ANALYTICAL GHEMISTRV
EDITORIAL
February 1960, Vol. 32, No. 2 APPLIED JOURNALS, ACS Direcfor of Publications, C. B. Larrabee Ediforiol Direcfor, Richard 1. Kenyon Execufive Edifor, James M. Crawe Assisfont fo fhe Direcfor of Publicafions, Joseph H. Kuney Assisfonf to fhe Editorial Director, Robert F. Gould
____-
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY Edifor, Lawrence T. Hallett Manoging Editor, Robert G. Gibbs EDITORIAL HEADQUARTERS WASHINGTON 6, D. C. 1155 Sixteenth St., N.W. Teletype W A 23 Phone REpublic 7-3337 Associafe Edifors: 0. Gladys Gordon, Stella Anderson, Katherine 1. Biggs, Robert J. Riley, Ruth M. Howorth, Eugenia Keller, Sue M. Solliday, Ruth Reynard Assisfonf Edifors: Robert J. Kelley, Malvina B. Preiss Ediforial Assisfanfs: Katherine H. Ginnane, Virginia E. Stewart, S. S. Rogers, Lorraine M. Bertuzzi Loyouf ond Production: Melvin D. Buckner (Art); Betty V. Kieffer, Leroy 1. Corcaran, John V. Sinnett BRANCH EDITORIAL OFFICES CHICAGO 3, ILL. Room 926,36 South Wabash Ave. Teletype CG 725 Phone STate 2-5148 Associate Editors: Howard J. Sanders, Chester Placek, James H. Krieger HOUSTON 2, TEX. 71 8 Melrose Bldg. Teletype HO 72 Phone FAirfax 3-7107 Associote Edifors: Bruce F. Greek, Earl V. Anderson NEW YORK 16, N. Y. 2 Park Ave. Phone ORegon 9-1646 Teletype N Y 1-4726 Associofe Edifors: William Q. Hull, Harry Stenerson, David M. Kiefer, D. Gray Weaver, Walter S. Fedor,Laurence J.White, louis A. Agnello SAN FRANCISCO 4, CALIF. 703 Mechanics’ Institute Bldg., 57 Post St. Phone EXbrook 2-2895 Teletype SF 549 Associofe Edifor: Richard 0. Newhall Assisfont Editor: Joseph Sturchio EASTON, PA. 20th and Northampton Sts. Phone Blackburn 8-91 1 1 Teletype ESTN Pa 7048 Associofe Editor: Charlotte C. Sayre Assisfont Edifor: Joyce A. Richards Ediforiol Assisfonfs: Elizabeth R. Rufe, Barbara A. Conover EUROPEAN OFFICE Bush House, Aldwych, London Cable JIECHEM Phone Temple Bar 3605 Associafe Edifor: Albert S. Hester Assisfonf Editor: Brendan F. Somerville
Wedding Instruments to Chemical Methods Instrumenting manual methods instead of using new approach is weakness in chemical instrumentation
The first automobiles consisted of motors attached to buggies. They had big wheels, and cloth canopies and tillers to drive them. The motor was merely a substitute for the horse. It took some time before the automobile as we know i t today was designed around the new method of propulsion. It seems to us that present-day applications of instrumentation to the solution of chemical problems are somewhat reminiscent of the first automobiles. Instead of developing methods and techniques around the properties of instruments, attempts are made to apply instruments to existing methods, A typical example might be the routine determination of one metallic constituent in an alloy. ,4 JTell known procedure is used n-hich is standardized to the point where the determination is the routine job of a technician. This, then, is a procedure which is done on a repetitive basis and where the variables are fixed. To automate it, what do we do? We develop instruments to duplicate the manual operations. Sometimes the new system n-orks. Sometimes it has a lot of n-eaknesses. The instrumental method is then refined and finally we get out of the horse and buggy >tage and get to the m od ern stream lined version, The question is, do n-e need to go through an evolution? Do we have mental blinders which prevent us from taking a new technique and putting i t to n-ork in a neTv way? Instead of trying to instrument a iiianual process, should we not t r y a nen- approach? I n the determination a t hand, what are we seeking? We want t o determine the amount of a given metal constituent in an alloy. Horn about a fresh approach? Why not look a t all the variables involved and choose those n-hich are amenable to an instrumental approach. It is quite possible that we will come back to automciting the manual method. I n many cases, however, we may come up r i t h something much different and much more efficient. I n short, we believe that instrumentation as applied to analysis is a powerful tool. It should not be the engine attached to an oldfashioned buggy but the basis of wholly new systems.
Confribufing Editor: R. H. Muller Advisory Boord: W. H. Beamer, F. E. Beamish, C. E. Bricker, W. D. Cooke, D. D. DeFord, M. T. Kelley, C. 1. Luke, W. M. MacNevin, W. J. Mader, W. B. Mason, F. W. Mitchell, Jr., N. H. Nachtrieb, E. J. Rosenbaum, B. F. Scribner, F. H. Stross Adverfising Monogemenf REINHOLD PUBLISHING CORP. (For Branch Offices see page 159 A’ VOL. 32, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 1960
145
