.7 
 
 Reynolds 72.0-78.6 Economical 54.7-55.6 
 
 New American 75.2-77.8 Stowe 73.5-78.0 
 
 Hummingbird 62.9-66.3 Risdon 76.6-81.5 
 
 72.9-78.9 Victor 87.5-92.3 
 
 80.5 Boyden 80.8-83.6 
 
 Tait 64.8-77.8 Hercules. .- 74.5-78.2 
 
 Nunesuch 72.9-75.7 Curtis 69.4-83.6 
 
 Hercules 75.0-80.7 New American 75.2-79.6 
 
 Houston 80.7-81.8 
 
 James Emerson began his turbine testing in 1869 and 
 
 published the following results of efficiencies up to 1880: 
 
184 WATER RIGHTS DETERMINATION 
 
 Per Cent. 
 
 1874 48-inch wheel, American 75 . 98 
 
 1873 42 American 70.95 
 
 1873 42 American 68.82 
 
 1873 25 American 72.44 
 
 1873 20 American 69.38 
 
 1874 60 American 73 . 15 
 
 1873 48 American 75.46 
 
 1872 , 30 Leffel 74.3 
 
 1877 25 Victor 75.3 
 
 1877 26 Victor 77.8 
 
 1878 15 Victor 87.0 
 
 30 Eclipse, double, Stillwell-Bierce 76.28 
 
 1880 25 New American 81 .9 
 
 1880 20 New American 79.6 
 
 1876 30 Tyler 66.18-91.27 
 
 1874 44 Risdon 91 .32 
 
 1877 Wolf 73.8 -84.4 
 
 1871 Swede 72.5 -75.2 
 
 1873 Wetmore 82.9 
 
 1876 Wetmore 71 .95-81.7 
 
 1877 Perry 82.88 
 
 1872 American 76.8 
 
 1873 American 68.82-83.1 
 
 1874 American 75 .98 
 
 1872 Case 76.3 
 
 1873 Case 72.9 
 
 1872 Angell 40.0 
 
 1873 Angell 74.5-85.4 
 
 1874 Angell 76.7 
 
 1871 Risdon 71.3 -91.3 
 
 1873 Tyler 79.2 -81.6 
 
 1876 Tyler 66.2 -91.3 
 
 1877 Tyler 74.1 -82.4 
 
 1878 Humphreys 47.5-70.2 
 
 1877 Victor 75.3 -77.8 
 
 1878 Victor 83.6 -88.1 
 
 1873 Whitney 74.7 -81.2 
 
 1875 McCormick 89.2 
 
 1872 Thompson & H 76.2 
 
 1878 Libbey 65.5 
 
 1871 Davis 63.5 
 
 1878 Stowe 80.75 
 
 1879 Wemple 75.6 
 
 1879 Tyler 82.25 
 
 1870 Moessinger 73.3 -81.2 
 
TURBINE WHEELS 185 
 
 It is to be noted that the published turbine results are 
 the best shown on the tests. They represent the turbines 
 operating at or near full gate openings and under the highest 
 efficiency (see p. 162). 
 
 The great increase in the use of turbines is indicated by 
 one company, the Leffel, having sold over 12,000 wheels up 
 to 1888, aggregating over half a million horse-power. 
 
 In turbine estimates the horse-power varies as the square 
 root of the cube of the head; the quantity of water used and 
 the speed of the wheel vary as the square root of the head; 
 or, otherwise expressed — H.P. varies as H 8/2 ; Q and R.P.M. 
 vary as H H . 
 
 The coefficients of discharge through turbines have been 
 discussed on p. 120. 
 
 The efficiencies of turbines in this country in practical 
 service may be summarized as follows: 
 
 Per Cent. 
 
 Up to 1855 60 
 
 1855 to 1860 65 
 
 1860 to 1865 67 
 
 1865 to 1870 70 
 
 1875 to 1880 75 
 
 1880 and later 75 to 80 
 
 These percentages relate to the turbines operating at about 
 full gate, and to proper settings. The turbines are supposed 
 to be in good mechanical condition without appreciable 
 leakage. The heads and falls are to be measured at the 
 wheels when in operation. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Abbott's Hydraulic Engine, Boston, 1835. 
 
 Adam's Templeton (see Templeton), 1852. 
 
 Alger's Hydromechanics, Naval Academy, 1902. 
 
 Angell, on Water Courses. 
 
 Amos' Process of Flour Manufacture. 
 
