than Jost’s, which relied on considerable modification of the constants to
achieve an acceptable ‘fit’. Indeed without the adjustments, the basic formula
would have returned much higher figures for the percentage of ammonia.
Nernst also intimated that Haber had concluded that the ammonia synthesis
was feasible, but that was not the case. Haber was already on record (Chap. 2)
saying that ‘… even at greatly increased pressure the position of the equilibrium
must remain very unfavourable.’ One therefore tends to hold a very uncharitable view of Nernst’s motive(s) that day, in spite of some authors
33 opinion
that Nernst was ‘a fair and honest competitor’, able to ‘reach an agreement’
with Haber and Le Rossignol. Well maybe, but any ‘agreement’ appears to
have been entirely on Nernst’s terms. After the meeting Svante Arrhenius
unsurprisingly endorsed Haber’s findings, but the damage was done, and not
only in Hamburg but at an international level as well, for the full text of the
discussion was soon published in the journal Elektrochemische Zeitschrift.
3 As a
result, Nernst’s summary was generally accepted. He regarded the position of
the ammonia equilibrium as substantially settled in his favour. Haber’s figures
were wrong while his own were in sufficiently good agreement with his ‘Heat
Theorem’, and this remained the position over the next year or so. Although
Nernst had caused considerable damage to Haber’s reputation, his conclusions were not without significance to himself. Between 1901 and 1907 the
theoretical foundations of the ammonia synthesis were laid by three giants of
physical chemistry, Le Châtelier, Ostwald and Nernst. But as Smil
34 says;
anyone of these chemists could have been the actual inventor of a technically
viable ammonia synthesis but for unique circumstances – the explosion in Le
Châtelier’s laboratory, Ostwald’s erroneous interpretation of experimental
results and Nernst’s opinion that reaction yields were far too low … and these
led all three scientists to abandon their ammonia related work.
In a bizarre twist of fate therefore, Nernst’s vitriolic outburst at Hamburg had
the effect of removing
35 himself and alienating many other competitors from
the ammonia problem leaving the road open
36 to Haber and Robert, who,
driven by the damage to their reputations, took up the challenge again.
Another road however, often leads to another rut, and even without the
competition the path to commercial ammonia synthesis was to prove a hard
road indeed.
122
D. Sheppard
achieve an acceptable ‘fit’. Indeed without the adjustments, the basic formula
would have returned much higher figures for the percentage of ammonia.
Nernst also intimated that Haber had concluded that the ammonia synthesis
was feasible, but that was not the case. Haber was already on record (Chap. 2)
saying that ‘… even at greatly increased pressure the position of the equilibrium
must remain very unfavourable.’ One therefore tends to hold a very uncharitable view of Nernst’s motive(s) that day, in spite of some authors
33 opinion
that Nernst was ‘a fair and honest competitor’, able to ‘reach an agreement’
with Haber and Le Rossignol. Well maybe, but any ‘agreement’ appears to
have been entirely on Nernst’s terms. After the meeting Svante Arrhenius
unsurprisingly endorsed Haber’s findings, but the damage was done, and not
only in Hamburg but at an international level as well, for the full text of the
discussion was soon published in the journal Elektrochemische Zeitschrift.
3 As a
result, Nernst’s summary was generally accepted. He regarded the position of
the ammonia equilibrium as substantially settled in his favour. Haber’s figures
were wrong while his own were in sufficiently good agreement with his ‘Heat
Theorem’, and this remained the position over the next year or so. Although
Nernst had caused considerable damage to Haber’s reputation, his conclusions were not without significance to himself. Between 1901 and 1907 the
theoretical foundations of the ammonia synthesis were laid by three giants of
physical chemistry, Le Châtelier, Ostwald and Nernst. But as Smil
34 says;
anyone of these chemists could have been the actual inventor of a technically
viable ammonia synthesis but for unique circumstances – the explosion in Le
Châtelier’s laboratory, Ostwald’s erroneous interpretation of experimental
results and Nernst’s opinion that reaction yields were far too low … and these
led all three scientists to abandon their ammonia related work.
In a bizarre twist of fate therefore, Nernst’s vitriolic outburst at Hamburg had
the effect of removing
35 himself and alienating many other competitors from
the ammonia problem leaving the road open
36 to Haber and Robert, who,
driven by the damage to their reputations, took up the challenge again.
Another road however, often leads to another rut, and even without the
competition the path to commercial ammonia synthesis was to prove a hard
road indeed.
122
D. Sheppard