I S D C S T R I B I ; d S D E S (7 I S E E R I X G C H E X I S T R Y
October, 1926
too high for number 1 unless it is a black oil, hardly possible in an automotive cylinder lubricant. Other inconsistencies in the carbon residue figures would be more apparent if the colors had been stated. But in checking. back these figures given against the other physical tests, inconsistencies nearly as great as the one given are apparent. I
I
1
1
I
1
I
1
I I
/
I I
1
1
I
1 l
1 i
1 1
1 1
I
I
l l O l
I
1
700
z
b
e
I
I
I00
~
140
-
I
/80
Temberature O F -1. B , C-naphthene-base oils; D , E ,F-paraffin-base oils. 1 . 2 , 4 , 12-naphthene- or paraffin-base oils; 6, 9, 11-paraffin-base oils
The material insoluble in petroleum ether after the fire test of an oil is determined is called the “fire-point carbon.” The authors divide their samples into three groups: heavy oils, 0.010-0.011, as evidenced by numbers 1, 3, and 4; heavy medium, 0.0064009, their numbers 2, 5 , and 11; and medium and light oils, 0.004-0.005, numbers 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12. Comparison of the Conradson carbon residue of automotive lubricants is generally admitted a fair gage of their relative carbonforming propensity under similar engine conditions. If these two columns in the table of fire-point carbon and Conradson carbon are compared, there seems very little connection between the two. Taking these latter comparisons and the criticism of their other data above, I do not believe, as stated, t h a t the authors are in any way justified in the last clause of their paper that this test “should be used as the oxidation test for automobile lubricating oils.” R O C H E S T EN. R, Y . I,. R . ADKIXS -4ugust 20, 1926
“Experts” Editor of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: A41waysa careful reader of your journal, I am moved t o comment on an editorial controversy for the first time, by the open letter of Ford LV. Harris, printed in your July issue on page 764. I do not care where Jlr. Harris is a n engineer or a lawyer; he is wrong in many of his views if I read his fairly clear statements correctly. I t is amazing to learn that there is a man, much associated with legal life, who wishes t o challenge the generality that chemical, technical, or even ordinary civil clisputes as a rule result in the wealth of the attorneys and the poverty of the contestants. He knows of an exception or two; but the wide and unnumbered mass of cases where the truth of this fact is without a question should govern the policies of men t o harmonize rather than fight. It is an economic fact that there is nothing productive, constructive, or profitable in fighting, and your editorial was very well taken. I honestly do not think that professional men despise the arer#
1093
age lawyer because he does not understand Einstein-most of us do not and admit it-but rather, as in my own case, despise the average lawyer because of his lack of principles, ethics, and honesty, Perhaps this is a natural result of daily contact with a lawyer’s duties as described by Mr. Harris, who justifies misrepresentation, distortion, and suppression of the truth because the lawyer is not under oath, and further is paid to advance the interests of his client. It would appear, if this is a true measure of legal duties, that any scorn of an honest man toward a legal light is well placed. I have never known that a man must be honest, true, and sincere only when he is a technical expert or under oath. I believe Mr. Harris will have some trouble in trying to justify several degrees of honesty. I want t o feel, and believe, that this admirable quality in men has but one analysisone brand of honesty only. Honesty applies in every way and the same way to the attorney in his deliberate acts not under oath as i t does to the “expert” under oath. There certainly is a persistent undertone of bitterness in Mr. Harris’ recital against technical men (which I hope will not creep in here) leading him into very rash statements. If he means that he can select three “experts” who are truly professional men-men who have no doubt that they are chemists, surveyors, or biologists, as the case may be, that can defend either side equal chance of success, I of a technical-or any case-with believe he ought to be better known t o both our technical societies and the Bar Association. If such a statement is ever true, it is far more applicable to a purely nontechnical case where the excessive verbiage-the bottomless pile of precedent and the utter lack of any exactness to the “law”-have full influence. The statement of Mr. Harris about three crooked experts doing some high and fancy perjury to each crooked lawyer is unfortunate and silly. I n practically admitting that lawyers do seduce the honesty of fellow men, hlr. Harris seems to imply that he condemns those so seduced only because they received a small sum for their honor, but a large sum perhaps would justify everything? Is this the opinion of a legal mind, or is Mr. Harris just spitting on technical men in another way? In the last paragraph Harris has covered such a mass of misguided criticism, all toward technical societies and scientists, that I do not ask the space to straighten him out. He should travel. While so grandly putting the whole system of expert testimony in the waste basket, where perhaps it belongs as it is mostly a legal development, he should also study the whole system of legal testimony, and machinery, comparing it with that in England, where many of the ills we have in this country, born of the efforts of our thousands of useless rascally lawyers, are totally lacking. Lawyers, like experts, should sit in a semijudicial capacity-honestly advising a man if he is right or wrong and if he ought to go into court or go away and be ashamed of his intentions. I do not see any point to, or benefit from, his proposals t o correct the situation. Our national technical societies are already well organized and there is no law preventing a judge from retaining a competent chemist or other scientist to aid him if he desires and the chemist would welcome the work. The technical societies are ready to name competent men, always, for specialized work. CHAS.0. BROWX 331 M A D ~ OAve. N , N. Y . August 17, 1926
S E W YORX,
Estimation of the Unsaturated Content of Petroleum Products In the article under this title, THISJOURNAL, 18, 821 (1926). in the formula and definition of bromine number, N (page 822) change 0.08 to 8 and grams to centigrams per gram of sample. In Table I under “Bromine No.” and in the legend a t the right of the figure the numbers should be multiplied by 100.
9. W. FRAXCIS
