Chapter 5: The first paper

In September 1946, Walter, Arline, and their 22-month-old son Randy left Schenectady for the last time and returned home to St. Louis. They moved into the second floor of the home where Arline had grown up – 6334 Lotus Avenue – to share the house with her parents, Olinda (née Meyer) and Reinhold Pillisch. Also living with her parents was Arline’s sister, Eleanor, who was unmarried and 32 years old when Walter and Arline moved in. Her status would change a few months later.

Arline’s father was a postal carrier (then referred to as a "mailman"), while her mother was a homemaker. They did not own a car because neither of them had (or ever would have) a driver’s license. Instead, they and Arline relied on public transportation to get around the city. Their home on Lotus Avenue, located on the north side of Forest Park, was just a manageable three-mile bicycle ride to Washington University’s hilltop campus on the west side of the park. Whether Evans rode his bike or took the streetcar to the university remains unknown.

Records indicate that Evans taught one graduate course on servomechanisms, using example systems he had worked on in Schenectady. He reported to his former professor, Roy Glasgow, who had a good sense of humor. Evans recalled some of Glasgow’s aphorisms, such as: “The vector sum of all opinions is zero.”

John R Moore, who had also returned to Washington University from General Electric the previous winter, was busy setting up a Mechanics Laboratory. Evans’s mother lived in Nashville, located south of Washington University. His older brother Cedric remained in St. Louis, working as a manager at Emerson Electric, but his younger brother Sam, who had entered the oil business after laying pipelines across Europe in support of Patton’s 3rd Army, had moved away. His sister Alice had married an Army officer, Duncan Hallock, and had also relocated.

Certainly, Walter and Arline would have had opportunities to reconnect with friends from their high school and college years, though specific details are not documented. What is clear, however, is that Evans’s fascination with Paul Profos’s ideas about conformal mapping in the complex plane continued. At Washington University, he found colleagues with whom he could share ideas and receive feedback.

Given Evans’s outgoing personality, he surely discussed these ideas with others. With their encouragement, he wrote to C.F. Wagner, secretary of the Committee on Servomechanisms of the AIEE, just three months after classes began, to inquire about submitting a paper.

December 9, 1946

To: C.F. Wagner

The purpose of this letter is to learn the procedure for submitting a paper. The proposed title is “Graphical Analysis of Servomechanism Equations.” The idea, believed to be new, is the extension of the Nyquist or Bode diagrams to include the damping constant as well as a real frequency. The usefulness of the method is that the transient response of a system is directly determined rather than merely implied by the steady-state performance.
...

The next meeting listed is not scheduled until June, so I would appreciate knowing if there is an earlier meeting where this paper might be appropriate.

1947

While Walter Evans was preparing his paper for submission, events unfolding 2,000 miles away would have a profound impact on his career—perhaps even more than the recognition his paper would later receive. John Moore, with whom Evans had lived and worked in Schenectady, had, like Evans, returned to his alma mater after the war. Moore's account of what happened next in his life would significantly influence Evans’ future. Moore wrote:

“In the summer of 1947, Dr. Simon Ramo, who was a colleague of mine at GE, invited me to come to California to see about taking a position under him at Hughes. While in Los Angeles, I ran into Lynn Gore, for whom I had worked in turbine testing when I first joined GE and who was employed at NAA's newly formed Aerophysics Laboratory. There I met Dr. Bill Bollay, who headed the Aerophysics Laboratory. He told me that he had just hired Dr. N. E. Edlefsen as Director of Guidance and Control and that he would talk to Dr. Edlefsen about me. When Dr. Edlefsen made me an offer to become the head of his Electro-mechanical Group of about 40 engineers, I decided to go to NAA rather than ‘getting involved with Howard Hughes,’ who had a reputation for substantial instability.”

During the first half of 1947, Evans wrote his paper while continuing to teach his course. In June, he took a summer job at Emerson, where his brother Cedric worked. (Aside: During lunch breaks, he met Ira Lohman. Although Lohman was not an engineer, the two quickly became friends and remained in touch throughout their lives. Years later, Evans’ grandchildren, Thomas and Stephen Evans, would visit the Lohman’s at the Forum at Rancho San Antonio.)

