236 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



sorbing sixteen-horse power. The candles 

 cost sixteen cents each, and burn an hour 

 and a lialf. Estimates of its cost vary from 

 one-half to three times the cost of gas. In 

 this country the field is occupied by several 

 kinds of apparatus. At the American Insti- 

 tute Fair are a number of Wallace machines, 

 furnishing in all nineteen lights, scattered 

 through the main building. Inquiry from 

 the engineer who cares for the engine driv- 

 ing these machines develops the fact that 

 not less than sixty-horse power is consumed 

 for these nineteen lights. In the machinery 

 halls four lights are used, furnished by a 

 Emsh machine absorbing seven-horse pow- 

 er. These are much steadier and pleasanter 

 to the eye than those in the main building. 

 The makers of the Brush machine claim that, 

 with a larger machine, absorbing twelve- 

 horse power, they can produce fifteen to 

 twenty lights of 2,000-candle power each, 

 thus considerably improving upon the 

 French system. 



" Unless Mr. Edison can substantiate his 

 claims, and produce better results than are 

 given above — and there is not the slightest 

 evidence that he has actually done even as 

 much — the conclusion clearly reached is 

 this : that, for the lighting of dwellings and 

 all places where twenty or thirty or perhaps 

 forty gas-burners suffice, gas will hold its 

 own and still be the most economical light." 



Upon the reception of the news in 

 England of what Mr. Edison had done 

 and proposed to do, there was pertur- 

 bation in gas-stocks, and the editor of 

 Nature writes as follows about it : 



" Although a student of science will have 

 little difficulty in associating the results 

 promised with the discovery of perpetual 

 motion, it is quite probable that Mr. Edison 

 has actually succeeded in doing what he 

 states he has done in his telegram : ' I have 

 just solved the problem of the subdivision 

 of the electric light indefinitely.' "What we 

 wish to point out is, that it is one thing to 

 do this and another thing to produce an elec- 

 tric light for ordinary house and street use. 

 Once put the molecules of solid carbon in 

 motion, and, just because a solid is in ques- 

 tion, the light must be excessive and the 

 expenditure of energy must be considerable. 



" While it is easy to believe that the fu- 

 ture may produce a means of illumination 

 midway between the electric light and gas, 

 it is equally easy to see that the thing is im- 

 possible without great waste, and therefore 

 cost, with dynamo-electric machines and 



carbon-poles. So long as carbon is em- 

 ployed we shall have much light which, per- 

 haps, can be increased and steadied if vari- 

 ous gases and pressures are tried. But streets 

 and rooms full of such suns as these would 

 be unbearable unless we sacrifice much of 

 the light after we have got it. Split up the 

 current in the manner bo cheerfully de- 

 scribed by the New York paper, and tbe 

 carbon will refuse to flow altogether, if an 

 engine of6,000,000 horse-power be employed 

 instead of the modest one of 500 which is to 

 light the south part of the island. If Mr. 

 Edison has succeeded in replacing carbon 

 he may have turned the flank of the diffi- 

 culty to a certain extent. 



" Gas companies may well begin to feel 

 uneasy at the general attention which is be- 

 ing drawn to the electric light as a substi- 

 tute for gas if they are prepared to let things 

 alone. That in one form or another it is 

 likely to be partially adopted in all large cit- 

 ies and at extensive public works seems most 

 likely. It will be one of the lights of the 

 future, but not to the excluding or supersed- 

 ing of gaslight. 



" Our own columns have repeatedly 

 borne testimony to the success which has 

 attended its introduction into Paris, where 

 it is to be met witli at almost every corner, 

 and at one or more of the railway-stations. 

 The general testimony of those who are un- 

 prejudiced is, that at least for wide streets, 

 squares, and open places, its lighting efTect 

 is all that could be desired. Every Lon- 

 doner is fiimiliar with the efi"ect of the dis- 

 play which the enterprising Mr. HoUings- 

 head has placed in front of the Gaiety 

 Theatre, and the glowing contrast presented 

 to the miserable yellow flames of the neigh- 

 boring street-lamps ; but this contrast exists 

 because the gas is bad and dear. Mr. Hol- 

 lingshead, in a letter to the Daily News, 

 corrects the view of tiie gas companies, that 

 the electric light must necessarily cost more 

 to produce than gas. His own display, nec- 

 essarily wasteful, costs four-fifths what gas 

 would, and he is probably correct in saying 

 that with proper management it need not 

 cost more than one-half. Moreover, in yes- 

 terday's Times., Mr. E. J. Eeed refers to the 

 case of M. E. Manchon, a large manufacturer 

 at Eouen, who had gone to considerable ex- 

 pense to alter his premises to suit the elec- 

 tric light, and who, even with hired engine- 

 power, finds that there is an annual saving 

 of 22.6 per cent, over gas, with infinitely 

 better light and a wholesome atmosphere. 

 Mr. Eeed is of opinion that, even if the elec- 

 tric light cost more than gas, its advantages 



