To pave the whole world with leather, you need only put on a pair of shoes.

Is it possible to learn our lessons directly from the only teacher that we really have - life? Instead of looking to someone else for a theoretical diagnosis, to look directly at the problem itself? Theories are born of man's quest for a solution to the immediate problem of sorrow. But who created this problem? I myself. Trouble does not come from outside. We do not need theory. Look at it directly - here is my sorrow; it arises in me. This may not be easy for everyone. It needs a certain maturity of intelligence, a certain ability to focus one's attention on the source of sorrow while undergoing that sorrow. This may be difficult while the pain is still there. Therefore, the theories and belief systems will take us to a certain point, but the solution must be found inside.

Sorrow is experienced very clearly - I know I am miserable. So, if instead of trying to destroy all my external enemies I readjust the thing within myself that responds to external circumstances, the problem is solved. No one is my enemy. In the Yoga Vasistha it says, "To pave the whole world with leather, you need only put on a pair of shoes." Instead of trying to manipulate the environment to suit myself, why not readjust the self so that it does not get hurt?

Is there a state of mind, a state of awareness where one is not hurt or sorrowful at all? Let us observe what it is that gets hurt. Look directly, without any theory whatsoever, merely look within to see where the hurt is experienced - totally unrelated to the external provocation. I am hurt, or whatever it is that says 'I' in this body, that is hurt. But what is it that says 'I' in this body... eyes, heart, stomach? There is no 'I' and therefore there is no hurt! I discover that the truth is extremely simple.

Yet since body consciousness is there, it is possible that I will be hurt again. 'I' arises and whenever it arises it gets hurt. But if I have found the key, what does it matter if someone locks the door? It is as simple as that. And all the theories that man has invented are meant only to lead us there, to the discovery that 'I' is not. When we realise that simple truth, confusion disappears.

swami venkatesananda

The Proton-Proton Process

Fusion in the Sun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FusionintheSun.svg

In nuclear fusion two atoms come together to form one. This reaction releases vast energy. In a fusion reactor hydrogen atoms come together to form helium atoms and neutrons along with huge amounts of energy. I found a great little site "The Astrophysics Spectator" and an article they wrote on hydrogen fusion. It has really helped me to get to grips with the chain of events in a fusion reaction. I have included, and made comments on, some of the text from the article, below:
http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/stars/FusionHydrogen.html

"The fusion of hydrogen into helium takes place through a somewhat complex network of reactions involving many isotopes that are intermediate in weight between hydrogen and helium and involving several elements that are heavier than helium. When one examines these numerous reactions, however, one finds that the conversion of hydrogen into helium predominately follows one of five paths.

The five different fusion paths can be divided into two sets of processes: the Proton-Proton (PP) process, which depends only on the amount of hydrogen and helium in the star, and the Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen (CNO) process, which depends on the amount of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen in addition to the amount of hydrogen and helium in the star

There are three branches to the PP process of convert hydrogen (H1) into helium (He4). The first branch does the conversion without creating any nuclei heavier than helium. The remaining two branches go through a step that creates beryllium.

The first PP branch takes hydrogen to deuterium (H2) to helium-3 (He3) to helium-4 (He4). In a chemistry-style notation with γ representing the gamma-ray and ν representing the electron neutrino, the fusion chain is as follows:

H1 + H1 → H2 + e+ + ν

H2 + H1 → He3 + γ

He3 + He3 → He4 + 2 H1

If I may, I'd like to try and explain the sequence of the first branch in terms of the new model to see where it takes us.

H1 + H1 → H2 + e+ + v : A hydrogen ion is a cyclone with a mass of 1, while deuterium is also a cyclone but with a mass of 2. In theory, what we could be seeing is two smaller cyclones being brought together to create one big cyclone. This reaction creates energy in the form of a positron and electron neutrino.

"The positron or antielectron is the antiparticle or the antimatter counterpart of the electron. The positron has an electric charge of +1, a spin of 1⁄2, and the same mass as an electron. When a low-energy positron collides with a low-energy electron, annihilation occurs, resulting in the production of two or more gamma ray photons."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positrons

If I am to understand a positron as the counterpart to an electrion, and that perhaps it's more correct to say that the electrion has an excess of electric charge, then this means that the positron will be seen to have somekind of deficit in electric charge. In bringing the positron and the electron together, they cancel one another out, and generate waves in the aether field which we see as EMR. This reaction gently reminds me of the way bubbles collapse in cavitation.

"Neutrinos (meaning "small neutral one")... are elementary particles that often travel close to the speed of light, are electrically neutral, are able to pass through ordinary matter almost undisturbed and are thus extremely difficult to detect.

Electron neutrinos (or antineutrinos) are generated whenever neutrons change into protons (or protons into neutrons), the two forms of beta decay.

Most neutrinos passing through the Earth emanate from the Sun, and more than 50 trillion solar electron neutrinos pass through the human body every second."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

The neutrino just screams that it is a particle of the aether. Is the appearance of a neutrino a display of longitudinal waves in the aether?

