Sciences : histoire orale

HIRSCH Peter, 2002-12-12

Sophie Jourdin — 2011-11-04T14:03:56Z

Professor Sir Peter Hirsch.

—

BERNADETTE BENSAUDE-VINCENT (BBV) : Could you tell me about how metallurgy developed in Oxford and how it grew into Materials Science ?

PETER HIRSCH (PH) : Let me first say a few words about the way I see the early developments of Materials Science in the UK. There were various trends that came together after the War. First of all there was Professor Nevill Mott in Bristol, developing Solid State Physics. His interests included inter alia defects and how they influence properties of materials. He had important activities on properties related to point defects and on the photographic effect. In the course of these studies they also developed techniques for visualizing dislocations. The group included Charles Frank, a physical chemist by training who was a material scientist par excellence. He developed a theory of crystal growth. Then there was Nabarro who worked on dislocations. So in Bristol they worked on defects, dislocations, crystal growth, the photographic effect, and also optical properties of crystals.

BBV : Where were they based ?

PH : In the Physics department at Bristol University. It was Solid State Physics. The electron theory of metals was developed there too. And Jacques Friedel was there for some time. In my opinion Solid State Physics opened the way to Materials Science. In parallel with this there was the group in the Metallurgy Department in Birmingham, lead by Alan Cottrell. He is much more of a materials scientist than I am. He was subsequently instrumental in developing Materials Science in Cambridge. His activity in Birmingham was very important because his group attempted to explain mechanical properties in terms of disclocation theory. And the third trend was what happened here in Oxford through Hume-Rothery's classic work on electron phases of alloys. He stimulated work on electron theory of metals and alloys in Physics Departments elsewhere. He was trained as a chemist.

BBV : So it came out of these three trends ?

PH : These are the main three. I may be unfair to other groups but these were the most influential groups.
There was some Metal Physics going on in the Cavendish Laboratory after the war. Bragg, who was Head of Department was of course an X-Ray crystallographer. In order to understand the intensities of diffraction spots on an X-Ray diffraction photograph, it had to be assumed that the crystals were not perfect, i.e. that crystals consisted of mosaic blocks. This was based on a theory by Darwin (1914) of the intensities of diffracted X Rays. Bragg published a note in the 1940s on the relationship between strength and particle size (mosaic blocks) in crystals. There were two groups in the Cavendish in the Metal Physics field when I came in 1946. One was Bragg's little group which developed the bubble-model, typical of Bragg's simple but brilliant ideas. Another group was Orowan's Metal Physics group which studied plasticity, fracture, creep, those sorts of topics.

BBV : It is in the Cavendish Laboratory that you started your career, isn't ?

PH : It was 1946 when I joined and there were several activities. My own work started from Bragg's interest in work hardening (when you deform a metal it becomes stronger). I actually went into the Crystallography Department of the Cavendish to work on a PhD problem that Bragg gave me. It was conceptually very simple. If you take a metal and work it, does it break up into smaller blocks ? Bragg always had very simple and brilliant ideas. If the crystal breaks up into smaller blocks (subgrains) the diffraction pattern consists of individual spots from each little subgrain. If you make the beam small enough you illuminate such a small number that you will get a few spots on the diffraction ring, whereas, with too large a beam diameter you get a continuous ring due to overlapping spots. You can count the spots (on discontinuous rings) and deduce the size of the particles. That was the project. It did actually work for heavily cold worked aluminium. We derived a particle size of 2 microns. By the time we managed to do all this by X ray diffraction, Bragg had lost interest in it. He did not actually supervise me. Bragg was interested in proteins at that point. My formal supervisor was W.H. Taylor who was head of the Crystallography Department. His interest was the structure of minerals.

BBV : When you worked in Cambridge did you consider yourself as a crystallographer ?

PH : I was a physicist working in a department of crystallography. In those days most conventional crystallographers determined crystal structures. I was one of the relatively few people not doing that.
By the time we found that cold worked aluminium breaks into subgrains, Heidenreich at the Bell Laboratories published the first pictures of metals by Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM). He observed directly the little subgrains in heavily beaten aluminium foil. That depressed us very much because we needed exposures of many hours for our x-ray diffraction photographs, while he had a ten second exposure with his electron microscope. So we went into this field of TEM and finally we saw individual dislocations. This had a big impact because there were many metallurgists who did not believe in dislocations, who considered them as figments of the imagination of solid state physicists working out theories in tremendous detail without much supporting experimental evidence. With our technique you could see dislocations directly and see them move. And we made movies. I remember showing a movie at MIT to Bert Warren who was a well-known X Ray crystallographer. His comment was symptomatic of many metallurgists. Seing is believing. We converted people.

BBV : In terms of institutions could you describe the shift from Metallurgy to Materials departments ?

PH : There were many Metallurgy departments in this country : Sheffield, Birmingham, Imperial College, to mention a few. The activities of the groups that I mentioned gave an impetus. But an important impetus came from the United States. Bill Baker and Herbert Holloman in particular had this vision of multidisciplinary activities leading to the development of better materials, whiskers, ceramics etc.. An enormous amount of money was spent at General Electric, and Bell Telephone and the Ford Motor Company. When Alan Cottrell became Professor in Cambridge that was the real beginning of an institutional effort to develop Materials Science in this country. In my opinion that was the defining moment. Alan Cottrell left Birmingham in 1955 and went to work at the Atomic Energy Authority at Harwell where he worked on uranium and materials for nuclear reactors. Then he became Goldsmith Professor of Metallurgy in Cambridge in 1958. He started projects on ceramics and composite materials. Tony Kelly joined him to work in these areas. Alan Cottrell ‘s interest in composite materials probably stemmed partly from activities in the US but mainly from his own views on strong materials. He also supported work on superconductors. His initiative to work on different types of materials was probably the beginning of the shift from metallurgy to materials science in Universities in this country.

BBV : Could you tell something about the implementation of Materials Science here in Oxford ?

PH : The department of Metallurgy and an Honour School in Metallurgy were started by the University in 1957. Jack Christian wrote a paper on the early history (Materials World, April1997) when the department celebrated its 40th anniversary. You see from this that Hume-Rothery started as a chemist and worked in the Inorganic Chemistry Department. But he was interested in metallic phases. The idea of a separate department arose gradually. Jack Christian was appointed as demonstrator in 1951 and initially lectured on metallurgical topics to chemists. Metallography was a supplementary subject in the Chemistry Honour School. Then the Pressed Steel Company at Oxford established a readership in metallurgy named after George Kelley. Hume-Rothery became the first George Kelley reader in 1954. Jack Christian was appointed lecturer in 1955, then John Martin came from Cambridge and joined in 1957, followed by Angus Hellawell. There was a move to increase the Engineering School and to develop a Department of Metallurgy. Francis Simon who was professor of physics here was keen to establish something on the lines of the Laboratory for the Study of Metals in Chicago, which was famous in those days. Chicago was a research institute, not a teaching department, just a research institute for postgraduates. This is what Simon had in mind for Oxford. However, the industrial advisors expressed the view that we needed to educate metallurgists to go into industry. British industry wanted a teaching department. Monty Finniston, who was at the time the head of the metallurgy division at AERE Harwell and later became chairman of British Steel, made approaches to the Wolfson Foundation for financial support. The result was the establishement of the Isaac Wolfson Chair in Metallurgy which Hume-Rothery held until his retirement in 1966.
At the same time the condition that the Wolfson foundation made for giving the money for the Chair was that the University Grants Committee, an organization distributing the money from the Department of Education to the Universities, should provide the funds for the building. Funds were provided by the University Grants Committee and the building was opened in 1959. Initially the Honour School was a Joint Honour School in Chemistry and Metallurgy, which subsequently became Metallurgy. There is an interesting quote in Jack Christian's paper which indicates the University's unease with technology at that time. The Honour School should teach « no more technology than is involved in the degree courses of chemistry and physics » and it stated that « the man who has studied pure science at a university can take up technology on entering industry much more easily than one who has studied technology can later take up the pure science which may be required for his work ». It was still quite difficult to really expand engineering and to get a proper engineering metallurgy course at that time. The research that was going on here was on alloy phases (Hume-Rothery's research) ; John Martin worked on mechanical properties of alloys ; Angus Hellawell worked on solidification studies ; Jack Christian worked on phase transformations - the martensitic transformations - of metals and alloys, and also on plastic deformation of body centred cubic metals. So that was the development of metallurgy in Oxford before 1966. Clearly this department was a metallurgy department rather than a materials department. But Hume-Rothery's work was influential in encouraging solid state physicists to become interested in metals. He stimulated the understanding of the structures of metals and alloys on the basis of the fundamental electron theory of metals. He empirically developed some structure rules. He hoped that electron theory of metals would enable the prediction of the structures of metals and alloys and appointed a theoretical chemist, Simon Altmann, to work in this area.

BBV : And then you came in this Metallurgy department. Why did you move from Cambridge to Oxford ?

PH : I came in 1966. I was a physicist who had worked on electron microscopy of defects in materials. I had the opportunity to take a Cambridge chair or an Oxford chair. I decided to go to Oxford for two reasons. 1) I had been in Cambridge quite a long time (23 years) and a change opens new vistas. 2) The challenge was much greater here and my own predilection was always for building things up. The Cambridge Metallurgy department was a large and successful department built up by Alan Cottrell. In Oxford there was really a nucleus of a department (a distinguished one) and in principle one could do a job to build it up.
I had already built up a large research group in the Cavendish in Cambridge. When Bragg switched his interests to proteins (Perutz, Kendrew et al) Orowan left and went to MIT. I don't know the details but my impression is that Bragg did not work hard enough to get Orowan a senior permanent job. So the Metal Physics group in Cambridge folded up. Bragg's own little group folded up too. We made a significant effort to set up a new Metal Physics group at the Cavendish. The vision behind this was : We now had a technique to enable us to actually see with the TEM what is going on inside metals and one could see the defect distribution after deformation or irradiation of the material. One could then determine in principle what the properties of the materials were. That was the Holy Grail. There were three steps : 1) to try to understand the properties of the defects and how they interacted ; 2) to try understand how they control the macroscopic properties ; 3) if one understood the basic relation between defects and properties then one could eventually go further and predict what processing should be done to optimise properties. That was the vision but while we were successful in the first step, there was only limited success in the second step, and we never got as far as the third step.
When I came to Oxford, my aim was to get this technique of TEM - to see what goes on in the materials - transferred to a metallurgy/materials department. I wanted to get it closer to applications to « real » materials. Whereas physicists work on models, - on pure copper for instance, a metallurgy department should be looking at materials of interest technologically, such as alloys that are much closer to practical needs. My aim was to apply TEM to technologically interesting materials, real materials rather than the model materials that we looked at in Cambridge.
When I got here I did attempt to build up Materials Science. Right from the beginning my aim was to shift from metallurgy to materials science which should cover all kinds of materials and applications.

BBV : Where did this project come from ?

PH : There was no model course. We had to build this up incrementally. When I first came the University provided three new permanent posts, very generously. One was for Professor Whelan, to establish the electron microscopy group. One went to John Hunt, a solidification expert who had worked at Harwell and Bell Laboratories ; and another one was for Geoffrey Groves who worked on ceramics. Gradually we built up a Materials Department by securing more appointments. You have to realize that when I came in 1966 the number of staff was very small (4 faculty plus the Professor).The course developed gradually and changed from metallurgy to materials science. In the early years a considerable part of the teaching was carried out by research assistants or fellows supported on research grants or fellowships. The research activities were built up first, and the research groups then helped in the teaching of the Honour School.

BBV : When did you officially change the name of the department ?

PH : That was much later, 1990. The name of the Honour School was changed to Metallurgy and Science of Materials in1969 (The University would not accept "Materials Science" because Materials was not an adjective !).

BBV : Did you appoint chemists as well ?

PH : We didn't appoint chemists to teaching posts. We appointed metallurgists and physicists. But we did appoint a chemist to a research post in the department, in high resolution electron microscopy. When I retired in 1992 the department consisted mainly of metallurgists or materials scientists and physicists or ex-physicists. We appointed inter alia people who had expertise in semiconductors, superconductors, magnetic materials, materials processing, corrosion. Gradually we extended the scope of the courses in the department. The one sticking point was polymers. For a very long time we could not get a good polymer scientist. It has changed now. We now have two polymer scientists.

BBV : Did you have contacts with John Goodenough who came to the chemistry department in 1973 ?

PH : We did have contacts but we probably did not make the best of the opportunity. In this department we were more interested in the effect of microstructure on materials, metals, ceramics, semiconductors, superconductors, magnetic materials etc., rather than e.g. in the intrinsic magnetic properties of perovskites and other materials. Our interests were not sufficiently close. We became a Materials Department in that we were concerned with the effects of microstructure on properties of a wide range of materials of technological interest and with the effects of defects on devices. The work on superconductors was initially on low temperature superconductors, but later on high temperature superconductors, and the more recent studies focused on processing. There was some interaction with the Inorganic Chemistry Laboratory on electron microscopy of catalysts and superconductors.

BBV : Did you keep a close link between courses and research in the department ?

PH : Yes. We started as a metallurgy department. We built up a number of research groups, and the expertise in some of these, e.g. semiconductor and magnetic materials, enabled us to teach courses on these topics and broaden the curriculum to Materials Science. At some point we had a group working on cements, and this too led to a course in the Honour School. And there were always undergraduate and postgraduate courses on materials characterisation, where we had particular strengths. In the 1980s, I became more interested in the output end, in getting closer to the engineers.

BBV : Did you train students in engineering ?

PH : The engineers had their own faculty to teach materials to Engineers. But we did some teaching for them, and over some years they taught polymers for us. In the mid 1980s we started a joint course with the Engineers on Electronic and Structural Materials Engineering, changed to Engineering and Materials in 1992. This led to closer collaboration with the Engineers in teaching and research.

BBV : Did you also have contacts with the nuclear physics department in Oxford ?

PH : The only contact we had with the Nuclear Physics Laboratory in Oxford was on their proton microprobe, a materials characterisation tool, and fairly recently this activity was transferred to our department.

We had a lot of contacts with Harwell. From 1973 onwards I got very much involved with the study of the integrity of pressurized water reactors through the Marshall Committee. From 1982 to 1984 I became part-time chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority. This period had a strong influence on me. I felt the need to produce materials engineers, not only materials scientists. I learned during my period with the Atomic Energy Authority that the education of engineers in materials tended to be relatively poor. And this could result in inappropriate component design or manufacture. These problems sometimes led to costly mistakes. In order to develop a joint activity between engineers and metallurgists we got some support from the engineering department. To cut a long and difficult story short, we took an opportunity which presented itself around that time in the form of additional funding for engineering courses from the Government to start a course on Electronic and Structural Materials Engineering.

BBV : Was it in the 1980s ?

PH : Yes.

BBV : Did you then feel the need to add « engineering » in the name of the department on the lines of the departments in US universities that are called Materials Science and Engineering with an emphasis on the E of Engineering ?

PH : What happened here is that we developed a multiplicity of courses to provide more options for the undergraduates to increase our intake. The courses were Metallurgy and the Science of Materials, then Metallurgy, Economics and Management (1979), and finally Engineering and Materials. There is close collaboration between us and engineering through the teaching and contacts in research. This depends on individual contacts of course. In the 1980s we set up with the Engineers the Oxford Centre for Advanced Materials and Composites (OCAMAC) to foster collaborative research and contacts with industry. There is now also strong collaboration with people in chemistry and physics on a number of research programmes. We have become much more interdisciplinary, if you like. We have always considered ourselves as a bridge between the Science and Engineering Departments, with contacts with both. The fact that Physical Science and Engineering are all part of the same faculty in Oxford is advantageous to us. We did consider changing the name of the Department to Materials Science and Engineering - but that was unacceptable to the Engineers who considered Materials Engineering to be their responsibility. So we decided to change the name in 1990 to "Department of Materials".

BBV : It seems that your story is quite different from that of the US materials departments.

PH : I think that it is different ; you are quite right. Here the initiative to have Materials Departments came from academics, whereas in the US the development was led by Industry, and industrialists promoted Materials Science in Universities. (This does not mean that no materials science was going on in industry in the UK - e.g. the carbon fiber work at Farnborough.) I think it started in Cambridge first. We came along in the late 1960s. By that time there were materials science activities going on in many departments, at Imperial College and Birmingham, for instance. We could not claim to have inspired Materials science in the UK. We came along and did our own brand. There were many departments, but they were on a small scale. Concerning the definition of Materials Science I am with Merton Flemings. Structure, properties, processing, performance/application. I think it is the engineering applications that are fundamental. The philosophy of the department here was to get theoretical and practical people together. People able to develop models with people who really know what applications are important. And industrial links were fostered. It is still the philosophy today, even more so. In the last few years after my retirement the department has gone from strength to strength in that direction. There is now another site in Begbroke, five miles away from Oxford centre. It provides opportunities for collaborative research between the Department and Industry.

BBV : Where did the money come from ?

PH : The funding for work in the department came partly from the University, the Research Council and Industry. Some from charitable foundations, e.g. for building expansions. We had a large budget from the Research Council. That is another important aspect, somewhat similar to the US picture.

It is difficult to attract undergraduates to read Materials Science and Metallurgy. Enormous efforts have been spent on attracting more undergraduates, most of them not very successful. (But a recent appointment of a Schools Liaison Officer seems to be effective.) Materials Science is not a school subject, although elements are introduced into some of the school examination papers e.g. the physics curriculum. The number of courses and options that we offer in Oxford has helped a bit but it remains a problem. Some small departments in the UK were able to survive because they had a large research activity (supported on non-University funds) compared to the undergraduate activities. But in the UK as a whole some Materials Departments have closed or have been amalgamated with Engineering Departments. The change of name of department from Metallurgy to Materials does not only reflect the change in content of the courses. It is also pragmatic because metallurgy has an old-fashion ring about it and materials science is a much broader subject likely to attract more students. The image of materials for computers, aeroplanes and cars is more exciting than that of dirty blast furnaces in the steel industry.

BBV : What would you say about multidisciplinarity in the development of this department ? More specifically could you compare the situation here in Oxford with this diagram published by the National Academy of Science in 1969 with a hard core in mathematics physics and chemistry and applications around ?

PH : I would agree with this : mathematics, physics and chemistry are basic inputs in Materials Science with applications in ceramics, polymers, and so on. But in these days I would include materials for medical applications. There is somebody in this department working on biomedical materials for implants. There is also a large group in Cambridge. There is a big scope for materials in medicine, particularly for prostheses.

BBV : Finally would you consider yourself today more as a physicist or as a material scientist ?

PH : I think I am physicist who « saw the light ». True physicists would no longer consider me as a physicist. I consider myself as a materials scientist because my interest is in the effect of microstructure on the properties of materials. I am interested in quite complex materials, with potential applications e.g. high temperature intermetallics, and in modelling their complex mechanical properties. I ended up as a materials scientist. But there are materials scientists who would consider me to be a rather theoretical materials scientist. In the later years of my conversion I supported and promoted materials processing in the department although it took me rather a long time to get to this view, to appreciate the importance of this field, and to realise the need and potential for modelling.

BBV : What is your concept of materials science ?

PH : I am close to Merton Flemings's concept. To me materials science is an enabling science. We study material composition, structure, properties and processing for applications in engineering. There is now a strong group on processing here. Not only casting but various kinds of processing like spray forming, coating, making magnetic and superconductor devices etc. There are also two lecturers working on polymers now.

BBV : Does polymer synthesis now belong to Materials Science ?

PH : Polymer processing and modelling properties belong to materials science, but synthesis of new kinds of polymers - I doubt if this is a proper activity for a materials department, although it would be quite appropriate as a joint research activity with Chemistry. That would be my view for what it is worth. But composition, structure, properties, performance, Merton Fleming's picture, defines Materials Science.

BBV : What about the recent addition of end-users to this picture ?

PH : Yes end-users are important but I would consider that this links in with performance. The interaction with industry is important. Quite apart from the problem of funding it is vital for materials science, as an enabling science.

Fin de l'enregistrement

haut de page

accueil du site

Pour citer l'entretien :

« Entretien avec Peter Hirsch », par Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, 12 décembre 2002 Sciences : histoire orale, https://sho.spip.espci.fr/spip.php?article126.
—

Entretien avec Peter Hirsch, par Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, 12 décembre 2002

Lieu : Materials Department, Oxford University

Support : enregistrement non précisé

Transcription : Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent

Edition en ligne : Sophie Jourdin

HIRAO Kazuyuki, 2002-08-29

Sophie Jourdin — 2011-11-04T13:08:55Z

Kazuyuki Hirao.

—

HERVE ARRIBART (HA) : In which discipline did you take your degree and your Ph.D.?

KAZUYUKI HIRAO (KH) : I was trained in Inorganic Chemistry.

BERNADETTE BENSAUDE-VINCENT (BBV) : Why did you decide to go into Glass Science ?

KH : Well, you know, the Chemistry Department of Kyoto University is very old, 100 years old. When I had to select a laboratory, I was interested in inorganic chemistry. I belonged to the Chemistry Department but only one division of chemistry was Glass or Ceramics related to inorganic chemistry.

BBV : Did you publish books in inorganic chemistry ?

KH : Yes, I published two textbooks on Inorganic Chemistry intended for undergraduates. One of the textbooks was translated but another one I wrote myself in Japanese.

BBV : Do you have to teach inorganic chemistry ?

KH : Yes at the undergraduate level.

BBV : And do you have to teach a course in Materials Science ?

KH : Yes I have 3 courses a week : one of them is Glass Science, the second is Advanced Materials, and the 3rd one is Inorganic Chemistry. Inorganic Chemistry for undergraduate students, Glass science and Advanced Materials for graduate students.

BBV : There is no department of Materials Science at Kyoto University ?

KH : Materials Science partly belongs to chemistry. My department is called Department of Materials Chemistry. But Materials also belongs to Metallurgy. They have a department of Materials Science which is totally separated from us. We have no common class between Materials Science for chemists and Materials Science for metallurgy. We have to collaborate in the future. The Department of Materials Science also belongs to the Department of Mechanics. Chemistry and Mechanics are totally different. Polymer Chemistry is also separated. We still have to build up the new class of Materials Science. In Japanese universities, it is not usual to have interdisciplinary Materials Centers. It is usually divided. It is not good for research. Because equipment is shared.

HA : What kind of instruments ?

KH : TEM, SEM, X Ray, spectroscopy. At least in nanotechnology we ignore the boundaries between polymer science, metals, ceramics and glass. It will be possible to develop the new materials perspective.

BBV : Do you think that this traditional university system prevents you from doing Materials Science ?

KH : It is difficult to change. If you want to change anything, you will have to obtain agreements from all the professors in our departments. University professors are very conservative.

HA : Still, Professor Soga did endeavor to change the system while he was here.

KH : Yes, but in Japan if one single professor is against the change, then there will be no change at all. We don't usually have a majority decision making system.

BBV : Are the students more attracted by Materials Science in general or by Chemistry and Physics ?

KH : The entrance examination is about Industrial Chemistry. Almost 250 students are admitted. After one year, in the 2nd grade, they will be distributed into three different courses. Three classes divided mechanically. In the 4th grade they chose to enter into one the laboratories of the department. Four graduate students choose to enter in my laboratory every year. Kyoto University is a very big university. We have almost 47 chemistry professors for 250 students. 150 graduate students. Two Nobel Prizes came out from this department. It is a prestigious department.

