T H E J O U R N A L O F I N D U S T R I A L AA’D Eh’GINEERING C H E M I S T R Y
474
would leave 60 per cent of water present in the reaction which is troublesome a t any time. Further it would be impossible to use formaldehyde and a small amount of ammonia in the same way in the reaction where phenol resins are hardened by the action of hexamethylenetetramine. The me of free formaldehyde and a small amount of ammonia makes a resin with a blinding, stifling odor of formaldehyde which can not possibly be used commercially, while the use of hexamethylenetetramine gives an odorless, molding compound which can be used anywhere with the greatest ease. Indeed, it is significant that the phenol condensation products, used for molding, to-day, show the presence of more than two and one-half per cent of ammonia, which indicates that if the ammonia be reckoned as a supposed condensing agent i t is used in a t least doubk a fifth of a mol. of the condensing agent to one mol. of phenol. In Dr. Baekeland’s patent No. 1,038,175 on a divisional application filed July 6, 1911, and granted September 12, 1912, lines 78 to 90, Dr. Baekeland adds: “If this base be ammonia, it will immediately react with formaldehyde to form hexamethylenetetramine, as pointe‘d out in my prior U. S. Patent No. 942,809 issued December 7, 1909. So that the technical effect is the same whether hexamethylenetetramine be introduced as such or as a mixture of ammonia and formaldehyde.” But this second date of application is subsequent t o the work which the writer did in the University of Kansas on hexamethylenetetramine and the patent itself is granted subsequent to many of the patents issued to Aylesworth on the hardening of phenol resins with hexamethylenetetramine, and further in view of the decision of the patent office rendered Nov. 11, 1914, which stated that there was no indication in any of Dr. Baekeland’s application that water had been excluded, i t becomes impossible t o contend further that the Doctor was aware of such a reaction as the use of phenol and hexamethylenetetramine in the anhydrous condition previous to our discoveries. L. V. REDMAN, A. J. WEITH AND F. P. BROCK LABORATORIES, REDMANOL CHEMICAL PRODUCTSCOMPANY 636-678 W. 22nd STREET, CHICAGO
ON THE PRODUCTION OF ALUMINUM Editor of the Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: I have noticed in the technical press, references to an address made by Dr. C. F. Chandler and printed in your Journal. The address contains the following: “Chas. Hall, a Perkin medalist, had brought out his beautiful nd simple process for extracting aluminum from alumina in 1886, and had given a practically new metal to the world to replace copper, tin, and zinc in many arts.” , To the best of my knowledge the above is entirely incorrect. I left the employ of the Cowles Electric Smelting Company January I , 1887. Hall had a t that time not yet come with this Company. I believe he started to workin July, 1887. Romaine Colewas then, and had been for some time, with the company. When Hall and Cole broke away from the company they attempted to use external heat only and ‘did not produce any aluminum until (1889) they appropriated Cowles’ ideas which Heroult and Minet had already appropriated and produced aluminum. Now, as I remember it, using external heating, neither Hall nor Heroult in Europe ever evolved a process that gave an ounce of pure aluminum or that was in any wise different from what Gratzel had been doing three or four years previous a t Bremen, where he was employing externally heated crucibles with cryolite and alumina. I n the Journal of Franklin Institute, Feb., 1886, pages 118 and 119, there occurs the following: “The future of the process is one of great promise, and will undoubtedly lead to the production of cheap and pure aluminum itself within a very brief period. Indeed, ‘The Cowles Electric Smelting Company’ asserts, on the back page of its pamphlet, that it expects to put the pure metal on the market within a year. When you are informed that we can charge iron, man-
p.
