IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) /. ^^ t5^V // «^'^.^ ^m;/ «* ^ £? #> /C^^ III 1.0 I.I 1.25 1.4 1.6 ^. A ^^^^^> ;> ^f^'^ ^^^ ^ J&.. '^ ' f - ,V i V;^ .. » i:A: xi ■4A T~^v . i i n - ,>, . , • , « Wii : . 'r, ■< ;; Vl * V BV WM. W. GOODWIN. \ Iff] \ J r ^f-^'i *>? ? ■ . t' «_ 111- I. ,_ , V '"^ t:T^F - mf , :'f .^" 'i'^-" ' ' ' -.V- •''• .^' ,'' 'V *' ^ ; v..'"' M " "^m ■••\..-.'. ■-■J , --^ "i '-i ■;« '■;-';,'"'V^ ,:.*- ..^".^..^'ie^'' :-^'-VJ»^4P">; V V i7/ 1> »>; 'i^ ,/ :«^.r^i W^5 'O!? '1 , 1 >j f^ i '',1.*^ 1- -f 4i" ,WUf&»lVfcf?f'gfUVfthgtos*,^ towC Wil^)''l»oi' wHjibr,' stew ami .« .,>. ,' ^ THE ECONOMY OF GAS AS A FUEL ',, . ,4- -^ i.' - .4 V FOR COOKING PURPOSES. \."'i. \ ^ AS SHOWN BY ACTUAL TESTS MADE BY WM. W. GOODWIN. PROM A PAPER READ BEFORE THE A. O. L. ASSOCIATION, OCTOBER ICxii, If 70. NEW YORK : .rirm.isuF.i) nv TMK Amkrican Gas Lujiit Journal, No. 42 rino Stroot. 1H70. Entered aooording to Act of CongreBt, in the year 1879, by Wm. W. Goodwin, in tlie office ol the Librarian at Waahington. All rights reserved. THE ol ECONOMY OF GAS AS A FUEL FOB COOKING PURPOSES. ♦•♦ The following facts and figures were brought out in the discussion upon cooking by means of gas stoves at the recent meeting of the American Gas Light Association, held in Philadelphia, Oct. 15th, i6th and 17th, 1879, and are the results obtained by actual comparati\c tests made by Wm. W. Goodwin, Esq., of Philadelphia, between the ordinary kitchen range and a No. 7 Sun Dial Gas Stove. We believe it is the first time that reliable data of this kind have been published in this country, and that all gas consumers will find that a study of the figures here set forth will well repay their attention. Mr. Goodwin,— Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Association : I have not prepared a regular paper to be read, but I have a state- ment of facts, the result of some experiments in cooking, which I will present to the Association without comment. I have also prepared a tabulated record of tests made by boiling a given quantity of water over a flame composed of different portions of gas and air under vary- ing conditions, in order to determine which was the best quantity of air to introduce with the gas to secure the most favorable results. My standard was 8 pounds of water. The gas was consumed at the rate o< 10 feet per hour ; the time required to raise 8 pounds of water from 73 degrees to the boiling point was 28^ minutes, consuming 4^AV ^^^^^ of coal gas. I wovM say here that I designed an apparatus for furnish- ing air in a measured quantity, and mixing it with the gas before burning. That apparatus is so arranged that the gas and the air can be put into the burner in their normal condition, or the gas and the air can be heated both together or separately. In the first test, the gas was cold and the temperature of the water was 77^ degrees F. __ After determining the quantity of coal gas required to boil 8 pounds of water, I mixed various quantities of air with the gas, and obtained the following results, each test named being an average obtained from three trials, viz. : In the second test, 8 pounds of water were used and one volume of air and one volume of gas. The quantity of gas consumed was 3.6 feet. In that case the boiling point was reached in 22^8^ minutes, being twenty percent, less time required and ly per cenU^cssgaajhan in test No. 1. The third test was \\ volumes of air, i volume of gas and the same quantity of water. Time 22.08 minutes; gas consumed 3.46 feet, or 2 2| per cent, less time, and 22 per cent, less gas