Have we lost the plot? Analysis of national submissions to Combustion Symposia from 1949 to 2010

The following article, written by Dr David B Smith, appeared in the Spring 2012 Newsletter of the British Section of the Combustion Institute. Because of its general interest, we reproduce it here.



Introduction

About 12 months ago, Paul Fennell wrote an interesting article for the Section Newsletter (June 2011). Somewhat provocatively entitled “Has the UK forgotten how to do combustion Science”, he compared the paper submission and acceptance rates for various countries for the 32nd and 33rd Symposia. Although not giving a direct answer to his leading question, he did reach some significant conclusions.

In Newsletter 96/3, I wrote an article along broadly similar, though more historical, lines. This presented a breakdown of papers presented at the Combustion Symposia, according to the authors’ countries. That article updated a previous one, at July 1987. Among train spotters, people with exaggerated interest in detail are called rivet counters. I hope that I don’t suffer from a similar syndrome but I have now extended my analysis up to the most recent (Beijing) symposium. The methodology is simple:

• All symposia are included, from the Third (held in 1949) to the Thirty Third. The first two symposia are not included. They were held long before the Combustion Institute was formed, in 1928 and 1937, under the auspices of the American Chemical Society, and so do not form part of the main series. 
• Authors of papers are categorised by country. Where authors come from more than one country, a split is made according to the number of institutions from each country. With the internationalisation of research, this is increasingly common and, to my mind, wholly welcome. 
• Contributions from the following countries are compared: US, UK, France, Germany and Japan. This choice is entirely pragmatic. It made more sense 30-40 years ago, when these countries provided the major input. More recently, again linked with internationalisation, other Institute Sections have played an increasingly dominant role (e.g. in Europe: Italy, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark; in Asia: Korea, India, China, Taiwan (ROC); Canada,… I certainly don’t intend any disrespect for the very significant input they make. My justification is that including all would render the picture very confusing, it would not easily permit historical comparison back to the earliest Symposia, and so obscure my main aim of how UK combustion research is faring? 

As a footnote to this introduction, I appreciate that there are more subtle and comprehensive ways in which one might assess the health of combustion research in the UK. That would be vastly more complex and I do not have the necessary resource.
  
Increasing Size of the Symposia
To provide some general context, I thought it worth looking at how the Symposia have grown in size. Figure 1 demonstrates that the Symposia have grown significantly over the years, from about 100 papers initially up to 400 or more now.

The pressure to include more papers has been accommodated in a number of ways. First, the number of parallel sessions has increased. I believe the early symposia were single session. This has now grown to 4, 6 and now typically 7 parallel sessions. At the 2002 Board meeting, the suggestion was made to go even further, possibly up to 10, though this was rejected. Another suggestion (again not accepted by the Board) was to reduce paper presentation time from the current 20 minutes to 5-10. Another ploy which was used at the 32nd Symposium (Montreal) was to have some accepted papers presented as posters rather than orally, though I don’t think this was universally appreciated. This paper growth has had another consequence: since the 26th Symposium (Naples, 1996), Symposium Proceedings have been published as two-volumes.

 As noted in the Introduction, one reason for the increased symposium size is the greater input from what I have loosely and disingenuously collated as ‘other’ countries, i.e. those which played small part in the early years. This is illustrated in Figure 1, which shows a growth from essentially zero in the earliest symposia to more than 20% of all papers now.

How has UK fared over the years?
The full analysis shows a complex pattern and I have tried to present it in several ways. The first slice (Figure 2) shows the percentage of papers over the years for those countries highlighted in the Introduction, i.e. UK, US, France, Germany and Japan. Being constrained to black on white makes it a very complicated graph, but I think several points do emerge from the confusion.

The earliest symposia were essentially US/UK affairs, with an approximately 2:1 split, and little input from elsewhere. Since then the US percent has dropped from about 60% to less than 40% most recently, while the UK contribution has dropped more sharply from 33% to 6%, at Beijing. Inputs from France, Germany and Japan have all grown steadily and, ignoring inevitable fluctuations, over the last 10 symposia these three countries plus UK each lie within a 5 - 15% band.



This percentage drop in UK input is partly due to the ‘dilution’ effect of increased internationalisation. In order to try to eliminate this, I show in Figure 3 the actual number of papers (rather than %) that we have presented, again using the US as a yardstick.


 
This shows markedly different patterns for the two countries. The number of US papers presented has grown roughly threefold (60 to 180-ish). In contrast, we have stayed in a 20 - 40 band, though with a slight overall decrease.  

Role of China
As an aside from the main theme of the article, I was interested in the contribution from China. Until fairly recently, the Chinese combustion community has had essentially no role in the Symposia but, as Figure 4 shows, this is now changing dramatically. In the last two symposia, their number of papers has equalled, even exceeded, those from UK, France or Germany. My guess is that such growth will continue and that we will see an increasing impact.  



Academic vs. Industrial Input from UK

Some British Section members will know that I spent my working life in combustion research within British Gas (as it was when I joined). I have, therefore, been particularly interested to what extent industrial labs have contributed to the symposia. And so, in my previous analysis of symposium presentations, I examined the balance between academic and industrial papers from the UK.

I continue this here, by looking at just four symposia spread over 40 years: the 7th (1958), 12th (1968), 22nd (1988) and 32nd (2008). The pattern shows a remarkable, though perhaps not surprising, shift. Figure 5 clearly shows a steady drop in the proportion of papers from industry, from almost 31% to barely 4% now.

It is also instructive to look at those industries which contributed to the 7th Symposium: the Government labs; Rocket Propulsion Establishment ,Westcott, near Aylesbury; Explosive Research & Development, Waltham Abbey; Fire Research Establishment, Boreham Wood; National Gas Turbines Establishment, Farnborough; Coal Research Establishment, Stoke Orchard : and from private industry; Rolls Royce; Joseph Lucas; CAV ; United Steel Companies, Rotherham; Armstrong Siddeley. Many members will not remember the last of these (though I’m sure our esteemed, retiring editor will); they were luxury car makers, when cars really were cars. Anyone interested in their model range can check this link.

 (Comment by John Griffiths: Dave tantalised me with this comment. The contribution from the “Combustion Department” of A.S. to the 7th Symposium was, “A Theoretical Analysis of Multi-stage Reaction Rate Controlled Systems.” It was based on the landmark Longwell and Weiss study in an adiabatic stirred flow reactor. On a more telling note, given that the Symposium was held in London and Oxford, 21 UK companies, and the Institute of Fuel, made financial contributions to support it. I think only three of those industrial names survive today, certainly in closely related form.)

There are at least two (not exclusive) reasons for the drop in industrial input. First, symposia are increasingly dominated by fundamental research. This concern was raised at the Heidelberg Symposium (2006) by Roman Weber (previously of the International Flame Research Station in Ijmuiden, Netherlands and now at the Technical University of Clausthal (Germany). His full argument is presented in the Section Newsletter, Vol 2007-1, March 2007, but briefly he expressed two specific concerns:

1. “The gap between combustion technology and combustion fundamentals has never been as wide as now.” I am not sure I agree with him on that. I think recent developments in e.g. diagnostics and modelling mean that we should be in a better position to start to bridge the gap. 
2. “We are almost exclusively academic people” – meaning symposia attendees. A check of the attendance lists of recent symposia indicates this is indeed so.

If this diagnosis is correct, it inevitably follows that industry will see our symposia as increasingly irrelevant to them.

The second reason for lower industrial input from the UK is more parochial. In earlier symposia, significant input came from publicly owned energy industries: gas, electricity and coal. Their privatisation and subsequent break-up in the 1980-90s led to a substantial drop in their research activity. Members aware of my political views will know I opposed this at the time. One unfortunate but easily foreseen consequence has been the decimation of relevant combustion research. But private industry associated with combustion, with the dazzling exception of Shell Thornton up to the present, also seems to have backed away from research. And the result? In the 22nd Symposium, there was input from Shell (3 papers), British Gas and the Coal Research Establishment; in the 32nd, from Shell, BP Exploration and Johnson Matthey.

I do not see how the Section can have any impact on the second reason for industrial research decline. But I do think we could consider whether the Symposium content has become unbalanced.

Conclusion
I think that I’ve presented a mixed but, I hope, not too gloomy a picture. In many ways, combustion symposia continue to be huge successes. But I seriously think the Institute needs to look at what it is aimed at, i.e. more or less exclusively academically based research, or a better balance between fundamental and applied activity. And on the UK scene, perhaps the British Section should seriously consider whether it could engage more with applied/industrial combustion interests here.

