I have the honour to be, My Lord Marquess, Your Lordship's Most Obedient Humble Servant,
Main Relingy
Me
શ
Enclosure 1.
20253
RECC228
PFC 931
PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE, Hongkong, 25th October, 1893.
Sir,-I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter No. 1476 of the 18th instant, requesting a further report in writing concerning the damage done to the Gap Rock Lighthouse and apparatus during the gale of the 1st and 2nd instant, and in which you state there are points which on the immediate cause of the lantern glazing giving way that can be ascertained and should be definitely recorded, e.g.:-
(1) If a solid wave broke against the lantern and smashed it, would not the Tower have been immediately filled with water or at least have taken in an enormous quantity of water?
(2) Is there any evidence of the effect that a solid wave breaking against the lantern must have had on the lower buildings?
(3) If the breaking of the outer glazing were caused by débris dashed against it, some traces of débris would probably have afterwards been found inside the Tower?
(4) The resisting power or breaking point of the lantern glazing. Were the lantern frames intact and uninjured when first examined after the catastrophe? Or did they require repairs? Were portions of glass found still sticking in them? Was the resisting power of the panes that were broken tested before they were fixed? If so, with what result?
2. If a solid wave, by which I assume is meant an unbroken ocean wave, passed over the eastern portion of the Rock and broke against the lantern smashing the four panels of glazing having a combined area of 33 square feet, I am certainly of opinion that a very large quantity of water would have undoubtedly entered the Tower. The actual quantity that did enter the Tower is difficult to ascertain as it was, no doubt, considerably broken up in running down the stairs and round the dioptric apparatus into the Service Room below from which a portion of it almost immediately escaped under the door. From the information I can get, the maximum depth of water in the Service Room was probably about one foot, which would be 650 gallons.
3. The panel in the Service Room door was broken from the outside by the lightkeeper, Mr. NICHOLAS, in response to the calls of the three Chinamen in the room who, I learn, were unable to open the door partly on account of the wind and partly owing to the water and broken glass against it. The three Chinamen in the Service Room were two lightkeepers and one coolie.
4. At the time of the accident, the two European lightkeepers were in their quarters adjoining the tower, Mr. NICHOLAS having just left the lantern, the two Chinese lightkeepers were in the lantern, one coolie in the Service Room, one coolie in the European kitchen, and the Telegraph Clerk in the European lightkeepers' quarters.
5. The two Chinese lightkeepers in the lantern were, no doubt, in the best practical position of any one on the Rock to see what took place. These men say that they saw a solid wave dash against the lantern, but on being questioned, it appears they mean by that expression a mass of water.
6. There is no evidence in the present condition of the buildings that an unbroken ocean wave passed over the eastern portion of the Rock and broke against the lantern. Had such a thing happened, the buildings, in my opinion, would have, to say the least, suffered very serious damage.
7. Had the lantern glazing been broken by débris, it is possible that some of the débris might have entered the tower; this would, however, depend on the size of the portions coming in contact with the lantern and whether such débris in the first instance merely fractured the glass in the panels or smashed it in. A careful search was made amongst the débris, and no foreign material was found inside the Tower.
8. As regards the strength of the lantern glazing, I regret I have no precise information, and its ascertainment would be the subject of experiment rather than theory. I have not, however, the slightest hesitation in expressing the opinion that the force exerted by the wind was not sufficient of itself to break the glazing.
9. The lantern framing was intact and uninjured when first examined after the catastrophe and required no repairs. Portions of glass were found sticking in the frames all round in the case of each of the four panels broken, which proves conclusively that the glass was broken before leaving the frames.
10. The resisting power of the panes that were broken was not tested here before they were fixed. The lantern and glazing were received complete from England, and I have no information of any tests having been made.
11. The suitability of glass of any description for a special purpose is more the subject of practical experience than of actual experiment on its resisting power.
I have the honour to be, My Lord Marquess, Your Lordships Most Obedient
Humble Servant,
Main Relingy
Me
શ
Enclosure 1.
20253
RECC228
PFC 931
PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE, Honokong, 25th October, 1893.
Sm-I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter No. 1476 of the 18th instant, requesting a further report in writing concerning the damage done to the Gap Rock Lighthouse and apparatus during the gale of the 1st and 2nd instant, and in which you stole there are points which r on the immediate cause of the lantern glazing giving way that can be ascertained and should be definitely recorded, eg. :---
(1) If a solid wave broke against the lantern and sunshed it, would not the Tower have been immediately filled with water or at least have taken in an enormous quantity of water?
(2) Is there any evidence of the effect that a solid wave breaking against the lautern must
have had on the lower buildings?
(8) If the breaking of the outer glazing were caused by débris dashed against it, some traces
of débris would probably have afterwards been found inside the Tower?
(4) The resisting power or breaking point of the lantern glazing. Were the lantern frames intact and uninjured when first examined after the catastrophe ? Or did they require repairs?
Were portions of glass found still sticking in them?
Was the resisting power of the panes that were broken tested before they were fixed? If so, with what result?
2. If a solid wave, by which I assume is meant an unbroken ocean wave, passed over the eastern portion of the Rock and broke against the lantern smashing the four panels of glazing having a combined area of 33 square feet, I am certainly of opinion that a very large quantity of water would have undoubtedly entered the Tower, The actual quantity that did enter the Tower is difficult to ascertain as it was, no doubt, considerably broken up in running down the stairs and round the dioptric spparatus into the Service Room below from which a portion of it almost immediately escaped under From the information I can get the maximum depth of water in the Service Room was probably about one foot which would be 650 gallons.
the door.
3. The panel in the Service Room door was broken from the outside by the lightkeeper. Mr. NICHOLAS, in repouse to the calls of the three Chinamen in the room who, I learn, were quable to open the door partly on account of the wind and partly owing to the water and broken glass against it.
The three Chinamen in the Service Room were two lightkeepers and one coolie.
4. At the time of the accident the two European lightkeepers were in their quarters adjoining the tower, Mr. NICHOLAS having just left the lantern, the two Chinese lightkeepers were in the lantern, one coolie in the Service Room, one coolie in the European kitchen and the Telegraph Clerk in the European lightkeepers' quarters.
5. The two Chinese lightkeepers in the lantern were, no doubt, in the best practical position of any one on the Rock to see what took place. These men say that they saw a solid wave dash against the lantern, but on being questioned it appears they mean by that expression a mass of water.
6. There is no evidence in the present conditions of the buildings that an unbroken ocean wave passed over the eastern portion of the Rock and broke against the lantern. Had such a thing happened the buildings, in my opinion, would have, to say the least, suffered very serious damage.
7. Had the lantern glazing been broken by débris it is possible that some of the debris might have entered the tower; this would, however, depend on the size of the portions coming in contact with the lantern and whether such débris in the first instance merely fractured the glass in the panels or smashed it in.
A careful search was made amongst the débris and no foreign material was found inside the Tower.
8. As regards the strength of the lantern glazing I regret I have no precise information, and its ascertainment would be the subject of experiment rather than theory. I have not, however, the slightest hesitation in expressing the opinion that the force exerted by the wind was not sufficient of itself to break the glazing.
9. The lantern framing was intact and uninjured when first examined after the catastrophe and required no repairs. Portions of glass were found sticking in the frames all round in the case of each of the four panels broken, which proves conclusively that the glass was broken before leaving the
frames.
10. The resisting power of the panes that were broken was not tested here before they were fixed. The lantern and glazing were received complete from England, and I have no information of any tests having been made.
11. The suitability of glass of any description for a special purpose is more the subject of practical experience than of actual experiment on its resisting power.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.