HA : Could we come back to your PhD subject ? How did you choose it ? Was it Professor Soga who proposed it ?

KH : Yes it was about Glass Science. Thermal properties of glass.

HA : From your list of publications I can see that you have worked on many, many fieldswhile working in Professor Soga's laboratory.

KH : Yes I have been mainly interested in computer simulation of making glass structure and predicting optical properties of glass. I started computer simulation early in the 1980s. It was too early. The computer capacity was very small in the 1980s. Now we have a big project on computer simulation program and we get $5 million over five years from the government for it. Owing to the progress of computers, we can make glass structure containing 10,000 atoms.

HA : Then why did you move to non-linear optics instead of mechanical properties or low temperature behavior ?

KH : It is a good point. One major advantage of glass is transparency. Its major disadvantage is brittleness. Optical fibers are a very important because electrical wires are very limited in speed.

HA : So by the end of the 1980s you guessed that the future of glass for a large application would be optical glasses.

KH : Now we are very lucky. We are also interested in the mechanical properties of glass at the nanolevel. We are dealing with elimination of the nanobubbles. It is very important for industrial companies.

HA : So you got in to the glass making process ?

KH : Yes.

BBV : Was it industrial demand that prompted you to work on optical properties in the 1980s ? Or was it your own initiative, your choice ?

KH : In this period the optical properties were not important for glass industry. Now many glass companies are interested. So now we have a lot of industrial contacts. Before next year we intend to produce 3 commercial optical glasses called photonic glasses. For this, we need connections with venture business.

BBV : Do you mean that you conducted all these researches on optical properties without industrial support ?

KH : No, only in the beginning. Now we get a lot of industrial support. But now I get a lot of budgets from three kinds of government projects, not only from industry. We have 3 projects. One is computer simulation. One is on photoactive glass in cooperation with foreign countries. So we have a lot of post-docs in my laboratory. The third one is the nanoglass project.

HA : Could you tell us about this nanoglass project ?

KH : The government launched a nanotech program that covers a variety of projects : nanometals , nanopolymers, carbon nanotubes, nanocoatings, nanoparticles, nanosimulation and the nanoglass project. For the latter, we get $30 million for 5 years approximately.

HA : How do you spend this amount of money.

KH : Most people involved in the glass project are coming from industry, from Asahi Glass, Hoya, Nippon Electric Glass, Central Glass, Okamoto Glass, Nippon Yamamura Glass, Hitachi, ... 11 companies sent us 15 researchers whose salaries are paid by the project.

HA : How many people are working in your nanoglass project ?

KH : 100 people including the supporters. They join in Tsukuba consortium, from Osaka Institute and several university professors also support us.We have some large equipment.

HA : When did this project start ?

KH : We had a preliminary year and the project itself started in 2001.We have got a number of results. For instance CVD deposition. We also succeed in making very low optical loss glasses. We have reached 0.005dB/cm. This glass will be very useful for making waveguides. In Tsukuba we use two kinds of femtosecond lasers working at 1 kHz and 200 kHz. By using these femtosecond lasers, we not only write in waveguides but also we make crystals from glass, for example silicon crystals from amorphous silica.

HA : Last time you mentioned that you also have a laboratory in China working on crystal growth.

KH : That is right. And we have also made a lot of semiconductors, single crystals in glasses by using this material and we made photonic crystals, which can be used as optical filters.

HA : Where does the money for this nanoglass project come from ?

KH : From NEDO. It is part of METI (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry). No connection with AIST although METI also supports AIST. We also made a very tough glass whose strength is very high, 2 times that of standard glass. With the femtosecond laser we made very small dots, nanosize dots, that stop the cracks. We have already succeed.

HA : Was it enough to make these tiny holes on the surface ?

KH : They are under the surface. Also by using the interference technique we have made a lot of dots.

HA : I understand, it is beautiful glass but too costly for bottle makers.

KH : Of course it is not for bottle makers ! Also we have found a cheap process to make AWG (array wave-guide grating) by using the femtosecond laser. AWG are very useful for optical telecommunications. Until now, they were very expensive to make. We also managed to make a nanoglass thin film for CD. The storage medium can be a cobalt oxide-based glass, for example. When we apply a nanoglass coating on this recording material the blue beam is shrinked to ¼. This is a lens effect. We have now this optical disk standardized by Hitachi. So you know that Shuji Nakamura ; a Japanese researcher, has discovered the blue laser diode. In my case by using this blue laser diode, the recording capacity is approximately increased by a factor 4, because the beam is much smaller. And in the field of optoelectronics, we have made 3 dimensional devices including both electrical and optical circuits. We use gold containing glasses that crystallize under laser beam. Three dimensional wires can be obtained, together with optical waveguides in the same device.

HA : So this program seems to be essentially telecommunication oriented.

KH : Yes NEDO asked us to make such devices. Otherwise they would cut the financial support.

BBV : You mean that the budget is according to your practical results.

KH : Yes.

BBV : What kind of connections do you have with venture business ?

KH : For optical properties we have to make such connections. Otherwise we could not do it on university money or government money. Venture business have a lot of demands in optical properties of glasses. For instance some fibermakers make lenses inside optical fibers. With my technique of femtosecond laser we can make lense in fiber. There are many such innovations of interest for business, although optical properties are not directly related to optical devices.

BBV : Do you mean that you only do research and no development ?

KH : Optical properties are synchronized with optical devices. There is no linear sequence from optical properties to technical devices, from basic research to applied science then development. We have to work in synergy.

HA : So do you consider yourself as a materials scientist because you are dealing with devices ?

KH : Yes we have to make connections with venture business and industry. For doing this kind of research we have to build a wide network. So many venture businesses are connected with me and they are eager to be.

HA : Where does the money come from ? From big industrial companies ?

KH : So far my devices did not cost much. If one day we have to develop a costly device, the Japanese governement is able to support us immediately, at least for two or 3 years. The Japanese governement is encouraging this kind of cooperation.

HA : Do you also collaborate with foreign companies ?

KH : With Schott in Germany. They have sent a researcher here. And Corning is also willing to collaborate. In the USA glass professors are not so many in optical devices. Here we have more than 50 professors of Glass Science

BBV : Do you send students to the USA ?

KH : Not right now.

HA : Where do you locate the leading centers in your field ?

KH : I guess Osaka is the center. Glass science originated in Osaka National Center.

HA : You told me last year that you run many laboratories. How many ?

KH : I have 6 laboratories including one in China, one in Osaka, one Tsukuba ... 300 people altogether. There are autonomous and eager to make things because optical devices is a very promising field. So I don't have to be continuously behind them. There are so many things to do such as inkjet using semiconducting cadmium selenide nanoparticles. The color changes depending on particle size.

HA : This is not glass. Is it ?

KH : Yes it is, because nanoparticle CdSe particles are made in micelles and encapsuled by glass using sol-gel chemistry. The fluorescent yield increases nearly 10times using these nanoparticles. Silica sol-gel coating is necessary ; otherwise the semiconductor particles aggregate to each other. Encapsulated particles are then deposited by inkjet to make displays. We do this development by collaborating with venture business.

BBV : So you seem to work as a partner of venture business, as a manager of projects rather than as a traditional scientist supplying science for applications downstream.

KH : Yes my aim is really to make optical devices. This is what we have to do. We teach Glass Science. But in laboratory research we have to make devices. Traditional professors are not interested in devices ; I am. But you see, in Japan I don't have to move to an industrial company to make such devices.

BBV : Is it part of your obligations as a university professor to make devices ?

KH : No, teaching is the only obligation. We just have to teach and take care of the students.

BBV : Does the university system recognize your devices ?

KH : Yes now the government recognizes patents.

HA : So you feel that you are in a better position at the university because you have the freedom of choosing your topics of research and you have the money that you need for them.

KH : Yes I am very lucky.

BBV : How do you select your research projects ?

KH : The keywords are glass and optics. We have a lot of choices. One criterium is to use the femtosecond laser.

HA : You mean that you can use it to change glass composition ?

KH : If we use samarium doped glasses we can change the samarium3+ to samarium2+ with the femtosecond laser. So glass composition is very important for me. Not just to make new glasses and measure their optical properties. If we make a new glass it is to make a new device by using a new technique. We also made electrical lithography by plasma etching for nanodevices, in Osaka.

HA : On our webpage you also mention that you are working on hybrid materials.

KH : Yes usually at the macroscale, it is difficult to combine organic and inorganic components. Nanohybrids work better by using chemical reactions with micelles. Professor Tetsuo Yazawa at Himeji Institute of Technology University made a lot of nanohybrids that can be used for gas filters, for membranes, solid sensors and solid electrolytes. Conductivity is very high in the nanohybrids. Both electronic and ionic conductivities. And hybrids are also useful for glass capsules for drug delivery. So we started that kind of research on hybrids within the nanoglass project.

BBV : Do you try to compete with other materials in your nanoglass project ?

KH : No, glass offers unique advantages. We can overcome polymers. Glass is the only transparent material even at the nanoscale. I forgot ! Athermal glass is very important. We achieved athermal glass-ceramics we have to apply pressure to control the size of the nanoparticles and the growth. So nanoglass is unique and very useful.

HA : I can see that your project works very well. But do you remember any failure in your research career ? It is also instructive for our project on the history of Materials Science.

KH : For the Photoncraft project we are at the middle point so we have to submit. The nanoglass project started one year ago. We have to make an effort, otherwise budget might be cut.

HA : This morning Professor Soga told us that he considers himself as an educator rather than as a glass scientist. Is teaching and training also important for you ?

KH : You cannot separate teaching and research. Education and laboratory work together. In the field of glass, just making optical devices is a good education, a good training. Now we are training a number of students through the nanoglass project.

BBV : Do you mean that the nanoglass project is in itself a kind of training ?

KH : Yes, for graduate students. When I present the results of our nanoglass project to company presidents, they are essentially grateful for our work as educators because we train the researchers from industrial companies. Helping each other is very important.

HA : Does it mean that you are no longer interested in basic research and basic education ?

KH : No. Presently I am making devices but maybe in a few years I write a new textbook of glass science because they are so many new glasses that all conventional glasses are obsolete. This textbook should be written in English.

BBV : You want to write a textbook of Glass Science, not of Materials Science in general ? Are there any Japanese textbooks of Materials Science ?

KH : Yes and we had written one.

BBV : One final question : Do you see differences in the research styles of various countries ?

KH : In Europe originality is important. Here it is rather collaboration and harmony. We are more modest, more humble. Collaborations, mutual help and mutual learning, Interdiscipinary philosophy is my project aim.

Fin de l'enregistrement

haut de page

accueil du site

Pour citer l'entretien :

« Entretien avec Kazuyuki Hirao », par Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent et Hervé Arribart, 29 aout 2002 Sciences : histoire orale, https://sho.spip.espci.fr/spip.php?article125.

—

Entretien avec Kazuyuki Hirao, par Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent et Hervé Arribart, 29 aout 2002

Lieu : Department of Materials Chemistry, Kyoto University

Support : enregistrement non précisé

Transcription : Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent et Hervé Arribart

Edition en ligne : Sophie Jourdin

HAGENMULLER Paul, 2001-06-12

Sophie Jourdin — 2011-11-03T15:23:16Z

Paul Hagenmuller, born in Alsace in 1921, developed solid-state chemistry in France. He first initiated a research program at the University of Rennes (1956-60). In 1960 he set up a dynamic laboratory in Bordeaux. In 1964, Hagenmuller organized an international conference dedicated to the relations between structure and physical properties in oxides of the transition elements. The meeting gathered together chemists, crystallographers and solid-state physicists and prompted the establishment of an international community of solid-state chemists. In Bordeaux, Hagenmuller became the head of a research school working, at the interface between physics and chemistry, on the relation between atomic/electronic structure and physical properties, with a strong emphasis on industrial applications.

The Bordeaux research school has attracted scientists and students from all over the world (both developed and emerging countries) and many brilliant chemists of the next generation such as Jean Rouxel were trained in Bordeaux. Paul Hagenmuller retired in 1994. A jubilee celebration was organized at the Maison de la chimie in Paris in 1997. In 2001, his 80th birthday was celebrated in a special issue of the journal Solid State Chemistry.

HERVE ARRIBART (HA) : Pouvez vous retracer votre formation, vos débuts dans la carrière ?

PAUL HAGENMULLER (PH) : Depuis que je m'intéresse à la science je me suis préoccupé de la physique. Je me suis demandé pourquoi les matériaux avaient telle ou telle couleur, tel ou tel comportement électrique, magnétique, optique ... J'ai donc été porté vers la physique, plus tard vers la mécanique par extension, dès que j'ai entrepris mes études de science. Ces études ont eu lieu en 1940 à l'université de Strasbourg, repliée à Clermont Ferrand. Mon statut était celui d'un réfugié politique puisque j'avais quitté l'Alsace pour échapper au système politique allemand et parce que je me refusais d'être un jour mobilisé dans l'armée allemande. A Clermont, pour des raisons financières j'ai fait le choix de la chimie, séduit par la diversité des méthodes de préparation mais choqué parce que la chimie était alors très descriptive et n'était pas encore une science déductive, de réflexion.
Sur place, je suis entré en résistance, je faisais du sabotage. J'ai été arrêté en 1943 et envoyé en camp de concentration à Buchenwald. Là j'ai appris à me taire. J'ai travaillé sur les V2. J'ai appris le russe avec les prisonniers russes ; j'avais de bons contacts avec les communistes allemands. Puis j'ai été envoyé à Dora où c'était plus dur.
Après la guerre, André Chrétien m'a proposé un sujet de thèse sur la formation de nitrites complexes en solution aqueuse, puis une recherche sur la réduction de divers oxydes par des hydrures d'alcalino-terreux. J'ai accepté parce qu'il y avait un appareil mathématique. Puis au lendemain de ma thèse je me suis dit : il faut que je travaille sur des choses plus concrètes, les matériaux. J'ai voulu revenir à mes anciennes amours les matériaux. Je suis parti au Vietnam dans le cadre d'un accord avec la direction de l'enseignement supérieur et moi. Je partais pour deux ans 1954-56, au moment où la France se désengageait et voulait garder des relations culturelles. Au retour il était entendu que je pourrai choisir un poste de maître de conférences parmi ceux qui étaient disponibles en chimie. Ces deux ans de Vietnam ont été pour moi une période de décantation, de réflexion. Et quand je suis revenu j'ai voulu, d'une part, me préoccuper de physique ce qui suppose la détermination des structures atomiques - pour comprendre les propriétés physiques il faut savoir quelles sont les positions des atomes - et, d'autre part, il faut une certaine habileté à préparer des matériaux par des techniques nouvelles fort différentes.

HA : Quelles étaient alors les relations entre physique des solides et chimie des matériaux en France ?

PH : Aujourd'hui la physique s'est beaucoup rapprochée de la chimie parce que, de part et d'autre, on a compris que c'était indispensable pour faire des matériaux à propriétés spécifiques intéressantes sur le plan de la science fondamentale et intéressantes aussi sur le plan des applications. Au début des années 60, on en était à se chercher. Moi, j'avais fait un choix très clair : faire une chimie orientée vers la physique, plus tard vers la mécanique. Maintenant c'est devenu presque de routine, ne serait-ce que par ce que les chimistes pour bien connaître leurs matériaux sont obligés d'utiliser des méthodes de caractérisation physiques. La physique s'est imposée dans les perspectives de la recherche comme par les nécessités quotidiennes : savoir où sont les atomes et les électrons.
Donc au retour du Vietnam mon objectif était d'associer la physique et la chimie. J'ai eu la chance que dans mon poste à Rennes il y avait quantité d'excellents étudiants, mais en chimie personne ne voulait faire de la recherche sous prétexte qu'il n'y avait pas de moyens. J'ai décidé que j'allais lancer des thèses dans ce domaine à l'interface de la physique et de la chimie. On a d'abord tâtonné. On a travaillé sur le bore, sur les hydrures. Parmi les études réalisées à Rennes se trouvait la réduction d'oxydes par l'hydrure de lithium. On était intéressé par les hydrures de bore et d'aluminium qui comportaient des liaisons dites pont-hydrogène originales. Ceci m'a donc amené à réduire le V2O5 par l'hydrure de lithium et nous avons constaté qu'il y avait des phases intermédiaires qui devaient être les futurs bronzes de vanadium et de lithium, qu'on a appelées plus tard b et g. La phase a étant la solution solide de lithium dans V2O5. Alors j'ai pensé que ces matériaux étaient intéressants : s'il y a là un domaine d'existence, les propriétés physiques doivent varier à l'intérieur de ce domaine et si, par chance, ce domaine est suffisamment grand on peut faire ce qui est plus difficile dans les solutions solides limitées, de type oxydes non stœchiométriques. On s'est préoccupé de manière systématique des bronzes de vanadium qu'on a préparés par voie synthétique. Dans les années qui ont suivi - de 1960 à 70, j'étais alors à Bordeaux où un grand nombre de chercheurs de Rennes m'avaient suivi - on a préparé un grand nombre de phases de bronzes de vanadium par analogie avec les bronzes de tungstène qui avaient déjà été signalés. On a fait systématiquement des études magnétiques et électriques pour caractériser le mode de conductivité. Il est apparu que lorsqu'on insérait le lithium dans le réseau, on remplissait les états électroniques du vanadium, qui forment la bande de conduction. Les électrons devenaient donc de plus en plus délocalisés au fur et à mesure que leur nombre augmentait et on passait d'un état semi-conducteur à l'état métallique.

BERNADETTE BENSAUDE-VINCENT (BBV) : Quelles étaient vos relations avec le groupe de Robert Collongues ?

PH : Collongues avait été élève de Georges Chaudron, comme André Michel, Paul Lacombe, Jacques Bénard. J'avais d'excellentes relations avec Collongues. Nos domaines se recouvraient partiellement sur la non-stœchiométrie mais on avait des approches différentes. Lui enlevait des ions, nous on faisait de la chimie d'insertion. Collongues aimait bien se singulariser par rapport à moi mais dans la pratique nous avions la même politique sur des matériaux différents. Il y avait chez lui le même désir de systématique et de réflexion en profondeur. Collongues considérait que la bonne expérience était importante mais qu'elle devait illustrer une réflexion de fond. Il pensait que la science était avant tout la réflexion intellectuelle.
J'ai fait de la chimie sous pression à la manière d'un tailleur : choisir une structure cristallographique, écrire la formule d'une composition chimique, puis la stabiliser dans un degré d'oxydation élevé. Après avoir discuté la structure puis la formule, on préparait sous haute pression. C'était du design pour la conductivité électronique, les propriétés magnétiques, ou les propriétés magnéto-optiques et plus tard également pour la conductivité ionique.
Nous nous intéressions systématiquement à l'évolution de toute propriété physique originale en fonction de la composition et de la structure. Un nœud important dans cette évolution fut le colloque organisé à Bordeaux en 1964 sur les oxydes d'éléments de transition.

HA : Quelle fut la portée de ce colloque de 1964 ?

PH : Ce fut le moment où s'est constituée une communauté internationale de chimie du solide. Le colloque a rassemblé les chimistes qui nous étaient familiers, des cristallographes (Erwin-Felix Bertaut, Charles Guillaud), des physiciens (Jacques Friedel). Parmi les étrangers Mike Sienko, John Goodenough du Lincoln Laboratory au MIT qui est venu pour la première fois à Bordeaux ; des Allemands : Wilhelm Klemm, Rudolf Hoppe, Harold Schäfer ; des Hollandais, des Belges, etc. Il est apparu qu'une conjugaison des méthodes de mesure physique, des méthodes de détermination structurale et une certaine flexibilité pour les changements de composition, pouvaient permettre d'optimiser un certain nombre de propriétés physiques. D'abord le magnétisme, ensuite il y a eu la ferro-électricité - comment accroître la distortion ferro-électrique et par voie de conséquence la polarisation ; enfin, la conductivité ionique, d'abord dans des matériaux isolants au point de vue électronique et ensuite dans des matériaux dits cathodiques utilisables dans des batteries parce que conducteurs mixtes.
Je dois dire que ce qui fut déterminant pour l'avenir de la chimie du solide ce fut la venue de John Goodenough à ce congrès parce qu'il a popularisé parmi nous l'idée de l'importance de la liaison chimique. On a compris qu'on pouvait renforcer ou atténuer la liaison chimique en modifiant la composition, en particulier en jouant sur la liaison antagoniste. Par exemple si on compare le zirconate de baryum avec le titanate de baryum, la liaison baryum-oxygène est renforcée dans le zirconate par rapport au titanate. Inversement si on remplace dans le titanate de baryum, le baryum par le strontium comme la liaison strontium -oxygène est plus forte que la liaison baryum-oxygène, la liaison titane-oxygène est affaiblie, ce qui peut amener une variation très forte de la polarisation en fonction de la température, juste en dessous de la température de Curie. Et on peut avoir ainsi des matériaux aux propriétés intéressantes.

HA : Le rapprochement de la physique et de la chimie avec une orientation vers les applications constituerait-il donc l'identité de la chimie du solide à cette époque ?

PH : Oui nous avions un besoin civique de justifier les crédits que nous demandions par une application dans la vie économique. De plus, le travail avec des industriels fait naître des problèmes inattendus qui sont des challenges et qui sont nourrissants.
Une deuxième date importante dans l'institutionnalisation de la chimie du solide est 1978. Sur mon initiative la Société française de Chimie a créé en 1976 une division de chimie du solide, dont j'ai naturellement été le président. J'ai organisé la même année un premier colloque national de chimie du solide à Nantes. Sur ma proposition et sous ma présidence s'est tenu à Strasbourg en 1978 le premier congrès européen de chimie du solide, organisé par Jean-Claude Bernier (Strasbourg a été choisi pour une raison stratégique,). L'intervalle entre deux congrès consécutifs est maintenant de 3 ans ; le huitième congrès européen a lieu en juillet 2001 à Oslo.

HA : Quel était l'état des relations entre science et industrie en France à cette époque ?

PH : Il y avait une tradition de collaboration en métallurgie et en chimie : Chaudron et ses élèves, Lacombe, Bénard étaient très impliqués. Robert Collongues l'était aussi dans le domaine des monocristaux. Mais il y avait une forte hostilité syndicale au nom des grands principes : il ne faut pas mettre la science au service des grands intérêts privés. Les choses se sont atténuées à la veille de l'élection présidentielle de 1981. J'ai eu la visite de M. Kahane, longtemps doyen à Orsay, qui s'était rallié à la collaboration avec l'industrie privée. Cela a facilité cette évolution qui, de ma part, ne rencontrait aucune résistance car j'étais un scientifique et je n'avais pas à me poser des problèmes de déontologie qui me paraissaient un peu artificiels. Mais une partie de mon entourage était réticente à travailler avec l'industrie.

HA : Est-ce la crise pétrolière de 1973 qui a contribué à anoblir le rapprochement entre science et industrie ?

