Marriages Families and Relationships

Making Choices in a Diverse Society

11th Edition Lamanna Test Bank
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://testbankdeal.com/download/marriages-families-and-relationships-making-choi
ces-in-a-diverse-society-11th-edition-lamanna-test-bank/
Marriages Families and Relationships Making Choices in a Diverse Society 11th Edition Lamann

CHAPTER 2

EXPLORING RELATIONSHIPS AND FAMILIES

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

At the end of this chapter, the student should be able to do the following:

1. Be familiar with the “blinders of personal experience” in family science research.

2. Understand theoretical perspectives, starting with the family ecology perspective.
3. Define and understand the family life course development framework.
4. Explain the structure-functional perspective in family science.
5. Discuss interaction-constructionist views of the family.
6. Be familiar with the exchange theory and its contributions to family science.
7. Explain family systems theory and how the family is viewed through this lens.
8. Define conflict, feminist and biosocial theoretical perspectives in family science.
9. Know the basics of attachment theory as it pertains to the study of the family.
10. Be familiar with the methods of data collection used in ethical scientific investigation.

LECTURE OUTLINE

I. Overview
A. Overview
1. Our beliefs about families based on our own personal experience may not tell the
whole story and may misrepresent the actual experiences of families.
2. The way to a clear understanding of all families is through scientific investigation
via scientific methods.
B. The Blinders of Personal Experience
1. We often assume our own family is “normal” or “typical.”
2. We often are highly committed to the view of family life that is shaped by our
experiences.
C. Scientific Investigation: Removing Blinders
1. Science is based on systematic observation and empirical evidence.
2. The scientific method can overcome researchers’ biases.
3. Scientists are expected to follow certain norms, including honesty.

II. Theoretical Perspectives of the Family

Theoretical perspectives or theories contain concepts that help identify and explain specific
aspects of family behavior. Theoretical perspectives or theories vary in what each may see as
important and significant about families.
A. The Family Ecology Perspective.
1. This perspective explains how a family influences and is influenced by the
environments that surround it.
2. This theory focuses on how government policies—as part of the socio-cultural
environment—affects families and how families can influence the environments
that affect them.

29

Visit TestBankDeal.com to get complete for all chapters

Chapter 2

3. Put another way, the family ecology model is concerned with family policy—all
the procedures, regulations, attitudes, and goals of government that affect
families.
4. A strength of this theory is that it sensitizes us to significant socio-cultural issues,
like globalization, that may not be addressed by other theories.
5. A weakness of this theory is that its coverage is so broad that virtually nothing is
left out, or, put differently, borders on the truism that ultimately everything
affects everything else, and vice versa.
B. The Family Life Course Development Perspective
1. This theory focuses on how families change over time.
2. It is limited because it assumes all families are similar and traditional.
3. It assumes almost everyone marries for a lifetime; that the patterns of the life
cycle are highly predictable.
C. The Structure-Functional Perspective
1. This theory focuses on the functions performed by the family as a social
institution.
a. to raise children responsibly
b. to provide economic support
c. to give emotional security
2. It is limited in that there is a tendency to assume the traditional family pattern is
normative and thus, because it “persists or continues” must be more “functional”
for society.
D. The Interaction-Constructionist Perspective
1. This theory focuses on the interactions between family members.
2. It is interested in how self and family identities develop as a result of family
interactions.
3. It assumes there are no common family patterns because families are composed
of unique personalities who interact with distinct patterns of interaction.
4. It is limited in that it neglects the social environment, overlooks conflict, and
assumes family interactive patterns are similar across all societies.
E. Exchange Theory
1. This theory focuses on the exchange of resources (rewards and costs) between
family members.
2. It examines how resource transactions form and stabilize relationships.
3. It proposes that relationships will thrive when they are based on equitable
exchanges and will suffer and/or dissolve when exchanges are one-sided.
4. It has been criticized for its failure to recognize the family in emotional terms.
F. Family Systems Theory
1. This theory views the family as a whole that is more than the sum of its parts
(members).
2. As a system (comparable to a computer or human body), families seek to
maintain equilibrium.
3. It proposes that a change in any part of the system (family member) or in the
social environment will affect all other parts of the system.
4. Physical and psychological boundaries define who is in or out of the system and
regulate the flow of information and feedback with other related systems.
5. It has been criticized for its lack of specificity, its failure to recognize class, race,
and ethnicity, and its portrayal of family conflict as a system dysfunction.
G. Conflict and Feminist Perspectives
1. The central focus of feminist perspectives is on gender issues, bringing attention
to women and their experiences.

30
 Exploring Relationships and Families

2. Like the broader conflict perspective, feminist perspectives examine the role of
power within family relationships as well as the effects of politics and the
economic organization of the larger society on the family.
3. Feminist theory analyses of the family (including the division of labor)
emphasize the sex-gender system in which men have more power than women.
4. Feminist perspectives are under fire from conservatives for allegedly contributing
to the breakdown of family.
H. The Biosocial Perspectives
1. The biosocial perspectives on the family, also termed evolutionary psychology,
are characterized by concepts linking psychosocial factors to physiology,
genetics, and evolution.
2. Biolosociologists point out that biological propensity, or predisposition, does not
mean that a person’s behavior cannot be influenced or changed by social
structure.
3. Social science researchers are doing some interesting work from a biosocial
perspective, although their positions are sometimes controversial.
I. Attachment Theory
1. Counseling psychologists often analyze individuals’ relationship choices in terms
of attachment style.
2. A person’s general style of attaching to others develops during infancy and
childhood, based on the child’s attachment to primary caretakers.
3. The three basic attachment styles are secure, insecure/anxious, and avoidant.
4. A person unconsciously applies their attachment style to adult relationships in
later life. Although difficult, one’s attachment style can be changed.

III. Doing Family Research

A. Basic Principles and Data Collection Techniques
Scientific investigation involves collecting data systematically through a variety
of techniques.
1. Historical and Cross-Cultural Data
a. Historical research examines demographic, economic, legal records, and
historical documents for analysis of the family.
b. Cross-cultural studies can provide an interesting picture of family
behaviors across different cultures.
2. Cross-sectional and Longitudinal Studies
a. Cross-sectional research gather data just once, and a certain point in
time.
b. Longitudinal studies gather information on individuals or families over a
long period of time.
3. Deductive versus Inductive Reasoning
a. Deductive reasoning begins with a hypothesis, and gathers data to test
that hypothesis (generally through quantitative research methods).
b. Inductive reasoning begins with observation, and eventually produces
generalizations (often using qualitative research methods).
4. Quantitative versus Qualitative Research
a. Quantitative research gathers, analyzes, and reports data that can be
quantified or understood in numbers.
b. Qualitative research gathers, analyzes and reports data primarily in words
or stories.
5. Interviews, Questionnaires and Surveys

31
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The chemical nature of the
alpha particles from radioactive substances
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will
have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using
this eBook.

Title: The chemical nature of the alpha particles from radioactive

substances

Author: Ernest Rutherford

Release date: July 2, 2023 [eBook #71088]

Language: English

Original publication: Sweden: Nobel Foundation, 1908

Credits: Laura Natal Rodrigues (Images generously made available by

the Nobel Foundation.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE

CHEMICAL NATURE OF THE ALPHA PARTICLES FROM
RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES ***
 ERNEST RUTHERFORD

NOBEL LECTURE
December 11, 1908.

