Discussion at Midwinter convention

Bancroft Gherardi: The two questions that required much care and thought in the design of this cable were, first — shall the cable be continuously-loaded or coil-loaded, and, second, shall it be a single or a multi-conductor construction? There were serious questions involved in each. In the first place, as to the loading. Coil-loading is in many respects more efficient than continuous-loading, because with coil loading, you can get practically any inductance per mile that you desire, and so you can, within very considerable limits, increase the efficiency of the circuit. With continuous-loading, however, there are very sharp limitations on the possible inductance per mile that can be attained with any practical contruction. As we saw the problem at that time, and as we still see it, the coil-loading would have been chosen, for electrical reasons, but it presented most formidable mechanical difficulties. In the first place, the making of a cable of that kind, interrupted periodically by coil cases and coils, and laying it in deep water was a very formidable matter. In the next place, the maintenance of the cable would necessarily be complicated by having points of discontinuity. The attachment of the cables to the coil cases and the coil cases themselves would necessarily be elements of weakness. This weakness is not serious in a land cable, as trouble, if it occurs in a land cable, can be cleared in a few hours. On the other hand, if trouble develops in a cable of the kind in question, it may be weeks and under bad weather conditions and unfavorable location of cable ships, it might be months before the trouble could be cleared. The coils were, therefore, excluded for mechanical reasons.