Reply to “comments on ‘gas‐phase pyrolysis of 2,2,3,3‐tetramethylbutane using a wall‐less Reactor’ by H. Davis”

Abstract

The concern of Dr. Davis [I] about activation energies is quite appropriate. An activation energy is a result of phenomenological observations, and interpretation of its meaning is subject to all the uncertainties of inductive logic.As a modification of statement in the letter of Dr. Davis, may I point out that the discrepancy in activation energies between those of Tsang [2] and of ours [3] is blamed more on the differences in technique than on toluene ( 3 , p. 12561.Concerning product inhibition, we have observed no detectable effects for TMB [3] or ethane [4] a t low conversions in a surface-free environment. Could there be a synergistic effect between surface and olefinic products for an ordinary pyrolysis? This has not been investigated.As to reproducibility of data, the wall-less reactor, used in the absence of surface, has always provided highly consistent data without the necessity of conditioning the reactor or other correctional procedure. Most of the inconsistencies of other pyrolytic data may be attributed to surface effects, inaccurate analytical methods, and other factors beyond normal mechanistic considerations.Error correction: The second sentence in the caption of Figure 3 [3, p. 12511 should have read: Reaction time in sec = 130hemp. in O K . Bibliography 111 H. Davis, Int.