The Critical Ranges A2 And A3 Of Pure Iron. (0501dbed-3410-4fb9-81dd-c4f488622778)

Discussion of the paper of G. K. Burgess and J. J. Crowe, presented at the New York Meeting, October, 1913, and printed in Bulletin No. 82, October, 1913, pp. 2537 to 2591. HENRY M. Howe, New York, N. Y. :-I think we can hardly rate the importance of the entry of the Bureau of Standards into our field. There is no body in the world that is better fitted to undertake this work than that Bureau, and it is work which really calls for the aid of some national organization. The skill and care with which this work has been done speaks for itself. It is very striking that within a very few months the distinguished English investigator, Professor Carpenter, of whom I spoke before, thought that he had disproved the existence of beta iron by proving that the A2 retardation which Professor Burgess has now demonstrated did not occur. Dr. Burgess's demonstration of the existence of. this retardation makes the existence of beta iron very probable, in my opinion. Osmond used to call beta iron " decipuum." You knew of its existence as you know of the existence of certain planets, only by the perturbation which it caused. Certain phenomena could not be explained, except by assuming the existence of a third allotropic form, beta iron. The evidence that you got was always evasive and susceptible of other explanations, except that which we have to-day, which it seems to me is not capable of other explanation. Professor Carpenter proceeded in the same way that Dr. Burgess has, by taking the heating and cooling curves of exceedingly pure iron, and thought that he had shown that there was no thermal change, no absorption or evolution of heat at the supposed A2 point, and hence that the A2 point did not exist. This he did by a piece of reasoning which I think seems to most of us rather surprising. That is to say, if of ten witnesses, three have seen a thing and seven have not, the evidence of the seven who have not is set aside, and that of the three who have seen stands. In Dr. Carpenter's own experiments under certain conditions he found the A2 change, the heat evolution., under certain others he did not. That is like the three witnesses who saw and the seven who did not see. You can arrange your test so that this change will not become visible or so that it is masked. But though an existent change can be masked a non-existent one cannot be shown. So that the reasoning seemed to me wholly fallacious.