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

é THE MARINE RECORD. —_—<—<—— — — — ———————————————————————————————ONNmweum’s LIQUID FUEL.* With regard to the various methods of burning fuel, Mr. Orde had understated the results obtained in burning oil fuel by the better-known methods, such as ‘spraying it by means ‘of steam, also by injecting it into furnaces in a pttre state under pressure with a. spraying burner with- out the assistance of steam or air. As the results of ex- haustive experiments carried out by the firm with which ‘he (Mr. Traill) was connected, it was clearly demonstrated that it was not necessary, as stated in the paper, to line the furnace with fire bricks and to have large furnace space. They had been able to retain the ordinary furnace arrangement with the bars in position as required for coal burning, and to burn oil by means of either the usual steam burner or the spray burner before mentioned, and to get perfect combustion in a small space; the results they had obtained by these methods of burning with the intro- duction of the furnace bars, covered with broken fire brick, was something like 14 to 15 pounds of water evaporated per pound of fuel from and at 212 degrees, They had been using the ordinary steam burner for the last ten years in steam- ers for the Caspian Sea, and latterly in large ocean-going steamers trading between this country and the far Eastern ports. Until quite recently oil was burnt in the furnaces with all the coal-burning gear removed, but in more re- cent practice the furnace gear is retained, the fire bars be- ing well covered with broken fire brick; in this way they had been able to burn sufficient oil and to obtain as much power from the boilers as would be obtained in the or- dinary way by a coal fire burning best coal, and he thought that was all that was necessary. By keeping the fire bars in the furnace the efficiency had been very much increased. The type of burner known as the dry spray burner, and previously referred to, was coming rapidly to the front, es- pecially in merchant steamers. It was undesirable to use a steam burner, because the steam used in spraying the oil was lost, and had to be made up by evaporators. The dry spray burner did away. with the use ‘ot steam, which could not be returned to the condenser. Further on, Mr. Orde mentioned that “the vapor thus produced can be com- pletely oxidized by the amount of air chemically necessary, and a larger quantity of oil can therefore be treated in the same furnace space than by either of the two other sys- tems.” He (Mr. Traill) did not think that was correct, because without the firebars in the furnace a very much greater quantity of oil could be burned and a greater power obtained with an ordinary steam burner, but not so ef- ficiently. In Mr, Orde’s system steam is used in spraying ; he (Mr. Traill) thought it was better to do away with steam altogether, in order not to increase the evaporating plant, which was always an objectionable feature. Coming to the advantages of using liquid fuel, and the methods of carrying it, Mr. Orde stated that with oil fuel having a flash point of 200 degrees, there should be no risk of ex- plosion whatever. Lloyd’s drew the line at 200 degrees, so far as their classification was concerned. A very important question in connection with oil fuel arose from the dif- ficulty. of getting rid of the water which was often inti- mately mixed with the oil. Most oils contain a small quantity of water so intimately mixed that it cannot be easily separated except by keeping the oil standing for a The reduction in evaporative efficiency of oil so mixed with water was so small that it could be neglected entirely. But, again, there was also in many cases a large quantity of water mixed with the oil which could easily, be separated. To get rid of this water.an arrangement known as the Flannery-Boyd (patent) system, whereby the water is sep- arated effectually, overcomes. the difficulty. Mr. Orde claimed for his method of. oil burning that he could. burn oil containing a very large proportion of) water, but it would certainly be an objectionable feature-if oil on board ship had so much water as to interfere with the evapora- tive ‘efficiency, ‘and thus reduce the power obtainable from the boilers, with consequent reduction in speed; it there- fore became necessary to have the water separated. in order to give the best results. Another feature in regard’ to the separation of water arose from a method of carry- ing the fuel, and which led to the Flannery-Boyd system being invented. To fit old vessels, particularly, for car- rying it, meant a very large alteration in the bunkers, and to re-construct them would be a matter of very serious expense. Now, this difficulty was overcome by carrying DESDE RIS PRISED Oe We AIBA OED cha ee Sane ao *Discussion on a paper read before the Northeast Coast Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders. the oil alternately with water ballast in the double bottom tanks, and in other spaces generally used in steamers for water ballast, and in the case of oil