![]() ![]() The first two groups to make ferrocene both thought it had a linear structure…Ī brief note of Pauson and Kealey’s results then appeared in the 15 December 1951 issue of Nature, leap-frogging Miller, Tebboth and Tremaine’s as yet unpublished JCS article. Pauson immediately wrote to Miller, Tebboth and Tremaine, endorsing their formula, and agreeing that the compound’s molecular structure was probably linear. They had accidentally prepared the same compound by adding ferric chloride to cyclopentadienyl magnesium bromide, while seeking a route to the synthesis of di-hydrofulvalene (C 2H 5 – C 2H 5). This immediately alerted Peter Pauson and Thomas Kealy at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, US. ![]() Their results were scheduled to appear in the Journal of the Chemical Society in February 1952, but the forthcoming paper’s title – ‘Di- cyclopentadienenyl Iron’ – was announced late in 1951. Analysis indicated the formula Fe(C 5H 5) 2, and they proposed a linear molecular structure. When purified, this new substance was a remarkably stable orange solid. However, in 1950 three researchers at the British Oxygen Company’s London laboratory – Samuel Miller, John Tebboth and John Tremaine – also encountered it, while attempting to synthesise amines from alkenes and ammonia using an iron catalyst. The compound in question was first noticed in the 1940s by workers at Union Carbide in the US, when iron piping used in a hydrocarbon cracking process became clogged with a sticky yellow mass. But regardless of its personal dimension, the incident raises interesting issues. Opinions about the validity of his protest vary. The 1965 chemistry laureate Robert Woodward – who also played a part in identifying that compound – was not invited to share the award, and he complained to the Nobel committee that their decision was unfair. For over 20 years, they (and the teams they headed) had investigated many intriguing new substances, but it was the accidental discovery of one remarkable compound which set them both on the road to Stockholm. The 1973 chemistry prize went to Geoffrey Wilkinson and Ernst Fischer for their work on ‘on the chemistry of the organometallic, so called sandwich compounds’. Inevitably, there are sometimes disappointments and disputes. Meanwhile, the expansion of scientific research makes it ever more challenging for the judges to select (at most) three winners per year in each discipline. Since then, the interval between discoveries and awards has lengthened, so that prizes are now often seen as rewards for a lifetime’s work. Nevertheless, 50 years ago, someone overlooked for the 1973 chemistry Nobel prize did just this.Īlfred Nobel originally wanted his prizes to reward the most important advances of the current year, but it soon became clear that a few months’ consideration might be insufficient to evaluate a new discovery. Informed observers can generally point to other investigators whose work seems equally meritorious, but it is unusual for individuals to protest directly to the Nobel committee about their own exclusion from the list. Every autumn, the worldwide scientific community looks expectantly towards the Swedish city of Stockholm – and when the new Nobel prize-winners are finally announced, a debate often follows. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |