ALQUIST GEARING FOR SHIP PROPULSION. 189 
mission for the largest units. It has suggested itself to me that the American naval au- 
thorities may have been prompted by the same consideration in adopting electrical trans- 
mission instead of mechanical gearing for the battleships now building. I may say that, 
for large installations, the loss of power of the Fottinger transformer is only 6 to 7 per 
cent and that the reversing turbine can be dispensed with as the transformer does its own 
reversing. 
The one I had on board my experimental vessel ran for two years with perfect results, 
excluding a few initial mishaps on the first voyage, and I believe this method offers many 
advantages which are worthy of the serious consideration of naval engineers. 
THe CHAIRMAN :—Is there any other person who wishes to discuss the paper? Mr. 
Emmet, do you desire to make any verbal reply, or will you embody your reply in writing? 
Mr. Lovexin:—I do not know whether Mr. Emmet would care to give out any water 
rates on the electric drive, without which I cannot make a comparison that would be of value; 
but there is another point, and that is that while Mr. Emmet may be comparing the electric 
drive with the geared battleship, there are differences in geared battleships—some run at 15 
pounds per horse-power, and others at 10 pounds per horse-power, so that unless you get 
the facts of both, it is impossible to make a proper comparison. I can say, however, that I 
' believe we can design geared turbines suitable for speeds of from 35 knots down to 15 
knots on a basis of steam consumption equal to any electrically-driven installation possible, 
and if Mr. Emmet will give his figures, I will give mine. 
In all fairness to Mr. Emmet I will state that the comparison of electric drive with 
geared turbines is not based on his figures for the electric drive. 
Mr. Emmet:—In reply to Mr. Lovekin’s remarks I will say that he may have studied 
electric-drive arrangements for these ships but that he has not studied those which I advo- 
cate, since no information on that subject has been either asked for or given. The figures 
as to weights are grossly incorrect, and he does not touch at all upon the most important 
reasons for the adoption of electric drive. His implication that such adoption has been in 
any way influenced by the Naval Consulting Board is entirely incorrect, the subject never 
having been discussed by that board or acted upon by it in any manner. 
In reply to Mr. Lovekin’s question as to my reasons for advocating electric drive for 
battle cruisers, I will submit the following which forms part of an article which I have re- 
cently written upon this subject. 
The writer has for many years actively advocated electric drive for the larger ves- 
sels of the navy, and as a result of a long campaign of designing, experimentation, and 
educational activity, this method has been adopted on a large scale by our Navy Department. 
Electric-propelling machinery has been ordered for the last seven battleships which have 
been authorized, and is specified for the four new battle cruisers which form part of the pres- 
ent naval program. These battleships are very large and important vessels requiring 33,000 
horse-power each, and the battle cruisers present the most stupendous propulsion prob- 
lem ever presented, since they require no less than 180,000 horse-power each. Only two or 
three of our cities use as much electricity aswill be generated on one of these ships when 
she makes her full speed of 35 knots. 
Electric propulsion has from the first had many opponents and it is still being very 
actively opposed by nearly all the shipbuilders of the country, by Sir Charles Parsons, Mr. 
