24.Trelonr, L. R. G., "The Physics of Rubber Elas-2j. \\'ard, I\'. H. a~i d Bartitlovich, J. J., J. Phys. Chcnt. 26. ~~l~~~, H., ~~l i~; d 2. 113, 157 (1949).Letters to the Editor are brief con~n~unications intended to provide prompt publication of significant research results and to permit an exchange of views on papers previously published in the Journal. Letters are not submitted to formal rcvieiv, and the authors assume full responsibility for information given or opinion espressed.
Effect of Fiber Configuration in Feed on Comber WasteNoveniber 1, 1962Dear Sir:Permit me to refer to the escelletit paper [4] on "The Effect of Fiber Configuration in F e d on ComberIVaste" by 17, A. Wakankar and S. N. Bliaduri published in the August 1962 issue of the Journal. The results obtained by the authors a r e of great interest and throw a considerable light on the nature of the conibirig operation. Their interpretation of tlatn regarding the effect on comber lvaste extraction of the difference in trailing and leading hooks in the feed, as u-ell as some of their explanations of the results obtained, are, hoivever, not very convincing and often involve assiiniptions of rather doubtful validity. 111 tleterniining the effect of feeding the lap with major hooks in tlie leading and the trailing directions on the waste extraction a t different step gauge settings and with different degrees of fiber disorder in the lap, the authors have thought it appropriate to consider the absolute value of the difference in waste estraction percentage. This does not appear to be very reasonable.If tlie aim is to judge the difference in conibirig action 11-itli the two types of feed, the difference in waste percentage slioultl have been expressed as a percentage of the waste obtained ivitli norinal direction of feed.If this is done the conclusion that a decrease in fiber disorder increases the effect of difference in trailing I I O O~S fed to the comber on tlie coniber waste reiiiains true. I n fact tlie effect 11-odd be more pronounced than \:-odd appear iising the authors' method of interpreting the data. As far as the influence of step gauge setting is concerned, if the difference in waste is expressed as x percentage of waste extracted with normal direction of feed it \vould appear, considering the data reflected in their Figures 1, 3, atid 5, that tlie influence of step gauge setting on the difference in waste obtained with norriial and reverse directions of feed is only marginal. There is x slight tendency for the difference to tliminish with decrease in step gauge setting, and at very narrow step gauge setting the difference is actually negatiw.As regards combing without top comb, here again the conclusion regarding the influence of fiber disorder 011 the differelice is nlid. If arigthiiig, the difference is more niarlied than is suggested by the authors' interpretation of the data. However, the conclusion that the effect of the difference in the ~iiiniber of trailing o r lendirig hooks preserited on waste extraction increases at \.:...
