dford, the Whittingham, the
Bee, the Hazleton or "Common Sense", the Reynolds, the Suplee or Luder,
the Babbit, the Reed, the Smith, the Standard, etc., etc.

It is with the object of protecting our customers and friends from loss
through purchasing discarded ideas that there is given on the following
pages a brief history of the development of the Babcock & Wilcox boiler
as it is built to-day. The illustrations and brief descriptions indicate
clearly the various designs and constructions that have been used and
that have been replaced, as experience has shown in what way improvement
might be made. They serve as a history of the experimental steps in the
development of the present Babcock & Wilcox boiler, the value and
success of which, as a steam generator, is evidenced by the fact that
the largest and most discriminating users continue to purchase them
after years of experience in their operation.

[Illustration: No. 1]

No. 1. The original Babcock & Wilcox boiler was patented in 1867. The
main idea in its design was safety, to which all other features were
sacrificed wherever they conflicted. The boiler consisted of a nest of
horizontal tubes, serving as a steam and water reservoir, placed above
and connected at each end by bolted joints to a second nest of inclined
heating tubes filled with water. The tubes were placed one above the
other in vertical rows, each row and its connecting end forming a single
casting. Hand-holes were placed at each end for cleaning. Internal tubes
were placed within the inclined tubes with a view to aiding circulation.

No. 2. This boiler was the same as No. 1, except that the internal
circulating tubes were omitted as they were found to hinder rather than
help the circulation.

Nos. 1 and 2 were found to be faulty in both material and design, cast
metal proving unfit for heating surfaces placed directly over the fire,
as it cracked as soon as any scale formed.

No. 3. Wrought-iron tubes were substituted for the cast-iron heating
tubes, the ends being brightened, laid in moulds, and the headers cast
on.

The steam and water capacity in this design were insufficient to secure
regularity of action, there being no reserve upon which to draw during
firing or when the water was fed intermittently. The attempt to dry the
steam by superheating it in the nest of tubes forming the steam space
was found to be impracticable. The steam delivered was either wet, dry
or superheated, according