The Last Stoic

“The noble gases are a group of chemical elements with very similar properties: under standard conditions, they are all odorless, colorless, monatomic gases, with a very low chemical reactivity. The six noble gases that occur naturally are helium (He), neon (Ne), argon (Ar), krypton (Kr), xenon (Xe), and the radioactive radon (Rn).

Neon, argon, krypton, and xenon are obtained from air using the methods of liquefaction of gases and fractional distillation. Helium is typically separated from natural gas, and radon is usually isolated from the radioactive decay of dissolved radium compounds. Noble gases have several important applications in industries such as lighting, welding, and space exploration.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_gas

So far, I’ve managed to ignore the noble gases, and that’s largely because they have such low reactivity, they are able to remain hidden from view. The two lightest noble gases, neon and helium, have still been found to not form any chemical compounds. Also, the noble gases are found in such tiny amounts in the atmosphere that it makes them easily missable. For example, although neon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe, only 0.0018% in volume of the Earth’s atmosphere is neon.

So in the atmosphere it appears that there are hardly any noble gases, and those that are there, are barely doing anything. It’s like they wander aimlessly around the atmosphere like men in a department store shopping for trousers. But maybe the noble gases offer a vital clue to what’s not only taking place in the atmosphere, but also the periodic table.

“The British physicist John William Strutt (better known as Lord Rayleigh) showed in 1892 that the atomic weight of nitrogen found in chemical compounds was lower than that of nitrogen found in the atmosphere.

Working with the British chemist Frederick Soddy in 1903, Ramsay demonstrated that helium (together with a gaseous emanation called radon) is continually produced during the radioactive decay of radium, a discovery of crucial importance to the modern understanding of nuclear reactions. In 1910, using tiny samples of radon, Ramsay proved that it was a sixth noble gas, and he provided further evidence that it was formed by the emission of a helium nucleus from radium. “
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/490808/Sir-William-Ramsay/259991/Discovery-of-noble-gases

First up, I want to find out argon’s atomic weight, which is not quite as simple as one might think. Mostly, argon’s atomic weight is given as 40. This figure though is molecular weight, and not the actual atomic weight, which is nearer 20. Argon is only 20 times heavier than hydrogen. The scale of atomic weight from hydrogen (1) to oxygen (16) is much more the one I prefer to stick with because it reveals so much more about an element’s density.

I stumbled across this book “A Recalculation of the Atomic Weights”by Frank Wigglesworth Clarke, Chief Chemist of the U. S. Geological Survey, and published in 1897. I think he offers a good idea of why it is that we can get a mix-up over an element’s density. You can find the book in full thanks to the Internet Archive:
http://www.archive.org/stream/recalculationofa00clarrich/recalculationofa00clarrich_djvu.txt

“From one set of physical data both gases appear to be monatomic, but from other considerations they are supposably diatomic. Upon this question controversy has been most active, and no final settlement has yet been reached. If diatomic, argon and helium have approximately the atomic weights two and twenty respectively; if monatomic, these values must be doubled. In either case helium is an element lying between hydrogen and lithium, but argon is most difficult to classify. With the atomic weight 20, argon falls in the eighth column of the periodic system between fluorine and sodium, but if it is 40 the position of the gas is anomalous. A slightly lower value would place it between chlorine and potassium, and again in the eighth column of Mendelejeff’s table; but for the number 40 no opening can be found.

If the element is diatomic, its classification is easy enough on the basis of existing data. Its resemblances to nitrogen, as regards density, boiling point, difficulty of liquefaction, etc., lead me personally to favor the lower figure for its atomic weight, and the same considerations may apply to helium also. Until further evidence is furnished, therefore, I shall assume the values two and twenty as approximately true for the atomic weights of helium and argon.”

Once again, here we have another chemist whom has drawn some sort of comparison between nitrogen and argon. Some of the older chemists used to think argon was a condensed form of nitrogen. At the time of its discovery, it was suggested that argon could be a triatomic form of nitrogen.

In previous posts, it’s been suggested that nitrogen is a compound of oxygen and carbon. We know the formula for nitrogen as H2C2 (C=6) with an atomic weight of 14. If argon has an atomic weight of 20, and it is a more condensed form of nitrogen, then the formula for argon might be nitrogen with an extra dollop of carbon (H2C3?).

I had at first played around with with the formula of nitrogen to encourage the formula for argon to emerge. The thing is, the formulations thus far, work only with hydrogen and carbon. I’m very conscious of the presence of helium in the noble gases. I think helium might be setting the prescedent for any patterns, or relationships, that are to emerge from the noble gases. I think helium might play a defining role in the density of the other noble gases, and quite possibly, other substances.

I’m happy that I can now confirm to myself that helium is only twice as dense as hydrogen. I’ve so often seen the atomic weight of helium given as 4, but this number fails to describe the relationship between helium and hydrogen. Helium is twice as heavy hydrogen. The number 4 arises because it refers to molecular weight. For the atomic weight of helium, I’ll stick to 2, it’s actual density compared to hydrogen. The name helium comes from the Greek word for Sun – “helios” – because this was where it was first discovered.

“Before Helium was discovered on Earth, Helium was discovered on the Sun, in 1868 by the astronomer Joseph Lockyer. The Sun is made mostly of hydrogen with some helium as well. There are several other chemicals that are present, but only make up 0.1% of the Sun. At the Sun’s core, the process of nuclear fusion occurs, which produces incredible amounts of energy. Nuclear fusion is the process of hydrogen combining to form helium under extreme pressure and heat. This process powers the Sun and provides all of the heat and light that we receive on Earth. “
http://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/solar_system/helium_sun.html

Next up is neon, which is derived from the Greek for “new”. The atomic weight for neon is supposedly 20.1797, but once again, this is molecular weight. Neon is known to be half the density of argon (20) so that puts it’s atomic weight at something more like 10. Could neon consist of a compound derived from five helium atoms (5He)?

Krypton – Greek for “hidden” – is known to be twice as dense as argon, so rather than the atomic weight of 83.80 that is attributed to it by the periodic table, I think the density of krypton is going to be something more like 40. This figure was also produced by Sir William Ramsay, the discoverer of the noble gases, in his Nobel Lecture of 1904:

“Although the density of the new gas, which we named “krypton” or “hidden” was found to be only 22.5, we conjectured that, when purified, it would turn out to be forty times as heavy as hydrogen, implying the atomic weight 80.”

The standard atomic weight of xenon is 131.30 g/mol. This figure arises due to the number of isotopes that xenon has. Xenon has 9 stable isotopes and over 40 unstable ones, and the standard atomic weight represents the average value of these isotopes. Xe124 is the first stable isotope of xenon, but I don’t think this figure represents xenon either. If the noble gases were following a pattern, then one would expect the atomic weight of xenon to be 60.

The next noble gas is radon. Referring once again to Sir William Ramsay, recieving the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1904, clearly states that the density of radon has been found to be approximately 80 times that of hydrogen, before they gave it the molecular weight of 160:

“In conjunction with Dr. Collie, my colleague, the spectrum of the radium emanation has been mapped. It resembles generally speaking those of the inert gases; and although its density has not been accurately determined, it appears to be approximately 80, which would imply a molecular weight of 160; and if it is a monatomic gas, its atomic weight would also be 160. It might then be an unstable member of the argon family; there is a vacant place for an element with atomic weight about 162.”
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1904/ramsay-lecture.html

Today, radon has been given the standard atomic weight of 222 g/mol. What happened there I wonder? I can see how we got from 80, to 160 – but where on earth did the number 222 come from? You’ll notice that Ramsay speaks of a spectrum analysis of radon, rather than chemical analysis.

In trying to find the answer to the difference in the accounts for the atomic weight of radon, I’ve managed to come across a really interesting article – “The Romance of Science – Radium and Radioactivity” by A.T. Cameron. I’ve included some of the text below, but I’d actually recommend reading the entire article if you get an opportunity.

THE ROMANCE OF SCIENCE
RADIUM AND
RADIOACTIVITY
BY
A. T. CAMERON, M.A., B.Sc.
LECTURER IN PHYSIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY, UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA
FORMERLY 185! EXHIBITION SCHOLAR AND CARNEGIE RESEARCH
FELLOW OF THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
http://www.archive.org/stream/radiumradioactiv00cameuoft/radiumradioactiv00cameuoft_djvu.txt

A definite quantity of niton has apparently a total existence, when separated from radium, of about one month. “

Friedrich Ernst Dorn ( 1848- 1916) was a German physicist who discovered these emanations from radium in 1900. Dorn initially called the gas niton from the Latin word “nitens” meaning “shining” due to the phosphorescence of cooled radon. Today, niton is much better known as the element radon.

“Sir William Ramsay and Dr Gray succeeded in directly weighing the gas. Five experiments were made with amounts of niton of the order of one-tenth of a cubic millimetre, a volume roughly equal to that enclosed in the eye of a small needle. In each case the gas was compressed into a minute capillary tube, and this was sealed up and weighed. The tube was broken, the gas allowed to escape, and the broken pieces of tube again weighed. The difference was the weight of the gas. The weighings could not be carried out in an ordinary chemical balance, since the best of these are only sensitive to one fifty-thousandth of a gram, i. e. to one-fiftieth of a milligram; various micro-balances which have been devised have a sensitiveness of about one-thousandth of a milligram.

The actual weights of gas measured were from 572 to 729 millionths of a milligram. These measurements were carried out with a type of balance devised by Professor Steele, in which, instead of counter-balancing the unknown weight by known weights, as usual, the change of buoyancy of a bulb (to which known or unknown weights could be attached) was measured when the pressure in the air surrounding the bulb was changed. (The balance actually used was sensitive to about five-millionths of a milligram, i. e. it would discriminate between two, weights differing by this amount, about one hundred-thousand-millionth of a pound.) Numerous corrections were applied to the results, for the loss of niton through decay during the time of experiment, for the weight of the substances produced by this decay, for temperature, pressure, and so on. The figures found for the atomic weight in the respective experiments were 227, 226, 225, 220, 218. The mean figure was 223, and the extremes differed from this by only two percent. A truly remarkable result, when we consider the extraordinary experimental difficulties, and the minuteness of the amounts weighed.”

You may notice that Cameron does not say that radon is 223 times heavier than hydrogen, but says only that the atomic weight is 223. I’m still interested to know how they come up with the figure 222. If 222 is the molecular weight of radon because it is monoatomic, then the atomic weight should be about half that: 111. There’s still a remarkable difference between the figure of 80, as given by Ramsay in his Nobel lecture, taken from spectral analysis, and the figure of 111, taken from chemical analysis. Unfortunately, the article does not elaborate as to why we have this contradiction from Ramsay, but I shall remain with the article because the rest is still very interesting nonetheless.

