·HIS.TORY.·.
OF . ·. HEAT TRANSFERESSAYS IN HONOR OF
THE 50th ANNIVERSARY
OF THEASME HEAT TRANSFERDIVISION

edited by
EDWIN T. LAYTO�, JR.
JOHN H. LIENHARDA S M E
HEAT TRANSFERDIVISIONHISTORYOF
HEAT TRANSFERESSAYS IN HONOR OF
THE 50th ANNIVERSARY
OF THEASME HEAT TRANSFER DIVISION

edited by

EDWIN T. LAYTON, JR.
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTAMINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTAJOHN H. LIENHARD
UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTONHOUSTON, TEXASTHEAM E R ICAN

United Engineering Center

S OCI E T Y

OF

M ECH AN ICAL

345 East 47th S treet

E NGI N E E R S

N ew York, N.Y. 10017

Copyright © 1988 by
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS
All Rights Reserved
Printed in U.S.A.

PREFACE"Energy is pure delight"
William Blake

The history of heat transfer should be a major chapter in the history of
the latter-day development of energy; but so far that chapter has hardly been
written. Since the late 18th century, our world has been reshaped byenormous increases of energy production. This happened once before, when
Western civilization was put in motion by the serious energy production thatbegan in the Middle Ages.
Yet the history of technology, and with it the history of power
production, was seriously neglected until rather recently. "History is past
politics." said the historian, Walter Bagehot; and with few exceptions that is
how history was written before this century. The late historian of Medieval
technology, Lynn White (1978) 1, was among the first to clearly identify the
Medieval power revolution; and he archly remarked that before 1931
Medieval technology had no history. He meant that the history of Medieval
technology (like that of heat transfer today) had been largely unrecorded
until then. In particular, the enormous advances of Western power
technology between the 10th and 13th centuries remained almost invisible
until 1931.
The year 1931 was, for White, the annus mirabilis of the study ofMedieval technology. It yielded three new books by Medieval historians who
had looked beyond the accounts written by the scribes of kings and gone toanthropological records. In 1931 it first began to come clear that anonymous
craftsmen had wrought stunning changes in the quality of Medieval life -­changes that kings had taken for granted -- changes that their chroniclers had
not deemed worth mentioning.
It was White, more than anyone, who discovered the magnitude of thepower revolution that so profoundly changed the lot of humankind in the
Middle Ages. The invention of the horse collar and the windmill, along with
1 White, L., Jr., 1978, Medieval Religion and Technology, University of California

Press, Berkeley, Prefaceiii

the wholescale exploitation of the water wheel, expanded human power
output a hundredfold. In 1086 AD, the conquering Normans took stock ofEnglish water wheels in the Domesday book. They counted 5624 of themwhere there had been virtually none, a few centuries earlier.
Of course, power production continued to increase down through thecenturies; but in the 18th century it began its second really radical expansion.
Practical steam engines came into being at the end of the 17th century andwere transformed into something approaching modem form by James Wattduring the end of the 18th century. Watt's partner, Matthew Boulton,
reflected 18th century thinking when -- only half in jest -- he told SamuelJohnson's biographer, James Boswell, "I sell here, Sir, what all the world
desires to have, power."
Table 1 indicates roughly what these two energy revolutions achieved.
These numbers are subject to large variations, of course. But they make it
clear that, if the Medieval period saw hundred-fold increases in power, thelast 200 years have seen something like a million fold increase.
Table 1 Some Typical Values of Available PowerPower source
Man
Farm horse
Water wheel
Windmill
Steam engine
Steam power

Date introduced---------9thC
l0thC
llthC
early 18th C
20thC

Typical power output
0.05 HP
0.3
3
5
12
up to 3,500,000

HP
HP
HP
HP
HP

The increase of power production during the past 200 years has beenaccompanied by unceasing problems involving heat flow. Watt's first patent(of the external condenser) provided means for eliminating a wastefultransient heat transfer process. From that patent to the invention ofsuperconductors, heat flow has been a critically important issue in our
power-based world. Some have argued that today's world is information­
based; but that world also presents a stunning array of electronic coolingproblems.
lVYet the history of this aspect of our world has hardly been told.
Historians of science lose interest after the grand contributions of Fourier,Maxwell, and Planck. Historians of technology have been content to look at
the grand power-producing machines, without looking at this part of theintellectual hisotry associated with modem power technology.
Heat transfer, of course, has owned its place within the American
Society of Mechanical Engineering since the 1930's. Now, as we observe the50th anniversary of its recognition within ASME, we have the opportunity tochallenge historians to start looking seriously at the history of the problem ofmanipulating energy, as well as at the mere history of the effects of energy.
And we hope that some of these historians will prove to be engineers within
the Heat Transfer Division.
We begin our look at the history of heat transfer with an account of the
ASME Heat Transfer Division. We learn that a small band of hard-working,energetic, and supremely optimistic Chemical and Mechanical engineers
picked the subject up in the 1930's. In a spirit of "pure delight" they plumbed
it capabilities and worked magic with their new-found techniques.
Part II of this collection is made up of articles describing the scientificorigins of our subject -- the discoveries of the way energy-in-transition
behaves. Part III is a collection of memoirs and biographies of some of thegreat 20th century contributors to the field. (In addition to the memoirs
listed in the Contents, Prof. S. Ostrach is to present an account of his early
work on free convection, at the meeting.) These are followed in Part IV withseveral accounts of the assimilation of the subject into engineering practice.
We conclude with a broad bibliographic review of source literature forsubsequent scholars.
The result has been enormously stimulating for us. It has let us see thisfield in a large historical context for the first time. The excitement of those
who have contributed both articles and background material has been
contagious. The authors of this volume have illuminated us, and taught us somuch that we did not know when we began.
We have come away greatly encouraged about the vitality of the field.
We hope that reliving the animus of our early contributors, might help
reclaim that zeal for today's workers.

VWhite began his collection of essays by saying that, as a result ofhistorical exposure,"The Middle Ages are not what they used to be.
Indeed, they have changed almost beyond recognition..."If this modest step toward creating a history of heat transfer succeeds,
subsequent historians will expand upon and complete the themes that theauthors have stated here. If it succeeds, perhaps 21st century historians will
likewise be able to say,"Heat transfer is not what it used to be."

Edwin T. Layton, Jr.
the University of Minnesota
Minneapolis

John H. Lienhard
the University of Houston
HoustonApril, 1988vi

CONTENTS

History of Heat Transfer in ASME

A History of the Heat Transfer Division
Edwin T. Layton, Jr. and John H. Lienhard .......... .......................

1

History of Heat Tra.nsfer Science

Gaseous Heat Conduction and Radiation in 19th Century Physics
Stephen G. Brush..............................................................

25

Enhancement of Convective Heat Transfer: Newton's Legacy Pursued
Arthur E. Berg/es..............................................................

