26 DISCUSSION ON MAY MEETING PAPERS. 



We are submitting a copy of this balance sheet for printing in the transactions of the 

 Society, thinking that it may be of some use in arriving at a correct basis for comparison. 

 (Plate 10.) 



At the time this work was done we could not discover in the technical press or trans- 

 actions of the engineering societies on file in the libraries any complete comparative oper- 

 ating balance sheet, although there were many half statements, misleading from their incom- 

 pleteness, contained in publications seemingly conducting a propaganda in favor of certain 

 types of propelling machinery. 



Shortly after our report was completed the Division of Operations of the U. S. Ship- 

 ping Board prepared a most exhaustive analysis of the propelling machinery situation from 

 the standpoint of operating costs and return on investment. 



If it may now properly be made public, we hope that this report of the Division of 

 Operations, or the essential features of it, may be included in this discussion either by the 

 Shipping Board or by Mr. Robert L. Hague and Mr. A. P. Allen, who, we believe, were 

 responsible for its preparation when they were connected with the U. S. Shipping Board. 



In view of the fact that there is no recognized standard form for the preparation of 

 an operating balance sheet and such arbitrary percentage charges as interest, depreciation, 

 etc., are also not standardized, it seems to us that this Society could to advantage appoint a 

 committee selected from members active in the design, construction and operating ends of 

 the shipping business, to prepare a standardized form and method of comparing different 

 types of propelling equipment. Similar work has been done by other engineering societies 

 in standardized specifications, methods of testing boilers, other machinery, etc. (Applause.) 



Mr. William W. Smith^ Member: — The paper contributed by Messrs. Metten and 

 Shaw is of timely interest, since many owners and shipbuilders have been investigating this 

 subject with the view of obtaining higher economies in operation. 



Referring to page 5, where the authors point out that the policy in Great Britain and 

 the Scandinavian countries differs from our own, it should be borne in mind that the eco- 

 nomic conditions there are somewhat different. The price of oil is considerably higher 

 than here, and labor is cheaper. Also, most of the motor ships, as far as I know, are 

 employed on long trade routes, where the cost of oil is much higher than here. These con- 

 ditions are more advantageous for the motor ship. In general, the character of the service 

 has a large influence in determining the most economic type of machinery. 



The authors' remarks on page 8, in connection with high-speed engines and electric 

 transmission, are of especial importance and are entirely concurred in. My conclusion is that 

 high-speed engines are particularly undesirable for marine installations, which, first of all, 

 must be reliable. The speed of the direct-connected engine is as high as it should be, and 

 it seems unwise to go to higher speeds. Speeds between 250 and 350 revolutions, such as 

 have been proposed for the generator engines, seem to be far beyond the limit for reliability 

 under marine conditions. 



It may be noted that the piston speed of the engine used in the comparison is 867 feet 

 per minute, and that the revolutions are 115, which is high enough already for this type of 

 installation. 



On page 8, reference is made to converting steamships by installing Diesel engines. 

 The entire replacement of a machinery installation is a very expensive proposition, and con- 

 sequently the savings due to the new installation would have to be very large indeed to justify 

 this. In some cases, depending on the machinery and the character of service, a complete 



