Chemists and Chemistry – serie

One hundred years ago, in September 1888, Professor Lewis Mills Norton (1855-1893) of the Chemistry Department of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology introduced to the curriculum a course on industrial chemical practice. This was the first structured course in chemical engineer­ ing taught in a University. Ten years later, Norton's successor Frank H. Thorpe published the first textbook in chemical engineering, entitled "Outlines of Industrial Chemistry." Over the years, chemical engineering developed from a simple industrial chemical analysis of processes into a mature field. The volume presented here includes most of the commissioned and contributed papers presented at the American Chemical Society Symposium celebrating the centenary of chemical engineering. The contributions are presented in a logical way, starting first with the history of chemical engineering, followed by analyses of various fields of chemical engineering and concluding with the history of various U.S. and European Departments of Chemical Engineering. I wish to thank the authors of the contributions/chapters of this volume for their enthusiastic response to my idea of publishing this volume and Dr. Gianni Astarita of the University of Naples, Italy, for his encouragement during the initial stages of this project.

Because of a lack of appreciation for his efforts in developing modern polymer science, the contributions of Hermann Staudinger were disregarded for decades. There have also been delays in recognizing the contributions of other pioneers in polymer science. Hence, it is gratifying to note that Professor Seymour chaired an American Chemical Society Symposium focusing on the contributions of these pioneers and that Kluwer Academic Publishers has published the proceedings of this important symposium. H.Mark v DEDICATION This book on Pioneers in Polymer Science is dedicated to Nobel Laureate Polymer Scientists Hermann Staudinger, Emil Fischer, Herman Mark, Paul J. Flory, Linus Pauling, Carl S. Marvel, M. Polanyi, Giulio Natta, Karl Ziegler, and Bruce Merrifield as well as to those pioneers such as J.C. Patrick, Robert Thomas, William Sparks, Maurice Huggins, Qtto Bayer, Leo Baekeland, Anselm Payer, Roger Boyer, Waldo Semon, Robert Banks, J.P. Hogan, and other pioneers who, to a large degree, were responsible for the development of the world's second largest industry. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The editor appreciates the contribution of co-authors Herman Mark, C.H. Fisher, and G. Alan Stahl who co­ chaired the Symposium on Pioneers in Polymer Science at the National Meeting of the American Chemical Society at Seattle, WA in 1984 and who contributed a chapter in this book. The editor is particularly grateful to Mischa Thomas who typed this manuscript.

3. 4. 2. "SOMETHING ON CERIUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 3. 4. 3. THE DISCOVERY OF LANTHANUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 3. 4. 4. THE DISCOVERY OF DIDYMIUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 3. 4. 5. THE NAME DIDYMIUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 3. 4. 6. THE DISCOVERY OF TERBIUM AND ERBIUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 3. 5. The Cork Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 3. 6. Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 3. 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Chapter 4. THE 50 YEARS FOLLOWING MOSANDER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 F. SZABADVARY and C. EVANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 4. 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 4. 2. The Terbium Dispute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 4. 3. Samarium and Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 4. 4. The Division of Erbium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 4. 5. Separating the Twins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4. 6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 4. 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Chapter 5. ELEMENTS NO. 70, 71 AND 72: DISCOVERIES AND CONTROVERSIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 HELGE KRAGH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 5. 1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 5. 2. The ytterbium earths unti11905 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 5. 3. Auer von Welsbach: aldebaranium and cassiopeium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 5. 4. Urbain: neo-ytterbium and lutecium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 5. 5. The ytterbium controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 5. 6. Celtium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 5. 7. Hafnium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 5. 8. New light on old elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 5. 9. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 5. 10. Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 5. 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Chapter 6. THE SEARCH FOR ELEMENT 61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 JACOB A. MARlNSKY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 6. 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 6. 2. Separations and Identifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 6. 3. Discovery Confirmed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 6. 4. Announcing, Claiming and 'Naming Element 61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 6. 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 vii PART II - APPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Chapter 7. CARL AUER VON WELSBACH A PIONEER IN THE INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION OF RARE EAR THS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 E. BAUMGARTNER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Europe is the cradle of the modem international chemical industry. From the middle of the nineteenth century until the outbreak of World War I, the European chemical industry influenced not only the production and control of science and technology, but also made significant contributions towards economic development, as well as bringing about profound changes in working and living enviromnents. It is a highly complex heritage, both rich and threatening, that calls for close scrutinity. Fortunately, a unique opportunity to explore the historical development of the European chemical industry from a variety of novel standpoints, was made possible during 1993 as part of the European Science Foundation (ESF) programme called 'The Evolution of Chemistry in Europe, 1789-1939.' This process of exploration has taken place through three workshops, each dealing with different time periods. The workshop concerned with the period 1850-1914, which corresponds roughly to the so-called Second Industrial Revolution, was held in Maastricht, The Netherlands, on 23-25 March 1995. This volume is the outcome of that workshop. The other workshops dealing with European chemical industry were held in Liege in 1994, covering the First Industrial Revolution period, 1789-1850, and Strasbourg in 1996, covering the period between the two World Wars.

