Some New Laboratory Work on Rubber

1929 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-208
Author(s):  
A. A. Somerville ◽  
J. M. Ball
Keyword(s):  
Physical Properties ◽  
Chemical Process ◽  
American Chemical Society ◽  
Chemical Society ◽  
Laboratory Work ◽  
Rubber Industry ◽  
The Subject

Abstract CRUDE rubber is not of much use commercially or industrially until after it has been put through a chemical process discovered by Charles Goodyear: that of adding sulphur and heating. But sulphur is not the only material that can be used to change and improve the natural physical properties of raw rubber. There are other things than sulphur that are beneficial, one of which is Selenium. It is a pleasure to be permitted to talk here in Boston before a meeting of the Northeastern Section of the American Chemical Society and the Boston Rubber Group, devoted at this time particularly to the subject of rubber. It is a privilege to be permitted to talk on the subject of Selenium at this meeting because it is coming back very close to the home of Selenium so far as it is associated with the rubber industry.

Importance of Temperature and Humidity Control in Rubber Testing. I—Stress-Strain and Tensile Properties

1928 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 515-594
Author(s):  
J. E. Partenheimer ◽  
E. R. Bridgwater ◽  
D. F. Cranor ◽  
E. B. Curtis ◽  
J. W. Schade ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Relative Humidity ◽  
Physical Properties ◽  
Tensile Properties ◽  
American Chemical Society ◽  
Chemical Society ◽  
Atmospheric Temperature ◽  
Specific Work ◽  
Relative Importance ◽  
Stress Strain ◽  
Chemical Company

Abstract IN OCTOBER, 1926, R. P. Dinsmore, chairman of the Rubber Division of the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, appointed a Physical Testing Committee to investigate the effect of variables such as temperature and relative humidity upon the physical properties of rubber. This committee was continued by Harry L. Fisher, present chairman of the Rubber Division. The committee chose the problem of determining the importance of controlling atmospheric temperature and relative humidity while conditioning rubber test samples at various stages of preparation and testing. This report deals with the first study made—that of the effect of the above two variables on the stress-strain and tensile properties of rubber. In reading this report it should be kept in mind that the problem of this committee is to determine the effect of variables on the physical properties of rubber so that we may know the relative importance of controlling the factors involved. It was not intended to make this work include the relative value of specific tests for particular purposes or to become a research directed towards the development of new tests. It has been the intent to limit the work of the committee to the refinement of tests widely used and considered as routine and standard, and not to include development of new tests or work concerning broader lines of research. It is, however, hoped that in the future the work of this or another committee can be broadened to include fundamental research problems as well as specific work such as the present committee has undertaken. We believe that the work done demonstrates the desirability of carrying on cooperative investigations of this nature and hope that this committee is made a permanent institution of the Rubber Division with such changes in personnel as are necessary continually to broaden and improve the work. This report will raise many questions and point out several possible lines of research, but the committee has tried to stick to its job of determining the relative importance of controlling temperature and relative humidity in relation to stress-strain and tensile properties. The work has been carried out at the Bureau of Standards at Washington by F. E. Rupert as a research associate under the direction of the committee. The Bureau of Standards has contributed its facilities and to cover the expenditures of the committee for the first year each company represented by the members of the committee contributed $650. The Rubber Association of America is handling the finances of the committee for the present year, which amounts to $6000 and includes the appropriation of the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. As the committee has needed special apparatus different companies have loaned machines, which have included a Scott tensile tester and U. S. abrasion machine from the Henry L. Scott Company, and a Grasselli abrader from the Grasselli Chemical Company.

