Polymer Testing 5 (1985) 1-2

Editorial

When someone invents a new apparatus or test method he or she presumably hopes that others will find it useful in their work. Logically, any completely new way of measuring a property, if it is found to be of value by a number of people, would be adopted as a national or international standard.

Of course many inventions are a better form of appara tus- -more precise, automated, easier to use or cheaper - -and not a distinct new method. However , if all the rest were standardised we would have a lot of standards. Many people would argue that we already have too many and quite clearly standardising for its own sake or standardising a method that very few use does not make economic sense, because it takes considerable time and expense to produce a standard method.

In practice there is some difficulty in deciding whether a method warrants the standardising process. Because of economic restraint the standardising authorities have introduced formal routines for the adoption of new work with the aim of only accepting projects which meet with almost universal approval. However, internationally at least, almost all suggestions will get through because a number of countries will vote yes to anything.

Individual organisations or individual companies will push strongly for the adoption of their own method and this is probably a strong reason why for some properties two or more alternative standard methods exist. Everybody is entitled to their own choice but, when it comes to standardising, the wishes of individual factions must be tempered by the need to avoid proliferation. Indeed it is the aim of a standards commit tee to reach consensus agreement, not several agreements. However , despite the objectives, alternatives may have to be accepted for good technical reasons as well as because different procedures have long been accepted in different quarters.

The particular case of very similar methods for rubbers and plastics separately was touched upon in the Editorial in Polymer Testing, 4(1), and is an example of where unnecessary duplication can take place and which could probably be reduced with greater cooperation.

1

Polymer Testing (5) (1985)----(~) Elsevier Applied Science Publishers Ltd, England, 1985. Printed in Northern Ireland

2 Editorial

It would seem somewhat pointless to standardise widely a method with only very local use. In particular, there is considerable opposi- tion to standardising methods which are only used for research purposes with the strong argument that standards are to facilitate trade and if the method is not used in trade it should not occupy the valuable time of the standards committee. This is probably a fair conclusion viewed against the purposes of the major standardising bodies but does leave very much open whether there is any value in accepted research methods being standardised or whether those using them have any interest in them being standardised. It also means that procedures used for the generation of design purposes get very second standardisation priority against those used for quality control.

I am extremely pleased to announce that in 1985 (Vol. 5) there will be six issues of Polymer Testing, instead of the four issues of previous volumes. This is possible because of the high number of good quality papers submitted in the last year and is particularly gratifying after my pleas in earlier years for more copy. I suspect my calls for papers had less influence than the growing appreciation of Polymer Testing and its significance as the only journal devoted to testing rubbers and plastics and I hope this t rend will continue. More issues mean greater coverage of the subject but to sustain this higher level we shall need a continued high number of papers submitted so I shall repeat my call for authors to keep writing.

R. Brown