222 STANDARDIZATION AS AFFECTING THE 
tion in variety of sizes of a given article, should be striven for as a first aim. On page 207, 
Mr. Rigg appears to exempt the Navy Department from the adoption of merchant stand- 
ards. For naval auxiliaries and vessels of other government departments, many merchant 
standards, if we ever have any such, could be used. Standardization should have for its first 
object reduced cost, which is obtained through quantity production. To obtain the neces- 
sary quantity, in addition to simplification of sizes, the greatest possible number of ships, in- 
cluding ocean, river and lake craft, private and government owned, should adopt the same 
standards, wherever such adoption does not lower utility or increase cost. 
Mr. Ricc:—Professor Hovgaard brings out valuable information on what is being done 
in Germany; they have appreciated the value of standardization for many years and there 
is little doubt but that they are further along in that field than is generally realized. Mr. 
Smith emphasizes the necessity of an ample market for the product after incurring the ex- 
pense of installing facilities to accomplish standardization; he also cautions against too rapid 
and unwarranted changes in standards. 
Admiral Niblack calls attention to what has been accomplished in the way of standard 
office furniture. Standard desks, files, book-cases, etc., are so familiar that we are apt to 
lose sight of their value; imagine a large office in these days without standard files. The 
Navy has for many years had its own standards and has thus materially assisted in demon- 
strating the advantages or otherwise of the general idea. It has gone further than build- 
ing standards and is developing operating standards where such action can be taken advan- 
tageously. His reference to buying regularly manufactured articles instead of making special 
items calls attention to a point that can be watched more closely with advantage. Shipyards 
all do this, but some more so than others. 
Mr. Schulze refers to the difficulty of correctly estimating on work that is not to recog- 
nized standards; his point is well taken. He brings out another good point when he refers 
to the shipowner’s part in making standardization effective, and yet another in his reference 
to standard practice as regards groups, such as anchor and boat handling gear. 
Mr. Murray in his reference to “stock ships” gets quite close to the large numbers of 
7,000 to 8,000-ton tramps mentioned in the paper. In his reference to “Ford ships” I pre- 
sume he is only speaking of “tramps,” for liners could not be sold without very extensive 
consultation with owners and adaptation to particular trades involved. 
Mr. Petersen gets to the root of the matter in the way he proposes to arrive at stand- 
ards—full representation, abide by the findings and change when progress makes it desira- 
ble to do so. Mr. Frear cautions against too great expectations; he points out that some 
progress has been made and indicates the lines for future development. 
Mr. Wiley points out the lines along which actual work can be accomplished and sug- 
gests specific lines for this Society; he calls attention to standard definitions of ship ele- 
ments, particularly is this desirable in the speed and power field. This has been mentioned 
several times before this Society. He also makes a good point when he pleads for a merg- 
ing of navy and merchant standards wherever possible. 
This Society is represented on a number of committees having to do with standardiza- 
tion; among them, steel shapes, electrical installation on shipboard, pipe flanges and fittings, 
bolt, nut and rivet proportions, color schemes for identification of piping, also safety codes 
on electrical power control, for the forging industry and for plate and sheet metal work- 
ing, etc., etc. 
