Elements and Atoms: Chapter 15
Expanding the Periodic System: Ramsay

We met William Ramsay (1852-1916) in the previous chapter as one of the discoverers of argon. Argon had no relatives on the periodic table of 1895, and there seemed to be no room for it in the place where its atomic weight would put it. The discovery of the new element argon seemed to conflict with an established system of knowledge about the elements. [Giunta 2001] The apparent conflict did not last long, however. This selection shows the resolution William Ramsay proposed, and his proposal was borne out. Ramsay was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1904 for his work on the discovery of the family of inert gases, of which argon was the first discovered. By the turn of the century, Ramsay and his co-workers isolated helium, neon (the "undiscovered gas" of this selection), krypton, and xenon.

An Undiscovered Gas

Nature 56, 378-382 (1897)

Opening address to Section B (Chemistry) of the British Association for the Advancement of Science by the President of the Section.

A sectional address to the members of the British Association falls under one of three heads. It may be historical, or actual, or prophetic; it may refer to the past, the present, or the future. In many cases, indeed in all, this classification overlaps. Your former Presidents have given sometimes a historical introduction, followed by an account of the actual state of some branch of our science, and, though rarely, concluding with prophetic remarks. To those who have an affection for the past, the historical side appeals forcibly; to the practical man, and to the investigator engaged in research, the actual, perhaps, presents more charm; while to the general public, to whom novelty is often more of an attraction than truth, the prophetic aspect excites most interest. In this address I must endeavour to tickle all palates; and perhaps I may be excused if I take this opportunity of indulging in the dangerous luxury of prophecy, a luxury which the managers of scientific journals do not often permit their readers to taste.[1]

The subject of my remarks to-day is a new gas. I shall describe to you later its curious properties; but it would be unfair not to put you at once in possession of the knowledge of its most remarkable property--it has not yet been discovered.[2] As it is still unborn, it has not yet been named. The naming of a new element is no easy matter. For there are only twenty-six letters in our alphabet, and there are already over seventy elements. To select a name expressible by a symbol which has not already been claimed for one of the known elements is difficult, and the difficulty is enhanced when it is at the same time required to select a name which shall be descriptive of the properties (or want of properties) of the element.[3]

It is now my task to bring before you the evidence for the existence of this undiscovered element.

It was noticed by Döbereiner, as long ago as 1817, that certain elements could be arranged in groups of three. The choice of the elements selected to form these triads was made on account of their analogous properties, and on the sequence of their atomic weights, which had at that time only recently been discovered. Thus calcium, strontium, and barium formed such a group; their oxides, lime, strontia, and baryta are all easily slaked, combining with water to form soluble lime-water, strontia-water, and baryta-water. Their sulphates are all sparingly soluble, and resemblance had been noticed between their respective chlorides and between their nitrates. Regularity was also displayed by their atomic weights. The numbers then accepted were 20, 42.5, and 65; and the atomic weight of strontium, 42.5, is the arithmetical mean of those of the other two elements, for (65+20)/2 = 42.5. The existence of other similar groups of three was pointed out by Döbereiner and such groups became known as "Döbereiner's triads."[4]

Another method of classifying the elements, also depending on their atomic weights, was suggested by Pettenkofer, and afterwards elaborated by Kremers, Gladstone, and Cook. It consisted in seeking for some expression which would represent the differences between the atomic weights of certain allied elements. Thus, the difference between the atomic weight of lithium, 7, and sodium, 23, is 16; and between that of sodium and of potassium, 39, is also 16. The regularity is not always so conspicuous; Dumas, in 1857, contrived a somewhat complicated expression which, to some extent, exhibited regularity in the atomic weights of fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine; and also of nitrogen, phosphorus, arsenic, antimony and bismuth.[5]

The upshot of these efforts to discover regularity was that in 1864, Mr. John Newlands, having arranged the elements in eight groups, found that when placed in the order of their atomic weights, "the eighth element, starting from a given one, is a kind of repetition of the first, like the eighth note of an octave in music." To this regularity he gave the name "The Law of Octaves."[6]

The development of this idea, as all chemists know, was due to the late Prof. Lothar Meyer, of Tübingen, and to Prof. Mendeléeff, of St. Petersburg.[7] It is generally known as the "Periodic Law." One of the simplest methods of showing this arrangement is by means of a cylinder divided into eight segments by lines drawn parallel to its axis; a spiral line is then traced round the cylinder, which will, of course, be cut by these lines eight times at each revolution. Holding the cylinder vertically, the name and atomic weight of an element is written at each intersection of the spiral with a vertical line, following the numerical order of the atomic weights.[8] It will be found, according to Lothar Meyer and Mendeléeff, that the elements grouped down each of the vertical lines from a natural class; they possess similar properties, form similar compounds, and exhibit a graded relationship between their densities, melting-points, and many of the other properties. One of these vertical columns, however, differs from the others, inasmuch as on it there are three groups, each consisting of three elements with approximately equal atomic weights. The elements in question are iron, cobalt, and nickel; palladium, rhodium, and ruthenium; and platinum, iridium, and osmium. There is apparently room for a fourth group of three elements in this column, and it may be a fifth. And the discovery of such a group is not unlikely, for when this table was first drawn up Prof. Mendeléeff drew attention to certain gaps, which have since been filled up by the discovery of gallium, germanium, and others.

