COMMUNICATIONS.

REMARKS ON STEAM HEATING.

BY CHARLES BURLEY, EXETER, N. H.

I have used steam for two winters in my greenhouses, in place of the hot-water system, which had furnished the heat for the previous twelve years; and if my experience will be a help to those who still doubt, I am disposed to add something to the valuable contributions in your April and May num

bers.

three pounds is more often the register of the gauge, and the thermometer in the houses will stand at 60°. I have never been able with hot water pipes to raise the temperature so high in my largest houses at night as with steam at five pounds and less; hence I do not see the need of fifteen to twenty pounds pressure, which appears to be Mr. Bochman's register (see p. 105 of your April issue).

Some of your correspondents advise the use of large pipes. Under high pressure Mr. Bochman's reasons may be good; but for good results in warm,

The specially valuable point in the sectional boiler is, as Mr. Simpson says, that more sections can be added in case more heat is wanted. Another important feature should be mentioned, and that is, in case of accident from improper management: The sections do not explode, tearing everything to pieces; they simply crack, and you have notice at once by the steam or water oozing out. In such case the cracked section can be removed, the connecting joints plugged, and the heating go on till a new section is ready. With ordinary care, however, such a contingency will not arise, for the sections will never give out if there is sufficient water in the boiler.

My boiler has twenty-four sections, in two batteries of twelve sections each, set over two fire boxes. In moderate weather one fire will make steam fast enough to heat the six houses, equal to 12,000 feet of glass. The second fire is lighted when the weather requires it. It will readily be seen that this plan of two fire boxes is specially valuable in case of accident to the boiler.

Five pounds pressure has proved in my houses to be sufficient to meet the coldest temperature, even at the extreme ends of the houses. Two or

I think the large pipes objectionable from the fact that the heat cannot be kept low enough in moderate weather. With four lines, instead of two, the temperature is under better control. I have adopted, as a compromise, this plan: A large main of 2-inch pipe runs the entire length of the house, about twelve inches from the ridge, the gradient line being, say ten inches in the hundred feet, downward toward the extreme end, where branches of smaller pipe lead to the coils and manifolds, as shown by Mr. Evans on pages 102-3. (April number, G. M.) These coils have a like gradient downward to the inner end of the house, and hence the return water

is flowing freely in all, and finally drops into the main drip and returns to the boiler.

The entire series of pipes must, of course, at the lowest point be some fifteen inches above the water line in the boiler, thus dispensing with automatic traps, &c.

Here we have a large pipe heating the upper part of the house, and a series of three or more small pipes, which are opened or closed as occasion requires, on the sides. The advantage of this system will be apparent to any one who will look into it. I believe the large pipe near the roof does an important part of the heating, and is a test of the idea suggested in the editorial notes of the G. M., page 107. An all-important requisite is good draft. Burning anthracite coal with a sluggish draft is very expensive. We all know that it can be reduced by dampers; but we must not be content with anything short of a strong upward current when occasion requires.

THE MANETTI ROSE.

BY MR. H. B. ELLWANGER, ROCHESTER, N. Y.

I know that the GARDENERS' MONTHLY would never with intention mislead its readers; permit me, therefore, to make some corrections of the statements in your June number on the Manetti rose.

Since the Manetti became known as a desirable

stock on which to graft roses our firm has made use of them, importing or growing a considerable quantity each year. This June we will have 55,000 roses in flower that are on Manetti roots, and we have planted out for our July budding upwards of 90,000 Manetti stocks and 10,000 Grifferaie stocks. This is one-third of our entire stock of roses, and will show in what estimation we hold the Manetti.

There are many florists in this State, in New Jersey, Long Island and Massachusetts, who use (for forcing) plants from cuttings, only when budded ones are not to be had. There is a large number of amateur Rosarians who will have their plants, of certain kinds, worked on the Manetti stock, or

who will not have them at all.

To say, then, that the use of this stock has been wholly abandoned shows you have been misinformed. The desirableness of its use remains open for discussion, but the fact of its large and continued use is easily proved and is not an open ques

tion.

Now, as to the qualities, good and bad, of the Manetti as a foster parent. Horticulturists do not find all desired qualities done up in one parcel; every variety of fruit or flower is lacking in some good feature to be found in another sort. So it is with the Manetti. It does sometimes (often, if you will) throw out suckers from the roots which, if undisturbed, ultimately choke the variety it has been budded with. This is certainly an objectionable feature, but it will not weigh much when placed in the balance and compared with the qualities which commend it for use. By budding roses on a stock like the Manetti or Grifferaie we propagate many varieties which cannot be grown from cuttings, at least not without great loss; such kinds are Baroness Rothschild, Abel Grand, Marguerite de St. Armande, Crested Moss, Gracilis, Persian Yellow, etc.; we also propagate varieties of somewhat feeble habit, like Horace Vernet, Louis Van Houtte, Marie Baumann, Xavier Olibo, etc. These sorts are among the most beautiful roses, but they need the vigor of growth which another stock can alone supply.

The Manetti is a very distinct rose, and the suckers it throws are easily told by any observant

person from any sort in general cultivation. Most roses have five leaflets, though there are a number of light-colored sorts with seven. The Manetti has seven leaflets, often nine, of deep green; the shoots and thorns are of reddish tinge; when once recognized it is ever afterwards easily distinguished.

