Page:The Building News and Engineering Journal, Volume 22, 1872.djvu/491

 ‘ventional or misleading than the other. June 7, 1872. THE BUILDING NEWS. 469 eee eee remedy, except such remote benefit as may be de- rived from holding up the deliberate plagiarist to public ridicule. Were the English people better versed in art, such parodies as those above mentioned would be only as laughable to them as they are to artists, for the architectural plagiarist always plays the fool, and cannot even copy with decency. The real remedy belongs to the future, and will only come when the nation knows somewhat more about art than it does at present, and has learnt, thoughit be ever so little, to distinguish Una from Duessa.—I am, &c., E. W. Gopwiy, F.S.A. 197, Albany-street, N.W. HOUSE PLANNING COMPETITION. Sir,—In reply to the letter of Mr. R. Norman Shaw, in last week’s Burtpinc News, I have simply to make a denial of the charge of appropriation of his design, which he impeaches me with. Iam un- able to perceive on what grounds his assertions are based, for I beg to confess my ignorance of ever having seen before the plan he published last week; and as yet I fail to see that ‘‘the theory of coin- cidence is entirely untenable.” Had Mr. Shaw asked me civilly for any explanations I would most willingly have supplied him with such informa- tion as would have satisfied him of my innocence of any such plagiarism. I may say, in conclusion, that not being as yet able to claim any higher title than an apprentice in the profession, I feel myself highly honoured by having my design claimed by an eminent A.R.A.— Lam, &e., Glasgow, June 4. James M. MacLaren. CAPTAIN SEDDON’S PAPER ON TESTING MATERIALS. Srm,—Permit me to call attention through your columns to an error fallen into by Captain Seddon, R.E., in his paper on the “Testing of Materials,” read before the Royal Institute of British Architects, and reproduced in your paper of last week, in which he alludes to a discrepancy between the transverse strength of English oak and its tensile strength as given in Molesworth’s ‘‘ Pocket Book” and Hurst's “‘ Architectural Surveyor’s Handbook.” Captain Seddon appears to have taken the figures for tensile strength from an old edition of Molesworth’s book, and applies them to the rule for transverse strength in mine. If he had used recent editions, or had com- pared the figures given by myself to both cases, he would not have found the difference so wide as he endeavoured to make out. Again, he calls attention to the imperfection of the formula for the transverse strength of wrought-iron girders, given in my handbook (p. 12), as being misleading. Captain Seddon ought to have known that the formula he refers to is the well-known formula of Sir W. Fairbairn, and that which he pro- poses to substitute is only a modification of the equally well-known formula used by civil engineers for large girders, but which is not a whit less con- This any ene can see for himself by applying both to girders broken for experiment. Captain Seddon appears also to have overlooked the fact that pocket-books are intended only for those who have had some previous knowledge of the sub- ject, and for whom commonplace explanations are unnecessary. June 5, 1872. J. T. Hurst. VENTILATION OF SOIL-PIPES. Str,—We lay small lead pipes for the conveyance - of water from the street mains into the houses ; they are easily bent round the numerous angles in their course. These bends, as well as the smallness of the pipe, form obstructions to the flow of the water, and pressure has to be put upon the water in the main to overcome these obstructions. It is the same with gas-lighting; an artificial pressure is put on at the works, sufficient to drive the gas through the pipes and burners. But in the ventilation of house- drains there is no such pressure to force the foul air through the pipes, and if it is to be made to pass through certain pipes in preference to other outlets, it must be coaxed through them by removing every obstacle to its passage. Now, the narrowness of a small pipe offers great obstruction by causing friction of the air against its sides, that friction increasing as the square of the velocity, and the velocity being inversely as the square of the diameter. Bends offer obstructions vf their own. The inference, then is—the reason of which © stated in my former letter (May $24)—that the ventilanugs-pipe of a soil-pipe I should be continued upwards of the same diameter as the soil-pipe itself, vertically, to a point above tke roof of the house, and its top left open. The efficiency of a ventilating-pipe being as the square of its diameter, a pipe only lin, diameter is only a ninth part as efficient as a 3in. pipe, and only a sixteenth part as efficient as a 4in. pipe, and is therefore practically inefficient. The