Search Documents

By J. H. Richards, G. Derge, W. Peifer

A WIDE Variety of metallurgical defects in steel have commonly been attributed to the presence of excessive amounts of hydrogen. These defects include flakes in rails and forgings, cracks in welds, and blisters in enameled ware, They have been related to hydrogen largely by circumstantiat evidence because the proper sampling and analysis of steel for hydrogen has been known to be difficult and because no general agreement has existed with regard to the relative suitability and accuracy of available methods. The need for a direct approach to these problems has been widely recognized. This general situation has been well described in the publications of the British committee on the Heterogeneity of Steel Ingots,' and current approaches to the problem were reviewed in a recent symposium of the AIME.I2 The plans described by the present authors at that meeting have now matured satisfactorily and will form the basis of this paper. The principal object of this paper will be to describe the methods of sampling and analysis which have been developed and to illustrate the usefulness and limitations of these methods by citing their application to a specific problem, The first problem selected for investigation was the behavior of hydrogen in rail steel. This was chosen because the occurrence of shatter cracks in rails has received a great deal of study over a long period of time. The defect can be controlled by the expensive procedure of slow in However, it may be hoped that a better understanding of the factors influencing the hydrogen content of rails will lead to a more efficient control of this problem. Rails provide a good starting point for a more general study of hydrogen in steel because they provide a cross-section large enough to develop cracks, Yet small enough for convenient handling and sampling. Rails were also selected because they arc made from plain carbon steel and it was felt that the initial work should not be complicated by the effects introduced by alloying elements. The considerations which determined the original planning of this study should be reviewed. The inherently complex nature of most hydrogen problems requires that a large amount of data must be collected for any particular case. This in turn means that any analytical procedure should be as rapid and simple as possible. The same objective of speed is indicated by the fact that it may finally become desirable to use hydrogen analysis in process control. It is also known that hydrogen is highly fugitive and that any procedure which facilitat~s early analysis of the sample without prolonged or irregular storage has distinct advantages. The most important previously reported methods of analysis may be classified into three general groups: (I) Vacuum fusion, (2) Vacuum extraction (without melting), (3) Total combustion.

Jan 1, 1949

By G. Derge, W. Peifer, J. H. Richards

A WIDE Variety of metallurgical defects in steel have commonly been attributed to the presence of excessive amounts of hydrogen. These defects include flakes in rails and forgings, cracks in welds, and blisters in enameled ware, They have been related to hydrogen largely by circumstantiat evidence because the proper sampling and analysis of steel for hydrogen has been known to be difficult and because no general agreement has existed with regard to the relative suitability and accuracy of available methods. The need for a direct approach to these problems has been widely recognized. This general situation has been well described in the publications of the British committee on the Heterogeneity of Steel Ingots,' and current approaches to the problem were reviewed in a recent symposium of the AIME.I2 The plans described by the present authors at that meeting have now matured satisfactorily and will form the basis of this paper. The principal object of this paper will be to describe the methods of sampling and analysis which have been developed and to illustrate the usefulness and limitations of these methods by citing their application to a specific problem, The first problem selected for investigation was the behavior of hydrogen in rail steel. This was chosen because the occurrence of shatter cracks in rails has received a great deal of study over a long period of time. The defect can be controlled by the expensive procedure of slow in However, it may be hoped that a better understanding of the factors influencing the hydrogen content of rails will lead to a more efficient control of this problem. Rails provide a good starting point for a more general study of hydrogen in steel because they provide a cross-section large enough to develop cracks, Yet small enough for convenient handling and sampling. Rails were also selected because they arc made from plain carbon steel and it was felt that the initial work should not be complicated by the effects introduced by alloying elements. The considerations which determined the original planning of this study should be reviewed. The inherently complex nature of most hydrogen problems requires that a large amount of data must be collected for any particular case. This in turn means that any analytical procedure should be as rapid and simple as possible. The same objective of speed is indicated by the fact that it may finally become desirable to use hydrogen analysis in process control. It is also known that hydrogen is highly fugitive and that any procedure which facilitat~s early analysis of the sample without prolonged or irregular storage has distinct advantages. The most important previously reported methods of analysis may be classified into three general groups: (I) Vacuum fusion, (2) Vacuum extraction (without melting), (3) Total combustion.