 Appleton's Dictionary of Machines, Mechanics, etc., 2 Vols., New York, 
 
 1852. 
 Appleton's American Cyclopadie of Applied Mechanics. 
 Ball's Natural Sources of Power, New York, 1908. 
 Banks' Treatise on Mills, London, 1795. 
 Baird's American Cotton Spinner, Boston, 1860. 
 Bach's Die Wasserrader, Translation by Prof. Weidner, Madison, Wis., 
 
 1913. 
 Bellasis' Hydraulics, with Working Tables, London, 1903. 
 Beardmore's Manual of Hydrology, London, 1862. 
 Bdlidor's Architecture Hydraulique, 4 Vols., Paris, 1785. 
 Bennett's Manufacture of Leather, New York, 1910. 
 Bennett and Elton's History of Corn Milling, Vol. II, London, 1899. 
 Bennett's D'Aubuisson (see D'Aubuisson), 1852. 
 Birkinbine's Turbine Tests in 1859 and 1860. Report Bureau of Water, 
 
 Phila., 1861. 
 Bjorling's Water Hydr. Motors, London, 1894. 
 Blame's Hydraulic Machinery, New York, 1897. 
 Bloxam's Metals, London, 1876. 
 
 Bodmer's Hydraulic Motors and Turbines, 3d Ed., London. 
 Bookwalter's Millwright and Mechanic, Springfield, O.. 1881. 
 Brewster's Ferguson (see Ferguson), 1806. 
 Bresse's Hydraulic Motors, Mahan's Revision, New York, 1869. 
 Buchanan's Essays on Millwork, Nicholson's Revision, London, 1808-14. 
 Byrne's Pocket Companion for Mechanics, Machinists and Engineers, 
 
 New York, 1851. 
 Byrne's Practical Calculator, Phila., 1852. 
 Byrne's Practical Model Calculator, Phila, 1866. 
 
 187 
 
188 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Campbell's Life Writings of DeWitt Clinton, New York, 1849. 
 
 Church's Hydraulic Motors, New York, 1905. 
 
 Churchill's Landmarks of Oswego Co., N. Y., Syracuse, 1895. 
 
 Chambers' Encyclopaedia,- 10 Vols., Phila., 1869-1872. 
 
 Clark's Onondaga, 2 Vols., Syracuse, N. Y., 1849. 
 
 Cullen's Construction of Horizontal and Vertical Water Wheels, London, 
 
 1871. 
 Cone's Flow through Submerged Rectangular Orifices, Washington, 
 
 1917. 
 Craik's Practical American Millwright and Miller, Phila., 1870. 
 Cyclopaedia of Useful Arts, 2 Vols., London and New York, 1854. 
 Cramer's Useful Information for Cotton Manufacturers, 4 Vols., Char- 
 lotte, N. C, 2nd Ed., 1904. 
 D'Aubuisson's Treatise on Hydraulics, Bennett's Translation, Boston, 
 
 1852. 
 D'Aubuisson's Traits D'Hydraulique, Paris, 1839. 
 Davis' Manufacture of Leather, Phila., 1885. 
 Disston's The Saw in History, 2nd Ed., Phila., 1916. 
 Disturnell (see Gazetteer), 1842. 
 DeFontenelle and Malepeyre's Arts of Tannery, Currying and Leather 
 
 Dressing, Revised by Morfit, Philadelphia, 1852. 
 Dougherty's Hydraulics, New York, 1916. 
 Downing's Practical Hydraulics, London, 1855 and 1856. 
 Donaldson's Principles of Construction and Efficiency of Water Wheels, 
 
 London, 1876. 
 Drake's Practical Mechanic, Phila., 1888. 
 
 Dussance's Tanning, Currying and Leather Classified, Phila., 1867. 
 Evans' (Oliver) Young Millwright and Miller's Guide, Phila., Editions 
 
 of 1795, 1807, 1832 and 1853. 
 Emerson's (Jas.) Hydrodynamics, Willimansett, Editions of 1878, 1881, 
 
 and 1894. 
 Emerson's (Wm.) Principles of Mechanics written 1754, Sears' Revision, 
 
 London, 1825. 
 Eubank's Hydraulics and Mechanics, New York, 1850. 
 Engineer and Machinist's Assistant, 2 Vols., London, 1850. 
 Fairbairn's Treatise on Mills and Millwork, London, 1878. 
 Fanning's Hydraulic and Water Supply Engineering, New York, 1891. 
 Farnham's Water and Water Rights, 3 Vols., Rochester, 1904. 
 Febre's Hydrauliques, Paris, 1783. 
 Ferguson's Lectures on Mechanics, Hydraulics, etc., Revised by Brewster, 
 
 Edinburg, 1806. 
 Ferguson's Lectures, revised by Partington, London, 1825. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 189 
 
 Folwell's Water Supply Engineering, New York, 1900. 
 
 French's Gazetteer of the State of New York, Syracuse, 1860. 
 
 Fry's Civil Engineer's Pocket Book, New York, 1913. 
 
 Francis' Lowell Hydraulic Experiments, 4th Ed., 1883. 
 
 Grimshaw's Miller, Millwright and Mill Furnisher, 1882. 
 