PH : Oui. Du fait de notre préoccupation entre propriétés physique et composition, nous avons été conduits à travailler sur des composés non-stœchiométriques d'intercalation et nous avons constaté après 1973 qu'il y avait possibilité d'intercalation ou désintercalation à basse température grâce à l'électrochimie comme on le faisait aux Etats Unis. Exxon et Bell étaient plus concernés que nous par la crise de l'énergie.
Les recherches sur la conductivité ionique ont été encouragées par la crise de l'énergie. Après la zircone déjà exploitée par Nernst, puis étudiée par la NASA et par Collongues ; il y avait eu AgI. Puis il y a eu l'alumine-b qui a suscité de nombreux travaux. CGE a dépensé beaucoup d'argent. L'alumine-b est un matériau très particulier. J'étais très sceptique. On a abaissé la température de fonctionnement, mais c'est encore trop haut pour un véhicule électrique. Et puis le soufre attaque la membrane. Finalement on a renoncé, pensant qu'avec des batteries au lithium on irait plus loin. Les derniers efforts de développement visaient plutôt le stockage d'énergie en période creuse. Les nasicons eux ne sont pas attaqués et ils présentent un avantage au plan fondamental car leur structure est plus simple. Ils ont de bonnes performances, qu'on pouvait maîtriser avec une juste proportion de sodium.

HA : Pouvez vous évoquer vos travaux sur la conduction ionique ?

PH : Avant 1973, on a publié un grand nombre de documents sur des conducteurs ioniques. On s'inspirait comme modèle de réflexion des bronzes de tungstène bien que la plupart des travaux publiés à l'époque fussent des études structurales et que les bronzes de tungstène soient métalliques. On avait également préparé une série de nouveaux bronzes de tungstène. Ce travail s'est étendu à des bronzes oxyfluorés, à des bronzes de vanadium et de molybdène contenant les deux cations vanadium et molybdène plus le sodium et le lithium. Puis au début des années 1970, on s'est attaqué aux premiers bronzes de manganèse NaxMnO2 et puis aux bronzes de cobalt KxCoO2.
Sur ces entrefaites il y a eu la grande crise pétrolière de 1973. Les pays occidentaux ont eu peur de manquer d'énergie et donc on s'est occupé de sources d'énergie non fossile et de stockage d'énergie. Un certain nombre de gens ont voulu faire des batteries. Exxon et la Bell Telephon, Whittingham et Murphy en particulier, ont travaillé sur ces matériaux non plus comme nous l'avions fait vers 500°C avec des phases en équilibre thermodynamique mais à basse température par intercalation ou désintercalation électrochimique.
Une spécialité à Bordeaux c'était les fluorures conducteurs. On remplaçait systématiquement l'oxygène par du fluor parce qu'il a la même taille et présente une liaison plus faible. On pouvait ainsi atténuer les interactions magnétiques. Comme pour la zircone, on dope les fluorures systématiquement. Watanabe avait déjà préparé les premières batteries au fluor.
Jean Rouxel s'était intéressé à l'époque où il était mon élève aux sulfures, aux sulfures à couche en particulier. Entre les couches de FeOCl et FeSCl par exemple, on pouvait intercaler beaucoup de choses, comme l'ammoniac ou les amines. Jean Rouxel a préparé NaxTiS2, un matériau qui avait été préparé par Rudorf à Fribourg, qui le considérait comme une curiosité. Mais Rouxel a très vite réalisé qu'il devait y avoir un domaine d'existence. Or il s'est avéré que Li xTiS2 avait un large domaine d'existence. Jean Rouxel a poussé dans cette voie et il a étudié un grand nombre de sulfures et sélénures à feuillets alors que nous nous intéressions plutôt aux oxydes. Il y avait une sorte d'accord empirique entre nous : Nantes les sulfures, Bordeaux, les oxydes. Nous avons étudié des matériaux sur le plan de la synthèse, dans des conditions d'équilibre thermodynamique plus que par intercalation désintercalation.
Il y a une grande variété de méthodes topologiques ou non de relative basse-température qui permettent d'obtenir des matériaux nouveaux. Mettre un mélange très fin de poudres sous hautes pression pour que se déclenche une réaction brutale qui prend fin lorsque l'un des deux constituants initiaux a disparu. Donc c'est un échauffement brutal suivi d'une trempe. Ce qui permet d'obtenir des borures ou des silicium stables seulement à haute température.
Beaucoup de ces matériaux sont métastables mais on peut les utiliser dans des dispositifs.
Jean Rouxel a apporté beaucoup dans le domaine des réactions d'intercalation-désintercalation. Les oxydes lorsqu'on les désintercale perdent des électrons cationiques. C'est une oxydation cationique. Lorsqu'on part de LixCoO2 vers CoO2 on perd des Li+, mais on perd également des électrons qui proviennent des niveaux d. Mais pour les séléniures, ce sont les niveaux anioniques qui sont les plus élevés. Et lorsqu'on oxyde, c'est l'anion qu'on oxyde. On passe de Se2- à Se- et de Se- à Se pour des raisons de stabilité de liaison. Et Jean Rouxel a montré qu'il y avait une évolution graduelle pour les éléments 3d à l'état de sulfure entre TiS2, qui a une structure à couches, et CuS2 qui a une structure avec un ion S de type pyrite. Il a fait une analyse précise dans les cas douteux où les niveaux cationiques et anioniques sont à peu près de même énergie. L'analyse très fine des distances inter-atomiques lui a montré si c'était le cation ou l'anion qui était oxydé. Il a également fait beaucoup de choses sur les bidimensionnels qui sont ici hors sujet.

HA : Qu'est-ce qui a manqué en France alors que les compétences étaient là pour donner l'impulsion sur les batteries au Lithium ?

PH : Il y a un très grand nombre de batteries réversibles au lithium pour des applications diverses depuis les montres jusqu'aux batteries de taille moyenne utilisées par les militaires pour observation spatiale avant bombardement. Mais le marché important, c'est le véhicule électrique, non polluant. Du moins en partie car on s'est résigné au véhicule hybride. Le véritable marché ce serait la voiture électrique -éventuellement hybride- ce qui suppose des batteries de grande taille. Probablement l'électrolyte sera un polymère PEO imprégné d'un sel de lithium avec un gros anion, type matériau Armand. La cathode sera probablement riche en cobalt ce sera un matériau voisin de LixCoO2, plutôt un oxyde qu'un sulfure parce que la tension est plus élevée. Mais pour l'anode ce n'est pas encore évident. Si on pouvait faire mieux que les composés d'intercalation du lithium on serait content. Mais actuellement il n'y a pas encore de solution. Il y a donc premièrement un problème de matériau qui freine cette évolution. Deuxièmement il y a un problème de prix. Ajoutez à cela qu'une batterie au lithium doit être scellée car le lithium est sensible à l'atmosphère et vous voyez que ce n'est pas évident. Une solution concurrente est la batterie hydrogène consistant à stocker l'hydrogène dans un alliage métallique et puis à libérer l'hydrogène. Ce modèle permet des puissances plus élevées que la batterie au lithium mais là aussi il y a un problème de vieillissement car après un certain nombre de cycles, l'alliage s'oxyde car l'oxyde est plus stable que l'hydrure. Ce problème n'est pas encore résolu avec un coût acceptable pour l'utilisateur. A cet égard, il y a une coupure entre le scientifique et l'utilisateur.

HA : Concernant les relations entre physique et chimie qu'est-ce qui a favorisé le rapprochement ?

PH : Les physiciens ont fait des efforts pour parler un langage plus proche de celui des chimistes. J'ai parlé déjà de John Goodenough. Nevil Mott aussi était un homme qui s'exprimait dans un langage compréhensible pour un chimiste. Par exemple, lorsqu'il a obtenu des transitions isolantes par changement de composition au sein d'un domaine d'existence, on comprenait ses préoccupations et il comprenait les nôtres bien qu'on raisonne sur des modèles un peu différents. On est ainsi arrivé à préparer dans des bronzes de tungstène oxyfluorés des matériaux qui sans changement de structure manifestaient une transition métal-isolant. Les physiciens ont fait des progrès. L'équipe de Friedel était très préoccupée de parler un langage qui nous était commun. Je pense à Denis Jérôme, Claude Berthier à Grenoble.

HA : Le travail de physiciens sur la caractérisation très fine vous a-t-il aidé ?

PH : Je me souviens de discussions à Orsay sur les hexaborures. Les physiciens voulaient des matériaux qu'on appelait thermo-ioniques - mais c'est un mot malheureux : on devrait plutôt dire thermo-électronique - c'est à dire ayant un faible potentiel d'ionisation et susceptibles de cracher un jet d'électrons relativement puissant sous tension faible. On en a fait une étude systématique et on a essayé de préparer des cristaux.

HA : Et quel était l'enjeu ?

PH : L'enjeu était d'avoir ponctuellement un faisceau d'électrons puissant, par exemple pour des soudures, des soudures localisées. Outre la collaboration avec les physiciens d'Orsay on a aussi collaboré avec ceux de Grenoble. Plus que ceux d'Orsay, les physiciens de Grenoble avaient un langage très compréhensible. Il y avait un grand homme à Grenoble, Louis Néel. Il avait publié son travail sur le ferrimagnétisme en s'appuyant sur des modèles structuraux très clairs. La répartition des cations entre les sites tétraédriques et les sites octaédriques de la structure spinelle. Donc on comprenait pourquoi on avait des interactions d'abord anti-ferromagnétiques - ce qui constitue la base du ferrimagnétisme - entre des sites tétraédriques A et des sites octaédriques B, et pourquoi l'aimantation résultante était accrue lorsque le réseau prévalent contenait des cations avec beaucoup d'électrons d célibataires. Tous ces travaux - encouragés par les recherches militaires - ont permis une collaboration très fructueuse avec Grenoble. Je pense à Bertaut en particulier. Nous avons été encouragés, par exemple, à faire des études basse-température par Pauthenay qui nous a dit : c'est aux basses- températures qu'on détecte les phénomènes peu énergétiques.
Alors c'est l'époque où nous avons manqué le prix Nobel - Je dis cela en plaisantant, bien sûr !-. Nous avons préparé les premiers oxydes purs de Cu3+ : par exemple SrLaCuO4. Nous avions une telle habitude des solutions solides qu'on pouvait imaginer de préparer une solution solide avec La2CuO4 contenant du Cu2+. Mais pour nous, les solutions solides, c'était du travail secondaire. On cherchait à préparer des oxydes purs. Si on avait été préoccupé des solutions solides on aurait pu trouver des oxydes contenant à la fois du cuivre Cu 2+ et 3++. Comme par routine on caractérisait tous nos matériaux jusqu'à la température de l'hélium liquide, on aurait trouvé la supraconductivité. On ne l'a pas fait parce qu'on voulait des phases pures et non pas des solutions solides.
Bernard Raveau l'a fait avant Alex Müller. Il avait un objectif : comprendre ce qui se passait au point de vue des corrélations. Passer d'un semi-conducteur à un métal. Müller était un très grand physicien. Il a été surpris aussi mais il a tout de suite expliqué. Raveau a fait ses solutions solides. C'est même moi qui ai transmis sa publication au M[aterials] R[esearch] B[ulletin] mais j'ai regretté à l'époque qu'il n'ait pas fait de mesure à l'hélium liquide.

HA : Après avoir évoqué vos collaborations en France, pourriez vous parler de vos liens avec l'étranger ? Vous avez été précurseur pour les relations scientifiques avec les pays en voie de développement comme la Chine, le Maroc et l'Inde. Quelles étaient vos motivations ? Comment voyez-vous la science des matériaux dans ces pays ?

PH : J'ai toujours été persuadé que la science devait être internationale. Cela me distingue de beaucoup de mes compatriotes. Je suis toujours étonné que l'on fasse des quêtes pour aider la recherche en France sur le SIDA. Toute la recherche sur le SIDA, toute recherche de pointe est internationale et ce n'est pas parce que la France dépensera un peu plus d'argent que nécessairement, il y aura des progrès significatifs. La science doit être internationale.
J'ai donc eu des liens d'abord avec les pays développés car dans ce type de relation on se fait connaître mais aussi on apprend. Je suis allé souvent aux Etats Unis, moins par enthousiasme culturel, que parce qu'on y rencontre des gens de qualité. J'ai rencontré Goodenough, Al Cotton... j'ai rencontré à Berkeley ou à Stanford des gens de grande qualité. J'ai eu des relations suivies pendant un temps avec la Grande Bretagne mais les Anglais ont un sentiment de quant à soi. J'espère qu'avec le temps la Grande Bretagne va évoluer vers une intégration dans l'Europe. Les Allemands sont très favorables à cette intégration. Dès 1961 j'avais pris l'initiative d'emmener tout mon laboratoire en Allemagne pour un voyage de 15 jours. On est allé à Stuttgart, Karlsruhe, Heidelberg, Darmstadt, Giessen, Göttingen etc.. On a été très bien reçu par Wilhelm Klemm avec qui j'ai toujours entretenu d'excellentes relations. Mais ses élèves étaient jaloux. Les Allemands se sont sentis bousculés parce qu'un peu jaloux de gens qui faisaient beaucoup de bruit. Ils avaient une bonne tradition de chimie préparative, en relation avec l'industrie. Les Allemands ont compris que pour faire des matériaux nouveaux il fallait des techniques nouvelles comme la haute pression. Mais leur but c'était la performance tandis que le nôtre c'était de stabiliser des structures électroniques peu usuelles, grâce à la synthèse. Les Allemands se sont senti un peu gênés. Les gens leur disaient : vous utilisez des équipements de haute pression mais ce que vous faites c'est de la botanique alors qu'il faudrait réfléchir. Le but d'un équipement est de faire des matériaux à façon pour répondre à des problèmes déterminés. Les collègues allemands avaient un autre point de vue et je regrette qu'il n'y ait pas eu davantage de liens.
En revanche, toujours parmi les pays développés, j'ai eu beaucoup de liens avec l'Europe de l'Est. Pour deux raisons. D'abord, il y avait des gens de qualité chez les Soviétiques, les Polonais et les Tchèques. De plus j'étais un peu agacé de cette Europe coupée en deux du fait de la guerre froide. Donc je trouvais raisonnable qu'il y ait une présence de la France là où c'était relativement facile, c'est à dire la science. C'était intéressant pour eux et pour nous car nous avons eu de ces pays des personnes remarquables. J'ai eu des relations systématiques avec des laboratoires à Prague, Cracovie, à Moscou, à Kiev, Novosibirsk, à Sofia. Avec la Roumanie, c'était impossible car Madame Ceaucescu interdisait aux scientifiques de discuter avec des étrangers.
Avec les pays en voie de développement, la situation change d'un pays à l'autre. J'ai eu des relations avec le Maroc parce que l'université de Bordeaux et l'université de Rabat avaient des liens traditionnels. Je suis allé y faire cours. Il y avait de très bons étudiants je les ai encouragés à faire une thèse. Le nombre a crû considérablement. 30 ou 35 Marocains ont fait des thèses avec moi. J'avais une politique de sélection impitoyable ; je prenais les meilleurs et je les surpayais. Je voulais qu'ils n'aient pas de souci matériel pendant leur thèse. J'ai eu des liens plus occasionnels avec la République du Congo et quelques Tunisiens mais ils préféraient Marseille.
Avec la Chine j'ai fait un choix politique. J'ai compris que la Chine était un potentiel économique et humain. La France devait être présente à un moment où la Chine était exclusivement tournée vers les Etats-Unis. Je suis allé souvent en Chine. J'ai fait venir des étudiants chinois en les choisissant bien sûr excellents. Mes espoirs ont été dépassés par le succès car ils ne sont pas retournés en Chine mais partis au Canada ou aux Etats-Unis comme professeurs ou dans l'industrie. Ils se sont bien débrouillés. Maintenant c'est différent ; une majorité d'étudiants chinois reviennent en Chine.
L'Inde est aussi un pays avec lequel j'ai eu des relations. C'est une société où le savoir est respecté, une science de caste malgré l'abolition officielle des castes. Thaïlande, Malaisie, Indonésie...j'ai privilégié les pays asiatiques par rapport aux pays africains car la culture asiatique favorise la réflexion métaphysique et par conséquent scientifique. Néanmoins j'ai eu aussi des collaborations avec le Brésil, le Chili et l'Argentine. Le but étant d'aider ces pays dans leur développement industriel. Je suis d'ailleurs membre de l'Académie des sciences brésilienne depuis 1988.
Vis à vis des étudiants du tiers monde, j'ai toujours considéré comme ma responsabilité de leur donner une thèse originale et non pas, comme on le fait souvent, de leur faire remplir des vides dans le laboratoire ou de servir de main d'œuvre. Les étudiants du tiers monde que l'on fait venir en Europe il faut bien les choisir et bien les former pour qu'ils deviennent des maîtres.

HA : Je serai curieux de connaître votre point de vue sur l'évolution de la chimie des matériaux et le rapprochement avec la biologie.

PH : Je ne me sens pas compétent dans l'interface chimie/biologie. Mais mon expérience à l'interface physique et chimie me rend plutôt sympathique cette perspective d'une ouverture de la chimie vers la biologie. Elle est défendue par Pierre Pottier, Guy Ourisson, Corriu.
Sur l'interface physique/chimie, cela s'est moins bien passé. Peut-être que je n'ai pas su convaincre. Quand on prêche, on se fait des adeptes mais aussi des ennemis. Cela est vrai au CNRS. Celui qui prêche secoue les caciques, les gens en place. Quelqu'un comme Fernand Gallais était fermement hostile à mon projet d'interface avec la physique. Par contre j'ai rencontré beaucoup de sympathies du côté de Pottier, de Jacques Livage.
Pour revenir aux oxydes supraconducteurs, il s'agit d'un cas intéressant de collaboration entre physiciens et chimistes. Très vite, j'ai compris que l'on avait plafonné et puis à un moment donné il était clair que Tc était d'autant plus élevé que la bande de conduction était plus étroite. Et plus la bande de conduction est étroite plus le matériau est instable et a tendance à se dismuter en donnant un mélange de deux phases. J'ai compris cela très vite mais beaucoup ne l'ont pas compris. Il y a donc eu un emballement. Il a rapproché les chimistes des physiciens. Il est dommage que personne n'ait proposé un modèle simple permettant aux chimistes d'innover de manière simple comme on avait innové dans le domaine de la conductivité ionique, du magnétisme, de la ferroélectricité, des magnéto-optiques ... ou même des composites thermo-structuraux. Il a manqué quelqu'un qui propose un modèle intuitif liant les propriétés à la liaison chimique. Goodenough aurait pu le faire mais il était trop vieux, trop pressé de publier des matériaux miracles. Les matériaux miracles sont difficiles à reproduire. Celui qui essaie il n'a pas le même four ... Ces matériaux sont métastables, ils ne sont jamais parfaitement purs. Ils n'ont jamais le même nombre de lacunes d'oxygène. Donc ce n'est jamais parfaitement répétitif. Cela exclut toute réplication sérieuse parce qu'un matériau n'est utilisable industriellement que s'il est relativement simple à préparer et à utiliser. Telle est la raison de l'échec de la diode Josephson sur laquelle IBM a dépensé beaucoup d'argent. A l'époque j'étais d'ailleurs conseiller d'IBM.

BBV : Est-ce qu'il y a eu des matériaux sortis de vote laboratoire qui ont été industrialisés ?

PH : Il y a d'abord eu les varistors. J'ai fait beaucoup avec la Thomson CSF dans ce domaine. Il y a eu LixCoO2 et puis il y a les céramiques composites de R. Naslain : fibres de carbone infiltrées par SiC qui permet de travailler à des hautes températures pour les matériaux de rentrée de la fusée ou du satellite dans l'atmosphère. Car lorsque l'engin revient dans l'atmosphère, il y a un risque d'oxydation. L'astuce consistait à infiltrer - non pas déposer en surface - SiC à partir d'une phase vapeur. Alors à l'air SiC s'oxyde en donnant SiO2 qui s'infiltre dans le matériau à base de carbone et permet de le prolonger.

BBV : Pourriez vous préciser quelles étaient vos relations avec l'industrie et comment elles ont évolué ?

PH : J'ai toujours eu des relations avec l'industrie. Quand j'étais à Rennes j'ai été contacté par Raymond Paul, un des responsables de la recherche à Rhône Poulenc et il m'a vivement encouragé à travailler avec Rhône Poulenc. J'ai eu plusieurs bourses de thèses payées par l'industrie - parfois il fallait publier des résultats plus tard. Rhône Poulenc a payé la thèse de Michel Pouchard sur les bronzes de vanadium au début des années 60. Ensuite il m'a paru tout naturel de travailler avec l'industrie. J'ai travaillé avec Saint-Gobain sur les verres, en particulier sur les verres conducteurs du lithium et du sodium avec Levasseur, sur les verres sulfurés à base de B2S3. Les verres sont un matériau merveilleux. Ils ont une composition qui est flexible. Vous tombez un peu à côté, cela n'a pas d'importance les propriétés ne sont guère modifiées. Vous n'avez pas le problème des matériaux cristallins où, par suite de la moindre erreur, de la moindre difficulté de préparation, une deuxième phase d'impuretés se forme à côté. Là il vous reste une phase. D'autant plus qu'on peut préparer les verres par trempe brutale donc énormément de matériaux sont vitreux alors qu'il y a 30 ou 40 ans c'était différent.
J'ai eu beaucoup de liens avec l'industrie locale : Aérospatiale et SNECMA, avec SNPA (société nationale des pétroles d'aquitaine : ancêtre d'Elf) sur comment purifier le gaz de Lacq...Ma porte était toujours ouverte, on élargissait le champ de nos recherches à la demande car l'industrie n'est pas un boulet.

BBV : Est-ce que ces liens étaient encouragés par le CNRS ?

PH : Le CNRS était informé bien sûr. Et puis quand on est devenu un laboratoire propre en 1966 Curien était très favorable aux relations avec l'industrie. On a un des contrats avec Saint-Gobain, avec Rhône Poulenc devenu Rhodia, avec Ugine Kuhlman devenu Péchiney. Nous avons même eu des liens avec General Electric aux USA pour les borures, avec BASF sur le di-oxyde de chrome pour les bandes d'enregistrement.

BBV : Quelles sont les méthodes et techniques utilisées dans votre laboratoire ? Et comment ont-elles évolué au cours de votre carrière ?

