Scientific American Supplement No. 324

Produced by Olaf Voss, Don Kretz, Juliet Sutherland, Charles Franks and the DP Team SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN SUPPLEMENT NO. 324 NEW YORK, MARCH 18, 1882 Scientific American Supplement. Vol. XIII, No. 324. Scientific American established 1845 Scientific American Supplement, $5 a year. Scientific American and Supplement, $7 a year. * * * * * TABLE OF
This page contains affiliate links. As Amazon Associates we earn from qualifying purchases.
  • 18/3/1882
FREE Audible 30 days

Produced by Olaf Voss, Don Kretz, Juliet Sutherland, Charles Franks and the DP Team



NEW YORK, MARCH 18, 1882

Scientific American Supplement. Vol. XIII, No. 324.

Scientific American established 1845

Scientific American Supplement, $5 a year.

Scientific American and Supplement, $7 a year.

* * * * *


I. ENGINEERING AND MECHANICS–Machine Tools for Boiler Makers. 2 figures.–Improved boiler plate radial drill.–Improved boiler plate bending roller.

Modern Ordnance. By COLONEL MAITLAND.–Rifled cannon.–Built guns.–Steel castings.–Breech loading.–Long guns.–Slow burning of powder.–Breech closers.–Projectiles.–Destructive power of guns.

Oscillating Cylinder Locomotive. 2 figures.–Shaw’s oscillating cylinder locomotive.

Gas Motors and Producers. By C. W. SIEMENS–2 figures.

The Bazin System of Dredging. By A. A. LANGLEY.–3 figures.

II. CHEMISTRY.–On the Mydriatic Alkaloids. By ALBERT LADENBERG. –I. Atropine.–II. The Atropine of Datura Stramonium. –III. Hyoscyamine from Hyoscyamus.

Detection of Small Quantities of Morphia. By A. JORISSEN.

The Estimation of Manganese by Titration. By C. G. SARNSTROM.

On the Estimation and Separation of Manganese. By NELSON H. DARTON.

Delicate Test for Oxygen.

Determination of Small Quantities of Arsenic in Sulphur. By H. SCHAEPPI.

III. BIOLOGY, ETC.–Researches on Animals Containing Chlorophyl. –Abstract of a long and valuable paper “On the Nature and Functions of the Yellow Cells of Radiolarians and Coelenterates,” read to the Royal Society of Edinburgh. By PATRICK GEDDES.

The Hibernation of Animals, An interesting review of the winter habits of some of our familiar animals, insects, etc.


The Growth of Palms.

The Future of Silk Culture in the United States. Report of United States Consul Peixotto, of Lyons. A valuable and encouraging summary of the conditions and prospects of silk culture in the United States.

V. TECHNOLOGY, ETC.–Compressed Oil Gas for Lighting Cars, Steamboats, and Buoys. An elaborate description of the apparatus and appliances of the Pintsch system of illumination. 14 figures. Elevation and plan of works.–Cars.–Locomotive and car lamps.–Buoys.–Regulations, etc.

VI. ART, ARCHITECTURE, ETC.–Cast Iron in Architecture.

VII. ELECTRICITY, MAGNETISM, ETC.–On the Mechanical Production of Electric Currents. 12 figures.

Rousse’s Secondary Battery.

VIII. MISCELLANEOUS.–Dangers from Lightning in Blasting.

The Tincal Trade of Asia.

Sir W. Palliser. Obituary and summary of his inventions.

The Tides. Influence of the tides upon the history of the earth.

Drilling Glass.

* * * * *


We give this week an engraving of a radial drilling machine designed especially for the use of boiler-makers, this machine, together with the plate bending rolls, forming portion of a plant constructed for Messrs. Beesley and Sons, boiler makers, of Barrow-in-Furness.


This radial drill, which is a tool of substantial proportions, is adapted not only for ordinary drilling work, but also for turning the ends of boiler shells, for cutting out of flue holes tube boring, etc. As will be seen from our engraving, the pillar which supports the radial arm is mounted on a massive baseplate, which also carries a circular table 6 ft. in diameter, this table having a worm-wheel cast on it as shown. This table is driven by a worm gearing into the wheel just mentioned. On this table boiler ends up to 8 ft. in diameter can be turned up, the turning tool being carried by a slide rest, which is mounted on the main baseplate, as shown, and which is adjustable vertically and radially.

For cutting out flue holes a steel boring head is employed, this head having a round end which fits into the center of the table. When this work is being done the radial arm is brought into the lowest position. Flue holes 40 in. in diameter can thus be cut out.

The machine has a 4 in. steel spindle with self-acting variable feed motion through a range of 10 in., and the radial arm is raised or lowered by power through a range of 2 ft. 8 in. When the arm is in its highest position there is room for a piece of work 4 ft. high between the circular table and the lower end of the spindle. The circular table serves as a compound table for ordinary work, and the machine is altogether a very useful one for boiler-makers.

The plate-bending rolls, which are illustrated on first page, are 10 ft. long, and are made of wrought iron, the top roll being 12 in. and the two bottom rolls 10 in. in diameter. Each of the bottom rolls carries at its end a large spur-wheel, these spur-wheels, which are on opposite sides of the machine, each gearing into a pinion on a shaft which runs from end to end below the rolls, and which is itself geared to the shaft carrying the belt pulleys, as shown. This is a very simple and direct mode of driving, and avoids the necessity for small wheels on the rolls. There is no swing frame, but the top roll is arranged to draw through between the arms of the spur-wheels, a very substantially framed machine being thus obtained.


The chief novelty in the machine is the additional roll provided under the ordinary bottom rolls. This extra roll, which is used for straightening old plates and for bending small tubes, pipes, etc., is made of steel, and is 7 in. in diameter by 5 ft. long. It is provided with a swing frame at one end to allow of taking-off pipes when bent, etc., and it is altogether a very useful addition.

The machine we illustrate weighs 11 tons, and is all self-contained, the standards being mounted on a strong bedplate, which also carries the bearings for the shaft with fast and loose pulleys, belt gear, etc. Thus no foundation is required.–_Engineering_.

* * * * *


[Footnote: A paper read Feb. 8, 1882, before the Society of Arts, London.]


A great change has lately been taking place throughout Europe in the matter of armaments. Artillery knowledge has been advancing “by leaps and bounds;” and all the chief nations are vying with each other in the perfection of their _materiel_ of war. As a readiness to fight is the best insurance for peace, it behooves us to see from time to time how we stand, and the present moment is a peculiarly suitable one for taking stock of our powers and capabilities. I propose, therefore, to give you, this evening, a brief sketch of the principles of manufacture of modern guns, at home and abroad, concluding with a few words on their employment and power.

The introduction of rifled cannon into practical use, about twenty years ago, caused a complete revolution in the art of gun-making. Cast iron and bronze were found no longer suitable for the purpose. Cast iron was too brittle to sustain the pressure of the powder gas, when its duration was increased by the use of elongated projectiles; while the softness of bronze was ill adapted to retain the nicety of form required by accurate rifling.

From among a cloud of proposals, experiments, and inventions, two great systems at length disentangled themselves. They were the English construction of built-up wrought iron coils, and the Prussian construction of solid steel castings.

Wrought-iron, as you are all aware, is nearly pure iron, containing but a trace of carbon. Steel, as used for guns, contains from 0.3 to 0.5 per cent of carbon; the larger the quantity of carbon, the harder the steel. Since the early days of which I am now speaking, great improvement has taken place in the qualities of both materials, but more especially in that of steel. Still the same general characteristics were to be noted, and it may be broadly stated, that England chose confessedly the weaker material, as being more under control, cheaper, and safer to intrust with the lives of men; while Prussia selected the stronger but less manageable substance, in the hope of improving its uniformity, and rendering it thoroughly trustworthy. The difference in strength, when both are sound, is great. Roughly, gun steel is about twice as strong as wrought iron.

I must now say a few words on the nature of the strains to which a piece of ordnance is subjected when fired. Gunpowder is commonly termed an explosive, but this hardly represents its qualities accurately. With a true explosive, such as gun-cotton, nitro glycerine and its compounds, detonation and conversion of the whole into gas are practically instantaneous, whatever the size of the mass; while, with gunpowder, only the exterior of the grain or lump burns and gives off gas, so that the larger the grain the slower the combustion. The products consist of liquids and gases. The gas, when cooled down to ordinary temperature, occupies about 280 times the volume of the powder. At the moment of combustion, it is enormously expanded by heat, and its volume is probably somewhat about 6,000 times that of the powder. I have here a few specimens of the powders used for different sizes of guns, rising from the fine grain of the mountain gun to the large prisms and cylinders fired in our heavy ordnance. You will readily perceive that, with the fine-grained powders, the rapid combustion turned the whole charge into gas before the projectile could move far away from its seat, setting up a high pressure which acted violently on both gun and shot, so that a short, sharp strain, approximating to a blow, had to be guarded against.

With the large slow-bursting powders now used, long heavy shells move quietly off under the impulse of a gradual evolution of gas, the presence of which continues to increase till the projectile has moved a foot or more; then ensues a contest between the increasing volume of the gas, tending to raise the pressure, and the growing space behind the advancing shot, tending to relieve it. As artillery science progresses, so does the duration of this contest extend further along the bore of the gun toward the great desideratum, a low maximum pressure long sustained.

When quick burning powder was used for ordnance, the pressures were short and sharp; the metal in immediate proximity to the charge was called upon to undergo severe strains, which had scarcely time to reach the more distant portions of the gun at all; the exterior was not nearly so much strained as the interior. In order to obviate this defect, and to bring the exterior of the gun into play, the system of building up guns of successive tubes was introduced. These tubes were put one over the other in a state of tension produced by “shrinkage.” This term is applied to the process of expanding a tube by the application of heat, and in that condition fitting it over a tube larger than the inner diameter of the outer tube when cold. When the outer tube cools it contracts on the inner tube and clutches it fast. The wrought-iron guns of England have all been put together in this manner.

Prussia at first relied on the superior strength of solid castings of steel to withstand the explosive strain, but at length found the necessity for re-enforcing them with hoops of the same material, shrunk on the body of the piece.