“The first attempts to see if niton possessed a definite spectrum were made by Ramsay and Soddy in 1902. They were unsuccessful. The spectrum was masked by the presence of other gases, chiefly carbon dioxide. After two or three days, however, the spectrum of helium was visible. It grew in intensity. Repetition of the experiment by the same and by other observers gave the same result. As the emanation decays its place is taken by helium…. this was the first definite evidence put forward for the transformation of one element into another.

The atomic weight of helium is 3-99. We have seen that the atomic weights of radium and niton differ by 3*5. It is then at least possible that an atom of radium breaks up, forming an atom of niton and one of helium.”

Radium preparations are remarkable for maintaining themselves at a higher temperature than their surroundings, and for their radiations, which are of three kinds: alpha particles, beta particles, and gamma rays. The theory is that as alpha particles are expelled from radium, then radon is released too. It is if though radon is an atom of radium, but minus the alpha ray particle which has been shot out. If this is the case, then it stands to reason that the atomic weight of radon should be revealed after deducting the weight of an alpha particle from a radium atom.

I did hope that finding the weight of radium would be straight-forward – but it’s not. M.Curie had at first found the atomic weight of radium to be 140, but as purer and purer samples were found, this number increased to 146, then 174, then greater than 220, until in 1902, she settled on a mean average of 225. M.Curie’s amount was reached by chemical analysis, but a method instigated by Runge and Precht, using spectral analysis, studying the spectrum of radium in a magnetic field, determined the weight as 257.8

Radium is over one million times more radioactive than the same mass of uranium. One argument for choosing the result from the spectral analysis over that of the chemical analysis, is that one might expect to find the most radioactive substance to consist of the heaviest atoms. Radium at 257.8, would then be followed by uranium with a mass of 238.5, and next would be thorium with a mass of 232.5. Today, at 226, radium is treated as the lightest of the three.

“Niton can produce numerous chemical actions very similar in their nature to those produced by radium. Many of these actions have been closely studied. When niton and oxygen are left in contact with mercury a red crust of mercuric oxide is formed on the surface of the mercury; the oxygen has been converted into ozone, and the ozone has attacked the mercury. Niton in contact with water dissolves it, producing hydrogen and oxygen and a trace of hydrogen peroxide. We have seen that the same reactions are caused by radium. When niton is mixed with the gas carbon dioxide, a black deposit of carbon forms on the walls of the containing vessel, while oxygen and carbon monoxide are also produced. Carbon monoxide is similarly decomposed.”

I was a little surprised when I saw that radon decomposed carbon dioxide into oxygen, carbon monoxide AND solid carbon. Carbon dioxide is supposedly made up with carbon monoxide and oxygen. Where’s this extra carbon come from? One might suppose that it comes from the decomposition of carbon monoxide.

“We have seen that radium constantly produces the gas niton, and as matter is not only indestructible, but cannot be produced from nothing… we can only conclude that the niton is produced by the destruction of the radium itself.

We have already discussed an experiment which demonstrated that freshly purified radium emitted a-rays alone, and it has been found, in a similar manner, that freshly purified niton also emits only a-particles. The beta- and gamma -particles which are emitted by old radium, come, as a matter of fact, only from radium B and C.”

Historically, the radioactive decay products of radium were labeled Radium A, B, C, and so forth. These products have been studied and are now known to be isotopes of other elements, as follows:

Radium emanation: radon-222
Radium A: polonium-218
Radium B: lead-214
Radium C: bismuth-214
Radium C1: polonium-214
Radium C2: thallium-210
Radium D: lead-210
Radium E: bismuth-210
Radium F: polonium-210

Radium A (polonium-218) is the active matter deposited by radon. The atoms of radon disintergrate, expelling alpha particles and leave behind a solid residue – radium A. Radium A is found to to concentrate on a negatively electrified body, and therefore, has a positive charge. Radium A decay takes place with the emission of alpha particles.

Radium A gives out alpha particles only and quickly undergoes a transformation into radium B. Radium B and radium C emit both beta-rays and gamma-rays. When electrons rush toward a positively charged atom in order to reach equilibrium, it is said that an electric current is produced. The beta-rays shot out from the radium carry away negative electricity, and therefore the radium itself left behind becomes positively charged.

Radium apparently yields four substances that send off alpha particles – radium itself, radon, radium A, radium C1, and radium F. Radium F is much more active than pure radium. It has been shown by Rutherford to be about 3,200 times as radioactive as radium. It is radium F which is referred to as polonium on the periodic table.

Polonium was named after Mme.Curie’s homeland of Poland. Polonium is a very rare element – it’s abundance is only 0.2% that of radium. A few curies of polonium exhibit a blue glow, caused by excitation of the surrounding gas.

“The penetrating power of the a-rays is different for almost every element producing them, and affords, in consequence, a means of testing for a particular element, and of ascertaining whether more than one a-emitting element is present.

If the a- particle also carries a single electric charge, it follows that its mass will be about 3500 times greater than that of the electron. The mass of the electron has been calculated to be about one seventeen-hundredth or one eighteen-hundredth of that of an atom of hydrogen . The a-particle would, therefore, have a mass about twice that of the hydrogen atom, and would have dimensions comparable with the atoms of the chemical elements. No element is known with an atomic weight of 2, that is to say twice that of a hydrogen atom.”

The author is adamant that no element is known with the atomic weight of 2, when in fact, there is – helium. As I understand it, there’s no need to even go near the argument about the weight of hydrogen being 2 because it is a diatomic molecule. Physically, helium is found to be twice as dense as hydrogen.

The value of e/m for the hydrogen atom is 9,650, while for the alpha particle it’s 5,070. If the alpha particle has the same charge as the hydrogen ion, its mass would have to be twice that of the hydrogen ion. But, it’s also possible that the alpha particle is made up by two hydrogen ions. Rutherford himself had deliberated over this idea, but to him it “seemed very improbable that hydrogen should be ejected in a molecular and not an atomic state as a result of the atomic explosion”. But what would it mean if it was not improbable?

In previous posts, I’ve played with the idea that positive and negative charged structures come together to make up one atomic whole, and that this “atom” is consequently neutral. After observing weather systems, I think that it’s possible that these positive and negative structures could work together in tandem, much like how low pressure (cyclonic) and high pressure (anticyclonic) systems do. The cyclone and anticyclone come together to form dipolar vortices.

I’ve also suggested that negatively charged electrons could have the same mass of a hydrogen ion, which would mean that rather than being 1800 times smaller than a hydrogen ion – the electron would now have the same mass, but would carry a charge some 1800 times greater.

Franklin reasoned a positive electrified body had a surplus of electrical fluid attached to it, while a negatively electrified one, has a deficit. If the electron did carry such an enormous electrical whallop, then it stands to reason, that at least in terms of Franklin’s definition, that the electron is actually the positive charge, and not the negative one.

Of course, this would make the hydrogen ion a negative charge. The hydrogen ion has a deficit in the electrical fluid. This would suggest that hydrogen is a low pressure system. Low pressure systems develop when less fluid flows into an area than out of it. I think that hydrogen could be represented by a cyclonic structure.

Imagine then that the alpha particle was made up by two hydrogen ions. This would mean that the alpha particle was made up by two cyclone structures. If you think this might be a bit of a stretch, you might be surprised to find that a bi-cyclonic structure does exist in nature, and is called the Fujiwhara effect.

The effect is named after Sakuhei Fujiwhara, the Japanese meteorologist who initially described it in a 1921 paper about the motion of vertices in water. The Fujiwhara effect or Fujiwhara interaction is a type of interaction between two nearby cyclonic vortices, causing them to appear to “orbit” each other. When the cyclones approach each other, their centers will begin orbiting cyclonically about a point between the two systems.

Rutherford designed experiments to try to prove exactly what it was that alpha particles were made of. The last and most convincing of these experiments was made in 1909, with T.D Royds, by constructing what James Jeans later called “a sort of mousetrap for alpha particles”. Over a week, alpha particles emitted by radon were collected in a glass tube, compressed, and then an electric current passed through it. A spectral analysis of the electric discharge revealed the gas to be helium.

Alpha particles pick up two electrons and are neutralized into helium atoms. I think that the two cyclones, which we describe as alpha particles, split up and form partnerships with the anticyclonic electrons. A hydrogen ion (H), and an electron (e) are describing two halves of an atom. Helium (He) would be the first atom – the very building block of the Universe. Helium is made up with one hydrogen ion and one electron which are united as dipolar vortices, and which work together to generate a vortex ring. Basically, a vortex ring, or toroidal vortex, looks something like a ring donut.

I think electrons are misplaced as being called “negative”, because I’m not sure they have a deficit in energy, and perhaps they are really overflowing with energy. In terms of weather systems, high pressure system (anticyclone), is a system of closed isobars surrounding a region of relatively high pressure. When compared with low pressure systems, highs tend to cover a greater area, move more slowly and have a longer life. In the past I’ve found the following site useful in not only describing weather systems, but with the aid of some of its animations, I think it is also useful at describing dipolar vortices:
http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/Students_Teachers/pressure.shtml

Bearing in mind, everything that we’ve said so far, let us continue with Cameron’s article, and see what else comes up:

“We have seen that radium, by its disintegration, produces niton, and that their measured atomic weights are so nearly the same that it almost necessarily follows that one atom of niton is produced from one atom of radium. We have seen that radium emits a-particles, and that helium is also produced by its decay, and, further, that the a-particle is merely an atom of helium electrically charged and travelling with an enormous velocity. As far as we know, there are no other products from the decay of radium. If we write the change in the form of an equation, we obtain:

….and the numerical data lead us to conclude, finally, that from one atom of radium only one atom of niton and one atom of helium, i.e. one a-particle, are liberated. Since we know the atomic weights of radium and of helium more accurately than that of niton, we are now justified in deducing that by subtraction it is, therefore, 222.5″

If alpha particles are really two hydrogen ions, and one hydrogen ion is one half of a helium “donut”, then I think when we see alpha particles being emitted, this means we are seeing the decomposition of a helium compound. It suggests that what we are seeing is two helium “donuts” being smashed into one another.

The hydrogen ions are deficit in electrical energy, and they leave behind electrons which have a very high electrical charge. The radon gas that the alpha particles leave behind does not appear to possess an electric charge.

