5.2 Prehistory up to the Beginning of Discussions …
85
and many others were much less reinforcing than CB. Until then, all of them had
been considered a reinforcing filler of rubber. Further, they reviewed the ‘causes
of reinforcement,’ i.e., they tried to explain the reinforcing effect systematically
on the basis of so far obtained results. They discussed on particle diameter, shape,
chemical composition, and surface activity. Additionally, on the surface factors, (a)
flocculated systems, (b) dispersed systems, (c) plastic solid films, and (d) heat effects
were mentioned and discussed with care, citing the relevant research papers.
All of these factors, (a)–(d), that they mentioned have been repeatedly considered
by quite a number of rubber researchers after the publication of this book, which
suggests an excellent validity of their chapter. However, at the end of the chapter
(p. 410), they gave an excellent suggestion on rubber reinforcement, together with
their own honest conscience being disclosed openheartedly and straightforwardly,
as follows:
Enough moot questions have been raised and contradictions pointed out in this discussion to
show the meagerness and insufficiency of our knowledge of reinforcement. In many cases
we are misled by incomplete, inadequate, or even inaccurate, data. Absurd and grossly stupid
conclusions have resulted. In many cases, conflicting and irreconcilable opinions have been
based on the same facts. Because of the lack of a critical survey of the situation, many of
the discrepancies have passed unobserved, and certain erroneous ideas have been accepted
as facts. Of the latter, the authors, perhaps even in the present chapter, may be guilty.
Here, ‘moot’ means having much room for discussion, and at the time of writing,
they already seemed to have a clear opinion that many papers on rubber reinforcement
had to be checked much more rigorously than they had expected. The use of the word
‘guilty’ suggests their frank and strict scientific appraisal.
Under such a messy situation, they still managed to recognize that the CB size
was one of the most important factors to determine the reinforcing effect on rubber.
After the previous citation, they wrote as follows:
This chapter would be incomplete without some concrete suggestions for remedying this
situation.
Effect of Particle Size. It has been pointed out that data are lacking which make it possible
to determine whether fineness of division alone produces reinforcement. This problem is
one of the most difficult; but if solved, it would throw great light on the whole question of
reinforcement.
That is to say, they even suggested that whether only the particle size was the
necessary condition or not was a difficult question. Once solved, however, they have
predicted that rubber reinforcement would be most totally elucidated. The insight
disclosed by the three authors in 1937 was both extraordinary and marvelous. We
cannot help admiring their scientific evaluation on rubber reinforcement, in particular.
Hence, importance of the particle size of CB was established for rubber reinforcement
among majority of rubber engineers in the 1950s.
Later on, research of rubber reinforcement by CB has been led by assuming the
two ideas, i.e., bound rubber and structuring of CB, the essential idea of which have
already explained at Sect. 2.5 in the present book briefly. Under this situation, the
book entitled ‘Reinforcement of Elastomers’ [9] was published in 1965, in which
85
and many others were much less reinforcing than CB. Until then, all of them had
been considered a reinforcing filler of rubber. Further, they reviewed the ‘causes
of reinforcement,’ i.e., they tried to explain the reinforcing effect systematically
on the basis of so far obtained results. They discussed on particle diameter, shape,
chemical composition, and surface activity. Additionally, on the surface factors, (a)
flocculated systems, (b) dispersed systems, (c) plastic solid films, and (d) heat effects
were mentioned and discussed with care, citing the relevant research papers.
All of these factors, (a)–(d), that they mentioned have been repeatedly considered
by quite a number of rubber researchers after the publication of this book, which
suggests an excellent validity of their chapter. However, at the end of the chapter
(p. 410), they gave an excellent suggestion on rubber reinforcement, together with
their own honest conscience being disclosed openheartedly and straightforwardly,
as follows:
Enough moot questions have been raised and contradictions pointed out in this discussion to
show the meagerness and insufficiency of our knowledge of reinforcement. In many cases
we are misled by incomplete, inadequate, or even inaccurate, data. Absurd and grossly stupid
conclusions have resulted. In many cases, conflicting and irreconcilable opinions have been
based on the same facts. Because of the lack of a critical survey of the situation, many of
the discrepancies have passed unobserved, and certain erroneous ideas have been accepted
as facts. Of the latter, the authors, perhaps even in the present chapter, may be guilty.
Here, ‘moot’ means having much room for discussion, and at the time of writing,
they already seemed to have a clear opinion that many papers on rubber reinforcement
had to be checked much more rigorously than they had expected. The use of the word
‘guilty’ suggests their frank and strict scientific appraisal.
Under such a messy situation, they still managed to recognize that the CB size
was one of the most important factors to determine the reinforcing effect on rubber.
After the previous citation, they wrote as follows:
This chapter would be incomplete without some concrete suggestions for remedying this
situation.
Effect of Particle Size. It has been pointed out that data are lacking which make it possible
to determine whether fineness of division alone produces reinforcement. This problem is
one of the most difficult; but if solved, it would throw great light on the whole question of
reinforcement.
That is to say, they even suggested that whether only the particle size was the
necessary condition or not was a difficult question. Once solved, however, they have
predicted that rubber reinforcement would be most totally elucidated. The insight
disclosed by the three authors in 1937 was both extraordinary and marvelous. We
cannot help admiring their scientific evaluation on rubber reinforcement, in particular.
Hence, importance of the particle size of CB was established for rubber reinforcement
among majority of rubber engineers in the 1950s.
Later on, research of rubber reinforcement by CB has been led by assuming the
two ideas, i.e., bound rubber and structuring of CB, the essential idea of which have
already explained at Sect. 2.5 in the present book briefly. Under this situation, the
book entitled ‘Reinforcement of Elastomers’ [9] was published in 1965, in which