Foreword

The Laboratory was six years old then. Now, in 1970, it is in its twenty-fifth and final year. During the quarter-century, a remarkable range of professional interests was pursued at the Lab. The world's then most powerful computer (the NORC) was designed and built; the orbit of the moon was computed with ever-increasing precision; the Michelson-Morley experiment was repeated – and improved by two orders of magnitude – using the then newly-developed ammonia maser; an attempt was made to grow diamonds and to store information in "Wildroot Cream Oil;" the mysteries of photosynthesis were explored and the behavior of matter near absolute zero was studied; and the structure and function of many blood serum proteins were investigated. The diversity, the quiet competence, the style, the personalities, and the scientific successes at the Watson Laboratory have been sources of great satisfaction for many of us over the years.

Seymour H. Koenig, Director
IBM Watson Laboratory
at Columbia University   August 18, 1970

It is doubtful if more than a handful of readers knew what a "computing" [-2-] laboratory was; indeed the word itself was unfamiliar to most. For although it was known that a few large automatic calculating machines had been built during the war and assigned to military projects of various kinds, there was very little general understanding of how these machines worked, what their capabilities were, or how they differed from the accounting machines that had been on the market before the war.

The story of the Watson Laboratory is thus a part of the larger story of the unique, on-going Columbia-IBM relationship, whose fruits over the last forty years – in terms of educational and scientific projects undertaken, new theoretical concepts advanced, scientists recruited, pioneering machines built, students taught and specialists trained – have had far-reaching effects on the development of the art and science of computation in the United States.

Wood's eloquence was handsomely rewarded. Watson made him an IBM consultant (a post he held for 28 years) and ordered three truckloads of tabulating, a card-punching, sorting and accessory equipment dispatched to special quarters Wood had wangled In the basement of Hamilton Hall, where the Columbia University Statistical Bureau began operations in June, 1929. During the next few months, the IBM machines were kept busy not only by the Statistical Bureau, which used them to make detailed analyses of hand-scored test results, but also by various academic departments of the university. In particular, the Astronomy Department found the machines helpful for the interpolation of astronomical tables. By 1930, Watson was sufficiently impressed by these novel uses of IBM equipment to authorize the company's manufacturing plant at Endicott, N.Y., to develop a special tabulator, requested by Wood, to enable the Bureau to make even more complex calculations. Known variously as the "Columbia Machine," the "Statistical Calculator" and "Ben Wood's Machine," the new unit mass-produced the sums of products by the method of progressive digiting and read punch cards at the rate of 150 per minute. It contained ten 10-position counters with provision for shifting totals internally from one counter to another – a capability that anticipated a future function of computers.

Meantime, Wood and his assistants were working with IBM's engineers to solve the original problem of developing an efficient automatic test-scoring machine. After attempts to develop IBM's tabulator-punch card technique to the purpose proved unsuccessful, it was decided to concentrate on developing a machine to take advantage of the fact – known to generations of schoolboys – that pencil marks can be good electrical conductors. The plan was to build into a machine tiny electrical circuits that would be completed by the presence of pencil marks at given places on an answer sheet – thereby automatically recording a score. The theory was promising, but there was a serious practical problem: the amount of electricity conducted – therefore the score recorded – varied widely with the degree of darkness of the pencil marks.

In 1934, just as this problem was beginning to appear insoluble, a high school teacher in Ironwood, Michigan, named Reynold B. Johnson (now an IBM Fellow) came up with the answer. Johnson had been working independently for several years on a test scoring machine based on the pencil-mark principle. Knowing of Wood's interest in the field, he sent a description of his design to Wood, who saw that Johnson, by introducing two-million ohm resistors into the electrical circuits in his machine, had raised the total resistance to the point where variations in the pencil marks no longer mattered.

On the strength of Wood's enthusiastic recommendation, Johnson was invited to come to New York in the summer of

Pioneering work by Eckert

Having learned through Wood of Thomas J. Watson's interest in the use of IBM machines for educational and scientific purposes. Eckert determined to [-8-] draw up a list of equipment needed to create the kind of laboratory he envisioned and to submit it through Wood to IBM. The time was 1933 – the bottom of the depression – and some items on Eckert's list called for substantial modifications of standard IBM machines to make them sufficiently flexible for scientific operations. Nevertheless, Watson – who had become a trustee of Columbia – once again gave the go-ahead, and within a few weeks the machines were delivered to the attic of Pupin Hall. In addition to a full set of the latest IBM accounting machines, there was a special Model 601 Multiplying Punch capable of doing direct interpolation – a very unusual feature, especially designed for Eckert by one of IBM's top engineers at Endicott. Watson's attitude toward this and subsequent donations of equipment to Columbia, was summed up in a statement made later in his life; "Our motto down through the years has been and will continue to be 'There is no saturation point in education'. We have always placed special emphasis on this in our scientific development..."⁵

The new laboratory – the only one of its kind in the world – began operating early in 1934 under the aegis of the Columbia Astronomy Department. To members of the department and to graduate students, one of the most interesting projects Was the use of the machines to solve the differential equations of planetary motion by numerical integration. With the method, a number of highly accurate orbits extending over long periods of time were obtained. Concurrently, several large data-reduction programs were undertaken. For the Yale University Observatory, which was constructing a photographic star catalog, the laboratory took over the laborious task of converting from spherical to rectangular coordinates for thousands of stars. For Columbia's own program in photometry, involving about 150,000 stars, the machines were used to calculate the coordinates of stars on photographic plates, record photometer readings, perform the numerical reductions, and make a listing of all the final data – an enormous task. The laboratory also put onto punch cards astronomical data from the Boss Catalog of 30,000 stars. From the card sets, statistical data of many kinds Could be derived by simple sorting and tabulating operations. Easily duplicated, the card sets could also be made available to other users.

By the late 1930's, the attic of Pupin Hall had become a cross-roads for visiting scientists who came to inspect the Bureau's versatile machines. Among them

What happened thereafter is a well-known chapter in computer history and is outside the scope of this account. However, to summarize briefly: Aiken's plans proved so interesting that in 1939, IBM decided to develop and construct the machine, known as the Automatic Sequence Controlled Calculator. Built at Endicott during the next five years, the huge electromechanical machine was the first automatic general-purpose computer. In 1944, it was presented by IBM to Harvard, where it was initially lent to the U.S. Navy for classified work.

The War Years

Eckert's mechanization of the Nautical Almanac within a period of only a few months did not go unnoticed by other agencies of the armed forces. Computing laboratories patterned on those at Columbia and the Naval Observatory were soon established at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and more than a dozen other strategic locations around the country. The Thomas J. Watson Astronomical Computing Bureau itself was turned over to war work in 1942, and was expanded to fill the top floor of

By the mid-1940's, developments in computer technology were coming thick and fast. The ASCC machine had been completed and placed in operation at Harvard. Other advanced electromechanical machines – including IBM relay calculators capable of multiplication of harmonic series, matrix multiplication and solution of 6th order differential equations – were developed and rushed into service. At the Moore School of the University of Pennsylvania, the first computer with vacuum tube components, the ENIAC*, was being built and plans for a computer of even more advanced design were in the wind there.
_______________
* Electronic Numerical Integrator and Calculator.

Applied Mathematics and Computational Theory

The news release made no mention of plans for the laboratory to design anew calculating machine. However, a [-14-] newspaper reporter who visited the Columbia campus in search of material for a feature story on the new "figure factory" – as the press dubbed it – filled out the picture in a report that reflected the public's attitude toward computers at the time. After looking over the machines in Pupin Hall, he wrote: "I asked why... isn't it possible to put an income tax return in one of the slots of those dang-fangled modern devices and watch it come out solved, sealed and ready for delivery on March 15." Less ingenuously, he commented: "Columbia eventually hopes to manufacture a calculator that will shame the 51-foot mechanical marvel at Harvard..."⁸

Another function of the laboratory not fully spelled out in the initial announcement was the instruction of Columbia students by laboratory staff members, who would have non-salaried appointments to the university faculty. Courses, for which academic credit would be given, were to be offered by staff members in mathematics, physics, astronomy and other fields under the auspices of various departments of the university. Eckert himself, appointed Professor of Celestial Mechanics at Columbia in 1946, became the first Watson Laboratory staff member to assume teaching duties. There were to be many more as time went on.