A Brief History of the Brittish Section of the Combustion Institute

by David Smith.
Original article appeared in the Newsletter Nov 2004

The British Section of the Combustion Institute was formed essentially at the same time as the International Institute, largely under the influence of Sir Alfred Egerton, to whom (upon his death) the Proceedings of the 1960 Symposium in Pasadena were dedicated. Although no record of the first meeting of the British Committee is available, the 1954 Symposium in Pittsburgh lists three members, Sir Alfred Egerton, Stanley Clarke (Joseph Lucas, Burnley, makers of engine ignition systems) and Peter Lloyd (National Gas Turbine Establishment). Others active in the early days were R.G.W. Norrish, J.W. Linnett and A.R. Ubbelohde.

It is clear from these earliest names that the Section had both academic and industrial involvement. This has continued, as has its wish to represent the full range of combustion science and engineering interests in its activities. In 2003, it had 194 members, comprising 123 academic and 71 industrial. It has always encouraged students to join; last year there were 30. Their special membership rate also applies to retired members; last year there were 29 such. The activities of the Section are overseen by a Committee, comprising 12-15, again endeavouring to represent the full span of combustion.

Particularly over the past few years, industrial membership has shown a gradual decline, largely resulting from the declining emphasis placed on combustion by Government and industrial organisations, including research-funding bodies. The view sometimes seems to be that combustion has been around a long time, so surely we know it all by now! Given the vast changes in choice and use of energy occurring now and set to continue and probably to accelerate, such a view seems grossly short sighted. It is causing increasing concern to members of the British combustion community, who sees its task as providing a counter-force to this, but it is an uphill struggle.

One of the main ways the Section communicates with members is through a Newsletter, produced several times a year. This has been highly successful, largely to the efforts of its editors. The last three of these have been Derek Bradley, Brian Tyler and now Tony Burgess. Each has carried it forward and made their own distinctive contributions to its development. More recently, this has been augmented by a web site. As well as providing a wider range of information to members, this can address a wider interest group and act as a possible recruiting mechanism.

The main Section activity has been and remains the organisation of one-day technical meetings - normally held in Spring and Autumn of each year. There used to be a third around early December. A major factor in these last being discontinued was an occasion when the meeting had to be cancelled at the last-minute because of inclement weather, with a sudden fall of snow playing havoc with road and rail transport. (Many of our European colleagues must continue to be surprised at how regularly such disruptions happen in Britain, given our relatively mild winters.) Late cancellations always provide severe headaches for organizers. This was no exception; lesson learned.

The Committee endeavours to make these one-day meetings varied in subject matter. A selection from the past decade includes Combustion in Gas Turbines; Industrial Combustion Hazards; Auto-ignition; Numerical Simulation in Combustion; and Flame Chemistry, to single out but a very few. The size of audience varies but is generally in the range 40-100. To increase their impact, meetings are normally held in conjunction with another group with a combustion interest, e.g. from Institute of Physics, Royal Society of Chemistry, or Institute of Mechanical Engineers.

Political developments in Europe have given a new dimension to our activities. We have been delighted to work with other European Sections in the organization of joint meetings. As well as their technical objective, these meetings provide enjoyable social occasions. In some cases, attempts have also been made to use them to stress a political message about the significance of combustion knowledge and so, hopefully, aiding Governments' future energy policies.

On an international level, the main events are the biennial Combustion Symposia. The British Section has been fortunate to organize four of these. Below are a few anecdotes, which hopefully capture some of the flavour of these meetings.

London/Oxford in 1958: Because it was over 40 years ago, few memories survive. But Tony Burgess, then a student (well it was a long time ago) does recall his supervisor, Charles Cullis, giving him ?10 to cover attendance. This is the only Symposium held on split sites. The meeting began in London, with an inaugural lecture in the famous Lecture Room of the Royal Institution (where previous lecturers have been Faraday, Davy and Rumford). Then, with the permission of the Lord Mayor, Sheriffs and Corporation of the City of London, a Sunday evening gala banquet was held amid medieval splendour in the Guildhall. The traditional "Loving Cup Ceremony" lent emphasis to what Sir Alfred Egerton termed "the Brotherhood of Science - friends in search of truth" - still true today in the Institute.

