Search Documents

Jan 1, 1943

Jan 1, 1944

Jan 1, 1942

Jan 1, 1947

Jan 1, 1948

Jan 1, 1938

Jan 1, 1945

Jan 1, 1942

Jan 1, 1944

Jan 1, 1943

Jan 1, 1939

Jan 1, 1948

Jan 1, 1947

Jan 1, 1933

Jan 1, 1934

By Bradley Stoughton

FRom 1886 to 1889, approximately, Henry M. Howe was engaged most actively in preparing his Afetallugy of Sieei, which became the foundation for his leadership in the science of physical metallurgy of steel. During the same period, Hadfield was developing the first of the industrially-important alloy steels, and Riley was initiating the commercialization of nickel steel. Both of these alloys are treated briefly in Howe's book; indeed, he missed practically nothing of interest in all the steel literature preceding 1889. There had been many good books on steel before his, but none of the same character. His genius, like that of Aristotle and Francis Bacon, manifested itself in the painstaking collection of data, followed by their coordination and interpretation. Not only manganese and nickel steels were discussed, but several which most of us, with our tendency to overlook the past, are wont to regard as exclusively recent developments, such as: silicon, chrome, copper, tungsten, vanadium, titanium, chrome-tungsten and many other steels. But Howe never devoted much special attention, in his writings, to alloy steels; the science of the relations of iron and carbon offered field enough even for his capacity for constructive thought. And, today we find the science of alloy steels in much the same condition as was the metallurgy of steel before Howe wrote his first great book. Many, many important facts have been presented to the world, especially by Sir Robert Hadfield, James Riley, Henri le Chatelier, Kotaro Honda and his associates, Maunsel White, Harry Brearley, and a host of others. Several books have been devoted wholly or chiefly to alloy steels, such as those by Hibbard, Mars, Heyn and Wetzell, Grube, Burnham, Gillett and Mack, Billón, Brearley, Monypenny, Becker, Savoia, Sauveur, Guillet, Tammann, Guertler, Goerens, Guia, Wuest, Ledebur, Schenck, Aitchison, Osann, Guettier, Buchetti, Escard. The vast number of data on the subject are indicated by a bibliography' which was collected in preparing this address. It covers the years 1911 to

Jan 1, 1927

By William Campbell

FiRst I must express my deep appreciation for the honor of being privileged to give the Howe Memorial Lecture this year and at the same time my feeling of inadequacy to do justice to the subject. The first Howe lecturer was most fittingly, Professor Sauveur, his contemporary and friend, and the subject was beta iron. Last year the second Howe lecture was delivered by Dr. Mathews, one of his most distinguished pupils, who spoke on austenite. This year, the Howe Professor of Metallurgy was chosen to deliver the third annual lecture, and the subject ought to be martensite. No one but Professor Sauveur could have brought to life what was considered by many to have been dead and buried, and he so persuasively and convincingly proved to us by his experiments the existence of something that the followers of that new cult "X-Ray and Crystal Structure " would have us believe is simply alpha iron. And Dr. Mathews from his wide practical experience was so easily able to convince us that austenite was not only the most wonderful of the iron-carbon series, but that it was the wonder alloy of the future. If I were to follow in the footsteps of my distinguished predecessors, I would talk to you about martensite. But when I had planned this lecture, I found that I was writing about Professor Howe and his work and his influence on the science of metals of today, and that martensite had become the secondary theme. And when finally I was obliged to choose a title, I remembered that it was in 1901 I came from Roberts-Austen with a letter of introduction to his very dear friend, Henry Marion Howe, at the Columbia School of Mines, to continue my work at the next bench to Dr. Mathews. Since then a quarter of a century has gone by, and during that time all branches of science seem to have been remade, so great has been our advancement in knowledge and discovery. And now that Metallography has finally established its place as an important branch of science, with its own textbooks and literature, I would like to review what seem to me to be the most important advances we have made in the last 25 years. To do this, I would start with Howe's "Iron, Steel and Other Alloys," and end with Jeffries and Archer's " Science of Metals." In the preface of the former, Professor Howe wrote: My warmest thanks are due to the friends who have aided me with their counsel and knowledge. In particular, let me thank most sincerely Prof. Margaret E. Maltby

Jan 1, 1926

By Henry D. Hibbard

At the beginning of a Henry M. Howe lecture it seems fitting to refer to Howe's great contributions to steel metallurgy, and particularly to the literature thereof. Most of my predecessors in this role have been able, from their association with him, to give direct testimony as to his great services; but although connected with him for years in a business way, I am less familiar with what might be called his academic side, except as it is embodied in his utterances, written and oral. Howe was adept in his genial way in extracting information in any line which, at the time, was of interest to him. In a technical lecture one expects as a rule new knowledge—something about recent advances relating to the subject. On this occasion, however, I will ask you to go back with me to the primary department of steel lore, as the title of my lecture shows, to review the more fundamental features in that field for the purpose of seeking some gaps which we can fill and so give the subject renewed interest. In thus going back one must inevitably repeat many familiar facts, but that seems to be necessary in order to reach a clear understanding of the unrecorded matters. The full interpretation of a steel analysis is at present unattainable, though much progress toward that end has been made. The ultimate analysis, giving the percentages of the five commonly determined elements, does indeed usually give a fair idea of what the steel is, and is ordinarily enough, with knowledge of its history and physical condition, to enable it to be assigned to some purpose or use for which it is reasonably suitable. But discrepancies arise. Every maker and every user of steel knows, from at least occasional examples in his own experience, that the ultimate analysis is insufficient by itself to enable one to tell positively, from its interpretation, either the mechanical properties of the steel or its adaptability to the purpose for which it was made. Further, if, while having the specified composition, it is abnormal or unsatisfactory, why it is so. Good, bad and indifferent steels may have substantially the same ultimate analysis.

