Georgia Tech Alumni Magazine Vol. 34, No. 06 1956

larch, 1956

h^M

IN THIS ISSUE

Automation and Employment

NUCLEAR SCIENCE AT TECH

Complete 1956 Sports Schedules

&hrtifve§$M>o/& N C O R P O R A T E D

G E N E R A L I N S U R A N C E

M O R T G A G E L O A N S

TRUST COMPANY OF GEORGIA

BUILDING

ATLANTA, G E O R G I A

ROBERT THARPE.*34 J . L. BROOKS,'39

Caff Mr. Amco—WA. 0800

for Quick Delivery

IVAN ALLEN CO. 29 Pryor St., Atlanta

Augusta • Rome

Gainesville • Macon

Athens, Tenn.

Greenville, S. C.

OFFICE SUPPLIES

OFFICE EQUIPMENT

ENGINEERING SUPPLIES

PRINTING • BLUEPRINTS

I T is NOT OUR CUSTOM to write about our advertisers in this column. We pre­

fer to let them tell their own stories to you in the pages of this magazine for which they pay a price. But, in this issue, we're going to make one exception to this rule.

Happily, the company of which we are making this exception is the most loyal of all our advertisers. Since 1924, they have been running a full-page ad in this magazine. And it has always occupied the back cover of The Alumnus. Through good times and depression years, the Coca-Cola ad has stayed on the back cover, and looking back through the old issues, you can read the changing moods of the times just from this one company's ad copy.

When we decided that the best pos­sible cover for our special February issue was an aerial shot of the campus, it be­came apparent that Coca-Cola would have to be asked to move off their back page after all these years. So, with regrets, we posed the question to Mr. Roy Gen­try at the parent company over on North Avenue and Mr. Arthur Montgomery of the Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Company who share the cost of the ad. Their answers were the same. "Please go ahead; it's our pleasure."

So, to both of these friendly organi­zations, a toast. With "Coke," of course. And, on the back page of this issue, Coca-Cola is in its accustomed spot. May it stay there for another 32 years.

* * *

SPEAKING OF THE COCA-COLA AD, t h e man who originally sold the space to

them for the Alumnus is the same man who writes about the Foundation on Page 6 of this issue. He is Jack Thiesen, long­time editor of the magazine and former executive secretary of the Georgia Tech National Alumni A s s o c i a t i o n and the Georgia Tech Foundation.

Jack retired from his duties as Foun­dation Secretary last June 30, and has been taking it easy since that time. We asked him to do a short piece on the Foundation to start our series on this important alumni group. In the May issue, we'll have more about the Founda­tion and its operations.

w

naturally turn to Homecoming. To an alumnor, football and Homecoming just go together.

You'll notice on the schedule on page 20 that Homecoming this year falls on October 27 when Tulane's revitalized Green Wave pays a visit to Grant Field. The classes of '06, '11, '16, '21, '26, '31, '36, '41, '46 and '51 are slated for re­union celebrations. If you're in one of these classes, why not be making your plans to come home to the "Flats" that weekend and take in all the festivities. You'll hear more about Homecoming in later issues and mailing pieces, but now is the time to start thinking about that fall weekend in Atlanta.

* * *

A UD WHILE WE'RE ON the subject of re­unions, we might let you in on another

one scheduled for Tech this fall. It's a very special one. For on October 12 and 13, the weekend of the Tech-LSU game, the Tech and Cumberland teams of 1916 are holding their 40th reunion of that strangest of all football massacres, the 222-0 game. George Griffin is in charge of arrangements. Any of you varsity or scrub members of the 1916 team who haven't heard the details on this reunion can get the entire story by dropping Dean Griffin a line at Georgia Tech, Atlanta 13, Georgia.

George would also like to contact the alumnus who gave him a ticket to sell to last year's Duke game. He wants to report that he was successful in moving the ticket and is holding the $4.25 for the rightful owner. The line forms on the left.

* * * WE THOUGHT YOU might like to get a look at the men who are operating your alumni association for you this year. So, on pages 14 and 15 of this issue you'll find the entire Board of Trustees of the Georgia Tech National Alumni Associa­tion for the year 1955-56. They are ap­pointed by the president each year and serve from Homecoming Day to Home­coming Day the following year. It is a working board, not an honorary one. And they are your representatives in alumni affairs.

President Fred Storey reports more on their duties on page 4 of this issue.

ITH THE RELEASE OF the 1956 football schedule in this issue, our thoughts S ^ - HJal£*<*.J,.

Tech Alumnus

atomic power

DEVELOPMENT

atomic poiv

; holds the greatest

f promise of career

success. Take this opportunity to pioneer with the leaders. Participate with WESTINGHOUSE in the research and development of nuclear reactors for commercial power plants, and for the propulsion of naval vessels.

ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS

CHEMICAL ENGINEERS

MECHANICAL ENGINEERS

PHYSICISTS

MATHEMATICIANS

METALLURGISTS

NUCLEAR ENGINEERS

New! Westinghouse Fellowship Program

. . . in conjunction with the University of Pittsburgh. This new Westinghouse program en­ables qualified candidates to attain their M.S. and Ph.D. de­grees WHILE ON FULL PAY.

Salaries Open Ample housing available in modern suburban community 15 minutes from our new plant. Ideal working conditions. Excel­lent pension plan. Education pro­gram. Health & Life Insurance.

Send for your copy of "TOMORROW'S OPPORTUNITY TODAY"

Stafe whether you are an engineer, mathematician. Physicist or Metallurgist.

Send complete resume to MR. A. M. JOHNSTON,

Dept. A.M.

j a M o d O I U I O ^

Westinghouse Bettis Plant P.O. Box 1468

Pittsburgh 30, Penna.

Wbstindiouse "pix&t *)K \J /itatHic "Power

n he Designs For America s Future

Are On Today s Drafting Boards

ROBERT AND COM¥AN\ ASSOCIATES

ATLANTA

INTO YOUR PRESSURE VESSELS! TANKS, SMOKESTACKS PIPING, BREECHING WATER HEATERS PLATE WORK BOILERS

Pressure vessels fabricated by FINNIGAN are built to rigid ASME Codes! Over 65 years of plate fabrications have given FINNIGAN Engineers and Craftsmen the know-how to build the finest of equipment. That's why the FINNIGAN guarantee can specify that equipment by FINNIGAN is equal to or better than that of any other manufacturer!

Call, wire or write today for fur­ther information ... there is no obligation.

CONTENTS 2. RAMBLIN' — the editor discusses a loyal adver­

tiser, and a coming Homecoming among other things.

5. THE MOST SUCCESSFUL IN HISTORY — Development Program Chairman Allen reports on the Ninth Roll Call.

6. T H E F I R S T T E N Y E A R S W E R E T H E TOUGHEST — part 1 of a series on the Georgia Tech Foundation.

8. NUCLEAR SCIENCE AT GEORGIA TECH — a progress report of importance to all Tech men.

12. ON THE HILL — Gordon says goodby. 14. THE TRUSTEES OF THE ASSOCIATION —

the faces of the 1955-56 Board. 16. AUTOMATION, EMPLOYMENT AND ECO­

NOMIC STABILITY — a Tech Associate Pro­fessor talks to a Congressional Committee.

20. SPORTS — basketball and the '56 schedules. 22. WITH THE CLUBS — the latest reports. 24. NEWS BY CLASSES — an alumni gazette.

Officers of the Georgia Tech National Alumni Association Fred Storey, '33, Pres. I. M. Sheffield, '20, V-P Charles Simons, '37, V-P Walt Crawford, '49, Treas. W. Roane Beard, '40, Executive Secretary

Staff

Bob Wallace, Jr., '49, Editor

THE COVER

Mary Peeks, Assistant

Typifying the early research in atomic energy at other techno­logical institutions in this coun­try was the Van de Graaff Particle Accelerator at MIT. The work on this and similar installations at many other American universities was a great help to the famed Man­hattan .District Project of World War II. Tech is now moving into the Nuclear Ener­gy Field and you can read about it, starting on page 8.

Photo — courtesy of High Voltage Engineering Corp. Published eight times a year — February, March, May, July, September, October, November and December — by the Georgia Tech National Alumni Association; Georgia Institute of Technology; 225 North Avenue, Atlanta, Georgia. Subscription price (35c per copy) included in the membership dues. Entered as second class matter at the Post Office, Atlanta, Georgia under the Act of March 3, 1879.

IN DECEMBER, WE GAVE YOU A BRIEF REPORT on the Tech Development Fund and then used the remainder of our

space to tell you how your National Alumni Association operates. We will follow that same idea this month.

To date, the Foundation has received contributions from alumni and friends of Tech in excess of $231,000 from over 5920 givers. We still need very much the contributions of you 1500 alumni who gave last year, but so far have not given this year. If you are one of these, won't you send us your contribution TODAY?

As you already know, the purpose of your Alumni Asso­ciation is to foster and support those things which are good for and which help Georgia Tech, and in addition, those things which may benefit and inform our Alumni. The basic requirement of both these purposes is accurate alumni records. In this connection, we believe our records are more nearly correct at this time than they have ever been. New equipment purchased two years ago, plus the interest of many alumni in sending corrections where errors existed, have put our records in tip-top shape.

Your association provides a number of services for you and for Tech. Among them are: employment assistance through the weekly bulletin listing available positions; fund raising via membership and Roll Call for the Georgia Tech Foundation; publication of the Alumni Magazine; informa­tion service for alumni; assistance to classes in planning reunions; planning and staging Homecoming; fostering and assisting Georgia Tech Alumni Clubs; sponsoring Senior Reception at Commencement; and acting wherever indi­cated as intermediary between alumni and the Institute. These services, plus day to day matters that arise, keep Executive Sec. Beard and his staff moving at a fast clip.

An example of alumni participation for the benefit of Tech is the new committee created at the invitation of the Board of Regents to work with that body in selecting a new president for Georgia Tech. This group will be composed of a representative of the Faculty, a representative of the Foundation, and a representative of the Alumni Associa­tion and will be called the Joint Faculty-Alumni Commit­tee for Georgia Tech. Roane Beard will serve as secretary to this committee. Needless to say, those of us interested in Tech are deeply appreciative of the cooperative position the Regents have taken in this matter. If you have in mind the name of a person whom you feel would be the best possible person to serve as head of Georgia Tech, please write your recommendation to the committee, directed to Roane Beard, enclosing a detailed biographical sketch of the person suggested.

