Lamont boiler
Posted by dullfig
|
Re: Lamont boiler June 07, 2015 03:58PM |
Jim
To the best of my knowledge and from the books in my collection
The first boilers Nat used in the first 13 boats were vertical upright fire tube boilers. 1868 to 1874.
From 1874 to 1884 he used several forms of the coil boilers. In the small launches they had no superheater, unless the boat had two high-pressure cylinders for maximum power and then not always. Around 1881 he started to identify the coil boilers by letter, C, D, E, F, G, N, M, L.
In 1884 to 1895 he started using a Square boiler much like the Ward Navy boiler Fig 44 Marine Navy boilers. Still there are a few coil boilers used in this time period.
In 1895 he went to the three-drum boiler in many sizes.
Much to my surprise none of these boilers have I found any feed water coils (economizer) for preheating of feed water prier to feeding the boiler. Isherwood could have assumed the top pancake spiral winding was for feed water heating?? Most likely it did and continued into the rest of the winding. There were two separate pumps on the engine.
Later, on larger boats he did use separate circulating steam engines for the pumps.
There are several small engines listed as circulating engines and blower engines.
On the coil boilers I believe the description by Isherwood was the circulating pump took the water from the lower section of the drum and circulated it back to the inlet coil at the top. Somewhere along the line was a Tee fitting and makeup water by it's own pump was also introduced along with the circulating water. The makeup water would have been manually controlled as needed by the site glass on the drum. This makes sense to me.
Attached photo of boiler taken from launch 227 Aug 1902 used in a 30 foot launch. No Welding was used on this boiler.
Nat shared this technology with the rest of the world by selling his boats to many countries. He was an arms trader before you needed government permission.
All with coil boiler
Date Hull Numbe & Length
1876 20 57 US Navy
1876 23 23 US Costal survey
1876 27 23 US Costal survey
1877 30 45 US Army
1878 39 140 SpainTorpedo boat
1878 44 59 British Torpedo boat
1879 50 42 US Navy
1879 52 54-3" US Navy
1879 53 59 Chile Torpedo boat
1879 57 & 58 24 US Costal survey
1880 60 56 Chile Torpedo boat
1880 62 33-1" US Navy
1880 63 33-1" US Navy
1880 64 59 Russian Torpedo boat
1880 70 26 US Navy
1881 74 149 Brttish Torpedo boat
1881 75 149 British Torpedo boat
1881 80 33-1" British
1881 81 33-1" British
1882 85 & 86 48 Franch Navy
Rolly
To the best of my knowledge and from the books in my collection
The first boilers Nat used in the first 13 boats were vertical upright fire tube boilers. 1868 to 1874.
From 1874 to 1884 he used several forms of the coil boilers. In the small launches they had no superheater, unless the boat had two high-pressure cylinders for maximum power and then not always. Around 1881 he started to identify the coil boilers by letter, C, D, E, F, G, N, M, L.
In 1884 to 1895 he started using a Square boiler much like the Ward Navy boiler Fig 44 Marine Navy boilers. Still there are a few coil boilers used in this time period.
In 1895 he went to the three-drum boiler in many sizes.
Much to my surprise none of these boilers have I found any feed water coils (economizer) for preheating of feed water prier to feeding the boiler. Isherwood could have assumed the top pancake spiral winding was for feed water heating?? Most likely it did and continued into the rest of the winding. There were two separate pumps on the engine.
Later, on larger boats he did use separate circulating steam engines for the pumps.
There are several small engines listed as circulating engines and blower engines.
On the coil boilers I believe the description by Isherwood was the circulating pump took the water from the lower section of the drum and circulated it back to the inlet coil at the top. Somewhere along the line was a Tee fitting and makeup water by it's own pump was also introduced along with the circulating water. The makeup water would have been manually controlled as needed by the site glass on the drum. This makes sense to me.
Attached photo of boiler taken from launch 227 Aug 1902 used in a 30 foot launch. No Welding was used on this boiler.
Nat shared this technology with the rest of the world by selling his boats to many countries. He was an arms trader before you needed government permission.
All with coil boiler
Date Hull Numbe & Length
1876 20 57 US Navy
1876 23 23 US Costal survey
1876 27 23 US Costal survey
1877 30 45 US Army
1878 39 140 SpainTorpedo boat
1878 44 59 British Torpedo boat
1879 50 42 US Navy
1879 52 54-3" US Navy
1879 53 59 Chile Torpedo boat
1879 57 & 58 24 US Costal survey
1880 60 56 Chile Torpedo boat
1880 62 33-1" US Navy
1880 63 33-1" US Navy
1880 64 59 Russian Torpedo boat
1880 70 26 US Navy
1881 74 149 Brttish Torpedo boat
1881 75 149 British Torpedo boat
1881 80 33-1" British
1881 81 33-1" British
1882 85 & 86 48 Franch Navy
Rolly
|
Re: Lamont boiler June 09, 2015 06:44PM |
Mike
Every patent I’ve found on Lamont’s work is parallel flow. Maybe Ken would have more information.
On the other hand Abel Shank 1853, 65 years before Lamont and 21 years before Herreshoff and Isaac N. Lesh 1842, 76 years before Lamont and thirty two years before Herreshoff had patent on forced circulation mono tube boilers. Granted the ratio was not as high. But I don’t think two many were built. The material was not available nor for high pressure.
I have been searching for the date when pipe was first commercially available. It’s listed that Herreshoff made his own 1868. I have a catalog 1895 listing seamless pipe in 12 foot length up to four inch in diameter and many wall thickness.
Rolly
Every patent I’ve found on Lamont’s work is parallel flow. Maybe Ken would have more information.
On the other hand Abel Shank 1853, 65 years before Lamont and 21 years before Herreshoff and Isaac N. Lesh 1842, 76 years before Lamont and thirty two years before Herreshoff had patent on forced circulation mono tube boilers. Granted the ratio was not as high. But I don’t think two many were built. The material was not available nor for high pressure.
I have been searching for the date when pipe was first commercially available. It’s listed that Herreshoff made his own 1868. I have a catalog 1895 listing seamless pipe in 12 foot length up to four inch in diameter and many wall thickness.
Rolly
|
Re: Lamont boiler June 10, 2015 11:01AM |
Here is the Roper carriage from 1865 at the Henry Ford museum, it looks to have pipe and even rubber hose which I think they referred to then as "Rubber pipe", This has obviously been retrofitted as it is black, from my reading, carbon was not used in rubber before about 1910 ish.
Love that rack and pinion steering.. And wood springs. Amazing workmanship all-around.
-Ron
Love that rack and pinion steering.. And wood springs. Amazing workmanship all-around.
-Ron
|
Re: Lamont boiler March 04, 2022 01:30PM |
Hi All,
I thought I'd reopen this topic. There was talk about German battleships using LaMont boilers during WW2 and the superior results they achieved over US vessels. From my reading, German battleships had short "legs" and reliability issues. US battleships had extremely high endurance and exceptional reliability. As far as performance goes, the Iowa class easily outperformed Bismarck in almost all categories. Anyhow, I ran into the following discussion regarding the LaMont boiler in Congressional hearings circa 1940. It makes interesting reading and puts matters in a different light. In a couple of spots I made a few notations.
Regards,
Ken
CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN NAVAL VESSELS
HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE
SEVENTY-SIXTH CONGRESS THIRD SESSION ON H. R. 8026
AN ACT TO ESTABLISH THE COMPOSITION OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY, TO AUTHORIZE THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN NAVAL VESSELS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
APRIL 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, AND 23, 1940
Printed for the use of the Committee on Naval Affairs
page 168
• The CHAIRMAN. Admiral, I want to discuss with you in a moment the possibilities for building in the immediate years and future years at our private and public yards, but before doing that, there are one or two preliminary questions.
Have you heard, and had correspondence from me and from the Navy Department in reference to the La Mont boilers?
Admiral ROBINSON. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. What is Mr. La Mont's claim and what is the Navy's position, briefly stated, and then I will put these letters in the record?
Admiral ROBINSON. Well, Mr. La Mont claims very great advantages for steam of high-pressure and high temperature. In that particular claim the Bureau of Engineering, at least,—I do not know whether the whole Navy Department does or not—but the Bureau of Engineering is in complete accord, because of the fac we have been steadily raising temperatures and pressures of out ships for the last 8 years. The difference between the Navy Department and Mr. La Mont, I believe, is entirely one of method of procedure. Mr. La Mont, at the present time, is a private individual. He has no plant or facilities for building boilers, and so far as I know, he has not been successful in any of his negotiations up to date to establish one. I know there have been such negotiations under way
Now, the La Mont boiler is built in this country by the Combustion Engineering Corporation of New York. We are buying at this moment a La Mont boiler for test purposes from that concern, so that I think we can boil it down to a statement that there is no difference of opinion between Mr. La Mont and the Navy Department on technical questions; they are purely financial and business.
The CHAIRMAN. His letter and the letter of the Navy Department may go in the record, and also the letter from me to the chairman of the House committee, and the letter from the Navy Department in reference to section 5 may go in the record.
(The matter referred to is as follows
APRIL 9. 1940.
Hon. DAVID I. WALSH,
Chairman of the Senate Naval Committee, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.
HONORABLE SIRS: I respectfully request a congressional investigation into the status of the power units being installed in United States naval ships under construction. I am prepared to prove the following:
Since the laying down of the German cruiser Seharnhorst, German cruisers and battleships are beingLa Mont powered with 250,000 S. H. P.
(No German battleship ever produced anything close to 250,000 shaft horsepower. The Bismarck produced 150,170 H.P. while even the heavier and faster Iowa class only reached 212,000 S.H.P. Ken)
The weight, space, and efficiency of these German naval power units is so superior to United States Navy power units, in use and being installed, that German naval ships are markedly superior to United States naval ships.
The German Navy has had La Mont units superior to United States Navy units since 1934, 6 years ago.
The present effort of the United States Navy to develop a modern naval power unit, destroyer size, is confined to one manufacturing group.
The Navy Department has informed me that they will abandon natural circulation and use only forced circulation power units as soon as present tests on the U. S. S. Dahlgren are successfully completed. If these tests are successful, the manufacturing group behind this work will have practically a monopoly on naval power units for some time to come.
