Sir Prafulla Chandra Ray (1861–1944) was the first Indian chemist to achieve high international reputation. Originally trained at the University of Edinburgh, he worked for many years at Presidency College in Calcutta and then at Calcutta University. He built up a remarkable school of chemical research by attracting many outstanding students to work with him and published about 150 papers—many of them in leading British and German journals. Ray was highly respected by his British peers and was the first Indian of that era to be nominated for FRS, in 1913. At the time when his nomination was being considered by the Royal Society, Ray's favourite student, Nil Ratan Dhar (1892–1986), who was to become the second Indian chemist to achieve high international reputation, worked in London and Paris for a few years. Even when Dhar was merely a 24-year-old student, he lobbied with several leading British chemists for the election of Ray and kept Ray informed in a series of fascinating letters—giving us a rare glimpse of what election to the Royal Society meant for Indian scientists of that era. During this time, Ray received a knighthood for his contributions to chemistry, and Nature published a front-page article on Ray's ‘life-work’. Many British chemists felt strongly that Ray should be elected FRS and were willing to discuss Ray's case with the young Dhar quite openly. But, rather mysteriously, Ray never got elected.
{"title":"The FRS nomination of Sir Prafulla C. Ray and the correspondence of N. R. Dhar","authors":"A. Choudhuri, Rajinder Singh","doi":"10.1098/rsnr.2017.0030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2017.0030","url":null,"abstract":"Sir Prafulla Chandra Ray (1861–1944) was the first Indian chemist to achieve high international reputation. Originally trained at the University of Edinburgh, he worked for many years at Presidency College in Calcutta and then at Calcutta University. He built up a remarkable school of chemical research by attracting many outstanding students to work with him and published about 150 papers—many of them in leading British and German journals. Ray was highly respected by his British peers and was the first Indian of that era to be nominated for FRS, in 1913. At the time when his nomination was being considered by the Royal Society, Ray's favourite student, Nil Ratan Dhar (1892–1986), who was to become the second Indian chemist to achieve high international reputation, worked in London and Paris for a few years. Even when Dhar was merely a 24-year-old student, he lobbied with several leading British chemists for the election of Ray and kept Ray informed in a series of fascinating letters—giving us a rare glimpse of what election to the Royal Society meant for Indian scientists of that era. During this time, Ray received a knighthood for his contributions to chemistry, and Nature published a front-page article on Ray's ‘life-work’. Many British chemists felt strongly that Ray should be elected FRS and were willing to discuss Ray's case with the young Dhar quite openly. But, rather mysteriously, Ray never got elected.","PeriodicalId":49744,"journal":{"name":"Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science","volume":"72 1","pages":"57 - 73"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2017-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1098/rsnr.2017.0030","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48409362","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper examines the dynamics of the honorary membership of Russian scientists at the Royal Society over a 350-year period. Using several outstanding Russian scientists as examples (Dmitrii Mendeleev, Il'ya Metschnikoff, Ivan Pavlov and Nikolai Vavilov), we will demonstrate how a combination of cultural and political factors influenced the dynamics of memberships. Furthermore, we explain how their memberships of the Royal Society influenced their scientific careers.
{"title":"Russian scientists and the Royal Society of London: 350 years of scientific collaboration","authors":"E. Kolchinsky, U. Hossfeld, G. Levit","doi":"10.1098/rsnr.2017.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2017.0001","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the dynamics of the honorary membership of Russian scientists at the Royal Society over a 350-year period. Using several outstanding Russian scientists as examples (Dmitrii Mendeleev, Il'ya Metschnikoff, Ivan Pavlov and Nikolai Vavilov), we will demonstrate how a combination of cultural and political factors influenced the dynamics of memberships. Furthermore, we explain how their memberships of the Royal Society influenced their scientific careers.","PeriodicalId":49744,"journal":{"name":"Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science","volume":"72 1","pages":"343 - 363"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2017-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1098/rsnr.2017.0001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"62043749","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Peter Collins, who worked as a policy officer and historian for the Royal Society for 32 years, has written an invaluable, eye-opening account of this premier organization for