Strategy in Rubber Resear WILLIAM C. GEER 624 Highland Road, Ithaca, N. Y.
R
as been subject to strategic planning by ESEARCH wo executives of rubber conipanies in a manner and to a degree not generally recognized. They appraised the materials and apparatus available, weighed the capabilities of personnel, considered the needs of consumers, and gaged the quality of the products or processes t o be expected, Such planning embraced consideration of the finances of the company, the balance sheet, the effect of the research on its profit and loss account, the outlay, and the probable returns. They were sometimes criticized because of an occasional policy of postponement but, nevertheless, they possessed a n understanding of the state of the industry and of the value of research activities. The industry as it now exists, with its elaborate research laboratories, highly trained chemists, physicists, and engineers, and the large and steady volume of usable results which come from them, has developed so well because earlier planning had been skillful and adequate, Out of the numerous instances of strategy in rubber research, only a few can be mentioned, and it is inevitable that these be drawn from the writer’s personal experiences in one rubber company. THE PROBLEMS OF 1907
Technically, and especially chemically, in 1907 the rubber industry was a t once simple and complex. It %as simple in that the rubber mixture or compound was made up by the use of not many more ingredients than were known to Charles Goodyear in 1839. It was complex because little was known of the underlying science of the rubber mixture or of the actions and reactions during vulcanization of the ingredients which entered into it. The practical experience of workmen was depended upon for judgments as to quality or what compound to specify. To be sure, one statement was ever a daily reminder of the place of the chemist in the factory picture; when troubles occurred, “the compound was to blame.” No Gallup poll is demanded to prove the statement that even in this year 1951 the members of every production department in every factory in this country will vote in favor of “the compound is always to blame.” Some 20 grades of crude rubber were in daily use. They appeared as lumps, balls, or biscuits; were dirty, had to be washed and dried; and required different compounding and factory practices. Plantation or Ceylon rubber was only beginning to be of commercial importance. In 1900 the world production of plantation rubber was 821 long tons, whereas the total of all grades of rubber in that year amounted t o 44,131 long tons. In 1907 the production of plantation rubber had become 7785 tons out of 73,783 tons in total. Even in 1910 the quantity of plantation rubber production had grown only t o 10,979 tons out of 94,013 tons in total (8). It is significant that the percentage of plantation rubber in 1900 was 1.86y0 of the total; in 1907 it was 10.4y0; and in 1910 it was only 11.7%. Mixed into the rubber were dry pigments, some of which were just fillers, although others had specific quality importance.
Then, too, there were oils, resins, colors, and factice, while of prime value was reclaimed rubber, made by both the alkali and acid processes and modifications of them. Sulfur was just sulfur, and “an ounce to the pound” was the prevailing practice. A routine laboratory checked these materials for quality. No proved principles were known. Fabrics were used about as received; a simple strength test was performed on some of them, but with inadequate apparatus. The factory practice by which the pigments, reclaimed rubber, and other compounding ingredients were mixed on roller mills was in whatever order and temperature seemed to please the workmen. Cures were long-for tires, 3 hours a t 288’,F. The recording thermometer was a curiosity and temperatures were controlled by valves operated by experienced workmen. Squarewoven fabric was used in tires and belts, although the cord tire was known and its future seemed favorable. The products were considered t o be of good quality, yet. 3000 miles was about the life of a fabric tire. The testing of the cured compound was largely done by “tooth and claw.” Experience had educated the incisors of the conipounders, and heavy shears and sharp knives were most essential tools. They chewed the test pieces and cut off strips, estimating strength and rate of recovery by stretching and twisting them. No uniform or accept’ed methods of tefit or analysis were extant even though a tensile strength machine and an apparatus for testing permanent set were available. To a person trained in physics, chemistry-especially physical chemistry-and engineering, who was accustomed t o accuracy of measurement, the number of problems which needed solution in 1907 was nothing short of appalling. Among them were: the theories of sulfur vulcanization; the structure of rubber, both crude and vulcanized; more reaction velocity studies t o indicate how certain substances were catalysts (the ones available were limited in number and type); pigment reinforcement, as suggested by the fact that zinc oxide was a good reinforcing agent; better methods for reclaiming rubber, particularly the complete removal of sulfur to bring the compound back into its condition before vulcanization; the aging problem; tire construction in many of its phases; testing methods and apparatus; hardness; rate of recovery; and hysteresis measurements. Shortly after his arrival in Akron, the writer was faced with the need for choice. He was thrown, without previous experience, into the maelstrom of factory trouble’s. The products and prices made by competitors were pressed upon his attention. The fact that the Diamond Rubber Co. used aniline oil was known by the simple method of walking past the open windows of its millroom on Falor Street, and the inferences were not abstract. However, we noticed that neither Goodyear nor Firestone was pushed out of the markets by accelerator competition and felt that Goodrich, too, could survive. Our sales rose from 812,930,046 in 1907 t o $21,870,000 in 1910. The need for research, both practical and fundamental, was clearly evident, but not with desperate