Radium A is known to have a positive charge. I think that the positively charged alpha particles are ejected from radium A, because they adhere to the universal law that like repels like. I don’t think “positive” charges are positive at all – I think they lack the fluid of the aether and act out cyclonic behaviours. Radium, radon and the polonium isotopes all eject alpha particles – is it possible that this is because they are all deficit in electric fluid? Polonium is considered to be much more radioactive than radium and radon, and I wonder if this is because polonium displays a much greater deficit in electric fluid.

Radon is an inert gas. Because of its radioactivity, radon is thought of as being an unstable element, but electronically, radon appears to be pretty stable. If radon was repelling alpha particles because they shared a similar charge, then it would mean that radon also has a deficit in electric fluid. If radon is cracking open helium – like an Aussie tearing into shrimp at a “bar-bee” – what happens to all those electrons which make up the meaty stuff?

If radon is saturated with electrons, then these must form an extremely stable structure, because radon does not appear to possess an electric charge. Radon’s inertness is describing it’s neutrality. The energy from the electrons must go somewhere… unless of course, they don’t go anywhere, and simply go up in smoke.

What if the electrons are disbanded, and the energy from the electrons is returned back to the fluid of the aether? One might be tempted to summise that radon has consumed the energy from the electrons. The alpha particles are the bones it spits out after digesting itself. OR one might say, that the bones are revealed after the radon has been digested by the fluid of the aether.

From the day we are born we are taught that matter cannot be dematerialized into nothing, but I think that it’s possible that this is what we are seeing. Mind, it’s not exactly “nothing”. I think of it more as the approaching tide of the sea as it takes over a sand castle which once stood proud on the shore. The sand castle has not been reduced to “nothing” – these tiny, minuscle particles have been washed away to become part of something which is immensely bigger.

When radon and alpha particles are shut up together, helium is produced. Now remember, helium is atomically neutral. For an alpha particle to be neutralized, the ions which make up the alpha particle, must have formed pairings with electrons. Where then do these electrons come from?

Do these electrons somehow emerge from the radon? Or do these electrons appear as beta particles from one of the further decay products of radon, such as radium D (lead-210), a beta emitter. The following site offers an excellent narration of the original experiment by Rutherford and Royds, as it appears in the article “The Nature of the α Particle from Radioactive Substances” and from which I have taken the following extracts:
http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/EA/ROYDSann.

“We have recently made experiments to test whether helium appears in a vessel into which the α particles have been fired, the active matter itself being enclosed in a vessel sufficiently thin to allow the α particles to escape, but impervious to the passage of helium or other radioactive products.

The idea here is to make a barrier that will let through only α particles, and to examine those accumulated α particles once they have slowed down. And we will see that Rutherford & Royds make sure that α particles can get through and that ordinary helium cannot.”

The thing is, at least as I understand it, beta particles are more penetrating than alpha particles. Excluding radon which has a half-life of four days, the other decay products that come after radon-222, and before radium D, have a total half-life of less than an hour. Basically, half of the radon will expire in four days, but some of the other decay products, such as bismuth-214, will be halved in the space of 20 minutes.

In theory, a radon atom could follow the decay chain immediately into radium D (lead-210) and instantly start emitting beta particles. Lead-210 mind, has a half life of 22.3 years, and thus appears as being pretty slow and consistent when compared to the previous decay products. Perhaps this starts to explain why the build up of helium is at first slow, but then increases steadfastly after a day or two.

“After 24 hours no trace of the helium yellow line was seen; after 2 days the helium yellow was faintly visible; after 4 days the helium yellow and green lines were bright; and after 6 days all the stronger lines of the helium spectrum were observed.”

I can’t be sure that it is the beta particles which are supplying the electrons, but it seems conspicious that beta particles are not mentioned in the experiment. The experimenters refer to the alpha emissions “from the emanation and its products radium A and radium C”. It appears therefore, that the emissions from the active matter, and ALL the decay products, are essential to the experiment, including those of radium D.

I wanted to return back to Cameron’s article to hopefully draw some kind of conclusion:

“One final effect of radium rays and all other radiations may be mentioned ; it is also produced by X-rays and cathode rays. Water in the state of gas is perfectly invisible. Steam, so called, consists of very minute particles of liquid water.

Introduction of dust particles will at once cause condensation of water in the form of a cloud of moisture, and the same effect is produced by all radium rays and by the X-rays. Here ion particles take the place of dust particles.”

Now I can’t but help look up at the clouds in the sky. It seems that clouds are compounds made made up with water and ions. If hydrogen were added to the formula for water, we’d get:

H + H2C3(11) = H3C3(12)

I strongly suspect that H3C3, with an atomic weight of 12, has something to do with carbon. Clouds, especially in England, tend to come in many shades of grey. We tend to think of carbon as being black, as in graphite, but since 1969, it has been possible to manufacture white carbon.
http://everything2.com/title/white+carbon

As a substance, dust is not simply, well… dust. I did bump into a site that exclaimed that “the dust that’s in the air and settling all over your house (and computer monitor) is radioactive? It’s true, it contains radioactive decay products from naturally occuring Uranium and Thorium.” If dust is radioactive, chances are it carries an electric charge.
http://www.blackcatsystems.com/GM/experiments/ex1.html

“Besides the elements described above, only two have been found which possess in the slightest degree the property of radioactivity. These are the common metal potassium and the element rubidium^ which is closely allied to it ; their radioactivity presents a hitherto insoluble enigma. The activity of these elements was discovered in 1906 by Campbell and Wood, and has been confirmed by numerous observers. The property is not shared by the closely allied elements sodium and caesium.

No lithium was detected. No satisfactory explanation can at present be advanced for the difference in these experiments.”

Ramsay suggested that niton in the presence of water disintegrated into neon, instead of helium. As far as I’m aware, this experiment has never been confirmed by any other, but I consider it very unlike Ramsay to have simply dreamt-up a result. He also found niton in the presence of copper, produced argon gas, and in the copper solution – lithium. The density of the substance present appears to have insinuated the density of the gas thereby derived. Cameron and Ramsay both concluded that lithium was produced by the transformation of copper.

I end this post with a few words by Cameron on experiments by Ramsay, which procured carbon dioxide from substances using radon. These experiments convinced Ramsay that some substances are carbon compounds:

“More recently Ramsay has carried out an interesting series of experiments on salts of thorium and the other elements of its group, zirconium, titanium, and silicon. The element of the group -which has the lowest atomic weight is carbon (12). Thorium has the highest weight of the group (232*4). Ramsay considered it possible that the elements of this series under the action of radioactive bombardment might disintegrate, with the production of the lowest member of them, and in the presence of oxygen (from the nitrate) this would probably appear as carbon dioxide.

Ramsay accordingly suggested that under such conditions as these, atoms of thorium, zirconium, etc., can actually be broken up and that among the products are atoms of the element carbon.”

Many thanks:

http://www.archive.org/stream/chemistryandatom003610mbp/chemistryandatom003610mbp_djvu.txt http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1904/ramsay-lecture.html
http://tomclegg.net/stars
http://www.carondelet.pvt.k12.ca.us/Moles/HeliumStoryA.htm
http://dwb.unl.edu/teacher/nsf/c04/c04links/www.fwkc.com/encyclopedia/low/articles/i/i012001292f.html http://www.archive.org/stream/sirwilliamramsay00chauuoft/sirwilliamramsay00chauuoft_djvu.txt Popular Science Aug 1895
Radioactive Substances and Their Radiations By E. Rutherford
http://promo.aaas.org/kn_marketing/pdfs/Science_1917_1102.pdf
http://www.gutenberg-e.org/rentetzi/chapter01.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B03E5DC1F30E233A2575BC1A96E9C946697D6CF
http://www.jstor.org/pss/93269
http://radium.totallyexplained.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium
http://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/9128/article_ri222148.pdf?sequence=4
http://www.vias.org/physics/bk4_03_01.html
http://www.ecn.ac.uk/Education/depressions.htm http://www.factopia.com/r/radium_aiton.html
http://www.3rd1000.com/elements/Radium.htm
http://www.archive.org/stream/alchemyancientmo00redgrich/alchemyancientmo00redgrich_djvu.txt http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Polonium
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19598092/Harnessing-Cosmic-Energy1
The Electrical Nature of Matter and Radioactivity By Harry Clary Jones
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Radium
http://www.np.ph.bham.ac.uk/research/anthropic.htm
http://www.blackcatsystems.com/GM/experiments/ex1.html
The Electrical Researches By J. Clerk Maxwell

Title: Creative Chemistry
Descriptive of Recent Achievements in the Chemical Industries

It is not so bad as Argon the Lazy and the other celibate gases of that family, where each individual atom goes off by itself and absolutely refuses to unite even temporarily with any other atom. The nitrogen atoms will pair off with each other and stick together, but they are reluctant to associate with other elements and when they do the combination is likely to break up any moment. You all know people like that, good enough when by themselves but sure to break up any club, church or society they get into.

Polonium Halos in Deep Earth Granite

Here in lies the problem for the traditional Big Bang theory – it proposes a hot earth and cooled down VERY SLOWLY – it took BILLIONS of years to cool, not just 30 minutes !!!
http://www.ichthus.info/Creation-Evidence/Polonium-Halos/intro.html

When exposed to radiation, water undergoes a breakdown sequence into hydrogen peroxide, hydrogen radicals and assorted oxygen compounds such as ozone which when converted back into oxygen releases great amounts of energy.

Rain combines with ozone in the upper atmosphere. When water and ozone mix, the ozone loses one oxygen molecule to the water and hydrogen peroxide is formed. Hydrogen peroxide is very unstable and breaks down readily into water and a single oxygen molecule.

I think that the common air is a water vapour. I’m interested at what happens between ozone and water, because I think it describes what happens at the interface between ozone and air in the atmosphere.

In water, the weight ratio of oxygen to hydrogen is 1:8. This ratio though actually represents a half volume of decomposed water with an atomic weight of 9. I think water, composed water, actually has an atomic weight of 11. I think that it’s possible that oxygen is a hydrocarbon, and that it has the weight ratio of two parts hydrogen to six parts carbon. This makes the formula for one volume of oxygen H4C2 (C=6).

The weight ratio of 1:8 in water describes a half volume of oxygen. I think this therefore reveals the true atomic density of oxygen to be 8. A half volume of oxygen is 8, while a full volume is 16. Therefore, the formula for a half volume of composed water (11) is H2C3 (C=3). In doing so, I am now painfully aware, I have given carbon the value of 3. This value is one quarter the density of one volume of carbon, which is 12. It suggests that a carbon structure begins construction at the atomic weight of 3.

