82 SOME COMPARISONS RELATING TO 



in that way unless you use electrical propulsion — it is a matter of 6,000 horse-power. Not 

 only do you have to put these pumps in comparatively small spaces and distribute the weights 

 evenly throughout the ship, but you have many other auxiliaries also requiring power, for 

 instance, you might want to put pumps at C (indicating) for certain reasons. The moment 

 you find it possible to use electricity in that connection you know you have a solution. With- 

 out electricity you could not adequately solve it. The dredge would not be nearly so efficient. 

 That is entirely independent of questions of economy and efficiency. Electric propulsion is 

 not going to make any vessel any less efficient in economy or in any other way. 



To those of you who are still skeptical I can only say this — while this country has 

 started the thing other countries are following it up very rapidly, and our Swedish friends 

 are after it and have done some wonderful work ; and instead of being skeptical I suggest 

 that those who have peculiar problems to solve in warships and in merchant ships should get 

 into the pjocession, because they will be late if they do not get in line now. 



Mr. E. a. Stevens, Jr., Member: — I presimie that some of you who have been here 

 for the last two years will expect me to uphold the reciprocating engine, having done so be- 

 fore. I will say that, for certain cases, my opinion of the reciprocating engine is exactly what it 

 was. In the last few years, however, great strides have been made in the geared turbine, and 

 I think this system has a much larger field than it had heretofore. 



Before discussing the paper by Mr. Emmet, I would like to make a few remarks on 

 what Mr. Reid has been talking about. First of all, he speaks of a turbine battleship having 

 been sunk in this war. I know of no turbine battleship having been sunk, but have read of 

 one being damaged. I have also heard that this ship is today on the firing line as well equipped 

 and in as good condition as any ship in that navy. 



Mr. Reid showed a sketch here suggesting splitting up the coal bunkers, fore and aft. 

 I think that is not only vmnecessary, but is inadvisable. Some of you probably have had the 

 experience of trying to cart coal from one bunker through another to the fire-room, passing 

 through small watertight doors, and know the difficulties attending this ; and I think will 

 appreciate that, when trying to get speed out of a ship, the closer we have the coal bunkers 

 to the boilers the better. The protection that coal gives in proportion to the armor on the 

 side of a battleship is so small that it can be neglected, and this protection only exists when 

 the bunkers are full. Besides, these ships have an inner skin as a rule, and between this 

 inner side and the engine-room there is a longitudinal bulkhead. 



Mr. Reid spoke about cases where electrical propulsion was absolutely necessary. I 

 shall not go into that question, although I do not agree with him, because I intend to restrict 

 my remarks to purely seagoing ships. 



In regard to Mr. Emmet's paper, I will first make a few remarks about the Jupiter. I 

 happened to be looking over the Transactions of the Society of Naval Engineers in regard to 

 the coal consumption of the different colliers, and I found, much to my surprise, that the coal 

 per horse-power per hour of some of the reciprocating engine ships was practically the same 

 as that of the Jupiter. This Mr. Emmet might attribute to the efficiency of the boilers. 

 However, the boilers on the Jupiter were very efficient — if I remember rightly the actual 

 evaporation was something like 9.5 pounds of water per pound of coal — and when this result 

 can be obtained with Scotch boilers, under the conditions the Jupiter was running, there is 

 no reason to find fault. 



I would like to ask Mr. Emmet, if he desired to make a fair comparison between the 