The editors wish to thank the European Science Foundation for its support of the programme on the Evolution of Chemistry in Europe, 1789-1939, as well as for sponsoring the publication of this volume. Through the subdivision of this initiative that deals specifically with chemical industry it has been possible for historians of science, technology, business and economics to share often widely differing viewpoints and develop consensus across disciplinary and cultural boundaries. The contents of this volume are based on the third of three workshops that have considered the emergence of the modern European chemical industry prior to 1939, the first held in Liege (1994), the second in Maastricht (1995), and the third in Strasbourg (1996). All contributors and participants are thanked for their participation in often lively and informative debates. The generous hospitality of the European Science Foundation and its staff in Strasbourg is gratefully acknowledged. Introduction Emerging chemical knowledge and the development of chemical industry, and particularly the interaction between them, offer rich fields of study for the historian. This is reflected in the contents of the three workshops dealing with the emergence of chemical industry held under the aegis of the European Science Foundation's Evolution of Chemistry in Europe, 1789-1939, programme. The first workshop focused mainly on science for industry, 1789- 1850, and the second on the two-way traffic between science and industry, 1850-1914. The third workshop, dealing with the period 1900-1939, covers similar issues, but within different, and wider, contexts.

In the twentieth century, dyes, pharmaceuticals, photographic products, explosives, insecticides, fertilizers, synthetic rubber, fuels, and fibers, plastics, and other products have flowed out of the chemical industry and into the consumer economies, war machines, farms, and medical practices of industrial societies. The German chemical industry has been a major site for the development and application of the science-based technologies that gave rise to these products, and has had an important role as exemplar, stimulus, and competitor in the international chemical industry. This volume explores the German chemical industry's scientific and technological dimension, its international connections, and its development after 1945. The authors relate scientific and technological change in the industry to evolving German political and economic circumstances, including two world wars, the rise and fall of National Socialism, the post-war division of Germany, and the emergence of a global economy. This book will be of interest to historians of modern Germany, to historians of science and technology, and to business and economic historians.

Heinrich Caro (1834-1910) was the inventor of new chemical processes that in the two decades commencing in 1869 enabled BASF of Ludwigshafen, Germany, to take first place among manufacturers of synthetic dyestuffs. The cornerstones of Caro's success were his early training as calico (cotton) printer in Germany, and his employment at a chemical firm in Manchester, England. Caro was a creative research chemist, a highly knowledgeable patent specialist and expert witness, and a brilliant manager of science-based chemical technology. This first full-length scientific biography of Heinrich Caro delineates his role in the emergence of the industrial research laboratory, the forging of links between academic and industrial chemistry, and the development of modern patent law. Major chemical topics include the rise of classical organic chemistry, collaboration with Adolf Baeyer, artificial alizarin and indigo, aniline dyes, and other coal-tar products, particularly intermediates.

