When people boast of extraordinary successes in processes the details
of which are kept profoundly hidden from public scrutiny, and when the
evidences of success are presented in the doubtful form of specimens
which the public has no means of tracing directly to the process, the
public is apt to be skeptical, and to express skepticism often in not
very complimentary terms.
For a considerable time, the public has been treated to highly-colored
accounts of a wonderful metallurgic process whereby the best iron and
steel were said to be made, from the very worst materials, almost
in the twinkling of an eye. This process has been called after its
assumed inventor, or discoverer, the "Sherman Process." The details of
the process are still withheld, but we last week gave an extract from
an English contemporary, which throws a little light upon the subject.
The agent relied upon to effect the remarkable transformation claimed,
is iodine, used preferably in the form of iodide of potassium, and
very little of it is said to produce a most marvellous change in the
character of the metal.
A very feeble attempt at explaining the rationale of this effect has
been made, in one or two English journals, which we opine will not
prove very satisfactory to chemists and scientific metallurgists. The
_Engineer_ has published two three-column articles upon the subject,
the first containing very little information, and the second a great
number of unnecessary paragraphs, but which gives the proportion of
the iodide used, in the extremely scientific and accurate formula
expressed in the terms "a small quantity."
Assertions of remarkable success have also been given. Nothing,
however, was said of remarkable failures, of which there have
doubtless been some. A series of continued successes would, we
should think, by this time, have sufficed for the parturition of
this metallurgic process, and the discovery would ere this have been
introduced to the world, had there not been some drawbacks.
We are not prepared to deny _in toto_ that the process is all that is
claimed for it; but the way in which it has been managed is certainly
one not likely to encourage faith in it.
The very name of "process" implies a system perfected, and if it be
still so far back in the experimental stage that nothing definite in
the way of results can be relied upon, it is not yet a process. If, in
the use of iodine, in some instances, fine grades of iron or steel are
produced, and in as many other experiments, with the same material,
failures result, it is just as fair to attribute the failures to the
iodine, as the successes. A process worthy the name is one that acts
with approximate uniformity, and when, in its use, results vary
widely from what is usual, the variation may be traced to important
differences in the conditions of its application.
On the whole, we are inclined to believe Mr. Sherman's experiments
have not yet developed a definite process, and we shall receive with
much allowance the glowing statements published in regard to it, until
such time as it can face the world and defy unbelief.
The patents obtained by Mr. Sherman seem to cover the use of iodine,
rather than the manner of using it, and throw no light upon the
rationale of the process.
A patent was granted by the United States Patent Office, Sept. 13,
1870, to J. C. Atwood, in which the inventor claims the use of iodide
of potassium in connection with the carbons and fluxes used in making
and refining iron. In his specification he states that he uses about
_fifteen grains_ of this salt to eighty pounds of the metal. This
is about 1/373 of one per cent. He uses in connection with this
exceedingly small proportion of iodide of potassium, about two ounces
of lampblack, or charcoal, and four ounces of manganese, and asserts
that steel made with these materials will be superior in quality
to that made by the old method. These claims we are inclined to
discredit. Certainly, we see no chemical reason why this small amount
of iodide should produce such an effect, and the specification itself
throws no light upon our darkness.
If the experiments in these so-called processes have no better basis
than is apparent from such information as at present can be gathered
respecting them, it is probable we shall wait some time before the
promised revolution in iron and steel manufacture is accomplished
through their use.
* * * * *