The Phenomenal Growth in Instrumentation recent visit to the 22nd Exposition of the Chemical 0 Industries in New York’s Grand Central Palace made us UR
recall the old cliche of the vacuum cleaner salesman: “Push the button, and the machine does the rest.” Instrumentation for analytical research and process purposes has not only arrived but is rapidly becoming sophisticated. It refuses any longer to be considered a n intriguing “gadget,” but demands the mature careful consideration and respect that an eqtablished technology deserves. One indication of maturity in a technically based field is a tendency toward subspecialization. If so, instrumentation, using the term in its broadest sense, has reached a readily recognizable state of maturity. Anyone viewing the astonishing variety of instrumentation on display a t the exposition would be deeply impressed with the advances in instrumentation made in the past two years. Measuring devices for work on radioactive materials have taken on uniformity of design in a manner reminiscent of the history of p H meters. iinother indication was the further widening of the split between laboratory and process instrumentation, a complementary separation that is bound t o benefit both fields b y allowing them t o intensify the development of devices that fill their individual requirements more satisfactorily. Kature abhors a vacuum and already there are indications that the chasm between laboratory and process instrumentation will be filled by the efforts of a school of pilot plant level instrumentation. This, after all, is a desirable situation, for if raw materials and equipment must run the gamut of laboratory to pilot plant to production scale, why not the instruments that indicate and control the vital steps of a process? Another development that impressed us a t the exposition was the growth of distinction between research and control instruments a t the laboratory level. The United States, in its penchant for production line methods, has been too wont to confuse and strive to incorporate the purposes of research and control in one instrument. This was especially true during the war years, when it seemed that everyone concerned himself with the production of instruments so simple that “even a night school art student could operate them.” Simplicity of instrument design is not t o be decried, but the fact remains that more often than not real instrumentation progress results from studies made on a universal and probably complex research instrument. W e noticed a happy blending of formal training in cheniistry, physics, electronics, and mechanics in many of the representatives of the instrument companies who displayed their wares a t the exposition. This is a favorable development, for it means that instrumentation will be in a position to anticipate and meet the demands of many branches of science in a highly satisfactory manner.
KO objective appraisal of a subject is complete without a t least one note of well intended constructive criticism. I n this instance m-e mention the lack of interchangeability of parts as our pertinent complaint. There doesn’t seem t o be a valid reason why manufacturers of instruments of a similar type should not a t least t r y to tie in the design of their units and auxiliary parts r i t h those of other manufacturers. At present interchangeability is practiced to only a limited extent. If this were increased, all the parties concerned would benefit and much of the friction that faces progress in instrumentation would be erased. The birth, adolescence, and maturity of instrunlentation bring a sigh of regret only to those \Tho have a sentimental attachment to the classical “wet method” type of analysis. The modern analyst, however, mill continue to examine, accept, improve, or reject any given instrumental method on the basis of whether or not it helps him in his quest. TT’e do not intend to infer, hon-ever, that the classical methods are no longer important. They certainly provide us, in many instances, n-ith the means of knowing the accuracy of faster physicocliemical methods. Conservation of the analyst’s time is important, indeed essential for many reaqons. One reason, of course, is econoiny. Of greater significance is the obvious fact that large-scale continuous process operations could not be employed i f ways and means for performing fast yet accurate analyses of a repetitive nature mere not available. Our sincere congratulations to the scientific apparatus manufacturers for the progress so much in evidence a t the Exposition of Chemical Industries.
Advisory Board Changes welcome to our Advisory Board two new meiiiber$, Philip J. Elving of the Pennsylvania State College, and K a y n e A. Kirklin, manager of the analytical division of the Hercules Experiment Station, Wilmington, Del. Edward K c h e r s , Sational Bureau of Standards, currently filling the unexpired portion of G. E. F. Lundell‘s term, has been appointed to the board for a four-year period. Philip J. Elving and Wayne A. Kirklin need no introduction to the readers of AXALYTICAL CHENISTRY.Both have served the Division of Analytical Chemistry in many capacities, including the chairmanship of the division. Both have attended meetings of the advisory board representing the division. Both have contributed in a major way t o the deliberations of the board. To R. P. Chapman of the American Cyanamid Company, J. R. Churchill of the Aluminum Company of America, and G. E. F. Lundell, retiring from the board, our sincere thanks for their untiring efforts in behalf of the journal. E
1439
