TABLE XII
Reading edition
Plate Distance 1.6 cm. Distance of Fall .0975 cm. Volts 1,015. Temperature 230 C. Radius of Drop .000063 cm.
No. of Charges on drop No. of charges on Ion Caught No. of Charges on drop No. of charges on Ion Caught
19.0 100.0 1 P 20.0 10.0* 1 N
16.0 2 P 1 P 20.0* 0 1 P
8.0 3 P 1 P 100.0 1 P 1 P
20.0* 0 1 P
20.0 16.0 2 P 1 P 100.0 1 P 1 P
8.0 3 P 16.0 2 P 1 P
100.0 1 P
17.0 2 P 1 P 104.0 1 P
8.2 3 P 1 P 15.0 2 P 1 P
6.0 4 P 1 P 9.0 3 P 1 P
6.0 4 P
7.0* 2 N
9.8* 1 N 1 P 6.5* 2 N
7.0* 2 N 10.0* 1 N 1 P
20.0* 0 1 P
21.0 20.0* 0 100.0 1 P 1 P
95.0 1 P 1 P 15.5 2 P 1 P
16.5 2 P 1 P 8.0 3 P 1 P
8.0 3.P 1 P 8.0 3 P 1 P
6.0 4 P
100.0 1 P 16.5 2 P
16.0 2 P 1 P
8.4 3 P 20.0* 0
20.0 106.0 1 P 16.5 2 P
16.0 2 P 1 P
8.4 3 P 5.7 4 P
10.0* 1 N 100.0 1 P
20.0* 0 1 P 20.0* 0 1 N
100.0 1 P 1 P 10.0* 1 N 1 N
16.0 2 P 10.0* 1 N 1 N
100.0 1 P 1 P
16.0 2 P 1 P
8.0 3 P
44 catches, all singles
It will be seen from Table XII that in 4 cases out of 44 we caught negatives, although it would appear from the arrangement shown in Fig. 12 that we could catch only positives. These negatives are doubtless due to secondary rays which radiate in all directions from the air molecules when these are subjected to the primary X-ray radiation.
Toward the end of Table XII is an interesting series of catches. At the beginning of this series, the drop was charged with 2 negatives which produced a speed in the direction of gravity of 6.5 seconds. It caught in succession 6 single positives before the field was thrown off. The corresponding times were 6.5*, 10*, 20*, 100, 15.5, 8.0, 6.0. The mean time during which the X-rays had to be on in order to produce a “catch” was in these experiments about six seconds, though in some instances it was as much as a minute. The majority of the times recorded in column were actually measured with a stop watch as recorded, but since there could be no possibility of mistaking the 100-second speed, it was observed only four or five times. It will be seen from Table XII that out of 44 catches of ions produced by very hard X-rays there is not a single double. As a result of observing from 500 to 1,000 catches in the manner illustrated in Table XII, we came to the conclusion that, although we had entered upon the investigation with the expectation of proving the existence of valency in gaseous ionization, we had instead obtained direct, unmistakable evidence that the act of ionization of air molecules by both primary and secondary X-rays of widely varying degrees of hardness, as well as by - and -rays, uniformly consists, under all the conditions which we were able to investigate, in the detachment from a neutral molecule of one single elementary electrical charge.
III. RECENT EVIDENCE AS TO NATURE OF IONIZATION PRODUCED BY ETHER WAVES
Although Townsend and Franck and Westphal dissented from the foregoing conclusion, all the evidence which has appeared since has tended to confirm it. Thus Salles,[60] using a new method due to Langevin of measuring directly the ratio of the mobility to the diffusion coefficient, concluded that when the ionization is produced by -rays there are no ions bearing multiple charges. Again, the very remarkable photographs (see plate opposite p. 190) taken by C. T. R. Wilson in the Cavendish Laboratory of the tracks made by the passage of X-rays through gases show no indication of a larger number of negatively than of positively charged droplets. Such an excess is to be expected if the act of ionization ever consists in these experiments in the detachment of two or more negative electrons from a neutral molecule. Further, if the initial act of ionization by X-rays ever consists in the ejection of two or more corpuscles from a single atom, there should appear in these Wilson photographs a rosette consisting of a group of zigzag lines starting from a common point. A glance at the plate opposite p. 192 shows that this is not the case, each zigzag line having its own individual starting-point.
There are two other types of experiments which throw light on this question.
When in the droplet experiments the X-rays are allowed to fall directly upon the droplet, we have seen that they detach negative electrons from it, and if the gas is at so low a pressure that there is very little chance of the capture of ions by the droplet, practically all of its changes in charge have this cause. Changes produced under these conditions appear, so far as I have yet been able to discover, to be uniformly unit changes. Also, when the changes are produced by the incidence on the droplet of ultra-violet light, so far as the experiments which have been carried out by myself or my pupils go, they usually, though not always, have appeared to correspond to the loss of one single electron. The same seems to have been true in the experiments reported by A. Joffé,[61] who has given this subject careful study.
Meyer and Gerlach,[62] it is true, seem very often to observe changes corresponding to the simultaneous loss of several electrons. It is to be noted, however, that their drops are generally quite heavily charged, carrying from 10 to 30 electrons. Under such conditions the loss of a single electron makes but a minute change in speed, and is therefore likely not only to be unnoticed, but to be almost impossible to detect until the change has become more pronounced through the loss of several electrons. This question, then, can be studied reliably only when the field is powerful enough to hold the droplet balanced with only one or two free electrons upon it. Experiments made under such conditions with my apparatus by both Derieux[63] and Kelly[64] show quite conclusively that the act of photo-emission under the influence of ultra-violet light consists in the ejection of a single electron at each emission.
Table XIII contains one series of observations of this sort taken with my apparatus by Mr. P. I. Pierson. The first column gives the volts applied to the plates of the condenser shown in Fig. 7, p. 111. These were made variable so that the drop might always be pulled up with a slow speed even though its positive charge were continually increasing. The second and third columns give the times required to move 1 cm. under gravity and under the field respectively. The fourth column gives the time intervals required for the drop to experience a change in charge under the influence of a constant source of ultra-violet light—a quartz mercury lamp. The fifth column gives the total charge carried by the drop computed from equation (12), p. 91. The sixth column shows the change in charge computed from equation (10), p. 70. This is seen to be as nearly a constant as could be expected in view of Brownian movements and the inexact measurements of volts and times. The mean value of is seen to be , which yields with the aid of equation (16), p. 101, after the value of found for oil drops has been inserted, , which is in better agreement with the result obtained with oil drops than we had any right to expect. In these experiments the light was weak so that the changes come only after an average interval of 29 seconds and it will be seen that they are all unit changes.