The grand principle of shrinkage enables the gunmaker to bring into play the strength of the exterior of the gun, even with quick powders, and to a still greater extent as the duration of the strain increases with the progress of powder manufacture. Thus, taking our largest muzzle-loaders designed a few years ago, the thin steel lining tube, which forms an excellent surface, is compressed considerably by the wrought-iron breech coil holding it, which, in its turn, is compressed by the massive exterior coil. When the gun is fired, the strain is transmitted at once, or nearly at once, to the breech coil, and thence more slowly to the outer one. Now, as the duration of the pressure increases, owing to the use of larger charges of slower burning powder, it is evident that the more complete and effective will be the transmission of the strain to the exterior, and, consequently, the further into the body of the gun, starting from the bore, and traveling outward, does it become advantageous to employ the stronger material. Hence, in England, we had reason to congratulate ourselves on the certainty and cheapness of manufacture of wrought iron coils, as long as moderate charges of comparatively quick burning powder were employed, and as long as adherence to a muzzle-loading system permitted the projectiles to move away at an early period of the combustion of the charge. Then the pressures, though sharp, were of short duration, and were not thoroughly transmitted through the body of the gun, so that the solidity, mass, and compression of the surrounding coils proved usually sufficient to support the interior lining. Now that breech-loading and slow powders have been introduced, these conditions have been changed. The strains, though less severe, and less tending to explosive rupture, last longer, and are more fully transmitted through the body of the gun. Sheer strength of material now tells more, and signs have not been wanting that coils of wrought iron afford insufficient support to the lining. It becomes, therefore, advantageous to thicken the inner tube, and to support it with a steel breech piece. Carrying this principle further, we shall be led to substitute the stronger for the weaker metal throughout the piece. This has been done by the Germans in the first instance, and recently by the French also. It is probable that we shall follow the same course. When I say “probable,” I intentionally guard myself against uttering a prediction. It is never safe to prophesy, unless you know, as the American humorist puts it. And in this case we do not know, for a very dangerous rival, once defeated, but now full of renewed vigor, has entered the lists against forged steel as a material for ordnance. This rival’s name is _wire_. Tempered steel wires can be made of extraordinary strength. A piece of round section, only one thirty-fifth of an inch in diameter, will just sustain a heavy man.

If, now, a steel tube, suitable for the lining of a gun, be prepared by having wire wound round it very tightly, layer over layer, it will be compressed as the winding proceeds, and the tension of the wire will act as shrinkage. You will readily understand that a gun can be thus formed, having enormous strength to resist bursting. Unfortunately, the wires have no cohesion with one another, and the great difficulty with construction of this kind is to obtain what gun-makers call end strength. It is of but little use to make your walls strong enough, if the first round blows the breech out. In the early days of wire this was what happened, and Mr. Longridge, who invented the system, was compelled to abandon it.

Lately, methods have been devised in France, by M. Schultz; at Elswick, by Sir W.G. Armstrong & Co.; and at Woolwich, by ourselves, for getting end strength with wire guns. They are all in the experimental stage; they may prove successful; but I prefer not to prophesy at present.

The diagrams on the wall show the general construction of the modern German, French, and English heavy breech-loading guns. The Germans have a tube, a jacket, and hoops. The French, a thick tube or body, and hoops. The English, a tube, a jacket, and an overcoat, as it may be called. In each system of construction, the whole of the wall of the gun comes into play to resist the transverse bursting strain of the charge.

The longitudinal or end strength varies: thus, in the German guns, the tube and hoops do nothing–the jacket is considered sufficient. The French construction relies entirely on the thick body, while the English method aims at utilizing the whole section of the gun, both ways. Of course, if the others are strong enough, there is no particular advantage in this; and it is by no means improbable that eventually we shall find it cheaper, and equally good, to substitute hoops for the “overcoat.”

I fear I have detained you a long time over construction, but it is both instructive and interesting to note that certain well defined points of contact now exist between all the great systems. Thus, a surface of steel inside the bore is common to all, and the general use of steel is spreading fast. Shrinkage, again, is now everywhere employed, and such differences as still exist are matters rather of detail than of principle, as far as systems of construction are concerned.

We now come to a part of the question which has long been hotly debated in this country, and about which an immense quantity of matter has been both spoken and written on opposite sides–I mean muzzle loading and breech-loading. The controversy has been a remarkable one, and, perhaps, the most remarkable part of it has been the circumstance that while there is now little doubt that the advocates of breech-loading were on the right side, their reasons were for the most part fallacious. Thus, they commonly stated that a gun loaded at the breech could be more rapidly fired than one loaded at the muzzle. Now, this was certainly not the case, at any rate, with the comparatively short guns which were made on both systems a few years ago. The public were acquainted with breech-loaders only in the form of sporting guns and rifles, and argued from them. The muzzle-loading thirty eight ton guns were fired in a casemate at Shoeburyness repeatedly in less than twenty minutes for ten rounds, with careful aiming. No breech-loader of corresponding size has, I think, ever beaten that rate. With field-guns in the open, the No. 1 of the detachment can aim his muzzle loader while it is being loaded, while he must wait to do so till loading at the breech is completed. Again, it was freely stated that, with breech-loaders greater protection was afforded to the gunners than with the muzzle-loaders. This entirely depends on how the guns are mounted. If in siege works or _en barbette_, it is much easier to load a muzzle loader under cover than a breech-loader. But I need not traverse the old ground all over again. It is sufficient for me to say here, that the real cause which has rendered breech-loading an absolute necessity is the improvement which has been made in the powder. You witnessed a few minutes ago the change which took place in the action of fired gunpowder when the grains were enlarged. You will readily understand that nearly the whole of a quick burning charge was converted into gas before the shot had time to start; suppose for the moment that the combustion was really instantaneous. Then we have a bore, say sixteen diameters long, with the cartridge occupying a length of, say, two diameters.

The pressure of the gas causes the shot to move. The greater the pressure, the greater the impulse given. As the shot advances, the pressure lessens; and it lessens in proportion to the distance the shot proceeds. Thus, when the shot has proceeded a distance equal to the length of the cartridge, the space occupied by the gas is doubled, and its original pressure is halved. As the shot travels another cartridge length, the space occupied by the gas is trebled, and its pressure will be but one-third of the original amount. When the shot arrives at the muzzle–that is, at eight times the length of the cartridge from the breech–the pressure will be but one ninth of that originally set up. Remember, this is on the supposition that the powder has been entirely converted into gas before the shot begins to move.

Now, suppose the powder to be of a slow-burning kind, and assume that only one-third of it has been converted into gas before the shot starts, then the remaining two-thirds will be giving off additional gas as the shot travels through the bore. Instead, therefore, of the pressure falling rapidly, as the shot approaches the muzzle, the increasing quantity of gas tends to make up for the increasing space holding it. You will at once perceive that the slower the combustion of the powder the less difference there will be in the pressure exerted by the gas at the breech and at the muzzle, and the greater will be the advantage, in point of velocity, of lengthening the bore, and so keeping the shot under the influence of the pressure. Hence, all recent improvement has tended toward larger charges of slower burning powder, and increased length of bore. And it is evident that the longer the bore of the gun, the greater is the convenience of putting the charge in behind, instead of having to ram it home from the front. I may here remark, that the increased length of gun necessary to produce the best effect is causing even those who have possessed breech-loaders for many years to rearm, just as completely as we are now beginning to do. All the old short breech loading guns are becoming obsolete. Another great advantage of breech-loading is the facility afforded for enlarging the powder chamber of the gun, so that a comparatively short, thick cartridge may be I employed, without any definite restriction due to the size of the bore.

There is yet one more point in which breech-loading has recently been found, in the Royal Gun Factory, to possess a great advantage over muzzle-loading as regards ballistic effect. With a shot loaded from the front, it is clear that it must be smaller all over than the bore, or it would not pass down to its seat. A shot thrust in from behind, on the contrary, may be furnished with a band or sheath of comparatively soft metal larger than the bore; the gas then acting on the base of the projectile, forces the band through the grooves, sealing the escape, entering the projectile, and, to a great extent, mitigating the erosion of surface. This is, of course, universally known. It is also pretty generally known among artillerists that the effect of the resistance offered by the band or sheathing on the powder is to cause more complete combustion of the charge before the shot moves, and therefore to raise the velocity and the pressure. But I believe it escaped notice, till observed in May, 1880, in the Royal Gun Factory, that this circumstance affords a most steady and convenient mode of regulating the consumption of the charge, so as to obtain the best results with the powder employed.

Supposing the projectile to start, as in a muzzle loader, without offering any resistance beyond that due to inertia, it is necessary to employ a powder which shall burn quickly enough to give off most of its gas before the shot has proceeded far down the bore; otherwise the velocity at the muzzle will be low. To control this comparatively quick burning powder, a large air space is given to the cartridge, which, therefore, is placed in a chamber considerably too big for it. Supposing, on the other hand, the projectile to be furnished with a stout band, giving a high resistance to initial motion, a much slower powder can be used, since the combustion proceeds as if in a closed vessel, until sufficient pressure is developed to overcome the resistance of the band. This enables us to put a larger quantity of slower burning powder into the chamber, and in fact to use, instead of a space filled with air, a space filled with powder giving off gas, which comes into play as the projectile travels down the bore. Thus, while not exceeding the intended pressure at the breech, the pressure toward the muzzle is kept up, and the velocity very materially increased. Following this principle to this conclusion, it will be found that the perfect charge for a gun will be one which exactly fills the chamber, and which is composed of a powder rather too slow to give the pressure for which the gun is designed, supposing the shot to move off freely. The powder should be so much too slow as to require for its full development the holding power of a band which is just strong enough to give rotation to the shot.

Having settled that the gun of the future is to be a breech-loader, we have next to consider what system of closing the breech is to be adopted.

The German guns are provided with a round backed wedge, which is pushed in from the side of the breech, and forced firmly home by a screw provided with handles; the face of the wedge is fitted with an easily removable flat plate, which abuts against a Broad well ring, let into a recess in the end of the bore. On firing, the gas presses the ring firmly against the flat plate, and renders escape impossible as long as the surfaces remain uninjured. When they become worn, the ring and plate can be exchanged in a few minutes. Mr. Vavasseur, of Southwark, constructs his guns on a very similar plan. In the French guns, and our modern ones, the bore is continued to the rear extremity of the piece, the breech end forming an intermittent screw, that is, a screw having the threads intermittently left and slotted away. The breech block has a similarly cut screw on it, so that when the slots in the block correspond with the untouched threads in the gun, the block can be pushed straight in, and the threads made to engage by part of a revolution. In the French Marine the escape of gas is stopped very much as in Krupp’s system; a Broadwell ring is let into a recess in the end of the bore, and a plate on the face of the breech-block abuts against it.

In the French land service the escape is sealed in quite a different manner. A stalk passes through the breech-block, its foot being secured on the exterior. The stalk has a mushroom-shaped head projecting into the bore. Round the neck of the stalk, just under the mushroom, is a collar of asbestos, secured in a canvas cover; when the gun is fired, the gas presses the mushroom against the asbestos collar, and squeezes it against the walls of the bore. It is found that this cuts off all escape.

We are at present using the Elswick method, which consists of a flat-backed cup, abutting against the slightly rounded face of the breech plug. The lips of the cup rest against a copper ring let in the walls of the bore. On firing, the gas presses back the cup against the rounded end of the breech-block, and thus forces the lips hard against the copper ring.

It is difficult to compare the excellence of these various systems, so much depends on the care of the gunners, and the nicety of manufacture. The German and French marine methods permit the parts to be quickly exchanged when worn, but it is necessary to cut deeply into the walls of the gun, and to make the wedge, or breech-screw, considerably larger than the opening into the chamber.

The Elswick plan is decidedly better in this last respect, but it requires several hours to extract and renew the copper ring where worn.

