Letter from Linus Pauling to R.E. Rundle. October 7, 1952. Page 1  Larger Images / More Information. 1 p.  View Transcript

<   October  1952   > S M T W T F S       1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Activity Listings

• Letter from D.P. Riley, The Royal Institution, to LP RE: Discusses his current work on protein structure. Discusses his work on alpha-helical structures in relation to LP's work. Also discusses his recent work on insulin. [In reply to letter from LP to Riley September 24, 1952]. [Filed under LP Science: Box 9.001, Folder 1.7].
• Letter from Dr. Gibbs, of the Office of Ordnance Research, to LP RE: Asks for assistance in evaluating a proposal submitted by Prof. Donald G. Burkhard of the University of Colorado to the OOR. [Reply from LP November 10, 1952] [Filed under LP Science: Box 14.028, Folder 28.1]
• Letter from Hans Freistadt, Committee to Secure Justice In The Rosenberg Case to LP RE: asks LP to review enclosed information regarding the Rosenberg case, and why the imposed sentence should be given an appeal.
• Letter from LP to Dean Watson RE: LP mentions rumor that Professor Kirkwood may consider leaving Yale for Caltech if offered an appointment such as Dean. [Filed under: LP Biographical, Box 1.030, Folder 30.8]
• Letter from LP to Dr. Harold P. Klug of Mellon Institute of Industrial Research RE: Gives permission to Dr. Klug and his colleague to use some of his figures in the republication of their new book. [Letter from Dr. Klug to LP October 1, 1952, following letter from LP to Dr. Klug October 20, 1952] [Filed under LP Correspondence: Box #199, Folder #3].
• Letter from LP to Dr. J. L. Morrison RE: answers Dr. Morrison's letter of enquiry by attempting to answer his questions about their work involving non-specific precipitation of proteins. Offers to look over Dr. Morrison's manuscript. [Letter from Dr. Morrison to LP August 2, 1952].
• Letter from LP to H.H. Weber, Physiologisches Institut, Tubingen, Germany, RE: Pleased to hear that a conference is being planned for July 1953 on the topic of proteins. LP mentions that in the past two months, many problems involving Keratin proteins, including muscle, have been worked out. [In reply to September 30, 1952 letter from Weber to LP, Reply from H.H. Weber to LP December 18, 1952]. [Filed under LP Peace: Box 4.001, Folder 1.3]
• Letter from LP to Prof. A. Wormall of the Medical College of St. Bartholomew's Hospital RE: is sorry to have not visited his laboratory this summer, but he was distracted with his visits to all the people working on the determination of the structure of proteins by x-ray methods. [Letter from Prof. Wormall to LP May 16, 1952] [Filed under LP Correspondence: Box #443, Folder #20].
• Letter from LP to Prof. Frank Welcher RE: in response to his letter, LP gives permission to reproduce some illustrations from his book The Nature of the Chemical Bond. [Letter from Prof. Welcher to LP October 1, 1952] [Filed under LP Correspondence: Box #443, Folder #20].
• Letter from LP to Prof. R. E. Rundle of Iowa State College. [Letter from Prof. Rundle to LP October 13, 1952] [Filed under LP Correspondence: Box #336, Folder #12: File (Rundle, R. E.)]

  7 October 1952

  Prof. R. E. Rundle

  Iowa State College

  Ames, Iowa

  Dear Bob:

  Froudenberg has just been here, and he made some statements about the starch-iodine complexes that seem unlikely to me. I then checked a paper by F. Cramer, Ber. 84, 855 (1951), in which he says that x-ray photographs of α-dextrin-iodine show that the iodine atoms are in a straight chain, with distance 3.06 A. He does not give any data, nor any justification for this statement.

  I believe that you and I talked about this matter some time ago. My own opinion, of course, is that the value 3.06 A represents an average iodine-iodine distance, and that in fact the atoms are doubled up into molecules, with bond distance 2.7 A, and no-bond (weak-bond) distance 3.4 A. The latter is short enough to give a pronounced interaction between molecules, which could explain the large extinction coefficient.

  What do you think the facts are? Do you feel that you have data requiring the atoms to be equidistant, or that Cramer's work is reliable?

  I am very busy with some new protein structures. Things seem to be working out rather well in this field.

  Sincerely yours,

  Linus Pauling:W