strictly scientific data secured upon which to base any accurate conclusion. The entire work of the New York State Commission on Ventilation recorded in its formal report is of no permanent value because the whole procedure was unscientific.

Now a word in regard to cost. We are basing our figure on a typical schoolhouse of the size of one of the contemplated junior high schools. Your architect states that these schools will contain approximately 1,408,000 cu. ft. and will cost approximately 30 cents per cu. ft., making a total of $422,400.

The New York Commission states that if window ventilation is used, an average of 280 cu. ft. of contents shall be allowed in classrooms for each pupil. The standard adopted for Louisville schools is 200 cu. ft. Your architect estimates that the additional cubic contents of the building due to the increase in size required by allowing 280 cu. ft. for each pupil would amount to 400,000 cu. ft. This is 22 cents per cu. ft., and, deducting the entire cost of heating and plumbing, would amount to an additional cost on this school of $88,000 due to this item alone.

We estimate that on this school of 1,408,000 cu. ft. and costing a total of $422,400 a Straight Blast Heating System would cost approximately $67,500; while a Split System would cost approximately $76,000. You will note that the cost of either of these heating systems is less than the cost of the additional size of classrooms required with window ventilation. Then, if we consider the cost of more than doubling the direct radiation, doubling the vent sizes, installing aspirating radiators in the vent flues, installing radiator shields, and window deflectors, it is very evident that it is absolutely impossible to install a window-ventilating system complying with the recommendations of the New York State Commission without costing a great deal more than either of the other two systems under consideration.

S. A. Challman, State Director for School Buildings in Minnesota, says in his article, "The Requirements for and the Cost of Window Ventilation," in the February, 1926, issue of the Heating and Ventilating Magazine:

It must be quite evident that there can be no saving when the building must be enlarged, the radiation increased, and vent ducts more than doubled, and all the rooms on one side of the building taboo for school use, particularly as we can dispense with no greater part of the mechanical equipment than the blower and the heat ducts.

Mr. Perry West said in regard to this item of cost:

The heating of an average schoolroom, independent of its air supply, in our cooler climate requires about 100 sq. ft. of direct radiation. If we add

the necessary radiation for heating the minimum of 10 cu. ft. of air per minute per pupil for window ventilation it will require about 225 sq. ft. of direct radiation. This will about double the cost of our heating system. Adding to this the increased cost of building due to increasing the classroom space, from 200 cu. ft. ordinarily required with mechanical ventilation to 280 cu. ft. required for window ventilation, we have 40 per cent increase in the classroom cubature, which represents an increase of 15 per cent in the cost of the entire building.

The cost of the heating, disregarding the air supply, is 8 per cent of the cost of the building, and the cost of mechanical ventilation is 7 per cent of the cost of the building.

Taking the 8 per cent and adding to it another 8 per cent for increasing the radiation sufficient for window ventilation and then adding 15 per cent for the added cost of the building we have a total of 31 per cent for the window-ventilated schools.

Taking the 8 per cent for heating and adding 7 per cent for ventilation, we have 15 per cent as the comparative cost for the mechanically ventilated school. This, not considering added costs for larger exhaust ducts, window ventilators, and the fact that east rooms must be planned against with window ventilation, as recommended by the New York State Commission's report.

In regard to the operating cost the Straight Blast and the Split Systems should cost approximately the same. The Split System might be slightly cheaper to operate, due to the fact that the fan would not have to be run when the school was not occupied.

The window system would be cheaper to operate than either of the other two, due solely to the fact that a maximum of 20 c.f.m. is handled while it is our custom to handle 30 c.f.m with fans. If the same amount of air were handled with fans as with windows the operating cost would be practically the same. If the air is recirculated and washed either of the two fan systems could be operated as cheaply as, if not more cheaply than, the window system.

It is important to say a few words here in regard to air washers. Engineers and physiologists all over the country now agree that temperature and humidity are by far the two most important items in ventilation in regard to both comfort and health. We all know of the detrimental effects of a hot dry room.

The only way to successfully control humidity in schools is with an air washer. By using an air washer it is possible to recirculate at least a part of the air, and this greatly reduces the cost of operation.

In conclusion from the foregoing evidence our choice as to the ventilating systems lies between the Straight Blast and the Split Systems.

The Straight Blast has the advantage that it is necessary to ventilate in order to heat. The Split System has the advantage that air is introduced into the room at a lower temperature.

If we can be assured that the fans will be operated whenever the schools are occupied we would recommend that the Split System be adopted.

Respectfully submitted,

August 6, 1926.

THE X. Y. Z. ENGINEERING CO.

Assignment

1. What are the different systems of ventilation?

2. Indicate the difference which each system makes in building planning?

3. Make a summary of the findings in the report of the New York State Ventilation Commission.

4. Outline a report which you, as superintendent of schools, would expect to make to the brief submitted by The X. Y. Z. Engineering Co.

5. Characterize the brief as submitted above.

6. Are inaccuracies to be found in the brief as submitted above?

7. Wherein would you take issue with the statements made in this brief?

8. What kind of ventilation system would you recommend for Glasgow? Why?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ALLEN, J. R. AND WALKER, J. H. Heating and Ventilating. McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1922.