V O ~8. , KO.j
ganese, tin, copper, nickel, etc., with a very high percentage of metallic aluminum in this furnace, and that, also, without any base metal in the furnace, we can saturate the charcoal contained therein with metallic aluminum, most of which will be in a state of mechanical mixture with the carbon; and further, that we have produced specimens of aluminum 99 per cent pure in a t least three different methods by the electric furnace; and that notwithstanding all this we have not made much of an effort in this direction, the majority of you will agree that the great problem of producing pure and cheap aluminum is practically solved. How cheap this method will be you may judge from the fact that, a t our Lockport works, which will have a capacity of only two or three tons per day, we expect to produce the aluminum in bronze with the little silicon contained in it a t a cost not to exceed 40 c. per lb., or with copper a t 12 c. per lb., the bronze will really cost but about 15 c. per lb. “In truth, ‘The Cowles Electric Smelting and Aluminum Company’ is founded upon the faith that ere long we shall be marketing pure aluminum at a cost not exceeding 50 or 60 c. per lb. An appreciation of how cheap this would be, can be had from the fact that one lb. of aluminum would go about as far as three and one-half of copper, it being that much more bulky, and in reality it would be about as cheap as copper at 18 c. per lb., without counting its vast superiority over copper for many purposes on account of its greater lightness and resistance to corrosive influence.” [NOTE-since the above paper was filed with the Secretary of the Institute, it was found possible to prolong the length of the “heat” of the furnace for five hours, and increase the charges t o over IOO pounds in weight, and during the same week a button of cast aluminum, five ounces in weight, was separated from the matrix of carbon, in which i t was reduced by a process so simple and economical, that the production of pure aluminum from its oxide by the agency of heat and carbon only, is now demonstrated beyond all question.-E. H. C . ] Cowles a t this time was working on aluminum from alumina. If you are interested in the history of the Cowles, Cole and Hall controversy which took so many years in the courts, and concerning which I believe I talked with you personally (as I was called in from time to time on i t and therefore interested), I would refer you t o my brother, Cecil L. Saunders, Ithaca, N. Y., who has a large number of letters from Hall t o Cole, written during these early years, the contents of which will clear the matter for all time. Romaine Cole was my brother’s brother-in-law, and these letters came to my brother upon Romaine’s death, and it is a pity that they were not produced many years before to have settled that tedious heart breaking litigation. I hope the letters will be used. The above is simply an attempt to set the records straight. PHILADELPHIA WM. E. SACNDERS February 14, 1916
ON THE HISTORY OF ALUMINUM Editor of The Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: The correct history of the production of aluminum will be interesting to your readers, and a portion of this correct history is found in the excellent translation by Dr Leonard Waldo, of New York, of the volume entitled “The Production of Aluminum, Etc.,” by Adolphe Minet (Officer of public instruction, and Editor of “L’Electrochemie,” Paris), in the chapter by Dr. Waldo on “Aluminum in the United States” wherein Dr. Waldo, referring to those “Masters of Fire” the Cowles brothers (Alfred and Eugene) states as follows: “The testimony of these gentlemen in the long continued patent litigation forms the most important source of history in this connection. A sketch in the notebook of Mr. Eugene H. Cowles dated June, 1883, and bearing the title “Proposed Electric Furnace for Working Pecos Ores,” contains the essentials of the later patented forms for the smelting of aluminum alloys. The mass of mixed ores for reduction by incandescent heat, the posing inclined carbon terminals, the vents a t the top of the furnace, and the tap hole for withdrawing the molten charge, all are present.” Here then was the invention of the incandescent electric furnace and the process of internal heating used therewith whereby aluminum and all high heat products are made.
