labor fating looms FIRST EDlTIOrS 1904 PRESENTED BY THE DRAPER. Company HOPEDALE.IiASS. Class _X^_L4ll Book. lU Copyriglit]^^_ \Ci i,r COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. THE FIRST NORTHROP LOOM. Designed for the weaving of Print Cloth and Sheetings solely. Used with great success on plain two-harness weaves bv our original customers. It was this model that first proved a weaver's capacity to run sixteen looms. It incorporated the inventions of : — James H. Northrop, Charles F. Roper, William F. Draper, George Otis Draper, Edward S. Stimpson and John W. Keeley. The loom frame and other conventional parts were designed for the Hopedale Machine CoxMpany under super- vision of Oren B. Smith. The H. M. Co. was incorporated with the present Draper Company in 1S96. LABOR-SAVING LOOMS> (FIRST EDITION.) A BRIEF TREATISE ON I^LAIN (0BAYING AND THE PECEK'r l/WPROVEMEMTS IN THAT LINE WITH SPECIAL REEERENCE TO THE . . . flORTHHOP liOO]V[S MANUFACTURED BY DRAPER COMPANY, HOPKDALK, MASS., U. S. A.. X 9 4 LIBRftRY of CONGRESS Two CoDles Received JUL 16 1904 \ CoDyrleht Entry feLAS^ (L XXo. Na COPY B V. V 0,0 "V COPYRIGHT 1904, BY DRAPER COMPANY. WRITTEN AND COMPILED BY GEORGE OTIS DRAPER, SECRETARY OF THE DRAPER COMPANY. u PRINTED BY Cook & Sons, Milford, Mass. PRBFACM. This book cannot serve as a detailed catalogue by which the purchaser can always note the exact nature of the devices we shall continue to sell, as improvements are' often unexpectedly invented. We can hardly expect to publish a work of this size at short intervals, but shall try to keep it reasonably up to date by amended additions. New matter will be inserted in the final pages of each edition after the first. OUR HOPEDALE PLANT IN 1904. Scale, 315 feet to the inch. About 37 acres of floor space in all. FORMJER LITMRATURB ON THE NORTHROP LOOM. 1895. Circular — T/ie Advent of the Northrop Loom, issued April, 1895. Essay, The Present Development of the Northrop Loom, delivered by George Otis Draper at the meeting of the N. E. Cotton Manufacturers' Association at Atlanta, Ga., Oct. 24, 1S95. Printed in Vol. 59 of the Transactions. 1896. Papers on The Northrop Loom, by F. M. Messenger, John H. Hines, H. D. Wheat, and discussion by Wm. F. Draper, Arthur H. Lowe, George F. Whittam and W. J. Kent, April 39, 1896, printed in Vol. 60 of the Transactions of the N. E. Cotton Manufacturers' Association. Chapter in Facts and Figures, on the Northrop Loom, published by George Draper & Sons in the spring of 1896. Speech of Hon. Wm. C. Lovering, published in the Scien- tific American of May 2, 1896, and other papers, containing pertinent refei'ence to the loom. Pamphlet— 27z^ L.ooms of the South, by F. B. de Berard, issued March, 1896, containing detail of savings from use of the Northrop Loom in Southern mills. Speech of Hon. Charles Warren Lippitt, published in the Manufacturers' Record of June 19, and papers generally through- out the country, giving the history of the Northrop loom devel- opment as illustrative of the educational influence of manufac- turing. IS97. Pamphlet — Instructions for Running Northrop Looms^ issued by George Draper & Sons, January, 1S97. Pamphlet — Instructions Pour la Conduite de Metiers North- rop^ issued by the Draper Company, 1897. Circular — Our Common loom^ issued by the Draper Com- pany, June, 1897. Circular — The Triumph of the Northrop loom, November, T897. 1898. Circular — Our Connection with the Art of Weaving, issued by the Draper Company, April, 189S. Circular — Take-up Mechanism, issued by the Draper Com- pany, 1898. Article — Industrial Investigations, by Jacob Schoenhof, in The Forum for October, 1898. Referred to the great savings of the "Automatic loom," as affecting differences in cost of production. 1899. Pamphlet — Instructions for Running Northrop Looms, (Re- vised Edition,) issued by the Draper Company, January, 1899. Pamphlet — Machinery and Labor Displacement, by George Gunton, issued by the Gunton Institute, containing pertinent reference to the Northrop Loom as a labor-saving invention. 1900. Circular — The Advance of the Northrop Loom, January, 1900. Pamphlet — Factory Conditions in the South, Januar}^ 30, 1900, by George Gunton, in Gunton's Lecture Bureau course. Paper on Method of Cost Finding by Wm. G. Nichols, delivei-ed at a meeting of the N. E. Cotton Manufacturers' Asso- ciation at Boston, April 26, 1900. Printed in Vol. 68 of the Transactions. Essay on Improt^ements in American Cotton Machinery^ by George Otis Draper, delivered at a meeting of the Southern Cotton Spinners' Association at Charlotte, N. C, May 18, 1900. Printed in the Association records and various periodicals. 1 901. Chapter in Textile Texts^ published by the Draper Com- pany, spring of 1901. Various articles in publication, Cotton Chats^ started in July, 1 901, and continued since. Circular on Important Discovery^ relating to method of spinning to prevent bunches in cloth, August, 1901. 1903. Circular on The Keene Drawing-in Machine^ January, 1903. 1903. Circular on The Northrop Loom, issued by the British Northrop Loom Co., January, 1903. Essay on Continued Developtnent of the Northrop Looni, deliv- ered by General Draper at a meetixig of the N. E. Cotton Manu- facturers' Association in Boston, April 23, 1903, printed in Vol. 74 of the Transactions. Various references in a book, The American Cotton Industry, by T. M. Young, published b}^ Charles Scribners' Sons, 1903. Chapter on Northrop Loom in Textile Texts, second edi- tion, issued December, 1903. Essay on 77?,? Development of the Northrop Looni^ delivered before the Providence Society of Mechanical Engineers by George Otis Draper, printed in Providence Jom-nal, Dec. 28, 1903 and other trade journals. 1904. Circular on List of Northrop Looms Sold, issued January, 1904. Article on Evolution of the Cotton Industry, published in Gunton's Magazine for February, 1904. Pamphlet, Labor Saving Looms, (the present volume). The present circular contains practically all the information that is applicable to date, so that our former issues would have no present interest. (This list for 1904 is only complete to April ist.) COLLJ^CTBD EVIDENCE. Also Northrop Loom History, Vol. I, 1S89-1S93 — 574 pages. Northrop Loom History, Vol. IL, 1S93-1S96 — -1097 pa«^cs. Northrop Loom History, Vol. HI, 1897- 1900 — 818 pages. These books are by the Secretary of the Draper Company and were compiled for general reference and use by counsel during litigation. They contain the history of the exper- iments and development of the loom, and associated matters of interest. Their contents are naturally private, and not in- tended for general circulation, although the public is therefore deprived of an acquaintance with a unique mechanical romance. It is believed that no other volumes of like size were ever pre- pared for such a purpose. In our circular of November, 1897, we had a word to say to possible competitors which still seems pertinent. We there- fore reprint a portion as a few unfortunate experimenters failed to note its truth on first appearance : "There are doubtless mauy bright meu who will iu tlie next few years give time aud toil in the endeavor to evade the claims of our pat- ents while producing- similar mechanism. In view of the many other tields for inveutive skill we ask— Is it worth the while V We are un- doubtedly the first in the field and legitimately entitled to a fair reward for the expenditure of money, loss of time and consumption of brain energy. Our success is no vagary of chance or luckv stroke of for- tune. Every step in advance has been gained after constant thought and experiment, with ten failures for evei-y success. The patent office lias recognized the novelty of our devices by bi-oad basic claims. We have searched the records here and abroad, and have proof that we are pioneers in our line. AVe shall defend our rigiits in the courts with the obstinacy of conviction, if such methods are necessary. We have no wish for chance to show our strength. A lawsuit involves a waste of energy for one side at least, aud an expense for both. We appreciate these facts after thirty years of continuous litigation." 13 THE ART OF WEAVING. The process of weaving cloth consists in interlacing a con- tinuous thread amidst a series of parallel threads. Without giving an exhaustive history of the art it may be pertinent ibr further comparison to note down certain steps in its progress. It is fairly well established to-day that woven goods were used as clothing by the ancient Egyptians fully 6000 years ago. I have seen in Switzerland a preserved section of a net woven of twisted threads supposed to have been the work of the Lake dwellers in pre-historic times. In the ear- lier processes it is probable that the warp threads were stretched on pegs, the weft being inserted by the fingers. In such weaving the warp threads usually lie vertically and in fact this is the method used 13 to-day in producing rugs in the Orient with short wefts. With the use of longer weft also came the use of a stick with a hooked end for pulling it into position. If we are to form our further comparisons on a plain print cloth of the present width of 28 inches containing 64 threads of warp and 64 of filling per inch, it is possible that the rate of weaving by this method on such goods could be figured as low as one pick per minute per opera- tive in the earliest use. Cloth is still woven by this method in India, although a harness motion is added. History gives us no rec- ord of the time at which the warp threads were divided by har- nesses and the shuttle introduced. References are made to shuttles in the Bible and other ancient books. It is probable that the general styles of hand loom weaving were very simi- lar for many centuries without defi- nite change until the invention of the fly shuttle by John Kay in i733- At this time, in weaving broad cloth, it was necessary to have two weavers at least, one at each end of the lay to thro^v the shuttle to the other. By Kay's invention one of these two men was dispensed "with and even on narrow weav- ing a weaver could produce at least twice as much cloth per day. H No literature that I have run across gives anv figures of produc- tion on the looms of this period and considering their crudeness in other lines, it is^ perhaps lair to assume that they could not pro- duce at a greater speed than 20 picks per minute before Kay's time, probably averaging less. Ka3-'s invention caused great com- motion amongst the weaving trade and he was forced bv persecution to leave the countrv. Cartwright's power loom patent was granted in 17S5. Authorities differ as to the success of his first looms, some claiming that the earlv use was of no importance, while others refer to a mill of 500 looms in which Cartwright was interested, as being destroved in 1790 bv a mob in svmpathy with the hand loom weavers. Whatever the cause, there were as late as 1S13 but 2400 power looms in all Great Britain. The first power loom was introduced in Waltham in America in iSi^^. At this period one operative was required to each loom, as they had no weft stop motion and no self acting temples, the weaver having to intermittently move the flat wooden pieces with points at the end which held the cloth extended at the selvage. The inven- tion of the rotarv temple by Ira Draper in 1S16, as developed several years later, allowed the operative to tend two looms instead of one. The speed of the common power loom at this time does not seem to be recorded, but it was probably between So and roo picks per minute. In 1820 it is figured that there were about 15,000 power looms in England and Scotland and in 1S30 perhaps 60,000. Even as late as 1840 there were said to be 250,000 hand looms still running. At this time ^veavers in England were not given more than one loom each, although in America they were running two looms, as the English manufacturers did not adopt the rotary temple so early as our American manufacturers. As to the comparative production of the common looms at this period, it is difiicult to find any accurate basis of comparison. Hand looms were weav- 15 ing print cloth as late as 1S96 in Bohemia, where the production figured on 64 picks per inch in the cloth at ten hours per day would give an average of 35 picks per minute. I have been given figures of hand loom production recently that would sug- gest a possible speed of 60 picks per minute. About 1S40 the weft fork began to be introduced and in America, by 1S50, print looms were running at a speed of 150 picks per minute, with one operative tending four looms. Perhaps they even ran faster in England, but the operatives only tended two looms. From this period to 1S95 the plain loom was not materially changed in principle, and yet the perfection of detail had brought the speed of the American plain loom up to 190 picks with one good weaver tending eight looms, while the English operative with looms at a speed of 320 picks per minute was tending four looms, though usually with a helper. In 1S95 the Northrop looms then introduced immediately allowed one weaver to run 16 print looms at 190 picks and to-day it is assumed that a good weaver with the Northrop loom on prints can easily tend 24. In calling the speed of the American print loom 190 picks it is not intended to give a maximum. American print looms have run over 200 picks, but such is not the genei-al practice. In the same way English looms have run higher than 320 picks, but the figures given are assumed as fair for the purposes of com- parison and as illustrating the general practice. Arranging a table of comparison, if we take 24 Northrop looms at 190 picks per minute, we have a total of 4560 picks. On the same basis, without allowance for stops, eight common looms would show 1520 picks, or four English common looms at 220 picks, S80 picks per weaver. The perfected hand loom would show perhaps 30 to 60. The power loom of 1850, at 150 picks, with four to the operative, would show 600 picks per minute, while the loom of about 1S40, before the weft fork, would show with two looms per weaver at perhaps 130 picks i6 per minute, 360 picks. Before the temple, the loom at 100 picks with one loom per weaver, would give 100 picks, while the hand loom before Kay at 30 picks, the loom of the middle ages with a possible 10 picks, and the loom of ancient history with a possible one pick per minute, brings our table down to a concrete illustration, w^hich, even if faulty in detail, allows a comprehensive idea of the wonderful advantages since the earli- est application of the art. The Northrop loom in eight years has added over 3000 picks per minute per operative; the devel- opment since 1850, 930 picks ; the inventions from 1830 to 1850, 370 picks ; the inventions from 1830 to 1830, 130 picks; the inventions from Kay to 1830 would add 80 picks, the progress previous to this time being represented by 30 picks. It will thus be seen that within two centuries the productive power of the operative has been increased 338 times, and it is also seen that the advantages of the Northrop loom show twice as much in product as all of the other inventions put together. History is practically silent as to the inventors who supplied the earlier devices employed on the hand loom. It is not, there- fore, known who suggested the idea of the harness motion with its shifting heddles, the swinging lay with its reed, the take-up roll, the early jaw temple, and the shuttle itself. Starting -with. Kay, the development before the Northrop loom is sho^wn by the following table, material for which is collected from stand- ard works on weaving. No attempt is made to include the vari- ous inventors of fancy loom devices, including the jacquard motion, the dobby motion, and other ingenious developments. It might be vs^ell, however, to note that the earliest mechanism for fancy weaving ; namely, the di'op box, was invented by Robert Kay, son of John, in 1760. In preparing the table it has also been thought well to limit the inventions to show only the anticipation of the general principles employed. It is 17 impossible to properly note any but the pioneer inventors, and the dates given are usually those of their patents. Very possi- bly more credit is due other inventors not mentioned, for their perfection of ideas that otherwise would not have been useful. 1733. Fly shuttle, John Kay. 1786. Pov^er loom, Edmitnd Cartwright. (First suggestion of warp-stop-motion, weft-stop-motion, positive let-off and take-up.) 1796. Over-pick, binder, protector, and frog, Richard Gorton. 1796. Ratchet take-up, Robert Miller. 1803. Shedding motion, John Todd. 181 6. Revolving temple, Ira Draper. 1831. Multiple harness motion, Robert Bowman. 1828. Complete power loom with modern over-pick, "William Dickinson. 1830. Complete power loom, Richard Roberts. (These two instances of complete power looms are men- tioned as showing a general development of ideas not noted in detail, which together produced practical ^veaving machines.) 1831. Weft fork, claimed by Clinton G. Gilroy. 1834. First shuttle-changer, John Patterson Reid and Thomas Johnson. 1834. Weft fork, claimed by Ramsbottom and Holt. 1838. Picker check, Robert Pickles. 1840. Improved temple, George Draper. 1 841. Weft fork improvements, William Kenworthy and James Bullough. 1842. Loose reed, James Bullough. 1845. Loom brake, John Sellers. 1846. Parallel shuttle-motion for under-pick loom, War- ren W. Dutcher. 1 8 [85 1. Reciprocating" temple, Elihu and Warren W. Dntcher. 1857. Automatic let-off, Snell and Bartlett. 1859. Rocker motion. W. Stearns. 1S63. Loose frog, George Draper. 1567. Double beam let-off, Cottrell and Draper (George). 186S. Practical self -threading shuttle, J. A. Metcalf. 1568. Broad loom shuttle-motion, J. Lyall. 1869. Inside catch shuttle, J. H. Coburn. There is quite a lapse between 1870 and 1890 in which no very important patents on plain looms were granted. In fact, looms made before 1850 continued running for 3'ears in compe- tition with those built long after, the more modern looms not showing any notable advantage, except perhaps in heavier con- struction and higher possible speed. It must be remembered that I am still referring to the plain, common loom, not in any way intending to disparage the remarkable advance in the range of fancy loom devices in that period, including the hair-cloth loom, pile fabric loom, tape loom, etc., etc., etc. Owing to an error in the index of the official British publi- cation of Abridgements of the Specifications relating to Weav- ing, it was only recently that we discovered the first patent in which the idea of changing shuttles automatically is referred to. Such a reference occurs in that granted John Patterson Reid and Thomas Johnson, No. 6579, in the British Patent Office, dated March 20, 1834. The specification refei's to a number of different inventions, contemplating the weaving of four webs of cloth at once in a vertical loom. It shows a mechanism de- signed to change the shuttles vsdien any one weft thread breaks, or fails, the substitution occurring by an instantaneous move- ment, without any act of the attendant, and without stopping the loom, the mechanism being brought into action by a weft stopper annexed to the shuttle. The specification also refers to changing shuttle boxes to bring different colored weft into action. It also contains a jacquard mechanism. Both Reid and Johnson were prolific inventors, Johnson having taken out a patent as early as 1803, for a dressing machine, and Reid as early as 1S37, for a l"y motion. Johnson and Reid together took out several other patents for less interesting improvements. The discovery of the Reid and Johnson patent of 1S34 displaces a former claimant ; namely, Charles Parker, who took out an English patent in 1S40 for a very similar combination. The next invention in this line is of the year iS^jz. Meanwhile, however, Mr. Clinton G. Gilro}' issued his noted work on weav- ing in 1S44, in which in a satirical and humorous vein, he refers to the loom of Arphaxad, explained to Deioces, the first king of the Medes. In the description of this loom it states : ' '//z order to avoid stopping the motion of the loom when one or more of the weft threads breaks or become exhausted^ a few spare shuttles are to be lodged in suitable receptacles^ 7vhich a7-e so arranged that the mere breaking of a tveft thread will cause a change of shut- tle instantaneously (by the substitution of a spare one in its stead)'' The detail of the operation is described at some length ; also the mechanism by which the loom will stop, supposing the total number of shuttles to be exhausted. He also describes a shuttle-changer for application to different colors of weft yarn to produce patterns in the cloth. The operation of the change of filling is similar to that in the Reid & Johnson and Parker patents, the details seeming to show that the author was well acquainted with the Reid & Johnson patent, and possibl}- the Parker patent also. Gilro3''s reference is mereh' an indirect satire on our patent system, though many of his readers have since taken this part of his work seriously. Gilroy himself was an inventor of considerable prominence in the weaving line, and must have considered the idea of changing filling too chi- merical to be practicallv developed. Fig. 20 — Roberts Loom. Side Elevation. In our earliest public reference to the Northrop loom, name- ly, that quoted in the paper of our Mr. George Otis Draper, read before the New England Cotton Manufacturers' Associa- tion, at their meeting in Atlanta, October, 1895, it "was stated that looms rested while improvements changed the form of other cotton machinery, '•'•plain weaving 7-e7naining in its element- ary stage.'''' Also, '•'•No radical change in any vital feature can be shown as the result of the last fifty years." These remarks awakened some comment and criticism, calling forth a reference in our circular, The Advance of the Northrop Loovi^ to the loom manufactured by Richard Roberts in 1S30. We now show a print of this loom, which was sixty-five years old at the time of the Atlanta meeting, and call attention to the fact that its general design and equipment is very similar to that of common looms at the time of the introduction of the Northrop ' improvements. Practically all of the important elements of plain weaving are shown in precisely the same relative positions which they now occupy ; in fact, the weft foi'k is the only notable omission. Other authorities have since added testimony of similar sort : — "It may safely be asserted that at the present time no subject is receiving more careful consideration than that of weaving. In its essentials the power loom has changed little since the date of its inven- tion. It has been made heavier, the details of the let-off and the take- up and the numerous other parts have been changed in their degree of efficiency, but little in their method of operation. Yet from the begin- ning of the century it has been clearly foreseen that a most radical change in weaving would take place upon the invention of a simple and efficient weft supplying mechanism. "^ — \^Hennj I. Harriman at the Boston meeting of the N. E. Cot. 3Imi. Asso., April 26, 1900. The incompleteness of the earlier automatic looms is also verified : — "In the case of weft supplying looms the difficulty of transferring such a large body as a slmttle, in the very short period of time given between picks, prevented their general use. The process was destruc- tive both to the loom and the shuttle, and it is safe to say that none of these numei'ous inventions was ever put to practical use."" — [il. /. Har- riman at Boston meeting of the N. E. Got. Man. Asso.., Ajjril 26, 1900. "But following 1870 there was a very general absence of work on automatic looms until there appeared that remarkable series of inven- tions perfected by the Draper Company.'" — [H I. Harriman at Boston meeting of the A'. E. Cot. Man. Asso., April 26, 1900. HISTORY OF THE NORTHROP LOOM. In order to avoid the usually inevitable misstatements made years afterward concerning the early conception and introduc- tion of important inventions, we v\dll briefly record the perti- nent facts concerning the early history of the Northrop loom. The predecessors of our pi'esent Company started as far back as iSi6, to perfect the power loom, Ira Draper inventing the revolving temple at this period. At the formation of the partnership of George Draper & Son in i86S, the business con- trolled by this firm and other Hopedale companies chiefly rela- ted to loom improvements, including let-off motions, parallel motions, thin-place preventers, loose frogs, etc. The ring and spindle inventions, however, coming in soon after, assumed such prominence that the loom department became a secondary feature. The members of the firm, however, often speculated on the possible advantages of automatic weaving, considering this as a possible field for future development. On July 26, 18S8, Mr. William F. Draper, Jr., heard of a loom invention in Providence, and saw the inventors and their device, which was an automatic shuttle-changer. He reported at home that the general idea was interesting, but the device not practical, in his opinion. Our firm then had an exhaustive in- vestigation of the patent situation made through competent counsel. The report seemed to show that there was little novelty in this special application of the idea, but the firm had become sufliciently interested to risk a further trial of the general principle, and on December loth voted a sum of $10,000 for experiments, and started an inventor, Mr. Alonzo E. Rhoades, on the task of devising a practical shuttle-changing loom. That Mr. Rhoades lost no time is proved by the fact 23 that he had an operative loom ready to be started, with warp and filling, by February 2Sth of 1SS9. This loom, after being reconstructed with new patterns during the next few months, though not changed in principle, ran with good success. Some twelve years later, for purposes of patent litigation, the same loom was started up and run for days under the eye of a patent expert, accomplishing its purpose so well as to draw forth his unqualified approval. Leaving the Rhoades loom at this stage, it is necessary to retrace our history to the year 1857. when Mr. James H. North- rop was born in Keighley, England, on May Sth of that year. After becoming an expert mechanic and factory foreman in his own country, Mr. Northrop came to this side in May, 1881, soon drifting to Hopedale, where he became employed as an expert on metal patterns. His invention of the Northrop Spool- er Guide brought him to the notice of his employers, and he was selected by them to work out the idea of an automatic knot- tver for spoolers. Although showing great ingenuity, the devices did not appear commercially practical, and the inventor became sufficiently discouraged to abandon the shop and devote his time to farming. Not finding this occupation congenial, he applied for employment some years later, in the fall of 18SS, but the only opening then present was a job as mechanic at $2 per day. In February, Northrop, who had noted the progress of the Rhoades idea, spoke to Mr. George Otis Draper, who had just entered the firm of George Draper & Sons, stating that if given a chance he could put a shuttle-changer on a loom in one week's time, that could be made in quantities for a cost of $1 each. On March 5th, Mr. Draper drove to his farm and saw a rough wooden model of his idea, which was set up in his hen- house. At Mr. Draper's recommendation, the firm ordered an- other loom for experiments, and after its arrival Mr. Northrop was started on April 8th to work out his scheme. By May 20th 34 he had conchided that his first idea was not practical, and having meanwhile thought out a new plan, he asked for an extension of time until the fourth of July in which to perfect it. On July 5th, the completed loom wa.s. running at speed, and as it seemed to involve more advantages than the Rhoades pattern, the weaver was taken off of the Rhoades loom and transferred to the North- rop. On October 24th a loom with new construction, from revised patterns, was running at the Seaconnet Mill in Fall River, and more looms of the same kind were started up there at intervals. Mr. Northrop had, however, meanwhile thought out his idea of changing filling in the shuttle, some of the parts of such a mechanism taking shape as early as October. The development at our works continued so favorably that by April of 1S90 a lot of filling-changing looms were started in the same Seaconnet Mill, the shuttle-changing looms having been changed back to common looms, in view of the additional advantages of the filling-changing pattern. To show the situation at this period we quote from a letter sent a prominent mill official May 15, 1S90: "Replying to your favor of tlie 14th iust. would say that we are get- ting along as rapidly as we could hope or expect with our new shuttle patent, considering the fact that we are doing what seemed to be a very difficult thing and reacliing out into a field where we have nothing to guide us. We are now running 12 looms in a mill constantly. They are pro- ducing from 5 per cent, to 10 per cent, more per loom than other looms in the same mill and are all making first-class cloth. We have not yet fully tested them to see how great a reduction we can make in the num- ber of weavers. This we are proposing to do at the earliest moment. We do not feel at liberty to change one or more looms for you at the present time and in explanation will map out to you our proposed course and we think you will agree with us that our policy is a wise one. What we intend to do is to perfect by practically running as long as seems necessary these 12 looms before making or trying any more. When we have perfected these 12 looms we propose to put in 100 or 200 looms and when these 100 or 200 looms are running to our entire satis- faction we shall hope to apply the invention to the entire mill. When the entire mill is running to our satisfaction we shall then be very anxious to try our inventions at other places. Our reasons for adopting this course are, first, we want to devote all our time and energy and inventive capacity to perfect the design in 25 one place so as to be sui-e we shall make a success of it there. We be- lieve that in this way we shall be able to i)ut the invention on 3000 or 4000 looms or 10,000 looms much more (luickly and satisfactorily than in any other way." Attempts have been made b\' interested parties to show that these earlier trials were experimental in character, and produc- tive of nothing practical at the time. Such, however, was not the case. These earlier trials, both of shuttle-changer and fill- ing-changer, showed practically operative mechanisms, which were run on many looms weaving cloth for the regular mill product, with the regular mill help; in fact, when we trans- ferred our trial of mechanisms from Fall River t(; another mill centre, the looms which we left were run for months In the mill help without superintendence on our part, and v\ithout e\en a casual inspection by any of our men. We left the twelve looms running under the normal super- vision of the mill management in March, 1891. To show how well these early mechanisms did their work we quote from the following letter received from the overseer of the room June 37, 1891 :— "I am proud to inform ycnu that tliere has not been a uiishap of any kind this week. The looms are weavin.2" faster than the spinning frame can spin. Mr. seems suri)i-ised to see the weavers standin<>^ at the end of the frame waiting- for the doffers and their looms stopi)ed. Notwithstanding having to wait so many times for filling, the produc- tion for the week ending 27th is seventy-eiglit (78) cuts." We found it would be necessary to build complete new looms in order to derive the best residts from the new mechan- isms. This required an entire equipment of the necessary tools and a considerable enlargement in plant, as we had never been loom builders. We also found that it was advisable to de\elop a practical warp-stop-motion for use with the filling-changer, and this of itself dehned the introduction of the loom for sev- eral years. We ran into annoNing mechanical difficulties, it requiring a long time to sohe tlic ap]Kircntly sim])le ]:>roblcm 26 of tempering the shuttle springs so that they would not break. Even with the loom complete in every detail, we were not ready to take large orders until we had equipped a weave room of ovu" own and run it continuously for many months. To go into further detail and cover the entire ground would require more space than can now be afforded. The further con- tents of this book may aid in giving a proper conception of the further development ; and yet the finished products shown con- vey no intimation of the countless experiments and trials of devices which have not entered into the accepted combination. Many of these are shown in our voluminous patents ; others are still unhonored. They all form a part of the unwritten story, however, and often might furnish interesting chapters. Our manner of developing improvements is outlined in the paper of Gen. Draper delivered before tbe New England Cotton Manufacturers' Association on April 22, 1903. "Our routine has been, firstly, to run a number of looms experi- mentally in a room in our shop, and by means of special observers, in addition to the weavers, to note results in detail. These results are collated in daily reports, which are preserved for study and reference. Notes are made of everything- outside of perfect weaving, the breakage, wear or slipping of parts, the failure of mechanism to act every time as intended, impei-fections in the cloth, like thick or thin places, the num- ber of warp and filling threads broken and why they break, if it can be knoAvu. After studying these reports in connection with personal ob- servation of the running looms, changes are made, with a view to im- provement if possible. Pieces that bi-eak are strengthened, or strains are removed; parts that slip are more securely fastened ; and wear is obviated where it seems possible. New devices are suggested to obviate cloth imperfections, or break- age of warp or filling, of bobbins or shuttles. The new parts are made and tested in comparison with the old ones, and nine times out of ten they don't work as well. Perhaps they don't overcome the difficulty; perhaps in overcoming it they introduce new ones. After one failure comes anotlier attempt, and as a rule another failure, but something is learned from each trial and the general course is towards improvement. The Avorst troubles to find and cure are those that are intermittent and infrequent. A device will work as intended a hundred or a thou- sand times. Then it fails once from some unknown cause; then it goes on all rigiit as before. One seldom or never sees the failure except in result, and if it happens before one's very eyes the motions of the loom are too rapid to make eyesight of much advantage. One can only rea- son in these cases and, "as in some other mattei'S, unassisted reason with- 27 out sufficient data comes pretty near being a guess. However, guess we must or let the defect continue, and in some cases we have guessed right. In others we are still guessing. After we reach what seems a real improvement on one loom, we try it on a dozen, more or less, and keep records for a month or two. Here again disappointment often comes in and we return to fresh study and experiment. H, however, the advance proves real, we next arrange a mill test ; that is, we fill an order, or a part of an order, for looms with the new device, and submit it to the tender mercies of those who have to run it practically and without any special interest beyond "day-pay and Saturday night." This kills many an infant invention that would be of value if prop- erly cared for. No new device in minor detail can succeed in the mill if it causes extj-a trouble, even if it does better work ; and if any new adjustments are introduced, they are almost sure to introduce wrong set- ting. Lack of adjustment induces filing and chipping to attain positions that our experiments have shown to be wrong, but the fixers have not been through the experimenting and sometimes want to make improve- ments themselves. Cams that have been cai-efully worked out have been filed or ground so that they would not work as intended and the device has been condemned, and in more than one instance operating parts have been cut off" with a cold chisel and the new device pronounced valueless. After this experience we re-design, simplify and try to make the new arrangement easier to run than the old, and if we succeed and accomplish the original design, we have made a step forward. It is fair to say that from these mill tests we often get ideas of great practical value from intelligent operators, who see necessities that had not occurred to us, more than enough, perhaps, to offset the stupid condemnation of others who do not appreciate fine points and never will until they have become a part of their regular drill, and only then because if they can't make a machine run, there are plenty of others who know how to do it." Perhaps nothing in the line of history is more significant than our various statements published in the wav of advertise- ments in trade papers. The whole of anticipation, progress and realization i« thus set down as it was, or assumed to be, at the time. Those that follow are actual quotations from publica- tions of the years mentioned. 28 1895. "We believe that certain improvements w^e ai"e soon to in- troduce will divide the cost of w^eaving by tw^o on all plain goods. We have a complete weave room of eighty looms running on print cloth, which is open to the inspection of interested manufacturers." "It is a gi-ave question whether we should invite more (loom) orders under the circumstances. A success may prove embarrassing when it comes so suddenly." "Textile workers should be interested in all inventions that make their labor easier, cleaner or healthier. What is more unclean or unhealthy than the now necessary process of sucking filling through a shuttle eye ? We are introducing a loom which automatically threads the shuttle without labor on the part of the weaver. This loom also prevents damage to the cloth, caused by broken warp threads." "Many persons are disappointed in the Northrop Loom because it does not produce finished goods at one end from a bale of cotton fed into a hopper at the other side." "We believe a purchase of common looms a grave error at the present day." 1896. "A mill that orders common looms at the present time de- liberately handicaps its future prospects." "We now recommend this (Northrop) loom and stake our reputation on its success." "The majority believe in progress. They favor inventions 29 that relieve human labor by transferring operations from fingers to levers and cams. The Northrop Loom is of this class." "We do not have to reply on assertion. Thousands of (Northrop) looms are in actual use testifying to their own merit." "We have had additional orders already from six of the first ten mills supplied." "Consign your common looms to the scrap heap where they belong, and equip with machines that will earn a profit." 1897. "The Northrop Loom is now an Unquestioned Success on all plain cotton fabrics. . . . We have never had a more positive conviction. This Loom must be adopted." "When mills like the Pacific and Tremont & Suffolk throw out common looms for New Northrop Looms, the question of success is solved. Before the vear is over the Amoskeag Mfg. Co. will have nearly 10,000 looms changed to take our motions." "Weavers on all common looms choke their lungs with cot- ton fibre. When the filHng is colored the effect is more or less poisonous, and in either case the health is undermined." "It is commercial suicide to buy a common loom in the face of facts easily known and proved." "Why not return to hand looms and get a cheap equipment, also giving more laborers employment?" 1898. "What would you think of a loom that requires but half 30 the labor, weaves more perfect cloth and will run over time without need for attention? Would you buy it at a price that makes it the cheapest ma- chine ever put in your mill, or would you wait, and doubt, and doubt and wait, until the competition of the enterprising foi'ced you into line at the rear of the procession?" "Adverse criticism has often killed a good idea in its infancy while its strength was not equal to the struggle. We escaped the fate which many prophesied." "The only hope for our cotton mills in these critical times lies in the prompt adoption of improved machinery. It may be urged that if all mills put in new machinery they will simply be back at the old competitive level — very true — but thev will not all do it. Therein lies the chance for profit for those who have the necessary covu-age, capital, or happy combination of both." "The doubters and the skeptics are not yet silenced — they never will be. Some of them still think it a great mistake for mills to use high speed spindles, filling frames and revolving flat cards. We have no time to waste on their conviction, as their species must yield to the natural law — the survival of the fittest." 1899. "The mills that refuse their opportunities v\all find their future utility serving as picturesque ruins in the landscape." "If old mills stand in timid dread on the brink of indeci- sion the new mills will crowd them over the edge." "You can feel assured that merit is recognized when the copyist appears — but you don't want a copy." "Let us then renew the assurances of our distinguished con- 31 sideration, while we devote our energies to filling the orders with which we havx been favored." 1900. "The greater part of the cloth woven in this country is made on plain looms. We have devoted about 10 years to the perfection of the plain loom and have now made it automatic and self-protecting against errors." "We intend to keep up with the demand for our machinery if ^Are have to roof in the whole town." "A new common loom in a Southern cotton mill is now a curiosity." "We are battling with nature, filling ponds, diverting river channels, raising valleys, etc., to make room on which to con- tinue extensions." "We still solicit orders in the confidence that bricks and lumber may be obtained in sufiicient quantity to house out in- crease of plant." "Why ship cotton to Europe when mills at home can man- ufacture it more profitably now that improved machinery gives them another advantage?" "The great development of the Southern cotton mill system started with the Northrop loom and the continued association of the two forms an interesting object lesson." "We melt 100 tons of iron per day to make the castings for our Northrop looms, etc. But that is not enough. Enlarge- ments still in progress." "We have now sold over 60,000 Northrop looms. We are shipping 1500 a month and enlarging our works to increase that output. We are emploving 2500 men and shall greatly increase 32 this force when new shops are ready. And what does this all mean? Simply that the success of the Northrop loom is astound- ing, even those who have held their faith." "The steady progress of the Northrop loom is a certain evi- dence of its merit. Adverse criticism has often killed a good idea in its infancy while its strength was not equal to the strug- gle. We escaped the fate that many prophesied. Our loom has passed the trial stage." "Let all who favor progress unite in placing American cot- ton mills where they can compete with foreign countries without reducing their labor scale to the standard set in England, Ger- many, Russia, India, China, Japan and other outside manufac- tviring sections." "We build the famous Northrop Loom. It is also manu- factured by our licensees in Canada, Germany, France and Switzerland. Four of these looms are running at the Paris Exposition, attracting wide attention." "The successful development of our loom gives a mill a chance of making a great saving in its expenses w^ithout increas- ing the labor or responsibility of the management, and by reduc- tion of the number of employes it actually lessens the invest- ment necessary for tenements and the labor used in paying off and supei-v'ising. The possible profit from a Northrop loom mill will pay good dividends v\^hen a competing mill with com- mon looms is not able to show more than an even balance. Mills have been prompt to take advantage of impi-oved machinery in the past, as they universally use high-speed spindles and are thor- oughly committed to the revolving top flat card. Neither of these changes J however, can show more than a fraction of the profit possible with our loom, for the saving in weaving is more than the entire cost of carding with the picker-room thrown in, and more than the entire cost of spinning." "New mills are flooding us with orders, and old mills must 33 realize that equality in competition demands equality of equip- ment." "We used to claim that weavers could attend Northrop Looms in the proportion of two to one common. The users are finding this prediction far too moderate as the}' often run three to four times their former limit. In several mills weavers are paid less than one-half the former price for weaving cloth per •cut, and yet make higher wages than when running common looms. A mill that cannot appreciate that statement simplv cannot appreciate the tale told b}- concrete figures. Those who attempt to sell cloth handicapped by an extra cost of from one cent per pound upward, can cling to their obsolete common looms while their more enterprising neighbors glean the profits." "We begin to feel cjuite independent in our loom trade, as the results of experience have proved that our position is abso- lutely unassailable. A few facts speak for themselves : Good weavers rtmning 34 to 32 print looms and 20 3-harness looms." "In one large print mill the average number of looms per v^eaver is 18." "We are employing more hands than ever worked before in an American Cotton Machine Shop and are enlarging our plant in every direction." "Every new idea meets the same opposition, goes through the same routine. In the first few years this machine had to bear the brunt of criticism, antagonism, doubt, fear, and mis- representation. Now it suddenly sweeps away opposition, flood- ing us with orders, and necessitating the doubling of our plant. We intend to keep abreast of the demand if pig iron and steel can be obtained in sufficient quantity." "It is an interesting problem to note how much longer the old mills can continue competition, when handicapped by the obsolete common loom." 34 1901. "With a record of 75^000 looms sold, it is no longer neces- sary for us to predict what these looms wdll do. We point to what they have done." "Although our order list lengthens and strengthens, we do not adopt the simple and inexpensive plan of building without change, but continual!}' add improvements whenever possible." "We shipped more than 16,000 complete Northrop looms during the last year. What better testimonial of value could be presented? With our new plant and enlarged facilities we shall easilv beat that record in 1901. This simply means that those running common looms must expect a continuously harsher coinpetition." "Having adopted a business founded on improvements in cotton machinery, the habit of striving after perfection leads us, at times, to give the public more than they have required. Al- though the Northrop loom has sold faster than we could supply the trade, we have recently made many expensive changes, in spite of the fact that our customers, if ignorant of their existence, would probably have ne^-er realized the need of them. All loom improvements tend toward increased cost of construction. We have taken the common loom and not only applied import- ant attachments, but have also raised its mechanical grade." "Every loom that v\'e sell furnishes an additional argument for replacement of common looms, as each Northrop Loom in- creases the competition that its rivals must endure. Those having common looms must admit that, sooner or later, the Northrop loom, or some similar type, will replace them. Then vsdiy delay? Every vear of postponement could have helped to pay the cost. Those who are waiting for the similar type to be developed can hardly find a large degree of encouragement from the present situation. They used to wait, in the same wav, for spindles of possible competing capacity in 35 earlier ^•ears. They waited fi^'e, ten, twenty years, — and then finally fell into line, after losing a large share of their compara- tive value. Some of them lost time and money in experiments with inferior stvles, and history will undoubtedly repeat itself. Some insist on patronizing cheap doctors, cheap lawyers, and cheap eggs. Perhaps they are satisfied with the results. Our loom is not cheap in price, but is certainly cheap at the price." '■'■The success of the Northrop Loom has forced a series of wide spreading events. It has delivered the trade in looms, for plain fabrics, of the United States, over to a compan}' which had never sold one loom prior to 1S95. It has stimulated the building of new mills and the increase of the American textile industry to an extent never before known. It has forced us to more than double our plant, and more than treble our number of operatives. The profits have been shared with the manufacturer, who has cheapened production ; and by the laborer, who has recei^'ed better wages. While common loom mills are shut down, Northrop loom mills continue running." "•We shipped more than 35,000 complete Northrop looms during the eighteen months of Januar}-, 1900, to July, 1901. What better testimonial of value could be presented? Southern mills are taking their share, but there are still thousands of old looms that ought .to be replaced." '■'■We shipped nearls' 6,000 looms in the first three months of the year 1901. Facts like these carrv conviction to those of average comprehension. We shipped over 9,000 Northrop looms from our works in the six months ending July i, 1901. Further com- ment is unnecssarv." '■'■We enter on the seventh vear of our loom business with 36 an enormous order list, a doubled plant, and a reputation estab- lished by the experience of our customers. Every claim has been justified, every assertion proved. The Northrop Loom does halve the labor cost of weaving, does make better goods, and does earn dividends for its pvir- chasers. Having absolutely removed the common loom from compe- tition, so far as new sales are concerned, we may next have to spare some slight consideration for the nuishroom element of automatic svibstitutes designed to share the fruits of our victory. Let none of us get unduly excited, however, until their trial has proved them worthy of attention." "We started to apply attachments to looms in order to make them more automatic. We soon found it necessary to first improve the loom itself. We believe that we are turning out a weaving machine fit to class with other developed mill machin- ery, and not a cheap mass of ill fitting parts, half wood, half metal, nursed into efficiency with bits of leather and string. Our castings are machine moulded to ensure uniformity. They are drilled in jigs and assembled to gauges. We use iron and steel wherever possible. We know we put more exjDense into this loom than any other builder of similar machines. We are not content with having already done a larger loom business per year than any competitor. We see no reason why we should not sell all the looms needed for plain weaving." "Our total sales to date, including old looms changed over, amount to over 74,000. We have built up a modern plant of large capacity in order to meet the demands of our customers, and now have 22 acres of floor space in connected buildings, the greater part of which represents recent construction. We are now ready for increased business and await it with a confidence based on the evolution of the past. It may be 37 noticed that v\'e refer more often to the amount of our sales than to the details of our products. The latter course \vould simply illustrate our opinion, while sales illustrate the opinion of our customers — and that counts." "We know no half-truths in mechanics. A machine is either efficient or incapable — superior or infe- rior. The Northrop Loom has now been running in large quanti- ties for more than six years. Its success is proved by the fre- quency of orders from those having the knowledge that comes with use. Some of the earlier customers have lately wished to actually duplicate those first machines part for part. But ^ve build a better loom now. We have an experience gained by continued construction and experiment. We have vastly increased our range and our variety of models. We cannot only show a purchaser important novelties, but can refer to successful operation in an}' of the ordinary lines of application." 1902. "■The largest single order we have 3-et taken has just been placed with us for Northrop Looms by the Grosvenor Dale Co., of North Grosvenor Dale (and Grosvenor Dale) , Conn. These looms were chosen after lengthy and continued trial of former lots. These were used in a wide variet}' of cloth, including various standard weaves for which the Grosvenor Dale Company has long been famous. Those who have been cautiously awaiting the outcome of others' experiments may now perceive the verification of our earlier contentions." "■The Spindle and the Loom. Our first ten years of spindle sales, about 3,000,000. 38 Ovir thirty years of spindle sales, about 20,000,000. Every prominent mill in the country uses them in their Spinning Frames or Twisters. And yet in the first ten years the introduction was compara- tively slow. Our first seven years of loom sales figvn-e over 75,000 (in- cluding looms changed over), and there are only about 375,000 looms in this country to which our improvements are at present adaptable. Every mill that waited to change spindles made a mistake. They admit it by their present policy. A less proportion are making the mistake of indecision in the loom line, but the conservative, are still ruining their chance in the same old way. Every year of delay means just so much lost profit. The above figures of fact prove more than pages of argument. Think them over." "On June ist our unfilled orders for complete Northrop Looms figured exactly 15,701 — and the boom has hardly started." "Our unfilled orders for complete Northrop Looms figured exactly 21,586 July ist, 1902. The boom is beginning to boom." '■^Delegations of foreign business men, operatives and labor leaders have been visiting this country to investigate the claimed advantages of our Northrop Loom. We started selling them eight years ago and have averaged sales of over 10,000 per year. Outsiders are becoming alarmed and yet there are American mills still blindly buying common looms. Not that we have any reason to complain. It takes a doubled plant to keep pace with our orders — but it ought to take a trebled plant." "In spite of loom shipments during August of 1799 looms, 39 our unfilled orders still amounted to over 30,000 September ist, 1902." "Out of 64, '540 looms now running or ordered by the single state of South Carolina, 37,980 are Northrop Looms." "30,000 looms to build. 20,000 Northrop Looms. Equiv- alent in cost to 60,000 common looms. 10 months' work at 2,000 looms per month and new orders coming in all the time. Works must be increased again. 300,000 looms yet to be replaced in the United States alone, and new mills being organized. Such is the situation confronting the Draper Company of Hopedale, Mass." 1903. "We shipped 15,746 complete Northrop Looms in 1902, and applied besides, 1,028 filling changers and 1,234 warp-stop devices to looms in mills. We commenced the new vear by shipping 3,500 complete looms the first month. Let the good work go on." "Our present output of Northrop looms, over 2,000 per month. The majority of new orders are placed by Southern Cotton Mills." "We have today sold over 80,000 complete Northrop looms. We have applied attachments, in addition, to over 15,000 looms. We figvu"e that there are still 350,000 looms that must be replaced. They will vanish as surelv as the common spindle and the old style card. We are enlarging our plant to prepare for their elimination. Li a certain well known mill six weavers and four boys to fill hoppers run 216 Northrop looms. In an- 40 other mill no weaver runs less than 34 Northrop looms. Facts like these breed conclusions." "We have a new^ Northrop Loom that should be of interest to w^eavers of print cloth and similar goods. It has the latest large pattern hopper, our steel-harness warp stop-motion with simplified knock-off, a double fork to prevent thick and thin places, the simplest take-up ever devised, our improved Draper-Roper let-off, and a new device called the Anti-bang, which prevents jar and breakage when a shuttle is trapped. We call it the J model. Large orders already being filled." 41 THB PRESENT STANDING OF OUR LOOM— APRIL, 1904, A record of over 100,000 looms actually introduced within a period of nine years, sold at prices equivalent to three times the cost of the common looms with which they compete, is cer- tainly sufficient evidence that the Northrop loom has come to stay. The amount thus paid us for Northrop looms would actu- ally replace three-quarters of the common cotton looms now running in the whole United States. As our last year's sales w^ere larger than those of any previous year, it is evident that the introduction is not based on any quick enthusiasm, or false data. We started with the assumption that the Northrop loom would enable the weaver to produce a doubled product ; in fact, before even making this modest assertion, we proved its truth to our own satisfaction by running a weave room of eighty looms in our own works, for many months, open to the inspection of hundreds of practical mill men. The first looms that we put out were therefore seasoned, as it were, by experience; in fact, the first models ran so well that we have been asked in recent years to duplicate them. It is no slight task to introduce an improved machine which aims at replacing the entire equipment of the most important section of one of the greatest industries in the world. It cannot be done in one year, or one decade. Nothing within our mem- ory has so completely ousted competition as the high speed spin- dle ; and yet comparison of sales will prove that our loom has met with readier appreciation in the earlier years. There are still several hundred thousand common looms which should be replaced, and which will be replaced. The delay is not due to 42 hesitation based on disbelief, but rather a hesitation based on financial conditions. With new mills, where capital is raised by subscription, equipment with Northrop looms is becoming a mat- ter of course : but an old mill faces a serious proposition when considering the replacement of an entire division of its plant, where the surplus is not sufficient to meet the cost, and where stockholders are not inclined to pay assessments, or take new stock. The mills that have a comparatively new eqviipment of common looms are naturally indisposed to reduce their valuation by considering them practically worthless for active use. We are, however, selling tons of looms for junk, that are equal, if not better, than similar looms still bought by a few obstinate adherents to obsolete methods. There is also a class of overshrewd managers who wait in hope that competition may reduce ovir prices, or that patents will expire in time to force a reduction to meet their demands. Nine years of constant introduction finds the anxious ones still waiting the possible competitor; and the con- stant improvement, with continual issue of important patents, assures us that our hold on this line will continue beyond the time to which their hopes might limit us. Meanwhile these waiting ^Durchasers are losing the possible profits of use. The fact that they may be making favorable showings by reason of "luck" in purchase of cotton, especial advantage in situation, labor, or power, cannot disguise the fact that with the Northrop loom their profits would be still higher. When we refer to the Northrop loom improvements, we are speaking primarily, of the filling-changer, the warp stop-motion, and their co-operating parts. Before our application of these devices, there had never been a successful use of filling-changing devices of any nature, and warp stop- motions were only used in a very limited field, a few in- stances being known of their application to special classes of double warp weaving. There is hardly any vital change in any 43 line of mechanics, which so suddenly brought successful auto- matic mechanism into extensive use, without the preliminary record of long use of partially successful devices of similar nature. This fact is particularly curious, in view of the fact that a warp stop-motion was one of the inventions disclosed in the original power loom specification of Cartwright, as shown in his patent of 1784. Many inventors had struggled for years with the prob- lem of automatic change of shuttles. The inventor of the Nor- throp filling-changing devices, however, borrowed practically nothing from the former art in this line, and when it was found necessary to incorporate a warp stop-motion with the fillmg- changer, there was nothing formerly developed that could be adopted, and inventors practically started in this field also with- out the aid of prior thought. Neither the filling-changer nor the warp stop-motion neces- sarily increases production in the loom itself. The filling-changer does " save time formerly occupied in changing shuttles by hand, with the loom stopped, but the warp-stop-motion actually decreases production by stopping the loom oftener than it would be stopped in the common practice of plain weaving. The com- bination of the two devices, however, allows the operative to multiply efficiency ; for the filling-changer replaces labor, and the warp stop-motion relieves the annoyance of constant oversight. To appreciate the great saving introduced by the filling-changer, it may be well to note the operations gone through by a weaver on a plain loom, when the filling is exhausted. They follow in the sequence now recorded, the weaver performing the following functions : I. Releases the shipper brake. 3. Pushes the lay back. 3. Withdraws the shuttle. 4. Puts the reserve shuttle in the shuttle box on the lay. 5. Pulls the shipper handle to start the loom. 44 6. Rubs the cloth below the breast beam to prevent a thin place, if light goods are being woven. 7. Picks up the discarded shuttle again. 8. Pulls the shuttle spindle out on an angle. 9. Removes the empty bobbin or cop tube. 10. Puts in a new bobbin or cop. 11. Pulls off a sufficient length of filling. 12. Snaps the shuttle spindle back into place. 13. Holds the filling over the shuttle eye entrance. 