((The Dahlgren (DD-187) was a Clemson class destroyer launched at Newport News on 20 November 1918 and commissioned on 6 January 1920. She joined the Atlantic Fleet, and spent most of the next two years taking part in the usual round of winter exercises in the Caribbean and summer exercises off the US East Coast. In April 1921 she took part in the Presidential Fleet Review at Norfolk, and in the summer, she supported the famous bombing tests carried out on former German warships. This first period of commission came to an end on 30 June 1922 when she was decommissioned at Philadelphia))
After a period of repairs, including a spell in the Philadelphia Navy Yard in May 1932, the Dahlgren was recommissioned on 25 October 1932. She was based on the west coast from November 1932 to April 1934 when she returned to the Atlantic for fleet exercises. She moved back to the West Coast in January 1935, and remained there until July 1937 when she returned to the east coast.
After her return to the east coast, the Dahlgren was used for engineering experiments. In 1937 she was given two ultra-high-pressure boilers, operating at 1,300 psi. At the same time, she was given a fat aft smokestack, and she retained this for the rest of her active career, even after the normal boilers were restored. The experiments ended on 14 June 1940, and she returned to normal destroyer duties. – Ken)
To date they have received $1,750,000 of United States Navy development money and have attempted since 1937 to make this installation work. This is the group which has sold about 90 percent of all boilers to the Navy for the last 30 years. The type of boiler being used is the B. and W. steam motive unit, patented in the United States and foreign countries. The work on the complete power unit with this type boiler has been called a military secret by the Navy. The effect of this will be to keep knowledge of the new Navy power requirements from competing boiler, turbine, and auxiliary manufacturing concerns throughout the country, giving this manufacturing group a $1,7500,000 benefit over their competitors and a 3-year start.
The Bureau of Engineering has been refusing to order any other destroyer size forced circulation boiler during this period.
If these tests fail, the Navy will be back where they were in 1934 in development of naval power units.
Twelve units similar to the B. and W. motive unit were tried by the German Navy and abandoned with all other types in favor of the La Mont unit.
The B. and W. steam motive unit has never been tested at the Naval Boiler Laboratory, Philadelphia, where all other new type boilers must pass their tests. It has never been tested by the regular Navy Boiler Laboratory testing crew. It has never been made to meet the test requirements demanded by the Naval Boiler Laboratory of all naval boilers.
The present work on the U. S. S. Dahlgren, if successful, will only bring the United States Navy nearer to equality with the German La Mont naval power unit.
If individuals and manufacturing firms were allowed to contribute to this work competitively, on the same basis allowed the favored manufacturing group, the United States individuals and manufacturers could produce a power unit superior even to the German La Mont naval power unit. I enclose a three-column article published in the Washington Star on February 4, 1940, giving a reporter's interview with the Secretary of the Navy regard-lug the power units in the German Navy and the La Mont inventions. In regard to this article—and notwithstanding the statements to the contrary therein contained—I am prepared to prove the following:
1. The German Navy increased its steam pressure from 300 pounds in 1933 to 1,200 pounds in 1937. They have never lowered their steam pressure.
2. The La Mont boiler passed all its Navy tests successfully.
3. The La Mont boiler does not require special auxiliaries.
4. The La Mont group has never asked for Navy development money.
5. The La Mont group offered a destroyer size boiler to the Navy, the boiler to meet all specifications required of it by the Navy, the weight to be one-half that of any naval boiler in use, no payment to be made until the boiler had passed all its tests.
6. The La Mont boiler of the Navy test is covered by patents allowed by the United States Patent Office for a new type boiler circuit and design which do not represent improvements on the La Mont Corporation patents.
7. The Government cannot be sued for using patents with or without the consent of the owners of the patents.
8. The La Mont group is entirely American without any foreign connections. The favored manufacturing group has foreign connections in one form or another.
9. Admiral Bowen did not increase competition for the Navy. My purpose in requesting this investigation is to be constructive, not destructive. It is made with intent that it be nonpolitical and is not requested for personal gain. It has become evident that nothing short of a thorough and immediate congressional investigation is required to bring our Navy power units up to date. We must, before it is too late, make provision that our new naval construction is kept apace with that of our potential enemies.
Very respectfully yours, Walter Douglas La Mont. New York, N. Y.
[From the Sunday Star, Washington, D. C., February 4. 1940]
La Mont BOILERS GIVEN CAREFUL TEST BY NAVY, FOUND WANTING, SECRETARY EDISON REVEALS—REFUTES CHARGES CONTAINED IN SERIES OF FRANKLIN ARTICLES
Boilers now being used by the United States Navy in its new fighting ships are superior to the La Mont type as exploited in Europe, according to Secretary of the Navy Charles Edison, and there is no basis for any statement that German warships, ship for ship, are the superiors of American vessels.
The Navy Department has made lengthy tests of the La Mont boiler and has been guided in its adoption of boilers for its new ships by the results of these tests and tests of other boilers of competitive design. It is the sincere belief of Navy leaders that the boilers which have been adopted as the result of these tests are the best which have yet been developed to meet the needs of the American Navy. As a result of tests which have been in progress for several years, Secretary Edison stated, the La Mont boiler has not been approved as satisfactory for naval use, nor has it revealed superior characteristics which warranted special consideration by the Navy Department in the way of sponsoring further development of the La Mont boiler.
Moreover, Mr. Edison declared, the German Navy, after starting out experimentally with the extremely high boiler pressures, which are an outstanding feature of the original La Mont boiler design, have been backing away from these high-pressures and now are working with pressures reported to be identical with those employed in our latest naval vessels.
TESTS AUTHORIZED IN 1933
Mr. Edison pointed out that the La Mont boiler situation has been "a long-drawn-out procedure, and this isn't the first time the question has come up." The use of high-pressure and high-temperature boilers, he said, is not limited to the La Mont type of boiler.
Naval records show that the Naval Boiler Laboratory was authorized on October 20, 1933, to test theLa Mont boiler and that necessary construction at the laboratory, in the Philadelphia Navy Yard, was begun shortly thereafter. The inventor, former Lt. Comdr. Walter Douglas La Mont, graduate of the United States Naval Academy in 1910, began experimental work in the field of high-pressure steam generation in 1918.
"With reference to the bureau's authorization of the test of the La Mont boiler," the Navy Bureau of Engineering stated in an official report signed by its then chief, Rear Admiral Harold G. Bowen, now head of the Naval Research Laboratory, to Senator Walsh of Massachusetts, chairman of the Senate Naval Affairs Committee, released for publication for the first time, "it is the policy of the bureau to require that equipment to be tested at naval laboratories to determine suitability for naval use be completely developed beyond the experi-mental stage.
INVENTOR USED LABORATORY
"The La Mont test was authorized under special conditions not ordinarily accorded other exhibitors in that the La Mont boiler was entirely experimental and had not been erected or tested prior to installation at the boiler laboratory. A section of the boiler laboratory was assigned to Mr. La Mont for the erection of his boiler, which was occupied without cost to Mr. La Mont for a period of over 3 years.
"To operate his boiler makeshift pumps and other auxiliaries were employed by Mr.La Mont. Air for combustion was supplied from the navy-yard mains rather than by a blower, as in shipboard installation. Under these conditions it was impossible to get complete data during the test of the La Mont boiler to determine its suitability for naval use.
"Shortly after the test was authorized, Mr. La Mont informed the bureau that unless unforeseen delays occurred his boiler would be ready for test within approximately 2 months. However, it was found that the boiler as originally designed required numerous modifications, and it was not until January 11, 1937, more than 3 years after the test had been authorized, that the development had proceeded far enough so that Mr. La Mont was able to present his boiler for test. For more than 3 years the facilities of the boiler laboratory were avail-able to Mr. La Mont, during which time he had the help and advice of members of the laboratory's staff."
Abridged tests of the La Mont boiler were completed on February 6, 1937, according to the Navy Department record.
OPERATED ONLY 130 HOURS
"Since suitable auxiliaries are a most essential part of a forced circulation boiler, and since the La Mont boiler was equipped with makeshift auxiliaries, the boiler could not be given the usual complete set of laboratory tests to deter-mine its suitability for naval use," it was explained.
It was impossible to determine the net steam output of the unit or the efficiency of the entire unit, nor was information obtained concerning the extended reliability of the unit or its maintenance requirements, it was stated by the Naval Bureau of Engineering.
"The efficiencies obtained during the test of the La Mont boiler were not as high as those being obtained with modern naval boilers employing natural circulation," the bureau stated officially. "It is also significant that because of the large amount of development work that was necessary after the erection of the La Mont boiler at the laboratory it was operated but 130 hours during the intervening 3 years. In view of the above, the small capacity of the boiler, the considerable number of modifications that would be required for a naval installation and the lack of suitably designed auxiliaries, the unit could not be approved as being suitable for naval use."
Secretary Edison said that soon after lie came to the Navy Department in 1937 his attention was called to the La Mont boiler, and that he had gone to the Philadelphia Navy Yard.
PRELIMINARY DESIGN OFFERED
"It was a little thing, what we call a bread-board model, demonstrating a principle rather than being a boiler," he told newspapermen.
Mr. Edison said he had satisfied himself that the La Mont people were "getting every attention from the engineers" and were being afforded every facility to make their demonstrations.
After completion of the tests Mr. La Mont submitted to the Navy Department a preliminary design of a destroyer-size boiler which he proposed to build, and which he proposed the Government should purchase under a special arrangement, the Bureau of Engineering reported. There were no available funds, however, for further development of the boiler by the Navy, and Mr. La Mont was told that if further development were accomplished commercially, and if the Navy's experiments with the high-pressure, high temperature, forced circulation type boiler should indicate its suitability for naval use, "the bureau. would then be interested in a test of a full-size La Mont boiler and would welcome the boiler into the competitive field."
In view of the rapid developments which were taking place in this country and abroad in the use of high-pressures and temperatures in both commercial and naval fields the Navy Bureau of Engineering carefully followed these developments, having in mind the possible naval application of machinery installations employing higher pressures and temperatures.
