The Chickasha daily express. (Chickasha, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1899-current, 1910-01-17

will pass through a l-4-inch sieve. !
is quite probable that the doctor foun'
3 per cent that would not pass
2Is-Iach ring In selecting a sample p
even an average sample OF two O.
three piles OF stone. My tests SHOW
y 10 ; per cent excess OF material
crashed from sand stone which vii
pass a l-4-lnch screen. passed as sane
AMI the fine sand reduced in proper
tiOp in the concrete mixture. The
stcne that is being used is of nf
vaiue as suitable paving and curl
and gutter material. This is anothei
conclusion arrived at without regard
to the specifications and presump
tion that the sand stone for base was
used in the curb and gutter. which Is
not fact, and there was evidently
no effort 10 verify this presumption
or.no such report could be made-an
ther case Of throwing in for good
MEASURE OF more tnan that and q
penetration TOO high by a slieht
amount
The analysis OF stone Nos. : and
ern unable to identity. BY the descrip
ton. In connection with the work
presume they were at least found upof
the street.
"He says; The binder coat is com
able to obtain so could not give 3
report on that oil. A request at III,
engineers office or Of the chemist
weigher or foreman at the plant viii
secure a sample Of fluxing oil at any
tin e and il need be we will furnish
up-to-date equipment for making the
test
He says The binder cot is com
posed Of too inferior a limestone ant
has a crushing strength Of about 2O'
pounds | am not familiar with th'
various grades OF inferioritv Of lime
stone TOO inferior I infer 1t is bat
enough and am again unable TO 10
eatr the sample from the description
Tie work involved in 1000 squar'
yards and the binder stone has COM
rom Richards Dewey. Ft. Gibson, &c
I,ent and Cache, okla. A report Of
test, if test. should be specific, no
about 200 pounds.
Concerning the storage Of cemen
on the work he says: The manner j
which the cement was protected from
the rain and snow is severely to b
criticised. The cement was piled uY
on the ground With but little Uroteo
tion under it and covered with heav
canvas or tent material laid over /
and when | saw the cement rains an
snow had been falling for several day
and this cement appeared to have bee
exposed for several days and all Of th
! cement, at leastlon the top and side
or the pile, should have been rejecte
as ii was unfit for concrete or an
OtuST 1uIIiOSC lOI WHICH tcAlChl SACuA
J be used. Who is to be serevely crit
cised for this? The contractor b'
cause he happened to have one day
run or part OF one days run Of g
m6nt piled upon the work in anticip'
ton Of the next days work, with th
ordinary over night protection?
deem him profligate, however; froI
the 4th Of January. 1909, to the At
OF January. 1910. he received just
days, exclusive Of Sundays, on acconr
OF bad weather and for a contract r
quiring $4,000 bbls., or 100000 sacks {
cement having IS to 20 cars nicely prt
tccted in his warehouses at that tim
his lack of foresight nor loss frol
damaged cement was not so grea
Certainly 1t would be a rash presuml
ton to presume that the enginee
would overlook this damaged cemen
/ especially when provided with two il
sFectors, one on the mixing and one o
tie placing Of the concretes and one
these policeman Now, really ism
this little far-fetched in hunting a,
/ verse criticism on paving?"