H2 + H1 → He3 + γ : This next step sees deuterium being added to a hydrogen ion to give us helium-3 and gamma radiation. That is, one big cyclone with a mass of 2, being added to a smaller cyclone with a mass of 1, which is then converted into a pair of cyclones - each cyclone with the new mass of 1.5 , giving a cyclone-pair a combined mass of 3 . No mass has been lost in the conversion, so the only energy that we see are the EMR waves in the aether.

He3 + He3 → He4 + 2 H1 : Okay, now we have one cyclone-pair, being introduced to another cyclone-pair. Effectively, we have four cyclones each with a mass of 1.5, that come together to produce 2 helium donutoms, and 2 hydrogen ions. In the reaction we see no mass being lost, but we see no energy being released either.

"The second and third branches of the PP chain involve the creation of beryllium-7 (Be7) and its subsequent destruction. The second branch splits from the first branch after the creation of helium-3. Helium-3 combines with helium-4 to create beryllium-7. Beryllium-7 combines with a free electron to give lithium-7 (Li7). Lithium-7 combines with hydrogen to give two helium-4 nuclei, returning the helium atom destroyed at the beginning of the offshoot.

He3 + He4 → Be7 + γ

Be7 + e- → Li7 + ν

Li7 + H1 → He4 + He4

Once again, I'd like to walk through the reaction in terms of the new model.

He3 + He4 → Be7 + γ : A cyclone-pair (He3) reacts with 2 helium donutoms to give us beryllium-7 and the release of gamma rays. What we have is a overall structure made out of 4 cyclones and 2 anticyclones. To help me write these structures down as formulas, I use a figure 6 to represent a cyclone, and the figure 9 to represent an anticyclone. This part of the formula could then be seen as :

66 + 6969 → 696966 + γ

Be7 + e- → Li7 + ν : By adding an electrion we get lithium-7, and the release of a neutrino. I think that an electrion is an anticyclone. Figuratively, this formula might look something like:

696966 + 9 → 6696969 + ν

As a structure, lithium-7 appears to be made of 3 donutoms which are joined by a cyclone out on its limb.

Li7 + H1 → He4 + He4 : This surprised me a little bit, because in order to generate 4 donutoms, I expected to find that an electrion was being added to lithium-7, and this does not appear to be the case. Instead, what we have is a hydrogen ion being added:

6696969 + 6 → 6969 + 6969

"The third branch splits from the second branch after the creation of beryllium-7. In it, beryllium-7 combines with hydrogen to become boron-8 (B8). Boron-8 is unstable and decays into beryllium-8 (Be8), which rapidly decays into two helium nuclei.

Be7 + H1 → B8 + γ

B8 → Be8 + e+ + ν

Be8 → 2 He4

This third branch appears to be giving us more of a glimpse into what happens when a cyclone joins a cyclone pair. It might help shed some light on how cyclonic proton structures are converted into anticyclonic electrion structures.

Be7 + H1 → B8 + γ : Can be shown as:

696966 + 6 → 6969666 + γ

It's as if we have a structure with 2 donutoms which are accompanied by a cyclone-pair. This cyclone pair has a combined mass of 3 (just like helium-3), and it has been joined by one more cyclone, so it appears that we now have a structure made out of 3 cyclones. In the reaction, a wave is made in the aether which we see as gamma radiation.

B8 → Be8 + e+ + ν : We are now seeing the release of a positron and a neutrino from boron-8, to give us beryllium-8. I find the 3 cyclone structure of boron-8 extremely conspicious. It's as if the hydrogen ion which joins beryllium-7, is actively knocking something out of the way - something in the shape of a positron and neutrino - something which once belonged to the cyclone-pair perhaps?

The Fujiwhara effect or Fujiwara 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. It is this "point" that the two cyclones pinwheel about which now interests me. Assuming that this central point belongs to the aether, I think that particles based in this central point could become extremely active. Active enough perhaps, for us to notice them as a positron and a neutrino if they were knocked free?

What's really interesting about this 3 cyclone structure is that it materialises into 2 donutoms. It looks a bit like a helium-3-cyclone-pair is being displaced by a hydrogen ion, everything seems to get all busted-up, and a free-for-all takes place. I don't know if these figurative formulas help you, but they sure do me:

6969 + 666 → 6969 + 6969 + e+ + ν

Be8 → 2 He4: Is the final step of the third branch, where beryllium-8 rapidly decays into 4 donutoms. This might be made to look something like this:

69696969 → 6969 6969

"Helium is present in substantial quantities at the birth of every star, so the initial composition of the star is never an impediment to the PP process proceeding along the second and third branches. As a star converts its hydrogen to helium, increasing the density of helium in the core, these branches becomes more common.

The core temperature determines which of these branches is dominant. The first PP process branch dominates in the production of helium for core temperatures below roughly 15 million degrees (1.3 keV), the second branch dominates between 15 and 25 million degrees (1.3 to 2.2 keV), and the third branch dominates above 25 million degrees.

The total energy released in converting four hydrogen nuclei into a single Helium nucleus is the same for each of the three branches, 26.7 MeV. Much of this energy, however, is carried by the neutrino, and because neutrinos interact weakly with other particles, most of them escape from a star's core without loss of energy.

The fractions of the energy lost from the core through direct emission of neutrinos for the first, second, and third branches are 2%, 4%, and 28%. The third branch produces a substantial energy output in neutrinos, making it an import source of energy loss. Neutrinos from this branch were the focus of the first experiments that measured the sun's neutrino flux and found it to be lower than expected."

