Abstract
I KNOW that I am very ignorant, but old and unrepentant as I am I still live to learn from young people and watch their doings with delight, tho' may be they are sometimes a little previous. The argument behind Messrs. Harkins and Shadduck's letter (NATURE, December 18, p. 875) is doubtless irreproachable and unanswerable. Probably, therefore, I am more than stupid in being surprised at “the atom (presumably oxygen of mass 17) which is synthesised.” Suppose, however, that a poor errant molecule of fair hydrone were the stricken ‘atom,’ it might well be electrolysed and give OH=17 + H=1. Who will say me hay and make it clear that this cannot be? Uesanian orders are sometimes tall and the propinquity of the Wheat Pit may well have influenced the Chicago laboratory, just as Cambridge, being an apanage of Newmarket, is given over to racing competitions and so demoralises the whole of our educational system.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
ARMSTRONG, H. Oxygen=17. Oø. Nature 119, 51 (1927). https://doi.org/10.1038/119051a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/119051a0
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.