The discovery of argon at once raised the curiosity of Lord Rayleigh and myself as to its position in this table. With a density of nearly 20, if a diatomic gas, like oxygen and nitrogen, it would follow fluorine in the periodic table; and our first idea was that argon was probably a mixture of three gases, all of which possessed nearly the same atomic weights, like iron, cobalt, and nickel. Indeed, their names were suggested, on this supposition, with patriotic bias, as Anglium, Scotium, and Hibernium![9] But when the ratio of its specific heats had, at least in our opinion, unmistakably shown that it was molecularly monatomic, not diatomic, as at first conjectured, it was necessary to believe that its atomic weight was 40, and not 20, and that it followed chlorine in the atomic table, and not fluorine. But here arises a difficulty. The atomic weight of chlorine is 35.5, and that of potassium, the next element in order in the table, is 39.1; and that of argon, 40, follows, and does not precede, that of potassium, as it might be expected to do.[10] It still remains possible that argon, instead of consisting wholly of monatomic molecules, may contain a small percentage of diatomic molecules; but the evidence in favour of this supposition is, in my opinion, far from strong. Another possibility is that argon, as at first conjectured, may consist of a mixture of more than one element; but, unless the atomic weight of one of the elements in the supposed mixture is very high, say 82, the case is not bettered, for one of the elements in the supposed trio would still have a higher atomic weight than potassium. And very careful experiments, carried out by Dr. Norman Collie and myself, on the fractional diffusion of argon, have disproved the existence of any such element with high atomic weight in argon, and, indeed, have practically demonstrated that argon is a simple substance, and not a mixture.

The discovery of helium has thrown a new light on this subject. Helium, it will be remembered, is evolved on heating certain minerals, notably those containing uranium; although it appears to be contained in others in which uranium is not present, except in traces. Among these minerals are cleveite, monazite, fergusonite, and a host of similar complex mixtures, all containing rare elements, such as niobium, tantalum, yttrium, cerium, &c.[11] The spectrum of helium is characterised by a remarkably brilliant yellow line, which had been observed as long ago as 1868 by Profs. Frankland and Lockyer in the spectrum of the sun's chromosphere, and named "helium" at that early date.[12]

The density of helium proved to be very close to 2.0, and, like argon, the ratio of its specific heat showed that it, too, was a monatomic gas. Its atomic weight therefore is identical with its molecular weight, viz. 4.0, and its place in the periodic table is between hydrogen and lithium, the atomic weight of which is 7.0.

The difference between the atomic weights of helium and argon is thus 36, or 40-4. Now there are several cases of such a difference. For instance, in the group the first member of which is fluorine we have--

In the oxygen group--
In the nitrogen group--
And in the carbon group--
These instances suffice to show that approximately the differences are 16 and 20 between consecutive members of the corresponding groups of elements. The total differences between the extreme members of the short series mentioned are--
Manganese - Fluorine36
Chromium - Oxygen36.3
Vanadium - Nitrogen37.4
Titanium - Carbon36.1
This is approximately the difference between the atomic weights of helium and argon, 36.[13]

There should, therefore, be an undiscovered element between helium and argon, with an atomic weight 16 units higher than that of helium, and 20 units lower than that of argon, namely 20. And if this unknown element, like helium and argon, should prove to consist of monatomic molecules, then its density should be half its atomic weight, 10. And pushing the analogy still further, it is to be expected that this element should be as indifferent to union with other elements as the two allied elements.[14]

My assistant, Mr. Morris Travers[15], has indefatigably aided me in a search for this unknown gas. There is a proverb about looking for a needle in a haystack; modern science, with the aid of suitable magnetic appliances, would, if the reward were sufficient, make short work of that proverbial needle. But here is a supposed unknown gas, endowed no doubt with negative properties, and the whole world to find it in. Still, the attempt had to be made.

We first directed our attention to the sources of helium--minerals.[16] Almost every mineral which we could obtain was heated in a vacuum, and the gas which was evolved examined. The results are interesting. Most minerals give off gas when heated, and the gas contains, as a rule, a considerable amount of hydrogen, mixed with carbonic acid, questionable traces of nitrogen, and carbonic oxide. Many of the minerals, in addition, gave helium, which proved to be widely distributed, though only in minute proportion. One mineral--malacone--gave appreciable quantities of argon; and it is noteworthy that argon was not found except in it (and, curiously, in much larger amount than helium), and in a specimen of meteoric iron. Other specimens of meteoric iron were examined, but were found to contain mainly hydrogen, with no trace of either argon or helium. It is probable that the sources of meteorites might be traced in this manner, and that each could be relegated to its particular swarm.

