482 
Journal of Agricultural Research 
Vol. XXIV, No. 6 
Analyses of American Portland Cements {from ** Portland Cement'") 
Made from— 
Where made. 
SiOa. 
FeaOs. 
AI2O3. 
CaO. 
MgO. 
K2O. 
NaaO. 
SO3. 
Loss. 
Cement rock and 
Nazareth, Pa. 
19.92 
2. 28 
7 - S2 
62.48 
3.19 
0. 52 
0. 66 
I. SI 
1.46 
limestone. 
21.14 
2.30 
6.94 
63. 24 
3. 26 
.36 
• SI 
1.12 
I. 24 
Bath, Pa. 
19.64 
2. 80 
7. 52 
62.31 
3.04 
n. 
d. 
I. 60 
1.48 
Alpha, N. J. 
21.82 
2. SI 
8. 03 
62.19 
2. 71 
n. 
d. 
I. 02 
1. os 
Northampton, Pa. 
21.94 
2.37 
6. 87 
60. 2S 
2. 78 
. 61 
1 .87 
I. 38 
3 - 55 
Coplay, Pa. 
22. 26 
2. 10 
s. 36 
63.32 
3.81 
n. 
d. 
.89 
I. 24 
Omrod, Pa. 
22. 20 
2. 27 
6.69 
62. 61 
3.00 
.32 i 
1 . 61 
1.32 
I. 56 
Martins Creek, Pa. 
20. 23 
2. SO 
7. 12 
62.94 
3 - 38 
n. 
d. 
I. 45 
I. 25 
Readmg, Pa. 
24.16 
I. 4 S 
S- 10 
62. 9S 
3.12 
. 21 j 
• 50 
1.35 
I. 40 
Limestone and 
Ban City, Mich. 
20. 72 
2. 85 
7. 17 
62. 64 
I. 97 
.48 
. 12 
I. 42 
2, s8 
clay or shale. 
Wellestone, Ohio. 
Chanute, Kans. 
21.84 
20.74 
S-OS 
3 - 72 
6. 77 
7. 06 
62.66 
62. 76 
.80 
I. 78 
n. 
.41 1 
d. 
. 23 
I. 24 
X. 12 
I. 40 
Ada, Okla . 
12. 28 
3- 20 
6. 36 
59-66 
3. II 
.80 1 
- 2S 
I. 40 
2. 82 
♦Stroh, Ind.i . 
21. 78 
2. 6s 
7 - 31 
62.35 
2.88 
0.47 
I. 78 
.78 
♦Glens Falls, N. Y. ... 
21. 50 
10. so 
63. SO 
I. 80 
40 
I. 50 
n. d. 
Alsen, N. Y . 
23.94 
3. 20 
S- 62 
62.32 
I. 77 
n. d. 
.90 
I. 68 
Ford wick, Va . 
21.31 
2. 81 
6. S 4 
63. 01 
2. 71 
n. d. 
1.42 
2. 01 
Davenport, Calif. 
25.38 
I. 20 
3 .34 
62. 96 
I. 20 
n. d. 
•35 
4 - 58 
Cement, Calif. 
22.34 
3. 30 
7. 00 
60. 72 
1.30 
n. 
d. 
I. os 
2. 54 
♦Baker, Wash.. 
24.63 
8.s6 
62.88 
I. 60 
n. 
d. 
I. 33 
n. d. 
St. Louis, Mo. 
23.12 
2.49 
6.18 
63. 47 
.88 
n. 
d. 
I. 34 
I. 81 
Demopolis, Ala. 
19.36 
4. 10 
9.18 
63. 20 
1.16 
n. d. 
I. 18 
1.12 
♦Portland, Colo. 
21.88 
2. 8s 
7. 14 
64.94 
Trace. 
I. 
18 
• 73 
1.08 
Marl and clay.... 
♦Middlebranch, Ohio.. 
21. 24 
4. 14 
7.8s 
63. 22 
.28 
. 
68 
I. II 
1.32 
♦Coldwater, Mich. 
21. 22 
3.83 
7. SI 
63. 75 
.82 
n. 
d. 
I. S8 
1.02 
Sandusky, Ohio. 
21.93 
2.3s 
5.99 
62. 92 
1.10 
• 63 j 
.27 
I. 55 
2.92 
♦Bronson, Mich. 
22. 90 
3. 60 
6.80 
63.90 
. 70 
I. 
10 
.40 
. 60 
♦Harper, Ohio . 
21. 30 
2. 00 
6.9s 
62. so 
I. 20 
n. 
d. 
.98 
4. 62 
♦Warners, N. Y . 
22. 04 
3. 41 
6.4s 
60. 92 
3. 53 
n. d. 
I. 25 
Limestone and 
Chicago, Ill . 
22. 41 
2. SI 
8.12 
62. 01 
1.68 
n. 
d 
1.40 
I. ca 
blast furnace 
. do . 
23. 06 
2.88 
8.16 
62. 10 
1.88 
• 36 
S8 
1-57 
slag. 
^ Analyses made by Richard K. Meade, with the exception of those designated *. 
Per 
The average is represented by the following: cent. 
Silica. 22. o 
Alumina. 7. 5 
Iron oxid.. 2.5 
Lime. 62. 5 
Magnesia. 2. 5 
Sulphur trioxid. 1.5 
PART III. DEFINITE RESULTS 
In the preliminary work where tests were made with tile, the propor¬ 
tion of tile to water was far in excess of the proportion between the tile 
in a marsh, and the marsh itself was always sufficiently high to 
make the combined solution strongly alkaline. In all later work the 
aim was to reverse the proportions so as to make the influence of the 
marsh predominate. The marsh water, too, taken in the month of Feb¬ 
ruary, was alkaline. It became necessary to determine if the water in 
the marsh remained alkaline under the influence of warmth and if the 
tile were acted upon by a large excess of solutions produced under warm 
conditions. 
TEST WITH SURPLUS OF BOG WATER 
The results of the tests with a comparatively large piece of tile in a 
small quantity of water being unsatisfactory, due to the excessive alka¬ 
linity of the tile, another scheme was devised which was intended to 
subject tile to a large quantity of water. In order to increase the 
rapidity of action, the surface of the tile was increased as much as possi¬ 
ble by powdering the tile. From this powdered material 50 gm. 