2436
INDUSTRIAL AND E N G I N E E R I N G CHEMISTRY
November 1951
haste. Had all these unknowns been studied simultaneously, a large proportion of the profits from those years could have been diverted to research, which would not have pleased the stockholders. So, strategy was clearly called for, and after much conferring with high executives, personnel and company plans were made. First, a knowledge of the business was of primary importance. To accomplish this the writer spent much of each day in the factory, learning at the feet of foremen and skilled workmen. Second, he postponed a study of the literature and plans for fundamental research until he could qualify as a factory man. Third, practical research, a study of rubbers, reclaiming, compounding, etc., was entered into a t once. Fourth, it was agreed that contact with salesmen and customers was advisable. And fifth, realizing that not only compounds, but articles were made and sold, all elements of construction were opened t o the writer, including cost records. SYNTHETIC RUBBER
The synthetic rubber problem became a n issue in the fall of 1907 because of a n unexpected article in the Akron Beacon Journal, which stated that the new chemist a t the Goodrich Co. was a t work on synthetic rubber. The president of the company announced his strategy the next morning by explaining that this chemist had not been hired to work on synthetic rubber. This decision was accepted and research in that field wm postponed indefinitely. To have had an easy finding of a satisfactory synthetic or t o have added even a few more raw rubbers t o the number we had then would have been confusing. A wealth of
2431
both wild and plantation grades was available and the future of the plantation was indicated as a new and large source of more desirable grades, with great improvement in cleanliness, uniformity, service quality, and economy. Then, again, had we developed useful synthetics and patents so far in advance of the need, they would have been given to the world with little or no recompense either t o our company or to the country. The writer’s point of view toward all rubber grades ever has been candid and he has believed in the desirability of researchon this problem. He wrote in 1926 (6),“The future prospects for synthetic rubber from the chemical standpoint are good. It has been produced in the laboratory, and it probably will be produced, sometime in the future, of a quality to be fully the equal, if mot the superior, of natural rubber. There is no chemical or physical problem involved which, however intricate, cannot be solved. To investigate this problem further is by all means a wise procedure from a scientific, if not from a national, standpoint, because we should know through research, against a period of stress at least, the means by which this substance can be made from raw materials t o be found in this country,” Again, in 1935, he advocated a broad program of scientific research in the industry (6). THE
A M N G PROBLEM
In 1907 too many articles made of vulcanized rubber aged badly. I n the colloquialism of the day, they “perished.” Some samples 10 t o 20 years old came out of hiding from time to time in excellent condition and the compounder was asked to duplicate the quality from every cure. It was noticeable that the surface changed more quickly than the center and the idea prevailed that
* * * * * HE Goodyear Medal address presented here was given b y William TC. G eer at the Diamond Jubilee Meeting in New York when he received the Goodyear Medal. The eighth person to receive this award, William C. Geer was chosen for this honor by the Executive Board of the Division of Rubber Chemistry of the American Chemical Society. Geer is distinguished for his many contributions to the rubber industry and in particular to rubber technology. His outstanding work in five principal fields of endeavor achieved world-wide prominence. Geer was instrumental in inventing the rubber De-lcer overshoe, and in developing accelerated aging tests for rubber compounds, the Geer modification of the Tissot gas mask of World War I, vulcanized covers for golf balls, and Vulcalock adhesives of rubber to other surfaces. In addition to these principal contributions, Geer has made notable early contributions to age resistors for rubber and to a score or more of inventions having to do with rubber compounding and technology. William C. Geer William C. Geer received his A.B. in 1902 and his Ph.D. in 1905 from Cornell University. H e was an instructor at Cornell 1904-06 and then served as an expert in wood distillation with the U. S. Forest Service for one year. Geer was chief chemist (1907-16), director of development (1916-1 8), second vice president in charge of development (1918-20), and vice president of research and development (1920-25) with the B. F. Goodrich Co. in Akron, Ohio. Since 1925, Dr. Geer has been engaged in private research with the William C. Geer Laboratory, Ithaca, N. Y.
