kw: book reviews, nonfiction, science, gas, gases, vapor
This is a mercury barometer of a type one could buy in the late 1800's. In 1843, Evangelista Torricelli first filled a meter-long tube with mercury, held the end closed, and inverted it into a bowl of mercury. Some of the mercury ran out, but about 3/4 of a meter of the tube remained filled with mercury. This was the first demonstration that air has weight. It took some testing to verify that the upper part of the tube held a vacuum.Torricelli showed that the pressure caused by the weight of about 76 cm of mercury in the tube equaled the pressure caused by the weight of the entire atmosphere, many miles in height. Under what a physicist calls "standard conditions" the height of the column of mercury is exactly 76 cm (29.92 in.), because that is part of the definition of standard conditions. The other parts of the definition are 25°C or 77°F, elevation at sea level (mean high tide), and zero humidity.
When a weather system moves through the area, the actual barometric pressure will differ, so that a barometer you may have in your home likely has a scale that runs from about 72.5 to 80 cm (~28.5 to 31.5 in.). It is really amazing that atmospheric pressure has more than a 10% range. Sometimes even more: in the eye of a hurricane it can be as low as 67 cm; the record is 66.9 cm, or 26.34 in.
The density of air under standard conditions is 1.2754 kg per cubic meter. Mercury is just over 10,000 times as dense as air, at 13,600 kg/m3. If air were incompressible and didn't thin out with altitude, the atmosphere would then be 10,660 times 0.76 meters, or 8.1 km thick (about 5 miles). But air does thin out with altitude, so a barometer can also be used as an altimeter: at an elevation of 8.1 km, air pressure does not suddenly drop to zero, but is 56.2 cm of mercury, or about 74% of sea level pressure.
Here is an interesting calculation: What is the volume of air that weighs one tonne (1,000 kg, or 2,205 lbs)? 1,000 ÷ 1.2754 = 784 m3. The dimensions of a travel bus such as a Greyhound bus are typically 13.5 m long, 2.6 m wide, and 2 m high; this amounts to 70.2 m3. An empty bus is carrying around about 1/12th of a tonne of air, which weighs some 90 kg or close to 200 lbs. A bus driver driving an empty bus has a hidden extra-large person along for the ride. By contrast, a suburban ranch house with an area of 1,600 sq ft, or 148 sq m, with 8-foot (2.44 m) ceilings, has a volume of 362 m3, so the air's weight is 0.46 tonnes, or 460 kg or a bit more than 1,000 lbs. It takes a pretty big house to contain a tonne of air. So air has weight, and moving air can move things, including sailboats and dandelion seeds, for example.Thoughts such as these arose as I was reading It's a Gas: The Sublime & Elusive Elements That Expand Our World by Mark Miodownik. I had a slight qualm upon reading the title: most gases are not elements, at least in the chemical sense. The author is a scientist, so I figured he ought to know that. Perhaps "substances" or another semi-synonym for "elements" was deemed too clumsy by the editor. Alliteration before accuracy. But it put me on alert for other scientific solecisms, which I found (sad to say) and will mention later on.
It was soon apparent that the book has a cultural aim rather than scientific. There is a chapter on the "noble gases", helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon and radon. That's the most scientifically oriented chapter in the book. These are the only gases that are actually chemical elements. All other gases that make it into our atmosphere (and all of them do) are molecular, starting with hydrogen, oxygen, fluorine and chlorine, which are diatomic molecules (H2, O2, F2, and Cl2) whenever they are not chemically combined with something else. The three most common triatomic molecules are ozone, carbon dioxide, and water vapor (O3, CO2, and H2O). There are lots of gases!
This introduces the need for a definition. What is a vapor? In chemistry, a vapor is a gas that emanates from a substance that is a liquid at ordinary temperatures. At a high enough temperature, many liquids are entirely gaseous, and water becoming steam is the most familiar example. If it is too hot for water to exist as a liquid (at an ordinary pressure), it is too hot for us to live, being hotter than 100°C or 212°F. At lower temperatures, water vapor has a "vapor pressure" that is less than atmospheric pressure, so that at temperatures humans like, there is a little water vapor in the air, but only a small percentage. Another example is bromine. It is a liquid at room temperature, but its boiling point is 59°C or 138°F. Thus, it has a higher vapor pressure than water at any temperature below that.