letter of ‘‘ Plumber” last week shows how much mischief a plumber may do without knowing it, but worse than that, it shows that he is unwill- ing to admit an error when it is pointed out to him. The perfectly useless and harmless personalities of his letter might well have been withheld until he had refuted my argument by superior reasoning. Assertions go for nothing, until we have been con- vinced by experience that the person who asserts is entitled to speak as an authority. How can it be “gross presumption” in me, after ten years practice in and constant study of the subject upon which I addressed you, to do what little I may to prevent the spread of errors, which, commonly thought to be but of little importance, are yet to my knowledge doing immense harm? For, sir, the practice of ventilating house drains has not been of much longer standing in England than the years I have mentioned. (My experience is confined to England.) I, unlike “Plumber,” am always alive to the defects of my own judgment and capabilities, and am eyer ready to be convinced that I am in error if it can be proved so, but so far from any one haying yet provedit, in England, my views are sup- ported by the most eminent men who have given their attention to this subject. I first had the idea of ventilating sewers and drains from Mr, Rawlin- son, many years ago, and I haye endeavoured in my practice to improve from time to time upon the details of construction. As the present question is not that of ventilating public sewers, but that of ventilating house drains—and soil-pipes in particu- lar—I need not now go into the question of ven- tilating through charcoal. Suffice it to say, for my part, that while I quite appreciate the use of char- coal in certain situations—and those are where a sufficient current of air can be ensured—I deprecate any obstruction whatever being placed in the way of the free escape of sewer gases through the ven- tilating-pipes of house drains. There is one point of ‘‘Plumber’s ” letter worth referring to, and that is as to the cost of large instead of small ventilating-pipes. This ques- tion of cost, of course, comes in for a good deal of consideration, and when I advocate a Sin. pipe instead of a jin., and a din. pipe instead of a lin. pipe, a 5in. instead of a 1jin. pipe, and a Gin, instead of a 1}in. pipe, I mean that iron pipes of 3in., din., 5in.,- or 6in. diameter, can be put up at the same expense as lead pipes of 3in., lin., 1in., or 1iin. diameter respectively can be put up at, or nearly so—near enough, at least, for my argument. Tron has risen lately so suddenly in price, that that tells a little against the adoption of iron piping just at present, butit affects the argument not at all, for everybody knows that the present unusual price of iron cannot continue, And yet the price of other metals generally keeps pace with that of iron, and, if I am correctly informed, the price of lead at the present time is not far from being of corresponding value to that of iron. But for the purpose of the present argument we need not go into these particu- lars. If we take the general run of prices, we shall find that every quarter of an inch diameter of a lead pipe represents in value a full inch diameter of an iron pipe; so that we can put up a 4in. iron pipe at the same cost as a lin. lead pipe. I am quite aware of the greater difficulty in making the connections between the iron ventilating-pipes and the soil-pipes, where the soil-pipes happen to be of lead; and here it occurs to me that if a plumber were called in to ventilate a leaden soil-pipe of, say, 4in. or 43in. diameter, he might reasonably, in his view as a plumber, hesitate to recommend the soil-pipe to be continued up of the full diameter in lead, and might say, in the supposed interest of his employer, that a smaller size might do for the ventilating continua- tion; but really there is no necessity that the soil- pipe should be of lead, and, granting that it is of iron, it is the easiest thing to form the uppermost bend with a junction piece pointing straight up- wards, with a socket to receive the first length of vertical ventilating-pipe, of the full diameter of the soil-pipe. But supposing, as in old houses, that the soil-pipe is of lead, I yet prefer, inmy own practice, to form a junction-piece of lead upon the top of the | uppermost bend of the soil-pipe, into the socket or | faucit of which I insert the first length of iron pipe, and so continue it vertically of the full diameter at as little cost as a small lead pipe could be con- tinued for; and I have the satisfaction of thinking and knowing, so far as my reason can tell me, that the larger ventilating-pipe is much more efficient than a smaller one would be. There are other con- siderations in this question, upon which I might address you more at length, but fearing to occupy too much of your valuable columns I refrain from doing so at present.