53

Kelvin's Cooling Sphere: Heat Transfer Theory in the 19th Century Debate
Over the Age-of-the-EarthPaul J. Nahin .................................................................

65

Biographies and Memoirs

Max Jakob: July 20, 1879-January 4, 1955, Fifty Years of His Work and Life
Elizab eth Jakob................................................................

87

Dean L.M.K. Boelter's Contribution to Heat Transfer as Seen Throughthe Eyes of His Former StudentsFrank Kreith ..................................................................

117

From Braunschweig to Ohio: Ernst Eckert and Government Heat
Transfer Research
Virginia P. Dawson ............................................................

125

Ernst Schmidt - As I Remember Him
Ernst R. G. Eckert .............................................................

139

History of Heat Transfer Engineering

History of Steam Condensers
Tetsu Fujii and Haruo Uehara................................................

147

Fouling of Heat Transfer Surfaces: An Historical Review
E. F. C. Somerscales ............................................................

161

Heat Transfer Research in General Electric, 1910-1960: Examples of
the Product Driven Innovation Cycle
George Wise ...................................................................

189

vu

Historical Source Material
Review and Some Observations on the Historical Development of Heat Transfer
From Newton to Eckert ( 1700-1960)
K. C Cheng and Tetsu Fujii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Vlll

A HISTORY OF THE HEAT TRANSFER DIVISION
Edwin T. Layton, Jr.
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455
John H. Lienhard
Heat Transfer/Phase Change Laboratory
Mechanical Engineering Department
University of Houston
Houston, Texas 77004"What good is a new born baby?"
Benjamin Franklin

The ASME Heat Transfer Division originated in the formation of an ASME
Heat Transfer Professional Group in 1938. This Group became a regular Divisionof ASME three years later. We trace the history of the Division and its antecedents
in an attempt to see our work whole. In doing so we have been greatly helped by
two unpublished works: H.B. Nottage's (1968) 30-year review, and S.P. Kezios'(1980) 42-year review, of the Division's history. We have also received wonderfulcooperation from many heat transfer people who have been a part of our history.
Their help is not all acknowledged or reported explicitly; but it is a real presence inthis account.

I PRECURSORSThe new subject of heat transfer was established as an important scientificbranch of heat engineering just after the tum of the twentieth century. The
foundations of heat transfer were laid by some of the ablest scientists and engineers
in Britain and France during the latter 18th century and throughout the 19th
century.
But in the earlier 18th century, the observations of Joseph Black, Benjamin
Thompson, Benjamin Franklin, and others had formed our insights into heat flow
behavior. The Scottish chemist, Joseph Black (1803) gave us latent and specificheats, but he also provided accurate descriptions of many heat transfer phenomena.
Benjamin Thompson (see, e.g., Brown (1979)) was the renegade American who
became Count Rumford, and who is best known for the cannon-boring experiments
which helped to establish the mechanical theory of heat. But in several otherexperiments, he made important qualitative observations of natural convection.
Benjamin Franklin provided us with a remarkably early observation of therelative solar reflectivity of cloths. Sometime in the 1730's, either Franklin or his
associate, Joseph Breintnal, laid cloth patches of various colors out on the snow andobserved the depth to which each sank as the sun shown upon them (see, e.g., Cohen(1943).) They concluded that the lighter the color was, the better the cloth reflected
the sun's rays.
Commenting on these experiments, Franklin says, "What signifies
Philosophy that does not apply to some Use? May we not learn from hence thatblack Clothes are not so fit to wear in a hot Sunny climate or Season, as white ones."
This is the same Franklin who had something quite different to say as he watched aballoon ascent in France a half century later. Asked what good these ascents were,
he replied, "What good is a new born baby?" Franklin, it would seem, came at lastto understand the essential tension that we feel in our subject today -- the tension
between the pursuit of purpose and the pursuit of pure understanding.
These 18th century phenomenologist gave us the insights so necessary to a
new subject. But in the final analysis, one cannot avoid crediting Joseph Fourier
with originating the modem science of heat transfer. His mathematical method foranalyzing heat conduction provided us with our first predictive heat transfer
theory. Forty years later the Englishman, James Clerk Maxwell completedFourier's theory by supplying the theoretical basis for predicting the transportcoefficients neded in the theory.
We find the same flow of ideas from France to England in the developmentof fluid mechanics. The French engineering theorists C.L.M.H. Navier and S.D.
Poisson erected the basic analytical apparatus used by the Englishman, G.G. Stokes,
to develop equations for viscous fluid flow in their modem form. This, in tum,
paved the way for analyses of convection starting in the late 19th century.
2

It was in the late 1800's that Germany began to assume a position ofleadership in science and engineering. German leadership owed a great deal to theGerman system of Technische Hochschulen. A particularly important heat transfer
center was the laboratory of "technical physics" (What we would call "Applied
physics") set up by Oskar Knoblauch near the beginning of this century at Munich.
Knoblauch numbered Wilhelm Nusselt, Ernst Schmidt, and Max Jakob among his
students.
The University at Gottingen became another major center of engineering andphysical theory. The famous mathematician, Felix Klein, seeing too great a gulf
between the applied and pure sciences, was influential in creating a series oftechnical institutes at Gottingen. In 1904 he accepted August Foppl's
recommendation that his student, Ludwig Prandtl, be given charge of the Institutefor Technical Physics there (see, e.g., Lienhard (1975).) Later that very year Klein
was delighted when his new professor presented a remarkable paper at the Third
International Congress of Mathematicians at Heidelberg. The title of the paper was"Uber Fltissigkeits-Bewegung bei sehr kleiner Reibung." ("On Fluid Motion with
Very Little Friction.") In it, Prandtl showed that viscous drag was usually isolated
in a thin layer next to a body moving through a fluid. The thinness of this region inwhich the liquid velocity changed from that of the body to that of the exterior flow,
simplified the mathematics and made it posible to predict the flow. Thus Klien's
efforts paid off as Prandtl gave us the boundary layer concept. Gottingen had
immediately produced the major fluid mechanical revolution of this century and its
prophet as well.
These institutes made a fertile ground for the new discipline of heat transfer,as for well fluid mechanics, since they wed engineering to the applied sciences. For
some 25 years, the German academic establishment laid the foundations of heattransfer with great energy and spirit. This steady advance of German science andengineering was halted by Hitler and his National Socialists, who brought Germany,
along with its scientists and engineers to the brink of total ruin by the end of WW­
II.
However, during the 1920's and 30's, the German advances wereaccompanied by the exportation of subject of heat transfer. In the 1930's and1940's this exportation was broadened to include some of the key German heattransfer people as well. The 1920's and 30's saw a rapidly rising interest in"technical heat transfer" within several of the more enlightened universities andindustries in the United States. These trends made it clear to many American
mechanical engineers, well before 1938, that their organization must do something
to focus interest on this important new subject.
But the United States was ill-equipped to make heat transfer into a serious
scientific inquiry in the early 20th century. While Germany led the integration ofscientific research into engineering, we danced to very different drum in 1900.
Our ideal was the practical inventor/engineer -- the Edison role-model.
3Changes were nevertheless afoot. Even in the late 19th century, Johns
Hopkins, Cornell, and Stanford were developing research orientations in theGerman mold. Robert Thurston, a founder of ASME and its first president, wasalso a pioneer in creating laboratories associated with mechanical engineering
departments -- first at Steven's Institute and then at Cornell.
These were followed by another uniquely American institution, the land
grant university. Under the Morrill act, each state was granted land to set up a
university whose "leading object" was to educate the citizenry in "agriculture andthe mechanical arts." These universities were natural heirs to the technischehochschule concept; and by the early 20th century vigorous traditions ofengineering research emerged in several land grant colleges. This work was
supplemented by the growth of engineering at traditional universities and the new
institutes of technology. By 1950, M.I.T., for example, had become a research
giant that had clearly surpassed its old-world prototypes.