As the war drew to an end, Eckert – with the aid of John C. McPherson, IBM Director of Engineering, who took a keen interest in the work of the laboratory – began the recruitment of specialists in areas of prime importance to the laboratory: applied mathematics and computational theory. As a distinguished scientist in his own right, a full professor at Columbia, and head of a department at IBM, Eckert was in an advantageous position to negotiate with other scientists. Moreover, he had evolved a philosophy about the role of the laboratory that proved extremely attractive to scientists eager to return to peaceful pursuits. Members of the Pure Science Department at the Watson Lab were to be full-time scientists, free to do individual research

By emphasizing the freedom at the laboratory, Eckert struck a profoundly responsive chord in the people he approached. One of his earliest recruits was Robert Rex Seeber, who had been at the Harvard Computational Laboratory, where he worked with Howard Aiken on the ASCC machine, and was burning with ideas of his own on how a computer should be designed. Another was Herbert R. J. Grosch, who had been employed as an optical engineer in defense industry and was eager to return to research. On the advice of Professor I. I. Rabi of Columbia's Physics Department, Eckert approached Llewellyn H. Thomas*, one of the foremost applied mathematicians in the world, who agreed to come to the laboratory from Ohio State University in order to work on the adaptation of mathematical problems to the powerful new calculating machines. (Since Thomas did not seem to fit into any standard job category, the employment department placed him on the payroll as a technician. )

When it shortly became clear to Eckert that he also needed to bring in electronics specialists knowledgeable about the radical wartime developments in the field, he went to the M.I.T. Radiation Laboratory – then in the process of disbanding – and at Rabi's suggestion recruited Byron Havens, Robert M. Walker and John J. Lentz, who had been working in radar and advanced electronic circuitry and who welcomed a chance to apply their knowledge to computers.
_______________
Famed for the Thomas-Fermi-Dirac statistical theory of atoms and solids and for the theory of the spinning electron.

Thomas J. Watson quickly gave the green light to construct the new machine in special quarters assigned to the purpose at Endicott and named Frank Hamilton as chief engineer. Eckert then delegated to Seeber, who had helped to program and operate the ASCC, the responsibility of providing liaison between the engineering and scientific groups during the design and construction of the machine.

"The Interaction Was Very Close..."

The ferment that characterized the Lab in its first few years has been described by Eckert: "The interaction was very close... This was a very informal place. We felt that the people who were coming to solve problems should mix with the people who were learning and who were giving courses. We always had problems of our own, of course, that we were interested in getting solved. So the place was more like a university laboratory than a computing center. People sat around and discussed their problems and they would wait for the machines and while one person was using one machine, somebody else would be using another. So it was a very intimate arrangement."⁹

The atmosphere was also highly conducive to creativity. Indeed, the many and varied research activities of the Watson Laboratory in the first few years of its life represented, in effect, the research effort of IBM itself during that time. Havens was at work on the design of an advanced, completely electronic machine with microsecond circuitry. At an early stage of this project, he designed a fundamental circuit – known in textbooks as the Havens microsecond delay circuit – that directly influenced the design of subsequent computers. The circuit took electric pulses that had been degraded by passage through many logic gates and reshaped and retimed them by separating them by one microsecond intervals. With this circuit, the entire central processor of a computer, containing thousands of components, could be kept

Concurrently, Lentz, who was interested in computer storage, was busy devising a one-tube storage element to replace the four-tube "flip-flops" then in use. The employment of vacuum tubes in computers was still relatively new and Lentz was experimenting with ways of using them to do arithmetic. While in the process of hooking together various pieces of equipment to test his new storage element, he realized that he could continue the process a few additional steps and create a small computer that could be operated by an individual sitting at a keyboard control. He went to work to construct such a machine, building the parts he needed – including a magnetic drum to supplement the more expensive vacuum tube storage – adding a paper tape punch reader and manual keyboard control. A feature of particular interest: the calculator provided automatic positioning of the decimal point, making it one of the first machines to be built with this ability. The model, completed at the Watson Lab in 1948, became the prototype of the IBM 610 Autopoint Computer, which was placed in limited production in 1956. The eight year delay was caused by uncertainty as to the potential market for a small, portable "personal computer." Far ahead of its time conceptually, the 610 presaged "on-line" direct communication between individual and computer.

While working on the "personal computer," Lentz – in response to a request from Eckert – was also perfecting a Star Measuring and Recording Machine for use on astronomical photographs. In addition to his duties as director of the Lab and his teaching assignments at Columbia, Eckert had reactivated certain projects of the Thomas J. Watson Astronomical Bureau that had been set aside during the war. Among these projects were the Yale University Observatory's catalog of stars and the Yale Minor planet

Walker, meantime, was also designing and building a machine at the laboratory in conjunction with Professor Francis J. Murray, of Columbia's Mathematics Department, who had proposed an improved algorithm for use in the solution of systems of simultaneous linear equations. The machine, the Linear Equation Solver, made possible the solution of up to twelve simultaneous equations. It employed static punch-card reading heads to read cards containing the matrix of coefficients of the system of equations to be solved. Trial values of the variables could be entered into the machine by adjustment of twelve input potentiometers. The accuracy of the provisional values was indicated by the reading on an "error" meter, which displayed the residual error of the solution. The machine demonstrated that the use of Professor Murray's algorithm resulted in the virtual elimination of interaction among the variable potentiometers and led to rapid convergence of the trial and error solution. The machine became a valuable addition to the basic equipment of the computational facilities of the Lab.

While working in computational theory and applied mathematics, Thomas and Grosch were also teaching courses to Columbia students. The announcement that instruction would be given in Watson Lab first appeared in a Columbia University bulletin of information for the winter session of 1946-47: "Members of the Laboratory staff offer courses of instruction in their fields of interest under the

The facilities at the Lab also attracted scientists and scholars from research organizations all over the world. One of these was a young man named Frank Herman, who used the relatively primitive IBM Card Programmed Calculator at the Lab's computing center to make his well known computation of the band structures of germanium and diamond for his doctoral dissertation.* This work represented one of the earliest accurate computations of the energy levels of solids and constituted a breakthrough in the use of machine computation in solid state physics.

In some instances, staff members who were also teaching received appointments to the Columbia faculty. Thomas was appointed full professor of physics in 1946, and many other staff members held professorial appointments. The Lab, in its early years, initiated the practice of offering two annual fellowships in applied mathematics to Columbia graduate students, with winners selected by a faculty committee of the Mathematics Department. The first fellowships were granted in 1947-48, and a few years later the program was expanded to include support for graduate students, recommended by Columbia, who were seeking doctoral degrees from the university for work [-21-] performed at the Lab under the supervision of staff members.

The Selective Sequence Electronic Calculator

Although he had originally been appointed by Eckert to perform only supervisory and liaison functions, Seeber became deeply involved with the actual design and construction of the SSEC. In the end, his contributions to the machine proved to be so important that he was named, with Hamilton, as co-inventor. In the meantime, Eckert had been thinking ahead to the selection of a problem of suitable complexity for the machine to demonstrate at the dedication ceremonies, which were to be very elaborate, with representatives of all the news media and of science, education, government and industry present for the occasion. He decided on the computation of the lunar ephemeris – the determination of the precise position of the moon – at intervals of twelve hours during the previous one hundred years and for the next one hundred years to come. For each position of the moon, the operations required for calculating and checking results totaled 11,000 additions and subtractions, 9,000 multiplications, and 2,000 table look-ups. Each equation to be solved required the evaluation of about 1,600 terms – altogether an impressive amount of arithmetic which the SSEC could polish off in seven minutes for the benefit of the spectators.

In the fall of 1946, Eckert assigned H.K. Clark, one of his associates at the Lab, to the task of writing the program for the lunar calculations under Seeber's direction. After the broad outlines of the program were developed by Eckert and by Rebecca Jones, an associate in astronomy, Clark wrote the actual step-by-step program, giving him claim to the title of first computer programmer at IBM.

Completed and tested in only eight months, the SSEC was moved in August, 1947 into a specially designed room in a building adjacent to IBM headquarters at 590 Madison Avenue in New York. The machine – the very model of what an "electronic brain" might be expected to look like – was built into three sides of a room 60 feet long and 20 feet wide so that visitors actually stood inside the computer. The rubber tile floor in geometric pattern, the silver and gold finished walls, recessed fluorescent lighting and black marble columns provided an impressive setting for the functioning sections of the computer. Behind glass panels set in aluminum frames, the memory units were stored; as they performed, small lights flickered and flashed like fireflies.

