GAS V. ELECTRICITY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1025, 14 January 1911, Page 3

GAS V. ELECTRICITY.

HOSPITAL LIGI'STING. [To tho Editor.] Sir,—ln reply to tho letter of Mr. Win. Ferguson, published in your issuo of January 12, I am pleased to see that tho issues have been narrowed down somewhat, and there aro not wanting signs that the battle is near an end. Mr. Ferguson now makes certain admissions in an ingenuous manner, but so that the public may bo ill a position to draw their own conclusions I propose to summarise the points at issue in as brief a manner as possible. Lighting from a health standpoint: Mr. Ferguson still desires to make tho public bolievo that gas is preferable to electricity from a health point of view, and as an instance of tho weakness of his caso lie quoted Professor Lewis as saying that gas is less trying to the eyes than electric light—no mention is made of the effect of tho deleterious fumes from a hygienic standpoint. In support of my previous contentions I will quote Dr. Louis Bell in his recent work "Tho Art of Illumination," wherein ho shows that tho ordinary gas burner will vitato tho atmosphere to the same extent as fivo persons, and adds: —"This is a strong argument in favour of clectric light, and tho enormous hygienic advantage should alono be sufficient to justify its adoption in placo of gas." In a previous letter of Mr. Ferguson's he stated that the Society of Medical Officers of Health discarded electric light in its meeting rooms; as I had no information on this point I was not in, a position to dispute its correctness. However, tho latest number of the "Electrical Keviow" throws some light on it, and for the information of the public I will quote thenremarks in comicctioii with this alleged victory: "Tho alleged 'triumph of gas,' however, is a very empty victory—an achievement lacking oven the elements of sportsmanship and honourable dealing. We havo already pointed out that tlw electric light is still used by tho society. We now have strong grounds for tho belief that tho 'ventilating' gas lamp .installed in tho meeting-room was cither presented to the society free of cost or installed at a "nominal charge, for tho sake of advertisement. If wo are wrong the proof is easy, and wc aro prepared to publish that proof in the shape of a duly authenticated statement on tho part of tho Hoyal Society of Medical Officers of Health, that tho gas installation was purchased by the society at % its full price, and that no reduction was made on the score of advertisement."

Perhaps Mr. Ferguson can supply tho answer to this. Gas Heating Appliances.—Mr. Ferguson still persists in saying that I read in tho word "gas" wrongly in reference to tho heating appliances. 1 can only add to my former remarks regarding the appliances that since my previous letter I havo visited the hospital, ill company with Mr. J. E. Fitzgerald, and found that quite recently steam-heated sterilisers have been substituted for the gas-heated oijes, and, further, that tho gas-heating appliances at present in uso at the hospital are similar to thoso in general use. ' Tho next statement made by Mr. Ferguson is with reference to the comparative value in British thermal units of the respective commodities. I complained that no allowance was made for the relative efficiencies. Mr. Ferguson now states that this was a theoretical calculation. .Exactly, that is my contention, and as the Gas Company do not sell their products on a theoretical basis, I think it only fair to let the public know what thoy will pay in practice.. Mr. Ferguson says: "Why., not. submit ono of our electric', water heaters to some independent person to test." In reply, 1 beg to extend a cordial invitation to Mr. Ferguson or anyoni interested to inspcct our electric water heaters; furthermore, I will allow them to conduct any reasonable experiments' they may desire. Should the invitation bo accepted, I can promiso Mr. Ferguson an eyc-open(r m the matter of efficiency. •

Gas-driven Plants.—Mr. Ferguson complfins that I only quoted a single sentence in his letter to the trustees regarding gas-driven plants, and thereby made wrong deductions. I will now quote the wliolo paragraph, and leave tho public to form their own opinions. On March 22 Mi'. Ferguson wrote as follows:—

\ "If, however, your trustees, for any reason, prefer to adopt tho electric lighting, I hope that the company maybe permitted to show what can be done by tho generation of electric current by means of gas engines. lam certain that the company can prove that the electric current (although much dearer than gas lighting) can bs generated by a gas-driven plant at a rate per unit mi'cli loss than the current can be obtained from the corporation mains. In connection with this aspect of the question, I havo pleasv.ro in enclosing you the log-sheet for a month of the gasdriven installation at tho hotel. At the foot of page 7 thereof you will see that in this case tho electric current cost only 1.43 pence per unit, being much less than the rates charged by the City Council."

Is this not a distinct statement that clectric current cost 1.43 d. per unit? Now, Mr. Ferguson admits in his last letter that no account was taken of attendance, maintenance, etc., which items bring tho cost up to 4Jd. per unit, bus consoles himself with tho fact that 45d. is less than od. Very well; on the same deduction 3d., the price for electric light, proposed to be charged, is-less than 4-^d. I think I can safely say that we will hear no more of this question. The victory at Westminster.—Mr. Ferguson refers once moro to the famous victory at Westminster, where gas replaced BG electric .lamps, and states that I only told a half truth. Vory well, hero is tho whole truth.. At one time, not so very long ago, the whole of Westminster was lit entirely by gas, but the electric light came along, and was gradually ousting the gas, until nearly 1200 arc lamps replaced gas lamps. When the time came for renewing the lighting contracts, the Gas Company had to make a tremendous cut in their old rates, with the result that they were enabled to replace 60 electric lamps—tho electric companies still bemg in possession of over 1100 lamps in Westminster. To do' this they found it necessarv to lower their rates from £5 Bs. 6d. to'£2 16s. per annum; even at this low rate tho Gas Company was indebted to a standing in, debate and a technicality which precluded tho acceptance of the Electric Supply Company's tender. I am indebted to the "Electrical Times" of October 20 for the above information. Is Mr. Ferguson aware that the shopkepers of Regent Street petitioned against the removal of the clectric lamps? Is ho aware that a petition was signed by 2671 ratepayers of Holhurn protesting against the renewal of the contract with tho Gas Light and Coko Company without competition ?' This is file manner in which gas victories arejnanufactured 1' Now, I will ask Mr. Ferguson to give us some of his local victories. I had the pleasure of giving a few local electrical victories in my last letter, and' it is worthy of note that they have not been- commented on. GEO. LAUCHLAN, Lighting Superintendent. Wellington City Council, January 13, 1911.