II. HEAT TRANSFER IN THE EARLY DAYS OF ASME
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers was founded in 1880, 58
years before the Heat Transfer Division was begun. Only eight heat transfer papers
were published during the first thirty-three years of the society's existence. Table 1
lists them all, since they display the character of the subject during this time. The
titles suggest their lack of sophistication, and the papers themselves are pretty
rudimentary. Few, for example, even use the concept of thermal conductivity.
The subject of thermal power, of course, was a major concern during thefirst third-century of the ASME, and while much is said about heat flow in otherTransactions papers, it is only treated as a thermodynamic difference term. Verylittle was known about the mechanisms of heat flow, and the subject remained an
unknown territory, even for investigators of machinery that depended upon heattransfer processes. It was an obscure research area within the pragmatic field of
mechanical enginering.
The ASME was nevertheless quick to see that research would be needed tofulfill its objectives. As early as 1909 it established a Standing Committee on
Research. Of course one might question how strong ASME's initial committment
was. According to Nottage the Society logged the lordly expenditure of $0.58 forthe business of that committee in 1909. It is worth noting that this was only two
years after the establishment of the first ASME technical division in 1907 -- the Gas
Power Division. The Gas Power Division was followed by many other divisions,
all of which had titles that identified them with the major technologies andindustries of the day: steam power, petroleum, railroads, machine shops, and so on
to the smallest, the "Printing Industries Division."4

Table 1

A complete List of the Heat Transfer Papers Published During
the First 32 Years of the Transactions of the ASME

Emery, C.E. ,1881, "Experiments with Non-Conductors of Heat," Trans.
ASME, Vol. 2, pp. 34-40.
Ordway, J.M. ,1884, 1885, "Experiments with Non-Conducting Coverings
for Steam Pipes," Trans. ASME, Vol. 5, pp. 73-112, 212-215; Vol. 6,
pp. 168-198.
Baldwin, W.J., 1886, "Notes on Comparative Values of Metal Surfaces for
Warming Air," Trans. ASME, Vol. 7, pp. 361-374a.
Carpenter, R.C. ,1891, "Heat Transmission Through Cast-Iron Plates
Pickled in Nitric Acid," Trans. ASME, Vol. 12, pp. 174-186.
Barrus, G.H. (1902) "Tests of Steam Pipe Coverings," Trans. ASME, Vol.
23, pp. 791-845.
Kent, W.,1903, "Heat Resistance, the Reciprocal Heat Conductivity," Trans.
ASME, Vol. 24, pp. 278-285.
Wagner, F.C. ,1905, "The Transfer of Heat at High Temperatures," Trans.
ASME, Vol. 26, pp. 594-607.
Orrok, G.A. ,1910, "The Transmission of Heat in Surface Condensation,"Trans. AMSE, Vol. 32, pp. 1139-1214.

Our nagging need to know more about heat transfer mechanisms became
apparent in the Research Committee from the start. In 1911, W.F. Goss, Chairmanof the Research Sub-committee on Steam Devices, issued a report on the "present
state of knowledge of the laws governing the transmission of heat through metallic
turbes from gases and liquids to gases and liquids" in which he outlined thisimportant research area in heat transfer.
George Orrok's 1910 paper (see Table 1) mirrored Goss's challenge with thefirst paper that took on any of the appearance of the modem subject. He devoted 75
pages to a thorough analysis of heat exchangers that included the use of an overall
heat transfer coefficient and the development of a logarithmic mean temperature
difference. He also reflected a clear understanding of the historical antecendents ofour subject. His 48 references included the works of Poisson, Peclet, Joule, Kelvin,

5Reynolds, and Stanton. He did not mention any of the great German investigatorssince their efforts had not yet borne fruit.
It took 32 years to produce the first eight ASME heat transfer papers; but
only after the eighth one -- only after Orrok's paper -- did heat transfer become aregular and rapidly expanding part of the intellectual life of the Transactions of the
ASME.
Figure 1 shows the number of heat transfer papers published each year in theTransactions, before the separate Journal of Heat Transfer was begun in 19591
Orrok's paper clearly touched a nerve. In its wake, ASME heat transfer work
begins in earnest -- Figure 1 makes it clear that,after 1911,"the game is afoot!"

III

EVENTS LEADING TO THE FORMATION OF THE HEAT TRANSFER

The astronomer, George Ellery Hale, was an early champion of research in
the United States during the early 20th century. He sought to enlarge the National
Academy of Sciences by admitting engineers and by making it a champion ofresearch across a broad front of scientific disciplines. He created a major
opportunity for influencing American scientific development by founding the
National Research Council (NRC) in 1916,just before we entered WW-I. The NRC
was made permanent by President Wilson's executive order in 1918, and it washoused with the ASME in the Engineering Societies Building in New York.
Since they were located in the same building,the ASME Council offered theservices of its Research Committee to the NRC in 1920. In that offer the ASME
identified heat transfer as one of its established research areas. When the NRC
established its own Committee on Heat Transmission in 1923-24, Willis Carrier -­the great pioneer of air conditioning and founder of the Carrier Corporation as
well as a strong ASME contributor in the field of heat and mass transfer -- wasmade its chairman.

1 It took many judgements to identify the "heat transfer" papers for Fig. 1. We
include: physical property papers if they focus on thermal conductivity, diffusivity
or emissivity; major discussions if they introduce new results and are publishedseparately from the paper; papers on furnace performance if they introduce new
results and are published separately from the paper; papers on furnace
performance if they deal with radiation ab sorption; thermal stress papers if they
involve solution of the heat diffusion equation; etc. Another person is unlikely to
duplicate Fig. 1 precisely.
6

�

ro

"O

0

E

Q)

0
LO

::::,

--ro
ro
en

-...
-... -...
... ...
--

(l)

C.

ro

0
�

en

(l)

E

a,
I-

C

::::,

0

a,
I-

(l)

::i::

�

(l)

en

a,

0.
a,
0.

-

,-

C

(\J

0

-,

0

(l)

...

::::,

en
>

0.