It’s just a thought, but I wonder if carbon is basically changing its structure throughout the periodic table? Carbon has integral multiples of 12, so if we start with the atomic weight of 2, carbon might form a structure, such as a triangle, at 3 it might be a square, at 4 a circle, and 6 a pyramid (these shapes do not actually represent anything, I’m simply plucking them from the air). From hereon, the structure takes on multiples of 12, and so 24 could be a 24 sided polygon (which happens to be a icosikaitera, for those who might be curious).

The reason I mention all this is because at the atomic weight of 60, we find that carbon has actually been shown to have taken on the structure of a soccerball, otherwise known as a Buckminsterfullerene, or “Buckyball”. Who better to explain Buckyballs, than my old friend Wikipedia?

“The existence of C60 was predicted by Eiji Osawa of Toyohashi University of Technology in a Japanese magazine in 1970. He noticed that the structure of a corannulene molecule was a subset of a soccer-ball shape, and he made the hypothesis that a full ball shape could also exist. His idea was reported in Japanese magazines, but did not reach Europe or America.

Minute quantities of the fullerenes, in the form of C60, C70, C76, and C84 molecules, are produced in nature, hidden in soot and formed by lightning discharges in the atmosphere. Recently, fullerenes were found in a family of minerals known as Shungites in Karelia, Russia.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fullerene

The atomic weight of ozone is 24. I suspect that ozone is pure phlogiston. If the value of carbon is 3, then I think the formula for ozone could be written as C8. On some advice, I’m experimenting with the idea that ozone could be biatomic, and not triatomic. A biatomic structure could be illustrated more by the formula: 2(C4)

In hydrogen peroxide the weight ratio of hydrogen to oxygen is 1:16. That is one volume of oxygen plus one volume of hydrogen. On exposure to air, hydrogen peroxide’s extra oxygen molecule is released and the product becomes plain water.

OK, one half volume of water has the atomic weight of 11. To make a volume of hydrogen peroxide we add more oxygen (8) to the water, which gives us a total atomic weight of 19. The formula for hydrogen peroxide, maintaining the value of carbon as 3, is therefore: HC6

I think the common air is water vapour, with an atomic weight of 22. The formula for which is thus HC7. I now want to add hydrogen peroxide (HC6) to the air:

HC7 + HC6 = H2C13

In the reaction between hydrogen peroxide and water, oxygen is released. The formula for oxygen is H2C2

H2C13 – H2C2 = C11

Thus, C11 gives carbon the atomic weight of 33. 33, has been considered by some as the true atomic weight of graphite. 33 is also easily divisible into one and a half volumes of water, 22 and 11 respectively.

Referring back to the top of the page, “when water and ozone mix, the ozone loses one oxygen molecule to the water and hydrogen peroxide is formed”. I hope to now generate this reaction in formula. Ozone is written as C8, and water is HC7 :

C8 + HC7 = HC15

Hydrogen peroxide has the formula HC6, therefore:

HC15 – HC6 = C9

C9 would give this carbon structure the atomic weight of 27, which also happens to be shared by aluminium. What am I saying? To be honest I’m pretty unsure myself. If I could picture myself right now, I’d be on a boat out in the middle of the ocean with no sail, paddle, or Kendal mint cake. I could be as bold as to interpret this as suggesting that aluminium, or at least something isomeric to aluminium, is a pure carbon structure that is generated in the reaction between ozone and water.

Aluminium has a unique property in that it forms an oxide layer instantly as soon as it is in contact with air. This layer prevents water from reaching the bare metal. Aluminium is actually a very reactive and flammable metal, but it is normally protected by an inert coating of aluminium oxide. Dissolving the oxide, though, exposes a fresh aluminium surface, which reacts vigorously with air and water.

For a bit of fun, I’m going to try and formulate the reaction between the air (HC7) and aluminium (C9):

HC7 + C9 = HC16

HC16 translates into the atomic weight of 49. Is it possible that the true atomic weight of aluminium oxide is 49? The molecular weight of aluminium oxide is listed as 101.96 g/mol. This molecular weight is actually double the figure for the atomic weight of aluminium oxide, which is something like 51 (this figure is calculated by one volume of aluminium (27) being added to one and a half volumes of oxygen (24)

So we have a discrepancy between what I think the atomic weight of aluminium oxide should be according to this new theory (49), and the atomic weight as given by the more traditional formula (51). I’ve scoured any number of pages on the web, but I’ve not yet managed to find evidence of an ACTUAL experiment where the atomic weight of aluminium oxide was measured. I’d be interested to find out what that figure was, and especially if it was nearer 49 than 51.

Many thanks:

http://www.explainthatstuff.com/aluminum.html
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem00/chem00831.htm
http://mathcentral.ur/egina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.05/matt1.html
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071029130228AAdb6xC

The aurora borealis seen high in the Earth’s ionosphere (credit: NASA)
www.sunearthplan.net/5/ionosphere-atmosphere

The Earth’s atmosphere is layered. From the surface traveling upward the first layer one would encounter is the troposphere. This layer rests on the surface of the planet. Above the troposphere is the calm, stable stratosphere. About 90% of the ozone in our atmosphere is contained in the stratosphere. Ozone concentrations are greatest between about 20 and 40 km. This higher concentration of ozone, called the ozone layer, is said to “absorb” most of the harmful ultraviolet light from the Sun. If all of the ozone were compressed to the pressure of the air at sea level, it would be only a few millimeters thick.

We are taught that the ozone layer exists because it is routinely created from oxygen by solar ultraviolet light. But I don’t believe that singular oxygen is floating about our atmosphere. I think that the common air is water vapour. So, I’m going to suggest that the ozone layer might have something to do with the release of oxygen from the breakdown of water vapour by solar energy. I’m reminded that pure hydrogen-oxygen flames burn in the UV colour range and the only combustion product is water.

I think the ozone layer is describing an interface where common air directly confronts energy from the Sun. Obviously, the energy which arrives from the Sun contains a lot of whallop. We are taught that the Sun sends energy to Earth in every frequency of the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) spectrum. I don’t think this is true. For one, the space between the Sun and the Earth should be full of light and colour – but it’s not – it’s black.

I’m apprehensive about describing what form the energy from the Sun takes, I’m not even sure the energy has a frequency, but I think that when it strikes the Earth’s atmosphere it is transformed into something far less punchy. It’s as if the atmosphere works like a step-down transformer in-which high energy from the Sun is transformed into lower energy.

I notice that when a UV picture is taken of the Sun, the Sun looks like a burning blue ball – but I don’t see UV light streaming across space. The Universe is not lit up in UV light. The Universe is bathed in more-or-less uniform infrared (IR) radiation, termed the infrared background. I wanted to thank Stanford U Solar Center for their UV image of the Sun, which I’ve included below:
http://www.altair.org/atmoelec.html

It is said that the ozone layer absorbs the high energy UVC rays, but allows the lower frequency UVB and UVA rays to pass through. But I think of it more as the ozone layer transforming high energy UVC into UVB and UVA.

“UVA wavelengths (320-400 nm) are only slightly affected by ozone levels. Most UVA radiation is able to reach the earth’s surface and can contribute to tanning, skin aging, eye damage, and immune suppresion.

UVC wavelengths (100-280 nm) are very strongly affected by ozone levels, so that the levels of UVC radiation reaching the earth’s surface are relatively small. “
http://www.theozonehole.com/uvrays.htm

There are higher UV energies to be found which surpass those of UVC, but these do not make it as far as the ozone layer, as apparently, they are stopped in the higher layers of the atmosphere. Extreme UV (EUV) is very high energy UV, with corresponding wavelengths in vacuum extending from about 5nm to 40nm. Few substances are transparent to extreme ultraviolet, and even air stops it within a fairly short distance. At the highest frequencies of the EUV range it starts to merge with soft X-rays (SXR) at 1nm in the EMR range. At 0.1nm, we then find the hard X-rays, which are associated with dental and medical X-rays. With even smaller wavelengths, at around 0.3 to 0.003nm, the highest energies are possessed by Gamma rays.

Balloon flights can carry instruments to altitudes of 35 kilometers above sea level, where they are above the bulk of the Earth’s atmosphere. However, even at such altitudes, there aren’t any obvious signs of X-rays, therefore satellites are necessary to measure X-rays in the upper atmosphere.

The extended Corona of the Sun as seen in X-ray by the Yohkoh Satellite. (Image courtesy Yohkoh)

More than 99% of the total atmospheric mass is concentrated in the first 40 km from Earth’s surface. The upper boundary at which gases disperse into space lies at an altitude of approximately 1000 km above sea level. If the atmosphere is working as a step-down transformer, then I think it’s going to pay to keep working our way up through the layers to find the source of the ultimate energy from the Sun. I’ve borrowed a rather good explanation of the outer regions of the atmosphere from an article I found in suite101.com. I would like to thank the author Dennis Holley for sharing with us. The full article can be viewed here:
http://meteorologyclimatology.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_mesosphere_and_thermosphere

“The mesosphere (literally “middle sphere”) is separated by the stratopause from stratosphere and below and by the mesopause from the thermosphere layer above. The mesosphere is located about 50 to 85 kilometers (30 to 50 miles) above the Earth’s surface.

The thermosphere is constantly bombarded by solar radiation and the solar wind. This intense solar energy tears apart atoms and molecules in the thermosphere creating electrically-charged ions. Areas of ions within the thermosphere are known as the ionosphere.”

Graph: The Average Temperature Profile of Earth’s Atmosphere
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Atmosphere/layers_activity_print.html&edu=elem

At an altitude of 100-200 km, the major atmospheric components are nitrogen and oxygen. I’m suspicious because I think it is nitrogen and oxygen, and not hydrogen and oxygen, which ultimately compose water. It is said that the lower portion of the thermosphere is composed mainly of nitrogen (N2) and oxygen in molecular (O2) and atomic (O) forms, whereas above 200km atomic oxygen predominates over nitrogen (N2 and N).

When exposed to radiation, water undergoes a breakdown sequence into hydrogen peroxide, hydrogen radicals and assorted oxygen compounds such as ozone which when converted back into oxygen releases great amounts of energy.

Rain combines with ozone in the upper atmosphere. When water and ozone mix, the ozone loses one oxygen molecule to the water and hydrogen peroxide is formed. Hydrogen peroxide is very unstable and breaks down readily into water and a single oxygen molecule.