than in the first test. ^\\Q fourth test was two volumes of air and one of gas; time 21.3 minutes, gas consumed y^i^ ^*^^^' or 25 per cent, less time, and 25^ percent, less gas required than in test No. i. T\iQ fifth test was 2^ volumes of air and i of gas. I will state that I found the best results were obtained with this mixture. It has been found, in Europe, that 2^ volumes produce the most favorable results ; the candle power of the gas has something to do with it, I presume. This is certainly a very close comparison. In this test, the quantity of gas consumed was ^.^ ft., the time occupied was 21.4 minutes, or 26 per cent, less time, and 26.1 percent, less gas required than test No. i. In the sixth test, the gas was heated, and the time went up to 27 minutes; gas consumed, 3.92 feet, reducing the time to 5^2^ and the gas to 1 1 per cent. The seventh test was heated gas and heated air ; the time required was 26^ minutes ; quantity of gas consumed, 3.93 feet, or 6 per cent. less time and 1 1 per cent, less gas. The eighth test was heated air and cold gas ; time 26\ minutes ; con- sumption of gas, 3.83 ft., or 7.08 per cent, less time, and 12 per cent, less gas. In tests Nos. 6, 7, and 8, the air and gas were heated separately in coils of copper pipe over separate flames, arranged so that the air or the gas could pass through the coils or not, as was desired. Each of these coils h.td a heating surface of 472 square inches, and in the tests the tubes were heated to redness. The conclusion is that the bci t condition for burning gas, according to these tests — is 2^ volumes of air and i volume of gas, and both of them in their normal condition or cold. f OOKING TEST Made Between a No. 8 Peerless Range and a No. 7 Sun Dial Gas Stove. I have also copies of tests that were very carefully made a few days ago — made as carefully as I knew how to make them, of the difference in cooking between a regular range and a No. 7 gas stove. The articles cooked were twelve in numoer, and were cooked so that they were all ready to place upon the table at once. The range used was a No. 8 Peerless Rano^eJ' The articles were weip^hcd before cooking, and also after''cooking, and the percentage of loss in weight, and the time re- quired, were carefully ascertained. For instance, a 3 pound blue fish weighed 2 pounds and i ounce after cooking in the range, being a loss of 32 per cent. ; time, 31 minutes. In the case of the gas stove, it weighed, after cooking, 2 pounds 6 ounces. To be more explicit, I took 2 blue fish, each weighing 3 pounds, and cooked one in the range and one in the gas stove, with the results I state. The time required for the cooking of the fish in the gas stove was 35 minutes, 4 minutes longer than the time required for cooking it m the range. The loss was 20 per cent., or a saving of 1 2 per cent, in favor of the gas stove. A rib of beef weighir g 9 pounds 7 ounces, weighed 6 pounds 8 ounces when cooked in the range ; a loss of 32 per cent. ; the time was I hour i-] minutes. In the gas stove the time was i hour and 25 minutes ; loss, 1 7 per cent. To show how close these tests are with some made in England, I will state that the average was found to be 33 per cent loss in cooking in the ordinary way, and 15 per cent, on the gas stove. My tests show a loss of 32 per cent on the range and 1 7 per cent, on the gas stove, another very close comparison. A 3 pound I ounce chicken, cooked in the range, weighed 2 pounds and 2 ounces when cooked ; loss 30 per cent. : the time was i hour and 6 minutes. In the gas stove, time i hour ; weight when