atw - International Journal for Nuclear Power | 04.2019

More documents

Recommendations

Info

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 4 ı April ENERGY POLICY, ECONOMY AND LAW 206 Chemistry in 1944. Later, Otto Hahn referred to the use of nuclear fission for military purposes as a “mess” that he wanted no part of. [31] He initiated action against the military use of nuclear power, such as the Mainau Declaration in 1955 or the Göttingen Declaration in 1957. To receive his Nobel Prize, Hahn had to wait until the ceremony of 1946. Awarding the prize to Otto Hahn alone probably remains one of the most debated decisions of the Nobel committee until today. In his Nobel Lecture on December 13 th , 1946, Hahn explained the work of the team Hahn, Meitner, and Straßmann in great detail. [11, p. 247 and following pages] Being a Nobel Laureate, Otto Hahn later led the Kaiser- Wilhelm- Gesellschaft and its successor, the Max- Planck- Gesellschaft, whose presidency he held until 1960. Nevertheless, the developments that occurred in other fields after the discovery of nuclear fission have certainly had a tremendous impact on humanity. The enormous energy release of the fission process soon led the scientific community to think about the possibilities of a power reactor or an explosive bomb, in the beginning cautiously called machine. Enrico Fermi built the first nuclear reactor in the world in Chicago in 1942. The first atomic bomb was developed in the Manhattan Project. With an incredible amount of money and workforce, the Americans pushed their nuclear program. Today, we see it as the beginning of a new era when the first atomic bomb was detonated on July 16, 1945 in the New Mexico desert. The nuclear arms race was just about to begin. To this day, the earth has been shaken by 2053 nuclear explosions. [32] The artifact: The “Otto-Hahn-table” Since the 1920s, the Deutsches Museum has had contact with Lise Meitner, Otto Hahn and colleagues in Berlin. They exchanged letters with regard to donations of books or samples of the element protactinium discovered by Meitner and Hahn. [33] Especially the director Jonathan Zenneck corresponded with Otto Hahn at length and in a friendly tone. In 1952, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz got in touch with the Deutsches Museum to discuss the existing equipment by Otto Hahn. Parts of the original equipment that had been moved after the war from Berlin via the small city of Tailfingen to Mainz had been arranged there on a table and presented to the public. Once the table and the apparatus were erected in the museum, they waited for a text to explain their meaning. It was planned that a marble tablet should bear the following text: OTTO HAHN Discovered in 1938, together with Fritz Straßmann, the fission of uranium by neutrons, thus creating the basis for the technical realization of atomic energy. [34] Otto Hahn was specifically asked by Jonathan Zenneck about his opinion of this synopsis. In his reply dated April 8, 1953, Hahn was unenthusiastic about the plans of the Museum: “As much as I am delighted about the attention [...] I’m a little depressed about the presentation that is apparently intended. It seems to me somewhat exaggerated to construct a special niche with a marble table, because if the fission of uranium has been found in aftermath to be very important, neither Mr. Straßmann nor I had any share in this development.” In his letter, he goes on to mention Lise Meitner and again asks for his name not to be “mentioned with a special appearance”. [35] This letter clearly contradicts the image that has sometimes been drawn of Otto Hahn that he had spoken too rarely about the share of his colleagues in the discovery, particularly Lise Meitner’s share. The mere mentioning of the two colleagues in this letter should have demonstrated to Zenneck that the display as “Otto Hahn table” was wrong. Zenneck and his successors, however, did not change anything and for several decades the name “Otto-Hahn table” stuck. This is how the visitors found the artifact: It was called workbench, but displayed devices, which were never