'pted Sfaiecf,

Tech Alumnus

The Georgia Tech Development Fund Atlanta 13, Georgia

March 10, 1956 To All Georgia Tech Men . . . . . . who gave of their time, efforts and funds to aid the Georgia Tech Development Program, a sincere and appreciative thank you. I can truth­fully say that I have never before seen such wide-spread enthusiasm and cooperation during a fund drive. Everyone seemed to want to pitch in and help. And the results to date certainly justify your efforts.

You may remember that back in October when your 9th roll call was in its infancy, I presented to you a four-point program for the continuing develop­ment of Georgia Tech through alumni efforts. As of this date, three of these four points have been successfully carried out and the fourth is scheduled to be completed in the next two months. Here's the picture:

The first point in the program — a study of Georgia Tech's needs by com­mittees of alumni, businessmen and industrialists - has been completed. Under the leadership of Cherry Emerson, Fuller Callaway, Jr., William A. Parker and William C. Wardlaw, Jr., several committees of alumni, business­men and industrialists completed a full report, in dollars and cents, of the minimum needs of Georgia Tech. The subsequent presentation of this report to the Board of Regents and then to the Legislature was undoubtedly partially responsible for the increased appropriation that the University System received from this year's Legislature.

At the same time that the study groups were getting the complete records on Tech's Departments, the largest personal and direct-mail solici­tation in our alumni history was taking place. The success of this campaign far exceeded our wildest hopes. As of March 10, over $251,000 has been pledged to the Georgia Tech Foundation through this concentrated campaign. Of this amount $216,000 has already been paid by 5,920 individual contri­butions . This total exceeds the combined totals of the last four of our roll calls. And remember the campaign still has four months to go. It looks now like we might reach our five-year goal of $250,000 in yearly pledges this year.

The third step, enlisting the support of the Georgia Legislature, was inaugurated, as I pointed out before, through a presentation of Georgia Tech's needs and her alumni support to the Board of Regents. It was completed by presentation of the joint Tech and Georgia efforts for higher education at a dinner for the legislators in Atlanta during January.

The final step in the campaign is to sell industry and business of the state on the need for a greater and continuing support of higher education. This, too, will be a joint Tech and Georgia effort and is being launched as you read this letter. The joint fund is being headed by a group of outstanding Tech and Georgia graduates. These trustees met in Atlanta March 9 to plan their campaign to enlist the support of Georgia industry and business for these two schools. If the enthusiasm of the Georgia Tech alumni can be properly communicated to the businessman and industrialist of Georgia - and I have no doubts on this score - this year's campaign will be a complete success.

And the accolades should go to you, the active alumni of Georgia Tech. Sincerely,

March, 1956

by Jack Thiesen

The AC Network Calculator presented to

Georgia Tech's Engineering Experiment Station

by the Foundation in 1947 cost $120,000.

Money for the highly successful power analog

computer was furnished by Georgia Power Co.

($100,000) and other companies ($20,000).

flML THE FOUNDATION HAS CONTRIBUTED OVER $17,000 FOR OPERATING

The first ten years | " V N WASHINGTON'S BIRTHDAY in the year 1932, six alumni ^-* of Georgia Tech met in the downtown offices of William H. Glenn, '91, the original registrant at the school. Their purpose was to elect officers for the newly-chartered Geor­gia Tech Alumni Foundation, Inc. (since 1954, the Georgia Tech Foundation, Inc.).

The year before, these same six men (Mr. Glenn; Y. Frank Freeman, '10; Robert Gregg, '05; George March-mont, '07; Floyd McRae, '10 and Frank Neely, '04) with the aid of Bobby Jones, '22, had successfully petitioned the state for a charter for this non-profit organization devoted to the cause of higher education in Georgia. In accordant with the charter provisions, they had become the first board of trustees of the organization, thus the officer election meeting.

Frank Freeman, now a noted motion picture executive, was elected president that day and his associates were Bob Gregg, vice-president and George Marchmont, sec.-treas.

The Foundation had been formed to take advantage of a plan to sell insurance policies to Tech alumni whereby the dividends would accrue to the school. Since Tech was a state school, the originators of the idea—two former Tech football stars—needed an organization of outstanding alumni to manage the expected windfall of funds for the best interests of the school. Despite the fact that the insurance scheme produced little money for Tech, it served a good purpose in starting an organization that has meant much to the school in the past 10 years.

By 1943, the Foundation had collected but $2,796.50

Tech Alumnus

EXPENSES FOR THE NEW RICH ELECTRONIC COMPUTER CENTER.

were the toughest from the insurance dividends and other sources, so a group of alumni—headed by Frank Neely, George Marchmont and Cherry Emerson, '08—started a drive to resurrect the organization through a fund drive. Set up on a class-com­petition basis, the drive netted over $175,000 and put the Foundation on solid financial ground by the end of World War II. Selling point of this plan was the need of a greatly expanded budget to meet the postwar demands on Tech from an expected large increase in students. None of the Fund money was to be spent until after the war had run its course, and not one cent of these or any other funds ac­cumulated by the Foundation was to be spent for athletics. Both of these promises were kept by the trustees, who by then had been expanded to 14. Today, 21 outstanding Tech alumni direct the Foundation in its activities.

This fund drive laid the groundwork for the present roll calls which are jointly sponsored by the Foundation and the National Alumni Association. These roll calls, the ninth one is going on now, have brought increasing amounts into the Foundation to help Georgia Tech in various ways, some of which are shown on these pages. Almost a million dol­lars has been contributed to the Foundation through roll calls and gifts by industry, business and educational founda­tions since that first big campaign. Of this amount, the Foundation in various ways has contributed over $600,000 for the benefit of Georgia Tech. In the May issue of the Alumnus, we'll discuss for you many of the other Founda­tion contributions to the school besides those you see sur­rounding this article.

The President's home, purchased by the Foun­

dation through a single gift of $100,000 by an

anonymous alumnus, and the Fluid Flow Labo­

ratory, supported by over $13,000 in grants

from the Foundation in recent years, are other

examples of campus aid furnished by this group.

March, 1956

JAMES E. BOYD, NUCLEAR SCIENCE HEAD L. D. WYLY, EDUCATION HEAD J. M. DALLAVALLE, RADIOISOTOPES

a progress report

NUCLEAR SCIENCE AT GEORGIA TECH

Georgia Tech's Nuclear Science Committee reports the Institute's accomplishments and future plans in a new field in this condensation from The Research Engineer

THE PEACETIME USES of atomic energy are increasing so rapidly that it is im­

possible to estimate the effects of these developments on our society even ten years from the present. This technological expansion carries with it a demand for many more scientists and engineers with special training, as well as a demand for a broad program of fundamental research and engineering development. To a great extent, these demands must be satisfied by technological centers which carry on both teaching and research. Thus, the fu­ture progress of Georgia Tech might be measured against its contributions in both teaching and research as they relate part­icularly to the peacetime uses of atomic energy.

It should be emphasized that these new developments do not made obsolete any of the established fields of basic science or engineering. Rather, the effect is to expand the old areas while adding new areas of study to these fields.

It is customary to apply the name nu­clear science to these new areas of study which involve the investigation and ap­

plication of properties of the atomic nucleus and of nuclear radiation. Thus, nuclear science may be said to include what is more loosely termed, the peace­time uses of atomic energy. It is my hope that the report on the following pages will give you a bettter insight into what nuclear science includes, as well as what Georgia Tech is doing to promote the development of this new, yet rapidly-changing branch of science and engineer­ing.

Current Research at Tech

RESEARCH is NOW in progress at Georgia Tech on a number of problems in nu­clear science and atomic energy. This research ranges from studies of the nu­cleus and nuclear-decay processes to engineering problems arising in the pro­duction of nuclear power.

In nuclear physics, Profs. C. H. Bra-den and L. D. Wyly are studying the decay processes in radioactive elements under a grant from the National Science Foundation. In many cases, these radio­active nuclei are known to throw out

more than one particle as they decay. A special feature of this research involves the measurement of the angles between the paths of these particles as they are emitted from the nucleus. This kind of information will provide a clue to the complicated mysteries of nuclear struc­ture.

The experiments of Profs. T. L. Weatherly and J. Q. Williams yield a dif­ferent kind of information about the nucleus. By studying the way in which molecules of a gas absorb high frequency radio waves, it is possible to learn. among other things, whether any of the nuclei within the molecules are slightly flattened or elongated from a perfectly spherical shape. This research is spon­sored by the Office of Ordnance Research of the Department of the Army.

Prof. F. K. Hurd is studying the ab­sorption of high frequency radio waves by certain crystals in the presence of a magnetic field. A by-product of this re­search will be information concerning the magnetic properties of nuclei. Prof. Hurd's project is supported by the Uni-

Tech Alumnus

WILLIAM B. HARRISON, REACTOR HEAD

The four men shown on this page head up

Tech's important Nuclear Science Committee

and its steering and subcommittees. Along with

Sec. M. L. Meeks, they prepared this report.

versity Center in Georgia and the En­gineering Experiment Station.

The radioactivity of nuclei, even though not completely understood, can be used in many interesting ways. One important use follows from the fact that the presence of a small number of these nuclei can be detected by measuring their characteristic radiation. As the num­ber of radioactive nuclei in a sample decreases they become increasingly hard to detect. This problem of detecting very small amounts of radioactivity is the special interest of Prof. E. W. McDaniel. At the request of the Bureau of Surgery and Medicine, Department of the Navy, Prof. McDaniel is developing apparatus for detecting the extremely low-level, natural alpha radiation in biological ma­terials. The Engineering Experiment Sta­tion has given support to two additional projects in which these low-level measure­ments will be used: (1) the dating of archeological specimens and (2) the study of Georgia's mineral resources for atomic uses. (The latter project is under the direction of Prof H. W. Straley.) These two projects are in the initial plan­ning phase and will require external sup­port if they are to develop fully. A small but versatile Nuclear Measurements Laboratory has been developed at the Engineering Experiment Station for per­forming less difficult radioactive measure­ments. Much of this laboratory has been assembled by Mr. J. H. Tolan, who has also worked on instrumentation for civil defense (sponsored by both the state and federal Civil Defense Administration)

and on radioactive therapy equipment for Emory University Hospital.

The increasing use of radioisotopes in hospitals has created a whole set of new problems in Sanitary Engineering. Radio­active wastes, even in small amounts, cannot simply be poured down the drain and then forgotten. This problem of the treatment and disposal of radioactive sludges is being studied by Prof. W. N. Grune under a grant from the National Science Foundation. One of the aims of this investigation is to establish limits on the amounts of radioactive materials which hospitals may safely dispose of through existing sewers.