The matter may be summed up thus: Persons which are on their own roots, and be content with who know nothing of roses should obtain varieties kinds like Jacqueminot, La Reine and Paul Ney

ron.

Amateurs who are capable of discriminating may be safely trusted to plant budded roses of such kinds as are improved by being worked; the suckers of the Manetti are easily cut off and give very little annoyance to those who know roses.

In England there have always been some to oppose the use of a stock for roses, on account of the trouble the suckers would occasion ignorant planters, but there are now more budded plants in England than at any previous time. If we could keep off the bugs with as little labor as we expend in keeping off Manetti suckers, the culture of roses would be a very simple affair.

[Mr. E. is no doubt correct about the Manetti being in use in America for some years past; but the period we refer to as the time when they were abandoned goes back to twenty years ago at least. And perhaps we were not strictly correct in saying that the stock had entirely gone out of use, even at that time. It would be best to say that they were, about thirty years ago, in almost universal use and then came to be almost abandoned.

In other respects we can endorse what Mr. Ellwanger says. It is unquestionable that many roses will do much better on the Manetti than on their own roots, and any one who knows that his roses are grafted on this stock, who knows how to tell the suckers from the stock and has the good sense to take them off as they appear, will never be sorry he has a grafted rose. It was not this, however, which rendered the Manetti stock unpopular, but that the majority of people who bought roses had not this knowledge and good sense. In short, the Manetti is a good thing for the intelligent grower and a poor thing for the rest.-Ed. G. M.]

HEATING GREENHOUSES.

BY JAMES CURRIE, MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN. I have read with interest the valuable hints on hot water and steam heating by Walter Elder in the MONTHLY, page 72. I am much pleased to see the subject receive the attention it deserves, in fact, calls for, as it has been an open and interest

I hope to again see the subject referred to in your valuable columns, and trust that many of those who have had the opportunity to make experiments may give us their experience. I am fully assured that hundreds of my brethren in the profession, as well as countless amateurs all over the horticultural world, are greedy to learn more of this subject.

But what I wished to refer to more particularly at this time is your remarks appended to that article.

You say "no one has answered why hot-water pipes must be made to ascend. Hot water, as well as cold, will travel faster going down hill." Now, it strikes me that that last sentence settles the much-disputed question forever, and clearly shows why hot-water pipes should not be made to ascend, except where unavoidable. But as the opinion still prevails that they ought to ascend two, four, six or more inches, according to the various theories, in every hundred feet from the boiler, and although I am not prepared to prove or disprove any of the theories, yet I have been constrained by my interest in the subject to submit to you one or two of my experiences in both systems of conducting the water.

Like the majority of my old-country brethren, as well as those of this country, I have, from the time I first gave the subject my attention and until quite recently, been led to belive that in all hot water arrangements the flow must have a gentle and even rise from the boiler to the end of the house or turning point of the pipe, and a like descent from these back to the boiler. In accordance with that "fixed law," I have until lately laid all pipes with great care, and sometimes at a great disadvantage and loss, on that plan. And when I say, with great care, let me add that on whatever plan the pipes may be laid, I have always found it paid to lay them with care, avoiding all unnecessary undulations or bends, as all such, in some measure, tend to obstruct the flow of the water.

As an instance, I will briefly give an experience I had over a year ago. At that time we built a range of greenhouses, five in number. As the opportunity offered I determined to put to the test a plan I had heard of and had often thought of, that of laying the pipes as nearly level as possible. We

lengths of which are a little bent, consequently the entire line is slightly undulating. The main, a 5-inch pipe, passes along the ends of the houses, under the floor level. At each side of each house an offset raises the water from the main to about twelve inches above that level. From that point the piers or supports for the pipes were built on one level, the pipes being laid on them, the flow above the return, as is customary, each return bend being furnished with a 4-inch air-escape tube.

All being in readiness and the fire started, a gentle warmth was soon perceptible all along the pipes in all the houses, but as the water reached a higher temperature the pipes in several of the lines gradually grew colder, and I immediately concluded that there was air collected at those points where the stoppages occurred. After several attempts to overcome the difficulty, I at last had all the pipes raised at the return ends about two inches (the houses are about 55 feet long), and the air immediately rushed out of the escape pipes, and since then there has been no trouble from that source. The experiment was enough to show me that nothing was to be gained by laying the pipes level, and also that there is indeed very little motive power in hot water, and that what little there is had better be utilized to the best advantage.

Since that time I have become a convert to what we call here the "down-hill plan" of conducting the water. Although very sceptical for a long time, I am at last convinced that it is superior to all other plans. I need not here give my reasons for thinking so, as should I, it would simply be to repeat what Mr. S. C. Moon has said in his able article on page 75 of the MONTHLY.

Although he has not said so, he undoubtedly means the tanks which receives the hot water direct from the boiler to be furnished with a tightfitting cover; if not, I would beg leave to suggest that a cover should be fitted to the tank to prevent the evaporation of and loss of heat, and that for the escape of air a small-inch tube be inserted in the cover.

Where a cheaper arrangement may be desirable, a very good substitute for the tank may be had in a perpendicular 4 or 5-inch pipe, according to the size of the flow. This pipe to be carried up about four or five feet above the level of the top of the supply tank; and, by the way, I have found in practice that the more this tank is elevated above the boiler, and provided the inlet to the boiler be in the return pipe and, I think, better close to the boiler, (a very small tube will answer the purpose)