The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-11-10

muddy, but as the record shows that the
James River Is clear barely sixty days
In the year, and as the basins arc to hol5
only twenty-one days supply, we fail
to see the force of the argument.
1t was also stated that 1t would take
90 100000 gallons of water to clean each
of these basins, besides the expense for
labor In cleaning them out. We appre.
ciate the fact that the contract was let
for these basins before the Water Board
knew OF Our system, but we were given
to understand that their hands we're not
tied. and that they could adopt anything
that proved to be better. At tho request Of
certain members of the faculty, we gave
n demonstration at the University Col
lege of Medicine, and since then our pro-
cess has been subjected to severe criti.
cism by experts. Messrs. Froehling and
Robertson, OF Richmond, have propounded
several pertinent questions in regard to
the Chapman process of purifying water.
First, they ask. Does It do work better
than existing and proven rnethods?' Hy
existing and proven methods" INFER
that they mean the use Of alum sulphate
as n coagulant. We contend that the
Chlpman process does do the work
quicker and better than alum treatment.
and in proof of this let us compare the Two
methods briefly and their respective re-
suits. In the alum process, alum as sui
phate Is added to the water, and II the
work is carried on In an intelligent and
economical way, the amount of alum aud
ed per gallon Of tho water must vary IN
accordance with the condition OF the
water. This in itself would be great OBJ
lection to alum treatment, and would
cause no little trouble In the practical
workings Of the samo. The lufninuin COM
bines with the carbonic acid of the car.
Donate of calcium that is In tho water,
forming aluminium carbonate. which
breaks UP, carbonlc acid gas going of,
and water being taken UP, to form alum
mum hydrate. This gelatinous hydrate
has the power Of coagulating the sus-
pended matter in the water including
large proportion OF the bacteria, the de.
composition Of the alum to form the
hydrate Is slow, however. and there -
formed at the same time sulphurlc acid.
This sulphuric acid combines with the
calcium. increasing the hardness OF tho
water, or In case there is not sufficient
calcium or other suitable base, the sui
phuric acid remains In the water free,
rendering 1t unsuitable for domestic sup
ply. When distributed through the iron
pipes, It attacks tho iron, rusting the
pipes and giving rise to all the Hsagrec-
able consequences OF an iron bearing
water. The result OF this process is thai,
whereas the suspended matter. including
"a large proportion of the bacteria, has
been coagulated in such n state. that 1t
can be filtered of, there remains IN the
water sulphurio acid. either In n free
state or combined. AS a matter OF fact,
James River water contains small
amount OF lime. and II enough alum is
added to produce coagulation in the same
time required by tho Chapman process,
the result will be that sulphurio acid VIII
be left In tho water rs such.
with the Chapman process. by means OF
our composition plates and a email cleo
trio current, we produce hydrate which
coaEulates the suspended matter and bac-
terla, ard do not add to the water any
acid or Objectionable element.
Tho second question Is: Does It add to
the water any substance or substances
prejudicial to health7" Numbers OF tests
have been made upon water after treat
ment by the Chapman process, Including
ono Of the James River water made by
Mr.. Hurt chemist with the Department
Of Agriculture. These analysis and tests
show that no soluble salt or substances
prcjudicial to health have been added to
the water. ia
we are at. a loss ito account for the
statement OF Mossrs. Froehling and Ro-
bertson that: I'm rather less than one
gallon Of it examined by US. NO found
strong traces of tin for we can state
positively that there was no tin, absolute
ly none, IN the composition OF the cleo
trodes used at Richmond. We are not
Obliged, according to the Limitations OF
our patent, to use all metals mentioned
therein, nor In tho exact proportions spe-
Gifted
The next question Is: docs It produce
any change in the natural constituents OF
the water which make 1t less suitable for
domestic use?" We claim to remove the
suspended matter. the bacteria. leaving
tho water clear and containing Sufilc!ent
Inorganic salts to render, 1t ideal Tor
potable and manufacturing purposes. The
total solids in James River water treated
by our process. and tho James River
water filtered through porous stone only
differed 6s.1OO OF one grain per gallon, SO
1t Is evident that the natural constituents
OF tho water have not been disturbed, and
a further analysis OF tsh two waters
showed that the SILICA, alumnia and
iron, lime. magnesia, soda and potash are
practically the same.
The last question is: docs 1t do 1t more
economically than other recognized pro-
| cesses?" The question OF economies We
! leave to your own Judgment to decide. we
| state that we can install plant In Rich
mond for the initial cost of 100000 and
| that the cost Of running said plant will
| be about $3.50 per million gallons. Estl-
mates have been given you by other par
ties which may be compared with our
| figures.
When We appeared before the Water
Board, we were given to understand that
the contract for the settling basins could
not be cancelled, and that the only way
our process could be taken up was after
| 1t had been proved that the settling
basins were failure, We stated at the
College of Medicine demonstrations that
we were not there to sell the city a plant
nor to negotiate for one, but that the
demonstration was purely for scientific