Radiation of frequencies above 300nm are “absorbed” by the upper atmosphere causing photochemical reactions, producing photo-ionization and generally heating up the air. Wavelengths in the solar spectrum associated with X-rays and EUV are “absorbed” by the atmosphere above 80 km with relatively high efficiency.

I don’t think of the thermosphere as absorbing Gamma rays, X-rays or EUV. I think the thermosphere transforms the high energy of Gamma rays into something else, and very likely EMR with a lower energy. Do I think solar energy is made up by Gamma rays? I’m not sure, but I suspect Gamma rays are formed in the atmosphere too. That’s because, while I’m looking for the ultimate source of energy from the Sun, I’m also thinking of the ultimate source of energy found inside a Crookes tube.

The unadulterated energy found inside a Crookes tube, was once deemed by the early pioneers as “radiant energy”. This energy was found to move through the vacuum of the tube from the cathode, and today, this energy is referred to as “cathode rays”. If the vacuum of the tube was low, then the radiant energy would act on whichever gas was present, and the discharge would thus produce light. Radiant energy acting upon matter was called “radiant matter”. I mention all this because I think all these frequencies of EMR that we percieve in the atmosphere come under the umbrella of “radiant matter”. What I really want to get to grips with is the source of energy which comes previous to radiant matter. Is it possible that radiant energy is emitted by the Sun?

With a high vacuum, the dark space takes over the space inside the tube, and once it reaches the sides of the tube, the glass emits an eerie green glow and X-rays. From what I understand of X-rays, they are made at the glass of a Crookes tube, and not at the electrodes. It’s like the glass of the tube acts as a step-down transformer for the radiant energy inside the tube. It’s as if matter gives the radiant energy a frequency.

Another well-known source of an eerie green glow and X-rays are the Aurorae. The Aurorae form an oval centred about the magnetic poles of the Earth. During an aurora, vivid arcs, curls, waves and bands of green, red, and sometimes blue dance across the sky for minutes or hours, peaking near midnight — all between 60 and 600 miles above the ground. On occasion, however, the Aurorae may appear at heights upto 1000km.

Only after the spectral measurements of Angstrom in 1867 did it become clear that the Aurora was caused by optical emissions of the atmospheric gases themselves. The typical colours of the aurora are green (557.7 nm) and red (630 nm) from atomic oxygen (O) and blue (391.4 and 427.8 nm) from molecular nitrogen (N2)

This photograph of an aurora was taken in Alaska. (Credit: Jan Curtis of the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080306161746.htm

Well, where to go next I wonder? I then found a wonderful article “What Is An Aurora,” by Alexander McAdie, and published by The Century Magazine (Vol. 54, No. 6, Oct 1897). I think it offers a helpful nudge in the right direction. McAdie talks about the similarities of the workings of electricity and the effects created in the Aurorae. If you like, you can get to the site from here: http://www.todayinsci.com/M/McAdie_Alexander/McAdieAurora.htm

“One well-nigh forgotten experiment of the Faraday of America may be recalled. Joseph Henry in 1872 concentrated by a small concave mirror a beam of auroral light, and allowed it to fall upon a paper on which were written some letters with sulphate of quinine, and these became visible just as when illuminated by a discharge of electricity. He also noticed the effect upon a galvanometer needle during an aurora, observing that the needle was deflected, and that a like deflection was always observed “when a flash of lightning took place within the visible horizon of Washington.”

The auroral light, then, would be a kind of fluorescence. Bigelow, independently of Paulsen, had suggested a similar explanation. He regards the aurora as a phosphorescence due to the transformation of vibrating energy by the air. In other words, certain motions of the ether, which we have no way of recognizing, are altered just enough to convert them into light.”

So far, I’ve largely ignored argon because there’s only about 1% of the stuff in the atmosphere, so I felt it probably has little to do with anything really. It doesn’t help that argon is an inert gas, so I imagine it in the atmosphere like its sitting in a corner minding its own business. Maybe its about time I took a closer look at argon, and hopefully I’ll get the chance in the next post.

And many thanks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiolysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-83445523.html
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/wrjp365o.html
http://www.chemenviron.org/environ/rjce/back_issue/12_01_08_edit.ht
http://cse.ssl.berkeley.edu/light/christian.htmlm
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4211/ch6-2.htm
http://www.oralchelation.com/clarks/data/p1.htm
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-09/969966210.As.r.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HAIN4BVwOA&feature=related
http://tomsastroblog.com/?p=4419
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_glow_050131.html
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19066
http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Radiolysis_of_Water.html
http://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov/1965/guide/xrays.html
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/history1_xray.html
Atmosphere, weather, and climate By Roger Graham Barry, Richard J. Chorley
http://www-xray.ast.cam.ac.uk/xray_introduction/History.html
http://www.uaf.edu/asgp/hex/ionosphere.htm
http://www.nuenergy.org/alt/radiant_energy_defined.htm
http://www.dcs.lancs.ac.uk/iono/ionosphere_intro/#fig6
http://www.pnas.org/content/14/1/57.full.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090719194337.htm
http://elements.vanderkrogt.net/elem/ar.html
http://creationwiki.org/Oxygen

http://www.archive.org/stream/foundationsofche030974mbp/foundationsofche030974mbp_djvu.txt

Current theory is that ozone is tri-atomic; that is, it is made up by three oxygen atoms. I have been toying with the idea that ozone is a bi-atomic structure after being influenced by the Fujiwhara effect (no, that’s not one too many bar-slammers!) It’s named after Fujiwhara’s observations of vortices in water and the interaction of two cyclones.

3 volumes of oxygen condense to produce 2 volumes of ozone. The molecular weight of ozone is given as 48, BUT the atomic weight of ozone is 24. So rather than three oxygen atoms, each with the molecular weight of 16, we are now looking for two cyclonic vortices, and each vortex with the atomic weight of 12.

I think oxygen could be a hydrocarbonic compound, that is, in weight, two parts hydrogen to six parts carbon. As a formula, oxygen can be written as H2C (C=6). It’s true, the atomic weight of oxygen is given as 16, but the weight ratio of oxygen to hydrogen in composing water is 8:1, so I think it suggests that the density of oxygen is made up by two halves, each half with the value of 8.

The next step which is going to help us generate a possible bi-atomic formula, is one of reducing the value of carbon from 6 to 3 (don’t worry, it’s quite possible that the value of carbon can be an integral multiple of 12). The formula for oxygen is now thus, H2C2 (C=3), which adds up to the atomic weight of 8. Three half volumes of oxygen thus appears as 3(H2C2).

It takes 3 volumes of oxygen to produce 2 volumes of ozone, but we’re doing this in halves, so it’s actually one and a half volumes of oxygen to produce one volume of ozone. One way we could solve the bi-atomic problem is by suggesting that the one volume of ozone is also made up in two parts. With the atomic weight of ozone being 24, ozone could therefore be made up by two halves, each with the density of 12.

In the reaction, imagine we have three half volumes of oxygen before us, but let us remove one of the half volumes of oxygen away from the other two. With the oxygen we have removed, we are now going to split this down the middle, giving us two distinct halves, and each half with the formula HC (HC + HC =H2C2). Thus, one half volume of oxygen is split, and is then divided equally amongst the other two half volumes of oxygen present. The formula so far can be written as HC + 2(H2C2). Okay, if we take it from the top, the entire formula should look something like this:

3(H2C2) = HC + 2(H2C2) = 2(H3C3) = 2 (12) = 24

Therefore, one volume of ozone emerges as a possible bi-atomic structure with the formula 2(H3C3), or it could be written as H6C6. Or if we change the value of C to 6, the formula for the atomic weight of ozone could be written as H6C3.

The formula for a half volume of decomposed water, atomic weight 9, can be written as H + H2C2, or H3C2 (C=3). For composed, liquid water, atomic weight 11, the formula is H2C3. Thus, in the reaction to compose water, it appears as though one part hydrogen has been converted into one part carbon. In order for this to happen, the hydrogen – being nothing but an empty bag – would have to gain the carbon from its surroundings. I think this indicates that hydrogen can be pumped-up with carbon (phlogiston).

The difference beteen the atomic weights of composed and decomposed water is 2. This could suggest that the one part hydrogen, having gained the extra atomic weight, has been converted from having atomic weight 1, and pumped to atomic weight 3. In doing so, it is no longer hydrogen, but becomes carbon, or at least something very near to it.

The reason why I mention all this now is because I wonder if this can be applied in any way to ozone? The thing is, if ozone is a bi-atomic structure, made up by two cyclonic systems, then it appears there is no anticyclonic component in place. Dipolar vortices are constructed from a cyclone and anticyclone to generate a vortex ring. For the uninitiated, a vortex ring looks like your everyday ring donut.

In the decomposition of water under electrolysis, hydrogen gas collects at the cathode and oxygen gas at the anode. I think that phlogiston can be traced moving up the anode, where it basically follows the cable route all the way round to the cathode, then passes back through the water to the anode. If we were to trace over the route again and again it would become a continous loop.

To generate the loop, the electrodes would have to be acting as dipolar vortices. I think that the anode is cyclonic and sucking up the phlogiston from the water, and that the cathode is anticyclonic and taking the phlogiston, through conductors, from the anode. In sucking up the phlogiston from the water, the anode rejects the hydrogen, which is taken up by the cathode.

Dipolar vortices are describing a perpetual motor. The problem I have with ozone is that it’s bi-atomic structure does not describe a perpetual motor. If ozone does describe a pair of cyclones, they are both sucking aether from the system. There’s no obvious anticyclonic component feeding energy back into the surrounding system.

The formula for ozone is 2(H3C3)=24.
The formula for water is 2(H2C3)=22.

A very quick comparison of these two formulas might suggest that ozone is water but with extra hydrogen. Extra hydrogen? But how could ozone gain hydrogen? I think the only way a substance can gain hydrogen is by first losing carbon (phlogiston).

In the decomposition of water we see how the anode actively repels singular hydrogen. We could say that ozone has lost hydrogen to become water, but I’m not so sure that ozone contains hydrogen per se. I think carbon loses phlogiston and becomes hydrogen.

Therefore, I think a hydrogen “bag” which is full of phlogiston shall then become carbon. I think it unlikely that ozone has lost hydrogen to become water. It’s more likely that ozone has lost some of its phlogiston to become water. What I’ve been trying to say, in my own convoluted way, is that I think ozone might be a structure which is made of pure phlogiston. I think that the formula for ozone could be written as:

ozone = 2(H3C3) = 2(C1C3) = 2(C4)=24

This of course is all supposition, but I think it’s fun to explore ideas and see what emerges. The thing to do next, is to investigate how ozone is made. What exactly is ozone doing up there?

