Philadelphia Paper - Discussion on Steel Rails. Philadelphia Meeting

composition, he cannot reasonably asl; the manufacturer to guarantee that this composition shall give certain physical results. W. R. Jones, Pittsburgh, Pa. : The question that naturally occlun to me is this: Has Dr. Dudley in his inveatigtrtions been aiming to prove a theory, or has he been guided by an earnest desire to discover what are the proper elements in the composition of a good-wearing steel rail ? Unfortunately, for correct chemical information, he has omitted in his analgw two very importnat elements,—sulpbur and copper. Now, before we will even begin to admit the correctnets of Dr. Dudley's conclusions and the formula he prescribes, we will at the start question the propriety of any chenlist or scientist prescribing a formula for making steel when he has iguared such important ele ments as sulphur aud copper. I, for one, will not accept any such formula. Are we sure, or is Dr. Daclley sure, that the chemical analyseq embodied in his paper are correct? This may seem a presumptuous queetion, yet, with my experience with chenlists, I naturally doubt the correctness of the analyse8, and, before I will accept them as correct, I will ask that comparative tests of phosphorous and man ganese be made by the Pennsylvania Railroad chemists and the chemists of the leading steel-works in the country. Let us first verify the correctness of the analyses before we consider the con clusions. I can enumerate a great number of instances in which chemists have differed very widely in their determinations of phos phorus and manganese. A prominent iron fitam made a contract with the Edgar Thomson Steel Company to deliver pig metal guar anteed to be between 0.07 and 0.08 phosphorus; an analysis by our chemist resulted in phosphorus 0.148 and 0.152,—a rather startling difference! Again, a sample bar of steel, in which our chemist reported phosphorus 0.11, was tested by a chemist of au other Bessemer works, ana his determinations were phosphorus between 0.07 and 0.08: A leading engineering establishmeut of Pittsbdrgh bought iron claimed by a chemical analysis to contain 0.08 phosphorus; our Mr. Ford found phosphorus 0.145. A chem ist connected with an open-hearth works reported manganese in a piece of steel, 1.14; in a second determination from the same piece of steel, by the same chemist, manganese was reported 0.43. The chemist was kept in ignorauce of the fact that both samples were from the saw piece of steel. Two dctermiuations for manganese