PH : Au début le B-A-BA c'était la diffraction X. Puis pour bien comprendre la structure on a eu un équipement pour des monocristaux. On a préparé des mono-cristaux pour déterminer les structures. Maintenant on a fait de gros progrès et on peut sur des spectres de poudres lorsque la poudre est de bonne qualité déterminer la structure par les méthodes Riedveld en faisant des hypothèses simples sur la structure la plus probable. La diffraction X a été fondamentale et a débouché ensuite sur la microscopie électronique en transmission qui permet de voir les défauts locaux. C'est merveilleux. La diffraction X était une méthode à grande distance. Par contre la microscopie électronique en transmission vous donne les défauts localisés et étendus. C'est une préoccupation que j'ai eu beaucoup à propos de non-stœchiométrie. Quand on passe d'une phase perovskite ABO3 à une phase brownmillérite A2B2O5, on perd de l'oxygène. Alors à haute température les lacunes d'oxygène sont désordonnées. A température plus basse, elles s'ordonnent en fonction du cation B. Quand c'est du fer ou du gallium, un cation isotrope, on a soit des tétraèdres parce qu'il y a pas de lacune, soit des octaèdres car les lacunes marchent par deux. Donc dans une structure brownmillérite on a une séquence octaèdre,-tétraèdre, octaèdre-tétraèdre, et dans la structure perovskite c'est octaèdre-octaèdre-octaèdre. Alors on peut trouver à condition de faire des recuits à température assez basse - quelques centaines de degrés - des phases intermédiaires avec 2 couches octaèdres, 1 couche tétraèdre, 3 couches octaèdres, 1 couche tétraèdre. Et bien sûr quand on chauffe le désordre s'installe à cause de l'entropie d'empilement. On a étudié de manière systématique comment on passe de défauts isolés aux défauts ordonnés, étendus. Et cela a des conséquences au point de vue de la conductivité de l'ion oxygène. Parce que maintenant on a de nouvelles préoccupations. On veut par exemple extraire l'oxygène de l'air par des membranes de perovskite lacunaire ou détruire les traces de CO en oxydant par l'eau. Dans ce cas, vous avez CO2 - qui est quand même moins toxique que CO, sauf sur le plan idéologique - et vous avez de l'hydrogène. On utilise des perovskites lacunaires qui doivent être conducteurs de l'oxygène - ce qui est normal - mais aussi conducteurs électroniques car le transfert se fait sous tension donc il faut que les ions O2- migrent à travers les lacunes de la structure. Il y a donc un aspect pratique pour les capteurs d'oxygène, la purification des gaz. Les Norvégiens utilisent ces méthodes massivement pour transformer le gaz de la Mer du Nord en un gaz exempt de CO. Norsk-Hydro dépense des sommes considérables pour cela. J'ai été invité pour parler avec les gens impliqués par ces recherches.
Donc pour résumer : nos efforts se sont situés à l'interface entre physique et chimie et se concentraient sur l'étude des relations entre composition, structure et propriétés avec la perspective d'applications industrielles.

Fin de l'enregistrement

haut de page

accueil du site

Pour citer l'entretien :

« Entretien avec Paul Hagenmuller », par Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent et Hervé Arribart, 12 juin 2001 Sciences : histoire orale, https://sho.spip.espci.fr/spip.php?article124.
—

Entretien avec Paul Hagenmuller, par Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent et Hervé Arribart, 12 juin 2001

Lieu : Paris, France

Support : enregistrement sur cassette

Transcription : Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent et Hervé Arribart

Edition en ligne : Sophie Jourdin

EAGAR Thomas, 2002-05-06

Sophie Jourdin — 2011-09-19T08:55:20Z

Thomas Eagar

Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Materials Systems, MIT.

Pour citer l'entretien :

« Entretien avec Thomas Eagar », par George Smith (Acting Director of the Dibner Institute) et Arne Hessenbruch, 6 mai 2002, Sciences : histoire orale, https://sho.spip.espci.fr/spip.php?article83.

GEORGE SMITH (GS) : I am NOT, as such involved, but I'm starting to get interested, and this book [referring to Robert Cahn's Coming of Materials Science] has drawn me in very heavily. I've tended to be very skeptical, because of course the people, all the people I work with are really metallurgists, not Materials Scientists. [Richie Glue] knows less quantum mechanics than I do, and that's not saying very much. And you ! I would think of you very much as a metallurgist, trained at MIT. And you became chair of Materials Science ! What's your picture of the change from metallurgy to Materials Science ?

THOMAS EAGAR (TE) : Well, I have baggage, in that as a sophomore I took Cyril Smith's course, and the book The Search For Structure, and all that stuff, right ? If we go back to the beginnings of Materials Science, and... ... this is sort of a Cyril Smith view, it was at the Sorby Centennial Symposium, you may have come across that back in the 1960's. Cyril edited it. When I became a metallurgist, in the early 70's, they talked about metallurgy being structure-properties relationships. And then, Mert Flemings and a few other people kind of felt left out by that, so they started calling it processing-structure-properties, so by the time I was a Senior and a graduate student, it was processing-structure-properties, in about 1970, or actually 1972. Well, in '71 and '72 I served on an undergraduate committee to revise the undergraduate curriculum, I was the token undergraduate. Then they had a committee to revise the graduate curriculum, then I was the token graduate student the next year. That was the Morris Cohen committee. That committee was at the same time that Morris Cohen was coming out with the National Academy of Science report. You know that ?

ARNE HESSENBRUCH (AH) : COSMAT.

TE : Got the whole thing ?... I actually... [Marge Meyer] left me somewhere, the whole thing, I mean there was only one copy, you know this was before they made lots of copies of things. Anyway, I also, in 1973, while he was writing [Cosmat], was TA'ing for Morris Cohen, basically lecturing his course. And then in 1989, when they came out with Fleming's report, the NAS follow-up report, where they had the tetrahedron, processing, structure, properties, and performance, that's kind of where it was, but really, that... and I say "1880," I kind of subscribed to the Cyril Smith view that it was the Sorby's ability to do metallography and look at an internal structure. They always knew, if you go back a thousand years before, people would see crystalline structure on fractures or things like that, and Cyril goes through all that in The Search For Structure, but they really never could begin to explain it until Sorby basically gave them the tool of metallography. Then in the 1920's, x-rays came along. So they had several... they started developing new tools. In fact in 1985, I wrote an article for the Journal of Metals, where I kind of said that Materials Science had matured because it now had a theory, quantum mechanics, to explain what they could measure in characterization, and they could now produce (by things like molecular beam method, things like that) on an atom by atom scale. So Material Scientists have this whole range of structural scales, from atoms on up. Sorby started out by showing them that you can measure structure in the microscope and correlate that with properties. But they didn't have a theory to tie the two together. And they really didn't have very good first principles fabrication schemes to build up if they did have a theory. So anyway, the theory came along, the characterization tools came along from 1880 through, they're still coming along today, but I mean it was first Sorby, and then it was x-rays, and then you have the transmission electron microscope in 1950, and things like that, and they could start to measure things on an atomic scale, and all kinds of other scales in between. But measuring something doesn't allow you to do much with it unless you have a theory to go with it. Well quantum mechanics gave the theory, except the problem was quantum mechanics didn't have the power until the 1980's when the computer allowed them to do something more than a hydrogen molecule. In quantum mechanics, they had the fundamental equations, but they just couldn't solve the complexity of the equations. Now, we actually can design materials on a computer that have never been built before, and predict what the properties are. And now we actually, in the 1970's, 80's, and 90's have developed techniques so that with something complex you can actually build things up atom by atom if you have to. That's not necessarily what you want to do, but you can. So I said, this is the 1985 paper I wrote, I said, "That's what was placing Materials Science in a whole new realm to move forward." Because they had this triad of theory, characterization theory, and fabrication and processing techniques to build what they predicted. And I compared that to Biotechnology in 1985, and said, "It would be wonderful... Well, recombinant DNA gave you two of those : the characterization technique and the building technique." You got both, but you didn't have the theory. And at that time everybody said or people were saying Materials, Biotech, and Information Technology were the waves of the future. This is in 1985, now this is 17 years ago. I said "Well look. Information Technology is growing," (I didn't say too much about that but you could see the growth in 1985) "and Materials" I said, "really was poised, to be able to do some great things." And then, Biotech... and I was in favor of doing the human genome and stuff, although I'm not sure that was even out yet, but I was in favor of that, but I said "Until they develop a theory, they're not gonna be able… just because they have the characterization tools and the assembly tools, unless they know what they want to build, they're still gonna be doing things empirically." And that's a much slower process. And I think that's still true to a certain extent. Now they've got the human genome, and they're starting to develop others, then someone's gonna come along with the theory at some point, and figure out how these genes actually create these proteins and everything else. But they're not there yet, so there's still a lot of empiricism....But my thesis was that once you get past empiricism you have to have a theory to tie everything together. In Materials you have to have characterization, theory and then experimental assembly. Anyway, that was kind of my view of Materials Science. I wrote another paper about two or three years ago, where I said "Ok, lets look back and see if we can see what happened." Everybody has seen the growth of the Information Technology, and everybody still talks about biotechnology and growth. This was three or four years ago. The biotechnology boom hadn't quite taken off, although to a certain extent it has much promise still. But the thing about Materials is I called it, the paper was called "The Quiet Revolution in Materials Science and Engineering," and it's the "quiet revolution" because it has been a cost avoidance rather than a new business. Everybody in 1985 was predicting that Materials Science, Information Technology, and Biotechnology would create new businesses. And in Information Technology, and communications, and biotechnology, they have ! But what are the new businesses in Materials ? The employment is going down in the manufacturing industries. Steel companies have become four or five times more productive in the last 20-25 years. But the growth and the consumption of steel isn't going up, because there's only so much you can "eat." So the problem is there actually has been a revolution in Materials Science and Engineering, because we have this triad of theory, experiment, and stuff. We actually have had tremendous gains in productivity. I mean, the steel industry had doubled the productivity of the rest of American Manufacturing in the 1980's. For a whole decade ! That might be necessity.

GS : By how much did it grow ?

TE : It was like 6-8% a year versus three or four in manufacturing. And one percent, or zero, in the economy as a whole. I mean, you went from something like 6 man hours a ton to 1 man hour a ton to produce steel in a ten year period ! Well that was partly because they cut all the fat, they probably got half of that by cutting the fat, but the rest of it actually came from technology improvements and rethinking the way they did things. Part of that is that "necessity is the mother of invention." They were going to go out of business if they didn't ! Now it turns out they are eventually going to go out of business because we don't have the raw materials advantage that we had in the 1800's. We don't have the labor cost advantage we used to have. So frankly, the heavy metals producing industries, they're not glamorous industries that society wants to keep. They think of them as "dirty" industries they'd rather do offshore. Export your pollution, right ? That's not to say that Materials Science, and you can take steel or you can take silicon, you can take either one, the productivity gains were tremendous. But nobody notices that because people don't purchase a material, you buy a computer. You're buying functionality, you're not buying a material. That was my thesis in 1998 or whenever I wrote that article on "The Quiet Revolution." Which was sort of sequel to my 1985 article, on the idea that you have to have this triad of theory, fabrication, and characterization.

GS : A quick aside first and then I have two lines of questioning.

TE : Well, by the way, I've got a student who has applied for a patent on a, he calls it a "linear metal foam," but basically it's just holes in a substrate. The application is to blow air through this thing for a semiconductor cooling heat sink. Well, what you need now, because this thing is less than a cubic inch to cool the semiconductor, whereas the actual pins inside your computer now are maybe 50 cubic inches. You have a tremendous space advantage, but you need an air compressor ! You only need 30 psi, but we'd like to...

GS : No, we can do that...

TE : We want something...

GS : No, no, but that we can do.

TE : I know.

GS : We are doing things like that.

TE : In fact, I told Chris, he's trying to get venture capital and all this other stuff and start a business, he was actually one of the finalists in the 50K competition, but he finally pulled out, because it looked like he was close to getting real venture capital money. Intel's interested... it's the limiting thing on servers right now !

GS : Ok, let me pursue. These are two totally separate lines. You talk about theory, and I understand the point. Except I'm worried. You're right, but the ability to do computations in quantum mechanics beyond the hydrogen atom took off in the 1980's. But those are still not real computations. They're like the CMD computations. You make extraordinary simplifying assumptions, in order to get any kind of numbers out, and I look at them and I think of them more as engineering tools than physics.

TE : I'm not sure I disagree. I think I will agree with that, however, in some cases they've done very well, and the example I used to use when I was department head was Gerd Ceder who's now a full professor over there. He was an untenured associate when I became department head, and his claim to fame was lithium electrolytes for batteries. People used lithium cobalt and lithium manganese. I don't know what the anion was... maybe it was just lithium cobalt oxide and lithium manganese oxide. Basically, what they did is... Gerd basically developed this model, he was one of the first guys who could do ceramic systems as opposed to metals, where the bonding is non-directional, and everything. Anyway, and people couldn't do the ceramics because the bonding was longer range order, and as you say, they have to really do some very simplifying assumptions, and they can only do their calculations at absolute zero. We can't handle the entropy and so forth. I don't disagree with what you're saying, but what he did in that case is he was able to take out the cobalt and the manganese out of that oxygen lattice, which you can only do on the computer. He showed that the highest voltage you would get is if you completely removed the cobalt and the manganese part of the anion, and you just had lithium and oxygen in that crystal structure. Well that's an impossible thing to make physically, but from that, they basically came up with an alloy, lithium aluminium manganese or something, oxide... I don't remember exactly what it was right now, but the compound, which basically they predicted in the computer, what they need in terms of the interatomic spacing. That was really all it was. You can change the lattice spacing in the computer a lot easier than you can in the lab. Then [Nyet Ming Chang] went off as part of this team and made it. And Don Sadaway and Anne Mayes measured its properties and it was the best of the lithium electrolytes, solid electrolytes, for batteries. That was kind of one of the things that helped Gerd's whole tenure case and promotion case. He was really, so far as I could tell, the first person to predict the properties of a material in the computer before it had ever been made. Everybody else was always, "Ok we made the material, now lets go do our fudge factors and show..."

GS : Yeah, we well realize that what you're doing there is self-fulfilling prophecies.

TE : Yes.

AH : When was this ?

TE : This was about 1995 or so they did this. But it was the first, and you know, I took his tenure case forward, and the letters came through, and he was the first person to ever have, I mean that's what everybody was saying. And now the physicists looked down on him, because the physicists wanted to, they were interested in developing the fanciest new tools. Gerd was someone who basically said "Well what are the tools that are out there ?" He would pull whatever tools off the shelf, from the physicists, that made sense to solve this problem. He was an engineer ! He likes to think of himself as a scientist, but if you really get down to it, he's really an engineer, an engineer uses tools available, and engineer's not out there creating tools. That's the scientist's job. So, the physicists, I had to be very careful when I went out for letters, that I didn't try to get too many physicists who were going to look down and say "He doesn't have a computer program, a code, that he is the father of. Basically, I convinced Bob Brown, who was the engineering school dean, was that Gerd was a star because he could use any tool that was out there. He was intelligent enough to take the tools developed by others and apply them. Yes, they all have approximations, but he was able to put the right couple together, to come up with a prediction, which was a very useful prediction. And by the way, predicted the voltages out of 4.5 volts, predicted them within like a tenth or two-tenths of a volt. That's not too hard to believe that you can do that. All you're doing is changing the lattice spacing between the oxygen atoms. The other thing he did was that everybody really thought it was the lithium that was carrying the charge, and it turns out it was the oxygen vacancies. He kind of, not only did he, you know, predict it in the computer, but he actually, the computer told him what was counterintuitive to everyone else's assumption. Everybody figure, lithium's a wide ion, and it moves through there quickly, but no, it turns out it was the oxygen vacancies that were moving in the opposite direction. That came out, all those predictions, came out of the computer before anyone ever made the material. They made the material in almost the first time they made it, and they confirmed the theory. I'm not sure I can give you another example in the last seven years, that's maybe because I'm not department head anymore, and I'm not following all that, but it is going to come.

GS : Ok, fair enough. You realize the same thing is going on in quantum chemistry and physics. Long thought on the simplifying assumptions...a real interest in it. In the last few years, as computers have become more powerful, and being used to synthesize molecules. Now, let me ask the follow-on question, do you see any sign so far, of feedback from Materials Science Research into physics as such ?

TE : No. Do you think that physicists would even think of talking to a Materials Scientist. I mean, this is the hierarchy of snobbery !

GS : Well, I understand all of that, but remember there was a Scientific American article, roughly a year ago, by a physicist out in the Midwest, I think it was Wisconsin, talking about the design of materials along the lines you're proposing. I found the article to be a sales pitch.

TE : Well, they're worse than that. I don't remember that one, because I probably just looked at it and threw it away, you know, read a few of the figure captions and decided "This guy is a physicist and doesn't know what he's talking about." I remember the one that was in Technology Review, about 4 or 5 years ago, maybe 5 or 6 years ago. They had a little linear induction motor made out of atoms. I forget how, I said this... oh, they called it a planetary gear. It wasn't an induction motor, it was a planetary gear. And they actually had four or five atom molecules that were the gears. They tried to draw these things as if each little atom... this came out of Lawrence Livermore, right ? Some computational... basically it was a mathematician, who would work with some materials scientists, and it was all a big sales pitch. And I said "This is not a planetary gear, this is an interplanetary gear !" And the reason is anyone who has ever worked in Materials, knows that the surface atoms are extremely reactive, and if you put this in an oxygen environment, all these atoms would, you know, would oxidize, and you wouldn't have this structure anymore. The other thing is, there's no lubrication here, the atoms, one on one, actually like to bond. I had three reasons why it was an interplanetary gear : you had to operate it in an ultra-high vacuum, and I don't remember the other two, but it was absurd !

GS : Briefly, the Scientific American article starts an unusual paradox, if you look at boundary constraints, there's so much larger material strength. But this is the paradox, that we now, in quantum mechanics are understanding, in such a way that we can now start constructing better.

TE : Well you know, and I read all this stuff about carbon nanotubes, you know, having calculated the strength of them. We did iron whiskers in the 1950's ! They actually experimentally measured them, and it's not a theory, ok ? And actually, one time in my class, three years ago, I was pointing out surface tension in my welding class, and I was talking about Van der Waals bonding and stuff, and I pointed out that, you know, the strength of an atom-atom interaction is millions of psi, and that should be equivalent to the surface energy created and one student said "How do you do that ?" So I went back to my office, I had an hour after class, and I worked it out ! It's actually just, you integrate F dot dx to get the energy of the Leonard-Jones potential, and you compare that energy, per atom, to the area of surface, of what's the unbonded state. You predict that iron, to pull two iron atoms apart, F dot dx, that energy is equivalent to the surface energy created by iron, 1.5 Joules per square meter. You know, yes, I had to work it out, it took me an hour to work it out, mostly because I had to go back and remember my units conversion, right ? It wasn't a hard calculation. This is a freshman physics type of calculation. But the units conversion got me all screwed up. But it works out. You can prove, all these people are presenting this as if it's a wonderful revelation ! 50 years later ! People worked this out ! I don't know whether it was Cahn, whoever it was, but people worked this stuff out, I don't know, years ago. It's because they don't read the literature, or they need to sell something, to people today and say "I'm new, I'm different, I predicted carbon nanotubes are the strongest things going." You know, I got criticized once, because I said the carbon-carbon bond was the strongest bond. This was in some Technology Review article I wrote. And some chemist spoke to me and said "No, it's the silicon-oxygen bond in silicons." You know, one's like 2.2 eV and the other's like 2.3 ! Or 2.25 or something ! And "Oh ok, so I'm wrong !"

GS : Ok, quick comment and then I want to pursue this one step further. I don't know if you realize that this is something I followed in quantum chemistry. The Jones-Leonard potential has been derived, was derived for the first time successfully in the 1980's. And at that, only for helium.

TE : Oh yeah ?

GS : If you actually tried to do the derivation from first principles, you get totally wrong results. And they got it for helium, it was a huge computational endeavor. The problem is you have to integrate, average, across all possible orientations. So they finally broke it enough to say it actually works for helium.

TE : Because helium's symmetric.

GS : You got it ! Except it's not symmetric in electron orbits, so you have different orientation. Let me ask you a different question. Arne made me look at your curriculum. Which I guess has changed recently, and Suresh has changed it still further, but I'll leave that alone. What I noticed, and he was calling to my attention, is a bunch of solid-state quantum physics courses. Do you presuppose the material in those courses, in your classes, you are very seriously giving them quantum mechanics. Do you expect your students to understand that ?

TE : No. In fact, don't ask me to defend that new curriculum. That new curriculum is heading in the exact opposite direction of where I think the department ought to be heading. That curriculum was put together by some people who have never worked in industry and still think that we're producing PhD's to go on to academic jobs. As 10% of our doctoral students. 85% of our students go into industry. So our department, in their quest in this hierarchy of snobbery, likes to consider themselves, or they are more and more trying to consider themselves research or materials scientists. In materials engineering, there have been relatively few hires. In fact it's getting to the point where it's questionable whether we can even teach heat and fluid flow anymore. We were innovative in 1995 by requiring heat and fluid flow. We were the first Materials Department to even require heat and fluid flow of the undergraduates. But we're about one year away from having no one, except me, teach it, and I'm not going to. But they have not replaced the people, the materials engineers who could do that, and more and more, because all the students want to go into photonics. Which is one of these waves, I mean, this wave may be a fifteen year wave as opposed to a five or ten year wave, like advanced ceramics in the mid-1980's to early 90's. So maybe electronic materials is a longer wave and then biomaterials is coming along as a wave. But there's going to be something else. Whether biomaterials takes it over, you know, takes over electronic materials, but the industry is going to saturate. It's the old story of you know, the functionality... well I say old story ! Christiansen got his claim to fame for the Innovators' Dilemma, that the technology outstrips the need. And people are going to quit buying functionality that they don't need. Do you need a 1.8 GHz computer to do word processing ? Lets face it, most of the PC's in the world are just secretaries typewriters.

GS : Except for the internet.

TE : Except for the internet, yes. But, well, you don't need a, do you need 1.8 GHz for the internet ?

GS : Well they make sure you do by... put more crap on there !

TE : Well given that last mile speed, you don't need that !

GS : You're not really presupposing...well what you probably teach is practical, right ? You're teaching welding among other things.

TE : Well, yes, but I teach it from a completely different point of view, but that's only to graduate students. When I taught undergraduates, I used to teach the sophomores physical chemistry. And that we did expect them to have a good foundation in thermal and physical chemistry. And they were supposed to get it with mechanics in the old curriculum. And they were supposed to get a structural properties course, which unfortunately, we had some of our materials scientists think that teaching space groups was teaching structural properties. Well that was never... I mean I was on the committees ! Both the undergraduate and graduate committees, I was on the committees that formed the curriculum when I was an undergraduate student and when I was a graduate student. I served on the lunch committee and the Cohen committee. The idea is that you would give some student the appreciation for the types of structures over the scales of size. Well, it turns out that of all the people who teach the course for 20 years, we never could get anyone to teach it properly, until finally, Sam Allen and Ned Thomas wrote a book in our curriculum series. Which began to do it, and that's the first book, but it hasn't really taken off because frankly, there's not really any single materials scientist who knows all that material from the get go, from atoms to [Regie Blue], you know, if you talk about size scales, you talking about eight orders of magnitude ! Or seven orders of magnitude.

GS : Now, you're not presupposing...what about evidence ? In his undergraduate and graduate, David Parks tells me that in the graduate program, really does presuppose the quantum mechanics principles - in higher courses. I'm dubious.

TE : When they talk quantum mechanics, they're talking about the concept that electrons can tunnel through an energy barrier.

GS : Let me use mine as a philosopher now, my terminology. I easily see quantum mechanics playing a profound heuristic role and serving as the basis for computation. But that's a little different from the science of quantum mechanics. Actually infusing the discipline. Which is it ? Infusing or is it primarily heuristic and an underpinning concept ?

TE : It's conceptual underpinning. I don't even know if I would give it the glory of being heuristic. As a graduate student, I taught the chemical metallurgy course, which the first half of the course was Tom King, the department head, teaching blast furnaces. And the second half was Keith Johnson teaching quantum mechanics.

