Discussion - Of Mr. Howe's Paper on Piping and Segregation in Steel Ingots (see p. 3)

Secretary's Note.—M. Beutter's introductory remarks, being simply a resume of Prof. Hone's paper, with a disclaimer of the intention to criticise it, have been omitted, and the remainder of this contribution lias been somewhat condensed, without omitting any essential statements. M. Beutter, St. Etienne, France* (communication to the Secretary†):—Professor Home observes in $ 47 of his paper that the fluid-compression of steel diminishes piping by forcing the liquid and viscous metal, while the pipe is forming, or after it has formed, into the space so produced, and proceeds to study the different systems of compression, alluding to the four principal ones: Whitworth, Illingmorth, Williams, and Harmet. Having now for many years had in use the last-named process, that of M. Henri Harmet, I shall attempt to explain the difference between it and the three other processes named. The Harmet process does not diminish or close the pipe after it has formed, but prevents it from forming; and I may add that it is the only one of the four which produces this result. It is true that the Whitworth process diminishes the interior hollow by localizing it around the central axis of the ingot, which is afterwards removed by trepanning the hollow forg-ings for which this process has been, I believe, always exclusively used. The Illingworth and Williams processes, which, in my opinion, are applicable only to small ingots, of necessity allow the pipe to form, or (to use the expression of Professor Howe) they allow the surface of the lake of liquid steel to sink into the interior of the ingot, since they involve waiting a certain time before compression, so that (in the case of the Williams process) the ingot-mold can be opened without danger, or (in the case of the Illingworth process) so as to avoid the risk that the steel may enter the grooves produced by the removal of the distance-bars. During the time required for