Jan 1, 1949

By H. W. Graham

AS these annual occasions in honor of Henry Marion Howe continue through the years: there is progressively less likelihood that the lecturer will have had personal knowledge of Dr. Howe. The present speaker is one of those who unfortunately had no opportunity to come under the inspiring presence of this great metallurgist. A review of Howe's work shows it to cover a comprehensive range of interests and to evidence an impressive richness of detail. Not only was Howe at home in the laboratory, but he was familiar with the processes of iron and steel making and had a real understanding of them. His writings include much that is descriptive of processes with a wealth of material that is becoming of increasing historical value. He recorded his studies of the theoretical aspects of processes and published at least two process classifications, one in 1890 that was lengthy and somewhat theoretical, and a second in 1906 that was more of a practical listing. Wide as Howe's field of interest was, it is significant of the circumstances of his time that he gave- little consideration to raw materials or to their effect on iron and steel making processes. In 1933, Waterhouse, Howe lecturer for that year, presented a descriptive summary of the major steel making processes, and in 1946 Joseph discussed the blast furnace process. Otherwise Howe lectures have not dealt with processes as major subjects. In today's lecture, with no effort to describe the mechanical arrangements of iron and steel making facilities, it is proposed to examine the essential technological elements of the processes, to explore the inter-relation of these elements, and particularly to seek recognition and understanding of those factors which determine why certain processes are or are not used. The discussion of this lecture will deal with the major well-known large tonnage processes, with only such attention to processes of minor tonnage and special character as may be warranted for explanation by contrast. Subject to the errors of generalization and the shortcomings of condensation involved in presentation limited to a single hour, it is proposed to examine broadly but intensively those operations which convert raw materials into steel. It is an innovation for a Howe lecturer to discuss the raw materials of the iron and steel industry, but the changing circumstances of passing years intensify the influence of raw materials on processes and require the metallurgist to be alert for the process adjustments that may become advisable or mandatory. For a half century the metallurgical processing of iron and steel has followed a surprisingly straight path, but this does not necessarily mean that there are no curves in the road ahead. Ages ago primitive man came to know iron in its metallic form, not only by the

Jan 1, 1948

By H. W. Graham

AS these annual occasions in honor of Henry Marion Howe continue through the years: there is progressively less likelihood that the lecturer will have had personal knowledge of Dr. Howe. The present speaker is one of those who unfortunately had no opportunity to come under the inspiring presence of this great metallurgist. A review of Howe's work shows it to cover a comprehensive range of interests and to evidence an impressive richness of detail. Not only was Howe at home in the laboratory, but he was familiar with the processes of iron and steel making and had a real understanding of them. His writings include much that is descriptive of processes with a wealth of material that is becoming of increasing historical value. He recorded his studies of the theoretical aspects of processes and published at least two process classifications, one in 1890 that was lengthy and somewhat theoretical, and a second in 1906 that was more of a practical listing. Wide as Howe's field of interest was, it is significant of the circumstances of his time that he gave- little consideration to raw materials or to their effect on iron and steel making processes. In 1933, Waterhouse, Howe lecturer for that year, presented a descriptive summary of the major steel making processes, and in 1946 Joseph discussed the blast furnace process. Otherwise Howe lectures have not dealt with processes as major subjects. In today's lecture, with no effort to describe the mechanical arrangements of iron and steel making facilities, it is proposed to examine the essential technological elements of the processes, to explore the inter-relation of these elements, and particularly to seek recognition and understanding of those factors which determine why certain processes are or are not used. The discussion of this lecture will deal with the major well-known large tonnage processes, with only such attention to processes of minor tonnage and special character as may be warranted for explanation by contrast. Subject to the errors of generalization and the shortcomings of condensation involved in presentation limited to a single hour, it is proposed to examine broadly but intensively those operations which convert raw materials into steel. It is an innovation for a Howe lecturer to discuss the raw materials of the iron and steel industry, but the changing circumstances of passing years intensify the influence of raw materials on processes and require the metallurgist to be alert for the process adjustments that may become advisable or mandatory. For a half century the metallurgical processing of iron and steel has followed a surprisingly straight path, but this does not necessarily mean that there are no curves in the road ahead. Ages ago primitive man came to know iron in its metallic form, not only by the