The French land service (_De Bange_) arrangement requires no cutting into the gun, and no enlargement of the breech screw beyond the size of the chamber, while it is renewable in a few minutes, merely requiring a fresh asbestos pad when worn. As regards durability, there is probably no great difference. I have been informed that with a light gun as many as 3,000 rounds have been fired with one asbestos pad. But usually it may be considered that a renewal will be required of the wearing surfaces of any breech-loader after a number of rounds, varying from six or seven hundred, with a field gun, to a hundred or a hundred and fifty with a very heavy gun. Full information is wanting on this point.

Having now decided on the material of which the gun is to be composed, and the manner in which it is to be constructed, and having, moreover, settled the knotty point of how it is to be loaded, we come to the general principles on which a gun is designed. It must not be overlooked that a gun is a machine which has to perform a certain quantity of work of a certain definite kind, and, like all other machines, must be formed specially for its purpose. The motive power is gunpowder, and the article to be produced is perhaps a hole in an armor-plate, perhaps a breach in a concealed escarp, or perhaps destructive effect on troops. These articles are quite distinct, and though all guns are capable of producing them all to some extent, no gun is capable of producing more than one in the highest state of excellence.

Thus, for armor piercing, a long pointed bolt, nearly solid, is required. It must strike with great velocity, and must therefore be propelled by a very large charge of powder. Hence an armor-piercing gun should have a large chamber and a comparatively small bore of great length.

For breaching fortifications, on the other hand, curved fire is necessary; the escarps of modern fortresses are usually covered from view by screens of earth or masonry in front, so that the projectiles must pass over the crest of the screen, and drop sufficiently to strike the wall about half-way down, that is to say, at an angle of 15 deg. to 20 deg.. To destroy the wall, shell containing large bursting charges of powder are found to be particularly well adapted. Now it is clear that, for a shell to drop at an angle of 15 deg. or 20 deg. at the end of a moderate range, the velocity at starting must be low. Hence, for pieces intended for breaching no enlarged powder chamber is wanted; the effect on the wall is due to the shell, which must be made of a shape to hold the most powder for a given weight; and, therefore, rather short and thick. This gives us a large bore, which need not be long, as little velocity is required.

For producing destructive effect among troops, a third kind of projectile is employed. It is called shrapnel, and it consists of a thin shell, holding a little powder and a large quantity of bullets. The powder is ignited by a fuse, which is set to act during flight, or on graze, when the shell is nearing the object. The explosion bursts the shell open, and liberates the bullets, which fly forward, actuated by the velocity of the shell at the moment of bursting. Hence, to render the bullets effective, a considerable remaining velocity is requisite. The gun must therefore take a large powder charge, while, as the shell has to hold as many bullets as possible, the bore must be large enough to take a short projectile of the given weight. Thus, the proportions of the shrapnel gun will be intermediate between those of the armor-piercing gun and the shell gun.

There are certain axioms known from experience, which should be mentioned here. First, the length of the powder chamber should not be more than three and a half or four times its diameter, if it can possibly be avoided, because, with longer charges, the inflamed powder gas is apt to acquire rapid motion, and to set up violent local pressures. Next, the strength of a heavy gun, as reckoned on the principle of all the metal being sound and well in bearing, should not be less than about four times the strain expected.

Again, though there are several opinions as to the best weight of shot for armor piercing, in proportion to diameter, yet among the most advanced gun-makers, there is a growing tendency toward increased weight. The value of w/d cubed, that is, the weight in pounds divided by the cube of the diameter in inches, as this question is termed, is in the hands of the Ordnance Committee, and it is to be confidently hoped that efforts will shortly be made to arrive at a solution. In the meantime, from about 0.45 to 0.5 appears to be a fairly satisfactory value, and is adopted for the present.

Lastly, it may be broadly stated, that with suitable powders, a charge of one-third the weight of the shot demands for most profitable use a length of bore equal to about twenty-six calibers; a charge equal to half the weight of the shot should be accommodated with a bore of about thirty calibers; while a charge of two-thirds the weight of the shot will be best suited by a bore thirty-five calibers long. Of course, in each case, greater length of bore will give increased velocity, but it will be gained at the expense of additional weight, which can be better utilized elsewhere in the gun.

The amount of work performed by gunpowder, when exploded in a gun, is a subject which has engaged a vast quantity of attention, and some highly ingenious methods of calculating it have been put forward. Owing, however, to the impossibility of ascertaining how fast the combustion of large grains and prisms proceeds, a very considerable amount of experience is required to enable the gunmaker to apply the necessary corrections to these calculations; but, on the whole, it may be said that, with a given charge and weight of shot, the muzzle velocity may now be predicted with some accuracy.

You now have the chief data on which the designer bases his proposals, and lays down the dimensions of the gun to suit such conditions as it may be required to fulfill. In actual practice, the conditions are almost always complicated, either by necessities of mounting in particular places, such as turrets and casemates; or by the advantages attending the interchangeability of stores, or other circumstances; and it requires great watchfulness to keep abreast of the ever-growing improvements of the day.

I will now conclude with a few words on the power of heavy guns, when employed in various ways. The first consideration is accuracy of fire. No matter how deadly the projectile may be, it is useless if it does but waste itself on air. Accuracy is of two kinds–true direction and precision of range. All modern guns are capable of being made to shoot straight; but their precision of range depends partly on the successful designing of the gun and ammunition, so as to give uniform velocities, and partly on the flatness of the trajectory. The greater the velocity, the lower the trajectory, and the greater the chance of striking the target. Supposing a heavy gun to be mounted as in the fortresses round our coasts, and aimed with due care, the distance of the object being approximately known, we may fairly expect to strike a target of the size of an ordinary door about every other shot, at a range of a mile and a half. Here we have carriages mounted on accurately leveled platforms; we have men working electric position finders, and the gunners live on the spot, and know the look of the sea and land round about.

Now, consider the case of guns mounted in ships. You at once perceive the difficulties of the shooter. Even supposing the ship to be one of our magnificent ironclads, solid, steady, yielding little to the motion of the water, yet she is under steam, the aim of her guns is altered every moment, some oscillation is unavoidable, and she can only estimate the range of her adversary. Great skill is required, and not only required, I am glad to say, but ready to hand, on the part of the seamen gunners; and low trajectory guns must be provided to aid their skill.

If we go to unarmored ships of great tonnage and speed, we shall find these difficulties intensified; and if we pass on to the little gunboats, advocated in some quarters for attacking ironclads in a swarm, we shall find that unsteadiness of platform in a sea-way renders them a helpless and harmless mark for the comparatively accurate practice of their solitary but stately foe.

The destructive power of guns is little known to the general public, and many wild statements are sometimes put forward. Guns and plates have fought their battle with varying success for many years. One day the plate resists, another day the gun drives its bolt through. But it is frequently overlooked that the victory of a plate is a complete victory. If the shot does not get through, it does practically nothing. On the other hand, the victory of the gun is but a partial triumph; it is confined to a small arc. I mean that, when the plate is struck at an angle exceeding 30 deg. or so, the shot glances harmlessly off; while, even when perforation is obtained, it is at the expense of the more deadly qualities of the projectile, which must be a nearly solid bolt, unable to carry in with it heavy bursting charges of powder or destructive masses of balls.

About six years ago, an experiment carried out at Shoeburyness taught a lesson which seems to be in danger of being forgotten. We hear sometimes that unarmored vessels are a match for ironclads and forts; and I will conclude this paper with a short extract from the official account of the results of firing shrapnel shell at an unprotected ship’s side. I shall say nothing of boilers and magazines, but shall state simply the damage to guns and gunners.

A target was built representing the side of a certain class of unarmored ships of war; behind this target, as on a deck, were placed some unserviceable guns, mounted on old carriages, and surrounded by wooden dummies, to represent the men working the guns. The attacking gun was a twelve-ton nine-inch muzzle-loader, of the old despised type, and the projectiles were shrapnel shell. The charges were reduced to represent the striking force at a range of 500 yards. Two rounds did the following damage inside, besides tearing and ripping the ship’s side in all directions.

1st Gun.–Seven men of detachment killed.

2d Gun.–Carriage destroyed. Six men blown to pieces, all the remainder of the detachment severely hit.

3d Gun.–No damage to gun or carriage. Five men killed, one blown to bits, and one wounded in leg.

4th Gun.–Gun dismounted. The whole of the gun detachment blown to pieces.

That is the amount of destruction achieved in an unarmored ship by two rounds of shrapnel shell.

* * * * *


This locomotive is the design of Mr. Henry F. Shaw, of Boston.

This engine has oscillating cylinders placed between the driving-wheels. Fig. 2 represents a section of one of these cylinders, from which it will be seen that each has two pistons and piston-rods, which are connected directly to the crank-pins. His invention is described as follows in his specification:

“Midway between each set of wheels, e and f, is located the oscillating steam-cylinder, g, having its journals, g’ and g”, supported in the stationary arm, h, which is secured in a suitable manner to the frame, c. To each cylinder, g, is secured or cast in one piece therewith a balanced vibratory beam or truss, i, as shown. Within the cylinder, g, are two movable pistons, k and k’, Fig. 2, provided with piston-rods, l and l’, and cross-heads, m and m’, as shown.

“n n are slides for the cross-head, m, on the insides of one end of the truss or beam, i, and n’ n’, are similar slides in the other end of said truss or beam, for the cross-head, m’. To the driving-wheel, e, is attached a crank-pin, passing through the cross-head, m, and to the driver-wheel, f, is attached a similar crank-pin, F, that passes through the cross-head, m’. o is the slide-valve within the steam-chest, G, which slide-valve is operated forward and back by means of the valve-rod, o, the outer end of which is hinged to the upper end of the slotted lever, o squared, Fig. 1, that is hung at o cubed, on the end of the balanced and vibratory beam of truss, i, as shown. On the crank, F, is secured an eccentric, that works within the slot of the slotted lever, o squared, during the revolution of the crank, F, and in this manner imparts the requisite motion to the slide valve, o, to admit the steam into the cylinder, g, alternately between the pistons, k and k’, and at the ends of said cylinder, g, so as to alternately force the pistons, k and k’, from and toward each other, and thus, in combination with the vibratory motion of the truss, i, impart a rotary motion to the driving-wheels, e and f.


“The steam is admitted to and from the cylinder, g, as follows: When the pistons, k and k’, are at the outer ends of their stroke the steam enters through the channel, p, back of the piston, k, and at the same time through the channel, p’, back of the piston, k’, and thus causes both pistons to move toward each other, the steam between them being at the same time exhausted through the channels, q and q’, the former communicating with the exhaust, r, by means of the space, s, in the valve, o, and the latter communicating with the exhaust, r’, through the channel, s’, in the said valve, o. The steam that passes to the back of the piston, k, comes direct from the steam-chest, G, through the open end of the channel, p, the valve, o, being at this time moved to one side to leave the port, p, open. The steam is admitted to the back end of the piston, k’, from the steam-chest, G, through the channel, s”, in the valve, o, and from thence to the channel, p’. When the pistons, k and k’, have reached their inner positions the live steam is admitted through the channels, q and q’, direct from the steam-chest, G, to the former, and through the recess, s cubed, and channel, s’, in the valve, o, to the latter, the exhaust steam back of the piston, K, passing out through the channel, p, to the recess, s, in the valve, o, and thence to the exhaust, r, the exhaust steam back of the piston, k, passing out through channel, p’, and through channel, s”, in the valve, o, and thence to the exhaust, r’.