* * * * *
2438
INDUSTRIAL A N D ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
oxidation was the cause of bad aging. Surface protection by sulfur bloom, avoidance of overcure, blooming oils and waxe8, and other leads were suggested from shotgun experiments carried on more or less continuously. In those years, however, the outstanding need was for a method of accelerated aging by which a compound could be evaluated as to its rates of change. The strategy involved was what has ever proved t o be sound-viz., a means of measurement of a physical property is the 6rst and most important step in an investigation from which improvement in physical properties is to be expected. Intense efforts, therefore, were made to find a simple, relatively rapid method of test. The measurement of the decline of tensile strength over a period of time when the sample was under controlled conditions of temperature was selected (8, 9 ) , although tensile strength was recognized as no expresaion of the over-all quality of a given compound. But it could be measured with some degree of accuracy and was understood by all experienced rubber R orkers. An exhaustive investigation into the chemical reactions involved and a systematic study of substances to prevent bad aging were postponed. THE STRATEGY OF COOPERATION
The Rubber Division of the AMERICANCHEMICAL SOCIETY could not have grown to a membership of approximately 2800 without the wise and farsighted approval of the executives of the rubber corporations. They did not miss much of the activities of the members of their organizations. The group which projected the formation of the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY in 1874 to 1876 were scientists and educators, who required no approval by anyone else to associate in a technical society. On the other hand, the industrial chemists were in a different situation when the Division of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry was formed. In 1908 our rubber industry was highly secretive and competitive. This secrecy did not suddenly vanish overnight, nor did the presidents and general managers hit the sawdust trail of cooperation under the spellbinding of Charles L. Parsons. N o executive of Goodrich, Goodyear, Firestone, or U. S.Rubber can be credited with the idea of a meeting of their chemists where compounds and practices would be exchanged openly-perish the thought! Nevertheless, meetings were held as early as 1909, expense accounts were approved, and recipes were still written in code. Osberg (19) and Dinsmore ( 4 ) have written interestingly of the India Rubber Chemistry Section during its early years and of the growth of the Rubber Division. The strategy of that day is significant in that considerable planning and diplomacy were required in order t o develop in the minds of the executives a 9oint of view favorable to meetings of chemists. They did approve, and in so doing made the section possible and assured subsequent development. Personal experience is pertinent; this, however, must have been similar on the part of each of those who were active in the years when the Rubber Section began its feeble cries and struggles t o survive. The writer had joined the AMERICANCHEMICAL SOCIETYin 1902 and helped in the organization of the Cornel1 Section, of which he was secretary-treasurer, and whose first meeting wvas on December 15,1902 (IO). It was natural, when the Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry was started in 1909, that he should be on its first Board of Editors. Let me assure you that t o accept such a duty after but little over a year of service, neceeaitated permission from the head of the company. That demanded real strategy and diplomacy! Still more discussion led to the approval of his part in the formation of a society of rubber chemists. When, therefore, the India Rubber Chemistry Section held its &st meeting on December 30, 1910, in Boston ( I I ) , a t which Charles C. Goodrich, a director of the B. F. Goodrich Co. and organizer of its first laboratory, waR elected
Voi. 43, No. 11
chairman, and a t which the chief chemist of C;oodrich was on the executive committee, it may be assumed t’hat the executives of that company were in favor of cooperation aniong the chemists of the rubber industry. The purpose of the meetings was not to discloae secret processes and formulas, if indeed there were any of value in those days, but to solve some common and tough problems. The writer expressed the situation in an editorial in the J i r u m l of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry ( 7 ) in March 1910, in which he wrote “Cordial cooperation from manufacturers axid consumers will do much to surmount the numerous difficulties, and if every one who has occasion to analyze or test any of the urticles made of India rubber