Natural & Artificial Sewage TreatmentJones, Alfred Stowell
Science
Natural & Artificial Sewage Treatment
Jones, Alfred Stowell
Sewage
For instance, Mr. Fowler, the chemist in charge of the Manchester
experiments, observed before the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal
as follows: “It is a delicate operation (the management of septic tank
and contact beds), which requires careful watching! There is no doubt
whatever about that!” (Question 5651.)
Again, the conditions of successful working of contact beds, laid down
by the same gentleman on page 64 of the Manchester report for the year
ending March 27, 1901, are ample proof of this, and they show very
clearly how extremely careful the supervision of such a plant ought to
be, and that in the hands of inexperienced men it will soon come to
grief.
Professor Percy Frankland stated in his evidence before the Royal
Commission, that in his opinion land required less skilled supervision
than contact beds. (See Questions 9937, 10071-74.)
A similar view was expressed by Mr. H. M. Wilson, the chief inspector
of the West Riding of Yorkshire Rivers Board. (Question 6380.)
VII. SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE DEPOSITION OF SUSPENDED MATTERS IN
TANKS.
[Sidenote: Definition of the term “deposition.”]
The term “deposition” shall here be held to mean the precipitation of
the suspended matters without chemicals or other artificial means,
i.e. the unaided subsidence of these matters at such a rate of flow
that septic action is not set up within the tanks.
The question that is of interest here, is: Which is the most
favourable rate of flow of the sewage through the tank, so far as
the deposition of the suspended matters is concerned? To some extent
the answer to this question will depend on the special characteristics
of the particular sewage under consideration, but for general purposes
the following observations will not be without interest.
Although of very great importance, this question does not appear to
have received very general consideration, as the available number of
careful experiments is but small.
[Sidenote: Tank velocity at Barking.]
It appears that the calculated velocity in the channels of the
precipitation tanks at Barking is about 4 feet per minute, and that
with this velocity about 77 per cent. of the suspended matters were
deposited in the year 1894.
[Sidenote: Tank velocity at Manchester.]
At the Manchester tanks it is stated that a velocity of 3 feet 4
inches per minute is employed.
[Sidenote: Velocity frequently adopted.]
A rate of velocity now frequently adopted in this country for new
works is 6 inches per minute.
[Sidenote: Frankfort experiments.]
In the settling tanks at Frankfort on the Main there are deposited
about 84 per cent. of the suspended matters, with velocities ranging
from 9½ inches to 16½ inches per minute.
[Sidenote: Cassel experiments.]
With a velocity of 7 inches per minute, it is stated that at the
Cassel sewage works 97 per cent. of the suspended matters are retained
in the tanks.
[Sidenote: Hanover experiments.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account