ALT, H. L. Mechanical Equipment of School Buildings. Bruce Publishing Co., Milwaukee, 1916.

BAKER, S. J. Classroom Ventilation and Respiratory Diseases Among School Children. American Journal of Public Health, 8:19-26, January, 1918. CASSELL, J. D. Heating and Ventilating the Standard Schoolhouse. Journal of American Society of Heating and Ventilating Engineers, 25:349–54. Chicago, Ill. Report of the Chicago Commission on Ventilation. Chicago, 1914. DRESSLAR, F. B. American School Buildings, pp. 51-66. U. S. Bureau of Education, Bulletin, 1924, No. 17, Washington, D. C.

HALLETT, E. S. Advance in Air Conditioning in School Buildings. Journal of American Society of Heating and Ventilating Engineers, pp. 26:1-10, January, 1920.

HALLETT, E. S. Mechanical Versus Window Ventilation. American School Board Journal, 67:46-47, 99, 101-104, August, 1923.

HILL, E. V. Ox Cart or Auto-Which? Some Observations on Mechanical Versus Natural Ventilation for Schools. American School Board Journal, 71: 49-51, 135-136, August; 47-48, 136-140, September; conclusion in October, 1925.

HOWATT, J. Heating and Ventilation of Chicago Schools. American School Board Journal, 67: 37-39, 123-24, October, 1923.

KIMBALL, D. D. Notes on the Report of the New York State Commission on Ventilation. Heating and Ventilating Magazine, 20:40-42, July, 1923.

Twelve Years of School Building Ventilation. American School Board Journal 68:54-56, 140, January, 51–52, 132, 135; February, 1924.

What the New York State Commission on Ventilation Did and Why. American School Board Journal 67:47-48, 109-10, 113-14, August, 1923. LEWIS, S. R. Ventilation with Window Inlets. American School Board Journal, 66:51-52, June, 1923.

MAHAR, J. J. How to Determine in Advance the Cost of a Heating and Ventilating System. Heating and Ventilating Magazine, 20:37-39, July, 1923. MCLURE, J. R. The Ventilation of School Buildings. A Study of Present Practices and Costs in the Light of Experimental Research. Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1924.

Mechanical Ventilation Wins Out in Ohio. Proposed Change in the State Building Code Lowering the Ventilating Requirements in School Building Defeated. Heating and Ventilating Magazine, 22:73-75, March, 1923. MILLIGAN, R. M. The Value of Ozone in Schoolhouse Ventilation. American School Board Journal, 65:56-57, 120, 123, September, 1922.

NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION COMMISSION ON THE REORGANIZATION OF SECONDARY EDUCATION. High School Buildings and Grounds. U. S. Bureau of Education, Bulletin, 1922, No. 23, Washington, D. C.

NEW YORK STATE COMMISSION ON VENTILATION. Report, pp. 200-529. Dutton, 1923.

Report on the Status of Schoolhouse Ventilation in the United States. Journal

of American Society of Heating and Ventilating Engineers, 26:183-88. 1920. ROBB, J. M. Principle of Unit Ventilation as Applied to School Buildings. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of Public School Business Officials, 1924, pp. 60-67. Also in American School Board Journal, 69:102, 104, 107, August, 1924.

THORNDIKE, E. L. AND KRUSE, P. J. Effect of Humidification of a Schoolroom upon the Intellectual Processes of Pupils. School and Society, 5:657–60, June 2, 1917.

TODD, J. B. Cloth Window Ventilation for Public Schools. American City, 12: 47-48, January, 1915.

WEST, P. Air Washing and Humidification for School Buildings. Journal of American Society of Heating and Ventilating Engineers, 25:37-47; discussion, pp. 47-58, 1919.

The Modern Trend in the Science of Ventilation. American School Board Journal, 69:51-52, 120, 123, November, 1924; 70:54-56, 128, January, 1925.

WINSLOW, C.-E. A. The Dead Hand in Ventilation. American School Board Journal, 70: 45-46, 143, June, 1925.

PROBLEM 71

PLANNING THE TOILET FACILITIES

Problem: The architect for the new schoolhouse at Taylorsville, N. K., has planned the toilet facilities for the twelveyear school of this community as shown in the accompanying floor plans.

The Taylorsville building has two floors above ground level with the basement floor considerably below ground level, as shown in the accompanying illustration of the exterior of this building. The floor plans are shown in Diagrams 1, 2, and 3.

Assignment

1. As superintendent in this community, what changes would you have proposed in the location of the toilets?

2. Would you have utilized as much space for toilet facilities as has been allocated in this case to this need?

3. What proportion of the entire cubage of this building has been devoted to toilet room space?

4. Comment upon the natural lighting of the toilet room space. What are the standards which should be followed in this field?

5. Utilizing a score card for school buildings, score those features of the toilet facilities which can be observed from the plans as presented.

6. Secure catalogues of plumbing fixtures and select the fixtures which you consider to be most desirable for school purposes. Give the reasons for your selections.

7. Of what materials are the stall partitions in toilet rooms made? What are the preferred materials? Why?

8. What has been gained by locating lockers and baths in their present position on the basement plan?