[Illustration:  PLATE XXVIII, FIG. 1.—­APPARATUS FOR MEASURING LOSS OF PRESSURE IN SUBAQUEOUS MATERIALS.]

[Illustration:  PLATE XXVIII, FIG. 2.—­RAISING ROOF OF BATTERY TUBES, IN BROOKLYN, BY “BLEEDING” SAND THROUGH DISPLACED PLATES.]

Now, if for any reason the bottom area of the piston against which the water pressure acts be reduced, it will necessarily require a proportionate amount of increase in the pressure to lift this piston.  If, therefore, it is found that 10 lb., for illustration, be required to lift the piston when plunged in clear water, and 20 lb. be required to lift it when buried in sand, it can be assumed at once that the area of the piston has been reduced 50% by being buried in the sand, eliminating the question of the friction of the sand itself around the piston.  In order to determine what this friction might be, the writer arranged a table standing on legs above the bottom of the chamber, allowing the piston to move freely through a hole in its center.  Through this table pipes were entered (as shown in part of Fig. 9).  The whole was then placed in the chamber with the piston in place, and the area above was filled with sand and water.  It is thus seen that, the end of the piston being free and in clear water, the difference, if any, between the pressure required to lift the piston when in clear water alone and in the case thus noted, where it was surrounded by sand, would measure the friction of the sand on the piston.  After several trials of this, however, it was clearly seen that the friction was too slight to be noted accurately by a gauge registering single pounds, that is, with a piston in contact with 6 in. of sand vertically, a friction of 25 lb. per sq. ft. would only require an increase of 1.8 lb. on the gauge.  It is therefore assumed that the friction on so small a piston in sand need not be considered as a material factor in the experiments made.

The piston was plunged into clear water, and it was found that the pressure required to lift it was about 4 lb.  The cap was then taken off, a depth of about 2 in. of sand was placed in the bottom of the chamber, and then the piston was set in place and surrounded by sand to a depth of some 6 in., water being added so that the sand was completely saturated.  This was allowed to stand until it had regained the stability of ordinary sand in place, whereupon the cap with the collar bearing was set in place over the piston, the machine was coupled up, and the pump was started.  A series of four experiments, extending over a period of two or three days, gave the following results: 

Test 1.—­The piston began to move at a pressure of 25 lb.  The pressure gradually dropped to 71/2 lb., at which point, apparently, it came out of the sand, and continued at 71/2 lb. during the remainder of the test.

Test 2.—­The piston was plunged back into the sand, without removing the cap, and allowed to stand for about 2 hours.  No attempt was made to pack the sand or to see its condition around the piston, it being presumed, however, that it had reasonable time to get a fair amount of set.  At slightly above 20 lb. the piston began to move, and as soon as a pocket of water accumulated behind the piston the pressure immediately dropped to 9 lb. and continued at this point until it came out of the sand.