Being able to manipulate fusion reactions for neutrinos could prove to be an important source of fuel in the future.



Many thanks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavitation
http://hep.bu.edu/~superk/solar.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujiwhara_effect
http://science.howstuffworks.com/fusion-reactor1.htm
http://www.np.ph.bham.ac.uk/research/anthropic.htm

The Electric Comet

The Electric Comet
by Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott

For several decades plasma cosmologists, inspired by the work of Hannes Alfvén, have urged astronomers to consider the role of electric currents and plasma discharge in large scale cosmic events.

According to these theorists, electricity may be the dominating force in galaxy and star formation. But only a few have considered the role electricity might play in the spectacular displays of comets.

Comets follow their elongated paths within a weak electrical field centered on the Sun. In approaching the Sun, a charge imbalance develops between the nucleus and the higher voltage and charge density near the Sun. Growing electrical stresses initiate discharges and the formation of a glowing plasma sheath, appearing as the coma and tail.

The electric comet model does not stand alone but in partnership with another hypothesis—the electric Sun.

In the 1960s, engineer Ralph Juergens, an admirer of Hannes Alfvén, proposed that the Sun is a glow discharge, the center of an electric field extending to the heliopause. This field is the cause of solar wind acceleration. In the 1970s Juergens elaborated the theoretical concept and suggested that a comet’s display is provoked by its electrical exchange with the Sun.

Verification of the “electric comet,” therefore, will have far-reaching effects on all theoretical sciences touching on the nature of the universe:
• An electric field sufficient to cause electrical discharging on a comet beyond the orbit of Saturn has the potential to power the Sun.

• We can no longer ignore the cosmic electricians’ claims: they tell us that the Sun is not a nuclear furnace but an electric glow discharge; its nuclear reactions are occurring not in the interior but in the atmosphere of the Sun, where the intensity of the discharge is highest.

• The nebular hypothesis of planetary origins, with its gravity-only causation, rests on too many unwarranted assumptions. Astronomers must now ask: what was the role of electricity in solar system evolution?

• The fabled residue of the primordial nebula, the “Oort cloud,” called upon to send comets into the inner solar system, has lost its rationale.

• The electric field implied by comet behavior suggests that planets may not have always moved on their present orbits. The history of the solar system may bear little resemblance to present textbook descriptions.

• Electric currents and electric events in our solar system appear to have countless analogs in deep space.

Above all else, astronomers and cosmologists must educate themselves on the behavior of electric currents in plasma.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/electric_universe/esp_electricuniverse17.htm

T

A radioactive isotope of hydrogen having an atomic weight of 3.02 and a half-life of 12.3 years. Its nucleus is called a triton and consists of one proton and two neutrons. It decays by beta decay and is used in thermonuclear bombs, thermonuclear fusion devices, as a radioactive tracer, etc. Tritium occurs in natural water with an abundance 10-18 that of ordinary hydrogen.

Tritium was discovered in 1934 by the physicists Ernest Rutherford, M. L. Oliphant, and Paul Harteck by bombarding deuterium with high-energy deuterons. Tritium is produced most effectively by the nuclear reaction between lithium-6 and neutrons from nuclear fission reactors.

Symbol: T
http://everything2.com/title/tritium

The nucleus of tritium is said to consist of one proton and two neutrons. I wanted to try and determine how this model for tritium was drawn up, and to then compare it to the new model that we have established for the helium atom.

I think that a proton is acting out cyclonic behaviours because it has a deficit in electric fliud. On the other hand, I think that neutrons, as they are classically explained, do not exist. If I was to really look for a neutron, I suspect it would be a tiny particle, much smaller than atoms, and that it would be something which makes up the electric fluid of the aether. Basically, in my world, a formation of one proton and two neutrons could not exist as an atomic structure. Heck, I don't think atoms exist in the way we think they do at all. I think atoms are more like ring donuts, or as I now like to call them - "donutoms".

In designing an atomic model for helium, I proposed it consists of one electrion and one proton brought together to form dipolar vortices. I then picture energy moving between these vortices, from a high pressure area to a low pressure area, and vice versa, so you end up with something that looks like a spin-cycle. What you would see is the movement of energy following a loop inside a vortex ring. This vortex ring is what I think a donutom looks like.

I think that the electron (or as I'm tempted to rename it - "electrion" - to help avoid confusion with the old mini-me version) could be the same size as a proton, but has a charge 1800 times greater. I imagine the electrion as being anticyclonic with an excess of electric fluid. To fulfill its new size, the electrion has to reclaim this mass from somewhere, and that happens to be from the neutron. Effectively, the neutron has now shrunk into something which is tiny compared to the electrion and proton, and carries virtually no electric charge. This new model of the neutron comes dramatically close to the way Tesla describes cosmic rays in his theory of free energy. I am quoting from the Brooklyn Eagle, July 10, 1932 in which Tesla states:

"I have harnessed the cosmic rays and caused them to operate a motive device. Cosmic ray investigation is a subject that is very close to me. I was the first to discover these rays and I naturally feel toward them as I would toward my own flesh and blood. I have advanced a theory of the cosmic rays and at every step of my investigations I have found it completely justified. The attractive features of the cosmic rays is their constancy. They shower down on us throughout the whole 24 hours, and if a plant is developed to use their power it will not require devices for storing energy as would be necessary with devices using wind, tide or sunlight. All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons."