cooked, 2 lbs. 10 oz.; loss 14 per cent. A i pound 2 ounce beefsteak weighed, when cooked in the range, 13^ ounces ; loss 25 per cent ; time 1 1 minutes. An equal weight of beefsteak cooked in the gas stove v/eighed when cooked 15 ounces; time, 8 minutes ; loss, i6§per cent Each of these articles, as I have said, was weighed carefully before cooking, and was weighed immediately after being brought out of the stove and out of the range. Lamb chops weighing i pound and 1 ounce, weighed 1 1 ounces after being cooked in the range ; a loss of 35 per cent ; time 12 minutes. In gas stove, an equal weight of lamb chops, after cooking, weighed 13^ ounces ; time, 10 minutes; loss 1 5 per cent There was also in each case 3 pounds and 5 ounces of sweet potatoes, 3 pounds and 8 ounces of white potatoes, 3 pounds and 1 2 ounces of cauliflower, and 4 pounds of tomatoes. These articles were all cooked in a steamer. Bread baked in the range, 5 pounds and 2 ounces, in 46 minutes ; in the gas stove '^'] minutes. Sago pudding, 3 pounds 5 ounces, 27 minutes in the range; in the gas stove, 28 minutes. Lemon pie, 2 pounds 14 ounces, 30 minutes in the range; on the gas stove, 2 2 minutes. In these articles no change of weight was noted. There were also prepared, sauces for the fish, the beef and ca«li- flower. The total time from the lighting of the fire in the range until 6 J everything was ready to serve was 2 hours and 40 minutes. Of this time, 30 minutes were required to heat the oven, leaving 2 hours and 10 minutes as the actual cooking time. The weight of the '■ .al, includ- ing the lighting of the fire, was 44 pounds. At the end of that time the fire was ready or more coal. Thcj 44 pounds of coal, at $5. 50 per ton, cost 10^^ cts., the kindling wood one cent, making a total of i ^^-^^ cts. GAS STOVE. Gas Stove. — The total time from lighting the gas until everything was ready to serve on the table was one hour and fifty minutes ; the con- sumption of gas, by a test meter, v/as 38 feet. At the price of |2. 15 the gas cost 8.17 cents, against 1 1.95 cts. m the case of the range. The gas was lighted in the roasting chamber at 11 o'clock ; 4 minutes after lighting, the beef and chicken were put in the roasting chamber ; at 7 minutes past 11, the bread was put in the oven on the lower shtlf; at 10 minutes past 11, the pie was put in on the upper shelf; at 16 min- utes past II, the water wac put in the steamer cold, for cooking the vegetables; at 25 minutes past 11, the vegetables were put in, the cauli- flower being in the bottom of the steamer, and the potatoes on the shelves ; this steamer was over one of the burners of the hot plate, the other being used to stew the tomatoes and make the sauces. After the pie was baked, the pudding was put in on the lower shelf, the bread was removed to the upper shelf to brown on top ; after the bread was baked the fish v/as put in the oven. After Lhe meat and chicken were roasted the steak and chops were broiled. You will observe that so far as the ac- tual cost or expenditure for fuel is concerned — and that it seems to me is one of the points that v/e are considering — the comparison is as 8. 