Abstract
I AM sorry that Prof. Walker (p. 458) has avoided my question. At present I am not concerned either with his position or with mine, with van der Waals or with Newton—I wish simply to know what exactly he would have us understand by the word ionisation. I hold that it is our duty, as scientific workers, if possible, to be exact in word as well as deed. It is a matter of reproach to us that we should be lectured, year after year, from the chair of the Royal Society, for our carelessness as writers. Now that the attempt is being made to standardise all sorts of things—from amperes and ohms to the members of iron bridges, even by means of international congresses—we might well devote some attention to our words and attempt to standardise our scientific nomenclature. Ionisation is a word used with increasing frequency in these days—unfortunately also with increasing ambiguity. I would appeal to Prof. Walker, as a leader among British physical-chemists, at least to tell us what he wished us to understand when using the word recently—as his meaning is in no way made clear in his article.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
ARMSTRONG, H. The Meaning of “Ionisation”. Nature 82, 487 (1910). https://doi.org/10.1038/082487a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/082487a0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.