Precursors of the modern chemical industry began to emerge in Northern Europe in the middle of the eighteenth century. The Industrial Revolution boosted activities such as soap-making, glassmaking and textiles production, which required increasing quantities of chemical products. The Lead Chamber process for the manufacture of sulphuric acid, required for the production of dye, was developed in the 1740s by John Roebuck then based in Birmingham. Production of this key commodity rose steadily. By the 1820s, British annual production had reached 10 000 tons of 100% acid. By 1900, Britain was producing one quarter of the world's output with an annual production approaching one million tons. Demand for alkalis for glassmaking and soap-making, for textile dyes and for bleach was also growing rapidly in the second half of the eighteenth century, and it became clear that existing sources of these materials would not be sufficient. In response to a prize established by the Academie des Sciences, Nicholas Leblanc had devised by 1791 a method for converting common salt into soda ash, which was to become the central operation of the world alkali industry for about one hundred years.

Quantum refert in quae tempora vel optimi cujusque virtus incidet. (From an architrave on the Palatine.) The history of the development of scientific thought offers several examples of unconventional, perplexing and untimely conjectures advanced by obscure men. The molecular hypothesis set forth by Amedeo Avogadro in 1811 is one of these. It was little noticed when proposed and it soon fell into oblivion. Although numerous attempts have been made in the past one hundred years to identify the main reasons for the neglect and the indifference which surrounded the molecular hypothesis, very little effort has been devoted to showing how historical circumstances and Avogadro's own personality hindered the acceptance of the concepts he had proposed. After half a century of intense scientific activity, Avogadro passed away as little known in Italy as abroad. He had few close friends and his personal life seemed centered on his large family and his work. Outside this limited circle, he avoided social engagements and intellectual contacts. This attitude may have been encouraged by the political situation in Piedmont, his native country, which remained essentially hostile to intellectual activity until 1840, by which time Avogadro was sixty-four. The only respite in Piedmont had come during the short-lived Napoleonic regime; and quite remarkably, the molecular hypothesis was conceived and published at the very end of this period.

It was the British music critic Neville Cardus, writing on Debussy, who remarked how "the great sea of Wagner threatened to overwhelm the world of nineteenth century music". 1 There is an analogy in mid-nineteenth- century agriculture where the great sea of Justus von Liebig developed a tidal wave which to this day conceals much of the original work and merit of others in the same field. Not only the general public but even students of agriculture may, or may not, recall the names of Persoz, Kuhlmann and Ville in France, Thaer and Sprengel in Germany, or even Lawes and Gilbert in England, to mention a few of them, whose pioneer works were not pub- licised in the same didactic and polemical manner as those of Liebig. Among such pioneers was Jean Baptiste Boussingault (1802-1887) whose funda- mental researches contributed to the emergence of agriculture from an empirical corpus of facts to the status of a science. Yet apart from his work in animal and crop science he also engaged in metallurgical investigations, biology and pure chemistry. The scientific world was already approaching the end of an era in which it was possible to embrace several disciplines adequately.With increasing specialisation, institutionalism and profeSsionalism in science the polymath was a gradually disappearing species.

On August 18, 1977 a special 'Soddy Session' was held at the Fifteenth International Congress of the History of Science, Edinburgh, Scotland, with Dr. Thaddeus J. Trenn as Symposium Chairman. This session was organized to commemorate the lOOth anniversary of the birth of Fre­ derick Soddy (born September 2, 1877, Eastbourne, England; died September 22, 1956, Brighton, England), who was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize in Chemistry 'for his contributions to our knowledge of the chemistry of radioactive substances, and his investigations into the origin and nature of isotopes'. Soddy taught and/or carried out research at Oxford University (where he was Lee's Professor of Chemistry), McGill University (where he and Sir Ernest Rutherford proposed the disintegration theory of radioactivity), University College, London (where he and Sir William Ramsay demonstrated natural transmuta­ tion), Glasgow University (where he formulated his displacement law and concept of isotopes), llnd Aberdeen University. In addition to his contributions to radiochemistry, he proposed a number of controversial economic, social, and political theories. The present volume contains the eight lectures presented at the symposium, two additional papers written especially for this volume (Kauffman, Chapter 4 and Krivomazov, Chapter 6), a paper on Soddy's economic thought (Daly, Chapter 11), and three selections from Soddy's works. Furthermore, an introductory account of Soddy's life and work by Thaddeus J. Trenn as well as a Soddy chronology, and name and subject indexes compiled by the editor are provided.

The word Polyethylene was probably first pronounced in a lecture which M. P. E. Berthelot delivered on April ,27, 1863 to the Chemical Society in Paris, reporting on the "polymerization" of various simple organic compounds (1). Much later this work appeared twice in the literature before the classical ICI breakthrough in the 1930's which is so colorfully described in Ballard's lecture. Once it came up at the end of the last century when H. von Pechmann obtained "a white flocculant material" from the decomposition of diazomethane which, one year later, was termed to be "polymethylene" - (CH ) - from E. Bamberger 2 and F. Tschiemer (1). At that time the investigators were disappointed about this product because it was not what they had expected to find in their experiments. As a result any further work was discontinued. The second time that the word polyethylene appeared in the literature to describe a "white solid powder" was in 1930 when C. S. Marvel and M. E. P. Friedericks (2) attempted to prepare alkylated As compounds in which all five valencies were covalently bonded to five monovalent-aTkyl groups.They reacted Tetra-ethyl-arsenium bromide with butyllithium and expected to get tetra ethyl butyl arsenium. Instead they obtained LiBr + AsEt3 + gaseous products. Delicate and somewhat time-consuming analysis gave a surprising result: ethane and C 's were there in the 4 expected quantities but ethylene was missing - or almost missing - in the gas mixture.

The development of chemistry, like that of the other fields of science and technology, has depended greatly upon the availability of instruments. Accordingly, the study of the history of instrumentation is a major area in any survey of the progress in this science. Recognizing this fact, the Division of the History of Chemistry of the American Chemical Society organized and held a very successful symposium on the history of chemical instrumentation during the Washington, D.C. National Meeting in 1979. Re~arks, both formal and informal, made during this symposium stressed points that soon become obvious to anyone who looks at the ancestry of present-day instruments . In some cases, the total history is measured in years, rather than in centuries . Chemical instrumentation, by no means confined to the laboratory, is vital in industry. There is a natural tendency to discard an item of any kind when a newer version is acquired. Often, "to discard" means "to scrap". If the item scrapped is an instrument that is unique - sometimes the last of its kind - we have a permanent artefactual gap in the history of science.

This study is an outgrowth of our interest in the history of modern chemistry. The paucity of reliable, quantitative knowledge about past science was brought home forcibly to us when we undertook a research seminar in the comparative history of modern chemistry in Britain, Germany, and the United States. That seminar, which took place at the University of Pennsylvania in the spring of 1975, was paralleled by one devoted to the work of the "Annales School". The two seminars together catalyzed the attempt to construct historical measures of change in aspects of one science, or "chem­ ical indicators". The present volume displays our results. Perhaps our labors may be most usefully compared with the work of those students of medieval science who devote their best efforts to the establish­ ment of texts. Only when acceptable texts have been constructed from fragmentary and corrupt sources can scholars move on to the more satisfying business of making history. So too in the modern period, a necessary pre­ liminary to the full history of any scientific profession is the establishing of reliable quantitative information in the form of statistical series. This volume does not offer history. Instead it provides certain element- indicators -- that may be useful to individuals interested in the history of American chemistry and chemical industry, and suggestive for policy.

