Has Producer Gas Failed? • T HE important question " Has
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
producer gas failed? " put so timely and answered in the affirmative b y your correspondent "Northern Engineer," writing from Leeds, and published in your issue of June 15, calls for more than your editorial comment. He reminded your readers that the number of motor vehicles then running on producer gas was about 190, which is the measure of progress, slow enough in all conscience in view of the fact that there is to be an immense increase of aircraft, which with other military and naval fuel requirements, must be met even if road transport efficiency suffers. .
That the question at issue is of high national importance cannot be gainsaid, as evidenced by the two Government Committees set up to investigate aspects of the problem. Your correspondeht suggests that haulage contractors have no faith in gas producers or in producer gas, and that some good reason exists to account for the failure of the system to " catch on." I suggest that the main reason is that the Mines Department Committee's Report covered only the emergency aspect of the problem and that the emergency design proposed did not -advance the known art, but merely submitted a simplified alternative which your correspondent thinks is not wanted.
Further it seems that the transport services of the country await enlightenment on the new situation that may arise out of the issue of the report of the Committee on the Use of Home Produced Fuels in InternalCombustion Engines. This committee has made certain interim suggestions on which action has been taken.
The other adverse influence, as stated by your correspondent, is the rapid increase in the price of solid fuel, which mining interests explain away by saying that the cost of grading anthracite to meet the specification of standard quality and size is high and results in procuring only 2 cwt. of graded anthracite per ton mined. It is felt by the writer that these are the more potent factors which have caused the failure of gas producers to " catch on."
• Experimental Work on Engines Important • Your correspondent cites the scrapping of some five producer plants in the Leeds district alone, and avers that further engine experimental work is the direction in which the future effort should be made if the present comparative failure of producer gas is to be turned to success. He advocates that the Government should subsidize such engine experimental work " rather than spending money on a Government producer which is not wanted." His argument asserts that " there are plenty of (producer) plants already."
. I am fully satisfied that the editorial view of the problem is the correct one and wholly consistent with the technical basis on which the evolution of producer gas rests for its application to motor vehicles, viz., the producer. The practical outcome and widespread application of producer gas for the duration of the war, at least, is entirely dependent on the Government attitude and action arising from the necessities of aircraft, naval and mechanized military forces.
One cannot blink at the fact that liquid fuel is the more convenient or that the world-wide increase of aircraft will in war, and in peace time, strain the resources of liquid fuel output to an extent never before known. Hence it is believed that the future of gas producers is assured if the right type be made available and the price of solid fuel such that its use be sufficiently profitable to compensate for the extra trouble it may involve.
As your correspondent avers that there are plenty of plants already, one may mildly reply that there are also plenty of types of engine, but that, even so, finality has not yet been reached. The same must and should be said about gas producers, for those of us who have had long practical experience both of stationary and portable equipment have, reason to think that present-day motor vehicle producers are approaching only partial efficiency for the purpose in view.
For long you have tried to stimulate interest in the development of the gas producer, even if some elaboration be necessary so as to permit the use of a wider range of anthracite or other solid fuel. There should not be the least doubt that such an aim is right. It renders greatly enhanced supplies of anthracite available at a possible price which would afford reasonable profit to the coal industry and to the transport services on a competitive basis with petrol or oil fuel. But what is of equal importance is that it enhances the economic status of the _nation, because it uses home-produced raw material and builds up the possibilities of foreign markets.
• Germany's Long-term Fuel Policy so
Nor must we forget that Germany has encouraged gas producers to be applied to motor vehicles to a much greater extent than is the case here. That is parr of the German long-term policy which it would be unwise to ignore in a competitive world which must struggle towards economic stability after peace is won.
The substantial practical experience with motor vehicle producer gas plant of my own design during the 1914-1S war has led to renewed interest and effort towards a more satisfactory solution of the gas-producer problem as the main factor for the successful application of producer gas. The writer has not viewed the problem from the purely emergency standpoint, but also on the wider peace-time basis to justify continued use because of economies effected. It is recognized at the same time that the engine will in due course call for minor modifications with the object of securing the greatest fuel economy.
I am now able to say that a new form of gas producer has been designed which is claimed to be superior to any type extant, and this has been attained on sound combustion principles without introducing serious elaboration of detail. Having attained that objective, undertaken because of clear recognition of the great national importance of being able to utilize a wide range of home-produced fuels, the writer is fully justified in saying that your editorial propaganda on behalf of gas producers is better in line with future possibilities than the ideas advocated by your correspondent.
It would not be right, or in the national interest at present, openly to declare the subject-matter of the inventions constituting the whole of the gas producer, hut it may certainly be said that these are distinctly novel.
In conclusion, but without bias, I offer, if permissible, a bit of non-constructive criticism of low-pressure gas containers for passenger service vehicles using town's gas. It is that under modern air-raid conditions they present too large a .target and are vulnerable to shot.
JOHN STEWART.