After rigorous testing, the SSEC was placed on trial operation in mid-December on the lunar ephemeris

The day of the dedication, January 27, 1948, was described by Seeber as follows: "There was to be a luncheon on the second floor of the building... and all the prominent guests were to attend this luncheon. The machine had been working fairly well the day before, but that morning it began to develop a difficulty again, and on running the problem it would go to a certain point and then fail and stop. In order to restart, it was necessary to hand-position the tapes and start them over again... By lunchtime we still had the difficulty with us. Frank Hamilton and I had to go to the luncheon... the people downstairs... were trying to find some means of correcting the problem but finally... the assembled guests were coming down the stairway. So they felt, well, this is life... there was nothing more they could do about it. They started [the tapes] over again and the computer ran all afternoon."¹²

In the dedication ceremonies that followed – during which the SSEC performed flawlessly, grinding out several dozen good positions of the moon – Thomas J. Watson told 200 guests: "It is with a mixed feeling of humility and confidence in the future... that I dedicate the IBM Selective Sequence Electronic Calculator to the use of science throughout the world." The event – unlike the initial announcement of the establishment of the laboratory – was given [-23-] extensive coverage by the news media including a couple of newspapers that did

Soon after the dedication of the SSEC, the company decided that the machine should be given a task more closely related to current developments – such as atomic physics, then much in the news – and a problem prepared by Thomas on the statistical distribution of electrons was chosen. The calculations, done by iteration, used continually revised sets of boundary conditions which Thomas worked out on a desk calculator. To indicate when computations with one set of boundary conditions were complete and another set needed, the SSEC programmers wired into the program the instruction "See Thomas." This procedure, which kept Thomas tied to the desk calculator, was superseded when the programmers obtained from him his method of obtaining boundary conditions and wrote a program sequence for the machine to do the same thing.

During the next four years, the SSEC worked on over thirty scientific problems submitted by industry, government agencies, and universities. For some of this work a fee was charged; in other

Despite its capabilities, the SSEC – built in the transition period between electromechanical and electronic machines, and suffering from reliability problems – soon fell victim to obsolescence, and in July 1952 it was dismantled. The machine nevertheless had a significant impact on all who had been involved with its career. Hamilton and other engineers who built the machine carried over their expertise to subsequent work on the IBM 650 computer, announced in 1953, which became one of the company's most popular machines. The programming group scattered to other areas of the company, where their experience proved very valuable. Jeenel joined Havens's project in advanced computer design. Backus, Herrick, Beckman, Quarles and Ruth Cornish joined John [-25-] Sheldon, who came from the Watson Lab to operate a new Scientific Computing Center – located at

Perhaps the most important effect of the SSEC was on IBM management. Thomas J. Watson and other executives tended to view the powerful machine in somewhat the same manner as they had the Test Scoring Machine and the "Columbia Machine" – that is, as a boon to science and education.

Other members of management, including Thomas J. Watson, Jr., foresaw that industry, too, would soon be demanding electronic machines more advanced than even the SSEC. The younger Watson has described the situation at the time. "After the start of the Korean crisis, greatly increased defense activity in the aircraft, the atomic energy and the munitions manufacturing fields increased the demands for machines capable of engineering computations of the highest order. IBM was anxious to contribute in any way it could to the defense effort. Our electronic research had expanded greatly after the war, and by 1950 our people felt they had components which, if put together, could make the very large capacity tool that industry wanted. We developed a paper plan and decided perhaps we could get interested people to indicate to us that they wanted such a machine. Our engineers made a trip to the West Coast and came back with tentative orders for 18."¹³ Since this was a far larger number than even the most optimistic predictions, IBM made the decision to enter the computer business. In the early 1950's, developmental work began at Poughkeepsie on the 701 Defense Calculator – the first production-line
_______________
* For his role in this work, Backus was named an IBM Fellow in 1963.

The Naval Ordnance Research Calculator

[-27-] The NORC was not only the most powerful computer in the world – a distinction it held for nearly a decade – but it had certain features that were unique. Its 200,000 electronic components (vacuum tubes, resistors, crystal rectifiers, capacitors, inductors and pulse transformers) operated at one microsecond intervals – a speed achieved by the extensive use throughout of the Havens delay circuit, which made possible its complex logical organization. Storage in the NORC was of two kinds. Random-access storage of 3,600 words was provided by 264 Williams-type cathode-ray tubes timed to store, recover or refresh a word in 8 microseconds.* Main memory was provided by eight magnetic tape units, with four channels on each tape, that brought data into the machine at 70,000 decimal digits per second – more than five times faster than the fastest tape drives at the time. These tapes had been built to Havens's specifications by Ralph Palmer** and an engineering group in Poughkeepsie.
_______________
*Later the Navy replaced the cathode ray tubes with magnetic core storage.
** Who later became an IBM Vice President and Fellow.

The NORC's reliability was no less impressive than its physical prowess. Exclusive of planned downtime for maintenance, the machine ran 92% of the system time available and operated an average of 700 hours a month. Unlike most computers, which perform calculations in binary notation – converting decimal input into binary before the calculations are made, then back into decimal afterward – the NORC employed decimal notation and operation in order to make programming easier. Each word of both data and instruction was composed of 16 decimal digits plus a check digit, making it possible to detect errors in word transmission, reading, recording and storing. This checking system was also used to run diagnostic test routines to prevent trouble in advance. Arithmetical calculations were checked by a process known as "casting out nines." Furthermore, the NORC was put together in removable basic sections – tape drives, cathode ray tube packages, multiplier unit, etc. – with stand-by parts for each section. When one part malfunctioned or began to give marginal results, it could be unplugged and replaced by a good unit. The faulty unit would then be plugged into a special dynamic testing machine to diagnose the trouble so that it could be repaired. This maintenance system was something brand new in computers and was regarded by some engineers as unnecessary and costly. The Navy, however, which had pressed hard for maximum reliability throughout the entire construction period, was thoroughly pleased with it.

The circumstances surrounding the NORC project were almost as unusual as the machine. Perhaps no computer was ever built with so much attention to the convenience of the user in terms of ease of operation, simplicity of programming and, above all, reliability. Many people worked with Havens to achieve these results. W.J. Deerhake, assistant manager of the project and responsible for the NORC's storage, devised special
_______________
† Each operation involved several steps: obtaining numbers from input or storage. performing the calculation, placing the decimal point, checking results, and returning to storage.
‡ Faster Faster, W. J. Eckert and Rebecca Jones, International Business Machines Corporation, 1955, pp.31-32.

The NORC was a "custom-built" machine in a very real sense. A staff of nearly 60 people was required to assemble it from parts manufactured by IBM and by various small subcontractors in the New York area, including one in Paterson, N.J. who employed housewives, part time, to do hand wiring. To accommodate all this activity, the NORC group took extra space in a building at 2929 Broadway, near the Laboratory. Jeenel describes the setting: "It was a floor or so above some restaurant... and there was a group of maybe eight or twelve engineers just working away in this kind of office space, if you will." The sub-assemblies were then moved to the fifth floor of the Watson Lab. "At the end of two years or so, all of a sudden you have this great big wonderful machine. It was physically big, for one thing, and it was always a mystery to me how a thing like this could be created in these strange environments."¹⁵

The NORC was completed late in 1954 and officially delivered to the Navy in the presence of 200 scientific, business and military leaders at the Watson Lab on December 2, 1954. During the

Although the NORC was a cost-no-object, one-of-a-kind machine, and outside the mainstream of computer development, its influence on other computers was felt for many years. While it was under construction, engineers building the 701 not only made use of the microsecond delay circuit but also benefitted from Deerhake's work in overcoming difficulties encountered in electrostatic storage – which the 701 also used. However, the NORC's greatest contribution lay in the invaluable experience it provided scientists and engineers in computer design, construction and programming. Delivered to the Naval Proving Ground at Dahlgren, Virginia, in the summer of 1955, the NORC enjoyed a long, productive life until it was retired from service in 1968.