science, from the Tercentenary of 1960 through to the 350th anniversary of 2010. In doing so he fills a considerable gap in the historical literature. The account is meticulously sourced, drawing on Collins' unparalleled knowledge of the recent archives of the Society, as well as interviews, the memories of colleagues and the material held in external collections. But the volume is more than that. Between 1960 and 2010 the Society was led by 10 scientists—Howard Florey, Patrick Blackett, Alan Hodgkin, Alexander Todd, Andrew Huxley, George Porter, Michael Atiyah, Aaron Klug, Bob May and Martin Rees—but Collins has resisted, rightly, the temptation to organize his account as a chronology of presidents. Instead, his stated aim is ‘to analyse some key features of the Society's approach to promoting science … and thus to uncover something of its identity’ (p. xi). The chapters therefore explore these key themes and features. If we step back and look at the most significant changes in the organization's recent history, the most striking is that the Royal Society, through the years since the Second World War, has become more open, more publicly visible and more likely to take action in public than was the case, and this transformation has been partly deliberately sought but also partly thrust reluctantly upon it. Collins opens his history with a case in point. In 1945 the Society had to elect a new president. Should the president be chosen solely because he was ‘demonstrably in the very top rank of acknowledged scientific achievement’ or was it the case that, under ‘exceptional circumstances’ (p. 9), other characteristics might be necessary, such as political acuity? The …
{"title":"Outward bound","authors":"J. Agar","doi":"10.1098/rsnr.2017.0026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2017.0026","url":null,"abstract":"Peter Collins, who worked as a policy officer and historian for the Royal Society for 32 years, has written an invaluable, eye-opening account of this premier organization for science, from the Tercentenary of 1960 through to the 350th anniversary of 2010. In doing so he fills a considerable gap in the historical literature. The account is meticulously sourced, drawing on Collins' unparalleled knowledge of the recent archives of the Society, as well as interviews, the memories of colleagues and the material held in external collections. But the volume is more than that. Between 1960 and 2010 the Society was led by 10 scientists—Howard Florey, Patrick Blackett, Alan Hodgkin, Alexander Todd, Andrew Huxley, George Porter, Michael Atiyah, Aaron Klug, Bob May and Martin Rees—but Collins has resisted, rightly, the temptation to organize his account as a chronology of presidents. Instead, his stated aim is ‘to analyse some key features of the Society's approach to promoting science … and thus to uncover something of its identity’ (p. xi). The chapters therefore explore these key themes and features.\u0000\u0000If we step back and look at the most significant changes in the organization's recent history, the most striking is that the Royal Society, through the years since the Second World War, has become more open, more publicly visible and more likely to take action in public than was the case, and this transformation has been partly deliberately sought but also partly thrust reluctantly upon it.\u0000\u0000Collins opens his history with a case in point. In 1945 the Society had to elect a new president. Should the president be chosen solely because he was ‘demonstrably in the very top rank of acknowledged scientific achievement’ or was it the case that, under ‘exceptional circumstances’ (p. 9), other characteristics might be necessary, such as political acuity? The …","PeriodicalId":49744,"journal":{"name":"Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science","volume":"71 1","pages":"329 - 332"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2017-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1098/rsnr.2017.0026","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43919602","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper examines three female writers who chose to affiliate their educational scientific works with the ‘domestic sphere’: Priscilla Wakefield, Jane Marcet and Maria Edgeworth. It shows that within what is now broadly categorized as ‘familiar science’, differing motivations for writing, publishing and reading existed. Between 1790 and 1830 many educationalists claimed that the best way for children to learn was for them to exercise their memory on things encountered in everyday life. Religious allegiances, attitudes towards female science education and the utility of science in the home help to explain why these writers chose to introduce their readers to the illimitable world of science by setting their books in the seemingly restrictive domestic sphere. Furthermore, this paper argues that three different authors envisioned subtly different domestic spheres as settings for their work. Rather than there being a single homogeneous domestic sphere in which women and children received their education, and about which such authors wrote, there existed a multiplicity of domestic spheres depicted across the genre of educational science texts.
