192 I N D U S T R I A L A N D ENGINEERING CHEMIXTRY
Bohr’s Model of the Atom’*z
A Review of Some Salient Features of Present Atomic Theories
By E. E. Free
7 EAST4
2 ST., ~ YORK,N.
A CCORDING to the model of Professor Bohr, each atom
consists of one central nucleus around which revolve
one or more electrons much as the planets revolve around
the sun. This model is often called the planetary or solar system
model of the atom, or, commemorating the physicist who first
investigated it, the Rutherford-Bohr model.
A different model of the atom was suggested by Abegg and
more definitely by G. N. Lewis. It is usually called the
Lewis-Langmuir model, or the static model. It considers
the electrons not to be in orbital motion, but to occupy relatively
fixed positions surrounding the nucleus, as, for example, one a t
each of the six corners of a cube having the nucleus a t its center.
There seems little doubt that these two theories are recon-
cilable and that the Bohr or planetary model is essentially
correct. The detailed theory of i t is necessarily mathematical
and the elimination of all mathematics from the present review
results, inevitably, in a certain degree of inexactness. A compen-
sation is hoped for in a greater clarity for the nonspecialist reader,
to whom alone this review is addressed.
THESIMPLEST
ATOM
The simplest atom known is that of hydrogen. I t consists,
we believe, of one electron revolving around another single
particle which acts as nucleug. Concerning the deeper nature
of the electron and of the central particle we know practically
nothing. We must merely accept them, for the present, as the
ultimate building stones of matter. They are equally and op-
positely charged-the electron with negative electricity, the cen-
tral particle, often called the proton, with positive electricity.
The numerical value of this charge is 4.774 X electrostatic
unit or 1.60 X coulomb, a quantity of electricity almost
inconceivably minute. Through the filament of a 40-watt.
110-volt incandescent lamp there pass every second about
2,300,000,000,000,000,000electrons.
The central nucleus (or proton) of the hydrogen atom and the
planetary electron that revolves around it have for each other
the usual electrostatic attraction. It is this which maintains,
we believe, the stability of the atomic system, corresponding
roughly to the force of gravity in the planetary system of the sun
and the earth.
The electron of the hydrogen atom, however, is not a fixture
in its orbit. When an assemblage of hydrogen atoms is heated
very hot, or is placed in a strong electric field, or is bombarded
with fast-moving free electrons or with the alpha particles from
radium, the planetary electrons of some of the hydrogen atoms
may be driven entirely out of their orbits. The astronomic
analogy is the arrival from outer space of some powerful heat
ray or some fast-moving heavenly body that hits the earth and
knocks it completely out of the solar system.
Under these conditions the hydrogen atoms emit light, the
familiar bright lines of the hydrogen spectrum. If was from a
study of these phenomena of spectra that Bohr deduced his theory
and his atomic models.
THEORIGINOF SPECTRA
The ordinary ideas of mechanics will not explain such emission
spectra. We cannot believe that an electron revolving in its
1 Received December 11, 1923.
1 This is not intended t o be a rigorous discussion, but a presentation
prepared especially for those who have not followed in detail the develop-
ment of the present theory of atomic structure.-Editor’s Note.
Vol. 16, No.
~ NEW
Y.
usual stable orbit can emit light at all, for if it did the graduat
loss of energy would slowly make its orbit smaller. Ultimately
it would fall into the nucleus, which we know that i t does not do.
Yet the light is radiated. To explain these facts Bohr assumed
that the light is radiated during the return to an atom of an elec-
tron that has been knocked clean out of it.
To construct the astronomic analogy, imagine that all the plan-
ets of our solar system have been removed, leaving the naked sun.
Imagine, then, that one of them (or a new planet) drifts back
again from outer space and is captured by the solar attraction.
Suppose that i t occupies, a t first, the orbit of our outermost
planet, Neptune. Suppose, then, that i t moves inward suddenly
to the orbit of the next planet, Uranus, then by another sudden
jump to the orbit of Saturn, then to that of Jupiter, and so on,
orbit by orbit, until a t last it comes to occupy the innermost
orbit of all, that of Mercury.