Problems associated with the develop­ment of atomic power provide the basis for another group of research studies at Tech. An important example of this type is the problem of removing heat from a nuclear reactor and transforming it, for example, to the boiler of a steam turbine. This is the problem of heat transfer on which Prof. W. B. Harrison is actively working. Two other heat transfer pro­jects are now under way, one concerned with the heat transfer to a flowing column of liquid sodium (sponsored by the Office of Ordnance Research) and the other concerned with the effects of vibra­tion on the heat transfer to air (sponsor­ed by the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics).

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory has given financial support to the work of two other faculty members: Prof. J. A. Nohel is making a mathematical investi­gation of the stability of circulating fuel reactors, and Prof. H. C. Saxe has recent­ly completed a study of the physical properties of high density concrete used in shielding against intense sources of radioactivity.

The effect of very energetic cosmic rays at high altitudes on biological ma­terials is being studied by Mr. F. Dixon, working in cooperation with Dr. H. J. Schaefer of the School of Aviation Medi­cine, Pensacola, Florida.

In addition to these current research efforts, Georgia Tech has the foundation on which a much larger research pro­gram can be built. The Price Gilbert Library is one of four officially desig­nated Atomic Energy Commission Indus­trial Information Depository Libraries. Thus the Library is already able to sup­port an extensive program in nuclear science. The Rich Electronic Computer Center provides facilities for complex mathemat ical calculations that are equalled at few other universities.

At present the Computer Center is carrying out computations to assist Profs. Braden and Wyly in their research in nuclear physics. Computations are also

being programmed for the U. S. Naval School of Aviation Medicine to deter­mine the effect of cosmic rays on ideal­ized biological targets.

Georgia Tech is also a member of the Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies which opens a number of avenues for cooperation with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Faculty members pursue their own research as Research Participants at Oak Ridge, and members of ORNL are invited to the Georgia Tech campus for lectures.

The Nuclear Science Committee

EVEN THOUGH GEORGIA TECH is now making significant progress in nuclear science, it is obvious that this endeavor must be greatly increased in the future if we are to maintain our standing in education and research. To this end, the late President Van Leer appointed an ad­visory committee of faculty members to examine ways in which our contributions in this field might be increased. This com­mittee, known as the Nuclear Science Committee, is headed by Dr. James E. Boyd, associate director of the Engineer­ing Experiment Station. The committee consists of seventeen members and in­cludes representatives from all the divi­sions of the institution that are directly concerned with developments in nuclear science.

The aims of the Nuclear Science Com­mittee are twofold: (1) to determine what role nuclear science should play in teaching and research at Georgia Tech and (2) to determine what steps Georgia Tech should take to develop research and teaching in the field of nuclear science.

Shortly after the organization of the Nuclear Science Committee, a steering subcommittee, headed also by Dr. Boyd, was appointed. This subcommittee handles administrative matters and plans the work of the Nuclear Science Commit­tee. Upon recommendation of this steer­ing subcommittee, three additional sub­committees have been formed. Each one of them is concerned with a principal facet of the overall work of the Nuclear Science Committee.

The Education Subcommittee, headed by Dr. L. D. Wyly of the School of Physics, is following the stated aims of the committee with specific regard to educational problems. The Radioisotopes Laboratory Subcommittee, headed by Dr. J. M. DallaValle of the School of Chem­ical Engineering, is busy developing plans for a radioisotopes laboratory at Tech. And the Reactor Subcommittee, headed by Dr. W. B. Harrison of the School of Mechanical Engineering, is investigating Georgia Tech's needs for a nuclear re­actor facility as well as studying various

March, 1956

types of reactors and their research po­tential. Upon completion of their studies, these subcommittees will submit detailed reports of their findings.

It is impossible to estimate at this time, the extent to which nuclear science will change the technology of today. This means that Georgia Tech, as a center for education and research, must continually make plans for the future. And the present planning represents the first step toward the already foreseeable segment of the future.

The Atomic Energy Commission has recently completed a survey of training and manpower requirements for the Atomic Energy Industry. At the present time they estimate that there are less than 5,000 engineers and scientists in the country trained to work effectively in this new industry. Present training pro­grams are geared to turn out less than 400 engineers and scientists per year. If the Atomic Energy Industry expands as estimated, however, more than 1200 new trained people per year will be required for the next three years. The require­ments for new engineers and scientists will probably be several times greater ten years hence.

In order to help meet the needs for well-educated modern engineers, Georgia Tech must offer courses of study in nuclear science and technology. There will be an increasing demand for en­gineers in the present engineering dis­ciplines who are better grounded in the fundamentals of their field and who also have a basic knowledge of nuclear science and of how their field of specialization may be applied to nuclear engineering problems. A recent survey of the curric-ulums at Georgia Tech revealed that many existing courses are directly appli­cable to the field of nuclear engineering. Proposals for additional courses and laboratories which are desirable to strengthen our educational program in nuclear science will soon be presented to the Graduate Council. The majority of the new courses will be introduced at the graduate level in order to permit the student to apply this work to his field of specialization. A program of study lead­ing to the Master's Degree in Nuclear Science (Engineering) is under consider­ation. The primary efforts of the commit­tee have been directed toward this gradu­ate program.

Radioisotope Laboratory

IF GEORGIA TECH is to increase its con­tributions in nuclear science, it is most important that the present radioisotope laboratory facilities be greatly expanded. From the point of view of education, it is necessary that special laboratory fa­

cilities be developed for courses in neu­tron physics and in radio-chemistry. Until such facilities are available it will not be possible to initiate the Master's Degree Program in Nuclear Science and En­gineering. Thus the next logical step in the work of the Education Subcommittee cannot be taken until these laboratory facilities have been obtained. From the point of view of faculty and student re­search, a radioisotope laboratory with re­search facilities is also an immediate need. Present day research in all branches of engineering, as well as in chemistry and physics requires the use of radio­isotopes. The availability of laboratory facilities for the storage, handling, and measurement of these materials would permit a considerable extension of many of the research projects now in progress on the campus.

As a result of the joint need for a radioisotope laboratory in education and in research, it has been decided that the most economical procedure would be to incorporate both functions in a single laboratory building. This building should include space for a student laboratory and space for research laboratories of two kinds: (1) a low-level counting labora­

tory for special research problems and (2) a general purpose laboratory which would include facilities for the processing and measurement of radioisotopes. Addi­tional storage and office space would also be required. Initial estimates indicate that a one-story building with about 5000 square feet of floor area would be re­quired. This centralized radioisotope lab­oratory should be under the direction of a scientist who is competent to advise faculty members on the use of radio­isotopes and on the safety measures that are required in their use. It is also expected that such a man would conduct his own research program and take some part in the educational program.

A centralized laboratory, as it is now planned, would by no means be the only place where radioisotopes could be used on the campus. Such a laboratory would, however, provide equipment and handling facilities when they are required, and insure the safe and effective uses of these materials.

The Radioisotopes Subcommittee also forsees a less immediate future need for a high-level laboratory facility which could conduct experiments in the radia­tion damage and food sterilization (for

Faculty members T. L. Weatherly, left, and

J. Q. Williams of Tech's School of Physics

typify Tech's experienced nuclear researchers.

A t the present, thirty-nine members of Tech's

faculty have had some practical experience in

one type of nuclear research or another.

1 0 Tech Alumnus

example) using very intense sources of radiation such as those found in the "waste products" of nuclear reactors. The detailed requirements for this laboratory are not under study at present, but it is clear that such a high-level laboratory would necessarily be separate from the one now contemplated.

Tech's Need for a Reactor

iv GEORGIA TECH is to become a major center for nuclear science, a nuclear re­actor must be available on the campus as an integral part of a research and educa­tional program. To be effective, such a reactor should provide a high neutron flux at relatively low power.

The value of such a reactor can be judged by considering the following de­tailed list of advantages that it would provide:

A research reactor would provide for research possibilities which are presently of great interest but impossible at Geor­gia Tech. For example, a reactor would make available isotopes of short half-life. This would open up fields of research which are impossible except in the vicin­ity of a reactor. In a recent survey of the staff at Georgia Tech, particular interests were expressed in reactor facilities for neutron diffraction, nuclear spectroscopy, activation analysis, radioisotope produc­tion, studies of effects of radiation on properties of materials, and other sub­jects. Further, the Engineering Experi­ment Station has recently had the oppor­tunity to consider two requests for re­search proposals from outside agencies which would involve the use of a nuclear reactor. This is considered to be an ad­ditional indication of the existing need for a research reactor facility.

The presence of a research reactor fa­cility at Georgia Tech would motivate interests of the staff in new directions. At present, there can be no stimulus for certain lines of thought, because facili­ties do not exist for reducing the ideas to practice. It is believed that the pres­ence of a reactor would generate many new approaches to engineering problems, bringing technical advances, new staff contributions, and associated credit to the institution and to Georgia.

A research reactor would strengthen the educat ional program in nuclear science. The strength would come from the fact that the reactor embodies many principles which can be demonstrated to students in nuclear science. It would also serve as a center of graduate research activity in the field of nuclear science.

A research reactor would serve as an added inducement for competent scient­ists and graduate students to come to Georgia Tech, thereby helping to insure

The "swimming pool" reactor at Oak Ridge,

Tennessee, one of the many types now on the

market. Tech has a great need for a research

continued advancement in science and technology.

A research reactor, as any other major facility on the campus (for example, the Computer Center), would increase the scope of operations which can be em­ployed in research and educational prob­lems, thereby increasing the potential of the institution for gaining additional sup­ported research programs.

The existence of a reactor in Atlanta should be a strong inducement for cer­tain industrial concerns to locate in Georgia, bringing increased revenue to the area. A reactor would benefit hos­pitals, universities, and other activities in the vicinity of Atlanta. For example, there is a need for short-lived isotopes in medical research and in some applications of radioisotopes, to industrial problems.

A research reactor facility is becoming established as standard equipment in aca­demic institutions of the size and charac­ter of Georgia Tech. A strong motivation for acquisition of a research reactor is the desire to meet academic competition.

Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation

reactor if she is to carry out an up-to-date

program in nuclear science, for the reactor

symbolizes the new era of scientific research.

In the August 1955 issue of Nucleonics, it was stated that 30 U. S. universities are considering research reactors, includ­ing the reactor in operation at North Carolina State College, and those under construction at Illinois Institute of Tech­nology, University of Michigan, and Pennsylvania State University. (The one at Pennsylvania State has been completed and is now in operation.) Of particular interest in the Southeast are plans by Vanderbilt University, Alabama Polytech­nic Institute, and the University of Flor­ida. Other examples of interest are the University of California at Los Angeles, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Purdue University.

To the entire country, the reactor symbolizes a new era of nuclear energy and related research, and the lack of a reactor facility can be construed as a deficiency with respect to the advances of science and technology. If Georgia Tech is to maintain a reputation of lead­ership in research and education, acquisi­tion of a research reactor is a must.

