DEcEMBER 28, 1916] 
for which a central laboratory is the proper home, a 
laboratory fitted and equipped in an ample manner, 
with a trained and competent staff animated, like 
those, my colleagues, who have built up the National 
Physical Laboratory, with a’ love for science, and yet 
withal with a keen appreciation of the practical side 
of the question discussed and a real desire to help our 
country by the application of science to industry. 
The body controlling industrial science research must 
have access to a laboratory in which may be studied 
the many problems which do not require for their 
elucidation appliances of the more specialised ‘‘ works” 
character, or opportunities only to be found in par- 
ticular localities; where a staff is available, able and 
experienced, ready to attack under the advice of men 
skilled in industry the technical difficulties met in 
applying new discoveries on a manufacturing scale or 
to develop ideas which promise future success. 
Such a réle the National Physical Laboratory should 
be prepared to play; such is the future which I trust 
may be in store for it. 
COAL AND FUEL ECONOMY. 
[ may be hoped that nowadays no one needs to be 
reminded about the importance of the economical 
use of coal. We require all, and more than all, of 
the power and by-products which can be obtained 
from it, and are beginning to realise the value of the 
thousands of tons poured annually into our atmo- 
sphere with none but deleterious effects. 
A committee of no fewer than forty-six members 
appointed by the British Association at the 1915 meet- 
ing, and containing representatives qualified to speak 
on the various aspects of the problem, presented its 
first report at the Newcastle meeting last September, 
when it was the subject of a joint discussion between 
the Chemical and the Engineering Sections. 
At the same meeting there was also a discussion 
by the geologists and the chemists on the chemical and 
microscopical characters of different varieties of coal 
with a view to their more effective utilisation as fuel 
and to the extraction of by-products. The two discus- 
sions, though at the meeting quite distinct, may well 
be considered together, since they deal with different 
aspects of the same question. It is not proposed here 
to deal with the many papers seriatim, but rather to 
review the general lines of the discussion. 
When chemists, geologists, and engineers meet to 
consider the coal question, three different views are 
ever present. The chemist regards coal as the valu- 
able source of raw material for the manufacture of 
synthetic drugs, dyes, and certain high explosives and 
ammonium sulphate, and would have us carbonise all 
our coal in by-product recovery plants so as to waste 
none of these precious substances. Though these sub- 
stances represent only a small percentage by weight 
of the coal, their value to chemical industry is such 
that he cannot sit idly by and see them burnt away, 
particularly as the consumption of the resulting coke 
would help to diminish the smoke nuisance. The 
geologist looks upon coal as a rock of varying physical 
properties and chemical composition, and, feeling that 
his duty is to find coal by mapping outcrops or strati- 
graphical evidence, regrets, in his endeavours to extend 
our coalfields, that the chemist does not come to his 
assistance in assigning a particular value to the coal 
in each seam. The chemist investigates a sample of 
coal for some specific purpose, benzol or ammonia 
content, for example, but the geologist would like him 
to come forward. with a definite classification, saying 
which coals were best for steam or domestic 
NO. 2461, VOL. 98] 
NATURE 
341 
purposes, etc. He feels that both ultimate and 
ordinary commercial analyses should be carried out, 
and that the chemist should know the nature of the 
roof and floor of the seam from which his sample was 
taken. The palzobotanist might be of great value in 
association with chemistry, for, as it is known that 
coal consists of an assemblage of the remains of very 
many kinds of plants, if it could be shown that par- 
ticular by-products resulted from particular plants 
or parts thereof, paleobotanical investigation would 
show the commercial value of coal from any one 
séam. 
There are, however, certain difficulties. | Though 
much has been discovered by the action of solvents, 
chlorine, etc., on coal as regards the cellulose and 
resinic constituents, so many secondary changes may 
have taken place in the history of a seam that to 
associate them with individual plants or parts of 
plants may not be justified, for the decomposition of 
the original vegetable constituents might prove to be 
more important than the constituents themselves. _ 
The engineer would have us turn our coal into 
cheap power, preferably electrical, on account of the 
ease of distribution. Just as there are trunk lines of 
railway, so there should be trunk lines of electric 
power generated from the largest and most economical 
machines in stations situated in the best localities for 
the needs of any district where land is cheap and 
coal and water plentiful. But just as the branches 
from a trunk railway- enable the towns at their ter- 
mini to develop in a way impossible without the 
trunk line, so trunk power mains would enable col- 
lieries to use their friable coal unfit for transport by 
turning it into electrical energy, at the same time 
extracting the by-products, for they would have a 
means for distributing their power which at present 
they do not possess. 
It would really seem that for industrial purposes 
this is the line for advance, having in view economy, 
and the North-East Coast power system may be taken 
as an example in this country of the theory put into 
successful practice. It goes a long way to satisfy the 
chemist in his reasonable desire for by-products, and 
the efficiency of the conversion of coal into electricity 
is great if properly developed. 
Economy in the domestic consumption of coal 
is more difficult. Gas is acceptable for cook- 
ing purposes, but the Englishman has a strong 
preference for warming himself by the direct 
radiation from a fire instead of the far more 
economical stoves so common in other countries. 
People must be educated in this matter, and no doubt 
the Domestic Fuel Sub-Committee of the General 
Committee mentioned at the commencement of these 
remarks will see to it that this is attempted. Manu- 
facturers realise that smoke pouring from their chim- 
neys implies bad stoking, and this means waste, and 
is consequently avoided so far as possible, but smoke 
from a domestic chimney conjures up visions of the 
crackling fire and genial warmth within the house. 
The two discussions at Newcastle, if not producing 
any very new points, helped greatly in showing how 
we stand in relation to this most important question, 
and it is to be hoved that the committee will be in a 
position to present much valuable information in their 
next report. A rapprochement between chemists and 
engineers seems to be coming about, but the chemist 
and the geologist look as though they would continue 
grubbing for some time yet in a coal-seam on indi- 
vidual purposes intent. The satisfactory solution of 
the problem will require all three to work hand in 
hand, and now is the time, when co-operation is on 
everyone’s lips, to achieve this happy result in the 
interest of the nation. 