THE CHEMICAL NATURE OF

THE ALPHA PARTICLES
FROM RADIOACTIVE
SUBSTANCES

The study of the properties of the α-rays has played a notable part in
the development of radioactivity and has been instrumental in bringing to
light a number of facts and relationships of the first importance. With
increase of experimental knowledge there has been a growing
recognition that a large part of radioactive phenomena is intimately
connected with the expulsion of the α-particles. In this lecture an attempt
will be made to give a brief historical account of the development of our
knowledge of the α-rays and to trace the long and arduous path trodden
by the experimenter in the attempts to solve the difficult question of the
chemical nature of the α-particles. α-rays were first observed in 1899 as
a special type of radiation and during the last six years there has been a
persistent attack on this great problem, which has finally yielded to the
assault when the resources of the attack seemed almost exhausted.
Shortly after his discovery of the radiating power of uranium by the
photographic method, Becquerel showed that the radiation from uranium
like the Röntgen-rays possessed the property of discharging an
electrified body. In a detailed investigation of this property, I examined
the effect on the rate of discharge by placing successive layers of thin
aluminium foil over the surface of a layer of uranium oxide and was led
to the conclusion that two types of radiation of very different penetrating
power were present. The conclusions at that period were summed up as
follows:
"These experiments show that the uranium, radiation is complex and
that there are present at least two distinct types of radiation—one that is
very readily absorbed, which will be termed for convenience the α-
radiation, and the other of a more penetrative character, which will be
termed the β-radiation."[1] When other radioactive substances were
discovered, it was seen that the types of radiation present were analogous
to the β– and α-rays of uranium and when a still more penetrating type of
radiation from radium was discovered by Villard, the term γ-rays was
applied to them. The names thus given soon came into general use as a
convenient nomenclature for the three distinct types of radiation emitted
from uranium, radium, thorium, and actinium. On account of their
insignificant penetrating power, the α-rays were at first considered of
little importance and attention was mainly directed to the more
penetrating β-rays. With the advent of active preparations of radium,
Giesel in 1899 showed that the β-rays from this substance were easily
deflected by a magnetic field in the same direction as a stream of cathode
rays and consequently appeared to be a stream of projected particles
carrying a negative charge. The proof of the identity of the β-particles
with the electrons constituting the cathode rays was completed in 1900
by Becquerel, who showed that the β-particles from radium had about
the same small mass as the electrons and were projected at a speed
comparable with the velocity of light. Time does not allow me to enter
into the later work of Kaufmann and others on this subject, which has
greatly extended our knowledge of the constitution and mass of
electrons.
In the meantime, further investigation had disclosed that the α-
particles produced most of the ionization observed in the neighbourhood
of an unscreened radioactive substance, and that most of the energy
radiated was in the form of α-rays. It was calculated by Rutherford and
McClung in 1901 that one gram of radium radiated a large amount of
energy in the form of α-rays.
The increasing recognition of the importance of the α-rays in
radioactive phenomena led to attempts to determine the nature of this
easily absorbed type of radiation. Strutt (Lord Rayleigh) in 1901 and Sir
William Crookes in 1902 suggested that they might possibly prove to be
projected particles carrying a positive charge. I independently arrived at
the same conclusion from consideration of a variety of evidence. If this
were the case, the α-rays should be deflected by a magnetic field.
Preliminary work showed that the deflection was very slight if it
occurred at all. Experiments were continued at intervals over a period of
two years and it was not until 1902, when a preparation of radium of
activity 19,000 was available, that I was able to show conclusively that
the particles were deflected by a magnetic field, though in a very minute
degree compared with the β-rays. This showed that the α-rays consisted
of projected charged particles while the direction of deflection indicated
that each particle carried a positive charge. The α-particles were shown
to be deflected also by an electric field and from the magnitude of the
deflection, it was deduced that the velocity of the swiftest particles was
about 2.5 x 109 cm per second, or one-twelfth the velocity of light, while
the value of e/m—the ratio of the charge carried by the particle to its
mass—was found to be 5,000 electromagnetic units. Now it is known
from the data of the electrolysis of water that the value of e/m for the
hydrogen atom is 9,650. If the α-particle carried the same positive charge
as the unit fundamental charge of the hydrogen atom, it was seen that the
mass of the α-particle was about twice that of the hydrogen atom. On
account of the complexity of the rays it was recognized that the results
were only approximate, but the experiments indicated clearly that the α-
