196 ELECTRIC PROPULSION OF THE U. S. S. JUPITER. 



Mr. Ernest H. B. Anderson, Member: — This paper is of great interest to marine en- 

 gineers and shipbuilders, for the reason that a great deal of matter has been written about 

 this system of marine propulsion and this installation is the pioneer of its kind in this 

 country. 



It is rather disappointing that the official trial results are not available, and that the dif- 

 ficulties which interfered with these trials appear to have been largely due to faults in the 

 generating unit and not in the motive power driving the propellers, which is the real novelty 

 of this installation. 



In connection with the preliminary trials, I should like to know if the vessel was fully 

 loaded to the designed draught, and the corresponding displacement of 20,000 tons. 



The test of the steam consumption per shaft horse-power for the turbine is exception- 

 ally good, but I think this result was obtained whilst the machine was under test on shore and 

 not during any preliminary sea trials. 



It is, however, in no way a conclusive argument as a comparison with a sister ship hav- 

 ing another type of machinery, for the reason that the shaft horse-power upon which the fig- 

 ure was based is not given, but I believe the original design called for an estimated shaft 

 horse-power of 7,000 at 14 knots speed of the vessel. 



The estimiates Mr. Emmet puts forward for an electrical installation in a battleship sim- 

 ilar to the Pennsylvania are interesting, but I do not see how he can justify himself in pub- 

 lishing such figures until he has shown just what the system is capable of in the Jupiter. 



With regard to the second last paragraph of this paper, I trust the author will see his way 

 to withdraw it completely, for I consider it does not seem right that such a statement should be 

 made in the Proceedings of this Society. 



It seems to me that the Navy Department, and especially the Bureau of Steam Engineer- 

 ing, have given Mr. Emmet and his colleagues a splendid opportunity of proving their claims, 

 and it is up to these gentlemen to make good and not belittle the marine engineers of the 

 Navy, who are forced to listen to all kinds of propositions submitted for their considera- 

 tion. 



It is not my purpose or wish at this time to put forward any claims or advantages for 

 other systems of propulsion, but solely to show the members of this Society that I consider 

 the Navy Department has given Mr. Emmet every assistance in making his system a success. 

 In Great Britain a company has been formed, consisting of the leading electric engineers 

 and one or two shipbuilders, and they have built and equipped a small cargo ship at their own 

 expense, and I feel certain they have not had the assistance of the government financially. As 

 you all probably know, I refer to the Tynemount, which has propelling machinery somewhat 

 similar to that under discussion, and for a complete description and various criticisms of this 

 interesting vessel I refer you to the Engineer, October 10 and 17, and also to many of the 

 other technical journals published in Great Britain during the last two months. 



In regard to the Jupiter, the November number of the Journal of the American Society of 

 Naval Engineers contains a very full account of this ship, giving complete particulars of the 

 generator and turbine, the motors, and many details of the ship. 



Mr. Edwin A. Stevens, Jr., Member: — I would like to back up what Mr. Anderson says 

 about the ability of the engineers in the United States Navy. Although not connected with 

 the service in any way, I was, however, in the Naval Militia as an engineer officer and came in 

 contact with a number of the naval officers ; my respect for them as engineers is very high. 