Mission II (1952-1970)

Solid State Physics and Advanced Electronics

Meanwhile, at Watson Lab in 1952, Eckert had requested and obtained approval from both Columbia and the company to expand the facilities and personnel of Watson Laboratory and, in cooperation with the Columbia physics Department, to establish a solid state physics program, including opportunities for graduate students at the University to do their thesis work at the Lab. Since this new mission was to be added to the Lab's on-going program in advanced calculating machines, additional space was clearly needed. A second, larger building – a former women's residence club at 612 West 115 St. – was bought by IBM, renovated, equipped with physics laboratories, and donated to the University. Meantime, Eckert, with the help of Professors Kusch and Rabi of the

The first two recruits, who arrived at the Lab fresh from earning their doctorates at Columbia in the spring of 1952, were Seymour Koenig and Sol Triebwasser. Koenig had done his thesis work with Professor Kusch as part of a series of experiments that was to be the basis for Kusch's 1955 Nobel Prize. Similarly, Triebwasser had done his thesis work with Professor Willis Lamb in connection with certain experiments that led to Lamb's Nobel Prize the same year. Two other new Columbia Ph.D.'s, Gardiner L. Tucker, a student of Professor Rabi, and G.R. Gunther-Mohr, a student of Professor Charles H. Townes, joined soon after. By the end of 1952, Richard L. Garwin, a former pupil of Professor Enrico Fermi, had come to the Lab from the University of Chicago where he had been an assistant professor of nuclear physics, and Erwin L. Hahn had come from a physics instructorship at Stanford University with an established reputation

Much of Eckert's success in attracting this talented group was due to his soft-sell approach. As one of them described it: "He communicated the idea that we would be more or less expected to work in areas that IBM would appreciate, but that we were to use our own judgement as to what these specifically should be."¹⁶ Another recalls, with reference to Eckert's invitation: "The idea seemed to be absolutely extraordinary – there was no other place I knew of where a Ph.D. could come straight out of his thesis program and find out just how capable he really was."¹⁷

By the summer of 1953, the Lab quarters on 116th St. – already crowded with senior staff members working in electronics – were filled to overflowing, and additional space was found for the newcomers in an unused corner of the sixth floor of Pupin Hall, where it was so hot that shirtless physicists were a common sight. At one point, a single office was shared by Tucker, Triebwasser, Koenig and Gunther-Mohr. Without adequate laboratory facilities to work in, the recruits applied themselves to reading and planning. By the time the move was made to the building on 115th St. in September 1953, most of the group had staked out [-34-] the areas of research that they intended to explore. Eckert remained purposely aloof from these decisions; each man had been given a chance to prove himself and the rest was up to him.

Before tracing the subsequent careers and contributions of the group, it is illuminating to consider the fact – attested to by Lab alumni – that many of the individuals involved would not have joined the company except as members of the Watson Laboratory. The reason is to be found in the way of life which prevailed there, and which thus merits special attention.

A Way of Life

Bureaucratic processes were mercifully few. To obtain a piece of equipment, a staff member simply picked up the phone and arranged to have it purchased – a fact recalled with nostalgia by virtually every alumnus of the Watson Lab. Organizational procedures that were closely observed elsewhere in the company – employee orientation sessions, detailed progress reports, formal relationships between employee and manager – proved curiously inapplicable in the climate of the Watson Lab. Most staff members reported directly to Eckert, who reported occasionally to McPherson at corporate headquarters. The relationship with Columbia was similarly free of constraints. There was a Committee on Cooperation between the University and the Lab, but it rarely met. Eckert explains: "Our agreements with the university were exceedingly informal. The best way to describe it is that we were invited to the campus to operate a laboratory with the understanding that if we didn't like being here or they didn't like us to be here the situation could be terminated... we never had detailed agreements about who would provide what or who was to do what."¹⁸

The sense of freedom engendered by the atmosphere at the Watson Lab created a euphoria among staff members that was to last, in most cases, for their entire periods of service there. Years after, they wistfully recall "the many good times and many scientifically stimulating times during those years;" "the unconventional atmosphere and the wonderful people;" "the easy on-campus way of life... I even used to audit anthropology classes;" "it seemed to us the best of all possible worlds."

The Work in Solid State Physics

In 1959, Koenig and scientists at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in New Mexico initiated a program in inelastic neutron scattering to determine the phonon spectra of various materials. The initial studies – only recently completed – were on bismuth. They were later extended to germanium and aluminum and led to a paper on sodium which was the first to show, unequivocally, the oscillation in the sign of the ion-ion interaction commonly known as the "Friedel wiggles." In 1964, this work was extended to the study of the structure of liquids, particularly liquid argon. The experience gained from these experiments was transferred to analogous ones (now in progress) in which laser radiation is substituted for neutron radiation and protein solutions for argon. Triebwasser became interested in the relationship between the
_______________
*Aware of the growing interest in semimetals. Koenig and Price in 1964 organized a conference at Columbia on the physics of semimetals. sponsored by the Watson Lab and the American Physical Society. The proceedings of the conference were reprinted in the July 1963 issue of the IBM Journal of Research and Development.

Tucker elected to work in semiconductor research. At the suggestion of Price, they looked for and found an electric breakdown in semiconductors at liquid helium temperatures. Shortly after joining the Lab, Tucker left to become manager of semiconductor research at the Poughkeepsie Laboratory.

Gunther-Mohr, who had also chosen to work in semiconductors, collaborated with Koenig in the initial phase of systematic, comprehensive studies of the low temperature breakdown of germanium. In addition, he specialized in the atomic properties of the crystal lattice, and initiated a precision experiment to measure the self-diffusion of germanium using radioactive tracers. In 1957, he succeeded Tucker as manager of semiconductor research at Poughkeepsie. His diffusion studies were then carried on by an associate, Hans Widmer, who used them as the basis for a Ph.D. thesis submitted to the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Widmer continued his work with Arthur S. Nowick, who came to the Lab in 1957 from an associate professorship in metallurgy at Yale University.

Garwin's scientific interests covered so many areas of physics, to which he made so many contributions, that he has been characterized by associates as "a national resource." His initial research in liquid helium was followed by investigations of superconductivity. He made an early analysis of the potential of the cryotron, which had recently been developed at Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Garwin's best known scientific work was in the physics of elementary particles. An event of particular note in the history of the Watson Laboratory was the set of experiments on muon decay conducted in January 1957 by Garwin, in conjunction with Professor Leon Lederman of the Columbia Physics Department, in which the University's cyclotron was used to demonstrate the non-conservation of parity in weak interactions. These experiments confirmed the theoretical work of Professors C.N. Yang and T.D. Lee, establishing the basis of their Nobel Prize in 1957. In 1960, Garwin extended the techniques and experience gained from the Columbia experiments to another series of experiments conducted at the Geneva, Switzerland, headquarters of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN). In these experiments, the anomalous magnetic moment of the mu meson was precisely measured; the result showed that the mu meson might be regarded simply as a heavy electron.

While pursuing his scientific work, [-38-] Garwin was also achieving national stature as a consultant to U.S. Government departments and agencies on such matters as the design of nuclear weapons, military technology and defense strategy, arms control and disarmament, and civilian problems of many kinds including housing, air traffic control and the supersonic transport plane. A member of the President's Science Advisory Committee from 1962 to 1966, he was reappointed in 1969.

Hahn's work at the Lab centered on the investigation of a phenomenon he had discovered called "Spin Echoes." This is a technique for studying nuclear magnetic resonance by using a transient – rather than steady-state – mode of operation. Pulses of high frequency radio waves are used to probe the nuclei of small samples of material in order to measure the magnetism created by the spinning of nuclei around their axes. A pulse causes the nuclear spins to start precessing in phase. When the spins soon get out of phase, another applied pulse brings about a phase reversal of precession. At a measurable time later, the spins get

Soon after, Alfred G. Redfield joined the Lab from a research fellowship at Harvard University, where he had been carrying on fundamental research in the technique of nuclear magnetic resonance in solids. He continued his work at the Lab, concentrating on the properties of both normal and superconducting metals at very low temperatures. Recently, he succeeded in using these techniques to determine the form of the vortex state of Group II superconductors.

Holtzberg and Reisman undertook an intensive investigation of the chemistry of the reactions of alkali-metal carbonates with pentoxides of the Group VB elements, and pursued a broad study of the behavior of model compounds and the prediction of compound behavior. As part of these studies, crystals of compounds were prepared and their ferroelectric and other properties were investigated. In conjunction with Triebwasser, Holtzberg and Reisman also studied the chemistry and crystal growth of potassium niobate and tantalate.

Price's original interests had been in superfluidity and statistical physics. On arriving at the Lab, he decided to specialize also in semiconductor physics. After initiating the investigation of "hot electron" phenomena, he developed a kinetic theory of low temperature breakdown in semiconductors which was verified by the experiments of Koenig. Price continued for some years his work in superfluidity before concentrating on solid state physics exclusively. His work on hot electrons evolved into a broad program of work in the basic theory of electron transport phenomena, and its linear and non-linear applications. He also contributed to the theory of nonlinear optical properties of solids, strain effects, fluctuations and electron tunneling in junctions.

Over the years, the staff of the Lab was augmented by the arrival of other scientists in various areas of specialization. Yasuo Sato, a geophysicist from the University of Tokyo, arrived in 1960 to undertake studies of the propagation of seismic disturbances in the earth's surface and numerical analysis of the seismograms of earthquakes. Martin Karplus, an associate professor of physical chemistry at the University of Illinois, also joined in 1960 to work on the application of computer calculation to theoretical chemistry. He and his associates developed a program to calculate cross sections for exchange reactions, a statistical averaging program, and a method of integrating Hamilton's equations. In addition,

William J. Nicholson, a recent Ph.D. from the University of Washington, came to the Lab in 1960 and specialized initially in the application of the Mossbauer effect to problems in ferromagnetism. Two years later, James L. Levine joined the staff and carried on experiments in superconductivity. By studying tunneling in junctions, he measured the lifetime of excitations in superconductors.

In 1963, M. C. Gutzwiller, a theoretical physicist, transferred from IBM's Zürich laboratory. His interest then was the theory of ferromagnetism, particularly the effect of correlation on the ferromagnetism of transition metals. He also investigated the quasiparticle spectrum in narrow bands, and electron states around a dislocation in a crystal lattice. More recently, a growing interest in the relationship between classical and quantum mechanics has led him to develop new methods of using classical mechanics to approximate the Schrödinger equation.

While much of the work in solid state physics at Watson Laboratory did not lead to specific development programs in the company, it added to the broad body of scientific knowledge in the field, helped to keep IBM alert to significant developments, and provided a basis for future technological decisions. Not surprisingly, there was a significant increase in the interaction with Columbia as the work in solid state physics progressed. Approximately 15% of the graduate students from the Physics Department in the 1950's and 1960's did their thesis work – [-40-] mostly in solid state physics – under Watson Lab auspices. Over the years, the availability of these graduate students served an important function at the Lab, making it feasible to launch pilot projects of various kinds and then continue or terminate them with a flexibility that would not have otherwise been possible.

Advanced Electronics

Time and frequency standards had been a continuing interest at Watson Lab from its inception. The orbit of the moon calculated by Eckert was useful to astronomers as a giant clock, and the cesium atomic beam was being tested at the Bureau of Standards and elsewhere as a standard of frequency. In line with these interests, Havens turned his attention to the gas maser, newly developed at Columbia University by by his former Caltech classmate Professor Charles H. Townes, because of the possibility of using it as a frequency standard. In 1958, Havens and an associate, John Cedarholm, worked with Townes at the Lab to perform a sophisticated version of the classical Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887. By comparing two ammonia masers, built and operated at Watson Lab, the experimenters reconfirmed the basic contention of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of its observers. The measurement was made to an accuracy of one part in 10¹² – one of the most precise ever performed up to that time.*

The protean influence of Thomas continued to be felt – as it had from the Lab's first beginnings – on programs of many kinds, prompting Eckert to note in one of his reports on Watson Lab activities: "Perhaps there should be a box on the organizational chart labelled L.H. Thomas." One of Thomas's important contributions to theoretical physics, "The Calculation of Atomic Fields," was published in 1927 while he was still at Cambridge University. This work was refined in 1928 by Enrico Fermi, and in 1930 by P.A.M. Dirac, to produce what is widely known as the Thomas-Fermi-Dirac theory of the atom. In 1927, Thomas also published "The Kinematics of an Electron with an Axis," which physics students learn as the "Thomas factor" in atomic spectroscopy. As early as 1938, he showed that the energy limitations of a cyclotron can be overcome by strong focusing, and suggested new approaches to the construction and operation of the large machines that are now standard.

In applied mathematics, Thomas pioneered in the development of an iterative computer method of approximating wave functions for three-particle problems and in adapting for computer solution problems in hydrodynamics, elasticity theory and electron distribution in atoms. His suggestions for the NORC included three-way branch instruction and tape – rather than drum – storage. He also made important contributions to the work on microwaves, ultra-high frequencies, subharmonic resonance, negative resistance,
_______________
*The experiment was accorded front-page treatment in the New York Times.

Walker, meantime, had begun to explore the possibility of operating an arithmetic unit in the 50-megacycle range – a remote frontier area at the time. Assisting him were Anderson and Donald Rosenheim, a young IBM engineer who had also transferred from the Poughkeepsie laboratory to do graduate work. Subsequently, P. A. Lewis, a Columbia graduate student, joined the group. The results of their work were published by the four authors in 1957.* During the investigation of the fast adder, Walker had become interested in the problem of the influence of various design and operating factors on computer reliability, about which little was understood at the time. He undertook a project to quantify reliability theory, and with [-42-] Rosenheim and Lewis, made an analysis of field data for use in the development of reliability prediction theory. Betty Flehinger, a research assistant in Columbia's Mathematics Department, joined the Lab in 1959 to work on the problem. This project marked the beginning of IBM's subsequent extensive program in the area of computer reliability theory. Some of the redundancy techniques that were later employed – for example, in the Federal Systems Division's Orbiting Astronomical observatory – arose from the reliability studies initiated at Watson Lab.

The Expanding Role of Research

As the Thomas J. Watson Research Center neared completion at Yorktown Heights, N.Y. in late 1960, new facilities became available where basic research could be carried on. This prospect – together with the coordination of the activities of the various outlying laboratories – provided Watson Lab staff members with opportunities to move out to locations where their various kinds of expertise were relevant and where there was room for projects to grow. During the late 1950's and ear1y 1960's, there was a broad exodus of Lab staff members into IBM scientific and engineering management at many levels. Walker joined the San Jose laboratory as manager of the communications science department. Havens became resident manager of the Mohansic laboratory, served as director of product and development engineering for World Trade Corporation, and subsequently became vice president in charge of the European laboratories of the Systems Development Division. Gunther-Mohr, who had become manager of semiconductor research at Poughkeepsie, went to Yorktown as manager of applied physics and engineering; later he joined the Components Division, where he became assistant to the president. Price went to Poughkeepsie to help develop and lead the pure physics group in Gunther-Mohr's semiconductor department, then returned to Watson Lab. Rosenheim became manager of high speed circuits and systems at Yorktown and was subsequently appointed director of applied research. Triebwasser went from Watson Lab to Poughkeepsie as manager of ferroelectric research, then to Yorktown, where he subsequently became assistant director of applied research. Among other Watson Lab staff members who went to Yorktown were Holtzberg, Reisman, Lewis and Betty
_______________
*The other two members of the group were M. Clayton Andrews and John Gibson.

Gardiner Tucker, who had left Poughkeepsie to become manager of research at San Jose, went on to the World Trade Corporation as director of development engineering, then became IBM Director of Research in 1963. Four years later, he was invited to Washington to become Deputy Director, Defense Research and Engineering, in the Department of Defense. In 1969, he was named an Assistant Secretary of Defense. He was succeeded as IBM Director of Research by Arthur G. Anderson, who had gone from the Watson Lab to San Jose as manager of the San Jose laboratory, and then served under Tucker as assistant IBM Director of Research at Yorktown.

Summing up, Eckert has commented '...if you look over the scientific and engineering management of the company now, there are about fifty people... who are fairly well thought of and all started here. Our people have almost invariably made good elsewhere in the company... We have a very interesting group of alumni."¹⁹

Over the years, some who had been Watson Lab members went into new fields. H.R.J. Grosch, who left the Lab in 1950, held a number of industrial, academic and governmental posts, including [-44-] that of director of the National Bureau of Standards Center for Computer Science and Technology. John Sheldon founded Computer Usage Corporation. When Columbia established its own Computing Center late in 1962, the Watson Lab building on 116th St., which housed the computing machines, was closed;* Kenneth King, who had been manager of the Lab's computing facilities, went to the new Columbia installation to help it get started. He later became its director.

"More Interdisciplinary than a University"

Members took advantage of sabbaticals or summer vacations to pursue interests completely different from their usual ones. In addition, as Arthur G; Anderson has pointed out, "[a] characteristic of... small laboratories is that you find there a great deal of intermixing of skills. In general, people know and help everyone else... the morale and the identification with the laboratory can be very, very high; it is a much more personal environment. Therefore, I think generally you find the loyalty to the laboratory is very high, perhaps higher than in a bigger location."**

Among Watson Lab staff members who remained at the Lab and who held University appointments were Eckert, who taught astronomy for 23 years; Thomas†, who taught physics for 18 years; Garwin, who taught various aspects of physics over a period of 16 years; Redfield, who taught physics for 14 years; Koenig, who taught quantum mechanics and solid state physics for 11 years; Gutzwiller, who taught theory of metals for 7 years; and Lurio, who taught undergraduate physics for 5 years. A staff member could elect to teach, carry on his own research, undertake new projects, involving a few graduate students, that could be expanded or terminated easily. Given the catholic interests of the staff, this degree of freedom led quite naturally to the involvement of the Lab in a wide range of scientific, academic and governmental projects.

