CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING
NEWS
JANUARY
25,
1965
New Entry in Direct Digital Control Honeywell computer adds to flurry of action in process control method Honeywell is the latest name to emerge from the current maelstrom of activity surrounding direct digital control (DDC)—a process control concept fast becoming an accepted approach, at least in name. With the introduction last week of the Honeywell 20 computer system, the company is making a strong bid for a share of what many expect to be a sizable if as yet indefinable market. The Honeywell 20 system comes in two versions with prices right in the DDC ball park-$55,000 for the system with the Honeywell 21 central processor (20-bit word length, 6-microsecond memory cycle), and $70,000 for the system with the Honeywell 22 central processor (20-bit word length, 1.75-microsecond memory cycle). Perhaps most significant, however, is the development, for use with the system, of a new control programing language called CONTRAN. Honeywell claims it will cut programing costs drastically. Honeywell's move thus represents a milestone for potential DDC users, who have had to stay on their toes to follow the most recent flurry of DDC developments. Taylor Instruments, for one, though it has no tie-up with a computer manufacturer, is forming an industrial digital computer control section. The section will offer engineering services to anyone who wants to try direct digital control (see page 51). Just last month (C&EN, Dec. 28, 1964, page 2 5 ) , Bunker-Ramo concluded an agreement with Computer Controls Co. Bunker-Ramo will offer the Bunker-Ramo 335, which will be based on Computer Controls' DDP-116 made to Bunker-Ramo
specifications. The 335 system costs $50,000 to $150,000, handles 16-bit words, and has a memory cycle of 1.7 microseconds. Systems Engineering Laboratories, too, has entered the D D C market, with its Model 900. As far as the process industries go, the market for DDC is still a potential one. Honeywell, for example, says it has firm commitments already for more than 10 Honeywell 20 systems. These, however, include electric generating stations, foundries, textile finishing plants, and manufacturing operations whose products are discrete units. But it may not be long before the process industries open up. Evaluation of several experimental installations should be starting soon: Monsanto's at Chocolate Bayou, Tex. (using Westinghouse's Prodac 50 computer), Dow's at Midland, Mich, (using Foxboro's 97600), and Esso's at an undisclosed site (using Foxboro's 97400). Du Pont is also experiment-
ing with the control concept. Results of these evaluations could be the opening break for DDC in the process industries. Meanwhile, one indication of what might be ahead comes from England. Since 1962, Imperial Chemical Industries has been operating an experimental DDC installation at its soda ash plant at Fleetwood, using a Ferranti Argus computer system. Based on this experience, ICI last fall ordered six more Argus computers from Ferranti for DDC application. The first will be a trailer-mounted unit for evaluating the control concept on various processes, high-molecular-weight alcohols being the initial one. The second will be a permanent installation controlling a large distillation unit making high-purity hydrocarbon feedstocks. The third will operate a new plant making a new herbicide, and the fourth will be for a cement process. ICI has not yet specified uses for the final two.
Flames, Explosions May Power Chemical Lasers
oratories (Eindhoven, the Netherlands) have studied low-pressure oxyacetylene flames as means of exciting atoms and molecules. Promising species for initiating laser action when excited include C 2 and CH, the two scientists note. The use of electronically excited CN (produced by an atomic nitrogen flame reaction) to initiate laser action has been studied by Dr. T. T. Kikuchi of General Motors Defense Research Laboratories (Santa Barbara, Calif.) and Dr. H. P. Broida of the University of California, Santa Barbara. If the flame reaction is kept at low temperatures (about 77° K.), laser action at infrared and red wave lengths may be possible, their studies show. However, more experiments are needed to evaluate the necessary parameters at low temperature, they say. Dr. John A. Howe of Bell Telephone Laboratories (Murray Hill, N.J.) has
Scientists seek ways to get suitably excited species Atomic flame reactions and chemical explosions show promise for energizing chemical lasers, according to a series of papers that will appear soon in Applied Optics' Supplement on Chemical Lasers. A chemical laser that operates successfully has yet to be built, and not all workers in the field are optimistic about the prospects. But scientists are studying a number of chemical reactions that produce heavy populations of electronically excited atoms or molecules. These atoms or molecules may in turn initiate laser action. Dr. R. Bleekrode and Dr. W. C. Nieuwpoort of Philips Research Lab-
J A N . 25, 1965 C&EN
23
examined exploding mixtures of oxygen with carbon monoxide, with hydrogen, with methane, and with ethylene. So far, he has found no evidence of laser oscillation. More encouraging results with chemical explosions have come from a group at Interphase CorporationWest, Palo Alto, Calif. There, Dr. Irwin Wieder, Dr. R. R. Neiman, and Dr. A. P. Rodgers, studying the infrared and ultraviolet radiation emitted by excited species in lowpressure gaseous oxygen-acetylene explosions, found that the explosions increased the population of several electronic transitions in CH and OH radicals. In the IR, the emission from the excited C 0 2 molecules gives evidence of a higher population of the high vibrational levels of C 0 2 molecules. More details on findings in chemical laser research will appear in the Feb. 8 issue of C&EN.
