The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

March, 1910 quirements of designers without nec- essarily having the force of laws. An attempt has been made to cut down the cumberstone. numerals with which we have all been familiar. This has been done by using a compensat- ing numeral, which appears to have been first advanced by James Wins- hurst in the summer of 1898. He was the surveyor for the British Board of Trade for many years. There is another table, on which considerable labor was expended, and that is table 18, fot frames: It is ar- ranged in a very brief form. I think for practical work you will find that table is about as concise as it could be. The idea has been, instead of putting the scantlings down indefin- itely, to simply put in the beams of the vessel, and go right or. left, ac- cording to the beam spacing. : As you all know, the big register- ing societies have been bringing their rules up to date. Lloyds new rules this year are a complete revision and you are all familiar with them. Communication of George Simpson. Geo. Simpson (communicated): The rules presented by Mr. Donald, as far as their arrangement is con- cerned, are certainly much more sim- ple of application than those connect- ed with the various classification so- cities with which we are familiar. It is, of course, absolutely impossible for one to express an opinion of the suitability of these rules for the vari- ous types of vessels considered with- out first making a careful comparative analysis of the scantlings proposed with those of one or other of the standard registers. Such an analysis would be highly interesting, taking for example typical steamers of each of the types and on the usual as- sumptions discovering their compar- ative topside strength. As the time at the disposition of the members of this society has been too restricted for this to be done I thought it might be interesting as a temporary sub- stitute to prepare the attached table giving the scantlings in parallel col- umns of a typical single deck freight vessel, these scantlings being taken out to the various classification so- cieties' requirements and compared with the rules proposed by Mr. Don- ald. The scantlings embodied in this table for topside tanks may be ig- nored as these you will observe are common to all of the rule require- ments. At the foot of each column I have given the weight of each longi- tudinal idea of the weight involved in -building a typical cargo vessel to "TAE. MARINE REVIEW the various rules. As the weight fac- tor is the most important from. both the ship owner's and the ship 'build- er's standpoint, it would be the de- termining one in adopting scantlings where a vessel was intended for class- ification. It will be seen from this comparison that a vessel of this type built to the proposed rules would be almost similar in weight compared with the requirements of any of the class#fication societies compared in the table. Of course, time permitting, it might be shown, although of this Il (am <not site, that 1in fared or smaller vessels a different result might obtain. é I should like 'to express my ap- proval of the methodical manner in which these rules have been prepared and the interest which any discussion on a subject of this kind must create amongst naval architects, as 1 think> it will be conceded that the existing rules at the disposal of our ship own- ers and ship builders desiring Amer- ican classification for their vessels re- qure very much modernizing and bringing up to date in view of the many structural innovations which have taken place within the past ten years, the appearance of many new types, and the scientific investigations into structural strength which have taken place in the same period. Tribute to President Bowles. Edwin A. Stevens then presented ° the following resolution: Resolved, That the Society desires to place on record its regrets that the President was compelled to be absent from this meeting, and it further desires to express its great appreciation of the work he has done for its advancement since its first meeting 16 years ago; also that it is the sense of this meeting, that a committee be appointed by the chair- man to prepare and present a more formal 'and complete recognition of his services, at the next meeting, which it is earnestly hoped he will attend. After Admiral Capps, who was closely associated with Admiral Bowles in .the early days of the so- ciety had spoken feelingly of Admiral Bowles' services the resolution was unanimously adopted. Strength of Watertight Bulkheads. Through some extraordinary mis- understanding the New York Evening Post was led to announce that the council had withdrawn Commodore William Hovgaard's paper on the "Strength of Watertight Bulkheads" from the proceedings. This was a 103 . palpable error but nevertheless chair- man Taylor was careful to convey his regret to Commodore Hovgaard that such a_ stupid blunder should shave been: made. The paper is one of great value and, in the light of the Republic's recent loss, especially per- tinent. At the conclusion of the read- ing of his paper Commodore Hoy- - gaard said: "This must be regarded as the first installment, as it has not been possi- ible for me to carry the second part as far as necessary because ] have not had available as many tests as I could wish for the analysis. I. have had a great number of tests of the double stiffener type of bulkheads, but very few of the single stiffener type, because they have not come into use in the United States Navy until re- cently. I think when more tests of various forms of single stiffeners are at hand, it will be then possible to. frame a simple and reliable formula which can be used with perfect safety in predicating the strength of bulk- heads, and in constructing the sys- tem of stiffeners to fulfill the require- ments." Discussion on Prof. Hovgaard's -- Paper. Prof... Herbert C. Sadler: 1° think the society should thank Prof. Hoy- gaard for 'bringing this matter be- fore us. The subject of the subdivi- sion of ships is one of great import- ance, and I think we all realize it. It divides itself, I think, into two parts, the consideration, of the num- ber of subdivisions we ought to put into a ship, and the consideration of the structural details of the bulkhead. The question of the number of compartments has been dealt with very fully in the report which Prof. Hovgaard mentions, and it is a mat- ter of simple calculation to decide how many compartments are neces- sary to fulfill any given conditions as to the vessel being capable of re-- maining afloat with a certain number of compartments flooded. It is al- most impracticable to design the av- erage merchant ship so that she will remain afloat with certain compart- ments flooded. If we divide a vessel up so she will remain afloat with all compartments flooded she becomes_ impractical so far as handling cargo is concerned. The question of. the structure of the bulkheads ought to be such, that, when a vessel is dam- aged and a compartment flooded, the vessel will remain 'afloat with that compartment flooded, and the bulk- head will not give way. The case