March, 1956 1 1

HE USUAL "END OF THE QUARTER FRANTIC PANIC" h a s

set in here in Dogwood Town. Homework-hungover eyes, unattended beards, No-Doze, worry-furrowed brows, mech and math formulae on the Robbery table tops . . . all the harbingers of impending tragedy or triumph are in full bloom. Harry's is feeling the pinch. Fraternity fun is closed and files are open. Armageddon is at hand.

In the midst of so festive a mood it's a bit difficult to string together these pearls of journalistic wisdom, but I shall have a fling at it. My last fling at that. No, Wallace hasn't fired me, though I imagine he's been tempted now and then. Besides, that would be nothing novel, and he doesn't cotton to playing second fiddle . . . only bass. No, the surprising truth of the matter is that I'm finally finish­ing my penance here at Tech. Come March 17th I can stroll down to Rose Bowl Field and watch the football team practice—just like you all. And then just when I'd begun to think that I really hadn't been here so very long one of my profs made this astute observation:

"Looks like the School of Architecture is losing two of its accepted fixtures this year. Mr. Bush-Brown . . . and you."

I mumbled something I hope he didn't hear and went back to sharpening my eraser. Anyway, it's been a full college life.

It has also been a fairly full Quarter on the Flats. Drama Tech presented an excellent production of "Home of the Brave," and then turned Crenshaw over to the pan­demonium of Engineer's Week. The C.E.'s won the exhibit contest . . . again. Or should it be, as usual.

N OT QUITE so USUAL, the basketball team exhibited their wares for the last time on the dance floor of the gym. Quite impressively, too, as they set a Tech record for the old boards of 97 points. Next season they'll be holding forth under the magnificent mushroom that seems to have sprung up overnight down on Tenth Street. It's really a whopper. Presently getting its roof put on.

The roof feel in on the swimming team this year when their three top men felt the ax of ineligibility fall, but they still managed to pull down third place in the S. E. C. meet.

And it was meet and right that integration (not the calculus variety) has been thoroughly, and, for the most part, very objectively discussed on campus. Sorry, but we enlightened elite at the seat of knowledge haven't been able to come up with a satisfactory solution to the problem either. I am also sorry that I cannot give you a concensus of student opinion. Not because the subject is too delicate

to discuss, but rather that I just don't know. But I do know that the Glee Club will represent Tech

and a good part of the South next Quarter at Rennsalear in New York. They'll be participating in a Glee Club Con­clave along with similar groups from other top universities. They do get around.

And they finally got around to alleviating the mayhem in the Post Office. Simple, really. They just tore off the whole south wall and left it open. No more getting your teeth bashed in by an out-swinging "In" door. It's almost pleasant.

On the other hand, the job interviews for graduating seniors have been most pleasant this Quarter . . . finan­cially pleasant. And so numerous that I overheard one blase sought-after remark, "These interviews are getting dull. Don't think I'll bother going to any more." Inter­viewers take note: next year Cinemascope and dancing girls.

s PEAKING OF INDUCEMENTS, Small White Father Wallace had just about talked Myrl Allinder into joining him in his ivory tower, and writing this column when I join the "re­member the time" crowd, when Myrl up and wins the W. S. F. scholarship to Stuttgart, Germany. You're losing a good writer, but you'll have a fine representative in Europe next year.

Well, it seems I've about come to the end of my lines. I can honestly say that it has been a privilege and a pleas­ure to come into your minds through this column, and I thank you fans, for your smiles, groans, and silence over these few issues. And before I start waxing nostalgic over my "good ol' college days," I'll borrow a phrase from the English pubkeeper and say,

Time, gentlemen. Time.

GLASS for the Builder

GLAZING &

INSTALLATION Service

Atlanta GLASS Company 82-92 Houston Street, N. E., Atlanta 3, Ga.

Bill Roman/ ' 2 8 , Manager

12 Tech Alumnus

Steels are like a family . . . each with its own personality, its own special talents

MUCH OF YOUR KITCHENWARE is made of steel. So are the hundreds of thousands of miles of railroad rails that criss-cross the nation. And so is practically all of your automobile.

THEY'RE ALL STEEL, but that's where the similarity ends. In your kitchen, it's shining, rust-resistant stain­less steel. In rails, it's carbon steel —strong and tough to endure years of hard service. And there are more than 160 different kinds of automobile steels.

What makes the difference among steels? The most important influence is alloying metals —chromium, manganese, tungsten, vanadium, and others.

ADDING ALLOYING METALS to molten steel changes the composition of the steel and gives it special char­acteristics. It's chromium, for example, that makes steel stainless. Tungsten, on the other hand, makes steel so

hard that it is used in machine tools to shape 'softer' steel into things to serve you.

FROM MINES throughout the world, the people of Union Carbide gather ores and refine them into more than 50 different alloying metals that are vital to mak­ing more and better steel.

STUDENTS AND STUDENT ADVISERS: Learn more about career opportunities with Union Carbide in ALLOYS, CARBONS, CHEMICALS, GASES, and PLASTICS. Write for "Products and Processes" booklet.

U N I O N C A R B I D E AND CARBON CORPORATION

30 EAST 42ND STREET [Qjfl NEW YORK 17, N. Y. In Canada: UNION CARBIDE CANADA LIMITED, Toronto

-UCCs Trade-marked Products include -

ELECTROMET Alloys and Metals NATIONAL Carbons AcHESON Electrodes SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS HAYNES SlELLITE Alloys EVEREADY Flashlights and Batteries Dynel Textile Fibers PRESTONE Anti-Freeze UNION Carbide U N I O N CARBIDE Silicones PREST-O-LITE Acetylene PYROFAX Gas B A K E L I T E , V I N Y L I T E , and K R E N E Plastics L I N D E Oxygen

THE TRUSTEES OF THE ASSOCIATION

President Frederick S . Storey, '33

President

Storey Theatres

Atlanta, Georgia

Vice-Pres. I. M. Sheffield, Jr., '20

Chairman of the Board

Life Insurance Co. of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia

Vice-Pres. Charles R. Simons, '37

President

Chattahoochee Furniture Company

Flowery Branch, Georgia

Treasurer Walter E. Crawford, '49

Executive Vice President

Atlanta Convention Bureau

Atlanta, Georgia

W. Elliott Dunwody, Jr., '14

Architect

W. Elliott Dunwody, Jr.

Macon, Georgia

R. Roddey Garrison, '23

District Sales Manager

Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.

Atlanta, Georgia

Joe K. McCutcheon, '32

President

J & C Bedspread Company

Ellijay, Georgia

John J. McDonough, '23

Executive Vice-President

Georgia Power Company

Atlanta, Georgia

R. A. Siegel, '36

Owner

The R. A. Siegel Company

Atlanta, Georgia

Ha lL . Smith,'26

President

Downtown Chevrolet Company

Atlanta, Georgia

Freeman Strickland, '24

Vice-President

First National Bank

Atlanta, Georgia

Charles E. Thwaite, Jr., '33

President

Fourth National Bank

Columbus, Georgia

14 Tech Alumnus

THE MEN YOU SEE ON THIS PAGE are the 1955-56 members of the Board of Trustees of the Georgia Tech National Alumni Association. They are appointed to one year terms by the president of the Association, who is elected by your vote. You can see by their business affiliations that they represent a wide range of interests.

This Board is a working one. It usually meets ten times a year. And in between the meetings there is much com­mittee work to be accomplished. Under the present presi­dent and Board, the Tech Alumni Association has had its best year. This group will serve you until next October 27, which will be Homecoming Day at Tech.

David J.Arnold, '18

President

Commercial Bank & Trust Co.

Griffin, Georgia

Web C. Brown, '26 Owner

C. V. Brown & Bros., Real Estate

Chattanooga, Tennessee

Morris M. Bryan, '41

President

Jefferson Mills

Jefferson, Georgia

James S. Budd, '18

Vice-President

Citizens & Southern Bank

Atlanta, Georgia

Ernest B. Merry, Jr., '28

Vice-President

Merry Bros. Brick & Tile Company

Augusta, Georgia

Harold Montag, ' 18

Chairman of the Board

Montag Brothers

Atlanta, Georgia

John F. Pidcock, '33

President

Georgia Broadcasting Company

Savannah, Georgia

Frank Ridley, Jr., '34

Vice-President

Marsh & McLennan, Inc.

Atlanta, Georgia

Will iam C. Vereen, Jr.,

President

Moultrie Cotton Mill

Moultrie, Georgia

36 J . Frank Wil lett, '45

Apparatus Sales Engineer

i Westinghouse Electric Company

Atlanta, Georgia

W. Roane Beard, '40

Executive Secretary

National Alumni Association Atlanta, Georgia

Robert B.Wallace, Jr., '49

Editor

The Georgia Tech Alumnus

Atlanta, Georgia

March, 1956 15

Dr. Walter S. Buckingham, Jr., '47, Associate Professor in Tech's Industrial Management School. On October 14, he presented the fol­lowing paper before the Subcommittee on Eco­nomic Stabilization of the Senate-House Joint Committee on the Economic Report. He was the first in a long string of American teach­ers, businessmen and industrialists to present his views on "the probable impact of auto­mation on employment and economic stability."

The initial publication of the statement by a Tech faculty member before the Senate-House Subcommitee on Economic Stabilization

AUTOMATION, EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC STABILITY

*

S INCE WORLD WAR ii SOME spectacular discoveries in the fields of electronics

and communications have permitted the manufacture of various types of auto­matic computing machinery. These ma­chines are capable of translating a large body of previously-developed, theoretical,

economic and business principles into practical significance. Called electronic computers, they are capable of processing data with almost unbelievable speed. When information is fed into them, usually on tapes, they can perform a series of logical operations and can

choose among several previously antici­pated courses of action based on built-in criteria. They even adjust automatically for errors. The operation of these com­puters to solve scientific, commercial or industrial problems is very often referred to as automaton.

16 Tech Alumnus

Also in the last few years a number of automatic or semi-automatic machines have been constructed to supplement con­ventional assembly line operations in fac­tories. These machines perform hundreds of individual mechanical functions with­out direct human intervention. The oper­ation of these machines is likewise com­monly called automation.

Finally, scientists, computer manufac­turers and science fiction writers have shown, hypothetically at least, how the administrative and manufacturing pro­cesses of an enterprise could be integrated into a single, silent, automatic monster which could grind out an endless chain of products without a man in sight. This awesome picture has charged the imagi­nations of some and struck terror in the hearts of others. The possibility of such developments is also called automation.