 Gazetteer of the State of New York, Albany, 1813. 
 
 Gazetteer of the State of New York, Albany, 1824, by Spofford. 
 
 Gazetteer of the State of New York, Albany, 1836, by Gordon. 
 
 Gazetteer of the State of New York, Albany, 1842, by Disturnell. 
 
 Gazetteer of the State of New York, Syracuse, 1860, by French. 
 
 Gibson's Hydraulics and Its Applications, New York, 1908. 
 
 Gihon's Overman (see Overman), 1851. 
 
 Glynn's Power of Water, London, 1885. 
 
 Grier's Mechanic's Calculator, Philadelphia Editions of 1842 and 1846; 
 
 Scotch Edition of 1832. 
 Gregory's Treatise on Mechanics, 3 Vols., London, 1806. 
 Gregory's Mathematics for Practical Men, written 1825, London, Law 
 
 Revision, 1848. 
 Hardy's Landmarks in Paper Making, Fitchburg. 
 Haslett's Book of Reference and Engineer's Field Book, Edited by 
 
 Hackley, New York, 1859. 
 Haswell's Engineers' and Mechanics' Pocket Book, New York, Editions 
 
 of 1844, 1848, 1854, 1860, 1878, and 1909. 
 Hewson on Levees, New York, 1870. 
 Hebert's Engineer's and Mechanic's Encyclopaedic, 2 Vols., London, 
 
 1849. 
 Herschell's Frontenus and Water Supply of Rome, New York, 1899. 
 Hill's Pocket Manual for Engineers, Providence, 1883. 
 Holliwell's Technics of Flour Milling, 2d Ed., London, 1904. 
 Hough's History of Jefferson Co., N. Y., 1854. 
 
 Horton's Turbine Water Wheels and Power Tables, Washington, 1906. 
 Horton's Weir Experiments, Coefficients and Formulae, Washington, 1906. 
 Horton's Turbine Water Wheel as a Prime Mover, Potsdam, N. Y., being 
 
 Clarkson Bulletin VII, No. 1, Jan., 1910. 
 Howard and Bullough's Cotton Machinery, 1909. 
 Hughes' American Miller and Millwright's Assistant, Phila., Editions of 
 
 1851, 1853, 1859, 1866, 1884. 
 Innes' Centrifugal Pumps and Turbines, 1901. 
 Jackson's Hydraulic Works, London, 1885. 
 
 Jamieson's Dictionary of Mechanical Sciences, 2 Vols., London, 1836. 
 Jamieson's Mechanics for Practical Men, London, 1840. 
 Kent's Mechanical Engineers' Pocket Book, New York, 1916. 
 
190 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Knight's American Mechanical Dictionary, 3 Vols., New York and Cam- 
 bridge, 1876. 
 Knight's New Mechanical Dictionary, Boston, 1884. 
 Kick's Treatise on Milling Science and Practice, translated from the 
 
 German by Powles. 
 Kozmin's Flour Milling, translated from the Russian by Falkner and 
 
 Fjelstrup, New York, 1917. 
 Langsdorf's Lehrbushler Hydraulics, Allenburg, 1794. 
 Lea's Hydraulics, 1907. 
 
 Leonard's Mechanical Principia, New York, 1848. 
 Levy and Mannel's Tanners and Chemists' Hand Book, 1909. 
 Lineham's Text Book of Mechanical Engineering-, London, 1904. 
 Lister's Cotton Manufacture, London, 1894. 
 Little's Story of a Wonderful Flour Mill, 1917. 
 Library of Useful Knowledge, 15 Vols., New York, 1881. 
 Mahan's Bresse (see Bresse), 1869. 
 Mahan's Civil Engineering, New York, 1879. 
 Mead's Notes on Hydrology, 1904. 
 Mead's Water Power Engineering, New York, 1908. 
 Meyer's References on Water Rights and Control of Waters, 1914. 
 Merriman's American Civil Engineers' Pocket Book, New York, 1911. 
 Merriman's Treatise on Hydraulics, New York, 1889, 1910. 
 Millers' Review for 1913-1917, Phila. 
 Mitchell's Dictionary of Mathematics and Physical Sciences, London, 
 
 1823. 
 Michelotti, Sperimenti Itraulici, Forina, 1767, 2 Vols. 
 Morin's Hydraulique, Paris, 1758. 
 
 Moore's Universal Assistant and Complete Mechanic, New York, 1880. 
 Morris' (Elwood) Tests of Fourneyron Turbines, Journ. Frank. Inst., 
 
 1843. 
 Molitor's Hydraulics of Rivers, Weirs, Sluices, New York, 1905. 
 Mollet's Hydraulique Physique, Lyons, 1809. 
 Molesworth's Pocket Book of Useful Formulae and Memoranda, London, 
 
 Editions of 1871 and 1894. 
 Morfit's Arts of Tanning, Currying and Dressing Leather, Phila., 1852. 
 Neville's Hydraulic Tables, Coefficients and Formula, London, Editions 
 
 of 1853, 1860-1861, and 1875. 
 Nicholson's Operative Mechanic and Machinist, London, 1826. 
 Nicholson's Buchanan (see Buchanan). 
 Nordyke and Marmon's Milling Books, Indianapolis. 
 Nystrom's Pocket Book of Mechanics and Engineering, 9th Ed., Phila., 
 
 1865. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 191 
 
 Oliver's Miller and Milling Engineer, Indianapolis, 1913. 
 