Practical Method for Obtaining Dry Air for Humidity Control in a Rubber Laboratory

1929 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 318-322
Author(s):  
F. S. Conover
Keyword(s):  
Relative Humidity ◽  
Laboratory Testing ◽  
American Chemical Society ◽  
Practical Method ◽  
Chemical Society ◽  
Testing Laboratories ◽  
Physical Testing ◽  
Cent Relative Humidity ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Short Time

Abstract THE effect of relative humidity on rubber-testing has been the subject of much recent investigation. String-field and Conover and Depew have published papers on this subject. The last-named authors recommended that the rubber be stored in dry cabinets before milling, between milling and vulcanization, and between vulcanization and testing, at a temperature of 75° ±5° F. A short time later the Physical Testing Committee of the Rubber Division of the American Chemical Society recommended that all laboratory testing be carried out at 45 per cent relative humidity and 82° ±5°F. While both methods have undoubted merit, it was believed that for physical testing laboratories, particularly such as this one, zero humidity was both more conducive to reliable results and easier to maintain. Accordingly, equipment was installed for maintaining zero humidity and its performance has been consistently good. Since several of the larger rubber laboratories have shown interest in the equipment, it has been decided to present this description of the installation and its operation.

History of the Division of Rubber Chemistry of the American Chemical Society

1940 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
E. V. Osberg
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
American Chemical Society ◽  
Chemical Society ◽  
Laboratory Research ◽  
Abstract Reasoning ◽  
Rubber Industry ◽  
The Past ◽  
History Of

Abstract After long years of experience, the rubber industry of today has come to realize the true worth of the chemist and the value of the interchange of scientific knowledge and coöperation in research. Early meetings and discussions held by the Division of Rubber Chemistry of the American Chemical Society and its predecessor, the Rubber Section, were influential in dispelling early ideas as to the value of the chemist and in breaking down the barrier of secrecy in the rubber trade. The chemistry of rubber during the past two decades has undergone a tremendous growth, and the Division through its many activities has played an important role in disseminating knowledge that has been gained from laboratory research. THE EARLY RUBBER CHEMIST Before the turn of the twentieth century, the rubber industry had little or no knowledge of the chemist or what he might accomplish. Funds for research were generally withheld, with no quick profits in sight as a result of these expenditures. Among the comments of rubber manufacturers of that time were: “I have no use for chemists, druggists and apothecaries”; “I would give more for the guess of my old superintendent than all the certainties of the best chemist on earth”; “I had employed chemists but their cost to the company had been greater than any value received from their work.” In 1899 the chemist, Arthur H. Marks, invented the alkali reclaiming process, and in 1906 George Oenslager discovered organic accelerators. Rubber technology was being revolutionized by the chemist, and larger profits were in sight. The tight grip on the purse strings became loosened somewhat, and money was being cautiously expended on research. Practical and immediate results which could be translated into hasty profits were the principal aims. Little encouragement was afforded those who wanted to tackle fundamentals. Competition was keen among manufacturers; the rubber industry was growing rapidly, and no time or money was available for abstract reasoning or for “profitless” research enterprises. Rubber manufacturers were quite willing for their chemists to meet with chemists of other companies provided they did not divulge any of the firm's “secrets”. With most of those attending these early meetings in the role of listeners, little was accomplished in furthering the knowledge of rubber chemistry through the exchange of ideas. Such was the problem during the life of the Rubber Section and through the earlier years of its healthier successor, the Division of Rubber Chemistry.

Some Neglected Problems in the Rheology of High Polymers

1962 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 27-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melvin Mooney
Keyword(s):  
Flow Behavior ◽  
American Chemical Society ◽  
Chemical Society ◽  
The United States ◽  
Theoretical Argument ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Flow Properties ◽  
The Past ◽  
Third Person ◽  
The Subject