In addition to this definitional confu­sion many speculations, hypotheses and fragments of theories concerning the broad economic and social implications of automation are currently being ex­pounded. In this flood of verbage there is no shortage of imagination but there is a notable lack of the kind of critical thought and careful documentation which yields quantitative, scientifically accurate results. There is a great need to collect, sift, classify and evaluate the empirical evidence which alone can test these gen­eralizations.

It is not the purpose of this presenta­tion to provide any conclusive, concrete facts or to try to verify any particular arguments by amassing evidence. Rather the main purpose here is to try to estab­lish a frame of reference within which the results of subsequent empirical inves­tigations can be logically fitted so as to determine the probable impact of auto­mation on employment and economic stability. Some facts will be used here to illustrate problems which require study but this statement will seek to achieve its main purpose by presenting (1) a definition of automation based on four basic principles which underlie all of the various popular concepts, (2) an estima­tion of the probable scope and speed of automation in the future, (3) a classifica­tion of eight major types of direct effects of automation, and (4) an evaluation of the impact these effects on five principal tests of the performance of an economic system with particular emphasis on the maintenance of full employment and eco­nomic stability.

Principles and Definition

The variety of popular uses of the term automation necessitates some definition which is both precise and relevant for analysis. Such a definition can best be de­

rived from an examination of the major principles which underlie most if not all of the popular concepts of automation. There are four such major principles— mechanization, feedback, continuous pro­cess and rationalization.

Mechanization means the use of ma­chines to perform work. Sometimes mechanization substitutes machinery for human or animal muscle. The steam engine did this. Sometimes mechanization substitutes machinery for brainwork at the lower, routine levels. The electronic computer does this. Because of the power, compactness or speed of machine opera­tion mechanization usually permits tasks to be performed which could never be done by human labor alone no matter how much labor was used or how well the enterprise was organized and man­aged. Mechanization increases wealth and reduces drudgery in the long run but in the short run it may cause hardships to workers whose skills are rendered obsolete, diluted by a further specializa­tion or whose jobs are abolished al­together.

Feedback is the second principle in­herent in automation. This is a concept of control whereby the input of machines is regulated by the machine's own out­put so that the output meets the con­ditions of a predetermined objective. As in a simple, thermostatically-controlled heating system, the conditions created by the output automatically control, in turn, the amount of input and hence the per­formance of the machine. When con­trolled by the feedback principle, ma­chines start and stop themselves and regulate quality and quantity of output automatically.

Continuous flow or process is the third principle of automation. This concept is of increasing importance because it is spreading from many individual produc­tion processes to the business enterprise itself and on to the entire economy. Mass production, increasing interdependence, and now automation all embody this principle which is leading to a concept of the business enterprise as an endless pro­cess. Business for the most part has ceased being an operation that can be started and stopped with small loss. The regulation of a constant flow of goods has become a major concern of manage­ment.

This continuous process idea has changed the function of management. The man of daring and imagination who relied on hunch supported by experience has become a technological casualty. The shrewd bargain has given way to the carefully calculated risk. The increasing size and complexity of business enter­prises precludes the top executives from

having knowledge of the details of the firm's operations. Decisions must be made by groups who rely on reports from the sales, production, accounting and other departments. Top executives today are forced to view their functions as consist­ing of planning, controlling and coordi­n a t i n g the f i r m ' s o p e r a t i o n s and harmonizing the interests of the firm with those of employees, investors, sup­pliers and customers. Because of the high degree of interdependence in the econ­omy the decisions of these executives intimately affect the lives of millions of people.

Rationalization — the fourth principle of automation—means the application of reason to the solution of problems or to the search for knowledge. In a produc­tion system it means that the entire pro­cess from the raw material to the final product is carefully analyzed so that every operation can be designed to con­tribute in the most efficient way to the achievement of clearly enunciated goals of the enterprise.

Actually rationalistic philosophy is nothing new, having become an im­portant force in the world with the Renaissance. However, the scientific, rationalist philosophy takes on numerous new implications when it can be imple­mented by modern electronic machinery. The rise of electronic computers has led to a fascination with the possibility that super-rationalism in the business and scientific spheres might spill over and transform society into an exact mechan­ism in which all elements of chance, risk, capriciousness and free will—as well as all spiritual values—would be eliminated. Although this kind of speculation is highly dubious, nevertheless it is one logical extension of this fourth principle of automation.

F o l l o w i n g t h e s e f o u r p r i n c i p l e s — mechanization, feedback, continuous process and rationalization — automation can be given a definition precise enough to be useful for logical analysis. It can be said to be any continuous and inte­grated operation of a rationalized produc­tion system which uses electronic or other equipment to regulate and co­ordinate the quantity and quality of pro­duction.

Automation in the Future

For the purpose of determining the extent to which automation can be ap­plied to productive processes, industries can be divided into three groups. The first includes those industries in which production can be reduced to a con­tinuous flow process. Oil refining, flour milling, and chemical production are illustrations of industries in which auto-

March, 1956 17

mation has made, and should continue to make, significant progress. In other industries it is possible to revamp the productive mechanism in such a way as to convert it from a series of unit oper­ations into a single endless process. While some industries utilize processes which are not conducive to automation, new methods of production may be conceived which are more acceptable.

A second class includes industries in which some automation is possible, but full or nearly complete automation is not likely. Indeed, it is possible that some in­dustries may have automatic machines applied to seventy-five per cent of their operations, yet the cost of making the plant completely automatic would more than offset the savings achieved from the use of partial application of automatic machines. In this category would be found industries which require substan­tial information handling and accounting functions but in which the method of production or the nature of the product is not adaptable to continuous flow tech­niques. Such industries would include transportation, large-scale retailing, and the manufacture of certain nonstandard-ized consumer products like furniture.

The third group into which all indus­tries may be classified includes those in which no significant application of auto­mation seems likely because of the highly individualistic nature of the product, the need for personal services, the advantages of small scale units or vast space require­ments. These would include agriculture, mining, professional fields, and most con­struction and retailing.

Other limitations on the scope and speed of automation are more temporary but are nevertheless significant at the present time. These include (1) the high initial cost of the equipment which for the time being at least prevents all but the larger firms from using it, (2) the short­age of highly trained operators and analyzers and (3) the time required to analyze the problems, reduce them to equations, program the computers and translate the answers into useful data. The solution to the problem of rethinking through the entire production process is likely to come slowly because of the tremendous mental inertia which is con­fronted in such cases. v*.

Effects of Automation Following the principles and definition

of automation already derived, the direct consequences of applying automation to a productive system can be classified as follows:

1. Many direct production jobs are abolished.

2. A smaller number of newer jobs requiring different, and mostly higher,

skills are created. These new jobs include equipment maintenance and design, sys­tems analysis, programming and engineer­ing.

3. The requirements of some of the remaining jobs are raised. For example, the integration of several formerly separ­ate processes and the enhanced value of the capital investment increase the need for comprehension and farsightedness on the part of management. Also greatly decreases inventories and more rapid change-over times create tensions which require more alertness and stamina.

4. Production in aggregate and per man hour is enormously increased.

5. The production of new and better goods of more standardized quality be­comes possible. However, there may be a loss of variety. Many different models are possible from combining a few stan­dardized processes in different ways but, as in automobiles, the final products are still likely to look pretty much all alike.

6. There is an increase in the quantity and accuracy of information and the speed with which it is obtained. Manage­ment can thus have a clearer picture of its overall operation and by knowing the consequences of alternative courses of action it can act more rationally.

7. In most cases a more efficient use is made of all of the components of pro­duction—labor, capital, natural resources and management. In a few cases high operating speeds waste materials but even here the loss is usually justified by saving other resources including even time which is a valuable component of production.

8. A continuous pace is often set at which the plant must be operated.

Economic Impact

In order to determine the economic impact of the above eight major effects of automation they should be evaluated in terms of the performance tests of a properly-working economic system. The criteria of an economic system's per­formance, or the goals which an eco­nomic system should seek to maximize, can be classified as follows: (1) the level of employment of all resources; (2) the stability of employment of all resources; (3) the satisfaction of con­sumers' desires, i.e. a pattern of resource and product allocation which always satisfies the more urgent requirements first; (4) the efficiency of production, i.e. output divided by costs in human effort, physical resources and lost opportunities; (5) progressiveness, i.e. the rate of in­crease of productivity.

Of course, these goals cannot all be increased simultaneously. For example, maximizing short run aggregate living

standards (number 3 above) requires a more or less equal distribution of income if it is assumed (and it cannot be proved otherwise) that different people have the same basic needs and the same capacities for enjoyment. Now equal income distri­bution, and hence maximum human satisfaction, is partially inconsistent with progressiveness (number 5 above) be­cause some inequalities of income are necessary to provide the incentive to increase productivity and hence long run living standards. Consequently some optimum combination of these five goals —particularly some compromise between short and long run living standard— should be sought.

The first goal — full employment — is now generally accepted as both an eco­nomic and a political necessity. The enormous costs of unemployment—par­ticularly of labor—have been well-docu­mented. Human resources depreciate with time rather than use and they depreciate at an accelerated rate when they are unemployed because of the decline of knowledge, skills and morale. The main economic cost of unemployment is in production that is permanently lost.

However, the social costs of unemploy­ment far exceeds the economic costs since unemployment also contributes in large measure to crime, disease, family disintegration, race and religious preju­dice, suicide and war.

Impact on Labor

It is on the employment of labor that automation has its greatest impact. A recent Ph.D. dissertation by David G. Osborn at the University of Chicago re­vealed that in twelve cases of automation ranging from chocolate refining to rail­road traffic-control the reduction in em­ployee requirements ranged from 13 per cent to 92 per cent with an average reduc­tion in employment of 63.4 per cent.

In the oil refining industry employment has fallen from 147,000 to 137,000 in the last seven years although output rose 22 per cent. The Federal Reserve Index shows that production in mining and manufacturing was about the same at the end of 1954 as at the beginning but total employment in these industries was down by almost a million. It is often said that such declines will be offset by increases in employment in the most dynamic sec­tors of the economy but even in the electrical machinery industry itself em­ployment remained constant at about 1,100,000 from 1952 to 1954.

It is true that there have been no mass layoffs from automation but this is ap­parently because automation has pro­ceeded slowly enough so far to allow normal turnover to disguise the displace-

18 Tech Alumnus

ment. The worker displaced is not fired. He is the one who is not hired.

Another rather subtle form of dis­placement is in the so-called "hidden un­employment" of downgrading. It is true that automation creates a demand for new skills of a higher order and no doubt there will be a long run upgrading of the labor force. However, because automation renders many skills obsolete and dilutes other skills by a further di­vision of labor, and since the new skills require extensive training and education, workers may not be able to move easily into the new jobs. When they cannot they arc often downgraded in work even though their pay is not reduced.

