The Mining and Smelting Magazine abstract of 1862 quotes the 6 foot stroke
at the engine and 6.5 inch pump which, if you are insufficiently technically
savvy, seems a safe enough source. I am sure that the PDMHS bulletin
translation is the more reliable.
Mike Shaw
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Smith" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2014 2:11 PM
Subject: [mining-history] Snailbeach
During a visit last year, I downloaded an article on a surface tour of the
above mine.
On reading I was particularly interested in the description of the Lordshill
60 inch pumping engine, which gave a stroke in the pumps of 9ft and in the
engine of 6ft, this seemed strange to me for two reasons:
The engine stroke is very short for a 60 inch engine
Pump stokes are usually equal to or shorter than the engine stroke.
Not having measuring equipment with me I decided to do a rough measurement
of the beam lengths to ascertain the approximate stroke in the engine and
pumps, pacing out the distance from centre of the bob wall to the centre of
the cylinder and the centre of the bob wall to the balance slot at the
shaft. These distances were approximately equal, giving equal stroke in
pumps and engine, (in fact if anything the distance to the balance slot from
bob wall was the shorter which gives a shorter stroke in the pump). This
confirmed my suspicion that information I read might be incorrect.
I have since read and article in a PDMHS bulletin on lead mining at
Pontesford which mentions this engine and gives a stroke in the engine of
10ft and in the pumps of 9ft which would tend to confirm that I am right.
I am now looking forward to another visit to the Shropshire lead mines this
year with equipment to measure the engine house properly and have a wander
around as many more sites as I can in a week!!
A couple of other points about this pumping engine is the size of the pumps
which at 6 inches seem rather small for a mine of this size and indeed this
engine, (in fact the are quoted as 9.5 inch bore pumps in the PDMHS
article), the other is the cylinder size which is sometimes quoted as 60
inch and other times 61 inch. If the size was indeed 61 inch, then the
engine is almost certainly a rebored second hand engine.
If anyone as plans of this engine house I would love a copy to study, I
would also be very happy if someone had information on the origins of this
engine (foundry, where it worked before Snailbeach etc) and also more
information on engine and pump stroke.
Thanks in anticipation.
Paul
If you need to leave the list, send the following message to
[log in to unmask] -
leave mining-history
---------
If you need to leave the list, send the following message to [log in to unmask] -
leave mining-history
---------
|