Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-02-18
Of the Smoke Consumers
That Are Now in Opera
tion in Pittsburg.
A GAIN IN CLEANLINESS
And a Considerable Economy in Fuel
Secured at the Same Time.
EXPERIENCES OF BUSINESS MEN,
As Well as Leading Manufacturers, With
the Devices in Csc.
AN ENGINEER WANTS AN EXPRESSION

AN ENGINEER WANTS AN EXPRESSION
There is no longer any doubt of the sue.
cessful operation of smoke consumers OF
smoke preventers. A large number of build
| ings and manufactures In the city are al
ready supplied with the various devices on
the market, and in nearly every case satis-
faction is expressed at the economy of fuel,
as well as in the lessening of the smoke
! nuisance
DR.. Sutton, in the discussion at the En-
gineers' Society, stated the case plainly
when he said: eff we must have smoke in
the manufacture of iron we will have to
| stand it, for we must make iron in Pitts
burg, but there is no excuse in the world
for every bakery, drygoods house, factory
| or other business, establishment in the city
belching forth dense volumes of black
smoke to discolor and damage the buildings,
furniture, carpets, clothing and works of
art ofeveryone in the city. 1t is this class of
smoke nuisances, 1 believe, that produces the
most of our griminess, and our city is not
up to the mark in progress because she does
not suppress them"
Views That Are Very Popular.
In visiting a number of establishments
yesterday where consumers are in use a
DISPATCH reporter found many persons
ready to indorse DR.. Sutton's statements.
The complaint in the lower part of the city
is general and those who have had practical
experience with the various kinds of fur
naces and stokers are bewailing the fact
that their neighbors will persist in standing
in their own light by not adopting one or
the other of the devices, if only to save
fuel, not to mention the incidental preven-
tion of smoke.
AT the Hamilton building Mr.. Hamilton
was found tilted back in chair with a look
of resigned misery on his face, while he
watched a couple of employees cleaning
weeks accumulation of SCOT from the sky
light over his private Office.
'What do think of consumers" he re-
piled to query. 'Just look at that sky
light where it has not been cleaned 1
might as we'll have it boarded over for all
the light that comes through. There is one
weeks accumulation of the SCOT from my
neighbors' smokestacks. It's half an inch
thick and must be removed every week. 1t
costs me $50 a year to take off that SCOT,
more than the interest on the cost of smoke
preventers my neighbors ought to use, to
say nothing about the damage done in my
building to stock. furniture and embellish-
ments.
Experience With Consumer.
eyes, have used patent stoker for
about year. The cost of the apparatus,
including device for transferring the coal
from bin to fire, was $1,000. 1 have two
boilers and stoker under each. 1t I were
using gas now it would cost me 81, 600
year to make steam to heat the building
and for operating the elevators and electric
light machines. 1 use coal slack, and it
costs me not less than 81, 800 year, includ-
ing the handling OF coal and ashes. This is
also a saving of about 40 per cent over the
cost of burning coal without the apparatus.
can regulate the heat by this automatic
stoker almost as well as with natural gas
''It is not claimed that it is total pre-
tentative of smoke, but it does reduce
smoke almost to minimum 1 have no
hesitation in saying that it reduces the
volume of smoke emitted from our stack at
least IS per cent. That is a conservative
estimate and it settles beyond doubt that
smoke preventers are success. Our City
Councils have no excuse for longer post
poning the passage of the ordinance in their
hands to compel the use of some such.de-
vice. 1t is not matter of private right
but one of public concern. and if by a law
the city officers can reduce the smoke nuis-
ance IS, or even 80 per cent, it is their i'm
perative duty to pass such law"
Economy as Well as Cleanliness.
At Danziger & Co. s store on Sixth street |
there is in operation an apparatus which,
while not called smoke consumer, prac- !
tically accomplishes that object incidentally
to saving % 10 80 per cent in fuel The |
firm is highly pleased with the apparatus
and declare that while it was only adopted |
to save annoyance from the smoke to their |
neighbors it had proven so economical and |
clean that it was we'll worth its cost to |
them. The apparatus cost $3.50 complete, |
and since it's introduction under the boiler |
in November had only burned about one |
half of what had been burned before.
At the Seventh Avenue Hotel an auto |
matte stoker is in use under one boiler Its !
cost was $1,000. The chief engineer in |
charge, a man OF more than 40 years expert |
erce with steam engines and boilers, said: |
ssOur stoker is an undoubted success as a
smoke consumer, though by reason OF the
way it has been constructed, it does not give
the most satisfactory results in steam max
ing. The heat is terrific, but is not prop
erIy distributed. This is no fault of the ap-
paratus, however, and l think can be easily
adjusted.
All of the smoks Consumed.
"No smoke passes out of the stack from
this furnace; it is all consumed 1 am
satisfied that the abatement of the smoke
nuisance can be largely accomplished in this
CITY with the devices now on the market,
and believe it only question OF short
time until inventors will have made it
possible to stop smoke entirely. At the
same time I fully agree with William
Metcalf, that iron manufacturers cannot
avoid making smoke. But if we have only
the smoke from our iron mills there will be
little Inconvenience suffered by the people,"
Carnegie, Phipps s. Co are putting in au-
tomatic stokers under a pair of boilers at
their Thirty-third street mill, to accom-
plish saving in fuel. 1t will burn slack,
give good combustion, and by burning its
own gas accomplish a great lessening in the
volume of smoke, probably IS per cent.
The firm has mad practical experience with
,hese stokers for year and half at the
Edgar Thomson Steel Works. One of the
officials of the company said yesterday:
'I agree with Mr.. Metcalf that smoke
oreyenters can't be used on iron furnaces
ind the reasons given by him are those well
known to many familiar with the iron
business. But there is no
De used under boilers generally and this CITY
Ihould lose no time in passing a law to COM
bel their use. 1t is duty she owes her
business men and the people generally
Excellent Results Obtained.
Lloyd & Sons have device which is do
ng excellent work, under the boilers at
L L m |