69 
Part II.] Pear son : Antiseptic Treatment of Timber. 
On the above data the cost of pickling a B. G. sleeper of the various 
species works out as follows :— 
Species. 
Cost of 
processing. 
Cost of 
solution 
absorbed by 
a B. G. 
sleeper per 
superficial 
area in sq. 
ft. 
Cost of 
solution 
absorbed 
per B. G. 
sleeper per 
cob. ft. 
Total cost 
of treating 
a B. G. 
sleeper 
ba*ed on 
superficial 
absorption. 
Total cost 
of treating 
aB. G. 
sleeper based 
on the assump¬ 
tion of 
complete 
impregnation. 
I 
anna. 
annas. 
annas. 
annas. 
annas. 
Bosvoellia sevrata . . | 
1 
197 
37-6 
20-7 
38 6 
Pinus longifolia 
1 
16*5 
41-3 
17-5 
42-3 
Finu* excelsa 
1 
5*6 
13-7 
66 
14-7 
Ficca M ovinia .... 
1 
7‘9 
15-0 
8-9 
16-C 
Abies Findvow .... 
1 
5'6 
13-7 
6 6 
147 
Fterocarpus macvocavpus . 
1 
4'0 
6 3 
5-0 
7-3 
Bombax malabaricum 
1 
237 
41-3 
24-7 
42-3 
Bauhinia retusa 
1 
| 
7-9 
13 7 
8-9 
: 14*7 
Dipievocavpus tuberculaius 
1 
4-0 
7*5 
5‘0 
8-5 
Anogeissus latifolia . 
1 
5-6 
137 
66 
14*7 
Shorea vobusta .... 
1 
4*0 
6-9 
5-0 
7*9 
Average 
1 
968 
19-07 
10*68 
20*07 
Comparing the cost of Jodelite treatment in the case of B. G sleepers 
with that of Avenarius Carbolineum, there is a small difference in favour 
of the latter, as the calculations based on superficial area give 10’68 annas 
for the former as compared to 8*55 annas for the latter, while those 
based on the volume of a B. G. sleeper work out to ^0*07 annas as 
the cost of treating with Jodelite as compared with 17*09 annas for 
Carbolineum. In comparing the above figures it must also be remem¬ 
bered that the period of immersion was 5 minutes longer in the case of 
the Jodelite experiments than was the case in the Carbolineum tests. 
Both sets of figures are probably too high, as by treating only small 
specimens there is in proportion to the volume a greater loss by drip, 
etc., than would be the case when treating large numbers of sleepers. 
Again the two sets of figures vary considerably ; in the cases in which 
the timber was only affected partially, the figures of cost, based on the 
superficial absorption, are far more correct than those based on volume, 
and in actual practice this would also hold good in most cases where the 
timber was treated by the Open Tank method. 
( 14* ) 