BRITISH MAKING TESTS
Referring to the claims that the La Mont type boiler is being used abroad while being ignored by the United States Navy, the Bureau of Engineering reported that "the general situation in the German Navy in regard to boilers, temperatures, and pressures is known to the Bureau of Engineering."
"The troubles and delays which the developments in German naval engineering have given rise to have also come to the attention of the bureau," it was stated. "In connection with the use of the La Mont boiler abroad it should be noted that the designs now being employed are an outgrowth of the original La Mont design, which the bureau believes did not prove satisfactory. From information available to the Bureau it is apparent that the development of the La Mont boiler abroad has resulted in a boiler which does not have the attractive features of extreme low weight and low-space factors which the original La Mont design contemplated. It is also known that an experimental La Mont boiler as been installed in a British destroyer. The working pressure of this boiler is 290 pounds and the efficiency 71 percent at an evaporation of 121,500 pounds of steam per hour. At approximately the same evaporation the modern 600-pound natural circulation boilers being installed in our destroyers have. by actual test shown an efficiency of 84.5 percent. Since boiler efficiency is a very important factor in the overall efficiency of a machinery installation, a vessel fitted with our modern naval boilers would show a very appreciable fuel saving with resulting increase in cruising radius over a vessel fitted with boilers similar to the La Mont boiler installed in the British destroyer, all other conditions being equal.
COMPLETE BOILER NEVER DELIVERED
"In connection with the use of forced-circulation boilers it is the opinion of the Naval Boiler Laboratory that it is quite possible by judicious changes in design to so raise the capacity of natural circulation boilers That they can successfully compete with forced circulation boilers in weight, space, and cost, still retaining other desirable characteristics inherent in the natural-circulation boiler."
As regards the so-called "water wall" structure which is a prominent feature of the La Mont design, Mr. Edison stated that this type of boiler was developed as early as 1850 and is not confined to the La Mont boiler. The Navy Department in 1929 authorized a test of the original La Mont "inventions" as applied to water walls in boilers, he said. These tests did not demonstrate that the La Mont water walls were suitable for naval use, he said.
La Mont never delivered a complete boiler with necessary auxiliary equipment of a size suitable for installation in a naval vessel to the Navy for test, Secretary Edison said. Nor has there been a profitable exploitation of the La Mont boiler for commercial use, he indicated. Secretary Edison said he had been told by Mr. La Mont at the time his boiler was under test at Philadelphia that this represented a new design, which was in many respects an evasion of his previous patents, to which rights had been obtained abroad.
ANOTHER DESIGN USED ABROAD
"So the design of boiler that is talked about in this article (the Jay Franklin series) is not the La Mont boiler that is being exploited in Germany," Mr. Edison commented.
Summarizing his experience with the La Mont problem. Mr. Edison said:
“I was faced, when the final wind-up came, with this situation. We have only limited funds to carry on development. Mr. La Mont asked that the Navy carry on the development of his idea for him at Navy expense. The tests in the laboratory had not progressed to a point and were not conclusive in any way. They did not prove anything. because all these auxiliaries. such as the main circulating pumps and that kind of thing, were makeshift. * * * It was just a small-scale thing that didn't show as much promise as other types we were working on then.
"We tried to get in other competition. and Admiral Bowen had been successful in getting Foster-Wheeler to submit a boiler, and Babcock & Wilcox. I was faced with this patent situation, which wasn't clear at all. We could not get up a boiler which would evade or get around all of his previous patents. I was faced with a complicated and unknown patent situation, one that was fraught with danger of suits. I was faced with a rather curious group of associates. I didn't know whether we could preserve the secrecy. or whether this would leak on over to foreign countries. and I was faced with lack of thuds and an unproven article. To weigh that against having other types which were properly made by large companies which gave equal promise to the La Mont, it just seemed useless to go on putting up more money to develop this.
WANTED NAVY FINANCING
"We made the proposition that he go ahead and get somebody to build his boiler and finance it. We were interested, and if he could only bring it about and have it developed, going ahead and getting himself financed and build it, we Would test it, and if it was acceptable we would be glad to consider the purchase of it. He didn't want that. He wanted us to finance the development of it.
"Finially he came back with another proposition, in which he said he would get somebody to finance the construction of a full-size boiler, and then they would build it and submit it for test, but if the test proved satisfactory we would have to buy it. * * * He might make a thing that would fit in a ship and still pass the engineering specification but which would not be suitable for us. I refused to buy a pig in a poke. I told him to go ahead and develop it, like everybody else does. * * * You must create your product and then we will consider buying it. We will put you on an approved list of bidders. And that didn't satisfy him.
As far as I know, Mr. La Mont has just an idea about a boiler. He tried to sell it to somebody to make money, and ne is trying to get the Navy to finance it, so that he can sell it to make money for himself, and the Navy doesn't want to."
Mr. Edison said that the Navy's present standard of 600 pounds and 850° of temperature in boiler operation has been demonstrated sufficiently to show "a very large saving in fuel, which means a longer cruising radius, saving in weight and space that can be used for military benefits, and so is generally accepted by the Navy as a perfectly reasonable standard."
GERMANS REDUCE PRESSURE
He said that the Germans had started the other way, at the extreme upper pressure limits of around 3,200 pounds, but that the German Navy has reduced its designed pressures for steam installations to approximately the United States Navy's current practice of 600 pounds, according to currently believed information. He indicated that it is possible that difficulties experienced with materials and auxiliary equipment when using the high-pressures and temperatures was the cause of the reported reduction in pressures used in the German Navy, and that gains in weight and space through the use of high-pressures and temperatures were offset by a lack of reliability and ruggedness through trouble with auxiliary equipment and pipe lines.
Mr. Edison said there is no available information indicating that the Germans have employed the La Mont boiler in their famous pocket battleships, but that, on the contrary, the recognized authority, Janes Fighting Ships, states that eight Diesel engines are used for propulsion of these ships.
Mr. Edison's determination that the United States Navy shall remain abreast of all technological developments in order that our fighting ships may be the most modern in every particular it is possible to produce is well known. He has instigated a renaissance and enlargement of the Naval Research Laboratory, making it independent of the Navy Bureau of Engineering and responsible directly to his own office. He has added the patents section from another bureau to the laboratory and personally prevailed upon Admiral Bowen, recognized as one of the Navy's foremost advocates of applied research, to take over the leadership of the unit.
RESEARCH BEING FOSTERED
Admiral Bowen now is building up a national research advisory body composed of the Nation's foremost industrial and research leaders to cooperate in keeping the United States Navy abreast of the latest technological advances in every field which holds promise of being useful to the service.
Not only has Admiral Bowen used every effort to expand our research and make it applicable to improvement of our naval forces, it is pointed out at the Navy Department, but he also has sought to break up monopolies in the supply of any essential materials or equipment to the Navy and to introduce free and open competition in the hope that quality may thereby be improved. Most famous of his monopoly smashing campaigns had to do with the supply of boilers for naval vessels, and as a result there today is free competition in this field, which for many decades has been virtually limited to one company. It is known that he welcomed the efforts of a boiler company new to the naval field to obtain licenses to the La Mont boiler in the hope that this boiler might be developed to a useful stage and offered to the Navy in a usable form.
Secretary Edison stated positively that the new American superheat control boiler being installed in new United States naval vessels is superior to the German La Mont boiler for pressures now being used in our Navy and understood to have been adopted for the German Navy. He showed that no efforts are being spared by the Navy to keep abreast of all developments, and that when a better boiler is produced it will be used.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, BUREAU OF ENGINEERING, Washington, D. C., August 15, 1938.
Hon. DAVID I. WALSH, United States Senate.
Confidential.
MY DEAR SENATOR:
1. Receipt is acknowledged of Commander J. A. Saunders' memorandum of July 25, 1938, forwarding the correspondence you have received from Mr. W. D. La Mont.
2. The Bureau of Engineering has carefully examined the correspondence and in the following paragraphs is presenting the pertinent facts concerning the Bureau's activities with Mr. La Mont in connection with the testing of the La Mont boiler, as well as related information concerning the Bureau's present position in regard to the naval employment of high-pressure, high-temperature, forced-circulation boilers.
3. To provide a comprehensive perspective of the Bureau's activities in connection with high-pressure, high-temperature installations and forced-circulation boilers, including the La Mont unit, the following chronological sequence of important events related thereto is presented:
October 20, 1933: Test of La Mont boiler was authorized and construction at the Naval Boiler Laboratory began shortly thereafter.
October 9, 1934: Bureau of Engineering received request from engineering experiment station at Annapolis, Md., for a new boiler to help carry increasing plant load.
April 8, 1935: Date of contract No. S-41502 for Babcock & Wilcox Co. ; Steamotive unit for engineering experiment station (third unit of this design manufactured by Babcock & Wilcox Co.)
May 29, 1935: Rear Admiral S. M. Robinson relieved as Chief of Bureau of Engineering.
August 6, 1935: Contract delivery date for Steamotive unit at engineering experiment station.
September 19, 1935: Actual delivery of Steamotive unit at engineering experiment station.
October 1935: Started negotiations with Foster Wheeler Co. for the purchase of a superheater control boiler for Naval Boiler Laboratory with the object of providing competition with Babcock & Wilcox.
March 25, 1936: Babcock & Wilcox Co. informed that Foster Wheeler economizers must be used in naval boilers.
August 5, 1936: Navy budget officer indicated that funds would be allocated in 1938 budget for high-pressure, high-temperature trial installation in a destroyer.
January 11, 1937: La Mont development far enough advanced so that unit is ready for abridged tests at naval boiler laboratory.
February 1, 1937: Congressional hearings on 1938 budget.
February 6, 1937: Tests of La Mont boiler at naval boiler laboratory completed.
February 11, 1937: Bureau of Engineering notified yards, New York and Philadelphia, that funds had been requested for high-pressure high-temperature installation in a destroyer.
March 11, 1937: Report of operating tests of La Mont boiler received by Bureau of Engineering.
April 2 and 27, 1937: Bureau of Engineering letters to Chief Naval Operations requesting assignment of a destroyer for high-pressure high-temperature installation.
April 22, 1937: Bureau of Engineering forwarded report of operating test of La Mont unit to Mr. La Mont.