Abstract In accordance with custom, I have been asked, as a Goodyear Medalist, to address the Division of Rubber Chemistry of the American Chemical Society on the subject of my past work in the science and technology of elastomers. Hoping that I have correctly understood your desires, I shall now give you an informal, anecdotal story of some of this work. Going beyond this story of the past I shall also sketch, as I now see them, certain related unsolved problems, some of which have been rather neglected. While keeping in mind that detailed mathematics and theoretical argument would be inappropriate and even unwelcome on this occasion, I shall endeavor, with very little mathematics, to stimulate some of you to initiate programs of research on some of these problems, if you have not already done so. First let me tell you how, without realizing it, I became a rheologist. When I was employed by the United States Rubber Company in the fall of 1928, my first assignment was to study rubber plasticity, or the flow properties of crude rubbers and raw compounded stocks. When I was told of this problem in a conference with my group leader, Dr. Roscoe H. Gerke, there was a third person present, Dr. Ernest J. Joss, a physical chemist. Dr. Joss had only shortly before been given the same assignment; but with my appearance in the group, he was permitted to drop this work and give his full time to more congenial tasks. At the conference he turned over to me some talced strips of pale crepe which had been cut from a batch on a laboratory mill after various milling times. I knew nothing about rubber at that time; and if I had been asked to guess what these samples were, I could only have replied that they looked like fillets of sole sprinkled with flour and ready for the frying pan. The rheologieal testing devices for raw rubber that were available at that time were of two forms, the compression plastometer and the extrusion plastometer. I quickly decided that neither of these was suitable for the purpose, which, as I conceived it, was to measure the flow behavior of raw rubbers or stocks in their working condition as exhibited on a mill or calender or in a tuber.

Report of the Raw Rubber Specifications Committee

1929 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 335-339
Author(s):  
Ellwood B. Spear ◽  
C. R. Boggs ◽  
H. E. Simmons ◽  
H. L. Trumbull ◽  
N. A. Shepard
Keyword(s):  
American Chemical Society ◽  
Chemical Society ◽  
Stress Strain ◽  
Physical Testing ◽  
Complete Report ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Satisfactory State ◽  
Considerable Detail

Abstract AS INTIMATED in a previous report of the Committee presented at the St. Louis meeting in April, 1928, a temporary procedure was adopted in order to ascertain whether or not the five laboratories represented on the Committee could obtain reasonably comparable stress-strain relationships using the same batch of rubber. A complete report is appended in which the procedure is outlined and the results of each laboratory are given in considerable detail. After careful deliberations the Committee has concluded that the testing of raw rubber is not in a very satisfactory state. It therefore makes the following recommendations: (1) The testing of raw rubber should be made the subject of thorough investigations. (2) The work should be undertaken by a Physical Testing Committee, preferably under the jurisdiction of the Rubber Division of the American Chemical Society.

Thermoplastic Elastomers—Three Decades of Progress

1989 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 529-547 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. R. Legge
Keyword(s):  
Growth Rate ◽  
Physical Properties ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
American Chemical Society ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Chemical Society ◽  
Thermoplastic Elastomers ◽  
Component Integration ◽  
History Of ◽  
Processing Techniques

Abstract In these three decades of progress, thermoplastic elastomers have risen in 1987 to a position of tenth in the order of commercial thermoplastic sales in the U.S.A., with a growth rate, 1986–1987, of 9.7%. It is very probable that the quantity shown for 1987 sales, 441 million pounds, is low, since it is well known that the largest producer of styrenic TPEs does not report offtake data. Much of the styrenic TPE goes to the adhesive industry, which also is very secretive in regard to materials consumption information. Thus, the 1986–1987 reported growth rate of 9.7% is on the low side. Another indicator of progress in the growth of TPEs has been illustrated by the number of product introductions from January 1986 to June 1987. During that period, TPEs led the major thermoplastics with the introduction of 270 new product types, and the nylons were a close second with 250. A third estimate of the explosive growth in TPEs may be seen in Table V which lists the number of manufacturers of TPEs in 1975, 1985, and 1987, increasing from 10 to 28 to 50. To summarize, the present thermoplastic elastomers, now high-volume commercial products, had roots in the chemistry and technology of polymers in the 1920's. Throughout the history of the “Roots” period one can detect precursor events from which several TPEs could have been foreseen. In each of the three decades of progress, major advances were made in the technology, physical properties, availability, and utilization of TPEs. The numbers of these increased in each succeeding period. Several paradigms appear in this review, for example: 1. The triblock styrene-diene A-B-A copolymers, morphology, and elastomeric character, in the first decade. 2. The copolyesters with (A−B)n morphology and greatly enhanced physical properties in the second decade. 3. The dynamically-vulcanized blends of EPDM and PP, followed in time by the concept of compatibilization to permit practical blends of NBR and PP in the third decade. Throughout these periods, growth was catalyzed by the favorable economics of manufacturing finished elastomeric products via low-cost thermoplastic processing techniques as compared with thermoset rubber processes. The reuse of scrap also provided a major incentive. In addition to these, the concept of component integration is now showing a path toward even more cost reduction incentives. New applicational areas continue to appear. One of these, blending relatively small amounts of TPEs with existing large volume thermoplastics, promises to provide extremely large offtakes of TPEs in the next decade. I am sure that the numbers of papers presented in symposia at meetings of the Rubber Division of the American Chemical Society confirm the continued explosive growth of TPEs we have seen in these past three decades.

