The Coming of Materials Science Table 1. 1. Trends in titles of materials departments at US universities, 1964-1985, after Lyle, in Psaras and Langford 1987 Department title Number of departments, by year 1964 1985 Minerals and mining Metallurgy 31 29 Total 78 example of this approach was in the University of Texas at Austin, and this cribed in some detail by Fine (1994). At the time he wrote his overvie 38 fulltime faculty members and 90 students were involved in this graduate programme: the students gain higher degrees in MsE even though there is no department of that name. Faculty expertise and graduate student research effort are concentrated in the areas of materials processing, solid-state chemistry, polymer engineering and science, X-ray crystallography, biomaterials, structural materials, theory of materials(whatever that means! )and solid-state(electronic?) materials and devices'. Fine discusses the pros and cons of the two distinct ways of running graduate programmes in MSE. It may well be that the Texas way is a more effective way of forcing polymers into the curriculum; that has always proved to be a difficult undertaking. I return to this issue in Chapter 14. The philosophy underlying such interdepartmental programmes is closely akin to that which led in 1960 to the interdisciplinary materials research laboratories in the USA (Section 1. 1. 3) To give a little more balance to this story, it is desirable to outline events at another American university, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A goo account of the very gradual conversion from metallurgy to mse has been provided in a book( bever 1988)written to celebrate the centenary of the first course in which metallurgy was taught there (in combination with mining); this has been usefully oplemented by an unpublished text supplied by David Kingery (1927-2000),an eminent ceramist( Kingery 1999). As is common in American universities, a number of specialities first featured at graduate level and by stages filtered through to undergraduate teaching. One of these specialities was ceramics, introduced at MIT by Frederick H. Norton who joined the faculty in 1933 and taught there for 29 years Norton, a physicist by training, wrote the definitive text on refractory materials. His field expanded as mineral engineering declined and was in due course sloughed off to another department. Kingery, a chemist by background, did his doctoral research
6 The Coming of Materials Science Table 1.1. Trends in titles of materials departments at US universities, 1964-1985, after Lyle, in Psaras and Langford 1987. Department title Number of departments, by year 1964 1970 1985 Minerals and mining 9 7 5 Metallurgy 31 21 17 Materials 11 29 51 Other 18 21 17 Total 69 78 90 example of this approach was in the University of Texas at Austin, and this is described in some detail by Fine (1994). At the time he wrote his overview, 38 fulltime faculty members and 90 students were involved in this graduate programme: the students gain higher degrees in MSE even though there is no department of that name. "Faculty expertise and graduate student research efforts are concentrated in the areas of materials processing, solid-state chemistry, polymer engineering and science, X-ray crystallography, biomaterials, structural materials, theory of materials (whatever that means!) and solid-state (electronic?) materials and devices". Fine discusses the pros and cons of the two distinct ways of running graduate programmes in MSE. It may well be that the Texas way is a more effective way of forcing polymers into the curriculum; that has always proved to be a difficult undertaking. I return to this issue in Chapter 14. The philosophy underlying such interdepartmental programmes is closely akin to that which led in 1960 to the interdisciplinary materials research laboratories in the USA (Section 1.1.3). To give a little more balance to this story, it is desirable to outline events at another American university, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A good account of the very gradual conversion from metallurgy to MSE has been provided in a book (Bever 1988) written to celebrate the centenary of the first course in which metallurgy was taught there (in combination with mining); this has been usefully supplemented by an unpublished text supplied by David Kingery (1927-2000), an eminent ceramist (Kingery 1999). As is common in American universities, a number of specialities first featured at graduate level and by stages filtered through to undergraduate teaching. One of these specialities was ceramics, introduced at MIT by Frederick H. Norton who joined the faculty in 1933 and taught there for 29 years. Norton, a physicist by training, wrote the definitive text on refractory materials. His field expanded as mineral engineering declined and was in due course sloughed off to another department. Kingery, a chemist by background, did his doctoral research
