Fuel and Mechanical Power

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


As the saving of the fuel is the only string on which the advocates of the hot air engine harp, we must say, they exhibit an amount ot ignorance on the subject worthy of a native of the interior of Africa. The Arctic burns 84 tons of coal per day, and we assert that the Ericsson cannot go as fast a.nd use 100 tons; When our north river steamboats increase their speed to but a few miles beyond their average rate per hour, they consume four and five times the usual amount of fuel. Dr. Lardner himself, who presents in his " Railway Economy" the Iron Witch, of Capt. Ericsson, which turned out a complete failure, as a favorable specimen of a north river steamboat, admits this to be true. When the Oregon and Vanderbilt had their famous race on the 2d of June, 1847, the former consumed IS tons of the very best picked coal in three hours, running at the rate of 24 miles per hour. She will run to Albany in 10 hours at the rate of 15 miles per hour, and use only 12 tons of common coal. Thus with an increase of only three-fifths the speed, she consumed more than 6 times the quantity of fuel—the increase was as 6 tons to 0'83 of a ton. With this data of the quantity of fuel necessary to run a steamboat according to a certain speed, the Oregon would only use li tons of coal in running to Albany at the rate of 7 miles per hour, that is allowing a double speed to require 8 times the amount of fuel1 which appears to be about the quantity.

Scientific American Magazine Vol 8 Issue 30This article was published with the title “Fuel and Mechanical Power” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 8 No. 30 (), p. 237
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican04091853-237a

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe