The gas question : economic and sanitary / by James Adams, M.D.
- James Maxwell Adams
- Date:
- 1882
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: The gas question : economic and sanitary / by James Adams, M.D. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.
13/46 page 11
![vnlnc with what they eiijoy at the present moment. Tin’s con- sideration leads me to the next branch of my contention. It is asserted that lowering the quality of Glasgow gas to 20 candle power will not necessarily, or at least substantially, lower the lighting and heating value, which will still be equally great with that obtainable at present from our 20 candle gas; because, it is said, the equal value can be obtained by employing better methods of combustion than are now in use. This is certainly true, but it is a truism that a]iplies at all times to any coal gas whatever the value. The suggestion cuts both ways. 20 candle gas, by means of a careful adjustment of the pressure at which it is delivered, and by the use of burners of good construc- tion, will give the light usually obtainable from 26 candle gas. But if these precautions are not employed, then 20 candle gas will only give the light of 10 candles, and 30 candle gas will only give the light of 20 candles. Moreover, the lowering of the pre- sent quality of gas does not insure the employment of improved methods of combustion. Ignorant and wasteful consumers wu’ll always be with us; and w'hatever the quality of gas, there will always be a liability to wasteful practices. Tlie lower the nominal price, the greater the waste—mdelkel, pins, matches, and steel pens. A wasteful consumer will no more amend his ways through demonstration that he is wasting his gas, and might and ought to do better, than will a confirmed drunkard through admonition and conviction that he is wasting his health, money, and business. But granting that by the use of automatic pressure governors the distribution of gas was equalised—instead of being delivered from full supply pipes at the Broomielaw at 5-lOths of an inch pressure and at Park Quadrant at 26-1 Oths pressure, as I have verified—and that individual consumers employed the be.st burners, I would, despite the desirable improvement, not be reconciled to the lowering of the present quality of gas. Neither 20 nor 26 candle gas are standards of excellence at which, when attained, we should rest and be thankfid. The consumer who believes, as I believe, that we cannot have too much light at command, as well for social comfort as for many other uses, should not willingly accept a supply of inferior gas. On this point I quote the observations of Dr. Wallace,* our City Analyst. “ It cannot be doubted, he says, “ that a suj)ply of gas of * On the Kcoiioniic C^onibustioii of Coal Gas. —Pliil. Soc. Trans., \il74.](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b24919792_0015.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