Many thanks:

Popular Science Jun 1978

We are told the air we breathe is 79% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, with the other 1% made up with the noble gases. The classic classroom experiment which apparently proves this is one where a burning candle stands in a dish of water. A glass shade is placed over the candle and the flame is extinguished. Condensation of water vapour inside the glass pulls a vacuum (though the idea it pulls a vacuum is a controversial one). The water occupies an area that is about one-fifth of the glass, so we say the oxygen used in the combustion occupied one-fifth of the air. When the air inside the glass is tested it is found to be nitrogen, so we say that the other four-fifths of the air are nitrogen. I’m not so sure.

There are a number of reasons why I don’t think the air is made up with 79% nitrogen. First off, we find 79% nitrogen after combustion has taken place. Are we really that sure that there was 79% nitrogen before the combustion?

Secondly, I think the common air is a water vapour. I think water is made up of carbon and oxygen. In this new theory, water has an atomic weight of 22 g/mol. In terms of volume, I imagine elemental water to be made up by two halves – one half carbon, and the other oxygen.

One half of water is carbon weighing in at 6 g/mol, with oxygen making up the rest at 16 g/mol. In water, I think we would see these two halves unite to become one indivisible whole – an element.

I think that the air under the glass before combustion was water vapour with an atomic weight of 22 g/mol, and after the air has been “phlogisticated” by the combustion process , we now find the air is nitrogen gas with an atomic weight of 14 g/mol. It looks like the air has lost 8 g/mol, which is a conspicuous amount because the weight ratio of water is 8:1; 8 parts oxygen to 1 part hydrogen.

I think this important because although the atomic weight of water is given to us as 18, this figure stands for a FULL volume. I think of water as being made up by half volumes with an atomic weight of 9. We may be splitting hairs here, but this could be important in helping us to understand the nature of oxygen. I don’t think the density of oxygen in water should be taken simply as 16 g/mol, but rather as being two halves, each with the value of 8 g/mol.

Whether we use the atomic weight of water as 9, or 18, it is important to remember that this figure represents the atomic weight of DECOMPOSED water. According to Priestley, the atomic weight of water is 22, and I think this figure represents LIQUID water. If we apply our reasoning so far that oxygen is made up by two equal parts, then it would mean the same thing for the make up of water. The atomic weight of water is not simply 22 g/mol, but is made up by two parts, each with the atomic weight of 11 g/mol.

Nitrogen is curious in that it looks just like elemental water after it has lost half its weight in oxygen. I think that nitrogen at 14 g/mol, previously existed as elemental water at 22 g/mol, but has then been reduced by losing half its oxygen (8g/mol). In my mind, nitrogen appears as a bloated bag of black water.

This means that nitrogen (14 g/mol) is made up by 6 carbon (6 g/mol) and oxygen (8 g/mol). As a weight ratio (3:4), that’s exactly the same for carbon monoxide. What similarities do carbon monoxide and nitrogen share? I wonder why it is that carbon monoxide can be ignited, and nitrogen cannot? What makes it so difficult for nitrogen to be “cracked”?

If I was to summise where we are so far, then it would be the emergence of nitrogen as a water-like compound made out of carbon and oxygen. Strangely enough, this is by no means a new idea.

I found this paper in the National Library of New Zealand. It is headed under the “Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand 1868-1961″, and the article is entitled “Discovery of Argon”. What it says is no doubt fascinating. I’m pretty sure I’ve read this article before, but only now am I truly aware of its significance. You can find the full article here:
http://rsnz.natlib.govt.nz/volume/rsnz_29/rsnz_29_00_000870.html

“The compound character of atmospheric nitrogen had, however, long been suggested, and even to some extent demonstrated, by the older chemists, for we find that Berzelius, a contemporary of Davy, satisfied that it was a compound body, was under, the impression that it was associated with an inflammable, base combined with oxygen, for which he proposed the name Nitricon [or possibly Nitricum]. But he is said to have distrusted or abandoned this hypothesis in consequence of experiments made by Davy, who also believed that atmospheric nitrogen was a compound body, of which oxygen formed an element, and endeavoured, but in vain, to detach the latter by means of the vapour of potassium.

Mr. David Low, of Edinburgh, who published an important treatise on the “Simple Bodies of Chemistry,” in 1856, also treated atmospheric nitrogen as a compound substance, and mentioned that, from its known characters, the same opinion had long been entertained, but that, as all attempts to decompose it had failed.”

I think the article reveals some of the controversy surrounding the compound nature of nitrogen at the time of its discovery. Looking for more background, I waltzed over to our ever faithful companion Google, and punched in “Simple Bodies of Chemistry”. It came up with an article in the “Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal”. The article is entitled “On Isomeric Transmutation, and the Views recently published concerning the compound nature of Carbon, Silicon, and Nitrogen.” It’s dated 1844 and was written by George Wilson, M.D., Lecturer on Chemistry, Edinburgh. You can find it here:
http://www.archive.org/stream/edinburghnewphil37edin/edinburghnewphil37edin_djvu.txt

“I propose, in the following Memoir, to offer some observations on the views recently published by Dr Samuel Brown, Mr Knox, and Mr Rigg, concerning the compound nature of silicon, nitrogen, and carbon.

Water, e.g. is the only body containing oxygen and hydrogen, in the proportion of eight parts by weight of the former to one of the latter ; common salt is the only substance, with thirty-five parts of chlorine to twenty-three of sodium, and so with other compounds.”

So it’s not just nitrogen which has been accused of being a compound – but silicon aswell! I’ve tried to not get too hung up on sentences, such as “elemental reduction by mutual isomeric transmutation”, because, quite frankly, I don’t understand the sentence. I’ve since learned that the existence of more than one compound with the same molecular composition is called isomerism. I wanted to try and remain focused on the compound nature of nitrogen, but this doesn’t seem possible just yet without examining the relationship nitrogen has with silicon, and other elements.

“Dr Brown is the only chemist who has had faith and courage enough to test the reality of Elemental Isomerism, by endeavouring to transmute one of the elements into another. This, he believes, he has succeeded in doing in the case of carbon and silicon.

According to Dr Brown, an atom of silicon consists of 4 atoms of carbon ; but four times six is 24, not 22.22. If, therefore, transmutation by isomeric synthesis of carbon into silicon occur, it must, according to this view, be accompanied by a destruction of matter equal to the difference between 24 and 22.22.”

Now I was a little surprised here because according to the periodic table, the atomic weight of silicon is given as 28 g/mol, and not 22.22 g/mol. I think 22 g/mol is an important value because it just so happens to be the atomic weight of water.

The author goes on to illustrate how it’s possible that carbon can be transmuted into silicon, by explaining away a bit of math. This is actually true, the atomic weight of carbon can be an integral multiple of 12. Thus, it appears Wilson is suggesting that carbon is basically a compound structure built out of smaller carbon structures.

“Let the received atomic weight of silicon, 22.22, be diminished by removal of the decimals, and made the round number 22. Such an alteration will, not improbably, be made by chemists, apart from all consideration of the question of transmutation. Then divide the received atom of carbon, 6, by 3, a liberty which would be conceded by many of my brethren, and it becomes 2 ; of which silicon is a multiple by the whole number 11. 11 atoms of carbon might, by synthetic transmutation, become 1 atom = 22 silicon, without any difficulty in the way of atomic weights.”

This last bit of reducing the density of silicon by half from 22 to 11, is practically identical to what we did previously with elemental water, where the density of elemental water was reduced from 22 g/mol to two parts, each part with the atomic weight of 11 g/mol.

The next thing to do was google – “An Inquiry into the Nature of the Simple Bodies of Chemistry” – and to see where it got me. It turned up trumps on Googlebooks, with the book written by David Low, and it contains some of the most fascinating pages I have ever had the fortune to read. The pages take you back to a time and place of almost fairy-tale-like innocence, where chemistry was still roaming the garden for the rules it had to play with (though of course, older brother alchemy had been around for a long time previous to this). It gives a powerful insight into how the ideas which form our world were first panel-beaten into shape. But not least, Low is set to reveal something quite remarkable about the Universe around you.

“Not withstanding then, the extreme care which has been employed in determining the constitution of the diamond by combustion, it is just possible that a quantity of hydrogen may exist in combination with carbon, inappreciable by this mode of analysis, and that the diamond really may be classed with the hydro-carbons, which upon the present hypothesis, silicium [silicon] and alumium both are.”

I thought diamond was made from pure carbon? Is he suggesting that diamond is made up by both hydrogen and carbon, or that the hydrogen is hidden by the presence of carbon? I think his statement confirms the idea that hydrogen is an empty, or at least virtually empty, form of carbon.

It was here though, that I felt the first bomb being dropped when Low says that both silicon and aluminium are both hydrocarbons. It’s not simply nitrogen which is a compound, but also silicon and aluminium. For some this may be too difficult to swallow – but me? I’m all ears.

Then, Low tell us that nitrogen is a compound that resembles the oxide of carbon, and presumably he means carbon monoxide, and not carbon dioxide, because “it does not support combustion, but when ignited burns with a lambent blue flame.” He confirms for us that “it is a legitimate conclusion that nitrogen consists of carbon and oxygen”. If your world view has been visibly shaking so far, now see the whole thing get turned upside down aswell…

“I have proposed the hypothesis that oxygen may be resolved into two elements of a lower combining weight than itself, hydrogen and carbon… Oxygen consists of 2 parts by weight of hydrogen to 6 parts by weight of carbon.”

There you go. BOOM! Oxygen is a hydrocarbon! I’ve been suspicious of oxygen for a little while now. If oxygen was prime suspect in a murder case, I would be a detective going through its’ rubbish bin looking for discarded bloody items. I’m suspicious because hydrogen, under the modern interpretation of phlogiston theory, is supposed to be full of phlogiston. I don’t think it is. In previous posts I have suggested hydrogen is empty, and that it lacks phlogiston. Hydrogen appears to me to be the complete opposite of “phlogisticated”, which would pretty much make hydrogen a substance that was “dephlogisticated”

BUT dephlogisticated air is supposed to be oxygen, and is supposed to contain no phlogiston, and that is the reason why it is supposed not to burn. What is starting to emerge more and more is oxygen is actually rich in phlogiston. Has there been some kind of mix up at the taps? Is “dephlogisticated air” meant to represent hydrogen, and “inflammable air” oxygen?

