The Chief Engineer with the asistance of the assistant engineer on day shift is supposed to look after the up-keep and repairs to the plant and keep all records of the operation of the plant.

MR. PRICE.-Mr. Gibson's paper is very broad in its field, giving figures for total cost, whereas we so often get figures dealing only with fuel and operating costs.

One of our members spoke about the utilization of low grade coal for producer gas work. I think it has been the experience of all those around Philadelphia who have producer gas work in charge, that it is not only advisable but really necessary to use a high grade fuel in order to get dependable operation.

Something of interest I noticed in Mr. Gibson's paper, is that while the fuel consumption under test showed 1.25 pounds of coal per Water H. P. hour, the actual result for a period of five years was 2.08 pounds, 81% in excess. I think it is always the case with producer gas equipment that the pounds of coal per H. P. hour when taken over a long period of operation run considerably higher than that shown by a test.

For five years I have been connected with a company (the De La Vergne Machine Company) building both gas engines and another type of internal combustion engine and we have found in the past four or five years that the oil engine, for a great many cases, has the preference among most power users. We have had better results through the use of oil engines than with gas engines. During the past year, however, the price of oil has increased considerably. The oil coming from the Pennsylvania fields, the Mid-continent and the Texas fields so increased in price that the oil engine was not as economical as before, and the fuel cost was raised above that of producer gas equipment. At the present time, however, Mexican oil is coming in. It can be purchased around Philadelphia for 3.7 cents per gallon, whereas the other oils sell around 5 cents. Figuring on oil at 4 cents per gallon instead of 3.7, thus allowing for the difference in freight rate between here and this Delaware pumping plant, and also allowing for the work of hauling to the plant, the cost per Water H. P. hour would be considerably less with oil engines than with producer gas. Assuming 75% pumping efficiency, which Mr. Gibson's figures indicate, the cost for the oil engine would be $.00334 per Water H. P. hour, and for the gas engine $.00475. In this case the fuel cost is 42% higher with gas than it would be with oil, and this would represent a difference of about $600 per year. I have no figures showing the fuel consumption of an oil engine driven water pumping plant over a period of years, but I have some figures on a slide showing the total fuel consumption for two years with a 180 H. P. engine operating at an average load of something over 52%. It has been cur experience with all oil engine installations that the fuel consumption per B. H. P. hour for a term of years is practically identical to the fuel consumption per B. H. P. hour under test, whereas with producer gas equipment there s always a wide discrepancy.

MR. WOOD.-The case of the producer gas engine or oil engine vs. the steam engine or steam turbine may, I think, be summed up in the statement that the producer gas engine and oil engine have their fields in small powers, and loads of certain character, and that these forms of prime movers cannot successfully compete against the steam engine or steam turbine in plants where a large amount

of power is developed or where the exhaust steam can be utilized for heating. In the latter case the gas engine or oil engine has no field, even for small powers. In the case of plants where only power is required, and where the amount of power developed is less than 200 or 300 H. P., the producer gas engine or oil engine undoubtedly will show a decided economy over the steam engine, particularly if the water supply of the plant is so limited as to preclude the operation of the engine or turbine under vacuum.

DR. CHANCE.-I do not think the discussion should be closed with a statement so broad as that, that the gas engine is not in it with the steam for powers exceeding 200 H. P.

MR. WOOD. The principal point of my argument for the steam engine is based on the fact that a steam plant of large size can be built for one-half to one-third the cost of a gas or oil engine plant, and that the saving in capital charges and repairs in a steam plant will out-weigh the saving in fuel in the case of a gas or oil engine plant. As a matter of fact in large steam plants, properly designed and operated, the coal consumption per unit of power is just as good as can be obtained in any producer gas engine plant, while the total cost of producing power (capital charges included) is much lower.

MR. PRICE.-The Mesta Machine Company are prepared to delivery any thing at $92 per K. W. If you figure it against a steam turbine plant at $85 to $90 per K. W. it does not look so bad, and you do not have the trouble of keeping up boilers.

MR. WOOD. In reply to Mr. Price's remark, I would say that my opinion is that any large power installations that cost $80 to $90 per K. W., including buildings and equipment of every kind, will have a hard time making a living in the very near future. In order to meet the market for cheap power, the cost of large central stations must be gotten down to something more like $50 per K. W.

