c /'
T H E JOURNAL O F INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY FEBRUARY, I 909.
I.
VOL.
No.
2.
power INDUSTRIA L distribution because our rivers run so fast down hill. E N G I N E E R IC NH G E M I S T R To Y these vast resources we have, indeed, brought
THEJ O U R N A L AND
OF
PUBLISHED BY
THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY. BOARD OF EDITORS. Editov : W. D. Richardson.
Associate Editovs: Geo. P. Adamson, E. G. Bailey, G . E. Barton, Wm. Brady, Wm. Campbell, F. B. Carpenter, Virgil Coblentz, Francis I. Dupont, W. C. Ebaugh, Wm. C. Geer, W. F. Hillebrand, W. D. Horne, L. P. Kinnicutt, A. E. Leach, P. W. Lovejoy, Karl Langenbeck, A. D. Little, P. C. McIlhiney, E. B. McCready, Wm. McMurtrie, J. Merritt Matthews, T.J . Parker. J. D. Pennock, Clifford Richardson, Geo. C. Stone, F. TV. Traphagen, F. H. Thorp, E r n s t Twitchell, Robt. Wahl, W m . H. Walker, M. C. Whitaker, W. R . Whitney. Published monthly. Subscription price to non-members of the American Chemical Society $6.00 yearly.
Copyright, 1908,for the American Chemical Society by W. D. Richardson, Edilor.
Vol. I.
FEBRUARY, 1909.
No. 2
EDITORIALS. NATURAL RESOURCES AND MANUFACTURE. We have, as a nation, acquired the habit of being vastly satisfied with what we have accomplished. We marvel at our enterprise in scraping iron ore from the earth's surface by steam shovels, in growing wheat on virgin soil, in stripping great areas of primeval forest, in burning natural gas and allowing petroleum to spout from the ground. Even Germany acknowledges that she cannot compete with us in raising cotton, and we cut more ice in a month in the single state of Maine than all the Pictet machines in France can turn out in a year. We control the copper market of the world-because we have the copper. If you want cheap sulphur, you must come to us, we pump it from the ground. We develop great centres of
a native energy, an unusual capacity for organization, and a genius for mechanical affairs. What we do, we do on a great scale, but we often do it very badly. It is quite time for us to pause in our self-congratulation long enough to inquire whether the things we are doing cannot be better done, whether, in fact, other nations have not developed and put to w e much better methods, which, given equal opportunity, would put our own performance to the blush. Although the resources of a country form the basis of its prosperity, this is, nevertheless, determined in the long run by the manner in which these resources are utilized, or, in other words, by the industrial efficiency of the means and methods of production. We have developed great transportation systems, we handle raw material on a titanic scale, we have applied machinery to the addressing of our letters and the sticking of the stamps, but it remains true, none the less, that with a few conspicuous exceptions, our manufacturing operations are carried forward in trustful ignorance and disregard of many of the factors upon which real industrial efficiency depends. This is shown in the stupendous waste which accompanies the first crude preparation of the raw material; it is shown in the general absence of a true selective economy in the apportionment of that raw material among the different industries, and it is shown again, and yet again, in the losses which attend nearly every step in the progress of the raw material toward the finished product, One need only refer to the wastes which attend lumbering, or to the growing of flax for seed, the making of coke in bee-hive ovens, and the failure to utilize the casein of skim milk as a high-grade food product, to realize vaguely something of what these initial losses are. The absence of proper selective economy in the adaptation of raw material to use is everywhere, as when our railroads use untreated ties and poles, when coal-tar is burned as fuel, crystal alum used for purifying water, or valuable publications printed on ground-wood
62
T H E J O U R N A L OF I N D U S T R I A L A N D E N G I N E E R I N G C H E M I S T R Y .
papers. We are still polluting our streams with wool grease, still wonderTng whether we can make alcohol from waste molslsses, still buying coal without reference to heating power, and paying 65 cents a gallon for cylinder oil. When wastes so obvious and co easily remedied are everywhere taking heavy toll of our manufacturers, i t is not surprising that in all lines of productive effort subtle and elusive problems present themselves and still further lower our industrial efficiency. Steel rails break by thousands, trolley wires snap, boilers corrode, milk-cans rust, unsightly bloom appears on leather, cloth is stained or tendered, paints fail to protect the metal underneath. I n a large proportion of cases, those who are confronted by the problem, have neither the time, the training, nor the equipment required for its solution, and yet such problems and thousands of others far more complex upon their face must be solved if our industrial efficiency is to be brought to its proper level. No one a t all conversant with the facts can doubt that our industrial salvation must be found in a closer alliance and co-operation between the scientific worker and the actual agencies of production. Such co-operation exists, as we are all beginning to learn, in Germany, and its results are evident throughout the world in the tremendous expansion of German industry. No one a t all familiar with the conditions under which thousands of American manufacturers are working can fail to realize the unique and fruitful opportunity which spreads out before the Laboratory nor can they doubt that the funds for its development will be forthcoming. Within the last few years there has opened out to the worker in applied chemistry a new horizon with a sweep so broad that it is seen to include far more than the mere material gains which come from more efficient effort. It has come to be recognized that the lives of great masses of the community are constricted and confined because our industrial efficiency as a people is still far below what it ought to be. I n this stage of our industrial development no agency is more directly available for increasing this efficiency than that afforded by chemistry as applied to industry. Every waste that is prevented or turned to profit, every specification which gives a better control of raw material, every problem solved, and every more effective process which is developed, makes for better living in the material sense and for more wholesome living in the higher sense.
It means much to the material and more to the higher well-being of German workmen that their nation now controls the coal-tar industries, the manufacture of fine chemicals, and the markets of the world in many other lines, chiefly as the result of the application of the scientific method to the problems of production. The general application of these methods will mean even more to our own ARTHUR D. LITTLE. country.
STANDARDIZED SAMPLES. IT is not a t all surprising that the subject of accuracy in chemical analysis is constantly undergoing discussion. As so much depends upon the analysts’ work, both in settlements for materials bought and sold and in the control of works’ processes, it would seem that almost anything within reason ought to be done to insure the accuracy of his results. At frequent intervals, papers appear dealing with the preparatory and technical training of the chemist, the formation of an Institute of Chemistry, the use of reagents of guaranteed composition, the calibration of weights and measuring instruments, and the development of new or improved analytical pro :ewes. In addition, much effort is expended in the endeavor to obtain uniform or official methods of analysis for use in certain industries. Experience has shown that the cooperative analysis of a given sample by a number of chemists serves only to call attention to the probable variations in results obtainable by men who strive for accuracy, but who work under such different conditions that non-concordant determinations are almost inevitable. As a means for developing better, and perhaps uniform, methods of analysis, it would be desirable to have a limited number of well trained men work out what they consider the best method available, with one or more optional methods in addition, and then put their analytical “scheme,” together with carefully standardized samples, in the hands of chemists a t large. An analyst of any degree of experience or skill could then practice with the standardized sample until he had perfected himself in the proposed method. This way of working brings splendid results with students of quantitative analysiswhy should it not be equally successful with chemists of greater maturity? The use of a standardized sample as a check
