CORRESPONDENCE 355 



when definite and unequivocal steps will be taken, to protect 

 scientific speculation and enterprise. Science has many sympa- 

 thisers who are capable of organising it ; and there are within 

 •the limits of the constitution/ innumerable expedients by which 

 the results of research and patient scientific enquiry can be with- 

 held from society, until society pays." 



CORRESPONDENCE 



LE CHATELIER'S LAW AND INTRA-ATOMIC CHANGE 



Mr. Holmes' criticisms of my theories of solar heat and of the origin of radio- 

 elements 1 call for some comment and reply. He asserts that my theories are 

 inconsistent with Le Chatelier's reaction law, accuses me of creating a difficulty 

 that does not exist, and is good enough not only to make erroneous criticisms on 

 the theories as published, but to give a still more erroneous account of what I 

 am supposed to mean but do not say. To this I can only make the reply that 

 my theories are not inconsistent with any valid chemical law, that the difficulty 

 is entirely one of Mr. Holmes' own making, and that what is meant by my articles 

 is precisely what is said, not what Mr. Holmes thinks I ought to mean. 



For simplicity we will consider the theory of the origin of the radioelements 

 first. My suggestion is thoroughly in accord with Le Chatelier's law and, more- 

 over, this is the case where, if applicable at all to intra-atomic change, it would 

 apply. In the interior of the Earth we can assume the existence of matter under 

 conditions of approximate mechanical and thermal equilibrium. Should any 

 cause whatever — mechanical stress, increased pressure or temperature, or both, 

 tidal friction — occasion a concentration of energy over and above a certain limit, 

 it is suggested that the energy is stored in the formation of radioactive compounds. 

 As the radioactive matter gradually works its way to the surface, the stresses are 

 removed, temperature and pressure are reduced, and the energy is slowly evolved 

 once more in radioactive decay. 



The theories of solar energy are on a different basis. In this case to bring 

 in Le Chatelier's law of reaction, or any similar consideration, is not allowable. 

 Rules of this class apply only to chemical systems in equilibrium, and the hypo- 

 thesis I have put forward is the progressive evolution of energy of a metastable 

 system assuming a condition of greater stability. If Mr. Holmes requires a 

 chemical analogy the reaction between hydrogen and chlorine in diffused daylight 

 is perhaps as good as any. A certain amount and quality of energy must be 

 supplied externally, and then the reaction proceeds with evolution of energy. 

 Without the initial energy (in the case of hydrogen and chlorine in the dark) the 

 reaction will not work. The temperature, or other stellar conditions, are com- 

 pared by me to the light energy necessary to the hydrochloric acid reaction. I 

 therefore do not assume a formation of a stabler form with absorption of energy. 

 This is Mr. Holmes' idea and appears to me to be unsound. If Mr. Holmes 

 will try, bulk for bulk, to calculate the temperature which would correspond with 

 the energy evolved radioactively, he will see that his idea is not very probable. 



1 This Journal, July, 1914, p. 23. 