{"title":"Observation, experiment or autonomy in the domestic sphere? Women's familiar science writing in Britain, 1790–1830","authors":"Eleanor Peters","doi":"10.1098/rsnr.2016.0018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2016.0018","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines three female writers who chose to affiliate their educational scientific works with the ‘domestic sphere’: Priscilla Wakefield, Jane Marcet and Maria Edgeworth. It shows that within what is now broadly categorized as ‘familiar science’, differing motivations for writing, publishing and reading existed. Between 1790 and 1830 many educationalists claimed that the best way for children to learn was for them to exercise their memory on things encountered in everyday life. Religious allegiances, attitudes towards female science education and the utility of science in the home help to explain why these writers chose to introduce their readers to the illimitable world of science by setting their books in the seemingly restrictive domestic sphere. Furthermore, this paper argues that three different authors envisioned subtly different domestic spheres as settings for their work. Rather than there being a single homogeneous domestic sphere in which women and children received their education, and about which such authors wrote, there existed a multiplicity of domestic spheres depicted across the genre of educational science texts.","PeriodicalId":49744,"journal":{"name":"Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science","volume":"71 1","pages":"71 - 90"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2017-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1098/rsnr.2016.0018","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43214664","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In 1978 M. J. Peterson examined the role played by the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) in nineteenth-century dental reform, noting the establishment of its Licence in Dental Surgery (LDS) in 1859. In a paper published in Notes and Records in 2010, the present author described the influential role played by Fellows of the Royal Society during the nineteenth-century campaign for dental reform led by Sir John Tomes. Key players in this campaign, including the dentists Samuel Cartwright, Thomas Bell and James Salter, were, as well as being Fellows of the Royal Society, members of the Athenæum Club. The present research report indicates the roles played by those members of the Athenæum Club who were also Fellows of the Royal Society in the scientific and professional reform of nineteenth-century dentistry. Although it does not attempt to document meetings at the Club, it suggests the potential for a symbiotic effect between the Royal Society and the Athenæum. Where the previous paper proposed an active scientific role for the Royal Society in reforming dentistry, this paper presents the Athenæum as a significant extension of the sphere of influence into the cultural realm for those who did enjoy membership of both organizations.
1978年，m.j. Peterson考察了皇家外科医学院(RCS)在19世纪牙科改革中所扮演的角色，并注意到它在1859年设立了牙科手术执照(LDS)。在2010年发表在《笔记与记录》(Notes and Records)上的一篇论文中，本文作者描述了英国皇家学会(Royal Society)成员在19世纪约翰•托梅斯爵士(Sir John Tomes)领导的牙科改革运动中发挥的重要作用。这场运动的关键人物，包括牙医塞缪尔·卡特赖特、托马斯·贝尔和詹姆斯·索尔特，既是皇家学会的会员，也是雅典æum俱乐部的成员。本研究报告表明，在19世纪牙科的科学和专业改革中，同时也是皇家学会会员的Athenæum俱乐部成员所发挥的作用。虽然它没有试图记录俱乐部的会议，但它表明了皇家学会和雅典æum之间潜在的共生效应。前一篇论文提出了皇家学会在牙科改革中扮演积极的科学角色，而这篇论文则将雅典æum作为影响力范围的重要延伸，延伸到那些确实享受这两个组织会员资格的人的文化领域。
{"title":"The Athenæum Club, the Royal Society and the reform of dentistry in nineteenth-century Britain: A research report","authors":"M. Bishop","doi":"10.1098/RSNR.2016.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1098/RSNR.2016.0006","url":null,"abstract":"In 1978 M. J. Peterson examined the role played by the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) in nineteenth-century dental reform, noting the establishment of its Licence in Dental Surgery (LDS) in 1859. In a paper published in Notes and Records in 2010, the present author described the influential role played by Fellows of the Royal Society during the nineteenth-century campaign for dental reform led by Sir John Tomes. Key players in this campaign, including the dentists Samuel Cartwright, Thomas Bell and James Salter, were, as well as being Fellows of the Royal Society, members of the Athenæum Club. The present research report indicates the roles played by those members of the Athenæum Club who were also Fellows of the Royal Society in the scientific and professional reform of nineteenth-century dentistry. Although it does not attempt to document meetings at the Club, it suggests the potential for a symbiotic effect between the Royal Society and the Athenæum. Where the previous paper proposed an active scientific role for the Royal Society in reforming dentistry, this paper presents the Athenæum as a significant extension of the sphere of influence into the cultural realm for those who did enjoy membership of both organizations.","PeriodicalId":49744,"journal":{"name":"Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science","volume":"71 1","pages":"61 - 70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2017-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1098/RSNR.2016.0006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48728725","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The history of science has many functions. Historians should consider how their work contributes to various functions, going beyond a simple desire to understand the past correctly. There are both internal and external functions of the history of science in relation to science itself; I focus here on the internal, as they tend to be neglected these days. The internal functions can be divided into orthodox and complementary. The orthodox function is to assist with the understanding of the content and methods of science as it is now practised. The complementary function is to generate and improve scientific knowledge where current science itself fails to do so. Complementary functions of the history of science include the raising of critical awareness, and the recovery and extension of past scientific knowledge that has become forgotten or neglected. These complementary functions are illustrated with some concrete examples.