Supposedly then, tritium has one proton and two "neutrons", but as we have seen, this does not comply with the new donutom model. I think the helium donutom provides us with a sturdy model from which we can extrapolate the design of other elements. If we know what a proton is - and if we think we know the true nature of a neutron - then what exactly is it which is making up that extra mass inside a tritium particle?

Tritium decays into helium-3 with a 12 year half-life. Each such reaction produces helium-3, an electrion, and about 18.6 keV of energy. Helium-3 (He-3) is a light, non-radioactive isotope of helium. The presence of helium-3 in underground gas deposits implied that it either did not decay or had an extremely long half-life compatible with a primordial isotope. Natural helium is a mixture of two stable isotopes, helium-3 and helium-4. In helium obtained from natural gas about one atom in 10 million is helium-3.

Helium-3 is said to be made up with two protons and one "neutron". Because tritium loses an electrion to become helium-3, we could say, at least in theory, that tritium is mix of two protons, one "neutron" and one electrion. Tritium has one positive charge, but three times the mass of hydrogen. Helium-3 now has the same mass as tritium but twice the positive charge. It appears that the electrion that tritium ejected had once been in partnership with, thereby neutralizing, one of its positive charges.

This all gets a lot easier to understand when we can accept that the "neutron" does not actually exist as a part of atomic structure, at least not in the classical sense. The electrion that tritium has ejected, according to this new model, now actually has the same mass as a proton. If we then look at tritium again, it is not simply a mix of two protons, one "neutron", and one electrion to create one proton and two "neutrons", but rather, the model for tritium should be a mix of two protons and one electrion.

One proton plus an electrion will give you a neutral donutom - the positive and negative charges cancel one another out. An extra proton will give you an extra charge. Thus, it appears that tritium is a structure made up by two cyclones plus one anticyclone. I wonder how this structure implies that tritium is a beta emitter? As it stands, I don't think tritium is a hydrogen isotope at all, but is best described as an isotope of helium.

If tritium ejects an electrion in its decay, then I think this electrion must come from the donutom. Once the electrion is ejected from tritium, then what you should be left with is a structure made up of two protons. This would help explain why helium-3 has a double charge (like an alpha particle), BUT if helium-3 really is made up by two protons and a "neutron", it does not explain how helium-3 manages to maintain the same mass as tritium.

It's curious that in the deuterium-tritium fusion reaction that helium-4 is created while a "neutron" is released. How is a "neutron" released, if essentially, it does not exist? I think what we could be seeing is a loss in atomic mass which belongs to the neutral fluid of the aether.

The nucleus of deuterium, called a deuteron, contains one proton and one neutron, whereas the far more common hydrogen nucleus contains no neutron. This means that deuterium is twice as heavy as hydrogen, but that it has the same electric charge. Could we possibly venture to say that deuterium is a structure which has twice the mass of hydrogen? Unlike an alpha particle which is made up by two cyclones, perhaps deuterium exists as one big cyclone?

Accepting this as a possible scenario for deuterium - then is it also possible that helium-3 is actually made up by two protons, each having a mass 1.5 times greater than that of a hydrogen ion? In the deuterium-deuterium reaction, two deuterium "atoms" combine to form helium-3 and a neutron. The missing mass has been converted to energy which is released in the form of the high-energy neutron. Could it be that in the deuterium-deuterium reaction we are seeing one big cyclone reacting with another big cyclone to create a smaller bi-cyclonic structure in the form of helium-3?

In a nuclear fusion reaction, deuterium and helium-3 come together to give off a proton and helium-4. Which is curious, because we are now effectively seeing a reaction between 3 cyclones in which a smaller cyclone (proton) is ejected to produce helium-4.

With deuterium-tritium reactions - one atom of deuterium and one atom of tritium combine to form a helium-4 atom and a neutron. That is, deuterium (one cyclone with the mass of 2), being added to tritium (two cyclones and an anticyclone with a combined mass of 3), to produce a neutron (energy with mass of 1) and helium-4. Once again, as with deuterium-helium-3, we are seeing some sort of reaction that includes 3 cyclones and which generates helium-4.

I think a helium donutom is only twice as dense as a hydrogen ion, thereby having a mass of 2. In the case of helium-4, rather than one helium atom with the atomic weight of 4, I think we are seeing the emergence of two helium donutoms, each with the atomic weight of 2. For a helium donutom to form, we need a proton and an electrion. There appears to be plenty of evidence of cyclonic protons previous to the reactions - but how does the reaction produce the electrions needed to construct the donutoms?




