OCt.,
1913
T H E JO U R N A L 0 F I N D U S T RI A L A D E KGI iV E E RI N G C H E M I S T R Y
of Columbian University, and was admitted to the Bar. He also took a post-graduate course leading to the degree of Ph.D. in Electro-chemistry and Physics. In 1901 he resigned his official position and entered upon the practice of law with Mr. C. P. Townsend as a partner. Later Mr. J. H. Brickenstein entered the firm, the three constituting the well-known firm of patent lawyers, Brynes, Townsend and Brickenstein. Dr. Byrnes was a member of the American Chemical Society, -4merican Electro-Chemical Society, American Institute of Electrical Engineers, Chemists’ Club of New York City, Society of Chemical Industry, Patent Law Association of Washington, and of the Cosmos and Chevy Chase Clubs of Washington.
OBITUARY-F. H. DANIELS Fred H . Daniels, Chairman of the Board of Engineers of the United States Steel Corporation, Chief Engineer of the American
I
Steel and Wire Company, and President of the Washburn and Moen Company, died at his home in Worcester, Mass., on August 31, 1913, after a long illness. hlr. Daniels, who was born in 1853, had been very prominently identified with the development of the iron and steel industries for 40 years, and over 150 patents, a number of which revolutionized processes of manufacture, indicate his activity. Mr. Daniels supervised the erection of plants for the American Steel and Wire Company a t Waukegan, Ill., Cleveland, 0 , San Francisco, Cal., and Birmingham, Ala. He was one of the board of consulting engineers who designed the United States Steel Corporation’s plant a t Gary, Ind., and served in a similar capacity a t the time of the erection of the Duluth mills of the Minnesota Steel Company. In 1 9 0 0 , the Paris Exposition Jury of Awards bestowed a gold medal on Mr. Daniels as “celebrateur,” and in 1909, he was decorated by King Oscar of Sweden W. A. HAMOR
NOTES AND CORRESPONDENCE
ON METHODS OF ANALYSIS OF CRUDE GLYCERINE Editor of the Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: From the recital of difficulties given by E. A. Ray in THIS JOURNAL, 5 , 784, i t is evident that there is some confusion existing as to the exact procedure of the International Standard Method for glycerine analysis. The glycerine sub-committee of the American Chemical Society met,at London in 1910, wTith the British Expert Committee and representatives from Germany and France and agreed on the following: (see report of the American Committee, THISJOURNAL, 3, 679). The British report is identical. INSTRVCTIONS FOR CALCULATING THE ACTUAL GLYCERINE CONTENT
Determine the apparent percentage of glycerol in the sample by the acetin process as described. The result will include acetylizable impurities if present. ( 2 ) Determine the total residue a t 160’ C. (3) Determine the acetin value of the residue a t ( 2 ) in terms of‘ glycerol. (4) Deduct the result found a t (3) from the percentage obtained a t ( I ) and report this corrected figure as glycerol. This is the official method a t present in use in the United States. Nothing is said about any allowance nor is there a limit set a t 2 . 5 per cent organic residue at which or below which the chemist is prohibited from making a correction for acetylizable impurities. The British Executive Committee, a committee of British Soap Manufacturers, appended a recommendation to the report of the Expert Committee as follows: (I)
RECOMMENDATIONS BY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
If the non-volatile organic residue a t 160’ C. in the case of a soap lye crude be over 2 . 5 per cent, then the residue shall be examined by the acetin method and any excess of glycerol found over 0.5 per cent shall he deducted from the acetin figure. This recommendation was not signed by the British Experts and was rejected by the American Committee as being arbitrary and unscientific. Residues of 2.5 per cent and below often give very material corrections for impurities. Even if this correction is small there is no reason why it should not be made nor is there any clear reason why the limit should be set a t z .5 per cent rather than a t I , 2 or 3 per cent. It is the chemist’s task to determine the actual glycerine present to the best of his ability and leave all questions of allowance and limits to others. English crudes purchased under these conditions of sale as laid down by British manufacturers will of course be tested
8; I
I
with these limitations, but there has been no such custom with regard to American crudes, which have been bought and sold on the basis of the American Chemical Society report. Referring to the instructions for calculating the glycerine content it will be seen from ( 2 ) that the determination of the organic residue is not required. It may be obtained by determining the ash and deducting this from the total residue. This determination is not needed when glycerine alone is being looked for and the chemist who has been asked to analyze a sample for glycerine by the International method is within his rights in declining to state the per cent of organic residue or ash unless he receives additional compensation therefor. There would seem to be little excuse, however, for a chemist to refuse to state the total residue and t k correction as found, these determinations being necessary before the true per cent of glycerol can be ascertained. The difference between the tests of the referee and seller amounting to 1.38 per cent might easily be due to the presence of solid salt in the samples or to the deposition of salt after the crude had left the seller’s factory. The accurate sampling of crude glycerine if salt has separated is next to impossible and chemists may differ 5 per cent and more on very salty crudes. Doubtless the crude referred to by Dr. Ray is free from solid salt or he would have called attention to its presence. It is a fact, however, that it is the exception rather than the rule to find a delivery of American soap lye crude entirely free from deposited salt. If manufacturers of crude would give their product ample opportunity to cool and settle in tanks before filling out into drums the fundamental cause for most of the dissatisfaction with glycerine analysis would be removed. A. C. LAXGMUIR Chairman Sub-committee on Glycerine Analysis September 8 , 1913