May, 1916
T H E J O C R i V A L O F I N D U S T R I A L AND E N G I N E E R I N G C H E M I S T R Y
In fact early in 1886, The Franklin Institute, of Philadelphia, in a long and exhaustive report, awarded the Cowles brothers two gold medals and the Scott legacy premium for their inventions relating t o aluminum and among other things set forth, this extended report states as follows: “This process is applicable t o the reduction of all kinds of or: but particularly to those unreducible by other means. The committee is of the opinion that the Messrs. Cowles and their associates deserve the highest commendation for their inventions, furnishing, as they do, a distinctly new and important metallurgical process.” On presentation of this report to the session of the Franklin Institute the following was adopted. “Amended to incorporate a recommendation for the award of the John Scott Legacy Premium and Medal to the inventors for their electric smelting furnace; and of the Elliott Cresson Medal, for the invention of a new process in the metallurgical arts for the reduction of refractory substances: and as so amended, adopted.” H. R. HEYL, Chairman Philadelphia, April 7, 1 8 8 6 . ” The advance by the Cowles brothers in the production of aluminum, as far back as 1885, is shown by Dr. T. Sterry Hunt of Montreal, Canada, in a paper read by him a t the Halifax meeting in 1885 of The American Institute of Mining Engineers as follows: “But it was reserved to Eugene and Alfred H. Cowles, of Cleveland, Ohio, to take a new step in the metallurgic art by making the (internal) heat thus produced a means of reducing the oxides not only the alkaline metals, but of calcium, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, silicon and boron, with an ease that permits the production of these elements, and their alloys with copper and other metals on a commercial scale.” Dr. T. Sterry Hunt in the same paper stated that he had just spent a number of days in the Cowles brothers’ works in Cleveland, in investigations, and in actual direction of one of their furnaces (see pp. I O I to 104 of Exhibits in the aluminum litigation). In the spring of 1887, Charles M. Hall applied to the Cowles Electric Smelting and Aluminum Company for a position in said company’s works, he claiming to have an electric process for the production of aluminum which he wished to develop, and on his representations he was employed in July, 1887, and remained with said company until J u l y 27, 1888, and was given the freedom of the Cowles Company’s plant in his experiments and work. At the very beginning of his connection with the Cowles Company in July, 1887, and frequently thereafter the Cowles Company notified Hall that in the Cowles original applications for patents the reduction of alumina with cryolite was mentioned, tusing therewith an internally heated furnace and that they had used that process long before they ever knew of or met the said Hall, and that if Hall proposed to use the alumina-cryolite-internally heated process, he would be trespassing on what the Cowles Company claimed as its own. Hall thereupon disclaimed any such use, claiming that his (Hall’s) process was by the use of other substances in an externally heated crucible. Hall worked with his stated method a full year a t the Cowles Company’s plant and never in all that time was he able to, nor did he, produce one ounce of aluminum. A t the expiration of Hall’s employment, July 2 7 , 1888, Hall went to Pittsburgh, Pa., and organized a company to perfect a process and manufacture aluminum. Hall continued his external heating process in Pittsburgh for months, and all without success, and until the officers and stockholders of his company bitterly complained a t his failure and thereupon Hall changed to the Cowles process of internal heating, as shown in Hall’s letter to Romaine C. Cole, dated Pittsburg, January 8, 1889, wherein he states he had trouble and that “The electrolyte hardened a t the bottom of the pot because it was not hot enough to keep it from hardening.” Hall then changed t o internal heating and states “that has been almost overcome by using carbon sticks which are up in the bath and very hot, for negative electrodes instead of the pot, is avoided entirely.”
473
Also in Hall’s letters to Cole dated Januavy 13, 1889, and J u n e 30, 1889, Hall shows his said change in his method of heating (see complainant’s Exhibits of Hall’s letters to Cole in the aluminum litigation referred to herein). When Hall started his company a t Pittsburgh and failed t o produce aluminum, he secretly hired the saig Romaine C. Cole (who was then a metallurgical expert in the employ of the Cowles Company) and also several other employees, heads of departments of the Cowles Company, away from the Cowles Company. Hall had written the said Cole as follows: “Simple cryolite plus alumina, quickly spoils and is no good.” Hall also later wrote Cole’ as follows: “Bradley has recently had a patent issued on ‘Fusing and Electrolyzing by the Electric Current.’ He has broad claims in the office which may or may not be rejected which would cover our commercial method of working, and his applications date back to 1883. “What makes it more important is that we know that some of Bradley’s claims still in the office are allowed.” “Yours hastily, CHARLES31. HALL” But Hall, on being shown by the said experts he had hired away from the Cowles Company, the proper way to use said process of alumina and cryolite in conjunction with intYrnal heating, as stated to Hall, by the Cowles Company as said Company’s process, under patent owned by said Cowles Company and so stated while Hall was in the employ of said Cowlcs Company in 1887 and 1888. Thereupon, in 1889 Hall adopted said process bodily and it was for the use of this identical process that Hall’s Company (The Pittsburg Reduction Company, now the Aluminum Company of America) was defeated and enjoined from further manufacturing aluminum, by the U . S Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting in the City of New York, in the suit of The (Cowles) Electric Smelting and Aluminum Company, against said Hall’s Company, in which case the Court held as follows: “The process patented to Hall adopts external heat to produce fusion” (125 Federal Reporter, 934). As to the patent owned by the Cowles Company, the Court held : “Its process is not confined to cryolite or aluminum: it relates to all ores or compounds of aluminum and all other refractory ores of like type. Cryolite is mentioned as an illustration in the specification but it might as well have mentioned alumina or any other similar ore. That there is nothing in the patent or out of the patent, requiring the limitation to cryolite seems too plain for debate. The process may be used with cryolite alone or alumina alone or both together whether applied synchronically or successively. In either case the essential features of the process are appropriated” (125 Federal Reporter, 935). On the issuing of said injunction there was done what is stated on page 1 0 8 1 of the December ( 1 9 1 5 ) number of THIS JOURN-A&, namely: “A settlement was arrived a t between the two companies wherein the Hall Company paid the Cowles Company a large sum for past infringement and a royalty on all aluminum to be produced up to the end of the life of the Bradley (Cowles Company’s) patent. The Bradley patent being held t o dominate the Hall patent and process, made it impossible for the Hall Company to continue in business without coming to an agreement with the Cowles Company.” All of the foregoing are matters of record, and clearly show that Hall was not the inventor of the “process for extracting aluminum from alumina,” and laymen, who are not familiar with the full facts fall into the error of believing and stating that Hall was the inventor of the process for so producing aluminum, as did Dr. C. F. Chandler who is quoted in the February, 1 9 1 6 , numbers of several technical journals as using the following language in a presentation address of the Perkin Medal to Dr. Baekeland before the Society of Chemical Industry, to wit: 1
See complainant’s “Exhibits in the Aluminum Litigation.”
T H E J O U R N A L OF I A T 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
476
“Charles h1. Hall, a Perkin Medalist, had brought out his beautiful and simple process for extracting aluminum from alumina, in 1886, and had given a practically new metal to the world to replace copper, tin and zinc in many arts.” Simple justice demands that mch errors should be corrected. For above it i s shown that Hall never made an ounce of aluminum before 1889, for in a letter to Leonard Waldo, Esq., dated “Oberlin, O., August 29, 1888,” set forth in the exhibits in said litigation, Hall states as follows:
“ I am nol doing anything at present regarding the production of pure aluminum, but am waiting mainly to get my patent matters in better shape. My patents are not yet issued and are, if I may use the expression ‘in the woods.’ ” As shown heretofore by Hall’s letter t o Cole, Hall admitted that the Bradley patent dominated his process, and the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals also so found and held, as quoted from the Court’s opinion above, and it is therefore clear and unanswerable that Dr. Chandler’s erroneous and unsupported statement is to be held as naught; and should any further proofs be desired reference is alsoshereby made to Charles M. Hall’s admissions in his cross-examination, between pages 724 and 753 of defendant’s testimony in the aforesaid case, and also to all the admissions by Hall in all the letters set forth as exhibited in said case. FRAKCIS C. MCMILLIN General Counsel for the (Cowles) Electric Smelting and Aluminum Company I 1 1 BROADWAY, KEW
YORK
CITY
March, 1916
NOTE ON THE DETECTION OF FAULTY SIZING IN HIGH-GRADE PAPERS’ Editor of the Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: Reference is made by Herzberg’ to the test for the detection of faulty sizing in high-grade papers,2 in which he states that the method is not new and is similar to that of Klemm3 Herzberg has apparently overlooked the actual principle upon which the method is based. In the proposed method the paper is carefully drawn over the surface of an iron tannate ink and allowed t o drain and dry. This procedure differs considerably from that of Klemm, in which the paper is allowed to float for a longer period of time and the excess ink subsequently blotted off. The inked as well as the reverse side of the paper is judged for uniformity of color, he time it takes should the ink strike through, and whether t has come through uniformly. From this appearance it is possible with experience, to judge the sizing quality. Should it be desired to test a paper for its writing quality only, Klemm claims that ten minutes’ floating on the ink, examining both the wire and top side, is sufficient. The appearance of the inked and reverse sides is noted for the characteristics above mentioned, and if the ink does not penetrate the sheet, it is considered properly sized for all practical purposes. Should it be desired to make further distinctive tests Klemm says it is only necessary to float the paper for intervals of 2 , 5, IO, 20, 30 and 60 mins. and examine as before, from which most instructive results can be obtained. In the proposed method the new and distinctive feature is in the examination of the individual fibers under a magnifying glass t o observe the absorbed ink. It is upon the absorption of the ink by the fibers and not upon the appearance of the surfaceas a whole that the accuracy of this test depends and upon which claim for its originality and superiority is based. The possible results which Klemm may obtain by his procedure do not approach the refined distinctions in sizing quality between two well-sized papers that the proposed method will
E
1 2
3
Milt. kgl. Materiabprufuungsamt, 11 (1915), 130. Bureau of Chemistry, Circ. 107. Handbuch der Papierkunde. 1910, 312.