Among the minerals examined was one to which our attention had been directed by Prof. Lockyer, named eliasite, from which he said that he had extracted a gas in which he had observed spectrum lines foreign to helium. He was kind enough to furnish us with a specimen of this mineral, which is exceedingly rare, but the sample which we tested contained nothing but undoubted helium.

During a trip to Iceland in 1895, I collected some gas from the boiling springs there; it consisted, for the most part, of air, but contained somewhat more argon than is usually dissolved when air is shaken with water. In the spring of 1896 Mr. Travers and I made a trip to the Pyrenees to collect gas from the mineral springs of Cauterets, to which our attention had been directed by Dr. Bouchard, who pointed out that these gases are rich in helium. We examined a number of samples from the various springs, and confirmed Dr. Bouchard's results, but there was no sign of any unknown lines in the spectrum of these gases. Our quest was in vain.

We must now turn to another aspect of the subject. Shortly after the discovery of helium, its spectrum was very carefully examined by Profs. Runge and Paschen, the renowned spectroscopists. The spectrum was photographed, special attention being paid to the invisible portions, termed the "ultra-violet" and "infra-red."[17] The lines thus registered were found to have a harmonic relation to each other. They admitted of division into two sets, each complete in itself. Now, a similar process had been applied to the spectrum of lithium and to that of sodium, and the spectra of these elements gave only one series each. Hence, Profs. Runge and Paschen concluded that the gas, to which the provisional name of helium had been given, was, in reality, a mixture of two gases, closely resembling each other in properties. As we know no other elements with atomic weights between those of hydrogen and lithium, there is no chemical evidence either for or against this supposition. Prof. Runge supposed that he had obtained evidence of the separation of these imagined elements from each other by means of diffusion; but Mr. Travers and I pointed out that the same alteration of spectrum, which was apparently produced by diffusion, could also be caused by altering the pressure of the gas in the vacuum tube; and shortly after Prof. Runge acknowledged his mistake.

These considerations, however, made it desirable to subject helium to systematic diffusion, in the same way as argon had been tried.[18] The experiments were carried out in the summer of 1896 by Dr. Collie and myself. The result was encouraging. It was found possible to separate helium into two portions of different rates of diffusion, and consequently of different density by this means. The limits of separation, however, were not very great. On the one hand, we obtained gas of a density close on 2.0; and on the other, a sample of density 2.4 or thereabouts. The difficulty was increased by the curious behaviour, which we have often had occasion to confirm, that helium possesses a rate of diffusion too rapid for its density. Thus, the density of the lightest portion of the diffused gas, calculated from its rate of diffusion, was 1.874; but this corresponds to a real density of about 2.0. After our paper, giving an account of these experiments, had been published, a German investigator, Herr A. Hagenbach, repeated our work and confirmed our results.

The two samples of gas of different density differ also in other properties. Different transparent substances differ in the rate at which they allow light to pass through them. Thus, light travels through water at a much slower rate than through air, and at a slower rate through air than through hydrogen. Now Lord Rayleigh found that helium offers less opposition to the passage of light than any other substance does, and the heavier of the two portions into which helium had been split offered more opposition than the lighter portion. And the retardation of the light, unlike what has usually been observed, was nearly proportional to the densities of the samples. The spectrum of these two samples did not differ in the minutest particular; therefore it did not appear quite out of the question to hazard the speculation that the process of diffusion was instrumental, not necessarily in separating two kinds of gas from each other, but actually in removing light molecules of the same kind from heavy molecules.[19] This idea is not new. It had been advanced by Prof. Schützenberger (whose recent death all chemists have to deplore), and later, by Mr. Crookes[20], that what we term the atomic weight of an element is really a mean; that when we say the atomic weight of oxygen is 16, we merely state that the average atomic weight is 16; and it is not inconceivable that a certain number of molecules have a weight somewhat higher than 32, while a certain number have a lower weight.

We therefore thought it necessary to test this question by direct experiment with some known gas; and we chose nitrogen, as a good material with which to test the point. A much larger and more convenient apparatus for diffusing gases was built by Mr. Travers and myself, and a set of systematic diffusions of nitrogen was carried out. After thirty rounds, corresponding to 180 diffusions, the density of the nitrogen was unaltered, and that of the portions which should have diffused most slowly, had there been any difference in rate, was identical with that of the most quickly diffusing portion--i.e. with that of the portion which passed first through the porous plug. This attempt, therefore, was unsuccessful; but it was worth carrying out, for it is now certain that it is not possible to separate a gas of undoubted chemical unity into portions of different density by diffusion.[21] And these experiments rendered it exceedingly improbable that the difference in density of the two fractions of helium was due to separation of light molecules of helium from heavy molecules.

