Scientific American Supplement, No. 799, April 25, 1891 eBook

This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 110 pages of information about Scientific American Supplement, No. 799, April 25, 1891.

Scientific American Supplement, No. 799, April 25, 1891 eBook

This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 110 pages of information about Scientific American Supplement, No. 799, April 25, 1891.

“In producing this result two agencies are at work, there is the action of electrolysis and the formation of a hydrated oxide of iron.  It is not possible, perhaps, to define the exact action, but as the formation of an iron oxide is part of it, it seemed desirable to ascertain whether the simple addition of a salt of iron with lime sufficient to neutralize the acid of the salt would produce results similar to those attained by Webster’s process.

“In order to make these experiments, samples of fresh raw sewage were taken at Crossness at intervals of one hour during the day.  As much as 10 grains of different salts of iron were added per gallon, plus 15.7 grains of lime in some cases and 125 grains of lime in another, and the treated sewage was allowed to settle twenty-four hours; the results obtained were not nearly as good as the electrical method.”

During the present year a very searching investigation of the merits of various processes of sewage treatment has been made by the corporation of Salford; among others of my electrical process.  As the matter is at present under discussion by the council, I am not in a position to give extracts from the reports of the engineers and chemists under whose supervision and control the work was done, but I may go so far as to say that the results of my system of electrical treatment have proved its efficiency and applicability to sewages of even such a foul nature as that of Salford and Pendleton.  The system was controlled continuously for the corporation by Mr. A. Jacob, B.A., C.E., the borough engineer; Mr. J. Carter Bell, F.I.C., etc., county analyst; Messrs John Newton & Sons, engineers, Manchester; Mr. Giles, of Messrs. Mather & Pratt, electrical engineers, Manchester; Dr. Charles A. Burghardt, lecturer in mineralogy at Owens College.

I would also refer you to a paper recently read before the Manchester Section of this Society by Mr Carter Bell, the borough analyst for Salford, in whose remarks Dr. Burghardt, an independent authority, permits me to add that he concurs.  He cannot give details until his report has gone in, which will be very shortly.

Mr. Carter Bell’s report has gone in, and although he is precluded also from giving full details, he has kindly put at my disposal samples sealed by him of the effluents produced by the electrical treatment, which I now submit, together with the analyses in the table.

The samples are taken at random.

Whether the process will or will not be adopted by the Salford authorities I am of course unable to say, but I think I may safely say that the electrical process has now absolutely proved its case in regard to the solution of the sewage problem.  It is simple, efficient and, I am sure, more economical than any other known process where duration is taken into account.

In regard to the Salford trials it may be interesting to give the following particulars: 

Copyrights
Project Gutenberg
Scientific American Supplement, No. 799, April 25, 1891 from Project Gutenberg. Public domain.