used together on one table. The paraffin block and the neutron sources (which were displayed as reproductions) were used in an irradiation room, while the chemical analysis was undertaken in the chemical laboratory of Straßmann. The measurement of the radioactive activities was conducted in the measuring room. The pairwise arrangement of the counters on the table had no scientific grounding, but gave the whole thing a wonderful symmetry. That the measurements would have been impossible if set so closely to the neutron source was never mentioned in one of the museum texts. [36] Otto Hahn was in the museum in 1963 for the 25th anniversary of the discovery. He gave a television interview to Heinz Haber, a pioneer in scientific journalism at the time, in which Hahn told the entire story in great detail. [9] Hahn emphasized the contributions and the great teamwork between himself, Meitner and Straßmann. A still image from the movie is now regarded as the moment Hahn arranges the devices for the museum himself, a legend that is just as persistent as it is wrong. [37] In 1972, the chemistry exhibition was reopened with a new architecture. In a niche next to a large model of a uranium atom, the table stood in a new showcase. The marble plaque had been removed, but the sign “ Arbeitstisch von Otto Hahn” (workbench of Otto Hahn) had been taken from the old display. Lise Meitner’s contribution to the discovery still did not occur in the Deutsches Museum. Only in 1989, on the occasion of a major exhibition, a balanced and correct presentation of Meitner’s and Straßmann’s contributions was finally shown in the museum. [15 a)] Subsequently, the museum worked together with Meitner’s biographer Ruth Lewin Sime to present a balanced account of events. In December 2012, the object moved to the exhibition about museum history. The caption today tries – with all brevity – to satisfy all those involved in the decisive experiments, and the table was officially renamed Hahn-Meitner-Straßmann table or simply nuclear fission table. It will be presented in the new permanent exhibition on chemistry from 2020 onwards. Conclusion: The responsibility of the museum curators For the majority of visitors, it can be assumed that they see the development of nuclear power, with all its consequences for the world, as more important than the exact story of its discovery. The table is presented as an icon of the history of science and is at the same time an arranged art object whose aura is nourished by its almost altar-like form. The global technical and political significance of nuclear fission certainly served as an amplifier for the object’s glory, but was never described in the exhibition. How did the reputation of the acting persons change over time? Energy Policy, Economy and Law The Nuclear Fission Table in the Deutsches Museum: A Fundamental Discovery on Display ı Susanne Rehn-Taube
atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 4 ı April Immediately after the war, Hahn and Strassmann were put on a pe destal: Look, here are two German scientists who have discovered something significant! The Deutsches Museum proudly presented an object that was saved under certainly difficult circumstances and moved three times through post-war Germany. Whether the instruments were original ones or the arrangement made sense was not examined. One did not bother to describe the components and the experiments exactly. The presentation aroused the feeling that one stood at the desk of a Nobel Prize winner and could almost look over his shoulder. That the contribution of Lise Meitner was not mentioned is beyond understanding: one glance into the original literature would have been enough to get a more complete picture. Everyone involved was alive and well, detailed first-hand documentation would have been achievable. However, the fact that nothing was changed after Hahn’s rather unsatisfied comment on the first text panel suggests that it was already hanging in the exhibition and the text was literally carved into stone. Therefore, the label of the exhibit was created: “workbench of Otto Hahn”. Possibly, it was also