May 8, 1937: Letter received from Chief of Naval Operations assigning 13. S. S. Dahlgren for high-pressure high-temperature test installation.
July 1, 1937 (fiscal year 1938): Funds for high-pressure high-temperature installation in U. S. S. Dahlgren became available.
July 20, 1937: Contract let to Babcock & Wilcox Co. and General Electric Co. for Dahlgren machinery installation and work began. Contract delivery date September 13, 1938.
October 15, 1937: Report of inspection of La Mont boiler after completion of operating tests received from naval boiler laboratory.
November 9, 1937: Report of inspection of La Mont boiler forwarded to Mr. La Mont.
July 25, 1938: La Mont Corporation informed Bureau of Engineering that combustion engineering had been granted license rights to use La Mont patents in the United States, Mexico, Central and South America.
NOTE. --- In explanation of the above and the following paragraphs, it must be noted that the activities of the La Mont Corporation are independent of those of Mr. La Mont and that the boiler designs used by the La Mont Corporation are different from the La Mont design which was tested at the naval boiler laboratory.
4. The testing of the La Mont boiler at the naval boiler laboratory. ---
(a) With reference to the Bureau's authorization of the test of the La Mont boiler on October 20, 1933, it is the policy of the Bureau to require that equipment to be tested at naval laboratories to determine suitability for naval use be completely developed and beyond the experimental stage. The La Mont test was authorized under special conditions, not ordinarily accorded other exhibitors, in that the La Mont boiler was entirely experimental and had not been erected or tested prior to installation at the boiler laboratory. A section of the boiler laboratory was assigned to Mr. La Mont for the erection of his boiler, which was occupied without cost to Mr. La Mont for a period of over 3 years. To operate his boiler, makeshift pumps and other auxiliaries were employed by Mr. La Mont. Air for combustion was supplied from the navy yard mains rather than by a blower as in a shipboard installation. Under these conditions it was impossible to get complete data during the test of the La Mont boiler to determine its suitability for naval use.
(b) Shortly after the test was authorized, Mr. La Mont informed the Bureau that unless unforeseen delays occurred his boiler would be ready for test within approximately 2 months. However, it was found that the boiler as originally designed required numerous modifications and it was not until January 11, 1937, more than 3 years after the test had been authorized, that the development had proceeded far enough so that Mr. La Mont was able to present his boiler for test. For more than 3 years the facilities of the boiler laboratory were available to Mr. La Mont, during which time he had the help and advice of members of the laboratory's staff.
(c) As listed in the chronological summary above, the abridged tests of the La Abair boiler were completed on February 6, 1937. Since suitable auxiliaries are a most essential part of a forced circulation boiler and since the La Mont boiler was equipped with makeshift auxiliaries, the boiler could not be given the usual complete set of laboratory tests to determine its suitability for naval use. The La Mont boiler was therefore tested to determine whether or not it would meet special agenda requirements which were prepared by the boiler laboratory for the test and approved by 'Mr. La Mont and the Bureau of Engineering.
(d) As a result of the abridged tests it was found that the boiler met most of the special agenda requirements under which the test was conducted and which were agreed to in writing by Mr. La Mont. It must be emphasized that in view of the numerous modifications that were made to the boiler during the 3 years the unit was at the boiler laboratory and since properly designed auxiliaries were not employed, the agenda requirements could not be as complete as those ordinarily required to determine the suitability of a boiler for naval use. Specifically, it was impossible to determine the net steam output of the unit or the efficiency of the entire unit. Nor was information concerning the extended reliability of the unit or its maintenance requirements obtained. The La Mont boiler as tested was not especially light in weight nor particularly small in size for the amount of steam generated. The efficiencies obtained during the test of the La Mont boiler were not as high as those being obtained with modern naval boilers employing natural circulation. It is also significant that because of the large amount of development work that was necessary after the erection of the La Mont boiler at the laboratory it was operated but 130 hours during the intervening 3 years. In view of the above, the small capacity of the boiler, the considerable number of modifications that would be required for a naval installation, and the lack of suitably designed auxiliaries, the unit could not be approved as being suitable for naval use. (e) After completion of the tests Mr. La Mont submitted a preliminary design of a destroyer-size boiler which he proposed to build and which he proposed the Government should purchase under a special arrangement. It has been the Bureau's experience that a small boiler cannot be "scaled up" into a large-size unit. (The La Mont boiler tested at the laboratory had a capacity of about one-tenth that of a modern destroyer boiler, while the Steamotive unit at the engineering experiment station has approximately one-half the capacity of a modern destroyer boiler.) A large boiler modeled after a small unit often has decidedly different characteristics from those of the smaller boiler. It is for this reason that the Bureau's specifications always require a demonstration test of a full-sized boiler proposed by a shipbuilder. when the boiler differs in comparatively minor particulars from a boiler which has been previously tested. Based on the above, the Bureau informed Mr. La Mont in letter of May 29, 1937, that no funds were available to further develop the La Mont boiler and that the Bureau would not participate in any further development until Mr. La Mont and his associates had carried their developments through to full scale size, including the necessary auxiliary equipment. Mr. La Mont and his associates were further informed that if further development of the La Mont boiler was accomplished commercially and if the Navy's present experimentation with the high-pressure high temperature forced circulation type boiler should indicate its suitability for naval use. the Bureau would then be interested in a test of a full size La Mont boiler and would welcome the boiler into the competitive field.
5. High-pressure high-temperature developments in the Navy.
(a) In view of the rapid developments that have taken place in this country and foreign countries in the use of high-pressures and temperatures both in commercial and naval fields, the Bureau of Engineering has been carefully following these developments, having in mind the possible naval application of machinery installations employing higher pressures and temperatures. On April 8, 1935, almost 2 years before the La Mont test at the boiler laboratory had been completed, a former Chief of the Bureau of Engineering arranged for the purchase of a Babcock & Wilcox high-pressure forced circulation (Steamotive) boiler to carry part of the daily steam load at the engineering department station. The design of this boiler was based on two previous similar boilers which had been manufactured and tested by the Babcock & Wilcox Co. It will be noted that La Mont boiler was not ready for tests for over 15 months after actual delivery of the Steamotive boiler at the engineering experiment station. At the time of purchase the Steamotive boiler was the only forced circulation boiler available commercially in its size in this country, and this condition still obtains.
(b) Based on the performance of the Steamotive unit at the engineering experiment station and on the performance of the Lynn Steamotive unit, the Bureau, with the approval of the Congress, arranged for the purchase of a high-pressure high-temperature installation for use on the destroyer Dahlgren. This installation is now in process of construction. In connection with the bid received from the Babcock & Wilcox Co. and General Electric Co. for this high-pressure installation, the contractors reduced the original price in the order of $300,000 so that the experimental installation in this destroyer could be made with the funds available to the Bureau. It must be emphasized, in connection with this experimental installation, that the Steamotive boiler and associated auxiliaries were jointly designed and tested by the Babcock & Wilcox Co. and General Electric Co. and had reached a state of development where successful operation was reasonably assured. The same situation did not exist at the completion of the laboratory's tests of the La Mont boiler, since the tests demonstrated that considerable development work was still necessary before a unit of destroyer size would be ready for shipboard installation.
(c) The primary purpose of the Dahlgren installation, which was authorized by the Congress, and which is in process of construction, is to obtain experience and information concerning the possible naval employment of high pressures and high temperatures and only secondarily to determine the merits of the forced circulation boiler.
(d) The Bureau of Engineering notified the Combustion Engineering Corporation, when informed by them that they were considering entering into negotiations with the La Mont Corporation to obtain a license to use the La Mont patents in the United States, that the Bureau was not in a position to state to what extent it was interested in forced-circulation boilers until the place which high-pressures and high temperatures may or may not occupy in naval engineering had been determined by experiment. The Combustion Engineering Corporation was further informed that if the results of the experiment indi-cate that the Navy should employ high temperatures and high-pressure steam and if and when as a result of this the forced-circulation boiler should be employed in naval vessels. the Bureau would be very pleased to find another company in the United States in a position to offer competition should the Bureau desire to purchase forced-circulation units. In letter of July 25, 1938, the La Mont Corporation informed the Bureau that Combustion Engineering Corporation had been granted license rights to use patents held by the La Mont Corporation in the United States, Mexico, and Central and South America. The Bureau also has under test at the N'aval Boiler Laboratory a completely developed forced-circulation Besler boiler of small size to determine its suit-ability for certain naval applications. This boiler is commercially available in small sizes for rapid delivery. Under the above conditions there is no possibility of the Babcock & Wilcox Co. obtaining a monopoly in the field of forced-circulation boilers in this country.
(e) The attached correspondence stresses the point that the La Mont type boilers are being used abroad. The general situation in the German Navy in regard to boilers, temperatures, and pressures is known to the Bureau of Engineering. The troubles and delays which the developments in German naval engineering have given rise to have also come to the attention of this Bureau. In connection with the use of the La Mont boiler abroad, it should be noted that the designs now being employed are an outgrowth of the original La Mont design, which the Bureau believes did not prove satisfactory. From information available to the Bureau it is apparent that the development of the La Mont boiler abroad has resulted in a boiler which does not have the attractive features of extreme low-weight and low-space factors which the original La Mont design contemplated. It is also known that an experimental La Mont boiler has been installed in a British destroyer. The working pressure of this boiler is 290 pounds and the efficiency 71 percent at an evaporation of 121,500 pounds of steam per hour. At approximately the same evaporation the modern 600-pound natural-circulation boilers being installed in our destroyers have by actual test shown an efficiency of 84.5 percent. Since boiler efficiency is a very important factor in the over-all efficiency of a machinery installation, a vessel fitted with our modern naval boilers would show a very appreciable fuel saving, with resulting increase in cruising radius, over a vessel fitted with boilers similar to the La Mont boiler installed in the British destroyer, all other conditions being equal.
(f) In connection with the use of forced-circulation boilers it is the opinion of the Naval Boiler Laboratory that it is quite possible by judicious changes in design to so raise the capacity of natural circulation boilers that they can successfully compete with forced circulation boilers in weight, space, and cost, still retaining other desirable characteristics inherent in the natural circulation boiler. This matter is now the subject of a careful investigation by the Bureau of Engineering.