There is further evidence of this lack of upward labor mobility in the critical shortage of engineers and other highly :rained specialists. The United States will graduate 27,000 engineers and 50,000 technicians in 1956 compared to 45,000 engineers and 1,600,000 technicians of comparable quality who will be graduated in the Soviet Union.

A recent National Science Foundation study shows that out of the upper 25 per cent of high school students about half are unable to go to college and another 13 per cent drop out before finishing college. Thus nearly two-thirds of those with the greatest potential for scientific leadership never receive a college educa­tion through to the Ph.D.

Industrial location is affected by auto­mation and this, in turn, affects employ­ment. There could be a shift in labor oriented industries away from low labor cost regions for two reasons. First, the smaller labor force reduces the savings from lower wages and second, there is a smaller wage differential between the skilled workers of different regions than between the unskilled and it is the more highly skilled workers who are likely to be retained if automation is introduced. For example, the new Corn Products plant at Corpus Christi, Texas was lo­cated in an area which normally would not supply a large, skilled labor force. However, since automation reduced the importance of a large labor supply this plant could be located closed to its mar­kets and its sources of raw materials and fuel.

Since automation will be limited to in­dustries which now employ only about 25 per cent of the labor force and be­cause automation creates many new jobs for which the necessary education and training will delay the entry of young people into the labor force, there would appear to be no reason to fear long run, mass unemployment. However, there is no automatic regulator in the economic system that guarantees full employment

and the great advantages of automation can be insured only if there is a continued expansion. As automation advances in our basic industries the American econ­omy becomes like a rocket which must continue to accelerate or else fall from the sky. This leads to the next criterion of successful economic performance—the necessity for economic stability.

Here also the long run outlook is good but the short run poses problems. In gen­eral there is no more reason to expect a recurrence of the depression conditions of the nineteen thirties than there is to expect another epidemic of smallpox. In both cases the causes are well known and the remedies are effective if they are ap­plied. However, automation makes the need for vigilance all the more imperative because it has unstabilizing effects in the short run just like the original Industrial Revolution had. By greatly increasing the fixed costs of the plant and setting a continuous pace at which it must be operated the adverse consequences of shutdowns are magnified.

Unfortunately the very increases in efficiency and technological progressive-ness which automation brings are a potential threat to continued stability. The abundance of production itself which increases living standards also frees people from spending all of their incomes unless they so desire. Whenever basic necessities can be secured by most people with only a part of their incomes, full employment becomes precarious because prosperity is then sustained by that por­tion of total spending which is dependent on confidence rather than on physical needs. A prosperous economy is always potentially unstable in the sense that small changes in expectations can have magnified effects.

The costs of instability, however, are large for everybody. The businessman must maintain expensive inventories and hedge against price changes, if possible, or else take great risks of loss. The cost to the worker, however, is the greatest of all from a personal standpoint because he lives from day to day and thus he suffers first, and most acutely, when his income falls. It is clearly the responsibility of businessmen and government—since they are the basic economic decision­makers of the country—to insure as high and stable a level of production and em­ployment as possible.

The third criterion of economic per­formance—maximum satisfaction of con­sumers' desires—seems to be well met by automation. The great increase in output and improvement in quality of goods is bound to raise living standards if full employment is maintained. There are a few danger spots even here however. A

wealthy economy like the United States must continue to be reasonably equali-tarian because its prosperity depends on mass purchasing power. If the benefits of automation are not shared with workers in the form of productivity wage in­creases and with consumer in the form of lower prices these mass markets will be threatened.

There is an additional need for main­taining a high level of consumption. This is because automation does not seem likely to create the great waves of pri-mafy and secondard investment that earlier technological developments did. The automobile, for example, stimulated vast investments in the oil, rubber, high­way and construction sectors of the economy. If the electronics industry does not call forth such secondary investment, consumption will need to rise to fill the gap.

The fourth and fifth criteria of eco­nomic performance—efficiency and pro-gressiveness—are both well met by auto­mation. By its very nature automation increases productivity and accelerates technological progress. In the University of Chicago study referred to above, pro­ductivity increases in twelve cases of automation ranged from 14 per cent to 1,320 per cent in a case of office auto­mation with the average for all cases being 382 per cent. Space requirements alone were reduced from 12 per cent for printed circuit fabrication to 94 per cent for lard rendering with an average for all cases being 59 per cent.

Whatever the short run maladjustments and conflicts may be, automation favors the long run improvement of economic well-being. America's high living stan­dards are not due to any monopoly of knowledge, brain power or industrious-ness. They are due largely to the enor­mous amount of capital equipment which both sides of industry—management and labor—have with which to work. This capital increases effciency and automation accelerates the process.

Conclusion

Although automation rides the wave of the future, it is understandable why workers and consumers should be con­cerned. Our leaders of industry, who are men of vision, are also men of wealth and position who can afford to take the long run view. But the rest of us live in the short run, unfortunately, and that is where the potential dangers lie. A high degree of public responsibility from the leaders of industry, labor and govern­ment will be required if the mistakes of the first Industrial Revolution are to be avoided.

March, 1956 19

1956 GEORGIA TECH SCHEDULES

Last night in the old gym: Tech sets a home

court scoring record on their farewell appear­

ance at the bandbox on Third Street as they

slaughter LSU, 97 to 74. The Jackets closed

out their schedule with a loss to Florida, 48

to 66, and ended up with an overall record

of 12 wins and II losses. Their SEC record was

6-8, good enough for a sixth-place tie.

Football

Sept. 22—Kentucky . . . . Lexington, Ky.

Sept. 29—SMU Dallas, Texas

Oct. 6—Open

Oct. 13—LSU Grant Field Oct. 20—Auburn Grant Field Oct. 27—*Tulane . . . . . . Grant Field Nov. 3—Duke Durham, N. C.

Nov. 10—Tennessee Grant Field

Nov. 17—Alabama Grant Field

Nov. 24—Florida Jacksonville

Dec. I—Georgia Athens, Ga.

•HOMECOMING. All Home games start at 2:00 this year.

Baseball

19—Stetson Deland, Fla.

20—Stetson Deland, Fla.

21—Ohio State . . . Winter Park, Fla.

22—Rollins . . . . Winter Park, Fla.

23—Florida Gainesville, Fla.

24—Florida (2) . . . Gainesville, Fla.

30—Mercer Rose Bowl Field 3—Atl. Crackers . . . Ponce de Leon

6—Kentucky Lexington, Ky.

7—Kentucky (2) . . . Lexington, Ky.

13—Georgia Athens, Ga.

14—Georgia Athens, Ga.

18—Clemson Clemson, S. C.

20—Tennessee . . . . Rose Bowl Field

21—Tennessee (2) . . Rose Bowl Field 25—Clemson . . . . Rose Bowl Field

27—Auburn Auburn, Ala.

28—Auburn (2) . . . . Auburn, Ala.

I—Mercer Macon, Ga.

4—Georgia . . . . Rose Bowl Field 5—Georgia . . . . Rose Bowl Field 9—Rollins Rose Bowl Field

10—Rollins Rose Bowl Field

Mar.

Mar.

Mar.

Mar.

Mar.

Mar.

Mar.

Apr.

Apr.

Apr.

Apr.

Apr.

Apr.

Apr.

Apr.

Apr.

Apr.

Apr.

May

May

May

May

May

Tennis

Mar. 22—Ohio State . Mar. 23—Florida . . . Mar. 24—Florida State .

Gainesville, Fla. Gainesville, Fla. Tallahassee, Fla.

Mar. 26—Kenyon Atlanta

Mar. 28—Indiana Atlanta

Mar. 31—Florida Atlanta Apr. 3—Georgia Athens

Apr. 4—Michigan Atlanta

Apr. 6—Tulane New Orleans Apr. 7—LSU Baton Rouge

Apr. 12—Florida State Atlanta Apr. 13—Tennessee Knoxville

Apr. 14—Vanderbilt Nashville Apr. 18—Cincinnati Atlanta

Apr. 21—Tennessee Atlanta Apr. 27—Emory Atlanta

May I—Georgia Atlanta May 5—Auburn Auburn

May 10, I I , 12—SEC Atlanta

May 18, 19—Georgia Open . . . . Atlanta

Golf Mar. 30—Northern III. State . . . East Lake

Apr. 2—Florida East Lake

Apr. 9—Florida State East Lake Apr. 13—Rollins East Lake Apr. 14—Vanderbilt East Lake

Apr. 2 I—Georgia Athens

Apr. 24—Auburn East Lake

Apr. 28—Tennessee Knoxville

May 3, 4, 5—SEC Tournament Athens, Ga. May 9—Tennessee East Lake

May 12—Auburn Auburn

May 15—Georgia Athens

Track

Mar. 31—Florida Relays . . . . Gainesville Apr. 7—Florida Gainesville Apr. 14—Miami Miami

Apr. 21—FSU & Georgia Athens

Apr. 27, 28—*Drake Relays . . Des Moines May 5—Auburn Atlanta

May 12—Alabama Atlanta

May 18, 19—SEC Birmingham

May 26—Georgia AAU Atlanta

June 15, 16—*NCAA . . . . Los Angeles June 22,23—*AAU Berkley

•Involves only one or two team members.

George to Report on Spring Practice

J Have you subscribed for your 1956 editions of the YELLOW JACKET CONFIDENTIAL J YELLOW JACKET CONFIDENTIAL? If this is an item BOX 1697 GEORGIA TECH 1 ^ a ^ y o u n a v e overlooked, or haven't t r ied, r ight now is

ATLANTA 13 GEORGIA I ^ n e f ' m e to get on George's exclusive subscription list.

_, , , , , , George is, of course, Georqe P. Burdell, a lonq-time Please accept my enclosed check, made out ! r ,, , , r ~ • -r i r ,i n i i • , u n i A u / , r „ r T . „ , , „ „ „ , - , , , I**™ ! tollower and student ot Georgia lech tootbal l . He is to YELLOW JACKET CONFIDENTIAL $4.00 1 .... , vet i CMA/ I A T I / C T r r \ M C i n t M

., _ „ „ . .,, , i now editmq the new YELLOW JACKET CONFIDEN-regular mail, 5>b.00 airmail , and put my name i -p. . . . - \ . , , , , . . 1, , „ r , . 1 IAL, an intimate newsletter devoted to on-the-scene

down to receive all IVb6 issues. i L L- J xL • r x 1 X ii u T I V I/~-

1 ana behind-the-scene views ot lech tootbal l . me YJC p| F A r r pR|NT 1 's issued 1 1 times a year — following Spring Football

j Practice (which concludes Apr i l 20 this year) and after I each regular season footbal l game. Your 1 956 subscrip-1 tion also includes the Tech-Pittsburgh Sugar Bowl Game

N A M E j bonus issue. Fill out and mail the attached application today for

AnDRFS.S • v n l l . IQRA -nb-rrintinn to YFI 1 f)W IAPKPT rnMFi 1 DENTIAL. Regular subscriptions are $4.00. If you pre-

r ! T Y J fer to receive your issues by airmail make out your I check for $5.00.