“The valve-rod, o’, is to be connected to a link and reversing lever as usual, such being, however, omitted in the drawings.”

The advantages claimed for it are that “it is composed of very few parts, and it is very powerful on account of its having a separate steam actuating piston for each of its driving-wheels. It has great strength and resistance, owing to the fact that no pressure is exerted on the journals on which the steam cylinders oscillate, and all the pressure from the steam pistons is directly transferred to the crank-pins on the driving-wheels. The engine is perfectly balanced in any position during the stroke, and it may therefore be run at a much higher speed than the common engines now in use.”

* * * * *


By C.W. SIEMENS, London.

The cylinder of the engine–assuming that it has only a single-acting one, placed with its axis vertical–consists of two parts; the upper hot part being lined with plumbago, fire-clay, or other refractory material, and the lower part kept cool by a water casing. The cylinder has a trunk piston working in the lower part, and on its upper side a shield that almost fills the hot part of the cylinder when the piston is at the extreme of its upstroke. The trunk-rod of the piston passes through a stuffing-box in the cylinder bottom, and is connected to a crank on the engine-shaft; and this (unless multiple cylinders are employed) carries a heavy fly-wheel. From the lower end of the cylinder there is a passage which, by means of a rotating or reciprocating slide, is alternately put in communication with inlets for gas and air (regulated by suitable cocks or valves) and with a strong receptacle. As the piston, makes its upstroke, air and gas are drawn into the annular space surrounding its trunk, and the mixed air and gas are compressed by the downstroke of the piston, and delivered into the receptacle, in which considerable pressure is maintained. The receptacle is made of cylindrical form, with a domed cover of thin sheet metal; so that in case of excessive internal pressure it can operate as a safety-valve to save the body of the receptacle from damage. From the upper end of the cylinder there is a passage that, by means of a rotating or reciprocating slide, is alternately put in communication with the receptacle and with a discharge outlet. In this passage are fixed a number of wire gauze screens or pieces of metal with interstices. These constitute a regenerator of heat, and also prevent a communication of flame from the cylinder to the receptacle. In the upper end of the cylinder or of the piston shield are provided electrodes which give an electric spark, or a platinum wire which is rendered incandescent by a current from an inductor or other source of electricity to ignite the combustible charge of the cylinder. After the engine has been for some time at work, the heat at the upper part of the cylinder may suffice for effecting ignition without provision of other means for this purpose.

In combining such an engine with means for generating the combustible gas, a gas producer is employed. In this producer a current of heated air is introduced into the heart of a body of kindled fuel, and the gases produced–partly by distillation and partly by imperfect combustion of the fuel–are conveyed to the gas inlet of the cylinder or pump of the engine. As the gas in leaving the producer is hot, it is caused to pass through regenerating apparatus, to which it delivers a large portion of its heat before it reaches the engine, and the air which supplies the producer is made to pass through this regenerating apparatus so as to take up the heat abstracted from the gas.

In the accompanying engravings, Fig. 1 shows a front elevation (partly in section) of a pair of engines constructed according to this invention. The lower part, A, of each cylinder is cooled by water circulating through its casing. The upper part, B, is lined with refractory material, such as fire-clay. The trunk piston, C, is made hollow, and formed with a shield covered by refractory material to protect the packing of the piston and the surface of the lower part of the cylinder from heat. The pistons of the two cylinders are connected by rods, D, to opposite cranks on the shaft, E. This shaft, by means of bevel gear, F, works a revolving cylindrical valve, G, situated in a casing between the two cylinders. The lowest part of this casing is supplied with combustible gas and with air, in proportions capable of being regulated by stopcocks or valves. The highest part of the casing communicates with a discharge-pipe; and the middle part of it with a reservoir which can be cut off from communication by a stopcock, so that the charge in the reservoir may be retained when the engine is stopped. The middle space of the hollow valve, G, communicates, by a number of holes, with the middle space of the slide casing. It also, by means of a port at its lower part, communicates alternately with the annular spaces of the two cylinders; this communication in each case being made when the piston is performing the latter part of its downstroke. The interior of the slide also, by means of a second port at its upper part, communicates alternately with the tops of the two cylinders; this communication being in each case made while the piston is performing the first portion of its downstroke. During the upstroke of each piston the slide, by means of another port, makes communication alternately to each cylinder from the bottom of the slide casing, and by means of a fourth port make communication alternately from each cylinder to the top of the slide casing. In the passage connecting the top of the slide casing to each cylinder is placed a regenerator, consisting of a number of perforated metal plates or sheets of wire gauze.


In order that gas of poor quality or gas diluted with a large proportion of air may be utilized, an igniting arrangement is employed which operates as follows: I is a vessel containing a supply of hydrocarbon oil, preferably of volatile character. From this vessel pipes lead to two cocks, one for each cylinder; these corks being caused to revolve in time with the engine-shaft by a chain, M, communicating motion from a wheel on the engine shaft to a chain-wheel of equal size on the spindle of the two cocks. The plug of each cock has on its side a small hollow, which during one part of its revolution presents itself under the oil-pipe, and receives a charge of oil. During another part of its revolution, which is timed to correspond with the flow of gaseous mixture to the cylinder, the hollow of the plug presents itself to the bend of a pipe leading from the top of the cylinder to a port opening into the cylinder below the regenerator, in which port are situated two wires of platinum. These wires are connected with the brushes of a commutator, K, on the engine-shaft, which commutator is in electrical connection with the poles of a battery, dynamo-electric machine, or other source of electricity. Instead of two wires to produce a spark, a single wire may be arranged to become incandescent at the proper time for ignition.

The operation of the engine is as follows: Each piston as it ascends draws into the annular space under it a supply of gas and air in proportion regulated by the cocks or valves, and as it descends it forces this charge into the interior of the revolving valve and its casing, and into the reservoir which communicates therewith. When either piston is at the top of its stroke, the revolving valve admits to the upper part of the cylinder a supply of the gaseous mixture from the reservoir and valve casing, and this passes through the generator. At the same time a portion of the charge passes by the pipe, and becomes enriched by admixture of the hydrocarbon oil delivered to it by the cock. The enriched mixture, in passing the platinum wires, which at that time give an electrical spark, is ignited, and ignites the charge that is passing through the regenerator into the cylinder. The mixture thus ignited expands, and acting on the full area of the piston propels it downward, the under side of the piston being at that time subject to pressure only on its annular area. When the piston has completed its down-stroke the passage is opened to the discharge-pipe, and the expanded products of combustion then pass from the cylinder through the regenerator, and are discharged. In their passage they give out to the regenerator a large portion of their heat, which the charge entering the cylinder for the next stroke receives in passing through the regenerator.


Fig. 2 is a vertical section of a gas producer and scrubber, which, as stated above, may be employed in combination with engines such as have been described for supplying them with combustible gas. The producer is a vessel lined with refractory material. At the top it has a supply opening covered by a cap, U, having a flange dipping into a sand joint. At the bottom it has an opening surrounded by inclined bars, V, which rest upon a water-pipe perforated with small holes, by which water issues to cool the bars and generate vapor. This vapor rises along with a limited supply of air through the incandescent fuel above, and combustible gas is produced, which collects in the annular space, and is led thence by a pipe to the scrubber. The scrubber is a vessel containing in its lower part water, W, supplied by a pipe, and having an overflow. By means of a perforated deflecting plate the gas is caused to bubble through the water, whereby it is cleansed and cooled, and it passes by a pipe, X, to supply the engine. The upper end of the vertical pipe of the scrubber is made open and covered by a cap sealed in water while the producer is at work. In starting the producer this cap is removed and a chimney pipe put in its place, so as to give a draught for kindling the fuel in the producer. When the fuel is kindled the chimney is removed and the cap substituted, whereupon the suction of the engine continues the draught as required.

* * * * *



This paper, lately read before the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London, is a description of the construction and working of a dredger on M. Bazin’s system, as used by the author for the past three years in dredging sand and other material in Lowestoft Harbor. The dredger is represented in its general features on next page, Fig. 1. The total length of the hull is 60 ft., with 20 ft. beam. In the after part of the hold is placed a horizontal boiler, A, which supplies steam to a pair of inverted vertical engines, B. These engines drive, through belts and overhead pulleys, a centrifugal pump, C, which discharges into the open trough, H. The suction pipe, D, of this pump passes through the side of the dredger, and then forms an elbow bent downward at an angle of 45 deg. To this elbow is attached a flexible pipe, E, 12 in. in diameter and 25 ft. long, made of India-rubber, with a coil of iron inside to help it to keep its shape. At the lower end of this pipe is an elbow-shaped copper nozzle which rests on the bottom, and is fitted with a grating to prevent stones getting into the pump and stopping the work. The flexible tube is supported by chains that pass over the head of a derrick, F, mounted at the stern of the dredger, and then round the barrel of a steam winch. By this means the depth of the nozzle is altered, as required to suit the depth of water.

A man stands at the winch, and lifts or lowers the pipe as is required, judging by the character of the discharge from the pump. If the liquid discharged is very dark and thick the nozzle is too deep in the sand or gravel; if of a light color the pipe must be lowered. The best proportion of water to sand is 5 to 1. When loose sand is the only material to be dealt with, it can be easily sucked up, even if the nozzle is deeply buried; but at other times stones interfere with the work, and the man in charge of the flexible tube has to be very careful as to the depth to which the nozzle may be buried in the sand. The pump is shown in Figs. 2 and 3. The fan is 2 ft. diameter, and has only two blades, a larger number being less efficient. The faces of the blades, where they come in contact with the sand, are covered with flaps of India-rubber. Small doors are provided at the side of the pump for cleaning it out, extracting stones, etc. The fan makes 350 revolutions per minute, and at that speed is capable of raising 400 tons of sand, gravel, and stones per hour, but the average in actual work may be taken at 200 tons per hour. This is with a 10-horse power engine, and working in a depth of water varying from 7 ft. to 25 ft. The great advantage of this dredger is its capability of working in disturbed water, where the frames of a bucket dredger would be injured by the rise and fall of the vessel.


Thus at Lowestoft bucket dredgers are used inside the harbor, and the Bazin dredger at the entrance, where there are sand and gravel, and where the water is more disturbed. The dredger does not succeed very well in soft silt, because, owing to its slow precipitation, it runs over the sides of the hopper barges without settling. Nor does it do for dredging solid clay. It gives, however, excellent results with sand and gravel, and for this work is much superior to the bucket dredger. The experience in working was then described, showing that a great many very discouraging failures preceded successful working, about a year being expended in getting good results.


