ELECTRIC PROPULSION OF A BATTLESHIP. 85 



Fifth, to obtain specially high economy at the lower speeds, largely for use when the 

 ship is off on a long cruise, I have indicated to the dotted lines an additional pair of geared 

 cruising turbines which will further improve the economy of the machinery at 10 to 12 

 knots. 



Sixth, this type of turbine can be manufactured very cheaply, and there are no heavy and 

 unwieldy parts to be moved about in the shop during its construction, and, in addition, 

 the design is fotmd to be very rugged. 



The President: — Is there any further discussion on this paper? If not, we will call 

 on Mr. Emmet to close. 



Mr. Emmet: — I made some memoranda concerning the different points raised. With 

 reference to the comparison of 175 and 200 revolutions per minute referred to by Mr. Piatt, 

 I did not know what the economy of this Parsons turbine equipment was and did not attempt 

 to make any comparison with it. I simply put the drawing in there to show a certain arrange- 

 ment which at one time was recommended by Sir Charles Parsons. The difference be- 

 tween that drawing and the others shown, which they say I should have put in my 

 paper, is this — that one of them, the one which I did show, shows separate cruis- 

 ing turbines. The cruising turbines have been thought desirable in connection with such 

 things, as evidenced by the fact that they have been embodied in the Pennsylvania and 

 Nevada, somewhat different from this arrangement, but the purpose of the cruising turbine is 

 to give better efficiency at low speed. That is one of the functions of electric drive. I do 

 not know how these equipments of Mr. Parsons would compare in economy, but I do 

 know that the one without cruising turbines must be relatively uneconomical at low speeds. 

 I have selected this for comparison because we also use the equivalent of separate cruising 

 turbines when operating at cruising speeds. 



As to the comparison with the Florida and Utah, which I make as a comparison with 

 the test results, the only information I have concerning these ships is in the reports of their 

 trials with such propeller speeds as they use, but these propeller speeds are incident to the 

 design of their machinery, and it is perfectly proper to compare with them as they are. If 

 I get an advantage in the matter of propeller speeds it is an advantage of type, and the 

 comparison is with actual ships. I am not undertaking to compare with geared ships; I am 

 comparing with the existing battleships, with the Delaware, which is a reciprocating engine 

 ship, and with the Florida and Utah. 



The illustration which I show is my own conception of how much machinery might be 

 piut into the California. The government has seen fit to put it in there differently. That is 

 not my fault. I think my own plan is practicable and brings the machinery more near the 

 center line and more out of the way of torpedoes, and, if the space is available, it would 

 seem to be desirable. Furthermore, I am not entitled to advertise the government's plans 

 with regard to the California — in point of fact, I have been strongly criticised for publish- 

 ing what I have. I have felt authorized to talk about it to this extent because these figures 

 and all these matters were made public at the time we were bidding on the plans against 

 the Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company. They were given copies of our pro- 

 posals, everybody saw it, and I understood it was public. The Department has taken some 

 exception to my paper, I understand, but I have not heard of it directly. It is an illustration 

 of the possibilities, I show all of the necessary parts there, and I think they could all be 

 put into that space. The title of Plate 39 is "Proposed Arrangement for a Large Battle- 



