April, 1927
INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
539
NOTES AND CORRESPONDENCE Detonation and Peroxide Formation Editor of Industriat and Engineering Chemistry: In the News Edition of INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY for February 20, I read a couple of paragraphs on antiknock research from the London Letter on page 13. While of course I fully excuse t h e correspondent for including this in his letter, i t seems to me t h a t it is almost time t h a t somebody pointed out the necessity of using a little common sense when reasoning about detonation in a motor, etc. The formation of organic peroxides may, of course, take place under conditions of low-temperature partial oxidation, but t h a t these peroxides become concentrated in the nuclear drops during compression and ignite them simultaneously when the detonation temperature of the peroxide is reached is so utterly ridiculous in view of the simplest type of experimental evidence t h a t i t scarcely merits consideration. Fixed gases knock just as badly as do liquid fuels, as has been pointed out time and time again, and there is no reason t o believe t h a t there are any liquid droplets in the combustion mixture when fired within the combustion chamber. To, exemplify the ridiculousness of the situation, Charch proposes a theory of knock suppression based on having the mixture b u m all at once as though a n infinite number of spark plugs were available, pyrophoric lead acting as the source of these ignitions, while our English friends explain why a motor knocks with organic peroxides performing precisely the same function. THOMAS AND HOCHWALT LABORATORIESTHOMAS MIDGLEY,JR. DAYTON, OHIO February 26, 1927
Sulfur Removal in Petroleum Refining Editor of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: I have read with great interest the editorial in your February issue on the sulfur content of gasoline, pointing out t h a t refining losses could be reduced by approximately fifty million dollars annually, provided a higher percentage of sulfur was allowable. In regard t o your statement t h a t “the chemist is still called upon t o find better and more economical ways of removing this sulfur,” I would like to call to your attention certain advances in this field which I made while in the employ of the Standard Oil Company of California. The usual treatment of the cracked California naphtha containing about 50 per cent of Navy test gasoline and having a sulfur content of 0.55 per cent was the use of 0.5 pound per gallon of naphtha treated, of 66’ Be. sulfuric acid. By this treatment from 15 t o 19 per cent of the test gasoline was lost due to polymerization. After steam-distilling the treated naphtha the gasoline produced contained from 0.13 t o 0.19 per cent of sulfur, which i t was found necessary t o blend with straight-run gasoline of low sulfur content t o give a product of less than 0.1 per cent of sulfur. It was found by refrigerating the naphtha t o 12-20’ F., maintaining this temperature, and treating each galion of the oil with 0.40 pound of 93.19 per cent sulfuric acid, or any strong sulfuric acid having a melting point of 15’ F. or less, t h a t less than 5 per cent of the gasoline was lost due to polymerization and a
gasoline of low sulfur content produced. It is obvious that not only was the yield of test gasoline greatly increased, but a substance of superior non-detonating properties was produced. There is reason t o believe that at the temperatures indicated the sulfuric acid has a selective solvent action on the organic sulfur compounds present, but has also a greatly reduced polymerizing effect on the hydrocarbons having boiling points within the test gasoline range. The construction and operation of a semicommercial plant for treating the naphtha continuously verified in every way the results obtained on a laboratory scale. Plans for the construction of a large-scale commercial plant are now under way.
E. N. KLEMGARD
HEARNOIL COMPANY WILMINGTON, DEL. February 25, 1927
New Words Editor of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: The coining of new words is apparently becoming a favorite indoor sport among chemists. Time was when the scientist acquired a classical background before specializing in his branch of science. The present generation, however, has not had such opportunity because of t h e demands made by the enormous and rapidly increasing fund of scientific knowledge. Beyond a smattering of high-school Latin the present-day chemist has scarcely a nodding acquaintance with the classics. The chemist probably knows as much about etymology as the professor of Greek does about chemistry; perhaps each has had a one-year course in the other fellow’s subject. This does not confer upon the chemist the right t o clutter the language with a lot of hybrid words. Witness the most recent contribution of “pedosurgeon” [THISJOURNAL,19, 431 (1927)]. After a learned discourse on the Greek derivation of “surgeon,” the author complacently adds a Latin prefix. “Pedo” means something else in Greek, What has been said about the shoemaker sticking to his last might as well be applied to the chemist with reference to his beakers and test tubes. PARKE, DAVIS& COMPANY DETROIT, MICH. March 8 , 1927
ARTHUR W. Dox
Corrections In my article entitled “Application of the Statistical Method in 18, 1220 (1926), Testing Paints for Durability,” THISJOURNAL, the last sentence in the first paragraph at the top of the second column, page 1222, should read: On the west side none of the 28 goods showed “no chalking” a t t h e end of the first year and on the east side only 4 of the 27 goods showed “no chalking” after one year’s exposure. J. H. CALBECK
...... . .....
Table I of our paper under the title “Partial Pressures of Carbon Dioxide, Ammonia, and Water over the System WaterAmmonia-Carbon Dioxide-Ammonium Nitrate,” THISJOURNAL, 19, 206 (1927), contains a n error. In t h a t part of the table relating t o partial pressures a t temperatures of 40” C. the columns headed NHs and H20 should be interchanged. The data a t 20” and 60” C. are correct as stated in this table. K. G. CLARKAND H. J. KRASE