the glory of the Nobel Prize, which put Meitner in the shade after the war. In any case, there was no effort to tell the whole story. General Director Zenneck would have had to question the exhibition more critically. Judging from the friendlysubmissive tone of his letters to Hahn, however, this is completely unthinkable. Hahn was the sole contact for nuclear fission for Zenneck. It must be stressed at this point that Hahn and Meitner, both during their direct cooperation and after the war, communicated in an extremely friendly and professional tone and spoke with great appreciation of each other and the scientific achievements of each other. Surely they saw in the other an equal scientific partner. The post-war generation of exhibition curators saw no need to change anything in the presentation, and so Meitner really fell into oblivion. She lived abroad, was certainly not as present at events in the Deutsches Museum and on the German science stage as Hahn. And it is precisely this constellation that leads to the allegation that Hahn had made his mark as a leading figure in German science, as a “good German” at the expense of his colleagues and especially his colleague with Jewish roots after the war. [38] The ignorance of the Museum concerning Meitner implied that Hahn had built a memorial for himself in the museum with “his” object. Parts of today’s history of science draw a strong picture, according to which Hahn later “refused to let Meitner participate in the discovery.” [39] The fact that Hahn collected the Nobel Prize alone is often mentioned in this context, too. The impression remains Hahn would be personally responsible for that as well. Since the 1990s, the museum has sought a differentiated and more detailed presentation. If this had happened 40 years earlier, Hahn’s reputation would probably be dif ferent today. We can assume that Hahn certainly would not have objected to such a representation. The curator’s dream may serve as a last prospect, who would like to cut the object – purely virtually, of course, not in reality – in order to present the individual parts of the experimental set-up finally in a scientifically correct way. Footnotes 1. This is a revised copy of: Rehn, The Nuclear Fission Table in the Deutsches Museum: A Special Piece of Science History on the Eve of World War II. In: M. Kaji, Y. Furukawa (Hg.): Proceedings of the International Workshop on the History of Chemistry: Transformation of Chemistry from the 1920s to the 1960s (IWHC 2015, Tokyo). Tokio 2016, p. 20-27 See also: a) S. Rehn: Der Kernspaltungstisch im Deutschen Museum. In: Keiser, V. (Hg.): Radiochemie, Fleiß und Intuition. Neue Forschungen zu Otto Hahn. GNT-Verlag, Berlin, 2018, p. 63 – 82 b) S. Rehn, Kultur und Technik 3/2013, p. 18-25 2. For milestones in Rutherford’s scientific life, see (last viewed 3.3.2019): http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/ chemistry/laureates/1908/rutherford-bio.html 3. J. Chadwick, Nature 129, 1932, S. 312; J. Chadwick, Proc. Roy. Soc. 136, 1932, p. 692-708 4. N. Bohr, Nature 137, 1936, p. 344-348 5. N. Bohr, Science, 80, 1937, p. 161-165 6. E. Fermi, Nature 133, 1934, p. 757; E. Fermi, ibid., p. 898-899 7. Lise Meitner: Wege und Irrwege zur Kernenergie (1963). In: L. Meitner, D. Hahn (Ed.), Erinnerungen an Otto Hahn. Hirzel Verlag Stuttgart, 2005, p. 69 – 73 8. F. Krafft, Otto Hahn und die Kernchemie, Museumsverein für Technik und Arbeit, Mannheim, 1991, p. 14 - 15 9. Otto Hahn – 25 Jahre Atomzeitalter. Television movie produced by the German television network NDR, 1963. In German, Hahn uses the term “Glückszufall”, which is a mixture of the words “luck” and “chance”. Deutsches Museum archive, AV-F 0026 & 1743. (All translations of original German quotes by S. Rehn-Taube.) 