10 



BI'LLETIX lirXJ, r. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICrLTURE. 



An analysis of Table 3 shows that the more-moist samples, air-dry, 

 averaged 15.03 grams heavier than the same samples of wool when 

 less moist and air dry, while the more-moist samples averaged only 

 5.88 grams heavier than the less-moist samples after conditioning 

 three horn's at 80° C. In other words, the average difference in weight 

 due to moistiire content was reduced by conditioning three hours at 

 80° C. to 39.1 per cent of the original difference between the more- 

 moist samples air dry and the less-moisture samples air dry. It 

 will also be noted that the more-moist samples consistently lost 

 m.ore moisture each hour during the conditioning process than was 

 lost from the less-moist samples. 



In like manner the same samples as were used in the tests reported 

 in Table 3 were used to study the effects of conditioning at 50° C. 

 The samples were weighed air-dry and dried at 50° C. for three hours 

 and weighed at the end of each hour. The same samples were then 

 allowed to take on more moisture and weighed again in a similar 

 manner. All percentages in regard to both the less-moist and more- 

 moist samples are based on the air-dry weight. 



Table 4.- 



-Wool samples, vnth different amounts of moisture, iveighed at the end of each 

 hour while drying for a period of three hours at 50° C. 





_ 



_ 



1 



1 







1 



J 





. 



1 



1 



J 





cT 



gT 



a> . 



O • 1 



© .s *■ 



®.H .* 



o .;; 



© m 



c".- "2 



o .3 j2 



o . 



o . 



o .5 i2 S.5 £ 









.-. i^ ' 



.-^ u 







<-* ^ 



.X OT I 















P. . 



"S. . 



P.3 • 



D.3 ' 



a o 



a. 3 



Aii 



g-b 



-' 2 



'5< i 



=-^ 



p," 



"S" 5 a' 3 





§2 



g-S 



a a 



as 



a^2 



3^2 



as 



a 5 



— ,^ c 



-- .^ o 



a§ 



s ° 



S-- 2 C-" 2 





d QC 



is* 



s~ 1 



53-" 



1 o — 





05 .S 









d.S 





5 dZ; 5 'o":! 





to — 



0? 



o 



«" 1 



"^"t^ 





■/:— -c 



w«, 



K^ 



K— -__ 



t;— . -^ 



^■rs 



^c^ 



t: ^- " w ^- " 



Sample. 







«2 1 



v.§i 



^■t'l 



^^~ 





*s 3 



ill 



1^ - s 



-Sl 





•? = £ "^ = "i 





Hi 



S'3 i 



9 



BV 

 Si 



13 



as 



© ^ 1 



b3 



if 



Gms- 



hi 



^ l?'3 



11 







O ^ "" 



|5 



'§'3 



=55 1^5 

 i 'Si -- gl 



^ as oaa 





a ' 



S 



J* ' 



pj =>" 



i^- 



" ' 



5 * 



- 



s ~~ 



- ^ 



S& 



- ^ 





i 



Chns.\ 



Gms. 



Gms. 



P.ct. 



P.ctI 



Gms. 



Gms. 



P.ct. 



p.ct. 



Gm.s. 



Gm-s. 



P.rt. 1 P.ct. 



1 



272. .5 



272.8 



284.9 



283.4 



267.4 

 266.0 



274.2 

 271.7 



1.87 

 2.49 



3.7.5' 

 4.12 



264.5 

 263. 3 



269.3 

 266.3 



2.93 

 3.48 



5.47 

 6.03 



26-3. 5 

 262.0 



266.2 

 263.2 



3. 30 6. 56 



2 ; 



3. 95 7. 13 



3 



271.1 



282.0 



263.7 



270.3 



2.73 



4.14 



261.2 



264.8 



3.65 



6.09 



259. 7 



261.6 



4.21 7.23 



4 



27.3. 3 

 274.0 



283.9 

 282.6 



266.9 

 266.5 



27.3.4 

 270.4 



2.34 

 2.73 



3.69 

 4. .31 



264.3 

 263.7 



267.7 

 264.2 



3.29 

 3. 75 



5.70 

 6. .51 



262. S 

 261.3 



264. 9 

 262. 3 



3. 84 6. 69 



5 



4.C3 7.18 



6 



303. 

 272.0 

 269.7 

 277.5 



311. 8 

 282.7 

 278. .5 

 286.8 



295. 4 

 266.2 

 262.6 

 269.9 



306.3 

 271.6 

 267.3 

 27.5.3 



2. .51 

 2.13 

 2.63 

 2.73 



1.76 

 3.92 

 4.02 

 4.01 



232.4 

 26.3.5 

 260.0 

 267.0 



294.5 

 266.4 

 262.0 

 269.3 



3.49 

 3.12 

 3. .59 

 .3.78 



5. .51 

 .5.76 

 5.92 

 6.10 



291.1 

 262. 5 

 2.59. 1 

 266.0 



291.3 

 263. 5 

 2.59.2 

 266.6 



3. 92 6. 57 



7 



3. 49 6. 79 



8 



3. 93 6. 92 



9 ; 



4. 14 7. 04 







Average 



276. 2 2S6. 28 



269. 4 275. 61 



2.46 



3. 72 266. 65 269. 38 



3.45 



5.90 



26-5. 33 266. -53 



3.93 6.90 



The weights presented in Table 4 show that the more-moist sam- 

 ples, air-dry, averaged 10.08 grams heavier than when they were less 

 moist but air dry. After conditioning for three hours at 50° C. 

 there was an average difference of only 1.2 grams between the more- 

 moist and less-moist samples. The conditioning for three hours at 

 50° C, therefore, resulted in reducing the difference in weight due 

 to moisture so that at the end of the three hours the average differ- 

 ence was only 11.9 per cent as great as it was before conditioning. 

 The final difference in the case of sample 8 was only 0.] gram, which 

 was the smallest difference found in this test, while the greatest 



