Atoms versus Nuclei: The Author of Logic Lessons Lost Responds

Abstract

I wish to thank Professor Clark for his recent contribution (1) rekindling Professor Jensen's three-part series (2-4). Clark's additional commentary will serve as a reminder for educators to pay close attention when defining chemical terms in the classroom. Unfortunately, confusion arose upon the introduction of the term atome. Clark specifically notes the improper use of the term atoms to describe nuclei within a polynuclear molecule and asks the reader: "What then do we call the C in CO 2 ? Jensen does not say" (1). Actually, Jensen does. He specifically answers Clark's question in part two of his series when stating: "Molecules are made of nuclei and electrons and not of neutral atoms" (3, p 821). In this sense, Clark's atoms are nuclei and his atomes simply atoms.Additionally, the use of a qualifier is acceptable. These nuclei, while technically not atoms by our definition, are classified "bound atoms". The grammatical modifier tells the reader that we are not dealing with neutral atoms, but rather atoms that have been invariably changed. Because "bound atoms" are inherently different from neutral atoms, future chemists will get to keep atoms in their lexicon.Instead of introducing a new term, I suggest the following:

Reply to “Using the Right Words in the Right Way: Atom, Molecule, Element, and Compound”

“…The fact that our definition is presented in terms of the chemical bond, which seems to Prof. Giunta to represent a more intricate concept, relates to the important realization that a molecule cannot be understood without reference to chemical bonding. This is evident when reading our article and from the previous definitions provided by Jensen, Matson, and Clark. − We have all disputed the importance of the chemical bond. Correspondingly, it would seem that the criticism of our new definition of molecule based on chemical bonding applies only to us, which is incorrect given the breadth of discussions of chemical bonding in the literature.…”

“…In addition to aiding the teaching and understanding of the ideal gas law and kinetic theory of gases as presented by Prof. Giunta, this makes it possible to conceptualize atoms as the building blocks of molecules. This is particularly interesting because it solves the issues raised by Jensen and discussed by Clark and Matson. − In this regard, it is very important to emphasize that a molecule is neither formed by atoms or atomes, depending on whether they are bonded or not, nor by the very subtle and complicated nuance proposed by Matson, who declares that molecules are composed from atoms, rather than composed of atoms. Even more byzantine is Jensen’s idea, which states that molecules are not made up of atoms but of nuclei and electrons (as the paper demonstrates, this becomes nonsense for a molecule as simple as F 2 ).…”

Improving the Understanding of Chemistry by Using the Right Words: A Clear-Cut Strategy to Avoid Misconceptions When Talking about Elements, Atoms, and Molecules

“…Clark , suggests a complicated method for solving the problem, by speaking of atomes and atoms to refer to isolated atoms such as inert gases and bonded atoms in molecules, respectively. This definition, although interesting, can be ambiguous, thus generating even more confusion.…”