The Cook County herald. [volume] (Grand Marais, Minn.) 1893-1909, 1899-02-25
FIREPROOF WOOD.
CHIEF HICHBORN ON WARSHlPS
OF THE FUTURE. =.
He Says tho Fighting Vessels Must Not
Contain Any Infammable Material
How the Wood Is Made Fireproof-
Chief Lesson of the Santiago Fight.

freproof," said Chief Naval Construc-
tor Hichborn, the other day. "That
has been demonstrated by the sea
fight off Santiago, in which the de-
struction of the Spanish cruisers seems
to have been wrought mainly by the
burning Of their own woodwork. The
fires could not be extinguished, partly
owing to the cutting Of the water pipes
by our shells, and there was nothing
to do but to run the vessels ashore.
Flames and smoke actually drove the
men from their guns.
Evidently it will not do to put any
infammable material into our own
warships in future, 1t is not prac
ticable to make everything of metal,
but where wood is used it must be
made tireproof. Fortunately, salts
factory method for accomplishing this
is already known, and wood thus treat
ed has been employed exclusively in
the Annapolis, Wilmington, Marietta,
Helena, Nashville, Wheeling, Newport
and Vicksburg. Simply described, the
process consists in withdrawing all
sap and moisture from the lumber in
a vacuum and then filling the pores
with phosphate of ammonia. A flame
from blowpipe will only char it.
Chips thrown into fire will not ignite.
If it is worth while to make build
ings freproof, how vastly more impof-
tant is it to adopt a like precaution
in the case of vessel. Nothing is so
terrible as fire on shipboard, because
there is no escape. The very cry of
fire carries terror to the stoutest heart
under such circumstances. Smoke is
as bad as fire; one breath of smoke
laden air will disable man. Expert
ence of sea fights under modern con-
ditions has proved that fire is an i'm
minent peril. Exploding shells set fire
to every bit of woodwork within range
of the flying fragments, and to put out
the flames is exceeding difficult under
such circumstances. It follows, there
fore, that everything possible ought
to be done to eliminate this danger in
maritime warfare.
An American officer on one of the
Chinese vessels in the famous battle.
of the Yalu river, said afterWard that
the shells from the Japanese guns first
split up the woodwork into kindling
wood and then set fire to it, The
same effect was observed on the jap
anese ships as result of the Chinese
gun-fre. On Oct. II, 1894, the bureau
OF ordnance of the navy submitted a
statement showing that in the sea fight
referred to five Chinese ships and one
Japanese vessel had been set on ire
by explosive shells, owing to the pres
ence of bulkheads and other struc-
lures Of wood. This was the first les
son afforded to naval experts on This
subject, and it resulted in tho adoption
by this department of a requirement
that all ships at that time building
should be fitted with freproof wood
throughout.
From the ierceness of the flames
which destroyed the vessels of the
Spanish squadron off Santiago it would
appear that great deal Of wood must
have been used in their construction
in the shape of heavy bulkheads. ETC..
Ore Or two fires, you will remember,
started on our own ships, caused by
the explosion Of shells. They were
promptly extinguished, but it is easy
to imagine that disaster might have
followed other and better directed
shots, especially if the water mains
had been cut off. If we suppose
an encounter at sea between two war
vessels of equal strength, one of them
having 6reproof woodwork and the
other not, it is likely that the former
would win, being in one respect IN
vulnerable as compared with her an
tagonist
1T needed this experience at Santi-
ago to convince naval experts of the
necessity Of using fireproof wood or
some equivalent. The lesson OF the
Yalu fight being forgotten, or it's sig
nificance unrealized, a board of naval
officers, appointed to consider the SUBJ
ject, reported in January of the. pres
ent year in favor of disseminating the
use of freproof wood. Among the OBJ
jections alleged against it was that it
was heavier, that it cost more, that it
was more difficult to work, that it was
less strong, that it had a tendency to
absorb and retain moisture, that paint
did not stick upon it, that it did not
wear as well as ordinary wood, and
1 that it had a corrosive effect upon met
ais in contact with it. The charge
was also made that its chemical in
gradients spoiled the clothing of off,
GERS, which was contained in drawers
made of it. Il. -
81 have the best possible reasons for
knowing that most of these assertions
are errors. True, the freproof wood
does cost more than ordinary wood.
!. but the difference amounts only to a
few thousand dollars in a battleship
or cruiser matter Of no Importance
worth mentioning where the safety OF
such craft, worth from $4,000, 1000 to
$5.O00.0O0. is concerned. There is no