Garwin, for example, besides his major interests, explored such diverse areas as the manufacture of synthetic diamonds, the design of a solar energy converter, superconducting lines for the transmission of power over great distances, military technology, and the impact of information handling systems on health care. He also worked with the Physical Science Study Committee and took part in the Engineering Concepts Curriculum Project to improve and enrich high school science courses – a cause that was championed by many Lab staff members. Redfield, in addition to his work in NMR, became interested in superconductivity and the high temperature properties of crystals. He, too, joined with physicists at M.I.T., Cornell and the University of Illinois on the physical Science Study Committee to develop a high school physics program including textbooks, experiment manuals. and a movie dealing with the Millikan Oil Drop experiment. Nicholson worked with Educational Services, Inc. to develop a mathematics curriculum for a program designed to improve the chances of poor, black students in getting into – and staying in – college.
_______________
**"The Role of the Outlying Laboratories," presented at an Industrial Research Institute Symposium on Coordination of Research on a World wide Basis, Quebec, P.Q., Canada. October 10, 1967.
†Five years after he was named an IBM Fellow in 1963, Thomas retired. Subsequently, he became Professor of Physics and Mathematics at the State University of North Carolina in Raleigh.

In large part because of these activities, Watson Lab staff members were widely known in the scientific community and successful in bringing highly qualified people into IBM. Among the outstanding scientists whose decisions to join the company were influenced by their acquaintance with, the work at the Watson Lab were J.B. Gunn, who subsequently discovered the "Gunn Effect", and Leo Esaki, inventor of the tunnel diode. Both Gunn and Esaki began their IBM careers at the Poughkeepsie Laboratory, then moved on to Yorktown.

[-46-]

Interdisciplinary activity at the Watson Lab: Philip Aisen (medicine), Seymour H. Koenig (physics), "post-doc" Bruce Gaber (biochemistry) and Walter Schillinger (electrical engineering), watch returns from a joint experiment.

The Life Sciences

Thomas Fabry, a post-doctoral fellow in physical chemistry at Yale University, came to the Lab in 1965 to study the primary structure of proteins. His work soon led him into biochemistry, then biophysics, to pursue an interest in hemoglobin and the manner in which its function relates to its structure. Fabry focused on the iron-carrying heme group in the metal-protein complex and on closely allied substances in order to clarify the mechanism of the reversible binding of oxygen to hemoglobin.

Koenig was also interested in the behavior of protein molecules, and he made use of various experimental tools to study the interaction of protein molecules with water. He extended the technique of nuclear magnetic relaxation dispersion to a broad range of diamagnetic and paramagnetic proteins to examine the effect of dissolved proteins on the spin-lattice relaxation time of solvent water protons.

Ever since Haskell Reich's early work in accumulating large bodies of data in the late 1950's, the cause of automation had been of prime interest at Watson Lab. In 1965, Reich built a machine to replace the reading of 10,000 oscilloscope photographs

Making use of a data interface built for him by L. B. Kreighbaum, he devised one of the first on-line data reduction systems at IBM involving a time-shared machine. In the system, data from Reich's nuclear magnetic resonance experiments at Watson Lab were digitized by a digital voltmeter coupled to the interface unit, which then fed the digitized data to a 1050 terminal connected to the M44/44X in Yorktown. Upon command, the computer performed the calculations required by the experiments. Reich's success with this system stimulated others at the Lab, including Koenig, Aisen and Fabry, to utilize similar equipment and procedures. With the availability of the System 360/50, speaking APL, on-line computing soon spread to experiments throughout the Lab. Most recently, a dedicated 1130 computer was used at the Lab mainly to handle continuous averaging of transients in connection with high-resolution magnetic resonance experiments and an assortment of less demanding experiments carried on by Redfield.

Biomedical instrumentation became another area of interest at the Laboratory in the 1960's. In early 1964, Louis Kamentsky, who was then in the pattern-recognition group at Yorktown, was invited to Watson Lab to pursue the development of a device he had invented called a rapid cell spectrophotometer, or RCS. The RCS passed biological cells in liquid suspension under a microscope objective at the rate of a thousand per second and recorded several optical parameters for each cell. The purpose of the device was to detect the presence of cancer cells, which metabolize more rapidly than normal cells, and should therefore have greater optical absorption than normal cells in the ultraviolet portion of the spectrum where nucleic acids absorb light. The hope was to automate cytological procedures for the Papanicolaou test. The initial trials were sufficient1y promising so that Koenig organized a double-blind test of an automated version of the machine – designed and built by

Thomas Moss, a Cornell Ph.D. in biophysics, joined the Lab in 1967 to pursue his interest in the structure of metal proteins involved in electron transport both in metabolism and in photosynthesis. Also concerned with problems in photosynthesis were W.J. Nicholson, who joined the work in biophysics in the early 1960's; Gerald Corker, a new Ph.D. from the University of California; and Charles Weiss, Jr., a Harvard Ph.D. In 1968, Nicholson left the Lab to become associate professor of biophysics at the Mount Sinai Medical School. The chief aspect of photosynthesis under study at the Lab was the initial phase – the primary quantum conversion reaction. In this phase, photosynthesizing organisms, when exposed to light, produce free radicals and exhibit changes in optical absorption spectra. The technique of electron spin resonance was used to study the light-induced free radicals in both whole cells and particulate samples.
_______________
*From 1965 to 1968, Kamentsky undertook further engineering development of a prototype machine with the assistance of Central Scientific Services at Yorktown.

Toward "Watson Laboratory: Phase II"

As the 1960's drew to a close, and the Watson Laboratory at Columbia neared the quarter-century mark, there began a re-assessment of its role in the company.

On the basis of all these considerations, Columbia and IBM reached an agreement in mid-1969 to close the Watson Laboratory in the fall of 1970, with the research activities at the Lab to be transferred to the Research Center at Yorktown. The long-standing relationship between Columbia and IBM was to be maintained by continued appointments of Research staff members to the Columbia faculty, opportunities for graduate students to do their thesis work at the Research Center, and visits and personal contacts between faculty and staff members. The decision was announced on August 6,1969, and during 1970, the research activities of the Lab were gradually relocated in a section of the Research Center especially set aside for the "Watson Lab" group. In a message to the Research Division, Dr. Arthur G. Anderson, IBM Vice President and Director of Research, said: "The Watson Laboratory at Columbia University has had a distinguished career in IBM as an early and major contributor to our programs in computers and scientific computing, solid state physics, and more recently, life sciences. Many of the methods we use in our research, and much of the life style we practice today throughout the Division, trace their origin to the people and the life style of the Watson Laboratory... With a continuing strong relationship with Columbia and other universities, we go now from Watson Laboratory phase I to Watson Laboratory phase II. As a member of Watson Laboratory from 1953-1958, I can recall many good times and many scientifically stimulating times during those years. I personally owe a large debt to that Laboratory and to its people. I look forward now to seeing my many friends from Watson Laboratory in Yorktown..."²¹.

Testing ground for a generation of IBM scientists and engineers, birthplace of the NORC, familiar to hundreds who came to understand computers and went on to operate them all over the world, the IBM Watson Laboratory at Columbia University closed its doors late in September, 1970. Multum in parvo.

1. Downey, Matthew T., Ben D. Wood: Educational Reformer. Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N.J., 1965.

2. Columbia Alumni News., Vol. XXIII, No.11, December 11, 1931, pg.1.

3. Speech delivered by Reynold B. Johnson, "A Testimonial to Dr. Ben Wood's Association with IBM," at a dinner on May 11, 1965.

4. Eckert, W.J., The Thomas J. Watson Astronomical Computing Bureau, a private memorandum prepared in 1945.

5. Thomas J. Watson, in remarks made at the dedication ceremonies of the IBM Selective Sequence Electronic Calculator on January 27, 1948.