('I)

...
C

0

0

0

a,

C

(l)

0

0

en

en
en

Q)

C.

a,

(l)

::i::

(,.)

0

.c

0
en
�

(l)

C

0
�

Q)

C:

-

"O

(l)

C:

�

a,
I-

...
C, a,
a, ...
0

C:

Q)

C

0.

Q)

�

(l)

en

en

>,

.c
()
ro

-...
...
-

(l)

...0

co

>

a,
(l)

::i::

0

0

,-

Q)

.0

E

:::,

z

0
0

co
co
,-

0

0)

co
,-

0
0
0)
,-

0

0

,0)
,-

(\J

0)
,-

0

('I)
0)
,-

0

�

0)
,-

0
LO

0)
,-

0

co

0)
,-

Date

Fig. 1

The numbers of papers on heat transfer published each year in theTransactions of the ASME from the first volume in 1880 until the Joumalof Heat Transfer was established as an independent journal in 1959.

In 1927 the NRC provided the Committee on Heat Transmission with asalaried Director, W.V.A. Kemp. Two years later, Kemp (1929) issued a reportcalling for heat transfer standards, meetings, research funding, and the preparationof two heat transfer texts, one of which was completed. That text was W.H.
McAdam's (1933) first American heat transfer textbook. ASME heat transfer
sessions were also initiated at regular meetings in 1933.
Many of the influential heat transfer activists at this time were, like
McAdams, chemical engineers. Chemical and mechanical engineers were closely
linked in those days. The American Institution of Chemical Engineers had not yet
7begun its spectacular post-war growth as a separate discipline, and the ASME
provided the chemical engineers with its best forums for the study of heat transfer.
An easy cooperation joined chemical and mechanical engineers; it joined
theoretical, experimental, and applied activities; and it joined the universities andindustry. These diverse people, all interested in opening up an exciting new field,
were united by their common adventure.
Heat transfer in 1933 had an East Coast focus, and the subject was strongly
driven by the needs of the East Coast process industries. McAdams brought thisspirit to his book. It was a rich lode of data and empirical representations of thosedata. And yet McAdam's book was only published because the NRC had suchconfidence in the subject of heat transfer that they promised to cover any losses that
McGraw-Hill might suffer. Nottage recalls a McGraw-Hill representative publicly
saying of McAdams at the first National Heat Transfer Conference in 1957, " ... andMcGraw-Hill stands in the reflected glory of this man." McAdams took the podium
and grumbled, "Hell, they didn't even want to publish the damn thing."
A second locus, younger and much more academic, was meanwhile taking
shape in California. Under the leadership of L.M.K. Boelter (Then at the
University of California at Berkeley) young faculty at Berkeley and Stanford (andsoon at UCLA as well) read and synthesized the more theoretical German
literature. They also read and organized the recent American work, and theytransmuted the two influences into an American academic discipline. In 1932 a setof teaching notes by Boelter, V.H. Cherry, and H.A. Johnson (1965) summarized
what they'd learned; but the tidal wave of published work created by the effort did
not really become evident until a few years later, nor was it immediately reflectedin the definition of heat transfer within the ASME.
The first grass-roots working heat transfer committee in ASME was formed
in 1934 as a part of a new Process Industries Division of ASME. It borrowed
leadership from the NRC heat transfer committee, and it immediately drove tocreate a wider representation of the heat transfer discipline within ASME. It
certainly had cause to do so. Nottage recalls that when, in 1937, a heat transfer
session was scheduled in a small room and a power session in a large room, therooms had to be switched to accomodate the burgeoning interest in heat transfer.
Nottage is careful to identify the part that chemical engineers played inbringing pressure to bear on expanding the involvement of ASME in heat transfer
during this period, for ASME was their forum in the subject as well as ours.

8Table 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

IV

C. Lucke's Committee Structure for an ASME Heat Transfer Division,as Proposed in 1934.

Thermophysical Properties
Fundamental Principles and Research
Heat Transfer In and Through Insulated-Wall Enclosures
Heat Transfer Processes Involving Vapor and Gas Mixtures with
Condensation and Evaporation
Condensing and Evaporating Equipment
Fluid-to-Fluid Unfired Heat Exchanges
Combustion Furnace Heat Transfer and Equipment
Direct Fired "Low-Temperature" Solid heaters, Melters, and Energy Power
Equipment
Direct Fired Fluid Heaters and Boilers of all Types
Direct Fired "High-Temperature" Solid and Gas Heaters, Kilns, and Material
Processing Equipment

THE FORMATION OF THE HEAT TRANSFER DIVISION: 1937-1941

The first stage in forming a Heat Transfer Division within ASME took placeat the 1937 Winter Annual Meeting. So many registrants indicated their interest in
the subject of heat transfer at this meeting that it became clear to ASME it would
have to form a Heat Transfer Professional Group within the Process Industries
Division. That group was officially formed at the 1938 Summer Meeting.
It may seem odd that we trace our history to the formation of thisprofessional group rather than to the formal establishment of the Heat Transfer
Division itself. However, it was clear that this was the first step in splitting theIndustrial Process Division into two divisions. Our subject now had an enormous
momentum that would clearly not be denied. The formation of a separate division
was not only invevitable, but it was actually planned to occur in 1940.
As it happens, the formation of the Division was delayed until 1941. Nottage
argues that the delay was the result of neither disinterest nor resistance, but rather
of pre-occupation. The subject of heat transfer itself was expanding like a blast
front, and matters of organization were simply overwhelmed by the work at hand.
And forming the Professional Group into a division was, by then, almost anafterthought. The shape and form of the Division were solidly set by the time theProfessional Group was formed in 1938. Nottage, for example, presents the
proposed list of committees suggested for a heat transfer division by Charles Lucke
as early as 1934. We reproduce this list in Table 2 since it so dramatically reflects
9similarities and differences in our thinking about heat transfer over the span ofmore than half a century.

V.