—I am, &c., Crartzs Stace, C.E. Kingston-on-Thames, June 3, 1872. THE COMPLETION OF §S. PAUL'S. Srr,—Now that Mr. Burges has taken Mr. Street’s place on the dissecting table and is undergoing at the hands of professional and lay critics the painful or pleasant process, accordingly as he may view it, of their criticism, I am anxious to state, with your permission, my opinion on the chief objections made to his recent appointment. These objections are that Mr. Burges is so essentially a Medizvalist as to be unable to do justice to the great Classical work entrusted to his hands for decoration, that he has failed in his design at Worcester College, and that he has spoken dis- respectfully of Sir C. Wren or his work. To dismiss first the last and most trivial objection. Surely such expression of disrespect, if ever it was made, ought tc be taken for no more than it is worth, and as any pre- vious disparagement of her personal charms would be taken by a woman from the man she afterwards chanced to marry. As for the second objection, the character and success of the work at Worcester College isa matter of opinion ; and the value of an opinion, as we all know, depends upon the capability and opportunity of the person who forms and maintains it. More weight might have been attached to the adverse criticisms on this work had they been less im- petuous and more discriminating. Concerning the first objection, I admit, as all, indeed, must, who know anything of Mr. Burges’s works, that he “is” a Medizyvalist, one pre-eminently distinguished by his deep knowledge of Gothic art, and by the marvellous skill with which he embodies his own conceptions in its finest phase. But Medizvalist as Mr. Burges is, he is something more ;he is, if I may so speak, not sectarian but catholic with regard to art, and possesses qualities enabling him to disengage himself, so far as is necessary, from all the influences and traditions of the style in which he usually works. A vivid imagi- nation, astrong instinctive love of natural and art beauty, wherever it may be found, a philosophic mind that readily recognises the rational and appropriate treatment of any subject to be designed, and a power of expression equal to his power of conception—these are the great natural endowments that, most studiously cultivated, fit him for the task he has under- taken, and promise its successful completion.—I am, &c., i A. P. GoopMAN, FURNITURE IN THE INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION. Srr,—In your article on ‘‘ Furniture in the Inter- national Exhibition,” in the BurnpinG News of last week, you, while criticising favourably our oak cabinet, charge us, amongst other manufacturers, with not putting forward the names of those who design the pieces of furniture. Any concealment of this sort has certainly been in opposition to our wishes. Our cabinet and tea-table were designed by Mr. E. J. Tarver, architect, whose name we duly forwarded with the exhibits, and it appears in the official cata- logue. The various labels now on the cabinet, &c., have been placed there by the Commissioners to the Exhibition.—We are, &c., Morant, Born, & BLANFORD. 91, New Bond-street, W., June 4. ILLEGIBLE LETTERING. Sir,—Why is it, I wonder, that so many draughts- men letter their plans so illegibly? ‘ Glasgowegian’s”” lettering last week I can scarcely read. He first uses a very illegible form of letter, and then draws three or four lines through the words to obliterate them.—I am, &e., T. G. [And we also should like to know ‘the reason why.” It-is remarkable that some take trouble to make themselves misunderstood. Some years since, while staying at the Castle Hotel, Aberystwith, now or some day in the distant future to be the Welsh Univer- sity, certain signs were written over the letter-box of the hotel which troubled some and bewildered others. The person who put the signs there meant to have said: ‘Letters must be put in here not later than 4 o'clock.” But many persons took the figure 4 for the figure 7, and we must say that the figure was so comically formed in imitation of * Old English” that any but the most experienced might have been pardoned formaking a mistake. Probably the writer imagined he had done something clever. We thought he deserved a good ducking.—EpD.] THE CHORLEY TOWN HALL COMPETITION. Sir,—We cannot allow a letter which appeared in your last but one issue on the above subject to pass unchallenged, though we have little desire to enter upon a defence of our designs, feeling it would be almost superfluous to do so after our having obtained the award from so practical a man as Mr. Paley, and considering the minute inspection we understand he gave to the whole of the designs. Our reason, how-