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.

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.

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.

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.

Engineering with Rubber

1986 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 69-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard Mullins
Keyword(s):  
Science And Technology ◽  
American Chemical Society ◽  
Chemical Society ◽  
Scientific Basis ◽  
Research Association ◽  
Polymer Science ◽  
Special Interests ◽  
Good Fortune ◽  
Short Time ◽  
To Receive

Abstract First I must thank you Mr. Chairman for your most generous introduction. I understand that there will be another opportunity later today to thank the Executive Committee of the Rubber Division of the American Chemical Society for nominating me as the Charles Goodyear Medalist for 1986, for the pleasure of being here today, and for the privilege of addressing you. But I would wish to say, at this stage, how deeply honored I am to receive this most distinguished award. It is a tradition that this address should reflect the author's special interests and his own contribution to rubber science and technology, and they have tended to be autobiographical in nature. However the title which I have chosen, “Engineering with Rubber,” covers a broad field of activity, but in the relatively short time at my disposal I will perforce have to restrict myself to those areas in which I have been personally involved. Like so many recent Charles Goodyear Medalists it was my good fortune to be active during the period of almost explosive growth of polymer science and technology which occurred during the 1940's and 1950's and which provided a proper scientific basis for the polymer industries created during this period. The rubber industry is, of course, much older, but hitherto it had relied upon an essentially empirical approach to provide practical answers to most of its problems. It was also my good fortune to work with and alongside many outstanding individuals both at the Research Association of British Rubber Manufacturers (now the Rubber and Plastics Research Association) and at the Malaysian Rubber Producers' Research Association (formerly the British Rubber Producers' Research Association). To these I owe much and I would wish to share this recognition with my colleagues.

Importance of Temperature and Humidity Control in Rubber Testing. Progress Report of the Physical Testing Commitee, Rubber Division, A.C.S. (Dated Dec. 8, 1927)

1928 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 182-191
Author(s):  
J. E. Partenheimer ◽  
E. R. Bridgwater ◽  
D. F. Cranor ◽  
E. B. Curtis ◽  
J. W. Schade ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Relative Humidity ◽  
Absolute Humidity ◽  
Rubber Compounds ◽  
Physical Testing ◽  
Temperature And Humidity ◽  
Cent Relative Humidity ◽  
Physical Tests ◽  
A Minor ◽  
Mixed Stock ◽  
Testing Room

Abstract The purpose of the work which this committee has undertaken is to determine the effect of the variables which influence the results of physical tests on rubber. The investigation has proven that variations in temperature which may occur from day to day in an uncontrolled testing room may affect the physical tests to as great a degree as a 25 to 40 per cent change in the time of cure, while relative humidity affects the results to only a minor degree. Furthermore, variations in the absolute humidity of the room in which the unvulcanized rubber is stored between the time of mixing and the time of curing may affect the tensile strength and modulus of rubber compounds to as great a degree as does the temperature after curing. It is, therefore, apparent that laboratory tests which are conducted under uncontrolled conditions of temperature and humidity may give highly erroneous results and may even give misinformation which is worse than no information at all. The committee, therefore, recommends that mixed stock prior to curing and cured stock prior to testing be conditioned for not less than twenty-four nor more than twenty-eight hours at 82 deg. F. ± 2 deg. and 45 per cent relative humidity ± 3 per cent and that the testing room be maintained at 82 deg. F. ± 2 deg. If a temperature of 82 deg. F. cannot be maintained for conditioning the mixed stock prior to curing, the committee recommends a relative humidity corresponding to the temperature used which gives an absolute humidity equal to that obtained under the former conditions. The temperature of the testing room should be controlled within the above stated limits, but it is not necessary to control the humidity of the entire room. A small conditioning cabinet in which the standard humidity is maintained has been found to be sufficient.

Outline of Tentative Standard Laboratory Procedure for the Preparation and Physical Testing of Rubber Samples

1930 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-184
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Research Work ◽  
American Chemical Society ◽  
Chemical Society ◽  
Standard Laboratory ◽  
Laboratory Procedure ◽  
Rubber Compounds ◽  
Physical Testing ◽  
Physical Tests ◽  
Research Chemist

Abstract THE accompanying report on the work of the Physical Testing Committee, Rubber Division, American Chemical Society, marks the conclusion of the research work on the standardization of physical tests of rubber, which have been conducted since early in 1927, at the rubber laboratory of the Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C., under the sponsorship of the Rubber Manufacturers Association, the Rubber Division, A. C. S., and a number of rubber companies. The original committee was formed in October, 1926, by R. P. Dinsmore, chairman of the Rubber Division at that time. F. E. Rupert, research chemist at the Fisk Rubber Company, was chosen to conduct the research work. J. E. Partenheimer, also of Fisk, was chairman of the first committee, and was later succeeded by W. A. Gibbons, of United States Rubber Company, who in turn resigned last year and was succeeded by A. A. Somerville, of R. T. Vanderbilt Company, who has remained as chairman up to the present time. Two progress reports were made by the committee, one on the “Importance of Temperature and Humidity Control in Rubber Testing,” read at the April, 1927, Rubber Division meeting at Richmond, Va., and a later report on “The Effect of Humidity and Temperature on the Ability of Rubber Compounds to Resist Abrasion,” presented in September, 1927, at Detroit. This report was later amplified and released for publication in December, 1927.

The importance of weight loss in reducing breakdown of Jonathan apples

1968 ◽  
Vol 8 (32) ◽  
pp. 377 ◽  
Author(s):  
KJ Scott ◽  
EA Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Weight Loss ◽  
Relative Humidity ◽  
Calcium Chloride ◽  
Practical Method ◽  
High Relative Humidity ◽  
Cent Relative Humidity ◽  
Low Humidity ◽  
Initial Storage

Studies were made of the effect of different treatments on weight loss and breakdown of Jonathan apples. The apples were stored at 30�F under high relative humidity except while the following treatments were applied : initial storage at 30�F for 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 weeks at 65 per cent relative humidity ; storage at 30�F over calcium chloride for 8 weeks ; hydrocooling ; step-wise cooling from 36�F to 30�F ; and warming the fruit at 68�F for 24 hours. The level of breakdown in all treatments depended on the loss in weight of the fruit. Initial storage at low humidity appears to be a practical method of reducing breakdown.

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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document