The Norton encyclopedia was in its 5th edition, and the "103 cal./gram mole" dissociation energy did not appear to be a typo or misprint, and should have been corrected by that time if discovered. How many books would I have to search to find such a 'misprint', especially since I didn't expect to find the anomaly because of the obvious concealment? Yet, in Physical Chemistry (1965) by E. A. Moelwyn-Hughes of Cambridge (Pergamon Press, London), at page 418, appeared the following:
"The Spectroscopic evaluation of the dissociation energy
The energy of dissociation, De of a diatomic molecule is the difference between the potential energy of the atoms when infinitely separated, and their energy when the atoms are at rest at the equilibrium separation. "
Notice that the "at rest" state of the molecules, is couched in language that makes you think that the "infinitely separated" atomic hydrogen atoms represents the "excited state" for the element. In layman's terms, the RQMs simply made the statement that the dissociation and recombination energies had to be the same, because their theories depended upon them being the same. Then they measured the dissociation energy backwards, by measuring the recombination energy, and stating the measurement as if it were the dissociation energy. The statements are supplanted by a lot of RQM gobbledegook, with a "spectroscopic evaluation" thrown in like some snake oil, because the spectroscope purportedly "can't lie". There is also in the same text, at page 417, the following obtuse statement:
"...In kilocalories per mole, De is 109. "
If hydrogen atoms exothermically release energy when they combine to form molecules, the potential energy has been lost by the molecules, yet they attribute the "potential energy" to the hydrogen molecules— backwards—to evade their duty to draw the logical conclusion. This lie is shown by a graph ("fig. 4") purporting to show the "potential energy of the hydrogen molecule in the ground electronic state." This clearly misrepresents, by a Ph.D. in physics of the "Royal Society", that hydrogen in the "atomic state" is not in a ground state, but in an excited state. In this 1965 physical chemistry text from England, the heat energy generated on recombination of the hydrogen atom is given as 109,000 cal./gram mole, then misrepresented as the "potential energy" of the "ground state hydrogen molecules" which have just formed! But the "ground state" of hydrogen is the atomic state, with the electron at its lowest level of energy, so the RQMs are hoist by their own petards, since there is no way the ground state atoms could "store" the 109,000 cal./gram molecule. Where, exactly would this energy "reside"? Concurrently, this same figure is falsely equated with the heat generated exothermally when two hydrogen atoms—each in its "excited state"— come together to form a molecule. Since the heat energy is released on recombination, the molecules lack the potential energy already released. The potential energy of the separate atoms in their ground states, is greater than that of the molecules, because the heat energy is released from the entrained ether and converted ZPR—not from the hydrogen atoms—when they combine to form molecules.
Was this article helpful?