THE AMERICANIZATION OF HEAT TRANSFER, IN THE 1930's AND
1940'sTo understand the dynamism of the subject of heat transfer within ASME, wemust look at the evolution of the subject immediately before and after the formationof the Division. We have seen that ASME was originally a gathering of engineers
with very practical concerns and needs. Tum-of-the-centry German theory musthave first seemed, to these people, to emerge from some distant ivory tower.
Boelter's systematic effort to introduce this advanced material into the United States
had originally caused him troubles. Tribus (1987) reports that Boelter was taggedwith the nickname "heini" during WW-I and accused of being a German
sympathizer for his trouble.
Yet he did more than anyone to bring us up to a modem understanding ofheat transfer before the gathering clouds of Nazism began to deposit high-level
German scholars on our shores. The first, of course, were Jewish refugees.
Theodore von Karman, whose wide-ranging work in fluid mechanics included
important work in heat convection, came to M.I.T. as a visiting professor in theearly 1930's and moved here permanently two years later. He was followed by Max
Jakob who visited the United States in 1936, and came here permanently in 1937.
Jakob joined the Illinois Institute of Technology, and consulted at the Armour
Institute.
Jakob formed the first outpost of the German school of heat transfer here.
After thirteen years, his carefully prepared lectures emerged in the form of ahighly influential new textbook [Jakob (1949)] which he introduced with the words:"[I] allow ample space for the German literature of the 25 years before
Hitler. Since obviously, German science has doomed itself for a longtime to come, ... the earlier literature will not be accessible."
Jakob underestimated the way American specialists were struggling to learn what
the Germans knew. His book gave us an important window into that knowledge.
Yet, by then, he was actually the second, not the first, German scientist to open thatwindow to a general American readership.
While Jakob worked in the late 1930's and early 1940's, a new breed ofyoung men were being educated at such places as Berkeley, Stanford, and M.I.T.
Many of these were young military officers during WW-II. These people foundtheir way both to the salient heat transfer problems of the day and to the German
experts in the United States. People like R.M. Drake, Jr., M. Tribus, A.L. London,and R.A. Seban pursued such problems as anti-icing, internal combustion, and10

these problems and they entrained the German-American specialists into these
problems. As Fig. 1 shows, they were now expanding the heat transfer literature atsuch a rate as to double it every five years.
Then, as the Allies moved into Germany in 1945, they quickly recruited thebest German scientists to work in the own countries. In the United States thisprogram was called "Operation Paperclip." German scientists were brought here
for two years and then offered citizenship or a return to Germany. Ernst Schmidt
was first recruited under this program, but subsequently went to England instead.
Our most notable "Paperclip" acquisition was E.R.G. Eckert who was brought toWright-Patterson Air Force Base.
Eckert arrived with a copy of his brand new German heat transfer text inhand -- a surviving copy from a first printing that had largely been destroyed byallied bombings. R.M. Drake, Jr., then a young army captain, had been working ontranslations of two earlier German texts when he met Eckert and learned of his
more up-to-date book. He immediately dropped the other two books to help Eckert
translate this book into English. He also developed a table of physical properties toaccompany it and arranged with McGraw-Hill to publish it. When it came out[Eckert (1946)] it provided us with our first direct window into the German schoolof heat transfer.
Jakob's book was initially the more influential of the two books because it
was based on many years experience teaching in the United States. It was moreaccessible to our students. However, Eckert's book sparkled with more recent
material. It revealed to us for the first time a variety of German wartime advances,
particularly in the area of convective heating. And its last edition [Eckert andDrake (1972)] is still serving us.
But there was much more to establishing an American school of heat transfer
than just German importation. It may be in vogue today to malign McAdams' first
American heat transfer book for its lack of sophistication, but Tribus (1971) wrote:"McAdams always sought the 'correlation' and Boelter always sought
the 'mechanism.' About a dozen years ago, I had dinner with
McAdams, and he said to me, 'If I had to do it over again, I would dowhat Boelter did."
When I told Boelter this, he replied in his characteristic manner, 'Bill
should never feel that way. What he did in producing his book was
absolutely essential to the development of heat transfer."
I will give it as my professional judgement as one who has taught,
researched, and designed in the field of heat transfer, that the twoschools were indeed absolutely essential, each complementing theother".

11

And that is the strength of the American evolution of the subject in a nutshell.
A new subject of heat transfer was born along with the Heat Transfer Division.
Boelter, Jakob, and Eckert brought German analysis to bear on the richly
empirical foundation the process engineers had erected in America. Out of thistension emerged a synthesis -- a new subject that was a step stronger than it had beenin either of the schools that had given it birth.

VI

FROM THE BIRTH OF A DIVISION TO THE BIRTH OF A JOURNAL:
1938-1959

An odd recurring phrase in Nottage's prose is spirit essence. An earlysection of his paper is titled, "The Motivating Spirit-Essence," and he keeps comingback to that strange expression. It first seems over-dramatic -- excessive. But as hisstory unfolds, it becomes clear that he uses it to convey an excitement in those earlydays of the Division that he finds hard to express.
Table 3 lists the chairmen of the Heat Transfer Division, starting from theHeat Transfer Professional Group in 1938. It makes a fascinting gallery of thenames that have established our field.. During the first fifteen years the Division(or Group) was chaired five times by Chemical Engineers. Nottage emphasizes
that the Division pointedly drew non-ASME people into its committees and otherbusiness -- that it had had that kind of evangelical zeal.
The tradition of Heat Transfer Luncheons and later, banquets, began in 1943.
They were organized by another heat transfer notable of the period, Florence"Flossy" Buckland. According to Nottage, "heat transfer ebullience...was so
contagious that we didn't wish to interrupt our informal sharings." Her purpose
was simply to keep lunch from getting in the way of conversation.
It was during this period that members of the Division began to flex theirmuscle and exert pressure on the society. The first demand was for centralizationof publication, and it was backed up with a high standard of paper screening andevaluation. This led to organizing the heat transfer papers together in theTransactions, as well as in the Journal of Applied Mechanics, which by then had
become the first separate ASME journal. The idea of creating a separate Journal of
Heat Transfer was also clearly on the minds of a lot of people from the start.
However, by 1945, the Transactions included a full symposium on heat transfer infins (causing the spike in Fig. 1 for 1945) and the pressure for a separate journal
was temporarily eased.
In fact, by 1944 some Division members wondered aloud whether it might bewise to split a separate "Society of Heat Transfer Engineers" away from ASME.
12

Table 3

Chairmen of the Heat Transfer Professional Group, and the Heat
Transfer Division

1938 J.H. Sengstaken
1939 T.B. Drew
1940 E.D. Drew
1941 E.D. Grimison
1942 T.B. Drew
1943 L.M.K. Boelter
1944 W.S. Patterson
1945 L.M.K. Boelter
1946 R.H. Norris
1947 C.F. Kayan
1948 A.P. Colburn1949 L.B. Schueler
1950 G.A. Hawkins
1951 G.L. Truve
1952 A.C. Mueller
1953 P.R. Trumpler
1954 H.B. Nottage

1955 H.B. Nottage
1956 M. Tribus
1957 S. Kopp
1958 S.P. Kezios
1959 W.E. Hammond
1960 H. A. Johnson
1961 W.M. Rohsenow
1962 K.A. Gardner
1963 J.F. Wachunas
1964 J.A. Clark
1965 P.T. Vickers
1966 S. Ostrach
1967 S. Levy
1968 T.F. Irvine, Jr.
1969 S.J. Green1970 R.A. Seban
1971 W.H. Cook1972 F. Landis
1973 L.H. Back
1974 R.J. Goldstein1975 R.W. Graham
1976 V.E. Schrock
1977 E. Fried
1978 F.W. Schmidt
1979 R.L. Webb1980 C-1. Tien
1981 A.F. Rathbun
1982 A.E. Bergles
1983 R.J. Simoneau
1984 C.J. Cremers
1985 R.K. Shah1986 J.R. Lloyd
1987 F.A. Kulacki
1988 J.M. Chenoweth