{"title":"Who cares about the history of science?","authors":"Hasok Chang","doi":"10.1098/RSNR.2016.0042","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1098/RSNR.2016.0042","url":null,"abstract":"The history of science has many functions. Historians should consider how their work contributes to various functions, going beyond a simple desire to understand the past correctly. There are both internal and external functions of the history of science in relation to science itself; I focus here on the internal, as they tend to be neglected these days. The internal functions can be divided into orthodox and complementary. The orthodox function is to assist with the understanding of the content and methods of science as it is now practised. The complementary function is to generate and improve scientific knowledge where current science itself fails to do so. Complementary functions of the history of science include the raising of critical awareness, and the recovery and extension of past scientific knowledge that has become forgotten or neglected. These complementary functions are illustrated with some concrete examples.","PeriodicalId":49744,"journal":{"name":"Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science","volume":"71 1","pages":"107 - 91"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2017-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1098/RSNR.2016.0042","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41972048","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper proposes a fresh look at the ‘Dissensions’ that held up scientific business at the Royal Society during the spring of 1784. It focuses attention on the career and personal networks of Charles Hutton, whose dismissal from the role of Foreign Secretary ignited the row. It shows that the incident had no single cause but was the outcome of several factors that made Hutton intolerable to Joseph Banks, President of the Society, and of several factors that made Banks unpopular as President among a group of about 40 otherwise rather disparate Fellows.
{"title":"Charles Hutton and the ‘Dissensions’ of 1783–84: scientific networking and its failures","authors":"B. Wardhaugh","doi":"10.1098/rsnr.2016.0016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2016.0016","url":null,"abstract":"This paper proposes a fresh look at the ‘Dissensions’ that held up scientific business at the Royal Society during the spring of 1784. It focuses attention on the career and personal networks of Charles Hutton, whose dismissal from the role of Foreign Secretary ignited the row. It shows that the incident had no single cause but was the outcome of several factors that made Hutton intolerable to Joseph Banks, President of the Society, and of several factors that made Banks unpopular as President among a group of about 40 otherwise rather disparate Fellows.","PeriodicalId":49744,"journal":{"name":"Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science","volume":"71 1","pages":"41 - 59"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2017-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1098/rsnr.2016.0016","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41997916","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper draws attention to the remarkable closing words of Isaac Newton's Optice (1706) and subsequent editions of the Opticks (1718, 1721), and tries to suggest why Newton chose to conclude his book with a puzzling allusion to his own unpublished conclusions about the history of religion. Newton suggests in this concluding passage that the bounds of moral philosophy will be enlarged as natural philosophy is ‘perfected’. Asking what Newton might have had in mind, the paper first considers the idea that he was foreshadowing the ‘moral Newtonianism’ developed later in the eighteenth century; then it considers the idea that he was perhaps pointing to developments in natural theology. Finally, the paper suggests that Newton wanted to at least signal the importance of attempting to recover the true original religion, and perhaps was hinting at his intention to publish his own extensive research on the history of the Church.
{"title":"Enlarging the bounds of moral philosophy: Why did Isaac Newton conclude the Opticks the way he did?","authors":"J. Henry","doi":"10.1098/rsnr.2016.0011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2016.0011","url":null,"abstract":"This paper draws attention to the remarkable closing words of Isaac Newton's Optice (1706) and subsequent editions of the Opticks (1718, 1721), and tries to suggest why Newton chose to conclude his book with a puzzling allusion to his own unpublished conclusions about the history of religion. Newton suggests in this concluding passage that the bounds of moral philosophy will be enlarged as natural philosophy is ‘perfected’. Asking what Newton might have had in mind, the paper first considers the idea that he was foreshadowing the ‘moral Newtonianism’ developed later in the eighteenth century; then it considers the idea that he was perhaps pointing to developments in natural theology. Finally, the paper suggests that Newton wanted to at least signal the importance of attempting to recover the true original religion, and perhaps was hinting at his intention to publish his own extensive research on the history of the Church.","PeriodicalId":49744,"journal":{"name":"Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science","volume":"71 1","pages":"21 - 39"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2017-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1098/rsnr.2016.0011","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48332449","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper publishes for the first time the dedication to the Royal Society that John Webster wrote for his Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft (1677), but which failed to appear in the published work. It also investigates the circumstances in which the book received the Royal Society's imprimatur, in the light of the Society's ambivalent attitude towards witchcraft and related phenomena in its early years. The paper concludes that the role of Sir Jonas Moore as Vice-President in licensing the book was highly irregular, evidently reflecting the troubled state of the Society in the mid to late 1670s.
