Letter | Published:

Smokeless London

Nature volume 23, page 193 | Download Citation



As I hope soon to have an opportunity of reading a paper on this subject before a scientific audience I need not occupy your valuable space by replying to your correspondents of last week in detail. I may say however that the scheme has been carried out in practice at a gas-work to which I shall afterwards refer. When it was found that the apparatus for making gas on an extraction of six hours was insufficient for supplying the wants of the long winter evenings the distillation was stopped when gas had been removed to the extent of 5000 cubic feet per ton. The larger quantities obtained from the coal per unit of time and the superior illuminating power obtained per unit of volume tided over the difficulty and rendered the existing plant sufficient. No practical obstacles were discovered in discharging the retorts. I do not think the difference between an extraction of 5000 and 3333 cubic feet per ton would make a material change in this respect. Mr. Mattieu Williams points out a much more serious obstruction in the plethoric indifference of the gas companies. In reply to E. R. F. I may say that the fuel resulting from a uniform extraction of 3333 cubic feet per ton is practically smokeless if it is taken hot from the retorts and immediately quenched with water.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Author information


  1. Westminster, December 27



  1. Search for W. D. SCOTT-MONCRIEFF in:

About this article

Publication history





By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.