Introduction with Norton and joined the faculty himself in 1950. He says: ""Materials science, ceramic science and most of what we think of as advanced technology did not exist in 1950, but the seeds had been sown in previous decades and were ready to sprout. The Metallurgy Department had interests in process metallurgy, physical metallurgy, chemical metallurgy and corrosion, but, in truth, the properties and uses of metals are not very exciting (my italics). The ceramics activity was one division of the Metallurgy Department, and from 1949 onwards, higher degrees in ceramic engineering could be earned. During the 1950s, we developed a ceramics program s a fully interdisciplinary activity. "He goes on to list the topics of courses taken by (presumably graduate) students at that time, in colloid science, spectroscopy, thermodynamics and surface chemistry, crystal structure and X-ray diffraction dielectric and ferroelectric materials and quantum physics. The words in italics, above, show what we all know, that to succeed in a new endeavour it is necessary to focus one's enthusiasm intensely For Kingery, who has been extremely influential in the evolution of ceramics as a constituent of mSe. ceramics constitute the heart and soul of MSE. With two colleagues, he wrote a standard undergraduate text on ceramics(Kingery 1976). By stages, he refocused on the truly modern aspects of ceramics, such as the role of chemically modified grain boundaries in determining the behaviour of electronic devices(Kingery 1981) In 1967, the departments name (after much discussion) was changed to Metallurgy and Materials Science' and not long after that, a greatly broadened Undergraduate syllabus was introduced. By that time, 9 years after the Northwestern initiative, MIT took the view that the change of name would actually enhance the department's attractiveness to prospective students. In 1974, after further somewhat crimonious debates, the departments name changed again to Materials Science and Engineering. It is to be noted, however, that the reality changed well before the name did. Shakespeare's Juliet had, perhaps, the essence of the matte What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet". All the foregoing has been about American universities. Materials science was not introduced in European universities until well into the 1960s. I was in fact the first professor to teach and organise research in MSE in Britain -first as professor of naterials technology at the University College of North Wales, 1962-1964,and then as professor of materials science at the University of Sussex, 1965-1981.But before any of this came about, the Department of Physical Metallurgy at University of Birmingham, in central England, under the visionary leadership of Professor Daniel Hanson and starting in 1946, transformed the teaching of that hitherto rather qualitative subject into a quantitative and rigorous approach. With the essential cooperation of Alan Cottrell and Geoffrey Raynor, John Eshelby and Frank Nabarro, that Department laid the foundation of what was to come later in
Introduction 7 with Norton and joined the faculty himself in 1950. He says: "Materials science, ceramic science and most of what we think of as advanced technology did not exist in 1950, but the seeds had been sown in previous decades and were ready to sprout. The Metallurgy Department had interests in process metallurgy, physical metallurgy, chemical metallurgy and corrosion, but, in truth, the properties and uses of metals are not very exciting (my italics). The ceramics activity was one division of the Metallurgy Department, and from 1949 onwards, higher degrees in ceramic engineering could be earned. During the 1950s, we developed a ceramics program as a fully interdisciplinary activity." He goes on to list the topics of courses taken by (presumably graduate) students at that time, in colloid science, spectroscopy, thermodynamics and surface chemistry, crystal structure and X-ray diffraction, dielectric and ferroelectric materials and quantum physics. The words in italics, above, show what we all know, that to succeed in a new endeavour it is necessary to focus one's enthusiasm intensely. For Kingery, who has been extremely influential in the evolution of ceramics as a constituent of MSE, ceramics constitute the heart and soul of MSE. With two colleagues, he wrote a standard undergraduate text on ceramics (Kingery 1976). By stages, he refocused on the truly modern aspects of ceramics, such as the role of chemically modified grain boundaries in determining the behaviour of electronic devices (Kingery 1981). In 1967, the department's name (after much discussion) was changed to 'Metallurgy and Materials Science' and not long after that, a greatly broadened undergraduate syllabus was introduced. By that time, 9 years after the Northwestern initiative, MIT