In July 1947, Evans submitted his paper hoping for publication in November.

July 30, 1947

To: Charles S. Rich

I wish to submit a paper for presentation at the AIEE Midwest Convention in Chicago, Illinois, in November. The title is “Graphical Solution of Servomechanism Equations.” The abstract of the paper is enclosed. The length of the paper will be very close to the six-page limit suggested. Much of the space is required by the dozen figures and numerous equations, which experience has shown to be effective in explaining the method.

He also sent a letter to Paul Profos, acknowledging his appreciation for Profos’s work.

August 11, 1947

To: P. Profos

... Your idea of using the Nyquist plot as a single line of a conformal map to determine the complex root of the differential equation seemed to me to be the foundation for a very practical method. In September 1946, I became an instructor of Electrical Engineering at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, and worked off and on with your idea during the fall and winter. ... I believe that you made a real contribution to the analysis of regulators and hope that this paper succeeds in calling attention to it. It has certainly provided me with the opportunity to write a worthwhile paper, which otherwise might not have occurred for several years.

On August 16, Arline gave birth to their second child, a son named Gregory Walter Evans. 

Evans resumed teaching his graduate course in September. In October he received what amounted to a rejection letter. It was his first rejection letter, but certainly not his last. This is but the first of three episodes of Evans doing combat with reviewers and publishers of his ideas. Here is what he received in October, just two months after submitting his manuscript:

October 17, 1947

From: Charles S. Rich

... We have been badly congested ...

Your contribution has been given careful consideration by several of our reviewers, and I regret to inform you that the paper was not recommended for acceptance in its present form. One reviewer, who is well-versed in the field of servomechanisms, reported difficulty in reading the paper and understanding what you were trying to convey. He believed the paper contained much unnecessary material and not enough focus on its principal objective. ...

Some specific comments are attached. It is believed that the subject could be developed into a good paper, but this will require writing a new paper rather than revising the current one. ..

Despite the rejection, Evans responded diplomatically, seeking clarification and further feedback.

October 21, 1947

To: Charles S. Rich

Your letter of October 17 informing me of the rejection of my paper puts me in a very difficult position. The few specific criticisms are of little value to me, as they primarily arise from a lack of understanding of the main idea. If I had no other feedback, I might quit right now. However, fellow staff members new to the subject have consistently understood the main point of the paper. On the other hand, several individuals trained in existing techniques have found it difficult to break free from that framework, sometimes even seeming to resent the need to do so. ...

You can greatly restore my enthusiasm by providing more information without violating the normal rules of procedure. Am I correct in presuming that the review was conducted by a member of the Servomechanism Committee? Under the new committee structure, wouldn’t the Basic Science Committee be involved? If so, I can be assured that different engineers with various perspectives will review the revision.

October 24, 1947
From: Charles S. Rich

... I regret that I cannot add or detract from the original comments of the reviewers. The comments were a bit terse, and one of the reviewers is known to be a severe critic. ...

The Committee on Servomechanisms, which reviewed the paper, is a joint subcommittee comprising members of the Committee on Basic Sciences, the Committee on Instruments and Measurements, and the Committee on Industrial Controls.

We hope you will see your way clear to revise the paper, as the reviewers indicated it could be developed into a good paper through rewriting.

Evans worked diligntly over the following weeks to revise the paper. By November, the revised version was accepted, ending the year on a high note.

November 14, 1947

To: Charles S. Rich

The revised version of the paper, “Graphical Solution of Servomechanism Equations,” is enclosed under the new title: “Graphical Analysis of Control Systems.” The change was made to eliminate the implication that only servomechanisms with known equations can be solved. The method applies to any control system, even those for which characteristics are only known through empirical data. ... I would like to present the paper at the Winter General Meeting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

His revised abstract is shown in the text box:

Graphical Analysis of Control Systems

Synopsis: 

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate some graphical methods for finding the transient response of a control system. A simple position follow-up system is considered for convenience although the method is applicable in the same form for higher order systems or those in which only empirical frequency data is known. 

