View report page

3
improvement in detail, as regards Fryer's. The material to be burnt is introduced, as in the case of the
others, at the back, and the outlets for the products of combustion are, as in Horsfall's, near the front;
a steam blast is employed, as in Horsfall's, and the interior of the furnace is so hot that combustion is
very perfect. In this installation we had an opportunity of testing the temperature in the small flues
leading from the furnaces to the main flues, and found it to exceed 1,500° Fahr. The actual temperature
could not be ascertained, as the pyrometer was only adapted to temperatures below 1,500° Fahr.;
but it is certain that with such temperatures the empyreumatic vapours given off, whilst the material
is being burnt upon the furnace, will be decomposed before entering the main flue. We could not help
forming the opinion that this form of destructor is one of the most perfect in operation.
We may say generally that we found in some cases alterations had been made or were
being made in Fryer's as well as in other forms of destructor; they were, however, mainly in the
direction either of saving labour, or in improving the outlets for the products of combustion. At
Liverpool, for instance, Mr. Boulnois, the City Engineer, had made an opening on the top of the
furnace of Fryer's destructor, in order to admit of the material being more easily placed upon the
furnace bars, rocking bars had also been adopted in lieu of fixed furnace bars, and these were operated
from time to time by hand labour in order to break up the clinker; but such bars—differing perhaps
in pattern—are also in use at Bradford, Leicester and elsewhere. These are improvements in detail
which add to the general usefulness of the appliance, without affecting its principle. We may remark,
that at Liverpool, steam-hoppers are also employed in the removal of part of the house refuse to sea, but
there are interruptions to the work during periods of stormy weather, by reason of which, the material
accumulates in such a manner as to render this method undesirable, and as a matter of fact more dust
destructors are now being built at Liverpool, the cost of burning and of taking it to sea being about
the same.
With regard to the disposal of the ashes and clinker, there is in some towns a demand for it when
ground with lime and made into mortar; at Manchester, for instance, it is readily disposed of either to the
Works Department of the City, or to builders, who pay 4s. per ton for it; but what is a useful product
in one locality is not in demand in another, and beyond indicating its suitability for mortar, for hard
core for roads, and for other like purposes, we venture to think it is not necessary to go.
There is one point with regard to which something may be said, and that is the adaptability of the
destructor as a power producer, when the appliance is provided with boilers. In this direction we found
practice differed somewhat. At Birmingham, for instance, multitubular boilers are set in such a manner as
to form the top of the furnace, and it is found in practice that 1 lb. of refuse will evaporate 1.79 lbs. of
water, that is to say, that as a steam producer, the refuse is about one-fifth the value of an equal weight
of coal.
At Manchester as well as at Birmingham, large quantities of steam are used in drying down
the contents of the pails—which are still largely used in lieu of water-closets, and this steam is produced
by means of either Lancashire boilers with forced draught, or boilers of the kind mentioned as being in
use at Birmingham, and fed with ash-bin refuse, but the temperatures in the furnaces are naturally lower
than in those cases in which destruction of the refuse is the main object sought, as at Leeds for instance.
At this latter town, as also in many others, a multitubular boiler is placed in the flues between the
furnaces and the chimney shaft, and it will be obvious to the Committee that the power thus generated
mav be utilized in any of the numerous objects which may be most desirable in each particular case.
We do not think your Committee would wish us to enter further into a dissertation on the
calorific value of ash-bin refuse, because this must necessarily vary with the character of the district, in
which it is collected; for instance, we should not expect to find so much fuel in the refuse collected
from working class dwellings as from those in which servants are employed, because it is a matter of
common knowledge that the same care is not exercised with regard to coal consumption by servants as
by those persons who have to consider its cost. Again, in the case of suburban districts, garden refuse
is commonly placed in the ash-bins, and the material collected differs widely in composition in summer
from that in winter.
The question of dealing with refuse by burning remains now to be discussed more particularly
from the point of view of nuisance production.
Inasmuch as the history of the attempts made to burn refuse without causing nuisance only
extends over a period of some 16 or 17 years, it follows that many of the earlier types of destructor
are still in existence, and a discussion of the merits of the appliances in use at the present day involves
the consideration of widely divergent types of furnace of very varying degrees of efficiency as far as
nuisance prevention is concerned. Fifteen years ago the destructor was not regarded with much favour.
Dr. Ballard, in that portion of his report to the Medical Officer of the Local Government Board on
effluvium nuisances which is embodied in the annual report of the year 1878, prefaces his remarks upon
the burning of refuse by saying, "I have seen several attempts made to destroy organic and combustible
refuse by burning without creating a nuisance, but for the most part they have proved
failures." Dr. Ballard, however, describes in detail the then recently-patented Fryer's Destructor, which
he saw in use at Leeds, and quotes the favourable opinion of the appliance entertained by the sanitary
officers of that town. The example set by Leeds was followed by other large towns, and Mr. Codrington,
Engineering Inspector of the Local Government Board, in a report on the Destruction of Town Refuse,
published in 1888, ten years later than Dr. Ballard's report, deals with twenty depots at which
destructors had been erected. He writes, "Experience has shown that town refuse can be effectually
burned in destructors and other furnaces without causing nuisance or offence at or about the works
themselves," though he adds complaints are received of "fine dust and sometimes of charred paper
proceeding from the chimney and falling at some little distance off," and again of "an offensive smell
which, under certain conditions of the atmosphere, can be recognised at some distance on the leeward
side of the chimney." In fact the experience of ten years had convinced most of those who had carefully
investigated the subject that the destructor had established a claim to consideration.
There are now some 40 sanitary authorities throughout the country which have wholly or partially