Attendees then decamped to Oxford in a special train drawn by one of new gas turbine-powered locomotives, provided by British Rail. Unfortunately a technical fault occurred and the loco had to be replaced by a standard unit (plus ça change...). The main technical part of the meeting was held here, with many delegates accommodated in the somewhat spartan surroundings of the old Colleges. Away from the main technical sessions, an informal discussion was held one evening on the topic "The Study of Combustion: Is it an Art or Science?", presided over by Prof. A.R.J.P. Ubbelohde. Worth repeating?

Cambridge, 1964: Having sampled the delights of Oxford, six years later the Symposium moved to the equally ancient surroundings of Cambridge. Again, much accommodation was provided in the colleges, which, although splendid architecturally, retained some of their historical character in a rather too practical way. One of the local organisers remembers a US guest and his wife, staying in college, asking if a shower was available. The Porter's face fell; he had never heard of showers - washing facilities were still provided by jugs of hot water being brought to bedrooms. Another problem arose with a couple booked into Pembroke College. The College Porter became very excited - a woman had never slept in the college before (?!). A rapid re-think was needed and the couple moved into a hotel.

Cambridge provided many delights for the Social Programme. The Banquet was held at Woburn Abbey. This sounds very grand, except for the fact, not fully appreciated by the organisers, that it was not in the Abbey itself but in a marquee in the grounds. It was a very cold night and the guests, in particular the accompanying visitors, were therefore not pleased that the speaker at the banquet felt it was the occasion for another long, and not very scintillating, plenary lecture.

Leeds in 1978: The Wednesday Outing was to the memorable Roman city of York, with its city walls and many ancient sites. As the entertainment, a baroque string quartet played in the Assembly Rooms. With the ancient surroundings of such a venue, surely nothing could go wrong. Unfortunately it did. Hoyt Hottel, stepping into the road, was hit by a passing vehicle and rushed to hospital for treatment to a nasty injury to his skull.

One of the cultural strengths of northern Britain is traditional brass bands and the Tuesday evening concert featured one. Derek Bradley spent considerable time over the previous three years, listening to possible choices before finally selecting one, the Imperial Metals Band. Subsequently, they came very close to winning the national brass band competition. Among the items on the programme was Tchaikovsky's "1812 Overture". To play on the combustion theme, it had been hoped to simulate the battle's cannon fire by real explosions; a serious snag arose - it proved impossible to synchronise these with the music. Nevertheless, Bernard Lewis was delighted with the evening and asked if he might go backstage afterwards to talk with members of the band.

The banquet was held in a marquee in the grounds of Harewood House The terrain was not entirely flat and one attendee recalls a somewhat doddery waitress knocking over a glass of wine while serving soup at the start of the meal. The table sloped towards his wife and so the wine cascaded into the soup bowl, the contents of which flowed straight into her lap.

Edinburgh in 2000: This is still too recent to allow a proper perspective. But the organizers are grateful to Dan Seery, then Institute President, for effectively selecting the venue for the Welcome Reception. The local organizers had hoped to use the Royal Museum of Scotland for the banquet but it proved unable to cope with sufficient numbers. But, some months ahead of the Symposium, Dan was checking out facilities. While passing the Museum, he was shown it as a venue we had hoped to use. He quickly realised its potential for the Reception, and so it was back in the schedule - with Dan proved correct.

The Wednesday outing was at Oxenfoord Castle for an afternoon of Highland Games and BBQ. Although the skies were gloomy, no rain fell, even though a few miles away in Edinburgh itself, rain poured down.

Problems of acoustics arose in McEwan Hall: architecturally splendid but not designed as lecture hall. Further problems arose with the space for poster displays. Conflicts always tend to occur in meeting all requirements: one wants suitable lecture rooms and space for posters, close to each other and, ideally, to reception/registration areas. Few venues can manage all these constraints.

It's still too early for the author who was closely involved with arrangements for the meeting to have any real perspective on the event. But, if readers wish to contribute their own impressions, please send them to the editor.

David Smith

Editor's note: This article was prepared by Dave Smith using the reminiscences of members and it was used as the basis for the contribution from the British Section to the booklet compiled for the 50th Anniversary celebrations in Chicago.