The basic procedure is to find the roots of the differential equation which correspond to the exponential transient terms which dominate the response. 

Doctor Profos of Switzerland points out that the plot of the function which describes the system from error to output is a function of a complex variable of which frequency is the imaginary part and damping is the real part. 

The Nyquist plot is thus one line of a conformal map with the root of the equation being the value of the variable which makes the function equal to -1. Any line of plot can be calculated for systems with known functions with essentially the same ease as the Nyquist plot by use of some graphical tricks. 

The amplitude of any transient term is determined from the plot once the root is known by use of a theorem of operational calculus. The development possibilities of the subject seem to be very great as suggested by several topics not yet investigated.

Evans may have had an internal deadline of November 14 because the very next day, Arline's spinster sister, Eleanor, married Elmer Biskup, a leather quality control worker for the Brown Shoe Company. Elmer was six years older than Eleanor, having been born in 1920. Walter and Arline served as best man and maid of honor for the ceremony on November 15. The newlyweds most likely shared the Lotus Avenue house.

Christmas 1947 found Reinhold and Olinda Pillisch hosting their two daughters and two sons-in-law, and two grandsons in their Lotus Avenue home. It would be the last time the entire Pillisch family would celebrate Christmas together

December 29, 1947

From: Charles S. Rich (via Western Union)

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS OF CONTROL SYSTEMS ACCEPTED FOR WINTER MEETING AND TRANSACTIONS. SCHEDULED IN SESSIONS ON SERVOMECHANISMS.
CHARLES S. RICH

Walter R. Evans’s paper, “Graphical Analysis of Control Systems” (Paper 48-55), was recommended by the AIEE Basic Sciences Committee and the Joint Committee on Servomechanisms. It was approved by the AIEE Technical Program Committee for presentation at the AIEE Winter General Meeting (January 26–30, 1948). The manuscript was submitted on August 11, 1947, and made available for printing on December 29, 1947.

1948

At the beginning of 1948, Walter Evans was in his second year of teaching a graduate-level class in servomechanisms at Washington University. His family continued to live with his in-laws, where his wife cared for their two young children—Randy, age 3, and Gregory, just 5 months old.

In late January, Evans presented his now-famous paper. Only a week later, John Moore began his tenure at North American Aviation (NAA) and immediately set to work recruiting talent for the Aerophysics Lab. Evans must have been high on Moore's list. Moore described his vision for the team and the qualities he sought in its members:

“… we set about building an organization which was to become unique among the electronics and control organizations of the defense industry. This was because we concentrated to the maximum extent on hiring generalists, extroverts and entrepreneurial types. The reason for this was that we were seeking leaders with drive and personal stamina, who could identify the important issues and recognize points of diminishing returns rather than solving the wrong problems very accurately. Much of this early hiring was done out of universities, where many of the grads were World War II veterans, attending on the GI Bill. We ultimately ended up with so many outstanding professionals that suffice it to say we had top stars among our industry in all aspects of our work. Among all of these, I considered Dr. Norman Parker as the all-around best, with Fred Eyestone, Donn Williams, George Leisz, Al Grant, Leo Killen and Tom Schuler also super exceptional.”

Evans accepted an offer for the summer of 1948, after finishing his teaching responsibilities at Washington University in May. He planned to fly to California, live in an apartment, and work at NAA while his wife and children remained in St. Louis with her parents, sister, and brother-in-law. However, events did not unfold as expected.

Evans’ first assignment at NAA was to teach employees the same graduate-level servomechanism class he had taught at Washington University. The course began in July. His Santa Monica apartment, located on the Pacific Coast, felt like heaven compared to the oppressive heat of St. Louis summers and the harsh winters of Schenectady. Even more inspiring was his audience—professional engineers who were deeply interested in the subject and eager to apply it to their work. These factors, combined with John Moore’s vision, ultimately convinced Evans to accept a full-time position at NAA.