 Operative Miller, Chicago. 
 
 Overman's Mechanics for Millwrights, etc., Gihon's Edition, Phila., 1858, 
 also 1851. 
 
 Oswego City and Business Directory and Compendium of Useful Infor- 
 mation, Oswego, N. Y., 1852. 
 
 Oswego's Commercial Times, 2d Annual Review of the Trade and Com- 
 merce for 1858, Oswego, 1859. 
 
 Oswego, Churchill's Landmarks, Syracuse, 1895. 
 
 Pallett's Miller's, Millwright's and Engineer's Guide, Phila., Editions 
 of 1866 and 1890. 
 
 Parker's Control of Water, London and New York, 1915. 
 
 Perry's Applied Mechanics, 1898. 
 
 Proctor's Principles of Leather Manufacture, Spon, 1903. 
 
 Proctor's Leather Industry's Laboratory Book, Spon, 1908. 
 
 Partington's Ferguson's Lectures, London, 1825. 
 
 Rankine's Manual of the Steam Engine and Other Prime Movers, 9th 
 Ed., London, 1878. 
 
 Rankine's Manual of Applied Mechanics, London, 1877. 
 
 Rankine's Civil Engineering, London, 1880. 
 
 Rankine's Machinery and Millwork, London, 1880. 
 
 Robinson's Hydraulic Power and Hydraulic Machinery, London, 1887. 
 
 Russel's Text Book on Hydraulics, New York, 1910. 
 
 Sam's Mechanical Engineering. 
 
 Schmeer's Flow of Water, New York, 1909. 
 
 Scott's Practical Cotton Spinner and Manufacturer, Phila., 1851. 
 
 Schultze's Leather Manufacture, New York, 1876. 
 
 Scribner's Engineers' and Mechanics' Companion, 18th Ed., New York, 
 1878. 
 
 Smeaton's Reports, London, 1797. 
 
 Smeaton's Tracts, London, 1794. 
 
 Smith's (Hamilton) Hydraulics, etc., New York, 1886. 
 
 Strange's Indian Storage Reservoirs, London, 1904. 
 
 Stone's Simple Hydraulic Formula?, 1881. 
 
 Stevenson's Canal and River Engineering, Edinburgh, 1858. 
 
 Spon's Encyclopedia of Industrial Arts, London, 1879. 
 
 Spon's Dictionary of Engineering, 8 Vols., London, 1871. 
 
 Sullivan's New Hydraulics, Denver, 1900. 
 
 Switzer's Hydrostatics and Hydraulics, London, 1779. 
 
 Swingle's Practical Hand Book for Millwrights, Chicago, 1910. 
 
 Supplee's Mechanical Engineer's Reference Book, 2d Ed., 1905. 
 
 Taylor, in Journ. West. Soc. of Engrs., Ill, 879. 
 
192 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Templeton's Engineer, Millwright and Mechanic's Pocket Companion, 
 
 8th English Ed., Revised by Adams, New York, 1852. 
 Thomas' Composition of Several Classes of American Wheats, etc., 
 
 Washington, 1917. 
 Tomlinson's Cyclopsedie of Useful Arts, 2 Vols., London, 1852. 
 Trimble's The Tanniris, Phila., 1892. 
 Trautwine's Engineer's Pocket Book, New York, 1907. 
 Tredgold's Hydraulic Tracts, 2d Ed., London, 1836. 
 Turneaure and Russell's Public Water Supplies, New York, 1910. 
 Unwin's Treatise on Hydraulics, London, 1907. 
 Venturoli's Elementi Di Meccanicse, 2 Vols., Rome, 1826. 
 Watt's Leather Manufacture, London, 1906. 
 
 Water power, Parts I and II, 10th U. S. Census, Vols. XXVI, XXVII. 
 Weidner's Translation of Bach's Die Wasserrader, Madison, 1913. 
 Weidner's Theory and Test of an Overshot Water Wheel, Bulletin 520 
 
 Univ. of Wis., Madison, 1913. 
 Weber and Others on Turbine Tests at Centennial Exposition, 1876. 
 Webber on Water Wheels, Trans. A.S.M.E., XVIII, 41. 
 Webber's Manual of Power for Machines, Shafts and Belts, New York, 
 
 1891. 
 Wells' Water Power of Maine, Augusta, 1869. 
 Weisbach's Mechanics of Machinery and Engineering, 1st American 
 
 Ed. of Prof. Johnson, Phila., 1848. 
 Whitin Machine Works, Cotton Machinery. 
 Winslow's Machinist's and Mechanic's Practical Calculator and Guide, 
 
 3d Ed., Boston, 1855. 
 Wilme's The Civil Engjneer, 1846. 
 Wolfe's Milling Machinery. 
 
 Young's History of American Manufacturers, Vol. II, Phila. 
 Young's (Dr.) Natural Philosophy and Mechanical Arts, 2 Vols., London, 
 
 1807. 
 Water Turbine Wheel Books: 
 
 Adams, Boston, Mass, 1858. 
 
 American and New American, 10 Editions, Dayton, O. 
 
 Amsterdam-Jonval, Amsterdam, N. Y. 
 
 Amsterdam-Fourneyron, Amsterdam, N. Y. 
 
 Alcott, Mt. Holly, N. J., 3 Editions. 
 
 Allentown or Eureka, Allentown, Pa. 
 
 Adams, or Helmer, or Rome, Rome, N. Y. 
 
 Bodine-Jonval, Mt. Morris, N. Y. 
 
 Bradway, W. Stafford, Conn. 
 
 Bastion, of Watertown. N. Y. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 193 
 
 Water Turbine Wheel Books, Continued: 
 Bartley, Bartley, N. J. 
 Burnham, York, Pa. 
 Ridgeway's Perfection, Coatesville, Pa. 
 Chase-Jonval, Orange, Mass. 
 Cope, West Chester, Pa. 
 Curtis, Ogdensburg, N. Y. 
 Carley or Syracuse, Syracuse, N. Y. 
 Camden, Camden, N. Y. 
 Camden U. S., Camden. 
 Canada Wheel, Reading, Pa. 
 Christiana, Christiana, Pa. 
 Dubuque-McCormick, Dubuque, Iowa. 
 Dix-Jonval, Glen Falls, N. Y. 
 Eclipse Double Turbine, Dayton, O. 
 Eureka, Allentown, Pa. 
 Fitz Overshot, Hanover, Pa. 
 Flenniken, Dubuque, Iowa. 
 Fourneyron, McElwain, Amsterdam, N. Y. 
 Gulden's Overshot, Bendersville, Pa. 
 Gulden's Turbine, Bendersville, Pa. 
 Helmer, or Rome, N. Y. 
 
 Hercules, Holyoke and Worcester, Mass., 4 Editions. 
 Haig's Reliance, Reading, Pa. 
 Hunt-McCormiek, Orange, Mass., 5 Editions. 
 Humphreys IXL and LCR, Keane, N. H. 
 Jolly-McCormick, Holyoke, Mass. 
 Kaiser, Chambersburg, Pa. 
 Leffel, Springfield, O., 12 Editions. 
 Little Grant, Dolan's Logansport, Ind. 
 
 Wilson, Picton, Ont. 
 
 Pheonix, Munson, Utica, N. Y. 
 Lesner, Wemple of Fultonville, N. Y. 
 Moline-McCormick, Moline, 111. 
 Poole and Hunt's Leffel, Baltimore, Md. 
 Risdon, Mt. Holly, N. J. 
 Risdon-Alcott, Mt. Holly, N. J. 
 Raney Turbine, Pittsburg, Pa. 
 Reliance, Reading, Pa. 
 Reynolds, Oswego, N. Y. 
 Rechard. 
 Swain, Lowell, Mass. 
 
194 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Water Turbine Wheel Books, Continued: 
 Sullivan's Wetmore, Clairmont, N. H. 
 Smith, York, Pa., 11 Editions. 
 Success, York, Pa., 3 Editions. 
 Trump, Springfield, 0. 
 Victor, Dayton, 0., 13 Editions. 
 Warren of 1853, Boston, Mass. 
 Waits Champion, Sandy Hill, N. Y. 
 
INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Accompanying machinery, flour mills 8, 12, 14, 25 
 
 Ajutage, long known, not allowed Ill, 112 
 
 Aperture or orifice water grants 109 
 
 Ajutage long known Ill, 112 
 
 Ajutage not allowed Ill 
 
 Examples • 109-12 
 
 See " Coeflicients." 
 
 179 N. Y. A. D. 332 110 
 
 2 Wharton 477 Ill 
 
 Axe Factory 70 
 
 Bark Mill (see " Tannery ") 66 
 
 Blast furnace, bellows, blowers 73 
 
 Carthage decree 74 
 
 D'Aubuisson's example 75 
 
 Haswell's examples 73-74 
 
 Hewitt, N. J 75 
 
 Leonard on power for 75 
 
 Breast wheels 170 
 
 Bucket filling 175 
 
 Coefficient of discharge 117, 170 
 
 Efficiency 171, 175 
 
 Falls adapted for 163, 170 
 
 Head and fall 159, 171 
 
 Kinds of 170 
 
 Leakage 175 
 
 Rankine's rule 169, 175 
 
 Smeaton's maxims 153 
 
 Speed of 171 
 
 Buhr mills (see " Run of Stone ")• 
 
 Bulkhead gates, coefficient for 115 
 
 195 
 
196 INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Carding and fulling mills °° 
 
 Carthage mill 81 
 
 Dexter water grant °" 
 
 Equal to run of stones °1 
 
 Evans on 81 
 
 Oswego water lease 81 
 
 Central-discharge, flat-vaned, scroll-cased wheels 138 
 
 Coefficient of discharge 119, 145 
 
 Construction of 139 
 
 Description 138 
 
 Efficiency 145 
 
 Examples 142-144 
 
 Coefficient of discharge 113-121 
 
 Breast wheels 117 
 
 Bulkhead gates 115 
 
 Central-discharge wheels 119 
 
 Definition 114 
 
 Flutter wheels 117 
 
 Overshot wheels 117 
 
 Spout wheels, 50 Hun 497 120 
 
 Standard orifices 113-115 
 
 Court decisions 114 
 
 Orifice defined 115 
 
 Rounded orifices 115 
 
 Theoretical discharge 115 
 
 Tub wheels 119. 
 
 Turbines 120 
 
 Undershot wheels 117 
 
 Corn cracker or crusher 48 
 
 Definition 48 
 
 History of 49-52 
 
 Kinds 49-52 
 
 Power 53 
 
 Corn meal and feed mills 45 
 
 Corn cracker or crusher 48 
 
 Power used 45, 48 
 
 Weight of corn 45 
 
 Cotton mills 87 
 
 Abbott on power 88 
 
 Baird on power 96 
 
 Building, space 91 
 
 Changes in power demands 101 
 
INDEX 197 
 
 PAoa 
 
 Cotton mills, Emerson's tests 99, 100 
 
 Glasgow mill lease 93 
 
 Groat v. Moak 95 
 
 History of ' 88 
 
 Janesville mill 100 
 
 Leonard on 90-93 
 
 Lowell standard 89, 106 
 
 Manufacturers' tables 101 
 
 Mill power 89 
 
 Moore's example 96 
 
 Operation in 87 
 
 Oswego lease 94 
 
 Power, various authorities 96 
 
 Rocky Glen mill 94 
 
 Spindles and power per building 91 
 
 Throstle and other spindles 96 
 
 Webber's tests 97-99 
 
 Whitham's tests 100 
 
 Whitman's lease 95 
 
 Definitions, bark mill 66 
 
 Coefficient of discharge 114 
 
 Corn cracker 48 
 
 Cuboch 4 
 
 Flouring mill 44 
 
 Grist and grist mill 44 
 
 Orifice 113, 115 
 
 Run of stone 44 
 
 Turbine 176 
 
 Discharge (see " Coefficient "). 
 
 Distillery water grant 53 
 
 Efficiency (see the particular wheel). 
 
 Feed mills ". 45 
 
 Flax (see " Oil mill "). 
 
 Flutter or saw mill wheels 129 
 
 Carthage wheels 132 
 
 Coefficient of discharge 117, 129 
 
 Craik and Haswell 131 
 
 Efficiency 132 
 
 Ellicott, 1795 13 ° 
 
198 INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Flutter or saw mill wheels, Evans and Pallett 130 
 
 Saw mill grants 129 
 
 Fulling (see " Carding Mill "). 
 
 Grist mill defined , 44 
 
 Decree at Carthage 37 
 
 Fulton 32 
 
 Little Falls 33 
 
 Ogdensburg 32 
 
 Plattsburg 35 
 
 Haswell and others 38, 39 
 
 Power for grist mill ' 42 
 
 Power per run 28, 37, 38, 44 
 
 Powers v. Perkins 38 
 
 Run of water at Dayton 26 
 
 Slow speed of stones 15 
 
 Small product 15 
 
 Two runs needed 42 
 
 Whitham's tests 44 
 
 I 
 
 Head gate discharge coefficient 115 
 
 Inches of water defined 126 
 
 Carthage decree 36, 60, 69, 70, 74 
 
 Coefficient of discharge 126 
 
 Differs from aperture grant 122 
 
 Engineering meaning ; 122-126 
 
 Grants in inches 122 
 
 Janesville Cotton Mills v. Ford 128 
 
 Origin of term 122-126 
 
 Palmer v. Angel 127 
 
 Practical construction 30, 128 
 
 Quantity of water and not power is meant 127 
 
 Theresa tannery 67 
 
 Iron works, blast furnace 73 
 
 Nail factory .' 79 
 
 Rolling mill - 76 
 
 Trip-hammer 77 
 
 Linseed (see " Oil Mill "). 
 
