432
found between the thickness of metal of the two 5*
pipes; that of Sample No. 3 being 15% less than that
of sample No. 2.
Paras. 23 & 24. Mr. Stanger is led to conclude
from the foregoing that: (a) sample No. 2 was pur-
chased locally from merchants in Hong Kong or other-
wise, and (b) Sample No. 3 is probably one of the
pipes shipped under Requisition No. 8 of 1900.
The facts are that no 5′′ or 6* pipes have ever
been got except through the Crown Agents, and all
such pipes have been supplied by Mr. E. Smith of
Wednesbury.
Para. 25. Mr. Stanger seems to think that the
failures may be due to water hammer; but the conjec-
ture is not borne out by the fact that the highest
fluctuation of pressure registered by the gauge is
800 lbs.
I may add to this that although the engines were
designed to run at 40 revolutions, they cannot be
run at more than 34 revolutions without causing fresh
bursts in the main.
Conclusion. Mr. Stanger's report is not a satis-
factory reply to the complaints originally made in
your letter of 26th. May 1906. Notwithstanding Mr.
E. Smith's disclaimer (para. 23) at least one butt-
wolded pipe has come from his works within very recent
years at any rate it has been shipped by Mr. Smith
as coming from his works. I refer to Sample No. 2, and I am assuming that the pipes which were received
here were the same that Mr. E. Smith shipped; for it does not seem at all likely that they got changed
on the way.
It
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.