110 SURFACE CONDENSERS. 
water design the condensing plant for a vacuum of 2734 inches. In case the temperature 
is taken as low as 60 degrees, which is not frequent, the condenser can be designed for 
a vacuum as high as 28% inches. In all cases where vessels go into the tropics, the 
condenser should be designed for 85-degree water. The overlooking of this feature 
has caused many complaints from ship operators, due to the falling off of the vacuum 
when the ship went into the tropical waters having temperatures around 85 degrees. 
Mr. G. L. Kotuny, Member:—There has been quite a lively discussion on Mr. 
Lovekin’s paper on surface condensers, and very little remains to be said. I would like 
to call the author’s attention to an apparently typographical error in Plate 48. The 
title of this plate is ‘‘Main Condenser of the U. S. Battleship Tennessee.” Referring 
now to Plates 49 and 50, which bear the same title, you will note that the figures illustrated 
in these two plates show an entirely different picture. Plates 49 and 50 show a wrought- 
iron shell ‘condenser, while Plate 48 shows a cast-iron shell condenser. I am inclined 
to think that the condenser illustrated on Plate 48 is that used on the U.S. A. T. Cantigny. 
I also wish to call attention to Plate 44, which shows a cross-section through the 
Lovekin patent condenser for Pacific type transport. It will be noted that there is a 
very large drain hole in the plate, separating the cold air space from the hot well. A 
hole of such large size as shown on Plate 44 will permit vapors from the hot condensate 
to be drawn into the air suction and the air pump and will put a considerable burden 
on the latter and partly destroy the advantages of the condenser design. Instead of 
providing a drain hole a syphon trap should be provided which will prevent vapors from 
the hot well escaping into the cold-air space. 
This suggestion was made by the speaker for the condensers to be installed on the 
U.S. A. T. vessels built at Hog Island and to my knowledge was incorporated in those 
condensers. 
It would also be interesting to have the author state some figures relative to the 
cost of building his type of condenser. It is apparent that the cost will be higher than 
that of the ordinary cylindrical shell with one baffle over the air suction, and it would 
be interesting to have figures for comparison, because the cost will be an item taken 
seriously into consideration by the prospective user before making a decision on the type. 
Mr. D. W. R. Morean, Visitor: —With reference to Mr. Lovekin’s paper, I wish to 
call attention to the discrepancies existing in both the tests, as covered by Plates 45, 
46 and 47. 
In Plate 45 the vacuum at the ejector is given as 29.55 in test 1, and 29.63 in test 2, 
whereas the vacuum at the dry suction is given as 28.99 and 28.97 respectively. The 
vacuum in the steam space, however, is given as an average of 28.94 and 28.93. The 
above readings would denote a negligible drop through the condenser, but an exceed- 
ingly high difference in pressure from the air offtake of the condenser to the ejector. 
It is obvious to anyone familiar with condenser readings that it is not to be expected 
that there were any restrictions in the air piping, but that the readings in the condenser 
and those taken at the dry air suction are in error. 
We therefore place great importance on the test given on Plate 47, in which it will 
be noted that there is from .15 to .18-inch drop in vacuum through the condenser. 
This drop in vacuum is exceedingly large for this size of condenser, namely, 8,000 square 