Europe is the cradle of the modem international chemical industry. From the middle of the nineteenth century until the outbreak of World War I, the European chemical industry influenced not only the production and control of science and technology, but also made significant contributions towards economic development, as well as bringing about profound changes in working and living enviromnents. It is a highly complex heritage, both rich and threatening, that calls for close scrutinity. Fortunately, a unique opportunity to explore the historical development of the European chemical industry from a variety of novel standpoints, was made possible during 1993 as part of the European Science Foundation (ESF) programme called 'The Evolution of Chemistry in Europe, 1789-1939.' This process of exploration has taken place through three workshops, each dealing with different time periods. The workshop concerned with the period 1850-1914, which corresponds roughly to the so-called Second Industrial Revolution, was held in Maastricht, The Netherlands, on 23-25 March 1995. This volume is the outcome of that workshop. The other workshops dealing with European chemical industry were held in Liege in 1994, covering the First Industrial Revolution period, 1789-1850, and Strasbourg in 1996, covering the period between the two World Wars.

The editors wish to thank the European Science Foundation for its support of the programme on the Evolution of Chemistry in Europe, 1789-1939, as well as for sponsoring the publication of this volume. Through the subdivision of this initiative that deals specifically with chemical industry it has been possible for historians of science, technology, business and economics to share often widely differing viewpoints and develop consensus across disciplinary and cultural boundaries. The contents of this volume are based on the third of three workshops that have considered the emergence of the modern European chemical industry prior to 1939, the first held in Liege (1994), the second in Maastricht (1995), and the third in Strasbourg (1996). All contributors and participants are thanked for their participation in often lively and informative debates. The generous hospitality of the European Science Foundation and its staff in Strasbourg is gratefully acknowledged. Introduction Emerging chemical knowledge and the development of chemical industry, and particularly the interaction between them, offer rich fields of study for the historian. This is reflected in the contents of the three workshops dealing with the emergence of chemical industry held under the aegis of the European Science Foundation's Evolution of Chemistry in Europe, 1789-1939, programme. The first workshop focused mainly on science for industry, 1789- 1850, and the second on the two-way traffic between science and industry, 1850-1914. The third workshop, dealing with the period 1900-1939, covers similar issues, but within different, and wider, contexts.

In the twentieth century, dyes, pharmaceuticals, photographic products, explosives, insecticides, fertilizers, synthetic rubber, fuels, and fibers, plastics, and other products have flowed out of the chemical industry and into the consumer economies, war machines, farms, and medical practices of industrial societies. The German chemical industry has been a major site for the development and application of the science-based technologies that gave rise to these products, and has had an important role as exemplar, stimulus, and competitor in the international chemical industry. This volume explores the German chemical industry's scientific and technological dimension, its international connections, and its development after 1945. The authors relate scientific and technological change in the industry to evolving German political and economic circumstances, including two world wars, the rise and fall of National Socialism, the post-war division of Germany, and the emergence of a global economy. This book will be of interest to historians of modern Germany, to historians of science and technology, and to business and economic historians.

Heinrich Caro (1834-1910) was the inventor of new chemical processes that in the two decades commencing in 1869 enabled BASF of Ludwigshafen, Germany, to take first place among manufacturers of synthetic dyestuffs. The cornerstones of Caro's success were his early training as calico (cotton) printer in Germany, and his employment at a chemical firm in Manchester, England. Caro was a creative research chemist, a highly knowledgeable patent specialist and expert witness, and a brilliant manager of science-based chemical technology. This first full-length scientific biography of Heinrich Caro delineates his role in the emergence of the industrial research laboratory, the forging of links between academic and industrial chemistry, and the development of modern patent law. Major chemical topics include the rise of classical organic chemistry, collaboration with Adolf Baeyer, artificial alizarin and indigo, aniline dyes, and other coal-tar products, particularly intermediates.