Many thanks:

The Method of Positive Rays ~ Popular Science Jun 1913
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ONC7bss9gI
http://www.spacecentre.co.uk/spacenow/newsitem.aspx/2/793/Launch_Into_Space
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.08/helium.html
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Tritium
http://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/atomic-mass
http://www-outreach.phy.cam.ac.uk/camphy/neutron/neutron4_1.htm
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Particles/neutrondis.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium

An Attempt Towards A Chemical Conception Of The Ether

An Attempt Towards A Chemical Conception Of The Ether

by

Professor D. Mendeleeff

Translated from the Russian by George Kamensky (Imperial Mint, St. Petersburg)

Longmans, Green & Co, NY (1904)


Spectrum analysis proves that the terrestrial chemical elements occur in the most distant heavenly bodies, and from analogy there seems no doubt that the general mass composition of these bodies is very similar in all cases; that is to say, that they are composed of a dense core surrounded by a less dense crust and an atmosphere which becomes gradually rarefied. Thus the composition of the stars probably differs but little from that of the sun. Only at the core can the density differ much from that of the sun, but this cannot greatly affect the average density. Neither can the temperature of the stars differ greatly from that of the sun. Moreover, a rise of temperature would tend to increase the diameter of the star, and this would decrease the value of the velocity required by the gaseous particles to escape from the sphere of attraction. It appears, therefore, that for the purposes of our calculation the average density of the large stars may be taken as nearly that of the sun, and therefore that the radius of a star whose mass is n times that of the sun will be 3sq. rt. n times the radius of the sun. We now have all the data necessary for calculating the velocity required by gaseous particles to escape from the sphere of attraction of a star 50 times greater than the sun.

Its mass is 50.129.1018 or nearly 65.1029, and its radius nearly 698.106.3 sq. rt. of 50, or 26.108. Hence the velocity required will be nearly 2,240,000 meters/second, or 2,240 kilometers/second.

The great magnitude of this velocity, v, and its proximity to that of light (300, 000,000 meters/second) provoke the following inquiry. How much must the mass of a heavenly body exceed that of the sun to retain on its surface particles endowed with a velocity of 3.103 meters/second, if its mean density were equal to that of the sun? This may be calculated from the fact that if the mean density of the two luminaries be equal, the velocities of bodies able to escape into space from the spheres of attraction will stand in the ration of the cube roots of their masses, and therefore a luminary from whose surface particles endowed with a velocity of 300,00,000 meters/second could escape must have a mass 120,000,000 times that of the sun, for only particles having a velocity of 608,000 meters/second can escape from the sun, and this stands to 300,000,000 in the ratio of 1:493, and the cube of 493 is nearly 120,000,000.

But, so far we have no reason for admitting the existence of such a huge body, and therefore it seems to me that the velocity of the particles of our gas (ether) must, in order to permeate space, be greater than 2,240,000 meters/second and probably less that 300,000,000 meters /second.

Hence the atomic weight of x as the lightest elementary gas, permeating space and performing the part of the ether, must be within the limits (formula II) of 0.000,000,96 and 0.000,000,000,053, if that of H = 1.

I think it is impossible, under the present conditions of our scientific knowledge, to admit the latter value, because it would in some measure answer to a revival of the emission theory of light, and I consider that the majority of phenomena are sufficiently explained by the fact that the particles and atoms of the lightest element x capable of moving freely everywhere throughout the universe have an atomic weight nearly one millionth that of hydrogen, and travel with a velocity of about 2,250 kilometers/second.
http://www.rexresearch.com/ether/mendelev.htm

Looking For The Atom

The molecular weight of carbon dioxide is 44. According to Priestley, half this weight was made up by water. Carbon dioxide is known famously by its chemical formula CO2, that is, one volume of carbon (12) added to two volumes of oxygen (32). Water therefore, has the atomic weight of 22.

Mr. David Low, in his book "Simple Bodies of Chemistry" revealed that oxygen was a hydrocarbon, that is, by weight, two parts hydrogen to six parts carbon. Thus, the formula for oxygen (16), where C=6, is H4C2.

When creating the formula for water, it is essential to know that the value for C is 3. This being the case, then the atomic weight of water (22) has to be made up by two halves of 11. The formula for water (11), where C=3, is H2C3.

If we look at the formula for carbon dioxide again, one volume of carbon plus two volumes of oxygen, where C=3, it might be something like this:

Carbon + Oxygen + Oxygen = C4 + H4C4 + H4C4

On the other hand, the formula for water is H4C6, so it would appear that the carbon in carbon dioxide is equally distributed amongst the oxygen, as shown below:

C4 + H4C4 + H4C4 = H4C6 + H4C6

In a previous post, I discussed that it was helium, and not hydrogen, which is the first "atom". A hydrogen ion, or proton, is one half of the atom, and then an electron is making up the other half. When brought together, the proton and electron form dipolar vortices, like that of a vortex ring. I think that a hydrogen ion acts out cyclonic behaviours, while the electron is anticyclonic. Both are structures in the aether, so both are essentially created from the electric fluid, it's just that the hydrogen ion exhibits a lack of of the fluid, while the electron has an excess.

I think the fluid of the aether is made up with something which I can only describe as vaporized carbon. If hydrogen is empty, it could therefore be seen that the electron is the component which contained the carbon.

If the formula for a half volume of water is H2C3 (11) for half volume, and we were thinking of breaking it down to reveal the weight of a water atom, we might start by assuming there are two parts hydrogen, or two hydrogen ions. We could interpret the hydrogen ions as signifying the presence of 2 water atoms. If we share the carbon amongst the atoms, we find that one water atom, by weight, consists of 1 part hydrogen and 4.5 parts carbon.

