New York Paper - Colloid Chemistry and Metallurgy. Discussion by Albert Sauveur

Albert Sauveur, Cambridge, Mass. (written discussion).— In his introductory paragraph, the author states that he has come to bury Beilby, not to praise him. The paper, however, gives the impression that while he may have dug the grave, Beilby is still at large. I am not one of those whom the author calls enthusiastic supporters of Beilby's amorphous theory and in support of this claim quote from a book I am writing: "Attractive as the amorphous theory is, and notwithstanding the ability with which it has been presented and the renown of its sponsors and supporters, it should not be accepted without reservations as a demonstrated fact.... So long as it explains more satisfactorily than other theories a greater number of phenomena in which it may play a part, we should use it in preference to others as the best available. Let us avoid the danger, however, into which too many fall, of accepting as indisputable truths, statements and theories emanating from those whom we hold in great esteem. It is not what those men themselves would wish us to do. I am entitled, I think, to occupy a position in the middle ground. Neither should Howe be classified with the enthusiastic supporters for he has written that the theory should be classed rather among the precious working theories than among those firmly established," a very wise and prudent statement. Jeffries, on the other hand, I would not hesitate to describe as an enthusiastic supporter. The author reproaches the advocates of the amorphous theory with having taken whatever properties they needed and with having assigned them arbitrarily to the hypothetical amorphous phase. He then applics their method to small crystals. If the existence of an amorphous phase is assumed, its greater tenacity and greater hardness is satisfactorily explained in the words of Howc: '(This greater strength is natural, because the amorphous state lacks the cleavages and slip planes which weaken crystalline substances." Can the greater strength and hardness claimed for small crystals be as satisfactorily explained? Nor do I think that the cold deformation of metals through successive slips within the crystalline grains can he accounted for as acceptably by the "small crystals theory."