steamers also in the coffer dams, which spaces are already oil-tight. But the great objection to the carrying of the oil in the ballast tanks was that water ballast could not be removed entirely from the tanks; this remaining water, when oil fuel was put into the tanks, became mixed with the oil, and in order to get rid of it it was passed through the Flannery-Boyd separators on its way to the furnaces. Lloyd’s had dealt with the matter, and practically now any ordinary steamer could be readily fitted, at comparatively small cost, to carry oil fuel in the’ ballast tanks, thus obviating any , structural alterations. The great obstacle to the adoption of liquid fuel, viz., the cost of providing suitable spaces for its accommodation, was therefore overcoine by this system. He had just read an interesting account in the papers, showing that the use of oil fuel on board ocean- going vessels was now far beyond the experimental stage, and also showing the great reduction in stokehold labor. A vessel belonging to the Shell Line (M. Samuel & Co.) had just completed a 10,000-mile voyage, burning entirely oil fuel, the number of firemen being reduced from twenty to ten. The vessel discharged- the whole of her cargo, over 5,000 tons of oil, in London with her donkey boiler using oil fuel, the only coal on board the vessel being that required for the galley. ——— a oO eo CALUMET RIVER— SOUTH CHICAGO. (BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD BRIDGE.) The attention of the officer of the Corps of Engineers, U. S. A., in charge of the, conservancy and improvements of rivers and harbors within the Chicago district, is called to the very inconvenient and dangerous location of the protecting pier of the Baltimore & Ohio railroad bridge in the Calumet river. his artificial obstruction is the cause of much annoy- ance and anxiety to captains frequenting the port, and not a little damage to vessel property. To get through the draw vessels are compelled to make a reverse curve, with the attendant danger of colliding with or striking vessels moored at the Iroquois Iron Co. dock, north of the bridge, and especially so when there is a fresh breeze or the stedmer is without a tug. Three vessels have thus uninten- tionally damaged other boats lying at this dock, and sub- jected themselves to more or less extensive damage claims for so doing, although the avoidance thereof was impos- sible under the conditions. Those regularly trading to South Chicago observe great caution and advise others so to do when passing this draw, and the statement is made that it would appear as if the railroad company’s wishes in the matter were solely consid- ered when the construction was authorized by the govern- ment, and this, too, to the detriment of the interests of navigation, as a bascule bridge would have been better for all concerned. The present inconvenience and danger is so marked that a joint protest from masters compelled to use this draw is now being considered for presentation through the proper channels to those having authority in this matter, or oo or STATEMENT OF THE VISIBLE SUPPLY OF GRAIN. As compiled by George F. Stone, Secretary Chicago Board of Trad2, July 20th, Igor. RYE, | BARLEY CITIES WHERE WHEAT.| CORN. Oats. STORED. Bushels. | Bushels. | Bushels. | Bushels. | Bushels, BuUutaloses .cisenie os avies 1,523,000 299,000 474,000 57.000 82,coo Chicago.........0000: 3,877,000] 6,512,000] 1,261,000 116,000 1,000 Detroit)... o.ccccc eee 297,000 77,000 2,000 5,000 3,00 Duluth.......0-....5. 2,326,000] 1.912,000] 1,010,000 81,000 41,000 Fort William, Ont.. Prt OOO lives vis sis availa yas tiepaie csainicaliatasea toh iaie Wier wisse ns Milwaukee.........- 400000 477,000 259,000 9,00 16,0co Port Arthur, Ont.... AOIOOO |fstetsiecs.s vers latoiels sarotarsvelfiesrate ol ane: aii Pee Toledo......2eeeeeees 183,000; 514,000 81,000 TAtOoo ln seer oe TOTONCO -wicssieeside os BOOOD| (s ois. «s'e:- - BOO Ss eves 7,000 On Canals..........- 183,000 43,000] 288,000 77,000 20 020 On Lakes....:.....- 944,000] 750,000 215,000 Goce. oes O1 Miss. River...... BITNGOOG |e. ciake bo 2 « sie | ic ates «ines vi ential RIS oes Grand Total..... 27 681,000] 13,242,000] 6.341,000] 433,000 I Corresponding Date, oe ieee 1900... seescencceeers 45,631,000] 13,525,000] 6,428,000] 596,000] 514,000 Increase for week..|...--..+20] cocseeeeefer ce cee Jeeee eee ees ve spa Decrease ‘© ‘' ..| 298,000] 825,000] 1,080,000] —_ 104 000 50,000 While the stock of grain at lake ports: only is here given, the total shows the figures for the entire country except the Pacific Slope. JULY 25, 190K. LL SHIPPING AND MARINE JUDICIAL DECISIONS. (COLLABORATED SPECIALLY FOR THE MARINE RECORD. Collision—Moored Vessels—Precautions Required in Fog.—The fact that there is no rule requiring vessels to display lights or give signals during a fog, while moored to a wharf, does not relieve them from the duty of taking such precautions where the circumstances are such that or- cinary prudence requires it. The Kennebec, 108 Fed. Rep. (Gi sS.)2300% rea sere _Admiralty—Calling in Charterer.