Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 66.djvu/39

Rh 2. The volume-energy of gases is equal at equal temperature from that at which volume-energy is zero—i. e., absolute zero. And it follows that those volumes of gases which possess equal volume-energy contain equal numbers of molecules—again, a close connection with atomic weights.

3. The specific heats of elements are approximately inversely proportional to their atomic weights; and of compounds to the quotient of their molecular weights divided by the number of atoms in the molecule. Specific heat and entropy are closely related; hence one of the factors of thermal energy is proportional (nearly) to the reciprocal of the atomic weights.

4. The ion carries in its migration through a solution one or more electrons. Now, the ion is an atom carrying one or more charges—one for each equivalent. Here we have the capacity for electric charge proportional to the equivalent.

5. The factors of chemical energy are atomic weight and chemical potential; and as the former is identical numerically, or after multiplication by a simple factor with equivalent, electric potential is proportional to chemical potential.

We see therefore that surface, volume, thermal, electrical, and, no doubt, other forms of energy have as capacity factors magnitudes, either identical with, or closely related to, units of chemical capacity; while kinetic and linear energy are not so related, except through the periodic arrangement of the elements.

It appears therefore to be a fundamental problem for the chemist to ascertain, first, accurate atomic weights, and, second, to investigate some anomalies which still present difficulties. In America, you have excellent workers in the former branch. Mallet, Morley, Richards and many others have devoted their time and skill to perhaps the best work of this kind which has been done; and F. W. Clarke has collated all results and afforded incalculable help to all who work at or are interested in the subject. Valuable criticisms, too, have been made by Hinrichs; but it must be confessed that in spite of these, which are perhaps the best determinations which have been made, the problem becomes more, and not less formidable.

There are lines of work, however, which suggest themselves as possibly likely to throw light on the question. First, there is a striking anomaly in the atomic weight of nitrogen, determined by analysis and determined by density. Stas obtained the number 14.04 $$(\mathrm{O} = 16)$$, and Richards has recently confirmed his results; while Rayleigh and Leduc consistently obtained densities which, even when corrected so as to equalize the numbers of molecules in equal volumes, give the lower figure 14.002. The difference is 1 in 350; far beyond any possible experimental error. Recently, an attempt to combine the two methods has led to a mean number; but that result can hardly be taken as final. What is the reason of the discrepancy? Its discovery will surely