6. IBM Oral History Project on Computer Technology, Interview TC-1, with W.J. Eckert, July 11, 1967.

7. Ibid.

8. New York Daily Mirror, February 6, 1945.

9. IBM Oral History Project on Computer Technology, Interview TC-1, Part II, with W.J. Eckert, July 20, 1967.

10. Columbia University Bulletin of Information, Forty-sixth Series, No.14; March 2, 1946.

11. IBM Oral History Project on Computer Technology, Interview TC-8, with R.R. Seeber, August 15, 1967.

12. Ibid.

13. IBM Record, Vol. 36, No.2, April 1953, pg.4.

1. Remarks by Byron L. Havens at NORC dedication luncheon, December 2, 1954.

2. IBM Oral History of Computer Technology, Interview TC-30, with J. Jeenel, November 2, 1967.

3. Peter J. Price to the author.

4. Fred Holzberg to the author.

5. IBM Oral History of Computer Technology, Interview TC-1, Part II, with W.J. Eckert, July 20, 1967.

6. Ibid.

7. Alfred G. Redfield to the author.

8. IBM Research News, Vol. 6, No.21, November 10, 1969, pg.1.

John Backus (1950-1952)
1963 IBM Fellow

Leon Brillouin (1952-1954)
1950 Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Wallace J. Eckert (1945-1967)
1966 James Craig Watson medal from the National Academy of Sciences for pioneering contributions to scientific computing and to lunar theory
1967 IBM Fellow
1968 Honorary Doctor of Science degree from Oberlin College
1969 IBM Outstanding Contribution Award for his contributions to lunar theory

Richard L. Garwin (1952-1970)
1962-66; 1969-present Member of the President's Science Advisory Committee
1966 Honorary Doctor of Science degree from Case Institute of Technology
1966 Member of the National Academy of Sciences
1966-69 Member of the Defense Science Board
1966-67 Member of the New Technologies Panel of the National Commission of Health Manpower
1967 IBM Fellow
1969 Fellow of the American Academy Arts and Sciences

Byron L. Havens (1946-1959)
1950 Presidential Certificate of Merit from President Truman for World War II work.

Martin Karplus (1960-1965)
1967 Member of the National Academy Sciences

Alfred G. Redfield (1955-1970)
1970 IBM Outstanding Contribution Award for his High Resolution Pulsed Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectrometer

Llewellyn H. Thomas (1946-1968)
1958 Member of the National Academy of Sciences
1963 IBM Fellow
1965 Doctor of Science degree from Cambridge University

W.J. Eckert
1947-70 Professor of Celestial Mechanics

T. Fabry
1968-70 Adjunct Assistant Professor of Chemistry

R.L. Garwin
1954-57 Associate in Physics
1957-59 Adjunct Associate Professor of Physics
1959-present Adjunct Professor of Physics

M.C. Gutzwiller
1963-67 Adjunct Associate Professor of Metallurgy
1967-present Adjunct Professor of Metallurgy

E.L. Hahn
1953-55 Associate in Physics

M. Karplus
1960-63 Associate Professor of Chemistry
1963-65 Professor of Chemistry

S.H. Koenig
1957-59 Adjunct Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering
1959-65 Adjunct Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering
1965-68 Adjunct Professor of Electrical Engineering
1970 Lecturer in Art History

J.J. Lentz
1956-58 Adjunct Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering

A.S. Nowick
1958-59 Adjunct Professor of Metallurgy
(same appointment while he was at Yorktown 1959-66)

P.J. Price
1967-present Adjunct Associate Professor of Physics

A. G. Redfield
1956-63 Associate in Physics
1963-66 Adjunct Associate Professor of Physics
1966-present Adjunct Professor of Physics

Y. Sato
1960-62 Visiting Professor of Geology

L.H. Thomas
1950-68 Professor of Physics

R.M. Walker
1954-55 Adjunct Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering
1957-58 Adjunct Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering

Not included are Watson Lab members who held such positions as assistant, instructor, etc. Also omitted are persons from other IBM locations who, although not members of Watson Lab, have been included in the Watson Laboratory Columbia University Announcement (catalog) for reference purposes.

Appendix III: Watson Laboratory Patents and Publications (1960-1970)*

Appendix IV: Columbia Graduate Students who received their Doctoral Degrees Under Watson Laboratory Auspices

1951 Carl C. Grosjean – "The exact mathematical theory of multiple scattering of particles in an infinite medium" – Sponsor: L.H. Thomas.

1953 B. Bakamjian – "Relativistic particle dynamics " – Sponsor: L.H. Thomas.

1954 Bernd Zondek – "Stability of a limiting case of plane Couette flow" – Sponsor: L.H. Thomas.

1957 D.H. Tycko – "Numerical calculation of the wave functions and energies of the 1¹S and 2³S states of helium" – Sponsor: L.H. Thomas.

1958 Bernard Herzog* – "Free magnetic induction from nuclear quadrupole resonance; double nuclear resonance effect in solids" – Sponsor: E.L. Hahn.

1960 Eric Erlbach – "Penetration of magnetic fields through superconducting thin films" –Sponsor: R.L. Garwin..

1960 Miriam Sarachik – "Measurement of magnetic field attenuation by thin supeconducting lead films" – Sponsor: R.L.Garwin.

[-57-]
1961 George Whitfield – "Theory of electron-phonon interactions" – Sponsor: P.]. Price.

1962 Yi-Han Kao – "Cyclotron resonance studies of the Fermi surfaces in bismuth" – Sponsor: S.H. Koenig.

1963 E. Friedman – "Hyperfine fields in ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic metals" – Sponsor: W.J. Nicholson.

1963 John J. Hall– "Large-strain dependence of the acceptor binding energy in germanium" – Sponsor: S.H. Koenig.

1963 Jordan Kirsch – "Doppler-shifted cyclotron resonance in bismuth" – Sponsor: A.G. Redfield.

1963 Martin Tiersten – "Acoustic mode scattering mobility of holes in diamond type semiconductors" – Sponsor: P.J. Price.

1964 Richard Hecht – "Electron spin susceptibility and Overhauser enhancement in lithium and sodium" – Sponsor: A.G. Redfield.

1965 Eric Adler – "Nonlinear optical frequency polarization in a dielectric" Sponsor: P.J. Price.

1965 A.N. Friedman – "Some effects of sample size on electrical transport in bismuth" – Sponsor: S.H. Koenig.

1965 Alan C. Gallagher – "Thallium oscillator strengths and 6d²D_3/2 state class="page" of hyperfine structure" – Sponsor: A. Lurio.

1965 H. Jerold Kolker – "Electric and magnetic interactions in molecules" – Sponsor: M. Karplus.

1965 Joseph Krieger – "Theory of electron tunneling in semiconductors with degenerate band structure" – Sponsor: P.J. Price.

1966 Ramish N. Bhargava – "Studies of the band structure in bismuth and bismuth-lead alloys by de Haas – van Alphen and galvanomagnetic effects" – Sponsor: S.H. Koenig.

1966 Andrew Cade* – "Binding of positive ion complexes to quantized vortex rings in liquid helium II" – Sponsor: R.L. Garwin.

1966 Andrew Kotchoubey – "Numerical calculation of the energy and wave function of the ground state of beryllium " – Sponsor: L.H. Thomas.

1966 Donald Landman – "The hyperfine structure of the metastable ⁴F_9/2 state of Au and Ag, the hyperfine structure of the metastable ⁴P_4/2 state of Cu, and the electronic g-factor of the metastable ¹D₂ state of Pb, and the metastable ²P_3/2 state of Bi" – Sponsor: A. Lurio.

1966 Oscar Lumpkin – "Nuclear magnetic resonance in CuMn" – Sponsor: A.G. Redfield.

1966 Peter R. Solomon – "The relaxation of Mn and Fe ions in magnesium oxide" – Sponsor: A.G. Redfield.

1966 Kwong-Tin Tang – "Elastic and reactive scattering in the (H,H₂) system" – Sponsor: M. Karplus.

1967 Warner Fite – "Nuclear spin-lattice relaxation in super-conducting vanadium" – Sponsor: A.G. Redfield.

1967 Abbas Khadjavi – "Stark effect in the excited states of Rb, Cs, Cd. and Hg" – Sponsor: A. Lurio.

1967 Burton Kleinman – "A self-consistent field study of KNiF₃" – Sponsor: M. Karplus.

[-58-]
1968 Robert Hartman – "Temperature dependence of the low-field galvanomagnetic coefficients of bismuth " – Sponsor: S.H. Koenig.

1968 Alberto A. Lopez** – "Electron-hole recombination in bismuth " – Sponsor: S.H. Koenig.

1968 Robert Schmieder – " A level-crossing study of the ²P_3/2 states of the stable alkali atoms" – Sponsor: A. Lurio.

1970 (Tentative)

– Herman Bleich – "Nuclear magnetic resonance in proteins" – Sponsor: A.G. Redfield.

– James Burger – "The isotope shift in the (2¹S₀ – 2¹P₁ – line of atomic helium; the lifetime of the 2¹P₁ and the 3¹P₁ states of atomic helium " – Sponsor: A. Lurio.

– David de Santis – "The hyperfine structure of the 3Σ⁺_u state of N₂" – Sponsor: A. Lurio.

– William Vu – "The effect of He ⁴ on exchange in solid He³" – Sponsor: H.A. Reich.

