As to the assertion by “Anglo-American” that Alfred Stevens was “an artist not inferior to Barye” it will be shared by few who have studied the works of the great French sculptor of animals and men.
“Anglo-American” is right in saying that my short paper in Harper’s Weekly errs in giving two bronze groups after Barye to Mount Vernon Square, Baltimore, instead of four. Were I a resident of that city, I could hardly have known this better, and how the error got there puzzles me. Certainly had I been permitted to see a proof of that paper the mistake would have been corrected, unimportant as it is, so far as Barye is concerned. I must compliment your correspondent on the quickness of eye that detected the slip and regret that the proof-reader of Harper’s Weekly did not know his Baltimore to the same degree. But he is himself in error when he speaks of the “Life and Works of Antoine Louis Barye,” written by me and published by the Barye Monument Association as a catalogue. The catalogue is quite another thing from the édition deluxe, which is the only edition of the “Life.”
Charles de Kay.
EVAPORATION OF WATER IN TRAPS.
To the Editors of the American Architect:—
Dear Sirs,—In a late issue of your journal an advocate of Trap-venting, says of ordinary S-traps “If the traps are filled even once in two months they will keep their seals intact.”
Most persons now agree that S-traps which are back-vented in the ordinary manner require refilling by hand as often as once a fortnight. It is, therefore, clear that the system of back-venting is a very dangerous one. Its original object was to afford security. It is now found (and strangely enough, even by its advocates) that it totally fails in this respect and that it requires an amount of attention which experience and common-sense show us it will never receive.
My experiments on the rate of seal-reduction through evaporation produced by back-venting were made with the greatest care and show a more rapid loss than is generally supposed. If the reports of these experiments are studied, it will be seen that every precaution was taken to secure trustworthy results. Although my experiments on siphonage were made during the same year and on the same system of piping with those on evaporation, it will be seen by studying the drawings and text of the report that the former in no wise interfered with the latter. No experiments on siphonage were made while the water stood high in the traps during the tests for evaporation, and no disturbance of the water seals was made by this or any other cause during the evaporation tests. It would have been exceedingly careless and totally unnecessary to allow of any such disturbance. Moreover, most of the experiments on evaporation were made, as shown, on a stack so connected with the rest of the system of piping that such disturbance would have been impossible. Even had we not so carefully closed the inlet or house-side of the traps.
I found that a warm flue caused the back-vent pipe to evaporate enough of the water from the seal of the trap to break it in less than a week, and I am confident that this often happens in practice.