Plenty of "Therms" at Gas Discussion
Page 49
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Many Interests Represented in Discussion Following Paper on Producer-gas Read Last Week Before Members of Institute of Fuel. Tilts at Government and Coal Trade
SAID Mr, Burgin last Friday: " I hope the industry will concentrate on making engines to run on home-produced fuel." Said Col. W. A. Bristow, vice-president of the Institute of Fuel, the evening before: " When we asked for a little Government help, the Minister of Transport replied 'no,' just 'no.' "
The former statement—made after the opening of a new by-pass at Bolton—was Strengthened by a remark to the effect that the Minister thought the greatest difficulty in time of trouble would flow from the dependence of road transport on imported fuel, The latter—included in a speech during a warm discus-. sion that followed the reading of the paper on gas producers by Messrs. Bosworth Goldman and N. Clarke Jones, reported in our issue dated December 9, was amplified by a description of the help sought. The chairman explained that a subsidy was not wanted—only a moderate extension of the 30 m.p.h. limit to cover the extra weight of the gas plant. He added that, on the other hand, the Minister of Defence, referring to gas vehicles, had said "we must develop," and, he commented Laively, "'that's what you get."
Some 100 persons, representatives of producer-gas, towngas, coal and oil interests, attended the reading, and 18 took part in the discussion. The paper was well received, but Mr. Goldman, who delivered it in abridged form, was taken to task on a number of points.
Of National Importance.
The importance of the subject to the country was stressed by Mr. J. G. Bennet, who said, furthermore, that producergas was as much the concern of the fuel and transport industries as of those pioneers who, up to now, had carried the burden.
Professor P. 0, Rosin described the paper as the best survey that had yet come to his knowledge, and he had been associated with the problem for 15 years. One of the first steps for further progress, he suggested, was the establish:. ment of solid fuel standards between fuel suppliers and plant makers. Volatility and moisture content, ash and dustforming characteristics and so-called reactivity should be specified. For this country, low-temperature coke offered the greatest economic potentialities.
Dr. C. H. Noton questioned the figures quoted concerning the availability of solid fuel.. Small anthracite was difficult' to get and cutting it, he said, led to the formation of breeze. Material of # in. to 2 ins, was too large.
Capt. B. Ackworth said much was being made of the point that home fuel would be of value in time of emergency. The present really mattered, and more consideration should be given to the reduction in unemployment that would result from producer-gas development The Navy and merchant-marine services largely depended on oil, and the use of oil by road transport would continue to be encouraged, because the supply available in scar was related to the quantity consumed in peace.
No Antagonism Anticipated.
Lord Teynham, first president of the recently formed Association of Transport Gas Producer Manufacturers, wished to see that the movement received the help it merited from the Government and adequate publicity. He thought it would be better policy to ask for temporary rather than permanent relief. He was confident that there would be no antagonism from oil companies, because there was plenty of room for both systems,
Mr. W. H. Cadman queried Mr. Goldman's statement that the world's liquid fuel resources would be exhausted in 14 years, They were now known to be much greater than had formerly been thought; 14 years could not be taken seriously. Inexactitudes of that sort weakened his argu
ments. If costs were one-third those of liquid fuel, as claimed, why were not all vehicles now running on producergas? Why was compulsion necessary in France, and inducement offered in other countries? In his view, the low cost of the fuel was " only a small part of the picture." There were certain disadvantages. Producer-gas, as things were to-day, did not compare favourably with liquid fuel. Before it could compete, there was much more to be done. The oil companies were by no means antagonistic.
Subsequently, Mr. Goldman informed Mr. Cadman that he had taken his fuel-resource figures from a standard work, recognized, he understood, by the oil companies, one of the editors of which was Mr. Cadman's chief chemist.
Capt. Brand described Mr. Goldman's paper as a service to engineering. He pointed out that the producer-gas engine was less efficient than the oil engine. There was a field, he said, for both producer and compressed-gas vehicles. The former would be less limited in range and more applicable to military purposes. Although the lower power of the producer-gas engine did not always matter, it was essential that full power should be available at will.
Addition of Water Desirable.
Mr. K. W. Willans pointed out that water, as it were, " raised the voltage " of the gas, also cooled it. Because of " chimneying " or " channelling" in the fire, he favoured the single, horizontal tuyere. Except for emergency, he saw no future for conversions. Engines should be designed for gas from the outset—better still, for hot gas. He related certain experiences of excellent running of stationary plant, where the water went through to the engine as steam. Referring to the apathy-of the coal industry, he remarked that "its mentality appeared to be just about emerging from the beam-engine period."
Mr. A. C. Hardy criticized Mr. Goldman for referring to a producer-propelled water craft, shown in one of the illustrations in his paper, as a boat. The author, after the discu.ssion, expressed his readiness to be enlightened on this matter, and turned the laugh against his critic.
Mr. H. E. MacGillivray, after Complimenting Mr. Goldman on the paper, questioned the authenticity of certain comparative acceleration curves quoted. Double the load, he said, has been accelerated on another occasion in less than half the time by an identical engine, petrol being used in both cases. •
Later, Mr. Goldman explained the discrepancy by the very considerable age of the slower vehicle, and informed the company that the figures had been obtained by, and published in, The Commercial Motor,adding that none would be likely to doubt its veracity.
Bigger Engines Essential.
Continuing, Mr. MacGillivray argued that the inferior acceleration on gas was evidence of the need for larger engines, as were installed in the vehicles his company was now building.
Dr. A. J_ Underwood raised two noteworthy points. Pay the men " dirty " money, he said, and there would be no troubles in connection with cleaning plant, handling fuel, etc. Cheapness was not always an inducement to buying. For domestic use electricity and gas were preferred to paraffin, although more costly.
Then the chairman rose, and answered some of the attacks on the authors and the coal industry. A suitable low-temperature coke had been developed, he said. It had been thoroughly tested and found satisfactory. It was definite that no major troubles need be anticipated. The coal trade had offered co-operation in supply and distribution. Anthracite he thought suitable for long-distance work, low-temperature coke for frequent starting.