Evening journal., 1909-08-09
EN- GINEER DEFENDS
THE COAL CONTRACTS

Your attention is called to the fact that
the observation records taken in conduct
Ing each test and the methods employed
In computing results were az open to
the experts inspection as all other data
but that there was no apparent desire 70
determine tho character OF said errors by
an examination Of the above mentioned
records.
Exhibit 3.
Your especial attention Is called to the
numerous tabulations IN this exhibit and
the conclusions noted thereon. I wish to
point out that Il is manifectly unfair to
any or all Goals to base comparison OF re-
suits Of tests with regular station duty.
Anyone at all familiar with pumping
station maintenance knows that the
station duty is always very considera-
bly, below the test duty Of any of the
pumps. in some cases being as much
If not more than 25 pct. below the re-
suits obtained from the same pumps
under test conditions. This does not
imply that the pumps are not properly
operated. although IL Is hardly TO be
expected that any machinery can be
operated continual with the same eff
cheney as is obtained during a test.
Under test conditions there is no loss
OF time and no coal wasted for bank
Ing or other purposes and everything
Is watched in a most careful manner.
Under ordinary running conditions
from which station duty is computed
considerable amount OF coal Is used for
banking fires. for starting fires. for
heating buildings and In many cases
for auxiliary machinery all of which
cuts into the coal pile without giving
results az the operating end and In.
consequence OF all these conditions sta
tlon duty falls we'll below the duty
Shown under test conditions
In our station the conditions have
been such that continuous operation OF
the pumping engines Is the exception
rather than the rule with the conse-
quent daily use Of coal for banking
fires and carrying steam over periods
when pumps are not running.
our pumping records for years past
do not show the full extent Of coal so
sued except in the winter Of 1s07-190s
when the boilers were exposed and
steam was supplied TO the new pump
ing station. During said period the
engineers allowed a fair amount of coal
, for pumpage and all other coal used
was charged to heating and station
{ service. This Is celarly evinced in that
q Mr.. Brassngton's report shows 136.IS7
@ pounds. (though the amount was ac-
= tually 27t.379 pounds more coal used
d for said purpose In that year than in
n 19OS-l9O9, yet he proceeds 20 increase
l. this amount by the small allowance OF
al pct. for loss in heat due to exposur'
,e Of boilers in 19O7-19os."
n While ] haye stated that II Is no
a equitable 10 compafG station 1uty wit
,d test duty the tables A1ereinl ave bee
~ so arranged for the purpose sfil'l3s
Ill. son with the experts report. 1t IS
or be particularly noted that in computin
ut the, wor kdone by the coal supplied
i90t-OS at least two and one-ha'
months pumpage or work & ..e by an
= other dealers coal has been added {
the work done by said C907-0s) Goa
.r to the marked advantage thereof and
- al least one months pumpage by tn,
!, 1907-0S coal was added to the worl
+, done by the 19OS-O9 coal to the detri-
~ meut Of the latter.
i II Is hardly conceivable that these
figures ware so arranged in any spirit
"a, Of malice toward any coal dealer. yet
\. tho fact remains that the expert was
~ possessed OF the Official coal ties prints
~ which were clearly Indicative Of the ap-
"A lproximafe periods when said Goals we're
m used
n The result Of this jugglery Of our
m records Is shown In the following that
10 the efficiency OF the 1907-0s coal, al
ar legged TO have been 9s5 pct, was ac-
Il tually but 92.3 pct, and the efficiency OF
I'd the 190S-09 coal. alleged TO have been
to SO pct, was actually 95.6 pct. Other
G. errors and misstatements Of a similar
as character are fully explained in ths
d. comparison OF these exhibits.
In his letter Mr. Brassington CALI
r. attention to the clearness OF the pow.
~ er cost reports wrom which this (his
report is taken. in that they show clear
ly from week to week. and month L
s month. the comparison between thi
y quality of coal.' yet he does not Sc
- lect any such periods when condition.
were not effected by boiler exposure
or other inequitable causes and MAKE
~ said comparison Had this been don,
~, there is little doubt that the conclu.
-. sions reached would have been far diff.
~ ferent.
-. Exhibit c.
The tables in this exhibit have beer
arranged for comparison with the 'ex.
- pert report. It was in this exhibit
that the Citys loss was alleged Il
y have been $1,000. in the year 1s0s-0s
The principal portion or $500 of salt
(. loss was attributed to change from
Warner to Lloydell coal yet expert
conducted the official tests and rec
commended the use OF this coal to you
ID" board against the advise of your for
mer Chief Engineer. Refuge for tn
above stated amount OF loss Is sough
:, Continued on Second Page.
WEATHER.
70 WASHINGTON, Aug. 9. Hiah tenn
AT ka-rr.. 1.A..~I