这篇论文首次发表了约翰·韦伯斯特为他的《假想巫术的展示》(1677年)所写的献给皇家学会的献词，但这篇献词没有出现在出版的作品中。它还调查了这本书获得皇家学会认可的情况，鉴于该学会早年对巫术和相关现象的矛盾态度。论文的结论是，乔纳斯·摩尔爵士(Sir Jonas Moore)在授权这本书时担任副主席的角色极不规范，这显然反映了17世纪70年代中后期协会的困境。
{"title":"John Webster, the Royal Society and The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft (1677)","authors":"Michael Hunter","doi":"10.1098/RSNR.2016.0022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1098/RSNR.2016.0022","url":null,"abstract":"This paper publishes for the first time the dedication to the Royal Society that John Webster wrote for his Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft (1677), but which failed to appear in the published work. It also investigates the circumstances in which the book received the Royal Society's imprimatur, in the light of the Society's ambivalent attitude towards witchcraft and related phenomena in its early years. The paper concludes that the role of Sir Jonas Moore as Vice-President in licensing the book was highly irregular, evidently reflecting the troubled state of the Society in the mid to late 1670s.","PeriodicalId":49744,"journal":{"name":"Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science","volume":"71 1","pages":"19 - 7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2017-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1098/RSNR.2016.0022","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43609183","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In March 1908, the BASF at Ludwigshafen provided financial support to Fritz Haber in his attempt to synthesize ammonia from the elements. The process that now famously bears his name was demonstrated to BASF in July 1909. However, its engineer was Haber's private assistant, Robert Le Rossignol, a young British chemist from the Channel Islands with whom Haber made a generous financial arrangement regarding subsequent royalties. Le Rossignol left Haber in August 1909 as BASF began the industrialization of their process, taking a consultancy at the Osram works in Berlin. He was interned briefly during World War I before being released to resume his occupation. His position eventually led to His Majesty's Government formulating a national policy regarding released British internees in Germany. After the war Le Rossignol spent his professional life at the GEC laboratories in the UK, first making fundamental contributions to the development of high-power radio transmitting valves, then later developing smaller valves used as mobile power sources in the airborne radars of World War II. Through his share of Haber's royalties, Le Rossignol became wealthy. In retirement, he and his wife gave their money away to charitable causes.
1908年3月，路德维希港的巴斯夫公司为Fritz Haber从这些元素合成氨的尝试提供了资金支持。1909年7月，巴斯夫公司展示了这一以他名字命名的工艺。然而，它的工程师是Haber的私人助理Robert Le Rossignol，一位来自海峡群岛的年轻英国化学家，Haber与他就随后的版税达成了慷慨的财务安排。Le Rossignol于1909年8月离开Haber，当时巴斯夫开始了他们工艺的工业化，在柏林的欧司朗工厂担任顾问。他在第一次世界大战期间曾被短暂拘留，之后被释放恢复其职业生涯。他的立场最终导致国王陛下政府制定了一项关于在德国被释放的英国被拘留者的国家政策。战争结束后，Le Rossignol在英国GEC实验室度过了他的职业生涯，首先为大功率无线电发射阀的开发做出了根本性贡献，后来又开发了第二次世界大战机载雷达中用作移动电源的较小阀门。通过分享哈伯的版税，勒罗西尼奥尔变得富有起来。退休后，他和妻子把钱捐给了慈善事业。
{"title":"Robert Le Rossignol, 1884–1976: Engineer of the ‘Haber’ process","authors":"D. Sheppard","doi":"10.1098/rsnr.2016.0019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2016.0019","url":null,"abstract":"In March 1908, the BASF at Ludwigshafen provided financial support to Fritz Haber in his attempt to synthesize ammonia from the elements. The process that now famously bears his name was demonstrated to BASF in July 1909. However, its engineer was Haber's private assistant, Robert Le Rossignol, a young British chemist from the Channel Islands with whom Haber made a generous financial arrangement regarding subsequent royalties. Le Rossignol left Haber in August 1909 as BASF began the industrialization of their process, taking a consultancy at the Osram works in Berlin. He was interned briefly during World War I before being released to resume his occupation. His position eventually led to His Majesty's Government formulating a national policy regarding released British internees in Germany. After the war Le Rossignol spent his professional life at the GEC laboratories in the UK, first making fundamental contributions to the development of high-power radio transmitting valves, then later developing smaller valves used as mobile power sources in the airborne radars of World War II. Through his share of Haber's royalties, Le Rossignol became wealthy. In retirement, he and his wife gave their money away to charitable causes.","PeriodicalId":49744,"journal":{"name":"Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science","volume":"71 1","pages":"263 - 296"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2017-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1098/rsnr.2016.0019","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43647013","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：