6. Specific comments on the La Mont correspondence.
—The Bureau finds many statements in the attached correspondence which are not susceptible to substantiation. Some statements are half truths and do not present a complete picture. It is not considered necessary to prepare a lengthy rebuttal of the entire correspondence ; however, the following brief statements will give an indication of its validity:
(a) The statements attributed to Bureau personnel are entirely false.
(b) The boiler laboratory has never received other than routine instructions, either written or oral, from Bureau personnel in regard to the test of the La Mont boiler. Conclusions in laboratory test reports are drawn from the test results, and no instructions are issued by the Bureau concerning these conclusions.
(c) There is no record of the Bureau ever having entered into any negotia-ions concerning the purchase of a German La Mont boiler.
(d) The statement that the Babcock & Wilcox Co. has a copy of the La Mont report is without foundation.
(e) The Bureau never informed Mr. La Mont, either orally or in writing, that the La Mont boiler was suitable for naval use.
(f) The chronological summary gives the dates test reports were forwarded to Mr. La Mont.
(g) With reference to the criticisms of the test report contained in reference V of the correspondence, Mr. La Mont was informed in letter of June 1, 1938, that reports of tests conducted at the Naval Boiler Laboratory are held confidential between the Bureau of Engineering and exhibitors. Since exhibitors by agreement are not permitted to utilize contents of test reports for sales or advertisement purposes, the embodiment of discussions and opinions in reports is permitted by the Bureau, and is not considered to be prejudicial to the interests of the exhibitors.
(h) The chronological sequence of events shows that in October 1935 the Bureau started negotiation with the Foster Wheeler Co. for the purchase of a superheat control boiler for the Naval Boiler Laboratory. This boiler has since been tested and found satisfactory for naval use, and by this action the Bureau has provided competition for the Babcock & Wilcox Co. in the supply of boilers on naval contracts. The effect of the competition was evident in the purchase of the boilers for battleships Washington and North, Carolina. in which case the boilers were obtained at a cost of approximately $217,000 below the estimated cost. In requiring the use of Foster Wheeler economizers in naval boilers, the Bureau has likewise provided competition for the Babcock & Wilcox Co.
(i) It will he noted that throughout the correspondence there are no real substantiating data concerning the claims made by Mr. La Mont as to efficiency, space, and weight-saving gains which he states will be possible through the use of a La Mont. boiler. Some of the gains which he attributes to his boiler are functions of temperature and pressure and would likewise exist in a natural circulation boiler installation.
(j) The Bureau of Engineering has no information in regard to any propaganda, native or foreign, in connection with the activities of either Mr. La Mont or Mr. Kampff.
(k) The Bureau of Engineering has no information concerning the action pending in the supreme court, New York County, between the La Mont Corporation and Mr. W. D. La Mont.
7. As requested in Commander Saunders' memorandum, the entire correspondence is being returned herewith. It will be noted that certain of the above subparagraphs contain information in connection with the Dahlgren installation as well as some of the Bureau's present thoughts concerning the employment of high-pressures and high temperatures in the Navy. It is recommended that the information contained in these subparagraphs be considered as confidential.
8. In conclusion, it is desired to state that the Bureau of Engineering is willing to rest on the facts in connection with its activities with Mr. La Mont and does not desire to enter into a defense of the inaccurate and unreliable claims made by him.
Very respectfully,
J. M. BOWEN,
Engineer in Chief, United States Navy,
Chief of Bureau.
I thought I'd reopen this topic. There was talk about German battleships using LaMont boilers during WW2 and the superior results they achieved over US vessels. From my reading, German battleships had short "legs" and reliability issues. US battleships had extremely high endurance and exceptional reliability. As far as performance goes, the Iowa class easily outperformed Bismarck in almost all categories. Anyhow, I ran into the following discussion regarding the LaMont boiler in Congressional hearings circa 1940. It makes interesting reading and puts matters in a different light. In a couple of spots I made a few notations.
Regards,
Ken
CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN NAVAL VESSELS
HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE
SEVENTY-SIXTH CONGRESS THIRD SESSION ON H. R. 8026
AN ACT TO ESTABLISH THE COMPOSITION OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY, TO AUTHORIZE THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN NAVAL VESSELS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
APRIL 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, AND 23, 1940
Printed for the use of the Committee on Naval Affairs
page 168
• The CHAIRMAN. Admiral, I want to discuss with you in a moment the possibilities for building in the immediate years and future years at our private and public yards, but before doing that, there are one or two preliminary questions.
Have you heard, and had correspondence from me and from the Navy Department in reference to the La Mont boilers?
Admiral ROBINSON. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. What is Mr. La Mont's claim and what is the Navy's position, briefly stated, and then I will put these letters in the record?
Admiral ROBINSON. Well, Mr. La Mont claims very great advantages for steam of high-pressure and high temperature. In that particular claim the Bureau of Engineering, at least,—I do not know whether the whole Navy Department does or not—but the Bureau of Engineering is in complete accord, because of the fac we have been steadily raising temperatures and pressures of out ships for the last 8 years. The difference between the Navy Department and Mr. La Mont, I believe, is entirely one of method of procedure. Mr. La Mont, at the present time, is a private individual. He has no plant or facilities for building boilers, and so far as I know, he has not been successful in any of his negotiations up to date to establish one. I know there have been such negotiations under way
Now, the La Mont boiler is built in this country by the Combustion Engineering Corporation of New York. We are buying at this moment a La Mont boiler for test purposes from that concern, so that I think we can boil it down to a statement that there is no difference of opinion between Mr. La Mont and the Navy Department on technical questions; they are purely financial and business.
The CHAIRMAN. His letter and the letter of the Navy Department may go in the record, and also the letter from me to the chairman of the House committee, and the letter from the Navy Department in reference to section 5 may go in the record.
(The matter referred to is as follows
APRIL 9. 1940.
Hon. DAVID I. WALSH,
Chairman of the Senate Naval Committee, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.
HONORABLE SIRS: I respectfully request a congressional investigation into the status of the power units being installed in United States naval ships under construction. I am prepared to prove the following:
Since the laying down of the German cruiser Seharnhorst, German cruisers and battleships are beingLa Mont powered with 250,000 S. H. P.
(No German battleship ever produced anything close to 250,000 shaft horsepower. The Bismarck produced 150,170 H.P. while even the heavier and faster Iowa class only reached 212,000 S.H.P. Ken)
The weight, space, and efficiency of these German naval power units is so superior to United States Navy power units, in use and being installed, that German naval ships are markedly superior to United States naval ships.
The German Navy has had La Mont units superior to United States Navy units since 1934, 6 years ago.
The present effort of the United States Navy to develop a modern naval power unit, destroyer size, is confined to one manufacturing group.
The Navy Department has informed me that they will abandon natural circulation and use only forced circulation power units as soon as present tests on the U. S. S. Dahlgren are successfully completed. If these tests are successful, the manufacturing group behind this work will have practically a monopoly on naval power units for some time to come.
((The Dahlgren (DD-187) was a Clemson class destroyer launched at Newport News on 20 November 1918 and commissioned on 6 January 1920. She joined the Atlantic Fleet, and spent most of the next two years taking part in the usual round of winter exercises in the Caribbean and summer exercises off the US East Coast. In April 1921 she took part in the Presidential Fleet Review at Norfolk, and in the summer, she supported the famous bombing tests carried out on former German warships. This first period of commission came to an end on 30 June 1922 when she was decommissioned at Philadelphia))
After a period of repairs, including a spell in the Philadelphia Navy Yard in May 1932, the Dahlgren was recommissioned on 25 October 1932. She was based on the west coast from November 1932 to April 1934 when she returned to the Atlantic for fleet exercises. She moved back to the West Coast in January 1935, and remained there until July 1937 when she returned to the east coast.
After her return to the east coast, the Dahlgren was used for engineering experiments. In 1937 she was given two ultra-high-pressure boilers, operating at 1,300 psi. At the same time, she was given a fat aft smokestack, and she retained this for the rest of her active career, even after the normal boilers were restored. The experiments ended on 14 June 1940, and she returned to normal destroyer duties. – Ken)
To date they have received $1,750,000 of United States Navy development money and have attempted since 1937 to make this installation work. This is the group which has sold about 90 percent of all boilers to the Navy for the last 30 years. The type of boiler being used is the B. and W. steam motive unit, patented in the United States and foreign countries. The work on the complete power unit with this type boiler has been called a military secret by the Navy. The effect of this will be to keep knowledge of the new Navy power requirements from competing boiler, turbine, and auxiliary manufacturing concerns throughout the country, giving this manufacturing group a $1,7500,000 benefit over their competitors and a 3-year start.
The Bureau of Engineering has been refusing to order any other destroyer size forced circulation boiler during this period.
If these tests fail, the Navy will be back where they were in 1934 in development of naval power units.
Twelve units similar to the B. and W. motive unit were tried by the German Navy and abandoned with all other types in favor of the La Mont unit.
The B. and W. steam motive unit has never been tested at the Naval Boiler Laboratory, Philadelphia, where all other new type boilers must pass their tests. It has never been tested by the regular Navy Boiler Laboratory testing crew. It has never been made to meet the test requirements demanded by the Naval Boiler Laboratory of all naval boilers.
The present work on the U. S. S. Dahlgren, if successful, will only bring the United States Navy nearer to equality with the German La Mont naval power unit.
If individuals and manufacturing firms were allowed to contribute to this work competitively, on the same basis allowed the favored manufacturing group, the United States individuals and manufacturers could produce a power unit superior even to the German La Mont naval power unit. I enclose a three-column article published in the Washington Star on February 4, 1940, giving a reporter's interview with the Secretary of the Navy regard-lug the power units in the German Navy and the La Mont inventions. In regard to this article—and notwithstanding the statements to the contrary therein contained—I am prepared to prove the following:
1. The German Navy increased its steam pressure from 300 pounds in 1933 to 1,200 pounds in 1937. They have never lowered their steam pressure.
2. The La Mont boiler passed all its Navy tests successfully.
3. The La Mont boiler does not require special auxiliaries.
4. The La Mont group has never asked for Navy development money.
5. The La Mont group offered a destroyer size boiler to the Navy, the boiler to meet all specifications required of it by the Navy, the weight to be one-half that of any naval boiler in use, no payment to be made until the boiler had passed all its tests.