The apparatus used for diffusion had a capacity of about two litres. It was filled with helium, and the operation of diffusion was carried through thirty times. There were six reservoirs, each full of gas, and each was separated into two by diffusion. To the heavier portion of one lot, the lighter portion of the next was added, and in this manner all six reservoirs were successfully passed through the diffusion apparatus. This process was carried out thirty times, each of the six reservoirs having had its gas diffused each time, thus involving 180 diffusions. After this process, the density of the more quickly diffusing gas was reduced to 2.02, while that of the less quickly diffusing had increased to 2.27. The light portion on re-diffusion hardly altered in density, while the heavier portion, when divided into three portions by diffusion, showed a considerable difference in density between the first third and last third. A similar set of operations was carried out with a fresh quantity of helium, in order to accumulate enough gas to obtain a sufficient quantity for a second series of diffusions. The more quickly diffusing portions of both gases were mixed and re-diffused. The density of the lightest portion of these gases was 1.98; and after other 15 diffusions, the density of the lightest portion had not decreased. The end had been reached; it was not possible to obtain a lighter portion by diffusion. The density of the main body of this gas is therefore 1.98; and its refractivity, air being taken as unity, is 0.1245. The spectrum of this portion does not differ in any respect from the usual spectrum of helium.[22]

As re-diffusion does not alter the density or the refractivity of this gas, it is right to suppose that either one definite element has now been isolated; or that if there are more elements than one present, they possess the same, or very nearly the same, density and refractivity. There may be a group of elements, say three, like iron, cobalt, and nickel; but there is no proof that this idea is correct, and the simplicity of the spectrum would be an argument against such a supposition. This substance, forming by far the larger part of the whole amount of the gas, must, in the present state of our knowledge, be regarded as pure helium.

On the other hand, the heavier residue is easily altered in density by re-diffusion, and this would imply that it consists of a small quantity of a heavy gas mixed with a large quantity of the light gas. Repeated re-diffusion convinced us that there was only a very small amount of the heavy gas present in the mixture. The portion which contained the largest amount of heavy gas was found to have the density 2.275, and its refractive index was found to be 0.1333. On re-diffusing this portion of gas until only a trace sufficient to fill a Plücker's tube was left, and then examining the spectrum, no unknown lines could be detected, but, on interposing a jar and spark gap, the well known blue lines of argon became visible; and even without the jar the red lines of argon, and the two green groups were distinctly visible. The amount of argon present, calculated from the density, was 1.64 per cent., and from the refractivity 1.14 per cent. The conclusion had therefore to be drawn that the heavy constituent of helium, as it comes off the minerals containing it, is nothing new, but so far as can be made out, merely a small amount of argon.[23]

If, then, there is a new gas in what is generally termed helium, it is mixed with argon, and it must be present in extremely minute traces. As neither helium nor argon has been induced to form compounds, there does not appear to be any method other than diffusion, for isolating such a gas, if it exists, and that method has failed in our hands to give any evidence of the existence of such a gas. It by no means follows that the gas does not exist; the only conclusion to be drawn is that we have not yet stumbled upon the material which contains it. In fact, the haystack is too large and the needle too inconspicuous. Reference to the periodic table will show that between the elements aluminium and indium there occurs gallium, a substance occurring only in the minutest amount on the earth's surface; and following silicon, and preceding tin, appears the element germanium, a body which has as yet been recognised only in one of the rarest of minerals, argyrodite. Now, the amount of helium in fergusonite, one of the minerals which yields it in reasonable quantity, is only 33 parts by weight in 100,000 of the mineral; and it is not improbable that some other mineral may contain the new gas in even more minute proportion. If, however, it is accompanied in its still undiscovered source by argon and helium, it will be a work of extreme difficulty to effect a separation from these gases.[24]

In these remarks it has been assumed that the new gas will resemble argon and helium in being indifferent to the action of reagents, and in not forming compounds. This supposition is worth examining. In considering it, the analogy with other elements is all that we have to guide us.

We have already paid some attention to several triads of elements. We have seen that the differences in atomic weights between the elements fluorine and manganese, oxygen and chromium, nitrogen and vanadium, carbon and titanium, is in each case approximately the same as that between helium and argon, viz. 36. If elements further back in the periodic table be examined, it is to be noticed that the differences grow less, the smaller the atomic weights. Thus, between boron and scandium, the difference is 33; between beryllium (glucinum) and calcium, 31; and between lithium and potassium, 32. At the same time, we may remark that the elements grow liker each other, the lower the atomic weights. Now, helium and argon are very like each other in physical properties. It may be fairly concluded, I think, that in so far they justify their position. Moreover, the pair of elements which show the smallest difference between their atomic weights is beryllium and calcium; there is a somewhat greater difference between lithium and potassium. And it is in accordance with this fragment of regularity that helium and argon show a greater difference. Then again, sodium, the middle element of the lithium triad, is very similar in properties both to lithium and potassium; and we might, therefore, expect that the unknown element of the helium series should closely resemble both helium and argon.

Leaving now the consideration of the new element, let us turn our attention to the more general question of the atomic weight of argon, and its anomalous position in the periodic scheme of the elements. The apparent difficulty is this: The atomic weight of argon is 40; it has no power to form compounds, and thus possesses no valency; it must follow chlorine in the periodic table, and precede potassium;[25] but its atomic weight is greater than that of potassium, whereas it is generally contended that the elements should follow each other in the order of their atomic weights. If this contention is correct, argon should have an atomic weight smaller than 40.

