10. The ‘conventional chemical constants’ were calculated using an assumed
value for the specific heat of ammonia which had never been measured
accurately at high temperatures, Jennings, op. cit. (note 9), p. 10.
11. Even after his ‘adjustments’, he maintained that his predictions were still in
better agreement with Eq. 5.2—the ‘benchmark’—than Haber’s.
12. F. Haber, ‘Thermodynamics of Technical Gas Reactions’, pp. 204–206,
University of California Digital Library, translated by Arthur B. Lamb.
13. F. Haber, G. van Oordt, ‘Über Bildung von Ammoniak aus den Elementen’,
(Formation of Ammonia from the Elements), Z. Anorg. Chem., 44, 341–371,
(1905).
14. History has not recorded whether Robert was present at the meeting, but
most likely he was. Even so, the division of work between the two men was
becoming established; Robert the practician, Haber the theoretician.
15. Haber made clear reference to his working ‘partnership’ with Robert (‘in
Gemeinschaft mit Herrn Le Rossignol’ …) in the subsequent presentation,
emphasising the equal role Robert played in designing their experiments and
applying the ‘most possible care’ to their investigation.
16. The Haber-Le Rossignol investigation is contained in the paper; F. Haber
and R. Le Rossignol, ‘Über das Ammoniak-Gleichgewicht’, (On the
Ammonia Equilibrium), Ber. Bunsenges., Phys Chem., 40, 2144–2154,
(1907), received on 29 April 29 1907, and published shortly after the
meeting.
17. The transcript of Haber’s ‘presentation’, appears as part of the discussion
which followed immediately after Nernst’s paper, Nernst, op. cit. (note 3).
However, submitting his paper barely two weeks before the meeting meant
that it could hardly have been subjected to detailed scrutiny before Haber got
to his feet. Being ‘afraid’, maybe that was the intention, but equally it failed
to convey the enormity of the work the two men had undertaken.
18. Vaclav Smil, Enriching the Earth, MIT Press, (2001), Daniel Charles,
Between Genius and Genocide, Jonathan Cape, London, (2005), Dietrich
Stoltzenberg, Fritz Haber. Chemist, Noble Laureate, German, Jew. Chemical
Heritage Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, (2004) and Margit Szöllösi-Janze,
Fritz Haber 1868–1934: Eine Biographie. C. H. Beck, Munich, (1998).
19. Robert’s new values confirmed this figure as indefensible. One would have
expected Nernst to have been pleased by this retraction and let the matter
rest. But on that day, he was the Über pedant.
20. Haber’s ‘presentation’ in Hamburg also began with the same retraction and it
seems to have taken up almost half of his allotted time.
21. As with the van Oordt experiment, performing the decomposition first,
guaranteed that a virtually stoichiometric ratio of 3H 2(g) :1N 2(g) entered the
second tube. The proof of the optimal mix of nitrogen and hydrogen for
maximum ammonia yield (a stoichiometric ratio of 1:3) had already been
5 Hamburg, 12 May 1907
125
value for the specific heat of ammonia which had never been measured
accurately at high temperatures, Jennings, op. cit. (note 9), p. 10.
11. Even after his ‘adjustments’, he maintained that his predictions were still in
better agreement with Eq. 5.2—the ‘benchmark’—than Haber’s.
12. F. Haber, ‘Thermodynamics of Technical Gas Reactions’, pp. 204–206,
University of California Digital Library, translated by Arthur B. Lamb.
13. F. Haber, G. van Oordt, ‘Über Bildung von Ammoniak aus den Elementen’,
(Formation of Ammonia from the Elements), Z. Anorg. Chem., 44, 341–371,
(1905).
14. History has not recorded whether Robert was present at the meeting, but
most likely he was. Even so, the division of work between the two men was
becoming established; Robert the practician, Haber the theoretician.
15. Haber made clear reference to his working ‘partnership’ with Robert (‘in
Gemeinschaft mit Herrn Le Rossignol’ …) in the subsequent presentation,
emphasising the equal role Robert played in designing their experiments and
applying the ‘most possible care’ to their investigation.
16. The Haber-Le Rossignol investigation is contained in the paper; F. Haber
and R. Le Rossignol, ‘Über das Ammoniak-Gleichgewicht’, (On the
Ammonia Equilibrium), Ber. Bunsenges., Phys Chem., 40, 2144–2154,
(1907), received on 29 April 29 1907, and published shortly after the
meeting.
17. The transcript of Haber’s ‘presentation’, appears as part of the discussion
which followed immediately after Nernst’s paper, Nernst, op. cit. (note 3).
However, submitting his paper barely two weeks before the meeting meant
that it could hardly have been subjected to detailed scrutiny before Haber got
to his feet. Being ‘afraid’, maybe that was the intention, but equally it failed
to convey the enormity of the work the two men had undertaken.
18. Vaclav Smil, Enriching the Earth, MIT Press, (2001), Daniel Charles,
Between Genius and Genocide, Jonathan Cape, London, (2005), Dietrich
Stoltzenberg, Fritz Haber. Chemist, Noble Laureate, German, Jew. Chemical
Heritage Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, (2004) and Margit Szöllösi-Janze,
Fritz Haber 1868–1934: Eine Biographie. C. H. Beck, Munich, (1998).
19. Robert’s new values confirmed this figure as indefensible. One would have
expected Nernst to have been pleased by this retraction and let the matter
rest. But on that day, he was the Über pedant.
20. Haber’s ‘presentation’ in Hamburg also began with the same retraction and it
seems to have taken up almost half of his allotted time.
21. As with the van Oordt experiment, performing the decomposition first,
guaranteed that a virtually stoichiometric ratio of 3H 2(g) :1N 2(g) entered the
second tube. The proof of the optimal mix of nitrogen and hydrogen for
maximum ammonia yield (a stoichiometric ratio of 1:3) had already been
5 Hamburg, 12 May 1907
125