Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1913-07-31
FIRE engine TURNED
DOWN BY COUNCILMEN
All But One Member Vote to Reject
Robinson Machine, on Ground 1t
Fails TO Meet Test.
EXPERTS PRESENT VERY
UNFAvoRABLE REPORT ON IT
Incorrect Gauge for Some Reason
Placed on Engine, and They Re-
e. moved It to Secure Results.

The city council at special meeting
last night voted to reject the Robinson
automobile fire engine, on the ground
that it failed to come up to the test.
All members of the council voted
against the engine except Cummings.
There was some discussion over the
matter, and the general experts re-
port proved interesting reading. They
found that the pressure gauges had
been adjusted as to give the engine a
better showing than its work justified
G. F. Wagner, inspecting engineer of
the National Board of Fire Underwrit-
ers, and W. H. Phillips, master mechan-
ic of the Portland fire department,
made the report as to the capacity and
pressure test of the engine;
"The test Of this engine was con.
Quoted in Salem, Oregon, July 26, 1913,
to determine if the apparatus performed
according to contract, An extract from
the contract stated that the capacity
and pressure should be as follows:
"'1OO pounds pump pressure, 1000
gallons per minute.
1920 pounds pump pressure, 900
gallons per minute.
F." $50 pounds pump pressure, ZOO
gallons per minute.
"'250 pounds pump pressure, 300
gallons per minute.
| 'Rated capacity of the apparatus
is guaranteed to be 900 gallons at 100
pounds pump pressure on 1O-foot dead
suction, and that the pump shall de-
liver on test its rated capacity for one
half hour
"The engine test was conducted on
bridge over a running stream of water
with a measured suction lift of 10, feet,
inches. Most of the testing was done
at 100 pounds pressure because the ap.
paratus had its guaranteed rated capac.
ity at this pressure.
"To insure accuracy in this test all
pressure gauges were tested before he.
fore the test by the Crosby Gauge Test.
er, The pressure gauge furnished with
the machine was found to be very mac.
curate, and it plainly showed that the
pressure tube had been scraped on the
inside of the curve.
"1OO pounds correct pressure gauge
read III pounds.
"l2O poundes correct pressure gauge
read 1877 pounds.
"15O pounds correct pressure gauge
read 166 pounds.
1880 pounds correct pressure gauge
read 264 pounds.
con account Of the inaccuracy of
this gauge correct gauge was used in
Its place during the test.
"The pump was equipped with one 5.
inch suction pipe during most of the
test, and gave the following result:
"lOO pounds pump pressure $50 gal.
Ions per minute.
"l9O pounds pump presruse, sO4 gal.
Ions per minute.
$3.50 pounds pump pressure, 713 gal.
Ions per minute.
1900 pounds pump pressure, 3sl gal.
Ions per minute.
"The test at the 800 pounds pres.
ruse was for one.half hour, while the
other tests were for about five minutes
each.
During this test the pump could not
be made to deliver water at $50 pounds
pressure, as called for in one of the
items of the contract.
" "A test 100 pounds pressure was con.
Quoted using a single 6.inch suction
pipe. This test was for 30 minutes and
the capacity delivered wM s75 gal.
Ions per minute. This test was made
by request Of an agent for the machine,
who stated that the 5.inch single sue.
tion pipe furnished with the engine was
not Sarge enough to give the pumps the
rated capacity.
During the test a maximum suction
lift, shown by the INFESTED vacuum
gauge was 90 inches.
Conclusions.
" Al only one pressure (150 pounds)
did the pump give the capacity called
for in the contract. The pump during
the test could not be made to produce
the $50 pounds pump pressure. BY us.
ing the 6.inch suction pipe II gallons
additional capacity was produced at 100
pounds pressure. Most of this addition.
al capacity was due to less friction in
the larger suction pipe.
"If the pressure gauge as furnished
with the apparatus had been used to de.
tcmino the results, the pump perform.
ance would practically have been up to
contract specifications.
a 4 a 4 4 A A