NCMSCompliance Assistance Centers

Funded by EPA
through a Cooperative Agreement


The information contained in this site is provided for your review and convenience. It is not intended to provide legal advice with respect to any federal, state, or local regulation. You should consult with legal counsel and appropriate authorities before interpreting any regulations or undertaking any specific course of action.


Published Monthly by the American Electroplaters Society

Publication and Editorial Office
3040 Diversy Ave., Chicago
Vol. XIV MAY, 1927 No. 5



In life itself, and in the life of any organization, there are at least three important things that should be given much study and consideration by the individuals that make up the life or the organization, and it is these factors that determine success or failure. Let us consider them as they apply to our own organization, the A. E. S.

First—What will I put into it? Second—What will I get out of it? Third—What will I do with it?
We bring into the A. E. S. our personality, character and our experience, especially in the field of electrodeposition. The effect of these things are dependent on how much of ourselves we are willing to put in.

Question No. 1—How much of myself am I putting into this Educational Society, the A. E. S.? This should be the first question, but we often get things twisted and ask the second question first. What am I going to get out of it?

Second—What we get out of it depends on what kind of an organization it is, which is determined by what its members put into it. It is like a bank account; we may draw out what we put in with interest and the per cent on our investment has been very good, but there is still lots of opportunity to make the A. E. S. a still bigger interest paying concern.

Third—What we do with it is really the most important thing. Of what value is anything we may get out of the A. E. S. no matter how practical if we don’t make use of it. Education is not only the discovery of a principle or law, but should take into account also the application of the thing discovered. And our Society will not fully accomplish its work until we learn to make application of the things possible to get out of it.

—F. C. MESLE, Supreme President.


By Charles H. Proctor

It is the intention of the author of this paper to present to his hearers the basic factors that have established Prior Art in the electrodeposition of the metal chromium by American investigators for Americans, and for the American Metal Fabricating Industry. As a whole, in the United States, uncontrolled by any existing patent or patents, whether granted in this country or any European country, which presumes to control prior art so established and create a monopoly of one of the most important developments in the electrodeposition of metals in nearly a century.

While it is true that the early investigators in the electrodeposition of chromium was made by foreign investigators, first by Bunsen in 1854 and later by Geuther in 1856, who presumably first undertook the electrolysis of chromic acid, and weighed the chromium which he obtained from its solution; following Geuther’s experiments and the theoretical views expressed by him, Buff in 1857 undertook the electrolysis of chromic acid. Buff was unsuccessful in obtaining a deposit of metallic chromium. He therefore claimed that the results of Guether were unreliable.

Geuther, however, in the light of recent developments in America by Americans in the commercial metal fabricating industry, was absolutely correct in his statements. When I state to you absolutely that chromium is now being deposited from chromic acid solutions exclusively, having a chromic acid content of fifty ounces per gallon of water, it is not so much the composition of the solution but its control that insures commercial results.

In 1894 Placet and Bonnet were granted an American patent No. 526,114, September, 1894, the specifications of which are in all probability more complete than those of their earlier European patents.

They state that of the electrolytes which they use the most important of these compounds is chromic acid, either the commercial acid or a chromic acid obtained from chromate or bichromate of an alkali metal.” They further state that “by our process we obtain electrodeposits of chromium of great purity for various industrial uses.” The patents of Placet and Bonnet expired in 1911, so they became public property in the United States and thereby established prior art in the electrodeposition of chromium from chromic acid solutions which is the basis of all chromium plating solutions today; whether used as strictly commercial solutions or whether surrounded by a halo of a fourth of a hundred patents.

The splendid work done on chromium and the electrolysis of chromic acid by Dr. H. R. Carveth and B. E. Curry, as outlined in a paper read at the seventh general meeting of the American Electrochemical Society held at Cambridge, Mass., April 26, 1905, substantiate the claims made by Placet and Bonnet. Samples of chromium-plated deposits were also shown at this meeting by the investigators.

If you desire to read the splendid work these investigators did for what we can now safely term the commercial electrodeposition of chromium, you can do so in the Transactions of the American Electrochemical Society, Volume 7, 1905, pages 115 to 142. It is worthy of note that these gentlemen state in their paper that “Our results prove conclusively that Placet and Bonnet were right in stating that metallic chromium could be obtained by the electrolysis of commercial chromic acid. We have made a large number of runs to find the effect of certain variables mentioned on the nature of the deposit.”

