70 ENGINEERING PROGRESS IN THE U. S. NAVY. 



DISCUSSION. 



The President : — We will now take up the proceedings where we left off before 

 the recess, and discussion is now in order on Paper No. 3, " Engineering Progress 

 in the U. S. Navy," by Captain C. W. Dyson, U. S. N. 



Mr. Charles G. Curtis, Member: — I would like to make a few observations 

 on this paper, which Captain Dyson has, it seems to me, prepared with his char- 

 acteristic ability. I think we are all very much indebted to him for having taken 

 the trouble to write a paper which contains so much valuable matter and embodies 

 so much practical experience. What I have to say should be put properly and 

 accurately, involving figures and conclusions which must be correctly stated. For 

 this reason, I am going to take the liberty of reading what I have to say. It will 

 only take a few moments. It is as follows : — 



In view of the fact that every important nation except the United States is 

 now building turbine battleships exclusively, and of the fact that the improvements 

 of the last few years have been such as to cause the most responsible builders here 

 and in foreign countries to put forward figures of low-power economy on a par with 

 the results shown by our reciprocating battleship, the Delaware, the views expressed 

 in Captain Dyson's paper just read are most interesting, and to me somewhat 

 surprising. 



With many of Captain Dyson's conclusions I heartily agree. I cannot, how- 

 ever, agree with his conclusion that the reciprocator is preferable to the turbine 

 for the kind of battleship under consideration — a view which is opposed to those 

 of the best naval engineers in other countries. 



In giving my reasons for the opposite view, I wish simply to put on record the 

 facts and figures, stated as correctly as I am able to give them, realizing that what- 

 ever I may say on the subject will probably be regarded as more or less prejudiced 

 because of my connection with and interest in the matter. On this account I invite 

 criticism, particularly from our Navy Department. On the other hand. Captain 

 Dyson has been the originator and developer of the most important improvements 

 that have been made in marine engines in recent years. These improvements, 

 though not generally appreciated, are all the more striking because of the belief 

 long existing that progress in the direction followed by Captain Dyson was not 

 possible. Not only is Captain Dyson entitled to great credit for his important 

 contributions to the art, but in view of his success it would not be unnatural if he 

 should have a slight unconscious leaning toward the engine rather than the turbine. 



In Captain Dyson's paper he compares the engine-battleship Delaware with 

 the turbine-battleship North Dakota in regard to coal consumption, the former 

 representing the type of engine which has been carried to a high state of develop- 