The vessel or barge for carrying the machinery and pumps cost L600, and the contract price of the machinery and pumps was L1,200. But before the dredger was taken over by the company the alterations before enumerated had cost about L300, bringing the total for barge and dredger up to L2,100. In building a second dredger this might of course be greatly reduced. The cost of repairs for one month’s working has been only L5. The contractor receives for labor alone 1-1/8d. per ton, being at the rate of about 13/4d. for the dredging and 3/8d. for taking to sea–a lead of two miles–all materials being supplied to him. The consumption of coal is at the rate of about 1 ton for 1,000 tons of sand dredged. At Lowestoft Harbor the total amount of dredging has been about 200,000 tons yearly, but this is now much reduced in consequence of the pier extension recently constructed by the author, which now prevents the sand and shingle from the sea blocking the mouth of the harbor. The total cost of working has been 2.572d. per ton. which with 10 per cent interest on capital, 0.240d., makes the total cost per ton 2.812d. The repairs to steam tug, hopper, barges, and dredger have averaged about 2d. per ton.

Before the discussion on the paper commenced, Mr. Langley remarked that attempts had been made to connect the engine direct to the pump of a Bazin dredger, but this arrangement failed, and the belt acted as a safety arrangement and prevented breakage by slipping when the pump was choked in any way. A new lock was constructed near Lowestoft a short time ago, and the dredger pump was used to empty it; when half empty the men placed a net in front of the delivery pipe and caught a cartload of fish, many of which where uninjured. In the discussion Mr. Wallick, who had superintended the use of the dredger at Lowenstoft, gave some of his experience there, and repeated the information and opinions given by Mr. Langley in the paper.

Mr. Ball, London agent for M. Bazin, said that as devised by M. Bazin the pump was placed below water level, so that the head of water outside should be utilized; but he–Mr. Ball–now placed the pump considerably above water level, as no specially formed craft was thus necessary. He also described some of the steps by which he had arrived at the present arrangements of the whole plant, and gave some particulars of its working. Mr. Crampton asked some questions, in reply to which Mr. Ball said the longest distance they had carried the material was 1,200 yards in two relays–namely, a second pump on a floating barge with special engine. The distance to which they could carry the material depended upon its character. Fine sand would travel well; mud would not, bowlders would not, though gravel would. To give the water a rotary motion he had inserted a helical piece of angle iron, and so prevented deposition.

* * * * *


Although the accident in the tunnel in process of construction at Union Hill by the New York, Ontario, and Western Railroad Company, which took place on Tuesday afternoon, was happily attended with no loss of life or serious injuries to the men employed in the shaft, it reads a new lesson as to the firing of charges of powder by electricity, and one that should be carefully noted by railway and civil engineers, and even by the torpedo service of the United States. The exact cause of the explosion has scarcely been fully and accurately set forth by the various reports of the affair.

It appears that the wires usually employed lo supply the electric lamps in the excavation were used for the purpose of firing the charges, being disconnected from the electric light system for the moment and connected with the explosives. As a rule, six charges were fired together, those of the afternoon relay of men being exploded at very regular hours–the last usually at 5:45 P.M. There were only sixteen men in the shaft, and the work of connecting the wires had commenced, when the flash of lightning that occurred at 5:42 P.M., suddenly charged the conductors and produced the explosion.

There were two flashes of lightning between the hours of 5 and 6 o’clock Tuesday afternoon, the first taking place at 5:23, and the second nineteen minutes later. The former, according to testimony elicited by our reporter, simply caused a slight perturbation of the lights in the tunnel, but did not extinguish them. Five minutes later the work of disconnection and reconnection began, but only two of the six charges were ready for the pressure of the button when the last flash interrupted the proceedings. The fact that the time of the explosion corresponded to the second with that of the aerial electrical discharge furnishes indubitable evidence that the accident was not caused by any carelessness on the part the electrician in charge, and exonerates all parties from blame. At the same time it should be remembered by engineers in of such work that atmospheric electricity cannot be altogether disregarded in such cases, and that as a source of accident it may at any time prove dangerous. The concurrence of circumstances on Tuesday was particularly fortunate. In the first instance only two of the six charges had been connected with the firing battery, and in the second the rock in which the charges were inserted was so peculiarly soft and porous as to deaden the force of the eight pounds of giant powder thus prematurely set off. Had the cartridges been set in the harder and more solid rock of the east heading, instead of the west, and the explosion taken place there, probably not a man in the shaft would have escaped destruction. The lesson to engineers is one of no less importance than if the whole number of men had been killed, and should lead to the exercise of great care and precaution at times when the air is charged with electrical energy.–_New York Times_.

* * * * *


Whatever may be the misgivings entertained by many engineers respecting the future use of cast iron for structures of certain kinds, it is clear that for architectural purposes this material is likely to be employed to an extent hardly contemplated by many who have looked upon it with disfavor. At the present moment many buildings may be seen in London, in which cast iron has been introduced instead of stone for architectural features, and the substitution of cast iron for facades in many warehouses and commercial buildings seems to show that, notwithstanding the prejudices of the English architect against the importation of the iron architecture of our transatlantic brethren, there is a prospect of its being largely employed for frontages in which ample lighting and strength are needed. The extensive window space necessary in narrow city thoroughfares, and the difficulty of employing brick in large masses, such as pilasters and lintels, have chiefly led to the adoption of material having less of the uncertain durability and strength of either stone or terra-cotta in its favor. Architects would gladly resort to the last-named material if it could be procured in sufficient size and mass without the difficulties attendant upon shrinkage in the burning, and the winding and unevenness of the lines thereby caused. They have also an even more tractable material in concrete ready to their hand, if they would seriously bring themselves to the task of stamping an expressive art upon it, instead of going on designing concrete houses as if they were stone ones. Cast iron has the advantage of being a tried material; it is well adapted for structures not liable to sudden weights or to vibration, and so it has come to be used for features of an architectural kind, by a sort of tacit acknowledgment in its favor. Those who are desirous of seeing examples of its employment in fronts of warehouses will find instances in Queen Victoria Street, Southwark Street, and Bridge Road, and Theobalds Road, where the whole or portions of fronts have been constructed of cast iron. At some corner premises in Southwark, the piers as well as the windows are formed of cast iron, the former being made to assume the appearance of projecting pilasters. There is nothing to which the most captious critic could object in the treatment adopted here; the pilasters and other features have plain moulded members, and there is no principle of design in cast work which has been violated–the only question being the purely aesthetic one–is it justifiable to copy features in cast iron which have generally been constructed in stone or marble? The answer is obvious: Certainly not, when those features suggest the mass and proportions or treatment proper only for stone or marble; but when they do not so represent the material, it is quite optional for the architect to build up his front with castings, if by so doing he can obtain greater rigidity of bearing, strength, and durability. He ought, of course, to vary the proportions of his pilasters and horizontal lintels, and make them more in accord with the material. It is the wholesale reproduction of the more costly and ornamental features, such as we see in many buildings of New York and Philadelphia, where whole fronts are manufactured of cast iron and sheet-metal, which has shocked the minds of architects of culture and sensitive feeling. Such imitations and cheap displays outrage the artist by the attempt to produce in cast or rolled metal what properly belongs to a stone front.

Bearing this distinction in mind, we are not presuming too much to assert that architects have in cast iron, when properly employed under certain restrictions, a material which might be turned to account in narrow fronts where the use of brick or stone piers would encroach too much upon the space for light. For warehouse fronts, we have evidence for thinking that the employment of iron might be attended with advantage, especially in combination with brickwork for the main vertical piers. Plain classic mouldings, capitals and bases of the Doric or Tuscan order, are well suited for cast-iron supports to lintels or girders. In one attempt to make use of the structural features of the latter, the fronts of the girders between the piers are divided into panels, the flanges and stiffening pieces to the webs forming an effective framework for cast or applied ornament to be introduced. The iron framework thus constructed lends itself to the minor divisions of the window openings, which can be of wood. In the new Leaden Hall and Metropolitan Fruit and Vegetable Markets, cast-iron fronts have been largely employed, consisting of stanchions cast in the form of pilasters, with horizontal connections and other architectural members.

Regarding the more constructive aspects of cast iron, the employment of it in fronts having numerous points of support and small bearings is clearly within the capabilities of the material. So long as it is used in positions in which its resistance to compression is the chief office it has to fulfill, cast iron is in its right place. In the fronts of buildings, therefore, where it is made to carry the floors and rolled joists, and the lintels of openings, either as piers, pilasters, or simply as mullions of windows, it is strictly within its legitimate functions. So with regard to lintels and heads of openings where short spans exist, cast iron is free from the objection that can be urged against it for long girders. In fact, no position is better fitted for a brittle, granular material than that of a vertical framework to receive windows and ornamentation, and for such purposes cast iron is, to our minds, admirably suited.

For bridge-building the value of this metal has lately been much disputed, though we have several notable examples of its use in the earlier days for such structures. In fact, the use of cast iron for structural purposes is not older than the time of Smeaton, who in 1755 employed it for mill construction, and about the same time the great Coalbrookdale Viaduct was erected across the Severn near Broseley, which gave an impetus to the use of cast iron for bridge construction. The viaduct had a span of 100 feet, and was composed of ribs cast in two pieces; it was erected from castings designed by Mr. Pritchard, of Shrewsbury, an architect, and this circumstance is worthy of note as showing that an architect really was the first to employ this material for important structural work, and that the same profession was the first to reject it upon traditional grounds. It is quite certain, however, the bridge-builder lost no time in trying his hand upon so tractable a material; for not long after Telford erected a bridge at Buildwas of even a greater span, and the famous cast-iron bridge over the river Wear at Sunderland was erected from the designs of Thomas Paine, the author of the “Age of Reason.” Iron bridges quickly followed upon these early experiments, for we hear of several being built on the arched system, and large cotton-mills being erected upon fireproof principles at the commencement of the present century, the iron girders and columns of one mill being designed by Boulton and Watt. A little later, Eaton Hodgkinson proved by experiments the uncertainty of cast iron with regard to tensile strength, which he showed to be much less than had been stated by Tredgold. Cast iron was afterwards largely adopted by engineers. The experiments of Hodgkinson supplied a safe foundation of facts to work upon, and cast iron has ever since retained its hold. Thomas Paine’s celebrated bridge at Sunderland had a span of 236 feet and a rise of 34 feet, and was constructed of six ribs, and is remarkable from the fact that the arched girder principle used in the Coalbrookdale and Buildwas bridges was rejected, that the ribs were composed of segments or voussoirs, each made up of 125 parts, thus treating the material in the manner of stone. Each voussoir was a cast-iron framed piece two feet long and five feet in depth, and these were bolted together. The Southwark bridge over the Thames, by Sir John Rennie, followed, in which a similar principle of construction is adopted. There is much to be said in favor of a system which puts each rib under compression in the manner of a stone arch, and which builds up a rib from a number of small pieces. At least, it is a system based on the legitimate use of cast iron for constructive purposes. The large segmental castings used in the Pimlico bridge, and the new bridge over the Trent at Nottingham, from Mr. M. O. Tarbotton’s design, are excellent examples of the arched girder system. The Nottingham bridge has each rib made up of three I-shaped segments bolted together and united transversely; the span is 100 feet in each of the three openings, and the ribs are three feet deep at the springing, diminishing about six inches at the crown. We have yet to learn why engineers have abandoned the arched bridge for the wrought iron girder system, except that the latter is considered more economical, and better fitted for bearing tensile stress. Cast-iron bridges constructed as rigid arches, subject to compression and composed of small parts, have all the mechanical advantages of stone without some of its drawbacks, while artistically they can be made satisfactory erections.–_Building News_.

