has been provided for cellulose, starch, glycogen, rubber and various plastics,
including polyvinyl acetates” [19, p. 411].
Staudinger produced the first experimental results as early as 1922 together with
his doctoral student Jakob Fritschi with the hydrogenation of rubber, i.e. the
saturation of its carbon atoms with hydrogen. The hydrorubber created proved to
be “just as tough as the original substance and produced only colloid solutions as
well” [11, p. 47]), “which prompted the research scientists to work on the assumption that macromolecules were involved rather than micelles or relatively
low-polymerised molecules” [17, p. 67]. The original publication states: “Rubber
is [. . .] a very high-molecular hydrocarbon with numerous ethylene bonds [. . .].
The ethylene bonds can be saturated partially or completely by adding halogen,
hydrogen halide or sulfur chloride in vulcanisation, without the colloidal properties
changing, i.e. without the ‘macromolecule’ disintegrating” ([13]; quoted by [18],
p. 240, footnote 42). “These conclusions about the macromolecular structure of
rubber and hydrorubber were confirmed by experiments conducted on polystyrene
between 1923 and 1926” [1, p. 84].
“Polymer-analogue conversion is a method that is based exclusively on the
application of organic chemical principles, is intrinsically logical and is very
convincing” [15, p. 342]. It is an excellent example of “how scientific progress
[. . .] can be achieved using a modified concept with the help of established
methods” [19, p. 249]. The dispute about Staudinger’s macromolecules was not
over, however. Although their existence had been confirmed in principle and the
plastics industry took advantage of Staudinger’s model, there were still a number of
controversial details and unsettled issues “relating in particular to explanation of the
physical properties of the high polymers” [15, p. 208].
2.14 Staudinger’s Dispute with Meyer and Mark
The physical chemists Hermann Mark and Kurt Hans Meyer, who have already
been mentioned briefly, were particularly critical observers of Staudinger’s
research. Both of them worked at the central laboratory of I.G. Farben in
Ludwigshafen. Mark was appointed Professor of Physical Chemistry at Vienna
University in 1932 and established a polymer chemistry teaching and research
programme there. Meyer, who used to be on the staff of Fritz Haber and Richard
Willsta ¨tter, left I.G. the same year and took up an appointment as professor at
Geneva University. Both of these research scientists had “already acknowledged
the existence of macromolecules in 1928 – following initial rejection of them – but
had modified Staudinger’s concept in this context” [19, p. 404]. Mark and Meyer
agreed with the assumption of “primary valence chains”, but considered that
“micellar forces”, i.e. secondary valences, acted between them (cf. [15], p. 337).
This was a concept that Staudinger called the new or “second micellar theory”
([1], p. 90) and thus rejected as outdated. A close look reveals that Mark and Meyer
were in fact firmly in the Staudinger camp, except that they tried by fluctuating
102
M. Weber and G. Deussing
including polyvinyl acetates” [19, p. 411].
Staudinger produced the first experimental results as early as 1922 together with
his doctoral student Jakob Fritschi with the hydrogenation of rubber, i.e. the
saturation of its carbon atoms with hydrogen. The hydrorubber created proved to
be “just as tough as the original substance and produced only colloid solutions as
well” [11, p. 47]), “which prompted the research scientists to work on the assumption that macromolecules were involved rather than micelles or relatively
low-polymerised molecules” [17, p. 67]. The original publication states: “Rubber
is [. . .] a very high-molecular hydrocarbon with numerous ethylene bonds [. . .].
The ethylene bonds can be saturated partially or completely by adding halogen,
hydrogen halide or sulfur chloride in vulcanisation, without the colloidal properties
changing, i.e. without the ‘macromolecule’ disintegrating” ([13]; quoted by [18],
p. 240, footnote 42). “These conclusions about the macromolecular structure of
rubber and hydrorubber were confirmed by experiments conducted on polystyrene
between 1923 and 1926” [1, p. 84].
“Polymer-analogue conversion is a method that is based exclusively on the
application of organic chemical principles, is intrinsically logical and is very
convincing” [15, p. 342]. It is an excellent example of “how scientific progress
[. . .] can be achieved using a modified concept with the help of established
methods” [19, p. 249]. The dispute about Staudinger’s macromolecules was not
over, however. Although their existence had been confirmed in principle and the
plastics industry took advantage of Staudinger’s model, there were still a number of
controversial details and unsettled issues “relating in particular to explanation of the
physical properties of the high polymers” [15, p. 208].
2.14 Staudinger’s Dispute with Meyer and Mark
The physical chemists Hermann Mark and Kurt Hans Meyer, who have already
been mentioned briefly, were particularly critical observers of Staudinger’s
research. Both of them worked at the central laboratory of I.G. Farben in
Ludwigshafen. Mark was appointed Professor of Physical Chemistry at Vienna
University in 1932 and established a polymer chemistry teaching and research
programme there. Meyer, who used to be on the staff of Fritz Haber and Richard
Willsta ¨tter, left I.G. the same year and took up an appointment as professor at
Geneva University. Both of these research scientists had “already acknowledged
the existence of macromolecules in 1928 – following initial rejection of them – but
had modified Staudinger’s concept in this context” [19, p. 404]. Mark and Meyer
agreed with the assumption of “primary valence chains”, but considered that
“micellar forces”, i.e. secondary valences, acted between them (cf. [15], p. 337).
This was a concept that Staudinger called the new or “second micellar theory”
([1], p. 90) and thus rejected as outdated. A close look reveals that Mark and Meyer
were in fact firmly in the Staudinger camp, except that they tried by fluctuating
102
M. Weber and G. Deussing