On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules
Nature, 1914 · paper · Physics
Addresses the instability of Rutherford's nuclear atom model, in which electrons orbit a small positive nucleus. Seeks to account for properties of matter on that model, taking up difficulties compared with Thomson's earlier atom model.
0 findings
None that passed a second check.
6 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Wording Printed p. 23, footnote *: "Loc. cit." for J. J. Thomson's detailed discussion of ring stability does not say which of three earlier Thomson citations is meant (p. 2: Phil. Mag. vii. p. 237 (1904); p. 8: Phil. Mag. xxiv. p. 672 (1912); p. 18: Phil. Mag. xxiii. p. 456 (1912)).
- p. 24 printed p. 23, footnote *
* Loc. cit.
- p. 19 printed p. 18, footnote
Compare J. J. Thomson, Phil. Mag. xxiii. p. 456 (1912).
- p. 3 printed p. 2, footnote *
J. J. Thomson, Phil. Mag. vii. p. 237 (1904).
- p. 9 printed p. 8, footnote
comp. Phil. Mag. xxiv. p. 672 (1912)
Judge's note: The PDF p. 24 image shows the footnote is only 'Loc. cit.', attached to 'discussed in great detail by Sir J. J. Thomson'. The images of PDF pp. 3, 9 and 19 show three distinct Thomson citations: the atom-model paper, the positive-rays reference, and the one cited for Röntgen radiation after impact of cathode particles. Context points to the 1904 atom-model paper, but the nearest preceding Thomson citation is the p. 18 one on a different topic. The content of the cited papers cannot be checked from the files, so this stands as an ambiguous pointer only.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Printed p. 15: "M0 = h/2π = 1·04 × 10^-27" does not follow at three figures from the paper's stated "h=6·5 . 10^-27" (pp. 5 and 9), which gives 1.03 × 10^-27.
- p. 16 printed p. 15, display equation for M0
= 1·04 × 10^-27
- p. 6 printed p. 5, experimental values
h=6·5 . 10^-27
- p. 10 printed p. 9, experimental values
h=6·5 . 10^-27
- p. 16 §3, printed p. 15, displayed equation for M0
1·04 × 10
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The images of PDF pp. 6 and 10 both print h=6·5 . 10^-27, and PDF p. 16 clearly prints 1·04 × 10^-27. 6.5/(2π)=1.0345, which rounds to 1.03; the printed 1.04 would need h of about 6.55 (1.0425). The paper states no more precise h, so the author probably used an unrounded value. This is a last-digit discrepancy and only the author can say which input was used.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Printed p. 9: "not been possible to observe more than 12 lines of the Balmer series ... while 33 lines are observed ... For τ=12 the diameter is equal to 1·6 . 10^-6 cm. ... for τ=33 the diameter is equal to 1·2 . 10^-5 cm." — the line counts are used directly as τ, although with τ2=2 the n-th Balmer line starts from τ1=n+2.
- p. 10 printed p. 9, last paragraph
more than 12 lines of the Balmer series
- p. 10 printed p. 9, last paragraph
For τ=12 the diameter is equal to 1·6 . 10^-6 cm.
- p. 10 printed p. 9, last paragraph
for τ=33 the diameter is equal to 1·2 . 10^-5 cm.
- p. 10 printed p. 9, after eq. (4)
If we put τ2=2 and let τ1 vary, we get the ordinary Balmer series
Judge's note: Read on the PDF p. 10 image. The same page says the Balmer series is τ2=2 with τ1 varying, so the 12th and 33rd lines correspond to τ1=14 and 35. The printed diameters are correct for τ=12 and τ=33 using 2a=1.1e-8 cm from p. 5 (1.58e-6 and 1.20e-5). For τ=14 and 35 they would be 2.2e-6 and 1.35e-5 cm. The paper does not explain the identification of line count with τ. It is an order-of-magnitude argument, so this is a minor looseness rather than a numerical error.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Printed p. 11: "ν = F_r(τ1) − F_s(τ2)" with F ≈ K/(τ+a)² uses τ1, τ2 in the opposite order to formula (4), "ν = 2π²me⁴/h³ (1/τ2² − 1/τ1²)", where τ1 > τ2.
- p. 12 printed p. 11, Rydberg–Ritz formula
ν = F_r(τ1) − F_s(τ2)
- p. 10 printed p. 9, eq. (4)
ν = 2π²me⁴/h³ (1/τ2² − 1/τ1²)
- p. 17 §4, printed p. 16
τ1 and τ2, τ1 > τ2
Judge's note: Checked on the images of PDF pp. 10, 12 and 17. Formula (4) has the τ2 term positive and τ1 is the varying, larger number (Balmer: τ2=2, τ1 varies); printed p. 16 states 'τ1 and τ2, τ1 > τ2'. With F(τ)=K/τ², F(τ1)−F(τ2) = K(1/τ1²−1/τ2²), which is the negative of (4) under that ordering. On p. 11 the labels are introduced only as 'entire numbers' and 'we put τ1 or τ2 equal to a fixed number', so they can be read as unordered there. This is a notational inconsistency only; no result is affected.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Printed p. 6, line 2: "especially by Stark, Nernst, and Sommerfield" — the surname is printed with an extra 'i' (Sommerfeld).
- p. 7 §1, printed p. 6, line 2
Stark, Nernst, and Sommerfield
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the physicist's name is spelled Sommerfeld. The page image (PDF p. 7) clearly prints 'Sommerfield'; the text layer reads 'Sommerficld', an OCR variant of the same printed word. No reference-list entry for this author exists in the paper to compare against.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Printed p. 19: "colliding with the electrons bound will loose energy in distinct finite quanta" — 'loose' printed for 'lose'; the same page later prints "could not lose a less amount".
- p. 20 printed p. 19, first paragraph
colliding with the electrons bound will loose energy in distinct finite quanta
- p. 20 printed p. 19, end of first paragraph
could not lose a less amount
- p. 20 §4, printed p. 19, first paragraph
will loose energy in distinct finite quanta
Judge's note: The PDF p. 20 image shows 'will loose energy' in the first paragraph and 'could not lose a less amount' at the end of the same paragraph. The verb is spelled two ways on one page, so 'loose' is a misprint with an evident fix.
Second check: none (judge only)