Jan 1, 1948

By Robert B. Sosman

The chance that a Howe Memorial Lecturer will be able to refer back to a personal contact with the distinguished metallurgist for whom this lectureship is named grows steadily I I did not have the pleasure of his personal acquaintance, but I did receive from him in 1916, quite unexpectedly, a letter commenting On a paper that I had recently published27 On "Types of Prismatic Structure in Igneous Rocks." The paper was written for geologists and petrologists, but it had an application, naturally, to the crystallization of iron and steel in a mold. The letter impressed me at the time, and still does, with the breadth of of Howe's interests and his perseverance in keeping up with the progress of any branch of knowledge that had metallurgical connotations. Scope of the Lecture During several years preceding the date mentioned I had worked in collaboration with Arthur L. Day and E. T. Allen8 at the Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington, on the temperature scale as defined by the nitrogen thermometer at high temperatures. Later (1928-1947) I had the opportunity of helping to apply this experience to the pyro-metric problems of the steel industry. Because of the range of its temperatures, the multiplicity of the methods used, and the variety of its purposes, pyrometry in the open-hearth process has always offered a fertile field for both research and development. I am therefore devoting an hour to the subject of temperatures in the basic open-hearth furnace, the furnace that makes most of our steel in the united States. I would direct your attention particularly to the choice of the first two words in the title of the Lecture. One sometimes hears or reads of the ((temperature of such-and-such a furnace," as if it were a single, measurable, characteristic quantity. I need hardly emphasize to any one who has ever operated a furnace or a kiln that " temperature of the furnace " is a meaningless phrase. Even if we confine our attention to the space enclosed by the roof, walls, and hearth of an open-hearth furnace, it is doubtful whether any such space has ever been so uniform in temperature that the phrase would have a meaning. In any furnace, there are many different temperatures, capable of being measured at many different places, and actually being measured for several different purposes. These pyrometric purposes, methods, and results, if given in detail, would expand this lecture into a book on the basic open-hearth process. I must therefore confine myself to a statement of the range of temperatures as they have been observed in various parts of the furnace, indicating in a general way why they are measured, and mentioning the methods that are available without attempting to describe these

Jan 1, 1949

By Robert B. Sosman

The chance that a Howe Memorial Lecturer will be able to refer back to a personal contact with the distinguished metallurgist for whom this lectureship is named grows steadily I I did not have the pleasure of his personal acquaintance, but I did receive from him in 1916, quite unexpectedly, a letter commenting On a paper that I had recently published27 On "Types of Prismatic Structure in Igneous Rocks." The paper was written for geologists and petrologists, but it had an application, naturally, to the crystallization of iron and steel in a mold. The letter impressed me at the time, and still does, with the breadth of of Howe's interests and his perseverance in keeping up with the progress of any branch of knowledge that had metallurgical connotations. Scope of the Lecture During several years preceding the date mentioned I had worked in collaboration with Arthur L. Day and E. T. Allen8 at the Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington, on the temperature scale as defined by the nitrogen thermometer at high temperatures. Later (1928-1947) I had the opportunity of helping to apply this experience to the pyro-metric problems of the steel industry. Because of the range of its temperatures, the multiplicity of the methods used, and the variety of its purposes, pyrometry in the open-hearth process has always offered a fertile field for both research and development. I am therefore devoting an hour to the subject of temperatures in the basic open-hearth furnace, the furnace that makes most of our steel in the united States. I would direct your attention particularly to the choice of the first two words in the title of the Lecture. One sometimes hears or reads of the ((temperature of such-and-such a furnace," as if it were a single, measurable, characteristic quantity. I need hardly emphasize to any one who has ever operated a furnace or a kiln that " temperature of the furnace " is a meaningless phrase. Even if we confine our attention to the space enclosed by the roof, walls, and hearth of an open-hearth furnace, it is doubtful whether any such space has ever been so uniform in temperature that the phrase would have a meaning. In any furnace, there are many different temperatures, capable of being measured at many different places, and actually being measured for several different purposes. These pyrometric purposes, methods, and results, if given in detail, would expand this lecture into a book on the basic open-hearth process. I must therefore confine myself to a statement of the range of temperatures as they have been observed in various parts of the furnace, indicating in a general way why they are measured, and mentioning the methods that are available without attempting to describe these