particle was atomic in mass and might prove ultimately to be either a
hydrogen or a helium atom or the atom of some unknown element of
light atomic weight. These experiments were repeated by Des Coudres in
1903 with similar results, while Becquerel showed the deflection of the
α-rays in a magnetic field by the photographic method.
This proof that the α-particles consisted of actual charged atoms of
matter projected with an enormous velocity at once threw a flood of light
on radioactive processes, in particular upon another important series of
investigations which were being contemporaneously carried on in the
Laboratory at Montreal in conjunction with Mr. F. Soddy. Had time
permitted, it would have been of interest to consider in some detail the
nature of these researches which placed on a firm foundation the now
generally accepted "transformation theory" of radioactivity. From a close
examination of the substances thorium, radium, and uranium, Rutherford
and Soddy had reached the conclusion that radioactive bodies were in a
state of transformation, as a result of which a number of new substances
were produced entirely distinct in chemical and physical character from
the parent element. From the independence of the rate of transformation
of chemical and physical agencies, it was recognized that the
transformation was atomic and not molecular in character. Each of these
new bodies was shown to lose its radioactive properties according to a
definite law. Even before the discovery of the material nature of the α-
rays, it had been considered probable that the radiation from any
particular substance accompanied the breaking up of its atoms. The proof
that the α-particle was an ejected atom of matter at once strengthened
this conclusion and at the same time gave a more concrete and definite
representation of the processes occurring in radioactive matter. The point
of view reached by us at that time is clearly seen from the following
quotation, which with little alteration holds good today. "The results
obtained so far point to the conclusion that the beginning of the
succession of chemical changes taking place in radioactive bodies is due
to the emission of the α-rays, i.e. the projection of a heavy charged mass
from the atom. The portion left behind is unstable, undergoing further
chemical changes which are again accompanied by the emission of α-
rays, and in some cases also of β-rays.
"The power possessed by the radioactive bodies of apparently
spontaneously projecting large masses with enormous velocities supports
the view that the atoms of these substances are made up, in part at least,
of rapidly rotating or oscillating systems of heavy charged bodies, large
compared with the electron. The sudden escape of these masses from
their orbit may be due either to the action of internal forces or external
forces of which we have at present no knowledge."[2]
Consider for a moment the explanation of the changes in radium. A
minute fraction of the radium atoms is supposed each second to become
unstable, breaking up with explosive violence. A fragment of the atom—
and α-particle—is ejected at a high speed, and the residue of the atom,
which has a lighter weight than before, becomes an atom of a new
substance, the radium emanation. The atoms of this substance are far
more unstable than those of radium and explode again with the expulsion
of an α-particle. As a result the atom of radium A makes its appearance
and the process of disintegration thus started continues through a long
series of stages.
I can only refer in passing here to the large amount of work done by
various experimenters in analysing the long series of transformations of
radium and thorium and actinium; the linking up of radium with uranium
and the discovery by Boltwood of the long looked-for and elusive parent
of radium, viz. ionium. This phase of the subject is of unusual interest
and importance but has only an indirect bearing on the subject of my
lecture. It has been shown that the great majority of the transition
elements produced by the transformation of uranium and thorium break
up with the expulsion of α-particles. A few, however, throw off only β-
particles, while some are "rayless", i.e. undergo transformation without
the expulsion of high-speed α– and β-particles. It is necessary to suppose
that in these latter cases the atoms break up with the expulsion of α-
particles at a speed too low to be detected, or, as is more probable,
undergo a process of atomic rearrangement without the expulsion of
material particles of atomic dimensions.
Another striking property of radium was soon seen to be connected
with the expulsion of α-particles. In 1903 P. Curie and Laborde showed
that radium was a self-heating substance and was always above the
temperature of the surrounding air. It seemed probable from the
beginning that the effect must be the result of the heating effect due to
the impact of the α-particles on the radium. Consider for a moment a
pellet of radium enclosed in a tube. The α-particles are shot out in great
numbers equally from all parts of the radium and in consequence of their
slight penetrating power are all stopped in the radium itself or by the
walls of the tube. The energy of motion of the α-particles is converted
into heat. On this view the radium is subject to a fierce and unceasing
bombardment by its own particles and is heated by its own radiation.
