The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

and some of them have not had their fires drawn for eight, nine or ten months in succession, and some of the engines are run five or six months without stopping. It is a record, which I do not think can be equalled by any steam plants of sim- ilar character and work. The doing{ away with lines of pipe under pressure and with sparks at night and smoke by day is, of course, of tremendous im- portance. The great improvement, how- ever, in the design of a battleship, is in the doing away with an enormous amount of deck structure, ventilators, high smoke stacks and matters of that sort, and this can all be done away with in the use of gas engines. Of course, the exhaust of the gas engine must be taken care of, but that can be very easily done by a system! of ventilators. Here is another point: which is im- portant from a practical standpoint, and that is a few weeks ago four boats were sent to San Domingo, and went down without the slightest trouble in the winter time, and the gentlemen who ordered the , was hard lines that he had not been able boats was deploring the fact that he could not get fresh water on shore and did not see how he could get it off the boats. A distilling plant was put in and connected with the smokestack, and the exhaust products from the gas engine operated a distilling plant which gave the crew all the fresh water they required. The use of the internal combustion en- gine is something which must be consid- ered by us; it is forcing its consideration upon the people abroad, and I am sure the United States, which is never in the rear, will accept the challenge from abroad, and develop the internal combus- tion engine in the near future, for as long as you tie up to the man-fired boiler I do not think you can produce the best fighting ship or the best commercial ship. Mr. Anderson: Mr. Nixon made the statement that turbine engines were heav- ier than reciprocating engines. Having been interested in the matter of steam turbines somewhat, I would like to point out, as regards battleship turbine engines, that the battleship turbine engine is con- siderably less in weight than the recipro- cating engine. In most of the destroyers which have been made in England, there has not been a great saving there, due to the. conditions which are laid down by our British Admiralty in giving certain conditions of test, and things which put the scantlings of the turbines much: heav- ier than they need be. Mr. Nixon: Was that a question di- rected to me, as to where I got the in- formation ? Mr. Anderson: No sir, I want to give my views on the subject. In cruisers too there is considerable saving in weight, even with the cruising turbines be- ing built. As regards space, length is 'TRAE Marine. REVIEW required for cruising turbines, as they are required to be fitted, but height in 'the engine room is not, no more height is required other than the usual protective deck and that can be extended right over the engine room, Mr. Nixon: I do not want to make a charge against the turbine engine. I re- member the discussion of the 1,000-ton armored cruiser, where it was found if turbines were used much more _ space would be required, and the requirements of the space led to greater weight. Our government gives us latitude in the case of destroyers of,several tons, for the turbine engine, than for the reciprocating engine. I tried to get some really reliable data last year concerning the turbine, and went four times across the English channel on turbine-driven ships, and on those short trips endeavored to find out something. I made good friends with one of the en- gine staff, and had several drinks with him, and on the last trip he said that it to tell me much more about the turbine, but he patted me on the back and said-- "I am very sorry, but I cannot tell you nothing but the good." | John Reid: I should be very sorry to attempt to criticise or discuss any of the nautical features in this paper, which is interesting and valuable to the land lub- bers, but there is a' mechanical feature which I should like to refer to. The statement is made on page 4: "there are two instruments which have been gener- ally adopted in our navy in this connec- tion and these are a satisfactory range finder and a telescope." <A great deal has been said in regard to the sailing of the battleship fleet to the Pacific, with regard to the necessity of having to fit a fire, control system to the various vessels in a great hurry, and I would like to say it occurred to me that the absence of a range control system-is a matter of much more seriousness and moment than the fire control system. The question is, is 'it because the range finder is not neces- sary, or because it is not a good one? With all due respect to Commander Ni- black, and I would like his views on the point, I would say that a range finder in a battleship at the present time is abso- lutely essential in proper shooting. We know that the ranges in the late battles between the Japanese and Russian fleets were sometimes at a distance of seven miles, from five to seven miles, and if any one thinks what a big ship looks, like at a distance of five to seven miles, one begins to consider that there is a greater necessity for some accurate sys- tem of finding the range. It would be, pretty much as if we should go up on the top of this building and look at a bat- tleship coming in through the narrows, 23 and take a shot at it. I do not think" we would get much chance to hit it, at least for the first few shots; of course, I am aware it is possible to get range of a vessel without a range finder, even when ships: are moving past each other, but there are other features besides this-- suppose the responsible officer on a bat- tleship gets the range of his enemy, how can he transmit that information in the heat of action or communicate any infor- mation to the other stations? I think that is the most serious part of it. We can hardly contend that it is proper and reasonable to make the various gun com- manders to be making estimates of the distance of the ships they are shooting at in the heat of action, particularly when these ranges are rapidly changing and there are a dozen other things that the commander of the gun station is far more likely to have called to his atten- tion. You can have sight shots, of course, but one wants to save ammunition, one does not start firing shots, or at least one. would not want to have humorous sight shots without hitting pretty quickly. In a naval engagement it seems to me the whole issue will pretty much depend on who gets the first shot in, and if in a battleship you have a Shimose or Meli- nite shell around your conning-tower, you would probably indorse the sentiment of Sherman that "War is hell." The question is--is there a proper range finder? I submit there is a practical range finder, and a good one, and while I have no brief from range finder makers, nothing to do with mechanical instru- ments, I would say that the Barr & Stroud range finder is a practical instru- ment and adopted in many navies and something that is essential in the equip- ment of any first class warship today. Commander Niblack: All our ships are fitted with range finders. Mr. Reid: I.was taking your statement from this paper. Commander Niblack: What we want is a satisfactory one. © Lieutenant Radler de Aquino: They are used in the Brazilian navy. : Captain Hovgaard: They are used in all navies. _ Mr. Reid: It is' a case then whether the range finder is satisfactory or not. Commander Niblack: That is _ the - point. ' Lieutenant Radler de Aquino: The Barr & Stroud range finder is considered the best range finder. Mr. Reid: Apart altogether from the sucess of the range finder, whatever type you use, the question is its adaptability to circumstances, and the speed by which you gage your range and the means used to communicate that range to the various stations. That is of importance, and it is important where you put the range finder. There are many different opinions