Yet the division leadership held the view that it would be more effective for theDivision to expand its autonomy without leaving ASME. In fact, Nottage (1945)
wrote an anonymous Mechanical Engineering article in which he argued for such arole for the Division within ASME.
The two markers of autonomy for an identifiable professional group are ajournal and technical meetings, and by the late 40's the pressure for an independentconference was rising. The first such meeting that actually came about was the first
International heat transfer conference2 . It was called the General Discussion on
Heat Transfer, it took place in London in 1951, and it was jointly sponsored by the
ASME and the British IME. The tradition of involving other societies in theinternational meetings was established at that meeting and it has continued eversince. ASME organization of this meeting was largely handled by A.C. Mueller,
who became the Chairman of the Division the following year.
As it turns out, the Heat Transfer Division did not take the lead in creating its
own conference. Other divisions did that first. Indeed, it is clear that Nottage, whochaired the Division in 1954 and 5, was more concerned with strengthening the2 This was followed by the second international conference ten years later in

Boulder, Colorado, by the third one five years later in Chicago, and by the fourth
one four years later in Minsk. Since then, these conferences have followed a strict
four-year rotation.
13

Division than separating it from the mother society. However, two events
converged in 1957 to create a separate National Heat Transfer Conference and to
give it its present shape and form.
Before 1957 the ASME had, for a long time, sponsored two technicalconferences a year -- the Winter and Summer Annual Meetings. But, as otherdivisions began running their own Summer conferences, ASME decided that it was
impractical to continue running two technical meetings a year. It charged thedivisions with creating their own technical conferences and (by 1962) changed theSummer meeting into a business meeting. The second major change that occured
was the formation of a Heat Transfer Division within AIChE. And who do you
suppose was their first Division Chairman? It was none other than Al Mueller who
had chaired the ASME Heat Transfer Division in 1952 and who had organized thefirst International Conference.
The long-standing ASME-AIChE cooperation was continued into thisconference; and it has, from the start, been a joint effort between the two societies.
Planning for the first meeting had gone on for 2-1/2 years at the hands of Tribus,
Kezios, Nottage, and Kopp, among others, as well as George "Dusie" Dusinberre
from Pennsylvania State University who served as Conference Chairman.
Dusinberre arranged to have the meeting held at the Nittany Lion Inn at Penn State.
The key organizers from the Chemical Engineering side were Alan Foust and, ofcourse, Al Mueller.
The meeting was, by all reports, a splendid success. It was there thatcommittees were set to plan the future National and International Conferences. It
was there that McGraw-Hill celebrated the 25th anniversary of McAdams book as
symbolic of the development of the Division itself. The mood of the meeting,according to Notttage, took more the form of a technical retreat than did subsequentmeetings which were generally held in cities.
We tum next to the last major step turning the division into a full-fledged
technical society within ASME -- the creation of the separate Journal of Heat
Transfer. This was finally precipitated in 1958.

VII

THE JOURNAL OF HEAT TRANSFER

Kezios reports that the Division appealed to ASME headquarters from asearly as 1952 to create its own journal. However the ASME editor, George Stetson,and the Publications Committee, were unsympathetic. It became, in Kezios' words,"an annual ritual for the Chairman of the Division to meet with theeditor at headquarters and plead the case for a publication identity for
the HTD.
14

.....no one sensed the.....steady increase in the proportion of the total
ASME journal-quality papers."
When Kezios made his 1958 pilgrimage to New York, he was armed withstatistics showing that heat transfer papers had for five years occupied 25 percent of
the Transactions. But two other factors had also come into play by this time.
In 1958 the ASME announced that the Transactions was to be split into four
different journals. One was the Journal of Applied Mechanics which had long beenbound as an independent journal within the Transactions. Separate journals for
power and industry were also created. And all the remaining subjects now
appeared within the last ASME generalist's journal, the Journal of BasicEngineering.
Kezios was at first dismayed by the news. It seemed to close the door on thepossibility of creating a heat transfer journal. But then he realized that this was
opportunity -- if four journals, then why not five! Then Kezios discovered thesecond factor that finally led to approval of the new journal. In New York (on his
own out-of-pocket funds) he found a new ASME editor -- Jack Jacklitsch, who had
replaced Stetson. With Jacklitsch's help, Kezios was able to persuade ASME leadersthat the society had indeed overlooked the potential of the new Journal that theDivision so badly wanted.
Yet one might be well advised to give the conservatism of the earlier editorial
management its due. E.M. Sparrow (1987), under whose superb guidance theJournal flourished during the 1970's, says of the 1950's:" ..... all mechanical engineering research was interwoven in one
journal, the Transactions .....we felt ourselves part of the larger
fraternity of mechanical engineers and not part of a special subgroup.
The age of ultra-specialization not yet set in."Indeed, a few years later, Lienhard wrote letters to Jacklitsch trying to convince
him to preserve the Journal of Basic Engineering. But it was ultimately abolishedin favor of several new divisional journals. These were doubtless needed, but wewere left with no general subject-matter journal within the society.
We were then entering an era of high specialization, and a Society that had
previously sought to retain its concentricity was now hurrying to subdivide itself.
The time was right, and the new Journal of Heat Transfer came out in February,
1959.
News of the new journal was met with glee by the Division. Kezios says thatwhen he announced the creation of the new journal at the first heat transfer sessionof the 1958 Winter Annual Meeting, Tribus leaped up with a triumphal shout. And
he describes the mood of the Division dinner as one of "jubilation."
15

The editors who made the Journal what it is are all listed in Table 4. At first
the Journal was edited in ASME headquarters with Kezios acting as a consusltant.
Then a new position of Senior Technical Editor was created for it. This position
was finally flanked by an increasing number of Associate Editors.
The Transactions included 59 heat transfer papers and technical briefs in1958 (see Fig. 1.) When the Journal of Heat Transfer came out in 1959 it ran thisnumber up to 80 or so, and it now gives us almost 200 papers per year. But the
Journal alone was not adequate to handle the burgeoning output of heat transfer
papers, and other journals also came into being about this time. The International
Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer actually predated ours. Other nations joined inthis information explosion, and now German, Japanese, and Russian journals areavailable in English along with several other American journals.

