Here we consider one type of the dissemination of knowledge originating from science. Beginning with basic scientific research we can look in two directions. One is more fundamental, mathematics. The scientific perspective is one in which the realities of the physical world are used to consider the solutions offered by purely mathematical expressions (equations). If we look in the applied direction, we come to technology and industry. The transition to this stage, assuming the scientific discovery leads to a new technology, is difficult to investigate because it contains a mixture of the elements we have discussed thus far: the dynamics of science and the dynamics of technological innovation and commercial production. A description of this evolution using social network theory has, until now, eluded researchers because, it is reasonable to assume, the difficulties in understanding the wide array of necessary concepts are still too high from both sides. Network and innovation researchers are often not well-versed in scientific details and natural scientists rarely have experience outside of their immediate research field, much less in reflecting on the nature of the activities of their own profession. The starting point in the following is again the natural sciences, although the technological perspective is also valid. Such a mixture does not have to be viewed only as a transition. The discussion is applicable to the static assemblage represented by “useful knowledge” or “useful science” (as opposed to “scattered bits of knowledge”) from the eighteenth century, the technological sciences, and ultimately the technosciences (Klein 2016b,c, 2020; Landecker 2008).

Although the exact nature of the transition has not been identified, we know it is there. We can easily find knowledge from the realm of pure science that has made its way into a technological-industrial setting. Can we use what we have covered thus far to conclude anything about the adaptor between the two?

One benefit of the language of technological innovation to investigate the scientific endeavor is that it allows us to consider the transition between the two. Instead of only a comparison of science and technology, we can analyze the point at which knowledge moves from the hands of scientists at the laboratory level to the hands of industry with the goal of upscaling. It is not a sudden transition, rather the two branches overlap in the stage of 10–100.

Referring to the schematic diagram of the Haze in Fig. 17.2, we can resolve the diffusion of resulting technologies (the expanding cone) into two sections: a transitional and a main industrial stage (Fig. 19.1). The breakthrough stage linking the two cones contains perhaps one to 10 core individuals (scientists), whereas the successful realization and management of full industrial upscaling consists of perhaps 100 to 1000.Footnote 1 We see these two stages clearly when considering ammonia synthesis. The main players involved in the scientific development are found in Fig. 18.2. There are 6 in total (7 with Wilhelm Ostwald), whereas in 1927 and 1928 after industrial production 35,000 people worked at the ammonia synthesis plants at Oppau and Leuna (Abelshauser et al. 2004, p. 224). Between these two phases is the transitional stage, containing perhaps 10 to 100 individuals, in which scientists can have a central role in initial upscaling efforts (Obstfeld 2019).Footnote 2 With ammonia synthesis, this stage began at BASF in 1909 when Haber and Le Rossignol demonstrated their working prototype and ended in 1911 after Bosch had solved the problem of the degradation of steel pipes (Bosch holes) and Mittasch had developed an economical and effective catalyst (Part I, Chap. 7 and Part II, Chap. 12). Here, both research scientists and engineers were involved in moving the synthesis of ammonia (originally only on the laboratory scale) to the industrial scale. Not only were more individuals involved than during the breakthrough and far less than during full industrialization, but one may begin to speak of technological innovation despite the residual scientific influence. The work of both Bosch and Mittasch was guided by the conditions defined through the theory of physical chemistry and the results of Haber, Le Rossignol, van Oordt, Nernst, Jost, and Jellinek. Of these researchers, the first two were directly involved in the transitional stage at BASF, although only briefly.

Fig. 19.1
figure 1

A double-cone structure modified to include the stage of 10–100

Full size image

Figure 19.2 shows the progression of combinations of knowledge surrounding ammonia synthesis up until the point it entered the transitional stage of 10–100. The first investigations on ammonia were empirical in nature with little theory to support the results. An initial framework was offered in the middle decades of the nineteenth century as early structural chemical theories and concepts of catalysis emerged, but the state of knowledge was not sufficient to understand how nitrogen and hydrogen united to form ammonia (Part I, Chaps. 3–6). Nevertheless, some empirical work began to resemble more modern experiments. It was only after about 1880 that the theory of physical chemistry was mature enough to offer real insight into the ammonia synthesis reaction. From our perspective today, we can see that attempts to synthesize ammonia at this time were bound to fail; there was no possibility of successfully bridging the gap between theory and experiment. The adequate combination of knowledge was first presented by Wilhelm Ostwald in 1900 when he wrote the “recipe” for the reaction by including all necessary theoretical and experimental factors. While his attempts also failed (though not because of any glaring conceptual oversight), they set the stage for the efforts of Fritz Haber and Walther Nernst. The interaction between these two scientists brought significant consistency between theory and experiment as they brokered the knowledge transfer that led to a successful laboratory and ultimately economically viable industrial process. The upscaling was carried out between 1909 and 1911 at BASF, where Haber was joined by Carl Bosch, Alwin Mittasch, and their assistants, forming the stage of 10–100. The development represented in Fig. 19.2 is a consequence of successive actors occupying more structurally anomalous roles. Their positions can be described increasingly as peripheral and finally as occupying bridging positions or structural folds. The transition was due to each individual’s collection of experience and knowledge and also to a reshuffling of groups (Vedres and Stark 2010). One example of the changing roles is found in the patent disputes in 1910 where Walther Nernst worked with Haber on the side of BASF, functioning as an expert witness instead of a broker between theory and experiment (Part II, Chap. 12). Another example is illustrated by the early attempts to synthesize fixed nitrogen at BASF at the turn of the century. At that time, ammonia synthesis from the elements was considered a fringe possibility and Carl Bosch and Alwin Mittasch had concentrated on the multi-step cyanamide process and the electric arc where they gained experience in the properties of mixed materials, the thermodynamics of chemical reactions, and the required technical equipment. Fritz Haber was involved in some of these investigations, but other actors were more integral. After 1909, the core of the fixed nitrogen group—now focused on Haber’s method of direct ammonia synthesis—was rearranged to contain not only Haber (Le Rossignol left for a job in Berlin in August of 1909 (Sheppard 2017)) but also Bosch and Mittasch. By that time, the three had already amassed considerable knowledge from different disciplines. This outcome is represented in Fig. 19.2 by the right-hand configuration where the question of theory and experiment on the scientific level was settled and engineering questions (Bosch and an industrial-scale synthesis facility) and empirical investigations (Mittasch and the catalyst) are placed so as to remain within the boundary conditions dictated by physical chemistry.

Fig. 19.2
figure 2

The relationship between experiment and theory on ammonia synthesis. Scientific progress results in improved consistency and leads to the stage of 10–100. New experience and cooperation results in a tendency toward more structural fold-type relationships. Political and engineering (subjective) decisions as well as tertius gaudens brokerage begin to effect the final outcome of decisions

Full size image

What is apparent in the stage of 10–100 is that political and engineering decisions as well as tertius gaudens brokerage no longer only effect the speed of progress as they did in the purely scientific stages. Out of an array of possibilities, of which any single one may appear subjectively “superior” to the others, it is possible to make particular choices as to the materials used or the layout of the facility; all these decisions effect efficiency and ease of operation. The objectively “correct” choice may neither be identifiable nor even need to be found. Many different configurations are adequate. The result is that aesthetics, opinions, or desires now have the potential to influence the decision making process with real and lasting consequences for the final outcome. The stage of 10–100 is where we stop waiting for answers to be revealed and start actively designing what we need.

The upscaling of ammonia synthesis at BASF has the potential to further clarify the stage of 10–100. However, for this research, Fritz Haber’s personal network based on a survey of archival materials, particularly his private correspondence and his communication with BASF, is required.