r, is not so much one of original
outlay, but which of the two journals gives most for the money. In
this very essential particular, and with no intention to depreciate
the value of _Engineering_, we assert, with becoming modesty, that the
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN occupies a position which _Engineering_ will never
be able to attain.

* * * * *

THE SHERMAN PROCESS.

When people boast of extraordinary successes in processes the details
of which are kept profoundly hidden from public scrutiny, and when the
evidences of success are presented in the doubtful form of specimens
which the public has no means of tracing directly to the process, the
public is apt to be skeptical, and to express skepticism often in not
very complimentary terms.

For a considerable time, the public has been treated to highly-colored
accounts of a wonderful metallurgic process whereby the best iron and
steel were said to be made, from the very worst materials, almost
in the twinkling of an eye. This process has been called after its
assumed inventor, or discoverer, the "Sherman Process." The details of
the process are still withheld, but we last week gave an extract from
an English contemporary, which throws a little light upon the subject.

The agent relied upon to effect the remarkable transformation claimed,
is iodine, used preferably in the form of iodide of potassium, and
very little of it is said to produce a most marvellous change in the
character of the metal.

A very feeble attempt at explaining the rationale of this effect has
been made, in one or two English journals, which we opine will not
prove very satisfactory to chemists and scientific metallurgists. The
_Engineer_ has published two three-column articles upon the subject,
the first containing very little information, and the second a great
number of unnecessary paragraphs, but which gives the proportion of
the iodide used, in the extremely scientific and accurate formula
expressed in the terms "a small quantity."

Assertions of remarkable success have also been given. Nothing,
however, was said of remarkable failures, of which there have
doubtless been some. A series of continued successes would, we
should think, by this time, have sufficed for the parturition of
this metallurgic process, and the discovery would ere this have been
introduced to the world, had there not been some drawbacks.

We are not prepared to deny _in toto_ that the p