GS : (Laughs)

TE : And I said there's never been a broader course taught at any other materials department in the country ! We went from

GS : [To Arne Hessenbruch] You have to see a blast furnace to believe it !

TE : We went from particles in a box to blast furnaces all in one course, and I was the TA for it. Nobody remembers this, this was basically teaching two separate modules. But frankly, [Tom King] was doing the old, traditional "teach them what the practice is out there." And Keith Johnson had been hired, I guess he worked with Slater, but he was a chemical physicist. He was using the x-alpha technique, if you're familiar, this was a way of kind of, when computers weren't as powerful, of just solving a single atom and coming up with symmetric boundary conditions. As far as I understand. Keith never got into something that complex, because that was research, and I remember Tom King once saying that Keith had just come to listen, this was when Keith was coming up for tenure, and he was all excited because he just figured out why permanganate ion was purple. Somehow in the calculations he had found some energy band or spectrum that gave the wavelength of purple. That was about the strength of what you could do, is you could predict that "the sky is blue." Bob Rose used to joke at that time that the computational materials scientists were able to predict that copper melts below ten thousand Kelvin ! That was about the level of their accuracy in 1970 ! Today, it's not really quantum mechanics first principles, but using Thermocalc and things, you can actually predict the melting point of metals, complex alloy systems, 12 component systems, more accurately than you can measure them. You can predict them within ten degrees with a fair amount of reliability. That's not quantum mechanics. That's basically just taking huge databases of thermodynamic data and fitting and finding the best fit.

GS : Which to me is engineering science.

TE : That's engineering science. Yes, it's not basic science. If we go to what people do today, yes, actually, people use the old x-alpha technique as kind of a tool. They don't use it for undergraduates, but they use it for graduate classes now. People are trying to use some of these programs—actually one of these programs came out of the biology field— for first principle calculations. But there was a $50,000 program that Gerd got inexpensively, and he teaches a course on computational techniques in materials science. He's basically teaching them how to use some of the tools that you pull off the shelf. Physicists are developing them.

GS : I may try to take the course.

TE : I don't even know if he's still teaching it, but anyway. Basically, he's just pulling tools off of the shelf and showing them how to use them. It's interesting to me to see the tools the graduate students can pull off the shelf, whether it's Thermocalc or whether it's a first principles type of thing. The first principles things are certainly, as you pointed out, are coming up with very very simplistic models, but that doesn't mean that they're not useful.

GS : Well, let me now summarize. You said one thing earlier that I now want to understand. Mainly, the time is coming, for these calculations to become more and more pervasive. Fair enough. What it sounds to me, is the science side of this is in contrast to the metallurgists I grew up with. Now remember, what I know as an engineer dates starting in the 1950's. These metallurgists literally taught me on the spot. They wouldn't have known about quantum mechanics, or anything !

TE : They didn't even know "particles in a box," right ?

GS : They were in another world. What's happened, is the application of fundamental science to specific problems in the materials realm, there's been a transition from virtually no attention to the possibility of using highly current science in application, to a great emphasis on it. Is that a fair summary ?

TE : I think you're going back a little too much to the physicist, of what the latest thing is. I'll accept there's a ten or fifteen year delay.

GS : Ok. Fair enough. But twentieth century physics, fairly recent physics is being taught.

TE : Oh yes. I mean...

GS : And that's not true to the metallurgists who were coming up in the 1940's.

TE : In 1970, when I was taught, I was taught k-space, and reciprocal space, lattice to understand the band structure of metals. Which really was what Slater and others were doing in the 1930's. Right ? It made it down to the undergraduate curriculum, by 1970.

GS : Ok, that's impressive.

TE : It was just probably in the graduate program in the 1960's, and so the time lag might have been 25 years at that point. I would say the time lag now it ten to fifteen years. But it hasn't shrunk to three or four years or five years,

GS : And it's only when it shrinks down to something like that, that the possibility of feedback into the science starts growing.

TE : That's why the physicists look at what the materials scientists are doing, and they say, "These are not sophisticated models. What Gerd Ceder did is he's using models that are ten years old." Well why is he using models that are ten years old ? Well first of all, it takes about three or four or five years to recognize they exist, and then it takes a few years to learn how to use it, right ? And then by the time you use it, by the time you get a result out, it's ten or twelve years at the earliest ! Plus you have this kind of series of recognizing that technology exists, learning it yourself, and using it and applying it, and you have those three things, and that's going to take 12 years. I remember in 1984, when I worked for the Navy in Tokyo I went to Australia, and I met the guy who was the science master for Australia, and he happened to be a metallurgist. He worked for BHB. We were at a conference together, and he told me that the Australians had just done a study, to find that it took eight years for Australia to recognize—actually Australia was eight years behind in most of their science. Seven years of that was just recognizing that the work had been done somewhere else. It only took them about a year to catch up, once they recognize that the work had existed. But just sifting through the literature and realizing that over here, or at this institute in the Ukraine, or over here in Germany, or over here at Stanford or whatever, someone had come up with something really similar. It took them seven years to recognize these seminal contributions. Lets face it. They don't all come, they come from disparate places at disparate times.

GS : In physics, people are very aware of one another, of what they are trying to do in the backdrop. So there's very quick dissemination. Here it's individuals picking things up sort of in isolation, and playing with them until they become productive enough that it spreads. That's because you're not really doing research in these tools. You're doing research in the application.

TE : Right, and it may explain why [Bob Ranek], who was at NSF for like 30 years, kind of heading up a lot of their materials sciences, and he used to say, "Look. The physicists don't murder each other on proposals like the materials people do." Why ? Because the physicists, as you said, they all kind of know what they other guy is doing, and even if the other guy has a harebrain idea, you're a physicist, your kind of a liberal, and hey, you say "Maybe you'll come up with something." You don't have this arrogance that you know everything. In the materials science field, there's a few people who think they know everything, and no one else has ever learned anything. "Hand me down from on the high," you know ? A transfer of knowledge. It's a very dysfunctional approach to assume that all your colleagues are buffoons. Now it may be true that 98% of them are, but none the less, to assume that all of them are...

GS : Let me put the capstone on this line of discussion, and then start the second line. So if Bob Brown asked you, you wouldn't recommend moving the Materials Science & Engineering Department into the School of Science ?

TE : No.

GS : Is there anybody in your department who would be inclined ?

TE : Oh there are three or four very arrogant people who think that they are great scientists and great physicists, and what they don't realize, and Bob Rose (Bob was my assistant advisor) and I always talked about the fact that they are half solid-state physicists.

GS : What's the size of the department ?

TE : It's about 32 or 33 faculty. How many people did we train in physics ?

GS : PhD, graduate trained ?

TE : No I know. Not that many. Maybe two or three, I'd have to go back.

GS : Chemists ?

TE : Well, chemistry, you know, Gus Whit, who is retiring this year, had a degree in physical chemistry from Indiana. But most of them come out of Materials or Chemical Engineering departments.

AH : Wuensch is crystallography, sort of physics...

TE : Bernie had a joint... who's the great crystallographer in the physics department at MIT... [B.E. Warner]. Bernie did a thesis in our department, but [B.E. Warner] was his thesis advisor. Bernie's the guy who thinks that teaching space groups is teaching structural properties. I had to, as a tenured professor, had to mount a revolt. He was chairman of the undergraduate committee, he was head of the committee that created the curriculum. And I knew that what he was teaching was absolutely worthless to these student engineers. I mean if they were all going to go off and be physicists, it was probably the perfect course, but that's not what they were going to do. I had to lead a revolt. Bernie, who was usually a very kind and gentle person, Don Sadoway remembers it, one time I had finally brought it up again, and the undergraduates backed me up. None of the faculty dared to back me up, because Bernie is one of the most articulate people in the Department, and Bernie, when we had the vote, and the undergraduates on the committee sided with me—and the other faculty actually voted to make it a broader course rather than just space groups— and Bernie just lit into me, in front of the undergraduate students and everybody else. He told me how an ignorant welder couldn't appreciate blahblahblah

GS : [laughs] You're not an "ignorant" welder.
AH : When was this ?

TE : This was like 1978 or so, I was probably still an assistant professor when I had led this revolt.

GS : Tom's never been known not to hold back on a strong view !

TE : Hey, you know, if they didn't want me for a faculty member, they could have denied me tenure, and so what, I've got a life, I could go on somewhere else ! Which is what has bothered them ever since, you know ? Because they know they can't shut me up.

GS : Let me go to the other line. When Mel Bernstein talks about Materials Science (he was really the first person I was around), he taught at Tufts for a while...

TE : Where is he now ?

GS : [?]

TE : Oh.

GS : [Backow]...[?] He had the feeling that [Backow] was not going to listen to him and he wanted out. These are two people he knows pretty well...

TE : And he's absolutely right ! A single conversation with [Larry Backow] will tell you that he doesn't listen to what you're saying.

GS : I know, and that's what happened. A single conversation, in private, and he came out of that office and wanted out. When Mel talks about Materials Science, what he emphasizes, is the generality of materials over the word metals.

TE : Yes ?

GS : And to the extent that he was teaching a cute, a nice undergraduate course on materials, in which he emphasized the substitution of non-metallics for metallics and vice-versa. He went through the history of different bicycle materials.

TE : A typical approach. I've seen it many times, students like it.

GS : It's a good course and I'm very impressed by it. I'm curious about that in some ways, and I'll do it in my polemical way, which is probably surely wrong. As an outsider watching, of course you know I have a very slanted picture of the aircraft engine industry, and in effect applying the knowledge I got here to turbines, but generally, I got the impression that the metallurgists saw various materials coming to the forefront that might potentially replace metals. And they didn't want research on those materials to fall into other departments. They wanted to absorb it, but at the same time, the most widely used material in the world, concrete, they showed no interest in.

TE : Well, I think you're giving too much prescient knowledge to these metallurgists, ok ? I look at it as first of all, when our department was started, it was course 3. There was Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering (course 2 at MIT), and there was Mining Engineering. Now there's not a lot of mining that goes on in New England anymore. There's not a lot that goes on in the United States. But it was in 1888 that they added the title "Mining and Metallurgy." And you have to remember where metallurgy was, you had Bessemer. Who had come along twenty years before, and all of a sudden the steel industry was growing. Andrew Carnegie was the richest man in the world. He was the Bill Gates of today. So why did you go from mining to mining and metallurgy ? Well because metallurgy, the steel industry, was becoming the dominant industry. They were the semiconductor manufacturing industry of the day. And in fact even until 1961, remember when U.S. Steel wanted to raise prices and Kennedy had to stonewall them down, because it was going to cause worldwide inflation. It was like raising the price of oil, before the price of oil became the gold standard of...

During World War II, we bombed out most of the world's steel making capacity, so at the end of World War II, the United States had 75% of the world's stainless steel making capacity. Bethlehem and U.S. Steel had 40% of the world's steel making capacity between the two of them. You developed an arrogance among these businessmen that is unbelievable. From the days of Andrew Carnegie through Charles Schwab, who started Bethlehem, through, who was it Martin ? Well, anyway, the guy that ran Bethlehem through the depression. It turns out that during the depression, the ten most highly paid executives in U.S. industry, six of them were at Bethlehem Steel. And I can't remember the guy who ran Bethlehem Steel at the time. He made a profit when Bethlehem lost money during the depression, because he got paid a bonus as CEO, for every pound poured, every ton poured. It wasn't how much money they (the company) made. When I joined Bethlehem Steel in 1974, they had just had their most profitable year ever, 1973. They had been almost bankrupt in the late 60s, when they built the last integrated steel mill in the world to be built by a company. Every one since has been built by a nation. Bethlehem built Burns Harbor Indiana plant.

GS : You realize I worked on that.

TE : Did you ? Ok. So anyway, you know Burns Harbor, but Bethlehem was close to bankruptcy in the late 60's, but then when Burns Harbor started, it was an efficient mill. I remember in 1975, as a "looper," A "looper" was... Nick Grant had been a "looper" at Bethlehem Steel. They had the "loop" course, and back in the 1930's, late 30's, when Nick Grant went through it, he had been an undergraduate at Carnegie-Mellon before he came back to MIT.

GS : This is a term I don't know.

TE : The "looper ?" They had the Bethlehem Steel loop course, it was very famous. They took all their college graduates, and for one year, they would put them six weeks in the blast furnace, six weeks in accounting, six weeks... you did these six week stints for a whole year, until as a management trainee, you learned the entire loop of the company. You couldn't go through the whole thing, but you went through like eight of these things, eight of these modules. Then you were a "looper." I was hired, I was one of 500 college graduates, hired into the loop course. Well, when I went into the loop course, it was no longer a year's training. I was hired in the research department, and I had been working there for seven months. So when the next summer, they ran it for 2 weeks at corporate headquarters in a great big auditorium. And in the mornings we would have lectures from the vice presidents. Tells you something about 2 weeks worth of vice presidents, about how many vice presidents we had. And in the afternoons we would take tours of the Bethlehem plants to see how steel was made. With our white hard hats to show we were management and such. We would just walk through like a bunch of prima donnas through the steel plant. That was the loop course and how it had changed. But I remember the vice president of finance gets up, and he says "It doesn't cost Bethlehem Steel anything to make steel because our coke ovens were built in 1911 and our blast furnace was built in 1912, and they're fully depreciated." and out of 500 ignorant little people who were supposed to be impressed, and I had the audacity to raise my hand and said, "I don't understand why it doesn't cost any money to make steel just because something's been depreciated." And his answer was, "That's because you don't understand finance." And, you know, that was true. I did not understand finance. But it wasn't until two years later that I took a finance course at Lehigh, that I realized that he didn't understand finance either ! You don't save money by using something that's old and low-productivity just because it depreciated. On the books, on his books he might but in reality, you don't. And that's what killed the American Steel industry. But the point is why did we take metallurgy out ? The department over there has got like 23 endowed chairs. Something like 17 of them come from the steel industry or steel people. Ok ? If you look...

GS : You're even less that extreme at Carnegie-Mellon.

TE : Oh yeah.

AH : "Over there" being the department...

TE : The department, yes. In our department. And one of them is actually a chair of ferrous metallurgy. This is a guy gave four chairs, a Greek steel man, he gave them when I was department head. The first chair, or two chairs, he gave two chairs. He actually gave about 7 chairs to MIT, one in Chemical Engineering, his Master's thesis advisor, and he upgraded a junior chair to a full professor chair. Then he gave four million dollars with which we created two chairs, the [Metoulla ?] and the [Establa Solophotus ?], two chairs he gave for his parents. And he gave those gratis. No strings attached, didn't have do anything. When he came in to form the [Tom King] chair, of course Tom King was his thesis advisor, and the chair in his and his wife's name, and [Vicillian ?], [Venet ?], and [Solophotus ?]. The Tom King chair is a chair of metallurgy. And the [Solophotus] chair is a chair of ferrous metallurgy. I called up Bob Brown, after he came into my office and said he was going to give me three millions bucks, after he had already given us four million bucks, and this was like a year and a half later, and I said, "Bob, can we accept these ?" And Bob said, "Oh sure !" Bob has no compunction whatsoever. He would take it, and what does he care ? Screw him ! Solophotus will either be dead, or if he comes back, he can't get his money back. That's the ethics of Bob Brown. And that's the ethics of MIT, so far as that goes. But that's one of the things, I mean I always tell people that's one of the reasons I stepped down. There's a thousand reasons I stepped down. But that's one of them ! I know, and Vicillian calls me, every time he comes back into the United States, because he realizes that he can trust me, and I say, "Vicillian, you know..." what I did is, I created a good friend of his, [Claude Lupus], Who was an MIT graduate student at the same time. They're both of Greek origin. When Claude's mother was dying in Egypt, and he was living in Australia, he had to fly through Athens to get to Egypt, and he stayed at Vicillian's house. This was back in the 1970's. They're best friends, and I got Claude, well Bob Brown killed it, but Claude was a full professor at Carnegie-Mellon, and went off to Australia and worked with the World Bank and other things. He had a degree from France, it was the equivalent of a doctorate in economics before he came to MIT to get his doctorate in metallurgy. He made full professor at Carnegie-Mellon and went off to become the advisor to the CEO of [A-Max] or whatever, and worked in industry, basically as a consultant for the World Bank type of things, and made mega billion dollar projects around the world for twenty years. He wrote... at the end of that, wrote a textbook that's being used at about half of the materials departments to teach graduate thermodynamics. He also won an award, a practical award from AIME, ok ? He wanted to come back because his kids were going to start college in the United States, and I figured this was the perfect person, sixty years old, twilight of his career, make him a professor at MIT. Bob Brown wouldn't have it. It was basically, you know, give this guy...well anyway, what he did was let me make him a visiting professor for five years. So Claude's treated as a second class citizen, but he has the name [Vicillian Solophotus] on his chair ! And Claude is as much as a physical metallurgist as anyone else. Vicillian is very happy, but what happens when Claude's five years is up ? I don't have to find anybody, I'm no longer part of that ! Well it's not as if Tom Eagar's going to be quiet about the fact that MIT is going to use this to hire some photonics person in the chair of ferrous metallurgy ! Ok ? It's deceitful, it's dishonest, it's unethical, I don't care what you call it, but it's the MIT way of doing business.

GS : Can I read you correctly ? This is still...
AH : Yes, I have it all on tape, but you haven't signed anything yet !

TE : I'll sign it !

GS : So there's not a metallurgy department in a very real sense ?

TE : No, no, no. They have not hired, actually, they did hire one metallurgist, who will show up in the next year, but that's probably the first metallurgical hire in ten years. Mert Flemings actually fought very hard, got a lot of flak from the steel guys, to drop it down to 25% metallurgists. When I was a student it was 70% metallurgists, 25% ceramists, and 5% polymer people. Or polymer "person," I guess. Just one or two ! And they wanted to build up polymers in the 70's and 80's, and then Flemings actually, for all of my problems with Mert Flemings, he actually did a very good job of balancing it so it was 25% electronic materials, 25% ceramics, 25%..., well he never got it down to below about 30% metallurgists, and 20% polymers people. And, well, I mean I completed it. And at some point while I was department head, we were 25% of each. But it never had this thing where the steel guys wanted to bring the other things in—the steel guys wanted to keep the other stuff out ! Why is concrete out ? Because it's a competitor to steel !

GS : I understand. But I gather there's somebody in Civil Engineering taking a Materials Science approach to concrete right now.

TE : Well they have to, because there's more tons of that used than steel. However, they've hired several people in that field, but it's very hard for them to get tenured, because you have people like Bob Brown at the top, who says, "We don't want someone in concrete," just because it's one of the most heavily used materials, and it has the potential to be improved dramatically. Ok ? And the science has been done to show that, now you just need someone to show and prove the processing economics to do that. But Bob Brown wouldn't be interested in that because he gets his Materials Science off of the front page of the Wall Street Journal.

GS : Let me try something. Of course his background is applied mechanics.

TE : Yes, but he considers himself a Materials Scientist, because when he first started Mert Flemings gave him some money, some seed funds out of the Materials Processing Center, to do some problems on silicon crystal growth. So Bob Brown thinks he knows more about Materials Science than I do, ok ? Actually, he thinks I'm a dinosaur in Materials Science. We actually shifted to 15 or 20% metallurgists, and that's mostly just because some of us can't wait until we die. The department now is trying to shift to almost all electronic materials and biotechnology. Which is interesting, because when I started out as department head in 1995, I determined that we wanted a soft-tissue biotechnology...They had an opening, supposedly, for a biomaterials person, but Mert Flemings and everyone else in the department was thinking what I call a "hip corroder." Basically, looking at vitality and how metal implants corrode in the body because that's all they ever knew, from the 1960's on. That was what they thought of biomaterials. I went, and I talked to Doug Lauffenberger, and I realized the type of stuff that Bob Langer's doing, the type of stuff that they're doing in Chemical Engineering on soft-tissue engineering was the real future. And that's where people would be using the principles of polymer science. It took me two years of bringing in candidates for a faculty position in biomaterials before the faculty finally got a vision. We must have brought in a dozen, some of them very senior, and some of them, well most of them junior, candidates. And I was getting faculty coming to me and saying, "What are you bringing this person for ? This is a Chemical Engineer, they don't belong in the Materials Department !" It took me two years, and all of the sudden, after about two years, the faculty had the light hit them. They realized that soft-tissue engineering was what really the future of biomaterials is, and so now, they're running "whole hog" into it. The pendulum swings too far to a certain extent. But none of them, I mean fortunately, you know, the wicked leaders, he who they despise, the good leaders, he who the people revere, and the great leaders, he who the people say, "We did it ourselves !" I actually was the great leader in biomaterials in that department, because nobody in that department would now associate me as the person who forced them into soft-tissue engineering. But I fought them for two, two and a half years !

GS : Ok. I want to continue this line, but I want to do something different. I mean, from my background, when I hear ceramics, when I hear composites, my eyes tend to roll.

TE : Well, same here ! I wrote articles on that !

GS : Well, you know, Rob's article on the heart valve is one I constantly pull out, and tell people these are materials whose time has not yet come.

TE : And will not come.

GS : And will not come for forty years ! Well that's Rob's view. But now, David Parks offered the following description of the change in Materials Science. He said, "The old organization," and he was at Illinois, "Was a group of specialists defined by the Material they worked on."

TE : Yes.

GS : And a curriculum built around the individual. And that's just not true anymore. What you're doing is generalizing across materials constantly.

TE : Yes. That's true, and that came from... it came actually first out of the [Wench] committee. It was led in part in the background by Morris Cohen. If you want to go up to Swampscott, you might want to interview Morris Cohen. Morris, who was a steel man, he was revered by the steel industry, was the guy who led the charge nationally to take it from a metallurgy field to a broader field that covers Materials Science and Engineering, and looked holistically at the structure and properties relationship you had been looking at in steel and copper for all these years. The same things apply to other things. Which is why I laughed at Buckytubes being so strong when we were doing iron whiskers in the 1960's and the 1950's.

GS : I had lunch yesterday with [Dudley Hershey], and he of course, created the technology...

TE : You know these are people reinventing the wheel. Morris actually had the vision, and through COSMAT, he pushed that vision that it really was a holistic field of Materials Science and Engineering. I think, although you'd have to talk to Mert and Morris I think [Herb Polyman] was one of those, where all but everyone hated the man. And I only met him at few times in my life. He was one of the more arrogant people, but he was at MIT,

GS : Yes, I understand.

TE : But not in the Materials Department.

GS : He was incredibly arrogant from everything I hear.

TE : He belonged at Harvard. I mean there was absolutely no question.

GS : See I saw traces of him at GE.

TE : Well, you know what I always say. MIT is the second most arrogant school in Cambridge. You can quote me on that too.

GS : You don't have to be quoted, everybody knows that ! That's simple truth !

