TECHNOLOGY
Large Computers Gain Favor with Engineers Computers become more entrenched as engineering tools, but training that engineers need remains unsettled The chemical industry is steadily expanding its use of computers in engineering development and design. The trend in hardware selection is toward large, general-purpose machines for this use. But there is little agreement yet on the best way to channel problems from the engineer to the computer. International Business Machines typifies the trend in hardware design with its System/360. This series of general-purpose computers is intended to replace almost all of the firm's present line (C&EN, April 13, page 3 6 ) . Many of its present models were designed primarily to process business data, others to carry out scientific calculations. The new machines process both kinds of work equally well, IBM says, because of more versatile internal design and a wider choice of accessories usable with a given model. System/360 includes machines with almost double the capability of any present IBM computer. Earlier this year, Digital Equipment Corp. introduced its largest computer to date. The PDP-6 ranges in price from about $300,000 to about $1.25 million, depending on memory capacity and accessories. The Maynard, Mass., firm also offers a much smaller computer, the PDP-5, designed primarily for scientific use. It sells for about $24,000 and up. While it is capable of engineering design work, the PDP-5 has been applied mostly to process control and on-line experiment monitoring. The new PDP-6 is a general-purpose machine. Machine Design. Digital computers for scientific work generally have a large arithmetic and logic capability. Scientific computers often must handle numbers varying greatly in magnitude, such as concentrations of components near one end of a fractionating column. Floating-point operation enables the machine to manipulate such widely differing quantities easily. 48
C&EN
MAY
4,
1964
Machines for business data processing have simpler arithmetic capability, to match the less-involved calculations of inventory accounting and similar business computations. But they are designed to handle very large volumes of data, since operations such as inventory checking and customer billing often must be completed in a short time at the end of each accounting period. General Purpose. One reason for the trend away from such specialized machines is that technical and business processing requirements are growing more similar. The use of online accounting methods, for continuous updating of computer-stored business records, means a smoother distribution of input and output data over the whole accounting period. Engineering departments, on the other hand, are making more and more use of the record-keeping function of their computers—store and retrieve cost estimate data and increasingly large masses of technical data for example. Meanwhile, machines are appearing that can manipulate business and scientific data with about equal ease. The data-handling capability of a digital computer increases considerably faster with size than does hardware cost. A typical figure might be five times the capability for half again the cost, one chemical company points out. Increased capability cuts computer operating cost. Procter & Gamble's engineering division, for example, currently uses an IBM 1620 to develop programs and to process one-shot engineering problems. Most of its major computer work, however, is handled along with business work on an IBM 7080 at P&G's corporate data center. Rental rates for a 7080, currently IBM's largest business-oriented machine, begin at about $45,000 per month. Its low operating cost, however, makes it attractive for P&G's scientific calculations as well. Scientific applications have been an
important factor enabling P&G to upgrade its corporate data center equipment. P&G feels it has thus benefited materially from the shrinking difference between scientific and business computers. Occasionally, P&G also rents time on a nearby 7094—for further cost savings and to balance the business load on the 7080. This relation of capacity to size leads to another reason cited by chemical firms for the swing toward general-purpose computers. By using one machine for both scientific and business loads, a firm has more machine capability than it could get with two smaller machines for the same money. A Union Carbide computer specialist sums it up this way: "A sprinkling of small, independent computers throughout a company is coming to be a luxury." Some computer makers, however, don't go along with these trends in hardware design. Honeywell, for example, has just introduced its H-300, a computer designed for scientific use. The firm previously offered generalpurpose machines only. The H-300 rents for about $2900 per month and up. This compares with IBM's 1620, which rents for about $1600 and up and can be purchased for $74,500 and up. The 1620 was designed originally for scientific use, but has been modified for business use as well. Pacific Data Systems, another believer in specialized computers, last month brought out an engineering computer priced at $21,500 (C&EN, April 6, page 51). For direct use by engineers, the 1020 features keyboard operation as well as internal program storage. PDS feels that the 1020 is profitable for problems that are tedious to solve manually, but are not complex enough to justify a wait for machine time on a large computer. The company points to Aerospace Corp. and Boeing as examples of companies with large computers which have also purchased 1020*5. There have been few sales to chemical firms.
Open Shop. Du Pont, Union Carbide, Dow, Monsanto, Celanese Chemical, P&G, and Esso Research & Engineering are among the firms that encourage open-shop computer operation. This means that an engineer may write his own program and submit it along with his data directly to a computer operator for processing. A group of computer specialists is generally available in such an operation for consultation and for writing more complex programs. Esso feels that engineering computer operations go smoother when the engineer with the problem knows something about computer requirements. The computer specialist, in turn, has the background to understand engineering problems. Roughly half of the company's engineering department professionals have received some training in program writing. Most of its central computer group are engineers; a few are mathematicians. Esso finds that in most cases, engineers preparing problems for machine solution request a fair amount of assistance from the central computer group. Computer processing of problems in Union Carbide's engineering groups began in the mid-fifties with a completely open shop. The use of larger machines and the need for the expertise of the specialist in devising standard programs led to the creation of a central computer group in 1960. From 5 to 10% of the engineers at the company's South Charleston, W.Va., technical center have had some training in writing programs. Carbide admits that its central group can turn out a program in one day that might require two weeks' work by an engineer who has had the brief programing course. But an engineer can communicate his problems much more quickly to central-group specialists, the company feels, when he has had some familiarization with programing. Closed Shop. As a firm builds its library of standard programs—for example, sizing heat exchangers or analyzing piping stresses—the engineer often can choose a ready-made program to match his needs. Some firms have adopted a closed-shop system, where their engineers can select such programs and submit them with data directly to the computer operator. When a new program is required, the engineer doesn't write it himself, but submits his problem to the central computer group. B. F. Goodrich
Chemical, Foster Wheeler, and M. W. Kellogg are among the firms that operate on this basis. Kellogg says its central group not only writes all the programs produced within the company but initiates more than half of them as well. About 20% of Kellogg's IBM 7070 machine time is spent on new program development, more than 60% on job and estimate work, and the rest on other development efforts. Foster Wheeler emphasizes the use of standard programs by its engineers, has offered little training in programing outside its central computer group. Kellogg gave a two-to-three day programing course to 15 of its 400 engi-
neers more than a year ago and hopes to give another such course. Kellogg also plans a familiarization course for R&D personnel this summer. These firms are concentrating on the development of large-scale programs for optimizing the design of entire processing units, including reactors, heat exchangers, compressors, still columns, and similar equipment. At Kellogg, almost no one-shot programs are written, regardless of the timeTequired to solve the problem manually. Kellogg and Foster Wheeler feel that their computers are best used when their full capabilities are occupied with such large-scale programs.
CHECK DATA. Anthony Vacca, computer operator for Kellogg, and Sidney Frank, the firm's process manager of the organic chemical department (right), discuss design data obtained from Kellogg's IBM 7080 general-purpose computer MAY
4, 1 9 6 4
C&EN
49
Instrument Development Engineers Needed by IPD Ά . U.È. MT. on.
"IPD"? Du Pont? Yes, the Du Pont Company is now a supplier of instruments. We've organized a new division, the Instrument Products Division— IPD for short. Right now it's just a nucleus of engineers, salesmen, scientists and technicians— but it's growing. We may be new in selling instruments. But not in developing them. Du Pont creates many of the instruments used in its own plants and laboratories. That's how our first product came into being: the Du Pont Photometric Analyzer. And our second: the Differential Thermal Analyzer. Both have features no other commercial instruments offer. But we've barely begun. That's where you come in. We need engineers like you, to work on development of industrial and scientific instruments, involving electronic circuitry, precision mechanisms and optical designs. To qualify, you should have an advanced degree in engineering or other science, with at least 5 years' experience in an 50
C&EN
M A Y 4, 1 9 6 4
instrument development laboratory or research organization. You should have the ability to develop instruments employing physical or chemical phenomena and automatic control techniques. These instruments are to serve the fields of analytical chemistry, process control, or scientific laboratory research. Specialization in one of the following fields is desirable: ft Electronic circuit development and design ft Instrumental methods of chemical analysis ft Measurement and control instrumentation ft Mechanical design for instrumentation You are invited to send a resume to or request an application form from: Jack G. Buckley Instrument Products Division E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (Inc.) 2102 Northeast Blvd. Wilmington, Delaware 19898 A n equal opportunity employer
Goodrich Chemical runs a mixture of scientific and business work on a GE 225 at Cleveland, Ohio, under a closed-shop system. From 200 to 300 programs a day are processed, and Goodrich feels that the machine time of such a dual-purpose computer op eration is used most efficiently in a closed shop. Training. The brief programing courses given by most of these firms to their engineers have not been effective in turning out programers. Typically, only 5 or 10% of those trained find ap plications and produce programs in their regular work. The intent of this training often is to acquaint engineers with computer capabilities, not to pro duce an accomplished programer. But the consensus is that knowing how to set up a problem for machine solution does not, in itself, produce a good understanding of the ways in which the computer can be useful. Du Pont, which has trained several hundred engineers in programing courses up to two weeks long, is tak ing a new approach. Emphasis now is on more general training in problem analysis—how to write adequate mathematical descriptions of physical processes. Interested engineers are then encouraged to work through brief self-training in programing. Union Carbide has tried supple menting its two-day programing course for engineers with shorter ses sions in more general computer sub jects, but hasn't found it to be effec tive. Carbide's new approach, not yet implemented, would give trainees a more intensive, college-level course in capabilities and programing. Typically, training in programing has been open to all engineers who expressed interest. One goal of Carbide's new plan would be to have at least one computer-trained engineer in each group within the engineering departments. P&G began its engineering compu ter operation with this idea. At least one engineer in each department of the division received a four-day pro graming course followed by several days of practical exercises. Each would then screen the work in his de partment for possible application and write many of the programs. De pending on work load, from three to five engineers spend full time in con sultation and programing for the di vision at large. About 20% of the division's technical people have been trained so far.