Let us examine this contention. Taking the first row of elements, we have:

Li=7, Be=9.8, B=11, C=12, N=14, O=16, F=19, ?=20.
The differences are:
2.8, 1.2, 1.0, 2.0, 2.0, 3.0, 1.0.
It is obvious that they are irregular. The next row shows similar irregularities. Thus:
(?=20), Na=23, Mg=24.3, Al=27, Si=28, P=31, S=32, Cl=35.5, A=40.
And the differences:

3.0, 1.3, 2.7, 1.0, 3.0, 1.0, 3.5, 4.5.
The same irregularity might be illustrated by a consideration of each succeeding row. Between argon and the next in order, potassium, there is a difference of -0.9; that is to say, argon has a higher atomic weight than potassium by 0.9 unit; whereas it might be expected to have a lower one, seeing that potassium follows argon in the table. Further on in the table there is a similar discrepancy. The row is as follows:
Ag=108, Cd=112, In=114, Sn=119, Sb=120.5, Te=127.7, I=127.
The differences are:
4.0, 2.0, 5.0, 1.5, 7.2, -0.7.
Here, again, there is a negative difference between tellurium and iodine. And this apparent discrepancy has led to many and careful redeterminations of the atomic weight of tellurium. Prof. Brauner, indeed, has submitted tellurium to methodical fractionation, with no positive results. All the recent determinations of its atomic weight give practically the same number, 127.7.[26]

Again, there have been almost innumerable attempts to reduce the differences between the atomic weights to regularity, by contriving some formula which will express the numbers which represent the atomic weights, with all their irregularities. Needless to say, such attempts have in no case been successful. Apparent success is always attained at the expense of accuracy, and the numbers reproduced are not those accepted as the true atomic weights. Such attempts, in my opinion, are futile. Still, the human mind does not rest contented in merely chronicling such an irregularity; it strives to understand why such an irregularity should exist.[27] And, in connection with this, there are two matters which call for our consideration. These are: Does some circumstance modify these "combining proportions" which we term "atomic weights"? And is there any reason to suppose that we can modify them at our will? Are they true "constants of nature," unchangeable, and once for all determined? Or are they constant merely so long as other circumstances, a change in which would modify them, remain unchanged?

In order to understand the real scope of such questions, it is necessary to consider the relation of the "atomic weights" to other magnitudes, and especially to the important quantity termed "energy."[28]

It is known that energy manifests itself under different forms, and that one form of energy is quantitatively convertible into another form, without loss. It is also known that each form of energy is expressible as the product of two factors, one of which has been termed the "intensity factor," and the other the "capacity factor." Prof. Ostwald, in the last edition of his "Allgemeine Chemie," classifies some of these forms of energy as follows:

Kinetic energy is the product of Mass into the square of velocity.
Linear " " Length into force.
Surface " " Surface into surface tension.
Volume " " Volume into pressure.
Heat " " Heat capacity (entropy)[29] into temperature.
Electrical " " Electrical capacity into potential.
Chemical " " "Atomic weight" into affinity.[30]

In each statement of factors, the "capacity factor" is placed first, and the "intensity factor" second.

In considering the "capacity factors," it is noticeable that they may be divided into two classes. The two first kinds of energy, kinetic and linear, are independent of the nature of the material which is subject to the energy. A mass of lead offers as much resistance to a given force, or, in other words, possesses as great inertia as an equal mass of hydrogen. A mass of iridium, the densest solid, counterbalances an equal mass of lithium, the lightest known solid. On the other hand, surface energy deals with molecules, and not with masses. So does volume energy. The volume energy of two grammes of hydrogen, contained in a vessel of one litre capacity, is equal to that of thirty-two grammes of oxygen at the same temperature, and contained in a vessel of equal size. Equal masses of tin and lead have not equal capacity for heat; but 119 grammes of tin has the same capacity as 207 grammes of lead; that is, equal atomic masses have the same heat capacity. The quantity of electricity conveyed through an electrolyte under equal difference of potential is proportional, not to the mass of the dissolved body, but to its equivalent; that is, to some simple fraction of its atomic weight. And the capacity factor of chemical energy is the atomic weight of the substance subjected to the energy. We see, therefore, that while mass or inertia are important adjuncts of kinetic and linear energies, all other kinds of energy are connect with atomic weights, either directly or indirectly.[31]

Such considerations draw attention to the fact that quantity of matter (assuming that there exists such a carrier of properties as we term "matter") need not necessarily be measured by its inertia, or by gravitational attraction. In fact the word "mass" has two totally distinct significations. Because we adopt the convention to measure quantity of matter by its mass, the word "mass" has come to denote "quantity of matter." But it is open to any one to measure a quantity of matter by any other of its energy factors. I may, if I choose, state that those quantities of matter which possess equal capacities for heat are equal; or that "equal numbers of atoms" represent equal quantities of matter. Indeed, we regard the value of material as due rather to what it can do, than to its mass; and we buy food, in the main, on an atomic, or perhaps, a molecular basis, according to its content of albumen.[32] And most articles depend for their value on the amount of food required by the producer or the manufacturer.

