INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
1204
Vol. 38, No. 11
Pomf of
24
Dhose
chanoe
20 I6 /2 1
8
b
I
4
I
log P
109 P
Figure 2.
0 12
Othmer Plot of Fiber Data
I n reference to comparison with Wiegerink’s results, we not only prepared our yarns in the same manner as Kicgcrink but also used samples from the same spools which were furnished by the Kational Bureau of Standards for the express purpose of making our results directly comparable with his. Thus, any differences in samples must be due to changes during storage, not to characteristics of growth or preparation. A s we pointed out in the paper, desorption data would he valuablc additions to the results. K e regret that it R ’ ~ Snot possible to do this work under our laboratory program or lvith our facilities. Since the data 1%-ereof direct practical importance, irrespective of the full theoretical interpretation, they were published, together with the suggested interpretation. The hehavior of the testile yarns below freezing as a surprise t o us, as to Whitwell and Toner. ’However, in a process so complicated and poorly understood theoretically as adsorption o n textiles, the final interpretation must probably await further and more comprehensive work on the w b j e c t . It. c. DAHLISG h X D H. s. BELDINC:
10
C 58 0.
$OI 6 L 3 5 4
$2
O S
0
24 20
16
FATIQ C E LABORATORY HARVARD USIVERSITY BOSTOX, ~IASS.
12 8
Projection of Laboratory Reaction Velocity Data into Commerical Design-Correction
4
0
40
20
%
60
80
/oo
Relatrve Humidity
Figure 1. Regain-Relative Humidity Isotherms for Wool, Purified Cotton, and Viscose Rayon
Our reason for submitting these remarks is the omission from the original article of the regain-relative humidity diagrams, without which the discrepancies represented by the data are not apparent.
J. C. \F”ITWELL A I D R. K. TOSER TEXTILE RESElRCH INSTITCTE, ISC. PRINCETOZ S . J.
SIR: 11-c are grateful for the preceding comments. We recall Khitwell’s review of our work when it was in the form of a report’ to the Ofice of Scientific Research and Development. K c regret t,hat the substance of this earlier discussion n-as not brought t o your attention prior t o publication. In regard to the main criticism, our feeling \vas and is that the experiments were carefully and accurately done and that our interpretation was the most likely until further experimental results forced a modification. The differences of opinion regarding the validity of measurements and the interpretation should, in our opinion, remain as Iionc.st differences of opinion and be a stimulus to further, more estensive work.
The following errors have been noted in our article, which A N D EXGINEERING appeared in the September issue of IKDUSTRIAL CHEMISTRY: On page 887, line 3 should read “ln [ a / ( a - r ) ] ” instead of “in [ a / ( u - z)]”. On page 889 under the heading “Comparison with Previous Prlethods”, the first and eighth lines should refer t o Equation 3 instead of Equation 2. Literature citation 8, page 890, should give the year as 1937 instead of 1939. JOEL H. HIRSCH GULFRESEARCH & DEVELOPXENT COMPANY PITTBBCRGH, PA.
R u s t Preventive Oils-Correction One of the literature citations was unfortunately omitted when \%-esubmitted this paper for publication in IXDUSTRIAL .4SD E r GISEERISG CHEMISTRY. It should have appeared on page 609 of the June, 1946, issue as citation (12), as follows: (12) Zisman, W. A., and Baker, H. P., paper presented at Gibson Island Conference, Am. Assoc. Advancement Sci., Aug. 10, 1945.
On page 603, column 1, line 10, citation (12) v a s also omitted after the word “equilibrium”. G. P. PILZAXD F. F. FARLEY SHELLO I L COYPISY,INC. W O O DR I V E RILL. ,
