So Doc Tom and I are discussing his On30 “Bull of the Woods”. The last picture may have a suction hose in use. So, anyone have an idea of what was used to pull water out of a stream or tank in the early days? A regular exhaust would stay open and could be doped canvas, but the suction hose would have to be reinforced to keep from being sucked closed. Modern hose has steel or similar hard coils to keep open. Anyone have ideas of what the earliest engines used to keep hose open when a vacuum is drawn against to pull in water?

Just wondering.

The Shays used a really heavy, thick rubber hose and the runs were short.

Ric, the technology of steel reinforced rubber hose is probably 150 years old.

Thank you all, so much! The knowledge here is phenominal. I was think the firefighters would be the ones that had the answers. So the suction hose technology far exceeded the history of steam engines and was already there, when the steam engine came along and wanted to suck water. Very coo!.

The WW&F Museum is experimenting with vacuum brakes. The hoses we use between cars are ribbed rubber, we found new which match the old exactly.

Ric I went there and the history does tell of the hose patent and the chronology of improvements, but it didn’t leap to the seperation of pressured hose for fire suppression and hard suction sleeves that you asked for

http://firehistory.weebly.com/the-history-of-hoose-hoase-hause-or-hose.html

and an excerpt from the above link:

Sellers & Pennock’s advancement with hose had far reaching consequences. With strong hose, it was possible to use suction to draw large quantities of water. The idea of using suction was considered in the United States as early as 1698. New York City had a suction engine in 1793. But without reliable hose using suction to fight fires was very ineffective. The improvement in hose also permitted pumpers to relay water from distant sources. In Boston, in 1825, the mayor reported 100 feet of hose doing the work that formerly required 60 men hauling buckets. Around 1827, the Fire Chief for New York City counted 30 pumpers in a line a mile and a half long from the source of water to the fire.

In 1821, James Boyd patented his invention for rubber-lined, cotton-webbed fire hose. Charles Goodyear discovered the vulcanization process for rubber in 1839. B. F. Goodrich developed rubber hose reinforced with cotton ply. The Cincinnati Fire Department used this improved hose in 1871.

As more manufacturers entered the marketplace, they each produced their own size of hose and coupling. This problem was addressed in 1873 at the first convention for the International Association of Fire Engineers. The Association adopted the standard size of 7102 threads to the inch.

Five years later in 1878, the American Fire Hose Manufacturing Company, located in Chelsea, Massachusetts marketed their new product, the “first seamless cotton fire hose produced for steam fire engines.” Other companies improved hose as well. In a short time fire hose could handle 350 psi. Progress continued and woven cotton became the standard for fire hose. As better weaves were developed the hose became stronger. In this modern age fire hose is lightweight, durable and flexible.

This invaluable tool for firefighting has undergone dramatic changes over the centuries. What improvements will firefighters of the future see?

Maybe this helps(https://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-cool.gif)

I think the early suction hoses were first just hard rubber.

The ones that worked well had a steel spring inside… later hoses were more advanced where the spring was embedded in the rubber.

Hard to find this info, but here is a picture of a hose from 1905, where the spring is embedded.

I’ve seen pictures where the spring was embedded in such a way the outer surface was ribbed. Possibly the hose was made, the spring put on the outside, and then another coat of rubber to retard the inevitable rust.

Greg

Air brakes on railways in Britain still use suction hose, although compressed air is being used also…you might look there…although your question was centred on moving water, not air…

Fred

They are both fluids.

yes, but one is a gas (and compressible) and the other is a liquid (not compressible from a practical standpoint)

Greg