Some gases are quite toxic, so-called "poison gases". Some, such as chlorine, were used in warfare—fortunately, more than 100 years ago, and not since. Others are mildly toxic but also reduce pain and have been used as anesthetics. In the past, ether vapor was a common anesthetic; it was used to knock me out for a tonsillectomy in 1952. Nitrous oxide is called "laughing gas" because it makes a person delirious, but doesn't make someone unconscious, while it makes them insensitive to pain. It is still in use. For most surgeries, other synthetic gases such as halothane work better than ether and are less toxic…but not totally nontoxic!
About 60 years ago I was a chemistry major. One thing we did, supervised, which probably isn't allowed these days, was to take a whiff of various vapors and gases. This probably saved my life. It was during the antiwar protests of "the sixties", and protests occurred regularly on campus. I would sometimes heckle the speakers at such rallies. One day when I opened my car I smelled the very distinctive odor of cyanide gas (HCN). I stopped breathing (without gasping!) long enough to open the door on the other side, and then I backed off and let the breeze de-gasify my car. I am thankful that "someone" was fool enough to try something tricky, rather than just wait for me with a gun!
Throughout the book there is an increasing emphasis on climate change and the role of CO2. Interestingly, in one place, the author states that in the distant past, when the CO2 content of the air was 5,000 ppm (half a percent), global temperature was about 10°C warmer than it is now. The current level is about 430 ppm. It is clear that he fully buys into the contention that rising CO2 is an existential crisis.
Let's look at those figures, and add another. Pre-industrial times: 280 ppm, baseline temperature. Current: 430 ppm and 1°C warmer. Distant past, 5,000 ppm and 10°C warmer. The first two points define a straight line with a slope of 0.00667; the second and third points define a straight line with a slope of 0.00197. This is strongly nonlinear, so I tested this as a log-linear relationship. I find that it is quite a good fit. This allows me to interpolate that a level of 600 ppm is needed to add another °C, and 800 ppm would add one more degree. But that assumes that there were no other factors that contributed to the temperature in the distant past.
A different analysis, based on spectroscopy, one I first performed fifty years ago, indicates that at 400 ppm, the optical density of CO2 is already about as high as it can get in the thermal infrared parts of the spectrum. In other words, it is already optically saturated, and the temperature is unlikely to rise even by one more degree. I conclude that we know too little about the situation when CO2 content was 5,000 ppm.
Either way, that is not what I call an existential crisis.
In conclusion, the book is interesting and entertaining. It is really half memoir, half info-dump. A good combination! But I cannot pass by a few instances that reveal a bit of sloppy thinking:
- Discussing weather systems, on page 130, these sentences stood out, "Because of its lower density hot air expands, creating high-pressure regions. Cooler, low-pressure air moves to equalize the pressure and this air flow is what we call wind." This requires careful thinking. Warm, rising air causes lower pressure. Cold, falling air causes higher pressure. At the surface, the air moves from high to low. The only correct phrase is the last eight words.
- On pages 151 to 154, the discussion involves lighter-than-air ballooning using hydrogen and helium. The term "helium molecules" is found near the bottom of page 151. Helium does not form molecules. Under extreme conditions helium can barely be induced to react with fluorine, but this is not found in nature.
- Then on page 154, we read, "…hydrogen, a gas with an atomic weight of 1 atomic unit: it is 50 percent lighter than helium." An essential fact was left out. Helium is always monotonic, with an atomic weight of 4. Hydrogen in our atmosphere is diatomic, therefore, while the atoms have an atomic weight of 1, the diatomic molecules of hydrogen have an atomic weight of 2. That is why hydrogen is 50 percent lighter.
- On page 188, after a long dissertation on the search for "luminiferous aether", confusion suddenly arises when the author brings in Einstein. Aether was not "banished" by Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity, it was Maxwell's Equations, published in 1865, that demonstrated that electricity and magnetism together (as electromagnetism) propagated each other through free space, and so no medium is needed for them to propagate through. A further statement about "how gravity works" is similarly anachronistic; gravity is dealt with in Einstein's general theory of relativity in 1915.
- A diagram on page 197 shows a portion of the solar spectrum, with Fraunhofer absorption lines, and certain ones prominently marked. The caption states that the lines are "associated with hydrogen." The C and F lines marked are indeed from hydrogen, but the D line pair is from sodium and the E line is from iron. Other lines also marked are also not from hydrogen.
- The diagram of the periodic table of the elements printed on page 205 is terrible! In particular, the shading in the18th period (inexplicably called VIIIA in the caption), the noble gases from helium to radon, is too dark to see the lettering. And this in a section in which the noble gases are the subject of discussion!
- Finally, on page 209, the work of Svante Arrhenius and his predecessor Eunice Foote is discussed, and simply bowdlerized. I'll leave out the detail. The thrust of the discussion is again inverted, leaving out the more important conclusions.