Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1909-01-29
WATER GAS DEFENDED
Expert Considers Process
Great Forward Stride.
LOVE BEFORE COMMITTEE
Does Not Regard It as More Danger
Gus Than Coal Product.
CITES SEVERAL ADVANTAGES
More Light and Heat-Takes Issue
With Wiley Regarding Use of
Incandescent Mantles.
CITES SEVERAL ADVANTAGES

L. +. Barker. chairman of the board
of gas and electric light commissioners OF
Massachusetts, and Edward G. Love, a
gas expert of the city of New York. We're
the principal witnesses before the House
L-strict committee today a its third
hearing on the District Commissioners
bill to limit to 10 per cent the amount of
carbon monoxide in the illuminating sup
ply of the District Of Columbia.
Mr.. owe was called by the Washington
Gas Light Company. Mr. Baker appeared
upon request of Chairman Smith of the
committee.
Mr.. Love testified that for over thirty
years he had been gas examiner of New
York city. The first water-gas plant in
this country had been established in
1874 at Phoenixville. Pa, he said. and the
manufacture of water gas was then an
entirely new departure in municipal illu-
mination.
Two years later the Municipal Gas Com
pany of New York had taken up the new
process. The success with which this
start. In a couple of years the concern
was making 55O,OOO.O0O cubic feet of the
product.
Great Forward Stride.
THE introduction of this process" said
Mr.. Love, "can be said to be the greatest
forward stride in the manufacture of
illuminating gas in the last century,
Mr. Love explained the difference be-
tween water gas and coal gas. going into
technical details. He said water gas lad
many advantages over coal gas
1t burned, he said, with a bright white
clean flame. giving as high as twenty-five
to thirty candlepower. Before that, with
exclusively coal gas sixteen
was about the best that could be had.
The explosive qualities OF coal and
water gas Were about the same. he said,
so there was nothing to choose between
the two in this regard. But the heating
power of coal and water differed consid-
eraby.
a coal gas of sixteen-can candlepower would
give about $50 heat units per cubic foot.
Carbureted water gas would give abou.
proposition was determined by weight the
reverse was the case. As gas was sold by
the cubic foot he considered that the
standard in the determination Of heat
units.
DIR. Love quoted from authorities on
gas to slow that water gas was not
considered more dangerous to life than
coal gas when the same preca utions were
taken with both. He remarked. in this
connection that water gas. uncarbureted
was odorless, and therefore dangerous:
but that carbureted water gas smelled
just as unpleasantly as coal gas. and
therefore gave just as much warning of
leakage or incomplete combustion.
He considered the use of coal and water
gas in cooking ranges attended by just
about the same amount of danger.
Opinions of Ira Remsen
In 1883. DR.. Love said, Prof Ira Rem
sen. now president of Johns Hopkins Uni
versity, had been retained by the board of
health OF Brooklyn in an investigation of
the relative dangers in the use of coal
and water gas. Prof. Remsen had reported
that no conclusions could be drawn along
the line. as statistics were not sufficiently
comprehensive.
The danger was with respect to the
equally bad odor he could not see that
the use of water gas should be frowncd
upon disproportionately 20 the use Of coal
gas
DR.. Remsen reported. however, that
probably the fatal effects Of water gas
could be noted in shorter period than
those Of coal gas. He did not however,
consider the use of water gas danger
GUS under proper conditions.
DR.. Love quoted other authorities whose
opinions were along the same line IS those
OF Prof Remsen
DIR. Love filed with the committee a
copy of testimony taken al the hearings
before the manufactures committee OF
the Massachusetts Legislature when the
law limiting the amount of carbon mon
oxide in gas used in the state to 10 per
cent was up for repeal.
The committee had, received Il letter
from Prof. Frankland. professor of chem
istry at the Royal College of Chemistry
i'm London. saying that water gas could
be used with safety and that he was sor-
ry that he could not use that Illuminating
duct ;r {ocf 90
the straight coal gas product which was
furnished.
Takes Issue With Opposition.
Opposing the proposition advanced by
experts of the bureau Of chemistry that
the use of water-gas was limited or for
b!dden In France DIR. Love quoted Prof.
Adolph WertZ OF Paris as saying the rea-
son water-gas was not used as an illuml-
mating product OH the continent was that
economic and other conditions were not
favorab BILE
DR. Love took Issue with DR.. Wiley's
argument that the candlepower of a gas
did not matter these days, In view Of the
general of incandescent mantles. He
insisted that in the city OF New York not
20 per cent of gas consumers used in
candescent mantles.
Il have only one in my house, l am
ashamed TO say" added DR.. Love. with
smile.
This" he said. lis still the age of the
flat-tiame burner and We must lay our
plans accordingly"
In reply to questions by Representative
Sims of Tennessee, DIR. Love admitted
that straight coal gas could be enriched
by the use of oils and naphtha to twenty
or twenty-five almost any other candle
power but insisted that II would be
smoky under such conditions. With the
carbon monoxide limit at 10 per cent 1t
| would be impossible for the Washington
! Gas Light Company to use any water gas
at all
He called the attention at this point 20
the fact that OF fifty gas manufacturers
| who some years ago opposed the repeal
| of the carbon monoXide limiting law
| thirty-one were now using water gas
containing a high percentage of that
| product.
Committee Is Drawn In.
| DR.. Love ocasioned considerable amuse-
| ment by announcing that he had pre-
| pared a list of the various cities and
towns which were represented by mem-
| bers of the House District committee
| He had found that out of the nineteen
| members three came from cities where
| a straight water gas was used. nine from
! cities where a mixture of coal gas and