scholarly journals Marie Anne Paulze no descubrimento do osíxeno

2020 ◽  
Vol 90 ◽  
pp. 75-96
Author(s):  
Ana M. González-Noya ◽  
◽  
Manuel R. Bermejo ◽  
Xoana Pintos
Keyword(s):  
Lothar Meyer

Nunha comunicación presentada por nós no XXXII Congreso de ENCIGA, celebrado en Viveiro no ano 2019, titulada “MARIE ANNE e a TÁBOA PERIÓDICA” falabamos da vida desta científica para, comprendendo como fora a súa formación académico-científica, estar en condicións de asimilar mellor as súas contribucións ao desenvolvemento da Táboa Periódica, na celebración do “ Ano Internacional da Táboa Periódica”. Tamén pretendiamos comprender cal foi a contribución de Marie ao mundo da química axudando ao seu gran Pygmalion: Antoine Laurent Lavoisier. Nesa comunicación pódese entender cal é a nosa reflexión sobre a súa contribución ao desenvolvemento da táboa periódica ao longo do último terzo do século XVIII, de modo particular; canto debeu colaborar Marie Anne – sempre do lado e da man do seu admirado e idolatrado Lavoisier- ao establecemento da primeira táboa das “Substancias simples” que aparece no “Tratado Elemental de Química” publicado por Antoine no ano 1789. Debemos lembrar que a táboa periódica que hoxe coñecemos e celebramos é froito do xenio de Mendeleev; pero tamén debemos citar a importancia das contribucións de Julius Lothar Meyer (quen fai 150 anos chegou ás mesmas conclusións que Dimitri, pero non se atreveu a publicalas e, por iso, chegou tarde á historia).Tamén cómpre insistir en que houbo moitas outras achegas na historia da química á construción da táboa periódica definitiva. Hai algunha evidencia da posible contribución de Marie Anne á construción ou elaboración das distintas táboas periódicas da historia? Estivo presente ou actuou significativamente no descubrimento dalgún elemento químico? Verémolo logo.

scholarly journals XVII. On the atomic weight of glucinum (Beryllium)

1883 ◽  
Vol 174 ◽  
pp. 601-613
Keyword(s):  
Specific Heat ◽  
Volatile Compound ◽  
Atomic Weight ◽  
Normal Number ◽  
Vapour Density ◽  
Atomic Heat ◽  
Lothar Meyer ◽  
Free Metal

I. Introductory. Ever since the discovery of glucinum by Vauquelin, in 1798, its atomic weight has been a disputed matter amongst chemists. Its discoverer considered that its oxide was a monoide, an opinion which was however strongly opposed by Berzelius, who wrote the oxide Gl 2 O 3 and the atomic weight 13⋅7 (O=16). The researches of Awdejew and Debrayt again turned the scale in favour of the earlier view, and as an atomic weight of 9⋅2 suited the properties of the metal in the tables of periodicy constructed by MM. Mendeleef and Lothar Meyer, this atomic weight has, up to quite recently, been generally accepted by chemists. As a welcome confirmation to this came a determination of the specific heat of the metal by Professor E. Reynolds, J who found that for its atomic heat to be near the normal number 6⋅0, its atomic weight must be 9⋅2 and not 13⋅8. Almost immediately afterwards a second determination of the specific heat was made by MM. Nilson and Petterson, who, however, obtained a result agreeing not with the lower atomic weight hut with the higher. The reasons for these conflicting opinions are to be found—first, in the anomalous position of glucinum among the elements; secondly, in the difficulties which surround the preparation of even small quantities of the free metal in a tolerably pure condition; and thirdly, in the fact that no volatile compound of glucinum is known of which the vapour density might be easily determined.

Lothar Meyer

1950 ◽  
Vol 27 (7) ◽  
pp. 365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rudolf Winderlich
Keyword(s):  
Lothar Meyer

Lothar Meyer – eine Wiederentdeckung

2019 ◽  
Vol 67 (11) ◽  
pp. 19-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norbert Kuhn ◽  
Klaus‐Peter Zeller
Keyword(s):  
Lothar Meyer

Lothar Meyer

1895 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 329-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl Seubert
Keyword(s):  
Lothar Meyer

scholarly journals Professor Lothar Meyer

Nature ◽  
1895 ◽  
Vol 52 (1334) ◽  
pp. 81-82
Author(s):  
M. M. PATTISON MUIR
Keyword(s):  
Lothar Meyer

LOTHAR MEYER: 1830–1895

1949 ◽  
pp. 169
Author(s):  
HENRY MONMOUTH SMITH
Keyword(s):  
Lothar Meyer

The Periodic System and Its Influence on Research and Education in Germany between 1870 and 1910

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gisela Boeck
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Periodic System ◽  
Chemical Properties ◽  
Atomic Weight ◽  
Teaching Chemistry ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
Research And Education ◽  
Lothar Meyer

In 1895 Karl Seubert (1851–1942) published some of the most important papers by Lothar Meyer (1830–1895) and Dmitrii I. Mendeleev (1834–1907) on the so-called natural system of elements. He wrote: . . . At first it seems incomprehensible to today’s reader of these essays that the general reception of the system was delayed for many years even though it was presented in a final form and its benefit for theoretical, practical and pedagogical purposes had been explained in detail. . . . Seubert discovered a lack of interest in the field of inorganic chemistry, but also an inadequate description of the system. He remarked that Meyer’s explanations were too short, and Mendeleev’s too circuitous. The system became a resounding success when the deductions which were drawn from it were confirmed by experiments in rapid succession: the selection of the atomic weight with respect to the known number of equivalents, as in the case of indium and uranium; the change in the order, regardless of the valid atomic weights, such as the platinum group; and, last but not least, the prediction of new elements and their chemical properties which were proved true with the discoveries of scandium, gallium and germanium quickly one after the other. The brilliant vision and the boldness of Mendelejeff led the system to its unquestioned victory. Seubert was Meyer’s colleague for many years. From 1878 to 1895, they worked together on the redetermination of atomic weights and published several papers on this topic. Seubert was the first biographer to write about Meyer and was responsible for publishing his most important papers. Nevertheless, Seubert regarded Mendeleev’s role in the discovery of the periodic system to be of greater importance. This is shown by the last sentence of the previously quoted passage. Seubert’s remark elicits two questions: First, why did Seubert consider Meyer’s role in the discovery of the periodic system as less important? Second, was its reception in Germany truly delayed? These questions are connected to several different factors: politics within German chemistry; didactic approaches to teaching chemistry in schools and universities; and the role of the periodic system in the public sphere.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document