WHAT’S THE MATTER WITH THE AMERICAN CHEMIST? Editor of the Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: Judging from the answers one reads to the above question, blr. Chemist is fast arriving. Some of the answers are amusing, some dramatic, and there are lamentation and pathos in others. The plaintiffs seem to be Cctuated by disposition, by training, by fitness, or by sarcasm. Surely, Mr. Chemist will come out of the crucible thoroughly refined a t the end of the heat; but i t seems to me that we are losing sight of viewpoints and are failing to differentiate between pure science and applied science. Science is the study and correlation of phenomena and their
872
T H E JOURNAL OF I N D V S T R I A L A N D ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
interpretation, together with the formulation of laws. We have abstract science and we have concrete science. The former is not concerned primarily with matter; but the latter is. Chemistry lies between the two, and might be termed a n abstractconcrete subject. Then we have pure chemistry and applied chemistry, and a t the foundation of all work in chemistry we find analysis. All chemists are analysts of greater or less degree, depending upon the extent of their training, experience, and innate qualities. To speak in disparaging language of the analyst or the analytical chemist is to reproach the great and good men in the profession of chemistry, past and present. Such terms as “has-been” and “would-be” need no comment, except t o say that it is far better to be a “good-old-has-been” than “a never-was’’ or “a never-will-be.” Then there is the term research. What does it mean? Is it a going after a nebular something floating about in the cosmos of Chemistry? Some Seem to think so, and such chemists I should term research chemists devoting their time and ability to pure chemistry per se. We shall always need such men; but these men must have private fortunes, or must be provided with funds by others. We need patrons of recluses. The work of the recluse is invaluable, and should be encouraged; but he must not forget the Latin phrase per aspera ad astra. However, there is another meaning t o research. Perhaps the word inquiry defines it. With this definition in mind, I should say that there is the research chemist who is searching along synthetical lines by means of analytical methods for the purpose of producing a given product, which product he has produced by abstract reasoning, for a given purpose. That is t o say, the end product to he is predetermined, and its measure of value when found is applicability. Research men fall naturally into one of the above categories; but some are so endowed as to fit either. Then again some fit one or the other by adaptability, a n extremely valuable asset. Hence, we have two genera and four species of research chemists. In considering the industrial phase of research chemistry, we are confronted with the ’fact that the manufacturer is not engaged in business as a recreation or as a philanthropic enterprise, but for the purpose of producing remunerative products. The German manufacturer does not employ a research chemist from per se motives; but for what he will or hopes to get from results. There is no lack of money in Europe or America or Canada or Mexico for the research man who can “deliver the goods;” but everybody fights shy, financially, of him who cannot present a reasonable demonstration of his ability to find out by inquiry through research some method to reduce cost or increase production or both, just as he fights shy of the novitiate in Chemistry. High ambition and lofty ideals are right and just and commendable; but they are by no means confined to the research chemist in pure science per se. This type of chemist might and may bring about the results desired by the manufacturer, and we wish him every success and encouragement; but he is too great a risk for the manufacturer who is looking for an industrial research chemist. If the industrial research chemist is treated as a hireling, he is himself largely a fault, and the thing for him to do is to stop “kicking against the pricks” if he wishes t o occupy a higher plane, and there are m a n y u p there to-day. Perhaps I have been unfortunate in my professional dealings with research men and various enterprises for the past twenty odd years, and perhaps I “see through a glass darkly;” but I am convinced that “by their works ye shall know them,” the research men in industrial chemistry. J. CULVERHARTZELL BLUE ASH, OHIO September 1 1 , 1913
ON CALCULATING THE FAT-FREE RESIDUE ,OF MILK Editor of the Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: I n Chem. Abst., 7,2444,under “Foods,” there is give$a formula
Vol.