took the view that the change of name would actually enhance the department's attractiveness to prospective students. In 1974, after further somewhat acrimonious debates, the department's name changed again to 'Materials Science and Engineering'. It is to be noted, however, that the reality changed well before the name did. Shakespeare's Juliet had, perhaps, the essence of the matter: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet". All the foregoing has been about American universities. Materials science was not introduced in European universities until well into the 1960s. I was in fact the first professor to teach and organise research in MSE in Britain- first as professor of materials technology at the University College of North Wales, 1962-1964, and then as professor of materials science at the University of Sussex, 1965-1981. But before any of this came about, the Department of Physical Metallurgy at the University of Birmingham, in central England, under the visionary leadership of Professor Daniel Hanson and starting in 1946, transformed the teaching of that hitherto rather qualitative subject into a quantitative and rigorous approach. With the essential cooperation of Alan Cottrell and Geoffrey Raynor, John Eshelby and Frank Nabarro, that Department laid the foundation of what was to come later in
The Coming of Materials Science America and then the world. This book is dedicated to the memory of Daniel 1.1.2 MSE in industry A few industrial research and development laboratories were already applying the ideas of Mse before those ideas had acquired a name. this was true in particular of illiam Shockley's group at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey and also of General Electric's Corporate Laboratory in Schenectady, New York State. At Bell, physicists, chemists and metallurgists all worked together on the processing of the semiconductors, germanium and silicon, required for the manufacture of transistors and diodes: William Pfann, the man who invented zone-refining, withe nough for devices to operate at all riordan and Hoddeson 1997), was trained as a chemical engineer and inspired by his contact with a famous academic metallurgist. ts led the way in developing hare uperconductors. Such a broad approach was not restricted to inorganic materials, the duPont Research Station in Delaware, as early as the 1930s, had enabled an organic chemist, Carothers, and a physical chemist, Flory, both scientists of genius, to create the scientific backing that eventually brought nylon to market(Morawetz 85, Hounshell and Smith 1988, Furukawa 1998); the two of them, though both chemists, made quite distinct contributions The General Electric Laboratory has a special place in the history of industrial esearch in America: initially directed by the chemist Willis Whitney from 1900, it was the first American industrial laboratory to advance beyond the status of a troubleshooting addendum to a factory(Wise 1985). The renowned gE scientists, William Coolidge and Irving Langmuir(the latter a Nobel prizewinner for the work he did at GE) first made themselves indispensable by perfecting the techniques of manufacturing ductile tungsten for incandescent light bulbs, turning it into coile filaments to reduce heat loss and using inert gases to inhibit blackening of the light bulb( Cox 1979). Langmuir's painstaking research on the interaction of gases and metal surfaces not only turned the incandescent light bulb into a practical reality but so provided a vital contribution to the understanding of heterogeneous catalysis (Gaines and Wise 1983). A steady stream of scientifically intriguing and commer- cially valuable discoveries and inventions continued to come from the Schenectad laboratory, many of them relating to materials: as to the tungsten episode, a book published for Coolidge's 100th birthday and presenting the stages of the tungsten story in chronological detail (including a succession of happy accidents that were promptly exploited)claims that an investment of just $116,000 produced astronom- ical profits for GE(Liebhafsky 1974)
8 The Coming of Materials Science America and then the world. This book is dedicated to the memory of Daniel Hanson. 