So, in the case of helium, with the atomic weight of 2, we have one part hydrogen and one part electron. Can we dare to suppose then, that an electron's atomic weight is made up by carbon? Thus, the immediate difference to emerge between the atoms of helium and water, is that a water atom is more saturated by carbon.

Oxygen on the other hand is made up by two parts hydrogen and six parts carbon, and has the formula H4C6 (C=3). Therefore, an oxygen atom could be represented, at least by weight, as 1 part hydrogen, and 3 parts carbon.

The comparison I am most drawn to is the size of the atom in DECOMPOSED water, and in COMPOSED water. The formula for decomposed water (9) is something like:

Hydrogen + Oxygen = H + H2C2

The carbon component of the oxygen atom has a value of 3 . That means that when the oxygen is composed into a water atom, it is fattened up on carbon to the value of 4.5 .

Thus far, it seems that a conspicious value for carbon, in the construction of atoms, is 1.5 .It could be interpreted that carbon is present in multiples of 1.5 . At this stage, it remains to be seen why the value for the electron (assuming it is carbonic) , as in the case of helium, appears to be only 1.

The Gas That Makes You Laugh

The Gas That Makes You Laugh

Chemists call it nitrous oxide. You can generate this and other oxides of nitrogen in a home laboratory.

By Kenneth M. Swezey

AN ACHING tooth is never tunny, but i. the dentist who yanks it out may well first put you to sleep with a few whiffs of nitrous oxide, commonly known as “laughing gas.”Joseph Priestley discovered this colorless gas with the sweetish odor in 1772. A quarter of a century later, Humphrey Davy, another famous English scientist, found that if mixed with a certain amount of oxygen the gas produced a feeling of exhilaration when inhaled. Hence, its name. Long used as an anesthetic for dental work and minor surgery, nitrous oxide (N2O2) is one of five known oxides of nitrogen. The others are nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen trioxide (N2O3), nitrogen pentox-ide (N2O5), and nitrogen peroxide. The latter takes two molecular forms, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) or nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4).

Nitrous oxide is still prepared today by the same method that Davy employed—by carefully heating ammonium nitrate. At about 200 deg. C, this compound br ?aks down into nitrous oxide and water v por. You can do this in a home laboratory.

But before you begin, here’s a word of caution. Like all nitrogen compounds, ammonium nitrate is comparatively unstable. An explosion may occur if it is mixed with other substances, if it contains impurities, or if it is overheated when confined. However, it has been heated in laboratories and chemical plants for 150 years without accident save through carelessness. If you follow the rules, as all chemists should teach themselves to do, you will have no trouble.

Begin by putting about 10 grams of chemically pure ammonium nitrate into a large test tube fitted with a one-hole stopper through which passes a bent delivery tube. Clamp the test tube to a ring stand at a 45-deg. angle. Connect the delivery tube to another bent glass tube leading into a pneumatic trough.

Pour water into the trough to a level just above the shelf. Also fill the collecting bottle to the brim with water, cover its mouth temporarily with a piece of cardboard, and invert it on the shelf. Since nitrous oxide is fairly soluble in cold water, use water as hot as possible in the trough and bottle.

Place a large beaker of cold water near your apparatus. The end of the test tube may be immersed in this if the reaction should become too rapid.

When you’re all set, begin production of the gas by gently heating the ammonium nitrate with an alcohol lamp or with the flame of a Bunsen burner turned low. Keep the lamp or burner in your hand and move the flame constantly to distribute the heat. Give all your attention to the job.

At first the nitrate melts slowly. Further heating causes it to break down into a mixture of nitrous oxide and water—a white vapor. The reaction itself produces heat. So apply the flame at this point just enough to keep the reaction going. The speed can be determined by observing the bubbles of gas entering the jar. Don’t let them exceed one or two a second.

When the jar is full of gas, remove the heat from the test tube, and immediately disconnect the delivery tube to prevent water from being drawn into the test tube as it cools. Then slide a sheet of cardboard or glass under the mouth of the jar and stand it upright for your tests.

(As a final safety precaution, don’t try to decompose the last gram or so of ammonium nitrate in the test tube. This small amount may easily become overheated.)

When nitrous oxide itself is heated strongly, it decomposes in turn, forming nitrogen and oxygen and giving off con-, siderable heat. The oxygen in nitrous oxide is more concentrated than it is in normal air. Hence, many substances that already are burning will burn as brightly in this gas as they do in pure oxygen. As a demonstration, try the steel-wool experiment shown on page 237.
Most stable of the oxides of nitrogen is nitric oxide, another colorless gas. It contains twice as much oxygen as nitrous oxide, but it holds onto its oxygen more tenaciously. Burning sulphur thrust into a bottle of it will immediately be extinguished. ” Nitric oxide can be made with the setup shown on the preceding page. When you pour in the dilute nitric acid (1 part acid to 2 parts water), nitric oxide will be liberated. At the same time, the flask will fill with a reddish-brown vapor. This is nitrogen peroxide, produced by the reaction of some Of the nitric oxide with oxygen from the air. This colored gas will dissolve in the water in the trough, and the collecting bottle will fill with colorless nitric oxide.

