Iron and Steel Division - Anatomy of the Open Hearth (Howe Memorial Lecture, 1955)

OPPORTUNITY to pay tribute to the memory of Professor Henry Marion Howe is a strenuous assignment as well as an honor. Upon recalling Howe lecturers and lectures of the past 25 years, glancing over the list of those earlier, and rereading Howe's books, I arrive at several conclusions: 1—Many lecturers either worked under or knew Professor Howe. 2—It is virtually impossible to pick a subject on which Professor Howe did not touch. 3—There is precedent for a technical paper based upon pursuit of a single subject. 4—There have been listening lectures and reading lectures. There is solid comfort only in 2: the subject field is wide open. I did not know, nor even ever saw, Professor Howe, so can supply no fitting reminiscence. As a college student I was dimly aware that he counted among the giants. Fuller appreciation of his stature came with reading his books and papers, growing acquaintance with some of his associates, and the intrinsic dignity of the climax of the Annual Meeting, beginning at four o'clock of a Thursday afternoon in the auditorium of the Engineering Societies Building in New York. As for producing the technical paper sort of thing, it is my lot to have reached an age and assignment such that to do so would be to filch information from those who did the work and whose story is theirs to tell; for this I have no enthusiasm. As for the final conclusion, Professor Howe was one of the chosen few so highly expert at expository writing that he could produce a lecture or paper that reads as though it would also have listened well. One of his tricks was the free use of words not ordinarily part of the technical vocabulary, provided that such words were likely to communicate most precisely what he had in mind. How wonderful it would be for all who must read reports by the ton if ability at exposition could be taught with the effectiveness open, say to, differential calculus! Perhaps Professor Howe should be required college reading even if for no other reason than to prove that technical writing need be neither dull nor diffuse. My assignment is clearly still strenuous. Another point to consider is the fact that metallurgy is now so tremendously diversified that hope of finding a topic of universal appeal is negligible, even if one were competent enough to be permitted free choice. That which follows is, therefore, a compromise composed of necessity and of the obligation to attempt to avoid boring to slumber those of you who are not especially interested in the general subject chosen. The Iron and Steel Div. is now essentially a process metallurgy division, heavily concerned with the smelting of iron and the making of steel. The American Iron and Steel Inst. figure for present steel capacity of this country is 125,828,310 net tons; how this is divided among processes is indicated by the production totals for 1953, shown in Table I. The glamor girls and boys make the front page and so it is with steelmaking processes. If there is an Antarctic Daily Bugle, it undoubtedly has carried stories of revolutionary development, such as oxygen processes and vacuum melting, and stories of the incomparably rosy destiny of electric arc melting. All such certainly have their place and their future; meanwhile, it is the sturdy and old reliable open hearth that accounts for the bulk of production reported back on the financial page, and it is the old reliable that is most likely to continue to account for the bulk for some perfectly sound raw material, technologic, and economic reasons. This, plus the fact that next year marks a centennial (for it was in 1856 that Frederick and William Siemens conceived the regenerative open hearth), is reason enough to talk about open hearth furnaces, but is not the real one. The real reason is that in some years of association with open hearths, I have accumulated—in addition to a genuine liking and respect for them—certain odds and ends of fact and fancy that this lecture provides a unique chance