Jan 1, 1949

By T. L. Joseph

It is a distinct privilege to participate in this meeting convened to honor the memory of Henry Marion Howe, a distinguished scientist and metallurgist. Many have added to our rapidly growing fund of metallurgical knowledge but few have made the unique contribution of formulating basic concepts essential to an over-all comprehensive view of the subject of metallography. Of those previously selected to deliver this lecture, several have added a personal touch to their discourse because they were able to refer to their associations with Dr. Howe. It was not my good fortune to know him or to enjoy his inspiring influence. Like most of you, my contact has been with his published works, which are outstanding in that they provide lucid, detailed expositions of the nature and behavior of metals and alloys. His deep understanding and clarity of expression have greatly accelerated our progress in metallography and in the use of metals. The degree to which a man's thinking, experimentation and writing contribute toward an understanding of basic laws and phenomena determines whether his life's work is of transitory or permanent value. This occasion appropriately recognizes the fundamental importance of Dr. Howe's pioneer work in the field of metallurgy.. On two former occasions, gray iron was selected as a subject for discussion. The fact that the production of pig iron has not been discussed before does not reflect any lack of interest on the part of Dr. Howe or former lecturers in the process that underlies the production of steel. Although Dr. Howe's work in his later years centered around metallography, his earlier publications show a considerable interest in the production of iron and steel. He recognized that in the ascending spiral of metallurgical advancement we are not winding a single thread but are weaving a complex fabric. Specific evidence of his interest in the production of pig iron may be found in his book' on The Metallography of Cast Iron and Steel. In explaining why blast furnaces have been in constant use for about 600 years, he says: "The process is economical because it utilizes with extraordinary completeness the calorific power of the coke due to the thorough transfer of heat from the gaseous products of combustion to the charge." This emphasis on heat transfer, overlooked in many more extended and more recent discussions of the blast-furnace process, illustrates Professor Howe's ability to see the essentials. Other distinct advantages of the blast furnace, such as the removal of- much of the sulphur and practically all of the oxygen, were mentioned. It was also stated that although the blastfurnace process is complex in nature, its outward form is comparatively simple, thus permitting large-scale production at small labor costs. All who contemplate the production of metallic iron from its ores by any other process might well consider the

Jan 1, 1947

By T. L. Joseph

It is a distinct privilege to participate in this meeting convened to honor the memory of Henry Marion Howe, a distinguished scientist and metallurgist. Many have added to our rapidly growing fund of metallurgical knowledge but few have made the unique contribution of formulating basic concepts essential to an over-all comprehensive view of the subject of metallography. Of those previously selected to deliver this lecture, several have added a personal touch to their discourse because they were able to refer to their associations with Dr. Howe. It was not my good fortune to know him or to enjoy his inspiring influence. Like most of you, my contact has been with his published works, which are outstanding in that they provide lucid, detailed expositions of the nature and behavior of metals and alloys. His deep understanding and clarity of expression have greatly accelerated our progress in metallography and in the use of metals. The degree to which a man's thinking, experimentation and writing contribute toward an understanding of basic laws and phenomena determines whether his life's work is of transitory or permanent value. This occasion appropriately recognizes the fundamental importance of Dr. Howe's pioneer work in the field of metallurgy.. On two former occasions, gray iron was selected as a subject for discussion. The fact that the production of pig iron has not been discussed before does not reflect any lack of interest on the part of Dr. Howe or former lecturers in the process that underlies the production of steel. Although Dr. Howe's work in his later years centered around metallography, his earlier publications show a considerable interest in the production of iron and steel. He recognized that in the ascending spiral of metallurgical advancement we are not winding a single thread but are weaving a complex fabric. Specific evidence of his interest in the production of pig iron may be found in his book' on The Metallography of Cast Iron and Steel. In explaining why blast furnaces have been in constant use for about 600 years, he says: "The process is economical because it utilizes with extraordinary completeness the calorific power of the coke due to the thorough transfer of heat from the gaseous products of combustion to the charge." This emphasis on heat transfer, overlooked in many more extended and more recent discussions of the blast-furnace process, illustrates Professor Howe's ability to see the essentials. Other distinct advantages of the blast furnace, such as the removal of- much of the sulphur and practically all of the oxygen, were mentioned. It was also stated that although the blastfurnace process is complex in nature, its outward form is comparatively simple, thus permitting large-scale production at small labor costs. All who contemplate the production of metallic iron from its ores by any other process might well consider the