Platings made without stirring the solution and without finishing the metal deposited by buffing, etc., resemble the very finest of work done on silver. In fact for plating purposes the metal should have a great future before it. They also substantiated the claims of Reese that a commercial chromic acid was the most satisfactory material to use; Reese had previously stated that with pure chromic acid he was unable to get any reduction whatever; twenty-two years afterwards in our own Research Department (R. & H. Chemical Co.) we found Reese’s contentions to also be true with respect to commercial chromic acid. Solutions of commercial chromic acid, however, cannot be used exclusively for chromium-plating every type of article fabricated from commercial metals, but can be used successfully in plating gauges, dies, punches and many other articles made from steel that can be more efficient, more durable, more lasting, with a deposit of chromium upon their surface.

We now pass on to “A paper read at the ninth general meeting of the American Electrochemical Society at Ithaca, New York, May 3, 1906, by M. Le Blanc, entitled ‘Electrolytic Chromium.’

Le Blanc comments upon the investigations of Carveth and Curry in more or less uncertain terms, but in the light of present day developments we know that their statements were correct.

Le Blanc, however, determined the value of chromic sulphate and also the organic acids, boric and oxalic, as mentioned by Placet and Bonnet, when added to chromic acid chromic sulphate solutions with varying amounts of 5 to 10 grams per litre of solution. Le Blanc states that in order to test the action of boric acid he made experiments in this line; he then gives comparative tables in proof of the results and concludes: “Here, therefore, by the addition of 0.5 grams of H3BO3 to 100 c.c. of solution a beautiful smooth white metal coating was obtained.”

For the experiments which were now to be carried on a larger scale therefore a solution of this composition was used.

Le Blanc’s paper is worthy of perusal because it substantiates Carveth and Curry’s work and the claims made by Placet and Bonnet and gives to the metal fabricating industry the right to use chromium plating solutions advocated by them and substantiated by Carveth and Curry and Le Blanc.

We know from the splendid paper by Paul W. C. Strausser, Detroit, Mich., read at the Annual Convention of the American Electro Platers’ Society, Newark, N.J., June 28th to July 1st, 1926, that the chromium solution was used by him in his experimental work and later presumably used in chromium plating by a well-known automobile manufacturer in the Middle West as advocated by Placet and Bonnet and substantiated by Carveth and Curry and Le Blanc.

George T. Sargent in his excellent paper covering the Electrodeposition of Chromium, Transactions of the American Electrochemical Society, Volume 37, page 479, 1920, does but little more than substantiating previous work done by preceding investigators mentioned previously.

Sargent’s work was done at Cornell in 1906 and 1907. That it showed that commercial results were obtainable is shown by the fact that they obtained deposits of metal one-half an inch thick! Surely Sargent’s deposits would be of thickness satisfactory for plating or any other purpose.

Sargent’s work was directed and financed by Prof. W.D. Barcroft and Dr. H. R. Carveth, who in 1918 became vice-president of the R. & H. Chemical Co. This work was not published until 1920, as it evidently had been the idea of the promoters of the research again to take it up and commercialize it.

Sargent gave a definite working formula that is the basis of all present commercial chromium plating solutions as follows:

Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 litre
Chromic Acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 grams
Chromic Sulphate . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 grams
Concentrated Sulphuric Acid . . . 5 c.c.

If you replace the sulphuric acid of Sargent’s solution with boric acid as advocated by Le Blanc the results are the well-known formula of a large automobile firm. If chromic carbonate advocated by the Bureau of Standards is replaced with boric acid, then practically an identical solution with Sargent’s formula results. The addition of chromic carbonate advocated by the Bureau of Standards gives a distinctive chromium solution. It is not patented yet but gives wonderfully good results.

Sargent advocated the use of lead anodes, this type of anode in connection with steel anodes gives splendid results. When internal anodes must be used to give throwing power, then lead anodes should be used due to their flexibility. Sargent states with the use of lead anodes that chromic acid reduced at the cathode was oxidized back to chromic acid at the anode. Thus the plating solution could be maintained easily at a desired composition at a valence of three.