This is essentially what Bohr assumes to happen in the return
of an electron to a hydrogen atom. He assumes, also, that
the light radiated by the atom while this is happening is sent out
only a t the instant when the electron makes a jump from one orbit
to another one. No light is radiated while the electron is merely
revolving in one of the orbits. There is a rough but simple
analogy which serves to make this clear. Imagine a series
of race tracks one inside the other like the concentric grooves
of that once familiar game called “Pigs in Clover.” Imagine
these tracks separated by high board fences. Now put a race
horse in the outermost track and instruct him to run around i t
until, when he happens to feel like it, he is to jump the inside
fence into the next track, run around i t for a while, and then
jump the next fence, and so on until he reaches the innermost
track of all. If, then, you watch this procedure from the field
outside the outermost fence, you will not see the horse a t all as
long as he is running in a single track. The fences hide him.
But whenever he jumps a fence from one track into the next you
will see him for an instant as he goes over.
So with the hydrogen atom. You see the electron only as it
jumps from one orbit to another one, for it is only then that the
electron radiates light. This light makes the spectral lines, a
different line for each possible kind of orbit-to-orbit jump that the
electron can make. (It should be noted, as Lewis suggests, that
t o speak of an “electron jump” involves really an unwarranted
assumption. All that the theory states is that an electron dis-
appears from one orbit and immediately an electron appears in
another orbit. At that instant light is radiated. We are not
sure that the electron continues to exist during the “jump,”
or that it is the same electron all the time. We know nothing
about what an electron is. But this grows, perhaps, unduly
metaphysical.)
THEQUANTUM THEORY
It is an essential of Bohr’s theory that the number of possible
electron orbits is limited. This idea is entirely contrary to the
ordinary laws of mechanics. In our solar system, for example,
there are an infinite number of possible orbits. The earth
could contract its orbit by a few miles or a few millimeters and
move on just the same. If a cloud of dust was encountered
in space so that the earth lost energy and was slowed up, it would
gradually approach the sun in a smoothly narrowing spiral. It
would never make a jump from one orbit to another.
But the atom does not behave this way. An electron can ap-
proach the nucleus, the Bohr theory says, only through a fixed
February, 1924 INDUSTRIAL A N D ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY 193

series of orbit-to-orbit jumps. This is an expression of the quan-
tum theory. Each of the possible orbits which the electron can
occupy is fixed and specified by what is called a quantum number.
These numbers are merely the complete series of whole numbers
from one up. For example, the innermost orbit of the hydrogen
atom is designated by the quantum number 1, the second orbit
is designated by the quantum number 2, and so on. Some
power of these quantum numbers actually determines the char-
acterirtics of the orbits. For example, the relative diameters of
the orbits are fixed by the square of the quantum numbers. The
innermost orbit has (in appropriate units) a diameter of one, the
next orbit has a diameter of four, the third orbit has a diameter
of nine, and so on.
/ pal quantum number as the third electron of lithium. The
the atomic number of an element equals the number of its plane-
tary electrons. This conclusion was reached first from Moseley’s
work on X-ray spectra, and it is sometimes called Moseley’s law.
For Bohr’s application of it, we must consider the quantum
numbers of the electron orbits as one electron after another is
added to the atomic system. Helium, with two planetary
electrons, has both of them, Bohr believes, in orbits of the
same quantum number as the single innermost orbit of the
hydrogen atom-that is, of quantum number 1. The next
element, lithium, has three planetary electrons, but, for some
reason that we do not understand, it cannot add this third
electron in a third orbit of quantum number 1. Only two such
one-quantum orbits can exist. So the third electron of lithium
goes outside into a larger orbit, an orbit of quantum number 2.
The fourth, fifth, and sixth electrons, and so on until the tenth
electron, are added in additional orbits having the same princi-
eleventh electron, horvever, brings another change. Just as
more than two orbits of quantum number 1 seem unable to exist
together, so more than eight orbits of quantum number 2 cannot
exist together; and so the eleventh electron, like the third, must
go outside the rest of the atom into a larger orbit, this time an
orbit of quantum number 3. This gives us the atom of sodium.