1 7 cents is to 11.95 cents. But there is another very important question connected with these tests, and that is the comparison in the percentage of loss in the food that was cooked in the range as against that cooked on the gas stove. The cost of the fish was 3 5 cents. It showed on the range a loss of io\ cents ; on the gas stove it showed a loss of 6| cents ; consequently, there was a saving in the weight of the fish as between 6| cents and lo^ cents — a saving of 3I cents on the weight of the fish. The beef cost $1.69. After it was cooked on the range, it was worth $1.17, showing a loss of 42^ cents. On the gas stove the loss was 2^\ cents, or a saving in the favor of the gas stove over the range of I4| cents. The loss in the weight of the chicken was I7| cents ; in the gas stove it was 8| ; showing a saving over the range of 83 cts. The steak lost 6 A- cents in the ranee, and x\ cents in the e-as Stove — a saving of 2^- cents. The loss on the chops was 7J cents in the range, and 3^ on the gas stove— a saving of 4| cents. The total saving of the gas stove over the range, in food lost was 33f J cents. These are the Ricts. (Applause.) The following are the foregoing facts, in tabular form, arranged for comparison : •Record of Peerless Range No. 8. Article. Blue Fish . . . . Rib of Beef Chicken Beef Steak Lamb Chops Sweet Potatoes White Potatoes Cauliflower Tomatoes Bread Sago Pudding Lemon Pie How Cooked. Weight. Baked. Roasted. Roasted. Broiled. Broiled. Steamed. Steamed. Boiled. Stewed. Baked. Baked. Baked. Before Cooking. Sauces for fish, beef and caulif 3 lbs. 9 lbs. 7 oz. 3 lbs. I lb. 2 oz. I lb. I oz. 3 lbs. 5 oz. 3 lbs. 8 oz. 3lbs.i2oz. 4 lbs. After Cooking. 2 lbs. I oz. 6 lbs. 8 oz. 2 lbs. 2 oz. 13I oz. II oz. Loss per cent. 32 32 30 25 35 Time. 5 lbs. 2 oz. 3 lbs. 5 oz. 2 lbs. 1 2 oz. 31 m. I h.37m. I h. 6 m. 11 m. 12 m. 46 m. 27 m. 30 m. ower. Total time from lighting of fire until everything was i idy 10 serve 2 hours aiul 40 minutes. Of this time 30 minutes was required to heat the oven, leaving 2 hours and 1 o minutes actual cooking time. Weight of coal including lighting of fire 44 lbs. At the end of the time the fire was ready for more coal. Cost of coal, ^4 lbs., @ I5.50 per ton, 10.95 cents. Kindling i cent. Total, 11^^ cents. 8 'Ij Record of No. 7 Gas Stove. How Cooked. Weight. • Loss per cent. Article. Before Cooking. After Cooking. Time. Blue Fish Rib of Beef. Chicken Beef Steak „ . Lamb Chops Sweet Potatoes. . . . White Potatoes.. . . Tomatoes Cauliflower Bread Baked. Roasted. Roasted. Broiled. Broiled. Steamed. Steamed. Stewed. Boiled. Baked. liaked. Baked. 3 l^s. 9 lbs. 4 oz. 3 lbs. I oz. I lb. 2 oz. I lb. 3 lbs. 5 oz. 3 lbs. 8 oz. 4 lbs. 3 lbs. 1 2 oz. 2 lbs. 6 oz. 7 lbs. 1 1 oz. 2 lbs. 10 oz. 15 oz. 13^ oz. 5 lbs. 7 oz. 3 lbs. 3 oz. 2 lbs. 140Z. 20 17 14 i6f 15 35 m. I h 25 m. I h. 8 m. 10 m. JZm. 28 m. 22 m. Sago Pudding Lemon Pic Sauces for fisli, beef and caulillower. Fish Beef Chicl Steals Tt>tal time from lighting of gas until everything vras ready to serve, I lioiir 50 minutjs. Consumption of gas by test meter, 38 feet. At $2. 15 per lliuUbanu fcwt, cost, o^^^ t.iits. Choi 9 Table of Comparison of Percentages in Loss After Cooking. Gas Stove. Range. Fish, Beef, Chicken, Steuk, (Cost, 35 c, -| Product, 28| c. ( Loss, 6^ c. Cost, 35 c. Product, 24f c. Loss, io| c. Saving of gas stove over range, 3| cents. Cost, Product, Loss, 1 66 ^c. J3B fc. 28* c. C>st, Product, Loss, Saving of gas stove over range, 14^ cents. Cost, Product, Loss, 6 1 .^ c. 8fc. Cost, Product, Loss, Saving of gas stove over range, 8| cents. Cost, Product, J^oss, 24J c. 20^ c. 4ic. Cost, Product, Loss, Saving of gas stove over range, 2^^^ cents. 1691^ c. '^ 11 7 c. 421^ 60 c. J2l C. 17I c: 24 1 c. 18 Ac. 6^c Chops, } Cost, ao c. Product, 16 J c. F-oss, 3J c. Cost, Product, Loss. 2 1 J c. i3ifc. 7i c. I Saving ol gas stove over range, 4*J cents. 