This was confirmed by the work of Rutherford and Barnes in 1903, who
showed that three quarters of the heating effect of radium was not
directly due to the radium but to its product, the emanation, and that each
of the different substances produced in radium gave out heat in
proportion to the energy of the α-particles expelled from it. These
experiments brought clearly to light the enormous energy, compared with
the weight of matter involved, which was emitted during the
transformation of the emanation. It can readily be calculated that one
kilogram of the radium-emanation and its products would initially emit
energy at the rate of 14,000 horse-power, and during its life would give
off energy corresponding to about 80,000 horse-power for one day. It
was thus clear that the heating effect of radium was mainly a secondary
phenomenon resulting from the bombardment by its own α-particles. It
was evident also that all the radioactive substances must emit heat in
proportion to the number and energy of the α-particles expelled per
second.
 We must now consider another discovery of the first importance. In
discussing the consequences of the disintegration theory, Rutherford and
Soddy drew attention to the fact that any stable substances produced
during the transformation of the radio-elements should be present in
quantity in the radioactive minerals, where the processes of
transformation have been taking place for ages. This suggestion was first
put forward in 1902.[3] "In the light of these results and the view that has
already been put forward of the nature of radioactivity, the speculation
naturally arises whether the presence of helium in minerals and its
invariable association with uranium and thorium, may not be connected
with their radioactivity, and again[4]." "It is therefore to be expected that
if any of the unknown ultimate products of the changes of a radioactive
element are gaseous, they would be found occluded, possibly in
considerable quantities, in the natural minerals containing that element.
This lends support to the suggestion already put forwards, that possibly
helium is an ultimate product of the disintegration of one of the
radioactive elements, since it is only found in radioactive minerals."
It was at the same time recognized that it was quite possible that the
α-particle itself might prove to be a helium atom. As only weak
preparations were then available, it did not seem feasible at that time to
test whether helium was produced from radium. About a year later,
thanks to Dr. Giesel of Braunschweig, preparations of pure radium
bromide were made available to experimenters. Using 30 milligrams of
Giesel's preparation, Sir William Ramsay and Soddy in 1903 were able
to show conclusively that helium was present in radium some months old
and that the emanation produced helium. This discovery was of the
greatest interest and importance, for it brought to light that in addition to
a series of transition elements, radium also gave rise in its transformation
to a stable form of matter.
A fundamental question immediately arose as to the position of
helium in the scheme of transformations of radium. Was the helium the
end or final product of transformation of radium or did it arise at some
other stage or stages? In a letter to Nature[5] I pointed out that probably
helium was derived from the α-particles fired out by the α-ray products
of radium and made an approximate estimate of the rate of production of
helium by radium. It was calculated that the amount of helium produced
per gram of radium should lie between 20 and 200 cubic millimetres per
year and probably nearer the latter estimate. The data available for
calculation at that time were imperfect, but it is of interest to note that
the rate of production of helium recently found by Sir James Dewar, in
1908, viz. 134 cubic millimetres per year, is not far from the value
calculated as most probable at that time.
These estimates of the rate of production of helium were later
modified as new and more accurate data became available. In 1905, I
measured the charge carried by the α-particles from a thin film of
radium. Assuming that each α-particle carried the ionic charge measured
by J.J. Thomson, I showed that 6.2 x 1010 α-particles were expelled per
second per gram of radium itself and four times this number when
radium was in equilibrium with its three α-ray products. The rate of
production of helium calculated on these data was 240 cubic millimetres
per gram per year.
In the meantime, by the admirable researches of Bragg and Kleeman
in 1904, our knowledge of the character of the absorption of the α-
particles by matter had been much extended. It had long been known that
the absorption of α-particles by matter was different in many respects
from that of the β-rays. Bragg showed that these differences arose from
the fact that the α-particle, on account of its great energy of motion, was
not deflected from its path like the β-particle, but travelled in nearly a
straight line, ionizing the molecules in its path. From a thin film of
matter of one kind, the α-particles were all projected at the same speed
and lost their power of producing ionization suddenly, after traversing a
certain definite distance of air. The velocity of the α-particles in this view
were reduced by their passage through matter by equal amounts. These
conclusions of Bragg were confirmed by experiments I made by the
photographic method. As a source of rays, a thin film of radium C,
