The influence of ultra-violet rays on industrial output / by A. Lisle Punch and Russell Wilkinson with the collaboration of R. StC. Brooke and C.S. Myers.

  • Punch, A. Lisle.
Date:
1928?]
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: The influence of ultra-violet rays on industrial output / by A. Lisle Punch and Russell Wilkinson with the collaboration of R. StC. Brooke and C.S. Myers. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    3/8 (page 3)
    and (2) those whose output showed no change (E) or whose output was reduced (F, G, II) as the result of the treatment. Of the latter group, it is note¬ worthy that H gave no reaction at all to the rays, Table II. Pre-treatment. Treatment. Post-treatment. 1st week .. 87 5 2nd „ .. 93-75 3rd, week .. 90-25 4th „ .. 94-25 5th „ . . 92-25 6th „ .. 91-00 7th week .. 92-75 8th „ .. 87-25 while E gave a fair reaction, and F and G gave only average reactions. On the other hand, of the group that responded favourably to the treatment, A, B, and C gave extremely good reactions to the rays, while D gave a fair reaction. Table I. gives Ihe Table III. — Pre-treatment. Treatment. Post-treatment. F . . . . 90-9 gt-7 }8‘'7 84-0 G .. .. 73-5 68-25i69 ^ 69-0 H .. . . 86-4 Hi }8°'9 84-1 average daily output in pounds per worker per fortnight. The total output of this group during the post-treatment period is thus 6-14 per cent, greater than during the pre-treatment period. The figure for A reaches 11*8 per cent. Table IV. — Pre-treatment. Treatment. Post-treatment. I . . . . 60-1 63-2 1 65-4/64-3 63-9 J • • • • 56-2 56-7 1 58-9/57-8 56-0 K . . 99-5 98-01 103-9/100-9 101-7 The Subject's Own Statements. The girls’ own statements about the results of treatment are interesting. A said that she felt better and wanted more of the rays. B was most