his way, but he would not have had the practical skills to progress any kind of
machine himself even though of course he helped specify exactly what it
should do, and according to Robert, Kirchenbauer—although a skilful
engineer with whom ‘he got on well’—had to be ‘advised … what things
should be done’.
19
Over the years Haber became one of the most powerful men in Germany,
but at the time his reputation was more modest, so let’s puncture the Haber
reputation here for a moment. From May 1908 until the demonstration of the
final version of the machine at Karlsruhe on 02 July 1909, it appears that
Haber was really just a facilitator. It was Haber who provided a salary and the
environment for Robert’s work; it was Haber who procured samples of ‘exotic’
materials as candidate catalysts; it was Haber who communicated events to the
BASF and orchestrated developments; it was Haber who enthused and kept
spirits high when problems inevitably arose and it was Haber who provided
probably the greatest incentive of all for Robert to succeed viz, the private
contract promising him 40% of his royalties from the BASF, (Chap. 7). But
clearly, Robert built the machine and his deep involvement in both the formulation of the ‘Haber’ process and the creation of the technology has never
received the recognition it deserves.
20 Jaenicke’s transcript should now inform
us, help change this view, and allow us at last to confidently understand how
the ‘fixation’ of nitrogen was achieved. Haber’s position in the history of
fixation is therefore less assured now than the ‘engineering’ of his Nobel Prize
would otherwise have us believe (Chap. 15).
But along with the recollections of his own work, Robert also accommodated Jaenicke’s wishes contained in his letter of 01 September and expressed
his opinions regarding other colleagues at Karlsruhe; although Jaenicke’s
descriptions here are often rambling, clumsy and vague. Besides the observations mentioned earlier in the book, Robert for example, found Engler ‘very
nice’, he says he was also held in high regard by Haber. Bunte of course was
an expert in patent matters and helped Robert obtain his Gebrausmuster
(Chap. 8), but Haber looked upon Bunte ‘to get a little old’ probably with an
eye on eventually taking his position. Bunte also provided a flat for Robert in
the early days at Karlsruhe, and Frau Bunte was also very friendly with him.
Robert describes Askenasy as having a very good [all-round] knowledge. He
had married for a second time, and he and his wife were kind; a daughter
from his first marriage use to play with their children and during ‘Hitlerism’
they bravely helped hide many Jews—an observation which suggests Robert
18 Penn, Buckinghamshire 1949–1976
471
machine himself even though of course he helped specify exactly what it
should do, and according to Robert, Kirchenbauer—although a skilful
engineer with whom ‘he got on well’—had to be ‘advised … what things
should be done’.
19
Over the years Haber became one of the most powerful men in Germany,
but at the time his reputation was more modest, so let’s puncture the Haber
reputation here for a moment. From May 1908 until the demonstration of the
final version of the machine at Karlsruhe on 02 July 1909, it appears that
Haber was really just a facilitator. It was Haber who provided a salary and the
environment for Robert’s work; it was Haber who procured samples of ‘exotic’
materials as candidate catalysts; it was Haber who communicated events to the
BASF and orchestrated developments; it was Haber who enthused and kept
spirits high when problems inevitably arose and it was Haber who provided
probably the greatest incentive of all for Robert to succeed viz, the private
contract promising him 40% of his royalties from the BASF, (Chap. 7). But
clearly, Robert built the machine and his deep involvement in both the formulation of the ‘Haber’ process and the creation of the technology has never
received the recognition it deserves.
20 Jaenicke’s transcript should now inform
us, help change this view, and allow us at last to confidently understand how
the ‘fixation’ of nitrogen was achieved. Haber’s position in the history of
fixation is therefore less assured now than the ‘engineering’ of his Nobel Prize
would otherwise have us believe (Chap. 15).
But along with the recollections of his own work, Robert also accommodated Jaenicke’s wishes contained in his letter of 01 September and expressed
his opinions regarding other colleagues at Karlsruhe; although Jaenicke’s
descriptions here are often rambling, clumsy and vague. Besides the observations mentioned earlier in the book, Robert for example, found Engler ‘very
nice’, he says he was also held in high regard by Haber. Bunte of course was
an expert in patent matters and helped Robert obtain his Gebrausmuster
(Chap. 8), but Haber looked upon Bunte ‘to get a little old’ probably with an
eye on eventually taking his position. Bunte also provided a flat for Robert in
the early days at Karlsruhe, and Frau Bunte was also very friendly with him.
Robert describes Askenasy as having a very good [all-round] knowledge. He
had married for a second time, and he and his wife were kind; a daughter
from his first marriage use to play with their children and during ‘Hitlerism’
they bravely helped hide many Jews—an observation which suggests Robert
18 Penn, Buckinghamshire 1949–1976
471