___________________________________________________________ | | | | | | | | | Gas | | Candles | | Burner. | Pressure, | Consumed, | Light in | per | | | Inches | Cubic Feet | Candles. | Cubic Foot. | | | | per Hour. | | | |_________|___________|____________|__________|_____________| | | | | | | | No. 1 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 7.0 | 11.0 | | " 2 | 2.0 | 0.75 | 21.0 | 32.0 | | " 3 | 2.0 | 0.75 | 28.0 | 37.3 | | " 4 | 3.0 | 1.2 | 48.0 | 40.0 | | " 5 | 3.5 | 2.0 | 76.0 | 38.0 | |_________|___________|____________|__________|_____________| Neuberg gives these figures for different burners (1900) as supplied by Pintsch: ______________________________________________________________________ | | | | | | | | Gas | | Candles | |"w | Burner. | Pressure, | Consumed, | Light in | per | | | Inches | Cubic Feet | Candles. | Cubic Foot. | | | | per Hour. | | | |____________________|___________|____________|__________|_____________| | | | | | | | No. 0, slit burner | 3.9 | 1.59 | 59.2 | 37.3 | | " 00000 fishtail | 1.6 | 0.81 | 31.2 | 38.5 | | Twin burner No. 1 | 3.2 | 0.32 | 13.1 | 40.8 | | " " " 2 | 3.2 | 0.53 | 21.9 | 41.3 | | " " " 3 | 3.2 | 0.74 | 31.0 | 41.9 | | " " " 4 | 3.2 | 0.95 | 39.8 | 41.9 | |____________________|___________|____________|__________|_____________| The actual candle-power developed by each burner was not quoted by Neuberg, and has accordingly been calculated from his efficiency values. It is noteworthy, and in opposition to what has been found by other investigators as well as to strict theory, that Neuberg represents the efficiencies to be almost identical in all sizes of the same description of burner, irrespective of the rate at which it consumes gas.