VIII FROM ELATION TO MISGIVINGS: 1958-1970
The timing of the high tide of heat transfer matched that of the Sputnik
revolution. Our defeat by the Russians in space had humiliated us in 1957, and wereacted by asserting our supremacy in science. German influences had already put
us on the road to a far more science-oriented sort of heat transfer, but now themove toward improved science had become a national imperative.
We were armed with a new Journal and with re-enforcements from graduate
schools, both old and new. We were also armed with new money from newagencies. Each new technical development led to another. And thus, as the 1960's
ground on, if we took smaller steps with each successive paper, we did not always
notice.
The idea that the Division should begin awarding excellence in heat transfer
emerged in the mid-1950's. Sigmond Kopp and Myron Tribus were eventually
instrumental in setting up the concept of the Heat Transfer Memorial Award. The
Award was first established as a Divison honor, and then not until 1959. It was not
actually given until 1961. The first recipient was Novak Zuber who, three years
earlier in the course of doing his Ph.D. degree with Tribus at UCLA, had developed
the ingenius hydrodynamic theory of boiling burnout. Tribus and Kopp themselvesalso won it, but not until 1968.
The Heat Transfer Memorial Award is given for excellence in the "art" or"science" of heat transfer, and/or "general" contributions to the field. It has been
awarded to one or two people each year in one or two of these categories (once it

16

Table 4

The Editorship of the Joumal of Heat Transfer

1959 to 1962

J. Jacklitsch with S.P. Kezios
as Consulting Editor(The position of Senior Technical Editor was establishedin 1963. Subsequent names are those of Senior.Technical
Editors.)
1963 to 1969

S.P. Kezios(An editorial board of Associate editors was established in1968. Between 1971 and 1986 that board has grown from
W.H. Geidt (R.A. Seban finished Giedt's second
1970 to 1971
year after he suffered a heart attack.)
1972 to 1980

E.M. Sparrow

1980 to 1984

K.T. Yang

1985 to 1989

G.M. Faeth

was given in all three.) The importance of this honor was recognized by ASME
when they incorporated it as a regular Society award in 1974.
The Max Jakob Award, on the other hand, began as a regular Society award
in 1961 and it has emerged as the most prestigious heat transfer prize. This isbecause it is given jointly by both the AIChE and the ASME. It is also given justonce a year. The first four awards went, fittingly enough, to Eckert,
Boelter,McAdams and Schmidt.
Figure 2, a photo taken at the 1952 Winter Annual ASME Meeting, shows aremarkable superposition of ASME awardees. Myron Tribus who helped instigate
the Heat Transfer Memorial Award and later won it himself; Max Jakob for whom
the major heat transfer award is named; and Warren Rohsenow who subsequently
won both awards, and who chaired the division in 1961, as well.
Another marker of the burgeoning society was the expanding committee
structure of the Division. By 1963 there were 13 "K" committees (Divisioncommittees are numbered K-3, K-4, etc.) This number shrank to 11 by 1970. It
presently stands at 15. The ones that died during the 1960's are revealing. We lost:
K-4, Editorial Advisory Board
K-6, Experimental Techniques
K-11, Direct Fired Equipment
K-15, Teaching Heat Transfer
17

Fig. 2Three heat transfer notables at the 1952 Winter Annual Meeting: Myron
Tribus receiving the Alfred Noble prize; Max Jakob receiving theWorcester Reed Warner Medal; and Warren M. Rohsenow receiving the
Junior Award. (Photo courtesy of Elizabeth Jakob.)

We can guess what these drops meant -- more autonomy for the Journal, lessgeneral concern for experimental methods as specialist committees were set up, ashift in interest from furnaces to other more specialized reactors. And the death ofthe committee on teaching suggests another kind of outcome of increased
specialization -- the Division members' interest in education had by now shifted to
specialist training in graduate school.
Nottage's history -- written in 1968 -- ended with an expression of thefrustration that he felt as he watched the Division drift away from a concern forstudent well-being. In a listing of current problems he included:"Aloofness from .....disturbing questions and currents in education, in
professional realities, in value problems, in down-to-earth ethics, andin the nature of responsible freedom -- all of which [are significant] inHeat Transfer..... "Nottage's distress was, of course, shared by some others in the Division. The
contrast between steady growth of the heat transfer research enterprise on the one
hand, and rising signs of social distress, student rebellion, and academic confusionon the other, was painful to anyone able to see it for what it was.
Research funding, spurred by the post-Sputnik drive to increase America's
scientific power, grew dramatically in the late 1950's, and 1960's. The engineeringsocieties had, in this rare instance, worked together to benefit engineering research.
After WW-II, the four "Founder Societies" formed the Engineers Joint Council
18

(EJC) to act in common matters. Now they showed adroit management and keen
strategic sense in lobbying for the interests of engineering research and education.
In 1964, for example, the EJC was instrumental in creating an Engineering
Division within the National Science Foundation, and placing an engineer on NSF's
governing board as well. Of course our presence in NSF cut both ways. We reaped
the benefit of increased funding, but that funding bore the name of science. It was
clearly intended to support only the more basic engineering work.
Like the proverbial camel who got its nose into the tent, engineers steadily
expanded their base, not only in NSF, but in other government granting agencies aswell. Military R & D did not just continue to expand, but it did so in the direction ofincreasingly basic engineering work -- paralleling the physical sciences. The
military, like the NSF, was quite willing to see its grantees doing work that wasincreasingly separated from engineering applications.
E.W. Hartung (1966), president of the University of Idaho, wrote of thesituation, even as it was unfolding:"A [major] problem is the increasing demand for research whichsociety is placing upon our universities. The knowledge explosion is aself-catalyzing process.....the more we know the more we need toknow..... research and development began the process of erosion of
the Ivory tower which is now [almost] complete, and which has left
Mr. Chips more of a hallowed memory than a [familiar] character on
our campuses."
The death of Mr. Chips was at the center of a problem that was soon to reachbeyond the universities. We had ridden into the 1960's on euphoria and we rodethrough it on expanding resources. But faculty began to play the game somewhat
blindly. They sometimes became overspecialized, overly focused on research thatwas detached from the engineering world, and too concerned with researchfunding. They often failed to understand that their students were being
demoralized by the draft and the war in Viet Nam. Students of the late 1960's badly
needed Mr. Chips.
The swing in emphasis, as well as the deterioration in excitement, isdevastatingly captured in the following entry from S. Levy's minutes of the 1966
"Dr. Kern...stated that the industry participation in the exhibits has notbeen very high and that such exhibits could be eliminated. He also
indicated that not enough applied papers are being presented. The
general feeling was that the National Heat Transfer Conferences[might] 'dry out' in several years..."That sort of worried self-analysis was wholly absent in the 1940's and 1950's. You
find little but action item after action item in the earlier minutes of Division.
19

The decade of the '60's began as a wonderful, willful, exciting time; but it
ended in a revolution -- almost a civil war -- centered on university campuses. Viet
Nam was the nominal target, but Viet Nam was an abstract evil to most students.
The universities and their faculties were the enemy they knew. They burnedbuildings and turned their rage on professors. At some level, they at least
understood that we were no longer propelled by the glorious flood of discovery thatmarked the 1950's. They saw us grinding out government sponsored work thatserved the development of our own reputations better than it served external good.
The student cry for "relevance" gradually percolated upward from thestreets and found its way into the seats of power. The first victim was the aero­
space industry and the wonderful array of heat transfer work associated with it.
The public response to landing a man on the moon was to ask why poverty andpollution still infected the earth. Research funding for anything but objectives bredin the soil was slashed. We were in Tagore's words, "brought down to the hard
earth," and we are to some extent still there today.