The continuation of these ideas to the other elements will be
apparent from the table printed herewith. It will be noted that
all the alkali elements, like lithium and sodium, are ones that
BOHR’S TABLE
OF THE ELEMENTS

SOME
OF THE ELECTRON
ORBITSOF THE HYDROGEN
ATOX
- - 2122 -
1 H
- !L
1
313233 41424a44 61626364666e

2 He 2
- - -
The quantum numbers of the orbits are designated by the figures, the 3 Li 2 1
principal quantum number by the larger figure, the subordinate quantum 4 Be 2 2
number by the subscript one. The lines ending in arrows indicate the 5B 2 2 (1)
transitions of the electron from orbit t o orbit, which transitions correspond -- - -_
t o certain of the spectral lines of hydrogen. [This drawing is from Bohr’s
Nobel Prize address, Nature (London), 112, supplement, 38 (1923).1 IO N e
11 N a
-
2
2
-
44
44
-
1
12 Mg 2 44 2
The actual orbits of the hydrogen atom require, however, two
quantum numbers instead of one. The first or “principal” quan- --
13 AI 2
- 44 21
- - --
tum number is the one just discussed. If the electron orbits were
I8 A
19 K
-
2
2
-
44
44
-
44
44 1
exactly circular this would be the only quantum number necessary.
But the orbits are not exactly circular. In reality, they are
ellipses. So the principal quantum number fixes the major
20 Ca
21 s c
22 Ti
--
29 Cu
2
2
2
-
2
44
44
-- ---
441
44
44
441
442
666
6
1
exis of the ellipse while another quantum number is required to 30 Zn 2 44 666 2
31 Ga 2 44 666 21
fix the eccentricity of the ellipse-that is, the degree by which the -- - -- - - - _-
ellipse departs from exact circularity. In the more complex - - --
36 Kr
37 Rb
2
2
44
44
6
6
66
66
44
44 1
atoms or in atoms under unusual conditions, such as exposure 38 Sr 2 44 6 66 4 4. 2
39 Y 2 44 6 66 44 1
to intense electric fields, three independent quantum numbers 40 Zr
-- 2
- 44
-- 6
--- 66 442
--- Fj
may be necessary to specify all the possible variationsof theorbits. 47 Ag 2 44 666 666 1
These second and third quantum numbers are of great importance 48 Cd 2 44 666 666 2
49 I n 2 44 666 666 21
in many problems of the origin of spectra, but for the interpreta- -- - -_ -__ __
tion of the chemical evidence, a t least to a first approximation, 54 Xe
55 c s
-
2
2
-
44
44
-
666
titi6
666
tititi
44
44 1
they may be disregarded, only the principal quantum number 56 Ba 2 44 6 6 6 6 6 6 44 2
being considered. 57 La 2 44 6 6 6 6 6 6 441 (2)
2 44
THEELECTRON
ORBITSAND LAW
THE PERIODIC
58 Ce
--
59 Pr
-2 44
--
6
- --
6
6
6
6
6
6
----
6
6
6
61
62
441
441
--- 8
71 C p 2 44 666 44 I
As we advance beyond hydrogen in the atomic table the other
_ --
72 2
- 44
-- 666
---
8888
8888
---- 442
--- $3
elements contain a larger number of electrons and of the positive 79 Au 2 44 666 8888 666 1
particles or protons. Helium, for example, contains four of 80 Hg 2 44 666 8888 666 2
each. But only two of the electrons move in planetary orbits,
81 T1
-- - --
2 44 666
--- 8888
---- ---
666
--
21

the other two being held firmly inside the nucleus together 86 Em
87 -
-
2
2
-
44
44
-
666
666
8888
8888
666
666
44
44
with all four of the protons. The third element, lithium, has six 88 R a 2 44 666 8888 666 44
electrons and six protons, three of the electrons being planetary 89 Ac 2 44 666 8888 666 441
ones. The fourth element, beryllium, has eight each of protons --
90 Th
- -- --- ----
2 44 666 8888 666
- -- ---
442

and electrons, four of the latter being planetary, and so on.

