Book-bot.com - read famous books online for free

Scientific American Supplement, No. 1178, June 25, 1898 by Various
page 48 of 120 (40%)
shortcomings, is still superior to any of the so-called rubber
substitutes.

Reclaimed rubber is not to be considered as an adulterant, except in
the same sense as fillings, like whiting, litharge or barytes, the use
of which in rubber compounds often gives to the product desirable
qualities that are unobtainable by the use of "pure gum." It lacks
some of the qualities of good native rubber, and yet it is rubber, and
fills its proper place as acceptably as any raw material of
manufacture. Rubber shoes made of new gum entirely would be too
elastic, and for that reason would draw the feet, besides being too
costly for the ordinary trade. The construction of a rubber shoe, by
the way, is well adapted for the use of different compounds for the
different parts. Rubber enters into twenty-six pieces of a rubber boot
and nine or more pieces of a rubber shoe. Consequently, as many
different compounds may be used, if desired, for the output of a
single factory for rubber footwear. The highest grades of native
rubber may be used for waterproofing the uppers of a fine overshoe,
while reclaimed rubber, of a cheap class even, may be good enough for
the heel, which requires only to be waterproof and durable, without
too much weight, and with no elasticity. Reclaimed rubber goes into
many classes of goods of high grade. The result is that such goods
have been cheapened legitimately, placing them within the reach of
immense numbers of consumers who otherwise would be obliged to do
without.

While the extensive use of reclaimed rubber is a matter of common
knowledge to all who are familiar with the rubber industry, there are
nowhere available any statistics of either the absolute or comparative
volume of its consumption, with the single exception of the official
DigitalOcean Referral Badge