April 1, 1913.] 



THE INDIA RUBBER WORLD 



355 



greater part of the field, it was desirable that their specifications 

 should be uniform. With this idea in view, a number of con- 

 ferences were arranged, and finally a "National Standard" sat- 

 isfactory to both parties was adopted in May, 1902. Only two 

 important changes from the original specifications were made. 

 One item regarding stretch of the rubber lining to five times 

 its original length, which had appeared in the N. F. P. A. 

 Specifications, was omitted, and another item requiring a test 

 of 200 pounds on each 50-foot length, not originally in the Mutual 

 Specifications, was added. From that time to the present the 

 specifications for underwriter hose for both organizations have 

 been essentially the same, although their ideas regarding the 

 method of enforcement have differed widely. 



The intervening years up to 1911 were occupied with the 

 continual testing of samples from the field and from the factor- 

 ies and the gradual accumulation, especially in the later years, of 

 evidence that most of the manufacturers of hose were not 

 turning out a product made in accordance with the specifica- 

 tions. During this time the methods of rubber analysis and 

 testing developed considerably, and the Insurance Laboratories 

 made an effort to keep pace with the progress. In this way 

 the number and character of the analyses and tests made in 

 connection with the examination of hose gradually changed. 

 It should be noted, however, that the chemical and physical 

 tests which were used, were employed merely as laboratory 

 standards with the idea of determining whether or not the 

 specifications had been complied with. Owing to the fact that 

 many points in connection with rubber testing had not been 

 established with the same degree of certainty as in other lines 

 of chemical work, some of the manufacturers did not neglect 

 the opportunity to deny the findings of the laboratories, although 

 in many instances the cases were so clear cut as to leave no 

 question. 



A typical example of this kind taken from many others, is 

 one where a certain lot of hose which failed after four years' 

 service was sent by the assured to the Factory Mutual Labor- 

 atories for test. An acetone extract of over 20 per cent, was 

 found after deducting the free sulphur, and a small percentage 

 of wax, and this, in connection with other chemical tests, showed 

 be)'ond question that the requirements regarding rubber in the 

 specifications had been seriously violated. Notwithstanding this 

 evidence, the manufacturer steadfastly maintained that the lining 

 contained only a mixture of fine and coarse Paras. He even 

 went so far as to claim that he could show samples of Para 

 which would give an extract of 20 per cent. He also obtained a 

 sample of the lining which he submitted to an independent 

 chemist for analysis. Needless to say his proposal to submit 

 a sample of Para containing 20 per cent, resin extract never 

 materialized, but a representative of the manufacturer called 

 up on the telephone some time later, and stated that he had a 

 report from his chemist showing that the lining in question had 

 consisted only of Para, as he had claimed. He was requested 

 to bring in the report, but although that was four years ago, 

 it has not put in an appearance as yet, and the manufacturer 

 finally agreed to replace the hose with another lot fully in 

 accordance with the specifications and without charge to the 

 assured. The hose was replaced in time and to make a long 

 story short, suffice it to say that the second lot was no better 

 than the first. The manufacturer was surprised to learn that 

 we had tested the second lot. hut after an extended controversy 

 agreed to replace the hose again. 



This case, although in some of its features a little more ex- 

 treme than most of the others, is simply a sample of similar in- 

 cidents that took place, and which made it very difficult for us 

 to appreciate the position of some of the manufacturers whose 

 integrity had previously never been questioned. These contro- 

 versies also made it evident that before the hose situation could 

 be definitely cleared up, it would be necessary to include as part 



of the specifications the laboratory standards which had been 

 used in testing hose. 



In the meantime, in 1906, the Underwriters' Laboratories of 

 Chicago developed their system of "Label Service." In brief, 

 this system required that an inspector should be stationed at 

 the factory and inspect every length of hose sent out; also that 

 each length should bear a label stating that the hose had been 

 manufactured under the supervision of the Underwriters' Lab- 

 oratories of Chicago. Samples of hose could be taken at any 

 time and shipped to the Underwriters' Laboratories for more 

 detailed tests than could be conducted at the factory. The labels 

 were to be purchased by the manufacturers from the Under- 

 writers' Laboratories at the price of 25 cents each. Owing to 

 several objectionable features which it was found impossible to 

 have removed in spite of a number of conferences, the label 

 service has never been adopted by the Mutual Companies. 



The proposition, although at first opposed by some of the 

 manufacturers, was adopted by a few of them. Owing to vari- 

 ous differences of opinion and controversies, however, these few 

 manufacturers later dropped the labels and during 1909 and 

 1910, all of the manufacturers on the Approved List of the 

 Chicago Laboratories were dropped. The opposition to the label 

 service on the part of the manufacturers was very bitter and 

 for over a year their ranks were kept unbroken. In the early 

 part of 1911, however, two of them submitted samples of hose 

 to the Underwriters' Laboratories, which were approved, and 

 adopted the label service. Later in the year another manu- 

 facturer followed. At the present time these three are the only 

 ones using the labels. 



The system has been developed, it is understood, until now 

 the inspector at the factory supervises the washing of the crude 

 rubber, the weighing and compounding of same and the calender- 

 ing and making up of the tubes. In short, the rubber from the 

 beginning of the manufacturing operations until the hose is 

 completed is either in the inspector's presence or under lock 

 and key kept in his possession. The tests which the specifica- 

 tion require are made on every length, and are conducted in the 

 preset ce of the inspector. 



In 1908, the National Board of Fire Underwriters undertook 

 the preparation of specifications for public fire department hose, 

 both cotton, rubber-lined and rubber-covered. Regarding the 

 history of the development of these specifications- the writer 

 has no detailed knowledge since the Mutual Companies have, 

 as an organization, never taken a sufficiently active interest in 

 this matter to warrant drawing up specifications for this class 

 of hose. 



In brief, however, it may be stated that after a long series 

 of conferences between the National Fire Protection Associa- 

 tion and the manufacturers, a set of specifications w-ere drawn 

 up which, at the time, were satisfactory to both parties, and 

 which allowed a much lower grade of rubber than the present 

 specifications. The manufacturers insisted, however, that these 

 specifications should be used merely as a laboratory standard, 

 and not furnished freely to purchasers. In other words, hose 

 would be approved by the Underwriters' Laboratories without 

 its becoming generally known that it w-as all made in accordance 

 with a definite set of specifications. Whatever may have been 

 the understanding, or misunderstanding, the specifications were 

 used freely throughout the country by the Underwriters' Lab- 

 oratories. The manufacturers accordingly cancelled their agree- 

 ment and dropped all negotiations. The N. F. P. A. later worked 

 out a much more stringent set of specifications which were 

 proposed at the annual meeting in May, 1911, and formally 

 adopted in May, 1912. The requirements regarding rubber lin- 

 ing in these fire department hose specifications are very similar 

 to those contained in the underwriter hose specifications. The 

 three manufacturers who have adopted the label for under- 

 writer hose are also manufacturing label hose under the fire 



