Opinions from Others.
Page 18
Page 19
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Statue to Dunlop.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1,108] Sir,—Referring to the first paragraph in the Editorial columns of your issue of the 17th .February, is not the object of a statue to do honour to a man who has rendered a service to his fellow-man, and to record his form and, features for the benefit. of those who come after It was J. B. Dunlop who made the pneumatic tire a practical proposition, and, therefore, it is to him that the Motor Trade owes its present position.
Without minimizing in any way Thomson's invention, I venture to think that statues should be raised to Dunlop in all centres of motordom, rather than to Thomson, just as we have statues to Watt and Stephenson, rather than to earlier experimenters with steam. Thomson's invention is apparentlyunknown to the present generation. It is not on record that the patent conferred the slightest benefit en anybody; in short, it was never carried to a practical conclusion.—Yours faithfully,
Cardross, N.B. JOHN Plume.
[This correspondent scarcely does justice to Thomson, and we fnil to see why the work of both inventors should not he reccguised. He is wrong in thinking that 'Thomson's invention is unknown a set of benison's wheels was exhibited, in the historical section ot last year's exhibition at the White City, by the Dunlop Tyre Co. We do not agree that it VMS Dun lop who made the pneumatic tire a practical proposition : hat about the contributory work of Bartlett, Welch, du Crop, and others? Had 'Thomson, more than CO years ago, had the same facilities which were brought to bear upon the Dunlop invention, his reputation would have been fully as well made. Both men, In our judgment, siould be tionoured.–Et.,]
Fire-engine Tests at Glasgow.
The Editor, Tim CommEncrar, MOTOR.
[1,109] Sir,—Our attention has been called to your report on the recent fire-brigade tests at Glasgowtide your issue of the 17th February, page 499, which is seriously inaccurate and misleading. May we be allowed to point out that: (1) the Merryweather engine started second from City Chambers, and arrived at the Reservoir two minutes ahead of the Dennis engine, and much further ahead of the Halley ; (2) your report reads " crucial tests under equal conditions," but the conditions were not equal, because, whilst the Merryweather engine is a fourcylinder, 60 b.h.p., the Dennis engine, according to the official report of the Glasgow Fire Brigade, is 73 b.h.p., six-cylinder, and the Halley engine, we were informed on the ground, is 77 b.h.p.„ ,six-cylinder ; (3) the results of the .tests referred to in your paragraph three, instead of being in favour of the turbine, show how very much more efficient the " Hatfield " reciprocating pump is, as, although the turbine pumps were driven by motors of 23 per cent. greater horse-power, the jets produced by the " Hatfield," as shown in fair photography, were more solid, and went higher. This is also shown by the actual pressures given. Moreover, the Merryweather engine was, by many hundredweights, the lightest on the ground.
Tests 1' to 4.—In the first test, a slight delay arose with the starting of the Merryweather engine, not because of anything in connection with the engine, but for the simple reason that the hose coupling to delivery was not secure, and blew out when the engine started. On another occasion, a line of hose burst, necessitating a new length heine connected, while, owing to the confused lines of hose leading to the various engines, the wrong length was sometimes coupled up. This was a trouble which arose with all three engines; the delays in no case were caused by the failure on the part of any of the machines themselves. The reproduction of the photograph (test No. 4) in your issue is sufficient proof of the superiority of the jet thrown by the Merryweather " Hatfield " engine. as although it was to windward of the others, and was taken through the longer line of hose, our machine being furthest away from the jet, the stream is shown higher and more solid. The fact that only the backs of the onlookers and the firemen • are seen in the picture proves that the photograph does
not unduly favour the Merryweather engine from the position occupied by the photographer.—Yours faithfully,
MERRYwEATHER AND SONS, LTD.
fltlesars. Merryweather are misinformed on several points:–(1) Their engine was net more than 12 secs, in front at the reservoir, but, as we pointed out in the report, the TIM from Glasgow was not it rare. 0) Firewaster Waddell informed us that the teats were made under equal conditions The sire ill the Merry weather motor led us to think that it was at least as powerful as either the Dennis or the Halley. We are now informed that it is 5'44in. in the bore, by Sint. piston-stroke, which equals 68 h.p. 0,, s.sestsr. rating, and Mh.p. on Lanehester's formula. iff) We do not agree with any of these assertions. Testst to -I.–We were not informed, al Glasgow, of the confusion and mishaps named. Messrs. Merryweather's jets were the most shielded, and we citunot depart from our view that their jets–in that they were nearest to the camerawere "somewhat favoured." We were illiOreled that all lengths of hose, between the machines and the jets, were of equal
length and diameter.
We have a very high opinion if the exeellent qualities of the " Hatfield" pump: ihat does not alter our expressed view that the turbine pump is efficacious and "lint practically inferior to the rain
Boilers for Steam Wagons and Tractors.
The .Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1.,110j Sir,-1 have read with great interest the able articles on " Boilers for Steam Wagons and Tractors," which have lately appeared in THE COMMERCIAL Moron. In the concluding portion of the last article, some statements are made which seem to me to be somewhat sweeping. In view of the wide knowledge displayed by the author in his admirable descriptions of the various types of boilers and generators employed on steam wagons, I am the more surprised that he should make these statements. Further, I think it is rather remarkable, that among the numerous steam generators he has described, he has found no place for the " flash " boiler—the generator of " steam gas." The statements to which I refer are as follow Locomotive engineers, marine engineers and electrical engineers have done much to improve the design and construction of the steam engine, and it is very doubtful whether any improvement in its design is possible, at any rate, so far as increased efficiency is concerned. If greater fuel economy is obtained, it is to the boiler not to the engine that we must look for improvement."
Now, such a statementas the above seems to ignore completely the remarkable progress which has been made of late years in the direction of bringing " steam gas " into practical use for propelling industrial vehicles, such as lorries and chars-it-bancs. To say that "it is doubtful whether any improvement in the design of the steam engine . . . at any rate, so far RS its efficiency is concerned . . . is possible," is to ignore both the striking results which have been obtained by the use of " steam gas "in the past, and its great possibilities for the future. Only a few weeks ago an eminent engineer made some tests of a " steam-gas " engine. The results then published, as, of course, Sir, you know, showed that the " steamgas " engine gave an efficiency far greater than that of any other typo of steam engine, which has yet been made. And the engine under test was the first of its kind. It was only the first step in the evolution, so to speak ; and yet it showed this remarkable efficiency. Even .better results may be expected. I have, Sir, thus laboured the point, because I feel that a great many false ideas are prevalent about "steam gas " and the "steam-gas " engine. I may say that one finds these false ideas entertained in even the highest engineering circles, among men, who, so the benighted amateur would think, " ought to know better." One instance will suffice. Many engineers will tell you (and stick to it through thick and thin), that it is utterly useless to heat steam up beyond about 600 degrees Fahrenheit. (I may say that these are the enlightened ones, who are actually alive to the fact that there is such a thing as "steam gas " at all.) Now, whatever the theories may be on the subject, let one of these learned gentlemen try to drive a " steam-gas " lorry with a ton on it up a steep hill. He will soon learn that 600 degrees Fahrenheit is just about where he ought to start heating his steam—not where he leaves off heating it! The fact is, that the usages of wet "steam practice have obscured the issue for " steam gas." It has been said, " that, if it had not been for that unfortunate invention the balloon, we should have been flying long ago." Well, if it had not been for " wet " steam, the application of " steam gas " to practical use would have been far more widely spread than it is to-day. As it is, however, we are only just at the commencement of the era of "steam gas." We are only now learning a little of its true capabilities. Owing to its peculiarities, " steam gas " demands not only a special type of generator, but a special type of engine. I have referred to an engine which was tested a short, time ago; I have said that this engine was the first of its kind. This engine is merely a single instance—n solitary example of one of the lines (at its very commencement) along which development may take place. There are many others. In short, I think we may look forward with confidence to as great changes and improvements in the design of "steam-gas " engines in the future, as have taken place in the design of " wet "-steam engines in the past.—Yours faithfully,
Richmond. E. W. SHEPPEE,
iThe recent series of articles did no profess to Seal with flash or semiflash generators. We fully endorse Mr. Biteppee's reasonable anticipations about the future which lies before high-temperature, snperheated "steam gas."-ED.) Users Experiences Unsuitable Lamps.