– Albert Kung – "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance in Type II Superconductors" – Sponsor: A.G. Redfield

– David Hsieh – "Quasiparticle recombination and diffusion in superconducting aluminum films" – Sponsor: J.L. Levine.

_______________
*Deceased
**Received his Ph.D. from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

Appendix V: Watson Fellowships In Applied Mathematics

1948-50
No candidates

1949-50
Carl C. Grosjean & William A. Johnson

1950-51
Carl C. Grosjean & Larry Siegler

1951-52
Donald MacMillan & Helmut Sassenfeld

1952-53
Donald MacMillan (no other suitable candidate)

1953-54
Salah Hamid (John P. Van Alstyne declined)

1954-55
Herbert Glazer & John W. Smith

1955-56
Kenneth M. King & John W. Smith

1956-57
Joe F. Traub (Betty Flehinger declined)

1957-58
Joe F. Traub (Mrs. Judith M. S. Prewitt declined)

1958-59
Joe F. Traub & Alfred H. Bennick

1959-60
Richard Balsam & Andrew Kotchoubey

[-59-]
1960-61
John Dimling and Steven Katz

1961-62
Henry Einhorn (Economics) (No other suitable candidate)

1962-63
Joel Moses & Paul Shaman

1963-64
Richard Francoeur (No other suitable candidate)

(1945-1970)

Appendix VII: Roster of the Technical and Administrative Staff of the Watson Laboratory (1945-1970)

*Lee, Richard (1953-60)
Lemke, Ann (dates?)
Lemke, James U. (Jim) (1948-50)
Leonard, Edward H. (1957-58)
Lewis, Lydia Kuharsky (1955-56)
Liggett, Julia W. (1956-57)
Limen, Maurice (1946-50)
Lionardons, H.M. (1950)
Lockwood, Philip G. (1951-59)
Low, Janine Leboullanger (1957-60; 1964-68)
Luhn, Hans E. (1956-59)
Mabrey, Jean M. (see Taylor)
Madonna, Edward J. (1954-56)
Magarinos, Isabel Maria (1962-63)
Mair, Lloyd J. (1958-70)
Maloney, Patrick J. (1953-61)
Manganarb, Louis H. (1962-70)
McGill, Luther (1965-69)
Melican, Louise Ryan (1953-62)
Meyer, Jerry (1955-57)
Murphy, Jean M. (1951-53)
Murray, Jane (1953'-55)
Myers, R.L. (1965-69)
Nornabell, Ursula V. (1947-53)
Osborne, R.R. (1967)
Ostrowsky, Nancy Haliczer (1967-70)
Ozimek, Stanley (1960-62)
Pantalone, J.G. (1957-60)
Parrish, James T. (1951-59)
Parry, Gloria H. (1952-53)
Payes, Norman (1957-68)
Payne, Clifford (1945-46)
Peel, Joe (1958-70)
Pfister, Christel Linde (1956-62)
Pierson, Robert K. (1951-54)
Plum, M.J. (1947-70)
Poley, Faith Lillibridge (1954-55)
Powell, Nancy Neff (1955-56)
Rauf, Charles P. (1953-55)
Rautenberg, Helen F. (1957-70)

Backus, John, 24-25, 55
Beckman, Frank, 24
"Ben Wood's Machine", 4
Borders, C.R., 28
Boss Catalog, 8
Brillouin, Leon, vi, 30, 32, 54
Brody, S.S., 45
Brown, Professor E.W., 7, 9
Brown, Phyllis, 24
Brown, Rodney, 49
Brown, T.H., 9, 10
Bureau of Standards, 40, 44
[-66-] Burks, Arthur, 26
Butler, Nicholas Murray, vii, 1

Cambridge Conference on School Mathematics, 45
Cedarholm, John, 40
Clark, H.K., vi, 21, 50
Codd, Edward, 24
"Columbia Machine", 4, 8, 25
Columbia University Computing Center, 44, 51
Columbia University Departments   Astronomy, 4, 6, 8, 9, 18
  Mathematics, 19, 20, 42
  Physics, 32, 37, 39
Columbia University Statistical Bureau, 2, 4, 7
Corker, Gerald, 49
Cornish, Ruth Mayer, 24
Computer Usage Corporation, 44
Comrie, L.J., 7

Eckert, Wallace J., 6, 7-8, 9, 10-11, 13-16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33-34, 40, 42, 43, 44, 50, 54, 55
Educational Services, Inc., 44
ENIAC, 11
Engineering Concepts Curriculum Project, 44
Esaki, Leo, 45
European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), 37

Fabry, Thomas, 48, 49, 155
Fermi, Professor Enrico, 32, 40
Flehinger, Betty, 42
FORTRAN, 25

Garwin, Richard L., 32, 33, 36, 37-38, 41, 42, 44, 45, 50, 54, 55
Gibson, John, 42
Goldstine, Herman, 26
Grosch, Herbert R.J., 15, 19, 43
Gunn, J.B., 45
Gunther-Mohr, G.R., 32, 33, 36, 42
Gutzwiller, M.C., 39, 44, 50, 55

Haddad, J.A., 26
Hahn, Erwin, L., 32, 33, 38, 41, 55
Hamilton, Frank, 16, 21, 22, 24
Hankam, Eric, 16, 17
Havens, Byron L., 15, 18, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 40, 42, 54
Herman, Frank, 20, 21
Herrick, Harlan, 24, 25
Holtzberg, Fred, 33, 35, 36, 38, 42
Horton, Robert, 41, 45
Hurd, Cuthbert, 25

Jeenel, Joachim, 24, 28
Johnson, Reynold B., 4-5, 31
Jones, Rebecca, 18, 21, 27

Kamentsky, Louis, 48, 49
Karplus, Martin, 38, 39, 54, 55
King, Kenneth, 44
Kinslow, Hollis, 24
Koenig, Seymour H., vi, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 54, 55
Kreighbaum, L. B., 48
Kusch, Professor P., 32

Manhattan Project, 14
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 15, 36, 50
McClelland, William, 24
McPherson, John C., 14, 26, 34, 35
Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases, 49
Metropolitan Hospital, 49
Moore School of the University of Pennsylvania, 11
Morgan, Thomas, 40
Moss, Thomas, 49, 50, 55
Murray, Professor Francis J., 19

NASA Moon Programs, 23
Naval Ordnance Research Calculator (NORC), vi, 26-29, 40, 51
Nethercot, Arthur, 40
Nicholson, William, J., 39.44, 49
Nowick, Arthur, 36, 43, 55

O'Brien, Regina, 49
"Orange Book", 9

Palmer, Ralph, 27, 31
"Personal Computer", 18, 19, 36
Physical Science Study Committee, 44
Piore, Emanuel R., 42
President's Science Advisory Committee, 38
Price, Peter, 33, 35, 38, 42, 44, 55

Quarles, Donald, 24

Rabi, Professor I.I., 15, 32
Rapid Cell Spectrophotometer (RCS), 48, 49
Redfield, Alfred, G., 38, 39, 44, 48, 50, 54, 55
Reich, Haskell A., 37, 48
Reisman, Arnold, 33, 36, 38, 42
Rochester, Nathaniel, 26
Rosenheim, Donald, 41, 42, 45
Russell, Henry Norris, 9

Sato, Yasuo, 38, 55
Schillinger, Walter, 46
Schilt, Dr. Jan, 11
Schreiner, K.E. 28, 40
Schubert, Robert, 28
Scientific Computation Forums, 18
Seeber, Robert Rex, 15, 16, 21-22, 24
Selective Sequence Electronic Calculator (SSEC), 16, 20, 21-26, 28
Sheldon, John, 25, 44
Skillman, Sherwood, 24
Star Measuring and Recording Machine, 18, 19
"Statistical Calculator", 4
Stewart, Elizabeth, 24

Thomas J. Watson Astronomical Computing Bureau, 9, 10, 19
Thomas J. Watson Research Center, 42
Thomas, Llewellyn H., vi, 15, 19, 20, 23, 30, 40-41, 43, 44, 45, 54, 55
Tomkinson, C.H., 9
Townes, Professor Charles H., 32, 40, 68
[-68-] Triebwasser, Sol, 32, 33, 35, 38, 42
Tucker, Gardiner, L., 32, 33, 36., 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48

Upward Bound Program, 45
Urban League Street Academy, 50
U.S. Air Force, 10
U.S. Navy Bureau of Ordnance, 26, 27, 28-29
U.S. Naval Observatory (Nautical Almanac Office), 10, 11, 24

von Neumann, John, 14, 24, 26, 29

Yale University Observatory, 8, 19, 24
Yang, Professor C.N., 37