May 3, iBSy.l 



tMS TROPICAL agriculturist; 



7St 



across the bay on that vessel I have been informed 

 by her officers that the trips were made with coal 

 in from 17J to 18 minutes, while with oil 19^ to 

 20 minutes were consumed. If t]tat be true, the 

 difference in speed in favour of the coal would be 

 almost one mile per hour, which means 25 per 

 cent., as it requires that percentage to increase the 

 speed of a vessel one mile per hour (' eight times the 

 power to double the speed '), so if the speed obtained 

 by the use of oil could have been brought up to that 

 obtained by the coal, 25 per cent, more oil would 

 have been consumed ; or, vice verm, if the coal 

 speed had been brought down to the oil speed, 25 

 per cent, less coal would have been consumed. 



" It required from eight to twelve per cent, of 

 the water evaporated by oil fuel to perfect its com- 

 bustion. The rail-road statistician does not appear 

 to have taken the cost of that water into account- 



" The "Piedmont '• had to keep her oil fuel burn- 

 ing all the time between trips in order to ' bottle 

 up ' steam to give her a spurt across the bay. I 

 know nothing of the relative speeds with oil 

 and coal in use on board the " Solano " and 

 " Thoroughfare," where the oil appears to be the 

 most economical. 



" Your oil steamers might possibly use that fuel 

 with diminished speed, but you would have to 

 make provision for three tons of fresh water per 

 day for its consumption. 



" J. Beraiixghaji." 

 \ A copy of the above letter was for\Tarded to 

 Master Mechanic Stevens, of the Southern Pacific 

 Co., who brings out further facts in connection with 

 the subject in his answer, which is as follows: 



" Sacbamento, Dec. 3rd, 1886. 



Geo. Loojiis, Esq., President Pacific Coast 

 Oil Co. —Dear Sir, — I am in receipt of your favour 

 of the 22nd ult., inclosing copy of a letter written 

 by Mr. J. Bermingham to Edwin Goodall, Esq., 

 in regard to oil fuel burned on the steamer 

 " Piedmont." 



" Mr. Bermingham figures in this instance alto- 

 gether from theory. At the outset he says : ' There 

 is a great apparent saving in favour of the oil 

 fuel on the two first-named steamers, and a slight 

 apparent saving of the three and three- tenths 

 per cent, in favour of the oil fuel on the 

 " Piedmont." ' 



" So far he is correct ; but he does not take into 

 consideration the saving effected on board the 

 steamer "Piedmont" by the use of oil fuel in the 

 reduction of firemen — an item amounting to about 

 $14 per day. Neither does he consider the $6 per 

 day whict it costs to place the coal on board the 

 boat — the oil was handled by the deck hands at no 

 estra expense whatever. 



" Further on Mr, Bermingham states : ' There is 

 one very important element that has not been taken 

 into account, and that is, the relative speed deve- 

 loped by the " Piedmont" while using the different 

 fuels above mentioned.' 



" The element of speed icas duly considered ; and 

 permit me to say, there Vas no such difference 

 as the gentleman mentions — coal 17^ to 18 mi- 

 nutes and oil 19 to 20 minutes. True, the time 

 of crossing of the "Piedmont" was somewhat less 

 with coal than with oil, but not to exceed half a 

 minute less per trip run on an average. In the 

 case of the " Solano" the speed was always equal to 

 and usually greater with oil than with coal, and 

 the steam could be increased while under way to 

 any pressure desired. 



" In making this comparison there is another 

 important factor which Mr. Bermingham and others 

 who have manifested so much interest in the 

 matter seem to have entirely overlooked : that is, 

 tbs construction ol the " Piedmoat" boilers, Tiiese 



boilers were constructed specially for burning coal ; 

 they are flue boilers and not adapted for oil fuel; 

 while with the steamers " Solano" and " Thorough- 

 fare" the case is materially different ; the boilers 

 of the latter boats are of good design or pattern 

 for burning oil fuel. 



"Mr. Bermingham further says: 'It requires 

 from 8 to 12 per cent of the water evaporated by 

 oil to perfect the combustion. The railroad statis- 

 tician does not appear to have taken the cost of 

 that water into account.' 



"Our records show nothing of the kind. They 

 show, however, that the consumption of water with 

 coal and oil was the same per trip run. True 

 enough, it took some steam to perfect combustion, 

 but it was hardly appreciable, though, of course, 

 it amounted to something. 



" Eeferring again to steamers " Solano" and 

 " Thoroughfare," i will say that the saving effected 

 by those steamers by the use of oil was consider- 

 able (I believe you have the reports showing just 

 what it was), and if the saving by the use of oil 

 was so great on those boats why should it not be 

 just as great on the "Piedmont"? The reason, 

 the true reason, and the only reason, lies in the 

 difference in the design of the boilers. I will state 

 further that during the time the different boats 

 were burning oil, we were not called upon to make 

 repairs to the boilers ; while with burning coal there 

 is not a week when more or less repairs are not 

 necessary, 



" I will add, taking Mr. Bermingham's statement, 

 that ' 12 per cent, of the water evaporated was re- 

 quired to perfect combustion.' Assuming this to 

 be the case, 12 per cent, of the water actually 

 evaporated during the test of oil for six days is 

 19,968 gallons. Our records of the test show the 

 same number of gallons evaporated in both cases. — 

 Yours truly, A. J. Stevens, 



General Master Mechanic." 



From these statements it will be seen that the 

 oil fuel was the most economical, notwithstanding 

 it has been given up by the company. The only 

 explanation of this is in the surmise that as the 

 company owns an extensive coal mine, coal steamers, 

 &Q., they can afford to use coal when others can- 

 not. — Mining and Scientific Fress, San Francisco, 



Tobacco CtrLTivATiON in Meiningev. — The last har- 

 vest of the tobacco cultivatfid iu the Leimbacb district 

 according to the American method has recently been 

 sold. Though the average yield is Jess as to quantity 

 than in 1884 the quality is decidedly better. The price 

 given is 36 Mks. per centner and tax in addition. 

 Such a yield of the soil is not obtainable with any 

 oher field produce, not even with sugar beets, and it 

 is to be dt'sired that small agriculturists would, in view 

 of the low price of corn, turn their atterition to the 

 cultivation of American tobacco which now is only 

 carried on in a few places in the Salzuugen district. 

 The Meinuigen lowlands with their sandy soil are very 

 suitable for the cultivation of tobacco. If the new 

 method of cultivation were more widely known it is 

 quite possible that the growing of tobacco, which for 

 ten years has only been carried on at Wasungen, 

 Schwa'lungen, Breituugen, "Werubausen, and Helmers, 

 would become a prosperous industry. It is beyond 

 doubt that with more careful handling- the yield of 

 American tobacco could be materially increased. Tiiough 

 this method of cultivation has been followed for three 

 year.s, it is still new, for it cannot be mastered at 

 once. The method wns first adopted in Germany by 

 Leimbacb. German legislation did not permit the 

 American way of cultivating tobacco previous to 1883, 

 and when Herr Hartmann Schmeer returned in that 

 year to Leimbacb from America for the piirijose of 

 beginning the cultivation of tobacco, he had to obtain 

 the sanction of the BundQsiAih.-^KulUow' f German 

 Tm(k Review, 