An excellent paper worth considerable consideration is “Notes on the Plating of Chromium on Steel,” by George M. Enos, presented at the forty-eighth general meeting of the American Electrochemical Society held in Chattanooga, Tenn., September 24-26, 1925.

This paper, from investigations made, proves that chromium plated steels cannot be heat-treated as can ordinary tool steels or chrome steels. The selected bibliography in this paper covering work done on chromium up to 1923 is excellent. Four German patents, and five British patents, and one American patent is referred to. The latter is Placet and Bonnet’s patent of 1894.

So we come down through a fifth of a century to 1927 and the commercial metal fabricating and electroplating industry must decide eventually whether they will stand shoulder to shoulder in the defense of chromium plating as a purely commercial process, established for them by the expiration of the Placet and Bonnet patent and the investigations made by Carveth and Curry, by Le Blanc, by Sargent and by Strausser, or whether they will pay the penalty of royalties of abused privileges in so-termed patents that have been obtained as a subterfuge to confuse real issues based upon prior art established by men who did their work fearlessly and well, without obtaining patents to cover their labors that might have resulted in financial returns.

If we review patents of the past few years we can only conclude that they contain nothing of interest to chromium plating or the metal fabricating industry as a whole, but are intended most to confuse and cloud eventual issues. I believe in patents that are patents that result from honest labor and untold hours of investigation, but not in a fraction of a per cent of the patents granted in the United States that are worthless.

I am reminded of the fact that President Taft condemned our present patent laws and made a vigorous demand for their reformation at a reception accorded to the delegates at the eighth International Congress of Applied Chemistry in the Blue Room of the White House on Thursday, September the 5th, 1912.

I happened to be present at the time President Taft was heartily applauded.

Still no reformation has come about in the Patent Department and patents are continually issued galore, ground out as by a mill of the gods, to what value in a thousand instances to commercial industry (nil).

Chromium is indeed a wonderful metal; we have scarcely commenced to realize its wonderful commercial value as a dollar-saving factor in reducing cost of labor, in its wonderful hardness to resist wear, when applied to commercial metals, of its non-oxidizing properties that permits it to retain its splendid lustre in spite of any atmospheric weather condition it may have to contend with.

I am unaware of its commercial application in this New England Commonwealth, because for a number of years I have been out of contact with New England manufactured products.

But in that great Middle West where they do things on a tremendous commercial scale, ever marching forward with the world’s progress, I keep my fingers upon the pulse of the metal industry and know what is being done, has done, and will do in the future.

When I state that one great plate glass producing firm after experimenting upon a laboratory scale with commercial chromium plating solutions decided to install a ten thousand dollar unit to chromium plate, steel conveyor rolls, four one-thousandths of an inch in thickness with chromium, they plated 350 tons of steel rolls that cost them in replacement nine thousand dollars per year. The estimated life of the present chromium plated rolls in five years, the saving in five years then would be forty-five thousand dollars, the cost of the plating unit all told was ten thousand dollars, the saving then thirty-five thousand dollars; at the end of five years, the rolls can be replaced again providing the hubs have not shown any appreciable wear.

This statement can be applied to a thousand other articles used in industry that can be similarly protected from wear and atmospheric oxidation. Consider the millions of dollars that can be saved in locomotive boiler tube replacement when boiler tubes can be plated inside and out with a protective deposit of chromium. It has already been done, it only requires mechanical problems to be overcome to insure the success of the process; wherever metal goods can be protected from excessive wear and remain perfectly bright from atmospheric oxidation, or moist vapors, chromium will be used in the future.

Consider only one industry, the plumbing hardware industry, that concerns your home life if your nickel plated fixtures can be made to remain bright indefinitely. Can you realize the amount of labor saved in the course of a year in. the millions of American homes?

And so the wonderful story of chromium could be told continuously in one industry and another. Here in your own midst there is no doubt that chromium has been and is a very absorbing topic.

The jewelry fabricating industry has, I know, taken a very great interest in the metal.

I have elaborated upon the possible uses in the jewelry industry in an article published in the Metal Industry in October, 1926, entitled “Shall We Have Chromium Plated Gold Jewelery?”

