MR WEBBER’S REPLY.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XX, Issue 239, 27 September 1930, Page 5

MR WEBBER’S REPLY.

(To The Editor.) Sir,—My reason for using only part of the information contained in Mr

Muir’s answers to my questions was to save space. That you may see this could only be the reason, I will now give the questions and answers in full. Question: (a) What objection have you to time switches that you propose changing from them, and what method of control will you use instead ?—Ans.: The paper explains some of the objections, but the main objection is that the peak loads sometimes occur at periods other than those at which it was estimated they would occur. Then the time switch does not operate to cut the waterheating current off the peak. All engineers who sell current for waterheating will agree that direct control is the best if it is possible to get same at a reasonable cost.

Question (b); What do you estimate the change will cost per connection?—Ans.; This is answered in the paper at £5 10s 9d, but this figure would be reduced by 15/2 in the case of new heater installations, as that figure would be part of the cost of installing the heater. Of course, it must be understood that the figure £5 10s 9d might alter considerably, owing to the number of heaters installed per mile of line. Question (cl; When the change is complete, will water-heaters prove a profitable load?—Ans. : Yes, I have no hesitation in saying so. The revenue received for any load that is with certainty off peak demand (and with direct control as in the above system, it is without doubt off the system’s peak) is practically all profit We have 838 water-heaters on our system returning £4688 pet annum. Having direct control of them, the current they use costs the Department practically nothing outside the interest on the capital cost of putting in the control system. Question (d); Do you think the method you are now adopting would be suitable where water-heaters are not already in use?—Ans.; This question is more difficult to answer. It would depend on the number of installations it was possible to get, say, per mile of water-heating main to be run. At first it may appear rather expensive, and time switch or some other control system cheaper, but I am of the opinion that for a supply area such as Hastings the direct control system aq used by this Department would prove the rqpst satisfactory.

What really does His Worship mean when he says that I left out information that nullifies the statement made? The part he referred to is the end of question (b) —“Of course, it must be understood that the figure of £5 10s 9d might alter considerably owing to the number of heaters installed per mile of line.” Surely the £5 10s 9d may be reduced as readily or even more readily than it may be increased. Indeed. in the paper Mr Muir read before the Electrical Supply Engineers’ Conference he says: “That this method of control, costing £5 10s 9d, has the further advantage that each additional heater in this area can be coupled up under control for an average cost of only £1 12s 2d. I am not inferring that £5 10s 9d would be the cost per heater in any other place than Palmerston North. No doubt in some places the installation of the system would cost more, and in others less. Mr Scott says the system is very costly. lam just giving the facts and figures to show how costly it has proved to be in about the only place in New Zealand in which it has been installed.

There are other points in His Worship's remarks open to comment, but they must wait, as this letter is too long already.—l am. etc., H. J. WEBBER. Hastings, 27/9/30.