Jaenicke reminded Robert that over the years his name had become famous in
Germany—’every chemist knows the Le Rossignol valve’ he said—and
although circumstance had convinced Robert that his name would ‘not be
remembered for big things …‘, he was obviously aware that Jaenicke’s opinion
of him as one of Haber’s ‘oldest and most trusted’ employees would eventually
lead to his reflections finding their way into the future biography. Robert
therefore put the record straight, properly accounting for his work at Karlsruhe
and clarifying once and for all the roles of himself, Haber and Kirchenbauer in
the creation of the technology of ‘fixation’. Jaenicke’s transcript is altogether
different from Robert’s 1928 paper (Chap. 8) which was written in celebration
of Haber’s 60
th birthday; that was a personal homage, but as an account of the
principal characters and the fine detail of ‘fixation’ it was a disappointment.
The transcript however describes the division of work at Karlsruhe, who did
what, the origins of some of the technical innovations, and Robert’s opinions of
friends and colleagues; Much of this detail has already been included where
relevant in the book, because Jaenicke’s attempt at a biography of course
overwhelmed him.
17 But through his transcript we can now accept that at
Karlsruhe—and in Robert’s words that September day;
… Haber did the theoretical side, and I did the engineering side … I … did the
practical work … I had nothing to do with the business side … [and] … Haber
did the whole of the patent matter …
Robert Le Rossignol was therefore responsible for both the fundamental
experimentation, and then the engineering, that eventually led to a pilot
technology for high pressure ‘fixation’. Engineering that Patrick Coffey,
(Cathedrals of Science, Oxford University Press) describes as—‘the most
demanding technical chemical project ever undertaken in an academic setting
at the time’. He built the laboratory scale apparatus, he worked out the finer
detail just as Haber expected of his co-workers and he made the machine
work using his skill in mechanics, together with techniques borrowed from
Travers’ hydrogen liquefier (Chap. 4). No wonder then that Chirnside’s
obituary of Robert records that ‘he always felt indebted to UCL’. Haber of
course was a reluctant experimentalist, the time-line of his work (Chap. 2)
shows him clearly moving from the ‘lab’ to the ‘log’, and the sophisticated
engineering described in Chap. 8 would have been beyond his capability. His
contribution was confined to the theoretical calculations and the management
of the business of the BASF contracts and the patents—none of which helped
build the machine.
18 Yes, during that time Haber would have fussed around
Le Rossignol like a mother hen, suggesting, advising and encouraging as was
470
D. Sheppard
Germany—’every chemist knows the Le Rossignol valve’ he said—and
although circumstance had convinced Robert that his name would ‘not be
remembered for big things …‘, he was obviously aware that Jaenicke’s opinion
of him as one of Haber’s ‘oldest and most trusted’ employees would eventually
lead to his reflections finding their way into the future biography. Robert
therefore put the record straight, properly accounting for his work at Karlsruhe
and clarifying once and for all the roles of himself, Haber and Kirchenbauer in
the creation of the technology of ‘fixation’. Jaenicke’s transcript is altogether
different from Robert’s 1928 paper (Chap. 8) which was written in celebration
of Haber’s 60
th birthday; that was a personal homage, but as an account of the
principal characters and the fine detail of ‘fixation’ it was a disappointment.
The transcript however describes the division of work at Karlsruhe, who did
what, the origins of some of the technical innovations, and Robert’s opinions of
friends and colleagues; Much of this detail has already been included where
relevant in the book, because Jaenicke’s attempt at a biography of course
overwhelmed him.
17 But through his transcript we can now accept that at
Karlsruhe—and in Robert’s words that September day;
… Haber did the theoretical side, and I did the engineering side … I … did the
practical work … I had nothing to do with the business side … [and] … Haber
did the whole of the patent matter …
Robert Le Rossignol was therefore responsible for both the fundamental
experimentation, and then the engineering, that eventually led to a pilot
technology for high pressure ‘fixation’. Engineering that Patrick Coffey,
(Cathedrals of Science, Oxford University Press) describes as—‘the most
demanding technical chemical project ever undertaken in an academic setting
at the time’. He built the laboratory scale apparatus, he worked out the finer
detail just as Haber expected of his co-workers and he made the machine
work using his skill in mechanics, together with techniques borrowed from
Travers’ hydrogen liquefier (Chap. 4). No wonder then that Chirnside’s
obituary of Robert records that ‘he always felt indebted to UCL’. Haber of
course was a reluctant experimentalist, the time-line of his work (Chap. 2)
shows him clearly moving from the ‘lab’ to the ‘log’, and the sophisticated
engineering described in Chap. 8 would have been beyond his capability. His
contribution was confined to the theoretical calculations and the management
of the business of the BASF contracts and the patents—none of which helped
build the machine.
18 Yes, during that time Haber would have fussed around
Le Rossignol like a mother hen, suggesting, advising and encouraging as was
470
D. Sheppard