With all the splendid properties of the metal I still question whether it should be used as a coating for a precious metal, even gold or white gold, whose intrinsic values as precious metals are worth two hundred times more than the cost of pure metallic chromium; it is for you and the consumer to decide what is best to do for all interested.

I have also published an article in the Glass Industry in August, 1926, entitled “Can Glass Moulds Be Coated With Chromium ?”

From reports received from Europe by glass manufacturers who are using the methods outlined, glass moulds are being coated with chromium successfully and used to an economic advantage.

In conclusion of this paper I want to mention for your information the chromium solutions that are now in use commercially every day in the Middle West and which must be considered as commercial solutions unburdened with any patent:

Solution No. 1  
Water 1 gal.
Chromic Acid 32 ozs.
Chromic Sulphate 1 oz.
Boracic Acid 3/4 oz.
Solution No. 2  
Water 1 gal.
Chromic Acid 33 ozs.
Chromic Sulphate 1 oz.
Chromic Carbonate 4/10 oz.
Solution No. 3  
Water 1 gal.
Chromic Acid 20 oz.
Chromic Sulphate 1 oz.
Boracic Acid 3/4 oz.
Chromate of Iron 1 oz.


Anodes for any of these solutions may be heavy sheet steel, sheet lead or chrome steel (20 to 40 per cent). The latter anodes have a distinct advantage because they reduce very slowly in solution resulting in chromous chromates and iron chromate in solution.

There is one distinct advantage in solution No. 3 which the writer developed, especially if chrome steel anodes are used, the dangerous and poisonous gases emitted from the usual solutions are reduced to a minimum.

A very large manufacturing firm in the Middle West operates this type of solution continuously without any unusual protection other than used for ordinary nickel solutions.

Chromium deposits are of most value when applied to nickel plated surfaces with a very high lustre first applied to the basis metal. For hardness and wear the metal can be applied direct to the steel or iron surface.

The procedure to follow in preparing the several solutions is as follows, as well as their electrical control and upkeep.

First. Dissolve all the materials in water heated to 180 degrees Fahrenheit.

Second. The tank container should be preferably of glass coated steel, or a welded steel tank may be used.

Third. The steel tank should be insulated from the plating room floor (no matter what the floor may consist of) with suitable supports covered with hard rubber at least one inch thick, or a waterproof fibre.

Fourth. The tank should be connected up with iron or lead steam coils, the valve control arrangement should be so that either steam can pass through the coils for heating purposes or cold water to reduce the temperature. The variable temperatures in chromium plating may be from 95 to 120 degrees Fahrenheit.

Fifth. The current pressure available should average from
6 to 12 volts, amperage from 125 to 500 amperes per square foot of surface area. Volt and ampere meters should be used in control of the solutions.

Sixth. In large plating operations the anodes, either steel or chrome steel, should average one-fourth inch thick, four inches wide and length equal to the length of the articles to be chromium plated.

Seventh. When the solution is first prepared the density of the solution should be carefully registered with a Baumé Hydrometer, the water or solution line in the tank should always be maintained so that the reduction in density may be noted when the solution is in operation.
When the density falls below normal it denotes that the solution requires chromic acid to replace the chromium metal deposited out. In addition small amounts of chromic sulphate and boracic acid should be added. When chrome steel anodes are used exclusively then commercial chromic acid is the only material except water that is necessary to add to the solution.

Eighth. All metal surfaces should be as chemically clean as for other metals that are commercially plated.

Ninth. All electrical contacts and supporting wires must be of sufficient thickness to overcome the resistance due to the high currents required.

Tenth. The chromic acid should be a special commercial acid according to the following analysis:

Chromic Acid Dry CRO3 . . . . . 99.75 %
Sulphuric Acid H2SO4 . . . . . . .0.025 %
Insoluble in Water . . . . . . . . . . 0.055 %

No other impurities except moisture.

The experimental data covering our research work in the R. & H. Research Laboratories on No. 3 solution as compared with the Bureau of Standards Formula is as follows:

Objects: (1) To study the cathode current efficiencies of two concentrations of chromic acid in a chromium plating bath suggested by Mr. Proctor.
(2) To determine the effect upon the cathode current efficiency of chromium deposition produced by the addition of 7.5 g/L of iron chromate furnished by Mr. Proctor.