1.1.2 MSE in industry A few industrial research and development laboratories were already applying the ideas of MSE before those ideas had acquired a name. This was true in particular of William Shockley's group at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey and also of General Electric's Corporate Laboratory in Schenectady, New York State. At Bell, physicists, chemists and metallurgists all worked together on the processing of the semiconductors, germanium and silicon, required for the manufacture of transistors and diodes: William Pfann, the man who invented zone-refining, without which it would have been impossible in the 1950s to make semiconductors pure enough for devices to operate at all (Riordan and Hoddeson 1997), was trained as a chemical engineer and inspired by his contact with a famous academic metallurgist. Later, Bell's interdisciplinary scientists led the way in developing hard metallic superconductors. Such a broad approach was not restricted to inorganic materials; the DuPont Research Station in Delaware, as early as the 1930s, had enabled an organic chemist, Carothers, and a physical chemist, Flory, both scientists of genius, to create the scientific backing that eventually brought nylon to market (Morawetz 1985, Hounshell and Smith 1988, Furukawa 1998); the two of them, though both chemists, made quite distinct contributions. The General Electric Laboratory has a special place in the history of industrial research in America: initially directed by the chemist Willis Whitney from 1900, it was the first American industrial laboratory to advance beyond the status of a troubleshooting addendum to a factory (Wise 1985). The renowned GE scientists, William Coolidge and Irving Langmuir (the latter a Nobel prizewinner for the work he did at GE) first made themselves indispensable by perfecting the techniques of manufacturing ductile tungsten for incandescent light bulbs, turning it into coiled filaments to reduce heat loss and using inert gases to inhibit blackening of the light bulb (Cox 1979). Langmuir's painstaking research on the interaction of gases and metal surfaces not only turned the incandescent light bulb into a practical reality but also provided a vital contribution to the understanding of heterogeneous catalysis (Gaines and Wise 1983). A steady stream of scientifically intriguing and commercially valuable discoveries and inventions continued to come from the Schenectady laboratory, many of them relating to materials: as to the tungsten episode, a book published for Coolidge's 100th birthday and presenting the stages of the tungsten story in chronological detail (including a succession of happy accidents that were promptly exploited) claims that an investment of just $116,000 produced astronomical profits for GE (Liebhafsky 1974)
ntroduction In 1946, a metallurgist of great vision joined this laboratory in order to form a new metallurgy research group. He was J H(Herbert) Hollomon(1919-1985). One of the first researchers he recruited was David Turnbull, a physical chemist by background. I quote some comments by turnbull about his remarkable boss, taken from an unpublished autobiography(Turnbull 1986): Holloman, then a trim young man aged 26, was a most unusual person with quite an overpowering personality. He was brash, intense, completely self-assured and overflowing with enthusiasm about prospects for the new group. He described the fascinating, but poorly understood responses of metals to mechanical and thermal treatments and his plans to form an interdisciplinary team, with representation from metallurgy, applied mechanics, chemistry and physics, to attack the problems posed by this behaviour. He was certain that these researches would lead to greatly improved ability to design and synthesise new materials that would find important technological uses and expressed he view that equipment performance was becoming more materials-than desigr limited.. Hollomon was like no other manager. He was rarely neutral about anything and had very strong likes and dislikes of people and ideas. These were expressed openly and vehemently and often changed dramatically from time to time Those closely associated with him usually were welcomed to his inner sanctum or consigned to his outer doghouse. Most of us made, k. several circuits between the sanctum and the doghouse. Hollomon would advocate an idea or model vociferously and stubbornly but, if confronted with contrary evidence of a convincing nature, would quickly and completely reverse his position without the slightest show of embarrassment and then uphold the contrary view with as much gour as he did the former one... In an internal Ge obituary, Charles Bean comments:"Once here, he quickly assembled an interdisciplinary team that led the transformation of metallurgy from an empirical art to a field of study based on principles of physics and chemistry". This transformation is the subject-matter of Chapter 5 in this book Hollomon's ethos, combined with his ferocious energy and determination, and his sustained determination to recruit only the best researchers to join his group, over the next 15 years led to a sequence of remarkable innovations related to materials, ncluding man-made diamond, high-quality thermal insulation a vacuum circu breaker, products based on etched particle tracks in irradiated solids, polycarbonate plastic and, particularly, the"Lucalox "alumina envelope for a metal-vapour lamp (Of course many managers besides Hollomon were involved. )A brilliant, detailed account of these innovations and the arrangements that made them possible was later written by Guy Suits and his successor as director, Arthur Bueche( Suits and Bueche 1967). Some of these specific episodes will feature later in this book, but it helps to reinforce the points made here about Hollomon's conception of broad research on materials if I point out that the invention of translucent alumina tubes for lamps was
