January 12, 1943

Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Inc.

New York, New York

Gentlemen:

During recent weeks I have seen in several magazines two advertisements for Canada Dry Water, which have aroused my curiosity. These advertisements refer to the effect of melting ice on drinks made with ordinary club soda, and state or suggest that something different about Canada Dry Water, perhaps the factor called ten point carbonation, causes drinks made with this water to retain their carbon dioxide longer than those made with other carbonated waters, and also causes an open bottle of Canada Dry Water to keep its sparkle longer than other carbonated waters.

During the past twenty-five years I have learned a great deal about chemistry and physics. Reading your advertisement has aroused my curiosity as to what is responsible for the difference in behavior of Canada Dry Water which is described. There is no statement or hint in the advertisement as to the nature of the phenomenon or the nature of the difference between Canada Dry Water and other carbonated waters. I should be pleased to hear from you in regard to this, and to have you send me a scientific explanation of the phenomenon.

I am requesting this information from you purely to satisfy my scientific curiosity. I do not have any connections with industries or with organized consumers' groups of any sort. The only appointments which I hold are at the California Institute of Technology and with the United States Government, the latter relating to war work and to advisory work for the Department of Agriculture.

Yours truly,

Linus Pauling

LP:mu

January 12, 1943

Dr. James B. Conant

Office of Scientific Research and Development

1530 P Street

Washington, D.C.

Dear Dr. Conant:

I am writing to lay before you a matter about which I have been thinking during the past five months, and to ask for your advice.

When I began work on the Committee on Hyper-Velocity Guns last August, the idea occurred to me that it should be possible to increase the velocity of a projectile fired from a gun by use of the rocket principle. I made some calculations, which indicated that an increase in velocity of 500 to 1000 feet per second might well be achieved in this way. Since then I have learned that this suggestion has been made bother people, no doubt by many. the ideas to which I have finally been led seem, however, to be different from others on which work has been done, such as that of Sir Dennis Burney, who has made use of a finned projectile in a gun, and of the Aberdeen Proving Ground, which in 1935 and 1938 reported experiments on increasing the range of finned mortar projectiles with use of rocket propellant. Mr. Piestrak, who has suggested a rocket gun, may possibly have had a device in mind somewhat similar to mine.

My proposal involves a charge of rocket propellant in a chamber at the rear of the projectile of a rifled gun, this chamber in the projectile being open to the gun chamber, and the rocket propellant being ignited at the same time as the gun propellant. The charge would weigh about 10 or 15% of the projectile weight, and would impart an added speed of 500 to 1000 feet per second to the projectile. Thus for th eM-3 or N-1A2 37 MM gun, giving muzzle velocity 2800 feet per second with the 1.92 lb. standard projectile and 3900 with the 0.95 lb. T24B3 projectile, a muzzle velocity as high as 4900 feet per second might be obtained with a one-pound projectile with the rocket propellant. I have examined rounds of ammunition for 37 MM cannon and have made preliminary designs of rocket projectiles.. A suitable rocket projectile might have the same size and shape as the M55A1 projectile, except that the taper at the base would not be present and the rotating band would be moved forward by 1 1/4 inches to a point 3 1/2 inches from the base. The rear 3 1/2 inches of the projectile would comprise the rocket motor, carrying 0.15 lb. of propellant, and the front 2 1/2 inches might consist of a tungsten carbide armor-piercing core and a windshield. The stability of this projectile in flight should be satisfactory. The charge of 0.15 lb. of propellant would give a velocity increment of 100 feet per second to the one-pound projectile. There is needed a propellant which can withstand

[2]

the rotational and set-back forces (perhaps by being cemented to the chamber) and the high gun-chamber pressure of about 40000 psi. Whether an existing propellant can be used or a new propellant must be developed could be decided by a program of experimental work which would fit in well with our present NDRC program, if authorization to work on the development of this new weapon were given.

It is important to note that the proposed change in the ammunition is simple, and that this method of obtaining hypervelocities would be applied to any cannon without any change whatever except in the ammunition. It is this latter feature of the proposed weapon, which it holds in common with the new light-weight armor-piercing projectile, which would make it especially liable to adoption by the armed services for use in this war.

I have considered the various difficulties which suggest themselves and have reached the conclusion that there is a reasonable chance that they can be overcome. Most of these difficulties relate to the propellant.

So far as I am aware, no work along these lines is being done by anyone, although some work is being done on other rocket-gun combinations. I do not know which division of the NDRC this proposal should be laid before. Would you please tell me to whom I should present this proposal in detail. I shall be in Washington for a Division 8 meeting on January 22, and plan to stay until the 25; this would give me the opportunity to discuss the proposal with the proper persons.

I believe that, with the experience which we have had, we could answer the question as to whether the available rocket propellants could be used in this way in a short time, and at small cost.

Sincerely yours,

Linus Pauling