[CHEM-HIST] CHEM-HIST Digest, Vol 75, Issue 5

[Bill Streifer]

Eric,

One of my colleagues is a particle physicist who helps design nuclear reactors for a living. If you want his "professional" opinion, contact me directly.

Bill Streifer
__________________________________________

Bill Streifer & Irek Sabitov
The Flight of the Hog Wild
http://www.my-jia.com/The_Flight_of_the_Hog_Wild




I am wondering whether anyone might be able to help with a question concerning early atomic theory.
>
>Starting around 1911, John Nicholson of Cambridge and later King's College, London, published a number of articles in which he appeared to account for 10 out of the 11 lines of 'nebulium' that had not yet been identified and 14 lines due to 'coronium" and to a remarkable degree of accuracy.
>
>He did this using an incorrect model for the atom which consisted in the case of nebulium of 4 electrons in a single ring.  He also assumed incorrectly that the frequency of spectral lines corresponded directly to the frequency with which the electrons circulated a dense positive nucleus.  Both of these assumptions are simply wrong in the light of Bohr's model of the atom published in 1913.  The lines in these spectra were eventually identified with ionized O and N present in nebulae and in the solar corona.  That was not until 1927.  There are of course no such elements as nebulium or coronium.
>
>My question is how could Nicholson get so much right on the basis of such incorrect ideas?  The classic articles on the subject are by Russell McCorrmach and Richard Hirsh.  I have consulted both of them but am no closer to an answer.
>
>Hirsh claims that it was due to "a fortuitous choice of parameters" on the part of Nicholson but is not prepared to go any further in identifying precisely what fortuitous choice.
>
>If anyone is interested in taking up this question I would be delighted to hear from them and to send relevant pdf copies of the articles.
>
>regards,
>eric scerri
>