IX

RETRENCHMENT AND THE SEARCH FOR NEW FRONTIERSOne might be tempted to argue that the history of the Division ended in the
1960's. There have, after all, been no major structural changes. We have grown,
but our growth has largely reflected growth in the exterior world. The business of
the Division has changed in ways that reflect the public and agency pressures whichbear chiefly on the academic and investigatory branches of our profession.
Yet what has been going on strongly parallels what was afoot during the
1930's and early 1940's. For almost two decades our intellectual establishment has
been under a sustained attack and our objectives have been splintered and muddied.
During the 1930's and 1940's our mission was portrayed in murderously
practical terms. Times were hard and intellectual excitement was limited -- both inheat transfer and in engineering as a whole. But a few, very wise people really saw
how to serve public need with their own intellectual excitement during that period.
With great insight, Eckert (1971) identified the quality of this vision in
Boelter during his talk at the dedication of the Boelter Library at Purdue
University. He drew two remarkable nuggets from Boelter's writings3 First
Eckert said of Boelter:" ..... he concluded that an engineer is in general at the peak of his
decision making strength 25 years after graduation from the
University and that in this period the technology has radicallychanged, so that fl. student benefits little f r om being t a ugh t
3 The emphases are ours.
20contemporary technology. What he will still use after 25 years are thebasic laws .....the problem solving techniques, and the ability tosystematize those for engineering systems."
Boelter was making a plea for a latter-day revitalization of the classical concept ofgeneral education, and our universities today are sore tested to keep this idea intact.
Later in the paper Eckert quoted from Boelter's lecture notes, which he had
obtained and studied. Here Boelter addressed freshman students at UCLA in 1963:"The products of your mind are the most precious things you own, thatyou possess. And you must protect them, and must not do wrong withthem, you must do the right thing. You must always have in mind thatthe products of your mind can be used by other people whether forgood or for evil, and that you have a responsibility that they be used
for good, you see. You can't avoid this responsibility, unless, as I've
said, you decide to become an intellectual slave and let someone else
make all of these value judgements for you. And this is not consonantwith our democratic system in this country. You must accept the
responsiblity yourself, for yourself, and for others."..."
Those who knew Boelter portray him as a distant man, someone they did not
fully know, a shy man, a man who might be overlooked in a room, on the personallevel -- a closed man. Yet what a majestic impassioned statement this is! If you do
not look closely, the text first seems redundant; but then you catch its rhythm. You
perceive that he is using the kind of antiphonal emphasis you find in the Book of
Psalms.
"The products of your mind are the most precious things,
That you own, that you possess.
And you must protect them,
And must not do wrong with them,
You must do the right thing."
Here Boelter spoke to his students and he speaks to us with great power. If Boelter
was diffident in advancing himself he was not so inadvancing principle. Here wecatch some of the vision, eloquence, and high principle that were the building
blocks of our subject and our profession.
The subject of heat transfer as represented by the Division has served thisnation in many ways. It has responded to public needs and served those needs well.
It has changed the face of American technology. It has altered engineering
education. Yet we do well to remember the origins of the Division. The energy,
excitement, and zeal that gave it birth traded on external need but were born ofsomething more personal. They were born of Nottage's "spirit essence." For asmall group of people, the "products of their minds" were "the most previous things21they owned." For these people those products of their minds carried the"responsibility that they be used for good."
Today the field is wracked by exterior pressures to serve the public in thisway and that. It is easy to forget Boelter's wonderful sense of purpose and to f9rget
that the "products of our minds are the most precious things we own." Boelter is,after all, not very far from Franklin who as a young man said, "What signifies
Philosophy that does not apply to some Use?" and fifty years later said in defense ofa seemingly useless new idea, "What good is a new born baby?"
We can reclaim the strength of our founders by looking in the right place,and by being in the right place -- by placing ourselves in the world of real needs atthe same time we look inside ourselves for mental adventure. The people who madeour Division and our field knew how to nurture, and play with, a new born baby,
right in the middle of the marketplace.

REFERENCES(The references listed in Table I are not reproduced here.)
Anon., Feb., 1945 "ASME Heat Transfer Division. Its Development, Objectives,and Operation," Mech. Engrg., Vol. 67, pp. 130-133.
Black, J., 1803, Lectures on the Elements of Chemistry. (J. Robison, ed.) Vol. 1,"General Doctrines of Chemistry," Part 1, "General Effects of Heat."
Mundell and Son, Edinburgh.
Boelter, L.M.K., Cherry, V.H., Johnson, H.A., and R.C. Martinelli, 1965, Heat
Transfer Notes, reprinted by McGraw-Hill, New York. (These notes wereoriginally published locally by Boelter, Cherry, and Johnson for use by
students at Berkeley, in 1932. The younger Martinelli joined in theirauthorship some years later. This voluminous set of material was neverpublished commercially as a textbook.)
Brown, S.C., 1979, Benjamin Thompson, Count Rumford, MIT Press, Cambridge
Mass.
Cohen, LB., 1943, "Franklin's Experiments on Heat Absorption, as a Function ofColor," Isis, Vol. 314, pt. 4, pp. 404-407.
Eckert, E.R.G., 1971, "Lecture held at the Llewellyn M.K. Boelter Library
Dedication at Purdue University, April 21, 1971."
Eckert, E.R.G. and Drake, R.M., Jr., 1972, Analysis of Heat and Mass Transfer,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
22

Hartung, E.W., 1966, "Demands and Directions -- the Growing University,"
Domain of the Faculty in .il Growing University, (H.H. Hargreaves, ed.) The
Common Ministry, University of Washington.
Jakob, M., 1949, Heat Transfer, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Kemp, W.V.A., 1929, "Research in Heat Transmission in the United States," Mech.
Engrg., Vol. 51, pp. 368-370.
Kezios, S.P., 1980, "Perspectives in Heat Transfer -- Some Highlights in theDevelopment of ASME Heat Transfer Division," Unpublished address to the
Honors Luncheon, ASME/AIChE Heat Transfer Conference, Chicago,1980.
Lienhard, J.H., 1983, Biography of L. Prandtl, Diet. of Scientific Biog., Vol. XI,(CC. Gillespie, ed.) Chas. Scribner and Sons, New York, 1975.
McAdams, W.H., 1933, (1933) Heat Transmission, 1st ed., McGraw-Hill Book Co.,New York.
Nottage, H.B., 1945, (see Anon., above.)
Nottage, H.B, 1968, (1968) "The ASME Heat Transfer Message," Unpublished
Notes for the Heat Transfer Division of ASME.
Sparrow, E.M., 1987, personnal communication.
Tribus, M., 1971, "Llewellyn M.K. Boelter Library Dedication." (lecture
presented at the L.M.K. Boelter Library dedication at Purdue University,
April 21, 1971).

23