212
INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
Vol. 18, No. 2
AMERICAN CONTEMPORARIES George B. Frankforter
I
SHALL never forget my first meeting with Dr. Frankforter, in the preparation of pinacone, of which Dr. Frankforter had twenty-four years ago. In the fall of 1901 I was ready to long wanted t o get a small supply, and was therefore allowed enter the University of Minnesota, expecting to take the to go on and convert it into tetramethyldibromethylenespecial course in chemistry of which I had heard through a a substance which theoretically offered interesting possibilities friend. A combination of my shyness, a misleading newspaper as a starting point for the preparation of a number of new comannouncement t h a t the Regents \had abolished all special courses pounds. such as the literary, scientific, etc., and lack either of inforMy introduction to the fascinating realm of research came when Dr. Frankforter took me down to his private laboratory, mation or of interest in the registrar’s office resulted in my being entered as a freshman in the acawhere we treated small portions of my demic course, and enrolled with several pretty crystals with a variety of rehundred others in Dr. Frankforter’s agents, and finally found that with course in general chemistry. I attended phenylhydrazine we could obtain beautithe introductory lecture, but found that ful crystals of what we fondly hoped was the work was to be largely a repetition a new compound “which nobody ever of the work I had just finished in a very saw before,” but which my later analgood high-school course. Therefore, a t yses proved t o be an old one. If anythe end of the hour I went up to the desk, one thinks that it is absurd to give expressed my desire to specialize in chemundergraduates, even beginners at times, istry and my regret that the special a taste of the tantalizing joys of recourse had been cancelled, and asked search, I can only say that the thrill him if there was not some way in which of those first experiments remains with I c o u l d g e t i n t o a more advanced me still, and that the idea that the class. frontiers of knowledge were so near To my great joy, I learned that the that I might hope to reach them myspecial course (the newly established self was a powerful stimulus to my already deep interest in the science. It School of Chemistry, which was the apple of his eye) emphatically had not been seems t o require the personal touch of a a b o l i s h e d , and that my registration great teacher, in most cases at least, could be changed. A dote from him to to pass on to the student the fiery zeal George B. Frankforter the Registrar resulted in the desired of the true research spirit, and I have shift, so I started in at once on qualnever known a teacher who could do this itative analysis and missed the rest of better than he. the general chemistry lectures. I have always regretted that Unfortunately, the .pressing demands made on his time, I did not manage to hear them later; he was considered (and not only by a heavy teaching schedule but also by deans’ meetrightly I believe) in those days t o be one of the best and most ings, faculty and committee meetings, and the routine executive interesting lecturers on the campus, and his polished presenta- work involved in the management of a large chemical laboratory tion, a p t experiments, and courtly bow a t the close of each with a n inadequate and overburdened faculty, gave him so lecture were famous among the students. little time for research that very few students had a chance A year of hard work brought me again to him-this time to work with him, and the little time he was able to give them t o hear his lectures in organic chemistry. If general chemistry was often only obtained by locking the office door and failing was the “show course,” organic was the one t h a t was closest to hear the knocks of callers. This, of course, involved a cont o his heart. He scorned notes, and the enthusiastic and logical tinual pressure of university work waiting to be done, in spite presentation of the interesting intricacies of the compounds of the use of most evenings and holidays, and many Sundays. of carbon, and the kaleidoscopic changes which they could It is a sad commentary on university organization here that undergo in organic syntheses, made an impression upon my so many of the best teachers have so little time to teach, on mind which the years have been unable to erase, and which account of the pressure of college business and routine adminrendered the study of the text almost superfluous, so vivid and istrative work that could just as well be done by others. It clear was the mental picture. was not until he returned from his service in the Army and H e had a rare ability of infecting the class with his own en- with the War Claims Board after the late war that he was thusiasm and love of the subject, and most of us spent a t least relieved of this burden and given an opportunity to work and twice as much time as was required in the laboratory, so that I teach for a few years a t least in comparative leisure. This year he has rounded out thirty-five years of service remember there was some complaint about the disproportionately large cost for chemicals and glassware in that course in com- as professor of chemistry at the University of Minnesota. He has seen the number of undergraduates taking chemistry grow parison t o the moderate fixed fee which we paid for it. When we had finished the required work we were introduced from a hundred or so to several thousand; and from the School to chemical literature, by being assigned the work of the original of Chemistry, for which he struggled so long and endured so discoverer of some compound to look up in the library, and much, a steady though small stream of well-trained graduates were then allowed t o try to follow his directions and prepare have gone to make names and places for themselves in the chemt h e compound. I was fortunate enough t o have good luck ical field. Many of them saw little of him and failed t o under-