10. a) L. Meitner, O. Hahn, F. Straßmann, Z. f. Physik 106, 1937, p. 249 - 270; b) O. Hahn, L. Meitner, F. Straßmann, Chem. Ber. 70, 1937, p. 1374-1392 11. O. Hahn, Mein Leben. Bruckmann, München,1968, p. 150 12. O. Hahn, F. Straßmann, Naturwissenschaften 46, 1938, p. 755 - 756 13. A very detailed description of the experiments is given in: F. Krafft, Im Schatten der Sensation. Leben und Wirken von Fritz Straßmann. Verl. Chemie, Weinheim 1981, p. 212 and following pages 14. Quote by O. Hahn, note 9 15. Letter quoted in: a) J. Lemmerich, Die Geschichte der Entdeckung der Kernspaltung. Catalogue of the exhibition by the Deutsches Museum and the Hahn-Meitner-Institute of the Technical University, Berlin, 1989, p. 166 - 170; b) W. Gerlach: Otto Hahn, Ein Forscherleben in unserer Zeit. Deutsches Museum Abhandlungen & Berichte, 37, 1969, p. 52 - 53 16. A modern essay about the finding of nuclear fission and the liquid-drop model is found in: H. J. Krappe, K. Pomorski, „ Theory of Nuclear Fission“. Springer Verlag Heidelberg, 2012 17. J. Lemmerich (Ed.), Gedächtnisausstellung zum 100. Geburts tag von Albert Einstein, Otto Hahn, Max von Laue, Lise Meitner 1.3. – 12.4. 1979. Catalogue oft he exhibition held in the Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin. Berlin, 1979, p. 122 18. O. Hahn, F. Straßmann, Naturwiss. 27, 1939, p. 11 - 15 19. O. Hahn, F. Straßmann, Naturwiss. 27, 1939, p. 89 - 95 20. L. Meitner, O. R. Frisch, Nature 143, 1939, p. 239 21. O. R. Frisch, Nature 143, 1939, p. 276 22. L. Meitner, O. R. Frisch, Nature 143, 1939, p. 471 - 472 23. H. v. Halban, F. Joliot, L. Kowarski, Nature 143, 1939, p. 470 - 471 24. N. Bohr, J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. 56, 1939, p. 426 - 450 25. N. Bohr, Phys. Rev. 55, 1939, p. 418-419 26. E. McMillan, P. H. Abelson, Phys. Rev. 57, 1940, p. 1185-1186 27. F. Straßmann, O. Hahn, Naturwissenschaften 30, 1942, p. 256-260 28. The results were not published until 1946. In the publications it was mentioned that the corresponding experiments took place in 1941. 29. a) G. T. Seaborg, E. M. McMillan, J. W. Kennedy, A. C. Wahl, Phys. Rev. 69, 1946, p. 366 - 367; b) G. T. Seaborg, A. C. Wahl, J. W. Kennedy, Phys. Rev. 69, 1946, p. 367; c) J. W. Kennedy, A. C. Wahl, Phys. Rev. 69, 1946, p. 367 - 368; d) J. W. Kennedy, G. T. Seaborg, E. Segrè, A. C. Wahl, Phys. Rev. 70, 1946, p. 555 - 556 30. Uranium was discovered in 1789 and named after the recently discovered planet Uranus. 31. Radio interview with Otto Hahn (1967), Deutsches Museum archive, AV-T 0457 32. http://www.ctbto.org 33. DMVA (Deutsches Museum administration archives) 1286/1; DMVA 1290/2, DMVA 1291/1 34. „Otto Hahn entdeckte 1938 zusammen mit Fritz Straßmann die Spaltung des Urans durch Neutronen und schuf damit die Grundlage für die technische Verwertung der Atomkern- Energie.“ 35. Hahn to Zenneck, 8.4.1953, Archive of the Max-Planck- Gesellschaft, Abt. III, Rep. 14, Nr. 5287, Bl. 14 36. The author thanks Jost Lemmerich for this special note. Personal message (16.4.2013) 37. This can be found in various publications, e.g. (both published by employees of the museum): T. Brandlmeir, Arbeitstisch zur Uranspaltung. In: Meisterwerke aus dem Deutschen Museum Band 1, Deutsches Museum, München (2004). In this paper, Heinz Haber was even cut off the picture. The caption: Fritz Straßmann and Otto Hahn during the installation of the workbench for uranium fission; J. Teichmann, Das Deutsche Museum. Ein Plädoyer für den Mythos von Objekt und Experiment. In: G. Bayerl, W. Weber (Hrsg.), Sozialgeschichte der Technik, Waxmann, Münster (1998), p. 199 – 208 38. R. L. Sime, Phys. Perspect, 12 (2010), p. 190 - 218 39. R. L. Sime, Angew. Chem. 103, 1991, p. 956 – 967 Author Dr. Susanne Rehn-Taube Deutsches Museum Museumsinsel 1 80538 München, Germany ENERGY POLICY, ECONOMY AND LAW 207 Energy Policy, Economy and Law The Nuclear Fission Table in the Deutsches Museum: A Fundamental Discovery on Display ı Susanne Rehn-Taube
Page 1 and 2: nucmag.com 2019 4 The Role of Resou
Page 3 and 4: atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 4 ı Apr
Page 5 and 6: Kommunikation und Training für Ker
Page 25: atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 4 ı Apr
Page 37 and 38: Wir bieten Ihnen: P Eine abwechslun
Page 55 and 56: All results are from a survey of 2,
Page 59 and 60: Kommunikation und Training für Ker

atw - International Journal for Nuclear Power | 04.2019

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template ?