14. Sucks the filling through the eye. 15. Places the shuttle in its holder, where it remains until needed. Now^, this series of performances must be gone through with every time the filling is exhausted. On one loom, the filling may run from one minute to twenty minutes, according to the size of the yarn and the amount of yarn in the shuttle. The average time is perhaps six minutes, especially if we count the number of times that the weaver must come to the loom to start it up when the filling breaks. With a loom having an average of six min- utes between such stops, the weaver must come to the loom once every ten minutes. If running eight looms, he w^ould have such a duty nearly once a minute. With the Northrop loom, on the contrary, the weaver can fill a hopper containing 35 bobbins, which, vi^ith the same average of running time, would last two hours and a half, without requiring attendance. But a co-opera- ting feature of great advantage with the Northrop loom is the fact that the weaver can fill the hoppers when convenient, rather than be forced to come to the looms with irritating regularity. Referring to the associate attachment, the Warp Stop-Mo- tion, it is, of course, vs^ell known that the warp threads v^^ill break in weaving. On a common loom, the broken thread will not be raised by its heddle, and thereby leaves an open space in the cloth, more or less visible to the eye, according to the character 45 of the goods woven. Very often the broken end gets tangled around adjacent threads between the harness and the reed, hold- ing several of them either above or below the tip of the shuttle, which therefore causes a defect known technically as a "float" or "overshot." If the weaver does not notice the fault promptly, the extra strain will break many of the warp threads, and in any event, a pickout is necessary. In some mills, a weaver is forced to stop all looms under his charge while attending to a pickout. It is not necessary to explain the trouble caused by these defects to any weaving expert. The temples must be pulled back, all the filling threads that have been laid since the tangle commenced removed by a tedious combing operation, the warp beam must be turned back, the tension of the cloth properly adjusted, and the loom again set in motion. When we first applied filling-changing devices, we found that the weaver, although greatly relieved of manual labor, was even more uneasy, on account of possible overshots, having more looms to look after. We saw that it was absolutely necessary to furnish a protection in the way of an accurate warp stop-motion, so that there should be no mental anxiety whatever, and no neces- sity for alert observation. It took our inventors several years to produce a practical mechanism of this nature ; in fact, the intro- duction of the Filling Changer itself was delayed for ciuite a period while waiting for the associate mechanism. With the protection of the Warp Stop-Motion, a weaver is only limited in the number of looms attended, by the amount of warp breaks which must be repaired, and the number of bobbins which can be put into the hoppers within the time to be given. Under present systems, Northrop loom weavers are usually relieved of oiling and cleaning their looms, so that apart from the warp and filling duties, they have practically nothing to attend to, save the re- moval of the cloth. 46 PERSPECTIVE VIEW OF LARGE HOPPER, ORIGI- NAL DESIGN. Taking the ^'arious attachments in order for detailed consid- eration, we shall consider the Hopper first, as the more import- ant element of the whole combination. The cut shows the "Large Hopper," or "24-Bobbin Hopper." It is operated in rotation by the reverse motion of the transferrer. Our latest forms have a new and impro^-ed bobbin support, 47 provided with a leather washer cushion to preAent breakage, and we are also using a new form of bobbin tip holder, which will take either bobbins or cops, as desired. We start- ed with a hopper that held a supply of 14 extra bobbins, but the change to the 24-bobbin hopper has proved a distinct ad- vantage, removing the Northrop loom still further from competi- tion with the possible perfected Shuttle-Changing loom, which would probably be limited to a reserve supply of six or eight shuttles. We proved by an absokite test on our old hopper, that a reduction in the number of bobbins held in reserve, placed an absolute restriction on the weaver's capacity ; and the converse of the proposition is a natural sequence. A vital principle of the Northrop invention is contained in the Shuttle, which is adapted not only to hold a bobbin or cop skewer, but to hold it so that it may be automatically removed by the entrance of a new bobbin or cop skewer. The spring jaws of the Northrop shuttle co-operate with the rings or ribs, on the bobbin or cop skewer, so as to hold either one normally 48 Our first Large Hopper. Holds twenty- four extra bob- bins. Is rotated by reverse action of transferrer. Present pattern Large Hopper. New end hold- ers adapted for either bobbins or cop skewers. Also new bobbin sup- port, and thread discs with wider surfaces for thread to bear against. 49 in proper horizontal position, and yet liberate them quickly when opened by the entrance of the new filling-holder, pressed into the shuttle from the hopper when the transferrer is in motion. The Transferrer is a simple pivoted lever with a hammer head, normally in position over the lowest bobbin in the hopper. A pivoted dog attached to a crank arm on the transferrer is normally out of reach of a moving part on the lay •called a "Bunter." When the supply of filling in the running shuttle is either broken, or exhausted, the ordinary weft fork de- tects the fault and by simple co-operation with a moving shaft raises the dog aforesaid to meet the impact of the bunter, thereby transfering the foi^ward movement of the lay through the trans- ferrer pivot, to press the transferrer head down onto the reserve bobbin in the hopper, and push it into the shuttle. The bobbin formerly in the shuttle falls through the exit opening of the shut- tle, down onto a guiding chute into a large box, or receptacle, attached to the loom side. Reference to the cuts, which show various views of the shut- tles, bobbins and cop skevs^ers, will make the operation clear. It is not only necessary that the new bobbin should be placed properly in the shuttle, but it is vitally necessary that the thread on the new bobbin should enter the shuttle eye, so that it maybe properly drawn off in weaving. The threads of the bobbins in the hopper are wound round a stud in the center of the rotating hopper itself ; and when a bobbin is transferred to the shuttle and the shuttle is thrown by the picker-stick, the thread still held by the hopper disc automatically enters the slotted eye of the shuttle ; the final position, however, not being attained until the shuttle has been thrown back from the opposite side of the loom. It is quite evident that when the shuttle receives the bobbin it must be under the hopper in approximately correct position. Variation is allowed by reason of the several notches in the shut- tle spring, and also by reason of an incline, which guides the 50 bobbin down into the spring, even if the shuttle be quite a dis- tance out of place. To protect against any abnormal position, which would cause the incoming bobbin to strike a solid part of the shuttle and cause breakage, we provide a device known as the "Shuttle Position Detector," which reaches a finger across the front of the shuttle whenever the dog on the transferrer is raised. If the shuttle is in the path of this finger, the dog will not be raised sufficiently to encounter the bunter, and therefore no transfer will take place. If this be twice repeated, the loom stops automatically by a de- vice called the misthread stop-motion, attached to the fork slide, so that the wea^'er knows that the shuttle is not being properly picked. The same mechanism will also stop the loom, pro- viding the hopper is exhausted, or pro- viding the shuttle fails twice to thread, or "misthreads," as we term the opera- ation. It will be remembered that the thread on the incoming bobbin is at- tached to a stud on the hopper. It therefore extends from the stud to the cloth, and, if not attended to, v\^ould break in time from the strain, as the cloth moves towards the take-up roll, Early form of Thread- and the snapped end might fly into the Cutting Temple. cloth. We therefore provide a Thread- Cutting device, attached to the regular temple, ^vhich operates from the motion of the lay to sever any such threads close to the selvage. As it operates every time the lay beats forward, it has many chances to cut the thread. 51 Later form of Thread-Cutting Temple. Made with soHd heel so that a loose heel will not bring extra strain on the cutter and cause the temple to be reciprocated through the cutter. It may be noticed that Filling-Changing mechanism includes five distinct and separate devices, namely ; the Filling-Changer itself, the Shuttle, the Shuttle Position Detector, the Misthread Stop-Motion and the Thread-Cutting Temple. There are, therefore, several distinct lines, all covered by patents, many of which extend much longer than the original patents on the origi- nal mechanism. 53 As shown, the transferrer is placing the bobbin in the shuttle, the clog being in engagement with the bunter on the lay. The empty bobbin is falling clown the chute into the box. The chute as first designed was a movable part, independent of the lay itself. This cut was made from our first model loom and happens to show' the hopper on the left side, we making hoppers in rights and lefts at that time. 54 CROSS-SECTION OF A NO. 1 COP-HOPPER WITH TRANSFER TAKING PLACE. The entering cop skewer has just started the pressure that expels the one in the shuttle. It has still to move some distance down the chute to reach the box. The expelled skewer is not empty in this instance, as it illustrates a case in which the filling;- thread broke while weaving. :)3 DETAIL OF CONNECTION Between the fillinj^' fork which detects the absence of filHng and a No. i cop hopper or magazhie. 56 ILLUSTRATION OF HOPPER ACTION ON B MODEL LOOM. 57 A is the filling-fork which detects absence of filling, and through the usual catch and vibrator gives action to rod B con- trolling latch C. When latch is raised it v^^ill be in contact wath a bunter on the lay, thus forcibly depressing the transferrer D which pushes a bobbin from the hopper into the shuttle beneath it, at the same time expelling the one carried by the shuttle, which is then guided into the large tin box held on the loom side. E is a portion of the device which determines the position of the shuttle in the box. If not properly in place the latch C will not engage the bunter, as the device of which E is a part will be prevented from further movement by contact with the shuttle tip, and as E and C work in unison, the movement of C is also checked. This special shuttle position detector did not go into extensive use on our own looms but was adopted as standard by our Canadian licensees. 58 A f:ew of the SHUTTI^FS USED WITH OUR NOR- THROP LOOMS. Shuttle at the left is k n o w n as the "Keeley," although in- corporating the spring of J. H. Northrop and the incline cover of G. O. Draper. Shuttle at right is known as No. 7 in our shop records. It has what we know- as the "Stimpson" eye. This first model had no friction pocket and the eye casting was held by a nut on the bottom. 59 No. 1 6 Shuttle. Stimpsou improved eye with pocket for flannel friction, the casting be- ing held in the shuttle body by a transverse bolt and nut. Various mod- ifications have other numbers, but this is the regular standard de- sign which has gone into most extensive use. No. 167 Shuttle. Stimpson special eye and new spring and cov- er. A very satisfactory model. Note the new spring and cover v\diich leave the wood of the shuttle body less cut out and therefore stronger. We have little trouble with loose springs in this design. 1.1 ,'i om j)er year. We see no reason why the steel harness should not wear at least twenty years, saving some nineteen dollars in actual outlay, if our premises are correct. Another important advantage, especially noticeable with coarse yarn, is the saving of expense in drawing-in. Cotton harness 66 warp stop-motions, with additional warp-stop detectors, cost more to drav\' in, because the drawing-in hand has to draw threads through the detectors as well as through the reed and harness. Our steel harness is even easier to draw in than the cotton har- ness, for the heddles.may slide on the bars at will, accommodat- ing themselves to the convenience of the operative. Another ad- vantage of the .steel heddle warp-stop is that it will stop more promptly, preventing warp runs after warp breakage ; and it does not stop so often for slack threads. A further advantage, of great importance in mills where they change the product frequently, is that the steel harness heddles space themselves automatically, so that the same harness may be used for various weaves. The free lateral mo\ement also allows the weaver readier access when repairing broken \\^arp threads. We have been asked more than once why it is that the shut- tles in a Northrop loom fail to throw out of the loom like the common shuttle ; in fact, our shuttles stay in the shade so uni- formh- as to question the need for shuttle guards. The reason is easilv seen on investigation. Shuttles are thrown out of looms for several possible causes, but the most frequent one is the formation of floats, or the preliminary to a pickout. All of our looms will stop before a float can make serious trouble, and our steel harness warp-stop type will stop the loom before the warp threads can tangle sufliciently to swerve the shuttle from its proper course. In the line of steel heddle warp-stops we are absolutely with- out competition. No other loom builder has ever attempted to introduce this class of devices, to our knowledge. In the earlier use of the steel harness, it was claimed that the steel heddles broke more warp threads than the twine har- ness. This may have been true at that time ; yet the ad^■antages were more than enough to compensate. After learning proper methods of sizing, proper shape of cams and proper arrange- 67 r No. 3 ment of heddle.s in their frames, we have now brought the steel heddle warp-stop where it is practically equal to the cotton harness in the number of warp faults. On regular print weaving, we find the stops for both breaks and slack threads combined, is between lo and 15 per day, per loom, with either steel heddles or cotton harness. At present, we do not sup- ply steel harness mechanisms for a greater number than five harnesses. The original cotton har- ness warp stop-motion which we introduced, used a drop wire device applied between the heddles and the lease rods, each detector serving for two or more threads. This could be used on looms having more than two harnesses, in a large number of applications. This motion was very successful and has been used on thou- sands of looms. We are re- cently applying a stop-motion situated between the lease rods and the harness, but which uses one detector for each thread, which looks very promising for cotton harness work with anv number of hainesses. No. 3 No. I Steel heddle. No. 2 Cotton harness drop wire for "Roper" warp stop. No. 3 Detector for single- thi-ead stop-motion. 68 A fourth type is known as our Single-Thread Warp Stop- Motion, and has been very largely used in recent years. In this class, one detector acts for each thread, and a peculiarity is noticed in that the detectors are arranged in two banks, and placed in the position of the usual lease rods, where they ac- complish the functions of leasing devices, as well as warp stop- motions, doing away with the necessity for leasing rods, and simplifying the loom to that extent. Where drop wires are applied back of the usual lease rods, a broken warp thread does not always promptly allow the drop to operate, as the lease rods sometimes make sufficient friction on the thread to hold the drop in position. While we are subject to more or less competition in applying warp stop-motions to old looms, ovu" competitors are either lim- ited to use of electrical devices, with their inherent evils, or to the use of warp stop-motions in which the detectors are subject to a more or less severe twisting strain. Our patents cover the use of serrated vibrators which can engage the detectors without twisting and bending. Sometimes the vibrators and co-operat- ing devices on competing devices are made light and delicate, in order not to bend the drops, and therefore are less positive in action, and more liable to damage. So far as the application of warp stop-motions to other than Northrop looms is concerned, we ^/vere interested primarily in applying warp stop-motions to looms that could not use the filling-changer, such as drop box looms. We have taken little interest in attempting to introduce warp stop-motions on common looms for plain weaving, because we consider such application a mere makeshift, in view of the greater advantages of the combined filling-changing and warp- stop, which the mills should avail themselves of, rather than attempt to try and cheapen their weaving by adding expensive devices to old machinery. Warp stop-motions of themselves, do not lessen the weaver's labor, except in the prevention of 69 floats and overshots. Every thread that breaks must be pieced up, as formerly, and it is even possible that the additional weig'ht of the detectors causes more breakage. DEVICES FOR MAKING PERFECT CLOTH. The third nevs^ attachment introduced with the advent of the Northrop Filling-Changer and the Warp Stop-Motion, is a mech- anism only used on certain classes of goods, which co-opei-ates with the filling-changer to prevent mispicks, and thus make per- fect cloth. Mispicks are due to the running out, or breakage of filling, and the insertion of new filling without removing the par- 70 ticular thread of w^eft remaining in the shed, and also without in- serting the new filling in the proper shed. In the general line o£ goods woven, mispicks have not been considered as important defects, but with other goods, such as napped fabrics and certain classes of multiple hai'ness weaving, mispicks are not allowable. In common loom weaving, they may be obviated by extra pains and extra labor on the part of the operative, who can pick out the particular thread by hand, and turn the loom over to find the true shed before inserting the full shuttle. With automatic looms, the prevention of mispicks is attained by changing the filr ling before final exhaustion, so that a full thread is left in ever^r shed. If the filling should break, the loom may be stopped au- tomatically, so that the weaver can find the pick ; or, if such breakage is not frequent, the loom may be arranged to run the chance of a mispick at such periods. The mechanism employed for this purpose consists of a simple device called the "Feeler," because it feels of the weft in the shuttle through an opening in the shuttle side, and absolutely measures its volume. When reduced to a cei'tain definite quan- tity, the feeler operates to liberate mechanism governing the ac- tion of the filling-changing devices. The cut first printed shows our latest feeler, which is applied at the shipper end of the loom. As shown, it is in contact with the yarn in the shuttle, passing through a hole in the front box plate and a slot in the side of the shuttle itself. Like the Aumann feeler, on the opposite page, it is independent of back lash in lay and position of front plate. The operating parts are shown in full relief, and are few in number. The cuts of the Aumann feeler show the pattern in use just previous. The mechanism at this side end of the loom, however, does not accomplish all that is necessary, for the operation of the filling-changer by a feeler introduces a curious problem, the ejected bobbin having its thread extended through the shuttle 71 ^-^ AUMANN FEELER JUST BEFORE OPERATION. This cut shows the form of feeler mechanism devised by Mr. Louis A. Aumann, agent of the Dwight Mfg. Co. at Chic- opee and modified by inventions of W. F. and C. H. Draper. AUMANN FEELER OPERATING. We have had these applied to thousands of looms. They are independent of the vs'ear or alteration in the throw of the lay and therefore require practically no adjustment after the first setting". 72 eye to the cloth, while the bobbin itself is in the receptacle, thus leaving an additional thread to be taken care of by cutting apparatus. Unfortunatel}', this thread does not lie in the path of the regular thread-cutter, requiring an extra cutting device to operate at the proper time. Such a device is attached to the shuttle position detector, w^hich reaches forward to determine the position of the shuttle in the box, as the position detector passes into the path of the thread referred to. This additional cutter not only severs the thread at this point, but also holds the severed portion taut until the regular thread-cutter severs it again near the selvage of the cloth. While somewhat difficult to describe, the operation is' perfectly simple and efficient. The Feeler is practically necessary on certain classes of goods, yet objection has been raised on account of the waste yarn left on the bobbins. We have endea^'ored to reduce this to small limits by continual perfection of the feeler mechanism itself. We also limit the amount of waste by applying attach- ments to the spinning frames which spin the filling yarn, called "Bunch Builders," which govern the traverse motion so as to ^vind a slight preliminary bunch on the bobbins near the lower end of the traverse, so that the feeler will not operate until the bunch itself begins to be reduced in volume. We have patterns of these mechanisms to fit all the American makes of spinning frame. Another objection to the feeler has been raised on account of the extra labor necessary in remoA'ing the waste yarn from the bobbins, especially as the bobbins have some- times been damaged by the use of kni^'es for this purpose. We are now building little machines, in which a large, rough- surfaced roller, by rapid revolution, will easily wind off the waste yarn of several bobbins at a time, reducing the expense as com^^ared with the former process, and causing no damage at all to the bobbins. Most of the waste yarn is easily pulled off bv the finsfers. 73 r\ ^ a:} H en ^ O <° X o w w TO T EMPLE THREAD CUTTER I— I P o 74 THE DOUBLE FORK. The cloth which -we intend to weave on our looms may be roughly divided into three classes. First, including goods on which mispicks are not important and on which slight thick and thin places are of little moment. These ai'e produced by the ordinary plain loom of commerce which our regular Northrop loom is replacing. The second class includes the grades on which mispicks are considered important, and for which w^e apply the feeler device. The third class includes all the goods on which mispicks are not important, but on which thick and thin places are not desired. This grade can be woven on our new double-fork looms and we expect to find all grades iniproved by use of this new idea. There is a prevailing notion to the effect that print cloth may have all sorts of faults, because the dyes disguise them. Anyone who looks at the cloth running over the blackboard in the cloth room of any print mill, will notice defects in every single cut of cloth woven, there being full as many with cloth woven on the common loom as with the cloth woven on the Northrop loom. The buvers have grown accustomed to these faults. When it is understood, however, that cuts of print cloth, or any other cloth, can be woven entire, without a thick or a thin place, the trade will undoubtedly demand improvement. The Double Fork system, has already worked with great success on thousands of looms, and has recently been improved and simplified in detail. It detects the absence of fill- ing on either side of the loom, and prevents the take-up from moving if filling is not present. With two forks, absence of filling is detected more promptly, and they also take care of any trouble caused by a dragging end of filling, which sometimes IS holds the fork up at the left side of the loom, if the yarn is coarse. The double fork is therefore applicable to coarse weaving, as well as very fine goods, having special advantages in each application. It is also added to Feeler looms as an additional precaution. The Filling-Fork, whether single or double, is the most important element of the loom, to our mind. It is liable to false operation if the tines get bent, or if the lay gets out of position, or loose in its bearings. We are now making a fork in which the tines are cast in place in a solid block, and_ are also bringing out impi'ovements in loom construction intended to prevent the possibility of variation in the position of the lay itself. STANDARD MODBLS OF LOOM CON- STRUCTION. Having considered the different new attachments which are peculiarly adapted to automatic weaving, we next show cuts of looms complete with the devices in their relative co-operation with the standard loom organisms where their detail may be still further elaborated. Although many loom manufacturers have built from one standard set of patterns for years at a time, we have brought out ten different models, with full sets of patterns for each, within a period of ten years. These different models are not only necessary by reason of variety in width and weight of cloth woven, but also represent improvements in design of sufficient importance to warrant new construction throughout. A MODEL (also called 1894 pattern). Not now built. This was the loom sent out on the Qiieen City, Tucapau, and other early orders. We built this model in rights and lefts, not having then adopted our one-hand loom construction. 77 END VIEW OF A MODEL LOOM. Steel Harness, Saw-tooth Gearing, Shepard Let-off, Mason Take-up, Movable Bobbin-chute and other details as originally presented. "The cloth is as near perfect as can be. Weavers run, or attend, from 16 to 28 Northrop looms, and do not work any harder than I have seen them do on eight common looms, and pretty near all the weavers here are what wouktbe called new weavers ; that is, having only from two to three years' experience; and, in fact, the majority of them learned here." — [Contributor to Wade's Fibre and Fabric. 78 B MODEL (ALSO CALLED 1895 loom) . Not now built. This pattern was continually improved and was our standard for prints and other light goods until 1898. It had a wider frame than the A model, longer shuttle boxes, new take-up, Stearns rocker and One Hand construction. C MODEL (also called 1896 loom). Not now built. This w^as our first heavy pattern loom. It M'as of the One Hand construction with heavy design throughout. (No cut of this to show.) 79 J D MODEL, HEAVY STANDARD, NO. 1 HOPPER. Cut shows dobby head applied. The take-up on this special style of D loom is of the worm gear variety. "Constant pro^-ress has been the watchword of the last quarter of a century, and will lead in the next, so near at hand. Mr. Draper puts the Northrop loom, the latest production of his model shop, into your mill today and starts it with amazing success, but while this pattern, the product of many years of hard work of the inventor, with the added talents of many mechanics, has been in course of construction, a new and better way has been devised to accomplish desired results or to overcome some slight defect obvious in your lot of looms. And you are told that in the next lot of looms built these defects will be remedied, and too late you regret that you had not waited before giving your order. The difficulty, however, is inevitable. Evolution is constant in everything to which the mind devotes itself earnestly, honestly, and persistently — and each lot of looms tui-ned out will naturally be superi- or in some respect to that which preceded it.'' — [_P)'est. Frederick E. Clarke at Montreal meeting of the N. E. Cot. A/an. Asso., Oct. 5, 1899. 8o CROSS SECTION OF D MODEL LOOM. No. I hopper, five harness, cotton-harness, Roper warp-stop. "The ISTorthrop looms at this mill are running on 60s warp and 70s to 80s filling. I have never seen looms run any better, on coarse nmii- bers even, than these are running ; in fact I do not see how any looms could do better. The weavers run 16 looms each and did not seem to have anything to do. The overseer called my attention to his loom fix- ers on these looms sitting down by their bench sleeping, which he said was no unusual sight. He says he gets all of 95 per cent, product." — [Extract from Expert's Report^ June 20, 1903. Si D MODEL LOOM WITH DOBBY. We have sold hundreds of looms for dobby weaves which are giving the best of satisfaction. 83 P^ORTY INCH E MODEL LOOM, No. 1 Hopper, Steel Harness, original High-roll Cut Motion. "lu couversatiou with one of our most i^romiuent manufacturers this weelv, who has just returned from a trip througli the South, he informed us that he took especial pains to visit a mill making print cloths, where it had all Northrop looms, and that he never saw nicer woven goods, and made at a cost Avhich we are not at liberty to state, but it was verj'^ low indeed.'"- — [^Boston Journal of Commerce. Oh a. o o 2; o o < w Q O w o I— I > Oh o 84 E MODEL. Regular pattern for prints and sheetings up to 1904. Cut sho"ws a steel hai-ness bobbin filling loom as made in 1898 and 1899. Improvements have been added continuously, as will be shown in other cuts to follow. "I called at the Mills; found the looms riinuing very well. They have reduced the seconds on their plain work to 1 ^o pei- cent; and on their sateens to one-half of one per cent. This is perfectly satisfac- tory to them."' — [Salesman's Report^ Oct. 24, 190:^. Sq E MODEL LOOM WITH FEELER. NO. I HOPPKR. The deep can is used to enable the dropping bobbin to drag out the length of filling cut by the extra thread cutter. While the cut shows the feeler on a two-harness loom, it is more customary to use this device on multiple harness weaving. The feeler shown is one of the earlier constructions. "We looked at the Draper looms, which are runuiug extremely Avell, with weavers runniug 16 looms each on 4-shade cotton flannel, 17s warp and 9s filliuo-. They ai-e doing very well with the feelers and were making little waste." — [Salesman's Beport of Nov. 28, 1903. 86 CROSS-SECTION OF E MODEL STEEL HARNESS LOOM, NO. 1 HOPPER. (Shuttle positioning device is different from that in perspec- tive view of E model, and hopper is lor cops instead of bobbin. Pulleys are at the left hand on this loom.) This cut gives a good detail of the cloth winding device on our high roll take-up. Also shows hand adjustment of harness jacks. The detail of the warp-stopping connection cannot be shown in this cut, as the devices used are not on the half of the loom which appears in the cut. 87 E MODEL WITH LARGE HOPPER. This is the regular standard type for general weaving used from 1S9S to 1904 (still in use). It began to receive the large hopper as per cut in 1901. More looms have been sold ol this model than an}^ other that we have put out. "In New England to-day the price of weaving on the ordinary looms, with the last ten per cent, that has just been given, is nineteen and eight-tenths cents— say twenty cents— per cut, that is, tor titty yards A new loom has been invented by which the weaver can mind about twice as many, and therefore the price per cut is reduced about one-half. These are what are called the Draper looms. . . . .in the South they have hardly any other kind of looms; they have the best. I saw one woman minding twenty-four looms ine price thev pay for fifty yards in South Carolina is six and one-quarter cents. The operatives of course, even at this rate, are earning more than they ever earned before." .... George Gunton, 88 F MODEL. Extra heavy pattern for goods 73 inches and wider. Made with compensating let-off for two beams, triple cranks, com- pound spring cloth winder, friction pulley drive. G MODEL. Special frame. D Model weight with E Model depth. We liave no cuts to show these two latter stvles. H MODEL, HEAVY SIDE CAM LOOM, 8 HARNESS. Frame same as D and E Models. I MODEL, not ready for illustration. This will be of a construction somewhat simihir to our present E Model and adapted for the same class of weaving. 