People Make the Difference

1990 ◽  
Vol 63 (5) ◽  
pp. 81-95
Author(s):  
Benjamin Kastein
Keyword(s):  
Technical Information ◽  
American Chemical Society ◽  
Chemical Society ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Neutral Position ◽  
National Bureau ◽  
Chief Chemist ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Difference

Abstract The Las Vegas meeting of the Rubber Division, ACS, provided attendees the opportunity to hear the interview of Mr. Arnold H. Smith, by Mr. Herbert A. Endres, recorded April 7, 1966. Mr. Smith, as Secretary-Treasurer of the Division from 1919 to 1928, and as Chairman in 1929, was the person most responsible for laying the foundation which supported the growth of the Division to its present status. The India Rubber Section was sanctioned by the American Chemical Society on December 30, 1909. The 28 chemists from the rubber industry who were the organizing members, had the objective of meeting together to solve mutual problems. The major problem for everyone in 1909 was the variable quality of the 36 varieties of wild rubber from the jungles of Central and South America and Africa. Para rubber from the Hevea Brasiliensis tree was considered to be the best type available, but there were at least 13 variations, identified by source of the Para rubber. Charles C. Goodrich, as first chairman of the India Rubber Section, moved immediately to resolve the problem and appointed a committee, chaired by Dr. Charles Knight of Buchtel College, to develop standard methods of testing and evaluation. The committee diligently addressed the subject and reported to the Section at each meeting for 10 years, but progress was slow. Members attending had been instructed by their superiors, “Listen—but don't talk!” Not a very satisfactory format for conducting a meeting. Several key individuals helping to organize the India Rubber Section were W. C. Geer, Chief Chemist at the B. F. Goodrich Co. and George Oenslager, of the Diamond Rubber Co. Geer invented the air oven used to accelerate heat aging of rubber samples, and Oenslager is famous for discovering the effect on vulcanization of organic accelerators in 1906 and for the use of carbon blacks in treads in 1911. Although the sharing of technical information was tantalizing slow during the early years, the American Chemical Society, at their meeting in Buffalo, April 7, 1919, approved the formation of the Division of Rubber Chemistry. John B. Tuttle, first chairman of the Division in 1919, with Arnold H. Smith as secretary-treasurer, determined to bring to the members technical information less restricted in content, and from their neutral position of employment at the National Bureau of Standards, thought results could be obtained.

PATENTS OF CHARLES GOODYEAR: HIS INTERNATIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE RUBBER INDUSTRY

2010 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 303-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jo Ann Calzonetti ◽  
Christopher J. Laursen
Keyword(s):  
19Th Century ◽  
American Chemical Society ◽  
Chemical Society ◽  
Complete List ◽  
Online Resources ◽  
Rubber Industry ◽  
The University ◽  
The 19Th Century

Abstract Charles Goodyear is best known for a single patent, U.S. patent 3633, “Improvements in India Rubber Fabrics Vulcanization of Rubber” (1849). The story of Goodyear and his 1839 discovery of vulcanization, a method to increase the strength and resiliency of rubber, has been told in several well-researched accounts. What has not been accomplished is a compilation of the complete patents of Goodyear. Although many books and articles discuss the patents of Charles Goodyear, up to this point there was no single comprehensive and accurate list of his patents including all the information needed to retrieve the original documents from the issuing patent organizations. Librarians of the Rubber Division, American Chemical Society and the University of Akron, using both print and online resources, were able to compile a complete list of Goodyear's patents issued in the 19th Century.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document