FMC Approached to Sell Plant to U.S.S.R. FMC Corp. admits that it was approached to sell a chemical plant, such as a carbon disulfide plant, to the Soviet Union. However, a company spokesman says FMC is not now negotiating with the U.S.S.R. In fact, the matter is in the hands of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The situation evolved last week when L. A. Kostandov, a Soviet official, told a news conference that talks with FMC were aimed at buying a complete chemical plant. FMC says the inquiry involved nonstrategic processes that the company has licensed around the world. FMC will do nothing further until it receives specific authorization and approval from the Department of Commerce. The FMC spokesman says that the Soviet interest in FMC processes may have stemmed from visits by FMC executives to the Soviet Union in the past two months. The company will name neither the executives nor their positions, but it does say that one attended a business conference in Moscow and the other was on an "informal visit." During their visits both executives received inquiries from Soviet officials concerning various FMC processes. For more on trade with the Eastern Bloc, see page 2 1 . 24
C&EN
JAN.
25,
1965
MCA Opposes Water Quality Standards Says proposal means federal pre-emption of water pollution control Last week most of Congress was in a state of suspended animation caused by the festivities surrounding the Presidential inauguration. But not Sen. Edmund S. Muskie (D.-Me.). Despite the general atmosphere of festival euphoria, he called a hearing on his bill (S. 4) to strengthen control of water pollution. What's more, he indicated that this would be the only major hearing to be held on S. 4 by his subcommittee. Sen. Muskie pointed out that the major provisions of S. 4—to create a special division within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to handle all aspects of water pollution control; to increase grants for municipal sewage treatment projects; and to provide a way to set quality standards for interstate waters—are identical with those of S. 649, a bill he introduced in the 88th Congress. This bill passed the Senate (69 to 11), but did not come up for debate in the House. Thus Sen. Muskie sees no reason to waste time in protracted hearings, because all views on the proposal were thoroughly explored in the last Congress. Predictably, representatives of H E W backed the bill in all particulars as did Gov. Edmund G. Brown of California and Louis S. Clapper of the National Wildlife Federation. Industry witnesses supported the goals of the bill but objected strongly to sections that would give the Federal Government more control over water pollution. Debate. What was billed as a panel discussion among representatives of the Manufacturing Chemists' Association, the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Institute, and the National Wildlife Federation turned out to be a debate between MCA and Sen. Muskie. Wearied by an hourlong colloquy between the Senator and MCA's A. J. vonFrank, the leadoff speaker, the committee permitted the other panelists to read their statements without interrogation. The part of S. 4 that bothers MCA, Mr. vonFrank says, is the section that would authorize the Secretary of H E W to set standards of water quality for interstate streams and portions
thereof. This could mean that these standards would be binding through the conference and hearing board stages of a pollution enforcement proceeding conducted under the present Federal Water Pollution Control Act and could be challenged in court only as to practicability and feasibility. If this is so, he says, it amounts to federal pre-emption of water pollution control in direct conflict with the spirit—if not the letter—of the present law respecting state responsibilities. Partnership. What MCA wants is to give states a stronger voice in pollution proceedings, taking the federal-state partnership approach instead of permitting the Federal Government to dominate. Sen. Muskie, unconvinced by MCA, pointed out that the water quality standards to be set by H E W would be used as a guide in enforcement proceedings; implementation would be up to the hearing board and the courts exactly as under present law. Sen. Muskie castigated MCA for its states' rights views. "You don't believe in any federal authority over state streams," he charged. "You want the power left at the state level and the only way to give the states more voice in pollution proceedings would be to give them veto power over the Federal Government. Under your proposal, H E W would always be outvoted." In Sen. Muskie's opinion, the Federal Government must have authority to act, or H E W recommendations would mean little. PANEL. MCA's A. J. vonFrank (second from right) plays leading role in panel discussion of pollution