89 J MODEL LOOM FOR PRINT CLOTH AND LIGHT WEAVES. There are more looms weaving plain two harness goods, on print cloth style than on an}^ other single grade of cloth. Mills can equip for this standard product and run continuously for years without necessity for changes. We started originally "with a loom for weaving these goods, but in designing foresaw other uses and therefore prepared the frame and other parts for them as well. A year or so ago we made up our minds that there was a sufficient field in light narrow wea\'ing to warrant the building of a special loom primarih" adapted for this use. We have thus developed a model that takes up no more floor space than is necessary, that is no heavier than is necessary, and in which the moving parts are not clumsy and power absorbing. The fatigue of running and handling such a loom must be greatly 90 reduced. We utilize new inventions to reduce shock, jar, smashes, etc., and in view of the light goods to be woven, pro- tect against the slightest crack or thin place by novel mechanisms. Several of these will be particularly referred to in the special articles on take-up, double fork, anti-bang, etc. These various motions have shown so much advantage that we do not intend to limit their adoption to the J Model loom alone. There are several thousand of these looms already running and several thousand more on order. They have proved a great success, especially when fitted with the complete range of devices which we recommend for them. They will run at high speed if neces- sary, and with lighter power. Thev can be made with either front or back binders and with either steel or cotton harness, though we recommend the steel harness unreservedly for this class of work. OUR COMMON LOOM. We have at times filled several orders for common looms for parties who were not fully decided as to whether our mech- anisms were applicable to their special kind of goods, with the idea that when we should have the necessai-y devices they could be attached to the looms. At the present time, however, our range of weaving is so broad that we rarely find a case where the common loom could be advised, and we foresee little future chance for their introduction. Ovv'ing to our expensive experimenting and disregard for cost, we probably make the best common loom now in the market. Our common loom is simply our Northrop loom with the hopper and warp stop-motion left off and a slight change at the fork. With our make of loom it is, of course, guaranteed OUR COMMON LOOM. The cut shows the common loom of the B model type, of which we have sold several lots to purchasers who bought to equip with Northrop devices later. We have not encouraged the sale of plain looms as our force has been busy with North- rop Loom orders. It seems strange, however, that those who continue to buy common looms do not universally demand a type that will be guaranteed to receive futui'e improvements readily. 92 that our devices can be easily applied, while this is not always true of looms made by other builders. We have given fully as much attention in late years to per- fecting the conventional loom parts as we have to the betterment of our own additional devices. The common loom which we should furnish would, therefore, have all of our latest improve- ments in the line of let-off, take-up, etc. It is, of course, understood that the cuts which we show^ do not pretend to illustrate all of our .loom products. Each model that we build is made in many w^idths, and modifications ai"e often necessary. At present, our range in width is from looms for 28-inch goods, which will, of course, weave narrower, up to looms for cloth 108 inches wide. We call any loom a wide loom which requires additional parts, such as centre swords, double beam, etc. We have found it advisable on these wide looms to use front binders, and a simple rocker motion that will give the shuttle a smooth, straight pick. Some classes of looms require clutch pulleys, which w^e can supply when ordered, but we do not recommend thera for universal application. While we prefer to sell complete looms, we can apply our devices to certain models of old looms of others' manufacture. Such changing over is especially advisable where the common loom is too valuable to be discarded, as in the case of broad looms, dobby looms, etc. We have changed over several thou- sand common looms with good results and have a special depart- ment for that work. 93 LOOM CONSTRUCTION. Soon after the introduction of our first looms, which were made in rights and lefts, we found that the shuttle used with one type of loom threaded up better than the shuttle on the other, the eyes being entirely different in threading detail. This led to the idea of making looms all one hand, and as this change only necessitated invention in the line of shipping mechanism, we promptly adopted the idea, and have built all our looms in this way ever since. It is, of course, a great convenience to us, as builders, to have all of our looms made from the same patterns, and it must be an even greater advantage to the mills, for not only is their supply of repair parts lessened, but the weavers find it much easier to go through a set of one hand movements, rather than learn to do many operations with either hand. It seems strange that the original error of complicating parts and detail by right and left construction was prolonged for a full century. It is, of course, still necessary to have the pulleys arranged to belt at either side of the loom, and we find it also more convenient to have our let-offs changeable in position ; but the shipper handle is always at the left, and the hopper always at the right, on all looms which we have built with the exception of the A model. When we change over looms of other makes, we supply parts for both right and left hand looms, as no other builder has followed our lead, especially as the system we use is protected by several patents. It is well known that with the ordinary type of loom, as built, one hand will run better than the other, as patterns of one hand are not precise opposites to the other, and are necessarily better or worse in adaptation. This gives two differently operating constructions to bother the fixer. 94 LET- OFF. Although the Bartlett was our own original let-off, and although we did use it on thousands of our Northrop looms in an improved form, we have now replaced it by a greatly superior mechanism known as the "Draper-Roper," v^hich is self-adjusting and thoroughl}- efficient for nearly all the possible requirements. We made a curious mechanical error on these motions as first sent out, which tended to give them a bad name, but on discovery of the fault it was promptly remedied by sending correct parts to every mill where the let-offs wei'e in use, and we now hear nothing but praise for their performances. Like the Bartlett Let-off, the Draper-Roper is actuated from the motion of the lay and governed by the tension of the yarn at the whip-roll. It is, however, additionally controlled by the variation in the diameter of the warp beam, as the warp is woven off, by a follower, pressing against the beam, which by its change in angle determines the limits of motion by which the actuating parts operate. With ordinary let-offs, the cloth woven varies remarkably in width from full to empty beam, whereas with the Draper-Roper this variation is practically eliminated, so far as influence of the let-off itself is concerned. There are other causes which affect the width, and their results should not be confused with the let-off action. A recent test of actual ten- sion at the whip roll during the entire time a beam was weaving off showed that the variation was confined between 33 1-3 and 32 povuids — certainly a remarkable uniformity for this class of mechanism. "Their Northrop looms were all riiuniug very av ell ; the weavers run IS prints each, and on the wider looms 16 each; the fixers run 115 looms each." — IE xtr act from Expert's Beport, Jan. 2, 1904. BARTLETT LET-OFF. The Bartlett was our standard until the Draper- Roper let- off appeared. We owned the original Snell and Bartlett patent and sold over 50,000 of them lor use on old and new looms hefore 1S70. 96 DRAPER-ROPER LET-OFF AND ANTI-BANG. The cut shows this let-off applied to a J model loom. Note the follower which bears against the warp on the beam. The operative parts are largely hidden from view. Note in the cut of the let-off another new idea which we call the anti-bang. The frog slide connects to the whip roll so as to release the warp in case the loom bangs off. This relieves the loom itself from shock and also prevents smashes. We believe this idea will greatly lessen loom repairs and the loosening of nuts and screws. 97 SHEDDING MECHANISM. Our standard forms of shedding mechanism at present include the ordinary single roll with strapping at top and cam treadle drive at bottom, for two harness work, with either steel •or cotton harness, the Lacey Top Rig for multiple cotton har- ness, and a spring compensating motion for the top rigging of our multiple steel harness mechanism. We are, however, ex- perimenting with new motions for our steel harness looms, and shall soon introduce a complete novelty in the line of shedding mechanism, doing away with all treadles, cams, and jacks under the warp, giving more space for the ^varp beam and bringing all of the operating parts out where they are easily observed and adjusted. We shall have more to say publicly about this device when our patents are issued and a further trial made. The Lacey device is simple and durable for cotton harness use, and it is always in place to hang a warp, does not wear out straps so fast as the ordinary motion, and is easily adjusted. It is quite similar to the Wyman motion used on Crompton & Knowles looms, but we think it contains important additional improvements ; in fact, other loom builders have wished at times to have the privilege of using our motion on their own makes of loom . We are ready to equip looms with side cams for special weaves, or dobbies, when desired. We have built hundreds of side cam looms for cordvu-oy and thousands of dobby looms for various weaves. "One man who came under my personal observation was working 27 looms. He was producing a print cloth, 28 inches wide, 60x64 ends per inch, 29's warp and 37"s"weft. The avei-age for the whole mill was about 19 looms per weaver. Is it possible for our manufacturers to compete with this?'' — [English expert's report on visit to America^ from English paper ^ October^ 1902. 98 DETAIL OF LACEY TOP-RIG ON D MODEL. Our steel harness is becoming so universal that we have less field for this motion than formerly. Cut also shows our worm gear take-up with the let-back modification. 99 TAKE-UP AND CUT-MOTION. Although it might have been simpler to stick to standard designs in this line, copying from well known mechanisms, we have, as a matter of fact, given as much time to the Take-Up ol the loom as any other separate feature. We started with a conventional pattern, but on finding that many of our customers desired to weave large rolls of cloth, we tried to design an arrangement which would w^ind any size roll desired up to i8 inches in diameter. We saw that the High-Roll arrangement of cut-motion seemed to offer marked advantages in this line, although the High-Roll had never gone into noticeable use in this country and was open to many objections in the forms com- monly known abroad. Mr. Northrop devised our present stand- ard construction with the exception of quite recent changes, and the majority of our looms now in use are equipped with the High-Roll pattern. In its best known form, the cloth passes directly to the rough-surfaced roll and is wound around a core, or bar, which is pressed up against the roll by two supports operating from a coiled spring which governs a double gear and rack device. The spring is wound up by the action of the racks as the roll winds, and the cloth is removed by releasing the spring with a hand crank. There are marked advantages in this arrangement, as the cloth will not shrink or wrinkle and the width of the goods will be more uniform and the picks more even. The breast beam comes outside the cloth, protecting it from blemish when the weaver leans over the loom. The direct acting roll also helps take strain off the temples and lessens warp breakage. On all our cut-motions we use a metal cloth roll, to which L.oCC. the filleting is applied, unless the goods woven demand some special surface only applicable to a wooden roll. This will not shrink or swell like a wooden roll, thereby keeping the picks per inch uniform and the yards per pound at a proper standard. We believe the mill that runs wooden rollers will make its cloth either too light or too heavy. If too heavy, the mill is giving away value without remuneration, and if too light, there will be dissatisfaction at the buying end. Qiiite recently we have made an improvement by which the core or bar in the cloth roll is positively started by having geared teeth engage with gears on the large winding roll when first starting to wind. As the cloth gets larger in diameter on the roll the gear teeth move apart and unlock. While the mechanisms just described are parts of the cut-motion, they are operated directly by the take-up devices proper which transmit movement from the lay or cam-shaft or other moving parts of the loom. We have quite a variety of mechanisms for various classes of looms, many of which we have not shown separately, and some of which ha^■e been consid- erably modified since the cuts were made. It is practically im- possible to keep our cuts up to date in view of the rapidity of improvement in the devices themselves. "There has been expended in experiments, in investigation and for patents, some $300,000. The result is a reduction of one-half in the cost of weaving cotton clotli. Tlie cost of weaving constitutes one-half the cost of labor required to produce cotton clotli. Consequently the saving secured by the loom is approximately one-quarter of the labor of producing the cloth. Experts have estimated that in 1895, $80,000,000 was paid for labor in the cotton manufacture in the United States. Assume that the improved loom had been thoroughly introduced, the saving secured thereby would have been approximately $20,000,000. The interest on the national debt of the United States in 1892, the last year of Republican control, was $22,893,000. The possible saving of the new loom, therefore, would be about seven-eighths of this interest." — IHon. Charles Warren Lippitt, ex-Governor of Rhode Island. lOI B MODEL LOOM TAKE-UP. This take-up derives its inotion from the rocking of the lay-sword. It has a let-back governed from the fork-slide. Cut also illustrates the weft-hammer and shipper knock-off. J MODEL TAKE-UP. This take-up is extremely simple, as will be seen by the cut. It is operated by a cam on the lower loom shaft and so timed that it will not take up unless the shuttle is picked. This pi'events the thin places which are sometimes formed on common and old Northrop looms if the weaver turns the loom over by hand while mending warp or before starting the shipper. The ratchet shaft operates through a worm to the take-up roll — no chance for back lash of gears. A is the upright connecting to the left-hand fork and B the lever connecting to the arresting device. I03 SECTION OF B MODEL LOOM CUT-MOTION WITH FULL TEN-INCH ROLL OF CLOTH. This cut is interesting in comparison with our later motion, which has many additional advantages. The fliter or reed- holder shown is not now used. I04 ORIGINAL HIGH ROLL CUT-MOTION FOR E MODEL LOOM. The cut illustrates our earliest pattern of High Roll cut- motion. It was quickly superseded by the next type shown. I05 DETAIL OF THE CLOTH WINDING DEVICE OR CUT-MOTION ON OUR HIGH-ROLL TAKE-UP. This is the cut-motion which has been an integral part of the greater numl)er of Northrop Looms sold. It has been univer- sally satisfactory on the average line of goods. Certain cloth, however, requires greater chance to yield between the fell and the take-up roll, and we have therefore made a new construc- tion shown on the following page, which allows various changes in wind. io6 OUR LATEST ARRANGEMENT OF CUT MOTION. As will be noted in the cross-section of a Northrop loom, as shown in the cut, we have recently made a material modifica- tion in our Cut Motion, in order to cover various requirements of weaving, it being found necessary in certain instances to have a greater length of cloth from the reed to the take-up roll than our former high-roll arrangement allowed. io7 This arrangement allows four different systems of controll- ing the cloth between the reed and the roll. The purchaser of the loom can therefore suit himself as to the method employed and adapt the method to the goods. The take-up roll is given a wide range of vertical adjustment to allow for lessening the strain on either the top or bottom shade, as desired. The large cut shows a cross-section of the loom without the hopper, in order to emphasize the main feature of the new parts and the three lower cuts show the alternate methods of use. BRAKM MECHANISM. We employ a simple and convenient filling-brake of our own design, which is actuated whenever the shipper is released. We formerly put these brakes on every loom we made, no matter what the style of weaving. Finding, however, after con- siderable experience, that the action of any braking device is bad for the loom in general, we prefer now to apply brakes only to the special weaves where they seem peculiarly necessary. The illustration on the next page shows the brake attached to the frog in usual manner, also an independent brake actuator liberated by the shipper handle. A is a rod leading across the loom to operate the belt shipper on the other side of the loom. B shows a detail of the filling-brake lock which is liberated by the weaver before moving the lay by hand. It would be found by close examination, that the filling- brakes on the ordinary looms used in the ordinary mills, are not continuously operative ; in fact, it is probable that the great majority do not act as they should. Our own brake has the advantage of a positive screw adjustment by which it may be loS kept easily adjusted ; but it increases repairs of v^arious kinds enormously to stop looms suddenly, and there is no need of such quick stopping in the ordinary line of weaving. BRAKE MECHANISM USED ON B MODEL LOOM. "Some people say that the Draper loom is apt to make thiu stripes, but from all I can hear, thiu stripes are about as scarce as hen's teeth. The work runs very well, and Jesse Barton, an 18 loom weaver, says he ran a loom seven hours and never stopped, only for dinner hour. It is a common thing for looms to run four or five hours at a stretch." — \_From letter to Textile Excel sio?' from Wan-enville, S. C, dunng 1900. I09 *' -- "1 t i% 111 ^^m A THE IMPROVED DURKIN THIN PLACE PREVENTER. We applied thousands of these attachments to the old com- mon looms before entering the loom field. Those who wish to get the best results out of their old looms when weaving light goods can use them to great advantage. They lessen thin and thick places, lessen the results of shuttle smashes, lessen warp breakage, and increase production. We recommend them to purchasers of our Northrop Looms who intend to weave light goods on them. Every improvement that tends to lessen the breakage of warp threads is of high importance when endeavor- ing to increase the number of looms per operative. A slight extra cost at the start may pay for itself many times and not always receive due credit for the performance. The construction consists of a pair of arms fastened to the usual bar across the loom which supports or forms the whip roll, and a roller held at its ends by the shding bearings, noted in the cut by the open hole for the journal. Where Bartlett let- offs are in use the regular roll may be used without necessity for an additional warp roller. In our first patterns there was difiiculty at times in adjust- ing the tension of the spring to allow definite control of the movement of the whip roll. We have now overcome this trouble by using uniform spring tension and governing the movement by adjustable stops as shown. We make patterns to fit different styles of looms. SULLIVAN'S PATENT SHUTTLE GUARD. These Shuttle Guards are made of the best quahty coppered wire, five- sixteenths of an inch in diameter, and are long enough to reach the entire length of the hand-rail. An eye is formed in each end, and these eyes fit over the bolts w^hich attach the hand- rail to the swords. No other fastening is required, except for certain widths of looms, when a center support is added. The guard fits closely to the hand-rail for about three inches at each end and is then bent to hang over the race in any position desired. This form of construction and at- tachment makes the most simple and durable shuttle guard that has thus far been introduced. The hand-rail is not cut or dam- aged in any way in making the attach- ment, nor are there any bolts, screws, or other fastening, such as have to be used with other guards, to work loose and annoy and hinder the weavers. There are no bolt ends projecting back of hand-rail to tear the harness. This guai'd can be applied for repairs where it would otherwise be necessary to re- new the hand-rail, at less than half the cost of making and fitting a new hand-rail. There are thou- sands of them in use. FIG. I. FIG. 2. THE BOLTON LOOM-SEAT. This novel attachment can be applied to any of our looms and is now sent out with all orders, one to each eight looms. It provides a seat for the operative that is normally held out of the way by a spring. Fig. I shows the seat as held down by the weaver's weight. Fig. 2 shows it returned to position under control of its spring. Mr. T. H. Rennie, Superintendent of the Graniteville Mfg. Co., wrote us he considered these seats an '•''Indispensable ad- junct to a well regulated tveave-room." THE KEENE DRAVVING-IN FRAME. We are introducing a clrawing-in frame with attachments, especially designed for holding the warp, drop wire detectors, harness, and reed in a new and convenient manner, to assist the operative in drawing in a large number of warp ends in a given time. There has been some objection to the use of warp-stop- motions in that they caused extra expense lor drawing in ; but this delect is largely obviated by this present invention. Its parts are adjustable, and have a range so that they are applicable to all our various forms of warp stop-motions. Price recently reduced one-half. 113 SP^ECIFICATIONS OF NORTHROP LOOMS Ordered From the Draper Company, Hopedai.e, Mass. Make out separate specifications for each style and size of loom. For Date ordered 190 Address Number Size Model Right-Hand Belt from Above Left-Hand Belt from Above Right-Hand Belt from Below Lel't-Hand Belt from Below Kind of Cloth to be woven Width Sley Number of Picks per inch Number of threads in Warp Number of Warp Yarn Number of FilUng Yarn Shall Looms be duplicate of others in the Mill.? If so, give date of previous oi-der Is filling on Bobbins or Cops ? Total length of Bobbin or Cops Note : — It is necessary to send several sample cops with mule spindle, or bobbin and spindle. Our regular sizes of bobbins take 5 1-2 inch travei'se on a bobbin 6 3-4 inches long; 6 i-S inches on a bobbin 7 3'8 inclies long ; and a 6 3-4 inch traverse on a bobbin 8 inches long. Our regular cop sizes are 5 1-2, 6 1-8 and 6 3-4 traverse. Bobbins are patented, and must be ordered through us. At least 200 per loom should be pro- vided. When cops are used we send 30 skewers with each loom for large battery ; 20 skewers with each loom for small battery. These are charged extra. 114 Shall we make Bobbin or Cop Heads Standard Butt? Give largest diameter of full falling Bobbin or Cop measured on the Yarn Large or Small Battery? Diameter of Spinning Ring Note: — Large Battery takes 25 bobbins or cops. Small bat- tery takes 15 bobbins or cops. What style of Take-up ?... : Note : — Our " High Roll" construction admits of winding any diameter Cloth Roll up to 17 inches. Embodied with this we have three separate styles of Take-up. Our regular pattern takes up with every pick and lets back to prevent thin places. Our Worm Take-up is a positive take-up, without the let-back feature, and is especially designed for corduroys, velvets and similar fabrics, which re- quire 200 picks per inch and above. Our Worm Take-up with let-back is designed for those who require a positive take-up and still de- sire the let-back feature. Our Standard Take-up has i 1-4 inch up and down adjustment of sand roll. If more is required, please specify. What st3de of Let-off ? Note: — We furnish Roper, Bartlett, Friction, Roper and Friction, or Bartlett and Friction combined. On " F" Model looms we furnish Compound Let-off; on Cordui'oy looms w^e furnish a special Let-off. If Friction Let-off, shall we order Chain, Fibre, or Rope Friction? Will you have Drag Rolls? Note : — These are used only for veiy heavy vs^eaves ; heavy denims and goods of this character. We recommend for most cloths Plain Pipe Whip 115 Rolls ; for heavy weaves, not taking Drag Rolls, Vibrating Whip Rolls ; for very light w^eaves, Durkin Thick and Thin Place Preventors. Un- less Vibrating Whip Rolls, Thick and Thin Place Preventors or Di^ag Rolls are specified, we shall furnish with plain Pipe Roll. ,Will you have Feeler? What style Warp Stop-Motion is required? NoTK : — We have three styles : . Steel harness using one steel heddle for every warp thread, adapted for 3-3-4 ^^^^ 5 harness work. Drop-wire Stop-motion for cotton harness, w^hich requires one drop wire for every two warp threads in a two-harness loom adapted for 2-3-4 '^^^ 5 harness work. Single Thread or Lease-rod Stop-motion for cotton harness, using one drop wire for every warp thread. This stop-motion is adapted for any number of harness from 2 up. Drop Wires and Heddles are extras and should be ordered in sufficient quantities for extra drawing-in sets. It is well to order about 20 per cent, more drop wires or heddles than the looms figure for this purpose. How many Steel Heddles or Drop Wires? How many looms arranged for 2 Harnesses? How many looms arranged for 3 Harnesses? How many up ? How many down ? How many looms arranged for 4 Harnesses? How many up ? How many down ? How many looms arranged for 5 Hai'nesses ? How many up ? How man}^ down ? What style Harness Motion? ii6 Note : — We furnish the regular Top Harness-motion or Side- top Compensating Motion. We adapt our looms to take either the Crompton or Stafford Dobby. We also furnish Special Side Cam Motion for Cordu- roys. Are Cams on Cam Shaft or Auxiliary Shaft? If Auxiliary Shaft, shall we send gears to run 3-3-4-5 shade? Single or Double Jack Hooks? On what No. of Harness shall we set up looms? How many up? Ho\v many down? Shall we supply Dobby? How many Harnesses? What style? Shall we supply Single or Double Spring Jack or Direct Springs? Is Selvage Motion required? Plain or Tape? What Diameter and Face of Driving Pulley? What width of Belt? Tight and Loose or Friction Pulley? Note : — Regular size 12 inches diameter, 2 1-4 inches face, for 28 inch loom. 14 inches diameter, 21-4 inches face, for 40 inch loom. We strongly recommend this width of face, as wider pulleys are much more troublesome in shifting belts. For 3 1-2 inch belts and wider, we recommend fric- tion pulleys. We furnish 16 1-2 inch, 18 inch and 20 inch Beam Heads. Which do you require? Distance between Heads ? Note : — For proper width between Beam Heads, we recom- mend 4 inches more than size of loom. For those desiring extra space we supply Beams 5 1-2 inches wider than the size of loom. 117 We furnish ^ inch and 6 inch diameter Yarn Beams. Which do you require ? - Note : — We recommend 6 inch barrel only on fine yarns. How many extra Shuttles.? (Only one per loom included without extra cost.) What style Temple will you have, i 3-4 or 2 1-3 Roll? ,How many Bobbins shall we order for you.? Style Oil soaked ; For what number of picks shall we set up looms.? Note : — Send us several pieces of reed such as you intend using on these looms. One piece is not sufficient. As the contraction on our High Roll Take-up is con- siderably less on several classes of weaves than on other looms, it would be well to write us before ordering new reeds. The maximum reed space is =; inches wider than the size of the loom. Pickers must be of short pattern, not projecting above shuttle box. We furnish sample sets of strapping and pickers with- out extra charge. On Cordui-oy looms send us copy of Chain Draft. We will send diagrams of floor plan after questions are answered. By what lines shall we ship.? Remarks "The Northrop loom, by increasing tlie capacity of the operative 300 per cent., has brouo-ht the manufacture of cotton up to a point that is considered practicallv perfect. In its most hig-hly developed form tliis loom now enables oiie man to do the work of a thousand men at the beginning of the cotton industry, working by hand."— [^rom article on "Evolution of the Cotton Indnstnj,'" in Gunton's Magazine for Feb., 1904. ii8 xn O 1— I m t5 Q O O o w W o Q s o Proper Width Between Beam Heads fcyoi- OM-*'aD00OCQ-*CD00O(M-*O00OC>J^CD00 Greatest Width of Cloth at Temple H CO ci3505D5ocD Total Length of Multiple Steel Harness Space a 3-S COCOCOCOCC^'^^rtl^lCSiOlOijOiCOCOCD^^ Total Length ■ of Cotton Harness Space S?§?SS^'^^^ggSSS8§SSSgE2 n Length of Lay for 15% Shuttle 8 Bobbin i-f\ r-i\ rt\ r-N. H\ H\ r-t\ H\ H\ r4\ H\ H\ M\ H\ iH\ H\ t-4\ i-H\ r-l\ i-K \W \M \N \M \M \N ^^ \W \N \W \C-1 \M \N --^N \W \N \C^ \N --.N ^sN r-l\ r^--, H\ r-t\ r4\ H\ H\ H\ H\ H\ H\ H\ h\ T-i\ rt\ r4\ H\ H\ H'. h\ t-i-ooooooGOoooiOiOsoia:>ooooo^i-ii-i Length of Lay for 15% Shuttle 1% Bobbin 1- t-a5r-ico>ot-a3r--i(X)>o t-t-0000000000050505C5aiOOOOgj^T-lj^ no V* \^ \-* \* X-* Vf Vf V)< "v* \!)< \* \* Vf \^ V* V* X"* N^ \+ \* r-N, r-^^ r-K r-i\ W\ HN H''. hN H^ , H\ r4^. r-C . H^ H\ H' . h\ H\ r-i\ h\ H\ ict'OiT— icoiot-osT-Hcciot-osT-Hcraiot-OiT— 100 t-t-l-OOOOOOOOOOOCBroClOiOOOOOr-li^ Length of Lay for 143^ Shuttle %% Bobbin 3-S 0'° ?:t-oooooooooocsaiC5Cno300oooT--i^r-j ggg§ggSgg88§SgSS|38S2S 5 ^i§SSSSgS5^^^^SSSgggSS '6 5 J- q3pq &.H J3 "O j; g ^•5 D. q cn^coiai.-05'-ia3iot-Oii-ieQir5t-c6THcomt-a5TH uj I^H ■S)t-i.-l-I.-L-0000000000O05C5C505OOOOO^ t4- o rt o -M cj a 4) (U O c CS ^' 2 >o i:^ p "o O M w P^ J W (U 5i J2 ^ — c a COlOl^Ci^HCOlOt^OiT— ICOUOt'CS^HCClCl-O^^COlO "o o o o •3 j: D. L-l-i.-t-000000000005050305050odoo^rHrH c o O 13 c hJ C3 I- H o >^ o o T3 "•^ \ o 3 fe c ^ P5 ,- "c w r- •5 ^^o S^ 5 \^<\^;^j^^V\jf\*W^\^N^N^N^N*N*N^N^\I^X^N^N^ ci V 5 cvi -^^o do o'c^i'-tH cobQO?^^^:obooc^^ o'bo o cvj ^ o" OJl*- ^ s J O X M t- s M 0) o" c o <*- o c o .£> c o t- OJ ps fear's OCVJ-4s E p !?