A striking property of nitric oxide is that it always changes immediately to nitrogen peroxide upon exposure to air. Cover a tumbler or jar of nitric oxide with a piece of cardboard and invert it over a similar tumbler or jar of air. While the partition remains, each gas is colorless. But remove the partition and the heavier nitric oxide in the upper jar will flow downward. On mixing with the air, it changes at once into brown nitrogen peroxide.

At room temperature, nitrogen peroxide is a mixture of nitrogen dioxide and nitrogen tetroxide. These gases are chemically the same, but nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) has molecules twice as big as nitrogen dioxide (N02).

Temperature affects the relative amounts of the two gases in the mixture. Below 20 deg. C, each molecule of NCX unites with another one, forming N2O1. As the temperature rises, the big molecules begin splitting in half. At 154 deg. C, all have become NO2.

Nitrogen tetroxide is colorless; nitrogen dioxide is brown. You can show the trans-formation by filling two test tubes with nitrogen peroxide. Heat one and the gas in it will darken as more NO2 forms.

To prepare nitrogen peroxide directly, merely add concentrated nitric acid to some bits of copper in a large test tube. Stopper the tube quickly with a one-hole stopper fitted with a glass delivery tube. Lead the delivery tube to the bottom of another test tube or similar container. The nitrogen peroxide will then displace the air.

Nitrogen peroxide is very poisonous. So make it in a well-ventilated room.

The most important reaction of nitrogen peroxide is with water. The gas dissolves readily in water, reacting with it to form both nitric and nitrous acids. In warm water, the nitrous acid decomposes, leaving nitric acid.

At the beginning of this century, great quantities of nitric acid, and subsequently nitrogen compounds for fertilizers and other uses, were made from nitrogen oxides obtained by passing ordinary air through the heat of an electric arc. The heat of the arc caused some of the nitrogen and oxygen of the air to unite, forming nitric oxide. Cooled and passed through more air, this united further with oxygen, giving nitrogen dioxide. This, in turn, was dissolved in water to form nitric acid.

You can duplicate the process on a small scale with the apparatus shown at the top of this page. Bend the lower ends of the stiff iron wires so they form a spark gap with about ‘2″ between the points. Hang a moist strip of blue litmus paper over one.

Connect the two wires to the high-voltage terminals of the spark coil. Let the spark jump the gap continuously for several minutes. The spark produces nitrogen dioxide. This in turn reacts with the moisture in the litmus paper. The litmus turns pink, indicating nitric acid has formed.
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/03/07/the-gas-that-makes-you-laugh/?Qwd=./PopularScience/6-1949/laughing_gas&Qif=laughing_gas_0.jpg&Qiv=thumbs&Qis=XL#qdig

The Romance of Science - Radium and Radioactivity

"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 managed to avoid me. Noble gases seem to have such a low reactivity with the world that surrounds us - it enables them to remain somewhat aloft from the other, more "common" elements. 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 not only what's 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.

He ascribed this discrepancy to a light gas included in chemical compounds of nitrogen, while Ramsay suspected a hitherto undiscovered heavy gas in atmospheric nitrogen. Using two different methods to remove all known gases from air, Ramsay and Rayleigh were able to announce in 1894 that they had found a monatomic, chemically inert gaseous element that constituted nearly 1 percent of the atmosphere; they named it argon. The following year, Ramsay liberated another inert gas from a mineral called cleveite; this proved to be helium, previously known only in the solar spectrum.

In his book The Gases of the Atmosphere(1896), Ramsay showed that the positions of helium and argon in the periodic table of elements indicated that at least three more noble gases might exist. In 1898 he and the British chemist Morris W. Travers isolated these elements — called neon, krypton, and xenon — from air brought to a liquid state at low temperature and high pressure.

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.

It must be noted that neither gas, so far, has been proved to be absolutely homogeneous, and it is quite possible that both may contain admixtures of other things. This consideration has been repeatedly urged by various writers. If argon is monatomic, a small impurity of greater density, say of an unknown element falling between bromine and rubidium, would account for the abnormality of its atomic weight, and tend towards the reduction of the latter.

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

"Not only is a gas given off by the radium salt solution, but this gas is also radioactive. This gas, still known generally as the emanation from radium, or radium emanation, from its method of production, has recently been shown to be a true element with a definite spectrum and a specific atomic weight, and has been named niton.

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.

Professor Rutherford has also succeeded in showing that the a-rays are deviated by an electric field, and from the fact that the deviations in each case are in a direction opposite to that taken by electrons, it has been established that these particles must carry a different electric charge are, in fact, charged positively.

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:

Radium = Niton[radon] + Helium

....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-B" - 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.

Looking upon the atom in this wise it no longer appears impossible to change one kind of atom into another. Many of the larger atoms bear distinct points of similarity ; they all contain more or less helium, nor does it seem likely that the helium atom can be markedly different before and after its emission from a radioactive atom. In all probability other of the building stones of the atoms are identical ; indeed various theories have been put forward to the effect that all atoms are built up of varying proportions of such simple atoms as those of helium and hydrogen. If any such type of hypothesis were true and some of them must approximate to the truth then it ought to be possible, if sufficient force could be applied, to disrupt an atom, to resolve it into its constituents, and in that way to bring about a transmutation.