6. The La Mont boiler of the Navy test is covered by patents allowed by the United States Patent Office for a new type boiler circuit and design which do not represent improvements on the La Mont Corporation patents.
7. The Government cannot be sued for using patents with or without the consent of the owners of the patents.
8. The La Mont group is entirely American without any foreign connections. The favored manufacturing group has foreign connections in one form or another.
9. Admiral Bowen did not increase competition for the Navy. My purpose in requesting this investigation is to be constructive, not destructive. It is made with intent that it be nonpolitical and is not requested for personal gain. It has become evident that nothing short of a thorough and immediate congressional investigation is required to bring our Navy power units up to date. We must, before it is too late, make provision that our new naval construction is kept apace with that of our potential enemies.
Very respectfully yours, Walter Douglas La Mont. New York, N. Y.
[From the Sunday Star, Washington, D. C., February 4. 1940]
La Mont BOILERS GIVEN CAREFUL TEST BY NAVY, FOUND WANTING, SECRETARY EDISON REVEALS—REFUTES CHARGES CONTAINED IN SERIES OF FRANKLIN ARTICLES
Boilers now being used by the United States Navy in its new fighting ships are superior to the La Mont type as exploited in Europe, according to Secretary of the Navy Charles Edison, and there is no basis for any statement that German warships, ship for ship, are the superiors of American vessels.
The Navy Department has made lengthy tests of the La Mont boiler and has been guided in its adoption of boilers for its new ships by the results of these tests and tests of other boilers of competitive design. It is the sincere belief of Navy leaders that the boilers which have been adopted as the result of these tests are the best which have yet been developed to meet the needs of the American Navy. As a result of tests which have been in progress for several years, Secretary Edison stated, the La Mont boiler has not been approved as satisfactory for naval use, nor has it revealed superior characteristics which warranted special consideration by the Navy Department in the way of sponsoring further development of the La Mont boiler.
Moreover, Mr. Edison declared, the German Navy, after starting out experimentally with the extremely high boiler pressures, which are an outstanding feature of the original La Mont boiler design, have been backing away from these high-pressures and now are working with pressures reported to be identical with those employed in our latest naval vessels.
TESTS AUTHORIZED IN 1933
Mr. Edison pointed out that the La Mont boiler situation has been "a long-drawn-out procedure, and this isn't the first time the question has come up." The use of high-pressure and high-temperature boilers, he said, is not limited to the La Mont type of boiler.
Naval records show that the Naval Boiler Laboratory was authorized on October 20, 1933, to test theLa Mont boiler and that necessary construction at the laboratory, in the Philadelphia Navy Yard, was begun shortly thereafter. The inventor, former Lt. Comdr. Walter Douglas La Mont, graduate of the United States Naval Academy in 1910, began experimental work in the field of high-pressure steam generation in 1918.
"With reference to the bureau's authorization of the test of the La Mont boiler," the Navy Bureau of Engineering stated in an official report signed by its then chief, Rear Admiral Harold G. Bowen, now head of the Naval Research Laboratory, to Senator Walsh of Massachusetts, chairman of the Senate Naval Affairs Committee, released for publication for the first time, "it is the policy of the bureau to require that equipment to be tested at naval laboratories to determine suitability for naval use be completely developed beyond the experi-mental stage.
INVENTOR USED LABORATORY
"The La Mont test was authorized under special conditions not ordinarily accorded other exhibitors in that the La Mont boiler was entirely experimental and had not been erected or tested prior to installation at the boiler laboratory. A section of the boiler laboratory was assigned to Mr. La Mont for the erection of his boiler, which was occupied without cost to Mr. La Mont for a period of over 3 years.
"To operate his boiler makeshift pumps and other auxiliaries were employed by Mr.La Mont. Air for combustion was supplied from the navy-yard mains rather than by a blower, as in shipboard installation. Under these conditions it was impossible to get complete data during the test of the La Mont boiler to determine its suitability for naval use.
"Shortly after the test was authorized, Mr. La Mont informed the bureau that unless unforeseen delays occurred his boiler would be ready for test within approximately 2 months. However, it was found that the boiler as originally designed required numerous modifications, and it was not until January 11, 1937, more than 3 years after the test had been authorized, that the development had proceeded far enough so that Mr. La Mont was able to present his boiler for test. For more than 3 years the facilities of the boiler laboratory were avail-able to Mr. La Mont, during which time he had the help and advice of members of the laboratory's staff."
Abridged tests of the La Mont boiler were completed on February 6, 1937, according to the Navy Department record.
OPERATED ONLY 130 HOURS
"Since suitable auxiliaries are a most essential part of a forced circulation boiler, and since the La Mont boiler was equipped with makeshift auxiliaries, the boiler could not be given the usual complete set of laboratory tests to deter-mine its suitability for naval use," it was explained.
It was impossible to determine the net steam output of the unit or the efficiency of the entire unit, nor was information obtained concerning the extended reliability of the unit or its maintenance requirements, it was stated by the Naval Bureau of Engineering.
"The efficiencies obtained during the test of the La Mont boiler were not as high as those being obtained with modern naval boilers employing natural circulation," the bureau stated officially. "It is also significant that because of the large amount of development work that was necessary after the erection of the La Mont boiler at the laboratory it was operated but 130 hours during the intervening 3 years. In view of the above, the small capacity of the boiler, the considerable number of modifications that would be required for a naval installation and the lack of suitably designed auxiliaries, the unit could not be approved as being suitable for naval use."
Secretary Edison said that soon after lie came to the Navy Department in 1937 his attention was called to the La Mont boiler, and that he had gone to the Philadelphia Navy Yard.
PRELIMINARY DESIGN OFFERED
"It was a little thing, what we call a bread-board model, demonstrating a principle rather than being a boiler," he told newspapermen.
Mr. Edison said he had satisfied himself that the La Mont people were "getting every attention from the engineers" and were being afforded every facility to make their demonstrations.
After completion of the tests Mr. La Mont submitted to the Navy Department a preliminary design of a destroyer-size boiler which he proposed to build, and which he proposed the Government should purchase under a special arrangement, the Bureau of Engineering reported. There were no available funds, however, for further development of the boiler by the Navy, and Mr. La Mont was told that if further development were accomplished commercially, and if the Navy's experiments with the high-pressure, high temperature, forced circulation type boiler should indicate its suitability for naval use, "the bureau. would then be interested in a test of a full-size La Mont boiler and would welcome the boiler into the competitive field."
In view of the rapid developments which were taking place in this country and abroad in the use of high-pressures and temperatures in both commercial and naval fields the Navy Bureau of Engineering carefully followed these developments, having in mind the possible naval application of machinery installations employing higher pressures and temperatures.
BRITISH MAKING TESTS
Referring to the claims that the La Mont type boiler is being used abroad while being ignored by the United States Navy, the Bureau of Engineering reported that "the general situation in the German Navy in regard to boilers, temperatures, and pressures is known to the Bureau of Engineering."
"The troubles and delays which the developments in German naval engineering have given rise to have also come to the attention of the bureau," it was stated. "In connection with the use of the La Mont boiler abroad it should be noted that the designs now being employed are an outgrowth of the original La Mont design, which the bureau believes did not prove satisfactory. From information available to the Bureau it is apparent that the development of the La Mont boiler abroad has resulted in a boiler which does not have the attractive features of extreme low weight and low-space factors which the original La Mont design contemplated. It is also known that an experimental La Mont boiler as been installed in a British destroyer. The working pressure of this boiler is 290 pounds and the efficiency 71 percent at an evaporation of 121,500 pounds of steam per hour. At approximately the same evaporation the modern 600-pound natural circulation boilers being installed in our destroyers have. by actual test shown an efficiency of 84.5 percent. Since boiler efficiency is a very important factor in the overall efficiency of a machinery installation, a vessel fitted with our modern naval boilers would show a very appreciable fuel saving with resulting increase in cruising radius over a vessel fitted with boilers similar to the La Mont boiler installed in the British destroyer, all other conditions being equal.
COMPLETE BOILER NEVER DELIVERED
"In connection with the use of forced-circulation boilers it is the opinion of the Naval Boiler Laboratory that it is quite possible by judicious changes in design to so raise the capacity of natural circulation boilers That they can successfully compete with forced circulation boilers in weight, space, and cost, still retaining other desirable characteristics inherent in the natural-circulation boiler."
As regards the so-called "water wall" structure which is a prominent feature of the La Mont design, Mr. Edison stated that this type of boiler was developed as early as 1850 and is not confined to the La Mont boiler. The Navy Department in 1929 authorized a test of the original La Mont "inventions" as applied to water walls in boilers, he said. These tests did not demonstrate that the La Mont water walls were suitable for naval use, he said.
La Mont never delivered a complete boiler with necessary auxiliary equipment of a size suitable for installation in a naval vessel to the Navy for test, Secretary Edison said. Nor has there been a profitable exploitation of the La Mont boiler for commercial use, he indicated. Secretary Edison said he had been told by Mr. La Mont at the time his boiler was under test at Philadelphia that this represented a new design, which was in many respects an evasion of his previous patents, to which rights had been obtained abroad.
ANOTHER DESIGN USED ABROAD
"So the design of boiler that is talked about in this article (the Jay Franklin series) is not the La Mont boiler that is being exploited in Germany," Mr. Edison commented.
Summarizing his experience with the La Mont problem. Mr. Edison said:
“I was faced, when the final wind-up came, with this situation. We have only limited funds to carry on development. Mr. La Mont asked that the Navy carry on the development of his idea for him at Navy expense. The tests in the laboratory had not progressed to a point and were not conclusive in any way. They did not prove anything. because all these auxiliaries. such as the main circulating pumps and that kind of thing, were makeshift. * * * It was just a small-scale thing that didn't show as much promise as other types we were working on then.
