Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 14.djvu/248

236 sixteen-horse power. The candles cost sixteen cents each, and burn an hour and a half. Estimates of its cost vary from one-half to three times the cost of gas. In this country the field is occupied by several kinds of apparatus. At the American Institute Fair are a number of Wallace machines, furnishing in all nineteen lights, scattered through the main building. Inquiry from the engineer who cares for the engine driving these machines develops the fact that not less than sixty-horse power is consumed for these nineteen lights. In the machinery halls four lights are used, furnished by a Brush machine absorbing seven-horse power. These are much steadier and pleasanter to the eye than those in the main building. The makers of the Brush machine claim that, with a larger machine, absorbing twelve horse power, they can produce fifteen to twenty lights of 2,000-candle power each, thus considerably improving upon the French system.

"Unless Mr. Edison can substantiate his claims, and produce better results than are given above—and there is not the slightest evidence that he has actually done even as much—the conclusion clearly reached is this: that, for the lighting of dwellings and all places where twenty or thirty or perhaps forty gas-burners suffice, gas will hold its own and still be the most economical light."

Upon the reception of the news in England of what Mr. Edison had done and proposed to do, there was perturbation in gas-stocks, and the editor of Nature writes as follows about it:

"Although a student of science will have little difficulty in associating the results promised with the discovery of perpetual motion, it is quite probable that Mr. Edison has actually succeeded in doing what he states he has done in his telegram: 'I have just solved the problem of the subdivision of the electric light indefinitely.' What we wish to point out is, that it is one thing to do this and another thing to produce an electric light for ordinary house and street use. Once put the molecules of solid carbon in motion, and, just because a solid is in question, the light must be excessive and the expenditure of energy must be considerable.

"While it is easy to believe that the future may produce a means of illumination midway between the electric light and gas, it is equally easy to see that the thing is impossible without great waste, and therefore cost, with dynamo-electric machines and carbon-poles. So long as carbon is employed we shall have much light which, perhaps, can be increased and steadied if various gases and pressures are tried. But streets and rooms full of such suns as these would be unbearable unless we sacrifice much of the light after we have got it. Split up the current in the manner so cheerfully described by the New York paper, and the carbon will refuse to flow altogether, if an engine of 5,000,000 horse-power be employed instead of the modest one of 500 which is to light the south part of the island. If Mr. Edison has succeeded in replacing carbon he may have turned the flank of the difficulty to a certain extent.

"Gas companies may well begin to feel uneasy at the general attention which is being drawn to the electric light as a substitute for gas if they are prepared to let things alone. That in one form or another it is likely to be partially adopted in all large cities and at extensive public works seems most likely. It will be one of the lights of the future, but not to the excluding or superseding of gaslight.

"Our own columns have repeatedly borne testimony to the success which has attended its introduction into Paris, where it is to be met with at almost every corner, and at one or more of the railway-stations. The general testimony of those who are unprejudiced is, that at least for wide streets, squares, and open places, its lighting effect is all that could be desired. Every Londoner is familiar with the effect of the display which the enterprising Mr. Hollingshead has placed in front of the Gaiety Theatre, and the glowing contrast presented to the miserable yellow flames of the neighboring street-lamps; but this contrast exists because the gas is bad and dear. Mr. Hollingshead, in a letter to the Daily News, corrects the view of the gas companies, that the electric light must necessarily cost more to produce than gas. His own display, necessarily wasteful, costs four-fifths what gas would, and he is probably correct in saying that with proper management it need not cost more than one-half. Moreover, in yesterday's Times., Mr. E. J. Reed refers to the case of M. E. Manchon, a large manufacturer at Rouen, who had gone to considerable expense to alter his premises to suit the electric light, and who, even with hired engine power, finds that there is an annual saving of 22.6 per cent, over gas, with infinitely better light and a wholesome atmosphere. Mr. Reed is of opinion that, even if the electric light cost more than gas, its advantages