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

sized. JI am very much obliged for the points which Mr. Taylor brought out in connection with submarine pro- portion, and hope that model tank experiments can be used in that direc- tion. I realize the value which model tank experiments will be in future de- velopments. I regret I cannot give further data in regard to these boats, but would prefer not to mention any dimensions whatever, as it brings up questions in connection with which I do not feel at liberty to speak. Spencer Miller: I move a vote of thanks to the author of this paper. MOTOR BOATS FOR NAVAL SERVICE. In the absence of Naval Constructor L. S. Adams his paper entitled "Mo- tor Boats for Naval Serwice" was read by D:. H, Cox. As tiis 3. @ highly important paper it will be given ig full in the Review later. DISCUSSION. W. P. Stephens: 1 notice 'on page 3 the writer says: "As regards the reliability of the gasoline engine com- pared to the steam engine, it appears that the prevailing opinion on this subject which is adverse to the gaso- line engine, is based on experience w:th automobiles and with the thou- sands of small gasoline boats in use generally for both pleasure and com- mercial purposes." I will say that the automobile engines are put to the severest test, the bonnets being sealed and the cars running for 100 miles without any. one touching the engine other than the adjustments which are provided, the manipulation of the ad- mission, and all that. The automobile engine today seems to prove the re- liability as well as the flexibility of the modern gasoline engine. same thing in regard to _ gasoline launches. Five or six years ago au- tomobiles were an experiment on. the part of manufacturers and they were turned into the hands of persons with- out any knowledge of them, and they were unreliable. That day seems to have gone by, and the same thing is true largely with the launch engine. In that connection on. page 4, the writer "maintains that in the hands of a man especially educated for the work, a gasoline engine is sufficiently reliable for naval use." As to the ed- ' ucation for that work, the experience seems to be in yachting that a man need not be a machinist, engineer or electrician to run .a gasoline engine, many men' who run them are Swed- ish sailors without any previous knowledge of machinery of any kind, 'many of them. seem to develop a re- markable ability in the handling of gasoline engines, and it is really re- It is the _ "TAE MariIwe REVIEW markable, when you consider how lit- tle they know of the theory of the engine or the particular work which the engine performs, I think that is a strong demonstration of the possi- bility of these engines being -handled by the men in the navy, as they are so successfully handled on the yachts which are in use today. There is no training in the handling of a gasoline engine that would be considered necessary if a man was going to run: a. steam engine. There is one other point, and that is the saving of space. This varies with the different makes of engine, and I will quote the author of the paper on this point who says: "This varies with different makes of engines, but may be safely counted upon as being 20 to 25 per cent in length." I thing: the saving in space is much greater than 25 per cent in length. When you come to take out the steam plant and boiler and bunk- ers, and possibly the water tanks, and replace them by simply the gasoline engine, because the gasoline tank goes in a space not utilized for other pur- poses, you utilize one-third of the space which is necessary for the steam plant, depending, of course, om the size of the boat. F. L. DuBosque: From the discus- sion we have heard from the different commanders of naval vessels it Seems to be the consensus of opinion that moton boats are desirable in naval service, and there seems to be only one answer to the paper prepared by Mr. Adams, which he endeavors to bring- out. I notice we have three papers on practically the same subject for discussion this afternoon. I also notice that the room is primed with gasoline. experts. I have read _ all three of the papers, and they all seem to trend in one direction, and I sug- gest whether or not it would be prac- ticable to have the three papers read and discussed at one time. I am sure that a great deal of the discussion on each paper will refer to the others. RC, Monteagle: Gasoline motors for the propulsion of naval boats may seem to be attractive, but I think that they appeal to those only who do not realize the extreme danger of gaso- line. It would be interesting to know in detail how the author of this pa-. per arrived at his belief that a lighted cigan cannot cause an explosion, even if brought in contact with an explo- sive mixture of gasoline vapor and A mixture of gasoline vapor and air. air at the proper density requires only the. application of a lighted you. get tid of a very. large proportion of the space, I should say ' 27 cigar with the ash removed to ignite it, hence explosion may result there- from at any time the conditions may be favorable. An experiment of this character was made at various times to my knowledge as follows: A kero- sene can was filled with gasoline and placed in the open air, a lighted cigar was. then applied to the opening which was about seven-eighths of an in. in diameter. Ignition was obtained immediately, the vapor burning with a blue flame.- This flame was blown out and ignited again without damage. If it had been possible to admit air into the can in sufficient quantity an ex- plosion would have occurred without doubt. Where ignition may be ob- tained, explosion may be a natural sequence, the conditions being favora- ble. It is true that a slight variation from the critical density, plus or minus, may avoid a catastrophe. But herein lies its subtle danger. At wide variance with the author's next state- ment the explosive effect of gasoline _vapor and air-in a closed chamber has been found to cease at a ratio of about 1 to 16 in volume. A saturated mix- fure of air and gasoline vapor in equal volume will not explode, while the most intense explosive effect is realized, from a mixture of one part | vapor to nine parts of air. That is, therefore, a possible gamut of explo- sive mixtures of very wide range. Fire insurance companies testify to the danger of gasoline by prohibiting its storage in dwelling houses, even in minute quantities. To the question, can gasoline be carried with safety on war ships, I should answer, -no, as the danger from leaky joints is too great. But should the decision be arrived at to- carry gasoline, the system of double copper tanks and double cop- per pipe lines would be the least dan- gerous. The inner tank and pipe line carrying the gasoline, the space be- tween the inner and outer tank and pipes being constantly flooded with water, the pipes being as short as pos- sible, and having a minimum number of joints, also being kept as far be- low the water. line as possible. I do not agree with the remark of the commander-in-chief of the north Atlantic fleet that there are many more explosives on board a warship worse than gasoline, and hence there there should be no objection to car- rying one more. The destructive ef- fect of an explosion of gasoline is cer- tainly not so great as that of gun- powder, but gasoline is much more volatile and in contact with air be- comes a dangerous explosive. C. H. Crane: I have listened to the