Prof. J. B. Webb.-I approve very heartily of most of what Mr. See says with reference to the necessity of having standards. The trouble is, that it requires an immense amount of work to decide upon and produce the proper standards, and I imagine it will require considerable time. In addition to the different articles Mr. See mentions, and he gives a great many, I wish to name one more. The Government themselves can standardize their postal matter in a way that will improve the postal service; they have done it to some extent by postal cards and letter sheets. It has been proposed at various times to reduce the postage from two cents to one cent; but why should it not be reduced to one and three-quarters or one and a half cents? A fractional price would cause no difficulty, as but few stamps are sold singly. Now, these two improvements could easily be combined and made to help each other. Let the price of stamps remain as at present; but let stamped envelopes and letter sheets be lowered in price sufficiently to make it an object to use them, and then let them be furnished in as few sizes and qualities as possible. We are getting too far along toward the twentieth century to have the fast mails composed of envelopes of every conceivable size, shape, color and quality, and mail could be handled better and quicker were they and the postal cards of one standard pattern. Standard stamped envelopes and cards should also be regular articles of merchandise, purchasable at any stationer's at a fixed schedule of prices varying with the quantity, so as to leave a margin of profit to the retailer. When this was accomplished, the next step would be to introduce a supplementary means of addressing an envelope by punching a combination of notches in one edge of it, so that the distribution could be effected by automatic machinery. This would be of use at first only for large post-offices; but there is nothing to hinder a letter thus notched from being automatically deposited in its proper pouch, ready for the train, a few seconds after it is dropped in the slot. The President, H. R. Towne.-If the suggestions in the paper commend themselves to the meeting, a proper step would be to move for the appointment of a committee on the outline indicated in the paper, that committee to take the whole subject under consideration and report to the Society at its next meeting. Such a step at the present time of course commits the Society to nothing whatever, beyond the obtaining of further information on the subject, and having it brought before a subsequent meeting in T somewhat more complete form than it is at present. Will you take any action upon the recommendation of the paper? Mr. See.*-The discussion would indicate that some of the members would give to my paper a much further-reaching function than was immediately intended. I am myself one of those who believe that the arts are full of reckless things that had better be standardized, and I also believe that most of the accepted standards of to-day are defective. But to have the government standardize articles that have never been standardized, and to substitute new and improved standards for standards already in use, is not what the proposition of my paper looks to. It looks to a governmental record of what has been or will be accomplished. The very act of making the record in the manner proposed will necessarily result in getting things down to a clear definition, to freedom from ambiguity, and that is what we want. Changes will be made in the future precisely as they have been made in the past, but they will be made more understandingly and with something based on a common experience. Mr. Smith has referred, for instance, to the matter of screwthreads, etc., stating that they "sometimes conform to the United States Government standard. This standard is a boon as far as it goes, although it is not so perfect but that it must be remodelled and added to at some future time." Here is a case of a fairly accepted standard. Be it good or bad, I want it recorded where we can all get at it. It is not a government standard any more than it is the Smith standard. Some government workshops have adopted the thread, etc., in their work, and so have many of the Smith shops. I do not propose that the government shall have any more to do with the filing of standards than to furnish a governmental archive for the filing. If the government happens to have anything good and worthy of filing, let the government go to work and file it precisely as any other respectable body would file a standard which it approved. The general idea of my paper is not based so much upon the lack of standards as upon a lack of record of those standards. I think if there was a place of record there would be a better lot of standards, and a general tendency toward the improvement of them. Mr. Nason refers to steps that were taken regarding the standards for steam fittings. This Society discussed the matter with * Author's closure, under the Rules. the pipe-makers of the country, and it resulted in the final recommendation of the adoption of the Briggs gauge, "and that was so done." That is all right as far as it goes; but it does not go at all, for the simple reason that there is no general authentic record of what was done. If I wanted to go into the pipe business, and wanted to find out what the Briggs gauge was, I might get one definition of it from some pipe-makers' association, and another definition from this association, if an outsider could get them at all, and I might get an entirely different understanding from Mr. Briggs' writings, or from reputable tool-makers supposed to be working under the Briggs gauge. The proposition of my paper is not concerned with the goodness or badness of the Briggs gauge but lays down the broad ground that if this gauge is good enough to be recommended by such authorities as manufacturers of pipes and fittings and this Society, it is good enough to put on record in an accurate manner. Mr. Suplee says that the "Convention of the National Association of Builders adopted a standard size for brick, in order to remove a difficulty which has troubled builders all over the country. . . and decided to use it hereafter all over the country. So that it would appear that there is an effort by permanent associations to standardize matters for themselves without the aid of a national bureau." Now, I do not propose that any national bureau shall standardize bricks or anything else; but I do propose that it shall furnish a respectable place of record for standards recommended by such high authority as the National Association of Builders. Under the present plan the builders all over the country will have to trust to luck to find out what the recommended standard is. I propose that twenty-five cents, expended in the Patent Office, shall give them a clearly-defined specification. of the standard brick. In my paper I note quite a lengthy list of articles susceptible of being standardized. I do not propose that the government shall have anything to do with standardizing these things or making them standard. I propose that standards recommended by respectable associations shall be filed where they can be got at, and I further propose that such a system will encourage the arts in standardizing many things now in chaotic shape. I think the ultimate result of the system would be that the Government would officially file standards in this bureau covering fundamental units. This will come about in time, but I believe in starting easy. The entire proposition of my paper regarding a bureau for the filing of standards, not the making of the standards, be it noted, can, I believe, be gotten into full working order within six months after the passage of the necessary law, and I believe that the benefits of the bureau would be felt in the arts from the day the first standard was filed. [The motion for the appointment of such a Committee as is proposed in this paper was duly put and carried, and the President subsequently appointed Mr. JAMES W. SEE, of Hamilton, Ohio, Dr. COLEMAN SELLERS, of Philadelphia, Pa., as such Committee.] CCCXXXVIII. CYLINDER RATIOS OF TRIPLE-EXPANSION ENGINES. BY JAY M. WHITHAM, FAYETTEVILLE, ARK. (Member of the Society.) THE triple-expansion engine promises to displace the ordinary .compound engine for marine use, as it in turn displaced the simple engine of thirty years ago. During the past two years the increase in the number of such engines has been phenomenal. This form may now be called the favorite marine type, while it bids fair to establish itself for stationary purposes wherever great power and economy are desired. Whenever the steam pressure exceeds 100 lbs. gauge, the triple-expansion engine is used, while the tendency is towards quadruple expansion when the pressure exceeds 170 lbs. Existing practice in proportioning the cylinders of triple-expansion engines is given in Table I. In it the particulars of eighty engines of recent design are given, the engines being grouped according to boiler pressures. The tendency, as shown, is towards an increase in piston speed and boiler pressure, and a consequent decrease in weight and first cost of machinery. Equal work should be performed in each cylinder, uniform rotative effort secured, and low initial strains in all moving parts obtained. These can be nearly obtained by dividing the work among three or more cylinders, as in the triple-expansion engine, and by the use of variable expansion valves and balanced rotative parts. When the piston speed varies from 750 to 1,000 feet per minute, the following cylinder ratios are recommended as the result of a study of Table I. (the terminal pressure of steam in the large cylinder being about 10 lbs. absolute), viz. : CYLINDER RATIOS RECOMMENDED FOR TRIPLE-EXPANSION ENGINES. 170 and upwards-quadruple-expansion engine to be used. Large. 5.00 5.85 6.90 7.25 |