Wynne-Jones referred to some of the reactions of ‘Haber and Le Rossignol’,
but otherwise he found that Robert’s name had seldom appeared, but on the
occasion of the Centenary of the RIC he wanted this interview to help put
‘the record straight’ and Robert receive his proper recognition.
Chirnside tape-recorded his interview with Robert that day and subsequently produced a transcript which passed firstly to Robert, then to
Clement, and finally to his next of kin, Richard and John on Clement’s
passing in November 2014. From the brothers it was kindly loaned to the
author of these lines. The original tape-recording however seems to have been
lost. Chirnside’s transcript begins with a pre-amble covering all that he knows
of Robert, things that require clarification, and recollections of their time
together as colleagues at the GEC. This pre-amble forms the structure of the
subsequent interview which covers Robert’s young life in Jersey, his time with
Ramsay and Smiles at UCL, his work with Haber, his opinion(s) of the man,
the influence of ammonia synthesis on the Great War and Haber’s role—
dispelling (correctly) the myth that Germany held back on war until the
Haber-Bosch process could assure them a supply of explosives, Robert adding
‘I doubt if the military machine was aware that ammonia could be converted
into nitric acid …’ There was also some insight into Robert’s financial
dealings with Haber and some discussion of the role Robert and Chirnside
played in developing the high-power transmitting valves for the GEC. Finally,
Chirnside asks Robert of his opinions on the energy crisis and modern life. At
the time, some such as Sir George Porter felt that the cheap production of
hydrogen was the answer, Robert disagreed; ‘we need to solve the ‘fusion’
process’ was his reply, and the high energy requirements of Haber-Bosch too
should be addressed by mimicking biological fixation (Sect. 18.12). As for
Robert’s reading of the New Scientist, Chirnside declared that he put many
young chemists to shame, nowadays feeling it unfair to ask them to know
about anything that fell outside their immediate daily work! Finally,
Chirnside asked Robert ‘How do you find the world today?’, to which Robert
replied;
I have only one immediate comment. I think it is tragic and wrong that a
handful of men can prevent a much larger number of people from going about
their work. I would never subscribe to any organisation that sought to order me
to withdraw my effort.
And, with an observation that recalled the memo, ‘WASTING TIME’,
(Chap. 17) which criticised the ‘slackers’ at GEC during the war who, driven
488
D. Sheppard
but otherwise he found that Robert’s name had seldom appeared, but on the
occasion of the Centenary of the RIC he wanted this interview to help put
‘the record straight’ and Robert receive his proper recognition.
Chirnside tape-recorded his interview with Robert that day and subsequently produced a transcript which passed firstly to Robert, then to
Clement, and finally to his next of kin, Richard and John on Clement’s
passing in November 2014. From the brothers it was kindly loaned to the
author of these lines. The original tape-recording however seems to have been
lost. Chirnside’s transcript begins with a pre-amble covering all that he knows
of Robert, things that require clarification, and recollections of their time
together as colleagues at the GEC. This pre-amble forms the structure of the
subsequent interview which covers Robert’s young life in Jersey, his time with
Ramsay and Smiles at UCL, his work with Haber, his opinion(s) of the man,
the influence of ammonia synthesis on the Great War and Haber’s role—
dispelling (correctly) the myth that Germany held back on war until the
Haber-Bosch process could assure them a supply of explosives, Robert adding
‘I doubt if the military machine was aware that ammonia could be converted
into nitric acid …’ There was also some insight into Robert’s financial
dealings with Haber and some discussion of the role Robert and Chirnside
played in developing the high-power transmitting valves for the GEC. Finally,
Chirnside asks Robert of his opinions on the energy crisis and modern life. At
the time, some such as Sir George Porter felt that the cheap production of
hydrogen was the answer, Robert disagreed; ‘we need to solve the ‘fusion’
process’ was his reply, and the high energy requirements of Haber-Bosch too
should be addressed by mimicking biological fixation (Sect. 18.12). As for
Robert’s reading of the New Scientist, Chirnside declared that he put many
young chemists to shame, nowadays feeling it unfair to ask them to know
about anything that fell outside their immediate daily work! Finally,
Chirnside asked Robert ‘How do you find the world today?’, to which Robert
replied;
I have only one immediate comment. I think it is tragic and wrong that a
handful of men can prevent a much larger number of people from going about
their work. I would never subscribe to any organisation that sought to order me
to withdraw my effort.
And, with an observation that recalled the memo, ‘WASTING TIME’,
(Chap. 17) which criticised the ‘slackers’ at GEC during the war who, driven
488
D. Sheppard