In the second week of August 1948, Evans took a ten-day break from teaching to return to St. Louis. There, he packed his belongings into his new 1947 Oldsmobile and set out westward along Route 66. His journey took him through Sullivan, near the Evans family farm. Like hundreds of thousands of others during that era, Evans was part of the migration that transformed California and, in particular, the cities of the Los Angeles Basin.

At the time, Evans couldn’t have known the broader social trends that would unfold. The term “white flight” had not yet been coined, but this demographic shift would become one of the key factors sealing St. Louis’ fate as a city in decline.

Before leaving St. Louis entirely behind in this narrative, it’s worth pausing to examine the city’s role as a character in Evans’ life and in the lives of his parents and grandparents. In the 19th century, St. Louis seemed destined for greatness. What, then, caused this city to be hollowed out, eventually competing with Detroit for the grim title of “murder capital” of the country?

This chapter concludes with an exploration of St. Louis—its rise, decline, and its lasting influence on Evans—before shifting the spotlight to Southern California.

The City of St. Louis may have reached its zenith as the "Fourth City" in the United States St during the early 20th century, particularly with the hosting of the 1904 World's Fair and the Olympics. These events showcased St. Louis as a vibrant, growing hub of culture, commerce, and innovation. 

St. Louis’ decline from its status as the Fourth City in the country can be attributed to several key developments. Its location at the confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers made it a hub of commerce during the era when waterways were the primary means of transporting goods and people. However, the rise of railroads in the mid-19th century rendered riverboats obsolete. During the Civil War, when the route for the transcontinental railroad was determined, Missouri’s status as a conflicted border state led Congress to select a northern route, avoiding potential conflicts. Additionally, the opening of the Erie Canal allowed Midwestern cities along the Great Lakes to transport goods to the East Coast via New York, further diminishing St. Louis' prominence. Chicago, in particular, thrived under these developments, while St. Louis suffered.

Another significant blow was self-inflicted: St. Louis’ decision to separate itself from St. Louis County. This move isolated the city and prevented it from benefiting from the tax revenue generated by the westward growth of its population. Each of these factors contributed to the city’s gradual decline. While the downturn didn’t happen overnight, the cumulative impact of these developments steadily eroded St. Louis' economic and cultural dominance.

However, by the time Walter Evans’ family lived in the city from 1920 to 1940, St. Louis was beginning to show early signs of decline, though it had not yet entered the more dramatic downturn seen in the post-World War II era. Between 1920 and 1940, St. Louis remained an important industrial and transportation center. Its location near the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers continued to make it a crucial hub for trade and manufacturing. The city also boasted a rich cultural and architectural heritage, thriving neighborhoods, and a diverse population. However, several challenges were becoming evident during this period.

Urban congestion and outdated infrastructure began to strain the city’s ability to grow. The city's population peaked in the 1930 census at over 821,000, making it one of the largest cities in the country. Yet, this growth was accompanied by overcrowding and inadequate housing in many areas, particularly in poorer neighborhoods. Efforts to modernize the city, such as the 1939 City Plan, aimed to address these issues, but progress was slow.

Racial tensions and segregation also began to shape the city’s social fabric during this era. The enforcement of racially restrictive covenants and segregationist policies limited opportunities for African American residents and contributed to social and economic inequalities. This would later exacerbate the flight of wealthier residents to the suburbs in the mid-20th century.

The Great Depression of the 1930s further impacted St. Louis, as it did cities across the nation. Unemployment and economic hardships hit the working class particularly hard, although New Deal programs and public works projects provided some relief and modernization. Despite these challenges, the city still retained much of its vibrancy, with thriving industries, cultural institutions, and a growing middle class.

In summary, while St. Louis between 1920 and 1940 was not yet in full decline, it was experiencing the early symptoms of challenges that would later contribute to its downturn. The city's eventual decline became more pronounced after World War II, as suburbanization, deindustrialization, and demographic shifts accelerated the erosion of its tax base and infrastructure. Evans’ experience in St. Louis during this period likely reflected a city still holding onto its stature but beginning to grapple with the forces that would shape its mid-20th-century trajectory