SELECTION OF THE BEST KIND OF PROPELLING MACHINERY. 235 
The fact that Burmeister & Wain have developed a long, four-stroke, single-acting Diesel 
engine is very significant and is a step in the right direction. The claim for one shaft alley 
against two holds good for the larger vessels as well as the smaller. The advantages are, 
briefly, cargo space saved and initial cost less. These are not offset by propulsion effi- 
ciency, less engine-room length, better maneuvering qualities. 
There is nothing in the figures presented by Mr. Shaw to show that the twin screw has 
a better propulsive coefficient. 
Better maneuvering qualities by a twin screw over that which a single-screw vessel has 
do not bring in any more revenue. 
Engine-room length very seldom exceeds that required by the 13 per cent law for the 
type of vessel under discussion. 
The powering of the vessel is not the question, as indicated by Mr. Shaw’s discussion, 
for if the power is too great in some cases and too little in others, this will not affect the con- 
clusions to be drawn, because the same power has been used in both steam and Diesel. 
Contrary to the statement made by Mr. Shaw that the steam weights are those for a 
“light and cheap construction which barely passes inspection rules,” the weights are based 
on the conservative practice of one of the best and oldest northeast coast firms. Mr. W. W. 
Smith in his criticism states that the steam machinery weights quoted in my paper are 
on the heavy side. 
Referring to the last statement in Mr. Shaw’s discussion, wherein he points out that a 
much more favorable condition for the motor ship would have been attained had comparisons 
been made upon another basis than that used in the paper, the author wishes to emphasize 
the fact that it was not his aim to make conditions favorable to any particular method of 
propulsion, but to state as clearly as possible the fundamental facts now available in such a 
manner that the steamship owner or operator might draw his own conclusions. 
As indicated by the various members who took part in the discussion of the paper, a 
much more comprehensive study of this subject could be made than that which was made 
in its preparation. While issue has been taken on a number of points, the author is grati- 
fied at the interest displayed by the discussion which followed the reading of the paper. The 
author realized at the time the writing of the paper was undertaken that the subject was one 
of timely interest, and for which no formula could be given which would be a panacea to 
cover all the conditions existing in the various trades, the solution of which can only be 
found by the operators after giving due consideration to all factors affecting their particular 
trade. 
If this paper and the discussions which followed its reading have served to indicate the 
scope of the subject, and at least some of the factors to be considered in the determining of 
the best type of propelling machinery for a particular trade, then the paper has attained all 
the results hoped for by the author. 
In conclusion, the author wishes to thank those members who entered into discussion 
of his paper for the kindly and helpful interest displayed. 
THE CHaAIRMAN:—I think, gentlemen, that closes our meeting for this year. I much 
regret that our president was called away, but I think you will agree with me we have had a 
very successful meeting. The meeting now stands adjourned. 
The meeting adjourned amid loud applause. 