* * * * *


We announce with regret the death of Major Sir William Palliser, which took place suddenly on February 4, 1882. Sir William had been suffering from disease of the heart for a considerable period, but we believe that no one anticipated that the end was so near. For some twenty years Sir William had devoted himself to the improvement of guns, projectiles, and armor. To him is attributed the invention of the chilled-headed projectiles which are known by his name. There seems to be no doubt that chilled projectiles were suggested at Woolwich Arsenal, and even made, before Sir William took the matter up, but there is excellent reason to believe that Sir William knew nothing of this, and that the invention was original with him; at all events, he, aided by the efforts of the foundry and the laboratory at Woolwich, brought these projectiles to perfection, and unless steel-faced armor defeat them they cannot be said to have as yet met their match. A most valuable invention of the deceased officer was the cut-down screw bolt for securing armor plates to ships and ports. It was at one time feared that no fastening could be got for armor plates, as on the impact of a shot the heads or the nuts always flew off the bolts. The fracture usually took place just at the point where the screw-thread terminated. Sir William adopted the bold course of actually weakening the bolt in the middle of its length by turning it down, so that the screw stands raised up instead of being cut into the bolt, and by this simple device he changed the whole face of affairs, and the expedient applied in other ways, such as by drilling holes longitudinally down bolts, has since been extensively adopted where great immunity from fracture is required.

It is, however, for the well-known converted gun that Sir William Palliser’s name will be best remembered. When our smooth-bore cast iron guns became obsolete they were converted into the rifled compound guns by a process which led to their being known as Palliser guns. The plan was to bore out a cast iron gun and then to insert a wrought iron rifled barrel consisting of two tubes of coiled iron one inside the other. By the firing of a proof charge the wrought iron barrel was tightened inside the cast iron casing. By this means we obtained a converted gun at one-third of the cost of a new gun, and saved L140 on a 64-pounder and L210 on an 80-pounder. The process of conversion involved no change in the external shape of the gun, and it could, therefore, be replaced upon the carriage and platform to which it formerly belonged. The converted guns were placed upon wooden frigates and corvettes and upon the land fronts of fortifications, and were adopted for the defense of harbors. The many services Sir William Palliser had rendered to the science of artillery secured him the Companionship of the Bath in 1868, and knighthood in 1873. In 1874 he received a formal acknowledgment from the Lords of the Admiralty of the efficiency of his armor bolts for ironclad ships. His guns have been largely made in America and elsewhere abroad; and in 1875 he received from the King of Italy the Cross of Commander of the Crown of Italy. The youngest son of Lieutenant Colonel Wray Palliser–Waterford Militia–he was born in Dublin in 1830, and was therefore only fifty-two years of age. He was educated successively at Rugby, at Trinity College, Dublin, and at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, and, finally passing through the Staff College at Sandhurst, he entered the Rifle Brigade in 1855, and was transferred to the Eighteenth Hussars in 1858. He remained in the service to the end of 1871, when he retired by the sale of his commission. At the general election of 1880, Sir William Palliser was returned as a Conservative at the head of the poll for Taunton. In the House of Commons Sir William gave his chief attention to the scientific matters on which his authority was so generally recognized. Under the many disappointments and “unkind cuts,” which fall to the lot of the most successful inventors, Sir William Palliser displayed qualities that won hearty admiration. The confidence with which he left his last well-known experiment to be carried out in his own absence almost under the directions of those whose professional opinions were adverse to his own, may be called chivalrous. His liberality and kindness of Colonel of the second Middlesex Artillery Volunteers had gained him the affection of the entire corps; in short, where it might naturally be expected that he should win respect, he won the love of those who were thrown with him.–_The Engineer_.

* * * * *

THE CEDARS OF LEBANON.–Regulations were lately issued by Rustem Pasha for the guidance of travelers and others visiting the Cedars of Lebanon. These venerable trees have now been fenced in, but, with certain restrictions, they will continue to be accessible to all who wish to inspect them. In future no encampments will be permitted within the enclosure, except in the part marked out for that purpose by the keeper, nor may any cooking or camp fires be lighted near the trees.

* * * * *


The object of these articles is to lay down in the simplest and most intelligible way the principles which are concerned in the mechanical production of electric currents. Every one knows now that electric lights are produced from powerful currents of electricity generated in a machine containing magnets and coils of wire, and driven by a steam engine, or gas engine, or water-wheel. But of the thousands who have heard that a steam engine can thus provide us with electric currents, how many are there who comprehend the action of the generator or dynamo-electric machine? How many, of engineers even, can explain where the electricity comes from, or how the mechanical power is converted into electrical energy, or what the magnetism of the iron magnets has to do with it all? Take any one of the dynamo-electric machines of the present date–the Siemens, the Gramme, the Brush, or the Edison machine–of each of these there exist descriptions excellent in their way, and sufficient for men already versed in the technicalities of electric science. But to those who have not served an apprenticeship to the technicalities–to all but professed electricians–the action of these machines is almost an unknown mystery. As, however, an understanding of the how and the why of the dynamo-electric machine or generator is the very A B C of electrical engineering, an exposition of the fundamental principles of the mechanical production of electric currents demands an important place in the current science of the day. It will be our endeavor to expound these principles in the plainest terms, while at the same time sacrificing nothing in point of scientific accuracy or of essential detail.

The modern dynamo-electric machine or generator may be regarded as a combination of iron bars and copper wires, certain parts of the machinery being fixed, while other parts are driven round by the application of mechanical forces. How the movement of copper wires and iron bars in this peculiar arrangement can generate electric currents is the point which we are proposing to make clear. Friction has nothing to do with the matter. The old-fashioned spark-producing “electrical machine” of our youthful days, in which a glass cylinder or disk was rotated by a handle while a rubber of silk pressed against it, has nothing in common with the dynamo-electric generator, except that in both something turns upon an axis as a grindstone or the barrel of a barrel-organ may do. In the modern “dynamo” we cannot help having friction at the bearings and contact pieces, it is true, but there should be no other friction. The moving coils of wire or “armatures” should rotate freely without touching the iron pole-pieces of the fixed portion of the machine. In fact friction would be fatal to the action of the “dynamo.” How then does it act? We will proceed to explain without further delay. There are, however, three fundamental principles to be borne in mind if we would follow the explanation clearly from step to step, and these three principles must be laid down at the very outset.

1. The first principle is that the existence of the energy of electric currents, and also the energy of magnetic attractions, must be sought for not so much _in the wire_ that carries the current, or _in the bar_ of steel or iron that we call a magnet, as _in the space that surrounds_ the wire or the bar.

2. The second fundamental principle is that the electric current is, in one sense, quite as much a _magnetic_ fact as an electrical fact; and that the wire which carries a current through it has magnetic properties (so long as the current flows) and can attract bits of iron to itself as a steel magnet does.

3. The third principle to be borne in mind is that to do work of any kind, whether mechanical or electrical, requires the expenditure of energy to a certain amount. The steam engine cannot work without its coal, nor the laborer without his food; nor will a flame go on burning without its fuel of some kind or other. Neither can an electric current go on flowing, nor an electric light keep on shedding forth its beams, without a constant supply of energy from some source or other.

[Illustration: Fig. 1.]

The last of these three principles, involving the relation of electric currents to the work they can do and to the energy expended in their production, will be treated of separately and later. Meantime we resume the task of showing how such currents can be produced mechanically, and how magnetism comes in in the process.

[Illustration: Fig. 2]

Surrounding every magnet there is a “field” or region in which the magnetic forces act. Any small magnet, such for example as a compass needle, when brought into this field of force, exhibits a tendency to set itself in a certain direction. It turns so as to point with its north pole toward the south pole of the magnet, and with its south pole toward the north pole of the magnet; or if it cannot do both these things at once, it takes up an intermediate position under the joint action of the separate forces and sets in along a certain line. Such lines of force run through the magnetic “field” from one pole of the magnet to the other in curves. If we define a line of force as being the line along which a free north-seeking magnetic pole would be urged, then these lines will run from the north pole of the magnet round to the south pole, and pass through the substance of the magnet itself. In Fig. 1 a rough sketch is given of the lines of magnetic force as they emerge from the poles of a bar magnet in tufts. The arrow heads show the direction in which a free north pole would move. These lines of forces are no fiction of the imagination, like the lines of latitude and longitude on the globe; they exist and can be rendered visible by the simplest of expedients. When iron filings are sprinkled upon a card or a sheet of glass below which a magnet is placed, the filings set themselves–especially if aided by a gentle tap–along the lines of force. Fig. 2 is a reproduction from nature of this very experiment, and surpasses any attempt to draw the lines of force artificially. It is impossible to magnetize a magnet without also in this fashion magnetizing the space surrounding the magnet; and the space thus filled with the lines of force possesses properties which ordinary unmagnetic space does not possess. These lines give us definite information about the magnetic condition of the space where they are. Their direction shows us the direction of the magnetic forces, and their density shows us the strength of the magnetic forces; for where the force is strongest there we have the lines of force most numerous and most strongly delineated in the scattered filings. To complete this first consideration of the magnetic field surrounding a magnet, we will take a look at Fig. 3, which reproduces the lines of filings as they settle in the field of force opposite the end of a bar magnet. The repulsion of the north pole of the magnet upon the north poles of other magnets would be, of course, in lines diverging radially from the magnet pole.

[Illustration: Fig. 3]

We will next consider the space surrounding a wire through which a current of electricity is flowing. This wire has magnetic properties so long as the current continues, and will, like a magnet, act on a compass needle. But the needle never tries to point toward the wire; its tendency is always to set itself broadside to the current and at right angles to it. The “field” of a current flowing up a straight wire is, in fact, not unlike the sketch shown in Fig. 4, where instead of tufted groups we have a sort of magnetic whirl to represent the lines of force. The lines of force of the galvanic field are, indeed, circles or curves which inclose the conducting wire, and their number is proportional to the strength of the current. In the figure, where the current is supposed to be flowing up the wire (shown by the dark arrows), the little arrows show the direction in which a free north pole would be urged round the wire;[1] a south pole would, of course, be urged round the wire in the contrary direction. Now, though when we look at the telegraph wires, or at any wire carrying a current of electricity, we cannot _see_ these whirls of magnetic force in the surrounding space, there is no doubt that they exist there, and that a great part of the energy spent in starting an electric current is spent in producing these magnetic whirls in the surrounding space. There is, however, one way of showing the existence of these lines of force; similar, indeed, to that adopted for showing the lines of force in the field surrounding a magnet. Pass the conducting wire up through a hole in a card or a plate of glass, as shown in Fig. 5, and sprinkle filings over the surface. They will, when the glass is gently tapped, arrange themselves in concentric circles, the smallest and innermost being the best defined because the magnetic force is strongest there. Fig 6 is an actual reproduction of the circular lines produced in this fashion by iron filings in the field of force surrounding an electric current.

[Footnote 1: It will not be out of place here to recall Ampere’s ingenious rule for remembering the direction in which a current urges the pole of a magnetic needle. “Suppose a man swimming in the wire with the current, and that he turns so as to face the needle, then the north pole of the needle will be deflected toward his left hand.”]

[Illustration: Fig. 4]

This experimental evidence must suffice to establish two of the three fundamental points stated at the outset, for they prove conclusively that the electric current may be treated as a magnetic phenomenon, and that both in the case of the pole of a magnet, and in that of the wire which carries a current, a portion, at any rate, of the energy of the magnetic forces exists outside the magnet or the current, and must be sought in the surrounding space.

[Illustration: Fig. 5]

[Illustration: Fig. 6]

Having grasped these two points, the next step in our argument is to establish the relation between the current and the magnet, and to show how one may produce the other.

[Illustration: Fig. 7]

If we wind a piece of copper wire into a helix or spiral, as in Fig. 7, and pass a current of electricity through it, the magnetic whirls in the surrounding space are modified, and the lines of force are no longer small circles wrapping round the conducting wire. For now the lines of force of adjacent strands of the coil merge into one another, and run continuously through the helix from one end to the other. Compare this figure with Fig. 1, and the similarity in the arrangement of the lines of force is obvious. The front end of the helix acts, in fact, like the north pole of a magnet, and the further end like the south pole. If a small bar of iron be now pushed into the interior of this helix, the lines of force will run through it and magnetize it, converting it into an _electro-magnet_. The magnetic “field” of such an electro-magnet is shown in Fig. 8, which is reproduced from the actual figure made by iron filings. To magnetize the iron bar of the electro-magnet as strongly as possible the wire should be coiled many times round, and the current should be as strong as possible. This mode of making an iron rod or bar into a powerful magnet is adopted in every dynamo-electric machine. For, as will be presently explained, very powerful magnets are required, and these magnets are most effectively made by sending the electric currents through spiral coils of wire wound (as in Fig. 8) round the bars that are to be made into magnets.

[Illustration: Fig. 8]

The reader will at this point probably be ready to jump to the conclusion that magnets and currents are alike surrounded by a sort of magnetic atmosphere, and such a view may help those to whom the subject is fresh to realize how such actions as we have been describing can be communicated from one magnet to another, or from a current to a magnet. Nevertheless such a conclusion would be both premature and inaccurate. Even in the most perfect vacuum these actions still go on, and the lines of force can still be traced. It is probably more correct to conclude that these magnetic actions are propagated through space not by special magnetic atmospheres, but by there being movements and pressures and tensions in the _ether_ which is believed to pervade all space as a very thin medium more attenuated than the lightest gas, and which when subjected to electro-magnetic forces assumes a peculiar state, and gives rise to the actions which have been detailed in the preceding paragraphs.

[Illustration: Fig. 9.]

The next point to be studied is the magnetic property of a single loop of the wire through which an electric current flows. Fig. 9 represents a single voltaic cell containing the usual plates of zinc and copper dipping into acid to generate a current in the old-fashioned way. This current flows from the zinc plate through the liquid to the copper plate, and from thence it flows round the wire ring or circuit back to the zinc plate. Here the lines of magnetic force in the surrounding space are no longer only whirls like those drawn in Fig. 4 and 6, for they react on one another and become nearly parallel where they pass through the middle of the ring. The thick arrows show the direction of the electric current, the fine arrows are the lines of magnetic force, and show the paths along which a free north pole would be urged. All the front face, where the arrow-heads are, will be like the north pole of a magnet. All the other face of the ring will be like the south pole of a magnet. Our ring resembles a flat magnet, one face all north pole the other face all south pole. Such a magnet is sometimes called a “magnetic shell.”[1]

[Footnote 1: The rule for telling which face of the magnetic shell (or of the loop circuit) is north and which south in its magnetic properties is the following: If as you look at the circuit the current is flowing in the same apparent direction as the hands of a clock move, then the face you are looking at is a south pole. If the current flows the opposite way round to the hands of a clock, then it is the north pole face that you are looking at.]

Since the circuit through which the current is flowing has these magnetic properties, it can attract other magnets or repel them according to circumstances.

[Illustration: Fig. 10.]

If a magnet be placed near the circuit, so that its north pole, N, is opposite that side of the circuit which acts as a south pole, the magnet and the circuit will attract one another. The lines of force that radiate from the end of the magnet, curve round and coalesce with some of those of the circuit. It was shown by the late Professor Clerk-Maxwell, that every portion of a circuit is acted upon by a force urging it in such a direction as to make it inclose within its embrace the greatest possible number of lines of force. This proposition, which has been termed “Maxwell’s Rule,” is very important, because it can be so readily applied to so many cases, and will enable one so easily to think out the actual reaction in any particular case. The rule is illustrated by the sketch shown in Fig. 10, where a bar magnet has been placed with its north pole opposite the south face of the circuit of the cell. The lines of force of the magnet are drawn into the ring and coalesce with those due to the current. According to Faraday’s mode of regarding the actions in the magnetic field there is a tendency for the lines of force to shorten themselves. This would occur if either the magnet were pulled into the circuit, or the circuit were moved up toward the magnet. Each attracts the other, and whichever of them is free to move will move in obedience to the attraction. And the motion will in either case be such as to increase the total number of lines of force that pass through the circuit. Lest it should be thought that Fig. 10 is fanciful or overdrawn, we reproduce an actual magnetic “field” made in the manner described in the preceding article. Fig. 11 is a kind of sectional view of Fig. 10, the circuit being represented merely by two circular spots or holes above and below the middle line, the current flowing toward the spectator through the lower spot, and passing in front of the figure to the upper hole, where it flows down. Into this circuit the pole, N, is attracted, the tendency being to draw as many lines of force as possible into the embrace of the circuit.

[Illustration: Fig. 11.]

So far as the reasoning about these mutual actions of magnets and currents is concerned, it would therefore appear that the lines of force are the really important feature to be understood and studied. All our reasons about the attractions of magnets could be equally well thought out if there were no corporeal magnets there at all, only collections of lines of force. Bars of iron and steel may be regarded as convenient conductors of the lines of force; and the poles of magnets are simply the places where the lines of force run out of the metal into the air or _vice versa_. Electric currents also may be reasoned about, and their magnetic actions foretold quite irrespective of the copper wire that acts as a conductor; for here there are not even any poles; the lines of force or magnetic whirls are wholly outside the metal. There is an important difference, however, to be observed between the case of the lines of force of the current, and that of the lines of force of the magnet. The lines of force of the magnet are the magnet so far as magnetic forces are concerned; for a piece of soft iron laid along the lines of force thereby becomes a magnet and remains a magnet as long as the lines of force pass through it. But the lines of force crossing through a circuit are not the same thing as the current of electricity that flows round the circuit. You may take a I loop of wire and put the poles of magnets on each side of it so that the lines of force pass through in great numbers from one face to the other, but if you have them there even for months and years the mere presence of these lines of force will not create an electric current even of the feeblest kind. There must be _motion_ to induce a current of electricity to flow in a wire circuit.

Faraday’s great discovery was, in fact, that when the pole of a magnet is moved into, or moved out of, a coil of wire, the motion produces, while it lasts, currents of electricity in the coil. Such currents are known as “induced currents;” and the action is called magneto-electric “induction.” The momentary current produced by plunging the magnet pole into the wire coil or circuit is found to be in the opposite direction to that in which a current must be sent if it were desired to attract the magnet pole into the coil. If the reader will look back to Fig. 10 he will see that a north magnet pole is being attracted in from behind into a circuit round which, as he views it, the current flows in an opposite sense to that in which the hands of a clock move round. Now, compare this figure with Fig. 12, which represents the generation of a momentary induced current by the act of moving the north pole, N, toward a wire ring, which is in this case connected with a little detecter galvanometer, G. The momentary current flows round the circuit (as seen by the spectator from the front) in the _same_ sense as the movement of the hands of a clock. The induced current which results from the motion is found, then, to be in a direction exactly opposed to that of the current that would itself produce the same movement of the magnet pole. If the north pole, instead of being moved toward or into the circuit, were moved away from the circuit, this motion will also induce a transient current to flow round the wire, but this time the current will be in the same sense as that in Fig. 10, in the opposite sense to that in Fig. 12. Pulling the magnet pole away sets up a current in the reverse direction to that set up by pushing the pole nearer. In both cases the currents only last while the motion lasts.

[Illustration: Fig. 12.]

Now in the first article it was pointed out that the lines of force of the magnet indicate not only the direction, but the strength of the magnetic forces. The stronger the pole of the magnet is, the greater will be the _number of lines of force_ that radiate from its poles. The strength of the current that flows round a circuit is also proportional to the number of lines of force which are thereby caused to pass (as in Fig. 9) through the circuit. The stronger the current, the more numerous the lines of force that thread themselves through the circuit. When a magnet is moved near a circuit near it, it is found that any alteration in the number of lines of force that cross the circuit is accompanied by the production of a current. Referring once more to Fig. 10, we will call the direction of the current round the circuit in that figure the _positive_ direction; and to define this direction we may remark that if we were to view the circuit from such a point as to look along the lines of force in their own direction, the direction of the current round the circuit will appear to be the same as that of the hands of a clock moving round a dial. If the magnet, N S, be now drawn away from the circuit so that fewer of its lines of force passed through the circuit, experiment shows the result that the current flowing in circuit will be for the moment increased in strength, the _increase_ in strength being proportional to the rate of _decrease_ in the number of lines of force. So, on the other hand, if the magnet were pushed up toward the circuit, the current in the circuit would be momentarily reduced in strength, the decrease in strength in the current being proportional to the rate of increase in the number of lines of force.

Similar considerations apply to the case of the simple circuit and the magnet shown in Fig. 12. In this circuit there is no current flowing so long as the magnet is at rest; but if the magnet be moved up toward the circuit so as to _increase_ the number of lines of force that pass through the circuit, there will be a momentary “inverse” current induced in the circuit and it will flow in the _negative_ direction. While if the magnet were moved away the _decrease_ in the number of lines of force would result in a transient “direct” current, or one flowing in the _positive_ direction.

It would be possible to deduce these results from an abstract consideration of the matter from the point of view of the principle of conservation of energy. But we prefer to reserve this point until a general notion of the action of dynamo-electric machines has been given.

The following principles or generalized statements follow as a matter of the very simplest consequence from the foregoing considerations:

(a) To induce a current in a coil of wire by means of a magnet there must be relative motion between coil and magnet.

(b) Approach of a magnet to a coil or of a coil to a magnet induces currents in the opposite direction to that induced by recession.

(c) The stronger the magnet the stronger will be the induced currents in the coils.