TE : So the industry in the 1960's and the 1970's was still feeling they were on top of the world. And I remember when I went to Bethlehem Steel in 1974, as a young employee, they had 25% of the world's steel industry sales, where they had 75%, but the guys that had been hired after World War II were now the managers 25 years later. They still thought in terms of "We control 75% of the world's steel industry." But they only had 25% of it, but they had the arrogance to try to do it. And that was the beginning of the end of the steel industry in the United States. They would not change, they were proud of their 1912 blast furnaces, because that was what made them profitable for all they knew. They were idiots, they were morons, I don't care what everybody else says. They were not looking at new technology. They were living in the past, they were flying, they were taking corporate jets from Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, down to Florida on the weekends to play golf. I can give you all kinds of stories. Just total corruption, I mean, well I don't know about "total corruption," but they were not businessmen. They were just people who had worked themselves by the corporate lobotomy to the top of the heap, and now they were taking all the perks they could. And I could tell you, we could spend hours on the perks these guys had. The automotive companies, and Kodak, and all these others never topped the steel company in terms of taking care of their executives. So those steel companies Were very upset for the next 15 or 20 years that MIT and other people were moving to this more holistic view of Materials Science, rather than metallurgy.

GS : I would think they resisted perhaps ?

TE : Oh yes. And I don't think we were the first department to change to "Metallurgy and Materials Science" as the title.

GS : No, you weren't.

TE : Ok. There were one or two others, but it was only because they didn't have as many politics to fight at the other schools that did it. I think you'd probably find that an individual at each one of these schools who was on the COSMAT committee and stuff, and so they did it earlier than we did, but only a few years earlier.

GS : It's interesting to know that the steel people resisted. [Bernstein's] an interesting case, because of course the handbook of steel, he co-edits and co-authors, and he had become just an outspoken proponent of broader materials.

TE : Well, it's a no-brainer ! I look at what the polymer folks are doing today, and I say, "They've discovered alloying." Ok ? What was discovered 150 years ago, they've now discovered !

GS : Well, 1500 !

TE : Well 1500. Well in terms of starting to understand, but yes. We've been doing it for years before, but we didn't really understand what zinc did to copper. But in any case, what it was that it was harder to alloy in polymers. You can't just throw them together, you actually have to synthesize them together as block polymers, but that's nothing more than alloys, the polymer analog to alloying in metals. And now, guess what ? Instead of monolithic silicon, they're going to silicon germanium, and the compound semiconductors and stuff. Well, surprise surprise ! When you marry two materials, you can actually enhance some properties at the expense of some others, which is something people don't always realize. That you don't get your bang for your buck in every area.

GS : There's no free lunch.

TE : There's no free lunch. Anyway, so the metallurgists still dominated the industry. A lot of them were wealthy and gave a lot of money to the department to create chairs, but they have been somewhat chagrined to see that the department shifted. Although in the late 1990's, many of them actually have acknowledged the wisdom of the department for having switched. Because most of the steel guys realize that the steel industry is gone. You have to remember that the steel industry was where our students went ! Where did Tom Eagar go when he graduated ? Bethlehem Steel ! They hired 70% of the graduates, and that's why 70% of the faculty were steel people. Why is the department swinging towards electronic materials and biotechnology ? Because that's where they're hiring students. The problem is the faculty still think that they're producing professors. Not students for industry. And the faculty don't like to think of themselves as engineers. My tenure case, one of the letters, and I know the person who wrote it because I got to read my whole tenure case when I was department head. This is one of my colleagues on the faculty. He described me as a "pure engineer."

GS : I would describe you that way.

TE : Yes. I describe myself as a pure engineer. I am proud to be an engineer. I'm one of the only people I know who is proud, working in academia, who is proud to be an engineer. I've always said that it would be wonderful if more than 20% of the faculty in the School of Engineering at MIT were engineers !

GS : Parks is another one.

TE : Parks is another one. Yes, he's one of the 20%. Now I also say I wouldn't hire more than 20% of my colleagues as a consultant ! Most of them are scientists who wouldn't be able to figure out any complex problem, make a decision on it, in the face of uncertainty, and have a chance of being right. I'm a pure engineer, and so I've accepted the fact that I'm a pure engineer. I'm proud of the fact that, although I don't like to use the proud word for religious reasons, but I actually am "pleased" to describe myself as an engineer. And I've come to realize that I am in a tremendous minority among academics. And it has created, I'm somewhat of an outcast because of that, or looked down upon by these other people. But I realize they're all third rate scientists. The people in the engineering schools who like to parade around pretending they are scientists, if you took them into a physics department, they'd be laughed out of the room, ok ? And anyone who looks at it objectively knows that. But these people, I mean some of them have a tremendous amount of arrogance. They think that they're doing the most wonderful stuff in the world, and all they're doing is second rate engineering. If they would recognize they were engineers, and accept it, and be pleased with the fact that they are engineers, they would do a much better job than they do. But they like to think of themselves...

GS : You're preaching to the choir.

TE : But you understand that this hierarchy goes from the scientists at the top, down towards the lower lever, the engineers. What I learned, in biotech, is that clinicians are beneath the engineers. Ok ? Because they are totally empirical. But there are very valuable clinicians out there. The thing is all these people add value to society, but what irritates me is that they can't respect each others' contributions.

GS : I have one last question, and then I'll be... this is the sort of thing you like. Is to hear this hierarchy. I have a minor question, in a way it's a selfish question. They pay very little attention to the mechanical behavior of metals, thinking of fracture mechanics. Which of course is the one area of your entire field that I know little about.

TE : That's because the scientists, don't even...do you know fracture was left out of the graduate curriculum 20 years ago ? And I brought it up in a faculty meeting and [Reggie] looks at me and says, "Yeah you're right !" I said, "We're not going to teach fatigue or brittle fracture in our graduate curriculum ?" And everybody kind of looks around the room and Reggie looks at me and he says, "Yeah you're right it's not here !" No one in the room had even realized they had left it out.

GS : Of course, you know my view is you learn from failures more than anywhere else in the real world, but you know that.

TE : Yeah, I know that.

GS : Now it's a hybrid field, because it's both Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science. Is that right ? Should it be a hybrid field ?

TE : I actually think it's one of the strengths, in fact as a freshman, the way I chose Materials Science and Engineering, first I happened to have 3.091 with [John Wulff], and I had [Jack Hash], who won the Goodwin Medal as the best TA at the institute. And my house tutor was a Materials Scientist. But the real reason I chose it was it was the only department in the school of engineering that had both science and engineering in the name. I didn't know if I wanted to be a scientist or an engineer. I didn't even know what a scientist or an engineer was at the time ! But I knew I wasn't ready to make the choice. And because of a host of reasons, but one was because science and engineering were both in the field. And I actually think that's a strength. I wish the faculty actually recognized where they lie on the spectrum of science and engineering. They are all on one end of the engineering side of that spectrum. What they consider Materials Science, the physicists would consider applications. They don't understand that there is this other half that goes all the way back to the fundamental science. You're talking about feedbacking control, well that's because they don't even recognize that Materials Scientists think that they are fundamental physicists, ok ? And the fundamental physicists look at them as these applied guys, and so there's a total disconnect. There's no feedback at all, and maybe you could speed things up a little in the world if maybe they developed a little respect for each other. But that's the whole respect thing that irritates me so much. These people don't respect other people's contributions. I'm used to people in my department looking at me as the far end, the engineering end of that spectrum. And I don't mind being there, but I have had a lack of respect from my colleagues for the work I do because of that, and I think that John Wulff can go back and point to that, and there's some other faculty who could go back and point that they were on the further engineering side. It doesn't bother me, because I got a better record than any of them. Ok ? So I can kind of thumb my nose at them and say, "Screw you !" But it would be a heck of a lot better if the collegiality were better.

GS : The collegiality is pretty good though. The mechanical behavior of materials with mechanical engineering, and of your people, I hear nothing but respect from [McClintock], Parks, yes, all of those guys.

TE : Subra has his own appointment over there, and he graduated from that department. And I think they...

GS : That's the problem. It's that that department doesn't know very much metallurgy.

TE : You said [Rob Ritchie] ? Yes, he was in that department, and he is very much in my work, he's more of a mechanical engineer. I think they get along. As well as anybody. And they had a certain respect for Reggie. Well, they did.

GS : But [Reggie] had a lot of respect for them.

TE : Reggie had a lot of respect for everybody. Reggie was one of the few people, who, you go around the country, and everybody asks how he's doing, ok ? He's genuinely loved by many many colleagues. I keep trying to get [pointing to Arne] his counterpart who's French, Bernadette, to interview Reggie in French, because I think they would hit it off profoundly. But because he's not a central figure in Materials Science, as you look at the literature, and they don't realize that he's a giant ! In fracture mechanics.

AH : Well, we're not just interested in the central figures.
GS : I understand, but Reggie would be a very interesting person, especially with her interviewing him, with his Parkinson's disease, his English is really difficult.

TE : Reggie bridged Mechanical Behavior and Materials extremely well. And he is a wonderful person, he respects everyone, and therefore had a lot of respect from a lot of people. But within the materials community, he was looked down on for the quality of his work.

GS : That's strange.

TE : Well that's not strange, he's at the engineering end of the spectrum !

GS : I know, but his work is a model of excellence.

TE : Well, still, I could say the same thing about mine compared to any colleague I know in my department, ok ? and I'm not trying to be arrogant here.

GS : Well, I know, I hired you !

TE : You can walk through my office and look at the awards up there ! And that's another thing that maybe we ought to bring up. You mentioned that at other schools there was one or two people. That is the model of Materials Science. Back in the 1940's and 1950's, and I can't go back any further, from what I gather from people, in the 40s, 50s and 60s there were five or six "dons". There was Morris Cohen in physical metallurgy, there was [Norten] in x-rays, there was, it became, Kingery in ceramics, there was [John Chipman] in chemical metallurgy, and there was the other Norten in physics of solids, the two brother Nortens. These people controlled the department. There were five or six fiefdoms in the department. They told the department head who they wanted to hire as junior faculty, they typically would hire two junior faculty to compete with each other, and these guys were basically slaves for the don, and they would cast one aside or both aside when it came to tenure time. [Ken Russell] likes to say that he was the guy who broke the system, because he and [John Breetus] were hired in to work with Morris Cohen and [Ben Averback]. John Breetus was, well, Tom King basically chose Ken Russell over John Breetus, Breetus is now at [Olin], against the wishes of the physical metallurgists. So Ken likes to say he was the guy that broke the system. Why did Tom King do that ? Because he and [John Elliot] were hired in to be John Chipman's gophers back in the fifties. And John Elliot had risen to the top, but this was a case where both of them got tenure, and Tom King actually went on to become department head, and he wanted to break the system. That's the way Ken Russell tells it. Tom Eagar likes to say that he was the first junior faculty member who refused to go on and work as a slave for a senior faculty member. I was offered the opportunity my first year. My first year budget was fifty dollars, and we can go through that, well actually I'll tell you this story, because this is on tape, you might as well hear it.

AH : Exactly !

TE : I was hired in to fill [Bob Moravian's] spot. You know Bob Moravian ?

GS : Yes.

TE : Bob had been told he wouldn't get tenure if he stayed in solidification, the same area as Mert Flemings. I was a graduate student at the time, I was going to borrow a strip chart recorder from him, and I had worked in his lab with Flemings back when I was an undergraduate. I was a graduate, and I needed to borrow a strip chart recorder, and I went to Bob's office, he wasn't there, I walked out and here he is coming up the steps from [Walter Owen's] office on the third floor, we were on the fourth floor. He walks in, and I say, "Hi Bob," and he says "Hi," and he walks in and I follow him into his office, and he's literally picking up books and throwing them across the room ! Bob was never a very calm guy ! And I said, "What's the matter Bob, you look upset ?" And he says, "You're damn right I'm upset, you know what Walter Owen just told me ?" And I said "No, what did he tell you ?" And he said, "He told me that if I stayed in solidification I wouldn't get tenure, but if I switch to some other field like welding, I can get tenure." Because MIT already had Flemings, who was only in his forties, and we didn't want two people in the same field. I said, "Well what are you going to do ?" He says, "I'm not going to switch to welding, I'm going to stay in solidification !" And I said, "Well then you won't get tenure ! Can I borrow your strip chart recorder ?" And two years later, he didn't get tenure, he went to Illinois, and they hired me to fill the slot.

GS : Welding.

TE : No, no. They didn't hire me to do welding, Nick Grant wanted me to do powder metallurgy and become his gopher. Mert Flemings wanted me to run his laboratory in solidification. But I knew that welding was a possibility and they were interested in that, so I basically said I wasn't going to work for anybody, because I had seen what had happened to these people when I was a student. And I didn't work for anybody, and they basically, within the first three months that I was on campus, the department wrote me off. And they gave me a secretary, who was on the fifth floor of building 13, I was on the first floor of building 8, had the little short door (if you know the short door). That was my office. I was sharing it with a graduate student. He got the better chair because he had been there longer, ok ? And had this old desk from the nineteen tens or something. I went to [Joe Docey] and I asked him, "Can I get some decent furniture ?" Because this was graduate student furniture, basically from the graduate student office. In any case, they gave me [Kathy Liden] as a secretary. Kathy Lidenwas a wonderful young women, but she was not too bright. She had been John Elliot's secretary, and he was over in Japan, he called her up long-distance, which back in the seventies was a big deal to call long-distance from Japan, and he says, "Send me this manuscript immediately !" This was before we had word processors or email. So she sends it to him, surface mail ! Kathy, well that was kind of her level of intelligence. And I was behind Ken Russell...

GS : These things don't get...

TE : I was behind Ken Russell and [Joel Clark], I was third in line. Joel Clark was another assistant professor, Ken Russell was a professor. They were over right next to her. This was before word processors, and I would handwrite out something, and she was supposed to type it up. I could write a three line letter and it would take me a week to get it back. Anyway, so Kathy came down one time to give me back one of my short little letters, and she says, "Oh Professor, what account do I charge your stamps to ?" I didn't even have an account, because in the old days, you always went around in one of these fiefdoms of one of these dons and they took care of you. Well I hadn't been willing to go along with this old system, of the fiefdoms so I had nothing. So I went up to Joe Docey, who was the administrative office, and Joe refuse to admit this anymore, and I said, "Joe, I don't even have an account number to pay for my stamps !" And Joe kind of hems and haws and says, "Well Tom, why don't you go ask some of the secretaries and they'll give you some." I'm supposed to go beg, as an assistant professor my job is to beg for stamps from secretaries, alright ? So I immediately go across to Walter Owens office, he's the department head, one of the three times I saw him before tenure. And I said "Walter," I gave each one of them a different problem, "I don't even have an account to pay for my long distance phone calls." And Walter thinks about it and he says, "Well, we'll give you an advance on your [Deserd] liaison program funds." So he's going to give me a loan on what I can earn. That's discretionary folks, ok ? So I went up to Mert Flemings, who was head of the committee that had hired me, Mertie had always liked me as an undergraduate when I worked in his lab, he always thought I was a Senior when I was actually a sophomore. That's what scared me away from working in his lab ! But I used to fix all the equipment, and the graduate students all liked me because they would break the equipment and I would fix it. Anyway, I go up to Mert, he's sitting on a million dollar a year DARPA contract, which was a lot of money back then, and he's got the only chair in the department, the ABEX chair. And I go in, and he'd hired me, he felt some responsibility at that time, and I said, "Mert, I don't even have an account to Xerox my proposals !" And he hems and haws as Mert will often do, and he says, "Well Tom, I'll give you an account number, but let me know if you spend more than fifty dollars." That was my first year budget ! Ok ? As a faculty member. I went back down to my office, that little door, and I sat there at my desk and I looked around at the walls...

GS : You didn't throw books ?

TE : I didn't throw books, I said, "Oh. So that's how it is. It's sink or swim." And I swore to myself, "Ok, it's sink or swim, we'll see whether I can swim or whether I'll sink, but if I do swim, I'm going to make sure that no junior faculty member ever has to go through this again." So anyway, I like to think that I broke the system. And the way I broke the system had nothing to do with me necessarily. In 1980, or 1979, I got my first ONR contract in 1977. My first contract, August 1st 1977. One year to the day that I had actually started on campus. And two years later, [Bruce Batuddle] at ONR, my contract monitor, calls up and says, "What would you do with half a million dollars a year ?" Well, that's a lot of money back then. What was happening is they were starting to get an increase in their ONR funding, but they couldn't hire any new contract monitors, so ONR had decided they were going to pick key areas of interest to ONR, and put a big slug of money in. And the first one they did, they did it with [Newnam] and piezoelectric materials at Penn State in 1978. And the second one, they chose an untenured, assistant professor...

GS : But on a topic of great interest...

TE : But on a topic of tremendous interest and at a university where they would love to see some students coming out in that area. And it turns out I only got $405,000, but nonetheless, all of the sudden, come 1980, I had a DOE basic energy sciences, an NSF, and an ONR, and I had $600,000 a year in research, which was only topped by Harry Gatos and [Kent Bond] in the department. And they both had junior faculty runts working for them, and big organizations and everything. I had more money per individual manager than anybody in the department. Mert Flemings was starting the Materials Processing Center, and he came over and begged me to put my contract through his center. Because that would all of the sudden show his center, he had a $360,000 NASA grant, if he had a $400,000 grant from me, he would all of the sudden have a nearly million dollar center overnight. He was begging me to put...

GS : You see the irony of this, given the questions of the website, is you're talking about a very complex social-political structure in this department. It essentially has nothing to do with the issue of Materials Engineering versus Materials Science. It has to do with the hierarchy of MIT, whether wrong or not. The obvious question is whether this is peculiar to MIT, or is this just a distortion ? Now at this point, I basically have to drop out for two reasons. I've got a board meeting, but has this been useful to you ?
AH : Oh yes, very useful. Very useful.
GS : I apologize for taking...

AH : Are you in a rush ?

TE : I'm going to have to leave in a little bit, I was supposed to be on the 10:45 but it was cancelled this morning, so I'm taking a later one. But, no, we've got a little bit more time actually.

GS : You want to ask the question, I see you've prepared...

TE : He's got characterization in here !

GS : That looks like a damn good book.

TE : It actually does.

AH : There's actually very little characterization in it.

TE : Well it says optical microscope, that's Sorby. He doesn't have x-rays in here, but he does earlier have Braggs...

GS : Yes. [Grines] are featured in chapter 30.

TE : No. R.W. Cahn is one of the great guys in Materials Engineering and so forth. And he's also a colleague of Morris Cohen's.

GS : [To Arne] Have you interviewed Morris Cohen ? [To Tom I want to thank you.
AH : No. This is actually something I'd like to do.

TE : Well you better do it soon ! I don't know really how much of this does go on to other schools. We produce 15 or 20%. Actually we produce 15% of all the doctorates, or we did, in the country, so I would expect that some of this probably gets carried over.

AH : I'm sure it does. That's the way of the world.
GS : Well, MIT... you should understand, I'm on the visiting committee at Caltech, MIT's is very very different from other schools. The department heads have incredible power.
AH : But political structures have an impact wherever they are.

GS : Fair enough. David's the one who made me realize that book existed. You'll see my pad. It has [Jed Buchwald's] name on it.

TE : Ok, well good to see you again.

GS : It's good to see you, and I may get you involved in this [world of steel]. The problem is to figure out why the step is vital.

TE : Oh, ok. [?]

GS : Yeah, but they're doing...getting 40,000 psi...

TE : So what are your questions ?

AH : Well, one of the things that I would like to get at is the impact of the processing on the field as a whole. Because while I tend to get stories coming from the other end saying about the impact of the development of the theories and so on. We've talked a lot now about the institutional inertia perhaps, something like that ? But a lot of the story of the field of materials research is really driven by market, by processing, and is a demand rather than a supply story.

TE : That's definitely true industrially. There's no question about that. In terms of the field being defined among the academics as having processing, as much as he and I don't get along now because of the way he treated me as department head, Mert Flemings really is the guy who has carried the banner. You have to understand, Flemings was not the brightest of students. He was ok, but he started out, and there was a guy named Taylor (I'd say Frederick, but it wasn't Frederick Taylor). Anyway, Professor Taylor in the Materials Department. Flemmings and [Dave Bergoni] ; and Dave Bergoni's and interesting person, you should talk to Dave. You've have probably come across his name. He was President of Case Western Reserve. Actually, his MIT number is [...Eagar writes number down...] (Because Dave is a very thoughtful guy) I'm pretty sure that's it. 4252. Dave and Mert Flemings and another guy Ed Hucky, were three roommates as graduate students. And they all worked for Taylor, who had the foundry. And Taylor had come from industry and had fantastic industrial contacts in the foundry industry. MIT had a foundry, they could melt several tons of steel in their foundry. It was on the top floor of building 35. They had a weld lab at one end, which was [Mel Adams], and they had Taylor's lab at the other end. And Taylor had a consulting business. It was quite a lucrative business, and it turns out that Dave, well they all graduated, and Hucky went to the University of Wisconsin at Madison I think, as a faculty member, Mert went off to ABEX and then came back two years later, working with Taylor. Dave Rigoni went off to, I can't remember where he started out, but he was dean at Dartmouth, he was Provost at Michigan, he was actually the guy who gave Chuck Vest his tenure at Michigan. When Chuck Vest was offered the job at MIT, he called up Dave to find out whether he should take it. I've heard this from both Chuck Vest and Dave. And Dave says, "Well there's two reasons why you might consider it. One, is they don't have a medical school, and two they don't have a football team." Anyway, Dave ended up as President of Case Western Reserve University, and then in his mid-fifties, he actually sort of got kicked out, I don't know the details at Case Western, but he sort of got pushed aside. He came back to his friend Mert, and he got an appointment as a senior lecturer, and he wrote the two undergraduate books in thermodynamics, Dave and I used to teach thermodynamics together to sophomores. And anyway, Dave will know some of these stories and stuff, back from the fifties, and he's a very thoughtful guy. He's not a typical metallurgist, he has been at manager at the universities, and I actually have a lot of respect for Dave. So he would teach his thermo in the morning, and he'd do venture capital in the afternoon. He's now seventy years old, and he still does his venture capital, but he no longer teaches for the last four or five years, but I think he probably still has a phone number here at MIT. You can leave a message and it will actually probably give you his venture capital firm in Wellesley. But Dave's a very interesting guy, but in any case, Flemings, the three of them used to go, these guys used to go out and do the consulting for Taylor's business. ... Mert was brought, Mert was kind of working along the old Taylor-ism stuff, as a young assistant professor working for...Taylor who was one of the dons, one of the bigger dons, but you know Mert was the junior faculty grunt working for him. And when Taylor died, Taylor had done very industrialized, very applied research. The dean at the time, Gordon Brown, a New Zealander, a prim and proper New Zealander supposedly, he was the guy who took MIT into engineering science in the late 50's. Around the time of Sputnik and everything else. And basically, Mert was brought in and told by John Chipman, who was department head, and sort of like Moravian, said, "If you stay in the foundry business, you won't get tenure. You're probably not going to get tenure around here because we don't want this kind of applied engineering science." Mert actually has told me this story, he went home, and he said that night, he was basically told he wasn't going to get tenure because he was in too applied of a field. He's told me the story. He went home and he that night decided to get rid of the huge furnace, you know, and just turn the whole thing into solidification science overnight. Because otherwise he wasn't going to get tenure. So he basically threw out the Taylor empirical stuff, and he rebuilt it, and he really built up the field of solidification science, which is, well he followed along some things that [Guy Rudder] and [Chalmers] Rudder and Chalmers were up in Canada. Anyway, he kind of followed along some of the stuff that they had started, but he really, with the quality of MIT students, really took it off. He did tremendous things for the field. And certainly deserved to get tenure and he did get tenure because he switched to engineering science. But, then you come along with COSMAT, and Morris Cohen pushing that we're going to have Materials Science and Engineering as opposed to just metallurgy. We need to look broadly at the field and all the classes of materials, although concrete was excluded. I never heard anyone bring up concrete and I think they always said, "Well it's a commodity or something." They didn't think of steel as a commodity, but they knew that plastics was a growing business.