INDUSTRIAL A N D ENGINEERING CHE.MISTR Y
February, 1926
stand how much they owed him, but personally I count it a great privilege to have been associated with him for many years as a student and member of his faculty, and to have thus caught some of his high ideals and enthusiasm for accurate and pains-
213
taking work. The School of Chemistry and the fine building it now occupies are, in a sense, monuments to his efforts, but his best reward must lie, as for all great teachers, in the love and gratitude of the men he taught and inspired. FRANCIS C. FRARY -
NOTES AND CORRESPONDENCE Present Status of the Facts and Theories of Detonation Editor of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: The article under this title by G. L. Clark and W. C. Thee [THIS JOURNAL,17, 1219 (1925)] interested me greatly as a critical review of the subject as found in recent literature. The recent work of Bone on combustion a t high pressures, the original theory of “detonation control by inert gas diluent,” originally adyanced by Ricardo, and the later work of Alcock are about the only recent important phases not mentioned. This subject is so complicated by conflicting, unclassified facts and theories that i t is an extremely difficult subject to review adequately in one paper without “treading on some one’s toes,” unless the conflicting evidence is first further coordinated and classified. Among some of the assertions made by Clark and Thee with which I cannot agree is the statement found in the second paragraph, second column on page 1223 : Woodbury, Lewis, and Canby, firing acetylene-air mixtures, state that increased temperature produced little effect upon the rate of flame propagation. With this Brown, Leslie, and Hunn seem to agree. The paper “Gaseous Explosions. I-Initial Temperature and Rate of Rise of Pressure” [THISJOURNAL,17, 397 (1925)] presented complete experimental and theoretical evidence t h a t initial temperature (not ignition temperature) has t i pronounced effect upon the rate of rise of pressure, flame propagation, and detonation in all homogeneous reactions. I cannot understand how any one could read this paper, the abstract, or even its title, and conclude t h a t we believe “increased temperature produced little effect upon the rate of flame propagation.” GEO. GRANGER BROWN UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ANN ARBOR, MICH. December 12, 1925
. . . . . . . . .. . . . .
Editor of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: The writers of the paper on the “Present Status of the Facts and Theories of Detonation” greatly regret that the first two sentences of the second paragraph, second column, page 1223, have suffered in the process of condensation of the paper, and lead t o a mistaken interpretation of the work of Woodbury, Lewis, and Canby, and of Brown, Leslie, and Hunn. The word “such” should be inserted before “effect” in the first sentence, in order t o refer back to the assertion by Mallard in the preceding sentence that increase in initial temperature increases speed of propagation, rate of combustion, rate of rise of pressure, etc. Following the word propagation should be inserted, “but that increases in temperature above a certain definite value are actually accompanied by a decrease in the rate of combustion.” These omissions were overlooked in the final form of the paper, probably because of confusion between ignition temperature and initial temperature. We shall appreciate publication of these corrections. I n the opinion of the writers, however, the drivers of automo-
biles who know that detonation occurs much more rapidly with hot engines on hot days will seek t o find explanation of the apparent discrepancy between practical operation and these experimental results. The interpretation, of course, hangs upon very careful definitions and distinction between rates of reaction and rates of rise of pressure, etc. GEORGEL. CLARK MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CAMBRIDGE, MASS. December 29, 1925
Note on “Influence of Reaction Rate on Operating Conditions in Contact Sulfuric Acid Manufacture” The authors wish t o call attention to the fact, t h a t the differential equation for reaction rate employed throughout this article [THISJOURNAL,17, 593 (1925)l is in units different from those ordinarily used. Furthermore, in the equation as written the change in volume of the reacting gaseous mixture is neglected in so far as i t affects the differential coefficient itself. To make the equation exact the right-hand side should be multiplied by the volume. The reaction constants as computed, while proportional t o the constants expressed in absolute units, are also functions of the total pressure and temperature. For constant pressure conversion the equations given need no modification unless the pressure is other than atmospheric or the change in total mols of the reacting dixture is considerable. W. K. LEWIS E. D. RISS
Preparation of an Ash-Free Wood Charcoal In the recent note by the author, THISJOURNAL,17, 1114 (1925), he unintentionally neglected to mention that Max Latshaw first prepared the charcoal under the author’s direction. This method became routine in the author’s laboratory when wood charcoal was needed, and as such the note was written. L. H. REYERSON
Calendar of Meetings American Ceramic Society-Atlanta, Ga., February 8 to 13, 1926. American Chemical Society-71st Meeting, Tulsa, Okla., April 5 to 9, 1926. American Electrochemical Society-Chicago Beach Ho eel, Chicago, Ill., April 22 to 24, 1926. Association of Chemical Equipment Manufacturers-2nd Chemical Equipment Exposition, Cleveland, Ohio, May 10 to 15, 1926. American Institute of Chemical Engineers-Berlin, N. H., June 21 to 23, 1926. Fourth Annual Colloid Symposium-Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., June 23 to 25, 1926. The diagram of the apparatus accompanying the article entitled “Use of Methyl Salicylate in a Flowmeter,” by R. H. K. Foster, THISJOURNAL, 18, 82 (1926), should be inverted.