j, No. I O
proposed by H. M. Hoyberg for “Calculating the Fat-free F)/4 = fat-free dry residue], Skand. Residue of Milk” [(V Vet. Tidskrift, 1912, 259-62; Deutch. tierarztl. Woch., 21, 253. It appears that the above formula was first suggested by Dr. S. M. Babcock as long ago as 1891 in the Eighth Annual Report of the Wisconsin Experiment Station for the year ending June 3 0 , 1891, page 298. Dr. Babcock writes the formula (L F)/4 = solids-not-fat, in which L = the Quevenne lactometer reading. The Quevenne lactometer reading = V in Hoyberg’s formula since both = “a figure obtained b y subtracting unity from the specific gravity and placing the decimal point after the first two numerals (neglecting 0).” During the year 1907,while comparing the per cent of solids of a very large number of chemical analysis of milk with the results secured by using different formulas for calculating the solidsnot-fat after determining the Quevenne lactometer reading and the per cent of fat by the Babcock method, I noticed that when the per cent of fat was added t the Quevenne reading and the sum secured was divided by 4, the quotient equaled very closely the per cent of solids-not-fat secured by the chemical method. Then I developed the formula (L F)/4 = the per cent of solidsnot-fat. Before going further, I looked up the work done by others along this line and found that the formula was suggested by Dr. Babcock as stated above. I n 1909,along with other formulas commonly used, this one was published in the book: “Questions and Answers on Milk and Milk Testing,” p. 68, by C. A. Publow and H. C. Troy, Orange Judd Company. The formula is very simple and easy to apply and since three different chemists, working independently, have developed i t and find it to give accurate results, it appears that it should have a permanent place in practical milk inspection and factory work where it is necessary to secure a n approximately correct composition in the shortest possible time. HUGH C. TROY
+
+
p.
+
N. Y. STATE COLLEGE O F AGRICULTURE CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA September 18, 1913
NOTE ON COLORIMETRIC METHOD FOR TITANIUM IN IRON AND STEEL I n describing the procedure for determining titanium in steel 5, 735), when less than 0.02 per cent is present (THISJOURNAL, I referred to the importance of conducting the ether separation so as to have small and nearly constant amounts of iron in the acid solutions. This essential condition is best attained by carrying out the ether separation in the following manner: Cool the concentrated terric chloride solution, pour into the separatory funnel, and wash with hydrochloric acid ( 2 parts strong acid : I part water) until the volume amounts to 25 cc. Add 50 cc. alcohol-free ether, agitate thoroughly, and allow t o stand for five minutes after the two solutions have separated. Draw off the acid solution, avoiding the ether solution entirely even though a slight loss of acid solution may be necessary to do so. These precautions insure a greatly reduced and practically constant amount of iron in the acid solution. CHAS. R. MCCABE LIMA,0x10 Sept. 19, 1913
PETROLEUM PRODUCTION IN 1912 GAIN
OF T W O MILLION BARRELS
The great production of petroleum in 1911,which was 220,449,391barrels, was equaled and passed in 1912,when the total reached 222,538,604 barrels. Higher prices were the rule in 1912except in California, and even in t h a t State there was no material decline. The total value therefore increased markedly,