Summary: (1) Of the three satisfactory chromium baths here dealt with, the one containing 1 oz/gal. of iron chromate
proved the best from bath, the standpoint of color and cathode current efficiency.

(2) The cathode current efficiencies of these three baths at 240 to 250 A/SF varied from about 11 per cent to 14 per cent, based on hexavalent chromium.

(3) The best chromium plating conditions found to date are summarized as follows:

Bath Composition
Chromic acid 16 oz/gal.
Chromic sulfate c.p. 1 oz/gal.
Iron chromate No. 348 1 oz/gal.
Boric acid c.p. 2/3 oz/gal.
Temperature 46 to 50° C.
Anodes Sheet steel
Ratio of anode to cathode surface About 1 to 1
Cathode Current Density About 240 A/SF.


Chromium Plating Bath Compositions
No. 1—oz/gal
No. 3—oz/gal
Chromic acid
Chromic sulfate c.p
Boric acid c.p
Iron chromate (No. 348)
Volume of solutions 2 L.
Temperatures 46 to 55° C.
Anodes Drum sheet steel
Anode area in each bath 20 sq. in.
Steel cathode area in each bath 4.5 sq. in.
Cathode Current Density 240 to 250 A/SF.

Other details of the electrolyses are given below:

Run No. 1. Baths No. 1 and 3 were run in series for 15 minutes each. The following weights of coatings were produced:

Bath No. 1: 0.071 g. or 0.080 oz/SF.
Bath No. 2: 0.073 g. or 0.082 oz/SF.

Run No. 2. Baths No. 1 and 3, and a copper coulometer were all run in series for 12 minutes with the following results:

Wt. of Cu Coul. cathode 1.396 g. Cu or 1.177 amp. hrs. Wt. of Bath No. 1 cathode 0.0545 g. or 0.061 oz/SF.
Wt. of Bath No. 3 cathode 0.0528 g. or 0.059 oz/SF.
Cathode Current Efficiency Bath No. 1, 13.86%.
Cathode Current Efficiency Bath No. 3, 14.30% (Based on hexavalent chromium)

Run No. 3. 1 oz/gal. of iron chromate was added to Bath No. 1, making Bath No. 2 given above. Baths No. 2, 3 and copper coulometer connected in series.

Time of run 30 minutes.
Wt. of Cu Coul. cathode: 2.691 g. or 2.27 amp. hrs.
Wt. of Bath No. 2 cathode: 0.105 g. or 0.119 oz/gal.
Wt. of Bath No. 3 cathode: 0.093 g. or 0.104 oz/gal.
Cathode Current Efficiency Bath No. 2, 13.61%
Cathode Current Efficiency Bath No. 3, 12.65%

Run No. 4. Check of Run No. 3 (35 minute deposits).
Wt. of Cu Coul. cathode: 3.25 g. or 2.74 amp. hrs.
Wt. of Bath No. 2 cathode: 0.125 g. or 0.141 oz/SF.
Wt. of Bath No. 3 cathode: 0.112 g. or 0.126 oz/SF.
Cathode Current Efciency Bath No. 2, 12.26%.
Cathode Current Efficiency Bath No. 3, 11.00%

Run No. 5. Check of Run No. 3 (35 minute deposits).
Wt. of Cu Coul. cathode: 3.27 g. or 2.76 amp. hrs.
Wt. of Bath No. 2 cathode: 0.135 g. or 0.152 oz/SF.
Wt. of Bath No. 3 cathode: 0.125 g. or 0.141 oz/SF.
Cathode Current Efficiency Bath No. 2, 13.15%
Cathode Current Efficiency Bath No. 3, 12.17%.

Remarks: All the deposits were smooth and bright. Those from Bath No. 2 being exceptionally bright. It should also be noted that the addition of the iron chromate increased the cathode current efficiency of Bath No. 1 slightly (about lo).

Mr. Proctor reports the analysis of the iron chromate used to be as follows:

Cr2O3—48% Fe2O3—17% SiO2—7%

The utility of this material may thus be due to the formation in the solution of colloidal chromic chromate, iron chromate, or both.


