10 
BULLETIN 1100, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
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 hours at 80° C. In other words, the average difference in weight 
due to moisture 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 
more 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, with different amounts of moisture, iveighed at the end of each 
hour while drying for a period of three hours at 50° C. 
Sample. 
a? 
ft • 
1! 
ft • 
^£ 
•§>» 
o s- 
£•3 
o 
ftS 
W i-l 
H 
58 
•3=3 
o.SP 
I s 
+3 -U "* 
'{■ C ffl 
o <» b 
1 VI 
III 
More-moist sample, 
per cent lost in 
moisture in 1 hour. 
Less-moist sample, 
weight after 2 hours. 
ft 
~ CD 
*3 03 
|S 
<£>hQ 
S'S 
Less-moist sample, 
per cent lost in 
moisture in 2 hours. 
More-moist sample, 
per cent lost in 
moisture in 2 hours. 
,2*3 
S3 
II 
IS 
■3.E 
11 
CO 
!I 
£ sx> 
o'S 
Less-moist sample, 
per cent lost in 
moisture in 3 hours. 
More-moist sample, 
per cent lost in 
moisture in 3 hours*. 
2.'.'. 
3... 
4 
Gms. 
272. 5 
272.8 
271.1 
273.3 
274.0 
303.0 
272.0 
269.7 
277.5 
Gms- 
284.9 
283.4 
282.0 
283.9 
282.6 
311.8 
282.7 
278.5 
286.8 
Gms. 
267.4 
266.0 
263. 7 
266.9 
Gms- 
274.2 
271.7 
270.3 
273.4 
P.ct. 
1.87 
2.49 
2.73 
2.34 
P.ct. Gms. 
3.75 264.5 
4.12 263.3 
4.14 261.2 
3.69 264.3 
Gms. 
269. 3 
266.3 
264.8 
267.7 
P.ct. P.ct. 
2.93 5.47 
3. 48 6. 03 
3. 65 6. 09 
3. 29 5. 70 
Gms. 
263.5 
262.0 
259.7 
262.8 
Gms. 
266.2 
263.2 
261.6 
264. 9 
P.ct. P.ct. 
3. 30 6. 56 
3. 95 7. 13 
4.21 7.23 
3. 84 6. 69 
5... 
6... 
7... 
8 
266.5 270.4 
295.4 306.3 
266.2 271.6 
262.6, 267.3 
2.73 
2.51 
2.13 
2.63 
4.31 263.7 264.2 3.75 6.51 
1.76 292.4 294.5 3.49 5.54 
3.92 263.5 266.4 3.12 5.76 
4.02 260. J) 262.0 3.59 5.92 
4.01 267.0 269.3 3.78 6.10 
261.3 262. 3 1 4.03 7.18 
291.1 291.3 3.92 6.57 
262.5 '263.5 3.49 6.79 
259.1 259.2 3.93 6.92 
9... 
269.9 275.3 
2.73 
266.0 266.6 4.14 7.04 
A^ 
■rerage.. 
276.2 
286. 28 
269. 4 275. 61 
2.46 
3.72,266.65 269.38 3.45 5.90 
1 ! 
265. 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 0.1 gram, which 
was the smallest difference found in this test, while the greatest 