- OS i t- t- 00 E 1-3 1-1 >. u_ o CO 00 o J5 oT i- t- 00 1 ID tH*^ (d A s ^ «<„E ^^ S 00 o c^i Si CO CO INSTRUCTIONS FOR RUNNING NORTHROP LOOMS. The experience of the last nine years is by no means suffi- cient to absolutely settle all points of discussion. We learn more about the art of weaving every week, and consider the possibilities of further knowledge and improvement practically exhaustless. Many volumes have already been written about the detail of plain weaving with common looms, so we shall try to'stick more closely to the new features introduced by the novel mechanisms on our own looms. While these new devices necessarily introduce new prob- lems, there is nothing very intricate about their operation. The fact that thousands have been running for years should give the Fixers self confidence. HOPPER (OR BATTERY) ADJUST- MENT. In setting the Hopper^ first see that the filling-fork passes freely through the grate. Then place the filling-motion finger against the filling-fork slide., and the lever on the starting rod at the hopper side of the loom, to which the starting rod spring is connected, can then be set so as to cause the shuttle position detector to clear the shuttle when the lay is at its extreme forward position. Then turn the loom and allow the filling fork to engage with the filling-motion hook., which will cause the starting rod to turn, and bring the shuttle position detector across the 123 mouth of the shuttle box. The end of the shuttle position detec- tor should come very close to the back box plate^ when the lay is all the way forward. The position of the detector should be 3 15-16 inches from the hopper surface against which the butt of the bobbin is pressed to the inner face of the detector. To see if the detector works properly, pull the shuttle far enough out of the box so that it will strike it. This should cause the latch-finger on the hopper to clear the bunter as the lay comes forward and the detector contacts with the tip of the shuttle. To see if the transferrer acts properly, bring the lay forward with the shuttle in proper position, until the bunter contacts with the latch-finger, and as the transferrer inserts the fresh bobbin, or cop, note how far it is pressed into the shuttle. Should it go too far down and push the bobbin by the shuttle spring centre, the latch-finger must be set further back by means of the adjusting screw at the rear. Should the bobbin, or cop, not go down far enough into the spring to be firmly held, the latch-finger must be set nearer the bunter. In setting the transferrer, it should be regulated so that it will contact very lightly with the bobbin, or cop, which has been placed in the shuttle when the transferrer is at the end of the downward stroke. The wrought iron end of the transferrer, called the trans- fei-rer-fork^ which helps to pi-ess the bobbin, or cop, into the shuttle, should be directly over the centre of the shuttle opening, and if out of position, should be bent into place. When the shuttle position detector is in proper position and clears the shuttle tip, and the latch finger contacts properly with the bunter, bring the lay slowly forward by hand, and see that the transferrer places the bobbin, or cop, exactly in the centre of the shuttle. If the shuttle should come too far forward or too far back, the proper position may be secured by turning the eccentric pins in the lay sword upon which the pitman wyorks. Be careful t-4 and turn both pins, or else the hiy will have a complex motion, for one distance between centres ^^"ill be longer than the other. If the pitman is too badlv worn to allow of this adjustment, it should be replaced bv a new one. If. bv reason of a f'tidly xcorfi picker, the bobbin, or cop. is placed in the shuttle so as to strike high up on the shuttle cover^ an additional piece of leather should be put under the leather on the lay end, to compensate lor the wear of the picker. The foregoing adjustments will remedv anv ordinary trouble, not occasioned bv breakage. The hopper, as a rule, gives very little trouble and requires scarcelv anv adjustment. The rotation of the hopper disc should always bring a bobbin into proper position. The disc bearing should be kept properly oiled, care being taken not to drip oil on the bobbins. If the weavers leave gaps bet\\"een bobbins when tilling" the hopper, thev mav have trouble. Thev should not allow these gaps to occur, as it is perlectlv easy to turn the hopper back and till it properh . The latest Xorthrop shuttle takes either bobbins or cops. It is shaped to prevent tilling from throwing forward and escaping from the eye. or looping around the horn. As fastened in the wood, there is no chance for catching either tilling or \varp threads. The spring cover at the rear is inclined so that if the shuttle is too far into the box. the bobbin, when striking the incline, can push the shuttle into place so that the bobbin can enter the spring- properly. 1^5 If tlio tliirad entrances to the eye ^-et jainiiiod or closed, they ean be opened Un kiiil'e blade, or otiier tool, hut care should he taken not to open these entrances any wider than they were ori^inallw If the e}e becomes clos^'i^'cd with cotton or lint, it should be cleaned out. A small piece of flannel is placed at the throat of the shuttle for friction, which can be easily renewed. When coarse tillino is usetl, it may lie necessary to put bunches of slasher- waste, or bristles, throui^h holes in the side of the shuttle, to make additional friction. These must be put in by the loom fixers, as we cannot send them out in this way, not knowing- just what conditions arise in weaving-. If the shuttle spring gets loose, it should be tightened up by turnini:^ the fastening screw. Shuttles should not be allowed to run with loose springs. We believe we have made considerable improvement in this direction by our latest spring and fastening. If trouble is finmd with cut filling, the wood near the shuttle eve may have become rough, and should be snn)othed with Hue sand paper, or emery, Aun small slivers or sharp edges should be removed by the same means. If warp threads should be broken out by the shuttle, it may be that the tips are l)lunt or rough, in which case the trouble may be remedied by polishing with emery cloth. SHUTTLI^ BREAKAGE. Outside of the usual splintering and slivering, generally caused by unfit wood, the actual breakage of shuttles on Northrop looms is probably due to the Ibllowing causes : 126 The shuttle may get pinched between the temple and the reed^ in case the protector fails to act. Our recent models of temples are designed to prevent this from happening. Of course, the fixer should follow up his work and see that the protectors are properly operative. Shuttles have been split by bobbin rings wedging between the spring grips ^ but this is of rare occurrence. We grind the ends of our springs now, so as to limit the chance of their press- ing against the shuttle sides. Of course, it is possible to break shuttles, if bobbins ai'e caught during transfer, or if certain parts of the loom are broken or inopei'ative. In spite of all the chances, our shuttles wear very well, considering that one shuttle runs continuously, the wear not being divided between two shuttles, as in the common loom. We furnish all the shuttles used with our looms, so have an actual record of their life, which runs over, rather than under, six months on the average. Excessive wear is often due to sharp reeds. SHUTTLE WOOD, Shuttle wood is liable to curious variations, both from natural and artificial causes. Sometimes the stock is too severely kiln-dried, taking all the life out of the wood so that it breaks like sealing wax. Shuttles are sometimes treated with hot solutions of wax or oil. This may improve the surface smoothness, but if not carefully followed up, may injure the stock. 137 SHUTTLE DESIGN. Shuttles are shaped to run true and balance as well as pos- sible. With the weight continuall}- changing and shifting, as the yarn weaves off, it is impossible to keep the centre of gravity in a uniform position. The shuttle is also pulled out of place b)' the drag of the yarn, which varies in tension as the bobbin or cop winds off. A perfect design would have the shuttle points on a line that would pass through the centre of gravity, with the weight fairly well distributed on each side of the centre. Shuttles made for front-bindei' looms have a longer back, so that the pressure of the binder in its last contact will not change the direction of the shuttle. We made all our looms with back binders for years, but are now ha\ing very good success with front V)inders on recent models. MISTHREADING. We use this term to illustrate the failure of the shuttle to thread itself properly. With our recent shuttles .this fault is almost entirely obviated. It is possible, however, if the filling be weak, or should the shuttle be picked too hard, that the yarn may be broken before it has a chance to thread up. The shuttle eye may possible get jammed or choked by lint so that the thread cannot enter at all. If this happens, the fork will be raised all right, for the thread will draw off the tojo of the shuttle on its first flight. When the shuttle is picked back, however, the thread will be broken, calling for a new transfer of filling and making a curious looking defect in the cloth, as the shuttle 128 will continue to lay threads going from the hopper and will lay none on the return. In weaving two shade goods this action puts several threads in one shade. In fact, it may continue this operation until all the bobbins have been transferred out of the hopper. Our present looms are so set as to stop for a double misthread, but even this will not prevent the fault just mentioned, as the fork will be raised intermittently. The misthread detector on the fork will act, however, if no thread is laid in front of the fork twice running. It may be possible for the fixer or the weaver to intentionally disarrange this motion so as to prevent the looms from stopping, but this should not be allowed, as it might cause a bad thin place if the hopper became exhausted or any accident caused repeated misthreading. The fact that the loom is found stopped, even when there is not a warp bi^eak or slack thread, does not necessarily mean that the shuttle has been misthreading. It is possible that the shuttle posiiioir detector may have prevented the shuttle from receiving a bobbin twice in suc- cession, and this would cause the loom to stop just the same as if it had failed to thread twice running. If the loom is found stopped with an empty bobbin in the shuttle it is a sure sign that the shuttle position detector has found the shuttle out of place. This means that the pick should be set so that the shuttle will go fully into the box or not rebound. Men with inventive capacity often attempt to improve on our shuttle eye, and we do not assume that improvement is not possible where we have made so many changes ourselves. It is necessary, however, to recog- nize the requirements of the case, as a shuttle eye for uni- versal use must be adapted not only for threading easily, but also prevent the filling from throwing ahead and getting out of the slot. It must also provide for easy passage of bunches, be practically self cleaning, give a proper friction, not weaken the wood materially, have sufficient weight to balance the metal parts at the other end, be fitted in the wood so as not' to catch 129 ^varp or filling, and be designed for easy molding and machine Avork. As to the simple problem of threading shuttles, as far back as 1S94 we could transfer over 1,000 bobbins without a misthread. These records cannot be attained, however, \vithout proper setting of the loom. We believe the set of the pick has more to do with this trouble than anything else, and recommend , a light, easy pick with moderate pressure of the binder. We learned years ago that the amount of misthreading ^vas affected bv the moisture in the \veave room. Yarn is strengthened by moisture and strong yarn will naturallv break less under strain whether it is filling or wai^p. BREAKING OF FILLING. Every break in the filling causes extra labor, as the weaver must put a bobbin in the hopper twice at least in order to have its supply of filling Avoven off. Everv bobbin ought to -weave off clean, except on feeler looms, but a harsh pick may break filling by the jerk or cause it to throw out of the shuttle and catch on other adjacent parts. Sometimes the varn ^vraps around the j^oint of the bobbin or skew^er while running off. With our earlier shuttle we expected breakage on No. 36 filling at least one in ten bobbins, whereas we do not now expect more than one in twentv-five. It is easy to note how filling is limning by casvially glancing at the hoppers in the ^veave room to see how manv partlv filled bobbins have been put back in the hoppers. Filling sometimes catches on the picker or picker stick. Care should be taken to allo^v no cracks, projec- tions, or corners where the thread may loop when thro\ving out of the shuttle. With cop filling the yarn sometimes catches in I30 the slot of the skewer. More trouble is occasioned by split cops, due either to shock in the shuttle box or poor design of spindle or skewer. This fault can be largely governed by the set of the pick and use of proper checks. There are many checks in the market which box the shuttle properly, but a shuttle must be received easily to prevent cop splitting, and there are very few checks which are adapted to this requirement and also to con- trolling the shuttle properly. BOBBINS. We have received a long and varied education in the require- ments of filling bobbins as we have purchased all of those used on our Northrop Looms ever since we commenced to build them. The complaints of our customers therefore all pass through our own office, although up to the present time we have not had any- thing to do with their manufacture. Bobbin wood is liable to serious fluctuation, especially when not cai-eftiUy selected and carefully dried. We believe the greater part of the trouble with bobbins getting out of shape is due to short seasoning, it being necessary to carry a very large stock of blanks in order to have sufficient supply of thoroughly seasoned wood on hand. Changes in the wood itself not only require reaming and the weeding out of badly ^varped bobbins, but also cause loosening of the rings before the bobbins are otherwise worn out. It is, of course, necessary for our loom that the bobbin rings should hold firmly so that the bobbin will lie properly in the shuttle. We insist on careful gauging of both wood and rings at the start, but the wood may change after the gauging process. The split rings applied to the bobbins are necessarily somewhat elliptical. In order to ^31 obviate trouble from this source the rings are apphed so that the slots will not be opposite each other. The bobbins will swell if filling is dampened so that they will not fit the spindles. This necessitates reaming, but the reaming should not be done while the bobbins are wet, as too much wood will then be removed. We are now introducing spindles with a cen- trifuo;al clutch that allows a loose fit with the bobbin on the clutch and allows more leeway for the fit. We believe this is one of the most important im^orovements ever made in the art. The contour of the bobbin varies with the kind of yarn spun. Bobbins for coarse filling require coarser steps on the cone. With coai-se yarn we use I3 steps, for print yarn 14. For coarse filling we usually recommend grooves on the baiTel instead of ribs. We have made careful experiments in order to determine the proper size of barrel for filling bobbins, and our standard patterns are all of uniform diameter. To avoid trouble with damp filling as much as possible we advise that the bobbins be filled with linseed oil and two coats of shellac applied after they are dried. Much trouble is found with filling yarn because the bobbins do not fit down properly on the spindles. We expect to obviate this trouble entirely with our new spindle, but the fault will necessarily continue in old mills. With the old pattern of spindle the bobbins should fit the sleeve at from one-half to five- eights of an inch, entering the cup (if there be one) at about one-eighth of an inch, fitting loose at the upper bearing, which should be at least 3-4 of an inch in length. Cups are really not necessary on our filling bobbins as the steel rings prevent splitting. 132 RBAMING BOBBINS. When the bobbins are reamed the reamer should be care- fully watched. Not over 500 bobbins should be reamed without testing the fit. Try the spindle in the bobbin and feel if there is play at the upper bearing. If not, the reamer needs spreading. To spread and sharpen a reamer, the temper must be drawn, the reamer placed in a vice and the part that reains slightly spread with a light hammer and a tool made for that purpose. The reamer must then be tempered. Any good mechanic can change the reamer to the proper size. A mill with 10,000 filling bob- bins should have at least six top reamers and two "pod" reamers. The upper bearing gives a great deal more trouble than the lo"wer bearing and it is well to have a surplus. Run the reamer at least 2,000 revolutions a minute, — 2,500 is better. A good man should ream from 7,000 to 10,000 bobbins a day. Every mill should have at least 20 bobbins to a spindle to each number of yarn used. To weave off in the shuttle properly the filling wind should be considered. We have found many mills where changes in the traverse would give better results. On 36 yarn v\^e find best results with the rail going down quick and up slow in the proportion of 1 7 turns on the up-wind to 6 turns on the down-wind. This is on a traverse of i 1-2 inches. With coarser yarn like No. 22 we should recommend i 3-4 inches. PREVENTING BUNCHES IN CLOTH, All ^veavers know that when the last end of filling winds off from a bobbin it is liable to make a bunch in the cloth. Careful investisration has determined that these bunches are 133 practicall}' always due to the bobbins which did not start up properly when doffing and therefore require to be wound on by hand a few turns in order to piece up. These few turns are not wound tight enough to wind off properly and very possibly all come off together, which accounts for the fault noted. There is a common method of doffing which also aggravates this difficulty, when the doffers wind the yarn on the bobbins by giving it a few twists around the base instead of using the socket doff. The socket doff is certainly preferable. In order to avoid the trouble from the bunch with the bobbins not starting properly, Mr. Charles H. Arnold of Grosvenor Dale, Conn., designed a method in \vhich the doffers are provided with bobbins having sufficient yarn spun on them so that they can be pieced up. Whenever an end does not start in doffing, the doffer removes the empty bobbin and replaces it with the bobbin already pro- vided with enough yarn to piece up. In the weaving of fine goods this change reduces the seconds at once to a marked degree. The extra bobbins are of course furnished by spinning a slight amount of yarn on some extra bobbins at the frame and then removing them for use as noted. It is, of course, somewhat difficult to secure co-operation between the two departments, the spinner not often willing to go to extra work on the weaver's account. It is only, however, in this ^vay that good results are obtained. Mr. Arnold's idea is patented, but we allow its free use to all owners of Northrop Looms. 134 WINDING BUNCHES FOR FFBLBR BOBBINS. The bobbins used on our feeler looms are preferably spun with a preliminary bunch, the object being to reduce waste by preventing the operation of the feeler until all the yarn and part of the bunch have been exhausted. This bunch is wound about 2 1-8 inches from the lower end of the bobbin and is about 3-8 of an inch in length. We supply mechanism especially designed to govern the traverse of the spinning frames to automatically vs^ind this bunch and have them in use in many mills on various makes of frames. They are perfectly satisfactory in every instance where given a little care and oversight. No mechanism will run in a cotton mill without being properly oiled and cleaned. It is evident that if a feeler loom is set to ^vork with a bvmch that every bobbin should have a bunch. Bobbins, there- fore, which fail to start up at the doff should be replaced with special bobbins provided in advance, already having the bunches wound on them. It is, of course, possible to wind bunches on filling frames without automatic mechanism by simply holding the rail at the transfer point either by hand or by clamp. This method would, however, require special attention by an intelli- gent hand at the proper time. COB LOOMS. In vs^eaving with cop filling more care is necessary than with bobbins. Bobbin filling rarely loops off, while cops break in two for insienificant reasons. Our skewers are made froin 135 conventional patterns by an experienced builder and are designed to fit the sample cops which are sent us. We have to fit the skewers to the cops, as it will not do to assume that all cops are alike because they are spun on similar mule spindles. Some yarn is twisted harder than others and yarn is often spun both coarse and fine on the same spindle. Proper temper is very important, as the skewer should not only have the proper shape, but hold it and stay open. Many fixers spread skewers with a screw-driver or other tool, but this is very liable to break them. When a mill uses steamed cops it should be careful to send us sample cops after being steamed. Trouble with cops splitting is not necessarily due to improper shape of skewer or excessive pick at the loom. It may possibly be due to the lack of proper wind in the spinning room. Sometimes cop skewers on our looms get bent by catching in the shuttle. They should be care- fully examined at intervals to see that they are perfectly true. During the transfer the skewer strikes into the box with some- thing of a blow and we recommend that the cop tubes which are removed from the skewers be dropped in the box to make a cushion. WARP STOP-MOTIONS. THE STEEL HARNESS. With our sfee/ harness warp stop-motion the heddles them- selves are used as detectors to effect the stopping of the loom if a warp thread breaks or becomes too slack. Originally we only applied the steel harness for two-harness weaving, but are now using it for two, three, four and five-shade work with great sue- 136 cess. The hedclles of the steel harness are suspended by the heddle bars which pass through slots in the upper part of the heddles, the warp threads beiiig drawn through the eyes near the center. The lower ends of the heddles are free from the moving frame, but are guided by stationary devices which pre- vent their swaying too much either forward or sideways. Be- tween the harnesses is a long, flat casting called the stop-motion gij-t, which serves two purposes ; first, to separate the harnesses and hold them in position, and second, to resist the action of the feeler bar should a heddle drop down and be caught between it and the nrt. KNOCK- OFF MECHANISM. Upon the harness cam shaft there is a cam upon which a ^^//(^Wd?;' works, which, through a small connecting ;W, operates the feeler bais. This cam follower is held against the cam by means of a small coil spring. Between this cam, and forming a part of the same casting, are two projections. Normally, these projections just clear the knock-off, which is a small casting fastened to the same stud or shaft that holds the cam follower. When the heddle drops, the feeler bar strikes it. The cam fol- lower is thus prevented from following the cam, and the knock- off on the shaft with the follower is moved ovit of its noi-mal position in such a way as to be struck by one of the projections beside the cam, thus moving the whole link on which the cam follower and the knock-off are fastened. This motion of the link is comniunicated to the shipper handle, throwing off the belt. When a heddle does not drop, the feeler bars oscillate back and forth, and the knock-off is held out of the way of the projections or lugs on the hub of the oscillator cam, and the loom continues running. 137 ADJUSTMENTS. In setting the steel harness stop-motion the first thing to do is to either throw off the belt, or remove the key which holds the end of the shipper-lever in the shipper-handle (in our later looms), and place the shipper handle in the notch in the shipper- lock; this will bring the stop-motion into the same position as when the loom is running. Then turn the loom until the feeler- bars are in their extreme forward position under the girt. The knock-off link should be against its bearing in the hub of the cam, and the cam-follower should bear against the cam in its lowest place. The small casting on the same stud as the cam- follower, called the knock-off, should be so set that it will just clear the projections on the hub of the cam as the cam revolves on the cam-shaft. The cam on this stop-motion is very similar to that used with the cotton hai^ness stop-motion. The position of the oscil- lator-cam is governed entirely by the harness-cams and should work in conjunction with them. When this cam is meshed with the harness-cams, which it does when the harness-cams are on the cam shaft, it must, of course, move with them ; but when the harness-cams are on the auxiliary shaft, care must be used to run the oscillator-cam in the right position. In this case, when the harnesses are level or passing each other, the oscillator cam should be so set that the long axis of the cam is horizon- tally level, or in other words, so that the faces of the cam point directly to the front and back of the loom on a horizontal line with the floor. The cam-follower is held in position by a spring on the stud to which it is fastened ; if it does not follow the cam as quickly as it should, tighten this spring. Care should be taken, how- ever, not to have too much tension on this spring, but just enough to make the cam-follower work properly ; otherwise the 138 heddlc would ])c l)C'nt; l)y the f(jrcc of llic l)low. Tlie motion of this cam-follower is communicated to the feeler-bar shaft by means of a connecting rod, the length of which may be varied at will by tin"ning to the right or left. On each side of tlie stcjp-motion girt, mider the warp and just touching it, are the front rod and l)ack rods, which hold the heddles in place so they will drop into position to be caught by the feeler-l)ar if a thread lireaks. These rods also h(;ld up slack threads which otherwise miglit allow the heddles to drop low enough to stop the loom. Small castings called hrildlc-bcir collars are placed on the heddle l)ars to keeji the heddles in line with the yarn. There are also guides at each end of the stop-motion girt to keep the bottom parts of the heddles in line. The harnesses are leveled up at the \arious positions of the crank: On underthrow looms from the bottom center to the front center, and on overthrow looms from the top center to the front center, according to the class of goods to be woven. The harnesses are connected to what are termed harness rolls at the top of the loom. Care should be used to have the hack harness connected to the lari^cst roll, and the front harness to the siiiallcsl roll, in order to work in harmony with the har- ness cams. In some cases the opposite to this has been done, interfering with the proper working of the loom. The front heddle bars are smaller than the back, and must be set in their proper position. The front and back rods should lie set just high enough to touch the \arn when the yarn is in its proper position on the race-plate. If the shade should be too high above the race-plate it can be lowered l)y turning down the set scrcivs in the castings at each side of the loom upon which the harness-roll rests, and then tisfhteninH' the connections between the hartiess-vokc and 139 treadles by raising the cap with the sprint; on top and turning it. If the shade should be too low, loosen the connection between the harness-yoke and treadles and raise the harness. The shade should just clear the race-plate. A great advantage with the steel harness is, that after the shade is once set it requires very little or no attention, and new warps can be put in without alter- ing the shade, and more quickly than with any other harness made. In putting in a warp, however, it is possible to get it tangled up ; but this can be avoided by a little care and common sense on the part of the operative. After the warp is once placed in the loom there is no danger of tangling. The bottom connection of the front harness should be placed in the second notch in the treadle and the back one in i\\Q fourth notch. The heddle-bars must be straight. If the heddles bind in any way on the heddle-bar it will show reedy cloth, and also be a serious strain on the yarn. No oil should be put on the hed- dles or heddle bars. It sometimes becomes necessary to apply a heddle to a harness bar after the warp has been drawn in, and this is usually done by breaking open the eye and slipping it on. While this is all right as a temporary expedient, it is well to go over the harnesses in the drawing-in room before re-drawing, and remove such heddles, as they are liable to catch and interfere, preventing the action of the warp stop-motion. One of the most annoying troubles formerly experienced with our steel harness looms was their liability to become mag- netized, thereby sticking together and making poor sheds. Some slight changes in construction have seemed to overcome this difficulty, as we hear very little from it, except on some of our earlier looms. It is perfectly easy to remove this magnetiza- tion by holding the heddles in an electrical coil, and we have demagnetized several lots for our customers. 140 Sometimes the lo'w^er ends of the heddles are seriously bent or twisted by the action of the vibrator. This is either due to poor adjustment, which brings a too severe strain, or is some- times caused by improper setting of the knock-off so that a dropped heddle receives several hundred or thousand blows, as the loom does not stop. The same trouble naturally occurs w^ith detector wires as well. Like every other mechanism that contacts with a cotton thread, the heddle is smoothed by use in a way which no previ- ous mechanical method can attempt to duplicate. Our steel heddles will therefore work much better after a few weeks' use, and cause much less warp breakage than when on their first warp. We polish the eyes in the best manner known — in fact we use especially invented processes ; but the rubbing contact of the cotton thread gives the final finish to the surface. It is impossible for this wear to ever make a sharp edge, as the thread turns its corner in such a way as to continually round the edge. So far as our experience goes we see no reason why steel heddles should not last indefinitely. We have had sets running at least eight years that are better than when made. Of course they may get bent or damaged by carelessness, but there is noth- ing in the normal operation to injure them. In our great variety of experiments w^ith various designs of steel harnesses, w^e have arrived at the conclusion that in order to secure the best results the heddles must be left with absolute freedom to adjust themselves to conditions. Every experiment designed to limit the position of the heddle in any w^ay, for any purpose, has alvs^ays resulted in excess of warp breakage. With certain weaves it has been noticed that the heddles will not act uniformly, the strain of the shed cavising them to sway or bend to excess. Where this becomes serious we have found it advisa- ble to use separators, which keep the heddles from swaying. 141 COTTON HARNMSS STOP-MOTION, ROPER TYPM. With this attachment, the ordinary tzuine or coUon harness is used, the stop-motion being applied between the harnesses and the lease rods, two or more threads being drawn through each drop wire. The threads in this stop-motion pass through long slots in the wires instead of round eyes, there being two such slots, — one for the passage of the threads, and the other for the passage of the drop wi?'e bar. We sometimes use a separate free bar or weight passed through the lo7ver slot and resting on the detectors to keep them vertical in action. The feeler bar girt, knock-off, etc., are similar to those already described. We also use a back rod or warp stpport, as with the steel harness. The stop-motion girt canhe raised or lowered and should be set in position for the feeler bar to clear the drop wires when the shade is wide open and no warp threads broken. It should also be set high enough so that when the shade is wide open it will not pull the drop wires up to their full limit on the dj^op wire bar. This can also be adjusted back- ward or forward so as to give room for additional harnesses. The feeler bar, which is the piece of sheet steel bent at right angles with teeth in the edge, should be set so that when it has reached the end of its forward movement, it will pass under the girt close to it. While this form of stop-motion will apply for many forms of three, four and five harness weaves, there are special classes of shading to which it will not apply. We have therefore introduced the third form, the single thread stop- motion, which can be used with any style of weaving, including dobbies and jacquards. 