Jan 1, 1947

By Marcus A. Grossmann

The Institute has established this lectureship to honor the memory of a great American metallurgist, one whose fame has continued long after his passing. As one scientist recently stated it, "All metallurgical texts gradually become outdated and outmoded, except those of the great Henry Marion Howe." It seems fitting, then, that, once every year, we shouId review, in his honor, some aspects of the science in which he was such a distinguished leader, and also discuss any new data that may help to clarify our concepts. It is my privilege, for which indeed I express the deepest appreciation to this Institute, to offer for consideration a few thoughts on the toughness and fracture of hardened steels. Before proceeding to the data, I wish to express my great indebtedness to many associates whose stimulating discussions, generous contributions of data and cooperation in experiments are gratefully acknowledged. (But I wish to absolve them of any blame that may arise from the way in which their discussions and data have been used!) First, Dr. Edgar C. Bain, Vice President, Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation, whose amiable but merciless criticisms and always constructive and thoughtful suggestions help unfailingly to guard against pitfalls. Then to associates at Gary Steel Works, especially Mr. H. B. Wishart, Mr. W. K. Smith and Mr. V. Elliott, for great assistance in securing data. Also to Col. C. H. Greenall, Director of Laboratories, Frankford Arsenal, and his metallurgical staff, including Messrs. J. K. Desmond, H. Markus, D. F. Armiento, H. Rosenthal and Henry George, for numerous data and illustrations. Further to Dr. J. R. Low and Dr. M. Asimow, for helpful discussions of effects of states of stress during deformation and rupture, to Mr. J. M. Hodge for discussions and data, to the staff of the U. S. Steel Corporation Research Laboratory for advice and data, and to the Metallurgical Staff at Duquesne Steel Works. The individual acknowledgments will also be found under illustrations. Acknowledgment is also due to Mr. S. C. Snyder for incredibly meticulous scrutiny of manuscript. To all of these, grateful thanks. Introduction The discussion to be offered here will deal with quench-hardened steels only, and may perhaps be considered under three headings: 1. It was found that, when ferrite was precipitated in the (prior austenite) grain boundaries of hardened steel, the notch-bar toughness was much less than in pieces fully hardened. The fracture took place in the ferrite, and the loss in toughness is attributed to the lower cohesive (cleavage) strength of the ferrite, as cornpared with martensite. 2. When notch-bar impact test pieces of quenched and tempered steels were examined as to their mode of fracture, it

Jan 1, 1947

By Marcus A. Grossmann

The Institute has established this lectureship to honor the memory of a great American metallurgist, one whose fame has continued long after his passing. As one scientist recently stated it, "All metallurgical texts gradually become outdated and outmoded, except those of the great Henry Marion Howe." It seems fitting, then, that, once every year, we shouId review, in his honor, some aspects of the science in which he was such a distinguished leader, and also discuss any new data that may help to clarify our concepts. It is my privilege, for which indeed I express the deepest appreciation to this Institute, to offer for consideration a few thoughts on the toughness and fracture of hardened steels. Before proceeding to the data, I wish to express my great indebtedness to many associates whose stimulating discussions, generous contributions of data and cooperation in experiments are gratefully acknowledged. (But I wish to absolve them of any blame that may arise from the way in which their discussions and data have been used!) First, Dr. Edgar C. Bain, Vice President, Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation, whose amiable but merciless criticisms and always constructive and thoughtful suggestions help unfailingly to guard against pitfalls. Then to associates at Gary Steel Works, especially Mr. H. B. Wishart, Mr. W. K. Smith and Mr. V. Elliott, for great assistance in securing data. Also to Col. C. H. Greenall, Director of Laboratories, Frankford Arsenal, and his metallurgical staff, including Messrs. J. K. Desmond, H. Markus, D. F. Armiento, H. Rosenthal and Henry George, for numerous data and illustrations. Further to Dr. J. R. Low and Dr. M. Asimow, for helpful discussions of effects of states of stress during deformation and rupture, to Mr. J. M. Hodge for discussions and data, to the staff of the U. S. Steel Corporation Research Laboratory for advice and data, and to the Metallurgical Staff at Duquesne Steel Works. The individual acknowledgments will also be found under illustrations. Acknowledgment is also due to Mr. S. C. Snyder for incredibly meticulous scrutiny of manuscript. To all of these, grateful thanks. Introduction The discussion to be offered here will deal with quench-hardened steels only, and may perhaps be considered under three headings: 1. It was found that, when ferrite was precipitated in the (prior austenite) grain boundaries of hardened steel, the notch-bar toughness was much less than in pieces fully hardened. The fracture took place in the ferrite, and the loss in toughness is attributed to the lower cohesive (cleavage) strength of the ferrite, as cornpared with martensite. 2. When notch-bar impact test pieces of quenched and tempered steels were examined as to their mode of fracture, it