Introduction 9 In 1946, a metallurgist of great vision joined this laboratory in order to form a new metallurgy research group. He was J.H. (Herbert) Hollomon (1919-1985). One of the first researchers he recruited was David Turnbull, a physical chemist by background. I quote some comments by Turnbull about his remarkable boss, taken from an unpublished autobiography (Turnbull 1986): "Holloman, then a trim young man aged 26, was a most unusual person with quite an overpowering personality. He was brash, intense, completely self-assured and overflowing with enthusiasm about prospects for the new group. He described the fascinating, but poorly understood, responses of metals to mechanical and thermal treatments and his plans to form an interdisciplinary team, with representation from metallurgy, applied mechanics, chemistry and physics, to attack the problems posed by this behaviour. He was certain that these researches would lead to greatly improved ability to design and synthesise new materials that would find important technological uses and expressed the view that equipment performance was becoming more materials- than designlimited... Hollomon was like no other manager. He was rarely neutral about anything and had very strong likes and dislikes of people and ideas. These were expressed openly and vehemently and often changed dramatically from time to time. Those closely associated with him usually were welcomed to his inner sanctum or consigned to his outer doghouse. Most of us made, I think, several circuits between the sanctum and the doghouse. Hollomon would advocate an idea or model vociferously and stubbornly but, if confronted with contrary evidence of a convincing nature, would quickly and completely reverse his position without the slightest show of embarrassment and then uphold the contrary view with as much vigour as he did the former one..." In an internal GE obituary, Charles Bean comments: "Once here, he quickly assembled an interdisciplinary team that led the transformation of metallurgy from an empirical art to a field of study based on principles of physics and chemistry". This transformation is the subject-matter of Chapter 5 in this book. Hollomon's ethos, combined with his ferocious energy and determination, and his sustained determination to recruit only the best researchers to join his group, over the next 15 years led to a sequence of remarkable innovations related to materials, including man-made diamond, high-quality thermal insulation, a vacuum circuitbreaker, products based on etched particle tracks in irradiated solids, polycarbonate plastic and, particularly, the "Lucalox" alumina envelope for a metal-vapour lamp. (Of course many managers besides Hollomon were involved.) A brilliant, detailed account of these innovations and the arrangements that made them possible was later written by Guy Suits and his successor as director, Arthur Bueche (Suits and Bueche 1967). Some of these specific episodes will feature later in this book, but it helps to reinforce the points made here about Hollomon's conception of broad research on materials if I point out that the invention of translucent alumina tubes for lamps was
The Coming of Materials Science a direct result of untrammelled research by R L. Coble on the mechanism of densification during the sintering of a ceramic powder. There have been too few such published case-histories of industrial innovation in materials; many years ago, I p the case for pursuing this approach to gaining insight( Cahn 1970) The projects outlined by Suits and Bueche involved collaborations between many stinct disciplines(names and scientific backgrounds are punctiliously listed), and it was around this time that some of the protagonists began to think of themselves as materials scientists. Hollomon outlined his own conception of"Materials Science and Engineering"; this indeed was the title of an essay he brought out some years after he had joined GE(Hollomon 1958), and here he explains what kind of creatures he conceived materials scientists and materials engineers to be. John How who worked in the neighbouring Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory at that time, has told me that in the 1950s, he and Hollomon frequently discussed"the need for a broader term as more fundamental concepts were developed"(Howe 1987), and it is quite possible that the new terminology in fact evolved from these discussions at GE Hollomon concluded his essay: The professional societies must recognise this new alignment and arrange for its stimulation and for