The morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1899-1930, 1904-10-11
THE USE OF OIL AS FUEL.

4hG O0IS VI O1L <ao i O1+l.
The full report of the tests made under the aus.
pices of the United States navy to determine the
relative efficiency of coal and crude petroleum as
fuel has just appeared in print An inquiry equally
thorough has never before been made in this coun.
try, and much of the information secured will be
servicable to railroad companies, owners of mer-
chant steamers, and persons who mediate the es-
tablishment of power plants either for the genera
tion of electricity or for manufacturing purposes
The. relative merits of variety of burners al
so examined by the government and the results OBJ
tanned increase the practical value of the report
The experiments were made with water tube
boiler of the kind which has been adopted for cruis-
ers of the Denver class Coal was used in II and oil
IN So. The average amount of water evaporated by
a pound of coal was nine pounds, while 1918
pounds were evaporated by the same quantity of pc
troleum Weight for weight, then, the latter show
eda superiority of about 40 per cent. 1t should be
added that Pocahontas coal and Beaumont oil were
employed in these tests. Had either the solid or
liquid fuel been of another quality of course the
ratio would have been different.
In determining which is the more economical it
is necessary to consider not merely the price at the
place Of production, but also the cost of transpor
tation to the place of consumption The Atchison
Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company once operat
ed 25 freight engines continuously for month with
coal costing $685. ton, and then for another month
with petroleum which was bought at $1.33 bar
rel 1t was found that three and one-half barrels
Of the latter Involving an expenditure of $467)
would do the work of ton of the former BY the
use of oil, saving of 38 per cent was effected In
California and New Mexico the difference would
probably be even more conspicuous whereas in the
north Atlantic states coal is at present the cheaper
In a number of ways the convenience which has
attended the use of the liquid fuel on locomotives
would be paralleled in the navy. A fresh supply
be taken into the tanks of an engine or a ship
with great ease. Consumption can be readily adj
justed to meet the fluctuations in the demand for
steam. There is no trouble in forcing fire inl
emergencies and it is alleged that higher speed can
be maintained with oil than with coal On the other
hand, there are some questions have not yet been
before liquid fuel can be heartily commended for the
naval service. There is much uncertainty at present
about securing supply on short notice. Under
forced draught combustion is imperfect, and smoke
is emitted The difficulty can be remedied by allow
ing more space for the boilers, but without such
change of design the detection of vessel-a small
and defenceless destroyer, for instance would be
possible Still another modification in the arrange
ment of warship is demanded If an enemy 81
shot goes through coal bunkers their contents are
unharmed. Puncture an oil tank, and the effect
would be more serious. 1t is highly desirable that
liquid fuel be stored at lower level than coal.
The merchant marine could disregard the last
two perhaps all of these objections, comments the
New York Tribune. A vessel engaged in peaceful
pursuits would be in little danger of having her
Edes pierced by cannon ball, and would be still
less embarrassed by display of smoke. Moreover
one running regularly between certain ports-say
San Francisco and Yokohama would enjoy better
facilities for obtaining liquid fuel than warship
which is practically tramp. Already in the east
several steamship lines rely exclusively on oil and
1t is hard to why there should not be great ex
tension of its use in the trans-Pacifc trade Cali
fOrnia should be able to meet requirements of this
kind promptly and adequately
= n