0.0048, suggesting that no significant deviation occurred. With this ‘rider’ he
concluded his presentation.
Nernst was only four years older than Haber but he was firmly established
as an eminent German physical chemist, indeed he had achieved everything
that Haber could ever have dreamed of aspiring to, there was even talk of the
Nobel Prize. Nernst’s short presentation therefore ‘showcased’ his ‘Heat
Theorem’, and he was intent on using the Bunsen Society meeting to defend
its integrity. To Nernst, Haber was just another ‘young buck’ from a minor
provincial German university, Haber’s work it seemed had to be discredited.
Now the professional humiliation of others to confirm or promote one’s own
position is commonplace within the academic community, and Haber could
have anticipated it from the day he received Nernst’s letter. In Hamburg
therefore, he must have known that he was about to receive some of the
‘medicine’ he had handed out to Max Julius Le Blanc at Karlsruhe, and to
make matters worse Le Blanc had arrived from Leipzig to chair the discussion.
Academic vultures it seemed were gathering, so the tension in the Karlsruhe
group
14 that day must have been palpable. Haber, a freshly appointed professor, had a hard earned reputation that could yet be easily broken; Robert,
his young co-worker, was responsible for the experimental integrity of their
presentation. Although biographical history has concentrated on Haber’s
position in this meeting, the pressure on Robert too was considerable for it
was his efforts that had to return the evidence that prevented Haber going
‘naked into the debating chamber’. But sound as Robert’s efforts were …
Jaenicke later recorded (1959, Chap. 18) that Haber was afraid.
2
5.3 So How Should Haber Respond?
Two approaches were available to Haber that day, one was to attack. For
example, the reproducibility of Nernst’s results could be questioned; there
were very few of them, and his approach to the theoretical predictions made
heavy use of approximations. These ranged from the conventional chemical
constants to values that ‘proved more useful in practice’ such as the modified
heat of reaction and the average value for the constant in his equation. But
Nernst’s approach seemed to work well for many other reactions. This,
coupled with his reputation and the near universal acceptance of his ‘Heat
Theorem’, made this a difficult route to follow.
Haber therefore would have preferred a second route, one which he had
been developing ever since his first independent investigation of the pyrolysis
of hydrocarbons at Karlsruhe. It was characterised by meticulous attention to
114
D. Sheppard
concluded his presentation.
Nernst was only four years older than Haber but he was firmly established
as an eminent German physical chemist, indeed he had achieved everything
that Haber could ever have dreamed of aspiring to, there was even talk of the
Nobel Prize. Nernst’s short presentation therefore ‘showcased’ his ‘Heat
Theorem’, and he was intent on using the Bunsen Society meeting to defend
its integrity. To Nernst, Haber was just another ‘young buck’ from a minor
provincial German university, Haber’s work it seemed had to be discredited.
Now the professional humiliation of others to confirm or promote one’s own
position is commonplace within the academic community, and Haber could
have anticipated it from the day he received Nernst’s letter. In Hamburg
therefore, he must have known that he was about to receive some of the
‘medicine’ he had handed out to Max Julius Le Blanc at Karlsruhe, and to
make matters worse Le Blanc had arrived from Leipzig to chair the discussion.
Academic vultures it seemed were gathering, so the tension in the Karlsruhe
group
14 that day must have been palpable. Haber, a freshly appointed professor, had a hard earned reputation that could yet be easily broken; Robert,
his young co-worker, was responsible for the experimental integrity of their
presentation. Although biographical history has concentrated on Haber’s
position in this meeting, the pressure on Robert too was considerable for it
was his efforts that had to return the evidence that prevented Haber going
‘naked into the debating chamber’. But sound as Robert’s efforts were …
Jaenicke later recorded (1959, Chap. 18) that Haber was afraid.
2
5.3 So How Should Haber Respond?
Two approaches were available to Haber that day, one was to attack. For
example, the reproducibility of Nernst’s results could be questioned; there
were very few of them, and his approach to the theoretical predictions made
heavy use of approximations. These ranged from the conventional chemical
constants to values that ‘proved more useful in practice’ such as the modified
heat of reaction and the average value for the constant in his equation. But
Nernst’s approach seemed to work well for many other reactions. This,
coupled with his reputation and the near universal acceptance of his ‘Heat
Theorem’, made this a difficult route to follow.
Haber therefore would have preferred a second route, one which he had
been developing ever since his first independent investigation of the pyrolysis
of hydrocarbons at Karlsruhe. It was characterised by meticulous attention to
114
D. Sheppard