'i'otal saying, 33} J c. 10 Mr. Harbison, — I have listened with the greatest interest to the state- ment which Mr. Goodwin has just made. I think it has really been of more value than any subject that has come up during this meeting. We have got here some practical information, and it seems to me that every engineer and every man connected with gas works who desires to increase his consumption should give the most careful attention to the subject that has been presented in so interesting a manner by Mr. Good win. I think, Mr. President, it would be well if we could get this statement from Mr. Goodwin in such a form as that it could be printed and distributed ; and I think if we can do that, it would be better to pass a resolution directing that a certain number of copies be printed and distributed among the members of the Association, then each of us can personally take such action as we think best. I think it would be well for the Association to print 500 copies, and for each member to have two copies of this valuable information ; then each of us can make such tests and ascertain such results as he feels disposed. I therefore move, Mr. President, that the Secretary be requested to obtain this statement of facts from Mr. Goodwin, and that it be published at an early day, and two copies be distributed to each member. Carried. Mr. Goodwin, — I have simply given you the figures. I do not pro- pose to comment upon them at all. 1] The firm of W. W. Goodwin & Co. have received the following letter since the meeting of the Association : (Copy.) London Hospital, London, Eng., ) October Sth, 1879. ) Dear Sir, — I find that my last complete and reliable experiments and calcuUitions as to cost and saving with reference to our system of gas and steam cooking (of which you have full particulars), were made for the year 1876. I will put them down for you ..s briefly as I can. In that year our daily average of occupied beds or daily number of in-patients was 630 And our daily average of officers, servants, nurses, &c., cooked for in our kitchen wp.s, approximately 160 Together, 790 In the same year the waste of meat in cooking was reduced as under, viz. : In 1 casting beef from (on the old system) 33 1 to 24.33 P^^ cent. In roasting mutton from (do) 33 J to 16.95 do In boiling mutton do (do) 25 to 13.86 do The actual quantities of meat dealt with were, Raw beef purchased ". . . . 25,357 lbs. do mutton do for roasting 40, 206 do do do do for boiling 23,360 do Of these were ordered for anticipated waste, Beef, 6, 339 lbs. umhr old system umild have been 9,509 lbs. Roasting mutton, 6,701 lbs. und,r old system ^vould have been 16, 752 lbs. Boiling mutton, 3,337 lbs. under old system would have been 6,675 lbs* The diflcrence — viz. : On roasting beef .3. 1 70 lbs. On do mutton 10,05 1 do On boilinir do 5 -itn i\t\ o - n jj{ — Or in total, 16,558 Iba. 12 ward diets, to purchase for loss in gravy to the extent of 4 lbs of meat We cannot estimate the cost of steam used in heating the boilini apparatus for . horn, on . days a week, as the boilers are lavs «/ eratmg steam at a higher pressure than we should .ver 'ruire " kitchen purposes, and the cost of such steam is doubtless vo^ sma^ for engines; but as to gas from careful experiments (includTnl the ,.o^V / «"« "^^^d approximately .,8^, cubic feet per L. or .2- I am, dear sir, Faithfully yours, WM. J. NIXON, House Governor, I'. > V,' -s^ ''' '-^^Mt «A, >Va. - i;*"^ i«'i *'f '^■^'"^|**ts<*«,*-' '•<'*'t*i«w»*«e,.^» i.'.. - ,«WMs-«iW*;«(jW-.,tr,i ^ *!ff«V;'i^^-^" ?K« (. 1\?: *v;;i Tn ;i ^V' ,^,>i1 "» . n . f«fHMM)Vi» '". . "■'! f i x , ;;."„*». "/ It,. / - 6<»WI#tBTC C A# 0O0IIING STOVlr Mo, 9. HM* .m Mollis,. Wf • • » w-i ■-■— iwgifuwi «■ »