"We tried to get in other competition. and Admiral Bowen had been successful in getting Foster-Wheeler to submit a boiler, and Babcock & Wilcox. I was faced with this patent situation, which wasn't clear at all. We could not get up a boiler which would evade or get around all of his previous patents. I was faced with a complicated and unknown patent situation, one that was fraught with danger of suits. I was faced with a rather curious group of associates. I didn't know whether we could preserve the secrecy. or whether this would leak on over to foreign countries. and I was faced with lack of thuds and an unproven article. To weigh that against having other types which were properly made by large companies which gave equal promise to the La Mont, it just seemed useless to go on putting up more money to develop this.
WANTED NAVY FINANCING
"We made the proposition that he go ahead and get somebody to build his boiler and finance it. We were interested, and if he could only bring it about and have it developed, going ahead and getting himself financed and build it, we Would test it, and if it was acceptable we would be glad to consider the purchase of it. He didn't want that. He wanted us to finance the development of it.
"Finially he came back with another proposition, in which he said he would get somebody to finance the construction of a full-size boiler, and then they would build it and submit it for test, but if the test proved satisfactory we would have to buy it. * * * He might make a thing that would fit in a ship and still pass the engineering specification but which would not be suitable for us. I refused to buy a pig in a poke. I told him to go ahead and develop it, like everybody else does. * * * You must create your product and then we will consider buying it. We will put you on an approved list of bidders. And that didn't satisfy him.
As far as I know, Mr. La Mont has just an idea about a boiler. He tried to sell it to somebody to make money, and ne is trying to get the Navy to finance it, so that he can sell it to make money for himself, and the Navy doesn't want to."
Mr. Edison said that the Navy's present standard of 600 pounds and 850° of temperature in boiler operation has been demonstrated sufficiently to show "a very large saving in fuel, which means a longer cruising radius, saving in weight and space that can be used for military benefits, and so is generally accepted by the Navy as a perfectly reasonable standard."
GERMANS REDUCE PRESSURE
He said that the Germans had started the other way, at the extreme upper pressure limits of around 3,200 pounds, but that the German Navy has reduced its designed pressures for steam installations to approximately the United States Navy's current practice of 600 pounds, according to currently believed information. He indicated that it is possible that difficulties experienced with materials and auxiliary equipment when using the high-pressures and temperatures was the cause of the reported reduction in pressures used in the German Navy, and that gains in weight and space through the use of high-pressures and temperatures were offset by a lack of reliability and ruggedness through trouble with auxiliary equipment and pipe lines.
Mr. Edison said there is no available information indicating that the Germans have employed the La Mont boiler in their famous pocket battleships, but that, on the contrary, the recognized authority, Janes Fighting Ships, states that eight Diesel engines are used for propulsion of these ships.
Mr. Edison's determination that the United States Navy shall remain abreast of all technological developments in order that our fighting ships may be the most modern in every particular it is possible to produce is well known. He has instigated a renaissance and enlargement of the Naval Research Laboratory, making it independent of the Navy Bureau of Engineering and responsible directly to his own office. He has added the patents section from another bureau to the laboratory and personally prevailed upon Admiral Bowen, recognized as one of the Navy's foremost advocates of applied research, to take over the leadership of the unit.
RESEARCH BEING FOSTERED
Admiral Bowen now is building up a national research advisory body composed of the Nation's foremost industrial and research leaders to cooperate in keeping the United States Navy abreast of the latest technological advances in every field which holds promise of being useful to the service.
Not only has Admiral Bowen used every effort to expand our research and make it applicable to improvement of our naval forces, it is pointed out at the Navy Department, but he also has sought to break up monopolies in the supply of any essential materials or equipment to the Navy and to introduce free and open competition in the hope that quality may thereby be improved. Most famous of his monopoly smashing campaigns had to do with the supply of boilers for naval vessels, and as a result there today is free competition in this field, which for many decades has been virtually limited to one company. It is known that he welcomed the efforts of a boiler company new to the naval field to obtain licenses to the La Mont boiler in the hope that this boiler might be developed to a useful stage and offered to the Navy in a usable form.
Secretary Edison stated positively that the new American superheat control boiler being installed in new United States naval vessels is superior to the German La Mont boiler for pressures now being used in our Navy and understood to have been adopted for the German Navy. He showed that no efforts are being spared by the Navy to keep abreast of all developments, and that when a better boiler is produced it will be used.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, BUREAU OF ENGINEERING, Washington, D. C., August 15, 1938.
Hon. DAVID I. WALSH, United States Senate.
Confidential.
MY DEAR SENATOR:
1. Receipt is acknowledged of Commander J. A. Saunders' memorandum of July 25, 1938, forwarding the correspondence you have received from Mr. W. D. La Mont.
2. The Bureau of Engineering has carefully examined the correspondence and in the following paragraphs is presenting the pertinent facts concerning the Bureau's activities with Mr. La Mont in connection with the testing of the La Mont boiler, as well as related information concerning the Bureau's present position in regard to the naval employment of high-pressure, high-temperature, forced-circulation boilers.
3. To provide a comprehensive perspective of the Bureau's activities in connection with high-pressure, high-temperature installations and forced-circulation boilers, including the La Mont unit, the following chronological sequence of important events related thereto is presented:
October 20, 1933: Test of La Mont boiler was authorized and construction at the Naval Boiler Laboratory began shortly thereafter.
October 9, 1934: Bureau of Engineering received request from engineering experiment station at Annapolis, Md., for a new boiler to help carry increasing plant load.
April 8, 1935: Date of contract No. S-41502 for Babcock & Wilcox Co. ; Steamotive unit for engineering experiment station (third unit of this design manufactured by Babcock & Wilcox Co.)
May 29, 1935: Rear Admiral S. M. Robinson relieved as Chief of Bureau of Engineering.
August 6, 1935: Contract delivery date for Steamotive unit at engineering experiment station.
September 19, 1935: Actual delivery of Steamotive unit at engineering experiment station.
October 1935: Started negotiations with Foster Wheeler Co. for the purchase of a superheater control boiler for Naval Boiler Laboratory with the object of providing competition with Babcock & Wilcox.
March 25, 1936: Babcock & Wilcox Co. informed that Foster Wheeler economizers must be used in naval boilers.
August 5, 1936: Navy budget officer indicated that funds would be allocated in 1938 budget for high-pressure, high-temperature trial installation in a destroyer.
January 11, 1937: La Mont development far enough advanced so that unit is ready for abridged tests at naval boiler laboratory.
February 1, 1937: Congressional hearings on 1938 budget.
February 6, 1937: Tests of La Mont boiler at naval boiler laboratory completed.
February 11, 1937: Bureau of Engineering notified yards, New York and Philadelphia, that funds had been requested for high-pressure high-temperature installation in a destroyer.
March 11, 1937: Report of operating tests of La Mont boiler received by Bureau of Engineering.
April 2 and 27, 1937: Bureau of Engineering letters to Chief Naval Operations requesting assignment of a destroyer for high-pressure high-temperature installation.
April 22, 1937: Bureau of Engineering forwarded report of operating test of La Mont unit to Mr. La Mont.
May 8, 1937: Letter received from Chief of Naval Operations assigning 13. S. S. Dahlgren for high-pressure high-temperature test installation.
July 1, 1937 (fiscal year 1938): Funds for high-pressure high-temperature installation in U. S. S. Dahlgren became available.
July 20, 1937: Contract let to Babcock & Wilcox Co. and General Electric Co. for Dahlgren machinery installation and work began. Contract delivery date September 13, 1938.
October 15, 1937: Report of inspection of La Mont boiler after completion of operating tests received from naval boiler laboratory.
November 9, 1937: Report of inspection of La Mont boiler forwarded to Mr. La Mont.
July 25, 1938: La Mont Corporation informed Bureau of Engineering that combustion engineering had been granted license rights to use La Mont patents in the United States, Mexico, Central and South America.
NOTE. --- In explanation of the above and the following paragraphs, it must be noted that the activities of the La Mont Corporation are independent of those of Mr. La Mont and that the boiler designs used by the La Mont Corporation are different from the La Mont design which was tested at the naval boiler laboratory.
4. The testing of the La Mont boiler at the naval boiler laboratory. ---
(a) With reference to the Bureau's authorization of the test of the La Mont boiler on October 20, 1933, it is the policy of the Bureau to require that equipment to be tested at naval laboratories to determine suitability for naval use be completely developed and beyond the experimental stage. The La Mont test was authorized under special conditions, not ordinarily accorded other exhibitors, in that the La Mont boiler was entirely experimental and had not been erected or tested prior to installation at the boiler laboratory. A section of the boiler laboratory was assigned to Mr. La Mont for the erection of his boiler, which was occupied without cost to Mr. La Mont for a period of over 3 years. To operate his boiler, makeshift pumps and other auxiliaries were employed by Mr. La Mont. Air for combustion was supplied from the navy yard mains rather than by a blower as in a shipboard installation. Under these conditions it was impossible to get complete data during the test of the La Mont boiler to determine its suitability for naval use.
(b) Shortly after the test was authorized, Mr. La Mont informed the Bureau that unless unforeseen delays occurred his boiler would be ready for test within approximately 2 months. However, it was found that the boiler as originally designed required numerous modifications and it was not until January 11, 1937, more than 3 years after the test had been authorized, that the development had proceeded far enough so that Mr. La Mont was able to present his boiler for test. For more than 3 years the facilities of the boiler laboratory were available to Mr. La Mont, during which time he had the help and advice of members of the laboratory's staff.
(c) As listed in the chronological summary above, the abridged tests of the La Abair boiler were completed on February 6, 1937. Since suitable auxiliaries are a most essential part of a forced circulation boiler and since the La Mont boiler was equipped with makeshift auxiliaries, the boiler could not be given the usual complete set of laboratory tests to determine its suitability for naval use. The La Mont boiler was therefore tested to determine whether or not it would meet special agenda requirements which were prepared by the boiler laboratory for the test and approved by 'Mr. La Mont and the Bureau of Engineering.
