DISCUSSION ON TWO PRECEDING PAPERS. 205 
being, the best combined Reciprocating Engine and Turbine arrangement, but as 
he says, if he thought the members would agree with him, he would never have 
written the paper. 
Now, I think we all agree that one of the great troubles that we have with the 
present turbines and reciprocating engines applied to marine work, is the fact that 
we are dealing with a poor valve gear. In the stationary practice we have the 
Corliss valve gear with its separate exhaust, and undoubtedly that accounts for 
much of the economy we fail to get in marine work. 
In going over this subject, I took great pleasure a few days ago in renewing 
my acquaintance with what I consider the best reciprocating engine in the world 
to-day, and that is, the engine presented by Prof. J. Stumpf, of the Technical High 
School, Charlottenburg. Prof. Stumpf, as some of you will probably recall, pub- 
lished an account in the London “‘ Engineering”’ of June 10, 1910, of what he termed 
a uni-directional-flow engine. It has several advantages which are suggested by 
Mr. Dickie’s paper, inasmuch as you are able to pass at least four times more volume 
of exhaust than is possible with any other type of engine that I know of, and for 
those who are not familiar with the subject, I had a large print made showing Prof. 
Stumpf’s cylinder, I would like to have this blue print pinned up on the blackboard, 
if I may, Mr. President. (The blue print was tacked on the blackboard.) 
I would like to call attention to some of the features of Prof. Stumpf’s uni- 
directional-flow engine. Mr. Anderson said that 12 per cent. was about as good as 
they obtained in the combined system of screw propulsion. Well, 12 per cent. is 
ridiculously low. If we can get results at the Interborough Railway Station amount- 
ing to 50 per cent. increase of power on the same coal consumption, I do not see why 
we can not get at least 30 per cent. out of a proper combination on a steamship and, 
with this combination, which I propose as the best (though like Mr. Dickie’s it will 
have to be proven), I think we may expect fully 50 per cent. economy by a proper 
combined arrangement. 
Mr. Lovekin here read extracts from Professor Stumpf’s article in London 
“Engineering” of June 10, 1910, and said: 
Now, the point is this, that assuming all of these features known to exist 
in this particular type of engine, and being a single expansion engine it makes a 
splendid unit for the combined scheme, doing away with all the disadvantages 
which Mr. Dickie has pointed out in his article, being an engine in which expansion 
can take place in one cylinder it seems to be as near the ideal for a high pressure 
unit as the present turbine is for a low-pressure unit. 
Pror. C. H. PEaBopy:—May I inquire whether this has anything to do with 
turbines? 
Mr. LOovEKIN:—Yes, it is a combined system. 