F. H. Nordman (Continued)

The experimental plating solutions, mentioned above, after being analyzed, were electrolyzed in order to obtain deposits that could be studied. To obtain comparative results, the following factors were held constant? or approximately so during the series of electrolyses.

1. Temperature.
2. Voltage.
3. Current density.
4. Kind and surface of base metal.
5. Agitation of solution.
6. Time of deposition.

The containers in which the plating was carried out consisted of two battery jars, about 11 inches tall and about 5 inches wide and 8 inches long. The anodes were suspended from iron wires extending into the solutions; the cathodes were attached to a rocker arm, actuated by a motor, which supplied the agitation during electrolysis. The wiring to the anodes and cathodes was arranged so that the two baths were in series connection.

The temperature of the baths was maintained at room temperature. The temperature remained fairly constant during the time of the experimental work, the range of temperature observed being from 65 degrees to 72 degrees F.

The metal deposited on was nickel silver. Its preparation prior to the final silver plating was as follows:

The metal was first buffed on a hard wheel such as walrus hide or bull neck, using as a compound fine pumic stone mixed with lard oil. After this buffing it was run over a rag wheel using cloth discs for the wheel and a commercial polishing compound was used to finish the surface. After this polishing it was cleaned with hot water and scrubbed; next, treated with a cleaning solution consisting of trisodium phosphate and sodium hydroxide to remove any grease spots. After washing, the sample was dipped as cathode into an electrolytic tin bath, until a very light coating of tin was obtained. This operation was followed by washing in a spray wash, and the sample was then given a silver “strike.” The strike solution was made up so that it contained about 0.5 oz. silver and 8 oz. of sodium cyanide, as free cyanide, per gallon. The voltage used was about 3.5 volts; the current density employed about 0.014 amperes per square inch of surface.

The samples of base metal, bearing a “strike” plate of silver, were then placed in the experimental solutions and plated. The bath made from the sodium salts was placed in one of the battery jars; the bath from the potassium salts was placed in the other. These two solutions were connected in series so that the current flowing through both the baths was the same. Inasmuch as the resistance of a bath was negligible, the voltage impressed over each solution was approximately the same. The samples were plated for thirty minutes at a current density of 0.021 amperes per square inch. The voltage used was (.9 volts. After plating the samples were rinsed in cold water, then in hot water and allowed to dry.

Examination of the finished plate consisted of noting:
1. Appearance of deposit to naked eye.
2. Ease of burnishing.
3. Micro structure of surface of deposit.

The first two items were observed by an experienced electroplater working in conjunction with the writer. The micro structure of the surface of the deposit was obtained by using a magnification of 500 diameters on a microscope provided with an oil immersed objective. The light used to view the structure was that of a carbon arc light, focused to a point on the spot being observed. The light was thrown on the piece at an angle in order to bring out the crystal formation.

The following table gives a summary of the observations made on examining the plates:

Appearance to the eye
Burnishing qualities
Micro structure
Salt used
silvery white
few large crystals
silvery white
few large crystals
silvery white
few large crystals
silvery white
few large crystals, slightly more than sample No. 3
silvery white
few large crystals
silvery white
many large crystals
silvery white
slightly larger crystals than No. 1
silvery white
many large crystals

The solutions used in obtaining typical plates were used further in the experiments on the decomposition- of silver cyanide plating solutions. Each experimental bath was divided into three separate solutions. Solution A was placed in a stoppered two liter bottle, to prevent admittance of air. This solution was used to observe the rate of hydrolysis. A second portion of the experimental lath was placed in a two and one-half liter beaker and exposed to the atmosphere; this sample was used to study the effect of air on the lath, hydrolysis taking place at the same time. Solution C was placed in a two and one-half liter beaker, exposed to air, and electrolyzed over -certain observed periods of time in Order to ascertain the effect of electrolysis on the lath. In solution C, besides the decomposition due to electrolysis, decomposition due to hydrolysis and presence of air also took place.