YOI. 8, S o .
j
bring out. Uniformity of color is not the best criterion for distinguishing the sizing quality. The depth of color of the inked surface is far more differentiating, as has been mentioned in Circular 107. Furthermore, in the procedure of Klemm there are many factors which may influence the results, such as the amount of ink, the evaporation, the formation of the sheet, the moisture in the paper, its weight, loading, and thickness. The proposed method is largely independent of the variations which may be caused by these factors as it deals entirely with the appearance of the fibers on the surface of the paper, and as has been stated, “Upon qxamining the inked surface with a magnifying glass it will be found that a well-sized paper will show no indication of the fiber having absorbed the ink, * * *” The experiences of many who have used this method properly have shown it to give distinctions in the quality of sizing where other methods have failed. C. FRANK SAMMET LEATHERAND PAPER LABORATORY BUREAUOF CHEMISTRY, WASHINGTON March 14, 1916
METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OF HARDNESS Editor of the Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: Referring to the note “Method for Determination OF Hardness,” THISJOURNAL,8 (1916), 281, the writer begs to state that the method described is not a French inyention, but is the product of American brains. It is covered by U. S. Patent No. 1,125,912, issued January 19, 1915, to Messrs. Albert Ringland and Frank H. Schoenfuss, of Philadelphia. This patent covers “The method of ascertaining the Brinell hardness of a piece to be tested, which consists in placing a ball between said piece and a standard piece of known Brinell hardness, applying a force to the assemblage to produce a ball depression in each piece and then comparing the depressions and thereby ascertaining the Brinell hardness of the piece to be tested.” It will readily be seen that this method is a very clever scheme t o extend the application of the accurate Brinell method to metal pieces which cannot be placed into the Brinell machine; it permits accurate Brinell hardness determinations of metal masses of practically any size or shape, and in any place or structure. The proportion of the two ball indentations used for comparative measurements is an absolutely direct one, independent of the pressure applied. It is varying directly as the spherical areas of the two impressions, consequently varying directly as the squares of the diameters of each impression. On basis of this proportion, a table can be easily worked out, which will give the HERMAKA . HOLZ Brinell hardness for any readings. 50
CIIURCHSTREET,~ ‘ E W YORE March 15, 1916
COPIES OF JANUARY AND FEBRUARY ISSUES OF OUR JOURNALS WANTED Editor of the Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: Owing to the rapid increase in membership of the -2merican Chemical Society, the early issues of the 1916 journals’are already practically exhausted: Two hundred and seventy ( 2 7 0 ) more members have been elected in the early months of this year than in 1915: accordingly, the plans for publication were underestimated and the Secretary is now advertising for these numbers. Members-not binding their journals will convey a great favor by returning to the Secretary’s office any January and February issues of any of the Society’s publications that they can spare. The numbers especially wanted are the January and February issues of both the Journal of the American Chemical Society and Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. and the January 20, 1916, issue of Chemical Abstracts. CHARLESI,. PARSOKS,Secretary Box 505, WASHINGTON, D. C. March 24. 1916