the association of those who practice both the science and engineering of materials. We might even need an American Materials Society with divisions of science and engineering. Metallurgica engineering will become materials engineering. OUT OF METALLURGY, BY PHYSICS, COMES MATERIALS SCIENCE (my capitals). It was to be many years before this prescient advice was heeded; I return to this issue in Chapter 14 Westbrook and Fleischer, two luminaries of the GE Laboratory's golden days, recently dedicated a major book to Hollomon, with the words: " Wise, vigorous, effective advocate of the relevance and value of scientific research in industry Westbrook and Fleischer 1995); but a little later still, Fleischer in another book (Fleischer 1998)remarked drily that when Hollomon left the Research Center to take up the directorship of GE's General Engineering Laboratory, he suddenly began saying in public: Well, we know as much about science as we need. Now is the time to go out and use it". Circumstances alter cases. It is not surprising that as he grev older, Hollomon polarised observers into fierce devotees and implacable opponents, just as though he had been a politician Suits and Bueche conclude their case- histories with a superb analysis of the ources, tactics and uses of applied research, and make the comment: The case histories just summarised show, first of all, the futility of trying to label various elements of the research and development process as 'basic, applied or 'develop ment.Given almost any definition of these terms, one can find variations o exceptions among the examples Hollomon,s standing in the national industrial community was recognised in 1955 when the US National Chamber of Commerce chose him as one of the ter
10 The Coming of Materials Science a direct result of untrammelled research by R.L. Coble on the mechanism of densification during the sintering of a ceramic powder. There have been too few such published case-histories of industrial innovation in materials; many years ago, I put the case for pursuing this approach to gaining insight (Cahn 1970). The projects outlined by Suits and Bueche involved collaborations between many distinct disciplines (names and scientific backgrounds are punctiliously listed), and it was around this time that some of the protagonists began to think of themselves as materials scientists. Hollomon outlined his own conception of "Materials Science and Engineering"; this indeed was the title of an essay he brought out some years after he had joined GE (Hollomon 1958), and here he explains what kind of creatures he conceived materials scientists and materials engineers to be. John Howe, who worked in the neighbouring Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory at that time, has told me that in the 1950s, he and Hollomon frequently discussed "the need for a broader term as more fundamental concepts were developed" (Howe 1987), and it is quite possible that the new terminology in fact evolved from these discussions at GE. Hollomon concluded his essay: "The professional societies must recognise this new alignment and arrange for its stimulation and for the association of those who practice both the science and engineering of materials. We might even need an American Materials Society with divisions of science and engineering. Metallurgical engineering will become materials engineering. OUT OF METALLURGY, BY PHYSICS, COMES MATERIALS SCIENCE (my capitals)." It was to be many years before this prescient advice was heeded; I return to this issue in Chapter 14. Westbrook and Fleischer, two luminaries of the GE Laboratory's golden days, recently dedicated a major book to Hollomon, with the words: "Wise, vigorous, effective advocate of the relevance and value of scientific research in industry" (Westbrook and Fleischer 1995); but a little later still, Fleischer in another book (Fleischer 1998) remarked drily that when Hollomon left the Research Center to take up the directorship of GE's General Engineering Laboratory, he suddenly began saying in public: "Well, we know as much about science as we need. Now is the time to go out and use it". Circumstances alter cases. It is not surprising that as he grew older, Hollomon polarised observers into fierce devotees and implacable opponents, just as though he had been a politician. Suits and Bueche conclude their case-histories with a superb analysis of the sources, tactics and uses of applied research, and make the comment: "The case histories just summarised show, first of all, the futility of trying to label various elements of the research and development process as 'basic', 'applied' or 'development'. Given almost any definition of these terms, one can find variations or exceptions among the examples." Hollomon's standing in the national industrial community was recognised in 1955 when the US National Chamber of Commerce chose him as one of the ten