Jan 1, 1947

By Cyril Stanley Smith

Jan 1, 1949

By Cyril Stanley Smith

Jan 1, 1949

By W. M. Peirce

Commencing in 1922, each year a lecture has been presented to the Institute of Metals Division at this February meeting. The range of subjects has been very- broad. Some speakers have dealt with the most advanced work in the very heart of the science of physical metallurgy. Others have stimulated our imaginations by discussing the most recent progress in related fields of science. Others have told us of the latest art, which is at any moment of greater practical importance than the latest science, of metals. I feel that this broad precedent in the choice of subjects will justify my choosing to talk about some of the prosaic details of how, during the last generation, industry has effectively organized research to accelerate progress in our own and all other fields of science and related art. A number of years ago I visited one of this country's well-known research laboratories and had the pleasure of chatting for a few minutes with its equally well-known director. Being particularly interested at the time in the organization problems connected with industrial research, I broached that subject. My host stated in effect that he didn't believe in organized research. He was, of course, resorting to a rhetorical hyperbole. to pain: out the danger of overorganization which can so easily drift into regimentation and destroy individual initiative. Actually nearly all of us, much as we cherish our personal freedom of action, believe in organization because the history of progress in every field of human activity has been a history of men learning to work together, to cooperate, to create an efficient division of labor. We use organization to achieve this coordination. At the same time our form of organization must not stifle individual initiative or it will prove a deterrent rather than an aid to accomplishment. Research, too, must be organized for greatest achievement but especial skill and care are perhaps needed to avoid stifling the initiative of the individual workers. I have, of course, followed with keen interest and much benefit the vast amount . that has been said and written on this subject in the past twenty years but I still find new stimulation in discussions with my good friends working in this field. It is my hope that this discussion may serve a like purpose. It would be ungracious not to make due acknowledgment to the many able contributors to this particular phase of human progress, but their very number and the great volume of their writing makes it impossible to trace to any one individual a particular significant and valuable idea. I shall content myself therefore with this general acknowledgment and with acknowledgment of the specific debt that every research man owes to those who have so ably kept before the public, and in particular before industrial executives, the place of research in the modern scheme of things' Because of the legitimate publicity thus given to research, the day is past when any

Jan 1, 1944

By W. M. Peirce

Commencing in 1922, each year a lecture has been presented to the Institute of Metals Division at this February meeting. The range of subjects has been very- broad. Some speakers have dealt with the most advanced work in the very heart of the science of physical metallurgy. Others have stimulated our imaginations by discussing the most recent progress in related fields of science. Others have told us of the latest art, which is at any moment of greater practical importance than the latest science, of metals. I feel that this broad precedent in the choice of subjects will justify my choosing to talk about some of the prosaic details of how, during the last generation, industry has effectively organized research to accelerate progress in our own and all other fields of science and related art. A number of years ago I visited one of this country's well-known research laboratories and had the pleasure of chatting for a few minutes with its equally well-known director. Being particularly interested at the time in the organization problems connected with industrial research, I broached that subject. My host stated in effect that he didn't believe in organized research. He was, of course, resorting to a rhetorical hyperbole. to pain: out the danger of overorganization which can so easily drift into regimentation and destroy individual initiative. Actually nearly all of us, much as we cherish our personal freedom of action, believe in organization because the history of progress in every field of human activity has been a history of men learning to work together, to cooperate, to create an efficient division of labor. We use organization to achieve this coordination. At the same time our form of organization must not stifle individual initiative or it will prove a deterrent rather than an aid to accomplishment. Research, too, must be organized for greatest achievement but especial skill and care are perhaps needed to avoid stifling the initiative of the individual workers. I have, of course, followed with keen interest and much benefit the vast amount . that has been said and written on this subject in the past twenty years but I still find new stimulation in discussions with my good friends working in this field. It is my hope that this discussion may serve a like purpose. It would be ungracious not to make due acknowledgment to the many able contributors to this particular phase of human progress, but their very number and the great volume of their writing makes it impossible to trace to any one individual a particular significant and valuable idea. I shall content myself therefore with this general acknowledgment and with acknowledgment of the specific debt that every research man owes to those who have so ably kept before the public, and in particular before industrial executives, the place of research in the modern scheme of things' Because of the legitimate publicity thus given to research, the day is past when any