By Leo F. Reinartz

It was with humility that I accepted the invitation of the Board of Directors of our Institute to deliver the Twentieth Howe Memorial Lecture. Many previous lecturers could speak from personal experience of the great work done by Professor Howe. It was not my privilege to be one of his students but, indirectly, I came under the influence of his work many years ago. My mentor in Metallurgy at Carnegie Institute of Technology, Prof. Fred Crab tree, was an ardent admirer of Professor Howe and his work. Professor Crabtree taught me early to appreciate Professor Howe's love of truth and keen desire to find a scientific reason for every metallurgical phenomenon. In this early search, Professor Howe encountered many unexplainable facts. Nevertheless, in the classic text, "The Metallurgy of Steel," published in 1891, he indicated that he believed Research could light the way. Under the heading of "The Treachery of Steel" he said: "In the early use of Bessemer and Open Hearth Steel, many then unexplained and hence mysterious failures occurred. With our present knowledge, an easy explanation of most of them would probably have been seen. But even today certain unexplained and apparently inexpli- cable failures occur in steel; inexplicable in spite of full and intelligent investigation." Then Professor Howe continued to talk about "the trustworthiness of steel" in the following manner: First, the steel-maker has learned by experience. He knows today far better the effects of a high percentage of carbon or of phosphorus; of cracks, pipes and blow-holes; of segregation and imperfect mixing; of over-heating; of finishing too hot or too cold. Knowing, he guards against them more effectually, and keeps at home much steel that he would formerly have sent into the market. Those who would not, or could not learn and do, have been driven out of the business; the conditions necessary for producing good sound steel by the acid Bessemer and the acid Open Hearth processes have been mastered. By and by, the basic process came along with new conditions, new liabilities to unsoundness, a great hue and cry about mysterious fractures followed, and Lloyd's register provisionally forbade the use of basic steel. Much basic steel was irregular and brittle throughout; too much carbon, too much phosphorus, too cold teemings—imperfect mixing. Still there was little doubt that, with further experience, these difficulties of the basic process would be mastered as those of the acid process had been. This shows that Professor Howe could not take anything for granted. Believing that careful research would find the answer to all mysterious phenomena, he was several generations ahead of the practical acceptance and adoption of this principle.

Jan 1, 1943

By Leo F. Reinartz

It was with humility that I accepted the invitation of the Board of Directors of our Institute to deliver the Twentieth Howe Memorial Lecture. Many previous lecturers could speak from personal experience of the great work done by Professor Howe. It was not my privilege to be one of his students but, indirectly, I came under the influence of his work many years ago. My mentor in Metallurgy at Carnegie Institute of Technology, Prof. Fred Crab tree, was an ardent admirer of Professor Howe and his work. Professor Crabtree taught me early to appreciate Professor Howe's love of truth and keen desire to find a scientific reason for every metallurgical phenomenon. In this early search, Professor Howe encountered many unexplainable facts. Nevertheless, in the classic text, "The Metallurgy of Steel," published in 1891, he indicated that he believed Research could light the way. Under the heading of "The Treachery of Steel" he said: "In the early use of Bessemer and Open Hearth Steel, many then unexplained and hence mysterious failures occurred. With our present knowledge, an easy explanation of most of them would probably have been seen. But even today certain unexplained and apparently inexpli- cable failures occur in steel; inexplicable in spite of full and intelligent investigation." Then Professor Howe continued to talk about "the trustworthiness of steel" in the following manner: First, the steel-maker has learned by experience. He knows today far better the effects of a high percentage of carbon or of phosphorus; of cracks, pipes and blow-holes; of segregation and imperfect mixing; of over-heating; of finishing too hot or too cold. Knowing, he guards against them more effectually, and keeps at home much steel that he would formerly have sent into the market. Those who would not, or could not learn and do, have been driven out of the business; the conditions necessary for producing good sound steel by the acid Bessemer and the acid Open Hearth processes have been mastered. By and by, the basic process came along with new conditions, new liabilities to unsoundness, a great hue and cry about mysterious fractures followed, and Lloyd's register provisionally forbade the use of basic steel. Much basic steel was irregular and brittle throughout; too much carbon, too much phosphorus, too cold teemings—imperfect mixing. Still there was little doubt that, with further experience, these difficulties of the basic process would be mastered as those of the acid process had been. This shows that Professor Howe could not take anything for granted. Believing that careful research would find the answer to all mysterious phenomena, he was several generations ahead of the practical acceptance and adoption of this principle.

Jan 1, 1943