Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1909-01-30

do so. 1t is no reflection for 1t to do so.
Mr.. BARKER-I received a letter from
ing me to come. 1 was asked to attend
by a representative of the company, but
I said 1 would not come.
Mr.. SIMS-And then the chairman re-
quested you to come?
Mr.. BARKER-Yes. sir.
Mr.. SIMS-Then you are entirely disin-
terested. as you are invited on both sides.
I mean disinterested, so far as coming
before the committee. disinterested IN
every respect. You are not volunteer
witness in any respect.
Mr.. TAYIOR-He stated exactly how
he came. and / do not think you need dis-
cuss 1t any further. 1t is In the record
that he stated exactly the manner IN
which he came.
Mr.. Loves Testimony.
Following Is the testimony Of Mr.. Love:
Mr.. LOVE-I am q chemist by profess
sion. and for something over thirty years
have been gas commissioner for the city
of New York.
Mr.. TAYLOR-You may state. Mr..
Love. just how you came before the COM
mittee-at whose invitation?
Mr.. LOVE-The invitation OF the WASH
ington Gas Light Company.
Mr.. TAYLOR-As I stated before. 1t is
our custom to let any statement De mace.
and not to interrupt any more than we
can nelp untll the CoHCiusioh VI NV
ment. You may proceed.
Mr.. IOVE-The first water-gas plant
established in this country was IN leo4'
at Phoenixville. Pa. 1t was then an en-
tirely new departure in the manufacture
Of Illuminating gas. Two years later tine
Municipal Gas Light Company OF New
York took up the process and commenced
to supply what Is commonly known as IL
Eliminating water gas The success Whicn
the Municipal company's product met with
In pronounced from
the start, and within two or three years
its annual output had increased to some
thing over 1000. 600 feet Of gas.
The Introduction OF this process or max
ing illuminating gas, / think. can De saie-
ly said to be the greatest advance IN the
manufacture of illuminating gas In the
last century. Nothing has had greater
influence on the subject OF artificial IL
Elimination.
Defines ''Water Cas-"
The term water gas" had been used
before the committee, and 1 think per-
haps 1t may be WELL unless the COM
mittee thoroughly understands that mat
ter. to now define the difference between
ordinary water gas, that is. what we
mean as carbureted water gas. and water
gas. what the gas man knows as blue
gas.
The water gas. the committee probably
understands by this time, is made by
passing superheated steam over mean
descent carbon. This breaks up the steam,
the carbon taking the oxygen or the
water, or Of the steam. freeing carbonic
oxide. and leaving the hydrogen of the
steam free. SO that the mixed gases are
carbonic oxide hydrogen, roughly in equal
quantities.
This flame burns with a blue color, 1t
is practically odorless. and the next step
would be to give that its illuminating
properties. This is effected by introduc-
ing naphtha or oil. and that stage OF
the process is carried on in different ways
under different patents. The latest forms
OF apparatus do it all in one operation.
this is, this mixed blue gas Is carbureted
in one operation, so that the gas passing
from the plant is the finished illuminat-
ing gas.
Mr.. SIMS-"Carbureted" means put
ting the naphtha in?
Mr. LOVE-Yes. That is. 1t is gas that
has been carbureted, or given It's illumi-
mating property, and in that condition
the carbureted gas has an odor just as
so far as that particular property is con-
cerned, they both stand on the same
basis.
Advantages Of Water Gas.
There are certain advantages that the
water gas has over the coal gas, and
it has been claimed that the coal gas has
The one thing, 1 think which appealed
to the consumers in New York when the
carbureted water gas was first distrib-
uted was the fact that it had a bright,
clean, white flame Moreover they were
getting from % to 30 candlepower gas
from the Municipal company supplying
this carbureted water gas. whereas be-
fore that, Or if they did not take that
gas, they got the ordinary 16-candle coal
gas, which was being supplied by other
companies engaged at that time.
So far as the explosiveness in these
gases Is concerned it is probably about
the same. That is the escape of coal
gas into a room. or the escape of carbu-
reted water gas into room, mixed with
the necessary quantity of air to make an
explosive mixture. would not be mate
rally different, but so far as the heating
power is concerned there is considerable
difference. Ordinary coal gas. we will say,
OF sixteen candlepower will give about
600 to $50 heat units per cubic foot. The
carbureted water gas from twenty-five to
tWenty-four candlepower will give from
zoo to $50 heat units, SO there is a mate
rial gain in the use of the carbureted
water gas over the coal gas In that re-
Spect
Mr.. SIMS-From twenty-five up?
Mr.. LOVE-Yes. OF course, when the
thing is determined by weight, the re-
verse is the case; but our gas Is sold to
course. the use of either of these gases in
gas stoves in attended, to my mind, with
al bout the same amount of danger; that
is, the products Of combustion from the
coal gas and the carbureted water gas
are the same, and, OF course. under SAM
tary conditions, these products Of com
buStion should be carried to f1ue. That
is the general doctrine. l do not carry
it out. but 1 always advise other people
to do it. i think 1t is the proper sanitary
fO take II aIChfcr
Accident the Main Point.
The main point which. | believe. has
been brought before this committee is
proba of accident from one gas
over those of another? OF course, really,
IT is only carelessness or ignorance or de-
sign which would be the origin OF any
accident. Now, of course, the matters of
design, i understand are thrown out:
that is, anything Of a suicidal intent
would hardly count. The making up of
lists of accident from newspaper clip
very popular way OF getting at it, and
it is very difficult. particularly day or
two or week after an accident. to chase
down that matter and find out really
what the exact conditions We're.
One of the early investigations of
this matter, early reports. was one is
sued by DIR. Raymond who was then
the health commissioner of the city of
Brooklyn. He had been applied to by
the common council OF Brooklyn for an
opinion and report on this matter of
he furnished quite an elaborate report
of something like 400 or 300 papeS the