opinion,” and such statements as “These values * * * are regarded by the writer as having at least double the factor of safety used in ordinary designs of structural steel”; “On a basis not far from that which the writer considers reasonable practice.”  Do these sound like clean-cut statements of fact, or are they personal opinions?  It is a fact, pure and simple, that a sharp bend in a reinforcing rod in concrete violates the simplest principles of mechanics; also that the queen-post and Pratt and Howe truss analogies applied to reinforcing steel in concrete are fallacies; that a few inches of embedment will not anchor a rod for its value; that concrete shrinks in setting in air and puts initial stress in both the concrete and the steel, making assumed unstressed initial conditions non-existent.  It is a fact that longitudinal rods alone cannot be relied on to reinforce a concrete column.  Contrary to Mr. Turner’s statement, tests have been adduced to demonstrate this fact.  Further, it is a fact that the faults and errors in reinforced concrete design to which attention is called, are very common in current design, and are held up as models in nearly all books on the subject.

The writer has not asked any one to believe a single thing because he thinks it is so, or to change a single feature of design because in his judgment that feature is faulty.  The facts given are exemplifications of elementary mechanical principles overlooked by other writers, just as early bridge designers and writers on bridge design overlooked the importance of calculating bridge pins and other details which would carry the stress of the members.

A careful reading of the paper will show that the writer does not accept the opinions of others, when they are not backed by sound reason, and does not urge his own opinion.

Instead of being a statement of personal opinion for which confirmation is desired, the paper is a simple statement of facts and tests which demonstrate the error of practices exhibited in a large majority of reinforced concrete work and held up in the literature on the subject as examples to follow.  Mr. Turner has made no attempt to deny or refute any one of these facts, but he speaks of the burden of proof resting on the writer.  Further, he makes statements which show that he fails entirely to understand the facts given or to grasp their meaning.  He says that the writer’s idea is “that the entire pull of the main reinforcing rod should be taken up apparently at the end.”  He adds that the soundness of this position may be questioned, because, in slabs, the steel frequently breaks at the center.  Compare this with the writer’s statement, as follows: