October 25, 1950 - Linus Pauling Day-by-Day

Bill from Athenaeum to LP for $9.66. Handwritten note indicates that it was paid. [Filed under LP Biographical: Business and Financial: (Assorted Bills, Receipts and Invoices, 1945-1950.), Box #4.059, Folder #59.3]

Itinerary: Army Chemical Center, Edgewood; Dr. C.B. Marquand, Chemical Corps Research Council; return to Philadelphia [Filed under LP Travel: Box #1.001, Folder 1.8]

Itinerary: [?] Chemical Center, Md. seminar [Filed under LP Travel: Box #1.001, Folder 1.8]

Letter from David Harker, Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, to LP RE: Asks for LP’s permission to obtain a copy of Palmer’s intensity results because he does not want to duplicate his work. Discusses related matters. [Letters from LP to Harker, October 18, 1950 and February 6, 1951] [Filed under LP Correspondence: (Harker, David), #151.10]

Letter from Dr. G.L. Royer, Chairman, North Jersey Section, American Chemical Society to LP RE: Provides him with the background information submitted for each nominee for the Baekeland Award and suggests also considering Dr. A.V. Tobelsky and Dr. W.O. Baker, who were nominated in 1949. Requests that the committee have a meeting and since LP probably won’t be able to go, asks for any of his thoughts or comments on the nominees. Handwritten note in top right corner: “Supporting materials returned to Royer 12/12/50.” Handwritten note at bottom of page gives Royer’s mailing address. Includes a list of the nominees. [Letter from Royer to LP October 6, 1950, Telegram from Royer to LP 11/6/50] [Filed under LP Science: (American Chemical Society: Materials re: Committees and Awards, 1948-1951, 1967), Box #14.010, Folder #10.8]

Letter from Jay Stewart, President, Phi Lambda Upsilon (Honorary Chemical Society), Ohio State University, to LP RE: Discusses the need to arrange exact dates for LP’s lectures and asks LP to let them know what he thinks will be the most appropriate way to schedule the lectures. States that they are still waiting to hear from LP regarding his manuscript. [Letter from Stewart to LP, September 19, 1950 and Letter from LP to Stewart, November 30, 1950] [Filed under LP Speeches: 1951s.3]

Letter from Jean Sanford, W. H. Freeman & Co., to Beatrice Wulf, Executive Secretary, Gates and Crellin Laboratories, RE: Says that she thinks LP may be interested in the enclosed letter from Chemical and Engineering News regarding College Chemistry. [Letter from Parkinson to Sir October 20, 1950] [Filed under LP Books: 1950b.2]

Letter from LP to F. J. Toole, Department of Chemistry, University of New Brunswick, RE: Provides Toole with information about their work in chemical engineering at Caltech. States that a course catalog will be sent under a separate cover. [Letter from Toole to LP, October 6, 1950] [Filed under LP Correspodnence: (Toole, Frank J.), #407.8]

Letter from LP to Howard W. Odum, Institute for Research in Social Sciences, University of North Carolina, RE: States that he will not be able to express an opinion due to his lack of thought on the methodology of natural sciences. Suggest that Odum write E. Bright Wilson, Jr. at Harvard University. [Letter from Odum to LP, October 3, 1950] [Filed under LP Correspondence: (O: Correspondence, 1950), #300.12]

Letter from LP to N. A. Parkinson, Assistant to the Editor, Chemical and Engineering News, RE: Suggests that she ask Dr. David Shoemaker of his laboratory to prepare a review of the book. [Letter from Parkinson to LP, October 5, 1950] [Filed under LP Correspondence: (Chemical and Engineering News), #70.3]

Letter from LP to N. F. Mott, c/o Dr. Beeman, Physics Department, University of Wisconsin, RE: Thanks him for sending some notes about things he will be discussing in a conference. LP gives him constructive criticism. [Letter from Mott to LP, October 31, 1950] [Filed under LP Correspondence: (Mott, N. F.), #250.3]

Letter from LP to W. H. Freeman RE: Requests six copies of College Chemistry to be charged to his account. [Filed under LP Books: 1950b.2]

Letter from Magnus I. Gregerson, Dalton Professor of Physiology at the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, to LP, RE: Informs him that he has no knowledge of Dr. Spitzer’s case which LP earlier asked Gregerson to join in protesting, and nor does he know Spitzer. Relates this case to the arrest of Dr. May in 1946 and explains why he is hesitant to join in a protest without knowing the facts. [Filed under LP Personal Safe, Drawer #1, Folder #1.032]

Letter from Niels Bjerrum to LP RE: Concerns the entropy of ice and points out an alleged error in LP’s formula. [Letters from LP to Bjerrum, October 18, 1950, December 27, 1950] [Filed under LP Correspondence: (B: Correspondence, 1951), #37.18]

Letter from Richard M. Noyes, Columbia University, to LP, RE: Discusses the case of Ralph Spitzer. Encloses a copy of a proposed letter to the Secretary of State. Asks LP to let him know if there is a specific time that he would like him to send that letter. [Filed under LP Personal Safe, Drawer #1, Folder #1.032]

Letter from Syuzo Seki, Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Osaka University, to LP RE: Thanks LP for the portrait and the preface to the Japanese edition of General Chemistry. States that he has already completed the translation and the book is being printed. [Letter from LP to Seki, October 3, 1950] [Filed under LP Books: 1947b6.2]

Memo from LP to Peter Pauling, cc. David Shoemaker, RE: Says that it may be worthwhile to do some more work on hexagonal NaCd6. Suggests some methods and other aspects that should be addressed. [Filed under LP Correspondence: (Shoemaker, David P.), #363.3]

October 25, 1950

MEMORANDOM TO: Peter J. Pauling FROM: Linus Pauling

SUBJECT: Proposed Investigations

I think on reconsideration that it might well be worth while to do some more work on hexagonal (NaCd6?) (I shall call it by this formula even though the composition is uncertain).

I believe that it would be good to complete the formal investigation, even there is no chance of making a complete structure determination, unless some new structural information permitting a structure to be predicted comes to hand.

The first thing to be done is to take the rotation photograph that David Shoemaker has, and to measure it carefully, the measurement should be done, with the comparator, by measuring the vertical distance between two corresponding spots above and below the equator. The measurement should be made for a pair of spots on the left side of the film, and the corresponding pair of spots on the right side of the film, and the average of the two taken, to correct for possible errors due to mis-alignment of the crystal. The measurements should be made for all the pairs of spots that you can see, with a notation made as to which spots look clear and sharp, and which are the harder to measure. The latter should he included in the final average only with a decreased weight.

After the distance between spots has been measured, and the layer-line numbers have been assigned to them, a calculation should be made of the value of B(subscript)O, the identity distance along the axis of rotation. This calculation should be made by the formula S(lambda)= i sin n, in which n is the angle between the plane of the equator and the plane of the cone containing the diffracted beam, and 1 is equal to B(subscript)0, the orthohexagenal B axis. I think that the information about the wavelengths and effective radius of the camera probably would permit the value obtained for B(subscript)0 to be good to somewhat better than 0.l%.

Next, the value of the axial ratio of the crystal should be obtained from the Laue photograph. You saw how this was done by measurement of the distance between the lines drawn on the gnomonic projection. A better way of doing the job is to measure the distance on the Laue negative between a spot and the diametrically opposed spot. This measurement should be made for the three or six pairs of equivalent spots constituting a (c?)one, and the average taken. The tangent of the angle, which is equal to the ratio of this distance to 10 (twice the plate distance in the Laue photograph), is also equal to the ratio of Co:Bo, multiplied by an appropriate ratio, which can be found from the assignment of indices to the spots. This gives then a value of Co.

Next, the Laue photograph should be examined carefully, in order to see whether there are any reflections incompatible with the unit with a0-21.6 A(Angstrom) and c0 - 9.6 A (Angstrom) (approximately). This can be done by calculating the value of sin (theta) between which reflections should have l = 1 and n(lambda) in the range 0.24 to 0.48. The reflections with l = 1 lie on the points of the reciprocal lattice, that is, the intersections of the sets of lines that were being drawn today. Similarly the values of sin (theta) within which reflections with S = 2 should lie can be calculated, and these reflections should be looked for, in order to see whether any of them occur with sin (theta) values less than the minimum. The gnomonic poles of these reflections lie at points with coordinates 1/2 on the gnomonic net.

In the same way spots with s=3 should be searched for, to check whether every one of them is in the right region. I think that the only remaining work to be done on the Laue photograph would be the examination of the photograph to find absent reflections, permitting a statement to be made about the space group.

I believe that a reasonably good estimate of atomic volume of sodium and cadmium in the crystal can be made, and that with the reasonably accurate values of the edges of the unit some statement might be possible about the composition. I believe that this work could be published, in the form of a brief note stating what had been done.

Dictated by Linus Pauling Signed in his absence:W

Activity Listings