The various forms of energy may therefore be classified as those which can be referred to an "atomic" factor, and those which possess a "mass" factor. The former are in the majority. And the periodic law is the bridge between them; and yet, an imperfect connection. For the atomic factors, arranged in the order of their masses, display only a partial regularity. It is undoubtedly one of the main problems of physics and chemistry to solve this mystery.[33] What the solution will be is beyond my power of prophecy; whether it is to be found in the influence of some circumstance on the atomic weights, hitherto regarded as among the most certain "constants of nature"; or whether it will turn out that mass and gravitational attraction are influenced by temperature, or by electrical charge, I cannot tell. But that some means will ultimately be found of reconciling these apparent discrepancies, I firmly believe. Such a reconciliation is necessary, whatever view be taken of the nature of the universe and of its mode of action; whatever units we may choose to regard as fundamental among those which lie at our disposal.

In this address I have endeavoured to fulfil my promise to combine a little history, a little actuality, and a little prophecy. The history belongs to the Old World; I have endeavoured to share passing events with the New; and I will ask you to join with me in the hope that much of the prophecy may meet with its fulfilment on this side of the ocean.[34]


[1]As Ramsay notes, this article is not like most of the material which appeared in the scientific journals of his time--or of ours, for that matter. The style is more oratorical, more filled with rhetorical flourishes, than the terse communication of a formal scientific paper.

[2]Ramsay's prediction here is reminiscent of Mendeleev's predictions of undiscovered elements [Mendeleev 1871; also chapter 13, note 44]. Just as those earlier predictions helped to establish the authority of the periodic system, Ramsay's extends that authority to a new class of elements.

[3]Recall Lavoisier's concern that a chemical name convey some information about the named substance. This precept, however, was not commonly observed in names of elements. See chapter 3, note16.

[4]Döbereiner 1829.

[5]Dumas 1857.

[6]Newlands began publishing investigations of relations among atomic weights along the lines of Döbereiner and Dumas in 1864. The "law of octaves" dates to 1865. See chapter 11 for annotated texts of Newlands.

[7]Chapters 12 and 13 and references therein treat the contributions of Mendeleev ("Mendeléeff"). View a photo of Meyer (1830-1895) at the Edgar Fahs Smith Memorial Collection at the University of Pennsylvania. For Meyer's work, see Meyer 1870.

[8]What Ramsay refers to sounds a bit like the Vis Tellurique or "Telluric Screw" of A. E. Béguyer de Chancourtois. (See also chapter 13, note 13.) But Béguyer's cylinder was marked in atomic weight units, not in places by atomic weight (i.e., first, second, third, etc.) that Ramsay mentions here and that Newlands had employed.

[9]So much for informative elemental names! (Cf. note 3 above.) Anglia, Scotia, and Hibernia are Latin names for England, Scotland, and Ireland, three principal divisions of what was then the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The late 19th century saw many elements named after the home region of the discoverers including the previously mentioned gallium and germanium.

[10]Argon presented two problems to those who tried to fit it into the periodic system: first, it had no relatives on the table as it was known then, and second there seemed to be no room for it where its atomic weight would put it. If the periodic table was valid, then another column must be added for the family of which argon was the only known representative, for the periodic system had put all elements in family groups. The logic of this conclusion seems compelling in retrospect, but it was far from obvious at the time; no one publicly predicted a family of monatomic gases when argon was the only known example.

The isolation of one element with properties as unusual as those of argon (namely monatomic and inert) was itself a surprise; however, if the periodic system was valid, then there must be other similar elements. Some contemporary chemists questioned the monatomicity of argon; some physicists questioned the universality of the periodic law. As if that were not enough, the atomic weight of argon suggested an impossible location for that new column of elements, for Rayleigh and Ramsay (correctly) found the atomic weight of argon to be between that of potassium and calcium, two very reactive metals. If a new column was to be added to the table for an element which seemed to make no bonds, it might be expected to precede a column of elements which characteristically made one bond, not to fall between monovalent and divalent elements. [Giunta 2001]

[11]Ramsay modestly does not emphasize that he is the one who obtained helium from these minerals. On the day after the announcement of argon, Henry Miers, Keeper of the Collection of Minerals in the British Museum, had written to Ramsay about reports of nitrogen obtained from the uranium-containing mineral uraninite. Ramsay proceeded to isolate the gas from a related mineral, cleveite, and to examine its spectrum. It turned out to be neither nitrogen nor (as Ramsay expected) argon.

The isolation of helium and its characterization as a gas with properties like that of argon was a tremendously promising development for anyone who would try to reconcile argon and the periodic system. Now that argon was known not to be unique, the possibility of still other inert gases appears more reasonable.

Helium is found in minerals which contain or contained radioactive elements because the helium nucleus is a product of alpha (α) radioactive decay. Indeed, the a particle is identical to the helium nucleus (chapter 19). At the time of Ramsay's speech, however, radioactivity was a newly discovered (chapter 17) and as yet mysterious phenomenon.

