Philadelphia Paper - Discussion on Steel Rails. Philadelphia Meeting

circumstances, would prefer the steel with which they are now familiar, to a specimen that Mr. Sandberg has described as having broken into seventeen pieces under the wheels. After blowing such low manganese steel, it may be coaxed into a rail, but it is a wonder that it holds together so long as it does, with so great a nornber of minute flaws. I would not in any way depreciate chemistry, but I think it should be kept in its proper sphere. Let the chemist look after the quality of pig metal, and apply common sense in the avoiding of extremes, then the most fastidious railroad cannot find fault with the result. PROFESSOR EGLESTON, New YORK City : It is not my place as an engineer to apologize for the chemists, but as no one seems disposed to do so, and as they have had more than their share of criticism, 1 am glad to say that I believe there are chemists in this Institute whose work and word are just as reliable, arid perhaps even more so, than that of the average engineer. But we ought to make a distinction; there are chemists and chemists. With the ordinary commercial chemist, who looks upon the science as so much merohandise, I have not a particle of sympathy; but with the chemist who looks upon his profession as engineers do upon theirs, I have every sympathy. When matiufactorers and engineers go to a chemist and ask him to make an investigation, and scretv him dowu to the lowest point, turning the equivalent of his brains into cents and mills, they ustially get an exact equivalent in poor work for miserable pay, and no one has or should have any sympathy with them, and the under these conditions has no right to ask for any, and no reason to criticise any work that he may get under such circumstances. But I am disposed to think that the chemists who have been replwented and discussed at this meeting do their work conscientiously, and that it is as reliable as that of almost any profession. I believe, however, that this problem of steel rails is being investigated in a wrong direction. I said so at the Pittsburgh meeting, and I think the discussion of this meeting will prove it to all those who have heard it. I think the chemigt is incapable of solving this problem unlees he goes very far into the domain of physical chemistry, so far that it becomes physics and not chemistry; and that the physicist will be the one on whom we must rely in the future for the elucidation of the subject. The chemist may aid the physicist, but it is my decided opinion that we are looking in the wrong place to get the explanation of the phenomena.