14^ SINGLM THREAD STOP-MOTION. With this construction, there is one detector for each thread. We apply it in several ways, our more common method in the past being to arrange the detectors in two banks., and use them also to do all leasing instead of the ordinary lease rods. We can make it in three banks if necessary. When used in two banks, there are_//v;//and back box plates instead of the center girt. The feeler bar is different in being a flat piece of steel with notched edges, oscillating between the two banks. To prevent detectors from slipping or bending under the twisting strain, we place serrated pieces of steel on the bottoms of the box plates. The top edges of the box plates serve as wa7p supports. The feeler bar having double action needs two knock-offs and two connecting I'ods between the cam and the folloiver shaft. ADJUSTMENT. In setting this stop-motion, throw off belt or remove key as before, placing the shipper handle in its notch in the shipper lock. Set the knock-off link, (the long casting forming connec- tion to the shipper handle,) against its bearing on the cam hub so as to have no back lash. Then place the feeler bar in the center between the box plates and adjust the tivo small castings on the feeler bar shaft w^hich ^ve call the tight and loose oscillator fingers. These should project or hang evenly on each side of the shaft. Now loosen the set screw which holds the stop-motion cam on the cam shaft so as to be able to revolve the stop-motion cam by hand and set the tight knock-off, the small casting fastened to the stud in the knock-off link by a set screw, so that it will clear the point H3 of the cam hub 1-16 to i-S of an inch. Turn the cam by hand until the cam follower rests on the lowest point of the cam and the feeler bar is near the back box plate. Then connect the loose oscillator finger \\\2i\. is on the feeler bar shaft with the cam follower by means of the connecting rod, and adjust the rod so that as the cam revolves the feeler bar will be moved from side to side equally. When this has been done, connect the tight oscillator finger that is on the feeler bar shaft with the loose knock-off by means of the connecting rod and adjust the rod so that the knock- off will clear the point of the cam hub as the cam revolves. If, when these connections and adjustments are made, the feeler bar should not move an equal distance each side of the shaft, the trouble may be overcome by further adjusting the connecting rods. The spring on the j///^/ which carries the knock-off awA cam follower should be set just tight enough so that the cam follower will follow the cam properly. The tension of the spring on the loose oscillator finger on the feeler bar shaft should be so regu- lated that it will hold the two fing-ers tosrether on the shaft. RELEASE MOTION. With all of our warp stop-motions except the steel harness, trouble was formerly experienced on account of the feeler bars grasping and holding the detector after the loom had been stopped by a broken end. In such a case the end was drawn in without raising the detector, so that the loom was stopped a sec- ond time, or else the weaver ^vas compelled to find the detector and release it from the grasp of the feeler bar by hand. 'II We now .iiipU' willi (Mil lolldii Ikmih'ss vv;it|) slop-iiiol ions, (lc\i(fs wliiili iiiildin.ilic.ilU iclc.isc ;i (hopped (Iclccldr upon stopp.'ij^c ol llic loom. 'I'liis Icilinc involves ;ilinost no .iddi- lion;d p.iih., is po;,i(i\c in .itlion, ;ind s.ivcs lonsidciiihli- lime lor llie \\(;i\»i. Il is e\ehisi\c will) lis, .ind Inlly covered l)y p.'ileni . SI.ACk' TIlRliADS. S/ihk tllitUli/s olleii I'.'iiise lioiil)le li\ IcIliiiL; \\;iip di'leilois of ;in\ p;iltein diop low enoiit^h lo eiiL;'.i.L;t' llir \ i|)i;ilo|- ;ind slop llu" loom, ejiisinj; ;inno\ ,inee liiii; .ind \/ liimiy Ih.'il I'lnployH HO v.'iriiihlf u nidU'ii.'il w.. < ollon (ilnc. W<' Ki<|) ;iii ;i( ln;il M'( oi'il oi' wiirp IhciiIoi^c find lind lli.il il v.'iiich in dirii'icnl yfjHh Iroiii !i(s liif^di iih i.| w;ir)) lin.d.;- pi i joom pn i nl in our yr;ii down lo ;in ;ivcr;i^c ol i .', in .iiiollici, willi no p olliri lli.in IIh i|ii.iiily ol Ijir i ollon m^d in Mi.'ikiii;', llic y;iin. All I'.now lli.il IIh lijiii o| ddli u nl • loph i;-. nol :,iniil,ii . I liidri I III' ol i|in;ii y I ondil ioii.'i we t'Npri I I li;il I In hrc.'ik.'ij^c on priiil w.'iip willi cillicr hh rl m i ollon linrncfih tdioiild iivi'l'ii^f Itclwrcii lo ;iiid 1"^ liir.'ilvN pit Mil. II Will p l;l('(iKii^c WiTc I" I"' ii'diH id willionl iilli'iilimi l.iiii)' p.iid lo oIIh i l;ii loi'H, lomiK, witiild 1)1' ipiilr dilli'ii'iil ly di'^.ifOH d. I n m d< i lopiodiirc iii/ii'/ on lln- ilolli IIh' yarn i:, s/niiih'd Ihin/ii in llir lonhi Jnidi' iiiid ;.liri|ilin;', i anih (ll'i! fj^'ivt'ii a /rihy iiidlinii in oidi i lo l-n p llir hh.'ldc« open loi III!' :,liiillli lo p.i!,;-, piopi'ily. ' )iii Jill liaiiu'HH will liii'al-. iiioH I'lid', loi III! |ii;,| li'w wt't'kh wild'' III'' yain !h ^j;ivin|.', a Imal polrli lo I In lyi',. luu/ ictu/s arc liaMi lo i aiisc iionlili', in lai I many iiiill', appi ai lo liii\ lliiii \vit\', willimil any I on:,idii al ion ol i|ii;ilily wlialrvt')'. 146 KNOTS. It was figured some }ears ago that two-thirds of the warp breakage on a loom came from the /;/?ofs made in piecing the yarn together, as these knots would fray adjoining threads or he caught w the reeds or betitieen the heddles. The number of knots is reduced by spooling from hirge 7varp bobbins^ and by making good yarn which will ha^■e feiv piecings to cause breakage at the spooler or warper. A certain number of knots is unavoidable, but the wa>- the knot is tied affects the situation materially, in the old liand method the operative at the spooler tied a knot with long ends, so that for some time we advised the tying of a zveaver's knot at the spooler, which would not only have short ends, but be less objectionable in size. We believe that in Europe spooler tenders are forced to tie a weaver's knot, and some mills who adopted the practice here fovmd no trouble after getting the help trained, the girls spooling as great a product as before. Since the introduction of the automatic knot t\ ■si 1^ 4,509,750,616 100 $243,218,155 450,682 1,581,613,827 36 57,780,940 125,000* 1,056,278,952 35,616,575 525,334,875 22,164,365 1,212,403,048 27 55,513,032 100,000 278,392,708 6 16,179,200 25,000* 268,852,716 6 18,231,044 44,227* 237,841,603 5 21,066,310 45,686 237,206,549 5 11,862,794 30,000* 235,860,518 14,301,302 28,839* 171,800,853 4 16,446,633 18,000* 129,234,076 3 14,263,008 15,000* 11,750,151 2,216,371 117,483,925 12,046,637 50,334.609 1 8,670,384 5,000* 41,885,023 1 875,868 4,500* 30,039,616 2,554,192 4,421 26,323,947 2,791,431 2,500* 7,961,523 2,682,017 800* 89,588,001 1,709 332,806,156 Estimated by writer. (The report only separates out the looms on certain lines.) In referring to the goods which it is now possible to weave on the Northrop looms, it might be simpler to mention those which can not be woven, for the Northrop loom has been suc- cessfully used on the greater majority. We weave all classes of prints, sheetings and shirting, a large line of napped fabrics, drills, twills and satteens, ticks, denims and striped goods; in fact practically the whole field covered by looms that weave with one shuttle, no matter whether they use plain harness ^75 motions, dobbies or jacquards. Our looms have been specially successful on corduroys. They are also weaving bags, window shade cloth, towels, etc, Qiiite a number of mills are using our regular loom on goods made with silk warp and cotton filling. We have woven worsted goods by using a wooden skewer to hold the ordinary worsted bobbin. We see no I'eason why the Northrop principle should be restricted to cotton looms. "We have been runniug twenty-six of your Northrop looms for a little over a year and it has occurred to me that you mio-ht be interested in results obtained. Our percentage of seconds for tire last three months from these looms, for all causes, such as thin places, button hole selvedges, oil cords in tilling, etc., is only 2.07 per cent. Goods weigh 2.85 yards to the pound, 18s warp, 15s filling. I believe this is a low figure, especially as these goods are all bleached and the bleacbery reports that our grading of first quality is strict so that thej^ have prac- tically nothing to say to us except to hold the goods up to our standard. Conservative figures show that the looms are producing about 93}^ per cent, of theoretical production figured on our actual running time. We do not run them over time at all, as some mills do. Some mills may show a larger percentage than we get, but as the goods must bear rigid inspection 1 think the results produced are fair The looms give us little if any trouble in fixing, and repair account for them is very light. We are running them 170 picks, which is somewhat higher than you recommend for 45" reed space looms, but they give us no trouble in that respect." — [Letter received from customer Sept. 28, 1900. "They say they have never had any complaint from the selling house in regard to the quality of their cloth, and some of the goods they are weaving in 6-cuts rolls, and sending it out even without inspecting it at the miW— [Expert's lieport of Dec. 12, 1903. :76 PRICI)S AND PROFITS. The price demanded for a new machine sliould bear a per- tinent relation to the profits to be derived from its use. The machine itself may be absolutely efficient, accomplishing all that its promoters claim, and yet demand a price prohibitive by reason of the capital required. On the other hand-, a new^ machine may be sold so cheaply as to give little encouragement to the builders to continue its improvement, through the only possible channels ; namely, expensive experiment. Contrary to a popular fallacy, inventors rarely devote their time and energy entirely for the good of the vs^orld at large. Those v^^ho develop and introduce the inventions are certainly not so impractically altruistic. There is no reason why the customer should not pay a proper price for value received ; and yet, in the general intro- duction of inventions, it is necessary to give the customer the lion's share of profit, in order to secure his approbation. The value of our spindle improvements has recently been estimated at considerably over one hundred million dollars ; and yet the return in price paid for the actual spindles themselves, sold within the period referred to, would be under twenty million dollars, which payment must cover the cost of the spindles themselves, the cost of the patents, the cost of expensive litiga- tion, and all the experiments, advertising, and general expense connected with the industry. The introduction of the spindle was comparatively easy compared with the introduction of the loom, for the early price of new spinning with high speed spindles was actually less for a given product than the slow running frames, while with our loom the price is nearly three times the price of the competing loom, so far as the amount of product is concerned. There is always 177 a protest against higher prices, no matter what the advantages may be. Looking at the introducer's side, it is evident that, having but seventeen years of patent protection, several years of which are usually used up before actual sales are made, he must make enough out of this limited period to repay all of his expenditure involved in perfecting, protecting, and introducing his idea, as well as a fair bonus to repay for the risk of attempting to improve in the first place. The profits must also cover the expense of hundreds of useless experiments, thousands of dis- used patterns, possible litigation, extensive advertising, replace- ment by improved parts, etc. It may be easily demonstrated that if it had been possible to sell all the possible customers all the looms they could use at a uniform price, none of them would derive appreciable profit from the operation ; for the competi- tion amongst themselves would reduce the profits till the general public received all the advantages of the new economies. The earlier purchasers of our looms would, therefore, pre- fer to see our introduction gradual, and it would hardly be fair to them to reduce prices in favor of those who were not so willing to assist by patronage in the early years of trial. We have no doubt but that we could have sold a great many more looms, had we set our price lower in the first place. We might even have made as much profit ; perhaps even more. It would have been necessary, however, to have still further enlarged our plant for such a purpose, and after filling the more numerous orders given to replace old machinery, v^e might easily have found ourselves over equipped for the regular business of supplying new mills for the future. The possible profits of the Northrop loom are based on the actual fact that with them a weaver can produce at least twice as much cloth as formerly, often three times as much, and in special instances even more, by tending a much greater number of 178 looms. It is also found that the Northrop looms will produce more cloth per loom, as they generally run for a greater percentage of the time and in many mills are allowed to gain still more by run- ning during the noon hour. The quality of the cloth is often bet- ter for certain purposes, but we do not claim yet that the improve- ment in quality actually increases the price at which the cloth can be sold. We do believe it is enough better to give a preference and we believe that with certain of our later devices, employed in large quantity, we shall actually Create a new and better grade of cloth which the common loom does not produce. The weavers on Northrop looms, hav- ing actually less work to do, even while tending three times as many looms as formerly, have been allowed to share somewhat in the profits by being allowed a price per cut at which they can make better wages. The average piece price for goods woven on Northrop looms is probably a little less than half the former w^eaving rate. To offset this gain we have an increased cost of the loom itself, with loss of interest on the extra investment money, and a ver}^ slight increase in repairs and fixing, although there are mills which claim that their expenses in this line are actually less with the Northrop loom. Roughly figured, the gross profit on the loom should run from $20 per year per loom upward. It varies vs^ith the scale of wages paid, and the number of common looms formerly tended ; for instance, Northrop loom weavers are paid six cents per cut in Southern mills on goods ■where they might earn nine cents in the North. The weaver that changes from four common looms to twelve Northrop will show a greater gain than one who changes from eight to twenty. There are many incidental advantages in the lessening of the number of operatives required. When ^ve take half the help out of the main department of a mill we greatl}^ lessen the num- ber of tenements necessary, lessen the cost of bookkeeping and paying off, and less personal attention is required from the 179 supervisors. Our loom being automatic in character, requires much less skill and training from the operative, for it is easy to learn to run Northrop looms ; in fact, green help become accom- plished weavers in a much shorter period than vs^ith common looms. As the loom is automatic and therefore more responsi- ble for errors, there is less chance for trouble w^ith the weavers over bad work and fines. Some of these matters may seem small in themselves, but they amount to considerable in the aggregate . We have labored very hard to overcome traditions in weav- ing that have grown up out of the long ascendency of the common loom, and we believe that the possibilities of automatic weaving are still hampered by customs originating with common loom practice. When a weaver was limited to four, six or eight looms, it was more or less a matter of pride to keep them run- ning, and if the weaver could not keep a certain number con- tinuously operating he was forced to use a less number. This bred the instinctive horror of a stopped loom, which prevails now that the Northrop loom allows a much greater number to the operator ; yet economy actually demands that a weaver with automatic looms should have enough under his charge so that some stopped looms would be more or less of a necessity. It is quite common in Northrop loom weaving to have production run as high as 95 per cent, of the possible production without counting in the extra gain by running noon hours. It is a com- mon thing to see a Northrop loom weaver with all of the hop- pers full and no single loom stopped for any purpose. Such a state of affairs simply proves that the same weaver could be given a greater number of looms if it would be possible to educate him into a state of mind that would not look on the stopping of several looms at a time as a terrible error. It can be easily proved that it would be much more economical for weav- ers to get 80 per cent, off of 30 looms rather than 90 per cent, off I So of 20 looms, or 95 per cent, off of 16 looms, provided the pay of the weaver v\^ere regulated to the product in proper propor- tion. We believe it for the best interests of the loom, the help and the management as well, for the Northrop loom weavers to be relieved of the work of cleaning and oiling their looms. No labor-saving device attains its full efficiency in the first few years of use. Our later large hopper looms have certainly enlarged the scope of the weaver, and continual improvement will gradually reduce warp breakage and other loom stops due to various other causes. The problem of how to increase earnings is often solved by enlarging the plant, but less money applied to the improvement of a present plant may sometimes give far greater returns with much less inconvenience. The change from common to North- rop looms requires no addition to floor space. As aboVe noted, it greatly decreases the number of operatives, and therefore solves a most perplexing problem in localities where weavers are scarce. If the old mills will not appreciate these facts they must face the competition of the new mills, which start with more modern equipment. We are frank to say that the hesitation of many of the older mills has been distinctly disappointing, for we should like to see them share in the benefits of our new ideas on account of the friend- ship founded on long and intimate associations. Failing to induce them to take the majority of our products, however, we must in justice to ourselves encourage the building of new plants. We should, if necessary, place our looms, even if we had to build and operate mills ourselves in which they were used ; for we are absolutely convinced that the mills with our machinery can make profits in straight competitive lines at prices which will drive the older, poorly equipped mills, out of busi- ness. If there is demand enough to make a profit for all, the mills with our machinery will make the greater part of it ; and when there is no profit at all for the older mill, the newer mills can at least keep a balance on the right side of the ledger. According to the census reports there were in 1900 about 450,000 cotton looms running in this country alone. In 1904 there are certainly over 500,000. Out of this number there are probably at least 75,000 looms running on tapes or narrow wares and with box motions or other devices that practically take them out of the field of filling changing mechanisms. These looms, however, offer an opportunity for warp stop-motions which we have already accepted to a considerable extent. Taking out the Northrop looms already delivered and running, there remains a field of about 330,000 looms for us to replace, as this number of common looms is still used on goods which we are perfectly capable of weaving. With our present plant, even before recent additions, we attained an output of 2,000 looms per month. With our new foundry facilities and a proper increase in tools for which we have space already saved, we could undoubtedly deliver 40,000 looms a year. In view of the looms sold to new mills it is therefore somewhat doubtful as to whether we could entirely replace the old looms in 10 years' time, espe- cially as we should be foolish to increase our capacity to an extent not warranted by the normal future demand after the old looms ai-e replaced. The trade can therefore be assured that those who have purchased looms now will have at least 10 years' advantage over those who delay. The eai'lier purchasers of our looms have long since paid for them by their profits, and these profits are practically guaranteed so long as there remains any appreciable number of common looms in use. During the last few years the trade has noticed many peri- ods of curtailment by large numbers of mills running on certain standard lines of goods. It has also been noticed that other mills on these lines of goods have not only run full time, but even kept running during the night hours in spite of the disad- vantages of such a practice. The main difference "be- tween these mills has been that one class run common looms and the other Northrop looms. It is not to be supposed that the introduction of a revoki- tionary machine like the Northrop loom is effected without diffi- culty, annoyance and delay. Those who use common looms and have not immediate chance for replacing them are naturally anxious that their competitors should not adopt advantageous improvements. Those who sell common looms are adverse to acknowledge the merits of their competitors and the influence of a large body of manufacturers with their salesmen and per- sonal friends is of acknowledged weight and importance. There is also a limited class who have made unsuccessful experiments with certain lines of weaving with the new devices and who are not disposed to admit that the other mills can be more successful than themselves. All of these opposing elements together create a certain atmosphere of doubt and a disinclination to accept facts, which can only react to their own disadvantage. Apart from the profit derived from the sale of our looms there is a distinct jDcrsonal satisfaction in overcoming the antagonism of these varied elements and proving the truth of our earliest contentions. It has always been held to be a difficult matter to convince a man against his will, but difficulties in the undertaking make success so much the sweeter. Many have read the series of letters that were written to the Manchester Guardian by their special correspondent who visited this country with the delegation that inspected our cotton industry. Nothing i-ecently published gives an equally clear and compre- hensive view of the trade situation from North to South by an outside, and thei-efore unprejudiced, party. The following quotation is but one of many which refer to the paramount advantages of our loom : " The mill contains, at present, 25,000 ring spindles and 800 ISTor- throp looms. All the cloth manufactured is for export, and consists of 1^3 two kinds ouly, namely — China drills and sheetings or shirtings. Drills are 30 inches wide, weigh 3 yards to the pound, and have 68 ends and 48 picks to the inch. The sheetings are 36 inches wide, are of the same weight as the drills, and have 48 ends and 48 picks to the inch. In both cases the yarns are 13.65s twist and 13.80s weft, the cuts are 120 yards long, and the piece rate for weaving is 13 cents a cut. The rate for weaving similar drills in JNIaine, I had found but a few days before, to be 58 1-2 cents for 120 yards, and that was less than the Lancashire rate. Here, the cheapness of the Southern labor and the use of the Northrop loom had enabled the superintendent to undercut the Maine weaving price by 75 per cent. One man who was running 24 looms told me that he could earn .$1.35 per day; two other men were also running 24 looms each, and said they could make .$1.50, . . . the tackier s tend 100 looms each." The w^riter also refers to a statement made to him in Massa- chusetts to the effect that the Northrop loom is so easily managed that an inexperienced girl learned to run 14 of them within a week. It is not often that a manufacturer -will personally admit the extent of his profits by use of the Northrop loom. Recently, however, it became necessary for such a manufacturer to file an affidavit, which, being a matter of public record, we quote in part, although witholding the name for the present. In referring to a large number of looms running with Northrop attachments^ the affidavit states as follows : • " This mill is one of the most modern in this country so far as equip- ment is concei-ned. The average pay of the weavers who attend to these looms (common) that weave such goods is nine dollars a week. Each weaver takes care of four looms. The average production of each of these looms is twenty-four yards or twelve pounds of such goods per day. This would be one hundred and forty-four yards or seventy-two pounds per loom a week, making five hundred and seventy-six yards or two hundred and eighty-eight pounds of such goods a week for the four looms taken care of by each weaver. This is the only mill of which I have knowledge where the weaver can take care on an average of as many as four looms." (On this style of goods.) " The cost of manufacture of such goods for the wages of the weaver only is about 3.12 cents per pound. With less improved looms for producing such goods, of which many are in use, the cost is greater as a weaver cannot take caj-e of so many looms." The affidavit then states that the use of our devices on these goods increases the production to 38 yards per loom, or 19 pounds of such goods a day. As a weaver attends six looms of the new [84 style, the production per day per weaver is 228 yards, or 114 pounds of such goods. The cost per pound is about 1.31 cents, or a saving per loom per year of over $100 each. The affidavit states that the profits from such looms will be about 9 per cent, on the entire cost of the plant, including carding and spinning machinery, and if the plant were to consist solely of looms, the saving would pay a dividend of about 19 per cent, on the cost. The affidavit also calls attention to the greater product per loom as requiring less looms, less floor space, etc. In fact 100 looms at this ratio of product would do the work of 158 common looms. On this basis the saving in number of looms and floor space would possibly pay for the entire cost of the attachments, as these are one of the most expensive type of loom built. Of course, it is evident that this is a pecular class of -weav- ing, inasmuch as the weaver only changes from four looms to six ; yet the greatly increased product shows that the weavers on six looms are producing more than twice as much cloth per weaver compared with the common loom product. This affidavit was not made with the intent of aiding us in any way by its information ; in fact, we only ran across it by accident. We recently learned from an Indian cotton manufacturer, now in this country, that in India his weavers I'un two looms each and earn $7-5o per month. This seems a very low price, but as a matter of fact it is $3-25 per loom per month, or $39 per loom per year. There are plenty of Northrop loom mills in the United States where the wages are under $20 per loom per year, although the American weaver may be earning five times as much money. Of course, it is probable that Northrop looms may invade India itself and the coolie may run four, or eight, or sixteen, instead of two common looms. Theoretically, all manu- facturing could be done cheaper in such countries as China and India — but practically the high wage countries hold their own. i85 Yet the only reason they do hold their own is because they take prompt advantage of economical methods and devices. The mills that defer using Northrop looms until India is equipped, will have to face a serious proposition. But why should they wait? We were recently permitted to see a record from the books of a lai-ge Northern mill using both Northrop and common looms. The figures were based on a low scale of weaving wages for the common loom. The figures shov\^ed an actual difference of $23.52 per loom per year in favor of the Northrop loom above all extra expense for supplies, fixing, cleaning, etc. The weavers on the Northrop loom also earned $55. 12 each, per year, above the earnings of the common loom weavers. This record is based on sixteen Northrop looms to the weaver. Some mills already run twenty-six Northrop looms to the weaver. Recently noting a broker's list of Southern cotton mill stocks for sale, w^ith prices bid and asked, the w^riter, as a matter of curiosity, separated out the mills which had bought Northrop looms, and figured a comparison in the value of the stock as quoted. The price asked wsi& taken in each case, the price bid being added in only where there was no asking price. The total result showed that 28 mills without Northrop looms averaged a stock value, as thus figured, of $102 a share. The 37 other mills, having Northrop looms, averaged on the same basis, $114 per share. Prices of looms vary somewhat with cost of materials and equipment desired. They should properly vary in proportion to the expense and utility of new attachments. We do not, how- ever, add to the price of our loom when improving its funda- mental features. It has been estimated that we have actually added $15 of cost per loom to our complete machine since its earlier stages. We are glad to estimate on whatever looms are desired and specified. Old common looms are taken in exchange at fair allowance under certain conditions. Our policy of smashing up old common looms taken as part payment for new NorthrojD looms has a^vakened a certain amount of comment, the visiting Englishmen being particularly im- pressed. Of course, some of these old looms have outrun their utility and are fit only for junk in any event. Many looms thus replaced, however, have been comparatively new and certainly efficient so far as common looms may be efficient. One of the frequent English visitors to our country pub- lished a comparative criticism of the Northrop loom on his return home, that endeavored to show how^ little actual saving was possible. In view of the vs^ide circulation of the article, as copied by various trade journals, we thought best to issue an answer at some length, taking up the various comparisons in detail and explaining the falsities on which the final figures were based. We were rather embarrassed in replying by the fact that while the Northrop loom mill was well known to all, the common loom mill selected by comparison v\^as not named, and the assertions of speeds, w^ages, etc., relating to that mill, could not be verified. Without repeating our argument, we might say that we found several reasons to criticise the assumptions made, and if any expert w^ho cares to venture further in this line will give us detailed information as to the source of his facts, we w^ill be glad to enter into a further discission. The comparison of one mill in one definite locality, with another mill several hundred miles away, is not necessarily convincing. The best comparison possible is that of Northrop looms and common looms running in the same mill, under the same conditions. Our best customers include the mills that have made this experi- ment for themselves, and we are ready to contend that these mills are perfectly capable of figuring cost and appreciating conditions. i87 "How the introduction of this new loom affects the cost of labor may be shown by a comparison of two accounts of the cost of labor in print cloth, one taken by myself from a mill account of older date, but from one of the best mills in New England, and the other from the workings of recent date, received from a mill but a few days ago. COST OF LABOR IN ONE POUND OF PRINT CLOTH. (28 inches, 64x64, seven yards to the pound.) ITEMS. Carding Spinning Preparing for loom Weaving Other labor expenses Total labor cost Difference on account of improved loom All other differences 1887. Cents. 0.8.55 1.137 0.697 2.8 0.239 5.728 1898. Cents. 0.7 1.1 0.7 1.6 0.25 4.35 Differences. 1898. Cents. 