Philadelphia Paper - Discussion on Steel Rails. Philadelphia Meeting

William Metcalf, Pittsburgh, Pa. : In rising to discuss Dr. Dadley's paper, I feel somewhat as I did at the Baltimore meeting —that a "crucible" man has no right to interfere in a "Bessenier" discussion; yet having read the paper very carefully, I feel impelled to say something, for two reasons: First, because I believe Dr. Dudley is entirely on the right and having undertaken and partly accomplished a great work, he .is entitled to the help of all who have experience in these matters; and second, because the data given force me to colicur in Captain Jones's opinion that the analyses are incomplete, since they ignore sulphur, copper, nitrogen, and possibly other injurious elements. In an experience of fourteen years, and with probably more than a hontlwl tests, we have never found the chemistry and the of crucible steel to disagree. If in any cave a disagreement tins sp- . peared, it has been our invariable custom to go over all our physirtal testa with great care, and if we found no error, then to refer the matter back to the cherubt, who has invariably found some unexjmted element to account for the trouble. It is only just to the chemist to say here, that ordinarily be is only expected to determine phosphorus, silicon, sulphnr. Generally the metals, with the exception of manganese, are not looked for, although a watch is usually kept for copper and arsenic. Further, in most cases we have found our own work more liable to be faulty than the chemist's. Having arrived then at such a degree of experience that we can preJict the analysis from our tests, or our tests from the analysis, with almost absolute certainty, I can see no reason why the same results map not be attained in the Bessemer practice. But two things are essential, neither of which we have here; first, cornplete analyses; and second, a record of the nature of the blow, the heat at which the ingots were bloomed, and the mile finished,—in short, a complete history of the This latter is quite as essential as accurate and complete analyses. Dr. Duclley ignores sulphur and copper on fair enough grounds commercially speaking, bnt when he announces so gmve a conclusion as he has reached, in a scientific way, the omission of any elementn that, may affect the conclusion is hardly justifiable. His diEerenvcs of phosphorus units, which I milst term units of rottenness 83 fr os phosphorus is concerned, and which I am sorry be did not llama wnits of alloys,—are very small, and if eulphur and copper hod been inclurlid they might havo upset hie conclusions sitogether, The