The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-11-21
@ A ~.

@ A ~.
WORE ventilation OF the Gas Trustceship
important Testimony Figures Can't
Lio-The End Approaching.
The following unpublished testimony. taken nv
OoA, RACES Oommitte for investigating the charges
made against The management of the Gas rrnst is
from the Photographic notes of the official reporter
70 that body.
The late Chief Engineer Cresson testified that
.he @ workings of the Gas Works for 1865, as CON.
lowing results:
Cubic feet
of loss of
Cubic f. Cubic #. used in age of floss loss
Date OF ofgas sold to con- the to gas
ls69 33560s,oOO 675Sss,4ol eO,37i5oo S0e 90. loo
1854. 79l,676,OOO 7ll2s5,425 s3,39O575 10 40 100
1865. S4i5i5,OOO 727O2545l 1l2,4gO54o t3 333. loo
This table shows that the percentage of loss was
during the year 1865 10 of that produced of ali the
gas manufactured, and being $40 per cent above
above that OF the year 1853
The statement of loss by leakage in the report of
1854 including the quantity of gas consumed at the
Sanitary Fair and sundry hospitals, supplied gra.
tuitously during that year. and also the loss occas
stoned stoned by the rupture of the large gas holder at
POINT Breeze, being allowed for, the amount of
waste Tor 1864 would be the same or less than 1853.
Taking this per centage of loss for 1863 IA
Vorabe TO that OF 1866 as under proper manage
ment the per centage of loss should decrease as
me quantity OF gas passing through the pipe is
decreased, the time being equal; therefore and
q per cent should have been the waste, instead
OF 1917, making difference of 1888. 1000 per
cent. more waste in 1863 than should have been,
compared with former years, and this per centage
on the amount of gas made in 1865. viz
Loss on Waste for 1865.
N4,5l6,OOO cubic feet are 43, $4,000 cubic
feet, at SO per foot Sl30,0i7 90
Less per cent. for prompt payment, 6,5O2 IS
Loss on waste for 1865, sl23,5i4 65
To this Mr.. Jones made the following statement:
Cubic Feet
Loss by leakage in 1864, n s3,390575
Less gas furnished gratuitously
To Reireshnent Saloon, 5so,5OO
- 1,654,SOO
Consumed in works and loss by leakage, 5l,635,775
Cubic Feet.
Loss by Leakage in 1865, Il2,49O5l0
Less gas furnished to Refreshment
Saloons, 10000
Consumed in works, and loss by leak'e 1l2,I79sl9
Now by examining the reports you will find
that the years in which the greatest amount of
street mains was laid the loss by leakage was the
heaviest, large losses being sustained oy blowing
out the pipes and making the connections.
Feet of pipe.
do 1864, 39Oi5
Showing that in 1864, notwit thstanding there was
nearly 20 per cent less pipe laid than in 1868, the
leakage was 30 per cent. more, while in 1865 there
was nearly 131 per cent. more feet of pipe laid
per cent. greater. The loss of gas by the rupture
Of the gas holder at Point Breeze was as large in
1865 as it was IN 1861 if not larger
Mr.. Oresson said 1t was my practice uniformly,
while connected with the Trust, and generally
SINCE to estimate roughly the cubic capacity of all
the mains laid. 1 can estimate now, but not with
very great precision that there were ninety thou
sand one hundred and seventy pipes, of various
sizes, laid in 1865 and their cubcal capacity was
seventeen thousand cubic feet-that is the whole
pipe could not have contained more than that, and
may have been considerably under. In laying
mains 1t is customary, unless the Engineer wants
10 lncommode citizens with blue lights for WHILE
TO blow the gas until it blows out the air from the
pipes. If this is done nicely it will not waste
more gas than the cubic capacity of the main, but
it is generally done the loss is twice the cubical
capacity of the main. This being the case, this
quantity of main would lose about thirty -four
thousand cubic feet of gas at the outside.
Now the excess of the loss of gas in 1865 over
1863 is something like fifty two million cubic feet,
and this thirty four thousand cubic feet it is very
obyious would not he the thousandth part of an
Oe very small indeed from the building of new
mains.
The loss due to the destruction OF the gasholder
would depend upon how much was in it.
If / correctly informed in reference to the
last break down, only one half OF it was used
il would contain about nine hundred thousand
cubic feet. That was the outside that they could
lose if it was entirely full at the time of the acci
dent, and they lost il all. Added TO the thirty
four thousand feet lost in the pipes this would be
less than one million feet or not two per cent of
the whole loss.
There is another point which is remarkable. I
observe in these answers that it was said that the
loss was greatest in the years when most mains
were laid, but the evidence shows that in 1863
there were one hundred and thirty thousand cubic
feet of main laid instead OF 1865, when the main
laid thirty four thousand so that the facts do
not accord with this theory, so that certainly
thing of this 1862 could be attributed
that cause. There were more mains laid in 1863
than in 1865. suppose less than two per cent of
the excess, or less than one per cent OF the whole
oss might be due to the breaking of the gasholder,
il they saved none of the gas in it,
To get at the difference in the yield Of gas to the
ton of coal, Colonel Page prepared the following:
Per centage
Total cubic Tons of coal of gas made
feet of gas used to to ton of
Years, made. make gas. coal.
1862, CSC, $4,000 6s,SSs 1886
1869, 735,698,O00 1887 9,367
1864, 79i,676,000 S53ll 9,325
1865, S44,5l6,000 93,067 1874
Average yield of gas from one ton of
coal, O,ilO O52-1OOO
From this it appears that
For 1862, 1858, and 1864, the average
Weld per ton was 9,il0 052. 1000
tlRE