NEW JERSEY BRICKMAKING INDUSTRY. 249 



Shrinkage measurements of stiff- 



I,ocality. I,inear shrinkage 



, .*. 



Air. Fire. Total. 



Cliffwood, 0.7 0.0 0.7 



Sayreville, 1.3 4.2 5.5 



Sayreville, 1.4 4.3 5.7 



Kinkora, 1.4 5.9 7.3 



South River, 1.9 3.4 5.3 



City Line Station, .... 2.0 3.9 5.9 



Maple Shade, 2.1 5.6 7.7 



Asbury Park, 3.3 4.8 8.1 



Woodbine, 4.3 1.5 5.8 



Florence, 4.3 4.4 8.7 



Maple Shade, 4.9 4.7 9.6 



Rosenhayn, 4.9 2.1 7.0 



Whippany, 5.2 7.9 13. 1 



Yorktown, 5.3 4.7 10.0 



Collingwood, 5.4 0.0 5.4 



Crosswicks, 5.5 7.0 12.5 



Hightstown, 5.6 0.7 6.3 



Bordentown, 6.2 2.8 ' 9.0 



JBuckshutem, 8.4 1.5 9.9 



■mud bricks. 







Cubical shrinkage. 



Air. 



Fire. 



Total. 



0.7 



—5-2 





I0.5 



12.2 



22.7 



14.4 



II.7 



26.I 



14.7 



4-1 



18.8 



9-9 



15-8 



257 



57 



21.0 



26.7 



1 1.2 



15.8 



27.O 



5-5 



14.I 



I9.6 



7.2 



8.9 



I6.I 



97 



i5-i 



24.8 



47 



12.3 



17.O 



19.2 



5-2 



24.4 



17-3 



19.4 



367 



19-3 



14.8 



34-1 



10.8 



8.9 



19.7 



26.5 



—0.3 



26.2 



14.6 



3-i 



17.7 



5-9 



9.2 



iS-i 



19. 1 



2.4 



21.5 



Shrinkage measurements of soft-mud bricks. 



locality. Ivinear shrinkage. Cubical shrinkage. 



Air. Fire. Total. Air. Fire. Total. 



Plainfield, 1.4 5.8 7.2 11.5 7.3 18.8 



Morristown, 2.8 4.3 7.1 18.6 8.0 26.6 



Trenton (re-pressed),.. 3.5 — 0.7 2.8 19.9 0.6 20.5 



Matawan, 5.4 5.4 10.8 29.6 — 0.9 28.7 



Flemington, 5.7 0.0 5.7 11.6 2.3 13.9 



Sayreville, 5.7 23.1 .... .... 



Farmingdale, 5.9 0.0 5.9 21.9 4.0 25.9 



Dunellen, 5.9 1.4 7.3 21.5 4.1 ■ 25.6 



Woodbury, 6.9 0.0 6.9 14.5 8.5 23.0 



Somerville, 7.3 . 3.0 10.3 11.8 10.9 22.7 



Cliffwood, 8.2 2.1 10.3 26.2 7.3 33.5 



Cliffwood, 8.3 2.8 11. 1 25.2 4.8 30.0 



Belle Plain, 9.8 0.0 9.8 38.3 0.7 39.0 



Bridgeton, 10.8 2.7 13.5 26.4 8.2 34.6 



Farmingdale, 10.9 4.1 15.0 28.6 9.3 37.9 



An examination of these figures shows considerable variation, 

 in fact, larger than one expects. The measurements given show 

 no direct relation between linear and cubical shrinkage, which 



