The Popular Science Monthly, June, 1900: Vol. 57, May, 1900 to October, 1900Various
Science
The Popular Science Monthly, June, 1900: Vol. 57, May, 1900 to October, 1900
Various
Science -- Periodicals; Technology -- Periodicals
Just why the public has not been educated into a correct understanding
of the gas situation is hard to say, unless it be that an inbred
prejudice against believing the word of any corporation has led to an
utter repudiation of such explanatory statements as may emanate from
time to time from the gas office. And it must be admitted that many of
the explanations are misleading, either through the intention of the
superior officials or by reason of the ignorance of their subordinates.
Hardly has the chill of shortening days driven us indoors in the early
twilight before complaints of poor gas become epidemic. Now, what _is_
‘poor’ gas? Is the gas deficient in light-giving constituents, or is
it merely burned in such a manner as not to afford a satisfactory
illumination?
The charter of Greater New York requires that the illuminating gas
supplied throughout the city shall be of at least twenty candle power,
or illuminating quality, or richness--that is to say, if we burn this
gas in a standard burner at the standard pressure (or at as near this
pressure as may be), so that the rate of consumption is five cubic
feet an hour, the flame thus produced shall be equivalent to twenty
standard sperm candles, each burning at the rate of one hundred and
twenty grains of sperm per hour, and all bunched--if such a thing were
possible. There can be hardly any doubt but that all the gas sent out
from modern gas works fulfills the above requirement. Indeed, my own
tests give results ranging from twenty-two to twenty-eight candles,
with an average of about twenty-four. Manifestly, the gas _sent out_ is
not ‘poor.’
Nevertheless, the fact that the gas as manufactured is of the required
candle power is no indication that the product as delivered to the
consumer will give a similarly satisfactory test. Distribution of
gas is attended with many perplexities, not the least of which
is condensation. The illuminating hydrocarbons, or light-giving
constituents held in suspension in the gas, are not so firmly fixed
therein as to be unaffected by the size of the pipe, the character of
the internal pipe surface, and barometric and thermometric variations.
The transmission of gas causes, therefore, a loss of candle power
ranging from a small fraction to several candles, although it is
possible to conceive of conditions so extraordinarily favorable that
the illuminating quality of the gas might be actually improved by
distribution.
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