(d) The more rapid the motion the stronger will be the momentary current induced in the coils (but the time it lasts will, of course, be shorter).

(e) The greater the number of turns in the coil the stronger will be the total current induced in it by the movement of the magnet.

These points are of vital importance in the action of dynamo electric generators. It remains, however, yet to be shown how these transient and momentary induction currents can be so directed and manipulated as to be made to combine into a steady and continuous supply. To bring a magnet pole up toward a coil of wire is a process which can only last a very limited time; and its recession from the coil also cannot furnish a continuous current since it is a process of limited duration. In the earliest machines in which the principle of magneto-electric induction was applied, the currents produced were of this momentary kind, alternating in direction. Coils of wire fixed to a rotating axis were moved past the pole of a magnet. While the coil was approaching the lines of force were increasing, and a momentary inverse current was set up, which was immediately succeeded by a momentary direct current as the coil receded from the pole. Such machines on a small scale are still to be found in opticians’ shops for the purpose of giving people shocks. On a large scale alternate current machines are still employed for certain purposes in electric lighting, as, for example, for use with the Jablochkoff candle. Large alternate-current machines have been devised by Wilde, Gramme, Siemens, De Meritens, and others.–_Engineering_.

* * * * *


Dr. Odling delivered a lecture on the above before the Chemical Society, London, February 2, 1882.

The lecturer said that it had been found useful to occasionally bring forward various points of chemical doctrine, on which there were differences of opinion, to be discussed by the society. On this occasion he wished not so much to demonstrate certain conclusions, or to make a declaration of his opinions, as to invite discussion and a thoughtful consideration of questions of importance to chemists. Originally three questions were proposed: First, Is there any satisfactory evidence deducible of the existence of two distinct forms of chemical combination (atomic and molecular)? Second, Is the determination of the vapor density of a body alone sufficient to determine the weight of the chemical molecule? Third, In the case of an element forming two or more distinct series of compounds, e.g., ferrous and ferric salts, is the transition from one series to another necessarily connected with the addition or subtraction of an even number of hydrogenoid atoms? He would, however, limit himself to the first of these questions; at the same time the three questions were so closely associated with one another that in discussing the first it was difficult to know where to begin. The answer to this question (Is there any satisfactory evidence deducible of the existence of two distinct forms of chemical combination?) depends materially on the view we take of the property called in text-books valency or atomicity; and before discussing the question it is important to have a clear idea of what these words valency and atomicity really mean. It is necessary, too, to start with some propositions which must be taken for granted. These propositions are: First, that in all chemical changes, those kinds of matter which we commonly call elementary, do not suffer decomposition. Second, That the atomic weights of the elements as received are correct, i.e., that they do really express with great exactitude the relative weights of the atoms of the individual elements. If we accept these two propositions, it follows that hydrogen can be replaced atom for atom by other elements not only by the hydrogens but by alkali metals, etc. Hydrogen is, it may here be remarked, an element of unique character; not only can it be replaced by the elements of the widely different classes represented by chlorine and sodium, but it is the terminal of the series of paraffins, C_{n}H_{2n}; C_{3}H_{6}, C_{2}H_{4}, H_{2}. The third proposition which must be taken for granted is, that the groups of elements, C_{2}H_{5}, CH_{3}, behave as elements, and that these radicals, ethyl, methyl, etc., do not suffer decomposition in many chemical reactions.

Now as to valency or atomicity, accepting the received atomic weights of the elements, it is certain that there are at least four distinct types of hydrogen compounds represented by ClH, OH_{2}, NH_{3}, CH_{4}. The recognition of these types, and their relations to each other as types, was one of the most important and best assured advances made in theoretical chemistry. When we compare the formula of water with that of hydrochloric acid, we find that there is twice as much hydrogen combined with one atom of oxygen as there is combined with one atom of chlorine; and in a great many other instances, we find that we can replace two atoms of chlorine by one atom of oxygen, so that we get an idea of the exchangeable value of these elements, and we say that one atom of oxygen is worth two of chlorine, or is bivalent; similarly, nitrogen is said to be trivalent. The meaning attached to the word “valency,” is simply one of interchangeability, just as we say a penny is worth two halfpennies or four farthings. The question next arises, is the valency of an element fixed or variable? If the word be defined as above, it is absolutely certain that the valency varies. Thus, tin may be trivalent, SnCl_{2}, or tetravalent, SnCl_{4}. Accordingly elements have been classed as monads, dyads, triads, etc. The lecturer objected most strongly to the word “atomicity;” he could not conceive of one atom being more atomic than another; he could understand the atomicity of a molecule or the equivalency of an atom, but not the atomicity of an atom; the expression seemed to him complete nonsense. He next considered the possibility of assigning a fixed limit to this valency or adicity of an atom, and concluded that the adicity was not absolutely fixed, but was fixed in relation to certain elements, e.g., C never combines with more than four atoms of H; O never more than two atoms of H, etc. The adicity of an element when combined with two or more elements is usually higher than when combined with only one, e.g., NH_{3}, NH_{4}Cl. The term “capacity of saturation,” may be used as a synonym for adicity, if care be taken to distinguish it from other kinds of saturation, such as an acid with an alkali, etc. Adicity is, however, quite distinct from combining force; the latter is indicated by the amount of heat evolved in the combination.

The lecturer then proceeded to criticise a statement commonly found in text books, that chemical combination suppresses altogether the properties of the combining bodies. The reverse of this statement is probably true. To take the case commonly given of the combination of copper and sulphur when heated; this is good as far as it goes, but there are numerous instances, as ClI, SSe, etc., where the original properties and characters of the combining elements do not completely disappear. The real statement is that the original properties of the elements disappear more or less, and least when the combination is weak and attended with the evolution of a slight amount of heat, and in every case some properties are left which can be recognized. So with reference to the question of atomic and molecular combination, as atomic combination does not necessarily produce change, it does not differ in this respect from what is usually called molecular combination.

The lecturer then referred to an important difference in the adicity of chlorine and oxygen. Chlorine can combine with methyl or ethyl singly. Oxygen can combine with both and hold them together in one molecule. The recognition of this fundamental difference between chlorine and oxygen, this formation of double oxides as opposed to single chlorides, marks an epoch in scientific chemistry.

The lecturer then considered the subject of chemical formulae; it is the bounden duty of every formula to express clearly the number of atoms of each kind of elementary matter which enters into the constitution of the molecule of the substance. A formula may do much more than this. If we attempt to express too much by a complex formula we may veil the number of atoms contained in it. This difficulty may be avoided by using two formulae, a synoptic formula giving the number of atoms present, and a complex formula perhaps covering half a page, giving the constitution of the molecule. But between the purely synoptic formula and the very elaborate formula there are others–contracted formulae–which labor under the disadvantage, as a rule, of being one-sided, and so create a false impression as to the nature of the substance. Thus, for instance, to take the formula of sulphuric acid, H_{2}SO_{4}. This suggests that all the oxygen is united to the S; (HO)_{2}SO_{2} suggests that two atoms of hydroxyl exist in the molecule; then, again, we might write the formula HSO_{2}OH, or H_{2}OSO_{3}. All of these are justifiable, and each might be useful to explain certain reactions of sulphuric acid, but to use one only creates a false impression. The only plan is to use them variously and capriciously, according to the reaction to be explained. Again, ethyl acetate may be written–


Or condensed–

H_{5}C_{2} \

Or H_{5}C_{2}O.C_{2}H_{3}O, or H_{5}C_{2}.C_{2}H_{3}O_{2}. Now each of these two latter formulae is a partial formula, each represents a one-sided view; it is justifiable if you use both, but unfair if you use only one.

We now come to the question as to the existence or non-existence of two distinct classes of compounds, one in which the atoms are combined directly or indirectly with each other, and the other in which a group of atoms is combined as an integer with some other group of atoms, without any atomic connection by so-called molecular combination. These two modes of combination are essentially distinct. The question is not one of degree. Are there any facts to support this theory that one set of compounds is formed in one way, another in a different way? Take the case of the sulphates: Starting with SO_{3}, we can replace one atom of O by HO_{2}, and obtain SO_{2}(HO)_{2} or H_{2}SO_{4}; replacing a second atom, we get SO(HO)_{4} or H_{4}SO_{5}, glacial sulphuric acid, a perfectly definite body corresponding to a definite class of sulphates, e.g., H_{2}MgSO_{5}, Zn_{2}SO_{5}, etc. By replacing the third atom of O we get S(HO)_{6} or H_{6}SOH_{6}; this corresponds to a class of salts, gypsum, H_{4}CaSO_{6}, etc. These are admitted without dispute to be atomic compounds. Are we to stop here? We may write the above compounds thus: H_{2}SO_{4}, H_{2}SO_{4}H_{2}O, H_{2}SO_{4}2H_{2}O. If we measure the heat evolved in the formation of the two latter compounds, it is, for H_{2}SO_{4}+H_{2}O, 6.272; H_{2}SO_{4}+2H_{2}O, 3.092. But if we now take the compound H_{2}SO_{4}+3H_{2}O we have heat evolved 1.744; so we can have H_{2}SO_{4}4H_{2}O, etc. Where are we to draw the line between atomic and molecular combination, and why? It comes to this: All compounds which you can explain on your views of atomicity are atomic, and all that you cannot thus explain are molecular. Similarly with phosphates, arsenates, etc. In all these compounds it is impossible to lay one’s finger on any distinction as regards chemical behavior between the compounds called atomic and those usually called molecular.

Two points remain to be mentioned: The first is the relationship between alteration of adicity and two series (ous and ic) of compounds. Tin is usually said to be dyad in stannous compounds and a tetrad in stannic compounds, but in a compound like SnCl_{2}AmCl, is not tin really a tetrad?

Sn {Cl

and yet it is a stannous compound, and gives a black precipitate with H_{2}S; so that valency does not necessarily go with the series. The second point is that an objection may be urged, as, for example, in ammonium chloride (the lecturer stated above that here N was a pentad, the addition of the chlorine having caused the N to assume the pentadic character), it may be said, why should you not suppose that it is the chlorine “which has altered its valency, and that the compound should be written:

N { \

There is something to be said for this view, but on the whole the balance of the evidence is in favor of nitrogen being a pentad.

In conclusion the lecturer stated that his principal object was to direct the attention of chemists, and especially of young chemists, to the question: Is there or is there not any evidence derived from the properties, the decompositions, or the relative stabilities of substances to warrant us in believing that two classes of compounds exist: one class in which there is interatomic connection alone, and another in which the connection is molecular?

* * * * *


Mr. Martenson, of St. Petersburg, who, it will be remembered, was one of the Russian delegates to the International Pharmaceutical Congress, has been analyzing a number of French preparations for the toilet, most of which are familiar to our readers, at any rate by name and repute.

1. _Eau de Fleurs de Lys_–(Planchon and Riet, Paris.)–An infallible banisher of freckles, etc., etc. The bottle contains 100 grammes of a milky fluid, made up of 97 per cent. of water, 2.5 per cent. of precipitated calomel, and a small quantity of common salt and corrosive