“Although we cannot certainly say that oxygen has been decomposed, yet when electric sparks are passed in succession through it, a change ensues, and an odour is evolved, which indicates the formation of some principle or substance to which this odour is due. It has been termed ozone…”

Whenever I think of ozone I instantly think of Tesla. I used to associate ozone with pollution and holes over the Antartic, and people going to work on a bicycle. Now though, if ozone is mentioned, I always imagine Tesla surrounded in mists of crackling lightning flashes and the peculiar odour of ozone. My mind always engages a link between electricity and ozone.

I was interested to know the atomic weight of ozone. Most places will tell you the weight of ozone is 48, but ozone weighs only 24 times more than hydrogen. I consulted Google once more, and came across a book entitled “Meteorology Practical And Applied”, written by John William Moore. In it he writes that “a great number of experiments have given the atomic weight of ozone as 24, and consequently its molecular weight as 48″. For arguments sake, I think I’ll stick to the atomic weight.

In the article on the “Discovery of Argon”, the authour remarks that argon “is supposed to be a tri-atomic form of nitrogen, as ozone is a bi-atomic form of oxygen; and many circumstances already known—for example, its concurrent appearance in nature with nitrogen”. Bi-atomic? Text books today tell us ozone is tri-atomic, and that it is made up with three atoms of oxygen. I wonder what would happen if we played around with the idea that ozone was perhaps bi-atomic? The reason I prefer a bi-atomic structure is because of the Fujiwhara effect.

When I try to think of a bi-atomic structure in nature, I think of the Fujiwhara effect. The effect is named after Sakuhei Fujiwhara, the Japanese meteorologist who initially described it in a 1921 paper about the motion of vertices in water. The Fujiwhara effect or Fujiwhara interaction is a type of interaction between two nearby cyclonic vortices, causing them to appear to “orbit” each other. When the cyclones approach each other, their centers will begin orbiting cyclonically about a point between the two systems.

The picture below is of twin hurricanes Ione (left) and Kirsten (right) pinwheeling about the eastern Pacific during the 1974 Pacific hurricane season during a Fujiwhara interaction. This could be dramatically wrong, but at the moment, this is what I imagine a bi-atomic structure as. If the atomic weight of ozone was 24 g/mol, and it was bi-atomic, then ozone could be made up by two oxygen structures both weighing 12 g/mol.

NOAA-3 visible range VHRR image of Hurricanes Ione (left) and Kirsten (right.)

But let us return to the crux of what Low is saying. Low thinks that the oxygen captured in the decomposition of water “consists of 2 parts by weight of hydrogen to 6 parts by weight of carbon”. Therefore – in the case of water – one part hydrogen in weight represents the ratio of 3 parts carbon in weight.

“If nitrogen be resolvable into carbon and oxygen, it is likewise, upon the present hypothesis resolvable into hydrogen and carbon; for oxygen upon this hypothesis is resolvable into hydrogen and carbon.

Nitrogen therefore appears to differ from oxygen, by containing a larger proportion of carbon, the proportion by weight of this element to hydrogen being in nitrogen as 6 to 1, and in oxygen as 3 to 1. Thus the difference between these two bodies, so widely diffused and generally associated, may be ascribed simply to the different ratio in which the constituent elements of each are combined…”

Thus, Low has transformed oxygen and nitrogen into hydrocarbons, and has changed our world forever. Low has used a constant density for carbon as 6 g/mol, even though he accepts the proportions by weight are different for nitrogen (6 to 1) and for oxygen (3 to 1).

Okay, now I want to get my grubby mitts on water and to apply these formulas to it, and see what comes up. The atomic weight of decomposed water is 9; that is, hydrogen with an atomic weight of 1 added to oxygen with an atomic weight of 8. This would give you the formula of H3C2 (the value of carbon here is 3) for a half volume of decomposed water.

If you remember at the start of this post we learned that the atomic weight of liquid water is 11 for a half volume. That is, carbon with an atomic weight of 3 added to oxygen with an atomic weight of 8. This makes the formula for liquid water H2C3 (the value for carbon being 3). Thus, water is a hydrocarbon, and a half volume has the formula H2C3, and the atomic weight of 11. Therefore, a full volume of liquid water has the atomic weight of 22 g/mol, and the formula H4C6 (C=3), or H4C3 (if C=6).

This is wonderful as we can now compare the formula for decomposed water (H3C2) with the formula for composed water (H2C3), and it becomes very apparent about what it is that differs between them. It looks like the hydrogen from decomposed water is transformed into carbon in the composition of liquid water, and if the reaction is reversed, carbon from composed water is exchanged for hydrogen in the decomposition of water.

If that wasn’t enough, what Low has to say in the following two paragraphs was enough to blow my boots off:

“If carbonic acid consist of the same elements as nitrogen, namely CO + O, it is not an extravagant hypothesis that some provision exists for resolving carbonic acid into the elements of which the atmosphere consists, namely nitrogen and oxygen.

For carbonic acid is continually ascending from the Earth into the atmosphere….. and therefore it is not an extravagant supposition, that a natural provision has existed, and does exist, for converting carbonic acid into the essential constituents of the existing atmosphere.”

And quite right. A mechanism must exist in nature that converts carbon dioxide back into the breathable atmosphere. I don’t think that the atmosphere is strictly nitrogen and oxygen though. I think the atmosphere is a water vapour which, in theory, is made up by nitrogen and oxygen. In summary, I think something in the atmosphere is converting carbon dioxide into water. Is it possible that ozone plays an important role in this conversion?

I think nitrogen (14 g/mol) is elemental water (22 g/mol) with half its volume of oxygen (8 g/mol) missing. Therefore, combining nitrogen with another half volume of oxygen should give you water. In terms of formula, nitrogen is written as H2C2 (C=6), and a full volume of water is H4C3 (C=6). A half volume of oxygen is written as H2C (C=6). If we add the nitrogen (H2C2) to the oxygen (H2C), the formula for water (H4C3) is exactly what we get!

Unfortunately, the copy I have found of Low’s book has a number of chapters missing. I do however, get a real sense of the isomeric relationships which he reveals between “elements”. It was Lavoisier who overthrew the phlogiston theory and established the concept of elements as substances which cannot be further decomposed. As I have come to trust the ideas of Lavoisier less and less, I also find that I lack the ability to trust the idea of indivisible elements. The entire periodic table no longer appears as a series of very distinct substances, but rather as a list of hydrocarbonic compounds which differ due to density.

What remains for me to end this post are Low’s thoughts on silicium (silicon). There’s no doubt he finds an intense similarity between silicon and aluminium. He writes that “the combining weight of aluminum is 14, or a multiple of that of silicium; and that accordingly, the two bodies are isomeric.”

Low continues to say that “if we were to admit the equivalent of silicium to be 7, or a multiple of 7, then silicium might be represented by HC, or a multiple of HC.” The atomic weight of silicon is listed as 28 – a multiple of 7. I am struck by the significance of the simplicity of the formula for silicon. If one was looking for a simple building block of creation, then I think silicon could be a possible contender. Low appears to confirm this with his next paragraph:

“If, in any former state of the globe [our planet], the aqueous portion predominated, as there is reason to believe it did, over the solid, we might perhaps believe, that one of the means of diminishing the volume of water, has the combination of its hydrogen with the molecules of carbon to form silicium, and of its oxygen with the silicium generated to form silica; for HO + C = HC + O, ex hypothesi, silica.”

Silica, of course is sand. It seems quite strange to think of sand as being the direct result of a reaction between carbon and water. Low is describing the transformation of water into sand, and if I’m understanding theory so far, the possibility that sand can be turned into water. Rather poetically, the front cover of Low’s book is furnished with a photograph of sand-dunes in a desert somewhere, like an oasis waiting to be discovered.

I also like that Low calls carbon “the primary element”. I think carbon is another name for phlogiston, and I think phlogiston is extremely close to the very substance of the Universe itself – the aether. Thanks to David Low and his book, we now have the means to explore, in formula, exactly how the Universal substance creates the substance of the Universe.

Many thanks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujiwhara_effect
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:Ymj4rBb2VqgJ:www.chemistry.sfu.ca/assets/uploads/file/Course%2520Materials%252009-3/chem%2520121%2520Surrey/LECTU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond
http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/elements/si.htm
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mainzv/exhibit/lavoisier.htm

RADIUM AND RADIO-ACTIVE
SUBSTANCES
Their Application Especially to Medicine -
BY
CHAS. BASKERVILLE, Ph. D.,
Professor of Chemistry and Diredlor of the Laboratory, College
of the City of New York, formerly of the University
of North Carolina.
Published by
Williams, Brown & Earle
918 CHESTNUT STREET, PHILADELPHIA, PA., U. S. A.

From what we have learned there appears to be little in
the suggestion that radio-activity may supplant chemicals used
for the preservation of food.

http://www.archive.org/stream/radiumradioactiv00baskrich/radiumradioactiv00baskrich_djvu.txt

In 1755 Joseph Black is credited with discovering “fixed air”. It was named as such because it was fixed or trapped in certain organic compounds. Black first obtained it by heating the mineral limestone (calcium carbonate) until it decomposed into a gas and left behind lime (calcium oxide). The gas given off could be made to recombine with calcium oxide to form calcium carbonate again. Today we know this gas or “fixed air” as carbon dioxide (CO2).

Black also showed that when calcium oxide was allowed to stand in air, it turned slowly to calcium carbonate. From this he deduced that there were small quantities of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Thing is, there seems to be a very small amount of carbon dioxide in the air we breathe – it’s something like 0.03%. Carbon dioxide simply does not seem to exist in the air.

The following extract is taken from Joseph Priestley’s treatise of 1796 ~ “Considerations on the Doctrine of Phlogiston, and the Decomposition of Water”. In it, Priestley confirms the difficulty of extracting carbon dioxide from the air. He also reveals the phlogisticated nature of carbon dioxide.

“Fixed air is procured in great abundance in animal respiration. It is true that fixed air is procured by exposing lime-water to atmospherical air, but it is never procured by this means in air confined in any vessel. There must, for this purpose, be an open communication with the atmosphere, but fixed air will be procured in great abundance by breathing air contained in the smallest receiver, and especially if the air be dephlogisticated. It must therefore be formed by phlogiston, or something emitted from the lungs, uniting with the dephlogistcated air which it meets there.”

I think Priestley was a little more than intrigued by fixed air. I wonder why it is that lime-water is affected by atmospherical air, and not the air “confined in any vessel”. I wonder if the figure of 0.03% for carbon dioxide is taken from the atmosphere or a confined vessel?