§'••{«¥

k 1 .-- 1

2 0 Tech Alumnus

Why I earnestly

recommend a career in

life insurance

(Some questions answered by a New England Life Agent)

B I L L G R I S W O L D , college graduate in '48, was New England Life's 1954 Rookie of the Year, and had an even bigger year in '55. Read why he calls his work, "as satisfying a livelihood and vocation as could ever be desired."

What d o you l ike best about the life insurance business?

"The fact that I 'm a professional man, I'm my own boss,

and there's no limit on my income. I'd had good jobs, from

the laundry business to managing a theater, but none of

them offered me half the opportunities I've found in life

insurance."

How did you learn to sell life insurance?

"New England Life gives a new agent comprehensive

training in his general agency and at the home office. In

addition, he gets skillful field supervision. And he is urged

to continue his insurance education through advanced

courses and special seminars."

How about earnings?

"New England Life gives each new agent a generous

training allowance. With some good breaks, I earned a five

figure income in my first year. I 'm now in my third year.

My income has steadily increased, and I take a lot of satis­

faction in serving a fine clientele."

Let us tell you more about the advantages of a career

with New England Life. Write Vice President L. M.

Huppeler, 501 Boylston Street, Boston 17, Massachusetts.

A B E T T E R L I F E F O R Y O U NEW ENGLAND Q^yyfCCCCCuJy J L i i M? H i BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS

THE COMPANY THAT FOUNDED MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE IN AMERICA —183^'

ATLANTA, GEORGIA—"Nuclear Energy, It's Future in Georgia" was the theme of the February 23 dinner meeting of the Greater Atlanta Georgia Tech Club. Four Tech fac­ulty members, members of Tech's Nuclear Energy Com­mittee, spoke briefly on topics in their particular sphere of interest in the field of nuclear energy.

The speakers were Dr. Earl McDaniel, who spoke on mineral resources of Georgia and their possible use in fu­ture nuclear energy work; Dr. Walter Buckingham, who spoke on the economic effects of nuclear development on the South; Dr. William Harrison, who spoke on reactors, and Dr. L. D. Wyly, who spoke on the need for nuclear engineers and Tech's plans for educating them.

President Allen Livar appointd a nominating committee of Frank Willett, chairman; R. A. "Pop" Siegel and John Nichols to present a slate of officers at the next meeting.

Jim O'Callaghan, chairman of the "T-Game" commit­tee, outlined plans for the sale of tickets to the spring foot­ball game scheduled for April 20.

President Livar also announced that the club would offer five scholarships to deserving Atlanta area high school sen­iors for the coming year. The financial report was accepted.

The meeting was concluded with the showing of the "Highlights of 1955."

GREENVILLE, S. C.—Bob Eskew, applications engineer with the Rich Electronic Computer Center of the Engineer­ing Experiment Station, was the feature speaker at the February 10 meeting of the Greenville Georgia Tech Club. Bob spoke on "Research at Georgia Tech."

Alumni Secretary Beard briefed the club members on the activities of the Alumni Association and the Foundation and brought them up-to-date on other campus happenings.

During the business meeting, a scholarship committee, composed of Bill Goldsmith, Charlie Galloway and Red Roane, was appointed to make a recommendation concern­ing club-sponsored scholarships at the next scheduled meeting.

Officers of the Greenville Club are Walter Glenn, presi­dent; Frank Moore, vice-pres., and Al Walters ,sec.-treas.

HOUSTON, TEXAS—Over sixty members of the South Texas Georgia Tech Club turned out on February 3 to hear a talk on Georgia Tech and her athletic program by How­ard Ector, business manager of the Georgia Tech Athletic Association.

The meeting opened with a one-minute silent prayer in memory of Dr. Blake R. Van Leer. And during the business meeting presided over by President Bob Melanson, it was unanimously voted that the club's scholarship fund be changed from the Houston Scholarship Fund to the Blake R. Van Leer Memorial Fund.

Pat Dietz, first recipient of the club's scholarship, gave a complete report of his first-quarter activities at Tech, and completed the talk by announcing that he was turning back to the fund $87.00 that he didn't need.

University of Houston Athletic Director Harry Fouke and head coach Meeks were guests of Charlie Fleetwood at the meeting which was concluded with a showing of the "Highlights of 1955."

COACH DODD, BACK ROW, AND ASSISTANTS RAY GRAVES AND FRANK BROYLES MEET WITH THE LOS ANGELES CLUB IN JANUARY.

22 Tech Alumnus

Bargains f r o m " Y e O l d R o b b e r y "

*/%£ ^oile^e *)*t*t ^afe REPEAT O F A SPECIAL " T " SHIRT SALE

A repeat of last spring's well-received "T " shirt sale. W e have replenished our stock and can offer them to you at a saving if you buy three at a time. They regularly sell for $1.10 each — we offer them to you three for $3.10 post and tax paid. The three shirts come in a package deal that includes one of each Tech style — Question Mark, Ramblin' Reck and Yellow Jacket (not shown). Sizes available are 2, 4, 6 and 8 in children's and 10 and 12 in youths. This offer is good only till the next issue of the Alumnus so order now. Also available — adult "T " shirts in S, M and L sizes at $ 1.25 each.

TECH TRAY, a large hand-etched polished aluminum tray, 15 inches in diameter for serving or for decorative purposes. Carries the Tech insignia and sells for only $5.50 postpaid. Hanger for the tray $0.25 extra.

GLASSES — just the thing for those summer parties. Three styles — Tech seal, Yellow Jacket and Bowl game style. In 12, 10 or 7 oz. sizes. Only 55c each — state size and style.

THE BEST TECH M U G , this fine china mug is a useful as well as a decorator's i tem. School seal and name in gold. Your choice of white or black mug, $3.25 each postpaid.

PLEASE SEND ME THE FOLLOWING INDICATED ITEMS—

Nc Sh Item

TECH "RAT" CAPS ($1.35 each)

KIDS T SHIRTS (3 for $3.10) TECH TRAY

($5.50)

I enclose my check for to cover the above items.

Name Address..

A/c Item

TECH M U G ($3.25 each)

GLASSES (55c each)

Size

MAIL W I T H CHECK OR M O N E Y ORDER TO GEORGIA TECH COLLEGE I N N , ATLANTA, GEORGIA

March, 1956 23

\

' O C Harold M. Spurlin, Ch.E., is co-^ J author of a book entitled "Cellulose

and Cellulose Derivatives," published in three volumes by Interscience Publications. His home address is 2704 Duncan Rd., Cooper's Farm, Wilmington, Del. ' O Q Charles DuBose, Arch., has joined

^ w F . H. McGraw & Co. as a vice presi­dent. He has been in architectural practice in the New York area since 1933. He will supervise operations of the engineering and construction company's Canadian subsidiary in Toronto. ' Q O Jack Adair, Com., has been elected

« « president of the Capital City Club. He is president of Adair Realty and Loan Co. in Atlanta and also serves as president of the Atlanta Real Estate Board. Mr. Adair's address is 1327 Peachtree, Atlanta.

BORN T O : Dr. Nathan Sugarman, Ch.E., and Mrs. Sugarman, a son, Stanley Maicah, January 2. Dr. Sugarman has left the faculty of Tech and is now with the North Ameri­can Rayon Corporation, Elizabethton, Tenn. ' O C Clarence H. Roberts, G.S., former <W Hotpoint sales manager for the Gen­

eral Electric Supply Co., has been named Georgia district manager of the newly or­ganized Hotpoint Appliance Sales Co. His office is at 710 Murphy Ave., S. W., Atlanta. Mr. Roberts lives at 1460 Moore's Mill Rd., N . W. ' Q C L. Allen Morris, president of The <*U Keyes Co., Florida's largest real estate

organization, has been promoted to the rank of Captain in the U. S. Naval Reserve. ' O Q BORN TO: Edward R. Flynt, EE, and * " Mrs. Flynt, a daughter, Joyce Lee,

Dec. 6. Their address is 2419 No. Amanda Cir., N. E. Mr. Flynt is with the Georgia Tech Experiment Station.

T. Gardner Hill, A.E., is the first person in the Georgia Division of Lockheed to re­ceive royalties from an invention presented here. He was also the first person to submit an invention which led to a patent appli­cation. Mr. Hill invented a flexible joint with an outer shell for use in high pressure hot ducts on aircraft. He designed a joint that would balance expansion and compres­sion forces. His home address is 2664 Ridge-more Rd., N . W., Atlanta.

We recently heard from H. Gordon Mor­gan, EE, who is in Venezuela with the Creole Petroleum Corp. He has been in Venezuela for the past nine years and is now project superintendent of a multimillion dollar refinery expansion project at Amuay Bay. Mr. Morgan has an 11-year-old daugh­ter and one-year-old son. His business ad­dress is c /o Creole Petroleum Corp., Los Piedras Amuay, Estado Falcon, Venezuela, South America.

'Af l BORN T O : Ralph J. Dames, ME, and •" Mrs. Dames, a son, Thomas Joseph,

Jan. 6. Their address is 35 So. Midland, Arlington, N. J. ' A 1 BORN T O : J. Harry Batson, C.E., and

• • Mrs. Batson, a daughter, Rebecca Ann, Feb. 2. Their address is 740 Launce-lot Rd., Jackson, Miss. Mr. Batson is with the Bridge Division, State Highway Depart­ment.

Charles E. Whitmer, ME, automotive engineer for Georgia Power Co., has been named design engineer in the firm's mechan­ical engineering department. His home ad­dress is 3042 Gordon Cir., Hapeville, Ga. 'A.1) B o R N T O : Walton Hardin and Mrs.

