then again into light by incandescence, you produce 992! Expressing
this in other words, we may say that in producing the light from coal
by the incandescent system you lose one-third of the power as compared
with gas, by actually converting the coal into gas, and delivering it
in the ordinary manner. Those are facts. It has been suggested to me
that I am too liberal in my estimate of coal consumed--that those
engines consume more than four or five pounds per horse power per
hour; but I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. Rothschild--If I understood you correctly, this electric light
costs more than gas?

Mr. Daft--_Must_ do by this system. You cannot do better, so far as
our philosophy goes. But this whole system of illumination, as now
practiced is a financial fallacy.

Mr. Rothschild--That is what Professor Sawyer says.

Mr. Daft--The same amount of energy converted into light by our arc
system will produce 30,000 candles. We are perfectly willing to
demonstrate that at any time. I am free to admit that the minute
subdivision obtained by the Edisonian, Swan, or Fox system--they do
not differ materially--is a great desideratum; but this cannot bridge
the financial gulf.

Mr. Lendrum--Now please state what we have accomplished.

Mr. Daft--Certainly; and in so doing I prefer to give our results as
actually occurring in everyday work; and in this connection let me
remind you that in no branch of physics are the purely experimental