Quantum refert in quae tempora vel optimi cujusque virtus incidet. (From an architrave on the Palatine.) The history of the development of scientific thought offers several examples of unconventional, perplexing and untimely conjectures advanced by obscure men. The molecular hypothesis set forth by Amedeo Avogadro in 1811 is one of these. It was little noticed when proposed and it soon fell into oblivion. Although numerous attempts have been made in the past one hundred years to identify the main reasons for the neglect and the indifference which surrounded the molecular hypothesis, very little effort has been devoted to showing how historical circumstances and Avogadro's own personality hindered the acceptance of the concepts he had proposed. After half a century of intense scientific activity, Avogadro passed away as little known in Italy as abroad. He had few close friends and his personal life seemed centered on his large family and his work. Outside this limited circle, he avoided social engagements and intellectual contacts. This attitude may have been encouraged by the political situation in Piedmont, his native country, which remained essentially hostile to intellectual activity until 1840, by which time Avogadro was sixty-four. The only respite in Piedmont had come during the short-lived Napoleonic regime; and quite remarkably, the molecular hypothesis was conceived and published at the very end of this period.

It was the British music critic Neville Cardus, writing on Debussy, who remarked how "the great sea of Wagner threatened to overwhelm the world of nineteenth century music". 1 There is an analogy in mid-nineteenth- century agriculture where the great sea of Justus von Liebig developed a tidal wave which to this day conceals much of the original work and merit of others in the same field. Not only the general public but even students of agriculture may, or may not, recall the names of Persoz, Kuhlmann and Ville in France, Thaer and Sprengel in Germany, or even Lawes and Gilbert in England, to mention a few of them, whose pioneer works were not pub- licised in the same didactic and polemical manner as those of Liebig. Among such pioneers was Jean Baptiste Boussingault (1802-1887) whose funda- mental researches contributed to the emergence of agriculture from an empirical corpus of facts to the status of a science. Yet apart from his work in animal and crop science he also engaged in metallurgical investigations, biology and pure chemistry. The scientific world was already approaching the end of an era in which it was possible to embrace several disciplines adequately.With increasing specialisation, institutionalism and profeSsionalism in science the polymath was a gradually disappearing species.

We meet in Thomas Beddoes an able chemist, engaged in a field where impor­ tant new discoveries were being made; a good doctor eager to fmd experi­ mentally soun. d ways of healing and to make known the principles of maintaining good health; a vigorous, independent man sharing the hope which the ideas of the French Revolution gave so many 9f his contemporaries. In his life he was a controversial figure and judgement and detached appreciation of his work was often made impossible by anger at his 'revolutionary' political views. It becomes evident that where Beddoes was held in esteem and where he had influence it was not for particular activities but for what he was 'in the round'. With due respect - and with gratitude - to specialist accounts of his achievements as a chemist and of his endeavours to fmd a cure for pulmonary consumption and his efforts to bring about an understanding of the importance of preventive medicine, I have tried in this account to 'see him whole'. Historians of chemistry and of medicine; educationalists; and those concerned with 'women's studies' will each continue to find particular episodes or parts of Beddoes' life of special interest. At the same time I hope this, the first attempt at a biography - for J. E. Stock's 1811 account is truly named "Memoirs" - will add to our understanding of his varied activities.

I carne upon this collection oGBP lec- tures in chemistry by Henric Theophil Scheffer delivered in about 1750, edited by Torbern Bergman and published in Swed- ish in 1775, when I was spending a sab- batical leave in Uppsala. Sweden. in 1977, gathering material for my biography oGBP Bergman (Coronado Press, 1985). I have written a chapter about "ScheGBPGBPer's Lec- tures" in my Bergman biography. I refer the reader to this biography for further discussion. Bergman says in his "Foreword" to "ScheGBPGBPer"s Lectures" that he designed this collection GBPo~ use by "those like me who teach chemistry". So this is one oGBP the first, iGBP not the first, textbooks de- signed to be used in classes in chemistry. That phrase. "one oGBP the first. iGBP not the GBPirst". is so typical oGBP Bergman's work in many fields. Bergman is considered to be the father oGBP quantitative chemical analysis, physical chemistry, modern chem- ical nomenclature, the concept oGBP equival- ent weights. and the electromotive series.