'*• Hardin, a daughter, Joni, February 16. Their mailing address is P. O. Box 389, Washington, Ga. ' A O T. E. Roberts, Jr., EE, has been

• » named technical director at the Ral­eigh Engineering Laboratories of the Amer­ican Machine & Foundry Co. > AC BORN T O : Wallace B. Shiver, Jr., IM,

•*» and Mrs. Shiver, a daughter, Jo Ellen, Jan. 30. Their address is 1185 Pine Ridge Rd., N. E., Atlanta. ' A 7 James Ingram, Jr., EE, manager of

* ' a development engineering depart­ment for IBM at Endicott, has been ap­pointed Development Engineer at the Endi­cott Laboratory. ' ^ Q ToyF. Reid, Ch.E., has been named

'" Kingsport, Tennessee's "Outstanding Young Man of the Year." His achievements during 1955 were divided into church, com­munity and service. Toy, a senior research chemical engineer in the Tennessee East­man Research Laboratories, lives at Rt. 3, Colonial Heights Rd., Kingsport, Tenn. ' C f l ENGAGED: George Nelson Lester, III, »*» EE, to Miss Virginia Bowen. The

wedding will take place April 14. Mr. Les­ter is associated with Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co. in Boston, Mass. His home address is 1344 Hyde Park Ave., Hyde Park, Mass. ' C I MARRIED: Lawrence Thomas Wil-*»l Hams, Jr., EE, to Miss Charlotte

Evans March 24. Their address is 3822 Julius Lane, Houston, Texas. ' C O BORN T O : Walter Leemann, ME, and " ^ Mrs. Leemann, a daughter, Cynthia

Margret, Jan. 8. Mr. Leemann's business address is c /o Brown Boveri Co., Dept 3A, Baden, Switzerland.

MARRIED: Robert Franklin White, CE, to Miss Helen Crawford, March 24. Mr. White is employed by Robert and Co., in Atlanta. ' C O Ben F. Brian, Jr., ME, recently com-*»'» pleted a tour of duty with the Air

Force and has returned to work with the Engineering Department of DuPont. His first assignment is with the Film Depart­ment at Columbia, Tenn. Mr. Brian lives

with his wife and 6-month-old daughter at 811 Trotwood Ave., Columbia, Tenn.

Louis E. Gates, Jr., Cere.E., is now a member of the technical staff of the Micro­wave Div., Hughes Aircraft Co., Culver City, Calif.

ENGAGED: Jerome Allen Holiber, IE, to Miss Caryl Lokolower. The wedding will take place April 29. Mr. Holiber is a super­visory safety engineer at N. Y. Naval Ship­yard, Brooklyn, N. Y. The couple will re­side at 398 East 54th St., Brooklyn 3, N. Y.

BORN T O : Gerald V. Joiner, CE, and Mrs. Joiner, a daughter, Nancy Elaine, Dec. 23. Mr. Joiner was separated from the service in December and is now with the U. S. Corps of Engineers testing laboratory in Marietta, Ga. Their address is 107 Hedges St., Marietta, Ga.

Charles E. Rowland, Phys., has been transferred to the Western Division of Car­ter Oil Co. His new address is 147 K St., Rock Springs, Wy.

Lt. Clifford T. Sego, Jr., EE, is a mem­ber of the Third Infantry Div. at Ft. Ben-ning, Ga. His permanent mailing address is 3043 Bransford Rd., Augusta, Ga. ' C 4 Lt. George G. Davis, ME, is now •* • taking part in the Army's Alaskan

"Exercise Moose Horn." He is regularly assigned as battalion maintenance officer with the 274th Field Artillery's Service Bn. in Alaska.

Lt. Joseph A. Daidone, Arch., is now serving with the 7th Chemical Co. in Ger­many. His address is APO 34, N. Y., N. Y.

Lt. Joe B. Hobart, ME, has graduated from the 10-week equipment maintenance officers' course at The Engineer School. Ft. Belvoir, Va.

Charles R. Beacham, '23, has been appointed

general sales manager of the Ford Division of

the Ford Motor Company. Mr. Beacham, who

last month celebrated his 30th anniversary with

Ford, has been Manager of Ford's Northeast

Sales since 1953. He will move to Detroit.

2 4 Tech Alumnus

R. Conway LeCraw, '48, a physicist at the Diamond Ordnance Fuse Laboratories, has just received the Department ot Army's very highest civilian award, the Army Decoration for Excep­tional Civilian Service.

>EE Lt. Stanley Thurston Cates, IM, was J J killed Feb. 8, 1956, in a jet crash

at Tyndall AFB, Panama City, Fla. The crash occurred only minutes after the T33 jet trainer left the Tyndall runway. It was on a return flight to Pinecastle AFB near Orlando where Lt. Cates served as com­munications officer of the 17th Tactical Mission Sq. The Tyndall control tower operator said the T33 apparently did not have its navigational lights on. He notified

the pilot and the lights went on. Then, as the ship was at an altitude of about 200 feet one wing tipped and the plane crashed in view of the tower and burned. Lt. Cates was a Distinguished Military Graduate at Georgia Tech and was very active in social and honorary fraternities. He is survived by his wife, Mrs. Geraldine Fuller Cates; parents, Mr. and Mrs. Walter Cates, of 2034 Springlake Dr., N. W., Atlanta; brother, George; sister, Jeanie, and grandparents.

Pvt. Kenneth S. Collinge, IE, recently graduated with honors from The Engineer School, Ft. Belvoir, Va. His permanent mailing address is Rt. 1, Rock Hill, S. C.

Pvt. William C. DeLoach, IE, was sched­uled to leave the U. S. for Germany in late March as part of Operation Gyroscope. He is with the 25th Signal Bn. His permanent address is 112 Broad St., Statesboro, Ga.

ENGAGED: Ens. Ronald Edwin Fincher, IE, to Miss Jacqueline Plant. Ens. Fincher is stationed at Pensacola. His permanent mailing address is 133 Barksdale Dr., N. E., Atlanta.

Navy Ens. Raymond J. Hennick, IM, has graduated from Pre-Flight School at Pen­sacola and is now stationed at Whiting Field for flight training. His permanent address is 2201 No. 7th St., Lake Worth, Fla.

Spec. 3/c John T. Pataky, IM, is a mem­ber of the Army's European Communica­tions Zone in France. His address is Hq. Co. USAREUR, Com. 2, 2966 Army Unit, G- l , APO 58, New York, N . Y.

James H. Walker, CE '39, has been named manager of the Land Department for United States Steel's Tennessee Coal and Iron Division. Moved up from the position of assistant man­ager of TCI's Land Department, Mr. Walker has been with them since his graduation.

MARRIED: Albert H. Twiss, Ch.E., to Miss Shirley Proctor, April 8. Mr. Twiss is associated with the Texas Co. in Houma, La. He will enter the Air Force June 1. »EC Gabriel J. Callol, ME, is associated **U with the Freeport Sulphus Co. His

mailing address is 810 Chartres St., New Orleans, La.

MARRIED: Gene P. Dryer, IM, to Miss Martha Ann Thurman, March 17.

We buy, sell, rent and exchange Electrical

Equipment. W e rewind and rebuild Electric

Motors, Generators, Transformers, Arma­

tures and all kinds of Electrical Apparatus to

Factory specifications.

W E A R E S T O C K I N G DISTRIBUTORS FOR GE WIRE CABLE, CONDUIT, F ITT INGS A N D GENERAL ELECTRIC

MOTORS, TRANSFORMERS A N D CONTROLS ALL IS -CHALMERS TEXROPE DRIVES

HARRINGTON COMPANY PEERLESS HOISTS S Y L V A N I A FLUORESCENT FIXTURES

ECONOMY FUSES - LAMPS A N D ACCESSORIES HUNTER CENTURY F A N S - O H I O CARBON BRUSHES

A L L TYPES OF W I R I N G DEVICES A N D MATERIALS

Augusta, Ga.

Electrical Equipment Company J. M. Cut!iff, E.E. '15, President and Gen. Manager

Laurinburg, N. C. Raleigh, N. C. — Home Office Richmond, Va.

March, 1956 25

Young engineers making news at

Richard C. Shafer, B.S. in mechanical engineering at Lehigh, was one of 16 engineers assigned to one of Western Electric's toughest post-war projects — developing manufacturing tech­niques for mass-producing (with great precision!) the t iny but amazing transistors which are a l ready causing a revolution in electronics.

Paul J. Gebhard, B.S. M.E. at the University of Mary land , was one of a team that helped d e v e l o p Wes te rn ' s new e l e c t r o f S r m i n g process for coating steel telephone wi re with copper, lead and brass in one continu­ous operat ion. His job : to develop conductor resistance-annealing equipment and electro­lyte f i l t rat ion and circulat ing systems.

Bobby L. Pettit (at right), an E.E. f rom Texas A. & M., is one of several hundred members of Western Electric's Field Engineering Force. These F.E.F. men can be found al l over the wor ld — work ing most closely with the Army, Navy and Air Force — advising on the instal­lat ion, operat ion and maintenance of com­plex electronic equipment made by W.E.

yftsW* Electro

W estern Electric's primary job — which goes 'way back to 1882 — is to make good telephone equipment that helps Bell telephone companies provide good service. It's a very big job — and a very important one — which calls for the pooling of varied types of engineering skills.

New manufacturing processes and methods are constantly required to produce better tele­phones, better central office equipment, better wires and cables, new types of electronic equip­ment to keep pace with the nation's ever-growing need for more and better telephone service at low cost.

In addition to doing our job as manufacturing unit of the Bell Telephone System, Western Electric is busy producing many types of elec­tronic equipment for the Armed Forces. Here again, young engineers of varied training are doing important work in connection with the manufacture of radar fire control systems, guided missile systems and special military communi­cations systems.

Western Electric offers career opportunities for engineers in all fields of specialization. For details write for a copy of "Your Opportunities at Western Electric". College Relations Dept, Room 1034, Western Electric Co., 195 Broad­way, New York 7, N. Y.

i f SBi"'.'

JfcmkTkli 'Altfmn

A SPECIAL ISSUE - The first half century of Architectural Education After thirty years of Devoted Service to Tech's School of Architecture, Director Harold Bush-Brown is retiring this June. In recognition of his and former directors' contribution to the school and to architectural education, an exhibition of photographs of selected work by Tech alumni is scheduled to open on April 29, 1956 here on the campus.

The exhibition was made possible by a grant from the Georgia Tech Foundation, Inc., and will contain outstanding examples of the architecture of the past fifty years by Georgia Tech men. Over 500 entries were received for the exhibition. And at this moment a jury composed of outstanding architectural educators is trying to narrow the group down to exhibition size.

Entitled, "A Half Century of Architectural Education," the exhibit and the behind-the-scenes story will be the feature of the May issue of the Georgia Tech Alumnus. Look for it in May.

SPANS CHALFANT —Conduit and E.M.T. CRESCENT —Wire , Cable and Cords STEEL CITY — O u t Boxes and Fittings WAGNER —E.M.T. Fittings KINDORF — Conduit & Pipe Supports

March, 1956 27

* : • r t

Refresh...add zest to tlie hour

&