It is the number and arrangement of the planetary electrons
that determine, we believe, the chemical properties of the ele-
ments as well as most of the features of their spectra. The es-
sential idea underlying Bohr’s interpretation of the periodic
law is that when the elements are arranged in the order corre-
sponding to that law each element in the list possesses one plan-
etary electron more than does the preceding element. In other words,
118 (?) -
2 -
44 -
666 8888 8888 666
The elements are arranged in the order of their atomic numbers, given
at the left. The figures at the top indicate the quantum numbers, the prin-
cipal quantum number being the larger figure and the subordinate quantum
number the subscript figure. The figures in the body of the table indicate
the number of electrons in orbits of specified quantum numbers in that
particular atom. For example, the atom of sodium has two electrons in
orbits having quantum numbers (principal and subordinate) of 11. four
electrons in orbits of 21; four in orbits of 2a; and one in an orbit of 31: The
seven periods of Bohr’s periodic arrangement are marked offfrom each other
by the horizontal lines.
(This table is the one used by Bohr in his lectures and published in con-
nection with his Nobel Prize address.)
194 INDUXTRIAL A N D ENGINEERING CHEiPIIXTRY
begin new series of larger orbits. One of their electrons occupies
an orbit of higher quantum number than the other electrons.
This is typical of the way in which the idea of successive groups
of orbits of increasing quantum number fits into and explains the
chemical similarities and dissimilarities of the elements.
S O M E ATOMIC
SIZES
From the mathematical basis of the Bohr theory and from
accepted values for the electronic charge, for Avogadro’s number
and for other constants, it is possible to calculate the numerical
characteristics of the orbits in the Bohr atom. The diameter of
the innermost hydrogen orbit comes out as 1.06 X 10-8cm. For
the other elements the diameter of the innermost orbit is smaller
because of the greater attraction of the increasing nuclear charge.
I n the carbon atom, for example, the innermost orbit has a diam-
eter of approximately 0.18 X 10-8 cm., while the next orbit has a
diameter of 0.70 X cm. The innermost orbit of the ora-
nium atom, which is the smallest electron orbit known, has a
diameter of about 0.012 X cm., still quite large in compari-
son with Rutherford’s maximum value of 6.8 X cm. for
the order of diameter of the nucleus.
These figures for the orbital diameters cannot be applied di-
rectly to the calculation of alomic diameters, inasmuch as the
orbits are elliptical and the mutual arrangement of these ellipses
in space will have much to do with the effective diameter of the
atom.
The following illustration may help to visualize atomic sizes :
Suppose that an inch-square piece of graphite is enlarged
until it covers the entire orbit of the earth, 190,000,000 miles
from side t o side, The nuclei of the carbon atoms would be, then,
about ll/s miles apart. Each nucleus would be perhaps a foot
in diameter (the exact size of the nucleus is in doubt) and each
planetary electron would be about la/*inches in diameter. If
you stood on one of the 12-inch globes corresponding to a nucleus,
the two nearest electrons would be revolving around you a t an
average distance of about 350 feet, while the four outermost
electrons would be a t an average distance of about 1 1 4 mile.
This picture of matter is astonishingly open. The particles of
it turn out to be even farther apart, relatively, than the planets
of our solar system.
SOME REMAINING
MYSTERIES
The Bohr theories have little to say about the problem of
atomic energy. It is possible with their aid to calculate the
ionization potential of an atom-that is, the voltage necessary
to drive an electron entirely out of a given orbit in a given atom.
This voltage, however, is presumably much smaller than would
correspond to the total energy of the atom. The only kind of
atomic energy that we really know much about directly, the
energy of radioactivity, i s probably related to the still unknown
structure of the nucleus.
So, also, are the phenomena of transmutation, recently investi-
gated so brilliantly by Rutherford. It is permissible, the writer
believes, to hope for the ultimate attainment both of useful
transmutation of the elements and of useful atomic power;
but the path to neither of these ends is as yet apparent, nor is
there any inkling of the nature of that greatest mystery of all,
the mystery of electromagnetic radiation. What is light?
