It gravely
prescribes ventilating flues and even holes, and promises us that the
warmed air within the house will rise through these flues and holes,
carrying its impurities away with it, from the pressure of the cooler
and denser air without. But we very well know that the best of flues
and chimneys will draw only by favor of lively fires or clear weather.
They fail us utterly when most needed, in warm and murky weather, when
the barometer is low, and the thin atmosphere drops, down its damp and
dirty contents, burying us to the chimney tops in a pestilent
congregation of vapors.
Nevertheless, so far as I can discover, these holes and flues, at best
a little fire at the bottom of the latter, are the sole and
all-sufficient expedients of science and architecture for ventilation
to this _day_, in spite of their total failure in experience. I can
find nothing in standard treatises or examples from philosophers or
architects, beyond a theoretical calculation on so much expansion of
air from so many units of heat, and hence so much ascensional force
_inferred_ in the ventilating flue--a result which never comes to
pass, yet none the less continues to be cheerfully relied on.
Unfortunately for the facts, they contradict the philosophy, and are
only to be ignored with silent contempt. A French Academician's report
on the ventilation of a large public building, lately reprinted by the
Smithsonian Institution, states with absolute assurance and exactness
the cubic feet of air changed per minute, with the precise volume and
velocity of its ascension, by burning a peck of coal at the bottom of
the trunk flue.
Pages:
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129