RE GAS MATTERS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 1097, 17 September 1912, Page 2

RE GAS MATTERS.

(To the Editor.)

Sir. The street lighting of Foxton, notwithstanding its eight feet per hour lamps is bad and inefficient. The price paid by the Council to the credit of the gas works working account is £5 per lamp per annum, 10s would be a good average price for the hours the lamps are supposed to be alight. Five feet per hour lamps in some towns will give as good light as these eight feet lamps. Suppose a transformation was made as follows; From 28 Bft. lamps using 224 feet per hour to 45 sft. lamps using 225 feet per hour, which would give a sixty per cent better lighting effect and need not cost any more for gas ; mantles and labour might be worth per year for the additional 17 lamps, would provide interest and sinking fund on the cost of erection of the extra lamps. 28 lamps now cost per year, 45 lamps would cost or 12s per lamp per annum. The last monthly meeting of the Council produced a balance sheet tor the working of the gas works showing a “profit” of ,£9 8s qd. This is really a balance not a profit of receipts over expenditure without those estimated stocks this time. Stocks must be taken before a profit or a loss can be truly shown. To arrive at this gratifying result some rigid economies were practiced. For instance, a saving of £5 was made in the coal bill by equalling the Levin make of gas per ton. Even working expenses were about £lO less than the wages of the regular staff, £5 8s profit was shown on fittings account, but if the expenditure amount is “wages only” as well as the receipts amount, £5 8s is a very nice profit to make on 16s paid in wages. The average monthly amount of interest and sinking fund is hardly a fair thing to debit to a winter month’s gas sales, it should be allocated on the basis of the month’s busiuess compared with the annual returns, otherwise a midsummer month may be made to show a heavy loss. Report on the gas works did not tell anything about the Foxton works, but rather a good report of the Levin works with a suggested application of the same process to the Foxton works. It certainly stated that 14 to 16 candle gas was good enough, but did not state what quantity of producer gas or atmospheric air was needed to attain the desired results. The principal item ot interest was that rich gas is ruination to many a small gas works. The inference to be drawn from that is that poor gas is ruination to the gas consumer. Wake up gas committee and when you “show your manager how it can be done’’ don’t forget to fix the quality with the quantity, for wiffle-waffling lights are an abomination.—l am, etc.,

Ex Fumo Dare Ducem