The Editor, Tux COMMERCIAL :Moron.
[1,111] Sir,—In view of the interesting discussion which is at present taking place concerning the respective merits of steam and petrol. [was interested to receive an offer for the exchange of two. petrol lorries, of three-ton and fiveton capacity respectively, for a good reliable steam wagon. During the past. week, I made the acquaintance of a new carrying company which is in the course of formation. Its organization appears to be on similar lines to those of the early motor carrying companies—plenty of money and influence, but no experience; it will be interesting to see whether the quality of up-to-date ma-chines can withstand this latter defect.. In the meantime, I ask why do the public prefer to subject their capital to the risks involved by inexperience when established concerns are at their service P Inquiries are fairly plentiful at the moment, and the prospects appear very favourable for the coming season.
The recent gales have found victims even amongst motor wagons, and I heard of, at least, one machine's being capsized ; my own losses were a canopy, which was blown bodily oft a wagon, and a tar sheet. The roof of Iny stores started on an aerial expedition but was effectually checked by anchoring it to some spare wagon wheels. Speaking of spare wheels, the proverbial " stitch in time "is more than ever necessary with heavy motor wheels. indeed, it is the whole essence of success in running the machines at all, that repairs should be taken in time; practically the only breakdowns which occur to-day are due to a lack of systematic inspection.
In spite of the progress of science, we still find chimneys that smoke, and lamps that cannot withstand the wintry blast—at least in combination with the vibration of a motor wagon. The ordinary " hurricane lamp is the nearest approach, so far, to success in this direction, but it is an unsightly appendage, and, usually, it is only procurable in a very cheap form ; it is seldom fitted with a reflector, and, as it is mostly soldered together, it does not stand much vibration. Acetylene lamps appear to be the most-likely way out of the difficulty, but the makers seem to be unable to produce a suitable article tinder £8 or £4, and then they are evidently not intended for the heavy motor wagon. I think that the first maker who comes along with a good pair of acetylene. lamps at, say, .-E2 for the pair, will find a considerable
sale amongst motor-wagon carriers. At present, our choice lies between a motorcycle lamp at a few shillings, and a motorcar lamp at as many pounds. Our log sheet for the week is as follows: earnings, £69; tonnage, 194 tons, 13 cwt. ; mileage, 1,079; percentage of work done, 97; coke used, 12 tons, 15 cwt.; oil used (gear), 16 gallons; oil used (cylinder), 8 gallons.—Yours faithfully, "MOTOR-WAGON CARRIEB."
Steam v. Petrol. The Complication of Steam.
The Editor, THB COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1,112] Sir,—The short. contribution by " A Lancashire Carrier," which appeared on page 5-13 of your last issue, is. all very well in its way. It Is quite clear, however, that his strongly-marked preference for steam haulage is due,. almost entirely, to the fact that he is a " steam " man pure and simple. A point which he seems to miss with regard to the comparative simplicity of the two types of machines is the actual, and not the apparent, complication of the mechanism. To a steam man, a petrol vehicle always looks amazingly complicated, but I think that even he will agree that, assuming both types of machines are in first-class running order, the petrol vehicle calls for the services of a driver who need have nothing like the years of experience that are necessary to the satisfactory steamwagon driver. When an opportunity occurs to compare the two classes of drivers at their work side by side, the difference is most striking. I, who am not a "steam man, claim that, to the uninitiated, the steamer is certainly the more complicated. In other words, it requires more skill to keep it running well, and it is less "auto
matic," shall I say Yours faithfully, "A LONDON CARMEL"