SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 221 
on the standardization of very elementary details as compared with ship fittings. The im- 
portant thing is to make a start and not undertake too much at one time. The first step 
would naturally be to map out a program covering the scope of work and the appointment 
of main and sub-committees. 
Most shops have patterns, dies and jigs for their own fittings, much of which would 
have to be scrapped. On the other hand, of what use are these patterns, dies and jigs when 
you are building a ship for an owner who insists on using his own standards or wants to 
make changes in yours. Again, many fittings are adapted for cheap machining on a pro- 
duction basis to suit shop equipment. The tool maker, shopman and others have to be con- 
sulted before the adoption of a standard. f 
After simplification or standardization, what assurance have we that all the shipbuilders 
and all the owners would accept them? Would anything short of compulsion accomplish it? 
Mr. Norman C. WitEy, Member (Communicated) :—Referring to Mr. Rigg’s re- 
marks on standardization in Great Britain, it should be made clear that the work there has 
only been under the encouragement and supervision of the British Board of Trade and the 
British Engineering Standards Association. The actual committee work is being done by mem- 
bers of the Northeast Coast Institution of Shipbuilders and of the Institution of Engineers 
and Shipbuilders in Scotland. The same situation exists in this country, the American En- 
gineering Standards Committee not preparing new standards in any field but merely accept- 
ing and approving such as have been prepared by technical and trade associations, and by 
keeping in touch with similar work abroad. In the conference on standardization in ship- 
work to be held here tomorrow, the Division of Simplified Practice of the Department of 
Commerce will extend its cooperation and advice, gained from similar campaigns in other 
industries, but will not propose to undertake the detailed technical work. The Society of 
Mechanical Engineers, of Heating and Ventilating Engineers, and others have committees 
of members at work all the time on standardization of selected subjects. In the marine field 
some organization must do similar work. 
Coming particularly within the scope of this Society’s endeavors would be the stand- 
ardization of definitions of ship elements and of determination of the functions of ship 
form, also, of stability, trial, launching, strength and model-basin data. The latter has fre- 
quently been the subject of discussion here, but no action as to a standard method of presen- 
tation of results has been obtained. Published data, both in the volumes of the Society and 
in the technical press, are almost useless unless the same basic lengths, breadths and methods 
are used in obtaining the data. It would be advantageous if this Society had representation 
on committees of other societies standardizing products used by shipbuilders, or the privilege 
of reviewing and commenting on committee reports of allied societies before their final adop- 
tion by the A. E. S. C. as standards. Many such articles are now being simplified by the 
industries manufacturing the same, and this work should be closely followed. 
Referring again to the British work on standardization, the results to date are rather 
limited, but their scope appears too all inclusive for imitation in this country. The eight 
panels into which the committee on hull fittings is divided are covering all manner of fittings 
in detail. The task must be enormous. As a start, and in view of the limited prospects of 
shipbuilding in this country, it would seem more profitable at first to confine efforts to such 
articles as are used in quantity on most ships and the size of which is independent of the 
size of the ship, as rail stanchions, floor drains and batten cleats. Simplification, or reduc- 