AH : Bernie actually had a feasible argument for this kind of thing, he says that if you have something where very little capital and research goes into it, a cheap material, like concrete, than it's not a topic in Materials Research. It has to be...

TE : Well.

AH : An expensive material, one that you sink stuff into in order...

TE : I have a plot that I've used, actually, I stole it from [Jack Westboro]. It's an internal GE report. And it shows this on a log scale. The log of tons used, [drawing] yeah the log of tons versus the log of price. Ok ?

AH : Of any material ?

TE : Structural materials.

AH : Ok.

TE : Structural materials. And you have diamonds over here, at about a million dollars a ton. It might have been $100,000 a ton back then. And you have stone up here, crushed stone, at like ten to the thirteenth tons, I mean something incredible. You have concrete, it's not tons it's pounds. And you have steel. Ok ? Steel is like ten to the eleventh, I think stone is ten to the thirteenth, and concrete's like ten to the twelfth or something. And it goes all the way down here, and you have, you know, there is a wonderful correlation in this very narrow band, I can get this for you if you want, but it if you look at the...

AH : What time is this ?

TE : This is 1962 that he actually did it, and if you look at iso-market size lines, and they look like this, so this is steeper than the isomarket size. Which means that if it's a, if you can drop the price of the material by a factor of 2, you should increase the usage by a factor of four. Ok ? Based on the slope here. Which means that your market doubles. So if you actually, and I've used this argument a number of times, that we really should be pushing for reducing costs and processing of materials, rather than looking at more elaborate materials that are always going to be boutique materials that no one uses much. In any case, getting back to Flemings, and the COSMAT stuff, basically that's when Flemings started politicking with Morris Cohen that he should do processing-structure-properties. Because in the sixties it had always been the structure of properties. And Flemings started saying, because he was in the processing side of the department, he was one of the only guys ! He was the one arguing that we should add fluid flow, he taught a heat and fluid flow course. He is basically trying to carve out a niche for himself in a department that he didn't quite fit in. Ok ? And he did ! Very effectively. And he convinced a bunch of the rest of the people. Now the people in industry loved it, because they knew processing was where they made their money. So you're right about the fact that industry knew it, but if you look at academia, I think I have to give credit to Mert Flemings, for really being the guy who led the country ; you notice in here actually, he's quoted about as many times as anybody.

AH : We could talk about it then in a similar way to the way we talked about physics sort of seeping in with a time delay, that the market is sort of seeping into the academic world with a time delay.

TE : Yes.

AH : Does that make sense ?

TE : Yes. There's, the problem is the time delay, well there is feedback between the two, and it goes both ways. Ideas and knowledge seep into industry with a time delay. And in fact, this idea that the field is broader than just metals is something that came from academia, and has seeped back into industry with a time delay. Industry now accepts it, but in the seventies and eighties, they were fighting it tooth and nail. They were very upset, and threatening on withdrawing their support. It turns out they were going to withdraw their support because the profitability was going down, ok ? But they used it, and they come in and say, "Well we're not going to support you anymore like we used to, because you're not supporting us like you used to." And so in a sense, the whole broadening of the field to look at other materials was kind of a major thing. Another person you might want to talk to is Harry Gatos.

AH : Yes.

TE : You know Harry ?

AH : Yes, well I don't know him but...

Te : But Harry was really the person who brought electronic materials into the department. And he had been an undergraduate in the department, and I think he worked in mining. I don't remember exactly what he worked in as a student. He went out to Lincoln Lab and he became head of the whole solid-state division within a few years. Of course they were growing semiconductors. Harry became "Mr. Gallium Arsenide," you know, before it was popular. And in the mid-sixties, he was offered a full professorship in the department, and he brought a million dollars worth of equipment, which was a lot of equipment, with him from Lincoln Lab. And basically set up his own little fiefdom, he was another fiefdom, all of the sudden we had a new fiefdom in electronic materials they've never had before. And Gus Whit, who could be an interesting person to interview, to show you what they did to junior faculty, I don't know if you're interested in the internal politics. Gus was a physical chemist, he had been hired to work with [Phil DeBruin]. Phil DeBruin was a Dutchman who was a great man at [froth flotation], which is a way of recovering a good part of ores from the ores. DeBruin was kind of the last man standing in mining. And in 1962, they had a vote on whether to continue mining in the department. And with one dissenting vote, John Elliot, the department decided to drop mining. Well Phil DeBruin was still at MIT, and he became head of the graduate committee and graduate admissions and stuff. Gus Whit had been hired originally to come and work for Phil DeBruin. Gus was a surface chemist, a physical chemist from the University of Innsbruck or somewhere in Austria. And when he got here, he went in to meet with Tom King. 1962 was when John Chipman had stepped down, in '65 and Tom King became the department head, and Tom King called Gus in when he first came to MIT, and Gus thought he was coming over to work and be a gopher for Phil DeBruin in mining engineering, and Gus says, "We no longer have mining engineering in the department, we've eliminated it. You should go over and work with Harry Gatos in semiconductors." Ok ? And Gus says, "What do I do ?" Well, he went over and worked with Harry Gatos in semiconductors. And the two of them from the mid-60s through 1990 were the powerhouse, basically, in electronic materials. Until we finally started hiring some more in the eighties, and then the two of them retired. Well Gus is actually just retiring this year, but Gus really hadn't done anything for the last twelve years in terms of real science or research. But anyway, that's how they brought in electronic materials. They imported Harry Gatos. And that was one of the first electronic materials groups in the country.

AH : How do you see the impact of national politics and funding, lets say DARPA, and the NSF grants ?

TE : DARPA was very important in setting up the Materials Science Centers around the country. That was a big move, there's no question about it, in the early 60's, a tremendous boost to the whole field of Materials Science.

AH : Was there a field before that ?

TE : Well actually, it's not clear that there was, I mean you really have to talk to Morris Cohen or some other people of that genre. I was in elementary school, I was in grade school, or high school or something during that period. But certainly, that was one of the things that switched, helped push it from, helped push the academics from thinking of it as always "metallurgy," because certainly the Materials Science centers were not set up just be metallurgy. The military, you know, knew they needed all types of materials and they wanted to support all types of materials. NSF only inherited it because of the...

AH : Mansfield ?

TE : They inherited it because of Mansfield. And they continued to support it although they do a lot of sabre rattling, but it's still kind of a central thing to to the whole thing. So I think DARPA's deciding to fund the material science centers was or it might be that it was the beginning, but I can't tell you though.

AH : Yes. No it was. Then in your time, what's the, has it shifted...

TE : The funding ?

AH : Boundaries around ? Is it ?

TE : Well...

AH : That must've been...

TE : Yes. It has, I mean it used to be. After Sputnik it was mostly government funding. I mean I remember my old thesis advisor Bob Rose had all kinds of money in the sixties. In fact he used to tell us the story, the joke was "While you're up, get me a grant !" All you had to do was kind of... Well actually, to tell you a little more of the story that I had heard, because of the Manhattan Project, in World War II, you had John Chipman working on a lot of the physical chemistry. He was working on trying to create crucibles for uranium and stuff. There was no material, Uranium is too reactive, and so they were working on the physical chemistry of what they could use for crucibles to melt the stuff. And Morris Cohen was working on, well somehow, I don't remember what he was doing. But there were projects going on for the Manhattan Project. And I remember John Wulff telling the story, he was on the outside, he was one of these processing guys that they looked down on. But he knew uranium was very important, but he didn't know exactly why. And he had been studying trace elements in oils around the world. And he dropped in at a cocktail party and said, "You know there's a lot of uranium in the oils in the Balkans," or something like this, and the next morning there were two secret service agents in his office asking him what he knew about uranium. That type of thing. But anyway, what happened is because of their help on the Manhattan Project, Norton in ceramics, Cohen in physical metallurgy, and I think someone else. There were two or three grants that came from the Atomic Energy Commission that basically just funded these guys for the rest of their careers. I mean the Atomic Energy Commission became the Department of Energy and stuff. And it turns out I remember in the early eighties, Kingery and [Kobel] still had Norton's old grant. That was the last one remaining of this kind of gravy train of funding that you get as the equivalent of one and a half million dollars or two million dollars today. They would just get it for just kind of telling people in Washington, "This is how much money we need next year." It was sort of a reward for what they had done on the Manhattan Project. After Sputnik, it got to be very easy for even junior faculty to get funding. I remember when I started on the faculty in 1976, 25% of all NSF grants got funded. And if you were from a place like MIT, you probably had a 50% to 60% chance, probability of getting a grant funded. Today, or in the mid-nineties, it dropped to like 5% of NSF grants are funded. And if you're from MIT, it probably cuts your odds by half, because the other schools out there. What happened is in the seventies, a bunch of other schools found they couldn't compete on quality of proposals, so they started competing in Congress. And then at NSF, they started competing by sending more of their faculty off to be rotaters.

AH : This is in the seventies ?

TE : This is in the seventies and eighties. And a lot of these people basically just had it in for the schools that have been on these gravy trains, ok ? I mean in the late-eighties we lost the National Magnet Lab to Florida, and that was a pure buyout by the state of Florida. Alright ? And MIT was judged to have the best proposal, but the politics at the NSF were such that they decided they couldn't turn down the money from Florida, plus they wanted to send the message to these elite schools, that they weren't going to continue to just get things just because they had better proposals.

AH : I talked to Dale Corson at Cornell, and he spent half of his life in D.C. He said this is the way it always worked, there's no way you can run a department or a school without taking D.C. seriously.

TE : Well, yes and no, I mean that's one way to do it. And in a sense you could say the guys who worked on the Manhattan Project and made their contacts in D.C. were using their "old boy" connections to get their grants. But that's not what happened to me. Ok ? I was hired on as an assistant professor, I was still working at Bethlehem Steel. I talked to some professors on the phone and they said, "Well you ought to go talk to so and so in Washington." And I called up some of these guys. One of them was Bruce MacDonald at ONR. And Bruce actually was willing to let me come down from Pennsylvania to talk to him before I even started at MIT. And he told me what ONR was interested in. Now Bruce happened to be an old MIT grad, he was one of Morris Cohen's students. And he was in charge of the welding program, and he wanted, you know, and I was a welding engineer at Bethlehem, and that's how I got to know Bruce. I then talked to my old house tutor, who actually was a welding, head of the welding group at Union Carbide. They were doing a project on submerged dark welding of titanium, they didn't see a market for it, but they did have some useful results for the Navy, and they were not going to ask for a renewal. So Dave says, "Well why don't you write to the Navy, maybe they're interested in this." And I did, that was my first contract at ONR. I found out what the Navy was interested in by working connections, and that's why it helps to be at an elite school, because you have some of the connections. Bruce MacDonald was an old MIT person, and so he wanted to help if he could, but Bruce is an honest enough guy that if you didn't write a decent enough proposal he wasn't going to help you. But I found that when Dave Hill told me that, you know, the Navy is interested in this, and we're not interested in pursuing it as a company anymore, why don't you write a proposal ? That was my first proposal, and the first one funded, and since then, I did a good job for the Navy, and I'd serve on committees for them, or I'd spend part of my summer working with their engineers, but not politicking. Ok ? I've continued to be funded by ONR, but I have not had to do politicking. I have been continuously funded since 1977, 25 years by ONR, based on the quality of my work. Ok ? Now at NSF, I wrote a proposal to this guy [Bob Ranig] Bob Ranig was a very ecumenical guy, he was from UPenn. I called him up and said I'd like to come and meet with you, because that's what Tom King and Bob Rose and other people, the faculty of MIT said, he was head of materials science then and Bob says, "You don't need to come see me. Just write me a proposal. Tell me what it is you want to do, how you're going to do it, and if you're successful, so what ?" Ok ? That's been the outline of my proposals ever since. Those three things. I had continuous NSF funding until two years ago. I got kicked out for what I consider one of my better proposals because they kicked me over to the engineering side, not the materials side, where they do these panel reviews. And those things are vicious. You have a bunch of people from these other third-rate schools who come in and they don't even know what they're talking about and they say, "Oh this one's from Stanford, this one's from MIT, we're going to kill it because we hate these guys. They always get the money and we don't." Ok ? It's a terrible system, and I lost my NSF because of that, but I had continuous funding from NSF. Now that's partly, not necessarily because of the quality of my work, in terms of NSF peer review, but it was because when Bob Ranig, and when he left, Bruce MacDonald went over there. They knew I did engineering applied work, but did good science behind it, I mean I had good fundamental science behind it. And they liked my type of work. Bob Ranig told me once when I was a young un-tenured professor, I said, "Bob, I understand you had, you wanted, you had a lot of proposals on Fermi surfaces, and that's the type of work you do." And he said, "Tom, last year I had 33 proposals on Fermi surfaces, and I funded one of them. I had one proposal on welding, yours, and I funded it." Ok ? So there were all these materials scientists trying to be pseudo-physicists, and Bob didn't care about that. So it was really Bob Ranig and then Bruce MacDonald who liked the quality of my work. I never even walked through NSF until the early 1990's. I never walked through the door of that building. And so I've had people tell me the same thing you were told at Cornell, and I say, I've said, "Not true." Ok ? The department of energy, I ended up getting in, there was a committee that looked at what materials science the DOE should be funding, and [Kent Mullen] who was a faculty member here, served on that committee, he might have even been chair of it. He was kind of a golden boy that had gotten in with the DOE group from the old AEC stuff. During the Kingery and Kobel ceramics stuff. So he was in tight with those people because of some of the "old boy" connections, and Kent comes back and he tells me, "Oh we said welding was a high priority item. So it'd be good to send the proposal in to DOE basic energy sciences. So I got together with [Joe Sekelly], and we sent one in and we got it funded. Now that was rocky for, well they funded us for six years and then they dropped us the year we won an award for our paper. Which I always thought was sort of interesting. And then a year later, there was another report at DOE, the Packard committee report, which basically says the national labs and the universities should get together and do joint research. [Ken Hansen] in Nuclear Engineering over here was on the board of Idaho National Lab. So they got together and they said, "Oh, well we ought to do some joint MIT/Idaho National lab thing." And they put together this big program. Dave Parks was part of it, and I was part of it, and all of the sudden it turned out to become eventually, for a while, my biggest contract for DOE. That stayed for about ten or twelve years, and finally I got refunded separate of that program, and I'm still funded by that program. I've had a six month hiatus one time, just because of their funding cycle. But I still never have walked into the DOE, Gaithersburg building. Ok ? So you can say this but I mean yeah, I've worked closely with ONR, but they took a plier on me before, I did walk in that building and talk to Bruce MacDonald, because he's willing to take the time to talk to me, but in terms of all this other politicking ? Now since then I now have another DOE contract that came because some guy from the University of Alaska came six or seven years ago and said, "What can MIT do to help the University of Alaska ?" And so we set up this thing, and we actually have been going through Senator Stephens, who's head of the Senate Appropriations Committee and is from Alaska. And we've been able to get some funding, which now is my biggest contract, when it starts up again, and that's pure pork ! Ok ? If you want to call it that.

AH : You can call it whatever you want.

TE : But that basically is pork. It's pork going to the University of Alaska and then they ship some to us. So it's not as if I've never played that game, but I didn't start playing it until like 1996, and I've been here for two decades before I started playing the game. So yes, there are the "old boy" connections in Washington, and those are probably the most common. But is it absolutely necessary ? No. I guarantee that it's not absolutely necessary.

AH : I mean Dale Corson went up to a very senior position within the university administration, probably in that kind of position it's more important.

TE : And frankly, MIT has not been playing that as well as they used to. Our senior guys, well Chuck Vest is down there, but you look at our Provost and other people... Nam Suh is down as Director of Engineering at NSF, but I can't think of anything, and that was more than ten years ago. I can't think of anybody else. We've had Millie Dresselhaus who was number two at the Department of Energy, she was head of the energy sciences, but she only did it for a year. [Ernie Monitz] was down there in physics and energy sciences, but I can't think of anybody else at NSF. And we haven't really done rotations through ONR, other universities have done that, but MIT hasn't, MIT faculty haven't been willing to do that. It's not lucrative enough.

AH : Hasn't there been a shift in funding in some way, government funding ? Has it become more and more private ?

TE : Well, and the reason for that is there used to be a 50% chance of getting an ONR, or NSF contract, if you sent it in from MIT, but now you have a 2% chance. Ok, less than average. So what happens ? You go for industrial funding. Well, there's been more and more industrial funding as industry has dropped off its own in-house labs, so there's been more funding. Actually, I've always said, "Well if industry decides to go fund people, MIT will do just fine, because they're going to look for the best places. And we get the best students." So they're going to come and fund us and we have more industrial funding than anybody else by a factor of two. And that's true. We no longer can get the government funding like we used to, because we don't have the inside tracks, and in fact being from MIT is now more of a detriment than a plus in many cases. Sometimes it's political, but sometimes it is merit based. So there's not...I'm going to have to go here and catch my flight.

AH : How much time do we have left ?

TE : Another 5 minutes.

AH : Let's just make sure I ask this question. You said before that for religious reasons you couldn't use the word proud, were you being flippant or ?

TE : No. I'm actually a Mormon, ok ? I'm a Latter Day Saint. And pride is a sin. Now most Mormons don't do this, but I actually have tried to expunge the word proud from my vocabulary. Now actually when I used it, I used it in terms of other people being proud, but in terms of saying "I'm proud," I actually have done pretty well, I'll now say I'm pleased. I don't say I'm proud of my children, I am pleased that my children have done well or whatever. It's just more of a psychological thing than anything else. But yeah, it actually, it is something I've done. It's not typical Mormonism but it is more of a philosophy that you're not supposed to be proud and arrogant.

AH : The MRS, the Materials Research Society, is a different kettle of fish from the MIT department.

TE : Yeah, but Harry Gatos was the founder.

AH : Harry Gatos was one of the big guys, but in my opinion it would be Rustum Roy...

TE : Well there were a few others but..

AH : Rustum Roy always claims to be the...

TE : There's an arrogant guy. Rusty's fine, but Rusty claims lots of things that aren't necessarily true. Rusty was one of, he got it together, but it was really Harry Gatos', if you just look at what they were doing originally, it was Harry Gatos as the brainchild. He was the loner, he was this electronic materials person among all these other people who didn't even know what electronic materials were. He knew the people at Bell Labs who were decent physicists and stuff, and he decided that he ought to do something. And he got a few people, like Rusty and a few others, but it was the group of them that did it, but the guy who really was the brainchild behind it was Harry.

AH : Were you a member of the MRS when they started ?

TE : No. Because they were a bunch of scientists, physicists, and I'm on the far engineering side of it. I didn't join it for years.

AH : So in the 80s you also didn't join them ? Did you go to their meetings ?

TE : I've never been registered at one of their meetings, I've been to some of them when they're over here. I've been to some of them when I've been asked to talk, but I, usually it's the Boston meeting, and I just kind of slip in without registering, that way I don't have to pay the registration fee. I am a member now, and I think I joined in the late-80s just because they were growing and it was important to kind of read the things, and I edited one of their MRS bulletin things in the early eighties. But it's the same type of thing. I've never been part of the Center for Materials Science and Engineering, I have never put in a proposal to them. Why ? Because I've been able to get plenty of funding on my own, but they gave it out in smaller lumps, and it was just a bigger pain. I mean I can get better funding, and again, I'm on the far engineering side, they were trying to sell to the NSF that they were this wonderful Materials Science group, as half baked physicists, right ? And I didn't fit that model, ok ? Everybody thinks of me as the industrial guy, but it turns out it's sort of funny to me because I've had relatively little industrial funding. Ok ? I've had mostly basic energy sciences, NSF, and ONR. Ok ? And I've always basically had more fundamental science funding than all these other guys who claimed that they were the fundamental scientists.

AH : But from my understanding of the MRS, it is that it's focus is actually much more towards the application end and the engineering side, but certainly...

TE : Well, from a physicist's point of view, that's true. From a materials science view they're into fundamental science.

AH : Is that right ?

TE : Well yeah, they're kind of middle of the spectrum. Ok ? The physicists look at them as more applications oriented, but the materials scientists look at them as, oh, they're more fundamental. Because that's what, I mean there's a lot of support from industry for MRS, but, but even so, I think it depends on whether you're a physicist or whether you're really a materials scientist. You know, the spectrum I talked about before, where you have a physicist here.

AH : Sort of the pure, applied...

TE : Pure applied, and you have engineering all the way over here, well Tom Eagar is over there, but The materials science is right here in the middle. Ok ? The physicists look at materials science's applications. Materials Science and Engineering is really here, and this is Materials Engineering, and this is Materials Science.

AH : So the MRS is not really your place.

TE : No. The MRS is primarily, well, actually, I probably ought to, they're probably more central than Materials Science and Engineering.

AH : I should have asked you before with the Mormon question. Do you have any, do you do your science differently because you're Mormon ?

TE : No.

AH : It has no connection ? Two different worlds.

TE : I think I do it more objectively. Because, well more honestly, and I don't know if that's necessarily because I'm a Mormon, although it doesn't hurt. But I've always had a problem with these people that say, "Oh, well Buckytubes are wonderful." Ok, I've written all kinds of articles about people running off on these bandwagons of materials. Back in the 80's when, again, when people said ceramics were the future of everything, just like George doesn't believe it because of the fracture toughness, I never believed it, and I used to write articles that said this is, you know, that the ceramists don't know what they are talking about. They had never discovered fracture toughness. And that actually happens to deal more with my honesty, ok ? Now, and the other thing I think is I manage my lab quite differently. The reason I've got nine best paper awards, whereas most of my colleagues have zip, ok ? And I have lots of other types of honors and stuff, is not because I get along well with my faculty colleagues. I mean my department head now, Subra Suresh, is a politicker. I mean he's the fellow of this society, a fellow of that society, a fellow of that society. I think he has one best paper award. Ok ? He's actually a very distinguished person and very well thought of, but I have nine best paper awards, and he has one. I'm a honary member or a fellow of two societies, and he's an honorary member of seven or eight ! Ok ? He goes to the meetings and schmoozes. I don't go to any of the meetings and schmooze, because I'm not interested in that. I lead my department, I lead my research group, I don't manage it. And there's a distinct difference, and a lot of that comes from my leadership and management training as a member of the Mormon Church. Ok ? I'm a Bishop for the church right now, as far as that goes, but... I'm here to educate the students to learn to be professionals. SO I have to define a problem, and let them flounder for six months, or sometimes more. And if they flounder completely, I have to be able, you know, in a few weeks, to completely repair the damage and get them a thesis and get them out. Which has occured a couple of times. But in general, I'm there to give them a lot of flexibility. I provide the resources, the research money, and the resources, and I critique what they do, but I actually let them do it. And I actually sometimes, with some people I end up forcing them to work on one of their weaknesses and other people I let them work on their strengths, and it really depends on where I think they're going to grow and develop the most. And I think actually that is part of my religious upbringing. It is that the important thing is developing the person, and I don't really care about the research results. And I've actually, a few say, "Oh well," and then other faculty say "Well I proposed this and then they have a timeline of what they're going to do." And that's what they try to do. Once I get the money, other than the general topic area, I don't care what I do. I let the student go off and do whatever they want. And the thing is, when you have bright students at MIT, that's the way to manage them. You lead them. You don't manage them. And they will produce much better things than I could ever produce. And they have ! And that's why, you know, I have these nine best paper awards. Because they are bright students, and they actually, I've had a number of them come in and they're used to being told what to do. I mean John Elliot used to bring students in once a week and he would go over their lab notebook line by line. He would tell them how to clip the ends of the thermocouples, ok ? If a student doesn't come see me for six months, I might say, you know, ask my secretary to get an appointment, just tell them I want to see them and find out how they're doing. But usually I will walk through the lab or a luncheon seminar or something, and we'll talk. But I'll let them go for six months and I'll never bug them about what they doing. They know what their problem is, I've told them, you know, and they have to get back to me. And at first, some of them figure this out very quickly by talking to their older colleagues. Some of them don't learn it for six months, but after a while, all of the sudden, they learn it, and lo and behold, then they catch fire, because they realize the thesis isn't going to get done if they wait for me to do it. And I've had a number of them, I take them to lunch when they finish their doctorate, and one on one they ask me about things, and I've had a number of them say, "You ought to push the students harder." And I said, "You didn't feel a lot of pressure to finish your thesis ?" And they said, "Oh I felt a lot of pressure." I said, "But it was self-motivated." "Yeah. Because you weren't pushing me." I said, "Yeah, well don't you think you actually felt more pressure than if I had been pushing you ?" "Yeah !" Ok ? "And so you learned to do it yourself, right ?" And that actually comes from my religious background of the progression of the individual is more important than the task.

