ANALYSIS, BEFINING, AND COMPOSITION. 



19 



Geer dephlegmator as described in Forest Service Circular No. 152; 

 and (4) direct distillation through a five-bulb LeBel-Henninger 

 dephlegmator. The last-named dephlegmator will not be described, 

 because another form was afterwards adopted as most suitable for 

 general work. 



STEAM DISTILLATION WITH AND WITHOUT A DEPHLEGMATOR. 



In figure 4 are plotted together on one sheet for better comparison 

 the curves obtained by steam distillation, both with and without a de- 

 phlegmator. The curves 

 showing the results ob- 

 tained by the use of a de- 

 phlegmator indicate the 

 better fractionation, since 

 they are more nearly 

 vertical and have lower 

 values over the first part 

 of the distillation, and h 

 the breaks in the gen- I 

 eral direction are more * 

 marked than in .the 

 curves which give the re- g 

 suits obtained by steam 

 distillation without a de- 

 phlegmator. 



re- 



5PKIFIC GRAVITY 6 .87 .88 9 .90 31 .92 33 34 35 

 INDEX OF EeFE'ACTION U70 U7? UTA U16 U78 IMO IA&Z 



F IG . 5. Comparison of fractionation obtained In 

 direct distillation with a Le Bel-Hinninger column 

 and without a dephlegmator. 



DIRECT DISTILLATION WITH 

 AND WITHOUT A DE- 

 PHLEGMATOR. 



A still greater effect 

 obtained by the use of a 

 dephlegmator is indi- 

 cated in figure 5, where 

 are plotted together the 

 curves from two direct 



distillations, one with and one without a dephlegmator. Here the 

 differences in the position and direction of the curves and therefore 

 in the fractionation are even more marked than in figure 4. 



STEAM AND DIRECT DISTILLATION WITH DEPHLEGMATORS. 



Figure 6 gives a comparison of the fractionation obtained by steam 

 distillation through a Geer dephlegmator with that by direct distilla- 

 tion through a Le Bel-Henninger dephlegmator. In the direct-dis- 