0.155 0.037 -0.003 1.2 -0.011 1.378 1.2 0.178 The items covering all other manufacturing processes are scarcely worth noticing. The difference is almost entirely traceable to the new loom Now, by no possibility can the strain which the North could be subjected to by the South be so great as the strain the Northern mill has to sustain from Northern mill, and the Southern mill from South- ern mill ; for the same causes may be found in operation in the South that produce the differences in the North. The differences of this pro- nounced type are created by the introduction of the so-called "auto- matic" loom. When, by this change, 50 per cent, in the weaving-cost can be saved, it is obvious that it will not take long to convince mill- owners that it is profitable to discard the loom which was satisfactory until very recently, and to adopt the new loom by which an expert weaver can turn out from two to three times as much cloth in a week." — [_Jacoh Schoenhof. "The manufacturers are perfectly willing to try any new device that may come out in the way of new machinery ; and no better exam- ple of that can be given than the fact that the automatic loom has found its home in the South almost exclusively, and the advantages of the automatic loom are, by the Southern manufacturers, deemed to be very much in its favor, as against the ordinary running loom. Several man- ufacturers said, in fact, that it was not hard to secure 973^ per cent, of the full possible production of the loom." — \_Mr. Mercer^ N. Y. Journal of Commerce. i88 "GOOD WEAVING WORK.— A correspondent at Spartanburg, S. C, writes us that they have weavers at Spartan Mill No. 2 running 30 Draper looms. One is a woman, and she has taken off in February up to the night of the 18th, 326 cuts, 51 yards to cut, which is 50 35-100 yards per loom ; speed of loom 180, 64x64 goods, which makes 97 86-100 of production. How is that for running Northrop Draper looms?" — iTextile Excelsior^ Feb. 18, 1899. "There can be no doubt that the enormous expansion of the Ameri- can cotton industry during recent years has been very largely owing to the Northrop loom, and the conviction is steadily gaining ground in this country that only by the general adoption of the Northrop loom can our cotton trade be put once more upon a thoroughly sound basis."— \_Letter from London correspondent to The Indian Textile Journal., printed September., 1903. One of the cloths made here very largely in the 40-inch looms is 32 inches wide and has 68 ends and 112 picks to the inch of 42's twist and 36's weft. It is woven in 62 yard cuts, and the price paid to the weavers is 27^^ cents per cut for the Northrop loom and 56 cents per cut for the ordinary loom. The latter is, I believe, 10 per cent, less than the rate paid in Lancashire, but the ordinary eight loom weaver here cao earn $9 a week and the weaver who runs twenty Northrop looms $10.50 to $11. — ^Correspondent of Manchester Guardian. For the 2000 Northrop looms there are 134 weavers — a number which I verified by counting the names in the overseer's wage-book. Some of the Aveavers are running 20 40-in. Northrop looms each, others 16, and a number of learners have 12 each, the average for the whole of the 2000 looms being a fraction less than 15. . . . — \_C or respondent of Manchester Guardian. "Called at the Mills ; found them exceedingly pleased with the Northrop looms. They are getting an average of between 26 and 27 yards per day, which is more than two yards more than they get from their common looms. Thej^ are weaving 78x80 goods, 40" wide, 52 yards, and pay 20 cents a cut against 42 cents. The weavers are run- ning 20 looms ; there are two fixers on 204 looms, and the only extra help in the room is two boys for cleaning and oiling." — \_Salesman' s Beport, Oct. 10. 1903. "Their weaving is running extremely well, and they have on 1182 looms, which they have been running an average of about 19>^ looms per weaver, and Mr. is sure they will be able to bring it down to an average of 22 looms to the weaver throughout." — ^Expert's Beport of Nov. 14, 1903. 189 "Mr. said the only fault he can find with the Northrop looms today is that they use too much filling. Since he came here he had had to put two extra spinning frames on to spinning filling for these looms, and now he has just put on the third." (In another mill). "Mr. ,the overseer of weaving, says they are getting 93 per cent, product from the Northrop looms, 26 looms to "a weaver, 163 picks per minute." — {^Extract from ExperVs Beport, Dec. 12, 1903. "The work at this mill is running very nicely indeed. They now have some weavers running 30 looms each, and with all their looms running — 1292 I understand — they have only 59 weavers at the present time, and expect to spread the weavers farther the coming week." — [From Expert's Beport of Jan. 16, 1904. "The weavers are still running 20 looms each here, but it is hardly enough for them. There was less than 5 per cent, of the looms stopped, and the overseer thought I had made a mistake in count, as he said he was weaving 98 per cent, right along." — IFrom Expert's Beport of March 26, 1904. "On their print looms, the weavers are running from 16 to 28 looms. Most of the weavers, however, are running 20, 24, and 26. They pay for weaving 51^ cents j^er cut of 52 yards."— [i'j'om Expert's Report of April 16, 1904. "In No. 1 mill I saw one room with 216 looms in it being run by six weavers. These weavers run 36 looms each, cotton harness and double- thread stop-motion. The goods are 80x88 25s warp 33s filling. Four boys fill the batteries for tliis room, and they are getting as much pro- duct as when the weavers ran 24 looms each and filled their own bat- teries. The overseer says he expects to get a larger product than before. The weavers like this arrangement better than the former one. The overseer told me that the weavers tell him that filling the batteries is more than half of their work." — \_Expert''s Beport., April., 1904. "They have an average of about 18 looms to the weaver, and are making prints 64x60, paying Q\i cents a cut for 54 yards."— [i?'ro??i Expert's Beport of May 7, 1904. 190 In order that this volume shall be complete, we refer again to the change in price of our Northrop loom shuttles. On December i, 1903, we sent a letter to all of our loom customers, stating that while our former charge was $1 each for new shut- tles sold for repairs, with an allowance of 35 cents for equal number of old shuttles returned, customer paying freight, our standard price from the above date would be 75 cents each, we no longer asking for any old shuttles to be returned, leaving the mill to use parts of old shuttles for their own repairs when advisable, no allowance whatever to be made in future for old parts, as we do not care to have them returned to us. When our original allowance of 35 cents was first voted, we expected to use such good parts as were sei-viceable in the old shuttles, but finding such repairing inadvisable, we sent out regular new shuttles on such orders. Our customers were put to consider- able annoyance and expense in saving the old shuttles, and pay- ing boxing and freight charges. We believe our new arrange- ment will be much more satisfactory to all parties concerned. Although our shuttle is made under some of our most important patents, the new price only gives us a small manufac- turer's profit, without royalty charge. Our shuttles are much more expensive than the common loom shuttles, and our meth- ods of manufacture include a high standard of care and pre- cision. "Mr. said the last time the treasurer was there he wanted to go ill and see the Xortlirop looms. Every loom was running and the weavers sitting down. The treasurer said' that was enough, he did not care to see the rest of the weaving. The overseer told the agent in my presence that it is hard work to get weavers foi- his common looms, as they all want the Xorthrop." — [From Expert's Beport of 3Iarch 26, 1904. 191 THM LABOR QVnSTION. While there have been a few cases of labor difficulty in adjusting the new conditions introduced by our Northrop looms, they have really been most surprisingly infrequent, considering the radical changes introduced. A mill that changes from com- mon to Northrop looms necessarily discharges half its weaving force, but the scarcity of good weavers is proverbial and the surplus thus produced is easily assimilated. In the adjustment of wages to the new conditions disputes have not prevented the further adoption of our looms, or reduced its advantages to a minimum. The general policy followed by the purchasers of our looms has been to allow weavers to earn more pay in tending them than they formerly received on the common looms. In many cases this extra wage has been very liberal indeed, considering the fact that the weavers really had less work to do, and a less irritating series of operations. There is no difficulty involved in changing from the common to the Northrop style of weaving. Weavers should certainly credit us with the relief from sucking filling, for prior to our introduction of the Northrop loom, it is doubtful if any appreciable per cent, of shuttles in use on common looms had hand-threading or self- threading devices. Since the advent of our loom, more hand- threaded shuttles have come into use, but their proportionate number is still quite small. The sucking of filling is naturally attended by many physical evils, especially where the filling is colored. Common loom weavers are a short-lived class, as a rule, their lungs becoming packed with cotton fibre inhaled when sucking filling. Another curious danger inherent in com- mon loom practice comes from the changing around of weavers on different sections of looms. We have heard of an actual case in which three weavers are said to have caught consump- 192 tion from using the shuttles of a consumptive weaver ; and other objectionable diseases are transferred by the same application of the lips to shuttles used by infected parties. More hand-threaded shuttles would undoubtely be used if the ordinary hand-threaded shuttle was as efficient as the closed-eye shuttle for general weaving. It has taken us a great many years to develop an efficient open eye for our own purpose, and our patents undoubtedly control the better forms of eye for either hand-threading or self-threading. We have been asked fre- quently to fit our eyes to common shuttles, but do not care to confuse our systems or encourage the retention of uneconomical machinery. The advantages of automatic weaving have raised a curious question, certain interested parties contending that, as there are labor laws restricting the hours of labor, these same laws apply to the machinery, so that Northrop looms should not be allowed to run without attention during the noon hour, or at other periods. The mill managements naturally claim that it is immaterial whether automatic machinerv runs overtime or not if no help is in attendance. The opposition might as pertinently object to the continuous operation of the solar system. It is inter- esting to note that the very antagonism directed against the Northrop loom is a sure evidence of its superiority. The very fact that it does procliice cloth with economy of labor, suggests the mistaken notion that it is therefore worthy of opposition by the laborers themselves. As a matter of fact, however, there are more weavers given employment to-day than there were before the Northrop loom was introduced. The introduction of a labor-saving machine is so gradual, of necessity, that it rarely causes any real commotion and change of immedi- ate conditions. In progress there must be continual readjust- ments. It is only in countries like China, that do not progress, that conditions are stable. '93 The general question of labor displacement by automatic machinery is so well considered in the following extract that we take pleasure in its reproduction : "But our problem in this nation is of to-day, and if we do our duty of to-day the nation will find those who can take our places to-morrow. All that is now happening is in accord with the natuie of things. Dis- placing the old with the new is never without its complications and minor evils, which correct themselves in due time. All good progress, even that which is undoubted, has its temporary sorrows. One exam- jjle, which takes innumerable forms, of this temporary sorrow which n)ay be employed to illustrate the idea, is the invention and use of labor- saving machinery. Upon such invention and use depends the whole material progress of the world. Nothing else could give us the abund- ance which characterizes our age. Yet, when any new labor-saving- invention comes into use the first thing it does is to deserve its name by lessening the number of men who can work. Labor saved is, tempoi-a- rily, labor lost. Men are discharged ; the machine does what thej^ used to do. Do you wonder, then, that men should resent this intrusion upon their sustenance and support? Some are too old to learn new trades, and tor them there is no consolation. Yet, in the long run, new occasions spring up which employ this discharged labor, and the world has all it used to have and much beside.— [27i!oto«s B. Beed. An overseer recently called attention to a Northrop loom weaver, saying: — "You see that woman! She has gained forty pounds since going on those looms and her last winter's clothes won't fit her." Investigation showed that she formerly ran four common looms (No. 4s filling, 17 warp) and now ran twelve Northrop on the same goods. She was making better wages with less work, though ascribing some of the betterment in health to relief from suckinsf filling-. "Mr. told me that at first they had a great deal of trouble with their weavers, but he cleaned them all out and started in with a new set that never saw a loom before. Now he has no trouble at all." — [Extract from Report of Travelling Expert, Nov. 15, 1902. 194 We print above a photo of a ticket of membership in one of the old Scotch Weaving Guilds. It dates back to the days of the hand loom and its owner very probably lived through the period when the power loom started its slow and halting prog- ress. The original was kindly furnished us by Mr. Elias Rich- ards of the Maginnis Mills, New Orleans. 195 One of the very best overseers of weaving in the country running Northrop looms made a casual observation to one of our representatives recently, which impresses us as being import- ant. We quote from the report of our representative : "I spent considerable time in going througli the looms that have been running the longest, and find them running as well, if not better, than ever before. The overseer tells me they are getting about 94 per cent, of the product, and his help is all family help. He also stated that if one of his weavers goes away to work on the common loom he is not gone more than a month before he wants to get back. 1 find this to be so in other places also. Once let a good weaver get used to North- rop looms and he never wants to run common looms again." "Of course, if the weaver refuses to mind more than eight looms, then there is not a saving but a loss by introducing them, because they cost very much more than the old ones. If the laborers persist in this, they, of course, will succeed in doing one of two things, either stop the improvement and therefore prevent the development of the only method New England has of successfully competing with the South, thus per- manently forcing New England into the position of a defeated industry, or else — what is even worse — force the introduction of an inferior pop- ulation that will work for less wages and use the new looms too."— IGeorr/e Clinton. We are properly proud of the high grade and splendid efficiency of American laborers, but we must not forget that other races are awakening under the stimulus of American examples. Some years ago we sent several hundred Northrop looms to Japan. They were shipped in pieces and put together by Japanese, we not even sending one man to supervise the job. One of the purchasers wrote us that they were giving "satisfac- tion in every respect." [96 ATTEMPTS AT COMPnXITION. It is clearly in evidence that we are the only concern that has ever successfnlly introduced filling-changing looms. When we say "success," we do not intend to permit reference to the sale of small lots of automatic looms which are tried in various mills, with trained mechanics standing over them, the whole number in use after years of effort not equalling that sometimes shipped from our plant as a week's production. Under this head of filling-changing looms, we are perfectly willing to include the shuttle-changing devices on which so much expense and energy have been exhausted. We know something about shuttle-changing looms, for we spent considerable time in test- ing them ourselves. The experience of many inventors has practically demonstrated the fact that the shuttle-changing prin- ciple is fundamentally wrong. The shuttle, which is a scjuare, wooden box, cannot be shifted into position in a complicated receptacle in the short time allowed for the change, without chance for breakage, especially when the necessity for ejecting the spent shuttle is present. A large nimiber of shuttles cannot remain uniform in weight and width so thev will pick uniformly. The shuttle-changer primarily does not save enough of the weavers' labor, for they must still go through the motions of taking out the spent filling carriers, putting in new ones, and threading the shuttles. The difficulty of substituting one shuttle for another is emphasized by the confessions of the patents taken ovit, which allow" for a slowing up of speed while making the transfer. These motions often stop the weaving part of the loom absolutely while the transfer is being made. To say nothing of the loss of time which this process necessitates, it is evident that a weaver must be continually annoyed by the stop- ping of looms for this purpose ; for looms naturally only stop 197 for faults, and the first thought of the weaver naturally concludes that a fault is present. There is no comparison whatever as to simplicity. A Northrop loom, with its revolving hopper and filling-fork connection, using one shuttle, must be far easier to understand and keep in order than a complicated arrangement of shifting shuttle boxes, many shuttles, and intermittent cam movements. The persistent attempts at perfecting the shuttle-changing principle are surprisingly itniform in their claims, and a review of recent trade literature in this line might prove of interest. Since our last catalogue on the Northrop loom was issued in 1900, articles have appeared in print from which the following brief quotations are made : ''THE AMERICAN LOOM COMFANV. The Company to Build the Harriman Loom. This Company, recently organized, embraces all of the patents of the Universal Loom Company, and also all the property and business of the Eeadville Machine Works, at Eeadville, Mass. The new company will own all the patents of H. I. Harriman for the new automatic shuttle changing looms now being built by the Eeadville Machine Works The advantages of the Harriman loom over all other looms are high weaving speed and low magazine speed, simplicity and strength of construction, cheapness of supplies and line cxuality of cloth.'' — [Jonrnal of Commerce, March 10, 1900. "SELF-CHANGING SHUTTLE LOOM. Mr. H. E. Eoss, Durham Street Mills, Belfast."' The inventor has the loom working at the Durham Street Mills, in Belfast, where he invites inspection from persons desiring further infoi-mation regarding it. . . ." — \_From the Textile Mercury, June 9, 1900. 198 "ATHERTOX BOOM Many Inspected the Busy Machine Shop That Turns Out the Perham Loom An Increasing Demand for This New Invention As tlie reporter approached the plant he met a local real estate dealer, who had been conducting two business acquaintances over the Perham loom, and said it was bound to be in demand in every cotton mill in the country. " I look to see a big demand for this loom, for the simple reason that once it is installed in a mill, competition will compel other manu- facturers to place them in their mills." — [Fivm the Lowell iSun, May 14, 1901. " Two English inventions are now attracting attention, that of Messrs. Hattersley, of Keighley, and that of Mr. Bernard Crossley, of Burnley, in Lancashire." — \_From English paper, Oct. 21, 1901. "I do not know when I shall come to the end of the new self-shut- tling looms which are being pushed forward, for since wilting last two or three new ones have come to light. One is being made on commis- sion by Mather and Piatt of Salford. . . ." — \_Correspondent to Tex- tile Alamifacturers' Journal of England^ A/ay 17, 1902. "Other automatic looms ai'e the Crossley, Hattersley, the Boss loom (which is of a circular-box type), and Messrs. Harling and Starkie's. A week or two ago I saw two of the last-named looms working at Livingstone Mill, Burnlej^-laue, Burnley. . • ," — [From Northern Daily Telegraph, Aug. 11, 1902. " Recently, a new automatic loom — or, rather an attachment which converts the ordinary loom into an automatic loom — was shown to a number of pressmen at Messrs. AVilliam Dickson & Son's Phoenix Iron Works, Bank Top, Blackburn, by the patentees, Messrs. Rossetter and Talbot." — [Quoted from English journal hii '•^Southern Manufacturer,'' Oct. 15, 1902. "... the following English firms all hold patents and make automatic looms: Messrs. Hattersley, of Keighley; Sowden & Sons, and George Hodgson, Ltd., Bradford; Hutchinson, Hollingworth & [99 Co., Ltd., Dobcross; Robert Hall & Sons, Ltd., and William Hacking, of Bury; Butterwortli and Dickenson, Dugdales, and Harling & Todd, of Burnley: William Dickenson & Sons,"aud Willan & Mills (the Blackburn Loom & Weaving Machinery Co., Ltd.), Blackburn; Ather- ton Bros., and Gregsou & Monk, of Preston, and others. This list clearly indicates that English loom makers do not intend to be behind in the race, and as all of the devices made by them deal with the automatic supply of charged shuttles in contradistinction to the automatic supply of cops to a common shuttle, we are likely to see some interesting developments ere long." — [From English letter to American Wool d~ Cotton Beporter^ Dec. 4, 1902. "A EADCLIFFE INVENTOE. The Latest Automatic Loom. Mr. James Cowburn of Parrin-lane, Mouton, has invented certain attachments applicable to existing looms, which textile experts agree, have all the essentials of successful automatic shuttling. . . ." — [From Bury Gazette., Maij 23, 1903. "An appliance, which has just been invented by Mr. Harry C. Howarth, a member of the firm who OAvn Meadow Mills, at Failsworth, is being very highly spoken of in textile cii-cles in Lancashire, and manufacturers who have been wanting an automatic shuttle-changing loom, which would cheapen the cost of production and make perfect textile goods, will be inclined to acknowledge. . . ." — \_From The Textile Journal^ Aug. 7, 1903. " Shuttle-changers are built upon most diverse lines. . . . Others eject a spent shuttle and insert a full one without any reduction of speed. These include the Crossley No. 1, the Eoss, the Baker-Kip, the Cowburn, the Walker, the Gregson and Monk, the Harling and Todd, the_ Manchester automatic and many other looms." — [I'. W. Fox in Manchester Guardian., Dec. 3, 1903. These continuous references are certainly worthy of careful study when the associating facts are disclosed. In spite of all this flow of human energy and waste of brain tissue, the number of shuttle-changing looms in actual operation is probably under one per cent, of our total output, and the greater part of this number are new looms on trial that will probably be discarded like all that have gone before. 200 LONG BOBBIN EXPERIMENTS. Certain mills are making an interesting trial of warp stop- motions on common looms used in connection with longer bob- bins in their shuttles. In the more noticeable efforts in this line, the traverse on the filling bobbin has been increased from 5 1-3 to 8 inches, the looms being reduced also in speed. The change to the long bobbin necessarily requires changes in the spinning room, if the best results are to be obtained, and the spinning must be done at a greater inconvenience, if not expense, for no spinner will claim that the spinning of filling yarn on a traverse 8-inch length is as easy or as cheap as on a length of 5 1-2 inches. With this change, there is evidently 21-2 more inches of yarn on the bobbin, or less than 50 per cent, increase. It is abso- lutely impossible, therefore, for such a bobbin to run twice as long, as many claim, unless the loom is run at a less proportion of time, or less speed, or both combined, sufficiently to account for the result. Now suppose we assume for easy figuring, that the new bobbins will hold 50 per cent, more yarn, and suppose we com- pare with the former common loom conditions. A weaver with eight common looms on prints, or similar goods, will have a duty at least once per minute. That is, the replenishing of fill- ing, or filling breakage, mending of warp and taking off cloth, will make about 600 separate acts necessary per day. This might be sub-divided as follows : There w^ould be four opera- tions of taking off cloth from the eight looms, as it is common practice to wait until two cuts have been wound up before removal. The eight looms might stop about 28 times for broken filling in the shuttle; that is 3 1-3 times per loom, and would need 480 replenishments of filling, or 60 per loom. As 20I to the warp breakage, it would amount to ii per loom per day at a very moderate estimate, making 75 duties per loom or 600 for the eight looms, as before noted. Now, if the long bobbin looms were run at the same speed and with the same production, we would have 33 1-3 per cent, less replenishment of filling, or 40 per loom in all. There would certainly be as many filling breaks, or 3 r-3 per loom, as much cloth removal, or one-half operation per loom, and as many warp breaks, or 55 operations per loom in all. If 600 operations shall still constitute a day's work, this weaver could run 11 looms, and no more. Now, suppose the looms are run so as to average twice as long for the filling to run, we shall produce 35 per cent, less in cloth. At this rate, we should have 30 replacements of filling, about 3 duties for broken filling and cloth removal, and eight warp breaks or 41 per loom in all. Divide this into 600, and we find the possible number of looms run nearly 14 1-2 ; but these looms are producing but 75 per cent, of what the other looms figure, so that the appai'ent increase is practically cancelled. When we hear, therefore, of weavers tending 16 looms with large bobbins and warp stop-motions, we know that they are either losing in production, or doing more work. There is no escape from this, — no possible evasion of the plain facts. It may be possible to get more work out of a weaver temporarily than before, with- out proportionate increase of pay, but we cloubt very much whether such conditions will continue. As to comparison with the Northrop loom, it must be remembered that our looms do not require filling replenishment at regular intervals, as they will run until the hoppers are emptied. As there are 24 bobbins in our hoppers, it is evident that they need filling only 2 1-2 times a day. Add to this the 1 1 warp breaks, as figured before, and the 1-2 operation for taking off cloth, and we have but 14 duties per loom per day. Allow that the work of filling the hopper is equivalent to several duties on the common loom ; 3, for instance, and we would have 19 duties as a whole. This would show a capacity of over 30 looms to a weaver at six hundred operations per day ; and, as a matter of fact, this record has been attained. We believe there are as many weavers capable of running 30 Northrop looms as there are who can run 13 common looms with the long bobbin and pi-oduce at the same rate per loom. Now there is, of course, no reason why the Northrop loom cannot use the large bobbin also, providing it is proved that there is no additional trouble, either in spinning or weaving off, as its adherents claim. This would take 33 1-3 per cent, of the labor in filling hoppers away. Very possibly, with improve- ments yet to be introduced, the Northrop loom weavers will be relieved entirely of the labor of filling hoppers, so that they shall do nothing but mend in warp threads and take cloth off the looms. Under such conditions, 50 looms per weaver may yet be the accepted rule on print goods. The recent introduction of the Northrop loom in England has aroused curious phases of criticism from the conservatives who have argued against the Northrop devices by raising objec- tions which are easily answered by the proof of those thousands of looms already running in this country. As a matter of fact, the possibilities of the Northrop loom in a country like England, where four looms has been the maximum, are much greater than in a country like ours, where common loom weavers have run as high as 10 looms. The English trade is used to certain practices introduced by the domination of the Trades Unions, who have prevented a weaver from tending more than four 203 looms and often demanding the assistance of a helper at that. Undei- these conditions the manufacturers have been forced to speed their looms up so that comparison with the lower speed recoiTi mended for the Northrop loom suggests immediate cause for comment. Now there is no reason why the Northrop loom cannot run at high speed so far as the mechanism itself is con- cerned. All cotton weavers know, however, that increase ol speed, increases the tendency toward warp bi'eakage. In auto- matic weaving it is desirable to minimize the faults which cause a loom to stop so far as possible, and it can be easily figured that there is more profit in spreading a weaver over a large number of looms run at a comparatively low speed rather than give a weaver less looms with more work per loom by reason of the extra breakage. Another curious contention from our English critics asserts that the Northrop looms require better yarn. If they stated that the Northrop loom ought to have better yarn it wovild be a fairer way to present the case. There is nothing in the mechanism of the Northrop loom itself to require better yarn or stronger yarn. The Northrop loom, and every other loom for that matter, will break warp and filling threads oftener if the yarn is poor. With the English system of four looms to a weaver it may pay the manufacturer to force the weaver to weave poor yarn, but considering that the good weaver with good yarn could easily run 20 and probably 24 Northrop looms instead of 4 common English looms, it will be found that the gain is more than sufficient to compensate for any slight increase in the grade of cotton used. "For six months running on 8-oz. ticking— 3284 pieces— they have one cut of seconds ; 4-oz. ticking— 22,917 pieces— they have 3 cuts of seconds; 4i^-oz. denims— 9684 pieces— they have 36 cuts of seconds. These seconds were caused mostly by bad filling. The total amount of seconds made on the Draper looms for the six months is 11-100 of one per cent." — yFrom Expert's Beport of March 19, 1904. 