h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Atoms (in progress) - A718120
Author: Ugi - Keeper of typos & spelling errers - MAT (see A575912) - U179057

I think that this is an indepth entry, but I am not sure where the 'in progress' in the title comes from, seems compleate to me.

Just out of interest did you ask Ugi if he/she wanted this submitted? It's only fair after all and it might not be complete as far as the author is concerned.

Haven't given it a full read but it looks pretty good.

One thing I'd say is that it's a bit easier to break atoms down than this article seems to think. In fact you *can* split atoms using electricity and heat, after all that's how most of the people who are reading this are able to read this. A cathode ray is a beam of electrons generated by simply heating a wire and accelerating the electrons using electric fields. Just one example. What the article talks about is splitting the atomic *nucleus* which is a different ball game altogether.

Back later...

Orcus

OK, I see the author has not posted since august so I guess this is OK.

Next comment. It stated the masses of protons and neutrons are 1.

1 what? Elephants per cubic mile? (as an old boss of mine was wont to say )

1 atomic mass unit I hear you cry. OK, so what's one of them then? it needs defining this, if only in a footnote.

Radioactive elements can actually get heavier believe it or not. One important radioactive decay is called electron capture - a nucleon thus changing from a proton to a neutron with the comcomitant relase of a gamma-ray. The comment in the article seems to suggest radioactive elements all undergo fission which is not the case.


Finally, getting to the end of the article - I can see why it says 'in progress' it does kind of end quite abruptly without any sort of conclusion. Also it could (without getting any more complicated) go into nuclear spins which are important for MRI imaging in hospitals for example.

Nevertheless, what is there is excellent. I shall leave it for others to now comment.

Orcus

1. Normal stable atoms can have an overall positive or negative charge. These are called Ions (there's a nice Entry about that)

2. "Thankfully, atoms usually have more or less the same number of protons and electrons, so the net charge is zero." More or less?

3. Dimitri Mendeleev could be linked to.

: There are many more minor bits I am not really happy with in this Entry, but maybe it's because I am a chemist.

: There are many bigger bits in there with which I am very happy, too, of course.

Summing up, I think that this Entry needs to be beefed up. The core of this Entry is fine, but there are bumps. I think a subbie would have a hard time with this one. So, I'm afraid I'd say "no go". We have to wait for Ugi, or remove this Entry...

HELL

knock, knock...

Hi Guys

Sorry I've not been about that much lately - too much of the 'W'word.

Yes, I agree with HELL - This is not ready to go, which was sort of the point of the (in progress) - that was meant to be a "please don't go submitting this to peer review". Not that I mind St. tar-palantir, it was nice that you thought it worthy.

There are lots of chemistry entries in the guide but none to tell you the basics of what an atom actually is, so I had a stab one lunch time & then didn't get back to finishing it off (yes HELL, I'm a chemist too but I was trying to avoid getting too deep or it would have defeated to whole point). One day....

Thanks for your help everyone - stick around and I'll put it back here when I have a chance to finish it.



Ugi

Hey Ugi, nice hearin from ya'. Say you're a chemist! Fabulous. What sort? (Me: P-Chem)

Sometimes it's hard to make things edible for the interested lay. I'll be glad to read the new improved version soon.



HELL

Hey Ugi, you still around? If not, I'd like to polish this up for you and get it into the EG. There's a couple of times I would have liked to have linked to an EG Entry called 'Atoms'. (That's how IU found this)