Jan 1, 1944

By William Hume-Rothery

I need not say how much I appreciate the honor of being asked to lecture to you, and how much I would thank you for your kind invitation. It is encouraging to feel that the abnormal restrictions of the war have been relaxed sufficiently to allow a free exchange of scientists between our two countries, and I hope that some of you will be persuaded to go to England, and to visit us at Oxford, so that I may repay a little of the kindness I have received from you. As this is one of the first lectures since the end of the war, I have thought it well to describe some of the advances in the theory of alloys which were made in the years between the two World Wars. From the point of view of theoretical science, these years have been of outstanding interest in the history of metallurgy. They have been years in which the development of new and more accurate experimental methods has led to the revelation of many new facts. At the same time, the theoretical developments have enabled some of these facts to be viewed as parts of a general scheme, and we may say that some of the foundations of metallurgical science have been laid. This work was naturally stopped by the Second World War, and it can therefore be reviewed as one definite stage in the development of our Science. To illustrate the new advances, I shall deal mainly with the alloys of copper and silver, since these have revealed many of the general principles. taken, and copper had been found to crystallize in the face-centered cubic structure (Fig I). The determination of this structure naturally was of immense importance in the understanding of our subject, because it meant that we were at last in a position to appreciate the underlying structure out of which the crystal of copper was built. The earlier science of metallography had shown that in many alloys of copper the addition of a second metal in not too large proportions resulted in the formation of a homogeneous alloy which was regarded as a solid solution of the one metal in copper. Fig 2, for example, shows the so-called equilibrium diagram of the copper-zinc alloys, and here you will see that there is a solid solution of zinc in copper extending to something of the order 35 to 40 at. pct zinc.

Jan 1, 1947

By William Hume-Rothery

I need not say how much I appreciate the honor of being asked to lecture to you, and how much I would thank you for your kind invitation. It is encouraging to feel that the abnormal restrictions of the war have been relaxed sufficiently to allow a free exchange of scientists between our two countries, and I hope that some of you will be persuaded to go to England, and to visit us at Oxford, so that I may repay a little of the kindness I have received from you. As this is one of the first lectures since the end of the war, I have thought it well to describe some of the advances in the theory of alloys which were made in the years between the two World Wars. From the point of view of theoretical science, these years have been of outstanding interest in the history of metallurgy. They have been years in which the development of new and more accurate experimental methods has led to the revelation of many new facts. At the same time, the theoretical developments have enabled some of these facts to be viewed as parts of a general scheme, and we may say that some of the foundations of metallurgical science have been laid. This work was naturally stopped by the Second World War, and it can therefore be reviewed as one definite stage in the development of our Science. To illustrate the new advances, I shall deal mainly with the alloys of copper and silver, since these have revealed many of the general principles. taken, and copper had been found to crystallize in the face-centered cubic structure (Fig I). The determination of this structure naturally was of immense importance in the understanding of our subject, because it meant that we were at last in a position to appreciate the underlying structure out of which the crystal of copper was built. The earlier science of metallography had shown that in many alloys of copper the addition of a second metal in not too large proportions resulted in the formation of a homogeneous alloy which was regarded as a solid solution of the one metal in copper. Fig 2, for example, shows the so-called equilibrium diagram of the copper-zinc alloys, and here you will see that there is a solid solution of zinc in copper extending to something of the order 35 to 40 at. pct zinc.