At definite intervals of time these solutions were analyzed for free cyanide and carbonate content. The method used for the determination of the free cyanide was that of Lundell, described above. The following method was used for the determination of carbonates:

Ten cubic centimeters of the solution was taken for analysis. One hundred c.c. of boiling water followed by 20 c.c. of a 10 per cent solution of Ba (NO3)2 were added. The solution was agitated and allowed to stand for three minutes and the solution was tested for complete precipitation by the addition of more of the reagent. The solution was then filtered and washed free from alkalinity. The precipitate of BaCo was transferred to a G-inch porcelain dish; 20 c.c. NH4C1 was added and the mixture was warmed. An equal amount of water was then added and N hydroxide was added to titrate the excess hydrochloric acid.

The data so obtained are contained in sheets No. 37-28 and No. 39 accompanying this report. The current density and voltage used on the samples electrolyzed was the same as was used in the previous work.


The regular monthly meeting of Philadelphia Branch was held May 6 at the U. of P. The President, George Gehling, reported the proceedings of the American Electro-Chemical Society, held in Philadelphia, April 28-29-3D, at which A. R. Graham spoke on the bright dipping of metals.

The election of officers resulted as follows: President, Geo. Gehling; Vice-President, S. T. Lumbeck; Secretary-Treasurer, P. Uhl; Librarian, W. M.- Scott. Board of Managers: W. P. Scott, J. E. Under-wood, E. R. Clark. Delegates to Convention: Geo. Gehling, P. Uhl, W. M. Scott. Alternates: J. T. Berenato, O. W. Mott, H. Snyder.
Applications received. PHILIP UHL, Secretary.


Toronto Branch held the March meeting as usual in Foresters Hall, College street. President Barrows was on the job with a fair attendance of members. A few papers were promised for the Toledo Convention.

A paper was read from David Ayers, giving the true side of the Foreman Electro-Plater.

This was an evening for discussion, with the question box coming into its own:

Question: What is the white sediment left by sodium cyanide when dissolved ?
Answer: The members did not know.

Question: What will make nickel sol plate with a nice white deposit?
Answer: Boracic acid.

Question: What instrument is most essential in the plating room. Volt meter or ammeter?
Answer: Members were unanimous for the ammeter.

J. S. CAIRNS, Secretary-Treasurer.

Toronto Branch held the April meeting as usual in Foresters Hall, 22 College street.

President Barrows opened the meeting with the smallest attendance that had been there for a long time. Evidently the nomination of officers for the next fiscal year gave some of the nonadherants cold feet. The Secretary was asked to retain his office for another year, but declined the honor. This office was left open till the May elections.

A paper was presented by Charles Kemish and Ben Deakin jointly for the Toledo Convention entitled, “Analysis of Nickel and Copper Solutions,” which is sure to be a good one.

A committee of five was appointed to make all arrangements for the picnic to be held in High Park, June 18.

The following questions were found in the question box:

Question: What will clean malt barrels to hold Ni sol?
Answer: Use steam and hot water.

Question: What is the right kind of tank to use for copper cyanide sol ?
Answer: Steel tank.

Question: Can nickel sol increase in metal content by high current density?
Answer: Not known to do so.

Question: What is a lacquer thinner?
Answer: Alcohol.

Question: How can copper be drawn from a rose gold sol?
Answer: Members did not know.

Question: Would hydrofluoric acid do as an electric nickel?
Answer: It was not recommended.

Question: Can steel be plated direct in acid copper?
Answer: No.

JAMES S. CAIRNS, Secretary-Treasurer.


Meeting opened in due time. The roll call of officers was read. Frank Salvaggio was absent. The minutes of last meeting were read and accepted. Application of Mr. Abbott was read; it was referred to board of managers. Secretary instructed to write Mr. Gehling, Superintendent Secretary, acknowledging his quarterly report. The banquet committee gave their report of the last banquet. Their report shows it was one of the best banquets ever held by the Bridgeport Branch. The committee was granted a rising vote of thanks for effort they put in to make it a success. President O’Connor call a special meeting to be held May 13, 1927, for the election of officers and delegates for the coming convention. Cards will be sent out to members. Meeting adjourned at ten o’clock.



Our May 6, 1927 meeting was well attended, twenty-four members being present when President Onksen sounded the gavel for its opening.

All officers were present except our trustee, who has taken up his residence in Connecticut. Two active members elected at this meeting, brings our total membership to 78—an increase of 8 during the quarter.