In a series of experiments Priestley exposes something about carbon dioxide that I, as yet, have not seen noted by any other experimenters. Priestley said that he had found that fixed air “contained half its own weight in water”. According to science textbooks, the atomic weight of carbon dioxide is 44 g/mol.

Now I find this fascinating as Priestley appears to be telling us the atomic weight of water. I don’t think the atomic weight of water is 9, as defined by adding the atomic weight of hydrogen (1) to oxygen (8), because I suspect the hydrogen we find outside water is empty of phlogiston and is not directly the same stuff that exists in water. I think water is rich in phlogiston. I think phlogiston has something to do with carbon.

Half the weight of carbon dioxide is 22 g/mol. Is the atomic weight of elemental water 22 g/mol? If we know that water consists of oxygen at 16 g/mol, then the missing half of water weighs 6 g/mol. On the periodic table, it is lithium with an atomic weight of 6.94 g/mol. I’ll be honest, I was hoping to see something of carbon here, and not lithium. Ooh, erm… this is awkward.

Not to fear though. It’s true, the atomic weight of carbon is given as 12 g/mol, but it’s not necessarily always the case. When carbon is measured in compounds where it is present in greater amounts than 12, it is hence always found in multiples of 12. For example, ethane (C2H6) contains 2 carbon atoms at 24 g/mol, and benzene (C6H6) contains 6 carbon atoms at 72 g/mol. The atomic weight of carbon cannot be greater than 12, BUT it is possible that it could be an integral submultiple of 12, such as 6, 4, or 3.

In trying to understand how this is possible, I came across Wikibooks and I chanced upon a really helpful page entitled ~ “Chemical Principles/Are Atoms Real? From Democritus to Dulong and Petit”. It’s a brief outline of the difficulties faced by pioneering chemists in trying to quantify compounds, to deduce the atomic weight of the periodic table. They did not have an enviable task as the elements they unearthed from compounds are swimming in awkward soups of weight ratios.

I think it gives me a bit of scope in realising the potential for mistakes in working with these ratios. We are, after all, only human. It also gives me a little faith in being able to play around with my own ideas, and to insert some of these ideas into a field as well established as physics, without being overwhelmed by the feeling that I am too small, too inadequate, and too ridiculous. You can find the site here, thanks to:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Chemical_Principles/Are_Atoms_Real%3F_From_Democritus_to_Dulong_and_Petit

The site also features a wonderful quote from the German chemist Friedrich Wöhler, whom in 1835 said that “organic chemistry just now is enough to drive one mad. It gives me the impression of a primeval tropical forest, full of the most remarkable things, a monstrous and boundless thicket, with no way to escape, into which one may well dread to enter.” After only a little thought so far regarding weight ratios, and the way they richochet and rattle around my brain, I find it easy to sympathise with him. Weight ratios seem to have the ability of swerving any of the applied mathematics you throw at them.

It is possible then that water is made up of carbon and oxygen. I think the reason we don’t see carbon when we decompose water is because it is consumed in the reaction. The carbon is used up and leaves nothing but an empty shell in the form of hydrogen.

What happens then to the other half of the carbon dioxide compound? If one half is water – what is the other substance which weighs 22? Well, that could be another water atom. Or, if we refer to the periodic table, that substance might even be sodium. Could carbon dioxide be a compound made up of oxygen, carbon and sodium?

Carbon monoxide (CO) has an atomic weight of 28 g/mol. If we then deduct this new atomic weight of water (22 g/mol), we are left with 6 g/mol. Carbon monoxide could well be made up with water plus an extra dollop of carbon. This would mean that carbon monoxide contained 16 g/mol of oxygen, with a total of 12 g/mol of carbon. In text books, the weight ratio of carbon to oxygen in carbon monoxide is given as 3 to 4, which so far, coincides nicely.

In terms of volume though, 2 mol of carbon are burned in one mol of oxygen to give 2 mol of carbon monoxide. This means carbon monoxide is made up two-thirds carbon and one-third oxygen. If you burn 2 mol of carbon in 2 mol of oxygen you obtain 2 mol of carbon dioxide. The mixture for carbon dioxide is 50/50 oxygen and carbon. Based on this, I think carbon monoxide is more phlogisticated than carbon dioxide.

Science had to explain the weight of carbon dioxide (44 g/mol). They did this by adding an oxygen atom (16 g/mol) to a carbon monoxide molecule (28 g/mol). I think they may have painted over something.

If you decompose 2 mol of carbon dioxide you get 2 mol of carbon monoxide and 1 mol of oxygen. For the oxygen to have become available, I think it may have been part of a water atom. This would suggest that carbon dioxide is a compound made up with 2 water “atoms”. In the process of decomposition, one of the atoms is broken down into its two components – oxygen and carbon. The oxygen is given off, but the carbon is absorbed by the other water atom and it becomes carbon monoxide.

I think that the reason that hydrogen is so light is because it contains none, or hardly any, phlogiston. BUT, carbon monoxide (28 g/mol) appears to be lighter than carbon dioxide (44 g/mol) even though it contains a higher volume of carbon. I wonder why carbon dioxide is more dense than carbon monoxide?

I wanted to know the atomic weight of the air. From what I’ve seen on the web, it appears that most of the time science books only calculate the weight of the air. They use the figures of 79% nitrogen and 20% oxygen which work out to make the atomic weight of air something like 28g/mol. This site illustrates the method for calculating the atomic weight of air beautifully:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/molecular-mass-air-d_679.html

I then found a site which carries out an experiment which physically measures the weight of the air. They found that the mass of a litre of air is about 1 g. By volume, one mol of gas represents 22.4 litres at standard conditions. That means that according to this experiment, the atomic weight of air is 22.4 g/mol! That’s practically the atomic weight of water – and more specifically – water vapour. You can find this experiment here, thanks to :
http://www.practicalphysics.org/go/Experiment_612.html

The atomic weight of oxygen is nearly 3 times that of the carbon found in water, but in terms of volume, I suspect it is 50/50. Surely the two working together as elemental water thus become indivisible?

How can carbon dioxide at 44 g/mol exist in air that weighs 22.4 g/mol? I’d say that carbon dioxide weighs twice as much as air. Carbon dioxide ain’t going anywhere but down and hitting the ground! I found a site which takes the fact carbon dioxide is heavier than air and then proceeds to really hammer it home:
http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/carbondioxidequotes.htm

“One of the most serious hazards occurs when volcanoes emit large quantities of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and collects in low spots, displacing air in these locations. Hundreds of people have died of carbon dioxide asphyxiation near volcanoes in the past two decades, most of them in Cameroon, Africa, and in Indonesia.”
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Emissions/Publications/OFR95-85/OFR95-85.html

Mind, we’ve all seen how carbon dioxide is collected from a candle as it rises from the flame. How exactly does it get up there if it’s twice the weight of air? Carbon dioxide gets a lot of bad press for its ability to climb up high into the atmosphere and mess about as a greenhouse gas. How does it get up there? How does it stay up there?

According to this new theory, the atomic weight of water is almost exactly the same as the air. I think this illustrates that air IS vaporous water. The obvious difference between liquid water and water vapour is density. Liquid water is around 1700 times more dense than water vapour. In other words, liquid water expands some 1700 times to become water vapour.

This suggests that the reason warm air rises is because it has a lower density than the colder air. The reason for this low density could be that the warm air has expanded. Right now, I’m thinking dreamily about bubbles rising in a fizzy carbonated drink. According to atomic weight the carbon dioxide should just sit at the bottom – but it doesn’t. The carbon dioxide gas can be quite plainly seen as bubbles which rise up and tickle my nose.

Carbon dioxide is also behind the science of how yeast helps bread to rise. Carbon dioxide expands in the dough to produce gaseous bubbles. So yeast produces carbon dioxide? I would like to thank the following site whose explanation I have borrowed: http://www.nyhallsci.org/biochem/content/educators/bread-educators.pdf.

“A scoop of packaged yeast with a scoop of sugar are mixed in a tube and placed in some warm water. After 2 minutes, bubbles rise from the bottom of the tube as the yeast metabolizes the sugar into carbon dioxide and ethanol. When bread is made the yeast metabolizes the sugars from the flour, and makes carbon dioxide bubbles. These bubbles make the dough rise, and are later seen as the holes in bread.

Cakes rises differently. The chemical reaction between the acid and the base in baking powder, or the reaction between baking soda and an acid, also generates carbon dioxide gas.”

Now my mind is thinking about some school experiment, where a raisin is in a glass of coke. The raisin rises to the surface of the drink as it floats on bubbles beneath it. Once it reaches the surface, the bubbles burst, the raisin loses its support, and it falls to the bottom of the glass. The raisin then collects more bubbles which send it floating back up to the surface. My thanks to Steve Spangler Science who have kindly put on a show of the dancing raisins:
http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/experiment/dancing-raisins-the-bubble-lifter

I get the feeling this is saying something about how warm air rises and how cold air falls. Warm air expands and rises, and then once it reaches the top, the bubble bursts, it condenses, and it comes back down to earth. What are we describing then – some kind of motor? Are we living in a fizzy drink? Can this in any way be applied to the forces moving through the tubular ring of the atomic torus?

This comes as nothing more than a quirky aside, but for me, the thing that is conspicious about the number 22 is the fact it is not divisible by the numbers 12, 6, 4 or 3. What does this mean? I don’t know. Probably nothing. Or it could be important.

There’s also a bit of mysticism surrounding the number 22. In numerology, the number 22 is known as the “master builder” and is usually symbolized by a mason or some craftsman working hard and diligently on a large scale project. The Hebrew Aleph-Beit has 22 letters. The Jews believe the letters of the alphabet are the “building blocks” of creation.

Part II to follow.

Carl Wilhelm Scheele (1742-86) excerpts from Chemical Treatise on Air and Fire:

Where this phlogiston has gone to during the circulation of the blood, I leave to others to ascertain. The attraction which the blood has for phlogiston cannot be so strong as that with which plants and insects attract it from the air, and then the blood cannot convert air into aerial acid; still it becomes converted into an air which lies midway between fire-air and aerial acid, that is, a vitiated air; for it unites neither with lime nor with water after the manner of fire-air, and it extinguishes fire, after that of aerial acid. But that the blood really attracts the inflammable substance I have an additional experiment to prove, since I have removed phlogiston by help of my lungs from inflammable air, and have converted this into vitiated air.
http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/scheele77.html