Fin de l'enregistrement

haut de page

accueil du site

Entretien avec Thomas Eagar, par George Smith (Acting Director of the Dibner Institute) et Arne Hessenbruch, 6 mai 2002

Lieu : Dibner Institute, MIT, USA.

Support : enregistrement sur cassette

Transcription : Arne Hessenbruch

[George Smith (Acting Director of the Dibner Institute)].

Édition en ligne : Sophie Jourdin.

ENDO Morinobu, 2002-08-26

Sacha Loeve — 2011-06-07T20:19:40Z

Morinobu Endo, né en 1946, est Professeur à la Faculté d'Ingénierie de l'Université de Shinshu à Nagano (Japon). Après un Master's degree à l'Université de Shinshu, et une Thèse en ingénierie à l'Université de Nagoya, il intègre l'université de Shinshu comme chercheur, Professeur associé puis Professeur en 1990. Il y fonde un laboratoire au sein du Department of electrical and electronic engineering. Ses recherches sont dédiées au carbone sous ses diverses formes ; elles vont du fondamental (propriétés physico-chimiques du carbone dans ses multiples formes allotropiques : graphite, nanotubes, carbone nanoporeux) à l'appliqué (fibres de carbone, composés d'insertion au graphite pour batteries et condensateurs). Morinobu Endo est notamment un pionnier des nanotubes de carbone (caractérisés en 1974 lors d'un travail effectué en collaboration avec Agnès Oberlin en France à la Faculté des sciences de l'Université d'Orléans). Ainsi en 1991, date généralement retenue pour la découverte des NTCs par Sumio Iijima, Morinobu Endo avait déjà développé et breveté un processus de fabrication donnant lieu à des usages industriels des NTCs comme composés d'insertion dans des accumulateurs lithium-ion (batteries d'usage courant pour l'électronique portable). Morinobu Endo a co-dirigé des initiatives pour la coopération université/industrie au sein de la Japan society for the promotion of science (JSPS). Depuis 2004, il préside la TANSO (Japan society of carbon). Membre du comité de rédaction de la revue Carbon, il est auteur d'une trentaine de livres sur la science du carbone et de plus de deux cent articles. Ses recherches lui ont valu de nombreuses distinctions : Carbon society of Japan Award, (1995) ; Charles E. Pettinos Award (American carbon society, 2001) ; Lee Hsun lecture series Award (Institute of metal research of China, 2002) ; ShinMai Award (Shinmai Bunka foundation, Japon, 2003) ; Ishikawa Award (Ishikawa carbon science and technology promotion foundation, 2003) ; Medal of achievement in carbon science and technology pour la découverte et la synthèse des nanotubes en 1974 (American carbon society, 2004) ; The Minister of education, culture, sports, science and technology prize for contribution to intellectual Cluster (Japon, 2005) ; Honorary citizen of Suzaka-city (2006) ; Small Times magazine best of small tech lifetime achievement Award (2006) ; JPA lectureship Award (2007).

BERNADETTE BENSAUDE-VINCENT (BBV) : In which discipline did you take your degree, and your PhD ?

MORINOBU ENDO (ME) : I started 30 years ago. I graduated from Shinshu University in 1971. Then took a Master in Electronics. I spent one year in a company, Statch. Then I came in this university in 1972 as a Research Associate.

BBV : So you spent your entire career in this University. How and when did you come into carbon science ?

ME : I became interested in carbon as a research assistant. At that time, carbon was considered as a dirty, dusty science, in comparison with the more attractive semiconductor science. But I found it promising.

BBV : Were there people already working on carbon here in the early 1970s ?

ME : Yes my professor Tsumeo Koyama was working on carbon. He was aged already but he asked me to incorporate here.

BBV : Why did you find carbon so promising ?

ME : I read a few pioneering papers by S. Mrozowski and by M. S. Dresselhaus. This encouraged me. At that time, there was an activity in carbon fibers based on Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) for aerospace industry. Industrial companies were most active in this field, especially Toray. There was a concern for new methods for preparing this promising material because PAN-based fibers were high-cost fibers. Professor Koyama asked me to prepare carbon fiber from vapor. This is a carbon fiber directly grown from the decomposition of hydrocarbons such as benzene. Vapor Grown Carbon Fibers (VGCFs) were totally different from the commercial PAN fibers. PAN Fibers are continuous while VGCFs are shorter. They have a unique structure. In the early 1970s I was able to prepare the fiber without understanding the mechanism at work, or what elements were essential.

BBV : So you had the technique but no knowledge of its structure and properties.

ME : Fortunately I had a chance to work in France with Madame Agnès Oberlin at the CNRS in Orléans.

BBV : How did you come in contact with her ?

ME : When I was a Research Associate in this university, I wrote a paper in Japanese showing that very beautiful carbon fibers can be grown by gas pyrolysis. A nice Japanese professor who was a good friend of hers, introduced my work to her. He invited her in Japan as a visiting professor and she asked to meet with me. I traveled to France with my fiber in 1974 and I worked in her laboratory for one year. In Orléans they had an electron microscope in 1973. I found that there were small opaque particles at the tip of the fibre (figure 1). In order to use the electron microscope it was necessary to use very thin fibers. For that it was convenient to stop the growth process at an early stage. I thus found that the fiber had an hollow core and later in the growth process the diameter of the fiber increased. Here on this picture you can see the particle. I found with Agnès Oberlin that this particle was iron. This result was published in France in 1976 in a paper entitled “Filamentous Growth of Carbon Through Benzene Compounds” (Journal of Crystal Growth 32 (1976) 335). In this paper we argued that VGCF had a “hollow core” which is the strongest part of the fiber. It never breaks when the fiber breaks. Sometimes you have cross-linkings of the fibers. Here just at the center of the fiber you can see the single wall nanotube (figure 2).

Figure 1. “Hollow core” in a vapor grown carbon fiber, 1976

Courtesy of Morinobu Endo.

Figure 2. Cross-linked single-wall nanotubes, 1976

Courtesy of Morinobu Endo.

BBV : Nanotubes ? You did not name it as such in 1976 ?

ME : We called it “hollow core” or “central tube”. Here you can see the fine particles at the tip (figure 3). By using bright- and dark-field image I found that they were Fe3C. This is the chemical product after cooling. At the end of the growth the particles should be iron. I suggested a growth model : the fiber first forms over this fine particles of iron then grow in the radial directions.

Figure 3. “Central tube” in the core of a vapor grown carbon fiber, 1976

According to Dr. Endo, this “central tube” is a double-layered carbon nanotube. Courtesy of Morinobu Endo.

BBV : Where this iron came from ?

ME : We were able to understand where it came from. We used a special sand-paper as a substrate. Without this sand-paper, no fiber. With this sand-paper that we used in France, we got beautiful fibers. We analyzed the electron barriers and we found that it was Fe2O3. Iron oxide coming from the sand-paper proved to be very important as a catalyst to generate the carbon fiber.

BBV : So you understood the mechanism when you came back to Japan ?

ME : I came back in 1975. I clearly described how the fiber grows, including the seeding methods, in a paper published in 1988, “Grow Carbon Fibers in the Vapor Phase” (American Chemical Society - ChemTech 18 (1988) 568-576). In a way this fiber grows in two steps : 1) this very thin fiber, the hollow core ; 2) the secondary process is the thickening of the fiber.

BBV : Do you mean that it took you about 10 years to understand the process ?

ME : No in 1988 it was already established. It is a review paper. So we put the small particle on a substrate (we used a ferrocene). Then we can grow that fiber as you can see on the screen (figure 4). As a result we got this very nice fiber. From an academic point of view, it was a full success because I was able to grow the fiber, to reproduce the product (there were many observations of such fibers but nobody could reproduce them). I clarified the growth mechanism – that the small iron particle acted as a catalyst for the decomposition of hydrocarbon, that the thin hollow tube grew then thickens to a carbon fiber. As a result we got a fiber with a diameter similar to that of the PAN fibers prepared by Toray.

Figure 4. Endo's vapor grown carbon fibers

Courtesy of Morinobu Endo.

BBV : Did you collaborate with industry in these years ?

ME : Yes we had collaborations. Showa Denko tried to develop this VGCF. But its productivity was very low. Because we put a substrate the growth rate was too slow. We tried to reduce the cost by using a continuous process. But in the same period the cost of the PAN fibers was drastically reduced so that we could not compete. Our VGCF are just beautiful fibers.

There had to be a breakthrough.

BBV : What kind of breakthrough ?

ME : I developed another method. This is the Endo-Japanese patent. I introduced the catalytic particles, which are derived from organic-metallic compounds such as ferrocene, into the reactor, in the three dimensions. The main difference is that there is no substrate. Here in this region, the particle reacts with the hydrocarbon and makes the hollow tube (figure 5). On the hollow tube then the deposition takes place. The process is in hysteresis. As a result we can get another type of fiber. It is totally different. This one is very competitve and commercialized.

I should add that at the early stage of the growth of the fiber, this is a carbon nanotube grown by a catalytic process. So it is now possible to grow carbon nanotubes by this method.

Figure 5. The Endo-Japanese patent, 1987

Courtesy of Morinobu Endo.

BBV : So you have already answered my next question : “How did you move from carbon fibers to carbon nanotubes ?” In fact, you prepared carbon nanotubes before this name came into use.

ME : We used to say “hollow core”. I get a little bit irritated about how the story is told. Here are my laboratory notebooks written in France (1974-75). Agnès Oberlin signed them. You can see a two-layered carbon nanotube. This is the TEM (Transmission Electron Microscope) photograph. I envisaged the possibility of very thin carbon nanotubes. Here you can read “mince cylindres” (thin cylinders). We had found the possibility of very tiny tubular structures.

BBV : Why did Mrs Oberlin signed this notebook in 2002 ? Was there a priority controversy ?

ME : Because I visited her in France last June. And because people said you should get the evidence that you had observed such nanotubes in 1975.

BBV : So nanotube was not discovered in 1991 by S. Iijima in his paper in Nature as people usually say..

ME : People say that Iijima clarified the structure of nanotubes. But Endo observed them in 1974. This is a recent understanding. I clarified the growth mechanism and the mass-production of a thick fiber out of a very thin cylinder.

BBV : The irony is that I came in touch with you through MIT thanks to Millie Dresselhaus and not through your French connection although I live in France.

ME : Mrs Oberlin lives near Montpellier in a mountainous area. She is now 75 year old. She gave me many evidences that I observed nanotubes in 1975.

BBV : Do you also know Bernier in Montpellier ?

ME : I know him but I am not as friendly with him as with Mrs Oberlin. He is a newcomer in science while I have been in carbon science for 30 years.

In my process the carbon nanotube is essential to grow the fiber but we can easily extrude the carbon nanotube. Now we can easily expand the technology to make carbon nanotubes. Several companies such as Showa Denko manufacture carbon nanotubes based on my method. Recently in order to make electronic circuit with carbon nanotubes people used this catalytic process. They put the small particle of iron on the electrode and expose this substrate to hydrocarbon to grow the nanotube. Here is a nanotube paper I am not too happy with ; they don't cite my old paper. Many people are not fair. They only take into account recent science and never go back to older papers…

Anyway this catalytic process is now applied in the mass-production of carbon nanotubes, whether they have single wall or double wall. To me it is very important to produce carbon nanotube and use them for practical applications. So coming back to your question about the date of discovery of nanotubes : in 1975 there was no practical use of carbon nanotubes. The interest was in carbon fibers. So we designed a process to get a thicker fiber.

BBV : When did the interest shift from fibers to nanotubes ?

ME : Carbon nanotubes quickly developed after the discovery of C60 in 1985. But they still have no practical application because they are still high cost. For carbon fibers, by contrast, we already had the technology, the know how to produce them. However my nanotubes are already commercialized for Lithium ion batteries since the late 1980s (figure 6). It is useful to provide safe small-size batteries for mobiles and camcorders. For safety reasons it is better to use only Li+ instead of metallic lithium. For this, we need to intercalate carbon at the anode. Almost most of the Lithium ion batteries manufactured in this country use my fiber in the anode. It is the only material that can work in this application. There is no alternative, no substitutional material. Only my product. So finally what the Japanese companies produce is based on my carbon nanotube.

Figure 6. Mass-producing and commercializing Multi-wall carbon nanotubes since 1988

Courtesy of Morinobu Endo.

BBV : Which Japanese companies manufacture the Li-ion batteries with your patent ?

EM : Many companies (Sony, etc). But, now this is not my patent. It is the company who manufactures my fiber who owns the patent. Only the production system is my patent. And I am happy with that. Even French companies like Alcatel who have a battery division need to use my fiber. Recently we got the allowance to export this material abroad. The Ministry of Industry (MITI) gave us permission to export this material. Now Alcatel and a number of American companies can use my material.

BBV : Do you mean that a Japanese company cannot export one its products without permission from the Ministry of Industry ?

ME : It is only for strategic materials with potential military applications because it is a strategic material for military uses (although I don't know which one). In such cases we are under the control of ICOCOM. Anywhere we can get such allowance.

BBV : Coming back to the earlier period of carbon science, what was your reaction and the reaction of your colleagues in 1985 to Curl's, Smalley's and Kroto's paper on the fullerene structure ?

ME : I felt very nice because it was familiar to me. I was very excited with that kind of nanosize particles.

BBV : After this publication did you get more funds to start research programs on nanotechnologies ?

ME : There was an impulse to work on nanotechnology. And the government gave us substantial funds. 95% of the research budget went to nanotechnologies.

BBV : If you get such substantial funds from government do you also have support from industrial companies ?

ME : Most of my research is supported by industrial companies. Only a small part of the basic science is supported by MITI. For carbon nanotubes we work in close collaboration with industrial companies. We have a very nice cooperation. We are always aware of pratical purposes. So in my research science and applications are closely intertwinned. It is our policy.

BBV : But industrial companies have their own research laboratories ?

ME : Yes, we collaborate with them. Presently I have about 100 collaborators who run joint projects with me. More exactly, I should say 50 researchers who come to join me. It becomes big science when you want to reach the commercial applications because you have to do all kinds of tests : safetyness, production cost, optimizing the size, the diameter of the fiber, its packing...It requires a lot of time and a lot of money. The PAN-fiber, for instance, was designed in 1965 and Toray spent more than 20 years of R&D before the commercialization of PAN fibers in the early 1990s. For the batteries we took 7 years.

BBV : Do you have a kind of division of labor with Research conducted in academic laboratories and development in industrial laboratories ?

ME : We have a lot of feedback. For any specific material we need a lot of time and money. Carbon fibers still need a lot of additional technology for commercial mass-production.

BBV : So your financial resources come both from industry and from government ?

ME : Fortunately we get a lot of money from industry because I contributed a lot to industrial applications. We also get money from the Ministry of education for scientific development. I am acting as a bridge between science and industry, and also as an interprter for tax-payers. We do a lot of coordination with social demand, between university and industry and also of education for industry. We are very busy.

BBV : In your career is there a close connection between teaching and research ? In particular how important was the book on carbon that you co-authored with Stan Mrozowski and Millie Dresselhaus ?

ME I have been deeply encouraged by Millie Dresselhaus. Our book was not intended as a textbook. Rather it was a review book. When it was published in 1996 most of the people were rather interested in fullerenes. This book triggered the interest in nanotubes. The publisher Pergamon is very active in carbon science.

BBV : As historians of science and technology, we learn a lot from success but failures are even more illuminating for us. Would you tell mes about a case of failure in your career or in your field ?

ME : I don't remember any project of mine which failed. I spend a lot of time selecting my research projects. It is important because lot of Japanese companies trust me. I have no right to fail. Every problem has a solution. In a sense the tiny cylinder of the nanotube is a miracle. How can we control particles at the nanosize !

Carbon is an old but new material. Professor Kroto who got the Nobel Prize in 1986 said in his Nobel address : the 21st century will be the century of carbon. I believe that. Carbon is a key material. Carbon fibers and carbon nanotubes are vital in three respects : for energy, fuel cells in particular ; for information technology (mobiles and computers) ; for environment, especially for the purification of air and water. The question of water is crucial : 2 million of people die every year from impure water and 20 million are sick from impure water.

BBV : How can you use carbon for the purification of water ?

ME : It is possible. We can use activated carbon to take off bacteria. Developing countries need clean water at a reasonable cost. So carbon is and will be in the future a key material. My own research is focussed on carbon nanotubes, their action, their preparation, growth mechanism, control of the structure and applications. We study batteries, new devices for energy storage in new cars, devices for water purification for the developing countries.

BBV : You mean that in one laboratory you can afford to conduct all these projects altogether ?

ME : Yes, as they are all related to carbon. Carbon and its properties are important everywhere. I'll show you a very nice table. Carbon is not the most abundant on the earth like silicon. It is only 0.04% of the material resources. But carbon is localized, concentrated in some places so that it is easily accessible and easy to extract.

BBV : How many people are working in your laboratory ?

ME : I have 25 people including students and post-doc. We have ten research projects. They come from materials science, electronics or electrical engineering, physics and two post-doc chemists.

BBV : Do you have financial constraints for the purchase of laboratory equipment ?

ME : We have few constraints to buy instruments. For instance, we have got a very sophisticated Transmission electron microscope, all computerized (figure 7). It is a unique model made by a Japanese instrument maker. It has three functions : EDX (Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy), EELS (Electron energy loss spectroscopy), and Mapping.

Figure 7. Endo's Lab TEM

BBV : Did you acquire it with industrial funds or state money ?

ME : It was state money. We also have various analytic instruments for carbon materials such as STM (scanning tunnelling microscope), TGA (thermal gravimetric analysis), FE-SEM (Field emission scanning electron microscope), Thermal conductivity analyser, Raman, XRD (X-ray diffraction), pore distribution analyser, etc.

BBV : Do you have a lot of routine reporting to your sponsors ?

ME : We have obligations towards the university. The annual report mentions how much money I get from the Ministry of Education. But how much support I get from industry this is included in the global amount of subsidies provided to the university. The annual report does not mention openly how much Endo gets from industry. I think I am one of the most funded.

BBV : Publishing or patenting ? What is the priority ? Which one is the most important for the credit and reputation of a laboratory in materials research in this country ?

ME : It is now the Japanese policy that patenting and publishing should run parallel. For me publication is more important. But as part of the national community I should keep a balance between publications and patents. The Ministry of Education recognizes and rewards patents.

BBV : Do you file patents in your own name ?

ME : It depends. If the research project was financed with state money as a national project, then the patent is a state patent. If the patent comes out of a project financed by industry or by the university then it is your individual patent.

BBV : Who gets the royalties ? you or the university ?

ME : We have a judge who decides. If we invent a product with funds from the unviersity, most of the time it belongs to ourselves.

BBV : The patent on vapor deposition carbon fiber belongs to yourself ?

ME : Yes it is my patent.

BBV : Do you have international collaborations : in which countries ? How much do they matter ?

ME : With Millie Dresselhaus, it is a private collaboration. I also have collaborations with Sussex University (U.K.) and with Mexico. In France I have friends but no more collaborations.

BBV : Did you notice differences in the research styles of various countries ?

ME : I cannot see any difference in research styles. The Japanese style is very much americanized. Or rather, our style is between the French and the American styles.

BBV : What is the French style ? And how would you characterize the American style ?

ME : American style is top-down with the state at the top. French style is rather bottom-up. In Japan it is half-half. I feel rather close to the French style but for patenting we are more like the USA. In France it is difficult to file a patent.

BBV : You have spent 30 years on one single material, carbon. But do you think that the materials generic perspective with its basic notion of structure, properties, performances and process, is useful for your research ?

ME : I think that I have a very general concept of carbon. I generalized the concept from structures to properties. Process is very important to get up with the structure in the case of carbon. Carbon science developed by studying its structures but now processing is important. You get different structures with different processes.

BBV : What aspect is the more important for you ?

ME : I am neither a specialist in processing, nor a specialist of structures. I am a carbon scientist.

BBV : What is the place of materials science in general and carbon science in particular in Japan ?

ME : Unfortunately carbon is a minor field. Semiconductor is the major field. In the minor field of carbon I should say I am number 1 or number 2.

BBV : Does carbon science attract students ?

ME : Yes many students come to work with me, because we have advanced equipment and there are job opportunities in this country : in car companies or electric companies.

BBV : Where do you locate the leading centers in the field of carbon science ?

ME : The major countries are Japan, USA, France and Germany. Then come India, then China, England and Canada.

BBV : Do you see Japan as the leader ?

No. Japan, USA, France and Germany are at the front. It depends on the field. Certainly Japan produces 70% of the carbon fibers by the aerospace applications in the USA.

BBV : Where do you locate the strengths and weaknesses of Japan ?

ME : The human network is too strong. More open competition like in the USA would be necessary. In France the system is too centralized, too concentrated.

Fin de l'enregistrement

Pour citer l'entretien :

« Entretien avec Morinobu Endo », par Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, 26 août 2002, Sciences : histoire orale, /spip.php ?article8.

Pour citer l'entretien :

« Entretien avec Morinobu Endo », par Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, 26 août 2002, Sciences : histoire orale, https://sho.spip.espci.fr/spip.php?article8.

Lieu : bureau de Moronibu Endo, Endo lab, Université de Shinshu, Department of electrical and electronic engineering, Wakasoko, Nagano-shi 380-8553, Japon.

Support : enregistrement sur cassette.

Transcription : Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent.

Édition en ligne : Sacha Loeve.