Abstract
THE British glass industry is undoubtedly to be congratulated on attaining the excellent results described in Mr. Jenkinson's letter in NATURE of October 28, but I may venture to point out that it is little comfort to the user to know that good glass is made if no guidance is given him as to the particular brand referred to. Of the five samples tested it is true that the best was British, but the worst was also British. I gather from inquiries made that the faults complained of by laboratory workers are not so much defective resistance to alkalis, etc., but insufficient annealing and liability to break with changes of temperature. Table glass is well annealed, so that the defect in question is not insuperable, and a want of care in the manufacture is suggested. The increased loss by breakage has become a serious consideration in the running of practical classes since British glass has been in use. As pointed out in previous correspondence, the danger of restricting import lies in the lack of inducement to further improvement.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
BAYLISS, W. British Laboratory and Scientific Glassware. Nature 106, 310–311 (1920). https://doi.org/10.1038/106310c0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/106310c0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.