Ramsay originally intended to test the effect of niton on solutions of copper salts. It has been shown already that niton decomposes water with evolution of hydrogen and oxygen, an action very similar to that brought about by the electric current in electrolysis. He thought that by a similar electrolytic action copper might be produced from the copper solutions.

On analysing the copper solution very carefully it was found to contain a minute trace of the somewhat rare element lithium.

Numerous experiments were carried out to find whether this trace of lithium was present as an accidental impurity or had been formed in the solution. The latter hypothesis seemed plausible since lithium belongs to the copper group of elements, is the lightest of them in fact the atomic weight of copper is 63*6, while that of lithium is 6'Q.

Other interesting results were obtained. The gases from the copper solution did not appear to contain the helium which we have learnt to regard as the invariable result of radioactive transformation, but argon was present. However, the presence of argon in itself was explicable by air leakage through the taps of the apparatus. Over the relatively long period of time of the experiment it is almost impossible to maintain a perfect vacuum with glass taps, even with the best lubricators which have so far been invented ; the amount of argon present was not greater than was to be expected from that of atmospheric nitrogen. The absence of helium rather emphasised the presence of this gas, however. Again, in the experiment with pure water both helium and neon were present in about equal amount.

Neon was then considered as one of the rarest of the rare gases, and no accidental air leakage could on that assumption account for its presence. Ramsay suggested that niton in the presence of water disintegrated into neon, instead of into helium, and thought that in the presence of copper argon might be the disintegration product produced. If this were the case, of course the ordinary theory of disintegration, in which the production of helium plays an integral part, would require considerable modification

The experiments connected with the presumed production of lithium from copper were repeated by Madame Curie. Her methods were in general similar to those of Ramsay.

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.

This result lends further support to the hypothesis that the carbon dioxide was not traceable to adsorption or to solution.

Solutions containing one or two grams of thorium, zirconium, titanium, and silicon salts were successively subjected to the action of large doses of niton (the adjective is of course purely relative, the maximum dose used being O'l c.mm.). In all cases after the emanation had decayed, the gases which had been produced contained carbon dioxide in amounts varying from 0*054 to Q'55 1 c.cm., amounts large enough to prevent any possibility of mistake in the analysis, and which appeared to be larger the greater the atomic weight of the element upon which the action was supposed to be produced.

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

Creative Chemistry

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


Author: Edwin E. Slosson



The important thing to note is that all the explosives from gunpowder down contain nitrogen as the essential element. It is customary to call nitrogen "an inert element" because it was hard to get it into combination with other elements. It might, on the other hand, be looked upon as an active element because it acts so energetically in getting out of its compounds. We can dodge the question by saying that nitrogen is a most unreliable and unsociable element. Like Kipling's cat it walks by its wild lone.

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.

Nature's Tiny Mystery

Polonium Halos in Deep Earth Granite

Traditional science says that earth was formed from molten matter from stars and it was cooled down slowly - overy billions of years.
Then Robert Gentry discovered one of the most intriguing mystery that challenges the traditional theory of the "creation of the earth".

Gentry discovered Polonium Halos in granite rocks which CANNOT have formed if the earth cools down over billions of years....

There has not been any satisfactory explanation for this discovery, except one: that the earth was formed in a solid form within minutes !!!

Working with microscopes in the late 1800s, scientists found small halos in granite. These are tiny, colored concentric circles ("concentric" means circles within circles, as in a bull's eye).

When cut exactly through the middle of the halo, there would be a small grain in the center. It was found that the halos were tiny spheres etched in the rock around the central grain.

It was not until radioactive elements were discovered, about the beginning of our century, that scientists realized that these grains and their halos were the result of radioactivity,

And what does this all mean ???
Think:

To form a Polonium-218 halo, some Polonium-218 must be embedded into the rock BEFORE the rock becomes solid

To form a Polonium-218 halo, the Polonium-218 must be decaying AFTER the rock becomes solid

Polonium-218 halo has a half life of 3 minutes, so after 30 minutes, almost all of the Polonium-218 would have disappeared !!!

So ???....The time between the rocks of the earth was molten and that is was solidified is at most 30 minutes !!!!

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

Hydrogen Peroxide

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.

With mass spectrometry, discrete peaks were observed corresponding to molecules with the exact mass of sixty or seventy or more carbon atoms. In 1985, Harold Kroto (then of the University of Sussex), James R. Heath, Sean O'Brien, Robert Curl and Richard Smalley, from Rice University, discovered C60, and shortly thereafter came to discover the fullerenes. Kroto, Curl, and Smalley were awarded the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their roles in the discovery of this class of compounds.

C60 and other fullerenes were later noticed occurring outside the laboratory (e.g., in normal candle soot). By 1991, it was relatively easy to produce gram-sized samples of fullerene powder using the techniques of Donald Huffman and Wolfgang Krätschmer. Fullerene purification remains a challenge to chemists and to a large extent determines fullerene prices. So-called endohedral fullerenes have ions or small molecules incorporated inside the cage atoms. Fullerene is an unusual reactant in many organic reactions such as the Bingel reaction discovered in 1993. The first nanotubes were obtained in 1991.

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