Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

29 articles on this Page


Merthyr Police Assault-at-Arms.


|A Death Paid Penalty.

[No title]


----Dowiais SYian Falls from…

---'----Cefn Child's Fatal…


The Ratepayers' Meeting.

---------..--. Vaynor Easter…


-------.-Re-opening of Zion…

[No title]





.— Whit-Monday at Abergavenny.

Miners and the Eight Hours…

[No title]



GAS v. ELECTRICITY. (Contributed.) Having had their appetites whetted by the seductive article on this "burning question," which appeared in last week's "Express," the readers of that paper are no doubt waiting for some further comparisons of a more practical character on the relative values of incandescent s-as and the Osram lamp, for which so much has been claimed. Tho most remarkable efficiency has been stat- ed for those lamps, but electricians u<4ng them do not claim a higher efficiency than 1.3 to 1.6 watts per candle power, which, of course, is a great improvement on the carbon filament- lamps. But the Osram lamps possess inherent defects which militate very largely against their general adoption; the filaments are so fragile that numbers do not survive the perils of tran- sit, fixing- and dusting, and their average life does not exceed 600 hours. The lamps possess also a decided objection to alternating current, or to any volfcago above 130, and have on all modern high pressure supplies to be run in series, and in order todothisLthey require to be most carefully paired, or there is bound to be trouble with thorn. In addition, variations in the pressure tends to produce fusion or vola- talisation of the filament, indeed the blackened condition of many of the bulbs are evidence that this is continually taking place; the switching on and off is also a frequent cause of failure. The lamps cost about 4s. each, and for that sum two complete incandescent gas burn- ers, complete with chimneys and mantles, can be had. Allowing the high emciency of 1.3 watts per candle power, and current at 4&d.,and a life of 600 hours, the following is a fair and accu- rate comparison between a pair of 32 candle power Osram lamps and one incandescent gas light of equal power over a year of 1,800 light- ing hours:—Electricity: Two Osram 32 c.p. lamps at 1.3 watts per candle power for 1,800 hours—energy consumed, 149 units at 4d., £2 15s. 10d.; renewals—six lamps at 4s. each, £1 4s.; 19s. 10d. Gas.Ono 64 c.p. In- candescent gao "burner consuming 4 cubic feet per hour for 1,8C0 hours equals 7,200 cubic feet: at 4s. 9d. per 1,000 cubic feet, equals JB1, 14s. 3d.; renewals—six mantles at 4d. each, 2s.; total, £1 16s. 3d. An examination of the foregoing comparison will show that a generous, allowance of gas and mantles has been provided, yet for equal amounts of light the cost of the most efficient of the metallic filament lamps is more than dou- ble the cost of incandescent gas. A life of 600 hours has been allowed the electric lamps for the purpose of the comparison, but the average life in a shop window subject to the vibrations of traffic would be less than half that period, and if one light fails both are thrown out of action. Its opponents have stated that gas lighting was not healthful by reason of its vitiating the air of rooms, but they have yet to point out any actual casqs of injury resulting therefrom under normal conditions. Such cases of injury, however, are not unknown where elec- tricity is concerned. Although the electric bulbs do not deliver carbon dioxide into the room, yet they injure the eyes, for the benefit of which they are intended1, people put in elec- tric light, find it expensive, and try to econo- mise, and the result is insufficient light, and to get more for their money they place the light near the object to be illuminated (say a desk or a counter, for instance) until the nerves of the eye are in many cases seriously injured. In the Journal of the Royal Sanitary Insti- tute of March last year, an exhaustive report by Dr. Samuel Rideal appeared on the subject of the "Relative hygienic values of Gas and Electric Lighting." It is too long and derailed to go right into here, but the experiments were made in London, the medical observations by Dr. Bertolacci, and the physical determinations by Mr. A. J. Martin, while Dr. Rideal dealt with the sanitary aspect. Among the valuable conclusions arrived at by these authorities who were quite independent of either Electricity or Gas interests, appear the following:—{!) From experiments showing the effect on the eye with Gas and ordinary Incandescent Electric lamps, they say: "The sensitiveness of tho eye to light as measured in tho perception test, is diminish- ed very markedly after exposure to the electric light, while no corresponding effect is notice- able after the eye has been subjected to Gas; the power of co-ordinating and using the motor muscles of the eye-ball recorded in the orbicular muscles test was diminished to a greater extent after subjection to electric light than Gas." (2) From experiments to ascertain the condition of the atmosphere of a room when lit by gas and when lit by electric light they say: "Owing to the better ventilation obtained by gas, the products of combustion are not found in the air in anything like the proportion which might be expected, the temperature and humidity in an occupied room being no greater than when the room is lit with electric light." Further on in this report we read: "The gas burners gave rise to stronger air currents, and invariably produced a more active ventilation and diffusion of air than electric lIght, Hence along with the products of gas burning, the exhalations from the persons present were more rapidly removed and the bacterial contents of the rooms were less with gas than with elec- tricity." It will be seen, therefore, that ihe standpoint of Hygiene, ihp&e views by tn- dependent scientific men are distinctly unfavour- able to electric lighting, and form another sound argument in favour of gas.

■<>• The Glamorgan Water Bill.


Political Meeting at Abercynon.

[No title]


vSlipped on Banana PeeJ.