—A proceeding on peti- tion of the cwner and claimant of a libeled vessel to call in the charterer to show cause why it should not be con- demned for damage resulting from the collision for which the libel is within the power of the court under general | admiralty rule 59, as it is clearly within the spirit, though not within the words, of the rule. The Barnstable, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. (U. S.) 684. Towage—Liability of Tug for Injury to Tow.—A tug held in fault for an injury received by a schooner in tow, by striking against the piling at the side of a railway bridge, ~ the draw of which was not opened in response to the tug’s signal, on the ground that it failed to act with sufficient promptness in stopping the tow, as was its custom, being fa- miliar with the locality and with the fact that the draw might be found closed, when the tug came in full view of ii, on account of the near approach of trains. The C. F. Roe et al., 108 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 285. Navigable Waters—Negligent Operation of Drawbridge —Injury to Passing Vessel—The owner of a drawbridge across a navigable channel in the Duluth-Superior harbor held liable in damages for injury to a barge in tow, on the ground that the bridge tender negligently failed to give the. signal to warn the approaching tug and tow of an obstruc- tion which prevented the opening of the draw until it was too late for the barge to stop, in consequence of which she came in collision with the draw. Hartley vs. American Steel-Barge Co., 108 Fed. Rep. (U.S.) 97. : Salvage—Computation of Award—Value of Property Salved.—A cargo of sugar in port, on which the duty had been paid, subject to repayment in case of its destruction before landing, was exposed to danger of injury or destruc- tion by fire, and the court made an award to the salvor equal to ten per cent of the value of the sugar. Held, that such award must be computed on the value of.the sugar with the duty unpaid, since that was its actual value and the amount saved to the owner. The remaining sum, which went to make up the market value of the sugar with the tax paid, represented no property interest in the thing salved, but merely the tax, which could not properly be the sub- ject of salvage; and its loss, moreover, would have been the loss of the government, which had no interest in or re- lation to the property, and could not be made a party, or affected by the salvage award. Cornell Steamboat Co. vs. 1,883 Bags of Sugar, 108 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 277. Collision—Suit for Damages—Right of Recoupment.— Where a vessel, libeled for collision by the owners of the cther vessel on their own behalf and as bailees in behalf of some of their cargo owners, took no steps to bring in ‘libel- ant’s vessel under admiralty rule 59, or to raise the ques- tion of her liability by any pleading, and consequently her liability to her cargo owners under the terms of her bills cf lading was not adjudicated, upon a finding that both vessels were in fault the respondent is not entitled to re- coup a moiety of the cargo damage against the vessel dam- age adjudged in favor of libelants; and, for still stronger reasons, there can be no such recoupment, on account of cargo damage recovered by intervening libelants, against that recoverable by libelants on behalf of other cargo own- ers, the effect of which would be to leave such cargo ownérs unpaid, since, under the pleadings, they cannot be given a decree therefor against libelants or their vessel. The New York, 108 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 102. Shipping—Breach of Charter—Liability of Vessel_—Libel- ant, a wrecking company, chartered a steamer to be used in salving the cargo of a vessel which had been wrecked ia the West Indies. The locality and the nature of the work were known to the owner, and the charter gave libelant the use of the vessel for about six weeks. When the salvage had been but partially completed, and before the expiration of the time limited, the master refused to stay longer, alleg- ing insufficiency of the anchorage, and his fear of storms. The proofs showed that storms were not usual at that sea- son, that the weather had been at all times pleasant, and that the vessel was not in any great or unusual danger by reason of the nature of the anchorage. Held, that under such facts the refusal of the master to remain was a breach of the charter, which rendered the vessel liable for the dam- ages sustained by the libelant from the forced abandon- ment of the work, The Helios, 109 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 270 Shipping—Delivery of Cargo—Local Law Requiring De- livery to Customs Officers.—Where, by the local law and usage, dutiable goods imported are required to be deliv- ered to the customs authorities, who assume the respon- sibility of thereafter making delivery to the proper person on payment of the duty, a delivery by the ship to such authorities is a good delivery as between carrier and ship- per. The Asiatic Prince, 108 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 287.