deposited from the radium-emanation on a thin wire, was used. By
examining the deflection of the rays in a magnetic field, it was found that
the rays were homogeneous and were expelled from the surface of the
wire at an identical speed. By passing the rays through a screen of mica
or aluminium, it was found that the velocity of all the α-particles were
reduced by the same amount and the issuing beam was still
homogeneous.
A remarkable result was noted. All α-particles apparently lost their
characteristic properties of ionization, phosphorescence and
photographic action, at exactly the same point while they were still
moving at a speed of about 9,000 kilometres per second. At this critical
speed, the α-particle suddenly vanishes from our ken and can no longer
be followed by the methods of observation at our command.
 The use of a homogeneous source of α-rays like radium C at once
suggested itself as affording a basis for a more accurate determination of
the value of e/m for the α-particle and for seeing whether the value was
consistent with the view that the α-particle was a charged atom of
helium. In the course of a long series of experiments, I proved that the α-
particles, whether expelled from radium, thorium or actinium, were
identical in mass and must consist of the same kind of matter.
The velocity of expulsion of the α-particles from different kinds of
active matter varied over comparatively narrow limits but the value of
e/m was constant and equal to 5,070. This value was not very different
from the one originally found. A difficulty at once arose in interpreting
this result. We have seen that the value of e/m for the hydrogen atom is
9,650. If the α-particle carried the same positive charge as the hydrogen
atom, the value of e/m for the α-particle would indicate that its mass was
twice that of the hydrogen atom, i.e. equal to the mass of a hydrogen
molecule. It seemed very improbable that hydrogen should be ejected in
a molecular and not an atomic state as a result of the atomic explosion.
If, however, the α-particle carried a charge equal to twice that of the
hydrogen atom, the mass of the α-particle would work out at nearly four,
i.e. a mass nearly equal to that of the atom of helium.
I suggested that, in all probability, the α-particle was a helium atom
which carried two unit charges. On this view, every radioactive
substance which emitted α-particles must give rise to helium. This at
once offered an explanation of the fact observed by Debierne that
actinium as well as radium produced helium. It was pointed out that the
presence of a double charge of helium-atom was not altogether
improbable for reasons to be given later.
While the evidence as a whole strongly supported the view that the α-
particle was a helium atom, it was found exceedingly difficult to obtain a
decisive experimental proof of the relation. If it could be shown
experimentally that the α-particle did in reality carry two unit charges,
the proof of the relation would be greatly strengthened. For this purpose
an electrical method was devised by Rutherford and Geiger for counting
directly the α-particles expelled from a radioactive substance. The
ionization produced in a gas by a single α-particle is exceedingly small
and would be difficult to detect electrically except by a very refined
method. Recourse was had to an automatic method of magnifying the
ionization produced by an α-particle. For this purpose it was arranged
that the α-particles should be fired through a small opening into a vessel
containing air or other gas at a low pressure, exposed to an electric field
near the sparking value. Under these conditions the ions produced by the
passage of the α-particle through the gas generate a large number of fresh
ions by collision. In this way it was found possible to magnify the
electrical effect due to an α-particle several thousand times. The entrance
of an α-particle into the testing vessel was then indicated by a sudden
deflection of the electrometer needle. This method was developed into an
accurate method of counting the number of α-particles fired in a known
time through the small aperture of the testing vessel. From this was
deduced the total number of α-particles expelled per second from any
thin film of radioactive matter. In this way it was shown that 3.4 x 1010
α-particles are expelled per second from one gram of radium itself and
from each of its α-ray products in equilibrium with it.
The correctness of this method was indicated by another, quite distinct
method of counting. Sir William Crookes and Elster and Geitel had
shown that the α-particles falling on a screen of phosphorescent zinc
sulphide produced a number of scintillations. Using specially prepared
screens, Rutherford and Geiger counted the number of these
scintillations per second with the aid of a microscope. It was found that,
within the limit of experimental error, the number of scintillations per
second on a screen agreed with the number of α-particles impinging on
it, counted by the electrical method. It was thus clear that each α-particle
produced a visible scintillation on the screen, and that either the
electrical or the optical method could be used for counting the α-
particles. Apart from the purpose for which these experiments were
made, the results are of great interest and importance, for it is the first
time that it has been found possible to detect a single atom of matter by
its electrical and optical effect. This is of course only possible because of
