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

February, 1914 is simply an electrical connection, and not the interlocking by steam pipes. The steam piping in the electrical ar- rangement becomes very small. As to the Jupiter's turbine, while this is not a particularly zood case fer electrical propulsion, and while it is not the best turbine now in existence, since others have been buiit at a later date, yet there is no turbine in oper- ation today that is as efficient as the Jupiter's turbine by quite a large mar- gin. The best record I know of on a Parsons turbine is in the Dunsten sta- tion at Newcastle, in England, which shows, with a high degree of super- heat, pressure and vacuum, that there is an efficiency of 68.6 on the switch- board of the power delivered avail- able in the steam. The Jupiter's tur- bine, under exactly the same condi- tions of steam pressure. vacuum and superheat, showed an efficiency of something over 75 per cent. It gave 74 per cent efficiency with consider- ably more superheat, because it is a machine of very high speed, and on a line of turbine development which is new, and which has greatly advanced 'the art. The Jupiter's machine runs at 2,000 revolutions per minute and gives its best efficiency at an output of some- 'thing like 700. h. p. This' Parsons machine I speak of has 6,000 kw., or about the same capacity, possibly, and 'tuns at 1,200 revolutions per minute. I am telling you this to point out that the development which has ad- vanced the turbine in the last two or three years is in the direction of the extremely high speed turbine. I was aboard the Jupiter when she made her first run, and her perform- ance was in exact accordance with my expectations. I did not have to learn anything about her, because I knew just what she would do before- hand. I knew what her efficiency would be, because I tested the ma- chinery which was in use on board the ship in Schenectady, and knew more about it than I would have learned if they kept her in the navy for 120 years. Battleship Design Last year I brought my designs up to date on a battleship. I had been making propositions to the United States government for five years on battleships. If they had accepted the first one, they would have had a ship far better than anything that has been built here or abroad, and all those which followed might have had that improvement, but they tell me now that they want to let the Jupiter run a couple of years and then build equal to her full speed. ernment one cent. rHE MARINE REVIEW a geared ship, and let her run° 4 couple of years and then talk about it a bit. I expect to be retired from the engineering business at that time, sc that I do not feel very hopeful about it. This design I made for a battle- ship was for a ship like one of those recently developed. If a ship is pro- vided with 12 boilers I could run her at full speed with 10. I could save something like 300 or 400 tons. of weight with my equipment. I could make her interchangeable, so that she could run with various fire rooms filled with water. I could run her at cruising speed with an_ efficiency That 4s, I could run her at a water rate of some- where around 11.5 per h. p. for cruis- ing speed. The General Electric Co. has said they would put such an equipment in a new ship, or in an old ship, taking The Jupiter's Trials I was aboard the Jupiter when she made her first run, and her perform- ance was im exact accordance with: my expectations. I did not have to learn anything about her, because I knew just what she would do before- hand. I knew what her efficiency would be, because I tested the ma- chinery which was in use on board the ship in Schenectady, and know more about it than I would have learned if they kept her in the navy for 120 years. the engines out of the old ship, and if we did not accomplish all these results, we would take out the equip- ment, and it would not cost the gov- In spite of that statement they are afraid to under- take. it. I will not go-to the navy department any more, because I have been thrown out of it so often. I believe, however, we shall have some commercial ships equipped in this way. before long, and when we get them the navy will begin to take notice of the great advantages which we can give in a battleship. I figure on the ships operating on the Pacific ocean, that I could in the saving of fuel and cargo space on the long voyages they make there just about pay for the change in a year and a half. The same possibility applies to an enormous number of ships now operated. I could take any ship on the North Atlantic that crosses the ocean between here and Europe and cut out an enormous amount of weight and make something like 20 53 to 30 per cent Saving in fuel 17 i a case of simple rotation. that in- volves self-lubrication, does not in- volve a problem, or a problematical thing, but is what we are using in all kinds of heavy machinery on shore. We will guarantee the result, and if we do not do it you can put the en- gines back. I think some of the mak- ers of gearing would do the same thing, and it is time for the business of marine engineering to develop uses of the high speed turbine, because the time is coming when every tug- boat will be run by turbines, not by electricity, but by gearing, some means of speed reduction. Spirited Discussion The Chairman:--Will you show on the blackboard what you mean by the efficiency béing 68 per cent and 74 per cent. These are terms not commonly used. W. L. R. Emmet: There is nothing to put on the blackboard. I am re- ferring to the Rankin efficiency, com- parison with the efficiency of the steam engine. Steam has a certain energy of so many foot pounds per pound of steam, and when I say we are getting 74 per cent we are cov- ering 74 per cent in the form of elec- tricity of the available energy of the steam. We got as high as 80 per cent in one of the new machines. The Chairman:--The actual effici- ency of the turbine as compared with the efficiency of the perfect primary engine is 74 per cent? W. L. R. Emmet:--Within that par- ticular range of steam operation. © The Chairman:--I thought that was what you meant and wanted to have it understood. It does not mean the thermal efficiency-- W. L. R. Emmet:--In tests I have seen of the Minnesota turbines, I think these turbines had an efficiency of 63 per cent. In some of these large ships it is over 75 per cent on the same basis. Of course, the size of these very highly efficient new tur- bines is extremely small.. The Ju- piter's turbine is very small, although it is not an extreme case, but they are very small devices. In the case ot this machine I tell you about, the 20,000-k. w. machine, its diameter over -all is only about 11 ft. and its length is about 10 ft., with the casing. That is the whole thing in that box. It has about nine spaces, each a separate compartment. Any one of these spaces would run the machine at a considerable proportion of the power. These turbines are simple; you can move off the top and everything is accessible. Frederick P. Valen:--I-wish to ask