SURFACE CONDENSERS, 111 
feet, and is about what we would expect on a well-designed 40,000 square foot surface 
condenser. 
The author states that the temperature of the condensate corresponds within a 
fraction of a degree to the vacuum temperature. The point at which the condensate 
temperature was taken is not specified, and it is the writer’s experience that false read- 
ings can easily be obtained, caused by radiation from an outside source. 
We wish to emphasize the remarks made by others in the discussion as to the in- 
consistency of the readings, and from this fact alone no conclusive results should be 
drawn. 
Mr. Ricketts’ discussion brought out very clearly the effect of air removal on heat 
transmission. It would have been very interesting had the author given the air removal 
capacity of the air ejector, as it would be quite possible to obtain very high heat transfer 
by having an air ejector of abnormal capacity. 
In reply to Professor Brage’s statement that water velocity of 6 feet per minute 
should be used in all condensers, the water velocity that should be used is the function 
of the total pumping head, and the correct velocity to be used can only be determined 
after complete analysis of the pumping requirements. 
We wish to emphasize one of Mr. W. W. Smith’s remarks, namely, that great care 
should be exercised to eliminate air leaks as much as possible in the condenser system. 
I have seen actual cases where, due to air leaks, the temperature of the condensate was 
40 degrees less than that of the incoming steam. This wide terminal difference was con- 
siderably reduced to a point where the condensate temperature was within 3 to 5 degrees 
of the incoming steam temperature and the only change in operation was the reduction 
of leakage. 
Mr. M. L. KatzensteIn, Member (Communicated) :—Mr. Lovekin’s paper is of 
interest at this time and will, I trust, create a general desire on the part of our members 
to study more in detail the design of surface condensers. 
The author is correct in his statement that marine practice has not kept pace with 
stationary practice. That is a very mild statement. We have tried for many years, 
without success, to impress this upon various ship and engine builders. The air leakage 
is what decides the performance of the condenser as well as the type and size of the air- 
removal apparatus. The allowance for air leakage and information to design the con- 
densing apparatus is seldom given to the manufacturer, and often he is not consulted. 
There has been a steady and most marked improvement in the design of both the 
condenser and auxiliaries in stationary work since the introduction of the turbine, and 
in that field the Worthington Company has taken the lead in practically every branch. 
That company was the first to separate the condensate from the dry vapors; also to 
adopt the cooler and to carry on extensive and expensive experiments (lasting over 
years) covering the necessary air passages through the tubes to give uniformly maximum 
surface efficiency with minimum loss through condenser. 
It certainly would be desirable, as Mr. Lovekin suggests, that the designers of 
marine apparatus should avail themselves of experience in stationary work. It is, how- 
ever, quite evident from the designs shown of Mr. Lovekin’s condenser that he has 
himself not beeen familiar with the development of the stationary condenser. Experi- 
ence will show—as it has in stationary work—that fancy drilling of tube heads and 
unusual arrangements of the tube such as change in angle in different sections and with 