the great velocity of the α-particle.
Knowing the number of α-particles expelled from radium from the
counting experiment, the charge carried by each α-particle was
determined by measuring the total positive charge carried by all the α-
particles expelled. It was found that each α-particle carried a positive
charge of 9.3 x 10-10 electrostatic units. From a consideration of the
experimental evidence of the charge carried by the ions in gases, it was
concluded that the α-particle did carry two unit charges, and that the unit
charge carried by the hydrogen atom was equal to 4.65 x 10-10 units.
From a comparison of the known value of e/m for the α-particle with that
of the hydrogen atom, it follows that an α-particle is a projected atom of
helium carrying two charges, or, to express it in another way, the α-
particle, after its charge is neutralized, is a helium atom.
The data obtained from the counting experiments allow us to calculate
simply the magnitude of a number of important radioactive quantities. It
was found that the calculated values of the life of radium, of the volume
of the emanation, and of the heating effect of radium were in excellent
agreement with the values found experimentally. A test of the
correctness of these methods of calculation was forthcoming shortly after
the publication of these results. Rutherford and Geiger calculated, on the
assumption that the α-particle was a helium atom, that one gram of
radium in equilibrium should produce a volume of 158 cubic millimetres
of helium per year. Sir James Dewar in 1908 carried out a long
experimental investigation on the rate of production of helium by
radium, and showed that one gram of radium in equilibrium produced
about 134 cubic millimetres per year. Considering the difficulty of the
investigation, the agreement between the experimental and calculated
values is very good and is strong evidence in support of the identity of
the α-particle with a helium atom.
While the whole train of evidence we have considered indicates with
little room for doubt that the α-particle is a projected helium atom, there
was still wanting a decisive and incontrovertible proof of the
relationship. It might be argued, for example, that the helium atom
appeared as a result of the disintegration of the radium atom in the same
way as the atom of the emanation and had no direct connection with the
α-particle. If one helium atom were liberated at the same time that an α-
particle was expelled, experiment and calculation might still agree and
yet the α-particle might be an atom of hydrogen or of some unknown
substance. In order to remove this possible objection, it is necessary to
show that the α-particles, collected quite independently of the active
matter from which they are expelled, give rise to helium. With this
purpose in view some experiments were recently (1908) made by
Rutherford and Royds. A large quantity of emanation was forced into a
glass tube which had walls so thin that the α-particles were fired right
through them, though the walls were impervious to the emanation itself.
The α-particles were projected into the glass walls of an outer sealed
vessel and were gradually released into the exhausted space between the
emanation tube and the outer vessel. After some days a bright spectrum
of helium was observed in the outer vessel. There is, however, one
objection to this experiment. It might be possible that the helium
observed had diffused through the thin glass walls from the emanation.
This objection was removed by showing that no trace of helium
appeared, when the emanation was replaced by a larger volume of
helium itself. We may thus confidently conclude that the α-particles
themselves give rise to helium, and are atoms of helium. Further
experiments showed that when the α-particles were fired through the
glass walls into a thin sheet of lead or tin, helium could always be
obtained from the metals after a few hours' bombardment.
Considering the evidence together, we conclude that the α-particle is a
projected atom of helium, which has, or in some way during its flight
acquires, two unit charges of positive electricity. It is somewhat
unexpected that the atom of a monatomic gas like helium should carry a
double charge. It must not however be forgotten that the α-particle is
released at a high speed as a result of an intense atomic explosion, and
plunges through the molecules of matter in its path. Such conditions are
exceptionably favourable to the release of loosely attached electrons
from the atomic system. If the α-particle can lose two electrons in this
way, the double positive charge is explained.
We have seen that there is every reason to believe that the α-particles,
so freely expelled from the great majority of radioactive substances, are
identical in mass and constitution and must consist of atoms of helium.
We are consequently driven to the conclusion that the atoms of the
primary radioactive elements like uranium and thorium must be built up
in part at least of atoms of helium. These atoms are released at definite
stages of the transformations at a rate independent of control by
laboratory forces. There is good reason to believe that in the majority of
cases, a single helium atom is expelled during the atomic explosion. This
is certainly the case for radium itself and its series of products. On the
other hand, Bronson has drawn attention to certain cases, viz. the