204 SPEED RECOMMENDED FOR DRAPER LOOMS FOR MEDIUM WEIGHT GOODS. There is no reason why our loom cannot run at any speed attained by common looms of the same capacity. We never advocate extremes in this direction. In fact, on heavy goods we would consider the above table too high. In order to correct certain natural errors, recently published, it may be well to state that the Draper Company is not directly interested in the new corpoi'ation recently organized in England, as it never owned any rights in foreign loom patents. The Nor- throp Loom Company, organized in 1892, sold its United States rights to the Draper Company in 1897, but retained its outside business. It still retains many Foreign rights; in fact receives royalty from shops in Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland and Austria. The new British company is capitalized at £150,000, the stock being fully subscribed and the control remaining with the Draper family. Its headquarters are at Blackburn. The American directors are William F. Draper, George A. Draper, Eben S. Draper and Alfred M. Coates. The English directors are all prominent manufacturers. PATENT INFRINGEMENT. While we have been remarkably free from competition in our loom introduction, it is not our intention that any substantial infringement of our patent claims shall be allowed, even where the financial damage is immaterial. We have a suit now running in the United States Court against the American Loom Company, who exploit the " Harriman Loom," so called, for infringement of several of our earlier patents, especially those taken out on the shuttle-changing looms which we ourselves developed. Curiously enough, we were ourselves sued for infringement of some patents on hand-threaded shuttles, owned by one Henry M. Hewes. The suit was promptly decided in our favor, when it came to a hearing. In order to warn the unsuspecting from infringing our present patent rights, we call attention to our hundreds of patents, applying to nearly every motion of the loom, including the Filling-Changing devices, the Warp Stop-Motions, the Thread-Cutting devices, the Feelers, the Shuttle Position Detec- tors, the Shuttles, the Bobbins, the Cop Skewers, the Take-Up, the Shedding Motion, the Let-Off, the Filling-Fork, the Crank Arms, the method of making cranks, the Checks, the Beam Locks, the Brakes, and also other devices not mentioned, too numerous for detailed enumeration. While we have not engaged in this branch of business long enough to allow any of our patents to expire, we call special attention to the fact that expiration of earlier patents will not allow use of our attach- ments in their present form, and in their present utility, the improvements being covered by later patents of unquestioned validity. We call special attention to the fact that we have acquired by direct assignments patent formerly owned by Malcolm G. 2o6 Chace, and many patents formerly owned by William H. Baker and Frederic E. Kip, covering a large field of filling-changing devices for automatic looms, including various electrical connec- tions, and special adaptation of mechanism for special problems, particularly relating to changing of filling before exhaustion. This control does not include patents of Baker and Kip relative to w^arp-stop devices. We expect to enforce our rights over infringers of these various patents as fully as w^ith regard to any other patents owned and controlled by us. We also call attention to the fact that on Nov. 21, 1899, there issued to Joseph Coldwell and Christopher Giles Gildard a patent, No. 637,234, covering certain elements of warp-stop mechanism. On July 30, 1901, there issued a reissue of the above patent. No. 11,923, in which twelve additional claims were granted, covering the suspension of detectors from single threads, so that each thread is normally out of contact from the detectors suspended from the adjacent threads. We have acquired the sole and exclusive right to make, use and sell mechanical warp stop-motions containing the claims of said reissued letters patent, and are authorized and empowered to bring suit in the name of the patentees against any person who shall infringe said reissued letters patent. PATENT CONTROL. It is not wise for owners of important patents to express their opinion regarding priority, or importance, for the courts may not coincide with their judgment, and evidence may develop unappreciated circumstances. We think it safe to say, however. 307 that to James H. Northrop belongs the credit of inventing the original filling-changing loom and its most important original details. General Draper conceived the idea of combining a warp stop-motion v^^ith the filling-changer, and the earlier prac- tical devices in this line v^ere developed by Mr. Charles F. Roper. Our feeler devices are controlled by patents of Geoi'ge Otis Draper. These three distinct lines of novelty have been further developed by continued contributions of these same inventors, as will be seen by our table of inventions, and also by a long list of Hopedale experts, such as Mr. Edward S. Stimp- son and Mr. Jonas Northrop, whose entire time is devoted to loom improvement. Outside inventors have often given us valuable ideas ; the majority of which, however, have received considerable modification by our own inventors before being included in our regular loom output. It is, of course, our intention to so continually improve our loom as to prevent competition from our own inventions after their seventeen-year expiration. We believe the 50-loom weaver a coming possibility, and we intend to improve the quality of the goods produced as an associate feature of our loom introduction. In thus detailing our intentions with regard to the protection of our property, we do not wish it assumed that we take any "doginthemanger" position. We believe we control all the feasible means for making practical automatic looms, and we are willing and ready to accept orders for these looms, fitted for their intended purposes according to the best of our judgment and experience. We have not always been ready to furnish looms according to terms specified by customers, especially when they ask for combinations or elimination of devices which we con- sidered impractical for the purposes desired. We have no wish to see our looms run at a disadvantage, having a pride in their success and a reputation which we cherish. Neither have we 208 any intention to decry the merits of any of onr competitors' productions. We shall certainly point out any disadvantages inherent in their devices if they compete with machinery pro- duced by us which we consider more efficient and more satisfactory to the customer. In presenting a list of our Northrop loom patents we do not make it exhaustive, for the simple reason that we do not care to expose our control of a great number of patents which may not stand in our name as of record. We are protected by use of large numbers of patents for purposes of litigation, which are at present in others' direct ownership. Our principal inventors, however, include the following, having assigned to us the patents as noted in the period from Jan. I, iSS6, to July i, 1904: (Plain temple patents not included.) Adkins, A. B i Allen, W. E 4 Ambler, G. B 2 Armstead, M.J. i Arnold, C. H i Aumann, L. A. 3 Austin, B. F. S 3 Bailey, S. C. Bailey, W. H Baker, W. H 3 Barber, W Barnes, L. E. Bartlett, E. E i Beardsell, A. W 3 Benson, A. E 2 Bevil, S. H I Bigelow, M. J 3 Bolton, J. B I Bracken, H.W 2 Brooks, J. C. 9 Broomhead, VV. H i Brown, L. H. i Brunette, L i Burgess, R i Burton, J. L. 2 209 Chace, M. G I Chandler, I. W [ i Chapman, R. J. i Claus, J. A. I Clement, A. W. 5 Cobb, W. C I Coldwell, J. I Collins, G. A. 1 Conn, J. I Cote, H. c^ Cray, A. W i Cumnock, W. W i Cunniff, E 6 Cunni££, J. V. 9 Cutler, W. E i Cutting, S. B I Davenport, E. W 3 Day, F. M 8 Denney, D. W. i Donner, W i Draper, C. H. 12 Draper, E. S. i Draper, G. i^.. 3 Draper, George Otis 30 Draper, W. F 28 Dumont, M, I Durkin, D 3 Dustin, J. F 4 Eaton, W. G 9 Eaves, A i Edmands, A. B i Edwards, J. C 5 Emery, A. D. 2 Fischer, A. C. i Fittz, VV. B I Foss, S. C I Foster, J. H. i Fowler, W. A 2 Gendron, J. A. i Gildard, C. G I Gleason, O. i Goulet, J. A. G. I Hawley, C. T i Haynes, W 3 Hinchliffe, W I Holdridge, O. E i Home, A. P. i Howard, C. H. i Hunnewell, H. T. i Hyde, K I Jamieson, R. 3 Janelle, B. 2 Janelle, O. 4 Johnson, J. P i Jones, H i Jordan, H. W i Jordan, J i Joy, C. L I Keeley, J. W 3 Keene, W. L. i Keith, J I Kelley, R. R :.. i Kerrigan, H. J. i Kip, F. E 34 Kirk, J. T I Knox, C. I I Lacey, F 3 Lacey, W i Lamb, J. A i Lane, J. J i Lee, B. F i Littlefield, C. A. _ 12 Ludlam, J. S i Mahoney, D. D i Marcoux, A. M 3 Mason, E. P 2 McKay, J. L I McNerney, T. H i Mommers, R. S. 2 Mooney, T 3 Muldowney, J. J. 2 Northrop, J. H 85 Northrop, Jonas 26 Nutting, C. E 4 O'Connell, P. J i Oldfield, W I Oswalt, J. L I Owen, H. W. 2 Parker, G. H i Peck, L F 2 Phelps, L. M. I Piper, O. I Piron, V I Raby, Z 3 Railton, J. 2 Remington, H. A. i Rhoades, A. E 3 Rigby, R. I Robinson, D i Robinson, E. A. i Roper, C. F 33 Roper, W. F i Russell, C. W 1 Ryon, E. H i Sawyer, O. A. 5 Sherry, J. W i Short, C. I Shuttleworth, A. C... 2 Simms, W I Smith, E 3 Smith, H. W 1 Smith, 10 Snow, I. 3 Stafford. A. E ; i Stimpson, E. S. 44 Stimpson, W. I. 8 Stone, M. L 3 Storrs, H. A i Sutcliffe, H.H. I Syme, D. B i Tichon, J. E. i Tomlinson, H 2 Welch, W. i Trombly, W. C i Tubby, W.W I Vickerman, J i Ward, N I Warren, C. H 2 Whiting, C. D I Whitmore, F. A i Wolger, J. H i Wood, E. S 6 613 While several patents are figured twice as belonging to more than one inventor, our interests in other patents not included will more than balance them. "I happened to questioD a weaver as to his earnings and the number of looms he was minding-. He answered me he had 23 looms weaving drills, and he stood talking to me fully ten minutes, and during that time not a single loom came to a staudstill. By the way, he was a Blackburn man, and he also told me that he used to think he had a lot of work when he had four looms in England, but that he preferred to run 23 under his present conditions.'' — \_Blackl)urn Daily Telegraphy Oct. 24, 1902. "He has just got his sample awnings out, something heavier than they have ever made in this mill before. He made them on the North- rop looms, and the vice president of the company pronounced them superior in quality to the sample given him to make them by."— [From Expert's Beport of Nov. 14, 1903. 312 SALES. Although we print a complete record of sales to the nearest possible date, a casual reading of the same will hardly give the information which the facts warrant. Sales of improved machinery really prove nothing until the machines themselves have demonstrated their capacity. The real proof of merit is. shown when the original trials produce further orders. The greater part of the Northrop looms sold have bejen on repeat orders, or from parties who had carefully inves- tigated the actual running of the looms in others' mills. We first began to ship looms from our plant in 1895. It may be interesting to go back and examine the results attained from the very first looms that we sent out. Taking this first year to 1S96, we find that we then sold the Tucapau Mills 320 looms. They have since bought 1439 more, total ^759 We sold the Qiieen City Cotton Company 793 looms, and they have since bought 516 more, total 130^ Our next order was from the Pacific Mills, 100 looms. They have since bought 21S3 more, total 3285 The Merrimack order for 100 looms was entered about the same time. They have recently wanted 2048 more, total 3148 The Amory Mfg. Co. ordered 100 looms. They have since increased, making a total of 688 The Lawrence Company took 216 looms. The mill in which they were running was bought entire by the Tremont & Suffolk Company, who afterward bought 1761 more, total ^977 213 The Grosvenor Dale Company placed an early order for 335 looms. They kept ordering and ordering at various times ; 32S3 more in all, total 3617 The Social Compan}- had 196 looms to start with. Other orders increase to a total of 55^ Every one of our first eight customers has therefore not only increased their orders, but increased largely. They would hardly continue their patronage had the looms not proved profitable. And we had other customers at this early period, who have since continued their patronage. For instance : First Order. Total Orders. The Pelzer Company 1000 looms. 2702 looms. I^ockhart Company 800 '' 1550 " Gaffney Mfg. Company 1040 •' 1401 " Massachusetts Cotton Mills 100 ^' (both mills) 2415 " Ivonsdale Company 12 '• 2095 " :Newmarket Mfg. Co 100 " 371 " Spartan Mills 1280 '' 1880 " DwightMfg. Co 16 " 681 " We could, of course, add largely to this list, if we referred to more recent examples. We believe those quoted, however, are more pertinent, as it was from the results of our earliest looms that these proofs of satisfaction were derived. We build better looms to-day. Their use would give still better satisfac- tion. It may be noted that the mills quoted cover several states, both North and South. They also cover a wide variety in goods. Their reputation is unquestioned. Their example is certainl}' worthy of consideration. It may be interesting to note the comparison of the sales of spindles in the early da}'s with our loom for the same period. Taking the first nine years of spindle sales, we note the mills 214 that had then pvirchased in lots of 30,000 or more, and in parallel column find that the same mills, with few exceptions, have also been pioneers with the Northrop loom . Spindles Purchased in First Nine Years. Lonsdale Co 103,234 Merrimack Mfg. Co 97,031 Lawrence Mfg. Co 69,420 Boott Cotton Mills 63,905 Harmony Mills 55,042 Tremont & Suffolk Mills 51,702 Social Mfg. Co 48,960 Coclieco Mfg. Co 48,438 Amoskeag Mfg. Co 40,465 Union Cotton Mfg. Co 39,728 Hamilton Mfg. Co 37,768 B. B. & E. Knight 37,160 Grosvenor Dale Co 33,982 Wampanoag Mills 32,956 Stark Mills 32,480 Atlantic Mills, Providence .. 29,528 Lancaster Mills 26,192 Pocasset Mfg. Co 25,764 Chicopee Mfg. Co. 25,472 Hill Mfg. Co 24,706 Amory Mfg. Co 23,192 Appleton Co 22,300 *Sold to Tremont & Suft'olk Mills. Northrop Looms Attachments Purchased put on in Nine Years. Old Looms. 2095 2148 1 *216 1132 1977 556 116 1261 108 3617 304 10,555 190 2 1 50 2288 126 142 688 310 The Northrop loom has won recognition outside of the United States in spite of the difficulties of foreign introduction. A complete new shop was built, equipped and run by the Northrop Loom Company of Canada (now Northrop Iron Works, Limited), established at Valleyfield, Province of Qriebec. The Societe Alsacienne de Constructions Median- 215 iques, ol" Mulhouse, Germany, and Belfort, France, are building on large orders at both of their establishments. The Ateliers de Construction Ruti, of Ruti, Switzerland, are manufacturing on various foreign orders for Switzerland, Italy, etc., and the firm of Isaac Mautner & Sons of Vienna manufacture for Austria and Hungary. We have sent looms from our own works to Mexico, Holland, Russia, Japan and elsewhere. LIST OF NORTHROP LOOMS SOLD TO JULY I, 1904. NAME. PLACE. QLTANTITY. Abbeville Cotton Mills Abbeville, S. C 940 AcushnetMill Corp New Bedford, Mass 417 Adams Mfg. Co North Scituate, R. 1 24 Aiken Mfg. Co Bath, S. C 38 American Linen Co Fall River, Mass 100 American Fad cSi Textile Co Cartersville, Ga 572 American Spinning Co. Greenville, S. C. 758 AmoryMfg. Co. Manchester, N. H 688 Amoskeag Mfg. Co. Manchester, N. H 1261 Anderson Cotton Mills Anderson, S. C. 724 Androscoggin Mills Lewiston, Me 205 Appleton Company Lowell, Mass. 310 Aragon Mills Aragon, Ga 20 Arcadia Mills Spartanburg, S. C. 344 Asheville Cotton Mills Asheville, N. C 30 Ashland Company Ashland, R. 1 20 Atlantic Cotton Mills Lawrence, Mass 561 2l6 NAME. PLACE. QLTANTITY. Atlas Linen Company Meredith, N. H. 35 Attawaugan Mills..- Killingly, Conn. 48 Augusta P'actoiy Augusta, Ga. 33 Aurora Cotton Mills Aurora, 111 96 Barker Cotton Mills Co...... Mobile, Ala 335 Barker Mills Auburn, Me. 16 Bates Mfg. Co. Lewiston, Me 3 Beaumont Mfg. Co. Spartanburg, S. C. 144 Belton Mills Belton, S. C. 1340 Bemis Bros. Bag Co. Jackson, Tenn. 812 Bennett Spinning Co.... New Bedford, Mass i Berkeley Company Berkeley, R. 1 356 Blackstone Mfg. Co.... Blackstone, Mass. :.. 1033 Boott Cotton Mills Lowell, Mass 1133 Borden Mfg. Co., Richard Fall River, Mass. 353 Botany Worsted Mills Passaic, N.J 14 Bourne Mills Fall River, Mass — 3000 Bradford Durfee Textile School Fall River, Mass. 3 Brandon Mills Greenville, S. C. 972 Bristol Mfg. Corp. New Bedford, Mass. i Brogon Cotton Mills Anderson, S. C 366 Brookside Mills Knoxville, Tenn 650 Brower & Love Bros. Indianapolis, Ind 2 Cabarrus Cotton Mills Concord, N. C 543 Cabot Mfg. Co Brunswick, Me. 304 Cannon Mfg. Company Concord, N. C 436 Capital City Mills Columbia, S. C 216 Centreville Cotton Mills Centreville, R. 1 16 Chadwick Mfg. Co Charlotte, N. C 300 Chewalla Cotton Mills Eufaula, Ala 40 3I7 NAME. Chicopee Mfg. Co Chicora Cotton Mills China Mfg. Company Chiquola Mfg. Company Clemson College Clifton Mfg. Co Cocheco Mfg. Company Columbia Mfg. Company Columbian Mfg. Company Columbus Mfg. Co Continental Mills Converse Co., D. E Cooleemee Cotton Mills Cordis Mills Coventry Company Crompton Company Dallas Mfg. Compan}^ Darlington Mfg. Co. Dunbarton Flax Spinning Co. Durham Cotton Mfg. Co. Dwight Mfg. Co _.__ Eagle & Phenix Mills Eagle Mills... Easley Cotton Mills Edw^ards Mfg. Co Erwin Cotton Mills Eufaula Cotton Mills Everett Mills Exeter Mfg. Co Exposition Cotton Mills PLACE. QirANTITY. Chicopee Falls, Mass 126 Roek Hill, S. C I Suncock, N. H 89 Honea Path, S. C. 1000 Calhoun Station, S. C. 2 Clifton, S. C 1000 Dover, N. H 116 Ramseur, N. C. 69 Greenville, N. H 80 Columbus, Ga 784 Lewiston, Me. 122 Glendale, S. C 550 Cooleemee, N. C. 1296 Millbury, Mass 61 Anthony, R. I. 2 Crompton, R. I. 2 Huntsville, Ala 544 Darlington, S. C 592 Greenwich, N. Y. i West Durham, N. C. 300 Chicopee, Mass 681 Columbus, Ga. 328 Woonsocket, R. 1. 2 Easley, S. C 800 Augusta, Me. 709 West Durham, N. C 457 Eufaula, Ala 33 Law^rence, Mass. 452 Exeter, N. H 100 Atlanta, Ga. 142 2l8 NAME. PLACE. QUANTITY. Fairfield Cotton Mills Winnsboro, S. C 190 Falls Company Norwich, Conn. 61 Farnum & Co., John Lancaster, Penn 12 Fai-well Mills Lisbon, Me 132 Florence Mills Forest City, N. C. 200 Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills Atlanta, Ga 1088 Gaffney Mfg. Co. : Gaffney, S. C 1401 Gainesville Cotton Mills Gaine^ille, Ga 1000 Gary, James S. & Son Baltimore, Md. i Georgia School of Technology Atlanta, Ga. 6 Gibson Mfg. Co Concord, N. C. 6 Glenn-Lowry Mfg. Co. Whitmire, S. C. 800 Glen Raven Cotton Mills Burlington, N. C. • 100 Gosnold Mills Corp New Bedford, Mass. 800 Granby Cotton Mills Columbia, S. C 1014 Graniteville Mfg. Co. Vaucluse, S. C 362 Graniteville Mfg. Co Graniteville, S. C. 592 Great Falls Mfg. Co Somersworth, N. H 638 Great Falls Mfg. Co. Rockingham, N. C. 172 Grendel Mills Greenwood, S. C 498 Grinnell Mfg. Corp New Bedford, Mass 341 Grosvenor-Dale Co No. Grosvenor-Dale, Ct. 3617 Hamilton Mfg. Co. Lowell, Mass. 108 Hamlet Textile Co. Woonsocket, R. 1 56 Harmony Grove Mills Harmony Grove, Ga. 180 Hartsville Cotton Mills Hartsville, S. C 650 Hathaway Mfg. Co. New Bedford, Mass. 401 Henderson Cotton Mills Henderson, N. C. 84 Henrietta Mills Henrietta, N. C. loi Hill Mfg. Co Lewiston, Me.... 142 219 NAME. PLACE. QUANTITY. Hope Co., Phoenix Mill Hope, R. 1 800 Hoskins Mills - Charlotte, N. C 580 Indian Head Mills of Alabama Cordova, Ala 200 Jackson Co.... Nashua, N. H 253 Johnson & Johnson New Brunswick, N. J 387 2 268 600 Keasbey & Mattison Ambler, Pa Kesler Mfg. Co SaHsbury, N. C King Mfg. Co., J. P Augusta, Ga King Philip Mills Fall River, Mass 12 Knowles Loom Works Worcester, Mass 2 Lancaster Mills Clinton, Mass. 5° Lane Mills New Orleans, La 1034 Lanett Cotton Mills West Point, Ga 672 Laurens Cotton Mills Laurens, S. C 522 Lawrence Duck Co Lawrence, Mass. 2 Limestone Mills Gaffney, S. C. 350 Lockhart Mills Lockhart, S. C... 1550 LockwoodCo Waterville, Me 1427 Lonsdale Co Lonsdale, R.I 2095 Loray Mills........ Gastonia, N. C. 1580 Lorraine Mfg. Co Saylesville, R. 1 3 LouiseMills Charlotte, N. C 152 Lowell Textile School Lowell, Mass 3 Lyman Mills. Holyoke, Mass 24 Lynchburg Cotton Mills Lynchburg, Va i Maginnis Cotton Mills New Orleans, La 50 Manchester Mills Manchester, N. H 5 220 NAME. PLACE. QUANTITY. Manville Co Manville, R. 1 48 Massachvisetts Cotton Mills Lowell, Mass 1123 Massachusetts Mills in Georgia.. Lindale, Ga 1392 Mass. Institute of Technology .. Boston, Mass. 2 May's Landing W. Power Co... May's Landing, N. J i Meridian Cotton Mills Meridian, Miss 148 Merrimack Mfg. Co. Lowell, Mass 430 Merrimack Mfg. Co Huntsville, Ala. 1718 Methuen Co. Methuen, Mass. 26 Mills Mfg. Co Greenville, S. C 484 Millville Mfg. Co Millville, N.J 313 Mississippi Agr'l College Agr'l College, Miss. 2 Mississippi Mills Wesson, Miss. 49 Mohawk Valley Cotton Mills Utica, N. Y . i Mollohon Mfg. Co Newberry, S. C 352 Monaghan Mills Greenville, S. C 1262 Monarch Cotton Mills Union, S. C 940 Nantucket Mills Spray, N. C 32 Nashua Mfg. Co Nashua, N. H. 51 Naunikeag Steam Cotton Co Salem, Mass 248 Neuse River Mills Raleigh, N. C. 150 New Bedford Textile School New Bedford, Mass 2 NewbeiTy Cotton Mills Newberr}^, S. C 26 Newmarket Mfg. Co Newmarket, N. H. 371 New York Mills New York Mills, N. Y..! 52 Nightingale Mills Putnam, Conn 14 Ninety-six Cotton Mills Ninety-six, S. C 300 Nockege Mills Fitchburg, Mass. i Nokomis Cotton Mills Lexington, N. C. 320 N.C. Col. ofAgr'l&Mech. Arts. West Raleigh, N. C 3 NAME. PLACE. QLIANTITY. Odell Mfg. Co Concord, N. C. _ _. 40 Olympia Cotton Mills Columbia, S. C 2250 Orangeburg Mfg. Co., Orangeburg, S. C 392 Orr Cotton Mills Anderson, S. C 1504 Ossipee Cotton Mills Elon College, N. C 104 Pacific Mills Lawrence, Mass 2283 Pacolet Mfg. Co. Pacolet, S. C 222 Pacolet Mfg. Co Gainesville, Ga 1764 Palmer Mills Three Rivers, Mass 2 ParkhiUMfg. Co Fitchburg, Mass 13 Patterson Mfg. Co. China Grove, N. C 200 Peabody Mills Newburyport, Mass 16 Pell City Mfg. Co Pell City, Ala 640 PelzerMfg. Co. Pelzer, S. C 2702 Pemberton Co. Lawrence, Mass • 52 Pepperell Mfg. Co. Biddeford, Me 809 Philadelphia Textile School Philadelphia, Pa 2 Piedmont Mfg. Co Piedmont, S. C 640 Poe Mfg. Co., F. W Greenville, S. C 12 Portland Silk Co Middletown, Conn i Potomska Mills Corporation New Bedford, Mass.... i Proximity Mfg. Co Greensboro, N. C 395 Putnam Mfg. Co Putnam, Conn 252 Qiieen City Cotton Co Burlington, Vt 1308 Qiiidnick Mfg. Co Qiiidnick, R. 1 17 Qiiinebaug Co. Danielson, Conn 206 Reedy River Mfg. Co Greenville, S. C 153 Revolution Cotton Mills Greensboro, N. C 389 Rhode Island School of Design.. Providence, R. I i NAME. PLACE. qUANTITY. Roanoke Mills Co Roanoke Rapids, N. C... 120 Rosemary Mfg. Co. Roanoke Rapids, N. C... 258 Royal Bag & Yarn Mfg. Co. Charleston, S. C. 74 Royal Cotton Mills Wake Forest, N. C 186 Salmon Falls Mfg. Co Salmon Falls, N. H.... i Salt's Textile Mfg. Co Bridgeport, Conn. 20 Samoset Co Valley Falls, R.I 80 Saxon Mills Spartanburg, S. C. 320 Scottdale Mills Atlanta, Ga 320 Shetucket Co Norwich, Conn. 70 Slater Cotton Mills Pawtucket, R. I i Slater Mills, H. N Webster, Mass 250 Social Mfg. Co Woonsocket, R. I ^5'^ Spartan Mills Spartanburg, S. C 1880 Star & Crescent Mills Philadelphia, Pa. 44 Stark Mills Manchester, N. H 190 Steele's Mills Rockingham, N. C. 600 Stevens Mfg. Co. Fall River, Mass.... i Stirling Silk Co StirHng, N.J 2 Strickland Cotton Mills Valdosta, Ga. 20 Susquehanna Silk Mills Sunbury, Pa. 2 Tarboro Cotton Factory Tarboro, N. C 200 Texas Mechanical College College Station, Tex. 2 Thistle Mill Co Ilchester, Md 4 Thompson, Jas. & Co. Valley Falls, N. Y. 12 Thorndike Co. Thorndike, Mass 2 Toxaway Mill Anderson, S. C. 352 Tremont & Suffolk Mills Lowell, Mass 1977 Trion Mfg. Co Trion Factory, Ga. 664 Tucapau Mills Tucapau, S. C.....; ^759 223 NAME. United States Cotton Co. Utica Cotton Co Utica Steam Cotton Mills Victor Mfg. Co Wachuset Mills Walhalla Cotton Mills Wan-en Cotton Mills Wan-en Mfg. Co White & Son, N. D Whitman Mills Whitney Mfg. Co Whittenton Mfg. Co Williamson, Jas. N. k W. H. Wilmington Cotton Mills Woodmff Cotton Mills York Mfg. Co PLACE. QUANTITY. Central Falls, R. 1 1487 Capron, N. Y. i Utica, N. Y 13 Greers, S. C. 1309 Worcester, Mass i Walhalla, S. C 120 West Warren, Mass 64 Warrenville, S. C 1000 Winch'ndonSpr'gs,Mass. i New Bedford, Mass. 829 Whitney, S. C 394 Taunton, Mass. i Raleigh, N. C. 120 Wilmington, N. C. 60 Woodruff, S. C 880 Saco, Me. 365 98^737 224 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS APnmD TO OR ORDERED FOR OTHER MAKES OF LOOMS TO JULY I, 1904. Warp NAME. PLACE. Changfr. Modon. Aiken Mfg. Co Bath, S. C 13 13 Albion Co Valley Falls, R. I i i Amoskeag Mfg. Co. Manchester, N. H. iOi5'>5 Androscoggin Mills Lewiston, Mass. 53 53 Arlington Mills Lawrence, Mass.... i 13 Atlantic Cotton Mills Lawrence, Mass. 9 9 Atlantic Mills _ Providence, R. I . i Bates Mfg. Co. Lewiston, Me. 24 Boston Mfg. Co Waltham, Mass..... 300 Botany Worsted Mills Passaic, N. J. i Cawthon Cotton Mills Co. Selma, Ala. 16 16 China Mfg. Co Suncook, N. H 14 14 Dallas Mfg. Co Huntsville, Ala 3 3 Davol Mills Fall River, Mass 82 82. Eagle & Phoenix Mills Columbus, Ga. 102 Everett Mills Lawrence, Mass. 774 Exposition Cotton Mills,. Atlanta, Ga i i Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills Atlanta, Ga. 502 502 Gibson Mfg. Co. Concord, N. C. 100 Warp Filling Stop- NAME. PLACE. Changer. Motion. Globe Mill Woonsocket, R. 1 43 Gosnold Mills Corp New Bedford, Mass 780 Grinnell Mfg. Corp. New Bedford, Mass..'... 2 Hargraves Mills Fall River, Mass 45 21 Hathaway Mfg. Co New Bedford, Mass 432 King Philip Mills Fall River, Mass 142 6 Lancaster Mills CHnton, Mass. 2,288 LockwoodCo Waterville, Me 803 803 Lorraine Mfg. Co Pawtucket, R. 1 2 Manville Co Manville, R. 1 557 Manville Co., Social Mill.. Woonsocket, R. 1 409 Mass. Cotton Mills Lowell, Mass 112 113 Mass. Mills in Georgia Lindale, Ga 6 6 Mechanics Mills Fall River, Mass i Merrimack Mfg. Co Lowell, Mass i i Methixen Co Methuen, Mass. i i Nashua Mfg. Co Nashua, N. H. 2 Naumk'gSteamCottonCo. Salem, Mass. i i New York Mills NewYork Mills, N.Y. .. i Otis Co Ware, Mass 6 Pacific Mills... Lawrence, Mass i Parker Mills Warren, R. I i Parkhill Mfg. Co Fitchburg, Mass 29 Peabody Mfg. Co Newburyport, Mass i i Pemberton Co. Lawrence, Mass 60 226 Warp „ Fillinar Stop- NAME. PLACE. Chanifer. Motion. Pierce Mfg. Corp. New Bedford, Mass i PoeMfg. Co., F.W Greenville, S. C 13 13 Salt's Textile Mfg. Co Bridgeport, Conn 8 Shetvicket Co Norwich, Conn i Stark Mills , _... Manchester, N. H 2 Stevens Mfg. Co Fall River, Mass iii Stonewall Cotton Mills Stonewall, Miss 12 12 Susquehanna Silk Mills Sunbur}-, Pa. 7 Tecuniseh Mills Fall River, Mass i i Trainer&SonsMfg.Co.,D. Trainer, Pa ' i Treniont & Suffolk Mills.. Lowell, Mass 304 Utica Steam & Mohawk Valley Cotton Mills .. Utica, N. Y i i Webster Mfg. Co Suncook, N. H i i West Boylston Mfg. Co... Easthampton, Mass. 2 Whittenton Mfg. Co Taunton, Mass. 4 16 York Mfg. Co ....._ Saco, Me i 69 2,069 18,452 ALSO Complete looms, not on list, shipped to foreign coun- tries or agents, etc. 1,802 Extra Filling Changers 121 Extra Warp Stop-Motions 45 227 TOTALS. Complete :Northroi) Looms sold to date, 103,653 Number of Filling Changers applied, 103,739 :N^uml>er of Warp Stop-motions applied, 1 1 9,036 Plain Looms made at or ordered from Hopedale Works, 3,319 The looms changed over include looms made by our licensees in the United States and furnished to mills also in the United States. These figures do not include the many thousand looms made under license in Canada, England, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Hungary. This volume is intended to contain all the general informa- tion necessary regarding our looms, including all the information previously published in other catalogues or circulars that is pertinent. We are sometimes asked by overseers or second- hands, to send them books containing numbers and description of our various loom parts in detail. We have such printed lists and are glad to furnish them to the mills which purchase our looms, but they are too expensive in character to be generally distributed. Any overseer, or other operative, can probably have access to this list in the mill office, if necessary. 238 While starting to print in April, the unavoidable delays have extended the preparation of this volume to the first of July, 1904, the last tables being made up to that date. While intended to be practically complete, we cannot, of course, detail the improvements now being developed which have not yet secured patent protection. Our customers may be sure, however, that the looms which we shall sell them are even further advanced than those illustrated herein. As soon as this present edition is exhausted, we shall follow with a second edition in which the newer devices will be exploited. Any further information regarding looms, or any of our other products, will be cheerfully furnished on application. To those not fully informed as to the general scope of our busi- ness, we will say that while the Northrop looms are our chief product, we have been introducing cotton machinery improve- ments since 1S16, our line of manufacture before taking up the Northrop loom being devoted to the introduction of High Speed Spindles for spinning frames, Spinning Rings, Spinning Frame Separators, Loom Temples, Warpers, Twisters, Spoolers, Reels, Banding Machines, Balling Machines, etc., etc. We have other literature relating to these products which we will be glad to send on application. DRAPER COMPANY, HoPEDALE, Mass. July I, igo4. 229 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Miscellaneous — Frontispiece, title, etc. i-6 Former literature on the Northrop Loom 'j-ii The Art of Weaving 12-21 History of the Northrop Loom 32-27 Qviotations from advertisements 28-40 The Present Standing of Our Loom 4i"45 Hoppers, Thread-cutters, Shuttles, Bobbins, etc. 46-63 Warp Stop-motions 64-69 Devices for Making Perfect Cloth 69-73 Double Fork 74-75 Standard Models of Loom Construction 75'9^ Loom construction details 93-112 Specification 113-121 Instructions for Running Northrop Looms 122-173 Cotton Mill Products i74-i75 Prices and Profits 176-190 The Labor Qiiestion 191-195 Attempts at Competition 196-204 Patent Infringement and Control 205-211 Sales - 213-227 Index 229-232 Memoranda 233-240 230 INDEX. Advertisements 28-40 Anti-Bang 90, 96 Art of Weaving 12-21 Bobbins 61-63, ^^6, 130-134, 171, 200-202 Brake 107-10S, 161 -162 Breakage of Filling 125, 129-130 Bunches in Cloth 132-133 Bunches on Feeler Bobbins 72, 134 Census Reports 174-175, 181 Changing Over Looms 92 Checks 130 Cleaning Looms 45, 166 Cloth Defects 108, 171-173 Cloth Inspection 175 Competition 11, 42, 196-203 Construction of Looms 93 Cop Looms 54-55, 129-130, 134-135, 173 Cop Skewers 54, 59, 62-63, ^35 Cost of Looms - 168-169, 185 Cost of Weaving 87-100 Cotton Mill Products 174-175 Cut Motion 80, 82, 86, 99-107, 154 Dimensions of Looms 118-121 Dobby 79, 81, 97 Double Fork 74-75' 89-90, 97, 155-156, 171 Double Pick Cloth 170 Drawing-in Frame ii3, 164 Drop Wires 67-6S, 141-144, 173 Feeler (or Mispick Preventer), 62, 69-73, 85, 149-15 1, 172, 206-207 Feeler Thread-Cutte;- 72-73, 1 50-151 331 Filling Fork iSS'^S^ Floats - 45, 66, 171 Foreign Loom introduction, 195, 197- 199, 202-204, 2 14-2 15, 226-227 Hand Loom 12-17 Harness Cams 146-147 Heddles 64-67, 135-136, 13S-140, 145 History 11-43 Hopper 46-49, 52-57, 76-89, 122-124, 171 Instructions for Running Northrop Looms 122-173 Knots in Warp 146 Labor Question 191-195 Labor on Plain Loom 43"44 Lay - - 156-157^ 159' 165 Lay Adjustments 123-124, 150, 157, 159 Let-off 77, 94-965 151-152, 172 List of Liventors 2, 208-211 Literature on Northrop Loom 7'^^i 26-27 Litigation 1 1 Long Bobbin Experiments 200-202 Loom Adjustments - 163 Loom Equipment 169-170 Loom Power 165 Loom Seats m Misthread Stop-motions 50-5I5 128 Misthreading 50, 60, 127-129 Models of Looms 75-92 Number of Looms per Weaver, 77, 80, 85, 87, 94, 97, 183, 188-189 Patents 2, 17-19, 63, 177, 205-211 Patent Control n, 206-211 Patent Infringement 205-206 Percentage of production, 80, 167, 175, 178-180, 183, 187-189,195 Plain Power Loom, 14-31, 43-44, 68, 90-92, 182, 191-192, 200-202 Plan of Works.... 6 232 Press Notices 7-10 Prices 176, 1S5, 190 Print Cloth 15-16, 74, 82, 89, 97, 187 Product per Operative 14-16, 25, 117, 167, 177 Profits by use of Northrop Loom 100, 176-190 Protector 126, 161 Reed 103, 145, 157-159, 173 Repairs 166-168, 175 Replacement of Common Looms 41-42 Sales of Northrop Looms 41, 181, 212-227 Seconds 84, 175, 203 48 72 99 61 99 10 28 65 44 17 Selvage 147- Shedding IN lotion..... 79-83^ 86, 88, 97-98, r46-i47, 163, Shuttles 26, 47, 49-51, 58-60, 66, 124-130, 190-192, 196- Shuttle Boxes (including binders) 127, 160- Shuttle Changers 17-19? 21-25, ^96- Shuttle Guard Shuttle Position Detector.. 50-51, 56-57, 72-73, 86, 122-123, Sizing Warp 164- Slack Threads 66, Specifications .'. 1 13- Speed 14-16, 90, 165, 168, 175, 188, 203-204 Take-up 77-80,82,98-107, 153-155, 172 Temple Thread-cutter 50-51, 148-149 Thin-place Preventer 74, 109 Transferrer 49, 53, 57, 123 Warp Beams 152 Warp Breakage 66-67, ^25, 140, 145, 201 WarpStop-motion, 25, 42-45, 64-69, 80, 86, 1 12,135-144,200,206-207 Waste 72, 169 233 MEMORANDA. 234 MEMORANDA. 235 MEMORANDA. 236 MEMORANDA. 237 MEMORANDA. 238 MEMORANDA. 239 MEMORANDA. 240 MEMORANDA.