will freely place his experience and data a t the service of the committee, will try proposed methods, and will adopt for use recommended methods, even if not perfect, the success of the movement is assured.” A common grouud waa the key to the formation of acquaintance, friendship, and mutual confidence. Growth would have been impossible without these. Why did the executives of Firestone, Goodrich, Goodyear, and U. S. Rubber approve of a society and nit-tine of their chemists? They often did suspect that the chemists were merely giving away information because many meetings of the section and the division were notable for the silence8 of thase in attendance. If memory serves, the real strategy which motivated their thinking was the idea that meetings of chemists and technicians were mentally stimulating to the members of their staffs. They understood human nature and that the chemist wm as gregarious as anyone else. He lived in a laboratory, but liked to take off his smock occasionally and smoke his pipe with his peers. LMeetings of the societies developed active optimism, gave encouragement, and showed concretely that the high levelr of management reposed confidence in the wisdom and integrity of their chemists. They felt also that the section was good for the industry and for the nation. That the strategy was sound was demonstrated in 1917-18 when our committees met and solved smoothly and actively the joint problems of the national defense. Again, the value of cooperation was proved during World War I1 when the great synthetic rubber program and the several committees of chemists, compounders, and chemical engineers worked together in the interest of the country. Such accomplishments were realized by virtue of the cooperation developed over the earlier years. GAS MASKS
One morning in May 1917, a t a relatively early hour even for the rubber industry, a tall, red-haired, broad-shouldered gentleman by the name of Bradley Dewey was ushered into my office. With only the preliminary that he was the representative of the U. S. Army General Staff, he laid a British ga.s mask on my desk and said words to this effect: “The B. F. Goodrich Go. is requested to make 25,000 of the rubber part8 of this gas mask and deliver them t o a designated point in 10 days from today. There will be no formal order; you may not be paid for them, but we hope so; and the matter is to be kept as confidential &s anything in production can be.” This gas mask had not been seen before. But, being somewhat red-headed myself, and having taken a n instant liking to Mr. Dewey, I excused myself, stepped into President B. G. Work’s office, and stated the case to him. He said: “Do it.” Then I returned to Dewey and said we would accept the assignment, Conferences of engineers, compounders, and production men followed, while we found out what it was that we had agreed to do. That night 11 machine shops were busy making molds for gas mask parts. The job was finished on time and the parts delivered aa requeated. I t was learned later how we were a part of a strategy which had been developed by the Army General Staff in Washington. From then on, two phases &*ereactive: One, the smooth eooperation of the industry in the Gas Defexje Committee of the
November lSSl
INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
War Service Committee of the Rubber Industry, about which Dewey (8)wrote in 1919,“The spirit of cooperation and the desire to serve the Government was early evident, as was shown by the attitude of the B. F. Goodrich Co. in giving technical and cost information t o the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and the U. s. Rubber Co., in order that they might intelligently bid on a project in which no one but the B. F. Goodrich Co. had any experience. This waa a distinct departure from practice in competitive industry.” The other waa research which could be tempered by no strategic timing. Urgency was the driving force but thoroughness, nonetheless, controlled. Medical men joined in the investigations through which gas masks which were anatomically correct to fit heads of different shapes and sizes and were physiologically practical were developed and tested. The word “Akron” was added to the name of a gas mask, the basic idea for which came from Tissot, a Frenchman. FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH
The rubber industry has ever differed from some others in that most of the articles produced are designed t o perform services which rubber-vulcanized or unvulcanized-cannot do alone. Charles Goodycar discovered a principle, t o be sure, but it waa, and is, only one of many means and methods in daily use. The rubber industry hati had no Steinmetz or Maxwell t o lay down the mathematics of either the science of rubber chemistry or of the service requirements of tires, belts, hocre, etc. From 1900 t o 1917 most research was of an applied or practical character and but little systematic study of the scientific foundations was undertaken. During this period, hunger for knowledge of rubber and fabric became more and more compelling. Gradually, but steadily, plans for fundamental research took shape, t o be activated when the time waa propitious. Among them, as a strong foundation stone, was a reference library. It is probable that every one of the large corporations faced the same issue, and that several chemists enlarged their private libraries and subscribed to Considerable current literature. A more positive step waa taken in 1914 when my own private library was consolidated with others and was moved into a single room in charge of a full-time librarian. Because of the war in which this country had not yet participated, many volumes and some sets of magazines were brought out of Germany and England. From then on, a growing number of volumes, of wider and wider scope, became available for research and technical reference. The conception of a separate research laboratory, devoted chiefly t o fundamental problems of the chemistry and physics of rubber and rubber goods, was in the process of being matured when this country entered the war. Therefore, shortly after the Armistice in November 1918, the executive committee of the company was presented with drawings, specifications, and a request for a n appropriation to build what, in those days, was a large ncw laboratory for chemical and physical research. The top floor of one of the buildings was heavy enough t o support the load of an added story, for which the building had been designed originally. The committee was told that trained chemists would be available, some of whom were, a t the time, in the Chemical Warfare Service. The materials of construction and all the equipment could be obtained, so the time t o begin this laboratory was right thcn in the winter of 1918-19. The members of the committee were a group of hardheaded business men accustomed t o balance sheets and the results of produotion. They were good strategists and so the first question they asked in a unanimous voice was, “What new product will be made in this laboratory?” Now, it just happened that the conception of this new laboratory was chiefly t o permit active engagement in fundamental research. The answer was equally direct. “What am I expecting t o make? I don’t know.” That was a bombahell t o the committee; they were shocked that a
2439
member should ask for a large appropriation and not have a clear idea of what salable products would result. After about two weeks of discussion they were convinced that knowledge of the underlying science of the products and raw materials was small, that new facts were really needed, and that well-educated research men in a well-equipped laboratory could probably find out a great deal. So, the scheme wa5 approved, construction waa begun, and fundamental research, as a company policy, waa inaugurated. Several chemists were invited to join the enterprise even before they had a place t o work. They were chosen partly because of excellent training, good personality, and some experience, and partly because they possessed, in tho words of Willis R. Whitney (13), “A certain characteristic in the generally succwful research operator , is recognized in optimistic activity and , , should be placed 6rst among the requisites. It is placed above knowledge, because without it, little that is new will ever be done except by accident, With active optimism, even in the absence of more than average knowledge, useful discoveries are almost sure to be made.” Each of them asked the same question: “What problem shall I work on?” The answer was, “You have no special rtasignment. You are employed to do research work on rubber. Confidence is placed in you, and because you know little or nothing about it, it would be a good idea if you were to read the literature and experiment on whatever appeals t o you. If you ever should know that a competitor is active in some special field, don’t run after him, but work where he is not.” They made their own arrangements a t different universities and went t o work. A new policy was begun and continued; they were allowed to carry on their investigations without interference or demands from the factory. It would be inappropriate t o discuss the methods or results of this research organization, for this story is one of strategy, not technical details. However, it is upon such foundations, and based upon this kind of strategy, that research in the rubber industry has grown over the years that have followed until, today, several large, admirably equipped and staffed laboratories are engaged in fundamental research in the field of the elastomers.
