« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
engines is slightly above the full-load rating, because at that point they are run at higher compression, due to extra quantity of gas in the cylinder. When you have an increased volume of gas you naturally run on a higher compression. I should say that at thirty-three and one-third per cent overload the efficiency would be slightly less than at the rated load.
MR. SANDS: In order to design the engine to carry the thirty-three and one-third per cent overload, have you not been obliged to sacrifice somewhat the efficiency at full load; and if so, to what extent?
MR. LOZIER: Yes; very slightly. I do not know at what B. t. u. these engines run, but I should say they would run at something like 10,000 B. t. u. per horse-power at full load and at 9750 B. t. u. at slight overload, and as they run up in load their consumption would possibly go to 10,250 at thirty-three and one-third per cent overload. These figures are assumed by me only for the purpose of answering the question approximately.
MR. McCabe: I do not think Mr. Lozier understood what I meant by water gas. I mean carbureted water gas, such as is used for illuminating purposes. He said water gas could not be used for gas engines. We use it. I meant a comparison of carbureted water gas—compared with coal gas.
Mr. Lozier: Carbureted water gas is extensively used in running gas engines. I should say that if this gas is figured at 30 cents per 1000 cubic feet in the holder the cost of developing a horse-power would be equivalent to paying $8.00 a ton for coal and using the latter in the producer, so that producer gas in most cases is much cheaper.
THE PRESIDENT: On behalf of the association, I want to thank Mr. Lozier for this paper; for the able manner in which it has been prepared, and especially for the great amount of attention he has given to the photographs and drawings.
I will now call on Mr. E. H. Davis for the report of the committee on amendments to freight classification.
Mr: Davis: I will not read the report in full, but will say, in regard to the question of freight classification and freight rates on materials either manufactured or used by our members, it was decided, considering the question from the broadest point of view, that the greatest advantage could be derived from first attempting a universal freight classification, since as to most of the articles there are different classifications in the several classification jurisdictions, and the result will be that practically most of the articles will in all probability receive a lower classification, which in itself will amount to a reduction in the freight rate. As regards the reduction of the classification on any particular article, the committee found that such a difficult problem to handle that it makes no special recommendation except this—if in an undoubted case application were made to the association for relief, the association would undoubtedly contribute its full share of work in endeavoring to correct any injustice. I therefore suggest, on behalf of the committee and for the good of the association, the passage of the following resolution:
Resolved. That the National Electric Light Association favors and approves of a system of universal freight classification; and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded by the secretary of this association to the Interstate Commerce Commission, with the request that such universal freight classification be adopted.
(The resolution was unanimously adopted.)
REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON AMENDMENTS TO
APPARATUS AND GOODS
The question of the justice and reasonableness of the freight rates charged by common carriers for transporting the wares manufactured or used by our several members is in itself a most difficult and intricate one to understand, let alone to solve. When the main question is complicated by the fact that freight rates and freight classification are regulated in different classification territories, which include the Official, Western, Southern, and other minor ones, by separate and independent voluntary boards or commissions representing the common carriers in each such territory, the difficulty of deciding the exact basis upon which to work for the relief of our members becomes apparent. Naturally, the interests of the common carrier and of the shipper conflict, and reasons apparently satisfactory to the common carrier—and possibly legal-do not so impress the men who pay the freight.
In addition, the general subject is now within the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission, to which in most cases applications for relief must be made.
Your committee therefore decided to address a circular letter, principally to our associate members, to ascertain if there existed a general and apparently well-founded sentiment against existing freight classifications. The questions asked were as follows:
First-What do you manufacture, and under what different classifications do you ship?
Second—Is the classification fair and unambiguous? If not, please set forth your reasons in detail.
Third-If the classification on the article that you above refer to is higher than the classification of a similar article in another line of business, will you set forth in detail what other article you refer to and your reason for stating that your classification in particular is too high?,
Fourth-As the same articles in different classification territories, which include the Official, Western and Southern, have in many cases a different classification, are you in favor of the same universal classification extending throughout the entire United States? Why should not, for instance, dry batteries, which are first-class in the Official and Southern territories and second-class in the Western, be second-class throughout ?
If you have any knowledge of other instances in answer to Question 4, please explain the same in detail.
Of the answers received—which are attached to the report -Answers i and 2 were from manufacturers of flexible conduit; one objecting to a higher classification west of Chicago than east, and the other in favor of universal classification.
Answers 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were from manufacturers of incandescent lamps, all objecting to the present classification as being too high, also suggesting universal classification.
Answer 8 was from a manufacturer of heating apparatus, who claimed that the classification was too high on electric irons, and so forth, as compared with the ordinary flat-iron and gas appliances.
Answer 9 was from a manufacturer of dynamos, motors and electrical appliances, who claimed the general classification as too high, because the majority of the apparatus shipped was machinery and should be classified as such. This answer strongly urged universal classification.
Answer 10 was from a dealer in second-hand apparatus, whose statement agreed generally with that of Answer 9.
Answer II was from a manufacturer of steam turbines, steam-turbine dynamos, electro-motor pumps and steam-turbine blowers, who was satisfied with the present classification.
Answer 12 was from a manufacturer of japanned castings, shipped as rough iron castings, who was satisfied unless his wares were classified as hardware.
Answer 13 was from a manufacturer of storage batteries, who simply said that classifications were uniform.
Answer 14 was from a manufacturer of wires and cables, who thought that classification should be uniform throughout the United States on a basis of the lowest classification in any one territory.
Answer 15 was from a manufacturer of special glass globes and reflectors, who objected to the present classification as being too high.
Your committee can not, therefore, find in the answers received what might be called a general and overwhelming sentiment in favor of a united movement for relief from admittedly unfair and oppressive classification. It does, however, believe that there is a proper and very strong sentiment in favor of a uniform classification of the same article throughout the United States, and that the efforts of the association should be primarily directed to that end. Where, as regards a special product, there exist a strong sentiment against present classifications and lack of uniformity in such classifications, your committee recommends that parties interested join in a concerted movement to secure the changes desired, and that the association aid all such movements when convinced that the demands are fair and capable of proof. Your committee, however, strongly advises against taking any action in any particular case without the fullest knowledge and preparation, and only where the injustice complained of is certain of being shown. Doubtful demands must always be decided against the applicant.
Your committee, therefore, recommends the passage of the following resolution:
Resolved, That the National Electric Light Association favor and approve the system of universal freight classification; and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded by the secretary of the association to the Interstate Commerce Commission, with the request that such universal freight classification be adopted.
ERNEST H. Davis, Chairman,
A. J. GIFFORD,
CHARLES S. SHEPARD,
THE PRESIDENT: We will now proceed with the next paper on the programme, Recent Steam Turbine Developments, by Mr. W. L. R. Emmet, of Schenectady.