(d) As a result of the abridged tests it was found that the boiler met most of the special agenda requirements under which the test was conducted and which were agreed to in writing by Mr. La Mont. It must be emphasized that in view of the numerous modifications that were made to the boiler during the 3 years the unit was at the boiler laboratory and since properly designed auxiliaries were not employed, the agenda requirements could not be as complete as those ordinarily required to determine the suitability of a boiler for naval use. Specifically, it was impossible to determine the net steam output of the unit or the efficiency of the entire unit. Nor was information concerning the extended reliability of the unit or its maintenance requirements obtained. The La Mont boiler as tested was not especially light in weight nor particularly small in size for the amount of steam generated. The efficiencies obtained during the test of the La Mont boiler were not as high as those being obtained with modern naval boilers employing natural circulation. It is also significant that because of the large amount of development work that was necessary after the erection of the La Mont boiler at the laboratory it was operated but 130 hours during the intervening 3 years. In view of the above, the small capacity of the boiler, the considerable number of modifications that would be required for a naval installation, and the lack of suitably designed auxiliaries, the unit could not be approved as being suitable for naval use. (e) After completion of the tests Mr. La Mont submitted a preliminary design of a destroyer-size boiler which he proposed to build and which he proposed the Government should purchase under a special arrangement. It has been the Bureau's experience that a small boiler cannot be "scaled up" into a large-size unit. (The La Mont boiler tested at the laboratory had a capacity of about one-tenth that of a modern destroyer boiler, while the Steamotive unit at the engineering experiment station has approximately one-half the capacity of a modern destroyer boiler.) A large boiler modeled after a small unit often has decidedly different characteristics from those of the smaller boiler. It is for this reason that the Bureau's specifications always require a demonstration test of a full-sized boiler proposed by a shipbuilder. when the boiler differs in comparatively minor particulars from a boiler which has been previously tested. Based on the above, the Bureau informed Mr. La Mont in letter of May 29, 1937, that no funds were available to further develop the La Mont boiler and that the Bureau would not participate in any further development until Mr. La Mont and his associates had carried their developments through to full scale size, including the necessary auxiliary equipment. Mr. La Mont and his associates were further informed that if further development of the La Mont boiler was accomplished commercially and if the Navy's present experimentation with the high-pressure high temperature forced circulation type boiler should indicate its suitability for naval use. the Bureau would then be interested in a test of a full size La Mont boiler and would welcome the boiler into the competitive field.
5. High-pressure high-temperature developments in the Navy.
(a) In view of the rapid developments that have taken place in this country and foreign countries in the use of high-pressures and temperatures both in commercial and naval fields, the Bureau of Engineering has been carefully following these developments, having in mind the possible naval application of machinery installations employing higher pressures and temperatures. On April 8, 1935, almost 2 years before the La Mont test at the boiler laboratory had been completed, a former Chief of the Bureau of Engineering arranged for the purchase of a Babcock & Wilcox high-pressure forced circulation (Steamotive) boiler to carry part of the daily steam load at the engineering department station. The design of this boiler was based on two previous similar boilers which had been manufactured and tested by the Babcock & Wilcox Co. It will be noted that La Mont boiler was not ready for tests for over 15 months after actual delivery of the Steamotive boiler at the engineering experiment station. At the time of purchase the Steamotive boiler was the only forced circulation boiler available commercially in its size in this country, and this condition still obtains.
(b) Based on the performance of the Steamotive unit at the engineering experiment station and on the performance of the Lynn Steamotive unit, the Bureau, with the approval of the Congress, arranged for the purchase of a high-pressure high-temperature installation for use on the destroyer Dahlgren. This installation is now in process of construction. In connection with the bid received from the Babcock & Wilcox Co. and General Electric Co. for this high-pressure installation, the contractors reduced the original price in the order of $300,000 so that the experimental installation in this destroyer could be made with the funds available to the Bureau. It must be emphasized, in connection with this experimental installation, that the Steamotive boiler and associated auxiliaries were jointly designed and tested by the Babcock & Wilcox Co. and General Electric Co. and had reached a state of development where successful operation was reasonably assured. The same situation did not exist at the completion of the laboratory's tests of the La Mont boiler, since the tests demonstrated that considerable development work was still necessary before a unit of destroyer size would be ready for shipboard installation.
(c) The primary purpose of the Dahlgren installation, which was authorized by the Congress, and which is in process of construction, is to obtain experience and information concerning the possible naval employment of high pressures and high temperatures and only secondarily to determine the merits of the forced circulation boiler.
(d) The Bureau of Engineering notified the Combustion Engineering Corporation, when informed by them that they were considering entering into negotiations with the La Mont Corporation to obtain a license to use the La Mont patents in the United States, that the Bureau was not in a position to state to what extent it was interested in forced-circulation boilers until the place which high-pressures and high temperatures may or may not occupy in naval engineering had been determined by experiment. The Combustion Engineering Corporation was further informed that if the results of the experiment indi-cate that the Navy should employ high temperatures and high-pressure steam and if and when as a result of this the forced-circulation boiler should be employed in naval vessels. the Bureau would be very pleased to find another company in the United States in a position to offer competition should the Bureau desire to purchase forced-circulation units. In letter of July 25, 1938, the La Mont Corporation informed the Bureau that Combustion Engineering Corporation had been granted license rights to use patents held by the La Mont Corporation in the United States, Mexico, and Central and South America. The Bureau also has under test at the N'aval Boiler Laboratory a completely developed forced-circulation Besler boiler of small size to determine its suit-ability for certain naval applications. This boiler is commercially available in small sizes for rapid delivery. Under the above conditions there is no possibility of the Babcock & Wilcox Co. obtaining a monopoly in the field of forced-circulation boilers in this country.
(e) The attached correspondence stresses the point that the La Mont type boilers are being used abroad. The general situation in the German Navy in regard to boilers, temperatures, and pressures is known to the Bureau of Engineering. The troubles and delays which the developments in German naval engineering have given rise to have also come to the attention of this Bureau. In connection with the use of the La Mont boiler abroad, it should be noted that the designs now being employed are an outgrowth of the original La Mont design, which the Bureau believes did not prove satisfactory. From information available to the Bureau it is apparent that the development of the La Mont boiler abroad has resulted in a boiler which does not have the attractive features of extreme low-weight and low-space factors which the original La Mont design contemplated. It is also known that an experimental La Mont boiler has been installed in a British destroyer. The working pressure of this boiler is 290 pounds and the efficiency 71 percent at an evaporation of 121,500 pounds of steam per hour. At approximately the same evaporation the modern 600-pound natural-circulation boilers being installed in our destroyers have by actual test shown an efficiency of 84.5 percent. Since boiler efficiency is a very important factor in the over-all efficiency of a machinery installation, a vessel fitted with our modern naval boilers would show a very appreciable fuel saving, with resulting increase in cruising radius, over a vessel fitted with boilers similar to the La Mont boiler installed in the British destroyer, all other conditions being equal.
(f) In connection with the use of forced-circulation boilers it is the opinion of the Naval Boiler Laboratory that it is quite possible by judicious changes in design to so raise the capacity of natural circulation boilers that they can successfully compete with forced circulation boilers in weight, space, and cost, still retaining other desirable characteristics inherent in the natural circulation boiler. This matter is now the subject of a careful investigation by the Bureau of Engineering.
6. Specific comments on the La Mont correspondence.
—The Bureau finds many statements in the attached correspondence which are not susceptible to substantiation. Some statements are half truths and do not present a complete picture. It is not considered necessary to prepare a lengthy rebuttal of the entire correspondence ; however, the following brief statements will give an indication of its validity:
(a) The statements attributed to Bureau personnel are entirely false.
(b) The boiler laboratory has never received other than routine instructions, either written or oral, from Bureau personnel in regard to the test of the La Mont boiler. Conclusions in laboratory test reports are drawn from the test results, and no instructions are issued by the Bureau concerning these conclusions.
(c) There is no record of the Bureau ever having entered into any negotia-ions concerning the purchase of a German La Mont boiler.
(d) The statement that the Babcock & Wilcox Co. has a copy of the La Mont report is without foundation.
(e) The Bureau never informed Mr. La Mont, either orally or in writing, that the La Mont boiler was suitable for naval use.
(f) The chronological summary gives the dates test reports were forwarded to Mr. La Mont.
(g) With reference to the criticisms of the test report contained in reference V of the correspondence, Mr. La Mont was informed in letter of June 1, 1938, that reports of tests conducted at the Naval Boiler Laboratory are held confidential between the Bureau of Engineering and exhibitors. Since exhibitors by agreement are not permitted to utilize contents of test reports for sales or advertisement purposes, the embodiment of discussions and opinions in reports is permitted by the Bureau, and is not considered to be prejudicial to the interests of the exhibitors.
(h) The chronological sequence of events shows that in October 1935 the Bureau started negotiation with the Foster Wheeler Co. for the purchase of a superheat control boiler for the Naval Boiler Laboratory. This boiler has since been tested and found satisfactory for naval use, and by this action the Bureau has provided competition for the Babcock & Wilcox Co. in the supply of boilers on naval contracts. The effect of the competition was evident in the purchase of the boilers for battleships Washington and North, Carolina. in which case the boilers were obtained at a cost of approximately $217,000 below the estimated cost. In requiring the use of Foster Wheeler economizers in naval boilers, the Bureau has likewise provided competition for the Babcock & Wilcox Co.
(i) It will he noted that throughout the correspondence there are no real substantiating data concerning the claims made by Mr. La Mont as to efficiency, space, and weight-saving gains which he states will be possible through the use of a La Mont. boiler. Some of the gains which he attributes to his boiler are functions of temperature and pressure and would likewise exist in a natural circulation boiler installation.
(j) The Bureau of Engineering has no information in regard to any propaganda, native or foreign, in connection with the activities of either Mr. La Mont or Mr. Kampff.
(k) The Bureau of Engineering has no information concerning the action pending in the supreme court, New York County, between the La Mont Corporation and Mr. W. D. La Mont.
7. As requested in Commander Saunders' memorandum, the entire correspondence is being returned herewith. It will be noted that certain of the above subparagraphs contain information in connection with the Dahlgren installation as well as some of the Bureau's present thoughts concerning the employment of high-pressures and high temperatures in the Navy. It is recommended that the information contained in these subparagraphs be considered as confidential.
8. In conclusion, it is desired to state that the Bureau of Engineering is willing to rest on the facts in connection with its activities with Mr. La Mont and does not desire to enter into a defense of the inaccurate and unreliable claims made by him.
Very respectfully,
J. M. BOWEN,
Engineer in Chief, United States Navy,
Chief of Bureau.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