MR. LEDOUX.—I do not think this discussion is exactly scientific. Mr. Wood's statement does not impress me, but until I know the cost of 15 or 10,000 H. P. gas plants and the cost of operation, I am "from Missouri" as compared with steam engines or any other kind.

MR. WOOD.-The total cost of the plant referred to, including buildings and all equipment, was approximately $41.50 per K. W. if installed capacity.

MR. GIBSON.-What size plant was this?

MR. WOOD.-I think in the neighborhood of 45,000 K. W. I happen to know of some recent estimates for a large Railway Station where the Engineers figure that the cost of the plant will not exceed $40 per K. W., and appropriations for the work will be made on this basis.

Mr. Price put a slide on the screen showing the following operating costs:

OPERATING COST OF DE LA VERGNE TYPE "FH" OIL ENGINES.

The following is a tabulation of reports received from the Snead & Company Iron Works, Jersey City, N. J., giving the cost of power at their plant for twentyfour months, ending February 1st, 1912.

The plant consists of one 17 x 271⁄2 De La Vergne type "FH" twin cylinder oil engine 180 brake horsepower rated capacity, direct connected to a 125 K. W. 525 volt D. C. generator; the electric current generated being utilized to drive motors and for lighting purposes.

ACTUAL COST OF POWER.

Plant operated 588 days or 5985.30 hours total:

Total K. W. hours produced 369,684-552,217 brake horsepower hours by calcu

Pounds of oil used-.761 per K.W. hour-.508 per horsepower hour.

The point I wish to bring out is this:

This 180 HP. type "F. H." De La Vergne oil engine was guaranteed to develop its power at the following load of fuel consumption:

Full load.. .0.5 pound per B. H. P. Hr.

The engine operated at an average load of 54.2% for a period of two years and during that time the total oil consumption was 38,211 gallons which is at the rate of 0.508 pounds per brake horsepower hour. It is true in the general case that the operating results with an oil engine are identical with the test results.

The next slide shows a longitudinal section of a De La Vergne type "FH" engine, which is the type adapted to burn Mexican crude oil and tars. The difference between this engine and the Diesel type is that the compression pressure is carried only to 280 pounds instead of 525 and at the end of the compression stroke the oil is atomized by compressed air into the vaporizer chamber shown by the circle at "D". In order to work with the greatest economy it is necessary

10

Water Space

FIG. 2.

Longitudinal Section of Engine.

to burn the cheap Mexican crude oils, and to do this the vaporizer chamber must be used. It is not necessary to treat this vaporizer with the same degree of respect as one would the cylinder walls in the case of the Diesel type of engine, where the oil is injected directly into the cylinder. We have had no trouble whatever in burning not only Mexican crude oil, but also water gas tar and coke oven tar without carbonization of any kind.

W. J. WARNER

Mr. Walter J. Warner, Associate Member of the Engineers' Club, formerly connected with W. S. P. Shields, died suddenly on June 10th, 1913.

R. A. SHILLINGFORD.

Mr. Shillingford was born in Philadelphia in 1857; a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania in 1879 and afterwards connected with the Cambria Steel Company of Johnstown, Pa., and later with the Berwind White Coal Mining Company as Mine Engineer. In 1887 he became Superintendent of the Clearfield Bituminous Coal Corporation at Peale, Pa., and in 1900 removed to Clearfield, Pa. In 1909 he was made Vice President and General Manager of the Clearfield Bituminous Coal Corporation. At the time of his death he also held the position as Inspector of coal properties of the N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. He was Director of the Beech Creek Railroad, and of the Clearfield & Franklin R. R. He was also a Director of the Clearfield Trust Company, and later was Vice President of that institution, and at the time of his death was President. He was Vice President of the Clymer Electric Company, and Director of the State Central Electric Company. He was a Director of the Kittanning Coal Company of Philadelphia, Empire Coal Mining Company of Philadelphia and Pioneer Coal Company of Philadelphia. In 1908, he was a member of the Commission appointed by the Governor of Pennsylvania, to revise the mining laws of this state. He was a member of the University Club of Philadelphia, Engineers' Club of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania Society of New York.

Mr. Shillingford died Monday, June 16, 1913.