DISCUSSION ON TWO PRECEDING PAPERS. 209 
Srr WiiiiAM Henry Wuite, Honorary Member:—I do not propose to say any- 
thing on the subject of the electric drive in steamships, but the meeting perhaps will 
permit me to say a word or two from the standpoint of the naval architect. Ido not 
think naval architects are quite so apt to run in grooves and not consider new 
propositions, as Mr. Emmet would suggest. 
He must be aware, if he has followed recent events in England, that we have 
had long discussions at the Institution of Naval Architects, at the Institution of 
Civil Engineers and at the recent meetings of the British Assocition on this very 
subject. In the last mentioned discussion which took place at Portsmouth, in 
September, we had the advantage of a description by Mr. Mavor, of Glasgow, an 
electrical engineer of repute, of the equipment and performance of an electrically 
driven launch embodying the system of electric drive which Mr. Mavor advocates. 
I need not recapitulate the grounds on which up to date in Great Britain the electric 
drive has not been favored; they are to be found in published reports of discussions 
to which I have referred. In my judgment, and I am by no means a conservative 
person as my record shows, the point has not yet been reached at which it would be 
desirable to experiment on a large scale in that direction and in saying that, I have 
the greatest respect for the opinions expressed by electrical engineers. 
In regard to Mr. Donnelly’s remarks, I desire to say that while it is extremely 
difficult to separate business considerations and scientific or professional con- 
siderations, Mr. Anderson’s paper ought not to be regarded as a business adver- 
tisement. There is moreover a sense in which the statistical statements in Mr. 
Anderson’s paper are of very great interest to Naval Architects and Marine Engin- 
eers. The practical application of the marine steam engine turbine began in 1897, 
when the Turbinia made her appearance at the Naval Review at Spithead. In the 
interval since 1897 (fourteen years) there has been a revolution—no other word can 
express the change—in the system of marine propulsion. No similar or equal 
change can be mentioned as having occurred in that short period of time. From 
that point of view I think the facts will bear recording even in a paper to be read 
before this or any other technical society. If anything in the nature of advertise- 
ment were intended by such a record, I should entirely endorse the view that it 
would be undesirable, but I do not think that any such intention existed, and cer- 
tain facts enumerated and recited in the paper are only repetitions of what has been 
published previously. 
I desire to add a word about Mr. Dickie’s paper. Mr. Dickie has no doubt 
worked out his scheme absolutely independently, and the description of it given on 
the bottom of page 190, reminds me of what was done in England in connection with 
cargo steamers several years ago by Sir Charles Parsons. It was identical with the 
proposal made by Mr. Dickie. In Sir Charles Parsons’ scheme the central single 
shaft of the ordinary cargo steamer and large propeller, were retained; and in asso- 
ciation therewith smaller propellers were proposed, one on each side, to be driven by 
low-pressure turbines. The design was worked out in detail, and but for special 
circumstances to which reference need not be made it would have been applied to 
