166 RECENT ADVANCE IN OIL BURNING. 
is quite obvious, particularly so in the case of Scotch boilers, which, at the present time, 
represent a majority of the boilers in merchant vessels. If you have to maneuver a 
ship into port with one burner out of three cut out, you will probably set up serious 
expansion and contraction strains in the boilers, and any advance made in the ability 
of the burners to operate efficiently over a wide range is a distinct advantage. 
The thanks of the Society are due to Mr. Peabody for the work he has done, and 
also for the data that he has presented and made available to all of the members. 
Tue CHAIRMAN:—Is there any further discussion? If not, we will ask Mr. Pea- 
body to close the discussion on the paper? 
Mr. PEapopy:—I want to thank the gentlemen who have spoken for their very 
kind comments on the paper. I am sorry that I cannot claim all the pioneering credit 
in developing the mechanical atomizer that my good friend Admiral Dyson attributes 
to me, but it is a subject in which I have been much interested, and it has been my good 
fortune to have done a good deal of work in this field. 
Mr. Martin, of the American Bureauof Shipping, raises the questionof safety. I did not 
intend in this paper to cover the whole subject of oil burning, but only to touch on recent 
advances in the art, and I am sorry if I have given the impression that my work has been 
entirely in the Navy and that there has been no consideration given to the matter of 
safety. I have had quite as much experience in the merchant marine as in the Navy, 
and it happens just now that I am installing some mechanical atomizers in stationary 
plants on shore. 
I do not think that our naval engineers have in any way ignored the principles 
of safety. We all believe in safety measures—safety first—and welcome any rules 
or systems which promote that much desiredend. But it must be remembered that oil 
is a safe fuel to start with, and the principles on which safety precautions are based are 
very well understood today. 
So I feel, in giving the palm to the Navy Department for making the greatest recent 
progress in this line as in many others, we are in no way reducing the factor of safety. 
The type of boiler used in naval service is a much less dangerous proposition than 
the Scotch boiler so frequently met with in the merchant marine, and the large unit is 
just as safe as the little one. Admiral Dyson suggests that the large unit oil burner 
in reality adds to the margin of safety by reason of keeping the burner centers farther 
removed from the boiler tubes, thus avoiding blow-pipe action. 
I am very glad that Mr. Martin raised this point as I should not wish to be mis- 
understood in my views concerning the great importance of safety in oil burning as in 
any other line of human activity. 
I again beg to express my appreciation for the favorable criticism of the paper. 
Tue CHAIRMAN:—Gentlemen, if we believed some of the pessimists, it will not 
be long before there is no oil at all, and they will not be pleased with Mr. Peabody’s 
method of burning a great deal more of it, which I have no doubt will be very successful. 
The thanks of the meeting will be given to the author for the presentation of his 
paper, and we will proceed to the next paper, No. 10, entitled, ‘“The Problem of the 
Hull and Its Screw Propeller,”’ by Rear Admiral C. W. Dyson, Member. 
