THE first turbine-engine of which there is a record is that of Hero of Alexandria, about 130 B.c., a reaction engine or steam reaction wheel. The next is Branca's paddle-wheel (about 1629), impelled by a steam-jet. The .principles involved in these designs of turbines are practically identical ; and the peripheral speeds for equal efficiency would require to be about equal. I n neither of them was the utilization of the expansive energy of the steam carried beyond that obtained in the course of its issue from a non-divergent jet ; nor was the construction of the machine calculated to stand a speed of rotation high enough to afford B reasonable return in power for the steam consumed. The earliest patents for steam-turbines began to be filed towards the end of the eighteenth century ; but excepting Watt's proposed rotary engine of 1784, in which the principle now familiar in the pulsometer was applied to force water through a Barker wheel, there appeared in them no substantial advance towards the construction of an economical turbine-engine till the year 1837, when William Gilman first suggested the compound turbine. I n his design this took the form of several Barker reaction wheels mounted on a common shaft, and operated by steam in separate cases ; the steam traversing the wheels in series, and the apertures in the successive wheels increasing in size to allow for and to utilize the expansion of the steam. He also described a Barker wheel surrounded l~y an oppositely rotating ring of buckets, the wheel and bucket-wheel transmitting power through bevel-gearing to a common shaft. I n 1838 Matthew Heath enunciated for the first time the principle of the diverging conical nozzle for converting the expansive energy of the steam into kinetic energy. Heath was under the impression that in an ordinary jet the whole of the expansive energy of the steam is lost. This is not the case ; but his diverging expansive tube, though shown in his drawings of exaggerated pro-Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [25/09/16].

No abstract

No abstract

Mr. O' Brien. The directorate and chief mechanical engineer of a railway company change infrequently, and the policy is continuous. The problems connected with the generation of electricity are mainly mechanical ; the chief mechanical engineer is usually a man of broad views and wide experience, and in the ordinary operation of his department he has the assistance of experts in each particular branchelectricity, marine engineering, cranes, stationary boiler plant, etc. He is therefore eminently fitted to deal with the problems of a power station. The railway will already possess a staff for dealing with coal analyses and purchase properties of oils, and water, etc., and for testing purposes, and hence a generating station can be operated with an economy unknown among municipalities or in most companies. I do not dispute Mr. Baker's contention that the 50 generating stations in London are wasteful and that it , is a problem to know what to do with them ; on the contrary , I am pleased that he should have adduced this argu-Mr. o Brien ment to prove the wisdom of the policy adopted by the London & NorthWestern and London & SouthWestern Railways. It is of course a matter for regret that there is not a central supply authority for the whole of London ; as soon as such an authority is in being no doubt the railway companies will be in no two minds about purchasing their current. I should like to say further in answer to Mr. Baker that in my opinion in order to get the best results in a very large organization like a railway company it is essential that the whole of the mechanical engineering and transport problems should be grouped under one authority. Many hard things have been said recently about the Great Eastern Railway, but the Company has shown very great wisdom in appointing an engineer as general manager, who will be able to coordinate the various mechanical problems now divided between departments.

No abstract