3. 4. 2. "SOMETHING ON CERIUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 3. 4. 3. THE DISCOVERY OF LANTHANUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 3. 4. 4. THE DISCOVERY OF DIDYMIUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 3. 4. 5. THE NAME DIDYMIUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 3. 4. 6. THE DISCOVERY OF TERBIUM AND ERBIUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 3. 5. The Cork Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 3. 6. Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 3. 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Chapter 4. THE 50 YEARS FOLLOWING MOSANDER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 F. SZABADVARY and C. EVANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 4. 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 4. 2. The Terbium Dispute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 4. 3. Samarium and Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 4. 4. The Division of Erbium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 4. 5. Separating the Twins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4. 6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 4. 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Chapter 5. ELEMENTS NO. 70, 71 AND 72: DISCOVERIES AND CONTROVERSIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 HELGE KRAGH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 5. 1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 5. 2. The ytterbium earths unti11905 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 5. 3. Auer von Welsbach: aldebaranium and cassiopeium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 5. 4. Urbain: neo-ytterbium and lutecium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 5. 5. The ytterbium controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 5. 6. Celtium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 5. 7. Hafnium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 5. 8. New light on old elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 5. 9. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 5. 10. Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 5. 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Chapter 6. THE SEARCH FOR ELEMENT 61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 JACOB A. MARlNSKY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 6. 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 6. 2. Separations and Identifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 6. 3. Discovery Confirmed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 6. 4. Announcing, Claiming and 'Naming Element 61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 6. 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 vii PART II - APPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Chapter 7. CARL AUER VON WELSBACH A PIONEER IN THE INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION OF RARE EAR THS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 E. BAUMGARTNER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

One hundred years ago, in September 1888, Professor Lewis Mills Norton (1855-1893) of the Chemistry Department of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology introduced to the curriculum a course on industrial chemical practice. This was the first structured course in chemical engineer­ ing taught in a University. Ten years later, Norton's successor Frank H. Thorpe published the first textbook in chemical engineering, entitled "Outlines of Industrial Chemistry." Over the years, chemical engineering developed from a simple industrial chemical analysis of processes into a mature field. The volume presented here includes most of the commissioned and contributed papers presented at the American Chemical Society Symposium celebrating the centenary of chemical engineering. The contributions are presented in a logical way, starting first with the history of chemical engineering, followed by analyses of various fields of chemical engineering and concluding with the history of various U.S. and European Departments of Chemical Engineering. I wish to thank the authors of the contributions/chapters of this volume for their enthusiastic response to my idea of publishing this volume and Dr. Gianni Astarita of the University of Naples, Italy, for his encouragement during the initial stages of this project.

Because of a lack of appreciation for his efforts in developing modern polymer science, the contributions of Hermann Staudinger were disregarded for decades. There have also been delays in recognizing the contributions of other pioneers in polymer science. Hence, it is gratifying to note that Professor Seymour chaired an American Chemical Society Symposium focusing on the contributions of these pioneers and that Kluwer Academic Publishers has published the proceedings of this important symposium. H.Mark v DEDICATION This book on Pioneers in Polymer Science is dedicated to Nobel Laureate Polymer Scientists Hermann Staudinger, Emil Fischer, Herman Mark, Paul J. Flory, Linus Pauling, Carl S. Marvel, M. Polanyi, Giulio Natta, Karl Ziegler, and Bruce Merrifield as well as to those pioneers such as J.C. Patrick, Robert Thomas, William Sparks, Maurice Huggins, Qtto Bayer, Leo Baekeland, Anselm Payer, Roger Boyer, Waldo Semon, Robert Banks, J.P. Hogan, and other pioneers who, to a large degree, were responsible for the development of the world's second largest industry. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The editor appreciates the contribution of co-authors Herman Mark, C.H. Fisher, and G. Alan Stahl who co­ chaired the Symposium on Pioneers in Polymer Science at the National Meeting of the American Chemical Society at Seattle, WA in 1984 and who contributed a chapter in this book. The editor is particularly grateful to Mischa Thomas who typed this manuscript.