[12]Sir Joseph Norman Lockyer (1836-1920; see photo at the Norman Lockyer Observatory) was a prominent British scientist and science journalist. Astronomy was his discipline, including extensive study of the sun. He was the founder and long-time editor of Nature, today one of the most prestigious research journals in the scientific world. Lockyer also had a speculative bent, particularly on stellar evolution and elements in the stars. See Lockyer 1896 for a contemporary account of the discovery of helium and Kragh 2009 for a more recent review.

[13]In periodic tables which displayed only short rows, such as those in Meyer 1870 or Mendeleev 1871, manganese fell under chlorine, chromium under sulfur, etc. Even in such tables, however, manganese, chromium, vanadium, titanium, and other elements belonging to their row are offset from the elements which appear in the same column. The understanding of Ramsay and his contemporaries of the relationship of manganese, chromium, etc., to chlorine, sulfur, etc., is different from that of the modern reader. They were often assigned the same group number but with a distinction (VII A and VII B, for example). The notion of main groups and sub groups suggests that the offset elements were regarded as somehow similar but dissimilar. Manganese, chromium, vanadium, and titanium belong to the first series of transition metals; they fall in the first long row of a modern periodic table. A prediction based on analogies between main group and transition elements appears in hindsight to have a flimsy basis.

[14]Having pointed out a weakness in one basis of Ramsay's prediction, I hasten to add that the prediction was well based and proved to be correct. The working hypothesis that there must be a family of inert elements follows from the structure of the periodic table: elements come in families. Thus the prediction of inertness can be made on the basis of family resemblance. The prediction of atomic weight also has a reasonable basis: having found one member of the family lighter than lithium and another with a weight near that of potassium, Ramsay had good reason to expect a member of the family with atomic weight near sodium--and preferably lighter. Expecting an element between fluorine and sodium in weight would have led to an atomic weight prediction of 20-22.

In fact, Ramsay had by this time already predicted the existence of a family of gases similar to argon and helium. The final two columns of the periodic table he included in his 1896 monograph Gases of the Atmosphere [Ramsay 1896]:

Finally, Ramsay refers here and above to "monatomic molecules." This sounds to our ears like a contradiction in terms, and indeed, the usual understanding among chemists as well as the official definition of molecule is "an electrically neutral entity consisting of more than one atom" (IUPAC Gold Book). Ramsay's usage, common at the time, was to use molecule to refer to the normal smallest aggregation of atoms that was characteristic of a substance, whether that be one atom (as in argon and helium), two (as in oxygen or carbon monoxide), or more (as in ozone, water, and most compounds).

[15]Morris William Travers (1872-1961; view photo at the National Portrait Gallery) assisted Ramsay in the discovery of krypton, neon, and xenon.

[16]Where should one start a search for a gas like helium and argon? A logical place to start is where helium and argon are found, of course. At first, the source of helium must have seemed more promising than the source of argon (namely the atmosphere), because Rayleigh and Ramsay had already processed the atmosphere rather thoroughly in discovering argon. The atmosphere is where neon was eventually found, though, after technology for liquifying air made it feasible to separate out even minor components of the air.

[17]The wavelengths at which materials either absorb or emit light have been an important characteristic of materials since the introduction of spectral analysis in the middle of the 19th century. This paragraph illustrates two aspects in which spectral analysis had by the end of the century passed beyond its use as a visible-light fingerprint. First, spectral analysis extends by this time beyond the range of visible light to both shorter (ultraviolet) and longer (infrared) wavelengths. Second, researchers have begun to try to "read" spectra: to describe patterns in a set of wavelengths and to try to interpret those patterns (for example in terms of models of structure [Thomson 1888-94]).

Spectra were still quite complicated, however, and not well understood. For example, the physical conditions under which a spectrum was recorded could change certain aspects of its appearance. Later researchers would correctly interpret the difference between the spectra of helium and lithium spectra mentioned here in terms of the structure of their atoms.

[18]Gaseous diffusion through porous materials can be used to separate, at least partially, a mixture of gases of different densities. Atmospheric air could be separated into portions in one of which argon was present in a higher concentration than normal. (See previous chapter, note 59.)

[19]The idea Ramsay floats here sounds a lot like that of isotopes, established early in the 20th century (chapter 20). Helium does have two naturally occurring isotopes, by the way, but the properties and relative abundance of those isotopes do not explain Ramsay's experiments.

[20]The British scientist Sir William Crookes (1832-1919; see portrait at National Portrait Gallery, London) was a productive researcher and highly original and speculative thinker in many areas of physics and chemistry. In his address as president of the Chemistry section of the British Association a decade earlier, Crookes referred to the possibility of atoms of the same elements possibly having different weights [Crookes 1886]. That address, touching on such topics as Prout's protyle hypothesis, the periodic law, rare earths, and the evolution of elements serves as a prime example of his wide-ranging and speculative mind.