..
.
THE STRATEGISTS
Strategy is but the expression of the thinking of men. The writer’s personal acquaintance has included the executives of several rubber companies. He knew socially F. A. and C. W Seiberling, P. W. Litohfield, Harvey S. Firestone, and others in Akron, and many others in other parts of the country. He cannot discuss all of the men for whom he felt warm admiration. He has known more or less intimately all but four of the executives of the B. F. Goodrich Co. since its founding. Two, however, were outstanding in their grasp of the industry’s problems, and with these two he was closely associated. Bertram G. Work was president of the B. F. Goodrich Co. from 1907 until his death in 1927. He was comervative and of considerable reticence, and, as a result, he waa often misunderstood. His grasp of the business included all of its phases and, what is of moment in this discussion, his planning embraced the place of research in the affairs of the corporation. However, in technical matters he never dominated, but gave hia full confidence and expected useful results. He was not aggressive as a planner of research, but rather appraised and approved when a plan fitted with his conception of long-range strategy. He was ~1 man of integrity. He was aware of the Rubber Section idea and he approved of the membership of Goodrich men in the AMERICA* CHEMICAL SOCIETY and other scientific and technical sssociations. He was a leader who believed in cooperation in the industry. During World War I he was president of the Rubber Manufacturers Association and chairman of its War Service Committee. The other strategist waa Arthur H. Marks. He waa aggressive, alert, farsighted, and inclined to take chances in which he SUO-
2440
INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
ceeded more times than he failed. His alkali procbess ( 1 ) became, and still is, the basic method of reclaiming vulcanizt.d rubber. Marks was more than a laboratory technician for he sensed the future. The list of his achievements includes foreseeing the possibilities in organic accelerators and giving direction and stimulus to Oenslager; although he did not originate the idva of high volume-carbon black compounding for tire treads, he realized the improvement in quality and cost potentials and pressed for reduction to practice; his knowledge of crude rubber sources and values was wide and since the price of Fine Para fluctuated over a wide range, he built an extraction plant to take advantage of the market values inherent in the resinous grades of pontianac, palembang, and guayule. As a business strategipt he showed his mettle when he participated in the consolidation of the Diamond and Goodrich companies. Early he saw the need for chemical research on a broad scale and gave stimulus to fundamental research. He pressed for an active iiivestigation into synthetic rubber well in advance of World War 11. And, last but most important, was the stimulus and encouragement he gave to his younger associates. RUBBER RESEARCH STRATEGY IN 1951
Today, more people throughout the world are served by rubber goods than during any period of the last 75 years. The problems of the rubber itidustry are high on the agenda of national and international diplomacy. Research is now accepted as the foundation upon which production and the character of service values rest, and therefore a heavy responsibility is carried by those who determine the present day strategy of rubber research. The planners must take account of the fact that this country is threatened by a nation which is governed by a group of autocrats who desire the complete destruction of our economy and the subjugation of our people. Then, too, immediate self-interest on the part of some countries which are suppliers has often been so intense that rubber and other raw materials have been sold to the e n e m i against whom we are fighting. Also, we have observed how history has repeated itself by the fact that the rubber market has risen rapidly and to a degree detrimental to our interests. Because of the warmth of nisny personal friendships, we have viewed such actions with sincere regret but, nevertheless, they must be recognized and considered. Here a t home, and partly because of these abuses, the Federal government has usurped a detailed control which the rubber industry does not need and certainly does not care for. Raw materials are manufactured and bought, the qualities and amounts specified, even the products to be made are limited by a bureaucracy too often motivated by personal whims and desires and, certainly, by those who possess little knowledge of the technical details of compounds, designs, and production methods. It has often occurred to the writer that this country needs a new organization similar to one well known, which would be called “Politics Anonymous” and in which all appointed and elected government officials should become active members. In developing plans for the future, the strategists of the rubber industry are in a strong position in that the research laboratories are large, excellently equipped, and many in number. But, of far greater moment, are the staffs of splendidly trained men and women of high ability and wide experience. We have in this country the greatest rubber research power in the world. SUGGESTED PROBLEMS
