204. DISCUSSION ON TWO PRECEDING PAPERS. 
of unnecessary danger to vessels so arranged, and to other vessels which may be 
near them. The author disposes lightly, of ‘‘a breakdown of the reciprocating 
plant, involving the stopping of the main engine for good,” by stating that it is a 
remote possibility. We know that such accidents have occurred in the past, and 
doubtless will in the future. Accidents generally happen unexpectedly, and though 
seldom involving the stopping of the engine “‘for good,”’ still long enough to inflict 
damage and possible death, or serious financial. injury. The turbines should be 
fitted to back as well as go ahead. 
Third, the proposed arrangement of combination valves for high pressure and 
low pressure cylinders, is not desirable, involving as it does, an exceedingly heavy 
cumbrous valve with correspondingly heavy gear to operate it and the consequent 
inertia due to these heavy working parts. This arrangement would be favorable 
to possible breakdown of these parts, in my opinion, and when such breakdown did 
occur, would inevitably shut the engine down ‘‘for good.”” Should a breakdown 
occur with the triple expansion arrangement, a rapid change would convert the 
engine to compound. 
Mr. LUTHER D. LoveKin, Member:—Mr. President and Fellow Members, I have 
read Mr. Dickie’s paper with great interest, as it is a subject which I have been 
giving considerable attention. Apart from his usual Scotch humor, his paper calls 
for considerable thought, for up to the present time I scarcely think it possible to 
say just exactly at what point it is most advantageous to drop the reciprocating 
engine and enter the turbine field. 
We do know that from 7 to 15 pounds absolute is what has been claimed the 
economical point by turbine experts, but even Mr. ‘Parsons says we may go 
higher than 15 pounds absolute. In modern steam engineering practice we have 
two separate and distinct conditions to meet, namely, one of pressure, “which is 
best cared for by the piston engine,’’ and the other of volume, which is best cared 
for by the turbine. It has been clearly shown in practice that we can get about 
the same power from atmospheric pressure down to 28 inches of vacuum as we can 
from 200 pounds pressure down to atmosphere. 
It has also been shown that by taking the Corliss compound engine and supply- 
ing the waste steam to the turbine, we can get 33 per cent. more power, from the 
same coal ‘pile, and that by rearranging the valve gear of the reciprocating engine 
we can get as much as 50 per cent. increase in power from the same coal pile. (See 
Interborough test.) These are indisputable facts and we can not afford to lose 
sight of them. Of course, we all welcomed the turbine with its ideal motion, and I 
believe we have all come to the conclusion that it has come to stay. We must not, 
however, lose sight of the fact that economy plays a most important part in our 
engineering work of to-day, and therefore any scheme that is proposed for the pro- 
pulsion of ships must be finally settled on its all around economy, viz., wear and tear, 
upkeep and fuel consumption. 
Mr. Dickie suggests several very good features in his paper, the principal one 