Banquet committee gave a partial report on account of ticket and advertising money still owing the committee.

Mr. Calabrese, our Librarian, called for discussion on the “Cause of a Nickel Solution, gradually of its own accord, having a tendency to become alkaline in plating barrels?”

Discussion was voiced pro and con, some members experiencing the opposite trend.

However, the consensus of opinion was not reached and the matter will be brought again before the branch.

ROYAL F. CLARK, Secretary-Treasurer.


The April meetings of the New York Branch were well attended. Three new members were elected and two applications were received during the month.
The first meeting, a discussion arose on ball burnishing aluminum and some fine samples were displayed of the work by one of our members.
At the second meeting Mr. R. E. Pettit, a member of the branch, gave a very interesting talk on Lead, dealing with its history, mining the ore, and smelting and different processes which are being used in separating the lead from other metals. He displayed samples of the different ores and the members present enjoyed this talk very much.

Sincerely yours,
RALPH LIGNON, Rec. Sec., New York Branch,
127 Vanderbilt Ave., Brooklyn, N. Y.


The Cleveland Branch held the election meeting on May 7, with the following result:
President—B. F. McCormick, 2024 Wyandotte Ave., Lakewood, Ohio.
Vice-President—C. J. Smith, 9285 Amesbury Ave., Cleveland, Ohio.
Secretary-Treasurer—Henry TerDoest, 380 Pioneer Ave., Akron, Ohio.
Librarian—J. C. Mullineaux, 1681 Crawford Road, Cleveland, Ohio.
Board of Managers—J. C. Singler, 3379 West 95th St., Cleveland, Ohio; H. S. Kneeland, 3924 Clybourne Ave., Cleveland, Ohio; A. C. Somerville, 5828 Diamond Ave., Cleveland, Ohio.
Delegates to Convention—Henry TerDoest, A. C. Somerville, J. C. Mullineaux.
Alternates—L. F. Koehle, N. E. Zadowski, J. C. Singler.

The intended class for the study of analyzing plating solutions became a reality at this meeting, and we will start our first lesson on Wednesday, May 11, with fourteen members at the Case School for Applied Science under the instruction of Professor C. F. Prutton.

Last, but not least, I wish to mention that we had the pleasure of having Dick Sliter in our midst. The old friend is moving back to Cleveland and is going to be transferred to our branch.

With best personal regards, sincerely yours, M. E. ZADOWSKI.


Regular monthly meeting of St. Louis Branch, A. E. S., was held on Friday evening, May 13, at the American Annex Hotel, with all officers present. After dinner President Harry Siemer called the meeting to order with regular routine of business. Three new applications for active membership were received from Charles Arthur Moore, North Rome, Ga.; David Henry Moss, Rome, Ga.; Louis H. Thompson, 4711 Utah avenue, West Nashville, Tenn.

Annual Election of Officers
President, Harry Siemer, 5415 Plover avenue; Vice President, W. J. Flannery, 3010 Pennsylvania avenue; Secretary-Treasurer, C. T. McGinley, 5312 W. Florisant avenue; Librarian, Frank Horath, 3831 Kosciusko street; Associate Librarian, H. J. Richards, 6251 Clayton avenue; Board of Managers: H. H. Williams, 5041 Bancroft avenue; F. N. Weber, 5439 Odell street; A. Barth, 6517 Hobart street, Wellston, all of St. Louis, Mo.

Delegates to convention: E. J. Musick, E. W. Heil and H. H. Williams; alternates F. N. Weber, C. T. McGinley and A. Barth. The meeting was turned over to Dr. Ward, who gave his final lecture of the season. Dr. Ward was given a rising vote of thanks for his series of lectures given St. Louis Branch and the manner in which they were conducted. These lectures were the most instructive ever given the Branch members. H. J. Richards, who is always in good form, presented Dr. Ward with a token of friendship (a box of golf balls) from the Branch members.

Installation of officers at our next regular meeting June 10th, 1927
Adjourn 9:45 p. m.

F. P, MENNIGES, Secretary.


| Compliance Assistance | Regulations | Directories | Resources | Hot Topics | News | Ask the Experts | Library | Online Training | About NMFRC | Search | Home |