In the face of these conditions, two concrete problems are suggested from among the many which call for solution. The first arises from the fact that compounds are much too complex. The compounder has over 30 grades of natural crude, the supply and price of which are no more stable than the weather, some 36 types of regular synthetics, and a “permission” t o test 641 production experimental polymers. His carbon black shows
Vol. 43, No. 11
up in a dozen styles and from several suppliers, while even sulfur now comes in a half-dozen shapes and grades. He probably works out his mixings from over 2000 compounding ingredients selected from 20,000 items evaluated. The compounders of the industry should standardize and reduce the number of raw materials. The second technical problem is the need for a truck and passenger tire that will easily sustain the heavy loads and high speeds of present and future service. Natural crude rubber is required a t present, but a synthetic substance is called for which will possess all the desirable properties of natural Hevea brasiliensis crude rubber. Then, too, the indications are that within the next. decade the research chemists will be obliged to put into production Ltn elastomer whose hysteresis and other properties must be superior to those of the Hevea grade. The strategy, then, of rubber research in 1951 seems to be twofold. One is to apply this power and experience to the solution of these major problems, the objectives of which are to provide and to produce within the continental United States of America all the raw materials required by the rubber industry, so that it may be able to manufacture articles which will possess the highest needed qualities of our economic service. These should be produced from basic materials tliat are native to this country that cannot be diverted to other uses in time of stress. Self-sufficiency is advocated but not as a means of antagonism toward the nationals of any other country. This country prefers friendship and cordiality to animosity and bitterness. But the responsibility is ours to protect and preserve our strength and to pass on to our children an unsullied herit’ageof freedom, for only the strong can be wholly free and only the wholly free can be strong. Whenever this country loses its power all the free governments of the world will collapse. This Rubber Division has proved over the years the value of cooperation. Never before in our history has the need for unity been so trenchant. The powers usurped by our Government can, and should be, yielded to a united industry which can maintain price and sales competition, but from which special ambitions and preferenects will have been eliminated. All the members of the rubber industry should rededicate themselves to the service of the nation as a strong independent unit, but not subservient to any group of government officials. We are still a free people. Association in research can be a most potent contribution of the rubber industry toward the preservation of that freedom. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Thanks are expressed for the counsel and assistance of several friends of long standing, and especially to H. E. Fritz, W. Semon, H. L. Trumbull, and others a t the B. F. Goodrich Co., Research Center, Brecksville, Ohio; Dean E. Carson and A. W. Carpenter of the same company a t Akron; A. A. Sonierville, R. P. Dinsmore, John M Bierer, B. B. Wilson, A. L. Viles, C. R. Haynes, George G. Taylor, and t.he librarian a t the chemistry department, Cornell University. LITERATURE CITED
Ball, J. M., “Reclaimed Rubber,” Chapt. 3, New York, 947. (2) Barker, P. W., and Holt, E. G., U. S. Trade Promot. Sei.. Bull. (1)
181 (1938). (3) Dewey, B.,
[email protected].,11, 185 (1919). (4) Dinsmore, R. P., Ibid., 43, 801 (1951). ( 5 ) Geer, W. C., Ibid., 18, 1137 (1920). (6) Ibid., 27, 362 (1935). (7) Geer, W. C., J. IND.ENG.CHEM.,2, 77 (1910) (8) Geer and Evans, India Rubber W o r l d , 64, 887 (1921) (9) Geer, W. C., et aE., Ibid., 55, 127 (1910). (10)J. Am. Chem. Soc., 25, 50 (1903). (11) Ibid., 32,30 (1910). (12) Osberg, E. V., I n d i a Rubber World, 101, 83 (1939). (13) Whitney, W. R., J. Am. Chem. Soc., 32,72 (1910).
.