Jan 1, 1947

By Albert J. Phillip

Jan 1, 1947

By Albert J. Phillip

Jan 1, 1947

By A. W. Schlechten, W. J. Kroll

As this paper is written, the only method for the commercial production of lithium metal is by the fusion electrolysis of LiC1-KC1 mixtures, as first proposed by Gunkz.2 The details of the industrial process have not been made public hut Osborg8 stated that an efficiency of more than 90 pct is obtained with a lithium metal recovery above 95 pct and that the metal is 99.5 pct pure. Pletenev9 gave a power consumption of 66 kw-hr per kilogram of lithium metal produced with a salt consumption of 9 kg of LiCl and 0.4 kg of KCI. Pletenev's figures indicate a somewhat lower recovery than that given by Osborg. In a recent report on' German lithium plants, Motock7 gives figures that are also less favorable than those reported by Osborg. At the German plants the lithium recovery in electrolysis was only 83.4 pct, with a power consumption of 140 kw-hr per kilogram of lithium. The metal averaged only 97 pct pure, with sodium and potassium as the chief impurities. The presence of SO2, SO3, SiO2, Ba, Ca, and appreciable amounts of Na and Fe2O3 were especially disturbing in the electrolysis, and it was necessary to run the cell for some time to eliminate most of these impurities and condition the bath. It may be noted here that most of these impurities do not interfere with a thermal reduction process. These facts show that the present method of producing lithium is fairly efficient and would suggest that other methods could not compete. However, fusion electrolysis has certain drawbacks, such as the necessity of supplying costly, low-voltage direct current and of collecting and processing the anodic chlorine if it is not to be wasted. An even greater disadvantage is that lithium chloride must be used for an electrolyte. It is one of the most expensive salts of lithium, since it cannot be produced in anhydrous form by precipitation from aqueous solution, as is done with LiF or Li2CO3. The reduction of lithium by a vacuum process similar to the ferrosilicon method for the production of magnesium would have certain advantages. Small units such as Pidgeon retorts, would give flexibility of production to meet demand, and a small plant would require moderate capital outlay. There is a possibility of using idle Government-owned magnesium plants for such purposes. The raw materials needed for vacuum thermal reduction would not have to be extremely pure, Director, with respect to the iron and calcium Content. This paper describes a series of experiments to determine the effectiveness of various agents for the reduction of lithium compounds. The investigation is part of a program of vacuum metallurgy con-

Jan 1, 1949

By R. A. Stauffer

The chief ore of lithium is spodumene, a lithium-aluminum silicate containing up to 3 pct lithium. The preparation of lithium salts from spodumene is costly because of the low concentration of the metal and the difficulty of separating it from the other alkali metals present. Dr. Kroll's and Dr. Schlecten's recent paper1 has reviewed various methods proposed for preparation of lithium. It will be seen from this paper that the methods proposed to date have required one or another of the lithium salts as a raw material. The high cost of these salts has been the chief item of expense in the lithium metal produced. This situation has made it interesting to investigate the possibility of producing the metal directly from spodumene. When spodumene is calcined at 1000ºC in the presence of lime, lithium oxide is replaced in the ore as is evidenced by the fact that it may be leached from the reaction mixture with water.2 Free energy calculations suggested that lithium oxide might be reduced with aluminum or silicon and the lithium produced distilled from the reaction mixture by heating-to about 1000ºC in a vacuum. These facts taken together suggested that it might be possible to prepare lithium metal directly from spodumene by heating a mixture of the ore, lime, and a suitable reducing agent in vacuum and distilling off the lithium metal as formed. The Replacement of Li2O in Spodumene A series of experiments were undertaken to determine the ratio of lime to spodumene necessary to free substantially all the lithium oxide Present in the Ore. The spodumene used in these experiments was supplied by Foote Mineral Co. in the form of powder of about 200 mesh' Analysis of the spodumene was as follows: PCT SiO2......................... 62.7 Al2O3........................ 29.9 Li2o......................... 4.9 Na2O........................ 0.89 CaO......................... 0.75 MgO........................ 0.49 K2O......................... 0.44 Lime (cp —200 mesh) was added in various ratios to spodumene and thoroughly mixed in a ball mill. Two hundred gram samples of spodumene-lime mixtures were charged loosely in fireclay crucibles and held at 1000ºC in a gas-fired furnace for 5 hrs. The product in each case was ground to pass 140 mesh and then placed in a thimble in a soxhlet extractor. Extraction with water was carried on for 6 hrs. After this period the extract was reduced in volume by evaporation in order to precipitate dissolved lime and was then filtered and titrated with 1/4 normal hydrochloric acid. After correcting for residual calcium oxide in solution, the alkali present was calculated as lithium oxide. The results of these experiments are shown in Table I and Fig I. At lime-spodumene ratios less than 1.5, the products were invariably fused. At the ratio of 1.5 and above, the product was loosely sintered with little evidence of fusion. When the ratio of lime to spodumene was three, replacement of alkali oxides in the

Jan 1, 1949