[21]Later events proved Ramsay incorrect on this point, for gas diffusion was the basis of a tedious but effective technology of separating heavy, non-fissionable uranium from light, fissionable uranium. Industrial gas-diffusion plants were built for this purpose during World War II as part of the Manhattan Project, and they continued to purify uranium for atomic weapons for decades afterwards. The uranium-containing gas, uranium hexafluoride (UF6), was of "undoubted chemical unity"; i.e., it was all UF6, but it contained different isotopes of uranium.

[22]Ramsay does not explicitly say so, but it is apparent that this paragraph returns to describing an attempt to fractionate helium by gas diffusion. The course of the investigation can be described as follows. First, Ramsay and Collie attempt separation of helium by gas diffusion in 1896; they obtain materials with some different properties, but with the same spectrum, so they speculate they have something we would call isotopes. So Ramsay and Travers build an diffusion apparatus, and try to effect a similar separation of nitrogen; they get no separation of nitrogen, and now doubt that the the separation of helium was into isotopes. After these preliminaries, they subject helium to their improved diffusion apparatus until the lighter fraction cannot be further separated. The light fraction, as Ramsay states in the next paragraph, is pure helium.

[23]The heavier fraction of the original sample of helium was indeed mostly helium, but it also contained a small amount of argon; the argon made it heavier. If there is any other gas in sample, it is present only in the most minute of traces.

[24]Ramsay notes that if the "undiscovered gas" indeed is like helium and argon in undergoing no chemical reactions, then the means of traditional qualitative chemical analysis would not be useful for isolating it. (Traditional "wet" chemical methods depend on similarities and differences in reactivity and solubility to separate elements; such techniques are ineffectual on elements which refuse to participate in reactions.) He would have to rely on physical methods of separation.

He goes on to re-examine and reaffirm his expectation that the gas will indeed be like helium and argon in its chemical inertness. His argument is of less interest here than the act of re-examing an assumption or expectation.

[25]Why does Ramsay say that argon "must" follow chlorine and precede potassium? As one proceeds from sodium to chlorine in the periodic system, an increase in valence from one (sodium) to four (silicon) and back down to one (chlorine) is evident. If there is a place for a new element with zero valence, surely it must be between the end of one such row and the beginning of the next. Yet placing argon before potassium would require an inversion of the position suggested by atomic weight. This is the conundrum to which Ramsay returns. (Cf. note 10 above.)

[26]Ramsay regards an inversion in atomic weights in the placement of argon as exceptional but not unprecedented. After all, he notes, there is no regular increment in atomic weights as one passes from one element in the periodic system to the next. Furthermore, there is another inversion in the system, in the placement of tellurium before iodine. Mendeleev, on the other hand, thought the inversion was only apparent: tellurium belonged before iodine, so he thought the accepted atomic weight of tellurium was wrong (chapter 13, note 49).

[27]Ramsay does not mention Prout's hypotheses (chapter 10) here, but they are relevant. Prout's protyle hypothesis stood ready as an attractive explanation for regularity in atomic weights, if only that regularity could be shown to exist. Time and again, however, careful measurements found enough irregularity to preclude Prout's multiples hypothesis.

As it happens, atomic weights are not unchanging constants of nature. The existence of isotopy means that the atomic weight of an element depends on the relative proportions of its isotopes. Different processes will result in different proportions of isotopes; however, most chemical and physical processes produce such small differences in isotopic composition, that isotopy was as yet a barely suspected phenomenon, lacking both evidence and a name. (See note 19 above.)

[28]The next few paragraphs may be regarded as motivating an interest in determining whether atomic weights really are fundamental constants of nature. This may seem rhetorically odd, considering that Ramsay was addressing a group of chemists, researchers in a science in which atomic weight and molecular weight are indispensable concepts. But Ramsay suggests that the question ought to be of interest even outside chemistry, to physicists for example.

[29]Heat capacity and entropy have the same units and are related; however, they are not synonymous. Heat capacity appears to be the appropriate quantity here.

[30]Affinity was a term which survived for hundreds of years in chemistry, refering to the strength of chemical bonds; however, it was too poorly defined and understood to appear in a quantitative relationship such as is suggested here.

[31]To put it another way, most of the phenomena on Ramsay's list depend on the interactions between discrete molecules and not just in undifferentiated matter. Thus, it makes some sense in comparing materials to do so on the basis of equal numbers of molecules rather than equal masses. For example, many metals have approximately the same heat capacity per mole (where the mole is defined as containing a given number of atoms or molecules), a regularity not seen if one tabulates heat capacity per gram or kilogram of material. The atomic weight is a key quantity in converting between quantities from a mass basis to a mole basis, hence, says Ramsay, its importance even outside chemistry.

[32]Albumen was at this time a synonym for protein, and not limited to the specific proteinaceous material found in egg white.

[33]The key to the mystery turned out to be understanding the structure of the atom. We will see the first steps toward that understanding in the final section of this volume.

[34]"This side of the ocean" was the west side, for the British Association meeting at which Ramsay delivered this address was in Toronto.


References marked with an asterisk (*) may require a subscription to access.
Back to the top of the table of contents of Elements and Atoms.
Back to the top of Classic Chemistry.