What really happens when, as we say, an electron “jumps” from
one of its orbits to another? About this there is not even a
plausible guess. Matter and radiation are the two halves of
a puzzle which we do not yet see how to join.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The best summary of the Bohr theories with which the
writer is acquainted is a special issue of Die Naturwissenschaften
(Berlin), entitled “Die ersten z$m Jahre der Theorie von Niels
Bohr uber den Bau der Atome, and published as Vol. 11, Heft
27, pages 533-624 (July 6, 1923). This contains numerous
articles on the present status of the theory and also the text of
Vol. 16, No. 2
an excellent summary address by Bohr himself, delivered on the
occasion of his receipt of the Nobel Prize in physics in 1922.
This same address was published in English as a special supple-
ment to Nature (London), Vol. 112, supplement pages 29-44
(July 7, 1923). It is available in pamphlet form from the pub-
lishers of Nature.
The summary of general atomic theory which, in the writer’s
opinion, is the most satisfactory one for chemists is the bril-
liant and suggestive monograph of G. N. Lewis, entitled “Valence
and the Structure of Atoms and Molecules,” published by
The Chemical Catalog Co., New York, 1923, as one of the Mono-
graph Series of the American Chemical Society.
For the physicis: the best summary seems to be “The Struc-
ture of the Atom, by E. N. da C. Andrade, published by G.
Bell & Sons, Ltd., London, 1923. As an introduction to atomic
theory for students or for workers in remoter sciences, there is
nothing better than “Within the Atom” by John Mills, published
by D. Van Nostrand Co., New York, 1923. The works of
Lewis and Andrade furnish ample introduction to the literature
for students interested in credits, history or bibliography.
Nitrogen Survey
As a result of a special congressional appropriation made
available to the Department of Commerce in March, 1923,
J. Foster Bain, director of the Bureau of Mines, went to Chile
last summer to investigate nitrate conditions. The result of
this investigation is reported in Trade Information Bulletin 170
of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. This report
is issued as Part I-The Cost of Chilean Nitrate-of a series of
reports on the several phases of the nitrogen problem, including
the Chilean nitrate situation. the present domestic sources of
fixed nitrogen supply, the economic role of nitrogen in American
agriculture, the status of the air-nitrogen industry, and the ni-
trogen supply in various countries. All these reports are being
prepared under the general supervision of Harry A. Curtis,
special agent of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce.
Julius Klein in the foreword says :
The situation with reference to Chilean nitrate is therefore
but one phase of the larger problem of securing a supply of fixed
nitrogen adequate to the Nation’s requirements and a t a price
which will permit its use wherever desirable. Considerations
of national defense impose the further condition that in event of
war the Nation must be able to meet its total military require-
ment of fixed nitrogen by drawing on domestic sources of supply.
There is but one evident solution of the problem under these
conditions, and that is through the development of a domestic
air-nitrogen industry to supplement the present by-product
supply from coal processing.
Apparently there is no reason to anticipate any shortage of
Chilean raw material. I n fact, the supply is probably sufficient
to meet the demand for one or more centuries. The importance
of materially reducing the price of nitrate is recognized, but a t
the same time it is realized that this reduction will be brought
about, if a t all, in the ordinary way by competition from other
forms of fixed nitrogen and will be realized step by step.
Finally, the authors conclude:
Every argument points to favor American participation in
production of nitrate and the fixing of its price. There seems no
sound reason to anticipate the finding of important supplies of
natural nitrate outside of Chile. A natural monopoly exists in
that country, a fact not changeable and which is fully appre-
ciated by Chileans. Whether or not artificial nitrates can be
produced a t a price lower than Chilean nitrate can be imported
is a question not within the scope of this particular report. If
one may judge from what has happened in the case of other
nitrate products in the United States, they are not likely to be
sold a t a lower than the competing price for a considerable period
regardless of their cost of production. Until their volume be-
comes large in proportion to the consumption, and until the
higher costs incident to establishment of a new industry be over-
come, it seems likely that in any event the price of Chilean
nitrate will continue to fix the price of fixed nitrogen in general
in the United States. If this be so, there is added reason for
encouraging rather than discouraging American participation
in the Nitrate Producers’ Association as a national policy, so as
to bring the largest possible measure of influence to bear directly
in favor of lower prices.