6o 



SCIENCE-GOSSIP. 



and cause the least thoughtful to perceive that siz 

 is merely a finite mental concept and in no way 

 affects the perfection of the adaptations with which 

 a living organism is endowed. 



References to works quoted in this article. 

 — P) Trans. Micros. Soc, vol. iii.. 1S52, p. 58; 

 Quart. Journ. Micros. Soc, vol. i., 1S53, p. 71; 

 Pop. Sci. Rev., vol. i., 1S62. p. 474. ( 2 ) Month. 

 Micro. Journ., vol. iii., pp. 240-1 ; ibid, vol. v., 

 1S71, p. 205 ; ibid, vol. viii., 1872, p. 8. (") Month. 



Micro. Journ., vol. xviii., 1877, p. 214 ; J. R. M 

 Soc, vol. i., p. 245. ( 4 ) J. R. M. Soc, vol. ii., 

 1879, p. 6 ; " The Rotifera," by C. T. Hudson and 

 P. H. Gosse, two vols., 1886. ( 5 ) Tenby, pp. 

 314-315. ( 6 ) Trans. Micros. Soc, vol. iii., 1852, 

 p. 62. ( 7 ) Quart. Journ. Micros. Sci., vol. i., 1853, 

 P- 75- ( 8 ) Popular Sci. Rev., vol. i., 1S62, p. 485. 

 (°) Month. Micros. Journ., vol. xviii., 1877, p, 221. 

 I 10 ) Month. Micros. Journ., vol. xviii., 1877, p. 221. 

 Ingleside, Lee, S E. ; March 2SH1, 1895. 



NOTES OX ARGON. 

 By J Alfred Wanklyn and W. J. Cooper. 



'THE article on Argon in the March number of 

 -*- Scienxe-Gossip is specially interesting to 

 chemists who like ourselves have devoted many 

 years and much labour to air and gas analysis. 



The difficulties which beset this branch of 

 scientific investigation are very great, and the 

 number of experts who have attained eminence 

 sufficient to give work of this kind the stamp of 

 authority is extremely limited. 



The scientific importance of the whispered 

 discovery at the Oxford meeting of the British 

 Association attracted us to the Chemical Section, 

 and we were disappointed that the subject was not 

 brought forward in the usual way for discussion, as 

 several eminent foreign chemists were present, 

 well-known authorities whose opinions would have 

 carried much weight. We recognised especially 

 Friedel from Paris, and Beilsteia from St. 

 Petersburg, also Caro from Mannheim. 



Ample details have since been published, and 

 these details together with Berthelot's experiments 

 made upon Ramsay's Argon, enable us to criticise 

 and examine the value of the work put forward. 

 After a careful investigation we have arrived at the 

 conclusion that the nature of the alleged new- 

 constituent of the atmosphere is far from being 

 established, and that it is apparent that the 

 atmosphere does not contain the one per cent, of 

 Argon which was more particularly claimed by 

 Lord Rayleigh. 



One of the chief if not the chief result set forth 

 by Rayleigh and Ramsay is a quantitative one. 

 The new element, Argon, was declared to be present 

 in atmospheric nitrogen to the extent of one per 

 cent, by volume. Not a minute fraction such as 

 the fraction of atmospheric carbonic acid, but a 

 comparatively large fraction like the water in the 

 atmosphere. Such Rayleigh and Ramsay say is 

 the occurrence of Argon in the air. 



When, however, we ask where is the experimental 

 proof, we find only one solitary experiment which 

 is of the most doubtful kind and has the further 

 interesting peculiarity of proving too much. 



The experiment to which we allude is Lord 

 Rayleigh's, in which 6-3 litres of atmospheric 

 nitrogen gave sixty-five cubic centimetres of gaseous 

 residue left unabsorbed in the large flask in which 

 the experiment was carried out. This volume of 

 unabsorbed gas is about one per cent, of the 

 quantity of atmospheric nitrogen taken for the 

 investigation, and so far the result appears to be 

 favourable. But when we reflect that the true 

 yield of Argon is not only the volume of unabsorbed 

 gas, but also comprises the gas held in solution by 

 the large volume of liquid contained by the flask, 

 the result appears in a very different light. Argon, 

 we have been told, dissolves in water to the extent 

 of about four per cent. Abundance of time was 

 occupied by the experiment in order to permit of 

 the Argon entering into aqueous solution. There is 

 indeed a fair probability there was as much Argon 

 held in aqueous solution in the flask as there was 

 in the shape of gaseous residue. Thus it becomes 

 manifest that the one solitary apparently favourable 

 experiment proves too much. 



Nothing else presents even the semblance of 

 indicating a yield of anything like one per cent, 

 of the new substance. 



The so-called Argon, separated by the magnesium 

 method, as will be seen on turning to the paper, is a 

 very small fraction of the atmospheric nitrogen. 

 In line the experimental results negative the 

 statement that there is anything like one per cent, 

 of a new substance in atmospheric nitrogen. The 

 interesting quantitative result announced by Rayleigh 

 and Ramsay is therefore not maintained, and we 

 pass on to ask how far is there support for the 

 assertion that there is a minute proportion — say 

 about the same proportion as that of carbonic acid — 

 in the atmosphere. 



The researches of the eminent French chemist, 

 Berthelot, appear to be decisive, and to negative 

 the statement that the gaseous residues to which 

 the name Argon has been given are elementary 

 substances. 



In Berthelot's hands these residues have yielded 



