S7K WILLIAM SIEMENS, F.R.S. 435 



Tlu-iv \vi-re many points referred to by the Professor which he 

 not observe upon. There was, however, the vexed question 

 of nomenclature, which they would yet have to deal with. In 

 (l.TiiKiiiy, Sweden, and Austria, the nomenclature recommended 

 iiy tin- committee at Philadelphia had been adopted and carried 

 out. In K upland they had seen considerable difficulties in the 

 way of adopting that nomenclature, and these had arisen from the 

 want of indications as to the limit at which a material ceased to 

 be ingot iron and commenced to be steel. It was clearly shewn in 

 the paper that all material containing only traces of carbon was 

 subject to hardening ; and Professor Akerman now suggested that 

 they should select an arbitrary limit for steel, namely, the limit at 

 which feldspar would no longer touch the hardened part of the 

 iron. This might be a limit which would keep on one side of the 

 boundary line the material known as mild steed, and on the other 

 what was now generally called rail or engineering steel. Still he 

 mst say he saw difficulties. In England some engineers used 

 rails of a harder character, and others insisted upon metal which 

 was softer. Then, again, there was a process by which phosphorus 

 took the place of carbon in steel of that description, and they 

 would, by employing phosphorus steel, obtain hardness without 

 temper. These limits would be very difficult to draw, but they 

 should very carefully reconsider the question, because it appeared 

 to him that as some countries had adopted the new nomenclature, 

 and England was adhering to the old one of calling by the name 

 of steel all malleable metal that had passed through the fused 

 condition, they would be in an isolated position. It would be better 

 certainly if a uniform system could be adopted, and a meeting 

 like the present would be a suitable place and occasion for doing 

 so. Before sitting down he wished to give expression to the 

 pleasure that all probably felt in Professor Akerman's most valu- 

 able paper, which, in his opinion, would be hereafter cited as a 

 standard exposition of the subject. 



p p 2 



