2.15 Differences and Deficits
Another point of contention was Staudinger’s insistence on the stick model in
macromolecular theory that he propagated vehemently into the 1940s; he thought
that the chain polymers were “always rigid, stretched structures. He liked to use
long Mikado sticks to illustrate his ideas” ([15], p. 208; cf. [19], p. 254 and [18],
p. 233). Meyer, on the other hand, already emphasised in 1928 “the elasticity of
rubber with the tendency of the isoprene chains to form curves and to get tangled
up, an interpretation that was new and correct at the time, as we now know” [19,
p. 254].
What was known as Staudinger’s viscosity formula, which assumed a correlation
that was determined by the laws of nature between the degree of polymerisation
and/or the molecular weight of macromolecular substances on the one hand and the
viscosity level of their solutions on the other hand, was a source of further dissent.
Staudinger’s widow remembers: “This formula occurred to Hermann Staudinger on
a beautiful autumn day in 1929 while we were on one of our rambles in the Black
Forest and we then used it in the laboratory on numerous occasions to determine
molecular sizes – while leading to just as many attacks from the scientific community!” [30, p. 42]. Hermann Mark considered the proportionality assumed by
Staudinger to be too vague and started viscosity experiments of his own in the
1920s. His “goal [. . .] was to find a relationship that was based on precise mathematical principles” [15, p. 111; cf. p. 348]. “There was an additional complication
for Staudinger in the form of the causal link between his (narrow, editor’s note) idea
of the ‘form’ of the macromolecules and the accuracy of his viscosity law”
[15, p. 190].
Staudinger’s critics proved to be mistaken about the core issue – molecule size:
“Whereas Mark and Meyer were right in assuming that there were strong intermolecular forces, they continued to underestimate the length of the primary valence
chain (of the macromolecule) for many years” ([19], p. 254; cf. [15], pp. 82, 208). It
should be pointed out that neither of them claimed to be able to determine
molecular sizes on the basis of their domain (X-ray structural analysis) (cf. [15],
p. 347) and that they said they had no particular ambitions in this area either: “In all
our work, [. . .] we have considered it much less important to determine that chains
exist and have given much higher priority to finding out exactly the location and
shape of the chains, the bonds between the links in the chain, the micellar forces
etc.” ([29]; quoted in [15], p. 108).
2.16 Feud Between Colleagues Instead of Coalition
The opposing positions here were not irreconcilable in principle, and definitely had
more in common than separated them. And, although “in a sense both sides were
right” [18, p. 233], the controversy refused to end, becoming increasingly fierce and
104
M. Weber and G. Deussing
Another point of contention was Staudinger’s insistence on the stick model in
macromolecular theory that he propagated vehemently into the 1940s; he thought
that the chain polymers were “always rigid, stretched structures. He liked to use
long Mikado sticks to illustrate his ideas” ([15], p. 208; cf. [19], p. 254 and [18],
p. 233). Meyer, on the other hand, already emphasised in 1928 “the elasticity of
rubber with the tendency of the isoprene chains to form curves and to get tangled
up, an interpretation that was new and correct at the time, as we now know” [19,
p. 254].
What was known as Staudinger’s viscosity formula, which assumed a correlation
that was determined by the laws of nature between the degree of polymerisation
and/or the molecular weight of macromolecular substances on the one hand and the
viscosity level of their solutions on the other hand, was a source of further dissent.
Staudinger’s widow remembers: “This formula occurred to Hermann Staudinger on
a beautiful autumn day in 1929 while we were on one of our rambles in the Black
Forest and we then used it in the laboratory on numerous occasions to determine
molecular sizes – while leading to just as many attacks from the scientific community!” [30, p. 42]. Hermann Mark considered the proportionality assumed by
Staudinger to be too vague and started viscosity experiments of his own in the
1920s. His “goal [. . .] was to find a relationship that was based on precise mathematical principles” [15, p. 111; cf. p. 348]. “There was an additional complication
for Staudinger in the form of the causal link between his (narrow, editor’s note) idea
of the ‘form’ of the macromolecules and the accuracy of his viscosity law”
[15, p. 190].
Staudinger’s critics proved to be mistaken about the core issue – molecule size:
“Whereas Mark and Meyer were right in assuming that there were strong intermolecular forces, they continued to underestimate the length of the primary valence
chain (of the macromolecule) for many years” ([19], p. 254; cf. [15], pp. 82, 208). It
should be pointed out that neither of them claimed to be able to determine
molecular sizes on the basis of their domain (X-ray structural analysis) (cf. [15],
p. 347) and that they said they had no particular ambitions in this area either: “In all
our work, [. . .] we have considered it much less important to determine that chains
exist and have given much higher priority to finding out exactly the location and
shape of the chains, the bonds between the links in the chain, the micellar forces
etc.” ([29]; quoted in [15], p. 108).
2.16 Feud Between Colleagues Instead of Coalition
The opposing positions here were not irreconcilable in principle, and definitely had
more in common than separated them. And, although “in a sense both sides were
right” [18, p. 233], the controversy refused to end, becoming increasingly fierce and
104
M. Weber and G. Deussing