INDEX 199 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Machine shop grant 70 
 
 Carthage decree L . 71 
 
 Lyman's lease 72 
 
 Whitham's tests 72 
 
 Merchant buhr mills 17, 18 
 
 Definition 9, 44 
 
 Haswell and others 38, 39 
 
 In Oswego 28 
 
 Large product and power 15 
 
 Power per 100 barrels of flour 21 
 
 Power to grind and dress a bushel of wheat 8 
 
 Power to grind bushel wheat 4 
 
 Power per run of stone 28, 44 
 
 Systems of milling 43 
 
 See " Run of Stone." 
 
 Nail factory 79 
 
 Oil Mill 107 
 
 Orifice (see " Aperture "). 
 
 Oswego milling history 19, 21, 22 
 
 Cotton mill lease 94 
 
 Emerson's views 31 
 
 Flour per run per day 18, 21 
 
 Leases on hydraulic canal 28, 29 
 
 Brown 81 
 
 Lyman 72 
 
 Varick decree 26 
 
 See " Run of Stone." 
 
 Overshot water wheels 154 
 
 Bucket filling 167 
 
 Coefficient of discharge 117, 154 
 
 Efficiency 159-163 
 
 ' Evans' examples 155 
 
 Examples 164-167 
 
 Falls adapted for 163 
 
 Head and f all 158-159 
 
 Head on wheel 155, 168 
 
 Hewitt, N. J 76 
 
 Pitch-back 170 
 
 Rankine's rule - 169 
 
 Size and number of buckets 168 
 
200 INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Overshot water wheels, Smeaton's maxims 153 
 
 Speed of wheel 154-158 
 
 Paper mills 102 
 
 Caswell's grant 106 
 
 Developments in 102 
 
 Examples 104-106 
 
 Sunnydale mill 106 
 
 Writing mills 106 
 
 Pearl barley mills 54 
 
 Pitch-back wheels 170 
 
 Plaster mills 102 
 
 Poncelet wheels 153 
 
 Power for Milling (see "Wheat," "Run of Stone," "Grist 
 Mills " and " Merchant Mills "). 
 
 Roller mills, power grinding wheat 8 
 
 Power grinding and dressing wheat 14 
 
 Power per 100 barrels of flour ' 21 
 
 Whitham's tests 24 
 
 Rolling mills (iron) ' 76 
 
 Run of Stone, Brewster's mle of 1806 17 
 
 Carthage decree 36 
 
 Corn and feed mills 45 
 
 Dedrick on power 43 
 
 Definition 44 
 
 Distillery buhr 53 
 
 Evans on power 135 
 
 Fulton decree 32 
 
 Grist mill ' 37, 44 
 
 Haswell and others 38 39 
 
 High speed in merchant mills 15 
 
 Hughes and Pallett on power 39-42 
 
 Little Falls decree 33 
 
 Merchant mills 44 
 
 Ogdensburg decree 32 
 
 Plattsburg decree 34-36 
 
 Power grinding and dressing bushel of wheat 8 
 
 Power grinding bushel wheat 4 
 
 Power in grist mills 28, 37, 38, 44 
 
 Power in merchant mills 28 44 
 
 Power per 100 barrels flour 21 
 
INDEX 201 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Run of Stone, Power variation with stones 17 
 
 Powers v. Perkins 38 
 
 See " Oswego." 
 
 See " Water grants and leases." 
 
 Slow speed in grist mills 15 
 
 Speed of 15 
 
 Starch mill stone 53 
 
 Varick decree 26 
 
 Wheat ground per run 17 
 
 Run of water at Dayton 26 
 
 Saw mills 56 
 
 Carthage decree 60 
 
 Circular saws 61-64 
 
 Examples 58-65 
 
 Gang saws 61, 62 
 
 Grants of water for 57 
 
 Illustration 57 
 
 Power for circular saws 63-65 
 
 Power for single saw 58-61 
 
 Power, various woods 58 
 
 Speed of saw blades 56 
 
 Water grants for 57, 129 
 
 Water wheel used 57 
 
 Shingle mills 64 
 
 Split-pea mills 55 
 
 Starch mills 53 
 
 Stones in flour mills (see " Run of Stone ") 
 
