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

gression) from land to land. The ef- ficiency of the boilers would be unim- paired, because always in a state of cleanliness. From an approximate es- timate of the several factors which go to determine a speedy voyage, it is safe to say that the use of oil fuel would diminish the time neces- sary to accomplish the voyage by TAE MarINneE REVIEW eight hours. Other factors for the ship owners' !consideration are as fol- lows: It takes 35 men 2% hours to put 80 tons_of coal on board a liner from lighters. As against this, a Steam pump, can put 300) tons wot liquid fuel aboard in 1 hour, silently and cleanly. The whole army of lightermen, coal heavers, firemen, and 49 coal\ trimmers," who are at present the bane of an engineer's life, would be dispensed with, for sea-going pur- poses, and they would find more con- genial employment under better con- ditions of l'fe as "longshoremen" han- dling the extra cango on every voy- age. NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND MARINE ENGINEERS In the Martine Revirw of Dec. 127 was publ shed the discussion at the annual meeting of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engin- eers upon Prof. W. S. Leland's and H. A. Everett's paper entitled "Tests One sthile 15a ton GOVerOr.|OObDia tO- gether with a transcript of the paper. It is a regrettable circumstance that neineD sanoOt ws leland norm) Eror Ge- oll Isl, IRealnoc,, i tla INIRISen= chusetts Institute of Technology, Wiehee a uCSe i ton PaLbClpate rast the discussion which ensued, for un- doubtedly had they been present the paper would have been stoutly de- fended. However, they have now transmitted to the ReEviEw their con- tribution which under 'the rules of the society and by the customary ameni- ties of discussion will be incorporated in the transactions of the society. Their contributions follow: COMMUNICATED DISCUSSION. C. H. Peabody: One of the desid- erata for our society is an interested 'discussion of articles and this is some- times lacking; the discussion of the article in question showed no defects in this and from the earnest- ness of the participants it is evident that the discussion cannot. be charac- terized as academic, as so much of the consideration of work done at technical schools is accused of being. The authors of the paper are en- tirely able to take care of the techni- cal matters under discussion, and in part'cular can furnish answers wher- ever matters of fact are in question. Both have had sufficient experience in our own laboratories and on shipboard to warrant that whatever they under- take will be well and accurately done. In particular, Prof. Leland has had so large an experience in tests at sea, re- lating to the performance of ships and their propelling machinery, as to insure that nothing would be over- looked or unprovided for. The authors had entire charge of the tests on the Governor Cobb and should have all the credit for . the work and its results, but nothing was done without my knowledge and ap- line proval and I am entirely ready to as- sume responsibility for anything in the paper.- From my own personal knowledge of the arrangements on the ship and the ability of the experiment- ters I know that the data and results are substtantially correct and feel just!- fied in demanding that they shall be accepted as a valuable contribution to our knowledge of this new and diffi- cult branch of marine engineering. This view is substantiated by the fact that some of our leading builders have been glad to receive advance of publication and have even shown impatience at our delays. There are two matters that appear in the that concern the credit of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and against which I vigorously protest. Mr. Winship expresses his opinion that the engineers of the ship were "fooling" these "college fellows." After what I have said concerning the competence of the authors I might pass over this matter, but it seems to me distinctly unfair to make such an accusation against the engneers of the ship who are not members of our society, and cannot defend themselves, not accusation by harsher terms. I have a wide acquaintance with sea-going engineers and it cannot be necessary to say to members of this society that I have found them as a class, to be men of great ability and integrity with a high sense of pro- fessional honor. The engineers of the Governor. Cobb are in the front rank of their profession and showed a most intelligent interest in our work and great zeal in furthering the prosecu- tion of the tests. They gave us every facility in their power. My friend, Mr. DuBosque, suggests that the defects that were alleged against the paper were due to the difficulty of getting favorable condi- tions during a service test on a mer- chant ship. The tests were indeed lim- ited by the conditions that they must be carried out without interfering with the service of the boat; such information in discussion characterize the limitations are necessarily inherent in all service tests; there were no other limitations. I regret that Mr. Fletcher injects into the discussion a personal matter in which there appears to be room for a difference of opinion. Mr. Fletcher says in his discussion, "Some months ago we received a letter from Prof. Peabody, stating that 'he in- tended to make a test of the Governor Cobb, and requested that we loan him the lines of her hull. This we declined toi do for business and other reasons, but. stated in regard to. the test that we would be very glad if he would let us know when the test was to be made and to give us two or three days' notice and we would have a rep- resentative on board at the time of 'the 'test. Evidently our refusal to loan the lines of the hull was very disap- pointing, for we received no reply to our letter from him or from any of his assistants, neithen dd we receive any notice of the test." I did indeed ask Mr. Fletcher for certain information concerning the ship, with the direct statement that it would be considered confidential if he could supply it. I do not hes:tate to say that I was disappointed not to be able to get this information which would have given our tests the com- pleteness that so many of those dis- cussing it have demanded. But I un- derstood entirely that Mn Fletcher must determine how far his loyalty to his company would allow him to go and I did not question his decision. In his letter he made the following statement verbatim et literatim. "At the time that you make the test, if you so desire, I will' send our outside engineer to be with you to give you whatever assistance you may require. I would thank you, however, to notify us a few days ahead, so that we can make suitable anrangements." Nothing else was said about the matter in the letter. After consultation with the engineers of the boat and discuss'on among our- selves there appeared to be no necessity of appealing to Mr. Fletcher. They