Wald and Ostwald

Obviously the classical macroscopic approaches - at least in the versions of Wald and Ostwald - do show disadvantages because of the unnecessary restrictions to phases and stable preparations. In the following we shall try to find other approaches which might throw some more light on the epistemological status of the radical concept. 

The Czech chemist Frantisek Wald (1861-1930) resisted the atomic theory until the end of his life. For the relation of Wald and Ostwald see [Ruthenberg, 2008). 

Haber worried about his career. When he was passed over for a promotion, he suspected that his Jewish background was the reason. As a Jewish friend sardonically joked, Before 35 I was too young for a professorship, after 45 I was too old, and in-between I was a Jew. Professional jealousy may have played a role as well. Haber s enthusiasm for interdisciplinary science often swept him into the bailiwicks of rival professors. Wilhelm Ost-wald, the scientist who had refused Haber s applications for study, warned him, Achievements generated at a greater than the customary rate raise instinctive opposition amongst one s colleagues. Privately, Ostwald complained that Haber emptied a large pail of facts over our heads far too fast. 

He doesn t mention Ostwald, and gives credit to Wald for an earlier rigorous approach (van de Waals, 1927, p. 229n2). Wald (1897) credits Ostwald for motivating his research. 

On surfaces or in solution (and the distinction is being undermined everyday nov r by the catalysis on nanoparticles), modern catalysis operates within the framework of Wilhelm Ostwald s transformation of catalysis from magic to rate change (as often slowing down as enhancing, but that is another story). Here is how Ost-wald put it ... 

---