emanations of actinium and of thorium, where apparently two and three
atoms of helium respectively are expelled at one time. No doubt these
exceptions will receive careful investigation in the future. It is of interest
to note that uranium itself appears to expel two α-particles for one from
each of its products. Knowing the number of atoms of helium expelled
from the atom of each product, we can at once calculate the atomic
weights of the products. For example, in the uranium-ionium-radium
series, uranium expels two α-particles and each of the six following α-
ray products one, i.e. eight in all. Taking the atomic weight of uranium as
238.5, the atomic weight of ionium should be 230.5, of radium 226.5, of
the emanation 222.5, and so on. It is of interest to note that the atomic
weight of radium deduced in this way is in close agreement with the
latest experimental values. The atomic weight of the end-product of
radium, resulting from the transformation of radium F (polonium) should
be 238.5 – 8 x 4 = 206.5, or a value close to that for lead. Long ago,
Boltwood suggested from examination of analyses of old uranium
minerals, that lead was in all probability a transformation product of the
uranium-radium series. The coincidence of numbers is certainly striking,
but a direct proof of the production of lead from radium will be required
before this conclusion can be considered as definitely established.
It is very remarkable that a chemically inert element like helium
should play such a prominent part in the constitution of the atomic
systems of uranium and thorium and radium. It may well be that this
property of helium of forming complex atoms is in some way connected
with its inability to enter into ordinary chemical combinations. It must
not be forgotten that uranium and thorium and each of their
transformation products must be regarded as distinct chemical elements
in the ordinary sense. They differ from ordinary elements in the
comparative instability of their atomic systems. The atoms break up
spontaneously with great violence, expelling in many cases an atom of
helium at a high speed. All the evidence is against the view that uranium
or thorium or radium can be regarded as an ordinary molecular
compound of helium with some known or unknown element, which
breaks up into helium. The character of the radioactive transformations
and their independence of temperature and other agencies have no
analogy in ordinary chemical changes.
Apart from their radioactivity and high atomic weight, uranium,
thorium, and radium show no specially distinctive chemical behaviour.
Radium for example is closely allied in general chemical properties to
barium. It is consequently not unreasonable to suppose that other
elements may be built up in part of helium, although the absence of
radioactivity may prevent us from obtaining any definite proof. On this
view, it may prove significant that the atomic weights of many elements
differ by four—the atomic weight of helium—or a multiple of four. Time
is too limited to discuss in greater detail these and other interesting
questions which have been raised by the proof of the chemical nature of
the α-particle.
[1]E. Rutherford, Uranium radiation and the electrical conduction produced
by it, Phil. Mag., 47 (1899) 116.
[2]E. Rutherford and F. Soddy, Phil. Mag., 5 (1903), 106.
[3]E. Rutherford and F. Soddy, Phil. Mag., 4 (1902), 582.
[4]E. Rutherford and F. Soddy, Phil. Mag., 5 (1903), 453.
[5]E. Rutherford, letter in Nature, 69 (Aug. 20, 1903).
 *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE
CHEMICAL NATURE OF THE ALPHA PARTICLES FROM
RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be
renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so
the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States
without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect
the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge
for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license,
including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If
you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any
purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and
given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States
with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing

Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic

work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept
all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the
terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all
copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If
you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this
agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom
you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used

on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree
to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that
you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even
without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph
1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help
preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See
paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the

Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works
in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an
individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and
you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent
you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating