. Canadian foundryman (1918). FIG. 1 TOP. FIG. 2 CENTRE. KIG. 3-BOTTOM i BOTTOM RIGHT. to the top of gate (b), what would bethe difference if we poured it down gate(b) and had it fill the mold and then goup gate (a) ? There is no difference. Ifthe metal is so sluggish that it will notdo it, it is not fit metal to use, and itwould not be apt to run any better fromthe high end. Molders will say that theyhave poured them on the level and lostthem, and that by raising one end theysaved them. I want to say that by pour-ing them from the lower end they aremore likely to run full than if po
. Canadian foundryman (1918). FIG. 1 TOP. FIG. 2 CENTRE. KIG. 3-BOTTOM i BOTTOM RIGHT. to the top of gate (b), what would bethe difference if we poured it down gate(b) and had it fill the mold and then goup gate (a) ? There is no difference. Ifthe metal is so sluggish that it will notdo it, it is not fit metal to use, and itwould not be apt to run any better fromthe high end. Molders will say that theyhave poured them on the level and lostthem, and that by raising one end theysaved them. I want to say that by pour-ing them from the lower end they aremore likely to run full than if pouredwith the mold level. The reason is thatwhen one end is raised the slats are filledone at a time and if the mold is level it are dove-tailed so as to spread the ironover the entire surface at once, it willbe so thin that it will not have sufficientweight to force the gas downward, andthe gas which must escape in some direc-tion will escape in the direction of theleast resistance, which will of course beupward, and in doing
Size: 3117px × 802px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1900, bookdecade1910, booksubjec, booksubjectfoundries
