FF.nRUARY I, 1903.] 



THE INDIA RUBBER WORLD 



155 



A RESPONSE FROM DR. WEBbK. 



T~^0 THE Editor of The India Rubber World: In the 



*■ last issue of your much valued Journal you are good 

 enough to refer at some length to my book ["The Chemistiy 

 of India-Rubber. London : 1902] and to criticise its various 

 features. And i^ile I gratefully concede that your criticism, 

 as far as it applies, is eminently fair, I feel at the same time 

 constrained to say that it altogether exceeds the scope of my 

 book, and the essential purpose of the present is to reduce to 

 its true proportions the size of the target you have been aim- 

 ing at. 



At the outset you explain that "rubber manufacturers and 

 their superintendents in most cases know little of chemistry, 

 have a horror of theory, and only seek for an explanation of 

 interesting phenomena when it appears profitable to do so." I 

 am quite in agreement with you tliat this is a fairly accurate 

 description of the present-day mental attitude of "rubber 

 manufacturers and their superintendents," but I am inclined to 

 think that this " horror of theory " arises largely from the first 

 stated ignorance of chemistry ; the unknown, I am persuaded, 

 is one of the chief causes of superstitious horror. This fear of 

 theory, and its concomitant, the deep rooted faith of its inferi- 

 ority to practice, exist always in the minds of those only who 

 neither recognize the possibilities of the one, nor the limita- 

 tions of the other. 



1 am also, to my sorrow, compelled to admit that the above 

 named leaders of industry " only seek for an explanation of in- 

 teresting phenomena when it appears profitable to do so." 

 Happily the progress of the world does to an infinitesimal frac- 

 tion only depend upon ■ manufacturers and their superintend- 

 ents," for if it did, you, instead of writing criticisms, and I. 

 instead of replying to them, would, by now, probably be trying 

 to break each others' heads with stone axes, untrammelled by 

 theory. As far as I am aware, every great and lasting step in 

 the world's progress is a more or less unpaid debt we owe to 

 pure theorists. 



The " thought of cheapening compounds, or saving dollars 

 for himself or anybody else " has indeed occurred to the author 

 on various occasions of his long years of practical experience, 

 but he also, at an early period of his career, came to the con- 

 clusion tiiat this laudable intention would be best served by as- 

 certaining the exact nature and corelations of the materials and 

 means at the command of the India-rubber industry, rather than 

 by " ringing the changes " on the contents of thecompounding 

 room. I see to-day less reason than ever to alter this opinion. 

 If "India-rubber manufacturers and their superintendents" 

 will not, or cannot, see this at present, they most certainly will 

 do so at some future time, but under much less favorable con- 

 ditions. 



You were evidently looking in my book for sparks of " prac- 

 tical" wisdom — this in spite of my disclaimer in the preface — 

 and from what you could gather in this way you feel inclined 

 to credit me with experience in mackintosh clothing, druggists' 

 sundries, and hard rubber — a somewhat odd collection. But 

 when, in illustration of one point or another, I drew upon my 

 practical experience, which, I believe, veiy largely exceeds the 

 above branches, I chose my examples without the thought of 

 my readers using the book as a sort of epitome of the lange 

 of my manufacturing experience. Nor did I see any reason to 

 advertise in my book the fact that I possess years of experience 

 in the manufacture of rubber footwear, insulated wires, and 

 mechanical go ds of every description, to name only those 

 branches which you assume to lie outside my practical knowl- 

 edge. 



Regarding the question of the use of tar you are quite cor- 

 rect, but as I did not write a book on the manufacture of rubber 

 boots and shoes, but had the average practice of the whole 

 India-rubber industry, not so much in America, as in England 

 and on the Continent in view, my statement still remains sub- 

 stantially correct. 



Next you say : " It is an acknowledged fact that a rubber 

 shoe which blooms is not vulcanized enougTi, and yet such a 

 shoe will show a lasting quality and wear that is phenomenal." 

 Now I, for one, certainly will not acknowledge this " fact," for 

 the simple reason that it is not a fact. The blooming of a shoe, 

 or any other India-rubber article, has nothing whatever to do 

 with either over or undervulcanization. The blooming effect 

 depends simply upon the question of the presence of free sul- 

 phur ; for the rest undervulcanized rubber goods may, or may 

 not bloom, nor does the appearance of a " bloom " in the least 

 justify the assumption that an article is not overvulcanized. 



Likewise, your contradiction notwithstanding, must I adhere 

 to my statement that ch.ome yellow cannot be used in hot 

 cured goods. I have not seen the yellow branded shoe, but 

 there is certainly all the world of a difference between a yellow 

 surface imprint, produced with chrome yellow, and a yellow 

 compound containing the same pigment. Also, are you quite 

 sure the yellow pigment in the imprint is really chrome yellow, 

 or did perhaps your friends try to "put you off ?" 



You next quote some statements of mine on the question of 

 non-blooming goods, and attempt to traverse them by exam- 

 ples which, although undoubtedly true in matters of fact, do 

 really not touch at all upon the point the statements in ques- 

 tion are aiming at. A little more careful reflection might have 

 shown you this. You further call these statements " theories." 

 I am afraid our notions regarding the meaning of the term 

 theory differ rather seriously. This fear becomes a certainty 

 when you continue : " Few theories concerning India-rubber 

 have yet been established, and almost any practice that gives 

 such results as to lay down laws for certain lines of work, and 

 sometimes for certain factories, is absolutely reversed in other 

 lines of work, and in other factories." Now I am not aware of 

 any single " theory " that has been established concerning In- 

 dia-rubber, and shall therefore be pleased to be informed which 

 they are. The second part of that sentence has a distressing look 

 of mental worry about it. but I take it to mean essentially that 

 the practice of one factory is often " reversed " in another fac- 

 tory. This, on the part of a critic, is unbecomingly loose lan- 

 guage. What you imply in speaking of the " reversal " of a 

 practice I am unable to say. It sounds almost like a sort of 

 " living backward." something like "Alice's" experiences, or 

 the effect of a reversed biograph film. I have never heard of 

 " reversed practices " in rubber manufacturing, and if this ex- 

 traordinary thing really exists, what has it to do with " theory " .' 

 It certainly would not "reverse "the latter. It is, of course, 

 quite possible for two firms to manufacture similar articles by 

 more or less different methods, but it is a practical, physical, 

 chemical, and theoretical impossibility that both methods 

 should be equally good, or right, although both may produce 

 salable articles. But this is quite another proposition. A great 

 many firms sell rubber tires, although they are hardly all 

 equally good, not even in American practice. The only dis- 

 criminating tool in such cases consists, not in workshop fan- 

 cies, but in a sound theory—/. .?., a statement connecting under 

 one point of view all the qualitatively and numerically ascer- 

 tained physical and chemical data concerning India-rubber. I 

 have attempted to make the first contribution towards that 

 end. Yours faithfully, CARL otto weber, ph.d. 



Boston, Brunswick Hotel, January, 1903. 



