Page 2 Advertisements Column 4

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2644, 27 September 1882, Page 2

W. H ARE 1s * IMPERIAL BOOT DEPOT, CASHEL STREET. For Kid Klastlo-Bido Boots of good quality, at 7s 6d, try tho Imperial For Levant Elastic-Fide Boots, good value, at 8a 6d, go to the Imperial For Kid Button Boots, at 9a, try the Imperial Fur Kid liaoe Oxford Walking Shoes, at 7', call at the Imperial For Kid Oxford Button Shoes, at 7a 6d, go to the Imperial For Children's Kid Lace Oxford Shoes, from 3a 6d, try the Imperial For French Lasting Boots from 8s 6d, try the Imperial For Cheap Lawn Tennis Shoes, from 5s 6d, go to the Imperial For Canvas Boating Shoes, at Be 6d, try the Imperial For the Largest Stock, the Best Quality, and the Lowest Price in all kinds of Colonialmade Boots, go to W. HARRIS, IMPERIAL BOOT DEPOT, Cashel street. 908

SUITS TO MEASURE FROM 70a. UUBST CONSIGNMENT of SPRING JD TWEEPS AND COATINGS Just Arrived. W. M. EGBERTS, Practical Tailor, Manchester street south. Trousers from 18a. Splendid Selection. 1002 FOR THE HOLIDAYS, nn iRT THE CHEAPEST SHOP IN TOWN FOR All hinds of Pipes, meerohaum and wood, Cigar and Cigarette Holders, Knives, Purses, Matchboxes, Razors, Combs, Brushes, Hair Oil, Lime Cream, A ~ &o N.B.—A lot of CRICKETING MATERIAL from last season very cheap, And lost, but not leist a HAIR GUTTING SALOON, Where yon oan get fixed up for the small sum of SIXPENCE. H. CARET, 9495 High street NOT QUITE SO DECISIVE AS IT WAS BUT A LITTLE MORE OVERWHELMING. WE CHALLENGE the representative of the Singer Sewing Machine Company, or any of the jurors on Sewing Machines at the Exhibition who voted for the report coming from that body to controvert the following statement of facts. Messrs Meddlngs, Cunnlngton, Dale, and Kirk, we call upon you to defend yonr report. H. 0. FIBKB & CO. Christchurch International Exhibition, Juno 15th, 1882, REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS. To H. C. Fiskk & Co, DEAR SIR, —In accordance with yonr request, we have examined the New Davis and the New Singer Sewing Machines, for the purpose of comparing them. In our comparison we have takoi Into consideration— 1, The mechanical principle Involved 2. The quality of the material used 3. The degree of workmanship exhibited 4. The facility for doing a good and varied o ass of work.

Alter taking both machines asunder, carefully examining every pieoe, and folly testing their capabilities, we have no hesitation in saying that we consider the Davis far the superior machine of the two. Our reasons are as follows; In hnkK machine" Mm same metnod Is adopted for actuating the needle bar, viz,, a crank with roller working in a cam. This earn in the Davis Machine is out out of a solid pieoe of steel and hardened, while in the Singer it is not only very much lighter, but is made of common oast iron. The feed apparatus of the two machines are very dissimilar. That of the Singer Is the usual slip feed. The Davis has the vertical feed peculiar to Itself, In this arrangement the presser foot holds the material firmly down till the needle has reached its lowest point. The pressure is then relieved and transmitted to the feed bar. Feed bar, needle, and material are then, by a very simple contrivance, moved forward slmnltaneoasly the required length of stitch. Motion is given to the shuttle in the Davis machine as follows. An eccentric at the wheel end of the main spindle gives motion to a vertical lever. This in turn transmits it through a ball joint of ingenious construction to the only moving part under the machine, a plvotted lever having at its end an adjustable shuttle carrier. In the Singer Machine a pair of mitre wheels drive a vertical spindle, having at its lower end a crank, A connecting rod from this crank moves a sliding shuttle carrier. It will be seen that in the Davis there are between the main spindle and the shuttle four points of friction, the pivot carrying the vertical lever, the eccentric, the ball joint, and the pivot of horizontal lever. The two principal movements, the eccentric and the ball joint, are adjustable, and the parts most liable to wear are made of hardened steel. To compass the same work the Singer employs as points of friction the teeth of the mitre wheels, the two journals of -vertical spindle, the two ends of the oonneotlng rod, and the sliding shuttle carrier. None of these plaoea are adjustable. The small wheels are common oast Iron, having a certain amount of backlash, and consequent tendency to rattle and and break. The connecting rod Is a thin bar of Iron, with a hole in each end. The end which runs on the crank pin la one of the principal joints in the machine, having a considerable amount of work to do with small bearing surface, making It very liable to wear, while, aa before remarked, there are no means of compensating for any wear. 1 It will be noticed that the shuttle of the Singer Machine la carried in a slide, to which a lateral strain is given by the driving rod, causing a certain amount of friction, while In the Davis it la carried by the lever quite free from friction. With the exception of the small roller working the needle bar, there is not a single piece in the Singer Machine, not even excepting the shuttle, that ear not be out with an ordinary pooket knife, and there are no means of adjusting any wearing part. In the Davis not only are most of the pieces made of steel, and tempered, but at every essential point means are provided for taking np any wear. On this point we may say that where we had any doubt about the quality of the material employed the the piece was broken and the fracture carefully examined. Having examined the mechanical arrangements of the two machines, we tested their adaptability for work, and we noticed the very peculiar feed of the Davis. In this respect wo have been forced to the conclusion that for all purposes, sewing from the thinnest muslin to even through a metal spoon, the Davis has no parallel for grasp, or for avoiding that puckering often the effect of the pressure on a fore motion feed. Wo must in common honesty express our astonishment at the range and variety of work accomplished by the Davis, which we are satisfied cannot be done by the Singer. In summarising our report we repeat that we have no hesitation In saying that we regard the Davis as very superior to the Singer In workmanship, material, and the mechanical principles involved, and also In performing a greater range cf work. We found the Davis to work with equal esse from the lightest to tho heaviest fabric. JOHN LICE SOOTT (Scott Bros.), Mechanical Engineer. T. GLITYAS PAS COB, M onager of the Kuiapol Clothing Factory. GHO. P, ANTHONY, Mechanical Expert, from Nettlefold’p, Blr- < mjugham. 8300