 Sumac mill 70 
 
 Tanneries 66 
 
 Bark mill or grinder 66 
 
 Bark mill tests 67 
 
 Carthage decree 69 
 
 Cover tannery '. 67, 69 
 
 Hiteman tannery 70 
 
 Hubbard tannery 68 
 
 Janney tannery .i 69 
 
 Mosser tannery 69 
 
 Power per 100 hides 67, 68 
 
 Theresa tannery 67 
 
 Trip or tilt hammer 77, 151 
 
202 INDEX 
 
 PAGB 
 
 Tub wheels 132 
 
 Coefficient of discharge 119, 132 
 
 Description 132 
 
 Efficiency 137 
 
 Emerson's test 136 
 
 Evans on 134, 135 
 
 Examples 136 
 
 Water grant 132 
 
 Turbines 176 
 
 Classes of 277 
 
 Coefficient of discharge 120 
 
 Definition 176 
 
 Development of 177, 178 
 
 Efficiency 180-185 
 
 Undershot wheels 146 
 
 Bucket or float immersion 148 
 
 Coefficient of discharge 117, 146 
 
 Depth of floats 149 
 
 Depth of stream 149 
 
 Efficiency 152 
 
 Examples 151 
 
 Head range 149 
 
 Horse-power 151 
 
 Number of floats 149, 150 
 
 Poncelet wheel 153 
 
 Size of 149 
 
 Smeaton's maxims 153 
 
 Smeaton's tests 146 
 
 Speed of 146, 147 
 
 Water grants and leases: 
 
 Ansonia, Conn 110 
 
 Axe factory 70 
 
 Bark mill and tannery 66 
 
 Birmingham, Conn 110 
 
 Blast furnace, bellows, blowers 73, 76 
 
 By aperture or orifice 109, 122 
 
 By breast wheels 170 
 
 By central-discharge wheels 138 
 
 By flutter wheels '. 129 
 
 By inches of water 122 
 
INDEX 203 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Water grants and leases: 
 
 By overshot wheels 154 
 
 By pitch-back wheels 170 
 
 By Poncelet wheels 153 
 
 By saw mill wheels 56, 129 
 
 By tub wheels 132 
 
 By turbines 29, 176, 179 
 
 By undershot wheels 146 
 
 Carding and fulling mill 80 
 
 Carthage decree 36, 46, 60, 67, 69, 74, 78, 79, 132, 136, 151, 174 
 
 Cohoes, N. Y 109 
 
 Corn cracker 48, 179 
 
 Cotton factory 87, 93, 95 
 
 Dayton, Ohio 26 
 
 Dexter, N. Y 110 
 
 Distillery 53 
 
 Doctrine of practical construction 30 
 
 Emerson on. 31 
 
 Feed mills 45 
 
 Flouring mills (see Merchant buhr mills). 
 
 Fulton decree! 32 
 
 Glasgow cotton mills 93 
 
 Grist mills 26, 28, 32, 35, 38, 44 
 
 Groat v. Moak. 86, 95 
 
 Hewitt, N. J 75 
 
 Hydraulic canal, Oswego 19, 21, 26, 28, 29, 68, 72, 81, 94 
 
 Janesville Cotton Co. v. Ford 128 
 
 Little Falls decree 33, 95 
 
 Lowell standard ' 89 
 
 Machine shop 70 
 
 Nail factory 79 
 
 Oat meal mill v 54 
 
 Ogdensburg decree 32 
 
 Oil mill 107 
 
 Palmer v. Angel 127 
 
 Paper mill 102, 106 
 
 Pearl barley mill 54 
 
 Plaster mill 102 
 
 Plattsburg decree 34-36 
 
 Powers v. Perkins 38 
 
 Roller flour mills 7, 13, 14, 21, 24 
 
 Rolling mills (iron) 76 
 
204 INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Water grants and leases: 
 
 Saw-mills 56 
 
 Schuylkill case Ill 
 
 See " Run of Stone." 
 
 Shingle mill 64 
 
 Tannery 66 
 
 Theresa, N. Y 67 
 
 Trip-hammer 77, 79, 151 
 
 Unionville, Conn 110 
 
 Varick canal decree 26 
 
 Watertown, N. Y 107 
 
 Wausau, Wis 57, 179 
 
 Whitman mill 95 
 
 Windsor Locks, Conn 109 
 
 Woolen mills 82 
 
 Wheat ground per run 17 
 
 Per barrel of flour 2 
 
 Pounds per bushel • ; 1 
 
 Power used in grinding 4 
 
 Power used in grinding and dressing 8 
 
 See " Run of Stone." 
 
 Variation in grinding 18 
 
 Variation in weights 1 
 
 Woolen mills 82 
 
 Emerson's tests 85 
 
 Examples 82-86 
 
 Groat v. Moak 86 
 
 Leffel examples 86 
 
 Operations in 86 
 
 Ordway's tests 86 
 
 Stott's mills 83 
 
 Webber's tests 85-86 
 
 Whitham's tests 82-84 
 
: 
 
 
 \l \ 
 
 
 itiiiiiti ii 
 
 SI SStitit ;